Planning Applications - Runnymede Borough Council

PLANNING COMMITTEE 

21ST MAY 2003 

WARD APPLICATION LOCATION PAGE NO. 

NUMBER 

OB RU.03/0053 Central Area & Part Of Industrial Park, 1 

Sopwith Drive, Brooklands, Weybridge 

CSA RU.02/1503 Land adj. to Two Bridges Office and Land 10 

r/o the River Bourne Leisure Centre, 

Heriot Road, Chertsey 

TH RU.03/0189 Longside Lake, Thorpe Lea Road, Egham 14 

VW RU.03/0238 Redlands Farm, Lyne Lane, Virginia Water 20 

NH RU.03/0270 4 Grange Road, New Haw 26 

TH RU.03/0324 4 Warwick Villas, Thorpe Lea Road, 30 

Egham 

EGE RU.03/0327 14 Victoria Street, Englefield Green 34 

CSA RU.03/0348 Augustine House, Gogmore Lane, 40 

Chertsey 

FLO RU.03/0349 Holy Trinity Church, Lyne Lane, 48 

Chertsey 

ET RU.03/0351 51 Strode Street, Egham 52 

TH RU.03/0352 Weir Home, Temple Gardens, Staines 60 

TH RU.03/0358 Renalds Herne, Coldharbour Lane, Thorpe 64 

TH RU.03/0359 Renalds Herne, Coldharbour Lane, Thorpe 70

RU.03/0053 Date reg: 21/01/2003 Ward OUTSIDE BOUNDARIES 

LOCATION: 

PROPOSAL: 

TYPE: 

APPLICANT: 

CENTRAL AREA & PART OF INDUSTRIAL PARK, SOPWITH DRIVE, 

BROOKLANDS, WEYBRIDGE 

DEMOLITION OF BUILDINGS, REMOVAL OF PART RUNWAY, 

ERECTION OF HERITAGE/TECHNOLOGY CENTRE, DRIVING 

CIRCUIT, HOTEL, BUSINESS (CLASS B1) BUILDING WITH 

ASSOCIATED PARKING, ACCESS ROAD, RECREATIONAL PARK AND 

RIVERSIDE WALKS 

CONSULTATION BY ADJ. AUTHORITY 

Daimler Chrysler UK Retail Ltd 

Local Plan: Elmbridge Borough Local Plan (August 2000) 

1. Introduction 

1.1 This is a consultation by Elmbridge Borough Council seeking the 

Committee’s formal views, as a neighbouring Authority, on an outline 

proposal for the development of the Central Area of Brooklands. 

2. Site 

2.1 The Central Area of Brooklands comprises the former British Aerospace 

runway together with parts of the remaining historic racing track. It is 

bounded on the east by the River Wey, to the south by residential 

development, to the west by the Brooklands Industrial Park and Sopwith 

Drive and to the north by the embankment of the London-Portsmouth 

railway line which also marks the administrative boundary of Runnymede. 

2.2 The Central Area lies within the Green Belt and also in an area liable to 

flood. The current application site which extends over some 60ha and in 

addition to the Central Area includes a triangular piece of land in the northwest 

corner adjacent to the Brooklands Industrial Park which is within the 

urban area (employment use) as defined in the Elmbridge Local Plan. 

2.3 The whole site is also within the Brooklands Conservation Area. 

2.4 The means of access to Brooklands on the western side is via the A318. 

This access connects through Brooklands to the B374 on the eastern side 

and the A245 to the south. The A318 enters the Borough under the single 

arch railway bridge at Byfleet and New Haw station. The A318 runs 

northwards crossing the Wey Navigation at the junction with Woodham 

Lane (B385) and continues north through the centre of Addlestone to 

Addlestone Moor where it connects with the A317, the feeder road leading 

to Junction 11 of the M25. 

2.5 The Central Area has a wide variety of uses, many of which are understood 

to be unauthorised. The more significant uses include a Sunday Market, a 

motor bike training compound, a Kart racing circuit and the open storage of 

vehicles. 

3. History

3.1 Brooklands has a long and complex planning history upon which this 

Council has made formal representations from time to time when it 

appeared that proposed developments would adversely affect the Borough. 

Such has been the case with the various schemes for the redevelopment of 

the Central Area, including proposals in 1990 for a business park of some 

65,000m 2 (700,000 sq ft). 

3.2 The Committee objected strongly to that 1990 proposal on the grounds of 

the Green Belt, employment and housing policy issues and the problems of 

traffic generation. 

3.3 The application was subsequently dismissed on appeal following a Public 

Inquiry at which the Council gave evidence. 

3.4 The Brooklands Local Plan First Alteration 1992 finally confirmed the 

Central Area within the approved Green Belt, following a Local Plan Inquiry 

and a High Court challenge. The relevant Local Plan is now the Elmbridge 

Borough Local Plan which was adopted in August 2000. 

3.5 In 1998 the Council was consulted on a proposal for the erection of a 60 

bed hotel (2,323m 2 ), restaurant (325 m 2 ), offices (2,787 m 2 ) and tennis 

centre (790 m 2 ) - with associated recreational open space, landscaping and 

flood compensation works, following demolition of the Air Hanson building 

(RU.98/0455). The Committee at its meeting in June 1998 raised no 

objections subject to the applicants entering into an appropriate agreement 

to secure the remainder of the Central Area (outside the proposed built 

development) as open land and to preclude its possible future 

development. In addition, the Committee expressed the need for very 

careful consideration to be given to the proposed improvements to the 

River Wey and in particular the safety aspects as the river here (and 

through Runnymede) is very fast flowing. 

4. The Proposals 

4.1 This is an outline application by Daimler Chrysler UK Retail Ltd for the 

demolition of some existing structures and removal of part of the runway, 

the construction of a Mercedes Heritage and Technology Centre (of 8,500 

m 2 footprint) with driving circuit, an 80 bed hotel, Class B1 offices 

development (of 3,690 m 2 footprint), the formation of a new access road, 

provision of a recreational park with riverside walks and parking for all uses. 

There would additionally be flood compensation works, clearance of 

unauthorised uses and fly-tipping and extensive car parking and 

landscaping. 

4.2 The Heritage and Technology Centre (HTC) would comprise a range of 

facilities associated with Mercedes Benz cars, including sales and 

servicing, a ‘driver experience facility’, provision for corporate events, 

heritage and technology exhibition space and space for public events and 

catering. 

4.3 The application lists the following elements: 

• the construction of a Heritage and Technology (HTC) building; 

• the construction of driving experience circuit;

• the creation of an additional access to the Brooklands Museum and the 

provision of a replacement car park; 

• the development of an hotel; 

• the development of B1 business premises on allocated employment 

land within Brooklands Industrial Estate; 

• a landscaping and lighting scheme for the area north of the Wellington 

Way; 

• the gifting of land south of the Wellington Way for the creation of a 

community park (south of the Wellington Way), and the creation of a 

permissive riverside pathway (on land north of the Wellington Way); 

• remediation works to an area of contaminated land at the foot of the 

Byfleet Banking in the southern portion of the Central Area; 

• the development and implementation of a Conservation and 

Management Plan for the historic features of the Central Area; 

• removal of the Air Hanson Building (1,985 m 2 ) 

• flood compensation measures; 

• offering the Wellington Way for adoption as a public highway; 

• facilitating the provision of a bus service between the site and adjoining 

railway stations. 

4.4 The main built elements are the HTC building, the hotel and the B1 

premises. These three buildings are to be located at the northern end of 

the site immediately south of the railway line. 

4.5 The HTC comprises what the applicants described as a ‘landmark’ or 

‘signature’ building up to 21.75m high. The building is stated as having “a 

number of purposes” but with the “main objective” being “to celebrate the 

history, technology and achievements of the Mercedes-Benz brand of 

automobile” and will house displays, information and historical artefacts 

from the long history of the Mercedes-Benz brand, technology, safety 

features and automobile information will also be featured, a restaurant and 

other hospitality facilities, multi-purpose theatre, exhibition areas, 

conference areas, after-sales technology and diagnostics area, reception, 

car exhibitions, a retail and specification area and a viewing terrace and 

gallery. 

4.6 The application is accompanied by a full Environmental Statement (ES) 

under the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) 

(England and Wales) Regulations 1999. 

4.7 With regard to access and transport, the ES includes a traffic assessment 

which concludes that the “predicted impacts of the proposed development 

will cause nil detriment to highway and road junctions”. The applicants 

state that this will be achieved through a combination of removal of most of 

the existing uses that generate traffic, implementation of a ‘Brooklands-wide 

Travel Plan’ and proposed improvements to the bus route from Woking to 

Weybridge.

4.8 The ES has since been supplemented by an ‘Alternative Sites Study’ 

(received by this Council in May 2003) which seeks to assess the 

acceptability of other potential sites within the south east of England. 

5. Consultations 

5.1 Elmbridge Borough Council is the Planning Authority for this application and 

responsible for undertaking the required consultations. 

5.2 The application has been subject to public advertisement by the applicants 

under the Environmental Assessment Regulations and by Elmbridge 

Borough Council. 

6. Planning Considerations 

6.1 The main considerations so far as this Borough is concerned in respect of 

this application are those of Green Belt policy, the likely impact of traffic 

generation, and any flooding implications. The County Council will be 

looking at the strategic planning issues including the possible contribution 

of the development to the spatial strategy of the emerging Structure Plan in 

relation to economic growth. Other considerations including conservation, 

flooding, landscaping and design are essentially matters for Elmbridge 

Borough Council. 

Green Belt Issues 

6.2 The Inspector who reported on the 1990 appeal considered that there was 

“no doubt” that the Central Area of Brooklands “serves to divide not only the 

two towns [Byfleet and Weybridge] but the east and west areas [of 

Brooklands]” and that “it serves a clear Green Belt function in terms of the 

advice in PPG2”. PPG2 (Green Belts) provides for a presumption against 

inappropriate development within the Green Belt which includes the 

construction of new buildings unless for specified purposes. The major built 

development now proposed would consist of a Heritage and Technology 

Centre for Mercedes coupled with the construction of a driving experience 

circuit, the creation of an additional access to Brooklands Museum, a 

replacement car park and an hotel, all located to the northern end of the 

Central Area within the Green Belt. The development of Class B1 office 

premises would be on the remaining part of the allocated strategic 

employment land of the Brooklands Industrial Estate, again to the northern 

end close to the main railway embankment. 

6.3 The proposals for buildings within the Green Belt are inappropriate 

development and therefore, by definition, a form of encroachment and 

harmful. Very special circumstances are required for an exceptional case, 

sufficient to override the harm caused by inappropriateness and any other 

material harm. 

6.4 With regard to very special circumstances, the proposals place heavy 

emphasis on the heritage aspects of the scheme including the restoration of 

surviving features, re-instatement of others, and the connection with the 

Brooklands Museum. In addition the proposal includes the provision of a 

community recreational park and a public thoroughfare along Wellington

Way, and deals with what are understood to be an increasing number of 

unauthorised uses on the land and also areas of contamination. 

