SP4 – Managing Residual Waste

Many thanks for the opportunity to comment on the new Pre-Submission Draft version Nottinghamshire and Nottingham Waste Local Plan.
In order to facilitate the consultation process, we have responded to your questions in this letter of response. This represents the response of Leicestershire County Council.
1. Is the plan legally compliant?
Issues to consider before making a representation on legal compliance include:
• Has the Local Plan followed the key stages as set out in the authorities’ Local Development Scheme?
No comment
• Is the Local Plan in general accordance with the authorities’ Statement of Community Involvement?
No comment
• Has the authority prepared a Sustainability Appraisal?
No comment
• Does the Local Plan comply with all other relevant requirements of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012, as amended?
No comment

2. Is the plan considered ‘sound’ namely that it is:
• 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.
Agree - The policy states that the Councils will maintain a close dialogue with other East Midlands and surrounding WPAs to ensure that waste can continue to be managed as sustainably as possible. Paragraph 7.53 states that they will work with neighbouring authorities and applicants to understand the overall level and type of waste management provision.
• Justified – an appropriate strategy, taking into account the reasonable alternatives, and based on proportionate evidence.
Agree - The plan contains several scenarios for forecasting future waste arisings in the plan area. A Waste Needs Assessment has been completed by specialist consultants (AECOM). It considers a range of different growth scenarios for each of the main waste streams in line with national policy and guidance on forecasting future waste arisings. These scenarios include:
• Forecasting LACW arisings. Scenarios include a high rate of decline, low rate of decline and no change.
• Forecasting commercial and industrial waste arisings. Scenarios include no change, medium growth and high growth.
• Forecasting CD&E arisings. This includes only one, no change scenario.
• Future hazardous waste arisings are based on extrapolating historic time series data.
• 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.
Agree – The plan references sustainable movement of waste and policy SP6 states that waste management proposals which are likely to treat, manage or dispose of waste from areas outside Nottinghamshire and Nottingham will be permitted where they demonstrate that:
a) The facility makes a significant contribution to the movement of waste up the waste hierarchy; or
b) There are no facilities or potential sites in more sustainable locations in relation to the anticipated source of the identified waste stream; or
c) There are wider social, economic or environmental sustainability benefits that clearly support the proposal.
It’s noted in the document that the Waste Local Plan takes a pragmatic approach which aims to provide sufficient capacity to manage the equivalent of Nottingham and Nottinghamshire own waste arisings whilst allowing for appropriate cross-border movements of waste.
The policy advises WPAs to work jointly and collaboratively with other planning authorities including on issues of cross boundary movements and any national need.
There is some concern that landfill capacity for LACW and C&I waste is effectively exhausted and that this type of waste could spill over into Leicestershire's disposal routes. Paragraph 7.38 states that the lack of suitable disposal sites within the Plan area may mean that residual hazardous and non-hazardous waste will be managed at the nearest available site but not necessarily within the Plan area. However, it is stated in paragraph 7.39 that the Councils will therefore maintain a close dialogue with other East Midlands and surrounding WPAs to ensure that waste can continue to be managed as sustainably as possible.
• Consistent with national policy – enabling the delivery of sustainable development in accordance with the policies in the NPPF.
Agree - The plan makes reference to the National Planning Policy for Waste (NPPW) 2014 which sits alongside the NPPF. Specific points from the NPPW are copied below and commented on in respect to the plan:
• Identify sufficient opportunities to meet the identified needs of their area for the management of waste, based on robust analysis of best available data and information.
A Waste Needs Assessment was completed by specialist consultants (AECOM). The assessment looked at existing waste management capacity within the plan area and makes specific recommendations as to whether additional facilities are likely to be needed. This appears to be thorough. There are some concerns that landfill capacity for LACW and C&I waste is effectively exhausted. It is noted that the Plan contains a criteria-based policy on landfill provision.
• Ensure waste is managed as high up the waste hierarchy as possible recognising the need for a mix of types and scale of facilities.
Agree that this is covered in the plan. Policy SP1- Waste prevention and re-use. It is recognised that it is important that waste is managed as sustainably as possible. The waste hierarchy, the circular economy and the need to seek to minimise the environmental and economic impact of waste management within the Plan area have been considered. The proximity principle has also been considered as paragraph 7.19 states that ‘as set out in our vision, we want to promote a pattern of appropriately sized waste management facilities in the areas where they are most needed - i.e., close to where most waste is likely to be produced...’ However, paragraph 7.49 states that the proximity principle does not require use of the closest facility to the exclusion of all other considerations. In some cases, it may make economic and environmental sense for waste to be managed at a facility in a neighbouring county, if this is closer or means that waste will be managed further up the waste hierarchy.
In regards to recognising the need for a mix of types and scale of facilities. Paragraph 7.23 states ‘A mix of facilities of different sizes/scales is likely to be required to provide the right provision of capacity in the plan area, proposals will need to ensure that the size of the facility is appropriate to its location...’
• Work jointly and collaboratively with other planning authorities including on issues of cross boundary movements and any national need.
Agree – the plan states that the Councils will maintain a close dialogue with other East Midlands and surrounding WPAs to ensure that waste can continue to be managed as sustainably as possible. Paragraph 7.53 states that they will work with neighbouring authorities and applicants to understand the overall level and type of waste management provision.
Leicestershire County Council continue to work collaboratively with Nottingham City Council and Nottinghamshire County Council in relation to strategic issues through various forums and also in relation to the Plan.
• Take into account the need for a limited number of facilities for disposal of residual waste which may arise in more than one waste planning authority area.
Agree – This is recognised in paragraph 7.40. Although the scope to provide hazardous or non-hazardous disposal capacity within the plan area is thought to be extremely limited, due to the underlying geology of the area and wider environmental constraints, it is important that the Plan includes relevant policies to deal with such proposals should these come forward. Part (2) of Policy SP4 (copied below) will therefore apply to any proposals for new landfill sites for hazardous or non-hazardous waste including the extension of, or alterations to, existing, unrestored sites. As there is sufficient waste treatment capacity within the plan area to meet expected future needs, disposal is expected to be a last resort in accordance with the waste hierarchy.
Part (2) of Policy SP4:
2. Proposals for the disposal of non-hazardous or hazardous waste to land will not be permitted unless it can be demonstrated that:
a) There is an overriding need for additional disposal capacity which cannot be met at existing permitted sites.
b) The waste cannot practicably and reasonably be re-used, recycled, recovered or processed in any other way.
• Undertake early and meaningful engagement with local communities, recognising that proposals for waste management facilities such as incinerators can be controversial
Agree – Consideration has been given to the health and wellbeing of local communities. This can be seen in policy DM2 where any potential adverse impacts on health, wellbeing and amenity arising from the construction, operation and, where relevant, restoration phase and any associated transport movements, are avoided or adequately mitigated to an acceptable level.
You will recall that we have previously commented upon the Plan and evidence base and thank you for the continued commitment to work with us on our comments. We thank you for taking these into consideration.

