SP2 - Future Waste Management Provision

I totally agree with these aims and therefore ask that the provision of the extra 892,100tpa capacity for EfW incineration be urgently reviewed as it will not be needed and will therefore require that waste which would otherwise be moved higher up the waste hierarchy be incinerated instead. This is contrary not only to national policy but also to the waste local plan policy noted in this section 1bi.

Supported.

1.0 Introduction
1.1 Thank you for providing an opportunity for Newark and Sherwood District Council (NSDC) to make a representation on the Nottingham and Nottinghamshire Pre-submission Draft Waste Local Plan. In submitting this representation NSDC understands that this consultation provides an opportunity for final representations prior to Nottinghamshire County Council and Nottingham City Council submitting the plan for examination (known as
the Regulation 19 stage) and so is a formal consultation. These representations therefore focus on issues of legal compliance, compliance with duty to co-operate and soundness.

2.0 Legal Compliance

2.1 Newark and Sherwood District Council is satisfied that the Nottingham and Nottinghamshire Pre-submission Draft Waste Local Plan (2023) is legally compliant in that it
is included in the Local Development Scheme (LDS); it is in general accordance with the Statement of Common Ground (SCI); it has been subject to a Sustainability Appraisal which identifies the process by which SA has been carried out, and the baseline information used to
inform the process and the outcomes of that process; and it complies with the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, as amended, and with all other relevant requirements of the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012, as amended [the
Regulations].

3.0 Soundness

3.1 The four tests of soundness are set out in paragraph 35 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). Plans are sound if they are:
• Positively prepared – providing a strategy which, as a minimum seeks to meet the area’s objectively assessed needs, and is informed by agreements with other authorities, so that unmet need from neighbouring authorities is accommodated where it is practical to do so
and is consistent with achieving sustainable development;
• Justified – an appropriate strategy, taking into account the reasonable alternatives, and based on proportionate evidence;
• Effective - deliverable over the plan period and based on effective joint working on cross boundary strategic matters that have been dealt with rather than deferred, as evidenced by the statement of common ground; and
• Consistent with national policy – enabling the delivery of sustainable development in accordance with the policies in the NPPF.

3.2 NSDC has reviewed the Pre-submission Waste Local Plan and would like to raise the following issues in relation to whether it meets the tests of soundness:
Paragraph 5.32
Comment:
The Waste Needs Assessment concludes that there is no evidence to suggest an increase in future Construction, Demolition & Excavation (CD&E) waste arisings. The only major construction project considered potentially likely to have a significant impact on CD&E generations rates during the plan period is Phase 2b of high-speed railway HS2, with the eastern leg terminating just inside the boundary of Nottinghamshire.

Whilst we acknowledge that the Waste Needs Assessment1 (WNA), undertaken by Aecom, takes into consideration the majority of major development in and around Newark and Sherwood District, it does not mention the Southern Link Road2 (a strategic road linking the
A46 to the A1 to the south of Newark which is due for completion by winter 2025), and improvements to the A1 Overbridge at Fernwood (planned to commence by 2033). It also does not mention the two large urban extensions to the south of Newark which are planned to deliver in excess of 6000 new homes plus associated infrastructure and a combined total of 65 hectares of new employment (some of which has commenced). NSDC would question whether the last sentence in paragraph 3.63 of the WNA is accurate. It reads: ‘The schemes, given their nature, will be unlikely to generate significant waste arisings.’
Paragraph 3.63 of the WNA reads as follows:
‘Research has been undertaken to identify any major infrastructure projects scheduled to take place in the plan area within the plan period (i.e. until 2038). The 2016 National Infrastructure Plan identified two infrastructure schemes for Nottinghamshire; the Midland Mainline
electrification (MME) programme estimated to start in 2019 and the A1/A46 junction improvements near Newark estimated to start between 2020 and 2025. However, in July 2017 the Department for Transport announced that the MME from Kettering to Leicester, Derby and Nottingham has been cancelled. The A1/A46 junction improvements have also been put back to around 2027. Another National project which is partly within Nottinghamshire is the High-Speed 2 Rail line (HS2). In November 2021 the Government announced in order to
integrate HS2 with other rail projects, including the Northern Powerhouse Rail and Midlands Rail Hub, the new high speed line will now run from Birmingham to the existing East Midlands Parkway station, which is just inside the County’s south-western border. From there trains will continue to central Nottingham, Derby and Sheffield on an upgraded and electrified Midland
Mainline. There is no date set for the start of construction at present. At this stage it is difficult to quantify the amount of waste arisings resulting from the section in Nottinghamshire, but it is unlikely to be significant. Improvements to the A614/ A6097 Junctions and the A46 Newark bypass are other projects proposed within Nottinghamshire but still await formal approval
and commencement. The schemes, given their nature, will be unlikely to generate significant waste arisings.
Timetable of works for schemes in Newark and Sherwood District The following table sets out the timetable of planned works for each large scheme:
Table 1. Major infrastructure and development schemes in Newark and Sherwood District
Infrastructure Project Proposed
Commencement
Proposed Completion
A46 Newark Bypass Winter 2025 2028
Southern Link Road,
Middlebeck, Newark
Summer 2023 Summer 2025
A1 Over bridge, Fernwood, Nr.
Newark
TBC (prior to 2033) Prior to 2038
A614/A6097 Improvement
Scheme
Spring 2024 Winter 2026/27
Middlebeck Urban Extension (3150
dwellings, a mixed use commercial
estate of up to 50 hectares)
Commenced Beyond 2033
Fernwood Urban extension (3200
dwellings, Employment
development (15 hectares))
Commenced Beyond 2033
Thorsby Vale, Edwinstowe up to
800 new homes, a primary school,
and commercial and leisure
development.
Commenced Beyond 2033

