Cllr L Gillham substituted for Cllr E Gill.

To confirm and sign, as a correct record, the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 20 December 2023.

The minutes of the meeting held on 20 December 2023 were confirmed and signed as a correct record.

Apologies for absence were received from Cllrs V Cunningham, C Mann and J Wilson.

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

Cllr Sam Jenkins declared an Other Registerable Interest in agenda item 6 – Making of Englefield Green Village Neighbourhood Plan – due to his position as a Governor at St Jude’s Primary and Junior School.  Cllr Jenkins left the chamber whilst the item was discussed and did not take part in the vote.

Cllr Theresa Burton declared a Non Registerable Interest in item 5a – planning application RU.23/0118 - Longcross South, Longcross Road and Kitsmead Lane, Longcross, KT16 0EE – due to being a close neighbour of the application site and having made a representation.  Cllr Burton left the chamber whilst the item was discussed and did not take part in the vote.

Proposal: Temporary planning permission for the use of the land for film studio purposes including the erection of studio stages and workshops, erection of cabins and marquees within dedicated zones, and the use of the land for associated filming purposes and as studio backlot (part retrospective)

The Committee were in general agreement about the application being a good use of the site as an interim use ahead of delivery of the Garden Village Housing. A member queried why a planning application had not been forthcoming sooner and why the determination period had taken some time.  The Head of Planning advised that a number of factors delayed the application’s submission and also led to more information being required during the application process, not least the pandemic, the adoption of the local plan which changed the designation of the land, and there was the need to ensure that the temporary permission correctly aligned with the application for houses on the same site.

The volume and exact location of night shoots was covered as part of the management conditions specified in the addendum, however as this was a delegated matter officers would consult with appropriate local councillors prior to sign off to make use of local member knowledge. Management conditions should ensure that nearby residents are written to ahead of any night shooting.

Whilst it was hoped that use of the bridge for pedestrians and cyclists would soon receive approval from both Surrey County Council and National Highways to allow access to Longcross South station, if it did not come back into use imminently then shuttle buses would be provided as an alternative means to access the northern part of the site.  Officers would mention to Surrey County Council (SCC) a member request to monitor traffic flows and amenities on roads and car parks in the event that it would be a useful tool in determining a future application on the residential use of the site, however it was not clear if SCC would be able to do this.

In response to member concerns about the drainage, officers advised that the applicant had been in regular contact with the Lead Local Flood Authority and it was believed that following numerous meetings on site a revised drainage scheme had been devised to meet their requirements and satisfy condition 16.  It was added that this scheme would be required to meet industry standards so was a technical rather than subjective matter.

Resolved that –

The HoP was authorised to grant planning permission subject to:

1)    Planning conditions 1-20

2)    Informatives 1-5

3)    Addendum notes

Proposal: Erection of 52 dwellings (Use Class C3) and associated landscaping and access following the demolition of existing buildings

The Committee spoke positively about the application, with the healthy mix of property types and lack of any letters of representation noted.  The applicant was praised for their thorough consultation process.

A query was raised around whether the threshold for allocated disabled spaces had been met, with just two of the 76 parking spaces being allocated as disabled spaces.  Officers would consider the matter and follow up post-committee if there was a disconnect.

Resolved that –

1) The HoP was authorised to grant planning permission subject to:

a) The completion of a Section 106 legal agreement under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

b) Planning conditions 1-32.

c) Informatives 1-15

d) Addendum notes

2) The HoP was authorised to refuse planning permission should the S106 not progress to his satisfaction.

Proposal: Industrial redevelopment to replace and extend existing warehouse (following demolition) for B8 use (storage and distribution) with ancillary office accommodation, parking, bin and cycle store, landscaping, gates and fencing along with the retention and regularisation (for use Class E) and making good of the existing office to the front of the site.

A councillor highlighted that references to ‘Green Road’ within the report should read ‘Green Lane’.

The Head of Planning advised a member that the application related to a normal size development and a significant material noticeable increase in freight was unlikely.  Officers would mention to SCC a member’s concern with regards potential overspill from industrial vehicles.

Resolved that –

1) The HoP was authorised to grant planning permission subject to:

a) The completion of a Section 106 legal agreement under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

b) Planning conditions 1-21.

c) Informatives 1-13

d) Addendum notes

2) The HoP was authorised to refuse planning permission should the S106 not progress to his satisfaction or significant material consideration arises prior to the issuing of a decision notice.

