Nine flats at 61 Church Road, Addlestone
Summary of planning committee decision
Decided by Runnymede Planning Committee on 26 Nov 2025.
What was proposed
The application sought demolition of the existing house and construction of nine flats with parking, storage, landscaping and access changes.
“This application seeks permission for the demolition of the existing dwelling and construction of a 2 storey (with accommodation in the roof) block of 9 flats (7 x 1 bed and 2 x 2 bed) with associated parking, refuse and landscaping.”
“The proposed building would have an L shaped footprint with a ridge height of approximately 9.3 metres with a pitched and crown roof design with front and rear gable ends. A rear dormer and rooflights are also proposed. The building will be constructed with red brick with first floor render elements and stone detailing. To the front of the site is an area of car parking with 5 spaces.”
Officer report
The site and surroundings
The site was a detached two-storey house in the urban area, with gardens and neighbouring houses, bungalows and flats.
“The application site consists of a detached two storey dwelling located on the southern side of Church Road. The existing property has an area of off street parking to the front and a well landscaped garden. The rear of the site abuts the rear gardens of 4-5 Audley Close which are single storey bungalows. To the East is Fairlawns, a three and four storey block of flats sited on the corner of Church Road and Addlestone Park but fronting Addlestone Park.”
“The application site is located in the Urban Area.”
Officer report
What officers recommended
Officers recommended approval with conditions and a legal agreement for Thames Basin Heaths mitigation, with refusal possible if the agreement did not progress.
“It is recommended the Planning Committee authorises the HoP: A Grant Consent - subject to conditions set out in section 11 of this report and subject to the completion of a legal agreement which secures: • Mitigation against the impact of the development on the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area.”
“B To refuse planning permission at the discretion of the HoP should the s106 Agreement not progress to their satisfaction.”
Officer report
Consultees and neighbours
Highways and wildlife consultees raised no objection subject to conditions, while the council’s waste service raised concerns about refuse vehicle manoeuvring.
“Consultee Comments RBC Arboricultural Officer No objection subject to conditions RBC Deputy Direct Services Manager Concerns raised that not enough space to allow standard RCV to reverse off the main road and give crew sufficient space to manoeuvre and load bins safely.”
“SCC County Highways Authority No objection subject to conditions Surrey Wildlife Trust No objection subject to conditions…”
Officer report
Concerns raised
Six neighbour representations raised concerns about parking, highways, safety, overdevelopment, privacy, drainage, refuse, construction disturbance and the street lamp.
“Representations and comments from interested parties. Neighbouring properties were consulted in addition to being advertised on the Council’s website. 6 letters of representation have been received from individual addresses which can be summarised as follows:”
“Neighbours were not notified of application and no site notice displayed outside property. Officer note: all adjoining neighbours were consulted and there is no requirement to display a site notice for this type of application • Concerns regarding lack of parking (5 parking spaces for 9 flats and no visitor parking) meaning vehicles will park on main road • Concerns regarding highways safety and traffic • Concerns regarding pedestrian safety • Concerns for loss of family…”
Officer report
What members discussed
Members noted the sustainable location and nearby flats but discussed policy-inconsistent parking, likely on-street parking, waste collection and limited ceiling heights.
“The Committee noted the Officer’s report and presentation – the site was within the settlement area of Addlestone, was served by public transport and the locality included other flatted developments. There was one consultee comment around the ability of a RCV to operate on the site; representations from neighbouring properties were summarised in the report. Officers clarified that the development would require a private waste collection service.”
“The proposal included five car parking spaces at the front, which was not in line with policy and would likely result in further on-street parking.”
Minutes
The committee’s decision
The committee authorised the Head of Planning to grant consent subject to conditions and a legal agreement securing mitigation for the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area.
“A: grant consent - subject to the conditions set out in section 11 of the report and subject to the completion of a legal agreement which secures: • Mitigation against the impact of the development on the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area.”
“B: refuse planning permission at the discretion of the Head of Planning should the s106 Agreement not progress to their satisfaction.”
Minutes
Sources
- Runnymede Planning Committee minutes, 26 November 2025
- Agenda and papers (council website)
Source: Plota analysis of Runnymede's committee minutes and officer report. Quotations are the council's own words; headings and summaries are Plota's.
Committee decisions and nationwide planning applications, in one API
The Plota API returns planning applications from every council we cover, each with its decision, whether a committee or officers decided it, and the committee date. Build it into your own tools.
See the API →At the meeting
- Committee
- Runnymede Planning Committee
- Council
- Runnymede
- Date
- Wednesday 26 November 2025
- Recommendation
- Officers recommended approval
- Committee decided
- Approved
- Minutes
- The council's minutes
- Meeting
- Agenda and papers (council website)
- Application
- The application (council website)
- All decisions
- Runnymede committee decisions →
This committee's year
10 decisions in the 12 months to this meeting.
Source: Plota analysis of the committee's minutes.