Agenda and minutes
PDF 189 KBVenue: Council Chamber, Woodhatch Place, 11 Cockshot Hill, Reigate, Surrey, RH2 8EF
Contact: Joss Butler Email: joss.butler@surreycc.gov.uk
Media
| No. | Item |
|---|---|
|
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND SUBSTITUTIONS
To receive any apologies for absence and notices of substitutions under Standing Order 41. Additional documents: Minutes: Apologies for absence were received from Jonathan Hulley and Chris Farr. |
|
|
MINUTES OF THE LAST MEETING
To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 18 December 2024. Additional documents: Minutes: The Minutes were APPROVED as an accurate record of the previous meeting. |
|
|
PETITIONS
To receive any petitions from members of the public in accordance with Standing Order 84 (please see note 5 below). Additional documents: Minutes: There were none. |
|
|
PUBLIC QUESTION TIME
To answer any questions received from local government electors within Surrey in accordance with Standing Order 85 (please see note 6 below). Additional documents: Minutes: There were none. |
|
|
MEMBERS' QUESTION TIME
To answer any questions received from Members of the Council in accordance with Standing Order 68. Additional documents: Minutes: Cllr Steven McCormick submitted one Member Question. The question and response were published in a supplementary agenda on 28 January 2025.
As a supplementary question, Cllr Steven McCormick asked whether Surrey County Council officers could confirm if properly constructed boreholes, as recommended by the Epsom and Ewell Borough Council’s Contaminated Land Officer, would be required for the applications referenced in the initial question.
In response, the Planning Development Manager stated that, given that the applications were still under consideration, it was not possible to confirm the precise conditions or requirements that might be attached to any eventual permission. However, the Planning Development Manager assured that the team was fully aware of the comments made and that they would be carefully addressed in the final assessment and any subsequent conditions, should permission be granted. The Manager also confirmed that the Member would be kept informed as the matter progressed.
In response, the Member clarified that the question regarding the boreholes was focused on pre-approval investigative work, rather than post-approval planning conditions, as it pertained to assessing whether any contamination had already affected the site or the aquifer, and was not related to conditions that may be applied following the committee’s consideration. The Planning Development Manager confirmed that a response would be provided outside the meeting. |
|
|
DECLARATIONS OF INTERESTS
All Members present are required to declare, at this point in the meeting or as soon as possible thereafter (i) Any disclosable pecuniary interests and / or (ii) Other interests arising under the Code of Conduct in respect of any item(s) of business being considered at this meeting NOTES: · Members are reminded that they must not participate in any item where they have a disclosable pecuniary interest · As well as an interest of the Member, this includes any interest, of which the Member is aware, that relates to the Member’s spouse or civil partner (or any person with whom the Member is living as a spouse or civil partner) · Members with a significant personal interest may participate in the discussion and vote on that matter unless that interest could be reasonably regarded as prejudicial.
Additional documents: Minutes: Cllr Scott Lewis noted that he was the ward councillor for the two planning applications listed on the meeting’s agenda. |
|
Retention of existing plant and continued extraction of sand and gravel and bagshot beds from 61 HA with importation of inert waste and progressive restoration of the site partly to agriculture and partly to reedbed shallows without compliance with Conditions 1, 3, 7, 8 and 16 of planning permission ref: RU09/1103 dated 11 December 2015 in order to extend the time period for mineral extraction and restoration, allow revision to the approved plans and drawings, provide details of amended surface water management scheme and revise timing of submission of aftercare and ecological management scheme. Additional documents: Minutes: Officers: Janine Wright, Principal Planning Officer
Officer Introduction:
The Principal Planning Officer introduced the report, and update sheet, and provided a brief summary. Members noted that the application was for the retention of existing plant and continued extraction of sand and gravel and bagshot beds from 61 HA with importation of inert waste and progressive restoration of the site partly to agriculture and partly to reedbed shallows without compliance with Conditions 1, 3, 7, 8 and 16 of planning permission ref: RU09/1103 dated 11 December 2015 in order to extend the time period for mineral extraction and restoration, allow revision to the approved plans and drawings, provide details of amended surface water management scheme and revise timing of submission of aftercare and ecological management scheme. Full details of the application were outlined in the published agenda.
