Some Waste Content Also

County Durham Local Development Framework

Technical Paper No. 19

Waste

Date of publication June 2010 Contents

1 Introduction and purpose 4 1.1 Introduction 4 1.2 Purpose of Technical paper 5 1.3 Overview 5 1.4 Links to other Technical Papers 6

2 Policy context 8 2.1 European /International 8 2.2 National planning policy and guidance 9 2.3 Regional policy 11 2.4 Sub-regional (County) planning policy 13 2.5 Local context 15

3 Baseline 16 3.1 Summary Demographic Profile 16 3.2 Summary Economic Profile 18 3.3 Waste Management: Summary of key facts 20 3.4 Waste Arisings 22 Quality of data issues 22 Forecast waste arisings for each waste type 22 Growth Scenarios 22 3.5 Waste management facilities in Co Durham 23 3.6 Waste deposit and throughput data 23 Household Waste Recovery Sites 23 Waste Transfer Centres 27 Recycling / Materials Recovery Facilities 29 Metal Recycling Facilities 30 Composting and Mechanical and Biological Treatment Facilities 31 Incineration 32 Landfill Sites 33 Landfill inputs 34 Landfill Deposit – Site Level 36 Remaining void space at landfill sites 36 3.7 Managing individual Waste Streams 41 Municipal Solid Waste 42 Commercial and Industrial Waste 54 Inert and Construction and Demolition Waste 61 Hazardous Waste 67 Sewage and Water Treatment Waste 73 Radioactive Waste 73 Agricultural Waste 75 3.8 Identifying Future Waste Management Needs in County Durham 77 3.9 Future Waste Arisings 79 Municipal Solid Waste 79 Commercial and Industrial Waste 79 Construction and Demolition Waste 80 3.10 Future Waste Management Requirements 80 3.11 Future Waste Management Facilities 81 3.12 Waste minimisation and recycling facilities in new development 81 3.13 Protecting the Environment and local communities 82 Visual and landscape impact 82 Localised impacts 82

2 Land instability 83 3.14 Transporting waste materials 83 Transport, Traffic and Access 83 Environmental impact of road traffic 83 3.15 Health and waste management 84 3.16 Water and waste management 85 Protection of Groundwater 86 Flood Risk 86 3.17 Recovery of energy from waste 87

4 Emerging issues 89 4.1 Regeneration 89 4.2 Climate change 89 4.3 Sustainable Development 93 4.4 Emerging issues 94

Appendices Appendix 1 Saved Waste Local Plan Policies 96 Appendix 2 Policy Context 98 Appendix 3 Waste Management Facilities in County Durham (at 1 April 2009) 106 Appendix 4 Planning permissions granted for waste development in County Durham, 112 2008 Appendix 5 Waste Statistics (County Durham and North East sub-region) 113 Appendix 6 Classification of Radioactive Waste 116 Appendix 7 Summary of Climate Change key legislation, documents and drivers 117 Appendix 8 Existing Waste Facilities in County Durham – assumptions on percentage 122 split of licensed capacity Appendix 9 Capacity Assumptions for Transfer Stations 129 Appendix 10 Capacity Assumptions for HWRCs 132 Appendix 11 Assumptions of Capacity for Treatment Facilities 133 Appendix 12 Existing Waste Facilities in County Durham – Assumptions of 100% 135 recycling for Metals Appendix 13 Existing Waste Facilities in County Durham – Assumptions of 100% 137 recycling for C&D Waste Appendix 14 Capacity Gap Calculations C&I Waste 140 Appendix 15 Glossary of Terms 143

3 SECTION 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE

1.1 Introduction

1.1 On the 1st April 2009 a new unitary ‘Durham County Council’ replaced the existing County Council and all of the seven District and Borough Councils in County Durham. In preparation for this, the Development Plans function was subject to early integration and work was started in 2008 on a new Local Development Framework (LDF) for the whole of County Durham. To avoid jargon we call it the ‘County Durham Plan’.

1.2 The County Durham Plan is a key plan for the new Council. It provides the planning framework embodied in spatial documents that are required to deliver local priorities as set out in the Sustainable Community Strategy through facilitating and delivering development. There is therefore a requirement to draw the two processes together. It will also be based on the requirements set out in the Regional Spatial Strategy and on the Council’s own ambitions to address the key issues of climate change and regeneration.

1.3 The policies and proposals will need to be based on accurate and tested evidence and needs assessment. The evidence needs to include the Economic Assessment of the County, the Joint Strategic Needs Assessment, the Strategic Housing Market Assessment, aligning with the principles set out in Transforming Places. The County Durham Plan will provide the planning framework to deliver the County’s vision for economic prosperity and improved quality of life. The key to this will be the Economic Strategy, the Local Transport Plan and other County based plans and strategies including the growth point areas.

1.4 In May 2010 Durham County Council’s Cabinet, approved a revised programme timetable for the County Durham Plan, the Local Development Scheme (LDS) – called “County Durham Plan - What we’re doing and when”. The revised LDS sets out a new timetable for preparing the County Durham Plan. It indicates that the preparation of the Core Strategy DPD will be the Council’s immediate priority. Once adopted the Core Strategy DPD will contain the overarching strategy for future development of the County, including minerals and waste in the period up until the end of 2030.

1.5 The second priority for the Council will be the preparation of three further DPDs and a Proposals Map.

• Development Management DPD - This DPD will set out the County’s policies on Development Management, stating what types of development will be encouraged and permitted. It will carry forward, where appropriate, the designations made in former District Council Local Plans; • Development Allocations DPD – This DPD will identify the allocated sites for different types of development required to deliver the locational strategy in the Core Strategy (excluding minerals and waste); • Gypsy and Travellers DPD – This DPD Will establish policies on providing sites and accommodation for Gypsies and Travellers; and • Proposals Map – This will be a spatial presentation of the policies and proposals contained in the County Durham Plan. This map will be updated as work on the DPDs progresses.

1.6 The third priority for the Council will be the preparation of a Minerals & Waste Policies and Allocations DPD. This DPD will develop in detail the strategic minerals and waste policies of the Core Strategy DPD and in conjunction with the Core Strategy DPD set

4 out a minerals and waste delivery strategy for County Durham. The DPD will also set the detailed development management framework for minerals and waste and where needed and justified allocate non strategic minerals and waste sites.

1.7 In revised the LDS the Council is clear that the priority for the Planning Policy Team will be to progress those DPDs that are clearly vital to spatial planning in the County, especially those to which resources have already been committed. However there are other DPDs that would be desirable, given sufficient time and resources, and those which might be deemed necessary as the plan preparation progresses. These are detailed below:

• The Durham City Area Action Plan - may be produced to support the Core Strategy to enable certain aspects of the Durham City Vision. It would support those initiatives currently underway and those likely to take place in the future in order to achieve the future development of Durham City. • The Spennymoor, Peterlee and Bishop Auckland Area Action Plans – may be produced to support the Core Strategy and Development Allocations DPDs in order to enable specific aspects of the Growth Point programme such as the regeneration of Peterlee or Spennymoor town centres to be delivered. • The Newton Aycliffe Town Centre Area Action Plan – would seek to provide a comprehensive regeneration framework that will challenge existing use, target change and inspire action to guide future investment and activity in the Town Centre. A number of sites are already in public ownership and the Council is in discussion with the Town Centre owners about their redevelopment proposals. • The Stanley Town Centre Area Action Plan - will support those initiatives currently underway and those likely to take place in the future in order to achieve the regeneration of Stanley Town Centre. An Issues and Options document was produced and consulted upon in March 2008. • The Consett Town Centre Area Action Plan - will provide the framework to enable the Town Centre to fulfil its potential as an area of opportunity by addressing issues such as the quality of the built environment and connectivity. • The Barnard Castle Town Centre Area Action Plan - will only be produced if it becomes clear that the Core Strategy cannot effectively deliver the proposals in the Barnard Castle Vision. It would support initiatives currently underway and those likely to take place in the future, to achieve the future development of Barnard Castle. • The Chester-le-Street Area Action Plan - will only be produced if it becomes clear that the Core Strategy cannot effectively deliver the proposals in the Chester-le- Street Town Centre Masterplan. It would support initiatives currently underway and those likely to take place in the future, to achieve the future development of Chester-le-Street.

5 1.2 Purpose of Technical Paper

1.8 In developing the LDF, five topic papers with the themes of People, Places, Prosperity, Performance, and Production will inform the process. These are supported by a number of Technical Papers, including this one, intended to provide context to the policy approach to be adopted by providing a summary of baseline information to inform the scope of issues to follow in the thematic papers. There are no specific papers for Climate Change or Regeneration, but these key issues are “golden threads” running through all the others.

The papers are: No. 1: Housing No. 2: Tourism No. 3: Heritage No. 4: Design and Local Distinctiveness No. 5: Open Space, Recreation, Leisure and Play No. 6: Settlements & Green Belt No. 7: Community & Cultural Facilities No. 8: Retail & Town Centres No. 9: Diversity No. 10: Water No. 11: Community Involvement No. 12: Contamination and Pollution No. 13: Biodiversity & Geodiversity No. 14: Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy No. 15: Delivery & Infrastructure No. 16: Rural Dimension (Rural Proofing) No. 17: Employment, Education & Skills No. 18: Deprivation (inc. Health, Community Safety, Neighbourhood Quality, Income, Crime & Disorder) No. 19: Waste No. 20: Minerals No. 21: Transport and Accessibility No. 22: Landscape No. 23: Population and Demographics

1.3 Overview

1.9 Rising volumes of waste with its environmental, social and economic costs, the need for better protection of the environment and higher public expectations for waste management are all driving the need for rapid and unprecedented change both nationally and in County Durham. European and national legislation and targets are raising standards, expectations and costs.

1.10 County Durham currently relies on landfill as the main method of waste management, often utilising the voids left from earlier mineral working. We need to reverse this trend and reduce our dependence on landfill and move towards more sustainable methods of managing waste by providing alternative facilities for re-use, recycling and recovery of waste. We also need to break the link between economic growth and the growth in waste arisings.

1.11 This Technical Paper sets out the current trends in waste management in the County, and identifies the issues that will need to be addressed in the Core Strategy. The information in this Paper is based on the best available information at the time of writing,

6 recent decisions, and work in progress. All the information and assumptions in this document may be subject to further consultation, decisions of other bodies and organisations, and Cabinet approval.

1.4 Links to other Technical Papers

1.12 National Policy is clear that waste management should be considered alongside other spatial planning concerns such as transport, housing, economic growth, natural resources and regeneration, recognising the positive contribution that waste management can make to the development of sustainable communities. As such, waste issues are engaged in other Technical Papers which address individual forms of development that have impacts on waste management, or where waste management addresses similar issues, principally:

Tech Paper 20: Minerals Tech Paper 14: Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy Tech Paper 21: Transport

1.13 Waste development may also raise related issues on individual resources, and therefore is engaged by technical papers on these resources including:

No. 3: Heritage No. 4: Design and Local Distinctiveness No. 5: Open Space, Recreation, Leisure and Play No. 6: Settlements & Green Belt No. 10: Water No. 11: Community Involvement No. 12: Contamination and Pollution No. 13: Biodiversity & Geodiversity No. 15: Delivery & Infrastructure No. 16: Rural Dimension (Rural Proofing) No. 17: Employment, Education & Skills No. 21: Transport and Accessibility No. 22: Landscape No. 23: Population and Demographics

7 SECTION 2.0 POLICY CONTEXT

2.1 European/international Context

2.1 The Waste Framework Directive (75/445/EEC) introduced the Waste Hierarchy as a means of protecting the environment and human health, which has been at the heart of all subsequent policy and legislation on waste management. It is focussed on looking at means to reduce, recycle and recover waste, before options for recovery of energy from waste, and then disposal of residues are considered.

Figure 1: The Waste Hierarchy

2.2 The EU Landfill Directive 19991 is the key driver behind most national legislation aimed at making waste management more sustainable. The Directive aimed to reduce biodegradable waste being landfilled and to drive waste management up the waste hierarchy. The Directive sets binding and demanding targets to achieve this. It also requires the pre-treatment of all wastes being landfilled where this is technically feasible; bans certain types of waste from landfill and requires the classification of landfill sites for inert waste, hazardous waste or non-hazardous waste with standards that waste must meet to be accepted at these classes of site. The Directive has very significant financial consequences for local authorities if they fail to achieve its overall objectives and individual targets. The Directive’s overall aim is “to prevent or reduce as far as possible negative effects on the environment, in particular the pollution of surface water, groundwater, soil and air, and on the global environment, including the greenhouse effect, as well as any resulting risk to human health, from the landfilling of waste, during the whole life-cycle of the landfill”.

2.3 Among the various requirements, the Directive sets demanding targets to reduce the amount of biodegradable municipal waste landfilled (see para 2.2 - the National context). The Landfill Directive also requires waste to be pre-treated prior to disposal.

2.4 Article 7 of the Landfill Directive sets out a particular requirement in the EU Waste Framework Directive for the waste management plan to identify suitable disposal sites or installations. Planning Policy Statement 10 (PPS10) sets out relevant national policies for waste management facilities, including location criteria to inform local planning policy and planning decisions. Waste Strategy 2007 emphasises the obligation under the Waste Management Licensing Regulations 1994 for Waste Planning Authorities to produce detailed policies in respect of suitable waste management facilities when producing local development documents, and their obligation to have regard to national policies including the strategy itself. PPS10 provides that local planning authorities should, among other things, identify in

1 EU Landfill Directive 1999 (Government implemented the initial technical and regulatory requirements of the Landfill Directive in England and Wales in the Landfill (England & Wales) Regulations 2002. These were then subsequently amended reflecting additions in 2004 and 2005

8 Development Plan Documents (DPDs) sites and areas suitable for new or enhanced waste management facilities for the waste management needs of their areas, and in particular, to allocate sites to support the pattern of waste management facilities set out in the Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS), in accordance with the broad locations it identifies. DPDs drawn up to reflect the expectations set out in PPS10 will demonstrate compliance with Article 7 of the Waste Framework Directive, provided DPDs are in place within a reasonable timescale. (Informal discussions suggest this to be by July 2010). Given that neither the LDF Core Strategy DPD or any site allocation DPDs are programmed to be in place by July 2010, we will rely on saved policies for waste management that support unimplemented site allocations or provide criteria to guide decisions on the locational acceptability of proposed waste disposal facilities. Saved policies in the County Durham Waste Local Plan are set out in Appendix 1.

2.2 National Context

2.5 Planning Policy Statement 1 (PPS1) “Delivering Sustainable Development” (ODPM, 2005) sets out the overarching planning policies on the delivery of sustainable development through the planning system and other national policies compliment these. PPS1 sets out the basic principles of planning for sustainable development.

2.6 In December 2007 the government published Planning and Climate Change, a supplement to Planning Policy Statement 1 which set out how planning, in providing for the new homes, jobs and infrastructure needed by communities, should help shape places with lower carbon emissions and resilient to the climate change now accepted as inevitable.

2.7 The National Waste Management Plan (England) comprises: - Waste Strategy 2007; - PPS10; - Regional Spatial Strategies; and - Local Development Frameworks.

Waste Strategy 2007 http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/waste/strategy/strategy07/index.htm

2.8 The Waste Strategy for England 2007 introduces challenging new national targets. These national targets will be translated into local targets.

Annual greenhouse gas emissions: Household Waste Reuse, Recycling and 2020: reduction of 10 million tonnes Composting of CO2 equivalents 2010: 40% 2015: 45% 2020: 50%

Household Residual Waste Municipal Waste Recovery 2010: 29% reduction 2010: 53% 2015: 35% reduction 2015: 67% 2020: 45% reduction 2020: 75% From 2000 levels

Commercial and industrial waste landfilled 2010: expected 20% reduction levels from 2004 levels

9 2.9 The Landfill Directive / Regulations sets three targets at the national level aimed at reducing the amount of Biodegradable Municipal Waste (BMW) disposed of to landfill: By 2010, reduce the amount of BMW landfilled to 75 percent of that produced in 1995; By 2013, reduce the amount of BMW landfilled to 50 percent of that produced in 1995; and by 2020, reduce the amount of BMW landfilled to 35 percent of that produced in 1995.

2.10 The Waste and Emissions Trading Act (2003) provides the legal framework for the scheme and for the allocation of tradable landfill allowances to each waste disposal authority in England. (The Landfill Allowance trading Scheme, (LATS)). These allowances convey the right for a waste disposal authority to landfill a certain amount of biodegradable municipal waste in a specified scheme year. Each waste disposal authority is able to determine how to use its allocation of allowances in the most effective way. It can trade allowances with other authorities, save them for future years (bank) or use some of its future allowances in advance (borrow). This allows individual waste disposal authorities to use their allowances in accordance with their investment strategy.

2.11 Durham County Council’s allocation of landfill allowances is set out in Section 3.

Planning Policy Statement 10 ‘Planning For Sustainable Waste Management’ (PPS10), (CLG, July 2005) http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/planningandbuilding/planningpolicystatement10

Planning for Sustainable Waste Management: a Companion Guide to PPS10 (CLG June 2006) Plan http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/planningandbuilding/planningsustainablening

- Promotes sustainable waste management, centred around promoting the movement of waste up the Waste Hierarchy; self sufficiency in managing waste, recognising the implication of LATS and achieving BVPI’s; dealing with waste as close to the source as practicable; and environmental impacts of waste management. - Planning has a key role in delivering sustainable waste management: o Strategies for growth & regeneration; and o Providing opportunities for waste management facilities in right place & right time. - Key Objectives for Regional and local planning strategies: o Enable waste management to move up hierarchy; o Provide a framework for sufficient and timely provision of waste facilities; o Help achieve sustainable development, implement Waste Strategy 2007 and support EU targets; o Recover and dispose of waste without endangering health, harming environment & reflecting proximity principle; o Reflect concerns and interests of communities, needs of Waste Collection Authorities (WCAs), Waste Disposal Authorities (WDAs), and business and encourage competitiveness; o Protect Green Belts but recognise locational needs of some waste management: wider environmental and economic benefits are material considerations; and o Ensure that design and layout of new development supports sustainable waste management, (such as by including facilities for reuse, recycling and composting).

2.12 PPS10 requires that waste management decisions should be made in accordance with the waste management hierarchy; they should first consider the practical extent to which the amount of waste produced can be reduced and then address the options for recycling and composting waste, then recovery of energy from waste, and, finally, consider options for waste disposal.

10 Waste Minimisation

2.13 The Coalition Government in its document “The Coalition: our programme for government” (May 2010) has set a goal of working towards a ‘zero waste’ economy, encouraging councils to pay people to recycle, and to work to reduce littering. Defra - has a strategic programme for waste minimisation, including a home composting programme and initiatives targeted at specific sectors, such as retail. http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/waste/wip/wastemin/index.htm

2.14 In recognition of the need to address the trend of increasing volumes of waste, a regional partnership, Waste Aware North East, has been established, (www.wasteawarenortheast.org.uk). This is a partnership of local authorities, the Environment Agency, WRAP, and the private sector which aims to raise awareness of waste issues and recycling opportunities in the region. The Partnership aims to: • Increase Recycling and Re-use in the Region; • Promote Waste Minimisation to domestic and commercial stakeholders; • Encourage changing attitudes and behaviour towards waste in the North East; • Reduce the region’s use of Landfill; • Ensure regional and national partners work together; and • Reduce the amount of packaging waste produced and increase recycling rates.

2.15 Four broad areas of work have been identified, covering communications, schools, community engagement and packaging waste recycling and reduction. Each of these areas has identified campaigns and projects to help deliver the aims.

2.16 Durham County Council itself is addressing waste minimisation in a number of ways including the following activities and initiatives: • promoting home composting, (such as through road shows and workshops); • promoting real nappies; • reducing junk mail, in conjunction with the Mailing Preference Service; • promoting smart shopping; • changing waste collection methods, (e.g. implementing alternate weekly collection schemes, enforcing policies of no side waste and flat lids); and • introducing a county-wide permit scheme for HWRC’s to limit trade waste.

2.17 The County Durham Furniture Help Scheme (CDFHS) provides affordable reusable furniture, household goods and appliances to people in need across County Durham, diverting reusable materials from landfill. http://crn.org.uk/cwnne/directory/Durham.html

2.18 In addition to monitoring general trends on waste arisings, the particular impact of waste minimisation initiatives is analysed through monitoring the purchases of home composting bins, the numbers of people signing up to the Mail Preference Service, etc.

2.3 Regional Context

Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) (Policies 45 – 47) 2.19 The North East of England Plan - Regional Spatial Strategy to 2021 (RSS) was issued by the Secretary of State on 15 July 2008. It seeks to guide planning and development in the North East of England to 2021 and in County Durham replaces the provisions of saved policies of the County Durham Structure Plan and Regional Spatial Strategy (formerly known as RPG1, November 2002).

11 2.20 In addition to its general policies, RSS contains three polices which are directly relevant to the planning for waste management in County Durham; these are: RSS Policy 45 ‘Sustainable Waste Management’, Policy 46 ‘ Waste Management Provision’, and Policy 47 ‘Hazardous Waste’. The Secretary of State in his letter of 27th May 2010 set out the Coalition’s intention to rapidly abolish regional strategies. In the absence of further guidance, however, the County Council intends to continue to have regard to the figures in RSS Policies 46 and 47.

2.21 RSS Policy 46 ‘Waste Management Provision’ sets out required annual waste management capacity for each sub-region for MSW and C&I waste to 2021. County Durham’s apportioned capacities are set out in Table 1.

Table 1: Management Capacity for Annual Waste Arisings (‘000 tonnes) County Durham Year MSW C&I 2005/06 393 679 2006/07 414 689 2007/08 433 699 2008/09 450 710 2009/10 462 721 2010/11 471 732 2011/12 477 742 2012/13 479 753 2013/14 480 765 2014/15 481 776 2015/16 481 788 2016/17 481 800 2017/18 481 812 2018/19 481 824 2019/20 481 836 2020/21 481 849 Source: The North East of England Plan, Regional Spatial Strategy to 2021 (July 2008)). Note: MSW – Municipal Solid Waste; C&I – Commercial and Industrial Waste.

2.22 RSS Policy 47 relates to hazardous Waste, requiring that LDF’s should provide for a range of new facilities for the treatment and management of 567,000 tonnes of hazardous waste per annum by 2010/11, 610,000 tonnes per annum by 2015/16, and 671,000 tonnes per annum by 2021/22 (see Table 2).

Table 2: Hazardous Waste requirements for North East Region, (set out in Policy 47 of RSS) Waste Management Method 2010/11 2015/16 2021/22 (‘000 tonnes) Landfill 156 168 187 Physical/chemical treatment 115 124 136 General hazardous waste incineration 34 37 40 Animal / healthcare waste incineration 1.7 1.9 2 Solvent recovery 76 82 90 Oil & oil/water recovery 132 143 156 Metal bearing waste recovery 15.1 16.2 18 Other recovery/recycling 36 38 42 Total 567 610 671

12 Data Gap: There is still currently uncertainty regarding what guidance will replace the RSS. There is also uncertainty over the work which was to be undertaken or was being undertaken by the Regional Technical Advisory Body on Waste (RTAB) and the new Sustainable Resources Board. As data has always been an important issue for Waste Planning Authorities, this is an important issue. Practical advice from Government Office or others would be helpful on such aspects as what comprises sufficient data to evidence policies given the problems in obtaining everything required by PPS 10.

2.4 County (sub-regional) Context

Existing Waste Local Plan Saved Policies 2.23 The Town and Country Planning Act 1990 required the County Council as Waste Planning Authority (WPA) to prepare a Waste Local Plan. The County Durham Waste Local Plan was adopted in April 2005. The provisions of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 saved all existing Waste Local Plan policies until three years after the date of adoption. From 18th April 2008, five existing policies in the Plan expired. Policies in this state are also referred to as 'Not Saved'. The remaining 'Saved' Waste Local Plan policies are identified in Appendix 1. These policies will remain in force until they are superseded by the provisions of the County Durham Local Development Framework.

Sustainable Community Strategy 2.24 Section 19 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires that local planning authorities must have regard to their Community Strategy.

2.25 The County Durham Partnership (CDP) was established in 2007, following the merger between County Durham Strategic Partnership and the Local Area Agreement Board. It is a voluntary partnership of key organisations in the county and voluntary and community sector organisations who, through joint working, have developed and committed their organisations to the Sustainable Community Strategy (SCS) and Local Area Agreement (LAA) for County Durham. CDP is the countywide Local Strategic Partnership for County Durham, which, prior to Local Government Reorganisation, also had seven district LSP’s (one for each former district in the County). The aim is to develop new and innovative ways of delivering joined up services that are more responsive to the needs of local people. The partnership is responsible for setting the long-term vision for County Durham, developing and delivering the SCS and LAA for County Durham.

2.26 The Core Strategy needs to be the spatial expression of the Sustainable Community Strategy (SCS). The County Durham partnership has recently adopted a new SCS, which includes a vision of an “Altogether Better Durham” under its five themes of: • Altogether Wealthier - focusing on creating a vibrant economy and putting regeneration and economic development at the heart of the SCS; • Altogether Better for Children and Young People - enabling children and young people to develop and achieve their aspirations, and to maximise their potential in line with Every Child Matters; • Altogether Healthier - improving health and wellbeing; • Altogether Greener - ensuring an attractive and ‘liveable’ local environment, and contributing to tackling global environmental challenges; • Altogether Safer - creating a safer and more cohesive county. A number of long term goals are particularly relevant including creating a high quality clean, green, attractive and accessible environment and a balanced natural environment with a reduced impact on climate change; and the SCS specifically

13 identifies the need to reduce the amount of household waste and increase reuse, recycling and composting.

2.27 The approach that the Core Strategy takes to managing waste will be crucial in helping to deliver the Sustainable Community Strategy’s aspirations for new development and a high quality environment. One of the objectives of the SCS is to adapt to – and mitigate the impact of – Climate Change. Mitigation refers to action that is needed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to limit the most severe impacts of climate change. The 2008 Climate Change Act2 made provision to reduce Carbon Dioxide (CO2) emissions by 34% by 2020 to set us on a path to reduce emissions by 80% by 2050. Durham County Council has set a target above this, aiming to reduce emissions across the County by 40% by 2020 (from a 1990 baseline). This will require an annual reduction of 4% or 180,000 tonnes of CO2. Reducing carbon emissions and adapting to the effects of climate change therefore underpins every aspect of planning and is central to the Core Strategy. It will also help support regeneration, and improve the health and the quality of life of everyone in the County.

2.28 The County Durham Local Area Agreement has been agreed by the County Durham Partnership and by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government. The Local Area Agreement (2008-2011) contains relevant targets and indicators: LAA NI Indicator Required Targets No. No. baseline 2008-9 2009-10 20011-12

32 186 Per capita reduction in CO2 7.4 7.1 6.82 6.55 emissions in LA area tonnes (2005) 33 191 Residual household waste 837 kg 741 kg 684 kg 637 kg per household (2007/08) 34 192 Percentage of household 32% 35 40 41 waste sent for reuse, (2007/08) recycling and composting 35 188 Planning to adapt to Level 0 Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 climate change Source: County Durham Local Area Agreement.

Municipal Waste Management Strategy (MWMS) 2.29 County Durham has relied upon disposing most of its waste in landfill sites, but this has to change. There are a number of key strategic drivers for change, legislation (European and national), financial drivers, policies (national, regional and local) in order to help reduce the impacts of waste on the environment. The County Durham Waste Partnership (a partnership of the County Council and former district councils) responded to the challenge by working together to publish the revised Municipal Waste Management Strategy 2008-2020 (MWMS) which has since been updated to take into account the National Waste Strategy for England 2007. The MWMS sets out how to manage municipal solid waste (MSW) arising between now and 2020 in County Durham. This is to ensure that waste collection and disposal services are environmentally sustainable in accordance with the waste hierarchy, provide value for money whilst achieving government’s targets and remain flexible to consider new technology developments and changing legislation.

2.30 The MWMS includes a set of objectives to guide waste management in County Durham. The overall objectives of the Strategy are to:

2 The Climate Change Act 2008 includes a legally binding target of at least an 80% cut (against a 1990 baseline) in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.

14 • provide sustainable integrated waste collection and disposal services that protect human health and the environment; • provide value for money in all waste management services while achieving and exceeding government targets for waste; • manage materials, as far as possible, in accordance with the waste hierarchy, maximising the amount managed at higher levels of the hierarchy; • manage municipal waste, as far as possible, within the boundaries of County Durham; and enable flexibility to allow for new technology developments and changing legislation.

2.31 The Municipal Waste Management Strategy has also been updated to reflect new targets and challenges for the new unitary authority. This will be a key element in influencing the direction of the Core Strategy. The importance of waste management has also been recognised by the County Durham Partnership by the adoption of two targets in the Local Area Agreement priority indicators.

2.32 An Addendum to the current strategy was published in March 2010. This updates the current Strategy with more recent Government targets, highlights progress made in meeting them and provides commitments to future improvements, whilst keeping the original policies and principles as these are still relevant and clearly having a positive effect. In addition to outlining previous performance and highlighting new drivers for improvement, it sets out a series of commitments: • An acceptance of developing waste management programmes geared to achieving the new Government targets. • A recognition of the need to quantify and manage the carbon impacts of the County’s waste services. • A commitment (previously expressed in the Local Government Reorganisation bid) that the Council will seek to harmonise waste collection services across the County to maximise performance and ensure value for money. • A commitment (for which planning is already underway) to improve the services and performance achieved at Household Waste Recycling Centres. • To deliver a residual waste treatment solution that will seek to maximise landfill diversion and create where possible value from residual waste.

2.33 The Addendum also sets out the general approach to achieving the objectives by Action Plans; Engagement; Procurement; and Monitoring and Review

2.5 Local Context

2.34 The waste policies of the Core Strategy also need to reflect and where appropriate deliver the spatial aspects of other adopted plans and strategies including: • Local Transport Plan 2 (2006); • Durham Biodiversity Action Plan (2007); • The County Durham Landscape Strategy (2008); • The emerging Action Plan of the Limestone Landscapes Partnership; • The Rights of Way Improvement Plan for County Durham 2007-2011 (2007); • The County Durham Geo-diversity Audit (2004); • The North Pennines Geo-diversity Audit and Action Plan (2004); • The North Pennines Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty Management Plan (2009); • River Wear Catchment Flood Management Plan (2007); and • River Tees Catchment Flood Management Plan (forthcoming).

2.35 A summary of the requirements of these strategies is set out in Appendix 2.

15 SECTION 3.0 BASELINE

3.1 Demographic profile

3.1 County Durham’s population currently stands at 493,6073. This equates to approximately 20% of the population of the North East and represents a slight rise since the last Census in 2001 when the population stood at 493,470. The latest population estimates show that the population in the County is set to rise in the period to 2026 to around 511,0084, an increase of 3.5% on the 2007 figure. It will mean population will rise to levels last experienced in the early 1980’s.5 3.2 The County’s age profile is predicted to change dramatically in the coming years. By 2010, we expect a sharp fall in the number of young people, alongside a significant rise in the number of older age groups. By 2026 it is forecast that the proportion of the retired population to the total population will have increased to 29.3% from 20.9% in 2007, and by comparison the total working age population will have declined from 62.1% in 2007 to 53.7% in 2026. This is a result of a fall in females of child bearing age and also a result of the post-war ‘baby boomer’ generation ageing. 3.3 Since 2001 the County's birth rate has increased markedly. Provisional figures for 2007 indicated that the birth rate is operating at a level that is close to population replacement, something not experienced since the 1960s. This rise in birth rate will have profound implications for service delivery to the younger aged client groups, especially as in recent years we have become used to the low fertility trend and formulated our strategic plans accordingly. 3.4 Much of County Durham is classified as ‘rural’6, although as well as including the remote rural areas in the North Pennines, the rural definition spans former coalfield communities, which typically face urban type problems in a rural setting. The majority of the County's population inhabits the central and eastern parts of the County with more than half of the County’s population living in some 290 settlements of less than 10,000 people and the remainder residing in the County’s other main towns. Over the plan period to 2026, however, there is predicted to be some redistribution of the County’s population with the central corridor losing some population and the east and west gaining additional population. Durham City is the largest urban centre, with a population of almost 38,000. To the west of the A68 the County comprises the upper valleys of the River Wear and the River Tees. This area has very low population density compared to the more urban semi rural central and eastern parts of the County. The majority of the population within this part of the County live within the many small towns and villages, with the main service centre being the market town of Barnard Castle which has a population of around 5,000.

3.5 The main population centres in the County are the settlements of Durham City, Chester- le-Street town, Crook, Consett, Stanley, Peterlee, Seaham, Spennymoor, Shildon, Bishop Auckland, Barnard Castle and Newton Aycliffe.

3 Durham County Council, Corporate Research & Information Unit, Chief Executive Office, 2009) 4 Durham County Council, Corporate Research & Information Unit, Chief Executive Office, 2009) 5 County Durham’s resident population in 1981 was 508,700, (1981 Census of Population, ONS). 6 The 2004 Office for National Statistics definition of ‘rural’, based on housing density, settlement type and sparsity defines 80% of County Durham as ‘rural’.

Resident population in major centres in County Durham Population Population Population Major centre Major centre Major centre (000s) (000s) (000s) Barnard Castle 5.3 Crook 8.3 Shildon 10.1 Bishop Newton 16.5 25.5 Spennymoor 17.2 Auckland Aycliffe Chester-le- 23.9 Peterlee 30.1 Stanley 16.3 Street City of Durham 42.1 Seaham 21.7 Consett 27.4 Sedgefield 4.2 Source: Census 2001, ONS.

3.6 In 2001 County Durham had 207,400 households (2001, census) – This had risen to 208,613 by 2008 and is expected to reach over 246,000 by the end of the plan period (see Table 3), representing a rise of almost 40,000 in this time period. The last available information on household size from the 2001 census indicated that on average each household accommodated 2.32 persons. Currently, 32.1% of households are in single person households. Over the plan period the average household size is expected to fall due to a rise in single person households, particularly in the older age groups.

Table 3: Housing Stock and Population Predictions7 Year Population Households 2008 500,096 208,613 2009 501,414 209,288 2010 502,566 209,989 2011 503,436 210,735 2012 504,532 212,627 2013 505,278 214,356 2014 506,082 216,522 2015 506,544 218,728 2016 507,005 221,037 2017 507,600 224,373 2018 509,102 228,455 2019 510,387 232,159 2020 512,055 235,510 2021 513,681 238,619 2022 514,635 241,497 2023 515,548 243,696 2024 516,061 245,041 2025 516,969 246,285 2026 517,886 246,827

3.7 In total the dwelling stock of the county is approximately 223,500 (March 2004) of which 75.9% is private sector, 20.7% public sector and 3.4% other public sector. The Regional Spatial Strategy indicates that over the period 2004-2021 the County Durham LDF must provide for 1,385 net additions every year to the dwelling stock. This equates to 23,545 additional dwellings over the 17 year period. In addition, 5,000 dwellings are also expected to be provided as part of the delivery of the South and East Durham Growth Point programme in coming years.

7 Source: DCC forecasts

3.8 Further detailed information on the demography of the County is set out in Technical Paper No. 23: Population and Demographics. Technical Paper No 1 provides detailed information on housing.

Link to Population and Demographics Technical Paper

3.2 Economic profile

3.9 The County’s economy has undergone major restructuring in recent decades, in common with many other areas of the UK. The County’s traditional economic base was in manufacturing, heavy industry and mining, and in the rural areas, land-based sectors. Each of these economic sectors have declined significantly as a result of national and international economic restructuring, including the loss of over 17,000 manufacturing jobs since the mid 1990’s. 3.10 Long term trends have continued in recent years. There has been a large drop in the number of employees employed in manufacturing industries in the eight years, as monitored by the Annual Business Enquiry. In 1998, 27.9% of the people employed in County Durham worked within the manufacturing sector, in 2005 this figure had reduced to only 17.2%. This drop in manufacturing has been accompanied by a marginal increase in other industries such as construction, distribution, hotels and restaurants, banking, finance and insurance, public administration, education and health which now employees 33.4% of the County’s employed workforce. However, in relation to other parts of the Country, County Durham continues to be under-represented in certain sectors such as financial services and research and development. 3.11 Despite significant restructuring, County Durham continues to have a strong manufacturing and engineering base, which employs just over 29,000 people (17% of the County’s workforce). It therefore makes a very significant contribution to the County’s GVA. The County’s manufacturing and engineering sectors encompass a diverse mix of sub sectors including electronics, clothing, automotives, rubber and chemicals. The County also contains some world class ‘knowledge’ assets, particularly Durham University and Netpark, and also some key private sector drivers of research and development, including Thorn Lighting, Glaxo SmithKline and 3M. 3.12 Unlike the rest of the North East region, the County Durham economy is not concentrated in a large conurbation, but instead businesses and economic assets are distributed across the County, the majority being located in the central and eastern parts of the County. This spatial distribution is closely linked to the main centres of population with their associated industrial estates and business parks and the main north-south transportation routes which run through the County linking to the Tyne and Wear and Tees Valley conurbations. 3.13 The Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) report on local deprivation was published in August 2000, updated in 2004 and 2007 and is based on seven broad themes including education and crime. County Durham was ranked 50th in England (out of 149 counties, unitary / metropolitan areas and London Boroughs), and the former district of Easington was the 7th (out of 366 authorities in England) most disadvantaged district in the country and most deprived district in the North East. Overall, 31.6% of the County Durham population is deemed to be in the top 20% of the nationally deprived population. The deprivation in County Durham is most concentrated in East Durham, north-west Durham and the towns of Bishop Auckland, Crook and Willington, in the south-west of the County.

