Nottinghamshire and Nottingham Draft Waste Local Plan January 2022

Many thanks for the opportunity to comment on the new draft Nottinghamshire and Nottingham Waste Local Plan.
It is noted that there are no up-to-date Municipal Waste Management Strategies in Nottinghamshire and Nottingham, although we understand that Nottingham City are about to consult on their Waste Strategy. It is further noted that the Waste Needs Assessment was, therefore, produced without the benefit of Waste Management Strategies and that the Plan and evidence base will have to adapt to Nottingham City Waste Strategy when it comes out.
Since the evidence base was prepared, we understand that a further EfW facility at Ratcliffe-on-Soar has been permitted. It would be useful to know capacity and throughput of this. This facility will likely have cross-boundary impacts and we are grateful for agreement that this will be looked at.
We also welcome the opportunity to comment on the landfill rates and capacity. Again, the commitment from Nottinghamshire to reflect with AECOM on the landfill component is supported. The absence of non-hazardous landfill capacity from 2024 onwards is an issue and would result in waste movements to other authority areas that have capacity. This may result in some waste having to travel greater distances than at present, which needs to be considered against the intention to minimise the impacts of transporting waste in Strategic Objective 7. In addition, it would also place pressure on other authority’s non-hazardous landfill capacity. These issues should be considered.
With regard to Table 11, it would be useful for there to be clarification in relation to the -3,567,089 figure for remaining disposal capacity is per annum or cumulative over the life of the plan (noting that the table title include reference to tpa)
For information, on the matter of disposal of HIC waste, Leicestershire County Council only have one non-hazardous landfill in the county (Shawell landfill).
It is recognised that the Plan does not make specific site allocations partly because there was not specific evidence of need for certain waste streams, and because there was also a lack of suitable sites put forward during the call for sites. We are content that the Provision policy for future applications offers a flexible approach. A criteria-based approach for the location of waste management facilities, as set out in Policy DM1, gives flexibility.
It is noted that the emerging Waste Local Plan and Waste Needs Assessment does not take into account undelivered capacity such as the recently permitted EfW at Ratcliffe-on-Soar. Its inclusion in the evidence base would be useful to ascertain impact upon waste flows.

Many thanks for the opportunity to comment on the new draft Nottinghamshire and Nottingham Waste Local Plan.
It is noted that there are no up-to-date Municipal Waste Management Strategies in Nottinghamshire and Nottingham, although we understand that Nottingham City are about to consult on their Waste Strategy. It is further noted that the Waste Needs Assessment was, therefore, produced without the benefit of Waste Management Strategies and that the Plan and evidence base will have to adapt to Nottingham City Waste Strategy when it comes out.
Since the evidence base was prepared, we understand that a further EfW facility at Ratcliffe-on-Soar has been permitted. It would be useful to know capacity and throughput of this. This facility will likely have cross-boundary impacts and we are grateful for agreement that this will be looked at.
We also welcome the opportunity to comment on the landfill rates and capacity. Again, the commitment from Nottinghamshire to reflect with AECOM on the landfill component is supported. The absence of non-hazardous landfill capacity from 2024 onwards is an issue and would result in waste movements to other authority areas that have capacity. This may result in some waste having to travel greater distances than at present, which needs to be considered against the intention to minimise the impacts of transporting waste in Strategic Objective 7. In addition, it would also place pressure on other authority’s non-hazardous landfill capacity. These issues should be considered.
With regard to Table 11, it would be useful for there to be clarification in relation to the -3,567,089 figure for remaining disposal capacity is per annum or cumulative over the life of the plan (noting that the table title include reference to tpa)
For information, on the matter of disposal of HIC waste, Leicestershire County Council only have one non-hazardous landfill in the county (Shawell landfill).
It is recognised that the Plan does not make specific site allocations partly because there was not specific evidence of need for certain waste streams, and because there was also a lack of suitable sites put forward during the call for sites. We are content that the Provision policy for future applications offers a flexible approach. A criteria-based approach for the location of waste management facilities, as set out in Policy DM1, gives flexibility.
It is noted that the emerging Waste Local Plan and Waste Needs Assessment does not take into account undelivered capacity such as the recently permitted EfW at Ratcliffe-on-Soar. Its inclusion in the evidence base would be useful to ascertain impact upon waste flows.

Many thanks for the opportunity to comment on the new draft Nottinghamshire and Nottingham Waste Local Plan.
It is noted that there are no up-to-date Municipal Waste Management Strategies in Nottinghamshire and Nottingham, although we understand that Nottingham City are about to consult on their Waste Strategy. It is further noted that the Waste Needs Assessment was, therefore, produced without the benefit of Waste Management Strategies and that the Plan and evidence base will have to adapt to Nottingham City Waste Strategy when it comes out.
Since the evidence base was prepared, we understand that a further EfW facility at Ratcliffe-on-Soar has been permitted. It would be useful to know capacity and throughput of this. This facility will likely have cross-boundary impacts and we are grateful for agreement that this will be looked at.
We also welcome the opportunity to comment on the landfill rates and capacity. Again, the commitment from Nottinghamshire to reflect with AECOM on the landfill component is supported. The absence of non-hazardous landfill capacity from 2024 onwards is an issue and would result in waste movements to other authority areas that have capacity. This may result in some waste having to travel greater distances than at present, which needs to be considered against the intention to minimise the impacts of transporting waste in Strategic Objective 7. In addition, it would also place pressure on other authority’s non-hazardous landfill capacity. These issues should be considered.
With regard to Table 11, it would be useful for there to be clarification in relation to the -3,567,089 figure for remaining disposal capacity is per annum or cumulative over the life of the plan (noting that the table title include reference to tpa)
For information, on the matter of disposal of HIC waste, Leicestershire County Council only have one non-hazardous landfill in the county (Shawell landfill).
It is recognised that the Plan does not make specific site allocations partly because there was not specific evidence of need for certain waste streams, and because there was also a lack of suitable sites put forward during the call for sites. We are content that the Provision policy for future applications offers a flexible approach. A criteria-based approach for the location of waste management facilities, as set out in Policy DM1, gives flexibility.
It is noted that the emerging Waste Local Plan and Waste Needs Assessment does not take into account undelivered capacity such as the recently permitted EfW at Ratcliffe-on-Soar. Its inclusion in the evidence base would be useful to ascertain impact upon waste flows.

Many thanks for the opportunity to comment on the new draft Nottinghamshire and Nottingham Waste Local Plan.
It is noted that there are no up-to-date Municipal Waste Management Strategies in Nottinghamshire and Nottingham, although we understand that Nottingham City are about to consult on their Waste Strategy. It is further noted that the Waste Needs Assessment was, therefore, produced without the benefit of Waste Management Strategies and that the Plan and evidence base will have to adapt to Nottingham City Waste Strategy when it comes out.
Since the evidence base was prepared, we understand that a further EfW facility at Ratcliffe-on-Soar has been permitted. It would be useful to know capacity and throughput of this. This facility will likely have cross-boundary impacts and we are grateful for agreement that this will be looked at.
We also welcome the opportunity to comment on the landfill rates and capacity. Again, the commitment from Nottinghamshire to reflect with AECOM on the landfill component is supported. The absence of non-hazardous landfill capacity from 2024 onwards is an issue and would result in waste movements to other authority areas that have capacity. This may result in some waste having to travel greater distances than at present, which needs to be considered against the intention to minimise the impacts of transporting waste in Strategic Objective 7. In addition, it would also place pressure on other authority’s non-hazardous landfill capacity. These issues should be considered.
With regard to Table 11, it would be useful for there to be clarification in relation to the -3,567,089 figure for remaining disposal capacity is per annum or cumulative over the life of the plan (noting that the table title include reference to tpa)
For information, on the matter of disposal of HIC waste, Leicestershire County Council only have one non-hazardous landfill in the county (Shawell landfill).
It is recognised that the Plan does not make specific site allocations partly because there was not specific evidence of need for certain waste streams, and because there was also a lack of suitable sites put forward during the call for sites. We are content that the Provision policy for future applications offers a flexible approach. A criteria-based approach for the location of waste management facilities, as set out in Policy DM1, gives flexibility.
It is noted that the emerging Waste Local Plan and Waste Needs Assessment does not take into account undelivered capacity such as the recently permitted EfW at Ratcliffe-on-Soar. Its inclusion in the evidence base would be useful to ascertain impact upon waste flows.