Councillors and committees

Agenda item

Minerals/Waste EL2022/1648 - Silvermere Haven Pet Cemetery, Byfleet Road, Cobham, Surrey KT11 1DZ.

Retrospective application to retain office building and cold store unit building for a temporary period.

Minutes:

Officers:

Dawn Horton-Baker, Planning Development Team Leader

 

Speakers:

 

The Local Member, Tim Oliver, attended the meeting virtually and made the following comments:

 

1.    That he was opposed to the application.

2.    That building in the Green Belt should not be approved except in very special circumstances, and that the reasons for special circumstances outlined in the report were inadequate.

3.    That the potential harm to the Green Belt was not clearly outweighed by other considerations and therefore the application should be refused.

4.    That the Member was surprised that the applicant claimed not have known that permission was required when the buildings were installed two years ago.

5.    That the Byfleet Road was already a congested road.

6.    That the site should not be allowed to expand simply for commercial gain.

7.    That Paragraphs 29 to 31 of the report set out clearly all the reasons why the application breeched the Elmbridge Development Plan Policy DM17.

8.    That the application did not adequately address the loss of openness of the Green Belt or the inappropriateness of the development.

9.    That the application was a significant industrial operation and did not meet the test of having very special circumstances.

10.  The Member urged the Committee to refuse the application.   

 

Key points raised during the discussion:

 

1.    Officers introduced the report and provided a brief summary. Members noted details of the application which was a retrospective application to retain an office building and cold store unit building for a temporary period. Details of the application, photographs and plans could be found from page 457 of the meeting’s agenda.

2.    The Chairman noted that the Committee had previously visited the site during a site visit.

3.    A Member stated that most Members were opposed to the process of receiving retrospective applications.

4.    A Member of the Committee disagreed with the report which stated that the application site was predominately within a rural area. Furthermore the Member stated that the site was for industrial use and was inappropriate for a residential area.

5.    A Member highlighted that improvements to Junction 10 of the M25 included changes to the start of Byfleet Road which would cause congestion. Further increased congestion due to the proposed development was therefore unwelcomed.

6.    A Member stated that the additional buildings were only required due to increased demand for new services provided by the crematorium.

7.    A Member said that the benefits of the application did not outweigh any potential impact to the Green Belt.

8.    A Member stated that there had been no complaints received on the service provided by the applicant, and as the buildings were for a temporary period, they had no objection to the application.

9.    A Member stated that they felt uncomfortable with the lack of neutrality within the report and the refences to a potential future application. 

10.  A Member said that the local area was residential and not industrial. Furthermore the Member stated that they felt the report had been written with the assumption that the application would be approved.

11.  A Member noted that it was legal to submit a retrospective application and was therefore not a proper reason for refusal. The Member further said that a crematorium for humans was allowed within Green Belt Law. The Member went on to state that additional congestion on the A3 caused by one small business was not a worthy consideration and would likely not be upheld if a refusal was appealed.

12.  The Committee noted that under Planning case law an animal crematorium was for waste use.

13.  Officers explained that in their view there was very special circumstances for the application as the ‘use’ was already on site and planning permission was granted around 50 years ago. Officers further highlighted that the cremators onsite had remained the same size and that the proposed was to improve the way of operating rather than for expansion.

14.  Members noted officers comments which were that they believed the application would not cause harm to the Green Belt area.

15.  A Member reiterated that they felt that there was not adequate reasons to approve the development within the Green Belt. 

16.  The Chairman moved the recommendation which received 7 votes For, 3 votes Against and 1 Abstention.

 

Actions / Further information to be provided:

 

None.

 

Resolved:

 

The Committee permitted application EL/2022/1648 subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the report.

Supporting documents: