Agenda and minutes
PDF 205 KBVenue: Ashcombe Suite, County Hall, Kingston upon Thames, Surrey KT1 2DN. View directions
Contact: Rianna Hanford 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 for absence were received from Steve Cosser, Ernest Mallet and David Munro.
Peter Hickman substituted for Ernest Mallet. |
|
|
MINUTES OF THE LAST MEETING
To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 6 January 2016. Additional documents: Minutes: The Minutes were approved as an accurate record of the previous 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 recieved. |
|
|
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: Michael Sydney declared that he would not vote during Item 7 as he was a director of the Surrey Campaign to Protect Rural England.
|
|
The continued extraction and processing of silica sand and transportation off site of sand, an amended interim restoration scheme for Park Pit, an amended programme of working for Tapwood Quarry, an amended dust action plan and dust management scheme, an amended groundwater monitoring scheme; and an amended restoration and aftercare scheme at Buckland Pits (Tapwood Quarry and Park Pit) until 31 August 2014 with restoration to water based recreation, woodland and grazing by 31 August 2016 without compliance with Conditions 3, 4, 16, 17, 23, 31, 32, 38, 39, 40, 41 and 42 of planning permission ref: MO98/1549 dated 27 May 1999; and the installation of a new slurry plant at Tapwood Quarry.
The recommendation is to PERMIT subject to conditions
Additional documents: Minutes: Declarations of Interest:
Michael Sydney declared that he would not vote as he was a director of the Surrey Campaign to Protect Rural England.
Officers: Stephen Jenkins, Deputy Planning Development Manager Alan Stones, Planning Development and Control Team Manager Caroline Smith, Transport Development Planning Manager Nancy El-Shatoury, Principal Solicitor
Speakers: No one had registered to speak.
Key points raised during the discussion: 1. The Deputy Planning Development Manager introduced the report and informed the Committee that the application was a variation of an existing permission, and was submitted in 2010. Restoration was scheduled for completion in 2015 though due to delays this deadline had been amended to 2016. Sand and equipment from the site had been removed and the restorative work was all that remained to be completed. It was explained that complicated hydrology had implications on the final water levels that would be attained at the site, which has led to the delays in the determination of this application. Natural England expressed that the previously proposed re-wetting scheme in respect of the nearby SSSI would not prove effective and that the scheme should no longer be considered. This view was supported by the Environment Agency. The majority of Park Pit had been restored, though work at Tapwood had not finished due to the water levels not at equilibrium. Natural England (NE) and the Environment Agency (EA) were content with the submitted landscaping and restoration plans. Ground water monitoring would be ongoing in conjunction with aftercare. 2. A Member queried whether adequate safety measures for recreational users was being implemented at the site. Officers reported that the site was part of a private estate, and as such not open to the public, safety facilities such as signage and buoyancy aids would be made available at the site. 3. A Member commented that historical activities at the site had caused irreversible damage to the natural environment and this had a detrimental impact on the planned restorative work. It was also highlighted that various statutory groups and residents had raised concern that the water levels had been left lower than planned. Officers commented that historic working of the quarries and continued abstraction by the local water company was likely to have been more damaging to the SSSI than the activities within the proposal, i.e. since 2010. The external consultees agreed that the proposed water levels were acceptable. Officers explained that the damage to the SSSI is the result of a combination of factors and operations over a long period of time, therefore it would be impossible to identify which operator this responsibility could be apportioned to. Officers also stated that the recommendations for compensation would not meet the tests in the planning regulations, so could not be supported. 4. Officers agreed with the Committee that mineral working had made an impact on the water tables in Surrey however issues, such as those highlighted in the report, were the result of historical decisions to extract a resource whilst not considering the consequences fully ... view the full minutes text for item 67/15 |
|
Construction and use of 2.47 hectares of new concrete hardstanding to resurface the existing unmade compound area at Oak Leaf Farm waste recycling, recovery and processing facility.
The recommendation is to PERMIT subject to conditions
Additional documents: Minutes: Officers: Alan Stones, Planning Development and Control Team Manager Duncan Evans, Planning Officer
Duncan Evnas presented the reports for item 8 and item 9 together and the Committee discussed both items under item 8.
Speakers:
There were no public speakers.
The Local Member, Robert Evans, registered to speak and made the following points in reference to the applications: · Expressed concern that the area proposed in SP/15/00929/SCC to be developed was not included in the original planning application. · Outlined that the reported stated that development was inappropriate in the Green Belt area. · Expressed concerns around dust, noise pollution and traffic issues regarding the concrete crusher application set out in SP15/01184/SCC. · Supported Spelthorne Borough Council’s position that the development would be inappropriate. · Expressed that the Committee should go back to the applicant and request details on their long term plans for the site.