18 3.14 County Durham suffers from major problems of economic inactivity/joblessness, health related issues and also poor levels of educational attainment and skills (as outlined elsewhere). According to IMD 2007, 53.8% of the County's population was deemed to be in the top 20% nationally deprived in the employment domain; 55.6% was in the top 20% deprived on health; and 35.6% was in the top 20% deprived on education, skills and training. 3.15 The County Durham Economic Strategy 2008-13 (CDES) indicates that County Durham’s economy is forecast to continue to grow in the period to 2021 but at a slower rate than the last 10 years. The total number of jobs in County Durham stood at around 178,000 in 2006. Current forecasts assume the creation of around 5,000 additional jobs in the period between 2005 and 2012/13, but the CDES sets a target to stretch this to 9,000 new jobs in the same period, in addition to increasing the proportion of working age adults in employment from 73.1% to 75% by 2012/13, and achieving a net increase of at least 1,400 Vat registered business between 2006 and 2013. Forecasts suggest that employment in the manufacturing will decline, compensated by expansion in the service sector, and transport and communications8. 3.16 However, it is important to recognise that the forecasts for economic growth set out in the RES, RSS and County Durham Economic Strategy were made before the current economic downturn and did not anticipate the scale and severity of the impact on the region’s and County’s economy. An Action Plan for the CDES is currently being prepared to map out the timetable for practically achieving the strategy's aims. The Economic Strategy seeks to achieve the long term goals of the County Durham Strategic Partnership as set out in the County Durham Strategic Vision. 3.17 Further information on the economy of County Durham is set out in other technical papers including the Technical Paper No. 17: Employment, Education & Skills. In addition Technical Paper No 18 provides information on Deprivation.

Links to Employment, Education and Skills and Deprivation Technical Pap

8 County Durham Economic Strategy 2008-13, Annex 1 – Evidence Base

3.3 Waste Management: The Current Picture - a Summary of Key facts

National During 2008 facilities in England and Wales managed a total of 150 million tonnes of controlled waste9. Of this: 56.7 million tonnes was landfilled; 46.8 million tonnes was transferred, before final disposal or recovery; 27.8 million tonnes was treated; 13 million tonnes was handled through metal recycling facilities; and 5.2 million tonnes was incinerated.

National Trends Waste to landfill continued to decrease, continuing the trend from previous years. It fell by over 11 per cent between 2007 and 2008 and has fallen 33 per cent since 2000. One of the principal reasons is the implementation of the Landfill Directive. Many older landfill sites that do not meet the stringent requirements of the Directive had to close as soon as possible, and by July 2009 at the latest. Remaining capacity at landfill sites fell by five per cent during 2008. Overall, since 2000 landfill capacity has decreased by 14 per cent. Inputs through permitted transfer facilities increased by five percent between 2007 and 2008. Inputs through permitted treatment facilities have decreased by two per cent, but there was an increase of around 300,000 tonnes (10 per cent) in the waste through composting plants.

North East Region Site inputs and Regional Trends Over 3.6 million tonnes of waste were disposed of in landfill sites and over 6.7 million tonnes went to transfer and treatment facilities in 2008. Waste landfilled decreased by twenty three per cent between 2007 and 2008, whilst inputs to transfer facilities decreased by five per cent. Treatment inputs decreased by 43 per cent in the year. This is because of reduced acceptance of waste at the Bran Sands treatment centre. This is due to the closure of industry on Teesside.

Between 2000 and 2008, inputs to landfill decreased by twenty per cent, whilst those to transfer facilities increased by 23 per cent. Between 2000/01 and 2007 waste through treatment facilities increased 20 times to 6.8 million tonnes. This was due to the inputs to a large treatment facility being re-designated as waste in 2004. There is a 1089 percent difference between 2000 and 2008 figures.

Permitted waste incineration facilities within the region handled 226,000 tonnes during 2008. This is a slight decrease on the 2007 levels of over 229,000 tonnes. 90 per cent of this was municipal waste incinerated in the Tees Valley.

Capacity The Environment Agency estimated that at the end of 2008 the North East had 9.6 years of landfill life left across the region for non hazardous waste, on the basis of existing rates of fill. The North East also had 313,000 tonnes of capacity at permitted waste incineration facilities. 84 per cent of this was for municipal waste10

9 Controlled Waste Regulations (1992) and The Waste Management (England and Wales) Regulations (2006) Controlled wastes are those wastes covered by legislative requirements, currently including household/municipal, commercial and industrial, construction and demolition, and some agricultural wastes. It is the controlled waste fraction of total waste arisings that must by planned for to ensure that sufficient waste management capacity remains available.

10 This is the same percentage as 2007, and is at a site on Teesside. Hazardous Waste The North East produced 2.1 million tonnes of hazardous waste in 2008, a decrease of 8 per cent on 2007. The majority of the waste is produced from one waste/water treatment facility (94 per cent) on Teesside, and consists of organic chemical process waste. 2.4 million tonnes of hazardous waste was deposited in the region in 2008 (75 per cent of which was from the waste/water treatment facility mentioned above). The North East has two of the 17 permitted merchant hazardous waste landfills in England and Wales.

County Durham Municipal Solid Waste There was an overall 1.43% reduction of municipal waste arising in 2008/09 compared to 2007/08, showing a downward trend and an increase in the rate of reduction. The majority (59%) of municipal waste arisings during 2008/09 were delivered by Waste Collection Authorities with a further 21.6% originating from Household Waste Recycling Centres. There was a reduction of 9.25% in the percentage of municipal waste that was landfilled from the previous financial year (2007/08) while the amount of municipal waste that was recycled or re- used increased by 23.9% from the previous year. There was a total decline of 100% from the previous year in the amount of municipal waste being managed by digestion. This is due to the digester currently being inactive. In overall terms however, landfill remained the dominant form of waste management accounting for 68% of all municipal waste, with recycling / re-use accounting for a further 31.4% of municipal waste.

Site Inputs and Capacity Additional transfer, waste recovery and green composting capacity is being added which will expand the County’s ability to recover greater volumes of waste, in accordance with policy aims. During 2008/9 facilities were granted planning permission for a range of waste recovery facilities and with a total permitted new capacity of over 250,000 tonnes per annum, (details set out in Appendix 4).

During 2008 landfill facilities in County Durham accepted a total of 968,000 tonnes of waste and had an estimated remaining capacity of over 13 million m3, over 8.6 million m3 of which was licensed for non-hazardous waste. Inputs to waste transfer stations during 2008 totalled 455,088 tonnes, whilst inputs to treatment plants, including materials recovery amounted to 323,061 tonnes.

At March 2009 in County Durham there were: 7 operational landfill sites11 15 operational Household Waste Recycling Centres; 29 operational transfer stations / recycling facilities; 6 operational composting and digestion facilities; and 4 incinerators (managing animal waste from off-site sources).

11 There are 8 landfills, however one is a site operated by Northumbrian Water on an occasional basis. It is not considered capacity as part of this exercise.

3.4 Waste arisings

Quality of data 3.18 The quality, reliability and detail of waste data for controlled waste streams varies considerably. Data on Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) is monitored in detail on a regular basis and good quality data is available. Data on commercial and industrial waste (C&I) is less well documented. Occasional surveys are undertaken and national estimates are produced. Construction and Demolition waste (C&D) is poorly understood. Periodic surveys are undertaken (the most recent in 2005). A large and growing proportion of C&D waste is re-used or recycled on site and does not therefore enter the waste stream. Data on Hazardous waste is relatively precise, reported through the Environment Agency’s Special Waste Tracking database which holds information on arisings, movements and treatment / disposal of hazardous waste. Agricultural Waste only became classed as a controlled waste in 2006, and data is poor, although it is hoped that estimates of the controlled element will be improved in the coming years.

Forecast waste arisings for each waste type 3.19 The CLG Companion Guide to PPS10 provides valuable advice on forecasting waste data for different waste streams. http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/planningandbuilding/pdf/150805.pdf

3.20 The guide recognises that data for waste streams other than MSW is poor, but emphasises that there are similar factors that are likely to influence waste arisings, such as the landfill tax and its escalator, which makes it increasingly cost-effective to minimise, re-use or recycle commercial and industrial and construction and demolition wastes, and the effect of the Aggregates Levy, which encourages re-use of the latter stream. There is also the impact of, inter alia, producer responsibility measures such as the Packaging, ELV and Batteries Directives and of integrated product policy initiatives to be considered. Similarly, the Landfill (England and Wales) Regulations require pre- treatment and encourage diversion whilst the changes to the Hazardous Waste List have resulted in an increasing proportion of these streams being classified as hazardous and the costs of disposal of hazardous waste increasing. These influences result in a similar encouragement to minimise, reuse or recycle waste.

3.21 The Guide advises that although continued economic growth will tend to lead to increases in waste arisings, (a result of greater activity in the provision of goods and services all of which will produce waste), the correlation need not be linear because the instruments mentioned above are largely acting to break the link between growth and waste arisings. This is now an explicit policy aim in Waste Strategy 2007.

Growth Scenarios 3.22 Assumptions must be made for further growth, or otherwise, for different waste streams and projections will vary according to the waste stream being considered. Key assumptions were made in setting sub-regional waste apportionment in the RSS (Policy 46), for MSW and C&I waste. 3.5 Waste Management Facilities in County Durham

3.23 This section aims to set out the current position on waste management facilities in County Durham. Data on waste capacity, movements and deposits is notoriously difficult to collect, and provide. Although the picture is improving, largely as a result of the Environment Agency now providing some data on a more systematic basis, it remains an unreliable picture in many areas. This paper does however attempt to set out as accurate a statement as possible, given the gaps in the data. Where gaps exist, this is highlighted. Where licensed capacity information is available this is set out. (It is understood however that Environment Agency data on licensed capacity is based on licence charging bands which may not reflect precise capacity for each site).

3.24 It is clear that County Durham already has an extensive network of waste management facilities covering a wide range of waste types. Whereas until recently the bulk of the County’s waste management centred on landfill, changes in policy and economics are resulting in a marked shift away from landfill and towards facilities providing greater capacity for recycling and recovery of waste. This process has begun and capacity for the recovery of waste is continuing to come on stream. Yet it is clear that significant capacity will be needed to manage future waste arisings, especially if we are to meet increasingly stringent targets for recycling, recovery, and the diversion of waste away from landfill, and for waste management to contribute to the wider programme to tackle climate change and contribute to renewable energy generation where this is appropriate.

3.6 Waste Deposit and throughput data

Household Waste Recycling Centres 3.25 County Durham has 15 Household Waste Recycling Centres (HWRC) (formerly known as ‘Civic Amenity Sites’). These Centres are provided for the County’s residents to recycle or dispose of their household waste (see appendix 3).

Table 4: HWRC Capacity Waste Type Number of Sites Total Capacity Household Waste Recycling Centre 15 157,458 tonnes per annum Source: DCC 2009.

3.26 Existing HWRC’s have a significant capacity to receive waste for onward transfer. It should be noted that in practice existing licensed capacity is not a fundamental constraint. Many of the older facilities have a licensed capacity of 4,999 tonnes whereas more recent sites or sites where the license has been reviewed have a licensed capacity of up to 24,999 tonnes per annum. Table 5 sets out the quantities of waste received at each of the HWRCs over the two financial years 2007/08 and 2008/09. The table clearly indicates the spatial distribution in both the quantity of waste delivered to HWRCs and levels of recyclable waste. In total 59,460.61 tonnes was delivered to HWRCs in 2008/09.

Table 5: HWRC overall tonnages 2007/2008, and 2008/2009 Site HWRC Site Financial Year no. 2007/2008 2008/2009 1 Annfield Plain Total Waste 4311.31 4206.40 Total recycled 2251.67 2207.05 % Recycled 52.23% 52.47 2 Brooms Dene, Leadgate Total Waste 5535.80 5627.30 Total recycled 2015.72 1950.03 % Recycled 36.41% 34.65 3 Coxhoe Total Waste 4136.00 4149.42 Total recycled 2286.35 2343.28 % Recycled 55.28% 56.47 4 Cragwood Total Waste 1980.94 1934.86 Total recycled 457.78 427.40 % Recycled 23.11% 22.09 5 Heighington Lane Transfer Total Waste 4861.3 4184.02 Station Total recycled 3174.32 2563.67 % Recycled 65.3% 61.27 6 Hett Hills, Chester le Street Total Waste 7044.26 7399.14 Total recycled 2100.49 2157.46 % Recycled 29.82% 29.16 7 Horden Total Waste 3630.24 3056.69 Total recycled 2343.58 2121.99 % Recycled 64.56% 69.42 8 Mickleton Total Waste 689.15 618.82 Total recycled 14.52 12.46 % Recycled 2.11% 2.01 9 Potterhouse Total Waste 7730.76 6381.52 Total recycled 4616.7 4145.74 % Recycled 59.72% 64.96 10 Romanway Total Waste 3897.03 4734.86 Total recycled 1467.37 2947.49 % Recycled 37.65% 62.25 11 Stainton Grove Total Waste 1550.19 1363.66 Total recycled 48.40 22.24 % Recycled 3.12% 1.63 12 Strangford Road, Seaham Total Waste 4321.73 4319.08 Total recycled 2760.93 2677.92 % Recycled 63.88% 62.00 13 Thornley Total Waste 3030.23 2818.04 Total recycled 1905.53 1779.94 % Recycled 62.88% 63.16 14 Scoby Scaur, Newfield Total Waste 4514.29 4088.19 (Todhills) Total recycled 2477.69 2206.05 % Recycled 54.89% 53.96 15 Tudhoe Total Waste 5004.58 4578.61 Total recycled 2793.15 2647.38 % Recycled 55.81% 57.82 Total Waste delivered to HWRC 62,237.81 59,460.61 Source: DCC, 2009. Note: Browns Houses now closed but is included in the table to reflect tonnages delivered in earlier years

24 Figure 2: Location of Household Waste Recycling Centres in County Durham

Stanley - Consett Chester-le-Street 2 6 1 Seaham 12

Durham City 7 Peterlee

Stanhope 13

3 Crook 15 Spennymoor 14

Bishop Auckland

10 Shildon Middleton-in-Teesdale Newton Aycliffe 4 8 5

Legend 11 Barnard Castle County Boundary Main Towns County Roads Settlements

010205 Kilometers ") HWRC

3.27 Table 6 shows overall tonnages delivered to HWRC’s in 2008/09 and percentages recycled at each site. The evidence indicates an adequate spread of provision of HWRC’s across the County. Future issues which may need to be addressed are related to quality (possibly expansion of certain facilities in order to provide additional capacity to provide the required array of recyclable materials), and in some cases, whether existing sites are in a suitable location or have a permanent planning permission (for example locating permanent facilities to serve Consett and Weardale).

3.28 In addition to HWRC’s, other, smaller household recycling sites (usually located in supermarket car parks, village hall car parks, etc) are provided which make a contribution to household waste recycling.

Table 6: HOUSEHOLD WASTE RECYCLING CENTRES (HWRC's): OVERALL TONNAGES; 2008-09 BY DISTRICT

A Derwentside Chester Wear Valley Durham Easington Teesdale Sedgefield

way Total Total wood HLTS Crag - A'plain A'plain B'dene Roman Horden Tudhoe Tudhoe Coxhoe Coxhoe S.Scaur Seaham P'house P'house Midd'ton Midd'ton St.Grove Thornley Thornley Hett Hills B' Houses

TYRES 15.48 41.68 33.94 0.00 23.16 26.30 25.88 26.96 15.58 20.54 29.38 3.46 0.00 0.00 11.48 20.98 294.82 S/Rubble 1021.98 1052.78 1069.48 0.00 1325.86 1206.42 1161.48 1232.68 1136.82 1481.58 998.15 350.76 0.00 0.00 1074.38 1293.40 14405.77 Green 638.26 624.53 902.52 0.00 917.98 552.29 642.68 1999.24 453.12 406.76 356.68 0.00 0.00 0.00 798.66 829.12 9121.84 Other 306.31 162.83 85.42 0.00 397.46 121.65 258.73 744.83 239.86 352.79 174.31 59.18 12.23 21.52 357.29 316.04 3610.45 Fridges 35.16 47.25 41.58 0.00 22.37 27.14 18.81 34.43 10.71 19.49 42.53 14.00 0.23 0.72 39.56 19.08 373.06 Wood** 189.86 20.96 24.52 0.00 260.66 272.25 235.70 107.60 265.90 396.76 178.89 0.00 0.00 0.00 282.30 168.76 2404.16 sub total 2207.05 1950.03 2157.46 0.00 2947.49 2206.05 2343.28 4145.74 2121.99 2677.92 1779.94 427.40 12.46 22.24 2563.67 2647.38 30210.10 rej.wood 0.00 28.32 17.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 9.86 4.50 8.46 2.52 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.88 73.84 T/Fer 1967.05 658.39 480.14 0.00 105.48 153.70 1.08 114.96 46.48 83.36 892.54 70.96 561.28 195.30 1551.39 97.32 6979.43 L/Fill 32.30 2990.56 4744.24 0.00 1681.89 1728.44 1805.06 2110.96 883.72 1549.34 143.04 1436.50 45.08 1146.12 68.96 1831.03 22197.24 4206.40 5627.30 7399.14 0.00 4734.86 4088.19 4149.42 6381.52 3056.69 4319.08 2818.04 1934.86 618.82 1363.66 4184.02 4578.61 59460.61 % all HWRC CA CA 0.00 HWRC HWRC HWRC HWRC HWRC HWRC HWRC CA CA CA HWRC HWRC recycled 52.47 34.65 29.16 0.00 62.25 53.96 56.47 64.96 69.42 62.00 63.16 22.09 2.01 1.63 61.27 57.82 Source: DCC Waste Management section, 2009 *eg.scrap metal,textiles,glass,paper etc * not including TV's **n.b Does not include 1144 tonnes 'Dirty Wood' + 808 tonnes other timber sent for recycling via Joint Stocks from various HWRC's

26 Waste Transfer Stations

3.29 There are 27 waste transfer stations (WTS) currently operating in County Durham12. Four of these (Annfield Plain WTS, Heighington Lane WTS, Stainton Grove WTS and Thornley WTS) are operated by Premier Waste Management, as the County Council’s contractor for managing Municipal Solid Waste. The remainder are licensed to handle a range of other waste streams. Transfer stations play an important role. In many cases they facilitate the recovery of recyclable materials from the incoming waste stream and the bulking up and onward transfer of materials from kerbside collections (e.g. glass, plastic, paper and cardboard, metal cans, soils, and rubble). Appendix 3 provides a detailed breakdown of each facility by waste type (in accordance with Environment Agency Waste categories) and details the capacity of each site.

Table 7: Waste Transfer Station Capacity (by waste type) Waste Type No. of Sites Total Capacity (tonnes per annum) Special Waste 1 1,600 Household, Commercial & Industrial Waste 16 1,059,4641 Transfer Station Clinical Waste Transfer Station 4 33,1832 Transfer Station taking Non-Biodegradable 6 233,496 Wastes Overall Capacity 1,327,743 Source: DCC 2009. Notes: 1Includes capacity of Transfer and MBT at Aycliffe. 2 Total capacity figure for 3 of the 4 sites only (capacity for Harmire Road not included as it is only for the company itself).

Figure 3: Location of Waste Transfer Stations

Stanley - Consett Chester-le-Street

Seaham

Durham City Peterlee

Stanhope

Crook Spennymoor

Bishop Auckland

Shildon Middleton-in-Teesdale Newton Aycliffe

Barnard Castle Legend County Boundary " Special Waste Transfer Station Main Towns " Hhold / Ind / Comm Waste Trasnfer Station Principle Roads " Clinical Waste Transfer Station " Household Waste Amenity Site (HWRC) " Non - Bio Transfer Station 010205 Kilometers

12 28 are listed in Appendix 3. One is not yet implemented.

3.30 Four Waste Transfer Stations operate under the current MSW contract, licensed for a mixture of household, commercial and industrial wastes. Information on waste received for these four sites, is set out in Table 8 below.

Table 8: Waste received at Waste Transfer Stations operated under MSW contract, 2008 Site Name Hazardous Hhold/Ind/Com Inert/C+D Annfield Plain Waste Transfer Station 245 75,659 63 Stainton Grove Waste Transfer Station 6,939 Thornley Waste Transfer Station 369 60,676 0.58 Heighington Lane Waste Transfer Station 340 75,562 60 Total by waste type 954 218,836 124 Overall Total 219,914 Source: Environment Agency 2009 (National Waste Interrogator 2008).

Information on waste received at the other Waste Transfer Stations in 2008 is set out in table 9.

Table 9: Waste received private Waste Transfer Stations 2008 Site Name Operator Hazardous Hhold/Ind/Com Inert/C+D Chilton Depot, Chilton Durham County Council 1,315 1,336 816 Industrial Estate Constantine Farm, Crook W Marley Agricultural Contractors 16.5 165 1,379 Ltd Dragonville Transfer Station Durham County Council 1,313 729 Durham Waste Management Veolia/Cleanaway Ltd 669 160 0.7 Centre, Garmondsway George Street Transfer James Dent 1,665 Station Morrison Busty Depot Durham County Council 159 1,632 Sharpsmart Daniels Corporation International 207 Ltd Shildon Transfer Station & R & H Tomlinson Ltd 3,329 3,923 24,238 Recycling Facility St John's Road Transfer Durham County Council - Service 3.5 12.5 6,130 Station Direct Stewart Storey Transfer Stewart Storey 2,522 7,549 Station Tanfield Brickworks Transfer Coltons 25 686 37,578 Station Tonks Recycling J Tonks ( Transport ) Ltd 272 14,759 Waste Management Site Dekura Ltd 11,196 Waste Management Site Foreman Recycling Ltd 32,660 Waste Management Site Personnel Hygiene Services Ltd 45 370 Waste Management Site Ward Bros Plant Hire Ltd 289 21,974 Total by waste type 6,923 42,555 129,646 Overall Total 179,124 Source: Environment Agency 2009 (National Waste Interrogator 2008).

3.31 Information from the Environment Agency indicates that in total during 2008 399,03813 tonnes of waste where received by waste transfer stations in County Durham. 219,914 tonnes was received by the four sites operated under the MSW contract and 179,124 tonnes was received by the sites operated privately. Of this waste 7,877 tonnes was categorised as hazardous waste, 261,391 tonnes was categorised as household, commercial and industrial waste and 129,770 tonnes was categorised as inert and

13 This figure differs from the total figure for transfers of 455,088 tonnes obtained from EA Waste Interrogator 2008. This is due to the way that EA have classified sites. More sites in the County are classified as transfers in the EA lists, however not all of the transfers in Appendix 3 are included in EA lists.

28 construction and demolition waste. Please note that a number of the sites listed in Appendix 3 are not included on the above table. Accordingly the throughput of the County’s Waste Transfer Stations may be higher. The County Council will seek clarification on this issue from the Environment Agency. Table 10 shows how waste from waste transfer stations was managed in 2008.

Table 10: Waste Transfer facilities in County Durham: Fate of waste removed from transfer stations 2008. (All waste in tonnes) Incinerator Landfill Recycling Reprocessing Transfer Station Treatment Unknown Total Waste Transfer Station fate (all sites) 608 213,585 75,765 50,702 7,423 44,500 2,338 394,921 Source: Environment Agency 2009 (National Waste Interrogator 2008).

Data Gap: Information received from the Environment Agency on waste transfer station throughput and fate may be incomplete. The Environment Agency will be requested to provide information on all waste transfer stations set out in Appendix 3.

Recycling/Materials Recovery Facilities

3.32 Joint Stocks Quarry is the largest recycling/recovery facility in the County, with a total licensed capacity of 625,000 tonnes per annum. It is operated by Premier Waste Management. This site recycles/recovers a range of waste types, such as timber and aggregates facility and including waste managed under the County Durham municipal waste management contract. An additional facility, at Tursdale Business Park, operated until March 2009 by Green Cycle14 in association with the collection of kerbside waste from the former Chester-le-Street, Durham City, Derwentside, Easington and Sedgefield Councils. This contract has recently been taken ‘in house’ and the Tursdale site is not currently operational. Until the future of this site is resolved operations associated with this site will be undertaken at other facilities operated under the contract. The Tursdale facility has a licensed capacity of 50,000 tonnes per annum.

3.33 Materials recovery/recycling facilities also operate at the Hackworth Industrial Estate, Conservation Centre Deepdale, Tanfield Lea Industrial Estate, and Thornley Station Industrial Estate, with a combined licensed capacity of almost 62,000 tonnes per annum.

3.34 Aggregates are currently recycled at a number of mineral sites including at Thrislington and Old Quarrington Quarries. The total licensed capacity at these sites is 175,000 tonnes. The aggregates recycling facility at Kilmondwood Quarry, Bowes is currently mothballed.

3.35 Information published in the NERAWP Annual Aggregates Monitoring Report for 2007 indicates that in 2007 55,208 tonnes of secondary aggregates were produced in County Durham. However, limitations of the survey may mean that this figure under-represents the level of secondary aggregates recycling. In addition where development occurs on brown field sites a significant quantity of aggregates is understood to be recycled on- site. No information is available to enable the scale of these recycling operations to be identified.

14 The Green Cycle site located at Tursdale Business Park accepted paper, cardboard, cans and plastics. The majority of the recyclate was sent for processing at recycling facilities in the UK with the remainder being exported around Europe and Asia.

29 3.36 Detailed information on the production of alternative materials (recycled material used in place of primary aggregates) derived from the four yearly survey undertaken by CLG is set out in the Minerals Technical Paper. Please note this information provides information for County Durham combined with the Tees Valley sub-region.

Link to Minerals Technical Paper

Table 11: Recycling / Materials Recovery Facilities Waste Type No of Sites Total Capacity (tonnes per annum) Materials Recycling and Recovery Facility 2 675,000 Materials Recovery Facility (private) 4 61,944 Aggregates Recycling Facilities (Quarries)1 3 195,000 Source: DCC 2009. 1 The three quarries are included in the capacity calculations, despite the facilities at Kilmondwood being mothballed. Other Inert/C&D recycling capacity is included under transfers and recycling and is explained in Appendix 8.

Metal Recycling Facilities

3.37 Metal recycling facilities cover a range of operations often termed ‘scrap yards’, ‘car breaking’ or ‘End of life vehicle facilities’, (ELVs). Such operations are all carried out at private facilities, predominantly on a small scale, although collectively they play an important role in recovering valuable recyclable materials from the waste stream.

Table 12: Metal Recycling Facilities Capacity by waste type Waste Type No of Total Capacity Sites (tonnes per annum) Overall Capacity (including Mixed Metal Recycling 33 507,623 Sites and ELV/Vehicle Dismantlers) Source: DCC 2009.

3.38 Available information indicates that there is a total capacity of 507,623 tonnes per annum for this waste stream at a variety of facilties, both ELV and MRS sites (see Appendix 3).The location of these facilities is set out on figure 4 below.

3.39 Information from the Environment Agency indicates that in total during 2008 22,971 tonnes of waste was received by metal recycling facilities in County Durham. Waste fate information for this waste is also set out below. However, a number of the sites listed in Appendix 3 are not included on the above table. Accordingly the total throughput of the County’s metal recycling facilities is likely to be higher. There are discrepancies, however, between the categories in the EA data and what the sites are understood to undertake. Clarification on this issue is being sought from the Environment Agency.

Table 13: Metal Recycling Facilities: Quantities of waste received 2008 Hazardous Hhold/Ind/Com Inert/C+D Total Metal Recycling Facilities waste received 5,012 13,501 4,458. 22,971 Source: Environment Agency 2009 (National Waste Interrogator 2008).

Table 14: Metal Recycling Facilities: Waste Fate 2008 Transfer Treatment Landfill Recycling Reprocessing Station Unknown Total Metal Recycling 2.5 1.1 Facilities waste fate 1,458 73,614 72 4,129 79,277 Source: Environment Agency 2009 (National Waste Interrogator 2008).

Data Gap: Information received from the Environment Agency on waste received and waste fate for this waste stream may be incomplete. The Environment Agency will be requested to provide information on all metal recycling facilities set out in Appendix 3.

Figure 4: Location of Metal Recycling Facilities in County Durham

"4"32 4

Stanley Chester-le-Street Consett "25 10" " 133 27 12 17 "" " Seaham " " " "18

"24

Durham City 1 " 19 " Peterlee "33 Stanhope "26 "23 "11

30""6 "28 Crook Spennymoor "31 "8

"7 Bishop Auckland "14 29 " Shildon 9 Middleton-in-Teesdale " "22 Newton Aycliffe

Barnard Castle Legend County Boundary Main Towns County Roads 06123 Kilometers " Vehicle Dismantler & Mixed MRS's Source: Environment Agency

Composting and Mechanical and Biological Treatment facilities

3.40 The category includes a range of treatment technologies which seek to treat and divert waste from landfill. It includes mechanical and biological treatment facilities, aerobic and anaerobic digesters and traditional open windrows composting (see appendix 3 for site details).

3.41 Planning permission is held at two sites for aerobic digesters (managed by Premier Waste Management). The Thornley plant (licensed capacity 80,000 tonnes per annum) is currently inactive, pending the resolution of operational issues, whilst the facility at Tursdale (licensed capacity 80,000 tonnes per annum), is yet to be constructed and the permission is unlikely to be implemented at least until the wider MSW waste management contract is resolved. Together these plants were intended to process and recover a significant proportion of the County’s Municipal Solid Waste.

3.42 Six windrow composting sites have planning permission. The main facility operated in the County under the contract is Joint Stocks Quarry (licensed capacity 175,000 tonnes

31 per annum15). In addition a site at Todhills Landfill Site (Scoby Scaur) (estimated capacity 4,000-5,000 tonnes per annum) was permitted during 2008, for a temporary five year period and is intended to provide increased capacity for the composting of green waste, whilst Joint Stocks Quarry is at full capacity and manages a large influx of material over the summer months. Additional capacity is provided at four private composting operations, located at Bunker Hill Farm, Leadgate (licensed capacity 2,000 tonnes pa), Junction House Farm (3,000 tpa), Murton Hall Farm (30,000 tpa), and Todhills Farm (11,220 tpa).

3.43 Planning permission is also held for an on-farm anaerobic digester at Quarrington Farm to process agricultural manure, agricultural crops and commercial food waste, with an expected throughput of around 10,000 tonnes per annum. The process would result in the production of 8,000 tonnes of organic fertiliser and supply of 500kw of electricity for the National Grid.

3.44 In November 2008 planning permission was granted for a mechanical and biological treatment (MBT) plant and extension to waste transfer station at Aycliffe Quarry. The MBT plant is specifically tied to the contract to treat Darlington Borough Council’s Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) waste and would primarily process residual MSW, although the system could also be used to treat and process other biodegradable industrial and commercial waste fractions, or green waste. The process has potential to reduce landfill volumes by up to 50%. The MBT plant is designed to handle approximately 160,000 tonnes of waste per annum.

3.45 There is one biological treatment facility in the County at Blue House Farm, with a licensed capacity of 364,000 tonnes. In 2007 this facility received 11,738.7 tonnes of waste.

Table 15: Composting and Mechanical and Biological Treatment facilities Waste Type No. of Sites Total Capacity (tonnes per annum) Aerobic Digesters 2 160,000 tonnes (inactive)1 Anaerobic Digester 1 10,000 tonnes (inactive) Composting 6 226,220 tonnes per annum2 Mechanical & Biological Treatment 1 160,000 tonnes per annum Biological Treatment 1 364,000 tonnes per annum3 Source: DCC 2009. Notes: 1Licenced capacity is 80,000 for each. Full capacity included here. Capacity gap calculations assume a 60% efficiency rate. 2Todhills Landfill Site/Scoby Scaur inactive. Joint Stocks assumed to be 175,000tpa and Aycliffe Quarry not included as counted here as full capacity including MBT 3 Total Capacity excludes capacity at Horden minewater pollution facility and is not included in capacity gap calculations.

Incinerators

3.46 Five incinerators currently operate in County Durham, all managing animal waste. They are located at Eden Hall, Hamsterley, Sedgefield Industrial Estate, Newton Aycliffe, Langley Park and Aycliffe Industrial Park (see Appendix 3). All operate on a relatively small scale and none of these sites currently incorporate energy recovery.

Table 16: Incinerators operating in County Durham (animal waste) Waste Type No of Sites Total Capacity (tonnes per annum) Incinerator (A18) 5 10,719 tonnes per annum, (+ 50kg per hour at fifth site). Source: DCC, 2009.

15 It is understood that Joint Stocks Recycling facility full licensed capacity for Inert wastes is 450,000 tonnes. The remainder of the capacity relates to the composting activities carried out (175,000 tonnes). This agrees with the figures which we have assumed in Appendix 8 based upon waste returns, and agrees with the licensed capacity for the whole facility of 625,000tpa.

32 Landfill Sites

3.47 Through the implementation of the EU Landfill Directive, all landfill sites are now classified into three main types: o hazardous waste; o non-hazardous waste; and o inert waste.

3.48 It is now illegal to accept hazardous and non-hazardous waste for disposal in the same site. Operators of non-hazardous landfills can apply for a permit to accept stable, non- reactive hazardous waste (SNRHW), (e.g. asbestos) provided it is deposited in separate, suitably engineered ‘mono-cells’.

3.49 There are 7 remaining operational landfill sites in County Durham. Of these, Joint Stocks Quarry, operated by Premier Waste Management, is currently licensed to accept non-hazardous waste and operates as the sole remaining landfill facility in County Durham to accept MSW under the County Council’s current MSW contract. The remaining licensed landfill facilities accept non MSW waste streams, principally Non- hazardous (industrial and commercial) wastes, and inert waste. Hazardous waste landfill capacity is limited to single cells licensed for Stable Non Reactive Hazardous Wastes as a small part of a larger facility. Appendix 3 provides a detailed breakdown of each landfill sites by waste type in accordance with Environment Agency Waste categories and details the annual licensed capacity of each site.

Table 17: Landfill Site Capacity by waste type Waste Type No of Sites Total Capacity (includes inactive) (tonnes per annum) Other landfill taking Special Waste 1 141,440 Household, Commercial & Industrial Waste Landfill 2 374,999 Landfill taking non-Biodegradable Wastes 3 510,999 Landfill taking other wastes 4 609,520 Overall annual capacity n/a 1,636,958 Source: DCC 2009. Note ‘no. of sites’ and ‘capacity’ include several currently inactive sites. Sites in restoration or aftercare have been excluded.

3.50 Most remaining active sites are former mineral sites utilising voids created by mineral working with landfill acting as a means of reinstatement and restoration. Four of these licensed landfills also remain as currently active mineral sites. One site, at Barford Camp near Barnard Castle, operates as a landraising /site reclamation site (see Appendix 3). Two other sites are operated by Northumbrian Water Limited to accept water treatment residues.

3.51 A key constraint on future landfill and landraise activity is the water environment including in particular groundwater. The East Durham Limestone Plateau is a major aquifer upon which the Environment Agency has designated groundwater source protection zones. This is discussed in more detail in Section 3.16.

Link to Water Technical Paper

33 Figure 5: Landfill Sites in County Durham (showing groundwater constraints)

Stanley - Consett Chester-le-Street

Seaham

Durham City 4 3 Peterlee Stanhope

2 6

5 Crook 7 Spennymoor

Bishop Auckland

Shildon Middleton-in-Teesdale Newton Aycliffe

1 2 Legend Barnard Castle County Boundary SPZ Main Towns 1 Principle Roads 2 " Landfill 3 MajorAquifer 010205 Kilometers " Water Treatment

Landfill Inputs 3.52 Information has been provided by the Environment Agency to show landfill deposits by site type, waste type and sub-region from 2000/01 to 2007. (NB Landfill site classifications changed in 2005 following the implementation of the Landfill Directive).

3.53 Whereas for the North East as a whole deposits show no apparent fall (recorded deposits being 4.5 million tonnes in 2000/01 and 4.7 million tonnes in 2007), in contrast, the available information shows the landfill deposits in County Durham are falling. In 2000/01 landfill deposits were nearly 2.2 million tonnes and deposits over the last three years have fallen from nearly 1.8 million tonnes in 2005 to under 1 million tonnes in 2008.

3.54 Table 18 below provides landfill deposit information by site type for County Durham and the North East. This information is shown diagrammatically by Figure 6.

Table 18: Landfill deposits for County Durham and North East Region (000s) County North East Co- Non- Inert Restricted Durham Region Disposal Inert only User Total Total 2000/01 1425 418 293 42 2178 4542 2002/03 1026 410 16 1452 3821 2003/04 No data reported 2004/05 142 1309 1 1452 4402 2005 1308 473 1781 5038 2006 969 440 1409 4846 2007 751 538 1289 4731 2008 516 452 968 3650 Source: Environment Agency North East waste deposit trends 08 (EA website).

34 Figure 6 Landfill deposits in County Durham and North East Region 2000 to 2008 (000s tonnes)

6000 Co-Disposal 5000 Non-Inert 4000

3000 Inert only

2000 Restricted User

1000 County Durham Total

0 North East Region 1 6 8 /0 0 0 Total 0 0 0 2005 20 2007 2 2 2002/03 2004/05

Source: Environment Agency North East waste deposit trends. (NB. No data reported in 2003/04; No co-disposal data collected after 2002/3; No breakdown of data reported for inert waste between 2002-03 and 2004-5)

3.55 The Environment Agency has also provided detailed information by waste type for 2008.

Table 19: Deposits to landfill in the North East Region - 2008 showing distribution of waste types by waste planning authority Landfill Deposits Waste types (absolute values) Deposit WPA Hazardous Hhold/Ind/Com Inert/C+D Grand Total County Durham 1,102 220,365 746,122 967,589 Gateshead 335,498194,380 529,878 Hartlepool 35,873 39,197126,666 201,736 Northumberland 356,956267,724 624,680 Redcar and Cleveland 102,961 74,190 4,332 181,483 South Tyneside 418 226,381 226,799 Stockton-on-Tees 75,499. 303,021 67,978 446,498 Sunderland 193,632 277,865 471,497 Grand Total 215,435 1,523,277 1,911,448 3,650,160 Deposit WPA Waste types (percent of regional totals) County Durham 0.5% 14.5% 39% 26.5% Gateshead 0% 22%10% 14.5% Hartlepool 16.7% 2.6%6.6% 5.5% Northumberland 0% 23.4% 14% 17% Redcar and Cleveland 47.8% 4.9% 0.2% 4.9% South Tyneside 0% 0.02% 11.8% 6.2% Stockton-on-Tees 35% 19.9% 3.6% 12.2% Sunderland 0% 12.7%14.5% 12.9% Source: Environment Agency 2009.

35 Landfill Deposits - Site Level 3.56 Information from the Environment Agency’s Waste Interrogator Tool which shows landfill deposits by site in 2008 in accordance with EU Landfill Directive classification of sites (see Table 20).