Proposal: Change of use of building from single residential dwelling (C3 Use Class) incorporating rooflights, dormer window, single storey link and two storey extension to provide 9 dwellings comprising 3 x 2 bed and 6 x 3 bed (C3 Use Class), new access, associated car parking, bin, and cycle storage (amendments to planning permission RU.21/2188).

During the debate officers confirmed to a member the Heritage Officer’s advice that the scheme had been appropriately designed and would not have a detrimental impact on the locally listed buildings, whilst officers would ensure that the conditions around both external and finishing materials included materials such as windows, doors and frames.

A Member highlighted that the planning portal stated that the closing date for comments on the application was 8 February 2024.  Officers would follow up but confirmed the scheme had been through the statutory consultation period and the date was likely showing incorrectly due to re-contacting a consultee.

The Head of Planning confirmed to a member that the types of heat pumps would be a separate matter that would be informed on both local and national guidance at the time.

A Member noted that the original scheme was granted in 2017 and therefore prior to the creation of the local plan and the requirement for affordable housing.  Officers confirmed that this was not an oversight, rather because the scheme fell just below the national threshold for requiring affordable housing, the site had not been artificially sub-divided or not developed to its maximum in an attempt to circumvent the requirement.  Officers were therefore satisfied that it did not meet the policy requirement for affordable housing. 

Resolved that –

1) The HoP was authorised to grant planning permission subject to:

a) The completion of a Section 106 legal agreement under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

b) Planning conditions 1-19.

c) Informatives 1-12.

d) Addendum notes

2) The HoP was authorised to refuse planning permission should the S106 not progress to his satisfaction or significant material consideration arises prior to the issuing of a decision notice.

[This report was considered after item 4 – Declarations of interest – and prior to the planning applications]

Committee approval on the neighbourhood plan would mark the final step in the plan making process, and followed two stages of formal consultation and a referendum.  Both officers and the Committee praised the work put in by the Neighbourhood Forum and local community going back several years to get to this point.

December’s referendum had resulted in 690 residents voting in favour of the plan and 90 against.  A decision statement had been issued following the referendum confirming that no EU or Human Rights implications existed that would prevent the adoption of the plan, and subject to Committee approval a further decision statement would be issued to all consultees and interested parties, as well as published on the Council’s website.

During the debate the referendum turnout was discussed.  A member considered a 12% turnout disappointing and potentially did not reflect the need or want for a neighbourhood plan in Englefield Green, however others considered the turnout to be expected considering the time of year, poor weather, and the fact that the referendum was not taking place in tandem with a local or national election.  Most members considered that low turnout was indicative of most residents having no issues with the content of the plan and therefore not feeling like they needed to vote as it would almost certainly pass referendum.  Officers added that legislation dictated that turnout was immaterial, with the results of the voting the only criteria that mattered.

Resolved that –

The Englefield Green Neighbourhood Plan was ‘made’ (adopted) by Committee.

By resolution of the Committee, the press and public were excluded from the remainder of the meeting during the consideration of the remaining matters under Section 100A (4) of the Local Government Act 1972 on the grounds that the discussion would be likely to involve the disclosure of exempt information as set out in Schedule 12A to Part 1 of the Act.

Planning Enforcement action is a delegated function of the Council, however, occasionally endorsement for taking action is sought from Planning Committee for larger-scale planning breaches, particularly when there may be a significant resource cost to taking action.

There was a long and complicated history to the site, with previous enforcement notices served.  Members noted the considerations set out in the report, including likely costs and timescales of enforcement action, as well as the potential burden to the Council’s housing team and the implications of doing nothing.

On the basis that most enforcement notices were appealed, the Committee were also advised that there was a very high likelihood that any enforcement action would result in an appeal and subsequent public inquiry.

The Committee were fully supportive of the proposed enforcement action and endorsed the proposed course of action. If it were appropriate in the view of officers, members would also support the taking out of an injunction in the future.  There was also optimism that this course of action could address further non-planning related issues on the site such as unsatisfactory living conditions and poor drainage.

Resolved that –

Planning committee endorsed the issuing of an Enforcement Notice for the reasons set out in the report.