Agenda item

This is an application for the extraction and screening of sand from Mercers South with progressive restoration to agriculture using inert waste materials, together with: the construction of a new dedicated internal access from the A25; screening bunds; the provision of a welfare/office block and mobile home to accommodate staff and security personnel; a wheelwash, weighbridge and associated office; car parking area; reinstatement of rights of way network, woodland, historic hedgerows and ditch to include landscape and ecological enhancements, on a site of 52.2 ha and the temporary diversion of public footpath 173 for the duration of the operations.

The recommendation is to PERMIT subject to conditions.

An update sheet was tabled and is attached as Annex 1.

Declarations of interest:

None

Officers:

Louise Calam, Principal Transport Development Planning Officer

Nicola Downes, Transport Development Planning Officer

Nancy El-Shatoury, Principal Lawyer

Alan Stones, Planning Development Control Team Manager

Speakers:

Dr Sowton, a local resident, made representations in objection to the

application. The points he raised included:

·         He disputed the accuracy of the assertion in paragraph 152 of the officer report that there is no evidence that dust from the sand extraction and emissions from HGV traffic pose an unacceptable risk to health.  He highlighted the published results of international studies which leave no room for doubt about the harm to human health.  For example, a study published this year shows the increased chance of coronary heart disease associated with breathing in particulate matter.

Chris Hoskins, a local resident, made representations in objection to the

application. The points he raised included:

·         He was a chartered civil engineer with expertise in reservoirs.  He was unaware of anyone involved in drawing up the planning application having expertise in reservoirs.  He argued that the proposals were naive and do not adequately acknowledge risk. 

·         The proposal retains Glebe Lake as a resource but allows extraction very close to it.  There have already been flooding incidents, with levels in Glebe Lake overflowing onto farm land and gardens.

The applicant, Peter Crate of J & J Franks addressed the Committee and raised the following points:

·         His company had worked with local residents, councillors and experts in drawing up these proposals.  An examination in public had taken place.  In 2012 further land had been acquired to provide alternative access to the site.

·         The site is needed.  There has been a 40% increase in demand for minerals but there is only one soft sand quarry left in Surrey.  The Mercers Farms site is the biggest contributor to the Surrey Minerals Plan and will help sustain recovery in the South East.

·         While he wasn’t a scientist or an expert in dust and HGV emissions, he had been advised that he levels meets with Government Guidance.  The company had Environmental accreditation and was regularly upgrading vehicles to meet environmental standards.

·         Reservoirs are defined as man-made voids.  The speaker Chris Hoskins had agreed that Glebe Lake was not a reservoir in a letter on the application.  Glebe Lake is a key part of the site and will be actively managed during site operations.  As the quarry approaches Glebe Lake, new measures will be put in place based on technical advice. 

The local Member, Helena Windsor addressed the committee and raised the

following points:

·         The application was being considered on a date when many people are away on holiday.  Two Parish Councils had requested an adjournment but this had not been granted. 

·         The report shows the Nutfield Marsh Residents Group as having had no comment but they had commented by the deadline. 

·         The village to the east of the site would continue to be blighted even with an alternative access route in place.  While the access route would bypass Godstone Village (a historic village), it would go east through Bletchingley which has a number of listed buildings and the Godstone Triangle.  She queried if there was enough information about the size and weight of the HGVs and the impact on local residents.  She also asked if any work had been done to look at other alternatives. 

·         Sutton and East Surrey Water plc continue to voice concerns about hydrology impacts.  This had been consistently raised throughout the public inquiry. 

Key points raised during the discussion:

1.    The Planning Development Control Team Manager introduced the report and stressed that the application was for planning permission for a temporary period.  In response to technical concerns which had been raised, the Planning Development Control Team Manager highlighted that there had been no objections from the council’s technical consultants or the Environment Agency, subject to certain conditions being in place.  He reminded the committee that it should assume that other regulatory regimes are working correctly and that sufficient controls will be in place.

2.    The Chairman informed observers that the committee had undertaken a site visit to Mercer South and that this had been well-attended.

3.    A Member highlighted the environmental impact of quarrying and that sustainable impacts should be a golden thread through all plans. 

