Nottinghamshire and Nottingham Draft Waste Local Plan January 2022

Comment

Representation ID: 686

Received: 04/04/2022

Respondent: Newark and Sherwood District Council

Policy SP3 Broad Locations for New Waste Treatment Facilities
Comment:
Policy SP3 needs to be expanded to include both new and extended waste management
facilities to ensure that the expansion and extension of existing facilities is adequately covered
within the plan.
The policy makes reference to large, medium and small-scale waste management facilities but
nowhere in the policy or in the supporting text are these types of facilities defined. The policy,
or supporting text, needs to provide clarity as to what constitutes a large, medium and smallscale
waste management facility. Given that it is likely that the scale of the facility will be
determined by the waste stream, it may be necessary to provide different definitions for
different waste streams, however, in order for the policy to be effectively implemented, it is
absolutely necessary to define what it means.
Concern has been raised previously regarding the suitability of locating a new waste
management facility near Newark. The identification of Newark as a location for waste
management facilities requires justification and the ambiguity as to what constitutes a
medium scale facility requires clarification.
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.
The final paragraph of this policy considers both the open countryside and Green Belt. These
issues should be treated as distinct from one another, with development in the Green Belt
being required to meet different criteria to development in the open countryside. It is
suggested that this distinction is clarified within the policy and that, in the interests of
completeness, reference is made within the policy to Policy SP7 in relation to Green Belts.
Recommended Change:
Policy SP3 needs to be expanded to include both new and extended waste management
facilities.
The policy, or supporting text, needs to provide clarity as to what constitutes a large, medium
and small-scale waste management facility. Given that it is likely that the scale of the facility
will be determined by the waste stream, it may be necessary to provide different definitions
for different waste streams, however, in order for the policy to be effectively implemented, it
is absolutely necessary to define what is meant by these terms.
The identification of Newark as a location for waste management facilities requires
justification.
It is suggested that this policy cross references to Policy DM1 to provide a more
comprehensive approach to the types of locations where new waste management
development might be acceptable.
It is suggested that the element of this policy which addresses the Green Belt, specifically
references Policy SP7 and that the approach taken is in line with the NPPF.

Comment

Representation ID: 687

Received: 04/04/2022

Respondent: Newark and Sherwood District Council

Policy SP4 Residual Waste Management
Comment:
Policy SP4 needs to be expanded to include both new and extended waste management
facilities.
Given that this policy relates to waste at the bottom of the waste hierarchy, in order for it to
be effective, it should be negatively worded so that part a) is phrased in a similar way to part
b), stating either “will only be permitted where” or “will not be permitted unless”.
In relation to the parts a) and b) of this policy, there might be benefits in requiring
consideration of extensions and the expansion of existing facilities, prior to new facilities being
permitted, and criteria requiring consideration of this could be added to parts a) and b) of the
policy.
The supporting text to this policy at paragraphs 7.29 to 7.35 states that there is a priority to
use inert waste in the restoration of mineral working, landfill and landraise sites, however,
this is not addressed within the policy itself and ought to be. Policy SP4 should be expanded
to include reference to this priority.
Recommended Change:
Policy SP4 needs to be expanded to include both new and extended waste management
facilities.
Given that this policy relates to waste at the bottom of the waste hierarchy, in order for it to
be effective, it should be negatively worded so that part a) is phrased in a similar way to part
b), stating either “will only be permitted where” or “will not be permitted unless”.
In relation to the elements of this policy, there might be benefits in requiring consideration of
extensions and the expansion of existing facilities, prior to new facilities being permitted, and
criteria requiring consideration of this could be added to parts a) and b) of the policy.
Policy SP4 should be expanded to include reference to the priority to use inert waste in the
restoration of mineral working, landfill and landraise sites.

Comment

Representation ID: 688

Received: 04/04/2022

Respondent: Newark and Sherwood District Council

Policy SP5 Climate Change
Comment:
The inclusion of a policy specifically addressing climate change is welcomed, however, the
policy should be worded in such a way as to place an onus on developers to actively
demonstrate how waste management proposals have been located, designed and will be
operated in a manner to minimise any potential impacts on climate change and to be resilient
to future climate change. This could be a criteria-based policy which sets out what
development proposals will need to include and demonstrate.
Recommended Change:
It is recommended that Policy SP5 is amended such that it places a clear requirement on
developers to demonstrate within planning applications how their proposals have been
located, designed and will be operated in a manner to minimise any potential impacts on
climate change and to be resilient to future climate change. This could be a criteria-based
policy which sets out what development proposals will need to include and demonstrate.

