Contact: Adrian Lynham, ext 6330 email: [email protected]

1. Summary

1.1 The following decisions are sought:

(i) That the South East England Regional Assembly be informed of the County Council's views on the Proposed Alterations to Regional Planning Guidance, South East - Regional Waste Management Strategy, that:

(a) With the exception of the issue stated in (b) below, Hampshire is generally content with the Strategy and broadly supports the amendments which have been made as a result of the consultation process;

(b) Hampshire objects to the Proposed Alterations because the issue of how waste exported from London will be managed has not been addressed on a sub-regional basis;

(c) SEERA considers the allocation of quotas between different Waste Authorities is considered to be impossible on technical and political grounds, therefore Policy W3 of the Strategy should be amended to set out the criteria by which London's exported waste will be apportioned in the future. The policy should make reference to the proximity principle, and the transportation of waste by rail or water where possible; and

(d) the detailed comments made in section 9 of this report be considered by the Regional Assembly.

(ii) That the South East England Development Agency be informed of the County Council's response.

2. Reason

2.1 This decision supports Aim 2 of the Corporate Strategy (Stewardship of the Environment) by ensuring waste is managed an environmentally acceptable way.

2.2 The Strategy as proposed is unacceptable to the County Council due to the lack of sub-regional guidance on the apportionment of London's waste.

3. Other Options Considered and Rejected

3.1 Not to offer any further comments to the Regional Assembly.

3.2 To express support for the Strategy in its current format.

4. Conflicts of Interest Declared by the Decision Maker or Other Executive Member Consulted - None.

5. Dispensation granted by the Standards Committee - Not applicable.

6. Reason(s) for the Matter being dealt with if Urgent - Not applicable.

Approved by: Date:

Councillor K B Estlin

Approved by: Date:

Councillor J K Glen

7. Summary

7.1 The Proposed Alterations to Regional Planning Guidance, South East - Regional Waste Management Strategy was published in March 2004. The Strategy is part of a set of reviews which covers transport, renewable energy, tourism, minerals and waste. The Strategy covers the period up to 2016, but looks further into the future.

7.2 The County Council has previously commented upon the consultation draft of the Regional Waste Management Strategy. The response is covered by the report of the Director of Environment to Cabinet on 23 June 2003. This report considers the alterations made to the Strategy since the consultation draft was considered, and makes recommendations for further comments to be submitted to the South East England Regional Assembly.

8. Summary of Amendments

8.1 SEERA sought advice from the South East England Regional Technical Advisory Body for waste (SERTAB), and the revised draft Strategy was considered by a member working group that met in September 2003. After further comments on the amendments have been received and considered, a revised version of the Strategy will then go forward to the Regional Assembly to consider as the full regional planning body, prior to its submission to the Government Office.

8.2 The consultation process resulted in 1,746 representations on the plan; 37 from local authorities, 50 from town and parish councils, 13 from other public bodies and groups, 28 from local amenity/environmental/social groups, 130 from Friends of the Earth and over 1,100 from anti-incineration groups. Four sub-regional workshops were also carried out and attended by about 130 people.

8.3 The consultation process was supplemented by a specific survey of public opinion conducted by MORI. The survey showed widespread public support for recycling (96%) and composting (84%). Four-fifths of the population think that they personally can do more to reduce waste.

8.4 There was a high level of support for the Strategy, based on the approach of 60% recycling and 25% energy recovery. Only 9% opposed the Strategy as proposed. There was general consensus that the Strategy's recycling targets are necessary but ambitious, and energy from waste (including incineration) is viewed in relatively positive terms, although many feel that they would like more information. Landfill was seen as a last resort in the waste chain, and viewed much less positively than energy from waste.

8.5 Most people believed that responsibility for waste minimisation lies firstly with companies (59%), secondly with supermarkets (33%) and thirdly with Government (25%). However there was also a recognition that individuals as consumers as well as local authorities have a part to play (both at 19%).

8.6 Following the consultation exercise, the broad thrust of the Strategy has remained largely unchanged. However, a number of amendments have been made to both policies and supporting text to reflect comments raised through the process.

8.7 There was significant adverse comment made regarding the incineration element of the Strategy but this option is proposed to be retained. However, the Waste Statement created some confusion about the likely scale of facilities that might be needed and this aspect has been clarified.

