Agenda item

Demolition of the existing building and the construction of a self-storage facility (Use Class B8) and flexible office space (Use Class E(g)(i)), together with vehicle parking and landscaping.

The Committee received a presentation on the application from the Principal Planning Officer. The Officer wished to highlight an error in the text of paragraph 28.16 of the report, explaining that the word ‘not’ should be removed in order for the paragraph to read as follows:

28.16  Overall, the adverse effects in respect of this development would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole, or where specific policies in the Framework indicate that development should be restricted. 

She explained that this would be consistent with paragraph 3.16 of the report.

Description:

Demolition of the existing building and the construction of a self-storage facility (Use Class B8) and flexible office space (Use Class E(g)(i)), together with vehicle parking and landscaping.

Officer Recommendation:

To agree that the Planning Inspectorate be informed that the Local Planning Authority would have refused permission.

Decision:

Councillor Clive Woodbridge proposed that the wording of the reason for refusal ‘(1) Harm to the Character of the Area’, be updated to include reference to Policy E15 of Epsom Town Centre Area Action Plan 2011 with respect to the Committee’s concerns regarding the application’s impact on the future development of the utility site as part of the Draft Local Plan, and to the fact that the development would frustrate the Council’s plans for the Town Centre area.

The proposal was seconded by Councillor Phil Neale.

The Committee voted (6 for, 1 against, 1 abstention, and the Chair not voting) in favour of the proposal.

Following consideration, the Committee unanimously resolved to:

Agree that the Planning Inspectorate be informed that the Local Planning Authority would have REFUSED permission for the following reasons:

Reasons:

(1)          Harm to the Character of the Area: As a result of its overall layout, scale, massing, design and materials, the proposed development would represent an overdevelopment that would fail to respect the predominate pattern of development in the locality and would appear as an overly dominating and incongruous addition that would fail to respond architecturally to surrounding built form. The proposal would therefore fail to integrate with the prevailing character and appearance of the area, contrary to paragraph 130 of the NPPF 2021, Policies CS1 and CS5 of the Epsom and Ewell Core Strategy 2007, Policy E15 of Epsom Town Centre Area Action Plan 2011 and Policies DM9 and DM10 of the Epsom and Ewell Development Management Policies 2015.

(2)          Harm to Existing Trees: It has not been sufficiently demonstrated that the proposal development, as a result of its layout and scale, would not significantly reduce the stature and environmental benefits of TPO trees T4 (Ash) and T5 (Sycamore), as well as G6 (2 no. Sycamore) by preventing their future crown growth, to the detriment of their future wellbeing. 

Furthermore, the layout and scale of the proposed development prevents any meaningful landscaping on the site, particularly to the rear, to the detriment of the emerging verdancy of the area. It has also not been sufficiently demonstrated that the landscaping scheme proposed can be fully established in the long term, as a result of the proximity of the site to underground services that could prevent root growth and/or impact on future health and wellbeing.  As such, the proposal would fail to comply with paragraph 131 of the NPPF 2021 and Policy DM5 of the Development Management Policies Document 2015.

(3)          Harm to Neighbour Amenity: The proposed development would create poor living conditions for the occupiers of bedrooms F01/R8, F01/R9, F01/R10, F01/R11, F02/R8 and F02/R10 at Crossways House due to inadequate daylight and would create insufficient levels sunlight to bedrooms F01/R10, F01/R11 and F02/R10 at Crossways House, resulting in dark and gloomy accommodation that would create significant and unacceptable effects on the occupier’s amenity.  As such, the proposal would fail to comply with paragraph 130 of the NPPF 2021 and Policy DM12 of the Development Management Policies Document 2015.

(4)          Lack of Car Parking: In the absence of details and robust justification demonstrating that 14.0 vehicle parking spaces, including spaces that can facilitate for the parking of larger vehicles and small vans, can be accommodated on the site, it has not been adequately demonstrated that the level of parking proposed can be achieved and there would not be adverse impact on the surrounding area in terms of the street scene or the availability of on street parking.  In the absence of any supporting evidence to demonstrate this, the proposal fails to meet Section 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2021 and Policy DM37 of the Development Management Policies Document 2015.

Informatives:

(1)          The plans relating to this application are as follows:

Drawing Number 2303-X01-A

Drawing Number 2303-P01

Drawing Number 2303-P02

Drawing Number 2303-P03

Drawing Number 2303-P04

Drawing Number 2303-P05

Drawing Number 2303-P06

Drawing Number 2303-P07

Drawing Number 2303-P08

Drawing Number 2303-P09

Drawing Number L001 P02

Drawing Number L002 P01

Drawing Number SP02 Rev C

(2)          In dealing with the application, the Council has implemented the requirement of the National Planning Policy Framework to work with the applicant in a positive and proactive way. We have made available detailed advice in the form of our statutory policies in the Core Strategy, Supplementary Documents and other informal written guidance, as well as offering a full pre-application advice service.