Eight flexible commercial units at Land at Dennis Way, Slyfield Industrial Estate, Guildford

What was proposed

The application proposed demolishing existing buildings and constructing eight flexible industrial, storage, distribution and light-industrial units with parking, loading areas and landscaping.

“Location: Land at Dennis Way, Slyfield Industrial Estate, Guildford, GU1 1AF Proposal: Demolition of existing buildings and erection of flexible commercial units, Use Classes B2 (General Industrial), B8 (Storage and Distribution) and Class E(g)(iii) (Light Industrial), with loading areas, car parking, landscaping and associated infrastructure.”

“Demolition of existing buildings and erection of flexible commercial units, Use Classes B2 (General Industrial), B8 (Storage and Distribution) and Class E(g)(iii) (Light Industrial), with loading areas, car parking, landscaping and associated infrastructure.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The site lies within an industrial estate beside woodland, fields and allotments, with public rights of way and the Green Belt adjoining but outside it.

“The application site is set within the Slyfield Industrial Estate and comprises three buildings; two office buildings and a larger, industrial building located centrally on the plot. A car parking area is situated to the east of the site and is accessed from Dennis Way. The site sits on the edge of the industrial estate with allotments to the north-east, fields to the east and west and an area of woodland that wraps around the northern edge of the site.”

“A Public Right of Way (PROW 66) runs along the southern boundary of the site and runs towards the north providing connection between Jacobs Well Road and the industrial estate. PROW 581 runs along the northern boundary of the existing car park (proposed location of unit 8), and connects to PROW 438 to the east of the site.”

Officer report

Earlier site development

Earlier permissions included industrial and office extensions, a materials storage building, and industrial or warehousing units with associated infrastructure.

“01/P/02248 Extension to south elevation to form new materials storage building Approve 18/12/2001 N/A”

“89/P/01574 Erection of industrial/warehousing units totalling 17,420 sqm, associated car parking, landscaping with road improvements with access off Westfield Road through Slyfield Industrial Estate Approve/Section 52 Agreement 19/01/1990 N/A”

Officer report

What consultees said

Highways, the Environment Agency, Natural England, Thames Water, National Highways, the flood authority and other consultees raised no objection subject to conditions where stated.

“Statutory consultees County Highway Authority: no objection subject to the recommended conditions. Environment Agency: no objection subject to the recommended conditions. Natural England: no objection. Sussex & Surrey Police: no response received. Thames Water: no objection. National Highways: no objection. Affinity Water Company: no response received. Lead Local Flood Authority: no objection subject to the recommended conditions.”

“Internal consultees Head of Environmental Health and Licensing: no objection subject to the recommended conditions. Head of Parks and Countryside: no response received. Refuse and recycling: no response received.”

Officer report

What people objected to

Objections raised concerns about the buildings’ scale, height, design, Green Belt setting, residential amenity, noise, traffic, parking, ecology, drainage and visual impact.

“Application fails to show high quality design that response to the local character. • Bulk, size and mass of the proposed buildings, on the periphery of an industrial estate, directly neighbouring Green Belt is in appropriate and insensitive to the wider setting. • Harm to neighbouring residential properties. • Consider that the previously developed land should be restricted to the land parcel where units 1 - 7 are proposed to be sited.”

Officer report

Who spoke

Two speakers addressed the committee against the application, one speaker supported it, and a parish councillor spoke against it.

What members debated

Members debated the industrial context, site visit, northern-edge scale and height, Green Belt views, noise, conditions, landscaping and deferred details.

“In debate, members acknowledged the industrial context but expressed differing views on whether a site visit would have been beneficial given disputes over proximity and curtilage, and the scale and height at the northern edge of the site.”

“Concerns were raised about visual impact toward the Green Belt, noise particularly at weekends, adequacy and enforceability of conditions, and the number of important details deferred to conditions. Others felt the submitted material, officer site photographs and the policy context provided sufficient information to determine the application without deferral.”

Minutes

The votes

The site-visit deferral motion was lost on the chair’s casting vote, and the subsequent approval motion failed on a recorded vote.

“Councillor Mills moved a motion to defer application 25/P/00635, to allow for a site visit to be carried out. The motion was seconded by Councillor Oven and, following a tied vote, was lost on the Chair’s casting vote.”

“Following debate, the Chair moved the motion to approve application 25/P/00635, with delegated authority to settle final conditions and secure the S106 for Biodiversity Net Gain. The motion was seconded by Councillor Jones and failed on a recorded vote.”

Minutes

The final decision

The committee refused the application because its bulk, scale and height were out of keeping and would cause unacceptable visual harm.

“Councillor Wyeth-Price moved the motion to refuse application 25/P/00635, contrary to the officer recommendation, on the above-mentioned grounds. The motion was seconded by Councillor Hives and was carried.”

“RESOLVED: That application 25/P/00635 be refused for the following reasons: The proposed development, by reason of its overall bulk, scale and height, would be out of keeping with its surroundings and would result in an unacceptable degree of visual harm, contrary to relevant design and place-shaping policies. 2.”

Minutes

Why the committee refused it

Members found harmful effects on the openness and setting of the adjacent Green Belt that landscaping and conditions would not acceptably mitigate.

“The Committee therefore considered reasons for refusal. Members concluded that, notwithstanding the industrial designation of the site, the overall bulk, scale and height of the proposed buildings at the northern edge would be out of keeping with the area and would result in harmful visual effects, including to the openness and setting of the adjacent Green Belt. These harms were not considered to be acceptably mitigated by the proposed landscaping or conditions.”

Minutes