ITEM NO

TO: PLANNING & REGULATORY COMMITTEE DATE: 12 December 2012

BY:PLANNING DEVELOPMENT CONTROL TEAM MANAGER

DISTRICT(S) TANDRIDGE DISTRICT COUNCIL ELECTORAL DIVISION(S): GodstoneMr Elias OxtedMr Skellett

PURPOSE: FOR DECISION GRID REF: 536693 152555

TITLE: MINERALS AND WASTE APPLICATION TA11/1484

SUMMARY REPORT

Palmers Wood Oilfield, Godstone, Surrey

Details of the protection of the water environment and restoration submitted pursuant to Conditions 13 and 15 of planning permission ref: TA10/0060 dated 8 August 2011 for the retention of two hydrocarbon wellsites, interconnecting pipeline, access roads, wells and associated infrastructure, plant, buildings and equipment until 30 September 2024; the restoration of the sites by 30 September 2025; and the removal of plant and equipment granted planning permission on 29 February 1996 ref: TA95/0982 and restoration of that land.

The above ground hydrocarbon development at Palmers Wood Oilfield is made up of two wellsites, Rooks Nest and Coney Hill linked by an underground pipeline. Oil is produced at both wellsites but is gathered and exported from Rooks Nest the site closest to the A22 which links to the M25 motorway. Palmers Wood Oilfield has been developed over the past 28 years and has been in production for 21 years. Situated between the A25 to the south and the M25 motorway to the north, the 6.4 ha application site is found within the Metropolitan Green Belt between the villages of Godstone (west) and Oxted and Limpsfield (east). The Coney Hill compound is accessed off Barrow Green Road which links to the A25 some 650m further south. The unmade access track is secured by a locked gate set back from Barrow Green Road which then skirts the edge of the former Coney Hill Landfill before entering the 1.7ha compound which is enclosed by security fencing and gated. The 4.5ha Rooks Nest compound is accessed off the A22. The tree lined tarmac access road is initially shared with The Godstone Golf Club, Swings and Roundabouts nursery, and residential and business uses at the former Street Court School site before dividing from the Streete Court access. The Rooks Nest site compound is located approximately 320 metres north of the road barrier that secures the access route.

In order to meet the requirements of Condition 13 the applicant has submitted details of the design, maintenance and management of the surface water drainage system present at the site. This includes the use of three drainage systems (French drain, building/ road drain and bund drain) with a closed surface water system. Further information in the form of runoff calculations were submitted by the applicant to demonstrate peak run off rates for the site could be accommodated.

In order to meet Condition 15 the applicant has submitted details of the temporary restoration of the land where plant and equipment associated with the storage of leachate granted under planning permission TA95/0982, have been removed. The details include a programme for restoration of these areas at Coney Hill and Rooks Nest covering how the site would be restored using imported soils, the amount of soils and how they would be spread, seed mixes to be used;

Item 7

Page 21

and the number of vehicles associated with removing the plant, equipment and hardcore and importing soils. The traffic information has been presented in a Traffic management strategy and the applicant has provided a unilateral agreement which ties them to the mitigation measures proposed in that strategy during the time the works are carried out.

The County Geological Consultant has reviewed the details for Condition 13 and considers the submitted details are satisfactory for this condition to be discharged. The County Ecologist and County Enhancement Officer have reviewed the details for Condition 15 and are satisfied with the proposed methods and seed mix. The County Highway Authority have reviewed the details for Condition 15 with regard to traffic and access and consider that given the low number of vehicles associated with the proposal that the number of vehicle movements are not material. A representation has been received for this planning application requesting a cumulative impact assessment be carried out in relation to vehicles generated by this proposal and the potentialactivities at Oxted Chalkpit and Oxted Sandpit; that an assessment of the proposal on sensitive receptors be carried out and a 20mph zone be designated for the section of Barrow Green Roadproposed. The County Highway Authority consider given the low level of traffic generationproposed that a cumulative impact assessment and an assessment of sensitive receptors is notnecessary and a 20mph zone is not necessary.

The County Geological Consultant has requested a condition be imposed that a procedure be followed for checking if any contamination maybe present at both sites once the bunding and soils are removed.

Given the above, Officers are satisfied that through the imposition of conditions and the unilateral agreement that the details submitted meet the requirements of the conditions and the application be approved.

The recommendation is to APPROVE subject to conditions.

APPLICATION DETAILS

Applicant

Star Energy Weald Basin Ltd

Date application valid

25 October 2011

Period for Determination

24 January 2012

Amending Documents Emails from the applicant dated 28 November 2011 and 9 January 2012, letter from the applicant dated 19 October 2012 and accompanying hydrological calculations and trafficmanagement details

SUMMARY OF PLANNING ISSUES

This section identifies and summarises the main planning issues in the report. The full text should be considered before the meeting.

Is this aspect of the proposal in accordance with

the development plan?

Paragraphs in the report where this has been

discussed

Page 22

Development and Flood Risk / Contamination

Yes 44 – 55

Temporary Restoration Yes 56 – 77 Other matters Yes 78 - 80

ILLUSTRATIVE MATERIAL

Site Plan

Plan

Aerial Photographs

Aerial

Site Photographs

Photograph 1: Coney Hill wellsite Photograph 2: bund at Coney Hill wellsite (right side of screen)Photograph 3: bund at Coney Hill Photograph 4: Rooks Nest wellsite Photograph 5: Rooks Nest wellsite Photograph 6: bund at Rooks Nest Photograph 7: access into Rooks Nest with bund in background

BACKGROUND

Site Description

1. The Rooks Nest and Coney Hill compounds, linked by an underground pipeline, make up Palmers Wood Oilfield (the application site). Situated between the A25 to the south andthe M25 motorway to the north, the 6.4 hectare (ha) application site is found within theMetropolitan Green Belt between the villages of Godstone (west) and Oxted and Limpsfield (east).

2. The 4.5ha Rooks Nest compound is accessed off the A22 (Godstone Bypass) part of theCounty's primary road network. The tree lined tarmac access road is initially shared with The Godstone Golf Club, Swings and Roundabouts nursery, and residential and business uses at the former Streete Court School site before dividing from the Streete Court access. The site compound is found approximately 320 metres (m) north of theroad barrier that secures the access route. The Rooks Nest site has been constructed onland that slopes downwards approximately 10m from north to south with the car parking area found at a higher level than the fenced and secure compound.

3. Rooks Nest is the larger of the two compounds and contains the gathering station whereoil is stored in tanks before being exported by road tankers. The compound contains wellcellars and two beam pumps (nodding donkeys) at its northeastern end within a stonesurfaced area of approximately 0.6ha. Also contained within the compound are three single storey prefabricated buildings containing a workshop, office control/security roomand staff facilities, which adjoin the boundary with car park close to the access. The oilstorage tanks are found at the far eastern end of the compound and the southern sectioncontains various tanks, switchroom, a generator and a flare. There are seven lightingcolumns in total, four of which light the well cellar area.

