Derby and Derbyshire Waste Local Plan REPORT OF PUBLICITY AND CONSULTATIONS JULY 2003
ANNEX 1 Derby and Derbyshire Waste Local Plan REPORT OF PUBLICITY AND CONSULTATIONS AND SCHEDULE OF PROPOSED CHANGES
Contents Page
PREFACE Purpose of the report and schedule 2
PART 1 The consultation process 3
PART 2 SCHEDULE OF OBJECTIONS AND REPRESENTATIONS
General comments seeking changes to the plan 6 Comments on chapter 1 11 Comments on chapter 2 12 Comments on chapter 3 27 Comments on chapter 4 48 Comments on chapter 5 62 Comments on chapter 6 77 Comments on chapter 7 87 Comments on appendix A 96 Comments on appendix B 97 Comments on appendix C 115 Appendix 1 (General comments not seeking changes to the plan) 115 Appendix 2 Schedule of representations 117
The following abbreviations are used in this document: BC, Borough Council; CC, County Council; COTEP, Communities Opposed to Environmental Pollution; CPRE, Council for the Protection of Rural England; DC, District Council; DWT, Derbyshire Wildlife Trust; EA, Environment Agency; EAG, Environmental Action Group; East Mids, East Midlands; ESA, Environmental Services Association; FOE, Friends of the Earth; GOEM, Government Office for the East Midlands; KDCS, Kirkby and District Conservation Society; NPA, National Park Authority; PC, Parish Council; RLG, Residents’ Liaison Group; WRG, Waste Recycling Group.
16a.doc Page 1 of 129
Derby and Derbyshire Waste Local Plan REPORT OF PUBLICITY AND CONSULTATIONS JULY 2003
PREFACE Purpose of the report and schedule
1 The purpose of this document is: a) In Part 1 of the document, to set out information on: whom the waste planning authorities (“the authorities”) have consulted on the First Deposit Version of the Waste Local Plan; the steps taken to publicise the proposals; and how the authorities have provided the public and interested parties with the opportunity to make representations on the Waste Local Plan; b) In part 2 of the document, to summarise and respond to the representations that have been made on the Plan.
2 The document complies with the requirements of Section 10(3) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Plan) (England) Regulations 1999.
16a.doc Page 2 of 129
Derby and Derbyshire Waste Local Plan REPORT OF PUBLICITY AND CONSULTATIONS JULY 2003
PART 1 The consultation process
Introduction
1.1 As joint waste planning authorities for Derby and Derbyshire, the City and County Councils have a duty, under the Town and Country Planning Act, 1990, to prepare a Development Plan for waste developments for their plan areas.
1.2 In September 2000, the authorities published, for public consultation, an Issues Report on the Waste Local Plan. The responses to the Issues Report were all considered and informed the First Deposit Version of the Waste Local Plan.
1.3 The First Deposit version of the Local Plan was published and formally made available to the public to comment on 14th June 2002. There was a statutory period of six weeks to make comments on the proposals. However to assist in the consultation the documents were available for people to view a short time before this date and comments received just after the end of the six-week period have been taken into account and responded to.
Publicity
2.1 A press release on the First Deposit of the Local Plan was released to newspapers covering the whole county in June 2002 prior to deposit. An official notice was published in those papers, including, specifically, the Derby Evening Telegraph to mark the statutory beginning of the period of consultation on 14th June 2002, and in The London Gazette.
2.2 In addition to internal City and County Council consultations on the Plan, the authorities consulted people and organisations in the following categories: 18 adjoining and nearby county and unitary planning authorities 18 adjoining and nearby county and unitary waste disposal authorities 11 adjoining district planning authorities 11 adjoining district waste collection authorities 8 Derbyshire district planning authorities 8 Derbyshire district waste collection authorities The Peak District National Park Authority The councils or meetings of every Derbyshire parish and town council, including those in the National Park 30 waste management and other businesses and 18 planning and surveying consultants 15 waste management and other interested trade groupings and chambers 84 environmental and other local and national interested groups Relevant government departments via the Government Office for the East Midlands (GOEM). 24 other Government agencies and other similar organisations including those recommended for consultation in PPG 12 18 public utilities, transport and other services
16a.doc Page 3 of 129
Derby and Derbyshire Waste Local Plan REPORT OF PUBLICITY AND CONSULTATIONS JULY 2003
Individual members of the public who had commented at the Issues Paper stage
2.3 The consultees were sent, as appropriate to them, a copy or copies of the Plan and/or letters explaining the opportunity to make comments. Copies of the plan were placed in libraries, including the mobile libraries, with an information poster, which publicised the consultation process.
2.4 The documents were put on formal deposit at the County and City planning offices, the eight District planning offices and Buxton Library, in order to give County- wide coverage. Copies of the documents and notice of deposit were sent to GOEM.
2.5 The documents plus comments form were also available to view and download from the City and County Councils’ web sites.
The Response to the Consultation
3.1 During the period of objection (including a period of a few days after the closure of the objection period) 140 individuals and organisations submitted a total of 287 comments. Of these 254 were registered as objections and the remaining 33 were statements of support. A further 196 objectors signed a standardised objection letter raising a number of matters around the issues of renewable energy and energy from waste. A total of 89 of these “Renewable Energy” respondents had names and addresses which were readable, so we were able to register them and to write back seeking clarification of their objections. Each of the standardised, Renewable Energy, objections contained essentially 5 points, which were taken to be different comments for response purposes, giving a total of 445 registered comments on these matters. This means that there were 732 registered comments in total, even though a large number of these were the same five points.
3.2 The representations from respondents numbered 41-46 (see Schedule of Representations, appendix 3 of this report) arrived after the statutory closing date but not so late as to affect the process of assessing comments or progressing the plan. We have registered them and we propose that they be treated as if they were duly made. We were unable to register 107 of the Renewable Energy representations because they did not have legible names or addresses. However, as their comments were standardised, their registration would not have added anything to the points made in the registered Renewable Energy letters.
3.3 Of the objectors not raising points about renewable energy or energy from waste, most raised concerns about: a) how well or otherwise the policies of the plan would protect the environment or b) whether the policies were in accord with European or Government policy or guidance.
3.4 The most fundamental objection raised by respondents, including GOEM, Nottinghamshire CC and industry representatives, was to the plan’s “policy criteria” approach to guiding new development. In Part 2 of this report, we set out further explanation and justification of the policy criteria approach. GOEM, having already considered the further explanation and justification, have written to say that they will
16a.doc Page 4 of 129
Derby and Derbyshire Waste Local Plan REPORT OF PUBLICITY AND CONSULTATIONS JULY 2003 withdraw their objection provided that the plan contains a clear commitment to monitoring the shortfall in landfill capacity in the south of the county. This would include a commitment to bring forward proposed alterations, if necessary, as a matter of urgency, in the light of that monitoring or of other changes occasioned by the revision of PPG 8 (East Midlands Regional Planning Guidance).
3.5 Part 2 of this document contains a summary of all of the points made in the representations, with responses to them and recommendations for any consequential changes to the plan.
3.6 Overall, we consider that the publicity and consultation exercise fully satisfies the requirements of the legislation and the Government advice on this matter.
16a.doc Page 5 of 129
Derby and Derbyshire Waste Local Plan REPORT OF PUBLICITY AND CONSULTATIONS JULY 2003
PART 2 SCHEDULE OF REPRESENTATIONS AND PROPOSED CHANGES
GENERAL COMMENTS SEEKING CHANGES TO THE PLAN
Re Peak District National Park
Summaries 1) The Peak District National Park should be included in the plan. Chesterfield & North Derbyshire FOE 0254 2) The Peak Park should deal with its own waste. Allowing the park to export its waste to landfill is a disincentive to waste reduction and small-scale, local recycling projects. Chesterfield & North Derbyshire FOE 0254
Assessments 1) & 2) See assessment re paragraph 2.43 of the local plan (objections 0090, 0112, 0273, 0219, 0254)
Recommendations 1) & 2) See recommendation re paragraph 2.43.
Re steps to reduce quantities of waste
Summary The plan should specify steps to identify quantities of industrial and commercial waste and construction & demolition waste and how to reduce them. Otherwise the waste disposal authorities will not be able to meet safety and legal requirements or identify opportunities for recycling. Chesterfield & North Derbyshire FoE 0255
Assessment The waste local plan can have no control over waste minimisation. It can only affect waste developments under the terms of the Town and Country Planning Act. However, past and current quantities of those wastes are identified and the information published by the Environment Agency. The waste local plan has used that information to forecast likely future quantities of waste. The waste disposal authorities and the Environment Agency carry out similar assessments in order that they can take steps to meet their safety and legal obligations.
Recommendation No change.
Re executive responsibility
Summary
16a.doc Page 6 of 129
Derby and Derbyshire Waste Local Plan REPORT OF PUBLICITY AND CONSULTATIONS JULY 2003
The plan fails to identify where executive responsibility lies for delivering reduced landfill and increased recycling. Chesterfield & North Derbyshire FoE 0256
Assessment That is not a function of the waste local plan. The government’s Waste Strategy 2000 and other initiatives such as the Best Value targets identify such responsibilities.
Recommendation No change.
Re integration of waste local plan and waste management strategy
Summary The plan should have a section that explains how the plan and the waste management strategy are to be integrated, rather than that information being spread throughout the text as at present. The plan properly assumes that government targets will be met but that is greatly dependent on the successful implementation of the waste management strategy. The explanation could be by means of an expanded version of the explanatory note on page 4 of the plan. The purpose would be to inform the public and inspire confidence in and better understanding of the processes. CPRE (Sheffield) 0212
Assessment The relationship between the plan and the waste management strategy could be explained more comprehensively.
Recommendation Revise the explanatory note, to read as follows: “ EXPLANATORY NOTE This plan should be read in the light of the following information. 1. The plan’s policies deal with “waste development”. The policies and the associated text explain the circumstances in which planning permission for “waste development” is likely to be granted or refused. “Waste development” (for the purposes of the plan) is development which requires an application for planning permission and which is primarily for the purpose of managing (i.e. treating, storing, processing or disposing of) waste (i.e. refuse or waste materials). 2. The plan, by law, may not set out requirements (not even waste management requirements) for other forms of development, such as housing, shopping or industry. Those developments are covered by other local plans, even if dealing with waste is part of the development (eg a power station which will use fuel derived from waste). 3. The plan does not deal directly with waste collection, home composting or encouraging or educating people to reduce or recycle waste. Documents which give detailed coverage to those topics include the Derbyshire Waste Management Strategy.
16a.doc Page 7 of 129
Derby and Derbyshire Waste Local Plan REPORT OF PUBLICITY AND CONSULTATIONS JULY 2003
The waste management strategy is jointly produced by the district councils and the city and county councils, in their roles as waste collection and disposal authorities (the district councils let contracts for the collection of waste, the county council lets contracts for the disposal of most of the waste that is collected and the city council combines both duties within the City of Derby). Owing to the government’s Best Value and other measures, the collection and disposal authorities have further duties, such as ensuring that their contractors meet recycling targets. The waste management strategy considers the future of waste management (including how the targets may be met) throughout Derby and Derbyshire, including the area within the Peak District National Park. The waste local plan makes use of the information and policies contained in the waste management strategy. 4. The policies of the local plan will influence the location of collection and disposal facilities and so will influence the nature of the municipal waste contracts. 5. To assist understanding of the plan there are references in it, in [superscript], to appendix A, which defines and explains technical terms and other difficult concepts. “
Re application of precautionary principle to the waste local plan
Summary Although the plan mentions the precautionary principle, for example in paragraph 4.3, it does not apply it in such a way as to ensure that Derbyshire County Council takes account of it. Joan Liddle 0298
Assessment In paragraph 1.16, the plan links the precautionary principle with the development control function of the city and county – the consideration of planning applications. Policy W5 (now W4, paragraph 4.7) confirms that link.
Recommendation No change.
Suggested new policy re identification of a landfill site
Summary There should be a policy entitled “Policy commitment to identify a strategic landfill site to meet the county’s long-term requirement for landfill space”. The new policy should commit the county council to commission a study, in consultation with the district and city councils, to identify a site to accommodate most of the county’s waste for the next 30 years or so. Sites within the Derby green belt, which is near the largest population centre, should not be ruled out if they represent the best environmental option. (The objector has suggested that Cinderhill, near Denby, might be an appropriate location.) Langridge Homes 0016
16a.doc Page 8 of 129
Derby and Derbyshire Waste Local Plan REPORT OF PUBLICITY AND CONSULTATIONS JULY 2003
Assessment There is no evidence that a single location could be well placed to serve as a strategic site for the whole county. Also, the plan is criteria-based for the reasons given in the assessment re paragraphs 2.57-2.59 (objections 0048 & 0189) and does not identify sites. If the waste planning strategy did seek the identification of sites, it is beyond doubt that no one landfill site could satisfy the needs of the whole county, even if it had rail access. With reference to Cinderhill specifically, the area identified in the deposit Amber Valley Local Plan for “proposed mixed use development (ER2)” has some characteristics which may make it suitable as a landfill site serving the local area. However, landfill, other than as a complement to short-term remedial work, would not accord with the local plan’s aspiration of “creating a living and working community” in and around the Cinderhill site.
Recommendation No change.
Suggested new policy re waste management in major development projects
Summary There should be a new policy to address the waste implications of major development proposals. Proposals would be refused if they did not show how the waste from the developments would be managed. The policy would also require the engineering and construction process of such developments to use recycled and waste materials as much as possible. It would also encourage on-site waste management which represented the BPEO. The objection includes an example of such a policy. Staffordshire CC 0110
Assessment Agree that it is important that the development plan should contain such a policy and acknowledge that the policy has found its way into Staffordshire’s waste local plan. However, the policy imposes restrictions on non-waste development and so GOEM considers (and the waste planning authorities agree) that it would be better located in the general local plans of the city and district councils. The reviews of those plans are being prepared at present.
Recommendation No change.
Suggested new policy re development near waste management facilities
Summary The new policy would seek to refuse planning applications for development which would unduly restrict or constrain the activities of a permitted or allocated waste management facility or would result in adverse impacts on the environment, health or transport. Staffordshire CC 0111
16a.doc Page 9 of 129
Derby and Derbyshire Waste Local Plan REPORT OF PUBLICITY AND CONSULTATIONS JULY 2003
Assessment Agree that it is important that the development plan should contain such a policy and acknowledge that the policy has found its way into Staffordshire’s waste local plan. However, the policy imposes restrictions on non-waste development and so would be better located in the general local plans of the city and district councils. The reviews of those plans are being prepared at present.
Recommendation No change.
16a.doc Page 10 of 129
Derby and Derbyshire Waste Local Plan REPORT OF PUBLICITY AND CONSULTATIONS JULY 2003
COMMENTS ON CHAPTER 1 Purpose and role of the waste planning strategy and the waste local plan
1.15 Planning Conditions and Obligations
Summaries 1) The wording of the text should be more robust to give a clear message that the council will be actively seeking realistic levels of developer contributions to secure economic, environmental and social benefits through planning obligations. These are particularly relevant to landfill schemes due to their negative impacts on landscape and rural communities. Countryside Agency 0013 2) Developers often give out as little information as possible regarding their plans. The plan should provide protection from incorrect information. Derby FoE 0312 Assessments 1) Agree that the paragraph could include more helpful information on the circumstances under which planning obligations are used but it would be wrong to give the impression that the planning authorities should actively seek developer contributions as a matter of policy. Guidance on the proper use of planning obligations is very clearly set out in government Circular 1/97, particularly in Annex B. Planning obligations may enhance the quality of development and enable proposals to proceed that may otherwise be refused. Planning authorities should not seek planning obligations unless they are necessary to make a proposal acceptable, relevant to planning and directly related to the proposed development. 2) Whether information submitted in support of planning applications can be relied upon is a matter for consideration during the development control process. The policies of the plan have been drafted on the assumption that the development control process will operate effectively.
Recommendations 1) Amend paragraph 1.15 as follows:
“1.15 It is not the intention that the local plan policies should lead to the refusal of applications which could be made acceptable by conditions or legal agreements. Rather, the policies should be read as encompassing all possible conditions and agreements: the . The use of appropriate planning conditions or legal agreements can ensure the effective control of waste operations and reduce their impact on the environment. It may enhance the quality of development and enable proposals to go ahead with safeguards, environmental improvements or other commitments. The waste local plan policies assume that such conditions and agreements would be applied where relevant (for instance by having a condition that protects a natural history feature so that it passes the test of Policy W6W5).”
2) No change.
16a.doc Page 11 of 129
Derby and Derbyshire Waste Local Plan REPORT OF PUBLICITY AND CONSULTATIONS JULY 2003
COMMENTS ON CHAPTER 2 Derby and Derbyshire Waste Planning Strategy
2.3 – 2.7 Legislation
Summary A reference should be included in the plan to the implications of the Human Rights Act and the Road Traffic Reduction Act. Derby FoE 0315
Assessment In preparing plans, the authorities have due regard to the legislative environment. It is not appropriate to list every statute and regulation that describes that environment. The need to take full account of the transport implications of waste developments is integral to the objectives and policies of the plan.
Recommendation No change.
2.19 Zero Waste
Summary We question the omission of such emerging strategies as “zero waste”. Derby FoE 0316; Renewable Energy Objectors 0310 Assessment “Zero Waste” is a campaign that envisages the complete redesign of the industrial system so that we no longer view nature as an endless supply of materials for making into products that break down and are then discarded. It targets all sections of society; it is a “whole system approach” that also seeks to maximise recycling. The waste local plan can only influence the aspects that affect the development and use of land - it cannot in reality influence the scale of waste generation. The plan assumes that over the plan period there will be no growth in waste production per person but allows for forecast changes in population household size and numbers. The plan’s policy criteria approach will enable the planning process in Derbyshire to respond to unexpected future changes, including the achievement of zero waste. A cross-reference to “Zero Waste” could be included in paragraph 2.19.
Recommendation Change appendix A, paragraph A2.6, to incorporate references to waste reduction and “Zero Waste”, and include a cross-reference ([“A2.6]”) in paragraph 2.19, as follows:
“The waste hierarchy 2.19 The “waste hierarchy” is a list of the government’s priorities regarding the creation and management of waste. For example, at the bottom of the list is landfill, which the government says should normally be the last resort for waste management. The top priority for decision-makers is to “start with a review of how less waste might be produced” (Waste Strategy 2000, Part 2, paragraph 3.7), and so
16a.doc Page 12 of 129
Derby and Derbyshire Waste Local Plan REPORT OF PUBLICITY AND CONSULTATIONS JULY 2003 waste reduction is at the top of the hierarchy. Waste reduction [A2.6] is something which every member of society can achieve but, as explained below, is not something which this strategy can further. Below reduction, in the hierarchy, there is a scale of options for the waste which is produced. The options seek to use waste as a valuable resource. The hierarchy is set out in the following paragraphs.”
[Appendix A] “A2.6 Waste reduction, re-use and recycling
Waste reduction seeks to avoid the generation of waste; re-use uses products or materials more than once and thus delays their becoming waste; and recycling Recycling is the processing of processes waste into new materials or goods. Waste Strategy 2000 says that it is necessary to break “the link between economic growth and increased waste” (Part 1, Summary, p.7). Much work on waste reduction and re- use is being carried out by businesses and householders. Also, campaigns such as ‘Zero Waste’ seek to redesign the way that resources and materials flow through society so that manufactured products are resource-efficient, long-lasting, re- useable, repairable and recyclable. Such campaigns, if successful, could influence the number, scale, type and location of facilities that the plan will need to provide for.”
2.23 Waste hierarchy: the role of energy recovery
Summary 1) The plan gives prominence to energy recovery over composting and recycling. John Parsons 0082; Renewable Energy Objectors 0307 2) The plan does not make clear that giving prominence to energy recovery interferes with recycling and composting by diverting valuable waste resources through reliance on local authority contracts. John Parsons 0082; Renewable Energy Objectors 0307 3) The plan should not include incineration as a recent court judgement found that incineration does not legally have to be included. John Parsons 0082; Renewable Energy Objectors 0307 Assessment 1) There is no statement in the plan indicating that prominence will be given to energy recovery over composting and recycling and it is not the intention of the plan to do so. 2) On the contrary, the plan, in this paragraph, acknowledges the government statement that all opportunities for recycling should be considered before energy recovery by incineration. 3) It is government advice rather than government legislation that guides the detailed policy content of development plans. There is no legal requirement to include incinerators in a plan, but incinerators, with or without energy recovery, are listed in PPG10 amongst the waste facilities that plans should consider. This paragraph provides an accurate representation of government advice on this issue.
Recommendation 1)-3) No change.
16a.doc Page 13 of 129
Derby and Derbyshire Waste Local Plan REPORT OF PUBLICITY AND CONSULTATIONS JULY 2003
2.25 The proximity principle
Summary This paragraph should indicate that the proximity principle should be managed regionally for the Best Environmental Option. KDCS 0223
Assessment The proximity principle is not applied at any particular level. Paragraph 2.25 correctly establishes that the principle means that waste should generally be managed as near as possible to its place of production. The wording of the paragraph accurately reflects government policy on this issue.
Recommendation No change.
2.36 Strategic Waste Management Assessment
See recommendation re chapter 5 (objection 0220).
2.37 Regional Technical Advisory Body
Summary This paragraph should make it clear that RTAB is also there to give advice to waste planning authorities on integrated waste management regionally. KDCS 0221
Assessment The RTABs have no direct role in advising waste planning authorities. Their role, as set out in Annex B of PPG10, is to make appropriate recommendations to the regional planning bodies (RPB). The conclusions of the RPB on waste management are then reflected in regional planning guidance (RPG), which (as made clear in paragraph 2.32) is taken into account in the preparation of development plans. The plan accurately describes the roles of the RTAB and of the RPG in paragraphs 2.32, 2.33 and 2.37.
Recommendation No change.
2.42 & 2.43 Other local plans
Summary The Peak District National Park should be included in the local plan under, and subject to, the same criteria as other Derbyshire areas, to provide an integrated county-wide approach, avoiding distortions in waste disposal and transport. Paragraph 2.43 should be amended to require the park to provide for the management of its own waste in line with the proximity principle. Clay Cross & District EAG 0219; Chesterfield & North Derbyshire FoE 0254; G G Percy 0090; COTEP 0112; Joan Liddle 0273
16a.doc Page 14 of 129
Derby and Derbyshire Waste Local Plan REPORT OF PUBLICITY AND CONSULTATIONS JULY 2003
Assessment
The Peak District National Park Authority is a separate planning authority which, by law, is required to prepare its own development plans and only a part of its area lies within Derbyshire. The Peak District National Park has already adopted a structure plan and a local plan which include policies for waste management development. The status of the peak park plans is equal to those of the rest of Derbyshire. It is therefore not possible to include the national park in the plan area or to impose requirements on the national park.
Regarding the export of waste, it is not the function of local plans to control the movement of waste to existing sites, whether they be within or without the peak park. Local plans can deal only with proposals for new development. The waste local plan addresses, inter alia, the land-use implications of the Derbyshire Waste Management Strategy and the West Derbyshire Sub-Area Strategy. Those strategies, which do cover the Derbyshire part of the national park, seek the provision of a range of recycling, central composting, and bulking-up facilities. Large facilities will involve the development of sites accessible to large population centres, which generally lie outside the national park boundary. The waste management strategies acknowledge that most of the national park is geologically unsuitable for non-inert landfill disposal, which would therefore be unacceptable to the Environment Agency. Further explanation in paragraph 2.43 would be helpful.
Also, additional changes to the waste local plan are necessary because the First Deposit plan misrepresents the policy stance of the Peak National Park Local Plan. There are two paragraphs in the waste local plan which should be corrected: paragraph 2.43, to describe more accurately the Peak National Park Local Plan’s policies; and paragraph 5.5, to delete the statement that chapter 5 of the waste local plan does not discuss waste development in the peak park (it does, in the discussion of waste management in the west sub-area).
Recommendation Change paragraphs 2.42 (minor textual change) & 2.43 and delete paragraph 5.5, as follows:
“2.42 All the Derbyshire districts and the City of Derby have adopted local plans, which together cover the waste local plan area. The city and county have also jointly adopted a minerals local plan for the area. The preparation of the waste local plan has taken should take account of the many policies in those plans but does should not seek to duplicate or contradict them (see paragraphs 1.10-1.12).
2.43 In recognition of the valued characteristics of the Peak Park, the The Peak District National Park Local Plan deals with waste matters but sets stringent criteria for the consideration of applications for waste management facilities. It expects that, when new landfill sites are needed for “non-inert” (now properly called non- hazardous [A1.6]) waste, the sites will be outside the national park: permission for such sites within the park will be granted only in exceptional circumstances, for example where a more suitable location outside the park cannot be found. The effect of the policy is that there are unlikely to be new, non-hazardous [A1.6], landfill sites in the
16a.doc Page 15 of 129
Derby and Derbyshire Waste Local Plan REPORT OF PUBLICITY AND CONSULTATIONS JULY 2003
Peak Park in the foreseeable future. The Derby and Derbyshire Waste Local Plan, when it is assessing the need for landfill in Derby and Derbyshire, should acknowledge that effect. To the extent that the Peak District National Park Local Plan does not provide for all the waste management facilities which may be needed to serve the national park. So, where appropriate , this local plan makes should make the necessary provision for such facilities to be developed provided outside the park.”
“5.5 This chapter does not discuss the potential for waste development in the Peak District National Park because the peak park’s local plan policies are restrictive towards development of that sort.”
2.47 & 2.52 Municipal and industrial wastes
Summaries 1) The plan should make reference to the fact that industrial, commercial, construction and demolition waste form the majority of waste dumped in landfill sites, to the need to ascertain the full amounts of this waste, and then to consider ways of reducing it. G G Percy 0091; COTEP 0113; Joan Liddle 0274 2) The plan does not consider commercial waste growth. Derby FoE 0317
Assessments 1) Agree that it would be helpful to include a reference to the relative proportions of waste that are categorised as municipal waste and industrial, commercial, construction and demolition waste in paragraphs 2.47 and 2.52 respectively. The need to gather such information, including information about the quantities of the different wastes that are landfilled, is dealt with adequately in the monitoring section of this chapter and in the Technical Working Paper which accompanies the plan and which is summarised in Appendix B. The plan makes it clear that the data in the working paper will be subject to continual review. It is not possible for the planning system to have any significant influence over the quantities of wastes that are actually generated, only on how it is subsequently managed. 1) The plan considers commercial waste growth in paragraph 2.52.
Recommendations 1) Add new wording to the start of paragraph 2.47 and change the first sentence of paragraph 2.52, as follows:
“Municipal waste 2.47 Municipal waste accounts for around a quarter of total waste arisings. According to Waste Strategy 2000, household waste and biodegradable municipal waste increased nationally to the year 2000 at about 3% per annum (Part 1, summary and paragraph 1.8). Locally the pattern was similar but may be changing. In 2000/2001, the growth rate of municipal waste in Derbyshire fell to less than 1%.”
“Other wastes 2.52 Industrial, commercial, construction and demolition wastes. There is little reliable information about the amounts of industrial, Industrial, commercial, construction and demolition [A1.5] wastes account for about three quarters of total
16a.doc Page 16 of 129
Derby and Derbyshire Waste Local Plan REPORT OF PUBLICITY AND CONSULTATIONS JULY 2003 waste arisings waste which are produced each year. Prediction of future arisings is difficult for that reason because until recently there has not been a consistent system of data collection and because changes in the economic situation for key waste- producing industries and businesses and in legal and financial regulation can make big differences to the behaviour of companies. The Derbyshire Waste Management Strategy (1999) states (paragraph 6.8), “… the starting point should be to consider waste management options for the future on the basis that the levels of industrial and commercial waste production will remain broadly constant … .”
2) No change.
2.54 Hazardous waste
Summaries 1) Hazardous waste is currently entering the UK illegally as recyclable waste. The local plan should introduce new measures to end the illegal dumping of hazardous waste and ensure that every tonne is traced back to the dumper. A reference to the importation of hazardous waste should be included. G G Percy 0092; COTEP 0114; Joan Liddle 0275; J B Whapplington 0327 2) The agency estimates that changes in the “Hazardous Waste List” are likely to lead to a doubling of the recorded amount of hazardous waste within the next “couple of years”. Environment Agency 0176
Assessments 1) The monitoring and regulating of waste imported to the UK is the responsibility of the Environment Agency or other law enforcers and there is no need for this plan to duplicate those responsibilities. 2) There is considerable uncertainty about the future quantities of “hazardous” waste and the plan will take account of more up-to-date information as soon as it is available. Until then, there is no need to change the plan’s statement, “It is possible that quantities of special or “hazardous” waste will increase because legislation and regulation will lead to more wastes being classified as hazardous.”
Recommendations 1) & 2) No change.
2.55 Waste management contracts
Summary The waste contract process is not transparent. Authorities are usually in contact with the developer a full two years before the community gets to hear about developments that may affect them. Entering into contracts before planning permission is even granted dissolves any confidence in the procedures further. Derby FoE 0318
Assessment The content of the waste local plan cannot affect the procedures by which the waste contracts are awarded. A system that required prospective contractors to identify
16a.doc Page 17 of 129
Derby and Derbyshire Waste Local Plan REPORT OF PUBLICITY AND CONSULTATIONS JULY 2003 and obtain planning permission for all their sites before tendering would be either unworkable or unacceptable because it would lead to the over-provision of sites.
Recommendation No change.
2.56 – 2.59 A policy criteria approach
Summaries
1) The plan should conform to PPG10 and replace its criteria based approach with one that identifies sites or areas of search where possible. Criteria policies should only be used where it can be demonstrated to be the only practical option. The Government has recently endorsed the “Guidance on Policies for Waste Management Planning” published by DTLR in May, 2002. This notes that the criteria approach has been criticised at public inquiries because it fails to meet the requirements of the plan-led system by not giving sufficient guidance on preferred locations or providing public involvement in site selection. The reasons given in the plan for the adopted approach is generalised and not based on circumstances specific to Derbyshire. Nottinghamshire CC 0048 2) The criteria based approach should be reconsidered. Appendix B identifies significant shortfalls in capacity and no additional capacity has been identified; the explanation for this in paragraph 2.57 is unsatisfactory. Sites to cater for the immediate identified shortfall in landfill capacity and the needs expected to arise during the plan period should be identified. If it proves impossible to identify sites or areas of search, policies should indicate types of location that would be suitable for the range of facilities need to meet targets, and possibly types of location that would not. GOEM 0189 3) Without a (more) positive criteria based approach there is a danger that new facilities will not be developed where and when needed. The criteria approach should not be used as a charter to refuse everything. A paragraph should be added stating that the criteria based approach will need to make provision for a range of waste management facilities, including landfill sites and a waste to energy plant. It should be recognised in the text that, to make provision, it may be necessary to over- ride restrictive planning criteria, e.g. Green Belt or landscape policy. WRG 0056 4) The plan should be site-specific. General principles and criteria are all very well, but this plan can be used as a stick to beat anyone who has the temerity to object to a specific proposal. Paul Gibbons 0178 5) The plan is no more than a set of planning guidelines with no specific proposals and will achieve nothing. CR Davis 0020
Assessments
1) and 2)
PPG10 (paragraph 33) tells us that if a plan does not make provision by identifying sites, this must be justified. It tells us that the alternative approaches are either an “areas of search” approach or a “comprehensive criteria” approach, but no particular preference between the two is stipulated. It does not require an authority to
16a.doc Page 18 of 129
Derby and Derbyshire Waste Local Plan REPORT OF PUBLICITY AND CONSULTATIONS JULY 2003 demonstrate that a criteria approach is “the only practical option”. It is important to take account of all Government guidance on this issue. Advice in PPG12, paragraph 3.12, is quite finely balanced on whether site-specific or policy criteria approach should be followed – it points out the pros and cons of each approach. It is also significantly less positive about the need to identify sites in waste local plans compared with other local plans.
The “Guidance on Policies for Waste Management Planning” (May 2002) in respect of this issue does not accord with PPG advice. It does not adequately consider the balance of considerations outlined in Government guidance, but quotes selectively from it. Although published by DTLR, the report was prepared by consultants, assisted by a study team. The DTLR makes it clear that “the guidance reflects the views of the study team and does not necessarily represent the views of the DTLR or any other parties involved.” The report therefore does not have the status of “Government Guidance”. The report also says “It should be noted that this guidance was prepared before the publication in December 2001 of DTLR’s Planning Green Paper”, which has more recently been followed by the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill. The bill proposes to replace waste local plans with waste development documents, the first part of which is to be criteria-based. The preparation of a criteria-based local plan will facilitate the transition to the new approach.
Government guidance says that, to prepare a criteria-based plan, the planning authority must (a) give reasons, explaining why the plan does not allocate specific sites, (b) address the need for sites and facilities in particular areas and the sorts of locations which would be suitable, and (c) identify the planning criteria likely to apply. The waste local plan fulfils all these requirements. However, there is substance in the objections, principally: that the plan should contain a clearer explanation of the reasons for the criteria-based approach, with particular reference to the special circumstances of Derby and Derbyshire; and that the plan should explain more clearly how the plan is providing for the development of any waste management facilities, particularly landfill provision, which will be needed during the plan period but for which the plan does not identify sites. (See the recommendations below.)
3), 4) & 5) The comprehensive criteria approach is not a “charter for refusing everything”, neither is it a “stick to beat anyone who is an objector”. None of the policies of the plan rules out the granting of permission for any particular type of waste facility. Paragraphs 7.1 to 7.3 of the plan already makes it clear that all options for managing waste should be considered. Indeed one of the advantages of the policy criteria approach is that it facilitates this. Plans do not have to be site-specific to be effective. Paragraph 3.2 explains that the policies of the plan reflect the policy objectives of the waste planning strategy and paragraph 2.60 (2.70 in Revised Deposit) explains that some of the objectives will not be entirely compatible with others. In reality, decisions will be based on a balance of considerations. We note that there is support, specifically from Amber Valley Borough Council (representation 0179, in appendix 1 to this report), for the intentional omission from the plan of site- specific policies.