4.    It was commented that HGV traffic from the site was previously expected to travel along Nutfield Marsh Road and Cormongers Lane, and Cormongers Lane joins the A25 where the speed limit is 30mph.  The proposed new access that is to be constructed from the site will join the A25 where the speed limit is 40mph.  So it was questioned whether the new access would be safer because of the higher speed limit at this point.  The Transport Development Planning Officer responded that a speed survey has been carried out along the A25 in the location of the new access, and the visibility splays at the new access have been designed in accordance with the 85th percentile speeds recorded during the survey.  The proposed access is therefore considered to be safe and appropriate for the speed of traffic along this section of the A25.  The Chairman suggested that speed limits should be considered at the local committee.

5.    It was suggested that Phase 4 could be refused as this brings the travelling dust within reach of the nearest residents. The Planning Development Control Team Manager highlighted a proposed pre-commencement condition to set up a dust monitoring scheme.  This will pick up both nuisance dust and dust which has an impact on health.  This will lead to an Action Plan which can be tweaked over time.  It will be a living document and set up controls on dust.

6.    A Member suggested that in a letter at the beginning of July, the Environment Agency had maintained an objection.  He queried whether this was withdrawn.  He also highlighted the objections of Sutton and East Surrey Water plc.  The Planning Development Control Team Manager confirmed that the Environment Agency has no objection to the proposal.  The letter from February which was acknowledged as received by Tandridge District Council on 3 July was just asking for clarification.  He said that the committee should note the concerns of the water company but stressed that the key test was the views of the Environment Agency, as this is the statutory consultee.  This was backed by the Planning Inspector at the Public Inquiry.

7.    Officers confirmed that residents do not have a right to a view.

8.    It was suggested that Tandridge District Council be asked to monitor pollution across a wider area to assure residents about pollution levels and the impact to health.  The Planning Development Control Team Manager explained that borough and district councils interpret their responsibilities with regard to environmental health differently.

9.    A Member suggested that a liaison group be set up between the applicant and local residents.  The Planning Development Control Team Manager stated that liaison group would be expected for a site of this size.  It cannot be conditioned but is recommended in the Statement of Community Involvement. 

10.The Planning Development Control Team Manager confirmed that the planning application was for a time-limited period.  The end date was 2036. 

11.A member of the committee described the application as exemplary and highlighted that the long term average concentration of PM₁₀ is well below the long-term Air Quality Strategy objective.  He pointed out that throughout Surrey there was extraction of minerals and traffic.  The pollution should be judged against the background pollution and the site is adjacent to a highway.

12.It was pointed out that an alternative route would be the Haul Road from the M25 but this would also attract many objections.  It was also highlighted that the A25 was the major road out of the south west before the M25 was built and therefore can handle the proposed increase in traffic.  Another Member pointed out that the M25 was built because the A25 was felt to be inadequate.  Road designations cannot be set in stone.

13.A Member queried what would happen if monitors were to show an excessive amount of dust and pollution which is hazardous to health.  The Planning Development Control Team Manager explained that the monitoring scheme specifies where the apparatus would be located and how data should be collected.  An action plan would be created, eg to include a requirement to keep the haul road wet.  Standards would be set eg on how many times the limit could be exceeded within a year.  The action plan would be amended as the development progresses.  This is a retrospective control but it gathers a collective body of information over time.

14.A Member reminded the committee that generally it was encouraged not to look at the big picture with regard to planning applications although there was a lot of discussion with regard to the contribution of this site to the Minerals Plan.  However, he agreed that the application was of a better quality than many others he had experience of.

15.Planning Condition 8 with regard to allowing an average of 150 HGV movements per day, not exceeding 240 movements on a single day was queried.  It was suggested that the movements be limited to no more than 150 on a single day.  The Chairman responded that it was normal practice to condition average movements but allow for peaks.  The Transport Development Planning Officer confirmed that seasonal activity would result in more or less movements at different times of the year.  The Planning Development Control Team Manager informed the committee that the Planning Inquiry had agreed with the limits being proposed and it would be unreasonable to put further limits on. 

16.The Chairman addressed the concern expressed about the timing f the committee meeting.  He explained at it was coincidence that it had come to the meeting at the end of July and that all applications were brought to committee as soon as possible following the end f the public consultation.  He also highlighted the Update Sheet which addressed late representations.

Actions/Further information to be provided:

None

RESOLVED:

That the application be PERMITTED subject to conditions, for the reasons stated in the report.