Agenda item

Extraction of sand and gravel and restoration to landscaped lakes for nature conservation after-use at Manor Farm, Laleham and provision of a dedicated area on land at Manor Farm adjacent to Buckland School for nature conservation study; processing of the sand and gravel in the existing Queen Mary Quarry (QMQ) processing plant and retention of the processing plant for the duration of operations; erection of a concrete batching plant and an aggregate bagging plant within the existing QMQ aggregate processing and stockpiling areas; installation of a field conveyor for the transportation of mineral and use for the transportation of mineral from Manor Farm to the QMQ processing plant; and construction of a tunnel beneath the Ashford Road to accommodate a conveyor link between Manor Farm and QMQ for the transportation of mineral.

It was decided to take items 7 and 8 together, an update sheet was tabled and is attached as annex 1.

Officers:

Alan Stones, Planning, Development and Control Team Manager

Susan Waters, Senior Planning Officer

Nancy El-Shatoury, Principal Lawyer

Kerry James, Principal Transport Development Planning Officer

Speakers:

Gordon Freeman, a local resident, made representations in objection to the application. The following points were made:

·         Informed the Committee that he is currently the Secretary of Spelthorne Natural History Society, who he was representing today.

·         Expressed that the national planning policy framework states new building is inappropriate  on green belt land. Did not agree with the officers argument that very special circumstances had been made. The proposed new buildings will occupy a considerable area and be vertically very imposing and harm the green belt compromise its openness.

·         Expressed that the concrete batching and aggregate bagging plant,  stockpiles and parked trucks would be visible from reservoir embankment and seen by yacht club members and visitors.

·         The mineral from Manor Farm should be exported. The plant would rely on imports after Manor Farm is worked. Noted that the applicant already has these facilities at their Hithermoor Quarry site and queried the need for the plant at this site.

·         Expressed concern about the quantity of cement to be stored at the site and the alkaline wash water from the mixer trucks had the potential to damage or contaminate surrounding water supplies.

·         The amenities of Manor Farm will not be enhanced by waterbodies. Noted that 25% of the area of Spelthorne currently has some form of  water body. It would be better to backfill and restore the site to agriculture.

David Lavender, a local resident, made representations in objection to the application. The following points were made:

·         Stated that he endorsed the points made by the previous speaker.

·         At the previous meeting officers had stated that the bagging and batching plant were  contentious and inappropriate development on Green Belt land but there were mitigating circumstances. He and questioned what these mitigating circumstances were. .

·         Questioned how planning conditions, eg hours of working, and traffic would be enforced and controlled.

·         Expressed concern that there was a lack of control dealing with dust and questioned if the dust control action plan would extend to the batching plant.

Mike Courts, the applicant, spoke in support of the application. The following points were made:

·         Noted that the application had already gone through intense scrutiny.

·         Expressed that the reports and attached annexes to the report today provided sufficient information for the Committee to make an informed decision.

·         Informed the Committee that as well as planning permission a licence for the batching plant was required from the local authority, from Environmental Health.   This ensures effective dual control for dust.

·         On the issue of backfilling the site expressed that this would involve HGVs bringing waste to the site and put more HGVs on the public highway. A perfectly good alternative scheme is proposed which seeks to keep the HGV movements to the minimum. Richard Walsh, one of the two Local Members had registered to speak and made the following points in reference to the application:

·         At the last meeting expressed to the Committee that the applicant should not go ahead with gravel extraction. This time wanted to raise the concern of residents over the restoration to water.

·         Questioned the restoration maintenance after care timeline of 25 years, expressed that this should be longer in perpetuity.

·         Residents and CLAG2 have objected to wet restoration and made representations indicating that it is possible to use a conveyor to backfill the site. Expressed that a conveyor would be of more benefit to residents in order to minimise HGV movements to and from the site. Residents had accepted wet restoration, but importing waste by conveyor or by road through Queen Mary Quarry and across the road from there.   Noted from the report that 300 HGV movements would be made, questioned what the 300 movements were and over what period of time.

·         Expressed that a landfill site would be a better option for residents.

Key points raised during the discussion:

1.    The Planning Development Team Manager introduced the report and informed the Committee that the item was considered in January 2015.   The Kides protocol states that when there is a delay with issuing decisions, the Council must consider any new material updates.  The Committee was told that the mineral in the site, preferred area J in the minerals plan, was needed and the landbank in the county for concreting aggregates was well below the minimum provision required of seven years.  He added that the restoration had been dealt with in the previous report and restoration options and the indicative restoration scheme is wet restoration in the restoration supplementary planning document and has been through the plan process. The restoration proposed drawn up on that basis. The environment and amenity impacts had been extensively considered in the report.  Concerns had been raised about crystalline silica and health impacts. This is present in the natural environment but only of concern in the work place where you have enclosed areas.  A Dust Action Plan is required by condition, and conditions were proposed to control hours of working, noise and other things. On Green Belt under the Kides process case law had been identified which meant the whole development including mineral extraction had to be considered inappropriate development, not just the concrete batching and aggregate bagging plant. Officer’s view was that need, sustainability of having the plant where the mineral is produced and no long term impact on openness of the green belt combine to form very special circumstances.

2.    The Committee questioned the reasons for allowing the bagging and batching plant and officers noted that batching plants at mineral sites were traditionally considered as a more sustainable option, than when located on another site remote from the source of mineral.

3.    A Member expressed that a land fill site or conveyor would not be of benefit to nearby residents. It was added that water restoration would increase the chances of flooding in surrounding residential areas.

4.    A Member expressed that there would not be enough resources left in Surrey to maintain a seven year land bank and would need to be extracted at a slower rate.

5.    Restoration options and transporting waste to the site and HGV movements were questioned by some Members and it was stated that the site is located off of the A308, which means HGV movements would not affect residents. New information and evidence was now available to show waste could be transported by conveyor which some Members, who did not support the wet restoration proposals, felt meant the minerals plan and wet restoration proposals for the site were unsafe and the site should be backfilled and restored to agriculture.

6.    Officers informed the Committee that the bagging and batching plant would be in place until 2033 with planning permission ending in 2038.  Extraction and processing was a five to six year timetable.

7.    Officers informed Members that the strength of the argument in support of the application proposals was strong. There was still a reasonable amount of minerals in Surrey so the 7 year land bank was still applicable.  Officers informed the committee that they considered the minerals plan was robust and remained sound. It had undergone due process in its preparation and took into account a number of issues and wet restoration would be acceptable.

RESOLVED:

It was agreed that, subject to the prior completion of a S106 legal agreement between the county council, the applicant and Thames Water Utilities Ltd to secure the long term aftercare management, (including bird management) of the land at Manor Farm and to limit the number of HGV movements in combination with planning permission refs SP07/1273 and SP07/1275 to no more than 300 HGV movements (150 two way HGV movements) on any working day attached as Appendix D to PERMIT subject to conditions and informatives for the reason set out in the report.

Action/further information to be provided:

None.