Transcript

of the Mental Health and Regulatory Committee. Hi. We're plugged in. Good morning, everyone, members, officers, guests, and anybody joining us on YouTube. Welcome to the Planning and Regulatory Committee, Wednesday the 29th of January. The month is nearly over. It's been an already long month. It seems to go on forever. Firstly, there's no fire drill expected today, but in the event of a fire alarm sounding, can you all leave by the nearest exit and assemble on the top of the car park, reporting to a member of the building management team? Staff will be on hand to guide you to the nearest exit, but I think we can all work out that one. Ensure mobile phones are on silent. Social media, the usual rules governing in the council. Today's meeting has been webcast to the public and recording available online afterwards. We've got a microphone. I've got a new list of instructions here, but I'm taking the view that we're all used to using the microphone, so we'll skip those. Apologies for absence have been received from Jonathan and Chris, Catherine? Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, thanks very much. Minutes to the last meeting. Can I sign those minutes? Thank you. Petitions, none received. Public questions, none received. There's a member question received from Steve McCormack. Steve, you were online. Are you there? I am, sir. I am, sir. I am, here. Right, suddenly the voice came from behind me. You've had a reply, Steve, to your question. Do you have a supplementary question? I do. Ask. Thank you. So thank you very much for the reply from officers most grateful. My question is around the Epsom and Newell Borough Council contaminated land officer comment that they wish to see robust ground contamination conditions attached to any planning. And one of the comments made was there is a need for a comprehensive and intrusive ground investigation to determine whether there are acceptable risks to sensitive receptors, notably groundwater, a principal aquifer and groundwater source protection zone and whether remedial action is needed. Properly constructed. Properly constructed boreholes was a suggestion that was being asked for. I would like to ask, can Surrey Council officers confirm that properly constructed boreholes, as suggested, will be required on these applications, please? Thank you, sir. The final conditions, if permission is granted, if permission is granted, that is, or the final assessment and recommendation, whatever that may be. What I can say is, as we look at the matter, I'm happy to keep the member informed as to how the matter progresses. Yeah, I think, just backing that one up, that this will be coming to committee. We haven't got a date yet because there are a number of aspects still to be resolved. But I think the cognizance has been taken of the question. Back to you, Steve. Thank you, Chair. I mean, the question around the boreholes is primarily around pre-work and investigation work, not post-item where conditions may be applied. It's the investigation work to determine what, if any, contamination may have already impacted or been done by the site into the aquifer. So it's more pre-work questions, Chair, not really talking about planning conditions post any consideration by this committee. Absolutely. I can take it away, conscious that I might just need to review the comment that the member is discussing and perhaps come back with a more clear answer. I'm aware it's an issue that's been under discussion with both the contaminated land officer at Epsom Newell and the EA. So I can review those and provide another response. OK. Are you all right with that, Steve? That's very, very good. Thank you, Chair. Thank you for your time. No, not at all. Thank you for the question. Right. Declarations of interest members. Any declarations to make on this item? Scott. Just to state that I'm the war councillor for both these two items, seven and eight. That's noted. And you will be, when you're addressing the committee, should you do so, will you please just confirm the basis on which you are making comments? Just for clarity of people watching. No, that's fine, Chair. Thank you. Thank you. I think we'll separate those out. That's the most efficient way we're doing that. So I'll pass you over to Janine Wright. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman. Good morning, members. Members will be aware of the update sheet which was circulated yesterday afternoon. The application site is known as Adalston Quarry. It's located between the settlements of Adalston and Byfleet. The full site covers an area of approximately 61 hectares and is located within the Runnymede Borough, close to the boundary with Elmbridge. The site is within the Metropolitan Greenbelt and access is gained by Byfleet Road with a haulage road leading to the site. The National Grid Electricity Substation is located north of the access road and the National Rail Link Network is located adjacent to the site along the eastern boundary. The application site is an existing quarry with a large proportion of it restored in accordance with the previous restoration scheme. Part of the site is currently being used to accommodate an aggregates recycling facility. Members will see on screen that there's the site showing both application red line boundaries for each item. There are two planning applications being presented to committee today. Item 7 refers to the continued extraction of sand and restoration works of the quarry and Item 8 refers to the temporary retention of the aggregates recycling facility. Both applications have been made under Section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended and proposals are seeking to amend existing planning conditions. Applications made under Section 73 of the Act can only consider conditions subject to which planning permission should be granted. The granting of these permissions would result in the issuing of new permissions incorporating the proposed changes. The principle of development for both applications has already been established and as such has not been revisited. Item 7 relates to the continued extraction of sand and gravel and the progressive restoration