Table 11. Capacity Gap Analysis for HIC Waste Stream (tpa)

Table 11 should be updated to show that no more energy recovery capacity is required for the Plan area.

The principle that more Energy Recovery capacity is needed in the Plan area if there might be more ‘Energy Recovery’ feedstock produced than existing Energy Recovery in the Plan area is flawed. Net self-sufficiency ought to be considered on a broader basis, and the fact that Nottinghamshire has surplus recycling capacity - combined with the high level of incineration capacity in neighbouring authorities and the UK Government’s warnings against incineration overcapacity - should justify not supporting any more energy recovery capacity in the Plan area.

Note: We are challenging the soundness relating to this consultation point.

As previously stated EfW should be a separate category as it is lower down the waste hierarchy than Other recovery such as AD. Energy recovery and Other recovery should not be conflated into one category when they are potentially in very different levels of the waste hierarchy. The capacity deficit by 2038 is only 180,494 (126,825 + 53,669) tonnes per annum (tpa) so if waste per person was reduced slightly more than predicted or recycling rates increased (capacity here is +160,284 in 2038) or AD capacity increased for food waste collections, there would be no deficit. Yet NCC has already passed plans for increased EfW capacity of 892,100tpa. Absolute madness and against UK guidelines to avoid overcapacity of EfW either locally and/or nationally

I disagree with the predicted figures for waste arisings in the various categories for the reasons given previously. I think they will/should all be lower than estimated due to reduced waste per household and higher recycling/composting/AD. The assumption that Energy recovery is purely EfW incineration is contradictory to previous parts of the plan where it is defined as Energy recovery and Other recovery combined. This exaggerates the need for greater capacity for incineration (EfW) in the future and doesn't provide for increased capacity for Other recovery facilities (including anaerobic digestion - AD),

Comments on behalf of Nottingham Friends of the Earth

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

This particularly relates to:

s2.3 Supporting Documents – Waste Needs Assessment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dear Sirs,

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

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

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

s5.25 Table 1 Summary of forecasted LACW arisings

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

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

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

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

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

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