Many thanks for the opportunity to comment on the new Pre-Submission Draft version Nottinghamshire and Nottingham Waste Local Plan.
In order to facilitate the consultation process, we have responded to your questions in this letter of response. This represents the response of Leicestershire County Council.
1. Is the plan legally compliant?
Issues to consider before making a representation on legal compliance include:
• Has the Local Plan followed the key stages as set out in the authorities’ Local Development Scheme?
No comment
• Is the Local Plan in general accordance with the authorities’ Statement of Community Involvement?
No comment
• Has the authority prepared a Sustainability Appraisal?
No comment
• Does the Local Plan comply with all other relevant requirements of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012, as amended?
No comment

2. Is the plan considered ‘sound’ namely that it is:
• 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.
Agree - The policy states that the Councils will maintain a close dialogue with other East Midlands and surrounding WPAs to ensure that waste can continue to be managed as sustainably as possible. Paragraph 7.53 states that they will work with neighbouring authorities and applicants to understand the overall level and type of waste management provision.
• Justified – an appropriate strategy, taking into account the reasonable alternatives, and based on proportionate evidence.
Agree - The plan contains several scenarios for forecasting future waste arisings in the plan area. A Waste Needs Assessment has been completed by specialist consultants (AECOM). It considers a range of different growth scenarios for each of the main waste streams in line with national policy and guidance on forecasting future waste arisings. These scenarios include:
• Forecasting LACW arisings. Scenarios include a high rate of decline, low rate of decline and no change.
• Forecasting commercial and industrial waste arisings. Scenarios include no change, medium growth and high growth.
• Forecasting CD&E arisings. This includes only one, no change scenario.
• Future hazardous waste arisings are based on extrapolating historic time series data.
• 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.
Agree – The plan references sustainable movement of waste and policy SP6 states that waste management proposals which are likely to treat, manage or dispose of waste from areas outside Nottinghamshire and Nottingham will be permitted where they demonstrate that:
a) The facility makes a significant contribution to the movement of waste up the waste hierarchy; or
b) There are no facilities or potential sites in more sustainable locations in relation to the anticipated source of the identified waste stream; or
c) There are wider social, economic or environmental sustainability benefits that clearly support the proposal.
It’s noted in the document that the Waste Local Plan takes a pragmatic approach which aims to provide sufficient capacity to manage the equivalent of Nottingham and Nottinghamshire own waste arisings whilst allowing for appropriate cross-border movements of waste.
The policy advises WPAs to work jointly and collaboratively with other planning authorities including on issues of cross boundary movements and any national need.
There is some concern that landfill capacity for LACW and C&I waste is effectively exhausted and that this type of waste could spill over into Leicestershire's disposal routes. Paragraph 7.38 states that the lack of suitable disposal sites within the Plan area may mean that residual hazardous and non-hazardous waste will be managed at the nearest available site but not necessarily within the Plan area. However, it is stated in paragraph 7.39 that the Councils will therefore maintain a close dialogue with other East Midlands and surrounding WPAs to ensure that waste can continue to be managed as sustainably as possible.
• Consistent with national policy – enabling the delivery of sustainable development in accordance with the policies in the NPPF.
Agree - The plan makes reference to the National Planning Policy for Waste (NPPW) 2014 which sits alongside the NPPF. Specific points from the NPPW are copied below and commented on in respect to the plan:
• Identify sufficient opportunities to meet the identified needs of their area for the management of waste, based on robust analysis of best available data and information.
A Waste Needs Assessment was completed by specialist consultants (AECOM). The assessment looked at existing waste management capacity within the plan area and makes specific recommendations as to whether additional facilities are likely to be needed. This appears to be thorough. There are some concerns that landfill capacity for LACW and C&I waste is effectively exhausted. It is noted that the Plan contains a criteria-based policy on landfill provision.