of the site. The applicant is seeking to amend planning conditions 1, which is the time limit, 3, which is the plans, 7, surface water drainage and 8, ecological management, and 16, removal of buildings, fixtures and plant equipment of planning permission RU09 forward slash 1103. These changes would result in the revised timescale for the completion of extraction and restoration works, submission of revised surface water drainage scheme and amendments to the ecological management plan. The applicant has requested that the permission be extended to the 31st of December 2029 to enable full restoration to take place. The extended timescale will allow for the applicant to extract the remaining sand, which is due to take place in the summer of 2025, subject to weather conditions, infilling of the void and restoration of the land. This timescale is anticipated to be completed at the earliest opportunity, with infilling materials being sourced from the aggregate's recycling facility. These are just a few pictures of the site as it's been restored. During the site visit, members would have noted that the land has been largely restored to an agricultural after use. The restoration works have been completed to a high standard, with the land being used for agricultural activities, including the grazing of cattle. Paragraph 62 to 65 of the Officer's Report sets out the reasons why the restoration works have been delayed. Officers accept that there have been difficulties securing materials to infill the land and complete the restoration works. The applicant has provided assurances and supporting data, which has also been included within the update sheet, to demonstrate that there is a need to extend the timescale to allow for the remaining sand to be extracted and the site to be fully restored. Officers are satisfied that full restoration can be achieved by the 31st of December, 2029. Thereafter, all buildings, fixtures and plant equipment would be removed and the site restored to an agricultural and conservation after use. Whilst reviewing the application, officers consider that the existing planning conditions, with regards to operating hours, noise, highways and dust, would continue to mitigate any harm caused by the development and these conditions would be brought forward to the new permission should the application be granted. Officers have made a recommendation to approve the application subject to the amendments and the inclusion of existing conditions. Thank you. We have a public speaker, the planning agent for the applicant, Vilna, if you'd like to come up. You have three minutes and we will do my best to indicate you have a minute left and if you can stay there to answer any questions of a planning nature that the members may have and I understand that you're supported by Joe Hawkins, who we met on site. I will say no relation whatsoever. I'm younger and better looking than here, so I'll just throw that in. And you're more than welcome to pass questions backwards and forwards as you feel and the time will start whenever you like. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you, members, for the opportunity to speak today and support the application by CAPA Public Works. My name is Vilna Walsh. I'm the planning agent and Joe Hawkins is the director of operations at CAPA and, as mentioned, both very happy to answer questions. CAPA became the operator of the quarry in 2014. They secured permission in December 2015 to complete the restoration of the site by December 2020. And in the interim, key factors have affected their ability to complete the restoration of the site. Post-grant of permission, there was a significant amount of remedial work required to get the site operational. It hadn't been mothballed by SEMEX, the previous operator, in 2009. And this inevitably slowed progress in terms of restoration. The majority of the time since the grant of the previous permission was then influenced by the uncertainty surrounding Brexit. And this has been a significant factor in terms of the downturn in economic conditions. And CAPA have confirmed from their operational perspective the effect of Brexit cannot be overstated enough. Since March 2020, the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic had a significant impact on progress. The site was either shut or operated on a skeleton crew basis for much of 2020 and 2021. And current economic conditions remain challenging. A final key factor is that the Anderson Quarry is a restoration site able to accept only inert subsoils and clay as per its EA permit. The site has struggled to compete with several other temporary fill sites which have been granted permission as a result of them being able to attract a greater volume of waste. On a positive basis, the successful establishment of the aggregate recycling facility, the ARF, has been a key factor in ensuring the ongoing filling of the remaining void space. The application submission estimated that residual material produced by the plant for filling would comprise 25,000 tonnes per annum from January 2023 onwards. And that's exactly what has occurred. The plant is projected to continue operating at that level, providing certainty that the quarry site can be restored by December 2029. In terms of other positives, the ARF is producing in the region of 225,000 tonnes per annum of recycled material, making an important contribution in terms of maintaining a steady and adequate supply of aggregates. There are an extremely limited number of sites within Surrey which produce the same kind of high-quality material that Adelston facility does. One minute left. And it's served in the market area. The ARF and the quarry result in HDV movements that are well below the cumulative limit set. And in terms of restoration, as has been confirmed, this has been done to a very high standard. In terms of progress, there's been a significant reduction in the amount of fill remaining required to fill the remaining void. Some 75% of the site's been restored. And a significant part of the site, approximately 32 hectares, is now a working farm. Mindful of the extension of time being sought, positive enhancements have been proposed