DM1 – General Site Criteria

No comment on the Policy. Gedling Borough Council does not consider there is any site within Gedling Borough suitable for the landfilling of non-inert waste including both hazardous and non-hazardous waste.

Thank you for consulting the Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust (NWT) on the above. I apologise
for using this format of response, but the OPUS format is not straightforward to use for
responses to multiple sections and the insertion or highlighting of text. I have used bold italics
to suggest insertions of text and italics for your original text.
Overall NWT supports the principles of the Plan and we welcome the clear reiteration of the
need to move waste management urgently up the waste hierarchy. We would hope, however,
to see a stronger aim for further waste reduction and the obligation for each Local
Authority to secure ambitious waste reductions across all their work and areas of
influence.

Detailed comments in representations

Thank you for consulting the Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust (NWT) on the above. I apologise
for using this format of response, but the OPUS format is not straightforward to use for
responses to multiple sections and the insertion or highlighting of text. I have used bold italics
to suggest insertions of text and italics for your original text.
Overall NWT supports the principles of the Plan and we welcome the clear reiteration of the
need to move waste management urgently up the waste hierarchy. We would hope, however,
to see a stronger aim for further waste reduction and the obligation for each Local
Authority to secure ambitious waste reductions across all their work and areas of
influence.

Detailed comments in representations

Thank you for consulting the Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust (NWT) on the above. I apologise
for using this format of response, but the OPUS format is not straightforward to use for
responses to multiple sections and the insertion or highlighting of text. I have used bold italics
to suggest insertions of text and italics for your original text.
Overall NWT supports the principles of the Plan and we welcome the clear reiteration of the
need to move waste management urgently up the waste hierarchy. We would hope, however,
to see a stronger aim for further waste reduction and the obligation for each Local
Authority to secure ambitious waste reductions across all their work and areas of
influence.

Detailed comments in representations

Please find attached Newark and Sherwood District Council’s consultation response to the Draft Waste Local Plan. Our response was
approved by the Council’s Economic Development Committee on the 23 March 2022.

Comments on behalf of VIA East Midlands Landscape Team - see representations

Comments on behalf of VIA East Midlands Landscape Team - see representations

Many thanks for consulting Historic England on the above consultation.
Please find our comments attached in Table 1; we look forward to working with the Council’s as they progress their Waste Local Plan.
We commented on this document at an earlier stage in the process, 6 May 2020, and raised several general points and signposted a range of Historic England advice on our website. Please utilise this earlier response alongside our additional comments made within this response, to allow you to have a range of advice.
We are available to offer further advice on Development Management Policy 6: Historic Environment, if you would like to take us up on this offer please contact me using the above details.

Many thanks for the opportunity to comment on the new draft Nottinghamshire and Nottingham Waste Local Plan.
It is noted that there are no up-to-date Municipal Waste Management Strategies in Nottinghamshire and Nottingham, although we understand that Nottingham City are about to consult on their Waste Strategy. It is further noted that the Waste Needs Assessment was, therefore, produced without the benefit of Waste Management Strategies and that the Plan and evidence base will have to adapt to Nottingham City Waste Strategy when it comes out.
Since the evidence base was prepared, we understand that a further EfW facility at Ratcliffe-on-Soar has been permitted. It would be useful to know capacity and throughput of this. This facility will likely have cross-boundary impacts and we are grateful for agreement that this will be looked at.
We also welcome the opportunity to comment on the landfill rates and capacity. Again, the commitment from Nottinghamshire to reflect with AECOM on the landfill component is supported. The absence of non-hazardous landfill capacity from 2024 onwards is an issue and would result in waste movements to other authority areas that have capacity. This may result in some waste having to travel greater distances than at present, which needs to be considered against the intention to minimise the impacts of transporting waste in Strategic Objective 7. In addition, it would also place pressure on other authority’s non-hazardous landfill capacity. These issues should be considered.
With regard to Table 11, it would be useful for there to be clarification in relation to the -3,567,089 figure for remaining disposal capacity is per annum or cumulative over the life of the plan (noting that the table title include reference to tpa)
For information, on the matter of disposal of HIC waste, Leicestershire County Council only have one non-hazardous landfill in the county (Shawell landfill).
It is recognised that the Plan does not make specific site allocations partly because there was not specific evidence of need for certain waste streams, and because there was also a lack of suitable sites put forward during the call for sites. We are content that the Provision policy for future applications offers a flexible approach. A criteria-based approach for the location of waste management facilities, as set out in Policy DM1, gives flexibility.
It is noted that the emerging Waste Local Plan and Waste Needs Assessment does not take into account undelivered capacity such as the recently permitted EfW at Ratcliffe-on-Soar. Its inclusion in the evidence base would be useful to ascertain impact upon waste flows.