If the WNA is inaccurate in its assessment of requirements for construction waste it is likely to result in the Plan being found to be unsound on all four elements of the test of soundness: it will not have been positively prepared, it won’t be justified or effective, and it will not
comply with national policy.

Policy SP4 Residual Waste Management
Comment:
Given that this policy relates to waste at the bottom of the waste hierarchy, in order for it to be effective, we feel that it should be negatively worded by adding ‘only’ as follows:
“Proposals for the recovery of inert waste to land will only be permitted where it can be demonstrated that:”
Recommended Change:
Policy SP4
“1. Proposals for the recovery of inert waste to land will only be permitted where it can be demonstrated that:”

Policy SP8 Safeguarding Waste Management Sites
Comment:
In order to ensure it is positively prepared and consistent with national policy, it is recommended that part 4 of this policy is amended to require an agreement with the water
company. It currently reads as follows:
‘4. Where proposals are within the Cordon Sanitaire of a wastewater treatment facility, the applicant will need to discuss the proposal with the water company which operates the site.’
Suggested change:
‘4. Where proposals are within the Cordon Sanitaire of a wastewater treatment facility, the applicant will need to discuss the proposal with the water company which operates the site and demonstrate that they have no objections which cannot be appropriately mitigated.’

4.0 General Comments

Chapter 4
Comment:
As stated in our previous representations, it would also be useful to highlight that between the main towns and ‘small villages’ a number relatively large towns and villages exist across the County, for example Ollerton and Southwell. This is a particular issue when considering how to plan the provision of services (including waste) in rural areas.

Paragraph 5.42
Comment:
The reconfirmed commitment to a target of a 65% recycling rate for Local Authority Collected Waste is welcomed.

Paragraph 5.43
Comment:
The commitment to a target of an 80% by 2038 recycling rate for C&I waste is welcomed.

Paragraph 5.45
Comment:
The commitment to a target of a 95% recycling / recovery rate for CD&E waste is welcomed.

Paragraph 5.52 / Lack of Site Allocations
Comment:
Whilst it is acknowledged that very few sites were put forward during the two previous Call for Sites exercises, there could be a range of reasons why this was the case, not least because one was conducted during the Covid-19 pandemic when there was great uncertainty for businesses. There is no detailed evidence regarding the call for sites / site assessments, so it is difficult to determine what sites are available. Pro-active consultation should continue to take place with the waste industry and landowners in order to identify a range of potential
sites for allocation as part of the future review of the Waste Plan. The District Council would welcome the opportunity for cooperation between the two Authorities through that future review, with the potential for positive assistance to be given in the identification and delivery
of appropriate land to meet the waste needs of Newark & Sherwood District.

Policy SP2 Future Waste Management Provision
Comment:
Whilst the positive approach to facilities which help to move waste management up the waste hierarchy is welcomed, it would be helpful if Policy SP2 set out clearly and precisely what the identified waste management needs for the plan area are over the plan period.

Policy SP3 Broad Locations for New Waste Treatment Facilities
Comment:
Whilst it is appreciated that the Waste Local Plan needs to be read and considered as a whole, it is considered that it would be helpful if this policy could cross reference to Policy DM1, to provide a more comprehensive approach to the types of locations where new waste management development might be acceptable.

Policy SP5 Climate Change and Policy DM3 Design of Waste Management Facilities
Comment:
NSDC welcome these policies which emphasise the need for development proposals to be located, designed and operated in a way which minimises any impacts on climate change.

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).

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.

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).

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

There should be a reference that new facilities will be approved in line with other policies in the Plan.

