Transcript

Transcript

Good evening members of the committee. Welcome to this, the meeting of the planning committee. The time is now 7.30. The meeting has commenced and is being broadcast live on the council's website. My name is Leanne Dell and I'm clerking this meeting. Agenda item one. The first item on the agenda is election of chair for the 24/25 municipal year. In accordance with paragraph 4.11.2 of procedure rule four of the council's constitution, I am the representative of the head of paid service and will conduct the election of chair. Therefore members of the committee, please can I call for nominations for the election of chair. Councillor Blacker. Thank you very much. I would like to propose Councillor Simon Parnell for the position of chairman for the current municipal year. Thank you. And do we have a seconder? Yes, Councillor Harp, I'm quite happy to second Councillor Parnell to be chairman. Thank you. Do we have any other nominations? There being no other nominations, do we have general assent that Councillor Parnell will be duly elected as chair of the committee for 24/25. Thank you. I'll now hand over to Councillor Parnell. Thank you very much for your support for the next year. Much appreciated. Item number two, election of the vice chairman. The second item on the agenda is the election of the vice chairman for the municipal year 24/25. Therefore members of the committee, I call for any nominations for the election of vice chairman. Put your hand up if you're going to nominate. Councillor Tora. Good evening, chair. I would like to nominate for deputy chair Councillor McKenna. Do you have a seconder for that? Good evening, chair. I would like to second Councillor McKenna. Thank you. Are there any other nominations? Councillor Fairhurst. Thank you, chairman. I would like to nominate Councillor Blacker. Do we have a seconder for Councillor Blacker's nomination? Good evening, chairman. I would like to second Councillor Blacker. Thank you very much, Councillor Hudson. We're going to take a vote. Leanne will be counting all sorts of things this evening. So members who wish to support the nomination of Councillor McKenna, please raise your hands. I count five. And those who wish to support Councillor Blacker, would you please raise your hands? I'm here too. I counted. Thank you very much. So there being no other nominations this evening, Councillor Blacker has been elected as vice chair of the committee. Congratulations, Councillor Blacker. Thank you very much, everybody. I will do my best for all of you. Thank you. We now turn to the minutes of the previous meeting. Welcome to this meeting of the planning committee. And I would like to thank all members for attending the meeting this evening. Members of the public will be able to watch this meeting live on the council's website. And where they will be able to also see the slides for each of the planning applications that we will be considering. The meeting is being recorded and the recording will be available on the council's website in the next few days. All of the microphones are currently muted, apart from mine, of course. Members of the committee, in order to request to speak during this meeting, could you please raise your hand, if you like, and wave it too if I haven't seen it. Just make sure that I have acknowledged you. And when I call you to speak, please unmute your microphone and address the committee by speaking clearly. It does go without saying that you might be able to be heard here, but the people at home won't hear you if the microphone is not on. Please could you also ensure or please could you ensure that your mobile phones are either turned off or switched to silent so that we don't disturb the proceedings. And can I sort of just encourage you not to tweet or engage in social media whilst we are at the meeting, simply because it actually distracts from the meeting itself. To the visiting members and public speakers, I will invite you to speak at the relevant part of the meeting. I think you have probably already been shown where you need to go, which is the seat that looks in isolation with the words public speaker underneath it. If you have not been shown how to use the microphone, I'm sure we will work that out at the time, you have three minutes to speak. If you speak, you are approaching three minutes, I will ask you to bring your remarks to a close. And any extra time that you use will have to be allocated also to the speakers from the other side. For any members of the public watching, I would like to clarify that we have some visiting members in the back row. These visiting members aren't members of the committee this evening, but they are here because they have got an interest in the business that we are going through tonight, and we give them the opportunity to speak if they wish to. Obviously that increases the number of people in the room, and therefore I'm going to encourage them to speak for a short amount of time, rather than a long amount of time, and of course they can't vote. They are not able to vote, they are not members of the meeting. So members of the committee, you are all aware about the etiquette that we follow, please follow those points to ensure that the meeting runs smoothly. We will be voting using a show of hands, and Leanne has the job of counting everyone up. It is really important that you hold your hand up clearly so that she can see. Sometimes people put their hands down and Leanne hasn't quite got to you yet, so please make it really clear when that comes. If you have a declaration of interest to make in respect of any of the items that we have got this evening, when we get to agenda item 3, please tell us then. You may need to leave the room for the duration of the item in which you have an interest in. If I have to adjourn the meeting at any time, I will advise that the meeting is being adjourned and state the time it will be reconvened. Assuming it is not a fire alarm or something like that, just stay in the room with your microphone muted. As you will know from the agenda, we have quite a large number of items to consider this evening, and if the meeting does, I know you will be shocked by this, but if the meeting continues until 10.30, then in accordance with the constitution, the committee must decide whether to determine items without debate, to continue the meeting to complete all or part of the business, to refer the business to the next meeting of the planning committee, or to adjourn to a specific date. It would of course be preferable if we could complete all the business this evening. So just before we actually start the formal agenda, I am going to introduce the officers who are with us here this evening. To my right is Andrew Benson, who is the head of planning. Online, Agnes, sorry about that, Agnes is with us. Please say hello, Agnes. Can you all hear that? Great. To my left, Michael Parker, principal planning officer. Good evening everyone. To Michael's left, made it easy for me today, Jake Hardman, planning officer. Good evening. And obviously in the front row, Leanne Dell, who is the democratic services officer and Clark for this evening's meeting. Hello. So let's turn now to the minutes of the last meeting. Not all of you were at the last meeting, so it is very difficult for you, if you weren't there to say you thought it was a faithful record of the last meeting, it would be possibly inappropriate for us to ask you to say that. So if you were at the last meeting and you recognised the minutes as a correct record of the previous meeting, could you please raise your hand? Thank you. Got that Leanne? Great. Okay. Now do we have any apologies for absence, Leanne? We have an apology from Councillor Newton, Councillor Moses is substituting. Thank you and welcome, Councillor Moses. So we come now to item number five, which is declarations of interest. Are there any declarations of interest in respect to the matters to be considered this evening by the planning committee? Councillor Blacker. My apologies. I wasn't paying attention. The very last item is an application from my office, so I shall take my marching orders and leave the room. Thank you. Thank you very much. Okay. Anybody else? No? Okay. Right. The addendum to the agenda. I ask members to note the addendum tabled at this meeting, which provides an update on the agenda of planning applications before the committee this evening. Would you please just acknowledge you've got that, maybe by raising your hand? Great. Okay. Thank you. So now we come to the items. We have quite a large number of people in the public gallery, and we've got three speaking items this evening, items 7, 12 and 14. 7 is the paddle course. Number 12 is -- make sure I put it right. Number 12 is Woodclose Salfords. And 14 is the Care Home Park Hall Road, Rygate. So could you in the public gallery -- we'll do this with a show of hands -- so could you raise your hands if you've come in respect of Manor Road, Rygate, the paddle courts? And if you've come in respect of Woodclose and Salfords, could you raise your hand? And number 14, the former care home at Park Hall Road, Rygate. Okay. So given the fact that the numbers seem to be similar, we'll take them in that order, 7, 12 and 14. 14 is a different item. It's one of consultation. And, therefore, given the fact we've got a new committee, we would rather that wasn't the first anyway. So we'll start off, therefore, with number 7. So let's move that item, shall we? Number 7, which is 22/02353F, Manor Road, Rygate and Matthew Park. Michael Parker will be presenting to us. Sorry. Thank you, Chairman. Just to note, there's an addendum on this item which just seeks to clarify the approved plans condition and the situation in relation to condition 5. So this application relates to the Rygate Lawn Tennis Club and the construction of two paddle courts in place of two junior courts at the southern part of the site behind the existing clubhouse. The application is being redetermined as the original decision notice granting Planning Commission was quashed in the High Court. So that is why it's now before us. The Rygate Lawn Tennis Club is a long-established sports facility located on the southern side of Manor Road. There's a squash club to the west. To the north and east are residential properties. And to the south is a railway line with residential properties and the Albert Road North Industrial State beyond. The site is within the designated urban area and forms part of the Pilgrim's Way and Beach Road residential area of special character. So here's an aerial picture for some more context. So the aerial shows the existing junior courts which are outlined in red on the screen as well as the junior courts. There was also a hitting wall in the southwest corner of the area marked in red. The closest property 15 Manor Road is situated to the east of the site. The garden is approximately 34 metres from the court area and the house approximately 47 metres from the nearest part of the court. And that is outlined in blue on the right-hand side. And to the southwest beyond the railway line is the other nearest residential property known as Coppers which is located approximately 60 metres from the courts. Parts of the cartilage to the garden areas are closer between 40 to 50 metres and that's just outlined in red for information. You can also see in the aerial photos the extent of tree and vegetation coverage around the southern and eastern parts of the site. And you can get a better view of the existing industrial state which is to the south of the railway line. So this is the plan as existed. So you've got the two junior mini courts behind the clubhouse. So this is the proposed plans showing the proposed two proposed paddle courts which have a blue surface and they're orientated north-south. And then just quickly, so these are the elevations of court one. And you'll see very similar for court two. So the courts are proposed to be four metres in height at either end along one panel depth on each side as well. And then where there's reinforced glass used for the rear and the side. And then along the majority of the side are mesh fencing which are three metres in height. The floodlights shown on the proposed plans for court one and two just so councils are clear. They're the existing floodlights. There's no proposed change to the existing floodlights situation or the time of the floodlights that are currently granted. And then just on some photos, so this is what the junior courts look like. You can see the hitting wall in the far corner of the existing court. So this is from the, what were the existing junior courts looking east towards 15 A Manor Road. And this shows the existing access to the tennis club. You've got the clubhouse just off to the right-hand side of the footpath. And then in this picture it shows the junior courts as existed in the distance. And that's the proposed application site at the far end behind the clubhouse. So this is as the courts exist at the moment. These are the two paddle courts in situ. So you can see the blue surfacing and the fencing and glass structures for the surround. And again just some more of the existing court. And then this is looking at the courts from the west, from the existing tennis courts which are a higher level to the west of the site. So that's looking back towards the clubhouse which is on the left and the installed paddle courts on the right-hand side. And then this is looking from the opposite side, so the eastern side of the site, looking back west. And you can see there the existing, or the paddle courts as exists. And then lastly this is just a photo taken from Manor Road just showing that the paddle courts are not readily visible from the street scene. You wouldn't really know that they were there from the street scene. The key consideration under this application is the noise from the paddle courts, particularly in respect to volume and nature of the noise from the paddle activities, particularly to the two closest residential properties. This matter has been assessed by the Council's noise consultants and taken into account the submissions from both the applicant and third parties. The conclusions are that given the location of the courts, the context of the site and subject to conditions relating to hours of use, a management plan and details of the proposed wall fixings, it's considered a noise nuisance to residents both within their homes and gardens would not be significantly adverse.

