Comment

Representation ID: 422

Received: 21/12/2023

Respondent: Pegasus Grab Hire Ltd

Agent: Emery Planning

Policy DLP75 Waste Infrastructure – Future Requirements

3.10 Policy DLP75 identifies a need for additional waste management capacity to be delivered within the
borough over the plan period. The Dudley Waste Study (2023) was prepared following abandonment of
the Black Country Core Strategy, and an updated waste needs assessment has been prepared to support
the preparation of the emerging local plans of each of the back Country Authority areas.

3.11 The Waste Study identifies a shortfall in capacity taking account of known closures of existing waste sites
within the borough over the plan period. In addition, this shortfall is expected to increase as a result of the
level of housing and other growth proposed over the plan period.

3.12 Whilst the policy sets out considerations for new waste management facilities, the policy fails to protect
existing sites which make a significant contribution to the existing and future capacity within the borough.

Comment

Representation ID: 567

Received: 13/01/2024

Respondent: Surrey County Council

The MWPA also welcomes reference to the circular economy and waste hierarchy at paragraph 17.6 of the Draft Dudley Local Plan, which is in line with national policy as set out in the National Planning Policy for Waste 2014 (NPPW).
Regarding the strategic movement of waste between Surrey and Dudley, the South East Waste Planning Advisory Group (SEWPAG) set out thresholds for what is considered strategic movements of waste between differing plan-areas. The thresholds are as follows: 10,000 tonnes per annum (tpa) for inert waste, 5,000 tpa for non-hazardous waste, and 100 tpa of hazardous waste.
In this regard, the Waste Data Interrogator (WDI) 2022 indicates that in 2021 approximately 103 tonnes of waste arising in Dudley was received in Surrey. This comprised 20 tonnes of hazardous waste and 83 tonnes of non-hazardous waste. The WDI also indicates that in the same year 176 tonnes of waste arising in Surrey was received in Dudley, namely 168 tonnes of non-hazardous waste and 8 tonnes of hazardous waste.
In addition to this, the MWPA recently published a Waste Capacity Need Assessment (WCNA) for the county to the period 2042 which will form part of the evidence base supporting the preparation of the Minerals and Waste Local Plan for Surrey.
Part of the WCNA considers the nature of waste flows between Surrey and other plan-areas
and found that for 2019, 2020 and 2021 no more than 111 tonnes of hazardous waste arising
in Surrey per year was received by waste management facilities in Dudley. Moreover, less
than 5,000 tonnes per annum of non-hazardous waste arising from Surrey has been received
by waste management facilities in Dudley each year between 2019 and 2021.
Although the WDI data does not indicate that a strategically significant amount of waste
generated in Surrey is received in the Dudley Metropolitan Council plan-area, the WCNA
indicates that in 2020 this threshold was met for hazardous waste. This however decreased
the following year.
Based on the information above, there is no obvious reason why Surrey cannot continue to
receive relative volumes of waste from the Dudley plan-area for the foreseeable future.

Comment

Representation ID: 603

Received: 22/12/2023

Respondent: Worcestershire County Council

Policy DLP75 ‘Waste Infrastructure - Future Requirements’
Part 1 of policy DLP75 ‘Waste Infrastructure - Future Requirements’ states that “Proposals for relevant, major development shall evidence how its operation will minimise waste production, as well as facilitating the re-use and recovery of waste materials including, for example, through recycling, composting and energy from waste.” It is not clear if this policy relates to on-site provision of recycling, composting and energy-from-waste facilities, to or enabling waste segregation at source and supporting collection. Although there are examples of relatively small-scale energy from waste plants being integrated into mixed-use developments, additional clarity about when on-site energy from waste provision would be an appropriate option on major development sites would be helpful, due to its particular characteristics.
Part 2(e) of the policy states that “waste must be disposed of, or be recovered in, one of the nearest appropriate facilities, by means of the most appropriate methods and technologies, to ensure a high level of protection for the environment and public health.” Whilst this makes sense in terms of locating waste management facilities within proximity of the waste sources to minimise transport distances, it is unclear how the policy would apply in practice.
We support part 2(g) of policy DKP75, which refers to “working collaboratively with neighbouring authorities with responsibilities for waste who import waste into, or export waste out of, the borough, to ensure a co-operative cross boundary approach to waste management is maintained.” WCC welcomes further engagement on this through, and support the commitment in paragraph 17.16 of the Justification towards “ongoing collaboration with relevant local authorities under the Duty to Cooperate”. We remain committed to this cooperation, including through any successor alignment regime that may follow the DtC.
Paragraph 17.26 of the Justification states that “The identification and delivery of new waste management facilities will contribute towards meeting new capacity requirements set out in Policy DLP75 and will help meet the strategic objectives of the Plan.” But we note that Policy DLP75 does not set out new capacity requirements. It does refer to the requirements, but the policy does not state what they are. In WCC’s experience, Local Plan inspectors may want to see specific numbers within the policy itself.

