Transcript

Good evening, everybody. Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to this evening's meeting of the Planning Committee. As we have a number of guests here this evening in the public gallery, my first duty is to read you the fire precautions. In the event of the fire alarm sounding, leave the room immediately and proceed downstairs by way of the main stairs or follow any of the emergency exit signs. Leave the building and follow the signs to the fire assembly point, which is in Old Church Path, on the pathway between the rear of the Esher Public Car Park, the library end, and the churchyard. Ladies and gentlemen, we have two substitutions for this evening's meeting. Councillor Alastair Price will be present as a temporary substitute for Councillor Clare Bailey, and Councillor Ashley Tilling is here as a temporary substitute for Councillor Paul Hughes. You're both most welcome. Just so as you know, everybody, the agenda, you will see, has two applications tonight. The way it's written, the former Waylands Treatment Works is at number one, the Elmbridge Canoe Club is at number two. I have swapped those around because I feel that the Elmbridge Canoe Club should hopefully not detain us for too long. So, my first duty then is to ask for declarations of interest. All members present are required to declare at this point in the meeting or as soon as possible thereafter a disclosure of pecuniary interest and/or other interests arising under the code of conduct in respect of any items of business being considered at this meeting. Do I have any such declarations? Yes, Councillor Sarsby. Thank you. Yes, I have a pecuniary interest in the Kayak Club only as far as I have worked with them quite extensively on various charity missions, such as the road paddle run previously, therefore I know them. That is non-pecuniary then, Mrs Shaw. Because otherwise I'd have to ask you to leave the room. Okay. Thank you very much. Any others? Ah, Councillor Siewens. Thank you, Chair. I'd just like to declare that I'm not a member of this committee, so I won't be part of the decision-making process, but I want to declare that I do know the objector and I have written a couple of letters about this application, well, it's in relation to application 20-22-3427. Okay. Yes, Councillor Siewens, you're here this evening as the ward councillor, so I think that's perfectly okay. Okay. Any other interests? No? Okay, so the next item of business is the minutes of the planning meeting held on the 12th of March 2024. These have been previously published. And we're in the council papers for the April council meeting, so they are noted. Great. Thank you. We next come then to the reports of the area planning subcommittees. We start off on page 5 of the agenda with the south area planning subcommittee held on the 28th of February. Councillor Burley. Thank you, Chairman. I've actually got three sets of minutes to move here. Do you want me to do them in one go? Let's do them one at a time. It's far easier if we make sure we do them all properly then. Okay, thank you. So I move the minutes of the south area planning subcommittee held on the 28th of January 2024. Okay. On pages 5, 6 and 7, that noted? Noted. Thank you. We then move on to page 9 where we have the east area planning subcommittee held on the 22nd of April. Mrs. James is no longer here, so I'll ask who was the vice chairman. Councillor Coons to present those, please. Thank you, Councillor Jane. I'd like to move the minutes of the east area planning committee held on the 22nd of April 2024, pages 9 and 10. Lovely. Thank you. Is that report noted? Noted. Thank you. We then move on to page 11, north area planning subcommittee held on the 24th of April. Neither the chairman nor the vice chairman are now members of this council. So I think Councillor Dodds, you were there. Would you like to move those? Indeed. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'd like to move the minutes of the north area planning committee on the 24th of April. Lovely. Thank you. That's on pages 11 and 12, report noted. Thank you. And we can turn to page 13, south area planning subcommittee held on the 25th of April. Back to you, Councillor Burley. Thank you, Chairman. I move the minutes of the south area planning subcommittee held on the 25th of April 2024. Thank you. That's on pages 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17. Is the report noted? Thank you. We then move on to east area held on the 20th of May. Councillor Coonskin. Thank you, Councillor Chaney. I'd like to present the east area planning committee minutes held on the 20th of May 2024, pages 19 to 20. Thank you. Report noted. Thank you. We then go back again to the south area on the 22nd of May. Councillor Burley. Thank you, Chairman. I move the minutes of the south area planning subcommittee held on the 22nd of May 2024. Thank you. Which is on pages 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26 and 27. Report noted. Lovely. Thank you. That takes care of the planning subcommittees. Now, as I said earlier on, I'm going to take first of all the application 2024-0143, the Enbridge Canoe Club, which is on page 169 of your agenda. Members had an opportunity to visit the site yesterday on the 10th of June. The application is before you this evening because it relates to land actually owned by Enbridge Borough Council, so as such needs to come before you as the committee. We have a speaker here this evening, Mrs. Jenny Shatter, who is sitting over there. I'll come to you in a minute, Mrs. Shatter. But first of all, I will ask the officer, please, to introduce the application. Thank you, Chair. This application has been referred to planning committee as it relates to land owned by Enbridge Council. The proposal seeks planning permission to construct a first floor rear terrace extension to the existing balcony facing the riverside. The proposal is to create a covered outdoor training area at ground floor level with some limited use of the first floor balcony. The application site, as outlined in red in the site location plan above, is accessed via Walton Lane and fronts on to the River Thames. It is occupied by Enbridge Canoe Club. Desborough Lodge is the nearest residential property to the east of the site, and it's separated by a public right of way which runs between the sites. The land is located within the green belt. Here we have a proposed site layout plan. The extended balcony is shown shaded in pink. Tree protection measures are also shown to protect the large existing mature trees fronting the river. Please note, tree labelled number six has since been removed by the Environment Agency due to fungal decay as a result of their own inspections. The tree was located on Environment Agency land. This is not related to this planning application. This is a proposed floor plan. If you look down to the right-hand side corner, this is a proposal showing the balcony extension. It will extend to a depth of 10 metres towards the river and will have a width of 5 metres. Here we have the proposed elevations. The extended balcony will be in keeping with the design of the existing balcony and will comprise of an open steel structure. Here we have a photo montage of the proposed balcony extension. You can see it is using the same style of materials as the one that currently exists. This is the view looking back towards the existing on-site arrangement when viewing from the riverside. This is the view looking towards the area which the balcony will infill. At the minute this area is used for some outdoor training. The proposal is to infill this area to create a covered training area which you will be able to use in the winter months. This picture also shows screening that exists between the application site and Dezborough Lodge. This is a view looking back towards the river from the existing balcony. Here is a view looking towards Dezborough Lodge from the existing balcony. The existing intervening boundaries are well screened which will assist in preventing views of the neighbouring garden. To address concerns from the neighbouring property, the Canoe Club has agreed to provide a balcony screen along the eastern boundary which would prevent any potential loss of privacy to Dezborough Lodge. A condition has been recommended to secure the detailing of this. Likewise, to address concerns from the neighbouring property over the use of the balcony, the management plan is proposed to manage the use and access to the balcony and that has been submitted and a condition recommended to secure it. The balcony area is only proposed to be used as an occasional seating area during training sessions, during race days and for low level activities such as stretching and yoga and will be supervised by a member of the club when in use. To conclude, a total of 19 letters of support have been received, in addition three letters of observation and two letters of objection. The matters raised in the representations are addressed and summarised in the committee report and the committee update sheet. The committee update sheet also advises an updated consultation response from Exelum Pipeline has been received confirming as the proposed works were over 30 metres away, no further action was required. The proposal involves the extension of the existing Canoe Club building in the Greenbelt which increases the footprint to 61%, equating to a disproportionate increase over the size of the original building resulting in inappropriate development in the Greenbelt. In terms of openness, as the balcony would be open-sided it would have very limited harm on the Greenbelt. Nonetheless, harm has been identified and in line with MPPF and inappropriate development should only be approved in very special circumstances. The applicant has put forward the Very Special Circumstances case as set out in the committee report. In considering the Very Special Circumstances case, officers have given weight to the fact that the club is currently at capacity. This proposal will create a covered external training area, free and up more space, which will enable the club to increase its offering to local people, including the young and community groups and schools. The proposal is providing an improved outdoor sport and recreation facility, increasing usage and improving health and wellbeing, which accords with one of the main objectives of the MPPF. The proposal will support the continued use of the land and the waterway for outdoor sport and recreation, which the MPPF encourages on Greenbelt land. These matters are considered to be afforded significant weight and, when taken together, are considered to amount to Very Special Circumstances, which would outweigh the harm in this instance. The proposal is considered acceptable with regards to all other matters as set out in the committee report. No objection has been received from consultees and, on this basis, the officer recommendation is approved with the recommended conditions set out in the committee report. Thank you. Thank you, Marianne, very much, Caroline. Before we go any further, do any member of the committee have any questions of a technical nature or clarification to put to the officer before we continue? Anybody? No? Okay, right, thank you very much. I will move on then to - we had a lady who wishes to speak on behalf of the objectors, Mrs Jenny Shaptor. Mrs Shaptor, you have three minutes to address the committee, which I'm sure you've been told. They might want to ask you some questions afterwards, so whenever you're ready. I'm speaking tonight as the next door neighbour of the Canoe Club on behalf of some local residents and, unlike Canoe Club, I'm not afforded any professional assistance. We are concerned about yet another extension on this greenbelt land for a building which is unattractive and does not add to the environment in which it sits. We prefer that this development does not proceed, but note Peter Brooks has written a favour report for this extension. We acknowledge the Canoe Club's desire to have a covered area for rainy winter days. Much emphasis is placed on its use for under-18s at 5, 5.30 and 6 to 7, five days a week. The recent management plan has extended these hours to 7.30 and 9 to 11am at weekends and race days. Also, it's used as a hub for the community, although a private club. We also note that the Canoe Club want to use the roof for outside seating with parents to watch their children. I would have thought the water's edge was more appropriate. Also, as a race day platform and training facilities for yoga and stretching, we have had to contend with loud music from the external loud speaker in the past and are concerned that exercise now seems to include playing loud music. So, with more outdoor activity, this is likely to increase. Noise from a balcony will travel even further than at ground level. We note that Peter Brooks' comment that adequate intervening vegetation will negate any undue overlooking loss of privacy at Desba Lodge from the new balcony. Not so. The trees have no leaves for six months and are trimmed every three years. So, for most of the time, the building above ground level is very visible. We can see people on the existing balcony. On speaking with the case officer, Carol-Ann O'Kane, she suggested a reasonable solution was a 1.8 metre high screen made of obscure glass erected along the length next to our land to deaden some of the noise, add privacy and avoid cutting out light. We also request a gated entrance into the railings across the new balcony entrance, which is locked outside these use times monitored by senior club personnel. This would not impede the building escape doors. To summarise, no extension, but if you agree an extension, which I'm sure you probably have, we request an agreement of hours of use and locked gated access to the balcony. No music, no large gathering of people socialising and no loud halos on race days on the balcony. They're already extremely loud at ground level. Finally, the obscured glass screen along the entire length of the boundary, along the balcony bordering our property. Thank you for listening. Thank you very much, Mrs Shachter. Does any member of the committee have any questions for Mrs Shachter? Councillor Wells. Thanks, Mrs Shachter, for that. My question is probably actually more addressed to the case officer because on the site visit I understood that the proposed screen would be open rather than frosted glass. So if you were able to confirm what is anticipated to be the nature of that screening it would be appreciated. Thank you. You can answer that. So at this stage the final materials hasn't been agreed. So the condition does allow for details to be submitted via discharge of condition. So we'll be able to secure adequate screening. It doesn't need to be obscure glass. There's various other materials that can be used to prevent overlooking into neighbouring properties from balconies. It's just difficult for us to understand what the nature of that would be because the objector is clearly stated preference for frosted glass whilst the applicant's representative at the site visit indicated it would be open. So who makes the decision and how do we know that it would be satisfactory to the objector and also to the applicant? Just to confirm, is it the first floor or the ground floor? From officer's perspective we don't think it's unreasonable to specify the exact materials. And to determine whether that provides adequate screening and whenever the details are submitted by a discharge of condition application. If the applicant's expecting frosted glass and it comes back with plastic ivy, which is what was suggested in the site visit, notwithstanding the plastic aspects of it, I don't think that's going to be satisfactory from the applicant's perspective but it might be satisfactory for the purpose of the condition being discharged and therefore this condition which could be quite material is going to be unsatisfactory. I'm not going to play any longer but to me it's a material consideration.

Could you bring it back during the debate, Councillor Wells? I allowed the question but I think we're just taking questions. Councillor Tilling I think was next. I'm not sure. So for Mrs. chapter then. So just to follow on that point, which I think is quite important, why would you want it to be frosted glass? Is that something to do with kind of light and the screening? I mean, I did think having seen the site, we had a sort of photograph on the end of the balcony. My impression was at the end of the balcony that actually the vegetation was quite thick but as you come away from that, where the new balcony would be, the vegetation is a bit thinner. But stick to my question is why the frosted glass, why not some other form of screening? That's exactly our point, that there isn't screening at the end of that. And like I say, the trees are very tall at the moment. They will be trimmed in autumn. They'll be trimmed down to first floor level and the screening needs to let light through but we're looking at some sort of noise barrier. And so that seemed -- and my understanding when I asked Carol what it might be on the phone, she said, well, often they put up an obscured glass screen. So my understanding was that was a normal thing that would happen. And obviously if it's plastic ivy, it's going to block light out, it's going to rip, it's going to fall down in the first wind. This really isn't a structure that to me is in keeping with the riverside environment. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Next is Councillor Burnley. Thank you, Chairman. Mrs. Shankter also mentioned a lockable gate, I think. It's actually a question to the officers. I did ask earlier. Yeah, I know. But I didn't realize that Mrs. Shankter was going to propose a lockable gate. So I need to bring it up now, Chairman. Is the current entrance/exit to the balcony lockable? And if we were to condition a lockable gate, is there any issue with egress for fire regulation or any other matter that would make that unlikely to be achievable? Thank you. So in terms of existing situation, there is no gate, lockable gate. So in terms of the balcony extension, there would be no change over the existing arrangement. In the management plan, the applicant has also confirmed that the external staircase acts as a fire escape. Therefore, it can't be blocked. Okay. Please. Yes, it was your turn, actually, Mrs. Shankter. Thank you. I'm sorry. I'm not used to this system. I'm trying to learn quickly. The whole point of my comment was there's a fire escape balcony along the back. This extends on from that. They say they can't lock the fire escape balcony, which I totally understand because there's a door left and right-hand side of the building. But because the balcony will project off of that, the gate will be on the new part, so the fire escape will be totally accessible at all times. And the only time the balcony will be unlocked is when there is a senior member from the canoe club which will have opened the gate and the gate will be open while people are on the balcony. But outside of those hours, people that wander down the river can't get onto it without climbing over it. That's not to say they won't, but it does show this is not meant for public access. At the moment, we get a lot of people that go up on the balcony at night when there's no one around, and questionable goings on, shall we say. Okay. Thank you for that. I also have Mrs. Sarsby. Councillor, Mrs. Sarsby. Okay. Well, apologies again because it's more of a question for the officer. Apologies. Sorry. Just looking, going back to the photos. Can I, if you can, move back, yeah, when you were saying that this was greenbelt land, I appreciate that it is anyway. But I did think that the whole area was covered over with hard standing. But it looks there like there's a green area. I think it might be artificial. I'm not sure. But it is, isn't it? So it is actually hard standing all the way across already anyway. So it's been, it's been concreted over, yeah? Okay. So, I mean, there won't be any change to that. No, there's no further encroachment. It's all contained within the existing, like, I suppose, state envelope. Okay. Do I have any more questions to Mrs. Shaptor? Councillor Wells. Is it a question to Mrs. Shaptor this time? Oh, thank you. Sorry, Mrs. Shaptor. I just wanted to just clarify. Those, what look like trees, you suggested are hedges. Can you just confirm whether they're deciduous or evergreen? Deciduous. They are deciduous. Okay. Thanks. Okay. Thank you. Anybody else? No? All right. Thank you very much indeed, Mrs. Shaptor, for that. And also for fielding the questions that did come to you. Would the officers like to respond to anything that's been mentioned there, please, before we go on? So I think in terms of the question about a lockable gate, as officers have said, it acts as a fire exit. So the canoe club who aren't here tonight have said it acts as a fire escape and therefore it can't have a lockable gate. And I think what Mrs. Shaptor has referred to is whether there's a separate lock on preventing the rest of the balcony, the extended balcony. That's not part of the plan that's before us. So members have to consider what is the application before you. If that's something in terms of the impact on amenity by that balcony being open and not having a lockable gate, that's something that members can consider in terms of an assessment about the amenity on neighbors. Thank you. Yes, Mrs. Sarsby. Sorry. That's an interesting point. But could we also make it a condition that if Mrs. Shaptor wants the frosted glass there because she feels that it would be a better barrier, can we also make that a condition? So members as part of the debate can put forward amendments to the proposed conditions. So the proposed condition is details of the balcony screen to be approved. So that means that it could be a frosted glass. It could be something else. But the council for officers would have the ability to say no. For example, if it was plastic ivy, officers I can tell you now would say no. But it might be an alternative type of screening which is just trying to kind of give scope that there might be alternatives which might be equally acceptable in terms of impact. If members wanted to say no, it has to be frosted glass, obscure glazing, then you could suggest that you could propose an amendment to the proposed conditions. Thank you. Okay. I think are we on questions or do you want to -- Well, it's just coming back to Mr. Faulkner about his point. We are encouraged in condition 6 to follow the balcony management plan. I see no reason why we can't condition some changes to that management plan. So at the moment it talks about a -- instead of a -- it talks about a rope barrier to be installed along the junction between the new and existing balcony. I see no reason why we couldn't actually amend that in condition 6 and say instead of a rope barrier, that should be a lockable gate. Yes. So yes, members could amend any condition. So a balcony management plan rather than details as submitted could be details as to be submitted for approval. But it wouldn't -- what I would advise against is about it being a pre-commencement condition because that would need the approval of the applicant. But it could be prior to first use details of the balcony management plan to be agreed if members wanted to propose an amendment to the condition. Okay. Councillor Teague, I think we'll leave it there to go to the debate. But if you want to put forward an amendment suggested by Mr. Faulkner, if you can do that during the debate and you've got a seconder for it, then that will be ideal. Okay. So if there's no more questions to the officers, I will open the debate. Do you want to come in first, Councillor Tilling? Because you are -- although you're here as a substitute, you are the ward Councillor and Mrs. Sarsby has declared an interest. So I'll bring her in later. Okay. Thank you, Chair. Yeah, I think we do need to consider how this development would impact the amenity of the neighboring property. I mean, fundamentally, you know, the canoe club is offering an excellent sporting amenity for the borough. And it's had significant success. It's had people who have been trained there and gone to the Olympics. It's clearly popular and it's expanded. And I can see why they need -- why they'd like to expand. And on the face of it, it looks like a very minimal change. But it was interesting. This came before the local spending board last year. And it was distinctly money for a covered external training area, as the case officer has already mentioned. And I am a bit concerned that when you look at the balcony management plan, it's now actually using that balcony for an expanded outdoor training facility. It's for seating area, a communication platform. The idea when it came before the local spending board, if our team there remembers, was that it was a covered training area so that they could keep training when it was obviously inclement weather. So I think this has kind of snuck through a little bit to be a slightly different development to the one envisaged when we awarded them sill money last year. So I have concerns about the balcony management plan. I have concerns about the way they will be overlooking from this balcony when it's used as a sitting out area and as a training area. That will certainly affect overlooking for Mrs. Shaptor's back garden and house. So I think we need to be mindful of that when we pass judgment. And I will be putting forward some revised conditions as a result. Thank you, Chairman. I welcome the expansion of the club. It's fantastic. However, the club expanding will inevitably mean more people, will inevitably mean more activity, which inevitably will mean that Mrs. Shaptor's amenity is harmed to a greater degree than it currently is. So for that reason, I think that the amendments that I expect Councillor Tinning to propose are entirely reasonable. And those presumably will be amendments aligned with Mrs. Shaptor's wishes. So I have no problem with the scheme itself, no problem with the expansion of the club. And I can understand the need for the additional outside space. But I think that what Mrs. Shaptor has raised as her suggestions for protecting her amenity are well made. And I would support them. Thank you. Okay. Any other member of council? Mrs. Salisbury. Thank you, Chair. I also support the -- this application. However, I would like to point out that with regard to the CILLA application saying that they wanted a covered space, and also the comment that's been made about people climbing up onto the balcony already, if they had a covered space and it wasn't actually a balcony, I think then it would present a danger to, you know, the people who potentially could climb up there and then climb onto it if it didn't have a railing around it. If it's going to happen, you know, kids will be kids and that will happen. So I think really we have a duty of care regardless of the fact that it's out of ours and, you know, they shouldn't be doing it to make that allowance. But I do also agree that I'm hoping that Councillor Tilling is going to introduce some conditions on this because I think I'm now overlooked due to a development next door to me. And it's certainly not a very pleasant situation to be in. So I sympathize with Mrs. Shatner and equally I think that this can be created so that both parties are actually well served. I mean, I think if we were to get the right screening up there and also maybe put in -- I think one of my colleagues here was suggesting that maybe another condition could be that they were not allowed to use the balcony for using loud halos or playing music beyond certain times of day. We've done that in licensing. And I think there's a potential for doing it here. Thank you. Thank you. I will go -- I'm just going to make one point here that the award of the SIL money last year is not really a planning matter. That will be down to the SIL officers to decide whether the money has been spent appropriately when it comes to it. So I can understand why it's been brought in. But I just -- all I'm saying is that I think it's not really a planning issue for the matter we're talking about here this evening. Councillor Mann. You said what I said. I've said it a lot. Okay. Thank you very much. Okay. Any other member? Okay. Councillor Tilling, you wanted to put forward some revised conditions? Yes, please. Thank you, chair. Now, these are coming forward as an amendment on block, yeah? Yes. If that's the easiest way or do you want to take them one at a time? Well, we'll -- how many you got? Three. Let's do them one at a time because they might like two of them and not like the third one. Okay. Yep. I'd hate to see them all fall. One is an amendment to condition 3 which talks about the balcony screening. I'd like to change that to prior to the first use of the balcony hereby approved, details of a balcony screen at 1.8 metres in height of obscured glass or synthetic equivalent if that fits in to be provided along, et cetera, et cetera, and then the rest of that paragraph. So I think it's important that it is some form of obscured glass, so it lets the light into the neighbouring property and also presents some sort of noise attenuation. Okay. Do you have a seconder for that, Councillor Burley? Okay. And does anybody wish to debate that or is that -- Without wishing to be too prescriptive, is it possible that we just say exactly what you just followed? Sorry. Councillor Ting, can you switch your microphone off for a minute, because we can't hear Councillor -- I can bellow quite happily from where I am, but if what we're really trying to do is deal with the overlook issue so that it's obscured in some way that people can't overlook and that it also intends to have a secondary noise reduction function, then why don't we just put those two things in rather than being prescriptive about what the materials or the choices might be, because both parties may be quite happy with a variety of other solutions that I know our planning officers might consider. What we want is the outcome, which is you can't see into their garden and there's less noise. Okay. Well, it is Councillor Tilling's amendment, so it's up to him whether he wants to follow that. Apologies. Yeah, I do take that point, but whatever is agreed by EBC will not necessarily be discussed and agreed by the objector. So I think I'm trying to make it more robust by making it more prescriptive. You know, it's already been mentioned that one possible solution might be some of that kind of plastic ivy, and I don't think that would be appropriate, because it would block off the light and it probably wouldn't last very long and wouldn't meet the objector's requirements. So I think I don't think it's unreasonable to say one metre in height and of obscured glass as then and then the rest of the sentence applies, it would still have to be agreed by Albridge Borough Council. Okay. Councillor Mann. Thank you. Without flogging this today, I sort of agree with Councillor Batchelor that if we stipulate glass, can we not stipulate glass or other suitable alternative or equivalent alternative? Because there will be other materials that have exactly the same function that aren't necessarily glass. And once you start saying it's got to be glass, you sort of worry a hostage to fortune. Yeah. I mean, I did say or a synthetic equivalent, but maybe your words are better, or a suitable alternative. So details of balcony screen, 1.8 metres in height of obscured glass or suitable alternative, I think would fit the bill. Okay. Fine. And that will be a pre-use, preoccupation condition rather than pre-commencement. Does anybody else wish to debate that? Can I see by a show of hands all members present those in favour of Councillor Tilling's amendment? 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14. Okay. Any against? One abstention. Okay. So that's carried, Councillor Tilling. Your next one. Okay. The second one. Second one. Yeah. I think this area is actually fairly notorious in Weybridge for antisocial behaviour. Now, there is no way to lock the fire escape steps, which is to the right of the building as you look at this photograph. And that's because it is a fire escape. But I think Mrs. Shatzrad is absolutely right. Because that's open, if all there is is a little rope gate, then the antisocial behaviour will very quickly spread to people having a kind of overnight party on what has become effectively a roof terrace. So I think it's not unreasonable to ask for a lockable gate to try and prevent access onto this balcony, this extended balcony. So I think that's -- it's sort of an amendment to condition 6. Because in the balcony management plan it talks about a rope barrier can be installed. I'd like to firm that up by saying a lockable gate will be installed along the junction. It's the penultimate paragraph on the balcony management plan. Okay. Do you have a seconder for that, Councillor Burnley? Can I just ask the officer to make a comment, please? Yes. Thank you. So as has been discussed, this is development in the green belt, which is inappropriate. So the impact on openness is from in terms of any built form. And this is adding something -- another thing in terms of the obscure kind of glazing screen. So it's all adding to the impact on the openness, which is being in terms of consideration. I think what you're saying is there could be other options in terms of -- the purpose of what you're trying to do is I think my understanding is for the balcony management plan to give some more thought to it as to -- there could be some other things in terms that would kind of try to address security of the site. I think the applicant's kind of submission talks about security lighting and the camera had to try to put off people from encroaching onto the private property. Question as to whether a balcony management plan to be agreed, would that be sufficient to Councillor Tilling in terms of trying to address those issues? It could be a lockable gate. It might be other things in terms of looking at the security of the site. Councillor Ting. Yes. In effect, that's what we're trying to do. We're trying to agree a balcony management plan. But that wouldn't come back to this committee for approval. And I just wonder whether it's therefore going to be robust enough to meet what we consider are significant security issues and use of the roof terrace. One suggestion would be to amend the conditions, say the details to be agreed in consultation with ward Councillors, for example. Yeah, certainly. Because my final condition would be to say that there should be no amplified music played on the extended balcony at any time. Because what happens is that behind this extended balcony is their training room. This is their gym. And I know what will happen is warm summer nights or even over the winter nights when it actually gets quite warm in that gym, the doors will be left open, they'll try and spill out onto the roof terrace and for some reason people much younger than me can't train without amplified music. And so they will move a speaker out onto the balcony and that will be incredibly intrusive. So I think we do need to say there shouldn't be any amplified music. Whether that should be an additional condition or whether that should be an amended balcony management plan, I'll leave it to you to advise. I think that could go as a condition. Yes, thank you, Chair, yes, I would suggest yes, that could be a condition in itself. There was debate about the use of tannoys as well. So whoever Councillor Tilling wants to expand on amplified music or sound or tannoy use on the extended balcony at any time. And we'd also have to give a planning reason for it in the decision notice. So to protect the amenity of neighbours in accordance with policy DM2 and DM5 would be my suggestion. Okay. Councillor Tilling, just before I go any further, you made the third condition, I just need for the sake of our legal officer who will hit me if I don't, you have a seconder for that, please, as well. Shall I read out the condition which I discussed earlier? I'll ask for a seconder. So the new condition, then, there should be no amplified music played on the extended balcony at any time. The reason would be to protect the amenity of neighbouring properties in accordance with policies DM2 and DM5 of the development management plan 2015. Okay. Thank you. Can I have a seconder, please? Okay. Thank you. Sorry, again, just wonder whether that additional condition is also worth debating. There are already a large number of regulations. This is on private land. There is stuff about noise nuisance. There is plenty of legislation over the last 20 years introduced about antisocial behaviour. I wonder whether the issue that we're trying to solve here potentially which we're predicting, even though we don't have any examples of it to date, would probably best come from talking to the police or talking to somebody who is already dealing with those issues, a local area, rather than us trying to condition any kind of future behaviour. Because equally, if I'm the canoe club or something, they want to once a year have an annual party or something, then suddenly they're in a situation where in the same way that someone would enjoy the amenity of their own house and perhaps have a party in the garden and have due concern for their neighbours by not doing it all night every night, but equally they may have a reason to do so. We're suddenly encroaching on all of that amenity by trying to kind of precondition everything. I wonder whether we should let existing legislation that covers noise nuisance, antisocial behaviour and all those other things try and deal with any concerns we have in that area. Councillors can only consider what's before them in terms of what's before you is an extended balcony. So yes, you could consider, do you feel that the impact of that balcony and as is said in public speaking by Mr Shaptor, the concern there is about the impact of amplified noise at an elevated level, there will be nothing to stop them having amplified noise elsewhere on the site at ground level, for example, or within the building. They would still be able to do that and that wouldn't be kind of stopped by this. This is particularly trying to identify as to whether you feel it's except that there is a particular harm that needs to be mitigated by conditions. So that would be acceptable. It's a matter of whether the committee believed that it's necessary to mitigate the harm. So that would be the issue, the consideration. Yes, Councillor Haspati. Is there an in between between the two of saying blanket kind of no noise and then the others which is kind of falling back on kind of just existing law of if you're a bit of a nuisance, can you turn it down, please, is there not something where it's almost like there are certain times within, for example, if you hit a certain time in the day or is this getting too technical now and it's kind of we're overreaching it a little bit, I don't know, is there like an in between between the two because I kind of see both from the sense of yes, I understand why, how it could get out of hand and how it would be so annoying to have the music every night. But I also then play devil's advocate, I think these are just kids, they are, you know, using a gym, you know. It is a bit of balance. So it seems a little bit like an overreach for us to completely blanket and then but then it also seems like we've left our duty of care a little bit for that neighbour. I think the issue for members is how would you come up with what is a suitable time. So in terms of blanket kind of no use at an elevated level, you could put kind of certain hours but then the question is how do you justify, why is it 9 p.m. and not 6 p.m.? That would be the difficulty. Councillor, Mrs. Salisbury. Sorry, as I understand it, as the officer said, we're actually only talking about on the balcony. So if they want to be playing music outside downstairs, then and from what Mrs. Shatner has said, previously they have done that. That does that's not before this committee, so we can't do anything about that. But what we can do is say you can't play it on the balcony, which will prevent further intervention on her part, which I think would be a kind thing to do. And it would still give them the opportunity to sit inside and have their music playing. I mean, I