Nottinghamshire and Nottingham Draft Waste Local Plan January 2022

Ended on the 4 April 2022
If you are having trouble using the system, please try our help guide.

(3)8. Development Management Policies

What you told us at the Issue and Options Stage:

  • Overall, respondents were generally supportive of the suggested policy areas. Reference to odour, noise, climate, and local amenity should be included in the policies.
  • A large part of the Plan area lies within an Airport Safeguarding Area, as such it was suggested that we refer to this and also the issue of bird strike.

Issues and Options Sustainability Appraisal findings:

  • The option of specific development management policies for specific topic areas was more sustainable than that of criteria-based development management policies for broad groupings of topic areas.

Introduction

8.1. The purpose of development management policies is to help to deliver the strategic policies and objectives by providing the criteria against which future waste development will be assessed. They relate specifically to individual, site level criteria such as environmental impacts and standards and provide guidance about how planning applications for waste development in the Nottinghamshire and Nottingham will be assessed.

8.2. Applicants are advised to discuss proposals for waste development with the Nottinghamshire or Nottingham City prior to submission of a planning application, as set out in the relevant adopted Statement of Community Involvement (SCI). Such pre-application engagement can enable early identification of potential constraints and has the potential to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the planning system. This approach is encouraged by the Government and more details are set out in the National Planning Policy Framework. Applications for waste development should provide sufficient information to allow a balanced assessment to be made. Add in reference to pre app services etc

8.3. It should be noted that whilst the impacts of waste development proposals on amenity and the environment will be considered when determining applications, the Councils will have to assume that control processes, particularly in relation to pollution, that are the function of other regulatory bodies will be effective. For example, it is the role of the Environmental Permit which is issued by the Environment Agency that ensures processes and standards are in place to prevent air and water pollution, thus protecting human health and the environment from any potential impacts from proposals. It is therefore also recommended that applicants seek advice from relevant regulatory bodies early on within the application process so that any impacts and concerns can be addressed through the appropriate regulatory regimes.

8.4. Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is often required for major developments that are likely to have significant impacts on the environment. The EIA process is used to identify the likelihood of significant impacts occurring as a result of a development, how these could be mitigated, and alternative ways in which the development could be carried out. Where EIA is required, the findings of this process must be included in a separate Environmental Statement to be submitted alongside the planning application.

8.5. All waste planning applications that meet the appropriate thresholds and criteria set out in the EIA Regulations (2017) will therefore be screened to determine whether or not EIA is required. Applicants may also request a formal screening opinion from the Councils prior to submitting a planning application. Where EIA is required, applicants may also request a scoping opinion setting out the issues to be addressed within the Environmental Statement.

 

DM1- General Site Criteria

What you told us at the Issues and Options stage:

  • Overall, there was a preference for specific site criteria. The issues of land remediation, size, proximity to receptors should be considered.
  • Sites required for new sewerage assets, will need to meet a different needs to other Waste Management sites, whilst there are similarities in term of need to protect the environmental and the risk of nuisance from odour, traffic, lighting etc. as Sewerage assets also rely of topographical and hydrological features to identify appropriate sites, it should be clear that a separate process will be needed to identify the most suitable sites.
  • Site specific allocations can provide some certainty but may prevent alternative more suitable sites coming forward over the plan period exacerbated if allocated sites become unavailable or prove unsuitable. On balance, assessing sites on their merits as they are brought forward by the industry, based upon the Broad Locations, should provide the greatest flexibility and allow the plan to deliver the facilities needed through the plan period
  • Recycling facilities should be provided close to local communities, especially in rural areas, to reduce carbon emissions and encourage greater usage

 

Issues and Options Sustainability Appraisal findings:

  • It was found that including a general site criteria policy that identifies types of locations likely to be suitable for different types of waste facilities, to help assess the suitability of waste management proposals, was more sustainable than not including a site criteria policy.

Introduction

8.6. Policy SP3 establishes the broad principles/areas where waste management facilities are likely to be appropriate. However, not every type of waste management use will be appropriate in every location. Certain types of facilities have specific land-use requirements and/or more intensive impacts. Policy DM1 sets out a criteria-based approach to show the types of locations that are likely to be suitable for different types of waste management facility. This includes an indication/guide to the size and scale of development that is likely to be acceptable in different types of location.

(14)DM1 – General Site Criteria 

Waste management facilities will be supported in the following general locations, as shown in the matrix below, subject to there being no unacceptable environmental impacts:

community sites

Community sites – locations where people already travel for local services e.g. local shopping centres, leisure centres, supermarkets, schools etc.

 

employment land

Employment land – areas which are already used, or are allocated, for employment related uses such as industrial estates, business parks or technology parks etc.

 

Previously developed land/derelict land – land that is no longer needed or has been abandoned.   This includes land which has previously been used for some form of permanent, built, development that is no longer used but could also include   former mineral workings or un-restored/poorly restored colliery land where there are no formal restoration requirements.

 

Open countryside/agricultural land

Open countryside/agricultural land – rural land, including farmland, which is not covered by any other environmental designation, especially where this enables the re-use of farm or forestry buildings.

 

green belt

Green Belt – land within the Green Belt where very special circumstances can be demonstrated. 
 This could include derelict or previously developed land or old mineral workings.   All proposals will be subject to Green Belt policies.

likely to be suitable for small medium or larger facilities

only likely to suitable for smaller facilities

 

 

community sites

Community Sites

employment land

Employment land

Previously developed land/derelict land

open countryside/agricultural land

Open countryside/agricultural land

green belt

Green belt

Combined Facilities

Resource recovery park

 

Small, medium, large facilities

Small, medium, large facilities

 

 

Recycling

Bring sites

Smaller facilities

Smaller facilities

 

 

 

Household Waste Recycling Centre

 

Small, medium, large facilities

Small, medium, large facilities

 

 

Materials Recovery Facility

 

Small, medium, large facilities

Small, medium, large facilities

Smaller facilities

 

Aggregates

 

Small, medium, large facilities

 

 

 

Metal/End-of-life vehicles

 

Small, medium, large facilities

 

 

 

Composting

Enclosed/In-vessel

 

Small, medium, large facilities

Small, medium, large facilities

Smaller facilities

 

Open-air

 

 

 

Small, medium, large facilities

Small, medium, large facilities

Energy Recovery

Anaerobic Digestion

 

Small, medium, large facilities

Small, medium, large facilities

Smaller facilities

Smaller facilities

Mechanical Biological Treatment

 

Small, medium, large facilities

Small, medium, large facilities

 

 

Refuse Derived Fuel processing

 

Small, medium, large facilities

Small, medium, large facilities

 

 

Incineration

 

Small, medium, large facilities

Small, medium, large facilities

 

 

Gasification

 

Small, medium, large facilities

Small, medium, large facilities

 

 

Pyrolysis

 

Small, medium, large facilities

Small, medium, large facilities

 

 

Waste Transfer

Transfer station

 

Small, medium, large facilities

Small, medium, large facilities

Smaller facilities

 

Waste Water Treatment

Waste Water Treatment

 

Small, medium, large facilities

Small, medium, large facilities

Smaller facilities

Smaller facilities

Disposal

Landfill

 

 

Small, medium, large facilities

Small, medium, large facilities

Small, medium, large facilities

Landraise

 

 

Small, medium, large facilities

Small, medium, large facilities

 

 

Justification

8.7. The NPPW states that waste planning authorities should consider a broad range of locations for waste management facilities including industrial sites and look for opportunities to co-locate waste management facilities together and/ or alongside complementary activities. Where possible, priority should be given to suitable previously developed land to promote reuse of these sites. As there are a wide range of different waste management technologies, and others may emerge in future, it is important to consider the characteristics/land use requirements and likely environmental impacts of the different types of waste management process and the intensity of the operation proposed. Most waste management uses/facilities are industrial in nature and can be enclosed in a building but there some operations which may need to be carried out in the open air such as composting, wastewater treatment and some crushing and screening operations.

8.8. For waste management facilities that require a building, or are likely to involve significant vehicle movements, the emphasis is on areas that are already used, or are allocated, for employment such as industrial estates or logistics (warehousing and distribution) parks. Operations that need to be carried out in the open air should be located well away from uses which are sensitive to noise and dust.

