Framework for Issues and Options Document

How You Can Get Involved in the Preparation of the Joint Waste Planning and Management Strategies

Role of the Issues and Options Stage

The publication of this Issues and Options document is the first step in the production of the Joint Waste Development Plan Document (the Joint Waste Plan) and the Joint Residual Municipal Waste Management Strategy (the Joint Waste Management Strategy).

The purpose of this document is to generate discussion about waste planning and waste management within the West of England by seeking your views on the issues facing the area in general and in particular on how waste should be managed and where the new facilities should be distributed.

The publication of this document is part of a series of events that are planned to take place. In addition to inviting comments on this and the associated summary document, it is intended to hold a series of targeted meetings with key groups. These have been identified as follows:

· Regulators;

· Surrounding Authorities;

· Environmental Bodies;

· The Public;

· Waste Industry; and

· Major Waste Generators.

Seminar events are also planned across the sub region to allow these key groups to meet together with other stakeholders to discuss what the key waste management issues are in the West of England and what the options are for dealing with them.

Questions have been provided on the issues that have been identified but your views on any matter covered, or not covered, in this document are welcome.

It is important that you let us know what you think are the issues and options for the general distribution of waste facilities and for waste management in the West of England. Copies of the response form are available at Council offices and libraries or by contacting the West of England Partnership.

To contact us you can:

Email us at:

Write to us at:

Visit our website at: www.rubbishorresource.co.uk

Or if you would like to talk to an officer involved in the preparation of this report please call:

Your comments need to be received by 23 March 2007 in order that they may be taken into account in the development of the next stage of the Joint Waste Management Strategy and the Preferred Options for the Joint Waste Plan.

Key Stages

Ongoing Evidence gathering and data gathering from the Environment Agency

January/March 2007 Consultation on the Issues and Options for the Joint Waste Management and Planning Strategy

Spring/Summer 2007 Consideration of representations received on the Issues and Options

Autumn 2007 Adoption of Joint Waste Management Strategy

Sept/November 2007 Consultation on Long List of Sites

December 2007 Consideration of representations received on the Long List of Sites

January 2008 Prepare Preferred Options for the Joint Waste Plan

May/June 2008 Consultation on the Preferred Options for the Joint Waste Plan

Winter 2008 Consideration of the representations received on the Preferred Options report

January 2009 Preparation of the Joint Waste Plan

April 2009 Submission of Joint Waste Plan to the Secretary of State

July 2009-July 2010 Examination period of Joint Waste Plan

November 2010 Adoption of Joint Waste Plan

Introduction

The Joint Waste Planning and Waste Management Project

1. The management of waste is set to change significantly over the next twenty years with challenging national and regional targets to reduce the amount of waste going to landfill and the need to make provision for the range of new recycling, composting and energy recovery facilities which will be required to treat this waste.

2. Historically the area known as the West of England (Bath and North East Somerset, Bristol City, North Somerset and South Gloucestershire) has exported much of its waste for disposal and as such the area has very few existing waste management facilities to deal with its waste. The requirements of the new approach to waste management will therefore see major changes within the West of England if this area is to take greater responsibility for managing the waste that is produced in the sub region.

3. From a land use perspective national and regional planning guidance requires Local Authorities to prepare Waste Development Plan Documents that demonstrate how provision will be made for the new facilities that are needed in an environmentally acceptable manner.

4. National legislation has introduced a system of trading permits (LATS) for Local Authorities that controls how much biodegradable municipal waste (waste that is collected by local councils from households (including waste from municipal parks and gardens, beaches, fly tipped materials, rubble and street cleaning waste) that can be broken down naturally) they can landfill. If they exceed their permitted quantity they will be subject to financial penalties. There is therefore a strong financial driver for municipal waste management strategies to divert the required amount of waste from landfill.

5. The four Local Authorities have decided that these changes can be best managed in partnership by preparing a Joint Residual Municipal Waste Management Strategy and a Joint Waste Development Plan Document for the West of England.