think really in the introduction of these limitations are not really going to have a major impact on the club at all. But we'll have, you know, offer some reassurance to Mrs. Shatner and from that point of view I think we really need to allow for the fact it is just on the balcony. So if we can do that, we should. Okay. Councillor Wells. I just wanted to confirm, it was amplified music and then Mr. Falconer suggested amplified sound and now it's become amplified noise. I just wanted to confirm which element we were considering. We've said amplified. I think the proposal was only amplified music. So it's whether Councillor Tilling wants to add Tannoy use rather than amplified -- I'm not sure what amplified noise, probably Tannoy use is probably more specific. Amplification. So it's up to Councillor Tilling, it's his proposal. Yeah. Yeah, Tannoys. I think you're talking about sort of megaphones which are used when they have their events. And we are told in the balcony management plan that the events are approximately three to four times per year, these race events, which generally take place on a Sunday between 9 o'clock and 1500. Now as a qualified rowing umpire who has just been busy organizing Walton and Weybridge Regatta where we do have a number of megaphones to try and guide the crews and give them warning, I can't see too much of a problem behind having megaphones on this elevated position just for those three or four times per year when they have a race. So my main concern is during their regular weekday evenings which can be five evenings a week all year round is what we don't want is that to be regular amplified music. The other events where it's a megaphone with somebody standing on the balcony possibly saying, you know, telling the crews when to finish the race, I don't have too much of a problem with that. So we're going to leave it at amplified music. Okay. Councilman? Thanks, chair. I was just going to add to that that taking Councillor Tilling's point about the changing rooms being used and open door, could we not actually again with Ms. Shachter in mind, and it's fear of these things that is fear of the nuisance is as bad as the nuisance itself sometimes, could we not extend that to say there will be no amplified music at first floor level with the doors open, because with the balcony coming on now -- I'd advise against it because it goes beyond what's being considered. So there's already a first floor at the club. This application is only for the extensions of the balcony. Okay. Any other member, because I'd like to move this on now, Councillor Tilling, you've put forward three. We've already carried the first one. We decided to take them individually. So your second amendment was the lockable gate to the fire escape in consultation with board Councillors or security in consultation with board Councillors. Now, at least see just by a show of hands all those in favour of that amendment, please. Is it a lockable gate with balcony management plan to be agreed? Yes. To be agreed. So rather than a lockable gate. Yeah. That's what we changed it to. That's what I did say. Yeah. Just to clarify, because two were put on the table, there was the we do that through the amendment to the -- Balcony management plan. Yeah. Rather than lockable gate itself. No. No. It's security. Right. Let's clarify. It's security to the balcony via the balcony management plan which could include lockable gate or whatever at the end of the day. Yeah. And that's what we agreed. Okay. So that's clarified it. Okay. All those in favour of that amendment then? Eight, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15. Against? Abstain? Abstain? You were against. Okay. So that is clearly carried. And the third one was the no loud music. All those in favour? One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, 10, 11, 12, 13. 12. Against? One, two -- Two. Abstain. Okay. So that's clearly carried. So all three amendments are carried. Does anybody wish to debate further on this item? No. So the -- with those amendments, it is the application has come to you with an officer's recommendation to permit. So all those in favour of permission with the amendments, you've just agreed, please. One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14. And one. Okay. Okay. So application two, oh, two, four, oh, one, four, three, first floor rear terrace extension to the Elmbridge Canoe Club, Waltham Lane is granted permission with the amendments for further conditions. Thank you, members. It took slightly longer than I thought. We'll now move back to some larger application on page 29, which is application two, oh, two, two, three, four, two, seven. This is a hybrid planning application for a phased master plan for mixed use development of the form of Whalen's treatment work involving, and I'm not going to read it all out. You've got it in front of you. Whatever you decide here this evening is subject to a 106 agreement and referral to the Secretary of State. So I think you know, a site visit took place here on yesterday morning on the 10th of June. We looked around the site. And we do have two speakers. Mr. Flanigan is here, he's going to speak on behalf of the objectors. And Mr. Waterhouse is here who's going to speak on behalf of the application. But first of all, I will ask the officer, please, to introduce the application. It's all right. Aneta, would you like to introduce the application, please. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good evening, councillors and members of the public. First of all, before I start my presentation, I would like to just confirm that with regards to updates, we've got a list of some amendments with regards to the proposed conditions which have been circulated with members yesterday. I also confirm that the pre-commencement conditions have been agreed by the applicant as suggested with those amendments. This hybrid application is concerned with the land at former Waylands Treatment Works in Walton-on-Thames. The red outline indicates the extent of the application site. Almost in its entirety, the site is situated within the green belt, and half of the site is designated as a waste site, and a limited area to the west forms part of the larger strategic employment land designation of Hersham Trading Estate. The site shown on the satellite image accommodates a wide range of businesses, including waste and non-waste uses, that are not currently subject to any planning controls. The relevant planning history is set out in Chapter 4 of the committee report. Proposal seeks outline and full planning permission for an employment-led mixed-use redevelopment scheme. The reason for a hybrid approach is that the master plan is for a large area and scale of development, and therefore it is proposed that the development comes forward in phases, as detailed in paragraph 18 of the report. It is then reasonable to enable the detailed plans for each phase to be submitted at a later date. So what are the details of the proposed development? Full planning permission is sought for a first phase of the commercial development, which includes Units F, G and H, as shown on this plan. These would be two storey buildings within the use classes E, B8 and B2, confirming class E is commercial business and service, B8 storage and distribution, and B2 general industrial use. Together with a new vehicular access, cycle and pedestrian access, also called quiet way, and landscaping, all are set out in detail in paragraph 13 of the report. The landscaping details contain a full landscape master plan that includes a nature restoration area to the east of the site, as indicated on this plan, as well as on this illustrative visualization. Outline permission with all matters reserved is sought for a commercial development of uses for linguists in classes E, B8, B2 and sui generis. Sui generis specifically relates to waste, electrical and electronic equipment, abbreviated to weary cycling, further down in my presentation. Furthermore, up to 40 affordable homes are also proposed. The application is accompanied by the environmental statement, which means that additional information with regards to certain aspects of the proposed development and its potential impact on environment and the community has been provided by the applicant. This enables the Council to make an informed decision with regards to these effects. The committee report is detailed, and therefore I will touch on points that are the most relevant to members' deliberations. Turning to the planning considerations. Approximately half of the site is allocated in the Surrey waste local plan for a range of medium to large-scale waste management development. As such, the Surrey County Council, as the Minerals and Waste Planning Authority, were consulted on the application. They confirmed that subject to safeguarding the minimum 10% of the proposed outline commercial floor space for the purposes of the weary cycling, they were satisfied with the reduction of the existing waste uses on site in principle. Their detailed response is included in paragraph 45 of the report. Matters associated with provision of housing are set out in chapters 11.2 and 12.1 of the report. It is acknowledged that there is identified significant unmet affordable housing need in the borough and the proposal would provide up to 40 affordable homes, which represent 100% of the residential provision on site. These would be secured through a legal agreement. The anticipated tenure at the moment is the affordable rent; however, this matter could be revisited at the reserve method stage when a registered provider is secured. Greenbelt considerations are discussed in detail in chapter 11.3 of the report. With the exception of the nature restoration area in the east section of the site, the proposal would result in moderate to substantial conflict with the purposes of including land within this designation and would result in substantial permanent spatial and visual harm to the openness of the Greenbelt, which is the essential characteristic of the Greenbelt. As such, the officer's assessment concludes that the proposed development is inappropriate development in the Greenbelt and, therefore, in line with the national policy, substantial weight is attached to this home. The national policy set out in the national planning policy framework confirms that inappropriate development should not be approved except in very special circumstances. I will return to this matter towards the end of my presentation. Turning to the other matters relevant to the determination of this application, employment use. This is discussed in chapter 12.2 of the report. The existing situation is that since 2011, when the core strategy was adopted, across all strategic employment land in the borough, there has been an average loss of approximately 6,000 square metres of commercial floor space per year. The identified need up to 2035 is for additional 58,000 square metres. The proposal would deliver approximately 41,300 square metres of net employment floor space that could meet over 70 per cent of the estimated need within this period. Additionally, the development would support over 860 direct and indirect jobs during construction and about 2,250 direct full-time employment jobs when operational. It would generate 69 million of direct GVA over the build period and up to 136 million direct net additional GVA for the south-east economy once operational. It will bring rates of 1.5 million per annum and other financial benefits set out in paragraph 124 of the report. Highway and transport matters are discussed in chapter 12.3 of the report. Highway related issues have been at the forefront of concerns raised by the local community and are detailed in chapter 9. When compared to the existing operations on site, the proposed development would result in a modest net increase in vehicle movement at approximately two additional trips per minute during peak times. However, there would be a slight reduction in HEV movements as well. The existing vehicular access via line route would be utilised by the development and the lawful access along the railway line embankment would be transformed into the active travel link starting at the Hesham station running across the site and connecting to the bridleway which runs along the northern boundary of the site. This was named by the applicant the quiet way. This route would connect Hersham and Walton on Thames with the lower green in Isha and enable a safe active travel opportunity for the frequent users of the existing bridleway. The closure of the vehicular access at the railway station enables the implementation of a signalised crossing on Mulsey Road that has been under consideration for a long time and this is possible only through the permanent closure of the vehicular access to Waylands. A new two crossing will serve both pedestrians and cyclists. The applicant proposes a comprehensive suite of off-site highway improvements and mitigation measures. These are detailed in paragraph 146 of the report. It should be noted that these have been subject to an independent stage one road safety audit and subsequent considerations by the county highway authority and considered acceptable in principle. Should permission be granted, these improvements would be subject to further consultation with the local residents before detailed designs are developed and subsequently implemented prior to the first occupation of the development. In terms of the proposal's impact on the character of the area and landscape, officers conclude that the proposals would not result in any adverse impact. Potential impacts on residential amenities are considered in Chapter 12.5, concluding that subject to the suggested conditions, nor the amenities of the existing or of the future occupiers of the development would be adversely affected. Chapter 12.6 on biodiversity considering designated sites and protected species concludes that subject to conditions, there would be no adverse impact. The proposals include the creation of the nature restoration area to the east of the site, which would be used both for the creation of new habitats and as a sustainable drainage system solution. Also the application is not subject to the mandatory biodiversity net gain. The proposals include considerable net gains in connection with habitats and hedgerows. With regards to flooding, archaeology and pollution, the statutory consultees are satisfied that subject to conditions, no harm would arise from the development in these terms. The applicant is dedicated to delivering exemplar sustainable and environmentally performing development to producing highly efficient new domestic and non-domestic buildings, which use low carbon heat and have the best fabric standards possible, ultimately paving the way to zero carbon buildings. Now returning to the Greenbelt considerations, the proposed development is inappropriate development in the Greenbelt and therefore should not be approved except in very special circumstances. The status of the site is that it comprises part previously developed land that accommodates a range of waste and non-waste commercial uses in an open air setting. In the scenario that the proposals under consideration come forward, a range of benefits would arise. These would not be realised without the grant of planning permission for the scheme currently under consideration. Considering the very special circumstances, both harms and benefits need to be afforded some weight. The weight is considered from the highest to the lowest as set out in the report as substantial, significant, moderate, limited and neutral. For the reasons set out in Chapter 13 of the report, the following weight is suggested to be afforded by the officers. First benefits. Provision of affordable housing substantial. Conversion of employment floor space, employment and local economic benefits, regeneration and transformation of the site and reduction in HGV movements and off-site highway improvements significant. Provision of the active travel link, safeguarding residential amenities through planning conditions, improvement to the local area amenities through a reduction of pollution, provision of rear recycling facility, provision of nature conservation area and creation of sustainable low carbon energy efficient estate or moderate weight. Why the regeneration of the Hersham Trading Estate put forward by the applicant neutral? With regard to the harms, harm to the spatial and visual dimension of the Greenbelt openness substantial, conflict with the purposes of inclusion of land within the Greenbelt substantial, residual traffic effect in the locality limited, landscape effects limited and traffic related noise in Rydans Road as a worst case scenario moderate. The officers conclude that whilst the benefits when considered individually would not outweigh the level of identified harm, the cumulative effects and benefits are considered to clearly outweigh the identified harm to the Greenbelt and any other harm such that very special circumstances required to justify development in the Greenbelt do exist. Furthermore, due to the lack of five-year housing land supply in accordance with Paragraph 11D of the framework, the Local Planning Authority needs to consider a planning balance in determining the current proposal. As set out in Chapter 16 of the report, this effectively means that the scales of benefits and harms are tilted in favour of the development. In order to protect the residential amenities, the local community and the environment, a suite of conditions is proposed. Additionally, several benefits and contributions are to be secured through a Section 106 agreement. The off-site highway improvements would be secured through Section 278 legal agreement under the Highway Act 1980 directly with County Highway Authority. The agreed items to be secured through Section 106 agreement include provision of the affordable housing, provision of a car club for two vehicles and a timely membership. Public access onto the quiet way, contribution of £35,000 towards the bridleway footpath improvements in the vicinity of the site and the highway related fees towards the travel plan monitoring and the traffic regulation order. So to summarise the case, the current commercial activities on site are unregulated which means that the uncontrolled number of HEVs and other large vehicles drives through Molesby and Rydings Road at any time of the day, seven days a week. The site is contaminated and activities carried out result in air and noise pollution in the area. The site is untidy and should the commercial activities pattern of the recent years continue, these will expand further. Should permission for the current scheme be declined, all of these uncontrolled activities would continue. However, if permission is granted, the Council will control the number of HEVs and hours of operations through the land use conditions. The worst case scenario indicates that there would be a reduction in the number of HEVs and a limited increase in other vehicular traffic in comparison with the existing situation. The proposal includes a considerable suite of highway improvements and safety measures in the wider area, public realm improvements and the active travel link with a further financial contribution towards other improvements to the right-of-way network in the vicinity of the site. The proposal is for a state-of-the-art development that is nearly net-zero in terms of sustainability. The proposed commercial floor space would create over 2,200 full-time employment jobs at the operational stage, in addition to the other considerable economic benefits. The existing open-air waste uses would be replaced with a highly specialist electronic wee recycling that would be housed indoors, limiting the air and noise pollution. The site would be decontaminated and would offer up to 40 affordable homes that have been under-provided in the borough for many years. The development would create new habitat across the site with a dedicated nature conservation area to the east, resulting in a substantial biodiversity net gain. In conclusion, therefore, subject to the receipt of a satisfactory legal agreement within six months of the Committee resolution, or