16a.doc Page 19 of 129
Derby and Derbyshire Waste Local Plan REPORT OF PUBLICITY AND CONSULTATIONS JULY 2003
Recommendations
1) and 2)
A. That paragraphs 2.57 onwards be re-written, as set out below, in order to: explain why is not possible for the waste local plan to follow PPG 10’s recommended approach to providing for waste management facilities (described in the PPG as “the identification of specific sites for development” (paragraph 33)); and clarify the extent to which the reasons for adopting the policy criteria approach are specific to circumstances in Derby and Derbyshire.
B. That chapter 5 and appendix B be changed to explain more clearly the availability of landfill voidspace in and around the plan area and clarify how any shortfalls in provision that are indicated could be dealt with in practice, including: referring to acceptable cross-boundary movements of waste to sites outside the county, making specific reference to specific cases; explaining that the shortage of landfill capacity for the disposal of inert waste is apparent rather than real – in practice, there is shortage of inert materials for the restoration of gravel sites in the SE Sub-Area;
C. That paragraph 6.6.2, 3 & 10, in box W12 (W11 in Revised Deposit), be changed, as follows, to clarify the application of the appendix B methodology and to refer to the potential for accommodating landfill capacity in the restoration schemes for opencast coal sites:
[BOX W12W11] “ Satisfying a need (all wastes) 6.6.2 That the need is identified in accordance with the methodology set out in appendix B; 6.6.3 If the need is not identified in accordance with appendix B, that the difference methodology used for identifying the need is satisfactorily explained;”
“ Restoration of land 6.6.89 That the land is derelict, disused or under-used or is an existing or future minerals site; 6.6.910That the land needs or will need restoration to a standard which would be achieved by the form of landfill development proposed in the application (for example, that the restoration of a former coal or clay extraction site to agricultural use would benefit from the particular non-hazardous waste disposal development which the applicant proposes). 6.6.1011That the proposed after-use would not conflict with the provisions of the district local plan for the area.”
D. That an additional sentence be added to paragraph 7.1, as follows, making it clearer that the development of waste treatment facilities will normally be acceptable on land that is suitable for general industry (B2) uses:
“7.1 This chapter describes various types of development which provide facilities for the recovery of value from waste and discusses the concerns relating to them.
16a.doc Page 20 of 129
Derby and Derbyshire Waste Local Plan REPORT OF PUBLICITY AND CONSULTATIONS JULY 2003
Most planning applications for waste development will be considered against a range of development plan policies but the following paragraphs make helpful reference to policies of this plan which are particularly applicable. In several instances, the paragraphs identify the sorts of locations where particular types of waste management development may be appropriately sited. In addition to those, the development of waste treatment facilities will normally be acceptable on land that is suitable for general industrial (B2) uses [A3.16] , although such sites may not always be appropriate (for example, a bunker for the storage of recyclable materials from a shopping centre should normally be sited within the centre).”
E. That paragraphs 2.56 and 2.72 be changed, as follows:
“2.56 The waste local plan should make provision in accordance with the assumption. If it successfully does so, it will assist in achieving the government’s targets. It should offer flexibility for the waste and development industries to provide a wide range of facilities. Whilst some of those facilities would take some years to develop, they could eventually take recovery levels beyond the targets and further reduce the proportions being landfilled. There will nevertheless be a continuing need to dispose of large quantities of the city’s and county’s waste by landfill. The plan should provide for planning permission to be granted for landfill development in cases where there is a need for landfill to serve the local area and always subject to environmental considerations.”
“2.72 2.82 PPG 12 advises that the waste local plan should be reviewed formally every five years. However, it should be reviewed sooner if there are changes to the context in which it has been prepared (for example, significant changes in legislation, policy or the circumstances affecting the validity of the plan’s assumptions). The waste planning authorities should remain continuously aware of the overall policy context and should initiate reviews when necessary appropriate. In particular, the authorities should monitor carefully the availability of and possible need for more landfill space, particularly to serve the south-east sub-area, and should review the plan as a matter of urgency with a view to bringing forward alterations if that should become necessary.”
3) 4) and 5) No change.
The recommended new paragraphs 2.57-2.69 (to replace paragraphs 2.57-2.59, with consequent changes to the subsequent paragraph numbers) are as follows:
“A policy criteria approach to providing for waste development
Making provision for waste development 2.57 Government guidance ( PPG10, paragraph 33) suggests the best way of making provision for waste management facilities is to identify specific sites for development and, if that is not possible, waste local plans should explain why it has not been done. PPG 10 provides guidance on how plans should make provision for development when a need for new or replacement facilities has been identified. Paragraph 33, states: “the identification of specific sites for development is the best way that the planning system can make provision for waste management facilities”
16a.doc Page 21 of 129
Derby and Derbyshire Waste Local Plan REPORT OF PUBLICITY AND CONSULTATIONS JULY 2003 and, “if this is not possible, waste local plans should justify why this approach has not been followed”. This strategy does not intend that the plan should identify specific sites; rather, the plan should adopt an approach suggested as an alternative in the guidance, which involves identifying comprehensive criteria against which proposals for waste development will be considered. In doing so, the plan should seek to assist in the development of the most sustainable waste management solutions. The two main reasons for preferring that approach are the need to deal with uncertainty and the need to provide for flexibility.
2.58 For the plan area, it is not possible to follow the “specific sites” approach for a number of reasons, which are explained below. Generally, the reasons arise from: Derbyshire’s particular geographical location and the current lack of clearly suitable landfill sites; the need for flexibility, reflecting the recommendations of the Derbyshire Waste Management Strategy and catering for future changes in major waste management contracts; and the existence of unimplemented major planning permissions for waste developments.
Derbyshire’s location and the availability of sites 2.59 Derbyshire is in a very unusual geographical location, with almost two thirds (61%) of its boundary adjoining neighbouring regions, and being greatly influenced by conurbations just outside its boundaries. In the area stretching from Derby/Nottingham to Chesterfield/Sheffield, the cross-boundary relationship is evidenced by overlapping travel-to-work areas, the need for green belt restrictions on development and the fact that waste is already transported inwards and outwards to and from Derbyshire. Other parts of Derbyshire exhibit similar characteristics. For example, much of South Derbyshire District is in the Burton (a West Midlands region town) travel-to-work area; and the need for a separate swathe of green belt between Swadlincote and Burton to prevent these towns from merging indicates that there are strong cross-boundary links between these communities.
2.60 At present, there are numerous short-distance movements of waste across the boundaries and such movements are likely to continue in the future. Some major facilities already receiving waste generated in Derbyshire, such as at Sutton-in- Ashfield in Nottinghamshire, are located outside the county. Other facilities in north east and north west Derbyshire have the potential for attracting waste from Sheffield and Greater Manchester respectively.
2.61 The importance of those cross-boundary flows means that it is neither realistic nor desirable that the capacity of landfill sites in Derbyshire should necessarily match the quantities of waste generated. Although Derbyshire is an important mineral- producing county, most mineral voids that are created lie either in the limestone or the river valley gravel areas. Both of these areas are subject to pollution control and/or ground water protection constraints that severely restrict the opportunities for providing for landfill disposal. Opencast coal and clay sites provide geologically the most suitable and technically the most acceptable opportunities for landfill disposal. Such sites become available only as opportunities for mineral extraction arise. At present, apart from existing and permitted sites, there are no known landfill opportunities of that sort in Derbyshire. (See also paragraph 2.66 below.)
16a.doc Page 22 of 129
Derby and Derbyshire Waste Local Plan REPORT OF PUBLICITY AND CONSULTATIONS JULY 2003
2.58 In order to specify sites in a local plan a high level of confidence is required that the proposals are feasible and realistic and will satisfy the need identified in the plan. That level of confidence is not considered to be achievable in this plan because of a number of uncertainties. The uncertainties include: a lack of reliable information on the quantities and types of future waste arisings; uncertainty about the most sustainable methods of managing waste in a highly complex system, both now and in the future; and unpredictability about the effects of recent and future changes in the legislative framework. If sites were to be identified, they would be at risk of being either no longer preferred locations by the time they became available or no longer needed for their identified purpose. In a system that is so complex and dependent upon so many variables a "policy criteria" approach is a more robust way of making provision.
The need for flexibility 2.62 2.59 The need for flexibility is central to the Derbyshire Waste Management Strategy. To further the implementation of the strategy, which the plan seeks to do, it is important that the plan should help to provide that flexibility. The 1999 strategy commits the waste management authorities to “maximising progress towards sustainable waste management” by “using an integrated combination of methods” (Policy 1, paragraph 10.34). It acknowledges that waste management technologies and the relative economics attached to different waste disposal methods are changing fast and so it does not seek to determine – nor should the plan seek to determine – what combination of methods will provide the most sustainable and integrated solutions. But it is essential that the plan should provide the flexibility in its land use policies to enable the waste management strategy to facilitate those solutions.
There may, for example, be several alternative waste management solutions for meeting demand in a particular area in terms of the numbers and types of sites and facilities. Some options, which might potentially provide major benefits in terms of sustainability, may not yet have been fully developed. Current knowledge may not provide sufficient basis for assessing them but the plan should not inhibit their potential. Whether or not they offer acceptable solutions in land use planning terms will be judged against the policy criteria in the plan.
2.63 Waste management in Derbyshire is entering a period of far-reaching change. All the contracts for the management (collection and disposal) of municipal waste are due for renewal in the next few years and it is not possible to anticipate what contracts might be awarded or the nature of the systems that might be put in place as a consequence of the new contracts. Although they will be primarily concerned with municipal waste, the new operators are likely also to have significant involvement with the management of private sector waste as they seek economies of scale and as the waste management system becomes more integrated. Thus the contracts will have a substantial, but an unforcastable, influence on the way facilities may need to be developed in the future.
Unimplemented planning permissions 2.64 Planning permission has been granted for two waste processing plants in Derby which, if developed, will have very considerable capacity. If either is
16a.doc Page 23 of 129
Derby and Derbyshire Waste Local Plan REPORT OF PUBLICITY AND CONSULTATIONS JULY 2003 constructed, it will have a fundamental, but again unforcastable, effect on the waste management system of the city and the southern part of the county.
Why not “areas of search”?
2.65 PPG 10 puts forward the possibility of waste local plans providing guidance on “areas of search” for certain types of facility. However, for the reasons given in paragraphs 2.66 & 2.67, below, that, too, is an impractical approach in Derby and Derbyshire.
Areas suitable for landfill 2.66 As explained in paragraph 2.61, above, the provision of landfill capacity in Derbyshire is most likely to continue to be greatly dependent on coal and clay permissions. The statutory Derby and Derbyshire Minerals Local Plan does not identify specific sites for coal or clay working in Derbyshire, preferring a policy criteria approach to providing for such development. As the minerals plan could establish no clear boundary for those areas, it will not be possible for the waste local plan to be “area specific” about such landfill opportunities.
Areas for other waste management development 2.67 To take forward the proximity principle contained in government guidance and explained in paragraphs 2.25-2.31, above), the development of facilities for the handling or treatment of waste may be acceptable on land that is within or close to urban areas which are the source of the waste and on land where general industrial development (B2) is acceptable. However the requirements and potential effects of waste developments vary widely. So it would be impractical and misleading to delineate on a map, in a way that would add clarity to decisions, areas of search based on those considerations.
Other considerations
2.68 The government’s and other policies described earlier in this chapter make it clear that the plan should avoid over-provision at the bottom of the waste hierarchy and yet provide for an adequate supply of facilities for the management and disposal of waste. That can best be achieved in Derby and Derbyshire by establishing policies which are positive towards developments moving waste up the hierarchy but will enable landfill development to take place when it is essential to satisfy a need.
2.69 PPG12 (Development Plans) states: “too many site-specific policies can lead to an inflexible plan, which may become out of date and need early replacement or alteration as circumstances change. Properly framed criteria-based policies can help simplify plans, and provide flexibility in areas where that is desired. Criteria can be adopted which can be used to judge planning applications in a broad range of circumstances.” In Derby and Derbyshire, because of the reasons set out above, such a criteria-based approach will be the most appropriate way of providing guidance for planning decisions on waste development.”
2.61 Aim of the waste planning strategy
16a.doc Page 24 of 129
Derby and Derbyshire Waste Local Plan REPORT OF PUBLICITY AND CONSULTATIONS JULY 2003
Summaries 1) The aim should be expanded to state that “Derbyshire will aim to provide sufficient waste facilities to manage all waste arising within the county boundary” Langridge Homes 0014 2) Respecting the principles of sustainable development and protecting people and communities, the countryside, natural resources and the built heritage from adverse effects of waste management will not be achieved without full consideration of the effects, which are not properly evaluated. Derby FoE 0319
Assessments 1) The close geographical relationship of Derbyshire with adjoining urban areas means that it would be unrealistic and contrary to the proximity principle to limit the aim of the plan to providing only for the needs of waste generated in Derbyshire. Sustainable solutions are likely to involve cross-county-boundary movements of waste in both directions. 2) Agree that evaluation is necessary. Indeed, it is not possible to implement the policies of the plan without evaluating the waste developments that are proposed. Furthermore, the policies themselves are the subject of evaluation, which is carried out by means of an Environmental and Sustainable Development Appraisal. The appraisal, which is available from the city and county councils, tests the plan’s objectives against government sustainable development policies and then tests the plan’s policies against the objectives of the plan. How successfully the planning strategy aim may be achieved in practice is an important concern, which is dealt with at the end of chapter 2 under the heading “Monitoring the waste planning strategy and the waste local plan”.
Recommendations 1) & 2) No change.
2.62 Policy objectives – general comments
Summaries 1) A reference to making the health issue the most important objective should be included. COTEP 0115; G G Percy 0093; N A Lievesley 0198; J B Whapplington 0329 2) There are many instances where these objectives may be incompatible and the plan should include a clear statement stating how conflicting objectives should be resolved. Countryside Agency 0046; Langridge Homes 0015 3a) The policy objectives should be relaxed: they should be altered so that terms “permit” and “refuse” are replaced by “support” and “resist”. WRG 0057 3b) The objectives should be altered so that areas for protection are limited to those protected by national planning policy. WRG 0057 4) The objectives are sound and accurately reflect the current situation. CPRE 0209 Assessments 1) & 2) It is neither desirable nor practicable to mention every individual environmental, social and economic concern in the list of objectives. It is necessary only that every relevant concern can be satisfactorily addressed through the objectives. Objective 6 is intended to embrace all potential adverse impacts on
16a.doc Page 25 of 129
Derby and Derbyshire Waste Local Plan REPORT OF PUBLICITY AND CONSULTATIONS JULY 2003 people or communities, including health impacts. It would be helpful however if the wording were to be amended to clarify this intention. The plan does not seek to imply the relative importance of the objectives by the order in which they are listed, nor would it be appropriate for it to do so. The relative importance of objectives will only be an issue where they are in conflict, and such conflicts can only be resolved through the plan’s policies in relation to individual cases. 3a) The wording of the objectives is intended to link them closely to the wording of the policies – hence the term “policy objectives”. This has clear advantages in demonstrating how well the policies may make progress towards what the plan has set out to achieve. 3b) Government guidance makes it clear that plans “should be drawn up in such a way as to take environmental considerations comprehensively and consistently into account” (PPG 12, paragraph 4.4). 4) The support is welcomed.
Recommendations 1) & 2) Change paragraph 2.60 and objective 6 of paragraph 2.62, as follows:
“2.60 70 The “aim” states in general terms what land-use planning for waste should be trying to achieve. It sets a context for the “policy objectives” of the local plan. The policy objectives are stepping stones from the aim to the local plan policies. The objectives sound idealistic because they say what the waste planning authorities would like to do in ideal circumstances. In reality, some of the policy objectives will not be entirely compatible with others. Some may be only partially achievable. The waste local plan as a whole should balance the objectives successfully. When the assessment of planning applications raises apparent conflicts between objectives, such conflicts should be resolved by reference to the plan’s policies in relation to the individual circumstances of each case.”
“2.622.72 [in policy objectives] 6. To refuse development which would have material, adverse impacts on people or communities, including impacts on their health and on and their enjoyment of the amenities of their locality.”
3) & 4) No change.
2.72 Need for landfill development
See recommendation E re paragraphs 2.56-2.59 (objections 0048 & 0189)
16a.doc Page 26 of 129
Derby and Derbyshire Waste Local Plan REPORT OF PUBLICITY AND CONSULTATIONS JULY 2003
COMMENTS ON CHAPTER 3 Policies applying waste management principles
3.2 Balance between need and other considerations
See recommendations re paragraphs 3.12 & 3.13 (objections 0058, 0190, 0244 & 0303).
3.3 Links between waste management and other forms of development
Summaries 1) This section should give priority to people’s health. The paragraph should not say that it is all right to add waste management facilities to an area already blighted by industry. COTEP 0122 2) This paragraph should be rewritten to minimise waste processing where other industrial processes already exist. People who live in areas which are already industrialised should not have to face even more pollution. Their quality of life should be getting better. Everyone in the county should have low health risks rather than some receiving even more. Joan Liddle 0281
Assessments 1) & 2) The paragraph explains how the plan might link with other parts of the development plan. It does not encourage the movement of waste management facilities to blighted areas, nor does it suggest that health concerns should be overlooked in favour of creating an integrated system. The plan is opposed to development that has harmful cumulative impacts: policy W11 (W10 in Revised Deposit) addresses the issue. To further allay concerns, a health warning could be included in the paragraph.
Recommendations 1) & 2) Change paragraph 3.3 as follows:
“3.3 When assessing planning applications, the waste planning authority will always consider how well the development would relate to the other parts of the development plan, such as the minerals or district-wide local plans. Indeed, waste developments are often closely linked with other forms of development – perhaps a concrete products factory or a plastics processing plant. Where they do not pose a risk to health or the environment, those Those sorts of links often contribute to a sustainable and integrated waste management[A2.3] system and are sought by several of the plan’s policies. An important responsibility of the waste planning authority, when assessing waste development applications, will be to liaise closely with the other planning authorities.”
3.5 BPEO
See recommendations re paragraph 3.9.2 (objections 0124, 0283 & 0300).
16a.doc Page 27 of 129
Derby and Derbyshire Waste Local Plan REPORT OF PUBLICITY AND CONSULTATIONS JULY 2003
3.6 The waste hierarchy
See recommendation re paragraph 3.9 (objections 0222 & 0316).
3.7 The proximity principle and self-sufficiency
Summaries 1) The paragraph should say that the Peak District National Park should practise self-sufficiency in waste management except in exceptional circumstances. COTEP 0123 2) The paragraph should be deleted. It encourages the transport of waste from the Peak District to Staveley, which increases diesel particulates. There should be landfill sites in the Peak District, to deal with all its waste and waste from other areas. Joan Liddle 0282 Assessments 1) & 2) The plan has no power to say that the Peak District National Park should practise self-sufficiency. The legal duty to prepare planning policies for the area of the Peak District National Park lies with the national park authority. The paragraph does not mention the transport of waste from the Peak Park. The self- sufficiency principle as defined by the government applies to nations and regions, not to parts of counties. However, it is necessary to alter parts of the waste local plan, as discussed in relation to objection 0254, to describe more accurately the policy stance of the Peak National Park Local Plan.
Recommendations 1) & 2) Change paragraphs 2.42 (minor textual change) & 2.43 and delete paragraph 5.5, as recommended re those paragraphs (objections 0219, 0254, 0090, 0112 and 0273).
3.9 Policy W1a Sustainable development
Summaries 1) The policy should be amended to list the contents of the waste hierarchy and to refer to regional self-sufficiency. That would add clarity to the waste hierarchy reference and would explain how waste is to be managed. KDCS 0222 2) Support for emphasis on achieving sustainable solutions and adoption of full meaning of sustainability with particular reference to consideration of community and environmental issues. Countryside Agency (East Mids) 0037 3a) The plan should respect the government’s sustainability objective to conserve fossil fuels and the policy should put composting and recycling before incineration, should not use the proximity principle or self-sufficiency as a means of allowing waste from other districts to be transported to Derby for gasification and incineration and should be stronger on self-sufficiency. The government puts incineration at the bottom of the waste hierarchy, lower than composting and recycling and closer to landfill; in fact, some of the materials would be better landfilled than incinerated. Derby people should not have to put up with over 200 HGVs a day being visited on
16a.doc Page 28 of 129
Derby and Derbyshire Waste Local Plan REPORT OF PUBLICITY AND CONSULTATIONS JULY 2003
Derby from the adjacent districts, with the associated congestion, pollution and worsening amenity. Derby FoE 0316 3b) Providing for the transport of waste across the UK does not take account of the effects on local communities. Derby FoE 0316 3c) Regional guidance: RPG 8 requires local authorities to take “account of government policy to minimise waste arisings”. The plan should respond to that by saying that the waste collection authorities should not enter contracts to provide waste resources for energy-from-waste plant till all alternatives have been thoroughly examined. Derby FoE 0316 3d) Need for landfill space: there would be less need for landfill space if there were better composting and sustainable recycling initiatives. The plan should include an onus on manufacturers to work on biodegradable materials that can be composted rather than end up as residuals going to landfill. Derby FoE 0316
Assessments 1) Agree that the detail of the waste hierarchy is not set out in this section of the plan. The section should contain a reference to paragraphs 2.19-2.24, which explain the hierarchy quite fully. 2) The support is welcomed. 3a) The policy mirrors government policy, as expressed in Waste Strategy 2000 and subsequent statements. Paragraph 2.23 of the local plan explains government policy, including the ambiguous position of energy-from-waste; the reference in policy W1a to the waste hierarchy relies, for definition, on the explanation in chapter 2. Agree that the reliance on chapter 2 should be made clearer. Whilst it may be desirable that every community should manage and dispose of its waste locally, the plan cannot incorporate the unrealistic expectation that, in the period of the plan (by 2015), small towns or even district council areas will develop such systems. The EU “Handbook on the Implementation of EC Environment Legislation” says, “The relative roles of regional and local government in waste management may also vary according to economies of scale and waste type. Some countries have a very large number of small municipalities with individual responsibility for managing municipal waste. These are frequently too small to be able to construct suitable disposal facilities to the high standards demanded by EU legislation at an affordable cost. In this case, inter-municipal co-operation can be very beneficial in achieving groupings with enough waste to make suitable facilities affordable.” 3b) The provision for transportation over long distances that is mentioned in paragraphs 2.31 and 3.7 will only apply when such transportation accords with the principles of sustainable development. The effects on local communities are part of the sustainability assessment; they are also covered by policies W5-W11 of the local plan. 3c) In context, that quotation from the RPG says that development plans should take account of the government policy when assessing the need for waste treatment facilities. With regard to contracts, they are governed by other guidance and regulations, including Best Value, not by the waste local plan. 3d) Agree that the ability to compost more waste would help to reduce landfill. Nevertheless, to require industry to produce certain products is not within the powers of the local plan.
Recommendations 1) & 3a) Change paragraph 3.6, as follows:
16a.doc Page 29 of 129
Derby and Derbyshire Waste Local Plan REPORT OF PUBLICITY AND CONSULTATIONS JULY 2003
“3.6 Objective 2 also recognises the importance of the “key considerations” which should be used to help establish the BPEO: the waste hierarchy, the proximity principle and self-sufficiency (Waste Strategy 2000, Part 1,paragraph 4.5). , which are defined and discussed in Waste Strategy 2000, Part 1, paragraph 4.5, and in paragraphs 2.18-2.31 of this plan.”
2), 3b), 3c) &3d) No change.
3.9.2 Facilities offering the BPEO
Summaries 1) The words “an appropriate part of” should be deleted. The BPEO does not necessarily mean that the proposal would be risk-free and should not be watered down to “an appropriate part of the BPEO”. COTEP 0124; Joan Liddle 0283 2a) A BPEO assessment is essentially a strategic issue that should be carried out at a strategic level, rather than by the developer for each strategic location. Box W1a should be amended to emphasis that. ESA 0300 2b) Box W1a should state that the plan will be subject to the conclusions of the regional waste strategy. ESA 0300
Assessments 1) The BPEO for a waste stream may entail several stages of treatment. The particular facility which an applicant is proposing may not provide all those stages but it may offer, say, one stage, which would be “an appropriate part” of the BPEO. The plan does not intend to imply that a facility might be allowed to get away with offering less than it should. The words also acknowledge that not all the BPEO will necessarily be appropriate to the land use planning process, which paragraph 3.5 should explain. 2a) The purpose of the items in the boxes is not to impose a requirement on an applicant to show or prove a case; the purpose is to set out the sorts of things that a waste planning authority or appeal inspector will take into account when considering an application. But it is likely that the items in the boxes will help an applicant to know what information about relevant factors would help to support his or her case. Agree that this part of the plan should make it clearer, by reference back to chapter 2, that a BPEO assessment is not essentially a local land use planning assessment. But equally it is not essentially a strategic assessment. BPEO can be specific to a particular waste stream that a development proposal intends to process. There may be “different BPEOs for the same waste in different areas, or even different BPEOs for the same type of waste in the same area but at different times” (Waste Strategy 2000, Part 2, paragraph 3.6). 2b) Agree that the plan should accord with regional planning guidance. The plan already states that adequately. See paragraphs 2.32 and 3.13.4. When a regional waste strategy is published, the waste planning authorities will review the plan and consider whether any changes are necessary.
Recommendations 1) & 2a) Change paragraph 3.5, as follows:
16a.doc Page 30 of 129
Derby and Derbyshire Waste Local Plan REPORT OF PUBLICITY AND CONSULTATIONS JULY 2003
“3.5 Policy objective 1 in the waste planning strategy (chapter 2 of this plan) refers to the Best Practicable Environmental Option (BPEO). Best Practicable Environmental Option is the national waste strategy’s recommended tool for managing waste “more sustainably” (Waste Strategy 2000, Part 2, paragraphs 3.3 & 3.4). Chapter 2 of this plan explains Paragraphs 2.12-2.17 of the waste planning strategy explain BPEO and discusses its relationship with the local plan. As is clear from the waste planning strategy, a full assessment of the BPEO for a waste stream will include considerations that are not in themselves land use planning matters. But nevertheless, in assessing whether a waste development is likely to be a sustainable development, waste planning authorities must consider whether the development would play a part in contributing to the Best Practicable Environmental Option for the waste, as advised by PPG 10, paragraph 3.”
2b) No change.
3.9.5 The phrase, “at acceptable cost”
Summaries 1) The point should be worded to consider recycling and composting on health grounds. As presently worded, it gives priority to considering energy-from-waste and incineration on cost grounds. COTEP 0125 2) The point should be worded to consider recycling and composting on health grounds, not on cost grounds. Neither energy-from-waste nor incineration should be used until better systems are invented which are proven not to harm health. Joan Liddle 0284 Assessments 1) & 2) Agree that planning decisions should not give priority to cost grounds. The phrase in paragraph 3.9.5, “acceptable cost”, takes account of the environment. It is part of the definition of the Best Practicable Environmental Option, as set out in the twelfth report of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution (Feb 1988). Appendix A3.8 of the waste local plan discusses the phrase “acceptable cost” and explains that cost grounds should not take priority.
Recommendations 1) & 2) Include, in paragraph 3.9.5, a cross-reference to appendix A3.8, as follows:
“3.9.5 In the case of an energy-from-waste development, that other options such as recycling or composting are not available, at acceptable cost [A3.8], for those materials which are to be converted to energy.”
3.9.6 & 3.9.7 Treatment of by-products and waste products
Summaries 1) The point should state that incineration should not be permitted if the incineration products, such as bottom ash and fly ash, cannot be proven completely safe to health. COTEP 0126
16a.doc Page 31 of 129
Derby and Derbyshire Waste Local Plan REPORT OF PUBLICITY AND CONSULTATIONS JULY 2003
2) The paragraph should state “That the project’s waste products must be treated in a manner that presents no potential risk to the community and where the safety of wastes cannot be proven that the precautionary principle must prevail regardless of costs.” There should be no incineration in our area if the by-products cannot be handled without causing health risks. Joan Liddle 0285
Assessments 1) & 2) The policy, W1a, seeks sustainable development. A development that would be harmful to health would fail when judged against the policy and also against policies W7 and W8 (First Deposit). The point of paragraphs 3.9.1-3.9.17 is to describe the sorts of things that the planning authority would take into account when assessing whether a development would accord with the principles of sustainable development; it should prompt applicants to take steps to ensure that the waste products of their development would “be treated in a manner which represented their Best Practicable Environmental Option”.
Recommendations 1) & 2) No change.
3.9.8 & 3.9.9 The origin of the waste stream
Summaries 1) The point should exclude domestic waste because the source of such waste may be widespread. What is close to one source may not be close to another. COTEP 0127; Joan Liddle 0286 2) Paragraph 3.9.9 suggests that, to comply with the proximity principle, the development must always be closer to the source than other facilities. It should be amended to read “the proposal will enable waste to be managed as close to its source as feasible”. ESA 0301 3) Paragraph 3.9.8 suggests that, to comply with the proximity principle, the development must always be closer to the source than other facilities. It should be amended to read “it is likely that the proposed facility will accord with the proximity principle in terms of its location in relation to the source of the arisings and the final destination of the material”. ESA 0302
Assessments 1) Agree that the source of waste may be widespread. In such cases, if it seemed that the development would not manage waste closer to the source(s), then the paragraph would not be relevant to the application. However, to exclude “domestic waste”, for example, would be to restrict the potential for more local sites for local waste, such as bring sites. 2) & 3) Agree that the suggested sentences are fair descriptions of acceptable scenarios. But they are too general to fit the purpose of Box W1a, which is to set out “the sorts of things which the decision-makers will consider” (paragraph 3.9.1), with examples of cases that the planning authorities would consider to be acceptable within the terms of the policy.
16a.doc Page 32 of 129
Derby and Derbyshire Waste Local Plan REPORT OF PUBLICITY AND CONSULTATIONS JULY 2003
Recommendations
1), 2) & 3) No change.
3.9.10 Proximity principle & self-sufficiency
Summary The point should be deleted. It is meaningless because the principle of self- sufficiency is completely reversed or downgraded by the proximity principle. COTEP 0128; Joan Liddle 0287 Assessment Agree that that will often be the case but there will be more cases where developments not complying with the self-sufficiency principle will also not comply with the proximity principle. The principles of proximity and self-sufficiency both relate to the source or origin of waste and it is necessary to consider what should be done when the journey from origin to destination would comply with one but not both of the principles. The waste planning strategy suggests that compliance with the proximity principle would be a point in favour of an application (paragraph 2.30). At present, the term “self-sufficiency”, as defined in Waste Strategy 2000 (Part 1, paragraph 4.5, and Part 2, Annex D), does not apply to parishes, districts or counties but primarily to exports from the UK and secondarily to inter-regional movements. (See also the quotation from the EU Handbook, re objection 0316 to paragraph 3.9 of the waste local plan). PPG 10 states that “waste management solutions may sometimes need to cross WPA or regional boundaries” (paragraph 17). In such cases, the waste planning authority will still need to know whether the proposal fits the proximity principle.
Recommendation No change.
3.9.11 Mode of transport
Summaries 1) The point should not include the example of using rail freight, which could not be used for the collection of domestic waste. COTEP 0129 2) The paragraph should be reworded to be non-specific and to the most energy- efficient practical option – and not to imply waste travelling through the Channel Tunnel. The railways cannot carry domestic waste. Joan Liddle 0288
Assessments 1) & 2) Agree that the point will not be helpful in the house-to-house collection of waste. Rail freight is valid for the transportation of bulked-up waste within this country. It is a factor that will sometimes be relevant to the consideration of applications under policy W1a (sustainable development) and therefore appropriate for inclusion in Box W1a.
16a.doc Page 33 of 129
Derby and Derbyshire Waste Local Plan REPORT OF PUBLICITY AND CONSULTATIONS JULY 2003
Recommendations 1) & 2) No change.
3.9.12 Mode of transport
Summaries 1) The point should be deleted. It is impractical because the mode for collecting domestic waste would be too limited. COTEP 0130 2) The point should be reworded to say “That the mode of transport used should not have a harmful impact on people or communities”. It should not say, “less harmful”. Joan Liddle 0289
Assessments 1) The paragraphs in the box apply to all types of waste. 2) No mode of transport can be demonstrated to have no harmful impact. Waste is generated everywhere that people live and work, so at least part of the journey must pass near people and communities.
Recommendations 1) & 2) No change.
3.9.13 Sustainable development principles
Summary The word “prudent” should be replaced by “most efficient”. “Prudent” is too vague and could lead to environmental considerations taking second place to cost considerations. Chesterfield & North Derbyshire FoE 0257
Assessment The word “prudent” is part of the definition of sustainable development established by the twelfth report of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution (Feb 1988) and would have the meaning intended by the commission. The footnote to the Sustainability and Environmental Appraisal of the Derby and Derbyshire Waste Local Plan (published with this plan by the city and county waste planning authorities) explains its meaning.
Recommendation No change.
3.9.14 Sustainable development principles
Summaries 1) The point should use the phrase, “abandoned quarry” rather than “mineral extraction site”. “Mineral extraction site” implies an active site, which should be restored by the owner. COTEP 0131
16a.doc Page 34 of 129
Derby and Derbyshire Waste Local Plan REPORT OF PUBLICITY AND CONSULTATIONS JULY 2003
2) The point should have an appropriate example, not a minerals extraction site that could easily be restored. Abandoned quarries in the Peak District should be used instead. Joan Liddle 0290
Assessments 1) Agree that there could be some confusion. A mineral extraction operator with a modern planning permission will normally be required by condition to carry out appropriate restoration. 2) See 1). With regard to the Peak District National Park, see recommendation re paragraph 2.43 (objection 0273).
Recommendations 1) & 2) Change paragraph 3.9.14, as follows:
“3.9.14 That the development would result in the beneficial re-use of land which would otherwise remain or become a wasted resource – for example, through the restoration of a mineral extraction site an abandoned quarry.”
