On 23rd February Surrey County Council announced a consultation on a further thirteen sites assessed for waste purposes by their Consultants. It has been suggested that eight of these be ‘safeguarded’ for waste use, seven for treatment and one for landfill. These are:-


Reigate Road Quarry (part of), Betchworth

Godstone Depot

Runfold Antiques/Former Stone Yard, Runfold

Petworth Road Civic Amenity Site, Witley (if land available)

Earlswood Sewage Treatment Works

Leatherhead Sewage Treatment Works

Camberley Sewage Treatment Works (if land available)

Ewhurst (including former Smokejacks) Brickworks


If you were a respondent to the earlier planning consultation you should have received a letter about these sites. You can find out more about them, and the others which were studied, (but not recommended for safeguarding), on this section of the website.


Responses need to be made by 10th April.


GAIN has produced the following response which we hope will be helpful to others who wish to comment. Should you wish to make additional comments, or have local, or particular knowledge of a site please do so NOW so that this is fed into the County’s waste disposal strategy currently also under consideration.   


I am taken aback that new sites are being proposed so soon after the Waste Plan consultation has closed.  I am also aware that significant issues have arisen concerning the Slyfield Action Plan and that these may affect the prospects of accommodating certain non-thermal waste uses in this area.  For these reasons, I call on Surrey to reopen the Waste Plan consultation so that all the sites can be considered in the context of the Waste Plan as a whole.  These site assessments cannot be treated as bolt on extras devoid of consequences for the overall approach to waste planning.  For example, if there are no sites where particular technologies would have acceptable impacts, it will be necessary to rethink the types, size and distribution of technologies and relevant site requirements.


It is not possible to comment on the consultation sites as neither the type of waste facility nor the type of waste to be treated has been specified.  An assessment of the acceptability of these sites for waste use is not possible without this information.  For example, some sites may be appropriate for in-vessel composting from a local catchment area, whereas thermal treatment would be unacceptable because of the impacts of this technology.  There would need to be a further round of consultation with types of technology proposed and the whole plan should be opened up for comment where the new sites have implications for other plan policies.    


Regarding the landfill sites, can you please let me know if these will be for inert, stabilized or sorted landfill, as only these 3 forms of landfill should be considered for site assessment?