Agenda item

Purpose of the report:  Policy Development and Review

Surrey County Council is the Waste Planning Authority and so is responsible for setting policy concerning the development of suitable waste management facilities in Surrey. The policy informs decision making for related planning applications. The current Surrey Waste Plan includes such policies and was adopted in 2008 and is now being reviewed. The new Plan, known as the ‘Surrey Waste Local Plan’ is required to go through several stages of public consultation.

A Draft Surrey Waste Local Plan was published for public consultation between November 2017 and February 2018 and this report sets out the results of this consultation. 322 comments were received and these are being taken into account in the preparation of the text of a ‘Submission’ Plan. Further technical assessments are also being undertaken to verify the suitability of specific sites proposed in the Plan for waste management.

Cabinet will be asked to agree the text at its meeting in September. If agreed, the Submission Plan would then be published for six weeks to allow representations on its soundness and legality.

The Committee is asked to note and comment on the nature of the response to the Draft Plan and the work being undertaken to complete the Submission Plan.

Declarations of interest:

None

Witnesses:

Paul Sanderson, Minerals & Waste Policy Team Manager
Phil Smith, Environmental Assessment Officer
Jason Russell, Deputy Director Environment & Infrastructure
Lesley Harding, Head of Place Development
Mike Goodman, Cabinet Member for Environment

Key points raised in the discussion:

1. Officers clarified the role of Surrey County Council as the waste planning authority. It was noted that the development of this plan had been a long process and involved a significant consultation, which was open for 14 weeks. It was noted that the consultation response had been strong and had raised several key issues.
   
   
2. It was noted that service would be putting forward a submission plan in for consultation in Autumn 2018, noting that there had been a revision in the timetable resultant of the need to adequately review the consultation responses.
   
   
3. Members questioned the number of responses and whether they were within expected parameters. Officers noted that response had been good and that they also included a high number of interested organisations as well as individuals. It was noted that the consultation responses reflected the locations of the sites that were proposed, and that the distribution of responses was to be expected.
   
   
4. Members raised the suggestion of “Land adjacent to the A25 and A22 next to Streets Court which was used when the M25 was being modified and now sits vacant,” that was in the consultation report and questioned why there was little detail on the reasoning for rejection. Officers acknowledged the lack of information, but clarified that the site was rejected based on deliverability and the requirement for the site to be returned to its previous state as a Green Field site.
   
   
5. Members questioned whether there were any significant variations on the previous plan that had been made as part of this submission, and how changes would affect members of public. Officers noted that there had been updated evidence and modifications based on changes in government policy from the last plan. It was explained that there was updated emphasis in the plan to recover and recycle waste rather than to landfill.
   
   
6. Officers explained that there had been site assessments and environmental assessments undertaken and that local transport plans would need to be flexible to account for changes in traffic. It was also noted that sites had taken into account the plans for Crossrail 2 and the Transport for London (TfL) had been involved in consultation.
   
   
7. Members expressed the need for transparency creation of future consultations and ensure that members of the public can understand what is being asked of them. Officers noted these comments and expressed the wish to improve upon consultation in future to alleviate these concerns.
   
   
8. Members of the committee expressed concern regarding the flexibility of the plan to allow the executive to have significant decision making powers regarding waste management facilities with little consultation from members of the public. Officers noted that the plan may in future have some restriction on the type of facility that is being created, but retains flexibility.
   
   
9. Members questioned the idea of self-sufficiency and how this was attainable. Officers noted that self-sufficiency of waste management incorporated commercial and industrial waste.
   
   
10. Officers noted the work undertaken with the Waste Management Member Reference Group and thanked the group for their contribution to the development of the plan. Members noted that the Member Reference Group should continue to support development of the consultation plan.
    
    

Recommendations:

That the Environment and Infrastructure Select Committee:

1. Notes the level and depth of response to the consultation on the draft Surrey Waste Local Plan and supports the work being undertaken to prepare a submission draft Surrey Waste Local Plan in light of responses received
2. Recommends that the Waste Management Member Reference Group will continue to monitor the submission plan in Summer 2018 prior to further consultation by E&ISC in September 2018.