Agenda and minutes
PDF 110 KBVenue: Ashcombe Suite, County Hall, Kingston upon Thames, Surrey KT1 2DN
Contact: Cheryl Hardman or Helen Rankin
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 Carol Coleman and Natalie Bramhall. |
|
|
MINUTES OF THE LAST MEETING
These will be confirmed and signed off at our next meeting on 3 September 2014. Additional documents: Minutes: It was noted that minutes of the meeting on 16 July 2014 would be confirmed at the meeting on 3 September due to the short timescale between the July meetings. |
|
|
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. |
|
|
MINERALS/WASTE TA/2013/1799 :Mercers South, Nutfield, Redhill, Surrey, RH1 4EU
This is an application for the extraction and screening of sand from Mercers South with progressive restoration to agriculture using inert waste materials, together with: the construction of a new dedicated internal access from the A25; screening bunds; the provision of a welfare/office block and mobile home to accommodate staff and security personnel; a wheelwash, weighbridge and associated office; car parking area; reinstatement of rights of way network, woodland, historic hedgerows and ditch to include landscape and ecological enhancements, on a site of 52.2 ha and the temporary diversion of public footpath 173 for the duration of the operations.
The recommendation is to PERMIT subject to conditions.
Additional documents: Minutes: An update sheet was tabled and is attached as Annex 1.
Declarations of interest: None
Officers: Louise Calam, Principal Transport Development Planning Officer Nicola Downes, Transport Development Planning Officer Nancy El-Shatoury, Principal Lawyer Alan Stones, Planning Development Control Team Manager
Speakers:
Dr Sowton, a local resident, made representations in objection to the application. The points he raised included:
· He disputed the accuracy of the assertion in paragraph 152 of the officer report that there is no evidence that dust from the sand extraction and emissions from HGV traffic pose an unacceptable risk to health. He highlighted the published results of international studies which leave no room for doubt about the harm to human health. For example, a study published this year shows the increased chance of coronary heart disease associated with breathing in particulate matter.
Chris Hoskins, a local resident, made representations in objection to the application. The points he raised included:
· He was a chartered civil engineer with expertise in reservoirs. He was unaware of anyone involved in drawing up the planning application having expertise in reservoirs. He argued that the proposals were naive and do not adequately acknowledge risk. · The proposal retains Glebe Lake as a resource but allows extraction very close to it. There have already been flooding incidents, with levels in Glebe Lake overflowing onto farm land and gardens.
The applicant, Peter Crate of J & J Franks addressed the Committee and raised the following points:
· His company had worked with local residents, councillors and experts in drawing up these proposals. An examination in public had taken place. In 2012 further land had been acquired to provide alternative access to the site. · The site is needed. There has been a 40% increase in demand for minerals but there is only one soft sand quarry left in Surrey. The Mercers Farms site is the biggest contributor to the Surrey Minerals Plan and will help sustain recovery in the South East. · While he wasn’t a scientist or an expert in dust and HGV emissions, he had been advised that he levels meets with Government Guidance. The company had Environmental accreditation and was regularly upgrading vehicles to meet environmental standards. · Reservoirs are defined as man-made voids. The speaker Chris Hoskins had agreed that Glebe Lake was not a reservoir in a letter on the application. Glebe Lake is a key part of the site and will be actively managed during site operations. As the quarry approaches Glebe Lake, new measures will be put in place based on technical advice.
The local Member, Helena Windsor addressed the committee and raised the following points:
· The application was being considered on a date when many people are away on holiday. Two Parish Councils had requested an adjournment but this had not been granted. · The report shows the Nutfield Marsh Residents Group as having had no comment but they had commented by the deadline. · The village to the east of the site would continue to be blighted ... view the full minutes text for item 89/14 |
|
This is an application for the installation of demountable unit comprising two classrooms for a temporary period of 3 years.
The recommendation is to PERMIT subject to conditions.
Additional documents: Minutes: An update sheet was tabled and is attached as Annex 2.
As items 8 and 9 deal with retrospective applications, the Chairman asked the Principal Lawyer to explain the legal situation. The Principal Lawyer explained that Section 73A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 clarifies that a retrospective planning application must be dealt with as if it is a conventional planning application. Being retrospective is not grounds for refusal.