3.9.15 Sustainable development principles
Summaries 1) The point should be deleted. Landfill sites and incinerators do not bring demonstrable benefits. They do not bring a net increase in jobs. COTEP 0132; Joan Liddle 0291 2a) The point should clarify the phrase “demonstrable benefits”, which is too vague, or the whole point should be deleted. Chesterfield & North Derbyshire FoE 0258 2b) The prospect of job creation should not be allowed to override environmental concerns. Such jobs may be short-term and of benefit to few members of the local community who may suffer the long-term effects of the development. Chesterfield & North Derbyshire FoE 0258
Assessments 1) The point applies to all kinds of waste management facility, some of which may bring benefits, including adding diversity to the local labour market. If the development appeared unlikely to bring benefits, then the point would not be relevant to the application. However, see 2b), below. 2a) The word “demonstrable” (“capable of being shown or logically proved”, Oxford Compact English Dictionary, 1996) provides a safeguard – the mere claim by an applicant that a development will provide benefits would not be helpful. 2b) Agree that the inclusion of the phrase, “or job creation”, in paragraph 3.9.15 could be misleading. Depending on the circumstances of the case, the provision of short-term jobs may, on balance, not override the environmental concerns.
Recommendations 1) & 2b) Delete the phrase “or job creation”, as follows:
“3.9.15 That the development would bring demonstrable benefits to local communities [A3.9], for instance through regeneration. or job creation;”
16a.doc Page 35 of 129
Derby and Derbyshire Waste Local Plan REPORT OF PUBLICITY AND CONSULTATIONS JULY 2003
2a) No change.
3.9.17 Sustainable development principles
Summaries 1) The words “any of” should be omitted or replaced with “all of”. Otherwise, a developer who mitigated one of the effects would meet the requirement. Chesterfield & North Derbyshire FoE 0259 2) The word “any” should be replaced by “all”. The word “any” suggests that it is sufficient just to mitigate one adverse effect. COTEP 0133
Assessments 1) & 2) Agree. It would be reasonable to expect that all harmful effects might be mitigated.
Recommendations 1) & 2) In paragraph 3.9.17, change “any of” to “all of”, as follows:
“3.9.17 That the development would mitigate, by short- or long-term benefits, any all of its adverse effects on communities or land uses, for instance by enhancement of the local, natural or built environment.”
3.12 & 3.13 Policy W1b Need for the development
Summaries 1) Paragraph 3.12 should simply say that applications will be considered in the context of the waste hierarchy. The statements that certain types of proposal may be refused is prejudicial and contrary to the overall philosophy of the plan, which is to treat proposals on their merits. WRG 0058 2) The definition of need in policy W1b should include a balance against other considerations, such as environmental impact (as in "Guidance on Policies for Waste Management Planning" paragraph 5.13). GOEM 0190 3) The wording of the second part of policy W1b contradicts the importance of the proximity principle, which should not be set aside because of unmet needs in other localities. Ault Hucknall EAG 0244 4a) To accord with PPG 23, paragraph 3.15, and its proposed replacement, policy W1b should not require applicants to show a need for their developments. The concern over need is inconsistent with the acknowledged shortage of disposal facilities in Derbyshire. ESA 0303 4b) The policy should not resist developments that accept waste from outside the county. A BPEO assessment may extend across boundaries and waste will continue to move across boundaries. The policy should be amended to read, “The possible need for the development will be taken into account with proposals in environmentally designated or other sensitive areas.” ESA 0303
Assessments
16a.doc Page 36 of 129
Derby and Derbyshire Waste Local Plan REPORT OF PUBLICITY AND CONSULTATIONS JULY 2003
1) Agree. The statements are correct because they reflect government advice about the waste hierarchy and because they look forward in the plan to policy W12. However, they are simplified summaries of complex issues; for example, they don’t mention that the BPEO may sometimes include a process that is low in the hierarchy.
2) Agree that this section of the plan does not explain thoroughly how the policy should be balanced against other considerations. Policy W1b is essentially the second part of policy W1, the first part being W1a, which concentrates on sustainable development. The sustainable development aims set out in "A Better Quality of Life" (DETR, 1999) include “effective protection of the environment” (see the Environmental and Sustainable Development Appraisal of this plan). So policy W1 as a whole does provide the necessary balance. However, the point could be made more clear, both in the introduction to chapter 3 and in paragraph 3.12.
(For the record, the preface to "Guidance on Policies for Waste Management Planning" acknowledges that the guidance “does not necessarily represent the views of the DTLR”. In fact, it is sometimes contradicts government policy. For example, "Guidance on Policies for Waste Management Planning" says, “It is for the applicant to demonstrate that a particular facility accords with the development plan” (paragraph 5.7) which contrasts with GOEM’s objection to policy W12 of this plan because the policy requires applicants to show that there is a need for landfill facilities (see objections 0791, 0793 & 0795).)
3) Agree that the proximity principle should not lightly be set aside. The wording should relate more directly to cases where there is no realistic alternative.
4a) To implement policy objective 2 (paragraph 2.62), it is necessary to have a policy that sets out the importance of developments which would help to cater for the needs of the plan area - a policy which sets such development up as a beacon. Policy W1b does not require applicants to show a need for development within the plan area but enables them to do so as one of the positive aspects of their proposal. The intention is to distinguish development which would help to cater for the needs of the area from that which would not. The latter could encourage the import of waste over long distances contrary to the proximity principle and could discourage the development of local options. If a development proposal does not conform with the policy, then any adverse impacts, such as harm to the environment, could not be overridden by the need for the development. The objector’s preference for a statement about the balance to be weighed between need and the environment reflects GOEM objection 0190 (see assessment 2, above) and should be incorporated by changes to paragraphs 3.2 and 3.12.
4b) Agree that the first part of the policy should not be restricted to catering for the “plan area” – the “local area” would be more appropriate, as the county and peak park boundaries should not be established as barriers to the workings of the proximity principle, nor to the efficient operation of the waste management industry.
Recommendations
1) – 4b) Change paragraphs 3.2, 3.12 & 3.13 (policy W1b), as follows, and box W1b as set out under the recommendation re paragraph 3.13.7 (objection 0135):
16a.doc Page 37 of 129
Derby and Derbyshire Waste Local Plan REPORT OF PUBLICITY AND CONSULTATIONS JULY 2003
“3.2 The policies of this plan reflect the policy objectives of the waste planning strategy. All carry equal weight in the consideration of planning applications. Major conflict with a single provision of any policy in this or other parts of the development plan could be a reason for refusal of permission. Evidence of need for a development may not be sufficient reason to override environmental concerns but the reverse will also be true – that the need to protect other concerns will not necessarily override the need for the development.”
“3.12 In view of the need to accommodate competition, it would often be wrong for the plan to seek to limit the provision of waste management facilities. The waste planning authorities may refuse permission for developments which would tend to manage the waste at a lower level in the hierarchy than would the existing facilities – or, in the case of an energy-from-waste plant, would divert waste from recycling or composting. They are likely to refuse applications for landfill facilities unless there is a demonstrated need. (In addition to policy W1b and the other policies of the plan, the policies of chapter 6 apply specifically to landfill development.) Policy W1b takes a positive approach to waste development which caters for the local area, provided of course that such development would not conflict with policy W1a and the other policies of the development plan. However, it will be necessary to scrutinise more closely applications for facilities which are likely to cater primarily for the needs of other areas. The transporting of waste from other areas would often be contrary to the principles of sustainable development and could discourage the development of local options. Accordance of a proposed development with policy W1b will help to set a context for assessing whether it should be permitted in the face of any concerns about its potential, adverse impacts.
Policy W1b Need for the development
3.13 Waste development will be permitted if the development would help to cater for the needs of the plan local area, in terms of quantity, variety and quality, as part of an integrated approach to waste management.
Waste development catering primarily for the needs of other areas will be permitted only if:
the development would satisfy a need which would not otherwise could not realistically be met closer to the source of the waste; and
the development would contribute to an integrated system of waste management.”
3.13.3 Waste from other counties
Summaries 1) Include the phrase “and is higher up the waste hierarchy”. The proximity principle should not in general override self-sufficiency. That could lead to areas
16a.doc Page 38 of 129
Derby and Derbyshire Waste Local Plan REPORT OF PUBLICITY AND CONSULTATIONS JULY 2003 with, for example, a history of mineral extraction, becoming the dustbin for surrounding areas, which then have little incentive for reducing their own waste or increasing recycling. A reference to the waste hierarchy would still allow bulking up, to promote recycling. Chesterfield & North Derbyshire FoE 0260 2) The paragraph should be re-phrased to avoid establishing shipment of waste and encouraging waste to be shipped from all over Derbyshire into Derby for gasification, which would be unsustainable. The environmental costs of waste management should not be passed on to other communities. Renewable Energy Objectors 0308 Assessments 1) & 2) Agree that waste should not normally travel further than necessary, particularly if other communities will suffer the “environmental costs” (Waste Strategy 2000, Part 1, paragraph 4.5). The paragraph will mainly be relevant to situations where the waste travels only a few miles from outside the plan area and in conformity with the proximity principle. However, the example in the paragraph perhaps implies an over-relaxed approach to lengthy journeys, which could be tightened by reference to the BPEO.
Recommendations 1) & 2) Change paragraph 3.13.3 (3.13.6 in Revised Deposit) as set out under the recommendation re paragraph 3.13.7 (objection 0135).
3.13.5 Benefits of unique, new or unusual activities
Summaries 1) The point should be deleted. To permit developments that would enable waste management further up the hierarchy would be to permit almost any waste management activity other than landfill. COTEP 0134 2) With reference to permitting developments that would bring waste management closer to the source, that would be difficult to determine for domestic waste. COTEP 0134
Assessments 1) The paragraph does not seek to permit developments simply because they would enable waste management further up the hierarchy. All the points in Box W1b are examples of the sorts of factors that would help to show a need in the context of policy W1b only. All planning applications would also be assessed against the other indicators of need (or lack of it) and the other policies of the plan. See the recommended changes to paragraphs 3.2 and 3.12 above. 2) Agree that it is often difficult to determine how to bring the management of domestic waste closer to the source. The policy applies to all sorts of waste.
Recommendations 1) Change paragraphs 3.2 & 3.12 as recommended above re objections 0058, 0190, 0244 & 0303. 2) No change.
3.13.7 Sustainable disposal of hazardous waste
16a.doc Page 39 of 129
Derby and Derbyshire Waste Local Plan REPORT OF PUBLICITY AND CONSULTATIONS JULY 2003
Summary The point should include reference to the disposal of hazardous waste without involving health risks. COTEP 0135
Assessment The phrase in the paragraph, “that cannot safely be managed in a more sustainable way,” implies not involving health risks but it could be made clearer.
Recommendation Change paragraph 3.13.7 (3.13.10 in Revised Deposit), as set out in the revised box W1b:
“BOX W1b
3.13.1 This box is a guide to applicants and decision-makers. It sets out the sorts of things which the decision-makers will consider when assessing whether developments are likely to accord with Policy W1b. Applicants will normally wish to address these issues (and other issues) when they or the waste planning authority consider them relevant to the policy; they will want to show, when providing supporting information with their applications, what measures they are taking in respect of the issues. Decision-makers would not expect proposals for waste management development to be able to respond positively to all the suggestions listed (in italics, below).
A. NEED
The estimate of waste arisings as set out in appendix B of this plan 3.13.1 2 That the proposal would contribute to meeting the needs of the area, taking into account the methodology, analyses and conclusions of described in appendix B, and would not cause an over-provision of landfill [A2.10] or other facilities at the lower end of the hierarchy.
The local area 3.13.3 That the waste would come from a source which is within the waste management sub-area. 3.13.4 That, although the source of the waste may not be within the sub-area, it is so local that the proposal would conform with the proximity principle.
The Derbyshire Waste Management Strategy and its sub-area assessments of the need for facilities 3.13.2 5 That the proposal would contribute to achieving the provision, set out in the Derbyshire Waste Management Strategy, of the necessary types of facilities for the sub-area.
Waste from other counties The phrase, “catering primarily for the needs of other areas” 3.13.3 6 That there is a particular or special need for the import or export of waste, to transport waste from other areas; and that the need is relevant to the application (for example, that the destination of the waste is significantly closer to more appropriate processing facilities which will enable the appropriate treatment of the waste as part of the BPEO for the waste stream). 3.13.4 7 That the evidence of such need is consistent with regional guidance.
16a.doc Page 40 of 129
Derby and Derbyshire Waste Local Plan REPORT OF PUBLICITY AND CONSULTATIONS JULY 2003
Unique, new or unusual initiatives 3.13.5 8 That, even though there is not a need in terms of the criteria set out above, there is a need to expand the range of facilities and this development would contribute to that need, bringing benefits such as: enabling wastes to be processed higher up the hierarchy than could otherwise be achieved; bringing the waste management process closer than at present to the source of the waste; improving the environmental standards of waste management. 3.13.6 9 That there is a need to encourage a particular process, perhaps as a pilot project, because of its potential contribution to sustainable waste management.
Other needs 3.13.7 10 That there are other, particular needs, such as the need to dispose of a particular hazardous waste that cannot safely be managed in a more sustainable way sustainably and without involving health risks.
3.13.12 Links with infrastructure
Summary The point should refer to the potential effects on public sewers. The respondent would oppose applications for waste sites where surface water was not disposed of properly. Contaminated run-off to sewers is not appropriate unless it is made with the consent and co-operation of the sewerage undertaker. United Utilities 0231
Assessment Agree that the plan should refer to the proper disposal of surface water. Not to deal properly with run-off would cause “adverse environmental or health effects” in the context of policy W7 (now W6) of the plan. Paragraph 3.13.12 addresses specifically the point that there is sometimes a need for new waste facilities that have links with other services, businesses and infrastructure.
Recommendation Change box W7 (W6 in Revised Deposit) as recommended re paragraphs 4.16.14- 15 (objections 0233 & 0234).
3.18 Policy W2 Development away from settlements
Summaries 1) The policy should permit composting on farms. Composting is a valuable form of diversification and, by definition almost, takes place away from settlements. National Farmers’ Union 0001 2) The policy or box W2 should make it clear that landfill sites should be located away from settlements. Controversial facilities such as those cannot easily be located in or near settlements. Langridge Homes 0017 3) The policy should be re-worded to take account of the precautionary principle and should stipulate that developments which might cause serious environmental and health hazards should be a minimum distance (at least 2km) from homes. Chesterfield & North Derbyshire FoE 0261 4) The policy should be re-titled, “The location of development”, and should have an additional part encouraging “development in settlements”. Whilst the text makes it
16a.doc Page 41 of 129
Derby and Derbyshire Waste Local Plan REPORT OF PUBLICITY AND CONSULTATIONS JULY 2003 clear that development in settlements is preferred, no policy specifically covers the point. CPRE 0210 5) The policy should be re-written to be less complicated and ambiguous and should also include: “provided that no waste development site is within 5 km of a residential area” (or on a scale for different facilities, such as 5 km for landfill sites and incinerators, or 3 km for recycling centres, etc.). Without such a safeguard, financial and other considerations will take precedence over health, quality of life, etc. That is particularly so because, once a development is established, the policing often becomes ineffective. Clay Cross and District EAG 0216 6) The policy is confusing and should be deleted. Some waste management facilities require rural locations and others are natural urban activities. WRG 0059 7) The policy should be deleted. Whilst the policy may be appropriate in plans that deal with development generally, it is not appropriate in a waste local plan. The danger to health of siting waste management facilities in settlements is too great. To accord with the precautionary principle, they should be at least 2 km from homes. COTEP 0136 Assessments 1) – 7) Agree that some waste developments should be away from where people live. On the other hand, agree with 4) above (0210) that development should normally be in settlements. Most waste developments are suited to industrial estates, which tend to be in or near settlements. Even landfill is used in urban areas, for example to prepare derelict land for new development. The purpose of policy W2 is to interpret structure plan GDS policies 3 & 4 in the context of waste development. However, the policy simply duplicates – and with less detail – the structure plan policies. Agree that policy W2 is confusing. It is also unnecessary. It serves no purpose that is special to a waste local plan. The structure plan and the district-wide plans set out adequate criteria for permitting or refusing development away from settlements. In the cases where waste development is appropriate in the countryside, structure plan GDS Policy 4 allows for it. The points in box W2 do not add anything to the points in the other boxes of chapter 3.
Recommendations 1) - 7) Delete policy W2 and paragraphs 3.14 - 3.18.5 and make consequential changes to the subsequent paragraph numbers.
3.18.3 Origin of the waste
Summary The phrase “and no lower in the waste hierarchy” should be added to the end of the clause. As it stands, the clause gives priority to the proximity principle, which should not be allowed to override the BPEO and self-sufficiency. That could lead to areas with, for example, a history of mineral extraction becoming the dustbin for surrounding areas, which then have little incentive for reducing their own waste or increasing recycling. A reference to the waste hierarchy would still allow bulking up, to promote recycling. Chesterfield & North Derbyshire FoE 0262
Assessment Agree that the example in 3.18.3 should be worded so that it does not appear to encourage treatment at a lower level in the hierarchy. The officer recommendation
16a.doc Page 42 of 129
Derby and Derbyshire Waste Local Plan REPORT OF PUBLICITY AND CONSULTATIONS JULY 2003
(re policy W2 and box W2, objections 0001, 0017, 0261, 0210, 0216, 0059 & 0136) is to delete this section; an alternative recommendation re paragraph 3.18.3, objection 0262, alone is set out below.
Recommendation (If the recommendation above, to delete the paragraph, is not agreed.) Change 3.18.3 as follows:
“3.18.3 That there are not other facilities which are the proposed location of the development is closer to the source of most of the waste and could process the waste at the same level in the hierarchy. which the development would process.”
3.18.5 Accessibility to canals or railways
Summary The point should be deleted. Domestic waste cannot be collected by rail or canal. COTEP 0137 Assessment The paragraphs in the box apply to all sorts of waste. The officer recommendation is to delete this section; an alternative recommendation re paragraph 3.18.5 (objection 0137) alone is:
Recommendation (If the recommendation above, to delete the paragraph, is not agreed.) No change.
3.19- 3.24 Policy W3 Transport principles
Summaries 1) The section should concentrate more on practicable solutions than on rail and canal. Rail and canal can be used only in a limited fashion. COTEP 0138 2) Policy W3 should be deleted. Issues relating to travel distances and the mode of choice should be included as part of policy W1a and paragraphs 3.9.8-3.9.12. The policy duplicates W1a and could cause confusion. It is also unreasonable to require applicants to compare any differences in waste-related journeys, particularly as a proposed development may not relate to an existing facility. ESA 0304
Assessments 1) PPG 10 advises, “Opportunities for using forms of transportation other than road haulage should be considered actively and seriously by planning authorities”. Structure plan Transport Policy 7 encourages a wide range of initiatives to shift haulage from road to rail. 2) Agree that there is some duplication of policy W1a but both policies are giving the same message so there should not be confusion. Travel distances and transport modes are fundamental considerations in sustainable waste management. This section of the plan (paragraphs 3.19-3.24.4) covers the issue a bit more thoroughly than is possible in W1a. Applicants are normally required to give sufficient information, including transport information, to enable the planning authority to assess the application. Indeed, they will often provide additional information if it will
16a.doc Page 43 of 129
Derby and Derbyshire Waste Local Plan REPORT OF PUBLICITY AND CONSULTATIONS JULY 2003 help their case so Box W3 could be useful to them. However, the phrase in policy W3, “only if there is shown to be” could be interpreted as requiring the applicant to carry out a detailed study in all cases. That could be prejudicial to applicants in cases where, as the objector predicts, they could not reasonably be expected to compare differences.
Recommendations 1) No change. 2) Change policy W3, as follows:
“Policy W32 Transport principles
3.2414 Waste development which
would be likely to result in an overall significant increase in the number or distance of waste-related journeys for people, materials or waste
or would not provide or utilise a modal choice of transport modes for people, materials or waste
will not be permitted only if there is shown to be no a practicable, environmentally better alternative.”
3.25-3.28 Green belts
Summary The section should include references to government guidance in ”Guidance on Policies for Waste Management Planning” (DTLR May 2002). Lafarge 0157
Assessment Agree that the section should refer to government guidance. This section interprets the government guidance in PPG 2 (“Green Belts”, January 1995) and applies it to the subject of waste management planning. The ”Guidance on Policies for Waste Management Planning” is not “government guidance”. Its preface says the guidance “does not necessarily represent the views of the DTLR”. The city and county waste planning authorities have not accepted it as authoritative.
Recommendation No change.
3.29 Policy W4 Suggested additional policy re green belts
Summary There should be an additional policy, W4d, permitting landfill in green belts when it can be shown that that is the Best Practicable Environmental Option. Langridge Homes 0018
16a.doc Page 44 of 129
Derby and Derbyshire Waste Local Plan REPORT OF PUBLICITY AND CONSULTATIONS JULY 2003
Assessment Policy W1a sets the BPEO in the context of planning for sustainable waste management. Policy W12 sets out the requirement of “need” for new landfill. Policy W4a adds additional green belt requirements, in line with PPG 2. To set BPEO up as a priority consideration would conflict with those policies. The BPEO is not always the best planning option. As the local plan (paragraphs 2.14-2.17) explains, there will always be a need to balance the BPEO with other considerations. Furthermore, a landfill site may accept a variety of waste streams, with varying BPEOs.
Recommendation No change.
3.29 Policy W4a Landfill in green belts
Summary The policy should allow only inert materials to be landfilled in green belt areas. The use of biodegradable or toxic waste as landfill does not constitute restoration. Especially in areas of designated landscape value, only materials that pose no long- term threat should be used for landfill. Chesterfield & North Derbyshire FoE 0263
Assessment Agree that inappropriate materials should not be used and what is inappropriate will depend on the characteristics of the site, proximity to homes and other considerations. However, the nature of the material is unlikely to affect the open character of the green belt and is not an issue for green belt policy.
Recommendation No change.
3.29 Policy W4c Other development in green belts
Summaries 1) The phrase, “except in very special circumstances” should be added to policy W4c. That would give flexibility to recognise the conflict between the need to site facilities near urban areas (the proximity principle) and green belt policy. WRG 0060 2) The policy should say: “Other forms of waste development in green belts will not be permitted unless they are essential to enable waste and sewerage undertakers to meet their statutory obligations and to comply with the relevant environmental standards enacted in government and European Union legislation.” The nature of the processes requires such development normally to take place outside urban areas and in green belt. The water company may also wish to implement a good quality scheme, e.g. enclosure of sludge within a barn structure to reduce fly and odour nuisance to nearby properties. The local plan should make provision for such development. Yorkshire Water Services 0185 3) Policy W4c should permit composting on farms within the green belt. Such sites are unobtrusive or can be screened. Composting is a valuable form of diversification for farmers within green belts. National Farmers’ Union 0002
16a.doc Page 45 of 129
Derby and Derbyshire Waste Local Plan REPORT OF PUBLICITY AND CONSULTATIONS JULY 2003
4a&b) Policy W4c should say, “Other forms of waste development in green belt will only be permitted where it can be demonstrated that the facility would accord with the proximity principle [comment 4a] in relation to the intended source of the waste or, alternatively, the development would utilise previously developed land [comment 4b].” As drafted, the policy could lead to the siting of waste management facilities further from urban areas, contrary to the proximity principle and policy W1a (comment 4a). Also, previously developed land should be used (comment 4b). ESA 0305 Assessments 1) Agree that there can be conflict between green belt restrictions and the proximity principle but to change the policy in the way suggested would be unwise. The restrictive nature of the policy ensures that potential applicants consider whether there might be suitable sites outside green belt. If there are none, then, as the objector suggests, very special circumstances might justify the development. All local plan policies are subject to other “material considerations” (s.54A, Town and Country Planning Act, 1990), which would include “very special circumstances”. Policy W4c applies to inappropriate development (see paragraph 3.28 of the local plan). PPG 2 says that development plans should make it clear that inappropriate development does not accord with the plan. Even the “exceptional cases” which might justify green belt development are nevertheless to be treated as departures from the development plan (PPG 2, paragraph 3.3). If the phrase, “except in very special circumstances” was included in the plan, then exceptional cases could not be treated as departures. However, see recommended changes 2) and 4b), below, which partially meet the objection. 2) Agree. Most of the plan area is not in green belt so the question of the policy restricting sewerage development will not often arise. Nevertheless, the policy can be adjusted to accommodate minor developments, such as might take place at sewage (wastewater treatment) works: the local plan, at paragraph 3.26, refers to the construction of such essential facilities (it gives as an example a weighbridge at a landfill site) but does not carry it through to the policy. 3) Composting of imported waste is different from water treatment because it is not geographically limited. There is not a strong policy justification for permitting large-scale buildings in green belt on the grounds that they represent rural diversification. If there was a strong argument in favour of a particular case, it might be put as “very special circumstances”. 4a) Agree that there can be conflict between green belt restrictions and the proximity principle because of the presumption, established in government policy (PPG 2, paragraph 3.1) against “inappropriate development”. This local plan does not have the authority to say that the proximity principle is more important than the green belt presumption. Where a development proposal appears to conform with policy W1a but not with policy W4, that will be part of the consideration of all the factors for and against the application. 4b) Agree that sites identified in the local plans of the district councils as “major developed sites in the green belt” might be used for waste development, subject to the provisions of those plans, as that would be a sensible reflection of government policy, and that the policy could be amended to refer to such sites.
Recommendations 1), 3) & 4a) No change. 2) & 4b) Change policy W4, as follows:
16a.doc Page 46 of 129
Derby and Derbyshire Waste Local Plan REPORT OF PUBLICITY AND CONSULTATIONS JULY 2003
“Policy W4a3a Landfill in green belts and its proposed after-use
3.2919 Landfill in green belts will not be permitted unless:
it is essential for the restoration of mineral workings to after-uses appropriate to green belts or there would be no material impact on the open character openness of the green belt during the life of the operations; and
the development, including proposals for the after-use of the site, would not conflict with the purposes of including land in the green belt.
Policy W4b3b Change of use of buildings in green belt
The change of use of buildings for waste development in green belts will be permitted provided that the development:
would not result in have a material materially greater impact than the present use on the open character openness of the green belt; and
would not result in conflict with the purposes of including land in the green belt.
Policy W4c3c Other development in green belts
Other forms of waste development in green belts will not be permitted unless:
the development would take place on a site identified in the development plan as a “major developed site” and would be in accordance with the provisions of the development plan for the development of that site; or
the development would provide small-scale, essential facilities for the maintenance or improvement of waste management facilities, would preserve the openness of the green belt and would not conflict with the purposes of including land within it.
3.29.4 The need for landfill to restore a minerals site in green belt
Summary The point should apply to the use of inert waste only. Biodegradable waste can take many years to break down and during decomposition releases hazardous gases. COTEP 0139
16a.doc Page 47 of 129
Derby and Derbyshire Waste Local Plan REPORT OF PUBLICITY AND CONSULTATIONS JULY 2003
Assessment Agree that inappropriate materials should not be used. What is inappropriate will depend on the characteristics of the site, proximity to homes and other considerations. However, in cases where biodegradable waste is acceptable, this point would apply to such waste as well as to inert waste.
Recommendation No change.
COMMENTS ON CHAPTER 4 Policies protecting the environment and other interests
4.3-4.7.10 The precautionary principle
Summary The precautionary principle is not sufficiently applied in the plan. NA Lievesley 0203; COTEP 0140 Assessment The plan’s policies, including policy W5 (now W4), are intended to be used as the basis for the determination of planning applications and should not be applied to the plan itself. The plan will be monitored by the methods described in paragraphs 2.73- 2.82 of the Revised Deposit.
Recommendation No change.
4.7-4.7.10 Policy W5 & box W5 The precautionary principle
Summaries 1) Policy W5 does not reflect the precautionary principle. The objector suggests changes of wording that mean that where there is an application which may involve a health risk, it should be up to the applicant to prove it is safe rather than the public to show it is not safe. COTEP 0141 2) Policy wording should be altered to include at end of second paragraph the wording, “to a satisfactory level such that no net loss of biodiversity is incurred”. Environment Agency 0166 3) Change beginning to policy from “will be permitted only when” to “ will not be permitted unless it can be overwhelmingly shown that …”. KDCS 0224 4) Support the inclusion of such a policy. Amend the fifth line of policy to the following “… minimise the risk of damage occurring and which also minimise the extent of any such damage which might potentially occur; …”. Countryside Agency 0039 5) The Group welcomes the inclusion of the principle but feels the policy is a “traditional” environmental protection policy which aims to trade off costs and benefits. Feels everything except the first paragraph should be removed. Ault Hucknall EAG 0243 6) Last line of first paragraph of policy should read “… the use or enjoyment of land will not be permitted”; and delete the remainder of the policy.
16a.doc Page 48 of 129
Derby and Derbyshire Waste Local Plan REPORT OF PUBLICITY AND CONSULTATIONS JULY 2003
CPRE Derbyshire 0245 7) Delete paragraph 4.7.8 as it is considered impossible to achieve benefits. CPRE Derbyshire 0246 8) In policy, add reference to health especially long term exposure to pollution from landfill. Ault Hucknall P C 0268 9) Policy W5 (now W4) should be replaced with “the correct government wording”: “Where there are significant risks to the Environment the Government will be prepared to take precautionary action to limit the use of potentially dangerous materials or the spread of dangerous pollutants, even when scientific knowledge is not conclusive, if the likely balance of costs and benefits justifies it”. “The principle applies for hazards with long term environmental lifetimes or accumulative or irreversible consequences where there is considerable uncertainty as to the link between hazard and the consequence”; “Scientific evidence is seldom likely to be conclusive in respect to environment and health.” Joan Liddle 0299 10) In policy W5 remove the word “demonstrable” or replace it with “suspected.” Chesterfield and North Derbyshire FoE 0264 Assessments 1) Agree that the policy could be clarified (see recommendations below). However, the precautionary principle is not about burdens of proof, but about when to act to minimise a possible effect when there is not scientific certainty about a proposal’s effects. 2) While the policy goes beyond simply protecting biodiversity, the wider point behind the objection is accepted and the policy needs to go beyond minimisation of effects to seeking to avoid the damage. 3) Further, it is in the nature of proposals being dealt with under this policy that there will be uncertainties; thus, such absolute proofs as the objector suggests, are unachievable. 4) The support is welcomed. The gist of what is suggested is accepted: see the recommendation re objection 0166 (see assessment 2)). 5) The purpose of the policy is to help determine when action should take place to limit the risk of environmental damage. However, as the government’s sustainability strategy points out, there may be occasions when taking the risk of not acting is worthwhile, to bring forward the benefits that the proposal may bring. The policy reflects this advice on risk management, but does not suggest that all environmental harm can be traded off against costs. 6) To make the changes as proposed would stop the policy being about the precautionary principle. Policies on environmental protection, that the objectors seem to be seeking, are contained in other parts of the plan. 7) As recommended by the government’s sustainable development strategy it is possible for waste developments to bring benefits as well as disbenefits to an area (e.g. a more local recycling facility or employment). 8) The policy is about the precautionary principle in general, not about specific factors which may trigger problems. Health is dealt with under policy W7 (now W6) and even though there is reference to it the effects of a proposal on health would have to be looked at on a case by case basis, based on expert advice the authorities receive. 9) The wording suggested (which is unsourced) appears to be about what central government’s intentions are in taking precautionary action in relation to potentially dangerous materials and pollutants when scientific knowledge is not conclusive. The policy sets out what the planning authorities will do in relation to cases where
16a.doc Page 49 of 129
Derby and Derbyshire Waste Local Plan REPORT OF PUBLICITY AND CONSULTATIONS JULY 2003 scientific certainty is not conclusive. The suggested changes would not be appropriate for the wording of policy. However, agree that the use of the word "demonstrable" in the policy may be confusing because the meaning of the word is not clear. A “demonstrable threat” is a threat that can be shown, even if not conclusively, but people sometimes use the word “demonstrable” to mean “provable” (see assessment re paragraph 3.9.15, objection 0258). It would be better to alter the policy to use the phrase, “reasonable cause for concern”, which is the phrase used by the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution (see waste local plan, paragraph 4.4). Additionally, the text of the first criterion in box W5 (now W4) implies that the policy will sometimes apply to cases where there is scientific certainty, which is not so (in such cases, the other protective policies of the plan will apply directly). That text should be amended. 10) The policy and the principle is about a situation where there is some agreement that there may be a real threat to the environment, even though it cannot be scientifically proved. The objector’s proposed change of wording would make this less clear – but see the alternative wording recommended re objection 0166 (see 2)).
Recommendations 1), 2), 4), 9) & 10) Change paragraph 4.5, policy W5 (paragraph 4.7) and box W5, as follows:
“4.5 There is no advice in Waste Strategy 2000, nor in PPG 10, about how the principle should be applied to land-use planning. Nevertheless, the waste planning authority is often an early port of call for a new waste management project. The authority will be asked to grant permission before the Environment Agency is asked to grant a waste management licence. The waste planning authorities will have a duty to consider to what extent the development would contribute to integrated waste management systems and to consider its potential for polluting the environment and its impact on the use and enjoyment of land. Policy W5W4 of this local plan acknowledges that the principle should be a consideration in the assessment of damage to those interests. Box W5 explains further how the phrase, “demonstrable threat”, which occurs in Policy W5 should be applied.”
“Policy W54 Precautionary principle
4.7 Waste development which Where there is reasonable cause for concern that a proposed waste development presents a demonstrable threat of serious or irreversible damage to the environment or to the use or enjoyment of land, the development will be permitted only when:
conditions can be imposed or legal agreements made to ensure that precautionary measures are taken to minimise or seek to prevent such damage; and
the risk of such damage is outweighed by the potential benefits of the development.”
[Box W5W4]
16a.doc Page 50 of 129
Derby and Derbyshire Waste Local Plan REPORT OF PUBLICITY AND CONSULTATIONS JULY 2003
“ “Demonstrable threat” (in some cases, there will not be scientific certainty of serious and irreversible damage) Applying the phrases, “reasonable cause for concern” and “serious and irreversible damage” 4.7.2 If there is not scientific certainty of serious and irreversible damage, is there persuasive evidence that such Is there sufficient evidence to give the decision- maker reasonable cause for concern that serious and irreversible damage might occur? 4.7.3 Are there examples of similar developments; did those examples result in serious and irreversible damage; was the damage reversible at a realistic cost?”
3) & 5) – 8) No change.
