Pre- Submission Draft Waste Local Plan
9. Monitoring and Implementation
Implementation
9.1. The Joint Waste Local Plan has been prepared using a wide-ranging evidence base to set the context and focus for the delivery of our strategic policies and objectives. Regular monitoring in accordance with the NPPF is essential to ensure that our policies are effective and consistently applied. This will also help us to see when or where specific policies or targets may need to be revised and to respond to any changes in national policy or legislation or changes in local circumstances.
9.2. Achieving our objectives and implementing the policies within the Joint Waste Local Plan rely on the actions of not just the County and City Councils and the waste industry but also the district councils, local communities and businesses and the voluntary sector. It is therefore important that there is a clear understanding of who will deliver the relevant waste management infrastructure and any supporting measures set out in the Joint Waste Local Plan and the relevant timescale.
Monitoring
9.3. The Localism Act 2011 requires the production of monitoring reports. Details of what this must contain are set out in The Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012 with further guidance in the National Planning Policy Guidance:
- The Councils produces a monitoring report each year to review progress in preparing the new planning policy documents that will make up the development framework
- How well existing waste planning policies are working
- New national or other relevant policy guidance that needs to be taken into account
- Updates in local social, economic and environmental indicators that may influence existing and future waste policies
9.4. We have therefore developed a comprehensive monitoring and implementation framework to help us achieve this.
9.5. Appendix 1 contains a detailed monitoring and implementation table which sets out the policies, performance indicators and triggers for monitoring.
Appendix 1- Monitoring and Implementation Framework for Nottinghamshire and Nottingham Waste Local Plan
Key outcomes/Strategic Objectives
Performance Indicator
Monitoring Method
Constraints/Risks
Target
Trigger Point
Signs that Corrective Action is Required/Mitigation Measures
To reduce the amount of waste produced and encourage all developments to help move waste up the waste hierarchy
(SO2 – Climate Change, SO3 – Strengthen our economy)
Tonnage of Waste arisings across all waste streams (Local Authority Collected Waste; Commercial and industrial waste; Construction, Demolition; and Hazardous waste using the methodology as set out in the WNA)
Published waste arising data from DEFRA, the Environment Agency (EA) and other surveys, where available
Relevant planning decisions – waste reduction measures included as part of application conditions
Lack of available waste arisings data for specific waste streams
Cost of awareness raising initiatives
n/a
Significant changes in arisings
Assess implications for targets and revise if required
(2) SP2- Future Waste Management Provision
The policy aims to provide sufficient waste management capacity to meet identified needs, support proposals for waste management facilities which help to move waste management up the waste hierarchy
(SO1 – Meet our future needs)
Total permitted waste management capacity is equal to estimated waste arisings
LACW arisings Commercial and Industrial waste arisings (where available)
Construction and demolition waste arisings (where available)
Monitor levels of Hazardous, agricultural, mining and low level radioactive waste arisings (where available)
Annual waste management and arisings data (where available)
Amount of new waste management capacity permitted annually
DEFRA municipal waste management figures (audited figures published annually)
National/ regional commercial and industrial waste recycling figures (where available)
If data becomes available with the digitisation of waste movement, monitoring of waste compositions
Requires suitable proposals to come forward (largely industry driven)
Lack of data – degree of current self-sufficiency is unknown
Cost of changes to municipal waste management collection and infrastructure provision.
Lack of private sector investment
Market fluctuations in value of recycled materials
Net self-sufficiency achieved
Recycle/compost municipal, commercial and industrial and construction and demolition waste
N/A (Aspirational policy
Recycling rates more than 10% below target (where data available)
N/A (Aspirational policy)
If recycling levels fall below aspirations, revision made
Development of new waste management facilities in line with national criteria
(SO1 – Meet our future need, SO6 – Sustainable Transport)
New or extended facilities permitted within broad locations as set out in Policy SP3
Planning permissions for new and extended waste management facilities
n/a
100% meeting broad location criteria as set out in Policy SP3
Significant number of new facilities not meeting broad criteria as set out in Policy SP3
Review policy to ensure need being met adequately
Provision for the management of residual waste following treatment
(SO1 - Meeting our future needs)
New or extended facilities permitted in accordance with Policy SP4
Planning permissions for new and extended waste management facilities
Environment Agency Waste Data Interrogator
Lack of suitable sites
100% applications determined in accordance with Policy SP4
Significant number of new facilities not meeting broad criteria as set out in Policy SP4
Review policy to ensure need being met adequately
New proposals minimise the impacts on, and are resilient to climate change
(SO2 – Climate Change)
Proposals judged to have an unacceptable impact on climate change will be refused
Planning permissions/refusals for new or extended facilities.
