Councillors and committees

Agenda item

MINERALS/WASTE EL18/3802 WO2018/1358 - Units 11 and 12 Wintersells Road, Byfleet, West Byfleet, Surrey KT14 7LF

Change of use to a waste transfer station and recycling facility (sui generis) for the receipt and treatment of mixed, dry, non-hazardous household, industrial and commercial and construction, demolition and excavation waste, including the demolition of the existing building at Unit 11 and the erection of a steel portal framed building, picking station, storage bays and boundary fencing.

 

Due to the Covid-19 situation, planning site visits are not able to take place therefore footage of this site can be accessed on the webcasting portal which can be accessed here (select the Resources tab):

 

https://surreycc.public-i.tv/core/portal/webcast_interactive/491303

 

Please note, as this meeting is being held on Monday 29 June 2020, any representations received after 12.00 noon on the last working day before committee, Friday 26 June 2020, may not be taken into account at the meeting.

 

Minutes:

Officers:

Katie Rayner, Senior Planning Officer

Abigail Solway, Transport Development Planning Officer

Nancy El-Shatoury, Principal Lawyer

Joss Butler, Committee Manager

 

Speakers:

 

John Tadros made representations in objection to the application. The

following key points were made:

 

  • That Wintersells Management Limited was the management company which owned the road which provides access to the around 40 small businesses.
  • That the objections from the small businesses were well founded and critical to the wellbeing of the business that required adequate access.
  • That 200 HGV movements per day was excessive and that the roads were originally designed for ad hoc access.
  • That in the event the roads of the estate were blocked then his business would not be visible to the traffic approaching the main road.
  • That Elmbridge and Runnymede Council had rejected the size of this application stating clear the harm to the business park
  • Surrey County Council’s site assessment document identifies that the estate should only have 50,000 tonnes of waste per annum. This application is double the recommendations and does not take into account skip allocation.

 

Michael Stallard made representations in objection to the application. The speech which was presented to the Committee is attached to these minutes as annex 14.

 

On behalf of the applicant, David Young, Peter Todd and Billy Clark made the following comments in response:

 

  • That a detailed assessment of vehicle emissions had been undertaken as part of the application in order to predict pollutant concentrations at relevant locations.
  • That air quality assessments had not been undertaken in the Runnymede area due to the number of HGV movements being significantly under 25 per day.
  • That if the application was approved then there would be significant reduction in traffic related pollution concentrations due to the reduction in HGV movements in the applicants current operation.
  • That the applicant had committed to ensuring all HGVs in the company fleet meet the latest emission standards.
  • That a detailed transport statement was submitted with the planning application which considered the access, highway safety and traffic impacts of the development which officers have raised no objections to.
  • That the access roads were designed to typical industrial estate standards and were already used by HGVs. There was also no evidence of any existing highways safety issues.
  • Vehicle access to the development would operate on a one-way system which would help to reduce conflict. A digital system would also be implemented to track and redirect vehicles, if necessary, during the day.
  • That there were no highways related reasons to resist the application.
  • That it had been proposed to build a structure on the site which would act to screen noise occurring within the structure and therefore reducing the level of noise.
  • That the closest residential home was 125 metres away and that the level of noise received was significantly below the level of background noise in the area.
  • It was highly unlikely to have any adverse impact on the local residential homes and businesses from noise.

 

The Local Member, Tim Oliver, was unable to attend at the beginning of this item however an audio recording of the Local Member’s speech was played to the Committee which made the following comments:

 

  • That he wished to object to the application and supported the many objections which had been recorded.
  • That the conditions outlined in the report did not address the issues that the application raises.
  • The proposed development was too large and too impactful on the other occupants and the nearby residential dwellings.
  • That there would be unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the area and a likely impact on the amenity of the local residential properties.
  • That there would be an impact of traffic as the area was highly congested already and that a traffic study had been commissioned for the whole of the Brooklands area because of its significant negative impact on residents’ travel and lengthy queues. This proposal would exacerbate this issue.
  • That Surrey County Council were not currently in a position to adopt the draft Surrey Waste Local Plan and that it would not be considered in July 2020.
  • That the Committee should refuse the application for change of use.

 

Key points raised during the discussion:

 

1.     Katie Rayner, Senior Planning Officer, introduced the report and provided a brief summary. A supplementary agenda was published on 29 June 2020 which included an update sheet for the item. Additional representations are attached to these minutes as Annex 15, 16, 17 & 18 . Members noted that the application was for the Change of use to a waste transfer station and recycling facility (sui generis) for the receipt and treatment of mixed, dry, non-hazardous household, industrial and commercial and construction, demolition and excavation waste, including the demolition of the existing building at Unit 11 and the erection of a steel portal framed building, picking station, storage bays and boundary fencing. Members were provided with a presentation of photos and plans of the proposed development which were also included as part of the officer’s report.

2.     In regard to HGV access to the site, Members asked whether there was a turning circle within the site. Officers confirmed that there was a turning circle within the site.

3.     Officers confirmed that junction modelling work had not taken place for this application due to the low impact of the proposal.

4.     Members ask whether the proposal would be impacted by the emerging Local Waste Plan which had not yet been agreed. Officers confirmed the new Local Waste Plan was at an advanced stage of development and that the proposal did not conflict with either waste plan and that the emerging plan was still considered as a material consideration.

5.     Members raised concern with the number of vehicle movements outlined in the report.

6.     Officers confirmed that the hours of operation had been reduced by officers to 07:00 – 18:00, Monday to Friday and 07:00 – 13:00 on Saturdays and the additional hours of working were 18:00 – 20:30, Monday to Friday and 13:00 – 17:00 on Saturdays for the operation of the plant within the building with no HGV access.

7.     The Leader of the Council and Local Member highlighted to Members that officers were in the process of commissioning a traffic study which would demonstrate the significant issues around congestion on the four main points into the area. Officers stated that, when divided across the day, the 200 HGV movements were very insignificant and not enough to conduct any transport modelling. Along with this the National Planning Policy Framework 2019 noted that these movements were not significant enough to refuse the application.

8.     Cllr Muir proposed to move a motion for deferral of consideration of the application until the upcoming traffic study in the area was completed. The motion was seconded by Cllr Povey.

9.     Officers highlighted to Members that the proposal would increase the traffic movement in the area by 0.98% and if approved 2% of the overall road traffic would be by HGVs movements.

10.  A Member highlighted to the Committee that the application should be considered on the information available at the time and on its own merits.

11.  The Leader of the Council confirmed to the Committee that the traffic study had been commissioned by the Elmbridge Local Committee to consider the impacts of the existing congested traffic moments and consider possible improvements. In terms of timescales the Leader of the Council stated that the traffic study was likely to take place by the end of the year however this could be impacted by the current pandemic. Officers stated that it would not be reasonable to defer an application on an unrestricted timescale and that the application should be considered on the merits of the proposal.

12.  Officers highlighted to Members that the site was currently vacant and therefore another industrial use could be placed there and result in more unrestricted vehicle movements and without the need for planning permission.

13.  Cllr Hawkins moved the recommendation for refusal, seconded by Saj Hussain, which received 2 votes for, 8 against and no abstentions. Therefore the motion was lost.

14.  Cllr Muir confirmed that she would not move a motion to defer the application.

 

Resolved:

 

The Committee unanimously agreed to permit application EL/18/3802 subject to conditions from page 268 of the agenda papers.

 

Supporting documents: