The West of England Partnership – Joint Waste Core .... jwcs responses to the... · Prepared by...

1

Report: Responses to the Progress Update Prepared by the West of England Partnership August 2009 Contents Introduction……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………2 Responses…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….4

The West of England Partnership – Joint Waste Core Strategy Progress Update

5 June to 10 August 2009

2

Introduction This report lists the responses to the Joint Waste Core Strategy Progress Update. Consultees were invited on the 5th June 2009 to submit comments on the following technical reports: Technical Reports

1. Statement on Scope of the Joint Waste Core Strategy 2. Sustainability Appraisal (interim comment) 3. Feasibility study – potential for exporting non-hazardous waste to landfill 4. Assessment of the current and future waste management capacity needs 5. Detailed Site Assessment (of sites for the location of facilities to treat residual waste 6. Habitats Regulations Assessment of the Joint Waste Core Strategy 7. Strategic Flood Risk Assessment of the potential locations for waste facilities (including Annexes)

Also available for comment were the reports produced following the Preferred Options consultation, which ran from 15th January 2009 to the 12th March 2009. These reports were as follows: Consultation Reports

1. Summary Report of the consultation 2. Representations to the consultation by question 3. Representations to the consultation (submitted offline)

Further to the technical reports that became available for comment on the 5th June, a revised Detailed Site Assessment which, included details on site BA12 Fullers Earth Works, Odd Down, Bath became available on the 26th June. In addition an amplification of the Scope and Policy document became available for comment on the 22nd July 2009; consequently the closing date for responses was extended to the 10th August.

3

Explanation of columns used in table ‘Progress Update Responses’

Column Explanation

User ID Reference ID assigned to each participant, this ID is consistent with the Preferred Options Consultation

Document Ref Reference number assigned to each submission. This reference starts with either an E or an L, which indicated how the response was submitted (E for email and L for letter).

Name If the response was submitted from a member of the public, ‘Individual’ populates this field; where the submission is from an organisation the name of the organisation is given. If the response is from a Councillor or MP their name is given.

Representation Representation received entered, with confidential details removed.

Response Officer response given to the representation.

4

User ID

Doc Ref

Name Representation Response

176 E80 Weston-Super-Mare Town Council

The Town Council would like to re-iterate their original comments (please see Representations to the Consultation by question doc user ID: 176) and in addition make a request that priority attention be given to:

- Ensuring that separated waste does not get mixed again by contractors.

- Recyclable materials do not go for landfill.

Waste development policies will generally follow the waste hierarchy and aim to reduce the amount of waste going to landfill. This matter has been addressed with the inclusion of Policy 1 in the JWCS submission document – Waste Prevention

297 E81 Dunkerton Parish Council

There is some discomfort that the Fullers Earth Works (FEW) site was included in the process after a “drive-by” assessment; it will therefore be instructive and informative to understand at the earliest opportunity ERM’s properly considered assessment of including this site as a late, additional option. The technical case will stand or fall on its own merits, but DPC hopes and expects the assessment to look wider and expose what we believe to be the very high managerial and financial risks, and attendant administrative overhead, that would result from progressing with the FEW option. We urge the study team particularly to come to a view and report specifically on the success to which “planning policy” issues have been change-managed by the FEW to date and the extent to which resultant “planning history” reflects inefficient, value-detracting, reactive work for other stakeholders to deal with. Though the site assessment report template does not seem to include a section about environmental stakeholder

Noted. This information was made publicly available on the Partnership website 20th July 2009. All Stakeholders and Consultees were notified and the information was sent directly to the Parish Council.

5

User ID

Doc Ref


management, before recommending that the FEW should develop yet further in capacity, capability or size we believe the study team must gather and consider evidence to decide how far:

• Relationships between the FEW management and other stakeholders are antagonistic, strained and suspicious. Behaviours seem to reflect this; the most basic issue and management invariably ends in confrontational stand-off and expensive, distracting litigation.

• B&NES’ Green credentials are regrettably jeopardized, and valuable opportunities for mutual Green PR benefit squandered, by its being forced into reactive model rather than being engaged proactively by the FEW management.

• Process management (eg for planning) of FEW-related issues is usually tortuous, disjointed and, measured against industry benchmarks, excessively expensive.

The significant consumption of managerial resource to make good lost ground – to get the FEW site to the same cultural starting point as other sites in the options process – might rule it out notwithstanding any technical considerations.

Noted. Noted. Noted.

173 L6 Highways Agency The key message from the Agency is the requirement for the Strategic Partnership to demonstrate that the preferred options for waste management shall not have a detrimental impact on the strategic road network (SRN).

Noted.

6

User ID

Doc Ref


Site BA12 Fullers Earth Works, Odd Down, Bath Site is 12km from the nearest motorway junction and is well positioned to serve the population of Bath and its hinterland. If it could be demonstrated that a strategic waste facility would not have a detrimental impact on the safe and efficient operation of the A36 or A4 then the Agency would not raise any objection in principle to locating a strategic waste facility at this site. Site IS3 Tytherington Quarry The site is in relative proximity to the SRN, but is too far detached from the population it is intended to serve, which would encourage trips of a greater distance to service the region. An application submission would therefore require a full Transport Assessment including proposed routing details. The site is allocated within the South Gloucestershire Waste Local Planfor the importation of inert and construction waste, this was subject to a 1999 planning consent based upon waste importation purely by rail, an approach supported by the Agency. The site is also detached from any settlements and the agency would seek information regarding employee travel patterns if a waste facility were to be proposed. Site IS9 Terra Nitrogen, Severn Beach Would need to be satisfied that there would be no adverse impacts on the M5 and the M49. A robust evidence base would be required that takes account of the potential development at Severnside, which is subject to the extant ICI planning consents. The presence of a railway line to the

Noted. Noted. Development of the spatial options has considered traffic and transport routes at the plan making level. More detailed issues are more appropriately considered on receipt of a planning application or under development management policy. Noted. Development of the spatial options has considered traffic and transport routes at the plan making level. More detailed issues are more appropriately considered on receipt of a planning application or

7

User ID

Doc Ref


southwest corner of the site which the owners have right of access to, the Agency would encourage the use of this for the transfer of waste. Site BRIS4 Allmead Recycling Depot, St Phillips Marsh, Bristol Site well positioned to serve Bristol City Centre. Encourage investigations into the use of the nearby railway to reduce the potential impact on the surrounding road network. Agency would seek clarification on the impacts on the SRN namely the M32. Site IS2 Durnford Quarry, Long Ashton Need to understand the cumulative impact of a proposed waste facility alongside the proposed urban extension to south west Bristol. There are a number of infrastructure works proposed to serve the urban extension and if a Transport Assessment identifies that there will not be a material impact on the safe and efficient operation of the SRN in this location then the Agency would endorse the co-location of a waste facility. All sites should be assessed using the sequential approach, it is important that new facilities are located within central and highly accessible locations, which do not encourage additional trips along the SRN (although the Agency recognise that due to the ‘bad neighbour’ nature of the operations that this may not be practicable in predominantly residential areas). Where assessment is required to determine the impact of any development on the SRN, the

under development management policy. Noted. Development of the spatial options has considered traffic and transports routes at the plan making level. More detailed issues are more appropriately considered on receipt of a planning application or under development management policy. Noted. Development of the spatial options has considered traffic and transports routes at the plan making level. More detailed issues are more appropriately considered on receipt of a planning application or under development management policy. Noted.

8

User ID

Doc Ref


Agency requires it be completed in accordance with the Government Policy Framework. The Agency is also keen for the Partnership to full investigate the scope for the use of rail and water to transport waste in order to minimise trips on the SRN. The Agency also request that they be consulted at an early stage on any new waste sites that come forward.

Development of the spatial options has considered traffic and transports routes at the plan making level. More detailed issues are more appropriately considered on receipt of a planning application or under development management policy.

298 L7 Fulfords Land & Planning on behalf of Western Power Distribution

A number of sites illustrated in the subject document are directly affected by overhead power lines. WPD request that the relevant LA consults with them at an early stage with regard to WPD requirements. WPD has a number of strategic electricity distribution circuits in some of the areas being considered for development. WPD would expect developers of a site to pay to divert less strategic electricity circuits operating at 11kV or below. WPD seek to retain the position of electricity circuits operating at 132kV, 66kV and in some cases 33kV; particularly if the diversion placed a financial on WPD. Assuming the required minimum statutory clearances can be maintained and WPD can access its pylons/poles, WPD does not generally have any restriction on the type of development, but it would be sensible for planning guidance and layout of development to take WPD’s position into account.


204 E82 Strategic Land Partnerships

1, We welcome the move away from areas of search for landfill sites. A criteria based policy is much more likely to deliver the facilities needed. 2, The use of the word “allocations” is going to/has caused

Noted.

9

User ID

Doc Ref


confusion. Suggest the word “safeguarded” would be better. Sites could then be “safeguarded” until such time as a specified capacity within that part of the plan area had been met. This would also deal with the concerns expressed by others that other (possibly better) sites may come forward which would be prejudiced if they were not “allocated” and also will avoid sites being blighted for the plan period by allocations which may never be bought into fruition. The overarching requirement must be the delivery of XXX tonnes of capacity. Once this is delivered sites can be released. 3, There is a pressing need for this WDPD to be adopted. Without this vital planning framework in place the major levels of investment in planning and infrastructure simply will not come forward to deliver the comprehensive strategies needed. What will happen is that the profitable elements will be permitted on appeal in a piece meal fashion with out a strategic framework. 4, Adequate provision must also be made for Hazardous Waste disposal facilities. It is unacceptable to continue to rely on export from the region when it is perfectly possible to construct new facilities within the sub region.

Noted Noted Policy of the Joint Waste Core Strategy should apply to hazardous waste in addition to other waste streams. Additional consideration is required for those sites situated in an identified flood zone.

299 E83 Individual Interested to know what if any plans or designs you have for the quarry at Wick near Kingswood.

All sites included in the JWCS were put forward to be assessed at the plan making level with consideration of: Habitat Regulations Assessment, Strategic Flood Risk Assessment and representations to consultation. This site has not been included in the JWCS based upon supporting evidence.

122 E84 Gloucestershire County Council

Re-iterate their original comments (please see Representations to the Consultation by question doc user ID:

This work has been completed and is included within the Evidence Base.

10

User ID

Doc Ref


122) Of particular interest will be the approach taken in policies on landfill and hazardous waste. It is acknowledged that further work has taken place on landfill capacity and that it is noted that consideration has been taken of disposal capacity in Gloucestershire. However the WEP should not rely on this disposal capacity to take extra residual waste.

Noted

290 E85 The Coal Authority It should be noted that some of the proposed spatial options could raise the possibility of strategic sites being chosen within areas where mining legacy and ground stability issues may be present, in particular location in Yate and North-East Bristol. These issues need to be taken into account during the planning and site selection process. The revised Detailed Site assessment Report does not currently include criteria relating to ground stability or other coal mining legacy issues. These issues should form part of the site assessment process in order to ensure that any potential ground stability and other public safety risks, which may affect the way possible strategic waste treatment sites, are identified and positively addressed through the JWCS. Reason: To comply with the guidance set out in PPG14. For non-strategic sites for non-residual waste treatment facilities the Coal Authority recommends that areas of ground instability should be added to the list of conditions, which make sites unsuitable for waste development. Any criteria-based policies for determining non-strategic development

Noted. Noted. This matter has been addressed in policy 12 of the JWCS (General Considerations).