Combined facilities – resource recovery parks

8.9. Some types of waste management facility can benefit from being located close together as this can minimise the distance waste is transported and increase opportunities for materials to be recovered and re-used. This includes recycling and waste transfer operations but could also include other non-waste uses that make use of the recycled products or materials. In some cases, there may be scope for energy recovery facilities to provide heat and/or power to other local premises. This could include anaerobic digestion schemes, incineration, gasification, pyrolysis or other emerging technologies. These schemes are often referred to as Resource Recovery Parks, or Energy Parks, where there is a strong emphasis on renewable and low carbon technologies. As these types of developments are likely to be more strategic in nature, they will benefit from good access to the strategic road network and potential rail or water links where these are physically and economically viable.

Recycling and waste transfer facilities

8.10. Larger materials recycling/recovery and waste transfer facilities usually need a large warehouse type building within which to carry out the sorting and separation of materials and to store the resulting bales of paper, plastic etc. for collection. They will need good road access but the potential to use alternatives such as rail or water transport should be considered where practical. These types of facilities are therefore well suited to industrial estates and business parks, especially alongside other storage and distribution type uses. Household Waste Recycling Centres would also be appropriate, as these need to be accessible by both car and HGV. However, these also need to be close to the main residential areas they are intended to serve.

8.11. Smaller, community scale facilities such as bring sites (bottle banks) should be located within easy walking distance of residents or at sites that people are already likely to visit such as shopping centres, supermarkets, leisure centres, village halls etc. Where community run facilities such as small scale, local, recycling or composting schemes are proposed, these should look to re-use existing buildings or previously developed land wherever possible.

8.12. Other types of recycling that are carried out in the open air, such as scrap yards and aggregates recycling will need to be located well away from uses which are sensitive to noise and dust. They will also need areas for stockpiles and storage and are best suited to general industrial areas alongside other heavy processing and manufacturing type uses. Where possible, these types of operations should be enclosed within a building to minimise any environmental impacts, but this may not always be feasible[viii]. Temporary aggregates recycling facilities may be appropriate at quarries or landfill sites where this can encourage greater re-use and recycling and they are linked to the life of that facility[ix].

Composting

8.13. Composting is generally suited to rural locations although special care would need to be taken where this involves a building, or permanent processing plant, in order not to introduce an industrial process into a rural area. Open air schemes will need to be a minimum distance away from uses that are sensitive to possible bio-aerosols. In-vessel or enclosed schemes are more likely to require a building and should therefore be located within or close to existing farm development. Where such schemes would involve significant vehicle movements they should be located within industrial areas.

Anaerobic digestion

8.14. The process of anaerobic digestion takes place within sealed tanks or silos. Large scale plants would again therefore be suited to general industrial areas. However, smaller plants may also be suitable in agricultural areas as they are similar to the types of storage tanks and silos found on farms. This would however depend on the scale and design of the plant and whether it can be accommodated alongside or within existing buildings for example. As anaerobic digestion is also used for sewage treatment, it may also be suitable within or alongside wastewater and sewage treatment plants.

Energy recovery facilities

8.15. Larger energy recovery plants (including incineration, gasification, pyrolysis, and possibly anaerobic digestion) will require a large industrial type building with a tall stack or chimney and, in some cases, may have visible plant or pipe-work on the outside. These are therefore best located near other industrial uses of a similar scale and bulk with good road and/or rail or water access for transport. They should also be close to other uses that can make use of the heat and electricity generated or close to a suitable connection to the national grid. Smaller scale energy recovery facilities could be incorporated as part of residential, or mixed-use schemes, where these can serve the wider development. Mechanical biological treatment plants combine several different waste treatment processes and are therefore likely to require a single large building or a cluster of smaller buildings on one site. These would again therefore be suited to industrial estates and areas allocated for employment use.

Wastewater treatment

8.16. Wastewater and sewage treatment facilities can vary from large scale plants serving major urban areas to small rural plants serving a single village. They do not generate significant vehicle movements and their main impacts are likely to be visual and odourous as parts of the biological treatment process need to take place in the open air. For this reason, sites should be located away from housing and should be designed to minimise their impact on the surrounding landscape. However, the choice of sites will be limited by operational requirements such as local topography, pumping distances, and the need to discharge treated water into a suitable watercourse.

Disposal facilities

8.17. Landfill sites are classified into three different types based on the types of waste which they can accept – hazardous, non-hazardous, or inert (see Glossary). Both hazardous and non-hazardous landfill sites have the potential to produce harmful gases, leachate and odour and must be engineered and operated to ensure that the waste is safely contained whilst it decomposes. Hazardous and non-hazardous landfill sites must therefore be located in areas which are geologically suitable and well away from housing or other sensitive uses, aquifers, and watercourses. Inert landfill sites are less likely to cause environmental problems but there could still be local impacts relating to traffic, noise, mud, and dust.

8.18. The choice of possible locations to dispose of residual waste by either by landfill or land-raise is increasingly limited. Disposal can provide a way to restore worked out quarries or colliery tips, but this depends on the type of waste to be disposed of and the local geology and ground conditions. Waste disposal operations are only suitable in a very limited range of locations. As far as possible these need to be sited away from sensitive uses such as housing but should also be within reasonable reach of our main urban areas in order to minimise the distance waste has to travel for disposal.

8.19. Landfill within the Green Belt may be acceptable if very special circumstances can be demonstrated. This could include the restoration of former mineral workings. Land-raise schemes may be appropriate on derelict land where this would provide the best means of reclamation and could be considered on Greenfield sites if there are no other options. However, land-raise schemes are unlikely acceptable within the Green Belt because of the visual impact on the otherwise open character of the landscape.

8.20. In some circumstances, it may be beneficial to re-work old landfill sites in order to recover materials that were previously thrown away but are now seen a valuable resource. This could include metal and plastics for example. This process is known as 'landfill mining' and, although it is a form of materials recovery, the environmental impacts will essentially be the same as for landfill or land-raise.

8.21. The criteria-based approach in Policy DM1 sets out what type of development is likely to be acceptable in which locations. Policy DM1 applies to facilities for all types of waste, including those treating or disposing of hazardous waste, unless specified otherwise within the policy text. Where other circumstances arise that the Waste Local Plan could not foresee, proposals will be determined on their merits and in accordance with current national policy

 

DM2 – Health, Wellbeing and Amenity

What you told us at the Issues and Options stage:

  • As a result of the concentration of the population, access to open space adjacent to the larger conurbation plays an important role in the health and wellbeing of local people and waste disposal in those areas should be avoided wherever possible.

 

Issues and Options Sustainability Appraisal findings on the Vision and Objectives:

The Issues and Options SA did not explicitly cover health, wellbeing and amenity, as such there are no comments to make.

Introduction

8.22. Maintaining and, where possible, enhancing the quality of our environment, whilst providing a suitable network of appropriate waste management facilities is at the heart of waste planning. The Waste Local Plan has an important role to play in getting this balance right. All proposals will also need to be in accordance with relevant local planning policies set out within Nottinghamshire's Borough Council's Local Plans.

(13)DM2 – Health, Wellbeing and Amenity

Proposals for new waste management facilities will be supported where it can be demonstrated that any adverse impacts on health, wellbeing and amenity arising from the construction, operation and, where relevant, restoration phase are avoided or adequately mitigated to an acceptable level, including any associated transport impacts. The types of impacts that need to be considered include, but are not restricted to:

  • Protection of water quality and resources and flood risk management
  • Landscape and Visual impacts
  • Nature and heritage conservation
  • High quality agricultural land and soil
  • Noise, lighting and vibrations
  • Local water environment
  • Dust
  • Mud
  • Air emissions
  • Traffic and access
  • Odours and litter
  • Vermin and birds
  • Stability of the land at and around the site, both above and below ground level
  • Loss of designated open/green space
  • Potential land use conflict

Justification

8.23. All waste related development should take account of its surroundings and be located, designed, and operated to minimise any potentially harmful impacts, especially to air, water and soil. Consideration will also be given to whether proposals are likely to result in an unacceptable cumulative impact (see Policy DM10 – Cumulative Impacts of Development) in combination with other existing or proposed development. Development should be located away from areas of important landscape, heritage and nature conservation value, flood-risk and unstable land. Where such locations are unavoidable, appropriate mitigation will be required. Facilities should be designed to fit in with their surrounding landscape or townscape and built and operated to the highest standards to minimise possible impacts such as noise, dust, mud, vibration, litter, odour, traffic nuisance and light pollution in order to protect local amenity. In the case of hazardous or non-hazardous landfill disposal, this will include the need to incorporate best practice measures for leachate management and landfill gas capture and recovery.