4. A 3m high bund constructed and planted in 1990/91 provides well developed screening on the southern boundary. The intervening land between the site and a group of

Page 23

residential properties and the former Streete Court School contains a large lake and grassland known as Rooks Nest Park. The properties are found some 360m southwest of the site and the former Streete Court School is some 250m distant. Palmers Wood screens the compound to the north and east; to the west is pastureland with Flower Wood and Flower Lane beyond. Rooks Nest Farm is found to the southwest.

5. The Coney Hill compound is accessed off Barrow Green Road which links to the A25 some 650m further south. The unmade access track from Barrow Green Road is secured by a locked gate set back from highway which then skirts the edge of the former Coney Hill Landfill before entering the 1.7ha compound which is enclosed by security fencing and gated. The Coney Hill site has an area of 0.6ha of hardstanding containing 3 wells and two nodding donkeys. It also contains a firewater tank, substation and pig launcher. The pig launcher is used in the maintenance of the pipeline; it launches a 'pig' or sphere that cleans the pipeline. The base of the former leachate tank is found in the southwestern corner.

6. Priory Shaw and Duckpit Wood screen the compound to the west. The closest residential properties to the compound are Barrow Green Farm Cottages, some 260m east, which are separated from the compound by Robin’s Grove Wood and Priory Shaw. Further residential properties are situated to the south of Barrow Green Road some 315m from the compound.

7. The interconnecting pipeline, which comprises several underground pipelines of approximately 1.4km in length, carries oil, gas, water and electricity between Rooks Nest and Coney Hill compounds. The pipeline runs from the south-eastern corner of Rooks Nest compound, in an easterly direction, bypassing Godstone Golf Course to the north, and connecting with the south-western corner of the Coney Hill compound. Other than a 300m length of pipeline south of Priory Shaw, the pipes are buried to a minimum depth of 1.2m below the ground.

8. The application site is located at the foot of the North Downs just outside the Surrey Hills Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and Area of Great Landscape Value (AGLV). The AONB boundary is closest to the Rooks Nest Compound extending into the northern area of Palmers Wood, which lies immediately north of the compound. To the north of the M25 motorway the land rises steeply to the ridge of the North Downs and lies within the AGLV and the AONB.

9. The oilfield is located within an area which contains a high proportion of semi-natural Ancient Woodlands. The woodland known as Palmers Wood, which adjoins the boundary of Rooks Nest to the north and east is Ancient Woodland. There is also an area of Ancient Woodland known as Flower Wood approximately 160m west of Rooks Nest. The Coney Hill Compound is also abutted on two sides by Priory Shaw Ancient Woodland, which links into Duckpit Wood, to the west and Robins Grove Wood to the northeast; both woodlands are classified as Ancient Woodland. Robins Grove Wood contains both ancient semi natural areas and an area of ancient replanted woodland. The buried pipeline linking the two compounds crosses under a finger of Priory Shaw before diagonally crossing under Duckpit Wood. Just prior to linking to the Rooks Nest Compound, the pipeline crosses under a narrow section of Palmers Wood Ancient Woodland.

Planning History

10. Following the award of an exploration licence, seismic surveys identified a geological structure capable of containing hydrocarbons which has become known as Palmers Wood Oilfield. The oilfield is approximately 5km long and 1km wide. Planning consent was originally given for the Rooks Nest wellsite in 1983 some two years prior to the Coney Hill site. Until 1989 the two sites had separate planning consents.

Page 24

Rooks Nest

11. Planning permission Ref: TA83/334/533 was granted on 20 July 1983 for the improvement of the access, construction of an access road and the drilling of one exploratory well and subsequent testing over a two year period on land at Rooks Nest Farm. Over the following year and a half details pursuant to consent Ref: TA83/334/533 were approved under the same reference number. These included details of arrangements for the disposal of drilling mud approved on 6 October 1983 and following the discovery of oil, a scheme of testing for the exploratory well was approved on 21 December 1983. Consent for the installation of an oil interceptor without compliance with Condition 6 was also permitted under the same reference number on 12 December 1984.

12. The drilling of two deviated appraisal boreholes, subsequent testing and the retention of works originally permitted under Ref: TA83/334/533 in 1983, was granted on 14 March 1984 by Ref: TA84/61. Between May and July 1984 the deviated appraisal wells were drilled at Rooks Nest Farm. Details of the retrieval of two downhole pressure gauges pursuant to Condition 4 of planning permission Ref: TA84/61/1 dated 19 March 1984 were approved on 21 August 1984. A testing programme for wells 2 and 3 was approved on 14 November 1984 under Ref: TA/83/334/533. This was subsequently extended for 3 months to 8 May 1985 under Ref: TA84/61 on 3 April 1985 and extended again to 8 July 1985 on 21 June 1985 under Ref: TA83/533. Retention of the Rooks Nest site for a temporary period for five years from March 1986 was permitted Ref: TA 84/61 dated 19 December 1985. A minor alteration to the layout of the drilling site access road was granted on 12 June 1986 by consent Ref: TA86/416. Landscaping and planting schemes were submitted and approved in 1986 pursuant to Condition 9 and 11 of planning permission Ref: TA84/61 dated 19 December 1985 and Condition 2 of permission Ref: TA86/416 dated 12 June 1986. Condition 2 was varied on 12 February 1987 to replant eight sweet chestnut trees instead of three limes as part of a junction improvement scheme under Ref: TA86/416.

Coney Hill

13. Planning permission was granted on 19 December 1985 Ref: TA85/792 for the construction of a wellsite at Coney Hill. This involved the sinking of a water well and the drilling of up to 3 appraisal boreholes and subsequent testing. This new appraisal site was constructed in 1986. Details pursuant to consent Ref TA85/792 involving a testing programme and details of restoration and aftercare were approved under the original reference number on 16 September 1986 and 26 January 1988 respectively.

Rooks Nest, Coney Hill and Pipeline

14. Planning permission Ref: TA89/0898 was granted on 23 November 1989 for the upgrading of the existing well sites and access roads at Rooks Nest and Coney Hill; the construction of a gathering station and road export terminal at Rooks Nest Farm; the construction of a well site and access road for water injection at North Park, Godstone and the drilling of 5 wells and carrying out associated testing and the construction of a pipeline linking Coney Hill with Rooks Nest. Apart from the North Park element this permission has been implemented.

15. Details of the disposal of drilling mud pursuant to Condition 9 of planning permission Ref: TA89/0898 were approved on 27 February 1990 under Ref: TA/89/0898/01 and the details of design, external appearance and colouring of plant, equipment and buildings as required by Condition 14 were approved on 25 April 1990 by virtue of planning permission Ref: TA89/898/02. On 24 January 1991, the restoration plan statement and landscaping details required by Conditions 16 and 23 of planning permission Ref: TA89/8998 were approved under planning permission Ref: TA89/8998/03.

