SP6 – Sustainable movement of 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.

Support Policy SP6.

Please see the representation attached

The word “or” at the end of clauses 2a) and 2b) should be replaced by “and”.

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.

The word “or”
at the end of clauses 2a) and 2b) should be replaced by “and”.

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