Living Draft
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Waste Core Strategy Technical Paper WCS-C Broad Locational Analysis Living Draft January 2008 Waste Core Strategy Technical Paper WCS-C Broad Locational Analysis Living Draft January 2008 Contact Details for Gloucestershire County Council Minerals & Waste Planning Policy: Tel: 01452 425704 [email protected] Minerals & Waste Development Control: Tel: 01452 425704 Waste Management Unit Tel: 01452 426601 representing search options that are ‘on Summary the edge of’ and ‘in close proximity to’ the main urban areas. This has led to the S1. This report sets out the work undertaken Waste Planning Authority preparing four by the Waste Planning Authority to potentially deliverable options in terms of determine broad locations for waste broad locational search areas: management facilities in Gloucestershire. The work has been guided by national and Option A A broad search area based on the full 16km regional planning policy (in particular draft Regional Policy W2 (using the search criteria Regional Spatial Strategy Policy W2). outlined for Options B, C & D). Under this approach, strategic sites that are remote from S2. In order to meet the sequential search arisings could be appropriate if they are able to criteria of draft regional Policy W2, demonstrate sustainable transport linkages. locations within urban areas should be Option B considered first. However, there is limited Use urban locations and the area labelled Zone opportunity for allocating brownfield or C as the broad locational area in which strategic industrial type land within the four urban waste management facilities should be sited. areas beyond that which was allocated in Option C the Gloucestershire Waste Local Plan Use urban locations and areas labelled C2, C3 2002-2012. This has led to the creation of and C4 as the broad locational area in which a 16km search zone, firstly covering most strategic waste management facilities should be of the county, and then more specifically sited. around Cheltenham and Gloucester. Option D Use area C4 as the broad locational area for S3. In trying to identify areas suitable for the strategic waste management facilities. If land is location of waste management facilities, not forthcoming then the fall-back position is to the Waste Planning Authority has search in areas C2 and C3 and then the wider undertaken a broad consideration of Zone C. environmentally sensitive assets (e.g. avoiding flood plain and national S5. Within these zones national and regional landscape designations). This has resulted search criteria focus on industrial areas in particular areas being potentially (areas either allocated in development removed from the search, which narrows plans, or with permission for B2 general the area under consideration to a central industrial uses) and previously developed part of the County encompassing the two land. Draft Regional Policy W2 additionally main urban areas of Cheltenham and encourages waste planning authorities to Gloucester. It is referred to in this consider mineral extraction sites and document as Zone C and runs north-south landfill sites. This ties in with the national between Tewkesbury and Stroud along the waste policy objective of co-locating M5 corridor. complementary activities. Gloucestershire stakeholders have provided additional S4. This zone can then be further sub-divided locational criteria that could also be used. into five parts (labelled C1 – C5) 3 Contents Summary Contents Section 1 Introduction Section 2 Policy Context Section 3 Waste Local Plan Allocations Section 4 Broad Locational Options Section 5 Preferred Options for Broad Locations Appendix A Gloucestershire District Councils’ Local Development Framework Preparation Timetable 4 3. In order to undertake this effectively a broad Section 1 locational strategy needs to be prepared. This will be set out in the Waste Core Introduction Strategy (WCS). Once adopted, this will provide the framework for identifying specific sites in the Waste Site Allocations 1. This report details the work undertaken by DPD. the Waste Planning Authority (WPA) to determine broad locations for waste management facilities in Gloucestershire. Evidence Gathering Figure 1 (below) indicates the area within the County Council’s responsibility. 4. Substantial work in respect of locational analysis has been carried out by the County 2. It is the role of WPAs to set out in Council, through its waste planning and Development Plan Documents (DPDs) waste management functions. policies and sites suitable for new or enhanced waste management facilities for the waste management needs of their areas. Figure 1 5 Issues and Options Consultation 7. The preferred siting for a recovery/ 5. An Issues and Options consultation was treatment facility was split between the carried out in 2006 to gather information as edge of town and rural locations. to stakeholders’ views on locational issues. Key issues that arose are summarised in 8. A majority of respondents indicated that it is the graph below. preferable to locate disposal sites in rural areas. Locational Preferences 9. The following operations were preferred in dispersed locations i.e. local facilities in Not sure Rural Edge of town Town each district: • Composting green / kitchen waste; 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% • Biodegradable re-use, recycling Composting green transfer/bulking-up; waste • Inert re-use, recycling, transfer/bulking- Composting up. kit chen wast e Biodegradable re- 10. Recovery/treatment facilities should use, recycling, preferably be sited on centralised facilities Inert re-use, near the strategic city and town of recycling, Gloucester and Cheltenham. Recovery/ t reat ment facility (e.g. M BT, 11. No clear preference was evident for waste Disposal sites disposal sites. An equal number of (landf ill) respondents preferred either dispersed ‘Other’ facility type, facilities or a combination of both please specif y centralised and dispersed. Stakeholder Forum Events 6. The following types of facilities were 12. Two public forum events have been held by considered by stakeholders to be most the Waste Planning Authority to provide appropriately situated on ‘edge of town’ stakeholder input into locational issues. The locations: first was held in March 2006 (jointly with the • Composting green / kitchen waste; Waste Disposal Authority) and was used to shape the Issues & Options paper. The • Biodegradable reuse, recycling, transfer/ second was held in October 2007 and bulking up; provided input into the Preferred Options • Inert reuse, recycling, transfer/bulking up; document. 6 13. A priority of locational issues for siting future waste facilities was generated 16. The second forum event (October 2007) through the first stakeholder forum. These built on these issues by asking stakeholders were: to consider them in relation to their impact on matters that are of particular importance • Good transport access, particularly by sustainable modes; in Gloucestershire: namely the floodplain, national landscape designations and green • Generally in close proximity to waste belt land. The consultant’s conclusions from arisings; this event are set out in summary below. • Locational criteria should be applied 17. There was common consensus that the differently according to the size and type floodplain, as a location for waste of facility; management facilities, would not be Environmental impacts were considered to acceptable. Although a small number of be very important, including: pollution stakeholders felt that if there was no other control and the potential impacts of sites on option, this may be acceptable. In terms of human health. local facilities in the floodplain, these were viewed as slightly more acceptable if 14. To respond to these views the consultants appropriate risk assessment and mitigation that independently facilitated the event took place, although many of the (March 2006) recommended that the stakeholders were still of the opinion that following criteria receive the highest they would not be acceptable. weighting in evaluating potential facility 18. Stakeholders generally did not feel that sites: strategic facilities would be appropriate in • Proximity to waste arisings Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB), although some felt that an • Proximity to good road transport exception could be made if the buildings connections were of agricultural scale and designed to • Proximity to sustainable transport modes the highest standards with use of good quality materials. Although some • Remoteness from residential areas stakeholders felt that this also applied to • Potential for reducing environmental local facilities, it was generally felt that local pollution and human health risk facilities would be more appropriate than strategic facilities in AONBs provided that The consultants also recommended that impacts were mitigated. consideration should be given to applying 19. Stakeholders appeared to be more criteria differently according to the size and accepting of waste management type of facility. development in the green belt. Again, strategic facilities were viewed as less 15. The detailed outcomes of the March 2006 forum are set out in the Entec report (26th appropriate, but were generally not ruled May 2006). out by stakeholders. A key finding of the 7 Forum is that the green belt should not be seen as generating a fundamental objection 23. One group of stakeholders noted that it is to the development of waste facilities. difficult to distinguish between environmental criteria as they are all