Agenda item

This is an application for the capping of a historic 8ha landfill; remodelling and enhancement of existing driving range and 9-hole par 3 golf course with associated ecological and public access improvements; provision of new 490m2 driving range building, adventure golf facility, practice putting green, 17 additional car parking spaces and rainwater harvesting scheme; involving the use of 342,578 tonnes (214,111m3) of inert waste material and 70 HGV trips (140 HGV movements) per working day over a period of 18-24 months.

Officers:

Dustin Lees, Principal Planning Officer

Caroline Smith, Planning Development Manager

Stephen Jenkins, Deputy Planning Development Manager

Nancy El-Shatoury, Principal Lawyer

Speakers:

Mr Martyn Sandford, made representations in objection to the application. The following key points were made:

·        Resident of Farncombe and is broadly in support of the application which he believes will benefit the local community but opposes one aspect of the application which is the erection of a new steel perimeter fence. This fence will exclude the public from approximately one third of the park.

·        Steel mesh construction will dominate the south eastern corner of the park and views from the park will be obscured by this fence.

·        There is mention of dog fouling, vandalism and public safety as a reason for requiring the fence. There are now improved powers to deal with dog fouling. With regards to vandalism no records of incidents have been presented in the report and with regards to public safety many golf courses have public footpaths running through them.

·        Report talks of improved public access but only route being referred to has been in use for over 24 years.

·        Ask Committee to reject this element of the application.

Mr Adrian Johnson, the Applicant, raised the following key points:

·        There are major concerns around the safety of young children. The corner of the golf course has become an extension of the park with young children running onto the course and stealing golf balls and abusing golfers. If a child was struck by a golf ball from the driving range this would lead to serious injuries.

·        With regards to vandalism, netting from the driving range has been slashed and stolen, two golf buggies have been stolen, flood lights have been stolen which has cost the applicant a great amount.

·        Drug taking paraphernalia has been found at the back of the golf course.

·        Dog fouling is a big issue and this is a reality the applicant has to deal with when working on the golf course.

·        There are also cases last summer of cyclists riding their bicycles over the course and ruining the land. This stops golfers from returning to the course. It is important the business gets the protection to stop this detrimental activity.

The Local Member, Penny Rivers will not speak as Local Member but will address the application in her capacity as a Member of the Committee.

Key points raised during the discussion:

1. The report was introduced by the Principal Planning Officer.
2. The Local Member for the application area stated that the application site was very much loved as an open space by the local community and the remedial work required on the site was a benefit to the community. However the Local Member was objecting to the new 2m high dark green weldmesh perimeter fence which she believed was too high.
3. A Member of the Committee explained that he was a keen golfer and had concerns around public safety and golf balls potentially hitting members of the public walking across the site. It was felt that a perimeter fence was necessary to ensure public safety. On the other hand, another Member stated that he lived next to a golf course which co-exists with walkers and therefore could not see the need for a perimeter fence.
4. With regards to the approximate 70 HGV movements per working day, the Committee raised significant concerns around this and the impact on Surrey’s road network. The Committee were of the view that this needed to be monitored to ensure there was no negative impact on the surface of the road.
5. There was a discussion around the perimeter fence referred to in the application and specifically Condition 23 of the report regarding perimeter fencing. A Member of the Committee asked that when details of the perimeter fencing are submitted to the County Planning Authority for approval if these could also be shared with the Committee Chairman to ensure the fence is fit for purpose.
6. The Principal Planning Officer explained that the principle of the perimeter fencing had not been opposed by Waverley Borough Council who had responsibility of the wider park. The County’s landscape architect and the Surrey Hills Area of Natural Beauty Board had not raised issues around the perimeter fencing. Mr. Sandford’s views regarding the fencing had been taken on board and officers had therefore tried to strike a balance between the applicant and objectors needs. For that reason, a condition was being imposed on any consent granted requiring the applicant to think about the fencing and provide officers with details which would be subject to a further round of consultation with interested parties. If requested, the details of the fencing could return to the Committee for consideration.
7. It was further added that the County Highway Authority were of the view that the volume of vehicle movement was acceptable. The Planning Officer referred the Committee to Paragraph 143 of the officer report which states that ‘the proposal would lead to a modest and temporary increase in traffic at the site access junction and the A3100/B3000 junction which both have adequate capacity to deal with such an increase’. Planning officers were reliant on the advice provided by the County Highway Authority when making recommendations. It was further added that before and after surveys of the B3000 would be required as a condition of the application.
8. The County Lighting Consultant and the Surrey Hills Area of Natural Beauty Board had not objected to the lighting proposed in the application and there was a condition in the report to control this. The new lighting proposed would improve the lighting situation on the site and would reduce lighting spill. The County Ecologist was satisfied the development was acceptable and would bring about substantial improvement on the ecological front with the provision for more habitat. 
9. A Member of the Committee commented that 70 HGV movements per day was not substantial when considering various other locations in Surrey.
10. With regards to staggering HGV movements as part of the traffic management plan, the Principal Planning Officer stated that this would be hard for the County Planning Authority to control as it was unlikely the applicant would have secured any contracts for the delivery of the materials to the site. An informative on this issue could be included within the report.  It was added that the County Planning Authority did not want HGV’s to be waiting on the highways.
11. There was further discussion around the perimeter fencing and specifically that the location of the fence was not mentioned in Condition 23. The Officer stated that sub section (a) of the Condition specifies location of the fence. The condition was seeking to leave the issue of fencing as a reserve matter for further consideration by the Applicant.
12. The Committee agreed an amendment to Condition 23 of the report, to read as follows:

“Within 6 months of the date of this permission details of the fencing to be provided around the application site shall be submitted to the County Planning Authority for approval.  These details shall include:

(a) The specifications, location, alignment and extent of the perimeter fencing;

(b) Native hedge planting specifications for both sides of the fence including maintenance responsibilities and regimes;

(c) Provision for 13cm x 13cm gaps every 100m to allow small mammals to pass unhindered.

The details shall be implemented and maintained as approved”.

13. The Chairman moved the recommendation to permit the application.  There were ten votes for and one vote against; therefore the recommendation was carried and the application permitted.

RESOLVED:

Subject to conditions and informatives andthe amendment agreed to Condition 23, that application reference. WA/2018/0097 be PERMITTED.