8.24. Disruption to recognised green infrastructure and biodiversity assets should be avoided and all waste development proposals should make the most of opportunities to enhance green infrastructure, the local environment and biodiversity either through restoration or as part of the development itself. This will include consideration of impacts upon biodiversity and geodiversity, natural heritage assets including habitats and species listed in the UK and Nottinghamshire Biodiversity Action Plans, natural resources including air, water and soil, and green infrastructure. Opportunities for environmental enhancement should also be informed by Local Landscape Character Assessments.

8.25. Enhancement proposals could include, the provision of additional public open space or rights of way, the creation and/or enhancement of wildlife and biodiversity areas, landscape improvements, and the provision of community education or recreation facilities.

8.26. Sites of international importance are specifically protected under national legislation and any proposal that would be likely to have a significant effect on a protected site, either alone or in combination with other plans or projects, would not be in accordance with the development plan.

8.27. Ensuring a good standard of health, wellbeing and amenity for all existing and future occupants of land and buildings is a core planning principle of the National Planning Policy Framework. New and existing development should not contribute to, or be put at risk from, pollution or other sources of nuisance or intrusion which could adversely affect health, wellbeing and local amenity, particularly in relation to sensitive receptors.

8.28. The precise level of impacts will vary according to local conditions and the type, scale, and intensity of development proposed. Factors to be considered will therefore include the local topography, the position of the proposed development in relation to other uses and the degree to which any adverse effects can be mitigated. Depending upon the proximity and sensitivity of surrounding land uses an appropriate stand-off distance may be required between the proposed waste management facility and nearby residential or other sensitive uses. This will be determined on a case-by-case basis taking account of any proposed mitigation measures.

8.29. Many forms of waste management facilities are likely to require an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) to examine the likely significant environmental effects what is being proposed. EIA is undertaken by developers as a means of drawing together, in a systematic way, an assessment of the likely significant environmental effects of certain types of waste proposal.

8.30. Where there is a possibility that a proposed waste management facility will require an EIA, developers are advised to consult the Councils well in advance of a planning application, and formally request an opinion on whether an EIA is required and, if so, its scope.

8.31. Where appropriate, avoidance or mitigation measures required to make a waste management facility acceptable as a result of this policy will be secured through planning conditions attached to the planning permission. Where measures cannot be secured in this way, planning obligations (also known as Section 106 Agreements) may be used to make the development acceptable in planning terms. See Policy DM9 - Planning Obligations for further details.

This policy helps to meet the following objectives:

Strategic Objective 1 – Climate Change, Strategic Objective 3 – The Environment, Strategic Objective 4 – Community, Health and Wellbeing, Strategic Objective 6 – High Quality Design and Operation, Strategic Objective 7 – Sustainable Transport

 

DM3 – Design of New and Extended Waste Management Facilities

What you told us at the Issues and Options stage:

  • All new and extended waste management facilities should be designed with the regards to the Historic environment and flood prevention
  • An important factor in the design of facilities will be their sustainability.

Issues and Options Sustainability Appraisal findings on the Vision and Objectives:

The Issues and Options SA did not explicitly cover design, as such there are no comments to make.

Introduction

8.32. Waste management facilities have often been seen as having a negative impact on their local area because of fears that sites might be untidy or unpleasant. Whilst this might have been true of some older sites, modern sites can be well designed, operated and better regulated. Enclosing the majority of operations within a building means that most of the problems associated with older sites can be overcome. Promoting high quality design of waste facilities can also help to promote and reinforce the importance of waste as a resource. For example, many of the waste treatment facilities operating today take materials such as clean, pre-sorted glass, paper, card, plastic and metal. The best examples of these can sit comfortably alongside even high-tech industrial business parks.

(7)DM3 – Design of New and Extended Waste Management Facilities

Planning permission for new waste facilities or the extension of existing facilities will be granted where it can be demonstrated that the development follows relevant best practice. All proposals for new or extended waste facilities should demonstrate that the development is of a scale, form and character appropriate to its location.

Future waste management facilities should be designed to include features, which, in both the construction and operation phases:

  • Maximise landscape enhancements and biodiversity net gain, and other measures to contribute to green infrastructure enhancement
  • Maximise efficient use of water and use sustainable surface water drainage techniques
  • Minimise greenhouse gas emissions, including through energy efficiency and green building construction techniques
  • Ensure resilience and enable adaptation to climate change

Justification

8.33. Policy DM1 sets out detailed criteria for the locations of different types of waste management facilities. Policy DM3 seeks to ensure that all new and extended waste facilities help to promote an innovative and sustainable waste management industry and improve the understanding and acceptance of essential waste management infrastructure. The design, layout and construction of waste management facilities should be as sustainable of possible, including the re-use of materials, efficient use of water and energy and the use of sustainable urban drainage schemes where appropriate.

This policy helps to meet the following objectives:

Strategic Objective 1 – Climate Change, Strategic Objective 2 – The Economy, Strategic Objective 3 – The Environment, Strategic Objective 4 – Community, Health and Wellbeing, Strategic Objective 6 – High Quality Design and Operation

 

DM4 – Landscape Protection

What you told us at the Issues and Options stage:

  • Development management policies should cover visual impact on local and wider landscape, landscape character and on nationally protected landscapes

Issues and Options Sustainability Appraisal findings on the Vision and Objectives:

The Issues and Options SA did not explicitly cover landscape protection, as such there are no comments to make.

Introduction

8.34. The countryside and its landscape features are valued for many different reasons, not all of them related to traditional concepts of aesthetics and beauty. It can provide habitats for wildlife and evidence of how people have lived on the land and harnessed its resources. Landscape has a social and recreational community value, as an important part of people's day-to-day lives. It has an economic value, providing the context for economic activity and often being a central factor in attracting business and tourism.

(8)DM4 – Landscape Protection

Proposals for waste development will be supported where it can be demonstrated that it will not adversely impact on the character and distinctiveness of the landscape.

Proposals should be designed to be the appropriate scale, form and mass with the layout, orientation and use of materials considered so they are sympathetic to and compatible with the landscape character.

Development that would have an unacceptable impact on the landscape will only be permitted where there is no available alternative and the need for development outweighs the landscape interest. In such cases appropriate mitigation measures will be required.

Landscaping, planting and restoration proposals should take account of the relevant landscape character policy area as set out in the Landscape Character Assessments covering Nottinghamshire and Nottingham.

Justification

8.35. Waste facilities have the potential to change and impact upon the landscape. National Planning Guidance states that valued landscapes should be protected and enhanced. The guidance allows for the inclusion of criteria-based policies in Local Plans against which proposals for any development on or affecting landscapes will be judged. It also allows for policies that set out necessary mitigation measures, such as appropriate design principles and visual screening, where necessary. This is covered by Policy DM2: Design and Landscaping.

8.36. Landscapes form an important part of the character of Nottinghamshire and Nottingham and have evolved from a complex mix of natural and man-made influences such as geology, soil, climate and land use. This has given rise to a variety of landscapes that continue to change over time. All landscapes hold value, and some have more potential to be improved and restored than others.

8.37. In order to manage changes to landscape character, three Landscape Character Assessments (LCA) were published in 2009 (Bassetlaw, Newark and Sherwood and Greater Nottingham including Ashfield and Mansfield) which cover the whole Plan Area and draw on the National Character Areas.

8.38. The LCAs identify specific features of the different Landscape Character Areas and this information can be used to give special protection to important landscape features or to identify suitable mitigation measures, such as tree planting to provide screening, when loss is unavoidable. It is also valuable in the design of restoration schemes for disposal sites.

8.39. The LCAs should be used to help develop waste development proposals and inform the Local Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment required for all waste proposals where appropriate to ensure the existing landscape and visual impacts on the surrounding areas has been considered.

