Agenda and minutes
PDF 195 KBVenue: Ashcombe Suite, County Hall, Kingston upon Thames, Surrey KT1 2DN. View directions
Contact: Cheryl Hardman or Rianna Hanford
Media
| No. | Item |
|---|---|
|
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND SUBSTITUTIONS
To receive any apologies for absence and notices of substitutions under Standing Order 40. Additional documents: Minutes: Apologies were received from Carol Coleman, Christian Mahne and George Johnson
Denis Fuller substituted for Carol Coleman, David Ivison substituted for Christian Mahne and Helena Windsor substituted for George Johnson.
Margaret Hicks would need to leave at lunch time.
|
|
|
DECLARATIONS OF INTERESTS
To receive any declarations of disclosable pecuniary interests from Members in respect of any item to be considered at the meeting.
Notes: · In line with the Relevant Authorities (Disclosable Pecuniary Interests) Regulations 2012, declarations may relate to the interest of the member, or the member’s spouse or civil partner, or a person with whom the member is living as husband or wife, or a person with whom the member is living as if they were civil partners and the member is aware they have the interest. · Members need only disclose interests not currently listed on the Register of Disclosable Pecuniary Interests. · Members must notify the Monitoring Officer of any interests disclosed at the meeting so they may be added to the Register. · Members are reminded that they must not participate in any item where they have a disclosable pecuniary interest. Additional documents: Minutes: There were no Declarations of Interest.
|
|
This application will consider the details of mature tree planting incorporated into an enhanced Landscape and Ecology Management Plan; and details of works (to include low level fencing and reed bed protection) to provide for the separation of the infiltration basin shown also therein, submitted pursuant to Conditions 42 and 39 respectively of planning permission SP13/01553/SCC dated 25 September 2014.
Additional documents: Minutes: An update sheet was tabled and is attached as Annex 1 to the Minutes.
Officers: Alan Stones, Planning Development Control Team Manager Nancy el-Shatoury, Principal Lawyer Caroline Smith, Transport Development Planning Team Manager Stephen Jenkins, Deputy Planning Development Manager Mark O’Hare, Senior Planning Officer Development Control William Flaherty, Planning Officer (Eco Park)
Speakers: Malcolm Robertson, a local resident, made representations in objection to the application. The following points were made: · Long standing resident of Shepperton and member of Charlton Lane Community Liaison Group · Called for an adjournment on the grounds of predetermination to gain legal advice and to allow longer for the Committee to read reports.
David Allen addressed the Committee on behalf of Andrea Koskela, the following points were made: · An architect who runs a large scale landscaping company · The management plan had specified planting of 25 trees per 250 metres for the screening · Small inadequate trees had been proposed which would take years to grow · The management provision of watering the trees would be expensive and difficult to operate · Planning consent would last for 5 years, after there would be no requirement to maintain the trees
Karen Howkins, a local resident, made representation in objection to this application. The following points were made: · Expressed SITA gave lack of consultation and documentation, only ten copies of the plans were made available and documents were not easily accessible · Questioned who was responsible for the application · Trees would not absorb impact of the Eco Park including sounds and smells · Water drainage system was inadequate
Peter Francis, a local resident, made representation in objection to this application. The following points were made: · A Chemical Engineer · In documentation there had been no mention of a fire risk · An assessment should determine the minimum space required for a vegetation free zone.
Carol Box, a local resident, made representation in objection to this application. The following points were made: · Expressed that adverse reactions had not been weighed against benefits of which there are none · Untried incineration techniques in a residential area · Council has a duty to consider any possible impacts. The application was considered too dangerous for plants in Wisley, questioned why this was acceptable for Spelthorne.
Gareth Philips of SITA, spoke in response to the objectors as the applicant. He raised the following points: · The LEMP had been approved in May 2013, today was an update following new conditions attached in September 2014. · Consultee responses were approved · Planting would not occur alongside the motor way and the tree maintenance obligation was 25 years, not 5. · The trees would only be planted for visual screening, they would have a negligible effect on noise. · The current scheme was an updated and improved version and there was no reason to decline following the Ombudsman’s acceptance.