Representation on behalf of Mick George Ltd to the Nottingham and Nottinghamshire Draft Waste Local Plan.
See Representations.

These representations are submitted by Mick George Ltd (MGL), which is one of the largest waste
and aggregates companies in the East of England and in the East Midlands. This representation is
designed to support the promotion of Dorket Head as an inert landfill site and to make more general
comments about the strategy proposed to be adopted in the Waste Local Plan. The company has
been unable to participate in the local Plan process before now as it has only recently acquired the
rights to develop the site.

Submission on behalf of Tarmac Trading Ltd
Introduction
Heatons have been instructed by our clients, Tarmac Trading Limited (‘Tarmac’), to prepare and submit a formal representation to the above consultation. As set out in national planning policy, Nottinghamshire as the Waste Planning Authority (WPA) are required to consider opportunities for co-location of waste management facilities.
Primarily a mineral operator, Tarmac have several operational sites located within Nottinghamshire. The representations seek to ensure that the proposed waste development management policies are both consistent with the locational requirements of inert and aggregate waste management facilities and recognise their value in supporting/co locating with minerals development. The representations also support the draft Waste Local Plan’s approach to biodiversity net gain.
Planning Policy Context
The relationship between minerals and waste development is set out in paragraph 45 of the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) on ‘Minerals’ which states that there are many possible uses of land post mineral extraction, inter alia, ‘waste management, including waste storage’. Furthermore, paragraph 45 goes on to state that ‘some former mineral sites may also be restored as a landfill facility using suitable imported waste materials as an intermediate stage in restoration prior to an appropriate after use’.
Chapter 4 of the National Planning Policy for Waste (NPPW) (2014) sets out the locational criteria to be
used when identifying sites for new or enhanced waste management facilities. Bullet point 4 of chapter 4 requires waste planning authorities to ‘consider a broad range of locations including industrial sites, looking for opportunities to co-locate waste management facilities together and with complementary activities’ (emphasis added).
Waste should be managed with due regard to the ‘Waste Hierarchy’ set out in Appendix A of the NPPW and included below.
Figure 1: Waste Hierarchy (NPPW)
The Waste Hierarchy ranks waste management options according to what is best for the environment. It gives top priority to preventing waste in the first place. However, when waste is created, it gives priority to preparing it for re-use, then recycling, then recovery, and last of all disposal.
Benefits of inert waste restoration
As defined by the Environment Agency (2022) inert waste is ‘waste that does not undergo any significant physical, chemical or biological transformations’. Inert waste can form several functions, such as landscaping, screening or engineering material, as well as material for backfilling in quarry restoration schemes.
The use of inert waste for backfilling as part of quarry restoration constitutes a waste recovery process. Using inert waste rather than higher-grade material, such as recycled aggregates or virgin material which could be put to more sustainable uses, is considered to be a more sustainable option which supports the waste hierarchy.
Benefits of co-location
The co-location of facilities for managing waste within minerals sites is beneficial for social, environmental and economic reasons. Draft policy SP5 (Climate Change) states that ‘all new or extended waste management facilities should be located, designed and operated so as to minimise any potential impacts on climate change. Co-location enables the facilities to utilise existing site infrastructure and existing transport infrastructure. It also reduces the likely environmental and amenity based impacts of both developments buy placing them within the same site, albeit recognising any potential cumulative impacts.
In light of the above, we seek to ensure that draft policy DM1 – ‘General Site Criteria’ of the draft plan supports the long-term need for inert waste recovery within minerals sites. Facilities for recycling construction, demolition & excavation waste or comparable industrial wastes should be supported on existing landfill and/or mineral sites. We request an additional ‘general location’ for waste management facilities for inert waste within existing landfill and/or mineral sites.
Draft policy SP3 – ‘Broad Locations for New Waste Treatment Facilities’ is considered to place undue restriction on the location of waste treatment facilities outside of built-up areas. Emphasis is placed upon locating waste treatment facilities in areas within or close to the built-up areas of settlements listed in the draft policy. However, waste management facilities are more likely to be in conflict with surrounding residential, employment and commercial developments in these areas in line with the ‘agent of change’ principle (NPPF para. 187, 2021). Greater flexibility is required for the location of waste management facilities and, therefore, we request that draft policy SP3 is amended to read ‘ The development of treatment facilities within the open countryside and within the Green Belt will be supported only where such locations are justified by a clear local need, particularly where this would provide enhanced employment opportunities and/or would enable the re-use of existing buildings’.
Aggregate Recycling
The draft plan states, in paragraph 8.12, that ‘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’(emphasis added). We support the location of aggregate recycling facilities within quarries due to co-location benefits. We request that draft policy DM1 – ‘General Site Criteria’ is amended to reflect the opportunity to locate aggregates recycling facilities within minerals sites.
The location of waste management facilities on minerals sites, as set out in draft policy DM1, is constrained to sites of ‘former mineral workings’. As set out above, ,it is both beneficial and common-place to co-locate waste management facilities including aggregate recycling, and inert waste recovery within existing minerals sites. We therefore request that draft policy DM1 is amended to include ‘previously developed Land/derelict land and mineral sites’.
Biodiversity Net Gain
Paragraph 8.61 of the draft WLP states that the Biodiversity metric tool is not intended to override ecological advice’. We support this approach to using the metric tool alongside consideration of ecological advice.
Conclusion
This letter of representation has set out the long-standing and valuable relationship between waste management and minerals development, and the national policy support for inert waste recovery.
We would like to highlight the in-consistency of draft policy DM1 against the NPPW in relation to the waste hierarchy, which does not, in its current form, adequately address the need for sustainable inert waste recovery within minerals sites. Furthermore, the draft policy DM1 does not adequately support the co-location of inert waste recovery and aggregate recycling within minerals sites.

