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.
Item 9 - Cllr Chris Farr raised
a non-pecuniary interest that he was a Tandridge District
Councillor, a member of the Planning and Planning Policy Committee,
and was a member of the Lingfield Surgery. The Member confirmed
that had an open mind and was not predetermined.
Item 9 - Cllr Jeffrey Gray
raised a non-pecuniary interest that he was a Tandridge District
Councillor and that he had not expressed any options on the
application.
Retention of a materials recycling facility
including a building for the bulking up and processing of mixed
skip waste, an office / welfare facility, storage units, skip
storage, entrance gates and installation of an acoustic fence (part
retrospective).
The Senior Planning Policy Officer introduced the report and
provided Members with a brief overview. Members noted that the
application was for the retention of a materials recycling facility
including a building for the bulking up and processing of mixed
skip waste, an office / welfare facility, storage units, skip
storage, entrance gates and installation of an acoustic fence (part
retrospective). Members further noted two corrections for the
report which were that the site was 170m west of Dorking West
Station, rather than east, and, within reason for refusal
‘5’, ‘to the satisfaction of the Environment
Agency’ should be deleted. Full details of the application
were outlined within the published report.
Speakers:
Emily Hall spoke on behalf of
the applicant and made the following comments:
That the proposal
sought to retain the existing materials recycling facility whilst
at the same time proposed an acoustic fence and appropriate parking
and cycle storage.
That the site was
used to sought recycling materials including C, D and E waste and
household waste.
That support was
received from the minerals and waste policy team who had identified
a shortfall in management capacity for the waste outlined
above.
That the proposal
would increase existing recycling capacity in Surrey contributing
to the waste management requirements.
That the proposal
would provide employment for nine full-time staff
Members.
Provided a brief
overview of the history and location of the site.
That the Landscape
Officer had confirmed that the proposal would respect the quality
and character of the landscape and would not result in an
unacceptable level of harm.
That the site
generated traffic would not pass by the nearby primary
school.
That pedestrian
safety was a priority for the site and that Heavy Goods Vehicle
(HGV) movements would be kept to a minimum with all deliveries to
be pre-booked and have allocated arrival times.
That the council’s air quality consultant had
confirmed that the proposal would represent appropriate use of the
land and the impacts on the surrounding area would not be
significant.
That the preparation
of a Dust Management Plan had been recommended and in connection
with this it was recommended that a sprinkler system is installed
on site and that any further details could be secured by condition.
A condition could also be imposed to ensure the maintenance of the
existing tarpaulin fence to prevent dust for escaping the
site,
Noted detail of the
noise impact assessment.
Noted detail related
to surface water and flooding mitigation.
A Member of the Committee
requested more detail on the previously developed land. Members
noted that the land was previously a skip hire site.
A Member of the Committee noted
that the Environment Agency previously provided a permit for
theMaterials Recycling
Facilities (MRF) in April 2022 that did not include any mechanical
handling however mechanical handling was present on site. The
Member asked for detail on the applicant’s proposal to deal
with this issue. The applicant’s agent stated that
...
view the full minutes text for item 23/24
The construction of a new single, one and a
half and two storey Hurst Park Primary School (420 Places) and
Nursery (30 Places) together with provision of 26 parking spaces,
and cycle and scooter parking; access off Hurst Road; laying out of
outdoor learning and play areas and sports pitches; landscape
planting and ecological habitats without compliance with Condition
1 (Approved Plans), Condition 7 (Landscape Planting and Habitat
Creation Schemes) and Condition 8 (Landscape Planting and
Maintenance) of planning permission ref: EL/2020/0021 dated 4
December 2020 to enable material changes to details.
The Planning Officer introduced the report and the update sheet
and provided Members with a brief overview. Members noted that the
application was for the construction of a new single, one and a
half and two storey Hurst Park Primary School (420 Places) and
Nursery (30 Places) together with provision of 26 parking spaces,
and cycle and scooter parking; access off Hurst Road; laying out of
outdoor learning and play areas and sports pitches; landscape
planting and ecological habitats without compliance with Condition
1 (Approved Plans), Condition 7 (Landscape Planting and Habitat
Creation Schemes) and Condition 8 (Landscape Planting and
Maintenance) of planning permission ref: EL/2020/0021 dated 4
December 2020 to enable material changes to details. Full details
were outlined within the published report.
Speakers:
None.
Key
points raised during the discussion:
1.A Member provide the committee with an overview of
the history of the site and stated that he was not aware of any
abrasive issues related to the site.
2.A Member stated that they felt it was a good
application which improved biodiversity in the area.
3.The Chairman moved the officer’s
recommendation to approve which was unanimously agreed.
Actions / Further information to be provided:
None.