Comment

Representation ID: 689

Received: 04/04/2022

Respondent: Newark and Sherwood District Council

Policy SP6 Minimising the Movement of Waste
Comment:
The first sentence of Policy SP6 needs to be clear that the distance waste travels from source
to the relevant waste management facility needs to be minimised, in accordance with the
proximity principle.
The second sentence of this policy sits somewhat at odds with the first sentence and it should
make clear that where more sustainable modes of transporting waste are not available, or are
not viable, proposals should seek to make the best use of the existing transport network, to
ensure that sustainable modes of transport are promoted as a first priority.
In order to not encourage the importation of waste, it is suggested that the third sentence of
this policy is worded in a negative manner.
Recommended Changes:
It is recommended that the words “from source to waste management facility, in accordance
with the proximity principle” are added after the word “travel” in the first sentence of this
policy.
It is recommended that the second sentence of this policy is amended to start with the words
“Where more sustainable modes of transport are not available, or are demonstrated to not be
viable, proposals should seek to make the best use of …”.
The word “only” should be added to the third sentence of this policy such that it states “will
only be permitted”.

Comment

Representation ID: 690

Received: 04/04/2022

Respondent: Newark and Sherwood District Council

Paragraph 7.53
Comment:
Parts of Newark and Sherwood District Council’s administrative area are within the Green Belt.
At present, this is omitted from this paragraph and this needs to be amended.
Recommended Change:
The first sentence of this paragraph needs to be amended to include reference to Newark and
Sherwood District, as parts of the District are within the Green Belt.

Comment

Representation ID: 691

Received: 04/04/2022

Respondent: Newark and Sherwood District Council

Policy SP7 Green Belt
Comment:
Waste management developments are not a type of development the NPPF expressly states
are considered to be appropriate in the Green Belt. Many types of waste management
developments may constitute inappropriate development in the Green Belt and Policy SP7
needs to be more explicit in this regard.
It is suggested that the first part of this policy refers to the need for development proposals
to constitute appropriate development, as the second paragraph then sets out how
inappropriate development will be dealt with.
Recommended Change:
It is recommended that the following be added to the first sentence of Policy SP7 after “will
only be approved” “where it constitutes appropriate development and where …”.

Comment

Representation ID: 692

Received: 04/04/2022

Respondent: Newark and Sherwood District Council

Policy SP8 Safeguarding Waste Management Sites and Paragraph 7.64
Comment:
Within the first paragraph of this policy, it is suggested that reference is not only made to long
term need and any wider regeneration benefits but that the sustainability of the existing waste
management facility ought to also be taken into consideration in determining whether the
loss of an existing facilities is acceptable.
Whilst the intention of this policy in relation to non-waste uses is welcomed, in order to ensure
that existing and permitted waste management sites are sufficiently protected from nonwaste
development, and non-waste developments are protected from existing and permitted
waste management sites, it is considered that the second paragraph of this policy needs to be
amended to be more robust. The supporting text to this policy sets out the difficulties which
can be faced by waste management facilities when new, sensitive types of development are
located nearby. The reasonableness of requiring a developer to fund the relocation of a
safeguarded waste management facility, as set out in paragraph 7.64, is questioned, and could
not be required through the policy as it is currently worded.
It is recommended that the second paragraph of this policy is amended to require that an
assessment of the potential for impacts between existing waste management facilities and
new, non-waste development will be required as part of the consideration of proposals for
new non-waste development, taking into account the type of waste management facility
which exists. If adverse impacts either on the new development, or on the existing waste
management facility are found to exist, these must be suitably addressed, mitigated against,
or compensated for, as part of the proposed new non-waste development proposal, and the
mitigation and / or compensation must be in place for the lifetime of either the waste
management facility or the lifetime of the non-waste development, to prevent foreseeable
issues arising in the future. This approach will ensure that both the existing waste
management facility, and the new non-waste development, can be acceptably allowed.
Recommended Change:
It is recommended that the first paragraph of this policy is amended to include “, the
sustainability of the existing facility …” after “long term need for the facility …”.
It is recommended that the second paragraph of this policy is amended to require that an
assessment of the potential for impacts between existing waste management facilities and
new, non-waste development will be required as part of the consideration of proposals for
new non-waste development, taking into account the type of waste management facility
which exists. If adverse impacts either on the new development, or on the existing waste
management facility are found to exist, these must be suitably addressed, mitigated against,
or compensated for, as part of the proposed new non-waste development proposal, and the
mitigation and / or compensation must be in place for the lifetime of either the waste
management facility or the lifetime of the non-waste development, to prevent foreseeable
issues arising in the future. This approach will ensure that both the existing waste
management facility, and the new non-waste development, can be acceptably allowed.

