Agenda and minutes
PDF 65 KBVenue: Ashcombe Suite, County Hall, Kingston upon Thames, Surrey KT1 2DN
Contact: Cheryl Hardman or Huma Younis
Media
| No. | Item |
|---|---|
|
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND SUBSTITUTIONS
To receive any apologies for absence and notices of substitutions under Standing Order 40. Additional documents: Minutes: Natalie Bramhall and George Johnson sent their apologies. Helena Windsor substituted for George Johnson.
|
|
|
MINUTES OF THE LAST MEETING
To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 3 September 2014. Additional documents: Minutes: These were agreed as a true record of the last meeting. |
|
|
PETITIONS
To receive any petitions from members of the public in accordance with Standing Order 65 (please see note 7 below). Additional documents: Minutes: There were none. |
|
|
PUBLIC QUESTION TIME
To answer any questions received from local government electors within Surrey in accordance with Standing Order 66 (please see note 8 below). Additional documents: Minutes: There were none.
|
|
|
MEMBERS' QUESTION TIME
To answer any questions received from Members of the Council in accordance with Standing Order 47. Additional documents: Minutes: There were none.
|
|
|
DECLARATIONS OF INTERESTS
To receive any declarations of disclosable pecuniary interests from Members in respect of any item to be considered at the meeting.
Notes: · In line with the Relevant Authorities (Disclosable Pecuniary Interests) Regulations 2012, declarations may relate to the interest of the member, or the member’s spouse or civil partner, or a person with whom the member is living as husband or wife, or a person with whom the member is living as if they were civil partners and the member is aware they have the interest. · Members need only disclose interests not currently listed on the Register of Disclosable Pecuniary Interests. · Members must notify the Monitoring Officer of any interests disclosed at the meeting so they may be added to the Register. · Members are reminded that they must not participate in any item where they have a disclosable pecuniary interest. Additional documents: Minutes: Ian Beardsmore declared that he had visited a demonstration held at Charlton Lane on Saturday 20 September but had not read the committee papers till the following day, ensuring he had made no pre determination. |
|
This is an application for the consideration of new material considerations that have emerged since the Committee’s resolution on 17 March 2014 at Charlton Lane Waste Management Facility, Charlton Lane, Shepperton, Surrey.
Changes to the planning conditions attached to the Charlton Lane Eco Park planning permission (Ref: SP10/0947, dated 15 March 2012) in order to incorporate minor material amendments to the approved scheme comprising a revised gasification technology, 3 new sub stations, other minor material amendments to the layout, buildings, structures and ancillary elements of the scheme, and a minor reduction in the tonnage of waste that would be managed at the site.
The recommendation is to PERMIT subject to conditions.
Additional documents: Minutes: AN UPDATE SHEET WAS TABLED AND IS ATTACHED AS ANNEX 1 TO THE MINUTES
Declarations of interest: None
Officers:
Alan Stones, Planning Development Control Team Manager Stephen Jenkins, Deputy Planning Development Manager Nancy El-Shatoury, Principal Lawyer Caroline Smith, Transport Development Planning Team Manager Dr John Pullen, Air Quality Consultant A Barry Squibb, Noise Consultant
· A letter had also been sent to the monitoring officer from Mr Malcolm Robertson. The Principal Lawyer felt that the concerns raised in the letter had been addressed in the update sheet. Any issues that had not been addressed in the update sheet would be addressed by the monitoring officer in a separate letter to Mr Robertson.
Speakers:
Malcolm Robertson a local resident, made representations in objection to the application. The following points were made,
· Lives in Shepperton and is a member of the Charlton Lane liaison group. · Explained that a complaint had been forwarded to the monitoring officer in respect of the application. · The EA (Environment Agency) has found an issue with the site, there has been a breach of the environmental permit which the contractor has not taken account of. · There has been no mention of a site warning notice which was put up at the site in July 2014. · Serious questions have arisen around the contractors- these need to be answered before any application can be discussed.
Peter Francis a local resident, made representations in objection to the application. The following points were made,
· Chartered chemical engineer · Queried if this was a gasifier- the EA draft determination states that the process undertaken is incineration and not gasification. · The process proposed by the applicant is not a gasifier but rather an incinerator. · The process undertaken reaches the lowest levels of the waste hierarchy which contributes to global warming.