6.5 The Alternative Sites Study (ref. para 4.8 above) has now been submitted 

as further evidence of the very special circumstances to justify a case for 

development. The study comprised an 18 month review of various sites 

using specified selection criteria and search methodology. It concludes that 

Brooklands is the only one that met or partially met all the search criteria 

chosen. The DERA site at Longcross was among the sites assessed in the 

Study. 

6.6 It is acknowledged that the proposals offer an opportunity for achieving a 

number of local benefits, for example the Community Park, as well as 

potential for safeguarding the unique Brooklands heritage resource which is 

nationally important. In addition the scheme would provide some certainty 

and protection for the remaining open Green Belt within the Central Area, a 

matter which the Committee felt was important with the previous scheme 

(ref. para 3.5 above). However the proposal represents a major incursion 

into the Green Belt on Runnymede’s boundary and on land which forms an 

integral part of the broad sweep of open countryside which comprises the 

shallow valley of the River Wey. It is not considered that the very special 

circumstances claimed are sufficiently compelling to justify an exceptional 

case for such a significant departure from Green Belt policy. 

6.7 The Alternative Sites Study does not appear to have undertaken a 

sufficiently robust assessment of other sites to demonstrate that 

sequentially more preferable sites for either the whole scheme or elements 

of it are unavailable. It is therefore considered that this study adds little 

weight to the claimed very special circumstances. 

6.8 An objection on Green Belt policy grounds is therefore recommended. 

Highway and Transportation Issues 

6.9 The main areas of concern for this Authority in respect of these issues are 

how the proposed development might impact upon the Borough’s highway 

network and the potential environmental affect this might have. The 

applicant’s Traffic Assessment (TA) has concluded that there will be “nil 

detriment to highway and road junctions” and that the proposed Travel Plan 

has the potential to further improve the travel situation. 

6.10 The TA predicts a 2% increase in two-way vehicular movements in Byfleet 

Road as a result of the proposed development. It is understood from the 

County Highways Authority that an increase of this order would not give rise 

to concern in terms of highway capacity. 

6.11 The County Council has however indicated that at the present time 

adequate transportation infrastructure to accommodate the development 

has yet to be agreed and the likely traffic generation and potential 

environmental impact has not yet adequately addressed. There are 

therefore important outstanding concerns in relation to strategic 

transportation policy and it is therefore recommended that an objection 

should also be raised in this respect.

Flooding Issues 

6.12 The site lies within the flood plain of the River Wey. The application is 

accompanied by a Flood Risk Assessment (FRA). The FRA identifies 

various mitigation measures and these have been incorporated with the 

proposed scheme to compensate for the loss of flood capacity. The views 

of the Environment Agency are not known, however the concerns for 

Runnymede will be that such measures are sufficient to ensure the 

development will not increase the risk of flooding downstream within the 

Borough. Elmbridge Borough Council should be requested to have full 

regard for this concern in their consideration of the application. 

Conclusion 

6.13 The Committee would undoubtedly wish to support an acceptable scheme 

which secured the long term future of the Central Area of Brooklands in a 

satisfactory manner in terms of both the Green Belt, the local highway 

network and matters of flooding. Clearly it will be for Elmbridge Borough 

Council, in the first instance, to assess whether or not this is an acceptable 

scheme given all the circumstances and material considerations. In coming 

to any such decision Elmbridge Borough Council will among other matters, 

need to consider fully this Borough’s objections in respect of the Green Belt 

and highways-related issues and to ensure that the concerns regarding 

flooding are adequately addressed. 

Officers’ Recommendation 

OBJECT for the following reasons: 

1. The proposal conflicts with the policy for the preservation of the 

Metropolitan Green Belt, as defined and described in Policies PE1 

and PE2 of the Surrey Structure Plan 1994, Policy LO4 of the Surrey 

Structure Plan Deposit Draft December 2002 and Policy GB2 of the 

Elmbridge Borough Local Plan August 2000, and it is not considered 

that sufficient reasons have been put forward in support of the 

application to amount to very special circumstances justifying the 

development. 

2. It has not yet been demonstrated that the proposals are compatible 

with the transport infrastructure in the area, in terms of the level of 

trip generation and the impact of the development traffic on the local 

highway network, contrary to the requirements in Policy MT2 of the 

Surrey Structure Plan Deposit Draft December 2002 and the advice 

in Planning Policy Guidance Note 13. 

Informatives: 

1. Elmbridge Borough Council are requested to ensure that the 

development will not give rise to any increased risk of flooding from 

the River Wey downstream of the site, but which lies within the 

Borough of Runnymede.

RU.02/1503 Date reg: 30/12/2002 Ward CHERTSEY ST ANNS 

LOCATION: LAND ADJACENT TO TWO BRIDGES OFFICE & LAND R/O THE 

RIVER BOURNE LEISURE CENTRE HERIOT ROAD, CHERTSEY 

PROPOSAL: ERECTION OF GUARDRAILS ALONG FOOTPATH ADJACENT 

TO THE RIVER BOURNE 

TYPE: FULL PLANNING PERMISSION 

APPLICANT: Director of Administration and Leisure, Runnymede Borough 

Council 

Local Plan: 

Policies relevant to the consideration of this application are: 

Second Alteration, April 2001: SV2, BE24, BE5, BE2 

1. Site 

1.1 The area of land subject to this application is a footpath which lies adjacent 

to the River Bourne running from the office buildings at Two Bridges to the 

rear of the River Bourne Leisure Centre and is within the flood plain and 

Chertsey Conservation Area. 

2. History 

2.1 No previous history. 

3. Application 

3.1 The applicant has applied to erect guardrails, which would be 

1.25 metres high, and run for a length of 120 metres. 

3.2 The guardrails would be made of galvanised steel and be painted black. 

3.3 The application requires permission, as the proposal is over 1 metre in 

height, adjacent to a highway. 


4.1 The application has been advertised in local newspapers and 

has been advertised in the Council’s weekly list of 

applications. Four individual letters have been sent out to 

neighbouring properties. No letters of representation has 

been received. 

4.2 The County Highways Authority have no requirements to make regarding 

this application. 

4.3 The Council’s Conservation Advisor has been consulted and has no 

concerns with regards to the proposal.


5.1 The site is located within the Chertsey Conservation Area and the flood 

plain; therefore these are the main considerations to be taken into account 

when determining this application. 

5.2 In terms of the impact the proposal would have on the 

Conservation Area, it is considered that the proposal by 

reason of its purpose for safety and simplistic design would 

not unduly harm the characteristics of the Conservation 

Area. There are a variety of railing types, with no fixed 

standard, within the surrounding vicinity. The proposed 

railings would not be out of keeping with the surroundings 

or harmful to the characteristics of the Conservation Area. 

5.3 The railings would be only some 5 cms higher than could be erected under 

permitted development. 

5.4 Having regard to the impact on the flood plain, the guardrails would be of an 

open design, enabling flood water to flow through and as such would not be 

an impediment. 

5.5 In conclusion, it is considered that the proposal would not harm the 

characteristics of the Conservation Area, nor would it adversely affect the 

flood plain. Therefore is considered to be in accordance with policies within 

the Local Plan and is recommended for approval. 

5.6 Consideration has been given to the requirements of Article 8 and Article 1 

of the First Protocol of the European Convention on Human Rights. It is not 

considered that the granting of permission would result in a violation of any 

objectors’ rights under the Convention. 


GRANT subject to the following conditions: 

1. Duration (Other than Outline) (C3) 

2. No Departure (Full Applications) (C4) 

Informative: 

1. The applicant is advised that this decision relates to the following 

drawing numbers received on the dates shown :- 

Drawing Number: 

Date Received: 

Red Line Plan 20.12.02 

Details of Guardrail 20.12.02

Any permission hereby granted shall not be construed as authority to 

carry out works on the highway. The applicant is advised that a 

licence must be obtained from the Highway Authority before any 

works are carried out on any footway, footpath, carriageway, verge 

or other land forming part of the highway.

RU.03/0189 Date reg: 18/02/2003 Ward THORPE 

LOCATION: 

PROPOSAL: 

TYPE: 

APPLICANT: 

LONGSIDE LAKE, THORPE LEA ROAD, EGHAM 

RENEWAL OF PLANNING PERMISSION RU.97/0445 TO ALLOW 

BAREFOOT AND WATER SKIING ON THE LAKE 

FULL PLANNING PERMISSION 

Lafarge Aggregates Limited 

Local Plan: 


Second Alteration April 2001: GB1, GB5, SV2 

1. Site 

1.1 Longside Lake is located on the western side of the M25 Motorway. The 

main access to the site is a bridge over the motorway, which can be 

accessed off Thorpe Bypass that runs parallel to the motorway. The village 

of Thorpe is located to the east of the site and Thorpe Green to the south. 

1.2 The motorway runs along the eastern boundary and is raised slightly higher 

than the lake and the surrounding fields. This boundary is open with the 

exception of some sparsely spaced trees. The western boundary consists 

of a line of dense trees and the dwellings beyond these trees are not visible 

from the site. To the south of the site are the residential dwellings in Thorpe 

Green. The rear gardens of these properties back on to an open area 

leading down to the lake. 

1.3 The lake covers a significant proportion of the site. There is a small island 

at the northern end of the lake, which has a number of trees located upon it. 

The main access over the bridge is also at the northern end of the site. At 

this end of the site is an open area. There is evidence of the former 

clubhouse in the form of some hard standing in this area. 

1.4 The site is in the Green Belt, within the Flood Plain and in an Area of 

Archaeological Importance. 

2. History 

2.1 There is substantial history for the site, below is the most relevant to this 

application. 

2.2 RU.82/0769 Outline application for erection of Club building 

(Retrospective) 

GRANT 

24/01/1983 

2.3 RU.97/1145 Proposed extension of use to allow barefoot and water 

skiing 

GRANT 

17/02/1998 

2.4 RU.01/0075 Temporary parking of up to 25 static caravans 

for a period of up to 31st December 2002 

REFUSE 02/02/2001


3.1 This is a full application for the renewal of Planning Permission RU.97/1145 

to allow barefoot and water skiing on the lake. 

3.2 Planning Permission RU.97/1145 restricted the use of the lake for barefoot 

and water skiing to the months of May until September. The hours of use 

were also restricted to between 5pm and 9.30pm Monday until Friday, 9am 

until 9.30pm on Saturdays and 11am until 9.30pm on Sundays and Bank 

Holidays. Although this application is for the renewal of Planning 

Permission RU.97/1145 there would be three alterations - these are the 

user, the months of the proposed use and the hours of use. 

3.3 The previous consent which was never implemented was personal to 

Waterboatmen Limited. The owners Lafarge Aggregates Limited are 

looking to let the site to a recognised barefoot and water skiing body. The 

proposed use would operate between March and September and during the 

afternoons during weekdays and from 10.00 a.m. to 8 p.m. on Saturdays 

and Sundays. 