• Ensure waste is managed as high up the waste hierarchy as possible recognising the need for a mix of types and scale of facilities.
Agree that this is covered in the plan. Policy SP1- Waste prevention and re-use. It is recognised that it is important that waste is managed as sustainably as possible. The waste hierarchy, the circular economy and the need to seek to minimise the environmental and economic impact of waste management within the Plan area have been considered. The proximity principle has also been considered as paragraph 7.19 states that ‘as set out in our vision, we want to promote a pattern of appropriately sized waste management facilities in the areas where they are most needed - i.e., close to where most waste is likely to be produced...’ However, paragraph 7.49 states that the proximity principle does not require use of the closest facility to the exclusion of all other considerations. In some cases, it may make economic and environmental sense for waste to be managed at a facility in a neighbouring county, if this is closer or means that waste will be managed further up the waste hierarchy.
In regards to recognising the need for a mix of types and scale of facilities. Paragraph 7.23 states ‘A mix of facilities of different sizes/scales is likely to be required to provide the right provision of capacity in the plan area, proposals will need to ensure that the size of the facility is appropriate to its location...’
• Work jointly and collaboratively with other planning authorities including on issues of cross boundary movements and any national need.
Agree – the plan states that the Councils will maintain a close dialogue with other East Midlands and surrounding WPAs to ensure that waste can continue to be managed as sustainably as possible. Paragraph 7.53 states that they will work with neighbouring authorities and applicants to understand the overall level and type of waste management provision.
Leicestershire County Council continue to work collaboratively with Nottingham City Council and Nottinghamshire County Council in relation to strategic issues through various forums and also in relation to the Plan.
• Take into account the need for a limited number of facilities for disposal of residual waste which may arise in more than one waste planning authority area.
Agree – This is recognised in paragraph 7.40. Although the scope to provide hazardous or non-hazardous disposal capacity within the plan area is thought to be extremely limited, due to the underlying geology of the area and wider environmental constraints, it is important that the Plan includes relevant policies to deal with such proposals should these come forward. Part (2) of Policy SP4 (copied below) will therefore apply to any proposals for new landfill sites for hazardous or non-hazardous waste including the extension of, or alterations to, existing, unrestored sites. As there is sufficient waste treatment capacity within the plan area to meet expected future needs, disposal is expected to be a last resort in accordance with the waste hierarchy.
Part (2) of Policy SP4:
2. Proposals for the disposal of non-hazardous or hazardous waste to land will not be permitted unless it can be demonstrated that:
a) There is an overriding need for additional disposal capacity which cannot be met at existing permitted sites.
b) The waste cannot practicably and reasonably be re-used, recycled, recovered or processed in any other way.
• Undertake early and meaningful engagement with local communities, recognising that proposals for waste management facilities such as incinerators can be controversial
Agree – Consideration has been given to the health and wellbeing of local communities. This can be seen in policy DM2 where any potential adverse impacts on health, wellbeing and amenity arising from the construction, operation and, where relevant, restoration phase and any associated transport movements, are avoided or adequately mitigated to an acceptable level.
You will recall that we have previously commented upon the Plan and evidence base and thank you for the continued commitment to work with us on our comments. We thank you for taking these into consideration.

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

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”.

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

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”.

Policy SP4 is supported.

As such, we recommend that Draft Policy SP4 be re-worded to include direct reference to future mineral workings at point e) of section 1, as well as permitted mineral workings.

Secondly, we recommend that “or” be added between each sub-point of Draft Policy SP4. At present, the Draft Policy reads as though all of Point 1 sub-points a) to e) need to be satisfied, which we don’t believe is the intention of the Policy.

