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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- A Member asked to
what extent changes in legislation affected biodiversity. The
Planning Group Manager noted that as of the 12th 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%.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.