to update and improve in the previously approved restoration plan. This includes the additional planting of 719 trees, 5,200 plus shrubs, provision of a mink trap in alignment with the local project to support the water bowl population, provision of owl boxes, and provision of enhanced wildlife features, including a wildlife lake. The applicant is committed to completing the very high standard of restoration of the site they have achieved to date, and to do this within the timescale applied for. The operation of the ARF is key to securing this, and we hope the applications can be supported on this basis. Thank you. Thank you very much. Right. Members, do you have any questions for the speaker? Scott. Thank you, Chair. In reference regarding to the quarry, you're talking about starting work in summer 25 for the piece of land that's not being used at the moment, or not being developed at the moment? So there's ongoing restoration, which has been ongoing throughout this period. There is a small area where there is sand that remains to be extracted from 30,000 tons. That is to be done over a relatively short period in weeks rather than months, and that has to be targeted for the summer period where the weather is good. So that will happen in the summer, but that's not to say there's not other work going on. No, that's fine. If we have a bad summer, how much of a knock-on will that have effect to your end timeline trying to end at the end of 2029? I'll defer to Mr. Hawkins on that question. It does depend because the sand needs to be of a nature dry enough sort of to hold itself and to hold a machine, so operationally you can extract that. Given the vast sort of nature of the site, there is plenty of other restoration works that we can do and have proceeded to do. So the sand initially we were looking to extract in the summer, just gone. We didn't, but there was plenty of other restoration towards sort of the north, up towards sort of phase 7 and 8, which you'll see sort of on the restoration plans, have all been soiled, graded, ready for seeding. So we're confident that we should be able to extract the sand during the summer, but should we not, that wouldn't impact the timeline whatsoever. Okay, that's good to know. In terms of the quarry, when will we start to see items being removed from the quarry to try and imply that you're trying to make the 2029? Because I am mindful that you have put the aim forward to one of the 10 potential waste management sites, considered by the CP. So when will we start, because on the site visit, we did notice, it was picked up that there were a lot of items there that were just not being used, you know, excavation. Are you removed in the near future or is that near the end? The old processing plant itself, which was used by CEMEX and RMC, following the visit and conversations, we are going out for a tender process for contractors to come and actually demobilise and sort of demolish that. That's outside of our skill set of operations, given the size, and it is actually a structure that would require sort of technical proficiency in sort of the demolition of that. So we will be going out to tender shortly and then getting quotes and then reviewing that on the view to take that down. Other items on the site have been removed over the past sort of six to nine months that have been picked up on previous monitoring reports and will continue to do so. Okay, thank you. And last question for you. A lot of the complaints by residents, even documented here, and as a war councillor, have been around about trucks on the highway and not being covered, and I've mentioned it on the highway's visit. Can I be sent, please, your policy on those that are delivering waste to the site, what they must adhere to? Because it's for the residents to understand that the CAPRA is actually not the issue with CAPRA, it's actually those that are delivering the waste, and these sites are not meeting their requirements for delivering waste, and I want to reassure them that you do have policies. Yes, that's no problem. Any previous complaints that have been raised by Surrey to us with registrations and actual companies have been written to. Those letters have been provided to Surrey previously. We do take a sort of a zero-tolerance policy on that once these companies have been written to. I would be mindful of pointing out that not every HGV that passes along or passed Adelson Quarry is coming into our site. And as such, we have been, probably two complaints before, which just haven't been relevant to us or the site, but I'm more than happy to provide that information. No, that's fine. Actually, I've got one last question, actually. I did mention the site visit. Do we have an average number of vehicle movements for the last three-month period? Because I know it's stating about 250 a day, but I am mindful that I did ask for the numbers. I just wanted to assure residents it was 250 or less. Yeah, so the current conditions on both permissions is a cumulative average of 200 HGV movements per day over a 5.5 working week. When we made the application, we provided an outline of what we envisaged the HGV movements would be, and that was at a region of around 120 movements per day, and that's predominantly material being brought in to the ARF of recycling. 