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: 502721 169034

TITLE:

MINERALS AND WASTE APPLICATION RU12/0872

SUMMARY REPORT

Coldharbour Lane Landfill and land North of Norlands Lane, Thorpe, Egham, Surrey

Continued back filling with inert material and restoration of land to agriculture until December

2015.

The application is accompanied by an overarching Environmental Statement which

accompanies this planning application and planning application ref: RU12/0870 which is being

reported elsewhere on this agenda for an extension of time for retention of plant and machinery

at Norlands Lane landfill until December 2015.

Coldharbour Lane Landfill and land located to the north of Norlands Lane for the internal haul

route are within the Metropolitan Green Belt where policies of restraint apply. The Thorpe Village

Conservation Area also covers the application site. The landfill aspect of the application site is

bounded to the north and east by the former Norlands Lane landfill site which has been restored

and is now in aftercare. The western boundary of the landfill site abuts Ten Acre Lane and the

southern boundary abuts Coldharbour Lane. The nearest residential properties lie along Ten

Acre Lane to the west, Coldharbour Lane to the south and a little further away on Norlands Lane

to the south east. Access into the site is gained from a dedicated haul road from Chertsey Lane

(A320) to Norlands Lane through some of Thorpe Park. Vehicles then go through a reception

area which is located on the former Norlands Lane landfill and use an internal haul road to travel

to the application site.

The site was originally granted planning permission in 1996 for sand and gravel extraction with

backfilling with inert waste and restoration back to agricultural use. The site was originally to be

restored by December 2010. However the site remains to be restored and the applicant has

submitted the planning application seeking an extension of time for this restoration to be

Item 11

Page 119

completed. The applicant has cited that the economic downturn; having to obtain agreement

from the Environment Agency as to the installation of the clay liner at the site; and the diversion

of construction and demolition waste away from landfill as reasons for there being a reduction in

the volume of available fill. Consequently the site has not received as much fill material as

originally anticipated and this has caused delay to the restoration scheme. The site cannot be

restored to a lower level than the approved restoration plans show due to the need for adequate

drainage and for the site levels to assimilate with the Norlands Lane landfill. Officers are aware

there has been some considerable delay in the consideration of this application and application

RU12/0870 following the expiration of planning permission in December 2010. More details of

this is set out in the main body of the report however this has mainly been due to procedural

matters.

The site lies within the Metropolitan Green Belt where policies of restraint apply. Both the

National Planning Policy Framework and the Surrey Minerals Plan 2011 state that minerals

extraction need not be inappropriate development. The proposal is to facilitate the restoration of

a former mineral working site through landfilling of inert material. The Surrey Waste Plan 2008

recognises that landfilling is most often the means to restoration of mineral sites and states that

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

Surrey Waste Plan 2008 outlines that landfill activities associated with restoration of mineral

sites can play a positive role in the objectives of the Green Belt.

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

Committee but was withdrawn from that agenda. 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, which were

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 with consultees and the public. The County Highway

Authority having reviewed the Transport Statement raise no objection subject to a condition

restricting vehicle movements to the site on a daily and weekly basis.

Officers are satisfied the applicant has demonstrated a need for the extension of time for

completion of restoration at the application site. Officers do not consider the extension of time

sought to be excessive and given market conditions and that no other extension of time has

been sought by the applicant previously for landfilling operations, Officers consider there is no

reason to expect the restoration and aftercare would be delayed beyond the timescale provided

or that a high quality of restoration would not be achievable. The applicant does not seek to alter

the methods of working and filling at the application site and mitigation measures in place would

remain including the ongoing groundwater monitoring regime. Officers are aware that the

proposal would result in the continuation of activities that can give rise to noise, dust, traffic and

groundwater impacts. However Officers are satisfied that with appropriate mitigation measures,

the proposed extension of time for completion of landfilling by itself and in combination with

development at Norlands Lane landfill subject of planning application RU12/0870 would not give

rise to any significant adverse impacts on residential amenity or the environment.

Page 120

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

PERMIT subject to conditions.

APPLICATION DETAILS

Applicant

Cemex UK Operations Ltd

Date application valid

14 August 2012

Period for Determination

4 December 2012

Amending Documents

Letter 29 October 2012 and accompanying plan P4/193/28C and Archaeological Schedule,

letter 14 November 2012, email 14 November 2012 and accompanying plan P3/193/33,

Restoration and Five Year Aftercare Scheme for the Access Road dated November 2012; and

the Outline Five Year Aftercare Scheme for Coldharbour Lane dated October 2006; 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 and accompanying plan P4/193/28D; 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.

Page 121

Is this aspect of the

proposal in accordance with

the development plan?

Paragraphs in the report

where this has been

discussed

Environmental Impact

Assessment

Yes 47

Ecology and Biodiversity Yes 48 – 50

Archaeology and Heritage Yes 51 – 55

Groundwater and Flooding Yes 56 – 66

Dust and Air Quality Yes 67 – 71

Noise Yes 72 – 78

Transportation and Access Yes 79 – 87

Waste Management Issues Yes 88 – 99

Green Belt Yes 100 – 111

ILLUSTRATIVE MATERIAL

Site Plan

Plan

Aerial Photographs

Aerial

Site Photographs

Photograph 1: Access road into the site

Photograph 2: Looking south from the haul road across Phase 3 & 4 towards Coldharbour Lane

Photograph 3: Looking north east at the haul road with Norlands Lane landfill in the background

Photograph 4: Looking east to Fleetmere across Phase 4

Page 122

Photograph 5: Looking east down the internal haul road from the landfill site towards the

weighbridge area

BACKGROUND

Site Description

1. Coldharbour Lane landfill site is located approximately 2km south east of Egham and

2km south west Staines and lies to the north east of Thorpe Village. The site lies within

the Metropolitan Green Belt and the Thorpe Village Conservation Area. 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 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. Thorpe Park theme park lies approximately 150m to the south beyond

Coldharbour/ Norlands Lane.

2. Coldharbour Lane landfill site is bounded to the north and east by the former Norlands

Lane landfill site which has been restored and is now in aftercare. The western boundary

of the landfill site abuts the D3199 Ten Acre Lane and the southern boundary abuts the

D3167 Coldharbour Lane. The nearest residential properties lie along Ten Acre Lane to

the west, Coldharbour Lane to the south and a little further away on Norlands Lane to the

south east. The application site has an area of some 15 hectares, the majority having

been previously worked for sand and gravel and includes an access road from the

Coldharbour Lane landfill site to the A320 Staines Road/ Chertsey Lane crossing over

the former Norlands Lane landfill to the north of the D3167 Coldharbour/ Norlands Lane

and the former Chertsey Quarry to the south. Extraction has ceased and this mineral

void is being backfilled with inert waste to achieve approved restoration levels.

Planning History

3. In 1993 an application was made to extract 1.058 million tonnes of sand and gravel from

the Coldharbour Lane site and to backfill it with 0.73 million cubic metres of commercial,

industrial, household and civic amenity waste (Ref: RU93/0488). Permission was refused

in October 1994 due to concerns regarding infilling. An alternative application (Ref:

RU95/0163) was submitted and subsequently permitted in August 1996 for the extraction

of minerals with backfilling with inert waste and restoration to agriculture by 31

December 2010. This planning permission also involved the permanent diversion of

footpath 49 and a Section 106 for the construction and use of a dedicated access road

from the site to the A320.

Page 123

4. 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 for non inert landfill was refused in

February 2000 and a subsequent appeal dismissed in 2003 mainly due to concerns over

odour. Planning permission (Ref: RU03/0163) was granted in March 2003 for the

excavation of 75,000m3 of clay from the base of the existing mineral working to be used

exclusively for the final capping of the adjoining Norlands Lane landfill site, for the final

stages of the restoration of that site.

5. A planning application was submitted in September 2005 (Ref: RU05/0685) seeking to

vary Condition 2 of planning permission ref: RU95/0163 to extend the time period for the

extraction of minerals by a further two years to 31 December 2006 and the retention all

plant and machinery associated with the winning and working of minerals until that date.

Planning permission was granted on 20 September 2005. This planning permission did

not extend the date for completion of restoration or the removal of fixed plant or

machinery, internal access roads, and hardstandings which was required by December

2010. Details of an agricultural aftercare scheme were approved pursuant to Condition

29 of planning permission ref: RU05/0685 outlining how the site would be managed.

6. 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

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)

7. 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.

8. 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

Page 124

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.

