Agenda and minutes

Planning and Regulatory Committee
Wednesday, 23 May 2018 10.30 am

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

Contact: Huma Younis or Emma O'Donnell  Email: / 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:


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


    Mr Stephen Cooksey declared a non-pecuniary interest as a Member of Mole Valley District Council (MVDC). Mr Cooksey explained that he had just been appointed to the MVDC Planning Committee; although he was not sitting on that Committee at the time of the consultation of the Bury Hill Wood application. Further, it was added that Mrs Margaret Cooksey was currently the Vice-Chairman of the MVDC Planning Committee.




MINERALS/WASTE MO/2016/1563- Land at Bury Hill Wood, Coldharbour Lane, Holmwood, Surrey, RH5 6HN pdf icon PDF 732 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:


    Two update sheets and a letter from Leith Hill Action Group were tabled at the meeting, and these are attached to these minutes as Annexes 1a, 1b, 1c.



    Caroline Smith, Planning Development Manager

    Samantha Murphy, Principal Planning Officer

    Nancy El-Shatoury, Principal Solicitor



    The Principal Solicitor updated the Committee on the legal position of this application. 

    1.    It was explained that this application first came to the Committee for determination in October 2017.  Planning permission was granted.  This was subsequently challenged by Leith Hill Action Group (LHAG) with a Letter Before Action. 

    2.    The County Planning Authority (CPA) responded to the Letter Before Action on Counsels’ advice, rebutting the challenge.

    3.    On 8 December 2017, LHAG responded with a claim for judicial review.  The CPA was required to respond by 1 January 2018, in compliance with the timetable for the judicial review process.

    4.    The CPA sought Queen’s Counsel’s (QC) advice.  QC advised that whilst LHAG’s other grounds for claim were not tenable, the CPA was advised to concede because of the way Green Belt Policy had been dealt with in the planning report in October 2017. QC was of the view that a challenge could be successful on that ground.

    5.    The officer report had relied upon the Planning Inspector’s decision when dealing with Green Belt Openness, and, it transpired that whilst his decision had not been challenged, the Planning Inspector was also in error on this point.

    6.    The CPA therefore advised LHAG that their application for judicial review would not be contested; and a consent order was drafted between the CPA, LHAG and the applicant’s solicitors, requesting that the planning permission be quashed.

    7.    This order was made by the Planning Court on 29 March 2018, and the planning permission for MO/2016/1563 was quashed.

    8.    The application comes afresh to the Committee for determination.




    Alan Hustings, local resident, made the following points:


    1.    When the exploratory development was approved by the Planning Inspector in 2015, by appeal, the permission had a number of conditions attached to it.  Condition 6 stated “no lights or fences other than those permitted in this application shall be installed erected at the application site”.

    2.    As a freestanding application, to be judged on its own merits, this is simply an application for a fence and to erect some buildings in an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB), defined as inappropriate development in the Green Belt. 

    3.    The Committee is being asked to approve a freestanding application, to be judged on its own merits, but the officer report then also states that this is an additional component to the hydrocarbon well-site. This is contradictory and this approach leaves the Council once again open to legal challenge.

    4.    A freestanding application for fences and buildings is not mineral extraction, it is inappropriate development in the Green Belt and the Committee should refuse this application.


    Lucy Barford, local resident, made the following points:


    1.    Questioned why the application was not included in the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7/18


SCC PROPOSAL MO/2018/0640, The Priory School, West Bank, Dorking, Surrey RH4 3DG pdf icon PDF 791 KB

    The construction of a two storey science block together with a single storey extension to the existing school building to provide a DT classroom and the creation of 5 new car parking spaces.


    Additional documents:



    Caroline Smith, Planning Development Manager.


    Key points raised during the discussion:


    1.    Members were advised that this item had been withdrawn from the agenda on 22 May 2018. 

    2.    It had become apparent at the Member site visit on 17 May 2018 that the parent drop off arrangements as described in the submitted application were not possible on the ground following the construction of fencing and gates that were not on the application drawings; nor were they there when the planning officer visited the site in April 2018. 

    3.    The applicant has been asked to revise their arrangements before the application can be determined at a future Committee meeting.

    4.    A Member suggested that the applicant should be advised that the revised submission should address travel planning, as the Committee had previously taken a strong view regarding Travel Plans.




MINERALS/WASTE MO/2017/1797- Park Pit, Reigate Road, Buckland, Surrey, RH3 7BE pdf icon PDF 358 KB

    The development of Buckland Park Lake comprising: 1) a café with associated terrace and disabled parking; 2) outdoor activity centre comprising mobile units; 3) observation pavilion; 4) entry kiosk; 5) two bird hides; 6) a picnic lawn with steps; 7) children's playground area; 8) car park; 9) water tank/pond; 10) floating pontoon. All for public use in association with the approved water based recreation and proposed land-based outdoor recreation afteruse, of the former silica sand quarry, known as Park Pit.


    Additional documents:


    An update sheet, a letter from the Parish Council and a letter from the Local Member were tabled at the meeting.  These are attached to the minutes as Annexes 2a, 2b, 2c.


    Members conducted a site visit on 17 May 2018.



    Stephen Jenkins, Deputy Planning Development Manager

    Caroline Smith, Planning Development Manager

    Andrew Stokes, Transport Development Planning Team Leader

    Nancy El-Shatoury, Principal Solicitor



    Mr Graham Hanson, local resident, made the following points:


    1.    Objection in relation to the inadequacy of the conditions proposed, which overrule the considered and justified proposed conditions by the local parish and district councils to sought to ensure that any activities would be low key and safeguard the natural environment.

    2.    Overruled conditions from the local council included making an article 4 direction to withdraw the temporary use of land rights; so that non water-based recreation activities such as triathlons and car boot fairs and craft fairs should be removed from any list of allowable activities, as triathlons are not suitable and car boot fairs do not accord with the aims of maximising public amenity whilst minimising impact on natural environment. 

    3.    Another overruled condition was to prevent the use of amplified music or speech in the open air or in any other temporary structure.  The proposed condition prevents amplified music but leaves open the risk of noise nuisance from megaphones.

    4.    Object to the pavilion as it is open air structure and risks noise nuisance from group dining including at night time.

    5.    Object to the Surrey County Council proposal to allow extended opening hours for organised group events until midnight. There is no definition proposed to restrict size or type of groups, leaving it open for the café being used for late night parties.

    6.    This is a nature and wildlife preservation site, with no need for the café to be open after 6pm and certainly not midnight.  There will be noise from departing cars and no means of monitoring the closing time. 

    7.    The opening hours proposed do not support the activities as people do not birdwatch, fish or do water recreation activities at night time.


    Dominic Sanders, director of the applicant, made the following points:


    1.    This is not a nature reserve.  The vision for the site is to open it to the public for the first time ever, it is a green site balancing open recreation and public access.

    2.    Require some flexibility to justify making the investment in the site for infrastructure; and ongoing revenue to ensure safety, staffing and maintenance.

    3.    In terms of sound, activities have been addressed.  Sound tests have been conducted.  It has been agreed that there would be no music after 6pm and there would be black out blinds in place for any after dark use of the café.

    4.    The extended hours would not be a free for all and would be proportionate to the activities on-site, in particular long summer evenings.

    5.    Hope that opening the site to the public would  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9/18