Item 12 - Surrey...Government guidance (Circular 02/99) on EIA (50,000 tonnes per annum of waste for...

TO: PLANNING & REGULATORY COMMITTEE DATE: 24 April 2013

BY: PLANNING DEVELOPMENT CONTROL TEAM

MANAGER

DISTRICT(S) RUNNYMEDE BOROUGH COUNCIL ELECTORAL DIVISION(S):

Egham Hythe & Thorpe

Ms Lay

PURPOSE: FOR DECISION GRID REF: 503198 169070

TITLE:

MINERALS AND WASTE APPLICATION RU.12/0870

SUMMARY REPORT

Land north of Norlands Lane, Thorpe, Egham, Surrey

Retention of office, weighbridge, wheel wash, switch room and concrete apron until 31

December 2015 and use of them in connection with the backfilling with inert material and

restoration to agriculture on the land north of Coldharbour Lane.

This application has been submitted concurrently with planning application RU12/0872 which is

for continued infilling at Coldharbour Lane landfill. An overarching Environmental Statement

accompanies both planning applications.

The Norlands Lane and Coldharbour Lane mineral and landfill sites lie next door to each other at

Thorpe and share a common access which is a dedicated haul road from Chertsey Lane (A320)

to Norlands Lane. Both sites lie within the Green Belt. Norlands Lane landfill site has an

extensive planning history dating from the 1960’s. As part of mineral and landfilling activities at

the site plant, equipment and hardstanding were all installed as ancillary to the workings.

Norlands Lane landfill site has now been restored and is in aftercare. Whilst mineral working at

the adjoining Coldharbour Lane site has ceased and all associated plant and equipment for

mineral extraction has been removed, infilling of Coldharbour Lane landfill site with inert waste

to facilitate the restoration of that site is still continuing.

In 2007 planning permission was granted (ref: RU07/0987) to enable the retention of the

remaining elements of the Norlands Lane buildings and infrastructure adjoining the common

access road at the entrance to the site in connection with the infilling and restoration of

Coldharbour Lane landfill for the duration of activities at Coldharbour Lane landfill which at that

time was until December 2010.

Item 12

77

However since that time the applicant has stated that the rates of infilling at Coldharbour Lane

landfill have fallen considerably and have resulted in a delay to the completion of filling and

restoration at Coldharbour Lane. The applicant is now seeking an extension of time until

December 2015 to complete infilling and restoration of the Coldharbour Lane landfill site. To

facilitate this, the applicant also needs the buildings and infrastructure located on land at

Norlands Lane landfill to remain on site for this proposed duration as ancillary structures to the

infilling and restoration of a mineral site. Officers are aware there has been some considerable

delay in the consideration of this application and application ref: RU12/0872 following the

expiration of planning permission in December 2010. More detail of this is set out in the main

body of the report however this has mainly been due to procedural matters.

This application was due to be reported to the 6 February 2013 Planning and Regulatory

Committee but was withdrawn. This was at the applicants request as it became apparent that

the vehicle numbers presented within the Planning Statement and Environmental Statement

(dated July 2012) were an incorrect representation of what Heavy Goods Vehicle (HGV)

movements had been entering/ egressing the application site being higher than that presented.

The County Planning Authority and County Highway Authority subsequently requested under

Regulation 22 of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment)

Regulations 2011 the applicant submit a Transportation Statement as an appendix to the

overarching Environmental Statement assessing the implications of a higher HGV figure on the

public highway. The applicant submitted a Transport Statement in March 2013 and this

underwent consultation. The County Highway Authority having reviewed the Transport

Statement have raised no objection subject to a condition restricting vehicle movements to the

site on a weekly basis.

Officers consider that the continual use of the existing buildings and infrastructure should have

no significant adverse impact on the local environment and on local amenity, subject to the

imposition of appropriate conditions. Highway works and measures to safeguard the highway

are already in place and no increases in traffic levels result from the proposals in the application.

With regard to the site’s position within the Green Belt, Officers recognise the proposal harms

openness to the Green Belt as the proposal retains on site physical structures that are not listed

in the NPPF as being appropriate or being associated with agricultural activities. Whilst Officers

recognise the application elements harm openness, the structures and plant are a necessary

component to assist in facilitating the restoration involving infilling with imported waste material

of Coldharbour Lane in the form of being the access into the site alongside the weighbridge and

wheel wash. Officers consider the development is not inappropriate development as the

proposal is ancillary to the restoration of a mineral working such that the restored landform does

not conflict with the purposes of including land in the Green Belt and preserves openness. No

letters of representation have been received for this planning application. The Thorpe Ward

Residents Association have raised concerns with regard to the delay in the restoration of

Coldharbour Lane.

The recommendation is, subject to the prior completion of a S106 planning obligation, to

PERMIT subject to conditions.

Page 178

APPLICATION DETAILS

Applicant

Cemex UK Operations Ltd

Date application valid

14 August 2012

Period for Determination

4 December 2012

Amending Documents

Letter dated 14 November 2012 and accompanying restoration and aftercare scheme dated

2012 and Plan P4/193/33, email dated 14 November 2012; Outline Restoration and Five Year

Aftercare Scheme for the Access Road dated January 2013 and accompanying plans P4/193/34

“Haul Route Restoration Detail” and L/FE/25 “Field Gate 3.6m Wide”, letter dated 22 January

2013; letter dated 18 March 2013 and accompanying Transport Statement.

SUMMARY OF PLANNING ISSUES

This section identifies and summarises the main planning issues in the report. The full text

should be considered before the meeting.

