Planning Committee - Wednesday, 22nd June, 2022 6.30 pm

Venue: Council Chamber, Runnymede Civic Centre, Addlestone

Contact: Mr B A Fleckney 

No. Item


Minutes pdf icon PDF 195 KB

To confirm and sign, as a correct record, the Minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 1st June 2022 (Appendix ‘A’).



The Minutes of the meeting held on 1 June,2022 were confirmed and signed as a correct record subject to the addition of the following wording in the preamble to the resolution in respect of RU 22/0086 (Fairmont Windsor Park Hotel, Wick Lane, Englefield Green):


A member of the committee queried if the fountain should or could be excluded from the advertisement consent, since they were of the opinion that it was a structure and may need full planning permission. The officer response was that this was a matter of fact and degree, the fountain appeared to be affixed to the main sign structure and made-up part of the branding for the hotel. As a matter of fact, and degree it was considered that on balance the fountain could reasonably form part of the advert, which is what had been applied for by the applicant. The term “advertisement” covers a wide range of advertisements and can include things as diverse as models, statues, LED screens, or large inflatables, and a theoretical example was given for example of the Universal Studios globe logo which could be a structure and an advert at the same time. In concluding that the fountain was a substantive part of the advert it would also have the same time limitations as main signage part of the advert (5 years)’.


Apologies for Absence


No apologies received.


Declarations of Interest

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



Cllr Gill declared a Non registrable Interest in planning application RU 21/2211 as she had received assistance from Fairmont Hotel for her charitable endeavours during her Mayoral term. Whilst Cllr Gill felt able to consider this application with an open and fair mind, she was concerned that as the assistance was very recent, members of the public might perceive a conflict of interest. To avoid such a perception, Cllr Gill withdrew from the chamber and took no part in determination of the application.


Cllr Howorth declared a Non registrable interest in planning application RU 21/2211 as he knew the applicant who had donated to political campaigns. Cllr Howorth withdrew from the chamber and took no part in determination of the application.


Cllrs Balkan and Howorth declared Disclosable Pecuniary interests in the item on Draft Parking Guidance SPD as they are employees of Royal Holloway University of London. Both Councillors withdrew from the chamber and took no part in determination of the matter.


Planning Applications


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. Objectors and applicants and /or their agents addressed the Committee on the applications specified.



            RESOLVED that –


            the following applications be determined as indicated: -





RU 21/0893






















































































































RU 21/2211

















































































































RU 22/0435     






























Chilsey Green Farm, Pyrcroft Road, Chertsey


The erection of 170 dwellings and the provision of five permanent serviced pitches for gypsies /travellers including associated parking, landscaping, public open space and infrastructure following demolition of the existing outbuildings on site.


Comments were made by Members regarding ownership and liability for maintenance of the Rutherwyk ditch and potential exacerbation of

flooding from the watercourse, traffic generation, construction traffic entering the site around school opening and closing times, level of financial contribution to Demand Responsive Transport Service, restriction on use of garages to parking of vehicles, impact on surrounding property, and reptile mitigation.


In response to comments made, Officers commented that the site was an allocated site for housing development in the Local Plan and the principle of development had been established.


The ownership and liability for maintenance of the ditch was not a planning matter. The scheme had been designed to mitigate its own impact. There had been no objection from LLFA, EA and RBC Drainage Engineers and the drainage scheme was considered acceptable in flooding and drainage terms.


Surface water at the site would be provided with appropriate attenuation measures and would have a controlled release into the ditch and a management and maintenance plan of the surface water strategy would be required to be submitted by condition 9. 


The developer had no obligation to maintain the ditch but was willing to mitigate the risk of significant debris from the development site entering or obstructing the Rutherwyk ditch in so far as was practicable and to facilitate access from the development site to the ditch for the EA or any other organisation who was formally responsible for management of the ditch for purposes of maintenance and condition 26 would be amended accordingly.


No objection had been received from CHA based on recent highway assessments and the amount of additional traffic was considered acceptable in highway terms. The developer had committed to introducing highway measures to improve highway safety around Pyrcroft School. The Development was also making a significant contribution to the A320 improvements. The Construction Management Plan would address access to the site by construction vehicles.


The level of financial contribution was appropriate for this development and there was no evidence to suggest it should be increased. In the condition for a Construction Management Plan reference would be made to encourage the developer to work in a considerate manner to minimise inconvenience. Condition 20 required a reptile mitigation method statement to be submitted prior to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 105.


Draft Revised Parking Guidance Supplementary Planning Document pdf icon PDF 292 KB

Additional documents:


The Committee received and considered the draft revised Parking Guidance SPD.


The draft revised parking guidance had been prepared to reflect the up-to-date guidance set out in the NPPF and to support the policies contained in the Runnymede 2030 Local Plan. The guidance had been prepared taking account of national planning guidance and the updated parking guidance published by Surrey County Council in November 2021. The additional consultancy work undertaken by Project Centre Limited also provided the Planning Committee with further detailed advice and alternative recommendations around parking standards for new office developments and PBSA schemes and the Committee agreed their preferred options in relation thereto as set out in the resolution below. The guidance sought to provide a degree of certainty for developers and communities in respect of the levels of vehicular and cycle parking that would be required in association with new development but also provided flexibility to assess individual schemes where that might be more appropriate given the nature of development proposed. The draft revised guidance also sought to take account of the locational characteristics and the ability to travel by walking, cycling and use of public transport where those modes of travel were convenient options, the need to plan for greater use of electric vehicles in the future and the potential need to control on-street car parking in certain locations through the use of controlled parking zones (CPZs). In presenting the report the Local Plans Manager confirmed that there was no known negative equality implications.


The Committee was supportive of the draft SPD and confirmed their preferred options in relation to parking standards for new office developments and PBSA schemes. The words ‘Car-free (Blue Badge parking only)encouraged’ would be deleted from the proposed parking standard  for sites within RHUL and Egham Station Sustainable Access Zones as it was felt this undermined the standard. The draft SPD would be subject to a 6-week period of public consultation to seek the views of local communities and other interested parties on the draft guidance. During that consultation Officers would ascertain if SCC was supportive of Priority Parking Areas. Furthermore as part of the public consultation on the SPD, Project Centre Limited and officers in the Planning Policy team would be arranging an evening presentation for any members of the public who would find it helpful to find out more about the parking standards contained in the SPD, particularly those related to PBSA and new office developments. This would include a question and answer session and Members would be informed of the dates when the consultation would run and the date of the presentation.


Once public consultation feedback had been considered, the SPD would be reported back to the Planning Committee for final consideration and potential adoption.


The Local Plans Manager was thanked for her work on the draft SPD.



            Resolved that:


1.     The draft revised Runnymede Borough Parking Guidance Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) including the standards shown in 2 and 3 below be approved for public consultation for a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 106.