Transcript

Y Llywodraeth Cymru Cymru Cymru Cymru Cymru Cymru Cymru Cymru Cymru Cymru Cymru Cymru Cymru Felly, dwi'n dweud, yn y ffordd o ddŵr, mae gennym gweithwyr yma. Felly, ychwanegwch ymlaen o'r Cynulliad Cymru. Felly, ychwanegwch ymlaen o'r Cynulliad Cymru. Felly, ychwanegwch ymlaen o'r Cynulliad Cymru. Felly, ychwanegwch ymlaen o'r Cynulliad Cymru. Felly, ychwanegwch ymlaen o'r Cynulliad Cymru. Felly, ychwanegwch ymlaen o'r Cynulliad Cymru. Felly, ychwanegwch ymlaen o'r Cynulliad Cymru. Felly, ychwanegwch ymlaen o'r Cynulliad Cymru. Felly, ychwanegwch ymlaen o'r Cynulliad Cymru. Felly, ychwanegwch ymlaen o'r Cynulliad Cymru. Felly, ychwanegwch ymlaen o'r Cynulliad Cymru. Felly, ychwanegwch ymlaen o'r Cynulliad Cymru. Felly, ychwanegwch ymlaen o'r Cynulliad Cymru. Felly, ychwanegwch ymlaen o'r Cynulliad Cymru. Felly, ychwanegwch ymlaen o'r Cynulliad Cymru. Felly, ychwanegwch ymlaen o'r Cynulliad Cymru. Felly, ychwanegwch ymlaen o'r Cynulliad Cymru. Felly, ychwanegwch ymlaen o'r Cynulliad Cymru. Felly, ychwanegwch ymlaen o'r Cynulliad Cymru. Felly, ychwanegwch ymlaen o'r Cynulliad Cymru. Felly, ychwanegwch ymlaen o'r Cynulliad Cymru. Felly, ychwanegwch ymlaen o'r Cynulliad Cymru. Felly, ychwanegwch ymlaen o'r Cynulliad Cymru. Diolch, Cymru. Roeddwn i'n meddwl ychydig am y cwestiynau cymdeithasol, a'r unrhyw gwybodaeth sydd yma. Byddai'n bwysig i gydweithio ymlaen i bobl a'r cymdeithasol, oherwydd bod y situaeth wedi mynd ymlaen, oherwydd bod y drafftio'r ysgrifennu'r ysgrifennu ymlaen o ddysgwyddiadau ymlaen ymlaen o ddysgwyddiadau cymdeithasol ac ymlaen o ddysgwyddiadau ymlaen o ddysgwyddiadau ymlaen Mae'n bwysig ymlaen. Mae'n bwysig ymlaen. Mae'n bwysig ymlaen. Mae'n bwysig ymlaen. Mae'n bwysig ymlaen. Mae'n bwysig ymlaen. Mae'n bwysig ymlaen. Mae'n bwysig ymlaen. Mae'n bwysig ymlaen. Mae'n bwysig ymlaen. Mae'n bwysig ymlaen. Mae'n bwysig ymlaen. Mae'n bwysig ymlaen. Mae'n bwysig ymlaen. Mae'n bwysig ymlaen. Mae'n bwysig ymlaen. Mae'n bwysig ymlaen. Mae'n bwysig ymlaen. Mae'n bwysig ymlaen. Mae'n bwysig ymlaen. Mae'n bwysig ymlaen. Mae'n bwysig ymlaen. Mae'n bwysig ymlaen. Mae'n bwysig ymlaen. Mae'n bwysig ymlaen Mae'n bwysig ymlaen. Mae'n bwysig ymlaen. Mae'n bwysig ymlaen. Mae'r cymdeithas wedi'i ddweud, oherwydd y cysylltiadau ar gyfer Llywodraeth Cymru a'r cymdeithas, oherwydd y cysylltiadau strategig o ddwylo a gas i gysylltiadau cymdeithas o ddwylo a gas i gysylltiadau cymdeithas o ddwylo a gas i gysylltiadau cymdeithas o ddwylo a gas i gysylltiadau cymdeithas o ddwylo a gas i gysylltiadau cymdeithas o ddwylo a gas i gysylltiadau cymdeithas o ddwylo a gas i gysylltiadau cymdeithas o ddwylo a gas Mae'r cymdeithas a'r cymdeithas a'r cymdeithas a'r cymdeithas a'r cymdeithas a'r cymdeithas a'r cymdeithas a'r cymdeithas a'r cymdeithas a'r cymdeithas a'r cymdeithas a'r cymdeithas a'r cymdeithas a'r cymdeithas a'r cymdeithas a'r cymdeithas a'r cymdeithas a'r cymdeithas a'r cymdeithas a'r cymdeithas a'r cymdeithas a'r cymdeithas a'r cymdeithas a'r cymdeithas a'r cymdeithas a'r cymdeithas a'r cymdeithas a'r cymdeithas a'r cymdeithas a'r cymdeithas a'r cymdeithas a'r cymdeithas a'r cymdeithas a'r cymdeithas a'r cymdeithas a'r cymdeithas a'r cymdeithas a'r cymdeithas a'r cymdeithas a'r cymdeithas a'r cymdeithas a'r cymdeithas a'r cymdeithas a'r cymdeithas a'r cymdeithas Can I firstly go through my list if you don't mind? Can I firstly go through my list if you don't mind? It's easier for me to follow a plan. Deborah Elliott, if I may be so bold. Deborah Elliott, if I may be so bold. Would you like to ask a supplementary question? Would you like to ask a supplementary question? Would you like to come up to the microphone Would you like to come up to the microphone and ask the question please? I'll just say a question please, not a statement if you don't mind. I'll just say a question please, not a statement if you don't mind. In UCOG's recent statement, they have been in talks with Surrey County Council since June. Could you confirm and provide evidence of this? If this is true, why has drilling been permitted by the Council in the interim without any planning permission in place? Obviously I can't provide evidence to you now, but as we're sat in the meeting, but there has been an ongoing dialogue. We have not permitted it as per the responses that we have published to the written public questions. It was and still is the Council's position that the extraction of oil at the site is unlawful. So it has not been permitted by the Council. Thank you for that question. Jackie Macy. Good morning. The very delayed action from Surrey County Council has led MP Chris Copland to say, Surrey County Council owe residents a full explanation of their conduct over the last four months. You say in your response that UCOG has been put on notice. When did this happen and exactly what does this mean? I think as per my previous answer, put on notice is to mean they have been told that the extraction is unlawful and there has been the ongoing dialogue over the last four months. I'm afraid I would have to take that away and come back. I don't have that at my fingertips right now. So will you come back in writing with that information? Yes. Thank you. And the evidence that the previous question asked for? Yes. We can consider and provide a response. Thank you. Right. Moving on. Sarah Freeman. I don't think Sarah Freeman is here. Therefore Jacqueline Phillips, please. It's only if you have a supplementary, please. Can Surrey County Council please confirm that they will require an environmental impact assessment which takes full account of direct and indirect emissions from oil extracted to be submitted by Horshill Developments Ltd or UCOG for any future or redetermination of the planning application at Horshill? I can confirm in respect of the application where the permission was quashed and that is now therefore back with the county to redetermine that it's an environmental impact assessment threshold meeting application and an environmental statement taking those matters into account will be required before any redetermination. I can't confirm in respect of any other planning applications because of course we do not know the content of any other forthcoming planning application. Clearly any permission or application that comes forward will need to be mindful of the Supreme Court's decision. Thank you. Thank you for that. And finally Neville Kemp. Thank you. In October, sorry, on October the 2nd, just over three weeks ago, thanks to the dedicated journalism of Ruth Hayhurst, a drill will drop, it was revealed that until last week when curiously the company announced the suspension of their operations, HHDL were continuing to extract oil in flagrant disregard of the Supreme Court judgement in June which had found against the council's decision allowing continued production. In its failure to uphold this judgement over the past four months and moreover to honour its declaration of a climate emergency in 2019, are we to infer a council bias in favour of the oil and gas industry? I'm sorry, I mean that is a very complex question. Some of that is not really for this forum, quite frankly. It is for almost the cabinet and other members. Again, as with the others, that will be looked at, the question will be looked at and a formal written response will be issued. I'm not dodging the issue, it's just beyond our remit. Thank you very much everybody. There is a member's question and you are welcome to stay for that and you are welcome to stay for the rest of the meeting, please. It's rather nice having members of the public here for the planning meetings. So we then move on to John. Thank you. I was just going to ask any members to be copied into the answers, please, so that we are aware of what those answers are. Obviously, thank you. The next item is Jonathan Essex. Is Jonathan online? Jonathan? Where are you, Jonathan? Let me speak to you from afar and thank you for the answer to the question. I have a supplementary offer, a brief comment, if I may. As this relates to a decision of the Supreme Court and the activities pursuant have continued for the past five years, it would seem unreasonable to think the courts would anyway not support such immediate enforcement. So it's unclear why prior investigation appears to have been undertaken first rather than first taking immediate formal enforcement action. So my supplementary question is to ask whether Surrey County Council will now, if not already, formally issue and publish a stop notice to ensure that continued operations at the Horshill site do now cease and immediately instead commence clearance and full restoration of the site. Thank you. As per my previous answers, the investigation is ongoing. The public statement around the cessation does not change that fact. Therefore, there are a variety of different next steps that could occur. So there is still a live open investigation and no decisions have yet been made as to what those next steps may be. So I cannot speak to them today. Thank you, chair. May I request a written answer? Because I don't think that addresses my question, which is why there is need, it seems, from the council to take investigations prior to issuing a formal enforcement notice, noting that there are not many courts that would try to overturn a Supreme