Agenda item

A periodic review of a mineral site planning permission for the winning and working of chalk for the determination of full modern conditions.

 

Officers:

Samantha Murphy, Principal Planning Officer

Caroline Smith, Planning Development Manager

Nancy El-Shatoury, Principal Lawyer

Andrew Stokes, Transport Development Planning Team Leader

Stephen Jenkins, Deputy Planning Development Manager

Speakers:

Martin Fisher, made representations in objection to the application. The following key points were made:

·         Martin Fisher explained that he was the Leader of Tandridge District Council.

·         He noted that there was a requirement to balance resident experience with economic viability.

·         He explained that the road network surrounding the application was not suitable in some places for Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGVs). It was clarified that some roads were too narrow and not of sufficient quality, there is a lack of pavements and it is difficult for HGVs to pass each other in places.

·         It was stressed that HGVs discouraged other road users in some cases and had an impact on safety of other road users. It was also noted that there had been cases of driver intimidation as a result of increased HGV usage.

·         He suggested that traffic modelling supported a lower level of HGV movements. He stated that 154 movements created an impact on well-being and the environment and caused an adverse impact on road safety. It was suggested that there should be an average daily limit of 56 daily trips from the site Monday – Saturday over any 12 month rolling period, reducing the limit, specified in condition 25 of the report. A figure any greater than 112 increased the probability of HGVs meeting each other where they cannot pass on the road network. Had been disappointed that the previous figure of 56 trips had been set aside.

 

Jackie Wren, made representation in objection to the application. The following key points were made:

 

·         Proposed levels of HGV movements included in the report is unacceptable and that it is only a matter of time before an accident occurs.

·         Concerns regarding safety were raised, noting that there were increased chances of accidents occurring due to the high levels of HGV usage and the quality and suitability of the roads in the surrounding area. There was intimidation and fear from 32 tonne lorries.

·         They have proved with expert opinion that the levels are too high and the methodology in the Officer report is inadequate.

·         It was stressed that residents supported the idea of a reduced cap on HGV usage to reduce risks of fatality.

·         Request the proposal is refused.

Amanda Griffiths, made representation in objection to the application. The following key points were made:

·         Concerns were raised regarding noise from additional HGV traffic and safety, including mounting of pavements. It was suggested that the route plan is made explicit for HGV users.

·         Concern there are blind bends on the road meaning lorries have to travel in the middle of the road. HGVs drive too fast. Width of the road insufficient.

·         Safety concerns were raised for young children walking to St Mary’s School.

·         This is not addressed by the limit of 156 HGV movements per day. 114 HGV movements on a Saturday is inappropriate.

·         The HGVs have contributed to road damage and damage to grass verges.

·         Proposed that a 20mph speed limit is enforced for HGVs and site owners contribute to damage done to roads.

·         It was suggested that the site could also close on Saturdays to reduce disruption.

 

Lisa Willoughby, made representation in objection to the application. The following key points were made:

 

·         Has been a resident of Barrow Green Road for over 14 years.

·         Concerns were raised regarding safety and potential for accidents. It was stressed that accidents would become common with increased numbers of HGVs. The roads are not built for HGVs.

·         It was noted by the resident that the route proposed was not suitable and designed for HGVs.

·         Death of Mitzi Steady was used as evidence of how dangerous HGVs are and the danger to local residents.

Councillor Cameron Mackintosh, the local Member, made representation to the committee as follows:

 

·         The Member noted residents’ concerns and expressed concern that the Environment Agency had not consulted with Surrey County Council regarding increased tonnage in the Environmental Permit variation.

·         The Member noted support for the conditions restricting the number of vehicles stating that there should be no movement during school drop off and pick up hours.

·         Recognised that operator had been operating with no conditions in place and thanked planning officers for all their hard work.

·         Feel the HGV figure is high but understands the position Surrey are in and supports the figure proposed by Martin Fisher.

·         The site has been working with nothing in place for too long.

Councillor David Hodge, as Leader of the Council made a written representation to the Committee, which was read by Cllr Cameron Mackintosh. The following key points were made:

 

·         The Leader noted that the Environment Agency had failed to consult with Surrey County Council as the statutory Highways Authority on the increased volume of waste that can be disposed at the Chalkpit Quarry as part of the Environmental Permit variation.

·         The Leader has written to the Environment Minister asking him to come to Oxted and view the site and impact it has had on residents and the area.

