Councillor M. Smith substituted for Councillor S. Whyte and Councillor E. Kettle substituted for Councillor A. King.

To confirm and sign, as a correct record, the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 29 May 2024.

The minutes of the meeting held on 29 May 2024 were confirmed and signed as a correct record

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors L. Gillham and C. Mann.

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

There were no declarations of interest.

Proposal: Proposed change of use of land for the creation of 12 Gypsy/ Traveller pitches (11 net including retention of 1 existing pitch) comprising 1 static and 1 touring caravan per pitch including alterations to existing vehicular access point and associated parking, landscaping, amenity areas and bin store (amended description 25/01/2024)

Several Members expressed a desire to defer the item to allow the consultation period for the ‘Runnymede Pitch and Plot Allocation Scheme for Gypsies, Travellers and Travelling Showpeople: Supplementary Planning Document (SPD)’ to run its course.

It was advised by the Head of Planning that deferring the application on that basis would not be appropriate as the Committee should be determining planning applications on current rather than any potential future policy.  The SPD only provided further detail to existing policy.  Furthermore any move to defer should only come after a debate about the merits and disadvantages of the scheme.

It was added that the Local Plan established the principle of development with provisions in place for maximum plots and specification of plots, whilst the site was a specifically allocated site for development for Gypsies, Travellers and Travelling Showpeople pitches in the Runnymede 2030 Local Plan in area region where it had been demonstrated that there was an acute need for it.

Responding to queries on whether members of the Gypsies, Travellers and Travelling Showpeople community had been consulted about the scheme, whether it met their need and the prospect of other uses on the site, it was confirmed that there was a significant need for sites in the borough, the local plan considered the potential options for meeting this need and was examined in public. This was the preferred solution for meeting need adopted by the Borough.

Robust conditions were proposed limiting each pitch to only one static mobile home and one touring caravan, and there were also proposed limitations on commercial activity and vehicle weight that could be subject to  enforcement action should the conditions be breached.  The conditions on the scheme were precise that would require technical standards to be met with matters such as drainage.

Concerns around drainage had been dealt with by conditions that ensured the final drainage design did not increase the flood risk on or off the site, The HoP advised that this was a normal approach taken on a site in flood zone 1 and there was sufficient surety that a scheme could be designed.

Disappointment was expressed at what some committee members saw as the negligible biodiversity net gain of 0.66%, and whilst officers acknowledged it was only a minimal increase the only policy requirement was to improve biodiversity, therefore the scheme was policy compliant and could not be refused or deferred on those grounds.  However, it was noted that the prevention of the felling of two elm trees would result in a very slight increase in biodiversity net gain.  It was proposed, seconded and agreed by the Committee to add a condition to prevent the felling of the trees.

The  ...  view the full minutes text for item 15.

Proposal: Erection of an additional floor above existing office building to provide 9 apartments including ancillary works

The Committee sought clarity around minimum space requirements for the properties.  Officers advised that all guidelines had been met, and whilst the room identified as a study fell below the minimum space requirements for a bedroom, the overall size of the properties still met national standards.

In response to queries about the size of the balconies, whilst the depth was below standard this had been offset by the creation of a communal amenity area in part of the existing car park which had provided betterment on the overall complex.

It was resolved that –

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

·       The completion of a Unilateral Undertaking under the Town and Country Planning Act to secure planning obligation 1.

·       Planning conditions 1-14

·       Informatives 1-6

·       Additional planning condition 15 in the addendum