9. In March 2011 the applicant submitted a request for a Scoping Opinion with regard to the

extension of time for completion of restoration, 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 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

10. The site was originally granted planning permission in 1996 (ref: RU95/0163) for mineral

extraction with backfilling using inert waste to agriculture by December 2010. The

restoration profile was approved as part of this planning permission. In 2005 planning

permission was then granted (Ref: RU05/0685) for a delay to cessation of mineral

extraction until 2006 however the restoration end date remained December 2010.

11. It was anticipated that infilling and restoration would have been completed by December

2010 however the applicant states that due to changes in the environmental permitting

regime with the introduction of geological barriers for all inert landfill operations in

addition to domestic landfill operations alongside the economic downturn, and the more

rigorous waste management handling techniques such as recycling; completion of the

quarry restoration via inert infilling has been delayed.

12. The applicant stated within the August 2012 Planning Statement that remaining void

space is approximately 223,000 metres cubed (m3) and that the site would receive an

average of 90,000m3 of waste per year thereby taking approximately 2.5 years to

complete landfilling. Within the Transportation Statement dated March 2013 the applicant

states the remaining void space is 240,730 tonnes (160,487m3) with anticipated

remaining import rates ranging between 60,000 – 240,730 tonnes per annum (tpa)

(40,000 – 160,487m3 pa). The applicants intention is that the infilling and restoration shall

be completed by the 31 December 2015 although it is the applicants intention to infill and

restore as soon as possible. In order for this to take place, the applicant seeks an

extension of time to continue landfilling at the application site.

Page 125

13. Hours of working would remain as previously permitted 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

applicant has stated that an average of 7,500m3 per month is received at the site which

equates to approximately 118 in bound movements associated with the proposal per

week. This is less than historical vehicle movements associated with the site.

14. The applicant has stated that landfilling operations are currently progressing in an

easterly direction with the site is currently filling Phases 3 and 4 of the landfill (there are

four phases in total – this can be seen from the accompanying plan P4/193/32) with the

clay seal being completed in the north. Once the clay seal is completed along the

northern boundary, the applicant states that restoration of Phases 1 and 2 can

commence using on site soils. The applicant anticipates that infilling of Phases 3 and 4

to be complete in 2013 with the placement of soils for restoration in 2014 with all

landscaping to be complete in 2015.

15. An application has also been submitted in conjunction with this application at Land to the

North of Norlands Lane for the 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 waste and restoration to agriculture of the land north of Coldharbour

Lane subject of this application.

CONSULTATIONS AND PUBLICITY

District Council

Runnymede Borough Council

16. - Planning : No objection

17. - Environmental Health : No dust or noise complaints received for

this site. No objection

Consultees (Statutory and Non-Statutory)

18. Health and Safety Executive : No objection

19. Heathrow Airport Holdings Ltd : No objection

Page 126

(Safegaurding)

20. The Environment Agency South East : No objection

21. Natural England : No concerns with regard to the SPA/

RAMSAR and SSSI sites. Recommends

consultation with the County Ecologist on

the potential need for work to be carried

out with regard to the presence of reptiles

on the bunds. The Transport Statement

does not alter previously made

comments with regard to impact on SPA/

RAMSRA and SSSI sites

22. Surrey Wildlife Trust : No comments received.

23. Thames Water : No objection

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

Source Protection Zone corresponding to

Chertsey pumping station. This is a

public water supply. The works and

operation of the site should be done in

accordance with the relevant British

Standards and Best Management

Practices to reduce the groundwater risk.

25. English Heritage : No objection

26. 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.

Recommend conditions be imposed for

monitoring arrangements for FISH, TASI

and STULAKE lakes continues.

27. County Noise Consultant : No objection

28. County Air Quality Consultant : Recommend a condition be imposed

requesting the submission of Dust

Management Plan and that the recent

Transport Statement does not alter

previous advice.

29. County Ecologist : Recommends a condition requiring a

mitigation plan to be submitted outlining

how the bunds surrounding the site would

be made less attractive to reptiles

30. Environmental Assessment Team : Environmental Statement complies with

the regulation requirements

31. County Highway Authority : No objection and is satisfied with the

detail within the Transport Statement

32. Rights of Way : No objection

33. County Archaeologist : There is an outstanding archaeological

requirement attached to this site resulting

from lack of completion of one of the

Page 127

schemes. Recommends condition

imposed requesting this information is

forthcoming.

34. County Historical Buildings Officer : Request justification as to why the

restored landform is 3m above the

surrounding road levels. Consider this

elevation will disrupt longer views to St

Ann’s Hill.

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

and the haul road restoration scheme

Parish/Town Council and Amenity Groups

36. Thorpe Ward Residents Association : consider the supply of material to the site for

restoration purposes has been limited for commercial reasons than just to ensure its

suitability. The unnecessary protracted restoration of this site is detrimental to the

environment of Thorpe. The pumping required to dewater the site is believed to have

altered the watertable over a wide area. Whilst the total number of lorry movements is

not changed by the restoration period their occurrence over so many years exacerbates

the nuisance. Requested information why enforcement action has not been taken on the

site despite planning permission having lapsed.

37. Officer comment: Enforcement action is discretionary power and the County Planning

Authority must decide whether it is expedient to act to control the development. Subject

to the 'expediency test', the County Planning Authority will normally take enforcement

action when there is no planning permission and no prospect of one being granted, or

where there is a failure to comply with any condition or limitation imposed on the

planning permission and no acceptable remedy is proposed by the landowner or

operator. Based on this ‘expediency test’ the County Planning Authority considers it

would not be reasonable to enforce where there is an undetermined planning application

and where progress continues to be made at the site. In coming to this view, the County

Planning Authority has taken into account the views of local residents and the objective

of achieving restoration at the earliest opportunity. The County Planning Authority have

been actively working with the applicant to facilitate the planning applications and

Environmental Statement for the extension of time sought. The position at the site is

recognised and the monitoring reports which are produced quarterly record that planning

permission has expired.

Summary of publicity undertaken and key issues raised by public

38. The application was originally publicised by the posting of three site notices and an

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

Page 128

properties were directly notified by letter. No letters of representation were received.

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.

39. In addition to the above, the Merlin Group who own Thorpe Park, have been involved in

the drafting of the Draft Heads of Terms with regard to the routing and access

arrangements for Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGVs) as the internal access road lies on

Thorpe Park’s land.

PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS

40. 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.

41. 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.

42. 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.

Page 129

43. 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 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.

44. 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.

45. 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 restoration and the Green Belt, waste management issues including location and need, 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, hydrogeology and flood risk, ecology and archaeology.

ENVIRONMENT AND AMENITY

Surrey Minerals Plan 2011 Core Strategy

Policy MC14 – Reducing the adverse impacts of mineral development

Surrey Waste Plan 2008

Policy DC2 – Planning Designations

Policy DC3 – General Considerations

Runnymede Borough Local Plan 2001

Policy SV2 – Flooding

46. The most relevant planning policy changes since 2005 have been the publication of the

NPPF (March 2012), the publication and subsequent revocation of the Regional Spatial

Strategy for the South East – the South East Plan (March 2013), the adoption of the

Surrey Waste Plan 2008 and the adoption of the Surrey Minerals Plan 2011. Additionally,

Planning Policy Statement 10 (PPS10) was re-published in March 2011. One of PPS10’s

key planning objectives is to ensure the recovery or disposal of waste is done such that it

Page 130

does not endanger human health and without harming the environment. Paragraph 29

states that in considering planning applications for waste management facilities, waste

planning authorities should consider the likely impact on the local environment and on

amenity and give consideration to Annex E of PPS10. Annex E sets out locational criteria

to test the suitability of sites with regard to waste management. Annex E sets out 12

criteria which regard should be given to when considering planning applications. For this

application the relevant criteria which require consideration are protection of water

resources, visual intrusion, nature conservation, historic environment, traffic and access,

dust and noise.

Environmental Impact Assessment

47. The applicant has submitted an overarching Environmental Statement (ES) to

accompany this planning application and planning application RU12/0870. The ES

covers the topic areas of highways, groundwater, ecology, landscape, noise and air

quality. The Environmental Assessment team reviewed the ES and the recently

submitted Transport Statement, in accordance with the requirements of Schedule 4 of

the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011

and have concluded that the ES meets the regulation requirements satisfactorily.

Ecology and Biodiversity

48. Policy DC3 of the Surrey Waste Plan 2008 requires that an assessment be provided and

mitigation be identified where appropriate should a proposal result in the loss or damage

to flora and fauna and their respective habitats at the site or on adjoining land. The policy

requires sufficient information on flora and fauna to demonstrate the proposal would not

have a significant adverse impact on people, land, infrastructure or resources. Policy

DC2 (Planning Designations) states that planning permission will not be granted for

waste related development where this would endanger or have a significant adverse

impact on the character, quality, interest or setting on RAMSAR sites, SPA sites or SSSI

sites. The policy states that regard should be given as to whether any significant adverse

impact identified could be controlled to acceptable levels.