any such extended period as agreed with the Head of Planning and Environmental Health, and subject of the referral to the Secretary of State, the recommendation is to grant outline and full planning permission. Thank you. Thank you very much. So before we go any further, and I'm going to be a little strict on this one, are there any questions to the officer on technical matters and clarification? Councillor Ormond. Thank you, Chair. And thank you for such a thoughtful report. I know how much time and effort must go into something like that, so well done. My question is, obviously, you touched on the economic benefit, which is vast, you know, it's extremely significant. You touched there on 2200 full-time jobs once completed. What is the current economic benefit of what is there, in the sense of how many people are full-time employed at that existing place, so we can compare the two, thank you. There is currently 85 full-time employees on site throughout the various businesses operating on site, and all of those businesses are subject to short-haul tenancies, which are, I believe, one month long, so basically, they are on a monthly basis renewing the leasehold tenancy. Thank you. Any other? Yes, Councillor Tinney. Yeah, a couple of questions, if I may. This is a hybrid application, which we don't often see, so we've got outline planning as well as a Phase 1 plan. So we're told it could be up to 40 affordable housings. Can you just remind members, then, what happens next? If we were to approve this now on outline planning, what would be the next stage of the process, so we know exactly how many affordable housings we're getting and what the rest of it is going to be? Affordable housing is basically a main consideration in terms of the inappropriateness of the development in the green belt. As such, the officers sought to secure the provision of affordable housing whilst this is currently on outline part of the development site. What we've done, we suggested condition, I believe, is Condition 7, which is Phasing, which secures prior to submission of the first reserve matters application, the Phasing plan has to be agreed, which will secure the provision of the affordable housing. At the moment, with regards to Phasing, it is proposed the affordable housing will come forward as Phase 2 before the rest of the commercial development. Yeah, and it will be coming as a reserve matters application. Councillor Burdi. Oh, I had a second question. Oh, sorry. I beg your pardon, Councillor. I didn't realise you had another question. And again, I just think it might be worth reminding members then, there's a paragraph somewhere about biodiversity net gain, saying it doesn't qualify, even though the Environment Act was 2021 and this was an application in, I think, November '23, could you just remind us why it doesn't qualify for a biodiversity net gain? Yes, certainly. The Environment Act provided a transitional period and that ended originally in November 2023. However, the regulation, secondary legislation and regulations came forward only at a later date from the government and these came into force for major development only on 12 February 2024. That means that all major applications which were made after this date are subject to legal requirement for biodiversity net gain, which is 10%. Just to confirm, with regards to the creation of the new habitat and hedgerows, the proposal includes 23.99% increase in habitat and 100% increase in hedgerows. Also, the application was submitted originally in November 2022, so way before the legal requirement kicked in. Thank you, Chairman. My question is in two parts. The first part is my understanding is that the area that is allocated for affordable housing is effectively a full application. So we would be making -- is that incorrect? So which element is the full application and which element -- can you just remind me -- there's a reason for me to ask you. I'll come on to why, so I'm absolutely clear. Sorry. Thank you. On this plan shown in hatched is the area of outlined planning application site. In the pink is the area of the proposed residential development, with the reminder in blue is the commercial development. The area which is not hatched is subject to full application and includes the quietway running from the railway station along the embankment, then north through the section of the site, including those three two-story buildings, which will be included as part of the full, which will create 5,040 square meters of commercial floor space, then continues to the north where it meets the bridleway 10 along the bridleway and the east area, which is the nature restoration area. This is all full application, so this area will come forward as first phase. Okay. Yeah, you had another part. Yeah, yeah, my second part. There was a method to my madness in asking that question. There is a very, very significant difference in valuation of affordable rent units versus any other tenure, actually, of affordable housing. Now every member is aware of the need for affordable housing in the borough, but the gross need is in respect of affordable rent. So, I have a concern, it sounds like I'm debating it, I'm not, there is a question here. There is a concern that under-reserve matters. We might lose the ability to secure affordable rent units on that site if this outline application were granted. So is there any mechanism, should this application be consented tonight? Is there any mechanism whereby we could secure the tenures this evening rather than wait for reserve matters? Thank you. Yes, the affordable housing is to be secured through section 106 agreement at this outline stage. It is stipulated in the legal agreement it will be affordable rent. If the tenure is not acceptable when we come to reserve matters, the affordable housing is still considered as part of that reserve matter, and it can be reconsidered to a different tenure at that point, whether it will depend basically on the registered provider. And then deed of variation will have to be considered as part of the reserve matters. But basically we are securing the affordable housing at this stage. Sorry, but not the tenure. We are securing the tenure. But it can still be varied at a future date is what you're saying. So we're not really securing the tenure. Yes, we are, because that's the same as any other planning decision where you're securing affordable housing. Any applicant potentially could come back, but this is as secure as you can get, because any deed of variation the Council could refuse if it felt it was unacceptable. I have a number of hands up. I think Councillor Batchelor, I think I saw your hand next. Okay. Thank you. I'm just trying to square with having visited the site, seen the plans and so on. So in the top right-hand corner there, we have what looks like a lower large shed rather than the other two much taller large sheds, as it were. But on the map that looks like -- so that's those buildings there before you then get to the pond. Right. Cool. That's fine. Thank you. Thank you. Just to clarify, this site layout is indicative and is part of the outline. So they will be like warehouse style buildings across the railway line and then to the north side as well, following the residential, going eastwards. Okay. Councillor Wells, saw you next. Thanks, Chair. And I don't want to labour this point because we've already addressed affordable rent, but I just -- for the benefit of members, can you just confirm the difference between affordable rent and social rent, because I believe it's the latter that we really need in this borough, but it's the former that's being proposed. Thanks. Actually, with regards to identify need, there is identify need for all different tenures across the board, and they include ownership, like, for example, shared ownership or discounted market homes, or then tenures which are rented, and that can be affordable or social rented. Social rented is usually at the value of about 60% of the market rent, and the affordable rent is in the region of about 80%, but that would depend on the final registered provider who will take on the development, and at that point, when we know who the registered provider is at the reserve matter stage, that will be discussed and secured, if otherwise. Thank you. My next will be Councillor Marcellino. Thank you, Chair. The phases -- if this was to be approved, how long would this entire project take with all the phases put together, and could you just clarify where the affordable houses sits within the phases? Yes. It is proposed -- it is in one of my paragraphs, phasing through the -- oh, thank you. Thank you. I believe it should come forward across three years, all the phases, and second one is the affordable housing. So I anticipate if everything goes well, planning permission is granted, then they will have to satisfy pre-commencement conditions, and then they will have to submit reserve matters as well as change of use application, at that point they will be able to go forward with the affordable housing. Can the traffic plan be amended at all as this project goes along, and it might throw up different issues, because the main objections do seem to be about traffic. I think the project as a whole looks great, but the traffic is the main problem, and the road layouts are the main problem, and the HGVs are the main problem, and the width of the lanes at Lion Road are, I think, a problem. Thank you. We have a condition which is included at number 8, within the update letters, which actually splits the demolition and construction phases of the development with regards to transport management plan. So prior to demolition, there would be one plan which will need to be agreed by this council. Once the demolition takes place, then the construction will be agreed at that point. There are also -- there is that phase-in, and there is a separate condition which talks about phase-in -- which one it is -- oh, that's just actually a lighting management plan, so it doesn't have anything to do with the transport. However, the improvement and mitigation measures with regards to highway, which are put forward as part of this application, they will have to be subject to consultation with local residents, then further detailed designs developed, and then they will have to be all implemented prior to first occupation of the first phase. So they will come forward first. They might be well implemented at the same time as the construction of phase 1, but they will be definitely in situ before that phase 1 building -- those buildings are in occupation. Next, we have Councillor Mann. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Just one quick question, and we talked about this on the site visit, but you make a point in power 268 that currently this is a -- it's not subject to planning control. Greenbelt bits of the site, a note in the report that talks about without the plan being approved or without this getting consented, there's a danger of further creep -- development creep across the site. Surely, Greenbelt policy itself and general planning policy would stop that or no? The original water treatment work ceased operations in 1980, so approximately 40 years ago. I have included in the report snapshots of satellite images over the years since then, and there was definitely that creep, which is not under current planning control. I think enforcement is very difficult because what is the lawful use of the site is not very clear. It is not clear at all, actually. So it is suggested that if that pattern of development continues, if the -- anything -- that thing happens like, for example, this master plan development doesn't come forward, it will very likely continue its course. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You may not be able to answer this question. You mentioned that there will be improvements to the highways. Now the particular area I'm thinking about is Hersham station and the bridge. I cannot see anybody actually improving that at all, unless you demolish the railway line. Because you just won't get through there, and at the moment, it's one way. So do you know if any improvements are going to be made in this area? And I said, I don't think you'll be able to answer this, and I understand that. But it's one of my biggest concerns is not just this site, but the impact it's going to have on the surrounding areas. And the traffic, because it is pretty horrendous. And as you actually said, there are so many more businesses going to be there, it's going to employ a great deal more people, people are going to live there. So the traffic is -- it will actually expand. So my concerns is, I don't think there's any way that we can guarantee that highway improvements are going to be made, but they are my biggest concern. Do we have any influence over that whatsoever? With regards to the highway improvements proposed by the applicant, these have been subject to discussions with county highway authority and their modeling team for almost a year. And we are here one and a half years after the application was submitted. That was the delay. They have modeled the situations, the worst case scenario proposed by this development. We know that existing situation is not managed. And there are no planning controls over them. So in comparison with the existing situation, the county highway experts believe that there will be an improvement. However, I do understand the improvement of the railway bridge is possibly not possible because that option has been looked at several times. The improvement with -- and the higher GVs can't fit through there because the railway bridge is narrow and it's low and there is only one lane as well. So that is an obvious bottleneck in the area. So basically all the traffic which should be coming from the eastern trading estate as well as from Waylands should go to the north on the Molesby road because obviously Walton Park has got a tonnage limitation of seven and a half tons. So all of that traffic, it's going now and it will be going the same way. But there will be a reduction of traffic. Thank you. Councillor Burley, you want to come back? Thank you, Chairman. In respect of contamination, the applicant will have provided a contamination survey to officers. For the benefit of us here this evening, can you comment on the extent of the contamination on site? Now, clearly, that will need to be remediated as part of the -- any potential consent and ahead of construction. But how significant is the contamination? The reason I ask is if it's severe, then there is a very significant cost to the remediation of that contamination. And it could be the case that if the applicant hasn't already costed that remediation, then it could make a very material difference to the financial outcome of this application. And then further to that, to what extent does the contaminated -- it's fairly evident, I think, where the bulk of the contamination is. But to what extent does it run off into the area where the applicant is considering what I'm assuming is an attenuation at Lake and the area of planting? Thank you. So the current owner, the Northumberland Estates, they bought the site in 2021/2022. And I believe they are well aware of the level of contamination on site when they bought the site. There have been some basic assessments carried out prior to submission of the application. And there is a comprehensive contamination land, potential contamination land condition, which is pre-commencement to a certain level, proposed by our contamination environmental health officer. They require further information to be submitted. So I do not have the quantification of how bad it is, really. But the site is next to the river. So there is quite considerable concern that if there is a contamination, that that would actually pass onto the river and the streams. And it's in the interest of the applicant to decontaminate the site, to redevelop it. And that is their aim. The motto, as I am being told, is they built highly sustainable, energy efficient developments across the country to be proud of. And they want to retain that ownership of the site in a very long period of time. So they are not going to be sold off or anything like that. And the applicant is completely committed to decontaminate the site and provide the state-of-the-art development. And, sorry, so you're not aware of to what extent the contamination runs into that. So I know it's a very detailed question. But I think it's relevant in the context of understanding how much of a barrier that may be to the delivery, or, as I suggested, where the cost increases, if that changes the economic outcome for the site. Thank you. Perhaps the applicant's agent is here. Maybe he can answer that question. Later. Thank you. Councillor Dodge. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just a couple of questions. As it stands, you've said we can control HGV movements, but not any light goods vehicles or any other vehicles that are associated with the site. Is that correct, as it stands? Through the land uses conditions, we can't actually speculate that there will be 100 or 200 HGVs going a day. What we will do actually for specific premises, we will issue what the limits are. For example, hours of operation. And we will be able to limit through the reserve methods application, because all of those uses in outline will be able to secure the hours of operation and the number of HGVs. As part of this, while we are quite confident we can do that, was the modeling of the worst case scenario proposed at this stage, and obviously at the reserve methods, we will have further details, because at that point, it will be clear who the -- very likely the applicant will know who the future tenants of those units would be. At the moment, it's outlined, and it was specifically done as a worst case scenario for those specific uses. And obviously, one of the major concerns is the traffic. And just referring to the picture of the traffic measures on -- which would be one paragraph, 146, or -- presumably, this has been drawn up by the County Highways Agency, or on the advice of another agency, I'm just seeking some clarification as to why, initially, 5(b) and 7(b) recommendations for speed cameras were made, and then have been subsequently deleted, essentially, from this. I believe this diagram is provided from the transport assessment provided by the applicant, and these were the original suggestions for the improvements which were going to the County Highway Authority originally. Then we received a consultation response last year, and County Highway Authority were not satisfied with the proposals, and were working with the applicant's transport consultants to provide a suite of mitigation and safety measures, in terms of highway, which would be appropriate to the scale of the development, and associated with those. With regards to the speed cameras, this was actually suggested by the applicant, that they were willing to even finance the implementation of speed cameras in Rydans Road, or Mall Z Road, wherever it would have been appropriately considered by the County Highway Authority, but unfortunately, Surrey County Council and Surrey Police have some kind of agreement, and they seek to limit the number of speed cameras in the areas, and their mitigation measures come in a hierarchy, which comes that all the other measures have to be explored first, before the speed cameras are put in place. So that's why these have been now omitted from the plan, because they were not agreed, and other measures instead were put forward, like the speed hums, like the Narrow Wind Road, in some places in Rydans Road, lowering the speed limit to 20 miles per hour, implementation of a small roundabout, where the lorries or large vehicles would have to give way at Ambleside Avenue at Rydans Road, and similar. So these were the proposed measures, and this was the reasoning for it. Okay. Obviously, you say that the traffic impact on Rydans Road will be moderate. I'm slightly concerned here that Surrey County Council and the police, who are responsible for our safety on the roads, have neglected the opportunity afforded to them by the applicant to take up the opportunity to have speed cameras. I think when you speak