Agenda and draft minutes

Planning and Regulatory Committee
Monday, 29 June 2020 10.30 am

Venue: Remote

Contact: Joss Butler  Email: joss.butler@surreycc.gov.uk

Webcast: View the webcast

Items
No. Item

1/20

APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND SUBSTITUTIONS

2/20

MINUTES OF THE LAST MEETING pdf icon PDF 148 KB

3/20

PETITIONS

4/20

PUBLIC QUESTION TIME

5/20

MEMBERS' QUESTION TIME

6/20

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:

    Andrew Povey declared a non-pecuniary interest as a trustee of the Surrey Hills Society.  

     

    Edward Hawkins declared that he had received a number of letters from residents relating to item 7 on the agenda and confirmed that no responses were sent. The Chairman noted that this was likely to be the case for the whole Committee.  

7/20

MINERALS & WASTE APPLICATION WA/2019/0796 - Loxley Well Site - Land South of Dunsfold Road and East of High Loxley Road, Dunsfold, Surrey pdf icon PDF 1019 KB

    The construction, operation and decommissioning of a well site for the exploration and appraisal of hydrocarbon minerals from one exploratory borehole (Loxley-1) and one side - track borehole (Loxley-1z) for a temporary period of three years involving the siting of plant and equipment, the construction of a new access track, a new highway junction with High Loxley Road, highway improvements at the junction of High Loxley Road and Dunsfold Road and the erection of a boundary fence and entrance gates with restoration to agriculture.

     

    Due to the Covid-19 situation, planning site visits are not able to take place therefore footage of this site can be accessed on the webcasting portal which can be accessed here (select the Resources tab):

     

    https://surreycc.public-i.tv/core/portal/webcast_interactive/491303

     

    Please note, as this meeting is being held on Monday 29 June 2020, any representations received after 12.00 noon on the last working day before committee, Friday 26 June 2020, may not be taken into account at the meeting.

     

     

    Additional documents:

    Minutes:

    Officers:

     

    David Maxwell, Senior Planning Officer

    Caroline Smith, Interim Planning Group Manager

    Stephen Jenkins, Interim Planning Development Manager

    Richard Cooper, Transport Development Planning Officer

    Nancy El-Shatoury, Principal Lawyer

    Joss Butler, Committee Manager

     

    Speakers:

     

    Sarah Goodwin made representations in objection to the application. The speech presented to the Committee is attached to these minutes as Annex 1.

     

    Tom Gordon made representations in objection to the application. The speech presented to the Committee is attached to these minutes as Annex 2.

     

    The Chairman was informed that the live stream of the meeting had stopped and therefore adjourned the meeting from 10:47am to 10:47am when it was resumed. The Chairman asked Tom Gordon to repeat his representation in objection to the application.

     

    Ashley Herman made representations in objection to the application. The speech presented to the Committee is attached to these minutes as Annex 3.

     

    Chris Britton made representations in objection to the application. The speech presented to the Committee is attached to these minutes as Annex 4.

     

    John Gray made representations in objection to the application. The speech presented to the Committee is attached to these minutes as Annex 5.

     

    The Chairman was informed that the live stream of the meeting had intermittently stopped and therefore adjourned the meeting from 11:11am to 11:28am to allow officers to investigate the issue. Once the meeting was resumed, the Chairman asked John Gray to repeat his representation in objection to the application and Nigel Moore to restart his response.

     

    The Planning Agent / Applicant, Nigel Moore, Matt Cartwright and Stephen Sanderson made the following comments in response:

     

    ·        That the remoteness of the site was key to mitigating noise, sounds or air emissions and that the wellsite would be enclosed by new native tree planting and areas of rewilding.

    ·        That there would be no more than 10 Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGVs) per day which would add up to one HGV movement per hour and Banksman would be used where possible. During construction and movement of a drilling rig, temporary traffic lights would be used with wait times of up to 90 seconds.

    ·        No HGVs would be used on a Saturday afternoon, Sunday or bank holiday which meant that High Loxley road would be kept free for any events at High Billinghurst Farm.

    ·        That County Planning Officers find the proposal acceptable as outlined in the report.

    ·        That exploration at Loxley would help the United Kingdom to rein in overextended supply chains and return vital raw materials needed for the country’s economy.

    ·        That achieving net-zero emissions in 2050 required economic resilience in 2020 which would only come if British businesses were backed.

    ·        That the same construction techniques and site operations used at the Horse Hill Well Site would be used at Loxley.

    ·        Local residents had been briefed on the planned activities and environmental practices of UKOG and that the site would be fully restored at the end of the planning period.

    The Chairman was informed that the live stream of the meeting had stopped and therefore adjourned the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7/20

8/20

MINERALS/WASTE EL18/3802 WO2018/1358 - Units 11 and 12 Wintersells Road, Byfleet, West Byfleet, Surrey KT14 7LF pdf icon PDF 626 KB

    Change of use to a waste transfer station and recycling facility (sui generis) for the receipt and treatment of mixed, dry, non-hazardous household, industrial and commercial and construction, demolition and excavation waste, including the demolition of the existing building at Unit 11 and the erection of a steel portal framed building, picking station, storage bays and boundary fencing.

     

    Due to the Covid-19 situation, planning site visits are not able to take place therefore footage of this site can be accessed on the webcasting portal which can be accessed here (select the Resources tab):

     

    https://surreycc.public-i.tv/core/portal/webcast_interactive/491303

     

    Please note, as this meeting is being held on Monday 29 June 2020, any representations received after 12.00 noon on the last working day before committee, Friday 26 June 2020, may not be taken into account at the meeting.

