Agenda and minutes
PDF 203 KBVenue: Ashcombe Suite, County Hall, Kingston upon Thames, Surrey KT1 2DN
Contact: Cheryl Hardman or Rianna Hanford Email: cherylh@surreycc.gov.uk, Email: rianna.hanford@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: None received.
|
|
|
MINUTES OF THE LAST MEETING
To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on Wednesday 22 April. Additional documents: Minutes: The minutes were agreed as a true and accurate record of the 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: No petitions were received.
|
|
|
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: No public questions were received.
|
|
|
MEMBERS' QUESTION TIME
To answer any questions received from Members of the Council in accordance with Standing Order 47. Additional documents: Minutes: No Member questions were received.
|
|
|
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: No declarations of interest were received.
|
|
Details of parents' pickup and drop off facility, additional staff parking and pedestrian access from eastern boundary of site submitted pursuant to Conditions 3(a) and 8 of planning permission reference EL2014/0356 for construction of new primary school.
This application relates to the new Hurst Park Primary School that is presently being built on the site of the former John Nightingale School. The site is located on the south side of Hurst Road. Additional documents: Minutes: An update sheet was tabled and is attached as annex 1. Officers: Alan Stones, Planning Development Control Team Manager Nancy El-Shatoury, Principal Solicitor Nathan Morley, Senior Planning Officer Caroline Smith, Transport Development Planning Team Manager Speakers: Matt Ralph, a local resident, made representations in objection to the application. The following points were made: · Applicants should strongly consider installing a safe crossing point for children going to and from school due to dangers associated with increased traffic when the new school is completed. · A zebra crossing has been installed close to another local school to allow children to cross the road safely but there appears to no provision in the application for including this for children at the new Hurst Park Primary School. · Evidence suggests that zebra crossings significantly reduce the risk of road traffic accidents happening where they are located. · The lack of a safe crossing point for children included in the application undermines the current infrastructure plan as well as the school’s transport plan as they don’t provide adequate provision for the safety of children going to and from school.
Rupert Sibley, a local resident, made representations in objection to the application. The following points were made: · Freeman Drive is narrow and the inclusion of a pickup and drop off zone at the location indicated in the application will cause high levels of congestion, particularly in the morning, leading to potential safety concerns for children as well as causing frustration for road users and residents. · There are three potential solutions which the applicants should consider to mitigate these concerns, namely; re-designating the staff car park, constructing a roundabout or enforcing a one-way system on Freeman Drive.
John Fryer, a local resident, made representations in objection to the application. The following points were made: · The location of the pickup and drop off zone in the planning application will cause difficulties for residents in the morning and at the end of the school day. It could also jeopardise the safety of children walking or cycling to and from school due to increased congestion. · A solution was presented with the aid of a map circulated to Members of the Committee which demonstrated an alternative solution for where the pickup and drop off zone could be situated. · Landowners would not be unhappy with the use of their land to improve traffic flow and ensure that children are dropped off at school safely.
Lionel Haywood, a local resident, made representations in objection to the application. The following points were made:
· The Westwood Report is based on the same principals as the discredited Atkins report. · The 30 spaces for the pickup and drop off zone included in the planning application will not be enough to prevent congestion on Freeman Drive which will cause problems for residents attempting to get out of their drives. · The pavement is extremely narrow and not safe for children walking, cycling or scooting to school. · Alternative solutions suggested by residents have been ignored by planning officers.
Nicola Parkins, ... view the full minutes text for item 27/15 |
|
|
MINERALS/WASTE TA/2013/1799: Mercers South, Nutfield, Redhill, Surrey RH1 4EU
Details of Operational Flood and Drainage Management Plan submitted pursuant to Condition 13 of planning permission ref: TA/2013/1799 dated 12 August 2014. Additional documents: Minutes: It was agreed that items 8 and 9 would be taken together. An update sheet on Item 9 was tabled at the meeting and is attached as Annex 2. Officers: Alan Stones, Planning Development Control Team Manager Nancy El-Shatoury, Principal Solicitor Stephen Jenkins, Deputy Planning Development Manager
Speakers: Chris Hoskins, a member of the public who is also a Civil Engineer with expertise in mineral extraction made representations in objection to both applications. The following points were made: · Has contacted the applicant numerous times highlighting specific issues with both the Operational Flood and Drainage Management Plan and their Long Term Water Management Monitoring Plan following permission being granted to commence mineral extraction at the site. · More substantial overflow infrastructure is required than that detailed in the application to ensure that the quarrying site doesn’t lead to flooding which could impact on nearby residents and their property. · The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) have also raised concerns about the potential impact of quarrying in this area. · The proposals are inconsistent particularly in relation to the potential impact of drawdown on groundwater in the area indicating that the application has not been given sufficient consideration. · Approaches have also been made to SCC planning officers highlighting concerns around the planning applications but these have been ignored despite the potential dangers arising from mineral extraction in this area.
