Minutes of the Planning Committee Meeting of the Parish Council 17th July 2025

From Claygate
Select the 2025 Agenda or Minutes you wish to view:
2025 Meetings JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC KEY:
Main ≡ 📖 ≡ 📖 ≡ 📖 ≡ 📖 ≡ 📖 ≡ 📖 ≡ 📖 ≡ Agenda
📖 Minutes
Planning ≡ 📖 ≡ 📖
≡ 📖 		≡ 📖 ≡ 📖 ≡ 📖 ≡ 📖 ≡ 📖 ≡ 📖 ≡ 📖 ≡ 📖 ≡ 📖 ≡ 📖
EHT ≡ 📖 ≡ 📖 ≡ 📖 ≡ 📖 ≡ 📖 ≡ 📖
Village ≡ 📖 ⇛ 2024
Dawn Lacey — Parish Clerk & RFO
claygate PARISH COUNCIL
caring for Claygate Village
Claygate Parish Council
Claygate Village Hall
Church Road
Claygate
Surrey KT10 0JP
☎ 07741 848 719
email: clerk@claygateparishcouncil.gov.uk
website: www.claygateparishcouncil.gov.uk
22nd July 2025


Minutes of the Planning Committee Meeting of Claygate Parish Council held on Thursday 17th July 2025 at 7.30pm at Claygate Village Hall, Small Hall, Church Road, Claygate


Present: Chair: Cllr Sheppard
Council Members: Cllr Bingham, Cllr Bray, Cllr Collon, Cllr Herbert and Cllr Moon
In attendance: Dawn Lacey (Parish Clerk & RFO)
Non-voting Advisors: John Bamford and John Burns
EBC Cllr Rollings, CPC Cllr French and six members of the public


1. Apologies for absence.
Apologies of absences were received from Cllr Holt and NVAs John Ovenden, Clive Thompson and Vanessa Relleen.
2. Declarations of interest in the agenda.
Cllr Sheppard declared a (non-pecuniary) interest in Planning Applications 2025/1386.
Cllr Sheppard left the meeting at 8.15pm for application 2025/1386 which was being discussed under Item 10. At this point, the Vice-Chair Cllr Collon took the Chair for the meeting. Once this item had been discussed Cllr Sheppard returned at 8.18pm and continued to Chair the rest of the meeting.
3. To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on Thursday 19th June 2025.
There was one small change on Item 17: it should read ‘To add this to our next main parish agenda’. These were then agreed to be a correct record of the meeting and signed and dated by Cllr Sheppard.
4. Review actioning of Items from previous minutes and agree if any further action is required. (Appendix 1).
Action № Date Created Description By Status
P㉕017 19-JUN-25 To prepare a paper to be sent to T-Plan to oppose the Raleigh Drive/Rythe Close application. Cllr Collon COMPLETED BY 17-JUL-25
P㉕018 19-JUN-25 To contact the three ward councillors regarding this application: Cllr Mike Rollings, Cllr Alex Coombes and Cllr Mary Marshall. Cllr Collon COMPLETED BY 17-JUL
P㉕019 19-JUN-25 To circulate the CloudyIT paper to councillors. Cllr Bray COMPLETED BY 17-JUL
P㉕020 19-JUN-25 To contact EBC to regarding the signage outside First Stop Claygate on Hare Lane slip road regarding their lack of consent to the neon sign. Clerk to continue to pursue and report at the next meeting of 28-AUG-25
P㉕021 19-JUN-25 To add Consultation on Surrey’s re-organisation to the next agenda for discussion. Clerk COMPLETED BY 17-JUL
P㉕022 19-JUN-25 To discuss the re-emergence of the Hook Park planning consultation and add it to our next agenda. Clerk COMPLETED BY 17-JUL
5. To answer any questions from members of the public.
The following question was asked:
The planning committee puts a lot of effort into reviewing each Claygate planning application, whether it comes from a resident wishing to construct a simple extension or a property developer hoping to build multiple homes on green belt land.
• But it has no obligation to do so. Examining planning applications is not part of the charter between the parish council and Elmbridge.
• Indeed, it is duplicating the work of Elmbridge planning officers who also review every planning application and have the ultimate say on whether each application is permitted or turned down. If our planning committee and the Elmbridge planning officer disagree on an application, it seems that the planning officer always wins. The parish council has the right to have its opinion on any planning application considered by Elmbridge, but then so does every Claygate resident. Given that the pay-off for all your effort is so low, I'm amazed that you carry on.
• I believe Elmbridge has told the parish council that it has no plans before it is terminated to reinstate the arrangement whereby an objection by the parish council to a planning application would mean that the application had to be reviewed by a committee of Elmbridge councillors.
• At any other tier of local government, or any commercial organisation where resource is tight, such a degree of redundancy would not be tolerated.
• When questioned about its insistence on reviewing every planning application, the planning committee's explanations have been threefold:
  1. Firstly, that the committee consists of unpaid volunteers, with the implication that they can spend their time how they wish.
  2. Secondly that, though unqualified, the planning committee may identify an issue that the Elmbridge staff officer might otherwise miss.
  3. And thirdly, there seems to be a claim of an educational benefit: the argument seems to be that our planning committee should continue duplicating Elmbridge staff officer work in order to keep its own skills alive, just in case such skills are suddenly needed in two years' time when the new unitary authority is in place.

But if the planning committee needs to keep its skills alive, why is it considering delegating this task to AI software?