Brian Catt a local resident, made representations in objection to the application. The following points were made,
· Chartered chemical engineer and physicist · SCC recognises the role of Ofgem but still has not received their accreditation. · The committee should wait for accreditation from Ofgem before considering the application before them. · There are a number of other sites which are more viable than Charlton Lane and would have little impact on residents · Spelthorne has the worst air quality in Surrey and yet this application is still being considered.
Peter Crews a local resident, made representations in objection to the application. The following points were made,
· There are numerous unknown uncertainties and risks with regards to public health especially if there is an accident at the site. · Surrey is ultimately responsible for human health and should be looking into the possible impacts. · Many do not think it is viable to burn this type of fuel using this process. · The location of the plant is on the green belt and within proximity of three large schools in one of the most densely populated areas of Surrey.
The applicant, SITA UK (Gareth Philips, Head of Planning and Property – South) addressed the Committee and raised the following points;
· Although the ... view the full minutes text for item 97/14 |
|
This is an application for the retention of 4 containers for storage purposes in connection with existing waste facility. The waste management facility comprises industrial scale buildings and a large open concrete yard all used in connection with the importation, deposit, storage, processing and transfer of discarded automotive parts.
The recommendation is GRANT planning permission Ref. WA/2014/0939 subject to conditions.
Additional documents: Minutes: Declarations of interest: None
Officers:
Alan Stones, Planning Development Control Team Manager Stephen Jenkins, Deputy Planning Development Manager Nancy El-Shatoury, Principal Lawyer Caroline Smith, Transport Development Planning Team Manager
Speakers:
Alison Daniels, a local resident, made representations in objection to the application. The following points were made,
· Shipping containers on the site are not temporary and have been in use since 2012. · This is a busy site and hence the application to extending opening hours. · Fence between site and garden does not reduce any noise. · The forklift movements from the site are having an impact on residential amenity.
Ian McFarlane, a local resident, made representations in objection to the application. The following points were made,
· Containers on site are left permanently open yet the applicant argues containers are required for security reasons. · The forklift movements from the site are having an impact on residential amenity. · Asked if containers can be moved further up the yard so they are further away from homes. · Applicant has not engaged with residents.
The local Member Victoria Young addressed the committee and raised the following points:
· Residents were told that the containers on site were just a temporary construction but have now been told that the applicant wants to make these permanent. · Noise from the site is having an impact on residents. The containers are very bright which makes them hard to screen. · During winter, the screening is limited and the fence is not high enough to screen the depot.
Key Points raised during the discussion:
1. The report was introduced by the Deputy Planning Development Manager who explained that permission for this site was granted in 2013. The current application asks for the retention of four storage containers on the site. Objections have been received from both Waverley borough council and Dunsfold parish council. The containers are not visible from resident’s gardens unless someone looked over the fence. A condition has been included to paint the containers matte black.
2. A member queried what was being done to stop the impact of noise on residents. The Deputy Planning Development Manager explained that a condition had been put in place with the last application with regards to noise. If there was any breach of this the enforcement team would be made aware.
3. No formal applicant/ resident group had been set up.
4. It was stated that these four containers were not situated in the green belt and were deemed as fit for purpose for the site.
5. Some members queried whether the containers could be insulated with rubber to reduce the noise impacts.
6. It was felt that more needed to be done to mitigate noise issues yet it was recognised that the committee did not have many grounds to refuse the application.
7. Members discussed the possibility of deferring the application on the grounds of possible relocation of the containers, an additional noise condition and noise mitigation measures to also be included as part of the application.
Actions/Further information to be provided: |
|
This is an application for the construction of a two storey, 8 classroom detached teaching block with associated hard standing, following demolition of existing double demountable building; provision of PV panels on south facing area of existing small teaching block; alterations to internal fencing; widened access for emergency vehicles; provision of external canopy to south east of existing main building; increase in cycle/scooter parking.
The recommendation is to PERMIT subject to conditions
Additional documents: Minutes: AN UPDATE SHEET WAS TABLED AND IS ATTACHED AS ANNEX 2 TO THE MINUTES
Declarations of interest: None
Officers:
Alan Stones, Planning Development Control Team Manager Stephen Jenkins, Deputy Planning Development Manager Nancy El-Shatoury, Principal Lawyer Caroline Smith, Transport Development Planning Team Manager
Speakers:
Anne Dunne, a local resident, made representations in objection to the application. The following points were made,
· Lives and works in the house of prayer in East Molesey- the house of prayer gives people the opportunity to reflect on life. A retreat programme is also provided for the public. · Objecting on the grounds of noise and flood lighting. · Asked if it was possible to reconsider the location of this new build to another area of the school site. · Supports the principle of additional school places but feels this will impact the house of prayer.
