APP NO

LOCATION, PROPOSAL AND DECISION

RU 22/0278

Land North of Trumps Green Road, Virginia Water

Outline Planning Permission for demolition of existing structures and erection of up to 67 new homes (35% affordable), provision of 1 travellers pitch, and new vehicular access via Trumps Green Road together with associated car parking, open space and landscaping with access only to be considered with all other matters reserved.

Comments were made by Members regarding sustainability of the site and the likely reliance on car for accessing local facilities and services, the need for an additional bus stop within the development to assist accessibility, and safety of access arrangements and use of secondary access.

The CHDMBC commented that the site was part of an allocated site within the Local Plan and was now within the urban area. The delivery of development at local plan sites was the Council’s strategy for meeting its housing need, as such the principle of development was considered acceptable. The quantum of development proposed aligned with the plan numbers and had been well designed so that it would not preclude development of the remainder of the site allocation.

Site sustainability (as well as the likelihood of suitable access being achieved) had been assessed at Local Plan stage and was found preferable to other sites that were not included in the plan. It was not within the applicant’s power to alter bus routes or frequency or install bus stops but they would make a contribution to transport improvements and /or an improved bus service which would be utilised by SCC and bus operators. This was covered in the legal agreement. Some options may become possible as part of the Longcross Garden Village scheme which could also assist with serving this development. Longcross may also improve the sustainability of the site when its facilities come on line.

Visibility splays and access were considered acceptable by the County Highway Authority and the CHDMBC thought the access point was likely to be the only access due to the curve of the road and would avoid problems associated with multiple access points.However that would be considered fully in any subsequent applications and other solutions could not be ruled out at this time.

Provision of visibility splays to the north would not require much if any vegetation removal, but some vegetation to the south would be removed and this was in the control of the applicant.

Members wished to see an additional condition imposed restricting use of the secondary access to emergency vehicles only. Low tech bollards would be the preferred option to ensure efficient emergency access.

Resolved that

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)            Contribution to SAMM and SANG and Monitoring fee for TBH SPA (financial contribution – Exact amount to be determined under Reserved matters application)

2)            The provision of one gypsy and traveller pitch including a clear phasing for its timely delivery

3)            To secure the provision and delivery of offsite biodiversity net gain

4)            The provision and deliverability of 35% affordable housing of the following mix 53% affordable rent, 25% first homes and 22% of other affordable housing. 

5)            Secure Management Arrangements for the maintenance of the open space and equipped play spaces and public access. 

6)            To secure through a S278 agreement with the Local Highways Authority vehicular access to Trumps Green Road, provision of upgraded pedestrian crossing infrastructure over Trumps Green Road, priority junctions with Wellington Avenue, Tithe Meadows and Crown Road and the improvement of the bus stop located at Trumps Green Road, called Oak Tree Close bus stop to include.

·                     The provision of a raised kerb to a height of 140 mm over 9 metres in length to ensure level access onto/off buses for those with Motability issues

·                     New Flagpole, sign and timetable case. 

7)        Transportation improvements and contributions including:

a)            Travel Plan auditing fee of £6150

b)            From the 20^th Occupation of the dwellings on site a financial contribution to Demand Responsive Transport (DRT) Bus Service for £53,600 for index linked to RPIx from the 20^th Occupation of the units for a period of 5 years.  Should there be no other DRT’s operational in the area, a one-off contribution of £268,000 to improve the conventional bus services in the area will be made instead.  

And subject to conditions and reasons listed on the agenda,with an additional condition restricting use of secondary access to emergency vehicles only.

The CHDMBC be authorised to refuse planning permission should the s106 not progress to his satisfaction, or if any other significant material planning considerations arise prior to the issuing of the decision notice that in the opinion of the CHDMBC would warrant the refusal of planning permission and the CHDMBC be given delegated authority to specify the reasons for refusal.

(Mr Neary, an objector, and Mr Allin, agent for applicant, addressed the Committee on this application)

RU 21/1634

2 and 2a Guildford Road, Chertsey

Outline Application for the erection of a 4 to 5 storey building comprising 54 one and two bed apartments following demolition of existing vacant office building and residential home (Matters reserved: Landscaping)

Key concerns raised by Members related to bulk, scale and mass of development (in particular the prominence of the top floor within the streetscene), proximity of development including the playground to the station, use of a mansard roof and their preference for a ‘green’ roof, pressure on local infrastructure and services, scheme being out of character and failure to integrate with surrounding area, impact on residential amenities of adjoining properties, lack of amenity space, use of electrical heaters and insufficient parking.