Karen McCarthy, a member of the public made representations in objection to item 9. The following points were made: · The Water Management and Monitoring Plan proposed by the applicants suggests that there are no contaminants in the groundwater. This is inconsistent with the data which shows there are a number of chemicals and heavy metals in the water which exceed water quality measures. · There are six disused landfills near the quarrying site which include contaminated and hazardous waste that are polluting the groundwater in the area. Drawdown from the quarrying site could exacerbate this problem. · Sutton and East Surrey Water (SESW) have raised objections about the implications of permitting mineral extraction at this site highlighting the potential for contaminating one of their aquifers.
Peter Crate, the Managing Director of J & J Franks spoke in support of both applications. The following points were made: · Both applications have been revised to meet the conditions imposed by the Planning Committee following advice from the Environment Agency (EA). · Clay-based liner will be used throughout the extraction site to counteract the possibility of flooding. · Evidence from the EA indicates that there are no contaminants in the groundwater near the site. Sutton and East Surrey Water have not expressed any concern with regard to water contamination . · J & J Franks has a strong reputation for working within prescribed guidelines and regulations for the extraction of minerals.
The Local Member registered to speak and made the following points in reference to both applications: · The quarrying site is in an unusual location with specific challenges for extracting minerals. The Committee must be satisfied that the operations will not impede water flow and ... view the full minutes text for item 28/15 |
|
|
MINERALS/WASTE TA/2013/1799: Mercers South, Nutfield, Redhill, Surrey RH1 4EU
Long Term Water Management and Monitoring Plan submitted pursuant to Condition 16 of planning permission reference TA/2013/1799 dated 12/08/2014. Additional documents: Minutes: An update sheet was tabled and is attached as annex 2. Officers: Alan Stones, Planning Development Control Team Manager Nancy El-Shatoury, Principal Solicitor Stephen Jenkins, Deputy Planning Development Manager
Key points raised during the discussion: The discussion in relation to this item is recorded under Item 8. RESOLVED: i. The details of the Long Term Water Management and Monitoring Plan and amplifying letter dated 31 March 2015 submitted pursuant to Condition 16 of planning permission reference: TA/2013/1799 dated 12 August 2014 are approved for the reasons listed in the report. Actions/ further information to be provided: None
The Committee broke for lunch at 1.25 pm. The Committee reconvened at 2 pm. Margaret Hicks and Ian Beardsmore left the meeting.
|
|
RU14/1523 - The continued use of land for the importation of green waste for shredding and composting in 13 eco pods and soils for screening for use on the farms in association with the organic farming project, and use of the working area with associated facilities, without compliance with Condition 11 of planning permission RU12/0335 dated 30 May 2012 so as to allow for an increase in traffic movements to and from the site.
RU14/1444 - The continued use of land for a lagoon, 4 eco-pods and associated facilities in association with an organic farming project, without compliance with Condition 11 of planning permission RU12/0334 dated 30 May 2012 so as to allow for an increase in traffic movements to and from the site.
RU14/1443 - The continued use of land for the importation of green waste for shredding and composting in 13 eco pods and soils for screening for use on the farms in association with the organic farming project, and use of the working area with associated facilities, without compliance with Conditions 11 and 14 of planning permission RU12/0332 dated 30 May 2012 so as to allow for an increase in traffic movements to and from the site, and to allow the export of compost in vehicles other than just those which have brought green waste to the site.
RU14/1441 - The continued use of land for a lagoon, 4 eco-pods and associated facilities in association with an organic farming project, without compliance with Conditions 11 and 14 of planning permission RU12/0333 dated 30 May 2012 so as to allow for an increase in traffic movements to and from the site, and to allow the export of compost in vehicles other than just those which have brought green waste to the site. Additional documents: Minutes: Officers: Alan Stones, Planning Development Control Team Manager Nancy El-Shatoury, Principal Solicitor Stephen Jenkins, Deputy Planning Development Manager
Speakers: Mel Few, the Local Member, registered to speak and made the following points in reference to the application: · The extent of the area currently in use for processing green waste is limited but the site could be expanded subject to the receipt of planning permission. This would, however, not require another application to be submitted for an increase in the number of Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGV) going to and from the site. · The current volume of green waste produced by Trumps Farm is significantly less than that which could be carried by 50 HGV movements a day and so the application could mask another motive by the applicants to increase the volume of green waste processed by enlarging the site. · The Committee should vote against this application as 50 HGV movements a day is far in excess of what is required for the green waste processing currently in operation at Trumps Farm. · 50 HGV movements per day would also have a detrimental impact on the flow of traffic in the area.
