TO: PLANNING & REGULATORY COMMITTEE DATE: 11 December 2013

BY: PLANNING DEVELOPMENT CONTROL TEAM MANAGER

DISTRICT(S)

EPSOM & EWELL BOROUGH COUNCIL

ELECTORAL DIVISION(S): Epsom Town and Downs Mrs Mountain

PURPOSE: FOR DECISION GRID REF: 522925 160804

TITLE:

MINERALS AND WASTE APPLICATION EP/13/00918/CMA

SUMMARY REPORT Land at Mid Surrey Farm, 133 Reigate Road, Ewell, Surrey KT17 3DE Construction of a 2125m² impermeable concrete hardstanding and associated surface water reception pit. For use in connection with soil screening activity. The planning application subject to this report does not seek to amend, alter, or change any existing lawful land-uses associated with Mid Surrey Farm. Mid Surrey Farm lies within the Metropolitan Green Belt along the A240 Reigate Road. The application site is located on the northern boundary of Mid Surrey Farm. It is screened from view from the A240 Reigate Road by the farmhouse, large agricultural gates, vegetation, and other buildings and structures located on the southern half of Mid Surrey Farm. The perimeter boundaries comprise stockpiles of soil and compost, and established trees and hedgerows, including coniferous species. The planning application seeks planning permission for operational development on land which benefits from a Certificate of Lawful Existing Use or Development (Ref. EP05/1080) for waste management. Officers consider that the main issues that arise in considering the proposed development are whether the development is acceptable under Green Belt policy; its impact on the amenities of local residents in respect of noise, dust and visual impact; and the impact on the wider environment including flood risk, visual landscaping and highway implications. The amenity impacts associated with the lawful use of the land i.e. air quality (dust, odour, vehicle emissions), noise, visual impact, traffic, and the landscape impact of the existing waste management facility have not been considered in this report. The proposal includes the construction of a concrete hardstanding measuring approximately 60m in length by 35.5m in width. The proposal also includes the construction of an underground reception pit to intercept and contain contaminated surface water runoff and leachate from the concrete hardstanding. The surface water reception pit would measure 7m x 7m x 2.5 m deep and would have the capacity to contain some 122.5m³ of surface water runoff arising from an extreme rainfall event. Surface water and leachate is to be collected by an HGV suction tanker on approximately 3-4 occasions per month for disposal off site at an appropriate wastewater treatment facility. Officers do not consider that, in the context of the busy A240 Reigate Road, that an additional 3-4 HGV vehicle trips to Mid Surrey Farm per month would, cumulatively or in itself, prejudice the safety of highway users or pedestrians, or cause inconvenience or other traffic and/or access

9

Item 9

Page 75

problems. The proposal does not concern the lawful uses of the land, which in themselves, attract vehicle movements. The concrete hardstanding is intended to protect ground water below the application site and prevent leachate percolating below the ground. The concrete surface is also intended to reduce the risk of surface water flooding as rainwater that currently soaks into the ground, and leachate associated with compost, would be captured and disposed of offsite. Although the proposal does not concern the wider land uses of Mid Surrey Farm, which in themselves generate noise, the proposal would create noise by way of the suction tanker HGV vehicle movements associated with the surface water reception pit, and plant and machinery operating on the concrete surface. The construction period relating to the proposal would also generate noise, however Officers consider that this period would be limited because the existing hardstanding is considered to be suitable for the concrete surface’s sub base layer. Accordingly, the construction aspect of the development would only comprise the laying of ready-mix concrete and the noise arising there from would be limited in duration. Various items of plant and machinery already operate within the wider site under their respective lawful land uses. The application would not change or alter this fact. Although the development proposed, during its construction and during its use, would generate a degree of noise. Taking into account the existing screening around the perimeter of Mid Surrey Farm, the limited duration of any construction period, and the applicant’s intention to incorporate rubber edging on plant operating on the concrete surface, that it is likely that this noise would be of such a nature so as to significantly adversely affect local amenity either cumulatively or independently. Should planning permission be granted for the development subject to this report, Officers do not consider a planning condition limiting the noise generated by operations undertaken on the hardstanding necessary or relevant. The large area of relatively open land in which Mid Surrey Farm is located, is typical urban fringe land, being represented by a finger of Green Belt which runs between Epsom, East Ewell and Banstead. It contains a variety of land uses including agriculture, residential, commercial, industrial, education establishments, playing fields and other activities. It is not open countryside but rather open land adjoined by urban areas. The proposal concerns the laying of a concrete surface at ground level within land being lawfully used for waste management purposes. Given that the northern half of Mid Surrey Farm is well defined, contained and visually screened Officers do not consider that the concrete surface would be visible from adjacent land. The concrete surface would not extend the area of land associated with the lawful waste management use. The applicant has demonstrated that the concrete surface would not adversely impact upon existing hedgerow trees and as such Officers do not have concerns about the long-term visual implications of the development. Accordingly Officers do not consider that the development would adversely affect the character of the local or wider landscape, nor do Officers consider it necessary for the applicant to provide further tree/shrub planting for screening purposes. The development is waste related and therefore is inappropriate development in the Green Belt, and impacts upon the openness of the Green Belt. Very special circumstances have to be demonstrated which clearly outweigh the harm by virtue of inappropriateness and any other harm which may be caused by the development. Having regard to the characteristics of the existing waste management facility, and the environmental benefits of providing the concrete surface, Officers consider that there are factors which amount to very special circumstances regarding this development, which clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt and any other harm, such that planning permission may be granted for the development. Officers are satisfied that there is no practical alternative to the proposal and that the development cannot be located elsewhere. The recommendation is to PERMIT subject to conditions.

9

Page 76

APPLICATION DETAILS Applicant Alan L Rose Date application valid 9 October 2013 Period for Determination 8 January 2014 Amending Documents None SUMMARY OF PLANNING ISSUES This section identifies and summarises the main planning issues in the report. The full text should be considered before the meeting. Is this aspect of the

proposal in accordance with the development plan?

Paragraphs in the report where this has been discussed

Highways, Traffic and Access Flooding and Surface Water Noise Dust Visual & Landscape Impact Metropolitan Green Belt

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No

25-41 42-56 57-70 71-83 84-94 95-119

ILLUSTRATIVE MATERIAL Plans Location Plan: RAC/5412/5, dated March 2013 Site Plan: RAC/5412/7, dated August 2013 Soil Pad Cross Section: RAC/5412/10 dated August 2013 Aerial Photographs Aerial Site Photographs Figure BACKGROUND Site Description 1 The application site (0.33 hectares (ha)) is situated at Mid Surrey Farm to the north east

of the A240 (Reigate Road), approximately 2km east of Epsom and 2km south east of Ewell. Mid Surrey Farm, measures some 3ha and comprises a four-bedroom farmhouse (133 Reigate Road) which is occupied by the applicant, a number of miscellaneous buildings, storage containers and an open yard area to the north.

9

Page 77

2 Mid Surrey Farm lies within the Metropolitan Green Belt in an open area of land, which is predominantly in agricultural and/or leisure uses, between the urban areas of Ewell and Epsom to the north and west respectively and Banstead to the north east and east.

