Agenda and minutes

To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 1 June 2016 (copy attached).

The minutes of the meeting held on 1 June 2016 were approved as a correct record.

To receive any disclosures of interest from councillors under the Councillors’ Code of Conduct, or contact with applicants/objectors under the Planning Code.

a) Disclosures of interest under the Members’ Code of Conduct

There were none.

b) Declarations of interest under the Council’s Planning Code

Councillors R.A. Smith Ainsley reported that he had received correspondence in relation to applications 16/00561/HOU - 50 Squires Bridge Road, Shepperton, TW17 0QA and 16/00662/SCC - Recycling Facility At Shepperton Quarry, Littleton Lane, Shepperton but had maintained an impartial role, had not expressed any views and had kept an open mind.

Description:

Erection of a single storey rear extension and a first floor rear extension.

Additional Information:

There was none.

Public Speaking:

In accordance with the Council’s procedure for speaking at meetings, Anne Thompson spoke against the proposal raising the following key points:

·         Speaking on behalf of 1 and 3 Ash Road.

·         Removal of balcony alleviates some concern however doesn’t change their objections

·         Homes are already in close proximity

·         Overshadowing, loss of light/sunlight

·         Impact compounded by existing sycamore trees in rear garden of application site

·         The six trees are not managed by present owner which blocks almost all light from the north and north west of adjoining property

·         Loss of sunlight is detrimental to wellbeing and neighbours lifestyle

In accordance with the Council’s procedure for speaking at meetings, Kevin Turner spoke for the proposal raising the following key points:

·         Original submission met with Council’s SPD on design

·         Amended proposal now exceeds Council’s SPD on design

·         Will be more than 1m from the boundary

·         Appeal Inspector would take into account the Council’s SPD on design

·         Existing trees would screen the proposal

·         If refused permission, Council’s SPD on design will need to be revised

·         The applicant has reduced the size of the extension and worked with officers

·         Modest extension on a large house

·         Officer recommendation in favour of proposal

In accordance with the Council’s procedure for speaking at meetings, Councillor Attewell spoke as Ward Councillor against the proposal raising the following key points:

·         When she called this application in, it was before the amended plans

·         The proposal has caused distress for neighbours

·         Increasing height of trees was an issue and extension will cause additional harm

·         Restriction of sunlight in the garden of 1 Ash Road

·         Impact on greenbelt

·         Neighbours garden more restricted and preventing enjoyment.

Debate:

During the debate the following key issues were raised:

·         Application is policy compliant

·         Need to look at high hedge legislation

·         The openness of greenbelt not affected

Decision:

That the application was approved, subject to the inclusion of conditions and informatives as set out in the report of the Assistant Head of Planning (Development Management).

Description:

Surrey County Council application for Brett Aggregates Ltd – Continued use of land as a temporary recycling facility for construction and demolition of waste using crushing and screening plant to produce recycled soils and aggregates, stockpiling of waste and recycled products, retention of screen bunding and two storey site office, until 21 May 2017 without compliance with Conditions 2 and 8 of planning permission ref: SP14/0835 dated 24 September 2014.

Additional Information:

The Assistant Head of Planning (Development Management) informed the Committee of a number of amendments to the Committee report. The description of the ‘Proposal’ as provided on the front page of the committee report should have had the word ‘of’ omitted between the words ‘demolition’ and ‘waste’ on the third line and should read:

"Continued use of land as a temporary recycling facility for construction and demolition waste using crushing and screening plant to produce recycled soils and aggregates, stockpiling of waste and recycled products, retention of screen bunding and two storey site office, until 21 May 2017 without compliance with Conditions 2 and 8 of planning permission ref: SP14/0835 dated 24 September 2014”.

The second line of the executive summary on page 38 of the agenda should refer to the further period of one year until 21 May 2017.

Furthermore the Assistant Head of Planning (Development Management) reported that a letter of representation had been received raising an objection to the continued operation of the site; which made reference to other uses, activities and HGV traffic movements which do not relate to aggregate extraction and which should be discontinued.  The comments also referred to the future need to restore the site to Green Belt land in accordance with the original permissions.

Public Speaking:

There was none.

Debate:

During the debate the following key issues were raised:

·         Concern that extensions go on longer than stated.

·         Dust pollution

·         Conditions to ensure clean HGV tyres and clean roads.

Decision:

That Surrey County Council be informed that this Council raises NO OBJECTIONS to the principle of a further temporary permission on the site, subject to the following matters:

    (i)        That the length of the temporary use on this site is restricted to any existing consents for gravel extraction and restoration on Home Farm.

  (ii)        That confirmation is received that there are no alternative non-Green Belt sites in the local area.

 (iii)        That the applicant can demonstrate that there remains a continuing need for recycling facilities within the current economic climate.

To note the details of the Standard Appeals Report.

The Chairman informed the Committee that if any Member had any detailed queries regarding the report on Appeals lodged and decisions received since the last meeting, they should contact the Assistant Head of Planning and Housing Strategy.

Resolved that the report of the Assistant Head of Planning and Housing Strategy be received and noted.

It was proposed by Councillor R.A. Smith-Ainsley and seconded by Councillor H.A. Thomson that the following vote of thanks be recorded:

“John Brooks advised the Committee as Head of Planning and Housing Strategy from early 2014 through to the planning meeting on 1 June. John’s expertise was extremely valuable for committee members when queries arose before and during our committee meetings; through this he assisted greatly in the smooth running of the meetings. I am personally very grateful to John for the advice he has given me.

During this time John was also doing significant work on our new Local Plan and CIL charging mechanism.”

Resolved that the Committee agree a vote of thanks to John Brooks for his time as Head of Planning and Housing Strategy.