Transcript

Good morning, members. Good morning, members of the public. Good morning, officers. Good morning, anybody that's joined us on the YouTube channel, or whatever it's called. Welcome to the Planning and Regulatory Committee on Wednesday, the 26th of February. The month's nearly finished. First and foremost, can I say that there is no fire drill expected today, but in the event of a fire alarm sounding, everyone is asked to leave by the nearest exit. And assemble at the top car park, reporting to the member of the building management team, staff will be on hand to guide and help. Mobile phones, can you ensure they're either switched off or put on silent? I've checked. I'm normally the worst offender, so I've done that. Social media, in line with policy, you can use social media unless it starts flashing up and I get annoyed and ask people to switch it off. It doesn't say that here, but that's what I've said. Today's on the webcast, and it's available to the public afterwards. And for microphones, well, we all know how to use those. So can I go on to apologies? They've been received from Jonathan, Harley, Scott, Lewis, Chris, Farr. That's, oh, John. Have we heard from John Raboni? Right, I haven't gone down here. He's given an apology as well. Okay, thank you. Minutes, are you happy that I signed the minutes of the last meeting? Thank you very much. Petitions, none received. Public question time. We've had five questions from the public, which are contained on the, the answers are contained on the supplementary agenda, and we have four of the questionnaires, petitioners or otherwise, with us. Deborah, do you wish to ask a supplementary question? You know the rule, the procedure, so if you'd like to ask whenever you're ready, if you press the button. Thank you. In response to my question, you have implied the original planning application at Horse Hill has been returned to Surrey County Council to re-evaluate and give a new decision. As the Supreme Court have ruled the planning permission granted was illegal, what amendments have you cog made, or Surrey County Council asked for, to make the application comply with the Supreme Court ruling? Thank you, Chairman. Yes, the act of the quashing by the Supreme Court has the effect of meaning that the application decision has been quashed, has no effect. So the application returns to us to redetermine. So when I talk about the live application and application, it's the same reference, same application. What has happened so far as we have produced or sent to the applicant a Regulation 25 letter that should be available on the website. I will check after this meeting that it is so that people can see what it is that we have requested. And that has set out what we think is necessary to be included in a revised environmental statement to address the comments or the decision of the Supreme Court, as well as some other matters that have changed, as guidance has changed over the years since the original determination. We have not had a formal response to that, though. I'm seeking confirmation from the applicant's agent as to when we will receive that. Obviously, once any information is sent in to us by the applicant as amendments to the application, that will be put on the website, that will be subject to public consultation. So letters, et cetera, consultation will go out at that point. Thank you. Now, Jacqueline, I hope you don't mind me being so personal as calling by your names. I feel we, some of us, we almost know each other by now. But again, do you have a supplementary question? I'll need a break. Oh, please. Right-hand button. It was mainly answered in the previous answer, and I had something that has just completely gone out of my head now. So sorry. Can I come back to it if it comes back in? If you come back before we finish on this section, most certainly. Thank you very much. Yeah, absolutely. Now, Jackie. Jackie. Thank you. Good morning. Thank you for your response. I'm pleased to hear your assurance that drilling has finally ceased at Horse Hill. In your reply, you state that you've asked for EUCOG's programme to complete the removal of equipment from the site. Has this now been shared with the council? And also, has it been possible to ascertain how much oil production is usually involved when minimum maintenance flow is required? As I understand, one-third of the usual monthly production was produced in 15 days in the site, which doesn't appear to be very minimal. In respect of the terminology, minimum maintenance flow, that is what we were examining during the time frame of that flow. It's still something that we would need to explore further to answer your question, because ultimately that remedied itself in the sense of the period ended. So there was no need for us to further investigate it at that point, but I can take that away and look at whether or not we can get a further answer on that. At this point in time, no, we do not have a final programme of works from EUCOG. It's subject, again, of still ongoing discussion, and we are seeking to understand the time frames that they are looking to work to, and that will then inform what next steps we may or may not take. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. Sarah. I think the question has already just been answered, but I would like to just read again. In response to my public question about monitoring visits to the Horse Hills site, we were reassured that there had been a recent visit on the 4th of February. I would like to know if any of those inspecting the site were told when the site would be fully cleared of the unlawful development. Is there a final date that EUCOG have agreed to fully vacate the site? No, as per the previous answer, there is no final date, so obviously discussions were had at that site visit rather than the discussions. It was made clear from our monitoring officers that there is still an expectation that equipment is clear from the site point. All put to us by the applicant, Anna. Thank you. Thank you very much. There was another question from, I'm not sure, I don't know if you know how to pronounce it, but she's not here. Is that right? Ayas. Ayas, right. But she's not here. Is it a lady, is it? Yes. Yes, I said, no. She's not there. She's not there. She's not there. Thank you. Yes, yeah, absolutely. Please do. Thank you. It was just that I looked for the application on the website and I couldn't find it. So where would I find it and where would I find the letter that you mentioned? I can circulate the link perhaps in response to these questions so we can make sure it's linked on this public questions answer as well for ease of reference. But essentially, it should be on our online planning register and under still the same reference as the CROSH permission. I understand, I will be frank, our websites are always the easiest to navigate, but it should be, it would have been published, I believe, late December. But I'll check all that after this meeting and I can share a link as a written update to these questions so everyone can find it more easily. Okay, the only one I can find said planning quashed and it didn't say anything about a live application. Yes, you'll need to, yes, that might be something I need to pick up with our tech team. And when did you send the regulation 25 letter? It was December, I can't give you a precise date in moments, 18th of December. Thank you very much. Thank you. No, thank you very much indeed, everybody, for that. Please stay for the rest of the meeting if you wish or you may leave whenever it is convenient. Then there's a member question time, there's nothing, declarations of interest, members, are there any declarations? No. Then we have two applications, they're interconnected and we will deal with them as we did in the last one, that they will be, the officer introduction and the speaker will do an overarching review and then we will deal them separately. There was a briefing circulated by the officers and thank you for that and it's quite intensive. Do people want more time to read that or are you quite content and that we just proceed with the applications? Just ask the question. Okay. Right, so in which case, I think it's David. You're up to you, thank you. Thank you, Chairman. So, by way of an introduction, we have two applications before us today. One seeking to revise the approved restoration scheme for land at Manor Farm and the other seeking an alternative route for the conveyor within Queen Mary Quarry compared to the route that was originally proposed as part of the application for mineral extraction at Manor Farm. The two applications relate to the mineral working complex comprising Queen Mary Quarry, or QMQ for short, a long-established mineral site where operations commenced in the late 1960s and land at Manor Farm, which was an allocated site for mineral extraction contained in the Surrey Minerals Plan 2011. So, land