5.23

The Plan should be updated to reflect the statutory target to halve residual waste per capita by 2042 relative to a 2019 base year (see comments on Paragraph 2.3) and the EIP 2023 interim targets to reduce residual waste per person by 24% by 2027 and to reduce residual municipal waste per person by 29% by 2027 (including both household waste and waste that is of similar composition to household waste).

None of the updated scenarios reflect the statutory target to halve residual waste per capita by 2042 relative to a 2019 base year (see comments on Paragraph 2.3) and the EIP 2023 interim targets to reduce residual waste per person by 24% by 2027 and to reduce residual municipal waste per person by 29% by 2027 (including both household waste and waste that is of similar composition to household waste). This fails to adequately account for progressively lowering growth rates due to waste minimisation initiatives.

We are challenging soundness and legal compliance. We have no position on duty to co-operate.

On the whole Mansfield District Council is in support of the Waste Local Plan. The plan’s vision, which seeks to ensure less waste is produced by re-using resources in a circular economy with disposal being the last resort, is welcomed. Ensuring there is capacity over the plan period within appropriately located waste management facilities is important and the council supports the plan’s approach to locate larger facilities towards concentrations of population and employment (such as Mansfield (as well as Nottingham and Ashfield) as the largest town in the county). This is sustainable as it will ensure waste is processed close to where it is produced and keep transportation to a minimum, as well as providing local jobs. The council also welcomes the safeguarding of existing facilities and is encouraged to see the emphasis on wellbeing, protecting and enhancing the environment, and adapting to climate change within the vision and strategic objectives.

The following comments seek to help improve the soundness of the plan.

Following on from the council’s previous comments on the draft Waste Local Plan, our comment regarding Policy SP4 is reiterated. 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 8.70 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 8.71 goes on to say that such opportunities should be maximised and biodiversity net gains achieved where possible. Paragraph 8.32 also states how disposal sites where waste is used for restoration can enhance health and wellbeing through provision (among other things) landscape improvements.

From an operational perspective, and in the context of uncertainties around the implementation of the Environment Act 2021, is there sufficient flexibility to ensure the plan remains relevant as more certainty emerges in the DEFRA guidance?

The vision / objectives could mention provision of additional recycling opportunities for households, which is a core part of the Environment Act 2021, including food and a wider range of materials to be collected at the kerbside. Likewise, paragraph 3.35 (regarding the Environment Act 2021) should highlight the targets around food waste and standardisation of recycling material collections which are likely to have major implications.

In relation to paragraph 5.23, we understand that there is a proposal to extend the current Nottinghamshire recycling input specification to that proposed in the Environment Act. If this is confirmed there is likely to be a significant increase in recycling and composting volumes. Should there have been an additional scenario with a target above the national target?

Paragraph 7.10 could be expanded to cover the suitability of private road surfaces for waste vehicles to access properties (particularly for any assisted collections, which may be required in the future).

In relation to the development management section:

• The reference to bottle banks in 8.11 is only relevant to areas without a kerbside collection (which will cover all areas once the Environment Act is rolled out);

• The text that relates to Policy DM1 (and maybe 8.27) ought to make reference to persistent organic pollutants (POPs) and their specific processing and disposal requirements.

Modification
Policy SP4 (Part 3) – remove “where appropriate”.

Comments on behalf of Nottingham Friends of the Earth

1) The Waste Needs Assessment is not legally compliant or sound. In particular it fails to comply with the targets set out in the Environmental Targets (Residual Waste) (England) Regulations 2023, the Waste (Circular Economy) (Amendment) Regulations 2020 and the Environmental Improvement Plan (EIP) (2023). These aim to halve residual waste per person by 2042 (and reduce residual municipal waste per person by 29% by 2027), and to increase the recycling target from 50% to 65% by 2035. The Assessment should be revised to comply with up-to-date regulations.

