Question 20: Policy WP11 'disposal of inert waste by landfill'

Showing comments and forms 1 to 3 of 3


Initial Consultation document

Representation ID: 91960

Received: 07/08/2018

Respondent: Mineral Services Ltd

Representation Summary:

This policy is supported and could be extended by including the importation of inert waste where it is necessary for agricultural improvement.

Full text:

I set out below my response below on behalf of Mineral Services Ltd in relation to the above Consultation. I have also sent to you by email a copy of my response for your files.

Question 1: 'Minerals and Waste Local Plan Vision'.
Reference to Norfolk's statutory obligation as set out within national policy for the supply of minerals in a sustainable manner should be included. In addition the 'adverse impacts' referred to in paragraph seven, would be better referred to as 'significant adverse impacts'. Paragraph eight is prescriptive when stating 'and will be designed and located', it is therefore suggested that the relevant words should be extended to 'and where possible will be designed and located'.

Question 3: 'Minerals Strategic Objectives'.
MSO1. In order to deliver the 'steady and adequate supply of aggregate minerals' the text could be enhanced by including reference to the need to provide appropriate policies to achieve the objective.

MSO6. The proposed wording refers to 'while protecting people from harm'. This is assessed in practice by considering the impact upon the environment and human health therefore the wording should be changed to 'while developing policies to assess the impact upon the environment and human health'.

MS09. It may be that the after use is the same as the original use, therefore it is suggested that the sentence is changed to read 'The after use will, where possible, protect and enhance the environment, including landscape and biodiversity improvements'.

Question 5: Policy MW2 'Development Management Criteria.'
Within section (a.) the reference to health should be to specific items rather than be generic. In other words the health items should be noise and vibration, air quality, dust, odour and light pollution.

Question 6: Policy MW3 'Transport'.
I note the separate policy but perhaps this might be better included as a section within Policy MW2 to ensure that the transport proposals for a site do not have an unacceptable impact as opposed to the double negative 'do not generate: unacceptable risks ... etc'.

Question 7: Policy MW4 'Climate change mitigation and adaption'.
Section (c) which reads 'endeavour to generate a minimum of 10 percent of the energy used on site from decentralised and renewable or low carbon sources' should be amended to remove the reference to a percentage. This is because many operators already purchase energy from centralised low carbon renewable sources and therefore an overarching benefit to climate change mitigation is being achieved. Furthermore the policy states that 'evidence must be provided to the County Planning Authority' but does not give any criteria against which the County Planning Authority will assess the evidence.

Question 20: Policy WP11: 'Disposal of inert waste by landfill'.
This policy is supported and could be extended by including the importation of inert waste where it is necessary for agricultural improvement.

Question 27: Policy MP1 'Provision for minerals extraction'
This policy is supported and to comply with National Guidance the landbank should be maintained throughout the Plan Period. Therefore additional words to make it clear that the land bank of between 7 and 10 years supply will be maintained throughout and also at the end of the Plan Period would also be supported.

Question 28: Policy MP2 'Spatial strategy for minerals extraction'.
The policy is supported but the Key Diagram which is on page 23 of the Initial Consultation and the scale of the Diagram does not allow detailed examination of the resource area. The Key Diagram should therefore be provided as a separate item as opposed to within the text so that it may be examined in more detail.

Question 30: Policy MP4 'Agricultural or potable water reservoirs'.
This policy wording is supported and could usefully be extended to cover flood alleviation schemes that include the extraction of sand and gravel.

Question 32: Policy MPG 'Cumulative impacts and phasing of working'.
This policy wording which is almost identical to Suffolk County Council Submission Draft June 2018 Policy MPS is supported.

Question 33: Policy MP7 'Progressive working, restoration and after-use'.
I note the inclusion of 'Due consideration has been given to opportunities to improve public access, particularly to implement the County Council's Rights of Way Improvement Plan', may I suggest that this is currently included within Minerals Strategic Objective MSO1O which reads 'To increase public access to the countryside and enhance biodiversity through enhancing the amenity value of land when restoring extraction sites' and therefore duplication in MP7 is not required?