3.4 The applicant has not proposed changing rooms, a clubhouse or any other 

built structure with this application. 


4.1 The application has been advertised on the Council’s Weekly list of 

Planning Applications and 26 individual letters of notification have been sent 

out to neighbouring properties. Seven letters of objection have been 

received, the contents of which are summarised below; 

• Noise 

• Disturbance to wildlife 

• Water Pollution 

• Generation of Traffic 

• Similar facility exists nearby (Thorpe Water Ski) 

• Devalues Property 

• Increase in foot traffic would affect privacy and security 

• Concerns for the safety of the general public using the lake and 

surrounding area; such users include fishermen, windsurfers and 

students sunbathing 

4.2 Surrey Wildlife Trust have no objection to the proposal. 

4.3 Surrey County Council’s Archaeological Officer has been consulted and has 

no objection 

4.4 County Highways Authority have no objection to the proposal.

4.5 No adverse comments have been received from the Environmental 

Protection Section on this application. 

4.6 


5.1 This is a full planning application for the renewal of Planning permission 

RU.97/1145 to allow barefoot and water skiing on Longside lake. The main 

considerations for this application are the impact on the Green Belt, and the 

impact on the residential amenities of the neighbouring properties. 

5.2 Planning permission RU.97/1145 established the principle of the proposed 

use in the Green Belt. There have been no significant changes in policy 

affecting this proposal since 1998. 

5.3 Policy GB1 of the Runnymede Borough Local Plan Second Alteration April 

2002 states that one of the objectives of the Green Belt is to provide 

opportunities for access to the open countryside for the urban population 

and to provide outdoor sport and outdoor recreation near urban areas. This 

policy is taken directly from Planning Policy Guidance Note 2: Green Belts 

(January 1995). The proposed use is an appropriate outdoor recreational 

use in the Green Belt. The use does not conflict with the openness of the 

Green Belt particularly as no built development has been proposed. 

5.4 Paragraph 31 of Planning Policy Guidance Note 17: Planning for Open 

Space, Sport and Recreation states that planning applications which rely on 

a natural feature, in this instance water, should only be granted where the 

impact of the sport and recreational activities on natural features can be 

minimised. The applicant is proposing that there would be one boat towing 

one skier at any one time. The applicant states that there would be a 

maximum of 40 car movements in a day, this would be 20 in and 20 out. It 

is considered that this would be a low-key use which would not be 

detrimental on this natural feature. Surrey Wildlife Trust do not object to this 

proposal from a wildlife perspective. 

5.5 The neighbouring properties most likely to be affected by the proposal are 

the 15 dwellings located to the south of the lake on Thorpe Green. The 

main access to the site is at the northern end therefore it is unlikely that the 

use would generate additional vehicular or significant foot traffic at the 

southern end of the lake. The applicant states that the lake would only be 

used by one boat with one skier at any one time. This level of activity can 

be controlled by a condition. This low-key use is unlikely to generate noise 

levels above that of the adjacent motorway or cause significant disturbance 

to these dwellings which are located a substantial distance from the edge of 

the lake. 

5.6 Concerns relating to the value of property and the safety of users on the 

lake are not material planning considerations.

5.7 It is however recommended that this application be granted on 

a temporary basis for two years to monitor the noise and 

disturbance impact on the residential amenities of the 

neighbouring properties and the wildlife on the lake. 

5.8 Consideration has been given to the requirements of Article 8 

and Article 1 of the First Protocol of the European 

Convention on Human Rights. It is not considered that the 

granting of permission would result in a violation of any 




1. Temporary Period (C27) - ‘2’ ’31.5.05’ 


3. The use hereby permitted shall only be carried out between 1st 

March and 30th September each year and at no other time without 

the prior consent, in writing, of the Planning Authority. 

Reason: In the interests of the amenities of residential properties in 

the area. 

4. The use hereby permitted shall only be carried out between 12.00 

and 20.00 hours Mondays to Fridays, 10.00 and 20.00 hours on 

Saturdays, Sundays and Bank Holidays and at no other time without 

the prior permission, in writing, of the Planning Authority. 

Reason: In the interests of the amenities of residential properties in 

the area. 

5. No amplification or public address system shall be operated on the 

site. 

Reason: To accord with the terms of the application. 

6. No floodlights should be erected on the application site and the lake 

shall only be used for sporting activities during daylight hours. 

Reason: In the interests of the ecology of the area. 

7. There shall be only one boat towing one skier on the lake at any one 

time. 

Reason: To ensure a low key use in order to protect the residential 

amenities of the neighbouring properties and the wildlife.

Informatives: 





Site Plan x 2 17.2.03 




works are carried out on any footway, footpath, carriageway, verge or 

other land forming part of the highway. 

2. The applicants/potential users’ attention is drawn to the requirements 

of the International Water Ski Federation Environmental Handbook 

for Towed Water Sports and the British Water Ski National Water 

Skiing Facilities Strategy before commencing any skiing on the lake. 

In addition, the applicant should conduct a bird survey to verify the 

species of birds and wildlife on and around the lake and discuss any 

mitigation measures with the Surrey Wildlife Trust (tel. no. 01483 

488055).

RU.03/0238 Date reg: 04/03/2003 Ward VIRGINIA WATER 

LOCATION: 

PROPOSAL: 

TYPE: 

APPLICANT: 

REDLANDS FARM, LYNE LANE, VIRGINIA WATER 

ERECTION OF 22.85 METRES HIGH EMERGENCY SERVICES MOBILE 

RADIO COMMUNICATIONS TOWER WITH 2 PANEL ANTENNAS 

TOGETHER WITH ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT CABINETS AND 

COMPOUND FOR A TEMPORARY PERIOD OF 2 YEARS 


Airwave mm02 

Local Plan: 


Second Alteration April 2001: SV3, GB1, BE10 

1. Site 

1.1 Redlands Farm is located on the western side of Lyne Lane, near the 

junction of the M25 and M3. The two busy motorways run to the east and 

south of the site. There is a residential area to the north of the site beyond 

the river. 

1.2 Lyne Lane is considerably higher than the surrounding fields and is lined 

with trees standing at a height of 8–10 metres, which continue around the 

adjacent fields and along the river. There are two other radio masts either 

side of Lyne Lane near the application site. 

1.3 Redlands Farm, Redlands Farm Barn and The Church of Holy Trinity are all 

Grade II listed buildings in the vicinity of the site. 

1.4 The site is located within the Green Belt. 

2. History 

2.1 The history below relates to telecommunication development on Redlands 

Farm and not specifically to the plot identified for this proposal. 

2.2 RU.92/0833 20 metre high telecommunications tower with 6 no. sectored 

antennas and 2 no. 600 mm diameter transmission dishes 

mounted on top, plus, fenced compound containing tower 

and base transceiver station. (Rev. plans received 13.11.92) 

GRANT 04/12/1992 

2.3 RU.95/0614 Extension of existing 20 metre high telecommunications 

mast to 25 metres GRANT 22/08/1995 

2.4 RU.00/0564 Notification under part 24 of the GDPO 1990, for the 

installation of 1 equipment cabin, 4600mm dish and 6 

antennas on existing 25 metre mast, including enlargement 

of compound GRANT 30/05/2000 

3. Application

3.1 This is a full application for the erection of an emergency services mobile 

radio communications tower with 2 panel antennas together with associated 

equipment cabinet and compound for a temporary period of two years. 

3.2 It would be located in the south eastern corner of a field adjacent to Lyne 

Lane (which is 6–7 metres higher than the field) in close proximity to the two 

other radio masts on the northern side of the M25. 

3.3 The communication tower would be a lattice style and have a height of 22.85 

metres. There would also be an equipment cabin and a generator. Security 

fencing (1.4 metres in height) would be erected around the tower and 

associated equipment. 

3.4 The applicant seeks planning permission for a temporary period of two 

years. There is a requirement to cover an area to the west of the M25/M3 

junction along the M3 and including Virginia Water. The most suitable site 

for the long-term is an existing mast at Chertsey sewage treatment works. 

This site however would not be available in time for the start of Airwave 

(previously known as Public Safety Radio Communications Project) and 

therefore a temporary arrangement is required. 

3.5 A supporting letter has been submitted as part of the application from the 

Airwave Project Manager for Surrey Police. The letter outlines the 

background of the application and the importance of Airwave in the 

operational policing throughout the Borough of Runnymede. Airwave is to 

be delivered against a national government contract by mmO2, which won 

the contract after a European competition. The letter states that: “The 

Government has effectively mandated police forces to use the system by 

providing national funding arrangements. It has also withdrawn the radio 

frequencies used by our current systems and sold them for use by others – 

they will be unavailable to us by 2005. Therefore, there is no ‘do nothing’ 

option for Surrey Police, nor is there an opportunity to adopt a different 

course of action – we must implement Airwave within Surrey.” 


4.1 The application has been advertised on the Council’s weekly list. One letter 

of objection has been received from The Thorpe Ward Residents’ 

Association. The Association objects on grounds of visibility and noise. 

The letter states that the site is in an area which is highly visible from all 

directions and there is minimal existing screening available. In addition it is 

commented that the noise from the generator would have a detrimental 

effect on the surrounding area. 

4.2 The County Highways Authority has been consulted and has no 

requirements 


5.1 This is a full application for the erection of a 22.85 metre high emergency 

services mobile radio communications tower with 2 panel antennas together

with associated equipment cabinets and compound for a temporary period 

of 2 years. 

5.2 The main considerations for this application would be the impact on the 

openness of the Green Belt in terms of its siting and appearance. 

Consideration also needs to be given to the impact of the proposal on the 

residential properties to the north of the site and the setting of the Grade II 

Listed Buildings. 

5.3 Paragraph 65 of Planning Policy Guidance Note 8: Telecommunications 

(August 2001) states that in Green Belts telecommunication developments 

are likely to be inappropriate unless they maintain openness. Inappropriate 

development may proceed only if very special circumstances are 

demonstrated which outweigh the degree of harm to the Green Belt. The 

lack of a suitable alternative site that would meet the needs of network 

coverage or capacity might be considered as very special circumstances. 

5.4 The applicant is currently negotiating a site share arrangement at Chertsey 

sewage treatment site. This site share will not be in place by this summer 

when the Public Safety Radio Communication Project starts. This site is a 

temporary arrangement only. The applicant states that the two masts in the 

immediate vicinity are not tall enough or strong enough for mast sharing. 

Both masts would need to be demolished and replaced which is not a 

practical solution for a temporary arrangement. The applicant also states 

that the antennas used by cellular and Airwave masts are different and it is 

not technically possible to mount the antennas at the same level on the 

same structure. 

5.5 Surrey Police state that radio communication is essential for effective 

policing. The current radio systems are entirely unsuitable for the modern 

environment. Two different systems, one for contact with vehicle mounted 

sets and one for handheld sets are in use. Both types are elderly and both 

use technology that is nearly obsolete. Currently radio coverage for the 

emergency services is patchy, signal quality is frequently poor and it is easy 

to monitor transmissions. Airwave is a digital, encrypted system that will 

provide hugely improved transmission quality, greater reliability and 

protection from eavesdropping. It can also allow private calls between 

officers as well as enhanced facilities for dealing with incidents (there are 

opportunities to effect common radio communication between the different 

emergency services which is currently almost impossible). 

