Agenda and minutes
PDF 193 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 for absence were received from Jonathan Hulley. |
|
|
MINUTES OF THE LAST MEETING
To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 30 October 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: Five public questions were received. The questions and responses were published within a supplementary agenda on 26 November 2024.
Surrey County Council may believe that it did not permit the continued drilling and extraction of oil at the Horse Hill site since the quashing of the planning permission in June 2024. The continued extraction has been at the operator’s own risk of formal enforcement action. However, it is clear to many that by ignoring this unlawful activity for months, the council is giving a green light to drilling which was only stopped as a result of extensive adverse media attention. The council has recently and fairly promptly issued a stop notice where an area of land close to Horse Hill was being used to unlawfully deposit waste materials and it states that this has been done as an immediate remedy of the most harmful aspects of the unlawful development, and yet when the highest court in the land recognised that the extraction at Horse Hill site will cause the environment harm, the council failed to act. Will the council now take formal steps to ensure that the oil that has been produced since the Supreme Court judgement is not sold and the company do not profit from their unlawful and harmful activity in Surrey?
In response to the final part of the question, officers stated that they were aware that the question was raised in correspondence that Surrey County Council had received and were considering a response. In response to the first part of the question, officers stated that it was not permitted, in that the operator was advised and told that the continued extraction was unlawful, and that an enforcement investigation was beginning which does take time. In regard to the other site raised in the public question, officers stated that each site had its own circumstances which should be investigated properly, and that there was a key difference between an operator that is looking to work with the council towards a voluntary cessation, as with the Horse Hill site, and an operator that it not looking to work with the council. It was added that the purpose of the planning enforcement system was to seek remedy to planning harm.
Thank you for the written responses to previous questions asked about the unlawful oil production at Horse Hill, which referred to correspondence between the council and applicant as to when the applicant intended to submit additional information to set out the position in relation to the development and redetermination of the planning application. Has a timescale for this been set and can you share it with the public?
In response, officers stated that the definitive timescale on the submission of information had not been set as it was a matter of ongoing conversation. The officer added that details would be shared when available.
|
|
|
MEMBERS' QUESTION TIME
To answer any questions received from Members of the Council in accordance with Standing Order 68. Additional documents: Minutes: One Member Question was submitted by Cllr Helyn Clack. The question and response was published within a supplementary agenda on 26 November 2024.
Cllr Helyn Clack asked the following supplementary question:
Will the council be able to recover the costs of the damage to the local public environment, including roads, verges, and ditches, caused by numerous lorries? The Member added that it was strongly believed that Surrey taxpayers should not bear the financial burden for these repairs.
In response, officers stated that the matter did not fall within the purview of the Planning Enforcement Team. However, they indicated that they could consult with colleagues in the Highways Enforcement Team to determine whether they would be able to investigate issues directly related to the damage to the highway. The Chairman added that he would be interested in learning the outcome of the issue once available.
|
|
|
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. |
|
Demolition of a vacant single storey building formerly used as elderly persons accommodation and erection of a part single, part two storey building to provide new classroom support accommodation for primary and secondary pupils; staff facilities; construction of a Multi-Use Games Area; car parking spaces; associated hard and soft landscaping and associated works. Additional documents: Minutes: Officers: Katie Rayner, Principal Planning Officer Sian Saadeh, Planning Development Manager Nancy El-Shatoury, Principal Lawyer James Lehane, Principal Transport Development Planning Officer
Officer Introduction:
Officers introduced the report, and updates sheet, and provided an overview of the application and relevant highways details. Members noted that the proposal was for the demolition of a vacant single storey building formerly used as elderly persons accommodation and erection of a part single, part two storey building to provide new classroom support accommodation for primary and secondary pupils; staff facilities; construction of a Multi-Use Games Area; car parking spaces; associated hard and soft landscaping and associated works.
