Transcript

Well, good morning members, good morning officers, good morning members of the public, welcome, we have quite a full house, so welcome all those who've come to join us, welcome to people joining us online, planning committee meeting, or planning and regulatory I should say, today we have a number of items, before we start can I thank Tim Hall for joining us as a past chairman and as a substitute for Jonathan Harley who's not here, and Amelia is joining us, Josh is, I think he's online somewhere, but Amelia is joining us to keep us in order, so and this is the first time she's ever appeared here, let's hope she refuses not to come again, moving on to the agenda, apologies for absence, sorry I rather preempted that and that Tim is here for Jonathan, are you happy I approved the minutes of the last meeting, thank you, petitions, none received, public question time, none received, members question time, none received, turn over, declarations we can do it on each item, I think it's easier to be honest, if we can pick that up on each item, which takes us swiftly to the first item, which is a minerals and waste application for land at Dorking West Station Yard, Remo Road, Dorking, and the officer that will be taking us through this is David Maxwell, and David if you can start one, all right sorry yes, having said we'll do the declaration on first item, that's today's non-deliberate error, are there any declarations, thank you, are there any declarations to make on this item, no, thank you very much, and David. Good morning, before I introduce the report, can I just bring your attention to two small updates to the report, the first is on the first page under the summary report, the second line is just a small error, second line of the first paragraph should actually say the site is 170 metres west rather than east of Dorking West Station, apologies for that, and second one is the reason for refusal five, which is related to Greenbelt, and it should actually read the first sentence, well the first line should read it has not been demonstrated that the application would have an acceptable impact on communities and the environment, so the words to the satisfaction of the environment agency should be deleted. I'll introduce the report, this part retrospective application is for the retention of a materials recovery facility, for the processing of 7500 tonnes per annum of imported skip waste, the applicant states that this consists primarily of construction and demolition waste material, the proposal also includes a waste processing building with an open frontage, an unloading area with a concrete base, a two storey porter cabin, six times 40 yard and 20 yard skips, an acoustic fence and parking for five cars and four bicycles. In terms of plant and machinery, the proposal includes a trommel for the processing of waste material and a JCB excavator, imported waste material would be unloaded onto the concrete base, sorted to remove any residual waste such as household waste items with the construction and demolition waste then being processed through a trommel where it would be separated into different components and loaded into skips before being removed off site for recycling. The application site is situated on the edge of the built up area in northwest Dorking, around 170 metres west of Dorking West station, the site is served by a long private access track off Ranmore Road, some 280 metres to the east, surrounding uses comprise an equestrian sensor to the north, a scrap yard to the east, car body repair shop to the west and the North Downs line to the south. St Martin's Primary School is situated around 180 metres to the east on the north side of the private access track. Part of the application site is located within the green belt in respect of a 133 metre section of the private access track, the Surrey Hills National Landscape and an area of great landscape value lie immediately to the west of the application site, the site is also situated within the upper green sand which is classified as a principal aquifer and within groundwater source protection zone 2. 139 letters of representation and two petitions have been received, all of which object to the application, Mill Valley District Council have expressed serious concerns regarding the proposed access arrangements and highway issues, officers consider that there is a need for the proposal, that the application complies with local plan policies on waste management, ecology and biodiversity and subject to conditions, landscape and visual impact, however the County Highway Authority and the Environment Agency have recommended that planning permission be refused on access and highway safety grounds and due to the risk of pollution to controlled waters respectively. The District Council Environmental Health Officer has advised the impact of intrusive noise on the nearby sand school is unacceptable and the County Air Quality Consultant has requested the submission of further information which remains outstanding. The application comprises inappropriate development in the green belt, officers do not consider that there are sufficient very special circumstances that clearly outweigh the potential harm to the green belt by reason of inappropriateness and any other harm. Having assessed the planning merits of the application, officers consider that the application is contrary to national and local planning policy requirements in relation to highways access and safety, noise, air quality, the water environment and green belt. It is therefore recommended that planning permission should be refused. Thank you very much indeed, had you finished your report? Yes, I'm just going to talk through the slides, yes, sorry, yes please do, yes, yes, big one, thank you Chairman. So figure one, so this shows a view of Ranmore Road, this is a route of view from Ranmore Road of the access, of the site access track which is to the left and the private access track to the right is owned by Mel Valley, the district council and the entrance to the school is just off that access track, the access track on the right hand side. Figure two shows the view from the site access track looking south along Ranmore Road. The parked vehicles on the railway bridge restrict visibility at this junction. Figure three shows a view of the site access track looking north along Ranmore Road, part of the primary school building is just visible on the left hand side at a lower level. Figure four shows a view from Ranmore Road looking west along the access track in the direction of the application site. You can see from the sign that this is also the access to the eastbound platform of Dorking West station. Platform five, so sorry, figure five, sound like a station enhancer, apologies. Figure five shows a view looking west along the access track towards the MRF in the far distance. This shot is taken from where the southern private access track owned by LJC AutoSpares joins the northern access track owned by the district council. This section of the access track which will be used by all site derived traffic is located within the green belt and it's too narrow to accommodate two way vehicle movements as you can see. Figure six shows the entrance to the application site or the yard itself from the private access track. The yard itself is not on green belt land. The waste processing building with an open frontage is clearly visible at the western end of the yard in the distance there. You can see the roof of the structure. Figure seven shows the entrance, sorry, this shows a view looking east from the Surry Hills National Landscape towards the rear of the waste processing building. Slightly difficult to see. It's the green structure in the far distance in line with the actual access track itself. You can see it's got a light grey roof and painted green on the sides. Figure eight shows a view of the waste processing building looking west from within the yard itself. Clearly you see the excavator sorting through the waste material. Figure nine shows the view, this shows the actual trommel, which is used to process imported waste material. There's a short conveyor I think at the front end and then the trommel is within that container, painted blue, although some of the paints obviously come off. Figure ten shows a view of the yard and the waste processing building looking west. Finally figure 11 shows a view of the yard looking east towards the entrance. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you very much indeed, sorry to interrupt you in this very interesting report. Unfortunately I could not make the site visit, so thank you to the officers that arranged that. We have two public speakers, firstly there's Emily Hall. Can I just say to the public speakers, we have a number today, you will have three minutes and after two minutes we'll indicate you have one minute left and the time will start whenever you're ready. Emily, would you like to come up and join us? Can everyone hear me okay, first of all? Brilliant. Yes, I'd like to thank the Chairman and fellow members of the committee for allowing me to speak on behalf of the applicant. The proposal seeks to retain the existing materials recycling facility whilst at the same time proposing an acoustic fence and appropriate parking and cycle storage. The site is currently used to sort waste materials including CD&E waste and an element of household waste. Support has been received from the minerals and waste policy team who have identified a shortfall in management capacity for such waste. The proposal would increase existing recycling capacity in Surrey contributing to the waste management requirements. The proposal would also provide employment for nine full-time staff members making a good contribution to the local economy. The site was previously used by a skip company and has a history of commercial and industrial type uses. The site is also sandwiched between existing industrial uses including an end of life vehicle facility to the east and a car body repair shop to the west. The application site is located on previously developed land within the urban area of Dorking, only part of the access road is located in the green belt and so the proposals would not impact upon openness. The landscape officer has confirmed that the