11

User ID

Doc Ref


proposals within the Joint Waste Core Strategy should make reference to the need to consider ground stability conditions and other public safety risks associated with the former legacy of coal mining and, where necessary, to incorporate appropriate mitigation measures to address them. Reason: To comply with the guidance set out in PPG14. Wish to continue to be consulted both informally if required and formally on future stages.

34 E86 Wholesale Fruit Centre

Concern over sites BS516 and IS4 There was plenty of regular publicity in the media giving details of meetings and consultation events and how to download the reports from the website. The detailed paperwork published on the 5th June was:

a) Vastly different from the report issued for consultation earlier in the year, in particular site IS4, which was not mentioned previously.

b) Poorly publicised. The consultants report did not properly explain the planning issues associated with IS4 and the other sites in the report only served to cause grave concern amongst both the local residents and the business community. The report caused confusion, in particular details in the Revised Detailed Site Assessment (p100) referring to site IS4 states that ‘a stack height of 80, would have no likely significant effect on Natura 2000 and Ramsar sites. A recently published Government Agency report on thermal treatment says – “The Definition of pollution is very wide includes offence to man’s senses,

The Progress Update was produced in response to requests for ongoing engagement and an opportunity to seek views on further work on the evidence base. The Progress Update was publicised in the local press, on the Partnership website and all stakeholders and consultees were contacted on several occasions and invited to give further views. Noted. The Revised Detailed site Assessment included key planning considerations for each site. It also included a summary of other studies undertaken in relation to each site including the Habitats Regulation Assessment (HRA). The HRA tested a 400,000tpa facility with 80m stack for consistency in modelling purposes only. This was never proposed at site IS4 which falls within the catchment area

12

User ID

Doc Ref


human health and loss of amenity”. We feel that this amply describes our views on site IS4. It is felt that the authors of the final report remain unconvinced that what they are proposing is acceptable in terms of emissions at the present time. 1, Plant/Facility Sitting – treatment facilities should be located close to the primary road network or be accessed by rail or barge. We would argue that Albert Road does not meet any of these criteria. Also the close proximity to overlooking housing deems the site inappropriate. 2, Traffic – Albert Road is not capable of taking extra traffic because:

a) Some years ago the road was completely rebuilt due to subsidence problems and is currently in a very poor standard in need of another overhaul, including the drains at the junction with Albert Crescent, which frequently flood.

b) The road is already very unpleasant for pedestrians. c) Frequently there is a queue of traffic at the

roundabout due to HGVs. d) Up to 180 extra HGVs per day using Albert Road in

each direction over an 8hr period would increase traffic beyond the roads capacity and compromise the structure and surface of the road.

e) The site would need a lot of on-site parking. f) Need to be sufficient internal storage space on site for

incoming waste.

requiring an indicative capacity of 60,000tpa. Noted.

13

User ID

Doc Ref


3, Emissions/Possible Health Effects – concerns over the clean-up required even if IS4 would be a pyrolysis or gasification plant rather than a conventional incineration facility, particularly the very fine particles associated with syngas and the solid residue produced when cleaning up flue gases. We would expect the local authority to ensure that there will be internal containment barriers to prevent pollutant controlled substances from spreading on site and to ensure these substances are adequately separated. 4, Dust/Odour – Any facility will give rise to dust and odours, we would require that all operations on IS4 be carried out inside a building in the facility. Byers of fruit and flowers already have complained to the salesmen in the Fruit Centre that they could not smell the product because of an unpleasant odour arising from a local waste transfer site. Concern must also be expressed about the need for adequate ventilation to prevent the build up of volatile products. It is anticipated that the local authority will have a vigorous sampling protocol over a wide area to ensure area quality on a daily basis. 5, Vermin – If the majority of the waste throughput and operations of the thermal treatment facility were completely enclosed in buildings we would have diminished concerns about vermin and indeed flies. The Centre is very limited in the types of vermin control it can use because of the risk of contamination of fruit and vegetables. We ask that the management of tipping be carried out effectively.

Amenity and health impacts will be assessed as part of the planning application process. In addition, all plant are required to operate to certain legal standards and will be subject to monitoring from the Environment Agency. Further, PPS10 advises that modern plant should not cause health effects. Pollution impacts are project specific and will be dealt with through the planning application process. The JWCS will provide guidance through a development management policy. Amenity and health impacts will be assessed as part of the planning application process. In addition, all plant are required to operate to certain legal standards and will be subject to monitoring from the Environment Agency. Further, PPS10 advises that modern plant should not cause health effects.

14

User ID

Doc Ref


6, Request that the planning permission would be conditional on receptors being placed locally to monitor noise levels.

a) The smallness of the site is likely to cause a lot of vehicle movements and difficult manoeuvring.

b) The increased traffic on Albert Road will affect local businesses.

c) The mechanical processing involved with waste preparation will need to be monitored.

d) Air cooled condenser units, extraction fans, ventilation systems and steam turbines will also contribute to all noise issues.

7, Litter – If the plant was largely enclosed this problem would be largely negated. 8, Water Resource – IS4 is remarkably close to the New Cut and we have serious concerns about the management of the water in relation to the possible contamination of the New Cut and hence the river Avon. IS4 is also on the flood plain, what barriers would need to be put in place to prevent the site and the plant from flooding? 9, Visual Impact – an 80-meter stack is totally out of proportion with anything locally. 10, Responsibility – Given that the local authority owns the land and will licence an operator to use the facility on IS4, who would be responsible for managing the facility in relation to environment and operating issues.

Pollution impacts are project specific and will be dealt with through the planning application process. The JWCS will provide guidance through a development management policy. Potential water pollution risks are most appropriately considered under a development management policy. All sites allocations have been subject to flood risk assessment. The Revised Detailed site Assessment included key planning considerations for each site. It also included a summary of other studies undertaken in relation to each site including the Habitats Regulation Assessment (HRA). The HRA tested a 400,000tpa facility with 80m stack for consistency in modelling purposes only. This was never proposed at site IS4 which falls within the catchment area requiring an indicative capacity of 60,000tpa. Amenity and health impacts will be assessed as part

15

User ID

Doc Ref


of the planning application process. In addition, all plant are required to operate to certain legal standards and will be subject to monitoring from the Environment Agency. Further, PPS10 advises that modern plant should not cause health effects.

300 E87 Vertigo I would like to stress that there is a locally developed fast pyrolysis technology that is compact, efficient and environmentally and financially advantageous. It can be delivered for facilities of 40,000 tonnes pa (or even less), so there should be no concern over the financial viability of Option B. Indeed where relevant we would exhort the councils to be even more radical about dealing with waste on a localised basis. This technology produces no aroma, very little sound and can be introduced onto existing waste handling sites with a spare half-acre of land. Working on a local base gives greater opportunities to capitalise on the heat generated from the process.

Noted. This Plan is technology neutral and is therefore not expressing any preference or bias towards/away from any specific treatment. The Joint Waste Core Strategy will reflect national policy support for generating heat and electricity through waste management processes in its policies and proposals.

214 E88 South West Regional Development Agency

The proposals set out in the JWCS Preferred Options document clearly provides the potential capacity to accommodate a range of strategic waste management facilities required for the region supporting the Regional Economic Strategy for the South West England. Site BR516 Transport Depot, St Phillips Marsh, Bristol appears to conflict with the Bristol City Core Strategy, it is understood that this site has been identified within the BCCS as an area to be considered for more intensive commercial and mixed used development. The SWRDA has consistently

Noted. All sites included in the JWCS were put forward to be assessed at the plan making level with consideration of: Habitat Regulations Assessment, Strategic Flood Risk Assessment and representations to consultation. This site has not been included in the

16

User ID

Doc Ref


argued for the redevelopment and regeneration of St Philips Marsh area in tandem with the city centre. This would allow for a broader range of skilled jobs close to high concentrations of deprivation and could capitalise on the areas public transport links. This reflects the aspirations of the Regional Economic Strategy and it’s consistent with our input to the Regional Spatial Strategy. If this site is to be taken forward as a preferred option, the RDA is keen to ensure that any waste management facility developed on this site would not compromise regeneration aspirations for the wider St Philips area and as such is considered as part of a comprehensive, long-term plan for the area.

JWCS based upon supporting evidence. All sites included in the JWCS were put forward to be assessed at the plan making level with consideration of: Habitat Regulations Assessment, Strategic Flood Risk Assessment and representations to consultation. This site has not been included in the JWCS based upon supporting evidence.

33 L8 Cyclamax Holdings Ltd (c/o ENCIA Environmental)

The land identified by DS05 received outline planning permission in 2006 to regenerate the site for industrial (B2) and warehouse (B8) development. Three subsequent reserved matter submissions were made and approved in 2006/7 for three separate units, two of which have been constructed and occupied (plots M1 and M3). In May of this year our client received planning permission for the development and operation of a Resource Park on plot M2 (permission: 09/00608/F) the permission site is approx 6.5 ha. The Resource Park will accept a total of 125,000 tonnes of waste per annum for recycling and energy generation. The tonnage will be split with approximately 40,000 tonnes to be processed by the Materials Recycling Facility (MRF) and

Noted. Noted.

17

User ID

Doc Ref


100,000 tonnes to be used for Combined Heat and Power generation, by the Energy Generation Facility (EGF). As Plots M1 and M3 (to the west and north-east of the Resource Park permission site) have been developed and excluded from being pursued as potential sites for waste development. However, as the Resource Park permission for Plot M2 has yet to be implemented we request that the site should replace the previous wider site allocation for DS05. The strategic nature of the Resource Park makes it a key facility in the delivery of the Joint Waste Core Strategy and the recent permission demonstrates the sites location and environmental suitability for such a facility. It is for these reasons that DS05, albeit on a smaller scale, should continue to be included and promoted as part of the Joint Waste Core Strategy, until the site becomes operational. An additional justification for the retained inclusion of the site is if the current permission for the Resource Park should expire and not withstanding the precedent of consent for such a facility on the site, this prime site for the development of a strategic facility would be excluded from the list of allocated sites. The need to ensure the site is identified as an allocated site is reinforced by potentially extended lead in times for the development of a strategic facility. Furthermore, if there is a requirement to extend the life of the permission, it is arguably easier to do so on allocated site. I also note that the site description states that ‘the nearest

Noted. Noted Noted Noted.

18

User ID

Doc Ref


motorway junction is 16km away and the nearest trunk road is 16km away’. The description in the report should be amended to reflect the fact that the site is approximately 2km from such junctions.

301 E89 Individual I am concerned that the matter of light pollution has not been included in this draft document. You summarise PPS23 as follows:

Planning policy statement 23: Planning and Pollution Control, identifies that the planning system plays a key role in determining the location of development which may give rise to pollution, either directly or indirectly, and ensuring that other uses and developments are not, as far as is possible, affected by major existing or potential sources of pollution.

However, PPS23 Appendix A: Matters for Consideration in Preparing Local Development Document, includes the statement ‘the need to limit and, where possible, reduce the adverse impact of light pollution, e.g. on local amenity, rural tranquillity and nature conservation.’ In addition the B&NES Local Plan include numerous relevant references to light pollution. It should also be noted that consideration should be given to Sections 101 to 103 of the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005. Section 102 relates to light from premises as a potential statutory nuisance. Whilst there are exemptions detailed in the Act, Defra

This matter has been addressed in Policy 12 of the JWCS (General Considerations). Noted. Noted. Noted.

19

User ID

Doc Ref


recognise that the argument “need for safety and security” cannot generally be applied. Indeed good quality lighting with, zero Upward Light Ratio can invariably be used and confers greater safety and security than lighting with a significant ULR that produces glare. Whether waste sites are in urban or countryside areas there is no need for other than zero ULR lighting.

Noted.