3 The application site is located within the open yard area on the northern boundary of the

Mid Surrey Farm landholding and is screened from view from the A240 Reigate Road by the residential dwelling and other buildings and structures located on Mid Surrey Farm which front onto the A240. Several dwellings are located in close proximity to Mid Surrey Farm on the western side of the A240 with Downs Farm beyond, whilst numbers 127, 129 and 131 Reigate Road lie on the eastern side of the A240.

4 Beechcroft Nursery and a covered water reservoir lie to the north west and north of the

application site respectively and several residential dwellings are located to the east and north east of the application site along the former Surrey County Council smallholdings road (North Looe).

5 Trees and hedgerows, including coniferous species, run along most of the north and

southern boundaries of the open yard area of Mid Surrey Farm. The principal access to the application site and Mid Surrey Farm is off the A240 Reigate Road, via a double gateway to the north west of the curtilage of the applicant’s residential dwelling.

Planning History 6 In March 2006 Surrey County Council granted a Certificate of Lawful Existing Use or

Development (CLEUD) Ref. EP05/1080 for the importation, storage, shredding and composting of green waste to produce compost; the importation and mixing of manure to form a manure compost; the importation, storage and screening of soils to produce screened topsoil; with the bulk storage, sale (both wholesale and retail) and export of finished product. The area of Mid Surrey Farm governed by CLEUD Ref. EP05/1080 comprises the principal vehicular access and the area of open land on the northern part of the landholding.

7 Following refusal by Surrey County Council of the applicant’s retrospective planning

application (Ref. EP08/0416), planning permission was granted on appeal in April 2009 by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, for retention of a portacabin fixed to a mobile trailer for use as an office and canteen and retention of a weighbridge.

8 In January 2012, an application (Ref. EP12/00203) was received seeking a CLUED for

an existing use, however the application is currently undetermined. In summary, the uses being claimed are for the production of a variety of blended composts, achieved through the blending of compost, screened topsoil and manure. The application also concerns the importation of incidental metal loads, storage, export of scrap metal and processing including screening and crushing and export.

9 In January 2013 Surrey County Council granted planning permission (Ref. EP/12/00813)

subject to conditions, for the construction of a 3,080m² impermeable concrete hardstanding and associated surface water reception pit to be used for composting green waste to PAS100 standard.

10 In August 2013 Surrey County Council approved the details of a construction

management plan, submitted pursuant to Condition 3 of Ref. EP/12/00813 for the construction of a 3,080m² impermeable concrete hardstanding and associated surface water reception pit to be used for composting green waste to PAS100 standard (Ref. EP13/00455/CMA).

9

Page 78

11 In October 2013 Surrey County Council granted planning permission (Ref. EP13/00567/CMA) for the construction of a machinery shelter for a soil screening enterprise at Mid Surrey Farm.

THE PROPOSAL 12 The applicant is seeking planning permission for the construction of an impermeable

concrete hardstanding measuring some 2,125m² and associated surface water reception pit, to be used for soil screening and storage. The concrete hardstanding itself will measure approximately 60metres in length and 35.5metres in width. The proposed impermeable concrete hardstanding would be within the open yard area in the northern part of Mid-Surrey Farm adjacent to the boundary with Beechcroft Nursery and also to the concrete hardstanding permitted under EP12/00813.

13 The applicant has explained that although his soil screening enterprise is currently

operating on an unbound surface at the site, it is not possible to ensure that either material from the site surface is not included in the product, or cross-contamination between batches does not take place. The applicant’s soil screening enterprise is concerned with producing various grades of soils for differing uses. Where possible the site aims to produce topsoil which meets British Standard 3882:2007 as soils which attain this specification gain the highest market value.

14 British Standard 3883:2007 requires that cross-contamination of the material with coarse

fragments are kept below specified levels. Given the unbound surface currently in place at the site, it is not possible to ensure that material from the site surface is not included in product, or cross-contamination between batches stays below specified levels.

15 In order to meet the requirements for British Standard 3883:2007, the planning

application proposes to improve part of the existing hardstanding area with a 2,125m² impermeable concrete surface, which would be used for soil screening and storage. The proposal also includes the construction of a covered reception pit to intercept and contain contaminated rainwater runoff. The proposed concrete pad would also allow the site to be kept in a clean and tidy state, reducing the risk of mud being trafficked onto the highways.

16 Planning permission Ref. EP13/00567/CMA for a machinery shelter which is to be sited

upon the concrete hardstanding subject to this application, was granted on 18 October 2013.

CONSULTATIONS AND PUBLICITY District Council Epsom & Ewell Borough Council – Objection Consultees (Statutory and Non-Statutory) County Arboriculturalist – No Objection The Environment Agency – No Objection: Standing Advice Provided County Highways Authority – No Objection Sutton and East Surrey Water Plc – No Views Received Parish/Town Council and Amenity Groups Association of Ewell Downs Residents – No Views Received Summary of publicity undertaken and key issues raised by public 17 The application was publicised by the posting of 2 site notices and an advert was placed

in the local newspaper. A total of 11 owner/occupiers of neighbouring properties were directly notified by letter. No letters of representation were received.

9

Page 79

PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS 18 The County Council as County Planning Authority has a duty under Section 38 (6) of the

Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 to determine this application in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Section 70(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) (1990 Act) requires local planning authorities when determining planning applications to “have regard to (a) the provisions of the development plan, so far as material to the application, (b) any local finance considerations, so far as material to the application, and (c) any other material considerations”. At present in relation to this application the Development Plan consists of The Surrey Waste Plan 2008 and the Epsom and Ewell Core Strategy 2007.

19 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) was adopted in March 2012. This

document provides guidance to local planning authorities in producing local plans and in making decisions on planning applications. The NPPF is intended to make the planning system less complex and more accessible by summarising national guidance, which replaces numerous planning policy statements and guidance notes, circulars and various letters to Chief Planning Officers. The document is based on the principle of the planning system making an important contribution to sustainable development, which is seen as achieving positive growth that strikes a balance between economic, social and environmental factors. The Development Plan remains the cornerstone of the planning system. Planning applications, which comply, with an up to date Development Plan should be approved. Refusal should only be on the basis of conflict with the Development Plan and other material considerations.

20 The NPPF states that policies in Local Plans should not be considered out of date simply

because they were adopted prior to publication of the framework. However, the policies in the NPPF are material considerations which planning authorities should take into account. Due weight should be given to relevant policies in existing plans according to their degree of consistency with the NPPF (the closer the policies are to the policies in the Framework, the greater the weight they may be given).

21 The Surrey Waste Plan 2008 sets out the planning framework for the development of

waste management facilities in Surrey. The plan is divided into four sections. The Core Strategy sets out the spatial vision for the area over the plan period together with key spatial objectives and strategic policies. The Waste Development section contains site-specific proposals for development of waste management facilities. The Waste Development Control Policies section contains a set of development control policies that apply across the whole County and apply to all waste development. The Proposals Map illustrates the areas of designation identified in core strategy policy and the location of identified sites.

22 The Epsom and Ewell Core Strategy 2007 identifies the key issues and the social,

economic and environmental objectives for the future development of the Borough of Epsom and Ewell up to 2022, and a strategy to achieve them. It is central to the delivery of sustainable development and creating sustainable communities. However it does not deal with specific development sites, nor does it deal with the most detailed policy issues. It contains a Key Diagram which shows the broad locations of development and the Borough’s relationship with adjoining areas.