4.8 Interests of acknowledged importance
Summaries 1) Change last sentence to “Peak Park’s valued resources”. Peak District NPA 0055 2) Include a sentence that explains the protection of people’s health is more important than environmental protection. COTEP 0142 3) The policy should make clear that any development having an effect on areas of nature conservation or heritage value should not be allowed. This should include protected species. Ault Hucknall EAG 0242
Assessments 1) “Valued resources” is a rather open, broad form of words but “valued characteristics”, which is a phrase used in the national park’s development plan documents, would seem to better describe the situation and this change is proposed. 2) The protection of human health is fully and satisfactorily dealt with in policy W7. 3) The policy seeks assessments of harm to an identified feature, taking into account the relative importance of the feature and the level of impact in each case. To seek to resist developments regardless of these considerations, as the objector seems to do, would be contrary to national advice and unsupportable. The importance of giving due protection to species protected by law is acknowledged, but the advice box does not seek to set out all the natural history elements covered by the policy. No change is therefore proposed.
Recommendations 1) Change last sentence of paragraph 4.8 as follows:
“That function could be hindered and the Peak Park’s beauty valued characteristics damaged by development taking place in Derbyshire outside the Peak Park.”
2) & 3) No change.
4.11 Identified interests of environmental importance
16a.doc Page 51 of 129
Derby and Derbyshire Waste Local Plan REPORT OF PUBLICITY AND CONSULTATIONS JULY 2003
Summaries 1) There is no reference to PPG 15, which this section is about. English Heritage 0027 2) Welcomes the inclusion of the protection of settings of heritage features. English Heritage 0028 3) Notes that the inscription of the World Heritage Site does not give it any more protection and so paragraph is misleading. English Heritage 0029 4) Notes that conservation areas are not always just of local significance. English Heritage 0030 5) As advised in PPG 15 the plan should protect significant historic landscapes. English Heritage 0031 6) The plan should also seek to protect the historic aspects of former mine and other mineral workings. English Heritage 0032 7) While the agency supports the protection of the national park’s landscape from development occurring outside its boundaries, paragraph 4.11.4 is unclear in its meaning. Countryside Agency 0043 8) Remove the paragraph about the protection of landscape in the national park and replace it with a similar separate paragraph about protecting natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage from harm from development outside the Park’s boundary. Peak District NPA 0054 9) As national guidance has moved away from the protection of locally designated landscape areas the paragraph should be redrafted to move away from different levels of landscape protection. WRG 0061 10) The advice note should make reference to the protection of wildlife corridors, non-designated areas of wildlife importance and the protection of species and habitats protected by law. Environment Agency 0167 11) Wants recognition in the plan that the company has statutory duties in relation to site drainage and the protection of water resources. United Utilities 0232 12) Supports the policy and the recognition of the importance of landscape character. Countryside Agency 0038 13) In 4.11.7 remove the word “proposed” before World Heritage Site. CPRE Derbyshire 0247 14) PPG 9 does not only just refer to designated sites and protected species: should re-word to include reference to Biodiversity Action Plans which identify national and local habitats and species which merit protection. DWT 0267
Assessments 1) Agree that there should be a reference to PPG 15. 2) The support is welcomed. 3) While the point is accepted, the paragraph is a description of the structure plan policies and, as paragraph 4.11.1 explains, sets out the sorts of interests which the decision-makers will seek to protect. It is not a suggestion of how policies will be applied. 4) The point is accepted, but is considered not to warrant a change in the text. 5) While the importance of these areas is accepted, the plan does not seek to list all features to be protected (these are detailed in local plans appropriate to the particular local planning authority). Mentioning each item individually would be over- elaborate.
16a.doc Page 52 of 129
Derby and Derbyshire Waste Local Plan REPORT OF PUBLICITY AND CONSULTATIONS JULY 2003
6) As with 5) the importance of these features is accepted but it is not the role to list all the features to be protected or how they are to be protected. Nevertheless, the plan does mention “historic mines and quarries” (paragraph 4.11.7). 7) Agree the paragraph could be made clearer along the lines suggested. See also the recommendation re paragraph 4.8 (objection 0055). 8) Agree in principle; indeed, such a paragraph is already included in the plan (paragraph 4.8). See also assessment re 7), above. 9) The text reflects adopted structure plan policy, which is given more detail in relevant local plans; the waste local plan is not seeking to itself set up Special Landscape Areas. 10) Whilst the protection of the features listed here is covered by the policy the paragraph does not, for reason of succinctness, seek to set out all the elements of environmental importance that the policy covers (see also 5), above). 11) Agree. The paragraph should state that private water companies share the responsibilities with the Environment Agency. 12) The support is welcomed. 13) Agree. 14) Agree, make minor wording change to 4.11.6 to reflect this.
Recommendations 1) Change the second sentence of 4.11.7, as set out below. 2) – 6) No change. 7) Insert a new heading before paragraph 4.11.4 and change the paragraph as set out below. 8) Make alteration as per 7). 9) & 10) No change. 11) Amend first line of 4.11.10, as set out below. 12) No change 13) In line 4 of 4.11.7, remove the word “proposed”, as set out below. 14) Change 4.11.6, as set out below.
[BOX W6W5] “ Peak District National Park 4.11.4 As explained above (paragraph 4.8), the parts of the Peak District National Park which could be affected by development which took place in the area of this local plan outside its boundary merits the highest level of landscape protection under the policy. If development was proposed within the plan area which could harm the valued characteristics of the Peak District National Park, it would be assessed under this policy.”
Nature conservation 4.11.5 PPG 9 (Nature Conservation, October 1994) recommends that full account should be taken of nature conservation interests. The PPG and the structure plan (Environment Policies 14 – 16) emphasise the importance of giving the highest level of protection to internationally and nationally important sites, including Special Protection Areas, Special Areas of Conservation, Sites of Special Scientific Interest and the habitats of protected species. 4.11.6 They also seek appropriate protection for local nature reserves and non- statutory sites of importance for nature conservation, comprising wildlife sites and regionally important geological sites. Local biodiversity action plans recognise some
16a.doc Page 53 of 129
Derby and Derbyshire Waste Local Plan REPORT OF PUBLICITY AND CONSULTATIONS JULY 2003 of those sites and enable identify nationally and locally important habitats and species which also merit protection and assist in providing an integrated approach to nature conservation.
Heritage features 4.11.7 Derbyshire has a rich heritage of features of architectural, historic or archaeological interest which merits protection. In line with the advice in PPG15, The the structure plan (Environment policies 9-13) sets out the importance of protecting the hierarchy of heritage features, from the proposed world heritage site downwards. The disposal of waste might in particular affect historic mines and quarries, canal cuts and railway cuttings. 4.11.8 PPG 16 (Archaeology and Planning, November 1990) reminds authorities that not all nationally important archaeological remains are scheduled and the importance of some remains may not yet be recognised. It emphasises the high level of importance of protecting internationally and nationally important heritage features and their settings, including world heritage sites, scheduled ancient monuments, listed buildings and nationally important historic gardens. 4.11.9 PPG 16 also seeks appropriate protection for local sites, including conservation areas and archaeological remains.
Water 4.11.10 The Environment Agency, along with some private utility providers, is responsible for protecting the quantity and quality of water resources and flood defence (see policy W10W9). The waste planning authorities also have a role. Structure plan Environment Policy 6 establishes that development which would affect adversely the quality of water resources should not be permitted.”
4.16 – 4.16.14 Policy W7 & box W7 Pollution and related nuisances
Summaries 1) Would like to see conditions on planning applications to prevent pollution of farm units from waste developments. National Farmers Union 0003 2) Supports policy but complains about noise from the recycling bins in Bakewell. Jean Hall 0013 3) Considers that there should be more reference to the water environment. Environment Agency 0162 4) There is need for bunding around storage vessels to prevent accidental discharges of trade effluents about which there is a need to consult the company’s “local Regulatory Controller”. United Utilities 0233 5) Notes that waste disposal sites must discuss the drainage system before development and surface water systems must include oil interceptors and grease traps. United Utilities 0234 6a) It is impossible to place a landfill site, incinerator, or composting site close to residential property without causing damage to human health and quality of life. COTEP 0143; NA Leivesley 0204 6b) The Health Authority do not have a trained toxicologist to advise on these matters, so there should be a minimum of 2 km kept between residential properties and waste processing operations. COTEP 0143; NA Leivesley 0204
16a.doc Page 54 of 129
Derby and Derbyshire Waste Local Plan REPORT OF PUBLICITY AND CONSULTATIONS JULY 2003
6c) The onus of proof on safety should be on the applicant; the precautionary principle should be included in the advice box. COTEP 0143; NA Leivesley 0204 7) Wish to see clear statement about the potential harmful effects on human health from waste developments and people’s fears of health impacts. Ault Hucknall EAG 0241 8) Should include reference to Government funded research on risk factors to health from waste developments. Ault Hucknall PC 0269
Assessments 1) This matter would be covered by the policy, which does not permit development if it would cause pollution. No need for further change to the wording. 2) Support welcome. The complaint has been passed on to the waste collection authority. 3) Agree that the protection of the county’s and city’s water resources is important but this is adequately covered in the policy and guidance box to W7 and no extra text is needed. 4) The need for work to prevent trade effluents and other leakages escaping from sites is acknowledged as being important and it is covered by the policy. In itself, the point does not warrant any changes in policy or the supporting text. However, the recommended change re paragraph 3.13.12 (objection 0231) would cover the point. 5) The particular example given by the objector might equally apply to all kinds of non-waste development and would be better covered by a general local plan. However, the recommended change re paragraph 3.13.12 (objection 0231) would cover the point. 6a) Any application on waste developments will be determined in the light of advice from central government and expert local advice. The policy in this plan must reflect this. As PPG 23 advises, “planning control must be operated on the assumption that the pollution control regime will operate effectively” (paragraph 1.33). However the relationship between planning control and regulation by licensing bodies for developments is a somewhat complex one. Advice is set out on this matter in PPGs 10 and 23. There it is stressed that the two regimes are complementary, with planning seeking to control the effects of the land use proposed on surrounding land uses and other licensing regimes controlling the processes or substances themselves. The planning authority would consult the relevant agencies with regard to such matters as the effect of a waste development on health and take account of their comments. The advice is clear that the planning authority “should not substitute its own judgements on pollution control issues for that of the bodies with the relevant expertise and statutory responsibility for that control” (PPG 23, Box below paragraph 1.34). 6b) The policy sets out that the land use effect of an application on the health of surrounding people can be a material planning consideration. In response to this the waste planning authority, when assessing planning applications, would seek the advice of the relevant body in coming to a judgement on a case by case basis. To do more at this stage would be substituting the authorities’ own judgement for that of relevant bodies. The availability of a particular expert (including a toxicologist) to the Environment Agency is beyond the scope of the planning authorities to comment on. 6c) It is not necessary to repeat that the precautionary principle will be applied along with this policy test, as the plan will always be read as a whole in determining a planning application. Thus the precautionary principle will always be applied to
16a.doc Page 55 of 129
Derby and Derbyshire Waste Local Plan REPORT OF PUBLICITY AND CONSULTATIONS JULY 2003 applications, in line with the plan, which interprets the principle in line with government advice. 7) In line with the advice in PPG 23 the planning authorities do not substitute their judgements for those of expert authorities in this field. The policy cannot make statements about the effects on health about all the range of waste developments this plan deals with. It simply acknowledges that there may potentially be health risks with certain waste developments. It seeks to ensure there is not harm caused to health. To assist in reaching decisions, the waste planning authorities would consult pollution control bodies to obtain advice on a case by case basis. See 2) above. 8) The need to protect health is highlighted as one factor, which will be looked at by decision-makers. Each application would then be looked at on a case-by-case basis taking into account expert advice. No general statement of this nature is thus considered necessary.
Recommendations 1) – 3), 6) - 8) No change. 4) & 5) Change the plan by making minor textual changes to 4.16.13, inserting a new paragraph 4.16.14 and renumbering the original 4.16.14, as follows:
“ Disrupting , or blocking or polluting local drainage systems 4.16.13 That, Where where there is a material risk to local drainage systems, that the applicant would the developer will provide an effective alternative drainage system. 4.16.14 That the proposal includes adequate provision to ensure that there will not be contaminated run-off.
The visual effect of those factors 4.16.1415 That the appearance of the area would not be harmed by pollutants and other nuisances, such as litter or mud.”
4.16 – 4.16.14 Policy W7 & box W7 Pollution and related nuisances
Summaries 1) In policy W7 after “material harm” add “ that has been methodologically and scientifically researched and”… . Clay Cross and District EAG 0217 2) In policy W7 replace “or” with “and” between people or communities and nearby land uses or the wider environment. KDCS 0225 3) W7 wording should start “Waste developments will not be permitted if…”. CPRE Derbyshire 0248 Assessments 1) The text does imply that the decision would be as factually based as possible because “would not result in material harm” is unequivocal. However, to seek the degree of certainty sought by the objector would be unhelpful and probably unrealistic. As noted in paragraph 4.15, expert advice will be sought before decisions are taken, so that as much certainty as can be reasonably possible is achieved that pollution does not occur. Thus no further changes to the text are needed.
16a.doc Page 56 of 129
Derby and Derbyshire Waste Local Plan REPORT OF PUBLICITY AND CONSULTATIONS JULY 2003
2) It would be unhelpful to substitute “and” in these positions as pollution might affect only one of these receptors and to make this change would limit the effectiveness of the policy. 3) In line with government good practice advice (eg “Development Plans, A Good Practice Guide, 1992) the policies have been phrased in a positive vein where possible.
Recommendations 1) - 3) No change.
4.16 – 4.16.14 Policy W7 & box W7 Pollution and related nuisances
Summaries 1) So that water issues are given a greater prominence paragraph 4.16.11 should be split into three separate sections. Environment Agency 0163 2) Add to box W7 “The new development would not produce airborne particulates in the vicinity of high power lines”. KDCS 0226 3) Remove “significantly” from 4.16.8 as it may be abused. CPRE Derbyshire 0249 4) In para 4.16.9 insert full stop after “contaminants” and delete remainder of sentence. CPRE Derbyshire 0250 5) In 4.16.12,remove the words “material” and “significant “. CPRE Derbyshire 0251 6a) Include reference to the precautionary principle here. Chesterfield and North Derbyshire FoE 0265 6b) Remove the phrases “material harm” and “materially reduce the quality of life of local communities” as they are too vague. Chesterfield and North Derbyshire FoE 0265 Assessments 1) Agree that, although splitting the text in this way would not add prominence or clarity, there should be references to additional water issues. 2) If the effects of particulates in the vicinity of high power lines is shown in a particular case to cause environmental harm it will be covered by this policy. No change is needed because the issue of particulates is particular to specific cases in specific locations and would be one of the “other issues” to which paragraph 4.16.1 refers, which the applicant and/or waste planning authority would address in cases where it was relevant. 3), 5) & 6b) Whilst the concern is understood, it is not possible to guard against varying interpretations wherever the words “material” or “significant” are used or wherever they are omitted. References to the effects of development need to be qualified, if only to indicate that insignificant or immaterial effects need not be of concern and that planning control should operate above the de minimis level. Nevertheless, the references should be clarified, by changes to the introductory text of chapter 4 and the removal of the words “material” and “significant” where they do not beneficially inform the text. 4) The part of the sentence sought for removal describes the sort of harm to highway users that the policy is trying to prevent, so needs to be retained. 6a) There is no need to repeat references to the precautionary principle: as it is a policy in the plan, it is applicable to the determination of all applications.
16a.doc Page 57 of 129
Derby and Derbyshire Waste Local Plan REPORT OF PUBLICITY AND CONSULTATIONS JULY 2003
Recommendations 1) Change paragraph 4.16.11, as follows:
“ The leaking, leaching or other spreading of effluents or contaminants 4.16.10 That effluents, contaminants and other products of the development would be effectively contained and controlled within the site and its systems. 4.16.11 That they would not endanger the health of people, livestock or wildlife, would not pollute aquifers, groundwater, surface water courses or other areas of water and would not materially reduce the quality of life of local communities.”
2), 4) & 6a) No change. 3), 5) & 6b) A. Change paragraph 4.2, by adding sentences, as follows:
“4.2 Applicants for planning permission for waste development must normally submit an environmental statement under the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations, 1999, or other information on the environmental implications of the proposed development (see paragraph 1.13 of this plan). PPG 1 (General Policy and Principles, February 1997), paragraph 50, quoting from a legal judgment, says, “Whether a particular consideration … is material in any given case will depend on the circumstances.” In assessments of applications in the context of this chapter of the waste local plan, whether or not any particular environmental effect will be significant or material will depend on the circumstances of the proposal, the site and its environs.”
B. Change the preface of the plan and paragraphs 2.3, 2.17, 2.21, 2.39, 2.53, 2.72, 3.9.16, 4.16.2, 4.16.4, 4.16.6, 4.16.7, 4.16.8, 4.16.11, 4.16.12, 4.16.13, 4.20.9, 4.28.9, 5.11, 7.33, 7.35, 7.49, 7.56 & 7.60 by deleting or substituting other words for the words, “material”, “materially”, “significant” and “significantly”, as appropriate.
4.20 Policy W8 Landscapes and other visual impacts.
Summaries 1) Greater emphasis should be given to conserving and enhancing the landscape. It is felt that the policy as worded does not go as far as the Structure Plan policy that requires developments to conserve and enhance the character of the landscape. Derbyshire Dales D C 0181 2) Supports the policy especially the consideration of character and local distinctiveness. Countryside Agency 0044 3) Rephrase W8 to say that the development will not be permitted if these effects happen. CPRE Derbyshire 0252
Assessment 1) Agree it would be helpful to include wording that seeks to conserve the landscape and achieve enhancement where appropriate (for example, in cases of developments which will markedly alter the landscape’s character or the landscape has been degraded by previous development). The structure plan itself does not require developments to conserve and enhance the landscape. It says, “where development is permitted, opportunities will be taken” to do so (Environment Policy 1)
16a.doc Page 58 of 129
Derby and Derbyshire Waste Local Plan REPORT OF PUBLICITY AND CONSULTATIONS JULY 2003 and says that development will “conserve or enhance” (GDS Policy 2). The context of the policy would be improved if the supporting text referred to the structure plan policy and box W8 specifically mentioned that enhancement can be a consideration. 2) The support is welcomed. 3) In line with government good practice advice (for instance, in “Development Plans: A Good Practice Guide”, 1992), the policies are phrased in a positive vein where possible.
Recommendations 1) Change paragraph 4.19, adding further references to structure plan environment policies, and box W8, adding references to enhancement and restoration, as follows:
“4.19 PPGs 1 (paragraphs 18 & 32), 3 (paragraph 56) and 7 advise that development should respect the local distinctiveness of the area. Structure plan Environment Policy 16 seeks policies 1 and 17 seek to protect such local distinctiveness. Environment Policy 1 and district-wide local plans expect that new development will take appropriate opportunities to conserve, enhance and restore the landscape. In certain circumstances in, for example, conservation areas, decision- makers can require developments to enhance the townscape or landscape. Policy W5 of this local plan addresses environmental issues in such designated areas. In undesignated areas, opportunities might be taken to reflect the structure plan policy: for example, where a waste development is proposed on a degraded site, decision- makers can seek enhancement to help to counter any adverse visual impacts resulting from the development.”
[BOX W8W7] “ Visual impact 4.20.10 That the layout and design of the development take opportunities to conserve, enhance or restore the character of the area sufficiently to outweigh any harm caused by adverse impacts (for instance, taking an opportunity to provide a landscaping scheme to improve the wider landscape around the development). 4.20.11 That the application proposals take opportunities to mitigate any adverse visual impacts of the development.”
2) & 3) No change.
4.22 Policy W9 Impact of transport of waste
Summaries 1) Welcomes and supports the policy. Countryside Agency 0036 2) The phrase “the least environmentally harmful method of waste transport that is practical is employed” should be included. Chesterfield and North Derbyshire FoE 0266 Assessments 1) The support is welcome. 2) This approach would go beyond what can be achieved within planning legislation, even if it could be assessed what the “least environmentally harmful method” would be. Planning applications have to be determined having regard to
16a.doc Page 59 of 129
Derby and Derbyshire Waste Local Plan REPORT OF PUBLICITY AND CONSULTATIONS JULY 2003 their effects in land use terms. However as 4.22.1 makes clear under the terms of this policy, waste planning authorities will seek the mode and route for the transportation of waste which would cause the least possible disturbance to the local environment that is practical. This would include those effects set out in policy W7.
Recommendations 1) & 2) No change
4.28 Policy W10 Protection of other interests
Summaries 1) Supports the policy. Countryside Agency 0035 2) Agrees with the points on looking at the impacts of farm units. National Farmers Union 0004 3) The fifth sentence of 4.28.8 should refer to PPG 25. Environment Agency 0165 4) Paragraph 4.28.4 should also make reference to paragraphs 27-29 of Annex A to PPG 10, which points out that waste planning authorities should submit all applications for landfill within certain distances of aerodromes to the Civil Aviation Authority or Ministry of Defence for approval. GOEM 0186 5) Supports policy. Ault Hucknall EAG 0239 6) Strongly supports. Ault Hucknall P C 0270
Assessments 1), 2), 5) & 6) The support is welcomed. 3) Agree that PPG 25 should be referred to; in fact, it is already referenced in the third line of the paragraph: no further change is necessary. 4) Agree, although the reference in PPG 10 has been updated by Circular 1/03, to which the paragraph should refer, to add clarity.
Recommendations 1), 2), 3), 5) & 6) No change. 4) Amend paragraph 4.28.4, as follows:
“ Aviation 4.28.4 There is a concern, identified in PPGs 10,13 & 15 and Circular 2/921/03, that development proposals within certain distances of aerodromes can cause hazards to aircraft. Hazards relevant to this local plan include tall incinerator chimneys and the potential, near landfill sites, for birdstrike – the many birds attracted to landfill feeding grounds may cause damage to aircraft which are taking off or landing. The Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) provides planning authorities with official safeguarding maps showing the areas of concern around aerodromes. In those areas and in other cases where the CAA expresses concern, the assessment of waste applications will include consideration of aviation safety. Circular 1/03 requires that waste planning authorities consult the CAA on all applications for landfill developments that fall within thirteen kilometres of major civil aerodromes and the Ministry of Defence for similar development within 8 miles of military aerodromes.”
16a.doc Page 60 of 129
Derby and Derbyshire Waste Local Plan REPORT OF PUBLICITY AND CONSULTATIONS JULY 2003
4.31 Policy W11 Cumulative impact
Summaries 1) Support policy. Ault Hucknall EAG 0240 2) Reword the policy to say the development will not be permitted if it has these effects. CPRE Derbyshire 0253 3) Support policy. Countryside Agency 0045 4) Will be particularly relevant to this part of Derbyshire. Ault Hucknall P C 0271 5a) Parts of the plan need to be strengthened to include the full cumulative impact of a proposal. Derby FoE 0311 5b) A social impact assessment is suggested. The example is given of parts of Derby where there is said to be “gross” pollution and so heavy industry should be resisted here. Derby FoE 0311
Assessments 1), 3) & 4) The support is welcomed. 2) In line with government good practice advice (for instance, in “Development Plans: A Good Practice Guide”, 1992), the policies are phrased in a positive vein where possible. 5a) The policy on cumulative impacts, at W7, applies to all proposals and so does not need to be repeated in other parts of the plan. 5b) Policies 7, 9 and 11 of the plan deal with the impacts of developments on communities. They cover (so far as planning control can cover without crossing into the realm of pollution control) the social impacts of the sort that the objector describes. This plan deals with waste development, not with “heavy industry” development. However in line with the desire to move towards sustainable development, an appraisal of the considered impacts of this plan’s policies including the effect on the aim for “social progress which recognises the needs of everyone” has been undertaken and was included with the plan.
Recommendations 1) – 5) No change.
16a.doc Page 61 of 129
Derby and Derbyshire Waste Local Plan REPORT OF PUBLICITY AND CONSULTATIONS JULY 2003
COMMENTS ON CHAPTER 5 Landfill space in the plan area and the sub-areas
Any changes to chapter 5 recommended in this section are shown as part of the revised chapter 5 that results from Recommendation B re paragraphs 2.57 – 2.59. The revised chapter 5 is set out at the end of this section.
5 Re potential landfill space
Summary The plan should include an assessment of potential waste management sites to deal with the identified shortfall in landfill capacity. Any such findings should be included in a Sustainability Appraisal and appropriately summarised in the plan. Nottinghamshire CC 0049 Assessment See assessment re paragraphs 2.57-2.59 (objections 0048 and 0189). As the plan has adopted a policy criteria approach to making provision, it is not necessary to identify specific sites in the plan.
Recommendation See recommendations re paragraphs 2.57-2.59.
5 Re importation of hazardous waste to the UK
Summary The plan should include details of hazardous waste being imported to the UK as recyclable waste and more specifically, how the imported waste is managed. COTEP 0144 Assessment Agree that the importation of waste from overseas to Derbyshire would conflict with the principle of self-sufficiency and probably with the proximity principle, although there might be occasions when it would be “the most sustainable journey” (waste local plan, paragraph 6.6.11(3)). Planning applications for developments to manage such waste would be covered by the deposited policies, particularly W1a & b and, in the case of landfill, W11 (W12 in first deposit plan), and assessed on a case by case basis. The monitoring and regulating of waste imported to the UK is the responsibility of the Environment Agency and there is no need for this plan to dwell on it.
Recommendation No change.
5 Re landfill sites taking industrial waste
Summary
16a.doc Page 62 of 129
Derby and Derbyshire Waste Local Plan REPORT OF PUBLICITY AND CONSULTATIONS JULY 2003
As the majority of waste that goes to landfill is industrial waste, this chapter should consider the need for the monitoring, control and policing of landfill sites that accept such wastes. Clay Cross & District EAG 0220
Assessment Because this local plan deals with land use, it cannot impose special controls on industrial waste specifically. When the waste planning authority grants planning permission, it tries to ensure that there are relevant conditions or agreements to make the development acceptable in the context of the plan. PPG10 (paragraph 19) states that the relationship between the planning system and waste management licensing should avoid duplication and yet be complementary. PPG23 (paragraph 1.33) makes it clear that the planning system should focus on whether the development itself is an acceptable use of land, rather than on the control of the processes or substances themselves, and should assume that the pollution control regime will operate effectively. The plan could include further explanation of the role of the Environment Agency, which, as waste management regulator for England and Wales, monitors the treatment, storage and disposal of controlled waste to prevent pollution and harm to public health.
Recommendation Change the first sentence of paragraph 2.36, as follows:
“Strategic Waste Management Assessment 2.36 The Environment Agency, as a waste regulator, has statutory duties to monitor the treatment, storage and disposal of controlled waste and prevent or minimise the effects of pollution on the environment. Part of its role is to provide up-to-date information on waste arisings and the need for management and disposal facilities. It included such information in a Strategic Waste Management Assessment (SWMA) for the region, published in October 2000, and has provided more recent information, which . The information has been particularly useful in the preparation of the waste local plan.”
5.4 Cross-boundary movement of waste
Summaries 1) This paragraph should be deleted as it allows for the increase of waste imports. COTEP 0145 2) This paragraph should reflect more precisely government guidance on the proximity principle and self-sufficiency of waste management. Lafarge Aggregates Ltd 0158 Assessments 1) & 2) Paragraph 5.4 reflects government guidance and should be retained. However, the paragraph could include a cross-reference to chapter 2 of the plan.
Recommendations 1) & 2) Change paragraph 5.4 to include a cross-reference to chapter 2, as set out at the end of this section.
16a.doc Page 63 of 129
Derby and Derbyshire Waste Local Plan REPORT OF PUBLICITY AND CONSULTATIONS JULY 2003
5.5 Cross-boundary movement of waste
Recommendation See recommendation (to delete this paragraph) re paragraph 2.43 of the local plan (objections 0090, 0112, 0273, 0219, 0254).
5.9 The need to provide landfill space
Summary Whilst paragraph 5.9 is generally supported, there is a need for the opportunity to submit sites which have the potential for landfill. (The objector has since submitted 2 suggestions: (a) a proposed extension to Swarkestone Quarry for inert waste; and (b) Armstrong Quarry near Whitwell, for non-hazardous waste.) The Swarkestone site adjoins the existing Swarkestone Quarry, which currently takes in inert waste to facilitate restoration. The site may be the subject of a planning application in future which might also involve the restoration of the land using inert materials. The Armstrong Quarry site is currently the subject of a planning application for the disposal of some 1.2 million cubic metres of municipal, industrial and commercial waste. Lafarge Aggregates Ltd 0159
Assessment The support is welcomed. The local plan working group invited the objector to submit sites, which resulted in the two suggestions above. There will always be the opportunity to submit sites, by way of a planning application. Indeed, Armstrong Quarry is the subject of an application at present.
(a) Swarkestone Quarry: The objection site does not at present offer any void space that requires to be filled, neither does it have the benefit of planning permission for mineral development that might create such void space. The city and county is preparing Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) on the After-Use of gravel sites. A key issue being considered is the effect of a 13km protection zone around East Midlands Airport within which the airport authorities require mineral sites to be restored to dry rather than water-based uses in order to minimise the risk of bird- strikes on aircraft. This is likely to have the effect, subject to environmental and other constraints, of optimising the use of inert, solid wastes in mineral restoration schemes - indeed there is likely to be a shortage of suitable materials for this purpose in the future. Therefore, whilst it is not possible to anticipate the conclusions of the SPG, or the outcome of any planning application, or the availability of suitable materials for this particular site, the use of inert materials in the restoration of such sites is likely to be acceptable in principle. It would be appropriate for wording to be introduced to chapter 5 to clarify this.
(b) Armstrong Quarry: An application for the deposit of 1.2 million cubic metres of non-hazardous waste is currently under consideration by the waste planning authority. It has aroused an objection from Bolsover District Council on leisure, amenity and other grounds. Other concerns include questions of conformity with the proximity principle, aquifer protection and impact on wildlife and related issues regarding a ROMP application on the site in respect of restoration conditions. In view of the nature of these unresolved issues, it is considered preferable that the
16a.doc Page 64 of 129
Derby and Derbyshire Waste Local Plan REPORT OF PUBLICITY AND CONSULTATIONS JULY 2003 acceptabilility of this proposal should be determined through the development control process rather than through including the site in the plan.
Recommendation Change paragraph 5.15 (now 5.18), as set out at the end of this section.
5.11 The need to provide landfill space
Summary Remove the statement that energy from waste may play a significant part in reducing the need for landfill. COTEP 0147
Assessment Agree that the paragraph could be interpreted as saying that energy recovery should precede recycling and composting.
Recommendation Change paragraph 5.11, as set out at the end of this section.
5.12 – 5.28 The sub-areas
Summaries 1) There should be an assessment, in this section of the plan, for the future provision of waste to energy, with the conclusion there may be a need for such a plant. WRG 0063 2) These paragraphs need to reduce reliance on out of county disposal, and this should ultimately be an objective of the plan. WRG 0272
Assessments
1) There is an extant planning permission for a waste to energy plant in Derby and there is a pyrolysis project in Bolsover. The plan does not seek to restrict other such developments (see, for example, paragraph 7.4). Chapter 5 considers the disposal of waste to landfill and so would not be an appropriate forum for assessment of waste to energy provision. Chapter 7 discusses waste to energy developments and facilities for other forms of recovery of value. Appendix B estimates the amounts of waste requiring recovery of value (which may include energy-from-waste) if the county is to meet EU and government municipal and household waste targets (figure 3): the amounts are indicative as there is no comparison with present recovery figures. See also assessment re paragraphs 2.57-2.59 (objections 0048 & 0189).
2) In conjunction with appendix B, chapter 5 examines the existing distribution of waste management facilities within and in close proximity to the plan area and discusses the main problems that each waste management sub-area faces. It does not place reliance on out-of-county disposal, as it is not a waste management plan. It sets out the geographical context which will influence the assessment of planning applications. (See also the assessment re paragraphs 2.57-2.59 (objections 0048 & 0189) on the criteria-based approach.) The following considerations also apply:
16a.doc Page 65 of 129
Derby and Derbyshire Waste Local Plan REPORT OF PUBLICITY AND CONSULTATIONS JULY 2003
Geography
Most of the main settlements in Derbyshire are influenced by much larger urban systems outside its boundaries, such as Nottingham, Sheffield, and Manchester. As shown on Map A on page 105 of the waste local plan, most of the boundary of the plan area adjoins neighbouring planning regions – Yorkshire and Humberside, North West Region and West Midlands Region – each with their own separate regional strategies. The principle of regional self-sufficiency should indicate that the effects of this should be limited, but the scale of influence of the major conurbations on Derbyshire suggests that the proximity principle will take priority. The movements of waste across county and regional boundaries are likely to be both significant and unpredictable.
The close geographical relationship of Derbyshire with adjoining urban areas means that it would be unrealistic to limit the plan to providing for the needs of waste generated in Derbyshire. Sustainable solutions are likely to involve cross-boundary movements of waste in both directions. The fact that a waste management or disposal site lies over a county boundary is of little relevance if the site is relatively close to the origin of the accepted waste and the proposal conforms with the policies of the area’s development plans.
Policy
The term “self-sufficiency”, as defined in Waste Strategy 2000 (Part 1, paragraph 4.5, and Part 2, Annex D), does not apply to parishes, districts or counties but primarily to exports from the UK and secondarily to inter-regional movements. (See also the quotation from the EU Handbook, below). The BPEO and proximity principle could mean that waste should cross county boundaries and in some cases should move across regional boundaries. PPG 10 states that “waste management solutions may sometimes need to cross WPA or regional boundaries” (paragraph 17). The BPEO should be considered with particular rigour, especially for hazardous wastes, to ensure wastes are managed appropriately and effectively, and not dealt with haphazardly to satisfy the principle of self-sufficiency.
The EU “Handbook on the Implementation of EC Environment Legislation” says, “The relative roles of regional and local government in waste management may also vary according to economies of scale and waste type. Some countries have a very large number of small municipalities with individual responsibility for managing municipal waste. These are frequently too small to be able to construct suitable disposal facilities to the high standards demanded by EU legislation at an affordable cost. In this case, inter-municipal co-operation can be very beneficial in achieving groupings with enough waste to make suitable facilities affordable.”
