Councillor R. King substituted for councillor M. Williams and councillor Michael Cressey substituted for councillor C. Mann.

To confirm and sign, as a correct record, the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 26 June 2024.

The minutes of the meeting held on 26 June 2024 were confirmed and signed as a correct record.

Apologies for absence were received from councillor V. Cunningham.

Members are invited to declare any disclosable pecuniary interests or other registrable and non-registrable interests in items on the agenda.

Councillor J. Wilson declared a non-registerable interest in item RU.24/0424.  Councillor Wilson left the room for the entirety of the item and did not vote.

Councillors C. Howorth, R. King, I. Mullens and C. Parry acknowledged an acquaintance with one of the public speakers in item RU.24/0158.  All Councillors did not feel that this prejudiced their judgement in determining the application and all stayed in the chamber, took part in the debate and voted.

Proposal: Change of use from Offices (Class E) into a mixed use of Offices, Place of Worship, community space and non-residential education and training (Sui Generis) with cycle storage.

The level of interest from residents in the area was acknowledged, although several members criticised what they described as the divisive anonymous leafleting that had been widely circulated in the local area. 

The need for the committee to discharge its public sector duty in fostering good relations with those with protected characteristics – religion in this case – was also acknowledged.  It was noted that there were three Christian churches in Egham, so a committee member stated that they considered it appropriate and fair that for the Muslim community to have their own place of worship.

Concerns were raised around parking arrangements at the location, with 17 allocated spaces considered a relatively small number, however it was widely accepted that this was offset by the proximity of the nearby Hummer Road car park, along with the car park management plan, which aimed to ensure those spaces were optimised in the most appropriate way. Examples of effective management would be to give priority on those 17 spaces to elderly worshippers or those with limited mobility, this often occurs at places of worship and can be effectively marshalled.

A councillor advised that Englefield Green residents had recently undertaken a detailed parking survey at the Jurgen Centre where the applicant was currently based, and that no parking stress had arisen from the use of the Jurgen Centre as the community’s current meeting location. As such it was considered that the proposed car park together with Hummer Road car park would provide sufficient capacity for the needs of the applicant, and there was no evidence before the Committee that relocating from Englefield Green to Egham was likely to cause significant changed behaviours or usages.  It was noted by a member who also serves on another committee that data from the usage of Hummer Road car park had revealed that it was operating below its current capacity.

Pedestrian safety was also raised as a possible concern given the narrowness of the pavement at the High Street/Hummer Road junction.  A member considered that this could present as an issue when large numbers of worshippers were entering and exiting the building at the same time.  To mitigate this the member proposed a condition that both the front and rear doors should be available for worshippers before, during and after Friday prayers.  It was anticipated that access and egress would be relatively evenly split between people exiting through the rear door to access the car park and exiting through the front door to access the high street.  The proposed condition was moved, seconded and agreed by committee.

It was acknowledged that the staircase at the site was narrow, and its suitability was queried by a committee member.  The Head of Planning advised that this was not particularly pertinent to the planning consideration but would have to satisfy building safety  ...  view the full minutes text for item 21.

Proposal: Proposed temporary Light Trail Event, starting and ending from The Savill Garden Visitor Centre Car Park and circumnavigating the Obelisk Pond along established footpaths/tracks. Taking place from mid-November (installation commencing in October) to early January (breakdown completing in mid-January) in 2024, 2025, 2026, 2027 and 2028.

The positive impact the event has on the local economy was praised by the committee, however concerns were raised over access and disruption from those arriving and leaving the event. 

A query was raised by a committee member about the prospect of reducing the duration of the permission to 2-3 years rather than five in order to assess whether it would be possible to start the event at Virgina Water Car Park, which offered direct access onto the A30.

Whilst it was acknowledged that varying the duration of the permission was within the committee’s gift, from a Highway Authority perspective the route had been assessed and considered a satisfactory solution, the Highway Authority had not recommended such a limitation.  Furthermore previous applications for the same event had been to this committee based on the proposed criteria and been approved, therefore there was nothing to suggest that he Highway Authority’s advice would change and the committee was likely to reach the same conclusion when considering the application further down the line.  Whilst it was agreed it would be useful for the applicant and Highways Authority to liaise around the deterioration of the highway, any advancement in improving the state of the road would not act as any form of planning trigger.

Concerns over the condition of Wick Lane were raised by the Committee, which would be exacerbated by the hosting of the event.  However it was acknowledged that the poor condition of Wick Lane pre-dated the existence of the event, and the Highway Authority had a duty to maintain the highways network. The Highway Authority also had powers to require remediation of roads where they can demonstrate the damage has occurred as a result of certain development, however that is a County Matter.  However the route had been assessed and considered acceptable, it was considered that  requiring the operator to pay for or  deliver improvements to Wick Lane was neither proportionate nor reasonable, particularly given the limited timeframe in which it operates each year.

A Member noted that Wick Lane was on Surrey County Council’s Horizon programme, meaning it had been earmarked for improvement, however no date had been set for those improvements.  The Committee agreed to lobby the highway authority on behalf of residents to stress the need for improvements on Wick Lane, in particular the section from Kings Lane to the Savill Lane coach park.  Officers considered that this course of action would have far greater impact than the prospect of adding an informative to the application to encourage liaison between the applicant and Surrey County Council.

There was disappointment to note that the requirement for a minimum 10% biodiversity net gain would not apply to the scheme given the temporary nature  ...  view the full minutes text for item 22.