Agenda and minutes
PDF 340 KBVenue: Surrey County Council, Woodhatch Place, 11 Cockshot Hill, Reigate, Surrey, RH2 8EF
Contact: Joss Butler Email: joss.butler@surreycc.gov.uk
Media
| No. | Item |
|---|---|
|
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND SUBSTITUTIONS
To receive any apologies for absence and notices of substitutions under Standing Order 41. Additional documents: Minutes: Apologies for absence were received from Richard Tear and Scott Lewis. David Harmer substituted for Richard Tear. |
|
|
MINUTES OF THE LAST MEETING
To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 8 September 2021. Additional documents: Minutes: The Minutes were APPROVED as an accurate record of the previous meeting.
Mr Mallet asked for an update on an action agreed at a previous meeting which was to provide paper copies of the National Planning Policy Framework and Minerals and Waste Policy documents to Members at Woodhatch Place. Officers confirmed that a Members’ library of key documents was in the process of being made available and that an update would be provided outside the meeting. |
|
|
PETITIONS
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. |
|
|
PUBLIC QUESTION TIME
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. |
|
|
MEMBERS' QUESTION TIME
To answer any questions received from Members of the Council in accordance with Standing Order 68. Additional documents: Minutes: There were none. |
|
|
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: Catherine Powell declared a non-pecuniary interest as she was a member of the Community Liaison Group for the Runfold South Quarry site. |
|
The continued restoration of the former mineral workings without compliance with planning permission ref FAR 232/50 dated August 1951 as amended by decision ref WA/2018/0016 dated 6 November 2018 to extend the duration of time set out in Condition 3 of WA/2018/0016. Additional documents: Minutes:
The Chairman agreed to discuss the four applications (Item 7, 8, 9 & 10) under item 7.
Officers: Stephen Jenkins, Planning Development Manager Caroline Smith, Planning Group Manager Helen Forbes, Senior Lawyer
Speakers:
The Local Member for Farnham Central, Andy Macleod, spoke for three minutes and made the following points:
· SUEZ Recycling and Recovery UK had consistently failed to meet target dates and then applied for extensions and that officers and Members should make clear to SUEZ that this was not acceptable. · That the extension to the expected completion date was too long and in contrary in the council’s policy. · That SUEZ seemed to be focused on maximising profits and had no plan to complete the works by the earliest possible date. · That in November 2019, SUEZ had assured the Community Liaison Group (CLG) that restoration by December 2021 was still achievable and then, two months later in January 2020, SUEZ announced that restoration was no longer achievable in 2021. · That there was no detailed scheduled which outlined why a four year extension was required. · That the condition for six-month updates was welcomed however a condition was needed to provide a schedule which clearly showed where works were against a base plan. · That the condition to extend the aftercare period was welcomed by the community as well as the increase in bio-diversity however there was disappointment that guidance on the meadow was not followed. · That the above comments applied to all four of the applications
Key points raised during the discussion:
1. Officers introduced the report and provided a brief summary. Members noted that the applications reported to this committee were all seeking an extension of time for completion of restoration for a period of four years. Officers also highlighted that objections had been received from resident groups and the town council. Members noted further detail on the applications, including references to site plans, which were outlined within the reports. 2. A Member stated that there was a need to restore the site and that market conditions for filling material, as well as the availability of Heavy Goods Vehicles and drivers, needed to be taken into consideration. The Member further stated that the enforcement team would monitor the site on the Committee’s behalf. The Member also felt that a four year extension was appropriate to complete the works and may prevent the need for further extensions. 3. A Member said that it was concerning that the applicant was unable to meet the original timescale and asked whether conditions could be implemented to ensure there were no further delays. 4. The Committee discussed the need for a detailed schedule for the site’s works which allowed for proper monitoring and accountability and that, once created, should be shared with the Community Liaison Group and Technical Support Group. 5. A Member raised the possibility of alternative solutions to filling such as reducing infilling or creating a lake and community water sports centre on the site. 6. Following discussion related to issues across the county ... view the full minutes text for item 37/21 |
|
The continued restoration of the former mineral workings without compliance with planning permission ref FAR 297/62 dated 9 September 1963 as amended by decision ref WA/2018/0016 dated 6 November 2018 to extend the duration of time set out in Condition 3 of WA/2018/0016. Additional documents: Minutes: Resolved:
The Committee agreed to PERMIT planning application ref: WA/2021/01283 subject to the conditions from page 71, amended conditions and update sheet.
|
|
The continued restoration of the former mineral workings without compliance with planning permission ref FAR 415/69 dated 11 February 1970 as amended by decision ref WA/2018/0016 dated 6 November 2018 to extend the duration of time set out in Condition 3 of WA/2018/0016. Additional documents: Minutes: Resolved:
The Committee agreed to PERMIT planning application ref: WA/2021/01284 subject to the conditions from page 111, amended conditions and update sheet.
|
|
The continued restoration of the former mineral workings without compliance with planning permission ref FAR 558/73 dated 9 January 1974 as amended by decision ref WA/2018/0016 dated 6 November 2018 to extend the duration of time set out in Condition 3 of WA/2018/0016. Additional documents: Minutes: Resolved:
The Committee agreed to PERMIT planning application ref: WA/2021/01285 subject to the conditions from page 151, amended conditions and update sheet.
|
|
|
DATE OF NEXT MEETING
The next meeting of the Planning & Regulatory Committee will be on 17 November 2021. Additional documents: Minutes: The date of the next meeting was noted as 17 November 2021. |