Page 25

16. On 28 March 1995 planning permission Ref. TA89/898/C was granted for non-compliance with Conditions 3 and 24 of planning permission Ref: TA89/898. This permission allowed for a 6th borehole to be drilled at Rooks Nest rather than at North Park Farm.

17. In February 1996 planning permission was granted under Ref: TA95/0982 for the installation of plant and equipment and for operations connected with the disposal ofleachate at both Rooks Nest and Coney Hill compounds. This permission was time limited until 31 December 2002. Whilst the permission was implemented with regard to the siting of the infrastructure associated with the development, the importation and disposal of leachate has never taken place. The applicant has informed the County Planning Authority that the leachate tank was removed in 2009 whilst the associatedchemical tank was removed in May/June 2010; the concrete bunding remains in situ but it is proposed to be removed under this current application.

18. Condition 1 of Ref: TA89/0898 required that all buildings, plant, machinery both fixed and otherwise and any engineering works connected thereto be removed from the application site by 23 November 2002, whilst condition 2 of Ref: TA89/0898 required that the application site be restored by 23 November 2004.

19. On 29 November 2002 the applicant submitted a planning application County Council Ref. PL1779 under Section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 seeking relieffrom conditions 1 and 2 of planning permission Ref: TA89/0898 (see above) in order to continue the use of the land for oil extraction until November 2007 with restoration of the application site by November 2009. Due to the fact that planning permission Ref:TA89/0898 had lapsed on 23 November 2002 the County Planning Authority could notprocess the Section 73 application and it was subsequently withdrawn.

20. Planning permission Ref: TA10/0060 was granted permission on the 08 August 2011 for the retention of two hydrocarbon wellsites, interconnecting pipeline, access roads, wellsand associated infrastructure, plant, buildings and equipment until 30 September 2024; the restoration of the sites by 30 September 2025; and the removal of plant and equipment granted planning permission on 29 February 1996 Ref: TA95/0982 and restoration of that land.

THE PROPOSAL

21. This application is submitted in accordance with article 30 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) Order 2010. The application seeks approval for the details relating to The Protection of the Water Environment and TheRestoration of the Site as required by planning conditions 13 and 15 respectively,attached to planning permission Ref: TA10/0060 dated 8 August 2011.

22. Planning Condition 13 reads – Protection of the Water Environment

Within 3 months of the date of this consent, details of the design, maintenance and management of the surface water drainage system present at the site shall be submittedto the County Planning Authority for approval in writing. Those details shall include; themanner in which the surface water run-off within the compound area is directed towards the drainage system and contained within the site boundary and calculations justifyingthe approach taken and the storage volumes provided. The system shall be implementedand thereafter managed and maintained in accordance with the approved details

Reason

To ensure that the surface water drainage system complies with the requirements of Planning Policy Statement 25 - Development and Flood Risk and the associated Practice

Page 26

Guide such that the rates and volume of run-off from extreme events can be attenuated on site and do not cause flood flows to increase above the natural conditions prior to development and to ensure that the techniques proposed can function appropriately in accordance with PPS25 and to comply with The South East Plan May 2009 Policy NRM4 and Surrey Minerals Local Plan 1993 Policy 1.

This condition was requested by the County Geological Consultant as he had raised concerns that the capacity of the drainage system to contain and management the volume of storm water runoff had not been demonstrated within the original planning application.

23. Planning Condition 15 reads – Restoration

Within three months of the date of this permission details of the temporary restoration of the land where plant and equipment granted under planning permission Ref: TA95/0982 dated 29 February 1996 has been removed shall be submitted to the County Planning Authority for approval in writing. Such a scheme shall include details of the:

!" measures to be undertaken to ensure that no contamination has taken place. This shall include details of the identification, and where necessary, the testing of soil samples for a range of potential contaminants relevant to the site operations; the classification and storage of waste materials; the removal and disposal of contaminated soils;

!" programme for the implementation of the temporary restoration;

!" ripping of any compacted layers to ensure adequate drainage and aeration;

!" provision of, placement and depth of soils;

!" type and volumes of any imported fill required to bring up the levels;

!" the seeding of reclaimed areas with a suitable herbage mixture;

!" arrangements for subsequent maintenance.

The scheme shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the approved details.

Reason

To secure restoration of the land to a condition capable of beneficial after use and assist in absorbing the site back into the local landscape to comply with Surrey Minerals Local Plan 1993 Policy 5; Tandridge District Local Plan 2001 Policy RE2 and Tandridge District Core Strategy 2008 Policies CSP17 and CSP21.

This condition was requested by the County Ecologist.

24. In relation to condition 13 the applicant has provided a plan, which details the site water drainage system for Rooks Nest, Palmers Wood. The applicant details a closed sealed system consisting of three drainage systems; French drain, building/road drain, a bund drain, and also a discharge pipework system. Following consultation with the County Geological Consultant and a request for further information, the applicant has submitted amending and amplifying information with regard to calculations for storm water runoff and estimates of flow in all three drainage systems during peak flow – 100 year return period event.

25. In relation to condition 15 the applicant has provided details of the temporary restoration of the land where plant and equipment related to leachate treatment have been removed. Planning permission TA95/0892 allowed for the installation of plant and equipment for the disposal of leachate at both the Rooks Nest and Coney Hill wellsites. The permission was implemented with regard to installing the leachate tank and equipment however importation and disposal of leachate has never taken place. The leachate tank was removed from Rooks Nest in 2009 and the chemical tank in 2010. However the bunded areas remain at Rooks Nest and Coney Hill (as can be seen from

Page 27

the photographs) and the applicant proposes to remove the remaining associatedpipework and pumping equipment from inside the concrete bund areas off site to an approved disposal site for re-use, recycling or waste disposal and to restore these areastemporarily to grass, prior to the restoration of the wellsites to woodland when production ceases in 2025.

26. Prior to removal any services such as power and water supplies shall be severed and made safe. The concrete bunds will then be broken up and removed off site and taken to an approved licensed disposal facility for re-use, recycling or disposal. If unidentifiedcontamination is encountered during site clearance works, operations will cease pendingappropriate investigations to determine the nature and extent if any contamination.

27. The details include the removal of the existing leachate tanks and concrete bunds andinfilling with subsoils and topsoil. Following infilling it is proposed that the site will be cultivated with the minimum amount of working necessary to provide a seed bed for theaftercare crop of grass. Following consultation on the application, further information was requested and the applicant has provided amending and amplifying information on the meadow mix to be used, the aftercare and mowing regime; and what vehicle movements would be associated with the temporary restoration. Officers consider details of trafficmovements associated with the temporary restoration should be provided as part of thisapplication.

