Agenda item

Retention of a materials recycling facility including a building for the bulking up and processing of mixed skip waste, an office / welfare facility, storage units, skip storage, entrance gates and installation of an acoustic fence (part retrospective).

Officers:

David Maxwell, Senior Planning Policy Officer

Officer Introduction:

1. The Senior Planning Policy Officer introduced the report and provided Members with a brief overview. Members noted that the application was for the retention of a materials recycling facility including a building for the bulking up and processing of mixed skip waste, an office / welfare facility, storage units, skip storage, entrance gates and installation of an acoustic fence (part retrospective). Members further noted two corrections for the report which were that the site was 170m west of Dorking West Station, rather than east, and, within reason for refusal ‘5’, ‘to the satisfaction of the Environment Agency’ should be deleted. Full details of the application were outlined within the published report.

Speakers:

Emily Hall spoke on behalf of the applicant and made the following comments:

1. That the proposal sought to retain the existing materials recycling facility whilst at the same time proposed an acoustic fence and appropriate parking and cycle storage.
2. That the site was used to sought recycling materials including C, D and E waste and household waste.
3. That support was received from the minerals and waste policy team who had identified a shortfall in management capacity for the waste outlined above.
4. That the proposal would increase existing recycling capacity in Surrey contributing to the waste management requirements.
5. That the proposal would provide employment for nine full-time staff Members.
6. Provided a brief overview of the history and location of the site.
7. That the Landscape Officer had confirmed that the proposal would respect the quality and character of the landscape and would not result in an unacceptable level of harm.
8. That the site generated traffic would not pass by the nearby primary school.
9. That pedestrian safety was a priority for the site and that Heavy Goods Vehicle (HGV) movements would be kept to a minimum with all deliveries to be pre-booked and have allocated arrival times.
10.  That the council’s air quality consultant had confirmed that the proposal would represent appropriate use of the land and the impacts on the surrounding area would not be significant.
11. That the preparation of a Dust Management Plan had been recommended and in connection with this it was recommended that a sprinkler system is installed on site and that any further details could be secured by condition. A condition could also be imposed to ensure the maintenance of the existing tarpaulin fence to prevent dust for escaping the site,
12. Noted detail of the noise impact assessment.
13. Noted detail related to surface water and flooding mitigation.

A Member of the Committee requested more detail on the previously developed land. Members noted that the land was previously a skip hire site.

A Member of the Committee noted that the Environment Agency previously provided a permit for the Materials Recycling Facilities (MRF) in April 2022 that did not include any mechanical handling however mechanical handling was present on site. The Member asked for detail on the applicant’s proposal to deal with this issue. The applicant’s agent stated that the intention was to contact the Environment Agency once planning permission was granted to resolve the appropriate licencing.

The Local Member, Hazel Watson, made the following comments:

1. That she objected to the planning application and requested that the committee refuse as the site contained an unauthorised waste materials recovery facility and the proposal involved the importation of up to 7,500 tonnes per annum of skip waste material and the site would generate 50 HGV movements per day.
2. That a large number of objections had been received from local residents.
3. That the site for the facility was inappropriately located close to a primary school, a resident caravan site and a sound school. There was a safety risk for children when walking or cycling to school with HGVs entering and exiting the access track from Ranmore Road. There was also a safety risk for walkers and cyclist accessing the sound school, caravan site, allotments, community orchard, BMX track and the National Trust fields.
4. That the County Highways Authority objected to the application.
5. That there were concerns related to dust and noise from the site.
6. That SES Water had advised that the site was close to a number of Dorking bore holes and that the site’s activities had the potential to impact on the water abstracted for drinking water.
7. That the application was inappropriate development in the Green Belt.

A Member of the Committee asked the Local Member if she was aware of any enforcement activities in relation to the site. The Local Member stated that she would defer to officers for this information as she was not aware. Officers stated that enforcement issues were not a matter for the committee to consider.

A Member of the Committee asked the Local Member whether she was aware of any pedestrian safety issues related to the site. The Local Member stated that she believed there was an incident relating to a school child on Ranmore Road. It was further stated that the Highways Officers stated that the highways issues could not be mitigated.

Key points raised during the discussion:

1. A Member of the committee thanked officers for organising a Member visit to the site. The Member further added that they believed the site layout to be very confusing and said that they did not feel the fencing would mitigate the noise and air pollution impacts. The Member concluded by stating that they were against the proposal.
2. A Member stated that the site was obviously previously developed and that there was a need to deal with waste in Surrey. The Member further stated that the council had a responsibility to employment and businesses in Surrey and that the site would meet both of those objectives. The Member stated that, overall, it was difficult to accept the officer’s conclusions however noted the issues related to the local roads and transport. The Member stated that they would be minded to approve the application.
3. A Member stated that they felt the officer’s conclusions were clear and that he agreed with the points related to highways safety, pollution issues and dust and noise issues. The Member asked for clarification on whether the access was to the east of the site. Officers confirmed that there was a northern and southern access point. The northern access is the school access and is the only access that the applicant had demonstrated to have adequate visibility. The southern access did not have adequate visibility.
4. A Member stated that they agreed with the officers conclusion and that she understood the highways objection.
5. Members noted that that the application was for 7,500 tonnes of waste per year.
6. A Member felt that the officer’s report was balanced and that they agreed with the officer’s conclusion.
7. The Chairman moved the officer’s recommendation to refuse planning permission which received 10 votes for, 1 against, and no abstentions.

Actions / Further information to be provided:

None.

Resolved:

The Planning and Regulatory Committee refused planning permission for the following reasons:

1. The proposed development, which is partially located in the Metropolitan Green Belt, constitutes inappropriate development by definition. The use of this Green Belt land to provide access to the site would not preserve openness. Insufficient very special circumstances are considered to exist to outweigh the harm by reason of inappropriateness, and other identified harm. The proposal is therefore contrary to paragraphs 152 and 153 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2023, Policy 9 of the Surrey Waste Local Plan 2020 and Policy EN1 of the draft Mole Valley Local Plan 2021.

2. It has not been demonstrated that there is safe and adequate means of access to the highway network, that the development is or can be made compatible with the transport infrastructure and the environmental character in the area and that vehicle movements would have an acceptable impact on highway safety contrary to the requirements of Policy 15 of the Surrey Waste Local Plan 2020, Policy CS18 of the Mole Valley Core Strategy 2009, ‘saved’ Policy MOV2 of the Mole Valley Local Plan 2000 and Policy INF1 of the draft Mole Valley Local Plan 2021.

3. It has not been demonstrated that the application would have an acceptable impact on communities and the environment in respect of public amenity and safety in relation to the impacts caused by dust, fumes and air quality and that the adverse impacts caused by dust will be mitigated or avoided contrary to the requirements of Policy 14 of the Surrey Waste Local Plan 2020 and Policy EN12 of the draft Mole Valley Local Plan 2021.

4. It has not been demonstrated that the application would have an acceptable impact on communities and the environment in respect of public amenity and safety in relation to impacts caused by noise or that the impacts on existing noise-sensitive uses can be acceptably mitigated, contrary to the requirements of Policy 14 of the Surrey Waste Local Plan 2020 and Policy EN12 of the draft Mole Valley Local Plan 2021.

5. It has not been demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Environment Agency that the application would have an acceptable impact on communities and the environment in respect of public amenity and safety in relation to the impact on the water environment including impacts on the quality of ground water resources and drinking water supplies resulting from the release of contaminated run-off from the site contrary to the requirements of Policy 14 of the Surrey Waste Local Plan 2020, ‘saved’ Policy ENV67 of the Mole Valley Local Plan 2000 and policies EN12 and INF3 of the draft Mole Valley Local Plan 2021.