THE FARNHAM SOCIETY
|
THE FARNHAM SOCIETY
|
|
|
SITA PROPOSALS - RUNFOLD SOUTH QUARRY A Farnham Society Public Meeting was held at the Great Hall, Maltings, Farnham on 22 March 2010, to advise Farnham residents of the implication of a Planning Application by SITA to install an In-Vessel Composter (IVC) at Runfold South Quarry, currently operated as a landfill site. 1. Introduction – Alan Gavaghan, Chairman, Farnham Society FS does not hold such public meetings unless it is felt that there is a threat to the whole of Farnham. After a request from the Runfold Action Group, it was considered to be essential to inform Farnham residents about this application. SITA was invited to attend to present their case but wrote to the FS refusing, on the grounds that they had already held public exhibitions at the site to explain the application (still available to anyone who wants to see) and have held a series of Community Liaison panel meetings for local residents, councillors and other interested parties over several months. Introduction of the panel – Tim Cox, member of the Planning Committee of the FS. – John Slater, Chairman of Moor Park Residents Association – Pat Frost, Mayor of Waverley. 2. Presentation – John Slater Description of the proposed facility – not a small operation but a major industrial plant. Display showing location of the site of the application, in an area of great landscape value. 15,000 m2 buildings, designated as a temporary facility and 50,00 extra truck movements a year. 3. Comments by Pat Frost She is acting as the advocate for the local residents at the Planning Committee meeting and will explain the feelings of the local community. SITA has been asked by Surrey County Council (SCC) to provide further data, particularly on emissions, They have not yet responded (two months later). Once their response is received there will be a further public consultation period of 21 days before the Planning Committee meeting is convened. 5 speakers are allowed to present their views – 3 minutes each. The first 5 applicants to speak will be accepted. The applicant can speak for 15 minutes, commenting on the responses received by SCC to the application and on the foregoing speakers’ submissions. The meeting is now unlikely to take place before June 2010. No lobbying of the Planning Committee is permitted. Local residents are concerned that it will affect the whole of Farnham and that this is a development of an area which is unsuitable. Farnham‘s local roads are not suited to handle the extra truck traffic. This plant is a 24/7 operation which requires effective management, e.g. bio-aerosol filters must work all the time. 4. Comments by Roger Steel, Waverley councillor for the area concerned.Why is this location being put forward – SITA owns the land and has not presented any alternative locations. No work has been done on noise levels by SITA. Bioaerosols require 10 changes of air within the building every hour. Smells – food and green waste in combination have the potential to produce significant bad odours. This large plant is a significant investment (millions of pounds) for a large company and to expect a reasonable return to be made on this within the period of the operating licence (8 – 9 years) is unlikely. Farnham and Runfold could become the rubbish destination for London and the Home Counties – not just Surrey. The public is urged to object. Waverley BC has revised its earlier views on this application and has come to conclude that it is wrong at this location. 5. Comments by David Munro, SCC councillor for Farnham South. Member of the Planning Committee – an independent body which will hear arguments from both sides and the decision will be made on the evidence presented. This is a major planning decision for Surrey. 6. Questions/Comments from the audience 6.1 Why has this application not been rejected by SCC as SITA have not responded to the request for further data? If this happened the application would go directly to appeal. Planning Committee must go to a determination which means waiting until the planning officers have got the information they require to make a recommendation to the Planning Committee. 6.3 Objection letters need to have specific issues (e.g. health and safety did not amount to a reasoned argument against phone masts) – what can we say? Grounds for significant objectives include noise, traffic, impact on landscape, local amenity and living conditions– all of which may be used in confidence as legitimate concerns. (A sample letter of objection to the proposals can be downloaded here) 6.5 What are the criteria for the Identification of alternative sites in Surrey? Are all extraction sites potential candidates? Surrey Waste Plan has made an allocation of specific sites (previously developed sites and their proximity to major roads are important criteria). It is not automatic that the sites named will be used – there must be a planning application. Even for sites not identified, a planning application can still be made. Surrey’s waste needs are already to be satisfied by other sites’ development. Decision to be made on a candidate site is not necessarily on the basis of need but history has shown that need may even override the protection of an area (e.g. sand extraction). 6.6 Friends of the Earth (FOE) views. Slightly concerned about the question of need. IVC is definitely better than incineration (rejected as a means of waste management) – SCC had to re-evaluate their policy. Report to Cabinet suggested a number of facilities – e.g. Shepperton ECO type facility, gasification and IVC. 80,000 tpa of Surrey domestic green waste is currently going to Kent/Bedfordshire – better to be dealt with in Surrey. No ideal sites within Surrey. FOE prefers more smaller, local plants than one major facility at the western extremity of Surrey. Response: The Runfold application for treatment of 120,00 tpa of green and kitchen waste exceeds the estimated needs of Surrey. IVC may not be the right technological solution. 6.7 SITA have secured £1.5m funding from WRAP (backed by Defra funding) for this project. 6.8 Has (or will) this project caused changes to the road layout at the Shepherd & Flock roundabout? No changes are imminent. 6.10 New technology (plasma conversion) is already in use in Japan – has no emissions. 6.11 When did SITA purchase the site and why did nor SCC determine period of operation? First used for sand extraction some 40 years ago. SITA acquired it in 1997. Completion and restoration was expected by 2012, but there has been a history of extensions having been granted.6.12 Will Surrey Highways be required to comment on the application? Surrey Transport Development Control will comment and Pat Frost has invited the head to meet at the site to view the surrounding area. 6.13 Are there statistics on road accidents at the Shepherd & Flock/A31 junction? The Police will have statistics on personal injuries and accidents which may be used in commentary. If the SCC Planning Committee were so minded as to grant the application, a demand would be submitted for improvements at these road junctions to be included in the conditions of the grant. 6.14 Is emphasis to be placed on the proximity of Barfield School (risk to children’s health)? Concerns have already been expressed to SCC and the appropriate author ities.Send your objections to: The Planning Administration Team, Surrey County Council, Kingston upon Thames.