Question 34: Policy MP8 'Aftercare'.
The second paragraph refers to planning conditions and to matters which could be covered within the outline aftercare strategy, therefore for clarity it would be simpler to simply state that 'The outline aftercare strategy should include measures required following the annual aftercare inspection and the subsequent submission of a finalised version of the annual aftercare report detailing the actions required'.

Question 37: Policy MP11 'Mineral Safeguarding Areas and Mineral Consultation Areas'.
The Policies Map is embedded in the text and cannot be enlarged with reasonable clarity to view the detail of the Safeguarding areas. It should therefore be included as a separate appendix. The second paragraph is not understood, partly because of the typing error within the fifth word but also because it is confusing that the MPA has determined that the Minerals Consultation Area is the same as the Minerals Safeguarding Area for safeguarding minerals resources. Page 77 of the Initial Consultation clearly states that a mineral resource as identified by the BGS is a Mineral Safeguarding Area and any development within 250m of a Mineral Safeguarded Area falls within a Minerals Consultation Area.

Question 78: 'Proposed Site MIN 207 'Land at Pinkney Field, Briston'.
The Initial conclusion that MIN 207 'Land at Pinkney Field' is considered to be suitable for allocation for sand and gravel extraction, subject to any planning application addressing the itemised requirements, is supported.


Initial Consultation document

Representation ID: 93024

Received: 10/08/2018

Respondent: Brett Group

Agent: Heaton Planning Ltd

Representation Summary:

Policy WP11 is supported and could be extended by including the importation of inert waste where it is necessary for agricultural improvement.

Full text:

Representations submitted on behalf of the Brett Group.
Section 3 - The process so far
Section 3 sets out the methodology for site assessments - including landscape, ecology, highways etc.
For Historic Environment and Archaeology:
* Details of known assets
* Proposals for protection / mitigation
* Support from Norfolk County Council's Historic Environment Service and whether this is dependent on appropriate protection / mitigation.
For Sustainability Appraisal:
* Ensures that potential environmental effects are given full consideration alongside social and environmental issues.
* Sustainability appraisal an integral element of the preparation of the MWLP review ... informing in a comprehensive way of the likely impacts of proposed planning policies and specific sites / preferred areas and areas of search.
What is not clear from the methodology is the balance applied to the impacts alongside the economic and social benefits. The revised NPPF (2018) is clear at Chapter 2 that achieving sustainable development means that the planning system has three overarching objectives, economic, social and environmental, which are interdependent and need to be pursued in mutually supportive ways (so that opportunities can be taken to secure net gains across each of the different objectives). Para 32 of NPPF (2018) states:
Local plans and spatial development strategies should be informed throughout their preparation by a sustainability appraisal that meets the relevant legal requirements. This should demonstrate how the plan has addressed the relevant economic, social and environmental objectives (including opportunities for net gains). Significant adverse impacts on these objectives should be avoided and, where possible, alternative options which reduce or eliminate such impacts should be pursued. Where significant adverse impacts are unavoidable, suitable mitigation measures should be proposed (or, where this is not possible, compensatory measures should be considered).
The methodology does not clearly provide a balance of the impacts - a number of sites clearly have numerous environmental sensitivities but do not constitute an objection on their own right. There should be some consideration of the cumulative impact of such effects.

Section 6 - The Strategy - Vision and Objectives
Question 1: 'Minerals and Waste Local Plan Vision'
We have the following comments and suggestions to make:
Minerals and Waste Local Plan Vision to 2036:
3rd para - All mineral workings will be covered by progressive restoration schemes
This is not in accordance with para 205 of the NPPF (2018) which recommends restoration should be at the earliest opportunity. It is not always possible to put in place a progressive restoration scheme, we recommend the wording is amended to be in accordance with NPPF.
7th para - Minerals development and waste management facilities will be located, designed and operated without adverse impacts on the amenity of local communities, the natural, built and historic environment, the landscape and townscape of Norfolk.
This is unreasonable, it would be very difficult for a mineral operation not to have some form of adverse impact, it is the degree of impact which is important. Para 204(f) of the NPPF (2018) seeks to ensure that permitted operations do not have an unacceptable adverse impact. This is reiterated within para 205 (c) of the NPPF (2018). We recommend the wording is amended to be in accordance with NPPF.