Table 20: Landfill Deposits at County Durham facilities 2008 (tonnes) Site Name Operator Hazardous Hhold/Ind/Com Inert/C+D Crime Rigg Quarry Sherburn Stone Co 167,877 Joint Stocks Phase Premier Waste 172,993 104,473 2 Management Old Quarrington Tarmac Ltd 1,591 148,085 Quarry Landfill Aycliffe Quarry Stonegrave 1,102 45,455 20,404 Landfill Aggregates Ltd Bishop Middleham W & M Thompson 302,182 Quarry 2 (Quarries) Ltd Lowfield Farm Ward Bros Plant Hire 3,100 Wearhead Water Northumbrian Water 326 Treatment Ltd Total 1,102 220,365 746,121 Overall Total 967,588 Source: Environment Agency Waste Interrogator 2008

Remaining Void Space at Landfill Sites 3.57 Information provided by the Environment Agency shows annual landfill void capacity from 1998/99 and remaining landfill void capacity at the end of 2008, on a sub regional basis for the north east region.

3.58 In total County Durham had a remaining capacity of 13.028 million cubic metres (13.5 million tonnes) of landfill void space at the end of 2008. This is equivalent to 26.3% of the remaining capacity in the North East of England and 2% of the remaining capacity in England and Wales. 66.3% of the remaining void space is categorised as non-inert, which includes non hazardous waste, including some sites which can accept some stable non reactive hazardous waste into a dedicated cell (usually a small part of the overall capacity of the site). The remaining available void space is categorised as inert. Landfill capacity trends since 1998/99 are set out in the line graphs in Figures 7 and 8.

36 Figure 7: Landfill Capacity Trends 1998/99 – 2008

Landfill Capacity Trends 1998/99 - 2008

80,000 70,000 60,000 50,000 Durham 40,000 30,000 North East 20,000 10,000 000s cubic metres 0

04 05 06 07 08 98/99 00/01 20 20 20 20 20 19 20 Year

Source: Data extracted from Environment Agency Landfill Capacity Trends Information 1998/99 to 2008, Environment Agency 2009.

Figure 8: Landfill Capacity in County Durham 1998/99 to 2008, by type

25,000

20,000 Inert 15,000 Non-Inert 10,000 Restricted User Total 5,000

9 8 /9 04 06 0 8 0 0 0 9 2 2 2 9 1

Source: Data extracted from Environment Agency Landfill Capacity Trends Information 1998/99 to 2008, Environment Agency 2009.

3.59 Table 21 below sets out information on remaining landfill capacity for the last four years for which data is available. Rather than demonstrating any smooth trend over time, the data shows no clear long term pattern for County Durham. There may be several reasons for this. The introduction of the Landfill Directive created a significant and immediate impact on capacity, as did the Hazardous Waste Directive. Notwithstanding this, the data shown is the best available. The EA has not carried out any direct survey of landfill capacity since 1997, relying instead on waste operators to supply data as part of their site licence returns. Operators can submit data in different ways, through surveys, mass balance calculations etc and this may explain some variations and inconsistencies.

Table 21: North East: Landfill Capacity: Trends 2005 - 2008 (000s cubic metres) Sub Region County Northumber Tees Valley Tyne North Year Site Type Durham land Authorities & Wear East Inert 2,461 584 - 4,061 7,106 2005 Non-Inert 10,393 5,418 20,174 13,051 49,037 Restricted User - - 17 - 17 2005 Total 12,854 6,002 20,191 17,112 56,159 Inert 4,175 392 - 3,834 8,402 2006 Non-Inert 16,048 5,419 26,537 12,261 60,265 Restricted User - - 13 - 13 2006 Total 20,223 5,811 26,550 16,095 68,679 Inert 4,569 14 - 3,516 8,099 2007 Non-Inert 9,544 5,930 18,740 10,983 45,197 Restricted User - - 11 - 11 2007 Total 14,113 5,944 18,751 14,500 53,308 Inert 4,384 - - 3,398 7,783 2008 Non-Inert 8,644 5,724 17,084 10, 324 41,775 Restricted User - - 10 - 10 2008 Total 13,028 5,724 17,094 13,722 49,568

Source: Environment Agency 2008.

3.60 The following table, Table 22 below, also shows the Environment Agency’s calculations of regional landfill capacity, including landfill life in years. This is useful information and supports our own calculations for landfill in County Durham, contained later in this paper.

Table 22: North East: Landfill Capacity & Life: Estimated Capacity at End of 2008 (000s cubic metres) Landfill Type North East Region Landfill capacity (for non haz wastes) 49,568 Landfill capacity (for merchant haz wastes) 6,234 Landfill Life (In Years) 9.6 Source: Environment Agency trends data and http://www.environment- agency.gov.uk/static/documents/Research/Waste_Information_2008_Final.pdf

3.61 Detailed information on landfill deposits for County Durham for 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008 is set out in Table 23 below. This information subdivides the non-inert capacity into a number of sub-categories of landfill, including non-hazardous and non-hazardous with a separate Stable Non-Reactive Hazardous Waste (SNRHW) cell. Using this information it is possible to estimate the life of remaining capacity by type. It is important to note however that the reliability of these calculations may be undermined by the data being based on four years deposit data and operator estimates of capacity, which may vary due to a range of factors including method of void space calculation and settlement of waste.

3.62 The table below uses two conversion factors to convert cubic metres into tonnes, one of 1.5 to 1 for inert and the other of 0.8 to 1 to try to give a more realistic estimate of capacity remaining at landfill sites in the County. This is because different types of waste have different qualities and hence settle differently. Biodegradable material may rot down or be compacted by further waste input, whereas most inert materials will generally be more robust.

38 3.63 We have therefore used the conversion factor of 0.8 tonnes to 1 cubic metre for Non hazardous (multiplying the amount by 0.8), as this classification will include the figures for domestic waste and commercial and industrial waste which will tend to rot down, even though these figures will also include some inert waste. The conversion factor for inert waste in the table is therefore 1.5 tonnes to 1 cubic metre (multiplying amount by 1.5). To calculate the years remaining, this is then divided by the average yearly deposit.

3.64 Moreover, we anticipate that as a result of both a clear policy direction and economics (primarily a result of the landfill tax), landfill will become a less attractive and more expensive waste management option, with the result that future annual inputs to landfill are likely to decrease year on year as additional waste is diverted from landfill. This may mean that the life of landfills may be far longer than anticipated on the basis of past and even current trends. In this way therefore, past trends may not provide an accurate indication of the future in respect of the need for future landfill capacity. This may be more marked for some landfill types rather than others. For example inert waste has not been subject to the same levels of landfill tax as other waste types but it is nevertheless a waste type which tends to be more readily recyclable and therefore we would expect inert landfill void trends to be on a similar trajectory.

3.65 The requirement to provide additional landfill capacity for MSW will depend heavily on the outcome of the MSW Waste Solutions Project process currently taking place. LATS allowances will not be the only determinant of the landfill requirement for the residual element of MSW. Increasing gate fees will make alternatives to landfill more attractive, irrespective of the ability to landfill volumes up to the LATS allowance and it may be that a far higher specification for waste recovery will be built into the new MSW contract on the basis of the respective gate fee of landfill against waste recovery. Until the outcome of the Waste Solutions Project process becomes clear however, it is not possible to establish future landfill requirement for MSW in this Technical Paper.

Table 23: County Durham Landfill Deposits 2005 to 2008 (000 tonnes), remaining capacity 2008 (M3) and estimated remaining life (years) of existing landfill sites at end of 2008. Landfill Deposits Deposits Deposits Deposits Total Average Remaining Estimated Type 2005 2006 2007 2008 Deposits annual Capacity remaining life 2005 to deposit 2008 in years at end 2008 of 2008 Hazardous ------Merchant Hazardous ------Restricted Non 1308 969 751 516 3,544 886 8,644 7.8 years Hazardous, (6,915t) (incl with SNRHW cells) Non ------Hazardous restricted Inert 473 440 538 452 1,903 476 4,384 13.8 years (6,576t) Total 1,782 1,409 1,289 968 5,447 1,362 13,028 (13,491t) Source: Deposits information 2005 to 2008, Environment Agency.

3.66 The County Council has requested information from the Environment Agency for landfill capacity data at a site level, both for sites in County Durham and in adjoining planning authorities in the North East and in Cumbria and North Yorkshire. However, despite historic site level information having been provided in the past, the Agency has until

39 recently not felt able to provide this information, for reasons of commercial confidentiality. The absence of such information seriously impairs the role as a waste planning authority, making it very difficult to plan to make provision for additional landfill capacity.

Table 23a: Landfill void by Waste Type (adapted from EA data for 2008, 2010) Waste Type Void Remaining at end 2008 (cubic Metres) Inert 4,384,476 Non-Inert (Non Hazardous 8,644,000 including SNRHW cell)1 1For reasons of commercial confidentiality, EA combine Non-Inert landfill capacity figures with the figures for the Stable Non-Reactive Hazardous Waste (SNRHW) cell.

Data Gap: The Environment Agency has provided landfill capacity data at the site level for County Durham, which is very useful. . Without detailed information specifying the remaining void space of individual sites it would be difficult for the Council to assess need for new landfill or landraise sites. It is difficult for the County Council to use the full detailed information, however, as it is commercially confidential. We still await detailed information on other adjoining authorities.

Throughput at Waste Management Facilities (2005 to 2008)

3.67 Table 24 sets out the overall waste throughput of waste management facilities in County Durham in 2008 together with comparable information for 2005, 2006 and 2007. However, the availability of only three years data may provide a less reliable basis to infer long term trends.

Table 24: Overall Waste Management Throughput (tonnes) by facility type in County Durham. Tonnes Tonnes Tonnes Tonnes received 2005 received 2006 received 2007 received 2008 Transfer (including Waste Transfer 421,0001 500,898 479,078 455,088 Stations and Household Waste Recycling Centres) Metal Recycling Facilities 22,0001 25,438 30,265 22,971 Treatment 242,0001 265,754 310,213 323,061 Landfill 1,782,000.001 1,409,134 1,289,316 967,588 Source: Environment Agency National Waste Interrogator 2006, 2007 and 2008 and EA website for 2005. Note 1 exact figure not known.

Waste Management Capacity

3.68 Tables 25, 26, 27, and 28 set out the overall licensed capacity of waste management facilities in County Durham. Table 25 Transfer No of Sites Total Capacity (tonnes per annum) Household Waste Recycling Centres 15 157,458 tonnes per annum Special Waste Transfer Stations 1 1,600 Household, Commercial & Industrial Waste 16 1,059,464 Transfer Station Clinical Waste Transfer Stations 4 33,183 Transfer Station taking Non-Biodegradable 6 273,548 Wastes Total Transfer Capacity 1,657,247

Table 26 Metal Recycling Sites No of Sites Total Capacity (tonnes per annum) Total MRS Capacity 33 507,623

Table 27 Treatment No of Sites Total Capacity (tonnes per annum) Materials Recycling and Recovery Facility 2 675,000 tonnes (MSW contract – Joint Stocks and Tursdale) Materials Recovery Facility (private) 4 61,944 tonnes Inert/Aggregates Recycling Facilities2 17 1,351,598 (estimated from EA received data 2008. Full details of the assumptions are included in Appendix 8). Also includes inactive sites. Aerobic Digesters 2 96,000 tonnes (inactive) Anaerobic Digester 1 10,000 tonnes (inactive) Composting 6 226,220 tonnes per annum (note Todhills Landfill Site (Scoby Scaur inactive). Mechanical and Biological Treatment 1 160,000 tonnes per annum Biological Treatment 1 364,000 tonnes per annum Incinerator 5 10,719 tonnes per annum, (+ 50kg per hour at fifth site). Total Treatment Capacity 39 2,591,481 tonnes per annum (does not include 364,000 for Blue House Farm)

Table 28 Landfill No of Sites Total Capacity (tonnes per annum) Other landfill taking Special Waste 1 141,440 Household, Commercial & Industrial Waste 2 374,999 Landfill Landfill taking non-Biodegradable Wastes 3 510,999 Landfill taking other wastes 5 609,520 Total Landfill Capacity per annum 1,636,958 Source: EA Licence data. Note: licensed capacity is commonly based on licence charging bands; therefore the capacity figure may over estimate the facilities’ potential to manage waste. 1195,000 from quarries. Capacities of other facilities which undertake C&D recycling are estimated from received figures and full details are contained in Appendix 8.

3.7 Managing Individual Waste Streams

3.69 For many people, including local authorities, Municipal Solid Waste has the highest profile of all waste streams for various reasons, primarily because it is produced by individual households and because local authorities are waste collection and disposal authorities with statutory responsibility for its management, as well as the problems it creates in landfills and its link to the consumption patterns of society as a whole. However, although MSW is a prominent waste stream, it is important to remember that other waste streams are more significant in terms of volume. For every tonne of household waste we produce, commercial, industrial and construction businesses produce another six tonnes.

41 Figure 9: Waste produced by sector in the UK, 2003

3.70 This Technical Paper will look in turn at each waste stream, assess waste arisings, management, and set out projections and future management arrangements as far as is possible within current data and other constraints.

Municipal Solid Waste

3.71 Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) comprises predominantly household waste but also includes an element of commercial waste that is collected by the Waste Collection Authority. The following tables show the volumes of MSW arising in County Durham in 2008/09 and how it was managed, and also set out the regional picture.

Table 29: Durham County Council: Municipal waste arisings, 2008/09 (tonnes)

Total Total Total Collected Civic Other residual Total Total Municipal household residual residual amenity site household residual residual Waste waste household household residual waste non- municipal waste waste waste household waste (including (household) waste household (including rejects) non- household rejects) 281,891 254,361 179,501 134,015 29,237 16,249 12,713 192,214

Table cont: Management of municipal waste, 2008/09 tonnes

Incineration with Incineration without Recycled/ 1 Landfill Other Total EfW EfW composted 192,087 72 - 89,677 1,617 283,453 Source: DEFRA.

42 Table 30: Management of municipal waste, 2008/09 (Local Authorities in North East Region) tonnes Authority Landfill Incineration Incineration Recycled/ Other Total1 with EfW without EfW composted Durham County Council 192,087 72 - 89,677 1,617 283,453 Stockton-on-Tees Borough 8,450 62,869 - 31,998 - 103,317 Council Redcar and Cleveland 1,597 41,202 - 27,895 4,353 75,048 Borough Council Middlesbrough Borough 8,652 45,715 - 22,753 - 77,120 Council Hartlepool Borough 4,473 29,059 - 19,769 26 53,328 Council Darlington Borough 41,621 - 2 24,591 0 66,214 Council Northumberland County 97,057 8,129 - 68,016 - 173,202 Council Sunderland City Council 110,185 - 4 39,023 9 149,221 South Tyneside MBC 61,246 1,901 - 22,946 - 86,093 North Tyneside Council 60,571 24,114 - 35,384 - 120,069 Newcastle-upon-Tyne City 103,476 - - 50,417 21,303 175,196 Council MBC Gateshead MBC 76,723 57 0 28,239 10 105,029 Source: DEFRA.

MSW Waste Arisings per head

3.72 In County Durham waste arisings per head averaged at 519kg per person in 2007, although there has been a gradual decrease in the amount produced per person. By comparison, each person in England generates 495kg of household waste per year (Defra statistical release 352/08), 5% less than the County average. To address this, the County Council has embarked on a waste minimisation programme, both within the County and as a regional partner (as outlined in Section 2).

Table 31: Household Waste Produced per person per year in County Durham Period Waste produced per head (kg) 2000-2001 555.0 2001-2002 521.0 2002-2003 568.0 2003-2004 560.5 2004-2005 575.3 2005-2006 534.1 2006-2007 526.3 2007-2008 519.1

MSW Waste Projections

3.73 The MSW Waste Solution Project has carried out detailed waste flow modelling for MSW arisings and projections to the end of the plan period and beyond. Since it is important to provide a shared evidence base and ensure that the LDF is fully integrated with the Municipal Waste Management Strategy, the projections used in the MSW project have been adopted in this Technical Paper and are set out as follows:

43 Baseline Waste Arising (2007/08) • 2007/08 is used as the baseline year for waste arisings • Data has been taken from WCA/WDA returns submitted to WasteDataFlow • Total municipal waste for 2007/08 is 291,282 tonnes, the breakdown of which is as follows; Table 32 Waste Stream Tonnes Total MSW 291,282 Total Household Waste 260,160 Total residual MSW 210,215 WCA residual 146,900 WCA recycling 48,570 HWRC residual 33,062 HWRC recycling 32,318 Trade residual 8,929 Trade recycling 645 Other residual MSW 21,324 Reuse 179

• 27% of municipal waste was recycled/composted or re-used in 2007/08 • 25% of household waste was recycled/composted or re-used in 2007/08

Waste Growth Assumptions

3.74 A range of scenarios for waste growth projections have been considered: • continue the historical change in municipal waste arisings; • no growth; • follow the current national trend; • a scenario that is based on the amount of waste generated per household and linked to predictions regarding future household growth. a. Historical Trends in Municipal Waste Arising 3.75 Over the last 11 years (period from 1996/97 to 2007/08) municipal waste arisings increased at an average annual rate of approximately 1% per annum and in recent years there is an indication that municipal waste growth may be declining. Over the last three years (2005/06 to 2007/08) waste reduced at an average annual rate of -1.6%. These trends are summarised in Table 33 below.

44 Table 33: Historical Trend 1996/97 to 2007/08 Year MSW16 % Change 1996/07 252,297 1997/08 266,753 5.7% 1998/09 266,769 0.0% 1999/00 284,437 6.6% 2000/01 288,224 1.3% 2001/02 304,875 5.8% 2002/03 317,442 4.1% 2003/04 322,533 1.6% 2004/05 330,292 2.4% 2005/06 295,386 -10.6% 2006/07 294,105 -0.4% 2007/08 286,009 -2.8% Average annual growth (11yrs) 1.1% Average annual growth (3yrs) -1.6% b. National Trend 3.76 Waste growth information available at a national level represents evidence of a declining rate in recent years. Information published by Defra in 200817 highlights an average annual municipal waste growth rate of minus 0.6% in the last five years. A similar decreasing trend is also replicated in County Durham’s waste arising figures (Table 31); however the likelihood of this declining trend continuing is uncertain. c. No Growth Scenario 3.77 A no growth scenario has been included to allow comparison. However, a pattern of no change in waste arisings is unlikely, given past trends showing evidence of either an increase or decrease. Neither does using a no growth scenario for forecasting allow for fluctuations in waste linked to seasonal, economic and demographic change and is not prudent when planning for new facility provision. d. Change in the number of households 3.78 Current demographic predictions for County Durham show increases in both population and households in the period up to 2031 and 2026 respectively. Together with the expectancy that household occupancy will decline, this suggests a likely increase in waste arising. In order to estimate the impact of household change on overall municipal waste arising it is necessary to also understand the amount of waste currently and historically being produced per household. 3.79 The historical trend in waste generated per household is considered in Table 33 (above). 3.80 It is important to note that there are different projections of household formation. Elsewhere in the Core Strategy, the County Council’s own projections have been used. For MSW however, the Council is obliged to use CLG’s projections for auditing purposes.

16 Source: DCCauditedMSW.xls 17 Municipal Waste Management Statistics 2007/08

Table 34: Trend in waste per household Household waste18 Households(4) Year t/hhd (tonnes) 2001/02 270,935 207,447 1.306 2002/03 282,811 206,875 1.367 2003/04 284,606 205,973 1.381 2004/05 292,509 205,722 1.421 2005/06 272,057 204,423 1.330 2006/07 269,821 207,489 1.300 2007/08 262,761 207,455 1.266 Average annual growth (6yrs) -0.51%

3.81 The average annual trend is a decrease in waste per household of approximately 0.5% over the six year period for which data is available. A peak in arising is seen in 2004/05 and since that period there has been a decline of just over 2% per annum. Current waste minimisation initiatives are predicted to yield continued reduction in waste growth up to 2019/20. Table 35: Housing Stock and Population Predictions19 Year Population Households 2008 500,096 208,613 2009 501,414 209,288 2010 502,566 209,989 2011 503,436 210,735 2012 504,532 212,627 2013 505,278 214,356 2014 506,082 216,522 2015 506,544 218,728 2016 507,005 221,037 2017 507,600 224,373 2018 509,102 228,455 2019 510,387 232,159 2020 512,055 235,510 2021 513,681 238,619 2022 514,635 241,497 2023 515,548 243,696 2024 516,061 245,041 2025 516,969 246,285 2026 517,886 246,827 2027 518,900 2028 520,072 2029 521,386 2030 522,845 2031 524,445 3.82 The trends in waste per household can be combined with predictions on the overall change in housing stock. Current estimates are provided in Table 35 and the annual percentage change plotted for comparison in Figure 10. By comparing the overall trend

18 Household waste calculated from DCCaudtedMSW.xls and deducting the proportion that is trade and rubble. 19 Source: DCC forecasts

46 in population and household change for the period over which data is available it is apparent that household numbers are growing at a rate higher than population growth. For the purposes of modelling it has been assumed that households will continue to grow at a rate of 0.5% beyond 2026. Figure 10 – Population and Household Trend

2.0%

1.5%

1.0%

0.5%

0.0%

4 5 6 7 3 4 5 6 03 22 002 021 2001 2 20 200 200 200 200 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2 20 202 202 202 202 2027 2028 2029 2030

-0.5%

-1.0% Age group total Household projections

3.83 The impact of using each of these scenarios for predicting waste growth is summarised in the following table and figure. Plotting these projections on a graph shows that the 11 year trend and the national average both represent the extremes of the prediction range. The no growth prediction assumes no change in the status quo. The scenario based on household change (scenario 4) represents the mid-range projection. Using the projection based on linking increases in the housing stock to the amount of waste produced per household represents a prudent assessment for modelling purposes and enables demographic change to be linked to household behaviour.

47 Table 36: Waste growth projections for the four scenarios, tonnes of MSW Scenario 4 – Scenario 1 - Scenario 2 - Scenario 3 – Growth in Number of Historical Trend No Growth National Average Households 2007/08 291,282 291,282 291,282 291,282 2008/09 294,632 291,282 289,534 291,401 2009/10 298,020 291,282 287,797 290,907 2010/11 301,447 291,282 286,070 290,444 2011/12 304,914 291,282 284,354 290,034 2012/13 308,420 291,282 282,648 291,326 2013/14 311,967 291,282 280,952 292,404 2014/15 315,555 291,282 279,266 294,270 2015/16 319,184 291,282 277,591 296,173 2016/17 322,854 291,282 275,925 298,457 2017/18 326,567 291,282 274,269 301,983 2018/19 330,323 291,282 272,624 306,680 2019/20 334,121 291,282 270,988 310,907 2020/21 337,964 291,282 269,362 314,983 2021/22 341,850 291,282 267,746 318,764 2022/23 345,782 291,282 266,140 322,265 2023/24 349,758 291,282 264,543 324,940 2024/25 353,780 291,282 262,955 326,576 2025/26 357,849 291,282 261,378 328,089

Figure 11: Municipal Waste Growth

Municipal Waste Growth Scenarios

450,000

400,000

350,000

300,000

250,000

Tonnes 200,000

150,000

100,000

50,000

8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 1

007/0 008/0 009/1 010/1 011/1 012/1 013/1 014/1 015/1 016/1 017/1 018/1 019/2 020/2 021/2 022/2 023/2 024/2 025/2 026/2 027/28028/2 029/30030/3 031/32032/33033/34034/35035/36036/37037/38038/39 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Year Scenario 1 - Historical Trend Scenario 2 - No Growth Scenario 3 - National Average Scenario 4 - Growth in No of Households

Waste Growth profile used in the modelling 3.84 The scenario based on household change combines; • DCC projections for growth in household numbers up to 2026, with, • The assumption that the amount of waste per household will continue to decline by 0.5% up to 2011/12 beyond which waste per household will decline at a steadily reducing rate up to 2020 (reflecting the impact of activity on waste minimisation predicted by DCC). After 2020 waste per household is assumed to remain constant.

3.85 The impact on MSW arising of using this waste growth profile is summarised in Table 37.

48 Table 37: Municipal waste growth profile used in the options assessment Year Municipal Waste (tonnes) Household Waste (tonnes) Non-household waste (tonnes)20 2007/08 291,282 260,170 31,112 2008/09 291,401 262,880 28,52121 2009/10 290,907 262,386 28,521 2010/11 290,444 261,923 28,521 2011/12 290,034 261,513 28,521 2012/13 291,326 262,805 28,521 2013/14 292,404 263,883 28,521 2014/15 294,270 265,749 28,521 2015/16 296,173 267,652 28,521 2016/17 298,457 269,936 28,521 2017/18 301,983 273,462 28,521 2018/19 306,680 278,159 28,521 2019/20 310,907 282,386 28,521 2020/21 314,983 286,462 28,521 2021/22 318,764 290,243 28,521 2022/23 322,265 293,744 28,521 2023/24 324,940 296,419 28,521 2024/25 326,576 298,055 28,521 2025/26 328,089 299,568 28,521

Recycling and Composting Performance 3.86 Durham County Council achieved a household recycling rate of 25% in 2007/08, compared to the national average of 34.5%. We expect this to reach 35% by 2009/10, taking into account the planned roll out of green waste collections during 2008 and 2009 and assumptions regarding expected performance to the end of 2008/09.

3.87 From 2009/10 it is assumed that sufficient material will be diverted to meet the performance targets set out in the Joint Municipal Waste Management Strategy as the County Council is currently not able to quantify changes in waste collection service delivery until Local Government Reorganisation has been completed. The modelling assumes that a household recycling rate of 45% is met in 2015 and 50% by 2020.

Landfill Allowances – (Landfill Allowance Trading Scheme – LATS)

3.88 Table 38 sets out Durham County Council’s allocation of landfill allowances from 2005/6 through to 2019/20 calculated by Defra. The diminishing figure from 188,120t through to 55,037t represents the total amount of Biodegradable Municipal Waste (BMW) the authority is allowed to landfill from the total volume of Municipal Solid Waste generated in the County. These increasingly stringent targets may be achieved in a number of ways (ultimately by increasing diversion through improved recovery, as well as trading, banking or borrowing of allowances). However, failure to achieve a target could result in a significant financial penalty for every tonne (or allowance) over the target for that year.

20 The non-household proportion includes trade waste, rubble at HWRCs and street cleansing. 21 Adjusted to take account of differences between WDF and DCC datasets.

49 Table 38: Durham County Council’s allocation of landfill allowances (2005/06 to 2019/20) Year Base 05/06 06/07 07/08 08/09 09/10 10/11 11/12 Year LATS 195,902 188,120 176,448 160,885 141,432 118,088 104,943 91,799 Allocation Actual 146,091 188,120207,497 tonnage landfilled

Year 12/13 13/14 14/15 15/16 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 LATS 78,655 75,281 71,907 68,533 65,159 61,785 58,411 55,037 Allocation *Years shaded are target years.

3.89 To achieve such challenging targets new technologies need to be developed to divert MSW away from landfill. Through previous drivers such as the National Waste Strategy and Best Value Performance Indicators the County Council and former Districts introduced a range of new recovery systems, kerbside collections (2002/3), green waste collections, improved bring systems and so on. However, without further new technology to divert waste away from landfill the Authority will not achieve the necessary diversion and could face severe financial penalties. This is an overriding driver to develop sufficient waste recovery capacity.

3.90 Although, meeting LATS targets is critical, it will clearly not be the only factor in determining the capacity required for waste recovery in the future. Landfill has continued as a primary waste disposal method in County Durham because it has been comparably cheaper than any other method. However, the Landfill Tax is fundamentally changing the economics of waste management and will continue to do so into the future, to the point where landfill gate fees become relatively more expensive. A projection of relative gate fees indicates that the tipping point will be reached relatively quickly, if recent rates of landfill tax increase continue. Therefore, levels of waste recovery specified in future contracts will be likely to require not only sufficient waste recovery capacity to meet LATS targets, but to maximise waste recovery because it will be the most cost efficient method of waste management, to the point where only small levels of residual, non-recyclable waste, will be landfilled. This will bring benefits in financial and environmental terms. It will also fundamentally affect rates of fill at landfill sites and demand for new landfill capacity.

50 Figure 12: Durham County Council’s requirement to divert material from landfill.

51 Figure 13

LATS allowances for County Durham

LATS allowance BMW landfilled

200000

180000

160000

140000

120000

100000 Tonnes

80000

60000

40000

20000

0 2005/6 2006/7 2007/8 2008/9 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20

3.91 There were a range of Best Value Performance Indicators (BVPI’s) produced for Waste Management. These were changed to the new National Indicator (NI) set for 2008/09. The statutory performance standard for recycling and composting (BVPI 82a & b) in 2006/07 for Durham County Council was 18%. DCC achieved a 26% recycling and composting standard in 2005/06 and 29.26% in 2006/07, thereby exceeding set targets.

3.92 As part of the current County Durham Local Area Agreement which began in March 2006 partners have negotiated priorities, targets and outcomes with the Government some of which relate to waste management. The 2008/09 target for the percentage of household waste which is recycled or composted is 35%. This was set at a time when the Thornley Aerobic Digester was fully commissioned. However due to regulatory issues this plant ceased to treat waste during 2008 and although the partners will strive to achieve this target, it is unlikely to be achieved.

Table 39: Municipal Waste Arisings in County Durham 2008/09 Waste Arisings % of all Waste Waste Source (tonnes) Arisings Waste Collection Authority (W.C.A) Delivered 166,540 59% Waste Collection Authority (W.C.A) Recycled 48,582 17.2% Third Parties 1,839 0.65% WCA Composting* 2,442 Third Party Composting 1,998 0.71 ‘Kerb-It’ Recycled 326 0.1% Fridges / Freezers 1,722 0.61% Household Waste Recycling Centres 60,920 21.6% Digester recycling* 0 Digester Composting* 0 *tonnage included in WCA delivered Total 281,927 100 Note: WCA Recycled and Composted part estimated due to Greencycle in receivership.

Table 40: Management of Municipal Waste in County Durham 2008/09 Waste Type Total Waste Arisings (tonnes) Landfill Re-cycle / Re-use Digester Recycling Municipal 281,927 191,713 88,652 0

1,562 solids % 68 31.4 0.6

53 Commercial & Industrial Waste

3.93 Commercial waste includes waste arisings from wholesalers, catering establishments, shops and offices. Industrial waste is waste arising from factories and industrial plants (excluding waste classified as hazardous waste).

Current and Historic Waste Arisings

3.94 No primary data exists on the extent of current commercial and industrial waste arisings in County Durham. The most recent detailed arisings survey was carried out by the Environment Agency for the financial year 2002/03 but has not been repeated since and the Environment Agency has indicated that future surveys would be prohibitive. The 2002/03 arisings information is set out in Table 40 below. It shows the quantity of commercial and industrial waste by business sector and the extent of waste arisings for County Durham and the three other North East sub-regions. In percentage terms in 2002/03 County Durham produced only 11.3% of the overall North East arisings for this waste stream, (519,000 tonnes) with the majority of commercial and industrial waste arisings within the North East region occurring in the Tees Valley and Tyne & Wear sub regions (78.8%).

Table 41: Industrial & Commercial waste arisings for the North East of England in 2002/03 Waste type description County Northumberland, Total in North (business sector) Durham (000s Tees Valley and Tyne East Region tonnes) & Wear sub-regions (000s tonnes) (000s tonnes)

Food etc 74 274 348 Textiles/wood/paper/publishing 64 278 342 Chemical/non-metallic 112 493 605 minerals Metal manufacture 7 1684 1691 Machinery & equipment (other 77 208 285 manufacturing) Power & Utilities 7 121 129 Total Industry 341 3059 3400

Retail & wholesale 66 413 479 Public sector 30 143 173 Other services 82 465 546 Total commerce 178 1021 1199

Total all sectors 519 4080 4599 Source: Environment Agency.

3.95 An earlier survey was undertaken by the Environment Agency detailing commercial and industrial wastes produced in 1998/99, (see table 41). This information was presented in the Environment Agency’s Strategic Waste Management Assessment (SWMA) 2000. It indicates that in 1998/99 4,756,000 tonnes of commercial and industrial waste was produced in the North East. The majority of this waste, 3,761,000 tonnes, was identified as industrial waste, with the remaining 996,000 tonnes identified as commercial in origin. In percentage terms in 1998/99 County Durham produced only 14.3% of the overall arisings for this waste stream, (388,000 tonnes of industrial waste and 151,000 tonnes of commercial waste (539,000 tonnes in total). The majority of commercial and industrial

54 waste arisings within the North East region occurring in the Tees Valley and Tyne and Wear Sub regions, amounting to 79%.

Table 42: Commercial and Industrial wastes produced in County Durham and the North East in 1998/99. Waste type Description County Durham North East (000s tonnes) (000s tonnes) Industrial Wastes Inert/C&D 24 87 Paper and card 18 117 Food 18 108 General Industrial and Commercial 93 473 Other general and biodegradable 98 413 Metals and Scrap equipment 55 364 Contaminated General 30 164 Minerals wastes and residues 8 1,630 Chemical and other 44 402 Industry Total 388 3,761 Commercial Wastes Inert/C&D 1 6 Paper and card 12 90 Food 1 14 General Industrial and Commercial 117 747 Other general and biodegradable 11 74 Metals and Scrap equipment 3 19 Contaminated General 3 29 Minerals wastes and residues 0 1 Chemical and other 2 14 Commercial Total 151 996 Total 539 4,756 Source: Environment Agency Strategic Waste Management Assessment 2000.

3.96 The two Environment Agency surveys indicate that the production of commercial and industrial waste in both the North East region and County Durham has been reasonably consistent over the period 1998/99 to 2002/03, showing only a slight fall in total arisings over the four year period; industrial waste arisings having fallen slightly and commercial arisings has risen slightly.

3.97 According to the Environment Agency data, the North East produces less commercial and industrial waste than any other region. With more than half the commercial and industrial waste produced coming from the top five commercial and industrial sectors: retail, chemical, food and drink, travel and finance and basic metals. (Source: The Regional Waste Picture, REPAC, October 2008).

3.98 Assumptions have to be made about Commercial and Industrial arisings, as there is no current information available on arisings. C&I arisings are assumed to be 433,042 tonnes. This is based upon subtracting household waste arisings for 2008/09 (254,360 tonnes, DCC data) from Household/C&I received (687,402 tonnes, EA Waste Interrogator 2008).

Data Gap: No current data is available for waste arisings for the commercial and industrial waste streams. The most recent survey of these waste streams was carried out by the Environment Agency in 2003. The EA does not plan to repeat the survey in the future.

Reducing Commercial and industrial waste to landfill 3.99 The Government announced in Waste Strategy 2007 that it would set a new national target for the reduction of commercial and industrial waste going to landfill. It indicated that on the basis of the policies set out in the Strategy levels of commercial and industrial waste landfilled would fall by 20% by 2010 compared to 2004. This target reflects the announcement in Budget 2007 of landfill tax increases up to 2010.

3.100 Given the absence of specific data relating to the quantity of commercial and industrial waste which was landfilled in 2004 we have calculated a figure for this base year using a combination of Environment Agency landfill deposit data for commercial, industrial and household waste for the financial year 2004/05 (the only year available) and subtracted Durham County Council municipal solid waste landfill deposits data from the Environment Agency figure for 2004. Whilst recognising the difference in time periods and the fact that MSW data will include small quantities of commercial waste collected by the waste collection authority, given the requirement to establish a figure for commercial and industrial waste, this calculation appears to represent the best available estimate for commercial and industrial waste to landfill in 2004.

3.101 On this basis, the estimate for commercial and industrial waste landfill deposits for 2004 is 341,406 tonnes. Accordingly, our local target in accordance with the emerging national target is 80% of 341,406 by 2010 i.e. 273,125 tonnes. On the basis of these calculations commercial and industrial deposits to landfill met the Government’s emerging target in both 2006/07 and 2007/08.

Table 43: Estimate of Commercial and Industrial Landfill Deposits 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 Commercial Industrial and household 591,000 553,000 364,000 363,732 waste landfill deposits 1 Municipal Solid Waste Landfill 249,594 211,143 201,095 211,243 deposits 2 DCC estimate of Commercial and 341,406 341,857 162,905 152,489 industrial Waste landfilled 2 Source: 1 Environment Agency. 2 Durham County Council estimate.

Regional apportionment of commercial and industrial waste 3.102 Regional Spatial Strategy for the North East (July 2008) sets out regional policies for waste management provision to 2021. RSS Policy 46 sets out estimated capacity requirements for the management of commercial and industrial waste. It is important to note that the RSS requirements have not been calculated on an annual average increase in GVA growth of 2.8% which would result in a higher level of waste arisings. This is because a key aim is to decouple the growth in waste arisings from economic growth through waste minimisation initiatives. RSS also indicates that the type and number of facilities should reflect local circumstances with the strategic framework provided by RSS policies and for commercial waste will be based on increasing recovery to 73% by 2016. Criteria (e) of policy 46 indicates that Local Development Frameworks should assess the capacity gap for the commercial and industrial waste streams.

56 Table 44: Management capacity for annual Commercial and Industrial waste arisings Year County Durham Proportion to be recovered (in (‘000s tonnes)1 accordance with RSS Policy 46)2 2005/06 679 n/a 2006/07 689 n/a 2007/208 699 n/a 2008/09 710 n/a 2009/10 721 n/a 2010/11 732 n/a 2011/12 742 n/a 2012/13 753 n/a 2013/14 765 n/a 2014/15 776 n/a 2015/16 788 575 2016/17 800 584 2017/18 812 593 2018/19 824 602 2019/20 836 610 2020/21 849 620 2021/22 862 629 2022/23 873 637 2023/24 886 647 2024/25 899 656 2025/26 913 667 2026/27 929 678 2027/28 943 688 2028/29 957 699 2029/30 971 709 Source: Table 3 – Management Capacity for Annual Waste Arisings (‘000 tonnes), The North East of England Plan Regional Spatial Strategy to 2021 (page 151) Notes 1: RSS figures set out in table 3. 2: DCC figures illustrating impact of 73% waste recovery target by 2016.

3.103 The capacity targets set out in RSS are only set for the period to 2020/21. It is therefore necessary to decide the most appropriate way to addresses treatment capacity in the remaining period to the end of 2030. In the absence of any further allocation, a continuation of 1.5% year on year increase in arisings has been applied to the end of the plan period. These figures have therefore been applied to the table 44 (above), from 2021 to 2030.