Submission on behalf of Tarmac Trading Ltd
Introduction
Heatons have been instructed by our clients, Tarmac Trading Limited (‘Tarmac’), to prepare and submit a formal representation to the above consultation. As set out in national planning policy, Nottinghamshire as the Waste Planning Authority (WPA) are required to consider opportunities for co-location of waste management facilities.
Primarily a mineral operator, Tarmac have several operational sites located within Nottinghamshire. The representations seek to ensure that the proposed waste development management policies are both consistent with the locational requirements of inert and aggregate waste management facilities and recognise their value in supporting/co locating with minerals development. The representations also support the draft Waste Local Plan’s approach to biodiversity net gain.
Planning Policy Context
The relationship between minerals and waste development is set out in paragraph 45 of the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) on ‘Minerals’ which states that there are many possible uses of land post mineral extraction, inter alia, ‘waste management, including waste storage’. Furthermore, paragraph 45 goes on to state that ‘some former mineral sites may also be restored as a landfill facility using suitable imported waste materials as an intermediate stage in restoration prior to an appropriate after use’.
Chapter 4 of the National Planning Policy for Waste (NPPW) (2014) sets out the locational criteria to be
used when identifying sites for new or enhanced waste management facilities. Bullet point 4 of chapter 4 requires waste planning authorities to ‘consider a broad range of locations including industrial sites, looking for opportunities to co-locate waste management facilities together and with complementary activities’ (emphasis added).
Waste should be managed with due regard to the ‘Waste Hierarchy’ set out in Appendix A of the NPPW and included below.
Figure 1: Waste Hierarchy (NPPW)
The Waste Hierarchy ranks waste management options according to what is best for the environment. It gives top priority to preventing waste in the first place. However, when waste is created, it gives priority to preparing it for re-use, then recycling, then recovery, and last of all disposal.
Benefits of inert waste restoration
As defined by the Environment Agency (2022) inert waste is ‘waste that does not undergo any significant physical, chemical or biological transformations’. Inert waste can form several functions, such as landscaping, screening or engineering material, as well as material for backfilling in quarry restoration schemes.
The use of inert waste for backfilling as part of quarry restoration constitutes a waste recovery process. Using inert waste rather than higher-grade material, such as recycled aggregates or virgin material which could be put to more sustainable uses, is considered to be a more sustainable option which supports the waste hierarchy.
Benefits of co-location
The co-location of facilities for managing waste within minerals sites is beneficial for social, environmental and economic reasons. Draft policy SP5 (Climate Change) states that ‘all new or extended waste management facilities should be located, designed and operated so as to minimise any potential impacts on climate change. Co-location enables the facilities to utilise existing site infrastructure and existing transport infrastructure. It also reduces the likely environmental and amenity based impacts of both developments buy placing them within the same site, albeit recognising any potential cumulative impacts.
In light of the above, we seek to ensure that draft policy DM1 – ‘General Site Criteria’ of the draft plan supports the long-term need for inert waste recovery within minerals sites. Facilities for recycling construction, demolition & excavation waste or comparable industrial wastes should be supported on existing landfill and/or mineral sites. We request an additional ‘general location’ for waste management facilities for inert waste within existing landfill and/or mineral sites.
Draft policy SP3 – ‘Broad Locations for New Waste Treatment Facilities’ is considered to place undue restriction on the location of waste treatment facilities outside of built-up areas. Emphasis is placed upon locating waste treatment facilities in areas within or close to the built-up areas of settlements listed in the draft policy. However, waste management facilities are more likely to be in conflict with surrounding residential, employment and commercial developments in these areas in line with the ‘agent of change’ principle (NPPF para. 187, 2021). Greater flexibility is required for the location of waste management facilities and, therefore, we request that draft policy SP3 is amended to read ‘ The development of treatment facilities within the open countryside and within the Green Belt will be supported only where such locations are justified by a clear local need, particularly where this would provide enhanced employment opportunities and/or would enable the re-use of existing buildings’.
Aggregate Recycling
The draft plan states, in paragraph 8.12, that ‘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’(emphasis added). We support the location of aggregate recycling facilities within quarries due to co-location benefits. We request that draft policy DM1 – ‘General Site Criteria’ is amended to reflect the opportunity to locate aggregates recycling facilities within minerals sites.
The location of waste management facilities on minerals sites, as set out in draft policy DM1, is constrained to sites of ‘former mineral workings’. As set out above, ,it is both beneficial and common-place to co-locate waste management facilities including aggregate recycling, and inert waste recovery within existing minerals sites. We therefore request that draft policy DM1 is amended to include ‘previously developed Land/derelict land and mineral sites’.
Biodiversity Net Gain
Paragraph 8.61 of the draft WLP states that the Biodiversity metric tool is not intended to override ecological advice’. We support this approach to using the metric tool alongside consideration of ecological advice.
Conclusion
This letter of representation has set out the long-standing and valuable relationship between waste management and minerals development, and the national policy support for inert waste recovery.
We would like to highlight the in-consistency of draft policy DM1 against the NPPW in relation to the waste hierarchy, which does not, in its current form, adequately address the need for sustainable inert waste recovery within minerals sites. Furthermore, the draft policy DM1 does not adequately support the co-location of inert waste recovery and aggregate recycling within minerals sites.

