The chair paid tribute to the service and conduct of former councillor Jonathan Wilson, a long-standing member of the Planning Committee, who had recently passed away.

Councillor J. Furey substituted for councillor M. Nuti and councillor D. Whyte substituted for councillor K. Rowsell.

To confirm and sign, as a correct record, the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 24 July 2024.

The minutes of the meeting held on 24 July 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.

There were no declarations of interest.

The suitability of the location was queried by a member, however it was confirmed that possible locations for such infrastructure were relatively limited and narrowly defined by various constraints and requirements such as the requirement to be within close proximity of a local sub-station, and ideally at least 100 metres from residential properties. 

The area of search can be further narrowed by what land is available and restrictions or impediments to cabling  such as crossing river, canals, railway tracks etc.

It was confirmed that the applicant had conducted a thorough search for possible sites, including contacting landowners and estate agents.  When asked about the prospect of the application being sited at the same location as the nearby sub-station it was advised that applicant was a different operator from the sub-station with a different purpose – to store renewable energy – and had a connection agreement in place with the National Grid for this site.  Furthermore the land near the existing sub-station site was of a higher flood risk category. 

The Council was required to consider the application before it on its own merits.

The applicant had conducted safety assessments with regards flood risk and will need to continue working with the fire service going forward.

Whilst disappointment was expressed that the site would take up green belt land, the importance of renewable energy infrastructure was highlighted as a positive in the context of the Council’s climate emergency declaration and many of the Committee believed this would outweigh any harm and justified very special circumstances, whilst its distance from residential dwellings would significantly lessen the chances of harms to residential amenity. 

When asked about potential health concerns, the Head of Planning advised that there was no current evidence about material health risks arising from a planning perspective and any environmental health concerns had been adequately mitigated by the proposed acoustic fencing and distance from residential dwellings.

It was confirmed that the BESS did not impact upon any public footpaths, and once past the initial construction phase the only vehicular traffic accessing the site would be infrequent site visits by engineers.

It was resolved that –

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

·         No call in being received from the Secretary of State to whom this application needs to be referred under the Town and Country Planning Act

·         Planning conditions 1-22

·         Informative 1-8

·         Addendum notes

Frustration was expressed by some committee members about the lack of necessary infrastructure to accompany developments that would seem at odds with the Council’s Local Plan.  It was widely acknowledged that there was local concern around highways capacity, and whilst it was accepted this was a larger scale problem, the Head of Planning confirmed it could only be achieved by strategic improvements by the highways authority, local planning and the implementation of the A320 scheme.  Furthermore the application under consideration showed minimal change from the existing highway movements in the peak. It was acknowledged that it was not the role of the applicant to solve existing issues.

During the debate the Committee sought advice from officers on the differing levels of harm associated with developing on green belt land.  It was advised that under current policies the scheme was considered an appropriate development that was meeting an identified need on the basis it was a site of previously developed land that had not resulted in a substantial increase in height or visibility and did not cause other harms to the green belt.

A Committee member highlighted the perceived lack of parking spaces on the site, however it was confirmed that the Council’s parking standards would demand a minimum of 92 spaces, and 136 had been provided as part of the proposed scheme.

An enquiry was made about deferring the application due to the uncertainty on the exact number of affordable housing units the scheme would provide.  It was advised that the developer was aiming to provide close to 80% affordable housing as the available grants and CIL exception made it an attractive prospect, however 35% was the minimum requirement to meet the policy test.  The entire range was included in the scheme as varying an amount could cause complications at a later stage. Planning obligations could only require what was necessary to make the scheme acceptable in planning terms, as this was considered appropriate development there was no need to provide say extra weight by virtue of over provision to meet a need. It was advised that deferring the application on this basis would therefore not be appropriate.

A Member queried allowing a mix of 1-2 bed properties on the site despite the latest Council monitoring suggesting that the borough had an over-supply of such properties, and it was advised this was a very small portion and the housing mix was delivered in line with the Strategic Market Housing Assessment.  Furthermore there was a significant affordable housing issue in Runnymede that this scheme would go some way to addressing.

It was confirmed that sustainability on the site was improved by the bus offering and relevant contributions.

The Council would not be taking on any revenue costs around the maintenance of the green spaces. It was anticipated that these would be met by service charges.

It was noted that a car club had not been proposed for the site given it was relatively small in nature and did not suffer from  ...  view the full minutes text for item 29.