Data Gap: No information is available relating to the assumptions underpinning the RSS targets for commercial and industrial waste management capacity in the period 2005/06 to 2020/21. Further guidance has been sought from Entec as to the assumptions underpinning the original study from which RSS figures were derived as well as further updates on the RSS figures. Entec produced the “Regional Waste Apportionment Update” in early 2010, but have not been able to provide any further figures as yet. Further to the Coalition Government’s abolition of RSS, there is still currently uncertainty regarding the work which was to be undertaken on both updating the projections and the work mentioned in the Entec “Regional Waste Apportionment Update” paper on taking studies down to the sub-regional level in the North East.. RSS does not provide capacity figures beyond 2020/21.

57 Existing Treatment Methods

3.104 No primary data exists on the current disposal or treatment methods used for commercial and industrial waste in either County Durham or the North East of England. As explained above this is because the Environment Agency has not carried out any survey of commercial and industrial waste arisings or its treatment since 2002/03. On a regional basis the Environment Agency’s 2003/03 data showed 45% of commercial and industrial waste was re-used, recycled and 43% was landfilled or used for land recovery. The remainder of the waste stream was either transferred, thermally treated, or its fate was unrecorded.

3.105 The only detailed sub-regional information relating to disposal or treatment methods for County Durham is set out in the Environment Agency’s Strategic Waste Management Assessment 2000. This information is set out in table 45 and shows that in 1998/99 43% of commercial and industrial waste was re-used, recycled and 44% was landfilled or used for land recovery. The remainder of the waste stream was either transferred, thermally treated, or its fate was unrecorded.

Table 45: Management of Commercial and Industrial Waste in Co. Durham, 1998/99 Industrial 000’s tonnes Land Disposal 162 Land Recovery Re-used 1 Recycled 204 Thermal 3 Transfer 1 Treatment 17 Unrecorded 0 INDUSTRY TOTAL 389

Commercial 000’s tonnes Land Disposal 78 Land Recovery Re-used 0 Recycled 29 Thermal 0 Transfer 0 Treatment 1 Unrecorded 43 COMMERCIAL TOTAL 151 Total 540 Source: Table 2.5 Disposal methods used in the North East sub regions (‘000s tonnes), Strategic Waste Management Assessment 2000, Environment Agency.

3.106 The only other information the Council holds on the current fate of commercial and industrial waste is secondary data for landfill deposits derived from analysis of Environment Agency data and Durham County Council data on deposits of municipal solid waste. This information is set out in table 42 above.

Data Gap: No primary data is available for the current fate of commercial and industrial waste arisings in County Durham. The only recent data which is available is secondary data for landfill deposits derived from an analysis of Environment Agency data and Durham County Council data on deposits of municipal solid waste.

Existing Treatment and Recovery Capacity 3.107 In order to identify existing treatment capacity extensive work has been done recently on analysing information and establishing licensed capacity of existing waste management sites in County Durham. This considered current throughput information, based on both historic information and information for 2008 provided by the Environment Agency. The current position on capacity within the County is set out below. This is based on the assumption that full licensed capacities can be used. The percentages of different waste types taken at sites has been calculated from current EA received figures to give more realistic estimated capacity for this waste stream. Estimates of capacity have been made based on assumptions about efficiency of transfer stations (30% and 75% are given in Appendix 9) and digesters; and actual waste taken. This is why a range is given. All assumptions and calculations are set out in the Appendices. (Section 3 sets out existing waste management facilities in County Durham whilst Appendix 3 provides a detailed summary of existing facilities). This work has been vital in attempting to understand capacity, as many waste management sites which receive commercial and industrial waste also receive a range of other waste types, in particular household waste. Indeed many site licences issued by the Environment Agency (principally waste class A11) explicitly include a range of waste types. It should be borne in mind however that in identifying existing treatment capacity a number of issues need to be highlighted which cannot be overcome: • Environment Agency data on licensed capacity is based on licence charging bands and therefore the capacity figure may over estimate some facilities’ potential to manage waste; • On the other hand, it is known that recycling and recovery takes place, often on an ad-hoc basis and therefore is not recorded through the normal waste data collection process; this may lead to an underestimate of available recycling capacity; and

3.108 Despite these issues Table 46 indicates that there is a significant permitted capacity for commercial and industrial treatment and recovery.Taking into account forecast current MSW and forecast arisings (of up to 330,000 tonnes per annum in 2025/26) a significant excess capacity still appears to be theoretically available to treat commercial and industrial waste. C&I waste arisings as detailed above were 433,042 tonnes (2008 figures, own estimates). Indications show that the County currently has 495-650,000 tonnes of treatment and recovery capacity per annum22. Full calculations are included in Appendix 14, but estimates show that this may be sufficient to meet demand until 2030, based upon carrying forward the projections in RSS (assuming a 1.5% growth rate). If the 30% efficiency assumption is taken for transfers, however, there will be a capacity gap by 2015 for C&I waste.

Table 46: Commercial and Industrial Waste existing Treatment and Recovery Capacity – Position May 2010. Assumptions for Household, Commercial & Industrial Waste 61,518 - 153,7951 Transfer Stations (not including those below) and Transfer Stations taking Non-biological Wastes Assumptions for C&I Capacity at Household Transfer Stations 40,253 - 100,633 tonnes per annum2 Treatment Facilities (includes all other sites – composting; 394,158 MRF; Anaerobic and Aerobic digestion)3,4,5,6,7 Total licensed Capacity 495,929 – 648,586 tonnes per annum Source: DCC, 2009. 1The range is based upon a 30% (lower figure) or 75% (top figure) recycling efficiency rate.

22 This total is obtained by summing the assumptions on Transfer capacity in Appendix 9; C&I assumptions for Household Transfers in Appendix 9 table 2; and Treatment capacity assumptions in Appendix 11. Currently this total does not include Innovative Waste Solutions and any other sites currently being researched.

59 2It is assumed that 10% of Transfer capacity is C&I for the 5 (household) transfers. The range is based on 30% or 75% recycling efficiency rate. Full calculations in Appendix 9 and capacity gap in Appendix 14 based on percentage split from Appendix 8. These transfers are the 4 transfers run under the Council’s MSW contract and Aycliffe, which primarily deals with Darlington Borough’s Municipal Waste. 3To include Joint Stocks in Treatment would be double counting, as 625,000 is full capacity of Joint Stocks for all activities, not just C&I, so is counted once. 4Both Thornley and Tursdale are inactive, but are still included in calculations of capacity. 96,000 tonnes represents 160,000tpa at 60% efficiency. 5Quarrington Farm currently inactive, but still included in calculations of capacity at 60% efficiency. Understood to be being constructed. 6This is based upon the assumptions of percentage split and hence waste taken. It is understood that there are 6 composting sites which are assumed to all take C&I waste. 7Aycliffe Quarry is inactive, but is still included in calculations of capacity. It is counted as a transfer and MBT in transfers.

Future Treatment Requirements and Capacity Gap 3.109 In order to meet the requirements of RSS Policy 46 County Durham must make provision for the management capacity outlined in Table 44, to ensure that forecast commercial and industrial waste arisings can be satisfactorily managed. By 2015/2016 sufficient facilities must be available to enable 788,000 tonnes of commercial and industrial waste to be managed. 73% of this waste (equivalent to 575,000 tonnes, assuming this level of waste arisings) must be recovered, with the residual component being landfilled.

3.110 The difference between the projected year on year waste arisings, and the available, current and proposed waste facilities is known as the ‘capacity gap’ (the gap between waste that requires management and the facilities available to manage each waste stream). It is necessary to identify the capacity gap to enable us to plan for the future waste requirements based on need. Full calculations on the capacity gap are included in Appendix 14.

It appears that sufficient licensed treatment and recovery capacity is already available to meet RSS Policy requirements and meet demand up to 2030 based upon carrying forward the projections in RSS (assuming a 1.5% growth rate) if the 75% efficiency assumption is taken for transfers. If the 30% efficiency assumption is taken for transfers, however, there will be a capacity gap by 2015 for C&I waste.

3.111 Over the plan period to 2030 increasing proportions of commercial and industrial waste will need to be reused or recycled and the proportion of this waste stream which will be landfilled will need to continue to fall. It is expected that reductions in the amount of packaging associated with a range of goods together with associated increased packaging recovery targets and increases in landfill tax should result in an increase in recycling and a reduction of landfill. The increase in landfill tax (currently rising by £8 per tonne per year) will be a key driver in boosting recycling rates, making treatment and recycling of commercial waste economically viable. Until the recent economic downturn, increases in commodity prices had also boosted the recovery of materials. Several waste companies appear to be investing in Materials Recycling Facilities (MRF’s) to process commercial waste because it requires less capital than processes such as anaerobic digestion or mechanical and biological treatment, whilst the lack of long term contracts for commercial waste also means it is difficult to obtain finance for relatively expensive plant.

60 Inert and Construction & Demolition Waste

3.112 Inert and construction and demolition waste (Inert and C&D)23 is recognised as the single largest source of waste arisings in England. Together with municipal solid waste and industrial & commercial waste, it is recognised as one of the three main components of controlled waste and has been identified as a priority waste stream. Most inert and construction and demolition waste has been traditionally disposed of at landfill sites, often sites licensed specifically for these materials. However, changes in the waste management licensing regulations, the introduction of the landfill tax and aggregates levy have had a significant impact on this waste stream, an increasing proportion of which is going to sites exempt from licensing or is being treated in screening and crushing plants prior to the re-use as an aggregate or fill.

3.113 Information on this waste stream is available from several sources. Historical information for 1999 is set out in the Environment Agency’s Strategic Waste Management Assessment 2000. More recently construction and demolition and excavation waste surveys have been undertaken at 2 yearly intervals by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM) and Communities and Local Government (CLG). Although their primary focus is to provide information on the arisings and use of Construction and Demolition and Excavation Waste (CDEW)24 as an alternative to the use of primary aggregates, they provide the best available information on this type of waste. These surveys covered operators of crushers and screens, licensed landfills and registered exempt sites. In 2001 and 2005 additional surveys were undertaken to collect information on the arisings and use as aggregate of secondary and industrial waste material. Information from the last survey relating to 2005 is published below. The latest information has been provided by the Environment Agency and relates to 2007 but does not contain the detail that is provided by the ODPM surveys.

2007 data – provided by Environment Agency (Northumbria Area) 3.114 This information indicates that 923,083 tonnes of inert/construction and demolition waste was deposited in landfill sites in County Durham. Of this 525,000 tonnes was classed as inert only and 389,000 tonnes was classed as non-inert. Limited time series data is also available for previous years: • 969,000 tonnes was landfillled in 2006 (of which 440,000 tonnes was inert only and 529,000 non-inert); • 1,223,000 tonnes was landfilled in 2005 (of which 473,000 tonnes was inert only and 751,000 tonnes non-inert); • 853,000 tonnes was landfilled in 2004/05 (of which 751,000 tonnes was classed as non-inert and 13,000 tonnes was classed as hazardous); • 704,000 tonnes was landfilled in 2002/03; and • 1,243,000 tonnes was landfilled in 2000/01.

3.115 While useful this information only shows quantities of this waste stream which was landfilled and does not provide an insight into overall arisings or recycling and re-use. Caution should also be exercised in drawing any conclusion about trends, due to regulatory and recording changes.

23 Inert and construction & demolition waste can be defined as waste materials which arise from construction and demolition of buildings and / or civil engineering infrastructure, including hard C&D waste (either segregated or mixed unprocessed / uncrushed materials i.e. concrete, masonry, bricks, tiles and blacktop) and excavation waste (naturally occurring soil, stone, rock and similar materials, which have been excavated as a result of site preparation activities) whether segregated or mixed. 24 It should be noted that CDEW waste while similar to Inert/C&D waste is slightly different. CDEW means the sum (or any mixture) of ‘C&D waste’ and ‘excavation waste’ (as defined above) bit does not include materials such as wood, metals and plastic which also arise on construction and demolition sites, but have no potential as an aggregate

2005 data - C&D and excavation Waste 3.116 The best available and most detailed information for this waste stream was published in February 2007. During 2006 CLG carried out surveys into the arisings and use of Construction and Demolition wastes in England. The surveys aimed to establish estimates for the arisings and use as aggregate of construction and demolition and excavation waste (CDEW) in England in 2005. The surveys covered operators of crushers and screens, licensed landfills and registered exempt sites. This followed three earlier surveys in 1999, 2001 and 2003.

3.117 In terms of the national picture the report indicates that total construction and demolition and excavation waste for England was estimated at 89.6 million tonnes in 2005. 46 million tonnes were recycled and a further 15 million tonnes were spread on exempt sites (usually land reclamation, agricultural improvement or infrastructure projects). The remaining 28 million tonnes were sent to landfill (including backfilling at quarries, and landfill engineering) as waste.

3.118 Estimates suggest that the amount of construction and demolition waste generated in England has remained stable at about 90 million tonnes from 2001 to 2005. This is an increase from about 69 million tonnes in 1999. Between 2001 and 2005 the proportion of construction and demolition waste recycled by crushers and screeners has increased from 49 per cent to 52 per cent however, the proportion of construction and demolition waste sent to landfill increased from 26 per cent to 31 per cent and the amount of waste going to exempt sites fell from around 25 per cent to 17 per cent.

3.119 It is important to recognise that as far as the 2005 sub-regional estimates are concerned the report warns that they should not to be relied on as anything other than a reasonable indication of arisings and recycling of CDEW, and should be used with caution to provide contextual background. This is because, although the national estimates appear reasonably robust, this is less true of the regional estimates, and progressively less true the more local the focus becomes. Attempting to draw conclusions for County Durham would be unreliable, because the response rates are not sufficiently high. Future voluntary surveys were considered unlikely to overcome this challenge.

3.120 Table 48 provides a general estimate of the total arisings of construction, demolition and excavation wastes for the North East region in 2005. It provides a detailed breakdown for County Durham and the Tees Valley. (Please note figures are only available for the combined sub-regions of County Durham and the Tees Valley).

Table 47: Construction and Demolition Waste existing Treatment and Recovery Capacity Quarries 3 195,000 tonnes per annum Transfers and Treatment 17 942,815 Total licensed Capacity 1,137,815 tonnes per annum Total licensed capacity, including estimated 1,500,000 tonnes per annum ad-hoc activity1 (Position at 1 January 2009) ; Source: DCC, 2009. 1Ad-hoc activity means that whilst we know of activity that takes place on licensed sites, we have no way of knowing how much takes place on development sites. We consider an assumption of 400,000t per annum to be reasonable for ad-hoc activity. A range of capacity of 1,100,000 to 1.5m tonnes per annum is therefore assumed. Licensed capacity here is equal to assumptions for capacity gap calculations, as it is assumed that 100% of licensed capacity is available and 100% is recycled.

62 Table 48: Estimates of Construction, Demolition and Excavation Wastes recycled by crushers and/or screens, used/disposed of at landfills and spread on exempt sites in 2005 (tonnes) Recycled by crushers Used / disposed Spread on registered Total / screens of at Landfills exempt sites Northumberland & 971,315 976,285 448,843 2,396,443 Tyne & Wear County Durham & 909,625 1,153,835 354,800 2,418,260 the Tees Valley North East 1,880,940 2,130,120 803,643 4,814,703 Source: NERAWP Annual Aggregates Monitoring Report 2006 (Table 5.1, Page 19).(Original Source: Survey of Arisings and Use of Alternatives to Primary Aggregates in England, 2005: Construction, Demolition and Excavation Waste - Final Report, Department of Communities and Local Government, (Annex 11 Tables 11.4 and 11.5, page 107)).

Table 49: Regional estimates of CDEW recycled by crushers and/or screens, used/disposed of at landfills, and spread on paragraph 9A(1) and 19A(2) registered exempt sites in 2005 (tonnes). North East: Tees English Region and sub-region Valley and Durham Adjusted estimate of population of recycled crushers 19 Estimated production of recycled graded aggregates (tonnes) 434,765 Estimated production of recycled ungraded aggregates (tonnes) 400,863 Estimated production of recycled soils (excl. topsoil)(tonnes) 73,997 Estimated tonnage of unprocessed CDEW entering licensed landfills. 1,153,835 Estimated weight of waste materials (mainly excavation waste) used on Paragraph 9A(1) and 19A(2) registered exempt sites (tonnes) 354,800 Total estimated arisings of CDEW in 2005 (tonnes) 2,418,261 Source: Survey of Arisings and Use of Alternatives to Primary Aggregates in England, 2005: Construction, Demolition and Excavation Waste - Final Report, Department of Communities and Local Government, (Annex 11 Table 11.5, page 107)).

3.121 In addition the CLG project also involved a study on ‘other materials’ that are used as alternatives to primary aggregates i.e. furnace bottom ash (power stations), incinerator bottom ash (energy from waste plants), pulverised fuel ash, slag: blast furnace (iron), slag: basic oxygen furnace (Steel). The study indicated that 1.44 million tonnes of these other materials arise in the North East of which 430,000 tonnes have an aggregate use. Given the given source of these arisings it is assumed that majority arise in the Tees Valley.

Environment Agency data 3.122 Table 50 sets out the scale of inert/construction and demolition waste deposits to landfill sites in County Durham over the period 2000/01 to 2008. Whilst not directly comparable with the Environment Agency data for 2005, the sub-regional figures for County Durham and the Tees Valley, as far as landfill deposits are concerned, appear reasonably comparable. The figure provided for the tonnage of unprocessed CDEW waste entering licensed landfills (1,153,835 tonnes) is reasonably consistent with Environment Agency data for 2005 for inert and construction and demolition waste deposits to landfill in County Durham (1,223,000 for County Durham). In addition 70,000 tonnes was deposited in the Tees Valley, (the combined figure for County Durham and the Tees Valley equalling 1,293,000 tonnes). The figures differ by only 139,000. (The figures differ by only 139,000, possibly due to the differences in definition between CDEW waste and C&D waste, which also includes materials such as wood, metals and plastic which also arise on construction and demolition sites, but have no potential use as an aggregate).

63 Table 50: Inert/construction and demolition waste deposits to landfill sites in County Durham 2000/01 to 2008. 2000/01 2002/032004/0 2005 2006 2007 2008 5 Inert/construction 1,243,00 704,000 853,00 1,223,00 969,000 923,083 746,122 and demolition 0 0 0 waste deposits to landfill Source: Environment Agency, 2009.

3.123 Whilst useful this information only shows quantities of this waste stream which was landfilled and does not provide an insight into overall arisings or recycling and re-use. Caution should also be exercised in drawing conclusions about trends, due to regulatory and recording changes over the time period.

Management of Construction and Demolition and Excavation Waste 3.124 Tables 48, 49 and 50 illustrate how this waste stream is currently managed regionally and sub-regionally.

3.125 Due to its bulky nature, large quantities and relatively low value, C&D wastes are often managed through the use of mobile plant and equipment close to the source of waste. A large proportion of the materials processed by the mobile plant are reused on site, therefore limiting the quantities of waste requiring dedicated management facilities. In addition, new legislation (The Site Waste Management Plans Regulations 2008) requires a site waste management plan to be developed for all new construction projects above the value of £300,000. The intention is to further increase the volume of C&D waste recovered. Site Waste Management Plans will aim to reduce, re-use and recycle as much waste as possible on site, having the twin benefits of reducing the demand for waste management and reducing cost for the site developer. It is therefore expected that SWMPs will significantly reduce the amount of C&D waste overall requiring further management. Trends also indicate that there has been no recent growth in C&D waste.

National Targets for Construction and Demolition and Excavation Waste 3.126 The Government announced in Waste Strategy 2007 that it is considering, in conjunction with the construction industry, a target to halve the amount of construction, demolition and excavation wastes going to landfill by 2012, as a result of waste reduction, re-use and recycling. Final targets were set out in the Strategy for Sustainable Construction (BERR, 2008), and include: • By 2012 a 50% reduction of construction, demolition and excavation waste to landfill compared to 2008; and • By 2009 setting an overall target of diversion of demolition waste to landfill..

3.127 Translating these targets to County Durham requires identifying the quantity of construction, demolition and excavation wastes which went to landfill in County Durham in 2008. Since the CLG survey for 2005 provided only a combined figure for County Durham and the Tees Valley and the next CLG survey will be for 2007, we must rely on the Environment Agency data for inert waste received for 2008. Given that 746,122 tonnes of this waste stream was landfilled in 2008, the target will require a maximum of approximately 374,000 tonnes of this waste stream to be landfilled by 2012.

3.128 On the basis of the available evidence we can reasonably assume significant increase in re-use and reduction in the amount of waste needing to go to landfill. Key drivers and contributors for this waste management scenario:

64 • Action to deliver emerging Government targets as set out in Waste Strategy 2007 and the Sustainable Construction Strategy; • the ongoing impact of the landfill tax (both the standard rate and inactive waste rate); • an increase in the aggregates levy rate (as announced in Budget 2007); • the requirement to recycle significant quantities of this waste stream to be used in place of primary aggregates combined with the greater use of this waste stream in public and private sector construction projects; • an assumed fall in arisings to reflect that more limited brownfield land redevelopment opportunities (as identified by previous Urban Capacity Studies undertaken in County Durham); • continued Government intervention to develop markets for recovered materials through quality standards, and sector agreements with manufacturers including through the work of the Waste & Resources Action Programme (WRAP), including the ‘Halving Waste to Landfill’ initiative, a voluntary agreement to act as a framework for the construction industry, aimed at halving the amount of construction, demolition and excavation waste going to landfill by 2012, which WRAP is facilitating, providing advice on minimising and managing waste throughout the construction process. http://www.wrap.org.uk/construction/halving_waste_to_landfill/index.html • continued action by the Environment Agency including a ‘Sector Plan’ that will set out milestones for reduced waste and greater resource efficiency on construction sites and awareness campaign ‘Streetwise’ to improve the environmental performance of the construction industry as part of its small and medium sized enterprise strategy; • the impact of SWMPs which may be significant and would suggest that increased levels of recycling would occur in the future due to better practices at construction sites.

Construction and Demolition Waste Projections 3.129 The graph shows that growth projections to 2030 for C&D waste in the County are flat growth based upon the waste received figures from 2008 (1,066,097 tonnes, EA). Although projected growth in the economy will have an effect on arisings, it has been assumed that this will be offset by the effect of reduction, re-use, recycling and recovery. The use of mobile plant close to the source of waste means that there is limited need for dedicated management facilities, as large proportions of waste are re-used on site. Indeed, as detailed in this Waste Technical Paper, estimates suggest that the amount of C&D waste generated in England between 2001 and 2005 has remained relatively constant whilst the percentage recycled by crushers and screeners increased from 49 per cent to 52 per cent. This is based on the 2005 data from the CLG survey in 2006 on the arisings and use as aggregate of construction and demolition and excavation waste (CDEW) in England in 2005. Trends also indicate that there has been no recent growth in C&D waste. The Aggregates Levy; Landfill Tax; and Site Waste Management Plans are all having a positive effect on the recycling of this stream.

65 Construction&Demolition Waste Projections to 2030

1200000

1000000

800000

600000 Tonnes 400000

200000 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 0 Year

Capacity Gap 3.130 Currently permitted capacity exists for the recycling of this waste stream at a range of sites (set out in Appendix 3). In addition it is known that significant quantities of this waste stream are recycled at existing brownfield development sites. In order to meet Waste Strategy 2007 targets for 2012 and for 2020 significant quantities of this waste stream will need to be diverted from landfill by 2012. Given the quantities of this waste stream currently being landfilled this represents a significant challenge.

3.131 As detailed earlier, current arisings of C&D waste totalled 1,066,097 tonnes (EA Waste Interrogator 2008, inert waste received used as a proxy for arisings). Of this, 746,122 tonnes were landfilled (70%). Current treatment and recovery capacity is estimated to be 1,100,000-1.5 million tonnes. As detailed above, it is considered that this stream is experiencing 0% growth because of a large and growing amount of ad-hoc re-use and recycling activity which takes place on development sites. Ad-hoc activity means that whilst we know of activity that takes place on licensed sites, the scale of operation on development sites is less certain. We consider an assumption of 400,000t per annum to be reasonable for ad-hoc activity. A range of 1,100,000 to 1.5m tonnes per annum is therefore assumed. This means that there will not be any additional requirement for capacity, even with the effect of targets for the recycling of 50% of this waste stream by 2012 (in accordance with the Waste Strategy for England 2007) and complete diversion by 2020.

3.132 The National and Regional Aggregate Supply Guidelines (June 2009) assume that 50 million tonnes of aggregate supply will be met from alternative materials in the North East Region over the period 2005 to 2020. Unlike crushed rock and sand and gravel, this is not apportioned between the sub-regions, however. This translates to 3.125 million tonnes of alternative materials per annum over this period across the North East as a whole.

3.133 Information on recycled aggregates is contained in Section 5 of the North East Regional Aggregates Working Party (NERAWP) Annual Aggregates Monitoring Report for 2008 (published February 2010). The report refers to MPS1’s encouragement of the use of alternatives to primary aggregates by the use of C&D waste and secondary aggregates.

3.134 CLG surveys are the most comprehensive source of information on the arisings of secondary aggregates. These are from 2005, however, and combine the Tees Valley with County Durham. The 2008 North East Annual Aggregates Monitoring Report states

66 that in 2008 only 89,570 tonnes of recycled and secondary aggregates was produced in County Durham.

Table 51: Estimates of Construction, Demolition and Excavation Wastes (CDEW) recycled by crushers and/or screens, used/disposed of at landfills and spread on exempt sites in 2005 (tonnes). Recycled by Used / Spread on Total crushers / screens disposed of registered exempt at Landfills sites Northumberland 971,315 976,285 448,843 2,396,443 and Tyne & Wear County Durham 909,625 1,153,835 354,800 2,418,260 and the Tees Valley North East 1,880,940 2,130,120 803,643 4,814,703 Source: NERAWP Annual Aggregates Monitoring Report 2008 (Table 5.1, Page 20).(Original Source: Survey of Arisings and Use of Alternatives to Primary Aggregates in England, 2005: Construction, Demolition and Excavation Waste - Final Report, Department of Communities and Local Government, (Annex 11 Tables 11.4 and 11.5, page 107)).

3.135 The transposition of the revised Waste Framework Directive into UK law will mean the increase in re-use, recycling or recovery targets for C&D waste from 50% to 70%. This will certainly mean that more C&D recycling capacity is needed within the County.

3.136 The 50% recycling rate would mean that a maximum of 374,000 tonnes of this waste stream could be landfilled by 2012. Given that at present 70% of the stream is landfilled, this represents a significant challenge.

3.137 If we assume flat growth, however, then the arisings will be constant at the level of 1,066,097 tonnes (2008 figures). This means that even if we assume complete diversion of the stream, there is enough capacity up to 2030 given that the County has in the region of 1,100,000-1,500,000tpa available.

Hazardous Waste 3.138 Hazardous waste, includes a range of waste streams such as acids, alkalis, pharmaceutical compounds, solvents, asbestos and others which are particularly harmful to human health and the environment and need more stringent control on their management than other controlled wastes25.

3.139 Historical information for 1998/99 is set out in the Environment Agency’s ‘Strategic Waste Management Assessment: 2000 for 1998/99’. The same information is also set out in ‘Towards a Regional Waste Management Strategy for the North East’ which was produced for the North East Assembly by Environmental Resources Management (ERM), in association with Land Use Consultants in February 2003. More recent information on hazardous waste has been provided by the Environment Agency (through its website and its Hazardous Waste Interrogator facility). Information is available by European Waste Catalogue (EWC) chapter and for some years the Substance Orientated Classification System (SOC). (Only EWC information is set out below). Whilst regional level information is available for the period 1998/99 to 2004 the only sub-regional information available is for 2006, 2007 and 2008. Despite requests, sub-regional data prior to 2006 has not been provided. Furthermore, in 2005, ‘Special Waste’ fell under new controls for Hazardous Waste which replaced the previous

25 The range of waste which is classed as hazardous is identified in table x which sets out in full European Waste Chapter Codes.

67 Special Waste regime. The new regime incorporates a greater variety and volume of waste within its definition. As a result of the way that hazardous waste information is now recorded, the quantities of waste which are recorded as hazardous have increased. Therefore, although there is a historical base of information for ‘Special Waste’, ‘hazardous waste’ needs to be forecasted from a new base position from 2005.

Regional Apportionment 3.140 RSS Policy 47 indicates that ‘Waste and Local Development Frameworks should provide for a range of new facilities for the treatment and management of 567,000 tonnes of hazardous waste per annum by 2010/11, 610,000 tonnes per annum by 2015/16 and 671,000 tonnes per annum by 2021/22’. The figures for ‘hazardous waste arisings’ in Policy 47 are provided at a regional level and do not provide guidance at waste planning authority level. More up to date waste apportionment figures have not yet been published. RSS also indicates that, ‘the RPB should understand the balance of hazardous waste arisings between the north and south of the Region. They should also understand the shortfall between existing and required facilities for different methods of management, and, in conjunction with the Regional Sustainable Waste Board, consider publishing further guidance on these subjects to inform the preparation of LDFs.’ Further guidance on these subjects is still awaited. In spatial terms the reasoned justification also indicates that, ‘it is proposed that the priority in Policy 47 for treatment facilities to be located in Tyne and Wear and Tees Valley’.

Hazardous Waste Arisings 3.141 Production of hazardous waste in the North East sub-regions is dominated by the Tees Valley and Tyne & Wear. County Durham is the smallest producer of the four sub- regions. In 2006 and 2007, 28,310 and 28,820 tonnes of hazardous waste was produced in County Durham respectively. In overall terms hazardous waste production in the County during 2006 and 2007 amounted to only 1.4% and 1.2% of all hazardous waste produced in the North East26.

3.142 The data shows hazardous waste arisings in County Durham for 2006 and 2007 are broadly consistent. In addition, on a regional basis, available information for the period 1998/99 to 2004 shows reasonably consistent levels of waste arisings with no discernable rate of increase or decline for the majority of hazardous waste types (with the exception of organic chemical processes). The position in County Durham contrasts with the England and Wales situation where the Environment Agency reports that hazardous waste production in 2007 increased by 7%.

3.143 The data also shows, however, that hazardous waste production in County Durham for 2008 increased drastically compared to 2006 and 2007. The data shows a rise of around 116% from 2007 figures and a 120% rise compared to the 2006 figure. Nationally, there was a rise in production for England and Wales of nearly 3% in 2008 according to EA trend data. EA also indicate that hazardous waste production in England and Wales has increased by 26% since 2004. Most of this increase is due to liquid inputs to one treatment facility on Teesside. This said, it is still the case that the

26 Environment Agency information indicates that in 2006 1,908,164 tonnes of hazardous waste was produced in the NE (the majority 92.5% (1,765,849 tonnes) was recorded as being produced in the Tees Valley). Similarly, in 2007 2,344,549 tonnes of hazardous waste was produced in the NE (the majority 93.7% (2,520,965 tonnes) was recorded as being produced in the Tees Valley) and in 2008 2,162,233 tonnes were produced in the North East 1,952,549 tonnes of which was from the Tees Valley (90%). It should be noted that the majority of waste produced in the NE is classed as EWC chapter 07 organic chemical processes. The quantity of this type of waste produced in the North East region increased ten-fold between 2004 and 2006. The increase was due entirely to inputs to one waste treatment facility (a waste/water treatment facility) on Teesside which takes liquid waste from a number of companies surrounding the Tees Estuary for physical treatment prior to acceptance at a waste water treatment plant. This waste was formerly disposed of to the Tees Estuary by consented discharge.

68 vast majority of the arisings in the North East were produced in the Tees Valley (90.3%) and Tyne and Wear in 2008. Tyne and Wear accounted for 119,736 (5.5%) tonnes as opposed to County Durham’s 62,250 (2.9%) even given the increase in County Durham mentioned.

Table 52: Hazardous Waste Produced in County Durham (by EWC Chapter, 2006, 2007 & 2008) EWC EWC Description 2006 (tonnes) 2007 2008 Chapter (tonnes) (tonnes) 01 Mining and metals 02 Agricultural and food production 0 1 0 03 Wood and Paper Production 1 15 04 Leather and textile production 3 05 Petrol, Gas and Coal refining/Treatment 1 06 Inorganic Chemical Processes 2,273 1,583 1,625 07 Organic chemical processes 4,611 6,146 4,895 08 MFSU Paints, Varnish, Adhesives and 645 665 419 Inks 09 Photographic Industry 80 66 41 10 Thermal Processes Waste (inorganic) 9 73 18 11 Metal Treatment and coating processes 707 880 758 12 Shaping/Treatment of metals and plastics 707 342 846 13 Oil and Oil/Water mixtures 4,319 5,290 4,287 14 Solvents 115 102 92 15 Packaging, Cloths, Filter Materials 453 847 1,067 16 Not otherwise specified 809 2,008 2,616 17 C&D Waste and asbestos 10,456 7,301 42,023 18 Healthcare 815 830 815 19 Waste/Water Treatment and Water 121 36 228 Industry 20 Municipal and Similar Commercial Wastes 2,186 2,650 2,773 Total for all chapters 28,310 28,820 62,521 Source: Environment Agency website 2009.

Deposits of Hazardous Waste 3.144 In 2006 in total 23,043 tonnes of hazardous waste was deposited in County Durham. In 2006 58.3% of all hazardous waste related to waste/water treatment and the water industry. 32.6% related to organic chemical processes and 6.4% related to C&D Waste and asbestos. In overall terms the hazardous waste deposited in County Durham equates to just over 1% of all hazardous waste deposited in the NE in 200627. In 2007 the picture was very similar in total 26,206 tonnes of hazardous waste was deposited in County Durham. In 2007 66.9% of all hazardous waste related to waste/water treatment and the water industry. 20.2% related to organic chemical processes and 9.4% related to C&D Waste and asbestos. In overall terms this equates to just over 1% of all hazardous waste deposited in the NE in 2007.28

27 Environment Agency information indicates that in 2006 2,233,099 tonnes of hazardous waste was deposited in the NE, the majority 91.8% (2,050,452) was deposited in sites in the Tees Valley. 28 EA information indicates that in 2007 2,520,965 tonnes of hazardous waste was deposited in the NE, the majority 95.9% (2,417,644) was deposited in sites in the Tees Valley.

69 Table 53: Hazardous Waste Deposits in County Durham 2006, 2007 and 2008 (tonnes) EWC EWC Description 2006 2007 2008 Chapter 01 Mining and metals 0 0 0 02 Agricultural and food production 0 0 0 03 Wood and Paper Production 0 0 14 04 Leather and textile production 0 1 5 05 Petrol, Gas and Coal refining/Treatment 0 0 0 06 Inorganic Chemical Processes 17 59 34 07 Organic chemical processes 7,515 5,337 67 08 MFSU Paints, Varnish, Adhesives and Inks 48 62 32 09 Photographic Industry 8 7 6 10 Thermal Processes Waste (inorganic) 16 19 18 11 Metal Treatment and coating processes 6 28 50 12 Shaping/Treatment of metals and plastics 3 7 27 13 Oil and Oil/Water mixtures 41 70 101 14 Solvents 7 5 3 15 Packaging, Cloths, Filter Materials 57 81 112 16 Not otherwise specified 220 326 235 17 C&D Waste and asbestos 1,492 2,480 2,111 18 Healthcare 142 172 248 19 Waste/Water Treatment and Water Industry 13,445 17,590 20,491 20 Municipal and Similar Commercial Wastes 25 62 82 Total for all chapters 23,043 26,306 23,638 Source: Environment Agency website 2009

Hazardous Waste Movements 3.145 Hazardous waste information details complex inter-regional and intra-regional flows of waste. In 2007 15,414 tonnes was exported from County Durham to other NE sub regions and 24,097 tonnes imported into County Durham from other NE sub regions. In 2007 1,484 tonnes was imported into County Durham from England, Wales and Scotland and 12,772 tonnes exported to other parts of England and Wales. As shown on the map below, the North East was a major importer of hazardous waste from other regions in 2008. In 2008, County Durham imported 21,910 tonnes from other North East sub-regions, although 20,491 tonnes of this was waste water/water treatment waste. Also in 2008 22,568 tonnes was imported from England, Wales and Scotland and 61,451 tonnes exported to other parts of the UK.

Source: Environment Agency Waste Information 2008 http://www.environment- agency.gov.uk/static/documents/Research/Waste_Information_2008_Final.pdf

Hazardous Waste Fate 3.146 The term ‘fate’ describes the ultimate end state treatment option for waste. Table 52 below sets out the fate of hazardous waste for 2006, 2007 and 2008. Available evidence indicates that most hazardous waste is managed through licensed special waste landfills or hazardous waste incineration facilities, designed exclusively for hazardous waste.

Table 54: Hazardous waste deposited by fate in County Durham (2006, 2007 and 2008) (tonnes) Disposal or recovery option 2006 2007 2008 Incineration with energy recovery 20,730 22,732 20,478 Incineration without energy recovery 129 143 223 Landfill 1,493 2,481 2,107 Other Fate 2 Recycling / reuse 11 55 51 Rejected 0 Transfer (D) 665 865 743 Transfer (R) 14 29 35 Treatment 0 0 0.2 Total 23,043 26,306 23,638 Source: Environment Agency website Trends data 2009, and National Waste Interrogator 2008

Hazardous Waste Management Capacity 3.147 Very limited information is available in relation to hazardous waste management capacity. While some waste production and fate information has been provided by the Environment Agency further information is required in order to enable an understanding about where this waste stream is actually treated and the capacity of existing facilities.

71 Consideration of the available information has identified significant anomalies between information provided by the Environment Agency in relation to waste fate and known treatment capacity. The Environment Agency waste fate data indicates that the majority of hazardous waste which is managed in County Durham is incinerated (see table 54). However, the information held indicates that there are only five licensed incinerators in County Durham and each of them is restricted by license to accepting animal waste29. This anomaly between known treatment capacity and disposal fate needs clarification from the Environment Agency.

3.148 In terms of landfill only Aycliffe Quarry and Joint Stocks landfill sites are understood to accept special waste and contain a Stable Non Reactive Hazardous Waste Cell. Waste water and water treatment sludge is currently deposited at a dedicated site operated at Wearhead Water Treatment Works (licensed capacity 520 tonnes per annum). The role and significance of this site is not apparent in the Environment Agency waste fate data. It is understood that only Wearhead now operates (formerly, there was a similar site at Lartington) and that this is only occasional.