Key points raised during the discussion: 1. The Planning Officer introduced the reports and informed the Committee that in 2009 the permission was granted for the redevelopment of the site and the installation of waste management facilities. The proposal was amended in 2015 to allow for shredding machinery. The present application requested the installation of a concrete crusher. Local residents had raised concerns over dust and noise pollution; it was noted that Spelthorne Borough Council and the Local Member had raised objections. The site is located within Greenbelt land however, as permission was granted in 2009, further development was permissible. The Officer also informed the Committee that the application to resurface the remaining part of the site was for ancillary services; the concrete surface would create less dust in dry periods and provide a more efficient surface for working in wet weather; there would be an increase of around 25 Heavy Goods Vehicle (HGV) movements to the site per day, and issues such as drainage and highways matters had been considered and found to be acceptable. 2. A Member noted that there were four other concrete crushers in Spelthorne and expressed that the report did not demonstrate an appropriate need for an additional concrete crusher in the area. 3. The Committee expressed that generating additional HGV movements had no benefit to Surrey, and raised concerns over the nature of the concrete to be used for the hard-standing. Officers responded that there was a known need for Surrey to be able to process more waste materials and suggested that this development would help relieve this issue. 4. Members queried whether the applications for the site constituted to a change of use of the site. Officers also confirmed that the development would not make the site Brownfield land and would not set a precedent for future development works on the site. 5. A Member raised concern around the stockpile of waste at the site and sought clarification on the height limits for waste. Concerns were also raised over: proposed time restrictions for the concrete crusher; whether its proposed location was fixed, as well as further concerns around combined noise pollution and ... view the full minutes text for item 68/15 |
|
The installation and use of concrete crushing plant for the processing of construction and demolition wastes to produce recycled aggregate.
The recommendation is to PERMIT subject to conditions
Additional documents: Minutes: Officers: Alan Stones, Planning Development and Control Team Manager William Flaherty, Planning Officer Caroline Smith, Transport and Planning Team Manager Nancy El-Shatoury, Principal Solicitor
The discussion in relation to this item is recorded under item 8. RESOLVED:
The Committee resolved to DEFER the applications in order to undertake a site visit for the reasons set out in item 8. |
|
|
MINERALS/WASTE RE15/02426/CON- 2 Perrylands Lane, Smallfield, Horley, Surrey RH6 9PR
The continued use of land as a soil processing facility, utilising imported builders construction and demolition waste, including: the siting of a screener, single storey portacabin, portaloo, two metal containers, concrete hardstanding, stockpiles of soils and rubble, perimeter soil bunds, lighting, water mist sprinklers, access gates, wheelwash, and the provision of car parking and fuel storage without compliance with Conditions 2, 6 and 24 of planning permission ref: RE14/02134/CON dated 21 January 2015 to provide a revised drainage strategy.
The recommendation is to PERMIT subject to conditions
Additional documents: Minutes: An update sheet was tabled and is attached as annex 1.
Officers: Alan Stones, Planning Development and Control Team Manager William Flaherty, Planning Officer
Caroline Smith, Transport and Planning Team Manager Nancy El-Shatoury, Principal Solicitor
Speakers:
There were no public speakers.
The Local Member, Michael Sydney, spoke as a Member of the Committee.
Key points raised during the discussion: 1. The Planning Officer introduced the report and informed the Committee of the proposed change of drainage solution for the land within the application. 2. It was expressed that the application may increase the risk of flooding in the local area. Though the land crosses over two ward boundaries, it was understood that the risks to flooding were greater in the Tandridge area 3. A Member queried why the noise restrictions at this waste site differed so greatly from the previous application. Officers explained that restrictions were agreed on a case by case basis and the geography and location of sites affected the level of restrictions imposed. 4. The Committee expressed that the application seemed straightforward in that it was a proposal to relocate the drainage from one area of the site to another. 5. A Member queried which party had responsibility for ditches and the connections on land. Officers confirmed that ditches and drainage were the responsibility of the land owners, though the Council had powers to ensure that watercourses remained unblocked.
RESOLVED:
· It was agreed to PERMIT the application subject to the conditions for the reasons set out in the report.
Action/further information to be provided:
None.
|
|
For information. Additional documents: Minutes: Officers: Alan Stones, Planning Development and Control Team ManagerDustin Lees, Senior Planning Officer Caroline Smith, Transport and Planning Team Manager Nancy El-Shatoury, Principal Solicitor
Key points raised during the discussion: 1. The Planning Development and Control Team Manager introduced the report and noted that the item was for information. 2. The Senior Planning Officer was congratulated for the work completed and commitment on the application.
RESOLVED:
· The Committee noted the report
Action/further information to be provided:
None.
|
|
|
DATE OF NEXT MEETING
The next meeting of the Planning & Regulatory Committee will be on 23 March 2016. Additional documents: Minutes: The next Planning and Regulatory Committee will be held on Wednesday 23 March 2016 at 10.30am. |