at Manor Farm received plan and commission in October 2015 for the extraction of 1.5 million tonnes of sand and gravel in four phases. The installation of a field conveyor for the transport of the mineral between Manor Farm and Queen Mary Quarry processing plant. The construction of a tunnel beneath Ashford Road to accommodate the conveyor link between the two sites. The construction of a concrete batching plant and an aggregate bagging plant within the plant site at Queen Mary Quarry, and the restoration of Manor Farm to landscape lakes for nature conservation after use. The residual silt from the processing of the mineral from Manor Farm was to be deposited in the southern end of the existing silt lagoon at Queen Mary Quarry. Aggregate lorries would export the processed mineral from Queen Mary Quarry to the marketplace, utilising the existing plant from the north of the site onto the A308. A section 106 legal agreement was entered into in connection with the planning permission, which secured the long-term aftercare management of the land at Manor Farm, and limited the number of HGB movements, in combination with operations taking place at Queen Mary Quarry, to no more than 300 movements on any working day. Due to concerns raised over the routing of the conveyor inside Queen Mary Quarry, through restored areas of vegetation and ecological habitat within a site of nature conservation importance, an application was submitted and subsequently approved in October 2015 for an alternative conveyor route within the Queen Mary Quarry site. However, as the planning permission expired due to it not being implemented within three years, the application has been resubmitted and is reported under item 8. The application reported under item 7 to revise the restoration scheme at Manor Farm is dependent on the permission being granted for the alternative conveyor route within Queen Mary Quarry, reported under item 8. What connects these two sites is that they both fall under the same mineral operator, and the Manor Farm permission includes the transfer of the mineral by conveyor to the existing processing plant at Queen Mary Quarry for processing. Given the close relationship between the two applications, officers considered that it made sense for both applications by committee at the same time. The two applications constitute EIA development and are both supported by an overarching environmental assessment, or sorry, environmental statement, or ES, relating to the original applications and the two ES addendums submitted in support of each of the new applications that we're considering today. So, turn into item 7. The application was introduced from the processing of the mineral extracted from Manor Farm. In order to address this, the application is seeking to pump the silt derived from processing of mineral from Manor Farm only by flexible pipeline from the processing plant at Queen Mary Quarry to the phase 1 and 2 voids to be created following the extraction of mineral at Manor Farm. The silt would be pumped in a fluid form, and the pipeline would follow the route of the field conveyor between the two sites. The deposit of silt within the phase 1 and 2 voids at Manor Farm would result in the provision of shallower water bodies in these areas, and as a consequence benefits, benefit biodiversity and increase the ecological value of the restored site. The application is part retrospective, because the silt pipeline has already been installed. The proposal would require the provision of an additional three metre high topsoil bund in the north-east corner of phase 1, a mineral stockpile in phase 1. The metre maintains some overburden and topsoil bunds towards the south of phase 1 during the extraction of future phases. Slight alterations to the positioning of temporary overburden and topsoil bunds in phase 1, the provision of an additional causeway across the water body in phase 1, resulting in the creation of a third water body and delays to the progressive restoration of the site. However, the approved timescales for minimal extraction to be completed within five years and restoration within six years from the commencement of extraction would remain unchanged, hence there would be no delay to the completion of the restoration of the site. 27 letters of representation have been received, objecting to the application, with the exception of the spellful Natural History Society, who has raised objection due to the impact on ecology and the water environment. No other objections have been received by consultees. In some cases, these are subject to conditions as specified in the report. The application comprises inappropriate development in the Greenbelt, given the temporary nature and reversibility of the mineral working and restoration activity, the maintenance of high environmental standards, and that the site would be restored to a high standard in accordance with an approved restoration scheme to the Greenbelt. Having regard to the environmental information contained in the environmental statement, national and development plan policy, and the local development plan in this regard. I'll just have some slides, hopefully assist, because I know there wasn't a site visit for this item. So, figure one, so this actually shows the approved restoration plan for Manor Farm. You can see public footpath 30 marked by an orange, you can see an orange dotted line, routed north to south across the application site. That's right. The existing hedgerow, either side of footpath 30, will be gapped up and reinforced. The plan includes lots of peripheral planting, including grassland with willow scrub, planted islands, lake spits to break up access to the water for birds flying from north to south, reed beds, reed beds, reed beds, reed beds marginal planting to help stabilize the embankments, mixed loaves scrub and agricultural grassland. I particularly draw your attention to the shape of the water body in phase one, which is on the right of the footpath, with a single causeway to create two lakes. so if you turn to figure two this is the proposed restoration plan in many ways it's a case of spot the difference however you'll note the change in the location of the causeway so which results in the creation of an additional water body within this phase the other causeway has been moved further north as well you'll see so that's the proposed restoration scheme as part of this application you're looking at there with the three water bodies the previous one you see the two the two water bodies in terms in terms of the area to the area to the left of the foot bar there's that that really stays the same there's no real change so the only change really is in phase one so figure three and it's quite small shows the phrasing plan for manna farm so to the right of the footpath you've got phase one which would be worked in two two sub phase one a and phase one B and then to them to the left of the footpath going from north to south you've got phase two phase three and then the final phase four phase four phase one and phase two figure four it's small but there's a better picture coming up this shows the silt pipeline to the right of the conveyor exit exiting Queen Mary quarry and entering and figure five so this shows a close-up view of the silt pipeline showed in the previous slide in the distance you can see the causeway that crosses the silt lagoon into Queen Mary quarry on the screens it's which way we've got the planting either side the distance there's a there's a causeway that could goes across the goes across the lake so figure six similarly this shows the silt pipeline exiting the tunnel beneath Astrid Road as it enters a manna farm put the pipelines on to the right of the conveyor southeast across manna farm phase one and you can see where soil stripping has already taken place and where the soil has been stockpiled in vegetating but where mineral is to be extracted figure eight shows an image looking southeast again across phase one this is just taking further north from the same footpath figure nine not great with a tree in the middle I'm sorry but terms is a view looking how the how the how the phase appears figure ten and this is on the other side of the footpath so this looks northwest across phase two from footpath 30 where silt is also to be deposited following the effect figure twelve this is the existing mineral processing plants um situated in the northeast of Queen Mary quarry processing of sand and gravel extracted there from manna farm and you know off it's been transported to Queen Mary quarry for processing the other Queen Mary quarry uh through which the silt pipeline uh will be routed and figure fourteen um it's the very southern end of the uh processing yard at Queen Mary quarry and um on the left hand side um and figure fifteen uh very old photograph but that is this is the act this is the access track running north to south through through uh Queen Mary quarry um so this image you're looking um you're looking north towards the processing plant site um when i last i used to monitor this site i think when i when i used to when i used to go there i think i remember walking down this track a few times and um the vegetation i recorded being sort of cleared over a wider a wider width than is shown there um the actual conveyor the actual pipeline should i say would be um positioned to the um to the west of that track yeah we'll do that yes yeah um and item eight um um as i mentioned earlier the application uh proposal replicates the proposed the proposal contained in the application for an alternative conveyor route which we committed over 2015 which lapsed without being implemented so the application seeks to amend part of the temporary route of the conveyor connect connecting land at manna farm to the mineral processing plant at Queen Mary quarry to avoid the of the restored areas within part of the Queen Mary quarry site after the conveyor enters Queen Mary quarry across the silt lagoon and continues on for the boundary of Queen Mary quarry so instead of turning northeast and cutting across previously restored areas of Queen Mary quarry the alternative route would continue along the southern boundary as far as the existing track which runs north to south through the site and then follow the side of the track until it reaches the processing yard so in effect skirt and around the edge of the restored area the alternative route makes use of unvegetated land alongside the existing track within the quarry site the application is part retrospective and that's changed actually um i've had confirmation recently that the uh you know the conveyor the conveyor has actually been so it's ready in place the whole length of it so the application is now fully retrospective because because the conveyor has already been installed as previously mentioned the application is supported by an environmental assessment which addresses the proposed measures for mitigating any environmental and immediate impacts of the development only only two representations have been received on this one objecting to the application on air quality and green belt grounds the spell for natural history society has objected to the application on ecological and environmental grounds and the great crested newtop consultant has requested an updated uh survey on great crested newts however no evidence of protected species were found during a phase one habitat survey undertaken in july 2022 which informs the updated ecological excuse me which informs the updated ecological assessment requested by scc um which was submitted submitted in support of the application as a consequence such species have been screened out of further consideration in terms of the potential effects on the on the construction and operation of the conveyor and the continued operation within within the processing yard and further the county ecology officer has raised no objection to the application and is satisfied with the proposed amendments to the conveyor route and the efforts taken to uh preserve the ecological interest of the site further they consider that the updated ecological assessment is thorough that the mitigation measure stipulated for the construction of the conveyor which would protect the ecological receptors from significant diverse impacts no other objections have been received from consultees subject to conditions where specified in the report although the proposal is inappropriate in the green belt officers can see that that sufficient very special circumstances exist in relation to the need for the conveyor to outweigh the harm to the green belt taking into consideration environmental information contained in the environmental statement national and development plan policy of the views of consultees and concerns raised by local residents officers consider that the need for the development has been demonstrated and that's subject to the imposition of conditions that the uh the development plan and the slides on this um item it's figure one it shows the application area so the conveyor routes uh within queen mary quarry um is denoted denoted by um the narrow um straight pink line um running southwest northeast inside the queen mary quarry site so that's that was the route that was proposed as part of the original planning application for mineral mineral extraction at manna farm um so so on the drawing you can actually see the conveyor routes in yellow and that's the route that um is now being proposed as part of this application so that's the routine in yellow within the sort of highlighted um red line i think there's a blue line around it as well so it just shows the difference between the two figure two this shows a close-up view of the conveyor um so you can see what it what it'll actually look like um you can clearly see the rubber belt on which the mineral will be carried the photo is taken is taken looking east from ashford road into the queen mary quarry uh site entering as it leaves queen mary quarry so whilst the section shown in the foreground is within is within the application site boundary uh the section crossing the causeway is actually outside the red line when i say inside the red line boundary there's just a there's an isolated square area um which is included as part of the application site which was the tunnel um but now the tunnel's been constructed um you know that that that that red square is you know is no longer you know necessary or required figure three uh this slide shows a view of the conveyor um as it enters a manor farm on the opposite side of ashford the application site but um you can see a sort of side view of the conveyor um which is about it's about about one meter in height off the ground um again as shown earlier um it shows the existing access track and queen mary quarry that runs north to south and figure five um it's meant to be a close wrap image of the conveyor and from from a side side on view um albeit again within the manor farm site and so that's actually outside the red line area and the final slide figure six um this is the um approved approved final restoration scheme for queen mary quarry comprising a mix of water bodies drainage channels tree and shrub planting reed swamp reed beds and marginal vegetation now this requires the site to be progressively um restored with the final phase comprising the processing plant site which is required to be restored by 2038 we are expecting i should add a revised restoration scheme to be submitted at some stage the restoration of the of this site has really been it's been a bit of a trial and we've tested various scenarios and i believe the main lake in the queen mary quarry i think there's a lot more silks end that probably going in there a revised scheme to be submitted um but um the timelines won't not expect the timeline shouldn't change and again you know the site will be a permanent fixture thank you chairman thank you very much a very comprehensive uh report um a lot of detail and thank you for your work on that um the only i rather than ask you about the um the um the more she she's hiding there i have any questions for you at the moment but i know you've been involved in the um uh conveyor belt i believe um but we'll come back into that we do have a um speaker uh simon tracy who's the agent um for the applicant um we are going to combine those two so simon has um potential for six minutes um so when you can come up and start when you're ready please um and if you stay for um uh questions of a planning nature from the committee and i'll try and separate the two out but i mean i'm sure there'll be a certain degree of overlap so the time will start whenever you're ready thank you uh thank you mr chairman uh simon tracy planning director for for brett aggregates um extraction of sand and gravel at queen mary has occurred since permission was first granted in 1968 output in the past has been over 700 000 tons a year with the site averaging just under 500 000 tons a year in the 1990s output is much less now but typically produces about 200 to 300 000 tons of high quality aggregates a year used in local construction and building sectors our products from this site are used in the development of much needed housing local employment regeneration and important infrastructure schemes some recent examples of developments supplied from this site include the construction of 400 riverside apartments ongoing at renshaw's yard in stains the expansion of shepperton film studios the big yellow storage facility on the causeway in stains infrastructure projects such as the m3 and m4 smart motorway schemes and a new major road bridge at ash going forward we expect demand for construction materials to rise with the new government agenda for increases in housing infrastructure and regeneration our site at queen mary contains great examples of quarry restoration where reed bed and wetland habitats have been created using silt arising from the processing of sand and gravel this has matured and supports a wide range of floor flora and fauna but in particular numerous bird species in recognition of this work the site has been designated a site of nature conservation importance the development proposed is to continue the pumping of silt from the site's processing plant at queen mary but to divert it into the extraction phases of the manna farm development once extraction has been completed in each of the first two phases the manna farm development is a reserve of sand and gravel that was granted planning permission in 2015 as has been described whereby the mineral is to be transferred by conveyor to queen mary for processing work has commenced on this development with the conveyor and road culvert beneath ashford road completed and the first phase prepared for extraction the second application before you is a simple modification to the route of part of the conveyor itself we have permission already for a particular route but we have been asked by the county council to alter this to avoid sensitive ecology on site the new route is slightly longer and more expensive to install but will preserve the said sensitive habitat the existing silting lagoons at queen mary are approaching completion in accordance with the committed restoration plans at that location without continued silting arrangements the operation would ultimately need to cease when the current area is full and sand and gravel extraction or production would need to stop the alternative of hoarding silt for off-site disposal is not practical or sensible however in allowing siltation to occur at manna farm presents an opportunity to increase areas of biodiversity and enhance the manna farm restoration scheme this would effectively extend the area of wetland and reed bed habitat found at queen mary to both sides of the ashford road the impact of the proposal has been fully assessed by an updated eia noise air quality and flood risk for example have been fully considered with no unacceptable impacts noted in terms of greenbelt this is covered in the office's report it is worth highlighting that the reason the proposals are described in that report as inappropriate development in the greenbelt is due to the nature of the application being considered it is a section 73 application to vary conditions of an existing permission that permission includes the erection of a concrete patching plant at queen mary a plant that has been since built and has been operational for a number of years now it is the concrete patching plant which is the element of the permission which is considered as inappropriate development no additional structures are however proposed in this application that would be classed as such the restoration scheme for manna farm that is before you has been designed with the input of surrey county council such that the best possible ecology focus scheme can be created we have also listened to local comments and suggestions and concerns and incorporated these comments where we can the proposed development provides a number of benefits firstly it would allow the production of salmon gravel to continue you've got under one minute left please that's that's more than enough thank you uh firstly would allow the production of salmon gravel to continue at this important strategic location secondly the restoration scheme at manna farm would be enhanced in a similar way to queen mary by creating shallower wetland habitat offering greater opportunities for wildlife in particular birds amphibians bats and invertebrates the proposals are fully in keeping with planning policy in particular those policies that concern the efficient use of mineral resources the restoration of mineral workings and biodiversity enhancements we respectfully request that you endorse the officer's recommendation and approve these applications thank you thank you very much very interesting i was engrossed in listening to you i'm not watching the uh the clock uh members do you have any questions of a planning nature for the speaker jatherine uh thank you chair thank you simon um i i guess the the the the only real substantive change is the fact that you are selecting into manna farm rather than just using queen mary um and i note lots of uh reports in the um officer's report about hydrology can you reassure me that you feel that there is sufficient monitoring in place to address any changes in groundwater associated with this uh yes thank you the environmental impact assessment includes a full flood risk assessment uh that that considers the the proposals um that confirms there will not be any added uh risk in terms of flood risk or groundwater change as a consequence of the proposals so because i haven't seen the eia i'm just wanting to confirm that groundwater levels and groundwater monitoring was specifically covered in the flood risk assessment it was indeed anybody else or any further questions um i have one question it relates to the second application um and uh page 99 paragraph 100 um it relates to and in fact um it's the it's going on 101 and 102 um the questions raised by spelt or natural history society and the um uh county ecologist um are you content if this committee looks for an informative uh to remove the not weed as is suggested um and makes um adequate uh representation so it goes on to say um there's the uh the impact of the the trees and the rare species there's a whole section in relating to the ecology which you will obviously have studied in some detail are you quite content that there is an informative um placed on a requirement on you to take action on those areas uh yes um the the the the treatment uh and dealing with not weed uh has separate uh legislation obligations on a landowner in any event uh so we have obligations in that respect in any event but but but um uh the answer is yes to your to your question gatherine sorry chair just one further question um just regarding the tunnel under the under the road um we've had another site recently that took very very long time to agree the restoration scheme for the tunnel under the road because of the long-term safety issues um the detail isn't in the officer's report but can you just explain to us is there a detailed plan for how that tunnel is going to be backfilled is there a strategy already in place or is that something that still needs to be developed yes the um it's not it's not a tunnel it's actually a culvert technical term effectively it was a cutting cover um structure rather than a tunnel that went under the road um the provision for that tunnel there is a section 278 highways agreement that also covers the um the final works to that culvert um once the development has been completed and that provides for the filling of the the culvert with foamed concrete and will not result or will not require the closure of the road to facilitate that that that filling can occur from both ends of the culvert thank you it was the concrete i was looking for so that's great thank you very much members any other questions no thank you very much indeed um no did you turn us to one of the local members been holding on there uh can you hear me denise i can thank you chairman yeah thanks for holding on um you have you can speak to both items you can have um 10 minutes uh on both items not on each item and again we will uh reserve the right to ask you questions with planning nature um the time will start whenever you're ready thank you thank you thank you chairman um so i just wanted to really um reflect uh the views of the community liaison group which is a body that was set up as part of the original planning application uh when it was approved back in 2015 um and there are um considerable reservations around the cumulative impact on the local community of these adjustments there is as you can see and i'm grateful for the committee um for considering these items because as you can see this there's a long and detailed history of of planning applications of extensions of of variations and that intrinsic link between uh queen mary um quarry and manor farm tends to kind of impact on the the the activities and the requirements of each site that even though there's that there's a road um dissecting the two um locations so the impact on the timetable um which can be seen from the original sort of application you've got um phase one which is now going to the restoration of phase one is now going to be um delayed until the completion of phase four due to this um silt being returned back into the manor farm site from the queen mary site the queen mary site has existing as has been set out by david the existing slurry pits and there was a reference to the return of that um that silt back into manor farm being actually to improve dot biodiversity and create a better sort of