proposal would respect the quality and character of the landscape and would not result in an unacceptable level of harm. The site would use the existing southern vehicle access as opposed to the northern vehicle access. Therefore, the site generated traffic would not pass by the nearby primary school. Pedestrian safety is a priority for the applicant and for the operation of the site. HGV movements would be kept to a minimum with all deliveries to be pre-booked and allocated set arrival times. School drop-off and pick-up times would also be avoided. The existing access achieves adequate visibility in turning for vehicles. The road already attracts HGV trips and the proposal would result in a negligible level of traffic flow which would not have any real impact. The council's air quality consultant has confirmed that the proposal would represent an appropriate use of the land and the impacts on the surrounding area would not be significant. The preparation of a dust management plan has been recommended and in connection with this it is noted that a sprinkler system is installed on site. Any further details could be secured by condition and a condition could also be imposed to ensure the maintenance of the existing tarpaulin fence to further prevent dust from escaping the site. A noise impact assessment has been prepared and proposes a three metre high solid fence along the northern boundary of the site and an additional two metre high fence on top of the existing buildings to reduce the noise impact. The site is located in flood zone one and has a low probability of flooding. Any surface water runoff would be captured by a channel drain which has three different chambers. The lead local flood authority recognises that there would be no change to the impermeable areas within the site or the existing surface water drainage system. Reassurance that the site would not negatively impact the surrounding groundwater quality has been requested and is given. Additional drainage information and a contamination assessment could be secured by condition. Is that it? Yes. Thank you very much for your time. Excellent. Thanks. Pretty well. Close. Thank you very much indeed. Can you just remain there. Members, do you have any questions of a planning nature? Jeremy? Yes, Emily, thank you for that. Could you tell me, when you say it's previously developed land, could you just amplify on that a little bit? I mean, as far as I can understand, it's been a skip hire business for about 40 years. Was there anything there previous to this? Could you just help me with that? Yes, of course. Thank you very much for your query. So, yes, my understanding is that it was a skip hire site before. I must admit I'm not aware of what the use was before that date, but it does show a long history of having such uses as the skip hire use. Thank you. Catherine? Thank you, chair. Thank you, Emily. So, I note that the Environment Agency provided a permit for the MRF in April 2022 that did not include any mechanical handling, but the mechanical handling is obviously ongoing on site. What is the applicant's proposals to deal with that issue? My understanding is that the intention would be to go back to the Environment Agency once planning permission is hopefully granted to resolve the appropriate licensing. Thank you. Anybody else? No. Thank you very much indeed to you. And now we have Hazel Watson, who is a local member. Welcome to the committee, Hazel. And so time will start whenever you're ready. Thank you. As the local member, I object to this planning application and request the committee to refuse it. The site contains an unauthorized waste materials recovery facility, and the proposal involves the importation of up to 7,500 tons per annum of skip waste material. And the site would generate 50 HDV movements per day. A large number of objections to the application have been received from local residents. The site for the facility is inappropriately located close to a primary school, a residential caravan site, and a sound school. There is a safety risk for children walking and cycling to school with HGVs entering and exiting the access track from Ranmore Road close to the school. There is also a safety risk for walkers and cyclists using the access track to the school, the residential caravan site, the allotments, community orchard, BMX track, and the National Trust Fields. The risk is because the access track to the site for HGVs is narrow with no footway. The county highways authority objects to the application stating that the proposal would cause serious highways issues and that the adverse transport issues are not capable of being mitigated. There are concerns about dust from the site adversely impacting the air quality for local residents, the Equestrian Centre, and children at the nearby school playing field. Similarly, noise from the machinery at the site adversely impacts the local area. The report concludes that the proposals do not suitably mitigate adverse impact from intrusive noise. SES Water has advised that the site is close to a number of docking boreholes and that the site activities have the potential to impact on the water abstracted for drinking water. The report concludes that the applicant has not demonstrated that the proposals would have an acceptable impact on the quality of groundwater by preventing the release of contaminated runoff from the site. The report finally concludes that the application is inappropriate development in the Green Beld as it does not consider that there are sufficient, very special circumstances that clearly outweigh the harm. For these reasons I request the committee to refuse this application. Thank you. I don't want to embarrass you by asking how long you have been a member of one kind or another in your area, but are you aware of any enforcement activity in relation to this site and the activities on it? We were interested as members to notice that Peter Street furniture had actually been damaged by a lorry when we were there the other day, so are you aware of any enforcement activity in the last few years on this site? I think I would defer to officers to comment on that. I wouldn't have the chapter reversal on that. Catherine. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Hazel. Just having been to the site, it's very clear to me that there is clearly a conflict between pedestrians and the vehicles. I'm just wondering if you're aware of whether there have been any incidents or whether it's just a safety issue that you have concerns about and how you feel that that could be

• or whether you feel at all it could be addressed. I believe that there was an incident involving a school child on the Ramwell Road, but I don't have the details, but I mean, I can only go by the report to the committee this morning which says that the highways issues - that the highways officers believe that the highways issues cannot be mitigated, and I can only believe that that's true because the access track is so narrow it's not possible to widen it and to improve the sight lines at the junction with Ramwell Road, so I think I would agree with their assessment of the situation. Thank you. Thank you, Hazel. Members, do you have any other questions? You go, Hazel. Can we just - have we got an answer to Jeremy's question on the enforcement action? Is there anything there? What I would mainly say is it's not really a matter that the committee should consider in assessing the application. What we're looking at is whether or not the application is acceptable in planning terms as it's proposed to you. What I would say, though, for information is a sight from a planning enforcement perspective we're aware of, but obviously any decisions in that sphere are for a different day for officers post this committee. Yeah, but it was that indication that you are aware of enforcement is really what I think the committee were looking for, but thank you. Members, nothing else? Hazel, thank you very much indeed. Now, members, I'll open the debate and discussion to you all. John, you're in first. Thank you, Chairman, and can I agree with you and thank the officers for the site visit which was very illuminating. Certainly it was nice to visit the site rather than just see the maps that you've shown us because I found it a very, very confusing site with the private track, the public road, the end bit under the gate where you go down to all the community use, the number of vehicles that passed us both in HGV form and towing trailers. Then you look at the sight line as anybody has to come out or enter. I found that as a driver I would find it very difficult to see any sight line, particularly on my right where the car's parked and indeed if they're turning right I imagine that's going to confuse other drivers as well. You then have the proximity of the school with the children and then of course you have the stables with horse riders and then when we look to the fencing it's on a bank and to be honest I'm not sure what difference that fencing is going to make because you have an open gateway anyway so what sort of noise and pollution it would stop I am not convinced for. So when I looked at that site my overall impression when I left was that it's too confusing, that there is danger to both the school children and the public and other drivers that may be using that to go down to the community site so I personally would have been against this application. Thank you John. Ernest. Thank you Mr Chairman. Well reading the report my view is that the report is very ambivalent. There's as much which you could argue in favour of this application as there is against. Just comment on one or two particular points one of the green belt. I mean this is obviously a previously developed site. It's surrounded by other developments of all sorts including a sort of car or metal recovery site. It doesn't seem to have any particular relation to the green belt and I don't think the green belt is any kind of argument against it. Historically I'm a bit surprised that the owner hasn't come in for a lawful certificate of development because it seems to have a very large history. Looking at the site irrespective of what's on it now I think it's quite clear this was probably originally a railway yard site and it's always been you know a site