5.6 Surrey Police state that this is not a commercial ‘phone operation but is a 

service on which operational policing depends. 

5.7 The mast would be located adjacent to Lyne Lane and the M25 and M3 

junction. The carriageway is 6-7 metres higher than the field in which the 

communication tower would be sited. Viewed from any angle the tower 

would have a backdrop of trees, although it would be higher. Given the 

proposed location there is also the infrastructure associated with the 

Motorways including signage, bridges, street lamps, telegraph poles and the 

two additional masts in the locality. Consequently it will not be seen as too 

much of an isolated or prominent structure. It is considered that a

combination of the location, the temporary nature of the mast and its 

importance to the Police service constitute a very special circumstance for 

allowing inappropriate development in the Green Belt. 

5.8 As Redlands Farm, Redlands Farm Barn and The Church of Holy Trinity are 

listed buildings in the locality. Special regard must be given to the setting of 

these listed buildings. Given the substantial distance between the proposed 

site and these buildings it is unlikely that proposed communication tower 

would be detrimental to the setting of these listed buildings. 

5.9 The nearest residential properties along Green Lane are in excess of 200 

metres to the north of the proposed site. The dwellings are beyond the river 

and trees, which line the river. From this direction it is possible to see the 

mast through the trees, but it would sit in front of the motorway and the 

sewage treatment works which are located beyond. Given this background 

and the distances involved it is unlikely that the proposal would be an 

incongruous or detrimental development. It is considered that these 

residents are unlikely to be seriously affected by the proposal. 

5.10 In response to the letter of objection received, the issues relating to visual 

impact are set out in paragraphs 5.6 and 5.7 above. In reference to the 

noise from the generator, it is unlikely that the generator would produce 

noise levels above that of the two nearby motorways, which are in close 

proximity. 

5.11 An ICNIRP Compliance Notice has been submitted which demonstrates that 

the installation would conform with the ICNIRP public exposure guidelines 

and conforms with the precautionary approach recommended by the 

Stewart Group’s report “mobile phones and health” laid out in Planning 

Policy Guidance Note 8: Telecommunication (August 2001). 








2. The use hereby permitted shall be discontinued and the land 

restored to its former condition on or before 22nd May 2005. This 

would include the removal of the telecommunication tower, the 

associated equipment cabin, the generator and security fencing. 

Reason: To limit the effect of the proposal on this sensitive Green 

Belt site and its effect on the visual amenities of the area. 

3. The mast, associated equipment cabinet and generator hereby 

permitted shall be painted grey or olive green unless otherwise 

agreed in writing by the Planning Authority.

Informative: 

Reason: In the interests of visual and residential amenities. 





SUR042-SUR042C-01A 28.2.03 

SUR042-SUR042C-02A 28.2.03 

SUR042-SUR042C-03A 28.2.03 

SUR042-SUR042C-03C 28.2.03 

ICNIRP Compliance Notice 28.2.03 

Justification & Supplementary Information 28.2.03 






RU.03/0270 Date reg: 12/03/2003 Ward NEW HAW 

LOCATION: 

PROPOSAL: 

TYPE: 

APPLICANT: 

4 GRANGE ROAD, NEW HAW 

ERECTION OF TWO STORY SIDE AND REAR EXTENSION 


Mr M. Groves 

Local Plan: 


Second Alteration, April 2001: BE2 and HO9. 

1. Site 

1.1 The application site is occupied by a two-storey semi-detached dwelling 

situated at the eastern side of the carriageway of Grange Road. The 

property is surrounded by a number of residential properties and is within 

the urban area of New Haw. 

2. History 

2.1 CHE.16918 Erection of a garage. Building Regulations Only. Granted 

20/08/1963. 


3.1 The applicant has applied for full planning permission for the erection of a 

two storey side and rear extension which is 8.65 metres deep at ground 

floor level, reducing to 8.0 metres at first floor level, by 2.5 metres wide and 

has a hipped roof with a ridge height of 8.0 metres. The development would 

be constructed and finished in materials to match the existing property. 


4.1 The application has been advertised on the Council’s weekly list and six 

letters have been sent to neighbouring properties. 

4.2 One letter of representation have been received and their concerns are 

summarised below: 

• significant reduction in the amount of daylight to a ground floor room of 

No.6 Grange Road; 

• further reduction in the amount of daylight to the garden due to the 

presence of a tall fir tree; 

• first floor bedroom rear bedroom window would overlook the rear garden 

of No.6 Grange Road resulting in a loss of seclusion and privacy; and, 

• approval would set a precedent in favour of large extensions.

4.3 The County Highways Authority have no requirements to make 

regarding this application. 


5.1 The application site is located in the Urban Area of New Haw where the 

principle of development is considered acceptable providing that the 

development does not adversely impact upon the street scene or 

neighbouring properties’ residential amenities. 

5.2 With regard to the impact the development would have on the street scene, 

the proposal is located inline with the existing property and visible from the 

street. It is considered that by virtue of its design and roof treatment, and 

the fact that it is set off the boundary by 0.85 metres, it is considered that 

the proposal will not have an adverse effect on the street scene. 

5.3 With regard to the impact on neighbouring properties’ residential amenities, 

it is considered that given the fact the proposal would be set off the 

boundary by 0.85 metres, its depth, and roof treatment, there would be no 

undue overlooking, or overshadowing. In relation to loss of privacy, there is 

an existing boundary fence between No.6 and No.4 Grange Road which 

would ensure there was not a significant loss of privacy to the detriment of 

residents at the ground floor level. In relation to the loss of privacy resulting 

from the proposed first floor level, the fact that the boundary elevation 

window is to be fitted with obscure glazing, in conjunction with the fact that 

the extension does not extend beyond a notional 45 o line of No.6 Grange 

Road it is considered that there are no grounds to warrant refusal. 

5.4 It is concluded that the appearance of this extension is acceptable and 

would not be detrimental to the area nor would the amenity of adjoining 

residential properties be significantly affected. 




person’s rights under the Convention 





3. Harmonising External Materials (Submission of Details/Samples) 

(C30) 

Informative: 


drawing numbers received on the dates shown :-



1059/SH/1 11.03.03 

1059/SH/2 11.03.03 







LOCATION: 

PROPOSAL: 

TYPE: 

APPLICANT: 

4 WARWICK VILLAS, THORPE LEA ROAD, EGHAM 

ERECTION OF FIRST FLOOR SIDE EXTENSION 


Mr & Mrs Sanders 

Local Plan: 


Second Alteration, April 2001: HO9, BE2 

1. Site 

1.1 No. 4 is a two-storey semi-detached dwelling facing south-west onto Thorpe 

Lea Road. It has a single storey, flat roof side extension to its south-east 

elevation. Warwick Villas comprises of 6 pairs of semi-detached houses on 

either side of the entrance to Warwick Avenue. 

1.2 The site is located within the Urban Area. 

2. History 

2.1 The most recent and relevant planning history for the site is outlined below: 

2.2 RU.92/0519 Single storey extension to side of dwelling. Granted 1992. 

2.3 RU.00/0120 Formation of vehicular access onto Thorpe Lea Road. 

Granted March 2000. 

2.4 RU.00/0242 Retention of existing guttering to side extension. Granted 

May 2000. 


3.1 This is a full application for the erection of a first floor side extension above 

the existing flat roof side extension. 

3.2 It would have a width of 3 metres to the edge of the existing side extension. 

It would have a depth of 9.1 metres and would be stepped back 0.75 metres 

from the front elevation of the existing side extension. The eaves’ height 

along the south-east elevation would be increased from 3.2 metres to 3.6 

metres. The roof would be pitched in from the side boundary and would 

have a maximum height of 5.9 metres. The south-east roof elevation would 

include two velux windows. 

4. Consultation 

4.1 This application has been advertised on the Council’s weekly list of planning 

applications received and 3 individual letters have been sent to neighbouring 

properties. Two letters of representation have been received from 

neighbouring properties raising the following issues:

• The side extension would be unsightly, intrusive, overcrowded and out-ofkeeping 

with the surrounding area. 

• The existing side extension remains unfinished, un-rendered and poorly 

constructed. 

• Two-storey side extensions will result in a terracing effect. 

• The proposal will overlook No. 5 and cause overshadowing. 

4.2 The County Highways Authority has been consulted and has no 

requirements. 


5.1 This is a full application for the erection of a first floor side extension directly 

above an existing single storey side extension. The main considerations for 

this application are the impact upon the street scene and character of the 

area and upon the neighbours’ residential amenities. 

5.2 Warwick Villas are two-storey semi-detached houses with hipped roofs. 

They are located on either side of the entrance to Warwick Avenue. 

Several have two-storey, flat roof rear extensions visible from Warwick 

Avenue. The adjoining house, no. 3, has converted the original hipped roof 

to a gable end with a rear facing, flat roof dormer window. The south-east 

end of Warwick Avenue is characterised by a mix of terraced and semidetached, 

two-storey houses. Many of the houses have side or rear 

extensions that vary in size and design. 

5.3 The proposed side extension would in effect result in a 1.5 storey extension 

which appears to be designed to have a minimum impact upon the 

neighbouring dwelling no. 5. Warwick Villas are staggered and the proposal 

would be partially obscured and not particularly prominent in the street 

scene. The general design of the extension is not considered to particularly 

enhance the character of the area, but would not result in terracing or 

serious visual harm. There are a broad mix of extensions found in the 

immediate area. The design and scale of the scheme is not considered to 

unduly harm the character of the surrounding area. 

5.4 The proposed eaves height would be increased by 0.4 metres from the 

existing height along the south-east common boundary. The roof would be 

pitched away from the side boundary to an angle matching the existing main 

roof elevation. The proposal includes two south-east facing roof windows. 

The extension appears to be designed to minimise any additional issues of 

overbearing effect, overshadowing or loss of privacy upon no. 5 Warwick 

Villas. The proposal is considered to have an acceptable impact upon the 

residential amenities of the neighbouring dwellings.




objector’s rights under the Convention. 






(C30) 

4. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning 

(General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any order revoking 

and re-enacting that Order with or without modification) no additional 

windows, dormer windows or other openings shall be formed in the 

extension including the roof (other than those expressly authorised 

by the approved drawings) without the consent in writing of the Local 

Planning Authority. 

Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the occupiers of the 

adjoining residential properties. 

5. Notwithstanding any indication otherwise given on the plan hereby 

permitted, the high level windows in the south-east facing roof 

elevation shall have a minimum internal cill height of 1.65 metres 

above finished floor level. 

Informative: 

Reason: In the interests of amenity of the neighbouring property, no. 