Draft Minerals Strategic Objectives
Question 3: 'Minerals Strategic Objectives'
We have the following comments to make:
MSO4 - requiring the justification for the potential sterilisation of minerals from competing development interests is supported.
MSO6 - the adverse impacts should be amended to unacceptable adverse impacts to conform with NPPF.
MSO7 - para 204(g) of the NPPF (2018) recognises that some noisy short term activities, which may otherwise be regarded as unacceptable, are unavoidable to facilitate minerals extraction. MSO7 should be reworded to conform with NPPF.
MSO8 - could you provide some clarification on 'providing for sustainable patterns of minerals transportation'. As is stated on page 29 of the consultation document the majority of minerals and waste sites in Norfolk are served by Heavy Goods Vehicles, with the majority of bulk materials likely to continue being transported by road as this is currently the most feasible mode of transport. We do not believe Objective MS08 is deliverable.
MSO9 - a mineral operator cannot always guarantee a positive contribution to natural, built and historic environment, particularly when the operator does not own the land with the landowner seeking different aspirations. The objective should be to seek to positively contribute.
MSO10 - we do not consider this objective to be deliverable as an operator cannot be in a position to increase public access for every restoration scheme. The objective should be to seek to increase public access.

Section 7 - Presumption in favour of sustainable development
Question 4: Policy MW1
Policy MW1 - 1st bullet should be unacceptably adverse, to conform with NPPF and reflect the advice within Section 8 of the Consultation Document, page 25, 4th paragraph.

Section 8 - Development management criteria
Question 5: Policy MW2
Policy MW2 is supported - the policy is in line with NPPF, in particular the final requirement on restoration recognising that environmental enhancements sought where appropriate. However, this is contrary to the earlier Vision and Objectives. The Vision and Objectives should be amended to seek conformity throughout the plan and with NPPF.

Section 12 - Agricultural soils
Question 9: Policy MW6
Policy MW6 is supported. The final bullet point of Policy MW6 state, 'the benefit of restoring the land to another after-use can be shown to outweigh the loss of the agricultural use of the land.' This is supported and in accordance with NPPF. However, this approach needs to be reflected in strategic objective MSO9 which requires landscape and biodiversity improvements, this cannot always be the case, MSO9 should be amended to reflect Policy MW6.

Section 15 - Land uses potentially suitable for waste management facilities
Question 12: Policy WP3
Policy WP3 identifies that waste management facilities at exiting mineral workings and landfill sites may be considered acceptable on a temporary basis with planning permission restricted to a cessation date for the mineral operation or landfill activities. We consider that greater flexibility should be provided within the Policy - there can be occasions when it is appropriate to retain a facility, for example recycling, that can benefit from the retention of infrastructure and continue to serve the markets established. We recommend Policy WP3 should provide greater flexibility and be amended accordingly.

Section 16 - Recycling or transfer of inert and construction, demolition and excavation waste.
Question 13: Policy WP4
As with Policy WP3, Policy WP 4 seeks to restrict waste management operations to the life of the mineral operation. We do not consider that this is always necessary or appropriate and recommend that Policy WP4 is less restrictive.

Section 23 - Disposal of inert waste by landfill
Question 20: Policy WP11
Policy WP11 is supported and could be extended by including the importation of inert waste where it is necessary for agricultural improvement.

Section 30 - Provision for minerals extraction
Question 27: Policy MP1
NCC propose to use the last 20 years average of 1.98mtpa rather than the 10 year average of 1.41mtpa. The justification for this is to enable a sufficient quantity of sand and gravel resources to be available over the 20 year plan period and would take into account potential fluctuations in the economy. This positive approach to securing a steady and adequate supply of aggregates is supported.
Policy MP1 - provision for minerals extraction including the need to allocate 23,063,560 tonnes of sand and gravel is supported. However, to be in accordance with NPPF, the policy should be amended so that it provides a sand and gravel landbank of at least 7 years.

