PLANNING COMMITTEE
23 January 2001
*Councillor Richard Marks - Chairman
*Councillor Patricia Gumbrell - Vice-Chairman
*Councillor Liz Hogger - Deputy Vice-Chairman
|
*Councillor Tim Allan |
*Councillor Diana Lockyer-Nibbs |
|
*Councillor Gordon Bridger |
*Councillor Marsha Moseley |
|
*Councillor Keith Childs |
*Councillor Mike Nevins |
|
*Councillor Mrs M A G Fenston |
*Councillor Tony Phillips |
|
*Councillor Angela Gunning |
*Councillor Mike Pooley |
|
*Councillor Peter Jennings |
*Councillor Rob Rolfe |
|
*Councillor Vivienne Johnson |
Councillor Tig Shepperd |
|
*Councillor Vas Kapsalis |
*Councillor Keith Taylor |
|
Councillor Terry King |
*Councillor Mrs Fiona White |
|
|
*Councillor Jenny Wicks |
*Present
In accordance with Standing Order 30(6), Councillors Auriol Earle and David Goodwin attended as substitutes for Councillors Terry King and Tig Shepperd respectively.
The Mayor, Councillor Sallie M Thornberry, The Deputy Mayor, Councillor Mrs Jennifer Powell and Councillors Tamsy Baker, Robert Blundell, Keith Chesterton, Alan Dewhurst, Andrew Hodges, Chris Lawson, Anne Lee, Nigel Manning, Jayne Marks, Joan O’Byrne, Pauline Searle, Lynda Strudwick and Nigel Sutcliffe were also in attendance.
Apologies for absence were submitted on behalf of Councillors Terry King and Tig Shepperd.
The Committee
RESOLVED: That Standing Orders be suspended to allow members of the public and the applicants to address the Committee at greater length.
Prior to the Committee’s formal consideration of this matter, the following persons addressed the Committee on behalf of the organisations indicated and their views were taken into account by Members in considering the matter before them.
|
v Reverend Colin
Matthews and |
Guildford Anti-Incinerator Network (GAIN) |
|
v Nick St Aubyn |
Member of Parliament for Guildford |
| v Mrs Lynda MacDermott | Prospective Labour candidate for Guildford Parliamentary Constituency |
| v Mrs Sue Doughty
|
Prospective Liberal Democrat candidate for Guildford
Parliamentary Constituency |
| v Mr John Bannister | Guildford Environmental Forum |
| v Mr Ian Moore | Campaign for the Preservation of Rural England |
| v Dr John Baylis | Guildford Society |
| v Mr Bill Baxter | Guildford Business Forum and Guildford Chamber of Commerce |
| v
Mr Michael Drakeford
|
Abbotswood Residents’ Association |
| v Mr Graham Hardy | Burpham Community Association |
| v Mr Michael Drakeford | Abbotswood Residents’ Association |
| v Mr Graham Hardy | Burpham Community Association |
| v Mr Douglas G Barnes | Slyfield Industrial Estate Tenants |
| v Mr Larry Rose | Jacobs Well Residents’ Association |
| v Mr John K McCall | The Capel Action Group |
| v Mr Peter Bedser | Weyfield School/St Peter’s Church |
| v Mr Brian Rich | St Peter’s Church |
| v Mr Nick Uwins | Burpham Primary School |
The applicants had been invited to address the Committee but had declined the invitation to do so.
The Committee considered the Officers’ report upon the consultation by Surrey County Council on the planning application submitted by Thames Waste Management in July 2000 for the development of an integrated waste management centre on 3.97 hectares of land at the eastern end of Slyfield Industrial Estate, Guildford adjacent to the existing waste transfer station, sewage works and River Wey Navigation.
The proposal comprises an Energy from Waste plant with capacity to handle approximately 225,000 tones of household refuse per annum, a Materials Recycling Facility to handle 15,000 tonnes of recyclate per annum and a Civic Amenity site.
The report considered various issues in detail, including policy context, traffic generation, visual impact, environmental impact, pollution, emissions, nature conservation, the riverside park, the Corridor of the River Wey, flooding, the River Wey Conservation Area and also public opinion.
Following a full debate and in the knowledge that Surrey County Council would be the determining Authority on this application unless the Secretary of State for the Environment decided to ‘call in’ the application for determination, the Committee concluded that the Officers’ report demonstrated that the proposed development clearly breached many areas of national, regional and local policy. The visual impact of the proposal, the associated pollution, traffic, possible flooding and conservation impacts would be unacceptable. The strong weight of informed public opinion based on valid planning grounds carried weight. The Committee congratulated the Officers’ and the Council’s Consultants on the preparation of an excellent detailed report and unanimously
RESOLVED: (I) That Surrey County Council be advised that this Council very strongly objects to the proposed integrated waste management centre on land at Guildford Waste Transfer Station, Moorfield Road, Slyfield Industrial Estate on the following grounds:-
(i) The application is premature and cannot be fully and properly considered until the County Council has fully reviewed its Waste Local Plan. The currently adopted Plan was considered inadequate by the Inspector such as to prevent proper determination of any planning application due to its lack of any locational strategy and site identification for major waste facilities.