This policy helps to meet the following objectives:

SO3 – The Environment, SO4 – Community, Health and Wellbeing

 

DM5 – Protecting and Enhancing Biodiversity

What you told us at the Issues and Options stage:

  • The plan should include development management policies that recognise the importance of international, national and local designated wildlife sites
  • Local wildlife sites were identified as particularly important to protect due to the lack of SSSI sites found within the plan area
  • Any policy should protect habitats and species as well as ecological networks
  • Where waste sites require restoration, this should be used as an opportunity to re-create habitats such as heathland
  • The plan should consider the Biodiversity Opportunity Mapping available for Nottinghamshire

Issues and Options Sustainability Appraisal findings on the Vision and Objectives:

The Issues and Options SA did not explicitly cover biodiversity, as such there are no comments to make.

Introduction

8.40. The natural environment is a key element of sustainable development, with biodiversity and geodiversity essential to ecosystems which animals and humans depend upon to survive. The benefits associated with biodiversity and geodiversity are wide ranging, from providing natural flood protection to helping improve our physical and mental health. It is therefore important to ensure it is protected and, where possible enhanced.

8.41. Waste management facilities have the potential to have negative effects, directly and indirectly as well as cumulatively with other proposed developments, on biodiversity and geodiversity during their construction, operation and, where relevant, demolition and restoration. For example, HGV movements associated with a facility can release nitrous oxide which could have indirect effects on biodiversity. It is therefore important to ensure new waste management facilities are managed appropriately so that waste operations can be carried out without harming the environment as directed by Article 13 of the Waste Framework Directive, fulfilling the Vision and Strategic Objective Four

(22)DM5 – Protecting and Enhancing Biodiversity

  1. Proposals for waste development will be supported where it can be demonstrated that:
    1.  They will not adversely affect the integrity of an European site (either alone or in combination with other plans or projects, including as a result of changes to air or water quality, hydrology, noise, light and dust), unless there are no alternative solutions, imperative reasons of overriding public interest and necessary compensatory measures can be secured in accordance with the requirements of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017, Regulations 2017,as amended;
    2.  They are not likely to give rise to an adverse effect on a Site of Special Scientific Interest, except where the need for and benefits of the development clearly outweigh the importance of the site and where no suitable alternative exists;
    3.  They are not likely to give rise to the loss or deterioration of Local Sites (Local Wildlife Sites or Local Geological Sites) except where the need for and benefits of the development in that location outweigh the impacts;
    4.  They would not result in the loss of populations of a priority species or areas of priority habitat except where the need for and benefits of the development in that location outweigh the impacts.
    5.  Development that would result in the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats will only be permitted where there are wholly exceptional reasons and a suitable compensation strategy exists.

 

  1. Where impacts on designated sites or priority habitats or species cannot be avoided, then:
    1.  In the case of European sites, mitigation must be secured which will ensure that there would be no adverse effect on the integrity of the site(s). Where mitigation is not possible and the applicant relies upon imperative reasons of overriding public interest, the Councils will need to be satisfied that any necessary compensatory measures can be secured.
    2.  In all other cases, adequate mitigation relative to the scale of the impact and the importance of the resource must be put in place, with compensation measures secured as a last resort.

 

  1. Proposals should enhance biodiversity and geological resources by ensuring that waste development:
    1.  Retains, protects, restores and enhances features of biodiversity or geological interest, and provides for appropriate management of these features, and in doing so contributes to targets within the Nottinghamshire Local Biodiversity Action Plan and provides net gains for biodiversity;
    2.  Makes provision for habitat adaptation and species migration, allowing species to respond to the impacts of climate change; and

Maintains and enhances ecological networks, both within the County and beyond, through the protection and creation, where appropriate, of priority habitats and corridors, and linkages and steppingstones between such areas

Justification

8.42. Within Nottinghamshire and Nottingham, there is an extensive network of designated and non-designated sites which are important for their biodiversity and geological interests. These range from international designated sites, also known as European or Natura 2000 sites, to local sites. Together these create an ecological network of habitats and green infrastructure which is unique to the Plan Area.

International Sites

8.43. International sites, or European or Natura 2000 sites as they are also known, are sites designated under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017, as amended (known as the Habitats regulation), and protect a range of species and habitats. Designations include Special Protection Areas (SPA), Special Areas of Conservation (SACs), with the same level of protection given to potential SPAs, possible SACs, all of which are found within Nottingham and Nottinghamshire.

8.44. The plan area currently has one designated international site; the Birklands and Bilhaugh SAC. There is also the 'possible potential' Special Protection Area (ppSPA) at Sherwood Forest, both sites are shown on Plan 1.

8.45. In relation to the ppSPA, until the site becomes designated, the Councils will adopt a risk-based approach as advised by Natural England and assess any applications in accordance with the requirements of the Habitats Regulations.

National Sites

8.46. Sites which are the finest examples of wildlife and natural features in England are designated as Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI)of which a subset are further designated as National Nature Reserves (NNRs). Local authorities can also establish Local Nature Reserves (LNRs) providing that the relevant statutory nature conservation agency approves. There are 67 SSSI sites, 1 NNR and 67 LNR's in the plan area.

Local Sites

8.47. Local Wildlife Sites (LWS), previously called Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINCs), and Local Geological Sites (LGS) are local, non-statutory designated sites which contain flora and/or fauna that is of importance at the local (County and City) level. These sites provide wildlife corridors between local, national and international sites and so help form an ecological network. There are over 1,400 LWS and 130 LGS in the plan area which are recorded by the Nottinghamshire Biological and Geological Records Centre.

Habitats and Species of Principal Importance

8.48. There are other habitats of conservation importance that fall outside of the above designated sites which are identified as Habitats of Principal Importance for Conservation in England. These are designated under Section 41 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 and regarded as conservation priorities in the UK Post 2010 Biodiversity Framework.

8.49. Similarly, many species in Nottinghamshire that do not receive legal protection are identified as Species of Principal Importance for Conservation in England. Both were formerly known as UK Biodiversity Action Plan (UKBAP) priority habitats or species and are also listed in the Nottinghamshire Local Biodiversity Action Plan. They have high nature conservation value, contributing to the county's biodiversity and its ecological networks.

Protecting sites

8.50. Waste development proposals can impact the biodiversity and geodiversity found within the above sites and habitats. These include direct and indirect impacts as well as cumulative impacts if other development is also occurring nearby. Further consideration is given to cumulative impacts in Policy DM10.

8.51. National policy is clear that distinctions should be made between the hierarchy of international, national and locally designated sites so that protection is commensurate with their status and gives appropriate weight to their importance and the contribution that they make to wider ecological networks.

8.52. For International Sites, including the ppSPA, any proposal that would be likely to have a significant effect, either alone or in combination with other plans or projects, would need to be supported by a Habitats Regulations Assessment to ensure any such effects can be mitigated. If the proposed development site hosts a priority habitat or species, and there is no suitable alternative solution or location for the development, permission will only be granted where the proposal relates to human health, public safety, provides beneficial consequences of primary importance to the environment or there are other imperative reasons of overriding public interest and where necessary compensatory measures can be secured.

8.53. For proposals that are likely to have an adverse effect on SSSI sites, either alone or in combination with other plans or projects, these will need to demonstrate the benefits of the development in the proposed location clearly outweighs the likely impact on the features that give the site its SSSI status and also outweigh any broader impacts on the national network of sites.

8.54. For proposals which give rise to the loss or deterioration of Local sites, proposals will need to demonstrate the need for and benefits of the development in that location outweigh any potential impacts.

8.55. Proposed development sites which impact on Habitats and Species of Principal Importance, regardless of the habitats existing condition, will need to demonstrate there are wholly exceptional reasons. Where such reasons are ascertained, a suitable compensation strategy will be required.

8.56. To enable the Councils to determine a planning application, sufficient information is required and applicants will be expected to undertake an assessment of the potential effects of their development proposals on areas of biodiversity and/or geological interest that is appropriate to the scale and nature of the proposed development. Assessments should include an appropriate ecological survey and set out clearly the options proposed for avoiding, mitigating or compensating any adverse impact, working through the mitigation hierarchy as set out in paragraph 175a of the NPPF. Early engagement with the Councils and key stakeholders is recommended so the scope and detail required within any assessment can be determined.