Key points raised during the discussion: 1. The DPDM provided Members with some context behind the application. It was stressed that the application to increase the number of HGV movements for the site to 50 in total will count an HGV going into and them coming out of the site as two separate movements. The DPDM confirmed that the site does not produce enough green waste to require 50 HGV movements every day but rather the flexibility will allow Trumps Farm to respond to peaks in the production of green waste throughout the year.
2. The Committee were further informed that partners including SCC’s Highways Authority have not expressed any concern with the application as it is anticipated that there will be no significant impact on roads in this area arising from 50 additional HGV movements a day. Members were advised that the assessment on the impact of traffic did factor in the potential construction of a new housing development near the site.
3. Members expressed support for the application drawing attention to the positive impact that it will have on Surrey’s economy as well as highlighting that it will make the business more efficient and sustainable by reducing the need for green waste to be transported to Basingstoke. More HGV movements will allow the site to handle the growing amount of green waste that is being produced by Surrey residents which is particularly important given that Trumps Farm takes in green waste from four of Surrey’s boroughs. RESOLVED: The Committee approved the application subject to conditions for the reasons listed in the report.
Actions/ further information to be provided: None
|
|
|
CHARGING FOR PRE-APPLICATION ADVICE RELATING TO SURFACE WATER DRAINAGE AND SuDS
As of 6 April 2015, Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) are now delivered through the planning system following recent changes to Central Government legislation. As part of this change, as of 15 April 2015 with the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 coming in to force, Surrey County Council in its capacity as Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) became a statutory consultee on surface water management issues for all new major developments Additional documents: Minutes: Officers: Alan Stones, Planning Development Control Team Manager Nancy El-Shatoury, Principal Solicitor BavaSathan, Flood and Water Services Manager, Environment & Infrastructure Thomas Pooley, Project Consultant, Environment & Infrastructure
Key points raised during the discussion: 1. The Committee asked whether the pre-planning application charging structure will encourage larger developments due to their being a smaller cost per unit. The Flood and Water Services Manager stated that any developments under ten units would not be reviewed as the charging policy has been designed for use by larger developments. RESOLVED: i. The introduction of a pre-application charging system to provide advice on surface water drainage matters was approved. Actions/ further information to be provided: None
|
|
|
ENFORCEMENT & MONITORING UPDATE REPORT
This report covers the period from 1st December 2014 to 13th May 2015
Additional documents: Minutes: Officers: Alan Stones, Planning Development Control Team Manager Nancy El-Shatoury, Principal Solicitor Ian Gray, Planning Enforcement Team Leader
Key points raised during the discussion: 1. The Planning Enforcement Team Manager (PETM) introduced the report.
2. The PETM advised that the owner of Garth Farm is in the process of appealing an enforcement notice by ordering them to clear the rubbish which has accumulated as a result of illegal dumping at their farm. Members were advised that this appears to be a relatively straight forward case, it is therefore anticipated that the notice will be upheld and that the owner will be legally required to clear the site.
3. Unauthorised dumping has also taken place at quarrying site on Church Lane Chelsham. The current tenant has been ejected from the site and negotiations will take place with the seven parties who own separate plots of land on this site so as to recoup the costs of clearing the rubbish which has accumulated.
4. The Committee articulated residents’ concerns with the illegal dumping activity which has taken place over several years at New Pond Farm where the occupier has been importing and dumping mixed waste. The PETM advised Members that an enforcement notice was first served on this property in 2006 and since then there has been an ongoing legal battle with the occupier. The Principal Solicitor informed the Committee that this case is going back to the High Court and that representatives from the Council will be attending a case management conference within the next few weeks. 5. The Committee expressed concerns about the number of acronyms within the reports throughout the agenda and stated that many of these are not explained within the reports. It was suggested that a glossary of terms be included with all agendas which specifies the meaning of each acronym used.
RESOLVED: i. That the report be noted. Actions/ further information to be provided: None
|
|
|
DATE OF NEXT MEETING
The next meeting of the Planning & Regulatory Committee will be on Wednesday 15 July at 10.30am. Additional documents: Minutes: The date of the next Planning and Regulatory Committee will be held on Wednesday 15 July 2015. |