The Planning and Regulatory Committee of Surrey Council met on Wednesday 27 May 2026, approving an application to deregister common land for essential infrastructure upgrades and noting the Authority Monitoring Report 2024, which detailed progress on minerals and waste planning and development management performance.

Deregistration of Common Land at Mousehill Water Treatment Works

The committee unanimously approved an application by Thames Water Utilities Limited to deregister a small parcel of land at Mousehill Water Treatment Works, Milford, Godalming, from the common land register. The application, made under Schedule 2 of the Commons Act 2006, sought to remove the land from the register on the grounds that it was covered by a building or within its curtilage at the time of provisional registration in 1968 and has remained so continuously.

Catherine Ballant, the Countryside Access Officer, presented the report, explaining that the legal test for deregistration required the land to have been part of the curtilage of the Water Treatment Works building in 1968 and to have remained so. Evidence, including historical aerial photographs and planning records, supported the claim that the land, which includes underground apparatus, access hatches, and associated parking, is functionally linked to the building's operation.

Martin Pinnington, a solicitor representing Thames Water Utilities Limited, stated that the application was necessary to facilitate essential upgrades to the existing infrastructure, which could not proceed while the land was registered as common land. He confirmed that the statutory tests had been met and that the legislation mandated removal from the register if these tests were satisfied. Following objections from the Open Spaces Society and the British Horse Society regarding the inclusion of the access road, Thames Water submitted an amended plan, removing a section of the access road. This amendment led to the Open Spaces Society withdrawing its objection. The British Horse Society maintained an objection concerning parking and underground installations, but legal advice indicated that the amended application area satisfied the part and parcel test.

The committee also heard from Richard Kirk, a project manager for Thames Water, who clarified that the underground apparatus extended beyond the requested area to be deregistered. Members questioned whether this application would set a precedent for other Thames Water sites. Officers confirmed that each application is assessed on its own evidence and would not automatically set a precedent.

Authority Monitoring Report 2024

Benjamin Brett and Francis Ford presented the Authority Monitoring Report (AMR) 2024, which covers the period from 1 January to 31 December 2024. The report details progress on the emerging Minerals and Waste Local Plan, the effectiveness of existing policies, and the performance of the development management service.

Key findings from the report included:

• Development Management Performance: The Development Management Team achieved 82.3% of major decisions determined within the target timeframe, showing a steady improvement since September 2022.
• Minerals: Sales of sharp sand and gravel in 2024 were 0.57 million tonnes, slightly below the 10-year average. The sand and gravel landbank of 13.58 years exceeded the national policy requirement of seven years, although there was an imbalance between soft sand and sharp sand and gravel reserves.
• Waste: Surrey produced 3.68 million tonnes of waste in 2024, with construction, demolition, and excavation waste being the largest component. Community Recycling Centres achieved a reuse and recycling rate of 53% and a diversion from landfill rate of 88%.

Members raised several questions regarding the interpretation of the data, including the implications for vehicle movements and the timeline for the new Minerals and Waste Local Plan. Concerns were also raised about the landfill diversion rate and potential improvements. Officers explained that the AMR is a lagging indicator and that future plans would address site allocations and capacity needs. Discussions also touched upon compliance and enforcement, the impact of the Rethink Waste initiative, and the challenges of managing specific waste types, such as construction and demolition waste. The committee noted the report and provided feedback.