Proposal: 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.

The application stimulated significant debate from the committee, with one of the key issues being concerns about the proposed 24/7 usage on the site and the impact this would have on the surrounding properties, many of which were residential.

Early on in the debate it was proposed to include a condition that put a restriction on usage of the site between the hours of around 7am – 9pm to avoid overnight disruption.  The Head of Planning advised that conditions had to be necessary and for good planning reasons and officers believed that the mitigations put in place by the applicant, along with the lack of an objection from the council’s Environmental Health suggested there would be no evidence of significant harm arising that would justify a condition around usage.  Whilst it was within the gift of the committee to disagree, any condition could still be appealed and subsequently removed if there was no evidence to suggest it was necessary.

There was also debate around the proposed timing of the restrictions, with some members preferring an earlier finish time whilst another proposed overnight movement to minimise the impact on the road network.  The Head of Planning advised that 7am – 9pm would be a reasonable condition to impose and more stringent timings would be unduly restrictive and could incentivize the applicant to appeal the condition.  Applying financial penalties for not adhering to these times similar to an airport penalising airlines flying outside of agreed hours was not an option available to committee.

The location of the site and the fact that there was only one vehicle entrance/exit in and out of the area caused concern, particularly in the context of the large increase of vehicle movements in and out of the site along with the fact that area was a mixture of residential, retail and commercial properties and residents would have difficulty parking.

Concern was also raised about disruption during construction, however the Head of Planning advised that a condition imposed a construction management plan and inconvenience caused during construction was not a planning consideration, a certain degree of disruption was to be expected.

Addressing member concerns about highways capacity, the Head of Planning advised that the Council was applying for Housing Infrastructure Funding (HIF) to improve part of the strategic network, however the county council’s position as highways authority was that there was no evidence that highway capacity would be impacted by the application, which meant there were no highways grounds for refusal.  It was confirmed that the assessment was carried out in 2022, whilst it was also acknowledged that there was no onus on the developer to deliver targets made by Surrey County Council around improvements to public transport and connectivity.

The Head of Planning added that unevidenced reasons for refusing an application was likely to result in significant costs going against the council in the event of a public inquiry, whilst due regard had to be given to previous planning applications to ensure local authorities act in a consistent manner when considering planning applications.  Within this context the committee were advised that no objections were raised to the previous application’s proposed parking scheme, whilst this application had a slightly improved parking arrangements involving a bespoke car parking scheme considered appropriate for flexible use by both Runnymede and Surrey County Council officers.

When asked to clarify the point around ‘less than substantial harm’ to the conservation area, officers highlighted that the National Trust had felt the scheme was a marked improvement on previous applications in the area and in-keeping with the conservation area.

Several members acknowledged the strength of feeling from local residents, with numerous letters of objection received.  It was suggested that an additional condition preventing the long-term integration of separate buildings into one larger building be put in place to preserve the feel and character of the local area.  The committee were supportive of the proposal.

Concern was raised about the aesthetics of the proposed building, particularly around signage and numbering.  The Head of Planning advised that the final materials would be done by condition so the council would have some control over the final look.  Furthermore advertising consent would be required and considered on a case-by-case basis.

Resolved that –

i)               The HoP was authorised to grant planning permission subject to:

a.     The completion of a Section 106 legal agreement under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

b.    Planning conditions 1-17.

c.     Additional condition on the hours of usage being between 7am – 9pm.

d.    Additional condition on the number of units that could be provided to each tenant.

ii)             The HoP was authorised to refuse planning permission should the S106 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 HoP would warrant refusal of the application. Reasons for refusal relating to any such matter are delegated to the HoP.

Ms Heidi Dennis, an objector, and Mr Tim Bradshaw, agent for the applicant, addressed the committee on this application.