Section 31 - Spatial strategy from minerals extraction
Final para of page 66 states:
... Norfolk's urban areas and main towns are the locations where there will be the greatest need for a supply of aggregate for new housing development and associated infrastructure.
Policy MP2: Spatial Strategy for mineral extraction
Within the resource areas identified on the key diagram, specific sites for sand and gravel ... should be located within 10 miles of one of Norfolk's urban areas or main towns and/or be well related to one of Norfolk's urban areas or main towns via appropriate transport infrastructure.
Within the listed settlement hierarchy Great Yarmouth is in the highest tier as an urban area. This being the case we question the Council's approach to allocate one site within 10 miles of the Great Yarmouth urban area. We do not believe this secures a steady and adequate supply of sand and gravel to the Great Yarmouth area and the Council should be allocating additional reserves. These additional reserves should be secured through the allocation of land at MIN38 - Waveney Forest, Fritton.

Section 33 - Agricultural or potable water reservoirs
Question 30: Policy MP4
Policy MP4: Agricultural or potable water reservoirs is supported.

Section 34 - Core River Valleys
Question 31: Policy MP5
Policy MP5 seeks protection to the Core River Valleys that is over and above the protection offered in the NPPF to sites of national landscape and biodiversity importance. The policy should be caveated with 'So far as is practicable minerals development will be permitted ...' removing the word 'only'.

Section 36 - Progressive working, restoration and aftercare
Question 33: Policy MP7
Policy MP7 is supported - it provides a balance in seeking progressive working, enhancements to landscape / biodiversity but is not mandatory. This is in contrast to some of the earlier policies and strategic objectives, such as MSO10.

Section 38 - Concrete batching and asphalt plants
Question 35: Policy MP9
Policy MP9 limits the use to the life of the quarry, it is sometimes beneficial to retain the use of ancillary facilities after the mineral operation has been completed making full use of a developed access and transport links, and facilitating an existing market.