environment but actually that's as a consequence of the fact that the the removal of the the aggregate and mineral from under the bund in the queen mary reservoir was supposed to conclude before the commencement of the activity at manor farm and because actually they've been happening at the same time that has has exceeded the capacity in the queen mary site which gives the need to actually return that silk back into the former wetland and create um a much shallower meter depth as opposed to the 12.2 meters i think it was originally um and there are concerns um locally about that originally i think brett were proposing to have a not even a meter depth it was going to be a heathland restoration and that was i think challenged by surrey officers because it wasn't compatible with the local um you know topography geology or you know um soil type it was creating effectively an artificial heathland in a in a kind of loam thames valley region which wasn't compatible so the the depth was dropped to a meter but there are still concerns locally i think some of those um some of those aerial photographs did show but some of them didn't show actually the density around the whole manor farm site is extremely dense you know there's a very big um estate and the basic circumference is all surrounded by very um dense housing schools um you know lots of children and families and and lots of potential risk given the the um the change in nature of the what is currently arable land to wetland and now to a sort of a meter depth with a silt floor not recognizing how stable or how sound that that the base of that um that silt will be so the concerns around it being a sort of slurry nature which could present a risk uh which wouldn't have existed even though water a water body essentially does present a risk obviously of drowning but it's you know there's a temptation i think when you've got a a slurry bottom to a to a wetland habitat that actually you could sort of sink into it and and assume it was safe and it and it not be so that's one of those um concerns there was a there was a reference to an additional length of conveyor which hasn't appeared in in this application which i mean i don't know if it's appropriate to test that but given that we've got the agent here um richard ford um the general manager did reference an additional need for further conveyor um length within manor farm because of the the silt uh being deposited in phases one and two and the need to then have a further length of conveyor which i can't see referenced at all so it'd be helpful to to understand that and also the the intensification of the site given the reference to the the buns and stockpiles that wouldn't have existed previously because the activity didn't require the return of that silt from queen mary quarry back into manor farm therefore that wouldn't create the um i think overburden you references it has um to sort of build up that that mineral and have more um sort of visual impact more impact on the environment more intensification and industrialization of that greenbelt site as a result of of that um of that silt being returned so so essentially um the concerns and they are referenced in the in the comments that you have and obviously you have um officers have consulted over several intervals as can be seen within the report over quite a long time frame um and i think there's been some confusion locally given the complexity and i appreciate officers time and attention trying to explain that to everyone but i think residents have been really quite confused by the sort of iterative nature of these applications and conditions and variations and adjustments they're just they still hold those reservations but they're kind of a bit you know sort of um bit stunned really as to what is actually happening here even though it has been set out in in in the documents quite clearly so um so as i say it's the community cumulative impact on the community it's it's the relationship between um queen mary quarry and manor farm and how that could affect effectively extend further the activities that have been detailed here because because of the commercial nature obviously of the and that's been referenced of the the demand for that that material but actually because the the quality of the material from queen mary quarry requires some of the material from manor farm to then make it marketable or acceptable there is there is then a commercial consideration over the timing and phasing of the activity and that has been evidenced already because that's why we're still looking at an application that was passed in 2015 you know there is there are inevitable extensive delays which were not um they weren't committed to in the original application there was going to be a very clear timeline which obviously is has been extended considerably since so it's as i say it's it's the it's the impact locally it's the risk and the concerns over the the shallow nature of that depth and that that silt being utilized to to restore the habitat and the um i would also say the the the need for inspections as well because they were you know one of the um the length of conveyor that was referenced in the queen mary the second application that you're hearing today that was picked up as a as a result of an inspection um so it'd already been installed i think the pipe the silk pipe has also already been installed yet those permissions haven't been granted so it would be helpful to know what the controls are over the activities because the the particularly the the liaison group but also the residents surrounding the area would be would want that assurance that this is being tightly controlled because there is there is evidence within these two reports obviously that hasn't been the case therefore there is a need for retrospective applications but it's really the concern over the the impact and the time that this is taking to to deliver but also the adjustments which are as a result of commercial activity as opposed to trying to improve the biodiversity just a bit of honesty there i think around the intrinsic relationship between the two sites thank you chairman uh thank you very much right okay don't go away um because i know there's going to be some questions for you but i think there's also you raised some interesting points which maybe we'll go to david first um for i to for you to respond if you can um because there's a quite a bit of the ground to cover there thank you yes thank you chairman i'm certainly happy to pick up on some of those points um raised by the local member um one was proximity proximity to you know residential areas um you probably saw from the aerials and and the plan that formed part of the presentation that um yes it's manna farm is a large field um surrounded by residential um obviously this this is this isn't to do with the application we've got before us today but as a wider issue and based on sort of wider local concerns um i think with buffers for manna farmer in terms of the um the distance between the extraction area and where and the nearest residential properties i think they're quite generous um certainly compared to examples i've seen elsewhere with mineral applications and down the years in surrey um northwest surrey as we know is very densely populated um and and and and has also historically been um had a had a had a large um mineral resource in terms of sand and gravel so um and some of these deposits have been worked um a lot closer to residential dwellings than is the case at manna farm and i can remember seeing sites with buffer zones as down to about 50 meters i recall um but um the impacts you know can be mitigated and the beauty of manna farm is you haven't got a processing plant on site all you've got is the mineral extraction um so that's so the conveyor is actually to taking the mineral over to an existing processing plant at queen mary quarry um you you haven't got all the lorries going in and out of manna farm um um so i think it yeah i think i think i think i think i think i think i think it makes it makes a lot of sense um you know in terms of in terms of terms of what they're trying to achieve here um can i just stop you on that one um one of the things that was interesting the early uh denise's comments were the extension to the um um you know the ah help the bells yes thank you the extension to the bells yeah um i think i think i understand what the local members talking about um the conveyor in manna farm has already got planning permission and indeed some of the some of the region queenberry quarry's already got planning permission as you can see the application for us today is only for a section of the conveyor within queenberry quarry and that's the alternative route to sort of sort of bypass um areas that have been restored with ecological value so um the conveyor that's gone in retrospectively in manna farm um goes as far as phase one