304 E93 Individual Our group is more interested in how this service impacts on disabled people with regards to access at point of service and collection of all waste that is recyclable. That the information is distributed to the general public in the correct format. All signage is produced in a format that is readable to people with a variety of impairments. That the facility for ‘point of storage’ collection is well published, so that the people who need it know that it exists. The provision for collection of plastic and cardboard in our area is woefully inadequate.

Noted.

305 L9 Strutt and Parker Whilst the principle of making use of previously developed land where it is no longer required for its original purpose is broadly supported, it is important that this should be qualified. We are concerned therefore that the aims of the policy should be undermined if the criterion is allowed to stand in an unqualified form, such that a proposal for non-residual waste facilities in a location remote from the primary urban areas served by such a facility, could be regarded as compliant with

This matter has been addressed in policy 2 of the JWCS (Non-Residual Waste Treatment Facilities)

20

User ID

Doc Ref


this policy. It is noteworthy that the general principles section of the Preferred Options JWCS DPD suggests that such facilities should be provided within 16kms of the principle urban areas. We therefore recommend that policy criterion (c) be amended to refer to previously developed land within proximity to the principal urban areas. We also welcome the acknowledge at the foot of page 4 that sites identified within Policy 5 may also be appropriate for non-residual waste facilities. We would add however that we consider that a policy concerning the approach to development within the Green Belt ought to be included. This should confirm that built development for waste related uses will need to meet the very special circumstances test of national Green Belt policy and should not therefore be permitted if opportunities exist in non-Green Belt locations. The approach contemplated in the General Considerations policy section is also supported. Indeed, it may be that the proposed text concerning development in the Green Belt could be incorporated here rather than as a stand-alone policy.

Noted. Noted. This matter has been addressed in Development Management policy of the JWCs.

106 E94 TRESA The views of the Association were aired at the public meeting organised jointly by TRESA and the Fruit Market on Wednesday 8th July 2009 and Terry Wagstaff Chief Executive

Noted.

21

User ID

Doc Ref


of the West of England Partnership was present during the meeting. It is felt the press coverage (Evening Post 9th July, Bristol 247) since the meeting reflected the discussions at the meeting as a whole with relative balance. Before the media picked up on the story TRESA had leaflet dropped several hundred flats and houses that were in the closest proximity to Totterdown Bridge. The Fruit Market secretary had previously leafleted the Bath Road and St Philips industrial estate. The purpose of calling this meeting was to engage all interested and effected parties; for example the two schools within the estate, the local residents of Totterdown, Paintworks/Bath Road, business – from Waste Transfer Station operators to Charles Saunders Frozen Food specialists. The waste incinerator site(s), be it BR516 or IS4 or anything else is felt to be another heavy industrial polluter and along with the incinerator itself would introduce a huge amount of HGV traffic to a limited and heavily signal controlled road network close to the city centre. Totterdown Bridge itself is narrow with one lane in each direction, traffic light controlled at one end and a junction (requiring traffic light controls) at the other. The bridge itself emerges directly onto the A4 Bath Road and what is to

Noted. Amenity and health impacts will be assessed as part of the planning application process. In addition, all plant are required to operate to certain legal standards and will be subject to monitoring from the Environment Agency. Further, PPS10 advises that modern plant should not cause health effects. Development of the spatial options has considered traffic and transports routes at the plan making level. More detailed issues are more appropriately

22

User ID

Doc Ref


become one of ten corridors within the Greater Bristol Bus Network – millions of pounds are being spent to improve public transport improving the environment. Totterdown Bridge itself has no right turn from the Brislington A4 and so any traffic from Bath or Brislington would be unable to access the incinerator unless it went into the City Centre and around the Temple Meads gyratory one way system. Along with the very common arguments and legitimate concerns you would expect from residents relating to fear of emissions and pollutants, along with noise and the effect on wildlife coupled with the fact that the industrial estate already falls within the Bristol Air Quality Management Area there are additional concerns and facts that residents of Totterdown (and beyond) are particularly aware of. Firstly, there is the Greenway which is a sustainable traffic link for Brislington and Totterdown residents to get into town along, avoiding the traffic dense A4. The path is also enjoyed by dog walkers, volunteers of the RSPCA and the Bristol Cats and Dogs Home. There is also the development of Temple Quay and the possibility of an arena at the old diesel station site and growth of smaller businesses in and around the area in question. There is the empty green space along the Bath Road being a development site. TRESA recently opposed a development on the former Esso petrol station site on the A4 and this was significantly to do with the height of the development being 11 storeys and its impact on the escarpment (contrary to the

considered on receipt of a planning application or under development management policy. Amenity and health impacts will be assessed as part of the planning application process. In addition, all plant are required to operate to certain legal standards and will be subject to monitoring from the Environment Agency. Further, PPS10 advises that modern plant should not cause health effects. Development of the spatial options has considered traffic and transports routes at the plan making level. More detailed issues are more appropriately considered on receipt of a planning application or under development management policy.

23

User ID

Doc Ref


Bristol tall buildings policy SPD1). The proposition of a “stack height of at least 80 meters” should benoted because IS4 is within 150 meters of the tower block site, which rejected the tower block because of height issues! How can a Tower block be opposed due to its impact on the escarpment and an incinerator of greater height be permitted (or indeed should the stack be higher to make sure the emissions are released high enough into the atmosphere and away from people?) It is clear that there are development sites along the A4 Bath Road and there are also planning developments already granted on the former garage which is currently used as a car hand wash site. The Bristol Friends of the Earth oppose the development size and location. The waste consultation document makes reference to the St Philips industrial estate which is to be “redeveloped to provide a range of residential and employment uses, including research, media and science….and green infrastructure – Policy BCS03” with the presence of a multi-million pound turnover renewable energy specialist like Garrad Hassan in Silverthorn Lane it is a shame the report does not make more of the existing business which could be supported by way of spin-offs within the estate. We do not intend to repeat every argument here as attendees

The Revised Detailed site Assessment included key planning considerations for each site. It also included a summary of other studies undertaken in relation to each site including the Habitats Regulation Assessment (HRA). The HRA tested a 400,000tpa facility with 80m stack for consistency in modelling purposes only. This was never proposed at site IS4 which falls within the catchment area requiring an indicative capacity of 60,000tpa. Noted. Noted. Noted. Noted.

24

User ID

Doc Ref


previously sent in comprehensive replies to the JWCS. We shall only add that we were encouraged both by wide media coverage, strong councillor interest and opposition and attendance by residents from Brislington, St Annes, St George etc. We already suffer from 6 waste transfer stations and to get everyone to reduce usage before it even comes to recycling (let alone incineration) there should be a far more ‘localised’ and doorstep like end of life process so that everyone producing waste is aware and subjected to such processes.

Waste development policies will generally follow the waste hierarchy and aim to reduce the amount of waste going to landfill. This matter has been addressed with the inclusion of Policy 1 in the JWCS submission document – Waste Prevention. PPS10 encourages community responsibility. Further policies of the plan should not discourage this.

306 E95 Individual Please note that I am totally opposed to the proposal for a large incinerator in St Philips. As a resident, I will be directly affected from smoke from what I gather is a 80m chimney. This inner city area is a totally inappropriate place to erect such an incinerator, and one has to question the planners judgment on this. Also, I believe the area is liable to flood which could cause all sorts pollution problems.

This Plan is technology neutral and is therefore not expressing any preference or bias towards/away from any specific treatment. All sites included in the JWCS were put forward and assessed at the plan making level with considerations of Habitat Regulation Assessment, Strategic Flood Risk Assessment and representations to consultation. This site has been included in the JWCS based upon supporting evidence. Any proposal will be subject to any key planning considerations and criteria based policy identified in the JWCS.

275 E96 Baker Associates on behalf of Land Trust Developments

Ashton Park Urban Extension Proposals As an integral part of this whole development, a small-scale Energy from Waste (EfW) plant using gasification technology

Noted.

25

User ID

Doc Ref


is proposed to be provided in conjunction with appropriate utility services infrastructure which will provide power, heating and hot water to all of the various occupiers and residents within the urban extension. In the submission made to the Partnership in March 2009 an assessment of the different options considered for the provision of renewable energy were discussed and the submission provided justification for the choice of a small-scale EfW combined heat and power plant as part of the development. The submission included a draft masterplan which indicated the proposed location for the EfW plant as part of the wider development proposals and this location remains the preferred site for the plant as part of the outline application being prepared. Also in 2009 the submission included an assessment of differing technologies which were considered as part of the project development. The preferred solution for the provision of heat and power to the urban extension would be a gasification plant and the submission indicated that various technology providers were being considered at that point of time. Energos have been selected as the preffered technology provider for the plant. The plant proposed for the Ashton Park site will be able to

Noted. Noted. Noted. Noted. Noted.

26

User ID

Doc Ref


accept non hazardous commercial, industrial and household waste and/or residual waste derived fuels and have the capacity to accept up to 80,000 tonnes of waste per annum. This plant will be compatible with waste recycling targets as the waste strategy for the new development will focus on sorting at the source, whereby the recyclable fraction of waste does not enter this waste stream. It is important that the EfW plant is able to provide both heat and power to the development at the earliest opportunity and LandTrust is committed to bringing the facility and associated infrastructure forward early in the development process. Spatial Options for energy recovery facilities In our submission in March 2009 we expressed support for options which defined a distribution of smaller-scale energy recovery facilities across the sub-region in order to manage waste arising close to its source, in line with the proximity principle and the need to maximize the opportunity for heat production. This continues to be our view and we support the promotion of solutions that are suitably sized to the waste management requirements of local communities above large sub-regional or regional facilities. Strategic sites for residual waste treatment Allocation of sites for residual waste treatment facilities (Policy 5)

Noted. Noted. Noted. Noted. Noted.

27

User ID

Doc Ref


The preamble to the policy discusses the levels of the waste hierarchy noting that “Energy Recovery is placed beneath materials recovery in the waste hierarchy” and further discussing the role of energy efficiency in determining whether an EfW plant can actually be defined as Recovery as apposed to Waste Disposal. The Waste Framework Directive (WDF) considers that an EfW plant must be 65% input efficient before it is classified as Waste Recovery rather than disposal. In order that a plant might achieve this level of efficiency a use for the heat generated by the plant, as well as the electricity, will be required. Therefore, the partnership might consider whether there should be a distinction in the adopted hierarchy which divides energy from waste that is more than 65% input efficient (Energy Recovery) from that which is not, which may be classified separately, this may be termed “Disposal by thermal Treatment”. This distinction would support the most efficient delivery of energy from waste infrastructure, that is plants which have a direct link with development and have a use for the heat provided by the process, rather than simply losing this valuable energy to the atmosphere. Policy 5 Residual Waste treatment facilities – locations When the spatial distribution of the discrete sites is

Noted. Noted. Waste development policies will generally follow the waste hierarchy and aim to reduce the amount of waste going to landfill. This matter has been addressed with the inclusion of Policy 1 in the JWCS submission document – Waste Prevention. Noted. Noted.

28

User ID

Doc Ref


considered in more detail it is clear that the majority, seven sites, are all located in close proximity at Avonmouth /Severnside. The total area of land allocated in the 11 discrete sites in 155ha, of this 144ha (93%) is proposed to be allocated at Avonmouth/Severnside. This spatial distribution of sites cannot be considered to reflect the spatial options B or C identified in the Preferred Options Consultation Document and is very likely to lead to an oversupply of capacity at one location. This would not only have potential cumulative impacts with regard to traffic and air quality but also have a potential impact on the commercial viability of other sites in the region which would better meet the stated spatial strategy of providing sites to meet local needs. At the meeting of the 8th July representatives of the WofE partnership indicated that there may be a level of over provision in allocations in order to be sure that targets are met. However, it is considered that the allocation of so much potential capacity at Avonmouth/Severnside will seriously compromise the ability of the relevant authorities to meet the spatial distribution of sites across the West of England. The policies of the WCS will form part of the Development Plan and there will be a presumption in favour of developing the identified sites for residual waste treatment facilities.