49. The proposal seeks a delay to restoration of the application site back to agricultural use.

As the site lies within 210m of the No.1 Thorpe Park SPA/ RAMSAR site, consideration

should be given as to whether the proposal would impact upon these European

designations. To determine this, the Environmental Assessment team undertook an

Appropriate Assessment screening process in accordance with Regulation 61 of the

Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 concluding that the proposal in

isolation and in combination with other activities within the area would not have an

significant adverse impact upon the SPA or RAMSAR site. Natural England concur with

this view. As such an Appropriate Assessment is not required and an Appropriate

Assessment Screening Report was adopted on 14 November 2012.

Page 131

50. The site has no ecological designations however Natural England have highlighted the

potential for reptiles to be present within the perimeter bunds and that this requires

consideration. The County Ecologist has commented that an appropriate approach

would be for the applicant to provide details of how the bunds would be made less

attractive to reptiles prior to the removal of the bunds, so to discourage them from using

the bunds as habitat. For example cutting the grass on the bunds shorter. The County

Ecologist is satisfied that this information can be the requirement of a condition imposed

on any planning permission. The County Ecologist raises no objection to the proposal on

ecological or biodiversity grounds.

Archaeology and Heritage

51. Protection of the character, quality, interest or setting of conservation areas is sought by

Policy DC2 of the Surrey Waste Plan 2008 which states planning permission will not be

granted should any of these criteria be affected. Both Policy DC3 of the Surrey Waste

Plan and MC14 of the Surrey Minerals Plan 2011 states that planning permission will be

granted for waste related development provided it can be demonstrated by the provision

of appropriate information on archaeology and the historic environment that any impacts

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

affect people, land or resources.

52. Planning Policy Statement 5 was replaced by the NPPF in March 2012. Paragraph 128

of the NPPF specifically relates to decision making for planning applications requiring a

description of the significant of any heritage assets affected and where a site on which

development has the potential to affect archaeological interest a desk based assessment

and field evaluation should be undertaken. Para 129 goes on to state that in decision

making for development proposals, local planning authorities should assess the

significance of any heritage asset considering the impact of a proposal upon it so to

avoid or minimise conflict between the heritage asset’s conservation and any aspect of

the proposal.

53. Archaeological issues were raised as part of planning application RU95/0163. A report

on an archaeological evaluation in 1997 recommended further archaeological work on

substantial parts of phases 1 (the western end of the site) and 3 (the middle part of the

site immediately to the north of Manor Cottage); and a small part of phase 2. Of the

archaeological work carried out, the work in phase 3 in 2001 proved to be the most

productive revealing a Bronze Age barrow, Roman ditches, Saxon features and many

finds. There was a requirement for a detailed report to be undertaken in three stages

however the third and final phase was not completed. Therefore whilst the

archaeological fieldwork is complete some of the reporting is outstanding.

Page 132

54. As all of the application site comprises disturbed ground and all of the archaeological

fieldwork has been completed, the proposal would have no significant adverse impact on

archaeological features. However there is an outstanding archaeological requirement

resulting from the lack of completion of one of the schemes of publication. The applicant

provided an archaeological schedule detailing when the writing up of the outstanding

work would take place and when publication of the report will be done. Following this, the

County Archaeologist has commented that there is no further work to be done and as

such there is no requirement for a condition to be imposed on any planning permission.

55. The site lies within the Thorpe Village Conservation Area. The proposal does not seek to

change the method of working or the extent of working. The proposal would impact on

the conservation area, as it would result in a delay to the restoration of the site. However,

Officers consider that the time period sought for the extension is reasonable in the

circumstances and the long-term gains from the site being restored to a high standard

outweigh any temporary harm caused by the delay, on the conservation area.

Groundwater and Flooding

56. Policy DC3 (General Considerations) of the Surrey Waste Plan 2008 states that for

planning permission to be granted appropriate information should be provided in support

of the application to demonstrate that any impacts with regard to the contamination of

ground and surface water, the drainage of the site and adjoining land; and groundwater

conditions and hydrogeology of the locality can be controlled to achieve levels that will

not significantly adversely affect people, land, infrastructure and resources. Such

information should include mitigation measures so as to minimise or avoid any material

adverse impact and compensate for any loss.

57. Runnymede Borough Local Plan 2001 Policy SV2 (Flooding) states that new

development in areas liable to flood will not be permitted unless it can be demonstrated

that the proposal would not itself or cumulatively in conjunction with other development

impede the flow of flood water, reduce the capacity of the flood plain or increase the

number of people or properties at risk from flooding.

Flooding

58. The NPPF replaced 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. Coldharbour Lane landfill itself lies in

Flood Zone 1 (low probability of flooding) however the haul route lies within Flood Zones

2 and 3. Coldharbour Lane landfill does, however, have an area of Flood Zone 2 to the

north east and east; and an area of Flood Zone 3 to the south.

Page 133

59. Using the sequential test, landfilling in Flood Zone 1 is acceptable. The proposal is not

for new development but for a continuation of an activity that already has planning

permission. The County Geological Consultant reviewed the planning proposal and

commented that it is reasonable to assume that any loss of flood storage in the flood

plain caused by the construction of screening bunds and stockpiles would have been

compensated by the increase in flood storage volume created by the void formed by the

gravel extraction. The County Geological Consultant has commented that given Flood

Zone 2 abuts the application site on two sides and Flood Zone 3 is located in the south

west corner, provided that the works do not create a hydraulic connection to the

floodplain the County Geological Consultant is of the opinion that there should be no

overall impact of fluvial flood risk for the limited lifespan of the works.

60. The applicant has confirmed there would be no hydraulic connectivity between the

application site and the floodplain as the site is being sealed with a clay liner thereby

separating it from the floodplain. The County Geological Consultant has no further

comments and does not object on this aspect of the planning application.

Groundwater and Dewatering

61. Concern was raised within the Scoping Opinion issued by Surrey County Council on the

impact of dewatering that has and is currently taking place at Coldharbour Lane landfill

and that as consequence of dewatering some of the abstracted groundwater had to be

discharged to the fishing lake to the north of the site to maintain water levels in that lake.

Concern was raised by the Environment Agency that an extension of time for working at

the landfill site would prolong dewatering of the site and as such prolong any impacts of

this on the surrounding area. The original planning application looked at the effect of

dewatering on local watercourses, abstraction points, local groundwater and settlement.

62. There are two issues with regard to this proposal and groundwater and dewatering.

These are the temporary impact of extending the duration of the dewatering; and the

permanent long term impact on groundwater flow of replacing high permeability aquifer

with a block of low permeability clay liner and fill called aquifer truncation. Dewatering of

the application site has always formed part of the workings at Coldharbour Lane Landfill.

The dewatering is currently taking place to enable the placement of the impermeable

geological barrier around the perimeter of the landfill site. The Environment Agency

requires the placement of impermeable geological barriers at all inert landfill sites. It is

expected that this work will be completed in early 2013 with the final sections being

those in the northern part of the landfill i.e. the boundary around the cemetery, the

closest fishing lake (FISH) and a short length of the eastern boundary.

63. The dewatering lowers the water levels in the gravels and the proposal would prolong

this. However once the final section of the geological barrier is completed, dewatering

would stop. The issue for consideration is whether the extension of time for the Page 134

dewatering system in place would cause an unacceptable impact on groundwater levels

and therefore water levels in streams and ponds in the vicinity. A number of monitoring

schemes were requested as part of the original planning application RU95/0163 to

monitor any impact of the dewatering from the application site on local subsidence, water

levels in fishing lakes and the surrounding groundwater. All of the monitoring schemes

have been approved formally by the County Planning Authority and have been taking

place following the grant of planning permission. The monitoring scheme set out that

remedial measures would be taken if needed. The applicant has provided as part of the

Environmental Statement a report called “Consideration of the Impact of Dewatering of

Surface Water Lakes in the area surrounding the Coldharbour Lane Landfill”. This report

reviews the historical data collected from the monitoring schemes and predicts future

impacts from site dewatering activities.