to residents on that road, they are quite concerned also for the road to be narrowed, when you've got HGVs. That sounds like something. Can you bring this up in the debate, Councillor Dodson? Yeah. I'm looking purely for questions at the moment of clarification, and I know how you feel about this. So please bring it up in the debate. Councillor Ball. Thank you, Chair. Thanks for your presentation. I may have missed it in the representations, but you mentioned it's about currently 85 jobs on site. I think actually associated is probably more than that, more like 250. But say we see 250 and this would create maybe 2,000 jobs. So we're going to have 1,750 additional employees here, which is good in many ways. But assuming that half of them are going to drive, more than that, that's an awful lot of additional movements, and that's to one side of the debate. But where are they going to -- is there staff car parking shown on there? Is it just the parking outside each of the facilities, which would be used by customers as well as staff, or is it a separate staff car parking area? Only ask because I suspect that some people may park outside the site and then walk in. So I don't know -- I just wanted some clarification as far as staff parking area. The parking areas were confirmed only as part of the full application at this stage, and they are meeting the standards set out in the development management plan appendix A, which sets out the current Elmbridge parking standards. So they are met. They are provided along the frontage of each of the buildings, as well as cycle parking. The cycle parking element is subject to condition. So further details will need to be submitted, but I don't think they are separated for employees and the customers at the moment. Could I just come back on that? So on the basis we're looking at this hybrid, the debate which we'll go on to in a second really just concentrates on the small area of industrial land. So when it comes down to areas such as where staff can park, et cetera, if we are to grant this tonight on outline, that then becomes -- I know it's in conditions and everything else, but then we don't have that debate again about we are looking at creating an awful lot more traffic movements here, not just the HGVs and of course the HGVs you've covered off, but in terms of staff car parking, where they're going to park, and this is my concern about hybrids, but we'll come on to that in the debate. If I may just clarify that the site is for Elmbridge understanding located in a very sustainable location with regards to transport links, I do appreciate the buses are not very frequent at the moment, but there are bus improvements proposed in the area, and with that provision, it is anticipated that there will be higher provision of buses in due course through those means. The railway station is within -- I don't know how many hundred meters, maybe 200, 300 meters away from the full application part of the application site, as well as that active travel link is provided, so -- and there will be connection with ISHA. We know that lower green area is subject to regeneration project coming forward with potentially quite significant number of homes. We will see about that. But there is obviously an option that there will be that active travel link, which will enable residents from nearest towns to come, actually, and utilize those instead of using a vehicle. Okay. I think that seems to -- there's been a lot of questions. I think that's probably finished those now. Thank you very much, members. We now come to the public speaking. Mr. Flanagan, you're here to speak on behalf of the objectors. Sorry it's taken so long to get to you, but I hope you've found what's been going on interesting. You have the usual three minutes, and members may have some questions for you after that, so whenever you're ready. Thank you. Good evening, Councillors. The officer concludes that there would be substantial harm to the green belt. However, she considers that there are very special reasons to overlook this. Now I would ask you to recall the case of Drake Park, where the provision of 1,200 new homes, that's 1,200 new homes, did not amount to very special circumstances. Now using Drake Park as a yardstick, I don't think that this current application overcomes the hurdle of very special circumstances. I also refer you to the findings of His Majesty's inspector who investigated Surrey's future waste plan. She held that the use of HGVs on Rydans Road should be avoided. The applicant has ignored this. Indeed, it is abundantly clear that they intend to use Rydans Road as the main artery for HGVs to approach the site. They claim that the amount of lorry traffic would reduce. However, they don't know who the tenants would be. Therefore, I don't understand how they can predict levels of HGV traffic. Having lived on Rydans Road for 40 years, I wish to object to the so-called improvements the applicant intends to make to our road. If you decide to permit the development, I urge you to call for further public consultation before introducing speed humps and changing speed limits, et cetera. In my view, such changes would cause more problems than they solve. In this regard, I suggest that you listen to local residents rather than Surrey Highways Department. Thank you. Members, do you have any questions for Mr Flanagan before I move on? No? Okay. Oh, yes. Okay. Councillor Armavati. Thank you. This isn't particularly a technical question. You've lived there for a long time. I think it's fair to say that the current site is a mess. You know, it's not particularly attractive. I'm more talking to you, I guess, more from a resident, you know, kind of a human to human guy on the thing of would you not welcome at least that this is an upgrade on what the site currently is? I can completely understand your point regarding traffic and that's certainly a concern I have. But surely a resident such as yourself can welcome such investment and such an upgrade, I think, from what is quite a messy site to one thing that's much more tidy and beneficial. Well the site is certainly a mess and has been for years. But I don't think that impinges that really doesn't influence local residents. We don't see the site from the road. It's not visible. We don't access it. The only time you would ever see the site is if you go on the train and you're past it in five seconds flat so it doesn't do anybody any harm. It is a right state, I agree. Okay. Councillor Dodge. Yep. Thanks, Mr Fleming. Can you just, again, just to describe the reality of living with the traffic on Rydans and what you might think the impact of perhaps just more HGVs like goods vehicles and more traffic. What is it like right now living on Rydans Road? Well it's, pardon, the number of lorries going backwards and forwards is a pain. Car volumes don't matter to us. It's the lorries that matter because they cause such a clatter and bang as they go past. Not only the noise but they cause vibration damage to houses. You get structural cracking of the houses. There's even a neighbour of mine. I was standing there talking to her one day in her house and some tiles fell off the wall when a lorry thundered past. So the idea of speed humps, for example, does disturb me because speed humps, the lorries don't slow down for speed humps. So you get the lorry comes along, hits the speed hump and that causes it to fly up in the air a little bit and land again so there's more clattering and banging. It's not very pleasant having that sort of thing going past your gate day in and day out. Thank you. Thank you. Any other members? No? Okay. Well, look, thank you very much, Mr Flanagan. Thank you for being so concise and giving those points to us. Can I just ask officers, do you have any comments to make on Mr Flanagan's comment? No? Okay. Right, let us now turn to Mr Waterhouse. You're here to speak on behalf of the application as the agent. You have a similar three minutes and they may wish to ask you something afterwards. Okay. We'll take it whenever you're ready. Thank you, Chairman, and good evening, everybody. It's been a very long journey to get to where we are this evening with the committee report that you've got before you. For a number of decades this site has operated lawfully, but completely outside of the planning system and this has impacted and continues to impact the community in a number of ways, but most profoundly through waste heavy goods vehicles. The site's allocated for waste expansion in the Surrey Waste Plan, but the plan's aspirations totally conflict with the aspirations of the local community, which has created a big chasm between planning policy and the community. And so a scheme proposal was therefore needed that could satisfactorily square the policies of the Surrey Waste Plan, the impacts of the site on the local community, and the need for a comprehensive development sufficient to unlock the maximum amount of societal benefits available. I think the scheme before you does just that. I think the swathe of economic, social, and environmental benefits that will be delivered through this proposal are accurately defined in section 13 of the committee report and I'd urge members to carefully weigh up these benefits, which are numerous, as well as the harms, which are fewer, as the committee report has sought to do in section 15. I think it's also important that members be aware, firstly, that the applicant's making big and important commitments through this application. In many ways they exceed policy requirements in a number of areas and should provide you with a high level of confidence that a genuine exemplar development will be delivered. Secondly, I think it's important to note that the Waste Planning Authority has taken a really important and very responsible approach to this application. They veered away in many respects in the strategy set out in their waste plan and the scheme has only managed to be justified in waste policy terms because of the unique composition of use as proposed. And finally, the applicant's been clear when engaging with the local community on this development that whilst there would be a significant reduction in HGVs and there would be a whole suite of highway improvements that would be secured, the evidence does indicate a likelihood that there would be higher overall trip movements as a result of this development. This combination of compromises by key parties with differing interests is the key to getting a solution on a site like this, a long-standing, really difficult site. The applicant's been pushed hard by planning officers and key consultees on this application and I can honestly address you this evening as a town planner who's been involved with this site for over 20 years and say that I think the scheme before you constitutes the best possible outcome in planning terms. No other solution could achieve the benefits and both the status quo or a development as envisaged by the Surrey Waste Plan represent really poor alternatives in comparison. And so for all these reasons, I therefore urge the planning committee to take this opportunity to resolve to grant planning permission. Lovely. Thank you very much, Mr. Wallhouse. Members - oh, I can see a flurry of hands going up here. Right. I'll move round the room. Mr. Barley. Thank you, Chairman. Mr. Wallhouse, you probably can't see me, but it doesn't matter. Hello there. So I guess you're anticipating my question about contamination. So I hope I made my question relatively clear to the officers. So it's about - it's - my question is about the extent of the contamination of which you're already aware, the extent of the investigation work that's already been done, and such that to the extent you understand the cost to you of mitigating that contamination, such that it's not unforeseen and it then creeps into the negotiation around 106, for example, moving forward. So that's what I was seeking to clarify. Thank you. Sure. Thank you. There was an unsuccessful planning application for a waste-led development in 2013, and that application contained an environmental statement which had a number of borehole tests done across the site, but a heavily operational site. At the time, I think there was only a handful of borehole tests undertaken. But in acquiring the site, the freehold purchase of the site in 2019, the applicant Northumberland Estates undertook some - I think in the region of 80 borehole tests across the site. So they have a very good understanding of what's on the ground and what's underneath the ground. They are comfortable from a viability perspective that it doesn't threaten or hamper the development. If they did, they would want to have been explicit with that right now. This is not a proposal before you that we're looking to unpick down the line in any way. The aspirations is to deliver a development as sought, and we're not aware of any of this being a sufficient abnormal to hamper viability. Thank you very much. Councilman? Thanks, Chair. Thanks for the presentation and response to my predecessor. The question I've got for you is the impasse that appears to be here is not actually about the scheme, from comments in the Chamber, from applause from the audience, the question appears to be the difference in opinion about HGV and future traffic. And the officer's report and the application is quite clear that there's a net positive outcome in terms of traffic, albeit a slight net increase in traffic. The net effect is positive. You've just reiterated that. But all of the fear appears to be that we're going to be overtaking HGVs. And that, you know, as the objectors just made plain, his major concerns, they just expressed, haven't been about what goes on on the site, it's about the effect of Loris trunding past. So how can you reassure us, how can we square that, or how can we net those two differences off? Thank you. It's a very good question. It's a very valid question. In planning, there is an established methodology, especially with these major planning applications like this, which engage a transport impact assessment. And the requirement, which is a statutory requirement when undertaking environmental assessment and traffic impact assessment, is to consider a relative worst-case scenario. So the application that's before you, the outline elements, you'll note that they are all up to. So they are to a maximum level of floor space. It may be that the level of floor space doesn't end up being quite like that. But what we've done is we've tested and modeled a relative assumption -- I think it's for 70% of the commercial to be Class B8, storage and distribution, 20% to be general industrial, and 10% to be officers. And that's a realistic assessment based on our knowledge of the market on what we believe that will be. And we've modeled that, and we've tested on worst-case scenario, and the infrastructure and the highway improvements that are being delivered are based on that worst-case scenario. So we are putting that infrastructure in, and we're committing to doing that as a preoccupation condition on the first development to try and ensure that the infrastructure is there to support the quantum that we're seeking. Thanks very much. Can I just come back on that, though? Because the specific question that the objector raised, and I think somebody else has raised as well, that this is an outline application. We don't yet know the tenants that are going to take place. You can say that it's 70% of this and 20% of that. If we don't know the specific tenant, how can you realistically suggest how many HGVs are going to travel the route? I think there's two points that I would make on that. The unknown at this point, the outline component, that will be subjective reserve matters planning applications. They in themselves are major planning applications. It's not as if it's a conditions clearance submission that secures the ultimate form of the layout of the development of this site. And those highway impacts of that composition of uses will be considered when future reserve matters planning applications are submitted. But I also have the highways expert who's worked on the scheme over the last couple of years sat next to me. And he can explain a little bit about the conditions that have been applied and the delivery and servicing plan and route management strategy that are intrinsic to this proposal. Thank you, James. My name is Richard Fitter. I'm the director of NTRAN and we carried out the transport assessment for this scheme. I'm a transport consultant of quite a few years and I had long hair when I started. And not on this project, perhaps. But this is quite a unique project for us because it is very common that we will be given a development, almost a fully formed development and asked to assess the transport effects of it and what mitigation would be required. And that wasn't our brief here. Our brief here started a long time before our involvement and that's where Northumberland and the states understood what the local community's concerns were. And they came to us not to say what are the transport effects of this proposal. But actually what proposal would result in a reduction in HGV movements on this site. So they approached it from the starting point of knowing that that was a key concern of the local community. And so actually we were instrumental as the transport consultants in devising the types of uses, the mix of uses and the maximum floor areas to a degree where we could have confidence that those uses as a worst case would still generate fewer HGV movements than the observed traffic going in and out of the site at present. It's worth noting, of course, there's no restriction on the amount of HGVs going in and out of that site at the present and that could increase in any case if the users on the site were to change with no controls and no delivery and servicing plan. So we put forward our method of assessment to Surrey County Council and they made us jump through quite a few hoops. They held us to account on every part of that transport assessment. And we had to assess three or four times different scenarios, different analyses to ensure that both parties, us and the County Highway Authority, were satisfied that we had tested a worst case both in terms of demonstrating a reduction in HGV movements but also the effects of non-HGV vehicles on the surrounding network. It was a long process to reach agreement on that. But Surrey County Council is satisfied that we have tested a worst case, that our assessment that there will be a net reduction in HGVs is robust, and that the increase in non-HGV traffic doesn't have a material adverse effect on the local roads. A great deal of the transport improvements that we have proposed are not mitigating traffic effects. They're actually promoting walking and cycling, reducing speed and improving safety. And that's always been the concern from the outset, that a lot of the community comments to us through the public consultation event were about numbers of HGVs, which was our starting point, but also the effects of those HGVs if you were walking along Rydans Road, for example. And actually the package of measures was a direct response to the comments that we received from the local community, which we then put to the County Highway Authority. And there's been a great deal of discussion with them about what are appropriate. But as you've already heard this evening, those will be subject to further consultation with the local community before anything is implemented. Okay. I'll repeat that. Thank you for that very full answer. I think that's clarified things. Thank you, Chair. And thank you for your time this evening, and for I think such a thoughtful application. My question is actually trying to understand the logic a little bit into the placement of the homes. There's probably everything for it, so that's kind of what I'm seeking here. Why have they been placed next to the railway instead of perhaps maybe on the other side nearer towards the fields? There's probably a standard answer to that, I'm just wondering what that is. I think there's a few reasons for that. There is an emerging and continuing focus within planning to be able to reuse and adapt buildings. And on this site, there aren't