(ii) The Slyfield application proposes an Energy from Waste plant that will be capable of burning 40% of Surrey’s municipal waste which will clearly lock the County into a 25 year mass burn policy that will not provide any incentive to establishing higher recycling levels.
(iii) The proposed development does not reflect the Government’s policy regarding waste management in particular the proximity principle, as such the proposal is contrary to the aims and intentions of PPG10 ‘Planning and Waste Management’ and PPG 13 ‘Transport’.
(iv) The TIA that has been submitted is fundamentally flawed; the proposal will result in more than a doubling of current waste vehicle trips to and from the site and significantly increase the number of larger HGV’s using the site. The proposal will thus have a deleterious effect on the environment and general amenities particularly of the large number of people who live in close proximity to the site and the feeder route network, which would service the proposed plant. This is contrary to the aims and intentions of policies EN1, MT2 and DP32 of the Surrey Structure Plan, policies DN2, DN7 and DN19 of the Surrey Structure Plan Deposit Draft January 2001, policies WLP2, WLP6 and WLP7 of the Surrey Waste Local Plan 1997 and the Surrey County Council Transport Plan 2000.
(v) The proposed development is vastly out of scale and character with its surroundings. It would have an unacceptable visual impact on the site and its surroundings including residents, businesses, the urban townscape of Guildford in general including its skyline, the Riverside Park, the Green Belt, the River Wey Conservation Area/Corridor and the Site of Nature Conservation Importance contrary to the overall aims and criteria set out in policies EN2, PE6, PE10 and PE14 of the Surrey Structure Plan 1994, policies LO10 and SE8 of the Surrey Structure Plan Deposit Draft January 2001, policy WLP7 of the Surrey Waste Local Plan 1997, policies 3BE, 5BE, 6BE and 26R of the Guildford Borough Local Plan 1993, policies 99G2(1), 99G2(2), 99G2(6) and 99G11 of the Guildford Borough Local Plan Deposit Version 1999 and the Development Brief for Slyfield Industrial Estate 1996.
(vi) The location selected for a very large incineration plant is entirely inappropriate due to the proximity of extensive residential settlements and potential risks to the environment and public health. In particular the application is unacceptable as it will result in the possibility of emissions of nitrogen dioxide from the proposed plant of 24% of the background concentration; a significant local deterioration of air quality under some conditions of adverse weather in residential areas; and the application lacks explicit details on the assessment of deposition of dioxins and furans on agricultural land in the vicinity of the chimney. Accordingly the proposal is contrary to WLP 1, WLP 6, and WLP 7 of the Surrey Waste Local Plan 1997.
(vii) The proposed development would have an adverse impact on the adjacent Site of Nature Conservation Importance (SNCI) (Area of High Ecological Value in the Guildford Borough Local Plan 1993), Whitmoor Common SSSI, the Corridor of The River Wey and the Riverside Park contrary to policies PE8 of the Surrey Structure Plan 1994, SE5 of the Surrey Structure Plan Deposit Draft 2001, RP1, 7EP, and 10EP of the Guildford Borough Local Plan 1993, 99G11 and 99NE3 of the Guildford Borough Local Plan Deposit Version 1999.
(viii) The proposed development would be liable to result in an additional flooding risk with the consequent environmental damage both to the site itself and the surrounding area as well as affecting the setting of the River Wey Conservation Area contrary to policies PE6 of the Surrey Structure Plan 1994, SE2 and SE8 of the Surrey Structure Plan Deposit Draft 2001, 19EP and 26R of the Guildford Borough Local Plan 1993 and 99G1(6) and 99G11 and 99HE12 of the Guildford Borough Local Plan Deposit Version 1999.
(ix) The proposed development has attracted a very high level of strong public opposition, which is based on valid planning considerations as required by PPG1. This strength and consensus of opinion must, therefore, be considered as a material planning consideration of considerable weight in the planning decision on this planning application.
(II) That reasons given in (I) above are sufficient by themselves to refuse this application. However, this Council urges the Surrey County Council to reach an early decision to refuse the application, which is causing blight and considerable concern for many thousands of local people and strongly considers that the following additional points of conflict/concern require addressing:-
(i) The applicants propose combined heat and power as a benefit of the scheme. This aspect has not been sufficiently demonstrated in the application including by what means the electricity would be transported to its destination. Unless this aspect is clarified further prior to determination of the application this possible benefit of the proposal should not have weight in the decision.
(ii) The discrepancies, gaps in information and conflicts raised in the GIBB Ltd. Report should be addressed prior to determination.
(iii) The discrepancies, gaps in information and conflicts raised in the Eco-Logica Report should be fully addressed prior to determination.
(iv) The discrepancies, gaps in information and conflicts raised by interested parties should be fully addressed prior to determination.
(v) The application does not include accurate scaled elevations of the buildings despite requests from Officers to the County Council to pursue this deficiency with the applicants. Without this information the application should not be determined. If these are received subsequent to the 23 January meeting this Council requests the right to receive and comment thereon.
(vi) The potential noise of the EfW plant as well as traffic noise is a concern. Although GIBB Ltd. states that this aspect is likely to fall within acceptable limits, this Council has various concerns on this aspect, which are included as a background paper for the County Councils consideration.
(vii) The proposed delivery start time of 6.30
A.M. is considered unacceptable due to the impact of delivery traffic in
particular on residents living along local routes.