Enhancing Biodiversity and Geodiversity

8.57. Waste facilities can also enhance biodiversity, particularly disposal sites which require restoration. As outlined in the NPPW and in Policy DM5, such sites should be restored at the earliest opportunity and to high environmental standards.

8.58. Where the opportunities for enhancement exist, such opportunities should be maximised, with biodiversity net gain achieved where possible as required by the NPPF (2019). Any enhancements should be in line with national and local targets and ensure habitats do not become fragmented and can adapt to the impacts of climate change. The Biodiversity Opportunity Mapping completed for a large part of Nottinghamshire should be used to help inform such proposals.

8.59. It should be noted that the draft Environmental Bill intends to make a minimum of 10% biodiversity net gain mandatory for all developments, delivered through habitat creation or enhancement, either on-site or off-site or through biodiversity credits, which will need to be secured for at least 30 years.

8.60. The Biodiversity Metric tool will be used to calculate whether a scheme is achieving a biodiversity net gain. This calculates the existing biodiversity units of the proposed development site (the baseline/pre-intervention units) and the post-intervention biodiversity units following the developments completion by considering the habitats area/size, the quality of the habitat (its distinctiveness and strategic significance) and its condition. By deducting the pre-intervention units from the post-intervention units the net change can be calculated to understand whether a 10% gain is being achieved.

8.61. It is intended that the Biodiversity metric tool is used to inform decisions where compensation for habitat loss is justified and therefore achieving net gain does not override the need to protect designated sites, protected or priority species and irreplaceable or priority habitats. It is also not intended for the tool to override ecological advice.

8.62. The latest version of the Biodiversity Metric Tool is 3.0 which was published in July 2021 along with a Small Sites Metric, further information on these metrics is available on Natural England's website.

8.63. It is expected that the Environment Bill will become law in Autumn 2023, the Councils therefore will continue to update and amend future iterations of the Waste Local Plan as further information and detail become available.

This policy helps to meet the following objectives:

SO3- The environment, SO4 – Community, Health and Wellbeing

 

DM6 – Historic Environment

What you told us at the Issues and Options stage:

  • Historic England's 2019 Heritage Counts report focuses on reuse and recycling buildings to reduce carbon and highlights alternative opportunities to demolition of existing fabric and new build which produces C, D and E waste.

Issues and Options Sustainability Appraisal findings on the Vision and Objectives:

The Issues and Options SA did not explicitly cover the historic environment, as such there are no comments to make.

Introduction

8.64. The Historic environment is important to conserve as not only is it irreplaceable and helps us understand and interpret our past, but it also brings a wide range of social, cultural, economic and environmental benefits. Conserving, and where possible enhancing, the historic environment and historic assets is therefore a key part of achieving sustainable development and it is important to ensure they can be enjoyed by current and future generations.

(10)DM6 – Historic Environment

  1.  Proposals for waste development will be supported where it can be demonstrated that there will not be any harm to the significance of a designated, or non-designated heritage asset of archaeological interest equivalent to a scheduled monument, and/or its setting.
  2.  Proposals likely to cause harm to a designated or non-designated heritage asset, as above, will only be permitted where it can be demonstrated that there are public benefits which outweigh the level of harm or loss, relative to the importance of the heritage asset affected.
  3.  Proposals that would directly or indirectly affect non-designated heritage assets will be assessed according to the scale of any harm or loss and the significance of the heritage asset.
  4.  Proposals for waste development on a site of archaeological importance must ensure that satisfactory mitigation measures are incorporated, including the preservation in situ or the excavation and recording of any affected archaeological remains.
  5.  Where relevant, the enhancement of the historic environment, including individual heritage assets or historic landscapes, will be encouraged.

 

Justification

8.65. Within Nottinghamshire and Nottingham there are thousands of designated (listed buildings, scheduled moments, registered parks and gardens, conservation areas and a battlefield) and non- designated historic assets, including archaeological sites and features as well as buildings and sites on local lists of heritage assets, that together contribute to the Plan area's unique local identity and sense of character.

8.66. Waste development proposals can potentially impact, directly or indirectly, heritage assets and their settings. Impacts can range from the direct loss to affecting the asset and its setting. Whilst visual impacts are often the most obvious effect on an asset's setting, new development can also change how we experience the historic environment through noise, smell, dust and vibrations, especially if there are multiple developments occurring within the vicinity at the same time. Cumulative impacts are therefore also important to consider as detailed in Policy DM10.

8.67. As detailed within the NPPF, heritage assets should be conserved in a manner appropriate to their significance. The significance is the value of the asset (both its physical presence and setting) to this and future generations because of its heritage interest, which can be archaeological, architectural, artistic or historic. To be able to understand potential impacts of proposed development on historic assets and its setting, its significance then must firstly be understood.

Designated historic assets

8.68. For designated assets, when considering the potential impacts of proposed development on the significance of the asset, great weight should be given to the asset's conservation; the more important the asset, the greater the weight should be.

8.69. If it is identified that a waste development proposal has the potential to harm a designated asset and its setting, this harm will be categorised as either substantial harm, which includes total loss of the asset, or less than substantial harm. As it is the degree of harm on the asset's significance rather than the scale of development that determines the level of harm, even minor works can be classified as substantial harm.

8.70. For any harm to a designated heritage asset, clear and convincing justification for the waste development will be needed. Substantial harm to or loss of:

  • grade II listed buildings, or grade II registered parks or gardens, should be exceptional.
  • assets of the highest significance, notably scheduled monuments, protected wreck sites, registered battlefields, grade I and II* listed buildings, grade I and II* registered parks and gardens, and World Heritage Sites, should be wholly exceptional

8.71. The NPPF states that permission should be refused unless it can be demonstrated that substantial harm or total loss is necessary to achieve substantial public benefits that outweigh that harm or loss, or all of the following apply:

  • The nature of the heritage asset prevents all reasonable use of the site; and
  • No viable use of the heritage asset can be found in the medium term through appropriate marketing that will enable its conservation; and
  • Conservation by grant-funding or some form of not for profit, charitable or public ownership is demonstrably not possible; and
  • The harm or loss is outweighed by the benefit of bringing the site back into use.

8.72. If the level of harm is less than substantial harm to the historic asset significance, then the harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal, including, where appropriate, securing the assets optimum viable use.

8.73. Public benefits can be anything that delivers social, economic or environmental objectives as described in paragraph 8 of the NPPF.

Non-designated historic assets

8.74. If proposals have impacts on non-designated assets, the scale of any harm or loss and the significance of the heritage asset will need to be considered within the planning balance. Non-designated heritage assets of archaeological interest equivalent to scheduled monuments will be subject to the same test as designated heritage assets.

Recording of historic interest

8.75. Where proposals would result in the total or part loss of a heritage asset, applicants for waste proposals will be required to record and advance understanding of the significance of the heritage asset in a manner appropriate to its importance, with this made available to the public. For archaeological sites, where remains cannot be preserved in situ, remains will need to be excavated and appropriately recorded.

Assessing impacts on the historic environment

8.76. To enable the Councils to make informed assessments and decisions on applications that may impact on the historic environment, adequate information is required from applicants. This includes the applicant detailing the significance of the heritage asset affected, with the historic environment record consulted as a minimum. The level of detail within any assessment, where one is required, should be proportionate to the importance of the heritage asset, the size of the development and the level of its impact on the heritage asset including its setting.

8.77. Where an application site includes, or is considered to have the potential to include, heritage assets with archaeological interest then a desk-based assessment will be required followed by a field evaluation where appropriate.

8.78. It is strongly advised that assessments, including Heritage Statements and Archaeological Evaluations, are compiled by a professional consultant or contractor to ensure that an appropriate statement is submitted.

8.79. Within any assessment the applicant should also demonstrate how consideration of the asset and setting has influenced the development of the proposal to minimise and mitigate any identified impacts. Through good design and consideration of the local historic environment, proposals can seek to minimise any harm and should where possible, enhance the historic environment. Early consultation with the Council and heritage officers is recommended to help inform proposals and so demonstrate the historic asset has been considered through the design of the waste facility.