CONSULTATIONS AND PUBLICITY

District Council

28. Tandridge District Council : December 2011: No objection but requestthat SCC are satisfied that the water environmentwill be protected as a result of the details submittedfor the surface water drainage system and the restoration of the land will be to a condition capableof beneficial after use and assist in absorbing siteback into the local landscape.

November 2012: No change to the comments abovebut wish to add that no objection is raised with regard to the Traffic Management Details providedthat SCC is satisfied that HGVs only travel to and from the site on the route between Barrow GreenRoad and the A25 and the proposed number of HGVs are not exceeded, that wheel washing facilities are provided and working on Saturdays is restricted to the hours 0800 – 1300.

Consultees (Statutory and Non-Statutory)

29. The Environment Agency : Condition 13, no objection. Condition 15, no objection but a watching brief willbe required to be maintained during thedecommissioning work. Any imported soils must be validated appropriately.

30. County Ecologist : January 2012: Requests that the grass mixis amended in order to meet the requirements of condition 15.November 2012: is satisfied with the amendmentsand considers that just subsoil could be used ratherthan subsoil and topsoil

31. County Geological : November 2011: Condition 13, further

Page 28

Consultant information requested. Condition 15, wish to see a procedure that includes for inspection and if necessary sampling and testing of the exposed soil and subsoil before it is covered with restoration materials. Also request that any imported restoration materials are suitably clean and inert and data included in verification report. November 2012: is satisfied with the drainage calculations. Still wish for a procedure to ensure if any contamination is found that it is dealt with correctly.

32. County Landscape Architect : No objections 33. Transport Development

Planning: December 2011: proposal unlikely to cause

significant vehicle movements but as the proposal would involve the importation of soils request information on traffic movements to be provided

November 2012: considers the traffic management strategy to be robust. Consider access to Rooks Nest is adequate for the number of vehicle movements proposed. Consider the number of vehicle movements proposed for Barrow Green Road to be not material.

34. County Enhancement Officer

: January 2012: Clarification requested on use of 360 toothed bucket. Suggest using a 360 machine and use arm and bucket to place and spread soils. Lack of detail in regard to grazing /cropping/fertiliser/seeding rate. November 2012: welcomes the change in seed mix. Considers the alternatives to the restoration scheme proposed could lead to drainage problems or impede an effective end use

35. County Environmental Noise Consultant

: No objection given existing background noise from M25 and limited duration of machinery. Condition suggested to limit noise levels.

36. Rights of Way : No comments to make on Rooks Nest. Concern about Barrow Green Road due to the proximity of the riding stables. Request no weekend HGVs, restriction of numbers, traffic management to negate the need for HGVs to pass each other in Barrow Green Road and for the “education” of drivers as to how to pass horses safely.

Parish/Town Council and Amenity Groups

37. Godstone Parish Council : No comments to make. 38. Tandridge Parish Council : No comments received. 39. Oxted Parish Council : No comments received 40. British Horse Society : Barrow Green Road is used as the only means of

connecting bridleways north and south of the M25. There is not enough space for HGVs to pass in Barrow Green Road and horses are easily frightened by large vehicles. Object to Saturday morning workings and should permission be given would like to see other movements of HGVs restricted to two per hour in each direction during the working day with traffic management to ensure that HGVs do not have to pass each other on

Page 29

Barrow Green Road.

Summary of publicity undertaken and key issues raised by public

41. The application was publicised by the posting of 2 site notices. A total of 26 of the owner/ occupiers of neighbouring properties were directly notified by letter. One letter of objection was received following this consultation raising the following concerns:

!" No comment in regard to condition 13

!" Condition 15 a number of concerns: - little information provided about what contamination might exist only that it is unlikely that there will be any - SCC to be satisfied that there is no need for soil testing and acting reasonably in not requiring the information set out in the condition - there is no programme for the implementation of the temporary restoration therefore

no identifiable or enforceable milestones - no noise assessment undertaken in regard to the use of the bulldozer, applicant to

update its noise impact analysis - proposed maintenance required certainty and enforceability - conflict between information submitted to discharge condition 15 and the

requirements of condition 10 (Traffic Management Plan, TMP). This states that no decommissioning or restoration should be carried out until a TMP has been submitted. It doesn’t stipulate between temporary or permanent restoration. Therefore a TMP should be submitted with this application as SCC cannot properly understand the traffic implications of the temporary restoration

!" Would like assurance that further material will be sought from the applicant before this application is decided

42. Following the receipt of amending/ amplifying information, the representation mentioned above was re-consulted on this and has made further comments:

!" There is no condition or legal obligation offered by the applicant as part of the amending information to ensure the programme of works proposed is adhered to.

!" The impacts of the proposal on the highway have been assessed against a baseline taken at a time when other planning and/ or other mineral and waste sites were inactive therefore traffic data is lower. This position may have changed by the time this proposal commences. If the other sites commence, in-combination effects could be significant. Request a programme of works to be submitted for approval

!" The traffic data used is not representative as it was collected over only 1 week. Data obtained by the representation for the period of June 2010 – July 2011 for Chalkpit Lane (north of Barrow Green Road) shows the volume of HGVs fluctuates from 564 movements – 2072 movements per month, or 25-88 movements per day. The applicant only recorded 83 HGV movements in the week monitored. This is an inadequate approach to recording the baseline conditions and the impacts of the development cannot be assessed

!" The information fails to have regard to sensitive receptors for example users of the bridleway that runs alongside Barrow Green Road, cyclists along Barrow Green Road and the riding stables

!" There is no cumulative impact assessment of the traffic generated by the proposed development and that generated by other development in the vicinity of it for example the HGVs that travel to/ from the Oxted Chalkpit Quarry.

!" The applicant has not considered the findings of the Surrey Minerals Plan Inspector

!" There is no information on alternatives to restoration in terms of alternative methods or periods of time to be carried out. There is no information as to whether the site could be satisfactorily restored without the need to import soils.

!" Should planning permission be refused there should be an obligation for the applicant to adhere to the measures submitted in the planning application alongside

Page 30

limiting the number and types of vehicle to those in the documentation, prohibiting movements on Saturdays, Sundays and public holidays, a system for monitoring and recording the number and classification of HGVs, a system for financial penalties,provision of appropriate signage on Barrow Green Road warning road users of the presence of horses and cyclists, facilities to prevent the deposit of deleteriousmaterial on the public highway; and works at the Coney Hill entrance to preventvehicles turning left out of the gate to go up Barrow Green Road.

!" The speed limit between Coney Hill and the A25 on Barrow Green Road should be reduced to 20mph

The representation comments above primarily relate to the Coney Hill element of the proposals.

PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS

43. The applicant has submitted details in order to satisfy Conditions 13 and 15 of planning Permission TA11/1484. The key issues are whether the schemes submitted meet the requirements set out within these condition. The proposal should also meet the requirements of the Development Plan which in this instance are relevant policiescontained with the South East Plan 2009, the Surrey Minerals Plan 2011 and The Tandridge District Core Strategy 2008.

DEVELOPMENT AND FLOOD RISK / CONTAMINATION

National Guidance National Planning Policy FrameworkThe South East Plan 2009 Policy NRM2 – Water QualityPolicy NRM4 – Sustainable Flood Risk Management Surrey Minerals Plan Core Strategy 2011 Policy MC14 – Reducing the adverse impacts of mineral development

44. The National Planning Policy Framework (NNPF) 2012 sets out government guidance with regard to development and flood risk. The NPPF seeks to ensure that flood risk istaken into account at all stages in the planning process to avoid inappropriatedevelopment in areas at risk of flooding, and to direct development away from areas at highest risk. In determining applications the NPPF requires that the sequential test beapplied at a site level to minimise risk by directing the most vulnerable development to areas of lowest flood risk (Flood Zone 1).

45. The SEP May 2009 Policy NRM4 (Sustainable Flood Risk Management) refers to the sequential approach to development in flood risk areas set out in the NPPF. The policy sets out four matters, which local authorities in conjunction with the Environment Agencyshould consider. These include at iii. the incorporation and management of SustainableDrainage Systems (SuDS), other water retention and flood storage measures to minimise direct surface run-off, unless there are practical or environmental reasons fornot doing so and, iv. take account of increased surface water drainage on sewage effluent flows on fluvial flood risk.

46. Protection of the local environment is sought by Policy NRM2 of the SEP 2009, which requires water quality to be maintained and enhanced through avoiding adverse effects of development on the water environment.

47. Policy MC14 of the Surrey Minerals Plan 2011 (Reducing the Adverse Impacts of Mineral Development) which states that, 'Mineral Development will be permitted only where aneed has been demonstrated and the applicant has provided information sufficient forthe mineral planning authority to be satisfied that there would be no significant adverseimpacts arising from the development'. Ten issues are set out in the policy including

Page 31

issue ix) 'Cumulative impacts arising from the interactions between mineral developments, and between mineral and other forms of development.'

48. In order to meet the requirements of condition 13 the applicant has submitted details of the design, maintenance and management of the surface water drainage system present at the site. The information includes details of the existing drainage at the site. Rooks Nest, Palmers Wood had a closed sealed system and consists of three drainage systems: - French drain, building/road drain and bund drain and also a discharge pipe work. The French drain system collects surface water run off from the perimeter grassed area of the site. The drainage system leads into an interceptor BHB2 on site. The Building/Roads Drain shows the layout for the drainage system serving run off from the buildings and road areas at Palmers Wood. The drainage system carries any water into the site interceptor. The Bund Drain shows the layout for draining the bunded area at Palmers Wood.

49. Water from the wellhead bunded area is run through a three stage interceptor and waters from the dump tank, tanker loading area and processing area are carried to a tilted plate separator to remove any oil, these waters are then carried into the interceptor labelled BH. With regard to the Discharge Pipework with Valve, whilst in the past wate from these three drainage systems were taken off site, the waters are now contained on site and pumped into stored in the produced water storage tanks. The water is then re-injected into the processing/production as required. The drainage system is maintained and managed on a daily basis by on site operators who are present on site during the day.

50. The surface water drainage system is closed and the capacity of the 2 produced water storage tanks on site means that there is more than sufficient capacity to deal with surface water in times of heavy rainwaters. The interceptor BHB2 has a flow rate of 660m3 per hour and a gross capacity of 11970 litres. The tilted plate separator which cleans the surface water from the bunded areas has a flow rate range of 30m3 per hour in normal rainfall times to 150m3 per hour in storm conditions.

51. The County Geological Consultant was consulted on these details and advised that the above seemed a reasonable approach to surface water run-off but requested further information with regard confirmation that the surface water is being collected and then injected into the deep oilfield reservoir or clarification if some other process is involved; what the estimated peak flows from the three systems for the 100 year design event; what the spare capacity of the interceptor is; what is the maximum pumping rate that the pumps can achieve pumping from the interceptor to the produced water storage tanks; and what the spare capacity of the produced water storage tanks would be.

52. The applicant responded advising that the surface water is collected then re-injected; the titled plate separator has a flow rate range of 30m3 per hour in times of normal rainfall to 150m3 per hour in storm conditions; the interceptor is regularly emptied and therefore its spare capacity is just less than its gross capacity of 12m3; the maximum pumping rate that can be achieved from the interceptor to the produced water storage tanks is around 25 barrels per hour; and the spare capacity of the produced water storage tanks is equal to 2 x 1000 barrel capacity.

53 The County Geological Consultant assessed the amplifying information, commenting that the applicant had not provided the peak flows in the three drainage systems as requested but has relied up the ‘flow rate range’ of the tilted plate separator which may not be the same thing. Additionally this unit is only located on one of the three drainage systems. Furthermore the information provided by the applicant did not demonstrate that the system could deal with an extreme rainfall event as the spare capacity of 12m3 in the interceptor does not offer any significant storage capacity.

Page 32

54. The applicant subsequently provided more amplifying information on this matter in the form of hydrological calculations. The information provides peak flows and hydrographs for each of the drains in relation to the 1hr and 6hr storms for the 100-year return period. The results indicate that the site is more susceptible to shorter duration storms as would be normal for a smaller catchment area. The information outlines that as the site has a closed drainage system, as an impermeable membrane underlies the site so that during periods of intense rainfall water would be ponded on site within the sealed system. Once the peak storm has passed the resulting ponds would be drained through the system. The applicant has commented that the risk of contamination from the site would be minimal because of the sealed nature of the drainage system and because all runoff is via a controlled discharge.

55. The County Geological Consultant has reviewed this further information and has commented that the calculations and approach taken to estimate the peak run off is satisfactory. The Geological Consultant is also satisfied that due to the set up of the site that any contamination arising from extreme rainfall would be contained in the site. The County Geological Consultant is satisfied Condition 13 can be discharged.

TEMPORARY RESTORATION OF LAND WHERE PLANT AND EQUIPMENT HAVE BEEN SITED

Surrey Minerals Plan Core Strategy 2011 Policy MC14 – Reducing the adverse impacts of mineral development Policy MC17 – Restoring mineral workings Tandridge District Core Strategy 2008 Policy CSP17 - Policy CSP17 Biodiversity Policy CSP21 - Policy CSP21 Landscape and Countryside

56. Condition 15 requires the detail of what temporary restoration would take place on that land following the removal of the leachate tanks and associated hardstanding and sets out a number of criteria which will be discussed below. Policy MC17 of the Surrey Minerals Plan 2011 (Restoring Mineral Workings) states that 'restored sites should be:

i) sympathetic to the character and setting of the wider area; and ii) capable of sustaining an appropriate afteruse.'

57. The Tandridge District Core Strategy 2008 Policy CSP17 (Biodiversity) seeks to protect biodiversity and expects development proposals to 'provide for the maintenance, enhancement, restoration and, if possible, expansion of biodiversity, by aiming to restore or create suitable semi-natural habitats and ecological networks to sustain wildlife in accordance with the aims of the Surrey Biodiversity Action Plan.' Policy CSP21 of the Tandridge District Core Strategy 2008 (Landscape & Countryside) states that, ‘The character and distinctiveness of the District’s landscapes and countryside will be protected for their own sake, new development will be required to conserve and enhance landscape character.’

Measures to ensure that no contamination has taken place

58. The condition requires details of what measures have been undertaken to ensure no contamination has taken place using, where necessary, soil samples; and if contamination is found how it would be removed. Policy MC14 of the Surrey Minerals Plan Core Strategy 2011 requires consideration of any other matter relevant to the planning application to be considered, in this case potential contamination. The applicant has set out within the proposal that whilst planning permission TA95/0982 allowed for the storage and treatment of leachate as part of that planning permission, leachate was never imported into the site and the plant and equipment associated with this activity have been subsequently removed. Furthermore the applicant states that the plant and equipment brought in for leachate treatment were placed in bunded areas designed to

Page 33

contain any potential leakage of leachate in the event of a system failure. These bunded areas place an impermeable barrier between the equipment and the ground.

59. Because of the lack of leachate imported to the site and the plant and equipment being placed in bunded areas, the applicant states that the source-pathway-receptor scenarios that are used in conceptual site models to assess the potential environmental risk from the proposal would be low. The applicant has stated that should any contamination be found that works would cease pending appropriate investigation to determine the nature and extent of such contamination and if found to be contaminated soils, the soils would be remediated or disposed of off site.

60. The County Geological Consultant reviewed the proposal and commented that he would wish to see the procedure for inspecting the soils to see if contamination is present and for this to include the testing of soils if necessary. The Environment Agency have reviewed the proposal and have commented that whilst the proposal presents a low risk with regard to having contamination on site, they would wish for a ‘watching brief’ to be maintained over the area during the decommissioning work to sure any unsuspected contamination is dealt with appropriately. The Environment Agency have also queried how the applicant would ensure that any imported soils would not be contaminated or contain hazardous materials that could leach into the groundwater.

61. Officers recognise, based on the comments made by the applicant, that the risk of contamination at the site where the temporary restoration works are intended to take place, is low due to there being no source-pathway-receptor link and because no leachate was imported to the site. However, Officers consider it prudent that a condition be imposed that following the removal of the leachate tanks and associated hardstanding, that an inspection is carried out to ascertain if any contamination is present. Then if any is found, suitable remediation measures are carried out. The County Geological Consultant is satisfied with this approach.

Programme for the implementation of the temporary restoration

62. The applicant has stated the exact timing of works would depend on when this application is approved and weather conditions as soils can only be moved when they are dry and friable. The applicant anticipates that if approval is given for the details, that work could commence within three months and the work would be completed within six months. As part of the details submitted the applicant has provided details of how the programme of temporary restoration works would be implemented including traffic movements associated with the works such as loading and unloading of plant and bringing in the soils. To enable temporary restoration of the leachate tank areas at both sites, the applicant anticipates that an additional 200m3 of subsoils will need to be imported and approximately 100 tonnes of topsoil as well. Therefore traffic movements associated with the temporary restoration works would include removing the existing plant and hardstanding from site and importing materials to facilitate restoration. The applicant has submitted a Traffic Management report which the County Highway Authority (CHA) have reviewed.

63. The applicant has outlined that access to the Rooks Nest Wellsite from the public highway would be via the M25 and A22. The CHA have commented that this access is well established and considered adequate for the number of movements proposed. Access to Coney Hill from the public highway would be via the M25, A22, A25 and a section of Barrow Green Road. Barrow Green Road is a C classified road. No other public highway routes are to be used. The applicant proposes to use 20 tonne HGVs alongside skip disposal trucks, flatbed trucks and cars and vans. The applicant has provided an anticipated daily number of vehicles and a total maximum number of vehicles for both Rooks Nest and Coney Hill these being:

Page 34

Light Vehicles Heavy Goods Vehicles Phase

Averagedaily RN

Averagedaily CH

TotalmaxRN

TotalmaxCH

Averagedaily RN

Averagedaily CH

TotalmaxRN

TotalmaxCH

Removal of remainingequipment

5 3 6 5 3 4 6 4

Breakingup of bundedareas

5 5 6 6 2 2 4 4

Removal of hardcoreoff site

5 5 6 6 12 6 13 7

Importationof soils

5 5 6 6 8 6 12 8

Aftercare 2 2 20 18 0 0 0 0

Totalvehicles

28 31 35 23

Totalvehiclemovements

56 62 70 46

RN – Rooks Nest site CH – Coney Hill site

64. In addition to this the applicant has provided a number of traffic management control measures including no access to the wellsites other than the route described above, the contractor to keep within the maximum number of vehicles as described above, deliveries to be managed such that there is no queuing on the public highway, all vehicles to enter and leave the site in forward gear, maintenance of visibility splays; and that deliveries are discouraged from taking place during local peak rush hours. The representation received has objected on the grounds that there is no mechanism within the application for Surrey County Council to control the traffic management control measures proposed and has recommended that a S106 legal agreement or condition be used to do so. The applicant has offered to enter into a unilateral undertaking which would bind the applicant and the restoration process to the traffic management control measures proposed. Officers consider this is a suitable approach given the scale of the operation and the proposed duration.

65. The representation has also commented that the impacts on the highway have been assessed incorrectly as the baseline data used is not representative. The representation considers this is because the traffic data collected was when both Oxted Sandpit and Oxted Chalkpit have been inactive. The representation has commented that traffic data should include these two sites as they have the potential to become active again. With regard to Oxted Sandpit, this site is inactive at present and a planning application to commence infilling to restore the site was submitted in December 2010. However this application has required the submission of further information and currently is in abeyance. At the point of writing, Officers do not know when this planning application may be reported to the Committee for determination and whether planning permission would be granted. With regard to Oxted Chalkpit this site is currently having its conditions reviewed under the Review of Old Mineral Permission (ROMP) procedure and the site owner has voluntarily closed the gates on the site and is not receiving any more waste. At the point of writing Officers do not know when the new conditions would be approved and what these conditions may say. Given the above, Officers do not consider

Page 35

that the current proposal should be assess against a baseline which assumes operations at Oxted Chalkpit and sandpit.

