Councillors and committees

Agenda and minutes

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

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

Media

Items
No. Item

9/23

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 Edward Hawkins, Jeffrey Gray and Jonathan Hulley.

     

    David Harmer acted as a substitute for Edward Hawkins. Richard Tear acted as a substitute for Jonathan Hulley.

10/23

MINUTES OF THE LAST MEETING pdf icon PDF 228 KB

    • Share this item

    To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 25 January 2023.

    Additional documents:

    Minutes:

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

11/23

PETITIONS

    • Share this item

    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.

12/23

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 6 below).

    Additional documents:

    Minutes:

    There were none.

13/23

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.

14/23

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.

15/23

Surrey County Council Proposal RE22/01796/CON - Land at Woodhatch Place, 11 Cockshot Hill, Woodhatch, Reigate, RE2 8EF pdf icon PDF 2 MB

    • Share this item

    The erection of a part one, part two and part three storey building to provide a 5-form entry junior school, with two all-weather sports pitches, a MUGA pitch, a hard play area with netball court, and provision of car parking spaces and provision of a new internal access road with a new egress point on to Cockshot Hill, with associated hard and soft landscaping and off-site highways works.

    Additional documents:

    Minutes:

    Officers:

    Caroline Smith (Planning Group Manager)

    Sonia Sharp (Senior Highways and Planning Solicitor)

    Stephen Jenkins (Planning Development Manager)

    Dawn Horton Baker (Planning Development Team Leader)

    Tricia Gurney (Principal Transport Development Planning Officer) – Attended virtually

     

    Speakers:

     

    Sophia Oliver spoke on behalf of Chris Morris and made representations in objection to the application. The following key points were made:

     

    1. That she did not have children at Reigate Priory Junior School but, as a local resident, strongly objected to the proposed relocation.
    2. That there was a viable alternative to relocating the school which was upgrading the existing school and moving the ‘right of way’ through the existing site. Reigate and Banstead Borough Council confirmed that they supported this.
    3. That Surrey County Council should consider the alternative before attempting to progress with a proposal that had severe drawbacks and had resulted in so much opposition.
    4. That she was gravely concerned with road safety. The transport assessment stated that there had been no serious accidents involving children on Cockshot Hill in the last five years however very few primary school children used the road at present. A combination of heavy traffic, unsafe pavements and a large number of primary school children would clearly create a set of conditions in which accidents were more likely.
    5. That there had been a fatal collision involving a child on Cockshot Hill.
    6. That the proposal should have included proper consideration of anticipated road safety conditions and the circumstances of previous accidents.
    7. That the transport assessment conducted was superficial and did not provide confidence that the proposed traffic mitigations would improve safety.
    8. That she had concerns regarding congestion and the proposed traffic mitigations, as the relocation would cause more journeys, and the parking provision was inadequate. Surrey County Council had proposed that parents park in surrounding residential roads but ignored that many of the streets were blind closes. If parking was not available, then drivers would have to turn around and drive out of each close to access the next one. The closes were accessed from a blind service road, off Cockshot Hill, that was one lane only when vehicles were parked. The road would not be able to deal with the anticipated volumes of traffic and so would create significant congestion.
    9. That traffic mitigations were a prerequisite if primary aged children were to use Cockshot Hill regularly. Mitigations would affect local and through traffic during the construction phase and over the longer term.
    10. That the A217 was a key through route and a main route to Gatwick therefore the proposal would have significant economic impacts.
    11. That she was deeply concerned that Surrey County Council wanted to commit to major public works of this nature without wider consultation and assessment.
    12. That the trees proposed to be cut down were subject to Tree Preservation Order (TPO) RE717. The purpose of the TPO was to protect valuable environmental heritage and said she was shocked that Surrey Council were proposing to undermine their own regulations.
    13. In summary, the speaker said that the proposal  ...  view the full minutes text for item 15/23

16/23

COMMONS ACT 2006 SCHEDULE 2: APPLICATION TO AMEND THE REGISTER OF COMMON LAND AT RANGERS COTTAGE, PEASLAKE pdf icon PDF 194 KB

    • Share this item

    The committee is asked to consider whether to amend the register of common land relating to register unit CL196 by the removal of a strip of land at Rangers Cottage, Ewhurst Road, Peaslake identified on the application plan (Annex A).

    Additional documents:

    Minutes:

    Officers:

    Catherine Valiant, Countryside Access Officer – Commons

    Judith Shephard, Senior Lawyer

     

    Speakers:

    None.

     

    Key points raised during the discussion:

     

    1. The Senior Lawyer stated that, following the publication of the agenda, on Saturday, 18 February,a request was received from the applicant to withdraw the application as the applicant considered that they had not had the opportunity to challenge the recommendation and considered the process unfair.
    2. The Senior Lawyer further stated that, current government guidance to registration authorities on requests to withdraw applications was that applicants did not have an automatic right to withdraw applications if an applicant asked to do so, and that it must be decided whether or not it was reasonable. Further to this, case law had shown that a registration authority should be guided by the general principle of being fair to those whose interests may be affected by a decision. The request to withdraw the application was considered by officers and officers responded to the applicant on 20 February 2023 explaining that permitting the withdrawal of an application was a matter for the registration authorities’ discretion. In this case, officers considered that the discretion could not be exercised to permit the withdrawal of the application, as the Council must balance the interests of all parties.
    3. The Senior Lawyer explained that other parties had made representations on the application. The Council had also expended resources including obtaining counsels’ advice on the application, and that there would be a reasonable expectation that the application should now proceeded to determination by the committee. Further correspondence had been received from the applicant the morning of the committee stating that they did not believe that the committee had the power to refuse their request to withdraw the application and, to do so, would leave the decision open to challenge. The applicant considered that the way the application had been dealt with was unfair and that they should have had an opportunity to challenge counsel’s advice and the recommendation.
    4. In regard to the process on an application of this type, the Senior Lawyer said that it was for the applicant to ensure that their application was accompanied by evidence showing that it met the relevant statutory criteria. The applicant had been given opportunities on several occasions to submit additional evidence to support their application.
    5. Officers had Instructor counsel, an expert in this field, to provide advice to the registration authority on the merits of the application. Counsel visited the site, and the applicants were able to provide Counsel with further information. Counsel’s advice was to inform the registration authority and the registration authority was not obliged to share this advice. The appropriate course of action was then for the application to be referred to the committee for the termination. It was not considered that it met the threshold for an inquiry. It was further noted that the applicant had the opportunity to make representations at the committee which was not taken. It was therefore for the committee to consider the applicant’s  ...  view the full minutes text for item 16/23

17/23

DATE OF NEXT MEETING

    • Share this item

    The next meeting of the Planning & Regulatory Committee will be on 29 March 2023.

    Additional documents:

    Minutes:

    The date of the next meeting was noted.