Agenda and minutes

An apology for absence was received from Councillor Chris Barrass for whom Councillor Bob McShee attended as a substitute.

In accordance with the local Code of Conduct, a councillor is required to disclose at the meeting any disclosable pecuniary interest (DPI) that they may have in respect of any matter for consideration on this agenda.  Any councillor with a DPI must not participate in any discussion or vote regarding that matter and they must also withdraw from the meeting immediately before consideration of the matter.

If that DPI has not been registered, you must notify the Monitoring Officer of the details of the DPI within 28 days of the date of the meeting.

Councillors are further invited to disclose any non-pecuniary interest which may be relevant to any matter on this agenda, in the interests of transparency, and to confirm that it will not affect their objectivity in relation to that matter.

No disclosures of interest were declared.

To confirm the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 2 December 2020 as attached at Item 3. A copy of the minutes will be placed on the dais prior to the meeting.

The minutes of the Planning Committee held on 2 December 2020 were approved and signed by the Chairman as a true record.

To receive any announcements from the Chairman of the Committee.

The Committee noted the procedures for determining planning applications.

The Chairman explained that owing to the material significance and public interest in the proposed scheme to be considered, she had permitted both public speakers and ward councillors, a total of five minutes each to speak as opposed to the normal three minute allocation.

Prior to consideration of the application, the following persons addressed the Committee in accordance with Public Speaking Procedure Rules 3(b):

·         Mr Christopher Palmer (to object);

·         Ms Sue Wyeth-Price (Ash Green Residents Association) (to object);

·         Mr Mike Miles (Consultant) (in support) and;

·         Ms Clare Heeley (Associate Town Planner AECOM) (in support)

The Chairman also permitted the following ward councillors to speak:

·         Ward Councillor: Graham Eyre

·         Ward Councillor: Jo Randall

·         Ward Councillor: Nigel Manning

The Committee considered the above-mentioned full application for construction of a road bridge with associated footways and cycle path connecting Guildford Road / Ash Hill Road roundabout to a new junction with Foreman Road over the North Downs Railway Line south of the existing Ash level crossing, in addition to associated junction improvements, landscaping mitigation, ecology management measures, flood mitigation measures and drainage.

The Committee was informed by the planning officer to note the supplementary late sheets, particularly in relation to point 5, impact on heritage assets.  Whilst officers had stated that the harm would be negligible, it was in NPPF terms, less than substantial harm.  Further clarification had also been provided in relation to queries raised by councillors following a virtual site visit held on 6 January 2021. 

The Committee noted that the application was for the construction of a new road bridge.  Ash Railway station was located to the south east, which crossed the existing North Downs railway line that ran between Reading and Gatwick Airport.  The bridge would provide a new route for traffic travelling through Ash and bypass the existing level crossing to be closed once the bridge was fully operational.  The land formed part of site allocation A31 in the Local Plan which included the requirement for the provision of a new road bridge. 

Constraints to the site identified were a Grade II* listed Church of St. Peter, Grade II* listed Ash Manor property as well as other listed buildings located nearby.  The site also contained a number of Tree Preservation Orders located along Foreman Road.    A public footpath ran across the site to the north and formed part of the urban area of Ash which was also located in Flood Zone 1.  However, further modelling had been undertaken by the applicant who confirmed that the site was located in a mix of Flood Zones 1, 2 and 3.  The paddock and grassland was currently owned by a number of individual landowners and was the responsibility of the applicant to assemble the land required if permission was granted.  The bridge would be built on two embankments located on Foreman Road and Ash Road and traffic had been remodelled to ensure the free flow of traffic.  Three large flood storage areas had been created as well as the inclusion of  ...  view the full minutes text for item PL72

Prior to consideration of the application, the following persons addressed the Committee in accordance with Public Speaking Procedure Rules 3(b):

·         Ms Sally Sweet (to object);

·         Mr Andy Pike (to object);

·         Mr Sean Silk (Planning Consultant) (in support)

The Committee considered the above-mentioned full application for construction of Class B8 storage facilities and ancillary office, together with car parking, cycle parking and landscaping.

