Agenda item

Changes to the planning conditions attached to the Charlton Lane Eco Park planning permission (ref: SP13/01553/SCC dated 25 September 2014) in order to incorporate minor material amendments to the surface water drainage and containment design associated with the tank area located to the north of the Recyclables Bulking Facility and Anaerobic Digestion Facility buildings.

Declarations of Interest:

None

Officers:

Alan Stones, Planning Development & Control Team Manager

Mark O’Hare, Senior Planning Officer

Caroline Smith, Transport Development Planning Team Manager

Nancy El-Shatoury, Principal Solicitor

Speakers:

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

·         Informed the Committee that he had provided advice and guidance to the applicant and Surrey County Council (SCC) on objections in relation to the proposed bunding arrangements in particular the Anaerobic Digestion Plant (AD).  It was noted that there had been other areas where serious incidences had occurred, and examples of these were given to the applicant.

·         Noted that the tank area should be located a minimum prescribed distance from the wall, added that the drawings provided in the report did not allocate five tanks at the required distance.  Any leakage from the tanks could flow to the other side of the wall.

·         Expressed to the Committee that the tank area must be re-designed or additional tank protection should be established.  Officers were asked how this would be rectified.

·         It was expressed to the Committee that the applicant did not wait for approval from SCC before confirming the new tank and wall area design.

·         Deferring approval of this application could allow more time for further design faults.

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

·         Informed the Committee that the original tank design by SITA had been rejected by the EA, requiring an improved design, the new tank design had not yet been submitted to the Environment Agency (EA) for scrutiny.

·         Noted that there was a serious concern for the risk of fire, due to the tanks containing methane.

·         Other causes for concern for the risk of fire/explosion were the close proximity of tanks to one another and lack of access for emergency service vehicles.

·         It was expressed that no advice was provided on fire safety, SCC were not advised of crucial issues.

·         It was expressed to the Committee that the application should either be rejected or deferred until adequate information is provided from the applicant.

Gareth Philips, the applicant, spoke in support of the application. The following points were made:

·         Informed the Committee that the applicant had discussed bund design with the EA.

·         A secondary cladding had been provided on the wall in case of failure of the tank skin.

·         Drew the Committee’s attention to paragraph 24 of the officer’s report The EA would not permit the application if SITA had not met all the pre-operational requirements.

·         Noted that there were further submissions that were required but construction could continue before these were completed.

·         Noted that there were no objections received from Thames Water.

·         Noted that views expressed crossed over to permitting issues instead of planning.

The Local Members had not registered to speak and Ian Beardsmore would speak as a member of the committee

Key points raised during the discussion:

1.    The Senior Planning Officer introduced the report and informed the Committee that the application was to gain approval for amendments to the surface water drainage and containment design associated with the tank area to the north of the Eco Park.  Approval for initial planning permission on this application had been approved in March 2015, with major construction works commencing in June 2015, set to continue for two years.  Construction was permitted to start; minor material amendments were required before completion.  The Environment Agency (EA) had previously agreed a partial discharge on surface water drainage and other minor material issues could be agreed during operation.

2.    The Committee was informed that the concrete wall was 1.25m high, with a 2m fence; the Charlton Lane Community Liaison group was informed of the bunding arrangements.

3.    It was reiterated that the EA permitting regime takes into consideration all aspects of risk, including fire and tank distances.

4.    The Committee felt that safety could not be taken lightly.  A Member requested examples of other sites with a similar design and measures.  It was responded that bunding arrangements must comply with EA regulations and other sites would have common principles.  It was added that the EA were happy with the agreed plans.

5.    There was a discussion around access to emergency vehicles.  A Member raised concern that the ramps in the plan would be inadequate for fire vehicles to drive over because of the operational design.  It was added that if the design had to be changed once built, the cost would be the responsibility of SCC.  Officers noted to Members that the EA had no significant concerns, all ‘what if’ situations had been addressed and detailed in the permit.  Other Members stressed that the committee was independent to the Council as the waste management authority.

6.    Members discussed the remit of the Committee in relation to the application.  It was expressed that it was not appropriate to consider matters outside of the recommendation.  Many of the details being discussed were related to the permitting regime controlled by the EA.  Officers confirmed that there was no grey area between the role of the planning authority and the permitting regimes and that there was clearly defined boundaries in national guidance.

RESOLVED:

The Committee agreed to PERMIT subject to conditions and the application being referred to the National Planning Casework Unit as a departure, for the reasons set out in the report.

Action/further information to be provided:

None.