Industrial unit redevelopment at Portsmouth Road, Long Ditton, Surbiton

What was proposed

The application sought demolition of the existing industrial unit and redevelopment as three units with employment uses, a car workshop and associated works.

“Application: 2025/0405 Case officer: Jack Trendall Proposal: Demolition and redevelopment of the existing industrial unit with a terrace of three units (Use Classes E(g), B2 and B8, and Car workshop (Sui Generis Use)) (1057 sqm) and associated works.”

“Planning permission is being sought for the demolition and redevelopment of the existing industrial unit with a terrace of three units (Use Classes E(g), B2 and B8, and Car workshop (Sui Generis Use)) (1057 sqm) and associated works.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended permission because the proposal would modernise strategic employment land and was considered acceptable in relation to character, amenity, highways, biodiversity and other matters.

“The proposed uses would be ones that are either in use currently or previous uses on the site, within a larger industrial estate containing these uses. As such in principle the replacement of the existing industrial unit is acceptable and would preserve the use of the site as Strategic Employment Land in accordance with Policy CS23 of the Core Strategy 2011. The proposal would allow for the…”

Officer report

What consultees said

Environmental Health, highways and ecology consultees raised no objections subject to conditions, after requested bat information was provided.

“Environmental Health Contaminated Land – No objection subject to conditions.”

“Environmental Health Noise and Pollution – No objection subject to a condition regarding hours of use.”

Officer report

What residents said

Thirty-two objections raised concerns including height, overbearing effects, privacy, daylight, noise, parking, traffic, wildlife, trees, lighting and the proposed uses.

“Harm to the amenity of the neighbouring properties. • Proposed building would be significantly taller than the adjoining trees. • Daylight and sunlight report is heavily redacted and more than 3 properties would be affected. Nos. 34, 35, 39, 40 and 41 Chadwick Place would also be affected. It relies upon planning portal and estate agent data rather than full surveys and is therefore unreliable.”

“The south and east elevations should be clad in cedar which absorbs sounds and provides a softened appearance, like the adjoining BMW structure. • Inappropriate location of the bin store. Noise and attract vermin. Should be located toward the front of the site. • Boundary trees have been pre-emptively removed by the applicant in 2018. • Proposed planting is unlikely to survive. • There are other warehouses available. • Lighting needs to be more carefully considered.”

Officer report

Who spoke

An objector and the agent addressed the committee.

The committee’s decision

The committee permitted the development with the agenda conditions and informatives, subject to amended, deleted and additional conditions.

“Permit with the conditions and informatives as outlined in the agenda, subject to the following amended, deleted and additional conditions:”

“Amended Conditions 2. List of approved plans The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in strict accordance with the following list of approved plans: 24041-01001 Rev 3, 24041-90001 Rev 2 received on 07/04/2025; 24041-03004 Rev 4 received on 09/07/2025; 24041-03005 Rev 4 and 24041-05002 Rev 4 received on 14/08/2025; 24041- 04001 REV 3 received on 19/09/2025; and, 24041-01003 Rev 2 received on 29/09/2025.”

Minutes