Proposal: Removal of existing car park ramp off Bell Bridge Road and erection of a residential apartment building (Use Class C3) comprising 46 no. flats with associated site layout amendments, as well as the provision of parking; refuse and recycling storage; substation; landscaping; tree works; public open and informal play space; and alterations to access from Fox Lane North.

The Committee were keen to find out about the relationship between a scheme of this nature and the proposed work on the A320, which had not yet commenced. 

The Head of Planning advised that for Runnymede’s local plan to be considered sound the Council had to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the examiner that there would be no significantly negative impact on the strategic network.  The Local Plan assumed a windfall rate and as such schemes that were not allocated were expected to come forward in sustainable settlement locations. There was no objection from the highway authority.

Significant HIF funding had been secured and the County Council was moving towards delivery of the A320 improvements to assist with strategic capacity. In any case the flats proposed were to a very low parking development and as such the impact of the scheme would be unlikely to be significant. A highways reason for refusal relating to harm to the A320 could not be reasonably sustained.

It was noted that the government had rolled out widespread prior approvals that effectively de-regularised planning relating to conversion of office block and allowed the conversion of office blocks into flats whilst only having to meet minimal requirements/standards.

It was stated that separation distances to existing buildings to the north of the scheme was a negative aspect of the application that added weight against it, but in the opinion of officers would not be sufficient grounds for refusal of the scheme on its own.

During the debate disappointment was expressed by several  members about the lack of affordable homes on the scheme, however it was clarified that following a viability report the developer had agreed to make an affordable housing contribution of some £346,000, however that figure was subject to going up or down at the review stage. Policy required affordable housing “where viable”. The viability report had been independently assessed by a professional viability company. Unfortunately, the rules set by government meant that certain criteria had to be taken into account in assessing these reports.

It was further clarified that the requirement for a 10% reduction in energy consumption could be achieved however the applicant saw fit so long as it was policy compliant, and the details were agreed in advance – there was no requirement for solar panels and heat pumps to be deployed.  Furthermore, whilst there was a national desire to phase out gas boilers they were not currently forbidden by local or national planning policy.

Several committee members were disappointed by the lack of parking spaces, and some members considered that public transport in the local area was poor.  The Head of Planning advised that the location would be considered sustainable in planning terms as it would have access to a range of facilities, shops and amenities by foot. As a sustainable location in planning terms a low or no parking scheme could be acceptable under the Council’s policies and SPG.

Further concern was raised in relation to the proposed building’s mass and size, as well as its proximity to locally listed buildings.  However, it was highlighted that the Council’s heritage officer had raised no objections with regards heritage impact and there was significant separation from the station building which has other large modern buildings surrounding it.

With regards design and scale, the scheme had been to an independent design review panel who had reviewed plans and deemed the scheme an acceptable design.

Some members raised concerns about the level of biodiversity net gain and eco credentials.

Members had listed a number of concerns. A motion was put forward to defer the application. The purpose of the proposed deferral was:

-        To see if the developer would be willing to make further improvements to the scheme, to resolve any of the matters of member concern listed in the debate.

-        To consider further any advice such as the design review panel conclusions or viability assessment.

-        To visit the site and gain further understanding of its context.

The Committee were in support of the deferral motion.

Resolved that –

The application was deferred for the reasons above. Officers would seek to arrange a site visit for the Committee.