64. The Environment Agency, having reviewed the proposal, have commented that any

impact of the dewatering on the vulnerable surface water receptor, FISH lake, should be

resolved by the mitigation already in place in the form of a dedicated pipeline from

Coldharbour Lane landfill dewatering pumps. The Environment Agency are satisfied with

the proposal and raise no objection to the extension of time. The County Geological

Consultant has reviewed the proposal and the Environmental Statement and agrees with

the prognosis in the Environmental Statement that the impacts of dewatering on the

surrounding area will decrease progressively as the low permeability geological barrier

around the landfill is placed during proposed extension of time. With regard to aquifer

truncation, the proposed extension of time would make no difference to whether any

aquifer truncation would occur but to just delay the realisation of the full impact. The

County Geological Consultant has raised no concerns or objection to the continued

dewatering or activities but does recommend that the monitoring scheme continues for

the period of the extension and thereafter until the results show that the groundwater

levels have fully recovered. The County Geological Consultant is satisfied this can be

secured by condition. The original groundwater monitoring conditions have therefore

been modified and updated to reflect this and to include STULAKE.

Conclusion

65. The application site is currently being dewatered to enable the impermeable clay liner to

be installed around its perimeter. This was part of the original planning application and

this aspect was included within the accompanying Environmental Statement. Conditions

were imposed requiring groundwater monitoring to take place to monitor any potential

impact of dewatering on the groundwater. The proposal does not seek to amend the

dewatering regime at the site but should planning permission be granted the proposal

would extend the period of dewatering beyond that originally envisaged. Both the

Environment Agency and the County Geological Consultant have raised no objection to

the groundwater monitoring regime nor to the proposed extension of time that

dewatering would take place and consider there are adequate mitigation measures in

place that would ensure no significant adverse impact to the nearby lakes would occur.

Both consultees are also satisfied with the proposal with regard to flooding.

Page 135

66. Officers consider there are adequate safeguards in place with regard to the dewatering

with regard to the groundwater monitoring regime. Officers consider that as the proposal

does not seek to amend the dewatering regime and that groundwater monitoring would

continue as recommended by the Environment Agency and the County Geological

Consultant, that the proposal meets the requirements of the Development Plan and the

NPPF with regard to flood risk and groundwater.

Dust and Air Quality

67. The application site does not lie within an Air Quality Management Area (AQMA) as

designated by Runnymede Borough Council. The closest AQMA is for PM10 and NO2

and is located adjacent to the M25 Motorway 650 metres directly west. Policy DC3 of the

Surrey Waste Plan 2008 seeks to ensure that in granting planning permission for waste

related development that any impacts of the development on amenity with regard to dust

can be controlled such that land, people, infrastructure and resources are not

significantly adversely affected. The policy requires appropriate mitigation measures to

be identified so as to minimise or avoid any material adverse impact. Annex E criteria (g)

states that considerations for air emissions including dust should be considered when

taking decisions on waste management facilities. This should include the proximity of

sensitive receptors and the extent to which adverse emissions can be controlled through

the use of appropriate and well maintained and managed equipment and vehicles.

68. The application recognises that there is a possibility of dust arising from the activities

undertaken at the site due to the nature of the material being deposited. The proposal

does not seek to change the methods of working at the site or the type of material being

deposited but to delay the time period by which infilling would be completed and the

subsequent delay to restoration. Whilst the restoration procedures and scheme are no

different to that considered as part of the original planning application in 1995, the delay

in infilling of the site could result in residents being exposed to dust emissions longer

than originally anticipated.

69. The Environmental Statement provides an Air Quality Assessment which sets out that

vehicle movements associated with the proposal would not increase above historical

levels and as vehicle movements associated with the site have not found to contribute to

an AQMA, this would continue to be the case. The application sets out three main

sources of dust emissions including from large scale earth moving during soil and

overburden stripping, bund formation and site restoration; dust from backfilling

operations, unloading/ tipping; and dust emissions from the access road. The application

sets out measures to control potential dust emissions including reducing vehicle speeds

on site, reducing drop heights from tipping trucks, use of a water bowser and sprays to

moisten material is required, dampening down the access road, loading and unloading in

areas protected from wind and the sheeting of loads. Furthermore as the site is

undergoing progressive restoration this will ensure that areas are restored as they are

filled keeping operational areas to a minimum.

Page 136

70. The County Dust Consultant has raised no objection to the continuation of infilling at the

site and subsequent restoration but has recommended a condition be imposed that a

Dust Management Plan be submitted for approval. This is because whilst the potential

for dust effects is deemed ‘very low’ to ‘low’ this is dependent on the successful

implementation of the dust control measures set out in the Environmental Statement

which the County Dust Consultant wishes to be formalised which can be secured by

planning condition. Officers recognise the proposed delay to infilling and restoration of

Coldharbour Lane landfill prolongs any potential for dust impacts to occur which would

not happen if the site were restored. However given the limited length of time sought by

the applicant to complete infilling and restoration, Officers are satisfied that the impacts

are limited particularly given the proposed mitigation measures.

71. Following the receipt of the Transport Statement which shows that HGV numbers visiting

the site were higher than that presented in the ES, the County Air Quality Consultant

reviewed the Transport Statement and the increased HGV numbers and commented that

given the proposal does not seek to amend the traffic flows historically associated with

the application site, the County Air Quality Consultant raises no objection or concern with

regard to the data presented within the Transport Statement and their recommendation

remains unchanged.

Noise

72. The NPPF para 123 sets out Government policy with regard to protection of the

environment and health and quality of life from noise. The paragraph sets out four bullet

points that planning decisions should aim to do of which bullet point one (avoid noise

from giving rise to significant adverse impacts on health and quality of life as a result of

new development) and bullet point two (mitigate and reduce to a minimum other adverse

impacts on health and quality of life arising from noise from new development through

the use of conditions) are relevant to this application.

73. The technical guidance to the NPPF relates to minerals development. Whilst this activity

is for waste development it is to facilitate the restoration of a mineral site therefore

having consideration of this document is relevant to this proposal. For example, para 31

of this document deals with noisy short term activities such as soil stripping, the

construction and removal of bund and aspects of site road construction which are

associated with restoration of mineral sites, and sets a temporary daytime noise limit of

up to 70dB(A) LAeq 1h (free field) for periods of up to 8 weeks in a year at specified

noise sensitive properties. These elements are echoed in the Surrey Noise Guidelines

which specifically seeks to address the different activities involved in the extraction of

minerals and sets out the appropriate noise limits for the various activities at a mineral

site. For mobile operations which includes the activity of raising the mineral and

transporting it to the processing plant and the importation, spreading and compacting of

fill materials the Guidelines state that every effort shall be made to operate the site so as

to minimise noise at all time.

Page 137

74. As the proposal involves the restoration of the site by the landfilling of inert waste it is

appropriate to consider the policy requirements set out within Annex E of Planning Policy

Statement 10 (PPS10) (Planning for Sustainable Waste Management) which sets out

locational criteria, including noise and vibration, for the testing of suitability of sites and

areas. Annex E requires regard is given to the locational criteria in the consideration of

waste applications in terms of type and scale and taking into account best available

technologies. For noise and vibration, consideration should be given to the proximity of

sensitive receptors and the possibility of intermittent and sustainable operating noise.

75. Policy DC3 of the Surrey Waste Plan 2008 requires demonstrate through provision of

appropriate information that any impacts of the development, such as noise, can be

controlled to achieve levels that will not significantly adversely affect people, land,

infrastructure and resources. The policy requires mitigation measures to be identified

where relevant. There are no relevant policies within the Runnymede Borough Plan 2001

with regard to noise from mineral working.

76. Operation and restoration of the site is proposed to be no different to that permitted

under ref: RU95/0163 to which conditions were imposed limiting noise levels to 55dB(A)

Leq for operations, plant and machinery; and for the removal of bunds and replacement

of soil during restoration a higher limit of 70 dB(A) Leq. The Surrey Noise Guidelines

recognise that final restoration normally occurs for short periods at the end of the project

with “the machinery used has to b e large and powerful in order to complete the task in a

reasonable period of time. Noise levels may be quite high but noise exposure for any

one location will normally be limited to a short period”. The guidelines set a noise limit for

restoration works at 70 dB(A) Leq.

77. The proposal would involve a continuation of filling in a manner that has historically been

undertaken at the site and then restoration of the landfill. Whilst the proposal does not

seek to change the methods of working in respect of noise, the proposal would lead to a

delay in completion of infilling and therefore restoration prolonging any impact from noise

from the development for a period of three years. There are no records of complaint with

regard to noise at the CPA nor held by the Runnymede Borough Council Environmental

Health Officer. Officers recognise that noise levels for mineral working and restoration

are at their highest during the final restoration as the bunds surrounding the site are

removed and the final profile is formed.

78. The County Noise Consultant concurs with the conclusions made within the submission

documents that the plant could work up to 30m from sensitive properties and comply with

the appropriate 70Laeq limit for a short period during the final restoration works. The

proposal would result in activities continuing on site for a longer period of time than that

originally anticipated and this would include the use of plant and machinery that could

generate noise. However, the County Noise Consultant does not think noise would

cause a significant adverse effect and considers that all work to be carried out can be

completed within the appropriate site noise limits. Officers are satisfied that the proposed

Page 138

extension of time would not lead to any significant adverse impacts with regard to noise

and complies with development plan policy alongside the NPPF.

