Agenda and minutes

Planning and Regulatory Committee
Wednesday, 18 October 2017 10.30 am

Venue: Ashcombe Suite, County Hall, Kingston upon Thames, Surrey KT1 2DN. View directions

Contact: Huma Younis 020 8213 2725 or Emma O'Donnell 020 8541 8987  Email: or Email:

Webcast: View the webcast

No. Item













    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


    ·         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:


    Mr Stephen Cooksey informed the Committee that as Local Member for Item 7, Land off Bury Hill Wood, he had previously spoken against the application at the Public Inquiry to voice the concerns of the local community.  Mr Cooksey assured Members he was taking an entirely different approach during this Committee meeting and would consider the items with no pre-determination.  He also clarified that he was not present at the Mole Valley District Council meeting when the item was discussed, nor was he a Member of the Mole Valley Planning Committee. 


    Dr Andrew Povey declared a non-pecuniary interest in that he was a Trustee of the Surrey Hills Society.




MO/2017/0911 - Land off Bury Hill Wood, Coldharbour Lane, Holmwood, Surrey, RH5 6HN pdf icon PDF 337 KB

    Details of a Traffic Management Scheme pursuant to Condition 19 of appeal ref: APP/B3600/A/11/2166561 dated 7 August 2015.


    Additional documents:


    An update sheet was tabled at the meeting.  This is attached at Annex A.



    Caroline Smith, Planning Development Manager

    Samantha Murphy, Principal Planning Officer

    Nancy El-Shatoury, Principal Solicitor



    As this item had been deferred from 2 August 2017 after public speaking had already taken place, no further public speaking was permitted on this item in accordance with Standing Order 67.10 of the Surrey County Council Constitution.


    The Chairman agreed for the Local Member to speak on this item. 

    Hazel Watson, Local Member, made the following points:

    1.    The Traffic Management Plan (TMP) was unsafe, unworkable and not suitable for Coldharbour Lane.

    2.    The timings for Heavy Goods Vehicle (HGV) movements were unrealistic.

    3.    Cyclists would be put at danger due to the blind bends and steep gradients of the lane.

    4.    The width of vehicles, 2.8m, could damage the banks of the lane.

    5.    The route involving the M25 would be subject to unpredictable delays and HGVs could end up arriving at the site outside of permitted hours.


    Key points raised during the discussion:

    1.    Officers introduced the report and update sheet and explained that clarifications had been made to address the four points of concern raised by Members at the meeting held on 2 August 2017.  These being:

    a)    to take into consideration any information that arose from Mole Valley District Council’s committee meeting that was held on the evening of 2 August (Mole Valley District Council objected to this planning application at their meeting of 2 August and this is covered at paragraph 47 onwards),

    b)    detail of the substance of the terms of agreement for the use of Ryka's Car Park,

    c)    the system of communications which can be relied upon to ensure all parties affected by the terms of the CTMP remain in contact,

    d)    confirmation of the type of surfacing material to be used at the site.

    2.    Members raised concern that traffic impact on Dorking Town Centre needed to be addressed and that in its current iteration, the TMP did not do this adequately, and that the timings in the TMP were not realistic to anyone who knew the area well. 

    3.    Members noted that whilst clarification had been sought on the system of communications, there was a lack of detail provided other than that it would be a satellite telephone system.  This did not provide an assurance that it was a robust and adequate system whereby residents could make contact if required.

    4.    Members raised concern about the effectiveness of a traffic controller and banksman who would be required to conduct stop/go control across three junctions. 

    5.    A Member stated he was disappointed that 3D imaging had not been provided.  The 2D image showed the base width of the lane but did not take into account any arches or overhanging trees.  Officers explained that this was not one of the clarifications sought by the Committee as part of the deferral, however the Planning Inspector was satisfied that, as part of the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 240/17


MO/2016/1563 - Land at Bury Hill Wood, Coldharbour Lane, Holmwood, Surrey RH5 6HN pdf icon PDF 613 KB

    The installation of perimeter security fencing consisting of 2 metre (m) high Heras fencing and 3m high deer fencing; an office and wc at the site entrance; and office, welfare accommodation, water fuel and a generator, all ancillary to and in association with appeal decision APP/B3600/A/11/2166561 dated 7 August 2015.

