Nottinghamshire and Nottingham Draft Waste Local Plan January 2022

Submission on behalf of Tarmac Trading Ltd
Introduction
Heatons have been instructed by our clients, Tarmac Trading Limited (‘Tarmac’), to prepare and submit a formal representation to the above consultation. As set out in national planning policy, Nottinghamshire as the Waste Planning Authority (WPA) are required to consider opportunities for co-location of waste management facilities.
Primarily a mineral operator, Tarmac have several operational sites located within Nottinghamshire. The representations seek to ensure that the proposed waste development management policies are both consistent with the locational requirements of inert and aggregate waste management facilities and recognise their value in supporting/co locating with minerals development. The representations also support the draft Waste Local Plan’s approach to biodiversity net gain.
Planning Policy Context
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’.
Chapter 4 of the National Planning Policy for Waste (NPPW) (2014) sets out the locational criteria to be
used when identifying sites for new or enhanced waste management facilities. Bullet point 4 of chapter 4 requires waste planning authorities to ‘consider a broad range of locations including industrial sites, looking for opportunities to co-locate waste management facilities together and with complementary activities’ (emphasis added).
Waste should be managed with due regard to the ‘Waste Hierarchy’ set out in Appendix A of the NPPW and included below.
Figure 1: Waste Hierarchy (NPPW)
The Waste Hierarchy ranks waste management options according to what is best for the environment. It gives top priority to preventing waste in the first place. However, when waste is created, it gives priority to preparing it for re-use, then recycling, then recovery, and last of all disposal.
Benefits of inert waste restoration
As defined by the Environment Agency (2022) inert waste is ‘waste that does not undergo any significant physical, chemical or biological transformations’. Inert waste can form several functions, such as landscaping, screening or engineering material, as well as material for backfilling in quarry restoration schemes.
The use of inert waste for backfilling as part of quarry restoration constitutes a waste recovery process. 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.
Benefits of co-location
The co-location of facilities for managing waste within minerals sites is beneficial for social, environmental and economic reasons. Draft policy SP5 (Climate Change) states that ‘all new or extended waste management facilities should be located, designed and operated so as to minimise any potential impacts on climate change. Co-location enables the facilities to utilise existing site infrastructure and existing transport infrastructure. It also reduces the likely environmental and amenity based impacts of both developments buy placing them within the same site, albeit recognising any potential cumulative impacts.
In light of the above, we seek to ensure that draft policy DM1 – ‘General Site Criteria’ of the draft plan supports the long-term need for inert waste recovery within minerals sites. Facilities for recycling construction, demolition & excavation waste or comparable industrial wastes should be supported on existing landfill and/or mineral sites. We request an additional ‘general location’ for waste management facilities for inert waste within existing landfill and/or mineral sites.
Draft policy SP3 – ‘Broad Locations for New Waste Treatment Facilities’ is considered to place undue restriction on the location of waste treatment facilities outside of built-up areas. Emphasis is placed upon locating waste treatment facilities in areas within or close to the built-up areas of settlements listed in the draft policy. However, waste management facilities are more likely to be in conflict with surrounding residential, employment and commercial developments in these areas in line with the ‘agent of change’ principle (NPPF para. 187, 2021). Greater flexibility is required for the location of waste management facilities and, therefore, we request that draft policy SP3 is amended to read ‘ The development of treatment facilities within the open countryside and within the Green Belt will be supported only where such locations are justified by a clear local need, particularly where this would provide enhanced employment opportunities and/or would enable the re-use of existing buildings’.
Aggregate Recycling
The draft plan states, in paragraph 8.12, that ‘temporary aggregates recycling facilities may be appropriate at quarries or landfill sites where this can encourage greater re-use and recycling and they are linked to the life of that facility’(emphasis added). We support the location of aggregate recycling facilities within quarries due to co-location benefits. We request that draft policy DM1 – ‘General Site Criteria’ is amended to reflect the opportunity to locate aggregates recycling facilities within minerals sites.
The location of waste management facilities on minerals sites, as set out in draft policy DM1, is constrained to sites of ‘former mineral workings’. As set out above, ,it is both beneficial and common-place to co-locate waste management facilities including aggregate recycling, and inert waste recovery within existing minerals sites. We therefore request that draft policy DM1 is amended to include ‘previously developed Land/derelict land and mineral sites’.
Biodiversity Net Gain
Paragraph 8.61 of the draft WLP states that the Biodiversity metric tool is not intended to override ecological advice’. We support this approach to using the metric tool alongside consideration of ecological advice.
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 highlight the in-consistency of draft policy DM1 against the NPPW in relation to the waste hierarchy, which does not, in its current form, adequately address the need for sustainable inert waste recovery within minerals sites. Furthermore, the draft policy DM1 does not adequately support the co-location of inert waste recovery and aggregate recycling within minerals sites.