Court decision. So it seems the legal position on this is fairly clear. I can provide a written response. It goes to how enforcement matters have to be dealt with. We can set that out as it would be time consuming now. Thank you very much. Thank you, Jonathan, for your supplementary question. We now move on to the balance of the agenda. Firstly, declarations of interest. Are there any declarations to make in respect of the two other items? No. We then go on to the next item, which is the Surrey County Council's proposal for the land at St Paul's CRB Infant School in Tongham. There was a site visit. Some have managed to get to it. I recognise it's the far away land for some people next door to their mother's school. It's a long way, but thank you officers for fixing that. This is going to be presented to us by Leoni Chan. Members, this is Leoni's first visit to us, first presentation. So all I ask is please play nicely, if you will. Leoni, over to you. Thank you, Chairman. Good morning, Members. The application being presented to the Planning Committee today is application reference GU24 00010. I draw Members' attention to the update sheet that was circulated yesterday, including amendments to the report summary, the approved drawing list and addition of conditions regarding the community play area at out of hours access to the playing field. As shown in the aerial photo, the application site is located in the urban area of Tongham, Guildford. The application is seeking full planning permission for the alteration and expansion of the school building and replacement of outdoor areas to increase students' capacity from 90 to 210. The proposed extension is the red massing being shown here in the plan. We have received six letters of representation of the application and concerns are largely in relation to parking provisions, highway, residential amenities and ecology. In our assessment, need and urban open space are also key considerations for the proposal. Subject to the conditions in the report and on the update sheet, officers recommend the approval of this application. To provide some background information, the site is owned by Surrey County Council and is situated within a residential area. It is bounded by West Ring to the west, East Ring to the north and Public Footpath 349 to the east and south. There are established vegetation along the site boundaries facing residential developments on all ends. With the exception of the existing buildings, a majority of the sites is designated as urban open space. Next slide please. The photos here show the main pedestrian entrance on West Ring and the rear of the school where the extension is proposed. The existing single storey building is originally constructed in the 1950s and there is also a staff and visitor car park, external play areas and a large unused grass field on site. The school currently caters for 90 children aged 4 to 7. In the prospective image here, it shows the development proposes an L-shaped extension to the rear of the school, which would be part flat and part pitch-roofed. The single storey element would front the south eastern elevation while the double-heighted new school hall would face the play areas to the north of the site. The applicant intends to use buff grey breaker work and brown bronze metal cladding for the extension. The maximum height of the hall would be 7.8 metres, matching the highest part of the existing building. By extending the school internal floor area by 649 square metres, the proposal would increase the capacity to a one-form entry primary school, accommodating children up to 11 years old in compliance with Building Bulletin 103 recommendation for St Paul's. In the proposal, the current access points would be retained and an extended car park of 21 spaces, including disabled bays, would be provided, in addition to new cycle and mobility scooter storage. Next slide. Thank you. In terms of landscape, the existing trees and vegetation along the boundaries would be retained and enhanced, with additional native planting at the southern boundary near the residential properties. One category C tree falling within the extension would be removed. The existing mesh fencing on the site's boundaries would be retained. As shown here on the landscape plan, the blue outlined three metre ball stop fence is proposed only for one of the hard play areas to the south of the site. In terms of need, a clear education justification has been demonstrated by the applicants and can be given great weight in the planning balance. St Paul's is currently the only infant school that does not have a linked junior school within the same planning area. The demand for pupil intake is expected to increase due to the new residential developments in Chatham and Ash. Officers consider the loss of urban open space is limited to the minimum necessary to meet this demonstrated need. Upon relooking comments by Sports England, officers suggest additional condition for relocated community play area and public access to the playing fields as outlined in the update sheet. In terms of highway considerations, officers acknowledge traffic during peak times are likely to be increased and have therefore recommended seven conditions to mitigate potential impacts. This includes offsite highway improvements and a park and strike initiatives with Chatham Community Centre and St Paul's Church. Construction traffic would be mitigated to prevent by condition to prevent movement at school drop-off and pick-up times. In terms of ecology, a general requirement on biodiversity net gain is applicable in this case and the calculation indicates a 11 per cent net gain on the proposal. Presence of slow warm has been identified in the grass fields and a mitigation strategy has been produced for the Reptiles to be translocated to Ash Green Meadows. Overall, subject to appropriate conditions, no technical objections have been received from the relevant consultants and Sports England supports the proposal as a larger playing field would help address the established pitch deficiencies. In conclusion, officers consider that the proposal should be permitted as there is a strong need for one-form entry primary school within Tongham and the sites would bring improvements to the urban open space. The site is within a sustainable location and there is no significant adverse impact on residents' amenities. All these considerations weigh in favour of the proposal and as such, subject to planning conditions in the report and on the update sheet, it is recommended to permit this application. Thank you. Thank you very much. It was very helpful. Thank you. We now have a speaker which is a local member, Matt Furness. Matt, you have five minutes. When you finish me, would you be kind to stay there so the committee can ask you any questions of planning nature? I emphasise the planning, Matt, don't worry. I'll organise it. Time is ready when you are. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. I will be brief because I think everything has just been set out by the planning officer and I'm full support of this. It's taken a number of years to get to this point. We do have a significant shortage of spaces in the area and as it's been mentioned, this is the only school which doesn't have a junior attached. We do have some excellent schools in the area. This is one. The Ash Manor, the secondary school, is absolutely fantastic also and all these schools do feed into Ash Manor as well and if this becomes a junior it can also feed into the Ash Manor secondary school at the same time. I think the key point is that as it has been set out, I think it's in paragraph 36, 37, the school currently has to bus quite a few of the students to junior, whether it is Walsh just to the north, or more unfortunately, it's Waverley Abbey which is about five kilometres outside of the area, which just does not fit with sustainable travel. Most people live in the area, they can walk to both the primary and secondary schools and it would be good to have this as a feeder school into the area as well. We have had over a number of years about 2,000 houses that have been built in the area. There is a significant shortage of infrastructure. Bridges have now been going in. We do have this issue here with lack of spaces for the school provision as well. So I do urge the committee to approve this application so that we can keep the school children local, walking to school hopefully, and we are already implementing 20 mile an hours and other school safety elements in advance of this application. So it is being well thought through by this authority. Thank you. Thank you very much. Members, do you have any questions for planning nature? I emphasise. No? Yes, Catherine. I'll be nice. I just have one. Obviously, Farnham and Ash are in the same school place planning area. I'm very acutely aware of the shortage of school places. My only question to you is, is this big enough, given the shortages that we have? Are you comfortable as I haven't looked at Ash anywhere near as closely as I've looked at Farnham, are you comfortable that this is big enough and do you feel that this will fulfil the local need for junior school places? Thank you. I would say I wasn't expecting to be grilled to be honest. I'm not here as a cabinet member, but yes, I think it will for this period of time. This is the only school in Tongham element. The rest of them are in Ash. There is the ability to expand other junior schools in Ash as well. There is section 106 money from these developments to do so, but the pressing need for, as we've outlined in here, this is a small school, which isn't uncommon in the area I represent. They tend to be between 70 and 90 students. So actually, by making them more sustainable and putting them on a sustainable footing, giving them junior, making it through school two seconds. Thank you. I'm glad to know we're looking at expanding schools in Ash as well. Thank you. No? Thank you very much. Members, back onto the officer report. Are there any comments or questions relating to the officer report that's been presented to us? Victor, you're first. Thank you, Edward. Just one query. I'm quite supportive of this, but just the three metre high mesh fence, where I think some residents are complaining about the noise potential. Are we considering acoustic fencing at all? I know with these markers they tend to be rented out in the evenings, et cetera. I'm just wondering whether we have considered acoustic fencing if they do start renting them out in the evenings. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor, for your question. We have put in a new condition to limit the hours of use for these hard play areas and the pitch area as well. And it will be up to until 7.30pm. So that would be helpful. And then second of all, there's a noise assessment that has taken place, especially around that location because that has been identified as the closest point to nearest residential developments. And the level, as stated in the report, is within acceptable levels. Thank you. John. Yes, thank you. Quite straightforward, really. I fully support this application. Like everybody else who knows planning applications, there is no structure behind it. We get so many houses built that we are desperate for such as doctors, et cetera, which unfortunately the government doesn't seem to understand. What I would like to ask, please, is that the only question I have is about safety. Have we planned for 20 mile an hour limits, all the usual lines, parking wardens, et cetera, so that with the increase in children I find that is going to be dangerous as long as we've got everything in place, please. You rather missed the person that you should have been asking that question to. But I've had an indication that yes, that has been, and I'm getting a number of nods. So I think the answer to that is I'll qualify as a yes because I'm not the right person, but I'm advised that it is. Thank you. Sorry, I thought it was a matter for the plan. Just a second, and James is going to come in on that one. Absolutely a very good question. Our first concern is the highway authority when looking at any school expansion. This particular project has had good quality engagement with us in transport development planning as well as our road safety team. We have, suffice to say, a very good scheme of road safety improvements secured by condition through here. We've got the improvements as set out and shown on the plans. I'm not sure if we have these plans that we can put up, but one-way systems, improvement to footways, provision of further zebra crossings, along with the speed reduction measures and off-site park and strides. Suffice to say, really, in terms of Surrey County Council's own guidance and policy and more contemporary national guidance, this is pretty much almost a textbook scheme for what you should do for making this sort of location sustainable. Catherine. Thank you, Chair. I'd like to start by thanking Leone for an excellent first presentation. Really good job. Very clear. And the report is also very clear, so thank you very much. Appreciate it. I really just wanted to say thank you for addressing the concerns that were raised during the site visit. I think the additional conditions really do help to address the concerns that were raised and ensure that we have both community use, but also consideration for the community. I fully support this application and would like to thank you for the additional work you've done over the last few days. Thank you. Thank you. Jeremy. Well, I did make the 78-mile round trip from Catrom and I actually applaud this development. I think the school is badly in need of investment, certainly to the rear. I thought it was awful actually. So it's really encouraging that you're going to spend this money here. And thank you also for taking me down to the Park and Stride locations, one of which I'm sure will work according to the school travel plan. So this actually has my 100% support and thank you for all the work that you've all done on it. Thank you. And also whoever was behind getting the money for this in the first place. I think it's slightly harsh to say it was in Dreadbrook State. I did like the fencing round the preschool section. I thought that was really I took some pictures of that to see where I could put it elsewhere. Are there any other questions? I've got one. On the species protection. I'm delighted to see the various things mentioned, the slough worms and badgers and the hedgehogs and great question. Hedgehogs is something very close to our heart, isn't it, Vice Chairman? No mention of the geese. Are they staying on site? Yes. Sorry, that was me. Press the button. Are the geese staying in the pond? Yes. They did say yes. They did. Yeah, they confirmed it. The pond won't be affected. It will be protected during the construction. Yes. And animals as well. Have you ever come across an upset goose? No. Great news. Members, there is a recommendation. This is a detailed application. So, can you indicate that, if you are in favour, that you are in favour of the application? Thank you very much, Members. That is unanimous. Thank you, Liam. Thank you, Matt. Now, moving on to our second application, which is the site of the former Colbrook and Spectrum Noak Daycentres, Noak Drive, Red Hill. Those are an update sheet, and people have had that. And Charlotte, over to you. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman. And good morning, Members. Firstly, as mentioned by the Chairman, I draw your attention to the update sheet, which relates to some corrections to plan numbers and cross-referencing within policies, within conditions to some of the policies. Also, to note that condition four has been updated to refer to the most recently submitted flood risk assessment dated 10 October 2024. So, moving on to the application, this is part of the ongoing County Councils programme, which seeks to deliver 725 affordable extra care units across the County by 2030. And extra care provides self-contained units for independent living by older people with on-site facilities to support their care needs as they change or increase through their lives. So, this is an outline planning application relating to the former Colbrook site in Red Hill. And until it was vacated, the site had a number of youth and community uses, most recently as the Colbrook Day Centre, which ceased in February 2017, and the former Sprattram at Noak, which provided facilities for disabled people, autistic people, older people and those with other support needs. So, as on the slide in front of you, that shows the buildings that were previously on the site. These were a mix of single-storey and two-storey buildings that have recently demolished and the site is in the process of being cleared. So, on the site, as is shown on the plan, the northern section of the former Colbrook site, which is aged in blue, is also in county council ownership, but it excluded from this application. The application site itself covers just over one hectare. It has frontages to Noak Drive to the south and St Anne's Drive to the west. Just locationally, the Redhill Station is mutually to the west of the site. Carrington School is to the east and there's housing to the north and south. The site is allocated in the local plan for residential and community use, but it's also partly located within flood zone 3 due to its proximity to the Redhill Brook, which is to the south of Noak Drive, and it's also close to the Redstone Hill Conservation Area, which is to the south, and these are key considerations in assessing the application. So, this application is outlined, seeks permission for a building of up to six storeys in height, with parking, landscaping and other ancillary development. Matters for consideration at this stage are layout, scale and access, and landscaping appearance are reserve matters. This plan shows the footprint of the proposed building with an indicative layout of the ground floor, which contains a mix of communal and support facilities such as downing room, lounge, treatment rooms, etc., with some residential units also on the ground floor with their own private outdoor space. Access to the site would be from St Anne's Drive with parking spaces, of which there'd be 38, to the north of the building, then there'd be a series of pedestrian accesses to the south of the building, accessing the site from Nope Drive. So, just running through the floor plans for the upper storeys, all upper floor accommodation would be residential and the building would be two