SP8 – Safeguarding Waste Management Sites

Comment

Representation ID: 614

Received: 01/04/2022

Respondent: Graeme Foster

Policy SP8 is supported in principle. It is acknowledged that its implementation will require coordination and consultation on relevant planning applications with the Waste Planning Authorities. It is recommended that the two Councils request to see relevant lists of planning applications which in Gedling Borough Council’s case are produced weekly.

Comment

Representation ID: 692

Received: 04/04/2022

Respondent: Newark and Sherwood District Council

Policy SP8 Safeguarding Waste Management Sites and Paragraph 7.64
Comment:
Within the first paragraph of this policy, it is suggested that reference is not only made to long
term need and any wider regeneration benefits but that the sustainability of the existing waste
management facility ought to also be taken into consideration in determining whether the
loss of an existing facilities is acceptable.
Whilst the intention of this policy in relation to non-waste uses is welcomed, in order to ensure
that existing and permitted waste management sites are sufficiently protected from nonwaste
development, and non-waste developments are protected from existing and permitted
waste management sites, it is considered that the second paragraph of this policy needs to be
amended to be more robust. The supporting text to this policy sets out the difficulties which
can be faced by waste management facilities when new, sensitive types of development are
located nearby. The reasonableness of requiring a developer to fund the relocation of a
safeguarded waste management facility, as set out in paragraph 7.64, is questioned, and could
not be required through the policy as it is currently worded.
It is recommended that the second paragraph of this policy is amended to require that an
assessment of the potential for impacts between existing waste management facilities and
new, non-waste development will be required as part of the consideration of proposals for
new non-waste development, taking into account the type of waste management facility
which exists. If adverse impacts either on the new development, or on the existing waste
management facility are found to exist, these must be suitably addressed, mitigated against,
or compensated for, as part of the proposed new non-waste development proposal, and the
mitigation and / or compensation must be in place for the lifetime of either the waste
management facility or the lifetime of the non-waste development, to prevent foreseeable
issues arising in the future. This approach will ensure that both the existing waste
management facility, and the new non-waste development, can be acceptably allowed.
Recommended Change:
It is recommended that the first paragraph of this policy is amended to include “, the
sustainability of the existing facility …” after “long term need for the facility …”.
It is recommended that the second paragraph of this policy is amended to require that an
assessment of the potential for impacts between existing waste management facilities and
new, non-waste development will be required as part of the consideration of proposals for
new non-waste development, taking into account the type of waste management facility
which exists. If adverse impacts either on the new development, or on the existing waste
management facility are found to exist, these must be suitably addressed, mitigated against,
or compensated for, as part of the proposed new non-waste development proposal, and the
mitigation and / or compensation must be in place for the lifetime of either the waste
management facility or the lifetime of the non-waste development, to prevent foreseeable
issues arising in the future. This approach will ensure that both the existing waste
management facility, and the new non-waste development, can be acceptably allowed.

Comment

Representation ID: 702

Received: 07/04/2022

Respondent: Via East Midlands

SP8 - Safeguarding Waste management sites

Paragraph 7.64 – amend as follows: -

‘Mitigations therefore could include using parking or landscaping areas to provide a buffer zone from any existing or potential waste facility’
Change to:
‘Mitigation therefore could include using parking or landscape areas to provide a buffer zone from any existing or potential waste facility’

Comment

Representation ID: 765

Received: 30/03/2022

Respondent: Mansfield District Council

Strategic Policy 8 – Safeguarding waste management sites: This policy safeguards existing waste management facilities, potential extensions, sites with unimplemented planning permission and facilities to transport waste, from loss. It also ensures that any non-waste uses proposed nearby provide adequate mitigation and do not negatively affect the operation of the facility. This would safeguard sites located within Mansfield district and is supported by the council.

Comment

Representation ID: 766

Received: 30/03/2022

Respondent: Mansfield District Council

Please note that paragraphs 7.62 and 7.64 refers to the policy as SP7 rather than SP8.

Comment

Representation ID: 776

Received: 31/03/2022

Respondent: Severn Trent Water Ltd

Policy SP8
Severn Trent are supportive of the approach to require developers to discuss proposals with the Sewerage undertaker that operates the site covered by the Cordon Sanitaire.

Comment

Representation ID: 777

Received: 31/03/2022

Respondent: Severn Trent Water Ltd

Paragraph 7.63
Severn Trent are supportive of the approach to highlight that development should not be permitted that will negatively impact on the operation of an existing and permitted Waste site. Additional limitations on the operation of Wastewater assets such as Wastewater Treatment Works (WwTW) or Sewerage Pumping stations could impact on our ability to effectively drain an area.

Comment

Representation ID: 794

Received: 04/04/2022

Respondent: Mick George Ltd

SP7
We support Strategic Policy SP5: Climate Change. We also support Strategic Policy SP6: Minimising the Movement of Waste. We understand the requirements to limit the movement across administrative boundaries unnecessarily. We also support Strategic Policy SP7: Green Belt and Strategic Policy SP8: Safeguarding Waste Management Sites.

Comment

Representation ID: 830

Received: 27/04/2022

Respondent: The Environment Agency

SP8 – Safeguarding Waste management sites
We welcome the inclusion of this Policy, with particular regard to those waste sites which will require an Environmental Permit from the Environment Agency. The requirements of the Policy will need to be taken into consideration when Local Planning Authority’s consider the appropriateness of new sensitive developments (e.g., housing) in relation to existing or proposed waste sites.