Transcript

First and foremost, there is no fire practice planned, but in the event of a fire alarm, you please exit out of the chamber and turn left. You could basically go up towards the car park and go up to the top level of the car park. So two issues here. One, we don't want a fire alarm, and secondly, we hope it's not raining if there is one because it's a long walk up the top of the hill. Can I please have any apologies for absence and substitution? Sorry, the moment you walked off. Yes, apologies have been received from Jonathan, Holly and Chris. Oh, Chris is here. Yes, so just Jonathan. Okay, thanks very much. Minutes of the last meeting. Can I sign the minutes of the last meeting? Thank you. Petitions as none received. Public question time. There were five public questions submitted. The questions and responses were published on the supplementary agenda yesterday, and then we have some of these questioners in the chamber at the moment, and I will firstly go to Jackie Macy. Jackie, did you wish to ask a supplementary question wherever you are? Yeah, hello Jackie. Sorry, I didn't get a chance to say hello to everybody. Whenever you're ready if you ask your question. Thank you. Thank you. Good morning and thank you for listening to my question. Surrey County Council may believe that it did not permit the continued drilling and extraction of oil at the Horse Hill site since the quashing of the planning permission in June 2024, and that continued extraction has been at the operator's own risk of formal enforcement action. However, it is clear to many that by ignoring this unlawful activity for months, the council is giving a green light drilling which was only stopped as a result of extensive adverse media attention. The council has recently and fairly promptly issued a stop notice where an area of land close to Horse Hill was being used to unlawfully deposit waste materials, and it states that this has been done as an immediate remedy of the most harmful aspects of the unlawful development. And yet, when the highest court in the land recognized that extraction at the Horse Hill site will inevitably cause the environmental harm, the council failed to act. Will the council now take formal steps to ensure the oil that has been produced since the Supreme Court judgment is not sold, and the company do not profit from their unlawful and harmful activity in Surrey? Stop doing that, sorry. Yeah, I'll ask when the planning officer's rather seen that the question is beyond the remit of this committee, but I will leave that to the officers. Thank you, Chairman. In response to the final part, I'm aware that question has been raised in correspondence that the council has and is looking at, and we'll respond to that in due course. In response to the first part, it was not permitted in that the operator was advised and told that the continued instruction was unlawful. What was happening was not that it was being ignored, but an enforcement investigation was beginning. And as I have set out in some of those responses done to previous questions, that does take time. You've alluded there to a different site. I believe I know which site that is, and it's one where there's other public questions about in close proximity to it. There's one key difference I think that should be noted in the circumstances. Obviously, there's the general point that each case and each site is its own circumstance that has to be investigated properly, but there's a difference where you have an operator who is working with you towards voluntary cessation as we have at the moment on Horse Hill, and an operator who is not working with you. And the purpose of the planning enforcement system is not to be punitive, but is to seek remedy in terms of remedying the planning harm. And that must be always the thrust of what we are looking at. That said, we continue to monitor the situation closely at Horse Hill, and as I have said, that does not preclude in any way further action being taken if it is deemed so necessary. Thank you. Thank you very much. Deborah Elliot isn't here, but Jackie Phillips, if I've got this right, is being asked to ask a supplementary on her behalf. Hello. Thank you. Thank you for your written responses to previous questions asked about the unlawful oil production at Horse Hill, which referred to correspondence between the council and applicant as to when the applicant intended to submit additional information to set out the position in relation to the development and redetermination of the planning application. Has a timescale for this been set, and can you share it with the public? If that is a timescale for the submission information, no, a definitive timescale hasn't been set. That is a matter for ongoing conversation as well, so I can't at this point give a confirmed date by which we expect to have received additional information. At the point at which I am able to, I will do so. Thank you. Thank you very much. Neville Kemp. Sorry, making everyone walk the wrong way around here. Whenever you're ready, Neville, thank you. Neville, could you put your microphone on, please? Sorry, good morning. In the committee's reply to Councillor Jonathan Essex's supplementary question at the previous meeting, it was stated that, and I quote, The investigation has taken time and that this work remains ongoing and the investigation is still live. I'd like to ask the committee what remains to be investigated and what outcome would bring the investigations to a satisfactory conclusion? Well, we're still obtaining information, as I refer to in that response, or rather we are reviewing information that has been obtained at this particular moment in time, and that will inform what does happen next. The investigation also perhaps investigation is not entirely the correct choice of words in some form because there's also the monitoring, as I say. That's perhaps the active element as well at the moment in terms of monitoring what the operator is doing at the site in terms of their cessation and remediation of the site. Part of our review of the information we have obtained is to inform further decisions as to what the conclusion of the case will be, but technically it remains live until we are satisfied that the matter is resolved. There isn't a defined point necessarily at this moment in time until we are satisfied that all the necessary steps have been taken, the investigation and monitoring will remain live. Thank you. Now, Trish Kye, asking a supplementary question on behalf of Sarah Freeman. Put me out of my misery. Did I get the name right? Oh, well done. Very good. Good morning. How will Surrey County Council ensure that UCOG will not recommence unlawful drilling activity at the Horse Hill site? So if we received evidence that that had happened, that would clearly be a change in the circumstance and that may be a point at which we have to further consider formal enforcement actions. So the planning enforcement system cannot preemptively prevent something. It is a reactive system. So if we receive evidence that there has been the recommencement of extraction, we would need to consider a robust course of action at that point in time. Thank you. Thank you very much. Parish Councillor Bob Barnes. Good morning all. My name is Bob Barnes, Parish Council for Saultes and Sidlow and the resident of Sidlow. My question is relating to the Crosswinds site where the illegal tipping's been going on for some 30, 35 days or so. Firstly, may I thank the officers for actually getting the enforcement order in place now so that the tipping has finally stopped. My question is, now that the works have ceased, will Surrey County Council continue proceedings against the landowners and also the waste licence firms such as Fuller's and all contractors who were fully aware that they were complicit in illegal activities of waste dumping? For clarification, can you please advise what enforcement action with timeline will be undertaken to ensure that the landowner reinstates the site to its original state as a green belt field? supplementary, what is Surrey County Council doing relating to an environmental impact assessment screening report to test the land for contamination of residents of concern of leaks of noxious substances? Thank you. In respect of further action, yes, the stopping of importation is part of what is necessary, but the remediation of the land, the removal of the waste is something that will still need to be pursued. As to how and when that will happen, that is a matter of very live conversations going on within the team and will be the subject of further consideration as to what action is necessary to do that. Timelines will be part of that consideration. I think it would be an honest answer at this moment in time to be realistic as to how long that may take, though, that that is not going to necessarily be something that can be achieved in a very short period of time, given the nature of what has happened. But nevertheless, that is something that we are still looking at and intending to pursue. Your second part of the question related to EIA, sorry. That is something that would need to be screened on any action that we take or on any applications that come in. We will screen them as to whether or not they are EIA development. For clarity, though, that does not necessarily align entirely with the issue you might be concerned about, which is about contamination of the land from the waste. That may be separate things that also need to be considered by the Environment Agency and other regulatory bodies. EIA development is about the thresholds, about it meeting certain thresholds in terms of significant wider environmental impacts. Site-specific ones might be considered in a slightly different way. But whether or not it is EIA development will be something we do screen as applications or action is taken. Thank you, members of the public. Sounds awful saying that, but thank you for your questions and supplementary questions. That is the end of the public question time. We now move on to member question time, and County Councillor Helen Clack. Are you all right over there, Helen? Whenever you are ready. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much, Chair, and thank you indeed for taking my and my parish Councillor colleagues' questions on the Crosswinds' illegal development today. I am most grateful. We recognise it is not on the agenda, but we are very grateful that you have taken the question. I asked the question not as the County Councillor for that site, but as the neighbouring County Councillor for that site on behalf of the Norwood Hill Residents' Association and my colleague, County Councillor Andy Lynch, and I am very grateful for the response and for the fact that the Enforcement Officer has in fact stopped the development so far. I think we have heard a very good supplementary question from my parish Council colleague this morning. I would just like to ask as a further question about whether or not, and this may not be relevant for Planning Officers, whether or not the County Council will be able to recoup the costs of the damage to the local public environment. In other words, the roads, verges and ditches that have been caused by numerous lorries without any wheel washing and damage to the roads in the surrounds, damages to the verges. This is a very rural road. There is no street lighting. There are no pavements. It has ruined the area quite considerably and will take Surrey Highways, I imagine, some time to recover it and we do not think that taxpayers should have to pay for this kind of recovery, so we ask that question whether the County Council will be able to recoup costs from the development. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. It is a question I think we all ask at different times and different areas. I will pass that over. Thank you. Sorry, I was just conferring. It is certainly not something that falls within the purview of the Planning Enforcement team, but it is something that I could consult with our colleagues and our Highways Enforcement team as to whether or not they are able to investigate the matters relating directly to the damage on the highway and they are actively investigating that, so there may be some recourse under that avenue. Most grateful. Thank you, Chair. Can I just come in here, just as a point of interest. I would be interested to know the reaction. Again, I speak not on this side, but as a broader bench, as a County Council. We have all had that issue of damage to the highways and the verges, so I think we would all be very interested to know what the outcome of the findings are. Thank you. Thank you, Madam. Thank you. I am going to take my leave. Thank you, Chair. Right. Thank you for that, everybody. We now move on to the next part of the agenda. Firstly, on declarations of interest. Now, I will do a blanket one, because I know that on the various items that we are looking at, there has been correspondence received by us individually and jointly, and I have also had conversations with different people on the site, like I am sure everyone is in the same position, I come to this meeting with an open mind. I am waiting to hear the report from the officers. We have had a site meeting on two of the sites, which thank you for the officers arranging, but it is an open mind. Are there any other declarations of interest? No. Thank you very much indeed. Now, the first item is the Item 7 on the agenda, which is the former Care Home Park Hall Road Rygate. There was an update, information on the updated sheet, and the officer to introduce this is Katie Rayner, Principal Planning Officer. Oh, I'm still call Helen Clack. That's bad. Don't talk about things like that. Right. Anyway, I think everyone knows who I am, but thank you. Katie, whenever you are ready and see if that changes. Thank you. Thank you, Mr Chairman. Before I introduce the proposal, I would like to draw the committee's attention to the update sheet for this item. The main points to note are that since the publication of the officer report. The main points to note are that since the publication of the officer report, further correspondence has been received from the RH29 community group, including comments on the content of the officer report, recommended conditions should permission be granted, and a report from a senior clinical lecturer in pediatric environmental health. Further representations have also been received from members of the public, including some who have already made representations in response to the application. Officers have reviewed this information and conclude that these do not raise any material matters which have not already been reflected or discussed within the officer report. In addition, should planning permission be granted, changes are proposed to two conditions and the inclusion of two informatives are set out in the update sheet. The application before the committee today is for the demolition of the former care home and the redevelopment of the site to provide an alternative provision school comprising the construction of a part single, part two story building with associated outdoor teaching and recreational space, a multi-use games area, two dedicated car parking areas, and landscaping. The site is located close to Rygate town center in a residential area on the western side of the A217 Rygate Hill. The site is situated and accessed off Park Hall Road, a residential cul-de-sac which contains along its length two-story detached dwellings. The proposed building and associated facilities will largely occupy the footprint of the existing building on the site and maintain sufficient distance from the boundaries of the site, allowing for the retention of the well-established boundary vegetation and trees, including the trees subject to TPO. The building would be positioned in an east-west orientation, providing a formal entrance area on the western elevation where the site would be accessed off Park Hall Road. The existing vehicle access points to the site from Park Hall Road would be retained and are proposed to be slightly widened with improved pedestrian crossings. The alternative provision school is required to meet the growing demand for AP provision within the county for pupils who cannot attend mainstream school for a variety of reasons, including exclusion, mental health, or physical disabilities. Placement at the school is for a temporary period until the pupil can return to mainstream education or a special school. Surrey County Council has identified a statutory need to provide 240 alternative provision places with 72 allocated to the Rygate Valley College. The existing Rygate Valley College campuses are currently dispersed across three locations in Rygate and Redhill. These are reported to be significantly undersized and in poor condition. This proposal therefore seeks to relocate and consolidate the three existing Rygate Valley College campuses into one purpose-built facility for the 72 pupils of primary and secondary school age and 36 members of staff, of which 30 are expected to be on site at any one time. A total of 348 letters of representation have been received in response to this application, comprising 276 objections and 72 letters expressing support. A number of representations have also been received from the RH29 community group, which represents 203 households within the local area. The primary concerns of objectors relate to the increased traffic generation, impact on the character of the area, and residential amenity through noise and disturbance, alongside concerns regarding the suitability of the proposed site for the future occupiers. In support, comments are expressed regarding the inadequacies of the current Rygate Valley College campuses and the need to consolidate the facilities into one purpose-built site to provide better opportunities for the pupils the facility would serve. The main planning considerations, and as discussed within the officer report, are the impact of the proposal on highways traffic and access, design and visual amenity, residential amenity, noise, air quality, landscaping, and biodiversity. Rygate and Bancer Borough Council have raised objection on the grounds of highway safety traffic and parking. This includes concern regarding the level of parking proposed on the site and the congestion already experienced in the area. In all other technical respects and advice received from statutory consultees, there are no policy objections and where safeguards are required these have been captured in the recommended conditions. The proposal would occupy the site of a former care home which has been redundant since 2017 and deemed unsuitable for modern care needs. The redevelopment of the site aligns with the development plan policy which emphasizes the redevelopment of previously developed land and the need to retain and maintain community facilities to support an identified local need. Officers recognize that the building would be of a non- domestic appearance with a modern flat roof, however the building is set back from Park Hall Road to reduce its visual prominence and is sympathetic in its scale layout materials and retains the majority of the existing boundary vegetation and trees which provide an effective screen of the proposal and contribute to the character of the area. The building is also considered to be of sufficient distance from any nearby residential properties which are further protected from overlooking and loss of privacy by the proposed landscaping and fencing. With respect to the traffic and access concerns, officers recognize that there are specialized transport needs associated with this proposal due to the nature of the school. As such the proposal is likely to give