    Additional documents:


    An update sheet was tabled at the meeting and this is attached at Annex B



    Caroline Smith, Planning Development Manager

    Samantha Murphy, Principal Planning Officer

    Nancy El-Shatoury, Principal Solicitor



    Alan Hustings, local resident, made the following points:

    1.    Planning permission for Europa was granted, subject to strict conditions.  The first was regarding the site plan, with a clear red line area of 0.79 hectares (ha).  This application has expanded the site in every direction.

    2.    This application is for both buildings and fences to be erected on the enlarged site, breaching Condition 6.  The applicant and officers claim the conditions do not apply as this is not a modification or addition to an existing application, but instead a new one.   

    3.    The site plan shows changes to the access track and the western boundary has been moved four metres outwards to give more space on the site.

    4.    The site was carefully kept at under 1.00 ha to minimise the risk of being deemed a major development.  By setting these conditions, the Planning Inspectorate expected these to be adhered to.

    5.    The Council should expect a legal challenge if this application is approved.


    Max Rosenberg, local resident, made the following points:

    1.    The Inspector’s primary reason for granting permission was that the site was smaller than 1.00 ha.  This application for fencing and ancillary buildings violates that rationale, as the size of the site has increased from 0.79 ha to 1.01 ha.  The Inspector explicitly stated that sites greater than 1.00 ha were considered to be major developments.  It is probable that the Inspector would not have granted permission if the site was 1.01 ha at the time of the original application.

    2.    The original application was considered by the Inspector not to be harmful to the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) due to its lack of visibility.  This new application makes the site visible from Coldharbour Lane, with at least 100m-200m of industrial fencing on the roadside.

    3.    Europa claimed the application was needed due to a change in the security environment, however the Environmental Impact Assessment was written in 2014, after protest activity had begun.

    4.    Security fencing should have been included in the original application.


    Vicki Elcoate, frequent user of Coldharbour Lane:

    1.    The only other fence on the lane is rustic and wooden and blends into the surroundings.  The fencing proposed in this application will industrialise the lane and cause major visual impact in an AONB.

    2.    There was a lack of clarity regarding the length of the fence.

    3.    18 weeks was not an insignificant length of time given the number of cyclists and visitors to the area all year round.

    4.    A pathway on the western side of the development would be cut off, impacting on public access.  This route could be a Public Right of Way which had not be recorded on the definitive map.  Surrey County Council should assess this route for inclusion in the map and then  ...  view the full minutes text for item 241/17


RE16/02556/CON - Horse Hill 1 Well Site, Horse Hill, Hookwood, Horley, Surrey RH6 0RB pdf icon PDF 800 KB

    The retention of the existing exploratory well site and vehicular access onto Horse Hill; the appraisal and further flow testing of the existing borehole (Horse Hill-1) for hydrocarbons, including the drilling of a (deviated) sidetrack well and flow testing for hydrocarbons; installation of a second well cellar and drilling a second (deviated) borehole (Horse Hill-2) and flow testing for hydrocarbons; erection of security fencing on an extended site area; modifications to the internal access track; installation of plant, cabins and equipment, all on some 2.08ha, for a temporary period of three years, with restoration to agriculture and woodland.




    Additional documents:


    An update sheet was tabled, and this is attached at Annex C



    Duncan Evans, Senior Planning Officer

    Caroline Smith, Planning Development Manager

    Nancy El-Shatoury, Principal Solicitor



    Melissa More, local resident, made the following points:

    1.    During the acid using flow-test last year, horses had respiratory problems, residents fainted, had nausea and nosebleeds.  It was unknown what the long term affects would be.