Submission on behalf of Tarmac Trading Ltd
Introduction
Heatons have been instructed by our clients, Tarmac Trading Limited (‘Tarmac’), to prepare and submit a formal representation to the above consultation. As set out in national planning policy, Nottinghamshire as the Waste Planning Authority (WPA) are required to consider opportunities for co-location of waste management facilities.
Primarily a mineral operator, Tarmac have several operational sites located within Nottinghamshire. The representations seek to ensure that the proposed waste development management policies are both consistent with the locational requirements of inert and aggregate waste management facilities and recognise their value in supporting/co locating with minerals development. The representations also support the draft Waste Local Plan’s approach to biodiversity net gain.
Planning Policy Context
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’.
Chapter 4 of the National Planning Policy for Waste (NPPW) (2014) sets out the locational criteria to be
used when identifying sites for new or enhanced waste management facilities. Bullet point 4 of chapter 4 requires waste planning authorities to ‘consider a broad range of locations including industrial sites, looking for opportunities to co-locate waste management facilities together and with complementary activities’ (emphasis added).
Waste should be managed with due regard to the ‘Waste Hierarchy’ set out in Appendix A of the NPPW and included below.
Figure 1: Waste Hierarchy (NPPW)
The Waste Hierarchy ranks waste management options according to what is best for the environment. It gives top priority to preventing waste in the first place. However, when waste is created, it gives priority to preparing it for re-use, then recycling, then recovery, and last of all disposal.
Benefits of inert waste restoration
As defined by the Environment Agency (2022) inert waste is ‘waste that does not undergo any significant physical, chemical or biological transformations’. Inert waste can form several functions, such as landscaping, screening or engineering material, as well as material for backfilling in quarry restoration schemes.
The use of inert waste for backfilling as part of quarry restoration constitutes a waste recovery process. 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.
Benefits of co-location
The co-location of facilities for managing waste within minerals sites is beneficial for social, environmental and economic reasons. Draft policy SP5 (Climate Change) states that ‘all new or extended waste management facilities should be located, designed and operated so as to minimise any potential impacts on climate change. Co-location enables the facilities to utilise existing site infrastructure and existing transport infrastructure. It also reduces the likely environmental and amenity based impacts of both developments buy placing them within the same site, albeit recognising any potential cumulative impacts.
In light of the above, we seek to ensure that draft policy DM1 – ‘General Site Criteria’ of the draft plan supports the long-term need for inert waste recovery within minerals sites. Facilities for recycling construction, demolition & excavation waste or comparable industrial wastes should be supported on existing landfill and/or mineral sites. We request an additional ‘general location’ for waste management facilities for inert waste within existing landfill and/or mineral sites.
Draft policy SP3 – ‘Broad Locations for New Waste Treatment Facilities’ is considered to place undue restriction on the location of waste treatment facilities outside of built-up areas. Emphasis is placed upon locating waste treatment facilities in areas within or close to the built-up areas of settlements listed in the draft policy. However, waste management facilities are more likely to be in conflict with surrounding residential, employment and commercial developments in these areas in line with the ‘agent of change’ principle (NPPF para. 187, 2021). Greater flexibility is required for the location of waste management facilities and, therefore, we request that draft policy SP3 is amended to read ‘ The development of treatment facilities within the open countryside and within the Green Belt will be supported only where such locations are justified by a clear local need, particularly where this would provide enhanced employment opportunities and/or would enable the re-use of existing buildings’.
Aggregate Recycling
The draft plan states, in paragraph 8.12, that ‘temporary aggregates recycling facilities may be appropriate at quarries or landfill sites where this can encourage greater re-use and recycling and they are linked to the life of that facility’(emphasis added). We support the location of aggregate recycling facilities within quarries due to co-location benefits. We request that draft policy DM1 – ‘General Site Criteria’ is amended to reflect the opportunity to locate aggregates recycling facilities within minerals sites.
The location of waste management facilities on minerals sites, as set out in draft policy DM1, is constrained to sites of ‘former mineral workings’. As set out above, ,it is both beneficial and common-place to co-locate waste management facilities including aggregate recycling, and inert waste recovery within existing minerals sites. We therefore request that draft policy DM1 is amended to include ‘previously developed Land/derelict land and mineral sites’.
Biodiversity Net Gain
Paragraph 8.61 of the draft WLP states that the Biodiversity metric tool is not intended to override ecological advice’. We support this approach to using the metric tool alongside consideration of ecological advice.
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 highlight the in-consistency of draft policy DM1 against the NPPW in relation to the waste hierarchy, which does not, in its current form, adequately address the need for sustainable inert waste recovery within minerals sites. Furthermore, the draft policy DM1 does not adequately support the co-location of inert waste recovery and aggregate recycling within minerals sites.