units deep with a central corridor. Detail at this stage is relatively limited, but the units would be single aspect and most of them all would have a balcony and we'd expect the main windows to be positioned along the main long elevations of the building. Are we on the fifth floor? Yes. So, this shows the highest part of the building, which would be at the far ends of the building, so this would be the six storey element, so it changes in height that this is the highest part of the building. And if we can just move on to the roof plan, thank you. This shows the location of plant and solar PV panels. So, we now have a series of 3D images, which were provided as part of the application, which hopefully show how the building may look within its context. So, we're looking from different directions. This one's looking south with the building in the foreground and the Redstone Hill Beyond. This one's looking towards Redhill Town Centre, so to the west with the building in the foreground and some of the housing on the other side of Note Drive in the foreground of the image. This one's looking back from the Town Centre direction, so looking east. The large building in the foreground is the postal sorting office. We've got the flats in St Anne's Drive to the left of the image and the houses in Clyde Close and Knight's Place, et cetera, on the right-hand side of the image. This image is caveated. This is an intense impression of what the building could look like from the front, more or less from the junction of Note Drive and St Anne's Drive, but obviously it is an outline application, so these details are to be considered at a reserve matter stage, but this is an image of what the building could look like. This is the landscape proving plan, which is illustrative at this stage, but shows how landscaping and planting can be accommodated with new trees and sections of hedgerow, which would also contribute to biodiversity net gain and provide areas such as swales to the front of the building which are part of the flood risk mitigation. If I just run through some photographs, these are taken at different times, so some of them have the building still in them, some of them the site has been cleared, some of them the trees are in leaf, some are not, so there are all sorts, so hopefully that won't confuse you too much. This was taken from Redhill Station, so looking down across the site, you can see the hoarding there, the site is sort of in the middle of the image. This is from the junction of Noak Drive and St Anne's Drive, down at road level. This is looking along towards Carrington School, so that's the Noak Drive frontage of the site. This is the access on St Anne's Drive, which would form the in access, the entrance to the site. This is looking back towards the town centre, across the cleared site with the postal sorting office on the right and the buildings at Knight's Place on the left. Another one looking further back from the site towards the town centre. This is from the same position but looking in the other direction towards the flats Bronte Court and in the direction of Carrington School. This is panning round slightly looking towards Noak Drive is behind the fencing, the hoarding there, and the houses are behind those trees. This shows the relationship coming out of the site again. This is the relationship with Knight's Place. These are the houses at Clyclose and Venoclose. This is Carrington School, so right at the far end of the site. This is just a couple of wider contact shops. This is just slightly up Redstone Hill looking across with Home Cottage pub on the left-hand side. For those of you who don't know, the height of the buildings in Redhill Town Centre is looking across there. This one is looking further to the north of the site. This is St Anne's development, so just to give a context of the scale of the flattered development there. As set out in the report, we've received a number of representations. There has been support for the proposal, but a number of issues have been raised, including in relation to the scale and height of the building, impact on neighbour amenity and privacy, including through the provision of balconies, lack of parking, flood risk, and disturbance during construction. These matters have been addressed in the report. Rygate and Banster Borough Council have requested further considerations given to what the remainder of the allocated site would be used for, the amount of car parking, the concerns of the local lead flood authority, and also the possibility of there being a historic mill in the facility, and all these matters have been addressed in the report. So to conclude, taking all matters into account, including that the site is allocated in the local plan for residential and community use, but also that part of it is an area identified as being at high risk of flooding in flood zone 3, the proposal is considered acceptable. It would deliver up to 120 modern extra care units on an existing unused Brownfield site in a highly sustainable location close to Redhall Town Centre. For the reasons set out in the report, the delivery of this scheme is also considered to accord with relevant local plan policy and the presumption in favour of sustainable development as set out in the MPPF. And on that basis, it's recommended that the committee resolves to grant outline planning permission subject to the imposition of conditions. Thank you. Thank you very much indeed. A detailed report which needed into complex development. Carol Bell is speaking on behalf of the applicant agent. Carol, you know the rules by now. You have three minutes and wait until afterwards for any questions for clarification. I'm sure there will be some. The time will start whenever you're ready. Thanks Carol. Thank you Chairman. Colbrook site in Redhill is one of the programme of extra care housing projects being delivered by Surrey County Council to address the critical gap in the provision of affordable housing for older people who require accommodation with care and support. Extra care housing offers eligible individuals a home of their own with their own front door. It's in a community setting where their care and support needs can be met. It offers a higher level of care than traditional sheltered housing with help with personal care, meals and other daily living activities. This allows residents to maintain a high level of independence. Common facilities are set up which encourage residents to participate in a range of social and leisure activities. This promotes their wellbeing and creates a community in which people can live and age well. Thanks to the tailored support that they will receive, residents in extra care housing are less likely to develop conditions that need intensive health care solutions, thus reducing hospital admissions and shortening the duration of hospital stays. The Colbrook site was specifically selected for extra care housing. It meets key sustainability criteria including close proximity to the town centre, availability of public transport links and health infrastructure. The design will meet the requirements for affordable specialist housing, including being wheelchair accessible throughout, with adaptable accommodation that can address current and future needs of its residents. Being located in the heart of the community will reduce reliance of cars for both residents and staff and will encourage residents to socialise and exercise in the locality. Extra care housing is designed to promote the independence of residents by providing flexible care when required, with the added security of knowing that a manager will be on site at all times and available in an emergency. We will be installing the latest in sustainable energy measures to minimise heat loss and lower energy bills for residents. We are also installing electric vehicle charging throughout and homes will be equipped to meet the future care and support needs of residents, including the latest IntelliCare technology. Residents will also be encouraged to use smart technology for their daily needs. The Coldbrook development will contribute towards Surrey's ambitious target set in 2020 to deliver 725 new homes for older adults in need of care and support by