This policy helps to meet the following objectives:

SO3- The Environment, SO4 – Community, Health and Wellbeing

 

DM7 – Flood Risk and Water Resources

What you told us at the Issues and Options stage:

  • Support was given to including flood risk and water resources as a topic that should be addressed by the Development Management Policies
  • As waste facilities can pose a higher risk of causing contamination to water resources, it is important to ensure both ground water and surface water resources are adequately protected
  • Surface water runoff will need to be managed appropriately to protect the sewage system capacity
  • Reducing water consumption should be covered due to the poor status of the Idle and Tore Permo-Triassic aquifer, with rainwater and grey water harvested where possible

Issues and Options Sustainability Appraisal findings on the Vision and Objectives:

The Issues and Options SA did not explicitly cover the flood risk and water resources, as such there are no comments to make.

Introduction

8.80. Water is essential for both humans and wildlife and waste facilities have the potential to contaminate water resources if appropriate mitigations are not in place. It is therefore important to protect both ground and surface water resources. For example, leachate from a disposal site could potentially contaminate aquifers or run off from sites, particularly if the site is flooded. may contain contaminates which then enter surface water resources, such as rivers, canals and lakes.

8.81. It is therefore important that waste facilities are designed, managed and located in suitable areas to ensure they have no adverse impacts on the quality, quantity and flow of surface and groundwater.

(11)DM7 - Water resources and Flood Risk

Water Resources

Proposals for waste management facilities will be supported where it can be demonstrated that there will be no unacceptable impacts on the quantity and quality of water resources, including groundwater and surface water, taking account of Source Protection Zones, the status of surface watercourses and waterbodies and groundwater bodies. Where possible, proposals should include measures to enhance water quality.

For landfill and landraising schemes, proposals will need to demonstrate the ground / geological conditions are suitable.

Flood Risk

Proposals for waste management facilities will be supported where it can be demonstrated there will be no unacceptable impact on the integrity and function of floodplains and there is no increased risk of flooding on the site or elsewhere.

Proposals which are within an area with a known risk of flooding, including potential risk in the future, will need to demonstrate the Sequential Test has been applied and a Flood Risk Assessment and Exception Test undertaken where required.

Proposals should also, where appropriate, include Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDs) to manage surface water run-off.

Justification

Water Resources

8.82. Proposals for waste management facilities will need to ensure the protection, and where possible, the enhancement of surface and ground water resources and quality as well as consider how the use of water resources can be minimised where possible.

8.83. The Environment Agency is the main authority for safeguarding water resources; it is responsible for improving and protecting inland and coastal waters, ensuring sustainable use of natural water resources, creating better habitats and other factors that help to improve quality of life. The Environment Agency publishes information on groundwater vulnerability and the location of source protection zones for water supply as well as the status of watercourses and water bodies.

8.84. The Environment Agency's Approach to Groundwater Protection uses aquifer designations which are consistent with the Water Framework Directive. This reflects the importance of aquifers in terms of groundwater as a resource and also their role in supporting surface water flows and wetland ecosystems. A key aim of the Water Framework Directive is to prevent deterioration in the status of water bodies, improve their ecological and chemical status and prevent further pollution.

8.85. Contaminating ground water resources, particularly aquifers which are used for drinking water, is perhaps the most serious pollution threat from waste management facilities, particularly from disposal sites. Proposals for landfill and landraising facilities will therefore need to demonstrate they have considered the geological conditions and the behaviour of surface and ground water and put appropriate mitigations in place where required. For non-inert disposal sites, these should not be located in source protection zones.

8.86. The risk of contaminating surface water resources from waste facilities is also high if surface water is not managed appropriately. Proposals for waste management facilities therefore should:

  • Direct surface water from all non-waste operational areas, such as roofs and roads, towards a sustainable surface water outfall where possible, with this water being treated through the appropriate number of treatment processes to ensure pollution is not caused or flood risk increased
  • Cover waste handling/storage areas to prevent excess rainwater entering the foul sewage system were possible
  • Have suitable mitigation/ attenuation of storm flows where the site is connected to the foul/ combined sewer where these are not separated

8.87. Applicants therefore are recommended to engage with the Environment Agency at the earliest opportunity within the application process to ensure they have considered ground and surface water resources. Early consultation will also help identify appropriate and adequate mitigations which may be required.

8.88. To further protect aquifers, especially those with poor status, under the Water Framework Directive further abstraction should be limited to prevent further deterioration. Proposals then should seek to reduce water consumption and ensure water resources are used as efficiently as possible. This could include measures such as harvesting rainwater and grey water for wheel washing and dust suppression as well as using Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDs), which can help improve water quality by removing pollutants as well as reducing flood risk.

Flood Risk

8.89. Proposals for waste facilities must ensure the risk of flooding, from all sources, has been appropriately considered and addressed to ensure the facility is safe throughout its lifetime and can operate without posing a risk to water resources and water bodies and not increase flood risk on site or elsewhere.

8.90. The responsibility of managing flood risk lies with both the Local Lead Flood Authority (LLFA), in this case Nottinghamshire County Council and Nottingham City Council for their respective administrative areas, and the Environment Agency. The Councils are responsible for managing the risk of flooding from surface water and ground water and managing ordinary water courses whilst the Environment Agency has a specific responsibility to manage flood risk from main rivers and the sea. Both the LLFA and Environment Agency should be consulted early on within the application stages.

8.91. Proposals for waste management facilities should be located in areas with low flood risk, where this is not possible the applicant will need to undertake a Sequential Test to demonstrate there are no suitable alternative sites.

8.92. Applications will also need to be accompanied by a site-specific flood risk assessment if:

  • It is located in Flood Zone 1 and over 1 hectare
  • In Flood Zone 2 or 3
  • In an area identified as having critical drainage issues
  • It has an increased flood risk in the future
  • It is subject to other sources of flooding and the proposed development is a more vulnerable use

8.93. An exception test may also be required following the Sequential Test, this is dependent upon the flood risk vulnerability classification of the proposed development and what flood zone the proposal lies in. As outlined within the Planning Practice Guidance and summarised within Table X below, different waste facilities have different vulnerability classifications and so the flood zone compatibility of waste facilities varies.

Table 13. - Vulnerability classification and compatibility for different types of waste facilities1.

Type of Waste Facility

Flood Risk Vulnerability Classification

Flood Zone Compatibility

Waste Water Treatment

Essential Infrastructure

Appropriate in Flood Zones 1, 2, 3a and 3b*

Waste treatment (except landfill* and hazardous waste facilities)

Less Vulnerable

Appropriate in Flood Zones 1, 2 and 3a

Hazardous Waste Facilities

More Vulnerable

Appropriate in Flood Zones 1, 2 and 3a*

Landfill

More Vulnerable

Appropriate in Flood Zones 1, 2 and 3a*

*An exception test will be required

8.94. For an exception test to be passed, the proposed development will need to demonstrate that both:

  • The development would provide wider sustainability benefits to the community that outweigh the flood risk; and
  • The development will be safe for its lifetime taking account of the vulnerability of its users, without increasing flood risk elsewhere, and, where possible, will reduce flood risk overall

8.95. Following the site-specific flood risk assessment, sequential and exception test where required, permission should only be granted in areas at risk of flooding where it can be demonstrated that:

  • The most vulnerable part of the development is located in areas of the lowest flood risk within the site, unless there are overriding reasons to prefer a different location
  • The development is appropriately flood resistant and resilient
  • It incorporates SuDs, unless there is clear evidence this would be inappropriate
  • Any residual risk can be safely managed and
  • Safe access and escape routes are included where appropriate, as part of an agreed emergency plan

8.96. SuDs should also be incorporated into proposals for waste facilities, even where the risk of flooding is low, as they help to control surface water runoff and so not only can they reduce the causes and impacts of flooding, but they also remove pollutants and so can improve water quality as well. Examples of SuDs include permeable pavements, green roofs and swales.

This policy helps to meet the following objectives:

SO1 – Climate Change, SO3- The Environment

 

DM8 – Public Access

What you told us at the Issues and Options Stage:

  • There were no representations on Public Access.

Issues and Options Sustainability Appraisal findings on the Vision and Objectives:

  • The Issues and Options SA did not explicitly cover the Public Access, as such there are no comments to make.

Introduction

8.97. Nottinghamshire is a largely rural County and has nearly 2,800km of routes providing access into the countryside for walking, cycling and horse riding and Nottingham City has a total of 84km of public access routes.