Paragraph 6.8 to 6.28 of the committee report. Look at this issue in significant detail. The application is therefore recommended for approval as per the conditions set out in the committee agenda and the addendum. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you very much. We have four speakers, four public speakers for this particular application. The first speaker is Mr Marley Memmoud. If you would come to the microphone, please. And just press the button so that we can see the red light on. That's great. Okay. So whenever you're ready, start. And if we get near to three minutes, I will try to bring you to a close. >> Thank you. Councillors, the residents do not oppose the application. We ask that you approve it with one simple condition. The installation of physical soundproofing that will reduce the noise impact on neighbouring residents. The planning framework requires the council to mitigate and minimise adverse impacts on health and quality of life from noise. The proposal in its current form do not achieve that. Bureau Veritas, the leading acoustic consultancy prepared a detailed study based on five days of site readings in neighbouring gardens. It concludes that if the application is approved, the adverse impacts on residents will be significant. It recommends a simple solution, the installation of acoustic fencing. The club commissioned its own report and the club's consultants did not visit the site. No readings were taken and instead the consultants carried out a remote desktop exercise. The conclusion, puddle courts would, at worst, have a low impact and at best would result in a reduction in noise levels. The suggestion that the puddle courts might reduce noise levels is laughable. It's acknowledged in multiple scientific studies that puddle noise is six decibels louder than tennis and for context, a ten decibel increase is doubling in loudness. Dutch planning guidelines for puddle require acoustic fencing for all new puddle courts located within 160 metres of residential dwellings. In our case, the nearest dwelling is 34 metres. The residents have received a written statement from the Queens Club in London stating, I quote, puddle is significantly louder than tennis due to the noise of the ball hitting the flat bat, the noise of the ball hitting the glass panels and often the noise of the players too. Many venues have had their courts taken down. Councillors, you need to make a judgement on planning relating to noise. You have one report that says the impact will be low based on no site survey and another that said it will be significant based on a five day site survey. What if you were to conclude based on the conflicting evidence that the impact might fall somewhere between low and significant? Well, the planning framework states that where the impact lies between low and significant, all reasonable steps should be taken to mitigate and minimise adverse effects on health and quality of life. Have all reasonable steps been taken? The council recommends reduced opening hours on Sunday evenings. Well, if puddle is no louder than tennis, why should the puddle courts close earlier than tennis courts? If puddle is louder than tennis, will all reasonable steps have been taken if residents are given a reprieve from the noise for just a few hours on one day a week? Councillors, there is no reason why you should not approve the application, subject to the condition requiring acoustic fencing that achieves a sound reduction of 10 decibels. Could you bring your remarks to a close please? As recommended by Bureau Veritas. If that condition is included, club members can play puddle, the residents can continue enjoying their gardens and the council will have satisfied its obligation under the planning framework. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you. Our second public speaker is Mrs Corinne Hearn. Mrs Hearn, if you would just like to sit down. The microphone is already on, so you are ready to go. And whenever you are ready to start, same rules, three minutes. OK, thank you. Your microphone is now turned off. Sorry, can you hear me? We can hear you now. Councillors, I have lived two doors down from the tennis club with my family for over 20 years. And we have been members for over 15. I was also chairwoman for the junior's club for a couple of years. And additionally, my late husband created a bursary which is still running to this day for young players who can't afford the membership fee. Despite our connection to the club, their approach to the two-paddle course has caused a lot of worries and stress because they have completely disregarded the impact it will cause to the nearby residents. When the original plans were announced, most of us did not realise the high level of noise that playing paddle would create. That explains the lack of engagement with the original applications, which is why in January 2024, the residents wrote to the planning office a 19-page letter setting out their concerns and offering to commission a joint acoustic report with the club. Unbelievably, the council did not even acknowledge the letter. So in March 2024, the residents wrote directly to the club offering to commission that same report in unison, which the club declined. It is important that the decision is made on its merits and based on material planning considerations, which do not include costs. The only material planning consideration which is relevant here is noise. So councillors, tonight, the decision you must take is this. Do you accept the club's acoustic report that is obviously flawed and brushes off the noise impact to the neighbours? Or do you accept that playing paddle has a stronger noise impact than tennis and that there is a simple solution to make everyone happy, which is that the project needs to be completed properly by ensuring that adequate acoustic mitigating measures are in place in order to guarantee the wellbeing of the residents, as well as allowing club members to enjoy this new sport? Thank you. [APPLAUSE] Thank you very much. So our next speaker is a supporter, Mr Andy McDonald. Is Mr Andy McDonald here? Thank you. Please take the seat and press the button if you would to engage the microphone. That's it. Whenever you are ready, please start. Thank you and good evening. I am Andy McDonald, the chairman of Rygate Blonde Tennis Club. There are a few observations I would like to share in respect to this application. Firstly, it goes without saying that it is most regrettable that the planning approval of last year was subject to an administrative error and that we have since spent £150,000 on building two paddle courts which sit dormant pending the outcome of this evening. That erroneous admin error is the only reason that this application has to be reviewed again tonight. That said, we do wish to thank the planning team for their detailed and balanced report to this committee, for their continued support of our application and for their strong recommendation for approval of our proposal. Paddle tennis is the fastest growing sport, not just in the UK, but also around the world. It's fun, it's easy to pick up regardless of your age, regardless of your ability, and it's very sociable. And our club is the first to offer paddle tennis in Rygate. Paddle tennis is a natural progression to the support of traditional tennis and a significant investment for the modernisation and the future of our club. It's notable that there are no other paddle courts in our borough, yet all the data shows that both our members and the community that we live in here are crying out for paddle facilities. Our two paddle courts were constructed with our multiple stakeholders in mind and with special attention to the noise concerns that were expressed by our neighbouring residents. And that's why we've taken the following important mitigating steps. Firstly, we've strategically positioned the courts at the back of the club and next to the railway line. We've constructed them using the highest quality material possible, including super thick glass to retain sound within the courts. Can I just - sorry, I'm just going to hold it for one moment. Could I just ask members of the public, please, please keep your voices down whilst we listen to the speaker. It's important to give them that respect. So please, please resume. Thank you. And thirdly, we've commissioned the chosen partner of the prestigious Queens Club to build our courts. A further key feature to note is that we have taken down and removed a noisy and much used hitting wall. As part of the recommended conditions, we are also accepting a curtailment to usage and we have committed to operating a very robust management plan. So as a result of all these mitigating actions, the concerns being expressed around noise levels are actually misguided and somewhat flawed. In fact, and according to the experts, there will be no discernible noise impact. Can I ask you to bring your remarks to a close, Mr McDonald, yes, thank you. Carry on. So in conclusion, we've taken every opportunity to discuss this with our neighbours. We feel we have addressed their concerns in full and we're very grateful for the positive recommendation of this proposal. Thank you. Thank you very much. So our final speaker is Mr Spencer Copping. Mr Copping, I think you know how to use the microphone. So whenever you're ready, please start. My name is Spencer Copping, planning director at WS planning and architecture. I'd like to thank the chair and fellow members of the committee for allowing me to speak this evening on behalf of the applicant. The officer's report has comprehensively covered the main points of this application and we are grateful for the recommendation for approval. So I'll try and keep this as brief as possible. I do, however, wish to provide some context of the application and respond to some of the objections raised earlier. The applicants have worked hard with the local authority in respect to this resubmission. The original permission for the replacement of two junior courts with the new paddle courts was originally granted in November 2023 and included a written consultation and public meeting with local residents in line with best practice. The application includes an operational management plan, details of the fixings of the paddle courts and revised hours of operation and you'll see that these are all subject to condition as well. The paddle courts have slotted in remarkably well to the existing framework of hard courts at the club and are not located close to any side boundaries with neighbouring properties. In addition, the proposal involves the removal of the hitting wall which will significantly reduce noise levels. As set out in the officer report, the principle of providing two new paddle courts is not in doubt. The proposal complies with relevant central government guidance and local planning policy. The main concerns raised by third parties relate to highways, overdevelopment, design and noise. With regards to highways, it is important to note that no objections have been raised by the highways authority. The proposal fits neatly into the existing space between the existing courts and does not involve the loss of any green space or existing landscaping. It cannot be considered to represent an overdevelopment in planning terms. The design of the proposal is complementary to the use of the remainder of the tennis club and is located within the centre of the site and to the rear of the existing clubhouse, so not highly visible from the surrounding area. The issue of noise has always been acknowledged throughout the course of both applications and detailed responses from our noise consultant have been provided in relation to the council's own comments and evidence provided by third parties. Revised hours of operation have been agreed with the council as a result and no objection is raised by the council's noise consultant to the proposal. Furthermore, there will arguably be less noise as a result of the current proposal. It is also important to note that both the applicant's noise consultant or the council's consultant did not require any further mitigation such as was proposed by the first speaker this evening. Rygate Lawn Tennis Club is a community focused not for profit organisation that provides essential recreational opportunities for their members. The proposal before you is policy compliant and has addressed all issues raised by the council and third parties throughout the course of the application process. It is therefore requested that the case officer's recommendation is upheld by the members of the committee and the application be granted. Thank you. Thank you very much. We have one visiting member who wishes to speak on this particular application. Councillor Zwanski. >> Thank you very much, Mr Chairman. So this application falls within my ward so I'm keen to find a resolution that allows both the application to be approved for the club whilst protecting the neighbours. Both the tennis club and residents have made proposals that the other felt unable to accept and I'm sure each thought their own suggestions were entirely reasonable. There is currently tension between the club and the neighbours so I prefer to find a way that both sides can exist harmoniously. Having considered all information available, I believe this requires construction of acoustic screening to achieve a minimum 10 decibel reduction in future padel tennis noise levels in neighbouring gardens. This would mean a halving of the perceived noise which will make a real difference to the neighbours. The only material planning consideration here is noise. We have two acoustic reports, one submitted by the applicants and one by the neighbouring residents. Both agree on the expected level of noise from padel. The question is what is the current level of noise and how much will that increase? I have two concerns with the report for the applicant. First, no visit was made to Rygate and accordingly there are no actual baseline noise levels for Rygate. Despite this, the authors somehow draw the conclusion and I quote, due to the character of the area, there is likely to be a low impact. Secondly, it really troubles me that the conclusions and recommendations in the Rygate tennis clubs report are an almost word for word copy of the report submitted by the same consultant which supported Redhill tennis club. The subsequent technical memorandum submitted by the club, which I have to add was only published yesterday on the Rygate ambassador website, does nothing to allay my concerns. On the contrary, it puzzles me that the planning officer sought to rely on it given the obvious inaccuracies and illogical conclusions. The case officer report says the residents report is not supported because and I quote, fails to take appropriate account for the existing activity at the tennis club and train tracks. I'm afraid this makes no sense whatsoever. The report for the neighbouring residents included actual recordings, as my friend said earlier, over five consecutive days and set out the readings with and without train noise. Four trains pass per hour, creating noise for ten seconds each time. It would be nonsense to assess the sound of all day long paddle against the sound that is present for less than 1% of the day. What's more, even if you do, paddle is still shown to increase the overall noise level. The applicants report attempts to characterise the nature of mini tennis as high frequency impact compared to paddle. The mini tennis courts were used on a Saturday mornings and Friday afternoons by small children, all under ten years old who are learning to play tennis. A report that compares this with paddle, which will be played by eight adults over two courts playing at adult strength loses any remaining credibility. We have one report that assumes a low adverse impact and another that measures a significant adverse impact. This is not trivial noise. It's a sort of noise that requires windows to be closed and disturb sleep. Even if you assume that the noise impact is somewhere between low and significant, the noise policy statement for England, and I quote, requires that all reasonable steps should be taken to mitigate and minimise adverse effects on health and quality of life. None of the conditions recommended by the planning officers mitigates the primary cause of additional noise, i.e. the striking of ball and bat. Ongoing monitoring of the noise environment was discounted. I can see no logical objection to such a suggestion. A minor limitation on opening hours on one day of the week, which is offered in acknowledgement that respite is needed for neighbours, but does nothing to mitigate noise at any other time. Acoustic barriers have often been required for paddle courts. The local authority at Elmbridge required an acoustic fence for the approval of paddle inertia. I've seen the acoustic screen and it would appear to me a very reasonable solution and the only solution that would allow both paddle and mitigation of the noise. Therefore, Mr Chairman, there is a very simple solution to all of this. As I've already stated, the residents do not wish to harm the tennis club in any way and are quite happy for the paddle courts to remain with just one simple added condition and that is for an acoustic fence. Thank you very much indeed. Thank you very much. So now we're going to open the meeting up to comments from members. First of all, I'd like to say a big thank you to the members who came to this site visit. It's always good to do that. And perhaps we can take a cue from the speakers about the focus on materiality about the issue about noise. So I'd open it up now to members to actually speak. Councillor? I think Councillor Blacker was first I think. So Councillor Blacker and then Councillor Fairhurst. Thank you, Chairman and thank you, my colleague, Councillor Lewinsky. I find myself in a very difficult position because having been on the site visit, listened to a ball inside the paddle court and noting that the glass rear screen reduced the noise anyway. And I've also played paddle in Spain. I actually had a lesson and found my years of squash were quite useful. And there were four courts where I was in Spain, plus about a dozen tennis courts. And far as I could see, the paddle courts weren't particularly louder than the tennis. I'm sorry, I'm just trying to make a balanced view of things. Please let me speak. The noise level is -- the noise created by the paddle court is a long, long way away from the houses. And I have to say, without seeing the noise readings, I find it quite difficult to believe that it would have the adverse effect that's going to ruin lives. So what I would like -- I'd like to come back, Chairman, but I would like to ask the officers that confirmation that they have considered the report produced by the residents and what their view is on acoustic screening, and more importantly, if acoustic screening would make all the difference, where do they want it put? Because if it was put on the roadside, it would make absolutely no difference because sound waves go up and down, it would just jump the fence. So are they -- do they want it -- are they suggesting it goes behind the paddle courts? Let's ask them, shall we? Before we do that, Councillor Fair, should we just take your comment as well and then we'll go to the officers and ask that question. Gives him time, you see. Great. Thank you, Chairman. Apologies, but I've got a bit of a cold, so hopefully everyone can hear me, but I might be sneezing a bit. I'm a Rygate ward member as well, and I know this site well, and I know how much the club gives to the town. But it's my view the club needs to work for everyone, and that includes the neighbours who live closest to it. It's not that often. You see applications attracting so many comments. It's quite obvious that lots of those comments online to the consultation came from far further afield than those who live nearby, and it became immediately obvious that those who do live nearby, they had quite significant concerns around noise and acoustic impact. I think from what I've heard, quite valid issues around that. The representations from the public this evening have reinforced that in my mind. The point I've been most drawn to is the differentiation with the report on noise prepared by the applicant and then the report prepared on behalf of the local residents. The differentiation being, as I understand, not on the generation of noise when the courts are in use, but how existing and contextual noise is accounted for. I'm also quite persuaded by the fact that the applicant report consultants we heard from the speaker earlier didn't actually visit the site, which seems to be quite an important point in all of this. So I've sort of focused in on this point around contextual noise, and I hear the club's representative and what he said about the efforts they've gone to in terms of mitigating action, but it seems obvious to me that there would be extra and additional noise in the neighbouring area, and therefore it's only right that it's addressed. So given what we've heard this evening, it feels appropriate to put in the further, the condition that Councillor Levanski laid out and put forward by the public speakers. It feels like a good compromise and a good move forward to make sure that the residents get the shielding that they need from this and that their very valid concerns are addressed, but it also allows the puzzle to move forward as well. Clearly a lot of work has gone into this application from both the club and the residents' side over a really long period of time, so I think it's just really important that we get this right at this stage, and it feels like that additional point around the 10 decibel limit is a satisfactory ending to hopefully a way where we can all move forward and be happy. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. Thank you. Well, we've given Michael Parker some time now to get yourself ready to answer the - pardon? You need more time. Okay. So whilst he's doing that, let's see if any other - Councillor Thorne, do you want to speak? Thank you, Mr Chairman. Going back to these reports, it's a little concerning for me that the whole thing is about noise, and yet the applicant's noise assessment has not been very thorough in relation to the residents' noise assessment, and I just don't understand why that wouldn't have been done, and then you can compare and contrast the results. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Moses, and then we'll come to you. Hi, yes, sorry. I've just got one quick question. So the fence, I mean, so it's 10 decibels at the moment, and then with the - an acoustic fence put in, would that reduce it to five? I think the point they were making was the effect would be a 10 dB decrease with the - It would be a decrease. With the acoustic fence, yes. Okay. I want to just look at the officers, so that was what they were saying. So does that answer the question, but please carry on. That was my point. It's gone down to 10 decibels, so what would it be? No, gone down by 10. By 10? By 10 decibels, it's a logarithmic scale. We'll go to Michael Parker now. Yes, I mean, I think speakers and Councillors have picked up on the key issue, which is the difference between the two consultants in terms of the applicant's noise consultant and the third party's noise consultant. I mean, I think the key point here is that our consultants, who are regulatory support services, have looked at both the initial ACUSA report. They have then looked at and considered the submission from the third party's noise consultants. So the concerns that have been raised by public speakers and visiting members have been looked at by regulatory support services. Now, their conclusions are that they support the position of the applicant when it comes to the noise assessment and the impacts. Their conclusions are that the level of noise generated by the appraiser would fall within the lowest observed adverse effect level. And so the mitigation measures that we have in terms of the conditions, in terms of management plan and operating hours are what we consider to be reasonable measures to address the predicted noise levels from the paddle court. So that is the position of our noise consultants. In terms of the mitigation, so the report from the third parties, their recommendation is an acoustic, it's either an acoustic screening or a full enclosure that would achieve a minimum of 10 decibels. So I don't think we have seen, and I haven't seen in the report, an exact location of that acoustic screening, but obviously it would be within the tennis court grounds. I think that's an officer point of view. Right, so you're not able to tell us what form that might take. Yeah, is that right? No, not directly. It's obviously our consultants have looked at it and haven't recommended that an acoustic screen or enclosure is put around the court, so we haven't looked into exactly how that would look. No, I wasn't certain who put their hand up first, but ladies first, I think. So go on, Councillor Torre. Thank you, Chair. And just following what you were saying about our noise consultant, did they look at the report that the residents had submitted? Okay. Yes, that's correct, yeah. They looked at the report. So they did, even though they didn't, nobody's responded to that report, because I'm a bit concerned that nobody responded to the report, what the speaker had said when they asked to do it, then nobody from the council contacted them. Let's just ask Andrew Benson about that. Yeah, I think it's important to clarify that point. So I think the suggestion was being made that the council work in conjunction with the residents noise consultants in order to generate a combined sort of report. Obviously what the council does, we're here to make an objective decision. We have to be impartial to both parties, if you like, and therefore we have the applicant's report, we have the resident's report, and we have the council's own report, and that seeks to draw from both the observations of both reports and make its own objective conclusions. Does that answer your question, Councillor Tora? Yes, it was just to clarify that both reports have been looked at, thank you. Councillor Baker, sorry, I missed you earlier, I do apologise. Councillor Baker and then Councillor Blacker. Thank you, chair. Site visit the other night we went to. I'm going to say how it is. I think it's very sensitively located within the site on an existing facility that's there at the moment. I'm quite confident in the council's sound assessment and I feel that chasing 10 decibels on a site which is that remote, if you like, from the nearest residential properties I think might be -- I think it might not actually achieve what people expect it to achieve. But as I said, that's not, you know, we're judging the plan that's in front of us. I think it's sensitively positioned. I think with the existing noise from existing sports that are already played there, I think myself that the actual impact is going to be negligible. And I'm quite happy to support the officer's decision on this, and I'm quite happy to trust our sound assessment that's already been done. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Blacker, I'm seeing Councillor Walsh nodding so he may push to speak. So Councillor Blacker and then Councillor Walsh. Thank you. Thank you, chairman. I actually agree with what Councillor Baker said, but -- and a big but -- I understand quite a bit about noise. We've built sound studios and we've put acoustic linings in a pub so they can have a live band. And I know that put in properly does make a big, big difference. And I do not have the correct information in front of me to make a decision on this noise. And I think most of the other Councillors are in the same position. So this is quite difficult because we've already given planning permission for the courts, but then had it quashed in the High Court because they forgot to attach the conditions. So the residents, if you like, have had two bites at this. And I want to help my residents, both those in the tennis courts and those who live near a hand. So I would like to propose that this is deferred so that the Councillors can have the proper noise information in front of them and perhaps even carry out our own noise tests. I am not sure that the noise levels recorded by the residents specialists are accurate and ours, if the guide just did a desktop exercise, they're clearly not accurate. So I think we need more information and I would therefore propose a deferral. Thank you. Before we pursue that, Councillor Walsh had indicated he wanted to speak. Thank you, Chairman. And taking on board what the members have said and listening to the physical presentations, I call them physical presentations of the speakers. What Councillor Blacker has said, and that's what we have to do, is we have to actually look at the application in front of us. Recognising that the officers and Mr Benson has quite rightly said that the officers prepare an objective analysis of the applicant's position, plans and detail. And that's what the officers have done. But recognising that this application is only here because of administrative error. I haven't got to the bottom of the administrative error. I don't need to dwell on that, but it is what it is. But the issue is this application wouldn't be here today. They would be playing paddle board however long ago it was. And it's only a matter of administrative poem. And therefore the Council has already approved this application as it is. There is only one matter that has come to this committee, is an additional acoustic report. And in my professional business, I have analysed acoustic reports and you will get three sides of a coin when there's only two of them if you speak to three sets of acousticians. But it is both technical and subjective, because it's actually the output. It's often technical. The input is technical, the output is sometimes objective. So as Councillor Blacker has said, and I tend to concur with him, in order for us to consider this in the round, and not be emotive and not be suggested to make a decision on it, I think we might consider a deferral. Whilst this committee is here to make decisions, we don't want to make a decision that's wrong. But recognising that we're only here because something went wrong has to be borne in mind by the committee. So as Mr Burns has just said to me, we have to be very clear about what information we actually require in this deferral. And Michael Blacker, perhaps you could outline as you make this proposal what that might be? Thank you. Well, as I understand it, we have our own acoustic report that was a desktop report. The residents have had a report where they have taken noise readings for a period of five days. They seem to conflict, and both specialists give different opinions at the end result. Now, I would need to read these documents completely, but I still come to the same conclusion. I think we need to have a noise test carried out again, and this time we will talk to the tennis club and to the residents so that we are agreed on the results that come forward. And I also want to know and understand what the mitigation proposed, an acoustic fence is, where it goes, and what sort of standard it is, because obviously they vary considerably from reinforced concrete to slatted timber. So that's basically it. And we don't have that information before us. And as Councillor Walsh has said, we've already given it planning permission, so this is all very embarrassing. But he also says we don't want to make a mistake, and these are my residents, I certainly don't want to make a mistake, and therefore I think a deferral is the right way forward. Before we vote on that, Mr Parker wants to just clarify some things about that with you. Yes, just picking up on the difference between the reports. So at paragraph 6.14, I think it summarises it pretty well. So that there isn't a dispute between parties in respect to the level of noise that the paddle courts would generate when in use. Although, as you point out, Councillor Blacker, the original report hasn't got on site assessments. Obviously the third party noise report has done on site assessments. And in terms of the predicted noise from the paddle courts, there is sort of parity in terms of the predicted noise levels. The difference comes, and this is where the professional noise consultants in terms of the difference comes, is the change from the mini tennis court and the existing context of the tennis court's activities, the railway line, and other ambient noise. And that is where the difference in the conclusions is from. So I just want to be clear on that point. And as I said, regulatory support services have carefully considered both noise surveys and they side with the conclusions of the applicants noise consultants in terms of taking into account the wider context of the existing tennis activities and the train line. >> So can I throw it back to you, Mr Park, and just say given what Councillor Blacker has said and Councillor Walsh supported, what additional step would you suggest that we take in that period in order that Councillors can make a renewed assessment of the difference and understand -- would you want to pass it over to Mr Benson? >> I think that's the difficulty. I can't see what extra information is required. I think we have an understanding of what the noise impacts are. And the difference between the three noise consultants who have considered those impacts is a judgment. It's a judgment around how that is perceived. And no one can differ in that judgment. You can do the reports over and over again and they would still come up with that same conclusion. So it's not about the recording or the noise levels. It is the assessment, the judgment that falls from that, which is the difficulty associated with what would we be deferring for and what extra information could help us in making that decision, which I struggle to see. >> Yes, but Councillor Blacker, you respond to that. >> Thank you. Thank you, Mr Benson. I do agree with you. And the reading of noise reports is very subjective. However, at this moment we don't have the correct information. The only way I can describe it is I don't believe the paddle courts will have the effect that the residents think they do, but I need the evidence to be able to say, yes, I want to approve this application, which I do. I have played sport all my life and I hope to do so forever. I always liken it, if you've got six people playing a guitar and you put a seventh guitar, you won't notice any difference at all. But if the sixth person is a violinist, you'll notice the noise difference. And that, I believe, is what the difference is going to be. But I don't know until we do the proper readings with somebody playing the paddle courts so we can actually hear it, record it properly, show it to the residents, show it to the tennis club, then we've got the right information to make the right decision for all parties. Thank you. So it's a bit of a difficult situation we're in now, isn't it? Councillor Hart. Thank you, Chairman. It's a slightly off the wall suggestion. But I understand the paddle courts have already been built and are sitting there, so that gives us an opportunity to actually test, in real terms, the impact from playing on these things rather than it being hypothetical. What about this committee going down there and listening ourselves, because it's been said there is a degree of subjectivity, to actually listening and seeing whether we find the noise ourselves sufficiently irritating. I appreciate that suggestion, which is probably not going to be welcome. But I'd throw it in. Thank you. This is a very complicated area. Can I just say one thing? Clearly I think there's a very important point that's been made here about the different characters of the sound from different sources, the railway line, the paddle court, conventional tennis, the different sounds and how they work together, and the noise levels and the frequencies of use, et cetera, et cetera. So you talk about being subjective. It's about putting all those things together, isn't it? Councillor Baker. Thank you, Chairman. I feel quite uncomfortable with this, because we talked about the sound reports. You employ five different sound companies, you'll get five different results. How are you going to regularise the sound of a paddle ball? Is the sort of set benchmark that we can judge it by? Is it going to take into account somebody playing all day every day or for two hours on that day? Is it going to be adults? Is it going to be children? I find it almost farcical to try and regularise something like that. So I don't see how going to ... I understand what Councillor Harp said, I don't see how going to a paddle court in the borough or anywhere else is going to make any difference to this one. I find it really difficult how we're going to make a real objective decision on this. I don't think it can be a consistent sort of planning decision by going to six different paddle courts and getting various engineers. I find it very hard to understand how we do it. Okay, so let's take Councillor ... I don't know who was first. Councillor Tora and Councillor Thorne. It's really interesting, all of this, because in an earlier life, I was a Guinness World Record educator and not many people know that. And so I remember being in the middle of a playing field for Denver Broncos trying to do the loudest roar with a Casella speed sound ometer. And it was all based on where we stood on that pitch. And I think recording a noise, yes, if you've got 10-year-olds playing and men grunting like Venus Williams, you've got the different noise elements. And so it is, as Councillor Baker said, very difficult unless you have whoever's monitoring, three people, the council, the applicants, the residents with their gizmos all positioned in the same place. The other thing is acoustics. I know full well where my brother lives in Whitstable near a football pitch that you can be on the football pitch and you don't really hear much. But when you're in the next row, the acoustics of that and having many years ago a neighbour's little boy who used to like kicking a football against a wall, it's annoying. And again, it doesn't affect her in her house, but it affected me because I was the other side of the wall. So it's interesting. But I do think that a measurement of some kind needs to be done and make it so that it's actually a constant noise with adults playing a full game and people monitoring it and listening then. Thank you. The officers are going to say that that's been done. But it's been done, but there doesn't seem to be what's been taken into account, they're saying about the trains and everything else. In the report it's saying one's taken into account train noise as well as the paddle noise and others haven't. So as Councillor Harp said, the courts are there so it could be done again actually on site with full grown men playing. >> And then we'll go to the back here. Thank you, Mr Chairman. Given that we can do extensive sound testing and Mr Benson said that the sound levels weren't really in dispute, they both kind of agreed, is there not some kind of framework or legal limit of sound that pertains to tennis courts that we can measure against? >> Do you want to come on the back on that? Let's go to Councillor Hudson. >> Thank you, Chairman. Yes, but all the tests that have been done obviously didn't include paddle playing. So the residents are supporting of the tennis club and the tennis clubs want to support the residents. I've got a cunning plan. What about granting permission for it, which was what was done before anyway, and then getting when it's got permission, then retesting it, having a test done with tennis being played, trains going by, paddle being played, and then decide whether it requires an acoustic fence or not. So it's almost put a condition in that after, say, a year of the place in full motion. I'm sure the residents won't lose their hearing in that year just through some paddle playing. And then the decision, have a proper test done and then make a decision as to put a fence up or not. >> I'm sure the test could be done using the courts there now without permission being granted first. I'm sure that's the case. We are going to need to bring this thing to a conclusion because we've got a number of other applications, in fact, eight others to look out to see me. But Councillor Fairhurst. I'll just say really briefly, it feels a bit like to me we're losing sight slightly of the fact that the residents have come here this evening with a solution to the issues that they're worried about. And that's the first thing that the public speaker said. He said we're happy to approve this, but this further noise mitigation would be really helpful. So I'm not clear how a deferral will help that if a solution is on the table and ready. Thank you. >> We, of course, don't know what that would look like. And that's the point that Councillor Blacker has made here. Just picking up the point you said, Chairman. It's all very well saying put acoustic panels in there and reduce it by 10 dB. What does that look like? How do you know what is being suggested will work? Because it may end up reducing it by 20 dB. But is it 20 dB? Do you need 8 dB? Do you need 6 dB or what? What do you actually need? The reality is, as I said earlier, is the measurements and both the consultants have said the sound output are accepted. It's actually what is the mitigation and what is the end output. And that is the subject as Mr Benson said and concurred with myself, it is a very subjective matter. In order to move this forward, I think we've got to move this forward, it's sort of fairly apparent from the meeting, and I'm going to just take the sounding here, that members feel concerned about this. You're not concerned about it, Councillor Walsh? Okay. All right. But we'll take some soundings in a minute. And, therefore, we would need to defer this. But the question that Mr Benson was