Key points raised during the discussion: 1. The Planning Development Control Team Manager introduced the report and informed the Committee that the amendment to the scheme had already been permitted. He stated that the purpose of planting ... view the full minutes text for item 25/15 |
|
This application will consider details of a Construction Environment Management Plan (CEMP), submitted pursuant to Condition 9 of planning permission SP13/01553/SCC dated 25 September 2014.
Additional documents: Minutes: An update sheet was tabled and is attached as Annex 1 to the Minutes.
Officers: Alan Stones, Planning Development Control Team Manager Nancy el-Shatoury, Principal Lawyer Caroline Smith, Transport Development Planning Team Manager Stephen Jenkins, Deputy Planning Development Manager Mark O’Hare, Senior Planning Officer Development Control William Flaherty, Planning Officer (Eco Park)
Speakers: There was one registered speaker, who was not present for the start of the item so officers were asked to present the application.
Key points raised during the discussion: 1. The Planning Development Control Team Manager introduced the report and informed the Committee that this item covered the Construction Environment Management Plan. He stated that the noise impact of construction would be monitored by specialists and SCC, an action plan would be developed to mitigate issues including dust management. He added that discharge from site could only be picked up by specialists and this was a re-statement of what had previously been agreed. 2. There was a discussion around the number of vehicle movements per day and officers informed the Committee that movements during the construction stage would be less than the number when operational. There would be 260 vehicle movements per day when the Eco Park is operational but just 50 during the construction stage (apart from two days when it would exceed 50). 3. The Committee was informed that double yellow lines had been established outside the site and was a matter for enforcement that vehicles did not park there. It was added that persistent offenders would be banned from the site. 4. Officers stated that the reason concrete crushing was not permitted on site was the noise this creates and the need for proportionate control. 5. Within the action plan it was stated that there would be dust and air quality monitoring on site. 6. The Committee raised concern over the destruction of soft landscape and queried whether bushes were as important as trees. Officers explained that soft landscape can re-generate therefore plans only focused on trees. The Committee agrees to add an informative to protect vegetation. The Committee discussed the height of stockpiles. The Committee emphasised that a baseline survey of air quality and dust was required before work commenced.
Actions/Further information to be provided: None.
RESOLVED: · The Committee resolved to APPROVE the details of the CEMP subject to conditions set out in the report: (as shown in Construction Phase Environmental Management Plan, Revision J, Document No: HP-00-002, dated 23 February 2015; Covering letter dated 23 February 2015 from SITA Surrey Ltd; letter dated 05 March 2015 from SITA Surrey Ltd providing Noise and Vibration clarification; letter reference: P00094_PM_CEMP_150304_PGo from M+W Group UK providing Air Quality and Dust clarification; and letter dated 06 March 2015 from SITA Surrey Ltd providing Tree Protection clarification) submitted pursuant to Condition 9 of planning permission reference: SP13/01553/SCC dated 25 September 2014, contained in application reference: SP13/01553/DC1, subject to the condition set out in the report.
· The Committee also agreed that two informatives should be added. ... view the full minutes text for item 26/15 |
|
This application will consider details of a Dust and Odour Management Plan, submitted pursuant to Condition 36 of planning permission SP13/01553/SCC dated 25 September 2014.
Additional documents: Minutes: An update sheet was tabled and is attached as Annex 1 to the Minutes.
Officers: Alan Stones, Planning Development Control Team Manager Nancy el-Shatoury, Principal Lawyer Caroline Smith, Transport Development Planning Team Manager Stephen Jenkins, Deputy Planning Development Manager Mark O’Hare, Senior Planning Officer Development Control William Flaherty, Planning Officer (Eco Park)
Speakers: Malcolm Robertson, a local resident, made representations in objection to the application. The following points were made: · Methane and carbon dioxide would be produced from decomposing food. Application should be rejected on the grounds of human health being endangered · The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) warns of flammability from bio gas and dangers of being exposed to this. Exposure can cause death and living near is cause for concern.
Karen Howkins decided not to speak on this item.
Peter Francis, a local resident, made representations in objection to the application. The following points were made: · At Anaerobic Digestion Plants there had been more pollution incidences then at any other type of waste plants, 21 out of 100 occurrences. · In other areas residents confirmed there was a smell from 750 meters away from the Eco Park.
