Update on Capel Incinerator – October 2008

  Decision on Planning Application

The Planning and Regulatory Committee of Surrey County Council considered Surrey Waste Management's planning application for a mass-burn incinerator at the Clockhouse Brickworks at County Hall, Kingston upon Thames , on Friday 3 October 2008 . The meeting was advised that given that the proposal is contrary to the provisions of the Development Plan (with regard to its location in the Countryside) and given the scale of the proposed development a decision to grant planning permission must be referred to the Secretary of State. The recommendation put by officers to members was as follows:

“to PERMIT, subject to referral to the Secretary of State as a Departure, subject to the prior completion of a S106 legal agreement to secure the routing of vehicles and a travel plan and subject to conditions”

10 councillors voted in favour, 4 against and there was 1 abstention. Of those that voted in favour 9 represent divisions that are unaffected by the proposal.

Capel Parish Council had attempted to have consideration of the planning application deferred until its challenge of the Surrey Waste Plan had been heard. This was not permitted but a date has been set for the Waste Plan challenge, which will take place during w/c 26 January 2009 . The hearing is expected to last 3 days and will be conducted by Justice Sullivan, who presided over Capel Action Group's High Court challenge in 2001.

Those who attended on 3 October heard strong representations from villagers against the proposal. The officious chair of the planning committee unnecessarily cut off most of the speakers in full flow, including a District Councillor. Councillor Helyn Clack, who represents Dorking Rural, in which Capel resides, was given more time, and spoke very well. She pointed out that the proposed facility was out and out a mass- burn incinerator and not an EfW plant as both the County Council and the applicant persist in claiming. The classification of the facility is of significance in planning and environmental terms. No members of the public spoke in favour of the proposal as none had written in to support the application.

The officers report stated that 465 written representations had been received from the general public, all of which were against the proposal. A wide range of issues had been raised. The three issues that had attracted the greatest number of objections, in order of the number of objections raised, were: traffic and transportation; issues relating to health; and issues of waste management.

Much concern had been expressed over the distance that waste would have to travel to Capel and the consequential environmental impacts. The applicant had carried out a comparative assessment which demonstrated that Capel performed the worst of the 5 sites identified in policy WD5, in terms of waste kilometres travelled in 2012 and 2019 and the third worst in 2013. This was the only instance where a comparative exercise had been carried out. The officers acknowledged that Capel is relatively remote and would result in greater distances being travelled than all the other sites identified in the Surrey Waste Plan. The officers also reminded members that they would have to keep in mind the objective enshrined in PPS10 that waste is to be disposed of in one of the nearest appropriate locations. Members clearly chose to lose sight of this objective!

One member expressed uncertainty over whether the Planning Committee was required to consider matters of health. An officer gave a convoluted answer but suggested that the Committee should do so if there was significant concern. The committee was content to duck the issue and leave it to the statutory agencies. This remains a grey and quite unsatisfactory element in the planning process.

On waste management some concern was expressed by members on the technology choice in the light of alternatives now available. In the officers report it was claimed that the original conclusions that had led to the choice of mass-burn incineration were soundly based and that Government policy advice was against waiting for technologies to develop before taking action to increase recovery and diversion of waste from landfill. This would suggest that West Sussex County Council, who have opted for MBT and Anaerobic Digestion, are ignoring Government policy and advice, which clearly is sheer nonsense.

Overall the discussion was muted, disappointing and worrying. Is this truly the way to make such important decisions that will impact local and wider communities for at least the next 25 years?

What led to the decision and what effect will it have?

It was always clear that despite their presumed “independence” the Planning Committee would approve the application. The reasons for this can be seen from the following chronology of events (when reading please remember that all Planning Committee members are full Council members too!):

Council meeting - 7 March 2006

The Council noted its Waste Disposal Authority's adoption of mass-burn incineration as its chosen waste disposal technology.

Council meeting - 13 June 2006

The Council approved the Surrey Waste Plan and its submission to the Secretary of State. At policy WD5 the Waste Plan identified Clockhouse Brickworks, Capel, as its preferred site for an incinerator. A further 5 “green belt” sites, requiring very special circumstances for planning permission to be granted, were also identified.