now as part of the permission for mineral extraction at manna farm the conveyor route um would go to phase one and then there was a separate culvert to be built under footpath 30 um through which the conveyor would run and it would carry on to phases two and three um that's already got planning permission so that i assume that's what the applicant mentioned when he was suggesting that there's another another part in the first to be built it's a section of conveyor that's already got planning permission and which and when they work phases two and three and four and they would need to extend the conveyor link over to that side of the site so under the footpath and again there's a it's part of the part of the same two section two seven eight agreement um i think there's a there's a the second part to do with the statement statement has already been drafted um but that would need to be signed off at a later stage when you know towards the end of the um time scale for a timeline for final restoration right can i just stop and then i'm just going to whilst i'm relaxing to have a backwards and forwards conversation i just need to check denise does that cover that point for you if that is the entirety of the the um the conveyor that's required in manna farm it does it's just that the the representative from brett suggested that there was an additional stretch that may be required which suggested that it wasn't already permitted but if it if that is all that's been if it's already been um accommodated that's fine it's just he seemed to suggest there was additional uh conveyor uh infrastructure required which gave rise to concern from the community liaison group because it was during a site visit thank you thank you yeah i mean i'm not aware of any further sections of conveyor um to be built that haven't already been approved um in the site um i'm i'm aware i'm aware of the conveyor that's on the ground at the moment will need to be extended to phase two and three and four and that's already permitted under the 2015 commission um beyond that i'm not aware of any further extensions to the conveyor and can't can't really think where anyone anyone would would be necessary um i think also it's important for members to realize maybe there has been a conversation that we weren't all party to about something that may happen in the future but that's not the application before you today so i understand why that might raise a question for members but that's not necessarily a question that is relevant to what you are being asked to approve and today yeah no i quite understand but the question the point has been raised by the liaison committee right um can i come can i come on to have any questions for the speaker please right who's going first right jeremy do you want to start and i go down the line can i can i start chairman please um can we go back to the question of the the silt being stable please is this for denise or for it's for david and and his view and i want to do questions for denise please too i have no questions for denise right right katherine do you have you have a question for the local member thank you uh hi denise thank you for your statement very helpful um just because one of the restoration sites that i'm involved in locally has a um has reeds but it also has willow and we do a lot of maintenance on the willow beds and and i understand the concern you're raising around silt um i know that we have some fairly active clgs where i am in the clg that you have has there been discussion about community involvement in the ongoing maintenance of the site or is that something that is completely left with brett in the long term i'm not aware that there's been any um arrangements or agreements around um access and maintenance i think it's it's supposed to be a sort of fenced off area i think i mean david would probably be able to clarify but there hasn't been any conversation around um sort of community or you know natural history society activity that i'm aware of sorry so in terms of the silt and the stability of the base which i do understand is a concern essentially those um the ponds that will be left will be fenced off is your understanding and there would be no public access to those that's not something that's been changed or discussed in the clg at all there isn't any as i understand it there's no official public access however that site and i've lived close to it for many years has a long history of um anti-social behavior you know we've had there's there was a grazing arrangement there to deter you know motorbikes and things cars being set fire to etc so there has been a long history of and social behavior there and there are much bigger fences um stopping people getting over from a local housing estate which they will easily scale and and enter the site so i think it's just a bit of reality you know realism around young people you know wanting to get off lead off steam and you know being bored and wanting to be be curious perhaps it's that it's it's it's the honesty around you know the curious nature of teenagers and wanting to mess around in local you know open spaces during holidays and things and the risk that that presents and i think that is a genuine concern given the population density and the history of the site i think the applicant the agent would be able to agree there has been some you know lots of concerns over the years and they've done lots of things to try and address it but it's just a concern that we wouldn't want someone to be in a situation where they're thinking it's a stable base and actually sinking into this stuff which is not um not stable and that was another concern again from from those sort of um spelt on natural history representatives you know is there a drying out phase to allow this the base to to stabilize before you know the water enters it but essentially it just does it naturally so there it just does it organically so that's that's the concern that has originated from the from the liaison group thank you thanks so just to reassure you i do have a deep water quarry right next to an area of deprivation in my patch so i do understand the the concern you're raising and i'm sure the officers can give us some information thank you denise thank you jeremy question for denise yeah hi denise it's jeremy denise could the concerns being expressed by the liaison group be satisfied by conditions i would imagine they would be satisfied by conditions it's it's the conditions that would would address those issues which don't appear in the current application because the current application is about a variation of conditions which leads us to the situation we're in so but but i'm sure conditions would be acceptable to to provide that assurance thank you um yes you're actually quite right it is a variation but um with you representing the liaison uh are you able to give an indication of the nature of the conditions that you might like us to consider i'm getting frowned upon here but i i'll ask the open question uh and i we reserve the right not to necessarily accept but i'm just interested to hear what you would like or what it might be appealing to them thank you thank you so the when the um previous heathland restoration was proposed which would have taken up more silt capacity from queen mary quarry that was rejected and worked upon by surrey officers because as i said that the nature of the of the you know the soil wouldn't have been compatible with the surrounding area so then there was that was that was reduced to create this one meter depth the one meter depth is still potentially a risk and and as has been reflected in the comments within in the report that unstable slurry nature of the base is is of concern i think there's general acceptance that the biodiversity you know um enhancing nature is is is is you know is is um can be supported but that isn't really focusing on the the risk to the the populace that live surrounding the site so i think that is a that is a an area that needs to be considered just just it doesn't you know that the health and safety references within the report are quite small and not really given the the correct level of attention it's it appears to be more on the the sort of biodiversity and environmental benefits of that rather than the actual practical risks on the ground of the of the one meter depth and obviously the one meter depth is to take up as much capacity of or quantity of silt as possible from queen mary quarry because originally it was 12.2 meters so that's quite a big jump isn't it you could have maybe made it a lesser um volume which would have then created still a wetland which would have had the same impact as the previous configuration stop stop stop right whilst you're on that point i'm very keen to bring in the officers on this because it you know david you you can you answer the points raised there please on the health and safety grounds