5 Warwick Villas. 





1641 Issue A 20.3.03 






RU.03/0327 Date reg: 25/03/2003 Ward ENGLEFIELD GREEN EAST 

LOCATION: 

PROPOSAL: 

TYPE: 

APPLICANT: 

14 VICTORIA STREET, ENGLEFIELD GREEN 

ERECTION OF TWO STOREY SIDE AND REAR EXTENSIONS, FRONT 

AND REAR DORMERS AND CONVERSION OF EXISTING LOFT 

SPACE ALL TO FORM 3 ADDITIONAL FLATS 


Mr J Wall 

Local Plan: 


Second Alteration, April 2001: HO1, HO9, BE2, SHO1 

1. Site 

1.1 No. 14 is a two-storey property fronting north onto Victoria Street. It is 

located in a terrace of five units, which have a mix of residential and 

commercial/retail uses at ground floor. The properties in the terrace have 

rear, two-storey extensions which appear to be original. No. 12 in the 

terrace appears to have a loft conversion with roof windows. 

1.2 The site is located within the Urban Area. 

2. History 

2.1 There is no recent or relevant planning history for the above site. 


3.1 This is a full application for the erection of a two-storey side and rear 

extension and front and rear dormer windows to the existing building. The 

extensions would enable the provision of three additional flats. The shop 

unit on the ground floor would remain as existing. 

3.2 The side extension would have a maximum width of 3.8 metres, a height of 

8.1 metres and a total depth of 11.3 metres. It would project approximately 

2.5 metres beyond the existing rear elevation. The scheme includes an 

external staircase to its eastern elevation. 

3.3 The scheme also includes two front north facing pitched roof dormer 

windows and one rear, south facing dormer. The proposed dormer units 

are all of the same design. They would have a maximum height of 2.7 

metres, a width of 2.4 metres and would project 2.9 metres from the existing 

roof pitch.


4.1 This application has been advertised on the Council’s weekly list of planning 

applications received and 5 individual letters have been sent to neighbouring 

properties. Four letters of representation have been received from 

neighbouring properties raising the following issues: 

• The additional flats would increase the amount of cars parking along 

Victoria Street. 

• The scheme includes no off-street car parking. Loss of on-street car 

parking spaces would make it difficult for existing customers to park and 

they may seek alternative shopping arrangements. 

• The proposal would result in over-development of any already densely 

built up area; 

• The rear extension is out of character with the rear building line of 13, 13a, 

14, 15 and 15a Victoria Street; 

• The proposal would result in loss of amenity to the adjoining properties; 

• The rear extension would be an overbearing and intensive form of 

development; 

• The scheme does not include any fire safety measures; 

• The front dormers are out of keeping with the terrace. 

4.2 The County Highways Authority has been consulted as part of this application 

and makes no requirements given the central location and the existing 

parking restrictions in the vicinity. 


5.1 This is a full application for the erection of a two-storey rear, side extension 

and front and rear dormer windows. The extensions and alterations would 

provide three additional flats, resulting in four residential units and one retail 

unit in total. The majority of the development would be to the rear of the 

site. The scheme does include two north facing dormer windows. The site 

is within the local shopping centre in Englefield Green and is located within 

the Urban Area. 

5.2 The proposed extension would be located between the existing rear 

extensions at No’s 14 and 15. It would include several windows facing 

westwards towards the two-storey rear extension at No. 15. This extension 

does not include any windows or openings in its eastern elevation. It 

includes an external staircase that is screened by a 1.8 metre close 

boarded fence along the eastern common boundary with No. 13. The 

proposed extension is considered to have an acceptable impact upon the 

residential amenities of the neighbouring properties.

5.3 The terrace is two-storey with a pitched roof. No. 12 appears to have a loft 

conversion with front velux window. There are no dormer windows in the 

north, front roof elevation of the terrace. The proposed dormer windows are 

in line with the existing windows at first floor level at No. 14. The position 

and design of the dormers is not considered to detract from the character of 

the terrace or the surrounding area. 

5.4 The proposal creates three additional flats at No. 14. There appears to be 

residential accommodation above each unit in the terrace. The adopted 

Parking Standards are for a maximum of one space per flat in such 

locations. The County Highways Authority have made no requirements for 

the proposal. None of the existing flats in the terrace would appear to have 

off-street parking. No.14 is within walking distance of bus stops and public 

car parking on St Judes Road. The proposal makes effective use of a site 

within both the urban area and the village centre. It also provides for small 

units of accommodation. Whilst this scheme has no on-site car parking, it is 

in a central location within walking distance of most community services and 

is considered to comply with Government guidance contained within PPG3 

‘Housing’ and PPG13 ‘Transport’. 

5.5 Consideration has been given to the requirements of Article 8 and Article 1 of 

the First Protocol of the European Convention on Human Rights. It is not 


objector’s rights under the Convention. 






(C30) 

4. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning 

(General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any order revoking 

and re-enacting that Order with or without modification) no additional 

windows, dormer windows or other openings shall be formed in the 

extensions including the roof (other than those expressly authorised 

by the approved drawings) without the consent in writing of the Local 


Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the occupiers of the 

adjoining residential properties.

5. The proposed 1.8 metre close-boarded fence screening the steps 

along the rear, eastern common boundary (as shown on drawing 

0224/6 received 24th March 2003) shall be retained and maintained 

in perpetuity unless otherwise first agreed in writing with the Planning 

Authority. 

Reason: In the interests of the residential amenities of the 

neighbouring property, no. 13 Victoria Street. 

Informatives: 

1. The applicant is advised that this planning permission does not 

convey the right to enter onto or build on land not within his 

ownership. 





Site Plan 24.3.03 

0224/1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7 24.3.03 






RU.03/0348 Date reg: 27/03/2003 Ward CHERTSEY ST ANNS 

LOCATION: 

PROPOSAL: 

TYPE: 

APPLICANT: 

AUGUSTINE HOUSE, GOGMORE LANE, CHERTSEY 

DEMOLITION OF EXISTING OFFICE BUILDING AND ERECTION OF 

TWO STOREY OFFICE BUILDING AND AN ANCILLARY BUILDING 

OUTLINE PLANNING PERMISSION 

Mr W D Taylor 

Local Plan: 


Second Alteration April 2001: 

MV9, BE2, SV2. 

LE1, LE2, TC1, TC2, MV4, 

1. Site 

1.1 Augustine House is an existing two storey office building with ancillary 

single storey workshops, located within the town centre of Chertsey. The 

site falls within the urban area and within the flood plain. The site is 

surrounded by commercial development to both sides and on the opposite 

side of Gogmore Lane. Residential properties are located immediately to 

the rear of the site, which front Riversdell Close. 

2. History 

2.1 RU.87/0089: Erection of two storey office building. Withdrawn 20.03.87 

2.2 RU.87/0327: Two storey office building and storage building. GRANT 

15.06.87 

2.3 RU.94/0292: Change of use from builders yard to office use and rear 

extension. GRANT 25.05.94 

2.4 RU.02/0103: Replacement office building (outline). Withdrawn 24.04.02 

2.5 RU.02/0798: Replacement office building Refused 19.09.02 


3.1 The applicant seeks outline permission for the erection of a replacement two 

storey office building, following the demolition of all existing buildings within 

the site. This application has been submitted in an attempt to overcome 

concerns raised under application RU.02/0798. At this outline stage, the 

applicant seeks consent only for the siting and the means of access to the 

building. All other matters will be submitted at a later stage as reserved 

matters.

3.2 The application seeks consent for a two storey building with a gross external 

floor area of 483 square metres. The development will be located in a 

similar position to the existing building, with its main frontage along the 

boundary of the site with Gogmore Lane. The building will be increased in 

width by some 2.6 metres, and the depth will be increased by 2.6 metres. 

One of the existing vehicular accesses will also be permanently closed as 

part of the scheme. 

3.3 A single storey detached cycle and refuse store of some 33 square metres 

would be located to the south west of the building. Parking would be 

concentrated to the rear of the building, comprising 16 spaces, two of which 

would be allocated for disabled persons. A landscape buffer zone would be 

created along the rear boundary, to a depth of just under two metres. 

3.4 The application drawings state that the building may be divided into two 

separate units. As this would not entail a material change of use of the 

premises, it is considered that prior planning permission would not be 

required for this. 


4.1 The application has been advertised in the Council’s weekly list of 

applications and 43 letters have been sent to properties surrounding the 

site. In response to the above consultation, 1 letter of objection has been 

received from Prospect on behalf of all of the businesses located at 

Flaxman House. The letter outlines the following concerns: 

• Concerns in respect of the proposed demolition of the 

boundary wall and construction near the existing boundary with 

Flaxman House. Special care should be taken during any 

demolition/construction to ensure that no damage or inconvenience is 

caused. 

4.2 In addition a letter has been received from The Chertsey Society who raise 

concerns that there is an over provision of office development within 

Chertsey, many of which are vacant. The Society confirm that they would 

be willing to remove their objection if the building was designed with the 

appropriate plumbing and wiring so that it could be easily adapted to either 

residential or office use depending upon the state of the local market. The 

society advise that this approach would be in accordance with the objectives 

of the Housing and Transport Task Group of the Local Strategic 

Partnership. They also request that an archaeological watching brief is 

maintained on the site. 

4.3 The County Highway Authority recommends conditional approval. 

4.4 Formal views are awaited from the Environment Agency.


5.1 The application site is in existing commercial use within the urban area of 

Chertsey Town Centre. There is no objection in principle to its 

redevelopment. Concerns were raised under recent applications given the 

proposed height and position of the building and its possible impact upon 

existing residential properties to the rear. 

5.2 This revised scheme has adjusted the overall depth of the building to 9.2 

metres, retaining a revised distance of some 15.6 metres to the rear 

boundary of the site. In addition the applicant proposes a two metre deep 

strip of landscaping along the rear boundary of the site. If permitted the 

proposed building would be located some 2.6 metres closer to the existing 

residential properties to the rear than the original building. At its closest 

point, the proposal would be located some 30 metres from the main rear 

walls of residential properties along Riversdell Close. This would be a 

similar distance to that already existing between those residential properties 

along Riversdell Close and Hamilton Court, a commercial development 

adjacent to the application site. In addition the applicant has confirmed that 

all windows located upon the rear elevation facing these properties would 

be designed with obscure glass or be high level, in order to prevent 

overlooking and loss of privacy to existing residential properties along 

Riversdell Close. 

5.3 This revised scheme is considered to have overcome earlier concerns. 

Whilst the new building would be closer to existing properties than the 

original building, the distance retained is considered sufficient to protect the 

amenities of residential properties to the rear, so as to prevent unacceptable 

levels of overlooking and loss of privacy. The revisions are also felt to have 

overcome concerns relating to overbearing impact. The applicants also 

propose a planting strip along the rear boundary, which would help screen 

the proposal from rear dwellings. The proposed types and height of planting 

would have to be considered during the submission of reserved matters. 

5.4 The plans also detail the erection of a 3.3 metre high wall along the rear 

boundary with properties on Riversdell Close. The current concrete fencing 

has a maximum height of 2.4 metres. Following discussions with the agent 

he has confirmed that the rear boundary has been increased in height 

following a request by local residents along Riversdell Close. Whilst the 

proposed screening to the site is not to be considered at this stage, 

concerns are raised in respect of this increased height and the impact upon 

the visual amenities of the area. It is considered however that any 

replacement screening should not be any lower than the existing concrete 

fence extending to a height of 2.4 metres in order to protect the amenities of 

neighbouring residential properties.

5.5 In respect of concerns raised by the occupiers of Flaxman House, it is 

considered that their comments relating to potential damage to their 

property during demolition and construction is not a planning issue. If any 

problems occur during the proposed works, this will be a civil issue between 

both properties. Whilst the points raised by The Chertsey Society are well 

made, this Authority could not reasonably refuse permission on those 

grounds for an office development given the existing use of the site. In 

addition the site does not fall within an Area of High Archaeological 

Importance and therefore the Authority cannot insist upon the imposition of 

an archaeological watching brief. 

5.6 Whilst the external design of the building is not being considered at this 

outline stage, the applicant has provided street scene elevations to give an 

impression of the potential scale of the building proposed, and the 

bicycle/refuse store. This street scene elevation suggests that a building of 

the floor area proposed would be in character with existing commercial 

properties along Gogmore Lane, in terms of its height and scale. The street 

scene elevations suggest that the height of the building would be increased 

by some 0.6 metres. 

5.7 Following an on site level survey, the applicant has demonstrated that 

existing levels beneath the proposed building are above the 1 in 100 flood 

plain level of the River Thames. Therefore there is no requirement for 

underfloor voids beneath the building. 

5.8 The County Highway Authority raise no objection to the closure of one of the 

existing accesses, and believe the level of parking provision to be in line 

with their standards. Whilst the proposed redevelopment will result in an 

increase in staff numbers from that existing, it is considered that a refusal 

could not be sustained as it fully complies with adopted parking standards. 




objectors' rights under the Convention. 


Subject to receipt and consideration of the views of the Environment 

Agency, THE DIRECTOR OF TECHNICAL SERVICES BE AUTHORISED 

TO GRANT permission following consultation where appropriate with the 

Chairman or in his absence the Vice-Chairman of the Committee, subject to 

the following conditions: 

1. Approval of the details of the design, external appearance of the 

buildings and hard and soft landscaping of the site (hereinafter called 

“the reserved matters”) shall be obtained from the planning authority 

in writing before any development is commenced, and shall be 

carried out as approved. 

Reason: 

To comply with article 4 of the Town and Country 

Planning (General Development Procedure) Order 1995.

2. Duration (Outline) (C2) - "(a) and (b)" 

3. The detailed drawings to be submitted for the approval of the 

Planning Authority shall include a comprehensive scheme depicting 

the hard and soft landscaping of the site, at a scale not less than 

1:200. The soft landscaping shall provide for the planting of trees 

and shrubs within the site, with particular attention along the rear 

boundary of the site adjacent to residential properties along 

Riversdell Close. All landscaping, when approved, shall be carried 

out in full accordance with the approved plans. All soft landscaping 

shall be carried out in the first planting and seeding season following 

the occupation of the building, or the completion of the development, 

whichever is the sooner, or such longer as may be agreed by the 

local planning authority in writing. All planting shall be maintained for 

a period of five years, such maintenance to include the replacement 

of any trees and shrubs that die, are removed, or become seriously 

damaged or diseased, with others of similar size and species, unless 

the planning authority gives written consent to any variation. 

Reason: 

To ensure the provision and maintenance of trees, 

shrubs, grassed and turfed areas in the interests of the 

visual and residential amenities of the area. 

4. Details of Fencing/Walls (C23) - “details of all fencing, screen walls 

and gates shall be submitted” (R23) “In the interest of visual 

and residential amenity”. 

5. External Materials (Submission of Details/Samples) (C29) - "details 

and samples" 

6. The development shall not be occupied until the modified northerlymost 

vehicular access to Gogmore Lane has been constructed in 

accordance with the approved plans, all to be permanently 

maintained to a specification to be agreed in writing with the Local 


Reason: 

Condition 6 above is required in order that the 

development should not prejudice highway safety, the 

free flow of traffic nor cause inconvenience to other 

highway users and to comply with Surrey Structure Plan 

Policies MT2 and MT3 and Runnymede Borough Local 

Plan Policies MV4 and MV9.

7. The existing southern-most vehicular access from the site to 

Gogmore Lane shall be permanently closed to vehicles as set out on 

the application drawings and any kerbs, verge, footway, full 

reinstated by the applicant, in a manner to be agreed in writing with 

the Local Planning Authority and thereafter maintained as such. 

Reason: 






Plan Policies MV4 and MV9. 

8. No new development shall be occupied until space has been laid out 

within the site in accordance with the approved plans for cars/cycles 

to be parked and for vehicles to turn so that they may enter and leave 

the site in forward gear. The parking/turning area shall be used and 

retained exclusively for its designated use. 

Reason: 






Plan Policies MV4 and MV9. 

9. Method of Construction Statement (HC8) (a)-(c) and (d) provision of 

boundary hoarding (behind visibility zones). 

10. Protection of Highway from Mud (HC10) 

11. The proposed bin store shall be provided as detailed upon the 

approved plans within a 25 metre carry distance of Gogmore Lane. 

(HR1) 

12. Provision for Sustainable Modes (HC12) - (a) secure cycle parking 

(HR2) 

13. Raising of Ground Levels (C119) 

Informatives: 

1. Under the terms of the Water Resources Act 1991, the prior written 

consent of the Environment Agency is currently required for any 

discharge of sewage or trade effluent onto or into ground and for 

surface run off into ground water. Such consent may be withheld. If 

there is an existing discharge consent the applicant should ensure 

that any increase in volume is permitted under the present 

conditions. Contact Ian Doyle on 01276 454365 for further details. 

2. The applicant is informed that under Condition 3 detailed above, this 

Authority will require the provision of tree planting along the rear

oundary of the site in order to seek to protect the amenities of 

neighbouring residential properties to the rear. Details to be 

submitted shall include the proposed species, number/density, height 

and spacing of planting to allow this Authority to fully consider the 

proposed scheme. 

3. The applicant is advised that special consideration needs to be paid 

to the design, position and use of windows proposed upon the first 

floor rear elevation of the replacement building, so as to limit the 

impact of the proposal upon existing residential properties to the rear. 

4. The applicant is advised that in respect of condition 12, cycle storage 

should be provided on a basis of 1 x “Sheffield” type stand per 125 

square metres with a minimum of 2 spaces. Stands in groups should 

be undercover, secure, lit and adequately signed. Further details 

shall be submitted in reference to the design of any external lighting, 

and the proposed level of illumination to ensure that the amenities of 

neighbouring residential properties are not detrimentally affected. In 

addition the applicant is advised that the proposed gates as detailed 

on the submitted site plan should be sited so as to retain a minimum 

distance of 5 metres from the edge of the carriageway. 

5. Design Assistance Available From County Engineer (H(Inf)7) 

6. Licence for Scaffolding etc (H(Inf)12) 

7. Reinstatement Works Following Change of Access (H(Inf)14) 

8. Dispersal of Mud (H(Inf)15) 

9. Inter-Visibility Splay (H(Inf)18) 

10 The applicant is advised that this decision relates to the following 




1900.101B 27.03.03 

1900.207 27.03.03 




works are carried out on any footway, footpath, carriageway, verge or 

other land forming part of the highway.

RU.03/0349 Date reg: 27/03/2003 Ward FOXHILLS 

LOCATION: 

PROPOSAL: 

TYPE: 

APPLICANT: 

HOLY TRINITY CHURCH, LYNE LANE, CHERTSEY 

CONSTRUCTION OF ASPHALT PATH ACROSS CHURCHYARD TO 

SCHOOL GATE 


Parochial Church Council 

Local Plan: 


Second Alteration, April 2001: GB1 

1. Site 

1.1 Holy Trinity Church is a Grade II Listed Building, located within the Green 

Belt, along Lyne Lane. The area subject to this application is located in the 

middle of the site in the northern section. 

2. History 

2.1 The application site has an extensive planning history, none of which is 

directly relevant to the determination of this application. 


3.1 The applicant has applied for the construction of a new footpath, which 

would go through the graveyard, leading from the Church to the School. 

The path would be 2.4 metres wide, 12 metres long and be constructed of 

black tarmac. 


4.1 The application has been advertised on the Council’s Weekly list of planning 

applications and three letters have been sent out to neighbouring 

properties. One letter of objection has been received from the neighbour at 

137 Fangrove Park, and a summary of their concerns is as follows: 

• There is an adequate roadside path from the school to the church, which 

has been used for years. 

• The churchyard is an area of peace and beauty and should not be 

crossed with more asphalt. 

4.2 County Highways have no requirements to make regarding this application. 


5.1 The main consideration for this application is the effect the development 

would have on the Green Belt.

5.2 Development within the Green Belt is highly restricted and any such 

proposal must demonstrate that it would not conflict with the purposes of the 

Green Belt, i.e. preventing urban sprawl, preserve the setting and special 

character of towns and adversely affect its open character. 

5.3 The proposed development is for an additional path. Following a site visit, it 

was noted that all the paths outside the church are black tarmac, therefore it 

is considered that the proposal would be in keeping with the existing 

building and churchyard. Furthermore, whilst it is recognised that it would 

result in an increase in asphalt-covered area within the Green Belt, there is 

an existing grass path, which is currently used by the school, and the 

proposal would make this all-weather and ensure a safe access from the 

school to the church. 

5.4 Whilst the concerns of the neighbour are noted, it is considered that the 

proposal by reason of its location and design is in keeping with the existing 

footpaths within the Churchyard and it would not adversely affect the open 

character of the Green Belt, or the setting of the Church and Lyne Village. 

5.5 In conclusion, the proposal is considered to be in accordance with policies 

within the Local Plan and is recommended for approval. 









Informative: 





Unique Plan 1 27.3.03 






carry out works on the highway. The applicant is advised that a




RU.03/0351 Date reg: 27/03/2003 Ward EGHAM TOWN 

LOCATION: 

PROPOSAL: 

TYPE: 

APPLICANT: 

51 STRODE STREET, EGHAM 

ERECTION OF TWO STOREY DETACHED DWELLING WITH OFF 

STREET PARKING FOLLOWING DEMOLITION OF EXISTING 

BUILDINGS 


Mr D Lineham 

Local Plan: 


Second Alteration April 2001: BE2, HO1, HO9, MV9 

1. Site 

1.1 The site comprises 0.02 hectares and lies within the urban area. It is 

located on the southern side of Strode Street near its junction with Hummer 

Road. The site is surrounded by residential properties. 

1.2 The plot is currently vacant with single storey wooden sheds and 

miscellaneous items stored on the land. 

2. History 

2.1 The site was formally a builders yard and was also used for the storage of 

motor vehicles. 