Is this aspect of the

proposal in accordance with

the development plan?

Paragraphs in the report

where this has been

discussed

Green Belt Yes 39 – 46

Environment and Amenity Yes 47 – 56

Page 179

Traffic and Access Yes 57 - 64

ILLUSTRATIVE MATERIAL

Site Plan

Plan

Aerial Photographs

Aerial

Site Photographs

Photograph 1: Access road into the site

Photograph 2: Concrete bays within the site

Photograph 3: Weighbridge and site office

BACKGROUND

Site Description

1. The application site is the southern extent of the former Norlands Lane landfill site

immediately abutting Norlands Lane to the south. Aside from the road to the south, the

application site is surrounded on all other sides by the former landfill. The application site

is located approximately 2km south east of Egham and 2km south west of Staines and

lies to the north east of Thorpe Village. The application site lies within the Metropolitan

Green Belt. The Thorpe Hay Meadow Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) lies

approximately 680m north east and the River Thames Site of Nature Conservation

Interest (SNCI) lies approximately 950m to the east. Approximately 200m to the south of

the application site beyond the village of Thorpe lies the Thorpe Park No. 1 Gravel Pit

SSSI and Special Protection Area (SPA) covering St Ann’s Lake. The eastern edge of

Page 180

the Thorpe Village Conservation Area lies approximately 20m to the west. Coldharbour

Lane landfill is situated approximately 160m to the west.

2. The access road serving Coldharbour Lane landfill runs through the application site in a

north/ south direction towards the A320 Chertsey Lane/ Staines Road. The application

site has an area of approximately 0.67 hectares. The application site comprises of an

area of concrete hardstanding, concrete bays, office, a weighbridge, wheel wash and

perimeter gates.

Planning History

3. Norlands Lane quarry and landfill has a long planning history. Planning permission was

granted to extract sand and gravel from land north of Norlands Lane and south of Green

Lane in the 1960’s and 1970’s. Planning permission to infill the mineral void space with

predominantly household, commercial and inert waste was granted in the early 1980’s.

Landfilling took place from this point and was completed by the early 2000’s. In March

1999 an application (Ref: RU99/0288) was submitted to merge the Coldharbour Lane

site with the Norlands Lane landfill to the east resulting in a comprehensive restoration

over some 54 hectares. Permission was refused in February 2000 and a subsequent

appeal dismissed in 2003 mainly due to concerns over odour. Restoration of the site was

completed in 2003 and seeding completed in 2004. Aftercare for the site commenced in

2005 in which the site is used for light grazing and/ or hay production. There is a pro-

active gas management system linked to generators that utilises the gas produced within

the landfill to generate electricity.

4. The most recent and relevant planning permissions for this site include:

• Planning permission ref: RU07/0987 was granted in November 2007 for the retention of

office, weighbridge, wheel wash, switch room, and concrete apron until 31 December

2010 and the use of them in connection with the backfilling of Coldharbour Lane landfill

with inert waste

• Planning permission ref: RU03/1270 was granted in February 2004 for a variation of

Condition 3 of planning permission ref: RU93/0032 to allow the continued importation of

inert waste and soil for a further period of 12 months and retention of office, weighbridge

and other ancillary items for this period.

• Planning permission ref: RU03/1204 was granted in December 2003 for the installation

of a landfill gas engine for the production of electricity

5. In 2010 two planning applications were submitted to the County Planning Authority

seeking

a) an extension of time for back filling of the mineral void space at Coldharbour Lane landfill

site with inert waste until December 2012 (ref: RU10/0818); and

Page 181

b) retention of the office, weighbridge, wheel wash, switch room and concrete apron until 31

December 2012 in conjunction with the infilling of the landfill site (ref: RU10/0832)

6. Advertising the application, notification of neighbouring residential properties and

consultation with statutory consultees took place in August 2010. On 8 September 2010

the County Environmental Assessment Team adopted a Regulation 7 Screening Opinion

in accordance with the (then) Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact

Assessment (EIA))(England and Wales) Regulations 1999 (now 2011) as no Screening

Opinion had been sought by the applicant from the County Planning Authority prior to the

submission of the planning applications. The Screening Opinion concluded that the two

proposals constituted EIA development as they exceeded the thresholds within the

Government guidance (Circular 02/99) on EIA (50,000 tonnes per annum of waste for

infilling). As such an overarching Environmental Statement was requested from the

applicant.

7. On 22 September 2010 the applicant sought a Screening Direction from the Secretary of

State under Regulation 6 of the EIA Regulations 1999 to make a screening direction on

the matter of whether or not the development as described above is EIA development

within the meaning of the 1999 Regulations. The Secretary of State issued their decision

on 10 November 2010 confirming the proposal was EIA development and that an

Environmental Statement be submitted to accompany the planning application. An

Environmental Statement was submitted in February 2011 and further consultation took

place on this.

8. In March 2011 the applicant submitted a request for a Scoping Opinion under Regulation

10 of the EIA Regulations 1999 and the County Planning Authority issued their Scoping

Opinion on 3 May 2011. The applicant subsequently submitted a revised Environmental

Statement in December 2011. Further information was subsequently requested from the

applicant by the County Planning Authority on the Environmental Statement.

Consequently due to the passage of time and the slow down in filling rates at

Coldharbour Lane landfill, the applicant withdrew both planning applications RU10/0818

and RU10/0832 and resubmitted the two proposals again with a new Environmental

Statement and Planning Statements requesting an extension of time for infilling of

Coldharbour Lane landfill until 31 December 2015 to reflect this.