asking, am I right, was, well, okay, well, what would that be for? And we've been trying to clarify that in terms of, well, you might have suggested, for example, to understand what an acoustic barrier would look like. And for additional any additional level, any additional test to be made. But I think that the officers would say, they've got all the numbers are there, but I agree, but we must agree that there's no proposal for an acoustic barrier. So, therefore, how could we possibly condition that? Is that okay with you? That's the difficulty. So, Councillor Bakker, do you want to? >> I mean, that's really why I proposed deferral, because I -- we either want to be able to prove by, as Councillor Hart suggested, actually playing on the courts, or we've got to understand what an acoustic barrier looked like. I mean, it may be hideous and needs planning permission. So I really want to get this right. So I would propose deferral. Thank you. >> Okay. So can I -- on that basis, can I just sort of take a show of hands for members who wish to support a deferral for us to consider those of that matter, of what an acoustic barrier would look like. And... Counted nine. >> And those who don't want us to defer for that reason. Okay. And abstentions. So, okay. So we will defer this for that reason to next meeting. Okay. Thank you. Sorry about that, guys. So if you want to leave, now is a good time to leave. Okay. We're going to move on now to agenda item number 12. In accordance with our practice, this is 8 Woodcloughs, Salfords, Surrey. And it's 23-00446. And I think it's Michael again, isn't it? Yeah. He's -- so to Michael. So over to you. Okay. So this application relates to 8 Woodcloughs, which is located in the northwest corner of Woodclough, Salfords. It's occupied by a two-storey detached dwelling. And there's a large, wedge-shaped corner plot. Harwood Park is located to the southwest of the site. The site is entirely within the urban area, where the principle of residential development is acceptable. Here's an aerial photo to provide a bit more context. So the site is the corner plot here. Hopefully you can see our cursor moving around. Harwood Park is the cul-de-sac to the west. And then Bonehouse Road, the A23, is to the east. Here's the proposed site plan. The application proposes to demolish the existing attached garage and extension of the host property and then erect two dwellings in the rear garden. The spacing between the two dwellings -- the two new dwellings and the host property and the spacing to the boundaries are considered to result in an acceptable scheme, which would not result in a cramped form of development and would not conflict the pattern of development of the surrounding area. The density would be commensurate with both Woodcloughs and Harwood Park. In terms of spacing to neighboring properties, as per the assessment at paragraph 6.10 to 6.14, the separation distances and orientation of the proposed dwellings are such that the proposal is not considered to result in an adverse impact to neighboring properties. In terms of parking, seven parking spaces are proposed. And that doesn't include the garages that you can see on the site plan. This would be in excess of the minimum parking standards. There would also be space to the front of the proposed garages for additional parking. The proposed access, parking and traffic generation has been considered by Surrey County Council as the county highway authority and they've raised no concerns with the application. So this is the existing property with its garage and extension element. So this would be the resulting host property with the extension removed. Other than that, very limited changes. This is the proposed house one. Sorry, house two. And this is the proposed house three. The proposed dwellings have been designed to reflect a traditional appearance through the utilization of hip trees, clay tiles, hanging tiles to the upper floors, chimney features, and modest sized dorm windows. That would be in keeping with the form of the dwellings and the characteristics of the surrounding area. Just on some photos. So this is from the rear of the site looking towards 19 Harwood Park. This is taken from the rear of the site looking towards the host property. This is the rear of the host property again and six wood closers to the left-hand side there. So this is from the front of eight wood close with 10 wood close on the left-hand side. So you can see the existing access. Just to clarify and as set out in the addendum, it's being confirmed that there's no plan to change the existing access in terms of the adopted highway or the footway that runs across the access. So the proposal would make use of the existing crossover. And then just lastly, a wider view from wood close. To conclude, the scheme is deemed to be acceptable with regards to design, layout, and density. Their impact on neighbouring amenity would also be acceptable. It would meet the requirements of the national space standards in terms of living conditions, in terms of room sizes, as well as the requirements for parking. It would have an acceptable level of impact on trees and ecology and further improvements would be secured by condition as would a scheme for drainage. The scheme is therefore recommended for approval, subject to the conditions set out in the agenda. Thank you, Chairman. >> Thank you very much. So we have three public speakers for this application. First are two objectors, Mr Matthew Finnegan and Mrs Isabelle Beale. Let's take Mr Finnegan first. Would you please come to the microphone? You will have got the idea from the previous application. So whenever you are ready, please start. Turn the microphone on. That's it. And I will ask you to bring your remarks to a conclusion if you are getting towards three minutes. Thank you. Whenever you are ready. >> Chairman, good evening. I am one of seven neighbours, seven families directly affected by this seriously flawed proposal. There has been no community engagement by the developer on this application. But there was preemptive felling on the nonprotected great oaks days before the developer's formal tree survey. The site is an unsuitable closed corner plot on heavy clay. It was part of a wood until 1954. The site and the immediate area are prone to surface water retention and significant drainage issues together with properties in holly lodge lane. The narrow access will be 3.7 metres wide. 12 foot in all measurements. Harwood park is 5.48 and wood close is 5.04. The carriageway will have no stone pavements for pedestrians but narrow strips of soil incorporating on the south verge a 1.8 metre hedge and ten trees in front of number ten's solid fence. And on the north verge a hedge. A standard car is 1.81 metres wide not including mirrors which take it to 2.1. An SUV can be two metres wide not including the mirrors. Two standard vehicles cannot pass on the proposed narrow carriageway. Are we asking vehicles to move mount the verges in order to pass safely particularly in low lighting conditions? Vehicles entering the access from Harwood park will have to turn sharply left 57 degrees from their direction of travel behind number ten's boundary fence. In effect a blind turn. This movement will be highly hazardous as no advance warning of exiting traffic from the site can be anticipated. The proposed access is of poor design and is being squeezed in haphazardly. County highways state a clear line of sight of 43 metres south is appropriate from the donor property's threshold with the highway. This is inaccurate and mistaken as vehicles exiting the drive of number ten next door will not see emerging traffic from the site's narrow access nor can they the residents of number ten and to a lesser extent the residents of number nine be seen by traffic emerging from the site. Number ten's boundary fence is 1.4 metres high. The county's highway requirement to have a clear pedestrian intervisibility splay of two metres wide by two metres high is just not possible due to the proximity of number ten's boundary fence to the access. The published plans are inconsistent. This is the ninth version in 15 months. They continue to show the appropriation of the public footpath crossover at the donor's plot threshold. Delivery vehicles and visitors are unable to access the site and will park in Harwood Park and Woodclose. Thank you very much. Thank you. Our second public speaker is Mrs Isabel Beale. Mrs Beale, if you would like to take your seat there and turn the microphone on. You have got three minutes. Once again I will indicate to you if you need to bring those remarks to a close. If you are ready, please start. >> Isabelle Beale, Harwood Park resident, director and company secretary of Harwood Park Management Company Limited. To date there are 119 objections to this application and the officer's report states just two. Members should be under no illusion of the magnitude of the opposition to this proposal. It constitutes an overbearing development, intensification of a single existing plot not in keeping with the character of Woodclose and Harwood Park. The badly designed proposed access roads raises serious issues. The exit of the proposed access road is adjacent to the driveways of ten and nine Woodclose and number eight's front parking spaces create hazards for drivers and pedestrians. The video and photographs clearly demonstrating serious visibility issues accompanied our latest submission. Critically vehicles exiting at the same time from both the driveway of ten Woodclose and the proposed access road will be hidden from one another by the 1.5 solid fence with the inevitable risk of collision occurring. We do not agree that the proposed development will not materially worsen highway safety given the absence of an accident report for eight Woodclose. The crash map records no accidents here but the proposal is to change the private driveway of a corner plot into a junction for an access road. Serious concerns remain over the proposed number of parking spaces particularly just one visitor parking space. The report notes existing on street parking in Woodclose and Harwood Park and the provision of only one visitor space would compound these parking issues. The officer acknowledges that with fully occupied parking spaces delivery vehicles would have only a small margin of space in which to turn. Barely sufficient for vehicles to exit in forward gear as required by proposed planning condition 20. Many will be forced to reverse up and out of the access road into oncoming traffic and pedestrians. Citing of the refuse and storage bin area on the edge of the proposed access road is inherently dangerous. Four outward opening doors necessitating residents and council operatives to stand in the highway all causing obstruction and endangering personal safety. The officer identifies areas of the proposed site that could provide resting and foraging habitat for great crested newts. As mitigation he refers to a pond 85 meters to the south of the site. This pond is privately owned by our company. A civil engineering structure collecting private and public surface road water plus overflow inlet from the A23. Water levels are variable and serious doubt must be cast on its quality as it would contain traffic pollutants oils and road debris contaminants. Our belief is our pond would not therefore be suitable for mitigation for great crested newts. Overall consequential loss of long established habitat and devastating disturbance to bats birds population and other wildlife should not be underestimated. Could you bring your remarks to a close please. In summary the 119 registered objections received against zero registered support demonstrate genuine concerns and strength of resident opposition. Many present this evening. We urge you to refuse this application. Thank you. >> Thank you very much. Our third speaker is the applicant. The agent, sorry. Mr. Spencer copping. Deja vu. Whenever you're ready, Mr. copping. >> Spencer copping, director of WS planning and architecture. I would like to thank the chair once again and members of the committee for allowing me to speak this evening on behalf of the applicant. Again the officer's report has comprehensively covered the main points of this application so I'll try and keep this as brief as possible. I do have a wish to provide some context to the application and respond to some of the objections raised. The application as presented tonight follows a preapplication inquiry in 2022. This application was submitted in March 2023 and various amendments have been made to the proposal since its original submission which has included the number of dwellings proposed being now reduced from four to two as well as alterations to the layout and parking arrangements. The new dwellings have been carefully designed and positioned to minimize any perceived impacts on neighboring properties or the host dwelling at number 8 would close. The proposed separation distances are acceptable as has been confirmed in the officer's report. In line with Rygate and Banstead's local planning policy the proposal would provide a net increase of two family homes that would contribute to the housing supply of the borough. The application has been accompanied by detailed reports including transport statement and visibility displays which confirm that the proposal would not result in an increase in traffic levels and would not be detrimental in terms of highway safety and efficiency. Surrey County Council have also been consulted on the application and have raised no objection in this regard. It is important to reiterate that this proposal would only comprise the erection of two additional dwellings which would result in a minimal increase in traffic. Specialist advice has also been provided in relation to ecology and trees and there has been no objection from Surrey Wildlife Trust or the council's tree officer. Appropriate refuse and recycling facilities have also been incorporated into the proposal. These facilities have been designed in accordance with the policy requirements and as confirmed in the officer's report the proposal is considered acceptable in this regard. In terms of character and appearance the proposed dwellings would comprise a traditional form which is entirely in keeping with the character of the local area. It is also important to note that the proposed development would comprise comparable plot sizes to others within Woodclose and Harewood Park and would therefore be entirely in keeping with the pattern of development in the surrounding area. As the dwellings are set back behind the existing house there will be no detrimental impact on the street scene. The proposal would incorporate sufficient landscaping ensuring limited views of the proposed dwellings from the street scene. As the officer's report confirms the proposal would be acceptable in terms of character and appearance and would not harm neighbour amenity. As a small site these homes can also be delivered relatively quickly. It is therefore requested that the case officer's recommendation is upheld by the members of the committee and the application be granted. Thank you. Thank you very much. Okay. We have one visiting member who wishes to speak on this. Councillor Chester, could I just ask you to try and keep your remarks succinct if you can. Thank you. Thank you very much. Over to you. Thank you, chair. Can you hear me okay? Is that okay? Great. Okay. So although this application as it currently stands is quite a lot better than it was initially, having the reduction in the number of properties, I would say that although there are always concerns around back garden developments there probably is enough space to accommodate these two houses and the parking. But the overriding concern I still have about this is the awkwardness of the access point. Still not convinced that it's safe. And it contravenes I would say a few of our policy points. I briefly run through those. So policy DES 1.5 which relates to impact on existing residents. The new access road runs very close to the boundary with existing property number 10. And the resulting I would say traffic noise and also residents pulling their noisy smelly bins to and from the bin storage will undoubtedly have a negative impact on residents in that property overbearing, potentially loss of privacy. There will be possibly overlooking loss of privacy for other residents but I think that's the primary concern. Point 10 which relates to parking and turning. There's a little bit of variation between depending on which part of the report you look as to how many parking spaces there are. I think maximum is eight. If all those are filled, it's claimed there's going to be enough room for the turning. But I'm not convinced that that's ‑‑ does that include larger vehicles, delivery vehicles, emergency vehicles? That does seem a little bit ‑‑ yeah. Like a little bit more clarification on that. Policy DES 2.D which relates to well designed access roads is definitely not well designed. It's very narrow. It doesn't have a pavement. It's ‑‑ the bin storage is pretty much on the access road. It's too close to the neighbouring property and the visibility at the junction is very poor. Point G which refers to street frontage character. This development will look and behave, for want of a better word, completely differently to the existing frontages because it's an access road. It's not even a driveway. It's not a lower driveway. It's an access road. So it's completely different from all the other properties. And policy DES 2.2 which I think is a key one here which states proposals ‑‑ proposals that would cumulatively result in multiple closed space access points through the existing street frontage should be resisted. And this development in my opinion constitutes precisely what this point of our policy is stating that we should avoid. There are three access points really, access points for three properties via one very narrow driveway through an existing street frontage. And that is certainly very, very closely spaced. So those are the points I think are the ones that stand out for me the most. There are a few queries that I would like to clarify, some questions I would like to ask. But I'm happy to maybe come back to that after other members have spoken. Okay. It's very important we give time to the members to speak. So I'll come back to you later if there's time. Members, to you now. Councillor Walsh has got his hand up first. Councillor Walsh. Thank you, chair, and thank you for the local information. I'm not party to where this actually is, but from a plan perspective, I concur with the comments made with regard to the access to the site. Looking at the densities of the local area, it seems to be compatible with what is there. I have some concerns about the impact of two sizable properties in back land development with only an access way as a means of access to the road itself towards close. And it says close, and that's what it is. It's not an access to a road, it's into another close. So it's creating another close off a close with a very diminutive access way. I have concerns. Councillor Thorne. >> Thank you, Mr Chairman. As both the object to Mr Finnegan and the applicant have said, this application has gone on for quite a while. Nine iterations. Starting initially with four homes and now down to two. And a lot of work has gone in from both the applicant and the planning officer to try and make this work. I too have major concerns that it just doesn't fit with the rest of wood close and Harwood Park. If you were to look from above, there is a natural flow to the design and layout of the properties. And what we are trying to do now is squeeze in a narrow access road that is not in character with the rest of the development. I also would like to come back at the end, please. >> That's fine. Thank you. Anybody else? I think Councillor Tora was first. >> Thank you, chair. I have got huge concerns that the tree officer arrived a bit late and missed some oak trees being felled. I really despise the fact that this keeps happening and it shouldn't happen. And I hope the people that felled the trees get penalised because it really shouldn't be happening. But it shouldn't be happening. The plan, the house is still there. They shouldn't be building and knocking down trees when they haven't got permission to do so. Great that it's gone down from four to two and to kind of be informed that we should be thankful that it's only two. Well, it's still too, too many. And when you look at the way the house has originally been built, there must have been a reason why this huge corner plot was left as it was. And they didn't squeeze and make the close a little bit longer to fit possibly three houses in this area. And maybe it is down to the fact that it is clay and there's a flood issue. This is it. So I think it's the whole but the back building is wrong. The narrow entrance is wrong. Surrey highways I have issues with Surrey highways sometimes when they've said things are acceptable. This is clearly not