Agenda and minutes
PDF 255 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 Steve Cosser and Michael Sydney. |
|
|
MINUTES OF THE LAST MEETING
To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 13 July 2016. Additional documents: Minutes: The Minutes were approved as an accurate record of the previous meeting and signed by the Chairman.
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
O/2015/0605 - Land at Elm Nursery, Sutton Green Road, Sutton Green, Woking GU4 7QD
Material change of use from agriculture to use involving importation, storage, processing and transfer of wood waste for biofuel. Erection of building for associated storage and welfare facilities.
Additional documents: Minutes: Officers: Alan Stones, Planning Development Control Team Manager Nancy El-Shatoury, Principal Solicitor Caroline Smith, Transport Development Planning Team Manager Dustin Lees, Senior Planning Officer Susan Hirst, Noise Consultant
Speakers: Mr Batchelor, proxy for Mr Cropper, a local resident, made representation in objection to the application. He made the following points:
1. That there was inconsistency and lack of information in the Officer’s report and that the development was inappropriate for Surrey’s green belt. 2. That the increase of vehicles would raise noise levels in the area and harm the local environment. 3. Mr Batchelor disputed the applicant’s claim to have fully sought alternative site as he himself had found a few sites quite quickly when searching. 4. That the disbenefits outweighed any benefits and therefore the very special circumstances argument should fail.
Mr Vanstone, a local resident, made representation in objection to the application. He made the following points:
1. That alternative locations were not properly searched for and that the 74 objections raised over this development had been ignored. 2. Green waste was not the same as waste. 3. This was an inappropriate use of green belt. 4. Very special circumstances had not been proved. 5. The officers report was misleading and inaccurate. 6. He requested that if the Committee were minded to approve the application to include a few extra conditions which prevented the barn from being built within 12 meters from the boundary of the development, and another to prevent a wood burner from being built.
Mrs Aristidou, a local resident, made representations in objection to the application. She made the following points:
1. The significant adverse impact that would be caused by the development. 2. References were made to the noise report that was said to not give consideration to chainsaws or tree splitters which would startle the nearby animals. She claimed that the noise impact on animals had not been correctly assessed and that the sound mitigation proposed was not enough. Mrs Aristido asked for 48 hours notice by email for the use of such machinery. 3. It was asked that a further noise evaluation was undertaken for the development.
Mrs Whitaker, a local resident, made representations in objection to the application. She made the following points:
Mr Cobbald, the applicant’s agent, made the following points in response:
1. Mr Cobbald informed the Members that their decision was for storage and the processing of waste arising from the applicant’s business, a small local business. This also involved breaking down wood into bio-fuel. It was stated that this would only be in effect for no more than 12 hours every month. It was noted that no wood burner was ... view the full minutes text for item 123/16 |
|
|
SP12/01132/SCD4 - Land at Manor Farm and Queen Mary Quarry, Laleham
Details of a scheme to ensure that the causeway does not form a barrier on the flood plain submitted pursuant to Condition 28 of planning permission reference SP2012/01132 dated 23 October 2015.
Additional documents: Minutes: Officers: Alan Stones, Planning Development Control Team Manager Nancy El-Shatoury, Principal Solicitor Caroline Smith, Transport Development Planning Team Manager Susan Waters, Principal Planning Officer
Speakers: Denise Turner-Stewart, the local Member, made the following points:
1. That the development would increase the chance of flooding in the area and thought that the conditions regarding flooding was not robust enough. The site had a 1 in 30 risk of flooding but the report dealt with a 1 in 100 risk. 2. Asked that both items on the agenda for this site be deferred and that both items be heard together at a later date with another three expected applications for this site.
Key points raised during the Discussion:
1. The Principal Planning Officer introduced the report and gave Members a summary of the applications details. Members were informed that the Environment Agency were satisfied with the size of the pipe and that it would not interfere with the flow of the Thames and that a flood risk assessment had been carried out. Spelthorne Borough Council had raised no objection to the proposal. 2. The Planning Development Control Team Manager reported that it would be unreasonable to defer the items as the current report details allow the items to be determined in isolation. 3. A Member raised concerns that the Council would be liable for damages if decision was deferred. The Planning Development Control Team Manager confirmed that they would if the decision was seen as unreasonable.
The resolution of the Committee was unanimous.
Resolved:
1. That application SP12/01132/SCD4 Land at Manor Farm and Queen Mary Quarry, Laleham was permittedsubject to conditions and reasons set out in the report.
Actions/further information to be provided:
None.
|
|
|
SP12/01132/SCD2 - Land at Manor Farm and Queen Mary Quarry, Laleham
Further slides are attached that refer to this application as well as Application: SP12/01132/SCD4 SCD4.
Additional documents: Minutes: Officers: Alan Stones, Planning Development Control Team Manager Nancy El-Shatoury, Principal Solicitor Caroline Smith, Transport Development Planning Team Manager Susan Waters, Principal Planning Officer
Speakers: Denise Turner-Stewart, the local Member, made the following points:
1. That there was a moderate to high chance that the land proposed would contain archaeological findings and asked when and who would receive these in the event of them arising.
Key points raised during the Discussion:
1. Members raised concern that archaeological findings would not be protected in the event of them being found. The Principal Planning Officer confirmed that artefacts would be retained and archived and may go to a museum in the event of them being found but that will be part of a future discussion. 2. Members asked for confirmation of what would happen to the artefacts once found in which the Principal Planning Officer confirmed that information would be logged nationally, that artefacts would belong to the landowner and that there was currently no receiving museum.
Resolved:
1. That application SP12/01132/SCD2 Land at Manor Farm and Queen Mary Quarry, Laleham was permittedsubject to conditions and reasons set out in the report and in the update sheet attached to the minutes.
Actions/further information to be provided:
None.
|
|
|
DATE OF NEXT MEETING
The next meeting of the Planning & Regulatory Committee will be on 7 September 2016. Additional documents: Minutes: The next meeting on 7 September 2016 is cancelled. |