1. It delivers against Surrey's net zero targets for 2030 and it supports the community vision for Surrey to ensure everyone has the health and social care support and information they need at the right time and in the right place and that everyone has a place they can call home with appropriate housing for all. Thank you very much. Members, do you have any questions for Planning Nature for the speaker? Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Carol. I'm still concerned on a planning basis regarding the layout and the flood risk, if I'm honest. And I'm just wondering whether you have looked at the overlay of the Zone 3 flooding on the layout to ensure that we have no ground floor accommodation. Could you pull the map up, please? Ground floor accommodation that's in Zone 3. Residential accommodation. Indeed, we have done this. In fact, we have updated the flood risk assessment document since the final submission. It was updated last month and additional plans were included in that flood risk, including that ground floor layout to which you refer, which is... So Chair, if I may. So I'm looking at the Surrey County Council GIS system for flood Zone 3 and looking at the layout which has been taken down again. And I'm listening to the planning officer who said that there was residential accommodation on the ground floor. Well, then that means we've put residential accommodation on the ground floor in flood Zone 3. If we have no residential accommodation on the ground floor, then I don't think I'm as concerned. But what has concerned me is and I guess the question I'm asking you is, can you confirm that the current design still includes residential accommodation on the ground floor? The current design does still include residential accommodation on the ground floor. But the finished floor level, i.e. where the ground floor is going to be, will be above the level of the flood risk. So although it's true we do have accommodation on the ground floor, the height of that ground floor is higher than the area of flood risk. So are you aware that the current government guidance says that we recommend floor levels are set at least 600 millimetres above the estimated flood level, whereas the design that's put forward in the plans says 300 millimetres? Actually, Sian, is that question more for Sian? Yes, so we'll park that we'll... Well, I think we're seeing... Yes, so the officers will come in on that one. Are there any other questions for Carol? Victor? Just on the parking, so there's going to be 120 units, but with only 30 for residents and 8 for staff. So I know the area really well and everything is double yellowed because, you know, you've got Carrington School and there's absolutely no other parking for overflow or anything. So where are the additional spaces if they're required? Because all the roads, no drive and they're all double yellow lines. So where would additional cars park? Do you know? We are aware of the amount of parking and the parking restrictions in that area. There was at one point a suggestion that the double yellow lines should be removed and those parking restrictions taken away. We didn't think that was a good idea at all. But we have worked extensively with the highways department to look at the local provision of public transport. We are trying to make this site as sustainable as possible, bearing in mind that the accommodation is also for older adults and it's not general needs housing. We do not expect the majority of residents in this accommodation to have their own cars. And in addition to that, we are providing a, or attempting to provide a car club provision so that there will be alternative needs of private transport for those who don't have their own cars. Any other questions? No. Thank you very much indeed, Carl. There were a couple of points hanging over. Sean, do you want to come back on the Jonathan's waiting to ask a question but do you want to deal with that flooding point if you don't mind? I'm just wondering whether it's better to cover all those points later when there's the questions to us as officers and we can, we've got some plans to share in terms of where the flood risk, the flood zones are, so it would be helpful to talk to those, I think, if that's okay. Yep, absolutely fine. Jonathan, are you there? I know you wanted to ask a question but you have five minutes and we will be maybe asking you some questions so if you stay online afterwards and you can put your question within your five minutes and the time will start whenever you're ready. Thank you. It was just to speak rather than ask a question. Do you want me to contribute now? Is that best? So you're breaking up. Sorry, I don't have a question to ask. I was just going to speak as a visiting member. Did you want me to speak now? This is your time now. I'm sorry, I misunderstood. I thought you had a question. You had your hand raised. I thought you had a question. This is your five minutes to speak as the local member. The time will start when you speak. Thank you very much and thank you for letting me speak as a divisional member of where this application sits. I'm generally in favour of the scheme but there are a couple of assurances or points that I would like to make for your consideration. Firstly, I would like to welcome this site as a site for extra care homes for this location, which is close to and easily accessible to Redhill town centre and the note that this is to be affordable. I note that the applicant is seeking for this to be genuinely affordable, to be at social not just affordable rents but would request that this is maybe acknowledged in the recommendations such as in the form of an informative of some kind. Secondly, while residents are generally supportive of the design, those in Clydeclose were concerned about overlooking, so I am pleased to see the informative on including obscure glazing on the balconies here. In contrast to applications for a neighbouring site, whilst high, this development is not considered generally to be extreme and although visible from the neighbouring conservation area, the harm is not considered significant by most. I think it would also be good to push for a passive house design to reduce overall energy demand, especially as these homes are likely to be heated warmer than many others and would request perhaps if this could be covered under the reserve matters and again if an informative included if members think that is appropriate. On construction transport, I think there is a need also for just acknowledging in the construction transport condition the need for close liaison with the school as the site runs alongside Note Drive, which accesses Carrington school, which has classes from 8.30 to 3.00 pm, which is exactly the time that construction traffic is proposed to be constrained. I think that condition 10 needs to be strictly adhered to and perhaps this could be strengthened to require close liaison with the school. Secondly, I want to mention a couple of points in regard to the wider use of the site, some within, some beyond the red line, which relates to the overall plans for this development. I think it is worth mentioning here as this is a public forum. I note that the area of the red line includes the site of the old Redhill youth and community centre which was closed after the chair passed away now many years ago. Since then, open access youth work has been provided only intermittently in Redhill, mainly at faith sites that do not attract all young people. There is a limited youth offer currently at the annex, which Surrey County Council operates on the other side of Redhill, and there has been previously a public commitment to return youth to this site once it was developed. I thought it would be part of this site because this is the part of the site that has direct access onto Note Drive, which goes to the school. I noted that that is not the case. As that is clearly not the case, it is not included in the application. I request that it might be considered reasonable to add an informative or condition allowing access through this site to the other parts so that young people could access youth facilities and their subsequent developments on the remainder of the site. Finally, the wider site was intended to provide the Surrey choices daycare centre to be relocated. That was where it was. It is currently temporarily on a longmeet site on the other side of Redhill. I wonder whether that might be assured in today's meeting. I have checked and it appears that the remainder of the site is still larger than the temporary site that is occupied by Surrey County Council for that purpose. I am confident that this kind of development need not preclude a community hub of some kind to provide both the Surrey choices and provide some kind of youth and community centre on the rest of the site should this get planning permission, which I support. Thank you, chair, for allowing me to make those comments, and I hope that that is of interest to your committee. In summary, my request is that you consider an informative for the reserve matters to include passive house design for the construction, that the secure homes are to genuinely afford, sorry, genuinely social rent, and that there is some kind of condition or informative about access from note drive to north part of the site for future youth provision. Thank you. Thank you very much, Johnston. Don't go away. We will come back on the points that you have raised in due course. Members, do you have any questions for the speaker? No. Right. You raised a number of points there, and I would put those to the officers to pick those up, and I'll follow up if there's anything left. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Essex. I'll go through those one by one. I think it might be difficult to require any additional design to the building to meet passive house design criteria. I'm not sure that this is something that's in the local plan, so it may be something that would be for the ultimate developer to look at, rather than us requiring it. We could put an informative on, but I don't think we can go any stronger than that. But obviously we'll take that away, and if there's anything that we can do, we will do it. In terms of the liaison with Carrington School, yes, the condition does take into account the movements of the school children. So again, I'm not sure whether there's anything further we can do, but we may be able to add something to the effect of at that point of construction there being a dialogue with the school to make it as smooth as possible and safe for the children. So we can I'm looking at James here, and whether there's anything else we can do, but we can certainly look and see whether we can add something by way of an informative on that. In terms of the other part of the site, that as you appreciate is a matter for the landowner, for the applicant to come forward with a scheme. It's noted that there may be an expectation of what it might achieve in terms of community use, particularly in relation to young people. I am hesitant to put anything firm on or suggest anything as part of this application in terms of a route through. I don't know whether that's something which the applicant would want to do at this stage. However, if plans for the other part of the wider site start to be developed and this application, because we still have the reserve matters to deal with, is still under discussion, there may be scope at that point for those two things to talk to one another. It is always an option for there to be a minor amendment to any permission that may be granted on this site to allow that to happen. But I think at this stage it wouldn't be possible to require that, given that that's not something that the applicant has been made aware of in terms of its practicalities of having a route through. But that doesn't preclude it happening in the future in some way or other, possibly through an amendment to this permission. I think that covers all your points. There's the outstanding point about the community use at the top niblet of the site and that's not part of the application and we can only look at the site as set out in the red line drawing. James, do you want to come in on this? Thank you, Chair. Just briefly on the CTMP element, the condition as is does require them to come back with a full detailed CTMP and we've got item J within there mentions restriction on HGV movements and timings of the day. But actually as that comes in for us to assess the detailed full CTMP we would absolutely look at things like nearby schools and we would expect there to be some evidence of liaison with the schools in there. It may be if officers and members feel that some further informative would be beneficial, that that could be included. But from the County Highway Authority perspective, we're perfectly comfortable with the condition as drafted. Thank you. I'll just come back on that point. Having worked on the construction, whilst every effort, and I think that's the emphasis, every effort to ensure construction traffic does not come along, it can be held up. There can be all sorts of reasons why traffic may be delayed and it has to be monitored and I think that a constant observance and reporting back on any construction. But to say you must not is just not possible. The other point I think is Jonathan, I was going to ask later. Just to clarify, the housing is for the affordable rental sector. Can somebody just clarify what that means, if you don't mind? There would be nomination rights from the Borough Council and the County, I understand. So there would be criteria that would need to be met in terms of basically people identified as being on the housing waiting list. So there would be whatever criteria needs to be met for that. The allocations would be made in accordance with that and in liaison with the borough. Thank you. Jonathan, I think that answers all the points you raised. Thank you. I want to come back briefly, if I may. On the affordable housing, I understand that the allocation process is more about ensuring that they come forward in terms of social rent. I appreciate that with regard to both the transport and the passive house that maybe that might be more informative. In terms of the other part of the site, I say the site because this is an overall site that has been redeveloped by Surrey County Council. I think it might have been a practice with hindsight for Surrey County Council to develop an outline plan for all of the site that it owns rather than two thirds and remain completely silent in terms of the public sharing of what happens on the remaining third, as residents in Redhill would like an assurance of what Surrey plans are for the whole site, not just bringing it effectively piecemeal to the planning committee this bit first without really understanding what is happening on the rest. With regard to that, I think some kind of formative such that this development doesn't in any way preclude or limit what happens to the remainder of the site, seeing as it hasn't been included in the outline plan in any way, I think would be beneficial and useful if it's possible. I hear what you're saying. I get where you're coming from, but we can't second judge what the landowners, whether it's Surrey County Council or somebody completely remote, has in mind. That is beyond the West Remit. Again, I've used that word previously of this committee. We can only look at what's in front of us and we can't change or amend that substantively. Any questions about the future of the site, I suggest you have to liaise with the landowner and the relevant team on that. Are there any other points to raise whilst Jonathan's online? I think that's it. Sir Jonathan, thank you very much indeed for that. Thank you very much. I will continue to liaise in private, but I think it would have been right and proper just to raise it here as well, such that it's in the public domain. Thank you for your time and all the best for the rest of your meeting. Thank you very much. Goodbye. Oh, stay, I know if you want. Listen to the rest of it. Don't go. Please. I'd hate you to think we sent you off. Members. Interesting topics raised there. Catherine, you now want to talk about your flooding. Sorry. Right. Right. Charlotte, you go first. Right. I think, first of all, in terms of clarification of where the Flood Zone 3 is, we do have a slide which we can put up which shows the EA Flood Zones. So, that's the one. So, this is two images of the same thing. One is further out and the site is in the top left hand corner. Flood Zone 3B, which is the functional floodplain, is the area in the far south west corner of the site, dotted. And then the darker blue area is Flood Zone 3A. And the, as Carole was explaining, the living accommodation, the sleeping accommodation in those ground floor units is outside of the Flood Zone 3A area. So, it's in Flood Zone 2, the lighter blue area. So, in terms of just clarifying that point, I think the secondary question that Councillor Powell was raising was around the finished floor level that has been designed into this, at this outline stage, is 300 millimetres above the level. And the reference in the guidance that is being referred to, the way that there is a reference to, it could go up to 600 millimetres. That is in areas where there is a high degree of uncertainty around the actual likelihood of a flood, the extent of the flooding. What has happened on this application is that quite detailed modelling has been done and set out in the flood risk assessment where there is a reasonable degree of certainty around what a flood event would result in, in terms of the amount of flood water on that site. And in those circumstances, the 300 millimetre is to be acceptable. So, hopefully those are the two points that were raised earlier. I can elaborate later, but that is as far as we got originally. Catherine. So, I am just going to read the legislation. It says, floor levels. We recommend floor levels are set at at least 600 millimetres above the estimated flood level. You will also need to use flood resistant materials up to at least 600 millimetres above the estimated flood level. You may reduce this to 300 millimetres if there is a high level of certainty about your flood risk. I think the issue I have, and actually sorry, I turned myself off. If you pull up the photographs from, I think it was Knight's Road, you will note that actually the ground floor of those flats are all car parks. And actually they are in flood zone. They are not even in flood zone too. So, I guess I have a real concern that, and I want this to be used for extra care housing. Let's not have any doubt about that. I am supporting the use of this site for this purpose. But these people are vulnerable. They are elderly. And I don't want us to have people in a situation where those residential levels could be flooded. And having overlaid the map, I am afraid I do still find ground floor residential properties in the flood zone. I spent quite a lot of time overlaying the two things the other day. And I am very concerned because they are vulnerable. And given that this is an outline permission, and given that you are, both you and Carol have said that there is no accommodation in flood zone 3. I would like there to be a condition that there is no residential accommodation on the ground floor in flood zone 3. Because I don't think that design complies with that statement. And I am concerned because of the vulnerability of the people we are putting into these accommodations. Can I just ask another question? In your presentation you talked about swales on the front. Now taking