·         The Leader suggested the following recommendation to the Committee, ‘The SCC Planning Committee request that the Leader of SCC write in the strongest terms to Mr Michael Gove, the Environment Secretary to implore that he issues a mandate as early as possible that no further licenses to increase permits can be issued without first a full consultation with the respective Mineral Planning Authority and Highway Authority’.

 

Key points raised in the discussion:

 

1.    Officers introduced the report, noting that this was a periodic review of conditions attached to the existing planning permission. Planning permission for the site already exists and members cannot refuse permission but can amend conditions.

2.    Officers explained that the Council had presented clear evidence based arguments that justified HGVs movements which is currently specified in the conditions of the report. It was explained that any further reduction could result in a claim from the applicant on impact to economic viability of the site.

3.    Officers noted that any deferral of the application would also postpone implementation of any new conditions, which would result in the use of conditions last set in 1997.

4.    Officers noted that consultation feedback had resulted in several changes to the original 37 conditions that were set out in the report. It was noted that these changes had been accepted, but that four conditions were still in dispute, including school pickup times and HGVs being able to travel in convoy.

5.    Members noted that they had undertaken a site visit as part of reviewing the application and that vehicles were able to pass one another on the majority of the route going along normal two way roads, but only some parts of the route (i.e. areas where there were pinch points) were less fit for purpose.

6.    A Member queried that as there were currently no restrictions on lorry movements, how this compared to the previous figures.

7.    Officers noted that HGV restrictions had been set at a comparable level to the number of vehicles which were utilising the route at present. It was noteworthy that the applicant had requested a significantly higher limit than that recommended by officers.

8.    Officers explained that weighbridge data had been used to justify HGV movement numbers proposed within the report.

9.    A Member stated that more should be done to support road safety measures for residents. Members noted that safety was a primary concern and supported limits on the number of HGVs during specified school term times.

10.  Members queried the economic viability of the site, particularly noting that the applicant had not provided details of economic viability of the site and therefore any impacts could not be measured.

11.  Councillor Rose Thorn proposed an amendment to condition 25 in the report, that the maximum number of HGV movements in any one day not to exceed, 112 (56 in and 56 out) Monday to Friday (pro- rata for Saturdays). This was seconded by Councillor Natalie Bramhall and when put to the vote, unanimously agreed by the committee.

12.  Concerns about older children walking to school and not hearing lorries was raised. It was queried why the average couldn’t be a monthly figure instead. Officers responded to this point.

13.  Another Member stated that he was encouraged to see a condition in the report about lorries using the weighbridge, he further queried if there was information on the profitability of the site.

14.  Although there were concerns around safety and the lack of justification round economic viability from the applicant, it was agreed that the reasons for amending condition 25 would be agreed between officers and the Chairman.

15.  The Committee unanimously agreed the recommendation suggested by the Leader.

16.  A Member queried what the mechanism was with regards the condition requiring the applicant to conduct a survey of the public highway and if the applicant disagreed with the outcome of this. Officers said that the Highways Act 1980 could be used to recover money for maintenance arising from damage caused by the applicant if required.

 

RESOLVED:

1. That application TA12/902, Oxted Quarry, Chalkpit Lane, Oxted, Surrey RH8 0QW be PERMITTED subject to conditions and informatives listed in the report and update sheet, including an amendment to Condition 25, to read-

 

‘There shall be no more than an average of 76 daily Heavy Goods Vehicle (HGV) movements (38 in and 38 out) to/ from the site Monday – Saturday over any 12 month rolling period with the maximum number of HGV movements in any one day not to exceed:

 

• 112 (56 in and 56 out) Monday to Friday
• 72 (36 in and 36 out) Saturday

 

The site operator shall maintain records of the numbers of HGVs accessing and egressing the site daily. These records shall be submitted to the County Planning Authority in April, July, October and January each year and, if requested by the County Planning Authority, be provided within 7 days of that request’.

 

2. The SCC Planning Committee request that the Leader of SCC write in the strongest terms to Mr Michael Gove, the Environment Secretary to implore that he issues a mandate as early as possible that no further licenses to increase permits can be issued without first a full consultation with the respective Mineral Planning Authority and Highway Authority.

 

3. The Principal Lawyer pointed out that in accordance with the Code of Best Practice, as a motion was carried against the Officer’s recommendation, reasons as to why Member’s decision is different must be given. Members cited safety concerns and that no justification had been presented from the applicant on economic viability. It was agreed to bring the reasons back to the Chairman.