Agenda and minutes
PDF 65 KBVenue: Ashcombe Suite, County Hall, Kingston upon Thames, Surrey KT1 2DN
Contact: Cheryl Hardman or Huma Younis Email: cherylh@surreycc.gov.uk or Email: huma.younis@surreycc.gov.uk
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: There were no apologies. |
|
|
MINUTES OF THE LAST MEETING: 24 September 2014
To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 24 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: There were none.
|
|
The current proposal is for the installation of a multi-use games area (MUGA) located in the northern part of the school site, adjoining an existing hard play area and near the edge of the school’s extensive playing field. The MUGA would have a surface of porous tarmac and would be surrounded by a wire mesh fence with two gates for access.
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
As well as speaking for himself, Mr. Barry Evans would speak on behalf of four registered speakers who were unable to attend the meeting.
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 Chris Northwood, Planning Regulation 3 Team Leader
Speakers:
Barry Evans, a local resident, made representations in objection to the application. The following points were made,
· Is also representing the views of 100 elderly vulnerable residents who are unable to attend the meeting today. · The introduction of the MUGA (multi use games area) would add noise and disruption to residents living at The Firs. · Would be a loss of residential amenity and loss of the playing field. · MUGA can be re-sited on the south side of the field. · MUGA would exacerbate flooding from the school field to The Firs residential area. · Planners did not properly consult residents on this application.
Barry Evans spoke on behalf of Sandra Maycock, a local resident. The following points were made,
· Residents of The Firs have always enjoyed good relations with the school. · Have tried to be tolerant but want peace and quiet and to spend time on the patio without being disturbed. · Loss of residents amenity
Barry Evans spoke on behalf of Sheila Davis, a local resident. The following points were made,
· Surface water from the school field does not drain away and floods residents recreation area. · Residents were told flooding was due to a broken pipe but this was not fixed. · MUGA will be used by the school for the whole day which will cause a loss of amenity for residents. · Possibility of MUGA being moved to the south side of the field.
Barry Evans spoke on behalf of Ethel Edwards, a local resident. The following points were made,
· MUGA will lead to an increase in noise levels · There will be a loss to residential amenity · Flooding will be exacerbated for future years
Barry Evans spoke on behalf of Bruce Rostron, a local resident. The following points were made,
· Sound of footballs hitting the fence of The Firs grounds has become unbearable · Sighting of the MUGA is not good and will cause disruption to residents who want to enjoy peace and quiet · Possibility of people using the MUGA after school times causing disruption in the evenings. · Breaches of human rights as not all residents were consulted on this proposal.
Representatives from the school in support of the application, Ms Liz Berry and Ms Aine Gee, addressed the Committee and raised the following points;
· Some residents from The Firs have commented on how much they enjoy the noise from the playground. · Struggling to teach P.E on school grounds as pupil numbers are increasing. · MUGA will not be used for the whole day. Any extracurricular activities after school will finish by 4.30pm. · There will be no substantial loss of ... view the full minutes text for item 108/14 |
|
This is an application for the construction of new 2 storey main school building and single storey extensions to existing hall and nursery buildings following demolition of existing main building and demountable building; extension of school site by approximately 75 m2 into adjoining church yard; construction of new access onto Lyne Lane; and associated external works including new car park, extension of hard play areas and culverting of existing ditch.
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 Chris Northwood, Planning Regulation 3 Team Leader
Speakers:
Tracy Warren spoke on behalf of Faye Lindsay, a local resident. The following points were made:
· represented parents whose children were at the school · want to provide a continual faith school in an area which has significant need for additional school places · school is at the heart of the community and will breathe new aspiration for the community · raised a petition supporting the school which has received over 260 signatures
The local Member had not registered to speak.
Key points raised during the discussion:
1. The report was introduced by the Planning Development Control Team Manager who explained that Runnymede borough council had objected on green belt grounds. It was explained that Members had been on a site visit to see the school in question. The application required the demolition of the existing building, with the roof having to be demolished by hand due to the presence of bats. Officers feel parking issues have been addressed through the school transport plan, the church car park and on street parking measures. Officers also believe that very special circumstances exist in relation to the need for additional school places.
2. A Member of the committee commended the application and felt that partners had been clearly consulted and that residents had been listened too. The design of the new build was also commented as being in keeping with the area.
3. Members commented on the benefit of the site visit to the school.
4. A Member of the committee asked for clarification around the number of children travelling to school by car. The Transport Development Planning Team Manager explained that consultants aimed to decrease the number of children coming to school by car to 47%. The officer felt that this figure was too low. It was further explained that 6% of children walked to school and the other 14% means of transport to school was unknown.
