Agenda and minutes

Planning and Regulatory Committee
Wednesday, 17 October 2018 10.30 am

Venue: Ashcombe Suite, County Hall, Kingston upon Thames, Surrey KT1 2DN

Contact: Huma Younis or Richard Plummer  Email: or Email:

Webcast: View the webcast

No. 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


    ·         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:


    Councillor Andrew Povey declared a non-pecuniary interest as a trustee of the Surrey Hills Society.



MINERALS AND WASTE APPLICATION TA12/902- Oxted Quarry, Chalkpit Lane, Oxted, Surrey, RH8 0QW pdf icon PDF 682 KB

    A periodic review of a mineral site planning permission for the winning and working of chalk for the determination of full modern conditions.


    Additional documents:



    Samantha Murphy, Principal Planning Officer

    Caroline Smith, Planning Development Manager

    Nancy El-Shatoury, Principal Lawyer

    Andrew Stokes, Transport Development Planning Team Leader

    Stephen Jenkins, Deputy Planning Development Manager


    Martin Fisher, made representations in objection to the application. The following key points were made:

    ·         Martin Fisher explained that he was the Leader of Tandridge District Council.

    ·         He noted that there was a requirement to balance resident experience with economic viability.

    ·         He explained that the road network surrounding the application was not suitable in some places for Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGVs). It was clarified that some roads were too narrow and not of sufficient quality, there is a lack of pavements and it is difficult for HGVs to pass each other in places.

    ·         It was stressed that HGVs discouraged other road users in some cases and had an impact on safety of other road users. It was also noted that there had been cases of driver intimidation as a result of increased HGV usage.

    ·         He suggested that traffic modelling supported a lower level of HGV movements. He stated that 154 movements created an impact on well-being and the environment and caused an adverse impact on road safety. It was suggested that there should be an average daily limit of 56 daily trips from the site Monday – Saturday over any 12 month rolling period, reducing the limit, specified in condition 25 of the report. A figure any greater than 112 increased the probability of HGVs meeting each other where they cannot pass on the road network. Had been disappointed that the previous figure of 56 trips had been set aside.


    Jackie Wren, made representation in objection to the application. The following key points were made:


    ·         Proposed levels of HGV movements included in the report is unacceptable and that it is only a matter of time before an accident occurs.

    ·         Concerns regarding safety were raised, noting that there were increased chances of accidents occurring due to the high levels of HGV usage and the quality and suitability of the roads in the surrounding area. There was intimidation and fear from 32 tonne lorries.

    ·         They have proved with expert opinion that the levels are too high and the methodology in the Officer report is inadequate.

    ·         It was stressed that residents supported the idea of a reduced cap on HGV usage to reduce risks of fatality.

    ·         Request the proposal is refused.

    Amanda Griffiths, made representation in objection to the application. The following key points were made:

    ·         Concerns were raised regarding noise from additional HGV traffic and safety, including mounting of pavements. It was suggested that the route plan is made explicit for HGV users.

    ·         Concern there are blind bends on the road meaning lorries have to travel in the middle of the road. HGVs drive too fast. Width of the road insufficient.

    ·         Safety concerns were raised for young children walking to St Mary’s School.

    ·         This is not addressed by the limit of 156 HGV movements per day. 114 HGV movements on a Saturday is  ...  view the full minutes text for item 36/18


SURREY COUNTY COUNCIL PROPOSAL WA/2018/1044- Linden Farm, Rosemary Lane, Alfold, Cranleigh, GU6 8EU pdf icon PDF 188 KB

    Planning application for the construction of supported living accommodation for adults with autism and high support needs within Use Class C3(b) without compliance with Condition 2 of Planning Permission WA/2016/1793 dated 20/01/2017 to allow modifications to the buildings and landscaping.



    Additional documents:



    Alex Sanders,
    Planning Regulation 3 Team Leader

    Caroline Smith, Planning Development Manager

    Nancy El-Shatoury, Principal Lawyer


    Sally Lawrence, made representation in objection to the application. The following key points were made:

    • Explained that she was the mother of Simon Lawrence who was 26 years old.
    • That there was no provision for care in Surrey which was why her son had to go out of county and that the facilities as were designed in the original plan were sufficient to provide adequate care.
    • Noted that the proposed reduction in size of the activity centre and the quality of the roof material proposed in the current plan significantly reduced the efficiency of the project.
    • To remove the horticultural area is to deprive the young of things that would enhance their lives.
    • People with autism need space and she wants Linden Farm to be a success.  
    • Noted that the plan for the facility should revert to the original plan submitted in order to be considered fit for purpose.
    • It was stressed that the objector was offering £360k funding from the Simon Trust in order to aid in filling the shortfalls in the plan, but that the county council was not accepting funding.

    Peter Lawrence, made representation in objection to the application. The following key points were made:

    ·         He suggested that facilities as they were designed would be limited and that this would have a significant impact on the wellbeing of those using the facilities.

    ·         He noted that there had been no traffic management analysis undertaken to reflect the increased traffic from the requirement for residents to move offsite more, due to the reduction in activity facilities.

    ·         The objector noted that building be delayed until the Simon Trust can aid with maximising the potential of the facility.

    ·         Queried why no comments had been received from Historic England and that the building included within the proposals does not integrate with the local landscape.


