Dear Sirs
RE: CONSULTATION ON THE ISSUES & OPTIONS VERSION OF THE COUNTY COUNCIL AND NOTTINGHAM CITY COUNCIL NEW JOINT WASTE LOCAL PLAN – RESPONSE BY PEEL L&P ENVIRONMENTAL LTD

We are pleased to provide our comments on the Issues and Options version of the new Joint Waste Local Plan (WLP) and set out below our responses on the questions contained therein. We have also responded on the call for sites and promoted land at Bilsthorpe Business Park, which is subject to an extant consent for an Energy from Waste (EfW) facility, and on which the Councils rely (as existing non-operating capacity) in Table 6 of the Preliminary Waste Needs Assessment.

Q1: We envisage the plan period covering up to 2038, do you think this is appropriate? If not, what other plan period should be used and why?

We believe the period to 2038 is appropriate and note, that in accordance with NPPF paragraph 33, the WLP needs to be reviewed at least every 5 years through this period.

Q2: Do you think any further information should be included in the overview of the Plan area and the implications for the management of waste?
We have no comments.

Q3: Do you agree with the current waste estimate? Do you have any other information which may lead to a different waste estimate?

We are in general agreement with the waste quantities estimated on the assumption they are derived correctly from stated source and proper account has been given to imports / exports from the WLP area.

Q4: Do you have any other information about how these waste streams are managed? Are there other issues the Plan should consider?

We note that 2018/19 household waste recycling data is now available and the more contemporary data should be used as the WLP moves forward. The LACW data for the City Council looks high bearing in mind in 2018/19 they only achieved 26.5% recycling for household waste. See: https://www.letsrecycle.com/councils/league-tables/2018-19-overall-performance/

Q5: Do you agree with the scenarios set out for Local Authority Collected Waste (LACW)? Which scenario do you consider to be the most suitable on which to base the Plan? Do you have any evidence to support any other scenarios?

The scenarios offer a good range. Based on patterns over the past 10 years (household waste grew by only 2.2% 2010-2017)1 we consider scenario B is most realistic i.e. the quantity of waste produced per household will be broadly static, albeit with economic boom and recessionary peaks and troughs, but overall LACW will increase over time as there is growth in the number of households .

Q6: Do you agree with the scenarios set out for Commercial and Industrial (C & I) Which scenario do you consider to be most suitable on which to base the Plan? Do you have any evidence to support any other scenarios?

The scenarios offer a good range. We consider something around scenarios A and B is most realistic. We note DEFRA estimated C&I growth for 2010-2016 was an average of 1.5% per annum.

Q7: Do you agree with the scenarios set out for Construction, Demolition and Excavation Waste (CDE)? Which scenario do you consider to be most suitable on which to base the Plan? Do you have any evidence to support any other scenarios?

We have no comments.

Q8: Do you agree with the estimate set out for Hazardous Waste? Do you have any evidence to support any other scenarios?

We have no comments.

Q9: Do you consider these assumptions about future recycling rates are an appropriate basis for the Waste Local Plan. Do you have any evidence to suggest that different assumptions should be made?

We agree that recycling rates are capable of increasing by circa 10% over the WLP period, but this requires quite significant intervention and implementing all of the measures in ‘Our Waste, Our Resources; A Strategy for England’ (DEFRA 2018). Achieving circa 50% household waste recycling and circa 65% C&I waste recycling by the end of the WLP period would be in line with Tolvik national modelling.

Q10: What role do you think recovery should play? Should the plan provide for higher levels of energy recovery in future?

We suggest the WLP amends the terminology used. ‘Recovery’ includes recycling and we believe what is being referred to here is, for the purposes of the waste hierarchy, ‘other recovery’. However, we suggest the term ‘energy recovery’ is adopted as it is likely to be better understood.

The RDF export market has contracted more drastically than the WLP indicates. With measures such as the Dutch introduction of a €31-per-tonne tax on the import of waste into the country for incineration, in January 2020, it is forecast that RDF exports will radically decrease.
Further, the UK’s commitment for Net Zero by 2050 requires the elimination of ‘off-shoring’ waste.

Further, the UK is still landfilling large quantities of waste that could be subject to energy recovery.

Accordingly, there will be an increased role for energy recovery in the future.