3.149 Uncertainty about the extent of existing hazardous waste management network, current capacity and actual fate means it is difficult to ascertain whether further provision is needed. What is apparent however is that hazardous waste is generated in the County and is also imported into the County and that this waste is currently managed through one method or another. Through work to strengthen the evidence base, we will seek to establish where hazardous waste is treated and the capacity of existing sites and more accurately determine need. Notwithstanding this, available information clearly shows the majority of region’s hazardous waste is produced or is treated and disposed of in the Tees Valley and Tyne and Wear and that it is these sub-regions where Policy 46 of RSS anticipates that the majority of additional treatment capacity needs to be located.

3.150 Assumptions have therefore been made in Appendix 8 about the current capacity within the County, based upon the amount received at transfer and treatment facilities. It is noted that whilst the arisings for 2008 for this stream were 62,521 tonnes, the County has a capacity of 10-16,000 tonnes per annum. Provision for the management of this stream is made upon a regional or even national basis, however. The majority of arisings of this waste type occur within the Tees Valley and Tyne and Wear sub-regions. As detailed, County Durham accounts for only 2.9% of hazardous waste arisings in the region in 2008 (this is up from 1.4% and 1.2% in 2006 and 2007 respectively).

3.151 As detailed earlier, evidence shows the largest majority of hazardous waste produced in the North East is from the Tees Valley and Tyne and Wear. It is therefore considered appropriate that the County should not provide for further capacity for this stream, in line with Policy 47 of RSS’s priority for locating new facilities for this stream within the Tees Valley and Tyne and Wear sub-regions, given the evidence for the majority of the arisings occurring in the Tees Valley and Tyne and Wear sub-regions.

Data Gaps: Very limited information is available in relation to hazardous waste management capacity. Assumptions have been made on hazardous waste management capacity within the County, based upon EA returns for sites and assumptions of percentage capacity at management facilities. While some waste production and fate information has been provided by the Environment Agency further information is required in order to enable the Council to

29 These are - Eden Hall, Hamsterley (5,610 tonnes capacity per annum), at Sedgefield Industrial Estate (with a capacity of less than 50kg per hour), Unit 6 Newton Aycliffe (50 tonne capacity per annum), The Willows, Langley Park and ‘Forget me not’ Pet Crematorium (60 tonne capacity per annum). None of these operations incorporates energy recovery

72 understand where this waste stream is actually treated and the capacity of existing facilities. The Environment Agency will be asked to provide information on regional flows and capacity for the hazardous waste stream. This information is required in order to assess need. Further to the Coalition Government’s abolition of Regional Spatial Strategies, no further guidance has been given on provision for the hazardous stream. Any dilution in the ability to plan across regions and beyond will obviously affect this stream greatly.

Sewage and Water Treatment Waste 3.152 As statutory undertaker Northumbrian Water Ltd (NWL) provides water and waste water services in North East England including County Durham. The company operates a large network of water treatment and waste water treatment plants across the region and in County Durham. These plants are a significant source of waste requiring both treatment and disposal. Historic information collected during the preparation of the County Durham Waste Local Plan dating from 2002 indicate that approximately 53,000 tonnes of sewage and water treatment sludge arise each year.

3.153 A number of the plants operate as collection and disposal centres for water and waste water treatment sludge arisings including for water treatment sludge: Lumley, Mosswood, Wearhead, Honey Hill and Broken Scar plants. Similarly, on the waste water side a number of plants act as collection and disposal centres for waste water treatment sludge. NWL have previously advised that they use a number of different treatment options to manage waste. The majority of the waste is recovered and used as a soil conditioner for agricultural land (69%), as part of reclamation schemes (22%), and in vermiculture. Other outlets include beneficial use as a renewable fuel.

3.154 NWL currently operates one landfill site in the County at Wearhead Water Treatment Plant (capacity 520 tonnes per annum). The company also operates other landfill sites outside of County Durham which dispose of some of the County’s waste including at Birtley and Bran Sands in the Tees Valley.

3.155 Water Cycle Strategies are proposed to be undertaken as part of the evidence base for the South and East Durham Growth Point programme to identify resource and capacity issues associated with planned growth for the area, such as sewage treatment, water quality, supply and efficiency and flood risk. In addition, NWL have been requested to provide the following updated information:

Data Gaps: data awaited from Northumbrian Water List of NWL sewage and water treatment facilities which produce waste in County Durham requiring disposal (including relevant details including remaining capacity of existing landfill sites). Sewage and water treatment waste arisings in County Durham (recent years), together with how waste arisings were managed. Details of sludge imports into and exports out of the County. NWL projections for future waste arisings. NWL site specific requirements for these waste steams that need to be addressed through the County Durham LDF.

Radioactive Waste 3.156 Radioactive waste is not ‘directive waste’ or ‘controlled waste’ within the terms of the Waste Framework Directive or UK legislation. However, radioactive waste and controlled waste are often mixed before or when they are disposed of. Radioactive waste must always be disposed of in a way that is appropriate for its non-radioactive properties. There are a number of different types of low-level radioactive waste. These are set out in Appendix 6.

73 Government Policy on treatment and disposal 3.157 The Government announced its new policy on low level radioactive waste (LLW) management in March 2007. The policy includes revised regulation around the disposal of LLW to landfill. This means the nuclear industry can now dispose of the following LLW to landfill: high volume very low level waste (a new sub-category of LLW) and controlled burials of LLW. It is expected that the majority of waste that could go to landfill would to consist of rubble and soil from de-commissioning activities. This would contain only small amounts of radioactivity.

3.158 Government policy indicates that disposal should be the option of last resort for LLW, stressing the importance of applying the waste hierarchy to LLW management plans. The other options for LLW disposal set out in Government policy are: • disposal to facilities that have yet to be constructed to take LLW (where this is deemed to be necessary); • disposal to near-surface facilities where disposal is by way of compaction, grouting and placement in a concrete vault; • in-situ disposal; that is, burial at the point of arising; and • incineration.

Arisings and Disposal Methods 3.159 Around 30 nuclear industry sites in England and Wales (nuclear power stations, Sellafield etc.), and several hundred users of radioactivity (hospitals, universities etc.) produce radioactive waste. Currently almost all LLW is disposed of at the LLW repository (LLWR) near Drigg in Cumbria. LLWR is an engineered facility, which provides greater containment than traditional landfills. In the future the Government expect that the decommissioning and clean-up of nuclear sites will create large amounts of lightly contaminated soil and building rubble. Much of this has relatively small amounts of radioactivity, and does not need the level of disposal engineering provided by LLWR. Given the location of nuclear sites, none of which lie in or adjacent to County Durham it is not anticipated that such waste arisings will need to be accommodated in County Durham.

3.160 In line with current practice the Environment Agency envisages that LLW will be disposed via the continued practice of disposal to specific areas of, or adjacent to, nuclear licensed sites or, in future, disposal in facilities that might, be constructed at, or adjacent to, nuclear sites; disposal of LLW and high volume VLLW at specified landfill sites, including “controlled burial”, providing that this meets specified regulatory requirements; and disposal of low volume VLLW to landfill together with municipal, commercial or industrial wastes.

3.161 Although there are no nuclear power stations in County Durham, it is assumed that radioactive waste is produced at a number of establishments including the County’s hospitals, other clinical establishments and possibly by both the University and industry. Indicative trends in waste arising for County Durham and a small number of other waste planning authorities, from the non-nuclear sector were assessed and published in a Non- Nuclear Industry Radioactive Waste Strategy Sustainability Appraisal Report (prepared by WS Atkins and published by DEFRA in January 2009). This report indicates that 4000 cubic metres of radioactive waste currently arises in County Durham and that this trend is anticipated to continue. Other than this information the report does not provide any further details of actual sources of LLW waste, whether LLW has been imported in County Durham from elsewhere within the North East or outside the region and the fate of LLW waste. It is suspected that the volume referred to in the DEFRA report relates to deposits and that a very large proportion of the LLW identified in this report constitutes imports of LLW from outside the County and then subsequently disposed in the County’s

74 landfill sites within Stable Non Reactive Waste Cells, although there is no data to confirm this assumption. The report also presents comparable information for North Yorkshire, South Tyneside and Darlington Boroughs which appears to confirm this assumption. For example the DEFRA report provides a nil return for North Yorkshire, indicates that 0.1M3 is expected to continue to arise in South Tyneside and that 0.25M3 is expected to continue to arise in Darlington Borough. Such considerable discrepancies with the County Durham figure need to be clarified. If this assumption is proved to be correct a key issue which needs to be considered is whether County Durham should continue this pattern of disposal which reflects past deposit trends.

3.162 On the basis of the limited available information and current licensed void space capacity at existing landfills, there does not appear to be any need to make provision for this waste stream in County Durham.

Data Gaps: Very limited information is available on arisings, imports and fate of radioactive waste in County Durham. Information on Low Level Radioactive Waste (LLRW) arisings and capacity in the region will be requested from the Environment Agency in order to seek to address recognised deficiencies in this waste stream. This information is required in order to assess need. The Coalition Government’s abolition of Regional Spatial Strategies and related uncertainty over the regional apparatus leads to further lack of guidance on provision for this stream. It would be useful to have guidance on provision expected. Further guidance will be sought from Government Office and PAS.

Agricultural Waste

3.163 Since 2006, agricultural waste has been defined as controlled30 under waste management legislation. The only agricultural waste arisings information which is currently available has been produced by the Environment Agency. The Environment Agency’s Strategic Waste Management Assessment 2000’ provided information by both region and sub-region. (This information was based on the 1998 Horticultural Census undertaken by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Foods). An update was produced, at regional level only, in 2003. More recently Regional Spatial Strategy for the North East (RSS) (July 2008) confirmed that approximately 2 million tonnes of agricultural waste is produced within the North East, the majority of which is in Northumberland (paragraph 3.122 of RSS).

3.164 Table 55 sets out the 1998 data. It indicates that County Durham produced 647,000 tonnes of agriculture waste in 2003, equivalent to 30.6% of the North East region’s total. It also indicates that in 1998 the majority of waste comprised animal matter resulting from the housing of livestock (95%), with the majority of the remainder comprising of vegetable/plant waste (4.2)%. 4,000 tonnes of pesticide washings, plastics, tyres, oils and sheep dip was also produced.

30 The Waste Management (England and Wales) Regulations, 2006.

75 Table 55: Agricultural Waste and by-products 1998 – County Durham Waste/by-product type County Durham (000s tonnes) Vegetable/plant waste 27.2 Pesticide washings 0.6 Animal matter 615.7 Plastics/polymers 0.7 Paper/card 0.1 Tyres 0.2 Vehicles & Machinery 0.2 Oils 0.2 Sheep Dip 1.9 Milk/rubber/glass 0.1 Total 647 Source: Environment Agency SWMA 2000

3.165 The 1998 and 2003 data is not directly comparable. The 2003 survey was not disaggregated to a sub-regional level. There were also differences in how plastic waste was recorded. Nevertheless the 2003 data shows that 1,796,960 tonnes of agricultural waste was produced in the North East. Given the limits to this data, it is difficult to forecast trends in waste arisings over time. Furthermore the new waste regime for agricultural waste may have given rise to an increase in agricultural waste arisings although there is no evidence to confirm such a trend. It is therefore considered best to use the detailed data set for 1998 as a reasonable representation of likely current arisings.

3.166 The SWMA indicates that there is no information available on the management of agricultural waste and its by-products. It is understood that this position has not changed in the intervening period. However, it is assumed that the majority of waste is dealt with at on-farm locations, particularly where vegetable/plant and some animal waste is spread to land. It is also assumed that the relatively small proportion of other wastes such as plastics/polymers, tyres, vehicles and machinery, oils, sheep dip and rubber and glass enters the existing waste management network as controlled waste. Accordingly no information is set out in the technical paper related to existing capacity for treatment or need for additional capacity.

Data Gaps: No information is available in relation to recent agricultural waste arisings or its treatment. This data gap is not expected to be rectified.

Table 56: Total Treatment and Recovery Capacity in County Durham by broad waste type: Commercial & Inert/C&D Hazardous Metals Recycling Industrial Between 495,000- 1,100,000- 10-16,000tpa3 500-600,000tpa4 650,000tpa1 1,500,000tpa2 1This total is obtained by summing the assumptions on Transfer capacity in Appendix 9; C&I assumptions for Household Transfers in Appendix 9 table 1; and Treatment capacity assumptions in Appendix 11. Currently this total does not include Innovative Waste Solutions and any others currently being researched as o their status. 2This total is obtained by summing the totals of tables in Appendix 8 and taking a range. This is also split down in Appendix 13, by sites and quarries. It is considered that the assumed range is acceptable, based upon the ad-hoc recycling and re-use which is taking place. 3 This total is obtained by summing the totals on Hazardous capacity assumptions in Appendix 9 (table 2) and Appendix 11. 4This total is obtained by summing the assumptions on Metals capacity in Appendix 12.

76 3.8 Identifying Future Waste Management Needs in County Durham

3.167 This section has been written with reference to the Apportionment of Future Waste Arisings (January 2008) prepared by Entec UK Ltd for the North East Assembly, to aid the understanding of waste arisings and waste capacity within the North East Region and to inform a review of the strategy for waste within the Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS was eventually published, taking account of the recommended apportionments in the report, in July 2008).

3.168 The first part of the Entec report looks at the difference between the projected year on year arisings of Municipal Solid Waste and C&I waste from 2006 to 2020, and the available, current and proposed waste facilities in each sub-region and the capacity provided. The difference is known as the ‘capacity gap’ (the gap between waste that requires management and the facilities available to manage each waste stream). It is necessary to identify the capacity gap to enable us to plan for the future waste requirements based on need. Whilst the report takes into account the “possible” facilities, it does not include them in the capacity study as there is too much uncertainty surrounding these sites.

3.169 The second part of the study focuses on the capacity gap in each sub-region. According to the Entec study, up to 95,000 tonnes of landfill capacity is required within County Durham for the MSW stream by 2015. Also, again by 2015 an additional 149,900 tonnes are needed for C&I landfill capacity. It is assumed this is per year. The capacity data is from 2006, however, and the study may therefore be inaccurate in its estimates, as landfilling may be occurring at a lower rate than predicted due to increasing diversion rates. Landfill capacity is finite and total. It can be influenced however by the amount of diversion which occurs.

3.170 The study may also be significantly underestimating existing waste management capacity in the County as an appreciable amount of management capacity has come online since the report was written. The report also does not appear to include all the sites in the County, showing a total of only 18 licensed sites in Durham. Better data is now available. A more comprehensive list appears in Appendix 3 which includes sites such as the mixed MRSs and vehicle dismantlers mentioned by Entec as being useful.

3.171 Our calculations show that the 2008 Entec report has omitted (on present capacity rates) a potential 505,124 tonnes capacity of vehicle dismantlers and mixed MRS capacity. Treatment and Recovery capacity (full capacities for all waste types and including transfers and HWRCs) is underestimated by 2,109,492 tonnes. Although this is a treatment facility for NWL and not included in our own capacity gap calculations, it is still providing capacity which if not treated in-house by NWL would need to go to commercial treatment. Transfer stations are not included in the Entec study – as they may be used for recyclable or residual wastes and they are not a final fate. We believe, however, that a percentage of transfer station capacity should be included, as they are still valuable capacity for the reception of waste. Transfer stations are essentially sorting waste and are easily captured. Most transfer stations also carry out recycling.

3.172 Entec’s projections for waste growth differ slightly from the projections included in table 37 and elsewhere in Section 3.7 of this Waste Technical Paper. Whilst comparable, our figures are slightly higher and also extend to 2030 (at present, only for C&I). The Entec report only covers the period to 2020/21. Whichever estimates are used, they are of course subject to the caveats that they are under constant review as sites open and close; the data may not capture all capacity as some sites may not need to be licensed or may not be on the list for other reasons, such as aggregates recycling or composting

77 being carried out on an ad-hoc basis; the data for capacities may not be the full capacities that the sites could take, or indeed licensing bands may over-represent the amount the site could really take; and assumptions must be made about the population of the County and where concentrations will be/develop. This latter point is a key issue in deciding where future provision should go.

3.173 The tables in Appendices 8 and 9 show that there is significant capacity which is currently inactive (for whatever reason) that can be included in the calculations of the “capacity gap”. These sites are included as the permissions are still active and potentially available as permitted capacity. This is the case whether they were “mothballed”, have not commenced or are inactive due to operational issues. There is also 4,999 tonnes of landfill capacity which is uncertain (and therefore not included in capacity) due to the current application for a time extension at Quickburn Quarry.

3.174 It should be noted in using the information here that whilst we have assumed full licensed capacity can be used, a site may be in a very wide charge band and its actual capacity may be significantly less than the band maximum. Equally, plants could also be operating at a percentage of their capacities due to current market conditions and have capacity for a lot more. Sites may also have been licensed for significantly less (due to when the license was granted) and could take significantly more than licensed for. This paper also does not take into account the movement of wastes within the region, as the Entec study attempted to do when “moderating” the capacity gap.

Capacity Gap

3.175 We have carried out our own calculations of the “capacity gap” for each stream (see Appendix 14 and associated assumptions in previous appendices) based upon the Entec methodology.

3.176 The “capacity gap” is calculated by comparing the current and planned waste management capacity and the forecast need for management of waste. Two different assumptions have been made for recycling performance at transfer stations; a 30% or 75% rate of recycling. For HWRCs the actual efficiency of individual sites is used (based on figures from the DCC Waste Management Section for 2008). It is assumed therefore that the amount of waste delivered to a site minus the amount of waste recovered by that site is the residual amount that needs to be landfilled. Our calculations indicate that there may be sufficient capacity for waste arisings for all streams to 2030. If the 30% efficiency assumption is taken for transfers, however, there will be a capacity gap by 2015 for C&I waste.

3.177 This is the first time that the County Council has attempted anything so extensive and therefore assumptions have had to be made about capacity. As assumptions have been made on the basis of EA licensing bands and percentages of waste taken (based upon 2008 received figures as a proxy for arisings), we are aware of the limitations of the approach but consider that this is a sound basis for our conclusions given the data available. Further detail is contained in the Appendices and in further sections.

3.178 Assumptions have been made about capacities of sites based upon charging bands from the Environment Agency. As mentioned, this may overestimate or underestimate the actual capacity of sites. Current capacity assumptions are also based upon the inclusion of a significant amount of capacity which is not currently on stream (due to sites being mothballed; not commenced and so on) and it is also equally true to say that currently operational sites may come to the end of their useful lives during the life of the Core Strategy. It is therefore not the Council’s intention to develop a stance that would

78 preclude any further development of capacity for the management of waste within County Durham.

3.9 Future Waste arisings

Municipal Solid Waste 3.179 Projections of the MSW waste stream have been carried out for the purposes of the MSW Waste Solutions Project exercise. These are set out in detail in Section 3.7 and summarised in Tables 36 and 37. The Entec report also only covers the period to 2020/21. By 2025/26, our figures used in the options assessment show that MSW will grow to 328,089 tonnes. By 2020/21 Entec estimate that Durham waste will have grown to 286,817 tonnes, as opposed to our profile of 314,983.

3.180 Consultants are currently working on the update of MSW projections to provide evidence to underpin the Municipal Waste Management Strategy. The results of this work will be available later in 2010 and will be used to update the projections in the Core Strategy.

Commercial and Industrial Waste 3.181 Waste Strategy 2007 (Appendix 1 of Annex A) sets out projections for commercial and industrial waste stream, based on: A reduction in industrial waste arisings driven through the pollution, prevention and control (PPC) regime; A chemical sector voluntary reduction target; The impact of the Landfill Tax; The impact of the Landfill Directive. This resulted in the following projections for future C&I waste arisings: • Commercial waste will grow at an average annual rate of 2.6% • Industrial waste will grow at an annual average rate of 0%, reflecting decoupling measures of industrial waste and the predicted shift towards a service economy. http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/waste/strategy/strategy07/index.htm

3.182 For County Durham, Entec applied these assumptions together with the County Council’s preference for projecting the growth for C&I waste in line with predicted growth in VAT registered businesses based on historic growth.

Table 55: C&I Waste Growth Projections in tonnes (source: “Regional Waste Apportionment” Study, Entec, 2008) Durham County Council 2004/05 649,855 2005/06 654,083 2006/07 658,339 2007/08 662,623 2008/09 666,935 2009/10 671,275 2010/11 675,643 2011/12 680,039 2012/13 684,464 2013/14 688,918 2014/15 693,401 2015/16 697,913 2016/17 702,454 2017/18 707,025 2018/19 711,625 2019/20 716,256 2020/21 720,917 Source: Baseline was calculated from the Environment Agency’s Commercial and Industrial Waste Survey 2004/05 and taking into account Waste Strategy 2007 and the assumptions for growth based upon 2.6% growth for

79 Commercial Waste and a 0% growth rate for Industrial. The County Durham projections were based upon the growth in VAT registered businesses.

3.183 Entec’s projections for C&I growth differ from those included in this Waste Technical Paper because our projections are based upon an assumption of 1.5% growth, projecting the RSS apportionments forward to 2030. The assumptions above are based upon 2.6% growth per year for commercial waste and 0% for industrial, tempered by local assumptions on a year-by-year basis. The Entec figures are also arisings figures, rather than capacity required.

3.184 In the absence of further information upon how exactly the RSS figures were calculated, we have rolled the figures forward based upon an assumption of 1.5% growth per year. We consider this a robust assumption to make, based upon the figures. Clarification has been sought from Entec on the assumptions underpinning the RSS projections.

Table 56: Comparison of C&I Waste Received (Proxy for Arisings) with RSS and Entec Projections Year County Durham C&I RSS Management Entec “Regional Waste Waste received (Tonnes) Capacity Apportionment” Study (proxy for arisings)1 Required2 (2008)3 2006/07 616,237 689,000 658,339 2007/08 545,371 699,000 662,623 2008/09 405,511 710,000 666,935 1Source EA/own estimates. 2 Source RSS page 151 table 3. 3 Source Entec “Regional Waste Apportionment” Study (2008)

3.185 The table above shows that the actual arisings figures are well below the predicted figures from both RSS and the Entec update of the RSS waste apportionment figures. Although the Entec update figures are closer to the actual figures, these still overestimate the arisings by 6% rising to 64% over the last three years. More significantly, there is a 75% difference (304,489 tonnes) in the capacity prediction from RSS and the actual amount of waste received for the year 2008. This is a crucial assumption for the Core Strategy, and it is considered appropriate to reconsider the provision of such capacity. Whilst it is acknowledged that the RSS requires 73% of C&I waste to be recovered from 2016, it is considered that following the RSS waste apportionment requirements could overestimate the capacity gap and lead to an overprovision of facilities.

Construction and Demolition Waste 3.186 Neither RSS nor the Entec report addressed Construction and Demolition waste.

3.10 Future Waste Management Requirements

3.187 Entec, in Section 3 of their 2008 report to the North East Assembly, set out to identify the ‘Capacity Gap’ by identifying the projected increases in waste arisings and the requirement to meet targets for recycling, recovery and diversion of waste from landfill. The capacity available was taken as the annual permitted capacity of current facilities and the planned capacity of facilities that had either received planning permission and were yet to be developed, or were in the planning process at the time of preparing the report. It is important to recognise that Entec’s methodology made significant assumptions about the use of facilities for the treatment and disposal of waste within a WPA for wastes produced within the WPA, based on the principles of self sufficiency and the proximity principle, even though it acknowledged that this was unlikely to reflect the reality of waste moving in and out of the region. Finally Entec considered how to ‘moderate’ the capacity gap, where capacity was not available within a WPA, but it was possible the capacity may be available in a neighbouring WPA.

80 3.188 As mentioned, Entec carried out an update in early 2010 on the 2008 report which reviewed projections underpinning the RSS figures, entitled “Regional Waste Apportionment Update”. This was a short briefing note comparing current waste arisings data to the 2008 “Regional Waste Apportionment” report. The conclusions of the study update back up the historical trends data summarised earlier in this paper (table 33); that MSW growth is down over the last three years. It is also understood from the study update that the C&I waste stream and hazardous waste stream are also decreasing and this could also be due to similar reasons (i.e. the current economic climate). The study also mentions Defra is to carry out a national survey of C&I waste arisings in 2010, and it is understood that the North East region is hoping to fund an increase in the sample size so that reliable data can be obtained at regional and possibly sub-regional levels. Once this information is available, future arisings must be predicted for each sub-region and WPA. As mentioned, however, it is uncertain whether this work will now go ahead due to the Coalition Government’s announcement on the RSS and uncertainty over funding. Further work is required on hazardous waste capacity available, according to the Entec update, and they recommend a study being commissioned to ascertain major hazardous waste collectors and disposers in the region and their customers.

3.11 Future Waste Management Facilities

3.189 The Core Strategy will need to provide for a mixture of site types, dependent on developing strategic policies and priorities and the range of opportunities available. This Technical Paper already sets out the range of waste management facilities currently operating in the County. Overall, these will need to be augmented to provide a broad scope of available facilities, possibly including: • activities largely requiring open sites, such as aggregate recycling and open windrow composting; • activities of an industrial nature dealing with largely segregated materials and requiring enclosed premises, such as materials recovery facilities and reprocessing industries; • activities dealing with mixed materials requiring enclosed industrial premises, such as mechanical-biological treatment, aerobic and anaerobic digestion and energy from waste facilities; • hybrid activities requiring sites with buildings and open storage areas, including re- use facilities and enclosed composting systems; • the development of integrated resource recovery facilities and new resource parks accommodating a mix of activities; and • landfilling of residues from waste treatment.

3.12 Waste minimisation and recycling facilities in new development

3.190 All proposals for development will need to take account of the volumes and types of waste likely to be generated by the development during construction and subsequent occupation. Planning applications for all major development should include measures to minimise the use of raw materials, minimise, re-use and recycle waste, and dispose of unavoidable waste in an environmentally acceptable manner.

3.191 The new unitary authority offers a great opportunity to integrate waste policy objectives through development management, including through requiring waste audits as part of planning applications, for proposals that are likely to generate significant volumes of waste. This is a requirement of RSS (policy 46). Audits should demonstrate that in both construction and operational phases of a proposed development, waste will be minimised as far as possible and that waste that is generated will be managed appropriately in accordance with the Waste Hierarchy. The Waste audit might include:

81 a) anticipated nature and volumes of waste likely to be generated; b) steps to be taken to ensure the maximum amount of waste arising from development on previously developed land is incorporated within the new development (such as demolition waste); and c) steps to be taken to ensure effective segregation of wastes at source including, provision of waste sorting, storage, recovery and recycling facilities.

3.192 It might also be appropriate for the Core Strategy to require the provision appropriate waste sorting, recovery and recycling facilities within new development (setting thresholds, above which the requirements would apply (for example developments of 100 or more dwellings, new development, redevelopment or refurbishment of shopping centres or facilities where the floorspace is above an identified threshold, major transport, leisure, recreation, tourist or community facilities).

3.193 Building in Sustainability sets out useful, practical information on designing for minimum waste, emphasising the need to reduce waste at all stages of construction http://www.buildinginsustainability.co.uk/bis/usp.nsf/pws/Building-In+Sustainability+- +Sustainability+Guide+-+Design+for+Minimum+Waste

Link to Design and Local Distinctiveness Technical Paper No 4 and Design and Sustainability SPD

3.13 Protecting the environment and local communities

3.194 The Core Strategy will need to develop a suitable policy approach which protects both the environment and local communities from the unacceptable adverse impacts of waste development. Waste management operations can give rise to various sources of disturbance to local communities.

Visual and landscape impact 3.195 Waste developments can have a considerable impact on the character of the landscape. Physical impacts may arise from damage to the natural topography, or from the removal of hedges, trees and other mature or historic landscape features. The Landscape Technical Paper sets out in detail the potential for waste management to impact on landscape and visual impact, including on landscape character, features and distinctiveness.

3.196 The development of spatial or locational policies for new waste facilities will need to be informed by the County Durham Landscape Capacity Assessment and the County Durham Landscape Strategy. Development control policies will need to ensure that any adverse landscape and visual effects of waste development are minimised. The Core Strategy should recognise the need to secure and encourage creative long-term restoration of landfill sites that accommodates short or medium-term technical constraints, and to secure improvements to the landscape of old waste sites. Guidance is needed on the working and restoration of waste sites. It may be appropriate to address this in the proposed Environment SPD.

See also Technical Paper No. 22: Landscape

Localised Impacts

3.197 Waste management facilities have the potential to produce odours which can present a nuisance. This is normally the result of the decomposition of non-inert waste. Landfill gas can also give rise to offensive smells. The employment of appropriate site practices

82 at landfill sites such as appropriate use of cover material and technological solutions in buildings can minimise these impacts. Planning conditions will need to be used as a means of securing an effective odour control regime.

3.198 Noise from waste management operations can be a major source of disturbance if not properly controlled, particularly where it is in close proximity to residential and other noise sensitive areas. Noise can arise from a variety of sources, especially during site engineering operations, waste processing, compaction and the general operation of site machinery and the movement of heavy lorry traffic. PPG 24, together with MPS2 provide guidance on the use of planning conditions and for controlling noise through measures including the hours of operation, setting of noise limits at places where people live and work, and the siting of plant in relation to dwellings.

3.199 Problems of dust and mud arise from site preparation works, the handling of soils and the processing, treatment and transport of materials. Well maintained and managed equipment and vehicles need to be used as well as recognised methods to suppress and control dust and mud, including the spraying of material with water during handling and transport; the watering of operational areas; the surfacing of site haulage roads; the use of dust extractors; and use of heel washing and sheeting before leaving the site. Planning conditions will be used, as appropriate, as a means of securing an effective dust and mud control regime. The effects of dust and noise are also covered and controlled by the Integrated Pollution, Prevention and Control (IPPC) process, governed and enforced by the Environment Agency. Litter arises where loose, uncompacted waste becomes windblown during site operations. It can largely be controlled through good management practices

3.200 Waste management sites, particularly landfill sites are potential attractors of vermin and birds which can both present a health risk and can also pose a threat to local wildlife. Putrescible waste, in particular, can attract large numbers of birds. This can be a nuisance to people living nearby. It can also present a risk to aircraft in areas adjacent to airports and airfields or low flying areas. The relevant aerodrome will be consulted on all applications for landfill or other waste related development within 13 kilometres of major civil aerodromes. Within this area, there may be restrictions on development which might create a bird strike hazard, or on the detailed design of facilities. In County Durham, such arrangements apply to Teesside Airport.

Land instability

3.201 Unstable land has the potential to affect the integrity of landfill sites including controls over landfill gas and leachate as well as built development. New proposals should therefore include a thorough site investigation and the incorporation of appropriate measures in the design of the site to deal with this issue. The means of reducing the impact of waste management on local amenity and preventing the problems outlined above will vary from site to site. Adherence to the high standards outlined in Policy W29 (site management) will help to achieve these ends and operators will be expected to ensure that pollution control is considered in the earliest stages in designing the development.

3.14 Transporting waste materials

Transport, traffic and access

3.202 Like many other industries which involve bulk transportation, the transport of waste materials usually involves the use of heavy lorries which can cause noise and

83 disturbance, threaten road safety, and cause damage to roads and verges. Its impact on the road network and the amenity of communities, often some distance from the site itself, can therefore be considerable. National policy promotes the transportation of materials by means other than road and requires that facilities for rail and water movement be safeguarded to ensure that they remain available.

3.203 Opportunities for the bulk transportation by means other than road are limited in County Durham. The most obvious viable alternative is rail. The rail network in County Durham is based on two main north-south routes, the East Coast Main Line which passes north to south through the County and the Durham Coast Line which runs between Middlesbrough and Newcastle via Seaham. The County also has a Heritage Line, which is an important branch route running between Darlington and Bishop Auckland. The Weardale Railway Company currently runs tourist trains between Wolsingham and Stanhope and in the long term, plans to re-open traffic up the Dale to Eastgate and down the Dale to Bishop Auckland. Freight only services currently run on the Stillington Line from Ferryhill to Stockton. The Leamside Line, which runs through the County from Ferryhill via Belmont and Fencehouses on to Pelaw, is currently disused. The line is protected in order to assist its possible reinstatement by RSS Policy 57 and it is proposed that it could be re-opened to freight trains offering the potential to serve the proposed Regional Freight Terminal at Tursdale, south of Bowburn, which could potentially handle minerals. Thrislington Quarry is also served by a mineral freight handling facility.

3.204 The Core Strategy’s approach to future transport of waste by rail will need to address similar issues to transporting minerals, as set out in the Minerals Technical Paper. It will need to be based upon a pragmatic assessment of future opportunities, possibly requiring consideration of scope for rail transport as part of transport assessments submitted with planning applications. The Strategy will also need to take account of cost and economics, and recognise that transporting waste by rail becomes more economic over long sites, introducing the potential to import or export waste over long distances, contrary to policy objectives.

Link to Minerals Technical Paper No 22.

3.205 The Core Strategy will also need to consider whether rail infrastructure needs to be safeguarded and protected from inappropriate development. In this respect the Waste Local Plan (saved Policy W30) sought to protect a number of rail alignments i.e. Bishop Auckland - Eastgate; Ferry Hill-Cornforth – Raisby Quarry; Thrislington Quarry; and the Leamside Line.

Environmental impact of road traffic

3.206 If alternative modes of transport cannot be used to transport waste materials to and from sites, it is essential that the impacts of road traffic are minimised. These include carbon emissions, road safety, local amenity (congestion, noise, vibration, dust, air pollution), impacts on wildlife and damage to condition of the highways. This relates not only to the routes used being capable of accommodating the tonnage transported along them but also ensuring that roadside communities are not adversely affected by the transport impacts of the proposed development. Figure 14 shows strategic road network of routes suitable for carrying heavy lorries.

3.207 The Core Strategy will need to develop a policy approach which seeks to mitigate the environmental and amenity impact of road transport to an acceptable level. Again, there are clear overlaps here with the policy approach to minerals. For example a common

84 key area which needs to be considered is how the Core Strategy can mitigate the climate change impacts generated by the transport of waste materials by road, seeking to reduce waste miles through locating new facilities close to sources of waste arisings, in line with policy principles. The issue decarbonising vehicle movements also needs to be considered, for example by encouraging or requiring the use of bio-fuels. The Core Strategy will need to consider how best to direct traffic onto the strategic highway network to reduce pressure on minor and rural roads which are unsuitable for heavy goods traffic and to ensure that traffic generated by the development can be accommodated safely on the highway network and protect local amenity.

Figure 14: Strategic Route Network and rail routes

3.15 Health and Waste Management

3.208 In response to concerns in some quarters about health impacts of some aspects of waste management, the Government set up an independent body to bring together the literature and evidence on the relative health and environmental effects of all the different waste management options; relative both to each other and to other activities affecting health and the environment. This has been a two stage process. The first stage took the form of an assessment of the scientific evidence of the physical health and environmental effects of options to manage municipal solid waste and similar wastes, and a report was published in May 2004. The second stage was an economic study to provide an assessment of the external costs and benefits to health and the environment of waste management options valued in monetary terms.

3.209 The review concluded that the effects on health from emissions from incineration, largely to air, are likely to be small in relation to other known risks to health. The new generation of municipal solid waste incinerators have to comply with much more stringent emission standards than earlier facilities. The review also addressed the effects on the wider environment. The most important is the contribution that landfill emissions make to emissions of methane, a powerful greenhouse gas. The review also noted that odours from landfill can be important, and that measures to capture and use landfill gas could

85 alleviate both of these potential problems. The review reported little existing evidence of other environmental effects due to waste management.

3.210 The contributions of municipal solid waste to air emissions of methane (27% of UK total) and cadmium (about 10% of UK total) are well known to arise mostly from landfill. This is one of the reasons why policy is moving away from landfill as a waste option. With these exceptions, management of municipal solid waste accounts for less than 2.5% of all other emissions for which data are available (including carbon dioxide and toxic gases). These conclusions mean that the overall scale of direct effects of releases to air from waste management practices is relatively small compared with emissions from other sectors such as transport. However, gaps and uncertainties in the evidence base remain, and further research is required, which must be co-ordinated by the Department of Health, in order to establish further and more conclusive evidence on this issue.

Link to Deprivation (including Health) Technical Paper No 18

Link to Transport Technical Paper No 21

3.16 Water and Waste Management

Protection of groundwater 3.211 If not effectively controlled and monitored, waste development has the potential to pollute surface and groundwater resources. Problems can arise for example from surface run-off, leachate from waste disposal and composting sites, and the discharge of waste water. The Environment Agency has published a Policy and Practice for the Protection of Groundwater, known as Regulatory Guidance Note 3 (RGN3) (2002). This is the Agency's position statement on the location of landfills with respect to groundwater protection. The guidance makes clear that the Agency discourages the location of landfill developments with a long term pollution potential in areas where water resources are particularly sensitive (areas identified as groundwater Source Protection Zones). The Agency has made clear it will object to any proposed landfill site in groundwater Source Protection Zone I. For all other proposed landfill site locations, the Agency requires that applicants conduct a risk assessment, based on the nature and quantity of the wastes, and the natural setting and properties of the location. Where the risk assessment demonstrates that active long term site management is essential to prevent long-term groundwater pollution, the Environment Agency would object to sites in areas of groundwater vulnerability, specifically: on or in a Major Aquifer; within Source Protection Zones II and III, and below the water table (in any strata where the groundwater provides an important contribution to river flow and other sensitive surface waters).

3.212 Regulatory Guidance Note 3 has significant and far reaching implications for County Durham. In the west of the County a number of private dwellings and agricultural abstractors are supplied by springs and private boreholes which abstract water from the underlying strata, whereas the geology of the central and eastern part of the County has been significantly disturbed by extensive coal mining, resulting in a particularly complex hydrogeology. The Magnesian Limestone Major Aquifer underlies the eastern part of the County and is exploited for drinking water by both Northumbrian Water Ltd and Hartlepool Water Company. Clay deposits are, however, present throughout the County which may provide a suitable low permeability base for landfill or landraise. These areas are largely uncharted and many will have suffered disturbance over a sustained period of time. Furthermore, the British Geological Survey is currently undertaking monitoring of ground movement on the Magnesian Limestone Escarpment. The Water

86 Framework Directive will be an additional consideration in the assessment of risk to groundwater. On all these issues, the County Council will need to work closely with the Environment Agency which has a duty to protect the quality of groundwater and to conserve the use of water resources, and assesses the risk of pollution from proposed development.