23 The planning application subject to this report seeks planning permission for operational

development on land which benefits from a Certificate of Lawful Existing Use or Development (Ref. EP05/1080) for waste management. Accordingly, Officers consider that the main issues that arise in considering the proposed development are: Green Belt policy; potential impacts on the amenities of local residents in respect of noise and visual

9

Page 80

impact; and impacts on the wider environment including flood risk, landscape, and highway implications. The proposed development constitutes inappropriate development by virtue of its nature and character and may only be permitted where the harm to the Green Belt and any other harm is clearly outweighed by very special circumstances.

ENVIRONMENT AND AMENITY CONSIDERATIONS 24 The amenity impacts associated with the lawful use of the land i.e. air quality (dust ,

odour, vehicle emissions), noise, visual impact, traffic, and the landscape impact of the existing waste management facility have not been considered in this report.

National Guidance National Planning Policy Framework – Promoting Sustainable Transport National Planning Policy Framework – Meeting the challenge of Climate Change and Flooding National Planning Policy Framework – Conserving and Enhancing the Natural Environment Planning Policy Statement 10 – Sustainable Waste Management Development Plan Policies Surrey Waste Plan 2008 Policy DC3 – General Considerations Epsom and Ewell Core Strategy 2007 Policy CS 1 – Sustainable Development Policy CS 6 – Sustainable Environment Policy CS 16 – Surrey Local Transport Plan Highways, Traffic and Access 25 Paragraph 32 National Planning Policy Framework states that decisions should take

account of whether the safe and suitable access to the application site can be achieved for all people, and that development should only be prevented or refused on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts of development are severe.

26 Although the proposal is not concerned with amending or changing the lawful use of the

application site, PPS10 advises planning authorities to assess the suitability of sites for waste management facilities against certain criteria including the capacity of existing and potential transport infrastructure to support the sustainable movement of waste, and products arising from resource recovery, seeking where practicable and beneficial to use modes other than road transport. In testing the suitability of sites against the criteria Annex E of PPS10 states that planning authorities should consider such factors as the suitability of the road network and the extent to which the access would require reliance on local roads.

27 Policy DC3 of the Surrey Waste Plan states that planning permission for waste related

development will be granted provided it can be demonstrated by the provision of appropriate information that any impacts of the development can be controlled to achieve levels that will not significantly adversely affect people, land, infrastructure and resources.

28 Policy CS 16 of the Epsom and Ewell Core Strategy states that development proposals

will be required to be consistent with, and contribute to, the implementation of the Surrey Local Transport Plan and should (a) be appropriate for the highways network in terms of the volume and nature of traffic generated, and ensure that the safety, convenience and free flow of traffic using the highway are not adversely affected; and (b) ensure that vehicular traffic generated does not create new, or exacerbate existing, on street parking problems, nor materially increase other traffic problems.

29 The application site is situated to the north east of the A240 Reigate Road, approximately

2km east of Epsom and 2km south east of Ewell. The primary access to the application

9

Page 81

site is off the A240 Reigate Road which leads onto the A24 Epsom Road/Ewell By-Pass, the A232 Cheam Road, and the A2022 College Road/Fir Tree Road.

30 The proposal does not relate to, or seek to increase the annual waste throughput of the

existing waste management facility thus attracting additional HGV vehicle movements to the existing facility. Leachate however is to be collected from the surface water reception pit proposed as part of the concrete surface will require periodic emptying by an HGV suction tanker.

31 According to the applicant’s calculations, based on the annual average rainfall for the site

area of 679mm per annum and a suction tanker volume of 15m³, the emptying of the proposed surface water reception pit would be required on 54 occasions per year, or approximately 3-4 occasions per month. The applicant maintains that this figure is likely to be lower due to evaporation of surface water from the concrete surface and the reception pit itself. The emptying of the reception pit on 54 occasions per year would equate to approximately 1 HGV vehicle trip per week (one vehicle in and the same vehicle out) in order to empty the reception pit.

32 Epsom and Ewell Borough Council objected to this proposal citing highway issues as one

of the reasons behind their objection. The adverse impact upon highways as a result of the periodic emptying of the surface water reception pit was viewed as significant by Epsom and Ewell Borough Council. Epsom and Ewell Borough Council calculated the total number of vehicle movements per week associated with the emptying of the surface water reception pit at 2-3 visits per week based on 142 HGV suction tanker visits per annum. The reasoning behind the difference in figures between Epsom and Ewell Borough Council and the applicant is attributable to the average annual rainfall level at the site. The applicant has stated a figure of 679mm per annum. Epsom and Ewell Borough Council have stated a figure of 1004mm per annum. The net difference between the two annual rainfall figures is 325mm, which impacts upon the amount of water required to be emptied from the reception pit per annum.

33 The Met Office Station Data for Heathrow Airport, provides annual rainfall figures which

assist in indicating accurate levels of rainfall at the site. Heathrow Airport is located some 13 miles away from Mid Surrey Farm, and is the closest Met Office Station to the site. Taking this into account it would be safe to rely on the annual rainfall figures of the Station Data for Heathrow Airport as an accurate indicator as to the levels of annual rainfall affecting the site. The Met Office Station Data for Heathrow Airport for the annual rainfall levels are as follows:

• 2010 - 521.4mm

• 2011 – 509.2mm

• 2012 – 707.4mm

• 2013 (10 month provisional data) – 428.5mm 34 The applicant has stated a figure of 679mm as the annual average rainfall figure falling at

the site. This is higher than the recorded figures of the Met Office Station Data for Heathrow Airport for years 2010-2011. For the year of 2012 the applicant’s rainfall figure is very similar to the level of the Met Office. It would also seem reasonable to suggest that the applicant’s figure of 679mm will be significantly greater than the final recorded rainfall level for 2013. The applicant has sourced the rainfall data levels through using the ‘HR Wallingford Rainwater Harvesting Tank Sizing Guidance Tool’. Further, the rainfall level of 679mm per annum used by the applicant is on the whole significantly greater than the levels documented by the Met Office Station Data for Heathrow Airport from 2010-2013. As the rainfall levels used by the applicant are greater than the levels documented by the Met Office, it would be reasonable to suggest that the applicant’s figures would therefore take into account rainfall levels for the possibility of an exceptionally wet year, in the applicant’s evaluation of the reception pit annual emptying calculations (Appendix 1 of the 2nd Addendum to Planning Application).

9

Page 82

35 Surrey County Council’s Highways Authority have examined the findings of Epsom and Ewell Borough Council and stated that they were unsure about the accuracy of Epsom and Ewell Borough Council’s calculations regarding the amounts of rainfall which fell in Epsom last year. As it stands the applicant has stated that there is to be approximately 1 HGV suction tanker trip per week in order to empty the reception pit. Epsom and Ewell Borough Council have stated that there are to be approximately 2-3 HGV suction tanker trips per week in order to empty the reception pit. Taking this into account Surrey County Council’s Highways Authority have stated that 4 HGV suction tanker trips per week associated with the emptying of the reception pit would not be seen as significant compared to the existing vehicle movements associated with the operations ongoing at the site, and 4 HGV suction tanker trips per week would not be seen as causing adverse impact upon highways and local amenity. Therefore even if the rainfall level used by Epsom and Ewell Borough Council was accurate and correct which would require the reception pit to be emptied approximately 2-3 times per week, this would cause no adverse impact upon highways and local amenity in the view of Surrey County Council’s Highways Authority.

