Agenda and minutes
PDF 198 KBVenue: Ashcombe Suite, County Hall, Kingston upon Thames, Surrey KT1 2DN. View directions
Contact: Angela Guest tel: 020 8541 9075 Email: angela.guest@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 Mr David Munro and Mr George Johnson. |
|
|
MINUTES OF THE LAST MEETING
To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 23 March 2016. Additional documents: Minutes: The Minutes of the meeting held on 23 March 2016 were approved as a correct record subject to the insertion of the following paragraph under Minute 79/16 - Surrey County Council Proposal Sp15/01590/SCC: Grazing Land opposite Ford Close, Kingston Road, Ashford, Surrey TW15 3SL [Item 7]:
‘One Member requested a condition to prevent right-hand turning at the site entrance/exit. The Transport Planning Development Team Manager explained that this would be dealt with not by condition but via the S278 Agreement and detailed design of the highways works that needed to happen before construction can commence on the highway’.
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
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 no declarations of interest. |
|
|
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. |
|
|
MEMBERS' QUESTION TIME
To answer any questions received from Members of the Council in accordance with Standing Order 47. Additional documents: Minutes: A question was received from Cllr Ernest Mallett. The question and response below were tabled at the meeting:
Question from Cllr Ernest Mallett The 'Wetlands' water provision and resculpting of the Chelsea/Lambeth/Molesey Reservoirs has been complete for some 2 years but there is no sign of the section 106 provisions for a Visitors Centre, an associated Car Park and Limited Public Opening which is a requirement of the Section 106 agreements. What is the position and likely progress time to completion and the site being regularly open to the public?
Response:
Background The Molesey Reservoir site was originally worked for sand gravel with a wet restoration for nature conservation purposes. While the physical works are largely complete, the aftercare requirements are still in progress over about two thirds of the site. The site will not be finished for the purposes of planning control until the aftercare requirement is discharged.
Thames Water, the site owner, is to enter into formal management agreement with Surrey Wildlife Trust (SWT) to manage the site as a nature reserve. SWT may take over the remaining aftercare work however this is still the subject of negotiation with the former operator Island Barn Aggregates (IBA).
A section 106 agreement and a planning agreement provide for a long term management plan and it has been informally agreed (some 2/3 years ago now) that SWT would progress this on taking up management of the site.
Car Park A car park has been provided in accordance with the approved plans, but is not visible from outside the site. It should be stressed that this is not a public car park, but purely for the use of activities on the site, for example educational parties, work parties, etc.
Public Access There is no existing or proposed public access over the site. A permissive footpath (dawn to dusk) between Hurst Road and the River Thames has been laid out on site. The permissive route is unavailable at present as gates at either end of the route remain locked. Neither Thames Water nor IBA are currently prepared to open them for reasons to do with site security and staff resource. County Officers continue to lobby for this benefit.
Visitors Centre The original intention was that an old staff house in the south west corner of the site be used for this. However, SWT would like to construct a purpose built centre by the entrance to the site and existing car park. Discussion is on going with Thames Water on this matter. The development of a visitors centre would assist with the supervision and use of the permissive footpath. A new visitors centre will require planning permission. While the site is in aftercare the County Council would be the determining authority. Accordingly, the completion of a new operational visitors centre could be two or more years away at present.
Supplementary Question from Mr Mallett How are you going to get a visitors centre on site within a reasonable timescale?
The Planning Manager explained that ... view the full minutes text for item 88/16 |
|
Construction of a one storey building to provide an additional 1FE to the existing School, with associated proposed landscaping, hard play and additional parking. In addition, construction of an extension to the existing dining hall and extension to separate classroom block.
Additional documents: Minutes: Officers: Alan Stones, Planning Development Control Team Manager Nancy El-Shatoury, Principal Solicitor Caroline Smith, Transport Development Planning Team Manager Dawn Horton-Baker, Senior Planning Officer
Speakers: Andrew Floyd, a local resident, made representations in objection to the application. The following points were made:
- Expressed the difficulty in parking in his local area during peak school opening and closing times - Local residents were unhappy with current traffic conditions in their area - Explained that in his experience, parents have not had a positive attitude when confronted about inappropriate parking - Expressed that in his opinion the school has no reasonable plan to reduce the traffic conditions in the area - Asked the committee to reject the proposal as it would have negative impacts on the local area
Key points raised during the discussion:
1. The Planning Officer introduced the report and the update sheet tabled at the meeting and appended to these minutes. The Planning Officer informed the committee that the expansion was needed to add more pupils and that there has been 55 letters of objection to the expansion. An objection had been received from ‘Sport England’ as the proposed extension used some school playing field; officers acknowledged this and informed the committee that the proposed expansion did not reduce any existing pitches on the field. The Planning Officer explained that the increase in cars would be fairly small and that with the building of the new school gate and the creation of new travel plans would reduce the impact and may even improve current traffic conditions. The Planning Officer recommended that the report be forwarded to the Secretary of State for approval. 2. Some Members expressed that the need for school places in the local area is very important and that they believe there would be a minimal impact due to loss of land at the school, as the land that would be lost was currently derelict and not large enough for another pitch. 3. A Member raised their concerns that the loss of playing field and the increase of pupils would mean even less free space for the pupils. 4. In response to the Members concerns regarding the loss of playing field and the increase of pupils the Planning Officer confirmed to Members that a new hard surface area will be built to give students additional space. 5. Several Members raised concerns that the school had not provided sufficient plans to reduce traffic in the local area during peak dropping off and picking up times and that the school will need to become more proactive to mitigate the increase of traffic in the area. Members spoke of investing in alternative ways to journey to school which would reduce the congestion of vehicles during peak times. Members requested that the school works with the local committee in easing traffic conditions and potentially applying parking restrictions to the area. 6. Members expressed that the Planning Officers must persist with finding reliable parking outside of the school. 7. Some Members ... view the full minutes text for item 89/16 |
|
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 area; storage areas; site entrance and access road; and landscaping bunds without compliance with Condition 2 and 4 of planning permission ref: SP/14/01125/SCC dated 13/03/2015 to allow operational flexibility for the access and egress of vehicles based at the site.