Noted. This matter has been considered in the supporting text of the JWCS under “The Spatial Strategy of Residual Waste Treatment Facilities” (pg28) Noted. Noted. Noted.

29

User ID

Doc Ref


The partnership are therefore urged to reconsider the allocation of sites in order to ensure a spatial distribution of sites which better reflects the overall strategy of the development plan to provide facilities close to the source of waste arising and avoid an oversupply of capacity at one location. Land at Urban Extensions Previous submissions on the point have sought to include the urban extensions as discrete sites. However, it is considered appropriate to deal with the sites as the draft policy now seeks to do, through the identification of all urban extension areas of search as locations where residual waste treatment facilities will be considered acceptable. It is however considered that the current wording in Draft Policy 5 should be amended as the current wording is ambiguous and may lead to future delays as it indicates that land within “an adopted urban extension area” will be suitable for such uses. The wording is unclear as to source of adoption for the urban extension and, given the current delays in the issue of the RSS and the knock on impact of this on LDF documents, it is suggested that an alternative form of wording be proposed: Planning permission for development involving the management of residual wastes will be granted at the following sites:

This matter has been considered in the supporting text of the JWCS under “The Spatial Strategy of Residual Waste Treatment Facilities” (pg28) Noted The RSS is not adopted policy. The potential role of urban extensions is recognised in the JWCS should the requirement for urban extensions remain after the RSS has been finalised. Noted.

30

User ID

Doc Ref


On land that is located within areas of search for urban extensions, as defined in the RSS issued by the Secretary of State, where it is an integrated part of a wider masterplan for the development of the urban extension. In this way it is considered that development of important waste recovery facilities can come forward as parts of wider masterplan areas following final issue of the RSS without being delayed unduly by the LDF process.

The RSS is not adopted policy. The potential role of urban extensions is recognised in the JWCS should the requirement for urban extensions remain after the RSS has been finalised.

192 E97 Federation of Bath Residents’ Associations

We note that the Fullers Earth Works at Odd Down have been identified as a site for management of residual wastes. In principle, we strongly support the proposals, as the present state of the site is a disgrace, located at the main South Western entry point to our World Heritage City. We note the various planning safeguards that are proposed and our only real concern lies with the nature of the waste treatment that may be undertaken. Since the densely populated area of Odd Down lies close by, downwind from the prevailing South Westerlies, it is important that the processes used do not create unpleasant odours.

Noted.

206 L10 New Earth Solutions New Earth Solutions is delighted that the West of England Partnership decided to undertake a comprehensive review of the scope of the JWCS and address the gaps in the evidence base. New Earth Solutions welcomed the publication of additional evidence by ERM on 5th June and the subsequent industry and stakeholder workshop on 8th July.

Noted.

31

User ID

Doc Ref


New Earth Solutions is also mindful of the fact that waste management is not a discretionary activity, but an essential part of a community’s service infrastructure. The underlying principles of moving waste up the waste hierarchy and of sub-regional self-sufficiency are duly acknowledged in the Preferred Options document and are fully supported. Scope of the JWCS Objectives – the three objectives set out in the 22nd July update are broadly supported, although specific concern is expressed in relation to the parallel approach to identifying ‘discrete sites’ and ‘strategic areas’ (in the case of Weston super Mare and Yate). It is considered that the identification of strategic areas will result in uncertainty. This will disenfranchise local communities from engaging in the formulation of the JWCS. If the partnership is able to demonstrate that there are specific parcels of land that would be suitable for a strategic waste management use and truly deliverable, then surely these can be considered for allocation. Policy context and waste planning strategy – The proposed structure of the JWCS is logical and the underlying structure of the policies (reflecting the waste hierarchy) supported. Waste prevention – the intent of Policy 1 on waste prevention is supported.

Noted. Noted. Strategic areas have been identified when it is not appropriate to be site specific i.e. high turnover or when it is not possible to identify a discrete site. This matter has been considered in the supporting text of the JWCS under “The Spatial Strategy of Residual Waste Treatment Facilities” (pg28) Noted. Noted.

32

User ID

Doc Ref


Recycling, composting and non-residual waste operations – New Earth Solutions support a criteria based approach. Drafted Policy 2 fails to recognise the unique attributes and locational requirements of fully enclosed composting facilities. Such facilities are specifically designed to treat source segregated waste, diverting it from landfill and producing a beneficial product for use on agricultural land. Such facilities will be critical component in enabling local authorities to meet recycling targets and LAT’s targets. Consideration should be give to:

• The fact that composting activities cannot compete with industrial or storage when it comes to the cost of land and premises.

• Whilst full enclosure provides far greater control over emissions than open windrow composting, New Earth Solutions advocate a precautionary approach to the siting of new fully enclosed composting facilities in order to avoid amenity conflicts. New Earth Solutions are aware that some operators have experienced difficulties with localised escapes of odour giving rise to complaints from neighbours. In addition it is important to note that the Environment’s Agency’s current position statement does not differentiate between open windrow and enclosed composting facilities when looking at the health risks associated with bio-aerosols. As such, densely developed industrial estates or employment areas within built up urban areas might not be suitable and necessitates a

Noted. This matter has been addressed in the supportive text to policy 2 “Non-residual waste treatment facilities” pg 24. Noted Noted.

33

User ID

Doc Ref


site specific bio-aerosol risk assessment. • Sites within larger employment land allocations are

often not available for composting use owing to the perception that it is a bad neighbour, prompting concern about image and the effect on surrounding land values.

• Very few previously developed sites that are suitable and genuinely available in the West of England sites sub-region. New Earth Solutions and other operators, such as Sita, have been searching for suitable sites for some time. Both New Earth Solutions and Sita have published alternative site assessments in support of planning applications.

• Compost provides an economic and sustainable alternative to the use of artificial nitrogen based fertilisers. Therefore the production of compost not only assists in reducing climate change gasses associated with artificial fertilisers, but also helps to support the local rural economy and local landscape, consistent with the aims of PPS7. Clearly there are many benefits in such facilities being situated in close proximity to the farms they supply.

New Earth Solutions recommend a more flexible approach. This should provide a positive presumption in favour of facilities on Greenfield sites where no suitable, and available, previously developed sites can be identified. Suggest that an additional criterion be added to state that, ‘in the case of source segregated fully enclosed composting

Noted. Noted. Noted. Noted Noted.

34

User ID

Doc Ref


facilities, sites within the countryside will be considered where they are located in close proximity to end markets and sit comfortably within the surrounding landscape’. Strategic sites for residual waste treatment – The approach outlined is generally supported, as is the identification of the discrete sites listed in Policy 5 part 1. Identification of the former Britannia Zinc works site in Avonmouth and the Allmead site in Bristol is welcomed. Policy 5 part 2 allows for the subsequent identification of sites within forthcoming urban extensions. Given that the SW RSS is in a state of flux, this approach would seem sensible. Concerned over the identification of Strategic Areas. It is our view that strategic areas create unnecessary uncertainty. With specific regard to Weston super Mare, one of the major landowners expressed significant concerns about the identification of sites NS11, 13, 14 and NS17, NS18. (Please see Persimmons comments in the summary of offline representations document). Whilst we readily acknowledge that ERM has undertaken further work in this part of the sub region and is no longer pursuing all of the sites referred to by Persimmon, it is considered that significant doubt remains over the deliverability of a facility within ‘Strategic Area B’. This results from the tensions set out in Persimmons response and the continued absence of an SFRA. We readily support the intent of Policy 6 which will ensure

Noted. Noted. Noted. Noted.

35

User ID

Doc Ref


that waste is pushed up the waste hierarchy. With regard to policy 6, part 2b, it is respectfully suggested that further engagement be held to define what might be considered an ‘appropriate’ level of energy recovery and an ‘appropriate’ market. Landfill – The intent of a policy on landfill is duly acknowledged. We suggest that this should include an onus upon the developer to ensure that any provision is complimentary to waste reduction, re-use, recycling / composting and recovery activities rather than competing. Development Management – policy is broadly welcomed. General Considerations – We support the comprehensive approach to planning application submissions, but would question the intent of provision ‘k’. This provision is inconsistent with the others stated as the nature of the effect is ill defined. It is also considered that the Policy would also offer an opportunity to encourage community engagement. The assessment of current and future waste management needs. Welcome the consolidation and review of previous data on municipal and commercial and industrial waste arisings in the West of England sub-region. The methodology is broadly supported and the sensitivity

Noted. Noted. Noted Noted Noted Noted

36

User ID

Doc Ref


analysis is considered helpful. Revised detailed site assessment Site DS06 Former Britannia Zinc Works Site – We fully support ERM’s recommendation to allocate land at the former Britannia Zinc works. The redevelopment of this contaminated brown field site for a strategic waste management facility would deliver a number of social, economic and environmental benefits. Whilst it is recognised that the JWCS is technology neutral, the technical work undertaken in preparing New Earth Solutions planning application and Environmental assessment do re-affirm the recommendations set out in the revised detailed site assessment prepared by ERM. In refining the alignment of the allocated site, New Earth Solutions respectfully request that this follow the boundary of the proposed application site – as attached. Site IS4 Allmead Recycling Depot – We fully support ERM’s recommendation to allocate the Allmead Recycling Depot site at Albert Road, St Philips Marsh, Bristol. Its central location lends itself to the production of renewable electricity and heat for local distribution and / or export to grid. Indeed this could help to deliver Bristol City Council’s stated objective of adapting to climate change and promoting renewable energy and to meet the targets set out in the RSS.

Noted Noted Noted Noted Noted.

37

User ID

Doc Ref


It is important to stress that a 400,000tpa mass burn incinerator would require a far greater area than the 0.99ha available – typically some five to six times bigger. Thus such a proposal could not be physically accommodated on the site. It is equally plausible that an advanced thermal treatment facility could be developed here to provide combined heat and power. Subject to a detailed feasibility study, the existing building could readily be adapted to house an advanced thermal treatment technology. NS11, NS18 Land at Weston super Mare – Concern that site NS18 will not be delivered, at least not in a timely fashion, owing to the wider, well articulated, development aspirations for this part of Weston super Mare. Whilst we readily acknowledge that ERM has undertaken further work, the continued absence of an SFRA is of concern. It is considered that this component of the spatial strategy is at risk of being found unsound and there is a real need to identify alternative sites that can be delivered in the short term. Omission Sites On behalf of New Earth Solutions, CSJ Planning Consultants put forward a number of omission sites in response to the

Noted. Noted Noted Noted. Noted Noted. North Somerset SFRA available as part of the evidence base. Noted

38

User ID

Doc Ref


Preferred Options Document. Whilst one has been taken forward in the work undertaken by ERM, four sites were effectively dismissed following an ‘interim drive by assessment’. New Earth Solutions were disappointed that these sites were not taken forward as part of the detailed assessment. It is evident that there was some confusion caused by the definition of a Strategic Facility, which arbitrarily seemed to be any facility with more than a 30,000tpa throughput. It is understood that there is a softening in the 30,000tpa threshold allowing larger, but still non-strategic facilities to be brought forward to handle principally segregated waste, but potentially some residual. It is considered that the ERM reports should clarify this position more explicitly. Brockley Wood – CSJ Planning Consultants submitted a representation to the Preferred Options Document promoting land at Brockley Wood. We consider the site to be a suitable location for dual purpose 50,000tpa fully enclosed composting facility. We feel that the JWCS needs to carefully consider the implications of an implied throughput threshold. It is considered that in light of the difficulties in identifying a discrete site for a residual waste management facility in Weston Super Mare, at least in the immediate – medium term, the Brockley Wood site should also be reconsidered as

Noted This site was assessed using the standard criteria for all sites put forward and was not recommended for a strategic residual waste facility. The JWCS has no throughput threshold for non-residual waste.