36 The applicant has also provided details in respect of the vehicle movements associated

with the construction of the concrete hardstanding. This construction period would attract a total of 138 vehicle trips (276 vehicle movements) over a 12 month construction period. During month 1 of the construction process a total of 22 vehicle movements are estimated, at an additional rate of 6 vehicle movements per week over existing site traffic. During months 2-10 of the construction process a total of 181 vehicle movements are estimated, at an additional rate of 5 vehicle movements per week over the existing site traffic. During months 11-12 of the construction process a total of 73 vehicle movements are stated, at an additional rate of 9 vehicle movements per week over the existing site traffic.

37 Surrey County Council’s Highways Authority assessed the proposal subject to this report

and raised no objection to the development. Conclusion 38 Officers do not consider, in the context of the busy A240 Reigate Road, that vehicle

movements associated with the construction of the concrete hardstanding would, cumulatively or in itself, prejudice the safety of highway users or pedestrians, or cause inconvenience or other traffic and/or access problems. Nor would a possible maximum of 4 vehicle trips per week associated with the emptying of the reception pit cumulatively or in itself, prejudice the safety of highway users or pedestrians, or cause inconvenience or other traffic and/or access problems. In reality it will be most likely that only 1 vehicle trip per week associated with the emptying of the reception will occur taking into account the annual rainfall levels documented above. The proposal does not concern the lawful uses of the land, which in themselves, attract vehicle movements. The application subject to this report relates to the provision of a concrete surface on which part of the existing lawful use would be undertaken.

39 Paragraph 32 of the National Planning Policy Framework makes clear that development

should only be prevented or refused on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts of development are severe. Officers do not believe that the proposal subject to this report would have a severe adverse impact on the local highway network cumulatively or in itself.

40 Officers believe that in the event planning permission were to be granted, a condition

should be imposed limiting the timeframe of vehicle movements to 0800 – 1800 hours, and the number of vehicle movements involved in the construction of the concrete hardstanding to 10 movements per week. Accordingly, this would further mitigate significant adverse impact upon the local highway network.

9

Page 83

41 Having regard to the above, Officers consider that the development satisfies Policy DC3 of the Surrey Waste Plan 2008, and Policy CS 16 of the Epsom and Ewell Core Strategy 2007.

Flooding, Pollution and Surface Water 42 The National Planning Policy Framework – ‘Meeting the challenge of climate change,

flooding and coastal change’, asserts that planning plays a key role in helping shape places to secure resilience to the impacts of climate change. It advocates that this is central to achieving sustainable development.

43 Paragraph 100 of the National Planning Policy Framework states that inappropriate

development in areas at risk of flooding should be avoided by directing development away from areas at highest risk, but where development is necessary, making it safe without increasing flood risk elsewhere. Paragraph 103 states that when determining planning applications, local planning authorities should ensure flood risk is not increased elsewhere.

44 Paragraph 122 of the National Planning Policy Framework advocates that in ensuring

that the site is suitable for its new use local planning authorities should focus on whether the development itself is an acceptable use of the land, and the impact of the use, rather than the control of processes or emissions themselves where these are subject to approval under pollution control regimes. It goes on to state that local planning authorities should assume that these regimes will operate effectively. Equally, where a planning decision has been made on a particular development, the planning issues should not be revisited through the permitting regimes operated by pollution control authorities.

45 Planning Policy Statement 10 advises planning authorities to assess the suitability of

sites for waste management facilities against certain criteria including the proximity of vulnerable surface and groundwater and that the suitability of locations subject to flooding will also need particular care.

46 Policy DC3 of the Surrey Waste Plan 2008 requires that the flooding and pollution

implications of development on adjoining land and risk of flooding be taken into account in determining applications and that applicants demonstrate that pollution and flood risk implications can be controlled and would not give rise to significant adverse affect on people, infrastructure and resources.

47 Policy CS 6 of the Epsom and Ewell Borough Core Strategy 2007 requires that

proposals for development should result in a sustainable environment and reduce, or have a neutral impact upon, pollution and climate change. In order to conserve natural resources Epsom and Ewell Borough Council will ensure that new development: (a) minimises the emission of water into the wider environment; (b) has no adverse effects on water quality, and helps minimise off-site water discharge by using methods such as sustainable urban drainage; (c) avoids increasing the risk of, or from, flooding; and (d) incorporates waste management processes, for example for the recycling of water and waste.

48 The development proposed falls within Flood Zone 1 (land with the lowest probability of

flooding), however the application site is located above a principal aquifer. The applicant holds the appropriate soil screening permit from the EA (Provided in Appendix 1 to the ‘Planning Statement’). The introductory note of the soil screening permit requires that surface water from soil screening areas does not run off to surface waters or enter groundwater.

49 The proposed concrete hardstand would be laid to fall (1:100) towards a surface water

reception pit located within the southeastern corner of the concrete hardstand. As such,

9

Page 84

the surface water reception pit would catch surface water generated by rainwater and dust gun water falling onto the concrete surface, and leachate associated with soil. The reception pit is to be periodically emptied by way of a HGV tanker vehicle (with the appropriate waster carrier and disposal licence) with the liquid being disposed of offsite. The applicant states that the concrete hardstanding and reception pit would be constructed so as to satisfy the permeability requirements of the Environment Agency.

50 The surface water reception pit would measure 7m x 7m x 2.5 m deep and would have

the capacity to contain some 122.5m³ of surface water runoff arising from an extreme rainfall event. According to the applicant’s calculations, based on the annual average rainfall for the area of 679mm per annum and a tanker volume of 15m³, the surface water reception pit would be required to be emptied by a suction tanker vehicle some 54 times per annum. The applicant maintains that this figure is likely to be lower due to evaporation of surface water from the concrete surface and the reception pit itself.

51 The applicant states that by allowing the concrete hardstanding proposed, the ground

water conditions directly below the application site are likely to improve due to leachate not percolating into the ground. It is also asserted that the concrete surface would reduce the risk of surface water flooding elsewhere as rainwater that currently soaks into the ground, would be captured and disposed of offsite. Officers judge that the concrete hardstanding will prevent leachate percolating into the ground, thereby negating the possibility of pollution.

52 The Environment Agency was consulted on this application. However as the operational

development area is less than 1 hectare and is also within Flood Zone 1, no formal stator consultation is required of the Environment Agency. The Environment Agency did however state that ‘Surface Water Management Good Practice Advice’ would apply to the proposal and would make up the formal consultation response for this development. The Environment Agency formally notified the applicant, of the outcome of their consultation process. Further, the Environment Agency raised no objection to this proposal with regard to any other aspects of this development.

53 The ‘Surface Water Management Good Practice Advice’ which applies to this application

was sent to the applicant by SCC. The ‘Good Practice Advice’ chiefly focuses on sustainable drainage systems and provides information on this topic.

54 The development proposed does not seek to amend or change the lawful use of the

application site. The development is concerned with minor operational development. Officers consider that the proposed concrete surface and surface water reception pit would reduce the emission of water into the immediate environment by capturing surface water and leachate for disposal offsite at an appropriate wastewater facility. Officers do not consider that the concrete surface would increase the risk of surface water flooding or have a significant adverse affect on the quality of ground water below the application site.