that into consideration, I mean the benefit of a swale is to alleviate and is to hold back waters. But that's, you know, we've seen different, I can see them at the line of them there. But coming back to the point that Catherine made that, you know, we're told there are going to be no houses in flood zone 3. So are you, I'll leave the rest of you to pick up. Yes, I mean I think it's worth drawing the distinction between the flood zones are shown on the EA mapping and then these modeling work, the detailed modeling work that is being carried out in order to put forward the flood risk assessment, which takes that modeling that has been done for the EA and develops it further in terms of the site circumstances. And in this case there has also been modeling to demonstrate what the likely flow of the water would be once the building was in place. And we have a slide of that as well. And that directs the water slightly differently. And those swales at the front of the site are part of the mitigation and the landscaping up in the far corner there. And that is their purpose, is to be able to accommodate that water in the event of a flood. So the EA zoning is the first step. And then the flood risk assessment develops that further. And I think going back to the point about the raised floor levels, there is a high degree of uncertainty in this particular instance. And the modeling work that has taken place supports the conclusions reached in terms of the ultimately, is it safe to provide this development in this form in this location from a flood risk point of view? And the conclusion reached is that it is because of that detailed modeling that has taken place and also the mitigation that would be put in place. As an engineer who works on models all the time, garbage in, garbage out. And the reality is I believe that the modeling has been done based on the best available information today. But we continue to build. We continue to build on flood planes. We continue to take capacity out of the system. Climate change continues to happen and rainfall gets heavier. I have plenty of roads in my division and in fact now sadly housing areas in my division where the modeling said, it's all alright Jack. And actually the real world, unfortunately it's not. And I guess I'm really just pleading that we do everything we can to minimize risk because modeling is only as good as the data that goes into it and it's only based on what we know today. And these buildings we are presumably hoping will be there for another 50 years and an awful lot is going to happen to our weather in the next 50 years but people are still going to get old and become vulnerable. And I'm just asking that if we can, in the reserve matters phase, look at the layout to absolutely minimize the risk of having residential properties anywhere near the flood zone. I would rather do that because actually the evidence on the other side of Note Drive, which is not in the flood zone, is the developers in that area decided to do exactly that and the more recent properties only have car parks on the ground floor. And I would assume they have that for a very good reason. I was just going to come back and say because I know Councillor Power afloat to the notion of a condition which I don't think we can put on at this point but as Charlotte has detailed and pointed out, I understand the point being made but the information in front of us has been addressed correctly from the applicant and put forward a case support that the policy that we currently operate under, the guidance we currently operate under enables us to recommend this application positively. Of course the fact that there are reserved matters to come means the applicant has an opportunity to consider things. You are approving layout and scale but there are final matters that need to be considered by the applicant still and as we've indicated earlier, planning commissions can also be amended but I think on the basis of the information before us as planning officers and before yourselves as the planning committee, we are in position to recommend approval. I just think the reserved matters will come back here and I think we should ask by way of an informative in this stage to flag up the concern of this committee and seek clarification on the placing of the ground floor accommodation on the flood zone 3 and that that be looked at to see, just to clarify if that's the case. Charlotte, you're going to say something? Thank you. I think what's difficult is that the application has been presented on the basis that there will be those units on the ground floor. Whilst the description of development is up to 120 units, in theory those units could be omitted from any reserved matters but I think I would caution the ability to remove them from the scheme and certainly from the viability from the applicant's point of view. I don't think we could go that far in terms of effectively ruling out there being ground floor living accommodation. I think where we are is we have the technical advice that those units can be safely provided. I would defer to my colleagues but I would say that if that is the way the committee wanted to go, the application shouldn't be taken forward because that's too much of a deviation from what's in front of us here. I think I've passed that on to the committee to get their views on this. We have a recommendation here. We have the plans in front of us. Catherine has raised some severe doubts about it, the technical advice on one side so we're at a balanced situation. At the moment, we're asked to approve the application so, I mean, members, who else has any views on this? Ernest. Well, everybody, we're flooded. You know, it's a fact of life. Council's up and down the land because of housing pressure are building on floodplains and, you know, I don't think we're in a position to start worrying about something which is endemic throughout the land and really, generally speaking, is being, you know, has to be ignored on a lot of housing estates even now. And, you know, I'm old and vulnerable. I've been up to the waist in water in a house. I'm still here. So, I'm not impressed basically, I have to say, by this over consideration of what might happen with a bit of water. I would just like to set the scene for this development. When we went on a site visit, there was a mass, a mass. I couldn't believe the size of the concrete, smashed up concrete heaps. So, it's obvious that what was on this site before was a substantial building and I expect that building could have been flooded or what, but whether it has been, we have no information but I suspect not. The other thing I'd like to say is that Redhill is part of the new world, if you like. Rygate Town is part of the old world. It's an old world type of town centre. Redhill seems to me to be in contest with Sunbury, Woking and possibly even New York because basically what goes in in Redhill, it's obviously the Rygate and Banstead councils has determined that Redhill is the development area. So, more or less anything goes and this whole building that we're considering here, in terms of what has happened to Redhill in the last, shall we say, 15 years or even 20 years is relatively modest. But I am pleased to say that on this application, the council has decided to go up a bit which it isn't doing on similar applications that come before us. And it's essential in Surrey, and I've said it before, I'll say it again, it's absolutely essential in Surrey that we make best use of the land. Whether this is a ground floor that might get a bit of water in or whether it's, you know, four or five floors up that people can somebody can see the odd window or balcony or something behind a tree from somewhere else. You know, these considerations are minor compared to the need to actually build units for people to live in and that's what we're about here. And so, you know, I have absolutely no hesitation in supporting this. I think it's a very, it's part of our council's policy to start with which we're all committed to. I haven't heard anybody speak against the council's policy of 725 extra care units and the council, I remind people, downgraded that from 2000 to 725. So the council's being very modest about what it really needs to build or what it could build. So I've no, you know, I've been associated with old people's outfits. I run an old people's club myself. I know all about the difficulties of being old and I'm old myself. But, you know, we need these units and this application pretty well goes right along the bill and I have to say I'm a bit sort of disturbed that I had to sit here and listen from something from Jonathan Essex who doesn't seem to know a thing about planning but that's a bit beside the point. Thank you, Mr Chairman. Right. OK, thank you for that. John. Yes, thank you, Chairman. I'm afraid I'm not very happy with the housing on the bottom floor. It's all very well besides a little bit of water, as the council's just said. When we had the flooding in Hoesmere two years ago, I had to arrange tankers to get water out of houses, which I'm sure a lot of the other councils did the same. There's been a lot of criticism over the years about housing on floodplains. I agree that most of this should be built, except that we need these types of dwelling. All