in use for various industrial or semi-industrial and sort of transport uses. In Surrey I mean we do have a need to deal with waste and obviously this application is part of that albeit not a major one but it's still significant in many ways. And the other problem which I have about the situation is that as a council we are responsible for employment and business in Surrey and this would seem to meet both of those objectives. It does give employment to probably people who otherwise wouldn't find employment and it is a business which you know we are said as much promotion by Surrey as supporting business in Surrey. So overall I mean it's difficult for me to accept the officer's conclusions. Yes I see that you could argue and it is argued that there is a transport and road situation but then that's been there with the station for a very very long time. And there are several other users there which can all use HGVs or whatever they like. I don't really see that it's necessarily unique to this particular application as far as the road access objections are concerned. So I think it's a very balanced situation and it's got you know quite a lot on its side in terms of the facility which it provides both for dealing with waste and for sort of you know generally supporting business. Anyway that's my view and I think I'll be inclined to support it. Thank you. Thank you Ernest. There's always a well argued point of view on that one. Jeffrey. Thank you very much. I don't agree with Ernest that the report is equivocal. I think what he's referencing is the fact that the report is fair minded and spells out the things which are acceptable as well as the things which are not acceptable. But I don't think the conclusion is equivocal. I think the conclusion in advising us to refuse this is very clear and I would agree with it in respect of the safety, highway safety issues, pollution issues, the dust and the noise issues. So I find myself drawn towards agreeing with the recommendation of the report. On a detail over the access, perhaps James can help me with this, the access is as we understand it is it not from the east of the site. There was a reference earlier on to north rather than south which confused me because the access roads don't run north south they run east west and there aren't any alternative points of access are there? Thank you and good morning all. The two points of access that are referred to there's a northern and southern access point which you can see on the just about make it out on the satellite. The northern access is the school access. It's outside of the red line boundary but it is also the only access that the applicant has been able to demonstrate has adequate visibility. The southern access, the access to the site, the actual access junction does not have adequate visibility at all which is why there's been some leaning on the potential for that to be used which just to clarify is not acceptable from the authorities perspective. That's completely understood. I now know exactly what you mean. We've stood on the road and looked at I now know what is meant by the northern and southern. I now understand that and I agree completely with the conclusions that the report sets out. Thank you. Thank you Jeffrey. Catherine. Yeah I'd just like to endorse really what Jeffrey said. I think that when you read through the report and I can understand what Ernest is saying you know we need sites to recover waste for sure. It's a question of is it the right place to be doing it and I think having been to the site and having looked at pedestrians trying to walk down to the train station which is obviously something we're trying to encourage people to do. Encouraging more HGVs down a route where we're encouraging people to walk to catch a train doesn't seem very smart and encouraging more HGVs around a school when we're trying to encourage more children to walk and cycle to school also doesn't seem very smart. So I think I can completely understand and endorse the highway objection. I think the other thing that really worried me when we were on site was noise and I think that we've sat as a committee on a number of occasions discussing trommels and discussing how to best manage the noise from trommels and having looked at where this one is and having looked at where the fencing is proposed physically on site and I personally found the site visit very helpful. I cannot see how that is going to address that issue. I genuinely can't. So I think on the basis of noise and highways in particular I do think that the right thing to do is to refuse and I think that if we were going to do anything on that site it would I don't see how you can resolve the highways issues and I don't genuinely see how you can resolve the noise issues. So that that's kind of where I'm at. Thank you, Victor. Thank you Mr Chairman. Just on the seven and a half thousand tonnes of waste per annum do we know how much is being processed currently and what sort of the increases? I don't think I can give you a definitive answer to that. I mean when the application came in the indication was it was for about I think it was below a thousand tonnes a year was being proposed. Officers queried that with the applicant. We thought that doesn't make any sense. That wouldn't support a viable operation. Can you recheck the figures? And then they came back and proposed up to seven and a half thousand tonnes a year. I believe the operator or the site they should be submitting returns to the EA quarterly returns indicating how much waste they actually bring in on site. Policy team might have alluded to that in their response. Can I see if I can find that and come back to you? That'd be okay. Thanks. Sorry I was just going to put in more general points. Of course we're starting for the position that there was not the same use previously authorised so it's not a matter of an increase necessarily. We're looking at this as an unapproved use on the site. So they have given us obviously information about potential throughput and that does feed in is the point. It's making to the need and the necessity but obviously our position is that doesn't outweigh the harms. Catherine. Can I just clarify one point. In paragraph 49 it actually references 75,000 tonnes per annum as opposed to 7,500. And we've had this discussion before where we have EA permits that say one thing and then we have an application that says something else. I would just, it would help me to, because obviously it has a huge impact on the number of movements, it would help, I think it would help the committee just to clarify what it is that we are making a decision on which number. Just on a general point David may be able to answer the specifics of what's in the application but obviously the permit is not what you're making a decision on. You're making a decision on what is in the application. It is not uncommon, although I accept potentially unhelpful sometimes, that different regulatory mechanisms of all types permitting other things that may exist alongside planning may set a different number but if the planning were to be approved on a different basis that would be what they were to be held to. I don't know if David has any more on the actual specifics but for clarity that's how we should approach the issue. Yeah, I'm just pretty sure this is correct but certainly in my experience the way permits work is they have thresholds of how much waste a site can operate and 75,000 tons a year, it might well be the lowest threshold. I'm not sure off the top of my head there's one below that. I've not come across one so I think that's why it refers to 75,000 tons but the application is for seven and a half thousand tons a year so that's the difference. Interesting that one. I don't know how we're ever going to get that one resolved but it is something work in progress I think we might put it down to. Members, anything, any other questions, comments, statements? Jeremy? No, I'm afraid I have to disagree with Ernest. I think it's a very balanced report. What David is trying to do and has to do is to present a planning balance and to me I accept the recommendation of the officer's report. I don't know why this is there. I don't know, I think it's, and if we start obfuscating about the green belt then there won't be a green belt and it's very clear here the proposed development, inappropriate development within the green belt which should only be approved in very special circumstances. So particularly on that and James' comments about traffic, I will oppose this application. Okay, thank you. Right, any other comments of substance? Members, we have an officer recommendation to refuse. The recommendation is set out on, I've got it on page 41, there's four reasons, metropolitan green belt which has just been talked about, safe and adequate means of access which has been touched on. It's not demonstrated, it's the impact on the communities and it's actually five reasons. The application impacts on the environment and the environment agency objection. So therefore members, can you show all those in agreement with the recommendation to refuse? Against. Members, that is carried, there's been one vote against. So thank you very much indeed. Thank you very much indeed speakers. We will now move on to the second item, which is the former John Nightingale School, now called Hirst Park Primary School, Hirst Road West Molesy. Are there any declarations of interest in respect of this item? No. And Lyndon, over to you. Thank you very much. Good morning everyone. So before I introduce the proposal, I'd like to draw the committee's attention to the update sheet for this item which makes minor corrections including amending condition voting for conditions one and eight. I guess the main change is an error with the year, it was put 2023 on condition seven and that should have been 2024, so that's been changed. And we've replaced approval of details in condition eight to date of this permission. Just for clarity, the approval of details was approval of the details should planning permission be granted, but we've just updated that to clarify that it is in fact this permission. And then the first sentence for condition one, there's sort of national standard of wording for approved plans so we've just updated it to