90% of that going back out as recycled material. The rest of it stays within the site and isn't generating any further HGV movements. The only point at which that will go up to some extent is when the sand is being extracted and then exported from site, but we're not envisaging that to be more than six movements a day. For the last year, in terms of quarters, the highest quarter has produced around 104 HGV movements per day, so that's the 52 in, 52 out, and the lowest one has been around 82 movements per day, so we're significantly below the 200 cap, and what that does allow for is should there be any prospect in the future of being able to attract material directly to the site, rather than recycling and then residual being used for filling. There is headroom there to allow for that, or ankle headroom to allow for that, but we are significantly below the threshold that's been set and has previously been assessed as being appropriate for this site. Can I get a copy of that data? We can send this data, and also, how do you record and send back to the relevant authority to make sure that we keep an eye on that you're on track for me in 2029? Because I'm mindful of what's your sort of minimum numbers that you know that you need to meet on average to meet 2029. So what we need to meet at the moment is for the agro... If we're relying solely on the material that's coming from the agro-recycling facility, that plant needs to be attracting around 250,000 tonnes per annum of material. That is limited by the permit at the moment. We're operating at a rate of 90% of the material being recycled and being able to be reused, and the residual 25,000 tonnes being used for filling. We have shown that that has happened for the last two years, at the point at which we said we would start to meet that level of throughput, which would be the end of 2022. That has happened for, say, for 2023 and 2024, that 25,000 tonnes has been met. So we provided a table showing the decrease in the material that we needed to fill, and we're fully on track with that at the moment. HIV movements will go up and down, as you'll appreciate, but that last year has enabled that level of 249,000 pressure? Yeah, that's 249,000. Yeah, 2024. So all things being equal, I mean, we can't account for, you know, we've had two very significant economic events that have happened in the last trading, in the last period since the last permission. Putting that aside, and one would hope that isn't going to repeat itself, the site is fully self-sufficient in terms of being able to fill that void. So we're not relying on the ability to bring in material direct to fill, which has been the challenge on this site ongoing. And the provision of the ARF site and the way that it's operating has meant that we are able to provide a source of very high-quality recycled material and provide residual material for the filling of the void. So basically it will be self-sufficient for the last four years, effectively. Okay. Thank you. Catherine. Thank you, Chair. So I'm very relieved to hear that you're contracting out to get the big structures that we saw on site removed. That's really positive from the site visit. Obviously at the moment there's nothing in the proposed conditions that requires you to do that before 2029, and I think that has been a concern on other sites where we have struggled to get structures removed and they've been left right to the end, and by the end there's not the income to cover the cost of removing them. Is there any way that you would be willing to make a commitment to more of a phased restoration that committed to some intermediate milestones that removed some of that equipment? Is that something you would be willing to do, given that there seems to be quite a lot of redundant equipment on the site, having walked around? It didn't seem like there was a small amount. There's quite a lot, and I can imagine the cost of removing that being quite high. Thank you. Well, to mind, I think some of the smaller items can easily be removed. I think other than the old redundant sort of mineral soil washing plant, I wouldn't be confused with some of the items of plant that you saw on site being related to sort of the agricultural use further up the site as opposed to the actual ARF area, which will be the last area to be restored. I think some of those items may have been sort of agricultural use. But we want to work with sort of yourselves, as we stated from the beginning, so we would be happy at putting something in in terms of some sort of milestones. Yeah, I don't see why not. Sorry, can I just come in here? I don't know, maybe the planning officers say, but I rather feel you're asking the applicant to make a commercial, an advanced commercial decision. I understand where you're coming from, but there may be other commercial mitigating circumstances. And I think it's a balance. I fully understand the question, but I do have a nervousness about trying to tie the applicant down on making a commercial decision in advance of there is an end date. And that is as part of this application. And that's why I'm just slightly putting a... It's not a planning decision, but it's a commercial decision. So if you can just pull up the maps that you pulled up earlier where the two aerials were on top of each other, it was really about where the red line boundary was drawn that had raised the concern, if I'm entirely honest. So if you look at the red line boundary, the red line boundary around the ARF is literally the ARF. And when we were on site, obviously those very large structures are outside the red line boundary of the ARF. So they are, you know... Essentially, you work your way out of the site, right? You finish filling the void with the material that you have, and then you shut down the ARF, and then you finish restoration. Well, those very large structures are outside that red line boundary of the ARF. That was what raised the concern, because we have had similar issues, as I know officers are aware, on other sites where it took a significant period of time to get those structures removed because of the costs involved. But I do understand what you're saying. I just wanted to raise it at this point and ask the question, which I think has been answered. If it's helpful, I could come in, because obviously we're here today discussing the applications before the committee, but that's not the only involvement of the planning team. So this is a site where we will be doing monitoring, and if during those monitoring conversations we think the applicant has already alluded to, those conversations go on. Part of that can be around issues that are beyond the scope of these applications to do with the wider site. And obviously, if we don't reach agreement, there's enforcement action that can be taken. So I think some of those points may stray into that realm beyond the scope of the applications before us, but mindful of the points being raised in that context. John. Yes, thank you, Chair. Briefly, I'm concerned that if you didn't get this application, i.e. you