rise to an increase in traffic movements in the local area at drop-off and pickup times, however officers are satisfied that the submitted transport information demonstrates that the site has been designed to accommodate all traffic generated by the site including taxis and staff. As such the proposal is not considered to materially increase congestion or parking on the surrounding road network. Further the applicant has worked with the county highway authority to provide a package of mitigation measures including the management and monitoring of the arrival and departure situation, off-site highway works and a staff travel plan that would further minimize the impact of the increase in traffic in the local area. The advice from the county highway authority is that the development would not have a significant adverse impact on the public highway subject to the conditions as set out at the end of the officer report. In terms of noise the application has been reviewed by the county noise consultant and it is concluded that the noise impact from the operation of the site in the local area including from vehicle movements and fixed plant is considered to be low and below a noticeable level and subject to the provision of an acoustic fence on the eastern and southern perimeter of the outdoor recreation and teaching spaces acceptable internal and external noise levels can be achieved at the site. Air quality concerns have been raised due to the partial inclusion of the eastern boundary of the site in the Rygate Hill air quality management area. The air quality implications of the site have been assessed by the county air quality consultant and the impact of the proposed development on local air quality is not considered to be significant and the predicted concentrations are below the relevant standards for all pollutants identified. The site suitability for the proposed occupiers has also been assessed and it is demonstrated that the site and occupiers would not be adversely affected by air pollution. Conditions are recommended to secure suitable dust mitigation measures during the construction of the development. Overall officers are satisfied that the proposed development meets the requirements of the development plan policy and national policy in this regard and planning permission should be granted subject to the recommended conditions. I will now briefly go through the presentation slides before handing over to James Lahan and the county principal highway officer who will discuss the highway matters related to this application in more detail. So this is an aerial photo showing the application site. The red line boundary that depicts the application area and the the building you can see on the site is the former care home. Next slide please. This is a view of the application site from Park Hall Road. This would be with the front of the site and we're looking east in this photo. Next slide please. This is a view of the northern access looking southeast stood on Park Hall Road and a view of the southern access looking north up Park Hall Road and a view of the internal area of the application site at the front of the site. This is where the visitor car parking would be provided. This is a view of the northern boundary of the site looking east and this is a view of where the multi-use games area would be positioned on the site. And a view of the eastern site boundary looking north. The vegetation along this boundary would be retained as well as along the northern boundary. This is a view of the southern elevation of the existing former care home building and a view looking south towards the area of the proposed staff car parking on the southern perimeter of the site. And a view looking towards the, along the retained access to the staff parking area from that southern access point. And then a further view of that southern boundary and the southern access point. And this is a view of the southern access and egress point onto Park Hall Road looking south towards the properties in the Coaldy Sackett on Park Hall Road. And this is a view of the junction of Park Hall Road with Brookes Road looking south and a further view of Park Hall Road looking south from the northern lay-by. And a view looking towards the northern boundary of the site along Brooks Road. So this is the existing site plan. I wanted to show this to show that the existing building on the site occupies quite a large area in terms of its built form and the dotted line showing the outline of that building with the southern access area which is previously a car parking area and a car parking area to the north as well. Next slide please. And this is the proposed site plan. The white shaded area is the proposed building. As you can see it will occupy a smaller proportion of that site but the area surrounding it is the outdoor recreation teaching spaces which will largely occupy the floor print of that existing building in total. And we've got car parking area to the south that's for staff and that that would be accessed by the southern access which would be an access and egress for the staff and to the west of the building we've got the short stay car parking area which would be used for the drop-off of pupils and the northern access will be a one-way it will be an access only so they'll enter into that access and leave by the southern access and stack within the site to drop off the pupils. Next slide please. I've included this slide to show that there's a number of different types of boundary treatment going on within the site to safeguard the the pupils and this is all within the confines of the site so the existing boundary treatment on the perimeter of the site will be retained and then safeguarding will be provided within the site around the perimeter of the play spaces and in between the the recreational spaces and the car parts itself. Next slide please. And this is just to show the general elevations of the proposed building which is part two story part one story. Thank you. I'll now pass over to the county principal highway officer. Good morning all. Can you hear me okay? Given the highways related objections that have been made around this application we thought it would be useful for me to give a little bit further explanation as to the county highway authority's position on the proposals and how we've assessed it. I must remind everyone that as the county highway authority if we are when we're looking at an application fundamentally the job is to determine... Can you speak up slightly? Certainly. Apologies. So when yeah when assessing an application the county highway authority has to consider whether there are any robust reasons for refusal on highways basis and just to remind ourselves paragraph 115 of the national planning policy framework sets out that development should only be prevented or refused on highways grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety or if the residual cumulative impacts on the highway network would be severe. In considering whether those tests are met fundamentally we assess safety, we assess sustainability and we assess highway capacity. We have reviewed the information provided both by the applicants and the further information provided by objectors and we have scrutinized that information thoroughly which has led us to the position that we are at now. I don't intend to talk your ears off at great length but I would if you don't mind like to just cover those three core areas we're very happy to take questions throughout the course of the day of course. So in terms of capacity on the highway network we must remind ourselves first and foremost that these are not new trips on the highway network none of them. We have existing sites that are being replaced and the provision of infrastructure for AP or SCN schools does not create the demand. That said in order to ensure a fully robust assessment has taken place the capacity assessments that have been done for this site are on a worst case basis assuming the highest realistic numbers of vehicle movements that could be coming making no assumptions around the use of mini buses for example and it ignores the existing use and that those trips are on the network despite that the modeling evidence that has been provided clearly shows the local junctions operating well within capacity and that while there are some congestion there is congestion present on the highway network that would not be materially affected by these proposals. In terms of sustainability in terms of sustainability this is a suitable location for a school facility from a highway sustainability and accessibility position. We do need to be mindful that with SCN and AP type placements a large proportion of people are going to be traveling by car and we need to consider that if we were to make any sort of objections or requirements through a condition around sustainability. From a safety perspective this is a residential environment and it is a school that is being. James sorry to interrupt we've lost the audio in the room and can we just can you pause please and we'll just get this sorted out as much as we can so we can just take a quick break and then we'll come back to the sinker just for people's information we have an overflow room I'm not quite sure how many people we have in there comments and speakers unfortunately we can't put more people in here on fire and health and safety grounds which would be the obvious solution but we can't do that so we know slides if people need any more information the members have had the slides and the information there but if people do need any more we will sort it as we go along but so in the meantime I'm going to ask James to start again with the shorter version James and we'll progress on from there so thank you very much for your forbearance and let's wrap on thank you. Thank you chair. In the interest of course of not keeping everyone here too long I will be briefer than I was initially on the points I covered but as I said very happy to take questions and so I'm speaking on behalf of the county highway authority here and we have to you know when we are assessing an application we need to determine whether there are any robust highways reasons for refusal this is in the context of the national planning policy framework and the requirement for there to be an unacceptable impact on highway safety or residual cumulative impact on the road network being severe. As I said we assess these in terms of safety sustainability and highway capacity first off in terms of highway capacity and there has been a robust assessment that has been presented on worst case basis which ignores that these trips are already on the highway network and ignores the existing use of this site. Now as individuals have just shouted out there we look at this specific location very closely and the capacity assessments that have been provided look at both of the both of the junctions both the park hall road the park hall road junction and the the junction out onto the 8217. They have not taken any account for existing movements for the existing use of this site they have treated it as new as new trips and on a pessimistic basis in terms of the number of vehicles likely to come to the site at any one time and they have demonstrated even in that context that there is no material impact on highway capacity from this site and that those junctions can be expected to operate well within capacity. There is of course existing congestion on the highway network but that would not be materially changed by this site. I confirmed that this is a suitably sustainable location for this type of development from highway authorities perspective and then third and actually most crucial element to consider is safety and again when assessing we need to look at what the existing situation is the existing permitted use of the site and we assess this in terms of national guidance but also Surrey County Council's own standards and policies including our healthy streets guidance. Now there have been a lot of comments around the width of park hall road and you know the width of roads is something we have to get right in a very delicate balance particularly in residential areas and coming going into schools. The existing widths that are there to make it clear are compliant with our healthy streets guidance in recommended carriageway widths. There are some cases where a wider carriageway is going to a school could be acceptable however we have to bear in mind that the wider you make the carriageway the faster traffic movements then become. There is an existing use on this site, an existing permitted use which can attract servicing movements refuse collection. It's a residential road we already have refuse collection trucks going along this road. The applicant has demonstrated that successfully with tracking evidence that they've provided that the road can accommodate the necessary movements. They have also proposed some improvements along park hall road itself which includes the provision of an additional passing bay and subject to the public consultation necessary to deliver a traffic regulation order improved sorry additional parking restrictions be that single or double yellow lines would have to come out in the wash of that consultation. In terms of the parking, again we do have to bear in mind that the existing sites that are being vacated do not have adequate parking and they provide less parking overall than what this site is going to or less facility on site for that drop-off. The drop-off movements have been assessed again on a very worst case basis and we are satisfied that the provision on site is adequate to meet the demands and if there were any overspill onto the public highway it would not be in any way to a level that we as the highway authority could justify as representing a severe impact or an unacceptable impact on road safety. I will stop there as I said very happy to take questions as necessary. Thank you James. We now come on to the speakers section. I'll say this to save you some time if we have eight speakers. Each speaker will have three minutes and we will endeavor to indicate when there is one minute left and if the speakers can stay in the situ to ask any questions about planning. I emphasize planning nature that the committee may have and the first person to speak is, sorry, I'm being very impolite here, but it's just Kate Fairhurst. The time will start whenever you're ready and if you could press the speakers button when you're ready. Thank you chairman. Morning everyone. I'm speaking to oppose the application and I'm going to use my three minutes to shine a light on two key issues that I believe remain highly significant and are not mitigated by the current plans. Firstly, transport. Put simply, the location of the college on Park Hall Road is gravely inadequate for the school's proposed traffic load. The extra pressure placed upon Park Hall Road and its neighboring roads will be enormous. The officer just now might say that these are not new trips but of course they are completely brand new to this very small residential part of Rygate. Given the students for the school be transported by taxi, adequate provision needs to be given for the supervised drop-off and pickup. I feel that this site does not offer the sufficient coverage for this by some distance as per the DfE's BB104 guidance. Given the wide catchment of the proposed college, it is reasonable to assume individual taxis for students, particularly given the fact that the long distances make taxi sharing very difficult. On a worst case but very possible circumstance, there could be 62 to 72 taxis twice a day in this quiet residential cul-de-sac which I think the photo showed very well. It's highly improbable that the stacking arrangements will allay these worries, particularly in light of the fact that I feel the site is not compliant with the County Council's own highway standards for the width of school access roads and it is contrary to Rygate and Bannister's DES1 policy requiring adequate provision for access. Moving now to air quality. Members will have seen the report from Abigail Whitehouse who is a Senior Clinical Lecturer at Queen Mary University who has concluded that the proposed site would create air pollution significantly above World Health Organization limits. One minute left. Thank you. And therefore will be highly detrimental to students health. Policy DES9 at Rygate and Borough Council requires a design to minimize the occupants and use exposure to air pollution. This appears to fall significantly short. I'll draw my remarks to a conclusion now. I'm sure speakers will cover other topics but in my view this site is wholly inappropriate in both transportation and air quality terms. Anyone who is aware of the site and I know members have been will only be able to imagine the chaos that will be created by the daily vehicle movements, not to mention the high levels of air pollution posed as a result. Thank you very much. Sorry can you come back? Sorry hello can you come back please because we in case the committee got any questions of a planning nature especially. Thank you. Sorry I'm not used. I've got now having got you back there we'll find out. Members do you have any questions for planning nature for the speaker? No sorry thank you very much indeed. And now Michael Mamalis. Good morning everyone. My name is Michael Mamalis. I'm the resident of Brookes road and I oppose this application. The need to improve Surrey's AP provision is clear. Driven by political imperatives there is a perception that Park Hall offers a quick fix solution to repurpose a long vacant site to AP accommodation. However we are in danger of losing sight of the young people we seek to serve. As an architect of 20 years standing in education I have studied this application with increasing alarm. Closure of facilities elsewhere means this site will take 30 percent of Surrey's total AP provision. The largest such facility in the county equivalent in size to a 300 place mainstream school. That's the equivalent of Holmesdale for local people who know it. The amalgamation of three campuses in one location will bring together five to 16 year olds each with their own varied and distinct health and behavioural needs complicating safeguarding issues. SCC have stated that 72 pupils is the maximum pupil admission number envisaged and yet we learned this morning that office officers do not consider it necessary to accede to a request to include a condition restricting pupil numbers or working hours. This response is very surprising given the location and the sensitive residential cul-de-sac and this is not acceptable. If officers disagree with this request they must explain the grounds for this to the committee. Stated purpose of this move is that the college needs more space particularly outdoor activities which are important to the developing social skills, teamwork and the understanding of risk. This aim is failed by the proposals. BB104 recommends a site area where playing organised sports are involved at between 1.4 and 1.8 hectares. Park Hall is seven hectares with an effective usable area of just six hectares. One minute left. The site for pupil area will actually be 15 percent less than at RBC's existing Sidlow site and total outdoor amenity space will be little more than a third of the provision at Sidlow Bridge. Park Hall cannot accommodate this and it cannot accommodate a five side football pitch which is presently provided at Sidlow. The application site is simply too small to meet BB104 guidance and yet waiving standards is deemed to be acceptable in this case as the project is self-funded. This is especially surprising given the express assurances in SCC's justification of education need that building bulletin 104 will be followed. Air quality. The roads, this is equally disturbing. The committee have received a medical statement from Dr Whitehouse raising serious concerns in that respect. The combination of undersized and poor environmental conditions means that sports facilities can only be located in the most polluted area of the site. Quiet sheltered outdoor spaces cannot function due to high... Sorry, I am going to have to ask you to finish. Thank you. Members, do you have any questions of planning nature for the speaker? Victor. Thank you. Could you just go through the numbers of the sizes of the various schools again? I just couldn't write it all down fast enough, sorry. Yes, the immunity area available at Parkville Road will be approximately 1785 square metres. The area at Sidlow Bridge is 1997 square metres and that school accommodates half the pupil numbers. In terms of site area per pupil, the proposed site will offer 83 square metres per pupil, whereas the existing provision at Sidlow Bridge is 97 square metres. Thank you. Any other questions of speakers? No, thank you very much indeed. And now John H. Simp, please. Can you press the speaker over, please? That one? Thank you very much. Okay, good morning everyone. You'll hear from several people this morning including just Mike. He's now with his career professional objections and of course Bill will be speaking soon. He's one of the many long-time residents whose lives stand to be immeasurably disrupted by not only the lengthy build but also the day-to-day operation of the school. I'm a 44 year old dad with two children under seven years and I'm speaking on behalf of hundreds more parents with children aged 10 and under who already fear for their children's health and even their lives as they simply walk, cycle or scoot to one of the three local schools or are pushed in a buggy to one of the four nurseries which are only accessible via highly congested and polluted roads that surround the proposed development. But first I do want to stress as before that we applaud the council for their ambition to build a leading educational facility for children who require additional support. I, like many parents, move to Rygate for its exceptional schools. Schools with wide open spaces to play and explore, large classrooms to educate and nurture, places where children and teachers look forward to coming each day which begs the question why you are building a school that offers none of that for those who need it most. One if not all of the planning committee must recognize and object to how this proposed development will fail students and irreversibly damage the lives of those living, travelling or playing nearby. Finally I'd like to make the point that Pilgrim's Way, Beach Road and Brookes Road are private roads. Private roads maintained by residents not the public purse and I encourage you to visit Brookes Road today and see the damage that is done annually to the same section of road. The annual repair bill exceeds five thousand pence. Residents of Brookes Road and Beach Road feel they must now act to protect their asset and themselves from further losses and they will do this by closing the road between eight and nine am every weekday. In fact the Brookes Road is currently closed for repair and last night in a four minute window I witnessed some 20 vehicles making dangerous u-turns at the gate while some road users simply moved the road that closed the head sign and opened the gate causing further damage. To hell with the residents eh? If you'd like to see the video please come and see me. On Brookes Crescent where I live we are so concerned about traffic issues we have begun the process of making the road private once more. Despite the proposal for staggered drop-off times we believe the unpredictable nature of traffic flow make this a promise that cannot be one minute left. With their duty of care taxis will be forced to queue and where will they do this? On Brookes Road where you promise double yellow lines and parking enforcement? Or on Beach Road where it's barely wide enough for two vehicles and has no footpath? Or how about the congested A217 itself? No, the burden will fall to Brookes Crescent. Taxis will park and they will idle and idling vehicles create huge amounts of pollution. As Brookes Crescent leading to Albany Close cul-de-sac is not a through-fare we would expect our application to make the road private once again to be granted and as access is only needed by residents and approved contractors we would fully expect to fit an automated gate the same as can be found at Summers Close or any of the many gated communities down the A217 into Rygate. Make no mistake we are determined to protect our families and our neighbourhood and with £97,000 in the Brookes Lodge Estate Investment Company we are very well funded. With all of that in mind we invite the county's highway authority to make a new traffic assessment or even better for the council to find a more suitable venue to educate children. Thank you. Thank you very much indeed. Members? No, thank you very much. And now Christopher Selden. Am I on air? You are. Thank you. So the time will start whenever you're ready please. Councillors, I appeal to you to reject this flawed application. This application consists of 195 documents containing umpteen megabits of data and I hope that you have the time to go through it. I have and it is not light reading but it contains so many flaws that you've heard but a few from my colleagues. I live backing on to the proposed site and speak at the request of all the residents of Parkour Road and the many neighbours who will be affected if this project is approved. Badly affected people include my asthmatic neighbour and another who has a pulmonary condition, both of whom who will be affected by the bad air condition. There are young children living next to the site entrance and also my prematurely born grandsons will be with us regularly as my daughter starts her full-time work with Surrey Social Services. All will be badly all will be badly affected by the worsening pollution if this project goes ahead and the same applies to all the young pupils to be sent to this school. All Parkour Road will be affected by extra traffic, lack of replacement trees along the south west site boundaries which give us a small screen, the lack of noise protection to the west and the south and the out of keeping industrial design which will be 1.6 metres taller than the pictures you saw and that doesn't count for the solar panels which somewhere in here you will see are to be put on top of this roof. We all agree that a new RBC is needed but it should be situated on one of the other sites owned by Surrey which would overcome the major faults in the current application. We are told no sites outside RH1 and 2 were considered because that would need a full business case. If Surrey is worried that that might not get approval, what about the current application? The planning officer's report has not updated the likely project cost. That's with the few mitigations already agreed to and it glosses over the rest with words like the management plan will be prepared. Approving this project will open councillors to the threat of legal action like that in Lewisham borough where a young girl died of asthma caused by pollution. It exposes pupils and neighbours to increase dangerous crossing of Rygate Hill where a person died only three months ago because there are no safe ways to cross that road north of the crossing of the station 800 metres away. If you have any social conscience and any care for the funds that Surrey will be spending, you must reject this application and demand a new application on another site which could offer less pollution, more space, better teaching facilities, safer access and probably lower cost. Thank you. Thank you very much. Members, any questions? Nope, thank you very much indeed. And now we are on to the applicant team. So thank you residents. The applicant team, firstly there's 12 minutes cumulatively here but there's four speakers so that's still three minutes each I work out. Dave Yuridge please. And can I just check, you are from Inclusive Educational Trust. Thank you. Again whenever you're ready, thank you. Good morning, my name is Dave Yuridge and I'm the CEO of Inclusive Education Trust. I'm here today representing our families, our staff, local schools and most importantly our pupils to advocate for the planning commission of Rygate Valley College's relocation and new build on the Park Hall road site in Rygate. Our community urgently needs a purpose built alternative facilities to meet the complex needs of the pupils who by reason of illness, exclusion or otherwise may not receive suitable education unless special arrangements are made for them by the local authority or their existing schools. Locally and nationally demand for alternate provision is increasing. This is due to several factors including ongoing post-pandemic escalating incidents of childhood trauma and more complex social, emotional and mental health needs. The consequence is a growing number of pupils struggling to cope with the standard mainstream school placement. Alternate provision schools critically improve our pupils' future life chances by providing specialist support at an early age enabling them to return more quickly and successfully to full-time education with their friends and siblings in the local community. Rygate Valley College currently operates across three small sites providing 12 primary and 60 secondary school places. The current buildings are not fit for purpose. They are in poor condition which is likely to render them unusable within two years. They are too small to support the full cohort of pupils. They lack the required facilities and space to provide a suitable learning environment to offer a full primary and secondary curriculum. Being spread across three school sites creates fragmented provision, additional day-to-day school travel and business logistical challenges. Park Hall Road is the perfect site for RBC and has been established as the only technically and financially viable option to meet the site requirements within the available budget. This is supported by feedback for the pre-app discussions with the planning development team and the planning officer's recommendation to approve the application. The relocation of proposed facilities of RBC on Park Hall Road create the following benefits. Our pupils can attend school closer to home and rooted in their local community. Pupils can develop independent travel skills to use more sustainable means of travel between their home... You have one minute left. If you want you to split the time or we'll just do the three minutes. Sorry to interrupt. We'll give you a few more seconds. Thank you. Thank you. Between their home school and hence we'd like to see less vehicle demand in the future. Adequates based on site to safely accommodate all school transport arrangements. A safer school site that maintains high standards of routine safety structure and supervision. Direct access to open space areas for therapeutic support and specialist teaching and learning facilities. An architectural design that creates the space and resources for flexible teaching. This maximises opportunities for our pupils to treat great outcomes and reach their full potential and a greater sense of belonging within their own community and through involvement and service. Planning permission will enable our school to continue to change lives in the local community. Providing outstanding education and support for pupils on a journey into adulthood and meaningful employment in the future. Please don't make some of Surrey's most vulnerable pupils wait any longer for this much needed development. Thank you. Thank you very much. I'm sorry to interrupt. Members. Victor. Thank you for that. Can you just clarify who selected this site? Was it yourselves or was it Surrey County Council? It was a collaboration. Okay. Fine. And you mentioned that the current sites aren't fit for purpose. I think one of the previous speakers said that the Sidlow site was actually marginally bigger than this park hall road site. It's also on a flood plain. So half of, quite often part of the year, the field, for example, is unusable because it's completely damp and wet. But have you looked at the costs of actually redeveloping the Sidlow site then? It wouldn't be big enough to house all 72 pupils. The ground floor print isn't anywhere near the size. So I presume they're talking about when the buildings are on site. The buildings at the Sidlow bridge site are very small and there's been a lot of talk about BB104. I think the capacity should be on BB104 somewhere about 15 to 16 pupils. We've actually got about 30. Jeremy. Yeah. You mentioned that pupils would actually be able to travel to the school in ways other than taxis. What's your evidence of this? Can I actually understand what proportion of these 70-year-old will actually not be traveling by taxi? Because we just heard from one of the other speakers, there'll be 70 taxi journeys implying that each pupil will come by taxi. So could you just say what your evidence is for saying that pupils will find their way there by other means? Yeah. I've been doing this job for about 15 years. And in that 15 years, we have never had students in individual taxis. They always share taxis. On the very rare occasion, there will be a primary child that might need to be in an individual taxi, but it is rare. And therefore, the evidence that I have is that it's never happened in the last 15 years. We already work very closely with Surrey County Council and their transport team because we're obviously very aware that it's a huge transport bill if we are taxing pupils into a school. And therefore, we've worked with the council to try and create independent travel plans. So you and the parkour site where you have a train station that's down the road and bus stops on either side the road help with that independent travel. We need to work with our pupils on those factors. But at the moment, we still have pupil carriers that brings pupils into the school, sometimes with four, five, six pupils in each taxi. Catherine. Thank you, David. In terms of the pupils that you currently have, how many of them have ASD? Oh, it changes regularly because... More than half? No, probably not. Okay. But a reasonable percentage? Most of them will have SEMH, social, emotional, mental health. And alongside that, it's very difficult to pigeonhole students with needs into specific categories. Some of them will have some traits of ASD. Some of them will be ASD with traits of SEMH. But you said they were often suffering from trauma because of their experiences within schools, presumably due to unmet need? Some to unmet need. Some of it is to do with adverse childhood experiences. There's a variety of reasons why a student might end up not being able to access mainstream education. And one last question. Do you have any existing schools where you have primary and secondary pupils in the same building? Yes, we do, yeah. Thank you. Victor? Just following on from what Jeremy was saying, because you're saying that it's unlikely that pupils will be going by taxi. But on the Velocity Report, I think the council's consultant, they were saying it's 2.2 to 2.4 pupils will be going by taxi. But there was a meeting, I think consultation meeting, which is in the application pack with all the documents. And your director of education actually stated it's only going to be one per taxi. So are you wrong or is he wrong? It's a she. And I think she must have been misquoted because she's been doing that job for seven, eight years. And in that period of time, we have never had more than one student, two students per academic year who have had individual taxis. So I believe she's been misquoted. It's never been the case. We have never had more than one, and it would only ever be at primary school level. And at primary school level, we only have a pan of 12. So the very worst case scenarios would be three or four pupils. But as I said, in the time that I've been doing the job for 15 years, that has never been the case. But if that's the case and it looks like the council's consultants are wrong, incorrect then. They've painted the worst case scenario. I think that's been deliberate to paint the worst case scenario because from that point onwards, it can only get better. And as I said, we are very keen to develop our pupils' independent travel skills. So, you know, helping them with the idea of public transport rather than the reliance on taxis. Because I still have difficulty in understanding the fact that she's almost basically quoted saying it was one per taxi. So, and this is where there are so many of these anomalies within this whole report. So I don't know who to believe, quite frankly. Thank you. I think it would be right that the evidence would be there. We can demonstrate that the taxi situation that pupils do not use individual taxis. We have a transport planner coming next. Members, any other questions for the speaker? Catherine? Sorry, just one more. I'm not familiar with the area. I'm very sorry. I live on the other side of Surrey. Can you describe the location of your existing schools, just so I can understand context? Are they on main roads or are they in quieter areas? Yeah, no. So the Phoenix campus is in Redhill on Alpine Road, which is a fairly small road. But again, you know, there are transport issues around there. It was quite close to East Surrey College. The Anningham Road site is in a residential area. And again, it's not a big main road, but there is, you know, vehicle access and parking issues to the point where actually the drop off and pickup of our students from Anningham Road is, you know, probably causes more risk than the new site or in the other two sites. And the Sidlow Bridge campus, again, it's out just by Sidlow Bridge. It has parking on site for about five vehicles. We have at least 12 members of staff. The students are dropped off on a main road and have to walk along the pavement to come into the school. So the drop off facilities at the new build are far, far greater and far better. I was more asking in terms of road noise. Are you next to a busy main road that has noise issues today? Not particularly. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much. And now we have David Holdaway, please. David, I have you put forward as a transport planner. I hope that's right. You are a velocity transport planner, so you know where your questions are going to come from. Thank you. You have your three minutes starting now. Thank you. Thank you for the opportunity to address Committee. Rygate Valley College is a rare exception. Being a very small alternative provision school, the day-to-day impacts of vehicle traffic will be negligible compared to a mainstream school. On the concerns around vehicle numbers, the application assesses the worst case demand from a snapshot survey from two years ago, so in the build up to preparing the planning application that showed around 29 taxis from the equivalent of 72 pupils. Early in the stages of planning, the trust advised that the new site would generate circa two pupils per vehicle for primary-aged children and three per vehicle for secondary-aged children, so that's where we go towards the number of 26 that's quoted throughout various reports. The reality is that due to the remote learning nature and short-stay nature, online learning, the school is that no more than 62 as a maximum attendance would be on site at any one time, so we've assessed the level of traffic far greater than the number of vehicles that actually turn up any one time. Furthermore, the school travel and assessment team within Surrey, whose job it is to organise transport for schools, believe that consolidating to Park Hall Road would reduce the number of vehicles because you'd have a higher occupancy per vehicle, whether that's taxis and even, dare I say, minibuses. Much is made of the width of Park Hall Road and the risk of on-street parking, however, is keen to point out that there's no minimum policy expectation around parking and there's no requirement to contain all of the parking within the site. However, we've designed out the risk by implementing ample space on site to accommodate both the long-stay arrangements and the short-stay arrangements. We're widening both the existing access and egress points, which will help improve manoeuvrability. The majority of vehicles, because we're creating a one-way system through the site, will turn off Brookes Road and left it straight into Park Hall Road, reducing the two-way risks. And despite this, we're offering on-street parking restrictions on Park Hall Road, Brookes Road and Brookes Crescent, which was a fundamental request in terms of the feedback from residents at public consultation. In terms of the interpretation of highway design guidance, I can only say that it's ultimately for the county highway authority to assess the acceptability of these standards, since they're their own standards and they're in agreement. Refuse and service vehicles already serve Park Hall Road. In terms of the local queuing and delay that's been referenced, we've adopted industry standard practice that shows nil detriment on the local highway. And against the context of 1,000 vehicle movements on Brookes Road and over 16,000 on the A217, the level of traffic which is present on the network will pale into insignificance by comparison. We're compliant with LTP4, Healthy Streets for Surrey, and the county highway authority have raised no objection on parking safety, capacity and policy grounds. Ultimately, our assessment is deemed to be worst case, takes no account of the fact the school used to generate traffic as a care home, takes no benefit from the fact that traffic is already generated by the three schools on the highway, takes no account of the potential for independent travel or the opportunity to stagger which motion the RH29's own transport consultants recommend to be conditioned. Thank you. Members. Speaker. Thanks Edward. I keep hearing about the traffic is measurable all the time, but you know, you've got 72 going in, 72 going out, then you've got the staff cars, which are 30 in and out. So I make that about 264 journeys, additional journeys in Park Hall Road. So can you explain how that is not measurable? I think it's a good question. It's a clear, major misunderstanding with this reference to one pupil per vehicle because your 70 would come from everybody arriving in their own taxi. I've been a transport planner for 15 years, specialising in school schools nationwide, many of which are in Surrey, and see nothing like a one for one ratio, predominantly because taxis are expensive, minibuses are expensive, and there's a need to join up journeys which currently takes place. We know that RH29's own assessment references the original snapshot survey from two years ago, which shows nothing like one for one vehicle. I truly believe that we have overestimated the level of demand, which would be to the tune of 29 vehicles, and that's if all 72 were on site at any one time. We've spoken to the likes of the Safer Routes for Surrey transport team, those that organise the transport, presented our assumptions, and their view is that consolidation will only increase vehicle occupancy. So you'll see either higher numbers of pupils in taxis, or you'll start to see minibuses, and the Wai Valley Colleges of the world, so for example in Guildford, have between six and eight pupils per minibus. And finally, just on that point, there's an emerging national crisis in relation to AP schools or centre of revision, and SCN schools in terms of the cost of transport, and it is dictating policy from the perspective of increasing vehicle occupancy because it's costing absolute fortune, but also encouraging independent travel, which is good for the pupils to encourage their independence, and we're consolidating to a town centre location. If this isn't deemed to be appropriate from the perspective of active travel, the bus stops, the rail station, it's a challenging thing to be faced with, the claim this isn't sustainable, but fundamentally will generate nothing like one for one pupils per taxi. Just come back on that, because on your transport assessment statement, paragraph 6.25, you actually produced a table, 6.1, which you've actually said yourself travel modes, taxis 100%, minibuses zero, walking zero, but you've just said completely something different. That is in reference to the pre-app dialogue that took place with the trust in terms of how people historically have been travelling, the focus is on taxi travel. Those numbers there tell you that they're nothing like one for one. It's saying 100% taxi, as in the pupils will be arriving by that mode, but nothing like 60, 72 taxis generated. It's recognising that there are, at that time, 2.42 children per taxi, and that will only increase in future as the school consolidates to one site, and for reasons that I've set out. There's a lot of evidence that might be deemed to be contradictory. There's significant back and forth with the RH29 group, the motion transport reports, and if you look at this in forensic detail, it's very, very difficult to hone in on the precise number, but all the evidence and 15 years of experience, nationwide experience, salary experience, tells you that schools of this nature do not generate anything like one for one vehicles, by pupils. Jeremy. I'm sorry to bring you back. You said this would have negligible impact. Do you really think that all the people who will be sitting behind you would agree with negligible impact? And certainly from what I'm hearing Victor talking about, this is not negligible impact. So could you just help me with that? Why do you say negligible impact? Yeah. So, I mean, I've sat in a similar position talking about the Merson Park schools of the world have 900 pupils that were recently consented and actually generate significant volumes of traffic, and there is no comparison. We are talking about one of the smallest schools in Surrey, the smallest in my career. The schools already exist. It's difficult because clearly one's in Redhill to take access off the 8217 further down on Cockshott Hill. All of that traffic is already on the network somewhere locally, and from a guidance on transport assessment perspective, we have to assess the impact of the additional traffic. We appreciate that the road network, the Redhill 8217 is affected by the level crossing and the platoons of traffic, but the evidence from the drone footage clearly doesn't show gridlock traffic. It shows queuing southbound as we know, but many other junctions that take access off of Cockshott Hill, Rygate Hill, they're still functioning. They have significantly more traffic than Brokes Road, but still function daily. Vehicles move on, people still commute to work, but the level of traffic we're talking about for this very, very small school is deemed negligible, and that's also been concluded from the violence response. Thank you. Anybody else? No. Thank you very much indeed. Thank you. And now we have Mark Ellison, please. Mark, I have you down as Holmes Miller Architects. That's correct. Yep, architect for the project. Good morning, everyone. The design of Rygate AP school has been developed through close collaboration with Surrey County Council of Capital Projects and education teams, but more importantly, the Equals of Education Trust, who will operate the facility. So extensive engagement, the site of Park Hall Road and the design solution both meets the exacting requirements of the school staff and pupils, and will ensure that teaching and support spaces offer the optimal environment for individual learning support and pupil development. Internally, the building provides dedicated areas for both primary and secondary school pupils, which are accessed from individual entrances from within the main school facade. This approach allows the school to present a single identity, whilst providing entry points to the school that are appropriate for each age range, offering a nurturing and inviting arrival. Primary school classrooms are located on the ground floor, allowing pupils direct access to the south-facing playground and outdoor teaching spaces. Secondary classrooms are distributed across the ground and first floors, with practical teaching areas provided with direct access to school grounds. All internal spaces have been developed with reference to the Department for Education output specification document, with delegations only to suit the specific requirements and ambitions of the project, indeed the Trust. The building will be finished in red, multi-tunnel brickwork, not dissimilar to the current care home that occupies the site. Soldier course detailing and dark red metal work and facade features have been used to bring interest and articulation. Crucially, however, the building form and site arrangement maximise available outdoor space for pupils, whilst allowing the benefits of passive design to be harnessed. The school is anchored towards the northwest corner of the site, occupying part of the footprint of the current care home and maintaining significant distances in excess of 35 metres between the school facade and surrounding closest dwellings. External activities, such as the team sports within the multi-use games area, have been purposely positioned towards the eastern boundary, away from residential properties, whilst outdoor learning spaces have been arranged close to the building. To natural screening from the surrounding mature landscape, alongside use of acoustic treatments to the perimeter of the playground, the school is provided with a secure boundary and an active playground that falls within noise parameters as advised by the County Noise Consultant. Air quality has also been assessed through monitoring data and air quality contouring of the proposed sites. The assessment, which aligns with the County Air Quality Consultant's requirements, concludes that air quality levels within the site are suitable for placement of a sense of development, such as the school proposed, and that the impact of surrounding local air quality as a consequence of development is negligible. Finally, the design includes renewable technologies to ensure that the new school operates at net zero carbon operation status, including a flat roof design with photovoltaic panel insulation, classrooms facing north-south to optimise internal daylighting and bring controlled solar gain, a highly insulated near-tight envelope to maintain internal temperatures and mitigate heat loss, and an innovative timber frame construction with enhanced fabric performance. In conclusion, the building presented to you today is a result of intensive stakeholder consultation, ensuring that whilst aligning with national guidance for education design, the school has been tailored to meet the exacting requirements of staff, pupils, and presents a well-considered contextual... I'm sorry, but I'm going to have you taking in at other time. Thank you. Thank you. Members. Catherine. As an architect, you have expressed the fact that the mugger has been located away from the residential properties, but that also of course places it closer to the road, and closer to the road noise, and closer to the air pollution that comes from the road. You've also stated that it ties in with the local vernacular. I have to say, having been there recently, and having a daughter who is also an architect, I struggle greatly with the fits with the local vernacular. Please can you explain how the red box ties in with the local vernacular, please? I think the key thing is the materiality, obviously looking at brickwork as a final finish. Not often a finish that schools across the country can afford, but a material that's being used for this particular building to blend in with the materiality of the surrounding housing. The use of the flat roof, whilst it is not a pitched roof towards the surrounding housing, is key in terms of creating obviously a solution that managed with the photovoltaic panels up beyond the roof, and actually helping reduce some of the height of the building, which would be up to kind of nine and a half meters with a gable facing towards the front of the roadway. Beyond that choice around materiality, in terms of articulation of brickwork, looking at the soldier course detailing, looking at the choice of cladding panels, marrying in with what would be previous metal work on the care home, are all cues that we've taken to try and help blend this building in. But it's recognizing it is not a house, it is a school building. And with that, there needs to be a bit of a celebration in terms of what pupils arrive at and what staff get to enter every day. So we've made a focus of the entrance, we've made a bit of a gesture around the main entrance into the building, and we've made sure that things like window openings actually give a bit of identity to each of the spaces in the classrooms within the playground space. So it's those things that we felt have actually tried to complement the site and tie this building into its location. And just send your response and your response regarding the mugger? The nugger, without claiming to be an air quality assessment or a noise consultant, we've taken advice from both those key parties in designing the site. Doing the mugger to the eastern side, it means we can actually keep the south-facing outdoor teaching spaces sheltered from some of the noise the pupils may create when they're playing sports within that location. So it's using the site for the appropriate purpose, keeping areas for group work close to the building and putting the sports stuff towards the eastern side. We've got a noise consultant report which shows that actually the mugger wouldn't be exceeded of 60 decibels in noise impact when pupils are in that space, which aligns with what the noise consultant requirements are for the project. And equally from an air quality perspective, we are sitting within the UK air quality standards limit and in fact are between 54 and 70 percent below that limit in terms of what the site is currently offering. So the nugger process in that location is still considered below the limits of what a school site would demand. Hearing what you say about the building design, I must admit I've always thought from design guides over the years the property opposite was more sorry vernacular with the talhunk elevations and I'm still trying to get my mind around. I get that the building is a function of its use, if the building is in it is a wraparound, it's the envelope for the use, but somehow I just feel that that in itself, I think it just struck me as somewhat harsh to sit in that street scene where you have a solid brick facade and it isn't reflected on any of the approaches that we have. What were the pressures, can I ask, what were the pressures that encourage you to come up with this design? I'm not an architect, so I'm a surveyor, so you know I've spent 40 years in the built environment, so I have a little bit of background in design, but you know just wanting to know what the pressures were. I think one of the key pressures is designing sustainably and I think that's what this building does. I think we could create a large pitch volume, put a pitch roof on the building, increase the volume of space within the school itself and give the trust a larger volume to then heat over the course of the 50-year term this building will hopefully be in occupation for. So in all our examples we're looking at passive design measures that the first principle is putting the building so the classrooms are facing north south, so actually we've got natural solar gain coming into the classrooms, reducing dependency on lighting within the space. We're using DFE guidance which by default goes to a flat roof design in principle, so you can actually get up to what is a substantial portable takeaway upon the roof of this building, which will cover for the bulk of the unregulated negative energy sources in the building, but also make sure that someone can actually get onto that roof to maintain all those bits of kit. So there's a full parapet to the surrounding roof scape. The roof itself is actually 1.2 meters lower than the 8.5 that's in the documentation because we've got the 1.2 meter high parapet round there for safe access and then beyond that it is trying to make a building look fit for purpose, so it's putting a single-story element where primary school kids are located so it's got a more intimate feel to that element of the building. It's looking at stepping the facade back, we're putting a pergola in so you've got a nice south-facing space for children to enjoy for a kind of lunchtime or kind of morning meal, but putting something prominent in the front because the school and the kids are proud to be in this building, so it's not going to hide itself away, it's going to announce the fact that there is a civic building to be in, but we felt because of the setback from the street and because we're retaining all those mature trees to the boundary of the site, actually the building's more of a foil to the landscape that's sitting in front of it, but we've got a chance to put a bit of signage up there, we've got a chance to show some identity and hopefully create a building that indeed the public can be proud of. Just touching on to the flat roof, it's not flat is it, I mean there's what is it going to be, six percent pitch or something like that? It's a flat roof. Yeah, so I hate that roof, but it makes a lot of sense in having the solar panels up there rather than elsewhere. What is the, what is your estimated lifespan of the roof, the flat roof? Generally working to 25 years of a guarantee across the flat roof. Thank you. Victor? Thanks Edward. You may reference that you're following Department for Education guidance, but in terms of the actual building, the guidance is that the classroom should be a minimum of 2.7 metres high, and the recommended average is 3.3 metres, but your proposal is 2.6 metres, so why are you not following Department for Education guidance in this case? You've got to look at your application of the Department for Education guidance, of which we've been doing for a number of years now. These pupils will be taught in groups of two and three, and so you default to an SCN or therapy type space for those particular types of teaching, and the Department for Education guidance specification falls to 2.4 as minimum for those spaces, and we're above that, generally 2.55, moving up, as you say, to 2.6. So everything we've tried to say this morning is around the fact this building's been crafted for the school, not just applying broad blush approach from Department for Education standards. You need to understand the way the school's going to be taught. You need to understand the pupils that are going to be within it. You need to understand how the teaching staff will use the spaces and then did that design appropriately, so you choose the best parts of BB104 and the output specification and apply them to your design solution. So I'm basically saying because of the nature of these children, they don't qualify for a 2.7 metre at all? Not saying that at all, no. I'm saying that what you want for groups of two or three is a more intimate space, which is what BB104 and the output specification recommend, that you go to a space that's more appropriate for the purpose, but it's a smaller classroom size and a smaller ceiling height, which lends itself to more therapeutic teaching. If it was a larger classroom for a larger group of people where you want additional volume, you'd go to the 2.7. So are you saying all these classrooms are very, very small? I'm saying they've been designed as therapy spaces. So every single classroom would be a therapy space? Agreed, yeah. Okay. Jeremy? I was only going to echo, I mean, the point you made, I don't think it's designed personally. It fits very well with its environment. And it's language again. We've had the word negligible use. We now have the word celebration. And in my mind, as a member of the Children's Committee of Surrey, I don't think the children arriving here will be celebrating anything much. So that's all I would say. Right, okay. Not a planning issue, but we'll let that slip. You wouldn't understand why people say to the jury, ignore that comment. Anyway, members, do you have any other questions of the speaker? Thank you very much indeed. And now we have Lucy Mortimer. You're speaking, I'll leave you to say who you're speaking on behalf of. Time will start whenever you're ready. Thank you. Okay, so yeah, I will be speaking on behalf of an ex-student Brooke who is unable to join us today because she's unable to get time off work. So I will speak exactly her words. Hey, everyone, my name is Brooke Hamer. I joined Ridegate Valley College in September 2020. I was one of those pupils who got kicked out of school. I was angry, I was lost, and I really didn't care about anything. I thought my life was over. I was just drifting, not knowing where I was going or what I was going to do. I felt like I was invisible, like nobody cared. And honestly, I was scared. But then I came to Ridegate Valley College. At first, I was scared and didn't know what to expect. But the teachers and staff, they really cared. They helped me with my schoolwork, but they also helped me with my problems. They listened to me, they believed in me, and they gave me a second chance. They didn't just see a problem kid, they saw a person with potential. They helped me learn how to control my anger, how to manage my stress, and how to build positive relationships. They taught me that I had worth and that I mattered. Because of Ridegate Valley College, I've got a job now. I'm working hard and I'm proud of myself. I've got a future now. That's something I thought I'd never have. Ridegate Valley College is really important to our community. It's a place where young people who are struggling can get the support they need to turn their lives around. It's a place where they can find hope and believe in themselves again. But the current buildings aren't good enough. It's old, it's not safe, and it doesn't really show the amazing work that goes on inside. Obviously deserve buildings that are fit for purpose, buildings that students and staff can be proud of. Every young person deserves to have a positive place to learn, especially those who are most vulnerable. Ridegate Valley College is a shining example of what a supportive and caring school can be. It's a place where amazing staff and students come together to create something truly special. I'm so grateful for Ridegate Valley College. It's changed my life and I cannot thank them enough. Thank you. Thank you. Very powerful. I'm not really going to ask the committee, but Geoffrey once has a question. Well, I just wanted to say I thought that was really moving testimony. Just to clarify, you're giving us, are you not, positive comments about school that's closing. And how can you feel confident that what is being proposed is going to replace that satisfactory and is going to fulfill the kind of requirements this person is talking about? Just help us a bit with that. Well, I think that what Brooke is speaking about is that the ethos of the school, the staff in the school, the way that we make the students feel valued. And I think what she's saying is that in spite of the facilities that we have been given, we've made that happen. So I think we can only do better with better. And sadly, the buildings that we're in, we have to mitigate against. We have to explain to visiting parents that, okay, we're not the prettiest, but actually come on in. We've got a lot of heart. We've got lovely displays. We do our best with it. But actually, they are inadequate and they send the message to the young people that that's okay. You don't deserve anything better. So I think that's the message really is that we've been able to do successfully in spite of our buildings, but to come together, all three schools, to pool our resources, our experience, to have something where the message is that the kids are good enough, that they deserve that, will only improve our offer. Thank you. Thank you very much indeed for coming. Thank you. Members, that is the end of the presentations to us. And I will now open the item up to the members for any comments they may wish to make. And if there's any questions of the officers. So members, it's over to you now. This is for questions, comments, statements. It is your time, Ernest, as members of the committee to make comment. John, you go first. Yes, thank you. I probably like a lot of the other members. Very mixed feelings. I have two step-grandchildren who are autistic. The schooling and the education was very poor. Surrey could offer no facilities in my area. And this is where we are, aren't we? It is entirely criticised for Surrey because we haven't got those facilities in the amount that we want. So I am all for, obviously, in promoting facilities for specialised children. However, I can also understand that when you do this, you have to bear in mind the neighbours. My problem, therefore, is do I go for schooling and education and increase Surrey's opportunity to do this because those school buildings we've heard at present are not suitable. They're going to be knocked down. So we're liable to lose that. We haven't heard much of any alternative sites. So looking at the neighbours, if we passed this, have we spoken to the enforcement parking teams and the local police to make sure that if there was any lines or whatever put down that we would want to do for safety? Have they agreed to police this from day one to make sure that it does work? James? Yes, fundamentally, Surrey County Council is able to enforce against infringements on traffic regulation orders. Of course, as I mentioned, the final detail of what those restrictions would look like would be subject to consultation with local residents. But is the highway authority's view on assessing these proposals that while those yellow lines are very beneficial, without them, we don't think that there would likely be a material impact on highway safety that could result from these proposals. So alongside all of that, we have conditions of car park management plan to be included, which allows us as the highway authority to monitor what's going on on the site that covers not just how people are traveling to and from the site and whether the car park is functioning adequately, but also the mode share of people coming to the site. So what I'm trying to say is there are actually multiple angles via which we do have powers to monitor the situation and then take action if issues do arise. Thank you. Ernest? Thank you, Mr Chairman. I don't have questions, but I do have a view. As far as I'm concerned, there's only one reason for refusing this application and it's not a planning reason, so it's really out of the window. I mean, I think we would, from a financial point of view, from Surrey's financial point of view, I would have preferred to see this site developed as an intensive housing estate and a site found elsewhere, because the value of housing on this site will far exceed the cost of finding another site. But that is not a planning reason, it's just a view I've got which some higher up people in the county ought to be considering when they're looking at what land county owns. As far as this application is concerned, I find it difficult to find any reasons for objection. The point is, really, on residential problems, that most schools are entirely, for reasons where that's where their pupils come from, they're entirely in residential roads and they're often in very, very squashed roads and there's nothing new about a school being in a road that is a residential road. And in fact, if you look at the figures for this, I mean, you know, we're talking about 72 pupils. Even if that turns out to be 92 or 102, it hardly matters. I mean, there's not really a school that Surrey has today, and if they have, they're quickly changing it, that's less than 450 pupils. And the new school near me is for 950. I mean, you know, it defies belief that people are actually objecting to 72 pupils who are only going to be there between 9 and 2 p.m. and 1.30 on Fridays, five days a week. I mean, you know, what's all this fuss about vehicles, numbers and so on? This is a very, in terms of educational facility, this is a very minor development. In terms of the design, the design is not brilliant. I mean, I have to say that, and anybody would, because basically the people who build schools these days seem to be gone, shall we say, maybe for financial reasons on flat, flat roofs, or no roofs at all, really, in that sense, no normal roofs. We've got it where I live, we've got it on every new school in Elmridge that I've had to do with, and it's an educational fact. Now, the other main problem with schools, and it's obviously less with this because of the low numbers, is something I've campaigned for on this council ever since I've been here, is pick up and drop off facilities. I've only been successful, I have to say, on one school out of the many that we've had through this committee, because the county considers that, rightly or wrongly, that schools pick up and drop off times, you get congestion, and the county, generally speaking, has a policy, and probably other counties do too, that that's inevitable, and so you do have congestion at pick up and drop off times. But there does seem to be, on this design, some arrangement for pick up and drop off, not necessarily perfect, but better than is normally provided. I mean, I do have to say to the public that it's not normal for the education department with its schools to concern itself with onsite pick up and drop off. It's something that I have a thing about. I've got it on one school, the Hurst Park School in Molsey, we failed to get it on a similar, much bigger and more difficult school in Esha, and we failed, generally, to persuade the education departments needed. So it's not something that we can actually say to the public, yes, we can provide adequate pick up and drop off. It has to be accepted that for a short time in a day, schools do produce congestion outside them. But then this is a very minor situation. We've come back to the fact 72 pupils, and even if it's 102, it doesn't matter, five and a half days, four and a half days a week. So really and truly, from a planning point of view, if we look across Surrey and we compare this with any other school, and what the normal situation is, this is actually very minor. So I know there's a lot of objection to it, but really and truly, you could be having a school here for 300 at least, or 450 or whatever, and you could be in a lot more difficulty than you think you're going to have. So that's the score. If you live next to a school, as many people do, you have to put up with it. But it's only a small thing during the day. So on that basis, I support this application. Thank you. Thank you, Ernest. Can I just pick up a point to the officers, please? There's a bit of a flip, I can say, change between numbers. We're told 72 spaces, but it's not nailed down. Is that correct? By which you mean there's no condition imposed limiting that? Is that what you're referring to? Yes. There isn't one tabled at the moment. It's not been the view of officers that that is necessary as planning conditions are there to mitigate harm that we view as occurring. And obviously, the recommendation of the officers is that there is not harm occurring that requires that condition. Ultimately, the decision maker today is the committee. If the committee were so minded to impose a condition, then that's something obviously they could consider in their discussions. But yeah, it could go in earnest 102. There's nothing to stop it. And that is the additional traffic, teachers, traffic, et cetera. So yeah, I would park that at the moment and see what the view of the committee is at the moment. Now, I think Jeremy was next. Yeah, can I say some questions arising from the speakers? Can I talk about air quality? Who can answer me? Assertions have been made about air quality. I'd like to know what the situation is about air quality. I do know this stretch of road very well. I've queued from the top of Rygate Hill to the gates many, many times in the 30-odd years I've lived around here. So could someone help me with this issue of air quality? Because it connects with Catherine's point about the mugger being adjacent to the 8217. So I'd like someone to help me with what is the correct way to look at this. The other point was the gentleman said about children coming from the roads around here to the 8217 crossing and so on. Has that been worked out? And what is the population of children who are making their way to the 8217 to cross to the schools elsewhere in Rygate or whatever? Those are the two things I'd like to know a few bits about, please. So in terms of air quality, the officer report covers this in quite some detail. And it starts at paragraph 136. And the applicant has submitted an air quality assessment with the application, which looks at the impact of additional vehicle movements on the local area and also the impact of that existing road and air pollution in that area on the users of the site. As the planning agents said in his speech, those assessments have been critically looked at by the county air quality consultant. And they're not raising any concern in terms of the figures of nitrogen or PM10 or PM2.5, which is the pollutants that we're looking for in terms of the impact on air quality. Residents in their objection to the proposal are looking at the World Health Organization targets. And that's where this issue is coming from in terms of their concern about air quality. But they're not targets. They're adopted in UK policy. And they're not what this application should be assessed on. So overall, in terms of air quality, we are satisfied that the placement of the outdoor spaces and the site-- Sorry, can you please let the officer speak? Thank you. Overall, the site has been demonstrated as suitable for the proposed occupiers. And it's been demonstrated that there wouldn't be an adverse impact from air pollution on the users of these outdoor spaces and the residents within the facility of the site as a result of the proposal. In terms of air quality impacts along the main road itself, along the AT17, we see highway authority, not air quality experts. We can only really talk about the change in levels of traffic and what might represent any sort of significant or material change. The figures we have to remind ourselves of is that we do have that in excess of 16,000 movements along a section of road already there in the day. Adding up to 162 does not appear to represent, in our eyes, as the highway authority and material change in that regard. I do have to, though, stress not an air quality expert in that regard, simply from the highway authority perspective. In terms of pedestrian routing to the site, there's certainly a nuance when it comes to how we assess SCN and AP-type provision. There is an acceptance that the majority of these students are not going to be, unfortunately, traveling via active modes. However, we do very much encourage that to be maximized as possible. I would say, to be honest, the majority of SCN-type placements are less sustainably located than this, by which I mean further from town centers with less existing infrastructure in place. It is quite a way to the south of the site, but there is a zebra crossing as you get further into the town center. Would it be possible for pedestrian connectivity along there to be improved? Yes. This application, not doing it, doesn't represent a material reason that this application should be refused in my west homes. There is another point that was not directly pertinent to your question, but that's been discussed a lot, that I thought it might be just worth clarifying a little bit, which is around the assumed mode share. I just want to note that the assumptions on that mode share that are being put forward, an approximate average of, say, the 2.42 children per vehicle, these are very consistent with the assumptions that have been applied to other SCN and AP school placements that have been to this authority and have been accepted in recent years, so it's not inconsistent with what we expect otherwise. Thank you. Sorry for the extra point. Thank you for that. Catherine. Thank you, Chair. I also feel very conflicted. The need for AP places is very clear, particularly because we have an increasing issue with unmet need in mainstream schools, and we do have, therefore, an increasing number of children that are not able to attend mainstream schools. However, I am concerned by the fact that even looking at the officer's report in terms of noise, we started from a position of the noise was not acceptable. We've ended with a position of, it can be, or it's likely to be mitigated by a 2.4-meter-high closed-board fence, and that the noise levels would be below 60 decibels. Well, 60 decibels is quite high for a child with ASD, and my experience of APs, cognizant of what was said by the presenter, but my experience of APs is actually a large number of children who attend APs in my local area do have ASD and are extremely sensitive to noise, particularly loud, sudden noise. So it's not the continuous noise that the 2.4-meter barrier would mitigate. It's the fact that there's a lorry driving down the road and it goes clunk as it goes over something on the road or there's an accident or whatever else. So I am deeply concerned about the idea of building an AP facility immediately next to a main road and particularly having listened to the architect talking about the fact that the position of that mugger is deliberate to take it away from the residential area, and I genuinely am really struggling with that. But the other thing I'm also struggling with is obviously within, and sorry, and I should say that there's nothing in the officer's report that talks about whether or not the nature of the occupants of the building has been considered in terms of that type of road noise negatively impacting on the population of these children. You know, we have talked a lot about the noise and the impact on the residents, which is one concern, but actually as, you know, I don't sit on children's, but I sit on the corporate parenting board, and unfortunately a lot of the kids who end up in care have come through a lot of these AP facilities. That's just the way it works, you know, and I know the nature of the children that end up there, and I have real concerns about the fact that we're taking school provision, which I think it was Lucy, if it wasn't Lucy, I'm really sorry I forgot your name wrong, and spoke very passionately about the really good work that's done by these AP provisions, but therefore we should be doing the best for these children, not a compromise for