many buildings that are suitable for conversion and adaptation within this scheme. But there are two buildings that, whilst not being of heritage value, they have been there a while, they could be converted and could be converted in quite an attractive way. So it was about utilizing those buildings. Also in terms of the affordable housing, we want to provide highly sustainable affordable housing, which minimizes the need for a private car. This particular part of the site is within 300 meters walk of the railway station, which could be accessed via an exclusive quiet way, which serves the wider site, thereby justifying the level of density and optimizing the amount of affordable housing that can be secured on this site. Councillor Dodge. Thank you. Just I know that you have engaged with the community, which I do think is always to be applauded in that regard. But obviously one of the questions that they have put to you and a problem you have been trying to solve is the level of traffic. Do you think, especially by the nature of this application being outlined and hybrid application, do you think that you've essentially answered those questions? Because a lot of the residents and indeed I think concerns raised by this committee about the nature of this application, do you think you have satisfied those concerns, especially about the traffic, by the nature of this application? Do you think you should have had your ducks in a row? Well, I can start. I mean, yes, but then I would say that, wouldn't I? But the statutory consultee on this, Surrey County Council highways, they have been a very, very significant consultee for us and as the case officer outlined, this application probably would have been before you 18 months ago. But they have tested and challenged every assumption. It has been rigorous. It has been painful at times. And we recognize that we're still not there, that whilst these have been agreed, there is further consultation to go and there is further definition of the package of highway infrastructure works, which is so crucial for the development. But I think that Surrey County Council, whilst their consultation response says no objection, I think that they're delighted with the package of infrastructure works that they're seeking through this planning application, as somebody who has been privy to those discussions over the last 18 months. It's a matter that my client, the applicant, has prepared to say whatever it takes, and that was why the offer of speed cameras, no matter the cost, was offered to the highways authority. Sorry. Can I just -- I'm just going to follow up on that because I think part of the question was the nature of the application and the fact that part of it is outlined and part of it is in full. That's why, and I think at the risk of repeating what James said earlier, that the outline is up to a certain amount of floor space. So therefore it is by its very nature worst case. None of the reserve matters applications that come forward could be for greater floor area. They would be for a lower floor area and therefore less traffic than has already been assessed. So it can't be more, but it may be less. In terms of the concerns raised by the residents, a lot of those concerns were actually voiced on a previous application on this site for a completely different use, and the same concerns were sort of cropping up again. And because we've had a long-standing involvement in the site, we understand that some of the concerns are about volume of traffic, some of them are about speed of traffic, some of them are about proximity of large vehicles to vulnerable road users. And we've stood in the rugby club on quite a few occasions listening to the local communities, and we've done our very best to address every one of those concerns by looking to reduce speed, by looking to improve safety, and just on a very minor point, the issue about noise from speed humps, we're not proposing speed humps that go curb to curb, we're deliberately intending to put in speed cushions of the type that large vehicles would straddle and therefore they wouldn't be going over, there wouldn't be noise, but they're elongated, so they still have a speed reduction feature in them. We have to do that anyway because it's a bus route, and you can't put vertical traffic calming on a bus route because everyone who's standing up ready to get off the bus falls over. So we've considered in the speed control measures and the safety measures the other things that come with those, such as noise and air quality and traffic routing. The measures themselves are agreed by the highway authority in principle, but will be subject to further local community involvement. We also will have to, by condition, agree a delivery and servicing plan and a construction management plan, all of those full details will still be up for further scrutiny. We've already submitted details of those, but those will be secured by condition prior to commencement and prior to occupation, respectively. Okay. Thank you. Councillor Halman, I think I'll show your hand next. Thank you, Chairman. Yeah. Like Councillor Mann, I'm concerned about HGVs, and you said that you've worked on a methodology for the worst case scenario with HGVs, but do you know who the tenants are going to be that are going to take over these buildings? And if you don't, I can't quite figure out how you're going to decide how many vehicles they might have or might not. And if you do get permission for this application, how would you be able to work out how many HGVs are the maximum and how many HGVs are moving on to the site, particularly as the site is going to be similar to it is now? So that will obviously mean there will be a big reduction in the amount of waste taken to the site, I assume, if you're going to have less HGVs, but that's my question for this. Thanks. Yes. Thank you. So the method we use for -- well, for establishing the existing numbers, we went out and counted them. We put down tubes, and we counted them for a fortnight in 2021, and then we did it again in 2022 to see if the pandemic had had any effect. So we got a baseline, and we compared that actually to some preexisting data we had as far back as 2005. So in terms of the existing numbers of lorries going in and out of that site, we've got empirical data from counting the vehicles in and out. Any transport assessment has to predict the amount of traffic that you're likely to see generated by development. That's the nature of doing a transport assessment for any development. If it's an outline development or even if it's a full development, unless it is a personal planning consent, even if we were applying for a supermarket, you wouldn't know who the operator is going to be. So it is the nature of any transport assessment that what we're assessing is the use, the use that the site is being put to. And therefore, we use something called the TRX database that I'm sure many of you have heard about before. The TRX database is a nationally accepted database of surveys, surveys of similar sites to this one. So we will actually have to look at other sites that have warehouses, have industrial uses, have office uses, general industrial sites across the country, and we'll find those that are most like this, both in terms of its scale and its location. And those will be surveys of the vehicles in and out of those sites. And we use that to predict the amount of traffic we would expect to come in and out of this site if it was fully developed out to that maximum level. When we did that, Surrey came back and said we think actually you haven't been robust enough. You've taken the average of all of those surveys and we'd like you to actually take the 85th percentile. So we know the higher level of traffic in and out of this site. So we actually assessed the site not on what the average of all of those other surveys was, but actually on the highest level of all of those other surveys. So we've tested the maximum floor area that would be permitted by this consent and the highest level of traffic we would expect those uses to generate. So we don't know who the operator is going to be, but we can be confident and sorry agree with us that we've tested the worst case in terms of the number of HGVs. And what we've shown is there would be fewer than there are at present. Okay. Councilor, Ms. Salona. Thank you. One point about the traffic. Why did you not consider just banning HGVs down Rydans Road and diverting them down to the road between the reservoirs? And I've got one other question about the green belt as well. But if you want to answer that one first, that would be great. Let's do the traffic one first, shall we? Thank you. Yes, we were aware of the issue regarding HGVs and Rydans Road. And so that was one of our early discussions with the County Highway Authority. We said as part of the delivery and servicing plan, we would be agreeing a route management plan where we would dictate which roads HGVs could use and which they couldn't. And when we looked at the network and where there were air quality management areas, where there were weak bridges, low bridges, other restrictions on HGVs, it was actually the County Highway Authority who said they didn't consider it was appropriate to ban HGVs on Rydans Road. So as part of the route management plan, we put forward a proposal for not having HGVs on Rydans Road. And the County Highway Authority said they didn't think that was workable. And what they wanted to see was lower speeds for those vehicles. And of course, we demonstrated that there would be fewer HGVs as a result of the development. I think the residents might disagree. Anyway, the green belt, the nature reserve that you have planned out there, who will maintain it going forward? Who will develop it? And just how large is it? Because I'm finding it hard to -- I mean, describe it in numbers of football pitches, if you like. The applicant would constrict it. The applicant would maintain it. It's important for the applicant's flood storage strategy. And it's an important aesthetic as well. In terms of its size, I'm going to say it's about 3.1 hectares. But I would -- which is about 8 acres, which is -- I'd say that's several football pitches. Any more? Councilor Dodds, you wanted to come back. Just one follow-up, actually. You said that it would be -- the site would be used predominantly for storage and distribution. Am I correct in that? Can you say, just for clarity, storing what, storing and distributing what, and by whom, please? So that is a use class, which is class B8. So all the different businesses, all the different types of business in the country fall within specific genres. The existing uses on the sites are a mix of sui generis waste, sui generis employment, and some B8 and B2. The type of businesses that we're expecting, there are a very wide variety of businesses that fall within class B8. But they are -- they have a distribution element to them. They have a -- they typically are production businesses, they cover anything from self-storage to food cultivation. There's all sorts of uses. I think it's such a wide use class category, I would not be able to specify all the uses that fall within B8. Yep. And perhaps the officers could clarify whether that includes the likes of Amazon or any other kind of generic distribution or parcel distribution services. I think the officer will clarify that for you. There is actually a condition which we attached at the end of the list of conditions which restricts the parcel distribution use unless planning permission is granted first by this local planning authority. Okay. Thank you. Okay. I don't see any hands up. Okay. Gentlemen, thank you very much, indeed. It's been very instructive. I think from the questions that have been asked from members who have got a lot more information than they had at the beginning. So thank you very much, indeed, for you for coming here this evening and answering the questions. Members, before we go into any debate, as I said earlier, we do have the ward council here for Walton South, and as allowed forward in our constitution, she is perfectly entitled to come here this evening and make a statement regarding this application. So I'm going to ask council member Huyens if she'd like to make that statement to members. Thank you, chair, for giving me the opportunity to speak this evening as ward councilor for Walton South. I must first say that there are many pros and cons, and I can see that the proposal for the overall development of the site could be a huge improvement to what there is currently. With my portfolio hat on, I can see that this could have a significant and overall positive impact on the local economy. We have a shortage of affordable housing in the borough, so whilst it is music to my ears that the development also includes 40 affordable housing units, I have very serious doubts as to whether this is in the right location, it being surrounded by huge industrial and commercial buildings. The proposed biodiversity area and the greening of the site would also be of value, as would the recycling activity in terms of our green agenda and as this falls within the Surrey waste plan, this fulfills the criteria of some form of waste management being undertaken. However, as a ward councilor and as a resident living within the vicinity, I share the very serious concerns that residents have, as indicated by the number of objections, which amounts to 454. Firstly, I am concerned that the majority of this application is only an outline, so the areas which have been designated for warehouse style buildings and the affordable homes are outline only. As this is the case, it is unknown who the tenants of these units are going to be, what activity will be undertaken, and that makes me and residents sceptical to the claim that there will be fewer HGVs than currently access to the site. This brings me on to the volume of traffic this will generate. In the applicant's transport assessment report dated October 2022, the impact of the proposed development on the volume of traffic was provided. It states that a detailed traffic survey was carried out in September 2021 and shows a table that at peak times, i.e. between 8 and 9 a.m. and 5 and 6 p.m., the total observed traffic per day was 1,034. The report predicts that this could change to a total of 2,279 per day at these times. Therefore, a net increase of 1,245, which is more than double the amount of traffic at peak times that we currently experience. I find this very concerning. There will be a huge increase in the volume of traffic on our already very busy residential roads and an increase in associated levels of pollution. Rydans Road is one of the main routes to the site and is wholly residential. I would argue that it is unsuitable for HGV traffic and the railings at the junction of Hersham Road and Rydans Road have frequently been damaged due to HGVs finding it difficult to turn in. It's been indicated to me that whilst it is hoped there will be fewer HGVs with this scheme, more of them could be articulated HGVs and I just can't imagine how they will negotiate this already very tight junction. Also, residents of Walton Park have complained to me that despite a weight restriction for vehicles on the road, HGVs often make use of it. They leave the Wayland site and turning left out of Lion Road are faced with a height restriction at Hersham Railway Bridge and so take a detour down Walton Park. There doesn't seem to be any enforcement of the current weight restriction and there is a concern that this will happen more frequently. I also have serious concerns over the fact that the only access to the site is Lion Road. This is the only access currently but given the increase in traffic, I do consider this to be an issue in terms of safety and traffic congestion. The applicant has proposed a number of changes to the junction but it's my view that they will not go far enough and therefore will not comply with policy DM7 section 4 of the development management plan. There was a proposal to have a new right-hand turn lane from Molesey Road into Lion Road but knowing this road as I do, I find it difficult to understand how this will actually work in practice. A suite of traffic calming and road safety measures have been suggested and I know that this applicant that the applicant will be required to enter into a further public consultation on what these should be should this application be granted permission. Some of these measures might be welcomed but they do not take away the fact that there is going to be a huge increase in traffic overall and associated pollution. It stated in the officer's report in paragraph 239 that emissions from road vehicles are the principal source of pollution adversely affecting air quality in Elmbridge. Finally I turn to the issue of this land being greenbelt. This one is difficult as the current use of the site has been left unregulated for decades and over time the activities have been allowed to fall further. This application seeks to provide a definite boundary and provide a biodiversity area to the east of the site. Nonetheless we must not overlook the fact that this is designated greenbelt land. I hope that members will take into account these issues and in particular the serious concerns over the huge increase in traffic and therefore pollution that this development will cause when reaching their decision this evening. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you for that. Members before we go into debate, I am conscious that we have been here for two and a half hours and I was just wondering if you would like a five minute comfort break before we continue with the debate because we have not only the debate but we also have a few housekeeping issues afterwards. Shall we say, if you can try and be back here as close as you can to about half past nine, I think that would be good. Thank you. I think I have got to sort of say, please try and be as concise as possible with your comments. We heard a lot of information tonight. Try not to repeat what somebody else has said and try to get your comments out all in one go rather than coming backwards and forwards all the time. Obviously I won't stifle any debate at all but if you could bear that in mind it might help us come to a logical conclusion before midnight. So who would like to start this off? Yes. By all means, council Price, it's lovely to see you on your first meeting. It's been a baptism of fire, as I've just said, but it would be good to hear from you. Thank you. Thank you. Yeah. So, Councillor Price of Wharton South, I'm the ward Councillor, and to reiterate the words we've heard from the other Councillor, Kirsty, my three main concerns with this planning application, firstly the encroachment on the green belt, and as the officer report says, it's a moderate to substantial harm on the three key purposes of the green belt. The small number of affordable houses, and we only have an indicative mix, so is that actually addressing our local plan's concerns, largely three bedroom houses, which is what we need. And finally, which we've heard substantial amounts of time throughout this committee meeting is the risk of the increase in HGVs throughout our ward. And as we heard, the worst case scenario is based on the 80th percentile, and I work in uncertainty, and that scares me, that modelling. And so, those are my three concerns, and I would like to come back to those at the end of the debate, but thank you very much. Thank you very much indeed. Councillor Warr? Thank you, Chair. Like, as you said, I think we've had a lot of this debate during the questioning of officers and also the applicant and the objective. My issue here comes down to I understand all the traffic, highways. My issue comes back to the principle of the green belt. And if you look at page 75, index 97, it says in conclusion, therefore, there will be a permanent significant loss of the openness of the result in terms of its visual impact resulting in significant harm to the essential characteristics of the green belt. If you then look at page 69, you will see how the site encroaches, actually, the main reason or one of the main principles of the green belt is to separate collobations, towns and villages. You will see from there that basically it's pushing Walton further and further towards Asia and lower green. So those separation distances are getting smaller and smaller. And I think there is significant harm if and allowing this scheme to go forward in terms of the green belt. Now, obviously, there are uses on the site at present, part of it, but the actual buildings on the site, I think they're 2,859 square meters at present. The application is for 37,977 square meters, which is 13 times larger than the current small buildings on the green belt site. So whilst you could put some significance on the existing buildings, the main principle is to do with the hard standing and various uses of that. Now, that hard standing still allows significant openness of the green belt. We have in front of us a scheme which is 7% of which is detailed, 93% is outline. Now, the problem with that is, and I've gone through this before, on Sandown Park, will be an outline scheme on green belt land, it was very difficult to make those decisions because you're always coming back to what you're actually negotiating with. You heard my comment earlier on about where are staff going to be parking. Well, that would have to be come back with detailed. And these matters keep on coming back. When you look at green belt sites, outline consent is very, very rarely acceptable. I have significant concerns about the traffic in the site. I know the officer said that we can condition about Amazon type uses, but in reality, if we grant outline consent, when we get detailed consent, if there's a big letting in there to a parcel delivery, then again, that will no doubt come back. When we talk about HGV movements at the moment, yes, of course, there are HGV movements here, but as we look at a much bigger scheme of this, which is 400,000 square feet of warehousing, they will be artics, not smaller HGVs. So it's one, it's traffic movements, also the size of those traffic movements, plus the number of people working on site and the number of car movements on that as well. This site is not -- these sort of types of sites should be on main road frontages with proper highways access. So I have significant concerns about this site, and I'm going to be removing refusal on green belt terms, but I'll listen to what other people say so far, and then I'll come back with my detailed reasons. Thank you. Councillor Burley? Thank you, Chairman. This is an incredibly finely balanced and, in fact, nuanced application to my mind. I'll cover the two elephants in the room, first of all, if I may. The first one is the traffic issue. I fundamentally believe that in a situation as complex as this, we cannot and should not question the science. We've heard from the applicants about their negotiations and their debates with Surrey County Council over traffic movements. It's evident to me at least that both the applicants, Highways Consultant and Surrey County Council, have invested hundreds, if not thousands of man-hours in trying to understand and establish through science, through empirical evidence, as to the impact. So I think we need to have a very, very strong evidence base ourselves that their evidence here is wrong, and I just can't see that. So that's point number one. Point number two is the Green Belt. Now, of course, we all know that by definition any form of development in the Green Belt is harmful. That is beyond question, and we all accept that. But that's not the question that we're here to determine tonight. What we're here to determine is whether very special circumstances exist that overcome that harm. And again, sticking to the absolute facts here, this is a previously developed site. This is not a greenfield site. It is a previously developed site that exists within the Green Belt. There is an extensive list of benefits and harms in the officer report. Whether you agree with the measure of benefits and the measure of harms is up to you, but it's evident to me that the extent the benefits identified appear to outweigh the harm. So that then leads to the cumulative effect of very special circumstances. Now, any VSC is a high bar anyway, but when you have a significant number of VSCs, then the cumulative effect that the officers raise is relevant and should be -- we should give weight to the cumulative impact, as well as the specifics. Coming on to employment use, we do know that this site will meet the need of our net employment floor space for a considerable period of time. I forget the plan number, 61,000 square meters, was it, or something, I forget, but this delivers 40-odd thousand. We heard that during the officer debate. So there is a significant both economic and community benefit. And also the -- talking specifically about the employment impacts, we -- as members, when we look at employment effects of any application, we look at FTE, so the full-term employment equivalent. We've heard that the FTE of the existing site is 85, and there's many, many contract workers there, workers that are not the beneficiaries of long-term, full-time contracts, whereas this application will provide 2,200. I do actually fully agree with Councilor Warr on the concern over whether they part, whether they go. I think that's highly relevant. But we have also heard, in response to that concern, that the parking will be subject to our existing parking standards. My concerns are these -- I think you heard me during the Q&As earlier on. I have a fundamental concern about the affordable tenures. As I said earlier, there is a very, very significant difference between the value of 40 affordable rent units and 40 shared ownership units. And I'm concerned that because this is a reserve matters application, then there may be a little bit of negotiation and debate around a viability argument as to what that eventual outcome is, if clearly the applicant would prefer it to be a high value and would prefer it to be shared ownership, rather than the affordable rent that we're being offered through this outline application. So I think it's incredibly difficult. Ultimately, I'm attracted to the fact that we take back planning control over the site. I think that's quite powerful. That allows us to impose conditions and impose our authority on the site, and we don't currently have that opportunity available to us. And then, of course, there are other factors around pollution. This is a working waste site. We know that 50 percent of the site is waste. The waste use type is going to change, such that it will be a more low-polluting waste type, and air quality will inevitably improve as a result. So as you can see, my view is there are a huge number of benefits here, and there are also concerns. And so in order to make my decision, I'd be very pleased to hear the views of others. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Tunning. Yeah, thank you, Chair, and thank you, Councillor Burley. I agree. This is a tricky one. But it is currently a pretty messy site. We've got metal reprocessing, we've got piles of hard core and rubble. It's not an attractive area. And I'm certainly pleased to see that actually some of that will be replaced -- all of it will be replaced with electrical waste recycling, which I think fills a need in the county. I think if you look at the full application, which is the -- up on the screen, the area in red hatching, which is what we can consider tonight before we get to the sort of phase one outline application, which will come later. The full application is actually quite a small part of the site, but actually I think it gives the majority of the benefits. It's got the 24% increase in net biodiversity through the conservation area. It's got a condition on active travel with the new -- what they call the quiet way, bridal way linking up to the existing bridal way. And I don't think I've ever seen an application with quite so many off-site highways conditions. So I can see that actually the applicant has worked very hard with Surrey County Highways to come up with a lot of conditions. So we've got a condition for bus stops. We've got a couple of conditions for improved junctions. We've got a condition for the 20-mile-an-hour zone of Rylands Road. We've got a condition 36 for station area improvements. I have to say that I do sort of despair at our country's lack of ambition when it comes to infrastructure improvements. I mean, this was a fantastic opportunity for Surrey County to get together with network, rail, and with the government to say, here's a big application. We've got a Victorian infrastructure bridge which is preventing all that traffic from going the sensible route, which would be onto the Hochian Bypass, Queens Road, Seven Hills Road, A3, M25. Instead of that, they're going to have to go through residential areas, Rydens Road, Walton Road, through the reservoirs, at which point they end up in quite densely packed residential areas of either Molesy, Hanson Court, or Walton. Neither of those are particularly good routes, or none of those are particularly good routes for HGVs. So what a shame that we don't have that kind of overarching, oh, here's a big infrastructure where we could actually widen that bridge and we can improve things enormously for commuter traffic and everybody else. But anyway, we haven't got that, which I think is a great shame. But on the whole, I think, actually, we've got certain benefits to this area of improving what is a really quite messy site, improving local highways. But I mean, clearly, there are pros and cons on the amount of traffic, but I think we have heard some fairly convincing arguments that the traffic analysis has been comprehensive, and Surrey County highways have gone along with those conditions imposed. I think we do need to consider, if we were to refuse on highways grounds, I doubt that the planning inspector would uphold our refusal on those grounds. And I think we do need to be mindful of that if we make any decision about the highways implications. Okay. Thank you. Next I have on the list is Councillor Omanade. Thank you, chair. Councillor Tilling is nicked my line of the overturning of the inspection, but I actually agree, and I'm not going to overlap on what's been said, because it's a waste of time, but I think the points made are this is a pros and cons thing, and I actually -- I completely agree. I think the thought that has gone into this application is quite considerable, and I actually think it's quite a good standard to set. One thing I do want to just, when we're talking about vehicles and the concentration of vehicles, and I know it's probably not good to, obviously, we're talking about the application in front of us, but obviously this committee dealt with the college, and that was a significant application, and that was one where we, for example, we were putting dwellings within an area that was constricted by two listed pillars where cars come in and out, and we still considered that to be worthwhile. I think the pros here massively outweigh the cons. I'm not saying that there aren't, because there are, and there generally always is with planning applications, but I think, you know, and even the point of the site, it is, it's an absolute mess, and even to the point of, all right, fine, it is hidden from drivers, that's true, but on the point, anybody coming in to Hirschham, Walton, Weybridge will see this site on a train, and it's not always the case that it was this past, because a lot of the time it does stop at Hirschham, everybody's like, what is that, what are we looking at? So I think it's a really good opportunity to capitalise on this initiative and this investment to create a better area, and I think, I'm going to leave the green stuff to Councillor Wells, because that is his remit, and I wouldn't dare step in it, but I think from a green perspective as well, it's something that we should welcome, and it's obviously something that the council's keen on, is green, and also, finally, the point of affordable homes, which is something we shouldn't snub at all, so I'd be happy to support this application. Okay, Councillor Mann. Thank you, Chair, a few quick points, I think, paragraph 268, for me, this was a difficult application until I visited the site. It's proposed the existing entirely site being operated outside of the planning controller, so this brings it back into control, and recognising Councillor Ward's point, but I disagree in this case that this is the perfect case to have a hybrid application, because as Councillor Tilling said, the bit that offers all the benefits is under control, the rest is also under our control, but from the minute we consented, it's all under our control. At the moment, it's not. The other compelling point is paragraph 255, which is the eight snapshots of satellite imagery since 1995, and you can see the direction of travel, and if you're concerned about HCV traffic now, do nothing and wait a couple of years. So it's an absolute nightmare. And in terms of affordable housing, more might be nice, but I can think of worse things than putting four affordable houses within 300 metres of a station and within less distance of 2,000 jobs. So where are we going to put the site? And the green belt, it's previously developed land, it's this has got lots of small V, small S, small C, very special circumstances, which cumulatively together for me leap, easily hurdle the VSC case. And from seeing the site and hearing the point about the traffic, we can't refuse this on traffic, and I've never seen a more detailed, more comprehensive, more thorough, more beneficial traffic survey. So I'll be supporting it. Thank you. I think the next one I saw was Councillor Dodge. Thank you, Mr. Chair. It's a general issue, if you'll indulge me, which as a committee, I do think we need to be wary, and I know the legal officer will not thank me for this, for the chilling effect, is that we shouldn't be, as a planning committee, be frightened of taking difficult decisions that we think may or may not fall foul of the inspector. We should feel empowered to take what we feel is the right decision, regardless. I think that's really important for us as a planning committee. Just moving on very quickly about another expression, it's like what's called the bane and the antidote, the social housing element of this, which is, or, you know, the model that we're not really quite sure how that's working, again, it seems like a bit of a sweetener to mitigate some of the admitted problems with this application. We're always told here, and, you know, we deal with what's in front of us, what we know, and there are a lot of unknowns here, and obviously I have my own reservations about the traffic. I find it, you know, obviously, yes, there is science-based, Councillor Burley, if you'll indulge me, I think probably most police officers would say in terms of the hierarchy of deterrence, speed cameras are probably right up there short of having a policeman or officer on every street corner with a radar. So if we've got a problem with speeding traffic, the most effective deterrent would be traffic cameras. And we have, despite the applicant's offer to Surrey County Council, that has been refused, which I find disappointing. Okay. Thank you. The legal officer just wishes to make a point on something that's just been raised. As you probably thought I would. Just to remind members, obviously, officers are here to advise you as members in terms of the appeal and risk of appeal. There's obviously always the risk of cost in terms of appeal. And if you are refusing applications, you are, as a committee, have to look at the planning reasons for that and have sound planning reasons for your decision-making. Thank you. Councillor Waugh, your hand went shot up there. Was it something to do with what the officer has just said? It was. Yes. I think, like all these things, the Greenbelt land is a tilted balance. And everyone has their own views on this. I think when you go back and look at previous development land, there's a slab on a lot of it. But there's nothing on it. And I think what we're projecting is 50-foot high distribution warehousing. And in an area which can't support it. Well, yes, it's a great idea having the employment. And it's an area which is going to impinge. This takes out one of the main reasons of the openness of the Greenbelt. So I think it's all very well saying it's PDL, but only on part. And it's open PDL as well. And we have to look at the Greenbelt in the round. And this is actually merging conurbations. And I feel very strongly about this. In terms of would we go to costs on Greenbelt land, no. And because we have -- it's a tilted balance. We have to decide our own mind. The inspector will not go ask for costs on this. Because we will put down -- I put down my reasons for refusal, we'll be on proper Greenbelt reasons. I won't be putting anything in which is going to be difficult in terms of coming back for costs. So that's the area of point I would like to make. And just to bear in mind, you know, we are looking at a scheme here which is 93% outlined. Okay, Councillor Zellano, I think I saw you next, I got you to him. Yeah, I am very, very conflicted here. I love the development as it stands. And I think it does cover the special circumstances required. But I do urge more traffic consultation. Because I feel that some of these consultations took place whilst COVID was still quite prevalent, September 21, in 22, volumes of traffic weren't at the height that they are now. And I -- if we do approve this this evening, I would urge everyone to go back to the residence and discuss the traffic situation. Okay. Thank you. Councillor, Mrs. Turner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm going to say something and nobody is going to be surprised, of course, it's Greenbelt. It's sank. This council signed up to protect Greenbelt. And as far as I'm concerned, that really is very, very important. In fact, we have just been saying that there are some very good reasons why, in fact, we can give some good reasons to say that this actually doesn't comply with any extraordinary reasons why we should build on this area. That's one of my concerns. The second is that we were talking earlier on about joining up different communities and that will happen. So we need to be very, very careful about that we keep this separation of our different towns and villages. That's really important. One of my biggest concern is the volume of traffic and the movement of traffic. I'd like to know how many people in this room have actually cycled along Rydans Road. There are a few of you, but not very many. It is horrendous. I was leading a ride down there the other week. Quite frankly, if you have speed humps, if you're going to let cyclists down that road with extra traffic, you are going to have an increase in accidents. It is absolutely frightening. The road conditions are awful. If you actually do actually allow cycling down there, you're going to need cycle lanes. That road isn't big enough for cycle lanes. It just isn't wide enough. If you have a cycle lane in, you have to take out a whole one way of the traffic flow because it isn't wide enough. So I'm very, very concerned about it's not just this area. The impingement of traffic throughout the area is going to be enormous. In fact, Councillor Tilling was quite correct when he said, in fact, if British Rail had considered opening up that bridge or reinvesting and building, that would have been a really good investment and, in fact, we could have looked at something in a very different way. That used to be two way traffic, yes, it did used to be two way traffic, with very, very narrow paths down there. Now, with the traffic, the size of the cars we have now, that just couldn't possibly happen. And in fact, you can't get a bus under that bridge. So if you're going to have bus stops, you wouldn't be able to get public transport down there. You might have trains, but you won't get buses under there. So you know, we have to take on board all these things. It's not just this site, it's the information of where we're going to go and the outcome it's going to have on the surrounding area, just not this site. And when it comes to Greenbelt, well, you'll know as well as I do that I consider Greenbelt absolutely