It was noted that further correspondence had been received from the RH29 Community Group including comments on the content of the officer report, recommended conditions should permission be granted, and a report from a senior clinical lecturer in paediatric and mental health. Further representations had also been received from members of the public. Officers had reviewed the information and concluded that they did not raise any material matters which had not already been reflected or discussed within the officer report. In addition, should planning permission be granted, changes had been proposed to two conditions, with two additional informatives, as outlined in the update sheet.
Speakers:
1. Kate Fairhurst spoke in objection to the application and made the following points:
a. That she was opposed to the application b. That the location of the college on Park Hall Road was gravely inadequate for the schools proposed traffic load. The extra pressure placed on Park Hall Road and surrounding roads would be enormous. c. That adequate provision was needed for the supervised pick-up and drop-off. The speaker did not feel the site offered sufficient coverage as per the Department for Education (DfE) BB104 Guidance. d. That, given the wide catchment of the proposed college, it was reasonable to assume that individual taxis for students would be used, and that, in the worst case, there could be 62 – 72 taxis, twice a day, accessing the quite residential cul-de-sac. e. That the speaker felt the site was not compliant with the Council’s own standards for the width of the school access road and was contrary to Reigate and Banstead Borough Council’s DES1 Policy requiring adequate provision for access. f. In regard to air quality, a report from a Senior Clinical Lecturer at Queen Mary University had concluded that the proposed site would create air pollution significantly above World Health Organisation limits and would therefore be highly detrimental to students health. g. That Policy DES9 at Reigate and Banstead Council required a design to minimise the occupant’s exposure to air pollution. h. That, in the speakers view, the site was wholly inappropriate in both transportation and air quality terms.
No Members raised any points for clarification.
2. Michael Mamalis spoke in objection to the application and made the following points:
a. That the need to improve Surrey’s alternative provision (AP) was clear however the council was in danger of losing ... view the full minutes text for item 65/24 |
|
Extension to existing school and new classroom building following demolition of existing caretaker’s accommodation, alteration to parking layout, and alteration to external areas including multi-use games area to enable increase in pupil numbers from 90 to 210. Additional documents: Minutes:
Officers: David Maxwell, Senior Planning Policy Officer
Officer Introduction: The officer introduced the item and the update sheet. Members noted that the application was for an extension to existing school and new classroom building following demolition of existing caretaker’s accommodation, alteration to parking layout, and alteration to external areas including multi-use games area to enable increase in pupil numbers from 90 to 210.
Speakers:
None.
Key points raised during the discussion:
Actions / Further information to be provided:
The Chairman agreed to write to the Cabinet Member for Property, Waste, and Infrastructure to convey the committee’s concerns as highlighted during the discussion. Resolved: That pursuant to Regulation 3 of The Town and Country Planning General Regulations 1992, the Committee grants planning permission for application ref: RU.23/1759 subject to the recommended planning conditions outlined in the report and update sheet.
|
|
|
APPLICATION FOR VILLAGE GREEN STATUS, LAND AT THE DELL, PAINSHILL, LIMPSFIELD
The committee is asked to consider whether to accept the withdrawal of an application to register land as a Town or Village Green. Additional documents: Minutes:
Officers: Catherine Valiant, Countryside Access Officer Commons Judith Shephard, Senior Lawyer
Officer Introduction:
The Officer introduced the report and provided a brief overview. Members noted that the report concerned whether to accept the withdrawal of a request to register land at The Dell in Limpsfield as a town or village green. The application was originally made on 14 January 2021, prompted by a landowner statement that ended the public's right to use the land. Following the application, 12 objections were received from the landowner and neighbouring landowners. In July 2023, the applicants decided to withdraw their application after receiving advice from the Open Spaces Society, which indicated that the application was unlikely to succeed due to legal precedents involving utility-owned land.
The withdrawal request was advertised, but no substantial objections or support for continuing the application were received. The landowner confirmed that the land is used for water undertakings and that there are no plans to develop it or allow further public use beyond the existing public right of way.
Members noted that the committee was being asked to decide whether to accept the withdrawal request. If accepted, the landowner statement would prevent any future village green applications for a long period. If the withdrawal was not accepted, it would be challenging to continue without public support, and further investigation, including the possibility of a non-statutory public inquiry, would be necessary.
