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

11/22

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 were received from Jeffrey Gray, Penny Rivers and Scott Lewis.

     

    Stephen Cooksey substituted for Penny Rivers and Riasat Khan substituted for Scott Lewis

     

12/22

MINUTES OF THE LAST MEETING pdf icon PDF 285 KB

    • Share this item

    To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on (26 January 2022).

    Additional documents:

    Minutes:

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

13/22

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.

14/22

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.

15/22

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.

16/22

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.

17/22

Minerals/Waste EP21/00223/CMA - Land at The Chalk Pit, College Road, Epsom, Surrey KT17 4JA pdf icon PDF 937 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:

    Officers:

    Caroline Smith, Planning Group Manager

    Stephen Jenkins, Planning Development Manager

    Helen Forbes, Principal Lawyer

    Sonia Sharp, Senior Highways and Planning Solicitor

    Paul Evans, Director – Law and Governance

    James Nolan, Senior Planning Officer

    Nicola Stedman-Jones, Noise Consultant

     

    Speakers:

     

    David Williams made representations in objection to the application. The following key points were made:

     

    1.    That since 2020, the unlawful waste processing unit had exposed local people to severe noise and dust pollution.

    2.    That it was not clear why the operator had been given flexibility on planning regulations and had shown no regard for the local environment.

    3.    Residents had obtained legal advice which produced legal concerns on the committee reports reliability.

    4.    That the proposal must be judged against a clear baseline. Instead of providing clarity, the report framed the proposal as a way to regain control over site activity which was misleading.

    5.    That legal advice had confirmed that limits had been breached which would leave the site open to enforcement action.

    6.    That the report failed to give national green belt policy proper weight.

    7.    That the scheme claimed to process the same amount of waste as the previous scheme but required a larger operational area which would cause more harm to the green belt.

    8.    Any harm to the green belt must be clearly outweighed by very special circumstances and that this was not shown in a previous application in 2017 so could not be shown now.

    9.    That residents had concerns on the accuracy of the applicant’s evidence on noise pollution.

    10.  That the latest Environmental agency response made several incorrect references to a proposed reduction in waste quantity which was a fundamental misunderstanding of the proposal which had not been addressed.

    11.  That the application relied on large buildings to contain noise, but main doorways would open six times an hour letting noise escape towards residents.

    12.  That the situation around noise assessment was uncertain at best.

    13.  Members should reflect on the opposition from residents and the local council.

    14.  That the proposal offered only a small contribution to meeting waste targets.

    15.  Urged Members to vote against the recommendation.

     

    Fiona Macdowel made representations in objection to the application. The following key points were made:

     

    1.    They had lived 350 metres from the site for 15 years and that they had never had an issue with the site until summer 2020 which was when the operation was scaled up illegally.

    2.    For the last 18 months residents had experienced significant noise and dust issues.

    3.    That key relevant facts had been excluded from the officer report.

    4.    That it seemed the officer report had been written a considerable time ago as the gym and physio referenced in the report had departed in May 2021.

    5.    That the Surrey Waste Plan was being ignored and bypassed.

    6.    That the Environmental Agency independent noise experts stated that noise must reduce by 10 decibels and that the building would only reduce noise by up to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 17/22

18/22

Surrey County Council Proposal SP21/00258/SCC - Bishop Wand Church of England Secondary School, Laytons Lane, Sunbury on Thames, Surrey TW16 6LT pdf icon PDF 819 KB

    • Share this item

    Construction of a new two storey dining hall and classroom block; single storey extension to science lab; and associated works.

    Additional documents:

    Minutes:

    Ernest Mallet and Stephen Cooksey left the meeting at 13:02

     

    The Chairman held a comfort break from 13:03 – 13:09

     

    Officers:

    Katie Jewell, Planning Officer

    Charlie Cruise, Principal Transport Development Panning Officer

    Caroline Smith, Planning Group Manager

    Stephen Jenkins, Planning Development Manager

    Helen Forbes, Principal Lawyer

    Sonia Sharp, Senior Highways and Planning Solicitor

     

    Speakers:

     

    The Local Member, Buddhi Weerasinghe, spoke for three minutes. The following key points were made:

     

    1.    That he was supportive of the application as the school age population was set to increase by 5.5% over the next few years.

    2.    Provided a brief overview of the proposal.

    3.    That there was a need for the development in the area and that it would benefit residents.

    4.    That the expansion would increase students from 930 to 1050 total. The total number of sixth form students were also set to increase.