TRAFFIC AND ACCESS

Surrey Waste Plan 2008

Policy DC3 – General Considerations

Surrey Minerals Plan Core Strategy 2011

Policy MC15 – Transport for Minerals

Runnymede Borough Local Plan 2001

Policy MV4 – Access and Circulation Arrangements

79. The proposal seeks planning permission to restore a former mineral site over a longer

timescale than the originally permitted with an increase of five years. 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.

80. 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.

81. As outlined above, the applicant proposes that the proposal would continue to use the

dedicated haul road from Staines Road/ Chertsey Lane which goes through the north

eastern corner of Thorpe Park, cross over Norlands Lane and then use the internal haul

road up to the landfill site. This access has been designed to accommodate HGVs and

leads to an A road which has and can accommodate HGV traffic. Using this route was

agreed as part of the 1996 Section 106 Legal Agreement which the applicant is willing to

carry forward should planning permission be granted for this application and the Draft

Heads of Terms are attached at Appendix 1 to this report. The proposal would also

utilise the weighbridge, wheel wash, site office and concrete hardstanding which are in

place on an area of land that formed part of the former Norlands Lane landfill site which

are subject of a separate application ref: RU12/0870.

Page 139

82. 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 2013 committee, it came to the County Planning Authority’s

attention that more than 220 HGVs were accessing the site weekly. The 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.

83. 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).

84. 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).

85. 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 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 to 330 loads/ 660 movements

per week with a daily cap of 176 movements or 88 loads. This is to accommodate the

fluctuations as seen in 2012. However, as access to the site is gained via Norlands Lane

to the Coldharbour Lane landfill site, Officers consider it appropriate that the condition be

Page 140

imposed on planning application ref:RU12/0870 and not this application as in doing so,

this would be default limit the number of HGVs accessing the Coldharbour Lane landfill

site.

86. The applicant is also proposing to enter into a legal undertaking for the routing of the

HGVs to ensure they use the dedicated haul road from the A320 to Norlands Lanes and

this is appended to this report. Subject to the imposition of a condition on planning

application ref: RU12/0870 and the entering into of a legal undertaking, the CHA raise no

objection to the proposal on capacity or highway grounds. Officers recognise the

proposal would result in HGVs accessing the site for a period of 5 years beyond that

originally permitted however, these HGVs use a dedicated access road and gain access

to an A road which can accommodate this traffic. Officers are satisfied that subject to the

imposition of a condition limiting vehicle numbers entering the application site and a legal

undertaking being entered in to, that the proposal meets the requirements of the

development plan with regard to highway matters.

Rights of Way

87. Policy DC3 of the Surrey Waste Plan requires, where appropriate, an assessment of the

impact on the rights of way network and mitigation measures to be proposed where

required. Footpath 49 has been permanently diverted around the landfill site. This

footpath would remain on its diverted route following the completion of restoration as this

is now the definitive route of the footpath. The submitted plans reflect this therefore the

County Rights of Way team have no objection to the proposal.

WASTE MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS

Surrey Waste Plan 2008

Policy CW4 – Waste Management Capacity

Policy CW5 – Location of Waste Facilities

Policy WD7 – Disposal by Landfilling, Landraising, Engineering or Other Operations

88. Planning permission for extraction of sand and gravel and subsequent infilling with inert

waste was originally granted planning permission in 1996 ref: RU95/0163. This planning

permission sought completion of infilling and restoration activities by 31 December 2010.

This planning permission was then varied in 2005 to allow for an extension of time for

completion of extraction but did not seek to vary the end date by which restoration was to

be complete. The applicant is now wishing to extend the period of time that infilling takes

place and to delay the time when restoration would be completed by to 31 December

2015, some five years beyond that originally anticipated.

Page 141

89. National, regional and county waste policy is moving away from reliance on landfill but

still recognises the importance of landfill in restoring current and former mineral

workings. Surrey Waste Plan 2008 Policy CW4 (Waste Management Capacity) states

that planning permission will be granted to enable sufficient waste management capacity

to be provided to manage the equivalent waste arising in Surrey together with meeting

the needs of residual wastes arising from London; and to achieve the regional targets

with regard to diversion of waste from landfill by ensuring a range of facilities are

provided for.

90. The Surrey Waste Plan 2008 recognises the importance of restoring mineral sites; the

important part landfilling with waste materials plays in this, and the need to ensure

restoration of mineral workings is not prejudiced by lack of suitable material and sets out

policies on waste related development in Surrey. The Surrey Waste Plan 2008 did not

identify potential areas for landfill as at the time of writing, landfill requirements in Surrey

showed a surplus of total landfill capability including London imports for the period 2006

– 2015 (paras B33 and B34 of the Surrey Waste Plan 2008). Included in the landfill void

at the time of adoption would have been the permitted void at Coldharbour Lane.

Paragraph B34 states that the plan seeks to direct waste from landfill and enable the

improved husbanding of existing void.

91. Policy WD7 Disposal by Landfilling, Landraising, Engineering or Other Operations states

that planning permission will only be granted for waste disposal by landfilling, landraising

or engineering provided the waste to be disposed of cannot practicably and reasonably

be reused, recycled, or processed or may otherwise be required for the restoration of

mineral workings and the proposal is both essential, and involves the minimum quantity

of waste for, amongst other circumstances, the purpose of restoring current or former

mineral working sites. Granting an extension of time would enable landfill void which was

accounted for at the time the plan was adopted to be maintained thereby continuing to

make a contribution towards landfill requirements in Surrey for the period to 2015.

92 PPS10 states that where a proposal is consistent with an up to date development plan,

the applicant should not have demonstrate a quantitative or market need for the

proposal. However, the proposal is to facilitate the restoration of a former mineral site

and the proposal is seeking an extension of time to do this.

93. The applicant states the need for the extension of time is due to a number of issues

causing delay. One of these has been the need to install a clay liner around the

perimeter of the landfill site at the request of the Environment Agency. This requires the

liner to be quality assured tested before filling can commence which can add to the

overall timescale which was not originally foreseen. The second issue is due to market

forces and the economic downturn which has meant that, due to a reduction in the

number of building projects, there has been a reduction in the amount of inert waste

material being produced and being available for landfilling. This is also coupled with

Page 142

increasing recycling and recovery rates of inert waste material meaning such material is

being diverted away from landfill.

94. The impact of all of these issues can be seen in the remaining voidspace at the site

being 240,730t (some 141,605m3). The applicant shows in the submitted Transport

Statement that importation rates for 2011 and 2012 increased following previous lower

years. This has been due to the site having two contractors regularly bringing fill to the

site. The applicant has stated that they anticipate that filling rates will continue at the

same rates as importation for 2012 in which case the site would be filled within one year

with restoration complete 12 months after. The applicant has however requested that the

end date of December 2015 is retained to provide a level of flexibility should availability

of fill fall.

95. Officers recognise there is a need to extend the period of time for infilling based on the

fall in filling rates for years preceding 2011 and the voidspace remaining. Officers

consider the applicants argument that the reduction in fill is due to both the economic

down turn alongside an increase in recycling and recovery of inert waste material to be

acceptable. Whilst there has been an increase in fill coming to the site there is still a

voidspace that requires filling. Given drivers such as the Landfill Directive and diversion

of inert material to Landfll Tax ‘exempt uses’ such as golf courses, to farms for use as

track material, and noise bunds, Officers consider material being disposed of at

Coldharbour Lane landfill is likely to meet the requirements of Policy WLP7 in that it is

likely to comprise waste which cannot practicably or reasonable be reused, recycled or

processed. The current proposal involves landfilling inert waste materials as part of the

restoration of Coldharbour Lane landfill back to its former agricultural use, and at levels

similar to those existing on the site prior to extraction and Officers consider it involves the

minimum quantity of waste necessary to achieve this. Accordingly, Officers consider the

proposal complies with Policy WD7. Officers are satisfied there is a need for an

extension of time to complete restoration of the site and based on the information

presented have no reason to doubt that the site would not be restored by December

2015.

96. Whilst Officers consider that the applicant has demonstrated a need to extend the period

of time that the landfill site needs to remain open to receive C&D waste, Officers

recognise there is a need to consider whether the site is acceptable in terms of its

location.

