Cllr D. Whyte substituted for Cllr T. Burton, Cllr I. Mullens substituted for Cllr S. Jenkins, Cllr S. Lewis substituted for Cllr C. Howorth and Cllr J. Furey substituted for Cllr J. Wilson.

To confirm and sign, as a correct record, the Minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 28 February 2024.

The minutes of the meeting held on 28 February 2024 were confirmed and signed as a correct record.

There were no apologies for absence.

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

Cllr E Gill declared a non registerable interest in RU.23/1214 due to a close association with the applicant. Cllr Gill withdrew from the chamber and took no part in the determination of the application.

Cllr T Gates declared a pre-determined view in application RU.23/1214 which he had previously expressed publicly.  Cllr Gates withdrew from the chamber and took no part in the determination of the application.

Proposal: Retention of hotel including associated hardstanding. Retention of car park extension to include the change of use of this land, formerly used as a stable block. Demolition of Parkwood Estate buildings.

A presentation was made to the committee by the Planning case officer and legal officer. Prior to the meeting a technical briefing had occurred as well as a member site visit.

The committee was addressed by Irum Khan-Williams on behalf of objectors to the scheme, and by Mandip Malhotra who spoke on behalf of the applicants.

The item then moved to committee debate. The debate considered the relevant material considerations for and against the proposal, the officer report, and sought clarity on a number of issues.

A Councillor sought reassurance that the building had been built as shown on the retrospective plans, as there was now a lengthy enforcement history at the site. Officers advised that site visits had been carried out that included spot checks of dimensions. Further spot checks were undertaken on the member site visit where members chose dimensions to spot check.  The spot checks had been conducted on different parts of the building and the results of the areas spot checked showed that the dimensions were relatively accurate and within reasonable tolerances for a building of this scale. These checks had gone significantly beyond what would normally be undertaken on such an application. 

Committee members acknowledged that this weight to be attributed to matters in the planning balance was open to their planning judgement. Officers made it clear to the Committee that due regard would have to be given to all material planning considerations including the fallback position relating to the extant lawful planning permission on the site for a hotel that extant permission could be implemented at any time. It was also pointed out that the planning obligations with regards Parkwood were an entirely new material consideration that had not been considered in previous applications and would have to be given appropriate consideration. The Enforcement Notice provided a mechanism to secure compliance with that extant permission or any subsequent permissions that may be granted.

Clarification was sought on the economic and employment benefits of both the existing scheme and the additionality.  A member felt that the economic benefits were potentially overstated and should be given less weight.

It was noted that the original Savill Court Hotel employed around 80FTE, and that the 2016 permission had suggested that a new hotel would provide circa 144 jobs at the location, and that figure was not revised in the 2018 application. The new hotel, as built, however employs a total of 243 FTE staff and this represents an increase of 99 jobs from the original estimates.  A report on the economic benefits assessment by Lichfield’s had deduced that some thirty-three jobs would be lost from not retaining the additional unauthorised floorspace, along with another 14 from the supply chain in the local area, as set out in section 7.13 of the officer report.  Other economic benefits  ...  view the full minutes text for item 72.

Proposal: Conversion of Garage into habitable accommodation (retrospective)

Members noted the proposals. Following a minor clarification there were no significant issues arising and the motion to approve as set down on the agenda was moved and passed.

Resolved that –

The Head of Planning was authorised to grant planning conditions subject to conditions 1-2.

Proposal: The Change of Use of existing buildings and land to dog day care (Sui Generis), including the recladding of existing buildings and provision of hard and soft landscaping.

[This application was considered prior to RU.24/0067 – 4 Glebe Road, Egham, Surrey, TW20 8BT]

The committee were supportive of the proposal, but concern was raised around the proximity of the site to the Bourne stream on the northern boundary.  Officers advised that discharge into watercourses was dealt with by Environment Agency permits and therefore not necessary for planning purposes, but an informative would be added to the scheme to encourage any discharge of waste to be done in an environmentally friendly manner, and for the applicant to consider the creation of a buffer zone into the Bourne.

Resolved that –

The Head of Planning was authorised to grant planning conditions subject to conditions 1-10 and additional informative around the creation of a buffer zone to the Bourne.