Comment

Representation ID: 693

Received: 04/04/2022

Respondent: Newark and Sherwood District Council

Policy DM 1 General Site Criteria
Comment:
The current structure of this policy is somewhat misleading and ambiguous, with the
information on page 74 at first read appearing to imply that all waste management facilities
will be supported in all of the types of locations listed. This policy needs to be in line with
Policy SP3. If this type of policy is to be taken forward, it is strongly recommended that the
table which appears on page 75 is set out at the outset, with the explanation of the types of
location either in the supporting text or later within the policy.
It is recommended that it is also made clear within the policy that the types of locations
identified are not necessarily mutually exclusive, for example, previously developed land can
occur in the open countryside, and not all of the types of waste management facility identified
as being suitable on previously developed land would be appropriate if that was in an open
countryside location. The policy needs to be clear that the locational criteria established in
Policy SP3 will be used to determine whether development is acceptable (or otherwise) in
conjunction with this policy.
In order to provide clarity that this policy relates to all new waste management development,
it is suggested that the words “Proposals for new and extended …” are added to the start of
the policy.
In addition, to provide clarity of approach, it is suggested that a further criteria be added to
the first sentence of this policy, stating not just that proposals must have no unacceptable
environmental impacts but also that there must be no conflicts with the delivery of non-waste
development on strategic, allocated and major consented sites, or existing non-waste uses.
Recommended Change:
It is recommended that consideration is given to amending the structure of the policy to
provide a clear and unambiguous policy which is in line with Policy SP3. If this type of policy
is to be taken forward, it is strongly recommended that the table which appears on page 75 is
set out at the outset, with the explanation of the types of location either in the supporting
text or later within the policy.
It is recommended that it is also made clear within the policy that the types of locations
identified are not necessarily mutually exclusive and that the locational criteria established in
Policy SP3 will be used to determine whether development is acceptable (or otherwise) in
conjunction with this policy.
It is recommended that the words “Proposals for new and extended …” are added to the start
of the policy.
It is also recommended that the words “and there being no conflicts with the delivery of nonwaste
development on strategic, allocated and major consented sites, or existing non-waste
uses:” are added after “no unacceptable environmental impacts”.

Comment

Representation ID: 694

Received: 04/04/2022

Respondent: Newark and Sherwood District Council

Policy DM2 Health, Wellbeing and Amenity
Comment:
Policy DM2 needs to provide clarity that it relates to both new and extended waste
management facilities and additional text should be added to achieve this.
Whilst it is accepted that the list of issues cited within the policy is not exhaustive, it is
important that consideration of the potential for migration of contamination is included
within the criteria of the policy, as set out in paragraph 8.23, and it is suggested that a further
bullet point is added in this regard.
It is also suggested that transport impacts are included within the policy as a bullet point,
rather than within the introductory text, to give all of the issues highlighted equal weight.
Recommended Change:
It is recommended that the words “and extensions to existing …” are added after “Proposals
for new …” at the start of this policy.
It is recommended that “Potential for migration of contamination” is added as a bullet point.
It is recommended that “Transport impacts” is moved from the opening paragraph of the
policy to be a bullet point.

Comment

Representation ID: 695

Received: 04/04/2022

Respondent: Newark and Sherwood District Council

Policy DM3 Design of New and Extended Waste Management Facilities
Comment:
In order to provide clarity that the policy specifically relates to design, it is suggested that
reference should be made to design within the first sentence of this policy.
In order to maximise the sustainability of new waste management development proposals, it
is suggested that reference to the re-use of materials where possible is added to the third
bullet point.
Recommended Change:
It is recommended that the words “the design of” are inserted into the first sentence after
“where it can be demonstrated that …”.
It is recommended that “and re-use materials where possible” is added to the third bullet
point.