Locational Aspects

97. Policy CW5 of the Surrey Waste Plan states that sites will be allowed, and proposals for

waste facilities on unallocated sites will be considered in accordance with principles set

out within the policy. These include: priority being given to areas in close proximity to

urban areas and easily accessible to the strategic road network; priority given over

Greenfield land to land in mineral workings and land in waste management use; sites in Page 143

or in close proximity to international and national nature conservation designations

alongside sites in AONBs and AGLVs being avoided; and that the site is well served by

the strategic road network or accessible by an alternative means of transport.

98. The application site is located on the eastern perimeter of the village of Thorpe, some

2km from the urban area of Staines. The site has good accessibility, as has been

discussed above in the Transportation section of this report, to the A320 Staines Road/

Chertsey Lane by a dedicated haul road. This means that HGVs associated with the

proposal would not use Norlands Lane or any roads through the village of Thorpe and

that the proposal has good access to the strategic road network and meets this criteria of

both Policy W17 and CW5. The application site is a former mineral workings and has

been in waste management use as a landfill site to facilitate the restoration of the former

mineral workings. The proposal also seeks to facilitate the restoration of the former

mineral site and is similar with regard to activities and processes that have been carried

out on the site. The proposal is therefore not incompatible with the requirement of Policy

W17 and Policy CW5 with regard to land uses.

99. The site is not located within the AONB or the AGLV. Whilst the site is in close proximity

to the Thorpe SSSI which is part of an SPA and RAMSAR site, which are sensitive sites,

as outlined above the proposal would not impact on these ecological designations. The

proposal meets the requirement in Policy CW5 not to harm such sensitive designations.

The application site has also been assessed above against other environmental and

amenity criteria. Based on the above, the proposal meets the requirements of the criteria

set out within Policy CW5 of the Surrey Waste Plan.

GREEN BELT

Surrey Minerals Plan Core Strategy 2011

Policy MC3 - Spatial Strategy – Mineral development in the Green Belt

Policy MC17 – Restoring mineral workings

Surrey Waste Plan 2008

Policy CW6 – Development in the Green Belt

100. Coldharbour Lane landfill and land that lies within the former Norlands Lane landfill site

both lie within the Metropolitan Green Belt where policies of restraint apply. As the

proposal is seeking an extension of time for filling a former mineral site with inert waste

material it is appropriate to consider the proposal with regard to Green Belt from both a

minerals and waste perspective with regard to policy.

Page 144

101. Government advice on Green Belts is set out within the NPPF which states at paragraph

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 sets out the five purposes of Green Belt including the

check the unrestricted sprawl of large built up areas; to assist in safeguarding the

countryside from encroachment; to prevent neighbouring towns merging; to preserve the

setting and character of historic towns; and to assist in urban regeneration.

102. As with PPG2 (now replaced by the NPPF), inappropriate development is, by definition,

harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special

circumstances. Para 88 of the NPPF states that when considering any planning

application, local planning authorities should “ensure that substantial weight is given to

any harm to the Green Belt. ‘Very special circumstances’ will not exist unless the

potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is

clearly outweighed by other considerations”. However, para 90 goes on to list certain

forms of development which are not inappropriate in the Green Belt provided they

preserve openness of the Green Belt and do not conflict with the purposes of including

land in Green Belt. The proposal is to infill a former mineral site where a void has been

created through mineral extraction. Whilst the original proposal would have involved

mineral extraction which is listed as a form of development which need not be

inappropriate, this proposal is for the infilling of the void space using waste and this

component does not fall within any of these categories. Para 144 of the NPPF states that

where mineral development takes place that restoration and aftercare are provided for at

the earliest opportunity and to be carried out to high environmental standards, through

the application of appropriate conditions where necessary.

103. As the proposal involves the deposition of waste to facilitate restoration of the site it is relevant to consider Planning Policy Statement 10 (PPS10) with regard to waste management. PPS10 states that planning authorities should protect Green Belts but recognise the particular locational needs of some types of waste management facilities when defining detailed Green Belt boundaries and, in determining planning applications, that these locational needs, together with the wider environmental and economic benefits of sustainable waste management, are material considerations that should be given significant weight in determining whether proposals should be given planning permission.

104. Policy MC17 of the Surrey Minerals Plan 2011 Core Strategy directs that mineral working

will only be permitted where the mineral planning authority is satisfied that the site can

be restored and managed to a high standard. The policy requires that restored sites

should be sympathetic to the character and setting of the wider area and capable of

sustaining an appropriate after use. The policy also goes on to state that restoration of

mineral workings should be completed at the earliest opportunity and progressive

restoration will be required where appropriate. The commentary text to Policy MC17

identifies that the majority of mineral workings lie in the Green Belt and after-use needs

to be appropriate to the designation. Policy MC3 (Spatial Strategy – Mineral

Development in the Green Belt) 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 very special circumstances that exist to outweigh the

harm by reason of its inappropriateness and any other harm.

Page 145

105. The Surrey Waste Plan 2008 recognises that landfilling and landraising can both can

play a positive role in the restoration of a mineral working site. Paragraph B46 states that

mineral working need not be inappropriate development provided high environmental

standards are maintained and that the site is well restored. The paragraph recognises

that landfill is most often the means to that restoration and that is need not conflict with

the purposes of including land in the Green Belt being that it can play a positive role in

the objectives of the Green Belt. Policy WD8 states that proposals for landfilling,

landraising and engineering or other operations where appropriate should incorporate

finished levels that are compatible with the surrounding area and any likely settlement.

Harm

106. The proposal seeks an extension of time to delay completion of infilling by a further 5

years from that originally permitted. The harm to Green Belt in the form of openness from

this proposal would be the delay to the final restoration and agricultural aftercare and

absorption of the site back into the surroundings; and having the associated

infrastructure on site for a longer time period such as the internal road and machinery.

There would also be other harm to the Green Belt with regard to continued traffic

movements associated with the proposal, alongside noise, air quality and visual harm.

Restoration

107. The application area is to be restored back to agricultural use in a domed profile

extending some 2m in height from ground levels to the south and west. The contour

levels and landscaping design for the final profile of the site are the same as those that

were approved as part of planning permission ref: RU95/0163. The applicant does not

seek to amend the contours or the planting species. The County Historical Building

Officer has raised concern at the height of the restored profile and wishes to know why it

is the height it is. The site prior to mineral extraction was generally flat about 15m AOD

and the intention is to restore the land to a domed height of 17m AOD in the centre of the

site with the majority of the site being returned to approximately the same contours as

what previously existed. This domed shape and height is to complement the proposed

restoration landform on the adjoining Norlands Lane site and provide assistance with

surface water run-off and reduce the potential for ponding of water on top of the landfill

which could lead to breaches in the landfill cap post restoration and post settlement.

108. The application also makes provision for restoration of the internal haul road and for

restoration of the ancillary area immediately to the north of Norlands Lane as even

though this land was originally part of planning approvals associated with the Norlands

Lane landfill site, there is no approved plan showing this area being fully restored and in

aftercare. The details include removal of all hardcore and concrete after which the

ground would be ripped to reduce compaction and soils replaced and the land seeded

Page 146

with a wildflower mix. The haul road banks would remain as existing as they form part of

the engineered liner of Norlands Lane landfill. The haul road would remain but in a state

that resembles a farm track so that access can be gained to the application site for

aftercare reasons and ongoing agricultural use of the land. A gate, similar to that found

at an agricultural field, would also be provided where the current gate to the site from

Norlands Lane is. The applicant proposes aftercare for a period of five years. 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.

Conclusion

109. The key consideration for this planning application is whether, in granting planning

permission to allow for an extension of time to the operations on site, this would cause

an unacceptable delay to the restoration of the application site back to agricultural use

and harm to the Green Belt. Development Plan policies seek the early and effective

restoration of mineral sites. With regard to Green Belt openness, Officers accept the

proposal will cause harm to openness whilst the site is operating as a landfill site and the

harm from the site not being restored. However, Officers consider the harm to openness

would be limited due to the small extension of time being sought and given the site is

being progressively restored. On completion of restoration the site will return to

agricultural use and so would not conflict with the requirements of the Surrey Minerals

Plan 2011 or Surrey Waste Plan 2008.

110. Officers recognise that the proposal involves delay in the restoration of the site.

However, Officers are satisfied that the applicant has demonstrated the need for the

additional time given the downturn in the availability of material and the void space that

still remains; and the need to provide good quality restoration of the application site. The

proposal is for a temporary activity and once completed the site would be in agricultural

aftercare. Officers do not consider the extension of time sought to be excessive and

given no other extension of time has been sought by the applicant previously, Officers

consider there is no reason to expect the level of restoration and aftercare would be

delayed beyond the timescale provided or that a high quality restoration would not be

achievable. The proposal is to facilitate the restoration of a former mineral site through

landfilling of inert waste bringing the site back into agricultural use. By not granting an

extension of time for completion of restoration, the site would have to be restored at a

lower profile which would result in drainage and runoff issues and may adversely affect

the future use of the land. Additionally the approved profile allows for the application site

to assimilate with the profile at Norlands Lane landfill.

