I’m very grateful to Frances Porter and Don Henderson for the following account of the second day of the inquiry. As you can see - this was an important day for us. It’s still very important to have people attending the inquiry. It is held at Surrey County Hall, Penrhyn Road, Kingston from 10am.
Tuesday’s proceedings opened with Mr Stephen Baker witness for GBC who gave good evidence that even though a site in allocated in the waste plan it still meant it has to show special circumstances.
Also that this development would detract from openness of the green belt. Thermal treatment would be a greater impact but doesn’t make either acceptable.It also introduces industrial appearance into an otherwise rural landscape.
The original application without the stacks was unacceptable so this also is. Raised concerns about HGV’s using local roads.
He also said that as the assessment had thrown out other site for poor access so should Wisley have been due to the poor access from Elm Lane.
He also stated that sites with usable buildings might have ruled out other sites in the green belt.
He said that Wisley not near to community recycling centres and waste sites, other sites are nearer.
There was a discussion concerning Slyfield and the possible usage for waste there.
Wharfland cross examined and said their site was too big for Slyfield but Mr Baker said the size of the building was too big for 30,000 tonnes of waste and the actual size of a site for 30,000 could fit at Slyfield.
Mr Baker was heavily criticised for not having done his own visual assessment and pushed that he has no landscape qualification unlike their witness.
Wharfland attacked by saying that Wisley is not a open and rural landscape. Mr Baker stood firm under fire!
Wharfland questioned the visual impact from Semaphore Tower due to its small amount of usage.
Wharfland discussed the photos from the trees at Elm Corner and sad it was stark, brutal and functioning view.
Mr baker had to agree the hardstanding was unattractive but said that was not they only part of the view.
Wharfland said that viewpoint would improve after 5 years and the bund with trees had matured.Mr Baker said the foreground would remain the same and the stacks would still be visible.
Wharfland pointed out the band of trees around Elm Corner that excluded the view to residents this band in varying depth upto 20 metres.
Mr Baker asked that the Inspector actually see the depth on the site visit.
There was a discussion on lighting and noise
Wharfland said construction noise would be limited to 65 decibels. Mr Baker said Wharfland have not shown methodology for this assumption 65db.
GBC clarified with their witness that in Wharfland’s witness Mr Cox’s statement he says the view is not beneficial
The Inspector just asked for clarification on weight restrictions on the surrounding B roads.
After lunch it was the turn of Rebecca Lord, planning consultant from Bell Cornwell.
She stated that a site not in the waste plan WD2 would be subjected to the same special circumstances.
There is no indication that all of the sites in the waste plan will be developed. There followed a discussion on Runfold and the current application there. It was then talked about previously developed land. This was a long point over permanent structures - Ms Lord said Wisley had not perm structure only temp buildings for airfield usage which were demolished by 1998.
A long harsh cross examination about whether the hard standing is a structure…. the end result being Ms Lord said fixed surface infrastructure so falls within the definition of previously developed land.
Wharfland rammed home the point that the site remained in WD2 even though it was objected to in the waste plan inquiry. Wharfland also stated the more recent South East Plan was more supportive of sites in the green belt.
Wharfland said she made a relentless negative exercise to find fault on behalf of her clients.
It was then stated again that SCC had no longer any objection to the visual impact.
Lesley Vining, a consultant environmental scientist and manager of Environ UK Ltd gave evidence on behalf of WAAG/RHS as to the potential risks from the emissions of pathogens and ammonia from the development, highlighting the weaknesses in the information provided and in the modelling adopted by the Appellant. Cross-examination was short, primarily seeking to persuade the Inspector that it was for other regulators to consider any such potential risks at a later stage and that, if necessary, the risks could be controlled by
conditions.