55 Epsom and Ewell Borough Council also raised no objection to the development with

respect to surface water or possible pollution issues. Conclusion 56 Considering the contents of the above, and having regard to the fact that the County

Planning Authority should assume that the Environment Agency will operate effectively in seeking to control and prevent pollution, Officers consider that the development subject to this report satisfies, Policy DC3 of the Surrey Waste Plan 2008, and Policy CS 6 of the Epsom and Ewell Core Strategy 2007.

9

Page 85

Noise 57 Paragraph 120 of the National Planning Policy Framework states that in seeking to

prevent unacceptable risks from pollution, planning policies and decisions should ensure that new development is appropriate for its location. The effects (including cumulative effects) of pollution on health, the natural environment or general amenity, and the potential sensitivity of the area or proposed development to adverse effects from pollution, should be taken into account.

58 Paragraph 122 of the National Planning Policy Framework advocates that in ensuring

that the site is suitable for its new use local planning authorities should focus on whether the development itself is an acceptable use of the land, and the impact of the use, rather than the control of processes or emissions themselves where these are subject to approval under pollution control regimes. It goes on to state that local planning authorities should assume that these regimes will operate effectively. Equally, where a planning decision has been made on a particular development, the planning issues should not be revisited through the permitting regimes operated by pollution control authorities.

59 Paragraph 123 of the National Planning Policy Framework states that planning decisions

should aim to: (a) avoid noise from giving rise to significant adverse impacts on health and quality of life as a result of new development, and (b) mitigate and reduce to a minimum other adverse impacts on health and quality of life arising from noise from new development.

60 Planning Policy Statement 10 advocates that in considering development proposals the

County Planning Authority should consider the proximity of sensitive receptors in respect of noise. Annex E of PPS10 states that the operation of large waste management facilities in particular can produce noise both inside and outside buildings. Intermittent and sustained operating noise may be a problem if not kept to acceptable levels and particularly if night-time working is involved.

61 Policy DC3 of the Surrey Waste Plan 2008 requires that noise implications of

development be taken into account in determining applications and for applicants to demonstrate that any those implications can be controlled and would not give rise to significant adverse affect on people, infrastructure and resources.

62 Policy CS 6 of the Epsom and Ewell Core Strategy states that Proposals for

development should result in a sustainable environment and reduce, or have a neutral impact upon pollution. It goes on to state that the Borough Council will ensure that new development minimises the emission of pollutants, including noise, into the wider environment.

Conclusion 63 The application site is screened from the A240 Reigate Road by the farmhouse, large

agricultural gates, vegetation, and other buildings and structures located on the southern half of Mid Surrey Farm. To the north of the application site is open land and reservoir, to the west Beechcroft Nursery, and to the east, beyond an open field, several residential dwellings along the former Surrey County Council smallholdings road (North Looe).

64 Although the proposal does not concern the wider land uses of Mid Surrey Farm, which

in themselves generate noise, the proposal would create noise by way of the suction tanker HGV vehicle movements associated with the surface water reception pit, and plant and machinery operating on the concrete surface. The construction period relating to the proposal would also generate noise, however Officers consider that this period is likely to be limited due the existing hardstanding being considered suitable for the concrete surface’s sub base layer. Accordingly, the construction aspect of the

9

Page 86

development would only comprise the laying of ready-mix concrete and the noise arising from this process would be limited and would be spread over a period of 12 months.

65 The applicant states that the position of the concrete pad is such that it would not affect

any of the temporary soil stockpiles which are located around the internal perimeter of the northern half of Mid Surrey Farm. These internal stockpiles provide a degree of noise mitigation. Officers agree with this statement and agree with the applicant in that the location of the proposed concrete hardstanding will not interfere nor affect any of the temporary perimeter soil stockpiles. Further noise mitigation is proposed by the applicant in the form of ‘rubber blade technology’. By incorporating rubber wear edges to loading shovels operating on the concrete surface the applicant submits that noise directly relating to the proposed concrete surface would be minimised if not negated. This mitigation measure put forward by the applicant will be controlled by the imposition of a planning condition if planning permission is granted.

66 Run-off from the concrete pad will drain to the reception pit which will also have a

secondary use as a sediment sump. Water would be filtered and pumped into the existing storage tank to be recycled for use in the system of rain guns which have been installed at the site to meet the dust control requirements of the Environment Agency.

67 The water pump to be used to transfer water to the rain gun storage tank is a Jurop

LC300 and would be located adjacent to the reception pit. This pumping equipment would only be used during the site operating hours as defined by the Environment Agency soil screening permit (Ref. ERP/RP3894VM) as 7:30 – 16:00 hours, Monday to Friday, and 7:30 – 12:00 hours on Saturday.

68 The applicant has stated that the frequency of the pumping cannot be defined as

requested by Surrey County Council as this is dependent on future weather patterns. The noise levels associated with the pump are 73dB(A) at 7m, and so would be 56dbB(A) at the garden nursery to the north-west (50m), and 51dB(A) at the curtilage of the nearest residential property. Defra sound mapping showed that the average sound level over a 24 hour period at the site to be 55 -59 dB. These figures show that the noise from the use of the water pump during operating hours would not be above background noise levels, and as such Officers are satisfied that use of the water pump would not adversely affect the amenity of nearby receptors.

69 Various items of plant and machinery already operate within the wider site under their

respective lawful land uses, and this application would not change or alter this fact. Although the development proposed, during its construction and during its use, would generate noise, Officers do not consider given the existing screening around the perimeter of Mid Surrey Farm, the limited duration of any construction period, and in the case permission was granted a condition imposed to incorporate rubber edging on plant operating on the concrete surface, that it is likely that this noise would be of such a nature so as to significantly adversely affect local amenity either cumulatively or independently. Construction working hours are also to be controlled by condition in the event that planning permission is granted with no work to be done at any time on Sundays, Bank, National or Public Holidays.

70 Accordingly, Officers consider that the development subject to this report satisfies Policy

DC3 of the Surrey Waste Plan 2008, and Policy CS 6 of the Epsom and Ewell Core Strategy 2007.

Visual and Landscape Impact 71 Paragraph 109 of the National Planning Policy Framework, states that the planning

system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by (a) protecting and enhancing valued landscapes, (b) recognising the wider benefits of ecosystem services, and (c) minimising impacts on biodiversity and providing net gains

9

Page 87

in biodiversity and where possible, contributing to the Government’s commitment to halt the overall decline in biodiversity.

72 Policy DC3 of the Surrey Waste Plan 2008 requires that the visual and landscape

implications of development be taken into account in determining applications and for applicants to demonstrate that any these implications can be controlled and would not give rise to significant adverse affect on people, infrastructure and resources. It requires planning applications to include assessments and information to assess these impacts on surrounding land and where necessary, identify appropriate mitigation so as to minimise or avoid any material adverse impact and compensate for any loss.

73 Policy CS 1 of the Epsom and Ewell Core Strategy 2007 states that the Borough Council

will expect the development of land to contribute positively to the social, economic and environmental improvements necessary to achieve sustainable development, and that changes should protect and enhance the natural and built environments of the Borough and should achieve high quality sustainable environments for the present, and protect the quality of life of future, generations.

