Agenda and minutes

Planning and Regulatory Committee
Wednesday, 7 December 2016 10.30 am

Venue: 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

Webcast: View the webcast

Items
No. Item

149/16

APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND SUBSTITUTIONS

150/16

MINUTES OF THE LAST MEETING pdf icon PDF 122 KB

151/16

PETITIONS

152/16

PUBLIC QUESTION TIME

153/16

MEMBERS' QUESTION TIME

154/16

DECLARATIONS OF INTERESTS

    All Members present are required to declare, at this point in the meeting or as soon as possible thereafter

    (i)            Any disclosable pecuniary interests and / or

    (ii)           Other interests arising under the Code of Conduct in respect of any item(s) of business being considered at this meeting

    NOTES:

    ·         Members are reminded that they must not participate in any item where they have a disclosable pecuniary interest

    ·         As well as an interest of the Member, this includes any interest, of which the Member is aware, that relates to the Member’s spouse or civil partner (or any person with whom the Member is living as a spouse or civil partner)

    ·         Members with a significant personal interest may participate in the discussion and vote on that matter unless that interest could be reasonably regarded as prejudicial.

     

    Additional documents:

    Minutes:

    There were none.

155/16

MINERALS/WASTE MO/2016/0981 - Land at Bury Hill Wood, off Coldharbour Lane, Holmwood, Surrey RH5 6HN pdf icon PDF 332 KB

    Details of a Light Management Plan submitted pursuant to Condition 11 of appeal decision APP/B3600/A/11/2166561 dated 7 August 2015.

     

    Additional documents:

    Minutes:

    Officers:

    Alan Stones, Planning Development Control Team Manager

    Nancy El-Shatoury, Principal Solicitor

    Caroline Smith, Transport Control Team Manager

    Samantha Murphy, Principal Planning Officer

     

    Key points raised during the discussion;

     

    1.    The Principal Planning Officer introduced the report and the update sheets tabled at the meeting. It was explained that the Light Management Plan was a requirement set out by Condition 11 of the appeal decision APP/B3600/A/11/2166561 dated 7 August 2015. Officers highlighted that the Light Management Plan would include the lighting type and location and that once installed the lighting would be checked by a suitably qualified engineer, to ensure the lighting had been installed with the requirements of the Light Management Plan. It was also highlighted that the Leigh Hill Action Group had raised concerns over the lighting having a negative impact on the roosting of bats within a tree in close proximity of the application site. 

    2.    A Member of the Committee queried that the lighting plan was not in accordance with the Area of Natural Beauty requirements and whether Officers saw this as reasonable. The Officer confirmed that it was exceeding the lighting requirements as it was above zero but highlighted that the Lighting Consultant had not raised any concerns as they believed it had no significant impact.

    3.    A discussion was had around the type of lighting used and if the lighting would be LED lighting. It was explained by a Member of the Committee that LED lighting had a significant negative impact on bat species in comparison to other lighting types and asked if it was possible to ensure no LED lighting would be used on the site. Officers explained that they could not comment as it may have an affect on the Health and Safety of the site but agreed that it would be possible to include an additional informative to ask the applicant to explore other lighting types.

    4.    A Member of the Committee suggested including an additional informative to address the concerns raised by the Surrey Wildlife Trust over the mitigation measures proposed to ensure lighting would not affect roosting bats during summer months. 

     

    Resolved:

    That application MO/2016/0981 - Land at Bury Hill Wood, off Coldharbour Lane, Holmwood, Surrey RH5 6HN was approved subject to informatives and reasons set out in the report.

     

    Actions/further information to be provided:

     

    1.    To add an additional informative to ask the applicant to explore other lighting types.

     

    2.    To add an additional informative to ensure lighting would not affect roosting bats during summer months. 

     

     

     

     

156/16

GU14/P/01718 - The Drift Golf Club, The Drift, East Horsley, Surrey, KT24 5HD. pdf icon PDF 715 KB

    The importation, deposit and engineering of 54,878m³ (some 87,805 tonnes) of inert waste materials on 3.45ha of land within the existing golf course facility so as to remodel the existing practice ground outfield and to construct a new 11,000m³ irrigation storage lake as part of a strategy to provide sustainable rainwater harvesting scheme; create a new outdoor short game practice and teaching facility including a putting and chipping green; provide a new 769m² building with 30 covered practice bays and associated storage, ablution, lavatory, teaching and administrative facilities for the benefit of the general public, schools, the junior academy and club members; with associated ecological improvements over a period of 9 months and involving some 6,097 HGV trips or 12,194 HGV movements (based on a conversion rate of 13m³ (9m³ compacted) per 20 tonne HGV) on a one way circular route at a maximum of 33 HGV trips (66 HGV movements) per day, with temporary passing bays and traffic management measures along The Drift.

     

    Additional documents:

    Minutes:

    Margaret Hicks left at 12:09pm

     

     

    Officers:

    Alan Stones, Planning Development Control Team Manager

    Nancy El-Shatoury, Principal Solicitor

    Caroline Smith, Transport Control Team Manager

    Dustin Lees, Senior Planning Officer

     

    Speakers:

    Ms. Iles, a local resident, made representations in objection to the application. The following points were made:

     

    1.    The local resident expressed concern over the Heavy Good Vehicles (HGVs) damaging The Drift road as the HGV’s weight exceeded the road weight limit which was 7.5 tonnes. It was also highlighted that the local cottages situated along the HGV route may be damaged by the vibrations caused by passing HGVs.   

    2.    Concern over the safety of residents and school children was expressed as many cross the roads in which the HGVs were routed. The local resident urged the Committee to reject the application.

     

    Mr. Bellchamber, a local resident, made representations in objection to the application. The following points were made:

     

    1.    The local resident highlighted that there would be 33 HGV movements per day during the course of nine months if the application was successful. It was mentioned that this would be very dangerous as the lanes were highly populated by residents and very narrow.

    2.    The air pollution and physical damaged caused by the HGVs was a concern to the resident in which they expressed that there was no real explanation as to why the waste movement was absolutely necessary.  The local resident asked the Committee to reject the application.

     

    Mr. Taylor, a local resident, made representations in objection to the application. The following points were made:

     

    1.    The local resident stressed that the benefits of the golf club were outweighed by the suffering to the local residents and that special circumstances were not shown for the construction in the green belt. The resident informed the committee that due to parked cars most local roads were realistically single carriageways so HGVs would make the situation much worse.

    2.    The resident informed the Committee that The Drift road ran alongside a wildlife reserve and explained that this development would only cause harm to the protected species. The resident urged the Committee to reject the application.     

     

    Mr. Lyzba, the applicant’s Planning Consultant, made the following points in response:

     

    1.    The Planning Consultant  highlighted that part of the proposal was to enable self sufficiency by the regulation of water on the new driving range and that the new development would encourage sport as it would be accessible to local schools in the area.

    2.    It was confirmed that there would be no movement of HGVs between 8:00am and 9:00am and that there would be no movement at all after 2:30pm. It was explained that the reasons for this were to mitigate the issues caused by HGVs at peak traffic times in the area and this that would be enforced by both the golf club and the County’s Planning Enforcement Team. 

    3.    It was explained that there were no severe impact to highways which was shown in the Officers report and that there  ...  view the full minutes text for item 156/16

157/16

DATE OF NEXT MEETING