acceptable. It is unsafe for number 10 to come out of their driveway. It's going to cause issues with even just deliveries for all the houses with extra vehicles coming in. And with the bins situated there, the dust cart has a reversing beat. We say this all the time. So poor number 10 is going to hear reversing lorries coming down because I don't think there's a big enough turning circle there for any lorry, even a removable vehicle to come in. So I just think it's too much in one space. Thank you. So let's ask the officers about the issues you've raised about vehicles. We have to take the advice of Surrey county council. They are the experts in vehicle movements. And so we have to take their advice on it. But let's turn to Michael Parker and ask him about the type of vehicles that could be using this site. It's not designed for a refuse truck to go in or reverse into. The bin collection point is there so that on collection days the bins are sort of moved to where the refuse truck would be, which would be on the normal sort of route around the close. In terms of the access, obviously it's not a new access, an existing access for an existing property. So I think in terms of context, obviously Surrey county council have looked at the objections and we have specifically gone back to them to make sure that they're happy and that they've seen the objections raised. And they haven't raised any concerns in terms of the quality of the access. I think the context is it's two additional houses. It will be a low amount of vehicle movements. And they've advised that the turning head is adequate for things like delivery trucks for Morrisons. Just coming back on that, and I know sometimes we're told we're not allowed to look back at other things, but there was a case many few years ago where two buildings were put in a back garden and the narrowness of -- there was a pillar of the owner. So say in retrospect there's a pillar here that belongs to number 10. It got knocked down and then it never got rebuilt. The fact is, number 10, do they own that fence line? Because they are within their rights to not reduce. This is what happened in a previous application where the guy decided he wasn't going to reduce his fence line on principle because it's not affecting him. And if they want to come in and try and access out. But if it gets damaged, then -- I know, I just think -- sorry. I'm rumbling. But I just don't understand how and the safety and the fact that bins being pulled out onto a road will block the pavement and you've got three bins. They're probably gardens. So three wheelie bins per property. And that's six bins extra onward close on the pavement where it shouldn't be. It should be on the edge of people's properties and not on their pavements. Thank you. I'll let Mr Parker cover off the bin point, if that was what he was intending to do. I just wanted to make very clear this is the first meeting of the municipal year. And two things, really. Number one, obviously, there is no permission required for the felling of trees that are not protected. So no offence has occurred. There isn't anything that has been undertaken where the council was at fault for not having done something. There was no consent required. So that -- please don't take that into account in your assessment of the application. Also, please don't take into account non-material planning considerations. Who owns the fence is not material to the planning application. If it gets knocked down, it's a civil matter. It's a property damage consideration, not a planning matter. We must stick to the planning matters. Try to emphasize it in training. But first meeting, I want to reemphasize it because it is very, very important. Having been in court today to consider the proper consideration and understanding of planning merits and planning material considerations of a previous committee decision, it's obviously brought it home even more acutely. So very, very important that we put out of our minds such matters like removal of trees that were not protected, not a planning matter, and private property matters. Thank you. Perhaps I can just -- I sat also in the High Court this morning in the Royal Courts of Justice and heard the statements about -- for members being analyzed. So we have to be very careful. And let's be careful. Let's make sure we do stick to things that are material. It's very easy to make these comments, but we have to really be careful about what we say. And what we imply is related to -- I completely understand that. But I think what we also have to consider here is that in the instance that I was referring to, the resident who had his pillar pulled down, he's still fighting for the builders to put it back up. And it's like planning have said, sorry, can't do it. So buildings like this is the detriment to the residents that still live there. You know? Sorry. I've had a long day, too. We understand. We understand. Do you want to come back on the vehicles again? Yeah. I mean, condition 19. So in terms of the concerns about the access, there's a condition that requires prior to commencement of the development that they install the visibility display as shown on the plans. Obviously, if that isn't possible, then they will need to come back to us with a varied scheme before they commence the development. Yeah. I think it's just back to the context of it's two extra properties and we have an existing access. This isn't a new access situation. It's on a low residential sort of close with low traffic. And sorry, Council, again, I would stress, are not raising any highway safety concerns. >> Thank you. And we have to take that with the weight of an expert opinion. Councillor Blacker. Thank you, chairman. Interestingly enough, you know I just don't like background development at all. But these two houses actually fit in. I'm far more concerned with taking a point that Mrs. Beall raised is that if the donor property parks two cars outside his house and possibly a third, he's actually going to be blocking the entranceway by the look of it. I wonder if the officers could comment on that, please. Just looking at this, Councillor Blacker, I don't understand because there are two designated parking spaces outside that house. >> Yes, I'm sure there are. They're not marked on these plans, unfortunately. >> I think they are, aren't they? Page 237. >> Yeah. Page 237. Yeah. There are to the north of the plot there are two parking spaces. >> Yeah. So you get two cars in there, some thing swings in. If there's a visitor, where is he going to park? Yeah. I'm not happy with that access with cars parked in front. I think potentially, I don't think it will kill anybody, but I can see lots of damaged cars and lots of arguments going on. I'm not sure that's a planning matter either, but still. Yeah. I'm concerned with it. Councillor Baker. >> Thank you, Chairman. As uncomfortable as some people are with backyard development, I think this is clearly a reduction of what the original plan was. There's two properties there. It clearly matches and meets and surpasses most of our planning guidelines that we follow. We talked about, Councillors have raised about driveways, access being blocked. They can be blocked by a lorry. There's ifs, buts that you can fit into everywhere. But what I can see in front of me here is a clearly thought out design that does match what we think. It is a matter of personal opinion, whether you like it or not, and understand residents who might not like it. But what I can see before me is something I would find it very difficult to argue with, with the conditions that we've actually talked about as well, to actually come back against. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else wishing to speak? I'm looking around the room. Can you keep this really quick? Thank you. >> Thank you, Chairman. I will do my best, but I think it's important that we do actually discuss this thoroughly. So I will try and be as brief as possible. I would like to understand the access and visibility a little better. So I want to understand we've got a condition which means that the county has a requirement that we have a clear pedestrian indivisibility splay of two metres wide by two metres high. And that shouldn't be obstructed within that zone by anything over 0.6 metres. But I think that already is difficult, if not impossible, to do because of the fences that are existing. Let's ask the officer. Can we raise it as just a question? I would refer back to condition 19 because it requires an updated scheme which sets out pedestrian visibility splays in terms of the access, which is one of the key considerations. And look to the access from a point of view. >> Thank you. That strange map showing the right angle dotted line, that's to be superseded by something to be submitted in future as a condition. >> I really do need you to be quite efficient at that time. >> Just trying to understand it so people can make an informed decision. Very quickly in relation to the bins, as has been raised previously, there's going to be a lot more bins than we have storage for here. Where are they going to go? Where are they going to be left when the bin lorries come to collect? Are they going to be left outside existing properties 9 and 10 or along the pavement? That doesn't seem adequate for that. >> Should we ask the officers about the bin provision? >> Just trying to find the condition on it. But there is a condition that requires again finalised details of bin collection area. So in terms of ensuring that it's the correct size to address current requirements and ensuring that it's adequately placed for the refuse collection. We can deal with that by condition. We think we've got enough scope within the layout to address that. Thank you. Will that include not only standard refuse and recycling but garden waste and paper and food collection also? Because it currently doesn't. It only illustrates the first two elements. >> The condition says until the refuse collection point. We can obviously clarify that with an informative if we get to the point of recommending this for approval that the refuse collection point should cover all types of bins. I think it needs to be conditioned, not informative, I would say. We can sort that out. I have to give weight to the members who are members of the committee. Councillor McKenna was first and then Councillor. >> Thank you. I'm not going to repeat what others have said but I have got concerns about many of those issues, particularly the access arrangements. I want to highlight the biodiversity aspect. It talks about biodiversity but in condition 16 it's rather vague. No development above ground level shall commence until a scheme to provide positive diversity benefits, blah, blah, blah, has been submitted and approved. I know this scheme isn't covered under the biodiversity net gain regulations. It's been going on through lots of iterations. It may or may not have missed the deadline for biodiversity net gain assessment. It's not. In this case I would be interested to know whether the spirit of that means we should be going for at least 10 per cent positive benefits. I think as Councillor McKenna pointed out, it's well before the statutory requirement for 10 per cent. As we have been through before, there's a requirement for us to have biodiversity where possible. Obviously in this case with the back land scheme, they are not looking to meet a net gain of biodiversity but what we have conditioned is a requirement to include enhancement measures which would improve the environment for species in the future. I think newts was brought up as a point earlier. So nature space run a district licence. In terms of using an alternative pond in the nearby to move newts, that isn't the case. It's because of the nearby pond that was considered to be a potential risk of existence of newts and that is why they have agreed to a district licence which will look to if newts are found to move them to appropriate environments in the area. I just want to understand what does success look like from a biodiversity enhancement? What is success? What does that mean on the ground? Is it a 5 per cent increase? I'd have to go through the ecology report in some detail. Biodiversity enhancement measures are normally species specific so it would be things like bird back boxes, hedgehog roots, all those sort of things, planting through landscaping which is what we would look to secure on this sort of application. I think it's important just to understand in the context of a minor application that's well before the statutory requirement, they are doing what they are required to by planning policy. We have a condition to secure that. Very quick. I'm just thinking there is nothing really about monitoring and checking after the event as to whether or not it has been successful. On a scheme like this, lots of biodiversity has been mentioned. I'd quite like to have seen a LEMP being applied here, landscaping ecological management plan. That's my final question. Why haven't we done that? It's just about proportionality really. Those are the sort of conditions we have on larger schemes. We've got a landscaping condition which we would expect to be tied in with the biodiversity improve sort of enhancement measures. We can look at all that in terms of discharge of condition. If you wanted to add in some wording on monitoring, then that can be considered if we get to the point of recommending this. If members get to the point of recommending it, yes. Okay. Who else wants to speak? No. You want to speak? Go on. Thank you, Mr Chairman. Picking up on Councillor Baker's comments earlier that it looks okay. As I said previously, some work has been done. The houses look similar and of a fair size in keeping with the rest of the development. The plot sizes perhaps are okay too. However, the position of them means that three or four houses have got new neighbours in the back garden which they won't have previously encountered. And also with the drive being the way it is, I'm not allowed to put that forward as a reason for refusal because, sorry, highways have not objected. But I would like to propose a reason for refusal, please. Yes, please do. >> The proposed dwellings by reason of their siting scale large footprint and massing would be out of keeping with and harmful to the character and appearance of the area. They would also appear overbearing and cause overlooking to the neighbouring dwelling at Tenwood Close, contrary to policies DES1 and DES2 of the development management plan 2019 and Rygate and Bairnstate local character and distinctiveness guide 2021. Thank you. >> Do you have a seconder for those reasons for refusal? We are going to take a vote on the reasons for refusal. Those members who wish to support the reasons for refusal, please raise your hands. I counted eight. >> Those members who are against the reason for refusal, will you please raise your hands. >> I counted five. Any abstentions? That application is refused. You can now leave if you would like to or you are very welcome to stay for the next application which is item number 14 on our screen. >> It is getting very dark. Sorry for it. >> Okay. Members, we need to press on the next item is item number 40, the former care home park hall road Rygate. This is not a planning application to us. It is something that is going to be handled by Surrey County Council. We are just a consultee. Just like we asked them about traffic, they asked us what our opinions are about this. We will be simply making a decision about how we respond to the consultation. Please, those members who are new, this is a learning experience. This doesn't happen very often. Please do try to switch into mode B for this one. This is going to be presented by guess what? Michael. >> As the chairman said, this is a consultation on an application made by and to be determined by Surrey County Council for a new school at the site of the former care home on park hall road. Can you just encourage them? Let's just wait for a minute. If you do want to take your jacket off, as Councillor Walsh has already done, you are very welcome to do so. It is okay. It is okay. It is a good thing. How is she doing? Just wait. I think you can proceed without. Can you carry on? >> Thank you, chairman. The committee is not determined this application, but the planning committee is asked to note the borough Council's response as a consultee rather than decision maker. The recommended response is set out on page 270 of the agenda. I will include all of the wording on that page set out below the recommended response heading. The application site is located on the eastern side of park hall road which is a residential cul-de-sac. The east is the north is Brookes road. There is a former care home building on the site which has been vacant since 2017. The site is bounded by trees and hedgerows, a number of which along the eastern and northern boundary are protected by tree preservation orders. The area is characterised by its suburban residential nature. This is the proposed site plan. The application is a full application to demolish the former care home building and erect a part single, part two-storey alternative vision school to accommodate 72 pupils. This is not a newly created school, but it is proposed to relocate the Rygate Valley College which currently has three substandard campuses in Rygate, Redhill and Sidlow into one new modern fit for purpose facility that can provide more effective teaching and better serve the needs of the students. Such proposals are considered to be acceptable in principle. The plan shows a footprint of the school which is coloured in grey. And then the footprint of the existing building is dashed in red which hopefully members can see and it gives an idea of the existing extent of the footprint of the existing care home development. The proposal would make use of the existing accesses onto Park Hall Road. 29 parking spaces are proposed for staff in the south-eastern part of the site. The north-western access and parking area to the front of the school would be used for visitors and the school drop off and pick up. So these are the existing elevations. They've also included on these elevations a dashed line above the existing building. That's the proposed level of the first floor of the proposed building. So that's the top floor height. Just to give you a comparison, these are the proposed elevations. It would have a simple flat roof design like many of the new schools in the borough. It would make use of traditional brick elevations and detailing which ensures that the appearance is in keeping with the pallet of materials within the local area. The replacement school would be higher than the existing single storey care home buildings but given the consolidation of the footprint compared to the existing care home and the spacing to the site boundaries, the result is a new building which would not dominate the site or wide a townscape and which would not appear at odds with the character of the surrounding area. Therefore no concern is raised with regard to scale and design of the proposed building. These are some of the visuals that were in the submitted design access statement. So that's the front of the school. And that's the southern elevation. So just on some photos for members that are not aware of the site. This is taken from Brooks Road and the junction with parkour roads in front of you and then the existing center site, the existing care home site is in the center of the picture behind those vehicles there. That's the existing access in front of the tree. So this is from Rygate Road. So as you can see it's a relatively well screened and good vegetation for boundary treatments. And then this one is on the eastern end of Brooks Road with Rygate Hill. Again you can see the sort of well screened nature of the boundary. And then if we go in sort of parkour roads, this is just a close picture of the existing junction with the existing access on the left hand side. This is looking back up parkour road towards Brooks Road. So you've got the existing care home on the right hand side. And then one just of the existing front elevation. And lastly we've got sort of this is the southern access which the application will make use of the staff access, staff parking. And then there you can just see the relationship as well to the existing properties on parkour road. So to conclude the reuse of this brownfield site for other community use or an alternative community use is acceptable in principle as set out in the report. No concerns are raised with regard to scale and design of the school, neighboring amenity issues, air quality, contamination or flooding. In terms of parking, highway safety and capacity issues, as noted in the report this is a matter for the County Highway Authority at Surrey County Council to consider in more detail. However the recommendation advises Surrey County Council that officers, the case officers themselves at Surrey County Council need to be satisfied the proposal will provide adequate parking and not result in unacceptable highway impacts. And that's particularly noted that the residents in the area have submitted their own response from a transport consultancy motion which has been submitted to us and also directly to Surrey County Council. And so they will need to address the matters raised in that motion submission. Further considerations required in relation to route protection areas and further bat surveys are also needs to be undertaken. So in the absence of these two matters as tree protection and ecology surveys, officers are recommending objections raised with regard to these two points. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you. I hope that was clear as to what officers are recommending. Councillor Walsh. Where do I start? This is a consultation, I accept that. I don't like it, I don't think it's right that the county come and impose a building upon the borough that we only consulted on. And I am actually deeply concerned the one thing that we usually criticise Surrey for is their highways because they usually don't comment, they don't respond properly. I am going to say something slightly different to that comment later on if we get to that before midnight, the midnight twitching hour. But I am concerned that our officers have said in terms of parking we are reliant upon the school teacher marking his own homework and it's actually going to impact the highways office, they are going to design it and comment on it. It's not something that we can do. So I actually am concerned. Sorry, Councillor Walsh, I forgot that we have speakers on this one. So you had your hand up. You let me speak. I didn't know that. You didn't tell me. There we are, it's my fault. I looked up and there was your hand up. Right. So we are going to first of all take our public speakers and my apologies to both of the public speakers for omitting that immediate reaction. So our two speakers, first of all are Mr John Aitchison. You want to be second. Okay. So please do take a seat and I think you have seen what the others have done. Switch the microphone on and I will give you three minutes when you are ready. Let me just get my timer going. >> Good evening. The need to upgrade the existing campus is not in doubt. But a solution so fraught with inherent compromises is surprising in a new build facility. The cause of the planning problems stem from the basic fact that the park hall site is too small for a 72 place AP school under recognised DFE guidelines. Nor does it meet Surrey County Council's brief for the site area. The following examples illustrate just some of the shortcomings but are by no means exhaustive. Congestion on local narrow roads due to the high reliance on taxes already a real concern for residents near RBC's existing campus with only half the number of pupils. Inadequate double bank staff parking leading to over spill on to surrounding roads made worse by proposed double yellow lining. Reliance on a taxi sharing model deemed by RBC education team as most unlikely given the unpredictable AP catchment area. Use of the small existing parking area for pick up and drop off which cannot be enlarged to meet the likely volume of taxes. A confused arrival departure stacking arrangement inappropriate to the safe and secure transfer of reluctant and anxious children into school. Taxis queuing outside the secure gates within metres of one of the busiest roads in Surrey. A cul-de-sac access road too narrow to comply with Surrey County Council's own standards. A monolithic two storey building at odds with the scale and character of the surrounding residential area and RASC. Outdoor sport and amenity areas that are vital to health and development of special needs and excluded children are smaller than at the existing campus and located closest to the AQMA where air quality will be poorest. Levels of pollutants are double World Health Organisation standards and higher than at the current campus. Sports activities located closest to sensitive residential gardens are causing noise levels at and above Surrey County Council standards but are deemed acceptable due to the high level of ambient road noise. Inadequate ceiling heights in classrooms detrimental to a learning environment. Incomplete survey methodologies in the assessment of the impacts on the local road network. The mistake and inclusion of parking to the east side of Rygate Hill in the on street parking calculation when it should be excluded on safety grounds under UK road safety guidelines. Access and traffic management design based on withdrawn design data and on obsolete undersized refuse in emergency vehicles dating from the 1970s. Glossing over recognized national education designs which was not strictly within RBBC's remit should be of concern to a public body. Reliance on looser legal environmental targets. If Grenfell Tower has taught us anything it is that blind adherence to minimum legal standards leads to tragic consequences and does not avoid culpability. This is the wrong proposal shoehorned on to the wrong site and it is questionable if the needs of pupils and residents alike are best served by this proposal. Surely a more suitable site could be found such as Woodhatch Place freeing Park Hall for a more compatible and equally deserving community use such as residential or extra care. Okay thank you very much. Mr John Aitchison please. If I could really ask you to keep your remarks to three minutes. I timed this at home multiple times at three minutes. Whenever you're ready. Okay. Good evening. I want to make it very clear from the outset that this objection to the Rygate Valley College development on Park Hall Road is not based on the stereotyped view of an alternate provision school. On the contrary I applaud that the council recognizes it has a responsibility to create a class leading facility for children who require additional support with their education. But I do not believe that this should come at the expense of the health and safety of the immediate residents or their children. So for the next few minutes I have been asked to speak on behalf of the 287 objectors and their children. Like myself many residents moved their families to Rygate post lockdown attracted by its excellent schools parks and quick access to central London. It was easy to see why the town often makes the Sunday Times list of the most desirable places to live. But as restrictions eased the traffic congestion grew up to 16,000 vehicles per day according to the department for transport. The A217 towards Rygate becomes a parking lot when the level crossing is in operation which happens multiple times between 8 and 9 a.m. The same window of time a large volume of traffic is expected to arrive and depart the proposed new site. And seconds after the barriers lift vehicles race north well in excess of the 30 mile an hour speed limit to make up time. I realised several years ago it would be irresponsible to walk my children to their nursery and school down such a polluted and dangerous road. And as I have asked myself the impact of the traffic is immediate and undeniable. We therefore take a longer route via St Albans Road which presents a new set of challenges and dangers. Vehicles including pickup trucks, vans and even 10 ton tippers leave the A217 Rygate Hill southbound and A25 West street westbound to avoid the traffic delays caused by the level crossing. They speed along roads that include Beach Road, Brokes Road, Pilgrims Way, St Albans Road, Summers Road, Nutley Lane, St Albert Road, Eveson Road, Norbury Road, Beaufort Road, Harwick Road and York Road. Most of these roads are narrow with a car parked on each side outside of each home on both sides. And each of these roads has families who have children who attend Bright Horizons Nursery, Cavendish Lodge Nursery, Homesdale Community Infant School, Rygate Priory, Belton House, Micklefield School, Rygate St Mary's and Rygate Grammar. And they get there by walking. Families are already gravely concerned about the current pedestrian conditions. The combination of speeding vehicles and poor visibility around parked cars makes crossing roads perilous. This is the reality. These are the real fears hundreds of people face daily and they have done so for many years. And today we face a proposal that will worsen that situation. So please take on the responsibility of creating a class leading educational facility, one that nurtures, inspires and raises the bar for years to come. But please remember you have a responsibility to meet the standards of what a class leading educational facility should be. And you have a responsibility not to lower air quality far below World Health Organization standards. You have a responsibility for the safety of young pedestrians on their way to school. You have a responsibility to protect the quality of living for lifelong residents. And you have a responsibility to maintain the standards of what makes Rygate such a special place to live. Thank you. Thank you. [APPLAUSE] You were almost bang on time. But can I just once again echo something or say something to the committee, which is that I know you said we have a response, but actually our responsibility is very different here. Sorry, County Council is the decision maker for the council. We are simply a consultee. So please, please understand that that's our position. Councillor Walsh, you can resume. >> Thank you very much. And thank you very much for coming to express your views. I think it's very important that members of the public impacted by what Surrey County Council do are actually said and made public. I think we need to say it more often. I'm not a fan of Surrey County Council as you might have gathered. I think the issue that we've got is, as I said at the beginning, is that we're a consultee. And that is where I think that we miss a trick. We should have teeth that we should be able to bear and actually sharpen deep into them to make sure that they abide and understand the impact of their decisions. Fortunately, we actually stop the monstrosity that they were proposing that I think was the plan already, always, for the school that they were going to blot on the landscape just further down. Please try and keep to the -- >> It's important to recognize it's a consultation. I don't think our recommendations are strong enough. They are the decision maker and they will be marking their own homework on the points of parking. And as the member of the public said, quite eloquently, the biggest issue that is going to impact that site is the roads and impacts. If they haven't considered the parking, they haven't considered how the drop-off is going to concern. So I think that our response to county needs to be more robust. It needs to be, we do not like it. We do not accept this. It is not an acceptable proposal rather than we've got a few concerns. I accept that we are constrained by the fact that we are a consultee. It's wholly wrong. It is wrong in the natural law. And it's actually Surrey who have no concern about what it impacts to the residents because they're not impacted by it. We are. Our residents are impacted by it. [Applause] I'm not saying this for you. I'm saying this for the new members of the committee because some of the committee members haven't seen the county council just sitting on something to us to say have a look at this and make your comment. I'd really say this in the strongest of terms. Thank you, Councillor Walsh. Councillor, I think Baker was first. Councillor Baker and Councillor Fairhurst and then Councillor Blacker. Thank you, chairman. Without repeating what Councillor Walsh said because it would take about three hours. I have a few points. On the site visit yesterday, the other day we went to see it, it was brilliant illustrative. I mean, I laud Brownfield site redevelopment but this seems to be wholly inappropriate here. The roads around there, the ingress and egress from the site, the traffic movements predicted, yeah, okay, so that level of traffic movements will change. We can't really -- I don't think it sort of means anything. Pulling out onto private roads there, small roads, roads that are already double parked. Emergency vehicles going to have issues. Pulling out onto the A217 at the road from the level crossing. I just think the whole thing is a bit of a nightmare and I think it is a massive imposition on the local residents. It's going to completely change the area around there. You've got a relatively sedentary or sedate residential home being turned into a very, very active school with everything associated from traffic movements and anything else you can think with. I just think it's completely unsuitable and I think it's a shame we don't have more teeth as Councillor Walsh said. >> Thank you. Councillor. >> Thank you, chairman. I'm afraid I'm fading away a little bit on my voice but hopefully residents can hear me. There have been so many responses to this application and I definitely don't want to repeat any of them. The RH29 group report which Julia referenced is an excellent go to document to highlight where the key concerns are. Frankly, when it was first published I almost couldn't understand what I was seeing that the County Council is yet again presenting the Rygate ward with an application for an educational place that is unworkable, not fit for purpose. It's unworkable for all of the reasons that the public speakers have far more eloquently than me set out and my colleagues just now, especially around traffic, the taxi stacking, the noise, the air issues as well. So I'm really pleased that our response reflects our concerns of our policies. And I know that we're bound to comment on them. But I think it is right that we think of our residents in the round as well. The County Council just doesn't have that hyper local understanding that we do of our towns and our villages. And we understand in this place and we understand in Rygate and around those roads where these residents live that this application is wholly, wholly wrong for where they're saying that it should go. And I hope that we can at least reflect the flavor of what residents are feeling and very rightly feeling. And the colleagues here in our response as well. Thank you. Okay. Councillor Blacker. >> Thank you, Chairman. Thank the other speakers as well. My biggest concern as a consultee is that our recommended response is very, very weak. I understand they're concerned about the trees, fair enough. But that really isn't the major issue. So I mean, firstly, I regard Parkhall Road as a quiet residential leafy lane but without the leafy. With this proposal with 72 pupils, we know they're going to come in by car, taxi or a small bus, I think the Surrey County Council said. So Surrey County Council estimate 50 vehicles each day will come in. And therefore 50 vehicles will each go out again. That's 100 extra movements in Parkhall Road, Broke Road, A217 that will be blocked so they won't use A217. They'll go in the other direction and use Broke Road. Councillor Blacker, can I just come back on? Because obviously we are not the consultee for the traffic. So I mean, we can turn to Mr Benson and ask what we might do here. But I mean, we understand the point you're making. >> I won't be long. But it is the major issue. And it's just not dealt with. And we need to -- even though it's their responsibility not ours, we need to state that they've got to look at it properly. And they're not doing that at the moment. The number of pupils in and out, 72, the car, they're not going to use the A217. They're going to go elsewhere. All down our residential roads, a number of which are private roads. And I really want that dealt with. Air pollution has already been mentioned. And I'm told it's one of the highest in the area, Rygate Hill, which doesn't surprise anybody. All -- the residents are also very concerned about security. When the vehicles can't get in, so they chuck the children out in the road and try and walk them in, who knows? I don't know anything about these type of pupils except that they can't get an education elsewhere. So this is -- they've come to a special school. We understand it's not been mentioned. There's going to be a high iron railing fence around it. It's going to look like Stalag 19. It really is the wrong building, the wrong use in the wrong place. And all I want our officers to do is to put a much, much more robust objection. And the A and B and a few other bits and pieces just doesn't cover it. We've got to look after our residents better than we are at this moment. Thank you. [ Applause ] So let's in reverse order pick up some of the things you said there. And we're going to Mr. Benson in a minute. But just on the fencing side of it -- I haven't got anything to add. >> Okay. So I have comments from my left here about the type of fencing that's here is common to all these schools. But let's turn to Mr. Benson about the issue about how we handle the traffic issue which, you know, you've identified but is not our responsibility. So Mr. Benson. Thank you. So the recommended response, and it's the committee's response. It's not the officer's response. The recommended response that the committee is asked to consider suggests that the county council must be satisfied that robust transport modeling and highway safety order of the proposal has been undertaken and there would not be any significant adverse traffic impacts on the local highway network or any danger to public safety resulting from the proposal if approved conditions relating to parking, operational controls, pupil numbers, travel plan monitoring and infrastructure improvements should be considered. Without the evidence to say fundamentally this is wrong and we know this because we are transport experts and we can put our finger on the fact that this is wrong, this is wrong, this is wrong and that needs to be changed, it's very difficult to understand what more we can say in a response raising concerns or raising the need for the highway authority and the county council to take that issue very seriously than what the recommendation actually states at the moment. So I think that's where the issue lies is where we pitch that concern, if you like, to the county council. If that's not enough and the committee would like something that expressly says you have concerns, albeit not based on your own expertise but on your own local knowledge, then that's fine. The recommendation or the response can be adapted accordingly but that's the situation. Obviously we can't pinpoint matters of technical error with the application because we are not experts in that field. I think Councillor Walsh wants to come in. But this is your point. So I think we ought to go to you first, Councillor Blacker. >> The point with your response there, your intended response, it doesn't actually mention vehicles coming in and out. They have figures, not hours. So it needs to mention that. It also needs to mention that the entrance at the top of park hall road, the broach road end, was the entrance for the care home. The road that they are proposing to use as the exit and the car parking room for the staff was hardly used. It was used by waste vehicles and a few cars parking there. Probably about 30 vehicles a week. That's my estimate based on what the residents have told me. We need to say that this road is not used, was hardly used. Now it's going to become a major thoroughfare with at least 100 movements a day. That's figures at county council's figures. And the residents are quite naturally very concerned about it. If you lived there, you would be very concerned about it. We need to state that clearly, please. >> Councillor Walsh. We could play them at their own game. And actually insist that they consult us with their, because we have only got the proposal for the design of the school, which a number have said it is actually too large for the location. I know whether it's suitable but that's another matter. Again, that is something that they will impose upon us. But something that if we haven't given us sufficient information because they haven't designed it, we think we should be consulted with their proposals. And their highway's proposals. Because obviously there's a very serious nature of the conversion. You're going from a relatively inactive facility a care home facility. They don't have many hundred vehicle movements out of a care home. Call me old fashioned but that doesn't happen. But a school with significant by their own admission a hundred vehicle movements, that is a significant movement. And therefore we, I think we can, I mean, whilst sorry may never pay any attention to us, we could actually say that we wish to be consulted once they have developed their proposals. So we can consider, whilst we can always engage an expert, I'm sure we've got the capability, we've got the intellect and we've got the professional skills in house to do it. If not we can bring them in. But we could say consult, bring us back. Right. Okay. So as we know, from past experience, it is very difficult for us to craft text at a planning meeting. So I have a