8.8 Given the importance of waste minimisation, targets for the reduction of the growth in waste have now been included. In respect of recycling and re-use, the targets in the draft are intended to be ambitious in order to encourage the step-change in attitudes and treatment that is certainly required. A Best Value target of 30% recycling of municipal solid waste (MSW) has now been set by Government for 2005; this has been included as the basis for the Strategy target over the same short term period. Further analysis of construction and demolition waste recycling has also shown that higher than anticipated rates are currently being achieved. That element of the targets has therefore also been revised upwards.

8.9 Corresponding changes have been made to the overall recovery rates (including diversion from landfill) and targets based on these revised assessments. Conversely it now seems very unlikely that the region can achieve the Government's overall recovery target of 40% for MSW by 2005, as proposed in the National Waste Strategy 2000. Whilst every effort should continue to be made to reach this figure it is proposed that a target of 35% for MSW recovery is adopted for 2005, and that the Government is advised why this is considered appropriate. This is because counties other than Hampshire have been less successful in recycling their household waste. The Strategy will still seek to meet the Landfill Directive targets by 2010 and beyond.

8.10 The format of the policy chapter of the document has been amended. Some clusters of policies (for example waste reduction) have been grouped into single policy statements and condensed. The policies have also been reordered and included in an annex for ease of reference.

8.11 The policies relating to the export of waste from London have been amended to emphasise the need for a significant reduction in the amount of waste going to landfill in this region. Unfortunately no apportionment for acceptance of the waste from London on a sub-regional basis has been proposed.

8.12 It was not thought to be practical to develop a sub-regional focus for the Strategy, other than one that reflects the existing pattern of waste planning authorities and waste plans. However, indicative targets for WPAs in respect of the waste capacity and landfill capacity that they need to plan for and help provide, have now been included as annexes in the revised Strategy.

8.13 The policy on provision of waste management capacity (Policy W7) has also been re-cast in order to better reflect the natural resource management approach.

8.14 The policy on the potential for waste facilities to be located in the Green Belt has been retained. This is in order to give scope to provide the large number of new facilities that will be required, and to emphasise the need for a flexible planning approach to that provision. However, the wording of the policy has been modified to link it better to the wider policy preference for brownfield sites in Regional Planning Guidance, emphasise that specific justification must be made for each case, and to allow for the possible use of open countryside as well as Green Belt.

8.15 It was felt desirable to include additional guidance on the future management of hazardous waste, however the necessary data and technical advice about this evolving area are not yet available. It is instead proposed that the Assembly should convene a Task Group to pursue the issue in greater depth as a matter of urgency, so as to be able to put forward an addendum to the Strategy on this issue in due course.

8.16 The policies relating to implementation have been sharpened and strengthened and a new policy is proposed which commits the Assembly to the early development of an Implementation Plan in line with recent Government advice.

8.17 Two specific points have arisen in relation to the role of the Government which the member working group considered should be addressed.

8.18 The first is the need for more positive support, principally from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, for planning authorities (and waste companies) when they promote or determine waste proposals. Almost all waste facilities now generate a degree of local opposition when they are formally proposed. Central Government has in the past shown inadequate recognition of this problem and has given insufficient support to the local authorities and companies facing difficulties. This should now change and a Ministerial Statement would be a useful step forward.

8.19 Secondly, and in similar vein, Defra has done too little to provide leadership and incentives for programmes of waste reduction, for example in relation to packaging. This issue should also now be taken up with the responsible Minister and appropriate recommendations on both these points are now put forward.

9. Comments by the Director of Environment

Vision - General Approach

9.1 A resource management approach has been reflected in modifications to the wording of several policies. The development of the resource management principles as part of the Material Resources Strategy being undertaken requires further work. The need to adopt the Regional Guidance means additional detail may have to wait until a future version of the Strategy is produced in order to be inserted.

9.2 A resource management approach has been reflected in changes to Policy W1 which now includes targets to reduce waste growth set at 1% per annum by 2010 and 0.5% per annum by 2020. The Council's comments have been adopted in that the new policy is now more specific about how waste growth reduction will be achieved, and specific targets have been set.

9.3 The Council's comments have also been accepted in that references to Best Practicable Environmental Option (BPEO) and Energy Recovery (within the waste hierarchy) have been inserted into several policies. In addition a Sustainability Appraisal of the Strategy has now been carried out and is included as an annex.

Self-Sufficiency

9.4 The County Council was concerned that inadequate recovery provision in London could lead to continued export of waste for landfill within Hampshire and generate pressure for the provision of additional incineration capacity. It was requested that more guidance be given on the apportionment of London's waste for each Waste Planning Authority, but SEERA rejected this as impossible for both technical and political reasons. Policy W3 states that provision for London's waste should be normally limited to landfill in accordance with Landfill Directive targets and by 2016 limited to residual waste from which value cannot be recovered. A net balance of waste movements between London and the Region should be in place by 2016.