Gareth Philips of SITA, spoke in response to the objectors as the applicant. The following points were made: · The points raised are specifically covered by the Environmental Permit which the EA regulates. · The EA hold the power to shut the Eco Park if there is an odour · The application is for an updated dust and odour management plan. The original plan was agreed in 2013.
Key points raised during the discussion: 1. The Planning Development Control Team Manager introduced the report and reiterated that local planning authorities should assume that the pollution control regime would operate effectively, that approach had been confirmed recently within a judicial review. It was added that there was a monitoring log on site and general reporting, breaches would result in closure. 2. A Member stated that this item had partly been covered within item 3; he explained that wind direction from the site would be taken to Halliford and control on casual emissions would be required. 3. The Committee asked what measures were in place to ensure vehicles were sheeted and closed, it was also queried how hydrogen oxide levels would be monitored. Officers responded that these aspects were all under the remit of the EA permit and were required to be adhered to. 4. The Committee again queried the timing of the baseline survey dust and of air quality.
Actions/Further information to be provided: None.
RESOLVED: · The Committee resolved to APPROVE the details a dust and odour management plan for the reasons set out in the report. (Version 4.1 dated February 2014, as amended by an email dated 25 February 2015 from SITA Surrey Ltd), pursuant to Condition 36 of planning permission ref: SP13/01553 dated 25 September 2014, contained in application ref SP13/01553/DC3.
· Subject to the addition of a fourth informative: It is recommended that baseline, pre-construction dust monitoring is carried out at the ... view the full minutes text for item 27/15 |
|
This application will consider details of a scheme for the implementation, maintenance and management of a sustainable water drainage system, submitted pursuant to Condition 21 of planning permission SP13/01553/SCC dated 25 September 2014.
Additional documents: Minutes: An update sheet was tabled and is attached as Annex 1 to the Minutes.
Officers: Alan Stones, Planning Development Control Team Manager Nancy el-Shatoury, Principal Lawyer Caroline Smith, Transport Development Planning Team Manager Stephen Jenkins, Deputy Planning Development Manager Mark O’Hare, Senior Planning Officer Development Control William Flaherty, Planning Officer (Eco Park)
Speakers:
David Allen decided not to speak on this item.
Karen Howkins, a local resident, made representations in objection to the application. The following points were made: · Expressed that the fence around the water drainage system needed to be higher with a denser mesh, but visually unobtrusive · The water would be a danger to children
Peter Francis, a local resident, made representations in objection to the application. The following points were made: · Expressed that the second highest level of incidents at Anaerobic Digestion plants was uncontrolled liquid discharge. · The EA was not satisfied that a catastrophic leak would not occur, request the applicant to address this.
Gareth Philips of SITA, spoke in response to the objectors as the applicant. The following points were made: · In regards to the request of a higher fence, a liaison group meets regarding the Eco Park to exchange information. This could be requested and accommodated to ensure area is safe. · Water management had been carefully considered · The Eco Park was issued a permit by the EA; commission was not possible without this. · The EA gave permission for construction to start, AD tanks cannot be commissioned until details are confirmed with the EA.
Key points raised during the discussion: 1. The Planning Development Control Team Manager introduced the report and informed the Committee that this item was a partial discharge planning condition. The EA had granted permission for construction work to start but had a pre-commencement condition for more information on details. Fire water runoff had been addressed with the technical consultant. 2. The Committee raised concern over the EA’s response and expressed it is vital that critical work is undertaken as soon as possible. Officers explained that the parts of the building that have been signed off by the EA can begin construction and other parts require more information before starting building work.
Actions/Further information to be provided: None.
RESOLVED: · The Committee resolved to APPROVE the details of the surface water management scheme submitted pursuant to condition 21 of planning permission reference: SP13/01553/SCC dated 25 September 2014, contained in application reference: SP13/01553/DC2 subject to them following condition. · The water management scheme was submitted, subject to conditions of the reasons set out in the report.
|
|
|
DATE OF NEXT MEETING
The next ordinary meeting of the Planning & Regulatory Committee will be on 25 March 2015. Additional documents: Minutes: The next ordinary meeting of the Planning and Regulatory Committee will be on Thursday 25 March 2015.
|