didn't get the time, what would happen from your perspective? Have you got a plan B if we didn't get the time extension? Or what, please? In planning terms, there wouldn't be a planning permission. There to work to. There wouldn't be an approved restoration plan to work to. Certainly not, if you're reverting back to the last approved restoration plan, the one we're currently proposing, improves on the one. That was previously approved. It would be for officers, we'd have to work with officers and take a view as to what would be required to resolve that situation, whether a new application would be required, which would have its own time implications, and how it overlaps with enforcement issues. I mean, operationally, the applicant is committed to restoring the site, but we wouldn't have a permission for the recycling facility either, which is making a significant contribution in terms of providing a sustainable source of material for sale in lieu of primary agra, and also fulfilling of the void. So I think it would raise significant timing issues. This, to me, frankly, is a clear way forward in terms of securing restoration of the site within a reasonable time period and is with as much certainty as it's possible to give because of it being self-sufficient. And in not approving it, I think the most likely outcome is it will take longer to secure restoration of the site. Yes, I've got a question to a slightly different tack. Obviously, we've seen the reclaimed land and there's animals grazing on that. And they, I assume, will be part of the food chain in time. What sort of depth of topsoil is there to enable? There wasn't an awful lot of grass, but that's hardly surprising given the weather we've had and it is the end of January. What sort of the depth of the topsoil and what plans are there to improve, to assist the farmer improve the quality of the grass to enable further grazing to take place? The depth of the topsoil will be 300 topsoil and 300 subs underneath that as well. So you'll have a total of 600 mil of subs and topsoil on top of that. And then once it's seeded, it's sort of asked to the farmer then to sort of maintain that land and cultivate that for agricultural use, which is sort of demonstrated with sort of the 70% of the site actively being in agricultural use with cattle, with sheep and then various other livestock. I did say it was a slightly different question. Members, any other questions? Scott. Thank you, Chair. One more question. Regarding noise and how you test because we've got some number of houses that, I'm sorry, properties that have raised issues around the noise, how do you test for it and how is it reported, et cetera? Because I need to give reassurance to the residents as a war councillor that noise is being taken into consideration because it does say that you stop work when it reaches a certain level. I just need some more details on how you check for it, how you log it, et cetera. Scott, can I just ask, is this question relating to the first part, which is the land reclamation, or the second part, which is the launching? I think you're right. It is probably eight, so I'll come back. I can answer that later on if you wish. Members, any other further questions? We have a recommendation to approve subject to the further conditions attached on the update, and this, just to be clear, this is on the first part of the application. Are members in agreement with the recommendation? Victor, were you... Yeah, right. Thank you, members. That is unanimous. Thank you. On to the second part, and go back to... Please stay where you are, staying there. Makes sense. Janine, you want to come in on that part? Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Item eight on the agenda relates to the aggregates recycling facility, which is located along the eastern boundary of the quarry site. Access is gained via Bifleet Road, with the haulage road leading to the site. The application site... Sorry. The application is seeking to amend planning conditions one, time limit, two, removal of buildings, fixtures and plant equipment, and nine, material storage area of planning permission, RU16 forward slash 1960. The changes would allow for the aggregate recycling facility to continue operating from the site until the 31st of December, 2029. This timescale would align with the requirements to fully restore the wider quarry site by the 31st of December, 2029, and thereafter, the land would be required to be restored in accordance with the approved restoration plan, ensuring that all buildings, plant equipment, and fixtures are removed from the land and the site restored to a conservation grassland. Supporting information states that the aggregate recycling facility currently recycles 90% of materials. These recycled materials are distributed locally and nationally to construction sites and are also used to fill the extraction void within the wider quarry. This facility has been critical in securing and sourcing materials, particularly inert waste, for the infilling of the quarry void. Ensuring that the quarry site is restored at its earliest opportunity. The applicant has provided data to demonstrate that the aggregate facility has played a key role in infilling the quarry void and that the continued infilling from the recycled materials would ensure that the void is filled and the site fully restored. Officers consider that there continues to be a temporary need for this facility to provide recycled aggregates as well as infilling materials for the quarry restoration. The extension of time would continue to be linked to the wider quarry and following restoration, all plant, equipment, machinery, etc. would be removed and the land restored. Officers consider that existing planning conditions with regard to hours of operation, highways, dust, noise, would continue to mitigate any harm caused by the proposal. In addition, these conditions are consistent with those on the main quarry site and will be brought forward to the new permission should the application be granted. Officers have made a recommendation to approve the application subject to amendments to conditions 1, 2 and 8 as well as the inclusion of existing conditions. Thank you. Thank you very much. Back to the speaker. Thank you. Again, the three minutes. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Because the two applications are so entangled with each other effectively, the requirement to fill the quarry is entirely dependent on the recycling facility. All of the comments I've made of my initial submission stand. The only thing I think I would add to that is just to emphasize the highly sustainable nature of the facility in place here and the extent to which it is contributing to aggregate supply in the County Council and wider area. as well as contributing obviously to the filling of the void and completion of restoration. Thank you. Thank you very much. Members, do you have any questions to the speakers? John? Yeah, I suppose mine relates to both sites. Having seen the photographs earlier on of the parts of the farm that have been put back, can I just ask about the water? because we know in the weather we're getting more and more water. Are you satisfied that your drainage plans will not allow for flooding in the nearby areas, particularly the neighbours? We have reviewed the drainage plans and they've been assessed and relevant officers and the Council have commented on those and the EA have commented on it as well and it's been agreed that what is proposed is acceptable. There were discussions about amendments to the restoration plan in terms of potential no-fill or lower-fill options which would have raised flooding issues which are one of the reasons why that has been discounted as an issue. Scott? Thank you, Chair. I'll go back to my question around noise sensitivity. How do you measure it and how do you log it? Because there is a number of properties that are affected because it is an open land and the noise does spread. Supplementary that we've got. So the plant was everything was reassessed when we made the updated submission as there are target noise levels that cannot be breached at the identified near-sensitive receptors. that was assessed on a worst-case scenario of all items of kit and extraction all happening at the same time albeit they are at quite different ends of the site so affecting different receptors and the noise measurements from that were well below the background levels or well below the target levels set in the condition and the same condition as being passed over. In terms of how you measure that on an ongoing basis I don't know if you have checks on that. As and when as part of the plant maintenance schedule the sensors reversing beacons which are why the old traditional beepers because they are more sociable shall we say they are all tested as part of the plant maintenance as would do the hydraulics or anything else it is all in as well. Sorry just to add my understanding would be that with the target noise levels to be reached or to not exceed that if there were a complaint it would be for the authority to do a check as to whether the noise levels at the back we've obviously demonstrated through assessment that we are happy that we're well below those noise levels and my understanding there's never been a need for that to be checked by your authority but that is the fallback position that if there were an issue that that would be a figure which is you all right? Catherine Thank you chair obviously the recycling facility is the source of material that's allowing you to infill and you've stated quite clearly a couple of times that 90% of the material goes out 10% stays in is it do you have a community liaison group currently that you share that information with or is it just shared with the authority or how is that tracked currently? Yeah there's no there's no community liaison group that's just sort of our own sort of internal figures that we process what gets processed and goes out in terms of sales for processed aggregate and then the volume of the material that will then go into the void will then give you that sort of breakdown and percentage so so at the moment your entire application is based on the 10% which I completely understand is a completely normal number but it's not always possible and we have had other sites where they have dropped down below 10% but that data doesn't go anywhere it doesn't get tracked anywhere so is it possible for you to be sending that along with vehicle movements to the local authority just so that they can keep an eye on that just know that that's what's going on because obviously the recycling facility is there to support restoration by the earliest possible time that is the basis for that facility being within the green belt so it would seem sensible to just continue to ensure that it is fulfilling that purpose and not just becoming a recycling facility where everything goes off site because that is obviously a different use on the first point in terms of the amount of material that is being recycled and what is left as residual so the final bit the residual is what cannot be recycled and sent off when we originally made the application in 2017 we had been aiming at a ratio of 80% so we capable of the view they could achieve recycling rates where 80% of the material could be reused and sent out as recycled material and 20% would go to the void and they had been expecting a throughput of material of some 100,000 tonnes a year so the residual for void is less than what we're currently achieving technology has improved the plant has attracted more material and has consistently now shown that it can recycling rate and at 250,000 tonnes a year and that's been very consistent over the last few years and we were reaching those levels almost reaching those levels four years ago and have absolutely reaching those for the last two years the ability to go beyond 90% and i.e. any effect on the residual which is possibly where your question was the first part of the question was coming from is highly unlikely that is a very high rate of recycling and it's a great achievement on CADBA's part to be able to achieve that but for that basis we are confident that the 25,000 remains the residual amount that can go to void in terms of tracking that I believe there is a condition that requires yearly