Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors James Jones and Sue Wyeth-Price.  Councillors Merel Rehorst-Smith and Ruth Brothwell attended as substitutes respectively.

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.

There were no disclosures of interest.

To receive any announcements from the Chairman of the Committee.

The Committee noted the Chairman’s announcements.  The Committee also agreed to the waiving of public speaking procedure rules to permit an increase in the number of people speaking from two to three people to speak in objection to the application.

The Committee considered the above-mentioned hybrid application, now at appeal, for part of a new settlement and Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace (SANG) (within LPSS Policy A35 Allocation) with new vehicular and pedestrian/cyclist accesses comprising:

a)     Full Planning Application incorporating; i. a realigned section of the proposed Wisley Lane Diversion, to include a roundabout with a stub road as the primary access to serve the new settlement from Ockham interchange; ii a road junction access into the proposed employment area from the proposed Wisley Lane Diversion; iii. A new road junction as a secondary access to serve the new settlement from Old Lane; iv. SANG and associated infrastructure, including SANG car parks v. Restricted access from Ockham Lane.

b)     Outline Planning Application (all matters reserved) for the phased development of part of a residential-led, new settlement comprising up to 1,730 dwellings (Class C3 use), 8 gypsy and traveller pitches, up to 100 units of housing for older people (Class C2 use), a mixed-use commercial local centre with public square, community hub and employment area alongside other commercial mixed-use neighbourhood centres located throughout and an employment area, (Classes E, F2(b), B2/B8 and sui generis uses subject to specific planning permissions), a secondary school, a primary school, (Class F1(a)), up to 2 nurseries, (Class E (f)), also incorporating green infrastructure (including parks, neighbourhood greens and sports pitches (Class F2(c) and associated pavilion (Classes E(b) and (d), F2(b)), SANG other infrastructure (Class E(b)), part of Wisley Lane Diversion between Ockham Interchange roundabout and realigned section of Wisley Lane Diversion, a vehicular / cycle / pedestrian sustainable transport corridor (linking the proposed Wisley Lane Diversion roundabout to Old Lane) and associated infrastructure and earthworks at land at the former Wisley Airfield (with construction access from Ockham interchange and Elm Corner). 

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

·        Cllr Robert Taylor (Chairman of East Horsley Parish Council) (speaking on behalf of East and West Horsley Parish Councils) (to object);

·        Mr Richard Harwood KC (speaking on behalf of Ockham Parish Council and Wisley Action Group (WAG)) (to object) and;

·        Councillor David Lewis (Surrey County Councillor for Cobham) (to object).

The Committee received a presentation from the Principal Planning Officer, Hannah Yates.  The Committee noted that the applicant had lodged an appeal against non-determination.  The Committee was therefore asked how it would have determined the appealed application and to confirm whether it supported the grant of planning permission or the recommended Putative Reasons for Refusal, as well as its position on conditions and planning obligations.

The Committee noted the supplementary late sheets which included an additional response from the County Highway Authority.  Planning officers had confirmed, following the response, that Putative Reasons for Refusal 6 and 7, in relation to highways, should stand at this point in time.  A response had also been received from LRM Planning on behalf of Hallam Land Management requesting that officers advise that the  ...  view the full minutes text for item PL4