Landfill site availability
For many years, Derbyshire has provided plenty of landfill space, which has been used by waste emanating from many sources. The landfill sites have often been closely related to the working of coal or clay because of the geological suitability of the “exposed coalfield” areas for accommodating municipal and mixed industrial
16a.doc Page 66 of 129
Derby and Derbyshire Waste Local Plan REPORT OF PUBLICITY AND CONSULTATIONS JULY 2003 wastes. It is anticipated that the provision of landfill capacity will be similarly opportunistic in future and, as the availability of coal and clay sites is likely to fluctuate over time, may follow the availability of voids into other counties or vice versa. On the other hand, the restoration to land of river gravel pits in Derbyshire, requiring inert waste, is likely to require sourcing from other counties to ensure that restoration is completed within reasonable periods of time.
Recommendations 1) & 2) No change.
5.16 South East Derbyshire Sub-Area
Summaries 1) “Bentinck” should be deleted from line 2, or it should be referred to as a potential long-term option. Nottinghamshire CC 0050 2) There should be no references in the plan to reliance on the New Albion Void site for Derbyshire’s south-eastern sub-area waste arisings. Leicestershire CC 0196 Assessments 1) Agree. The plan is confusing the Bentinck site with Huthwaite, which is presently receiving Derbyshire waste. The Bentinck landfill site has yet to receive planning permission; the current planning application is subject to a government direction under article 14 preventing a decision and it is likely that a new application will be submitted. The plan should be amended to include that information and to say that, if permission is granted for the Bentinck site, it could accept waste from Derbyshire. 2) The New Albion Void site is located just over the border in Leicestershire. As the plan states in paragraph 5.16, the inspector at the Leicestershire waste local plan inquiry accepted that more than half of New Albion’s input might come from Derbyshire and Staffordshire. See also the assessment re the sub-area paragraphs “5.12-5.28”, above (objection 0272).
Recommendations 1) Change paragraph 5.16 (now part of 5.19), as set out at the end of this section. 2) No change.
5.17 South East Derbyshire Sub-Area
Summaries 1) Replace last sentence of paragraph 5.17 with “A pattern of facilities including additional landfill capacity within the sub-area would conform with the policies of the Plan”. WRG 0062 2) The paragraph should be amended to consider that waste arisings in Derbyshire should be dealt with at suitable facilities in appropriate locations and not rely on other waste planning authorities to deal with significant quantities of waste. Leicestershire CC 0197
16a.doc Page 67 of 129
Derby and Derbyshire Waste Local Plan REPORT OF PUBLICITY AND CONSULTATIONS JULY 2003
3) Reference should be made in this paragraph that the impacts of landfill or landraising should not be experienced in the Trent Valley Flood Plain. Attenborough Quarry Long Lane RLG 0009 Assessments 1) Agree that the suggested sentence would be true. However, it would also be misleading because there is little chance that such a pattern could be provided. The boundaries of this sub-area cut across significant linkages between settlements and wider communities. Nearby sites in adjoining areas offer the potential for sustainable solutions. See also the assessment re the sub-area paragraphs “5.12-5.28”, above (objection 0272). 2) It would not be good spatial planning to ignore cross-boundary linkages. Indeed, the Leicestershire waste local plan provides for some of that county’s waste to travel to other counties. See also the assessment re the sub-area paragraphs “5.12-5.28”, above (objection 0272). 3) The geology of the Trent Valley Flood Plain makes finding suitable locations for non-hazardous landfill difficult. However, there are cases were existing sand and gravel sites have a restoration condition to which inert landfill would be suitable. In practice, the Environment Agency, as waste regulation authority, would not normally provide a licence for sites to receive non-inert material within the floodplain and the agency operates strict controls relating to ground water and flood protection interests. The plan’s policies, particularly policies W6 and W7 (W5 & W6 in Second Deposit), cover the issue of pollution of water resources, which include the Trent Valley and other river flood plains.
Recommendations 1) - 3) No change.
5.18 – 5.25 West Derbyshire Sub-Area
Summary The paragraph/section should state that the Peak District National Park Local Plan needs to consider potential facilities for the management of it’s own waste. COTEP 0146; COTEP 0148; NA Lievesley 0205 Assessment The Peak District National Park Authority is a separate planning authority which has already adopted a structure plan and a local plan which include policies for waste management development. The status of the Peak Park development plans is equal to those of the rest of Derbyshire and it is not possible to include instructions for the Peak Park in the waste local plan. See also assessments re paragraphs 2.42-2.43, (objections 0219, 0254, 0090, 0112 & 0273) and re paragraphs 2.57-2.59 (objections 0048 and 0189).
Recommendation Change paragraphs 2.42 & 2.43 and delete paragraph 5.5, as recommended re those paragraphs, and change paragraph 5.21, as set out at the end of this section.
5.27 North-East Derbyshire Sub-Area
16a.doc Page 68 of 129
Derby and Derbyshire Waste Local Plan REPORT OF PUBLICITY AND CONSULTATIONS JULY 2003
Summary The plan should explain why the planning conditions at Erin limit the life of the site. Furthermore, whether it would be beneficial to allow for an extension to create further landfill provision. Nottinghamshire CC 0051
Assessment A condition of the permission, reflecting the intentions of the planning application that the development would be completed by 2010, was that the site would stop receiving waste material in 2010, and that only landscaping works would be permitted until 2011. Permission might not have been granted if the proposal had been for a longer period. This condition was intended to ensure that this scheme would not be dragging on over an unspecified number of years, impacting further upon the quality of life of local residents, who had already been suffering owing to the previous opencast operation. The condition would have been in line with waste local plan policy W11 (cumulative impact). It is not currently possible to say whether it would be beneficial to allow for an extension. As well as the cumulative impact issue, there are new and unresolved issues relating to possible nearby development associated with the proposed Markham Employment Growth Zone and the linked proposal for a new motorway junction.
Recommendation Change paragraph 5.27 (now paragraphs 5.30 & 5.31) to explain more about the Erin situation and why it is not possible at present to allow for an extension, as set out below.
The recommended revised chapter 5 is as follows:
Chapter 5 LANDFILL SPACE IN THE PLAN AREA AND THE SUB-AREAS
Introduction
5.1 Chapters 3 and 4 of this plan provide criteria for assessing planning applications for all types of waste development. The emphasis is on permitting sustainable waste development subject to the protection of environmental and other important interests.
5.2 With regard to applications for landfill development, chapter 6 introduces restrictions reflecting the position of landfill at the bottom of the waste hierarchy. However, for the foreseeable future, there will be a need for some to deposit waste at landfill sites. The purpose of the current chapter is to discuss the need as it relates to Derby and Derbyshire and the county’s waste management sub-areas, which were established in the Derbyshire Waste Management Strategy (February 1999) and are shown on Map C.
The need to provide landfill space
16a.doc Page 69 of 129
Derby and Derbyshire Waste Local Plan REPORT OF PUBLICITY AND CONSULTATIONS JULY 2003
5.65.3 Waste Strategy 2000 has ambitious aims for reduction, re-use and recovery but it acknowledges that landfill will still be necessary for large amounts of waste. For example, there will be Such wastes will include: hazardous wastes [A1.6] which require specialised landfill treatment, and ; unusable or unsortable wastes left over from recovery processes; . And, there will be mixed wastes for which there is no recovery facility in proximity, despite the best efforts of waste managers and the policies of this plan, ; and wastes which could be treated higher up the hierarchy but for various reasons find their way to landfill. There may be a need for new sites to satisfy the “separate disposal” requirements of the EC Directive on the landfill of waste (1999/31/EC; see appendix C) and of regulations made under the Environmental Protection Act, 1990.
5.35.4 Appendix B analyses, in accordance with the waste planning strategy (chapter 2), the potential effects of the government’s waste management targets on future landfill provision in Derby and Derbyshire. Policy W11 (see chapter 6 of this plan) says that new landfill developments are unacceptable unless they satisfy an unfulfilled need to dispose of locally generated waste. Box W11 and the methodology described in appendix B show how evidence of such a need can be established. The methodology incorporates certain assumptions, including the key assumption, established in the waste planning strategy (in chapter 2 of this plan), that waste management achievements in Derby and Derbyshire will not exceed the government’s targets (the targets are set out in appendix C). The application of As well as describing the methodology, appendix B works it through, applying current source data to its methodology, and finds that suggests that there are likely to be capacity problems in the plan area throughout , during the plan period, unless more void space is provided or alternatives to landfill within the county become available. Derby and Derbyshire is likely to dispose to land a larger volume of waste than the existing licensed void space in the plan area can accept.
5.5 It is important to note that such shortfalls in void space within the plan area do not necessarily imply an urgent need for new planning permissions for landfill in Derbyshire during the plan period. The appendix B methodology involves several stages of assessment and incorporates factors such as the proximity of landfill sites which are outside but close to the plan area.
Cross-boundary movement of waste
5.4 5.6 This chapter considers possible solutions to the capacity problems. A partial solution One consideration could be the transfer of more waste across the county boundary (Derbyshire has accepted waste from other counties for many years and sites in other counties accept Derbyshire waste). As explained in chapter 2, paragraphs 2.21 to 2.31, the The principles of self-sufficiency and proximity do not amount to a requirement that waste generated within a county or sub-area should be managed within that area. This chapter includes consideration of the potential for such movement.
5.5 This chapter does not discuss the potential for waste development in the Peak District National Park because the peak park’s local plan policies are restrictive towards development of that sort.
16a.doc Page 70 of 129
Derby and Derbyshire Waste Local Plan REPORT OF PUBLICITY AND CONSULTATIONS JULY 2003
5.7 In The appendix B, the plan methodology considers the separate fates of hazardous, inert and non-hazardous wastes. Most open-gate sites in the county are licensed [A2.5] to accept mixed wastes and are likely to become as “non-hazardous” sites, which can accept all controlled wastes except those classified as “hazardous”.
5.8 Appendix B relates the county’s annual controlled waste production to the European Union and government targets; it apportions the waste to recycling, composting and “recovery” in accordance with the targets. It assumes that the remainder of the waste will be landfilled, up to the limits imposed by the targets. Concentrating on the landfill sites, it compares their capacity with the potential waste deposits for the plan period.
5.9 The methodology includes assessing licensed sites in the county and sites which have planning permission but are not yet licensed. It includes other landfill potential within the plan area, such as the particular need to restore minerals extraction sites in the Trent Valley, and sites outside the county which might accept Derby’s and Derbyshire’s waste without infringing the proximity principle. Any consideration of need in relation to a planning application would carry out such an assessment, applying the available data in the context of the particular circumstances pertaining at the time. The rest of this chapter describes the current context.
Hazardous waste arisings
5.10 The assessment of hazardous waste arisings and deposits in particular is very difficult and the Environment Agency advises that they should be treated with caution (East Midlands SWMA paragraph 2.3.1) but the figures suggest that the county’s open-gate landfill sites accepted about 16,000 26,000 tonnes of hazardous waste in 2001 2000/2001 (appendix B, paragraph B7.1). Not all of that waste originated in Derbyshire. Also some Derbyshire waste went to landfill elsewhere. There are unlikely to be any open-gate sites in the county accepting hazardous waste during the plan period unless new permissions and licences are granted. Although the amount of hazardous waste produced is likely to increase (see the waste planning strategy, paragraph 2.54), the quantity deposited at landfill could fall because of the requirement that all such waste should be treated – including by processes that make it suitable for recycling or other forms of recovery. The appendix B methodology is not directly applicable to the landfill needs of hazardous waste because of the varying management needs of the wide variety of hazardous wastes. Furthermore, as paragraph 2.54 explains, hazardous waste is unlikely to have a great, quantitative influence on the overall need for landfill space.
General conclusions about waste arisings
5.95.11 The comparison assumes, in accordance with the waste planning strategy, that methods of waste disposal and management will meet but not beat the targets. On that basis, and using Applying the methodology to currently available data, it appendix B finds that, unless new sites, or extensions to existing sites or alternatives to local landfill are permitted, the plan area’s void space would reach capacity near the end of the plan period (on the theoretical assumption that the
16a.doc Page 71 of 129
Derby and Derbyshire Waste Local Plan REPORT OF PUBLICITY AND CONSULTATIONS JULY 2003 county’s borders were closed to the passage of waste). It finds also that there is likely to be an overall shortage of landfill space for inert waste in the county as a whole during the plan period (appendix B figures 9 & 12 and paragraph B10.3) and shortages an imbalance between amount of potential fill and amount of void space for non-hazardous waste in the south-east and west sub-areas sub-area, although not necessarily in the areas adjoining the sub-area, throughout the plan period (figures 8 & 11 and paragraph B10.2). Paragraphs 5.14-5.20 consider further that situation. 5.11 Any shortfalls in void space do not have to be made up solely by providing new landfill permissions sites. A more sustainable alternative, for all wastes, would be the provision of more recovery recycling and composting facilities, in which ; energy from waste might also play a significant part. Recovery instead of landfill would be more in line with government policy and with policy W1a and the other policies of this plan.
The sub-areas
5.12 The Derbyshire Waste Management Strategy (February 1999) divided the county into three sub-areas which conveniently recognised differing characteristics of different parts of Derbyshire in terms of geography, geology and waste profiles. The sub-areas reflect the main concentrations of population and the significance of the proximity principle.
5.13 However, the boundaries of the sub-areas are not socio-geographical; they are municipal – the sub-areas are combinations of waste collection authorities. The areas of the waste collection authorities are not homogeneous. There are differences within each municipality: for example, the area of Derbyshire Dales south of Ashbourne is geographically different from the northern parts of the district and has much stronger links with Derby and parts of Staffordshire. So the sub-area divisions do not diminish the importance of links with adjoining areas or imply any requirement of self-sufficiency, other than municipal waste collection. The sub-area paragraphs below summarise the similarities and differences between and within the sub-areas and discuss the provision of waste management facilities, with particular reference to landfill.
South-East Derbyshire Sub-Area
5.125.14 The south-east sub-area is composed of Derby City unitary authority, Amber Valley and Erewash Boroughs and South Derbyshire District. It is the largest sub-area in terms of population, is the largest producer of waste and has the greatest projected shortfall of landfill space.
5.135.15 At present, municipal waste collected in Amber Valley goes to landfill at various sites, depending on the contractor’s operational and market circumstances. Most of the The waste from the northern part goes mainly to Sutton-in-Ashfield, Nottinghamshire. Indirectly, so does part of the remaining waste from the southern part because that is taken initially to the Derby Transfer Loading Station at Raynesway, whence it may be sent to Sutton-in-Ashfield or elsewhere, depending on the commercial situation or Bretby near Swadlincote. The municipal waste from Erewash also is processed and bulked-up at Raynesway, except that Erewash carries out a separate green waste collection, which is composted at Cotes Park,
16a.doc Page 72 of 129
Derby and Derbyshire Waste Local Plan REPORT OF PUBLICITY AND CONSULTATIONS JULY 2003 near Alfreton in Amber Valley. Some of South Derbyshire District Council landfills most of its waste within the district but that may have to change because Bretby is due to close in 2004 Council’s waste is composted at Lount in Leicestershire and Etwall in South Derbyshire; most is landfilled at Bretby, within the district, but Bretby will close in September 2003 and the waste will go to the New Albion site at Moira, in Leicestershire but adjacent to South Derbyshire.
5.16 The Raynesway waste transfer station bulks up all the municipal waste collected in Derby City. From there the waste travels to a variety of landfill sites (see paragraph 5.15 above). The pattern of disposal may change considerably after March 2005, when the city and county waste disposal authorities enter into new disposal contracts.
5.145.17 Derby is the hub of the sub-area. Waste traffic passing from the northern part (extending from Crich to Alfreton, Ripley and Ironville) to treatment or disposal facilities in the Swadlincote vicinity or vice-versa, would have to travel through or around Derby. Such a journey might not accord with the proximity principle or the intentions of policy W3 W2 if there were suitable facilities closer but in a different sub-area or county.
5.155.18 Appendix B shows that the sub-area and its environs offer landfill opportunities even though the sub-area is not no longer self-sufficient in non- hazardous licensed landfill space. By 2005, it will also have insufficient inert space. The appendix considers the demand for inert waste in the reclamation of existing and future sand and gravel sites. There are environmental considerations favouring land- based rather than water-based restoration; and particularly, there is a need for inert fill in the south-east sub-area, which is in the vicinity of East Midlands Airport, because there are strong arguments on aircraft safety grounds. Water attracts birds on a scale that can be dangerous to aircraft using nearby airports. The only materials that the Environment Agency considers to be suitable for unlined sites in the flood plain are those that are defined as inert. Therefore, the use of inert materials in the restoration of most of Derbyshire’s gravel sites in the Trent Valley is likely to be acceptable in principle, and the demand for materials for this purpose is likely to exceed substantially the rate of supply.
5.19 Appendix B acknowledges the potential, within the scope of the proximity principle, for the disposal of non-hazardous and inert waste at sites just outside the plan area. 5.16 Existing landfill Non-hazardous and inert sites which might contribute to the needs of the north part of the sub-area include Bentinck Huthwaite at Sutton-in-Ashfield (non-hazardous), which is already accepting municipal waste from Derbyshire, and Bentinck at Kirkby-in-Ashfield, which is allocated in the Nottinghamshire waste local plan but has yet to receive planning permission. The proposed New Albion site in Leicestershire, which has planning permission and a rail wharf railhead, is well placed to take non-hazardous waste from the southern part of the sub-area. Indeed, the Leicestershire waste local plan inquiry inspector accepted that more than half of New Albion’s input might come from Derbyshire and Staffordshire and noted, “Importation of waste from nearby parts of these other waste disposal authorities would … respect the proximity principle” .” (Inspector’s Report, paragraph 4.175).
16a.doc Page 73 of 129
Derby and Derbyshire Waste Local Plan REPORT OF PUBLICITY AND CONSULTATIONS JULY 2003
5.175.20 The South-East Derbyshire Sub-Area Waste Management Strategy (February 2000) reflects that “the challenge for the sub-area and the remainder of the county is how to design services and plan locations of future facilities in order to reduce the number and length of journeys” (sub-area strategy, paragraph 5.10). A pattern of sites which included the continued transfer of waste which must be landfilled to sites just across the boundary could conform with the policies of this plan, particularly policies W1a & b and W3 W2.
West Derbyshire Sub-Area
5.185.21 The west sub-area is composed of High Peak and Derbyshire Dales districts. It is 50 miles long. It is mostly hilly and the central and northern parts are predominantly of limestone. It covers half the county’s area but contains less than a fifth of its population. A large portion, for of this waste management sub-area purposes, is in the Peak District National Park. From a local plan point of view, the sub-area is cut in two by the national park. There are perhaps as many differences between the two parts of the sub-area as there are similarities. Internal transport links are difficult. The transportation of waste over such distances, even within the sub-area, might not accord with the proximity principle.
5.195.22 The West Derbyshire Sub-Area Waste Management Strategy (February 2000) notes the geographical similarities between the sub-area and the neighbouring counties to the west, Cheshire and Staffordshire. It says that commercial waste is delivered across the boundaries in both directions.
5.205.23 Municipal Most of the municipal waste collected in Derbyshire Dales is landfilled at Taddington in the national park. From August 2002, it is likely that the waste from the northern Derbyshire Dales will travel to Staveley, near Chesterfield; , and that the southern waste will go some of the waste collected in the southern part of the district goes to the Derby waste transfer loading station, whence it may be sent to the Albion Void near Swadlincote, to Sutton or elsewhere, depending on the commercial situation. Most of High Peak’s municipal waste goes to landfill at Arden Quarry, Birch Vale.
5.215.24 Appendix B shows that the sub-area has little limited, licensed, open- gate [A2.12] landfill space and paragraph 2.43 of this plan explains the restrictive stance of the Peak District National Park Local Plan towards non-hazardous landfill. . There is a statistical surplus of all types of licensed void but that is only thanks to the large Blue Circle restricted-user site at Hope in the Peak District National Park, which is unlikely to become an open-gate site. Nevertheless, the calculations in appendix B suggest that, during the plan period, there is likely to be a balance, within the sub- area, of landfill space and landfill material. The existing open-gate, non-hazardous sites site at Taddington and Birch Vale will probably be full by 2004 operate until beyond the end of the plan period.
5.225.25 Journeys like those to Staveley may accord partially with the proximity principle in the sense that the waste is being disposed of “as near to its place of origin as possible” (Waste Strategy 2000, paragraph 3.6) but they do not accord fully because they carry with them the environmental problems associated with waste and its movement, to be experienced by communities which have not produced the
16a.doc Page 74 of 129
Derby and Derbyshire Waste Local Plan REPORT OF PUBLICITY AND CONSULTATIONS JULY 2003 waste. Planning applications for new sites which encouraged such movements might conflict in particular with policies W1a, W3W2, W7W6 and W9W8.
5.235.26 There is an operational and financial incentive for businesses and waste authorities to find ways of treating their waste more locally. Yet, for environmental reasons (the presence of limestone aquifers and the Peak District National Park), there is not a lot of potential in this waste management sub-area for new, non- hazardous (non-inert) landfill sites.
5.27 Those factors suggest that So in this area there is a particular need for new developments in the area which would divert the waste from landfill by managing it higher up the hierarchy, in accordance with policy W1a. 5.24 The 1999 waste management strategy points out that it may be uneconomic to develop new, high- technology facilities in the sub-area. Such facilities would probably be expensive and require a higher input than could be provided by the low level of the sub-area’s waste arisings. Also, the extensive sub-area does not have obvious central locations which have radial transport links which would enable them to serve the area efficiently. Low-technology solutions such as local composting sites may be appropriate.
5.255.28 Part of the solution may be that recommended in the sub-area waste management strategy: the provision of waste transfer stations in the parts of the sub- area remote from the landfill sites. The strategy suggests that transfer stations might be combined with recycling centres, which can “in some ways be regarded as transfer facilities for householders”. The provision of a single, large, waste transfer station would perhaps be the most economical option but, in the context of the sub- area’s geography, a facility in each of the two parts of the sub-area might be preferable. Such facilities may offer to local firms, as well as to local authorities, sustainable options for the disposal of industrial and commercial waste.
North-East Derbyshire Sub-Area
5.265.29 The sub-area is composed of Chesterfield Borough and North East Derbyshire and Bolsover districts. It contains Derbyshire’s most recently-closed, deep coal mines and has experienced opencast mining for many years. The legacy of that and former quarries in the limestone in the east explains why the area has been and could continue to be self-sufficient in landfill, especially for inert waste. Nevertheless, as appendix B, paragraph B10.4, states, the sub-area has no licensed void space for solely inert waste.
5.275.30 Although there is sufficient, licensed space within the sub-area to accommodate the sub-area’s non-hazardous waste, contractual arrangements currently mean that, whilst municipal waste is deposited at Hall Lane, Staveley, and at Glapwell 3 in Bolsover district, some of the municipal waste is being sent to Sutton-in-Ashfield, in Nottinghamshire. It is also possible that, from 2004, some of Derbyshire’s municipal waste will be sent to Thurcroft, in Rotherham Metropolitan Borough.
5.31 The sub-area’s largest site, the Erin opencast void, has planning permission to accept waste until 2011 only. (Allowing it to continue for an unspecified number of years could have led to unreasonable, cumulative impacts upon the quality of life of
16a.doc Page 75 of 129
Derby and Derbyshire Waste Local Plan REPORT OF PUBLICITY AND CONSULTATIONS JULY 2003 local residents.) It is receiving industrial and commercial waste and construction and demolition waste at less than its annual capacity and so there is potential for its rate of input to increase. Such over-capacity might draw in waste from across the regional boundary with Yorkshire, particularly as Sheffield abuts and has good transport links with the north-east sub-area. Whilst the waste planning authority would give consideration to an application for extension of the life of Erin, it is not currently possible for this plan to suggest that such an application should be granted. As well as the cumulative impact issue, there are new and unresolved issues relating to possible nearby development associated with the proposed Markham Employment Growth Zone and the linked proposal for a new motorway junction.
5.285.32 The sub-area has suffered considerable disturbance, particularly from opencast mining, coal-related industry and waste disposal. The waste planning authorities are not keen to encourage extended landfill activity in the sub-area. A better solution might be to encourage the sorts of development which would enable the sub-area’s waste to be treated higher up the waste hierarchy, in accordance with policy W1a. Proposals for new landfill development for which there was insufficient evidence of need would conflict with policy W12 W11 (the need for landfill) and perhaps with policy W11 W10 (cumulative impact).
16a.doc Page 76 of 129
Derby and Derbyshire Waste Local Plan REPORT OF PUBLICITY AND CONSULTATIONS JULY 2003
COMMENTS ON CHAPTER 6 Policies for the provision of landfill space
6 Suggested new policy re identification of a landfill site
Summaries 1) The new policy suggested (see summary of objection 0016 under “General comments”) should be referred to or included in this chapter. It would avoid speculative landfill applications and the consequent uncertainty for local communities and potential blighting of development land. Langridge Homes 0019 2) The chapter should include allocation for landfill capacity which would satisfy the shortfall in landfill capacity and the requirements of policies W12 and W13. The respondent’s objections 0048 & 0049, re paragraphs 2.57-2.59 and chapter 5, apply also to this objection. If potentially suitable waste development sites exist they should be allocated. Nottinghamshire CC 0052
Assessments 1) See the assessment re the chapter 3 objection (0016). 2) PPG 10 advises that waste planning authorities cannot properly consider the needs of their own areas in isolation. So the plan should look (and has looked) at the situation in Derby and Derbyshire and the adjoining areas. The reasons why the plan does not identify sites are explained in the assessments re paragraphs 2.57-2.59 (objections 0048 & 0189) and 5.12-5.28 (objection 0272).
Recommendations 1) & 2) No change.
6.1-6.2, 6.13 & 7.22-7.23 The provision of landfill space and development of household waste recycling centres
Summary Supports the provision of household waste recycling centres and advances the idea of improving them as a recycling resource. S Bass 0089
Assessment The support is welcomed and the suggestions have been forwarded to the waste managers.
Recommendation No change.
6.2 Landfill targets
Summary How will the waste local plan meet and monitor the Waste Strategy 2000 target to reduce industrial and commercial waste sent to landfill? COTEP 0149
16a.doc Page 77 of 129
Derby and Derbyshire Waste Local Plan REPORT OF PUBLICITY AND CONSULTATIONS JULY 2003
Assessment The plan contains policies which encourage developments that will process the waste higher up the waste hierarchy; the Environment Agency collects data for monitoring purposes.
Recommendation No change.
6.3 Permitting landfill
See recommendations, re paragraphs 6.6 (objection 0192) & 6.6.11 (objection 0150), to add an additional sentence to paragraph 6.3.
6.4 Permitting landfill
See recommendation, re paragraph 6.10 (objection 0228), to add an additional sentence to paragraph 6.4.
6.6 Policy W12 Need for landfill
Summaries 1) The references to agricultural land and farm diversification are supported. National Farmers’ Union 0005 2) Delete second part of policy, from “any material harm”. The factors listed do not substantiate the grounds for landfill. Most sites can regenerate naturally and restoration is possible by other means. KDCS 0227 3) Welcomes the general presumption against landfill. Supports the acknowledgement that landfill may occasionally bring positive benefits, such as restoration and farm diversification. Countryside Agency (East Mids) 0047 4) The phrase “the applicant has shown that” should be replaced by “the local authority is satisfied that”. Other than in limited circumstances, such as in green belt and out-of-town retail development, an applicant does not have to show a need for a proposed development. GOEM 0191 5) The policy should include a reference to the BPEO for the particular waste stream. As the BPEO is the predominant waste management principle, there should be a specific reference in the policy to the need to ensure that landfill represents the BPEO for the particular waste stream. GOEM 0192 6) The part of the policy that refers to improving land for agricultural use should be deleted. The benefits of such landfill schemes are purely economic and are unlikely to outweigh the environmental harm caused by landfill. The schemes are also unlikely to comply with the proximity principle or self-sufficiency. CPRE 0213
Assessments 1) The support is welcomed. 2) The second part of the policy sets out additional requirements, to be satisfied once a need has been established. They would not in themselves substantiate the grounds for landfill. The policy requires that, in addition to there being a need for
16a.doc Page 78 of 129
Derby and Derbyshire Waste Local Plan REPORT OF PUBLICITY AND CONSULTATIONS JULY 2003 landfill, there must be at least one additional factor which is so important that it would outweigh any harm that the development might cause. 3) The support is welcomed. 4) It appears, from the emphasis in Waste Strategy 2000 on the need to process waste higher up the hierarchy, that this could be one of the “limited circumstances”. A circumstance does not have to be quoted in a PPG to gain the status “limited”. However, it is possible to change the wording of the policy to remove what might be an unreasonable burden on some applicants. The phrase, “the local authority is satisfied that”, would not work, as the decision-maker may not always be the local authority. A sufficient requirement would be that the development should be “essential to satisfy a need”. The evidence could come from the applicant or from any other source in which the decision-maker has confidence. 5) Agree that sustainable waste management and the BPEO are important considerations. Policy W1a covers them and to selectively repeat them in only the landfill policy – and in an inevitably summarised form - might send out the wrong messages with regard to the policies in which they are not repeated. Paragraph 6.3 explains that landfill proposals must meet the BPEO and the requirements of other policies of the plan; but the reference could be strengthened by a specific reference to policy W1a. 6) Agree that the “improvement” of land is sometimes a cover for making profit from landfill. Another difficulty is that agricultural improvement can be harmful to the local landscape character and biodiversity. PPG 7 (“The Countryside, etc”, 1997) advises that development plans should weigh the need to encourage rural enterprise against the need to protect landscape, wildlife and historic features (paragraph 2.8). The benefits of land improvement may at times be greater than the harm caused. (If the benefits do not “outweigh the environmental harm caused by landfill”, the application will not meet the requirement of the second half of the policy.) All the relevant concerns are represented in one or more of the plan’s (and other parts’ of the development plan) policies. Because of that, it is not necessary to alter policy W12 (W11 in Revised Deposit) but it would be helpful to include references to this issue in box W12 (W11 in Revised Deposit).
Recommendations 1)-3) No change 4) Change policy W12 and paragraph 7.53, as follows:
“Policy W12 W11 Need for landfill
6.6 Waste disposal by means of landfill will not be permitted unless:
the applicant has shown that the development is essential to satisfy a need to dispose of locally-generated waste which will not otherwise be met, taking into account the assumptions and calculations methodology set out in appendix B; and that: unless:
any material harm would be outweighed by one of the following: the development is necessary to restore land for beneficial use in line with development plan policies; the development is necessary to improve the land for agricultural use;
16a.doc Page 79 of 129
Derby and Derbyshire Waste Local Plan REPORT OF PUBLICITY AND CONSULTATIONS JULY 2003
the development is necessary to achieve farm diversification consistent with the site’s location; the development is necessary to improve the local ecology or landscape.”
“7.53 The waste product of incinerators (ash, clinker and rejected material), up to 25% of the input, often ends up at landfill. There may be more sustainable options which enable the waste to be used as a valuable resource, for example in civil engineering projects, although it may contain contaminants. Applicants who intend to dispose of it by landfill should submit information to justify that option (see boxes W1a, W1b and W12).”
5) Change paragraph 6.3 by adding a sentence, as follows:
“6.3 Appendix E D lists the existing landfill sites in the plan area. To accord with European and government policy, policy W12 W11 tries to limit new landfill provision to the minimum that is necessary. Indeed, the over-provision of sites may inhibit innovative thinking and the development of more sustainable technologies. In cases where there is a need for waste to be landfilled, it remains important that, to meet Policy Objective 1, the landfill proposal respects the principles of sustainable development. It is necessary to consider the BPEO for the waste streams, the proposed treatment and disposal processes and the effect of the proposal on the site and its surroundings, as required by the policies in the other chapters of this plan. Policy W1a will be particularly important in the consideration of planning applications for new and extended landfill sites.”
6) Change box W12 (W11 in Revised Deposit) by inserting a new paragraph 6.6.6 and renumbering the subsequent paragraphs, as follows:
[IN BOX W12w11]
“Improving land for agricultural use 6.6.6 That the development would bring significant benefits to the operation of the farming business, not taking account of any income derived from the landfill activity.
Farm diversification consistent with the site’s location 6.6.67 That the land use which would result from the diversification would be in keeping with the scale and character of the site. 6.6.78 That the land use which would result from the diversification would not conflict with the other development plan policies applicable to the area.
Restoration of land 6.6.89 That the land is derelict, disused or under-used or is an existing or future minerals site; 6.6.910That the land needs or will need restoration to a standard which would be achieved by the form of landfill development proposed in the application. 6.6.1011That the proposed after-use would not conflict with the provisions of the district local plan for the area.
The phrase, “locally-generated” “Locally-generated”
16a.doc Page 80 of 129
Derby and Derbyshire Waste Local Plan REPORT OF PUBLICITY AND CONSULTATIONS JULY 2003
6.6.1112That the waste would be “locally-generated”: that is, the waste would come from a source (originating premises, recycling facility or transfer station) which is (1) within the sub-area or area identified in appendix B; (2) in a part of an adjoining sub- area or county for which the new site would be the nearest landfill facility for the particular type of waste (eg inert or hazardous); (3) more remote but making the most sustainable journey to landfill in the particular circumstances of the case.”
6.6.11 The phrase, “locally-generated”
Summary The point should exclude hazardous waste imported from abroad. That would guard against waste being illegally imported for landfill under the banner of “recycling”. COTEP 0150 Assessment Agree that the importation of waste from overseas to Derbyshire would conflict with the principle of self-sufficiency and probably with the proximity principle, although there might be occasions when it would be “the most sustainable journey” (waste local plan, paragraph 6.6.11(3)). The sustainability requirement should be reinforced by adding a reference in paragraph 6.3 to policy W1a, as for the recommendation re paragraph 6.6, policy W12 (objection 0192). However, the monitoring and regulating of waste imported to the UK is the responsibility of the Environment Agency or other law enforcers and there is no need for this plan to dwell on it.
Recommendation Change paragraph 6.3 by adding a sentence, as recommended re policy W12 (objection 0192).
6.7 After-use of landfill sites
Summary The paragraph should include examples of acceptable restoration and after-use, such as rural employment, landscape enhancement and recreation (further examples suggested), to strengthen the guidance given to developers. Countryside Agency (East Mids) 0040 Assessment Agree. Additional examples would be helpful, provided that the list did not appear to be exhaustive or exclusive.