maybe a suggestion that absolutely with the comments that have been made so far in terms of the sort of things that Councillor Black has said and Councillor Walsh has said, in terms of the way in which we might shape this, would members be happy if vice chairman and ward members were, and other ward members, sorry, should basically work with the chairman and officers to just craft that point about traffic movements in a way that is not insulting, but absolutely, I'm sorry Councillor Walsh, that is not insulting, but absolutely focuses on what ward members and the residents are concerned about. I think if we were to do that we could then craft that, add a bit to that paragraph, make sure that the points that Mr Benson was saying are included. Is that, would that be an acceptable way forwards? >> I'm very happy with that. I think that would be a good idea. Kate, myself and Councillor Lewinsky involved, that would be fine. Councillor Thorne. >> Thank you very briefly. I think it would have been great if someone from Surrey County Council would be here present to see the level of objections to this plan, really, and while we are trying to create a text response to them, I don't understand why we can't have the face to face meetings to really clearly show what we are struggling to tell them. >> So to pick on two things you said there, firstly we can in our response refer to the webcast so they will be able to see exactly the comments that have been made. Councillor Walsh will be expecting the lawyers to be in touch. But we do also have a County Council member in the chamber today. So he will be able to, I'm sure, I'm looking at Councillor Harrison, will be able to I'm sure to tell his colleagues the strength of feeling about this. Is that fair, Councillor Harrison? Can I just say, I don't sit on the planning committee of the County Council. And I think Councillor Lewinsky does. So which is one of the reasons he is not in the chamber tonight. So he will be able to take part in the decision making separate from the in those comments contamination of what is directly said in the chamber. But I will recommend Councillor Lewinsky listens to this recording. >> Thank you very much. I'm sure he will take it on board. >> That is really appreciated. So there we are. So there is two ways in which that will happen. So would you be, members, would you be happy to approve, this is the recommendation now from the officers, to approve the officer recommendation. But with that addition, with that third paragraph, the section at the bottom of page 270 is strengthened with the sense that Mr Benson and Councillor Blacker and Councillor Walsh have said in conjunction with all the other ward members, we can make that happen. Would that be acceptable to you? Okay. So let's, can we put that recommendation for approval. So those who are ‑‑ sorry, it's a recommended objection. Yes. Sorry. We are objecting. When I said approval, I meant approve the objection. Sorry. It's ‑‑ we are going to ‑‑ yes, that's right. We are going to ‑‑ sorry. Would you, therefore, put your hands up if you want to support the objection with that caveat. So those members who wish to do so, please raise your hands. >> 14. Any objections? No. I will abstain again. Thank you very much. Okay. We take that forward. Right. Thank you for being with us this evening. We are going to move on to another application, now number 8. Agenda item number 8. Thank you. Agenda item number 8. Which is the land parcel opposite 21‑21C Wellsford Close. And this is 23/0215F. So I'm going to check who is presenting this to us. So it's you again, isn't it? I'm feeling sorry for Jake this evening. He's ‑‑ we will have to hopefully give him a chance later. Thank you, chairman. >> All right. Over to you. So ‑‑ pressed a lot of buttons. So this application is for the erection of 17 residential units at land to the west of Wellsford Close, Banstead. The market mix is three two‑bedroom units, six four‑bedroom and one five‑bedroom unit. So the scheme fully meets the requirements of DES4 in terms of housing mix. Five affordable units are proposed. Three will be affordable rent and two shared ownership. Just by way of a verbal update to the agenda, I have actually noticed that the recommendation at point one only shows one times two‑bedroom affordable units, whereas this should say two two‑bedroom affordable units. So the recommendation put forward for approval needs to reflect this. Also just to note, there is an addendum on this item which sets out changes to a couple of conditions and includes the appeal decision for the refuse 2021 application. So scenario photo of the site, surrounding area. Site comprises an area of scrub land previously designated as urban open land under the local plan. However, this designation was removed at the adoption of the development management plan and the site is considered urban land within the defined within the settlement area of Banstead. As such, the principle of residential development is accepted in land use terms and the presumption in favour of sustainable development applies. So the east of Wells would close ‑‑ sorry, the site itself is to the west of Wellsford Close. The metropolitan green belt and area of great landscape value adjoins the site to the south and some of the western element of the ‑‑ before the road. To the north are the rear gardens and residential properties that face onto Chipstead Road and the main Brighton Road. So this is the proposed site layout. The proposal now has a C‑shaped access road when compared to the 2021 application. It's more of an informal layout, less rigid layout. The access is proposed from the northeastern corner, so only one access is proposed under this scheme, which is a change from the refuse 2021 application. So as said ‑‑ and as set out in the report and referred to quite a lot, the 2021 ‑‑ or this application follows the 2021 application, which was for 26 dwellings, which was also dismissed as appeal. So the full extent of the changes made from the previously refused scheme are set out in detail at paragraph 4.7 of the report in the middle table. But the key changes are the reduction from 26 to 17 units, reduction in density from 33 to 22 dwellings per hectare. The layout's been amended to better reflect Welleswood Close and the wider area. There's a landscape buffer now proposed along the western and southern elevations, which are solely outside of the garden areas of the proposed units. There's an increased spacing within the site and to the front of the dwellings to provide more soft landscaping, and as said earlier, a less rigid layout, which is one of the concerns raised by the inspector. The retention of the turning head at the southern end of the existing Welleswood Close is also a significant change from the previous scheme, as well as lowering the height of the properties, so units, I think it's 5 to 9 along the southern boundary. So just for context, so this is the previously refused site layout. So again, you can see there's two proposed access points under that application. The linear, sort of more rigid layout of the scheme was one of the criticisms of the inspector, as was the smaller spacing between the units, the lower amount of landscaping within the site, and to the frontage of the proposed units, and also the extent of tandem parking spaces that were proposed under this layout. For example, the plots in this middle row with the tandem spaces, the only separation between units was a particular criticism. So this proposed street scene elevations give you an idea of what the properties will look like in terms of build and also bulk and size. So the top row is the most southern row of houses, so you can see they better reflect the lower sort of chalet style of 25 Welleswood Close, which is the property that's not coloured at the left-hand side, which is the existing most southern property next to the site. The middle row just shows the street scene along Wellesford Close, so looking left along Wellesford Close. So you can see the three units, plots 11, 10, and 16, 17 now front on to Wellesford Close, which was another criticism of the inspector in terms of the previous scheme not adequately fronting on to Wellesford Close, rather more turning itself away from Wellesford Close, so the integration is better. And then the bottom row is just an internal street scene of the plots and the top left corner of the site. And then this is the previous street scene for the similar location. So the top row were the most southerly units again and again you can see how the properties were much taller, bulkier, and that was a criticism of the inspector, particularly in terms of transition to countryside and sort of edge of urban area location. So in terms of parking and general layout, so this is the proposed scheme, 46 parking spaces are proposed, which is four above the minimum standards. Unlike the refuse scheme, there's much less tandem parking and in terms of visitor spaces, there are more evenly spread out from the scheme. On the previous application, the majority were at the northern part of the scheme and there wasn't an easy way to get through. Obviously the way this has been designed now is there's free movement of cars from the northern element to the southern and the spread of visitor spaces is fairly evenly distributed in terms of number of units and sort of the northern element and the number of units in the southern part. The garage spaces which are indicated in the red dots all meet minimum sizes, so they're included in terms of the parking provision. This map just shows the highway improvements proposed by the applicant following discussions with Surrey County Council. So there's proposed improvements to the number of foot ways. There's the public foot path that runs along the north of the site, which is proposed to be resurfaced and vegetation trimmed back and also directional signage installed. The foot way along the eastern edge of the site is also to be resurfaced and vegetation trimmed back. There are then a number of new drop curb crossing points that are proposed as part of the sort of wider highway improvements. So the one on Wellersford Close. There's then two around the junction with Chipsed Road and then a further one proposed I forget the name of that road, I think Pound Road, which is number one up here. And this is all about one -- I'm sorry, just one further. In the box, the two box, the junction with Chipsed Road as per the previous scheme, they're proposing to increase and improve the visibility splays on the junction so that there's better access and egress from that junction. They're also proposing a new section of foot way which will lead to one of the new crossovers. So these are all designed to improve highway safety and also improve pedestrian access to Banstead and town centre itself. In terms of just some visuals and photos, so these are provided by the applicant. The top one is the site entrance looking towards plot 16 to 17. You can see 25 Wellersford Close in the distance on the left. And the bottom one is looking towards units 10 and 12 which are located at the southern end of the site next to the existing turning head. And then these are internal ones just looking within the site towards plots 2 or plots 2 and 4. And then they provided sort of an overview aerial sort of sketch to give you an idea how it may sit. And then on to some -- just a few photographs. So these are pictures from within the actual site itself. The left is looking south east towards 25 Wellersford Close. And then the right is looking south west towards the existing boundary treatment around the site. So the left hand photo here is looking west from near the entrance. Again, just to give you an idea of the existing boundary treatment on the right is the other trees located on the right up against the public footpath. And then the right hand one is looking back from within the site towards the access. And then for those members that haven't visited or seen aware of this site, just to give you an idea, so this is on the left hand side the existing access or existing Wellersford Close, the existing access is straight ahead where that -- that lamp post is. And then the right hand one is looking south down Wellersford Close with number 25 at the end. And that's the existing turning head at the southern end of Wellersford Close. And this is looking back up Wellersford Close to the north. We can see the existed larger mature trees at the front of the site. And then this is the junction with Chippsford Road. And the proposed visibility works are proposed just to the left off the picture actually. Just to give you an idea. And then this is the junction within Wellersford Close, the sort of western -- the link between the western element and the eastern element of Wellersford Close if you like. Surrey County Council, I mean they've been involved in the site obviously in the 2021 application where they visited the site. And they considered the acceptability of all the junction points for the scheme and highway safety in terms of the predicted traffic. And they maintain there's no highway safety or capacity issues. It's also of note that highway safety and capacity matters were not a reason for refusal for either the 2021 application that was determined or the 2019 care home scheme. And finally, just to give you an idea, this is taken from outside to the south of the site to give you an idea of the existing boundary treatment from the fields to the south. To conclude, the application is considered acceptable and is recommended for approval subject to the conditions. And Section 106 agreement as set out within the agenda and the addendum and also my previous verbal update. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you. I could tell Councillor Walsh was going to be first off the mark. So to you, Councillor Walsh. >> Thank you. Thank you, Chairman. As the officers have said, this site has been subject to a number of applications, the last being by the same applicant refuses appeal. I would have put it slightly different, Mr. Parker. The appeal inspector agreed with the borough rather than him making those views. Because actually he took on board the objections and the refusal. We sat in the old council chamber at a public hearing. And I don't think the applicant liked it. But it was reality. Probably for members of the committee. I'll be very brief. The applicant, as the officer said, it's actually diminished through. And the scheme now comprises significantly less than 17 units with five affordable. It's got 46 spaces with -- and fortunately they've actually sought the problems we addressed to them. The issues being design, density, parking, access, and impact on the highways and the adjoining properties. Wellsford, Claude, pound road, Chipstead road. It is -- the Wellsford close is actually quite narrow. As the officer showed in the pictures. You can't really rush around there. It's quite narrow. And biggest concerns about the highways. And contrary to what I said earlier, I've had a pleasant surprise. I was really quite bowled over that Surrey County Council actually listened to what we said to them about the objections about the impact on the highway. And they come through and given significant number of conditions that the -- and parts that they're going to comply with. So we -- so there are a number of issues that we've addressed in pound road and those crossing pieces. Which actually were a number of concerns that the residents had. But the applicant has significantly redesigned the scheme. Reduced it significantly from '26 to '17. They've gone through and dealt with predominantly all of the issues the appeal had. And as again, the officer said, the copy of the appeal has been included in the agenda. Whilst I'm still not comfortable and happy about the scheme, I would have preferred the site that was still an urban open land. But that boat has sailed. We have no choice on that. And having reviewed the scheme in detail, visited the site again to appreciate the scheme as it is, and the changes the applicant has made, and I've had a detailed review, I find it difficult to develop reasons for refusal that would have a reasonable chance of being upheld at appeal. And that's -- it's balanced, like everything else. One of the significant concerns that ward members and residents have had was about the redesignation of the land from urban open land to urban land, open development. I've raised this a number of times. And it's about a financial transaction that went along with the redesignation by a previous administration. But it seems that there's been a blank wall on this matter, and we do not need to get -- we do not know where and why this has happened. Well, I know why it's happened, but we haven't -- to the bottom of where it's gone and what has happened with it. But again, like many of the applications of this nature, because it is now development land, it's a balance. And it's a balance of the proposal. We can forget. We can actually chalk up to history and its success. We stopped inappropriate development three times on this site. But it's a balance. So that's my view as a ward Councillor. I would like to hear the other views of members. And I'll throw it to the committee. Yes. So Councillor Harrison wants to speak to us. So we'll listen to him. I just need to -- Councillor Harrison will know very well what I'm about to do. We are at 10.24 now. Can you give -- would members be prepared to spend another 15 minutes, i.e., to 22.40, if we can conclude this item? So would that be acceptable to you? I'm looking at members of the committee. Okay. Thank you. So Councillor Harrison. Chairman, I was merely indicating there was a problem with the video, and the officers have corrected it. Thank you. >> I'm so sorry. I thought you were indicating -- >> I'm trying to do too many things at once. Thank you so much for doing that. Thank you. So any other members wishing to speak? Councillor Blacker? >> Thank you, Chairman. There's always a difficulty with this type of application in that it's such a vast improvement on the original scheme. You look at it and say, oh, well, we'll just approve it because it's better. But in actual fact, as Councillor Walsh has said, it is substantially better with the requirements of Surrey County Council on the roads. Yeah, I'd find it very difficult to approve it -- to refuse it. Thank you. >> Thank you. Councillor McKenna? Yeah. I think from whatever he said, this is a substantial improvement. But I'm not blown away by -- >> Sorry. You got open in front of you something that was sent to you by a developer. You really should have the -- I've got it here as well. I was just flicking through that one. Yeah. No, I think it is a big improvement. But I've still got a number of issues I'd like to raise. I'm not saying that I'm going to be voting against this or anything like that at this stage. But I feel that -- first of all, this is -- the boat has sailed. That point was made about it being urban open land. But this has also got an element of affordable housing in it. But looking at this scheme, I can't really give that too much weight. I know it is ticking our boxes in terms of 30%. But when you look at these units, it's obviously going to be a very expensive type of affordable housing. And that's something that I know it's not a planning issue particularly. But it's not something that -- in this particular circumstance, it doesn't persuade me that it should have a lot of extra weight attributed to it when you look at the disbenefits. And I think the disbenefits of this are whatever the developer has done and he's done a good job in terms of making it a better scheme, I still feel that this is an incursion into the countryside. And although it's not open land anymore, it's still the edge of a place, the edge of a settlement. It's on the edge of the open countryside. And to me, I still think that the edge is rather a hard edge that it presents to that countryside boundary. I would have rather seen it sort of have a bit more open space bleeding into the countryside and even a lower density just because of where it is. So I think, you know, they've done a good job in terms of making it lower density than previously, which I think is good. I would have preferred to go even lower density to have a bigger amount of open space, a bigger buffer on the edge of the countryside. I know, I know. But that's -- I'm just saying that that's the thing that is making me a bit ambivalent about it. We probably ought to bring up again onto the screen the picture that Michael showed a bit earlier where he was looking at the view from the open countryside into the site. Obviously there's two ways of looking at this, but I ought to do that, Michael. Yeah. That's from the field next to it, isn't it? Yeah. >> Yeah, that's correct. Yeah. And I think the officer's sort of assessment, and when you walk around the site, certainly the larger buffer which has also got protected trees in it and the woodlands to the west, I think serves as a much harder boundary to the