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):
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.
Katie Rayner, Senior Planning Officer
Abigail Solway, Transport Development Planning Officer
Nancy El-Shatoury, Principal Lawyer
Joss Butler, Committee Manager
John Tadros made representations in objection to the application. The
following key points were made:
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:
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:
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.
The Committee unanimously agreed to permit application EL/18/3802 subject to conditions from page 268 of the agenda papers.