Agenda item

The importation, deposit and engineering of 54,878m³ (some 87,805 tonnes) of inert waste materials on 3.45ha of land within the existing golf course facility so as to remodel the existing practice ground outfield and to construct a new 11,000m³ irrigation storage lake as part of a strategy to provide sustainable rainwater harvesting scheme; create a new outdoor short game practice and teaching facility including a putting and chipping green; provide a new 769m² building with 30 covered practice bays and associated storage, ablution, lavatory, teaching and administrative facilities for the benefit of the general public, schools, the junior academy and club members; with associated ecological improvements over a period of 9 months and involving some 6,097 HGV trips or 12,194 HGV movements (based on a conversion rate of 13m³ (9m³ compacted) per 20 tonne HGV) on a one way circular route at a maximum of 33 HGV trips (66 HGV movements) per day, with temporary passing bays and traffic management measures along The Drift.

Margaret Hicks left at 12:09pm

Officers:

Alan Stones, Planning Development Control Team Manager

Nancy El-Shatoury, Principal Solicitor

Caroline Smith, Transport Control Team Manager

Dustin Lees, Senior Planning Officer

Speakers:

Ms. Iles, a local resident, made representations in objection to the application. The following points were made:

1.    The local resident expressed concern over the Heavy Good Vehicles (HGVs) damaging The Drift road as the HGV’s weight exceeded the road weight limit which was 7.5 tonnes. It was also highlighted that the local cottages situated along the HGV route may be damaged by the vibrations caused by passing HGVs.   

2.    Concern over the safety of residents and school children was expressed as many cross the roads in which the HGVs were routed. The local resident urged the Committee to reject the application.

Mr. Bellchamber, a local resident, made representations in objection to the application. The following points were made:

1.    The local resident highlighted that there would be 33 HGV movements per day during the course of nine months if the application was successful. It was mentioned that this would be very dangerous as the lanes were highly populated by residents and very narrow.

2.    The air pollution and physical damaged caused by the HGVs was a concern to the resident in which they expressed that there was no real explanation as to why the waste movement was absolutely necessary.  The local resident asked the Committee to reject the application.

Mr. Taylor, a local resident, made representations in objection to the application. The following points were made:

1.    The local resident stressed that the benefits of the golf club were outweighed by the suffering to the local residents and that special circumstances were not shown for the construction in the green belt. The resident informed the committee that due to parked cars most local roads were realistically single carriageways so HGVs would make the situation much worse.

2.    The resident informed the Committee that The Drift road ran alongside a wildlife reserve and explained that this development would only cause harm to the protected species. The resident urged the Committee to reject the application.     

Mr. Lyzba, the applicant’s Planning Consultant, made the following points in response:

1.    The Planning Consultant  highlighted that part of the proposal was to enable self sufficiency by the regulation of water on the new driving range and that the new development would encourage sport as it would be accessible to local schools in the area.

2.    It was confirmed that there would be no movement of HGVs between 8:00am and 9:00am and that there would be no movement at all after 2:30pm. It was explained that the reasons for this were to mitigate the issues caused by HGVs at peak traffic times in the area and this that would be enforced by both the golf club and the County’s Planning Enforcement Team. 

3.    It was explained that there were no severe impact to highways which was shown in the Officers report and that there were no technical objections. In response to the local residents in was confirm that any loss to bio-diversity would be replaced and that the local cottages referenced were already located on HGV routes.

4.    The applicant’s Planning Consultant concluded by confirming to the Committee that the Officers report stated there would be no adverse impact to the Green Belt and that there would be a number of benefits including re-using waste, sustainable harvesting of water, benefits to the local community and job opportunities.            

The Local Member, Mary Lewis, made the following points:

1.    The Local Member stated that the objectors made clear how residents in the area felt negatively about the application and the proposed HGV movements. The surrounding roads already had problems with traffic and that the HGVs would only make the situation worse. The air quality in the area was also confirmed to be low quality and that there was concern that the increased HGV movements would amplify this and so consequently the wellbeing and health of the local residents was at risk. 

2.    Concern was raised over Condition 6 on the report not clarifying the start time of the HGV movements. The Local Member urged the Committee to reject the application.      

The Local Member, Bill Barker, made the following points:

1.    The Local Member stated that they had no issue with the management of the Drift Golf Club but the problems were with the HGV movements proposed. It was stressed that the HGV drivers could possibly change the planned route if they encountered traffic and this would only put residents at risk. The highways in the area were already not up to standard and the HGVs would only damage this further. The Local Member urged the Committee to reject the application.   

Key points raised during the discussion:

1.    The Planning Development Control Team Manager introduced the report and the update sheet tabled at the meeting. It was explained that Officers saw no significant adverse impacts from the application therefore no reason for rejection. The development was deemed appropriate in the area and had passed the green belt test which was explained in the report. It was confirmed that special circumstances were shown and that there were no lasting negative impacts from the development.

2.    A Member of the Committee made clear that they saw the number of HGV movements as a modest number and that the environmental impacts were only temporary so could be mitigated. It was stated that they saw no grounds to reject the application and that the Planning Committee needed to stay consistent with previous applications.

3.    Members questioned where the waste would be transported from to which Officers responded that they could not yet confirm the location but it would be within 30 miles of the site.

4.    A discussion was had around The Drift road and the problems if would encounter supporting the weight of passing HGVs as they were over the roads weight limit. Officers confirmed that 7.5 tonne weight limit of the road was mainly for environmental reasons due to the nature or the road and that it would be able to support passing HGVs.

5.    A Member explained that The Drift road should be maintained and that HGV access would need to be developed. It was mentioned that they saw the long term impact on the Green Belt due to the development as reason for refusal.

6.    The Planning Development Control Team Manager confirmed that the site had passed the test to be considered a statutory waste management facility and that is was unreasonable to say otherwise. It was also confirmed that the start time for HGV movements would be between 7:00am and 8:00am. Members were reminded to consider the application that was before them on its merits. 

7.    Mr Keith Taylor moved the motion, which was:

I propose the application should be refused for the following 3 reasons;

                  i.        The proposal is by its nature and character inappropriate development in the Green Belt and the applicant has failed to demonstrate that factors exist in the form of the needs for improved irrigation and drainage, improved golf facilities and increased waste management capacity which amount to very special circumstances to clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt and any other harm, contrary to Policy CW6 of the SWLP 2008.

                 ii.        The applicant has failed to demonstrate that there is a sufficiently robust need to provide waste management capacity in the locality to manage Surrey's wastes contrary to Policy CW4 of the SWLP 2008.

                iii.        The applicant has failed to demonstrate that the proposed development is essential to achieve a substantial improvement in the quality of the land and that the irrigation and drainage provision involves the minimum quantity of  waste necessary to secure the proposed improvement, contrary to Policy WD7 of the SWLP 2008.

8.      Two Members spoke on the motion and made following points:

·         There was concern that motion did not include enough background information to be support if it were to go to appeal.

·         It was asked that the motion be voted on each individual point which was considered and rejected.

9.       The motion put to a vote in which the majority voted against, and motion was lost, Therefore it was resolved.

10.        A Member of the Committee asked that Condition 6 be reworded  so that it is clear that HGV access and egress to and from the site is only permissible between 07:00 - 08:00 and 09:00 – 14:30  which was agreed. 

11.  A Member of the Committee asked that Condition 7 be amended to include that written approval would need to be obtained by the County Highway Authority.

12.     A Member of the Committee asked that Condition 8 be amended to include ‘evidence from a suitable qualified professional that the culvert and toad tunnel on The Drift are capable or are made capable of withstanding the weight of the HGVs’.

13.     A Member of the Committee asked that Condition 9 be amended to remove the words ‘to be’ before ‘submitted’.

14.     A Member of the Committee asked that Condition 15 be amended to include ‘has been submitted’ rather than ‘has be submitted’.

15.     A Member of the Committee highlighted that paragraph 173 stated that Officers consider that the installation of the proposed solar panels should be secured by way of condition and that this condition had not been included in the report.

16.     A Member of the Committee highlighted paragraph 210 and asked that the removal of the temporary building be conditioned after the temporary period was over.

Resolved:

That application GU14/P/01718 - The Drift Golf Club, The Drift, East Horsley, Surrey, KT24 5HD was permitted subject to conditions and reasons set out in the report.

Actions/further information to be provided:

1.       That Condition 6 be reworded to so that it is clear that HGV access and egress to and from the site is only permissible between 07:00 - 08:00 and 09:00 – 14:30.

2.    That Condition 7 be amended to include that written approval would need to be obtained by the County Highway Authority.

3.    That Condition 8 be amended to include ‘evidence from a suitable qualified professional that the culvert and toad tunnel on The Drift are capable or are made capable of withstanding the weight of the HGVs’.

4.    That Condition 9 be amended to remove the words ‘to be’ before ‘submitted’.

5.    That Condition 15 be amended to include ‘has been submitted’ rather than ‘has be submitted’.

6.    That the installation of the proposed solar panels be secured by way of condition.

7.    That the removal of the temporary building on site be conditioned after the temporary period is over.