Planning Applications
Item No. |
Application No. |
Location |
Page |
5a |
RU.21/0272 |
Land at Green Lane, Chertsey |
8 |
Minutes:
The planning application listed below was considered by the Committee. All representations received on the application were reported and copies had been made available for inspection by Members before the meeting. The Addendum had also been published on the Council’s website on the day of the meeting. An Objector and Applicant addressed the Committee on the application.
RESOLVED that –
the following application be determined as indicated: -
APP NO |
LOCATION, PROPOSAL AND DECISION |
RU 21/0272
|
Land at Green Lane, Chertsey
Hybrid planning application for the land north of Green Lane, Chertsey Bittams:Full planning application for residential development (use Class C3) comprising 149 dwellings;5 gypsy and traveller pitches and associated works; informal and formal open space, footpaths, cycleways and internal roads; associated parking, landscaping ,planting, utilities and drainage infrastructure including connection to the strategic foul network; and associated infrastructure and groundworks. Outline planning application for the use of 0.1 hectares of land for the provision of a community hub.
Some Members made comments on the timing of the development against the timescales of the A320 improvement delivery, the need for mature planting to mitigate noise, the location of the community hub, the potential impact of works on Salesian School especially during exam period ,increased pressure on capacity of schools and medical facilities, impact from M25 on future occupiers and users of the development, the date of operation of the space allocated for the car club scheme, density of development and impact of the development when combined with the other neighbouring developments for the Bittams triangle, lack of accessibility of SANG in Hardwick Lane for those on foot, clarification of location of informal crossing, and need for traffic calming measures in Green Lane
The CHDMBC stated that the site was allocated for development by the Runnymede 2030 Local Plan and the principle of development was therefore established.
In the opinion of the CHDMBC the scheme had many positive facets including a well considered design taking into account constraints, policy compliant affordable housing, full gypsy and traveller provision, a full contribution to the A320 improvement works and land for a community building.
The Committee acknowledged and welcomed many of these elements and noted the improvements made to the application since its original submission and thanked the Applicant and Officers for their work thereon.
The first housing occupations were expected by the developer to occur in 2023 and it was estimated that there would in a worst-case scenario be a maximum of 50 dwellings occupied in advance of the completion of the A320 improvement scheme in April 2024. SCC considered that requiring the A320 works to be completed in advance of occupation would be unreasonable and raised no objection subject to a section 106 obligation and appropriate conditions.
With regard to landscaping ,existing planting boundaries would be retained and enhanced and loss of any trees would be mitigated by the proposed substantial new mature tree planting. Appropriate conditions would be imposed and details secured in the landscaping plan.
As regards noise from the M25, a 5m high acoustic barrier was proposed in addition to the existing 2m high highway noise barrier. The layout had been planned to help reduce noise impact. Increased glazing, ventilation measures and boundary treatments were proposed to dwellings in proximity to the M25.
Appropriate air quality assessments had been undertaken and improvements secured to the scheme. The reports had been assessed by independent specialist consultants on behalf of the Council, and it was considered that an acceptable level of amenity in planning terms would be achieved for the new residents and users of the site. It was also noted that some residents of Green Lane are likely to experience betterment in terms of noise as a result of the scheme.
Some Members noted that the surface of this section of the M25 was in poor condition and particularly noisy. Whilst the surface of the M25 was a matter for the Highways Agency, the Vice- Chairman mentioned that the local MP was seeking improvements to the surface and Members were encouraged to write to the MP.
As part of the Construction Management Plan, the developer would be required to write to neighbours (including Salesian School) to provide a named contact at the developer. This named contact would be the main point of escalation concerns to in relation to the management of noise and similar construction related issues (in particular during exam periods). The developer would be encouraged to notify Salesian School when noisy works were expected to occur at sensitive times.
The impact on infrastructure had been addressed in the Infrastructure Needs Assessment undertaken as part of the recently adopted Local Plan. A new GP surgery was proposed for Ottershaw East , and RBC and the NHS were working together to improve GP capacity. Whilst resident concerns were noted on this and the Council seeks to help resolve this matter, the impact of this development upon medical capacity would not be severe enough to warrant refusal of an application, particularly as its impact had already been considered in the local plan evidence.
Provision of capacity in schools was a matter for the County Education Authority and was planned for with education projections, and education mitigation was generally covered by the RBC CIL regime.
The CHDMBC would consider imposition of a mechanism for the earlier trigger point for operation of the space allocated for the car club. This could be via condition 25 or by travel plan mechanisms.
The proposed SANG in Hardwick Lane previously granted under RU 21/0265 would have more than sufficient capacity to mitigate the impact of the development and most users would access the SANG by car.
Relocation of the community hub from the rear to front of site was an improvement in that it was more accessible and could be delivered earlier.
The location of the informal crossing and traffic calming was a matter for SCC as Highway Authority, but it was unreasonable to require the applicant to address existing problems relating to Green Lane.
RESOLVED that-
i)The CHDMBC be authorised to grant planning permission subject to the completion of a section 106 legal agreement under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) to secure the following obligations: 1. SAMM (TBHSPA) financial contribution of £124,362;
2. Proposed SANG (or a phase of the SANG if appropriate) granted under RU.21/0265 must be delivered prior to occupation of any development at the Bittams A site or any other site which may be assigned to the proposed SANG;
3. The provision of 5 Gypsy & Traveller pitches including a clear phasing for their timely delivery;
4. The provision and deliverability of 35% Affordable Housing;
5. Secure management arrangements for the maintenance of the open space and equipped play spaces;
6. Provision of 0.1ha of land to be provided for a Community Hub Building;
7. To secure through a Section 278 Agreement with the Local Highway Authority the cycle and pedestrian crossing points across Green Lane;
8. To secure the preparation and implementation of a Travel Plan;
9. Transportation improvements and contributions, including: a) A financial contribution of £2,555,202 towards mitigation measures on the A320 b) Travel plan auditing fee of £6150
And conditions, reasons and Informatives listed on the agenda and additional conditions listed on the Addendum.The CHDMBC to consider imposition of a mechanism for the earlier trigger point for operation of the space allocated for the car club. This could be via condition 25 or by travel plan mechanisms
All figures and contributions will also need to be finalised in negotiation with the applicant and relevant consultees and final authority in these negotiations is given to the CHDMBC.
ii)The CHDMBC be authorised to refuse planning permission should the S106 legal agreement not progress to his satisfaction or if any significant material considerations arise prior to the issuing of the decision notice that in the opinion of the CHDMBC would warrant refusal of the application. Reasons for refusal relating to any such matter are delegated to the CHDMBC.
(Mrs Pudney, an objector, and Mr Newton, for the applicant, addressed the Committee on the above application)
|
Supporting documents:
- Planning Applications Default Text, item 529. PDF 142 KB
- RU.21/0272 Land at Green Lane, Chertsey, item 529. PDF 4 MB