Agenda item

Review of planning permission Ref MO/75/1165 dated 30 July 1976 pursuant to the Environment Act 1995 so as to determine full modern working and restoration conditions.

Officers:

Samantha Murphy, Planning Development Team Leader

Abigail Grealy, Principal Transport Development Planning Offcer

Speakers:

Lesley Bushnell made representations in objection to the application. The following key points were made:

1.    That local residents had been campaigning against the application since 2017.

2.    That the permission granted in 1976 was for a low-key brickmaking operation spread over several years. The present proposal was for a shorter term application, with none of the clay processed onsite,

3.    That the 1976 permission imposed a limit of 16 vehicles movements per day, and 50 per week. The current proposal was for 150 HGV movements per day, or 825 per week.

4.    That the point of access for the site was on a notoriously dangerous bend. Over the years local residents had photographed accidents along the road however not all accidents were recorded by the Police.

5.    That Police and Surrey Highways had recently reduced the speed limit from 50MPH to 40MPH.

6.    Stated that there would be an impact on neighbouring properties and an impact on quality of life along the Horsham Road. 

7.    That North Farm Drive was not wide enough to accommodate two HGVs and the traffic lights proposed would impede on the freedom of residents.

8.    That, in summary, the proposed traffic movements for the updated application, the extra traffic travelling along the A24, and the intensity of the operation were fundamentally different from the permission granted in 1976 and should not be considered under the ROMP process.

9.    That, if granted, an amendment was made to have much lower movements applied.

David Taylor made representations in objection to the application. The following key points were made:

1.    That about 50 people had received a letter from Surrey County Council around five years ago on the proposal and that it was a surprise to local residents. The application had not shown up in local searches when properties were being bought and sold.

2.    That the proposal may have an adverse impact on property values.

3.    That visibility was okay at present due to the hedge being cut back however hedge cutting may change if the event of new ownership.

4.    Raised concerns around the danger to drivers and cyclists when HGVs leave and enter the site

5.    Raised concerns around whether the site would abide by the hours of operation. 

Craig Stewart made representations in objection to the application. The following key points were made:

1.    Raised concerns around the increase in vehicle movements on a notoriously dangerous section of the A24

2.    That, when entering the site, there was a risk of HGVs causing traffic on the A24 causing chaos and a risk to life.

3.    That machinery would be around 10 metres away from his property boundary causing noise and dust to enter and preventing use of the land during spring and summer months.

4.    That there would be an open view of the site’s works from his property impacting the resident and his family.

5.    Noted that there may be an impact on his properties resell value.

6.    That the applicant had shown no consideration for the neighbouring properties and had previously started works at 6am and finished works past 10pm on weekends.

On behalf of the applicant, Martin Hull and Richard Armfield spoke in response to the public speakers’ comments. The following key points were made:

1.    That planning permission was first granted in 1948, and the present renewal related to the 1976 permission.

2.    That officers had come to the decision that the permissions remained valid and so the ROMP process was underway. Officers had concluded that the site was dormant.

3.    That the list of conditions included within the report addressed the key issues raised by technical consultants, officers and within the Environmental Impact Assessment. Therefore the conditions were new, modern and addressed all issues.

4.    Provided an overview of the history of the site. Noted that, without frustrations caused by the later abandoned A24 improvement project, works could have started in the last century.

5.    Highlighted that the purpose of the ROMP application was to set modern conditions and that work had been done to create modern conditions and address issues raised.

6.    That officers had set the number of movements per day at 42 movements into the site based on a detailed assessment of the A24 and a review of the road.

7.    That the county’s consultants had assessed the issues raised and put forward mitigating actions.

8.    That the applicant fully supported the creation of a liaison group with representatives of the local community to air concerns and seek agreeable solutions.