2.2 In 1989 permission was refused for the erection of a new dwelling on the 

site (RU.89/0418). This was subsequently dismissed on appeal in 1990. 

2.3 In 1994 permission was refused for the erection of a detached two-storey 

house (RU.94/0787). 

2.4 In 1994 a further application for the erection of a detached two bedroom 

bungalow was also submitted (RU.94/0804). This application was refused 

in December 1994 dismissed on appeal in 1995. 


3.1 This is a full planning application for the erection of a two storey detached 

dwelling with off street parking following the demolition of the existing 

buildings. 

3.2 The application forms state that the gross floor area of the proposed 

building would be 104 sq metres. The plans show that the dwelling would 

be sited some 1 metre away from the common boundary with no.49 Strode 

Street and that the dwelling would have a maximum width of some 8 metres 

and depth 8 metres.

3.3 One off street parking space would be provided for the two-bedroom house. 

The dwelling would be sited some 2.5 – 3 m back from the frontage and be 

a minimum distance of some 4 metres away from the common boundary 

with no.53 Strode Street. A garden area would be provided along this side 

and at the rear with the rear garden depth a minimum of some 3.5 metres. 

3.4 The dwelling would have a ridged with gable ends on the side elevations 

and a height of some 5.1 metres to the eaves and some 7.7 metres to the 

ridge respectively. The single storey projections at the front and rear would 

have lean-to ridges with maximum height at some 4 metres. The front bay 

would also have a lean-to ridge with a maximum height at some 3.1 metres. 

3.5 A Design Statement has been submitted in support with the main points 

summarised below: 

• The Inspector who dismissed RU.94/0804 concluded that the scheme 

had addressed concerns about the size of the site and the impact on 

adjoining properties but that a bungalow was out of character with the 

area; 

• The proposal follows the established pattern in Strode Street with the 

eaves height matching that at no.49 Strode Street and the main front 

wall set at the same building line. The projecting bay is similar to other 

bays on houses further down the road; 

• The siting, internal layout and fenestration ensures that there would be 

no overlooking for neighbours and the siting also results in a reasonably 

sized coherent garden space with the dwelling not too close to no.53 

Strode Street; 

• The existing use is out of keeping in a predominantly residential area. 

The buildings are dilapidated and the land is unkempt and used for 

dumping of rubbish. The site is an eyesore; 

• There is a demand for housing in the area, in particular affordable. This 

proposal would provide this. 


4.1 The application was advertised on the Council’s weekly list and nine 

individual letters of notification were sent out. Two letters of support have 

been received summarised below: 

• In favour of removing run down semi-commercial buildings to replace 

with a house in a residential area; 

• Existing site is a rubbish dump and therefore welcome its removal. 

(However, request that the building operations be confined to within the 

site as parking is bad enough in the street at present.) 

4.2 Two letters of objection have been received. The objections are 

summarised below:

• Cannot see what has changed for the better from the earlier refusals; 

• The applicant owned the site when the previous applications were 

refused. The site has been allowed to fall into disuse and neglect by 

deliberate dumping by the owners over the years. The site has resulted 

in an environmental health hazard. This has been used as a basis for 

seeking approval; 

• No mention is made of the distance of the dwelling from the common 

boundary with no.46 Hummer Road; 

• The sewerage layout for the proposal is not given. Sewerage blockages 

have been caused in the past by the owners of 53 Strode Street. This is 

because the sewer lines empty into the cesspit sited on the front garden 

of 46 Hummer Road; 

• Loss of view and outlook from first floor side un-obscured window at 49 

Strode Street towards Coopers Hill area and associated loss of light; 

• Concern that the open 1 metre gap next to no. 49’s garage would reduce 

the current level of security. Request that provision is made for a tall 

wrought iron fence or similar to deter unauthorised access. 

4.3 The County Highways Authority has no objection subject to the imposition of 

planning conditions. 


5.1 The site lies in the urban area and so in principle there is no objection to a 

new dwelling. The proposal is in line with Planning Policy Guidance Note 3: 

Housing (PPG3) 2000 and Policy HO1 (Maximising Housing Potential) 

which encourage initiatives to make full and effective use of land within 

existing urban area, particularly vacant and derelict land. 

5.2 Therefore the main issues to consider are whether the proposal would 

respect the established character and street scene pattern of the area, and 

safeguard visual and residential amenities. 

5.3 The area is predominantly residential with Hummer Road and Strode Street 

containing a mix of detached, semi-detached and terraced dwellings with a 

variety of architectural detailing. The Inspector who considered RU.94/0804 

described the site area as dwellings mostly turn-of-the-20th century, twostorey 

cottages and often tightly packed. Whilst he agreed that the area 

had no very special architectural character he did consider that there was a 

consistency of building type, which meant that the overall townscape was 

not without merit. Since 1994 the character of the area has not significantly 

changed and so the Inspector’s site appraisal is still applicable. 

5.4 Given the established character, it is considered that the proposal would not 

appear cramped or incongruous. A minimum distance of 1 metre away from 

the closest boundary would be acceptable given also that this would be 

adjacent to the single storey garage at no.49 Strode Street. The rear

garden depth would be below the minimum standard advocated by Policy 

HO9 but be substituted for by the proposed side garden and also reflect 

neighbouring gardens some of which are also below the minimum standard. 

5.5 The dwelling has been sited further away from Cornerways (no.53 Strode 

Street) and closer to no.49. This is considered to be the logical design 

solution as no.49 follows the generally uniform building pattern of Strode 

Street. Cornerways is at odds with the prevailing character i.e. dates from 

the 1930s and is a hipped roofed dwelling sited at an angle towards the 

Hummer Road junction. 

5.6 The height of the proposal would be compatible with the neighbouring 

dwellings with the eaves and ridge heights approximately the same and the 

overall bulk and mass would be in keeping with the established street 

scene. 

5.7 Having regard to residential amenities, the potential for most impact would 

be on the adjoining neighbours, namely no.49 Strode Street and no.46 

Hummer Road. Cornerways has no facing side windows and given that the 

dwelling is sited away from the common boundary it is considered that there 

would be less of an impact on this dwelling. 

5.8 No.49 would be more affected given the close proximity of the proposal to 

the side boundary. However, no. 49’s side garage would increase the 

separation and assist in reducing the impact. Furthermore, no.49 only has 

one facing window at first floor level. There would be no facing windows in 

the proposed dwelling and loss of privacy should not be significant. 

Concern has been raised that the position of the proposed development 

would reduce light to the window and cause a loss of outlook. It is 

acknowledged that there would be some impact but the likely effect is not 

considered significant enough to warrant a refusal given the site’s 

orientation and the juxtaposition of existing buildings. 

5.9 No.46 Hummer Road is a chalet bungalow with a facing first floor window. 

The first floor layout of the proposed development has been arranged so 

that the bedroom windows would be at the front with only one bathroom 

window facing no.46. This arrangement is considered satisfactory and 

should cause no adverse loss of privacy. At ground floor level a condition 

would be necessary to ensure that boundary fencing, or equivalent, is 

erected and retained to safeguard privacy. 

5.10 It would be unreasonable of the Planning Authority to insist on a gate 

between no.49 and the flank wall of the new development for security 

purposes under the remit of this application. In any case it could be argued 

that the development would improve surveillance by removing a vacant, 

more open plot that has already been used for tipping. The imposition of a 

condition relating to the erection of fencing would however help alleviate this 

concern. 

5.11 Concern has also been raised over the intended sewerage for the 

development and hence the Council’s Drainage Department has been 

consulted. The Council’s records indicate that Cornerways (51 and 53) 

Strode Street and 46 Hummer Road are connected to the public foul sewer 

by a shared pipe. The chamber referred to by the neighbour is likely to be 

where the drainage of the two properties combines together. Cornerways

was connected to the public sewer in 1935 and 46 Hummer Road was 

connected into the drain serving Cornerways in 1964. Normally a Deed of 

Easement would be entered into which would stipulate the responsibilities 

for maintenance and repair of the drains and sewers serving the properties. 

Dependent on any terms that might be included in an existing deed of 

easement, the applicants have no right to allow a connection of a new 

dwelling into an existing shared drainage system without entering into a 

Deed of Easement or modifying an existing one. The owners of no.46 

Hummer Road do not have to enter into a Deed of Easement and they 

should seek legal advice on this civil matter. 

5.12 Alternatively the new property could connect into the existing sewer along 

Strode Street. In any case the provision of drainage is primarily dealt with 

by Building Regulations legislation. Under the Water Industry Act consent 

should also be sought from Thames Water for any connection made either 

directly or indirectly into their sewer. An informative can be imposed relating 

to this. Given that the site lies on the edge of the 2002 Indicative Flood 

Plain identified by the Environment Agency, it is also prudent that there is an 

informative relating to this matter. 

5.13 The Council’s adopted parking standards (October 2001) is for a maximum 

of two spaces for two bed dwellings. The proposed one space is acceptable 

given the site’s sustainable location in walking distance of Egham Town 

Centre. Furthermore, the County Highways Authority has no objection. 

5.14 The guidance contained within PPG3 and Policy HO1 constitute material 

changes to circumstances since the previous appeal decisions. In addition, 

there are a number of differences between this proposal and the previous 

appeal schemes. In summary, this proposal is considered to represent a 

visual improvement and to comply with development plan policies. 









3. Details of Fencing/Walls (C23) – delete ‘dwellings’, insert ‘dwelling’ 

4. External Materials (Submission of Details/Samples) (C29) 

5. Permitted Development Removed (Class A, GPDO) (C35) – R35b 

6. No Windows in …………… Elevation (New Dwelling) (C61) – 

‘in the elevations of the dwelling hereby permitted’ 

7. No Soakaways (C122)

8. The development shall not be occupied until the proposed modified 

vehicular access to Strode Street has been constructed in 

accordance with the approved plans, all to be permanently 

maintained to a specification to be agreed in writing with the Local 


Reason: The above condition is required in order that the 

development should not prejudice highway safety, nor 

cause inconvenience to other highway users. 

9. A pedestrian inter-visibility splay of 2m by 2m shall be provided on 

each side of the access, the depth measured from the back of the 

footway and the widths outwards from the edges of the access. No 

fence, wall or other obstruction to visibility between 0.6m and 2m in 

height above ground level shall be erected within the area of such 

splays. 

Reason: The above condition is required in order that the 



10. No new development shall be occupied until space has been laid out 

within the site in accordance with the approved plans for a car to be 

parked. The parking area shall be maintained exclusively for its 

designated use. 

Reason: 

The above condition is required in order that the 



Informatives 

1. The applicant is advised that a deed of easement, under civil law, 

may need to be entered into if the development hereby permitted is 

connected to an existing shared drainage system. Under the Water 

Industry Act consent should also be sought from Thames Water for 

any connection made either directly or indirectly into their sewer.

2. The site lies on the edge of the 2002 Indicative Flood Plan as 

identified by the Environment Agency. The applicant is therefore 

advised to contact the Environment Agency to seek guidance on any 

requirements under their legislation. 






Block Plan 27.3.03 

DP01 27.3.03 

SP01 27.3.03 

AL01, 02, 03 27.3.03 

Design Statement 27.3.03 







LOCATION: WEIR HOME, TEMPLE GARDENS, STAINES 

PROPOSAL: FELLING OF TWO NORWAY MAPLE TREES TO THE FRONT OF 

THE PROPERTY 

TYPE: TREE APPLICATION 

APPLICANT: Mr Weir 

Local Plan: 


Second Alteration April 2001: NE12, NE13 

1. Site 

1.1 Weir Home is a detached bungalow located on the southern side of Temple 

Gardens. To the front of the dwelling is a large driveway with two accesses 

onto the road. A 0.5 metre high brick wall runs along all front boundaries. 

Along the front boundary are two large Norway Maple trees which are 

subject to Tree Preservation Order No.294. 

1.2 The site is in the urban area. 

2. History 

2.1 RU.99/0150 Crown reduce to reshape and balance crown of two Norway 

Maples, crown clean and crown lift to 5 metres and remove 

epicormic growth and Ivy from trunk GRANT 10/03/00 

2.2 RU.98/1285 Felling of seven Fir trees (Lawson Cypresses) protected by 

condition 3 and 4 of planning permission RU.97/1330 

GRANT 26/01/99 

2.3 RU.98/0347 Felling of two Norway Maples subject to Tree Preservation 

Order No.294 REFUSE 08/07/98 


3.1 This is an application for the felling of two Norway Maple trees to the front of 

the property. The applicant wishes to fell these trees as they are believed to 

be unhealthy and have experienced some falling debris. It is proposed that 

the existing trees would be replaced with smaller trees. 

4. Consultation 

4.1 The application has been advertised on the Council’s weekly list of Planning 

Applications and four letters of notification has been sent out to 

neighbouring properties. One letter of representation has been received 

from the Chairman of The Penton Hook Bungalow Owners’ Association. 

The letter raises concerns over the loss of two more trees from the original 

avenue in Temple Gardens. 

4.2 The Council’s Parks and Amenities Officer has visited the site and 

recommends approval.

4.3 The County Highways Authority has no requirements 


5.1 This application seeks the felling of two Norway Maple trees to the front of 

the property subject to Tree Preservation Order No.294. The main 

consideration for this application is the health of the trees and the effect 

their removal would have on the amenities of the area. 

5.2 The Council’s Parks and Amenities Officer has visited the site. The Officer 

recommends that both Norway Maple Trees should be felled as they fall 

under the class ‘dead, dying or dangerous’. The applicant could be required 

to replace these trees with two semi mature trees. The species of the two 

trees and exact location need to be agreed with the Council’s Parks and 

Amenities Officer. The comments of the objector will be considered when 

deciding the species of the replacement trees. 






GRANT subject to the following condition: 

1. By 18th July 2003 details of the replacement trees to be planted to 

include species, size and location of the trees shall be submitted to 

and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The 

replacement trees shall be planted in accordance with the agreed 

details by the end of the next planting season or sooner. 

Informative: 

Reason: In the interest of the visual amenity and character of the 

surrounding area. 

1. In carrying out the works hereby approved the applicant is advised to 

conform with the requirements of BS4043, the genus/species and 

exact location to be agreed with the Council's Parks and Amenities 

Officer. 


drawing numbers received on the dates shown :-



Location Plan 27.3.03 







LOCATION: 

PROPOSAL: 

TYPE: 

APPLICANT: 

RENALDS HERNE, COLDHARBOUR LANE, THORPE 

ERECTION OF NEW DETACHED GARAGE TO THE REAR OF THE 

PROPERTY AND ALTERATIONS TO EXISTING OUTBUILDING 


Mr & Mrs C Warden 

Local Plan: 


Second Alteration April 2001: GB2, BE5, BE9 

This application has been reported to this Committee for determination because 

the agent is a Council Member. This application should be read in conjunction with 

Listed Building Consent application RU.03/0359 reported at page 70 of this 

agenda. 

1. Site 

1.1 Renalds Herne is a Grade II Listed Building within the Thorpe Conservation 

Area and the rural settlement in the Green Belt. 

1.2 The two-storey dwelling has a roadside frontage with a listed front wall and 

railings and is sited opposite Church Approach. There is a vehicular access 

to the rear with an existing outbuilding and wall at the back that separates 

the parking area from the garden. The site backs onto TASIS (England)’s 

grounds. 

2. History 

2.1 The house, front wall and railings date back to the 17th and 18th centuries. 

Since 1948 the site has had an extensive planning history including 

applications submitted for internal renovations and alterations as well as for 

extensions. Of direct relevance is that in 1978 permission for the erection 

of a double garage was granted (RU.78/0276). 

2.2 Since 1990 a number of applications have been submitted. In 1994 the 

erection of a single storey conservatory was granted planning permission 

and Listed Building Consent (RU.94/0122 and 0123). In 1997 a single 

storey extension, internal and elevation alterations and the erection of a 

detached double garage following demolition of an existing garage and 

carport was granted planning permission and Listed Building Consent 

(RU.97/0872 and 0871). 

2.3 The most recent application (RU.02/0368) was in 2002 for Listed Building 

Consent for the removal of iron railings and gate and dismantling of the wall 

to the front and for the rebuilding of the front wall with the original railings 

and re-using the gate was granted in May 2002.


3.1 The proposal is for full planning permission for the erection of a detached 

garage to the rear of the property and alterations to an existing outbuilding. 

Work has commenced on the garage but has since stopped on officer 

advice. 

3.2 The treble garage would be sited at the north-east corner of the site within a 

walled compound, alongside the existing TASIS wall and the wall that 

separates parking from the garden. 

3.3 The garage would have a maximum width of 11.9 metres with a depth of 5 

metres. Its height would be 3.8 metres to the ridge. 

3.4 The garage’s frame would be constructed with Oak posts and struts and the 

external materials would be second-hand face brick plinth, black stained 

feather-edged horizontal boarding and second-hand plain clay tiled roof. 

3.5 The refurbished outbuilding, located at the southern end of the walled 

compound, would have face brick walls and plain clay tiled roof. 


4.1 The application was publicly advertised in the local press and five individual 

letters of notification were sent out to neighbouring properties. No letters of 

representation have been received. 

4.2 The County Highways Authority has no requirements to make. 

4.3 The County Archaeology Department has no objection, as the proposal 

would only cause minor new ground disturbance. 

4.4 The Council’s Conservation Advisor considers the proposal to be sensitively 

designed whose materials would complement the main listed house. 


5.1 The main issues to consider are the impact of the proposed garage on the 

rural settlement, which is required to have special regard to the impact on 

the Listed Building and Thorpe Conservation Area and the impact of the 

proposal on residential amenities. There is no objection to the 

refurbishment of the existing outbuilding. 

5.2 Policy GB2 only permits development in the rural settlement of Thorpe 

where it is on land substantially surrounded by existing development and 

does not detract from the character of the settlement or surrounding area. 

This proposal is considered to accord with the intent of this policy because it 

would be located at a central point of the village surrounded by built 

development. It would also be sited in a relatively discreet location and be 

at a scale, particularly in respect of its height, that would not make it overtly 

prominent or visually intrusive so as to detract from the established 

character of the area.

5.3 The treble garage would however be a large structure with a floor area of 

some 59 sq metres but despite its size it is not considered to represent over 

development of the site or result in cramped built form. Whilst the treble 

garage would be above the Council’s adopted maximum parking standards 

(October 2001) of two parking spaces for dwellings, it is not considered that 

the application could be refused on these grounds alone. Furthermore, the 

Highways Authority has no objection. 

5.4 Policy BE5 requires that development within a Conservation Area preserves 

or enhances its character or appearance of such areas with proposals 

needing to respect the scale, height, materials and architectural details of 

the area. Policy BE9 reiterates policy BE5 specifically ensuring that 

proposals pay special regard to safeguarding the special architectural or 

historic interest of a listed building and preserve its setting. 

5.5 Although the garage is a large structure the development is still considered 

to be subservient at a scale that is considered not to detract from the setting 

of the Grade II Listed Building and the architectural and historic features that 

it possesses. The proposed detailing and materials would be appropriate to 

the character of the building. The Council’s Conservation Advisor also 

considers that the proposal would complement the main listed building. As 

explained at paragraph 5.2, the development is considered not to be 

incongruous in its setting and would therefore preserve the character of the 

Conservation Area. 

5.6 The proposal is considered to cause no adverse harm to residential 

amenities due to its intended use, boundary screening and discreet siting 

close to the boundaries with the adjoining school campus. 

5.7 The overall proposal complies with the plan policies. Consideration has 

been given to the requirements of Article 8 and Article 1 of the First Protocol 

of the European Convention on Human Rights. 






4. Restriction of Garages etc to Private Vehicles/Storage (C56) - 

‘treble garage’

Informative: 





1600/03 31.3.03 








LOCATION: 

PROPOSAL: 

TYPE: 

APPLICANT: 

RENALDS HERNE, COLDHARBOUR LANE, THORPE 

THE RESTORATION AND REPAIR TO EXISTING OUTBUILDING TO 

THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY 

LISTED BUILDING CONSENT 

Mr & Mrs Warden 

Local Plan: 


Second Alteration April 2001: BE5, BE9 

This application has been reported to Planning Committee because the agent is a 

Council Member. This application should be read in conjunction with RU.03/0358 

for full planning permission, reported at page 64 of this agenda. 

1. Site 

1.1 As report RU.03/0358. 

2. History 

2.1 As report RU.03/0358. 


3.1 The proposal is for Listed Building Consent for the erection of a detached 

garage to the rear of the property and alterations to the existing outbuilding. 

The application details are as described in respect of planning application 

RU.03/0358 reported elsewhere on this agenda. 


4.1 As report RU.03/0358. 


5.1 The main issue to consider is whether or not the proposed development 

would have special regard to the desirability of preserving the Grade II 

Listed Building, its setting or any features of architectural or historic interest 

which it possesses plus whether or not the character of Thorpe 

Conservation Area would be preserved or enhanced. 

5.2 The impact of the development on the Listed Building and Conservation 

Area is addressed under paragraphs 5.4 and 5.5 of planning application 

RU.03/0358 reported elsewhere on this agenda. The proposal is 

considered to have special regard to the development’s effect on this Grade 

II listed building and to comply with Policies BE5 and BE9 of the Local Plan 

and the advice contained in Planning Policy Guidance Note 15: Planning 

and the Historic Environment (PPG15, 1994).




persons’ rights under the Convention. 


CONSENT subject to the following conditions: 

1. Duration (Listed Building Consent) (C6) 

2. No Departure (Listed Building Consent) (C7) 


4. Restriction of Garages etc to Private Vehicles/Storage (C56) – 

‘treble garage’ 

Informative: 





1600/03 31.3.03

Planning Applications - Runnymede Borough Council

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?