In a response to Norfolk County Council's 'Call for Sites' a comprehensive submission was made on behalf of the Brett Group promoting land at Waveney Forest, Witton. The submission included a detailed assessment of the potential environmental and amenity impacts that may arise from the development of a new sand and gravel quarry at Fritton.
Part 2 of the Consultation Document undertaken by the County Council concurs with the findings of the Call for Sites report submitted by Brett in August 2017, with exception of Heritage interests. Part 2 of the Consultation Document states:
Historic environment: The historic landscape character of the site is 18th to 20th Century plantation woodland. The site is within a wider historic landscape character of 20th century agriculture with enclosure, boundary loss and boundary loss with a relict element; pastoral farming, and agriculture with 18th to 19th century piecemeal enclosure. The wider historic landscape character also includes modern built up areas of linear settlements, small farm clusters, nucleated clusters and urban development; and drained reclaimed enclosed land (rectilinear enclosure from 19th to 20th century). The wider historic landscape character also includes drained enclosed rectilinear grazing marsh (17th to 20th century enclosure), a historic earthwork, leisure/recreation, informal parkland, sea defences, saltings, a reservoir and woodland (18th to 19th century plantation woodland, carr woodland and regenerated alder carr woodland).
The nearest Listed Building is the Grade II* Drainage Pump which is 260m away. There are 20 Listed Buildings within 2km of the site. There are two locally listed heritage assets within the site, the remains of a WW2 firing range and a concrete railway bridge, although these are not within the proposed extraction areas. The nearest Scheduled Monument is St Olave's Priory, which is 390m away. There are 2 Scheduled Monuments within 2km of the site. Halvergate Marshes Conservation Area is adjacent to the site boundary and Haddiscoe Conservation Area is 330m from the site. There are no Registered Historic Parks and Gardens within 2km of the site. A planning application for mineral extraction at this site would need to include a Heritage Statement to identify heritage assets and their settings, assess the potential for impacts and identify appropriate mitigation measures if required.
Archaeology: This site could reveal nationally important remains for early and middle Pleistocene early human settlements in NW Europe, perhaps linking to finds at Norton Subcourse and Pakefield (in Suffolk). There are Historic Environment records of features in the site most of which are linked to a WW2 military site possibly a training site, within the site boundary. The proposer of the site has indicated two extraction areas within the wider site area; neither the local listed features (remains of a WW2 firing range, and a former railway bridge) are within these extraction areas. A number of undesignated heritage assets have been provisionally identified which may be linked to the WW2 training area. The site is currently a commercial forestry plantation within which felling operations take place, which involve the use of heavy vehicles and earth moving operations. These operations may have degraded the undesignated heritage assets, although good practice for tree felling operations states that archaeological features should be protected. Therefore, an assessment of the significance of archaeological deposits will be required at the planning application stage, in order to protect and mitigate the impact of mineral extraction in this site. However, the Norfolk Historic Environment Service have stated that they consider that no appropriate mitigation or modification of the site would be able to prevent harm to the
undesignated heritage assets which as a whole make up the significance of the WW2 training area, of which few examples remain.
The final few sentences of the extract have been underlined because they clearly contradict one another. We believe that the site is able to be developed for quarrying purposes. Within the submission by Brett for the Call for Sites a detailed heritage appraisal was undertaken - a summary of the report is provided below:
Direct Impacts on Heritage Assets - The site is known to contain military structures dating from WWI and predominantly WWII. Some of these are solidly engineered in concrete, whilst the majority are understood to be of more flimsy construction making use of wood, chicken wire and corrugated iron.
The PAA may also retain earlier archaeology, in particular from the later prehistoric period.
In the past 5 years tree felling has occurred across approximately 60% of the proposed extraction areas. This has involved heavy machinery, including evidence of some ground reduction caused by the windrowing of the wastage. The damage caused to archaeology, both military and earlier, could not be quantified on the site visit, but it is considered that it could be significant.
Should this site be allocated, a thorough survey should be carried out using GPS and photography to create a catalogue of archaeology. Some archaeological evaluation may be required. This would allow an assessment of the distribution, form, condition and significance of all archaeology within the PAA.
Opportunities - Any future planning application would require a mitigation strategy to manage the archaeological resource. This would involve a combination of preservation in situ, excavation and recording.
The majority of the military structures identified in the 2009 survey by Warner and Wilby lie outside or on the periphery of the proposed extraction areas and preservation in situ of these outliers should be the objective.
These were only temporary structures and in time they will inevitably decay and collapse through natural processes. Excavation and recording of a selection of structure types within the extraction areas would be an important contribution to our understanding of how they were constructed and operated.
Consideration should be given to the consolidation of some of the military remains to ensure their preservation for the future. There is also potential to create an educational resource, based around any consolidated structures should the restoration concept permit, that would be an important public benefit.
This approach has been adopted elsewhere, for example at Binnegar Quarry, Dorset where an auxiliary bunker has been archaeologically excavated and the results will form the focus of a display in an on-site education centre recounting the history of the Auxiliary Units in Dorset
The Heritage Appraisal reaches the following conclusion:
"On current evidence, there are no overriding constraints to the allocation of this site and, from an archaeological and heritage perspective and subject to appropriate mitigation, the proposals provide opportunities for educational benefit and conform to national planning policy and guidance."
The current Consultation Documents produced by the County Council acknowledge that:
* no local listed feature falls within the proposed extraction area;
* the site is commercial forestry plantation within which felling operations take place, which involve the use of heavy vehicles and earth moving operations;
* commercial forestry operation may have degraded the undesignated heritage assets;
* further archaeological assessment work will be required.
No recognition has been given, by the County Council, to the potential opportunity that could arise from a quarry development to allow for proper archaeological assessment whilst providing opportunities through a considered restoration.
We have some concerns with the Sustainability Appraisal scoring for land at Waveney Forest, Fritton:
SA1 - It is unclear why some sites score more positively than others when they are similar distances to main towns. Why has a score of '+' rather than '++' been given? The site is in close proximity to two urban areas / main towns, Great Yarmouth and Gorelston on Sea.
SA5 - We have concerns that the evaluation within the SA is not taken forward to the assessment within Part 2 of the Consultation Document. Sites with known heritage interests in close proximity are proposed for allocation with no clear indication on mitigation. Further to our comments above, the proposals for Waveney Forest do not have any impact on any designated asset. There is no justification for a score of '- -' post extraction on the site. Brett have offered a restoration scheme that would build on the heritage interest in the area and provide beneficial opportunities. This has not been recognised in any of the assessment documents produced by the County Council to date.
SA8 - why has a '-' score been applied when it is acknowledged that there will be no impact upon any designated landscape and the existing woodland will screen the proposed development.
SA11 - a score of '++' should be applied due to the proximity of Great Yarmouth and Gorleston on Sea and the lack of other allocated sites in closer proximity.
The site is located approximately 9km from Great Yarmouth, the adopted Core Strategy1 identifies that this is one of three 'major built up areas'2 in Norfolk. The Core Strategy sets out a 'locational preference' to potential site allocations which are 'close and/ or well related' to the Great Yarmouth Urban Area. This is such a site and it is understood by the promoter to be the closest land-won aggregate site to Great Yarmouth with reserves throughout the Plan period. Furthermore, there are no other extraction operations within the immediate vicinity which would lead to consideration of cumulative effects.
1 The Core Strategy and Minerals and Waste Development Management Policies Development Plan Document 2010-2026
2 Paragraph 2.3 adopted Core Strategy
The main impact of the proposals relates to heritage interest and potential for structures from WW1 and WW2. These were predominantly temporary structures (for example constructed of timber, chicken wire, corrugated iron and sandbags) and that the cycle of forestry planting and felling will likely destroy or significantly affect these remains. Mineral extraction offers an opportunity to survey, excavate archaeologically and record, as well as consolidating and preserving some in situ for future generations.
By adopting the approach preferred by Brett and the landowner, the site will be able to offer opportunities for creating ecological habitats that are more in keeping with the local environment including woodland, wetland / wet woodland on restoration. In addition to long term habitat creation and protection, the wider benefits will be derived from the development through comprehensive restoration includes opportunities for public access and interpretation of heritage assets.
The public benefit derived from these proposals outweigh the potential damage, se set out in NPPF.
It is therefore submitted that the site represents an ideal opportunity for allocation for sand and gravel extraction as part of the Norfolk Minerals and Waste Local Plan Review.
I trust that the above comments are helpful. Should you have any queries or wish to discuss any of the points raised in more detail, please do not hesitate to contact us.


