Issue - meetings

An application for the extraction of sand (770,000 tonnes) and clay (512,000 cubic metres) from a site of 36.2 ha; filling of existing and resultant void with (2.6 million cubic metres) non-hazardous industrial, commercial, household and inert waste; installation of plant and equipment; alterations to existing site access onto A31; and comprehensive restoration of the site over a period of 11.5 years without compliance with Condition 1 of planning permission ref. WA99/0223 to allow the development be completed in all respects not later than 31 December 2029.

The recommendation is to PERMIT subject to conditions.

An update sheet was tabled and is attachedto the minutes as Annex 1.

Officers:

Alan Stones, Planning, Development and Control Team Manager

Mark O’Hare, Senior Planning Officer

Caroline Smith, Transport Development Team Manager

Nancy El-Shatoury, Principle Solicitor

Speakers:

Anthony Goodall, a Local Resident, made representations in objection to the application.  The following points were raised:

·         Informed the Committee that he was a retired Chartered Engineer.

·         Noted that the planning permission obtained for the application lapsed in 2006.

·         Expressed that the air quality report was questionable.

·         Requested an amendment to the condition regarding damage to wildlife

·         Told the Committee that there was no gas emission information available for around 15 years

·         Expressed that the application should be denied for the applicant to submit a re-design.

Robert Dance, the agent for the applicant, spoke in support of the application. The following points were made:

·         Informed the Committee that external companies had been worked with to develop a plan.

·         The application was before the committee again to address any new factors which have emerged since the committee gave planning permission in 2014.  A key issue is update guidance on air quality.

·         Noted that the pre-commencement activities that were required were ready to submit

·         The applicant was in the process of a reptile re-location programme around the site

·         Informed the Committee that the site had been trespassed and vandalised, more secure fencing would be erected.

·         Told the Committee that the consulted air quality specialist groups had agreed the report conclusions

·         A public consultation group would be established.

The Local Member, David Munro, registered to speak and made the following points in reference to the application:

·         Noted that once the application is permitted the applicant can begin implementing the conditions

·         Expressed local concern of the barbed wire on site

·         Expressed the importance of the full involvement of the community

David Munro then left the room at 11.20am.

Key points raised during the discussion:

1.    The Senior Planning Officer introduced the report and informed the Committee that the application was first permitted on 3 September 2014; the current application was to extract sand and clay then infill with restoration within 15 years.  There had been no objections from technical consultees.  It was added that there was new air quality guidance in place and consultees agreed with the site plans.  Members were informed that the applicant had undertaken reptile re-location and ground water monitoring.

2.    A Member noted that the reason for the item coming back to Committee was the Kides protocol.  It was expressed that issues considered the last time did not need to be re-considered.

3.    It was queried whether the site was in an Air Quality Management Area (AQMA), officers commented that it was not, pollution monitoring was in place nearby.  It was added that the site would need to be closely monitored to find out how the site affects the AQMA.

4.    The Committee was informed that the recent vehicle pollution guidance had been reduced to 200 vehicle movements per day,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 40

An application for the extraction of sand (770,000 tonnes) and clay (512,000 cubic metres) from a site of 36.2 ha; filling of existing and resultant void with (2.6 million cubic metres) non-hazardous industrial, commercial, household and inert waste; installation of plant and equipment; alterations to existing site access onto A31; and comprehensive restoration of the site over a period of 11.5 years without compliance with Condition 1 of planning permission ref. WA99/0223 to allow the development be completed in all respects not later than 31 December 2029.

The recommendation is that subject to:-

-      The prior completion of a Legal Agreement with the applicant and landowners to secure the long term (20 years in addition to the 5 year aftercare scheme) management, maintenance and aftercare of the application site, edged red and blue, as denoted on the application site plan (Drawing ref: ALTONRD1309/Drawing No 2/ Revision B), through the preparation of a ecological enhancement and woodland management plan in accordance with the draft Heads of Agreement set out in Appendix 1 to the report,

to PERMIT subject to conditions.

AN UPDATE SHEET WAS TABLED AND IS ATTACHED AS ANNEX 1 TO THE MINUTES

Declarations of interest:

None

Officers:

Alan Stones, Planning Development Control Team Manager

Nancy El-Shatoury, Principal Lawyer

Caroline Smith, Transport Development Planning Team Manager

Peter Brett, Consultant

Speakers:

Rob Dutton, read out the following statement on behalf of Tony Goodall who was unable to make the meeting.

“The original planning permission lapsed in 2006 due to non-compliance with Condition 28, when the site was declared dormant.  Until verifiable evidence is provided to identify precisely how or when such a Condition could possibly have been waived, isn’t it beyond the limits of reasonableness for Members to be expected to approve this Application?

The proposed development falls outside of the limits of adopted Policy AR1. Consequently any sand on the site is not listed in the Local Plan as part of mineral reserves, and wouldn’t  be needed to meet soft sand reserve targets.  Pages 27,28 and 29 of the Planning Inspectors Report of November 2012 specifically identifies the limitations of the site that does not include quarrying for sand. 

In any event the viability of these proposals is very questionable.  Furthermore, why should any Applicant be exceptionally granted an extension where in essence nothing has been done with the site since 1991 when the last landfill was deposited?  Shouldn’t there be substantive technical reasons that need to be identified to explain precisely why no development activities have taken place? 

No gas flow data has been supplied by the Operator since 1998. Such fundamental data is essential in order to actually determine that the Gas Management System has been operating effectively.  As a direct consequence about 52 million cubic metres of landfill gas is unaccounted over the past ten years alone.  It can only be through pure luck that the gas has escaped through the porous surfaces of the landfill instead of migrating into homes as previously recorded. 

Unfortunately the proposals would significantly increase the potential for lateral migrations of gas into homes, and the risks caused by any system failure would be increased astronomically. Under these circumstances is it possible for Members to feel confident about the Operators competence particularly since new Government guidance is not due out until late next year?

Why is it that an appropriate investigation to determine the site’s suitability as a SANG and an SNCI has not been carried out, particularly since Waverley Borough Council are desperately searching for SANGS to enable them to produce a viable Local Plan to satisfy the Government’s housing targets?

A Complaints procedure regarding the handling of this Application has yet to run its course.  Furthermore, a request for this Application to be called-in for decision by the Secretary of State has been registered, as well as a request for the Complaint to be considered by the Local Government Ombudsman.  If these procedures don’t lead to a rejection of this Application then a Judicial Review is likely to follow”.

Rob Dutton, a local resident, made representations  ...  view the full minutes text for item 89