    2.    The CEO of UKOG stated the exploration was a complex technological issue and that the flow has come from a rock unit that has never been tested before.  Local residents are not willing to be an experiment.

    3.    Over 80% of studies state there are numerous health risks linked with living in close proximity to an active well site.

    4.    Drilling techniques are known to cause earthquakes.  Dorking and Reigate are built on sand caves.


    Lisa Scott, local resident, made the following points:

    1.    An increase of people working from home, cycling and a proposed plastic bottle deposit scheme all reduce the need for oil.

    2.    During the flow test last year, whilst running, I inhaled a noxious substance and felt at risk of losing consciousness.  A GP confirmed inflammation to back of the throat.  During the flow testing period, my daughter had a nosebleed and family experienced headaches, all known symptoms linked to well activity. 

    3.    Public footpath is now impassable, causing a loss of trade to local pubs and businesses and increasing the risk of drink-driving as a result.

    4.    There is some inconsistency on the numeric details regarding oil quantities in the application documents.

    5.    The revised Horse Hill traffic management scheme does not adequately answer questions.


    David Bruml, local resident, made the following points:

    1.    Water is being put at risk by these new invasive techniques.

    2.    UKOG reported problems with the cement seal at Billingshurst last week.

    3.    The geology through the weald is cracked so could lead to contamination.  The site is in the catchment of the River Mole.  There have been a number of fish deaths in the River Mole due to contamination in the last week. 

    4.    With proximity to lots of water, it is not an acceptable risk in an area with aquifers and springs.

    5.    Called for a halt to all deep oil drilling in the weald until a public inquiry is carried out to assess the water risks posed by these new techniques.


    Jane Sheppard, local resident, made the following points:

    1.    The CEO of UKOG stated that to be commercially viable, wells would need to be drilled back to back across the weald basin.  This contradicts Reigate and Banstead’s Mineral Waste policy not to industrialise rural nature of the county. It also goes against the Paris Climate Change Agreement to reduce the use of fossil fuels.

    2.    The site is on a major fault line, with high risk of tremors, earthquakes and building subsidence if acid, water and sand are injected at high pressure into unstable rock.

    3.    Major international airport in  ...  view the full minutes text for item 242/17


GU09/P/00482 - Aldershot Car Spares, Chapel Farm, Guildford Road, Normandy, Guildford, Surrey GU3 2AU pdf icon PDF 469 KB

    The proposal is for the erection of a replacement de-pollution building some 5m from the eastern boundary of the application site adjacent to mobile homes.  The location of the proposed building relative to the application site is shown on Drawing Ref. Block Plan Proposed GU/206/1/IE/103A dated 3 March 2016.


    Additional documents:



    Stephen Jenkins, Deputy Planning Development Manager

    Caroline Smith, Planning Development Manager

    Nancy El-Shatoury, Principal Solicitor



    No members of the public registered to speak on this item.


    Keith Witham, Local Member registered to speak.  As Keith was unable to attend the meeting, he provided a short statement for the Chairman to read out on his behalf.


    “Having liaised with the Surrey County Council Planning Case Officer about this for a considerable time, I strongly support the Officer recommendation for refusal of this application.  The location is very close, within metres, of residential homes at Chapel Farm, and such a facility at this location would be very detrimental to the residents affected at Chapel Farm.  It would have a most adverse effect on the local environment, noise, pollution and I hope the committee will support the recommendation to refuse the application by Aldershot Car Spares for all the reasons as set out in the report”.


    The committee unanimously agreed the officer recommendation.



    That application GU09/P/00482- ALDERSHOT CAR SPARES, CHAPEL FARM, GUILDFORD ROAD, NORMANDY, GUILDFORD, SURREY. GU3 2AU be REFUSED for the reasons set out in the report.


The draft County Council Development (Regulation 3) Monitoring and Enforcement Protocol pdf icon PDF 82 KB