Agenda and minutes
PDF 197 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: Apologies were received from Steve Cosser, George Johnson and Carol Coleman.
David Ivison attended as a substitute for Steve Cosser and Daniel Jenkins substituted for George Johnson. |
|
|
MINUTES OF THE LAST MEETING
To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 2 September 2015. Additional documents: Minutes: The minutes of the previous meeting were agreed as an 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: The Chairman noted that he had been mentioned a number of times in the report on the application for Village Green status for Leach Grove Wood and so would be stepping down as Chairman for Item 9 and leaving the room after exercising his right to speak as Local Member, to avoid any perception of bias.
There were no other Declarations of Interest. |
|
This application is for the extraction of sand and progressive restoration to agriculture and woodland; and the continued temporary diversion of bridleways 142 and 148 (parts) and temporary stopping up of footpath 121 and 143 (part), without compliance with Condition 3 of planning permission TA00/326 dated 22 November 2000, to allow an extension in time for the working of sand until 2020, with the restoration of the site by 31 December 2022.
The recommendation is to PERMIT subject to conditions.
Additional documents: Minutes: The Committee decided to take item 8 first as a speaker for item 7 had given notification that he would not be arriving until later in the morning.
Officers: Stephen Jenkins, Deputy Planning and Development Team Manager Mark O’Hare, Senior Planning Officer Nancy El-Shatoury, Principal Lawyer Caroline Smith, Transport Development Team Manager
Speakers: The Local Member, Helena Windsor registered to speak and made the following points in reference to the application: · Noted that 12 standardised letters supporting the application had been received from staff at North Park Quarry · Stated an objection to the delay in restoring the green belt land · Expressed concern about cumulative dust from three sites in close proximity. · Informed the Committee that there had previously been reserves in place for four years, this had since increased to 11 years with no figures to support this. · Expressed a condition should be in place to undertake restoration as soon as possible, also expressed that the route for the horse society should be retained.
Key points raised during the discussion: 1. The Deputy Planning and Development Team Manager introduced the report and informed the Committee that processing and access had been permitted in 2012 for the site. Objections had been received from local Parishes and groups. Standardised letters on company headed paper expressing support for the application had been received from employees at North Park Quarry. These would not be acknowledged as individual representations. He informed the Committee that a time extension was required to work the remaining reserves of silica sand, which had been assessed and identified as being of different variations/types for different industrial uses. The western area of the site would likely be ready to be restored in 2016. It was noted that there was an effective dust management plan in place and that the County Air Quality Consultants were satisfied with the air quality mitigation in place and the extraction of sand was considered acceptable. The rights of way network was still required to be diverted but would be restored as soon as possible, it was added that Surrey County Council (SCC) Rights of Way officers were satisfied with this. 2. It was clarified that different areas of the site would be worked on at the same time until 2020 as each area held different grades of sand that need to be extracted until they ran out. 3. The Committee questioned how much liaison with the local community had been undertaken. Officers confirmed that a liaison group had been implemented with the community to monitor dust impacts and officers suggested widening the remit of the group to address restoration. It was agreed to add this as an informative. 4. The Committee was informed that the northern area of the site had already been restored back to agricultural use. 5. It was noted that the site, along with Pendell quarry, was the only area of Surrey which contains silica sand, which meant benefits outweigh any harm due to the need for sand. A Member added that the ... view the full minutes text for item 29/15 |
|
This application is for an underground drilling corridor of an exploratory hydrocarbon borehole.
The recommendation is to PERMIT subject to conditions. Additional documents: Minutes: Chairman informed the committee that the applicant had notified of their intention to film the discussion.
Officers: Stephen Jenkins, Deputy Planning and Development Team Manager Mark O’Hare, Senior Planning Officer Nancy El-Shatoury, Principal Lawyer Caroline Smith, Transport Development Team Manager
Speakers: Max Rosenberg, a local resident, made representations in objection to the application. The following points were made: · Informed the Committee that he is a retired Technology Teacher and is an amateur geologist · Noted that there was a risk to ground water and principal aquifer · Expressed a concern regarding potential contamination of aquifers that could affect the public water supply. A worst case scenario could affect 70,000 properties in the surrounding villages. · Requested members to consider a financial bond ensuring an appropriate sum of money was ring-fenced in the event of environmental pollution. · Expressed that Europa did not have the appropriate means to comply with the Environment Agencies requirements to prevent contamination.
