Agenda item

Erection and operation of a small scale clinical waste thermal treatment facility including ancillary buildings, structures, parking, hardstanding and landscape works.

Officers:

David Maxwell, Senior Planning Policy Officer

Speakers:

The Local Member, Jonathan Hulley, made the following comments:

1.    That he objected to the application.

2.    That 160 letters of representation had been received from local residents, a petition was signed by 597 members of the local community and the local residents association had circulated a written objection on the grounds that there was no proper basis provided on why the site had been chosen and that there was a lack of alternative site option explored.

3.    That the Environmental Agency had not lodged a report on its views on the application

4.    Asked Members to consider the comments of the County Landfill Site Manager found within paragraphs 333, 334, 335, 336 and 337. The Member summarised that the views provided were that a ground risk assessment did not appear to have been submitted with the application to address the proximity to the boundary of the landfill site. The landfill site was subject to ongoing management of landfill gas and leachate and so there was risk to health and safety being within the proximity of a thermal site. The Member stated that a further detailed assessment was required as highlighted in paragraph 338 of the report before the Committee made a decision.

Cllr Jonathan Hulley left the room for the duration of the debate.

Key points raised during the discussion:

1.    Officers introduced the report and provided a brief summary. Members noted that the proposal was for the erection and operation of a small scale clinical waste thermal treatment facility including ancillary buildings, structures, parking, hardstanding and landscape works. Members noted details of the application, photographs and plans which could be found from page 9 of the meeting’s agenda.

2.    A Member stated that they felt uncomfortable making a decision on an application when the Environmental Agency had not provided any indication on whether consent would be received. Officers explained they were  informed that the EA had low resource and needed to prioritise the applications they respond to. The current application was not deemed to be a priority. Members noted that the applicant would need to apply for a permit so would receive any feedback from the EA during that process. The Member reiterate their discomfort and felt a response should be provided by the EA before the committee’s consideration.

3.    A Member asked whether it would be possible to include a condition to ensure the facility processed local waste rather than national waste. Officers explained that they had considered the need for the proposal and had received evidence of the catchment area for waste which included Northern Surrey and the M3 corridor. Members had a discussion on whether there were options available to restrict the applicant from receiving waste outside of the county.  

4.    Officers noted that the height of the proposed flue would be set by the Environmental Agency however assessments had been based of a height of 26 metres which was the maximum as noted in paragraph 34 of the report.

5.    Members noted that the European Union directives noted in the report were currently preserved until expiration at the end of 2023.

6.    A Member raised that the report stated that clinical waste was renewable however stated that it was not renewable. 

7.    Members raised concern around the proximity of the thermal facility to the landfill site. Officers explained that the applicant had provided a Phase 1 Contamination Risk Assessment which concluded that there was a risk of contamination and that it was highly likely that mitigation would be required. The Phase 1 assessment also provided a scope for a Phase 2 assessment. The Phase 2 assessment was proposed as a pre-commencement condition.

8.    A Member raised concern that some of the issues raised were outside of the control of the Planning process.

9.    The Chairman moved the recommendation which received 9 votes For and 1 Against. Therefore the recommendation was agreed.

Actions / Further information to be provided:

None.

Resolved:

The Committee agreed that, subject to referral to the Secretary of State under paragraph 9 of The Town and Country Planning (Consultation) (England) Direction 2009, and in the absence of any direction by the Secretary of State, to PERMIT subject to the conditions.