9.5 Without specific targets of amount of waste to be accepted or apportionments between counties it will be difficult to plan residual disposal capacity required. If apportionments for London's waste cannot be given on a sub-regional basis at the current time, then it is considered that at the very least Policy W3 within the Regional Strategy should set out criteria on which the decision will be made in the future. This should include references to the proximity principle and indicate a preference for the transportation of waste using rail or water where possible.

Planning for Facilities

9.6 A new policy has been added which states the types of facilities that are likely to be required to process waste and refers to the use of resource parks in accordance with the County Council's advice. In addition indicative figures for amounts of waste requiring management in each county, and the numbers of new facilities required have been added in an appendix in order to prevent variations in waste forecasting causing inconsistency between planned facilities in neighbouring authorities. This does not go as far as the County Council requested, which was for specific guidance on a sub-regional basis; however this compromise is considered an acceptable way of addressing the Council's concerns. Further discussion will be required with surrounding authorities, however the indicative figures will provide a helpful guide regarding the relative amount of infrastructure required from which it should be possible to reach agreement by consensus.

9.7 A reference to waterborne transport was inserted into a policy on waste transfer stations at the request of the County Council.

9.8 More specific criteria in identifying suitable sites for waste uses had been requested, but was considered to be inappropriate for inclusion in a Regional Strategy and should be left for individual authorities to specify. It will be necessary to rely on the emerging Minerals and Waste Development Frameworks to specify the criteria for assessing the suitability of sites for waste management uses.

Waste Management Matters

Delivery of Facilities

9.9 It was suggested that Project Integra was put forward as a model of best practice, however this has been superseded by the new system being developed through the Material Resources Strategy. The Hampshire Natural Resources Initiative has been included within the Strategy as an example of best practice.

9.10 A new policy has been added to seek additional funding/fiscal measures to achieve the implementation of the Strategy as requested. In addition SEERA has made representations to Defra and the ODPM to request the Government provides more assistance with meeting objectives for a reduction in the growth of waste and for supporting planning authorities in facilitating the provision of additional waste management infrastructure.

9.11 In summary, the specific issues raised by the County Council in the previous consultation have been addressed as set out below.

Vision

9.12 The Strategy now focuses more upon resource management than previously and the amendments are considered to be acceptable.

9.13 Sufficient clarification of the roles of different parties in achieving targets has been incorporated, and SEERA has made representations to two Government departments to request additional support.

Land Use Planning Issues

9.14 The County Council's concerns regarding BPEO assessment, Sustainability Appraisal have been addressed.

9.15 Sufficient guidance has been provided on how regional self-sufficiency would work in practice, however no guidance has been incorporated regarding the apportionment of London's waste.

9.16 More guidance on the approach to be adopted at a sub-regional level has been provided through indicative targets included as an annex, which is considered adequate, although clearer guidance would have been preferred.

9.17 More explicit criteria on site identification and suitability for new waste management facilities have not been incorporated. However whilst this would have been a better option, this issue can be addressed at a local level in the emerging Development Framework.

9.18 Policies were amended to clarify that the relaxation of Green Belt constraints also apply to countryside, but not national parks or Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

Waste Management Matters

9.19 The Energy from Waste policy was reworded to take account of the concerns raised.

9.20 Additional detail has been provided on a sub-regional basis as mentioned above, but is included as indicative data in an annex. This approach is considered to be an acceptable compromise.

9.21 The policy on waste transfer stations was amended to include water as a means of transportation.

10. Conclusions

10.1 The lack of any indication of how London's waste will be apportioned on a sub-regional basis means it will be necessary to make further representations to SEERA to this effect. It is considered that because the issue has been previously raised, but SEERA expressed an opinion that sub-regional apportionment was technically and politically impossible to do, that a compromise position could be proposed. This would involve Policy W3 being amended to set out the criteria which will be used to determine the apportionment of London's waste to individual authorities in the future. The policy should make reference to the proximity principle and the need to dispose of waste close to the point at which it is generated, and state a preference for London's waste to be disposed within sites that allow transportation of waste by rail, subject to capacity on the network. To transport waste by rail to sites in Hampshire would create potential rail problems.

10.2 With the exception of the above issue it is considered that, whilst the County Council's comments have not been incorporated fully in every case, this version of the Strategy satisfies the other concerns raised regarding the consultation version of the Strategy.

8751/AL