Recommendation Change paragraph 6.7 by adding an additional sentence, as set out below; and add a new paragraph, 6.10.4, and renumber subsequent paragraphs, as set out under recommendation re 6.10.9 (objection 0194).
“6.7 PPG 23 (Planning and Pollution Control, 1994) advises that one factor which planning authorities should take into account in preparing local plans is “the need to secure restoration and pollution controls to standards sufficient to ensure that land is capable of an acceptable after-use.” Such after-uses must be in line with development plan proposals for the area of the site in question unless material
16a.doc Page 81 of 129
Derby and Derbyshire Waste Local Plan REPORT OF PUBLICITY AND CONSULTATIONS JULY 2003 considerations indicate otherwise (s.54A, Town and Country Planning Act, 1990). If the development plan enables some flexibility, the choice of after-use will depend on local needs and circumstances; for example, reclamation schemes should generally respect local landscape character (policy W7 deals with landscape and visual impacts) and there could be opportunities to provide or assist with employment and the local economy, wildlife sites, access and rights of way, recreation, landscape enhancement, greenway or corridor development or the objectives of the National Forest (at sites within the National Forest) or community forests.”
6.10 Policy W13 Reclamation and restoration
Summaries 1) The phrase “the application demonstrates that” should be deleted. Other than in limited circumstances, such as in green belt and out-of-town retail development, an applicant does not have to show a need for a proposed development. GOEM 0193 2) In the National Forest, the policy should give priority to restoring sites to forest- related uses. The National Forest is a major national initiative, covers a large part of South Derbyshire. Minerals Planning Guidance promotes restoration in the National Forest to forest-related uses, which would help greatly towards implementation of the National Forest Strategy. The National Forest Company 0008 3) The policy should include clear reference to the need for restoration schemes to have regard to local landscape character. Countryside Agency (East Mids) 0033 4) Delete policy. It is counter to the plan’s objectives. The after-uses of landfill are becoming restricted because of their inherent nature. An application cannot realistically forecast the life span of the landfill because current and future legislation is moving away from landfill. The policy is unenforceable. KDCS 0228
Assessments 1) The purpose of the wording of the policy accords with “one of the four main aims of (minerals) planning control … : to ensure that land taken for mineral operations is reclaimed at the earliest opportunity and is capable of an acceptable use after working has come to an end” (MPG 7, paragraph 1), which clearly applies also to waste planning control as the large waste sites were formerly minerals sites. This case is different from the case in policy W12, where the objector makes an identical point. In this case, the applicant is not being asked to show a need for a development. The applicant is being asked to show that the site can be restored in accordance with sustainability considerations and within the time-scale that the applicant has set. It is not possible for the waste planning authority to obtain evidence on the sources of fill which the applicant might use unless the applicant provides the information. MPG 7 advises, “the applicant needs to demonstrate that the site can be reclaimed satisfactorily” (paragraph 15). There is an almost identical policy in the Nottinghamshire Waste Local Plan. 2) Agree that the plan could provide more information on possible after-uses. However, it is not necessary that the policies of the waste local plan should duplicate those of the South Derbyshire Local Plan; it is also important that they do not conflict. So a reference to the National Forest would be better in the supporting text than in the policy. 3) The policy is about ensuring restoration; the landform, landscaping and other elements of the finished job are covered by other policies of the plan (see, for
16a.doc Page 82 of 129
Derby and Derbyshire Waste Local Plan REPORT OF PUBLICITY AND CONSULTATIONS JULY 2003 example, policy W8 (now W7)) and the district local plans. However, agree that regard to local landscape character will normally be an important consideration and a short cross-reference to the form of the restoration should be made in the reasoned justification. 4) Policy W13 contains considerations that are additional to policy W12, so it will not run counter to it, nor to the objectives of the plan. The policy applies only to applications that accord with W12 and the other policies of the plan. Those policies accord with legislation. The intention of policy W13 is to ensure that, once landfill has started, the job gets finished and the site gets properly restored. The function of the policy – and of policy W14 – could be further explained in the plan.
Recommendations 1) No change. 2) & 3) Change paragraph 6.7, as for recommendation re paragraph 6.7 (objection 0040).
4) Change paragraph 6.4 by adding a sentence, as follows:
“6.4 Whilst providing for landfill for which there is a need, policies W12 to W14 W11 to W13 also maintain sustainability requirements and the perception of waste as a valuable resource (policy objective 1). That is why policy W12 W11 requires that any adverse effects of the development are outweighed by environmental, economic or social benefits in addition to the fulfilment of a need for disposal space. The benefits listed in the policy are directly related to the use of land. They include provision for farm diversification, as advised in PPG 7 (“The Countryside, etc.”, as revised). They do not include the recovery of landfill gas because that is now a standard waste licensing [A2.5] requirement. Policies W12 and W13 apply considerations which are additional to those of policy W11.”
6.10.1-6.10.9 The box to policy W13
Summary Box W13 should include the following guidance to applicants and decision-makers: “Provision should be made within the restoration plan for a minimum 5-year aftercare agreement to be secured.” Environment Agency 0168
Assessment Agree that there should be reference in the box to the Environment Agency’s role in recommending a minimum aftercare period, legal requirements (5 years is the maximum for minerals sites unless a longer period is secured by a contractual agreement, such as under s.106, Town and Country Planning Act, 1990) and government advice. There should also be a policy requirement for aftercare.
Recommendation Change policy W13 and add a new paragraph 6.10.6, as set out re paragraph 6.10.9 (objection 0194).
6.10.4 Compaction methods
16a.doc Page 83 of 129
Derby and Derbyshire Waste Local Plan REPORT OF PUBLICITY AND CONSULTATIONS JULY 2003
Summary The point might clarify whether it refers to compaction of the landfill cap or of the landfilled material or both. GOEM 0187
Assessment Agree. To state that it refers to both would avoid confusion.
Recommendation Change 6.10.4 (now 6.10.5) as set out re paragraph 6.10.9 (objection 0194).
6.10.5 Topsoil
Summary The word “topsoil” might be replaced by “the soil resource”. Topsoil is likely to account for only a part of the soils required for site restoration. GOEM 0188
Assessment Agree. To clarify that it refers to the soil resource would avoid confusion.
Recommendation Change 6.10.5 (now 6.10.8) as set out re paragraph 6.10.9 (objection 0194).
6.10.9 The need for a bond
Summary The reference to a restoration bond should be reviewed to ensure that it conforms with national policy guidance on reclamation bonds set out in paragraphs 86-96 of MPG 7. Government policy is that financial guarantees are not normally necessary. Examples of exceptions include where “there is reliable evidence of the likelihood of either financial or technical failure but these concerns are not such as to justify refusal of permission”. (The objector has subsequently suggested that the plan might say that, in cases where the eventual restoration of the site is in doubt, the applicant is able to enter into a legal agreement which would provide a bond to satisfy restoration.) GOEM 0194
Assessment Agree. The Derby and Derbyshire Minerals Local Plan refers to the provision of a bond to ensure satisfactory restoration. A similar reference in the waste local plan would ensure consistency.
Recommendation Change paragraph 6.10.9, as set out below with the changes recommended re paragraph 6.8, and policy W13 and paragraphs 6.10.2-8 (objections 0168, 0187 & 0188), as follows.
“Policy W13 12 Reclamation and restoration 6.10 Waste disposal by means of landfill will be permitted only if:
16a.doc Page 84 of 129
Derby and Derbyshire Waste Local Plan REPORT OF PUBLICITY AND CONSULTATIONS JULY 2003
the application provides for the restoration of the site to contemporary standards and for an appropriate after-use, including an appropriate period of aftercare; and
the application demonstrates that sufficient waste and other fill material is likely to be available, within reasonable proximity of the site, to achieve restoration of the site within the proposed time-scale.”
[BOX W13W12] “Development plan proposals 6.10.2 That the proposed after-use of the site conforms with any proposals for the site or policies for the area in district or other local plans. 6.10.3 If there are no development plan proposals specific to the site, that the proposed after-use conforms with any development plan policies (eg green belt or economic regeneration) for the area in which the site is located. 6.10.4 In cases where the development plan enables some flexibility, that the proposed after-use offers benefits which are appropriate to the locality, such as those listed in paragraph 6.7. Scheme for reclamation 6.10.45That there is sufficient detail of compaction methods of the whole restoration scheme, including the landfilled material and the landfill cap, and sufficient detail of subsoils, topsoils, venting, drainage, grading, fencing, planting and aftercare in the application to show that the site will be satisfactorily reclaimed for the permitted purpose. The phrase, “appropriate period of aftercare” 6.10.6 That there will be a period after restoration of the site during which the site operator will be responsible for ensuring adequate aftercare; 6.10.7That the term of the aftercare period is appropriate to the circumstances of the site and takes account of legislation, government advice and the views of the Environment Agency. Sufficiency of material 6.10.58That the source or sources of the waste and of engineering and restoration materials, including and other fill material, such as the capping and topsoil, the soil resource, is reasonably close to the site. 6.10.69That the material is available in sufficient quantities to ensure restoration within the timescale proposed by the applicant. 6.10.710If the fill material is to be imported from a single source or limited sources, that the material is unlikely to be diverted to other places without being suitably replaced. Decommissioning of plant 6.10.811That adequate safeguards are in place for the decommissioning of plant, including landfill gas recovery facilities: such facilities may remain on site for many years but there should be provision for its eventual removal. The need for a bond 6.10.912That, if the eventual or complete restoration of the site is in doubt, the applicant is able to offer a bond to provide secure funding of its completion enter into a legal agreement which would provide a bond to secure satisfactory restoration.
16a.doc Page 85 of 129
Derby and Derbyshire Waste Local Plan REPORT OF PUBLICITY AND CONSULTATIONS JULY 2003
6.14 Policy W14 Sorting of waste before disposal
Summary The phrase “the applicant has shown that” should be deleted. Other than in limited circumstances, such as in green belt and out-of-town retail development, an applicant does not have to show a need for a proposed development. GOEM 0195
Assessment This case is different from the case in policy W12, where the objector makes an identical point. In this case, the applicant is not being asked to show a need for a development. The applicant is being asked to show that the development will be of a certain standard and specification, to ensure that the waste management facility is capable of operating in accordance with sustainable waste management practice. That should be considered a reasonable and common part of an application. The policy helps to fulfil PPG 10’s objective “g”, “to ensure that opportunities for incorporating re-use/recycling facilities in new developments are properly considered” (paragraph 5).
Recommendation No change.
16a.doc Page 86 of 129
Derby and Derbyshire Waste Local Plan REPORT OF PUBLICITY AND CONSULTATIONS JULY 2003
COMMENTS ON CHAPTER 7 Developments for the recovery of value from waste
7 Suggested new policy re landraising
Summary The plan should include the following policy: “Permission will not be given for landfill which engages the principle of landraising”. Landraising does not contribute to the restoration of voids. It discourages the move away from landfill and is contrary to the Waste Strategy 2000 strategy of sustainable waste management. KDCS 0229
Assessment Agree that Waste Strategy 2000 seeks a move from landfill to higher forms of waste management (the waste local plan, appendix A, includes landraising in the definition of landfill). However, Waste Strategy 2000 also accepts that there will always be a need for some landfill. There may be situations where it may be more sustainable to satisfy that need with landraising rather than void-filling. The plan’s policies already provide adequate safeguards to ensure that landraising will be acceptable only if there is a need for it and it is sustainable.
Recommendation No change.
7.4 & 7.44
Summary We commend the approach that new technologies involving the recovery of energy from waste through incineration should only be considered when all opportunities for recycling have been considered first. CPRE 0214
Assessment The support is welcomed.
Recommendation No change.
7.10 Location of waste transfer stations
Summary The reference to general industrial areas as locations for waste transfer stations should be replaced by a statement that such developments are best located away from homes. People living in industrial areas already suffer from the impacts of industry and should not have to endure additional impacts from waste transfer stations, which are a service to everyone. COTEP 0151
Assessment Agree. The waste local plan, appendix A, defines “general industry” as industry which should not be sited near homes. However, there are some areas containing
16a.doc Page 87 of 129
Derby and Derbyshire Waste Local Plan REPORT OF PUBLICITY AND CONSULTATIONS JULY 2003 general industrial firms which, because of circumstances such as the historical growth of settlements, are near homes. The plan should make it clear that the reference to “general industrial areas” does not include such places.
Recommendation Change paragraph 7.10, as follows:
“7.10 General industrial areas (see definition of “general industry”, appendix A3.16) are usually the most suitable locations for waste transfer stations, provided that the transfer stations are sited sufficiently far from homes that they do not cause harm to people or communities. The buildings and the external skips, transfer and storage areas would not be appropriate in visually sensitive locations and the sites can generate considerable noise from machines shifting heavy and bulky rubbish and from the movement of large vehicles. There may also be odours from mixed waste and there is potential for unneighbourly emissions from some hazardous wastes. Policies W7, W8 and W9 W6, W7 and W8 address such concerns.”
7.14 Bring sites
Summary The reference to Derbyshire Dales having a shortage of bring sites should be removed. The district now has a mature network of sites. Derbyshire Dales DC 0183 Assessment Accept the statement as the district council is the authority mainly responsible for bring site provision.
Recommendation Change paragraph 7.14, as follows:
“7.14 The 1999 waste management strategy aims to provide one bring site per 750 households, conveniently located – for example, close to homes, at shopping centres or along bus routes. Provided they are in places which do not require people to make a special journey, the bring sites would be unlikely to conflict with policy W3 and would normally accord with policies W1a and W1b. Specifically, the sub-area strategies have identified needs for more bring sites at Hadfield and Gamesley. In addition, there may be shortages of bring sites in some rural areas, a need perceived by, for example, Derbyshire Dales District Council. The target rate of 1:750 is subject to revision. For several reasons, provision at that rate may not always be practicable or economic and the requirements will vary from district to district and throughout the plan period. For example, the need for bring site provision will relate to the amount of separate collection by the waste collection authority [A2.4] of recyclable materials. So it would not be realistic for the plan to define the precise location of bring sites.”
7.17 Recycling centres
See recommendation re paragraph 7.24 (objection 0235)
16a.doc Page 88 of 129
Derby and Derbyshire Waste Local Plan REPORT OF PUBLICITY AND CONSULTATIONS JULY 2003
7.24 New sites for household waste recycling centres
Summary The point should state that new sites should avoid pollution of water resources (ground water and rivers). United Utilities 0235
Assessment Agree. The potential for pollution is present and should be avoided. However, the point would be better placed in paragraph 7.17, which deals with the environmental effects of recycling centres.
Recommendation Change paragraph 7.17, as follows:
“7.17 There are several types of recycling centre. They include household waste [A1.2] recycling centres, scrapyards and aggregates recycling centres. All have environmental impacts. The sites process all sorts of wastes, including potential pollutants. The main environmental concerns for local communities relate to traffic, noise, smell, dust and visual impact. Large proportions of the sites are often uncovered and the household sites attract considerable private traffic. There can also be a risk of run-off or leaching of pollutants: the location and design of new sites should seek to avoid pollution of water resources.”
7.29 – 7.31 Aggregates recycling centres
Summary The section should include reference to operational quarries as suitable locations for aggregates recycling centres. Such sites already include suitable infrastructure. Lafarge 0160 Assessment Agree. Such sites are appropriate locations when the benefits, such as the provision of suitable facilities and the remoteness of many quarries from settlements, outweigh other considerations such as the unsustainable transport of waste from its source.
Recommendation Change paragraph 7.29, as follows:
“7.29 Aggregate recycling centres crush, screen and sort construction and demolition waste [A1.5] to form secondary aggregates. There is likely to be a growing need for such centres, what with the increasing impact of landfill tax and improved marketing of the product. Operational quarries are often useful locations for aggregates recycling centres, for the life of the quarry. The quarries have screening, crushing and other suitable equipment and expertise. Their suitability would be informed by a BPEO assessment of the management of the waste stream, to ensure that the benefits outweigh other considerations such as the unsustainable transport of waste from its source (see policies W1a and W2).”
16a.doc Page 89 of 129
Derby and Derbyshire Waste Local Plan REPORT OF PUBLICITY AND CONSULTATIONS JULY 2003
7.35 Composting
Summary The paragraph gives composting a negative image. The benefits of composting on, for example, the EU Bio-Waste Directive, are missing from the plan. Derby FoE 0321 Assessment Agree. The paragraph states only one of the benefits of composting. However, as the “Bio-waste Directive” is not yet law, a mention in the plan would be premature.
Recommendation Change paragraph 7.35, as follows:
“7.35 The composting of organic materials reduces the quantities of waste which require incineration or landfill. It is an important source of soil and soil improvers and can be applied to all non-hazardous, biodegradable wastes. Composting is often locally provided, in full accordance with the proximity principle. Topsoil and soil improvers, the chief product products of composting, can play a significant an important role in the restoration of landfill sites and other derelict land. The main types of composting plant which will require planning permission are community composting and central composting sites. The assessment of planning applications for composting development will include consideration of compliance with the proximity principle and other BPEO matters, such as treatment alternatives for parts of the waste stream, such as paper, for which recycling may be a more sustainable option. Applicants will need to provide information on the likely origin and content of the waste materials.”
7.36 Community composting
Summary The paragraph should state that composting sites should avoid pollution of water resources (ground water and rivers). United Utilities 0236
Assessment Agree. Paragraphs 7.35-7.45 make no mention of the potential for composting sites to cause pollution of water resources. An appropriate statement might be best placed in paragraph 7.38.
Recommendation Change paragraph 7.38 by the addition of a sentence, as follows:
“7.38 There could be conflict between the need for a local facility and the perceived discomfort of living close to the site. There is also a danger that run-off or leaching from community composting and central composting (see paragraphs 7.39-7.40) sites could pollute water resources. Therefore, policies W6 to W9 Policies W7 to W10 will normally be particularly relevant to the assessment of applications for community composting developments.”
16a.doc Page 90 of 129
Derby and Derbyshire Waste Local Plan REPORT OF PUBLICITY AND CONSULTATIONS JULY 2003
7.40 Central composting
Summary The word “might” in line 4 should be replaced by “will”. Composting is a valuable form of diversification. It should be supported when not causing nuisance to neighbours. National Farmers’ Union 0006
Assessment Agree, but there could be exceptions.
Recommendation Change paragraph 7.40, as follows:
“7.40 Suitable locations would normally be in general industrial areas or in association with household waste recycling centres such as those proposed by the waste management strategy. Applications for sites in other locations, including farm complexes and sewage works, might will be permitted if they accorded accord in other respects with the general policies of this plan; that would will depend on the environmental impact, the area served, the size and methods of the operation, the characteristics of the site and the amount of traffic generated. Therefore, policies W2, W4 and W6 to W9 W3 and W5 to W8 will all be particularly relevant to the assessment of such applications. Another exception to the built-up area principle may occur where a central composting site is proposed as a temporary measure at a landfill or other disposal site in the countryside (see policy W13). Such provision may be desirable just as a temporary measure until a more accessible site is established.”
7.41-7.57 Energy recovery
Summaries 1a) The plan should give detail of the pollutants produced by gasification and pyrolysis, which are the same as for incineration, an example being the proposed Derby SWERF. There should be mention of continuous monitoring for dioxins and other pollutants. Renewable Energy Objectors 0306 1b) This paragraph does not reveal the current state of pyrolysis and gasification (the objector enclosed a document, “Pyrolysis – a non-traditional thermal treatment technology”, published by a group based in Washington DC, named Health Care Without Harm). Derby FoE 0321 2) The plan should not include “waste to energy incineration” as a form of renewable energy. In particular, the plastics in the feedstock are not renewable, yet the plants rely on plastics, which produce high-calorific syngas for burning. The plan should explain that “converted to energy” (paragraph 7.57) means burning. That burning of plastics is unsustainable and polluting. It leads to the production of more, virgin plastic which means greater use of fossil fuels to create the plastic. It releases dioxins. It is not in line with government sustainability objectives of conserving fossil fuels. Renewable Energy Objectors 0306
Assessments
16a.doc Page 91 of 129
Derby and Derbyshire Waste Local Plan REPORT OF PUBLICITY AND CONSULTATIONS JULY 2003
1a) & 1b) The plan states that incineration gives rise to harmful gases and chemicals (paragraph 7.52) and says that the issues concerning pyrolysis and gasification are similar to those for incineration (paragraphs 7.56 and 7.57), which is the gist of the Health Care document. Agree that the plan might mention monitoring, which is undertaken by environmental agencies, not the waste planning authorities.
2) Agree that the plan should explain the disadvantages of energy from waste plant, including incineration – and indeed, the plan does, particularly in paragraphs 2.23, 7.46, 7.49-7.52 & 7.56-7.57. However, the plan does not describe energy-from- waste as “renewable energy”; it uses the term “renewable energy” only once, in paragraph 2.35, where it is simply quoting the East Midlands Integrated Regional Strategy.
Agree also that the burning of plastics that could be recycled is in conflict with government policy on sustainable development. Paragraph 2.23 of the plan explains government policy on incineration: “all opportunities for recycling should be considered before incineration”.
Agree also that there might be reference to burning. The gases and pelleted product of non-burn gasification or pyrolysis plant are subsequently burnt as part of the in- plant loop or collected and sold for later burning to produce energy. The use of the products can replace the burning and depletion of fossil fuels, such as coal or natural gas.
Recommendations 1a) & 1b) Change paragraph 7.52, as follows:
“7.52 The incineration process gives rise to harmful gases and chemicals. The containment of those substances within the incinerator plant and the prevention of their emission in dangerous quantities is continuously monitored and controlled by regulators such as the Environment Agency. Policy W7 W6 considers the land-use consequences of pollution. Because the potential for pollution from incinerator developments is of especial public concern, policy W5 W4 (precautionary principle) would also apply.”
2) Change paragraph 7.57, as follows:
“7.57 Gasification is similar to pyrolysis. It uses a controlled amount of steam or air to convert organic waste at high temperatures mainly to fuel-rich gases, which are subsequently converted to energy by combustion (burning). Gasification development involves large buildings, prominent chimneys and the potential for hazardous emissions. The environmental considerations are similar to those for incinerators but on a smaller scale (for example, the chimney may be 30 metres high).”
7.52 The harmful effects of incinerators
16a.doc Page 92 of 129
Derby and Derbyshire Waste Local Plan REPORT OF PUBLICITY AND CONSULTATIONS JULY 2003
Summary The following should be added to the paragraph: “Even the state of the art incinerators, running at 2000 centigrade, create dioxin emissions when gases cool in the output stack and dioxins reform. The dioxins are persistent in the environment and are passed through the food chain after dispersing over grassland used for feeding dairy animals and being absorbed in the body fat of animals.” COTEP 0152 Assessment The general comments in this paragraph on potential harmful gases satisfactorily address these concerns, in the context of this chapter. The inclusion of the details of particular potential chemical effects is unnecessary.
Recommendation No change.
7.53 The end-product of incineration
Recommendation See recommendation re paragraph 6.6 (objection 0191).
7.55 Pyrolysis
Summary The paragraph should be amended to correct the information about the Coalite plant and it should include some of the drawbacks of pyrolysis, including the production of hazardous char gas, high in cadmium. COTEP 0153
Assessment Agree that paragraph 7.55 might imply that the Coalite coking has closed down. Agree also that the paragraph should contain more information about tyre pyrolysis.
Officer recommendation Change paragraph 7.55, as follows:
“7.55 Pyrolysis is the heating of organic material in the absence of oxygen, without combustion. It contributes to energy recovery by the production of combustible oils and gases. There is also a solid product (mainly carbon) which may be usable. For example, pyrolysis is used for the production of coke from coal. A pyrolysis plant in Derbyshire, which originally produced coke, is now processing waste tyres. The Coalite plant in Bolsover has reduced the manufacture of smokeless coal and is seeking to increase its tyre pyrolysis (carbonisation) operations. Roughly 90% of the infrastructure to pursue the new operations is already in place due to previous coal carbonisation operations. The proposed operations could annually process 120,000 tonnes of HGV and car tyres.”
7.68-7.72 Water treatment and sewage plant
16a.doc Page 93 of 129
Derby and Derbyshire Waste Local Plan REPORT OF PUBLICITY AND CONSULTATIONS JULY 2003
Summaries 1a) The heading should be re-worded as follows: “Water treatment and waste water treatment works”. The correct term for a sewage plant is “waste water treatment works”. Yorkshire Water Services 0184 1b) All references to “water treatment” should read “Wastewater treatment”, to avoid confusion. United Utilities 0237 2) This should be a separate section of the plan. Development at water treatment and sewage works is not closely related to the recovery of value from waste. Yorkshire Water Services 0184 3) Paragraph 7.72 should mention the drawbacks of using sewerage sludge on agricultural land, including the high levels of “Ecoli” and heavy metals, and the need to conform with the EC directive. COTEP 0154
Assessment 1a) & 1b) Agree. The water companies’ phraseology matches that of the EU’s Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive, 1991, and the UK’s Urban Waste Water Treatment Regulations, 1994. But the section should retain some reference to “sewage works”, as that is a more commonly known term and is still in authoritative use, for example in draft PPG 23, paragraph 17. Also, as the plan does not cover clean water treatment development, the title should refer only to waste water. 2) Agree that clean water treatment is not closely associated with “recovery of value”. But waste water treatment is an important and long-standing method of recovering value from waste water. Waste Strategy 2000 describes it as, “this valuable method of waste recycling” (Part 2, paragraph 8.158). 3) Agree that the drawbacks should be mentioned.
Recommendation 1a), 1b) & 3) Change the heading before paragraph 7.68 to “Waste water treatment and sewage plant” and change paragraphs 7.68-7.72, as follows:
“Water treatment and sewage plant Waste water treatment and sewage plant
7.68 There are two main forms of works for the treatment of water. Water treatment works are plant for the final treatment of water before it reaches the consumer; water treatment works are not waste treatment facilities and so are not covered by this plan. The plan does cover waste water treatment works (commonly called “sewage works”), which treat sewage to convert it to clean water. The need for new and extended waste water treatment plant relates mainly to the growth of population and to rising standards of water treatment which often cannot be achieved using older installations. 7.69 Much waste water treatment and sewerage sewage development does not require applications for planning permission, as the sewerage sewage undertakers have statutory, permitted development [A3.14] rights. Such rights are also extensive on established water treatment sites. Waste water treatment produces its own waste, which is mainly sewage sludge. Sewage sludge carries odours and can carry health risks, such as e-coli infection and other contaminants, if not adequately treated. Treatment includes drying, to form sludge cake, which is usually spread on agricultural land or incinerated. 7.70 When new waste water treatment sites or extensions to sites become necessary, site location is a major constraint. Developments usually have to be in
16a.doc Page 94 of 129
Derby and Derbyshire Waste Local Plan REPORT OF PUBLICITY AND CONSULTATIONS JULY 2003 river valleys and close to the areas they serve. When considering applications, the planning authorities will take into account the extent to which location is constrained by the needs of the service (see policy W1b). 7.71 Proposals for waste water and sewerage development should respect the visual and ecological character of the locality and local distinctiveness. Applicants should show that the proposal minimises the impact of the development on the environment and local communities and should propose appropriate measures to mitigate environmental damage. The main, local impacts can include visual and ecological effects on the valley (see particularly boxes W4, W6, and W8 W3, W5, and W7) and unpleasant odours and flies affecting people living, working and at leisure nearby (see particularly box W7 W6). Because of the sites’ common locations in flood plains, questions relating to flood protection will often arise. Policies W4, W6, W7, W8 and W10 W3, W5, W6, W7 and W9 will be especially applicable to planning applications for such development. 7.72 The waste product of water treatment is mainly sewage sludge. The After treatment to remove contaminants and reduce the risk of harm to animal and human health, sewage sludge is commonly spread on agricultural land, under the Sludge (Use in Agriculture) Regulations, 1989, which seek to ensure the safe disposal of the sludge to land. That activity which is not development requiring planning permission. In cases where permission for the sale or use of the sludge is needed, applications will be assessed under the policies of the Derby City and district-wide local plans.”
2) No change.
16a.doc Page 95 of 129
Derby and Derbyshire Waste Local Plan REPORT OF PUBLICITY AND CONSULTATIONS JULY 2003
COMMENTS ON APPENDIX A Definitions
Summaries 1) Amend the plan’s definition of recycling to include the words “energy recovery is not included in the definition of recycling”. 2) The plan’s definition of recovery of value fails to recognise that during the recovery of value from waste process all materials are destroyed. 3) Pyrolysis and gasification should not be called ‘non-burn’, as the gases produced are burned. 4) The plan fails to consider that residues from energy recovery processes are potentially hazardous and should not be reused. Derby FoE 0322 (all); Renewable Energy Objectors 0309 (2, 3 and 4)
Assessments 1) The definition in appendix A2.6 is clear enough to exclude energy recovery. 2) Agree that energy recovery is included as part of the definition of recovery of value from waste. However, there are a number of other processes within the definition, such as recycling, composting and other forms of material recovery. 3) Pyrolysis and gasification are called non-burn due to the process by which they treat waste. Rather than burning as in ‘regular’ incineration, pyrolysis and gasification heat waste to between 400 and 800°C in either zero oxygen or low oxygen environments respectively to produce combustible oils and gases. However, see the recommended change to paragraph 7.57 (objection 0306). 4) The plan does not have responsibility for waste regulation, which is a function of the Environment Agency. The Environment Agency (“Solid Residues from Municipal Waste Incinerators in England and Wales”, May 2002) identifies two types of residue from energy recovery processes, bottom ash and air pollution control residues (fly ash). The Agency considers bottom ash to be a non-hazardous waste, unlike fly ash which is classed as hazardous. An amount of bottom ash is sent to landfill, whilst the rest is processed. Once processed the ash is used as a substitute aggregate, road paving or construction blocks. Fly ash is either disposed of to licensed landfill or is used in waste treatment plants. The Environment Agency concluded that there was little risk in terms of public exposure to dioxins in construction blocks under ‘normal’ conditions. Furthermore, “dioxins are present in bottom ash at levels similar to urban soils and other commonly used secondary aggregates”.
Recommendation 1) – 4) No change except to change paragraph A2.6 as recommended re paragraph 2.19, above (objections 0316 & 0310).
16a.doc Page 96 of 129
Derby and Derbyshire Waste Local Plan REPORT OF PUBLICITY AND CONSULTATIONS JULY 2003
COMMENTS ON APPENDIX B Assessments of future arisings and of landfill capacity [The summaries in this section include some comments made by the Environment Agency on the Technical Working Paper which influence appendix B.]
B1.2 Exports and Imports
Summary The assessment of future waste arisings, or more importantly the import and export of waste, should be centred on more robust data rather than assumptions. It is implied that the plan does not reveal the full details on the importation of waste. COTEP 0155 Assessment The difficulty in predicting future waste arisings and the way in which we manage them is very much determined by the markets. The changing and at times volatile nature of the markets leads the plan to make assumptions for the movement of waste. Also, information is restricted to the available data. For example, there is no reliable data about the sources and quantities of all the waste imported to be landfilled in Derby and Derbyshire. Adding to the difficulty of predictions, in 2005, contracts for waste disposal in Derbyshire will be up for renewal. At the moment there is no way of knowing where much of Derbyshire’s waste will be going, as waste contractors may have private agreements with landfill operators, possibly outside the county, which only become known closer to the contract date.
Recommendation No change.
B5.1 Forecasting Derbyshire’s Industrial and Commercial Waste Arisings
Summaries 1) The paragraph needs to consider that agricultural waste will soon be classed as a commercial waste. A method will need to be devised on how to best estimate agricultural waste arisings and their subsequent impact of treatment and disposal. National Farmers Union 0001 2) The plan misquotes the amount of industrial and commercial waste classed as inert. The plan should quote the amount of inert industrial and commercial waste as 109,000 tonnes rather than 82,000 tonnes as stated in the First Deposit. Environment Agency 0170 Assessments 1) Waste Strategy 2000 (Part 2, paragraph 8.4) states that farmers in the future will need to apply for a waste management licence from the Environment Agency to deal with waste arisings from their farms. The information obtained through the licensing system should be up-dated in future editions of the agency’s SWMA. It would be inappropriate for appendix B to include agricultural waste (as a commercial waste) in its assessment of landfill input based upon current information. Crude assumptions would be needed to identify the various treatment/disposal routes for the different materials within this waste stream. Appendix A includes agricultural waste in definition A1.1 (Waste).
16a.doc Page 97 of 129
Derby and Derbyshire Waste Local Plan REPORT OF PUBLICITY AND CONSULTATIONS JULY 2003
2) Agree.
Recommendations 1) No change.
2) Change appendix B as set out at the end of this section. [OR, default recommendation, change figure 4, to contain up-to-date and correct data.]
B6.1 Meeting the Diversion Target for Industrial and Commercial Waste
Summary The Plan should consider how industrial and commercial waste will meet the government’s targets for diversion from landfill. COTEP 0156
Assessment The Explanatory Note on page 4 states that it not part of the plan’s remit to consider how certain types of waste will meet diversion from landfill targets. Such information is presented in documents such as the Derbyshire Waste Management Strategy and in the plans of other public bodies, industry and commerce. This local plan provides a framework for development which either treats or disposes of waste. The type of waste developments will ultimately influence the amount of waste reaching landfill.
Recommendation No change.
B7.1 Forecasting Derbyshire’s Inert and Construction and Demolition Waste (ICD) Arisings
Summary The first sentence of the paragraph states that Derbyshire landfilled 552,000 tonnes of ICD within or outside the county. This should be amended to say that the 552,000 tonnes of ICD was deposited in Derbyshire, and that its origin was from both within and outside the county. Environment Agency 0172
Assessment Agree.
Recommendation Change appendix B as set out at the end of this section.
B8.1 Forecasting Derbyshire’s Special and Hazardous Waste
Summary The last line of paragraph B8.1 should be amended to say ”…of which, 47,450 tonnes of this went to landfill in Derbyshire.” Environment Agency 0173
16a.doc Page 98 of 129
Derby and Derbyshire Waste Local Plan REPORT OF PUBLICITY AND CONSULTATIONS JULY 2003
Assessment Agree. Appendix B should contain up-to-date and accurate data. (The recommended changes to appendix B, set out below, would not include the line to which the objector refers.)
Recommendation Change appendix B as set out at the end of this section. [OR replace the statement with up-to-date and accurate data.]