Sarah Prime speaking on behalf of Sister Melanie Kingston, a local resident, made representations in objection to the application. The following points were made,
· Do not object to the need for school places but the new site is very close to the south boundary of the house of prayer. · Issues of noise and lighting may lead to the cancellation of annual programmes held at the house of prayer. · Asked if the building could be erected on the central school site instead.
Key Points raised during the discussion:
1. The report was briefly introduced by the Deputy Planning Development Manager who explained that the existing school is closer to the house of prayer than the new proposed building. The application is for a two story block to replace a double demountable. The new build does not encroach on the existing playing field. There has been no objection from the county noise consultant but a noise condition has been included as part of the application.
2. A member of the committee queried whether Sports England had been consulted on the build. It was explained that as there was ‘no practical loss’ of the playing field Sports England did not need to be consulted.
3. A member of the committee queried whether enough attention had been given to car parking. The Chairman explained that car parking had not been raised as a concern by members of the public.
4. The design of lighting on the site has been considered acceptable by officers.
5. Members queried whether an additional condition not to carry out any work on weekends could be included as part of the application. Some members asked if it was possible to include a condition to restrict use of the new building to weekdays only. It was commented that putting in restrictions on building use on the weekend was negative and any changes should be discussed between the school and house of prayer.
Actions/Further information to be provided: None
RESOLVED:
That pursuant to Regulation 3 of the Town and Country planning general regulations 1992, application no.SURREY COUNTY COUNCIL PROPOSAL EL/2014/2424 : LAND AT ST ALBANS CATHOLIC PRIMARY SCHOOL, BEAUCHAMP ROAD, EAST ... view the full minutes text for item 99/14 |
|
This application is for the construction of a single storey building which would provide space for six additional classrooms and associated WC's. The proposed building is required in order to expand the school from a 1FE primary school (30 pupils per year group) to a 2FE primary school (60 pupils per year group) resulting in a total of 420 pupils.
The recommendation is to PERMIT the application subject to conditions.
Additional documents: Minutes: AN UPDATE SHEET WAS TABLED AND IS ATTACHED AS ANNEX 3 TO THE MINUTES
Declarations of interest: None
Officers:
Alan Stones, Planning Development Control Team Manager Stephen Jenkins, Deputy Planning Development Manager Nancy El-Shatoury, Principal Lawyer Caroline Smith, Transport Development Planning Team Manager
Speakers:
The local Member Chris Townsend addressed the committee and raised the following points:
· Not against the principal of expansion of schools as there is a necessity for additional school places. · Concerns are around the mitigation measures put in place by Highways especially on Grange road. · People are already parking on yellow lines. More needs to be done to improve the highways issues in the area.
Key Points raised during the discussion:
1. The report was introduced by the Deputy Planning Development Manager who explained that the new brick construction is in the green belt and to the west of Ashtead. Three letters of representation have been received with regards to highway impacts. 2. The Transport Development Planning Team Manager explained that the mitigation measures put in place were limited because of the structure of the land around the school. 3. It was explained that St Andrews School which was in close proximity to St Peters did not have a school travel plan in place. 4. It was explained that the highways team planned to widen the footways so measures could be taken for parking on the verge. Widening the footway would also provide safety for pedestrians. 5. 48% of pupils coming to this school did so by car, there was therefore scope to reduce the impact of cars. 6. The Transport Development Planning Team Manager explained that rather than putting posts on the grass verges the local highways teams would lower the kerbs. 7. The committee recognised that the expansion of schools in the Ashtead area would create road safety issues.
Actions/Further information to be provided: For the committee to receive a private session on which consultees are consulted during the planning process.
RESOLVED:
That That pursuant to Regulation 3 of the Town and Country planning general regulations 1992, application no. SURREY COUNTY COUNCIL PROPOSAL MO/2014/0778/SCC: LAND AT ST PETERS CATHOLIC PRIMARY SCHOOL, GRANGE ROAD, LEATHERHEAD, SURREY KT22 7JN is PERMITTED subject to conditions and for reasons set out in the report and the following additional informative.
· That the school is encouraged to establish a joint road safety group in collaboration with other local schools.
Committee Next Steps:
None
|
|
|
DATE OF NEXT MEETING
The next meeting of the Planning & Regulatory Committee will be on 15 October 2014. Additional documents: Minutes: The next meeting will be held on 15 October 2014. |