Finally, we note that the extant Waste Core Strategy aims for Nottingham & Nottinghamshire to be ‘self-sufficient’, but there is less emphasis on this in the emerging WLP and Preliminary Waste Needs Assessment. In terms of energy recovery infrastructure, we make two points on this matter:
• We believe it is important that Nottinghamshire actually delivers more energy recovery infrastructure within the WLP area.
• As the UK moves towards delivering its final energy recovery capacity, which will occur in the WLP period, the WLP must be flexible and recognise that the latter EfW facilities will undoubtedly rely on wider catchment areas to ‘mop up’ the remaining residual waste. Thereafter there will probably be an element of geographic rebalancing as waste contracts expire and are replaced. Accordingly, the WLP must be permissive of the potential for residual waste to be exported into the Plan area, where such a movement supports the delivery of new energy recovery infrastructure that can also be used for the management of the City’s / County’s waste. Such an approach is entirely consistent with national Government strategy which specifically acknowledges that there is nothing in the legislation or the proximity principle that says accepting waste from another council, city, region or country is a bad thing and indeed in many cases it may be the best economic and environmental solution.

Q11: Do you agree with the need to provide additional disposal capacity within the Plan Area?

We have no comments.

Q12: Do you agree with the draft vision? Are there other things we should include?

We generally support the draft vision, but believe the reference to managing waste locally wherever possible, should relate to complete waste management not, for example, simply managing by bulking the waste and exporting it out of the County. The vision might want to be tweaked to reflect this objective.

Q13: Are the above objectives appropriate? Are there others we should consider?

We believe 6 of the 7 objectives are appropriate and 1 new objective should be provided:
• With: UK household waste recycling rates effectively flat for the past 7 years at 44-45%; the 2020 household waste recycling target being missed by a margin; the move to a circular economy; and Net Zero commitments; the waste sector needs to innovate like never before. Such innovation will be delivered during the WLP period particularly, for example, in the management of plastics and WEEE. Accordingly, the WLP needs an objective to embrace, support and deliver, innovative waste management solutions and infrastructure which will help achieve our sustainable waste management and climate change commitments.
• Objective 7: Sustainable Transport, effectively mirrors Waste Core Strategy Policy WCS11. This Policy (and the objective) fundamentally misunderstands the dispersed nature of waste generation and the movement of the vast majority of the UK’s waste. In short, we believe that Policy WCS11 has never delivered an operational waste management facility that uses rail or water with Nottingham / Nottinghamshire. The ability to utilise rail is dependent upon residual waste being loaded, or being able to be loaded, onto the railway in the first place. At the present time there is no merchant waste on the rail system looking for a home and there are very few rail connected transfer facilities that have capability to load residual waste. Those that exist are all tied up on specific, long term, PFI type local authority contracts. The same is true with water. Whilst objective 7 is less stringent than WCS Policy 11 in terms of non-road based transport, it also seeks to put waste facilities close to where waste arises. Clearly, this is only possible in the very broadest sense as waste generation is so widely distributed. Further, it then seeks to put waste facilities close to the end markets. Given that end markets frequently change and end markets may be no where near where the waste arises, we find the objective unhelpful. We suggest it is re-drafted or removed.

Q14: What do you think of our proposals for the broad locations of future waste management facilities across the Plan Area? Are there other options we should consider?

We support the approach currently adopted in the Waste Core Strategy for broad locations. We suggest that if Waste Core Strategy Plan 4: Key Diagram is adopted, the County’s main roads are added with fairly broad lines. This will enable waste facilities serving more than one settlement, but located between then on or close to a main route, to be supported.

Q15: Do you think that a general criteria approach is sufficient to deal with future provision or should the Plan be allocating specific sites? Are there other options we might consider?

National Planning Policy for Waste (NPPW) paragraph 4, requires the WLP to identify sites and / or areas for new or enhanced waste management facilities in appropriate locations. We believe the requirements of NPPW are best met through the allocation of specific sites, arising from the call for sites process. Each allocation should identify the broad type or types of waste management facility that would be appropriately located on the allocated site or in the allocated area, taking care not to be overly prescriptive so as to avoid stifling innovation.
We believe that there also needs to be a criteria based policy to cover waste developments that might come forward on unallocated sites. The criteria in such a policy should mirror the criteria for choosing the allocations, such that there can be consistency in decision making and schemes that meet the criteria can be given equal weighting to those on allocated sites.

Q16: What do you think of our proposals for the scope of the development management policies? Are there any others that should be covered such as for specific types of waste management facility?

We have no specific comments on the proposed scope of development management policies, but note, as per our response to question 13, that the policies should not stifle innovation.

Q17: Are there any other comments you would like to make to help inform the preparation of the Waste Local Plan?

Our overarching comment, as per our response to question 13, is that the WLP needs to be sufficiently flexible to be able to support and deliver, innovative waste management solutions and infrastructure which will help achieve sustainable waste management and climate change commitments.

We trust the foregoing will be given due regard in the ongoing preparation of the new WLP.
Yours faithfully