Initial Consultation document

Representation ID: 93049

Received: 31/08/2018

Respondent: Norfolk County Council - Waste Disposal Authority

Representation Summary:

Since the WDA do not routinely commission services for this sort of waste we are not best placed to offer comments.

Full text:

Minerals and Waste Local Plan Review - Consultation response from the Waste Disposal Authority

This consultation response is an internal response by Officers of the County Council in its capacity as the Waste Disposal Authority (WDA) for Norfolk. It has therefore focussed exclusively on policies relating specifically to waste management and there are no comments on those elements of the review relating to Minerals.

Waste Management specific policies

Policy WP1 - Waste Management capacity to be provided

Question 10a
There is little to pick between the Norfolk SHMA and ONS projections in numerical terms and both can be argued to be realistic. However, the SHMA takes a reasonable and realistic view of the local picture on household growth. It appears the more appropriate tool in terms of the principles on which it is established and its projections seem sensible and realistic.

The general approach of linking waste growth to growth in households is the most appropriate. The LACW figures from 2007/08 onwards as set out in the Waste Management capacity assessment look across the whole of Norfolk and show both increases and decreases between years. This highlights the inherent difficulty and uncertainty in attempting to establish an appropriate waste growth pattern using historical waste data that contains year on year fluctuations.

Some limited analysis by the WDA has shown that waste per household levels tend to remain relatively static over longer periods of time even if they can be subject to short term fluctuations. It is reasonable to assume that it is the number of households that is fundamentally driving longer term trends in levels of waste. On that basis, using household growth is an appropriate principle.

Question 10b
The WDA is less well placed to comment on forecasting commercial and industrial waste because it does not have the statutory responsibility for dealing with it or to compile data on it.

Question 11
We do not have any specific drafting to put forward as an alternative but would comment as follows.

The consideration of proximity to urban settlements is, on the face of it, in the combined interests of the WDA and Norfolk's WCAs. In theory, this should reduce transportation costs for the WDA and increase the efficiency of collection rounds for the WCA. However, where waste treatment facilities operate at a more industrial scale (higher than 75,000 being an example given in the consultation document), waste will often travel from considerably further afield and be drawn from a far wider area than the immediate locality.