Declarations of interest: None
Officers: Louise Calam, Principal Transport Development Planning Officer Nicola Downes, Transport Development Planning Officer Nancy El-Shatoury, Principal Lawyer Alan Stones, Planning Development Control Team Manager
Speakers:
John Lewis, a local resident, made representations in objection to the application. The points he raised included:
· The demountable unit had already been built and therefore the conditions being imposed were nonsense. · He suggested an additional condition that the side gate be closed or additional parking restrictions are put in place which are enforced by Elmbridge Borough Council. · More residents would have liked to attend and speak to the committee but due to the timing of the meeting they are on holiday. · Many parents park on kerbs. · A neighbour who is a midwife had been blocked into her drive by a parent and so could not get to an emergency birth. The parent’s response to was to shout abuse.
Sue Ebbinghaus, a local resident, made representations in objection to the application. The points she raised included:
· She had lived in Garrick Gardens for many years. Over time it had changed as the school had grown and traffic had increased. · Cars blocking driveways had led to residents missing trains and GP appointments. She had had to arrange a funeral around timing for school traffic. · Parents can be abusive when challenged.
Jo Wales, a local resident, made representations in objection to the application. The points she raised included:
· She had been a teacher at Hurst Park School and her son had attended it. Traffic and parking had been a perennial issue. · The current difficulty was the result of Surrey County Council policies. In the past school land had been sold to build houses. As a result there are now not enough school places and schools are being expanded to cope. · The nursery is opened and closed twice a day which results in traffic and parking problems throughout the day.
The local Member, Ernest Mallett, wished to participate as part of the committee rather than speak as the local Member.
Key points raised during the discussion:
1. The Planning Development Control Team Manager introduced the report. 2. The local Member informed the committee that parking restrictions had previously been put into Garrick Gardens. Most of Garrick Gardens has dropped kerbs and there are yellow lines where they aren’t dropped. The issue is one of enforcement. Further restrictions would be to the detriment of residents and their guests. He highlighted the new Hurst Park School which would lead to this site being closed and ... view the full minutes text for item 90/14 |
|
This is an application for the installation of a demountable classroom unit comprising one classroom and ancillary facilities for a temporary period of 7 years; external fencing works and relocation of bin store and cycle store.
The recommendation is to PERMIT subject to conditions.
Additional documents: Minutes: An update sheet was tabled and is attached as Annex 3.
Declarations of interest: None
Officers: Louise Calam, Principal Transport Development Planning Officer Nicola Downes, Transport Development Planning Officer Nancy El-Shatoury, Principal Lawyer Alan Stones, Planning Development Control Team Manager
Speakers:
Chris Frost, a local resident, made representations in objection to the application. The points he raised included:
· He had been the local County Councillor when the school was built. The officer report had recommended that permission be refused because of residential amenity issues. The concerns were overcome with the addition of a condition to limit the number of cars parked outside the school to 30. Local residents were told that the school would not be able to expand as the site was too small. · There was impact on residential amenity into the evenings because of parents’ evenings etc. · He highlighted the reduction in parking for staff. This was formally being reduced by three spaces but in fact was being reduced by five spaces as two further members of staff were currently able to park in informal car parking spaces.
Liz Frost, a local resident, made representations in objection to the application. The points she raised included:
· When the school had been built, residents had been assured that the site was too small for expansion. · Conditions on parking had not been complied with or enforced. · The school is situated at the top of a steep, narrow cul de sac. As it takes time to load and unload children, and cars are blocked from leaving by cars trying to reach the school, many parents simply park across driveways etc. · There had been near misses between cars and this is a dangerous situation for pedestrians, especially children. An additional 30 children implies that they will be coming from outside the village and will therefore be driven to school. · The School Travel Plan had not been complied with.
The local Member, Tina Mountain, had not registered to speak.