74 Surrey County Council’s publication ‘A Future of Surrey’s Landscape and Woodlands’

describes the Esher and Epsom landscape as a gently undulating, large-scale landscape of heath and grass downland commons which is partly rural and partly urban in character. Its key characteristics are given as:

• Much of the farmed landscape is becoming degraded

• Wooded commons, the results of natural regeneration, give the landscape a moderately wooded appearance

• The farmed landscape is small scale and enclosed with small to medium sized, irregularly rectangular fields divided by hedges with mature hedgerow trees

• Hedgerows also provide enclosure within road corridors 75 The large area of relatively open land in which Mid Surrey Farm, and consequently the

application site, is located is typical urban fringe land, being represented by a finger of Green Belt which runs between Epsom, East Ewell and Banstead. It contains a variety of land uses including agriculture, residential, commercial, industrial, education establishments, playing fields and other activities. It is not open countryside but rather open land adjoined by urban areas.

76 The application site is located with a well-defined and contained area of Mid Surrey Farm

which is being used for lawful waste management purposes. This waste management use is characterised by large stockpiles of soil, green waste, and compost, and vehicular and processing plant.

77 The concrete surface would be used to facilitate existing ongoing lawful composting and

storage operations. The applicant considers the area of the proposed concrete surface to be operationally necessary. Not only would the proposed concrete surface facilitate the operation of plant and machinery, it would also be used to store and compost green waste.

78 22 Leyland Cypress trees are located along the north-western boundary of the site

nearest to the proposed concrete surface. These trees vary between 12m and 14m in height and have a stem diameter of between 280 and 310mm with a branch spread of approximately 6m (diameter). All the trees are mature in terms of age class and are in good physical and structural condition.

79 The north-western boundary of the proposed concrete hardstanding runs parallel to the

site boundary, at a distance of 12m from the of Leyland Cypress trees. Using the Root Protection Area (RPA) equation in BS 5837:2012, it has been calculated that the nearest trees would have a RPA of 44m2 with a radius of 3.74m. It is clear therefore that the

9

Page 88

construction of the proposed concrete hardstanding would not impact upon the root system of the adjacent trees. A suitable tree protection barrier will also be installed during the construction period to prevent any accidental damage by construction traffic. (Paragraph 12 of the ‘Addendum to Planning Application Version 2) shows a diagram of the tree protection barrier which is to be constructed).

80 The proposal concerns the laying of a concrete surface at ground level within land being

lawfully used for waste management purposes. Given that the northern half of Mid Surrey Farm is well defined, contained and visually screened Officers do not believe that the concrete surface would be visible from adjacent land. The concrete surface would not extend the area of land associated with the lawful waste management use. The applicant has demonstrated that the concrete surface would not adversely impact upon existing hedgerow trees and as such Officers do not have concerns about the long-term visual implications of the development. Accordingly Officers do not consider that the development would adversely affect the character of the local or wider landscape, nor do Officers consider it necessary for the applicant to provide further tree/shrub planting for screening purposes.

81 The Surrey County Council Arboricultural Manager has no objection to this proposal. But

advises that the predicted increase in noise levels during construction and potential visibility of the concrete hardstanding should be mitigated through the creation of a tree belt on the eastern boundary. However, Officers are of the opinion that the creation of a tree belt along the eastern boundary is not required as harm does not exist to justify this.

Conclusion 82 The proposed concrete hardstanding is to be located along the western boundary of Mid

Surrey Farm. The western boundary of the site is physically and visually screened by temporary soil stockpiles and large established trees. Furthermore, an established tree belt currently exists along the eastern boundary which is also made up of small shrubs. The established tree belt runs along the vast majority of the entire eastern boundary. The eastern boundary of Mid Surrey Farm is also adjacent to undeveloped open land. Accordingly, Officers consider that the eastern boundary tree belt currently in place at Mid Surrey Farm provides both visual and noise mitigation cover which therefore satisfies the concerns of the Arboricultural Manager.

83 Having regard to the above Officers consider that the development would not adversely

affect local visual amenity or the local landscape. Accordingly Officers consider that the development proposed satisfies, Policy DC3 of the Surrey Waste Plan 2008, and Policy CS 1 of the Epsom and Ewell Core Strategy 2007.

Dust 84 Paragraph 120 of the National Planning Policy Framework, states that in order to prevent

unacceptable risks from pollution and land instability, planning policies and decisions should ensure that new development is appropriate for its location.

85 Paragraph 122 of the Framework, states that in doing so, local planning authorities

should focus on whether the development itself is an acceptable use of the land, and the impact of the use, rather than the control of processes or emissions themselves where these are subject to approval under pollution control regimes.

86 Paragraph 144 of the Framework, states that local planning authorities should ensure

that any unavoidable, dust and particle emissions are controlled, mitigated or removed at source

9

Page 89

87 Policy DC3 of the SWP 2008 states adverse effects on neighboring amenity including dust, must be controlled to achieve levels that will not significantly adversely affect people, land, infrastructure and resources.

88 Policy CS 6 of the Epsom and Ewell Core Strategy states that Proposals for

development should result in a sustainable environment and reduce, or have a neutral impact upon pollution. It goes on to state that the Borough Council will ensure that new development minimises the emission of pollutants into the wider environment.

89 The perimeter boundaries of Mid Surrey Farm comprise established trees and

hedgerows, including coniferous species. The application site is screened from the A240 Reigate Road by the farmhouse, large agricultural gates, vegetation, and other buildings and structures located on the southern half of Mid Surrey Farm. To the north of the application site is open land and reservoir, to the west Beechcroft Nursery, and to the east, beyond an open field, several residential dwellings along the former Surrey County Council smallholdings road (North Looe).

90 Although the proposal does not concern the wider land uses of Mid Surrey Farm, which in themselves generate dust, the proposal would create an additional level of dust by way of the vehicle movements associated with the construction of the concrete hardstanding.

Conclusion 91 Officers consider that any dust generated during the construction process, would not

significantly adversely impact local amenity. The site is well screened on all sides, by the farmhouse, established vegetation and other buildings and structures located on the southern half of Mid Surrey Farm.

92 The construction period is a temporary period and the dust generated will be a

temporary. The development is limited in scale and is to be completed over 12 months, and any dust generated should not cause any significant harm.

93 The maximum number of vehicle movements per week during the construction period is

estimated at 9 during the construction phase by the applicant, which is stated to be for months 11-12 of the process. However, during months 1-10 of the construction process the maximum number of vehicle movements per week associated with the construction phase is estimated at 5 by the applicant. Accordingly, it can be concluded that any increase in levels of dust as a result of the construction process during months 1-10, will be only be attributable to 5 vehicle movements per week, which is considered by Officers to be minimal and would not amount to harm.

94 Having regard to the contents of the above, Officers consider that the development satisfies, Policy DC3 of the Surrey Waste Plan 2008, and Policy CS 6 of the Epsom and Ewell Core Strategy 2007.

Metropolitan Green Belt Government Guidance Planning Framework Policy 9 – Protecting Green Belt Land Development Plan Policy Surrey Waste Plan 2008 Policy CW6 – Development in the Green Belt Epsom and Ewell Core Strategy 2007 Policy CS 2 – Green Belt

9

Page 90

95 Paragraph 79 of the National Planning Policy Framework establishes the importance of Green Belts. There it is stated that the fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open, and that the essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and their permanence.

