SP4 Residual Waste Management

Comment

Representation ID: 610

Received: 01/04/2022

Respondent: Graeme Foster

Policy SP4 is supported.

Comment

Representation ID: 641

Received: 04/04/2022

Respondent: Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust

SP4 - Residual Waste Management
a) Proposals for the recovery of inert waste to land will be permitted where it can be
demonstrated that: i) It will not cause damage to environmental assets, including
biodiversity, heritage, air, soils, water, or a quiet environment. i. This will provide a
significant benefit or improvement which cannot practicably or reasonably be met in any other
way. ii. The waste cannot practicably and reasonably be re-used, recycled or processed in any
other way iii. The use of inert waste material replaces the need for non-waste materials iv. The development involves the minimum quantity of waste necessary to achieve the desired benefit
or improvement v. This will not prejudice the restoration of permitted mineral workings and
landfill sites.

Comment

Representation ID: 687

Received: 04/04/2022

Respondent: Newark and Sherwood District Council

Policy SP4 Residual Waste Management
Comment:
Policy SP4 needs to be expanded to include both new and extended waste management
facilities.
Given that this policy relates to waste at the bottom of the waste hierarchy, in order for it to
be effective, it should be negatively worded so that part a) is phrased in a similar way to part
b), stating either “will only be permitted where” or “will not be permitted unless”.
In relation to the parts a) and b) of this policy, there might be benefits in requiring
consideration of extensions and the expansion of existing facilities, prior to new facilities being
permitted, and criteria requiring consideration of this could be added to parts a) and b) of the
policy.
The supporting text to this policy at paragraphs 7.29 to 7.35 states that there is a priority to
use inert waste in the restoration of mineral working, landfill and landraise sites, however,
this is not addressed within the policy itself and ought to be. Policy SP4 should be expanded
to include reference to this priority.
Recommended Change:
Policy SP4 needs to be expanded to include both new and extended waste management
facilities.
Given that this policy relates to waste at the bottom of the waste hierarchy, in order for it to
be effective, it should be negatively worded so that part a) is phrased in a similar way to part
b), stating either “will only be permitted where” or “will not be permitted unless”.
In relation to the elements of this policy, there might be benefits in requiring consideration of
extensions and the expansion of existing facilities, prior to new facilities being permitted, and
criteria requiring consideration of this could be added to parts a) and b) of the policy.
Policy SP4 should be expanded to include reference to the priority to use inert waste in the
restoration of mineral working, landfill and landraise sites.

Comment

Representation ID: 699

Received: 07/04/2022

Respondent: Via East Midlands

Policy SP4 – amend as follows: -

‘c) in all cases, the resulting final landform, landscaping and after-uses must be designed to take account of and, where appropriate, enhance the surrounding landscape, topography and natural environment.’
Change to:
‘c) in all cases, the resulting final landform, landscape treatment and after-uses must be designed to take account of and, where appropriate, enhance the surrounding landscape character, topography and natural environment.’

Comment

Representation ID: 700

Received: 07/04/2022

Respondent: Via East Midlands

Paragraph 7.26 – amend spelling error ‘the plan’ for ‘the pan’

Comment

Representation ID: 701

Received: 07/04/2022

Respondent: Via East Midlands

Paragraph 7.30 – amend as follows: -

• ‘Landscaping and noise attenuation bunds to screen development’
Change to:
• Landscape treatment and noise attenuation bunds to screen development’.

Comment

Representation ID: 763

Received: 30/03/2022

Respondent: Mansfield District Council

Strategic Policy 4 – Residual waste management: The draft waste local plan explains that there is likely to be a need for further landfill capacity from 2024 onwards. However it is understood that the scope to provide capacity in the plan area is extremely unlikely due to the geology of the area, and that residual waste (remaining waste that cannot be reused) may need to be transported to the nearest available site outside of the plan area.
Despite this, Policy SP4 would be used to control any new development proposals seeking to dispose of residual waste that come forward. This includes the recovery of inert waste used for restoration of mineral workings, landfill, and landraise sites, as well as the disposal of non-hazardous and hazardous waste to landfill. Part c of the policy states that in all cases, the resulting final landform, landscaping and after-uses must be designed to take account of and, where appropriate, enhance the surrounding landscape, topography and natural environment. It is questioned why the phrase “where appropriate” is required rather than the policy seeking enhancements in all cases. This seems to contradict paragraph 8.57 which later on in the document states how waste facilities, particularly disposal sites which require restoration, can enhance biodiversity and should be restored to high environmental standards. Paragraph 8.58 goes on to say that such opportunities should be maximised and biodiversity net gains achieved where possible.

Comment

Representation ID: 790

Received: 04/04/2022

Respondent: Mick George Ltd

We also support Strategic Policy SP4 in relation to inert waste recovery sites. The constraints on the development of such sites, however, do not appear to reflect the confidence of earlier parts of the plan that recovery will be capable of dealing with the vast majority of waste soils. We are grateful for the acknowledgement in paragraph 7.27 of some priority for the restoration of suitable mineral sites by infilling with waste, even though as the text says, “the majority of former quarries and
colliery sites have now been restored”. We also support the text of paragraphs 7.29‐7.35 dealing with an explanation of the conditions under which inert waste recovery operation will be acceptable.

Comment

Representation ID: 828

Received: 27/04/2022

Respondent: The Environment Agency

SP4 - Managing Residual Waste
This SP discusses similar processors to SP1 and as such the response to that policy should be considered.