Councillors and committees

Agenda and minutes

Venue: Remote

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

Media

Items
No. Item

1/21

APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND SUBSTITUTIONS

    • Share this item

    To receive any apologies for absence and notices of substitutions under Standing Order 41.

    Additional documents:

    Minutes:

    Apologies for absence were received from Penny Rivers.

2/21

MINUTES OF THE LAST MEETING pdf icon PDF 3 MB

    • Share this item

    To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on (27 November 2020).

    Additional documents:

    Minutes:

    The Committee agreed to amend paragraph 1 to includes the following wording (in bold) “Additional representations, already covered within the officer update sheet, are attached to these minutes as Annexes 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14.”

     

    Subject to the above amendment, the Minutes were approved as an accurate record of the previous meeting.

3/21

PETITIONS

    • Share this item

    To receive any petitions from members of the public in accordance with Standing Order 84 (please see note 7 below).

    Additional documents:

    Minutes:

    There were none.

4/21

PUBLIC QUESTION TIME

    • Share this item

    To answer any questions received from local government electors within Surrey in accordance with Standing Order 85 (please see note 8 below).

    Additional documents:

    Minutes:

    There were none.

5/21

MEMBERS' QUESTION TIME

    • Share this item

    To answer any questions received from Members of the Council in accordance with Standing Order 68.

    Additional documents:

    Minutes:

    There were none.

6/21

DECLARATIONS OF INTERESTS

    • Share this 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

    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:

    Dr Povey declared a non-pecuniary interest because he was a trustee of Surrey Hills Society.

7/21

Surrey County Council Proposal WO/2020/1090 - Shaw Family Centre, Chobham Road, Woking, Surrey GU21 4AS pdf icon PDF 673 KB

    • Share this item

    Demolition of existing family contact centre and redevelopment of new family contact centre with associated car parking, access, and landscaping.

    Additional documents:

    Minutes:

    Officers:

    Dawn Horton-Baker, Senior Planning Officer

    Abigail Solway, Transport Development Planning Officer

    Caroline Smith, Interim Planning Group Manager

    Stephen Jenkins, Interim Planning Development Manager

    Nancy El-Shatoury, Principal Lawyer

    Joss Butler, Committee Manager

     

    Speakers:

     

    Ian Johnson made representations in objection to the application. The following key points were made:

     

    ·         That there would be a negative impact on near-by residential properties

    ·         That the application involved the loss of mature trees and hedging and that there was insufficient space to provide replacement screening.

    ·         That the design statement and access statement did not provide realistic outcomes and that local residents would not appreciate a 13ft wall being built.

    ·         That the ecological statement stated that the intent was to retain existing trees and important landscaping features and that the justification for the removal of trees was weak.

    ·         That the application noted the sustainability and connectivity of the site however the Brewery Road Car Park was not taken into account when considering parking spaces at the Shaw Centre.

    ·         That the current proposals needed to be more respectable to neighbours and the ecological impact.

    ·         That Members should defer the application.

     

    Alex Aughterson made representations in objection to the application. The following key points were made:

     

    ·         That the placement of the new building would see the loss of garden space frequently used by families visiting the centre.

    ·         That trees around the garden were set to be removed which would lead to reduced garden space.

    ·         That residents agreed that a redevelopment was necessary however concerns raised in the consultation period had not impacted any planning decisions.

    ·         That staff should be encouraged to use public transport to allow for additional parking spaces for visitors. 

    ·         That residents were concerned that the family centre would not be centred around families.

     

    IssyAughterson made representations in objection to the application. The following key points were made:

     

    ·         That residents had the impression that the consultation had not allowed residents to meaningfully engage with the plans.

    ·         That Planning officers had been informed that Statement of Community Involvement brochures were not delivered to residents.

    ·         That the impression from residents was that there was little flexibility to amend the plans following consultation.

    ·         That consideration should be deferred to allow time for sufficient consideration of the consultation feedback.

     

    The applicant’s agent, Sarah Isherwood, spoke to the Committee in response to the public speakers’ comments. The following key points were made:

     

    ·         That the Shaw Centres primary function was to allow looked after children to meet with family and extended family in safe and comfortable circumstances.

    ·         That it was important for looked after children to meet with family to support their emotional and cultural identify.

    ·         That the buildings were no longer fit for purpose and inefficient to operate and maintain.

    ·         Noted technical details of the application proposal.

    ·         Stated that the increase in space would allow for foster carers to wait in a comfortable area while their looked after children were visiting family.

