Agenda and minutes
PDF 188 KBVenue: Council Chamber, 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 have been received from Jeffrey Gray and Chris Farr. |
|
|
MINUTES OF THE LAST MEETING
To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 25 September 2024. Additional documents: Minutes: 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: In regard to the Horse Hill site, Officers made a statement in addition to the responses to the public questions.
Following discussions between the council’s Planning Enforcement and Monitoring Team and the operator, oil production has ceased at the site at Horse Hill which we are pleased to note. However, discussions remain ongoing between the council and the operator and the investigation remains live in the sense of working towards full suspension and demobilisation at the site.
Further to this, officers read aloud a public statement from the operator of the site.
Five Public Questions were submitted. The questions and responses were published within a supplementary agenda on 29 October 2024.
1. Deborah Elliott asked the following supplementary question:
In UK Oil & Gas PLC’s (UKOG) recent statements, they say there have been in talks with Surrey County Council since June. Could you confirm and provide evidence of this? If this is true, why has drilling been permitted by the Council in the interim without any planning permission in place?
In response, officers stated that they could not provide evidence while in the meeting but confirmed that there had been an ongoing dialogue with the operator. As per the published public question responses, the council had not permitted drilling and that it was the council's position that the extraction of oil at the site is unlawful. Officers agreed to provide a full written response outside the meeting.
2. Jackie Macey asked the following supplementary question:
The delayed action from Surrey County Council has led Chris Coghlan MP to say Surrey County Council owe residents of a full explanation of their conduct over the last four months. You state in your response that you UKOG has been put on notice. When did this happen and exactly what does this mean?
Officers stated that, as mentioned in the previous response, 'put on notice' meant that UKOG had been informed the extraction was considered unlawful and that there had been ongoing dialogue over the past four months. Officers agreed to provide a detailed written response outside the meeting.
3. Sarah Freeman did not ask a supplementary question.
4. Jacqueline Phillips asked the following supplementary question:
Can Surrey County Council please confirm that they will require an Environmental Impact Assessment which takes full account of direct and indirect emissions from all extracted, to be submitted by Horse Hill Developments Limited or UKOG for any future or redetermination of the planning application at Horse Hill?
Officers stated that, in respect of the application where the permission was quashed, it was now back with the county for redetermination. This would require consideration of the environmental impact assessment threshold, along with an environmental statement, before any redetermination could take place. Officers could not confirm anything regarding other planning applications, as they did not yet know the content of any forthcoming applications. However, it was noted that any permission or application submitted would have needed to be mindful of the Supreme Court's decision.
5. Neville Kemp asked the following ... view the full minutes text for item 53/22 |
|
|
MEMBERS' QUESTION TIME
To answer any questions received from Members of the Council in accordance with Standing Order 68. Additional documents: Minutes: 1. One Member Question was submitted by Cllr Jonathan Essex. The question and response was published in a supplementary agenda on 29 October 2024. Cllr Essex asked the following supplementary question:
As this relates to a decision of the Supreme Court and the activities pursuant have continued for the past five years, it would seem unreasonable to think the courts would anyway not support such immediate enforcement, so it's unclear why prior investigation appears to have been undertaken first rather than first taking immediate formal enforcement action. The supplementary question is to ask whether the Surrey County Council will now, if not already, formally issue and publish a stop notice to ensure that continued operations at the Horse Hill site do now cease and immediately instead commence clearance and full restoration of the site.
Officers stated that the investigation was ongoing and agreed to provide a written response outside the meeting. |
|
|
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. |
|
Construction and use of double-height extension to rear of school hall, enlarged car park and two new multi-use games areas; and reinstatement of grass playing field. Additional documents: Minutes: Officers: Lok Chee Leonie Chan, Planning Officer Dawn Horton-Baker, Planning Development Team Leader
Officer introduction:
Officers introduced the report and update sheet and informed Members that the application was for the construction and use of double-height extension to rear of school hall, enlarged car park and two new multi-use games areas; and reinstatement of grass playing field. The full details were provided within the published report.
Speakers:
The Local Member, Cllr Matt Furniss, made the following points:
1. That the proposal had his full support. 2. There was a significant shortage of school spaces in the area, which needed addressing. 3. This was the only school in the area that did not have a junior school attached. 4. A key issue was that the school had to transport students to other junior schools, which was not a sustainable form of travel. 5. The area has seen 2,000 houses built, resulting in a shortage of necessary infrastructure. 6. The Member urged the committee to approve the application in order to keep school children local and reduce unnecessary travel. 7. A 20mph speed limit and other school safety measures would be included before the application advanced further.
A Member of the Committee asked whether the local Member felt the proposal would meet the local need in the area. The Local Member confirmed that the additional school spaces would help address the overall need in the area.
Key points raised during the discussion:
1. In regard to the three metre high mesh fence, a Member inquired if acoustic fencing had been considered as an alternative. Additionally, the Member suggested that if the space were to be rented out in the evening, it could be beneficial. Officers confirmed that there was a condition to limit the hours of use, which would be until 7:30 pm. Additionally, a noise assessment had been carried out, and it was determined that the noise levels were within acceptable limits. 2. A Member inquired whether plans were in place for safety measures such as 20mph speed limits and parking wardens. Officers confirmed that a comprehensive scheme of road safety improvements had been secured by condition, as outlined in the report. These improvements include one-way systems, upgrades to footways, the provision of additional zebra crossings, and more. 3. A Member thanked officers for addressing the concerns raised by Members during the site visit. The Member stated that she fully supported the application. 4. A Member stated that they fully supported the proposal as there was a need for it in the area. 5. Members noted that the on-site pond would be protected during construction.
Actions / further information to be provided:
None.
Resolved:
That pursuant to Regulation 3 of The Town and Country Planning General Regulations 1992, the Committee grants planning permission for application ref: GU24/CON/00010, subject to the recommended planning conditions outlined in the report and update sheet. |
|
Outline application for the erection of part 1, 4, 5 and 6 storey building for extra care accommodation, comprising self-contained apartments, staff and communal facilities, and associated parking with access from St Annes Drive and Noke Drive. Appearance and landscaping reserved. Additional documents: Minutes: Officers: Charlotte Parker, Planning Development Team Leader
Officer introduction:
The Committee was provided with an overview of the report and update sheet. Members noted that the outline application was for the erection of part 1, 4, 5 and 6 storey building for extra care accommodation, comprising self-contained apartments, staff and communal facilities, and associated parking with access from St Annes Drive and Noke Drive. Appearance and landscaping reserved. The full details were outlined within the published report and update sheet.
Speakers:
Carol Bell spoke on behalf of the applicant and made the following points:
A Member expressed concerns regarding the layout and flood risk from a planning perspective. The Member inquired whether the overlay of Zone 3 flooding on the layout had been considered to ensure that no ground floor residential accommodation was located in this area. The applicant’s agent confirmed that the flood risk assessment document had been updated since the final submission, and additional plans were included to show that residential accommodation on the ground floor was elevated higher than the flood risk zone. The Member asked whether the applicant was aware that current government guidance recommends floor levels to be at least 600 millimetres above the estimated flood level, whereas the design put forward in the plans indicates a floor level of only 300 millimetres. Officers agreed to respond during the item’s discussion.
A Member asked for details of any additional parking spaces in the local area. The applicant’s agent confirmed that the council was aware of the ... view the full minutes text for item 57/22 |
|
|
DATE OF NEXT MEETING
The next meeting of the Planning & Regulatory Committee will be on 27 November 2024. Additional documents: Minutes: The date of the next meeting was noted. |