    Christopher Wilmshurst, the Agent for the application, raised the following key points:

    ·        The original justification remained- the developer would provide much needed accommodation for young people in Surrey.  

    ·        He stressed that the changes to the development as proposed were minor and that the site was fit for purpose under current plans.

    ·        The facilities included within the application are suitable for Linden Farm.

    ·        He highlighted that materials proposed for construction of the roof were not out of character with the local aesthetic and that they would not reduce the viability of the site.

    ·        Overall the charges were minor and would not compromise the development.

    Liz Uliasz, Deputy Director of Adult Social Care (ASC) at Surrey County Council, raised the following key points:

    ·         The Deputy Director reminded the Committee that social care was not relevant to the planning permission.

    ·         The Deputy Director noted that there was a shortage of accommodation in Surrey for young people with autism and that too many young people were placed out of county at a high costs.

    ·         It was noted by the Deputy Director that the current  ...  view the full minutes text for item 37/18


MINERALS/WASTE SP18/00308/SCC- Shepperton Quarry, Littleton Lane, Shepperton, Surrey, TW17 0NF pdf icon PDF 320 KB

    Application for the use of land as a recycling facility for construction and demolition waste using crushing and screening plant to produce recycled soils and aggregates, stockpiling of waste and recycled products, importation of waste material for recycling and retention of screen bunding, two storey site office and two storey weighbridge office for a temporary period until 30 September 2019 (retrospective).



    Additional documents:



    David Maxwell, Senior Planning Policy Officer
    Caroline Smith,
    Planning Development Manager
    Nancy El-Shatoury, Principal Lawyer


    Ken Snaith, made representation in objection to the application. The following key points were made:

    ·        Welcomed recommendation to refuse the application and explained that new imports of waste continue to be imported without planning permission.

    ·        It was suggested that the site was in the Green Belt and would not be appropriate to be used in the manner proposed by the applicant.

    ·        There are no special circumstances for this application and would set a dangerous precedent for applications being made going forward.  


    David Furst, made representation in objection to the application. The following key points were made:

    ·        He noted that the previous ban on importation of new materials had been ignored and that the site was not fit for the purpose of importing new materials.

    ·        No enforcement action has been taken by Surrey which shows a disrespectfulness to council procedures.

    ·        Requested that a stop notice is put in place immediately.


    Cllr Richard Walsh, as local Member, made representation to the committee as follows:


    • He supported the concerns of residents and that he also supported the proposed refusal of the application.

    ·        He added that road traffic would increase significantly if this application was successful. Also supported calls for a stop notice to be issued.


    Key points raised in the discussion:


    1. Officers explained that this was a retrospective application for the use of the north eastern part of the wider Shepperton Quarry site as a temporary aggregates recycling (AR) facility until 21 May 2019 with restoration of the recycling area by 30 September 2019. The site is located in the green belt and has been operating for nearly 20 years. Spelthorne Borough Council have expressed opposition to the application.

    2. Officers noted that the Environment Agency and lead local flood authority have both raised objections to the application due to concerns about the flood risk assessment. The reasons listed for a site office have not been justified by the applicant and the proposals are contrary to green belt policies.


    1. It was explained that a stop notice could only be issued after an enforcement notice had been issued. Good reasons would be required to issue this notice and there is currently no justification. Officers noted that it would be appropriate for the Committee to ask officers to work with the applicant to reduce the current stockpiles, clear and restore the site.


    1. The Committee unanimously supported refusal of the permission.



    That application Minerals/Waste SP18/00308/SCC, Shepperton Quarry, Littleton Lane, Shepperton, Surrey, TW17 0NF be REFUSED for the following reasons:


    I.                The proposed development is inappropriate and by definition harmful to the Green Belt and does not preserve openness and conflicts with the purposes of protecting Green Belt land including protecting the countryside from encroachment. The applicant has failed to demonstrate the very special circumstances to outweigh the harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy CW6 of the Surrey Waste  ...  view the full minutes text for item 38/18



    To debate a County Council Motion which was referred to the Planning and Regulatory Committee for consideration on 9 October 2018.

    Additional documents:




    Caroline Smith, Planning Development Manager


    Key points raised in the discussion:


    1. Members noted that this was a motion which had been referred to the Committee by Full Council for consideration.
    2. Councillor Cooksey, who seconded the motion, explained that the motion would not have been put forward to Council if he had been aware that the consultations listed in the motion had been responded too.
    3. Councillor Cooksey presented an amended motion to the Committee which was seconded by Councillor Rivers. The amended motion was supported by the Committee. It was agreed that the new motion would be reported back to Full Council.




    The following motion was agreed by the Planning and Regulatory Committee:

    “This Council notes that the government is consulting on whether non-hydraulic fracturing shale gas exploration development should be allowed under Permitted Development (PD), therefore requiring no planning permission. They also propose to bring the production phase of hydraulic fracturing (fracking) under the Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIP) regime, to be decided centrally by government and the planning inspectorate, thus taking decisions away from local councils. This Council believes that local plans, local planning and local democratic decision making should retain control of all local mineral and fossil fuel development. 

    Therefore, this Council welcomes, endorses and supports the responses already submitted to Government in respect of these consultations”.