THE PROPOSAL

9. Coldharbour Lane landfill currently operates using an office, weighbridge, wheel wash,

switch room and concrete apron all located on land which was used in connection with

the former Norlands Lane landfill site. These aspects are ancillary to the operation of

Coldharbour Lane landfill and can be seen in Photograph 3. The applicant seeks

retention of these elements until 31 December 2015 in conjunction with planning

Page 182

application ref: RU12/0872 which is seeking an extension of time for infilling of the void

space at and restoration of Coldharbour Lane landfill. The applicant states that on

cessation of infilling and restoration of Coldharbour Lane landfill all of the elements

outlined above would be removed and the application area, along with the dedicated

internal access route would be restored.

10. Hours of working would remain as those previously used at the site being Monday –

Friday 07:00 – 18:00 hours; and Saturday 07:00 – 13:00 hours with no working on

Sundays, Bank and National Holidays. The applicant has stated that aside from infilling

activities at Coldharbour Lane landfill, no other production processes would take place

on site. The proposal does not seek to alter traffic movements to/ from the site.

CONSULTATIONS AND PUBLICITY

District Council

Runnymede Borough Council

11. - Planning : No objection

12. - Environmental Health : No comments

Consultees (Statutory and Non-Statutory)

13. Health and Safety Executive : No objection

14. BAA Aerodrome Safeguarding : No objection

15. The Environment Agency South East : No objection

16. Natural England : No objection

17. Surrey Wildlife Trust : No comments received

18. Thames Water : No objection

19. Veolia Water Partnership : The site is located within the groundwater

Source Protection Zone (SPZ)

corresponding to Chertsey pumping

station. This is a public water supply. The

construction works and operation of the

proposed development should be done in

accordance with the relevant British

Page 183

Standards and Best Management

Practice to reduce groundwater pollution

risk. If any pollution is found at the site

then the appropriate monitoring and

remediation methods will need to be

undertaken.

20. English Heritage : No objection

21. County Geological Consultant : Can only assume flooding and drainage

dealt with at time of the original

application, through planning conditions

and in the Environmental Permit.

22. County Noise Consultant : No objection

23. County Air Quality Consultant : On the basis that the proposal only

relates to a time extension, there is no

potential air quality effects. No objection.

The recent Transport Statement does not

affect previous advice.

24. County Ecologist : No comments to make

25. Environmental Assessment Team : The Environmental Statement is

compliant with the regulations

26. County Highway Authority : No objection subject to a condition

limiting the number of Heavy Goods

Vehicles accessing the site to no more

than 660 per week with no one day to

exceed 176.

27 Rights of Way : No objection

28 County Archaeologist : No objection

29 County Historical Buildings Officer : No comments made on this application

30. County Landscape Architect : Is satisfied with the restoration scheme

and the haul road restoration scheme

Parish/Town Council and Amenity Groups

31. Thorpe Ward Residents Association : Concerned by delay in restoration

Summary of publicity undertaken and key issues raised by public

Page 184

32. The application was publicised by the posting of three site notices and an advert was

placed in the local newspaper. A total of 44 owner/ occupiers neighbouring properties

were notified. No letters of representation have been received on this application.

Following the receipt of the Transport Statement as amending information, the

application was subsequently published and advertised in accordance with Regulation

22 of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations

2011. This included the posting of three site notices and an advert was placed in the

local newspaper. A total of 44 owner/ occupiers of neighbouring properties were also re-

notified of the amending information. To date no letters of representation have been

received.

PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS

33. The County Council as Waste Planning Authority (for clarity, Officers refer to the County

Council as the County Planning Authority – ‘CPA’ elsewhere in this report) has a duty

under Section 38 (6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and Section

70(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to determine this application in

accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate

otherwise. At present in relation to this application the Development Plan consists of the

Surrey Minerals Plan 2011; the Surrey Waste Local Plan 2008 (SWP 2008), as

amended; and the Runnymede Borough Local Plan 2001 ‘Saved’ Policies.

34. On the 27 March 2012 Government published the National Planning Policy Framework

(NPPF) and Technical Guidance to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF Technical Guidance), which took immediate effect. The NPPF replaces 30 Planning Policy Statements, Planning Policy Guidance Notes, Minerals Policy Statements and Minerals Policy Guidance Notes and related Practice Guides, some Circulars and letters to Chief Planning Officers and constitutes guidance for local planning authorities and decision-takers in relation to decision-taking (determining planning applications) and in preparing plans. Planning Policy Statement 10 (PPS10) Planning for Sustainable Waste Management (re-published March 2011) remains in place and in time will be replaced by national waste planning policy published as part of the National Waste Management Plan.

35. At the heart of the NPPF is a presumption in favour of sustainable development, which

the document states “should be seen as a golden thread running through both plan-making and decision-taking.” The NPPF makes clear the purpose of the planning system is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development, which has three dimensions: economic, social and environmental. These give rise to the need for the planning system to perform a number of mutually dependent roles: an economic role, a social role and an environmental role. The NPPF sets out 12 core land-use planning principles that should underpin both decision-taking and plan making.

36. The NPPF does not change the statutory principle referred to above that determination

of planning applications must be made in accordance with the adopted development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The NPPF is one of those material considerations. The NPPF includes transitional provisions for implementation of the

Page 185

NPPF. For 12 months from the date of publication (27 March 2012) planning authorities can continue to give full weight to relevant policies in adopted development plan documents adopted in accordance with the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 since 2004, even if there is a limited degree of conflict with policy in the NPPF. In other cases and following the 12-month period the weight to be given to policies in the adopted development plan documents should be determined according to their degree of consistency with the NPPF.

37. Runnymede Borough Council currently do not have an adopted Core Strategy or sites

allocation Development Plan Document. Consultation has recently finished on the pre-submission version of the Local Plan. A detailed Local Development Scheme is anticipated to be presented to a forthcoming planning committee and this document will provide dates of the development of the Local Plan Core Strategy as well as other documents. In circumstances where a development plan is being prepared or undergoing review, it may be justifiable to refuse planning permission on the grounds of prematurity where to grant planning permission would prejudice the outcome of the plan process and predetermine decisions on scale, location or phasing of development proposals which should be made in the context of the development plan. Officers do not consider that the proposal prejudices the emerging LDF Core Strategy, due to the scale and location of the facility.

38. In assessing the application against development plan policy it will be necessary to

determine whether the proposed measures for mitigating any environmental impact of the development are satisfactory. Key issues to consider include Green Belt, access and the impact from traffic generated by the proposal, the impact on local amenity and the environment in terms of landscape, noise, visual impact, dust and flood risk.

GREEN BELT

Surrey Minerals Plan Core Strategy 2011

Policy MC3 – Spatial strategy – mineral development in the Green Belt

Policy MC17 – Restoring mineral workings

Policy MC18 - Restoration and enhancement

Runnymede Borough Local Plan 2001

Policy GB1 – Development within the Green Belt

39. Norlands Lane landfill site lies within the Green Belt where policies of restraint apply.

Government guidance on Green Belt is set out within the NPPF which states at para 79

that “the fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land

permanently open; the essential characteristics of Green belts are their openness and

their permanence”. Para 80 of the NPPF sets out the five purposes of the Green Belt of

which assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment is the most relevant to

this application. There is a presumption against development other than for a small

range of uses deemed to be compatible with the objectives of the Green Belt. Paragraph

90 of the NPPF states that certain forms of development are not inappropriate

development in the Green Belt provided they preserve the openness of the Green Belt

and do not conflict with the purposes of including land in Green Belt. This includes

mineral extraction.

Page 186

40. Policy MC3 of the Surrey Minerals Plan Core Strategy 2011 refers to mineral extraction

but also states that proposals in the Green Belt for mineral development other than

extraction and primary treatment, will only be permitted where the applicant has

demonstrated that very special circumstances exist to outweigh the harm by reason of

inappropriateness and any other harm. Whilst there are no policies within the Surrey

Waste Plan 2008 that are relevant to this proposal in terms of Green Belt, paragraph B46

of the Surrey Waste Plan 2008 recognises that minerals can be worked “only where they

are found” and that mineral working need not be inappropriate development provided

“that high environmental standards are maintained and that the site is well restored”. The

paragraph goes on to state that landfill is most often the means to that restoration and

that “neither landfill nor landraising activities need conflict with the purposes of including

land in the Green Belt. Both can play a positive role in the objectives of the Green Belt:

the after use of a site may provide the opportunities for access to restored open

countryside or improve damaged land around a town”.

41. Policy GB1 of the Runnymede Borough Local Plan contains a strong presumption

against development that would conflict with the purposes of the Green Belt or adversely

affect its open character.

42. Officers recognise the proposal harms openness to the Green Belt as the proposal

retains on site physical structures that are not listed in the NPPF as being appropriate or

being associated with agricultural activities. The structures, hardstanding, buildings and

equipment harm Green Belt openness. However, these are there as they are directly

linked, and are ancillary to, the restoration of the adjoining landfill and by their nature are

temporary. Officers consider that all elements are necessary to facilitate the restoration

and cannot be located elsewhere outside of the Green Belt given the extent of the Green

Belt in the area and the need for the facilitates to be located in close proximity to the

activities they relate to. Without the structures, hardstanding, buildings and equipment at

the application site, restoration of Coldharbour Lane landfill would be unachievable.

Officers are satisfied that the structures and plant are the minimum required to facilitate

restoration and there are no elements surplus to requirements. The retention of these

remaining facilities would remove the need to provide them elsewhere, which would have

a similar impact on the Green Belt. There are also practical reasons for using the

application site in terms of traffic management and control.

43. Officers recognise the current proposal in effect seeks an extension of five years after

the date when the structures, buildings, hardstanding and equipment should have been

originally removed. However, Officers recognise that the need for an extension in time to

retain these elements has been brought about by delays in completing infilling at

Coldharbour Lane landfill to which Officers are satisfied with the applicant’s reasons.

Officers recognise that due to the ancillary nature of the structures, buildings,

hardstanding and equipment that are the subject of this application, that retention of

these structures is necessary to facilitate restoration of Coldharbour Lane landfill. Whilst

their retention causes temporary harm to the openness of the Green Belt Officers

consider the benefits of facilitating the restoration of Coldharbour Lane landfill outweigh

Page 187

this temporary harm and otherwise do not conflict with the purposes of including land in

the Green Belt and preserve openness in the long term. Accordingly Officers are

satisfied that the proposal meets the requirements set out in the NPPF and in Policy

MC3 of the Surrey Minerals Plan Core Strategy 2011 and the text within paragraph B46

of the Surrey Waste Plan 2008.

Restoration

44. Policy MC17 of the Surrey Minerals Plan 2011 Core Strategy requires that restored

mineral sites should be sympathetic to the character and setting of the wider area and

capable of sustaining an appropriate afteruse. The policy goes on to state that

restoration of mineral workings should be completed at the earliest opportunity and

progressive restoration will be required where appropriate. Policy MC18 (Restoration and

enhancement) encourages the mineral planning authority to work with mineral operators

and landowners to deliver benefits such as enhancement of biodiversity interests,

improved public access and provision of climate change mitigation as part of restoration

proposals.

45. The applicant has provided details of how the application site would restored and what

aftercare arrangements would be in place for a period of 5 years post restoration. The

applicant states that the application area would be cleared of all plant, structures and

machinery with a small section of concrete remaining at the entrance to protect the

public highway. The rest of the concrete hardstanding would be removed by a dumper

and excavator. Once the application area has been cleared of all plant, structures,

concrete and waste material the applicant states that the land would be ripped to reduce

compaction and periphery soils replaced and the land seeded with a seed mix that would

complement the Norlands Lane landfill.

46. The current internal haul road that connects Coldharbour Lane landfill site with Norlands

Lane running through the application site would be retained to provide a means of

access to both landfill sites for aftercare reasons. However the concrete that currently

forms the internal haul road would be removed and the applicants intention is that the

retained haul road would resemble that of a farm track being single carriageway width

with over grown grass margins. The County Landscape Architect has reviewed the

proposed restoration and aftercare scheme for the internal haul road and considers the

scheme and design to be acceptable and raises no objection.

ENVIRONMENT AND AMENITY

Surrey Waste Plan 2008

Policy DC3 – General Considerations

Page 188


Policy MC14 – Reducing the Adverse Impacts of Minerals Development

47. Development plan policies seek to protect the local environment and the amenities of

local residents from adverse effects from development. Both Policy DC3 (General

Considerations) of the Surrey Waste Plan 2008 and Policy MC14 of the Surrey Minerals

Plan Core Strategy 2011 require appropriate information to be submitted for waste

related development proposals to demonstrate that any impacts of the development with

regard to a number of criteria including visual impact, dust and noise can be controlled to

achieve levels that will not significantly adversely affect people, land, infrastructure and

resources. The main issues are considered to be occasions of noise and dust, together

with the visual impact of the continued use of the existing buildings and infrastructure for

a further three years alongside potential issues surrounding flooding; and whether any

such occurrences would justify the construction of duplicate facilities a short distance

away within the Coldharbour Lane site or further away from site.

Environmental Assessment

48. This application was accompanied by an overarching Environmental Statement

alongside planning application RU12/0872. The application was considered EIA

development due to the volume of material that required importation on an annual basis.

The Environmental Assessment team have reviewed the Environmental Statement and

the Transport Statement and have commented that it is compliant with the EIA

Regulations 2011. Additionally due to the proximity of the application site to the Thorpe

Park No. 1 Gravel Pit SPA and RAMSAR site there is a requirement on the County

Planning Authority to consider whether an appropriate assessment is required. The

Environmental Assessment team have undertaken this review and have concluded that a

full Habitats Regulations Assessment is not required in this case. This Habitats

Regulations Assessment Screening Report was adopted on 14 November 2012. Natural

England have commented that this proposal, is not likely to have a significant effect on

the interest features for which South West London Waterbodies SPA/RAMSAR have

been classified and have advised that an Appropriate Assessment is not required

Flooding

49. The proposal seeks to retain plant and equipment on an area of concrete hardstanding

at Norlands Lane landfill site. This plant and equipment have been at the application site

for some time previously being used in connection with operations at Norlands Lane

landfill and then latterly with landfilling at Coldharbour Lane landfill. Retention and their

use was originally granted planning permission in 1997. The proposal does not seek to

extend the hard surfacing area or alter it, or amend the structures that are already in

place at the site. The proposal seeks to retain them for a longer period after which the

site would be restored in accordance with the restoration details provided, back to

Page 189

agriculture. The application site, however, lies within Flood Zone 3 which is an area with

a high probability of flooding.

50. The NPPF replaced Planning Policy Statement 25 (PPS25) in March 2012. The main

principle of PPS25 was that inappropriate development in areas at risk of flooding should

be avoided by directing development away from areas at high risk using the Sequential

Test and this has been carried forward into the NPPF. The NPPF also states at para 100

that development proposals should not increase flood risk elsewhere. In accordance

with Table 2: Flood risk vulnerability classification within the NPPF “Technical Guidance

to the National Planning Policy Framework” 2012, waste treatment (this application does

not relate specifically to landfilling, but to the ancillary components which are needed to

be retained to ensure landfilling at Coldharbour Lane can continue please see

application RU12/0872) is classified as a less vulnerable use. In accordance with Table

3: Flood risk vulnerability and flood zone ‘compatibility’ less vulnerable development is

appropriate within Flood Zone 3. The Environment Agency had commented within the

Scoping Opinion for the overarching Environmental Statement that they did not envisage

any significant impact on fluvial flood risk or surface water flooding and they have raised

no objection to this proposal.

Noise

51. The NPPF requires that decisions taken should not result in significant adverse impacts

on health and quality of life with regard to noise and that mitigation measures should be

used. The proposal seeks to retain the structures and set up at the application site as

previously permitted under RU07/0987. In terms of noise, apart from the lorries

themselves which are already required to pass through this area to reach the

Coldharbour Lane landfill site, the other generator of noise is likely to be the use of the

wheel wash on leaving the site. This, however, has been in operation for many years

with the working and then filling of the Norlands Lane landfill site without giving rise to

complaint. Officers have no reason to suspect that there should be any increase or

change in noise from the proposal as it does not seek to change activities from that

previously carried out. The nearest properties comprise one house in Norlands Lane

some 80m away behind an existing bund and nine in Redwood some 130m to 175m

away. The original noise condition relating to the application site would be imposed on

any further consent.

52. Elevated noise levels could also be experienced when the application area commences

restoration in terms of the removal of hardstanding and bunds. The NPPF technical

guidance for mineral development proposals at para 31 states that for particularly noisy

short term activities that cannot meet the limits set for normal operations, a noise limit of

up to 70dB(A) Laeq 1h (free field) for periods of up to 8 weeks in a year should be

considered to facilitate essential restoration work. Officers note that no such condition

was imposed on planning permission ref: RU07/0987 and recommend one being

included now. The County Noise Consultant has commented that he does not consider

noise to be a significant problem and that the work can be completed within the

appropriate site noise limits.

Page 190

53. Officers recognise that the proposal would result in a continuation of activities at the

application site for a further period of five years of which just under three years remains.

However, given the limited duration of the proposal and that the activities undertaken at

the application site have not given rise to noise complaints, Officers are satisfied that the

proposed extension of time should not cause significant harm with regard to noise to the

environment or residents both on its own and in combination with other activities within

the area.

Dust

54. he NPPF technical guidance recognises that unavoidable dust emissions should be

controlled, mitigated or removed at source. All lorries entering the application site with fill

material are required to be sheeted to prevent dust being a problem beyond the

boundaries of the site. A wheel wash is used on site to prevent any deleterious material

being tracked from the site onto the public highway thereby reducing the risk for dust.

The applicant has also stated that a water bowser would be used on site to dampen

down any surfaces when required. The County Dust Consultant has raised no objection

to the proposal and has no concerns. Officers are satisfied that the proposal should not

lead to any significant adverse harm with regard to dust emissions.

Visual Impact

55. The components of this planning application are the office, wheel wash, weighbridge,

hardstanding and concrete bays. These can all be seen within the accompanying

photographs. These are all small in scale and low in height. The site is well screened by

vegetation and perimeter bunds which prevent views into the application site of these

elements and this landscaping would remain in place for the duration of the proposal.

The applicant has provided a restoration and aftercare scheme that provides detail of

how the site would be restored and this is detailed above at paragraph 45 of this report.

The applicant states the application site would be restored by 31 December 2015 and

this would include removing all plant and structures from the application site. The site

would then be restored to enable the site to integrate with the adjoining Norlands Lane

landfill site which was restored in

56. Officers are satisfied that retention of these elements are necessary to facilitate the

restoration of Coldharbour Lane landfill site. Given the application site’s boundary

treatment in the form of established vegetation and bunds, Officers do not consider

retention for the further period of the plant and structures would result in a significant

adverse landscape and visual impact for the remaining three years sought, following

which the application site would be restored.

Page 191

TRAFFIC AND ACCESS




Policy MC15 – Transport for Minerals


Policy MV4 – Access and Circulation Arrangements

57. Surrey Waste Plan 2008 Policy DC3 requires the submission of appropriate information

for waste related development proposals with regard to traffic generation, access and the

suitability of the highway network in the vicinity to demonstrate that any impacts of the

development can be controlled to achieve levels that will not significantly adversely affect

people, land, infrastructure and resources. The policy requires appropriate mitigation to

be identified if necessary. Surrey Minerals Plan Core Strategy 2011 Policy MC15

(Transport for Minerals) states that minerals development involving transportation by

road will be permitted only where there is no practicable alternative to the use of road

based transport, the highway network is of an appropriate standard for use by the traffic

generated; and arrangements for site access and the traffic generated by the

development will not have a significant adverse impact on highway safety, air quality,

residential amenity, the environment or effective operation of the highway network.

58. Policy MV4 of the Runnymede Borough Local Plan 2001 requires all development

proposals to comply with current highway design standards and seeks to ensure that

arrangements for access and circulation are appropriate to the type of development

proposed and the area in which it is located does not aggravate traffic congestion,

accident potential or environmental and amenity considerations.

59. Vehicles enter the application site by a dedicated access point off Norlands Lane as can

be seen on the photographs appended to the report. HGVs entering and leaving the

application site must use the dedicated haul road which goes from Norlands Lane to

Chertsey Lane to the south via the historic Chertsey plant site. This requirement is set

out within a Section 106 Agreement which is to be carried forward as part of this

planning application and for Coldharbour Lane landfill proposal. Consequently there are

no HGV movements associated with this proposal which travel on Norlands Lane except

to cross over to it to go on the dedicated haul road. The application site also seeks the

retention of the wheel wash to ensure no deleterious material enters the public highway.

60. As set out within the report for Coldharbour Lane landfill which is elsewhere on the

agenda, the original Planning Statement and Environmental Statement purported that

there would be some 220 HGVs accessing the site per week (440 movements per

week). The application was assessed using that information. However prior to the

reporting of the application to the February committee, it came to the County Planning

Authority’s attention that more than 220 HGVs were accessing the site per week. The

Page 192

County Planning Authority and County Highway Authority therefore requested that the

applicant provide a Transport Statement to show what HGV numbers had been

accessing the site since 2008 and to assess the impact of a greater number of HGVs on

the highway network than presented in the Planning Statement and Environmental

statement. The applicant has provided a Transport Statement setting out the existing

situation including access arrangements, the highway network and traffic patterns.

61. The Transport Statement sets out the average daily flow for the A320 is 12,262 (2011).

In design terms, a road such as the A320 can accommodate two way traffic flow of up to

2,200 vehicles per hour. The Transport statement also presents accident history for the

A320 from 2008 showing a total of 30 accidents (25 of which are slight).

62. The traffic data shows that whilst average weekly loads to the site prior to 2011 were

circa and below 220 HGVs per week, in 2011 and 2012 average weekly loads were 385

and 386 respectively per week. Daily data from 2012 indicates that the highest number

of inbound movements in any one day was 176 (352 two way movements) which

occurred on 12th April. The average number of loads per day was 79, equating to 158

movements. The busiest week was in March 2012 with 660 loads (1320 movements).

The traffic generated from the application site represents 1.43% of the daily flow of traffic

on the A320. The remaining void at the site is 240,730 tonnes, equating to a total of

12,037 loads (24,074 movements). By way of comparison, the total number of loads in

2012 was 19,979 (39,958 movements).

63. The County Highway Authority (CHA) have reviewed the proposal including the recently

submitted Transport Statement and they are satisfied that the Transport Statement

reflects an accurate picture of the HGV traffic generation from the site. The County

Highway Authority have commented that when the County Highway Authority considered

the application for sand and gravel extraction with restoration by landfilling in 1995, the

access was considered acceptable for 200 loads/ 400 movements per day (i.e. 2200

movements per week) and this proposal will not exceed that. Overall traffic flows on the

highway network have, however, increased since then. The County Highway Authority

confirm that there have been no complaints and they have not been notified of any

highways problems arising as a result of HGVs accessing the site over the past 12

months. The County Highway Authority raise no objection to the continuation of the

infilling at 2012 levels however, in order to ensure that the number of vehicles does not

exceed these levels, the County Highway Authority recommend a condition is attached

to the planning permission restricting the number of HGV inbound traffic movements to

660 per week (330 loads) with a daily cap of 176 movements (88 loads). This is to

accommodate the fluctuations as seen in 2012. As access to the site is gained to

Coldharbour Lane landfill site via Norlands Lane, Officers consider it appropriate that the

condition be imposed on this planning application as in doing so, this would be default

limit the number of HGVs accessing the Coldharbour Lane landfill site.

64. Officers recognise that the proposal would result in HGVs continuing to access the

application site for a period of 5 years beyond that originally envisaged, however these

Page 193

HGVs use a dedicated access road and gain access to an A road which can

accommodate this traffic. The County Highway Authority have also confirmed that the

application site has historically had 400 HGVs movements per day. Officers are satisfied

that subject to a condition limiting the number of HGV movements to the application site

that the proposal meets the requirements of the Development Plan with regard to traffic

and access.

HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS

65 The Human Rights Act Guidance for Interpretation, contained in the Preamble to the

Agenda is expressly incorporated into this report and must be read in conjunction with

the following paragraph.

66. In this case, it is the Officers view that the scale of any impact is not considered sufficient

to engage Article 8 or Article 1 of Protocol 1 and any impact can be mitigated by

conditions. as such, this proposal is not considered to interfere with any Convention

right.

CONCLUSION

67. The proposal seeks to retain buildings, hardstanding, equipment and structures at the

application site for use in association with the adjoining Coldharbour Lane landfill site.

The structures were originally brought into use as part of the Norlands Lane landfill site

which is now restored and in aftercare. The structures and plant are ancillary to the

restoration activities that are taking place at Coldharbour Lane landfill to restore a former

mineral site. The application site is in the Green Belt. The NPPF states that mineral

extraction need not be inappropriate development provided the proposal preserves the

openness of the Green Belt. Paragraph B46 of the Surrey Waste Plan 2008 recognises

that landfilling or landraising activities that are a means of restoration of mineral sites

need not conflict with the purposes of including land in the Green Belt.

68. Officers recognise that the proposal harms the openness of the Green Belt by virtue of

the structures, hardstanding, equipment and structures being at the application site.

However, Officers are satisfied that these elements are necessary to assist the

restoration of Coldharbour Lane landfill site given that the application site provides the

means of access to Coldharbour Land landfill alongside the ancillary elements such as a

weighbridge, site office and wheel wash that are integral to the operation of a landfill site.

The proposal is temporary in nature and the applicant has provided details of restoration

of the application site following removal of the plant and structures. Officers are satisfied

Page 194

that the structures and plant cannot be located elsewhere outside of the Green Belt as

required by Policy MC3 of the Surrey Minerals Plan Core Strategy 2011.

69. Officers consider that any amenity or environmental impacts can be controlled by the

imposition of conditions. highway works and measures to safeguard the highway are

already in place and no increases in traffic levels are expected from the proposal.

RECOMMENDATION

The recommendation is, subject to the prior completion of a S106 Agreement, to PERMIT

subject to the following conditions

Conditions:

1. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in all respects strictly in

accordance with the following plans/drawings:

P4/193/31 Site plan June 2007

P4/193/28B Reference with restoration plan for aftercare scheme May 2012

P4/193/33 Haul Road and Access Restoration November 2012

P4/193/34 Haul Route Restoration Detail

L/FE/25 Field Gate 3.6m wide”

2. The development hereby permitted shall cease on 31 December 2015 by which time all

buildings, fixed plant or machinery, internal access roads and hardstandings, together with

their foundations and bases shall have been removed from the land and the whole of the

site shall be restored.