a sap of sand, because it actually keeps Elmbridge a green and pleasant place to live. So thank you. Thank you. Councillor Batchmore. Just, this particular image that you see on the screen is almost a perfect example of the choice we're trying to make. The reality is, you know, top of the thing, there's a large expanse of green open space. You can't, if you pull back a bit further, if you look to the bottom of the picture, there's a large expanse of green open space. And then for historical reasons, the bit in the middle, there is the railway line that crosses that green space, and then just to the north of that railway line we have allowed, for whatever reason, historically or whatever, a kind of, you know, use of that land to expand. Now, I think the original owner basically let us, we probably in the '70s, as far as I can tell, based on my experience when I was first in the area, some light industrial units close to the road kind of started, and then gradually, because the water treatment plant had been there since I think the 1920s, as far as I can find out, had been there much, much longer, we kind of let that kind of like merge. The reality is this is an opportunity for us to consider whether we should be restoring that gap between the two cities, or whether we're now going to fill it with a lot of light industrial units and warehousing. And, you know, that's really a question. I think there are many other reasons why local residents are worried about it and a variety of other things, but at a greenbelt level alone, that's really the question we're asking ourselves. And when we faced with that test before, Drake Park is an interesting example, you know, for 1,200 much-needed homes, we said that the tilted balance meant that it hadn't achieved the very special circumstances, and I struggle, when I'm considering only 40 homes in this case, however desperately we need them, I'm not entirely sure that's overcoming my concerns about encroaching on the greenbelt. Thank you. Do I see, Councillor Wells, did I see your hand up? Well, I was just going to ask the officers to come back on that point, because my understanding that the current use is lawful, and so we're not looking at restoring it to what would be green and pleasant lands, but we're looking at the application in hand and the very suspect special circumstances, so I'm sure you're going to come back on all the points, but I don't think, with greatest respect, Councillor Batchelor's comparison is a fair one. I'll ask for comments on that in a minute, if I may, Councillor Wells. Are there any other members who wish to -- Councillor Warr, you wish to make some amendment? No, one thing -- I'm sorry, Councillor -- can I just hold on a minute, because I didn't see Councillor Mann's hand up there. I'll come back to you straightaway. Just wanted to come back on the point that a couple of people have made about needing more consultation about traffic in the future. That's baked into the application that's before us, because the 93% that is outlined, as we've heard from the applicants and in discussion, a further traffic plan or further traffic consultation will be a significant part -- in fact, Paul in the office can confirm this -- would be a significant part of dealing with the reserve matters. Okay. Anybody else? No? Okay, Councillor Warr, sorry to interrupt, you know, but -- I was just going to mention one thing I should have said before, which was, of course, there are a lot of small businesses currently on this site as well. This is which, with this development, probably won't have a home to go to. Different uses, smaller sites and everything else. Just -- it's not a planning consideration here, but it is one which I think we should be aware of. Would you like me to move my reasons for refusal now? I think it would be useful, because if the members then wish to debate those reasons, they will have an opportunity to do so. Fine. I kept it in consideration to how the inspector would deal with this. So my wording -- I'm sure the officers will come back at me on this. The proposal will be an appropriate development within the green belt, which would result in harm to the openness of the green belt. In the absence of very special circumstances, that clearly outweighs the harm to the green belt and any other harm, contrary to policy DM7, and I was going to put DM17, CS25, and the MPPF, as well as the lack of a suitable legal agreement in respect to the affordable housing element. One thing also, Mr. Chairman, I would like, because it's a green belt application, I would like to have a recorded vote as well. That is your amendment. Okay. Fine. Thank you. Does any member wish to debate that amendment any further? No. Right. It's the seconder. It's the seconder. Yeah, I know. It's the seconder. Oh, yes. I always get asked this. Can I have a seconder for that? Councillor Dodds, you're the walker, so I'll take that. Okay. Seconded. Walk to the council. Sorry. Right. As does nobody else wish to join the debate, is your hand up, Councillor? Okay. Fine. Yeah, we all feel like that, I think. Right. I think the officers would like to come back with some comments on all of this. Thank you, Chairman. With regards to the previously discussed point on Greenland reinstatement, that is not in front of us and that is my understanding that it's not the applicant's intention to leave the land green and remove all the businesses. With regards to previous planning history, there was a lawful development certificate which was granted by the county council for a very limited area of the site which I believe is here, just a small part here, but there were some conditions which had to use the access along the lawful access along the railway line and there was also stipulated amount, I believe, of the amount of waste and out of operation. That one has been quite a long time ago. I think it's in the list of previous planning history applications. So however, if we have a look at the site as a whole, there is no limitations in terms of the planning regime. There might be some lawful uses in terms of the EA waste uses, if I'm correct, but not with regards to the planning regime itself. With regards to the proposed reason for refusal, I would encourage members to remove the link to policy CS25, which is transport and accessibility, because we don't have the backing of the highway authority on this and if we have lack of evidence in these terms, we will not be able to defend the reason for refusal on appeal, if that's the case. So policy DM17, which is the Green Bell policy, and then we can put MPPF 2023. DM7 is associated with highways and parking as well, so that can be addressed through conditions. I don't think -- well, it's up to members, but I strongly suggest to remove that policy from -- DM17 is the Green Bell policy, which should be retained. Thank you. Thank you. Just coming back on it, there's a couple of other points, probably just useful to make sure it's covered. There was reference to -- there's been a lot of talk about the number of jobs, and it's just to clarify that that's about a maximum -- it's saying up to 2,250. It's not saying -- there will definitely be 2,250, because I think some members say, well, where are all of those parking spaces going to be, and as has been discussed, the exact size and number of square footage and how much parking might be required would be a reserved matter. Another issue is in terms of what is the tilted balance. So as set out in the report, it's considered that the very special circumstances outweigh the harm, so there is no tilted balance. If members come to the view that there is -- if there is harm to the Green Belt, then -- so, yes, sorry, the other way around. If there's no harm to the Green Belt, then the tilted balance is engaged, but if there is harm to the Green Belt, the tilted balance isn't engaged, because the Green Belt kind of refusal trumps the kind of -- the other harm. So it's just a kind of -- in terms of a policy point there, and so it's just been clear that Councilor Warr is proposing DM7 in terms of -- which is a highways policy, as well as DM17. So officers are saying that DM7 and CS25, which relate to highways, we would advise against that being within the reasons for refusal. If there's amenity kind of issues or pollution issues, so amenity would be DM2, pollution, DM5, in terms of noise and disturbance. It's a question as to whether -- in terms of what the other harm would be, whether that -- those are other policies that you want to refer to. Thank you. Councilor Warr, do you want to come back on that? Do you want to -- yeah, okay. Any other member -- a question, yeah, go on. Just a -- sorry, Chairman, just so I can be clear. So if we're putting forward a reason for refusal based on harms of the Green Belt, do we just assume the fallback position, that the harm is by definition, or do we have to identify what that harm is within the reason for refusal? A genuine question, I don't know the answer. So I think we've -- it's recognized within the report that there is harm to the Green Belt. What the -- what the -- what the -- can the reason for refusal, the way that it's going to set out, is saying that the very special circumstances, so the benefits, don't outweigh the harm to the Green Belt and any other harm. So it's not saying there isn't any harm or there's a different level of harm. It's saying, yes, there is harm to the Green Belt, but the very special circumstances don't outweigh that. Before we go to vote, and I want to wrap this up because I'm probably just as tired as all of you, can we all take one last look at this, all right? This is what we're talking about here. This is what the -- we're talking about protecting. You know, we're talking Green Belt as if it's like it's those fields, and we've seen it through the satellites, that it's expanding, kind of unlawfully anyway, really. So what are we talking about here? I mean, what message does this send? This is a state-of-the-art development that we are snubbing. I get the concerns, I really do, but on a pros and cons basis, seriously, this is night and day. I mean, I am begging and pleading, those of you who refuse, please, thank you. Yes, Councillor Waugh. Point of order, Chair. You don't make statements like that. We're going to a vote. Sorry, something else, just to kind of clarify in terms of reasons for refusal. So I'm not sure if Councillor Waugh referred to the fact if we're going -- if the motion for refusal, I'd also draw Councillor Waugh's attention to the other -- the fact that we haven't got a legal agreement yet. So recommendation B within the report says that in the absence of a completed legal agreement, the proposed development fails to secure affordable housing, so I'd advise kind of adding that as a reason for refusal. And also the legal agreement would be seeking a lot of various -- a lot of highway improvements. So there's wording within the recommendation B, that is -- that would -- I'd also recommend being part of a reason for refusal, so there'd be three reasons in total. Okay. Before we go any further, Councillor Price, you indicated when you first spoke that you might want to come back at the end of the debate with a couple of points, do you still wish to make those? No, no, no. I think everything's been covered. I appreciate it. Okay. That's fine. Mr. Faulkner, have you put this into words so we can run to a vote? Yes, Chair. So the first reason relates to Greenbelt. So the proposed development is inappropriate development within the Greenbelt, which would result in harm to the openness of the Greenbelt and conflict with purposes of inclusion of land in the Greenbelt. In the absence of very special circumstances, that would clearly outweigh the harm to the Greenbelt by inappropriateness and any other harm. The development is contrary to the aims of policy DM17 of the development management plan and the MPPF. Then secondly, as taken from recommendation B, in the absence of a completed legal agreement, the proposed development fails to secure the provision of affordable housing contrary to the requirements of policy CS21 of the core strategy 2011 and the development contributions SBD 2021. And then thirdly, due to the lack of a legal agreement to secure a financial contribution towards the traffic regulation order with the associated signage contribution, the monitoring fee associated with the travel plans, financial contribution towards the bridleway or footpath improvements in the vicinity of the site and the public accessibility to the proposed pedestrian cycle route, the proposed development would result in adverse highway and transport implications in the surrounding area jeopardizing highway safety, causing inconvenience to other highway users and failing to take up opportunities to promote sustainable transport. As such, proposed development is contrary to the aims of policy CS25 of the core strategy, the requirements of the MPPF 2023, National Design Guide and the development contributions SBD 2021. Councillor Warr, are you content that that is the motion that goes forward? And your seconder. You're happy with that. Okay. Therefore, we will go to a vote. Councillor Warr, you've called for a recorded vote. So I will ask the committee section to do a recorded vote for us. Thank you, Chairman. Members, you are asked to vote on the motion as proposed by Councillor Warr and seconded by Nick Dodds. If you are voting for, then you are voting for the motion to refuse for the reasons given. Councillor Harrison, Allman-Varti. Against. Councillor Alex Batchelor. For. Councillor Andrew Burley. Against. Councillor Barry Chain. Abstain. Councillor Alex Coombs. For. Councillor Nick Dodds. For. Councillor Peter Harman. For. Councillor Liz Lano. Abstain. Councillor Alistair Mann. Against. Councillor Alistair Price. For. Councillor Judy Salisbury. Abstain. Councillor Ashley Tilling. Against. Councillor Janet Turner. For. Councillor Simon Warr. For. Councillor Lawrence Wells. Against. Thank you, members. I got eight, four, and three, is that right? Oh, seven. Oh, right, okay. So four is seven. Right, four is seven, five, and three. Okay. Lovely. Thank you very much. Thank you. Okay. The results, members, were for the motion, seven votes, against the motion, five votes, and three abstentions, so therefore the amendment is one. The amendment is one. So therefore we don't need to go to another vote. So application 20223427 is refused planning and outline permission. And that's the end of it. Thank you very much, members. Right. Members, we now have a little bit of housekeeping to do. If you could turn to page 169 of your agenda. Sorry, not 169, that was the other application, 187. You have the statement of community involvement. Does anybody wish to -- Mr. Faulkner, would you like to -- Thank you, chair. So members that have been here on previous years will be familiar that the issue about publication of comments on the website is something that was discussed a couple of years ago and it was agreed to stop publishing public comments on planning applications. This went to a public consultation and the public quite clearly kind of raised a lot of concern about this and then it went back to full council and council said no, we want to keep publishing comments. We kind of engaged with members and kind of looked at alternatives and what comes before you with a recommendation to go to cabinet for public consultation for changes to the statement of community involvement is to just make sensitive the names and addresses of comments but that the comment would go public on the website. It also is looking at investment in automatic redaction software but also giving an option for persons submitting comments to request that their comments aren't published and also removing comments from the website after the appeal period has gone. So there's no legal requirement to publish people's comments. So minimizing the time that that stays on the website kind of reduces in terms of any risk of fines from the ICO in terms of information that shouldn't be in the public realm. So the recommendation is that the planning committee recommend these proposals to the cabinet. Thank you. Has anybody wished to debate this? No? So you have the recommendation. Councilor Batshaw. Sorry, I just have one not entirely facetious remark which I would like it noted that we're now doing considerably more than any social media company in the UK to moderate the views of the public. Okay. Thank you for the comment. You have the recommendation in front of you, I'm not going to read it out again. All those in favor, please raise your hands. Okay. Right. Thank you. So that recommendation is agreed and the document will go forward to cabinet. We now move on to agenda item 6 which is on page 235. The appointment of a member to the Thames landscape strategy executive review board. I think you've got the gist of it here. The review board meets three or four times a year in various locations and virtually. We do like to have members who represent a Riverside ward, if that is possible. Can I have any nominations, please, for the -- for that, yes, Councillor Layton. I can't hear myself. You'd like to -- okay. Anybody else? Sorry, chair. I was saying to Councillor Layton earlier that, you know, this is -- Yeah, I can't hear you. Sorry. As we just said, it's -- this is pertinent to anyone who has a Riverside ward. Both of us do. And I think, you know, also Councillor Tinning would find this something of interest to all of us. But you're saying there is only one -- >> There's only one -- there's only one position. Only one position available. Okay. In that case, I'll second Councillor Layton for it. Okay. Any other -- Can we make -- sorry. Can we make a request for two -- the point that you made about having Riverside wards is really important. So I think that if we could make a request to the authority to suggest that we offer two because of the extent of the water highway in the borough. I think it's reasonable. Thank you. Yeah. Go on. Yes. It would probably mean a change of the constitution of that partnership. I don't have it to hand. I have read it and I can't remember off the top of my head, but it would be something that that group would have to decide in itself. Yes, it is not in the memorandum of the -- of understanding of the Thames landscape strategy that they have to, or a member of the executive review board has to be a -- represent a waterside ward. Yes, Councillor Layton. I don't represent a riverside ward. I represent Long Dickson, but I do live in Thames and within a stone's throw of the River Thames and I watch out for Albany reach and everything that goes on there all the time. And I've been to a lot of the RTS stuff. So Councillor Layton has nominated herself, seconded by Councillor Sarsby. All those in favour? Okay. You are duly appointed. I will notify Thames landscape strategy tomorrow that you have been appointed and you will go on their mailing list. We now move forward, if we may, members, just quickly to page 237, agenda item 7, appointment to the local plan working group on the resignation of Councillor, Mrs. James, who has now gone to higher places. We need another member of the local plan working group. Do I have any nominations, please? It must be a member of the planning committee. It is for a term of four years. We now hold most of our meetings virtually. They are a little bit ad hoc, but it is for four years regardless of what happens as long as the member remains a member of the planning committee. Can I have a nomination? Councillor Warr? Councillor Batchelor, you've been nominated. Do you have a seconder for that? You'll second it. Right. Okay. All those -- are there any other nominations? So then, Councillor Batchelor, you're on board. You'll be notified by the head of town planning when the next meeting is. Agenda item 8 is the report of the virtual meeting of the local plan working group held on the 16th of April, which I present to you. If you've had a chance to look at it, is the report noted? Thank you. Members, it's been a long evening. It's 25 past 10. I won't detain you any longer. Thank you very much for your attendance and for the quality of debate tonight and the questioning. It's been a good evening.