Speakers:
On behalf of applicant, Vilna Walsh (supported by Joe Hawkins) made the following points:
1. Cappagh became the operator of the quarry in 2014 and secured permission in December 2015 to complete site restoration by December 2020. 2. Significant remedial work was required post-permission due to the site being mothballed by previous operator Cemex in 2009. Progress was further delayed by uncertainty surrounding Brexit and the subsequent economic downturn. The COVID-19 pandemic also had a major impact, with the site being shut or operating on a skeleton crew. 3. The establishment of the Aggregate Recycling Facility (ARF) had ensured ongoing filling of remaining void space. 4. The site operated with Heavy Goods Vehicle (HGV) movements that were well below the cumulative limit set. 5. 75% of the site had been restored, with 32 hectares now functioning as a working farm. 6. Positive enhancements to the restoration plan included the planting of 719 trees and over 5,200 shrubs, provision of a mink trap in alignment with local water vole population support, and installation of owl boxes and enhanced wildlife features, including a wildlife lake. 7. That the applicant was committed to completing the restoration to a high standard within the proposed timeframe, and that the operation of the ARF was crucial to achieving this goal.
Points of clarification:
A Member asked about starting work in Summer 2025 on a piece of land that had not yet been developed. In response, it was clarified that ongoing restoration had been taking place throughout the period, and there remained a small area, approximately 30,000 tonnes of material, which still needed to be extracted. This extraction was expected to be completed over a short period of weeks, rather than months, and was targeted for the summer period as the weather is drier. Further to this, It was confirmed that the sand extraction would proceed in the summer, but if it could not due to weather issues, then it would not impact the overall timeline.
A Member asked when unused items, such as excavation units, would be removed from the quarry. They expressed concern about the timeline for completing restoration by 2029 and inquired whether these items would be ... view the full minutes text for item 7/25 |
|
Continued use of land for the importation of construction, demolition and excavation (C, D & E) waste and the siting of an aggregate recycling facility, involving the placement of mobile crushing and screening plant to enable the recovery of recycled aggregates for sale and export without compliance with Conditions 1, 2 and 9 of planning permission ref: RU.16/1960 dated 16 June 2017 in order to extend the time period of the development and for retention of bund on northern boundary. Additional documents: Minutes: Officers: Janine Wright, Principal Planning Officer James Lehane, Principle Transport Development Planning Officer
Officer Introduction:
The Principal Planning Officer introduced the report, and update sheet, and provided a brief summary. Members noted that the application was for the continued use of land for the importation of construction, demolition and excavation (C, D & E) waste and the siting of an aggregate recycling facility, involving the placement of mobile crushing and screening plant to enable the recovery of recycled aggregates for sale and export without compliance with Conditions 1, 2 and 9 of planning permission ref: RU.16/1960 dated 16 June 2017 in order to extend the time period of the development and for retention of bund on northern boundary. Full details of the application were outlined in the published agenda.
Speakers:
On behalf of applicant, Vilna Walsh (supported by Joe Hawkins) made the following points:
The speaker noted that the two applications were closely interconnected, with the need to fill the quarry being entirely dependent on the recycling facility. They reiterated the points made in their initial submission, adding that they wanted to emphasise the highly sustainable nature of the facility. They highlighted its significant contribution to aggregate supply in the wider area, as well as its role in filling the void and completing the site restoration.
Points of clarification:
A Member asked about the drainage plans and whether they were adequate to prevent flooding in nearby areas, particularly for neighbouring properties, especially given the increasing amount of rainfall. In response, the speaker explained that the drainage plans had been reviewed and assessed by the relevant officers and authorities, including the Environment Agency (EA). It was confirmed that the proposed drainage plans were considered acceptable.
A Member asked about noise testing and how it was monitored, noting that several properties had raised concerns about noise. They inquired about the methods used to test noise levels, how it was reported, and how residents would be reassured regarding the issue. In response, the speaker explained that noise impacts had been reassessed during the updated submission. Target noise levels were set for the nearest sensitive receptors, ensuring they would not be breached. The assessment was based on a worst-case scenario, where all equipment and extraction activities occurred simultaneously, despite being at different ends of the site. The noise measurements from this scenario were well below both the background levels and the target levels set in the conditions.
A Member asked whether there was a community liaison group in place to share information about the recycling facility, particularly regarding the 90% of material being sent out as recycling and the 10% staying in for infill. They inquired about how this information was tracked and whether it was shared with the community or only with the relevant authorities. In response, the speaker explained that there was no community liaison group in place. Further to this, the Member acknowledged the benefits of increased recycling but pointed out that it reduced the amount of material going into the restoration ... view the full minutes text for item 8/25 |
|
|
DATE OF NEXT MEETING
The next meeting of the Planning & Regulatory Committee will be on 26 February 2025. Additional documents: Minutes: The date of the next meeting was noted. |