39

User ID

Doc Ref


a potential residual waste treatment facility employing composting technology. Despite clear need and an exhaustive search for an alternative site in North Somerset , the primary reason for refusal was the sites Green Belt location. We are currently considering whether to appeal this decision. The interim drive by assessment states that the site has poor access. However, it should be noted that the transportation authority raised no technical objections to the 50,000tpa fully enclosed composting facility proposed by New EarthSolutions. Land at Cabot Park – CSJ Planning Consultants submitted a representation to the Preferred Options document promoting land at Cabot Park. The interim drive by assessment notes that the site falls within a general area to be considered for future assessment. However there is no evidence of this in any of the ERM reports. Matters have clearly been confused by the annotation of Cabot Park over the Merebank area of Avonmouth in the OS base used by ERM and the Partnership, which is approximately 1km away from the land at Cabot Park. New Earth Solutions formally request that the West of England Partnership give consideration to this 4.5ha site. Heneage Farm – CSJ Planning Consultants submitted a

This site was assessed using the standard criteria for all sites put forward and was not recommended for a strategic residual waste facility. Noted. Noted. Noted. Noted. This site has now been assessed and recommendations are included in the Site Assessment Report, August 2009.

40

User ID

Doc Ref


representation to the Preferred Options document promoting land at Heneage Farm. We believe Heneage Farm to be a suitable location for a 50,000tpa fully enclosed composting facility. We feel that the JWCS needs to carefully consider the implications of an implied throughput threshold and should afford greater flexibility to fully enclosed composting facilities to locate close to their end market.

Noted This site was assessed using the standard criteria for all sites put forward and was not recommended for a strategic residual waste facility.

146 E98 Yate Town Council The Town Council would like to re-iterate their original comments (please see Representations to the Consultation by question doc user ID: 146). Members also asked that you be advised that the Town Council are unable to comment on a proposed site for Yate until the location of the site is known. Also, as part of consultation on the Core Strategy, discussions are taking place about a regeneration scheme for the area and, therefore, the provision of the site becomes critical.

Noted General areas have been identified when it is not appropriate to be site specific i.e. high turnover or when it is not possible to identify a discrete site.

307 E99 Individual I am writing to object about the plans to build a thermal treatment facility opposite Totterdown Bridge on Albert Road, Bristol. I like and know this urban landscape well, the juxtaposition of the working landscape with the history of the bridge, the riverbanks and the river itself with Totterdown in the background. It is a unique landscape and should be treasured.

Noted. Noted.

41

User ID

Doc Ref


I feel the proposed development would destroy the visual harmony of the landscape the size of the proposed development is out of proportion to the existing buildings. There has been care with the development in the area, including Paintworks and the restoration of Arnos Vale. I have recorded in drawings and photographs the detoxification of the Old Railway Depot off the Wells Road and although I know the site will not be developed for a while due to our economic climate it will surely be developed as a mixture of business and residential use. The proposed thermal treatment facility would then sit between two contemporary city developments which in the long term will devalue this area and its community.

Noted.

297 E100 Dunkerton Parish Council

Subsequent to our earlier response Dunkerton Parish Council believes that a good job has been done in assessing the problems associated with Fullers Earthworks option. However, we are surprised that ERM recommends that the BA12 option is allocated within the JWCS for development of a strategic waste management facility with only “particular attention” being paid to the attendant risks. This suggests that it would be prudent to go forward in the expectation that emotive, political, costly and intractable issues can be resolved (and will not reappear) at the strategic level when all efforts to date to manage them away at the current (presumably sub-strategic) level have demonstrably failed. More defensible position for ERM to have taken at this stage would have been to say that the Fullers Earthworks option could be retained as a JWCS option if and only if there was widespread confidence among the stakeholders that the serious issues raised could be satisfactorily addressed, and

Noted.

42

User ID

Doc Ref


the consequent risks mitigated, within acceptable costs and timescales. Dunkerton Parish Council strongly urges that the JWCS be developed on the assumption that there is no such confidence. Whilst this work progresses, we feel it is fundamentally wrong to list the potential residual waste treatment sites as is currently done within Policy 5 at page 7 of the draft JWCS. It is apparently contradictory and unhelpfully open to interpretation (and selective quotation) that the draft says – quite clearly – that “Planning permission for development…. Will be granted at the following sites” albeit that such a sweeping and pre-emptive statement is later caveatted by the less visible and clear rider “subject to the development criteria provided.” We recognise that in yet another part of the strategy it says that “inclusion of these sites within the draft policy does not prejudge the determination of proposals by the local planning authority”; but if that is the case why create avoidable doubt, worry and confusion by listing them? There is no need – indeed it is positively wrong – to put tactical detail (the list of options) in a strategic document and the JWCS would be a much better one without it. DPC consequently suggests that Policy 5 on page 7 of the draft JWCS is amended to remove the sub-sub paragraphs a-k listing the 11 ‘Discrete Site’ options. The one-liner paragraph 1. “Discrete Sites…. Provided:”, can by all means remain.

Noted. Noted.

267 E101 Indigo Planning on behalf of the Prudential

Indigo Planning would like to re-iterate their original comments (please see Representations to the Consultation by question doc user ID: 267).

Noted.

43

User ID

Doc Ref


Assurance Company Ltd

Site reference SG49a: Cribbs Causeway, North of Lysander Road Stakeholder Workshop At the stakeholder workshop held on the 8th July 2009 ERM advised that they have spoken to some site owners, undertaken site visits and investigated leases, in order to establish whether sites are deliverable within the Plan period. They have, however, not approached Prudential in respect of the subject site. Nethertheless, ERM confirmed that site ownership and availability for deliverable waste facilities were key material considerations. This is reiterated in the revised Report which recognises that deliverability is a key issue for this site in particular. We asked what thresholds had been adopted for the purpose of discounting sites on the grounds of availability. The response was that sites which were unlikely to be available in the long-term i.e. in excess of 10 years (from 2009) were not considered to be suitable for inclusion to meet the time horizon of the DPD. Further Comments Prudential’s site will not become available during the next 10yrs for use as a waste facility. There is an existing tenant with a commercial lease on the property until 2020 and there is therefore no economic justification for the company to develop the site for a waste recovery facility. More fundamentally, there remains the possibility that, at sometime


44

User ID

Doc Ref


over the next 11yrs Morrisons may decide to utilise the site for distribution purposes. In this respect the statements at page 174 of the revised Report that “in the longer term, this site could be available to incorporate waste management facilities” and the similar statement on page 175 that “the site is not expected to be available within the short term, but it is reasonable to assume that it might be deliverable within the medium term” (i.e. within 10 years) are clearly incorrect. It is noteworthy that of the 29 sites considered, 9 of those discounted were for deliverability / availability reasons. With the exception of the Cribbs Causeway site, the 15 other sites remaining are available in the short or medium term and would therefore meet the WEP’s objectives in relation to deliverability. The Prudential has residential development aspirations for the site as previously advised. The WEP’s aspirations for incorporating a waste recovery facility within a residential redevelopment scheme for the site, as alluded to on page 175 of the revised report and the workshop, are premature, unmarketable and unlikely to be environmentally acceptable to potential residents of such a scheme. To allocate a site which is undeliverable will prejudice its future development potential, as any alternative proposal will be contrary to the development plan and will therefore need to demonstrate sufficient material considerations to justify its

All sites included in the JWCS were put forward to be assessed at the plan making level with consideration of: Habitat Regulations Assessment, Strategic Flood Risk Assessment and representations to consultation. This site has not been included in the JWCS based upon supporting evidence. Noted. Noted. Noted.

45

User ID

Doc Ref


redevelopment for other purposes. The site may effectively be blighted if a robust case cannot be presented. Such blight is unacceptable within the context of the contribution that the Cribbs Causeway commercial area makes to the local and sub-regional economy. The site should be removed in its entirety from the Revised Detailed Site Assessment Report as a potential location for a waste recovery facility, or any other form of potential waste management facility (i.e. recycling and composting) as the site is not available.

Noted. Noted.

308

E102 Resourcefutures Municipal waste arisings We would like to draw your attention to the recent work Defra has done on municipal waste arisings trends. Whilst the work, which was undertaken by ourselves, has not yet been published we would expect it will be in the next couple of months. This work identifies the factors affecting waste growths and the characteristics of authorities who have experienced a reduction in waste arisings. The study particularly draws attention to the effects of collections policies and changes in demographics on waste arisings. C&I We would hope that the strategy will be able to accommodate any changes in Government policies towards C&I waste that will be forthcoming following the review that Defra is currently conducting in this area. This work includes a review of systems to deal with SME wastes.

Noted Noted

46

User ID

Doc Ref


Capacity for additional recycling We are concerned that the strategy proposes that any additional recycling capacity will need to be developed at existing transfer stations and will not be associated with residual treatment sites. It is not clear whether an assessment has been made as to the additional capacity available at existing transfer stations and whether this will indeed be adequate.

Noted

274 L11 Persimmon Homes Persimmon Homes would like to re-iterate their original comments (please see Representations to the Consultation by question doc user ID: 274). We commented on the soundness issues of preparing separate DPPS for the JWCS and Weston Regeneration Area, if they are potentially in conflict or have overlapping or interrelated proposals. We now understand that the Weston Regeneration Area DPD has been deleted from the North Somerset LDF and will now be prepared as a supplementary planning document. This raises the issue that as a formal DPD the JWCS could make proposals that the Weston Regeneration Area SPD would have to implement. The accommodation of the Waste Management Proposals within the Regeneration Area is a matter of detail, which, needs to be resolved through the more detailed master planning of the area through what is now the Weston Regeneration SPD rather than through the JWCS and yet the precedent will be set in the JWCS. We

Noted. Noted This matter has been considered in the supporting text of the JWCS under “The Spatial Strategy of Residual Waste Treatment Facilities” (pg 29)

47

User ID

Doc Ref


suggest that consideration needs to be given to how the emerging proposals in both plans will be co-ordinated and how subsequent details will be dealt with in the Weston Regeneration Area SPD. We note no changes have been made to the documents to identify the potential constraint of the Helicopter Museum and it’s ancillary activity of Helicopter Pleasure Flights. Also raised previously, we note that gaps in the evidence base, which would affect the soundness of the plan, remain. The most striking gap in relation to the North Somerset sites concerns the absence of the SFRA for North Somerset, particularly as parts of the Weston Regeneration Area could be affected by flooding. NS11 The October report identified the need for a high standard of design “particularly avoiding a stack”, which is still relevant when considering the activities of the Helicopter Museum and so it should be specifically identified as a potential constraint. NS18 We note that NS18 was not included in the HRA, but the findings on sites NS11 and NS17 are assumed to apply to this site. Whilst the result might well be the same, we do not consider it is appropriate, under the strict assessment procedures of the Habitat Regulations, to make an assumption that the results from two sites will apply equally to a third site. This could adversely affect the soundness of the

Noted. This work has been completed and is included within the Evidence Base. Noted. Noted.