111. Officers are satisfied that the applicant has submitted proposals to enable a good quality

restoration of a former mineral site; and that the restoration would lead to a finished use

and form that would not conflict with the purposes of including land in the Green Belt and

preserve openness in the long term. Consequently, Officers are satisfied that the

Page 147

proposal meets the requirements of the Development Plan and the NPPF with regard to

Green Belt and the restoration of mineral workings.

HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS

112. 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.

113. The proposal involves the continual landfilling with inert wastes at Coldharbour Lane

landfill. It is recognised that the proposal has the potential to impact on residential

amenity in terms of noise, dust, from the traffic generated and in terms of groundwater

and nature conservation. The issues are considered and assessed in the report and it is

the Officer’s 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

114. The proposal seeks an extension of time for completion of landfilling activities at a former

mineral site within Thorpe. The application site adjoins a former mineral and waste site

called Norlands Lane landfill which is currently in aftercare. The applicant previously

submitted a planning application in 2010 which sought an extension of time for

completion of landfilling however this application was subject to delay due to the need to

provide an Environmental Statement and then the adequacy of that document.

Subsequently the applicant resubmitted the planning application with an accompanying

Environmental Statement and recognising the continual delay in obtaining suitable

landfilling material, has sought an extension of time for completion of works until

December 2015, some 5 years after the original completion date. The issues

surrounding this application are the impact on Green Belt, the need for the proposal; and

the impact on the environment and amenity of the proposed delay.

115. Officers recognise that the proposed delay would cause some temporary harm to the

openness of the Green Belt due to the continuation of activities and the delay in final

restoration of a former mineral site. However, on restoration the site would preserve the

openness of the Green Belt in the long-term. Officers recognise the application site

cannot be restored to a lower level than the approved restoration scheme given the need

for the site to have adequate post settlement drainage and for the site to assimilate with

the adjoining Norlands Lane landfill.

Page 148

116. The proposal does not seek to change any of the operational aspects of Coldharbour

Lane Landfill that have been previously permitted with regard to the type of waste

involved and method of infilling, number of vehicle movements alongside control and

mitigation measures. No objections have been raised by statutory consultees to the

proposed delay. Officers recognise that in permitting the proposal this would enable the

continuation of activities on site that may give rise to environmental and amenity impacts

however given the mitigation measures in place and that there are no proposed changes

as outlined above that the proposal, in isolation and in combination with other

development in the local, would not give rise to any significant adverse impacts on the

environment, residential amenity, Green Belt or the public highway. Accordingly, it is

recommended that planning permission be granted.

RECOMMENDATION

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

routing of Heavy Goods Vehicles, to PERMIT subject to the following conditions

Conditions:

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

accordance with the following plans/drawings:

P4/193/20D Site Plan July 2010

Survey Update 19 March 2012

P4/193/28D Reference with restoration plan for aftercare scheme January 2013

P4/193/32(a) Scheme of infilling June 2012

P4/193/32(b) Scheme of infilling June 2012

P4/193/32(c) Scheme of infilling June 2012

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

P4/193/34 Haul Road Restoration Detail January 2013

L/FE/25 Field Gate 3.6m wide

2. The development hereby permitted shall cease on or before 31 December 2015 and all

fixed plant or machinery, internal access roads, and hardstandings, subject to this

permission, together with their foundations and bases, shall be removed from the site and

the site shall be restored in accordance with Plans P4/193/28D, P4/193/33, P4/193/34 and

L/FE/25

Page 149

3. Notwithstanding any provision to the contrary under Article 3 and Parts 4 or 19 of Schedule

2 to the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 or any

subsequent Order, no plant, buildings or machinery whether fixed or movable, shall be

erected on the application site without the prior written approval of the County Planning

Authority in respect of the siting, detailed design, specifications and appearance of the

installation

4. No light shall be illuminated nor shall any operation or activities authorised or required by

this permission be carried out except between the following times:

0700 - 1800 hours Monday - Friday

0700 - 1300 hours Saturdays

Notwithstanding this the formation of the screen bunds around the site and their

subsequent removal when required for restoration, shall only be carried out between:-

0800 - 1700 hours on Mondays to Friday; and

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

5. Ingress and egress to the site shall be only from the Norlands Lane access to the haul

route as shown on plan P4/193/20D

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

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

creation of a dangerous surface on the highway.

7. From the date of this permission to the cessation of operations hereby consented, a copy

of this permission including all documents with this permission, shall be displayed on the

site during working hours in a position which is readily accessible to any person

undertaking the development.

8. The groundwater and monitoring scheme shall be carried out strictly in accordance with

the schemes approved under ref: RU96/0991 and RU97/0010. The schemes shall include

the following data:

(a) Surface water level monitoring at FISH, TASI and STULAKE

(b) Groundwater monitoring and settlement block monitoring at MP01 - MP17 and

MP19

Page 150

(c) Monitoring of the quality and volume of dewatering water discharged from the site

(d) Frequency of groundwater/ settlement block/ water quality monitoring

(e) Review and reporting of groundwater levels and quality to the County Planning

Authority on an annual basis

The above monitoring shall continue for a period of not less than 2 years from cessation of

sub-water table infilling and thereafter until it can be demonstrated to the approval of the

CPA that ground and surface water levels have recovered to the long term background

level without any significant adverse impact. Monitoring wells shall not be decommissioned

for a further 3 years.

9. Material used for the backfilling of the site shall be restricted to inert waste as defined in

the Landfill (England and Wales) Regulations 2002 (as amended) and shall be deposited

and graded over the site to follow the final contours shown on Plan No. P4/193/28D

10. There shall be no direct connection between the pits and any watercourse

11. No solid matter shall be deposited so that it passes or is likely to pass into any

watercourse

12. The protection of the Coldharbour Lane, Thorpe domestic groundwater source (Licence No

29/42) shall remain in operation for the duration of the permission hereby granted whilst

dewatering takes place in accordance with the scheme submitted to and approved by the

County Planning Authority under reference RU97/1252

13. The development shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the scheme for protection

of groundwater abstraction licences and water levels for Ponds A and B as approved by

planning permission ref: RU97/1252 dated 30 January 1998.

14. 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.

15. 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 55dB(A) Leq, during any 30 minute period

Page 151

16. During the limited period of final restoration, the level of noise arising from the removal of

bunds and placement of soils and other associated works, when measured at or

recalculated as at the height of 1.2m above ground level and at least 3.6m from the façade

of any noise sensitive property, shall not exceed 70dBLAeq during any half hour period.

17. All advance planting shall be maintained for the duration of this permission to the

satisfaction of the County Planning Authority. Such maintenance is to include the

replacement of any trees and shrubs which may die

18. All topsoil and subsoil shall be retained on the site

19. All soils and soil making materials shall only be stripped, handled, stockpiled or used for

purposes of restoration when they are in such a dry and friable condition so as to prevent

compaction. For soils containing more than 18% clay the criteria for determining dry and

friable may be based on a field assessment of the soils wetness in relation to its lower

plastic limit according to the following test. 'An assessment shall be made by attempting to

roll a ball of soil into a thread on the surface of a clean plain glazed tile (or plate glass

square) using light pressure from the flat of the hand. If a long thread of less than 3 mm

diameter can be formed, the soils is wetter than the lower plastic limit and soil moving

should not take place until the soils have dried out. If the soil crumbles before a long

thread of 3mm diameter can be formed, then the soil is dry enough to move. This

assessment shall be carried out on representative samples on each major soil type'. For all

soil types (including sandy loams, loamy sands and sands) no soil handling should

proceed during and shortly after significant rainfall, and/or when there are any puddles on

the soil surface. Soil handling and movement shall not be carried out between the months

of October and March inclusive.

20. Topsoil and subsoil should be stripped from any part of the site prior to it being excavated

or traversed by heavy vehicles or machinery, built upon, used for the stacking of subsoil,

soil making material or overburden, used as a machinery of plant stocking area, or for the

construction of the haul road. Topsoil and subsoil shall only be removed by hydraulic

excavator and dump truck.

21. No rocks/ large stones exceeding 150mm in any dimension or other deleterious material to

be within 900mm of the surface before topsoil is replaced.

22. The subsoil and topsoil shall be spread over the restoration area at a depth of 85cms in

the area classified Grade 3A and 1m deep in the Grade 2 area to achieve the final

contours hereby approved. The full depth of the topsoil and the top 150mm of the subsoil

shall be tined with an agricultural wing tine at a spacing not exceeding 1 1/2 times the

working depth. All stones/ rocks exceeding 100mm in any dimension and other deleterious

material to be removed from the topsoil.