Submission on behalf of Environment Agency.

Thank you for your consultation on the above dated 28 January 2022 which was received by Natural England on 28 January 2022.
Natural England is a non-departmental public body. Our statutory purpose is to ensure that the natural environment is conserved, enhanced, and managed for the benefit of present and future generations, thereby contributing to sustainable development.
Sites of least environmental value
In accordance with the NPPF, the plan should allocate land with the least environmental or amenity value. Natural England expects sufficient evidence to be provided to justify the site selection process and to ensure sites of least environmental value are selected, e.g. land allocations should avoid designated sites and landscapes and significant areas of best and most versatile agricultural land and should consider the direct and indirect effects of development, including on land outside designated boundaries and within the setting of protected landscapes.
Designated sites
The Local Plan should set criteria based policies to ensure the protection of designated biodiversity and geological sites. Such policies should clearly distinguish between international, national and local sites1. Natural England advises that all relevant Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs), European sites (Special Areas of Conservation and Special Protect Areas) and Ramsar sites2 should be included on the proposals map for the area so they can be clearly identified in the context of proposed development allocations and policies for development. Designated sites should be protected and, where possible, enhanced.
The Local Plan should be screened under Regulation 105 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (as amended) at an early stage so that outcomes of the assessment can inform key decision making on strategic options and development sites. It may be necessary to outline avoidance and/or mitigation measures at the plan level, which will usually need to be considered as part of an Appropriate Assessment, including a clear direction for project level HRA work to ensure no adverse effect on the integrity of internationally designated sites. It may also be necessary for plans to provide policies for strategic or cross boundary approaches, particularly in areas where designated sites cover more than one Local Planning Authority boundary.
1 International sites include: Special Protection Areas (SPAs); Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) and Ramsar sites1. National sites include Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) and National Nature Reserves (NNRs) Local sites include wildlife Sites or geological sites (a variety of terms are in use for local sites).
2 The following wildlife sites should also be given the same protection as European sites: potential SPAs, possible SACs, listed or proposed Ramsar sites and sites identified, or required, as compensatory measures for adverse effects on European sites

