Agenda and minutes
PDF 338 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 were received from David Lewis, Tim Hall and Scott Lewis. Mark Sugden acted as a substitute for David Lewis. Having appointed a substitute David Lewis attended Virtually Jonathan Hulley, Vice-Chairman, acted as Chairman of the meeting. |
|
|
MINUTES OF THE LAST MEETING
To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 25 May 2022. Additional documents: Minutes: Members agreed to amend the draft minutes of the previous meeting to include that Sonia Sharp, Senior Highways and Planning Solicitor, was in attendance.
The Minutes were APPROVED as an accurate record of the previous meeting. |
|
|
PETITIONS
To receive any petitions from members of the public in accordance with Standing Order 84 (please see note 5 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 6 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: There were none. |
|
|
APPLICATION FOR VILLAGE GREEN STATUS, LAND AT ELMBRIDGE RECREATION GROUND, KINGFIELD
The committee is asked to consider whether to register the Land the subject of this Application as a Village Green. Additional documents: Minutes: Officers: Catherine Valiant (Countryside Access Officer) Adam Malins (Solicitor) Judith Shephard (Senior Lawyer)
Speakers:
The Local Member, Will Forster, made the following comments:
1. That he was in support of the application. 2. That the application had been supported by around 50 residents that had used the land for recreational purposes. This appeared to meet the requirement of Section 15 of the Commons Act. 3. Noted that Woking Borough Council said they had held the land by them under Section 12 of the Housing act and that it was available for people to use ‘by right’, but not, ‘as of right’. The Member stated that local residents were not aware of this as signage was not present on site. 4. That residents’ believed the land was available to use ‘as of right’ and are therefore keen for the land to receive village green status.
Key points raised during the discussion:
1. Officers introduced the report and provided a brief summary. 2. Members asked whether there was any legal responsibility on Woking Borough Council to advise the public that they could use the land. The legal officer at the meeting confirmed that the local authority was not required to inform the public of this where this right was derived by statute. 3. Members asked for confirmation on whether signage on the land’s permitted use was present on site. Officers stated that they believed there was no signage present. 4. The committee noted that the grass was maintained on the land and that football goals were present on site.
Resolved:
The Committee voted to reject the application with 6 votes for the recommendation, 0 votes against the recommendation, and 2 abstentions |
|
On 27 November 2020, the Planning and Regulatory Committee refused planning application Ref. WA/2019/0796 for 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.
This report provides details of the outcome of a recovered appeal against that decision and an associated application for partial costs. Additional documents: Minutes: Officers: Caroline Smith (Planning Group Manager) David Maxwell (Senior Planning Policy Officer) Stephen Jenkins (Planning Development Manager) (online) Sonia Sharp (Senior Highways and Planning Solicitor) Nancy El-Shatoury (Principal Highways and Planning Solicitor) (online)
Key points raised during the discussion:
1. Officers introduced the report and noted that it provided details of the outcome of a recovered appeal against that decision and an associated application for partial costs. 2. A Member stated that Members should also consider the national, business and economical need for applications when making a decision. The Member further stated that he felt some Members had previously been emotional in their decision making. 3. A Member of the committee stated that he could decide for himself on how much weight to give to different viewpoints on an application. 4. The Chairman asked for clarification on the process for challenging the decision outlined in the report. Officers explained that they could seek to apply for leave for a judicial review if it was felt that there were grounds to do so. However, it was officers opinion that there were no obvious points within the decision to be challenged. The officer further stated that she believed the weight given to the matters considered within the decision were to be decided by the decision maker and therefore it would be difficult to sustain the challenge. 5. In regard to lessons-learned, a Member asked for officers opinion on how the committee could act differently when considering reports going forward. Officers said that Members needed to come to their own view when considering what matters to give weight to. There were no obvious learning points but, if there were, then officers would consider them further. 6. Members thanked officers for the report.
Resolved:
The Committee noted the report.
|
|
|
DATE OF NEXT MEETING
The next meeting of the Planning & Regulatory Committee will be on 27 July 2022.. Additional documents: Minutes: The date of the next meeting was noted. |
|
|
Member Training - Planning for Oil and Gas
An introduction to planning for hydrocarbons in the County. Additional documents: |