Cllr D Whyte substituted for cllr L Gillham.

To confirm and sign, as a correct record, the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 18 December 2024.

The minutes of the meeting held on 18 December 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 A King declared a non registerable interest in item RU.24/1044 - 16-18 Victoria Street, Englefield Green, Surrey, TW20 0QY, due to living in close proximity to the application site.  Cllr A King left the chamber whilst the application was discussed and took no part in the vote.

Proposal: Application to remove Condition 4 (Hours of Use) from Planning Permission RU.23/1066 for the Demolition of existing buildings and the development of employment units (Classes E(g)ii, E(g)iii, B2 and B8) with ancillary office accommodation, vehicular accesses, associated external yard areas, car parking, servicing, external lighting, hard and soft landscaping, infrastructure, and all associated works

During the comprehensive debate several members expressed disappointment and frustration that the scheme had been resubmitted to the Council. This was on the basis that the inclusion of the condition to limit the operating hours when the scheme was previously before Committee had been the tipping point for many members to make the scheme acceptable in planning terms as they had had considerable concerns over residential amenity. 

An appeal had been heard on the first scheme (for a single large warehouse) and the conclusion of the planning inspector was that noise and disturbance objections were not well founded.

The appeal decision, and the findings of the reviews by the Council’s Environmental Health team and an independent acoustic consultant which concluded that the inspector’s position was reasonable, had left a number of members feeling that there was no choice but to accept the officers’ recommendation as the appeal was an important material consideration and they could not see any new material considerations had arisen.

The role played by local residents in challenging the scheme over a prolonged period and their work at the public inquiry was praised, however a member felt that it was wrong to offer false hope to residents and felt the Council should make this decision locally, as it would seem almost certain that permission would be granted at appeal.

A conflicting view was aired by a Committee member, who felt that the inclusion of various mitigating measures around noise – including a complaints management procedure – indicated that the applicant was aware that noise would be an issue, and further concern was raised around the lack of definition in the nighttime peak hours. 

In response to a question about imposing a condition about defining those peak time hours, the Head of Planning advised that it would not be possible to impose additional conditions around hours of delivery as the applicant was applying for 24-hour use and had indicated that they would not be satisfied by a limiter condition. Furthermore the matter had been considered by the planning inspector at Public Inquiry and as such the Head of Planning could not see a planning justification for adding a limited condition in the absence of any technical evidence that suggested one was required. In the absence of technical evidence an appeal would be difficult to defend. The Head of Planning reminded the committee that the appeal decision was an important material consideration.

Officers noted that the Council and residents had vigorously defended the previous public inquiry and won on the issue of the size of the building, however the amenity issue was found to be acceptable by the inspector, with all experts who were  ...  view the full minutes text for item 60.

Proposal:  Demolition of five existing dwellings; construction of a new building of 3-4 storeys comprising 34 residential units with associated access, car and cycle parking, bin stores and amenity space.

Frustration was voiced by some members on the lack of affordable housing on the scheme, however officers confirmed that the scheme was policy compliant as policy dictated that the provision of affordable housing was only necessary where it was viable to do so. 

Viability testing by an independent consultancy had confirmed the scheme was not viable to the extent of being able to provide affordable housing. As a safeguard a clawback mechanism was included. 

It was added that there was no affordable housing on the existing site and therefore no net loss, and following concerns around the enforceability of conditions in the context of local government reorganisation, officers confirmed that planning decisions made by Runnymede Borough Council would still be enforceable by any successor authority, and the local plan would remain extant.

A query also arose over the provision of cycle storage, and a Committee member asked whether it was feasible for the higher occupancy flats to have more storage, however officers confirmed that one per unit was appropriate and in line with standards, and emphasised that the location was a highly sustainable location in planning terms being close to the train line and a range of good services. 

The same reasons were also cited for concerns around the number of parking spaces being in conflict with the Council’s parking SPD, however it was emphasised there was a degree of flexibility around the number, and it was confirmed that Surrey County Council as highways authority had not objected to the parking provision.  Later on in the debate it was proposed by a Committee Member to add a condition to allocate one of the six parking spaces a disabled space.  The proposal was seconded and agreed by the Committee.

A concern was raised about the demolition of the Edwardian houses as part of the scheme, and the Head of Planning advised that with the Council struggling to demonstrate a five-year land supply, the proposal provided a net increase of around 30 units, which was a significant planning consideration and provided homes for a larger number of people than current arrangements.  Furthermore, whilst officers considered the housing mix to not accord with the aspirations of policy, which had weighed against the scheme, they considered that was vastly outweighed by the net increase in housing. The Council was likely to have a small shortfall in its 5-year housing land supply and as such the balance now tilted in favour of sustainable developments and the provision of additional units. 

The impact on surrounding properties was raised by a ward member, however officers confirmed that minimum separation distances exceeded normal standards.

Responding to a query about the credibility of a scheme being submitted that was not particularly viable, the Head of Planning advised it wasn’t for the Council to speculate in its decision making, however  ...  view the full minutes text for item 61.

Proposal: Retrospective alterations for changes in the window and door arrangement to include sash windows, glazed door and blocking up of existing windows

[Cllr V. Cunningham and Cllr I. Mullens left the meeting at the start of this item]

The developer was thanked by a Committee member for their engagement with both the community and the chair of the neighbourhood forum, and officers were thanked for their work in achieving the resulting scheme, which was considered in-keeping with the aesthetics of the surrounding area.

It was resolved that –

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

·         Planning conditions 1-2

The Runnymede Pitch and Plot Allocation Scheme for Gypsies, Travellers and Travelling Showpeople Supplementary Planning Document had been subject to public consultation in the summer of 2024, and the approx. 40 comments received across 8 responses had resulted in some revisions being made to the SPD.

Because of this and also due to the change in the definition of a gypsy and traveller at national level, along with other changes recommended to the SPD in response to anticipated amendments to the Council’s housing allocations scheme, a further period of consultation was recommended.

Whilst still seeking to persevere with allocating sites to those who have a local connection to the borough (in line with policy SL22 of the Local Plan), a further change would see pitches/plots being allocated to those without a local connection where it had not proved possible to allocate to a family within the borough within a ‘reasonable period’ of marketing. The term “household” had also been replaced with “family” to allow a larger pool of eligible applicants to acquire the allocated pitches and plots in recognition of the distinct way of life and traditions of gypsies and travellers which is often based around living in extended family groups.

A Committee member asked whether the pitches/plots would be leasehold or freehold, and upon being advised that it would be up to the developer to decide as the planning system could not dictate the tenure of sites, the prospect of the Council taking control of some pitches/plots to ensure they were equitably distributed was put forward. 

However, officers advised that the acquisition of property was outside of the remit of planning policy and the adoption of the SPD.

A named vote was requested on the proposed resolution and the voting was as follows:

For (10):

Cllrs S. Whyte, T. Gates, C. Howorth, A. King, P. Mehta, M. Nuti, C. Parry, K. Rowsell, D. Whyte, M. Williams

Against (3):

Cllrs S. Lewis, C. Mann, P. Snow.

Abstain (0):

-

It was resolved that Planning Committee –

i)             Agreed the responses to the representations received (as set out in Appendix 1 within the ‘Consultation Statement’);

ii)            Approved the revised Runnymede Pitch and Plot Allocation Scheme for Gypsies, Travellers and Travelling Showpeople Supplementary Planning 109 Agenda Item 6 Document (SPD) for a final period of public consultation between 3^rd February and 3^rd March 2025.