Janet Housden, a local resident, made representations in objection to the application. The following points were made: · Expressed to the Committee that the Highways Management plan had not been assessed on site · Expressed a lack of due diligence and questioned whether comprehensive monitoring would take place · No safety for cyclists in the areas surrounding the site.
Steven Kosky, the applicant, spoke in support of the application. The following points were made: · Re-iterated that the item being discussed was solely in relation to the underground drilling corridor, a wider range of issues had already been addressed and agreed. · Noted that there was a tangible need for development on the site, this had been established in principle by the inspector. · Noted that hydrology noise was the only issue that needed action, all other issues had been addressed by the Secretary of State and mitigation was judged to be fully acceptable. · Risk of ground water contamination had been fully considered and mitigated · The Committee were lastly informed that the Environment Agency (EA) were completely satisfied with the plans and accepted the mitigation plans.
The Local Member, Hazel Watson, registered to speak and made the following points in reference to the application: · Noted her objection to the application · Expressed concern of the risk of pollution and contamination to the aquifer which provides water to 70,000 households.
A Member of an adjoining division,, Stephen Cooksey, registered to speak and made the following points in reference to the application: · Noted his objection to the application · Informed the Committee that Surrey and Sussex Water had raised concern of the aquifer · Expressed that there would be major highways implications · Understood that rejection of the application was harder because of the Appeal decision but that the committee had to make the final decision.
Key points raised during the discussion: 1. The Senior Planning Officer introduced the report and informed the committee the EA raised an objection to the application due to the risk to the water supply. A risk assessment has since been provided and the objection was removed. He highlighted that the applicant could not ... view the full minutes text for item 30/15 |
|
|
APPLICATION FOR VILLAGE GREEN STATUS: Land at Leach Grove Wood, Leatherhead
The committee is asked to consider whether or not to register the land the subject of this application as a Village Green.
The recommendation is to REJECT the application. Additional documents: Minutes:
Officers: Helen Gilbert, Commons Registration Officer Stephen Jenkins, Deputy Planning and Development Team Manager Mark O’Hare, Senior Planning Officer Nancy El-Shatoury, Principal Lawyer
Speakers: The Local Member, Tim Hall, registered to speak and made the following points in reference to the application: · Expressed he knows the area well and the green space gets a lot of public use. · Expressed that an area does not need to have shops to be considered a neighbourhood. It does have sheltered housing, a scout hut and other community facilities. · The area is a cohesive community and has proved the green space is used · Commended the application for village green status to the committee.
Tim Hall then left the room at 12.28pm.
Key points raised during the discussion: 1. The Commons Registration Officer introduced the report and informed the Committee that a neighbourhood must have some coherence to be acknowledged. The officer’s recommendation was to reject the application. 2. The Principal Lawyer explained that the Commons Act 2006 was specific about the criteria which need to be met in order for a piece of land to be granted Village Green status. However, the terms locality and neighbourhood are not defined. Case law has developed which must be considered when seeking to define the terms. The Inspector had found that there was little to differentiate the claimed neighbourhood from the surrounding area and little to suggest cohesiveness. The only appeal available to either side following the committee’s decision would be Judicial Review. 3. Members felt that an area did not require a particular type of building to be considered a neighbourhood. It could be considered that way if residents wish it to be. It simply required a sense of place. It was pointed out that many recent developments were not built with shops but this should not mean that they could not become a neighbourhood or locality. Members queried whether the Inspector’s judgement would result in other urban areas being rejected as neighbourhoods, with only rural areas being judged to have met the necessary criteria. Members highlighted that the plans indicated that there was an infant school, recreation ground, allotment and parking area within the claimed neighbourhood. The Chairman countered that different people will have different definitions of neighbourhoods and that the Inspector had used case law to come to his conclusion. 4. It was noted that the application had met all the other criteria set by the Commons Act 2006. 5. It was noted that the land owner would not be able to develop or sell the land if it were to gain village green status. 6. The Committee was informed that there was a recreation ground close to the proposed village green, it was noted that this did not affect the application under consideration.
RESOLVED:
Members rejected the officer recommendation to REJECT the application. It went on to APPROVE the application to register the land at Leach Grove Wood as a Village Green for the following reason: · Notwithstanding the Inspector's view, Members formed a ... view the full minutes text for item 31/15 |
|
|
DATE OF NEXT MEETING
The next meeting of the Planning & Regulatory Committee will be on 14 October 2015. Additional documents: Minutes: The next Planning and Regulatory Committee will be held on Wednesday 14 October 2015 at 10.30am. |