8.98. The Rights of Way network also provides vital links within the City and between towns and villages and is increasingly being used as a route to school, work and shops.

8.99. The size and location of a waste facility development can have significant direct or indirect impacts on the rights of way network and its users. However, it can also provide opportunities to improve and extend existing infrastructure and enable both wider enjoyment of the countryside and access to services and facilities.

8.100. The public rights of way network is both an important recreational resource and a sustainable transport option. Local authorities have a statutory duty to protect these and therefore, new developments should not adversely affect the integrity of the established rights of way network. There may, however, be circumstances where, in the interests of providing for sustainable waste developments, disruption of a public right of way is unavoidable. In such cases, mitigation would be sought, such as diverting the route in a satisfactory manner, creating an alternative route and/or providing for additional routes to increase access opportunities. Mitigation could also ensure an existing route does not suffer from reduced amenity.

(4)DM8 – Public Access

Proposals for waste development will be supported where it can be demonstrated this will not have an unacceptable impact on the existing rights of way network and its users. Where this is not practicable, satisfactory proposals for temporary or permanent diversions, which are of at least an equivalent interest or quality, must be provided and improvements and enhancements to the rights of way network will be sought where practicable.

Justification

8.101. National guidance states that policies should protect and enhance public rights of way and access. Opportunities to provide better facilities for users, such as adding links to the existing rights of way, should be sought. Where appropriate, manned crossing points will be required to ensure that the existing rights of way network is not compromised during development. Proposals for new rights of way will need to consider how they can best link into the existing rights of way network. All proposals for new or improved rights of way should also cater for the needs of people with mobility problems and other disabilities and comply with the requirements of the Equality Act 2010.

8.102. There are parts of Nottinghamshire and Nottingham City that suffer from a poor-quality environment and a lack of accessible green space. Therefore, efforts to improve public rights of way should be targeted to help address such deficiencies as well as providing new infrastructure.

8.103. Reference should be made to the Nottinghamshire County Council Rights of Way Improvement Plan and the Nottingham City Rights of Way Improvement Plan 2 and advice sought from the County and City Council's rights of way officers regarding proposed temporary or permanent diversions and the opportunities for future improvements in the area.

8.104. Such consultation on any public right of way affected by a proposed waste development should take place at the earliest possible stage. The statutory process for footpath diversion or closure is separate from the planning process and as such delays or failures to secure any required amendments to the rights of way network could affect the implementation of future waste facilities development.

8.105. Enhancements to the rights of way network will be secured through legal agreements rather than planning conditions to ensure that the enhanced rights of way are available in perpetuity. Similarly, permissive paths will not be considered for temporary or permanent diversions to an existing definitive right of way.

 

This policy helps to meet the following objectives:

SO3 – The Environment, SO4 – Community, Health and Wellbeing

 

DM9 – Planning Obligations

What you told us at the Issues and Options Stage:

  • Planning Obligations should be used to ensure biodiversity net gain is achieved. Requirements should be secured through robust planning obligations and developers should be expected to bring forward proposals to meet these requirements at the earliest stage, before determination.

Issues and Options Sustainability Appraisal findings on the Vision and Objectives:

  • The Issues and Options SA did not explicitly cover Planning Obligations, as such there are no comments to make.

 

Introduction

8.106. All waste development proposals could give rise to issues such as; highways, flood risk, landscape character and archaeological and ecological impact. There are many areas where the treatment of waste could impact on local communities. In order to ensure that a balance is struck between society's requirement for waste infrastructure and the need to protect the local environment and residential amenity, measures will be secured through legal agreements associated with planning permissions for waste developments.

8.107. To achieve sustainable development, additional planning requirements may be imposed to make a proposed development acceptable. The coordinated delivery of adequately funded infrastructure at the right time and in the right place is key to ensuring that local services, facilities and the transport network can accommodate any additional demand arising from new waste facility developments.

(3)DM9 - Planning Obligations

Where appropriate and necessary, the County and City Councils will seek to negotiate planning obligations as measures for controlling waste facilities and mitigating any negative impacts to secure sustainable development objectives which cannot be achieved by the use of planning conditions.

Justification

8.108. Planning obligations (also known as Section 106 agreements) are legal agreements made between local authorities, developers and landowners which can be attached to a planning permission to make acceptable development which would otherwise be considered unacceptable in planning terms. The obligations set out in Section 106 agreements apply to the person or organisation that enters into the agreement, and any subsequent owner of the land to which the planning permission relates. This is something that any future owners will need to take in to account.

8.109. The NPPF provides Government guidance on the use of planning obligations. It contains three tests that planning obligations must meet. They must be:

  • Necessary to make the proposed development acceptable in planning terms
  • Directly related to the proposed development
  • Fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the proposed development.

8.110. The County Council has a Developer Contribution Strategy, and Nottingham City Council has two adopted policies, the Nottingham City Core Strategy Policy 19: Developer Contributions and the LAPP Policy IN4: Developer Contributions policy which all set out circumstances where planning obligations may be sought and include:

  • Highway improvement and reinstatement works, lorry routeing arrangements, off-site highway safety works
  • Off-site provision of landscaping, screening, noise attenuation measures etc.
  • Off-site monitoring of noise, dust, groundwater, landfill gas migration – provision of leachate/landfill gas control measures
  • Provision for extended aftercare
  • Archaeological consultants and contractors for investigation, recording, analysing, archiving and reporting on archaeological structure or remain
  • Long term management of restored sites
  • Habitat creation, enhancement and protection
  • Safeguarding protected species and species of local biodiversity interest
  • Transfer of land ownership and associated management provisions
  • meet the reasonable costs of new infrastructure or services, employment and training:
  • provision of open space where appropriate
  • drainage and flood protection

8.111. Applicants are advised to check the above documents when applying for planning permission as Nottinghamshire County Council and Nottingham City Council both have varying requirements in terms of planning obligations.

8.112. The nature and scale of obligation requirements from a development will reflect:

  • The nature and impact the development has upon strategic, local and on-site needs and requirements
  • Current infrastructure and whether the development can be accommodated by the existing provision
  • How the potential impacts of a development can be mitigated
  • Viability. In considering issues of viability the Council will have regard to the quality and value of a scheme in the context of how the development contributed towards the vision, objectives and policies for the area.

8.113. Whether obligations will be 'in kind' (where the developer builds or directly provides the infrastructure), by means of financial payments or a combination of both will depend on the nature and circumstances of the infrastructure requirement. The NPPF sets out that development identified in the Local Plan should not be subject to such a scale of obligations and policy burdens that their ability to be developed viably is threatened. It emphasises that developers and landowners should receive a competitive return to enable the development to be delivered.

 

This policy helps to meet the following objectives:

SO1 – Climate Change, SO2 – Strengthen Our Economy, SO3 – The Environment SO4 – Community, Health and Wellbeing, SO5 – Meet our future need, SO6 – High quality design and operation and SO7 – Sustainable Transport

 

DM10 – Cumulative Impacts of Development

What you told us at the Issues and Options Stage:

  • There were no representations relating to the Cumulative Impacts of Development.

Issues and Options Sustainability Appraisal findings on the Vision and Objectives:

  • The Issues and Options SA did not explicitly cover the overview of the Draft Plan, as such there are no comments to make.

Introduction

8.114. The cumulative impact of several waste management operations either on one site or in close proximity to each other may be a factor that needs to be assessed, as well as the effects of these types of developments in conjunction with other non-waste developments in an area. The impacts, both real and perceived, of a concentration of waste management facilities close to a community or communities could have a detrimental impact on local amenity, health, quality of life and the wider environment and landscape character.

8.115. Adverse cumulative impacts include increased levels of noise, odour and artificial lighting. The local highway network could also be affected by increased HGV movements with potential hazards related to road safety.

(5)DM10 - The Cumulative Impact of Waste Management Development

Proposals for waste management development will be supported where it can be demonstrated that there are no unacceptable cumulative impacts on the environment, health or on the amenity of a local community.

Justification

8.116. National policy emphasises the need for cumulative impacts from multiple impacts from individual site and/or a number of sites in a locality to be taken into account.

8.117. The capacity of a local area to accommodate waste management facilities depends upon the proximity of existing development, the type of facility proposed, access to the site and operational issues such as noise, dust, odour and hours of opening.

