The Planning and Regulatory Committee of Surrey Council met on Wednesday 28 January 2026, where they resolved to permit a waste transfer station application at Epsom Chalk Pit, subject to planning conditions. The committee also received an update on the preparation of the Minerals and Waste Local Plan.

Waste Transfer Station at Epsom Chalk Pit

The committee granted planning permission for the change of use of land at Epsom Chalk Pit, College Road, Epsom, from a former transport yard to a waste transfer material recovery facility. The application, submitted by Solterra Limited, includes the erection of a building to fully enclose the waste transfer and recycling operations, along with other operational developments.

The decision to permit the application was made subject to a number of planning conditions. These conditions aim to mitigate concerns raised by residents and statutory consultees regarding noise, dust, traffic, and environmental impact.

Key discussions and concerns raised included:

• Green Belt Designation: Officers advised that the site, despite being within the Metropolitan Green Belt, was considered previously developed land and therefore not inappropriate development. They concluded that the development would not cause substantial harm to the openness of the Green Belt. However, some members and speakers questioned this assessment, arguing that the scale and character of the proposed development represented a significant intensification and change.
• Noise and Dust Mitigation: A central point of contention was the effectiveness of proposed noise and dust mitigation measures. While the applicant proposed enclosing all operations within a new building, fitting it with insulated cladding and roller shutter doors, objectors expressed scepticism, citing a history of unaddressed issues. Specific conditions were discussed regarding the closure of roller shutter doors during processing activities and the potential for acoustic baffling around the trommel.
• Throughput and Traffic: The proposed maximum annual throughput of 25,000 tons per annum and the associated 80 two-way vehicle movements per day were debated. Concerns were raised that this represented an intensification from historical levels, with some suggesting a lower tonnage cap. The applicant stated that 25,000 tons was economically viable for their operations.
• Land Contamination and Drainage: The site's location within protected zones for groundwater and the potential for land contamination were significant concerns. The applicant proposed a new drainage scheme, including rainwater harvesting, to prevent groundwater contamination. Conditions were imposed to ensure adequate protection of groundwater and aquifers during construction and operation.
• Retrospective Elements: A portion of the application was retrospective, with some works already undertaken without prior planning permission. This led to concerns about the enforceability of future conditions and a lack of trust in the planning system.
• Enforcement: Several speakers highlighted a history of alleged breaches of operational conditions and a perceived lack of effective enforcement by the council. The committee was urged to ensure robust mechanisms for monitoring and enforcement were in place.
• Biodiversity and Landscaping: Discussions also touched upon the landscaping plan, with a request for a more diverse mix of trees and shrubs to enhance long-term biodiversity and resilience. An additional condition was agreed to require the submission and approval of a scheme for acoustic baffling for the trommel.

The committee voted unanimously to permit the application, subject to the agreed conditions.

Minerals and Waste Local Plan Update

The committee received an update on the preparation of the emerging Minerals and Waste Local Plan (MWLP). The report outlined the progress made, acknowledged potential challenges and risks, and provided an opportunity for member feedback.

Key points from the update included:

• Progress and Timeline: The team detailed the work undertaken to date, including preparations for the preferred options consultation and the publication of the draft plan.
• Challenges and Risks: Project risks were identified, particularly concerning the evolving national planning policy landscape and the upcoming local government reorganisation in Surrey.
• Engagement with Other Authorities: Councillors raised questions about engagement with district councils and the potential for the MWLP to be split into two parts to align with the future unitary authorities. Officers confirmed regular engagement with boroughs and districts and noted the duty to cooperate requirements.
• Future of Plan Making: The potential impact of a new plan-making system to be introduced by the Labour government was discussed, with officers indicating that much of the current work could be transferable, albeit with potential refreshes.
• Capacity Shortfalls: A significant challenge identified was the lack of sufficient sites and capacity to deal with waste management needs, particularly construction and demolition waste. Policy incentives and strategies to reduce waste generation were discussed as potential solutions.

The committee noted the progress made in preparing the MWLP and acknowledged the future challenges and risks. Members were invited to provide direct feedback to the team.