Officers:
Dawn Horton-Baker, Planning
Development Team Leader
James Lehahe, Principal Transport Development Planning
Officer
Officer Introduction:
- The Planning Development Team Leader
introduced the report and update sheet and provided Members with a
brief overview. Members noted that the application was for the
demolition of existing crematorium buildings and removal of storage
containers, temporary cabin and temporary cold store; and the
construction of a new crematorium building incorporating chapels of
rest, cremation hall and space for storage containers within
storage yard, relocation of existing waste transfer facilities for
hazardous and non-hazardous waste; and associated landscaping. Full
details were included in the published report.
Speakers:
The Local Member, Tim Oliver,
made the following comments:
- Noted that, as Leader
of the Council, he was an ex officio of the Committee
(non-voting).
- That he was strongly
opposed to the application.
- That the site was
within the Metropolitan Green Belt and that applications should not
be approved except in very special circumstances.
- That the reasons
provided in the report within paragraph 90 were
inadequate
- That paragraph 57
onwards of the report set out clearly all the reasons why the
application breaches Policy 9 of the Surrey Waste Local Plan, the
Elmbridge Core Strategy 2011 and the Elmbridge Local Development
Management Plan Policy DM17.
- Noted that the
Elmbridge Local Plan was under inspection and included strong
protection for the green belt.
- The proposed
buildings were larger in scale, mass and volume than the existing
development.
- That Planning
Officers accepted that the proposal would give rise to a loss of
openness to the Green Belt, on both space and visual grounds, and
would therefore cause harm to the green belt.
- That the proposed
development was a significant industrial operation and would cause
considerable harm by its impact on the openness of the Green Belt
and would therefore be inappropriate development and does not meet
the test of very special circumstances.
A Member of the Committee asked
the Local Member for his view on other major developments in the
green belt on previously developed land. The Local Member stated
that he strongly opposed any development on the green
belt.
A Member of the Committee asked
the Local Member to elaborate on his definition of the ‘need
for business’ and why he felt that it had not been met. The
Local Member stated that there was an existing operation which had
received permission however this was different from an expansion
for commercial reasons and that he did not see it as a
justification for intensifying the site to generate a greater
profit.
Mark Ashman spoke in objection
to the application and made the following comments:
- Stated that, without
the waste element, the application would have been determined by
Elmbridge Borough Council. It was noted that Elmbridge Borough
Council had rejected both the current and previous applications on
the grounds of inappropriate development. In the Green Belt and
found no very special circumstances.
- That he had expected
the Planning Officer to reach the same conclusion as Elmbridge
Borough Council.
- That the proposal did
not meet some aspects of national planning guidance, Surrey County
Council guidance and the policies of the Elmbridge Development
Plan.
- That the proposed
development was inappropriate in the Green Belt due to its
scale.
- That the applicant
was not a local business but part of a multinational company with
an annual turnover of £603 Million.
- That reasons of
commercial growth were not in themselves considered to be very
special circumstances.
- That the application
was not an upgrade to cater for local needs but instead to grow the
site as a regional hub.
- That, if agreed,
councillors would be agreeing to an industrial scale facility
operating on Green Belt land for 17 hours a day six days a week to
satisfy a regional need.
- That the application
would lead to a vast increase in emissions and further traffic
congestion.
- That several hundred
residents had written to object and 1424 residents had signed a
petition to say no to the application.
A Member of the Committee asked
the objector to clarify their view on local need compared to
national need. The objector stated that there were three other
equine incinerators within 40 kilometres and that he did not buy
into the need for Silvermere Haven to
provide additional equine facilities.
Peter Harman spoke in objection
to the application and made the following comments:
- That Elmbridge
Borough Council had objected to the application as in their opinion
it breaches policies protecting the green belt.
- That the application
failed to demonstrate the very special circumstances required to
consider building within the green belt.
- That a report
produced by ARUP classified the Green Belt into three categories
for the purpose of the Elmbridge Local Plan and that this area was
identified as strong and should not be released under any
circumstances.
- That they had failed
to recognise Policy DM18.
- That the proposed
development would be much larger in scale, mass and volume than the
existing development and would result in intensification of the use
of the site, would result in a material larger building than the
one it replaces and would have a greater impact on the openness of
the Green Belt than the existing development.
The objector provided further
detail on Policy DM18.
Jeff Hilliard spoke in
objection to the application and made the following
comments:
- That the pet cemetery
clearly needed to be updated but had submitted an objection due to
scale and degree.
- That the excessive
increase in scale and consequential harm hinged on equine
incineration and whether there was a local need.
- That there were
several existing equine incineration facilities available close to
Surrey’s borders.
- That CVS was a
massive company who had engaged highly skilled advisors to promote
their case.
- That all aspects of
the facility needed to be larger to handle a typical 500kg
horse.
- That equine was the
only very special circumstance to justify the scale of the
redevelopment. The other points could be achieved on a smaller
scale and without an impact on existing operating
hours.
- That the proposed
operating hours were unreasonable and needed to be restricted to
Monday – Friday until 6pm.
Members received further detail
on the operating hours of Silvermere
Golf Course.
Steve Twomey spoke on behalf of
the applicant and made the following comments:
- Provided an overview
of the applicant, CVS, and noted that it was one of the leading
veterinary’s in the United Kingdom with over 500 veterinary
practices and focused on recommending and providing the best
clinical care.