thank you yes um i mean on the slurry concerns i mean that was raised in representations uh objecting to the applications concerns about having a slurry pit from importing silt and deposits deposits into the void um the slurry the silt isn't going to move around while the silt has been deposited it'll be contained by you know the buns around the site will contain it where it's actually going and then once the silt once all the silt has gone into the void it'll be capped by by subsoils and i think top soils um and then it'll and then which will keep it in place um so i think i think that really overcomes that issue um the heathland issue the heathland issue um when the application first came in and and i'm proposing heathland restoration in phase one so a dry restoration um you know one of the additional concerns i think officers had was that um yeah having having having having a fully restored land back to back to existing levels um it was that that that was more likely to encourage antisocial behavior for people to come into the site um whereas the previous scheme which is a series of deep water bodies um but less likely to um you know encourage people to come in i mean the site is in the details of the fencing is also covered in the officer report i think there's stock proof fencing around that around the whole site um even fencing to keep i can't remember the technical name of it but there's fencing to keep sheep at bay as well um i don't think i think that's above that so um i mean at the end of the day somebody's that determined to get into a site you probably because there's probably as much you can do about it and you can't you can't cover every single eventuality but i think the applicant has done as done as much as they can um um sorry just earlier on i've slightly cut you off there i just really wanted to get the office of view on what you were saying there um had you finished is there anything else you wanted to say on that point um i think we you know it's the health of safety or or um i've slightly gone off piece but is there anything else you wish to say um just just i mean the question was raised around um any sort of community involvement with maintenance and as i say it it appears that the expectation is the footpath will be accessible but everything else will be fenced but stock proof fencing can be two or three strands of barbed wire and wooden posts sheet proof fencing is just a sort of crisscross low livestock fence the palisade fence exists around the buckland um the area behind buckland school which is a nature conservation area i think for protection but yet you've got this huge sort of water body with um with inevitable risk that doesn't have anything other than stock proof fencing so i appreciate david's um explanation around the the slurry being covered with topsoil etc i mean whether that just stabilizes and becomes a firm base if that's the case then that's great but it doesn't i wouldn't have thought that would given that the volume of water in the area and the high water table i wouldn't have thought it would have stayed very firm underwater but that's that's for david to confirm so it's still the risk that is presented by virtue of the quite minimalist um security arrangements the expectation from the applicant that there won't be public access to this land but actually minimum you know sort of boundary restrictions to to to prevent that from happening thank you all right thanks very much denise um any further questions for the speaker members because yeah um i can stop the debate there denise thanks very much for that um and we obviously stay on if we want to because i'm sure the members have got other questions for the officers and comments to make on this one i was just saying sorry i think um as we move into um the members debates and questions we probably need to now move to doing them as separate items item seven and item eight so we can conclude the vote and what committee's position are on them clearly yeah just can i just say thank you chairman thank you to the committee for listening thank you very much no not at all thank you for contacting us i'll get it coming on um yeah i get what you're saying but it's gonna be slightly difficult but when we come to debate or vote we will separate those out um so members um have you got it'd be helpful if we dealt with the first site but over to you for comments um vice chairman did you want to make a comment on silt uh been covered off thank you very much chairman yeah david's answered that by by telling us that it's going to have uh other salt put on top thank you i'm slightly nervous about that answer to be honest i'm not an expert on silt but i am concerned that the stability of silt i mean it needs to dry and uh but katherine do you want to pick that one up thank you chair um yeah i mean just in in terms of silt i mean you can use vibro compact vibro compaction i never can say that um to obviously stabilize silt um and it is is a commonly used technique certainly in the middle east um where they do a lot of you know reclamation and and that is the technology they tend to use um i'm not completely convinced either in the same way as as councillor tier is that you know just putting top soil on on top solves that problem um i'm just wondering if there is some way to include either a condition or an informative just to look at soil stability um because i you know as you know i i have a quarry site in my division which does get broken into on a fairly regular basis and we do have anti-social behavior and we call the police and you know it is problematic um but equally there are some relatively simple things that we could do at the end of restoration to check soil stability to see whether there is an issue there or not um and even if it's just an informative that sort of asks us to do some stability testing i feel like from a long-term health and safety perspective we would be better off but i i'm not sure how you cover that i mean if i may respond and david may come in with more detail on the actual application but i think i understand the concern obviously expressed by the local member and where i sense uh members concern is coming from around a health and safety aspect but i am concerned that that is not something that is able to be dealt with through this planning application um not only because we're dealing with the section 73 so we're dealing with an existing permission that we're just looking at variations to which does slightly narrow down the frame of of what is um on the table in effect um but also those matters of health and safety this is not being approved as a publicly accessible site now i understand that that is difficult because there is this has been expressed by the local member the real world element but what we are dealing with is what is being sought planning permission what are the relevant planning policies and what can we control through that so if there was a concern around land stability soil stability based on a belief it didn't comply or there was a concern related back to one of the planning policies and a planning harm arising from it um then that might be something we could explore more but i'm concerned that the the the view is coming from a slightly different angle which i don't think necessarily could therefore be seen as reasonable to attach a condition and informative is of course not not a condition it is there simply to our to sort of note for the applicant to do something should still have relevance to the planning permission of course um it shouldn't be purely used for anything um but but i just have that that concern as to where this conversation is sort of um coming from versus what actually is is on the table and and is within the remit of the planning application so just to be clear the only reason i'm raising the question is the only thing that's different and i completely understand that the permission to to do this on this site has already been granted and as much as we might have reservations about whether that's good bad or indifferent it's it's not ours to our decision to make the decision that we are making is is regarding the input of silt um onto the site and that does in in my view have a material impact i agree that it's a safety impact so therefore i don't think it's something that we can condition but i do think that in order to address the concerns because silt can become quite difficult in in shallow water in terms of safety that if we can consider some kind of informative just to recognize that we are acknowledging the difference between this application and the original in terms of of what has changed um that i would feel more comfortable moving forward i i understand why it can't be a condition and i understand that it's not entirely a planning issue it is more of a health and safety issue but equally we have granted planning permission for a water body very close to a residential