48

User ID

Doc Ref


plan. There has been a significant change in the preliminary conclusions from the October 2008 report. That concluded the site is not suitable for development of a strategic waste management facility at this time, based on the site’s current condition and proximity of more suitable sites. However, it was recognised the site could offer potential in developing the Master Plan for the Weston Regeneration Area. The condition of the site and the proximity to other sites have not changed, that the WRA Master Plan has yet to be prepared and the evidence base remains unchanged. However, the preliminary conclusion in June 2009 is that the site will be allocated for a strategic waste management facility. In view of the lack of changes to support this, we consider the new conclusion to recommend allocating the site is unsound. General Comment on Availability of Sites NS17 and NS18 Land controlled by Persimmon within sites NS17 and NS18 is that availability for a waste treatment facility is dependent upon two factors. The proposal or proposals should be considered in the context of the Weston Regeneration Area. The precise location should emerge through the detailed Master Plan for Weston Airfield and it should be capable of being accommodated within the proposed development. Treatment of Weston-super-Mare Sites in Emerging Policy Document In our view due to the circumstances set out above, the JWCS cannot allocate specific sites in the Weston

Noted Noted Noted Noted / General areas have been identified when it is not appropriate to be site specific i.e. high turnover

49

User ID

Doc Ref


Regeneration Area. Instead it would be preferable to identify an area of search, which might cover all or most of the regeneration area which would then enable appropriate sites to be identified the master planning process.

or when it is not possible to identify a discrete site.

309 E103 Englishcombe Parish Council

Englishcombe Parish Council believes that it is totally inappropriate to include the Fullers Earthworks site as one of the options in the waste strategy because its on the approach to a heritage city, there will be increased traffic on a route where measures have recently been taken to reduce road congestion and because of the potential for pollution. The council would also like to know how the waste will be treated and disposed.

Development of the spatial options has considered traffic and transports routes at the plan making level. More detailed issues are more appropriately considered on receipt of a planning application or under development management policy. This Plan is technology neutral and is therefore not expressing any preference or bias towards/away from any specific treatment.

43 E104 Avonside CPRE The proposed sites have been noted and it is felt that until the planning permission applications come forward it would be inappropriate to comment except to note the importance of a Flood Risk Assessment for specific sites as they are considered, given that the sub-region is at significant risk of flooding from the rivers and sea.

Noted.

267 E105 Indigo Planning on behalf of Prudential Assurance Company Ltd

Draft Policy 5 (Residual Waste Treatment Facilities – Locations) Prudential support the above draft Policy as it excludes their site from the list of potential waste treatment facility locations. It is strongly recommended that this approach is rolled forward to future drafts of the policy as it has been clearly demonstrated that the site is neither available nor suitable for

Noted.

50

User ID

Doc Ref


this form of development.

310 E106 Priddy Parish Council

We have read the document and support each policy on reducing and Managing Waste. We welcome the criteria set out for the Residual Waste Treatment Sites, whilst the sites are not within close proximity to our Parish we recognise the importance of site-specific selection in all areas of Waste Management.

Noted.

311 L12 COVANTA Energy The following representations focus on the policy approach to addressing the shortfall in capacity to manage residual municipal and commercial waste in the West of England. It is noted that the overall policy approach is generally consistent with the national waste strategy and planning policy that is: seeking to manage waste at the appropriate level of the waste hierarchy; seeking to avoid any unnecessary movement of waste by making provision for infrastructure close to where the waste arises; and finally in accordance with recent policy guidance and the new development. Covanta feels that the Joint Waste Authority should extend the scope of the policies to ensure that the Core Strategy is robust and the Plan is considered sound. The following representations have been prepared in conjunction with RPS: 1, Assessment of all realistic alternative options: Development Plan Regulation, national planning policy and good practice guidance for development plan making states that in preparing a sound plan all realistic alternative policy


51

User ID

Doc Ref


options should be fully considered and appraised. The draft scope for the Core Strategy appears limited, failing to allow consideration of all strategic sub regional/ regional site policy options and opportunities for strategic sites, which may be well related, to this sub region but outside of the administrative areas of the Authorities. Although it is noted that national policy and policies of the SW RSS seek to minimise the movement of waste over long distances, it is widely accepted that waste arisings do not always reflect arbitrary administrative boundaries or make sense when making provision for sustainable waste infrastructure. This is particularly the case for commercial and industrial residual waste arisings. Further evidence should be gathered in support of the core strategy to consider the benefits or otherwise of potential Regional waste infrastructure site solutions. 2, Consideration of Non Allocated Sites: Core Strategy policies need to be flexible and effective. Draft policy 5 identifies a number of potential sites but may be considered too prescriptive. It is noted that draft policies will be provided for non-allocated sites, which is welcomed. Criteria based policy which allows the consideration of other potential strategic sites which may become available over the period for which the plan covers would offer flexibility and would lead to more effective policies. It is not uncommon over the life of a plan for allocated sites to become unavailable and for other sites not previously considered to be available for waste uses.

Noted.

52

User ID

Doc Ref


3, Site Selection Criteria: Greater weight should be given in policy for consideration of strategic sites which have the potential for rail links therefore allowing the sustainable movement of waste. Planning Designations and General Consideration policies fail to address this policy issue. Covanta also believes that greater weight should be given in policy to those sites with a potential CHP load.

Noted. The Joint Waste Core Strategy will reflect national policy support for generating heat and electricity through waste management processes in its policies and proposals.

290 E107 The Coal Authority Policy 5 – Residual waste treatment facilities – locations Test of Soundness Justified Effective Consistency with

National Policy X

Whilst the Coal Authority expressed no preference in relation to any particular spatial option in our comments dated 12 March 2009 to the Preferred Options report, it was highlighted that some options could raise the possibility of sites being chosen within areas where mining legacy and ground stability issues may be present. Land instability and mining legacy is not a complete constraint on the new development, rather it can be argued that because mining legacy matters have been addressed the new development is safe, stable and sustainable. Given the known legacy of past mining activity in the West of


53

User ID

Doc Ref


England area it is somewhat disappointing to note therefore that land stability/ground conditions were not used as an assessment criteria by ERM in their June 2009 “Revised Detailed Site Assessment Report” In addition, there are coal resources present within each of the local authority areas of Bristol, North Somerset, Bath and North East Somerset and South Gloucestershire which are capable of extraction by surface mining methods. The Coal Authority is keen to ensure that these coal resources are not unduly sterilised by new development. In situations where this may be the case due to development of residual waste treatment facilities, The Coal Authority would be seeking prior extraction of the coal. Prior extraction of the coal also has the benefit of removing any potential land instability problems in the process. As The Coal Authority owns the coal on behalf of the state, if a development is to intersect the ground then specific written permission of The Coal Authority may be required. Having undertaken an initial review of the sites listed in Policy 5 it would appear that the majority of them fall outside of identified areas of surface coal resource and mining legacy. However, full consideration of these issues should be given with regard to any waste related development proposals at Yate. Reason: To comply with guidance set out in PPG14 relating


54

User ID

Doc Ref


to unstable land and MPS1 regarding the sterilisation of mineral resources. Policy – General Considerations (Pg 11). Test of Soundness Justified Effective Consistency with

National Policy X

As you will be aware the West of England JWCS area has been subjected to coal mining activity which will have left a legacy. Whilst most past mining is generally benign in nature potential public safety and stability problems can be triggered and uncovered by development activities. The Coal Authority therefore considers it of particular importance that the stability of ground conditions in areas of past mining activity” should be added to the list of matters set out in this policy which should be assessed and, if necessary, appropriately mitigated as part of proposals for waste related development. Reason: To comply with the advice or guidance set out in PPG 14 relating to unstable land. The Coal Authority also wishes to continue to be consulted both informally if required and formally on future stages.

Noted. This matter has been addressed in policy 12 of the JWCS (General Considerations). Noted. Noted.

55

User ID

Doc Ref


268 L13 Alder King on behalf of Terra Nitrogen.

We would like to submit further representations in respect of our client’s site (Terra Nitrogen – your ref. IS4). Essentially our clients would object to the policy as drafted. Whilst we consider that part of the Terra Nitrogen site could reasonably feature a residual waste treatment facility (as Policy 5 j) and that a formal allocation in the Core Strategy could thus be advantageous, we nonetheless have reservations about the total weight afforded to such a policy allocation especially when read with the supporting text and related to the whole of our clients landownership. In principle, we consider that many of the sites within the wider Avonmouth/Severnside area would be acceptable in whole or in part for residual waste treatment facilities, given that the planning context is similar e.g. flood risk, adjacent to Severn Estuary etc. On this basis, we recommend a more general policy allocation that recognises this wider suitability and that, in turn, does not potentially limit the provision of residual waste treatment facilities to the “strategic” sites currently noted in draft Policy 5. In this respect the Avonmouth / Severnside area could simply be listed, as are urban extensions and land at Yate or Weston Super Mare, as an alternative to the approach of specifically listing “strategic” sites. The identified sites could of course be noted in supporting text as being particularly suitable, but a policy that recognised the suitability of the wider area would provide more flexibility to the industry and would not introduce unnecessary


56

User ID

Doc Ref


restrictions to the redevelopment of allocated sites or potentially prevent other suitable sites from coming forward (see below). An alternative approach may be clarity in the policy wording such that it is clear that the allocated sites are suitable for residual waste treatment facilities as an alternative or as part of a mixed use development alongside “B” Class employment redevelopment. Our client’s concern is that, by limiting the provision of such facilities to the seven sites listed in Avonmouth/Severnside, Policy 5 precludes the use of other land by default and also has the potential to limit the potential of the allocated sites to be utilised for alternative land uses. This is not explicit in the policy but the conclusion can be drawn from the supporting text. It is also relevant to note that my client’s land is protected and allocated for employment development in the South Gloucestershire Local Plan and flexibility in the land uses to be accommodated in anticipated redevelopment is critical to them. Therefore, whilst a waste allocation is potentially of benefit to our client, it could ‘blight’ the site in planning terms by unduly limiting redevelopment options or introducing unnecessary and frustrating caveats. It is our view, therefore, that a more positively worded and flexible policy is required. In the event that such a flexible policy approach is not to be adopted, Policy 5 should be amended to include text stating that the requirement for allocated sites to feature residual waste treatment facilities would be relaxed upon the provision of residual waste facilities to treat the required 390,000

This matter has been considered in the supporting text of policy 5 under “The Spatial Strategy of Residual Waste Treatment Facilities” (pg. 28) Noted.

57

User ID

Doc Ref


tonnes of municipal waste per annum. In effect it would become a more flexible and interim policy taking account of the fact that development brought forward on all or part of one site might well meet the need and remove the requirement to retain allocations on other sites. In this respect, we are aware that Sita will shortly submit an application for the development of a 390,000 tonne/annum energy recovery facility on land just to the south of our client’s (Your ref – SG39). Whist it is intended that this facility will primarily deal with commercial waste (according to Sita’s consultation pamphlet), it would appear to indicate that a single facility of a reasonable scale could be provided that would deal with the West of England Partnership’s total annual residual waste requirement. As such, it would appear reasonable to include greater flexibility in the wording of Policy 5. Whilst we appreciate the Partnership’s desire to have a robust strategy which sets out allocated sites for waste development and that the Partnership may be reluctant to adopt the flexible approach noted above, if the Strategy is not to be specific to one site to meet the need then flexibility is required. In our view the strategy and thus the policy and supporting text as currently drafted is inappropriately vague. Furthermore, as an alternative to the above, a potential “fallback” position would appear to exist in the form of Bristol City Council owned land in Avonmouth. BCC owned land (located to the east of the A403/Chittening Road) could be allocated for residual waste treatment as a backstop/fallback

This matter has been considered in the supporting text of policy 5 under “The Spatial Strategy of Residual Waste Treatment Facilities” (pg. 28) Noted.