Council meeting – 17 October 2006

The Council formally adopted its Waste Disposal Authority's Action Plan in which Clockhouse Brickworks was identified, along with two other sites (at Trumps Farm, Longcross and Charlton Lane, Shepperton) to satisfy the need for 2 mass-burn incinerators to meet the County's disposal requirements. The WDA stated that it expected its contractor to submit a planning application for an EfW plant at Clockhouse Brickworks, Capel in late 2006 or early 2007.

Council meeting – 6 February 2007

The Council agreed the removal of three of the “green belt” sites (viz Heather Farm, Horsell; Wisley Airfield; and Martyrs Lane , Woking ) from policy WD5 and that their removal be proposed to the Waste Plan Inspector, on the grounds of specific requirements under the Habitats Regulations. This would effectively leave the Capel site as the “preferred” site and Trumps Farm and/or Charlton Lane as potential second sites, as had been envisaged by the Waste Disposal Authority, in October 2006.

Council meeting – 6 May 2008

The Council approved The Surrey Waste Plan by a large majority. The Inspectors' Report, following the Examination in Public, changed policy WD5 by removing the “preferred” status from the Clockhouse Brickworks site and the preferential ranking for “green belt” sites was also removed. Also 2 of the 3 sites recommended for removal from policy WD5 were re-instated viz Wisley Airfield and Martyrs Lane , Woking . This brought the potential number of candidates for a mass-burn incinerator to 5.

Planning Committee – 3 October 2008

The planning application was submitted in November 2007 (a year later than forecast by the Waste Disposal Authority in October 2006) and a month or so before the Inspectors' Report on the Surrey Waste Plan was published, so could not take account of the ultimate shape or content of the Surrey Waste Plan. The Inspectors' Report created consternation at Surrey County Council and the Waste Plan was not finally adopted until May 2008, a delay of five months.

Given that the Waste Plan no longer identified Clockhouse Brickworks as the “preferred” site, the submission of a planning application on the basis of the Waste Disposal Authority's preference, as expressed to the County Council in October 2006, could no longer be justified and it was clear that a proper and comprehensive comparative assessment of the sites identified in the Waste Plan was necessary.

Such an assessment had not been carried out and its absence should have been evident to Planning Committee members, along with other considerations, and should have led them to refuse or at least defer their decision (as was suggested to them by Cllr Helyn Clack) until the outcome of the High Court hearing is known, early in 2009.

The fact that a full and comprehensive comparative assessment had not been carried out should raise questions about the “independence” of a process which appears to have produced the result that the County Council and its Waste Authority wanted and have carefully planned and managed over the last 3 years, to meet the obligations in the 25 year contract between the parties.

The above provides the background to the decision by Capel Parish Council to challenge the Surrey Waste Plan for it is only at that level that justice can be obtained.

It was a disappointment to see the media headlines over the last week suggesting that the incinerator was proceeding. This is of course not the case given that the planning application has now to be referred to the Secretary of State, a process which will take its course. This point was missed by most of the media. However the High Court challenge of the Surrey Waste Plan was mentioned by most, but without any evidence that the significance of what led to the challenge, and the need for it, are clearly understood.

What action is needed between now and the High Court hearing in January?

We all share many concerns and should continue to express them. We need to keep the issue alive in the media, so please write in.

We also now need to focus our attention on funds. Capel Parish Council has taken out insurance to cover our potential costs. We have not been able to insure against all the costs we will incur as we prepare for January and we now need to raise a further £30,000. We are asking for contributions or commitments now.

Please send contributions made payable to Capel Action Group to:

Dino Adriano

Wickney Holt
Coles Lane
Capel
Surrey
RH5 5HU

Or email dino_adriano@tiscali.co.uk indicating how much you are prepared to commit.

In the event that the funds are not required they will be returned, as was the case in 2002.

Dino Adriano

Capel Action Group