Agenda item

Purpose of the report:

To update members about progress in preparing the Minerals and Waste Local Plan.

Witnesses:

Matt Furniss, Cabinet Member for Cabinet Member for Highways, Transport and Economic Growth

Marisa Heath, The Cabinet Member for Environment – in person

Katie Stewart, Executive Director for Environment, Infrastructure & Growth

Caroline Smith, Planning Group Manager

Ibrahim Mustafa, Principal Planning policy officer

Key discussions:

1. The Chairman noted that there had been 15 potential sites for mineral and waste management sites but only 1 was shortlisted and queried the reason. The Planning Group Manager said that waste management development was seen as a bad neighbour, and it was difficult to find land for future waste management. It was also up to private landowners to see if they would nominate land for waste management.

2. The Chairman asked what results had been found for the nation-wide call for sites at the end of February 2024 and if witnesses anticipated better success than the first call. The Planning Group Manager said that they were expecting more nominations by the end of the month. The success of a call would depend on the quality of nominations and not the number of nominations. The Principal Planning policy officer said that the call for sites were an exercise that was integral to the planning process.

3. A Member asked how Surrey’s predicted shortfall in waste management capacity compared to other authorities and if there was any scope to share facilities with neighbouring counties whose demands may be less. The Planning Group Manager said that other counties in the South East were also experiencing a short fall. 30% of locally collected waste was sent to Kent from Surrey. Surrey must find sufficient capacity for its own waste although some waste may still have to be dealt with out of County.

4. A Member asked for witnesses to expand on how they were proactively looking to identify land suitable for waste management facilities. The Planning Group Manager noted the Service were in discussions with land management authorities, neighbouring waste management authorities and existing facilities in Surrey to discuss potential for expansion.

5. A Member asked to what extent changes in legislation affected biodiversity. The Planning Group Manager noted that as of the 12^th of February 2024 it was a requirement for sites to have a 10% biodiversity net gain. Many mineral sites were restored to an even better quality than when it was first implemented. The Manager was confident the Council would exceed the expectation of 10%.

6. A Member asked if there were any external factors that would present a challenge of the development of Mineral and Waste Local Plans. The Planning Group Manager identified Government wide management policies, reviews of the Surrey Hills national landscape and Environmental Impact Assessments as external factors. 

7. A Member asked what the implications of the Gatwick incinerator closure would be and what additional pressure this would put on waste facility capacities. The Planning Group Manager said original expansion plan had an expansion of the incinerator, but this had now been scrapped and but was unsure of the scale of impact this would have.

8. A Member asked if Councillors would be alerted to new sites coming to their divisions. The Planning Group Manager said that Members would absolutely be aware when sites were nominated in their areas. New sites would be considered against a long list of impacts and new facilities would be state of the art and expected to comply with planning permission. The Principal Planning policy officer directed Members to the area of report that outlined Member engagement.

9. A Member asked witnesses how confident they were in reaching the revised timetable of the public consultation by June 2025 and how many suitable sites were needed to proceed with the consultation. The Planning Group Manager answered that under the current framework, the Service was confident in reaching the 2025 plan. The exact number of sites would depend on their individual capacity. This would be determined after the call for sites had ended and sites and their capacity were reviewed.

10. A Member asked what the impact of further delays had been to the development of MWLPs.  The Planning Group Manager said that the Service was confident in the level of impact and that the plan would be extended until the end of 2026.

11. A Member asked about the possibility of oil and gas extraction sites.  The Planning Group Manager said oil and gas licences were issued by the North Sea Transitional Authorities and the Council did not have control over them but would expect applications to comply with national framework.

12. A Member asked how consultations and engagement events were planned for specified site options and if the Service would engage Members during the consultation. The Principal Planning policy officer said that specific consultations and events were planned in each District and Borough. They would be in person events and have Q&As with possibilities of online feedback too.

Marissa Heath left at 12:51.

RESOLVED

That the Communities Environment and Highways Select Committee:

1. Notes with concern the ongoing difficulty in identifying suitable land for waste management facilities to bridge the forecast capacity gap in Surrey beyond 2035 and the further additional ‘call for sites’ underway and applauds the efforts that are being made.

2. Urges the Service to prioritise proactive discussions with Surrey’s LPAs and other partners to identify suitable land and/or alternative ways of increasing capacity at existing suitable sites through expansion, diversification or improvement or use of facilities in neighbouring counties.

3. Commends the project management approach and the detailed communication and engagement plans which include steps to keep members fully informed during the preferred options consultation; and invites officers to provide an update to the Committee at an appropriate time.