Agenda and minutes

To confirm the minutes of the meetings held on 20 and 27 August as a correct record.

Minutes to follow

The minutes of the meetings held on 20 and 27 August would be attached the agenda for the Planning Committee to be held on 15 October 2025.

To receive any disclosures of interest from councillors under the Members’ Code of Conduct.

There were none.

To receive any declarations of interest from councillors under the Planning Code including contact with applicants/objectors.

All Committee members present declared that they had received correspondence in relation to application 24/0112/FUL, Land North East of Eco Park, Charlton Lane, Shepperton, TW17 8QA but had maintained an impartial role, had not expressed any views and had kept an open mind.

Councillor Rutherford declared that she had received emails from residents for all three applications.

Councillor Grant declared that she was a member of the Lower Sunbury Residents Association.

Ward

Halliford and Sunbury West

Proposal

The construction and operation of a Battery Energy Storage System of up to 100 megawatts electrical output with a total capacity of circa 200 megawatt hours, associated site access and partial cable route, with associated work

Recommendation

The application is recommended for approval subject to the conditions set out in paragraph 8.3 of the report.

Description:

The construction of and operation of a Battery Energy Storage System of up to 100 megawatts electrical output with a total capacity of circa 200 megawatt hours, associated site access and partial cable route, with associated work.

Additional Information:

One additional letter of representation was received raising concerns regarding fire safety.

Another letter from a local resident was sent to Surrey Fire and Rescue and copied to the Council.

A letter was also sent directly to members of the Planning Committee raising objections to the proposal.

In the report there are references to 50 battery container units. This should in fact be 26 battery container units each comprising 2 batteries, with 50 batteries in total.

In paragraph 3.5 reference is made to an access point being created under the M3 Motorway. This is incorrect and no access is proposed under the M3.

Public Speaking:

In accordance with the Council’s procedure for speaking at meetings, Nigel Spooner representing the Charlton Village, Lower Sunbury and Shepperton Residents’ Associations spoke against the proposed development raising the following key points:

1.    This still represents inappropriate development in the Green Belt

2.    No evidence that the site could contribute to a more reliable, affordable and sustainable energy supply.

3.    Application site is remote from any major renewable energy generation

4.    There is no need for this to be on this application site and therefore there are no ‘Very Special Circumstances’.

5.    The potential hazardous nature of this technology is being ignored.

6.    Risks relate to a battery ‘thermal runway’ fire and its potential impact on nearby sensitive receptors such as a reservoir, water treatment works, housing and schools.

7.    Safety concerns have been realised in other site in the UK.

8.    National Fire Chiefs Council Guidance does not appear to have been property followed.

9.    The E.A. have not have not been specific in defining how much water would be needed to quench a battery thermal-runaway fire.

10.This application is entirely inappropriate, unnecessary and hazardous.

The Senior Planning Officer advised the Committee that the application was now smaller than the original submitted and that neither the Surrey Fire and Rescue Authority nor the Environment Agency had submitted any objections.

In accordance with the Council’s procedure for speaking at meetings, Tim Mole, the applicant’s agent, spoke for the proposed development raising the following key points:

1.    Applicant has engaged with the community and consultees.

2.    Two public consultation evens had been held and a series of changes and improvements had been made to address local concerns.

3.    The application has been scrutinised by the Council’s officers and a robust set of safeguards and planning conditions have been put in place.

4.    The E.A. withdrew their objections after their concerns were addressed.

5.    Surrey Fire and Rescue Service raised no objections.

6.    Measures have been agreed for habitat creation and biodiversity net gain.

7.    Site will be monitored 24/7 from a UK based control room.

8.    Project will contribute to decarbonisation.

9.    Construction impacts such  ...  view the full minutes text for item 59/25

Ward

Ashford Common

Proposal

Proposed roof extension with ridge height increase and 2 no. side-facing dormers to facilitate a change of use from a single dwelling (Use Class C3) to a house in multiple occupancy for 7 occupants ((HMO) – Sui Generis)

Recommendation

Approve the application subject to conditions as set out in the Recommendation Section of the report.

Description:

Proposed roof extension with ridge height increase and 2 no. side-facing dormers to facilitate a change of use from a single dwelling (Use Class C3) to a house in multiple occupancy for 7 occupants (HMO) – Sui Generis.

Additional Information:

One late letter of objection has been received. The issues raised are already covered in the report.

Correction to para 7.16:

‘Although as noted above, the proposal would increase the overall height of the building to 6.3m 6.2m and increase the eaves to 3.8ms, the side elevation is set in 1.5m from the boundary’.