Additional documents: Minutes: Officers: Alan Stones, Planning Development Control Team Manager Nancy El-Shatoury, Principal Solicitor Duncan Evans, Senior Planning Officer
No one had registered to speak.
Key points raised during the discussion:
1. The Planning Officer introduced the report and informed Members of current operation hours for the site and proposed operation hours for the site. The Planning Officer explained that the reason for the proposal was because, due to changes to the applicants waste collection contracts, now specifying out of hours waste collections in order to decrease congestion on the road network during the busiest times, the applicant wished to change the permitted hours when HGVs may access and egress the site. 2. Some Members raised questions about the necessity of the site remaining open after business hours if no waste processing would be taking place. The Planning Officer informed Members that the HGVs would be collecting and dropping off the waste to the site during the night, but would only begin to process the waste once business hours had begun. 3. A Member informed the committee that the local member had objected to the report but was unaware of this meeting date so was unable to attend and speak. 4. Members raised their concerns about the number of heavy goods vehicles (HGVs) movements, increasing noise levels in the area during the night and asked the Planning Officer to clarify the number of HGVs which will be used after business hours. The Planning Officer confirmed it would be a maximum of 24 HGVs leaving the site and 24 HGVs returning. 5. A Member raised a question with the Planning Officer to confirm the catchment area in which the HGVs would be travelling. The Planning Officer confirmed that the catchment area is within north west Surrey. 6. Members raised concern about the enforcement of noise restrictions and asked what plans will be put in place to control noise levels in the area. The Planning Officers informed Members that a noise assessment had been completed which provided evidence that the noise levels were acceptable in the area, and below minimum requirements. The Planning Officer also informed Members that enforcement would be reactive and in the event of a local resident sending a letter of complaint, a noise consultant would be sent to measure the noise in the local area.
Resolved:
· It was agreed to PERMIT subject to conditions for the reasons set out in the report
Action/further information to be provided:
To change the word “Delivery” to “Any” in condition 4 of the report
Councillor Steve Cosser left the meeting at 12:05 and returned at 12:13 and was therefore unable to vote on this Application.
|
|
Operation of Earlswood Materials Bulking Facility without compliance with Conditions 1 and 11 of planning permission ref: RE/P/13/01661/CON dated 13 February 2014 to amend the lighting design at the site (retrospective).
Additional documents: Minutes: This item was taken before item 9
Officers: Alan Stones, Planning Development Control Team Manager
No one had registered to speak.
Key points raised during the discussion:
1. The Planning Officer introduced the report regarding the amendment of three drawings pertaining to the lighting scheme for the applicant site and informed Members to as where the lighting will be fitted. The Planning Officer informed Members that a lighting consultant had received no objections to the proposal and that it was the Planning Officers recommendation that permission should be granted. 2. A Member asked the Planning Officer for confirmation on the distance between the site and the concerned resident. The Planning Officer confirmed it was 600 meters away. 3. A Member expressed that they do not believe a great impact will be made as they live in the vicinity of the site and had never been inconvenienced with light congestion from the site.
Resolved:
· It was agreed to PERMIT subject to conditions for the reasons set out in the report
Action/further information to be provided:
Members ask that considerations be made in the accuracy of aerial photographs
|
|
|
PLANNING REVIEW - IMPLEMENTATION PLAN TASK: REVIEW OF COMMITTEE/DELEGATED REPORT FORMAT
The recommendation is that the Planning and Regulatory Committee note the contents of the report and outcome of the review of the report format and endorse the revised committee/delegated report format.
Additional documents: Minutes: Officers: Alan Stones, Planning Development Control Team Manager Susan Waters, Principal Planning Officer
No one had registered to speak.
Key points raised during the discussion:
1. The Planning Officer introduced the report and informed Members of a proposal to change the format of the committee reports. The Planning Officer highlighted that there would be no fundamental change to the format and that changes proposed were intended to help to reduce the length of reports, make it easier for the reader to navigate the report. 2. Suggestions made by Members for Officers to consider included:- · Members suggested that links should be provided to actual documents not just the website page, for example when a link is provided to Planning Policy Guidance (PPG), link to the specific PPG part that was relevant, and to ensure that links were still available at the time the report is drafted. · To video record site visits and make it available to view key parts during committee meetings for the public benefit (virtual site visits). · More use of standard paragraphs. · Plans to show the location of proposed buildings within the application site and where appropriate aerials should be annotated.
Members requested that the summary was kept as it was, as well as the planning history which was very useful to them
Resolved:
That the report summary is kept in its current format as it was useful to the public and Members
Action/further information to be provided:
None.
|
|
|
DATE OF NEXT MEETING
The next meeting of the Planning & Regulatory Committee will be on 8 June 2016. Additional documents: Minutes: The date of the next meeting was noted. |