Agenda item

The extraction and screening of sand from Mercers South with progressive restoration to agriculture using inert waste materials, together with associated infrastructure, on a site of 52.2ha and the temporary diversion of public footpath 173 for the duration of the operations without compliance with Condition 8 of planning permission ref: TA/2019/34 dated 6 June 2019 so as to allow revision to the numbers of HGV movements.

Officers:

Duncan Evans, Senior Planning Officer

Caroline Smith, Interim Planning Group Manager

Stephen Jenkins, Interim Planning Development Manager

Speakers:

None.

Key points raised during the discussion:

1. The Chairman stated that items 7 and 8 of the agenda would be considered together.
2. The Senior Planning Officer introduced item 7 and provided a brief summary. Members noted that the application was for the the extraction and screening of sand from Mercers South with progressive restoration to agriculture using inert waste materials, together with associated infrastructure, on a site of 52.2ha and the temporary diversion of public footpath 173 for the duration of the operations without compliance with Condition 8 of planning permission ref: TA/2019/34 dated 6 June 2019 so as to allow revision to the numbers of Heavy Goods Vehicle (HGV) movements. Officers clarified the number of HGV movements was requested to be increased to allow for more flexibility to respond to seasonal fluctuations and market demands, changes in inert infill restoration material which was likely to be denser and as a result would require increased tonnage of fill material per annum over that originally predicted for the Quarry, and that HGVs accessing the site would now have a smaller payload capacity. Members noted that details of any impacts on noise could be found on pages 123 – 134, details on any impacts on air quality could be found on pages 135 – 141 and that there had been no objections from any technical consultees. In regards to item 8, Members noted that the application was for the extraction and screening of approximately 250,000 tonnes of sand from an area of 1.67ha, as an extension to the phasing within the existing Mercers South Quarry, with progressive restoration to agriculture using inert waste materials without compliance with Condition 8 of planning permission ref: TA/2017/2346 dated 23 April 2018 so as to allow revision to the numbers of HGV movements.
3. Members asked whether relevant aspects of the Tandridge new Local Plan or the new Surrey Waste Plan had bee considered when considering the application in the report. Officers stated that existing plans needed to be considered however there was acknowledgement of plans being developed and that officers would apply relevant policies were appropriate.
4. In regards to climate change, Members noted that relevant details of the quarry were assessed when originally granted planning permission. It was noted that no objections had been raised by technical consultees.
5. Officers noted that they were satisfied with the substantial increase of HGV movements proposed by the application.
6. Members of the Committee sought clarification on the proposed increase to HGV movements. Officers stated that the proposal was for an increase to the limit so that there shall be no more than an average of 300 HGV movements per day associated with the extraction of sand and the import of inert waste materials at the Mercers South site, with HGV movements on any single day not exceeding 350 movements.
7. The Committee sought further information on the material used to restore the quarry and the need for additional HGV movements for transport. Officers confirmed that the material was denser as it was predominately a clay material and that it would not settle any differently from other traditional materials used for restoration. Officers clarified that changes to the approved restoration profiles were not being sought. Members asked whether an additional Environmental Agency permit would be required due to the change. Officers stated that this may not be necessary as the material was only denser and not changed all together. 
8. The Local Member stated that the applicant had been cooperative and east to work with in recent years and had caused no issues with local villages.
9. In regards to highways, Members noted that Transport Development Planning had stated that they did not consider the proposal to be significant. 
10. Members asked whether there had been any significant incidents related to traffic movements in recent years. Officers confirmed that there had not been in the last three years and no accidents which related to the quarry.
11. A Member of the Committee suggested that an additional informative should be included within the report’s recommendations to request annual air monitoring along the A25 take place to ensure the air quality over time was in line with predicted rates. The Committee had a discussion and noted that all sites should be treated the same and that air quality monitoring from the specific site was unrealistic as it was not the only site in the area. Officers further confirmed that no objections were raised the from Air Quality consultant following a detailed analysis. A motion regarding air quality monitoring was not moved.

Resolved: 

The Committee agreed to permit applicant MINERALS/WASTE TA/2019/2147 subject to conditions from page 41 of the report and the update sheet.