  • If the parish council pays to employ an AI machine to evaluate planning applications, the training argument vanishes, and the parish council would simply be paying for an AI program to produce output which Elmbridge would again overrule.
  • If any tier of government should be buying such software, it ought to be Elmbridge.
  • The parish council is meant to be a focal point for residents, not a mouthpiece for the views of robots.

Cllr Collon responded as follows:
It’s not the Act, but an Order made under a power conferred by the Act on the Secretary of State: the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015, SI 2015/595. Article 25 is the relevant article. You will see that it requires parish councils to submit their representations, or say they will not be submitting representations, within 21 days. Since we only meet every 28 days, for a week of applications each month we cannot comply with this deadline. However in practice the deadline is almost invariably much longer, and when it is not, we ask EBC for an extension which they always grant.

You say that the planning officers always have the last word, and so they do, because that is what the law prescribes. The only exceptions are when an application is referred to the Planning Committee or a Sub-Committee, or if it goes to appeal. And soon they will have the last word even more often. The Planning and Infrastructure Bill, now wending its way through Parliament (it has gone through the Commons and is currently in Committee in the Lords — the first day was yesterday) has a provision (currently clause 51, though the number will change) allowing the Secretary of State to make regulations on what should be decided by planning officers and what can go to committees. So early next year Angela Rayner will be telling our Elmbridge Councillors:

(a) that they can’t decide anything unless they have had training, and
(b) that even then there are very few cases that they can keep to themselves; the planning officers will almost always have the last word.

The idea is to speed up the planning process, and so it would, except that the Government (in the shape of the same Angela Rayner) has introduced the Devolution Bill which, when passed, will uproot the whole of local government, planning included.

6. To review planning correspondence, notification of applications and outstanding results and agree any action required.
None.
7. To review a report on Applications Decided, and Appeals Lodged and Decided since last meeting and agree any action required.
It was noted that there were once again some differences on applications between our views and EBC's—mostly on bulk and mass issues. Surprise was expressed at the granting of permission for 2025/1177; Cllr Sheppard agreed to review the decision Letter and, if necessary, ask EBC for further explanation.
8. Discuss planning applications from Elmbridge Borough Council (EBC) Weekly Planning Lists (https://www.elmbridge.gov.uk/planning) for the following weeks and agree responses required: w/e 20th and 27th June, 4th, 11th and 18th July
Please see attached letters to EBC T Plan (Appendix 2).
9. To discuss any updates on the Rythe Road/Raleigh Drive Planning application and agree any action required.
Cllr Collon took over the chair for this item. It was confirmed that all objections had been sent to Elmbridge but as yet there had been no response. We will be keeping a close eye on any developments.
10. To discuss the planning application on the Winning Horse and agree any action required.
A discussion was held on this application and it was agreed that an objection should be raised with the attached reasons.
This was proposed by Cllr Sheppard and seconded by Cllr Bray. Carried unanimously (Appendix 3)
11. To discuss the Cloudy IT Systems and agree any action required.
Cllr Bray noted that, as a result of the Zoom demo on 6th May, colleagues had been impressed by the system and had asked him to pursue our interest. There were really only two matters of significance to look into, namely:
[1] the issue of loading EBC Planning Department documents onto the system, and
[2] reassurance as to the quality of the GovAssist output.
NVA John Burns appears to have solved issue [1], so only item [2] remains. Insofar as this is concerned, the CloudyIT contact, Steve Walker, appears to have been ill for some weeks, and has only recently re-engaged with us. The main point he made most recently is that CloudyIT hopes to release a significantly improved version of GovAssist in October, and has recommended we leave the “proof of concept” stage until then.”
12. To consider the Hook Part development and agree any action required.
An outline application for 2,000 dwellings, including six- and eight-storey blocks of flats, is expected. There are concerns about traffic management and density. John Burns tabled a report on the traffic hazards and issues posed by the current concept. An urgent consultation is required with Surrey Highways and Highways England.
Cllr Bray to contact Amanda Phillips to request a meeting.
This was proposed by Cllr Sheppard and seconded by Cllr Bray.
Carried unanimously.
ACTION – Cllr Bray P㉕023
Cllr Sheppard to contact the relevant RBK Councillors.
This was proposed by Cllr Sheppard and seconded by Cllr Bray.

Carried unanimously.

ACTION – Cllr Sheppard P㉕024
13. To receive a report on EBC's East Area Sub Committee Meeting and agree any action required.
Nothing to report. Next meeting is scheduled for 8th September 2025.
14. To receive a report on EBC's Planning Committee Meeting and agree any action required.
Cllr Bray reported that there was nothing at the meeting that affected Claygate.
15. To consider NPPF and Elmbridge Local Plan developments and agree action as appropriate.
There is currently nothing new to report.
16. To discuss communication of any key decisions to residents and agree any action required.
None.
17. To review any Compliance Issues in Claygate and agree any action required.
The Clerk to continue looking into the signage outside First Stop on the Parade regarding the lack of planning consent for the neon sign.
ACTION - Clerk P㉕025
18. Matters for information purposes only.
None.
19. Date of the next meeting.
7.30pm Thursday 28th August, Claygate Village Hall, Small Hall, Church Road, Claygate KT10 0JP.
Retrieved from "http://claygate.org.uk/index.php?title=Minutes_of_the_Planning_Committee_Meeting_of_the_Parish_Council_17th_July_2025&oldid=13817"