these children. So I really would like to understand whether or not the noise levels in relation to the types of children that will be at this school has been considered, because having read papers recently on the requirements specifically for this group of children at length, you know, I am really worried about the noise, and I would like your view as an officer, and then I'd also really like to talk about the fact that, you know, the officer's report is very clear that it's a non-domestic appearance of a building, you know, and as far as I can tell, reading through this report, it's very finely balanced whether it's the right building in the right place or not, and I have to say having been to the site and having looked across at the building immediately opposite the school and looked around and looked at the drawings that are sitting in front of me, I cannot see any relationship between the buildings on that side and this side, and I completely understand that it's the school, I really do, and there are some interestingly designed schools appearing in Surrey, I'll use that phrase, but I mean this is right in the middle of, you know, it's right next to residential areas, and actually the care home blends in really well, and I'm not at all convinced this does, but I would really like to understand how that, how close or finely balanced do you think that balance is as a group of officers, because I have to say having looked at it, I feel really uncomfortable. So just those two points, please. So before they get answered, can I just pick up the point Catherine's making about appearance. I know when we last did our annual tour around the decisions, and there was one building we looked at, and I think this is what's niggling away at me here, one building we looked at, and we just felt, you know, we often hear, what is it, curb appeal, when we looked at this building, we felt, you know, with a little bit of work, it could be made to look really nice, and it just looked down there, and this is where we were, this is for older children, and we're putting them in there, and we just felt, and I think that's what I'm niggling away at me, other than the simple fact that, you know, the building's the house opposite. I hope, I don't know the residents here, but it's a very nice house, and it's, you know, it's, that is what looking at that, and it just does not sit in there, but sorry, I rather jumped in there, but that was my, one of my points. Does anyone want to pick up Catherine's? Yes, I'll do a sort of initial general response, and then Katie will come in with some sort of more hard facts, because she knows the actual detail better than I, but I think on the point around noise, as Katie can perhaps expand on, that the nature of the use, and therefore the end user, has been considered, and part of our discussions, and as you alluded to in your comment, obviously there was a series of iterations gone through in relation to noise, in particular, because of what the standards should be, and what we were concerned about in relation to how that might impact the nature of this end use. On the point of design, as is correctly pointed out, it is a non-domestic building by its sheer nature, by what it's going to be. It is a matter of balance, and that's ultimately a question for the decision maker, which is the committee today. I would point out two things in that consideration, potentially more than two. One is, it was an atypical site anyway. Now members may have a view as to how more successful, or less successful, the building that was the previous care home was in assimilating into the area, but also need to be careful when thinking about the impact on character. It's not simply a directive to replicate the existing area, so when you're saying the comparison to the house opposite, it's about how it may sit within that context, but it's always going to have a dissimilarity by the nature of the existing building that was on the site. But the question is whether or not that is harmful. That's the point for the committee. It may look different, but is that harmful as the point that needs to be considered? The view of officers is clearly that it's not harmful. There's mitigation in the sense of the setback from the site, landscaping still around the boundaries, and the view of officers that ameliorates some of that difference that there might be between the proposed building and the wider area, but ultimately that's for the committee to wrestle with. I think the other point is coming to the point of balance, and members have alluded to this as well, is of course the need to balance those considerations against the wider points around need and the overarching benefits of the scheme that are presented as well. Katie may just want to sort of add on some of the points around noise as well. Yeah, if I just come back on the noise aspect, so it was raised with the applicant team recently that we were concerned initially with the elevated noise levels in those external areas of the site. And so this acoustic screen was proposed. Initially it was to be implemented on the eastern boundary, which reduced the noise levels within the site by, sorry, not on the eastern boundary of the perimeter of the site, the eastern boundary of the Mooga and the outdoor play spaces. And that reduced the levels in the site by four decibels. That didn't bring them down to the level of the recommended guidance. The acoustic fence has been extended along the southern boundary, and that now brings the noise levels within the site down below 60, which is the guidance. And the majority of the play spaces are now at a level of 50 to 55, which is considered acceptable from the county noise consultants perspective. When it was raised with the applicant, we are guided by the requirements of their students, and they haven't raised any concern about these elevated noise levels and the impact on those students, and consider that now the noise levels are brought down to an acceptable level that is acceptable for the students that would use that space. Just to come back on the character issue as well, I think we need to be mindful that this area of Rygate is not protected for its landscape characteristics. It is an urban environment with a mix of different styles, and there are flat roofs as well as four-story buildings, so there's no defined particular style that could be adopted for this proposal. Jeffrey, you've been very patient. Thank you, Chair. Like others, I'm concerned about various aspects of this, less concerned about others, and somewhat conflicted, but I just wanted to come back and pick away at the issue you raised over the conditioning on pupil numbers, because I think Sian indicated that it would be possible to do that. I was wondering whether it would be, but maybe you can just clarify. I mean, we're dealing later on today with a situation where the role has grown beyond the capacity of the school to accommodate it, and I'm just wondering why that wouldn't happen in this case. I mean, one of the people who was in favor of the school talked about the requirement for this provision constantly increasing, so I don't know why we wouldn't assume that that increase in the requirement for the provision might make this grow. And then on whether or not it matters whether it grows, well, Ernest averred that so what if it grows to 102? Well, I just question that as possibly a rather complacent way of looking at it. I would say the overall number in the school is probably much more significant here than it is in other contexts. I mean, one of the other people who spoke in favor of this school talked about seminars in small groups, the way that teaching would mostly happen in rooms with low ceilings, et cetera, et cetera. Well, if we're going to kind of talk up this concept as a celebratory thing, then we have to defend that concept, and that concept is indefensible in the context of the school, which is just allowed to grow. And Catherine also talked about ASD pupils and others with particular identified needs, and we have to think about the impact upon them of allowing this school to just grow. So if it were not possible to condition the number of pupils that the school should contain, then saying the number 72 over and over again is irrelevant. It's just an irrelevant number. So I think I don't know what we're moving towards in terms of approval or not of this application, but if we were moving towards approval, then I'd be prepared to move an appropriate condition that this school should not grow beyond 72 pupils. Yeah, thank you on that, Geoffrey. Let Chris come in first, and then, yeah. Thank you, sir. I think this subject was always going to lead us to a series of conflicts, and I suppose in many ways just feelings as to what's being thrown at us. I mean, there are, to me, no clear planning reasons to refuse, but by the same virtue, no clear planning reason to accept it. I think, in many ways, is possibly the right-minded building, but in the wrong place. I am concerned with, obviously, I am concerned with what Catherine raised with ASD, because, you know, understanding how a sudden noise can be very disruptive, and we're talking about noise, I don't like conditions to get around a problem, and obviously there is a problem with noise there. Putting an acoustic fence in, yes, it does get rid of the background noise. It levels it out, but it won't suffice for somebody who is very sensitive towards noise, and that concerns me. I seem to recognise at the moment that Surrey is getting to grips with the amount of properties that it has, if you like, and I use the term loosely, lying around, and which have been unused for many years. I am surprised that they couldn't have perhaps found a slightly better siting for this, because, you know, the pupils in this school do have special needs, and they should be the priority, I think, of the council. You know, we're looking at the style of the building. The building is going to have to be used in some manner to make it viable for 40 years, and maybe in 40 years' time this will be the norm, I don't know, but, you know, we're taking a chance on that. I haven't actually made up my mind which way to go, so I'm quite happy to listen to a few more comments, but it is a conflict for me, and I would very much like to think that if it was refused or if there was mitigations put on it by the committee, there was a hope that another site would come forward very quickly. I'm not at all certain that that is the case, so that is, sort of, not a planning reason, but it's in the back of my mind. Thank you, Jack. Thank you. Just responding on the condition, but also just on one point, just as Council Farr was just referencing it, as a Regulation 3 application, it would be deferred back to the applicant rather than refused, so if the committee were not minded to go with the officer's resolution and someone proposed an alternative resolution, what would be the cases that they would cite? You would cite concerns that would be deferred back to the applicant, just for clarity, so members are aware of that context. On the point of the condition, again, sort of go partly to Council Farr's point there, you should use a condition to avoid a reason for refusal, so you should use a condition if that can get around the problem that you have with an application. That's what the Planning Practice Guidance instructs us to do. The reason, and officers haven't put forward a condition regarding limits is, as I said, our recommendation is that the application is acceptable and we're not finding any harm arising from it. There is a self-limiting element to the site, as we've heard, there's particular constraints around the use and the nature of the end users that mean, unlike perhaps other schools that members have in their mind that may be in more mainstream fields that have expanded and expanded, that may place some limitations on actually how many pupils would ever be able to attend the site. Notwithstanding that, if it was in the mind of members that they felt that a condition limiting the total number of pupils was necessary to render the scheme acceptable, then one could be imposed. What we would need to understand is the reason for that, so what is the harm that that condition is seeking to mitigate? It might be saying to ensure that there is no unacceptable impact on the highway or to ensure that there is no unacceptable impact on residential immunity or such, but it would be technically possible to impose such a condition if that was minded to members. Thank you for that, yeah, I'm quite, like saying I started this one and Jeffrey linked, we've all picked this one up and Jeffrey agreed that, I mean, I personally think that we should have a condition and the reason being that I would float, subject to the committee agreeing that in the first place, that is in the event that the approval is given for the application, is that we are building, the building is at finite size and the specialist nature of that building and the lessons and the work that that building will be exercised, will be carried out, it limits the number of pupils that it should have and therefore that to me is one of the reasons it is on a restricted site. I mean, we know because land is scarce in England, specifically in Surrey, but my point and I think here is that we have a building of a finite side, it is a specialist school, it is not one that the walls can be moved around, a demountable rooms, it's a specialist school and it should be restricted and it also would limit the other side, the amount of traffic, which is obviously of concern to people, the amount of traffic that's coming to it. Those are the suggestions I would put forward in the event that the committee agrees that, but that's why I would float that. Jeffrey and I know Victor wants to come in after you. I agree with that and when Sian says that it is self limiting, how is it self limiting? I mean, what you're describing is a situation where if the limit were to be exceeded, that would have serious consequences for the educational outcomes for the people there, but when you say it's self limiting, you're not describing a process by which it is limited, so that's why I think the condition is probably necessary. Jeffrey, sorry Victor. Thanks Edward. Just moving on to something different, in paragraph 46 of the application, you're saying that a detailed search has been carried out of all other available sites and that Parkour Road was the only viable one in terms of location, but nowhere in the application does it give details of any other sites that you've looked at and reasons for dismissing these sites, and there's no alternative site assessment either, so I just want to know where is this or why was Parkour Road chosen, because quite frankly, I could see a very good site just here behind me and I don't know why that would be chosen. Chairman, if I may respond and then Katie may come in a bit more detail. No, she's fine. It's not our job as the planning officers to select the site, we have a site presented to us, so I can't speak to the education team or other parts of the council which are tasked with that. The application in front of the committee and the application that planning officers have assessed is whether or not this proposal is acceptable on this site. Now part of the reasoning given is talking about the fact that a site assessment has been done, but that is not the responsibility of the planning team to carry that out and review other sites. It is part of the justification presented by the applicant. See, that concerns me because I was here on the Wargate Priory School application and there an alternative site assessment was produced and it listed all the sites that have been covered. So that's why it surprises me that nothing is here in this application and because you'd make reference to it, if you can make reference to it, surely you should provide a detail behind that because you know there's quite a few people who are wondering why you're not using the site behind and why that hasn't been considered. And if you make reference to it in the report, you produce a detail because it almost feels like you don't want us to know the detail. The references in the officer's report refer to what is presented to us in the planning statement. As I say, anything beyond that as to other considerations of alternative sites that might be within the consideration of other parts of the council aren't relevant. What officers are referring to is what is contained within the application documentation and I think the alternative sites reference comes to the planning statement. Thank you. Right, I have one question and then I'm going to put something forward. This is, in terms of the MPPF, a pre-developed site and government policy, although it is gradually coming forward, the government are now saying to us that we should be putting more on the sites in terms of details. To my mind this is a site in the middle of residential area, it is the pre-developed land and therefore a case could be made for developing this site for the school. Having said that, I'm going to park that section. My other part is that, like everybody else, I'm torn on this one. Yes, we're desperate for facilities, we're desperate for to help the poor, you know, helpful to help encourage and bring forward, you know, the comment from the Rygick Valley College, you know, that is so powerful. That says why we should be providing a facility. Is this facility in the right location? On balance, I have to say, I think not. I personally, my own view, and I'm struggling to put this, I mean Ernest didn't always say, I'm struggling to put this down as in planning terms, but I feel I'm just going to say, you know, the two points here. I think personally the use is inappropriate in this location. My other point is, Charles Grant rightly said it's a matter of judgment on terms of the building and the appearance. My judgment, sitting on this committee, is that the building as set out there, shown, would be harmful to the environment of the area. Those are my two points, and therefore I'm, the utmost reluctance, I will be saying, and it is totally up to the committee, I do not want this to be taken as a lead, but I will be referring this back to the party. Now, on that, I'm going to ask, you know, a lot of work and a lot of people, you know, have come forward, and which I thank everybody for, but I am going to say, members. Thank you, Mr Chairman. Sorry, I just wanted to reiterate what your development team manager was explaining earlier in terms of the referring back for members who might just need, it would be useful to have a reminder, because what the code of best practice says, the code that Surrey members have signed up to, in any case where the planning and regulatory committee is minded to refuse a planning application for county council development, it will refer the application back to the applicant with the grounds for refusal, which would apply were it to determine the application. And the reason for that is that this will provide the applicant with an opportunity to reconsider the application in discussion with the planning group or planning development manager before deciding whether or not to resubmit the original application or to amend it in some way. So therefore, we need to have the, if members are minded to go down that route, they would need to provide and agree grounds for refusal, potential grounds for refusal. Yeah, thank you. I did say, I used the word refer, in fact, but I haven't outlined, I leave it to the committee. I've got my thoughts of what I would do, but this is, I put it to the committee for their thoughts. So, Geoffrey, you wanted to say something? I just wanted to say