Agenda item

The continued extraction and processing of silica sand and transportation off site of sand, an amended interim restoration scheme for Park Pit, an amended programme of working for Tapwood Quarry, an amended dust action plan and dust management scheme, an amended groundwater monitoring scheme; and an amended restoration and aftercare scheme at Buckland Pits (Tapwood Quarry and Park Pit) until 31 August 2014 with restoration to water based recreation, woodland and grazing by 31 August 2016 without compliance with Conditions 3, 4, 16, 17, 23, 31, 32, 38, 39, 40, 41 and 42 of planning permission ref: MO98/1549 dated 27 May 1999; and the installation of a new slurry plant at Tapwood Quarry.

The recommendation is to PERMIT subject to conditions

Declarations of Interest:

Michael Sydney declared that he would not vote as he was a director of the Surrey Campaign to Protect Rural England.

Officers:

Stephen Jenkins, Deputy Planning Development Manager

Alan Stones, Planning Development and Control Team Manager

Caroline Smith, Transport Development Planning Manager

Nancy El-Shatoury, Principal Solicitor

Speakers:

 No one had registered to speak.

Key points raised during the discussion:

1.    The Deputy Planning Development Manager introduced the report and informed the Committee that the application was a variation of an existing permission, and was submitted in 2010. Restoration was scheduled for completion in 2015 though due to delays this deadline had been amended to 2016. Sand and equipment from the site had been removed and the restorative work was all that remained to be completed. It was explained that complicated hydrology had implications on the final water levels that would be attained at the site, which has led to the delays in the determination of this application. Natural England expressed that the previously proposed re-wetting scheme in respect of the nearby SSSI would not prove effective and that the scheme should no longer be considered. This view was supported by the Environment Agency.  The majority of Park Pit had been restored, though work at Tapwood had not finished due to the water levels not at equilibrium. Natural England (NE) and the Environment Agency (EA) were content with the submitted landscaping and restoration plans. Ground water monitoring would be ongoing in conjunction with aftercare.

2.    A Member queried whether adequate safety measures for recreational users was being implemented at the site. Officers reported that the site was part of a private estate, and as such not open to the public, safety facilities such as signage and buoyancy aids would be made available at the site.

3.    A Member commented that historical activities at the site had caused irreversible damage to the natural environment and this had a detrimental impact on the planned restorative work. It was also highlighted that various statutory groups and residents had raised concern that the water levels had been left lower than planned. Officers commented that historic working of the quarries and continued abstraction by the local water company was likely to have been more damaging to the SSSI than the activities within the proposal, i.e. since 2010.  The external consultees agreed that the proposed water levels were acceptable. Officers explained that the damage to the SSSI is the result of a combination of factors and operations over a long period of time, therefore it would be impossible to identify which operator this responsibility could be apportioned to. Officers also stated that the recommendations for compensation would not meet the tests in the planning regulations, so could not be supported.

4.    Officers agreed with the Committee that mineral working had made an impact on the water tables in Surrey however issues, such as those highlighted in the report, were the result of historical decisions to extract a resource whilst not considering the consequences fully at the time. The Officer also commented that submitted restoration schemes would provide a benefit to the local landscape and are in accordance with the Development Plan. 

RESOLVED:

·         It was agreed to PERMIT subject to conditions for the reasons set out in the report.

Action/further information to be provided:

None.