correspond to that. So this application has been submitted to regularise changes to a landscape plotting, habitat creation and maintenance scheme for Hurst Park Primary School-granted planning permission in 2014. It also includes updated plans to reflect changes to the site layout since the original permission. The application site occupies a site area of 1.8 hectares and lies in a residential area with dwellings to the east, south and west. Access to the site is from Hurst Road to the north and Freeman Drive to the west and the school sits in between the junctures of Boulogne and Freeman Drive. The school replaced the former Hurst Park Primary School which was located approximately 400 metres to the east. So the 2014 planning permission for Hurst Park Primary School was subject to several conditions including those relating to the provision of landscape planting and ecological habitats and their maintenance under conditions 11 and 12. A landscaping scheme was delivered on site, however as some of the required details were not submitted for approval, these conditions remain outstanding. They were re-imposed and re-numbered conditions 7 and 8 following the approval of the subsequent section 73A application in 2020. Since the original planning permission was granted for the school, several changes have been made to the site's layout and it includes additional buildings and structures. An additional parent pick-up and drop-off facility has been formed off Freeman Drive together with staff parking and pedestrian access, a new modular building for out of hours care and an extended bin store enclosure and two new storage sheds have also been installed. There have also been other minor additions and variations to the site and its layout including the installation of play equipment, soft surfaces and sheds. Consent has been given for these changes as required. The changes outlined above are such that further details of the landscaping habitat creation and management could not be submitted as they would have been in conflict with the site's layouts as originally improved in 2014. These changes are considered to constitute minor material changes to the original scheme and as such the applicant has submitted this application under a section 73A to vary conditions 7 and 8 and the approved plans under condition 1 of planning permission reference EL 2020 0021. So the main changes to the scheme include alterations to the design and the scale of the soft landscapes and planted areas on the grounds and the addition of new trees where some have failed and to close gaps along the boundary. A new landscaping management document has been provided that separates the sites into different compartments with detail on how each will be maintained over a five year period and this includes pruning, watering and replacement where necessary. Key issues to be considered in determining this application are whether the existing and proposed changes to the landscaping on the site meet the requirements of conditions 7 and 8 as included in the officer report and whether they maintain the landscape character and biodiversity and secure appropriate mitigation for loss of trees and other vegetation in accordance with the development plan. So five letters of representation were received in relation to this application as originally submitted with one further representation received following re-consultation in March 2024. These relate primarily to the proximity of vegetation to the site boundaries and encroachment of the same into neighbouring residences particularly along the western boundary of the site. These issues have since been clarified and addressed as appropriate with a new 50 centimetre boundary for maintenance of the vegetation with the aim of preventing encroachment into neighbouring residences gardens. Objection was also raised in relation to noise and is addressed in the officer report. Following the submission of additional details including additional planting along the northern boundary of the site and additional landscaping and management details the County Council's arboriculturalist ecologist and landscape officer are satisfied that the details are now acceptable. Officers consider that the details provided by the applicant in support of their application are adequate for the purposes of addressing the condition and consider conditions 7 and 8 the reasons for their imposition and consider them to be compliant with the development plan. As such officers recommend that conditions 1, 7 and 8 be varied and planning commission be granted. So next slide please. So I've just included some slides of where there's currently gaps along the site frontage along Hurst Road where planting is proposed and so that's in the middle along the front. Next slide please. That's on the north eastern corner so trees are proposed there. Next slide please. So six trees are proposed here which is in the western area of the site. Next slide please. Another two trees are proposed there. Next slide please. And this is the sort of vegetation next to the boundary where the fences of neighbouring residences are so this is where the 50 centimetre boundary would be instigated as part of this permission. Next slide please. So this is the landscaping and habitat creation scheme that was proposed as part of the 2014 permission. Next slide please. And then this is the one that is now proposed as part of the update. So as you can see there's additional sort of staff and staff parking in the north eastern corner which has pushed the games area further south and then you've also got the additional pickup and drop off facility in the south western corner of the site. As you can see if you can make it out the red trees which have a point to with the names of the trees are the ones proposed to be planted and the black outline trees are the ones that are already in place. Thank you Mr Chairman. Thank you very much indeed. There's no public speakers. Ernest, this is in your patch. Do you wish to address the committee on this item? Thank you. Yes I'll speak to it if I may Mr Chairman. What this is really is a complex sort of situation about a rather simple issue. The simple issues are really to just tidy up the landscaping and the habitat creation and majorly it's really about sanitizing the original planning application and approval because this site seems to be one. Well I've probably come to some other educational sites for new schools. Seems to be one where the actual development of the school is sort of played about with the actual conditions and adjusted itself in terms of building and whatever it done as it's gone along. I don't have any views particularly on the rather sort of the real aspect of this which is the landscaping and habitat creation. I mean the site can if it can fit it fine if it can't it doesn't really matter. I have to say I'm not a person terribly in favor by the school because when this application went through originally I was forceful in terms of getting perhaps what is the only pick up and drop off area for parents in any new school in the whole of Surrey. This is a school developed on ex Surrey County Council land right next to a 364 new housing estate also on the same Surrey County Council land. Some of the residents are obviously still after it being built and everything else not very happy. And that's how it is and that's how it will remain because basically there's a crowds of cars around this site in the morning in the afternoon and that's that's really a real problem to deal with. It's dealt with but better than most by the pick up and drop off situation which the school has although they have they were definitely very much against that. So that's the situation. It's it's really sanitizing the application. There aren't really any any abrasive issues about this at all. And you know let's as far as I'm concerned we can just sort of rubber stamp it and hopefully from the officer's point of view they'll have an have a planning application that really is meaningful one rather rather than one which has been messed about. Thank you. Right. Thank you. Not sure what to say to that but I'm certainly not going to open the debate on pick up and drop off and park cars and anything. Trust me we've all got that problem. Tim Hall. Thank you Chairman. As I sit here I'm terribly aware I'm probably the only member who was here when we approved this besides Ernest. This was a special school site. It's become a very successful primary school. We did spend a certain amount of time nine years ago I'm appalled to realize it. It must be one of the first things I shared I suspect. Trying to get this right. Obviously now the school is built some things have shifted. Access for parents and things that was a major subject. I can hear Casa Manit's speech in the back of my mind as we sit here but I do think this is a good application. This actually makes improves the biodiversity and the planting and everything else and it should go through and it should be and it will help. I appreciate the neighbors didn't appreciate the school being there. I have vivid memories of the people at the back of it being terribly upset that there was going to be a drop-off area and there was going to be access through their estate but. If you mentioned drop-off once more I'm going to cut you off. Trust me. Can we bring back to the subject matter and not with all due respect. Ex-chairman and deputy leader of the council go down memory lane. Can we come back to the matters in hand please. I think it's a good application and we should approve it. Thank you very much that's what I was looking for. Members if he's got nothing else to say please. We have a recommendation can all indicate all those in favor please. Thank you very much members that is unanimous. That now takes us to our next item which is the Surrey County Council proposal is the site of former Orchard Court care home East Grinstead Road in Lingfield. Declarations of interest on this one please. Chris. Thank you chair it's not a pecuniary interest it is just for clarity and transparency the fact that I am a Tandridge District Councillor I'm also on the planning and planning policy committee. I am also a member of the Lingfield surgery and have been for 30 odd years so it's very close proximity. I obviously have