58

User ID

Doc Ref


alternative, in the event that inadequate capacity is developed on allocated sites within private ownership. Policy 5 could be reworded such that the allocated sites would be preferred for residual waste treatment facilities, but that the BCC land would be safeguarded as an alternative should allocated sites be developed for alternative uses or in the event that problems with delivery arise. This would have the benefit of providing more flexibility for the market and not overly prejudicing uses on the allocated sites, whilst providing assurances that ultimate delivery would be in the hands of a JWCS partner in the event that additional facilities are required. I trust that you will review the above comments and consider them whilst finalising your submission draft of the Joint Waste Core Strategy. In the event that a more flexible approach (to reflect my client’s re-development aspirations) is not adopted for the location of residual waste treatment facilities as part of Policy 5, our clients would likely have some concerns with the site being included as a “strategic” allocated site. In this event, our client may wish to withdraw their previous representations in respect of this particular type of waste treatment facility and object to the emerging plan.

Noted Noted

252 E108 SW Councils (formerly South West Regional Assembly)

We have recommended in our response to the Preferred Options consultation that an overarching, criteria-based policy for all types of waste management facilities should be included in the document, followed by a more specific policy on strategic sites. In this regard we welcome that for non-residual waste management facilities criteria based policies

Noted.

59

User ID

Doc Ref


are being proposed (Policy 2 & 3). However, it would be beneficial if criteria expressed in Policy 2 would also apply for residual waste treatment facilities, plus criteria 3) and 4) in Policy 5. Additional , more detailed site proposals as set out in Policy 5 will definitely aid the delivery of the Strategy. It is good to hear that planning applications have already been submitted on a number of these sites, and we therefore remain hopeful that the proposed sites will be developed by the industry so that facilities can come on stream as soon as possible. You mention that planning permission will be granted for all types of waste management facilities on land that is located within ‘an adopted urban extension area’. Generally we welcome that waste management facilities should be developed at the urban extensions proposed in the RSS Proposed Changes (here: Policy HMA1). Having said that, it will take time until DPDs are adopted which include more detailed policies for the urban extensions, and i.e. define their exact locations This might delay provision of policy cover delivery of facilities at the urban extensions.

Noted.

256 E109 Environment Agency

The document does not appear to have considered the full potential for combined heat and power and associated heat networks. The Agency would welcome clarification on this matter. BA12 The report refers to unauthorised waste management activities on the Fullers Earth Works site. It should be noted

The Joint Waste Core Strategy will reflect national policy support for generating heat and electricity through waste management processes in its policies and proposals. Noted.

60

User ID

Doc Ref


that the Old Fullers Earth Works site currently holds an Environmental Permit for a Household, Commercial and Industrial Waste Transfer Station. BA19 The access to this site is limited and may prove difficult for large vehicles to negotiate. Additionally, the site is adjacent to the old Keynsham Paper Mill Sludge Treatment Landfill Site, which should be taken into consideration. BR505 This site is located within a larger residential area where odour, noise and other nuisance factors would need to be fully assessed. BR218 Avonmouth Docks must be considered a very sensitive location due to its proximity to a number of designations (RAMSAR, SPA, SSSI, SAC). This will need careful consideration due to the fact that the Agency’s ‘standard rules’ permits or consents could not be applied in this location. Accordingly, the Agency concurs with the reports recommendation that the site is not allocated for the development of a strategic waste management facility BR501 A, B and C Diamonite Industrial Sites Areas A, B and C have potential access problems and are in proximity to sensitive receptors. The Agency is of the view that planning and permit conditions would not significantly reduce the potential amenity impacts

Noted. Pollution impacts are project specific and will be dealt with through the planning application process. The JWCS will provide guidance through a development management policy. Noted. Noted.

61

User ID

Doc Ref


posed by a waste facility at this location. BR516 and IS4 The Agency agrees that the potential impact would need to be fully assessed. Site IS4 is currently a permitted waste transfer station operated by Allmead Recycling Ltd. Both of these sites are in an area where there are already four permitted waste transfer stations. The Agency has received complaints of noise and issues with the visual impact from these sites from residents living on the south side of the river in Totterdown. This should be taken into consideration. Accordingly, a Noise Impact Assessment/Survey or Noise Management Plan may be required. DS05, DS06, DS07, DS13, IS9, These sites are located adjacent to and above of a number of historic and more recent landfill sites and silt lagoons and/or on potentially contaminated land. Accordingly, careful consideration must be given to the potential disturbance of contaminated land during construction and the potential emission of contaminants.., to ground and surface waters. IS2 This site is on greenbelt land, close to a SSSI at Ashton Court and is located over a major aquifer. The Agency therefore concurs with the reports recommendation in respect of this site. NS2, NS11, NS17 and NS18. These sites are located within larger residential areas where

Noted. Noted. Noted. Pollution impacts are project specific and will be

62

User ID

Doc Ref


odour, noise and other nuisance factors would need to be fully assessed. SG49A and SG49B The Henbury Trym flows through these sites. Accordingly, any development would need to incorporate appropriate pollution prevention and engineering measures to prevent pollution of the watercourse. West of England Waste Management Capacity Needs Assessment There would appear to be an assumption that all of the sites listed as operational in the West of England area are accepting the maximum amount of waste possible under their respective licences. Many of the sites are not operating to full capacity, indeed the Agency has noted a fall in volumes of wastes received at these sites. Additionally, an assumption is made that 20% of the capacity of transfer stations can be attributed to recycling. When reviewing recycling capacity it must be considered that this is an assumption and further work should be undertaken to determine how much waste is actually recycled at transfer stations. The document suggests that the West of England has a capacity of 3,000,000 tonnes of non-hazardous landfill void space. The Agency must question this figure. Whilst there is void space available at Shortwood, the void space at the Kingweston landfill needs to be investigated further,

dealt with through the planning application process. The JWCS will provide guidance through a development management policy. Noted. Noted. Noted The source of this information is Environment Agency data, which was verified by the individual Planning Authorities.

63

User ID

Doc Ref


particularly as the proposed New Earth Solutions MBT facility will be built on the site. There are also concerns over the suggested inert landfill capacity. One of the sites listed to accept inert waste is an exempt facility. It is assumed that as this is to raise a playing field, there is only a certain quantity of waste the site can accept. The Agency would also query why, if this site is included, there are no other exempt sites that can accept inert waste included in the document. The Agency must request clarification regarding the apparent lack of consideration in respect of hazardous waste capacities and treatment… the West of England Partnership should be identifying how it is proposed to manage the treatment of hazardous waste arising in the area. Scope and Policy Context Document (Revised) Policy 1 It is encouraging that the benefits of the Site Waste Management Plan Regulations have been identified as a positive method for reducing waste arisings from construction and demolition in the West of England Area. Accordingly, it is anticipated that the respective West of England Authorities will actively encourage developers to use Site Waste Management Plans effectively. Policy 2 Whilst the land may be suitable for the allocation of the waste facility, consideration should also be given to the design of


64

User ID

Doc Ref


the facility. The planning stage is key to ensuring that the facilities are designed for purpose and to minimise their impact on the environment. Whilst many aspects are covered during the environmental permitting stage, it must clear that the design put forward at the planning stage is fit for purpose. Policy 3 As the document recognises, open windrow composting has the potential to impact on the environment through odour and bio-aerosols. Whilst these issues are covered at the environmental permitting stage, it is clear that the planning process still has a role to play. This policy should consider the inclusion of appropriate assessment criteria for the positioning of the facility, in order to ensure that it is an appropriate distance from receptors, including areas of employment. Obviously, such facilities must be designed in a manner to reduce the potential impact of odour and bio-aerosols on the surrounding environment. Policy 5 The wording of this policy appears to conflict with the accompanying text i.e. “Planning permission for development involving the management of residual wastes will be granted at the following sites”. This is premature and calls into question the rationale underpinning the whole consultation process. The consultation process should be completed and the results thoroughly assessed, prior to any decisions regarding the granting of planning permission.

Noted. This matter has been addressed in Policy 5 of the JWCS.

65

User ID

Doc Ref


Whilst environmental permitting and regulation by the Agency is a key aspect of ensuring that waste facilities have a minimal impact on the environment, it is essential to ensure at the planning stage that all aspects that could potentially cause problems are considered. The Agency is concerned that planning permission for certain sites will be granted if the limited criteria specified in the policies are satisfied. This approach places the onus for resolving any issues that may arise on the environmental permitting process, when it would be more appropriate to resolve such issues through the planning process. There is concern that the report fails to consider the potential impact of cumulative development. Accordingly, the Agency must advise that provision is made to ensure that cumulative impact is fully assessed. For example, the development of a number of waste facilities at Avonmouth may not be sustainable and could have a combined impact on, inter alia, human health, protected sites and species etc. With reference to the ‘General Considerations’ identified on page 11 of the Scope and Policy Document, the Agency must advise that, notwithstanding point (a) specific reference is made to assessment of contaminated land, in accordance with PPS23. Habitats Regulations Assessment It is noted that local wildlife sites (SNCI's, regional wildlife sites) do not appear to have been considered. It must be noted that each site will need to be assessed for any potential

This matter has been addressed in policy 12 of the JWCS (General Considerations, pg 36). Noted. This matter has been addressed in policy 11 of the JWCS (General Considerations, pg 36).

66

User ID

Doc Ref


impact on protected species. It is stated that no information was available for surface water quality however, this is readily available for most watercourses on the Agency's website. With regard to impacts on the Natura 2000 sites. The generic Habitats Regulations Assessment on impacts from a 400 MW plant on protected habitat sites, concluded that several sites within the Avonmouth area have the potential to impact on features of the Severn Estuary SPA/SAC and the Avon Gorge SAC. There are at least six sites within the Avonmouth and Severnside area that have been recommended as potential waste facility sites. Whilst it is appreciated that a further assessment will be required when the individual applicants apply for an Environmental Permit, the Agency would advise that applicants are made aware that they will have to consider their application in combination with any new and current plans and projects within the Avonmouth and Severn-side area. This should include all the new waste facility applications, including those that do not fall within the Waste Core Strategy. Using the information from the Habitats Regulations Assessment, the respective Councils should be urged to take a strategic approach in respect of the number and type of waste facility allowed at any one site.

The Habitats Regulations Assessment has addresses potential impacts on international wildlife sites in assessing and selecting the site to be identified in the JWCS. Impacts on other wildlife is a development Management matter and therefore forms part of the planning application process. Noted. Noted. Noted.

67

User ID

Doc Ref


Any of the original sites located within Flood Zone 3b (functional floodplain) should now be discounted as options. Those with remaining non-functional floodplain flood risk issues have been noted in the individual site assessments and highlighted for further investigation/mitigation as part of a site specific FRA, in the event of their allocation. The Agency would advise that sites recommended for allocation should come forward on a ‘flood risk sequential’ basis.