This particularly relates to:

s2.3 Supporting Documents – Waste Needs Assessment

s5.23 Updated scenarios for Local Authoirty Collected Waste
s5.25 Table 1 Summary of forecasted LACW arisings
s5.29 Table 2 Summary of forecasted C&I arisings

2) Now that a 65% re-use and recycling target for municipal waste has been adopted for 2035 (Waste (Circular Economy) (Amendment) Regulations 2020 s11(a)(ii)):

s3.16 (EU Circular Economy Action Plan) is not legally compliant or sound in failing to note that the circular economy measures, including a target of 65%, were adopted in UK legislation in 2020.

s5.41 (Table 7. Recycling scenarios for LACW) is not sound in failing to require facilities to support the 65% target. 65% recycling should be considered as the 'low' recycling scenario, not the 'high' scenario, with perhaps 70% and 75% considered as higher options (which should be achievable).

3) References to the Circular Economy should more clearly support the targets in the government's Resources and Waste Strategy 2018, particularly to minimise residual waste. More emphasis should be given to facilities for re-use as well as separate collection of materials which can be recycled, and monitoring composition of waste to inform progressive reduction of residual waste.

s2.1 (Scope) is not sound in failing to include facilities for re-use as well as “recycling and waste”.

Appendix 1 (Monitoring and Implementation) SP2 – Future Waste Management Provision) should be more proactive in requiring waste compositions to be monitored.

4) References to "energy from waste" should recognise government policy that incineration should not displace facilities higher up the waste hierarchy. (See Defra statement, 11 July 2022: “The Government’s view is that Energy from Waste (EfW) should not compete with greater waste prevention, re-use, or recycling. Proposed new plants must not result in an over-capacity of EfW waste treatment provision at a local or national level.”) Also see the recent report by UK Without Incineration Network: (https://ukwin.org.uk/overcapacity/) which demonstrates that there is already a problem of overcapacity in the UK, including in the East Midlands.

s5.47 & s5.48 (Table 11: Capacity Gap Analysis) are not sound in failing to allow for targeted reductions in residual waste and the need to avoid overcapacity of energy from waste (incineration).

s7.13 (Policy SP2 – Future Waste Management Provision) is not sound in failing to ensure that “energy recovery facilities” will not prejudice achievement of residual waste reduction targets (which could be added to 1.b)i) and will not result in an over-capacity of EfW waste treatment provision at a local or regional level (which could be added as a new clause).

s7.49 (Policy SP6 – Sustainable movement of waste) is not sound in relation to importing waste from outside Nottinghamshire in not requiring all conditions to be met. The word “or” at the end of clauses 2a) and 2b) should be replaced by “and”.

5) The Plan should more clearly recognise that Anaerobic Digestion should not be considered (as "energy from waste") on the same level as incineration. (Unlike combustion, AD allows recycling of organic materials - liquid and solid - as well as generating energy, and Defra guidance on the waste hierarchy recognises this, at least for food waste.)

s7.15 – footnote 5 (Justification for Policy SP2 – Future Waste Management Provision) should note that Defra Guidance on applying the Waste Hierarchy (June 2011) indicates that Anaerobic Digestion should be considered on the same level as Recycling for some materials, particularly food waste.

6) References to energy recovery as "low carbon" should be deleted, or at least amended to make clear that burning plastic does not produce low carbon energy:

s7.6 (Introduction to Strategic Policies) is not sound in failing to include reference to the risk to climate change associated with burning plastics.

s7.47 (Justification for Policy SP5 – Climate Change) is not sound in failing to acknowledge that burning plastic is not low carbon.

Dear Sirs,

I submit my comments on the local plan which I feel lacks ambition and does not go far enough to meet the present legislation and targets.

