Agenda item

Construction and use of 2.47 hectares of new concrete hardstanding to resurface the existing unmade compound area at Oak Leaf Farm waste recycling, recovery and processing facility.

The recommendation is to PERMIT subject to conditions

Officers:

Alan Stones, Planning Development and Control Team Manager

Duncan Evans, Planning Officer

Duncan Evnas presented the reports for item 8 and item 9 together and the

Committee discussed both items under item 8.

Speakers:

There were no public speakers.

The Local Member, Robert Evans, registered to speak and made the following points in reference to the applications:

·         Expressed concern that the area proposed in SP/15/00929/SCC to be developed was not included in the original planning application.

·         Outlined that the reported stated that development was inappropriate in the Green Belt area.

·         Expressed concerns around dust, noise pollution and traffic issues regarding the concrete crusher application set out in SP15/01184/SCC.

·         Supported Spelthorne Borough Council’s position that the development would be inappropriate.

·         Expressed that the Committee should go back to the applicant and request details on their long term plans for the site.

Key points raised during the discussion:

1.    The Planning Officer introduced the reports and informed the Committee that in 2009 the permission was granted for the redevelopment of the site and the installation of waste management facilities. The proposal was amended in 2015 to allow for shredding machinery. The present application requested the installation of a concrete crusher. Local residents had raised concerns over dust and noise pollution; it was noted that Spelthorne Borough Council and the Local Member had raised objections. The site is located within Greenbelt land however, as permission was granted in 2009, further development was permissible. The Officer also informed the Committee that the application to resurface the remaining part of the site was for ancillary services; the concrete surface would create less dust in dry periods and provide a more efficient surface for working in wet weather; there would be an increase of around 25 Heavy Goods Vehicle (HGV) movements to the site per day, and issues such as drainage and highways matters had been considered and found to be acceptable.

2.    A Member noted that there were four other concrete crushers in Spelthorne and expressed that the report did not demonstrate an appropriate need for an additional concrete crusher in the area.

3.    The Committee expressed that generating additional HGV movements had no benefit to Surrey, and raised concerns over the nature of the concrete to be used for the hard-standing. Officers responded that there was a known need for Surrey to be able to process more waste materials and suggested that this development would help relieve this issue.

4.    Members queried whether the applications for the site constituted to a change of use of the site. Officers also confirmed that the development would not make the site Brownfield land and would not set a precedent for future development works on the site.

5.    A Member raised concern around the stockpile of waste at the site and sought clarification on the height limits for waste. Concerns were also raised over: proposed time restrictions for the concrete crusher; whether its proposed location was fixed, as well as further concerns around combined noise pollution and a lack of clarity over lighting restrictions. Officers confirmed that the location of the concrete crusher was fixed. Officers also informed the Committee that the 2009 permission approved the use of a concrete crusher however the operator changed their equipment plan and opted for a shredder instead; subsequently there was no space left for a crusher. The Committee was informed that whilst the application was in consultation, it was decided that the dust action plan was sufficient to accommodate the concrete crusher.

6.    Members queried the need for a concrete crusher at the site and suggested that the Committee should defer the application decision in order to undertake a second site visit as there had been a material change since permission was granted for a concrete crusher at the Queen Mary Reservoir site in Spelthorne.

7.    A Member queried whether it would have been beneficial to impose lighting and noise restrictions at the site, officers suggested that a more effective method of noise control would be imposing limits based on sound power levels.  It was added that the conditions in the report intended to clarify lighting restrictions.

8.    Drainage measures were questioned and officers reported that there was an existing drainage system in place on the site and the external consultees were satisfied the system would operate effectively after the development.

Resolved:

The Committee resolved to DEFER the applications in order to undertake a site visit for the reasons set out above.

Action/further information required:

A second site for the Committee would be scheduled.