Proposal: The erection of 2 new buildings, the retention of 1 x residential dwelling, and the refurbishment of 2 existing buildings to be used as offices, a training centre and fabrication bays as part of the applicant's corporate headquarters following the demolition of all remaining buildings on site. Refurbishment and decontamination of existing site and the creation of open grassed area with an area of landscaped open space.

Ward Members acknowledged the long planning history and uncertainty on the site and impact on the green belt of the proposed buildings. Some commented positively on the proposed construction-related training opportunities for local residents, the cleaning up and remediation of contaminated land on the site, which the Environment Agency had said could only be achieved through development, as well as the biodiversity net gains, including the reduction in hard standing surfaces that reduced the flood risk.

Officers acknowledged the positives mentioned and noted the developers engagement with both residents and the planning department, however on the sliding scale of potential harm, owing largely to the volume of the development and the potential for it to be increased through storage the scheme was not supportable by officers.

A Member commented on the lack of detail on the application, including in relation to bats, wildlife, detail of residential property and CIL forms, and it would be challenging to find a positive judgement without that detail.

A minority of Members felt that the weight given to open space and recreation, biodiversity and remediation of the site tipped the balance in favour of approving the application, particularly in the context of the recently-adopted Corporate Plan, and the following amended motion was proposed:

Committee approves the application and authorises the Corporate Head of Development Management and Building Control to grant planning permission, as whilst the site is in the green belt special circumstances exist to outweigh the harm, specifically strengthening the local economy and employment opportunities, provision of open space and making the best use of land, as well as appearance and character.  Further delegation to be provided to the Corporate Head of Development Management and Building Control to negotiate appropriate planning conditions with the developer.

A named vote was requested on the amended motion and the voting was as follows:

For: 4

Cllrs Coen, Howorth, Hulley, Mann

Against: 10

Cllrs Willingale, Snow, Berardi, Bromley, Cunningham, Jenkins, King, Mullens, Nuti, Whyte

Abstain:

-

The amended motion was lost.

In the original and subsequent debate, it was clear from a number of members that there were significant concerns about the quantum of development and its potential impact on the green belt. A majority of members noted that issues raised in the report and agreed with its contents.

A motion to refuse in line with officer recommendation was moved. The Motion to refuse was passed by majority.

            Resolved that –

The CHDMBC be authorised to refuse planning permission for the following reasons:

The proposed development is inappropriate development in the Green Belt and therefore by definition harmful. There are no ‘‘Very Special Circumstances’’ to outweigh this harm which is given substantial weight. The proposal is contrary to paragraphs 147, 148, 149 and 150 of the National Planning Policy Framework and policy EE19 of the Runnymede 2030 Local Plan.