     

    Additional documents:

    Minutes:

    Officers:

    Katie Rayner, Senior Planning Officer

    Abigail Solway, Transport Development Planning Officer

    Nancy El-Shatoury, Principal Lawyer

    Joss Butler, Committee Manager

     

    Speakers:

     

    John Tadros made representations in objection to the application. The

    following key points were made:

     

    • That Wintersells Management Limited was the management company which owned the road which provides access to the around 40 small businesses.
    • That the objections from the small businesses were well founded and critical to the wellbeing of the business that required adequate access.
    • That 200 HGV movements per day was excessive and that the roads were originally designed for ad hoc access.
    • That in the event the roads of the estate were blocked then his business would not be visible to the traffic approaching the main road.
    • That Elmbridge and Runnymede Council had rejected the size of this application stating clear the harm to the business park
    • Surrey County Council’s site assessment document identifies that the estate should only have 50,000 tonnes of waste per annum. This application is double the recommendations and does not take into account skip allocation.

     

    Michael Stallard made representations in objection to the application. The speech which was presented to the Committee is attached to these minutes as annex 14.

     

    On behalf of the applicant, David Young, Peter Todd and Billy Clark made the following comments in response:

     

    • That a detailed assessment of vehicle emissions had been undertaken as part of the application in order to predict pollutant concentrations at relevant locations.
    • That air quality assessments had not been undertaken in the Runnymede area due to the number of HGV movements being significantly under 25 per day.
    • That if the application was approved then there would be significant reduction in traffic related pollution concentrations due to the reduction in HGV movements in the applicants current operation.
    • That the applicant had committed to ensuring all HGVs in the company fleet meet the latest emission standards.
    • That a detailed transport statement was submitted with the planning application which considered the access, highway safety and traffic impacts of the development which officers have raised no objections to.
    • That the access roads were designed to typical industrial estate standards and were already used by HGVs. There was also no evidence of any existing highways safety issues.
    • Vehicle access to the development would operate on a one-way system which would help to reduce conflict. A digital system would also be implemented to track and redirect vehicles, if necessary, during the day.
    • That there were no highways related reasons to resist the application.
    • That it had been proposed to build a structure on the site which would act to screen noise occurring within the structure and therefore reducing the level of noise.
    • That the closest residential home was 125 metres away and that the level of noise received was significantly below the level of background noise in the area.
    • It was highly unlikely to have any adverse impact on the local residential homes and businesses from noise.

     

    The Local Member, Tim Oliver, was unable to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8/20

9/20

SURREY COUNTY COUNCIL PROPOSAL RE20/00808/CON - Westvale Park Primary School, off Webber Street, Westvale Park Development, Horley, Surrey pdf icon PDF 871 KB

    Installation of temporary buildings comprising two double classroom units and a staff administration unit, a temporary pedestrian access gate, a temporary vehicular access gate, temporary fencing and temporary reinforced gravel surface.

     

    Please note, as this meeting is being held on Monday 29 June 2020, any representations received after 12.00 noon on the last working day before committee, Friday 26 June 2020, may not be taken into account at the meeting.

     

     

    Additional documents:

    Minutes:

    Officers:

    Dawn Horton-Baker, Principal Planning Officer

    Charlie Cruise, Senior Transport Development Planning Officer

    Nancy El-Shatoury, Principal Lawyer

    Joss Butler, Committee Manager

     

    Speakers:

    Nicholas Wooding, local Resident, made representations in objection to the application. The following key points were made:

     

    • That they had multiple concerns due to the proximity of the proposed building units and their property
    • That they were concerned with the use of the private lane with parents dropping of pupils as there would be an impact on privacy and increased noise
    • That the cottage located parallel to the proposed site was a listed building and may be damaged by vibrations from heavy machinery five metres away.
    • That the proposed pedestrian access gate at the top of the road would encourage parents to use Malthouse Lane.
    • That there was no reference to COVID-19 in the report as the proposed building would cause residents to struggle to work from home. There was also a risk of parents gathering around the school gates which would restrict social distancing in the area.
    • That it was not clear who would maintain the pedestrian path and road.

     

    Key points raised during the discussion:

     

     

    1.     Dawn Horton-Baker, Principal Planning Officer, introduced the report and provided a brief summary. Members noted that the application was for the Installation of temporary buildings comprising two double classroom units and a staff administration unit, a temporary pedestrian access gate, a temporary vehicular access gate, temporary fencing and temporary reinforced gravel surface. Members noted further details on the application which were outlined in the report.

    2.     Members asked for clarification on the main disadvantages to residents for the proposal. Officers stated that the residents were concerned that parents would use the private road to drop off pupils at the pedestrian access. Officers further stated that Surrey County Council did not have the power to prevent access down the private road however the council is promoting that the school has active management of pupils and staff to ensure the private road is not used for dropping off.

    3.     Members asked whether residents could use a gate to prevent cars using the private road. Officers confirmed that the road was a private road however it had public footpath rights therefore could not prevent pedestrians. In regards to placing a gate, officers said this would likely that only the road owner could take action against trespassers.

    4.     Officers confirmed that the school contractor had stated that they would monitor the use of the lane for the duration of the temporary period. Officers further stated that there was a condition for the permanent application to have a full travel plan. For the current proposal, the school would be providing a management man to look at managing the problems which have been identified by the residents. A council officer would monitor this and encourage compliance.

    5.     The Chairman stated that from his experience as a school governor it was important for the school to be immediately clear on any travel management plans. Officers highlighted that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9/20

10/20

APPLICATION TO RECTIFY THE REGISTER OF COMMON LAND - LAND AT THE HALLAMS, LITTLEFORD LANE, BLACKHEATH, GUILDFORD pdf icon PDF 134 KB

11/20

DATE OF NEXT MEETING