Self-storage building at Land At The Former, 105 Oyster Lane, Byfleet, West Byfleet

What was proposed

The application proposed a three-storey self-storage building with around 10,000 square metres of floorspace, landscaping, parking, servicing and associated works.

“Development of site for the erection of a Class B8 (self-storage) use building arranged over ground, first and part second floors, landscaping, parking, servicing area and associated works.”

“This is a full planning application for the redevelopment of land at 105 Oyster Lane, comprising the erection of a three-storey Class B8 (self-storage) building. The application follows a substantial fire on the site in 2023, which necessitated the demolition of the former self-storage and car workshop building. Delivering approximately 10,000 sq.m of B8 floorspace, the development will distribute this across three levels and will be dedicated entirely to self-storage use.”

Officer report

The site and its surroundings

The site was in the Byfleet Industrial Estate, with industrial buildings nearby and residential properties across Chertsey Road and Oyster Lane.

“The application site relates to land at 105 Oyster Lane which, prior to 2023, accommodated a building with B8 Use Class and elements of trade counter space under B1/B2 Use Classes). Located within the wider Byfleet Industrial Estate, the site occupies a sizeable area on the junction of Chertsey Road and Oyster Lane in the designated Byfleet Industrial Area and defined Employment Area. The site is currently accessed from both the Oyster Lane frontage as well as Chertsey Road.”

“To the north and west are industrial buildings within the designated industrial area. To the south is Chertsey Road with residential properties fronting onto the highway, and to the east is Oyster Lane, which also includes residential properties on the opposite side of the highway. The scheduled monument of the Brooklands motor racing circuit is located to the rear of these residential building on the eastern side of Oyster Lane sited within Elmbridge Borough.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval because the proposal would provide modern employment floorspace and was considered acceptable in design, amenity, highways, drainage, ecology and other respects.

“Further to this and considering both the local context and the character of surrounding buildings, the proposal demonstrates an acceptable visual and spatial relationship within the Byfleet Employment Area.”

“Subject to recommended conditions, the impacts in respect of highways and transport, parking provision, arboriculture, biodiversity and protected species, flood risk and drainage, contamination, archaeology and sustainable construction are considered acceptable.”

Officer report

What consultees said

Highways, environmental health, conservation, archaeology, ecology, drainage and tree officers raised no objection or supported approval subject to conditions and recommendations.

“WBC Environmental Health Team: No objections from Environmental Health subject to a condition relating to hours of construction (17.07.2025)”

“SuDS Team Surrey County Council: Set out that the applicant has provided sufficient information to address previous comments raised in previous responses and satisfied that the proposed drainage scheme meets the requirements set out in the submitted documents and are content with the development proposed, subject to conditions (26.09.2025)”

Officer report

What residents said

Four objection letters raised concerns about overdevelopment, visual impact, privacy, noise, traffic, fire safety and construction disruption.

“A total of 4no third party letters of objection were received in relation to the proposed development. 3no of these letters have provided no originator address. The concerns raised in these letters are summarised as follows;”

“Highway Safety and Traffic • Concern raised about traffic and parking impact, describing Chertsey Road as already heavily congested. The proposal is believed to risk further exacerbating these issues with additional vehicles accessing the site.”

Officer report

Who spoke

A speaker attended in objection and the agent attended in support of the application.

What members discussed

Members discussed the building’s colour, branding, possible retail use, bulk, outlook, landscaping, biodiversity, storage needs and fire safety.

“A Councillor queried whether the blue colour used on the building formed part of the company’s logo or was a trademarked colour. The Planning Officer advised that, to the best of their knowledge, while the blue was associated with the company, the colour itself was not trademarked, although the logo was. A Member expressed the view that the colour was integral to the company’s branding and queried whether this could be considered as advertising.”

“Members raised a query regarding the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL), specifically whether the retail element at the front of the building constituted retail floor space and should therefore be liable for CIL. Officers advised that the use class was self-storage and not retail, and that the matter of CIL liability for future uses was a separate issue.”

Minutes

The committee’s vote

The majority of committee members supported the application.

“Members commented on the character of the area, noting that Oyster Lane featured a variety of colours and logos, and that the proposed scheme was more muted than others in the vicinity. The majority of the Committee supported the application, highlighting the benefits of landscaping, biodiversity net gain, and the need for storage facilities in the borough.”

Minutes

The decision

Planning permission was granted subject to conditions.

“That planning permission be GRANTED, subject to conditions.”

Minutes