RE: News on the horizon?29 Sep 2020 13:17
Cinders
This was removed last week so have you read the relevant policies and how uncertain are they?
"draft minutes for Dunsfold out;
"25. A Member of the Committee felt that the discussion on this application
was disturbing and highlighted to Members that if the application was
refused on non-planning reasons then the cost of appeal, if successful,
would be significant. Further to this in regards to the motion for refusal,
the Member stated that there was a lack of highway reasons, that
citing impact on businesses was not logical, that oil wells were
regulated nationally, that nothing can stop clear felling of woodland if a
licence was granted for that, and that the public had provided an
emotional response.
26. A Member of the Committee stated that they believed it was the right
choice to refuse the application and that Members should not be
discouraged by the risk of the decision being overturned at appeal.
The Member further highlighted that the number of objections to the
application and the lack of consultation with the local Gypsy and
Traveller community.
27. The Chairman called the motion for refusal which received 6 votes for,
5 votes against and no abstentions. Therefore the motion was carried.
28. The Principal Solicitor stated that there was a need to clearly set out
and confirm the reasons for refusal. The Chairman agreed to adjourn
the meeting to enable Planning Officers to collate a summary of
planning reasons for refusal following discussions at the meeting.
Keith Taylor left the meeting 15:07pm
The Chairman adjourned the meeting from 15:07pm to 15:27pm
29. The Chairman asked Members to vote on the following reasons for
refusal:
a. It has not yet been demonstrated that there is a need for the
development nor that the adverse impacts in respect of Highways,
noise, lighting and air quality will not be significant contrary to policies
MC12, MC14 and MC15 of the Surrey Minerals Plan 2011.
30. The Chairman moved the confirmation vote on the motion for refusal of
the application for the reasons outlined in paragraph 29a of these
minutes which received 9 votes for, 1 vote against and no abstentions.
Therefore the motion was carried.
Page 8 of 13
Actions / further information to be provided:
None.
Resolved:
That the Committee REFUSE application WA/2019/0796 due to the reason
that It has not yet been demonstrated that there is a need for the development
nor that the adverse impacts in respect of highways, noise, lighting and air
quality will not be significant contrary to policies MC12, MC14 and MC15 of
the Surrey Minerals Plan 2011.""
Sign In
Follow the stocks