96 Paragraph 80 of the National Planning Policy Framework states that Green Belt serves

five purposes: (a) to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas, (b) to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another, (c) to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment, (d) to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns, and (e) to assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land.

97 Paragraph 87 of the National Planning Policy Framework states that as with previous

Green Belt policy, inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. Paragraph 88 states that when considering any planning application, local planning authorities should ensure that substantial weight is given to any harm to the Green Belt, and goes on to state that ‘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.

98 Paragraph 90 of the National Planning Policy Framework states that certain other forms

of development are not inappropriate in the Green Belt provided that they preserve the openness of the Green Belt and do not conflict with the purposes of including land in Green Belt. These include: Engineering operations.

99 The Surrey Waste Plan 2008, which has been produced to be consistent with national

policy and in general conformity with the South East Plan 2009, sets out the planning framework for the development of waste management facilities in Surrey.

100 Policy CW6 of the Surrey Waste 2008 states that, ‘There will be a presumption against

inappropriate development of waste management facilities in the Green Belt except in very special circumstances. Very special circumstances to justify inappropriate development will not exist unless the harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations’.

101 Policy CW6 goes on to state that, the following considerations may contribute to very

special circumstances: a. the lack of suitable non-Green Belt sites, b. the need to find locations well related to the source of waste arisings, c. the characteristics of the application site, and d. the wider environmental and economic benefits of sustainable waste management, including the need for a range of sites.

102 In accordance with the above policies, harm to the Green Belt is an important factor in

determining the acceptability of this application. In order to assess this application in terms of Green Belt planning policy, it is necessary to establish the nature and extent of the harm caused. The development is inappropriate development in the Green Belt. It causes harm to the Green Belt by reason of its inappropriateness. Openness (the absence of development) is the most important attribute of Green Belts. Green Belts also serve to protect against the coalescence of neighbouring urban areas and urban sprawl. The harm caused by the development proposal in terms of inappropriateness, loss of openness, and coalescence needs to be considered in the context of the actual proposal and the potential impacts upon the Green Belt.

103 Policy CS 2 of the Epsom and Ewell Core Strategy 2007 states that to ensure the Green

Belt continues to serve its key functions, its existing general extent will be maintained

9

Page 91

and, within its boundaries, strict control will continue to be exercised over inappropriate development as defined by Government policy.

104 Epsom and Ewell Borough Council has objected to this proposal citing harm to the

openness of the Green Belt as one of the reasons behind their objection. Further to this Epsom and Ewell Borough Council stated that construction of the surface water reception pit amounted to a ‘building operation’, and would not fall into any of the exemptions stated in Paragraph 89 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

105 Officers judge that the concrete hardstanding would have a limited impact upon the

openness of the Green Belt. Given the context of the wider Mid Surrey Farm site and its associated lawful uses, buildings and structures, and having regard to the fact that the concrete surface would be contained within the land used for an existing waste management use. The scale of the proposed development is otherwise considered proportionate to the purpose of the proposal. The concrete surface would not enlarge the boundaries of Mid Surrey Farm. Accordingly, Officers do not consider that by granting planning permission for the concrete hardstanding, it would facilitate encroachment into undeveloped Green Belt land.

Very Special Circumstances 106 The demonstration of very special circumstances is a fundamental factor in determining

the acceptability of the application given that the proposed development is inappropriate development within the Green Belt and in view of the harm to the openness of the Green Belt and any other harm. Below is an analysis of the very special circumstances which the applicant believes are applicable to this proposal.

107 Officers consider that the application demonstrates very special circumstances which

clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness and harm to openness, and that these very special circumstances do justify the grant of planning permission.

108 Officers consider that the construction of the impermeable concrete hardstanding is an

‘operational necessity’ required to facilitate the production of topsoil which meets British Standard 3882:2007. The concrete hardstanding is to be positioned in an area of the site which is well screened by the western perimeter boundary, which in Officers opinion will aid in mitigating adverse visual or landscaping impacts.

109 The proposed concrete hardstanding would prevent leachate percolating below into the

ground and would reduce the risk of surface water flooding elsewhere as rainwater that currently soaks into the ground, and leachate associated with compost, would be captured and disposed of offsite.

110 Policy CW6 of the Surrey Waste Plan 2008 states four distinct considerations, which

may also contribute to ‘very special circumstances’ in a planning application, which the applicant has addressed in the ‘2nd Addendum To Planning Application’:

(i) Lack of suitable non Green Belt sites – The applicant has stated: 111 “ The location of the site is in excess of 20km from the nearest countryside edge of the

Metropolitan Green Belt within which the site lies. As such, waste soil arising from the local area, or from land further away from the outside (rural) edge of the Green Belt, would have to be transported a significant distance to undergo treatment, and return haulage for use would be similar. The applicant is unaware of any other available local land outside of the greenbelt which is not already built on, not financially prohibitive for purchase or rent, and suitable for a new soil screening operation. The site of the proposed development is also restricted by the extent of the land owned by the applicant and the limit of the land which on which there is a lawful waste management use. It is

9

Page 92

clear that to move an element of the established business away from the existing site would not be practical or economically viable.”

112 Officers consider that the development cannot be located elsewhere given the function

performed in relation to other lawful waste uses. (ii) The need to find locations well related to the source of waste arisings - The applicant has stated: 113 “The applicant currently receives various grades of soils from a wide client base

including local haulage firms, landscape garden companies, builders and skip companies. For these companies to potentially have to travel over 20km to a non green-belt site would not be practical nor financially viable. The ongoing, long term commercial success of the soil screening enterprise further demonstrates that it is well related to soil arisings as the economic burdens of transporting this heavy, bulky material would see operators take waste soils elsewhere if there was a suitable alternative, and in the absence of a suitable alternative, fly-tipping in the area may increase”.

114 Officers understand that the waste related operations of the applicant have been ongoing

at the current site for over two decades. It is accepted that the location of the site has allowed for a build up of trade clients within the local region. Officers consider that given the lawful nature of the existing use that the development cannot reasonably be located elsewhere.

(iii) The characteristics of the site – The applicant has stated: 115 “The characteristics of the site are considered suitable for the proposed type of

development as the site is well contained and defined within the context of Mid Surrey Farm and the surrounding land. The proposal would not be visible from outside the boundary of Mid Surrey Farm and would be visually screened and would not extend the boundaries of the operation”.

116 Officers are of the opinion that given that the northern half of Mid Surrey Farm is well

defined, contained and visually screened it would not be possible to view the proposed concrete surface from adjacent land. The concrete surface would not extend the area of land associated with the lawful waste management use. The applicant has demonstrated that the concrete surface would not adversely impact upon existing hedgerow trees and as such, Officers do not have concerns about the long-term visual implications of the development. Accordingly, Officers do not consider that the development would adversely affect the character of the local or wider landscape, nor do Officers consider it necessary for the applicant to provide further tree/shrub planting for screening purposes.