B9.1 Landfill Capacity
Summary The landfill capacity estimates are incorrect in this paragraph. The Plan wrongly assumes that the Environment Agency’s landfill classification ‘A6’ is inert, when it should be non-inert. The landfill capacity estimates and calculations of shortfall should amended accordingly. Environment Agency 0174 & 0177
Assessment Agree and the data should be updated.
Recommendation Change appendix B to include correct references to A6 and to take account of 2000/1 data, replacing the1998/9 data in the First Deposit, as set out below.
16a.doc Page 99 of 129
Derby and Derbyshire Waste Local Plan REPORT OF PUBLICITY AND CONSULTATIONS JULY 2003
THIS IS THE PROPOSED, REVISED APPENDIX B:
APPENDIX B A methodology for assessing the need for more landfill space
SECTION ONE: THE METHODOLOGY
Introduction
B1.1 The methodology provides a means of assessing whether or not there is a need for landfill space at any particular time during the plan period. First, it considers the amount of controlled waste which needs to be sent to landfill. Then, it looks at the available landfill space. Finally, it considers whether there is sufficient landfill space to accept the amount of waste.
B1.2 The structure of this methodology allows estimates of landfill requirements for any time period and any targets that need to be achieved.
B1.3 Some of the assumptions in this appendix, relating to waste production and the recovery of value from waste, arise from the Derby and Derbyshire Waste Planning Strategy (chapter 2 of this local plan); they are considered to have a degree of permanence at least until the plan is reviewed. Other assumptions may need to be reviewed in the light of information available at the time the methodology is applied.
B1.4 Although the plan area of the waste local plan does not include the Peak District National Park, it is necessary to have regard for the quantities of waste that are likely to be generated in the Derbyshire part of the national park (see paragraph 2.43).
B1.5 The types of waste the methodology covers are Household Municipal Commercial and Industrial Inert and Construction and Demolition
B1.6 The above waste types are collectively known as controlled wastes, and all require a Waste Management Licence for treatment, transfer and disposal. The methodology considers each of these waste types in turn, highlighting the method adopted to estimate annual waste arisings and the impact of achieving the European Union’s and the government’s national and local targets.
B1.7 The methodology does not cover hazardous wastes. Paragraphs 2.54 and 5.10 of this waste local plan discuss the effects of the changes in classification of hazardous waste. No landfill sites in Derbyshire are licensed to receive only hazardous waste. Some hazardous wastes at present are permitted to some sites around Derbyshire. However, during the period up to 2009, the co-disposal of
16a.doc Page 100 of 129
Derby and Derbyshire Waste Local Plan REPORT OF PUBLICITY AND CONSULTATIONS JULY 2003 hazardous and non-hazardous wastes in existing sites will be phased out and, from July 2002, co-disposal is no longer permitted in new sites. Operators will have to apply for new disposal licenses of a single waste type (i.e. hazardous, inert or non- hazardous). In some cases, they may apply to divide a site into separate sections to be separately licensed for hazardous and non-hazardous waste. The appendix B methodology is not directly applicable to the landfill needs of hazardous waste because of the wide variety and specialist nature of the management needs of the wide variety of hazardous wastes.
Municipal & household waste arisings
Household Waste Arisings
B2.1 The methodology assumes that Derbyshire will experience no growth in individual household waste arisings. This accords with the government’s commitment to reducing the growth of waste (see paragraph 2.44 & 2.50-51). However, growth will be experienced owing to predicted growths in population and numbers of households. During the preparation of the plan, population figures from Census 2001 have started to become available; but household figures have yet to be published. In the application of the methodology, it is desirable to use the data that is most reliable, accurate and up-to-date at the time of application. Therefore, sections B19 & B20 of this appendix, which apply the methodology to the current situation, use the census data on population growth.
B2.2 The average annual percentage population change between 1991 and 2001 for each district applies to the relevant district’s household waste arising every year during the plan period. This process begins with base data from the waste collection authorities for the year 2000/1. Included in the arisings (based upon Best Value indicator returns) are waste collection rounds (including collections for recyclable material); street cleansing and litter collections; bulky waste collections; hazardous household waste collections; garden waste collections; bring site; any other household waste collected by the authorities; and civic amenity site waste. (Household waste arisings do not include rubble).
Municipal Waste Arisings
B3.1 It is assumed by Waste Strategy 2000 (part 2; para. 2.15) that municipal waste arisings are made up of approximately 90% household waste and the remaining 10% derives from other sources, including municipal parks and small businesses whose waste is collected by the waste collection authority. Municipal waste excludes rubble. Furthermore, it is assumed that 62% of municipal waste is biodegradable (Audit Commission, 1997).
B3.2 To obtain municipal waste arisings by sub-area, district household waste arisings are increased by 11.1%; the methodology then aggregates the district municipal waste totals to form sub-area totals.
16a.doc Page 101 of 129
Derby and Derbyshire Waste Local Plan REPORT OF PUBLICITY AND CONSULTATIONS JULY 2003
Meeting the Targets for municipal and household waste
B4.1 The waste planning strategy (see paragraphs 2.44 & 2.55) is concerned with achieving the Landfill Directive targets, the two sets of national targets for recovery and recycling, and the recycling or composting targets aimed at the district level. These are currently: Landfill Directive By 2010 to reduce biodegradable municipal waste landfilled to 75% of that produced in 1995. By 2013 to reduce biodegradable municipal waste landfilled to 50% of that produced in 1995. By 2015 to reduce biodegradable municipal waste landfilled to 35% of that produced in 1995. National By 2005 to recover value from at least 40% of municipal waste By 2010 to recover value from at least 45% of municipal waste By 2015 to recover value from at least 67% of municipal waste And, district and national By 2004 to recycle or compost χ% of household waste By 2006 to recycle or compost χ% of household waste By 2010 to recycle or compost 30% of household waste By 2015 to recycle or compost 33% of household waste. NOTE 1 - χ denotes the specific target to be attained by each authority (including the county), taken from Guidance on Municipal Waste Management Strategies (GMWMS) (DTLR, March 2001). The methodology needs to take account of the local authority targets, as they will influence the amount of household waste sent to landfill.
B4.2 The achievement of all the above targets is inter-linked. For example, it is assumed that 62% of municipal waste is biodegradable and household waste makes up 90% of municipal waste. Furthermore according to Waste Strategy 2000, the recovery of value from waste could be achieved through recycling, composting, other forms of material recovery and energy recovery.
B4.3 The recovery of value from municipal waste and the recycling or composting of household waste targets are considered separately from the diversion of biodegradable municipal waste from landfill target. The first two targets consider the recovery of value from waste in terms of annual percentages, whereas the latter target is concerned with specific amounts of material that need to be diverted from landfill.
Treatment of Household Waste
B5.1 GMWMS (annex B) states the recycling or composting totals of the constituent WCAs should be included in the WDA’s recycling or composting amount. This means the WCA’s recycling or composting amounts (not including Derby) can be aggregated to the county’s recycling or composting rates. This does not mean however, that WCA targets should be attained first; both are of equal importance.
16a.doc Page 102 of 129
Derby and Derbyshire Waste Local Plan REPORT OF PUBLICITY AND CONSULTATIONS JULY 2003
Treatment of Municipal Waste
B6.1 Section B20 of this appendix, which applies the methodology to the current situation, uses 2000/1 data re the treatment of municipal waste; recovery of municipal waste in that year comprised recycling and composting of household waste only. (Future applications of the methodology might use later base dates, when the data might include other forms of municipal waste recovery. They should use the most reliable data available.) Since the 2000/1 recycling and composting rates relate to household waste, the assumed municipal recovery rate is balanced appropriately by taking the recycled or composted amount for 2000/1 as a proportion of the municipal waste arisings for that year (both inclusive of Derby).
B6.2 The methodology assumes that, during the time leading up to the government’s national target dates, the percentage of municipal waste requiring treatment increases steadily to meet the targets.
B6.3 The definition of recovery of value in Waste Strategy 2000 (paragraph 2.36) implies that the targets for household recycling or composting are partly subsumed in the “recovery of value” target. Therefore, part of the recovery target is achieved by recycling or composting household waste. This is represented diagrammatically below.
Municipal Waste Arisings Landfilled - Recovery of value inclusive of Bio- Recycling or degradable composting element
Treatment of Biodegradable Municipal Waste
B7.1 The emphasis of the biodegradable municipal waste targets is upon the amount that can be sent to landfill. These targets contrast with the other household or municipal waste targets that focus upon the amount that should be recycled or composted or otherwise recovered, i.e. diverted from landfill. During the time leading up to the target dates, the methodology assumes that the annual percentage of biodegradable municipal waste that can be landfilled decreases steadily to meet the targets. It counts those annual amounts towards the total quantity requiring landfill.
Landfilling of remaining Household and Municipal Waste
B8.1 In addition to the biodegradable waste which is to be landfilled, there will be untreated, non-biodegradable household and municipal waste remaining after achievement of the recycling element of the targets. The methodology assumes that that waste will be landfilled and counts that amount towards the total “non- hazardous” quantity requiring landfill.
16a.doc Page 103 of 129
Derby and Derbyshire Waste Local Plan REPORT OF PUBLICITY AND CONSULTATIONS JULY 2003
Industrial & commercial waste
Meeting the targets for industrial and commercial waste
B9.1 The government (Waste Strategy 2000, part 1, para 2.32) identifies the following target for industrial and commercial waste: By 2005, the amount of industrial and commercial waste sent to landfill should be no more than 85 % of that landfilled in 1998.
B9.2 It is a target based on “fill”, rather than on “arisings”. Therefore, the methodology assumes that the amount of industrial and commercial waste deposited annually at each licensed landfill site around the county represents the amount of industrial and commercial waste deposited annually in each sub-area. The methodology also assumes that the government’s 2005 landfill target will be achieved.
B9.3 During the time leading up to the target date, the methodology assumes that the annual percentage of industrial and commercial waste that can be landfilled decreases steadily to meet the target. After 2005, the annual amount remains constant. The methodology counts those annual amounts towards the total quantity requiring landfill.
B9.4 For the purpose of predicting the amount and type of industrial and commercial waste going to landfill, the methodology assumes that the target would apply to both inert and non-hazardous wastes and that the inert element would be 7% of the total (based on an assessment of Derby’s and Derbyshire’s 1998/9 arisings in SWMA 2000, page 15, table 2.4, which is the best indicator of inert and non-inert proportions of industrial and commercial waste). If, in reality, the balance that achieves the target is shown to be different or more unpredictable, the application of the methodology should be adjusted accordingly.
B9.5 The methodology assumes that progress towards the target would be achieved by a steady increase in waste being diverted from landfill. In practice, progress may be much more uneven, but this provides a useful datum for monitoring purposes. New targets may be introduced after 2005 but at this stage we are unable to estimate what, if any, these may be, so the 85% figure has been retained. Future applications of the methodology should use the most up-to-date and reliable information available at the time.
Inert, Construction and Demolition (ICD) Waste
B10.1 There are no targets applying directly to the landfilling of “inert and construction and demolition (ICD) waste”. For the purpose of assessing the landfill needs, the methodology takes the quantities of ICD waste currently deposited at the licensed landfill sites around the county as representative of the annual amounts to be deposited in each sub-area. (From the information available to the waste planning authorities, it is not possible to identify quantitatively the sources of the ICD that arises in the county or is deposited in Derbyshire’s landfill sites.) The methodology assumes that the amount of ICD to be landfilled will remain constant,
16a.doc Page 104 of 129
Derby and Derbyshire Waste Local Plan REPORT OF PUBLICITY AND CONSULTATIONS JULY 2003 although in fact the figure may actually decrease because most ICD is recyclable or otherwise recoverable.
Landfill capacity in Derbyshire
B11.1 Having established the quantities of waste that must be landfilled, the methodology looks at the available void space, to establish whether there is sufficient void space to accept the amount of waste. The methodology estimates the life spans of the voids by comparing the total annual amount of waste destined for landfill (see above) with the void space available and, from this, to estimate when the voids will be full.
B11.2 The void spaces include licensed landfill sites and other identifiable sites that may realistically be available to accept deposits during the plan period, such as sites which already have planning permission for landfill and minerals sites where there is a high degree of probability of restoration by landfill during the plan period.
Landfill sites with planning permission and a waste management licence
B12.1 Having planning permission is a pre-requisite of an application for a waste management licence. The latter is granted by the Environment Agency, which produces a list of licensed sites and provides information about their capacities. The Environment Agency’s estimates of landfill site capacities take into account an amount of inert material accepted onto each site for engineering purposes. The Agency (SWMA 2000, page 40, fig 4.2) typically estimates this amount to be 40% of total void capacity, thus leaving 60% to accept material classed as waste.
Sites with planning permission but no waste management licence
B13.1 The waste planning authorities keep records of planning permissions for landfill operations. There will always be some sites which have permission but, for various reasons, do not yet have a licence. There will also be sites with permission that are exempt from licence requirements, though, because of the terms of the exemption provisions, such sites are generally small.
B13.2 These sites should not necessarily be included in calculations using this methodology. However, the likelihood of their coming on stream should be taken account of. Sites should be excluded if, although they may have potential, they are actually unlikely to be brought into operation.
The restoration of sand and gravel sites primarily in the SE sub-area
B14.1 For reasons outlined in chapter 5 of this plan, there is a high probability that there will be a need for large quantities of inert waste to restore sand and gravel extraction sites in the Trent Valley, in the south-east sub-area.
16a.doc Page 105 of 129
Derby and Derbyshire Waste Local Plan REPORT OF PUBLICITY AND CONSULTATIONS JULY 2003
B14.2 The methodology assumes that the annual extraction rate of the sand and gravel represents the annual amount of void space that requires restoration until the end of the plan period. This figure does not include over-burden, top or sub-soil, as these are usually kept on site from the extraction process and re-used on-site. The dense composition of sand and gravel means that one cubic metre equals approximately 1.9 tonnes.
B14.3 At present, the supply of inert fill to the Trent Valley sites is outstripped by the demand. It is difficult to predict the extent to which the supply will increase. The methodology assumes that the supply will be increased by the diversion of inert fill from other sites in the south-east sub-area.
B14.4 It contains two scenarios, each of which suggests what might happen to inert fill during the plan period. The scenarios are: 1. The current rate of fill for Trent Valley sites will continue for the entire plan period. 2. All of the SE sub-area’s inert waste will be diverted to the Trent Valley sites, leaving more capacity for non-hazardous waste in other sub-area landfill sites.
B14.5 Neither scenario would provide sufficient supply of inert fill to satisfy the demand for inert waste to reinstate these sites; additional supplies might come from adjoining counties but those supplies would not be directly relevant to the methodology.
Landfill sites not in Derbyshire but in close proximity
B15.1 The current application of the methodology, in section B28 below, includes only non-hazardous landfill sites which are in Derby and Derbyshire or have geographical relationships with the Derbyshire sub-areas and are within 20 km of the county’s border (although in some cases Derbyshire’s non-hazardous waste is currently transported greater distances). Although it is necessary to consider sites outside the county, it has not been possible in the current application of the methodology to assign specific quantities of Derbyshire’s waste to those sites.
Other considerations
Open-gate non-hazardous and inert landfill capacity
B16.1 The methodology compares the need for landfill space with the amount of space available and thus identifies whether there is a need for new non-hazardous landfill capacity to accept locally generated waste.
B16.2 The methodology acknowledges that non-hazardous and inert waste can be landfilled at non-hazardous sites. Inert waste can also be accepted at landfills taking non-biodegradable waste and landfills taking other wastes.
16a.doc Page 106 of 129
Derby and Derbyshire Waste Local Plan REPORT OF PUBLICITY AND CONSULTATIONS JULY 2003
The potential of unlicensed sites
B17.1 When considering landfill sites to take Derbyshire’s waste that are either not yet operational (for whatever reason) or are outside the plan area, it must be remembered that potential usage of these sites depends upon their being licensed by the Environment Agency and contractual agreements between site operators and WCAs.
16a.doc Page 107 of 129
Derby and Derbyshire Waste Local Plan REPORT OF PUBLICITY AND CONSULTATIONS JULY 2003
SECTION TWO: APPLYING THE METHODOLOGY TO ASSESS WHETHER THERE IS A NEED FOR NEW LANDFILL DEVELOPMENT
B18.1 This section of appendix B assesses the need for landfill space at a particular point in time by applying the assumptions and principles of the methodology as detailed above. This section is based on the Technical Working Paper, “Forecasting Derbyshire’s Landfill Needs” (available from the City and County Councils), which applies the methodology using the best and most up-to-date data and other information that are currently available.
Derbyshire’s Household Waste Arisings
(Applying paragraphs B2.1-2.2)
B19.1 Figure 1 shows the household waste arisings for Derbyshire from 2001 to 2015 by sub-area. (The figures include waste (except rubble) delivered by the general public to civic amenity (CA) sites. There are currently CA sites in Amber Valley, Chesterfield, Erewash, High Peak, South Derbyshire and Derby City. Figure 1 allocates the CA waste to the appropriate district totals, except in the case of Stonegravels in Chesterfield. Due to the central location of Stonegravels in the NE sub-area, it apportions the CA site’s waste according to the population of each district of the NE sub-area.)
Household Waste Arisings. Figure 1
Household Waste Arisings
500,000 HPK DD 400,000 SUD AMB 300,000 ERE DER tonnes 200,000 NED CHE 100,000 BOL
-
2000/12001/22002/32003/42004/52005/62006/72007/82008/9 2009/102010/112011/122012/132013/142014/15 [Based on figures supplied by City and County WDAs for Best Value purposes]
16a.doc Page 108 of 129
Derby and Derbyshire Waste Local Plan REPORT OF PUBLICITY AND CONSULTATIONS JULY 2003
Forecasting Derbyshire’s Municipal Waste Arisings
(Applying paragraphs B3.1-3.2)
B20.1 Figure 2 shows the predicted municipal waste arisings from 2001 to the end of the plan period.
Municipal waste arisings showing biodegradable element. Figure 2
Municipal Waste Arisings showing Biodegrable Element 600000
500000
400000 W mw SE mw 300000 NE mw tonnes Bdmw 200000 (Derbys.)
100000
0
/3 /5 /6 /8 00/1 01/2 02 03/4 04 05 06/7 07 08/9 /10 /12 /13 /15 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 2009 2010/112011 2012 2013/142014
Meeting the Targets for Household and Municipal Waste
(Applying paragraphs B4.1-8.1)
B21.1 Figure 3 illustrates the amounts of wastes "recovered" and the amounts disposed of to landfill, assuming that targets are met. Each bar represents the total municipal waste arising (in tonnes) and how it will be treated for that year. The calculation assumes that the maximum amount of biodegradable municipal waste allowed by the targets will be sent to landfill (in figure 3, the next to top category). That which is not landfilled is included (in figure 3) in the two bottom categories, which also include non-biodegradable waste. The top category, “remaining to landfill”, represents all the non-biodegradable waste which does not have to be recycled, composted or “recovered” to meet the targets.
16a.doc Page 109 of 129
Derby and Derbyshire Waste Local Plan REPORT OF PUBLICITY AND CONSULTATIONS JULY 2003
Impact of achieving household and municipal waste targets in Derbyshire. Figure 3
Impact of Achieving Household and Municipal Waste targets in Derbyshire 600,000
500,000 Remaining to Landfill
400,000 BioMW sent to landfill 300,000 tonnes Remaining 200,000 Municipal Waste Recovery
100,000 Household recycling or composting -
4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 / / / / / / 1 1 00/1 01/2 02/3 03 04 05 06 07 08 9/ 0/ 1/12 2/13 3/14 4/15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 20 20 20 20 20 20 20
Derbyshire's Industrial and Commercial Future Waste Deposits
B22.1 Figure 4 identifies the amount of inert and non-hazardous industrial and commercial waste deposited in Derbyshire in 1998 by sub-area.
Industrial and commercial waste landfilled in Derbyshire in 1998/99 (tonnes). Figure 4 Inert Non-hazardous Total NE 10,639 141,345 151,984 SE 14,934 198,410 213,344 W 7,467 99,205 106,672 Total 33,040 438,960 472,000 [Environment Agency, 2002]
Meeting the Diversion Target for Industrial and Commercial Waste
(Applying paragraphs B9.1-9.5)
B23.1 The government’s targets state that by 2005 the amount of industrial and commercial waste going to landfill should be no more than 85% of that landfilled in 1998. Figure 5 assumes that progress towards the target will be achieved by a steady increase in waste being diverted from landfill.
16a.doc Page 110 of 129
Derby and Derbyshire Waste Local Plan REPORT OF PUBLICITY AND CONSULTATIONS JULY 2003
Industrial and commercial waste allowed to landfill during the plan period.
Industrial and Commercial Allowed to Landfill during the Plan Period 500,000 450,000 400,000 W Non- hazardous 350,000 W Inert
300,000 SE Non- 250,000 hazardous SE Inert tonnes 200,000 NE Non- 150,000 hazardous 100,000 NE Inert 50,000 -
0 1 2 3 4 5 0/1 1/2 2/3 3/4 4/5 5/6 6/7 7/8 8/9 9/1 0/1 1/1 2/1 3/1 4/1 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 00 01 01 01 01 01 2 2 2 2 2 2 Figure 5
Forecasting Derbyshire’s Inert and Construction & Demolition Waste (ICD)
(Applying paragraph B10.1)
B24.1 The Environment Agency, through its annual monitoring exercises, states that in 2000/1 around 620,000 tonnes of ICD was landfilled in Derbyshire. Chapter 6 of the Derbyshire Waste Management Strategy (1999) indicates that the amount of ICD sent to landfill is unlikely to increase and there are no European or government targets for recovery of ICD. Figure 6 assumes that the annual amount of waste to be deposited in each sub-area until the end of the plan period will be at the same level as in 2000/1.
Annual inert and construction & demolition waste going to landfill in Derbyshire (tonnes). Figure 6 NE SE W Derbyshire 81,596 397,202 141,805 620,603 [Environment Agency, 2002]
Landfill capacity
(Applying paragraphs B11.1-15.1)
Landfill sites with planning permission and a waste management licence (Applying paragraph B11.1-11.2 & 12.1)
B25.1 At April 2001 there was 13,360,874 m³ of licensed open-gate [A2.12] void space remaining in Derbyshire for non-hazardous and inert waste (Environment Agency,
16a.doc Page 111 of 129
Derby and Derbyshire Waste Local Plan REPORT OF PUBLICITY AND CONSULTATIONS JULY 2003
2002). Closed-gate sites had a capacity of 7,205,397 m³. Therefore, Derbyshire had a combined, licensed landfill capacity of 20,566,271 m³. The density of waste varies according to its type and characteristics and at different stages in its treatment. This appendix assumes an average density after landfill, engineering works and settlement of one tonne per cubic metre.
B25.2 Restricted user landfill sites are those which have a licence to take waste only from a single firm. There was over 7 million m3 of closed-gate void space remaining in Derbyshire at April 2001, sufficient to distort the assessments of remaining capacity for all of Derbyshire’s waste. Although they are important, they are omitted from the following figures and, to balance their omission, their annual waste input is omitted, so far as possible.
B25.3 Figure 8 shows the amount of non-hazardous and inert waste to be landfilled, compared with the total amount of open-gate, licensed landfill capacity that can accept such wastes. Non-hazardous and inert waste can be accepted at landfill sites that have a combined capacity of 13,360,874 m³.
Non-hazardous and inert waste landfilled at open-gate landfill sites during the plan period. Figure 8
Non-hazardous and Inert Waste Landfilled at Open-gate Landfill Sites during the Plan Period 18,000,000
16,000,000
14,000,000
12,000,000 Non-hazardous and 10,000,000 inert waste landfilled
tonnes 8,000,000 Non-hazardous and inert open gate 6,000,000 landfill capacity 4,000,000
2,000,000
- NE SE W DERBYS
B25.4 Figure 8, shows that, at this stage of the methodology, the SE sub-area experiences a theoretical shortfall in licensed landfill capacity for non-hazardous waste. However for inert waste there is enough capacity, as such wastes can go to both non-hazardous and inert landfill sites. The NE sub-area is seen to have sufficient landfill capacity for the plan period with a surplus of around 4.7 million cubic metres, whereas the W sub-area is predicted to just have enough capacity. The county as a whole has a shortfall of such capacity by 2010/11, with a deficit of around 3.3 million m³ by 2015.
16a.doc Page 112 of 129
Derby and Derbyshire Waste Local Plan REPORT OF PUBLICITY AND CONSULTATIONS JULY 2003
Landfill sites that have planning permission but no waste management licence
(Applying paragraphs B11.1-11.2 & B13.1-13.2)
B26.1 Currently, there are three sites in Derbyshire, with a total of over 2.4 million m³ of open gate landfill capacity, that already have planning permission but have yet to receive a waste management licence from the Environment Agency. The three sites are all located in the NE sub-area and have permission to accept non-hazardous waste.
B26.2 Assuming that the sites received licences, the NE sub-area would have in excess of 10.3 million m³ of non-hazardous landfill capacity. The plan area would have a deficit of just over 964,000 tonnes. This indicates that the plan area would experience a shortfall in 2013/4, rather than 2011/2.
The restoration of sand and gravel sites primarily in the SE sub-area
(Applying paragraphs B11.1-11.2 & B14.1-14.4)
B27.1 The effects of policies of the Derby and Derbyshire Minerals Local Plan, recent trends, and emerging government guidance indicate that the production of sand and gravel in Derbyshire is likely to be maintained at approximately 1.9 million tonnes per annum until 2016. Therefore, the amount of void space, throughout the plan period, is likely to be about 1,000,000 m³ per annum (due to the dense composition of sand & gravel). In reality, the amount of void space may fluctuate from year to year as permissions become active.
B27.2 The total inert landfill capacity of existing voids in the Derbyshire Trent Valley was 964,760 m³ in 2000/1. The SE sub-area landfilled 156,905 m³ of inert/construction and demolition and the inert element of industrial and commercial waste, of which 65,951 m³ was landfilled at the Trent Valley sites. Scenario 1, applying a continuation of the current rates of inert fill in landfill sites in the south- east, would make little difference to the annual inputs of wastes in the sub-area. However, scenario 2, diverting, during the plan period, all of the SE sub-area’s inert landfill to the Trent Valley sites, would leave a small additional, annual capacity for non-hazardous waste in the other sites in the sub-area.
Landfill Sites in Close Proximity to Derbyshire
(Applying paragraphs B11.1-11.2 & B15.1)
B28.1 Derbyshire has borders with the following authorities: Barnsley, Cheshire, Kirklees, Leicestershire, Nottinghamshire, Rochdale, Rotherham, Sheffield, Staffordshire, Stockport, and Tameside. Chapter 5 of the plan discusses the potential cross-boundary movement of waste. Figure 9 lists sites which are within 20 km of the county’s border.
16a.doc Page 113 of 129
Derby and Derbyshire Waste Local Plan REPORT OF PUBLICITY AND CONSULTATIONS JULY 2003
Licensed landfill sites within 20 km of Derbyshire with capacity at 31/3/01. Figure 9 Adjoining NE sub-area SE sub-area W sub-area Authority Barnsley - NA NA Cheshire NA NA Gawsworth Kirklees - NA NA Leicestershire NA NA NA Nottinghamshire Sutton, Carlton Burntstump, NA Forest, Daneshill Dorket Head Oldham NA NA Meek Street, High Moor, Rochdale NA NA - Rotherham Swallownest, NA NA Meadowhall Sheffield Parkwood NA NA Staffordshire NA Wilnecote Marchington Stockport NA NA Tenement Lane Tameside NA NA - Approx. 10,000,000 5,250,000 500,000+ capacity m³ [Environment Agency, 2002]
B28.2 Figure 9 suggests that the apparent landfill capacity shortfall identified in figure 8, above, in the SE sub-area is being and could in the future be satisfied by the use of licensed sites within 20 km of the SE sub-area borders. Excluded from the above list are three additional sites which are likely to take waste from Derby and Derbyshire: the Moira site on the Derbyshire/ Leicestershire border (expected to begin operations in late 2003, with a capacity of roughly 3.9 million m³ and an annual input of 240,000 tonnes); the site at Thurcroft in Rotherham MB (expected to become operational in 2004 with an estimated capacity of 4,000,000 m³); and the Bentinck site in Nottinghamshire (expected to come on-line later in the plan period with a predicted capacity of 4,000,000m³).
Reaching a Conclusion
B29.1 Analysis of the results of applying the methodology, applied as above or as applicable at the time of a planning application for new landfill development, will indicate whether there is a need for the proposed new landfill space.
B29.2 In the circumstances set out above, the south-east sub-area appears to be the only sub-area where there might be a need for a site within Derby and Derbyshire. However, the assessment suggests that the need will be present only if the potential sites (those not yet operating) described in paragraphs 25.1 onwards do not become available. The actual availability of those sites would have to be reviewed at the time that the methodology was being applied to the assessment of a planning application.
16a.doc Page 114 of 129
Derby and Derbyshire Waste Local Plan REPORT OF PUBLICITY AND CONSULTATIONS JULY 2003
COMMENTS ON APPENDIX C Table 2 Recovery
Summary The plan should have a commitment to meet the national recycling targets in all sub areas. The recovery targets are low and the performance of some areas, such as North East Derbyshire, is abysmal. Clay Cross and District EAG 0218
Assessment The plan accepts the waste management targets that the waste collection authorities have been set and, for the years after 2006, for which there are not yet Best Value standards, it assumes that the national targets will apply to all districts. The plan is not a waste management plan and cannot commit the waste collection authorities to any particular action or performance standard.
Recommendation No change.