Flood Risk

3.213 PPS 25 advocates a risk-based approach to proposals for development in or affecting flood risk areas or where the development may increase flood risk elsewhere, informed by Strategic Flood Risk Assessments (SFRAs) for DPD’s and Flood risk assessments (FRAs) for individual development proposals.

3.214 Waste management facilities within floodplains can cause problems in respect of drainage and floodplain protection. Location of new waste management facilities will need to take account of the potential impact of flooding on them and their impact on flood risk, either directly or through the increase in run-off that is likely to result from waste operations. Landfill and landraise facilities can interfere with the natural behaviour of surface and ground water whilst other waste management facilities can exacerbate the potential risk of flooding through the development of impermeable structures and surfaces. In principle therefore, new waste management facilities should be located outside flood risk areas, but where this cannot be avoided, developments should be suitably designed to cope with the risk of flooding or include effective proposals to protect the land, including provision for long term maintenance. links with Water Technical Paper No 10

3.17 Recovery of energy from waste

3.215 Value can be recovered from waste which cannot be recycled or composted by using it to generate energy, heat and to collect residual materials for recycling, using technologies which have become known as ‘ Energy from Waste’. Energy from waste (EfW) usually involves waste being burned at high temperatures under controlled conditions, reducing its volume and recovering renewable energy in the form of electricity and/or heat, but it does encompass other technologies. Energy from waste has the potential to play an important role in a balanced range of waste management activities, maximising the amount of waste beneficially reused through recycling materials, where markets exist, and the recovery of energy.

3.216 Like all other combustion plants burning solid and liquid fuels, the incineration process produces emissions and ash residues. If solid ash residues are handled and disposed of correctly, air emissions are the main way people and the environment can be affected by emissions. Since the end of 2005 all energy from waste plants have been subject to the European Waste Incineration Directive, with tighter controls on emission limits and improved technology. In 2006/07 11 per cent of municipal waste in England and 2 per cent in Wales was incinerated with energy recovery (expected to rise to 25 per cent in England by 2020).

3.217 At present in County Durham, no mass burn incineration of Municipal Solid Waste takes place with recovery of energy, although some limited and small scale incineration of particular waste types, predominantly animal waste, is carried out at a small number of small scale facilities. Whether any energy from waste technologies will form a part of County Durham’s future waste management arrangements will become clearer through the MSW Waste Solutions Project process.

3.218 Energy is also generated from landfill gas management systems at active and closed landfill sites across the County. In total, these currently generate almost 10MW of capacity, as detailed in the following table. (Please note that no information has been collated on the status or performance of operational / permitted facilities and therefore the totals in operation and the load factors that should be applied in determining outputs.)

Table 57: Landfill Gas Energy Development in County Durham Position at 30th March 2009 Site / Location Former district area Installed capacity Operational/permitted Chapman’s Well Derwentside 1.00 MW Coxhoe Durham 3.80 MW St Bede’s Chester-le-Street 2.00 MW Bolam Teesdale 0.98 MW Todhills Wear Valley 0.98 MW Mark’s Quarry Durham City 1.00 MW Total operational / permitted 9.76 MW

Links with Energy Technical Paper

88 SECTION 4.0 EMERGING ISSUES

4.1 Regeneration

4.1 As well as playing an important role in enabling communities to become more sustainable, waste management potential has an important role to play in regeneration, supporting new economic development initiatives and offering opportunities for economic and employment growth through ‘green collar’ jobs, in the environmental sector, offering an opportunity to expand and develop skills, as part of the development of a low carbon economy, and potentially forming part of the strategy for recovery from the current economic down turn.

4.2 Waste management must form an important element of the South and East Durham Growth Point proposal, encapsulated in the proposal for a Waste Treatment Study as part of the evidence base, but offering the opportunity for waste management to be fully and effectively integrated into the development programme, avoiding the drawbacks of this issue being addressed retrospectively.

Link to Employment, Education and Skills Technical Paper No 17

4.2 Climate Change

4.3 In the local government white paper, Strong and prosperous communities, the former Government committed to implementing a new streamlined performance framework. The backbone of the new framework is the 198 indicators against which local government will begin to report its performance from April 2008. Two national indicators specifically relate to CO2 reduction (NI 185 – percentage CO2 reduction from Local authority activities, and NI 186 Per capita CO2 emissions in the Local Authority Area. This covers three sectors: • Industry and Commerce • Domestic • Transport

2005 – baseline year • Industry and Commerce – 1,324,000 (t) • Housing – 1,285,000 (t) • Road Transport – 831,000 (t) • Or 7.12 t of CO2 per person

2006 – latest data • Industry and Commerce – 1,359,000 (t) • Housing – 1,301,000 (t) • Road Transport – 822,000 (t) • Or 7.21 t of CO2

89 Figure 15: Carbon Emissions by sector

1400

1200

1000

800 Tonnes of CO2 600

400

200

0 Industry and Domestic Road Transport Commercial Sector

4.4 County Durham has a target for a 4 % year on year reduction in CO2 emissions. – For

County Durham this will require a year on year target reduction of 180,000 T of CO2 per annum, bringing the footprint down to 6.85 tonnes of CO2 per person.

4.5 In year one, the emissions across the County increased by 42,000 tonnes or 1.01%. This equates to a target reduction of 180,000 (t) CO2.

4.6 Waste management in County Durham will need to contribute to sustainable development, including global sustainability. Increasingly, the challenge of sustainable waste management is becoming more focussed on the issue of climate change and the reduction of carbon emissions. The challenges of combating climate change and sustainable waste management are closely inter-related.

4.7 Policies will need to take account of the need to mitigate the effects of, and adapt to, climate change through, for example, the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, the use of renewable energy and taking climate change into account in the location and design of development.

4.8 Waste management generates carbon dioxide and methane which are both greenhouse gases. The waste stream contains biodegradable carbon-based organic materials such as kitchen and garden waste, paper, and products such as plastics containing carbon derived from fossil fuels. The treatment and disposal of these wastes has a direct influence on the emissions of greenhouse gases. How we manage wastes determines how we manage the release of the carbon back into the environment. Greenhouse gases can be produced at each stage the production and waste management life cycle, from raw material extraction, transport, manufacturing, use and final treatment or disposal of materials. It is estimated that the UK waste industry manages some 40 million tonnes of direct carbon emissions via disposal facilities and vehicle fleets.

4.9 Mitigation of climate change will centre around delivering the key planning objectives set out in PPS10, helping to reduce the impact of waste management on the environment, including through the reduction of greenhouse gases. SA should help shape planning

90 strategies to deliver these planning objectives. Adaptation to climate change will be a relevant consideration in assessing appropriate locations for new waste management facilities, including landfill, particularly in view of flood risk considerations (which should be set out in Flood Risk Assessments).

4.10 In March 2007, Defra published research into carbon emissions from waste management, building on a review by the WRAP which found that recycling usually has lower impacts than landfilling for most waste streams. http://www.defra.gov.uk/news/2007/070305c.htm

Climate Change legislation

4.11 In recent years there has been a significant strengthening of the Government’s position on Climate Change and the UK’s role in mitigating our impacts and adapting to changes. This is evidenced by the PPS1 Supplement on Climate Change and the Consultation on a PPS on Planning for a Low Carbon Future. More recently, the Coalition Government has committed to ambitious targets on carbon reduction, climate change and energy, and has stated that climate change is the one of the gravest threats we face. Measures include working towards an ambitious global climate deal that will limit emissions and explore the creation of new international sources of funding for the purpose of climate change adaptation and mitigation and the introduction of a floor price for carbon, as well as making efforts to persuade the EU to move towards full auctioning of ETS permits. Although the consequences of climate change will be felt globally there is strong pressure to address the causes of greenhouse gas emissions at source. How we dispose of our waste plays a crucial role in meeting the UK’s commitments on reducing our contribution to greenhouse gas emissions. The Core Strategy will need to take account of the need to mitigate the effects of climate change, and adapt to its impacts.

Mitigation 4.12 Delivering the Key Planning Objectives in PPS10 will help reduce the impact of waste management on the environment, including through the reduction of greenhouse gases. SA should help shape planning strategies to deliver these planning objectives.

Adaptation 4.13 Climate change will be relevant when considering appropriate locations for some types of waste management, landfill in particular. The Environment Agency research report The Potential Impacts of Climate Change on Waste Management sets out the key issues.

4.14 As examples of how waste and climate change are connected, current disposal of biodegradable waste generates methane which amounts to 3% of the UK’s total emissions. More positively, the present levels of recycling plastic, glass, paper, aluminium and steel across the UK save more than 18 million tonnes of CO2 emissions per year through avoided primary material production. The Coalition Government has also committed to introduce measures to promote a huge increase in energy from waste through anaerobic digestion.

4.15 The Government continues to legislate, produce guidance and develop local authority performance indicators concerned with mitigating against, and adapting to, climate change. This Technical Paper identifies the key drivers for mitigation and how the Core Strategy should respond to the challenge of climate change and particularly the need to focus on carbon management from waste activities.

91 4.16 The clear direction from Government therefore is that waste management is integral to the UK’s climate change commitments at an international level and the targets and indicators being set will require local authorities to address the issue at their level. Carbon emissions from waste operations over the next two decades must meet Government targets. Failure on this issue would have serious implications for the environment and for local authority performance.

4.17 Businesses and local authorities have both stressed a need for long term stable targets on climate change and the Waste Strategy 2007 sets out the scene for the next 12 years. However, given the dynamic nature surrounding the science and legislation of climate change it could be prudent to have sufficient flexibility built into any Strategy to accommodate any subsequent changes.

4.18 A summary of Key legislation, documents, and drivers for climate change and its relationship with Waste management is set out in Appendix 7.

National Indicators for Local Authorities and Local Authorities Partnerships http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/localgovernment/indicatorsdefinitions 4.19 This list of indicators is the basis on which local authorities and their partnerships will be assessed. They include: NI 185 CO2 reduction from Local Authority operations NI 186 Per capita reduction in CO2 emissions in the LA area NI 188 Adapting to climate change NI 191 Residual household waste per head NI 192 Household waste recycled and composted NI 193 Municipal waste land filled NI 194 Level of air quality – reduction in NOx and primary PM10 emissions through local authority’s estate and operations.

4.20 The new indicator set will come into effect fully from April 2009, when local authorities will be measured on all 198 indicators. Local Area Agreements must select 35 of the 198 indicators to concentrate on.

Waste Strategy for England 2007 http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/waste/strategy/

4.21 The 2007 Waste Strategy for England is perhaps the most relevant document linking climate change and waste management. It sets out the Government’s vision for sustainable waste management and sets a target that by implementing the strategy, (31) England will reduce its net emissions of CO2e by 9.3 million tonnes per year (by 2020) from a 2006 baseline.

4.22 The need to be aware of the carbon implications of dealing with our waste is stressed repeatedly throughout this document. As well as a number of waste reduction aims, the Strategy also makes reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 a target:

4.23 ‘The overall impact of this strategy is expected to be an annual net reduction in global greenhouse gas emissions from waste management of at least 9.3 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent per year compared to 2006 (equivalent to annual use of around 3 million cars). The additional greenhouse gas emissions reductions result from an increase in diversion of waste from landfill of around 25 million tonnes of waste per

31 Carbon Dioxide equivalent. Each gas has a different potential to cause climate change and total emissions are often shown as CO2e to enable measurement and comparison.

92 annum. These benefits will be further boosted by significant extra greenhouse gas benefits from the waste prevention measures in the strategy.’

4.24 The Strategy makes repeated, strong linkages between waste and carbon management. As an example, the following graph shows potential carbon benefits from various treatment methods:

Figure 16: Estimated carbon benefit of feasible additional treatment 2020

4.3 Sustainable Development

4.25 The overall national policy objective for waste management (as set out in the strategy for sustainable development), is to protect human health and the environment by producing less waste and by using it as a resource wherever possible. This is emphasised in PPS10. “Through more sustainable waste management, moving the management of waste up the ‘waste hierarchy’ of reduction, re-use, recycling and composting, using waste as a source of energy, and only disposing as a last resort” (PPS10 para 1). Breaking the link between economic growth and generation and environmental impact of waste is also a key national policy objective.

4.26 PPS 10 is also clear about the role of planning in sustainable waste management through: - the development of strategies for growth, regeneration and the prudent use of resources; and - providing sufficient opportunities for new waste management facilities of the right type in the right place at the right time.

93 4.4 Emerging Issues

Climate change Waste management in County Durham will need to contribute to overriding sustainable development objectives, including global sustainability. Increasingly, the challenge of sustainable waste management is becoming more focussed on the issue of climate change and the reduction of carbon emissions. The challenges of combating climate change and sustainable waste management are closely inter-related.

Data Significant gaps in data still remain. Some of these are expected to be addressed in the near future, but others appear more intractable. For many of these issues it is difficult to reach a position where we can confidently forecast and plan for future provision. Specifically the following information needs to be identified: • The number, details (type and capacity) and location of all waste management sites in County Durham (cross referenced with details of each Environmental permit/WML); • Quantities of waste flows through or recycled, recovered or deposited at each facility year on year (showing historic trends); • Current and future waste arisings to the end of the plan period (2026); • Set out robust assumptions for the growth/decline of each waste stream; • National, regional and local targets for waste recycling/reuse & treatment; and • The ‘capacity gap’ - need for new facilities for each waste stream.

The ability to do this is dependent on the availability of reliable data

Municipal Solid Waste Significant new waste recovery capacity is needed to manage future MSW arisings in the County, in order to meet waste recycling and recovery targets, enable landfill diversion at least to meet the County Council’s LATS ceilings and avoid significant financial penalties. The extent of required capacity is outlined in this Technical Paper, but further detailed modelling work is continuing in relation to the MSW Waste Solutions project process and will only become clearer later in that process.

Industrial and Commercial Waste Although significant waste recovery capacity for industrial and commercial waste streams has been developed recently, it is clear this will need to expand in the future to ensure that targets are met and move management of these waste streams onto a more sustainable footing. However, data remains poor and incomplete, particularly on waste arisings, and detailed modelling of any ‘capacity gap’ will be developed as the picture becomes clearer, in partnership with the Environment Agency.

Construction and Demolition Waste Although data is poor, on the basis of the available evidence we can reasonably assume significant increase in re-use and reduction in the amount of waste needing to go to landfill. Currently planning permission exists for the recycling of this waste stream at a wide range of sites and it is known that significant quantities of this waste stream are recycled at existing brownfield development sites. In order to meet Waste Strategy 2007 targets for 2012 and for 2020 significant quantities of this waste stream will need to be diverted from landfill by 2012, with this entire waste stream being diverted by 2020. Given the quantities of this waste stream currently being landfilled this represents a significant challenge.

94 Hazardous Waste Uncertainty as to the extent of existing hazardous waste management network, current capacity and actual fate means it is difficult to ascertain whether further provision is needed. What is apparent however is that quantities of hazardous waste arise in the County and are also imported into the County and that this waste is currently managed through one method or another. Through work to strengthen the evidence base, we will seek to establish where hazardous waste is treated and the capacity of existing sites and more accurately determine need. Notwithstanding this, available information clearly shows the majority of region’s hazardous waste is produced or is treated and disposed of in the Tees Valley and Tyne and Wear and that it these sub-regions where Policy 46 of RSS anticipates that the majority of additional treatment capacity needs to be located.

A Joint Policy Approach There are significant overlaps in policy formation with minerals planning particularly in respect of managing environmental impacts and there appears to be a case for a joint approach to policy formation, in areas such as traffic, protecting local amenity and site restoration.

Regeneration Waste management potentially has an important role to play in regeneration, supporting new economic development initiatives and offering opportunities for economic and employment growth through ‘green collar’ jobs, in the environmental sector, offering an opportunity to expand and develop skills, as part of the development of a low carbon economy, and potentially forming part of the strategy for recovery from the current economic down turn.

Growth Point Waste management must form an important element of the South and East Durham Growth Point proposal, encapsulated in the proposal for a Waste Treatment Study as part of the evidence base, but offering the opportunity for waste management to be fully and effectively integrated into the development programme, avoiding the drawbacks of this issue being addressed retrospectively.

New development New development should plan to minimise waste. All proposals will need to take account of the volumes and types of waste generated by the development during construction and subsequent occupation. The new unitary authority offers a great opportunity to integrate waste policy objectives through development management, including through requiring waste audits as part of planning applications, for proposals that are likely to generate significant volumes of waste. It might also be appropriate for the Core Strategy to require the provision appropriate waste sorting, recovery and recycling facilities within new development (setting thresholds, above which the requirements would apply).

95 Appendix 1: Saved Waste Local Plan Policies

The provisions of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 saved all existing Waste Local Plan policies 18th April 2008 (three years from the date of adoption). Following the Secretary of State’s Direction under 1(3) Schedule 8 to the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, the policies listed below are to be saved until they are replaced by policies in the Core Strategy DPD. (The Policies which are not listed in the Schedule (namely policies W1, W11, W12, W15, and W57) expired on 18th April 2008.)

Policy Number Policy Name W2 Need W3 Environmental Protection W4 Location of Waste Management Facilities W5 Safeguarding Sites W6 Design W7 Landscape W8 North Pennines Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty W9 Area of High Landscape Value and Heritage Coast W10 Green Belt (Waste Development) W13 Nature Conservation (Local Designations) W14 Nature Conservation (Wildlife Corridors) W16 Nature Conservation (Ancient Woodland) W17 Nature Conservation (Minimisation of adverse impact) W18 Listed Buildings W19 Conservation Area W20 Durham Cathedral and Castle World Heritage Site, Historic Battlefields and Historic Parks and Gardens. W21 Archaeology W22 Archaeology W23 Archaeology W24 Rights of Way W25 Agricultural Land W26 Water Resources W27 Landfill/Landraise & groundwater vulnerability W28 Flood Risk W29 Modes of Transport W30 Modes of Transport W31 Environmental Impact of Road Traffic W32 Planning Obligations for controlling environmental impact of road traffic W33 Protecting Local Amenity W34 Site Management W35 Cumulative Impact W36 Household Waste Recycling Centres W37 Waste Recovery Facilities W38 Waste Transfer Stations W39 Waste Recycling W40 End of Life Vehicles W41 Indoor Composting W42 Outdoor Composting W43 Aerobic and anaerobic Digestion

96 W44 Small Scale aerobic & anaerobic Digestion W45 Energy from Waste W46 Landfill and Landraise W47 Agricultural Land W48 Energy from Landfill Gas W49 Incineration without energy recovery W50 Mining of Waste W51 Clinical Waste W52 Sewage Treatment Works W53 Incineration of Animal Carcasses W54 Reclamation Conditions W55 After-use W56 Legal Agreements W58 Thrislington Quarry

97 Appendix 2: Policy Context The role of this appendix is to provide a summary of the main waste policy documents which were referred to in Chapter 2 ‘Policy Context’.

National Policy

Planning Policy Statement 10 ‘Planning For Sustainable Waste Management’ (PPS10), (CLG, July 2005) http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/planningandbuilding/planningpolicystatement10 PPS10 requires the Core Strategy set out policies and proposals for waste management in line with the RSS and ensure sufficient opportunities for the provision of waste management facilities in appropriate locations including for waste disposal. The core strategy should both inform and in turn be informed by the municipal waste management strategy. It should look forward for a period of at least ten years from the date of adoption and should aim to look ahead to any longer-term time horizon that is set out in the RSS.

In respect of identifying land, PPS 10 requires waste planning authorities to identify in DPD’s sites and areas suitable for new or enhanced waste management facilities for the waste management needs of their areas. Waste planning authorities should in particular: – allocate sites to support the pattern of waste management facilities set out in the RSS in accordance with the broad locations identified in the RSS; and, – allocate sites and areas suitable for new or enhanced waste management facilities to support the apportionment set out in the RSS.

In doing so, waste planning authorities should: – be able to demonstrate how capacity equivalent to at least ten years of the annual rates set out in the RSS could be provided; – identify the type or types of waste management facility that would be appropriately located on the allocated site or in the allocated area, taking care to avoid stifling innovation in line with the waste hierarchy; – avoid unrealistic assumptions on the prospects, for the development of waste management facilities, or of particular sites or areas, having regard in particular to any ownership constraint which cannot be readily freed, other than through the use of compulsory purchase powers.

In searching for sites and areas suitable for new or enhanced waste management facilities, waste planning authorities should consider: – opportunities for on-site management of waste where it arises; – a broad range of locations including industrial sites, looking for opportunities to collocate facilities together and with complementary activities (reflecting the concept of resource recovery parks).

In deciding which sites and areas to identify for waste management facilities, waste planning authorities should: (i) assess their suitability for development against each of the following criteria: – the extent to which they support the policies in this PPS; – the physical and environmental constraints on development, including existing and proposed neighbouring land uses (see Annex E); – the cumulative effect of previous waste disposal facilities on the well-being of the local community, including any significant adverse impacts on environmental quality, social cohesion and inclusion or economic potential; – the capacity of existing and potential transport infrastructure to support the sustainable movement of waste, and products arising from resource recovery, seeking when practicable and beneficial to use modes other than road transport.

98 (ii) give priority to the re-use of previously-developed land, and redundant agricultural and forestry buildings and their curtilages.

Planning for Sustainable Waste Management: a Companion Guide to PPS10 (CLG June 2006) http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/planningandbuilding/planningsustainable The Companion Guide provides advice, ideas, examples of current practice and signposts to further information in support of the implementation of PPS10, including for planning authorities preparing LDF’s. It focuses on ‘how to’ rather than setting or interpreting policy.

Regional Guidance

The North East of England Plan, Regional Spatial Strategy to 2021, GONE, (2008). RSS forms part of the statutory development plan for County Durham. It sets out the regional and strategic policies for the north east and sets out the quantum of new housing, employment, minerals and waste development which will have to be accommodated within the region to 2021. It contains a number of overarching policies including policies which seek the renaissance of the North East (Policy 1), support sustainable development (Policy 2) through a range of environmental, social and economic objectives and contributing to mitigating and adapting to climate (Policy 3). Given the nature of the document some of the overarching policies have aspects less directly applicable to waste development e.g. the sequential approach to development (Policy 4), phasing, & plan, monitor and manage (Policy 5) and locational strategy (Policy 6). The document also contains a range of policies including environmental protection and enhancement policies (Policy 8), landscape character (Policy 31), historic environment (Policy 32), biodiversity and geo-diversity (Policy 33), the aquatic and marine environment (Policy 34), flood risk (Policy 35), trees, woodlands and forests (Policy 36) and air quality (Policy 37). The document contains strategic waste policies, namely sustainable waste management (Policy 45), waste management provision (Policy 46) and hazardous waste (Policy 47).

The requirements of the waste policies are set out below: Policy 45 – SUSTAINABLE WASTE The Core Strategy DPD will need to MANAGEMENT adopt the principles set out in Policy 45 Strategies, plans and programmes …should give priority to initiatives which encourage behavioural change through: a. developing and implementing waste minimisation plans and schemes; b. implementing waste awareness and education campaigns; c. developing reuse schemes; and d. minimising the use of primary construction materials and the production of waste; and should be based on the following key principles: a. the waste hierarchy with minimisation at the top, then reuse, recycling, composting, waste to energy and landfill; b. enable waste to be disposed of in one of the nearest appropriate installations; and c. ensuring communities take more responsibility for their own waste. Policy 46 – WASTE MANAGEMENT The Core Strategy DPD will need to PROVISION ensure that sufficient capacity is provided

99 Strategies, plans and programmes should for to meet provision set out in Policy 46 provide the management capacity for the annual tonnage of waste arisings set out in Table 3 & 3A. The type and number of facilities should reflect local circumstances within the strategic framework established by RSS policies and will be based on: Household Waste – to increase recycling and composting to 40% by 2010 and 46% by 2016 Municipal Solid Waste – to increase recovery to 53% by 2010 and 72% by 2016 Commercial & Industrial – to increase recovery to 73% by 2016

Local Development Frameworks should: a. allocate sites for waste management facilities and contain policies which identify specific criteria for the location of waste management facilities, having regard to the locational and planning considerations set out in national planning policy, the environmental and social-economic impacts, the suitability of the road network and the potential for access by non-road transport b. encourage the provision of new waste related businesses to process recycled materials including, where appropriate, defining suitable sites and/or criteria based policies; c. facilitate the development of a network of small scale local waste management facilities in accessible locations, and effective methods of waste management such as facilities to separate or store different types of waste, including materials that are required to be separated for kerbside collection schemes; d. limit additional landfill sites unless it can be demonstrated that there is insufficient capacity for the deposit of residual wastes: and e. assess the capacity gap for the municipal solid and commercial and industrial waste streams. Local Development Frameworks …..should require the submission of a waste audit for major developments and provide details of in- house or on-site waste management facilities. Policy 47 – HAZARDOUS WASTE The Core Strategy DPD will need to set Waste and Local Development Frameworks an approach to hazardous waste which should provide for a range of new facilities for responds to the requirements of RSS in the treatment and management of 567,000 the context of current arisings and tonnes of hazardous waste per annum by management arrangements in County 2010/11, 610,000 tonnes per annum by Durham 2015/16 and 671,000 tonnes per annum by 2021/22. Local Development Frameworks should:

100 a. identify specific sites or criteria for the location of facilities to treat and manage hazardous waste, with priority being given to appropriate industrial areas in Tyne and Wear and Tees Valley; b. identify criteria against which individual proposals will be assessed; and c. provide for the appropriate treatment of hazardous waste where this arises on a regional or sub regional scale.

Other related plans and strategies

County Durham Local Transport Plan2 2006-2011, Durham County Council, (2006). This document is the Council’s second Local Transport Plan for the five year period 2006- 2011 and sets out a strategy, policies and implementation plan for all modes of transport in the County. It addresses accessibility needs and the further improvement of public transport; seeks to deal with issues in relation to road safety and dealing with the growing problems of traffic congestion and poor air quality. The plan also includes a 5 year programme of capital schemes and measures to improve transport across the County addressing integrated transport (addressing accessibility, road safety, quality of life and health, road congestion and air quality), maintenance programmes (maintenance of carriageways and footways & bridge strengthening including footbridge maintenance. In addition the Plan also includes numerous minor infrastructure schemes and the construction and completion of a number of bypasses including the West Auckland A688 bypass and Chilton A167 bypass.

Durham Biodiversity Action Plan, (Durham Biodiversity Partnership, (2007). The Durham Biodiversity Plan, (first published in 1999) has now been revised. The revised DBAP is a non statutory plan which covers the geographical area of County Durham, Darlington, Gateshead, Sunderland and South Tyneside. It aims to provide a series of structured action priorities for all those organisations and individuals working to conserve biodiversity in the Durham BAP area. The revised DBAP currently defines 32 priority habitats, 63 priority species and contains 51 DBAP action plans. These include Priority Habitats: Woodland (8), Wetlands (6), Upland habitats (7), Lowland Habitats (11); priority species: mammals (12), birds (24), herpitiles (5), fish (3), invertebrates (15), plants (4); DBAP action plans: woodlands (6), wetlands (8), upland habitats (7), lowland habitats(13), mammals (8), birds (6) and reptiles (2); and one cross cutting action plan relating to climate change. Over time additional priority habitats, species and action plans will be developed. Each complement action plan includes information which discusses the habitat or species action plan, current or recent activity in relation to research or actions undertaken, threats to the species or habitat and objectives for action. Given the extent of information within the DBAP it is not possible to summarise each habitat or species action plan in this review. The DBAP also includes a series of definitions for the purposes of mapping priority habitats and measuring their condition. The current version of the plan has yet to publish any maps relating to the distribution of these habitats or species.

County Durham Landscape Strategy, Durham County Council, (2008). The Landscape Strategy is a non-statutory plan which addresses issues that affect the varied landscapes of County Durham and sets out objectives for their conservation and enhancement. It is based on the County Council’s landscape character assessment which was published by in 2003. The Strategy addresses many of the issues identified in other plans and strategies and overlaps geographically with other area based plans including the North Pennines AONB Management Plan and the Great North Forest Plan, and the

101 intention is to complement these plans. The Strategy has three aims: 1. To maintain and enhance the character and diversity of the Durham Landscape; 2. To make development and land management more sustainable by helping to ensure that they respect the character of the landscape and contribute towards wider environmental objectives; and 3. To support and complement other environmental strategies to help promote coordinated action on the environment. The Strategy investigates a range of broad issues that affect the landscape including overarching issues such as climate change and biodiversity, geo-diversity and cultural heritage, and sets out objectives for addressing them. The strategy considers land management issues in relation to agriculture, woodlands and forestry, moors and heaths, field boundaries and river and wetlands and discusses particular issues and includes objectives for addressing each issue. The Strategy considers developmental pressures including pressures relating to housing, industry, transport, minerals, waste, renewable energy and recreation and tourism. In terms of waste this part of the document includes objectives in relation to guiding new waste development, existing waste facilities, creative restoration and dealing with legacies from the past.

The Strategy analyses the County Character Areas, their assets and attributes and the trends and pressures affecting the landscape. It sets out a broad strategy and a series of objectives to meet the strategy for each area, and proposes spatial strategies for conserving, restoring or enhancing the landscape. The Landscape Strategy also contains spatial strategies that have been developed through analyses of local landscape types identified in the landscape character assessment. These strategies identify the most appropriate kind of action whether conservation, restoration or enhancement for that particular landscape to inform land managers, developer and planners.

A separate spatial strategy is also included for woodlands and forestry and identifies areas which are highly sensitive, sensitive and less sensitive together with priority areas for new woodland planting. Each area has its own strategy i.e. in highly sensitive areas the strategy is to broadly maintain the current balance of land uses. New woodland planting should only take place in exceptional circumstances. In contrast the strategy for less sensitive areas is to increase woodland cover, and in particular within priority areas. Priority areas for woodland planting are those areas where the greatest public or environmental benefit might arise from new woodland creation. They include: local landscapes where the landscape strategy is to enhance or restore and enhance and which lie close to centres of population, and in particular semi-rural landscapes of the former coalfield, derelict and reclaimed land or restored opencast land and land close to (<500m) or connecting to semi- ancient semi- natural woodlands.

Limestone Landscapes Action Plan for the Durham Magnesian Limestone Plateau (forthcoming). The Limestone Landscapes partnership is developing an action plan to deliver environment led projects and activities across a broad range of sectors. These will also benefit the local economy and people. The partnership covers an area which is coherent in terms of the character of natural and cultural features.

The Rights of Way Improvement Plan for County Durham 2007-2011, Durham County Council, (2007). The ROWIP has been produced as a direct requirement of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 (CROW Act). It forms the framework for planning and implementing access work to 2011. It provides information on the access and rights of way in County Durham and includes an action plan for future improvements to the access and rights of way network.

102

County Durham Geo-diversity Audit, Durham County Council, (2004). This document reviews the component parts of the County’s geo-diversity and their relevance to their other interests. The audit also serves as the essential background to the forthcoming Geo-diversity Action Plan which will frame recommendations, action points and policies relevant to all aspects of geo-diversity in the County. The document outlines the key elements of the County’s geology and geo-diversity. It highlights the influence of geology in the County and how it has played a fundamental role in shaping the County’s topography, landscapes and biodiversity and the direct relationship of geology with the economy through the extraction of mineral resources (and the historic relationship of this with waste management). The document highlights the importance of conserving earth science within County Durham and outlines the range of statutory and non-statutory designations found within the County (many which geological interest) including the North Pennines Geo-Park, national nature reserves, sites of special scientific interest and county geological and wildlife sites. Part 2 of the document considers the complex geological resource in the County which includes Ordovician rocks, Carboniferous rocks including Dinantian, Namurian and Westphalian rocks, Permian rocks including magnesian limestone, yellow sands and marl slate, Intrusive Igneous rocks, Methamorphic rocks, mineral veins and more recent deposits laid down in the Quaternary period.

North Pennines Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB), Geo-diversity Audit and Action Plan, 2004-2009, North Pennines AONB Partnership, (2004). The principal aim of this plan is to guide the conservation and interpretation of the geological features of this world renowned area for the study of earth science. It is also intended to support the development of sustainable ‘geo-tourism’ in the North Pennines, as part of the North Pennines AONB Partnership Staff Unit’s work as managers of the European Geo-Park status for the AONB. The Action Plan sets out a vision, “By 2014, the variety of geological features and processes that underpin and influence the landscape, biodiversity and culture of the North Pennines AONB will be well protected and well managed. This means that the most important and typical sites and features are recognised and conservation measures are in place. Those sites and features that have played the most important roles in the development of geological science or in the cultural heritage of the North Pennines have been consolidated and interpreted. Management plans for these features are in place and are working well. The way the geology of the North Pennines is reflected in its buildings and walls is well understood and appreciated. Through caring for the area’s geology and realising its potential for tourism, education and lifelong learning, the AONB has successfully maintained its status as a European Geo-Park”. The main objectives of this Geo-diversity Audit and Action Plan can be summarised as: • To raise awareness of the fundamental importance of geo-diversity in the sustainable management of the North Pennines AONB. • To improve knowledge and understanding of the geo-diversity resources within the AONB. • To identify the main geological formations and features and to evaluate their contribution to local geo-diversity. • To place these geological formations and features of the North Pennines AONB in their regional, national and, where appropriate, international context. • To provide non-specialists with an easy to use guide to the geo-diversity of the area. • To identify linkages between the area’s geo-diversity and its landscape character, biodiversity, economic and cultural history. • To identify threats to geological features. • To identify opportunities and recommended strategies for the conservation and enhancement of geological features. • To identify a network of individual sites which encapsulate the essential features of

103 the area’s geology. • To identify features and topics which can contribute to sustainable ‘geo-tourism’. • To engage industry, local communities, voluntary groups and local societies in conserving and interpreting the area’s geo-diversity. • To ’embed’ geo-diversity into future planning, management and interpretation policies. • To raise awareness of the AONB and European Geo-park designations. • To recommend strategies for continued monitoring of the area’s geo-diversity The document contains 11 details objectives related to the delivery of the action plan.

North Pennines AONB Management Plan 2004-2009, North Pennines AONB Partnership, (2004). The statutory Management Plan sets out the agenda for the conservation and enhancement of the AONB for the five years between 2004 and 2009. It is the first statutory management plan for the North Pennines AONB, its production a requirement of the Countryside & Rights of Way Act 2000. The plan is currently under review – consultation occurred on a revised plan for the period 2009 to 2014 during September/October 2008. The primary aim of the approved Management Plan is to provide a framework for action for the conservation and enhancement of the North Pennines AONB. It includes 37 objectives some of which have implications for the Minerals and Waste Core Strategy DPD. Many of the objectives relate to biodiversity and geo-diversity conservation and enhancement; the conservation and enhancement of the historic and cultural heritage of the North Pennines; recreation, access and tourism enhancement. Future commercial scale development would be likely to constitute major development and be subject to national planning regulations on AONBs, and this should balance the economic benefit which this may bring with the potential impact on landscape, biodiversity and local communities. It should also consider the potential impact of any infrastructure and traffic issues which may arise.

Durham Heritage Coast Management Plan 2005-2010, Durham Heritage Coast Partnership, (2005). This document sets out a vision and related objectives for managing the County Durham Heritage Coast. It describes the role of heritage coasts, the origin of the Durham Heritage coast and how it was designated in 2001 following the success of the Turning the Tide Project. Part one of the plan describes the physical, natural, historical and cultural profile and socio-economic background of the heritage coast area. Part two of the plan considers the existing uses of the heritage coast including economic pressures and impacts, development pressures and impacts, recreational pressures and impacts, pollution pressures and impacts. Part three of the plan includes an action plan which seeks to deliver recommended actions including promoting the establishment of new geological sites, enhancing and protecting coastal habitats and landscapes, protecting bird species and habitats, protecting and enhancing invertebrate species and habitats and enhancing and promoting the historical importance of the area.

Wear Catchment Management Flood Plan, Environment Agency, June 2008. The Wear Catchment Flood Management Plan provides the policy direction for managing the long-term flood risk within the Wear catchment over the next 50 to 100 years. It covers the cities of Sunderland and Durham in a catchment area of 1,320 square kilometres. The Wear catchment includes the rivers Gaunless, Deerness and Browney as its major tributaries. The area covers a number of small streams between Sunderland and Crimdon Beck that drain directly to the North Sea. It identifies that parts of the River Wear catchment have experienced some flooding in the past. It states that there is a wide variation in the frequency and amount of damage between different locations. It sets out the EAs plans for

104 flood risk management taking into account how climate change, land use management and urban development might change in the future. It indicates that not all parts of the catchment are alike and identifies different approaches for different ‘policy units’. The River Wear CFMP is subdivided into 16 distinct policy units. The EA have scoped out and assigned the sort of generic actions that can be implemented in the catchment using the opportunities and constraints that exist in each policy unit, thereby providing a package of possible measures that can be used to meet the catchment objectives. These measures include things like new flood defences, improved flood warnings and the greater use of the flood plain as a natural store within the catchment. For each of the 16 policy units the EA has provided a summary of flood risk, a strategic vision and a Action Plan. A CFMP is also being prepared for the Tees catchment. This document is expected to be published in late 2008 or early 2009.