5. The Planning Regulation 3 Team Leader explained that a walnut tree would need to be removed from the front of the school as it was located in the proposed area where a new vehicle access would be located for the staff car park. A Member commented that the location of the walnut tree in contrast to the new proposed access was noted on the site visit to the school.
6. Some Members commented on the need to include lighting in the church car park and lighting from the church passage to the school. The Planning Regulation 3 Team Leader explained that the church car park would serve bus drop off and pickups during the day which did not justify lighting the car park. As the car park also belonged to the church it was considered ... view the full minutes text for item 109/14 |
|
This is an application for the construction and use of a recycling, recovery and processing facility for construction and demolition waste on a site of approximately 9.4 hectares comprising: MRF building, site office and workshop; wheel wash and two weighbridges; lorry and car parking areas; storage areas; site entrance and access road; and landscaping bunds without compliance with Condition 3 and Condition 21 of planning permission ref: SP08/0992 dated 19 November 2009 to allow operations to be carried out within the MRF building 24 hours per day, 7 days per week.
The recommendation is subject to referral to the Secretary of State as a Departure and the prior completion of a deed of variation of a S106 Agreement, to PERMIT subject to conditions.
Additional documents: Minutes: AN UPDATE SHEET WAS TABLED AND IS ATTACHED AS ANNEX 3 TO THE MINUTES
· The local Member had not registered to speak at committee but had been on the site visit with the committee.
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
Key points raised during the discussion:
1. The report was introduced by the Deputy Planning Development Manager who explained that the application in question was a former mineral site which had planning permission granted in 2009. The location of the site is south west to London Heathrow and is approximately 10 hectares in size. The proposal would include operations to be carried out within the MRF building 24 hours per day, 7 days per week. Objections had been received from Spelthorne Borough Council on noise grounds but officers do not believe that any noise would be heard from outside of the building.
2. A Member commented on the close proximity of the site to London Heathrow and asked for officers to ensure the correct mitigation measures were undertaken to ensure there was no noise from the site in the evenings.
3. The possibility of an open day at Oakleaf Farm for residents was discussed.
4. A Member asked for clarity around condition 4, the loading and unloading of HGVs between restricted times. The Deputy Planning Development Manager stated that condition 4 could be reworded so to replace ‘HGV’ with ‘delivery vehicles’, ensuring that any type of delivery vehicle was restricted between the stated hours.
5. The Deputy Planning Development Manager explained that the Environment Agency (EA) was responsible for waste control on the site.
6. Officers and Members agreed to remove the last sentence from paragraph 75 of the report. This had been left in from the 2009 application.
7. A Member commented that the site was well bunded.
8. Concern was raised around the intensification of green belt in the existing area especially with London Heathrow being so close by.
9. The Deputy Planning Development Manager clarified that operational doors at the site could be opened during the day but must be closed at night. The Chairman asked for this point to be made explicit in the report.
Actions/Further information to be provided:
None
RESOLVED:
That, subject to referral to the Secretary of State as a Departure and the prior completion of a deed of variation of a S106 Agreement, the application is PERMITTED subject to conditions for the reasons set out in the report and the amendment of condition 4 to read:
“There shall be no deliveries or the loading and unloading by any delivery vehicles except between the following times:
0700-1800 Mondays to Fridays 0700-1300 Saturdays
There will be none on a Sunday or any public holiday.
An additional informative was also agreed:
Committee Next Steps: None
|
|
Britaniacrest Recycling, 24-26 Reigate Road, Hookwood, Surrey, RH6 0HJ
The recommendation is to note the report.
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
Key points raised during the discussion:
1. The result of the planning appeal was introduced by the Planning Development Control Team Manager who explained that on the whole there had been a pleasing result.
2. Two of the reasons for refusal had been accepted but an additional third reason included by the committee around ecology had been considered unreasonable at the appeal.
3. The Chairman stated that on the whole this was good news but the additional reason for refusal included by the committee would incur costs against SCC. The Chairman asked for Members to be careful around overturning officer’s decisions and to be aware of the dangers that were involved with including additional reasons for refusal.
Actions/Further information to be provided:
None
RESOLVED:
The report was noted.
Committee Next Steps:
None
|
|
|
DATE OF NEXT MEETING
The next meeting of the Planning & Regulatory Committee will be on 18 November 2014. Additional documents: Minutes: The next meeting will be held on Tuesday 18 November 2014 at 10.30am. |