    ·         Highlighted that the existing building on Chobham Road would not be changed and would continue to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7/21

8/21

Minerals/Waste SP20/00513/SCRVC - Charlton Lane Waste Management Facility, Charlton Shepperton, Surrey TW17 8QA pdf icon PDF 505 KB

    • Share this item

    Development of the Charlton Lane Eco Park without compliance with Condition 4 of planning permission ref: SP16/01220/SCC dated 23 September 2016 in order to amend the hours Heavy Goods Vehicles for the Recyclables Bulking Facility may enter the application site gates and to park within the site boundary.

    Additional documents:

    Minutes:

    Officers:

    Duncan Evans, Senior Planning Officer

    Caroline Smith, Interim Planning Group Manager

    Stephen Jenkins, Interim Planning Development Manager

    Nancy El-Shatoury, Principal Lawyer

    Joss Butler, Committee Manager

     

    Speakers:

     

    None.

     

    Key points raised during the discussion:

     

    1.    The Senior Planning Officer introduced the report and provided a brief summary. Members noted that the application was for the development of the Charlton Lane Eco Park without compliance with Condition 4 of planning permission ref: SP16/01220/SCC dated 23 September 2016 in order to amend the hours for the Recyclables Bulking Facility so Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGV) may enter the application site gates and to park within the site boundary. Members noted that the application did not propose changes to the number of HGVs accessing the site.

    2.    A Member explained that residents had previously raised concerns as HGVs were parking outside the site in order to wait for site opening which was interfering with traffic. Amending the site open times was suggested to allow HGVs to wait inside the site however some residents were now concerned that this was cause HGVs to wait outside the site even earlier.

    3.    A Member asked whether a condition could be set with the HGV contractors to state that if they did not comply with conditions related to parking before entering the site then their contract would be impacted. Officers explained that the applicant had a routine strategy with the operator of the HGVs and that if it was breached then the Planning Enforcement Team would investigate. Members further noted that statutory elements were also afforded to boroughs and districts for statutory nuisance which allowed for enforcement of particular actions.

    4.    Officers highlighted that the number of HGVs which could enter the site was restricted to seven.

    5.    The Committee further noted that the site was not operational until 7:30am and therefore there was no need for HGVs to enter the site earlier than necessary other than to address the traffic issue.

    6.    Members asked whether it was possible to implement a trial period for the changes in case of any unexpected consequences. Officers went on to explain that this was a Section 73 application which sought to vary the hours of operation on a specific area of the site and therefore a trial period was not possible.

    7.    The Chairman summarised the debate before moving the recommendation. There were nine votes for, one vote against and no abstentions. Therefore the application was permitted.

    8.    Before voting, all Members confirmed that they were present and heard the full debate.

     

    Actions / further information to be provided:

    None.

    Resolved:

    The Committee voted to permit application SP20/00513/SCRVC subject to the conditions from page 65.

     

     

     

     

     

9/21

Surrey County Council Proposal EL/2020/3112 - 10 former Ashley Road, Walton on Thames, Surrey KT12 1HU pdf icon PDF 748 KB

    • Share this item

    Development of a new Children's Home and No Wrong Door Facility with associated parking, access and landscaping.

    Additional documents:

    Minutes:

    Officers:

    Stephanie King, Planning Officer

    Tim Dukes, Senior Planning Development Planning Officer

    Caroline Smith, Interim Planning Group Manager

    Stephen Jenkins, Interim Planning Development Manager

    Nancy El-Shatoury, Principal Lawyer

    Joss Butler, Committee Manager

     

    Speakers:

     

    None.

     

    Key points raised during the discussion:

     

    1.    The Case officer introduced the report and update sheet and provided a brief summary. Members noted that the application was for the development of a new Children's Home and No Wrong Door Facility with associated parking, access and landscaping.

    2.    The Chairman moved the recommendation which unanimously voted for the recommendation and therefore the application was permitted.

    3.    Before voting, all Members confirmed that they were present and heard the full debate.

     

    Actions / further information to be provided:

    None.

    Resolved:

    That, pursuant to Regulation 3 of the Town and County Planning General Regulations 1992, planning application ref: EL/2020/3112 be permitted subject to the following conditions from page 116 and the update sheet.

10/21

DATE OF NEXT MEETING

    • Share this item

    The next meeting of the Planning & Regulatory Committee will be on 14 April 2021.

    Additional documents:

    Minutes:

    The date of the next meeting was noted.