105 Appendix 3: Existing Waste Facilities in County Durham - sites and licensed capacity 1 April 2009

Site Grid ref Capacity Operator Type Status (NZ) (p.a.) Special Waste Transfer Station

Garmondsway Depot 333337 1,600t Veolia Ltd / Cleanaway Waste Transfer Station Active

Household, Commercial & Industrial Waste Transfer Station Annfield Plain 176509 176,800t Premier Waste Management Waste Transfer Station Active Aycliffe East 288221 160,000t Stonegrave Aggregates Ltd Waste Transfer Station Active (included under MBT) Chilton Industrial Estate 283302 4,999t DCC (Former Sedgefield Waste Transfer Station Active Borough Council) Constantine Farm, Crook 172335 24,999t William Marley Waste Transfer Station Active Dekura Ltd 406404 10,400t Dekura Ltd Waste Transfer Station Believed active Dragonville Transfer Station 300424 7,800t DCC (Former City of Durham) Waste Transfer Station Believed active Council Grove Industrial Estate 096500 24,999 T Lister EA have PG Lister Waste Transfer Active Heighington 278223 176,969 Premier Waste Management Waste Transfer Station Active Mainsforth Transfer Station 307316 19,500t Connaughton Contractors Waste Transfer Station Non-operational Old Brickworks, Tanfield 193147 75,000 Colton Ltd. Waste Transfer Station Active Shaw Bank Waste Transfer Station 0-62174 25,000t F & R Jackson Waste Transfer Station Active Shildon Transfer Station & 223254 15,000t The Recycling Centre Waste Transfer Station Believed active Recycling Facility and Recycling Centre Stainton Grove 172178 12,000t Premier Waste Management Waste Transfer Station Active Stewart Storey Transfer Station 268549 74,999t Stewart Storey Waste Transfer Station Believed active Thornley 394393 176,000t Premier Waste Management Waste Transfer Station Active Tursdale Industrial Estate 302360 74,999 Tonks Waste Transfer Station Active

Clinical Waste Transfer Station Annfield Plain 174508 3,185t Premier Waste Management Clinical Transfer Station Active Bracken Hill 409403 4,999t Personnel Hygiene Services Clinical Transfer Station Active Ltd Sharpsmart 276350 24,999t Daniels Corporation Clinical Transfer Station Active International Ltd Harmire Road, Barnard Castle 405517 10.6tpa/ Glaxo SmithKline (only for Clinical Transfer Station Active 30 cubic use by Glaxo and too small to metres require license) (estimated)

106 Site Grid ref Capacity Operator Type Status (NZ) (p.a.) Transfer Station taking Non-Biodegradable Wastes George Street Transfer Station 425493 4,999t James Dent Waste Transfer Station Active Seaham Metals, Seaham 424492 4,950t Seaham Metals Waste Transfer Station Active Thistle Road, Langley Moor 254400 93,600t Ward Brothers Waste Transfer Station Active Block A, Merrington Lane Industrial 264328 40,000t Foreman Recycling Ltd Recycling Facility Active Estate Unit 1, Westline Industrial Estate, 426554 74,999t A & G Skip Hire Waste Transfer Station Believed active Birtley, Chester-le-Street and Recycling Centre Site S, Thornley Industrial Estate, 396397 55,000t Burn & Hewitt Contractors Waste Transfer Station Not yet Shotton implemented. 5 Mill Hill North West Ind Est, 4,999t Sotralentz Recycling (Now Package recycling facility Active Peterlee Gem Plastics)

Household Waste Recycling Centre Annfield Plain 175505 4,999t Premier Waste Management Hhold Wste Recycl Cent Active Brooms Dene, Leadgate 135516 4,999t Premier Waste Management Hhold Wste Recycl Cent Active Coxhoe 328365 24,999t Premier Waste Management Hhold Wste Recycl Cent Active Cragwood 142245 4,999t Premier Waste Management Hhold Wste Recycl Cent Active Heighington 278221 7,490t Premier Waste Management Hhold Wste Recycl Cent Active Hett Hills 236516 4,999t Premier Waste Management Hhold Wste Recycl Cent Active Horden 438425 4,999t Premier Waste Management Hhold Wste Recycl Cent Active Mickelton NY947247 24,999t Premier Waste Management Hhold Wste Recycl Cent Active Potterhouse 262456 24,999t Premier Waste Management Hhold Wste Recycl Cent Active Romanway 205271 7,490t Premier Waste Management Hhold Wste Recycl Cent Active Seaham Strangford Road 419494 4,999t Premier Waste Management Hhold Wste Recycl Cent Active Stainton Grove 071871 2,490t Premier Waste Management Hhold Wste Recycl Cent Active Thornley 395393 4,999t Premier Waste Management Hhold Wste Recycl Cent Active Todhills 207342 24,999t Premier Waste Management Hhold Wste Recycl Cent Active Tudhoe 268358 4,999t Premier Waste Management Hhold Wste Recycl Cent Active

Recycling Old Quarrington Quarry 327380 100,000t Tarmac Northern Ltd Aggregates Recycling Active Facility Kilmondwood Quarry, Bowes 023135 20,000t Cemex UK Materials Ltd Aggregates Recycling Inactive (site Facility mothballed) Thrislington Quarry 311327 75,000t LaFarge Aggregates Ltd Recycling of construction Active and demolition waste CPL Site, Hackworth Industrial 224253 25,000t R & H Tomlinson Recycling Active Estate, Shildon Joint Stocks, Coxhoe 327363 625,000t Premier Waste Management Recycling Active

107 Site Grid ref Capacity Operator Type Status (NZ) (p.a.) Conservation Centre, Deepdale 044166 1,000t Teesdale Conservation Recycling and Active Centre Composting Former NCB building, Unit S1A, 302360 50,000t Greencycle Materials Recycling Inactive Tursdale Business Park, Tursdale, Recovery Facility Durham Unit 1, Tanfield Lea Industrial 191150 14,000t Gordell International Trading Recycling Facility Inactive (no longer Estate Co Ltd operational) Unit 'U', Thornley Station Industrial 439539 21,944t 1st Skip Hire Materials recycling facility Active Estate, Shotton Colliery HCI Transfer and treatment? Tursdale 150,000T Premier Waste Management Mixed MRF (to be Recently approved. relocated from Joint (Not yet operational) Stocks)

Vehicle Dismantler Hackworth Road 404417 4,499t Northern ELV Recycling End of Life Vehicles Active Autocraft 212506 2,500t Alec Gamble Vehicle Dismantler Believed active Bells Breakers 211505 2,500t Stuart Bell Vehicle Dismantler Believed active Burnopfield Car Dismantlers 171561 2,499t George Brough Vehicle Dismantler Active Burnopfield Metals 172561 2,499t Kenneth Clark Vehicle Dismantler Active Charles Newton Car & Spares 398371 2,499t Charles Erbert Vehicle Dismantler Believed active Chilton Auto Breakers 277304 2,499t Kris Callaghan Vehicle Dismantler Believed active Compound B 282329 0 Ara Stephanyan Vehicle Dismantler Active Coppycrooks Yard 210263 2,499t Mr J Denham Vehicle Dismantler Active First Aid Car & Commercial 173511 2,499t Mr D Herdman Vehicle Dismantler Active Gers Metals 458397 2,499t Gerald Robinson Vehicle Dismantler Believed active J B Monte Vehicle Dismantlers 317506 4,999t James Bernard Monte Vehicle Dismantler Can’t find – to be confirmed Johnsons Vauxhall Spares 209505 2,500t Stuart Johnson Vehicle Dismantler Believed active Kemp Commercial Spares 153282 2,499t McCrombie & Kemp Vehicle Dismantler Active Kevin Brunton Car & Commercial 174512 2,499t Kevin Brunton Vehicle Dismantler Active Kevin Dixon Commercials 175513 2,499t Kevin James Dixon Vehicle Dismantler Active Lister Scrap Metals 112503 2,499t James Alfred Lister Vehicle Dismantler Active Monte's Transport Spares 316502 2,500t Monte & Monte Vehicle Dismantler Believed active North East Motor Salvage 413416 24,999t North East Motor Salvage Vehicle Dismantler Believed active Robbies Autos 212506 2,499t Robert Wright Vehicle Dismantler Believed active Rooster Motorcycles 173511 2,499t Leslie Mavin Vehicle Dismantler Active Ross 4 x 4s 226256 5 William Ross Vehicle Dismantler Believed active S & M Motor 316502 2,499t David Morris Vehicle Dismantler Non-operational (out of business)

108 Site Grid ref Capacity Operator Type Status (NZ) (p.a.) Sacriston Auto Dismantlers 234476 2,499t William Chapman Brunton Vehicle Dismantler Believed active T J Fast Lanes Valeting 251520 2,499t Thomas Jackon Lines Vehicle Dismantler Believed active Village Inn Garage 369397 2,499t Clifford Richardson Vehicle Dismantler Believed active Welfare Garage 309505 2,499t D Coats & Son Ltd Vehicle Dismantler Believed active Mount Pleasant Garage, Stanley 171374 4,999 Mulligans Vehicle Dismantler Active Crook

Mixed MRS's Bells Breakers Auto 205271 1,040t Mr & Mrs Bell MRS Believed active Charles Newton Cars & Spares 397371 24,999t Charles Newton MRS Believed active Cornforth Metal Recycling Site 305344 2,000t Susan May Brown MRS Believed active Mountstar Cable Recycling Ltd 175563 28,000 European Metal Recycling MRS Believed active Unit N1 Tursdale Business Park 303460 100,000 Van Dalen (Durham) Metal Recycling Facility Understood not yet High Street Sth Langley Moor EA say ELV?? implemented. Permission issued 2008, expires Sept 2011. Seaham Harbour 249,000t Seaham Harbour Dock Scrap Metal Facility Active Company

Incinerator Eden Hall, Hamsterley 105311 5610t John Warren, Animal By- Animal Incinerator Active Products Ltd Sedgefield Industrial Estate N/A Less than G Bolam Animal Incinerator Permission granted 50 kg per hr Unit 6, Newton Aycliffe 279227 50t Mrs Lucinda Jayne Animal Incinerator Active The Willows 2115456 4,999t The Pet Crematorium Ltd Animal Incinerator Believed active Forget Me Not Pet Crematorium 279234 60t Forget me not Animal Incinerator Believed active Ltd

Composting Facility Thornley 396393 80,000t Premier Waste Management Aerobic Digesters Inactive (off line) (John Smart says 30- 40,000) Tursdale Industrial Estate 302360 80,000t Premier Waste Management Aerobic Digesters Inactive (not yet commenced)

109 Site Grid ref Capacity Operator Type Status (NZ) (p.a.) Quarrington Farm, 431538 10,000t Johnson Brothers Anaerobic digestion Inactive Old Quarrington, Durham (agricultural manure, (Permission issued agricultural crops and October 08) commercial food waste) Aycliffe Quarry 292220 160,000t Stonegrave Aggregates Mechanical and Active p.a. Biological Treatment (including plant and extension to transfer and waste transfer station MBT) Bunker Hill Farm, Leadgate 114524 2,000t R W Steele Composting Active Joint Stocks, Coxhoe 328361 175,000t Premier Waste Management Composting A15 - Active Material Recycling Treatment Facility Junction House Farm 404436 3,000t P. Hutcinson Composting Active Murton Hall Farm, Trimdon 414317 30,000t Andrew Thompson Composting A22 - Active Composting Facility Todhills Farm, Newfield 211339 11220t Alan Etherington Composting Active Scoby Scaur Landfill Site, Cobey's 207339 4 – 5,000t Premier Waste Management composting (pre- Inactive Carr Lane, Newfield shredded green waste from HWRC’s)

Biological Treatment Facility (Not included as waste capacity) Blue House Farm 314474 364,000t UK Waste Management Ltd Biological Treatment Active Facility Horden 442419 Northumbrian Water Ltd Minewater Pollution Active facility Other Landfill taking Special Waste Aycliffe East 292220 141,440t Stonegrave Aggregates Ltd Landfill (inert waste) Active

Household Commercial & Industrial Waste Landfill Joint Stocks, Coxhoe 327363 350,000t Premier Waste Management Landfill (municipal waste) Active Lowfield Farm, Spennymoor 226348 24,999t Ward Brothers Landfill (inert waste) Active

Landfill taking Non-Biodegradable Wastes Bishop Middleham 329324 500,000t W & M Thompson (Quarries) Landfill (inert waste) Active Ltd Barford Camp 091182 6,000t F R Jackson Landraise Active Quickburn Quarry 0-81428 4,999t W R G Environmental Ltd Landfill Inactive. Time extension applied for.

110 Site Grid ref Capacity Operator Type Status (NZ) (p.a.)

Landfill taking other wastes Crime Rigg, Sherburn Hill 340418 380,000t Sherburn Stone Co. Ltd Landfill (inert waste) Active Kilmondwood Quarry 24135 25,000t Hargreaves Quarries Ltd Landfill Inactive (site mothballed) Old Quarrington 326378 204,000t Tarmac Northern Ltd. Landfill (inert waste) Active

Wearhead Water Treatment 849381 520t Northumbrian Water Ltd Landfill Active, but only occasional

111 Appendix 4: Planning permissions granted for waste development in County Durham, 2008

Referen Applicant Development Site Location Waste Facility Type Capacity Date Decision ce (Tonnes) Application Date Received CMA/1/4 Premier Application not to comply Broomsdene Household Paper, waste oil, metal , 6,000 p.a. 29.8.08 19.11.08 1 Waste with condition 1 of Waste Recycling Centre, green waste, rubble & Management Planning Permission Brooms Lane, Nr Leadgate, electrical waste Ltd CMA/1/33. Consett

CMA/2/1 A & G Skip Proposed use of land as a Unit 1, Westline Industrial Dry household, commercial 25,000 p.a. 28.5.08 20.8.08 3 Hire waste transfer station and Estate, Birtley, Chester-le- & industrial waste recycling centre. Street CMA/3/2 Premier Proposed composting of Scoby Scaur Landfill Site, Primarily garden waste 5,000m³ 12.3.08 24.7.08 6 Waste pre-shredded green waste. Cobey's Carr Lane, Management Newfield Ltd CMA/4/3 Van Dalen Proposed provision of adjacent to Unit N1, Scrap metal & car batteries 100,000 4.1.08 20.8.08 5 UK Ltd metal recycling and end of Tursdale Business Park, p.a. life vehicle facility. Tursdale, Durham CMA/4/3 Greencycle Proposed materials Former NCB building, Unit Paper, cardboard, cans and 40,000 to 4.4.08 24.7.08 8 Plc recycling recovery facility. S1A, Tursdale Business plastics 50,000 p.a. Park, Tursdale, Durham CMA/4/3 Johnson Proposed anaerobic Quarrington Farm, Old Potato waste from a food Combined 4.4.08 24.7.08 9 Bros digestion of agricultural Quarrington, Durham processing facility & volume of manure, agricultural crops agricultural crops & manure 10,000 t and commercial food waste. CMA/5/2 Burn & Proposed change of use to Site 'S', Thornley Station Builders waste, soil & 200 per 14.1.08 19.3.08 1 Hewitt waste transfer station and Industrial Estate, Shotton subsoil day Contracts painting of silos. CMA/5/2 1st Skip Hire Proposed provision of Unit 'U', Thornley Station Rubble, soils, subsoils, 60 per day 19.2.08 18.6.08 2 materials recycling facility Industrial Estate, Shotton ceramics, ferrous & non- including provision of Colliery ferrous metals picking shed. CMA/7/6 Stonegrave Proposed mechanical and Aycliffe Quarry, Aycliffe Green waste, tyres, wood, 50,000 p.a. 2.5.08 19.11.08 5 Aggregates biological treatment plant Village plastics, secondary Ltd and extension to waste aggregates & soils & transfer station. demolition rubble

112 Appendix 5: Waste Statistics (County Durham and North East sub-region)

Table 1: Municipal waste arisings, 2008/9

tonnes Authority Total residual Total residual Total residual Civic amenity site residual (household) household household household household household household (including (including municipal municipal Collected residual residual waste waste waste waste waste waste waste waste Other Total Total non- non 1

Stockton-on-Tees BC 103,317 87,123 63,099 55,928 3,894 3,277 8,220 71,319 Redcar & Cleveland BC 75,048 61,727 36,991 30,281 4,645 2,066 10,161 47,153 Middlesbrough BC 77,120 62,184 47,931 41,801 3,135 2,995 6,436 54,367 Hartlepool BC 53,328 46,515 29,165 18,645 7,936 2,585 4,393 33,558 Darlington BC 66,216 47,681 34,860 25,466 6,206 3,188 6,765 41,625 Durham County Council 281,891 254,361 179,501 134,015 29,237 16,249 12,713 192,214 Northumberland County Council 172,727 160,421 98,107 83,229 14,830 47 6,604 104,711 Sunderland City Council 149,221 136,355 101,464 84,157 8,085 9,222 8,735 110,199 South Tyneside MBC 86,094 71,315 51,617 41,947 7,207 2,463 11,531 63,147 North Tyneside Council 120,069 97,975 69,769 57,506 7,401 4,862 14,917 84,686 Newcastle-upon-Tyne City Council MBC 162,568 121,249 74,950 58,379 6,349 10,222 37,201 112,151 Gateshead MBC 105,029 91,418 65,346 53,894 4,874 6,578 11,444 76,790 Source: Defra.

113

Table 2: Management of municipal waste, 2008/9

tonnes 1 Authority Landfill Incineration with EfW Incineration without EfW Recycled/ composted Other Total Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council 8,450 62,869 - 31,998 - 103,317 Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council 1,597 41,202 - 27,895 4,353 75,048 Middlesbrough Borough Council 8,652 45,715 - 22,753 - 0 77,120 Hartlepool Borough Council 4,473 29,059 - 19,769 26 53,328 Darlington Borough Council 41,621 - 2 24,591 0 66,214 Durham County Council 192,087 72 - 89,677 1,617 283,453 Northumberland County Council 97,057 8,129 - 68,016 - 179,599 Sunderland City Council 110,185 - 4 39,023 9 149,221 South Tyneside MBC 61,246 1,901 - 22,946 - 86,093 North Tyneside Council 60,571 24,114 - 35,384 - 120,069 Newcastle-upon-Tyne City Council MBC 103,476 - - 50,417 21,303 175,196 Gateshead MBC 76,723 57 0 28,239 10 105,029 Source: Defra.

114 Table 3: Local Authority key performance statistics, including recycling rates, 2008/9 [1]

NI191 Residual Household Waste per NI192 Percentage of Household NI193 Percentage of Household Waste Sent for Reuse, Recycling Municipal Waste Sent Collected Household Waste - Authority (kg/household) or Composting To Landfill BVPI 84a (per person in kg) Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council 772.34 27.55 8.18 459 Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council 597.70 40.07 2.13 443 Middlesbrough Borough Council 793.94 22.88 11.22 449 Hartlepool Borough Council 701.70 37.25 8.54 510 Darlington Borough Council 725.89 26.89 62.85 476 Wear Valley District Council 669.84 22.05 N/A 421 Teesdale District Council 636.76 35.65 N/A 473 Sedgefield Borough Council 647.15 23.16 N/A 391 Easington District Council 702.06 28.99 N/A 453 Durham City Council 619.72 26.79 N/A 358 Derwentside District Council 564.50 33.56 N/A 408 Chester-Le-Street District Council 681.95 22.27 N/A 405 Durham County Council 776.76 29.10 68.16 506 Wansbeck District Council 597.47 29.78 N/A 400 Tynedale District Council 570.63 35.11 N/A 401 Castle Morpeth Borough Council 531.55 41.23 N/A 404 Blyth Valley Borough Council 587.87 29.08 N/A 374 Berwick-upon-Tweed Borough Council 526.81 27.05 N/A 394 Alnwick District Council 565.37 35.46 N/A 439 Northumberland County Council 673.84 38.93 56.22 513 Sunderland City Council 818.89 25.59 73.86 485 South Tyneside MBC 746.35 27.62 71.13 472 North Tyneside Council 747.16 28.78 50.43 502 Newcastle-upon-Tyne City Council MBC 632.10 36.11 64.00 448 Gateshead MBC 710.58 28.52 73.06 480 Source: DEFRA Notes: N/A - Data not available. Figures for Waste Disposal Authorities include all waste collected for recycling or disposal by the WDA and their constituent waste collection authorities.

115 Appendix 6: Classification of Radioactive Waste

Radioactive What is it? Waste Type Low Level Low level Waste (LLW) Includes metals, soil, building rubble and organic materials, which arise principally as lightly contaminated miscellaneous scrap. Metals are mostly in the form of redundant equipment. Organic materials are mainly in the form of paper towels, clothing and laboratory equipment that have been used in areas where radioactive materials are used – such as hospitals, research establishments and industry. LLW contains radioactive materials other than those acceptable for disposal with municipal and general commercial or industrial waste. It is now defined as “radioactive waste having a radioactive content not exceeding four gigabecquerels per tonne (GBq/te) of alpha or 12 GBq/te of beta/gamma radioactivity”. Very low level Very low level Waste (VLLW) is waste with very low concentrations of radioactivity. It arises from a variety of sources, including waste (low hospitals and the wider non-nuclear industry. Because VLLW contains little total radioactivity, it has been safely treated by various volumes) means, such as disposal with municipal and general commercial and industrial waste directly at landfill sites or indirectly after incineration. Its formal definition is either: in the case of low volumes (‘dustbin loads’) – low volume VLLW (LV-VLLW): “radioactive waste which can be safely disposed of to an unspecified destination with municipal, commercial or industrial waste (“dustbin” disposal), each 0.1m3 of waste containing less than 400 kilobecquerels (kBq) of total activity or single items containing less than 40 kBq of total activity.” for waste containing carbon-14 or hydrogen-3 (tritium): in each 0.1m3, the activity limit is 4,000 kBq for carbon-14 and hydrogen-3 (tritium) taken together; for any single item, the activity limit is 400 kBq for carbon-14 and hydrogen-3 (tritium) taken together. Controls for disposing of this material after it has been removed from the premises where it was produced are not necessary. Very low level in the case of bulk disposals – high volume VLLW (HV-VLLW): waste (high “radioactive waste with maximum concentrations of four megabecquerels per tonne (MBq/te) of total activity which can be disposed of volumes) to specified landfill sites. For waste containing hydrogen-3 (tritium), the concentration limit for tritium is 40MBq/te. Source: Guidance Note for Disposal of radioactive waste to landfill, Environment Agency, 2009. Note: The main difference between the two definitions of very low level waste is the need to control the total volumes of VLLW in the second (high volume) category being deposited at any one particular landfill site.

116 Appendix 7: Summary of Climate Change key legislation, documents and drivers

The Kyoto Protocol (1997) http://unfccc.int/essential_background/items/2877.php This treaty, signed by the UK Government, outlines commitments for reducing the 6 major Greenhouse gasses by 12.5% by 2012 (from their 1990 levels). Current negotiations in Bali are looking at future reductions and commitments with the UK being a strong advocate of compulsory targets.

Climate Change Act 2008 http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/climatechange/uk/legislation/index.htm This Act became law in November 2008 and underpins climate change policy in the UK. It provides a strong legal framework to underpin the UK’s contribution to tackling climate change. It proposes a 80% cut in Carbon Dioxide levels by 2050 (from 1990 levels) with real progress by 2020, and allocates the UK a ‘carbon budget’ which will be gradually reduced over time. It introduces statutory duties on Government for both mitigation and adaptation. The Act also includes the legislative changes required to enable local authorities to charge residents for waste services.

Energy White Paper http://www.berr.gov.uk/whatwedo/energy/whitepaper/page39534.html Published in May 2007, this document sets out the Government’s position on domestic and international energy production and supply. It indicates that Energy from Waste plants should be able to claim Renewable Obligation Credits (R.O.C.’s) and proposes that new legislation is introduced to enable this.

The Paper outlines the Government’s position on transport in relation to energy use. The Government is keen to pursue the inclusion of surface based transport emissions in the European Emissions Trading Scheme. It also states that the Department for Transport will be launching a programme of investment into low-carbon vehicles for public sector fleets.

The Paper also introduces the Carbon Reduction Commitment (CRC), which is the Government’s primary tool in reducing emissions from medium scale greenhouse gas contributors. This is likely to include Durham County Council.

Carbon Reduction Commitment http://www.defra.gov.uk/Environment/climatechange/uk/business/crc/index.htm This affects organisations (rather than individual properties) whose electricity consumption is over 6,000 MWh per year. Durham County Council is likely to have obligations under this.

In summary, it is a trading scheme similar to the European Emissions Trading Scheme and affects emissions from both gas and electricity use from both direct and indirect sources. Each participating organisation (from across the public and private sector) will be given a target to reduce their emissions on an annual basis. Any surplus credits can be sold to organisations who are not meeting their targets. Organisations not meeting their commitments will need to buy credits or face fines. Transport emissions are not included. The CRC is expected to take effect in 2010.

Local Government White Paper http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/localgovernment/strongprosperous

This Paper published in 2006, sets out the current transition of how local government will be monitored by Central Government, moving from Comprehensive Performance Assessments

117 (CPA) to Comprehensive Area Assessments (CAA), changing the focus to a more outcome based evaluation.

Local Area Agreements (LAA’s) are part of the Government's ten-year strategy to build a better relationship between central and local government. The LAA will include a single set of targets for improvement, tailored to local needs, agreed between Government and local partners. There is a duty for local authorities and other local partners to work together to agree the priorities in the LAA. Delivery of local priorities will be the responsibility of partners in key local partnerships and once agreed with Government, local partners will be required to have regard to these priorities for improvement.

Local Authorities now have a series of 198 indicators that they will be measured against, a number are directly attributed to Waste and Climate Change (see below).

National Indicators for Local Authorities and Local Authorities Partnerships http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/localgovernment/indicatorsdefinitions This list of indicators is the basis on which local authorities and their partnerships will be assessed. They include: NI 185 CO2 reduction from Local Authority operations NI 186 Per capita reduction in CO2 emissions in the LA area NI 188 Adapting to climate change NI 191 Residual household waste per head NI 192 Household waste recycled and composted NI 193 Municipal waste land filled NI 194 Level of air quality – reduction in NOx and primary PM10 emissions through local authority’s estate and operations.

The new indicator set will come into effect fully from April 2009, when local authorities will be measured on all 198 indicators. Local Area Agreements must select 35 of the 198 indicators to concentrate on.

Waste Strategy for England 2007 http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/waste/strategy/

The 2007 Waste Strategy for England is perhaps the most relevant document linking climate change and waste management. It sets out the Government’s vision for sustainable waste management and sets a target that by implementing the strategy, England will reduce its net (32) emissions of CO2e by 9.3 million tonnes per year (by 2020) from a 2006 baseline.

The need to be aware of the carbon implications of dealing with our waste is stressed repeatedly throughout this document. As well as a number of waste reduction aims, the Strategy also makes reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 a target:

‘The overall impact of this strategy is expected to be an annual net reduction in global greenhouse gas emissions from waste management of at least 9.3 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent per year compared to 2006 (equivalent to annual use of around 3 million cars). The additional greenhouse gas emissions reductions result from an increase in diversion of waste from landfill of around 25 million tonnes of waste per annum. These benefits will be further boosted by significant extra greenhouse gas benefits from the waste prevention measures in the strategy.’

32 Carbon Dioxide equivalent. Each gas has a different potential to cause climate change and total emissions are often shown as CO2e to enable measurement and comparison.

118 The graph shown in on page (Chart 4.2) is taken from Chapter 4 of the Strategy ‘Increasing Resource Efficiency: targeting materials, products and sectors’. The chapter contains a number of examples of how carbon can be saved from the various waste products (food waste, plastics, aluminium etc). Chapter 5 of the Strategy advises local authorities on the options available for Energy from Waste technologies, explaining that recovering energy from waste which cannot sensibly be recycled is an essential component of a well-balanced energy policy. Energy from waste is expected to account for 25% of municipal waste by 2020 compared to 10% today (page 71). The Strategy specifically highlights anaerobic digestion with energy recovery as having potential. It also states that this technology would be able to claim R.O.C.s. It also refers to the potential for using waste wood to generate energy, but stresses that the success of this would depend on the availability of markets. It proposes that the greater sorting of materials will enable the UK to develop a wood waste market which could generate 260MWh and save 1.15 million tonnes of CO2e. (page 15).

Chapter 6 (page 86) looks at implementation at a local authority level and regarding Performance Indicators, states that: ‘In the longer term, the Government is considering developing a greenhouse gas emissions performance indicator for local authority performance on waste. This would reflect total greenhouse gas emissions from a local authority’s waste management activity and fit within the new performance framework. Consideration will be given to the development of a methodology for a local authority waste performance greenhouse gas emissions indicator.’

Further on in chapter 8, the Strategy states that progress towards the targets will also be tracked at a national level and a Performance Indicator will be: ‘Carbon dioxide equivalent emissions from waste management and recycling (tonnes).’ The method of assessment is still under development.

Page 107 explains how the 9.3 million tonnes of CO2e will be achieved through the various policies. In summary, when looking at municipal waste, the largest savings are expected through increased recycling rates with most of the remainder made up of waste prevention and diverting biodegradable waste to other (non-landfill) treatment methods.

The Climate Change Action Plan for North East England www.climateNE.org.uk A regional framework that incorporates both adaptation and mitigation measures as well as actions for communication.

The North East Climate Change Adaptation Study www.adaptNE.org Launched in April 2008, the study makes projections of climate change impacts. Its aim is to provide information on the climate changes that the region will face and how they will impact on the region’s communities, buildings infrastructure and key economic assets, and what needs to be done now to adapt to the predicted impacts.

Nottingham Declaration on Climate Change http://www.energysavingtrust.org.uk/housingbuildings/localauthorities/NottinghamDeclaration/E ST_NDec_cert_HR.pdf Durham County Council signed the Nottingham Declaration in November 2002. It commits the council to work with central Government to deliver the Climate Change programme and achieve a ‘significant reduction of GHG emissions from our operations, especially energy sourcing and use, travel and transport, waste production and disposal and the purchase of goods and services’. It is expected that the new unitary authority will honour this commitment.

119 Durham County Council Corporate and Service level aims and targets 2007-2010 Durham County Council Corporate Plan http://www.durham.gov.uk/durhamcc/usp.nsf/Lookup/Corporate_Plan_2007- 10/$file/Corporate_Plan_2007-10.pdf In the 2007-2010 Corporate Plan the aim ‘Looking after the environment’ highlights waste management and climate change as areas of importance to the council. Two of the four priorities for improvement are: • Less waste sent to landfill; and • Reducing the county council’s impact on climate change.

The current indicators chosen under the climate change priority are not greatly influenced by waste disposal operations. Assuming climate change remains a target post 2010, the indicators may shift to more resemble the National Indicators mentioned earlier. Despite CO2 emissions from waste not being a current performance measure on climate change, the overall objective of ‘reducing the County Council impact on climate change’ can be greatly influenced by the options chosen through the new MSW Waste Solutions project process.

The Environment Service Business Plan 2008/09 http://notesi01/durhamcc/doclibrary.nsf/b622e215297d38b080256beb0049e1a6/9338fae295377 db980256f7300322020?OpenDocument The Environment Service Business Plan 2008/9 re-iterates the importance of waste management and reducing our impact on climate change as described in the Corporate Plan.

Sustainable Procurement The UK Government is looking at the wider Sustainable Procurement issue and the Sustainable Procurement Task Force Report in 2006 looked at how Government and the public sector could use its purchasing power to make progress towards sustainable development goals and it highlighted ‘waste’ as one of the priority spend areas. Durham County Council’s Corporate Procurement Team is already working in this area.

Potential Resources Durham County Council Climate Change Risk Assessment The County Council’s Environment Management Unit has been carrying out work to assess the risk posed to various Durham County Council operations from climate change.

The Stern Review http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/sternreview_index.htm The Government commissioned Howard Stern to look at the impacts of climate change on the economy. Stern concluded that investing in mitigation and adaptation measures now would result in a much stronger economy in the future, when compared with a business as usual approach.

Low Carbon Building Grant Scheme Phase 2 http://www.lowcarbonbuildings.org.uk/home/ The Government’s grant scheme for renewable energy measures. The scope of the grant scheme may include some small Energy from Waste schemes.

WRAP http://www.wrap.org.uk/ Various programmes available to assist with waste management.

Bio-Energy Capital Grant Scheme (Defra) http://www.defra.gov.uk/farm/crops/industrial/energy/capital-grants.htm Not currently available but Defra intends to run another scheme in the future.

120

County Durham Climate Change Action Plan www.durham.gov.uk/climatechange A source of information on Climate Change and activities within the County, the ‘County Durham Climate Change Action Plan’ was published in March 2006. The Plan sets out the background to climate change, highlights good practice and recommends targets for further action. The Action Plan includes reducing the volume of biodegradable waste going to landfill as a priority for action to mitigate against climate change. It also includes a series of actions to adapt to climate change and ensure resilience to its predicted impacts. For example, climate change may bring potentially increasing detrimental effects on the collection and disposal of waste and waste management facilities due to increased storms (eg closing waste management facilities due to high winds and flooding), or affect transportation. This will have an effect on planning for facilities and procedures. New development should be designed and located to minimise such climate-related risks.

Draft Durham County Council Carbon Management Plan Sets out how Durham County Council will manage carbon emissions from its own estate.

IPCC reports http://www.ipcc.ch/ The most up to date information on climate change from a consensus of world scientists.

The Potential Impacts of Climate Change on Waste Management Report for Environment Agency by Entec UK 2003. http://publications.environment-agency.gov.uk/pdf/SX1-042-TR-e-p.pdf?lang=_e

121 Appendix 8: Existing Waste Facilities in County Durham – assumptions on percentage split of licensed capacity

Site Grid ref Licensed Haz received Hhold/C&I Inert/C&D Haz fig Hhold/C&I Inert/C&D fig (NZ) Capacity % received received assumed fig assumed assumed % %

Other Landfill taking Special Waste Aycliffe East 292220 141,440 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Household Commercial & Industrial Waste Landfill Joint Stocks, Coxhoe (Premier Waste 327363 350,000t N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Management) Lowfield Farm, Spennymoor (Ward 226348 24,999t N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Brothers)

Landfill taking Non-Biodegradable Wastes Bishop Middleham (W & M Thompson 330324 500,000t N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A (Quarries) Ltd) Barford Camp (F R Jackson) 091182 6,000t N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Landfill taking other wastes Crime Rigg, Sherburn Hill (Sherburn 340418 380,000t N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Stone Co. Ltd) Kilmondwood Quarry (Hargreaves 24135 25,000t N/A N/A Inactive (site N/A N/A 25,000 (included in Quarries Ltd) mothballed) landfill capacity) Old Quarrington (Tarmac Northern 326378 204,000t N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Ltd.) Wearhead Water Treatment 849381 520t N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A (Northumbrian Water Ltd)

Special Waste Transfer Station 333337 1,600t 80.6 19.3 0.09 1290 309 1.4 Garmondsway Depot (Veolia Ltd / Cleanaway – on Treatment Installations tab, too.)

Household, Commercial & Industrial Waste Transfer Station Annfield Plain (Premier Waste 174509 176,800t 0.32 99.6 0.08 566 176093 141 Management)

122 Site Grid ref Licensed Haz received Hhold/C&I Inert/C&D Haz fig Hhold/C&I Inert/C&D fig (NZ) Capacity % received received assumed fig assumed assumed % % Aycliffe 288221 160,000t Assumed 160,000 (including 100% (including MBT) MBT) Chilton Industrial Estate (Former SBC) 283305 4,999t 37.9 38.5 23.5 1895 1925 1175 Constantine Farm, Crook (William 172335 24,999t 0 10.7 89.3 0 2675 22,324 Marley) Dekura Ltd 406404 10,400t 0 0 100 0 0 10,400 Dragonville Transfer Station 300424 7,800t 64.3 0 36 5015 0 2,925 Grove Industrial Estate EA have Unit 6 096500 24,999 Assume 24,999 Castleside Road (T Lister EA have PG 100% Lister) Heighington (Premier Waste 273225 176,969 0.4 99.5 0.07 708 176,084 124 Management) Mainsforth Transfer Station 307316 19,500t Assume 100 19,500 (Connaughton Contractors) (non- operational) Old Brickworks, Tanfield (Colton) 193147 75,000 0.06 1.8 98 45 1,350 73,500 Shaw Bank Waste Transfer Station (F 0-62174 25,000t 0 0 100 0 0 25,000 & R Jackson) Shildon Transfer Station & Recycling 223254 15,000t 0 100 0 0 15,000 0 Facility Stainton Grove 172178 12,000t 0 100 0 0 12,000 0 Stewart Storey Transfer Station 268549 74,999t 0 25 75 0 18750 56,249 Thornley (Premier) 394393 176,000t 0.36 99.6 0.0006 634 175,296 1.06 Tursdale Industrial Estate (Tonks) 302360 74,999 0 1.8 98.2 0 1350 73,649

Clinical Waste Transfer Station Annfield Plain (Premier Waste 174508 3,185t 100 0 0 3,185 0 0 Management) (N/A Clinical) Bracken Hill (Personnel Hygiene 409403 4,999t 10.7 89.3 0 535 (N/A 4464 0 Services Ltd) Clinical) Sharpsmart 276350 24,999t 100 0 0 24,999 0 0 (N/A Clinical)

Transfer Station taking Non-Biodegradable Wastes George Street Transfer Station James 425493 4,999t 0 0 100 0 0 4,999 Dent

123 Site Grid ref Licensed Haz received Hhold/C&I Inert/C&D Haz fig Hhold/C&I Inert/C&D fig (NZ) Capacity % received received assumed fig assumed assumed % % Thistle Road, Langley Moor (Ward 256397 93,600t 0 1.3 98.7 0 1217 92,383 Brothers) Block A, Merrington Lane Industrial 264328 40,000t 0 100 0 0 40,000 0 Estate (Foreman Recycling Ltd) 265333?? Unit 1, Westline Industrial Estate, 426554 74,999t A & G Skip Assumed 0 74,999 0 Birtley, Chester-le-Street 265333?? Hire 100. CAN’T FIND. ACTIVE, THOUGH. Site S, Thornley Industrial Estate, 396397 55,000t Burn & Hewitt Waste Assumed 100. 0 0 55,000 Shotton Contractors Transfer Not yet Station implemented. Seaham Metals, Seaham 424492 4,950t 39.7 60.3 0 1965 2985 0 5 Mill Hill North West Ind Est, Peterlee 4,999 100% 4,999 (Formerly Sotralentz, now Gem Plastics) Household Waste Recycling Centre Annfield Plain 175505 4,999t 100 2,624 (52.5% of licensed Capacity) Brooms Dene, Leadgate 140516 4,999t 100 1,735 (34.7%) Coxhoe 329366 24,999t 100 14,124 (56.5%) Cragwood 142245 4,999t 100 1,100 (22%) Heighington 278221 7,490t 100 4,569 (61%) Hett Hills 236516 4,999t 100 1460 (29.2%) Horden 439426 4,999t 100 3,469 (69.4%) Mickelton NY947247 24,999t 100 500 (2%) Potterhouse 262456 24,999t 100 16,249 (65%) Romanway 205271 7,490t 100 4,666 (62.3%) Seaham Strangford Road 419494 4,999t 100 3,099 (62%) Stainton Grove 071871 2,490t 100 40 (1.6%) Thornley (Premier Waste 396396 4,999t 100 3,159 Management) (63.2%)

124 Site Grid ref Licensed Haz received Hhold/C&I Inert/C&D Haz fig Hhold/C&I Inert/C&D fig (NZ) Capacity % received received assumed fig assumed assumed % % Todhills 207342 24,999t 100 13,474 (53.9%) Tudhoe 267359 4,999t 100 2,889 (57.8%)

Recycling Old Quarrington Quarry 327380 100,000t 0 0 100 0 0 100,000 Kilmond Wood Quarry, Bowes 023135 20,000t 0 0 Inactive (site 0 0 20,000 mothballed) – 100% Thrislington Quarry 311327 75,000t 100 75,000 CPL Site, Hackworth Industrial Estate, 224253 25,000t 10.6 12.5 77 2650 3,125 19,250 Shildon Joint Stocks, Coxhoe, Premier Waste 327363 625,000t 0.14 30.4 69.4 875 190,000 433,750 Management (FULL – (NOT 175,000 is COUNTED. composting) Counted as 175,000 under composting) Conservation Centre, Deepdale 044166 1,000t Teesdale Recycling 0 0 1,000 0 Conservation and Centre Composting. Assume 100% Former NCB building, Unit S1A, 302360 50,000t Greencycle 100 (Out of 0 0 50,000 0 Tursdale Business Park, Tursdale, business, but Durham active permission) Unit 1, Tanfield Lea Industrial Estate 191150 14,000t 0 Assumed 100 0 0 14,000 0 (Gordell International Trading Co Ltd) (Out of business, but permission still active) Unit ‘U’, Thornley Station Industrial 439539 21,944t 0 0 100% 0 0 21,944 Estate, Shotton Colliery 1st Skip Hire

Composting Facility

125 Site Grid ref Licensed Haz received Hhold/C&I Inert/C&D Haz fig Hhold/C&I Inert/C&D fig (NZ) Capacity % received received assumed fig assumed assumed % % Thornley (Premier Waste 396393 80,000t 0 Included. 0 0 48,000 (60% 0 Management) Aerobic Digesters Inactive efficiency). (offline due to operational issues). Assumed 100 Tursdale Industrial Estate (Aerobic 302360 80,000t Premier Not NOT 0 Digesters) Waste included, as INCLUDED Management double counting Tursdale site. Inactive (not yet commenced) Quarrington Farm, 431538 10,000t BEING Inactive 10,000 0 Old Quarrington, Durham (Johnson BUILT. (Permission Brothers) ASSUME granted July 100% ‘08) Aycliffe Quarry (mechanical and 292220 160,000t DO NOT 31.25 (half of 0 INCLUDED 50,000 biological treatment plant and p.a. COUNT – exemptions) IN TOTAL (COUNTED AS IT extension to waste transfer station) (Both MBT INCLUDED CAPACITY IS ASSUMED and transfer IN TOTAL FIGURE THAT included in CAPACITY ABOVE FOR EXEMPTIONS 160,000 FIGURE MBT & MAKE UP 100,000 above) ABOVE FOR TRANSFER TONNES – 50k MBT & green waste etc TRANSFER. and 50k C&D) Bunker Hill Farm, Leadgate (R W 114524 2,000t Assume 100 0 0 2,000 0 Steele) Joint Stocks, Coxhoe (Premier Waste 328361 175,000t 100 0 0 175,000 0 Management) Junction House Farm (P. Hutcinson) 404436 3,000t 100 3,000 Murton Hall Farm, Trimdon (Andrew 414317 30,000t 0 100 0 0 30,000 0 Thompson) Todhills Farm, Newfield (Alan 211339 11,220t 100 0 0 11,220 0 Etherington)

126 Site Grid ref Licensed Haz received Hhold/C&I Inert/C&D Haz fig Hhold/C&I Inert/C&D fig (NZ) Capacity % received received assumed fig assumed assumed % % Scoby Scaur Landfill Site, Cobey’s 207339 4 – 5,000t Premier INACTIVE. 0 5,000 0 Carr Lane, Newfield Waste Composting Management (pre- shredded green waste from HWRCs) 100% Totals N/A 15,643 1,356,977 1,137,815 (does (does not (does not not include include include Clinical transfers Clinical Clinical or landfill) transfers transfers or or landfill) landfill)

Assumptions:

• The percentage split above is worked out from actual received waste information (proxy for arisings) from Waste Data Interrogator 2008 and is then applied to the licensed capacity to give figures so that assumptions can be made on capacity for types of waste. Final figures are rounded. • It is assumed that Mixed MRSs and ELV/Vehicle Dismantler sites recycle 100% of the tonnage received. • It is assumed that Harmire Road (Glaxo) will not provide any capacity for this exercise as it is only used by Glaxo. It is assumed that Blue House Farm is not capacity for the purposes of this exercise. • For HWRCs, figures of recycling efficiency are taken from the individual site returns (information from DCC Waste Management Section, 2008/09 overall tonnages). The assumption is made that this is the percentage of total capacity per year. It is assumed that they receive 100% Household waste for the purposes of this exercise. • Inert/C&D recycling facilities and aggregates recycling facilities are assumed to be recycling 100% of waste received. • For the moment, it is assumed that 100% of Aycliffe Transfer is C&I and Household (therefore the split is 50-50). Other assumptions for Aycliffe are landfill 138,840t; asbestos cell 10,000t (confidential); transfer station (including MBT) 160,000t. There are also various exemptions (which have no capacity upper level) including for soils and rubble; green waste; and wood. It is understood that these could make up the same capacity as the MBT, which could take the overall capacity to 500,000 for all activities. It is considered reasonable to assume 100,000 tonnes per annum for exemptions, hence 50,000 for green waste and 50,000 for inert/C&D. • Although for the purposes of this exercise the original licensed capacity is used for the Thornley digesters, an actual estimate of future throughput when online is 30-40,000 tonnes per year at 60% efficiency, which would be 24,000 tpa (source: Waste Management Section, DCC). To ensure consistency, all digesters are assumed to be 60% efficient.

127 • It is understood that Joint Stocks Recycling facility full licensed capacity for Inert wastes is 450,000 tonnes. The remainder of the capacity relates to the composting activities carried out (175,000 tonnes). This agrees with the figures which we have assumed in the table above based upon waste returns. • It is assumed that St John’s Road transfer is simply a depot, and so it is not included in the current capacity calculations. • Although categorised as a transfer station taking non-biological wastes by the Environment Agency, we have included Seaham Harbour as a metals site, as this is understood to be a scrap metal facility. This decision was taken to avoid having to make assumptions which could skew the capacity gap calculations, as the site has a significant capacity. • We are aware that the permissions that exist on the Tursdale site (one for digesters and the other for the relocation of the Joint Stocks recycling activities) are for the same area and have therefore removed the capacity of the transfer from the calculations (48,000tpa), as it is assumed that the recycling activities will take precedence over digesters for the moment as they are already taking place.

128 Appendix 9: Capacity Assumptions for Transfer Stations

Table 1: Assumptions for C&I Capacity at (Household) Transfer Stations

It is assumed that 10% of Transfer capacity is C&I for the following (household) transfers:

Site Grid Licensed HH fig C&I fig 30% of HH 30% of 75% of HH 75% of ref Capacity assumed assumed assumed C&I assumed C&I (NZ) recycled assumed recycled assumed recycled recycled

Annfield Plain (Premier 174509 176,800t 159,120 17,680 47,736 5,304 119,340 13,260 Waste Management) Heighington (Premier 273225 176,969 159,272 17,697 47,782 5,309 119,454 13,273 Waste Management) Thornley (Premier) 394393 176,000t 158,400 17,600 47,520 5,280 118,800 13,200 Stainton Grove 172178 12,000t 10,800 1,200 3,240 360 8,100 900 Aycliffe1 288221 160,000t 80,000 80,000 24,000 24,000 60,000 60,000 Total N/A N/A N/A N/A 170,278 40,253 425,694 100,633 1Aycliffe is included here as a transfer, although it is also an MBT. Other transfers on the list are operated under the County’s MSW contract. Aycliffe is operated under Darlington Borough’s MSW contract.

It is therefore assumed that the majority of the transfers are receiving C&I waste and contribute to the capacity for this stream.

129 Table 2: Existing Waste Facilities in County Durham – Calculations of 30% and 75% recycling efficiency for Transfer Stations (C&D is assumed to be totally recycled, to ensure consistency with Inert Sites)

Site Grid ref Licensed Haz fig C&I fig assumed Inert/C&D fig 30% of C&I 75% of C&I 100% of Inert/C&D (NZ) Capacity assumed assumed assumed assumed recycled assumed recycled recycled Chilton Industrial 283305 4,999t 1895 1925 1174.8 577 1444 1175 Estate (Former SBC) 333337 1,600t 1290 309 1.44 93 232 1.44 Garmondsway Depot (Veolia Ltd/Cleanaway) Constantine 172335 24,999t 0 2675 22324 803 2006 22324 Farm, Crook (William Marley) Dekura Ltd 406404 10,400t 0 0 10,400 0 0 10,400 Dragonville 300424 7,800t 5015 0 2925 0 0 2925 Transfer Station Grove Industrial 096500 24,999 0 24,999 0 7500 18,749 0 Estate EA have Unit 6 Castleside Road (T Lister EA have PG Lister) Mainsforth 307316 19,500t 0 19,500 (inactive) 0 5,850 14,625 0 Transfer Station (Connaughton Contractors) Old Brickworks, 193147 75,000 45 1,350 73,605 405 1,013 73,605 Tanfield (Colton) Shaw Bank 0-62174 25,000t 0 0 25,000 0 0 25,000 Waste Transfer Station (F & R Jackson) Shildon Transfer 223254 15,000t 0 15,000 0 4,500 11,250 0 Station & Recycling Facility Stewart Storey 268549 74,999t 0 18750 56249 5625 14062 56249 Transfer Station

130 Site Grid ref Licensed Haz fig C&I fig assumed Inert/C&D fig 30% of C&I 75% of C&I 100% of Inert/C&D (NZ) Capacity assumed assumed assumed assumed recycled assumed recycled recycled Tursdale 302360 74,999 0 1,350 73,499 405 1013 73,499 Industrial Estate (Tonks) Annfield Plain 174508 3,185t N/A Clinical N/A Clinical N/A Clinical Bracken Hill 409403 4,999t 534.9 4464 0 N/A Clinical N/A Clinical N/A Clinical (Personnel Hygiene Services Ltd) Sharpsmart 276350 24,999t 24999 0 0 N/A Clinical N/A Clinical N/A Clinical George Street 425493 4,999t 0 0 4,999 0 0 4,999 Transfer Station James Dent Seaham Metals, 424492 4,950t 1965 2985 0 895 2239 0 Seaham Thistle Road, 256397 93,600t 0 1217 92383 365 913 92,383 Langley Moor (Ward Brothers) Block A, 264328 40,000t 0 40,000 0 12,000 30,000 0 Merrington Lane Industrial Estate (Foreman Recycling Ltd) Unit 1, Westline 426554 74,999t 0 CAN’T FIND. 0 22500 56,249 0 Industrial Estate, 265333?? ASSUMED Birtley, Chester- 74,999 le-Street Site S, Thornley 396397 55,000t 0 0 NOT YET 0 0 55,000 Industrial Estate, IMPLEMENT Shotton ED

Total N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 61,518 153,795 417,560

131 Appendix 10: Capacity Assumptions for HWRCs

It is assumed that all HWRCs are taking 100% Household waste. The assumptions of capacity below are based upon actual inputs and percentages recycled from 2008/09 figures (DCC Waste Management Section).

Site Grid Ref Licensed Capacity Hhold assumed1 (tonnes) Annfield Plain 175505 4,999t 2,624 (52.5% of licensed Capacity) Brooms Dene, Leadgate 140516 4,999t 1,735 (34.7%) Coxhoe 329366 24,999t 14,124 (56.5%) Cragwood 142245 4,999t 1,100 (22%) Heighington 278221 7,490t 4,569 (61.3%) Hett Hills 236516 4,999t 1,460 (29.2%) Horden 439426 4,999t 3,469 (69.4%) Mickelton NY947247 24,999t 500 (2%) Potterhouse 262456 24,999t 16,249 (65%) Romanway 205271 7,490t 4,666 (62.3%) Seaham Strangford Road 419494 4,999t 3,099 (62%) Stainton Grove 071871 2,490t 40 (1.6%) Thornley (Premier Waste Management) 396396 4,999t 3,159 (63.2%) Todhills 207342 24,999t 13,474 (53.9%) Tudhoe 267359 4,999t 2,889 (57.8%) Total 73,157 1Taken from calculations based on percentages of waste recycled at HWRCs from site returns figures for 2008/09 (DCC Waste Management Section). Percentages of licensed capacity. This is also shown in the table of assumed capacities in Appendix 1 above.

132 Appendix 11: Assumptions of Capacity for Treatment Facilities

Treatment facilities are assumed to recycle 100% of capacity, except where 30% or 60% efficiency is assumed due to the nature of the operation.

Site Grid ref Licensed Haz fig C&I fig Inert/C&D fig 100% of 100% of Inert/C&D (NZ) Capacity assumed assumed assumed C&I assumed recycled assumed recycled Recycling Old Quarrington Quarry 327380 100,000t 0 0 100,000 0 100,000 Kilmond Wood Quarry, Bowes 023135 20,000t 0 0 Inactive (site 0 20,000 mothballed) – 100% Thrislington Quarry 311327 75,000t 0 0 75,000 0 75,000 CPL Site, Hackworth Industrial 224253 25,000t 2,650 3,125 19,250 937.5 (30%) 19,250 Estate, Shildon Joint Stocks, Coxhoe, Premier 327363 625,000t 875 0 (WOULD BE 433,750 0 433,750 Waste Management DOUBLE COUNTING C&I DATA) Conservation Centre, Deepdale 044166 1,000t 1,000 0 1,000 0 Former NCB building, Unit S1A, 302360 50,000t 50,000 (Inactive) 0 50,000 0 Tursdale Business Park, Tursdale, Durham (Greencycle) Unit 1, Tanfield Lea Industrial 191150 14,000t 0 14,000 0 14,000 0 Estate (Gordell International (INACTIVE) Trading Co Ltd) Unit ‘U’, Thornley Station 439539 21,944t 0 0 21,944 0 21,944 Industrial Estate, Shotton Colliery 1st Skip Hire Composting Facility Thornley (Premier Waste 396393 80,000t 0 100 Inactive (off 0 48,000 0 Management) Aerobic Digesters line) (60% efficiency). Tursdale Industrial Estate 302360 80,000t Inactive 48,000 0 (Aerobic Digesters) (Premier (not yet commenced) (60% Waste Management) efficiency). Quarrington Farm, 431538 10,000t ASSUME 100% Inactive 6,000 0 Old Quarrington, (Permission granted Durham (Johnson Brothers) July 08)

133 Site Grid ref Licensed Haz fig C&I fig Inert/C&D fig 100% of 100% of Inert/C&D (NZ) Capacity assumed assumed assumed C&I assumed recycled assumed recycled Aycliffe Quarry (mechanical and 292220 160,000t DO NOT 0 INCLUDED 0 biological treatment plant and p.a. COUNT – IN TOTAL extension to waste transfer (Both INCLUDED IN CAPACITY station) MBT and TOTAL FIGURE transfer CAPACITY ABOVE included FIGURE ABOVE FOR MBT & in 160,000 FOR MBT & TRANSFER above) TRANSFER. Bunker Hill Farm, Leadgate (R W 114524 2,000t Assume 100 0 2,000 0 Steele) Joint Stocks, Coxhoe (Premier 328361 175,000t 100 0 175,000 0 Waste Management) Junction House Farm (P. 404436 3,000t 100 3,000 Hutcinson) Murton Hall Farm, Trimdon 414317 30,000t 0 100 0 30,000 0 (Andrew Thompson) Todhills Farm, Newfield (Alan 211339 11,220t 100 0 11,220 0 Etherington) Scoby Scaur Landfill Site, 207339 4 – 5,000t composting (pre- Inactive 5,000 0 Cobey’s Carr Lane, shredded green Newfield (Premier) waste from HWRCs) 100% Totals N/A N/A 3,525 N/A N/A 394,158 669,944

C&I assumptions:

For Joint Stocks composting, it is understood that degradable household wastes permitted capacity is 100,000; degradable commercial is 37,500; and degradable industrial is 37,500.

134 Appendix 12: Existing Waste Facilities in County Durham – Assumptions of 100% recycling for Metals

Site Grid ref Licensed Haz fig Hhold/C&I Metals fig 30% of Haz 30% of 100% of (NZ) Capacity assumed fig assumed assumed assumed HH/C&I Metals (%) recycled assumed assumed recycled recycled Vehicle Dismantler Hackworth Road Northern ELV Recycling 408421 4,499t 0 0 100 0 0 4,499 Bells Breakers (Stuart Bell) 211505 2,500t 0 0 Believed 0 0 2,500 active 100 Autocraft (Alec Gamble) 212506 2,500t 0 0 100 0 0 2,500 Burnopfield Car Dismantlers (George 171561 2,499t 0 0 100 0 0 2,499 Brough) Burnopfield Metals (Kenneth Clark) 172561 2,499t 0 0 100 0 0 2,499 Charles Newton Car & Spares (Charles 398371 2,499t 0 0 100 0 0 2,499 Erbert) Chilton Auto Breakers (Kris Callaghan) 277304 2,499t 0 0 100 0 0 2,499 Coppycrooks Yard (Mr J Denham) 210263 2,499t 0 0 100 0 0 2,499 First Aid Car & Commercial (Mr D 173511 2,499t 0 0 100 0 0 2,499 Herdman) Gers Metals (Gerald Robinson) 458397 2,499t 0 0 100 0 0 2,499 J B Monte Vehicle Dismantlers (James 317506 4,999t 0 0 Not found 0 0 N/A Bernard Monte) Johnsons Vauxhall Spares (Stuart 209505 2,500t 0 0 100 0 0 2,500 Johnson) Kemp Commercial Spares (McCrombie & 153282 2,499t 0 0 100 0 0 2,499 Kemp) Kevin Brunton Car & Commercial 174512 2,499t 0 0 100 0 0 2,499 Kevin Dixon Commercials (Kevin James 175513 2,499t 0 0 Active 0 0 2,499 Dixon) Lister Scrap Metals (James Alfred Lister) 112503 2,499t 0 0 Active 0 0 2,499 Monte’s Transport Spares (Monte & 316502 2,500t 0 0 100 0 0 2,500 Monte) North East Motor Salvage 413416 24,999t 0 0 100 0 0 24,999 Robbies Autos (Robert Wright) 212506 2,499t 0 0 100 0 0 2,499 Rooster Motorcycles (Leslie Mavin) 173511 2,499t 0 0 100 0 0 2,499 Ross 4 x 4s (William Ross) 226256 5 0 0 100 0 0 5 S & M Motor (David Morris) 316502 2,499t OUT OF 0 100 0 0 2,499 BUSINES S Sacriston Auto Dismantlers (William 234476 2,499t 100 0 0 2,499 Chapman Brunton)

135 T J Fast Lanes Valeting (Thomas Jackon 251520 2,499t 100 0 0 2,499 Lines) Village Inn Garage(Clifford Richardson) 369397 2,499t 100 0 0 2,499 Welfare Garage (D Coats & Son Ltd) 309505 2,499t 100 0 0 2,499 Mount Pleasant Garage, Stanley Crook 171374 4,999 100 0 0 4,999 (Mulligans)

Mixed MRS’s Bells Breakers Auto 205271 1,040t Mr & Mrs MRS 100 0 0 1,040 Bell Charles Newton Cars & Spares 397371 24,999t Charles MRS 100 0 0 24,999 Newton Cornforth Metal Recycling Site 305344 2,000t Susan 0 100 0 0 2,000 May Brown Mountstar Cable Recycling Ltd 175563 28,000 European 0 100 0 0 28,000 Metal Recycling Seaham Harbour 249,000t 100 (NOT 0 0 249,000 YET IMPLEMEN TED) Unit N1 Tursdale Business Park (Van 251403 100,000t 0 100 (not yet 0 0 100,000 Dalen) implemente d) BCF Metals Ltd, Littleburn Ind Est 15,600 100 (not yet 0 0 15,600 implemente d) Total Capacity 510,123

It is assumed that C&D Transfers are recycling the entirety of the waste received. Clinical Transfers are not included in this exercise, as they do not provide recycling capacity.

136 Appendix 13: Existing Waste Facilities in County Durham – Assumptions of 100% recycling for C&D Waste

Table 1: Quarries

Site Grid ref Licensed Capacity Haz received Hhold/C&I Inert/C&D Haz fig Hhold/C&I fig Inert/C&D fig (NZ) % received received assumed assumed assumed % % Old Quarrington Quarry 327380 100,000t 0 0 100 0 0 100,000 Kilmond Wood Quarry, 023135 20,000t 0 0 Inactive (site 0 0 20,000 Bowes mothballed) – 100% Thrislington Quarry 311327 75,000t 100 75,000 Total 195,000

Table 2: Transfers and Treatment (As Above)

Site Grid ref Licensed Capacity Haz received Hhold/C&I Inert/C&D Haz fig Hhold/C&I fig Inert/C&D fig (NZ) % received received assumed assumed assumed % % Special Waste Transfer Station 333337 1,600t 80.6 19.3 0.09 1290 309 1.4 Garmondsway Depot (Veolia Ltd / Cleanaway – on Treatment Installations tab, too.) A11 – Household, Commercial & Industrial Waste Transfer Station Annfield Plain (Premier Waste 174509 176,800t 0.32 99.6 0.08 566 176093 141 Management) Chilton Industrial Estate (Former 283305 4,999t 37.9 38.5 23.5 1895 1925 1175 SBC) Constantine Farm, Crook 172335 24,999t 0 10.7 89.3 0 2675 22,324 (William Marley) Dekura Ltd 406404 10,400t 0 0 100 0 0 10,400 Dragonville Transfer Station 300424 7,800t 64.3 0 36 5015 0 2,925 Heighington (Premier Waste 273225 176,969 0.4 99.5 0.07 708 176,084 124 Management) Old Brickworks, Tanfield 193147 75,000 0.06 1.8 98 45 1,350 73,500 (Colton) Shaw Bank Waste Transfer 0-62174 25,000t 0 0 100 0 0 25,000 Station (F & R Jackson) Stewart Storey Transfer Station 268549 74,999t 0 25 75 0 18750 56,249 Thornley (Premier) 394393 176,000t 0.36 99.6 0.0006 634 175,296 1.06

137 Tursdale Industrial Estate 302360 74,999 0 1.8 98.2 0 1350 73,649 (Tonks) Transfer Station taking Non-Biodegradable Wastes George Street Transfer Station 425493 4,999t 0 0 100 0 0 4,999 James Dent Thistle Road, Langley Moor 256397 93,600t 0 1.3 98.7 0 1217 92,383 (Ward Brothers) Site S, Thornley Industrial 396397 55,000t Burn & Waste Assumed 100. 0 0 55,000 Estate, Shotton Hewitt Transfer Not yet Contractors Station implemented. Recycling CPL Site, Hackworth Industrial 224253 25,000t 10.6 12.5 77 2650 3,125 19,250 Estate, Shildon Joint Stocks, Coxhoe, Premier 327363 625,000t (FULL – 0.14 30.4 69.4 875 190,000 433,750 Waste Management 175,000 is (NOT composting) COUNTED. Counted as 175,000 under composting) Unit ‘U’, Thornley Station 439539 21,944t 0 0 100% 0 0 21,944 Industrial Estate, Shotton Colliery 1st Skip Hire Composting Facility Aycliffe Quarry (mechanical and 292220 160,000t p.a. N/A. DO 0 0 INCLUDED 50,000 biological treatment plant and (Both MBT and NOT COUNT IN TOTAL (COUNTED AS IT extension to waste transfer transfer included in – INCLUDED CAPACITY IS ASSUMED station) 160,000 above) IN TOTAL FIGURE THAT CAPACITY ABOVE FOR EXEMPTIONS FIGURE MBT & MAKE UP 100,000 ABOVE FOR TRANSFER TONNES) MBT & TRANSFER. Bunker Hill Farm, Leadgate (R 114524 2,000t Assume 100 0 0 2,000 0 W Steele) Joint Stocks, Coxhoe (Premier 328361 175,000t 100 0 0 175,000 0 Waste Management) Junction House Farm (P. 404436 3,000t 100 3,000 Hutcinson) Murton Hall Farm, Trimdon 414317 30,000t 0 100 0 0 30,000 0 (Andrew Thompson) Todhills Farm, Newfield (Alan 211339 11,220t 100 0 0 11,220 0 Etherington)

138 Scoby Scaur Landfill Site, 207339 4 – 5,000t Premier INACTIVE. 0 5,000 0 Cobey’s Carr Lane, Newfield Waste Composting Management (pre- shredded green waste from HWRCs) 100% Totals N/A N/A N/A 942,815

139 Appendix 14: Capacity Gap Calculations C&I Waste

Year Management Recovery/Treatment Residual Capacity Gap Capacity Gap requirement Requirement Landfill Treatment/Recovery Landfill Assumed 30% Efficiency 2005/06 679 n/a n/a n/a n/a 2006/07 689 n/a n/a n/a n/a 2007/208 699 n/a n/a n/a n/a 2008/09 710 n/a n/a n/a n/a 2009/10 721 n/a n/a n/a n/a 2010/11 732 n/a n/a n/a n/a 2011/12 742 n/a n/a n/a n/a 2012/13 753 n/a n/a n/a n/a 2013/14 765 n/a n/a n/a n/a 2014/15 776 n/a n/a n/a n/a 2015/16 788 575 213 At least 75 tonnes Nil per annum 2016/17 800 584 216 At least 84 tonnes Nil per annum 2017/18 812 593 219 At least 93 tonnes Nil per annum 2018/19 824 602 222 At least 102 tonnes Nil per annum 2019/20 836 610 226 At least 110 tonnes Nil per annum 2020/21 849 620 229 At least 120 tonnes Nil per annum 2021/22 862 629 233 At least 129 tonnes Nil per annum 2022/23 875 639 236 At least 139 tonnes Nil per annum 2023/24 888 648 240 At least 148 tonnes Nil per annum

140 2024/25 901 658 243 At least 158 tonnes Nil per annum 2025/26 915 668 247 At least 168 tonnes Nil per annum 2026/27 929 678 251 At least 178 tonnes Nil per annum 2027/28 943 688 255 At least 188 tonnes Nil per annum 2028/29 957 699 258 At least 199 tonnes Nil per annum 2029/30 971 709 262 At least 209 tonnes Nil per annum N.B. Based on the rounded assumptions above (low range of 495,000tpa capacity for C&I rounded to 500,000) and HH/C&I landfill capacity of 374,999 rounded to 375,000. The figures in the first and third columns are based upon the 73% recovery requirement and the difference between the proportion to be recovered and the projected required capacity.

Year Management Recovery/Treatment Residual Capacity Gap Capacity Gap requirement Requirement Landfill Treatment/Recovery Landfill 75% Efficiency 2005/06 679 n/a n/a n/a n/a 2006/07 689 n/a n/a n/a n/a 2007/208 699 n/a n/a n/a n/a 2008/09 710 n/a n/a n/a n/a 2009/10 721 n/a n/a n/a n/a 2010/11 732 n/a n/a n/a n/a 2011/12 742 n/a n/a n/a n/a 2012/13 753 n/a n/a n/a n/a 2013/14 765 n/a n/a n/a n/a 2014/15 776 n/a n/a n/a n/a 2015/16 788 575 213 Nil Nil 2016/17 800 584 216 Nil Nil 2017/18 812 593 219 Nil Nil 2018/19 824 602 222 Nil Nil 2019/20 836 610 226 Nil Nil 2020/21 849 620 229 Nil Nil 2021/22 862 629 233 Nil Nil

141 2022/23 875 639 236 Nil Nil 2023/24 888 648 240 Nil Nil 2024/25 901 658 243 At least 10 tonnes Nil per annum 2025/26 915 668 247 At least 20 tonnes Nil per annum 2026/27 929 678 251 At least 30 tonnes Nil per annum 2027/28 943 688 255 At least 40 tonnes Nil per annum 2028/29 957 699 258 At least 51 tonnes Nil per annum 2029/30 971 709 262 At least 61 tonnes Nil per annum N.B. Based on the rounded assumptions above (high range of 700,000tpa capacity for C&I) and HH/C&I landfill capacity of 374,999 rounded to 375,000. The figures in the first and third columns are based upon the 73% recovery requirement and the difference between the proportion to be recovered and the projected required capacity.

142 Appendix 15: GLOSSARY OF TERMS

Aerobic Digestion Biological degradation of organic material in the presence of oxygen, producing a residue suitable for use as a soil improver.

Anaerobic Digestion Biological degradation of organic material in the absence of oxygen, producing methane gas used to generate electricity and a residue suitable for use as a soil improver.

AHLV Area of High Landscape Value (Designated by Local authority)

AONB North Pennines Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (designated by the Countryside Agency)

Best Value A statutory duty on local authorities to deliver services, including waste collection and waste disposal management, to clear standards on both cost and quality.

Biodiversity Biodiversity is about the whole range of living things from well known trees, flowering plants, birds, animals and butterflies to lesser known mosses, lichens, fungi, marine species and even bacteria. Biodiversity is also about the wide range of habitats that these animals live in and depend upon.

Bring Systems System by which the public deliver their recyclables to a central collection point, such as those in supermarket car parks, or at HWRC’s

Co-disposal The calculated and monitored treatment by disposal of special waste with other non-special waste, usually household but could include industrial and commercial waste in a landfill.

Combined Heat and Power (CHP) The combined production of heat, usually in the form of steam, and power, usually in the form of electricity. In waste-fired facilities the heat would normally be used as hot water to serve a district-heating scheme.

Composting

143 An aerobic process by which biologically degradable wastes, such as kitchen and garden waste, are broken down to form a stable, granular material containing valuable organic matter, to improve the soil structure and to enhance its biological activity.

DEFRA Department of Food and Rural Affairs

DCLG Department for Communities and Local Government.

Energy from Waste (EfW) The conversion of waste into a useable form of energy, e.g. heat or electricity. Common conversion processes are incineration and anaerobic digestion.

Environment Agency Aims to prevent or minimise the effects of pollution on the environment and issues permits to monitor and control activities that handle or produce waste within the scope of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. It also provides up to date information on waste arisings and the extent of, and need for management and disposal facilities.

Escrow Account An independently held account into which the site operator pays, at a rate and to a limit agreed with the waste planning authority, to meet reclamation requirements.

Flood Risk Assessment An assessment of the risk of flooding to the development being proposed over its expected lifetime and its possible effects on flood risks elsewhere in terms of its effects on flood flows and flood storage capacity and the run-off. Guidance on the content of flood-risk assessments is set out in Annex F of PPG 25.

Flood Zones Three types of Flood Zones have been identified to support the implementation of Government Planning Policy to prevent inappropriate development in flood risk areas. Flood Zone 3 (High Risk) identifies areas of land with a 100 to 1 (1%) chance (or greater) of flooding each year from rivers, or 200 to 1 (0.5%) chance (or greater) of flooding each year from the sea. Zone 2 (Low to medium risk) identifies areas of land with an annual chance of flooding below that of Zone 3 but greater than 1000 to 1 (0.1%). Flood Zone 1 (Little or no risk) identifies areas of land with an annual chance of flooding of less than 1000 to 1 (0.1%). Flood zone areas are identified by the Environment Agency and are subject to regular review.

144 Fly Tipping The illegal and uncontrolled disposal of waste to land.

Gasification A means of recovering energy from waste. The process converts carbon-containing material into a gas which can be used as a fuel to generate electricity or steam.

General Industrial Use Areas identified for industrial development, including B2 uses.

Groundwater An important part of the natural water cycle and present within underground strata known as aquifers. Groundwater has a substantial strategic significance in public water supply. It also provides supplies for private, industrial and agricultural abstractors who cannot obtain, or prefer not to use, water from the public mains.

Household Waste Recycling Centre (HWRC) A facility provided by the Waste Disposal Authority which is available to the public to deposit waste which cannot be collected by the normal household waste collection round. Also referred to as Civic Amenity Site or Household Waste Disposal Compound.

Incineration The controlled burning of waste. The fuel used in incinerators is usually MSW, but could include other carbon based waste streams. Energy may also be recovered from incineration in the form of heat. This process leaves an ash residue which can be recycled and/or used in the construction industry.

Integrated Pollution Prevention Control (IPPC) Designed to prevent or reduce pollution by integrating permitting processes based on the application of best available techniques (BAT). It gives priority to prevention at source, and ensuring prudent management of natural resources, in compliance with the "polluter pays principle". The Directive covers emissions to air, land & water. See PPC.

Kerbside Collection The collection by the local authority of recyclable goods directly from households, or occasionally industrial or commercial premises.

Landfill The controlled deposit of waste to land.

145 Landfill Directive Set of European Community Rules on landfill to ensure high standards for disposal and to stimulate waste prevention, via recycling and recovery.

Landfill Gas The gas generated in any landfill site accepting biodegradable organic matter. It consists of a mixture of gases, predominantly methane and carbon dioxide. It has an offensive odour due to traces of organosulphur compounds, and is explosive.

Leachate Water which seeps through a landfill, and by doing so extracts substances from the deposited waste. Physical and chemical characteristics of the leachate depend on the fill materials and the degradation process taking place in the landfill. Leachate is polluting substance.

Life Cycle Assessment A method for evaluating the materials, inputs and emissions relating to the whole life of a product from raw material acquisition, through manufacture, distribution, retail, use, re-use, maintenance, recycling and waste management. Environmental impacts and costs are taken into account. Life-cycle analysis involves the collection of data to produce an inventory, life-cycle assessment to the evaluation of the output.

Materials Recycling Facility (MRF) A specialist plant which separates, processes and stores recyclables which have been collected either separately from waste (a "clean" MRF) or unsorted (a "dirty" MRF).

MWMSCD The Municipal Waste Management Strategy for County Durham.

PPC - Pollution, Prevention and Control The new regime which implements the EU Directive on integrated pollution prevention and control

Precautionary Principle Taking action now to avoid possible environmental damage when the scientific evidence for acting is inconclusive but the potential damage could be great.

Previously Developed Land (PDL) Land which is or was occupied by a permanent structure (excluding agricultural or forestry buildings), and associated fixed surface infrastructure. The definition covers the curtilage of the development. Previously developed land may occur in both built-up and rural settings. The definition includes defence buildings and land used for mineral extraction and waste disposal where provision for restoration has not been made through development control procedures.

146 The definition excludes land and buildings that are currently in use for agricultural or forestry purposes, and land in built-up areas which has not been developed previously. Also excluded is land that was previously developed but where the remains of any structure or activity have blended into the landscape in the process of time (to the extent to which it can reasonably be considered as part of the natural surroundings), and where there is a clear reason that could outweigh the re-use of the site – such as its contribution to nature conservation – or it has subsequently been put to an amenity use and cannot be regarded as requiring redevelopment. Producer Responsibility Obligations Requires those producing and selling goods to take greater responsibility for those goods at the end of the products life.

Priority Habitats and Species. Priority habitats and species benefit from a higher degree of protection than other habitats and species protected under the Habitats Directive and are indicated by an asterisk in Annexes I and II of the Habitats Directive.

Proximity Principle Waste should generally be disposed of as near as possible to its place of production.

Reclamation Operations which are designed to return the area to an acceptable environmental condition, whether for the resumption of a former land use or for a new use. The term ‘Reclamation’ includes both restoration and aftercare as defined in the 1990 Act. Reclamation can also include events which occur prior to some operations taking place such as soil stripping etc.

Recovery Value can be recovered from waste by recovering materials through recycling, composting, or recovery of energy. Energy can be recovered from waste, through: incineration; use as a fuel substitute; materials recovery (with energy released as a by-product;) and, waste disposal (with fuel recovered as a by-product of the process).

Recyclable Material with potential to be recycled.

Recyclate Materials collected for recycling.

Recycling A means of recovering value from waste where materials which would otherwise become waste are separated collected and processed into useable material or product.

147 Refuse Collection Vehicle (RCV) A wagon used to collect waste.

Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF) A fuel product produced from the combustible fraction of household waste.

Regional Self-Sufficiency Most waste should be treated or disposed of within the region in which it is produced.

Regional Technical Advisory Body (RTAB) Provides specialist advice on waste to Regional Planning Bodies on options and strategies for dealing with the waste that needs to be managed within the region.

Restoration The works carried out at a site to create a final landform, and replacement of soils, prior to commencement of aftercare.

Source Protection Zones The Environment Agency has identified three groundwater Source Protection Zones. Zone 1 (Inner Source Protection); Zone II (Outer Source Protection) and Zone III (Source Catchment). Zone I (Inner Source Protection) is located immediately adjacent to the groundwater resource. It is designed to protect against the effects of human activity which might have an immediate effect upon the source. This area is defined by a 50-day travel time from any point below the water table to the source and as a minimum of 50 metres radius from the source. This 50 day travel time zone is based on the time it takes for biological contaminants to decay. Zone II (Outer Source Protection) is larger than Zone 1 and is the area defined by a 400 day travel time from any point below the water table to the source. The travel time is based upon that required to provide delay and attenuation of slowly degrading pollutants. Zone III (Source catchment) covers the complete catchment area of a groundwater source. All groundwater within it will eventually discharge to the source.

Sustainable Development Development which meets the needs of today without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.

Time Depth The presence in a landscape of features surviving from many different periods of its history.

Transfer Stations A place to which waste is delivered for sorting prior to transfer to a place for recycling, treatment or disposal.

148 Waste Collection Authority All have a duty to collect household waste except in certain prescribed areas. They also have a duty to collect commercial waste if requested to do so and may also collect industrial waste. The new Unitary council is both collection and disposal authority Waste Hierarchy This is a theoretical framework which acts as a guide to waste management options which should be considered when assessing the BPEO.

Waste Planning Authority Durham County Council, responsible for ensuring that an adequate planning

149