Key points raised during the discussion:
1. The Planning Development Control Team Manager introduced the report. He explained that this was an application for a temporary permission to deal with a bulge in a single year. The current capacity for the school would not be reached even when taking account of the bulge. 2. Members queried whether a temporary period of seven years was sufficient. Officers explained that seven years would see the bulge year group through primary school. The Chairman informed teh committee that the school was not obliged to keep the demountable for the full seven years if it is found that it is no longer required. 3. A Member argued that allowing six months from occupation of the development for the submission of a school travel plan was too long. To have value it should be submitted by the start of the school year. The Planning Development Control Team Manager felt that this would be an unreasonable requirement given the short time this would allow for ... view the full minutes text for item 91/14 |
|
This report addresses the introduction of formal pre application discussion guidance and charging scheme for county matter development.
Recommendation: That Members approve the implementation of the proposed pre application guidance procedure and charging scheme to be introduced by the 15 September 2014, and to be reviewed after the first year and thereafter as appropriate.
Additional documents: Minutes: Declarations of interest: None
Officers: Nancy El-Shatoury, Principal Lawyer Alan Stones, Planning Development Control Team Manager
Key points raised during the discussion:
1. The Planning Development Control Team Manager introduced the report. He clarified that local authorities were able to recover costs incurred in providing pre-application advice but not to make a profit. In charges being recommended are comparable to what other local authorities have although where local authorities are reviewing their schemes they are finding that have under- rather than over-estimated costs. 2. Members queried whether the charges proposed fully reflect the service provided. It appears that applicants are getting a good deal. It was also queried whether a free level one should be offered or if there should be a nominal fee for level one which is offset against other levels of advice. The Planning Development Control Team Manager explained that the charges replicates what other local authorities are doing. It was not possible to charge for information which the planning service is obliged to provide. A reasonable level of service is being offered for free and gives an entree into the service. 3. There was concern that tax-payers already pay for the planning service and applicants pay a substantial planning fee. It was suggested that once charges are introduced they tend to increase rather than decrease. 4. Members queried whether there would be any charge to objectors requesting information. The Planning Development Control Team Manager informed the committee that there was no proposal to charge objectors for information. They can generally access all the information they need already and can also utilise Freedom of Information requests. 5.
There was concern about blurring the division
between poacher and gamekeeper. If
applicants paid for pre-application work and the application is
then reviewed by the same planning officer, would any advice be
publicly available. The Planning
Development Control Team Manager explained that information is
likely to be publicly available unless it is exempt for financial
reasons. With regard to consultants
having a conflict of interest, they would have to declare an
interest and the Council would call in a fall-back
consultant. Actions/Further information to be provided: None
RESOLVED: To APPROVE the implementation of the proposed pre-application guidance procedures and charging scheme to be introduced by the 15 September 2014, and to be reviewed after the first year and thereafter as appropriate.
|
|
|
ENFORCEMENT & MONITORING UPDATE REPORT
This report covers the period from 1st February 2014 to 30th June 2014.
Additional documents: Minutes: Photographs were tabled and are attached as Annex 4.
Declarations of interest: None
Officers: Nancy El-Shatoury, Principal Lawyer Ian Gray, Principal Planning Enforcement Officer Alan Stones, Planning Development Control Team Manager
Key points raised during the discussion:
1. The Principal Planning Enforcement Officer introduced the report and explained the photographs. 2. Members welcomed the report and asked if it would be possible to be brought an update on a quarterly basis. Officers explained that this would be administratively onerous and would take resources away from enforcement action. 3. The Principal Planning Enforcement Officer confirmed that he was getting co-operation from local enforcement officers. He explained that all councils were under the same pressures and support will fluctuate over time. If he had any particular issues he was able to raise them with the Planning Development Control Team Manager. 4.
Officers informed Members that the planning service
has no control over where material is moved to. In the past enforcement notices had attempted to
include this but the Planning Inspector had said that this was not
in the council’s authority.
However, the Environment Agency is encouraged to check where the
material is going so that it isn’t just moved to another
problem site. Actions/Further information to be provided: None
RESOLVED: To NOTE the Enforcement and Monitoring Update Report.
|
|
|
DATE OF NEXT MEETING
The next meeting of the Planning & Regulatory Committee will be on 3 September 2014. Additional documents: Minutes: The date of the next meeting was noted. |