cleared my mind of anything regarding that and I just regard the decision here that I make to be solely on the papers as submitted and the meeting today. Thank you. Thank you can I just clarify you're on the Tandridge planning presumably you haven't expressed any firm opinions on this item just for clarification yes or no. Absolutely I I've not been to any meeting I've not expressed any opinion to anybody on this and to say my mind at this stage is still open as to what the decision would be. Thank you very much indeed. Geoffrey just to say that I'm also on Tandridge District Council planning committee to my recollection this hasn't come before the committee not when I was there certainly and I haven't expressed any opinion in any other fora. Excellent thank you very much indeed and now who are we asking on this one um Janine thank you. Thank you chairman good morning members the application being presented to planning committee today is application reference TA 2024/47. Members will be aware of the update sheet which was circulated yesterday afternoon and includes an amendment to condition 16 and the inclusion of additional consultee comments. The application site is located in the village of Lingfield and the district council is Tandridge. The application is seeking outline planning permission for the erection of a part two and three-story building comprising of self-contained apartments, staff and communal facilities, electric substation and associated parking. The appearance of the building and landscaping are to be dealt with at reserved matters stage. Officers have made a recommendation to permit the outline application subject to planning conditions and reserved matters. 12 letters of representation have been received including nine objections and three letters of support. The letters of objection are largely in relation to parking provision, impact on character of the area and overdevelopment of the site. The letters of support refer to the need for the affordable extra care accommodation and the use of previously developed land. The application site is owned by Surrey county council and is situated within a prominent location on a key approach into the village. A two-story care home with 63 bedrooms previously occupied the site however this structure is now being demolished. The Lingfield doctor surgery is situated to the north of the application site. Talbot recreation ground is to the east, residential development is to the west and open countryside is to the south. There are some images being shown of the site from various viewpoints. The designated greenbelt boundary is to the south of the application site and the conservation area boundary is to the north. The material considerations have been set out when the officers report however the key points to consider are need, layout, design and character of the area. The proposal includes a u-shaped building which is to be set back off east Grinstead road retaining the access along the north western corner of the site. The indicative plans show that the two-story element would front onto east Grinstead road and the three-story element facing onto the recreation ground. The southern side would remain open. The maximum height of the building would be 13.4 metres along the eastern elevation and it would largely occupy the same footprint as the previous building. The residential accommodation is to be arranged over three floors with the communal areas located on the ground floor. The self-contained apartments would be approximately 55 square metres and a disabled apartment would measure 58 square metres. Projecting balconies for private use are shown on the indicative plans along the first and second floors. Communal facilities such as living, dining, activity rooms and outdoor space are to be provided. An orchard is proposed in the centre of the building along with landscaping and enhanced biodiversity opportunities. The access is to be gained from east Grinstead road via the existing entrance and 27 car parking spaces including disabled bays with electric vehicle charging points are to be provided. In addition a cycle and mobility scooter storage is also to be provided. The existing trees and hedge rows along the southern eastern boundaries would be retained and a new native hedge planted along the western boundary. Planning conditions have been imposed to ensure that the trees are suitably protected during the construction and operational phases of the development. Overall the indicative plans seek to achieve a good balance between the tree retention enhanced biodiversity opportunities and appropriate environment for future occupants. The final design for the soft and hard landscaping would form part of the reserved matters application which will be determined at a later stage. The applicant has demonstrated that there is a need for extra care affordable housing with provisions within Lingfield and the wider Surrey area. The development would provide support to older people with care needs enabling residents to live independently within their local community forming friendships and participating in shared activities to promote health and well-being. The proposal seeks to meet a need for modern purpose-built affordable housing provision for the elderly and to achieve this it is critical that the layout supports the functional use of the building. An increase in the height of the building would allow for greater density making efficient use of the land and safeguarding the character of the area. The indicative plans show that the building would be in keeping with the surrounding area and the use of external materials which are to be determined at reserved matters stage would further integrate the development. The development is not considered to have an impact on residential amenities of nearby properties and the inclusion of planning conditions would ensure that any harm caused during the construction phase would be mitigated. The applicant has considered the objections raised in relation to the car parking provisions and has redesigned the layout to accommodate additional parking spaces. The highway officer has reviewed the revised plan and layout and raised no objections. Officers consider that the proposal should be permitted there is a need for extra care provision within Lingfield. The site would be developed on previously developed land providing 54 modern affordable extra care housing units. The proposal would also provide local community benefits such as employment and economic opportunities healthy communities housing provision and a safe place for residents. The site is within a sustainable location with health care provisions pharmacy community facilities local shops and transport links all within close proximity. All these considerations weigh in favour of the proposal and as such a recommendation to permit the outline application has been recommended subject to planning conditions. Thank you. Thank you very much and we have two speakers. Before we do that can I just check what you were saying. My notes say that the previous building was 63 rooms and this one is now 54 rooms although you said it was going to be a similar number. Other rooms bigger sorry just to clarify the the exist that the previous care home contains 63 bedrooms and that the new proposal will be 54 units and the units will be 55 square metres standard and the disabled will be 58. Thank you and our first speaker is Carol Bell and I can see her hiding there. Carol you know the rules you know the routine we have seen you before so welcome once again. You are bringing us another care home. The time will start whenever you are ready. Thank you. Good morning chairman members. Thank you for allowing me to speak on behalf of the applicant. The redevelopment of the former Orchard Court care home siding Lingfield is one of the programme of extra care housing projects being delivered by Surrey County Council to address the critical gap in provision of affordable extra care housing for older people who need accommodation and support. Extra care offers individuals a home of their own with their own front door in a setting where their care and support needs can be met. It offers a higher level of care than traditional sheltered housing including help with personal care, meals and other daily living activities. At the same time residents maintain a higher level of independence than is offered by a traditional care home setting. The communal facilities encourage participation in a range of social and leisure activities. This promotes wellbeing and creates community in which people can live and age well. Residents in extra care housing are less likely to develop conditions that require intensive healthcare solutions, reducing the incidence of hospital admissions and shorter hospital stays. Orchard Court site was selected as it meets key sustainability criteria including close proximity to the Lingfield village centre, public transport links and health infrastructure. The design meets the requirements for specialist housing including being fully wheelchair accessible throughout with adaptable accommodation that can address both current and future needs of its residents. Being located in the heart of the community reduces reliance on cars for residents and for staff and encourages residents to socialise and exercise in the locality. Extra care housing is designed to promote the independence of its residents by providing flexible care as and when required with the added security of having a manager on site at all times and available in an emergency. Extra care is designed with the future in mind. As well as being equipped to meet the future care needs and support of its residents it will have the latest in sustainable energy supplies and measures to minimise heat loss thus lowering residents energy bills. The latest technology will also assist in delivering care and support and residents will be encouraged to use smart technology for their daily needs. In conclusion this development will contribute over 50 new homes against Surrey's target to deliver 725 homes for older adults in need of care and support by 2030. This is within Surrey's right homes right support strategy. It contributes to the net zero commitment and to the community vision for Surrey to ensure everyone