1) The Waste Needs Assessment is not legally compliant or sound. In particular it fails to comply with the targets set out in the Environmental Targets (Residual Waste) (England) Regulations 2023, the Waste (Circular Economy) (Amendment) Regulations 2020 and the Environmental Improvement Plan (EIP) (2023). These aim to halve residual waste per person by 2042 (and reduce residual municipal waste per person by 29% by 2027), and to increase the recycling target from 50% to 65% by 2035. The Assessment should be revised to comply with up-to-date regulations.

This particularly relates to:
s2.3 Supporting Documents – Waste Needs Assessment
s5.23 Updated scenarios for Local Authoirty Collected Waste

s5.25 Table 1 Summary of forecasted LACW arisings

s5.29 Table 2 Summary of forecasted C&I arisings

2) Now that a 65% re-use and recycling target for municipal waste has been adopted for 2035 (Waste (Circular Economy) (Amendment) Regulations 2020 s11(a)(ii)):
s3.16 (EU Circular Economy Action Plan) is not legally compliant or sound in failing to note that the circular economy measures, including a target of 65%, were adopted in UK legislation in 2020.
s5.41 (Table 7. Recycling scenarios for LACW) is not sound in failing to require facilities to support the 65% target. 65% recycling should be considered as the 'low' recycling scenario, not the 'high' scenario, with perhaps 70% and 75% considered as higher options (which should be achievable).

3) References to the Circular Economy should more clearly support the targets in the government's Resources and Waste Strategy 2018, particularly to minimise residual
waste. More emphasis should be given to facilities for re-use as well as separate collection of materials which can be recycled, and monitoring composition of waste to inform progressive reduction of residual waste.
s2.1 (Scope) is not sound in failing to include facilities for re-use as well as “recycling and waste”.
Appendix 1 (Monitoring and Implementation) SP2 – Future Waste Management Provision) should be more proactive in requiring waste compositions to be monitored.

4) References to "energy from waste" should recognise government policy that incineration should not displace facilities higher up the waste hierarchy. (See Defra statement, 11 July 2022: “The Government’s view is that Energy from Waste (EfW) should not compete with greater waste prevention, re-use, or recycling. Proposed new plants must not result in an over-capacity of EfW waste treatment provision at a local or national level.”) Also see the recent report by UK Without Incineration Network:
(https://ukwin.org.uk/overcapacity/) which demonstrates that there is already a problem of overcapacity in the UK, including in the East Midlands.
s5.47 & s5.48 (Table 11: Capacity Gap Analysis) are not sound in failing to allow for targeted reductions in residual waste and the need to avoid overcapacity of energy from
waste (incineration).
s7.13 (Policy SP2 – Future Waste Management Provision) is not sound in failing to ensure that “energy recovery facilities” will not prejudice achievement of residual waste reduction targets (which could be added to 1.b)i) and will not result in an over-capacity of EfW waste treatment provision at a local or regional level (which could be added as a new clause).
s7.49 (Policy SP6 – Sustainable movement of waste) is not sound in relation to importing waste from outside Nottinghamshire in not requiring all conditions to be met. The word “or” at the end of clauses 2a) and 2b) should be replaced by “and”.

5) The Plan should more clearly recognise that Anaerobic Digestion should not be considered (as "energy from waste") on the same level as incineration. (Unlike combustion, AD allows recycling of organic materials - liquid and solid - as well as generating energy, and Defra guidance on the waste hierarchy recognises this, at least for food waste.)
s7.15 – footnote 5 (Justification for Policy SP2 – Future Waste Management Provision) should note that Defra Guidance on applying the Waste Hierarchy (June 2011) indicates that Anaerobic Digestion should be considered on the same level as Recycling for some materials, particularly food waste.

6) References to energy recovery as "low carbon" should be deleted, or at least amended to make clear that burning plastic does not produce low carbon energy:
s7.6 (Introduction to Strategic Policies) is not sound in failing to include reference to the risk to climate change associated with burning plastics.
s7.47 (Justification for Policy SP5 – Climate Change) is not sound in failing to acknowledge that burning plastic is not low carbon