The recommendation was to accept the withdrawal request due to the lack of public interest in continuing the application, the potential issues with statutory incompatibility, and the difficulty in proceeding without an applicant.
Speakers:
None.
Key points raised during the discussion:
1. The Chairman moved the officer recommendation which received unanimous support.
Actions / Further information to be provided:
None.
Resolved: The Committee agreed that the Applicants request to withdraw the Application is accepted on the grounds that it is reasonable in the circumstances for the reasons given in this report.
|
|
On 29 September 2021 Mole Valley Local Committee (MVLC) considered the report at Annex A. The relevant minutes of this meeting are at Annex B. On 10 November 2021, members were asked to reframe their wording so that their position was clarified.
During both meetings there was discussion about the report, the supporting evidence, the recommendation and subsequently the position of the committee was clearly expressed. Following the second meeting a resolution was confirmed that a Definitive Map Modification Order (DMMO) be made to implement changes to the Definitive Statement so that the description matches its depiction on the Definitive Map.
On 30 June 2022, a DMMO was made as directed by the MVLC and advertised for 42 days as required by S. 53 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (WCA 1981). One objection was received to the Order from Network Rail. Where objections are received and cannot be resolved the Order must be referred to the Secretary of State (SoS) for determination. Both Committee reports noted this requirement. The authority arising from the resolutions in September and November 2021 is limited to making the Order. There is no indication as to what the Council’s position would be upon the receipt of an objection.
In lieu of the defunct MVLC, the Planning and Regulatory Committee (PRC) are now asked to clarify and confirm how it wants to proceed. Additional documents: Minutes:
Officers: Dan Williams, Senior Countryside Access Officer Legal Definition
Officer Introduction:
1. The report was presented to the committee to seek guidance on how to proceed following a decision made by the Mole Valley Local Committee. It was emphasised that this was not an opportunity to revisit or amend the original decision. The issue arose in 2021 after Network Rail submitted evidence pointing to an error on the 1966 definitive map regarding a level crossing. After investigating the matter, the Officer found that the evidence showed that a public footpath was shown over the crossing in error. The Mole Valley local committee did not agree to remove the incorrect line from the map, but instead directed that the definitive statement be amended to align it with the definitive map, as they disagreed with the officer’s findings. Following this, a definitive map modification order (DMMO) was made in June 2022, based on the committee's decision. The order was advertised, and only one objection was received from Network Rail. As the council could not resolve this objection, the matter was referred to the Secretary of State for determination. However, it became clear that the committee had not decided how to proceed if objections to the order were received. Legal advice suggested that the committee now needed to clarify its position on whether it supported or rejected the order. Counsel indicated that the authority granted by the resolutions in 2021 was limited to making the order itself, without providing any guidance on how to handle objections.
2. The Officer presented Members with three options. The first option was to support the order, which would require the council to present a full case, including expert witnesses and legal representation. The second option was to decide not to support the order, in which case the committee would need to provide reasons for rejecting it, based on the available evidence. The third option was for the committee to take no position, providing all relevant documentation to an independent inspector who would make the final decision. In conclusion, the committee was asked to decide how to proceed with the submission to the Secretary of State. The report did not recommend a specific course of action but instead sought the committee's guidance on the way forward.
Key points raised during the discussion:
1. it was noted that the local member, Chris Townsend, had wished to address the committee. However, due to a longstanding family engagement, he was unable to attend the meeting. 2. A Member expressed their preference for option three, which involves taking a neutral stance. They argued that this option would require the least amount of work and incur no significant expenses. In response, the officer clarified that although the council may not actively support the order, it still has a longstanding duty under the 1981 Act. The council would incur some expenses, including compiling and organising the evidence in a way that the Secretary of State could consider. Furthermore, if a public inquiry were to ... view the full minutes text for item 68/24 |
|
|
DATE OF NEXT MEETING
The next meeting of the Planning & Regulatory Committee will be on 18 December 2024. Additional documents: Minutes: The date of the next meeting was noted. |