The CHDMBC commented that whilst the site was not allocated for housing in the Local Plan, the site was in an urban area so there was a presumption in favour of development. However, this did not bind Members to approve the application. The proposal would provide a windfall contribution to affordable housing supply particularly for family homes in the borough. Like many Borough’s Runnymede was unlikely to be able to ever meet its actual affordable housing needs and so windfall schemes should be viewed positively.

The site was in a sustainable location in terms of access to local facilities and services, and the level of parking provision was appropriate. Officers did not consider the scheme caused demonstrable harm. The location of flats near a railway was not unusual and, with mitigation, an acceptable internal noise environment would be met for the occupants of the new properties. The scheme had been designed to minimise impact on surrounding residents and separation distances were considered to be acceptable.

The current proposal could meet the Council’s requirement for 10% of the energy requirement of the development to be produced from on site renewable energy sources and this would be secured by condition.

The discouragement of certain energy technologies such as electrical heaters was a direction Members were keen on exploring in the future. However,this was not relevant to this decision.

Some Members were supportive of the application as the application was an improvement on the previously refused application for the site and would provide 100% affordable housing.

A Motion to grant permission was moved and seconded, and a recorded vote was taken and the voting was as follows:

For:    5 (Councillors Broadhead, Howorth, King, Mullens and Wilson)

Against:10(Councillors Balkan, Berardi, Bromley, Cunningham, Gill,                 Mann, Nuti, Snow, Whyte and Willingale)

The Motion was lost.

Debate recommenced on whether to refuse or defer the application, following which the Committee considered that their preferred option was to defer the application to enable the CHDMBC to negotiate with the developer to seek scheme enhancements to address concerns of Members and obtain verified views of the proposal, and to secure a compromise scheme which could be acceptable to Members. Accordingly, the Committee-

Resolved that

The application be deferred to enable the CHDMBC to negotiate with the developer to seek scheme enhancements to the development to address concerns of Members and to secure a compromise scheme which could be acceptable to Members.

In the event that negotiations with the developer are not successful, the the CHDMBC be authorised to refuse planning permission for reasons based on the on the planning issues raised by Members (relating to scale,mass and

design, proximity to the road and limited opportunities for landscaping to the front)

RU 22/0686    

Longcross North- Data Centre Site, Chobham Lane, Longcross

Section 73 application for Variation of Condition 10 (approved plans) of planning permission RU.21/0780 [(Phase 3 Reserved Matters application for the development of a data centre campus comprising: a) A building(s) for data storage and processing, associated cooling infrastructure, ancillary office and technical space and roof mounted PV cells; b) Energy Centre Building; c) Stand-By Generators and fuel storage; d) HV Sub-Station; e) visitor reception centre; 3 f) hard and soft landscaping and g) new roads, paths and yards and the provision of parking for cycles, cars and commercial vehicles, and requiring: h) site preparation and earthworks, i) drainage and associated infrastructure works (including SUDS), j) the erection of walls (including retaining walls) and fences, k) the installation of external lighting and necessary physical security systems, and l) other enabling works required during the construction and operation of the data centre campus The application forms part of phase 3 of planning permission RU.13/0856 (as revised under RU.16/0584) (Hybrid planning permission for the demolition of existing buildings and redevelopment of the Longcross North site)] to seek amendments to the approved plans including relocation of the energy centre, changes to the data centre building, re-positioning of the HV substation and re-siting and redesign of the back-up generators.

The CHDMBC reported that he could have determined this application under his delegated powers, but had chosen to bring it to Committee as it was an example of improvements made to the development as a result of negotiations by Officers and as a good example of a developer who listened to the concerns raised by Members and had worked to improve their scheme even further.

The Committee was fully supportive of the variations sought which would rationalise and improve the operational efficiency of the development, the Committee welcomed the work done by the developer.

         Resolved that

         The CHDMBC be authorised to grant planning permission subject          to the conditions, reasons and Informatives listed on the agenda.

RU 22/0250

Chilsey House, Chilsey Green Road, Chertsey

Roof extension to create a second -floor extension to accommodate 9 no. residential dwellings with associated landscaping and parking.

The Committee was fully supportive of the application which would secure a reuse of a building which had been vacant for many years and make an effective use of the site for housing purposes.

Resolved that

         The CHDMBC be authorised to grant planning permission subject          to the conditions, reasons and Informatives listed on the agenda.