Page 152

23. Prior to the commencement of the placement of the restoration soils, profile boards shall

be placed on the formation level at 50 metre centres indicating the finished levels of the

restoration soil profile. In any part of the site where settlement occurs during the

restoration and aftercare period, the applicant shall fill any depression to the final settled

contours specified in the restoration plan with suitable soil.

24. Aftercare of the site shall be carried out in accordance with the `Coldharbour Lane, Thorpe

Restoration to Agriculture near Egham Outline Five Year Aftercare Scheme` dated

October 2006 and the `Coldharbour Lane, Access Road & Plant Site (Across Norlands

Lane Landfill) Outline Restoration and Five Year Aftercare Scheme` dated January 2013

25. Within three months of the date of this permission, a scheme shall be submitted to the

County Planning Authority for approval detailing how the perimeter bunds shall be

managed to make the habitat less attractive to reptiles and to be carried out in a way to

ensure any harm to reptiles is minimised. All works to the perimeter bund shall be carried

out in accordance with the details approved.

26. No activity hereby permitted shall emit dust, which causes a nuisance beyond the

boundaries of the site, due to either inappropriate working or adverse weather conditions.

If such an emission should occur appropriate measures shall be taken to abate the

problem, but if unsuccessful the activity shall be suspended until it can be resumed without

causing emission as a result of different methods of working, the addition of additional dust

suppression measures or changed weather conditions.

27. Within three months of the date of this permission a Dust Management Plan shall be

submitted to the County Planning Authority for approval in writing. The Dust Management

Plan shall include details of the dust suppression equipment to be used, its operational

area and the contingency measures to be undertaken to prevent dust being a nuisance

beyond the application site boundary in contravention of Condition 28 above. The

development shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved Dust Management

Plan.

Reasons:

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 control over the operation so as to ensure an orderly method of working, minimise

the impact on local amenity and the local environment and ensure prompt and effective

Page 153

restoration of the site in accordance with Surrey Minerals Plan Core Strategy 2011 Policy

MC17; Surrey Waste Plan 2008 Policy DC3 and to comply with Schedule 5 of the Town

and Country Planning Act 1990, as amended.

3. To maintain planning control over the development hereby permitted in an area of the

Metropolitan Green Belt where mineral working development is a temporary activity and

not appropriate as of right in accordance with National Planning Policy Framework and

Surrey Waste Plan 2008 Policy CW6.

4. To enable the County Planning Authority to exercise control over the site for the

development hereby permitted and its duration in accordance with Surrey Waste Plan

2008 Policy DC3, Surrey Minerals Plan 2011 Core Strategy Policy MC14.

5. In order to ensure that the development should not prejudice the free flow of traffic and

condition of safety on the highway nor cause inconvenience to other highway users and to

safeguard the local environment, to comply with Policy MC15 of the Surrey Minerals Plan

2011 Core Strategy Development Plan Document and Surrey Waste Plan 2008 Policy

DC3.

6. To ensure that the development should not prejudice the condition of safety on the

highway, nor cause inconvenience to other highway users and to safeguard the local

environment, to comply with Policy MC15 of the Surrey Minerals Plan 2011 Core Strategy

Development Plan Document and Surrey Waste Plan 2008 Policy DC3.

7. To enable the County Planning Authority to exercise control over the site for the

development hereby permitted and its duration.

8. To monitor and prevent any impact on the local water environment so as to accord with

Policy MC14 of the Surrey Minerals Plan 2011 Core Strategy Development Plan Document

and Surrey Waste Plan 2008 Policy DC3.

9. To enable the County Planning Authority to exercise control over the site for the

development hereby permitted and its duration in accordance with Policy DC3 of the

Surrey Waste Plan 2008

10. To prevent pollution of the water environment in accordance with Policy DC3 of the Surrey

Waste Plan 2008 and Policy MC14 of the Surrey Minerals Plan 2011 Core Strategy

Page 154

11. To prevent pollution of the water environment in accordance with Policy DC3 of the Surrey

Waste Plan 2008 and Policy MC14 of the Surrey Minerals Plan 2011 Core Strategy

12. To prevent derogation of existing domestic and groundwater sources due to the lowering

of groundwater levels locally by dewatering so as to comply with Policy MC14 of the

Surrey Minerals Plan 2011 Core Strategy Development Plan Document and Surrey Waste

Plan 2008 Policy DC3.

13. To safeguard the ecological value of the pond features so as to comply with Policy MC14

of the Surrey Minerals Plan 2011 Core Strategy Development Plan Document and Surrey

Waste Plan 2008 Policy DC3.

14. To prevent pollution of the water environment in accordance with Policy DC3 of the Surrey

Waste Plan 2008 and Policy MC14 of the Surrey Minerals Plan 2011 Core Strategy

15. To ensure the minimum disturbance and avoid nuisance to the locality to comply with

Policy MC14 of the Surrey Minerals Plan 2011 Core Strategy Development Plan Document

and Surrey Waste Plan 2008 Policy DC3.

16. To ensure the minimum disturbance and avoid nuisance to the locality to comply with

Policy MC14 of the Surrey Minerals Plan 2011 Core Strategy Development Plan Document

and Surrey Waste Plan 2008 Policy DC3.

17. To protect the visual amenities and enhance the proposed development in accordance

with Policy MC14 of the Surrey Minerals Plan 2011 and Policy DC3 of the Surrey Waste

Plan 2008

18. To secure restoration to the required standard and assist in absorbing the site back into

the local landscape to comply with Policy MC17 of the Surrey Minerals Plan 2011 Core

Strategy Development Plan Document; Surrey Waste Plan 2008 Policy DC3

19. To secure restoration to the required standard and assist in absorbing the site back into

the local landscape to comply with Policy MC17 of the Surrey Minerals Plan 2011 Core

Strategy Development Plan Document; Surrey Waste Plan 2008 Policy DC3

20. To secure restoration to the required standard and assist in absorbing the site back into

the local landscape to comply with Policy MC17 of the Surrey Minerals Plan 2011 Core

Strategy Development Plan Document; Surrey Waste Plan 2008 Policy DC3

Page 155

21. To secure restoration to the required standard and assist in absorbing the site back into

the local landscape to comply with Policy MC17 of the Surrey Minerals Plan 2011 Core

Strategy Development Plan Document; Surrey Waste Plan 2008 Policy DC3

22. To secure restoration to the required standard and assist in absorbing the site back into

the local landscape to comply with Policy MC17 of the Surrey Minerals Plan 2011 Core

Strategy Development Plan Document; Surrey Waste Plan 2008 Policy DC3

23. To secure restoration to the required standard and assist in absorbing the site back into

the local landscape to comply with Policy MC17 of the Surrey Minerals Plan 2011 Core

Strategy Development Plan Document; Surrey Waste Plan 2008 Policy DC3

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

exercise planning control over the operation so as to secure restoration to the required

standard and assist in absorbing the site back into the local landscape in accordance with

Policy MC17 of the Surrey Minerals Plan 2011 Core Strategy Development Plan Document

and the terms of Section 197 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

25. In the interests of amenity and wildlife conservation to comply with the Surrey Waste Plan

2008 Policy DC3

26. In the interests of local amenity and to comply with Surrey Waste Plan 2008 Policy DC3

and Surrey Minerals Plan 2011 Policy MC14

27. In the interests of local amenity and to comply with Surrey Waste Plan 2008 Policy DC3

and Surrey Minerals Plan 2011 Policy MC14

Informatives:

1. 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

Page 156

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

relevant to the decision.

The development

1 will provide the following benefits: enhanced restoration and the provision for husbanding

of landfill void space,

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 mineral development

Policy MC15 – Transport for Minerals

Policy MC17 – Restoring mineral workings

Surrey Waste Plan 2008:

Policy CW4 – Waste Management Capacity

Policy CW5 – Location of Waste Facilities

Policy CW6 – Development in the Green Belt

Policy WD7 – Disposal by Landfilling, Landraising, Engineering or Other Operations

Policy DC2 – Planning Designations

Policy DC3 – General Considerations

Runnymede Borough Local Plan 2001

Policy SV2 – Flooding

Policy MV4 – Access and Circulation Arrangements Page 157

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 2012

Planning Policy Statement 10 (PPS10) – Planning for Sustainable Waste Management

The Development Plan

Surrey Waste Plan 2008

Surrey Minerals Plan 2011 Core Strategy

Runnymede Borough Local Plan 2001

Other Documents

Surrey Noise Guidelines, Surrey County Council 1993

Page 158