Planning Committee - Wednesday, 24th April, 2024 6.30 pm

Venue: Council Chamber - Civic Centre. View directions

Contact: Democratic Services 

No. Item


Notification of Changes to Committee Membership


Councillor Mullens substituted for councillor Jenkins.  Councillor Michael Cressey substituted for councillor Mann.  Councillor Lewis substituted for councillor Cunningham.


Minutes pdf icon PDF 101 KB

To confirm and sign, as a correct record, the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 27 March 2024.


A proposal was moved and seconded to include a reference in the minutes of the meeting on 27 March 2024 that it was understood that meeting was being recorded, which was permitted under the Open Local Government Regulations. 


The committee resolved to include this in the final minutes.


A further proposal was moved and seconded to make the following amendments to the minutes of the meeting held on 27 March 2024:


Paragraph (1) to be replaced with paragraph (2).

(1)     ‘A member queried whether more weight could or should be given to the

2015 Written Ministerial Statement’.

(2)     ‘A member queried that the demolition and giving up of RU.14/1599 had

been listed as a benefit of the scheme, and in addition had been used to mitigate the harm caused by the intentional nature of the unauthorised development; the member suggested that as a consequence this benefit had been counted twice in the weighing of the harms and benefits, so the weighing was erroneous.’


Paragraph (3) to be replaced with paragraph (4)


(3)     ‘A member indicated that they considered greater weight should be

attributed to the Written Ministerial Statement’

(4)     ‘The member also asked that in assessing the magnitude of the harm

attributed to the intentional nature of the unauthorised development, account be taken of the expensive and time-consuming action incurred by officers, as referenced in the Written Ministerial Statement.’


The committee resolved to include these amendments in the final minutes.


Apologies for Absence


There were no apologies for absence.


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 Theresa Burton declared a Non Registerable Interest in item 5b – planning application RU.22/0393 – Longcross South, Longcross Road and Kitsmead Lane, Longcross, KT16 0EE – due to being a close neighbour of the application site. Cllr Burton left the chamber whilst the item was discussed and did not take part in the vote.


RU.21/0207 - Land West of Byfleet Road (rear of 98-138 Byfleet Road),New Haw, KT15 3LA pdf icon PDF 2 MB

Additional documents:


Proposal: Development of the site to provide industrial, storage and distribution (Class E(g)/B2/B8) floorspace, with ancillary office accommodation, associated parking, landscaping and infrastructure works (Revised plans received 27/05/22)


A member asked questions with regards the details of the environmental impact assessment for the site. Thy asked about the effect on species such as slow worms, lapwings, common lizards and grass snakes, as well as the accuracy of the reported population numbers.  It was advised that extensive effort had gone into securing a reptile mitigation strategy by condition following meetings between and ecologists Surrey Wildlife Trust, who had confirmed the proposal was acceptable to them in environmental terms.


In response to concerns over the potential flood risk, the flood risk assessment had concluded that the site would prove betterment in terms of fluvial flooding, whilst a sustainable urban drainage system would also provide betterment to surface water flooding by holding the water in attenuation areas and releasing it, similar to greenfield rates.  The proposal had been considered acceptable by both the lead local flood authority and Environment Agency.  Officers confirmed that the condition to maintain surface water drainage was secured for the duration of the development.


There was a query around highways assessment and the impact of the development on New Haw Road, in particular a recent report that suggested that the traffic peaks and lows had shifted since the Covid-19 pandemic.  Officers explained that advice was taken from Surrey County Council as highways authority, who had confirmed that the impact would not be severe as a result of the development, which was the relevant planning test set in the NPPF, and even a shift in peak and low hours would not have a material impact on the planning assessment.


Some benefits of the scheme were acknowledged by the committee, notably the toucan crossing, link to and ongoing maintenance of the canal footpath, and height warning sign on the bridge, but a member queried whether having an informative around liaising with the National Grid around power was appropriate and whether that should instead be a condition given the impact this may have on residents. 