Key points raised during the discussion:

1.    Officers introduced the report and provided a brief overview. Members noted that he item was a review of planning permission Ref MO/75/1165 dated 30 July 1976 pursuant to the Environment Act 1995 so as to determine full modern working and restoration conditions. Members noted details of the site and application, photographs and plans which could be found from page 255 of the meeting’s agenda. Members noted that an update sheet had been circulated. Members noted that, in the intervening period between 2021 and 2022, consultees were contacted again to ensure conditions met best practice and policy, and that the Lead Local Flood Authority had commented as part of the recent consultation. Members further noted that reference to the Historic Buildings Officer in paragraph 74 should have said the MPPF 2021 rather than 2019. In regard to paragraph 109 of the report, it was noted that the word ‘not’ should be removed so it reads ‘the county noise consultant has advised that operation activities should take place away from residential properties’. Officers proposed an amendment to the recommendation so that, where the heads of term legal agreement is referenced, it also includes detail on a community liaison group creation and the following additional wording ‘in respect of land permitted by NO75/1165 dated 30 July 1976’.

2.    Members asked whether the issues raised by residents would be addressed by the conditions proposed. Officers explained that there had been a lot of dialogue with officers and consultees and that officers considered the conditions to be appropriate and were created in accordance with best practice and policy. It was noted that the site would be monitored the same as any other mineral site across the county.

3.    Officers stated that they were unable to comment on why the information was not showing on land registry searches. 

4.    A Member asked whether it was possible to include a ‘no right turn’ for HGVs only. Officers explained that due to the nature of the road it would not be possible enforce and that there was not adequate justification for the implementation. The Member requested that the community liaison group have a specific item on this to keep the design of the junction under review as traffic increased. Officers suggested that this could also form as part of the construction management plan which was due to be submitted. Both actions were agreed.

5.    In regard to the pre-commencement conditions, Members asked whether the applicant could provide a confirmation of the completion of the pre-commencement conditions before starting. Officers explained that it was not usual practice to include a condition requiring this however an informative could be included. This was agreed.

6.    A Member asked whether conditions had been included to cover any event of slope instability issues that had not been previously planned. Officers explained that there were conditions covering the early stopping of activities and the need for the applicant to come forward with a restoration plan. The officer proposed that one of the conditions on this were amended to include wording for measures related to stability, emergencies or stability plans. This was agreed.

7.    A Member asked whether there could be continuous noise monitoring at the closest sensitive receptors. Officers explained that there was a requirement for a noise management plan to be submitted and approved which would set limits for normal and temporary noise, monitoring and mitigation. Officers proposed that wording be added to the management plan to include continuous noise monitoring where required. The Member agreed and asked that the wording include reference to the community liaison group.

8.    A Member asked whether the route for HGVs when leaving the site could be conditioned to ensure compliance. Officers explained that it was not normal practice to require the applicant to provide full details on a HGVs route to their next destination.

9.    Members noted details of the lease agreement for the site.

10.  Members stated that they were unaware of any discussion related to moving goods from the site via rail.

11.  In regard to the proximity to neighbouring properties and the impacts of noise, officers explained that the noise management plan would set limits to noise from normal day-to-day operations with monitoring and mitigation procedures. It was further noted that the management plan would include detail of a complaints procedure and could be used to seek to resolved noise related issues. Officers further added that wording could be included within the noise management plan related to a review period to consider suitability and whether it was fit for purpose. This was agreed.

12.  The Chairman moved the updated recommendation which received unanimous support. 

Actions / Further information to be provided:

None.

Resolved:

The Committee approved the conditions as proposed by the applicant, with modifications and additional conditions as set out in Column 2 of “The Table of

Conditions” and informatives subject to the prior approval of a Heads of Terms Legal

Agreement to secure: a) for a 25 year Landscape and Ecological Management Plan and b) a 25 year Management of Geological Conservation Agreement and C) the establishment and maintenance of a community liaison group; in respect of land permitted by MO75/1165 dated 30 July 1976. Subject to amendments to conditions and the addition of an informative as noted within these minutes. 

The Committee adjourned between 12:55 – 13:15