3. No light shall be illuminated nor shall any operations or activities authorised or required by

this permission be carried out except between the following times:

0700 - 1800 hours Monday to Fridays

0700 - 1300 hours Saturdays; and

there shall be no working on Sundays, Public, Bank or National Holidays

5

4. The applicant shall ensure that the wheels of all HGVs are cleaned before they exit the site

and shall make all reasonable efforts to keep the public highway clean and prevent the

creation of a dangerous surface on the highway.

5. There shall be no more than a total of 330 loads/ 660 inbound HGV movements per week

associated with the engineering, filling and restoration of Coldharbour Lane Landfill site

with no one day to exceed 88 loads/ 176 movements. The site operator shall maintain

accurate records of the number of HGV vehicles accessing the site daily and weekly and

shall make these available to the County Planning Authority on request.

6. The level of noise arising from any operation, plant or machinery on the site, when

measured at or recalculated as at a height of 1.2m above ground level and 3.6m from the

facade of any residential property or other occupied building which faces the site shall not

exceed 55 dB(A) Leq, during any 30 minute period

7. For temporary operations such as site preparation, soil and overburden striping, bund

formation and final restoration, the level of noise arising when measured at, or recalculated

as at, a height of 1.2 metres above ground levels and 3.6 metres from the façade of a

residential property or other noise sensitive building that faces the site shall not exceed 70

LAeq, during any 30 minute period. Such activities shall not take place for a total period

greater than eight weeks in any twelve month period.

8. All vehicles plant and machinery operated within the site shall be maintained in

accordance with the manufacturers specification at all times and where necessary shall be

fitted and used with effective silencers and/or noise insulation.

9. Oil or chemical storage tanks shall be sited on impervious bases and surrounded by a

liquid tight bunded compound; the bunded areas must be capable of containing 110% of

the volume of the largest tank and all fill pipes, draw pipes and sight gauges should be

enclosed within its curtilage. Any vent pipe should be directed downwards into the bund.

10. No activity hereby permitted shall cause dust to be emitted so as to adversely affect

adjacent residential uses and/ or other sensitive uses and/ or the local environment.

Should such an emission occur, the activity shall be suspended until, as a result of

different methods of working, the additional dust suppression measures or changed

weather conditions, it can be resumed without giving rise to that level of dust emissions.

Reasons:

Page 196

1. For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.

2. To comply with the terms of the application and to enable the County Planning Authority to

exercise planning control over the development pursuant to Surrey Waste Plan Policy DC3

and Surrey Minerals Plan 2011 Core Strategy Policy MC17

3. To comply with the terms of the application and to enable the County Planning Authority to

exercise planning control over the development pursuant to the Surrey Waste Plan 2008

Policy DC3 and Surrey Minerals Plan Core Strategy 2011 Policy MC14

4. In order that the development should not prejudice highway safety nor cause

inconvenience to other highway users pursuant to the Surrey Waste Plan 2008 Policy DC3

and Surrey Minerals Plan Core Strategy 2011 Policy MC16

5. To ensure the development should not prejudice highway safety nor cause inconvenience

to other highway users and to maintain HGV limits at 2012 levels.

6. To ensure the minimum disturbance and avoid noise nuisance to the locality and to comply

with Surrey Waste Plan 2008 Policy DC3 and Surrey Minerals Plan Core Strategy 2011

Policy MC14



Policy MC14



Policy MC14

9. To prevent pollution of the water environment and to comply with Surrey Waste Plan 2008

Policy DC3 and Surrey Minerals Plan Core Strategy 2011 Policy MC14

10. In the interests of local amenity, the environment and/ or human health pursuant to Surrey

Waste Plan 2008 Policy DC3 and Surrey Minerals Plan Core Strategy 2011 Policy MC14

Informatives:

Page 197

1. The applicants attention is drawn to Veolia's letter of 5 September 2012 with regard to

construction works and operation of the proposed development.

2. The County Planning Authority confirms that in assessing this planning application it has

worked with the applicant in a positive and proactive way, in line with the requirements of

paragraph 186-187 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2012.

THE TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT PROCEDURE)

(ENGLAND) ORDER 2010

Reasons for the grant of planning permission and development plan policies/proposals

relevant to the decision.

The development

1 will provide the following benefits: assist in facilitating the restoration of a former mineral

site

2 is in accordance with the development plan policies so far as they are relevant to the

application and there are no material considerations which indicate otherwise; and

3 any harm can be adequately mitigated by the measures proposed in the application and

Environmental Statement and the conditions subject to which planning permission is

granted.

The proposal has been considered against the following development plan policies/ provisions:

Surrey Minerals Plan 2011:

Policy MC3 – Spatial strategy – mineral development in the Green Belt

Policy MC14 – Reducing the Adverse Impacts of Minerals Development

Policy MC15 – Transport for Minerals

Policy MC17 – Restoring mineral workings

Page 198

Policy MC18 - Restoration and enhancement

Surrey Waste Plan 2008:



Policy GB1 – Development within the Green Belt

Policy MV4 – Access and Circulation Arrangements

CONTACT

Samantha Murphy

TEL. NO.

020 8541 7107

BACKGROUND PAPERS

The deposited application documents and plans, including those amending or clarifying the

proposal, responses to consultations and representations received as referred to in the report

and included in the application file and the following:

Government Guidance

National Planning Policy Framework, March 2012

Technical Guidance to the National Planning Policy Framework, March 2012

The Development Plan




Page 199

Item 12 - Surrey...Government guidance (Circular 02/99) on EIA (50,000 tonnes per annum of waste for...

Documents

Transcript of Item 12 - Surrey...Government guidance (Circular 02/99) on EIA (50,000 tonnes per annum of waste for...