The Committee was informed by the planning officer that the site was located within the designated inset boundary of Jacobs Well.  There were existing buildings onsite that had historically been used for a mix of industrial uses, including the storage of goods, repairing and maintenance of vehicles and machinery as well as a blacksmiths workshop.  There’s existing vehicular access from Oak Tree Close.  The site was bordered on all sides by residential development.  A new single storey modular office building was proposed at the northern end of the site, new storage containers sited in the middle and south of the site.  Five parking spaces were proposed in front of the office building and further spaces available onsite as well as cycle storage.  Boundary fencing would be enhanced to screen the site from the surrounding properties which would be 2.4 metres in height. 

It was the planning officers view that the proposal would allow for the retention of an employment use on this site which already had an established use for a mix of industrial uses.  The replacement of the existing dilapidated structures and improvements to the boundary treatment would improve the appearance of the site and reduce the visual impact upon the surrounding properties.  Conditions were recommended to limit the number of heavy goods vehicle movements accessing the site to twenty per week, and to restrict the hours of operation to 7am to 6pm Monday to Friday and 7am to 1pm on Saturdays.  Subject to those conditions, it was not considered that there would be an adverse impact on neighbouring amenity compared to the established use of the site.  In addition, the Highway Authority had raised no objection to the application and had concluded that the proposal would not have a material impact on the surrounding highway network or highway safety and the application was therefore recommended for approval.

In response to points raised by public speakers, the Highways Authority officer confirmed that following site visits undertaken to the site, it was the Highway Authorities view that there was sufficient visibility for vehicles leaving both Oak Tree Close onto Stringers Close and from Stringers Avenues onto Woking Road.  The level of traffic that could be generated by the site was significantly more than what the site was proposing and would therefore result in a reduction in trips.  Oak Tree Close was also a private road and Surrey Highways Authority would not be responsible for its maintenance.  There was however a sufficient turning circle and the number of trips to and from the site proposed was deemed acceptable. 

In response to a query raised regarding the level of lighting  ...  view the full minutes text for item PL73

Prior to consideration of the application, the following persons addressed the Committee in accordance with Public Speaking Procedure Rules 3(b):

·         Ms Sally Blake (to object);

·         Mrs Victoria Evans (to object);

The Chairman permitted the following councillor to speak in their capacity as ward councillor:

·         Ward Councillor: Diana Jones

The Committee considered the above-mentioned full application for construction of Class B8 storage facilities and ancillary office, together with car parking, cycle parking and landscaping.

The Committee was informed by the planning officer that the application was retrospective for the change of use of the building from Class B8 storage and distribution to classic and sports car restoration which falls into Use Class B2.  The site was located within the Green Belt and within the Surrey Hills Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and an Area of Great Landscape Value (AGLV).  The site was accessed via a narrow rural lane surrounded from north to south by residential properties.  The building formed part of a group of farm buildings which are part of Water Lane Farm.  The surrounding farm buildings immediately adjacent to the application building were in commercial use including storage. 

The front and rear elevations of the building remained unaltered with the exception of an extract flue which had been fitted to the rear northern end of the building.  The final details were to be secured by condition to ensure adequate ventilation of odours.  The applicant had confirmed that all restoration works would be carried out within the building and secured by condition.  A personal use condition had also been agreed which would mean that further planning permission would be required for any alternative use of the building.  The Council would retain control over intensive use conditions regarding the operating hours of the building and for deliveries. A condition requiring full details of the extract flue to ensure adequate filtration ventilation were also recommended. 

The applicant had also confirmed that since the company took up occupancy of the building sound insulation had been fitted to the main walls to mitigate noise.  An additional condition was recommended, as set out on the supplementary late sheets requiring confirmation of the details of this insulation as well as any further mitigation measures.   The Environmental Health Officer had advised that they did not object to the application in terms of the impact upon neighbouring amenity. 

It was the planning officers view that the proposal would enable the re-use of the building for an employment use which constitutes appropriate development in the Green Belt.  Subject to the recommended conditions regarding improvements to the boundary treatments at the entrance it was considered that the proposal would protect the landscape character of the area and AGLV.  Subject to the recommended conditions, any noise and odour emissions associated with the use could be adequately mitigated against.  There would not be an unacceptable number of vehicle movements associated with the proposed use or adverse impact on neighbouring amenity and highway safety. 

In response to queries raised by the public speakers,  ...  view the full minutes text for item PL74

Committee members are asked to note the details of Appeal Decisions as attached at Item 6.

The Committee noted and discussed the planning appeal decisions.