Our specific comments are attached in Table 1, appended to this letter.
Many thanks for the opportunity to comment on this Regulation 19 Pre-Submission version of the Nottingham City and Nottinghamshire Waste Plan, October 2023. We would like to refer you back to the comments that Historic England raised during the Regulation 18 consultation in April 2022, as largely they remain relevant.
Unfortunately, we do not consider that the Waste Plan has set out a positive strategy for the historic environment, as required by paragraph 190 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).
There are a number of questions that we have raised in our consultation response about the potential impacts/harm for the significance of the historic environment, heritage assets and their setting.
Whilst we welcome the inclusion of a specific historic environment policy, and we consider this essential, we have raised a number of concerns about specific wording issues and policy areas that are absent from inclusion.
Further, there are a number of policy areas discussed within the Plan where there is the potential for harm to the historic environment and yet there is little or no detail on how this harm can be avoided or mitigated or what measures are required in order to assess the harm. As such we find that these policy areas are not legally compliant or effective.

We would be happy to discuss these issues with the Council and consider appropriate wording that could be included within the Plan to overcome these issues and are available to enter into a Statement of Common Ground if the Councils consider this is an appropriate way forward.

If you have any questions, please contact us.

(Please see attached for table and full representation).

I am a member of Lowdham Parish Council. Our clerk forwarded the plan to our members.

You are asking us to say if the plan is legally compliant and if it is "sound". I don't have the expertise to answer the question on legality.

Under "sound" you use the expression "sustainable development". I find that expression ambiguous. (If you launch a business producing tobacco and it flourishes, then that enterprise is sustained. So is that sustainable development? However, that isn't what we are looking for. We want an outcome that benefits, or at least doesn't harm, people, future populations or the biosphere.)

I prefer the words "sustainable" or "sustainability" which are defined as meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.

Nowhere in the Waste Local Plan could I find discussion of the waste that gets recycled or the waste that doesn't get recycled. And I think that these materials should be considered.

For example:

Paper and cardboard
The recycling of these materials is going fine, as far as I can tell.

Steel cans
Likewise.

Plastic
This recycling isn't going well, either in Nottinghamshire or across the country or across the world. The City and County Council, the district councils and other local authorities and, indeed citizens, should be pressuring national government to take action and to get together with other governments to regulate, internationally, the production, reuse and recycling of all plastic products.
A great deal of plastic waste ends up in rivers, seas and oceans. It is swallowed by sea animals, fish and sea birds- and they die. It breaks up into microplastics too small to be seen, which have been found in human blood and mothers' milk. This is a problem that ranks with the climate and biosphere emergencies and it needs to be dealt with.
Single use pieces of plastics (some of which I enclose*) are used by the food industry, but also by other industries. A huge percentage ends up in the environment and they should be banned as soon as possible. They are a large part of the problem. Plastic drink bottles are a menace because many of them are not recycled.
(The women pictured on the front of your report, emptying six or more plastic milk bottles into a skip at a recycling centre is a paragon of recycling. But will her bottles be landfilled or incinerated or actually recycled?)

Aluminium
This is another problem material. Newark and Sherwood District Council would have us deposit foil (aluminium) food trays in their green coloured waste bins, presumably for landfill or incineration. (I don't know what happens with other district councils.) This is wrong. Clean aluminium is eminently recyclable.

Single use vapes
In the last two years single use vapes have become a problem so far as recycling is concerned. Vape batteries contain lithium, aluminium, steel, copper and plastics which can all be recycled. The casing is made of either of glass or solid plastic. The lithium is needed for electric car batteries.
Single use vapes are marketed as disposable so at least a million a week are being binned and sent to landfill or incineration. The lithium batteries can do and do catch fire if they are crushed. I believe the producers, importers and retailers should collect used vapes and arrange for them to be recycled. I enclose the "Guardian" report on single-use vapes (please see attachment).

Tetrapaks
This is an example of a wealthy company benefiting at the expense of the environment. Tetrapaks are ideal containers for liquid foods; not better than glass containers, but lighter. They are cardboard, plastic and aluminium welded together- impossible to separate at home for recycling. Many are thrown away; a small proportion can be left by consumers at dedicated collection points which are too far away for many communities; which are then transported to Halifax to be recycled. This scheme is paid for by the company.
This isn't good enough. All tetrapaks should be collected kerbside and recycled at the company's expense. But it is for the government to make this happen.

Overall, I believe that our recycling service is not nearly as good as it should be. We should be aiming to reuse or recycle 100% of waste. Materials that can't be reused or recycled should not be produced. This is a government responsibility, but we all have to pressurise the government. Single use plastics should be banned. The plastics situation should be brought under control, locally, nationally and internationally. Similarly, we should get a grip on single use vapes.

Please note that landfill emits methane, a greenhouse gas. If it's collected, presumably it will be burned, resulting in carbon dioxide, another greenhouse gas. Incinerators emit carbon dioxide. Both methods of disposal should be avoided.

This response is my own, However, it may or may not be endorsed by Lowdham Parish Council.

NB I also enclose advice for Lowdham on how to recycle. (Please see attachment).
* How are these different kinds of waste recycled?