Part One: Spatial Strategy and Policies (Regulation 18)

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.

Support

Representation ID: 865

Received: 22/12/2023

Respondent: West Midlands Resource Technical Advisory Body (WMRTAB)

The Draft DLP includes ‘Strategic Priority 2’ which involves ‘Protecting and enhancing the natural and historic environment and support an increase in biodiversity and ecological networks by:….

• the effective and appropriate use of previously developed land and natural resources including sustainable building techniques and provides for sustainable waste management and disposal’.

WMRTAB supports the inclusion of such a strategic priority.

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’.

Comment

Representation ID: 868

Received: 22/12/2023

Respondent: West Midlands Resource Technical Advisory Body (WMRTAB)

WMRTAB generally supports the approach in the Draft DLP to safeguarding existing waste management capacity but has the following observations:

• Clause 1 of Policy DLP76 mentions ‘other waste sites’ but it is not clear what these are. Should this make it clear that this means all other waste sites which are allowed to operate by planning legislation?
• The identified ‘strategic waste sites’ and ‘other waste sites’ appear to have the same level of safeguarding protection and so it is unclear why a distinction has been made between strategic and other waste sites. If the intention is to safeguard all waste sites, regardless of whether they are considered strategic or not, then WMRTAB recommend that the policy states this clearly.
• It is not clear what paragraph 17.18 means about recognising the wider Black Country context. Might this mean that a waste facility which is located in Dudley but primarily serving the needs of another part of the Black Country would be safeguarded? Or might it mean that if alternative compensatory capacity could be found in another part of the Black Country then a safeguarded site could be released for redevelopment? Either way, it is suggested that some further explanation and possibly wording in Policy DLP76 is needed.
• Clause 1. d. appears to introduce a contradiction as the ‘strategic objectives’ include those concerned with ensuring the management of waste.

Comment

Representation ID: 869

Received: 22/12/2023

Respondent: West Midlands Resource Technical Advisory Body (WMRTAB)

WMRTAB has the following observations on the approach in the Plan to identifying suitable land for waste management:
• WMRTAB acknowledges that the approach of not allocating specific sites reflects the local circumstances/nature of the Black Country whereby waste sites frequently feature within general employment areas across the urban area and these are located within large urban areas that are constrained in terms of opportunities for new developments overall. In light of the size of the identified waste management capacity gap and the fact that waste management can struggle to compete with higher value employment land uses, WMRTAB recommends that the approach, of not allocating specific sites and relying on general areas and areas of employment land, be robustly justified within the evidence base.
• To provide certainty that the land at Bloomfield Road/Budden Road, Coseley is available, WMRTAB suggest that this be safeguarded solely for waste management development.
• WMRTAB acknowledge that the choice of the ‘Preferred Areas’ identified in the BWCS ‘as being most suited to the development of new waste recovery, treatment, and transfer infrastructure’ was based on a series of locational considerations and constraints to identify the most appropriate likely future location for new waste facilities.
• WMRTAB understand Dudley has undertaken numerous Call for Sites exercises during the preparation of the current Local Plan and as part of its involvement in the former Black Country Plan.

Comment

Representation ID: 870

Received: 22/12/2023

Respondent: West Midlands Resource Technical Advisory Body (WMRTAB)

WMRTAB generally supports Policy DLP78 but has the following observations:
• Clause 1 appears to be concerned with general strategic matters rather than ‘locational considerations’ (and so perhaps should be incorporated within Policy DLP 75).
• Also regarding clause 1, WMRTAB notes that ‘landfill diversion’ is not the same as management of waste in accordance with the waste hierarchy and suggest that this clause be amended to ensure facilities are developed which will ensure waste is managed in accordance with the waste hierarchy.
• Clause 2b requires that ‘all waste processes and operations must be contained, processed and managed within buildings unless there are acceptable operational reasons why these processes cannot be contained in buildings’. However it is not clear what the term ‘acceptable operational reasons’ means in practice and so, to ensure the policy can be implemented as envisaged some explanation is needed.
• Clause 3 invokes ‘broadening the range of waste facilities currently available in the plan area’ as a reason to grant planning permission (amongst other things), whereas such a broadening may not necessarily be appropriate e.g. this may mean greater availability of facilities lower down the waste hierarchy.