    5.    That the proposal would be a great increase for governors, teachers, students, and parents.

     

    Key points raised during the discussion:

     

    1.    The officer introduced the item and the update sheet. Members noted that the proposal included the construction of a new two storey dining hall and classroom block; single storey extension to science lab; and associated works. Members were provided with an overview of the plans and photographs of the site.

    2.    Members raised concerns around the provision of a ‘raised table’ at the northern end of Layton’s Lane and whether it would successfully mitigate the issue of speeding vehicles. Officers explained that the table would be included at the end of the lane so that it would set the tone of speed of 20 miles per hour for the remaining lane. Officers explained that, due to there being dropped curbs and the potential of noise issues, there was limited scope to introduce more tables throughout the lane. Officers further stated that the scheme proposed was the best scheme available.

    3.    Discussion was had on the informal footpath and the reason why an updated footpath was proposed to be implemented if another path was available. Officers explained that the informal path was located on land owned by a third party and therefore there was no formal right of access to it and could be closed at any time.

    4.    Members noted that the cycle lane along Layton’s Lane was no longer part of the proposal.

    5.    The committee unanimously agreed to permit the application.

     

    Resolved:

     

    The Committee agreed that, pursuant to Regulation 3 of the Town and County Planning General Regulations 1992, planning application ref: SP21/00258/SCC be permitted subject to conditions within the officer report and update sheet.

     

     

19/22

Adoption of the updated Planning Enforcement and Monitoring Protocol Minerals & Waste Planning Development pdf icon PDF 132 KB

    • Share this item

    That the Planning Enforcement and Monitoring Protocol, Minerals & Waste Planning Development be adopted further to an Ombudsman decision dated 21 September 2021, which included a recommendation that we review our existing Planning Enforcement Protocol, Minerals and Waste Development dated September 2015 within 6-months, specifically so that our description of monitoring reflects our practise.

    Additional documents:

    Minutes:

    Officers:

    Caroline Smith, Planning Group Manager

    Stephen Jenkins, Planning Development Manager

    Helen Forbes, Principal Lawyer

    Sonia Sharp, Senior Highways and Planning Solicitor

     

    Key points raised during the discussion:

     

    1.    The Chairman introduced the item.

    2.    Members noted that an ‘odour’ condition would be included on a planning application when necessary, however, the Environmental Agency were responsible for monitoring pollution and odour issues.

    3.    Officers highlighting that the Enforcement Team would provide a round-up report to the committee on occasion.

    4.    A Member raised concern with the current process of dealing with operators in breach of planning conditions. Officers explained that, in the event of an operator being in breach of planning conditions, if appropriate, and in line with government policy, a retrospective application would be negotiated. However, in the event that the breach was unacceptable then an enforcement process would begin.

    5.    In regard to the flow chart located on page 39 of the supplementary agenda, Members raised concerned as the chart presented that a risk of significant harm could lead to ‘no further action’. A Member further stressed that it was important to ensure that any serious harm by an operator was met with enforcement action.

    6.    A legal representative highlighted that she had reviewed various enforcement policy from across the country and that the policy being considered at the meeting was the best written policy seen by her to date. 

    7.    A legal representative further stated that issues were likely to be related to the Enforcement Team’s resource to monitor, inspect, make decisions and to follow up. Member also noted that, as seen in the flow chart, enforcement notices would not be issued in a situation were planning permission could be granted.

    8.    In regard to the ‘Is enforcement action expedient?’ section of the chart, the legal representative proposed that it may be more appropriate to state, ‘is enforcement action possible?’ as there were situations where enforcement action was not possible. It was further stated that the council’s scheme of delegation stated that the Director – Law and Governance would be involved in any decision to take no further action.

    9.    Members noted that it was unlikely that the council would be unable to start enforcement actions due to the wording of a condition.

    10.Officers proposed two amendments to the flow chart on page 39 of the agenda. These were:

    a.    Removed the word ‘significant’ from the section of the chart which read ‘is the risk of significant harm caused by the breach in our profession judgement?’

    b.    To include an additional box under the box noted in paragraph 10a above, which read ‘reconsider enforcement action’. 

    11.A Member agreed to support the policy and amendments subject to the committee reviewing the policy again in the near-term. It was also requested that Members were allowed time in advance of the committee meeting to consider the policy and make comments. The Committee agreed to hold a working group to consider the policy when appropriate.

    12.The Chairman moved  ...  view the full minutes text for item 19/22

20/22

DATE OF NEXT MEETING

    • Share this item

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

    Additional documents:

    Minutes:

    The date of the next meeting was noted.