Comment

Representation ID: 604

Received: 18/01/2024

Respondent: Environment Agency

The Council should consider how the waste policies in the Local Plan support a circular economy. Part 2 (d) of the policy aims to ensure there is enough capacity and access for the municipal waste sites. We support this as a principle and add that a circular economy involves potentially expanding and rebranding Household Waste and Recycling Centres, into local Reuse, Recycling, Donation and Rental Centres.

Part 2 (d) could be strengthened by supporting the waste hierarchy here, by emphasising recovery and recycling ahead of disposal and then only ‘where necessary’ disposing of waste.

Paragraph 17.25 (f) and (g) outline that the Waste Site Impact Assessment should include consideration of how the occupiers of the new development could be affected, and how the waste site could be affected by the development. The action implied within (f) and (g) should be more robust, as should impacts on the occupiers of new development or waste site be identified, mitigation measures will need to be demonstrated.

See submission for suggested wording.

Comment

Representation ID: 614

Received: 22/12/2023

Respondent: Gloucestershire County Council

M&W officers have reviewed the consultation information and have no further comments to make.

After reviewing the WDI 2022 it is not considered that Gloucestershire needs to be a DtC consultee in terms of waste movements. This may change if there is a significant increase in waste movements

Comment

Representation ID: 761

Received: 22/12/2023

Respondent: Canal and River Trust

Inclusion of the canal network within relevant policy and justification text will enable developers to identify canal-related constraints at an early stage and engage with us accordingly. The Trust therefore requests on-going engagement from the Council on submitted pre-application enquiries, and also encourages developers to seek pre-application advice.

Comment

Representation ID: 823

Received: 30/01/2024

Respondent: Historic England

DLP75. We welcome a reference to heritage within Clause 2) f. We have not commented on the Area of Search at this time. How has the historic environment been assessed in terms of waste proposals?

Comment

Representation ID: 864

Received: 22/12/2023

Respondent: West Midlands Resource Technical Advisory Body (WMRTAB)

WMRTAB supports the explicit recognition in the Draft DLP that waste crosses administrative boundaries for management and the resulting need for collaboration with other Waste Planning Authorities in accordance with the Duty to Cooperate (DtC).

WMRTAB notes that the four Black Country Authorities (Dudley, Sandwell, Walsall and Wolverhampton) sent out letters to the surrounding Local Authorities in July 2018, August 2020 and April 2022 regarding the issue of housing and employment need across the Black Country and how it can be met and other cross-boundary matters. The latest Duty to Cooperate letter to Neighbouring Authorities (April 2022) has no mention of waste management which is recognised as a strategic matter in the National Planning Policy Framework, however WMRTAB recognise that engagement related to ensuring compliance with the DtC is ongoing.

WMRTAB was unable to identify a separate ‘Duty to Cooperate Statement’ within the evidence base for the Draft DLP that clearly sets out which strategic matters exist between Dudley and other Waste Planning Authorities, how ongoing meaningful dialogue is being undertaken to address these matters and the outcome of this dialogue in terms of policies within Local Plans.

WMRTAB therefore recommends that such a statement be prepared for publication with the evidence base at the next consultation stage. In any event, and as noted above, WMRTAB recognise that engagement related to ensuring compliance with the DtC is ongoing.

As a significant net importer of hazardous waste, it is important that the DLP is clear about how Dudley intends continues to meet the needs of other areas in the management of such waste, in order that they can plan for their needs accordingly.

WMRTAB notes that a Statement of Common Ground (SoCG) has been prepared between the Association of Black Country Authorities (ABCA) and Shropshire Council . Paragraph 6 (Key Strategic Matters) of this SoCG states that ‘The following key issues have been identified in the Duty to Cooperate conversations between Shropshire Council and ABCA: Relevant cross boundary waste and mineral considerations’. Paragraph 8.14 outlines that ‘no strategic cross boundary issues regarding mineral or waste provision have been identified’. WMRTAB assumes therefore that Dudley is not reliant on Shropshire for the management of waste arising in its area and recommends that this be clearly noted in a separate Duty to Cooperate statement as an outcome of DtC engagement between the two authorities. Ideally this should also recognise any reliance by Shropshire on Dudley for the management of waste arising in its area.

