Agenda and minutes
PDF 333 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: None recevied. |
|
|
MINUTES OF THE LAST MEETING
To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 29 June 2022. Additional documents: Minutes: The Minutes which were published within a supplementary agenda on 26 July 2022 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. |
|
Proposed development on land at the junction of A320 Guildford Road with A319 Chobham Road, Foxhills Road, Murray Road and Brox Road, Ottershaw. Planning application to carry out improvements to the existing highway including a new roundabout, junctions, access, pedestrian/cycle connections and crossings, public car park, landscaping and associated infrastructure and engineering works. Additional documents: Minutes: Officers: Caroline Smith (Planning Group Manager) Stephen Jenkins (Planning Development Manager) Janine Wright (Principal Planning Officer) Tim Dukes (Principal Transport Development Planning Officer) Nancy El-Shatoury (Principal Highways and Planning Solicitor) Dawn Horton-Baker, Development Management Team Leader Samantha Murphy, Development Management Team Leader
The Chairman allowed Members time to consider the update sheet which was published within a supplementary agenda on 26 July 2022. The Chairman also noted that a site visit took place on 22 July 2022.
Speakers:
Sus López-García made representations in objection to the application. The following key points were made:
1. That residents were extremely disappointment with the application and asked members to intervene to restore faith in the democratic process. 2. That they had identified inaccuracies including significant vegetation that had not been mentioned within the schedule for removal. 3. There was omissions and misrepresentations in the case officer report. 4. That there was a viable alternative scheme for the alignment of Murray Road which did not interfere with the council’s aims. 5. That Arcadis had stated that removal of intact native species-rich hedgerow would be negative. 6. That the hedgerow had amenity and cultural value and provided a greater visual barrier to filter noise and pollutants. 7. That Maintaining 110m of hedgerows with trees qualified for ‘important hedgerows’ and would claim protective status and that in linear form would enable the use of green infrastructure and promote a sustainable development. 8. That linear features of habitats were not mentioned within any of Arcadis’ reports and that there was no mention of paragraph 131 of the MPPF within the officer report. 9. The council’s design minimises the importance of local assets and their communal value. 10. That maintaining a linier form of Murrey Road maximised heritage. 11. That residents’ proposal retains a village ‘feel’ without changing historical context. 12. That Arcadis stated that Murrey Road provided historical context to the listed buildings and that the realignment of the road from its historical course detracted from the understanding of local assets. 13. That loss of trees and hedgerows would have a localised effect and significantly alter the wider local landscape character. 14. That the residents’ tree expert stated that the council’s design threatened trees and that there was a high risk of removal. Furthermore, residents’ proposal mitigated the impact on trees. 15. That by moving the T-Junction past Mawbey Road it would achieve all the above points however the council had not evolved their design to achieve a sustainable development. 16. Stated that the application should be rejected or, with Members’ support, be deferred until independent specialist consultants thoroughly examine both proposals
David McMurtary made representations in objection to the application. The following key points were made:
1. That Motion Consultants had undertaken a review of the eastern alignment of the roundabout redesign and its impact on vegetation, heritage assets and local residents. 2. That Motion’s view was that the council scheme had a material impact on existing vegetation and heritage assets. 3. That alternative alignment could ... view the full minutes text for item 64/22 |
|
|
DATE OF NEXT MEETING
The next meeting of the Planning & Regulatory Committee will be on 14 September 2022. Additional documents: Minutes: The date of the next meeting was noted. |