gets the health and social care support and information that they need at the right time and in the right place. You are just about to finish aren't you? And everyone has a place they can call home with appropriate housing for all. Thank you. Thank you very much. Before I open up to the members can I just pick up something that we've discussed in the past and Janine touched on. We've gone from bedrooms to units. Now I believe that there is a video or an educational film that shows the layout and the ideal layout and I believe I have asked in the past if that could be made available to the members as part and parcel. Maybe it will come through in a training or maybe I'll just throw this out that I think the members, I know I found it very interesting and I was partially involved in that but I think it would be beneficial if we could all see that. I'll just leave that there. Members, do you have any questions for the speaker? Victor. Just one very quick one Mr Chairman. You just mentioned there is a manager on site all the time. Absolutely. Will there be staff living on site as well or is it just the manager? Well you have day and night staff, you'll have the catering staff who look after the kitchens and provide meals if the residents aren't cooking their own because they'll have their own kitchens and in addition to that there will be peripatetic care workers, people who come and go to service the individual needs of the residents rather than having a whole team of people on site all the time. Will they be allocated their own parking spaces or is it those 26 spaces there for everybody? Out of the parking spaces we have identified how many are needed for staff and five places are allocated for staff but of course in the evenings if you've got visitors they may be able to use some of those staff parking spaces. That's it. Thank you very much indeed. And now our final speaker Leslie Steed who is, we have a number of local members and Leslie is joining us on the local member platform and again the time will start whenever you're ready Leslie. Thank you, thank you Chair and members for letting me speak. As the Surrey County Councillor for the Lingfield Division I am supportive of the amended scheme at Orchard Court. The changes in height positioning as well as increased parking are welcome and satisfactorily address concerns that have been raised. Enhanced biodiversity is also welcomed. Tandridge is in desperate need of affordable housing and the development is perfect to bring forward to meet that identified need. Surrey County Council will be providing a much needed facility for elderly residents wishing to move to smaller accommodation with facilities on site. The development will free up some of Tandridge's social housing as we have nearly 2,000 families on the waiting list and over 300 on the priority register. Services will not be under any extra strain as this accommodation is for local elderly people, gives them independent living with easy access to shops, doctors, surgery, transport and the community. The site is perfect for this type of demographic and we would be doing our elderly residents a disservice if this project were not to go ahead. I would urge the Planning Committee to support Surrey and our elderly residents and approve this application. Thank you. Thank you very much indeed. Members, right Jeremy. Leslie, thank you for that. I was rather puzzled in the report to see that Tandridge have some reservations about this. Could you just talk us through what the reservations are and how they will be ameliorated or otherwise because they talked about the intensification of development and so on. Do you have some comment about that? Yes, I was quite surprised about intensification because this was a previous care home. It was quite large. I used to visit it regularly to meet residents within it. I think one of the issues with Tandridge was the height, the positioning and the parking spaces and I think that that has been adequately addressed in the changes that have been made. Thank you very much indeed. Members, I will open this up to you. I am looking at you Ernest. Thank you, Mr Chairman. Obviously as an ex-housing chairman, understanding the difficulties of housing, I certainly absolutely support this. On the social front for the arguments for this is that quite clearly if you do the calculations you find that for every unit Surrey provides, Surrey will be saving anything up to $40,000 a year. But quite apart from the finance, this is there to meet a pressing social need. And this site, you know, I am staggered actually, I am absolutely staggered by the comments on page 76 and 77 of Tandridge District Council. I mean to sum it up, the last one says the identified harm clearly demonstratively outweighs the benefits of the proposal. I mean absolute tosh really, I have to say. I am surprised that any planning officer could put his name to that. The only thing I would like to say, not necessarily disagreeing with the situation, but every site like this that we go to, including this one, for this purpose, doesn't really exploit what the NPPF says. The NPPF says that it requires on planning for the maximum use of any development site, because that recognizes the fact that land doesn't grow on trees and particularly doesn't grow on trees in Surrey and the southeast. And if we don't make the best use of every piece of land, then we are losing out all the time and we're putting pressure on those who are concerned about it on the green belt. This is a very modest development for the site. This is a residential site. I mean that's what I'd be saying to Tandridge. This is a residential site. And really, we are entitled as both as a council and as a planning authority to actually see adequate residential development on the site. This does that. And really, I'm very pleased about it. And the more we can do on this kind of situation, the better. So I totally agree with this and I totally reject anything in the report which says otherwise. Thank you. Once again, thank you, Ernest. Katherine next and then Jeffrey. Thank you, Chair. I just wanted to address one of the comments that was made in one of the letters of objection that said it was not in accordance with the Linkfield Village design statement. Having looked at the Linkfield Village design statement, because why would you not, I couldn't see how it conflicted. And we don't have a condition about it. And I understand that the actual detail of the design would be dealt with in the reserves matter. I completely understand that. But I would just like to hear from Janine whether she thinks there is conflict or isn't conflict, just to clarify it. And if she thinks there is the potential for conflict, whether we should include a condition. But I am very supportive of the idea of using this site for this purpose, just to be clear. The concerns were raised in relation to the height of the building and not being in accordance with the Linkfield Village design. But as I've mentioned in my report, there are other buildings within the immediate area that are three levels and higher. Also, with regards to materials, there's been discussions with the conservation officer and suitable materials which can be determined or proposed during the reserve matters stage of the application would allow the development to integrate more with the village design statement. Catherine, whilst I fully understand where this has come from, I have a large degree of sympathy for and we have to accept the planning officer's brief, I was expecting you to talk about route board and route protection. Is that coming later? I'm not quite sure how to answer that, Edward. But as Janine knew that I was going to mention the route protection zones, I feel that Janine has adequately dealt with this, both in the report and in her statement. And therefore, I did not feel the need to raise the question. But thank you for raising it on my behalf. Not at all. Geoffrey. Thank you very much. So on the one hand, we have Tambridge's reservations and on the other hand, we have an implication from Ernest that the site ought to be more intensively developed. I think there's a sweet spot between those two things. And I think this application, as it stands, sits pretty much in that sweet spot. That's what I feel about it. I think the great need for this has been well expressed. And I think the location actually, particularly in respect to things like access to services, is in most ways absolutely excellent. I mean, the access to the doctors couldn't be better, could it? And my understanding is that this is a -- the patients -- it's a redistribution of residents. So the patients, we're expecting to be existing patients of that surgery. It may not be the case in every single case, but I think that's what we're expecting to be the case by and large. I mean, it may be that the residents are vacating properties and that people moving into those properties might require doctor's services. And that may just, you know, on the margins increase the demand. And obviously, we should take any opportunities that arise to, you know, improve our GP facilities as appropriate. But I don't think that's a -- you know, it's not a reason to object. I think the parking is -- you know, I welcome that we responded positively to residents concerned about parking and up to the spaces. But I think given that car ownership amongst the residents is going to be negligible if non-existent, we're talking about staff and visitors, and I think to request more than 27 spaces would be unreasonable. On the effects on the character, I mean, obviously, I suppose it's the three stories at the eastern end adjacent to the recreation ground. I suppose that that will constitute a difference because it is -- notwithstanding what has been said, it is higher than the building that was previously there, and some may deplore or regret that difference. But I think the point is that it is the boundary with the residential ground -- the recreation ground, rather, and it's not three stories looming over sort of residential gardens or anything like that. So I think it's a change that we can accommodate, and I don't think it would be reasonable to object on those grounds. So I agree with the recommendation. Even though it's an outline application, there