Public Speaking:

In accordance with the Council’s procedure for speaking at meetings, David Gurwith spoke for the proposed development raising the following key points:

1.    Well thought out scheme that will be regulated by a management team.

2.    Ample Parking

3.    Electric Charging Points

4.    Property is in a sustainable location

5.    Provides affordable housing for the vulnerable in the Borough

6.    All bedrooms have their own en-suite

7.    Energy efficient

8.    Oversized kitchen and large communal living area

9.    Extensive garden and communal gym facilities

10.Developer could make this a 6 bedroom HMO with no parking or communal living space under permitted development

11.This application ticks every box and has been approved by the Council’s officers

12.In the surrounding boroughs there are approximately 11,000 illegal HMOs which identify that there is a need for this sort of residence

13.Anything that comes to this committee in respect of HMOs faces rejection

In accordance with the Council’s procedure for speaking at meetings, Councillor Rutherford spoke as Ward Councillor against the proposed development raising the following key points:

1.    Need to consider whether this application aligns with Planning Policies EN1 EN11 and HO1

2.    Identified need for family homes in the Borough and this application removed a unit of family housing from the market

3.    This fails to provide the right kind of housing in the right place

4.    A 7-person HMO is likely to generate more cars than a family residence

5.    Only 3 off-road parking spaces so overspill parking is likely, increasing congestion, reducing highway safety and harming neighbour amenity

6.    7 unrelated adults sharing one kitchen, lounge and garden does not deliver the high standard of amenity required

7.    Does not offer a good quality of life especially in such a constrained shared environment

8.    No noise assessment has been submitted.

9.    The cumulative effects of MHOs across Ashford are more bins, cars and transient occupancy.

10.This application will set a precedent

11.6 residents could live in the property under permitted development but the additional one resident can materially change the impact in terms of parking, amenity and neighbourhood pressure.

Following advice from the Council’s legal representative at the Committee, Councillor Rutherford declared that she would not take part in the debate nor vote on the application submitted.

Debate:

During the debate the following key issues were raised:

1.   On-street parking pressures would increase

2.   This is an  ...  view the full minutes text for item 60/25

Ward

Ashford Town

Proposal

Variation of Condition 3 (Approved Plans) relating to planning permission 24/01542/FUL for roof alterations and extensions to create habitable roof space, with insertion of 1 no. front facing dormer and 1 no. rear facing dormer, erection of a single storey side extension and a single storey rear extension. Change to fenestration and extension of dropped kerb. All to facilitate the subdivision of the property into 2 no. flats (1 no. 2 bed and 1 no. 3 bed) with associated parking and amenity space. Changes to single storey side extension to reduce set in from boundary (retrospective).

Recommendation

Approve the application subject to conditions as set out in Paragraph 8 (Recommendation) of the Report.

Description:

Variation to Condition 3 (Approved Plans) relating to planning permission 24/01542/FUL for roof alterations and extensions to create habitable roof space, with insertion of 1 no. front facing dormer and 1 no. rear facing dormer, erection of single storey side extension and a single storey rear extension. Changes to fenestration and extension of dropped kerb. All to facilitate the subdivision of the property into 2 no. flats (1 no. 2 bed and 1 no. 3 bed) with associated parking and amenity space.

Changes to single storey side extension to reduce set in from boundary (retrospective).

Additional Information:

A late letter of objection was received from No. 20 on Monday 15^th September. No new issues were raised.

Revised plans were received on Monday 15^th September. The revised plans amended a minor discrepancy in the roof extension over the single storey rear extension which was shown to have less steep pitch.

Condition 1 plan No’s updated accordingly:

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the

following approved plans: PR-L003, REV A, PR-P001 REV A, PR-P002 REV

A, PR-P004 REV A, PR-E001 REV A, PR-E002 REV A, PR-E003, REV A,

PR-E004 REV A, PR-D001 REV A, PR-D002 REV A, PR-L002 REV A, PRS001

REV A, PR-S002 REV A, all received 02.09.2025.

PR-L003 REV A, PR-E001 REV A, PR-P002 REV A, PR-P004 REV A, PR-E001 REV A, PR-E002 REV A, PR-E003 REV A, PR-E004 REV A, PR-D001 REV A, PR-D002

Public Speaking:

In accordance with the Council’s procedure for speaking at meetings, Martin O’Connell spoke against the proposed development raising the following key points:

1.    The developers had already breached the approved plans.

2.    The boundary wall had been built too near to the neighbouring property.

3.    Building works began before planning approval was granted.

4.    Strong belief that the property would be converted into a House of Multiple Occupation.

5.    Increase on-street parking pressure.

6.    Inappropriate development that does not respect the integrity of the planning system.

In accordance with the Council’s procedure for speaking at meetings, Hannah Messham of Dimensions Planning & Architecture spoke for the proposed development raising the following key points:

1.    The bungalow had been left neglected for many years before the applicant purchased it.

2.    Planning permission had previously been granted for 2 high-quality flats with spacious living accommodation.

3.    Prior approval had already been obtained for a side extension under permitted development that allowed the extension to be built right up to the boundary with number 20.

4.    The applicant decided not to extend to the neighbours boundary due to concerns raised by the owner of the neighbouring property.

5.    The space between the extension and the neighbours windows exceeds the BRE daylight standards.

6.    The first floor elevation was deliberately sloped to safeguard light.

7.    The tall hedges and trees that grew along the boundary and obstructed light had now been removed.

8.    If the application was refused it would result in the applicant having to demolish the existing side  ...  view the full minutes text for item 61/25

To note details of the Planning Appeals submitted and decisions received between 08 August 2025 and 03 September 2025.

The Chair informed the Committee that if any Member had any detailed queries regarding the report on Appeals lodged and decisions received since the last meeting, they should contact the Interim Planning Development Manager.

Resolved that the report of the Interim Planning Development Manager be received and noted.