THE FARNHAM SOCIETY|
THE FARNHAM SOCIETY |
|
|
NEWS PAGE
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
|