Agenda item

The application was for the Hybrid planning application comprising:

 

a)     Full application for two new wings to existing building, extension to existing garage next to the clock tower and enlarged plant enclosure to existing energy centre;  plus two new buildings 1 and 2 for research and development located at the southeast corner of the site together with circular test road, gatehouse, cycle/waste storage building with new vehicular access from Highams Lane; and, monorail stations and monorail track between the existing building and proposed building 1;

 

b)     Outline application with all matters reserved for extension to restaurant; enlarged test road and monorail track in the western field; and, new building 3 for research and development adjacent to the M3 motorway, monorail station adjoining building 3, and test building. (Additional plans recv'd 6/3/15) (Additional plans rec'd 30/03/15) (Amended Travel Plan recv'd 25/3/15) (Additional info rec'd 08/04/15).

 

Members were advised of the following updates:

 

Re-consultation responses

 

A further letter of objection has been received from Chobham Parish Council. The main points made by CPC are summarised below:

 

·          Not convinced by the arguments in the additional Green Belt statement;

·          The site is not sustainable;

·          Highams Lane unsuitable for traffic. Concern over HGVs being directed past           Valley  End School by Sat. Nav. and impracticality for HGV traffic to approach    from the A30   due to the narrow railway bridge at Sunningdale;

 

[Officer’s comments: The suitability of Highams Lane and routing has been fully considered by the CHA. The configuration of the proposed vehicular access would make it impossible for HGV vehicles to turn right out of the site towards the school. Condition 10 on page 29 would control construction traffic. Once the site is operational the applicant advises that the same drivers would be relied upon, like at Mytchett Place, but the applicant would also ensure all drivers are made aware of the correct route]

 

·          State of the art factory being built near Coventry by Zhejiang Geely Holding            Group for

            building low emission vehicles so question why a showcase facility is needed

 

[Officer’s comments: See paragraph 8.7 of agenda for consideration of the showcase facility. In addition, this proposal is for prototypes only and is not a factory for mass production of cars]

 

A further 4 letters of objection have been received (in total 21 letters received), which

reiterate those points stated on page 14 of the agenda report but also raise the following additional points:

 

·          Additional Green Belt statement adds little weight to original submission;

·          The applicant’s discount of alternative sites is a brief resume of a few site’s             close by and does not consider all of the south of England for alternatives;

 

[Officer’s comments: See paragraph 8.4.2. The agenda report recognises that on the basis of the information submitted only moderate weight can be given to this argument]

 

·          The release of green belt land for McLaren and Guilford developments are not comparable. McLaren was already substantially developed with large farm         buildings;

·          The proposal does not represent sustainable development as social and     environmental improvements would not be sought jointly and simultaneously;         it is located in the wrong place; would not create jobs in cities, town and         villages; and, it would not reduce but increase vehicle trips on already         congested roads.

 

One letter of support has been received, with no reasons given.

 

Additional information from the applicant

 

On request of officers the applicant has submitted information on the need for the monorail [see paragraph 8.4.2 of agenda]; the existing situation at Mytchett and the economic benefit [see paragraph 8.2.4 of agenda]; an explanation of the campus development; and, further detail as to why alternative sites were discounted [see paragraph 8.4 of agenda]. This is appended to the update.

 

Drainage

 

SuDS design details have been submitted for the full planning application. The Council’s Drainage Engineer is working with the applicant to ensure a suitable design. It is therefore recommended that these final details are agreed under delegated powers.

 

For the outline proposal, details would be required during the reserved matters stage. It is therefore recommended that the EA drainage condition be imposed, as for all major applications received before the 6 April 2015 the responsibility remains with the EA (and not the LLFA) where the EA has made comments.

 

Recommendation

 

Delegate to officers for agreement on drainage details for the full planning application and REFER to the Secretary of State

 

Add the additional conditions:

 

20. The total floor area of the outline development proposals shall not exceed 3,380 sq metres unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning Authority.

 

Reason: To retain control in the interests of the Green Belt and to comply with Policy CP1 of the Surrey Heath Core Strategy and Development Management Policies and the NPPF.

 

21. Development shall not begin until a surface water drainage scheme for the site, based on the agreed Flood Risk Assessment, Kamkorp Park Ltd reference: KP-AR-I-XXX-RP-C- 500 dated: 3 February 2015 has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall subsequently be implemented in accordance with the approved details before the development is completed. This shall include:

 

·          An overarching master plan for the development site as a whole and where

            development is to be carried out in phases details of those phases indicating          that they are independent of another and demonstration that should one           phase not take place there will be no detriment to the site as a whole.

·          Details of all storage, attenuation and drainage features and volumes for the           outline phase of works and changes to existing

·          Drainage calculations

·          Retention of the Greenfield run off rate for the entire site

·          Infiltration testing results

 

Reason: To ensure that the proposed development will prevent the increased risk of flooding,  in accordance with paragraph 103 of the NPPF and Policy DM10 of the Surrey Heath Core Strategy.

 

Some Members requested that the application be deferred so that Chobham residents had the opportunity to go to exhibits.  Officers advised that there would be no justification for a deferment.

 

It was noted that the County Highways Agency had raised no objection to the scheme and a detailed Transport Assessment had been carried out.

 

There was some concern about development in the Green Belt but it was advised that Members would have to decide whether the special circumstances carried sufficient weight.

 

There was also concern that the traffic would travel along Chertsey Road and through Chobham village but officers advised that this would be heavily controlled.

 

Some Members raised the issue of flooding however officers advised that the Environment Agency had raised no objections. In terms of the sustainable drainage systems, work was being carried out with the applicant to ensure that this would be in place.

 

It was noted by some Members that the scheme would encroach on a huge area of Green Belt but officers advised that this would be an opportunity to enhance the landscape and produce a 20 year management programme.

 

Some Members requested that a noise level condition be added to prevent any new company changing. There would be an opportunity to discuss further with Environmental Health, however, Members agreed to include a condition to ensure that any future occupant must submit a noise assessment.

 

Resolved that application 15/0067 be approved as amended subject to conditions as set out in the report of the Executive Head – Regulatory and referral to the Secretary of State as a departure from the Development Plan.

 

Note 1

It was noted for the record that:

 

i)                 Councillor Edward Hawkins had been contacted by an individual on behalf of the Chobham Society and a number attended the site visit;

ii)                Councillor Colin Dougan visited a parent site in Mytchett;

iii)              Councillor Richard Brooks visited a parent site some years ago;

iv)              Councillor Judi Trow had received a letter from NGA Town Planning regarding the application;

v)               Councillor Pat Tedder had attended an exhibition at BOC in December.

 

Note 2

As this application triggered the Council’s Public Speaking Scheme, Mr Siddiqi spoke in support of the application.

 

Note 3

The recommendation to approve the application as amended was proposed by Councillor Colin Dougan and seconded by Councillor David Mansfield.

 

Note2

In accordance with Part 4 Section D paragraph 18 of the Constitution, the voting in relation to this application was as follows:

 

Voting in favour of the recommendation to approve the application as amended:

 

Councillors David Allen, Richard Brooks, Vivienne Chapman, Colin Dougan, Surinder Gandhum, Edward Hawkins, David Mansfield, Ian Sams, and Valerie White.

 

Voting against the recommendation to approve the application, as amended:

Councillors Ken Pedder, Pat Tedder, Judi Trow.