274 E110 Persimmon Homes Special Projects

It is important though that the High Level Strategic Policy for Waste cannot operate in isolation and Waste Policies have to have regard to other High Level Strategic Policies and more detailed Policies set out in Core Strategies and DPD’s. We support the rationale of the Second Objective to specify either specific sites or general areas for the development of Residual Waste Management Facilities. This flexibility to respond to particular circumstances is especially important to proposals in the Weston Regeneration Area, where it is impossible to define specific sites in advance of the preparation of the final Master Plans. However, it is important in identifying a general area, which in the case of the Weston Regeneration Area could indeed be the whole area, to specify how many and what size sites would be required, so as not to impact on the whole area and to enable sufficient sites to be identified through emerging plans and specific detailed proposals. We are not clear why criteria should point towards urban extensions as appropriate locations for this development, due


68

User ID

Doc Ref


to the potential impact on other uses. We are not sure how in general terms a location on an industrial estate is comparable to a location in an urban extension. This implies such facilities would need to be located on industrial estates in urban extensions, but this may not be appropriate if the “industrial estate” is a high quality B1 business park as proposed at Weston Airfield east or in a fully mixed use area. PHSP support the minimisation of waste from construction sites and generally submit Site Waste Management Plans with planning applications. As worded we consider the Policy is too imprecise. Firstly, it needs to be clear about what “development proposals” it applies to. Is that all development proposals, all uses, including individual houses? Secondly, d (iv) as worded would be impossible to monitor. What is meant by the “maximum diversion of waste” – how is that measured? What does “once the development is operational” mean – is it once the construction of the development begins, or is it once construction has finished and the development is in use? Unless the Policy wording is more precise and the Policy can be properly monitored, we consider the Policy would be unsound as a formal DPD Policy. Policy 2 – Recycling, Composting and Non-Residual Waste Operations As in the case of the Objectives, there is no correlation between potential locations on industrial land, or previously developed land and urban extensions. Also, the construction of the Policy appears to be wrong. Part (a) should be the headline Policy followed by four alternative locations labelled

Noted. Noted.

69

User ID

Doc Ref


(a) to (d). Policy 3 – Open Windrow Composting Again the Policy is imprecise – what is a “sufficient distance from any dwelling”? Policy 5 – Residual Waste Treatment We note that the text says Energy Recovery is placed beneath Materials Recovery in the Waste Hierarchy. This has to be compared with the emphasis the document places on the role of urban extensions in meeting waste treatment facilities and that “integrating waste management and heat generation should be exploited where practicable”. We certainly support the need for development proposals to consider how heat recovery from waste can form part of the renewable energy requirements of the development. If this is to be exploited and the urban extensions are indeed going to have a key role to play in implementing the Waste Strategy, then we suggest the priority given to Materials Recovery over Energy Recovery will need to be reversed in the urban extensions. We therefore object to the lack of flexibility contained in Policy 5. We think the Policy should be in two parts. Part One would say planning permission will be granted where specific sites are identified, i.e. all the sites listed in Sub-Paragraph 1. Part Two needs a suitably worded “encouragement” policy for locations 2, 3 and 4, something like “development involving the management of residual wastes will be supported/encouraged in the following


70

User ID

Doc Ref


locations”. Development Management – Policy Designations Part (o) should be specific about which flood zones this applies to in order to satisfy PPS25. Development Management – General Considerations We support “where relevant to a development proposal” but “where necessary appropriate mitigation” is wrong. Similarly (o) should relate to measures for limiting duration of use, not scope for doing it and (q) should relate to all transport impacts and not be restricted to transport impacts of development on amenity.

Noted. Noted

247 E11 Natural England Detailed Site Assessment We would prefer to see the consideration of ecology and nature conservation constraints extended to Local Sites of biodiversity or geological conservation value. While such sites are not afforded the same level of protection through the planning system as national and international designated sites they are important to the conservation of biodiversity. In our view every effort should be made to avoid adverse impacts upon such sites. Conclusions in relation to each site. We would have preferred to see the conclusions represent the findings of the Habitats Regulations Assessment with more precision. For example, by making specific mention of

The Habitat Regulations Assessment has addressed potential impacts on international wildlife sites in assessing and selecting the sites to be in the JWCS. Impacts on other wildlife is a development management matter and therefore forms part of the planning application process. Noted.

71

User ID

Doc Ref


the nature and capacity of recovery facility that, on the basis of current evidence, would be acceptable at each site. The HRA findings are important because the WEP should only adopt the JWCS if it can be certain that there would be no likely significant effect upon any European site. A number of conclusions refer to proposals needing to give particular attention to the HRA bird mitigation recommendations. These recommendations appear to be missing from the version of the HRA that is to be found on the WEP Website. Environmental enhancement The site assessment process has, quite naturally, focused on potential constraints to waste development. We are also keen that future waste developments should be strongly encouraged to include positive environmental enhancements in keeping with the Government’s objectives for planning (as expressed in PPS9). Positive measures might include the creation, or restoration, of accessible natural green spaces on or off site. We would be delighted if the WEP were to consider building on the site assessment work so far undertaken by exploring significant environmental enhancement opportunities associated with each site that is likely to come forward for inclusion in JWCS. Scope and Policy Document (Version 2)

Noted. Noted.

72

User ID

Doc Ref


Scope The commitment to the inclusion of the JWCS of a specific section on monitoring is welcome. We see this as key to the provision of the evidence necessary to inform any future policy reviews and ensure that the sum total of development management decisions helps to achieve the Vision for 2026. Using the JWCS At the present time there are a number of major recovery facility proposals at various stage within the planning process, some of which are quite advanced. We are concerned that the JWCS may not be completed in time to influence the development management decisions in respect of these proposals and that an overarching consistent approach may not prevail. We recommend the WEP consider whether there is a mechanism for the issuing interim guidance so as to help ensure that development decisions taken before the adoption of the final JWCS contribute towards the realisation of the vision for 2026. Waste Prevention Requiring a Site Waste Management Plan and affording this material status is a welcome inclusion within Policy 1. This should serve to raise awareness amongst developers and ensure that future proposals make a significant contribution to waste reduction. Recycling, composting and non-residual waste


73

User ID

Doc Ref


operations Not all of the land listed within Policy 2 or Policy 3 will be suitable for the grant of planning permission for non residual waste treatment facilities or open windrow composting. For example, some previously developed land is of biodiversity value. As is some land within areas under consideration as urban extensions. It may be that the Key Development Criteria along with other Development Plan policies will offer sufficient safeguards for environmentally sensitive sites within these areas. However we are concerned that policies might be taken in isolation and therefore recommend the WEP considers the addition of wording to the effect that permission will be granted “where this will not conflict with other important environmental interests”. The link between the operational life of mineral sites and recycling of demolition wastes set out in Policy 4 is welcome. That should, in the long term, avoid such operations being located in relatively remote locations that do not accord well with the proximity principle. Strategic sites for residual waste treatment If all the sites listed in Policy 5 were to become operational the annual target for waste to be managed through recovery facilities would be exceeded by a considerable margin. We would encourage the WEP to consider whether

This matter has been addressed in policy 2 (Non-residual waste treatment facilities) and policy 11 (Planning Designations) of the JWCS. Noted. Noted. This matter has been considered in the supporting text of the JWCS under “The Spatial Strategy of Residual Waste Treatment Facilities” (pg 28). Noted.

74

User ID

Doc Ref


potentially allowing for such a level of provision might risk diverting waste away from the “3Rs” and/or encourage the long distance importation of waste that might otherwise be managed closer to source. We have particular concerns with regard to the Avonmouth /Severnside area. Evidence suggests that it has the capacity to accommodate a certain amount of recovery facilities but we would be concerned at the potential for cumulative impact upon the local environment should it become a major regional or national focus for such operations. We recommend the WEP considers setting a limit on the recovery capacity (tonnes per annum) that should be provided for. This might be adjusted up or down in light of monitoring data to reflect local need and any future changes in government policy. Clearly it would still be important to ensure a geographical spread of consented facilities in order to reflect the proximity principle. The HRA presents detailed findings about the nature and scale of recovery facility that could be accommodated at each of the listed sites in order to be certain that there would be no likelihood of significant effect on a European site. These findings are important because the WEP should only adopt the JWCS if it can be certain that there would be no likely significant effect upon any European site.

Noted. Noted. PPS10 makes no reference to the proximity principle. Instead the key planning objectives refer to enabling communities to take more responsibility for their own waste and to enable waste to be disposed of in one of the nearest appropriate installations.

75

User ID

Doc Ref


In our view it would be most wise to ensure that the JWCS precisely reflects the findings of the HRA in order to be certain of avoiding likely significant effects upon any European site. We recommend the WEP consider amending Policy 5 to precisely align with the findings of the HRA i.e. specifying the nature and scale (tonnes per annum) of recovery facilities that, on the basis of current evidence, could be accommodated without risking significant adverse effect s to a European site. The potential role of urban extensions It is our view, and that of our Defra partner organisations, that urban extensions should, as far as practicable, be designed for self sufficiency and, amongst other things, manage their own waste. The reference to the integration of waste management infrastructure and also to heat generation is therefore welcome. We recommend the WEP considers the inclusion of a specific policy to the effect that urban extensions will be expected to be self sufficient in the management of waste and exemplars of best practice. Waste water management We are concerned by the suggestion that waste water and sewage from elsewhere might be treated in the WofE as implied by the text in the box under this section. In our view it should generally be possible for waste water and sewage to

This matter has been addressed in policy 11 of the JWCS. (Planning Designations) Noted. The RSS is not adopted policy. The potential role of urban extensions is recognised in the JWCS should the requirement for urban extensions remain after the RSS has been finalised. Noted. Noted.

76

User ID

Doc Ref


be treated in close proximity to the settlements that give rise to it. If the intention is to retain the policy in a substantially unchanged form we would recommend the insertion of “closer to the source of the arisings” after “the need cannot practicably be met at another site”. That would accord more closely with the proximity principle. Hazardous Waste The document explains that it is not intended that the policy of the JWCS should distinguish between hazardous and non hazardous waste. However, its not entirely clear whether all of the relevant policies would be applied to hazardous waste. We would appreciate confirmation that Development Management policies would be applied to all waste classifications. Landfill Since landfill is at the bottom of the waste hierarchy it seems to us that this may be another area in which WEP may wish to consider setting limits on the capacity that should be provided for. We appreciate that the proposed policy approach to landfill does not involve the identification of specific sites. However, we are of the view that the JWCS should include some means of ensuring that landfill operations conform to the proximity principle in order to minimise the number of waste miles generated.

Noted. Noted. Noted. PPS10 makes no reference to the proximity principle. Instead the key planning objectives refer to enabling communities to take more responsibility

77

User ID

Doc Ref


We recommend WEP considers how it can build the proximity principle into the policy approach to landfill. Development Management Planning designations The list of designated areas for which significant adverse effect should be avoided is comprehensive and most welcome. General Considerations The second paragraph of the draft policy appears to confuse the two concept of mitigation and compensation. We see mitigation as measures taken to lessen adverse effects. And compensation as measures to that try to offset any harm that cannot be reduced further through mitigation. In terms of ecology, mitigation is always preferable to compensation, which is generally seen as a last resort. We recommend WEP amends the draft policy to reflect the distinction between mitigation and compensation. Wherever possible mitigation should be applied before resorting to compensatory measures. The list of general considerations covers an admirably wide range of issues but is focused on the prevention of harm. We would also recommend WEP considers the addition of a requirement, or strong exhortation, that applications should also include positive environmental enhancements.

for their own waste and to enable waste to be disposed of in one of the nearest appropriate installations. Noted. Noted. Noted. Noted.

78

User ID

Doc Ref


This would be in keeping with the Government’s objectives for planning (as expressed in PPS9) which includes the promotion of sustainable development and the conservation, enhancement and restoration of the diversity of England’s wildlife and geology. Positive measures might include the creation, or restoration, of accessible natural green spaces on or off site.

Noted.

S:\WEP\Waste DPD\Project Management\Project Management ERM\Progress Update June 2009\representations to progress update 13_08_09.doc

The West of England Partnership – Joint Waste Core .... jwcs responses to the... · Prepared by...

Documents

Transcript of The West of England Partnership – Joint Waste Core .... jwcs responses to the... · Prepared by...