metropolitan green belt and the HLV outside of the site. Thank you, Chairman. I visited the site yesterday just to, you know, one of our colleagues, new Councillors who showed him the site so he had an appreciation of the site. I visited it so many times, it's boring. But the importance of the buffer and actually as the officer said in the presentation, they've moved the gardens inbound of the red line so there is a definitive boundary to the south and the west. So picking up the point that Councillor McKennan has said, we actually want it to keep it away from the field because the photograph that Mr. Parker showed was actually north from the field and looking at the trees on the southern boundary. So it is a separating. I didn't comment earlier, it was a mission on my part. The artist's impression given of the look on Wellsford Close, I hope they're not going to try and cut all those trees down because they're quite good. One is going to have to go on the entrance anyway. But one thing I didn't pick up and, Chairman, if someone can point me out, I've had a quick scan through the numerous conditions. I can't find the permitted development being carved out. And if someone can point me in that direction, I've quickly read it through, I can't seem to find it. But the point about that, Councillor McKennan, is the boundary. It's a good point. We'll turn to Michael here with his finger on the button. There is no condition. It would be at the end of the schedule of conditions normally if we were to recommend a removal. Obviously it's for members to decide whether -- would you like to remove? >> Just for the record, the national planning practice guidance states that permitted development rights for extensions, et cetera, should only be removed by condition in exceptional circumstances. So members would have to satisfy yourselves that this is exceptional by virtue of the layout, style of houses, et cetera. But I just wanted to make that point. >> I'm absolutely satisfied there are exceptional circumstances to this particular site, recognizing its locations, its juxtaposition at the edge of the town and also the associated position with regard to Wellsworth Close and Chipton Road. >> Just clarification on the type of PD rights for roofs. Would it be just solely enlargements to the approved dwellings? Any enlargement, would that be? Class A, B and C. A would be normal extensions, so single store extensions, et cetera. B is changes to the roof and C is extensions to the roof. >> Can you turn your microphone on? It's the impact. Obviously enlargements to the rear, I have to accept that that's going to occur, but eventually. We've always got those. But it's more about the impact on the roof and the roof void. >> Okay. We'll -- the clarification was whether one of the new prior approval part has to be included as well, in which case we would include any extension to the roof or new floor space within the roof. Thank you. >> Very, very briefly, could we have the condition to include that they can't turn the garages into residential accommodation? I've seen it in some other conditions. I can't see it in this one. Thank you. We'll check that one. We'll check that one, Councillor Tora, whilst we're checking that one. >> Mine was about the garages as well, particularly the single garage. That's at the bottom of the plot. My concern there is that they could -- we've had it in other cases where they don't build the garage and then they want it as an access road, which would then be going into this green belt. If it's a strong brick wall to say they can't go into the fields beyond, that's great. But I'm concerned, why is there a garage built like that? Why is it not attached to the houses? It's almost like it's a get-out clause for them to knock it down and then access the fields. We do have, of course, the application for us. No, no, no. I know. And that's what I'm thinking. I'm saying that's the application towards us. Why is it they've got a single storey -- alarm bells for me that that is an access road going somewhere else, that they won't build it. So that's -- looking at that, I'm wondering, you know, saying about not building it, it's like they have to build that garage and then they can't knock it down and use it as a road to go through. Yeah. I'll get Michael to come back on this. But just to clarify the previous point, because we're in danger of chaining things up here, in terms of the condition for not turning garages into accommodation, that's condition 20 in the scheme. That's already covered. So Michael, do you want to speak to that? Yeah. I was just following up on -- because the condition 20 requires all the garaging and surface parking to be built out as per the plan before you. And then retained for that sole purpose. So hopefully that addresses the members' concerns on that. Okay. Happy with that. >> Just concerns about if there is a TPO that's been put on the land. Because there's quite a lot of trees I noticed here. And do we have -- >> Yes. Well, let's ask about trees. There's existing area TPO along the western boundary and the southern boundary. So all the trees be retained. There's also -- >> Let's bring that picture up. It's easier for him to bring it up onto the screen. >> Yeah. So I know this is the parking plan, but it does show -- so these trees along the western edge and the southern edge are protected. Those are, I believe, the retain tree on the front while this was close as well. That was your point earlier. Sorry. That was your point earlier, Councillor Walsh, the visual had some license to it. But there was a restriction there. Okay. Councillor Hopp. >> Just a quick one. I did like that idea of insisting that their garage is built to stop them then trying to encroach onto the farmland. Obviously the presence of the garage, you know, they could knock it down. So it doesn't really make any difference. But if we were going to do that, perhaps we could insist they re-dig the Second World War anti-tank trench, which is just beyond the boundary, which was designed to stop the German invasion. That would stop them encroaching onto the farmland as well. >> How I've missed your intervention -- yes. It's outside the application. But I'm sure, you know, you're always -- it's always a mine of information on archaeological details, which are incredible. So thank you, Councillor Hopp, for that. But it's outside the application. Right. With that, we are approaching that extended time ago. Would members please indicate your approval if you want to approve the officer recommendation? Sorry, if you want to support the officer recommendation. I'm getting tired. Those members who are against the officer recommendation, please raise your hands. Those who are abstaining. Okay. So that application is approved with the conditions as we've now defined them. And that will include, obviously, the condition regarding permitted development. So it being 2238 -- and I'm feeling really sorry for Jake, because Jake has sat there this time. But we will pick on him next time, shall we? Thank you so much. We're going to be working together for the next year. Which one was that? No, I didn't know you were -- when we asked this, we were thinking about the public speaking. We understand that. No, I know, I know, I know. Okay. Would members be willing to stay -- I don't understand your point. I really do. We're going to get some pushback here. I'd be asking members to stay until 11 o'clock. We did say that. Well, I know we're going to get a discussion on that one. But let's -- Councillor Harrison. To speak in favour of it. What do we do? Would members be prepared, because I think I understand, with a sort of -- let's say a bit of whipping on this to move forward. Would members be prepared to stay until 11 o'clock? I understand the sensitivity. Could I ask -- is anyone objecting to that? No? Are you leaving? Sorry. I'm assuming you're in favour. Which of course are you? I'm going to say two minutes, but it's maybe three. All right. Just go for it. It's difficult, isn't it? It's difficult. It's difficult. It's difficult. It's difficult. It's difficult. It's difficult. It's difficult. It's difficult. It's difficult. It's difficult. It's difficult. It's difficult. It's difficult. It's difficult. It's difficult. It's difficult. It's difficult. It's difficult. It's difficult. It's difficult. It's difficult. It's difficult. It's difficult. It's difficult. It's difficult. It's difficult. It's difficult. It's difficult. It's difficult. It's difficult. It's difficult. It's difficult. It's difficult. So we're still waiting for Councillor Gabriel. I think that's it, isn't it? Councillor Moses, too. Oh, yes, there she is. We can call them the heavenly duo, Gabriel and Moses, can't we? Have we got any more? Is he anywhere in sight? We don't want to know that. We're going to have to get going, I think. We're going to have to get going. Is he coming? Okay. All right. So this is a plea. This is a plea. Can we all just listen to what the officers said? You've studied all the documents before. Just make a decision about these because we've got the stables. We're going to look, first of all, at number 9 and then we're going to look at number 10 and then number 11. We'll do those in order. Right. So number 9 first. And this is speed reading by Jake. Thank you, Chairman. I'll try and keep this more brief than I would have otherwise due to the time constraints. Members, please note that there is an addendum on this item which includes a further consultee comment. This is a full application for the direction of two detached three bedroom dwellings along with off-road car parking, landscaping and associated works to be built following demolition of the existing stables and associated buildings at Starps, Shores, Stables, Wood Place Lane, Hooley. Existing access of Wood Place Lane will be utilized for the proposed development. The site comprises existing stables and Sand School. This portion of Wood Place Lane features scattered buildings comprising some residential properties and agricultural buildings within the surrounding area comprising open fields and unspoiled countryside that make up the Metropolitan Greenbelt. To northeast is a greater cluster of residential development found within the boundary of the London Borough of Croydon. Hopefully this area will give some further context to the site location. You can see the approximate site boundary etched in red. Immediately north is another stabling facility. A further stabling facility in Sand School comprises land immediately to the south. To northeast you can see Farving Downs and to the west lies the Merson to Causton South Railway line. Here are the elevation drawings of the existing structures which occupy the site. The stables are permanent lightweight structures with low-rich heights and are partially open-sided. It is understood that the stables have been run as private stabling as a domestic question facility until approximately one year ago when the use ceased and that the site has not been used for horse riding lessons or similar sporting activity in recent history, nor as a commercial facility. It is therefore considered that the existing site is not occupied by a sporting or community facility and there is no policy within the development plan which specifically resists the loss of a question stabling. It was also observed during a site visit that stabling was not in a good state of repair and would require some remedial works if the were to be used for stabling once again. Now onto some site photos. This photo just inside the access looking west towards the existing stables occupying the site. This is a view from a similar place just looking along the northern site boundary on the right hand side there. There's another photo from within the site showing more of the existing stable buildings. This photo is looking across the sand school which occupies the north west boundary of the site. The barn shown to the rear is just outside the site boundary. And finally this photo is from within the site looking southeast toward the existing access leading toward Place Lane. Here's the proposed site layout. As mentioned the proposed was the direction of two detached dwellings together with associated landscaping and car parking following the demolition of the existing stables and associated structures. The result on dwellings and plot sizes is considered sufficiently commensurate to the surrounding area and scattered residential examples. As mentioned the site does lie within the metropolitan green belt. However there is an exception to an appropriate development of the green belt which is development of previously developed land as long as the new development would not be harmful to the openness of the metropolitan green belt. The both footprint and volume of built form would be reduced and it is not considered that the proposed development would harm the openness of the green belt and the officer is satisfied that the existing stables constitute previously developed land. Moving onto the design of dwellings. They are reasonably traditional for a rural location utilizing a rural appearance, character and material finish. Here are the proposed plans for the southern dwelling. And here's the proposed plans for the other dwellings set further in the site which features the Dutch barn style roof, metal sheeting and timber cutting walls. The design of dwellings are considered acceptable and in keeping with the rural character of the location. The low level of giants, small scale development material palette would ensure there's no significant harm advised to the area of great landscape value and the units would meet the nationally prescribed internal space standards with acceptable levels of outlook. Now with regard to the labour amenity, the site is reasonably isolated from its rural location due to the low profile nature of the dwellings and separation distances. It is not considered that harmful impacts on the amenity of the surrounding properties would arise. The site would include the retention of numerous mature trees and the introduction of soft landscaping particularly around the edges. Furthermore, the existing sound school would be given over to soft landscaping. Nevertheless further details of landscaping are to be secured by condition to ensure the site does not become overly hard, landscape dominated. Parking has been provided for future property in the form of two spaces per dwelling and an integral garage. This would be compliant with our parking standards. The County Highways Authority have raised no objection. The Chief Officer has recommended a condition to facilitate acceptable tree protection. With regard to ecology, although some scrub ecology, while some scrub would be lost, the introduction of new planting and the removal of the sand school area for additional planting would enhance the ecological value of the site. Sorry, I raised no objection. Subject to conditions. Further matters relating to surface water, south fire drainage, land, to terminate land mitigation, vehicle fast charging points and construction transport management plan are to be secured by condition. The application is considered acceptable and is therefore recommended for approval subject to the condition set out within the committee report. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you. Now, any member wish to speak, but the essential speech only, right? Anyone wanting to speak? Board member? Do you wish to speak? Councillor Gabriel. Okay. So the members are recommending approval. Would those members who wish to support this application please raise your hands. >> Counted 11. Those against, please raise your hands. >> Neil. Those abstaining, please raise your hands. That application is approved. Okay. So we are moving now to item number 10. And Jake is going to do this as well. From what I see, he has incredibly small print. I don't know how you manage it. Thank you, Chairman. This is a full application for additional street parking and pedestrian crossings off Coxstein and Long Walk within the Preston estate in Tadworth. At least 29 parking spaces will be created, which is necessitated by demand for formalised parking spaces in the area. Apologies. Hopefully this area will give some context to the location. Due to the high portion, no private garden. Off road parking is extremely limited here. So proposed parking is proposed Long Coxstein on here. Formalised bays along this bend here. And further parallel bays along Long Walk in the central section and additional parking bays along here. So Long Coxstein, seven parking bays. Proposed outside numbers 12 to 26 along the bend of the road. One of these bays would include relocation. Another four bays along the northern side eastern side of the road, sorry. And a further sort of parallel parking arrangement would be installed along here. This is a look at where the sort of parallel parking bays would go as I've just shown a moment ago. Two of these trees are supposed to be removed. However, replacement silver birches to be replaced as part of this group. This is another portion of Coxstein looking south west. So four new bays would be in this land here. And a new replacement tree would be approximately here. This is the existing layby on the bend to be replaced by seven formalised parking bays including one disabled and another tree is to be planted in approximately this location. Now moving on to the sections of Long Walk in between sort of either side of the junction shared boardwalk. Two sections of parallel parking are proposed here. Each would accommodate approximately five cars. This is a photo looking along the walk. On the left-hand side is the approximate location of where one of these sections of parking would lie. And this is from the junction on boardwalk looking towards where another section of sort of formalised parking bays would be installed here. Another replacement tree is proposed within this gap between the existing trees. There are a number of uncontrolled pedestrian crossings also proposed including on this junction of Long Walk and Ferriers Way. Moving further to the south east along Long Walk, another section of parallel parking bays is proposed. It is considered that the proposed development would be of a benefit to the Preston Estate, improving highway safety and accessibility for pedestrians as such the proposal is recommended for approval subject to the conditions set out within the committee report. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you. Councillor Harrison, you just wanted to say something about this. Yes, just to we have had quite a lot about parking and roads this evening. Here is an opportunity for this committee to approve some improvements. It is a typical very constrained area. And it is right next to the Tabith Gardens former school site. And there is a quid pro quo for there being 230 odd houses there and flats. We recognise there is going to be additional traffic travelling through the area. So as ward members we have always seen this as a quid pro quo. We have also where you saw boundary treatment there. So you saw fencing there. That is with the Chave Cross site which we have granted permission recently. We have also very close to the Ferriers Way site where we have taken out one of the Raven garage sites. There is increasing pressure and this will go some way to relieving that pressure. Thank you. Councillor Snugs. Good evening, Chairman. I would like to support what Councillor Harrison has said. This site is only a few hundred yards from where I live. It is a route I don't go down now because you can't get down there. There is not enough car parking. And they just as you have seen on the slides, they just put their cars because there is nowhere else. It is unsafe. I think the scheme that you have shown tonight, it is on a many school children use that route. And these it will enable better sight lines and a better place to cross from the corners. So without a doubt, I think it is a scheme I would support without a doubt. Thank you. So it sounds like we now need to move to vote on this one. So those members who wish to support the office recommendation to approve this, would you please raise your hands? Those against, would you please raise your hands? And abstentions? One. That application is approved. I am sorry to say this, we are now at 11 o'clock. We can't really go on any longer. We are going to have to defer that item number 11 to the next meeting. You can join it by video if you want to. But what we can promise you is that we will bring it to the start of the meeting next time around. If that is acceptable to you, and I can only apologise for the fact that we weren't able to eat all our dinner tonight, but we will bring it up the agenda next time so you don't have to wait so long. Is that okay? Thank you very much, gentlemen. Thank you. Okay. So with that, we are now approaching 11 o'clock. So I close this meeting. Thank you so much for this evening. And let's look forward to a year of working together. Thank you very much.

• Thank you. [BLANK_AUDIO]