(iv) The wider environmental and economic benefits of sustainable waste management, including the need for a range of sites – The applicant has stated: 117 “The applicant suggests that by allowing the concrete hardstand proposed, the ground

water conditions directly below the application site are likely to improve due to leachate not percolating below ground. It is also asserted that the concrete surface would reduce the risk of surface water flooding elsewhere as rainwater that currently soaks into the ground, and leachate associated with compost, would be captured and disposed of offsite. The proposed concrete pad would also allow the site to be kept in a clean and tidy state, reducing the risk of mud being trafficked onto the highways”.

118 The applicant has stated there is a no possibility of considering a ‘range of sites’. This is

attributable to the fact that this proposal specifically relates to Mid Surrey Farm which Officers accept, with the purpose of the proposal being to construct a concrete hardstanding in order to allow for production of British Standard topsoil. Furthermore, the application seeks to improve the facilities of an existing soil screening enterprise and

9

Page 93

does not seek to introduce new operations or introduce a new site. Officers also judge that that the concrete hardstanding will prevent leachate percolating into the ground, thereby negating the possibility of pollution. Officers do not consider that the concrete surface would increase the risk of surface water flooding or have a significant adverse affect on the quality of ground water below the application site.

Conclusion 119 Officers consider that very special circumstances exist in this case which clearly

outweigh the harm having regard to the characteristics of the existing waste management facility, the environmental benefits of providing the concrete surface, the sustainable benefits of moving waste up the waste hierarchy, and the sustainable use of water through the surface water reception pit. Officers accept that the development cannot be located elsewhere, and is proportionate to the need and otherwise will not give rise to other unacceptable environmental or amenity impacts. Accordingly, Officers consider that the development satisfies the requirements of Policy CW6 of the Surrey Waste 2008 and Policy CS 2 of the Epsom and Ewell Core Strategy 2007.

HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS 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. Having considered the limited affects of the proposal on public amenity and the local environment the Officer’s view is that this application does not engage any of the articles of the Convention and has no human rights Implications. CONCLUSION Planning permission is sought for operational development on land which benefits from a Certificate of Lawful Existing Use or Development (Ref. EP05/1080) for waste management. Officers consider that the main issues that arise in considering the proposed development are: Green Belt policy; impacts on the amenities of local residents in respect of noise and visual impact; and impacts on the wider environment including flood risk, landscape, and highway implications. The amenity impacts associated with the lawful use of the land i.e. air quality (odour, vehicle emissions), noise, visual impact, traffic, and the landscape impact of the existing waste management facility have not been considered in this report as these matters relate to the existing lawful waste management use. Paragraph 32 of the National Planning Policy Framework makes clear that development should only be prevented or refused on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts of development are severe. Officers do not believe that, in the context of the busy A240 Reigate Road, that the numbers of HGV vehicle trips associated with this proposal to Mid Surrey Farm per week would, would cumulatively or individually, prejudice the safety of highway users or pedestrians, or cause inconvenience or other traffic and/or access problems. The surface water reception pit would measure 7m x 7m x 2.5 m deep and would have the capacity to contain some 122.5m³ of surface water runoff arising from an extreme rainfall event. Officers do not consider that the concrete surface would increase the risk of surface water flooding or have a significant adverse affect on the quality of ground water below the application site. Various items of plant and machinery already operate within the wider site under their respective lawful land uses. The application subject to this report would not change or alter this fact. Although the development proposed, during its construction and during its use, would generate

9

Page 94

a degree of noise, Officers do not consider, given the existing screening around the perimeter of Mid Surrey Farm, the limited duration of any construction period and construction hours (secured through condition), and the fact that the applicant will incorporate rubber edging on plant operating on the concrete surface (secured through condition), that it is likely noise would be of such a nature so as to significantly adversely affect local amenity either cumulatively or independently. The large area of relatively open land in which Mid Surrey Farm, and consequently the application site, is located is typical urban fringe land, being represented by a finger of Green Belt which runs between Epsom, East Ewell and Banstead. It is not open countryside but rather open land adjoined by urban areas. Officers do not believe that the concrete surface would be visible from adjacent land. The applicant has demonstrated that the concrete surface would not adversely impact upon existing trees and as such Officers do not have concerns about the long-term visual implications of the development. Accordingly Officers do not consider that the development would adversely affect the character of the local or wider landscape, nor do Officers consider it necessary for the applicant to provide for further tree/shrub planting. The northern half of Mid Surrey Farm, and by consequence the application site, is well defined, contained and visually screened. The concrete surface would not enlarge the boundaries of Mid Surrey Farm. Officers do however accept that the concrete surface would have an adverse impact upon the openness of the Green Belt by its very nature. Nevertheless, this impact, considered in the context of the wider Mid Surrey Farm site and its associated lawful uses, buildings and structures, would not be significant so as to further undermine the Green Belt surrounding Mid Surrey Farm. Officers consider that the application demonstrates very special circumstances which clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness and harm to openness, and that these very special circumstances justify the grant of planning permission subject to conditions. RECOMMENDATION The recommendation is to PERMIT planning application Ref. EP/13/00918/CMA subject to conditions. CONDITIONS: 1. The development hereby permitted shall begin before the expiration of three years from

the date of this permission. Written notification of the date of commencement shall be sent to the County Planning Authority within 7 days of such commencement.

2. The development hereby approved shall be carried out and maintained in all respects

strictly in accordance with the following plans/drawings: Drawing Ref. RAC/5412/10 Soil Pad Cross Section dated August 2013 Drawing Ref. RAC/5412/5 Rev-A Location Plan dated August 2013 Drawing Ref. RAC/5412/7 Rev-A Site Plan dated August 2013

3. The development hereby approved shall be carried out and maintained in all respects strictly in accordance with the following documents:

i) ‘Construction Traffic Movements’ table submitted in The Addendum to Planning Application (Version 2) dated September 2013

ii) ‘Appendix 1’ of The Addendum to Planning Application (Version 2) dated September 2013

4. Any loading shovel plant that operates on the concrete surface hereby permitted shall be

fitted with rubber edges so as to prevent the scraping of metal on concrete.

9

Page 95

5. No more than 10 vehicle movements per week shall be permitted for the construction of the concrete hardstanding, with vehicle trips only permitted to take place between 0800 – 1800 hours, Monday to Friday. A logbook recording vehicle trips is to be kept on site and made available for inspection upon request by Surrey County Council.

(1 vehicle trip = 1 single vehicle movement in, and the same 1 single vehicle movement

out) 6. No machinery shall be operated, no process shall be carried out associated with the

construction of the concrete hardstanding outside 0800 to 1800 hours Mondays to Fridays, and 0800 to 1300 hours on Saturdays, nor at any time on Sundays, Bank, National or Public Holidays. This condition shall not prevent the carrying out of emergency operations but these are to be notified to the County Planning Authority in writing within 5 working days.

REASONS FOR IMPOSING CONDITIONS: 1. To comply with Section 91(1)(a) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as

amended by Section 51(1) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. 2. For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning. 3. For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning. 4. To comply with the terms of the application and in the interests of local amenity in

accordance with Policy DC3 of the Surrey Waste Plan 2008. 5. To ensure that the development does not prejudice highway safety or cause

inconvenience to local highway users in accordance with Policy DC3 of the Surrey Waste Plan 2008.

6. To comply with the terms of the application and in the interests of local amenity in

accordance with Policy DC3 of the Surrey Waste Plan 2008. INFORMATIVE: 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.

9

Page 96