that I support, I would potentially want to support the first of the two things that you said, subject to the detail of the wording, and it seems quite, that seems quite a difficult task to, for someone to get that wording exactly right, but I was quite supportive of the first of the two. I wouldn't personally support an objection on character grounds, not that I particularly aesthetically admire the proposed building, but I just think that that is too wishy-washy and subject, subjective, that's not an objective enough reason for refusal in my mind, the one on character, but I'm interested in the first, the reference back that you were implying, but subject to the detail of the wording. Ernest. Mr Chairman, well, you know, if there's some way to get an improvement that is, you know, very commendable, but I do have to say that there is a problem here, a technical problem, in the sense that the, irrespective of what other sites there may or may not be, the committee, I think as the officers are pointing out, are obliged to consider the application itself on its merits. It's not actually acceptable in planning, generally, to go around and say, well, there's a better site down the road or whatever. You have to consider the site in front of you, either it's okay or it's not, and the other point is, I mean, I agree that the education department could do much better on the visibility or the kind of presentation of the front of the building, but again, no one under planning has a right to a view. I mean, the officers can confirm whether this is correct or not, but my understanding on planning is the two points. One, you have to consider the application in front of you, and two, no one, no objector, has a right to a view. Go on, Catherine, you wanted to say something. You're trying to get, all right, I'll help. Thank you, Ernest. My view is that I don't like this application. I'm not in favor of this application because I feel it is an inappropriate form of development in that location. Thank you, Chairman. I just wanted to come in and be clear, sort of picking up on some of the points that have been made, and it's been referred to by my legal colleagues. If the committee don't go with the recommendation by officers, we do need to understand the reasons for that, and they need to be very clear as to what is the planning harm from that. So as I understand the conversation that you're having at the moment, there's concern around the use in the area, but what we need to understand behind that to enable any future conversation to happen is what is the planning harm that's having. So is that harm to the character of the area? Is that harm to residential amenity? What is the harm and therefore the planning policy? So we need to have that level of understanding. Okay, inappropriate form of development in this location, which will bring harm to the locality, and it is not appropriate for that locality. I've got inappropriate English. It's suddenly going after an hour and a half and two hours of this, but come on people, help me here. That's my view. I mean, I need to take this to the committee. Catherine? I think that, but I think it's also counter to the RBBC's local character design guide SPD 2021 as a specific thing. And I also, I mean, I continue to be concerned that this is not an appropriate environment for the types of children that are being placed in this environment. And I don't know, I'm hoping Sian can help, but I am, I mean, I am really worried about placing a AP provision right next to a main road and placing an AP provision with the mugger where it is because outside space for these children is incredibly important. And I feel very strongly that we want to do the right thing by these children. And I don't believe this layout does the right thing by those children. And I know that's not a planning reason, but I'm hoping you can turn it into one for me. There is a possibility. I think we're beginning to get a consensus. I feel, I'm not certain, I'm getting the nods, but well, isn't it something that we should just break for a couple of minutes and do it, or can we do this on the hoof? If the, you know, if Sian, I'd rather not, I'd like to get it resolved now and then have a break, to be honest. But, you know, I don't, Sian, Nancy, I mean, where are we on this? I think, yes, it would be helpful to have five minutes or so, Mr. Chairman. But could I just say, we are talking about AP provision as opposed to autism per se. And that's, that's important. That we, that that's kept in mind. So how are we going to do this then? Right, we're staying put. John? Yes, should we take some sort of vote, first of all, on the actual recommendation in front of us before we start thinking about not passing it? Because at the moment, we don't know where we're going. We may just say, with that condition you suggested, we might like to pass it. Right. Prior to agree, a very fair point, prior to agree, we can either agree or refer back or abstain. And the reasons for referral back, if that's the decision, will have to be agreed within the break. There is on the table an agreement that a condition is added that the number is limited to 72 in the event it's approved. So you've got to double it. So first and foremost, those members that are in favour of granting permission in accordance with the papers with the amendment and amendment sheet, please indicate. Those against, or those in favour of referring back, subject to the agreement on the wording. Yeah, it's a fair point, actually. I'm just trying to get a feel. We agree the vote. So there's two in favour and there's eight that are not in favour. Right, we're going to take five. It is now, we can take four. It's nearly, it's just before one. And we have a form of words to put to you for agreement to see if you agree with those, in which case the suggested that the item is referred back. Can you please read out the words? Thank you. Thank you, Chairman. Yes, given that members did not support officers' recommendation for approval, having listened to the conversation and points raised by members, I've attempted to summarise them as follows. The proposed development, including the appearance of the building and layout of the site, would fail to promote or reinforce local distinctiveness, nor respect the character of the local area, and would fail to ensure an acceptable environment for future users, contrary to, in these policies from Reigate and Banstead's local plan, DES 1 and DES 9, as well as the local character design guide SPD that was referred to. That, from my understanding of the conversation, sums up the key points that had been flagged by members. And the reference to Reigate planners is? So the two policy references are DES 1 and DES 9. So DES 1 is a design policy, and DES 9 talks about pollution and immunity. Right, members, are you agreeable with that program, wording, whatever you want to call it, and the item is then referred back in accordance with requirements under Reg 3 application? That has been agreed against. Abstain? Chris? Sorry, did you agree? Oh, big pardon, sorry, I didn't see you. Right, that was 9-1. Thank you very much. Thank you very much, members. The item will now, the matter will now be referred back to the relevant part of Surrey County Council. So that, thank you for your forbearance, everybody, and your input is the end of that item on the agenda. We will now move on to the next part of the agenda. I've lost my shoes. We'll just let the chamber clear. A penguin. I found those the other day, didn't I? They even do, I found an orange penguin. I was excited. I think that's all recorded. Right, so can I ask members, those who aren't staying, clear the chamber so we can carry on with the meeting. Thank you very much indeed. All right, the next item is on page 81 of the agenda, which is the Meadowcroft Community Infant School. It was on the updated sheet and David Maxwell is taking us through this. When you're ready, David. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman. Before I introduce the item, please may I draw the committee's attention to the update sheet that has been circulated for this item, item eight. This refers to two further representations that we have received since the agenda was published, one of which is from a resident who was written in previously. Please also note the amendments to the wording of proposed conditions number 16, 17 and 20. So the application site has an area of 0.48 hectares. It's located a short distance to the west of the M25 and on the northern side of Little Green Lane in a residential area of Chertsey. The application is proposing to expand the existing one form entry infant school for pupils aged four to seven years into a one form entry primary school for pupils aged four to 11. This would gradually increase the capacity of the school from 90 to 210 pupils by 2027. The proposal involves an extension towards the rear of the main school building, the construction of the new detached single storey classroom block to the west of the main school, following the demolition of the existing caretakers bungalow and ancillary buildings and the provision of several new external support structures. The application also proposes an alteration to the parking layout and changes to the external layout of the school including the development of a multi-use games area to the rear of the site. The field to the rear of the site and the narrow margin of grass along the eastern site boundary are designated as open space. The application site is situated within both flood zone one and an indicative area of surface water flooding and it lies within source protection zone three. Runnymede Borough Council has raised no objection to the application subject to a full and proper policy assessment taking into account local resident and councillor concerns and any drainage flood risk and highway impacts. The Borough Environmental Health Officer has recommended that controls be put in place to prevent external use of the mugger outside of the extended school day. No objections have been received from statutory or non-statutory consultees subject to conditions in respect of residential amenity, transport, landscape, ecology, flooding and sustainable drainage and archaeology. 28 letters of representation have now been received, two of which support the application with 25 opposed and one draws attention to some of the issues identified in the officer's report. Those writing in support of the application believe that there is a need for the proposal which would give children continuity of education in a good school that would provide a local community hub in an area that is lacking in local community premises. The main objections relate to the inadequate size of the application site, lack of need, the location of the development, transport, inadequate parking, surface water drainage, residential amenity, health and safety and procedural matters. Having assessed the planning merits of the application, taking into account responses from consultees and the representations received, officers consider that a clear educational need for the proposed development has been demonstrated which could be given great weight in the planning balance. Officers are satisfied that any adverse impacts can be mitigated to an acceptable degree through the imposition of planning conditions. Officers therefore consider that the proposal is in accordance with national and local planning policy and that planning permissions should be granted subject to conditions. If you take a look at the presentation slides, aerial one shows the surrounding area including the M25 which runs through a cut-in around 175 metres to the east of the application site. You can see Junction 11 in the southeast, towards the southeast corner of the slide and together with the edge of the built-up area of Addlestone is just beyond the southeast corner of that slide there. Aerial two shows a more zoomed-in image of the application site. The green lane is to the north of the application site which crosses the M25 and that leads into Addlestone going eastwards and westwards or northwestwards it connects to the A320. This is a drawing, I circulated this, you might have seen this on Friday. It's a block plan showing the existing site layout. You can see the main school building located fairly centrally within the site and the caretaker's accommodation to the west or slightly to the northwest of that building which is to be demolished to make way for the new single-storey classroom block. The next drawing, that is the proposed block plan. You can see the extension to the main building which is slightly above and to the rear or beyond the northern facade of the school sticking out about a little bit under five metres from that northern facade and then the main building is obviously the detached single block containing four classrooms which would be to the west of the main building. You can see some additional sheds, caretaker's office and caretaker's shed there you can see in the southeast corner of the site. And we have some photographs as well. A view looking east from the site access point so towards Bitterns Lane and figure two. A view from the same spot this time looking west along the access, sorry from the site access along Little Green Lane which will also take you to the A320. Figure three, so view looking east along Little Green Lane. The house you can see on the left-hand side is number 93 Little Green Lane which is where we've received representation from the owners who are concerned about the off-site highway works giving rise to surface water flooding during periods of intense rainfall based on existing problems they have now where they put out science sandbags to keep the water at bay. Figure four, so view looking east from the northwest corner of the application of the application site. Figure five, view looking west from the northeast corner of the application site. Figure six shows the northern facade of the main building where the proposed extension is to be built. Figure seven shows the eastern boundary of the application site. That grass bridge there is designated as open space together with the grass field to the back of the site. So figure eight shows the western part of the site. You can see the existing car parking area and the caretaker's bungalow beyond which is to be demolished. Figure nine, closer up view showing the caretaker's bungalow on the western side of the site. And figure 10 shows the existing access to the school which is to be widened as part of the proposal to accommodate refuse vehicles for example. Thank you. Thank you very much David. Right members, I don't think we have any speakers on this now. So over to members for your comments, questions, et cetera. Ernest. Hi Mr Chairman. Obviously we went on a site visit here. We couldn't really see any harm or any problem with this particular application. The difficulty really is for most of us looking at really true educational values is the whole school should be demolished and built you know probably on a smaller footprint, two storey and properly accommodate whatever it needs to do the educational business. But I mean that's not a planning situation. That's not what we have to consider. From the point of view of the site itself and what's proposed, I mean one can only say given the restricted circumstances and the need, okay. But it doesn't leave me and probably other members with a particularly strong view of the sort of the educational needs of the area really being catered for because really it's the wrong solution. But that's not our decision. But anyway, from a planning point of view all I can say is with regret, okay. No student agreed actually. Jeremy. Well I don't regret. I understood for the head teachers here today that you're going to actually come bring lots of children who currently go out to six or seven other sites onto this site. It can only be a good thing as far as I'm concerned. And we've created very successfully an all-purpose secondary of primary school in children and I hope this will be the same. So this has my full support. Catherine. I'd like to agree with both Jeremy and also with Ernest. And therefore I will support the application. But I do have a serious concern about a deliberate plan to extend a 51-year-old building that the officers report says is reaching the end of its life. And whether or not we can raise some kind of question back to the cabinet member, which I believe is the cabinet member for Landon property, to raise such a concern to her for consideration of any other sites where she is considering doing the same thing. Because if we had, as Ernest said, had looked at a different solution a while ago, we probably would have come up with a better solution. But I think given where we are now and the amazing job that the teachers and the head teacher is clearly doing on the site, in very difficult circumstances, I am minded to support. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Just thought I'd add, this area is up for development for at least 300 houses at the end of Bybiddams Lane. So that would actually lead to a lot of pupils probably even walking to this school. So yes, it does have its positives. I agree 100%, actually, I'll be knocking down and going again knowing what is coming in this area. I think that needs to be certainly sent back, a message was sent back. But I am concerned because of the volume of property that has been built literally within 100 yards of this school, there is going to be some further issues. But I am mindful to support it because of its location to those houses that should lead to a lot walking. I just want to say something about the traffic. Little Green Lane is currently used as a rat run off Green Lane. So when Green Lane backs up, they come back down into Little Green Lane. But the new roundabout that we're building, hopefully, sorry, please say quickly, would mitigate that. So there will be less of a problem. Can I come back? Just to add, actually, a lot of the rat runs is actually down Bybiddams Lane. There is a section of it that is so slim, it has led to multiple accidents. And there is no current plans to deal with that one. So that potentially could make it worse. And the roundabout that you're referring to, I have heard rumors that it might not happen in that section because of the funding or the HIF bid. But that is with the A320 planners. I got very excited when you said walking to school, having been somebody over the years that had sponsored walking bus in the junior school. I'm really excited at that. Yeah, I thought it was a mistake, shall I say, I was going to say something that we give to the teachers who are doing a magnificent job in teaching future generations something that is not as good as we would like. My only complaint about the visit was that we had to walk past the kitchen and smell so much wonderful lunch. I thought it was rather mean to be done to us. But no, I'm fully supportive of this. But yeah, I totally agree that questions should be asked about the future fabrics of further buildings. David, do you want to come back? Is there anything that we want to come back on or anything? Thank you, Chairman. The applicants just made a comment in respect of that because I got in touch following the site visit. And all they basically said was that is the Council's current strategy to refurbish and extend the existing building and increase its usable lifespan. So that was their response on that particular point. The need, Councillor Lewis, you're right, I think part of the reason for the need for the proposal, which is to cater for junior school pupils, is the number of housing allocations you have in that area, either side of Bitterns Lane. There's also a site north of Green Lane south of Road Town. There's one east of Ottershaw as well. So all around that area you've got multiple housing allocations in the local plan which are going to come forward. And so the forecasted demand for additional junior pupils in the southern part of Runnymede Borough is forecast to grow. And they need the additional space to meet that demand and cater for the additional number of pupils who will be coming forward. Thank you. I think the issue about future buildings and what have you is something we can take up at another stage. Members, we have offers a recommendation to grant. Are we all in agreement or is there counter view on that one? Thank you, members, that is unanimous. So thank you very much for coming and Catherine. I would still like the committee to write to the cabinet member for land and property. We can choose to do that, as I understand it. I believe we've done it in the past. But we have done it. Yeah, right, we have done it. Okay, we'll do that. So, yeah, but you have already done so as well. So, that's not my fault. Right, members, we'll now move on. It's enough internal squabbling to a very interesting, we've now got two very interesting items coming up. The first one, I confess I actually understand it finally. And the first one is the application for a village green status at Limbsfield. But the, well, I mean, Catherine is going to talk us through this when she's got a chance. I'm sort of moving things on a bit. But then she can talk us through. So whenever you're ready. Thank you. Okay, so this is a situation where the committee is asked to consider whether to accept the withdrawal of an application to register land as a town or village green at the Dell Painshill, Limbsfield. Yep. Okay, so on the 14th of January 2021, Surrey County Council received an application for a new town or village green at the Dell in Limbsfield. The application was prompted because of the submission of a landowner statement by the landowners, certainly in East Surrey Water, on the 15th of January 2020, relating to land including the application site. So that landowner statement ends any use as of right over the land. Section 15.3 of the Commons Act 2006 provides for an application to register a town or village green to be made within one year of the use ceasing. And the application was made on the last day of that period. The application was accompanied by statements and photographs from people claiming use of the land for recreational use, as evidenced in support of the claim of registration. Before any application can be considered by the Commons registration authority, certain checks need to be made with the relevant planning authorities and these were duly carried out. Nothing was identified and the process of considering the application was therefore continued with the advertising of the application on site. 12 objections were received from the landowner, so that's Sutton and East Surrey Water, and from neighbouring landowners and the applicants were given an opportunity to respond to those objections. Then on the 19th of July 2023, the applicants responded by indicating that they wish to withdraw their application. In their email they indicated that they had initially thought they had the support of the residents and were surprised to see so many objections. They also stated that they had received advice from the Open Spaces Society, who had looked at past places and found that where the land was owned by a utility company, the application was very unlikely to succeed based on an legal precedent. Having no wish to upset the residents and having received the advice from the OSS, they felt it best to withdraw their application. So there's no provision for the withdrawal of an application in the 2006 Commons Act or the regulations. Whether or not, as a registration authority, we proceed with the application is a matter for our discretion. We must act reasonably in the circumstances of the case. Following advice from legal services and from council, we advertised the request to withdraw the application on site in August 2023, and then directly to those people who had given evidence to support the initial application in April 2024. We received no substantive representations or expressions of interest to take on the application. In addition, we addressed the question raised by the OSS to the applicant of whether the land would be in fact be able to be registered as Town & Village Green directly with the landowner, and received clarification that SESW own the land that is subject to the application and it is used for statutory water undertakings. They confirmed that there are no current plans to develop the land in the future, but that it is needed to safeguard water supplies within the area of Limpsfield. They also confirmed that currently there is and has been no intention to continue letting the public use the land beyond the public right-of-way. So there's a public right-of-way that crosses the plot of land. I'm now placing this matter before members for your consideration. To clarify, you're being asked to decide whether to accept the applicant's request to withdraw the application or not. You're not in this case deciding whether there are grounds for registering the TVG on the application land. You will have read the full report, so I'll just highlight the main issues here. The application is made in the public interest. A successful application to record an area of land as TVG would offer that land some protection from future development and would protect a right of access for recreational use on the land for the public. In considering this matter, members should also be aware of the impact of the landowner statement. This ended any use as of right on the land. The application was submitted on the last day of the one-year grace period under section 15(3) of the Commons Act 2006. If the withdrawal of the application is accepted, the deposit of the landowner statement has removed the opportunity for another village green application for a very long time. If any qualifying use as of right continues, the deposit of a further landowner statement within 20 years of the previous one would prevent the 20-year use required for a village green application from accruing. This is not an application that can be easily determined based on the documentation submitted to date. Section 610 of the report highlights the matters which would require further investigation. Council agreed with the officer view that if the application had not been proposed to be withdrawn, it warranted being considered by way of non-statutory public inquiry and therefore referred to this committee for determination considering the inspector's report and recommendations. If members were reminded to reject the request to withdraw the application, no members of the public have volunteered to take on the application. As no party would be promoting it, it would prove difficult, although not necessarily impossible, to hold a meaningful investigation by way of non-statutory inquiry or otherwise. A further issue to consider is the potential issue of statutory incompatibility which is set out in section 6.13 of my report. It's not possible to reach a conclusion at this stage from the information provided to us on whether the statutory purposes for which SESW hold the land would be incompatible with registration of the land as a TVG. It should however be considered as a possibility when considering whether to continue with the application without an applicant. So in summary, it does not seem unreasonable to allow the applicant's request to withdraw their application on the grounds that no other residents have objected or expressed a wish for the application to be taken forward and that there are issues arising from this application including the possibility of statutory incompatibility which would require further investigation. It is however open to the CRA to decline the applicant's request to withdraw the application and determine it based on the available evidence. It is likely that this would result in us having to hold a non-statutory public inquiry. I therefore recommend that the applicant's request to withdraw the application is accepted on the grounds that it's reasonable in the circumstances for the reasons given in my report. Thank you very much indeed. Quite interesting that. I've read all the papers. Members, do you have any comments? If not, there is an officer recommendation. Right, the officer recommendation to withdraw. Is that agreed? Agreed. Thank you, agreed unanimously. I'm sorry. We have to do that Mr Chairman because obviously the land is utility owned so it can't proceed. Catherine, it's a very great report and we're looking forward to next month when we see you see you again. Yes, we're looking forward to that one. We have another one, referral of public footpaths. This is the final item, page 327 of your agenda. This one I have struggled to get my mind around but I think I've got it so whenever you're ready you can take us through this one please. Thank you Chairman. Am I coming through loud and clear okay for everybody? I think that's a yes. This is a slightly unusual report in that it has not been brought here for a decision or a determination to be made by the committee in the normal fashion but the direction on how to proceed following the decision that's already been made by a former local committee. In the first place before saying anything else I should make it clear that this is not an opportunity to revisit the original decision nor to put it aside or to remake it. By way of background, the matter first arose as a result of evidence submitted to Surrey County Council from Network Rail. We looked at this evidence and undertook investigations and consultations widely as part of our general duty under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 to keep the definitive map and statement under review. Having undertaken that work, a first report came to Mole Valley committee back in 2021 quite some time ago concerned with correcting an error, an alleged error on the Surrey definitive map and statement which had been brought to the Council's attention by Network Rail. They said that the line A to B on the order plan, and you'll see that in one of the annexes, Annex D of my report, was recorded an error on the definitive map and statement in 1966 and it should be made consistent with the definitive statement from which in 1966 it was omitted. So basically the map, the definitive map, showed a line across the level crossing with A to B but the definitive statement clearly said there was no crossing with A to B. Following extensive research and consultations, the report came to the local committee in September of '21 asking that the committee agree that the map was in error and the line shown over the level crossing be removed by legal order and the minutes of that meeting are also in one of the annexes, Annex B and C. During the meeting there was discussion about the original report and supporting evidence and the recommendation. Subsequently, the position of the committee was clearly expressed. The committee did not agree with officer findings and directives in order to be made to bring the impact of the statement in line with the map as outlined in the minutes at Annex B. This decision was made on the basis very simply that there'd been sufficient use over the years. As you will see from the annexes, there's a second report from November '21 where members are asked to reframe the wording of their decision so that their position was clarified but that was a purely administrative matter. Some months later in June '22, a definitive map modification order was made as directed by the local committee and advertised 42 days as is required of us by section 53 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act. One objection was received to that order from Network Rail. Where objections are received, the council cannot itself resolve and confirm the order and must refer it and all evidence to the Secretary of State for determination. Following that objection period of the order, this went into queue of other orders waiting for officer time, which is hence the delay. On revisiting the issue more recently, it became clear that the committee made no decision as to what stance it would take should objections be received to the order that it resolved to make. The authority arising from the resolutions in September and November 2021 are limited to the making of the order only. There is no indication as to what the council's position would be upon the receipt of an objection. Advice from council supports this and suggests committee determine how to proceed. Council also noted there was no clear reason as to the base of the making of the order and no authority for a position beyond order making. In lieu of the defunct Morrill Valley local committee, I'm here to ask the Planning and Regulatory Committee to clarify the position Surrey County Council should take from this point forward. To summarise the latter points in the report, there are three possible ways forward. Should we support the order as made? And this would be an active position which would normally require the council to produce full statement of case, provide an expert witness, legal advocate and witnesses to be open to cross-examination. To stand a chance of success, we think this would probably require a collection and consideration of further matters, both evidential and legal. Alternatively, it could decide not to support the order. This would also be an active position against the order which would require committee to define that on the basis of evidence, it could no longer support it. Or alternatively, the council could adopt a neutral position. This would be where the committee would decide the council take no position with regard to the confirmation of the order, but insists the inspector that would be appointed by the Secretary of State and provide them with all documentation and administrative support. The matter itself would be determined by the independent inspector and they would be able to hear evidence from all remaining interested parties who wish to partake and submit any further evidence during that process. So what's in front of the committee is a matter for determination where there is some discretion about how to proceed. And I should stress again, as I've already said, that whichever position the council takes, we have to send this order on to the Secretary of State and we have to send all the evidence and representations to them to consider. They're bound by the same legislative aspects that we are and it would be interesting to see what kind of decision they would come to, whatever the council's position. So in summary, as I've said, it's quite an unusual position. I'm not necessarily recommending one or other of those positions to you that are in the report at 6.1, but asking for some direction from the committee on how to proceed with the submission to the Secretary of State and to help you. I'm happy to answer any questions where possible. Thanks, Dan. Before we go any further, can I just say that the local member, Chris Townsend, did wish to address the committee, but he has a long-standing family engagement and was not able to be here. So members. Ernest. Having read it, my view would be that option 3 takes the neutral stance because that involves us in the least work that you can imagine and no further work at all and no real expense. And if the new Labour Government has got a Secretary of State that wants to get involved with this, good luck. May I come back on a point about that, which may be informative? As I say, this is a long-standing duty with these kinds of orders under the 1981 Act that it's referred to the Secretary of State. The council will still incur some expenses. We have to, even if we're not supporting it actively, we have to compile and list all the evidence in a fashion that the Secretary of State can absorb or digest. If a public inquiry is arranged, we would have to arrange for a venue and administrative support. So whilst there might be less expense to the council, it certainly isn't non-existent. Just hope that helps. Thanks for that. My understanding of this, and Dan, we talked about this, and I'm still going around in circles on that. The decision by the Mole Valley Local Area Committee was that only the plan there were between point A and B that the footpath, Green Lane, referenced and set out there, should continue across the railway line, and that was the decision of the Local Area Committee. But Network Rail said no, and the Mole Valley officers said no. Am I correct so far? I can try and have another go at summarising that, if it would help, from the original report and make it as brief and simple as I can. The County Council has a duty to record details where public rights are on our definitive map and statements. That's a map accompanied by a statement that describes particulars of the way, where it goes from and to, how wide it is, whether there are any structures, notices, et cetera. So our first map was compiled in 1952, and we had a duty to revise it on a five-year basis, but both ourselves nor any other authority managed to do that. On our second revision, however, that started in 1966, let's say in 1952, there was no right-of-way recorded across the level crossing, either on the map or the statement. The same was the case on our 1959 map, but in 1966, a line was drawn across the level crossing, but the statement that had come with it made quite clear that there was no crossing, so the allegation based on evidence from Network Rail was that that line was drawn across the level crossing in error, and that was the primary aspect which was to be considered at that point, was it included in error. Having examined the evidence, I agree with Network Rail's conclusions, not just based on their evidence, but on wider investigation, but the Mull Valley Committee did not agree. So my recommendation was to remove the line over the level crossing unit, which was there in error, but Mull Valley came to the opposite decision. So I have to say, having spent far too much time, it feels, looking at the evidence associated with this particular case, I think you can make an argument either way, and I think given that you can make an argument either way and none of us sitting on this side of the table are experts, I agree with Ernest, I think we should go with option three and take a neutral stance because I think you can look at the documents either way. Yes, I've tried it upside down, inside out, and as you say, you can come up with all sorts of things, and I think that it may not please everybody, but I think it's all we can do, to be honest. Yes, I think that's right. So the decision's been made, the order has been made as directed, so yes, it's just making that decision without what to do. Do we do with the famous I hear what you say and... It's completely a matter for you. Right, we have a recommendation. We're going for option three, which is to make no decision, which goes against the grain, seriously goes against the grain, but go on, Ernest, you want to make a decision or are you going to make it in a... No, we're all in agreement. Well, I'm not asking him anymore. Right, we're in agreement, we're not making a decision. Right, Scott. Yep, thank you very much indeed. That concludes today. Thank you very much, everybody. Thank you then. That was a long hall today. Thank you in this state here. The next meeting is on the 18th of December. We do have two items that I know of, so thank you. Anybody still on the YouTube channel, thank you very much for sticking with us. Hope you found that interesting and goodbye.