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.
The erection of a part one, part two and part
three storey building to provide a 5-form entry junior school, with
two all-weather sports pitches, a MUGA pitch, a hard play area with
netball court, and provision of car parking spaces and provision of
a new internal access road with a new egress point on to Cockshot
Hill, with associated hard and soft landscaping and off-site
highways works.
Sonia
Sharp (Senior Highways and Planning Solicitor)
Stephen Jenkins (Planning Development Manager)
Dawn
Horton Baker (Planning Development Team Leader)
Tricia Gurney (Principal Transport Development Planning Officer)
– Attended virtually
Speakers:
Sophia Oliver spoke on behalf of Chris Morris andmade representations in objection to the
application. The following key points were made:
That she did not have children at Reigate Priory Junior School
but, as a local resident, strongly objected to the proposed
relocation.
That there was a viable alternative to relocating the school
which was upgrading the existing school and moving the ‘right
of way’ through the existing site. Reigate and Banstead
Borough Council confirmed that they supported this.
That Surrey County Council should consider the alternative
before attempting to progress with a proposal that had severe
drawbacks and had resulted in so much opposition.
That she was gravely concerned with road safety. The transport
assessment stated that there had been no serious accidents
involving children on Cockshot Hill in the last five years however
very few primary school children used the road at present. A
combination of heavy traffic, unsafe pavements and a large number
of primary school children would clearly create a set of conditions
in which accidents were more likely.
That there had been a fatal collision involving a child on
Cockshot Hill.
That the proposal should have included proper consideration of
anticipated road safety conditions and the circumstances of
previous accidents.
That the transport assessment conducted was superficial and did
not provide confidence that the proposed traffic mitigations would
improve safety.
That she had concerns regarding congestion and the proposed
traffic mitigations, as the relocation would cause more journeys,
and the parking provision was inadequate. Surrey County Council had
proposed that parents park in surrounding residential roads but
ignored that many of the streets were blind closes. If parking was
not available, then drivers would have to turn around and drive out
of each close to access the next one. The closes were accessed from
a blind service road, off Cockshot Hill, that was one lane only
when vehicles were parked. The road would not be able to deal with
the anticipated volumes of traffic and so would create significant
congestion.
That traffic mitigations were a prerequisite if primary aged
children were to use Cockshot Hill regularly. Mitigations would
affect local and through traffic during the construction phase and
over the longer term.
That the A217 was a key through route and a main route to
Gatwick therefore the proposal would have significant economic
impacts.
That she was deeply concerned that Surrey County Council wanted
to commit to major public works of this nature without wider
consultation and assessment.
That the trees proposed to be cut down were subject to Tree
Preservation Order (TPO) RE717. The purpose of the TPO was to
protect valuable environmental heritage and said she was shocked
that Surrey Council were proposing to undermine their own
regulations.
The committee is asked to
consider whether to amend the register of common land relating to
register unit CL196 by the removal of a strip of land at Rangers
Cottage, Ewhurst Road, Peaslake identified on the application plan (Annex
A).
The Senior Lawyer
stated that, following the publication of the agenda, on Saturday,
18 February,a request was received from the applicant to withdraw
the application as the applicant considered that they had not had
the opportunity to challenge the recommendation and considered the
process unfair.
The Senior Lawyer
further stated that, current government guidance to registration
authorities on requests to withdraw applications was that
applicants did not have an automatic right to withdraw applications
if an applicant asked to do so, and that it must be decided whether
or not it was reasonable. Further to this, case law had shown that
a registration authority should be guided by the general principle
of being fair to those whose interests may be affected by a
decision. The request to withdraw the application was considered by
officers and officers responded to the applicant on 20 February
2023 explaining that permitting the withdrawal of an application
was a matter for the registration authorities’ discretion. In
this case, officers considered that the discretion could not be
exercised to permit the withdrawal of the application, as the
Council must balance the interests of all parties.
The Senior Lawyer
explained that other parties had made representations on the
application. The Council had also expended resources including
obtaining counsels’ advice on the application, and that there
would be a reasonable expectation that the application should now
proceeded to determination by the committee. Further correspondence
had been received from the applicant the morning of the committee
stating that they did not believe that the committee had the power
to refuse their request to withdraw the application and, to do so,
would leave the decision open to challenge. The applicant
considered that the way the application had been dealt with was
unfair and that they should have had an opportunity to challenge
counsel’s advice and the recommendation.
In regard to the
process on an application of this type, the Senior Lawyer said that
it was for the applicant to ensure that their application was
accompanied by evidence showing that it met the relevant statutory
criteria. The applicant had been given opportunities on several
occasions to submit additional evidence to support their
application.
Officers had
Instructor counsel, an expert in this field, to provide advice to
the registration authority on the merits of the application.
Counsel visited the site, and the applicants were able to provide
Counsel with further information. Counsel’s advice was to
inform the registration authority and the registration authority
was not obliged to share this advice. The appropriate course of
action was then for the application to be referred to the committee
for the termination. It was not considered that it met the
threshold for an inquiry. It was further noted that the applicant
had the opportunity to make representations at the committee which
was not taken. It was therefore for the committee to consider the
applicant’s ...
view the full minutes text for item 16/23
17/23
DATE OF NEXT MEETING
Share this item
The next meeting of the Planning &
Regulatory Committee will be on 29 March 2023.