Planning Committee - Wednesday, 2nd March, 2022 6.30 pm

Venue: Council Chamber, Runnymede Civic Centre, Addlestone

Contact: Mr B A Fleckney 

No. Item


Minutes pdf icon PDF 241 KB

To confirm and sign, as a correct record, the Minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 9 Febraury 2022 (Appendix ‘A’).



The Minutes of the meeting held on 9 February,2022 were confirmed and signed as a correct record.



Apologies for absence


Apologies were received from Councillors Willingale and Anderson-Bassey.


Declarations of Interest

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



No declarations of interest were received.


Planning Applications pdf icon PDF 142 KB

Item No.

Application No.





4 Aymer Close, Staines-Upon-Thames, TW18 3NL





10 Station Parade, Virginia Water, GU25 4AB




Additional documents:


The planning applications listed below were considered by the Committee.  All representations received on the applications were reported and copies had been made available for inspection by Members before the meeting.  The Addendum had also been published on the Council’s website on the day of the meeting. An Objector and Applicant addressed the Committee on the application specified.



                        RESOLVED that –


                        the following applications be determined as indicated: -





RU 20/0810




































RU 21/1790
































































4 Aymer Close,Staines-upon-Thames


The retention and redistribution of soils at land at 4 Aymer Close and the use of the land for the private grazing of horses.


The Committee supported refusal of this application on the basis of the advice from the Environment Agency (EA) on the grounds that the works would increase flood risk at the site and elsewhere.


In response to a comment from a Member on the approach taken by the EA, the CHDMBC noted that the EA was the statutory consultee on flooding matters whose consultation comments should be afforded significant weight. Officers had sought further confirmation from the EA with regards their approach to flood risk on the site.The EA confirmed that it was confident it could substantiate its proposed reason and demonstrate the planning harm with regards flood risk caused by the proposal.


The EA recommended that Planning Permission be refused.




The CHDMBC be authorised to refuse permission for the following reason;


The applicant has not demonstrated that the proposed retention and redistribution of material on the site, over and above the 2010 land level at the site(level of the land pre land raising),would not result in an increase in flood risk. As such the proposal fails to comply with Policy EE13 of the Runnymede 2030 Local Plan and policy and guidance within the NPPF and NPPG.





10 Station Parade, Virginia Water


Conversion to restaurant with small kitchen


This application had been deferred at the last meeting of the Committee to enable the Council’s Environmental Health Officer to comment on the noise report submitted by the applicant. The comments of the Council’s EHO were reported on the circulated Addendum.


Scaled elevations had been received confirming that the vent would be 2 metres away from the nearest window.


Further revisions had also been made to the extract canopy design to incorporate an acoustic Lined 90 Degree Bend and a revised drawing submitted. This drawing also clearly showed the installation of a Carbon Filter Unit, Antivibration Mountings, 400 MUB System Air unit and 2 Silencers.


 The Council’s Environmental Health Officer had confirmed that the noise insulation system would be acceptable with the noise acoustic report confirming that the vent would operate 5db below background noise level.


The applicant’s proposal to provide an acoustic suspended ceiling within the restaurant area and hence prevent airborne noise within the restaurant area affecting residents above would also provide noise insulation and, if the calculations were correct, should not lead to noise nuisance conditions to the resident above  ...  view the full minutes text for item 483.