This letter has been prepared by Heatons on behalf of Tarmac Trading Limited (‘Tarmac’) with regard to the content and draft Policies set out within the Nottinghamshire and Nottingham Pre-Submission Draft Waste Local Plan (‘WLP’).
Tarmac is primarily a minerals operator, but has several operational sites located within Nottinghamshire. These representations seek to ensure that the draft waste development management policies of the WLP align with national policy and guidance. In particular, we seek to comment on the need to provide policy support for restoration of mineral sites using inert waste materials, where appropriate, and to consider the locational requirements of waste management facilities with regard to their co-location alongside minerals development.
We are concerned that the practice of successfully restoring quarries using imported waste materials will be prejudiced in the future, should the draft wording of policies within the Pre-Submission Draft WLP be adopted.
This letter seeks to provide recommendations for how the WLP can be brought into accordance with the objectives of national policy and guidance that support the recovery of waste through the restoration of mineral sites.
Recovery of Waste Through Restoration of Mineral Sites
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”.
The proactive utilisation of inert wastes materials as a resource in the backfilling of quarries is long-established industry practice across the UK. It constitutes a waste recovery process, rather than disposal. 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 as set out in National Planning Policy for Waste (2014).
With specific regard to draft policies of the WLP, Draft Policy SP4 ‘Managing Residual Waste’ refers to waste recovery in restoration of minerals sites. The Draft Policy states that:
“Proposals for the recovery of inert waste to land will be permitted where it can be demonstrated that:
… e) This will not prejudice the restoration of permitted mineral workings and landfill sites where applicable.”
At present, the wording of the Draft Policy sets a high bar of acceptability for recovery of inert waste to land, and does not expressly refer to the recovery of inert waste to land to achieve appropriate restoration at new mineral sites or at existing mineral sites with currently-unpermitted potential future extensions. This is inconsistent with the national policy and guidance already highlighted in this letter. We consider that flexibility should be added to the policy to reflect that inert waste recovery is frequently the most appropriate means to achieve high quality quarry restoration as required by NPPF paragraph 211(h). It is sometimes the only way that approved restoration schemes at existing mineral sites can be delivered as approved. It is not envisaged that a better alternative to use of inert waste will become viable over the WLP plan period to 2038.
It is notoriously unpredictable to accurately determine the volumes of overburden and soils that will become usable fill material in the restoration of mineral sites. Consequently, it is not uncommon for mineral sites to require imported inert waste due to shortfalls of material available from within the site.
The need to maximise biodiversity net gain is directly related to the need to provide flexibility to allow for the development of bespoke restoration schemes that are most appropriate for each quarry’s location and ecological objectives. Without policy flexibility that allows for inert waste recovery at mineral sites (permitted and as-yet-unpermitted), operators are likely to either struggle to deliver permitted approved restoration schemes or will struggle to offer the high-quality restoration required by NPPF. In many cases, it is preferable to deliver restoration landforms including shallow water to maximise biodiversity net gain and support protected species. Creation of optimum restoration landforms at both existing and future mineral sites is likely to require a degree of imported material, which could be difficult to achieve should the wording of Draft Policy SP4 be adopted.
As such, we recommend that Draft Policy SP4 be re-worded to include direct reference to future mineral workings at point e) of section 1, as well as permitted mineral workings.
3
Secondly, we recommend that “or” be added between each sub-point of Draft Policy SP4. At present, the Draft Policy reads as though all of Point 1 sub-points a) to e) need to be satisfied, which we don’t believe is the intention of the Policy.
It is important to note that ultimately the restoration schemes for mineral sites will continue to be determined on a case-by-case basis with due consideration of the merits of each bespoke restoration scheme. Our concern is that a lack of flexibility in the policies of the WLP will effectively result in a lack of policy support for new mineral operations with restoration schemes that require the importation of off-site waste materials in order to deliver final landforms that are most appropriate for the site’s ecology, landscape, and/or topography. Our suggested amendment to Draft Policy SP4 would not result in a presumption in favour of importing inert waste for restoration purposes at every quarry but would provide sufficient flexibility for operators that aim to deliver high-quality restoration schemes that cannot be achieved without imported fill material.
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 recommend that WLP Draft Policy SP4 be re-worded in order to achieve greater consistency with NPPW in relation to the waste hierarchy. We consider that the current wording of the Draft Policy does not offer due support to inert waste recovery at minerals sites.
We trust that these representations are of benefit to the Authority in refining the emerging WLP. Should any matters require clarification we would be delighted to assist.
Yours faithfully,

“1. Proposals for the recovery of inert waste to land will only be permitted where it can be demonstrated that:”

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.

Clause 3 we would recommend a reference to the need to protect the significance of heritage assets including their setting akin to other considerations which are included such as the natural environment.

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).