data to be provided on material which is done in liaison with there isn't a condition so obviously at the point this is a variation of the existing commission as members are aware so understanding the point Councillor Powell is making regarding the linkage between the material in this application and the restoration that wasn't deemed a necessary condition to put on in the original permission which we are now looking to vary so there isn't a condition unless someone corrects me but I've just been scanning them that meets I think what you're describing again we return to the point that there are other interfaces between us and as part of our monitoring visits going forward certainly that will be an area of conversation because what we are monitoring is that the final date of 2029 is going to remain achievable so there will be some linkages that can be considered through that route but there isn't a condition as it currently stands that I think quite is quite rightly it's a variation on the existing permission so the very least I'm trying to have enough time to say can we impose a condition is it unreasonable to impose a condition or should we at the very least be looking to have an informative attached to the application because I think this is a key point for residents and for all of us this sort of level in purely theoretical terms you can impose a condition the issue is the reasoning for it and why it is now necessary I think could be the point of differentiating between what is the issue at stake in this application if you like that wasn't previously that requires said condition we may need to then think about exactly wording around such a condition because if it's simply similar to what we ask in terms of highway movements if it's simply reporting to us that's a little easier what I would be cautious of myself is obviously trying to set limits because or express x has to be done by such time because obviously if things can be done quicker we all want things to be done quicker but if it's something around reporting we could look at a condition similarly worded to that which exists in terms of how vehicle movements are reported to us so I obviously appreciate the fact that increasing recycling is in one hand very good because it means you're recycling more facilities but of course it is reducing the amount of material consummately that's going into the restoration so it has an impact on how quickly the site can be restored so I think that and that is the difference and I completely understand I'm an engineer I completely understand that technology improves and that aiming at higher recycling is good in one box but there is a downside in another box so I think the reason I'm suggesting that we raise a condition that is just a reporting condition is just so that we can continue to keep an eye on that I know you said very confidently we're never recycling above that but I bet when the original application was approved it was 20% we'll never achieve more than that and now we're at 10% so the things do change but I do think having a condition that requires that to be reported at least allows visibility for residents to know that a reasonable percentage of the material is still going on restoration it's not just becoming a waste processing site because that is fundamentally different from what was originally improved thank you yeah those points taken on board and my apologies I think what I was thinking of was the HGV reporting position which obviously leads directly to how much material is going through the site but it obviously doesn't require reporting currently in terms of material throughput thank you chair can I also add to that can we also when as part of that condition if we can make sure the ward councillor is also aware so to keep an eye on to make sure that we're trying to then get to the end date of the end of this because of course there is no community group involved so it just gives a local awareness of what's going on and whether or not it's going to meet the targets thanks I was going to say absolutely we can take note of making sure that everyone is aware of the conditions and information sharing going forward I think rather what I was just going to suggest rather than me conjuring wording from the air if the committee are minded to secure such a condition if we could agree the final wording in consultation with the chair and vice chair post the meeting but just to also then clarify what the committee would be suggesting is an additional condition to secure quarterly reporting of the volumes and breakdown of materials imported and recycled at the aggregates recycling facility yes take note of that yes I'm going to ask a question Catherine is an engineer I'm a development surveyor and I'm equally delighted to see a high level of reuse of building materials it's something that's bugged me over the years whenever I was doing a development I insisted on 95% of all materials which was ambitious but hey what area zone if you like of travel supplies you to create the blanching plant on the aggregate materials how far do the vehicles come should I say what for attracting raw feed to process material or for them where the recycled aggregates go there's a very large construction site not far from you which we know intimately almost but it's the material the input rather than the output well we're lucky where we geographically located not too far from the A3 that we do attract material coming out of Greater London but then also from the majority of Surrey as well so from Red Hill round the M25 up the 243 all through Chessington into Kingston out and then probably round as far as Walton attract that level of raw material into the facility Scott one for the planning office actually if we're going to have a continuation of use of vehicles on the highway in the highways in reply have we taken into consideration the potential warehouse opposite the Kappa site for traffic as well as the DEFRA development that is about to start that's over 12 years because that will increase the number of vehicles in that area and if so are we going to request the borough to do some additional NO2 monitoring because that came up in