are things like references to orchards and so on like that. I understand why they're there. They're there to demonstrate that the site has the capacity to accommodate the landscaping that would be required. I'm just wondering on a detail whether we're delegating the approval of the further matters or whether we're expecting this to come back. Thank you. As it currently stands, the reserve matters would be a delegated matter unless they were called in, or objections, I think, would also trigger it again. So it could come back to the committee, but it's not de facto coming back to the committee as it stands, the way the recommendation is structured. Sorry, can I just come back in the -- so we as a committee, if we should be approved this and say we would like the reserve matters to come back to us, that would enable -- that would trigger it coming back here, would it? Obviously, if that was the resolution of the committee, you would be happy to grant permission with the proviso that the reserve matters came back to at a later date. That would trigger our process to then have to bring it back when they come forward. The other thing, I don't think it's strictly relevant here, but with car parking, it's always an issue. I would like to see provision on some of these developments for a car club, a space for car clubs, which enables people's greater flexibility and not have reduced the demand for private cars, their own cars, but have a provision -- I just put that up there somewhere. Chris? Thank you, chair. I'm also thankful to Councillor Mallet for introducing the word tosh as far as Tandridge planning goes, and I dare say that will be something I will bring up at some stage once this matter is dealt with. I am quite in favour of this. Obviously, modifications have been made to the car parking. There is the matter that there is a public car park around the corner, which is limiting time, so it couldn't be used full-time. It probably couldn't be used for staff, either, but it is there and it is available, particularly if people need to visit on a Sunday when it's free and it's open all day. I think the height has been one of the sticking points to sort of get over, but I absolutely understand that we are not making -- or the planning application is not making absolute the most of the site, and therefore, it's given it a lot of leeway, and I think taking in context to the old building that was there, this is a very good replacement building. I know that there is confusion over the original 63 beds. I mean, it was originally built as a 50-bed care home. It was increased in the '70s, I think, by another 13. So it's 63, dropping down to 54, effectively, if you like, self-contained apartments with some community rooms and the rest of it. And like Councillor Gray has mentioned, I don't see there will be a huge amount of car movements or parking by the residents there. It is very close to the village centre and it is, despite the size of Linkfield, it is still very much a village and with very much a village feel. You know, there's a community hub, you know, there's community buses and all sorts of things going on around it. I do hope that some of the pavement heading in towards the village centre comes as an improvement at some stage. But other than that, I think it's a well-balanced replacement for what was there, and I say the use has changed and therefore the building has changed. Thank you. Thank you for that. That last part is not within our gift, I'm afraid, unfortunately, as much as we would like it. I mean, yeah, you're right, it's creating an environment, health-contained environment, creating homes for people rather than just a care facility, which benefits quality of life, et cetera, and all of that, which I think Carol and others have outlined. I raised a question about reserve matters. There doesn't seem to be an appetite for that, so officers, you can sign a bit of relief there. Members, we have a recommendation which has been amended on the update. Are you in agreement with the revised recommendation? Thank you, members, that is unanimous. Thank you very much. Thank you, speakers, on that one. Then we move on to the remaining item, which is a very weighty item. It's the case officers Laura Trigas and Benjamin Brett. Unfortunately, Laura is not with us today, and I believe Benjamin is going to, when he gets a chance, talk us through this one, and whenever you're ready. Thank you very much. Hello, thank you, Mr Chairman, thank you, members. So, officers have prepared two authority monitoring reports relating to the monitoring periods 2021, 2022, which are the financial year and 2022 calendar year. So the reason for this disparity in periods is that while we previously used the financial year, many of our data sources refer to the calendar year, and it made sense to align these. So while there's overlap between these two, from next year onwards, there will be no overlap. So the main purposes of an authority monitoring report are to report on the progress of the emerging minerals and waste local plan, to monitor, to cooperate activities between ourselves and other councils, to report on the efficacy of existing minerals and waste local plans and their policies, and also to gauge the extent to which those policies are being applied by development management colleagues. And following the 2023 planning advisory service review, we have also started to report on the performance of the development management service more generally as part of the authority monitoring reports, and that's why these are now being brought to planning committee. Next slide, please. So in terms of the government's key performance indicators, that was something that came out of the planning advisory services review. So since September 2022, the steady progress has been made with regards to improving performance. I can probably defer to my development management colleagues if there are any questions relevant to that, because I'm in the policy side. And yet 79.5 percent of major decisions were determined within the target timeframe over the latest period. Next slide, please. So this is a little bit more about just planning applications, so the number of validated decision notices issued and the decisions taken by P&R committee. I won't read through all of the numbers here, but these are the highlights for 2021/2022. Next slide, please. So from a policy perspective, the things that we monitor specifically, these are just some key highlights. So from a minerals side in 2021/2022, so I mean this illustrating the monitoring year, as I mentioned earlier, this is all 2021 data. So sales of sand and gravel were 0.81 million tons per annum, which was above the 10-year average for sales, but significantly below the rate set out in our most recent 2011 minerals plan. The overall sand and gravel land bank is 7.5 years, but there's an imbalance based on calculations this year of reserves of soft sand, which is 11 years, and concreting aggregate, so sharp sand and gravel, 3.8 years, so much lower. Next slide, please. Regarding waste, in 2021, Surrey produced an estimated total of 3.48 million tons of waste. I won't go into the breakdown here, but Surrey's community recycling centres achieved a reuse and recycling rate of 53% and a landfill diversion rate of 39%. So this is just highlights of that. Next slide, please. Again, this is the planning applications for 2022, so note that there will be some overlap in the last quarter of the previous AMR will also be set out in this one. But yeah, this is the numbers of decisions and decision-makers and applications validated. So for minerals, in 2022, styles of sand and gravel dropped quite significantly to 0.57 million tons per annum. So this is significantly below the 10-year average and below the rate set out in our most recent minerals plan, as already stated. Due to the lack of demand at the moment, due to low construction, we revised down our provision rates and so the reserves look a little bit healthier but that is likely to change as soon as demand sort of ramps up again for construction. In terms of waste, a higher amount of waste produced in 2022, 3.88 million tons, the community recycling centres in Surrey achieved a reuse and recycling rate of 53% and a landfill diversion rate of 93% and I believe that may be everything. Thank you very much. Thank you. I appreciate that's very much a tip through a very weighty report, particularly being my bonnet because of my profession, I've come out of a construction and although I never got my hands dirty doing construction, I have to stress, I was one of those horrible people that turned up and said, How much? But your recycling of the concrete and what I call the blanching, if you like, the breaking down of demolished buildings, that comes into your figures on your aggregate, your concrete mixture, your reuse. Yes, it does. So anything, generally it will be construction, demolition, excavation, waste, so that will be reported both from a waste side and from a mineral side and so we have figures for the sales of secondary and recycled aggregates too. They weren't sort of put up there but from memory they're quite consistent and they've actually, where primary material has been dipping, secondary and recycled material has actually remained quite consistent and has actually increased in the last few years so we're just under 1 million tonnes per annum as far as I remember for the latest monitoring period so our sales are quite strong there. Thank you on that and just for clarity, your 93% of diversion from landfill means that we're only putting 7% of non-recyclable waste into landfill? Yeah, so again, I don't know if any of my waste colleagues are here but from memory these are figures that relate to the community recycling centres so this will be local authority collected waste specifically so there are still landfills for other types of waste such as hazardous or such as inert waste so it doesn't mean that only 7% of all waste in the county is landfill but it does mean that of the waste collected by, sorry, that is a percentage. And the inert waste goes into landfill which is reclaimed land from old workings and things like that? Yeah, exactly, so again there's I suppose an aim to recycle as much of that material back into secondary