area that has its own challenges i was just gonna say and david may i'll bring him in a second i i think absolutely i understand that the change to silt does bring something on the table i think it is just acknowledging the reason why the concern is there what we do have done um in the past um is look at informatives around uh requiring liaison more closely with the community and it might be that something to that effect um may may help to raise those concerns because um requiring uh through an informative something to happen perhaps goes beyond the scale of of such that it should be but but perhaps there's something members might want to consider in in another form of informative i don't know david sorry sorry can i just come in here yeah yeah that's fine but i still feel that because we have concerns yes it is the invitation of of so so that gives us the uh the rationale for raising the concern um and yes that should be allied to a greater uh liaison with the uh local residents and their association so that that is a double whammy i was going to say it it's it is there and it should be seen to be there and it should reflect the concern of residents under this committee yes so what what i said said about the um at the end of silt deposition they're going to put subsoil and topsoil on top to stabilize it i mean that's what stated in the application and before us and that's what the applicants put forward um and none of our consultee responses have raised any concerns about that obviously issues have arisen from local member today and in representations um the other point i wanted to make though is that um you know actually the actual fencing around the site and and the additional planting is actually intended to you know to do as much as possible to actually prevent public access into the site and there's a good reason for that and that is because um obviously we're not that far from heathrow um in this location and bird strike is a concern we're in the heathrow bird strike sort of safeguarding zone in this part of the county and we don't we don't want to encourage people to come into the site and start feeding birds um so um i mean no doubt at the time there would have been um some quite detailed discussions with our former principal restoration and enhancement officer about this and you know trying to build a scheme which um support which improves biodiversity and um and um you know and a nature conservation interest at the same time and just does not cause any any potential impact um to aviation safety so um but yeah so i think i think the security issue i think it's i think it's been addressed perhaps more than people will make out um but but maybe maybe for it maybe partly for a different reason um so just looking at the informatives i can't find any informative around the community liaison group it's great that one exists but if that is the only way of dealing with this then the informative absolutely needs to be added to include the community liaison group and include discussion about all of the things that david's just mentioned in terms of you know if the planting scheme is designed to help with the security of the site then i think that there needs to be some discussion with the community liaison group regarding that i i do also remain concerned about mixing reed and willow because if you are trying to maintain a reed bed you don't want willow and willow is extraordinarily time-consuming and difficult to maintain and involves being in the water so you know it i think there are some conflicts there that perhaps if the former um environmental enhancement officer was still here he might be raising concerns about it's obviously not here now um but i think having an informative around the clg would definitely be something that should be added actually to both conditions they're both applications yeah i think we're all agreed on that point thank you chairman obviously um the committee uh if they're minded to resolve on both applications could i suggest that we draft that and share that with yourself and the vice chair and and local member and local member yeah okay thank you yeah okay right members um i'm going to separate these now although we've i think we've concentrated on one we have two applications in front of us um the first one is uh item seven sorry ernest a big pardon yeah i have been for some time ernest i thought we were still taking questions no comment well it's the same difference um go far away concerned with factory acts we're not concerned with public you know generally public health and so on what what what we are concerned with what's on the paper and what's within our remit and i i i object really to the time being taken yes the public have got concerns but those concerns actually aren't relative to the actual planning application they can have many concerns they might be blown up tomorrow by you know a car station 3 000 miles away it's not something that we in giving permission for something that we can actually get into we're not actually technically qualified to do so anyway and there's plenty of organizations out there including the environmental agency and all sorts of people applying the factory acts and all these people have got their own regulations and those are the ones who will be looking at a lot of things that keep being raised so we we are where we are and we are are supposed to be a responsible committee looking for to support basically the economy and to support the situation that provides us with the materials in the western world that we need and this is what we're really looking at either this is a ridiculous application or it's well within the normal situations for which we're concerned and that's my view and and really i've studied this application i can't find and i'm listening to the objections they're all about concerns of the public well you know the public aren't the technical people who are qualified to make these judgments and neither are we and so we must limit ourselves more and more to what are the planning issues and if the planning issues are settled then that's fine and i agree entirely with the comments that the chief officer here made which were largely along those lines maybe not expressed as forcibly as i i am because basically um you know officers have to be slightly more sensitive to the committee than i do i have to be but anyway that's my view i see nothing wrong with this these two applications they're actually going to reinstate everything they can they're actually doing what they can in terms of getting materials off the site in a sensible manner with a conveyor belt they're they're piping stuff and back into the water to bring the bottom up and so on all all very good you know we shouldn't be arguing about those sorts of details they're not within our technical capability so anyway i can only say mr chairman that this application has my improvement with no no amendments and no no so-called uh matters for information because i think they're totally irrelevant thank you thank you very much um i understand totally what you're saying i can't agree with everything um because i do believe there's a committee we need to have cognizance of the um public we are representing the public and we need to hear what the local rep the public representatives say and reflect that but yes we can i do accept we can get led down the path sometimes um i sit here and i try and be fair to everybody um but i sometimes i'm not as good as other times um and sometimes i get told off for being overly fair but hey anyway thank you for that um i trust you do agree yes uh right members coming back um we have item seven um there um there um is there officer recommendation with amendments are set out on the um uh update sheets um there are no other amendments that i can on that application so and the informative yes the informative on both applications yeah it will be um so um members are we in agreement with uh set out thank you that is unanimous then we go on to the second application um item eight again um the informative um i would like we did touch on the informative regarding the um japanese knotweed and the um ecology um and i believe um and i believe we should have an informative there as set out on um page 100 and 101 of the report um um that's page 100 um and uh the final wording of informatives will be agreed uh with myself the vice chairman and local member um so are we all agreeable to that members um thank you members that is unanimous um thank you very much indeed um interesting wide-ranging i'll say wide-ranging honest report for discussion um the next meeting is where's the next meeting actually um i can't read yes 29th of march i'm trying to move it on 29th sounds a good date as well um but it's beyond the ides of march so we're okay um 26th of march uh so thank you very much and thank you anybody that's still watching us on uh youtube and good afternoon you