Pre- Submission Draft Waste Local Plan

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.