Report of Publicity and Consultations Appendix 1
GENERAL COMMENTS NOT SEEKING CHANGES TO THE PLAN
Statements of support for the plan
Summaries Supports the plan. Erewash BC 0011 Welcomes the encouragement given in the plan to transferring waste by rail. Strategic Rail Authority 0026 Welcomes the structure of the plan, which achieves clarity by defining the terms of the policy and setting out the main material considerations in the boxes. Countryside Agency (East Mids) 0042 Welcomes and supports the weight given to environmental and community issues. South Derbyshire DC 0053 Supports the criteria-based approach and welcomes the inclusion of criteria covering the proximity principle, noise, disturbance, access, visual amenity and convenience of use. Amber Valley BC 0179 The plan sits well with the sub-area waste management strategy and the borough council’s corporate policy of protecting the environment. High Peak BC 0238 Supports the setting out of principles or “skeleton” for the assessment of planning applications and the co-operation between city and county. Recommends more regionalisation in waste management, to gain economies of scale, including more opportunities for bulk transport. Gives advice on selected methods of treatment of household waste. (We have passed the suggestions and advice to the County Waste Manager.) K. Tatton 0230 Supports paragraph 2.31 re self-sufficiency. CPRE 0208 Commends the commitment, in paragraph 2.44, to achieving targets. CPRE 0211
16a.doc Page 115 of 129
Derby and Derbyshire Waste Local Plan REPORT OF PUBLICITY AND CONSULTATIONS JULY 2003
Strongly supports the commitment, in paragraph 2.69, to monitoring the plan’s policies and particularly welcomes the indicator in B3. Countryside Agency 0034
Statements of conditional support for the plan
Summary Supports the policies of the plan but would object to changes or modifications which would effectively prolong or worsen the detrimental effects of the tipping at Glapwell or result in the allocation of the site for a household recycling centre. (We do not recommend any modifications from the 1st deposit which would directly affect Glapwell.) Bolsover DC 0180
Statements of “no comment”
Statements of “no comment” were received from: Tintwistle Amenity Society 0010; Lincolnshire CC 0012
16a.doc Page 116 of 129
Derby and Derbyshire Waste Local Plan REPORT OF PUBLICITY AND CONSULTATIONS JULY 2003
Report of Publicity and Consultations Appendix 2
SCHEDULE OF REPRESENTATIONS
16a.doc Page 117 of 129
Derby and Derbyshire Waste Local Plan REPORT OF PUBLICITY AND CONSULTATIONS JULY 2003
Comment number Registration Number Name of body Respondent number Sup/Obj Chapter Paragragh Policy number Date of registry 0001 PRI/1/0001/1 The National Farmers Union 1 O PRI 3.18 W2 20/06/02 0002 PRI/1/0002/1 The National Farmers Union 1 O PRI 3.29 W4c 20/06/02 0003 ENV/1/0003/1 The National Farmers Union 1 S ENV 4.16 W7 20/06/02 0004 ENV/1/0004/1 The National Farmers Union 1 S ENV 4.28.3 W10 20/06/02 0005 SPA/1/0005/1 The National Farmers Union 1 S SPA 6.6 W12 20/06/02 0006 VAL/1/0006/1 The National Farmers Union 1 O VAL 7.40 20/06/02 0007 APB/1/0007/1 The National Farmers Union 1 O APB B5.1 O 20/06/02 0008 SPA/2/0008/1 The National Forest 2 O SPA 6.10 W13 24/06/02 0009 LAN/3/0009/1 Attenborough Quarry - Long Lane 3 O LAN 5.17 28/06/02 Residents Liaison Group 0010 GEN/4/0010/1 Tintwistle Amenity Site 4 S GEN G 15/07/02 0011 GEN/5/0011/1 Erewash Borough Council 5 S GEN G 15/07/02 0012 GEN/6/0012/1 Lincolnshire County Council 6 S GEN G 15/07/02 0013 ENV/7/0013/1 Jean Hall (individual) 7 S ENV 4.16.6 W7 15/07/02 0014 STR/8/0014/1 Langridge Homes Ltd (agents-Geoffrey 8 O STR 2.61 15/07/02 Prince Associates Ltd) 0015 STR/8/0015/1 Langridge Homes Ltd (agents-Geoffrey 8 O STR 2.62 15/07/02 Prince Associates Ltd) 0016 PRI/8/0016/1 Langridge Homes Ltd (agents-Geoffrey 8 O PRI 3. O 15/07/02 Prince Associates Ltd) 0017 PRI/8/0017/1 Langridge Homes Ltd (agents-Geoffrey 8 O PRI 3.18 W2 15/07/02 Prince Associates Ltd) 0018 PRI/8/0018/1 Langridge Homes Ltd (agents-Geoffrey 8 O PRI 3. O 15/07/02 Prince Associates Ltd) 0019 SPA/8/0019/1 Langridge Homes Ltd (agents-Geoffrey 8 O SPA 6. O 15/07/02 Prince Associates Ltd) 0020 GEN/9/0020/1 C R Davis (individual) 9 O GEN G 18/07/02 0026 PRI/11/0026/1 Strategic Rail Authority 11 S PRI 3.24 W3 22/07/02 0027 ENV/12/0027/1 English Heritage 12 O ENV 4.11.7-4.11.9 O 23/07/02 0028 ENV/12/0028/1 English Heritage 12 S ENV 4.11.8 23/07/02 0029 ENV/12/0029/1 English Heritage 12 O ENV 4.11.7 23/07/02 0030 ENV/12/0030/1 English Heritage 12 O ENV 4.11.9 23/07/02 07 March 2003 Page 1 of 11 Chapter definitions PUR - 1, STR - 2, PRI - 3, ENV - 4, LAN - 5, SPA - 6, VAL - 7, APA - appendix A, APB - appendix B, APC - appendix C, APD - appendix D, APE - appendix E
16a.doc Page 119 of 129
Derby and Derbyshire Waste Local Plan REPORT OF PUBLICITY AND CONSULTATIONS JULY 2003
Comment number Registration Number Name of body Respodent number Sup/Obj Chapter Paragragh Policy number Date of registry 0031 ENV/12/0031/1 English Heritage 12 O ENV 4.11.7-4.11.9 O 23/07/02 0032 ENV/12/0032/1 English Heritage 12 O ENV 4.11.7-4.11.9 23/07/02 0033 SPA/13/0033/1 Countryside Agency (East Midlands) 13 O SPA 6.10 W13 23/07/02 0034 STR/13/0034/1 Countryside Agency (East Midlands) 13 S STR 2.69 23/07/02 0035 ENV/13/0035/1 Countryside Agency (East Midlands) 13 S ENV 4.28 W10 23/07/02 0036 ENV/13/0036/1 Countryside Agency (East Midlands) 13 S ENV 4.31 W11 23/07/02 0037 PRI/13/0037/1 Countryside Agency (East Midlands) 13 S PRI 3.9 W1a 23/07/02 0038 ENV/13/0038/1 Countryside Agency (East Midlands) 13 S ENV 4.11 W6 23/07/02 0039 ENV/13/0039/1 Countryside Agency (East Midlands) 13 O ENV 4.7 W5 23/07/02 0040 SPA/13/0040/1 Countryside Agency (East Midlands) 13 O SPA 6.7 23/07/02 0041 PUR/13/0041/1 Countryside Agency (East Midlands) 13 O PUR 1.15 23/07/01 0042 GEN/13/0042/1 Countryside Agency (East Midlands) 13 S GEN G 23/07/02 0043 ENV/13/0043/1 Countryside Agency (East Midlands) 13 O ENV 4.11.4 23/07/02 0044 ENV/13/0044/1 Countryside Agency (East Midlands) 13 S ENV 4.20 W8 23/07/02 0045 ENV/13/0045/1 Countryside Agency (East Midlands) 13 S ENV 4.22 W9 23/07/02 0046 STR/13/0046/1 Countryside Agency (East Midlands) 13 O STR 2.62 23/07/02 0047 SPA/13/0047/1 Countryside Agency (East Midlands) 13 S SPA 6.6 W12 23/07/02 0048 STR/14/0048/1 Nottinghamshire County Council 14 O STR 2.57-2.59 24/07/02 0049 LAN/14/0049/1 Nottinghamshire County Council 14 O LAN 5. 24/07/02 0050 LAN/14/0050/1 Nottinghamshire County Council 14 O LAN 5.16 24/07/02 0051 LAN/14/0051/1 Nottinghamshire County Council 14 O LAN 5.27 24/07/02 0052 SPA/14/0052/1 Nottinghamshire County Council 14 O SPA 6.6-6.10 W12- W13 24/07/02 0053 GEN/15/0053/1 South Derbyshire District Council 15 S GEN G 24/07/02 0054 ENV/16/0054/1 Peak District National Park Authority 16 O ENV 4.11.4 24/07/02 0055 ENV/16/0055/1 Peak District National Park Authority 16 O ENV 4.8 24/07/02 0056 STR/17/0056/1 Waste Recycling Group plc 17 O STR 2.57-2.59 24/07/02 (agent-Stephen Bowley Planning 0057 STR/17/0057/1 Waste Recycling Group plc 17 O STR 2.62 24/07/02 (agent-Stephen Bowley Planning 07 March 2003 Page 2 of 11 Chapter definitions PUR - 1, STR - 2, PRI - 3, ENV - 4, LAN - 5, SPA - 6, VAL - 7, APA - appendix A, APB - appendix B, APC - appendix C, APD - appendix D, APE - appendix E
16a.doc Page 120 of 129
Derby and Derbyshire Waste Local Plan REPORT OF PUBLICITY AND CONSULTATIONS JULY 2003
Comment number Registration Number Name of body Respodent number Sup/Obj Chapter Paragragh Policy number Date of registry 0058 PRI/17/0058/1 Waste Recycling Group plc 17 O PRI 3.12 24/07/02 (agent-Stephen Bowley Planning 0059 PRI/17/0059/1 Waste Recycling Group plc 17 O PRI 3.18 W2 24/07/02 (agent-Stephen Bowley Planning 0060 PRI/17/0060/1 Waste Recycling Group plc 17 O PRI 3.29 W4c 24/07/02 (agent-Stephen Bowley Planning 0061 ENV/17/0061/1 Waste Recycling Group plc 17 O ENV 4.11.2-4.11.4 24/07/02 (agent-Stephen Bowley Planning 0062 LAN/17/0062/1 Waste Recycling Group plc 17 O LAN 5.12-5.17 24/07/02 (agent-Stephen Bowley Planning 0063 LAN/17/0063/1 Waste Recycling Group plc 17 O LAN 5.12-5.28 24/07/02 (agent-Stephen Bowley Planning 0089 SPA/21/0089/1 Stephen Bass (individual) 21 S SPA 6. 25/07/02 0090 STR/22/0090/1 G G Percy (individual) 22 O STR 2.43 25/07/02 0091 STR/22/0091/1 G G Percy (individual) 22 O STR 2.52 25/07/02 0092 STR/22/0092/1 G G Percy (individual) 22 O STR 2.54 25/07/02 0093 STR/22/0093/1 G G Percy (individual) 22 O STR 2.62 25/07/02 0094 STR/22/0094/1 G G Percy (individual) 22 O STR 2.62 25/07/02 0095 PRI/22/0095/1 G G Percy (individual) 22 O PRI 3.3 25/07/02 0096 PRI/22/0096/1 G G Percy (individual) 22 O PRI 3.7 25/07/02 0097 PRI/22/0097/1 G G Percy (individual) 22 O PRI 3.9.7 25/07/02 0098 PRI/22/0098/1 G G Percy (individual) 22 O PRI 3.9.11 25/07/02 0099 PRI/22/0099/1 G G Percy (individual) 22 O PRI 3.9.14 25/07/02 0100 PRI/22/0100/1 G G Percy (individual) 22 O PRI 3.13.7 25/07/02 0110 PRI/24/0110/1 Staffordshire County Council 24 O PRI 3. O 26/07/02 0111 PRI/24/0111/1 Staffordshire County Council 24 O PRI 3. O 26/07/02 0112 STR/25/0112/1 COTEP 25 O STR 2.43 29/07/02 0113 STR/25/0113/1 COTEP 25 O STR 2.52 29/07/02 0114 STR/25/0114/1 COTEP 25 O STR 2.54 29/07/02 0115 STR/25/0115/1 COTEP 25 O STR 2.62 29/07/02 0116 STR/25/0116/1 COTEP 25 O STR 2.62/5 29/07/02 0117 STR/25/0117/1 COTEP 25 O STR 2.62/7 29/07/02 0118 STR/25/0118/1 COTEP 25 O STR 2.62/8 29/07/02 07 March 2003 Page 3 of 11 Chapter definitions PUR - 1, STR - 2, PRI - 3, ENV - 4, LAN - 5, SPA - 6, VAL - 7, APA - appendix A, APB - appendix B, APC - appendix C, APD - appendix D, APE - appendix E
16a.doc Page 121 of 129
Derby and Derbyshire Waste Local Plan REPORT OF PUBLICITY AND CONSULTATIONS JULY 2003
Comment number Registration Number Name of body Respodent number Sup/Obj Chapter Paragragh Policy number Date of registry 0119 STR/25/0119/1 COTEP 25 O STR 2.66 29/07/02 0120 STR/25/0120/1 COTEP 25 O STR 2.68 29/07/02 0121 STR/25/0121/1 COTEP 25 O STR 2.71 29/07/02 0122 PRI/25/0122/1 COTEP 25 O PRI 3.3 29/07/02 0123 PRI/25/0123/1 COTEP 25 O PRI 3.7 29/07/02 0124 PRI/25/0124/1 COTEP 25 O PRI 3.9.2 29/07/02 0125 PRI/25/0125/1 COTEP 25 O PRI 3.9.5 29/07/02 0126 PRI/25/0126/1 COTEP 25 O PRI 3.9.7 29/07/02 0127 PRI/25/0127/1 COTEP 25 O PRI 3.9.8 29/07/02 0128 PRI/25/0128/1 COTEP 25 O PRI 3.9.10 29/07/02 0129 PRI/25/0129/1 COTEP 25 O PRI 3.9.11 29/07/02 0130 PRI/25/0130/1 COTEP 25 O PRI 3.9.12 29/07/02 0131 PRI/25/0131/1 COTEP 25 O PRI 3.9.14 29/07/02 0132 PRI/25/0132/1 COTEP 25 O PRI 3.9.15 29/07/02 0133 PRI/25/0133/1 COTEP 25 O PRI 3.9.17 29/07/02 0134 PRI/25/0134/1 COTEP 25 O PRI 3.13.5 29/07/02 0135 PRI/25/0135/1 COTEP 25 O PRI 3.13.7 29/07/02 0136 PRI/25/0136/1 COTEP 25 O PRI 3.18 29/07/02 0137 PRI/25/0137/1 COTEP 25 O PRI 3.18.5 29/07/02 0138 PRI/25/0138/1 COTEP 25 O PRI 3.19-3.24 29/07/02 0139 PRI/25/0139/1 COTEP 25 O PRI 3.29.4 29/07/02 0140 ENV/25/0140/1 COTEP 25 O ENV 4.3-4.4 29/07/02 0141 ENV/25/0141/1 COTEP 25 O ENV 4.7 29/07/02 0142 ENV/25/0142/1 COTEP 25 O ENV 4.8-4.11.9 29/07/02 0143 ENV/25/0143/1 COTEP 25 O ENV 4.16.1-4.16.14 29/07/02 0144 LAN/25/0144/1 COTEP 25 O LAN 5. O 29/07/02 0145 LAN/25/0145/1 COTEP 25 O LAN 5.4 29/07/02 07 March 2003 Page 4 of 11 Chapter definitions PUR - 1, STR - 2, PRI - 3, ENV - 4, LAN - 5, SPA - 6, VAL - 7, APA - appendix A, APB - appendix B, APC - appendix C, APD - appendix D, APE - appendix E
16a.doc Page 122 of 129
Derby and Derbyshire Waste Local Plan REPORT OF PUBLICITY AND CONSULTATIONS JULY 2003
Comment number Registration Number Name of body Respodent number Sup/Obj Chapter Paragragh Policy number Date of registry 0146 LAN/25/0146/1 COTEP 25 O LAN 5.5 29/07/02 0147 LAN/25/0147/1 COTEP 25 O LAN 5.11 29/07/02 0148 LAN/25/0148/1 COTEP 25 O LAN 5.18-5.25 29/07/02 0149 SPA/25/0149/1 COTEP 25 O SPA 6.2 29/07/02 0150 SPA/25/0150/1 COTEP 25 O SPA 6.6.11 29/07/02 0151 VAL/25/0151/1 COTEP 25 O VAL 7.10 29/07/02 0152 VAL/25/0152/1 COTEP 25 O VAL 7.52 29/07/02 0153 VAL/25/0153/1 COTEP 25 O VAL 7.55 29/07/02 0154 VAL/25/0154/1 COTEP 25 O VAL 7.72 29/07/02 0155 APB/25/0155/1 COTEP 25 O APB B1.2 29/07/02 0156 APB/25/0156/1 COTEP 25 O APB B6.1 29/07/02 0157 PRI/26/0157/1 Lafarge Aggregates Ltd 26 O PRI 3.25-3.28 30/07/02 0158 LAN/26/0158/1 Lafarge Aggregates Ltd 26 O LAN 5.4 30/07/02 0159 LAN/26/0159/1 Lafarge Aggregates Ltd 26 O LAN 5.9 30/07/02 0160 VAL/26/0160/1 Lafarge Aggregates Ltd 26 O VAL 7.29-7.31 30/07/02 0161 SPA/27/0161/1 Environment Agency 27 O SPA 2.57-2.59 31/07/02 0162 ENV/27/0162/1 Environment Agency 27 O ENV 4.16 W7 31/07/02 0163 ENV/27/0163/1 Environment Agency 27 O ENV 4.16.11 31/07/02 0164 STR/27/0164/1 Environment Agency 27 O STR 2.62/8 31/07/02 0165 ENV/27/0165/1 Environment Agency 27 O ENV 4.28.8 31/07/02 0166 ENV/27/0166/1 Environment Agency 27 O ENV 4.7 W5 31/07/02 0167 ENV/27/0167/1 Environment Agency 27 O ENV 4.11 W6 31/07/02 0168 SPA/27/0168/1 Environment Agency 27 O SPA 6.10.2-6.10.9 31/07/02 0169 VAL/27/0169/1 Environment Agency 27 S VAL 7.35-7.40 G 31/07/02 0170 APB/27/0170/1 Environment Agency 27 O APB B5.1 31/07/02 0171 APB/27/0171/1 Environment Agency 27 O APB B6.1 31/07/02 0172 APB/27/0172/1 Environment Agency 27 O APB B7.1 31/07/02 07 March 2003 Page 5 of 11 Chapter definitions PUR - 1, STR - 2, PRI - 3, ENV - 4, LAN - 5, SPA - 6, VAL - 7, APA - appendix A, APB - appendix B, APC - appendix C, APD - appendix D, APE - appendix E
16a.doc Page 123 of 129
Derby and Derbyshire Waste Local Plan REPORT OF PUBLICITY AND CONSULTATIONS JULY 2003
Comment number Registration Number Name of body Respodent number Sup/Obj Chapter Paragragh Policy number Date of registry 0173 APB/27/0173/1 Environment Agency 27 O APB B8.1 31/07/02 0174 APB/27/0174/1 Environment Agency 27 O APB B9.1 31/07/02 0175 APB/27/0175/1 Environment Agency 27 O APB B11.2-B11.4 31/07/02 0176 STR/27/0176/1 Environment Agency 27 O STR 2.54 31/07/02 0177 APB/27/0177/1 Environment Agency 27 O APB B9.1 31/07/02 0178 GEN/28/0178/1 Paul Gibbons (individual) 28 O GEN G 31/07/02 0179 GEN/29/0179/1 Amber Valley Borough Council 29 S GEN G 01/08/02 0180 GEN/30/0180/1 Bolsover Distict Council 30 S GEN G 01/08/02 0181 ENV/31/0181/1 Derbyshire Dales District Council 31 O ENV 4.20 W8 01/08/02 0182 ENV/31/0182/1 Derbyshire Dales District Council 31 O ENV 4.11.2-4.11.6 01/08/02 0183 VAL/31/0183/1 Derbyshire Dales District Council 31 O VAL 7.14 01/08/02 0184 VAL/32/0184/1 Yorkshire Water 32 O VAL 7.68-7.72 01/08/02 0185 PRI/32/0185/1 Yorkshire Water 32 O PRI 3.29 W4c 01/08/02 0186 ENV/33/0186/1 GOEM 33 O ENV 4.28.4 01/08/02 0187 SPA/33/0187/1 GOEM 33 O SPA 6.10.4 01/08/02 0188 SPA/33/0188/1 GOEM 33 O SPA 6.10.5 01/08/02 0189 STR/33/0189/1 GOEM 33 O STR 2.57-2.61 01/08/02 0190 PRI/33/0190/1 GOEM 33 O PRI 3.13 W1b 01/08/02 0191 SPA/33/0191/1 GOEM 33 O SPA 6.6 W12 01/08/02 0192 SPA/33/0192/1 GOEM 33 O SPA 6.6 W12 01/08/02 0193 SPA/33/0193/1 GOEM 33 O SPA 6.10 W13 01/08/02 0194 SPA/33/0194/1 GOEM 33 O SPA 6.10.9 01/08/02 0195 SPA/33/0195/1 GOEM 33 O SPA 6.14 W14 01/08/02 0196 LAN/34/0196/1 Leicestershire County Council 34 O LAN 5.16 02/08/02 0197 LAN/34/0197/1 Leicestershire County Council 34 O LAN 5.17 02/08/02 0198 STR/35/0198/1 N A Lievesley (individual) 35 O STR 2.62 02/08/02 0199 STR/35/0199/1 N A Lievesley (individual) 35 O STR 2.62/5 02/08/02 07 March 2003 Page 6 of 11 Chapter definitions PUR - 1, STR - 2, PRI - 3, ENV - 4, LAN - 5, SPA - 6, VAL - 7, APA - appendix A, APB - appendix B, APC - appendix C, APD - appendix D, APE - appendix E
16a.doc Page 124 of 129
Derby and Derbyshire Waste Local Plan REPORT OF PUBLICITY AND CONSULTATIONS JULY 2003
Comment number Registration Number Name of body Respodent number Sup/Obj Chapter Paragragh Policy number Date of registry 0200 PRI/35/0200/1 N A Lievesley (individual) 35 O PRI 3.9.5 02/08/02 0201 PRI/35/0201/1 N A Lievesley (individual) 35 O PRI 3.9.12 02/08/02 0202 PRI/35/0202/1 N A Lievesley (individual) 35 O PRI 3.29.4 02/08/02 0203 ENV/35/0203/1 N A Lievesley (individual) 35 O ENV 4.3 02/08/02 0204 ENV/35/0204/1 N A Lievesley (individual) 35 O ENV 4.16.1-4.16.14 02/08/02 0205 LAN/35/0205/1 N A Lievesley (individual) 35 O LAN 5.5 02/08/02 0206 VAL/35/0206/1 N A Lievesley (individual) 35 O VAL 7.10 02/08/02 0207 STR/8/0207/1 Langridge Homes Ltd (agents-Geoffrey 8 O STR 2.62/7 05/08/02 Prince Associates Ltd) 0208 STR/36/0208/1 CPRE (Sheffield) 36 S STR 2.31 05/08/02 0209 STR/36/0209/1 CPRE (Sheffield) 36 S STR 2.62 05/08/02 0210 PRI/36/0210/1 CPRE (Sheffield) 36 O PRI 3.18 W2 05/08/02 0211 STR/36/0211/1 CPRE (Sheffield) 36 S STR 2.44 05/08/02 0212 GEN/36/0212/1 CPRE (Sheffield) 36 O GEN O 05/08/02 0213 SPA/36/0213/1 CPRE (Sheffield) 36 O SPA 6.6 W12 05/08/02 0214 VAL/36/0214/1 CPRE (Sheffield) 36 S VAL 7.4 05/08/02 0215 APD/36/0215/1 CPRE (Sheffield) 36 O APD 11. 05/08/02 0216 PRI/37/0216/1 Clay Cross and District Environmental 37 O PRI 3.18 W2 06/08/02 Action Group 0217 ENV/37/0217/1 Clay Cross and District Environmental 37 O ENV 4.16 W7 06/08/02 Action Group 0218 APC/37/0218/1 Clay Cross and District Environmental 37 O APC 10. 06/08/02 Action Group 0219 GEN/37/0219/1 Clay Cross and District Environmental 37 O GEN G 06/08/02 Action Group 0220 GEN/37/0220/1 Clay Cross and District Environmental 37 O GEN 5. G 06/08/02 Action Group 0221 STR/38/0221/1 Kirkby and District Conservation Society 38 O STR 2.37 06/08/02 0222 PRI/38/0222/1 Kirkby and District Conservation Society 38 O PRI 3.9 W1a 06/08/02 0223 STR/38/0223/1 Kirkby and District Conservation Society 38 O STR 2.25 06/08/02 0224 ENV/38/0224/1 Kirkby and District Conservation Society 38 O ENV 4.7 W5 06/08/02 0225 ENV/38/0225/1 Kirkby and District Conservation Society 38 O ENV 4.16 W7 06/08/02 0226 ENV/38/0226/1 Kirkby and District Conservation Society 38 O ENV 4.16.1-14 06/08/02 07 March 2003 Page 7 of 11 Chapter definitions PUR - 1, STR - 2, PRI - 3, ENV - 4, LAN - 5, SPA - 6, VAL - 7, APA - appendix A, APB - appendix B, APC - appendix C, APD - appendix D, APE - appendix E
16a.doc Page 125 of 129
Derby and Derbyshire Waste Local Plan REPORT OF PUBLICITY AND CONSULTATIONS JULY 2003
Comment number Registration Number Name of body Respodent number Sup/Obj Chapter Paragragh Policy number Date of registry 0227 SPA/38/0227/1 Kirkby and District Conservation Society 38 O SPA 6.6 W12 06/08/02 0228 SPA/38/0228/1 Kirkby and District Conservation Society 38 O SPA 6.10 W13 06/08/02 0229 GEN/38/0229/1 Kirkby and District Conservation Society 38 O GEN O 06/08/02 0230 GEN/39/0230/1 K Tatton (individual) 39 S GEN G 07/08/02 0231 PRI/40/0231/1 United Utilities 40 O PRI 3.13.12 07/08/02 0232 ENV/40/0232/1 United Utilities 40 O ENV 4.11.10 07/08/02 0233 ENV/40/0233/1 United Utilities 40 O ENV 4.16.10 07/08/02 0234 ENV/40/0234/1 United Utilities 40 O ENV 4.16.13 07/08/02 0235 VAL/40/0235/1 United Utilities 40 O VAL 7.24 07/08/02 0236 VAL/40/0236/1 United Utilities 40 O VAL 7.36 07/08/02 0237 VAL/40/0237/1 United Utilities 40 O VAL 7.68, 7.69, 07/08/02 7.70, 7.71, 7.72 0238 GEN/41/0238/1L High Peak Borough Council 41 S GEN G 22/08/02 0239 ENV/42/0239/1L Ault Hucknall Environmental Action Group 42 S ENV 4.28 W10 22/08/02 0240 ENV/42/0240/1L Ault Hucknall Environmental Action Group 42 S ENV 4.31 W11 22/08/02 0241 ENV/42/0241/1L Ault Hucknall Environmental Action Group 42 O ENV 4.16 W7 22/08/02 0242 ENV/42/0242/1L Ault Hucknall Environmental Action Group 42 O ENV 4.11 W6 22/08/02 0243 ENV/42/0243/1L Ault Hucknall Environmental Action Group 42 O ENV 4.7 W5 22/08/02 0244 PRI/42/0244/1L Ault Hucknall Environmental Action Group 42 O PRI 3.13 W1b 22/08/02 0245 ENV/43/0245/1L CPRE (Derbyshire) 43 O ENV 4.7 W5 22/08/02 0246 ENV/43/0246/1L CPRE (Derbyshire) 43 O ENV 4.7.8 22/08/02 0247 ENV/43/0247/1L CPRE (Derbyshire) 43 O ENV 4.11.7 22/08/02 0248 ENV/43/0248/1L CPRE (Derbyshire) 43 O ENV 4.16 W7 22/08/02 0249 ENV/43/0249/1L CPRE (Derbyshire) 43 O ENV 4.16.8 22/08/02 0250 ENV/43/0250/1L CPRE (Derbyshire) 43 O ENV 4.16.9 22/08/02 0251 ENV/43/0251/1L CPRE (Derbyshire) 43 O ENV 4.16.12 22/08/02 0252 ENV/43/0252/1L CPRE (Derbyshire) 43 O ENV 4.20 W8 22/08/02 0253 ENV/43/0253/1L CPRE (Derbyshire) 43 O ENV 4.22 W9 22/08/02 07 March 2003 Page 8 of 11 Chapter definitions PUR - 1, STR - 2, PRI - 3, ENV - 4, LAN - 5, SPA - 6, VAL - 7, APA - appendix A, APB - appendix B, APC - appendix C, APD - appendix D, APE - appendix E
16a.doc Page 126 of 129
Derby and Derbyshire Waste Local Plan REPORT OF PUBLICITY AND CONSULTATIONS JULY 2003
Comment number Registration Number Name of body Respodent number Sup/Obj Chapter Paragragh Policy number Date of registry 0254 GEN/44/0254/1L Friends of the Earth (Chesterfield & N. 44 O GEN G 22/08/02 Derbys.) 0255 GEN/44/0255/1L Friends of the Earth (Chesterfield & N. 44 O GEN G 22/08/02 Derbys.) 0256 GEN/44/0256/1L Friends of the Earth (Chesterfield & N. 44 O GEN O 22/08/02 Derbys.) 0257 PRI/44/0257/1L Friends of the Earth (Chesterfield & N. 44 O PRI 3.9.13 22/08/02 Derbys.) 0258 PRI/44/0258/1L Friends of the Earth (Chesterfield & N. 44 O PRI 3.9.15 22/08/02 Derbys.) 0259 PRI/44/0259/1L Friends of the Earth (Chesterfield & N. 44 O PRI 3.9.17 22/08/02 Derbys.) 0260 PRI/44/0260/1L Friends of the Earth (Chesterfield & N. 44 O PRI 3.13.3 22/08/02 Derbys.) 0261 PRI/44/0261/1L Friends of the Earth (Chesterfield & N. 44 O PRI 3.18 W2 22/08/02 Derbys.) 0262 PRI/44/0262/1L Friends of the Earth (Chesterfield & N. 44 O PRI 3.18.3 22/08/02 Derbys.) 0263 PRI/44/0263/1L Friends of the Earth (Chesterfield & N. 44 O PRI 3.29 W4a 22/08/02 Derbys.) 0264 ENV/44/0264/1L Friends of the Earth (Chesterfield & N. 44 O ENV 4.7 W5 22/08/02 Derbys.) 0265 ENV/44/0265/1L Friends of the Earth (Chesterfield & N. 44 O ENV 4.16/4.16.2-12 W7 22/08/02 Derbys.) 0266 ENV/44/0266/1L Friends of the Earth (Chesterfield & N. 44 O ENV 4.22 W9 22/08/02 Derbys.) 0267 ENV/45/0267/1L Derbyshire Wildlife Trust 45 O ENV 4.11.6 22/08/02 0268 ENV/46/0268/1L Ault Hucknall Parish Council 46 O ENV 4.7 W5 22/08/02 0269 ENV/46/0269/1L Ault Hucknall Parish Council 46 O ENV 4.16 W7 22/08/02 0270 ENV/46/0270/1L Ault Hucknall Parish Council 46 S ENV 4.28 W10 22/08/02 0271 ENV/46/0271/1L Ault Hucknall Parish Council 46 S ENV 4.31 W11 22/08/02 0272 LAN/17/0272/1 Waste Recycling Group plc 17 O LAN 5.12-5.28 24/07/02 (agent-Stephen Bowley Planning 0273 STR/47/0273/1 Joan Liddle (individual) 47 O STR 2.43 03/09/02 0274 STR/47/0274/1 Joan Liddle (individual) 47 O STR 2.52 03/09/02 0275 STR/47/0275/1 Joan Liddle (individual) 47 O STR 2.54 03/09/02 0276 STR/47/0276/1 Joan Liddle (individual) 47 O STR 2.62/4 03/09/02 0277 STR/47/0277/1 Joan Liddle (individual) 47 O STR 2.62/7 03/09/02 0278 STR/47/0278/1 Joan Liddle (individual) 47 O STR 2.62/8 03/09/02 0279 STR/47/0279/1 Joan Liddle (individual) 47 O STR 2.66 03/09/02 0280 STR/47/0280/1 Joan Liddle (individual) 47 O STR 2.68 03/09/02 07 March 2003 Page 9 of 11
16a.doc Page 127 of 129
Derby and Derbyshire Waste Local Plan REPORT OF PUBLICITY AND CONSULTATIONS JULY 2003
Comment number Registration Number Name of body Respodent number Sup/Obj Chapter Paragragh Policy number Date of registry 0281 PRI/47/0281/1 Joan Liddle (individual) 47 O PRI 3.3 03/09/02 0282 PRI/47/0282/1 Joan Liddle (individual) 47 O PRI 3.7 03/09/02 0283 PRI/47/0283/1 Joan Liddle (individual) 47 O PRI 3.9.2 03/09/02 0284 PRI/47/0284/1 Joan Liddle (individual) 47 O PRI 3.9.5 03/09/02 0285 PRI/47/0285/1 Joan Liddle (individual) 47 O PRI 3.9.7 03/09/02 0286 PRI/47/0286/1 Joan Liddle (individual) 47 O PRI 3.9.9 03/09/02 0287 PRI/47/0287/1 Joan Liddle (individual) 47 O PRI 3.9.10 03/09/02 0288 PRI/47/0288/1 Joan Liddle (individual) 47 O PRI 3.9.11 03/09/02 0289 PRI/47/0289/1 Joan Liddle (individual) 47 O PRI 3.9.12 03/09/02 0290 PRI/47/0290/1 Joan Liddle (individual) 47 O PRI 3.9.14 03/09/02 0291 PRI/47/0291/1 Joan Liddle (individual) 47 O PRI 3.9.15 03/09/02 0292 PRI/47/0292/1 Joan Liddle (individual) 47 O PRI 3.9.17 03/09/02 0293 PRI/47/0293/1 Joan Liddle (individual) 47 O PRI 3.13.7 03/09/02 0294 PRI/47/0294/1 Joan Liddle (individual) 47 O PRI 3.18 W2 03/09/02 0295 PRI/47/0295/1 Joan Liddle (individual) 47 O PRI 3.18.5 03/09/02 0296 PRI/47/0296/1 Joan Liddle (individual) 47 O PRI 3.19-3.23 03/09/02 0297 PRI/47/0297/1 Joan Liddle (individual) 47 O PRI 3.29.4-7 03/09/02 0298 GEN/47/0298/1 Joan Liddle (individual) 47 O GEN O 03/09/02 0299 ENV/47/0299/1 Joan Liddle (individual) 47 O ENV 4.7 03/09/02 0300 PRI/48/0300/1 Environmental Services Association 48 O PRI 3.9.2 06/09/02 0301 PRI/48/0301/1 Environmental Services Association 48 O PRI 3.9.8 06/09/02 0302 PRI/48/0302/1 Environmental Services Association 48 O PRI 3.9.9 06/09/02 0303 PRI/48/0303/1 Environmental Services Association 48 O PRI 3.13 W1b 06/09/02 0304 PRI/48/0304/1 Environmental Services Association 48 O PRI 3.24 W3 06/09/02 0305 PRI/48/0305/1 Environmental Services Association 48 O PRI 3.29 W4c 06/09/02 0306 VAL/49-138/0306/1 Renewable Energy Objectors 49-138 O VAL 7.41-57 23/08/02 0307 STR/49-138/0307/1 Renewable Energy Objectors 49-138 O STR 2.19 23/08/02 07 March 2003 Page 10 of 11 Chapter definitions PUR - 1, STR - 2, PRI - 3, ENV - 4, LAN - 5, SPA - 6, VAL - 7, APA - appendix A, APB - appendix B, APC - appendix C, APD - appendix D, APE - appendix E
16a.doc Page 128 of 129
Derby and Derbyshire Waste Local Plan REPORT OF PUBLICITY AND CONSULTATIONS JULY 2003
Comment number Registration Number Name of body Respodent number Sup/Obj Chapter Paragragh Policy number Date of registry 0308 PRI/49-138/0308/1 Renewable Energy Objectors 49-138 O PRI 3.13.3 23/08/02 0309 APA/49-138/0309/1 Renewable Energy Objectors 49-138 O APA A2.7 23/08/02 0310 STR/49-138/0310/1 Renewable Energy Objectors 49-138 O STR 2. O 23/08/02 0311 ENV/139/0311/1 Derby Friends of the Earth 139 O ENV 4.31 W11 15/10/02 0312 PUR/139/0312/1 Derby Friends of the Earth 139 O PUR 1.5 15/10/02 0313 ENV/139/0313/1 Derby Friends of the Earth 139 O ENV 4.31 W7 15/10/02 0314 ENV/139/0314/1 Derby Friends of the Earth 139 O ENV 4.7 W5 15/10/02 0315 STR/139/0315/1 Derby Friends of the Earth 139 O STR 2. O 15/10/02 0316 PRI/139/0316/1 Derby Friends of the Earth 139 O PRI 2.19-2.24 15/10/02 0317 STR/139/0317/1 Derby Friends of the Earth 139 O STR 2. O 15/10/02 0318 STR/139/0318/1 Derby Friends of the Earth 139 O STR 2.55-31 15/10/02 0319 STR/139/0319/1 Derby Friends of the Earth 139 O STR 2.62 15/10/02 0320 SPA/139/0320/1 Derby Friends of the Earth 139 O SPA 6.14 W14 15/10/02 0321 VAL/139/0321/1 Derby Friends of the Earth 139 O VAL 7.55-7.57 15/10/02 0322 APA/139/0322/1 Derby Friends of the Earth 139 O APA A2.6-7 15/10/02 0323 STR/140/0323/1 J B Whapplington 140 O STR 2.54 15/10/02 0324 STR/140/0324/1 J B Whapplington 140 O STR 2.62 15/10/02 0325 STR/140/0325/1 J B Whapplington 140 O STR 2.71 15/10/02 0326 STR/139/0326/1 Derby Friends of the Earth 139 O STR 2. O 15/10/02 07 March 2003 Page 11 of 11 Chapter definitions PUR - 1, STR - 2, PRI - 3, ENV - 4, LAN - 5, SPA - 6, VAL - 7, APA - appendix A, APB - appendix B, APC - appendix C, APD - appendix D, APE - appendix E
16a.doc Page 129 of 129