- That it was important
to CVS to offer a suitable crematoria service that was able to
provide and act with the same level of care and
compassion.
- That CVS was
investing heavily across the company.
- That Silvermere Haven had been operating at the existing
site for over 47 years and their ambition was to retain a
state-of-the-art facility.
- That the proposed
redevelopment would allow CVS to provide a vitally important and
dignified service for all owners when their pet reaches the end of
life.
- That demand for the
individualised cremation had grown immensely which was putting
strain on the existing site.
- That a growing number
of horse owners considered their horses to be their pets and the
proposal would mean that owners would not need to travel outside
the county for a suitable service.
- That CVS did not
envisage horse cremation to become a large part of the
business.
- That CVS took their
responsibility seriously and considered the impact on people,
public health, animals and the environment.
- That CVS had set
important targets to reduce their environmental footprint and that
this was the reason why they planned to make a number of
environmental and sustainability improvements on site.
- That the new cremator
would have improved emission control and system management which
would allow CVS to reduce the environmental impact of the site. It
was further noted that the waste collected would be stored
internally.
- That CVS operated
within permitted guidelines.
- Provided a brief
overview of the proposals.
A Member of the Committee noted
that the proposed operating hours were 6:00 – 23:00 six days
a week. Members further noted details related to the proposed
lighting on site.
A Member stated that they were
concerned with the staff working conditions and the condition of
the chapel of rest. The applicant confirmed that improvements were
ongoing and that an updated kitchen for staff had been
agreed.
Key
points raised during the discussion:
- The Principal
Transport Development Planning Officer provided Members with detail
on the points necessary to justify and sustain a highways
objection. This included a demonstrable, significant or severe
impact on safety or capacity. In terms of capacity, the A245 in the
sites location had an average of over 27,000 movements per day and
that the minor additional movements due to the proposals would not
make a noticeable impact to the wider capacity. Members further
noted the proposal to have an internal loop on site to allow large
vehicles to turn on site.
- Officers highlighted
the proposed operation hours as noted within Condition
31.
- Members noted an
overview of the waste needs of the site.
- Members noted that
the existing site had four cremators which included two single
cremators, a double chamber and an eight chamber cremator. The
proposal was for three cremators which included a four chamber, an
eight chamber and a larger chamber to enable the cremation of
horses but was not specifically for the use of horses. The officer
added that the intention of the applicant was for the facility to
be used for horses kept as pets rather than farm or working horses.
The officer further added that they did not believe the proposals
to be an intensification of use because the vehicle increases
arising would be a maximum of two per day.
- Members noted that
the applicant’s licence would allow for the cremation of
horses and not other farm animals. A
Member stated that they were unsure why a change in licence to
allow horse cremation was not considered as a ‘change in
use’ by officers. Officers stated that there were a number of
factors, as set out in the report, that officers view to be very
special circumstances.
- A Member stated that
they did not believe commercial expansion to be a very special
circumstance.
- Officers highlighted
that the proposed cremators would be more automatic and so would
not likely require an engineer onsite. This would likely lead to a
reduction of people needed on site.
- The Chairman
summarised the debate and stated that he was unsure whether very
special circumstances had been proven. Further to this, the need to
improve the facilities was acknowledged by the
Chairman.
- A Member said that
they were unable to support the proposal due to the impact on the
openness of the Green Belt, local policy and the intensification of
the use in the Green Belt.
- A Member noted that
the existing arrangements on site did not satisfactorily
accommodate its use, and the environmental improvements proposed.
It was also noted that the proposals would make the cremations more
efficient and environmentally friendly going into the future. The
Member stated that they accepted that very special circumstances
had been demonstrated and that they were minded to vote for the
application.
- A Member said that
there was a high bar in relation to very special circumstances and
that he was concerned with the size, mass and volume of the
proposal and was therefore minded to vote against the
application.
- A Member stated that
the nature of the applicant was not relevant and that they were
minded to vote for the application due to the land being previously
developed and in use for over 40 years. The Member added that there
were a number examples of other redevelopments in the
area.
- The Chairman moved
the recommendation which received two votes for, nine against, and
zero abstentions.
- The Chairman and
officers summarised that the reasons for refusal discussed during
the committee’s debate were related to the increase in scale,
volume and mass of the building, that it was an inappropriate
development in the Green Belt and would have an impact upon the
openness of the greenbelt, and that Members were not persuaded that
very special circumstances exist to outweigh the substantial harm
to the Green Belt and would therefore me contrary to the National
Planning Policy Framework and Local Plan policy. The Chairman moved
a vote on the reasons for refusal which received 9 votes for, two
against and zero abstentions. The Chairman noted that officers, in
conjunction with the Chairman and Vice-Chairman, would finalise the
final wording of the reasons for refusal.
Actions / Further information to be provided:
None.
Resolved:
The Committee refused the application due to
the increase in scale, volume and mass of the building, that it was
an inappropriate development in the Green Belt and would have an
impact upon the openness of the greenbelt, and that Members were
not persuaded that very special circumstances exist to outweigh the
substantial harm to the Green Belt and would therefore me contrary
to the National Planning Policy Framework and Local Plan
policy.
The Chairman noted that
officers, in conjunction with the Chairman and Vice-Chairman, would
finalise the final wording of the reasons for refusal outside the
meeting.