66. However, even if all three proposals were to be operational at the same time, the scale of HGV generation of this proposal would be insignificant in comparison to the other two. By way of illustration, the Chalkpit generated 12,364 HGV movements in 2011 and 15,300 in 2008. This application is proposing a maximum of 46 for Coney Hill. It should also be noted that using the information within the Traffic management report that all of the works at Coney Hill would take approximately 35 days (spread over three to six months) to complete which would result in less than one HGV movement visiting the site per day. The activities that are due to generate the most HGV movements to Coney Hill (removal of hardcore off site and importation of soils) generate 30 movements over a proposed period of 4 days resulting in approximately 7.5 movements per day (working day being 11 hours).

67. While the HGV levels on Barrow Green Road are low by recent historic standards, the proposal may lead to a noticeable increase of HGVs on individual days during the 'removal of hardcore' and 'importation of soils' phases. Given that Barrow Green Road has carried much higher HGV numbers Officers consider that the proposal can be accommodated. Overall, a total generation of 46 HGV movements over the entire restoration period is not considered to significant or even material.

68. Given the above, Officers consider that the proposal would not have an adverse impact on cyclists or horse riders using Barrow Green Road. Furthermore given the length of time the applicant proposes the work to be carried out by (approximately 35 days of activity) Officers also consider this length of time would not cause significant harm to users of the public highway. Officers and the CHA are satisfied with the Traffic Management report and accept that there needs to be a measure for securing the traffic management strategy but are satisfied that the proposed unilateral agreement is the appropriate mechanism for this.

69. It should be noted there have been no recorded personal injury accidents involving HGVs on the stretch of Barrow Green Road between Oxted sandpit and the junction of the A25, even during the period that HGV levels were much higher. The CHA are of the opinion that given this, combined with the low level of traffic generation and the short duration of the works, it would also be unreasonable to require the applicant to fund a 20 mph zone on Barrow Green Road, even if it were to be considered appropriate.

70. Concern has been raised by the district council and the representation as to keeping the highway free of debris which may result from this proposal. The applicant has stated that given that vehicles come to the site on main roads and use hard surfaced roads to gain access to the bunded areas, they would not track over areas which they are likely to pick up deleterious material. Additionally the applicant proposes to use a sweeper on site to ensure that if there is any deleterious material it would not enter on to the public highway. The applicant is happy to include these measures within the unilateral agreement. The applicant has stated that they consider the requirement for a wheel cleaner (Condition 11 of TA10/0060) relates to when the main restoration process will take place in some 25 years time and not for the temporary restoration to which these details relate. The CHA are satisfied with the use of a sweeper to ensure the public highway is kept clean and Officers consider an informative can be imposed reminding the applicant it is a public offence to allow such material to go onto the public highway.

Ripping of any compacted layers to ensure adequate drainage and aeration

71. Once the concrete bunds are broken up and removed, stone and concrete would be removed to a depth of 1m. As the applicant anticipates that soil compaction of the subsoils will have taken place, the applicant proposes that soil be ripped. It is proposed that subsoil decompaction would be carried out by the excavator bucket method using a

Page 36

toothed bucket on a 360 degree excavator as descried in the DEFRA Good Practice Guide for Handling Soils, Sheet 16 Soil Decompaction by Excavator Bucket. Subsoils would be ripped to 450mm depth at 1m intervals prior to re-grading across the site using imported subsoil to restore the original contours. The County Enhancement Officer questioned the use of a 360 toothed bucket and commented that the procedure normally involves cross rip with tines. The County Enhancement Officer commented that the site is small enough to use a 360 machine without tracking over the site and use an arm and bucket to place and spread soils.

72. The applicant has subsequently amended the application so that a hydraulic tiller rotavator to cross rip the subsoils than a 360 degree toothed bucket excavator would be used. No objection has been raised to this.

Provision of, placement and depth of soils; and type and volumes of any imported fill required to bring up the levels

73. The applicant anticipates that additional subsoils will need to be imported to fill the bunded areas and has calculated that approximately 200 cubic metres of subsoils and approximately 100 tonnes of topsoil will need to be imported for both sites. The applicant has outlined that topsoil would be loose tipped and spread to depths of 200 – 250mm. Soils will be moved in dry friable conditions.

74. The letter of representation has raised concerns that no alternative methods of restoration to what is proposed have been investigated that could result in less material coming in and a lesser impact on the community. For the bunded areas as shown in the photographs to be restored, albeit temporarily, this will require the importation of soils. The County Enhancement Officer has commented that whilst leaving the area as low level would be an alternative to importation of soils, this may not secure as good a landscape fit as importing soils to restore to surrounding levels as low-level restoration could lead to drainage problems or impede an effective end use.

75. Officers are satisfied that soils are required to restore the bunded areas for this temporary period and that as there are no in situ soils available these need to be imported. Officers consider the timescale proposed to carry out the work is reasonable given the level of impact proposed with regard to traffic movements as discussed above. Soil placement can only be carried out during certain weather conditions and when soils are in a dry and friable condition and it will be these conditions that dictate when the operations can be carried out. Given the anticipated vehicle movements, the need to restore the site back into the landscape albeit for a temporary period and the restraints with regard to the laying of soils, Officers are satisfied with the volume and placement of soils proposed alongside the restoration and timescales proposed. No objection is raised by the County Ecologist or County Enhancement Officer.

The seeding of reclaimed areas with a suitable herbage mixture and arrangements for subsequent maintenance

76. It is proposed to temporarily restore these areas to grass and when the wellsites are restored as a whole they would be restored to woodland. The applicant originally provided a grass seed mix containing Aniset Strong Creeping Red Fescue (40%), Raisa Chewings Fescue (30%), Mentor Hard Fescue (25%) and Highland Bent Grass (5%). The applicant proposed that there would be a three year aftercare programme with maintenance involving mowing and weeding with reseeding of areas which have not established. The grass would be cut six times a year between March and August with weeds being controlled through use of a herbicide once a year.

77. The County Enhancement Officer and County Ecologist both questioned the seed mix proposed. The applicant has subsequently amended the seed mix to a herbage mix using Emorsgate EM1 general purpose meadow mixture made up of 20% wild flowers

Page 37

and 80% slow growing grasses. The applicant has stated that they will sow the mix at a rate of 4 grammes per square metre and the seed will be sown by hand. Both the County Ecologist and County Enhancement Officer are satisfied with this seed mix.

OTHER MATTERS

Noise

78. The noise implications of the development have already been assessed as part of theoverall scheme. However, the County Noise Consultant (CNC) was consulted on the temporary restoration none the less.

79. The CNC has commented that both sites are affected by traffic noise from the nearby M25 motorway and that the use of construction type machinery to remove any plant would have a limited impact. A typical 260 ripping the compacted soil would also not beaudible in most circumstances at any noise sensitive location. The calculated noise level is in the low 40s LAeq and the existing background noise is in the low 50s LA90. For construction noise it could be acceptable for the noise for a limited period to be 70 LAeq.