Resolved:
The Planning and Regulatory Committee agreed
that, pursuant to Regulation 3 of the Town and Country Planning
General Regulations 1992, application no. EL2022/2183 be permitted
subject to the conditions outlined within the report.
Demolition of existing buildings and outline
application for the erection of part 2 and 3 storey building (with
additional basement) for extra care accommodation, comprising
self-contained apartments, staff and communal facilities, electric
substation and associated parking. Appearance and landscaping
reserved.
Cllr Chris Farr raised a
non-pecuniary interest that he was a Tandridge District Councillor,
a member of the Planning and Planning Policy Committee, and was a
member of the Lingfield Surgery. The Member confirmed that had an
open mind and was not predetermined.
Cllr Jeffrey Gray raised a
non-pecuniary interest that he was a Tandridge District Councillor
and that he had not expressed any options on the
application.
Officers:
Janine Wright, Principal
Planning Officer
Officer Introduction:
The Principal Planning Officer introduced the report and update
sheet and provided Members with a brief overview. Members noted
that the outline application was for the erection of part 2 and 3
storey building (with additional basement) for extra care
accommodation, comprising self-contained apartments, staff and
communal facilities, electric substation and associated parking.
Appearance and landscaping reserved. Full details of the
application were outlined within the published report. A Member
noted that the previous car home contained 63 bedrooms and the new
proposal would be 54 units.
Speakers:
Carol Bell spoke on behalf of
the applicant and made the following comments:
That the
redevelopment was part of a programme of extra care projects being
delivered by Surrey County Council to address the critical gap in
provision of affordable extra care housing for older people who
need accommodation and support.
That the proposal
offered a higher level of care compared to traditional sheltered
housing. Further to this, residents maintained a higher level of
independence that this offered by a traditional care
home.
That residents in
extra care housing were less likely to develop conditions that
required intensive healthcare solutions.
That the Orchard
Court site was selected as it met key sustainability criteria which
included close proximity to the Lingfield Village Centre, public
transport links and health infrastructure. The site would be fully
wheelchair accessible throughout with adaptable accommodation that
can address both current and future needs.
Noted that there
would be added security by having a manager on site at all
times.
That the site would
have the latest in sustainable energy supplies and measures to
minimise heat loss. The latest technology would also be used to
provide care and support to residents.
The Chairman stated that going
forward it would be helpful to understand the proposed layout of
the units.
A Member asked whether staff
would be available on site in addition to the manager. The speaker
confirmed that there would be day and night staff, catering staff,
and care workers. Members noted that five parking spaces would be
allocated to staff.
The Local Member, Lesley
Steeds, made the following comments:
That she was
supportive of the amended scheme and that the changes in height
positioning as well as increased parking were welcomed and
addressed concerns that had been raised.
That Surrey County
Council would be providing a much-needed facility for elderly
residents wishing to move to smaller accommodation with facilities
onsite.
That services would
not be further strained as the site was for local elderly people
allowing them to have independent living with ...
view the full minutes text for item 25/24
Members of the committee are asked to note the
preparation of two Authority Monitoring Reports (AMR) relating to
the 2021/2022 financial year and the 2022 calendar year.
The officers
introduced the report and explained that Members were asked to note
the preparation of two Authority Monitoring Reports (AMR) relating
to the 2021/2022 financial year and the 2022 calendar year. Members
received a presentation, and full details were outlined within the
published report.
In regard to the
recycling of concrete, members noted that construction, demolition,
and excavation waste was reported on both a waste side and a
minerals side and that figures were available on the sales of
secondary and recycled aggregates.
In regard to the
restoring mineral workings listings, a Member said that they could
not see the Homefield Site or a reservoir in East Molesey that they
were aware of. Officers said that this could be due to timing as
only sites which had progress in 2021 / 2022 or 2022. The officer
added that they were not aware of any sites excluded from the
report. The Member stated that it would be helpful to receive
information on the sites which were not progressing.
A Member asked if
information was available on unauthorised sites. Officers explained
that enforcement monitoring and how it was communicated to the
committee was an issue being considered.
Actions / Further information to be provided:
None.
Resolved:
The Planning and Regulatory
Committee noted:
The progress made in performance
against DHLUC KPIs since September 2022, and the performance of
minerals and waste planning policies against their strategic
objectives and monitoring indicators for the period 1 April 2021 to
31 December 2022.
The change in the reporting period
of AMRs and the changed format of the document including its
streamlined approach to displaying data and analysing policy
performance.
That they are encouraged to provide
feedback about the AMRs or other land-use planning monitoring
functions undertaken by officers.
27/24
DATE OF NEXT MEETING
Share this item
The next meeting of the Planning &
Regulatory Committee will be on 26 June 2024.
PDF 193 KB