Agenda and draft minutes

Planning and Regulatory Committee - Wednesday, 7 December 2022 10.30 am

Venue: Council Chamber, Woodhatch Place, 11 Cockshot Hill, Reigate, Surrey, RH2 8EF

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

Media

Items
No. Item

79/22

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 were received from Edward Hawkins and Jeffrey Gray.

     

    David Harmer acted as substitute for Edward Hawkins.

     

80/22

MINUTES OF THE LAST MEETING pdf icon PDF 263 KB

    • Share this item

    To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 26 October 2022.

    Additional documents:

    Minutes:

    The Minutes were agreed as an accurate record of the previous meeting.

81/22

PETITIONS

    • Share this item

    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.

82/22

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 6 below).

    Additional documents:

    Minutes:

    There were none.

83/22

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.

84/22

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:

    There were none.

85/22

SURREY COUNTY COUNCIL PROPOSAL RE22/00775/CON - Reigate Parish School, 91 Blackborough Road, Reigate, Surrey RH2 7DB pdf icon PDF 513 KB

    • Share this item

    Construction of a new artificial grass surfaced Multi-Use Games Area (MUGA), macadam-paved access route, provision of new perimeter gates and fencing and associated works without compliance with Condition 3 of Planning Permission ref: RE15/01766/CON dated 16 October 2015 to extend the hours of use of the MUGA to allow use by the community.

    Additional documents:

    Minutes:

    Officers:

     

    Caroline Smith (Planning Group Manager)

    Sonia Sharp| (Senior Highways and Planning Solicitor)

    Stephen Jenkins (Planning Development Manager)

    Chris Turner (Senior Planning Officer)

     

    Key points raised during the discussion:

     

    1.    The Chairman introduced the item and highlighted that an update sheet had been circulated. Officers provided Members with a brief overview of the proposals. It was noted that the proposal was for the construction of a new artificial grass surfaced Multi-Use Games Area (MUGA), macadam-paved access route, provision of new perimeter gates and fencing and associated works without compliance with Condition 3 of Planning Permission ref: RE15/01766/CON dated 16 October 2015 to extend the hours of use of the MUGA to allow use by the community. Full details of the proposal could be found from page 13 of the agenda.

    2.    A Member highlighted that the location of the proposal was within their constituency and that previous concerns were based on the potential installation of floodlighting however floodlights had not been included within the proposal before Members at the meeting. Officers confirmed the installation of floodlights were not included within the proposal and that a condition had been included to restrict floodlighting.

     

    Actions / Further information to be provided:

     

    None.

     

    Resolved:

     

    The Committee unanimously agreed that, pursuant to Regulation 3 of the Town and Country Planning General Regulations 1992, application no. RE22/00775/CON be PERMITTED subject to the conditions outlined in the report and update sheet.

86/22

Surrey County Council Proposal TA/2021/1213 - St Peter and St Paul CE Infant School, 93 Rook Lane, Chaldon, Caterham, Surrey CR3 5BN pdf icon PDF 779 KB

    • Share this item

    The construction of a single storey extension to the existing school to accommodate the  expansion of the school from a 1FE Infant School to a 1FE Primary School, including the construction of teaching classrooms with related support accommodation, WC facilities, library, enlargement of the existing hall and associated off-site highway works (AMENDED).

    Additional documents:

    Minutes:

    Officers:

     

    Caroline Smith (Planning Group Manager)

    Sonia Sharp| (Senior Highways and Planning Solicitor)

    Stephen Jenkins (Planning Development Manager)

    Janine Wright (Principal Planning Officer)

    Dawn Horton-Baker (Planning Development Team Leader)

    Tricia Gurney (Principal Transport Development Planning Officer)

     

    Speakers:

     

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

     

    1.    That he fully supported the proposal to expand the school but opposed the draft transport plan.

    2.    That the draft transport plan would not work and would cause more congestion, more pollution, that it was more dangerous, expensive and was visually horrible.

    3.    That the draft plan had proposed to half the number of parking spaces outside the school while the report had acknowledged that the number of cars would double.

    4.    That vehicles were already parking dangerously on the pavement and that this would only increase with the proposals.

    5.    That, when parking was unavailable, the draft plan advice parents not to stop and queue but to carry on and loop around the parking laybys using Church Lane and Doctors Lane which were very narrow country lanes.

    6.    That the consulting engineers should have consulted residents of the village.

    7.    That a carpark on Rook Lane could be used for parents and minibuses to discharge their children and then walk to school. There were two potential sites for the carpark.

    8.    That conditions 3 and 4 should be amended to allow a period of consultation of six months with the village on the proposed transport plan provided by residents to provide an alternative, cheaper, safer and more effective solution.

    9.    That consultation was key to making a successful decision.

     

    The Local Member, Jeremy Webster, made the following comments:

     

    1.    That Caterham Hill was an area of significant population expansion due to new development.

    2.    That if St Peter and St Paul CE Infant School did not expand then the future of the school would be in doubt and that parents would need to travel to schools beyond Caterham.

    3.    Provided detail on the current situation at the school in regard to number of pupils.

    4.    That the school had an excellent reputation locally and had outperformed compared to the Surrey average. It also had an outstanding reputation for caring for its pupils.

    5.    That if the school was to disappear then there would be a serious impact on the local community.

    6.    That local people generally supported the expansion.

    7.    That the travel plan was a disappointing document and that it was regrettable that the school, local councillor and residents were not more involved with its creation.

    8.    That alteration to the speed limit on the busy through road and adjoining rural lanes were welcomed but insignificant attention had been paid to other aspects. Suggestions made on Mount Avenue, a cul-de-sac, would not work due to parking used by residents.

    9.    That the school had acknowledged the travel plan should be a living document and capable of adaptation.

    10.  Proposed that the local Member, the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 86/22

87/22

DATE OF NEXT MEETING

    • Share this item

    The next meeting of the Planning & Regulatory Committee will be on 25 January 2023.

    Additional documents:

    Minutes:

    The date of the next meeting was noted.