80. The CNC considers that the impact of noise from the breaking of the concrete that is to be removed would not give rise to what would be regarded as a noise problem, however if a pecker is used on a 360 some residents will hear the distant distinctive noise.However the duration for breaking concrete will be short and the CNC does not think thiscould be regarded as a problem. He suggests a condition to control noise to 60 LAeq. A condition is recommended to this effect just for the temporary restoration, the remainder of the site is restricted by conditions 6 and 7 of permission TA10/0060 which set the noise levels for activities to be carried out at the site.

HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS

81. The Human Rights Act Guidance for Interpretation, contained in the Preamble to the Agenda is expressly incorporated into this report and must be read in conjunction withthe following paragraph.

82. In this case, it is the Officer's view that there would be limited short term impacts in termsof amenity and highways as a result of the proposed development, nevertheless the scale of such impacts is not considered sufficient to engage Article 8 or Article 1 of Protocol 1 and their potential impact can be mitigated by planning conditions. As such, this proposal is not considered to interfere with any Convention right.

CONCLUSION

83. This application involves the submission of details of the design, maintenance and management of the surface water drainage system present at the site (Condition 13) anddetails of the temporary restoration of the land where plant and equipment granted underplanning permission Ref: TA95/0982 dated 29 February 1996 has been removed(Condition 15).

84. The applicant has provided information on runoff rates for surface water runoff and demonstrated that the site can satisfactorily cope with any surge in rainfall. The County Geological Consultant is satisfied with the details provided and that Condition 13 can be discharged.

85. With regard to the temporary restoration of the bunded areas at both Coney Hill and Rooks Nest of leachate treatment plant and equipment that have not been used, the applicant has provided details as to how these areas would be restored and the number

Page 38

of vehicle movements that would be associated with the proposal. Both the County Ecologist and County Enhancement Officer are satisfied with the methodology and seed mix proposed. The County Geological Consultant has requested that a procedure be in place to ensure that if any contamination is found that it is dealt with appropriately and Officers consider a condition can be imposed to that effect.

87. The County Highway Authority has reviewed the Traffic management strategy incorporating the traffic management control measures and Officers are satisfied that the details submitted meet the requirements of the conditions in combination with the provision of a unilateral agreement provided by the operator.

RECOMMENDATION

The recommendation is that the details submitted pursuant to Conditions 13 and 15 of planning permission TA10/0060 contained in application ref TA11/1484 be approved subject to the following conditions:

Conditions:

1. The development permitted shall be carried out in all respects strictly in accordance with the details hereby approved as set out in the following documents:

- Figure 1, French Drain Schematic date stamped 25/10/11 - Drawing number 104, Rooks Nest Site Drainage & Water Reticulation , date stamped

25/10/11 - Figure 3, Bund Drain Schematic, dated stamped 25/10/11 - Plan 4, Site Plan of Proposed Leachate Storage and Disposal Facilities Rooks Nest Site,

date stamped 25/10/11 - Plan 5, Rooks Nest Site Leachate Storage and Injection Facility, date stamped 25/10/11 - Plan 7, Coney Hill Leachate Transfer Facility date stamped 25/10/11 - Plan No 8, Coney Hill Location of Leachate Lagoon and Proposed Pipeline to Oilwell Site

dated stamped 25/10/11

2. The details hereby agreed shall be implemented within three months of the date of approval. The temporary restoration shall be completed within 6 months of the date of commencement. Notification of commencement of the temporary restoration shall be done so in writing to the County Planning Authority.

3. Following the removal of the leachate tanks, associated hardstanding or any other structures at the site, the exposed natural subgrade shall be inspected for contamination before the restoration soils are placed. The inspection shall be carried out by a suitably qualified and experienced contaminated land specialist. If any suspected contamination is present a programme of sampling, testing and risk assessment shall be carried out and if necessary a remediation strategy prepared and approved by the County Planning Authority. The sources of any imported materials used for restoration shall be checked by the specialist and documentary evidence provided to demonstrate that it is suitably clean and inert for the proposed end use. On completion of the inspection, any necessary remedial work and the restoration, a verification report describing and documenting the work undertaken shall be prepared and submitted to the County Planning Authority for approval within 3 months of the date the work is completed.

Reasons:

1. For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.

2. For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.

Page 39

3. To enable the County Planning Authority to exercise control over the development and in the interests of the local environment and amenity in accordance with Surrey Minerals Plan Core Strategy 2011 Policy MC14

Informatives:

1. Any watercourse within the boundary of the site would be classified as an ordinary watercourse and would not be maintained by the Environment Agency. In the absence of any express agreement to the contrary, maintenance is the responsibility of the riparianowners. Any culvery, diversion, dam, weir or like obstruction to the flow of the watercourse requires the consent of the Agency, under the Land Drainage Act 1991. For nature conservation reasons, the Environment Agency seek to avoid culverting and will notnormally consent works except for access.

2. The developer is reminded that it is an offence to allow materials to be carried from the site and deposited on or damage the highway from uncleaned wheels or badly loaded vehicles. The Highway Authority will seek, wherever possible, to recover any expenses incurred in clearing, cleaning or repairing highway surfaces and prosecutes persistent offenders.(Highways Act 1980 Sections 131, 148, 149).

3. The County Planning Authority confirms that in assessing this planning application it hasworked with the applicant in a positive and proactive way, in line with the requirements of paragraph 186-187 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2012.

THE TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT PROCEDURE)(ENGLAND) ORDER 2010

Reasons for the approval of details and development plan policies/proposals relevant to the decision.

The development

1 will provide the following benefits: a surface water drainage system to manage surface water run-off and an agreed scheme for temporary restoration;

2 is in accordance with the development plan policies so far as they are relevant to the application and there are no material considerations which indicate otherwise; and

3 any harm can be adequately mitigated by the measures proposed in the application andthe conditions subject to which planning permission is granted.

The proposal has been considered against the following development plan policies/ provisions:

The South East Plan 2009 Policy NRM2 Water QualityPolicy NRM4 – Sustainable Flood Risk Management Surrey Minerals Plan 2011 Policy MC14 – Reducing the adverse impacts of mineral development Policy MC17 – Restoring mineral workings Tandridge District Core Strategy 2008Policy CSP17 - Policy CSP17 Biodiversity Policy CSP21 - Policy CSP21 Landscape and Countryside

Page 40

CONTACTSamantha Murphy TEL. NO. 020 8541 9462

BACKGROUND PAPERSThe deposited application documents and plans, including those amending or clarifying the proposal, responses to consultations and representations received as referred to in the report and included in the application file and the following:

Government GuidanceNational Planning Policy Framework

The Development PlanThe South East Plan 2009Surrey Minerals Plan Core Strategy 2011Tandridge District Core Strategy 2008

Page 41

Page 42

This page is intentionally left blank