I'm saying is I think that by allowing these flats on the ground floor, we are building in a future problem. And when we talk about vulnerable people, we are talking about vulnerable people. And to get a flood at one o'clock in the morning, perhaps, then they can't move out because they are severely disabled or whatever, I would worry. So I'm sorry. I do not agree with the ground floor accommodation. Thank you for that. We're looking at, we have to balance the technical advice and the officer response that we get, along with our own views. But thank you for that. Anybody else want to say? Yeah, I know. I'm just seeing who else comes before. We've heard a lot from Catherine. I see that somebody else wanted to nothing against you. I'm just seeing many other views. Catherine. So I guess the other thing that worries me is that condition seven reads details of flood warning and evacuation plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority prior to occupation of the building and thereafter implemented in accordance with the improved details. Listening to everything that everyone else has said, even if it said before commencement, I would feel significantly happier. At this point, I'm not genuinely, not at all convinced that we would be able to safely get people out of this building and it is leading me to feel much as I support the concept of building this on this site, I can't, in good conscience, do that because of the concerns I have. But is it possible to ensure that the evacuation plan so that we have really thought about how we would get people out of this building before we start building it rather than before we occupy it, is there a way we could do that so that we can allow development to continue but be really sure that the design is fit for purpose for the types of people we want to put into it. I guess the thing that's weighing on my mind is the previous use of this site was daytime only and that's really different in a flood plane to 24, 7, 365 days a year. It is different and I would like to understand whether that condition could be modified. You're looking at conditions four and five. I think you have to, you can't pick those out because they do flow to, sorry, maybe the bad choice of words, but they do work together. Well I'm looking at four and five and then again there's a whole number of conditions that lead up to condition seven. You've got all the drainage work, all of the flood assessment, it's slightly wrong to cherry pick out, it's inequitable to pick out one condition when you've got to look at them in the whole round. You want to come back on that, no doubt. I guess, you know, when you look at them, you know, five is prior to commencement, six is until you're occupied, which I think it kind of has to be because that's a verification of what you designed in five works, so that kind of has to be occupation, it can't be done at any point before that because it's after it's built. Whereas seven is saying that, you know, the plan of how we're going to get people out is prior to occupation and I'm saying as an absolute minimum, it should be considered in the design because if it's considered in the design, if you have to change something, you haven't already built it. If you've already built it, the chances of you changing it are virtually zero. The guidance we have in terms of pre-commencement conditions is very much recommending that we don't use them where we don't have to. In my experience, a flood evacuation plan can be prior to occupation because the trigger point for it, if you like, is people being on site. It's related to the presence of the people on site as opposed to related to the physicality of the works that need to happen. Another point on the evacuation plan here in Councillor Powell's concerns, it very much will need to look at all those points around the fact that it is a 24-7 residential use. Our expectation of any plan we would approve is it will have hopefully pre-emptive actions in there as far as possible but obviously does need to consider the possibility that people are there in the event of a flood and how they will be safely accessed or safely egressed from the site in those considerations. There is a slight benefit this type of use has in that it's a managed facility so unlike flood evacuation plans, we're applying them to private residential. That's very hard to control. It's clearly is possible to deliver one in a managed facility because you have oversight of the entire unit. My professional view is that it is okay for that condition to be prior to occupation if it though was the view of the committee that they felt it was necessary to make that a pre-commencement condition, then that obviously could be their resolution. One caveat to that is pre-commencement conditions need to be agreed with the applicant so we would need to reflect that in any resolution which is that if they don't agree to it, there's a sequence of knock-ons that need to happen. So I just wanted to make the committee aware of that. We can't absolutely stipulate here today that it's a pre-commencement condition. The committee could resolve next steps. Catherine. You used the dreaded term hopefully in that statement. One engineering manager that I worked with relatively recently said hope is not a strategy. I absolutely believe that hope is not a strategy. Plan to succeed. I guess I'm pleading and I would have thought actually it's in the applicant's best interests for them to have thought this through thoroughly before they put a spade in the ground. Since the applicant supports Surrey County Council and we are spending Surrey County Council's money to support Surrey County Council residents, I would like to think that the applicant would support. It's not a huge change. It's just requiring them to move from hope being a strategy to design being a plan. Thank you. I'm trying to agree with I hear what's said but I'm trying to agree with Catherine that we do need just to get a little more detail. Given the concern on this, I'd suggest that does anybody disagree with that? No. Members, we have a recommendation. Sorry. It's my understanding then that our recommendation is as set out in the update report. The alternative recommendation being put forward is that that's amended in condition 7 becoming a pre-commencement condition subject to the applicant's agreement. Sorry, I just don't think you can have a conditional resolution to grant subject to agreement by the applicant to a condition when you don't know what the applicant's view is. I would say that if there are concerns that you feel the applicant needs to address or provide more information on, then you need to have a motion to defer to bring it back because I don't see how that will work. I'm not convinced that we need to defer. There are concerns and I think the applicant will have heard those concerns and there is condition in here within the condition and I'm going to suggest that we proceed on basis as the amendment written down with the update sheet and if we took that to the vote, as unpopular as it may be, and if we take a view on that and we see the balance of opinion within the committee, there are clearly concerns. We've all got concerns on this and over the, you know, it's not just the elderly, it's over the use of the building and as John rightly says to me, we get houses being built everywhere and as Ernest, you know, it's a nature of the fact. I mean, Catherine knows of the houses I'm talking about just close to her. I thought it was a lake, but they're being built. So, Members, we have a recommendation as amended to grant and it will come back to this committee on reserved matters. Without. Mr Chairman, Members do need to understand exactly what is being granted today in relation to what is then coming back to them in terms of reserved matters. So, if everyone's clear on that, on that. The officers will outline exactly what we're talking about. My understanding is the committee is saying that they, or the recommendation being put before them is, as per the report in the update report, with unamended condition 7, clarity, and adding in that you would like to see the reserved matters returned to this committee as we have done in other instances. That's without amendment to condition 7. Yes, that is my understanding. So that we approve what's in front of us, it comes back and we look at reserved matters which are appearance and landscaping. Yes. Members, can those who are in agreement with that please indicate? Against? One abstain? One. Members, that is carried 7-1-1. Thank you very much. Before we go, Carol, can I just say to you and your team, I mean this is clearly a very, very difficult one, but I am, I think you guys are doing a great job on providing the extra care facilities. That's a very personal comment to you and your team, because I think that we've seen a number of developments come through, some we've actually loved and some we're okay, and this is one that's, we understand the difficulties, but it's providing the accommodation that we all want elderly people to have, people, vulnerable people should I have, rather than elderly, because we're not giving a home to awareness, so thank you very much indeed. Thank you. Next meeting is on 27th November, so thank you very much everybody. Thank you.