New or extended facilities incorporating resilience to climate change
No targets
Local climate change impacts are difficult to measure/lack of available data
Number of planning applications approved that include appropriate location/resilience to climate change
Significant number of planning application approvals which identify harmful impacts on climate change
Review policy to ensure impacts on climate change are considered in more depth
To encourage waste facilities to use alternative, more sustainable methods of transport and treat waste as close to the source as possible
(SO2 – Climate Change, SO6 – Sustainable Transport)
Number of planning permissions using alternative methods of transport to road
Tonnage of waste exported out of the Plan area
Number of planning permission granted contrary to advice from: - Highways England - Highways Authority
Planning permissions decision notices and delegated or committee reports
Lack of availability of infrastructure to transport waste (railheads and wharves)
Where waste will be treated depends upon external markets
Lack of data in notices/ reports on sustainable transport
All applications granted include an element of non-road transport. Road transport distances/ use is minimised All applications granted fully mitigate any transport impacts
Significant number of applications granted contrary to advice from those set out in performance indicator (more than 10%)
Review applications to identify why sustainable transport methods were not utilised/ maximised
Review the policy
To ensure new minerals development does not compromise the openness and purpose of land within the Green Belt
(SO4 – The environment)
Number of planning applications granted within the Green Belt where the proposal does not maintain the openness and purpose of the Green Belt
Planning permissions delegated or committee reports
Planning approvals may be subject to variation prior to implementation
All applications granted in Green Belt should maintains the openness and purpose of the Green Belt
Any planning permissions granted in the Green Belt which do not maintain the openness and purpose of the Green Belt
Review policy to ensure greater priority given to maintenance of openness and purpose of Green Belt
To safeguard existing and permitted waste facilities from non-waste development to ensure sufficient capacity to handle waste arisings
(SO1 – Meet our future needs)
Number of applications permitted for non-waste development which could adversely impact the operation of waste facilities
No decrease in the number or availability of waste management facilities by type and overall capacity by type
Planning permissions for use other than waste management on existing waste management sites
The County Council is not consulted on applications which may pose a safeguarding risk
Safeguarding policies could be overlooked at local level
Maintain/increase the number of waste management facilities and assess the capacity of waste management facilities.
Significant decrease in hectares of waste management sites (more than 10%)
Review the policy to ensure need is being met appropriately
Achieving new and extended waste management facilities in line with the locational criteria, as set out in Policy DM1
(SO1 – Meet our future need)
New or extended facilities located in accordance with criteria, as set out in Policy DM1
Planning permissions including data on size, type and location
n/a
100% meeting the criteria as set out in Policy DM1
Significant percentage of new and extended waste management facilities meeting the criteria set out in Policy DM1
Review the policy to ensure need is being met appropriately
Ensuring that waste facilities do not negatively impact of the health and wellbeing of the community
(SO5 – Community, Health and Wellbeing)
Number of planning applications granted contrary to advice from: - Environment Agency - Environmental Health Officer - Public Health England - Highways Authority
Number of substantiated complaints received regarding waste management facilities
Planning permissions decision notices and delegated or committee reports
Minerals Planning Authority Monitoring and Enforcement Team complaint
Reliant on professional opinions/ assessments of impacts and discussion of these in reports/notices
All planning permissions have no adverse impact on the elements set out in the policy
Number of planning permission granted which identify unacceptable impacts on the community, health and wellbeing (measured through grants contrary to advice from those set out in performance indicator) (>0)
Review policy to address criteria that were not met in permissions
All new and extended facilities are well designed and use sustainable construction techniques
(SO2 – Climate Change, SO4- The Environment, SO7 - High quality Design and operation)
All new and extended facilities incorporating best practice in design of facilities and ensuring they are future proofed, where appropriate
Planning permissions refused based on the lack of consideration to design
Design is subjective
100% of relevant planning permissions incorporate best practise
Significant number of planning permissions do not incorporate best practise and are unable to justify non-inclusion adequately
Review policy criteria
To maintain, protect and enhance the character and distinctiveness of the landscape
Unacceptable impacts on quality of life
(SO4 – The environment, SO5 – Community, Health and Wellbeing)
Number of planning applications granted contrary to advice from: - Natural England
Planning permissions decision notices and delegated or committee reports and decision notices
Reliant on professional opinions/ assessments of impacts and discussion of these in reports/notices
Difficult to measure environmental quality and lack of available data
All planning permissions have no adverse impact as set out in the policy
Significant number of applications approved contrary to advice from those set out in performance indicator (more than 10%)
Review reasons for granting permission contrary to advice