8.118. A stage may be reached whereby it is the cumulative rather than the individual impact of a proposal that renders it environmentally unacceptable. Depending on local circumstances, there may also be a need to consider whether there are likely to be cumulative impacts resulting from a proposed waste management facility in combination with other existing or proposed non-waste related development.

8.119. This policy seeks to ensure that the impacts of a waste proposal are considered in conjunction with the impacts of all existing development and that cumulative impact on the environment of an area, highway safety, health or on the amenity of a local community or communities are fully addressed.

 

This policy helps to meet the following objectives:

Strategic Objective 3 – The Environment, Strategic Objective 4 – Community, Health and Wellbeing

 

DM11 – Airfield Safeguarding

What you told us at the Issues and Options Stage:

  • East Midlands Airport is close to the County border and it plays and important economic and employment role across the plan area.
  • A large part of the Plan area is within the Airport safeguarded zone, particularly the 13km bird safeguarded area. It is therefore important that the aerodrome safeguarding requirements for East Midlands Airport are included within the scope of future development management policies.

Issues and Options Sustainability Appraisal findings on the Vision and Objectives:

  • The Issues and Options SA did not explicitly cover Airfield Safeguarding, as such there are no comments to make.

 

Introduction

8.120. As detailed within the aerodrome safeguarding procedure (DfT/ODPM Circular 1/2003), Airfield Safeguarding Areas are a 13km/8-mile radius established around aerodromes, both civil and military, and their associated buildings to ensure aviation safety.

8.121. Waste development proposals can pose a risk to aviation safety, with the main risk from facilities that are likely to attract birds which could increase the risk of bird strike. Any waste development proposals then that falls within an Airfield Safeguarding Area will require consultation with owners or operators of the relevant airfields to consider potential hazards to aircraft or radio operations and ensure any risks are adequately mitigated.

(2)DM11 - Airfield Safeguarding

Proposals for waste development within Airfield Safeguarding areas will be supported where the applicant can demonstrate that the proposed development during the construction, operational and, where relevant, restoration and after use phases, will not result in any unacceptable adverse impacts on aviation safety.

Justification

8.122. As shown on Plan 2, there are eight licenced Airfield Safeguarding Areas for airports and Military of Defence (MoD) sites in the plan area:

  • East Midlands Airport
  • Gamston (Retford) Airport
  • Netherthorpe Airfield
  • Nottingham City Airport
  • Robin Hood Airport Doncaster Sheffield
  • RAF Scampton MoD Aerodrome
  • RAF Syerston MoD Aerodrome
  • RAF Waddington MoD Aerodrome

8.123. Other, non-licenced, aerodromes may be safeguarded by privately agreed consultation with the Local Planning Authority. This is called 'unofficial' safeguarding and is not obligatory under Statutory Direction. However, the County Council acknowledges the Governments advice that 'aerodrome owners should take steps to safeguard their operations' and as such Policy DM10 will also apply to these 'unofficial' safeguarded areas as recorded by Local Planning Authorities. Any new safeguarding areas established during the plan period will also be safeguarded.

8.124. As detailed in the NPPW, the main risk to aviation safety is that waste facilities can, if not managed appropriately, attract birds which could lead to an increased risk of bird strike to aircraft. Facilities that handle, compact, treat or dispose of household or commercial waste are more likely to attract birds, in particular Landfill sites that accept putrescible waste. Other infrastructure associated with facilities can also attract birds, such as those with flat roofs, ledges and gantries as well as sites that create or enhance wet areas as part of landscaping or for restoration and after use.

8.125. Other hazards that waste proposals may pose to aviation safety include:

  • Glare and dazzling from lighting and reflective materials used on site
  • Visual impact from tall buildings and structures, including any cranes present during the construction phase
  • Air turbulence created from thermal plumes and venting and flaring of gas
  • Radio interference if radio communication is used within the waste facility itself

8.126. Any waste development proposals within Airfield Safeguarding areas will therefore need to consider within their application the risks they may pose to aviation safety, including potential risks during the construction, operational and, where relevant, the restoration and after use phases.

8.127. Early engagement with the Councils and aerodrome operators is encouraged so risks can be identified and addressed through design and adequate mitigations early on within the proposal to ensure the safe operation of aircraft.

This policy helps to meet the following objectives:

SO4- Community, Health and Wellbeing, SO6- High quality design and operation

Plan 2 – Airfield Safeguarding Areas

 

 

DM12 Highway Safety and Vehicle Movements/Routeing

What you told us at the Issues and Options Stage:

  • Support was given to the consideration of highway traffic implications in future development management policies for the Waste Plan, to ensure planning applications will be assessed against these criteria.
  • Support the objective to encourage alternative modes of transport to road-based modes where practical and to allocate waste sites strategically, based on proximity to transport links, and the waste source or end-market.
  • Where appropriate, opportunities should be sought to use railways and rivers to transport waste. This would reduce both traffic impacts and harmful emissions from motor vehicles.

Issues and Options Sustainability Appraisal findings on the Vision and Objectives:

  • The Issues and Options SA did not explicitly cover highway safety and vehicle movements and routeing, as such there are no comments to make.

 

Introduction

8.128 All new development proposals need to consider the needs of all road users. Safety and vehicular movements are key issues which must be addressed. The needs of pedestrians, cyclists and people with disabilities must be at the forefront of any considerations.

(3)DM12 - Highways Safety and Vehicle Movements/Routeing

Proposals for waste management facilities will be supported where it can be demonstrated that:

  1. The highway network including any necessary improvements can satisfactorily and safely accommodate the vehicle movements, including peaks in vehicle movements, likely to be generated.
  2. The vehicle movements likely to be generated would not cause an unacceptable impact on the environment and/or disturbance to local amenity.
  3. Where appropriate, adequate vehicle routeing schemes have been put in place to minimise the impact of traffic on local communities.
  4. Measures have been put in place to prevent material such as mud contaminating public highways.

 

Justification

8.129 Most waste is transported via the existing road network due to the flexibility and distance that most waste is carried. This can cause an increase in the level of HGV traffic on the local and wider road networks in the vicinity of waste processing facilities. It is important that the impact of this traffic is minimised. This can be done through several different measures and can include:

  • strategic signage for lorry movements.
  • sheeting of lorries.
  • highway improvements.
  • hours of working / opening.
  • traffic regulation orders.
  • noise attenuation of reversing bleepers, plant and equipment.
  • private haul roads.
  • road safety improvements.
  • traffic management arrangements, including off peak movements.

8.130 Highways England is responsible for the trunk road network which, in Nottinghamshire, includes the M1, A1, A46, A52 and the A453. They provide policy advice on other transport issues concerning their function, including the consideration of planning applications.

8.131 Nottinghamshire County Council is the Local Highway Authority and is responsible for the implementation of the Nottinghamshire. Local Transport Plan. The County Council, as the Local Highway Authority, will require proposals to be accompanied by a Transport Assessment (TA) or Transport Statement (TS). In certain circumstances a Travel Plan may also need to be submitted. As such, planning applications must accord with current standards and other local guidance. In most instances, applicants will be required to attend a pre-application meeting to discuss the transport issues with officers from the Council.

8.132 Where a specific highways impact from the development is identified that requires mitigation, the Council will seek developer contributions to enable the necessary works to be completed.

8.133 Lorry routeing can be a major consideration in assessing the acceptability of a waste proposal. Whilst a reasonable route may exist, which the operator may well be willing to use, it may be necessary to control routeing through planning conditions or in most instances through a legally binding agreements (known as planning obligations or Section 106 Agreements – see DM9 for more information) between the applicant and the Council.

This policy helps to meet the following Strategic Objectives:

Strategic Objective 3 - The environment, Strategic Objective 4 - Community, Health and Wellbeing, Strategic Objective 6 - High quality design and operation, Strategic Objective 7 - Sustainable Transport

 


[viii] De-pollution of end-of-life vehicles (.i.e. removal of fuel, oil, gases etc.) must be carried out within a building.

[ix] Crushing and screening of construction and demolition waste (soils, aggregate etc.) is often carried out on site as part of the construction/demolition project. This does not normally require specific planning permission.

If you are having trouble using the system, please try our help guide.
back to top back to top