It was advised that with regards this development this was a matter for the applicant and the power company, but it was in the strong interest of the applicant to ensure there was sufficient power available, and an informative rather than condition was considered appropriate.


Acknowledging concerns raised around the potential for over-shadowing and loss of light, officers considered that appropriate separation distances were in place. There was a significant separation distance available to habitable rooms and primary amenity spaces.


A Member asked about an additional informative around increasing landscaping in the event that a residential property was overlooked.  Officers advised that increasing landscaping to prevent overlooking would not be appropriate as the density of landscaping can vary depending on the time of year, however suggested an additional condition could be included specifying that no rear windows could be inserted in the rear elevation of the units  ...  view the full minutes text for item 79.


RU.22/0393 - Longcross South, Longcross Road and Kitsmead Lane, Longcross, KT16 0EE pdf icon PDF 2 MB

Additional documents:


Outline planning application with all matters reserved (except for means of site access with Longcross Road and Kitsmead Lane), for a mixed use Garden Village development comprising: residential development (Use Classes C3), care home/extra care accommodation (Use Class C2), land reserved for travelling showpeople plots (sui generis), retail, food and drink (Use Classes E and F.2), public house (sui generis), community facilities (Use Classes E, F1 and F2), employment use (Use Class E), a primary school including early years provision (Use Class F1), public open space including allotments, sports pitches and ancillary facilities (Use Class F2), Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace (SANG) (Use Class F2), landscaping and associated infrastructure and works including enabling demolition and ground works (Environmental Statement submitted)


The time and effort to get outline planning permission before committee was acknowledged by members, who commented positively on the additional 1,700 homes being brought into the borough that would otherwise have had to be found elsewhere, and included the provision for 35% affordable housing.


It was noted that the site would be subject to reserved matters applications and these would provide the opportunity for further review as they came in to help shape the finer detail of the Garden village.  This would include matters such as promoting self-build opportunities and cycle infrastructure.


It was acknowledged that the development needed to achieve a degree of sustainability, and in that context having its own train station and bus strategy was welcomed, along with the provision of shops and access to education and open spaces.  Surrey County Council had been keen to ensure alternative provisions were in place should existing bus services that would serve the site discontinue, and it was noted that whilst a secondary school provision would be needed in the Borough, a settlement of this size could not sustain one on its own but that had been factored into Surrey County Council highways and education considerations.


A Member raised questions about stewardship arrangements, and officers acknowledged that specialist  advice was being undertaken and stewardship would be a high priority for subsequent negotiations as part of how the garden village would function.


The Head of Planning confirmed to a member that approval of the scheme would commit the council to approve the active and sustainable travel infrastructure for the site, with no mechanism to demand more unless there was significant change to what was proposed.  It was also clarified that no timescale could be provided at this time for its delivery as a phasing plan was needed for the site that would influence how different aspects were delivered.


Officers advised that the re-location of the pub to be largely away from residential dwellings had been part of the negotiation process, and all parties were keen to see it thrive and avoid matters such as noise complaints in the future. Placing it on the edge of the open space was likely to make it highly attractive particularly in the summer.  However, in the event that it failed an alternative provision such as  ...  view the full minutes text for item 80.


RU.23/1035 - 16 A Beechtree Avenue, Englefield Green, Surrey, TW20 0SR pdf icon PDF 920 KB

Additional documents:


Proposal: Change of use from women's refuge (sui-generis) to residential (Class C3), including rooftop and side extensions to provide 8 self-contained units, provision of additional car parking, bin storage and associated landscaping.


Upon confirmation that one tree would be taken down as a result of the scheme, officers advised there would nevertheless be a biodiversity net gain, whilst the planting of potential replacements would form part of the landscaping scheme, so if the council’s tree officer agreed there was space then officers could secure it.


The affordable housing element was welcomed by the committee, and it was clarified that affordable housing was secured by a legal agreement and properties could not be sub-let for student accommodation as this would be considered market housing.


It was resolved that –


The Head of Planning was authorised to grant planning permission subject to:


·       The completion of a S106 agreement

·       Planning conditions 1-18