Review policy
To protect biodiversity from adverse impacts from waste proposals and enhance biodiversity to achieve net gain
(SO4 – The environment, SO5 – Community, Health and Wellbeing)
Significant adverse change in biodiversity assets in the County
Number of planning applications granted contrary to Natural England advice
Area of habitat loss, gain and net-gain/loss (including Habitats of Principal Importance, LBAP habitats and designated sites)
Natural England, Local Biodiversity Action Plans
Planning permissions decision notices and delegated or committee reports
Individual planning applications
Difficult to measure and monitor environmental quality and lack of available data
No planning permissions result in adverse impact on biodiversity
All planning permissions secure a minimum of 10% Biodiversity Net Gain
Significant number of applications approved contrary to advice from Natural England (more than 10%)
Decrease in biodiversity targets being met
Review policy to give greater priority to protection and enhancement to biodiversity
Review policy to ensure no further decline in biodiversity
To protect the historic environment from adverse impacts from waste proposals and enhance where possible
(SO4 – The environment, SO5 – Community, Health and Wellbeing)
Number of planning applications granted contrary to advice from: - Historic England Number of planning applications granted subject to a watching brief for archaeology
Change in the number of heritage assets at risk in the plan area
Planning permissions decision notices and delegated or committee reports
Reliant on professional opinions/ assessments of impacts and discussion of these in reports/notices
All planning permissions have no adverse impact as set out in the policy
Significant number of applications approved contrary to advice from those set out in performance indicator (more than 10%)
Review reasons for granting permission contrary to advice Review policy
To protect ground and surface water resources from adverse impacts from waste proposals and reduce the risk of flooding
(SO2 – Climate Change, SO4 – The environment)
Number of planning applications granted contrary to Environment Agency advice on flooding and water quality/provision grounds
Number of planning applications granted which include flood alleviation benefits
Number of planning applications granted which include SuDS
Planning application documents
Planning permissions decision notices and delegated or committee reports
Reliant on discussion of these elements in reports/ notices
No planning permissions have detrimental impact on water resources; planning permissions enhance the status where possible and prevent deterioration of freshwater bodies and groundwater. No planning permissions have an unacceptable impact on flooding.
Number of planning permissions granted contrary to Environment Agency advice (>0)
Review reasons for granting permission contrary to advice
Review policy
To prevent negative impacts on existing public access routes and improve and enhance the Rights of Way network where possible
(SO4 – The environment, SO5 – Community, Health and Wellbeing)
Number of planning permissions involving the permanent loss of a Right of Way
Number of planning permissions securing additional Rights of Way through restoration
Planning permissions decision notices and delegated or committee reports
-
All planning permissions have no adverse impact on Rights of Way and increase public access
Significant number of applications approved contrary to advice Countryside Access Team (more than 10%)
Planning permission granted resulting in permanent loss of Right of Way
Review reasons for loss of Right of Way
Review Policy
Requirements from development will be met
(SO1 – Meet our future need, SO2-Climate Change, SO3 – Strengthen our economy, SO4 – The Environment, SO5 – Community, Health and Wellbeing, SO6 - Sustainable transport, SO7 -High quality design and operation )
Number of planning permissions with signed S106 agreements
Planning permissions decision notices and delegated or committee reports
Waste Planning Authority legal records
Delay between permission and signing of S106 may delay monitoring
All permissions granted with S106 where needed
Significant number of planning applications without S106 (more than 10%)
Review reason for lack of S106 If no justification, review policy
Prevention of negative cumulative impacts
(SO4 – The environment, SO5 – Community, Health and Wellbeing)
Number of planning applications granted despite unacceptable cumulative impacts
Planning permissions decision notices and delegated or committee reports
Reliant on discussion of cumulative impact in reports/notices
No unacceptable cumulative impacts arise from minerals development
Planning permissions granted that give rise to unacceptable cumulative impact
Review policy to strengthen cumulative impact assessment
To ensure waste proposals do not pose a risk to aviation safety
(SO4 – Community, Health and Wellbeing, SO6 – High quality design and operation)
Number of planning applications granted contrary to advice from airfields
Planning permissions decision notices and delegated or committee reports
No overseeing body, therefore advice will be on an air-field by air-field basis and could be inconsistent
No applications permitted against airfield advice
Permission granted contrary to airfield advice
Review reasons for approval against advice Review policy in light of above
Improved highway safety and appropriate routeing schemes
(SO5 – Community, Health and Wellbeing, SO7 – High quality design and operation)
Planning applications granted contrary to advice from: - Highways England - Highways Authority
Planning permissions decision notices and delegated or committee reports
-
All planning permissions consistent with policy criteria
Significant number of applications approved contrary to advice from those set out in performance indicator (more than 10%)
Review policy to address criteria that were not met in permissions