Submission on behalf of Tarmac Trading Ltd
Introduction
Heatons have been instructed by our clients, Tarmac Trading Limited (‘Tarmac’), to prepare and submit a formal representation to the above consultation. As set out in national planning policy, Nottinghamshire as the Waste Planning Authority (WPA) are required to consider opportunities for co-location of waste management facilities.
Primarily a mineral operator, Tarmac have several operational sites located within Nottinghamshire. The representations seek to ensure that the proposed waste development management policies are both consistent with the locational requirements of inert and aggregate waste management facilities and recognise their value in supporting/co locating with minerals development. The representations also support the draft Waste Local Plan’s approach to biodiversity net gain.
Planning Policy Context
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’.
Chapter 4 of the National Planning Policy for Waste (NPPW) (2014) sets out the locational criteria to be
used when identifying sites for new or enhanced waste management facilities. Bullet point 4 of chapter 4 requires waste planning authorities to ‘consider a broad range of locations including industrial sites, looking for opportunities to co-locate waste management facilities together and with complementary activities’ (emphasis added).
Waste should be managed with due regard to the ‘Waste Hierarchy’ set out in Appendix A of the NPPW and included below.
Figure 1: Waste Hierarchy (NPPW)
The Waste Hierarchy ranks waste management options according to what is best for the environment. It gives top priority to preventing waste in the first place. However, when waste is created, it gives priority to preparing it for re-use, then recycling, then recovery, and last of all disposal.
Benefits of inert waste restoration
As defined by the Environment Agency (2022) inert waste is ‘waste that does not undergo any significant physical, chemical or biological transformations’. Inert waste can form several functions, such as landscaping, screening or engineering material, as well as material for backfilling in quarry restoration schemes.
The use of inert waste for backfilling as part of quarry restoration constitutes a waste recovery process. 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.
Benefits of co-location
The co-location of facilities for managing waste within minerals sites is beneficial for social, environmental and economic reasons. Draft policy SP5 (Climate Change) states that ‘all new or extended waste management facilities should be located, designed and operated so as to minimise any potential impacts on climate change. Co-location enables the facilities to utilise existing site infrastructure and existing transport infrastructure. It also reduces the likely environmental and amenity based impacts of both developments buy placing them within the same site, albeit recognising any potential cumulative impacts.
In light of the above, we seek to ensure that draft policy DM1 – ‘General Site Criteria’ of the draft plan supports the long-term need for inert waste recovery within minerals sites. Facilities for recycling construction, demolition & excavation waste or comparable industrial wastes should be supported on existing landfill and/or mineral sites. We request an additional ‘general location’ for waste management facilities for inert waste within existing landfill and/or mineral sites.
Draft policy SP3 – ‘Broad Locations for New Waste Treatment Facilities’ is considered to place undue restriction on the location of waste treatment facilities outside of built-up areas. Emphasis is placed upon locating waste treatment facilities in areas within or close to the built-up areas of settlements listed in the draft policy. However, waste management facilities are more likely to be in conflict with surrounding residential, employment and commercial developments in these areas in line with the ‘agent of change’ principle (NPPF para. 187, 2021). Greater flexibility is required for the location of waste management facilities and, therefore, we request that draft policy SP3 is amended to read ‘ The development of treatment facilities within the open countryside and within the Green Belt will be supported only where such locations are justified by a clear local need, particularly where this would provide enhanced employment opportunities and/or would enable the re-use of existing buildings’.
Aggregate Recycling
The draft plan states, in paragraph 8.12, that ‘temporary aggregates recycling facilities may be appropriate at quarries or landfill sites where this can encourage greater re-use and recycling and they are linked to the life of that facility’(emphasis added). We support the location of aggregate recycling facilities within quarries due to co-location benefits. We request that draft policy DM1 – ‘General Site Criteria’ is amended to reflect the opportunity to locate aggregates recycling facilities within minerals sites.
The location of waste management facilities on minerals sites, as set out in draft policy DM1, is constrained to sites of ‘former mineral workings’. As set out above, ,it is both beneficial and common-place to co-locate waste management facilities including aggregate recycling, and inert waste recovery within existing minerals sites. We therefore request that draft policy DM1 is amended to include ‘previously developed Land/derelict land and mineral sites’.
Biodiversity Net Gain
Paragraph 8.61 of the draft WLP states that the Biodiversity metric tool is not intended to override ecological advice’. We support this approach to using the metric tool alongside consideration of ecological advice.
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 highlight the in-consistency of draft policy DM1 against the NPPW in relation to the waste hierarchy, which does not, in its current form, adequately address the need for sustainable inert waste recovery within minerals sites. Furthermore, the draft policy DM1 does not adequately support the co-location of inert waste recovery and aggregate recycling within minerals sites.

Submission on behalf of Tarmac Trading Ltd
Introduction
Heatons have been instructed by our clients, Tarmac Trading Limited (‘Tarmac’), to prepare and submit a formal representation to the above consultation. As set out in national planning policy, Nottinghamshire as the Waste Planning Authority (WPA) are required to consider opportunities for co-location of waste management facilities.
Primarily a mineral operator, Tarmac have several operational sites located within Nottinghamshire. The representations seek to ensure that the proposed waste development management policies are both consistent with the locational requirements of inert and aggregate waste management facilities and recognise their value in supporting/co locating with minerals development. The representations also support the draft Waste Local Plan’s approach to biodiversity net gain.
Planning Policy Context
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’.
Chapter 4 of the National Planning Policy for Waste (NPPW) (2014) sets out the locational criteria to be
used when identifying sites for new or enhanced waste management facilities. Bullet point 4 of chapter 4 requires waste planning authorities to ‘consider a broad range of locations including industrial sites, looking for opportunities to co-locate waste management facilities together and with complementary activities’ (emphasis added).
Waste should be managed with due regard to the ‘Waste Hierarchy’ set out in Appendix A of the NPPW and included below.
Figure 1: Waste Hierarchy (NPPW)
The Waste Hierarchy ranks waste management options according to what is best for the environment. It gives top priority to preventing waste in the first place. However, when waste is created, it gives priority to preparing it for re-use, then recycling, then recovery, and last of all disposal.
Benefits of inert waste restoration
As defined by the Environment Agency (2022) inert waste is ‘waste that does not undergo any significant physical, chemical or biological transformations’. Inert waste can form several functions, such as landscaping, screening or engineering material, as well as material for backfilling in quarry restoration schemes.
The use of inert waste for backfilling as part of quarry restoration constitutes a waste recovery process. 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.
Benefits of co-location
The co-location of facilities for managing waste within minerals sites is beneficial for social, environmental and economic reasons. Draft policy SP5 (Climate Change) states that ‘all new or extended waste management facilities should be located, designed and operated so as to minimise any potential impacts on climate change. Co-location enables the facilities to utilise existing site infrastructure and existing transport infrastructure. It also reduces the likely environmental and amenity based impacts of both developments buy placing them within the same site, albeit recognising any potential cumulative impacts.
In light of the above, we seek to ensure that draft policy DM1 – ‘General Site Criteria’ of the draft plan supports the long-term need for inert waste recovery within minerals sites. Facilities for recycling construction, demolition & excavation waste or comparable industrial wastes should be supported on existing landfill and/or mineral sites. We request an additional ‘general location’ for waste management facilities for inert waste within existing landfill and/or mineral sites.
Draft policy SP3 – ‘Broad Locations for New Waste Treatment Facilities’ is considered to place undue restriction on the location of waste treatment facilities outside of built-up areas. Emphasis is placed upon locating waste treatment facilities in areas within or close to the built-up areas of settlements listed in the draft policy. However, waste management facilities are more likely to be in conflict with surrounding residential, employment and commercial developments in these areas in line with the ‘agent of change’ principle (NPPF para. 187, 2021). Greater flexibility is required for the location of waste management facilities and, therefore, we request that draft policy SP3 is amended to read ‘ The development of treatment facilities within the open countryside and within the Green Belt will be supported only where such locations are justified by a clear local need, particularly where this would provide enhanced employment opportunities and/or would enable the re-use of existing buildings’.
Aggregate Recycling
The draft plan states, in paragraph 8.12, that ‘temporary aggregates recycling facilities may be appropriate at quarries or landfill sites where this can encourage greater re-use and recycling and they are linked to the life of that facility’(emphasis added). We support the location of aggregate recycling facilities within quarries due to co-location benefits. We request that draft policy DM1 – ‘General Site Criteria’ is amended to reflect the opportunity to locate aggregates recycling facilities within minerals sites.
The location of waste management facilities on minerals sites, as set out in draft policy DM1, is constrained to sites of ‘former mineral workings’. As set out above, ,it is both beneficial and common-place to co-locate waste management facilities including aggregate recycling, and inert waste recovery within existing minerals sites. We therefore request that draft policy DM1 is amended to include ‘previously developed Land/derelict land and mineral sites’.
Biodiversity Net Gain
Paragraph 8.61 of the draft WLP states that the Biodiversity metric tool is not intended to override ecological advice’. We support this approach to using the metric tool alongside consideration of ecological advice.
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 highlight the in-consistency of draft policy DM1 against the NPPW in relation to the waste hierarchy, which does not, in its current form, adequately address the need for sustainable inert waste recovery within minerals sites. Furthermore, the draft policy DM1 does not adequately support the co-location of inert waste recovery and aggregate recycling within minerals sites.