and recycled aggregate as possible but some of it's not possible always to recycle it and as some members may note, in producing the new plan, we have at the moment an identified shortfall in CD&E waste management capacity so it's likely that there will need to be a kind of mixture of methods, that it can't all be recycled essentially. Thank you, sorry members, my particular bees in my bonnet I'm quite keen on recycling as you may have gathered. Catherine? Thank you, Chair. I'm just looking at the restoring mineral workings listings that were in both documents really and there seemed to be some missing which I was a bit confused by if I'm entirely honest. So I couldn't find home field and I know there's a reservoir somewhere in Ernest's patch that constantly lives on the list of things that we're going to look at and it isn't necessarily moving in a positive direction. I'm just wondering whether this report really should cover all of the restorations rather, so I was confused as to why they were missing. If you could help me with that I'd appreciate it. It may be, whilst Ben gets it open, it may be partly the timing because obviously what it says it's reporting on is those where there's been progress from either the 2021/22 or the 2022 depending on which report you're looking at, so it could be what's happened actively in that time frame as to why they're being captured in the report. It may be that there are, we can pick up certainly and make sure things are captured if there is something missing for future monitoring but I think obviously these things can be protracted over a period of time, so it might be where there's been active progress might be the differentiating factor. Just looking now, so I'm just on the 2021/22, I mean home field is one of the ones you mentioned, is that right? Home field is at least mentioned at paragraph 89, so between 1st April 2021 and 31st March 2022 progress on mineral restoration schemes in Surrey included and there's a list here, advancements of progressive restoration works at Hengrove Farm, Homefield Sandpit, North Park Quarry, Stemwell Quarry, Hithermore Quarry, Rygate Road Quarry, Seal Lodge Landfill and Sandy Cross Landfill. So I mean the list, as Sian mentions, I mean this is very much dependent on the timing and what happened during these periods but sort of anything that was going on at this time should theoretically be covered. I mean if members identify any that are not on here then it's certainly something we can look at and definitely take those away and have a look and see if anything has been missed but I'm not aware of any that have been left off, at least intentionally. I guess I'm referring to the fact that in the MPPF it does say restoration by the earliest possible time and it's not something that I feel we track terribly well and I guess I'm really asking that we go back and we just look at what we're doing at Homefield as a particular issue as far as I'm concerned but I also think there is one in Earnest Division that is a similar kind of issue and I think it would just be clear Homefield is not in my division, it just happens to be near where I live. But I just would like to understand where that sits in this report or if it sits in this report because I think we're not making progress on some of these sites year on year and I don't know that that necessarily comes out in this report. It may be more that this is not the report that covers those, this is more high level perhaps than digging into the detail around those specific issues there may be with sites which is more a matter we'd capture within our monitoring officers and work and reports they may be taping elsewhere. So again if there's specific issues it might be a different conversation where we bring them to light. This I think is more of a high level overview type report that's not delving into the details or issues there might be on specific sites. I think really what I'm saying is I would like to know which ones we're not making progress on as well as the ones we are making progress on because actually the ones we're not making progress on in many respects is where we're failing. Against the MPPF we're failing in that sense. I mean I understand there's very good reasons why we're not making progress on some of these sites and I completely understand that. I just think that if they are listed in some way and we are flagging in some way the ones we are struggling with in an annual report it will create more focus on resolving some of those issues that we are struggling with resolving and I completely understand we're struggling with resolving but it doesn't make it right if you know what I mean. No I'll take that away because it might be that we've got to be conscious of the purpose and there is guidance that sets out what should and shouldn't be included in these types of monitoring reports. So it might be having a thought about how do we update members in a different way perhaps on that piece of information and make sure we're up to date on that piece of information. So I'll take that away for discussion. Yeah it's a tremendous amount of work. We don't necessarily need that replicated but an addendum, an update and what have you. John I'll come in a second. On still looking at that paragraph 89 I accept it's for the dates April 21 to 22 but you've got here that work is still being carried out on Tycee's Meadow. Not in my division but it's somewhere I pass. It's not in yours either no but I mean it's somewhere we both know and I assume that is historic in so far that it's now been yeah fine. That's all I need. That's my understanding. Yeah thank you. John. Thank you. On page 131 we took away enforcement and the visit to authorised sites however you end it with at the time of writing no data relating to unauthorised site visits was available. Now I'm often challenged about unauthorised sites. Have you, are you going to collect any data on that because it is quite important that we look at these unauthorised sites and we as a committee get to know just what sort of problem it is. It may not be a problem because I don't know. Again it's probably something to take away and think about how we do report that so enforcement monitoring generally is an issue we're looking at at the moment. We're looking at sort of how that team is working on a number of different fronts so how we might communicate information like that to committee is something we're actively considering so it may not be appropriate in this report. It's obviously quite a hard thing also to capture because we only know what we know about unauthorised sites. There might be unauthorised ones we don't even know about so we'll have to think about how we report and how we capture that but definitely that's something I can take away to think about and again even if it's not through this report might be another way in which we can update members and make sure people are aware and we're aware of the information. Can I just jump in as well? I think as part of, we've sort of taken the opportunity to streamline our reports for these past two and hopefully make them a little bit more focused on the kind of key I suppose reasons for producing authority monitoring report and so some things may have dropped out, other things maybe could be improved for future years but this is very much the template we want to start with so we would very much welcome any comments on other things that you would like to see in there and then as Sian says it's something we can take away and see if this is the appropriate place for it or if it needs to sort of belong in a different document. Ernest. Yes well overall I have to say as far as this massive report is concerned that the sheer bureaucracy in it strains the brain. However there were two things in it which did interest me. One was the analysis of transport on to and from mineral sites and I'm quite happy with what I saw there and the other one was waste development, new sites for waste development. I mean clearly in Surrey we don't have as I've said several times before we just don't have land so inevitably all the waste or the major waste applications always occur on the green belt. Therefore on page one nine three where it says policy nine sort of slightly amused to see that you've got the in the left hand side it says number of planning permissions granted for new waste management facilities in the green belt and then the answer is well there are none but except for those with very special circumstances. Well so then at the bottom of the page it tells us there were seven. I'm not surprised that they were all in the green belt but I do find the way this whole table therefore is constructed is a bit misleading. I mean you know number of permissions grounded in the green belt seven not none. Okay you made the point or we made the point or somebody made the point that they were very special circumstance and we all put our hands up fine but you know it just strikes me that the way that this page is sort of slightly twisted. That's all I would say. It's not really being honest with the situation because the honest situation is as I say we don't have spare land so when we get an application for waste the chances are like Charlton Lane the major waste station we have in Surrey totally in the green belt there's no alternative. I mean we have to agree it special circumstances or not it's there and that's that's it so why not be just more straightforward honest about it. Thank you. Members I think we've done it we've been asked to note that the progress being made in the report since September 22 change in reporting periods I mean we've talked about all of this and it is going to be looked at and obviously you know feedback you've got if you can feed it into the system and that's that's more important than anything. So are you all in favor of that and the recommendation in the note please indicate great thank you very much indeed. That is the end of today's session thank you members thank you officers thank you members of the public thank you those that are on YouTube. The next meeting is on the 26th of June and yes I know what's coming up and we will be dealing with anything that may or may not be relevant at that time of the meeting. So thank you very much indeed and goodbye. (people chattering)