Comment

Representation ID: 866

Received: 22/12/2023

Respondent: West Midlands Resource Technical Advisory Body (WMRTAB)

WMRTAB notes that the general approach taken to identifying capacity gaps in the Dudley Waste Study appears to be robust and has the following observations:
• Paragraph 17.1 outlines that (with emphasis added): ‘The key driver is to minimise the amount of waste generated across all sectors and increase the re-use, recycling, and recovery rates of waste material (seeking to achieve net self-sufficiency)’. However, WMRTAB notes that the maintenance of net self-sufficiency, in terms of provision for waste management, does not appear to be an objective within the Draft DLP. For the avoidance of doubt, WMRTAB consider that such an objective should be clearly stated within the DLP.
• While the Study recognises that Dudley might have to ‘accommodate some of the waste capacity requirements of other waste planning authorities’, it is not clear in the Draft DLP whether there has been any attempt to do this.
• Similarly, both the Study and the Plan suggest that Dudley should compensate for its lack of ability to accommodate certain types of waste management capacity e.g. composting, AD, hazardous landfill by planning for additional reuse, recycling, other treatment and inert and non hazardous landfill, however it is not clear how this has been taken forward in the Draft DLP.
• In terms of landfill, it is not clear why accommodating hazardous landfill within Dudley has been identified as being problematic whereas the identification of non hazardous landfill has not, as the local siting issues associated with these types of landfill are broadly the same.
• The Draft DLP also recognises the need for ‘ongoing collaboration’ with waste planning authorities which Dudley may rely on for the future management of some if its waste and WMRTAB recognise that but such collaboration, to resolve the question of how waste which cannot be managed with Dudley’s boundaries will be managed in future, may be subject to ongoing DtC engagement activity.
• A previous waste needs assessment had been prepared in 2022 for the Black Country following advice from WMRTAB that the waste needs assessment should be based on the latest available data. WMRTAB notes that more recent data, for 2022, is now available via the Environment Agency Waste Data Interrogator 2022 that was published in November 2023.

Although at the bottom of the waste hierarchy, non-hazardous landfill is still an important type of waste management that needs to be planned for. On this basis WMRTAB recommends that the DLP should clearly state and indicate what the future requirement for landfill capacity will be and how that requirement is to be met. This should include any expectation that waste to be managed by landfill will be exported to other areas and resolved via the ongoing Duty to Cooperate engagement.

Comment

Representation ID: 867

Received: 22/12/2023

Respondent: West Midlands Resource Technical Advisory Body (WMRTAB)

WMRTAB generally supports Policy DLP75 but has the following observations:
• Regarding clause 1, the term ‘major development’ has not been defined. WMRTAB suggest additional clarity could be provided within the DLP to make it clear what ‘major development’ consists of and so therefore what type of proposal would this part of the policy apply to. Clause 1 also states that there is a need to demonstrate how operation of the facility will ‘minimise waste production’, however, the construction phase seems not to have been considered within the policy whereas this is frequently a source of significant quantities of waste.
• Consideration should be given to tightening the second sentence of Clause 2 a, to help ensure that waste is managed at the highest point of the hierarchy as practicable. As drafted it might be said that waste going for disposal which is recyclable could be managed by energy recovery as this is above disposal in the hierarchy, however, clearly such waste should be recycled (if it cannot be re-used).
• The text of clause 2 c ought to be amended so the extent to which this allows for the development of capacity to meet the requirements of other areas is clear. The meaning of the term ‘as far as practically possible’ should also be clarified.
• It is not clear why other recovery (e.g. energy from waste) is not listed alongside ‘re-reuse, recycling, and disposal’ in clause 2 d.
• It is noted that clause 2 e would allow for the import of waste into Dudley and ultimately, it appears that a facility could be justified solely on the grounds that it is the most appropriate location for waste arising beyond Dudley to be managed.
• To be consistent with NPPF, should clause 2 f also seek enhancements, as well as the avoidance of unacceptable impacts, to certain features?
• Clause 2 g is strongly supported, however the extent to which Dudley will rely on other areas in future to meets its needs and how it is meeting the capacity requirements of other areas is not clear. This should be investigated and set out to ensure the DLP is prepared in accordance with the DtC. Furthermore, it is hard to see how a developer of a proposed facility would be able to demonstrate consistency with this clause when applying for planning permission.

WMRTAB notes that Paragraph 17.6 states: ‘A circular economy and the effective management of waste also has a role to play in helping to address climate change, e.g., the re-use of resources helps reduce the demand for new materials and the emissions associated with producing the latter’. in light of national policy (and plan making legislation), this is an area that may need further attention. A review of the policies to ensure they are aligned with this agenda is recommended. Such a review might consider how energy from waste facilities could be required to ensure that use of heat produced, as well as electricity, is maximised. It is noted that ‘Policy DLP42 Energy Infrastructure’ of the draft DLP includes the mention of ‘Energy from waste’.