the environmental and sustainable meeting the other week in regarding that in Runnymede where that area is going to get a lot more traffic right who wants that one is James still there go on James we'll bring you in please yeah thank you so obviously this site in particular has got an existing use and the historic use present so in terms of what represents potentially significant or severe impact in terms of this application we've just got to look at what change could result do we have sufficiently robust conditions in place to mean that there would not be a material uplift in vehicles on the highway when it comes to assessing the application obviously we have to look at each one on its own merit by itself and we do have that condition that has been there in place for a while with the maximum of 200 per debit it's an average figure at the moment in the context of the DFT traffic counts on that road actually showing HGV movements have been dropping over the years the last manual count was 2018 and there been estimates since then but the trend was for a continual decrease in those numbers with that being the context with the previous permissions in place and having that suitable condition we're confident at least in terms of highways impact there wouldn't be any material impacts I can't particularly comment on the air quality side of things what I would say though is following the concerns that have been raised through this application process around highways including and following the site visit I have been discussing this with the case officer not changing the figure of 200 but changing the wording to make it a lot more robust and more easily monitored specifically removing the reference to average so making that a strict 200 movements per day limit which will the information data that can be easily shared and is again robust data and that instead of the existing wording of made available on request it's recommended to change that to being provided on a quarterly basis so we have that information coming in regularly in a format that we can monitor and examine in detail I'm not sure if other officers want to come back on the air quality side of things on the air quality issues the county's consultee has looked at the information submitted regarding dust and dust management we're beginning to drift away from this site and looking at other sites so we are looking at this site but go on question for James regarding the traffic it's an interesting one so you said there was not a traffic survey done since 2018 so I gather there is actually traffic counters on Newhall Road and Byfoot Road area because I asked that in regard to the waybridge HDV van HDV ban and I gather there was and I have asked for that data over the last four months and I've still not got it so it's interesting you said there hasn't been a traffic survey since 2018 the reason being this as the applicant has just said is that we've got vehicles coming away from Kingston their route will be hampered by that HDV van if so the traffic on Newhall Road will have to be increased if they can't go through the tunnel because they're coming through the area and that's one of the reasons why I asked for the volume and the NO2 because the Newhall Road will have increased traffic purely because of the number of vehicles per day the HDV van the warehouse opposite and the death rate development so all actually which are happening are planning applications have all been granted so we know there's going to be an increase in traffic and I am a little bit shocked that we haven't got that data about traffic increases just for clarity there in terms of what data has been collected there may for other projects and other work that the council is doing have been figures collected more recently than that those numbers I was referring to were the department for transport traffic counts which I use in this context because they're easily and publicly available data that is all accessible on the department for transport's website I absolutely understand the concern in terms of that particular closure to HGVs and rerouting impacts and also other developments ultimately the impact of the rerouting of those vehicles should and I'm sure was assessed as part of that project which I'm afraid I don't have any detailed knowledge on but again the wider and cumulative impact of those other developments you're referring to would have had to have been in the context of this site already existing with those 200 movements and when you are looking at assessments on a highway network for example for the number of movements while you do growth figures based on government forecasted growth counts and data that's available and information of permitted developments what you don't tend to do is then remove numbers from that network because of things that may operations like this that would be expected to end at a particular point so generally the information gathered around that is if anything double counting or I'm afraid a lot of that is outside of the scope of this application specifically I don't have all of the information in front of me right we're now moving completely away from this I've been patient but I'm pulling the plug on this quite frankly we have a recommendation with amendments recommendation is to permit on revised application those in favour please indicate yeah sorry it's a good point the condition I think as we agreed it was the chairman vice chairman and board divisional member and we'll be we'll be liaised with planning officers and that will be published in due course and informed as well we wouldn't just arbitrarily impose would we we wouldn't no we wouldn't honestly we wouldn't right okay all those in agreement Ernest right thank you against abstain the record that Scott is abstaining on that otherwise the application is permitted with conditions subject to the final amendment members that's the end of thank you very much indeed for attending that is the end of the meeting the next meeting is on the 26th of February so thank you very much indeed members of the public members officers and those on YouTube and that's the end of the meeting and thank you very much indeed goodbye