The committee highlighted concerns around parking arrangements, with the proposed sub-division of the property meaning the volume of cars at the property was likely to outweigh the number of available spaces.  Officers confirmed arrangements were in line with the Council’s parking SPD, whilst the availability of on-street parking and nine cycles spaces was also considered to offset the issue.

There was a desire from the committee to see an EV charging point in place as part of the scheme.  Officers had considered that as there was no operational development or change of use on site it was a matter of planning judgement on whether to impose a charging point.  The proposal was put forward, seconded and agreed by Committee.

The wider issue of HMOs was debated by the Committee, and whilst densifying existing HMOs could be seen as keeping the overall number down, there was frustration expressed at the lack of Council policies on HMOs, student accommodation and other forms of co-living.  Officers confirmed that HMOs was a matter that could be considered in Council’s Local Plan review should the evidence indicate that there was a problem in planning terms.

It was resolved that –

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

·         The completion of a S106 agreement

·         Planning obligation 1

·         Planning conditions 1-6

·         Additional planning condition around the installation of an EV charging point.

The Head of Planning was authorised to refuse planning permission should the S106 agreement not progress to their satisfaction.

[This item was considered by the committee prior to the other applications on the agenda due to public speaking]

Concern was raised by members of the committee on highways safety grounds, particularly upon hearing that the safety assessment carried out by the highways authority did not take place during school drop off or pick up time.  It was felt by these members that doing so would have resulted in a different conclusion by the highways authority.

Further concern was raised around the impact of the necessity for deliveries to the businesses on The Broadway to reverse out of the thoroughfare at the rear of the premises due to the presence of the fence.  It was claimed this could readily block Amis Avenue and have an impact on access to nearby properties and Woodham & New Haw Day Centre.  Several members therefore asked about the prospect of the application being deferred for further safety assessments to be carried out.

The Head of Planning advised that the highways authority had a duty to consider highways safety and would have taken into consideration all factors when conducting their safety inspection, and had raised no objections or concerns and not caveated that view. 

This assessment had been informed by a site visit by the highways officer.

Furthermore, once the development was complete the land owner would not be required to gain planning permission to erect a boundary treatment or place obstructive items such as bollards or concrete blocks on the land, and so the ability to pass over the land could be prevented without the need for planning permission.

Furthermore in the absence of an objection from the Highways Authority and given the limited scope of the application it was advised by the Head of Planning that not approving the application would deviate from national guidance on planning applications.

It was added that in the absence of any Highway objection no highway evidence could be presented at an appeal to justify refusal on highway grounds. As there was no objection from the highway authority on highway safety grounds it would not be reasonable to compel the applicant to provide further highway information.

Members raised the issue of the widespread concern of residents and businesses to the application, and asked about the prospect of the highways authority either elaborating on its assessment or re-considering it to reflect the volume of concern.  It was reiterated that the view formed by the highways authority was their professional appraisal, whilst the number of representations made to a planning application was not material to the conclusions of a planning committee, it is about the material planning matters raised not the number of letter received. 

Concern was also expressed on the potential impact of local businesses, however it was emphasised that it was a private matter and businesses would have to make their own arrangements to receive deliveries.

A further suggestion to defer the application was put forward to allow the potential public rights of way issue to be determined.  However,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 31.

[Cllr Furey left the meeting prior to this item being considered]

Following an eight-week consultation on the Energy & Climate Change Mitigation Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) some minor amendments had been made clarifying technical points and emphasising the importance of trees.

The purpose of the SPD is to provide supplementary guidance to support and improve the implementation of planning policies contained in the Council’s adopted Runnymede 2030 Local Plan that relate to energy use and carbon emissions (policies SD7 and SD8).

The low response rate to the consultation was commented on by the Committee, which was believed to either be a sign of those that read it being satisfied with the content or that it had not reached a large enough target audience.  It was hoped that the intended creation of the Citizens Panel would be utilised for future consultations.

It was resolved that Planning Committee –

i)             Agreed the responses to the representations received (as set out in Appendix 1)

ii)            Approved the revised Energy & Climate Change Mitigation Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) (Appendix 2) for adoption, with an implementation date of 3 October 2024;

iii)           Agreed that delegated authority be given to the Corporate Head of Planning, Economy and the Built Environment, in consultation with the Chair of the Planning Committee, to approve any final minor editorial changes to the Energy & Climate Change Mitigation SPD prior to implementation.