Councillors and committees

Agenda and minutes

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

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

Media

Items
No. Item

1/22

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 for absence were received from Jeffrey Gray.

2/22

MINUTES OF THE LAST MEETING pdf icon PDF 216 KB

    • Share this item

    To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 17 November 2021.

    Additional documents:

    Minutes:

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

3/22

PETITIONS

    • Share this item

    To receive any petitions from members of the public in accordance with Standing Order 84 (please see note 7 below).

    Additional documents:

    Minutes:

    There were none.

4/22

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 8 below).

    Additional documents:

    Minutes:

    There were none.

5/22

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.

6/22

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.

7/22

Minerals/Waste EP21/00223/CMA - Land at The Chalk Pit, College Road, Epsom, Surrey KT17 4JA pdf icon PDF 911 KB

    • Share this item

    Change of use of an existing Waste Transfer Station to a Materials Recycling Facility and extension of this site to incorporate a new Waste Transfer Station, including: demolition of existing building; reinforcement of retaining wall; provision of new site surfacing and drainage; construction of buildings for the bulking and processing of mixed skip waste and skip storage, and the sorting and transfer of inert waste materials; use of an office; retention of existing workshop; installation of weighbridge; retention of entrance gates and fencing; and, provision of car parking [part retrospective].

    Additional documents:

    Minutes:

    The Chairman noted that this application had been deferred.

8/22

Surrey County Council Proposal MO/2021/1912 - Land at Headley Court, Headley Road, Leatherhead, Surrey KT18 6JW pdf icon PDF 403 KB

    • Share this item

    Erection of a modular building and retention of existing modular building, marquee, hoarding, infrastructure and plant for the temporary use of the site for a body storage facility.

    Additional documents:

    Minutes:

    Officers:

    Stephen Jenkins, Planning Development Manager

    Caroline Smith, Planning Group Manager

    Helen Forbes, Senior Lawyer

    Sonia Sharp, Senior Highways and Planning Solicitor

    Chris Turner, Senior Planning Officer

     

    Speakers:

     

    None.

     

    Key points raised during the discussion:

     

    1.    The Senior Planning Officer introduced the report and provided a brief summary. Members noted a correction to the report which was that Condition 6 and Condition 7 should reference ‘Condition 5’ and not ;Condition 1’. Members were provided with an overview of the photographs and plans included within the meeting’s agenda.

    2.    The Committee noted that the applicant was Surrey County Council.

    3.    A Member asked for clarification on why there was a pile of rubble shown within the site photographs. Officers confirmed that the rubble was not relevant to the application.

    4.    Members discussed Condition 2 which stated ‘The development to which this permission relates shall be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date of this permission’. Members raised concerns that the condition was unnecessary as works were already ongoing on site and therefore the permission would begin following the committee’s approval for a period of six months. Following a short discussion, Legal officers at the meeting advised that they believed that, as the application was temporary, rather than permanent, there was no requirement for Condition 2 in line with Planning legislation. Planning officers also agreed that there was no requirement for Condition 2 and that it could be removed. The Committee unanimously agreed to remove Condition 2 from the report.

     

    Resolved: 

     

    That Pursuant to Regulation 3 of the Town and Country PLANNING General Regulations 1992, application number ref: MO/2021/1912 be PERMITTED subject to the conditions from page 103 of the agenda (excluding Condition 2) and the update sheet.

9/22

Surrey County Council Proposal WA/2021/02235 - The Abbey School, Menin Way, Farnham, Surrey GU9 8DY pdf icon PDF 423 KB

    • Share this item

    The remodelling of the school buildings, erection of extensions, construction of a hard play area and associated landscaping and parking followed by the demolition of the caretakers bungalow.

    Additional documents:

    Minutes:

    Officers:

    Stephen Jenkins, Planning Development Manager

    Caroline Smith, Planning Group Manager

    Helen Forbes, Senior Lawyer

    Sonia Sharp, Senior Highways and Planning Solicitor

    Chris Turner, Senior Planning Officer

     

    Speakers:

     

    Barry Kitcherside, the agent of a local resident, spoke for three minutes and made the following comments:

     

    1.    That he, and his client, Linda Mills, had no generic concerns with the application and supported it.

    2.    That it was disappointing that officers had not yet reached a solution to the issue related to the new sports hall and the property named Ambulo.

    3.    That there was a need for a detailed impact assessment which considered the proximity of the new sports hall and the property Ambulo.

    4.    That his client would experience a loss of openness, outlook and privacy with the erection of the new sports hall.

    5.    That he was not suggesting that the application be refused but rather revised to amend the location of the new sports hall.

    6.    That, although it was not referenced in the application, there was concern that the new sports hall would also be used by unrelated third parties. In the event of this, it was asked that consideration be put into the impact on the local residents.

     

    The applicant’s agent, Mike Cole, spoke for three minutes in response and made the following comments:

     

    1.    That the applicant supported the officer recommendation.

    2.    That a public consultation was undertaken and pre-application discussions were entered into with officers when devising the scheme. Further discussions took place during consideration of the application to ensure any objections were considered and addressed.

    3.    That no objections were received by statutory consultees.

    4.    That additional work beyond the original submission was undertaken to demonstrate that no harm would come to the property Ambulo and others.

    5.    That Block F, the sports hall, had been designed to be policy compliant.

    6.    The applicant had accepted restrictive conditions which included the nature of Block F’s use and associated hours, and that there would be no community access to the hall and no flood lighting was proposed on the hard play area.

     

    Key points raised during the discussion:

     

    1.    The Senior Planning Officer introduced the report, and the update sheet, and provided a brief summary. Members were also provided with an overview of the site’s plans and photographs which were also included within the meeting’s agenda.

    2.    A Member asked whether any other locations were considered for the location of Block F on the site. The Senior Planning Officer explained that, to his knowledge, no other locations were considered however where a scheme was submitted that is policy compliant then it is difficult to request a redesign. A Member stated that they felt there should be more flexibility to address the local resident’s concerns as the application was submitted by Surrey County Council.

    3.    Following a short discussion on the hours of operation and use of Block F, Members noted that the applicant had not specifically requested that the sports  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9/22

10/22

DATE OF NEXT MEETING

    • Share this item

    The next meeting of the Planning & Regulatory Committee will be on 23 February 2022.

    Additional documents:

    Minutes:

    The date of the next meeting was noted.