We would therefore caution against the policy creating an unintended constraint on the development of waste treatment capacity at a larger scale. In general, sourcing a site that is available and suitable for a larger waste facility is more difficult than for smaller facilities and the WDA would want to see that there remains sufficient flexibility in this policy to ensure that the waste management industry has a wide enough range of options when considering sites suitable for such a facility.

Question 11a
On the basis of the above comments, whilst understanding the additional complications it may present from a policy point of view, a principle as set out in alternative options 2 or 3 would reduce the risk of this policy placing undue restrictions on the location of industrial scale facilities.

As respects the provision of Recycling Centres, some of the WDA's facilities are located near Key Service Centres. However, where new facilities have been developed in recent years, the tendency has been to seek sites closer to centres of population.

Question 12
Whilst we would broadly agree with the general thrust of the policy, the WDA see no reason why a site that was formerly a landfill site could only be considered suitable for a waste management facility on a temporary basis (unless this is specifically referring to facilities built directly on the waste burial area). Nationally, there are examples of waste management facilities being developed on a site formerly operated as a landfill site, adjacent to closed landfill cells. The long standing association of the site with a waste management use has been advantageous in a number of ways and has proved a good fit with the broader site continuing to be in use as a waste management site but having changed to a cleaner, more modern method of waste management.

Question 12a
We would agree that the experience of having allocated 29 sites previously, having had none of them developed whilst permissions have been granted on other sites does point away from an approach of allocating sites and towards criteria based policies.

Question 13
On the basis that it does not fall to the WDA to commission services for these sorts of wastes beyond the small amounts collected at our recycling centres (for which existing offtake capacity is used) the WDA is not best placed to offer a useful comment on this question.

Question 14
Our comments concerning this policy are along similar lines to those in question 12 albeit for slightly different reasons in some cases.

Whereas the consideration of the size of the facility in terms of its throughput capacity gave rise to our comments in question 12, here it is the specialist nature of the activities proposed when considering reprocessing of ELVs and WEEE in particular that would lead us to caution against the policy unintentionally constraining the development of these facilities should they be proposed.

As respects the development of MRFs, again, if they are particularly large in scale then we would reiterate our comments from question 12 above.

When considering waste transfer stations however, these issues are of less concern because transfer stations, by their nature, ought to be located close to where concentrations of households are found.

Question 15
We would broadly agree with the proposed policy and have no further comments to make.

Question 16
Policy WP7 offers appropriate additional flexibility to that offered by WP3.

Question 17
We would broadly agree with the proposed policy and have no further comments to make.

Question 18
We would broadly agree with the proposed policy and have no further comments to make.

Question 19
The County Council in its capacity as the WDA, has a policy for the commissioning of residual waste treatment services that precludes the development of facilities in Norfolk that use incineration to treat residual waste in that the County Council as WDA is responsible for.

Our comments here are made in clear recognition that the function of the County Council as a planning authority is separate from its function as a WDA and given in a manner that is neutral about waste treatment technology.

There are few comments to make other than those already made in relation to policy WP3 in the response to question 11 earlier.

We agree that the facilities should only be treating residual waste.

We would agree that any proposed thermal treatment process should recover energy as a minimum and preferably heat also. Incineration without energy recovery would only be appropriate for small scale operations such as pet crematoria or clinical waste incineration, both of which we assume are outside of the scope of this policy.

Question 20
Since the WDA do not routinely commission services for this sort of waste we are not best placed to offer comments.

Question 21
We agree with the proposed policy wording.

Question 22
The wording of the policy is pragmatic and appropriate.

Question 23 & 24
No comments.

Question 25
No further comments

Question 26
No further comments

Further comments on the Waste Management capacity assessment
P6 states that the WDA "maintains detailed records of the amounts of Local Authority Collected Waste that is collected by the Waste Collection Authorities (District, Borough and City Councils)."

This is correct in itself but it would be more accurate to reflect that the records include waste collected by the WDA (at its HWRCs and through the third party recycling credits payments). A simple re-wording would deal with this and it could read: "...maintains detailed records of the amounts of Local Authority Collected Waste collected by the Waste Collection Authorities (District, Borough and City Councils) and by Waste Disposal Authority (the County Council)."