KT1 2DY
This application can be viewed at: Application Number: WA09/1275 Description:
It is also possible to
comment on this application online
Please note the application reference number WA09/1275 before clicking the following link.
PLEASE SEE ALSO RUNFOLD ACTION GROUP (RAG) WEBSITE: The Runfold Action Group (RAG) was formed in September 2009 to oppose the SITA planning application to create potentially the largest In -Vessel Composter in Europe at Runfold, Farnham, Surrey.The group comprises John Slater, chairman of the Moor Park Residents Association (MPRA), Stephen Bois (MPRA),Mike and Angela Hopper, joint secretaries of Crooksbury Residents Association (CRA), Kim Noakes (CRA) and Katie Goode, a campaigner from Seale Lane. http://runfoldactiongroup.webs.com
Alan Stones Date
Planning Application SCC/09/1275
The site for this very large industrial construction, the largest by far of its type in the UK, lies within an Area of Great Landscape Value as defined by the Waverley Borough Council Local Area Plan, and is subject to Policy C3 of that Plan which states that ‘Strong protection will be given to ensure the conservation and enhancement of landscape character.’ It can not be feasible that construction of this industrial plant could possibly comply with this policy. In addition in acknowledgment of the fact that this area of South Runfold has been damaged by the quarrying and land fill operations undertaken, the Waverley BC Local Plan defines the area as being an Area for Landscape Enhancement and subject to Policy C6 of that Plan which states that ‘This will be achieved through the control of development and ,subject to finance, the preparation of improvement schemes to be implemented’ I consider that there is a direct conflict between this Policy and the proposed development, which nobody could consider to be an improvement to the landscape. Also under the Surrey CC Minerals Plan this whole site must be fully restored to AGLV status by the end of 2021.
The amount of non municipal food waste which might be collected in the future has also been assessed by Surrey CC and will be less than 20,000 tpa. Where then is the SITA stated demand from Surrey to provide 60,000 tpa of food waste especially given that Planning Approval has recently been given for the construction of a recycling facility at Wisley? All of Surrey’s green waste already goes to recycling plants. There is therefore no need for this plant to be built.
3. Visual Impact 4. Air Quality, Odour and Health Risks With the planned throughput of 120,000 t per annum of compostable material (around half of which will be kitchen/catering waste and therefore not fresh) there is clearly a significant risk from the creation during receival, preparation, processing, maturation and recovery of airborne bacteria and fungi and associated chemicals some of which will be toxic and may be in harmful concentrations. There will also of course be bad odours associated with these bioaerosols. The proximity of this planned facility to residential property, the Princess Royal Hotel and Barfield School, all less than less than 250 metres away must be a real concern to everyone. In addition the emission of some of these bioaersols from the 18metre stacks may Ill result in these problems being spread over a wide area of east and south Farnham. As no IVC plant approaching this size has been built in the UK it is difficult to see how SITA can in good faith suggest that these issues are properly understood.
5. Noise The noise generated by the movement and processing of glass and some other dry materials can be very severe but this does not seem to be addressed in the Application despite the fact that the facility is designed to receive up to 20,000 t per annum of dry waste.
6. Flies and Vermin
7. Supposed Temporary Nature of
The Facility A good example of this is Area B at South Runfold where Planning Approval was granted in 1996 with the condition to cease operations by the end of 2004; this was extended on Application to the end of 2008 and further extended earlier this year to the end of 2011. I therefore simply do not believe that once this facility is built it will be dismantled after seven or eight years. I believe that SITA may consider their application to be more likely of success by calling it ‘temporary’ but it should not be vieId as such.
8. Traffic Movements Also for the first time, there will be significant waste deliveries along Crooksbury Road. This road is narrow, has crests and dips, has no footways to speak of and has difficult junctions at a number of points including Sands Road, Compton Way and Botany Hill/Camp Hill where there is a long history of accidents. The proposed use of this route is a recipe for disaster. Farnham already has major traffic problems and the proposals will impose additional and unreasonable burdens on traffic movements around the Shepherd and Flock roundabout and on the route from the A31 via St Georges Road and Guildford Road. There will also be real safety issues associated with this increase in HGV movements as Ill as airborne emissions which Farnham cannot accommodate. The roads around Runfold are almost always filthy, damaged and full of HGV’s coming and going to the South Runfold Quarry. It had been hoped to eventually see an end to this blight and risk to life and limb. Acceptance of this Planning Application would destroy that hope. Overall I am deeply opposed to this Application which is at odds with Planning Policies, very damaging to the local environment, unreasonable and potentially threatening to the health and weIl-being of residents in the area and particularly to Barfield School. I can not believe that our Surrey County Council Officers and Councillors would wish to sanction this development which would have such an adverse effect on this area and its people when there is no need for this plant to be built to serve the needs of Surrey.
Yours faithfully
|