Natural England would welcome early discussion on the Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) of
the plan and can offer further advice as policy options are progressed.
Biodiversity and Geodiversity
The Plan should set out a strategic approach, planning positively for the creation, protection,
enhancement and management of networks of biodiversity. There should be consideration of
geodiversity conservation in terms of any geological sites and features in the wider environment.
A strategic approach for networks of biodiversity should support a similar approach for green
infrastructure (outlined below). Planning policies and decisions should contribute and enhance the
natural and local environment, as outlined in the NPPF. Plans should set out the approach to
delivering net gains for biodiversity. Net gain for biodiversity should be considered for all aspects of
the plan and development types, including transport proposals, housing and community infrastructure.
Priority habitats, ecological networks and priority and/or legally protected species
populations
The Local Plan should be underpinned by up to date environmental evidence. This should include an
assessment of existing and potential components of local ecological networks. This assessment
should inform the Sustainability Appraisal, ensure that land of least environment value is chosen for
development, and that the mitigation hierarchy is followed and inform opportunities for enhancement
as well as development requirements for particular sites.
Priority habitats and species are those listed under Section 41 of the Natural Environment and Rural
Communities Act, 2006 and UK Biodiversity Action Plan (UK BAP). Further information is available
here: Habitats and species of principal importance in England. Local Biodiversity Action Plans
(LBAPs) identify the local action needed to deliver UK targets for habitats and species. They also
identify targets for other habitats and species of local importance and can provide a useful blueprint
for biodiversity enhancement in any particular area.
Protected species are those species protected under domestic or European law. Further information
can be found here Standing advice for protected species. Sites containing watercourses, old buildings,
significant hedgerows and substantial trees are possible habitats for protected species.
Ecological networks are coherent systems of natural habitats organised across whole landscapes so
as to maintain ecological functions. A key principle is to maintain connectivity - to enable free
movement and dispersal of wildlife e.g. badger routes, river corridors for the migration of fish and
staging posts for migratory birds. Local ecological networks will form a key part of the wider Nature
Recovery Network proposed in the 25 Year Environment Plan. Where development is proposed,
opportunities should be explored to contribute to the enhancement of ecological networks.
Planning positively for ecological networks will also contribute towards a strategic approach for the
creation, protection, enhancement and management of green infrastructure, as identified in the NPPF.
Where a plan area contains irreplaceable habitats, such as ancient woodland, ancient and veteran
trees, there should be appropriate policies to ensure their protection. Natural England and the Forestry
Commission have produced standing advice on ancient woodland, ancient and veteran trees.
Access and Rights of Way
Natural England advises that the Plan should include policies to ensure protection and enhancement
of public rights of way and National Trails, as outlined in the NPPF. Recognition should be given to
the value of rights of way and access to the natural environment in relation to health and wellbeing
and links to the wider green infrastructure network. The plan should seek to link existing rights of way
where possible, and provides for new access opportunities. The plan should avoid building on open
space of public value as outlined in the NPPF.

Climate change adaptation
The Local Plan should consider climate change adaption and recognise the role of the natural
environment to deliver measures to reduce the effects of climate change, for example tree planting to
moderate heat island effects. In addition factors which may lead to exacerbate climate change
(through more greenhouse gases) should be avoided (e.g. pollution, habitat fragmentation, loss of
biodiversity) and the natural environment’s resilience to change should be protected. Green
Infrastructure and resilient ecological networks play an important role in aiding climate change
adaptation.
We would be happy to comment further should the need arise but if in the meantime you have any
queries please do not hesitate to contact us.
For any queries regarding this letter, for new consultations, or to provide further information on this
consultation please send your correspondences to consultations@naturalengland.org.uk.