Part 1 - The Joint Waste Development Plan Document

6. In 2004 the Government introduced changes to the national planning system. These changes require Councils to each prepare a Local Development Framework which will gradually replace their existing Local Plans. The Framework will comprise of a portfolio of documents that will collectively deliver the spatial planning strategy for an area. The statutory documents in the Local Development Framework are referred to as Development Plan Documents (or DPDs)

7. Although each Council is responsible for producing its own portfolio of documents for its area, the decision was taken that, since the collection and management of waste takes place across local authority boundaries within the West of England, it was appropriate to consider waste over a greater area than just an individual Council area. The four Unitary Authorities of Bath and North East Somerset, Bristol City, North Somerset and South Gloucestershire are therefore working together to prepare a Joint Waste Development Plan Document for the West of England (the Joint Waste Plan).

Part 2 - The West of England Joint Residual Municipal Waste Management Strategy

8. The West of England Residual Municipal Waste Management Strategy (the Joint Waste Management Strategy) is being produced to create a framework for managing municipal residual waste generated in the West of England sub-region in a sustainable manner. Residual waste is the waste that requires management after the material that can be recycled or composted has been recovered.

9. The West of England Waste Management and Planning Partnership recognise that waste management is changing rapidly and that a local authority’s role now far exceeds the simple collection and disposal of waste. National and European legislation is now the driving force behind the need to manage waste in a more sustainable way. Local authorities are now required to reduce the amount of biodegradable waste that they dispose of to landfill or face economic penalties under the Landfill Allowance Trading Scheme (LATS).

10. The Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs states that “Long-term strategic planning is vital to all authorities in securing both the infrastructure and service developments necessary to deliver more sustainable waste management. It is Government’s view that all local authorities should either produce or contribute to a strategy or equivalent.”^{^[1]}

11. It is therefore imperative that a waste strategy is in place to steer all important decisions and commitments. The Joint Waste Management Strategy is intended to guide the way residual waste is managed in the long term and to anticipate longer-term pressures so that they can be planned for.

The Relationship between the Waste Management Strategy and the Development Plan Document

12. Whilst these two documents are being prepared in tandem it is important to remember that the final documents will perform different roles.

The key distinction is:

The Joint Waste Plan will deal with WHERE all waste should be managed;

whereas

The Joint Waste Management Strategy will set out HOW municipal waste should be managed.

Part 1 – The Joint Waste Development Plan Document

Policy Context

Introduction

13. A summary of the relevant European, national, regional and local policy drivers for waste management and planning which will need to be taken into account in the preparation of the Joint Waste Plan for the West of England is set out at Appendix A.

14. This has identified the following matters that the Joint Waste Plan will need to address:

The need to reduce the amount of waste generated;
The need to divert waste from landfill by increasing recycling/composting rates and providing treatment facilities for the remaining waste;
The need to provide adequate disposal capacity;
Regional and sub regional self sufficiency;
The need to enable waste to be managed at the nearest appropriate facility;
The need to manage waste without endangering human health or harming the environment; and
The need for the West of England to identify sites for the facilities that are required to manage its own waste.

15. The policy review has identified that the indicative capacity allocations in respect of municipal waste for the West of England identified in the South West Regional Waste Strategy and incorporated into the draft Regional Spatial Strategy are different from the figures that have been arrived at from the detailed modelling work carried out on the Joint Waste Management Strategy. There is a need to clarify the capacity of new municipal waste management facilities required in order for the West of England to be self sufficient.

Issue 1 – The amount of Commercial & Industrial and construction & Demolition Waste to be managed in the West of England.

Issue 2 – The amount of municipal waste to be managed in the West of England.

Regional Allocations

16. The South West Regional Assembly launched the South West Regional Waste Strategy in October 2004. Waste planning authorities are expected to take account of it in making planning decisions and drawing up and revising waste planning and municipal waste strategies.

17. The Regional Waste Strategy incorporates the Region’s waste management requirements to 2020. The indicative waste management capacity targets for the West of England, which are based on the area becoming self-sufficient in waste management capacity, are set out in Table 1.

Table 1
South West Regional Waste Strategy (October 2004)

Indicative Waste Treatment Capacity Targets for the West England

1. Municipal Waste

(Thousands of tonnes per year)

Year	2010	2013	2020
Recycling/composting	230	280	310
Recovery/Treatment	150	220	370
Landfill	300	240	120

2. Commercial and Industrial Waste

(Thousands of tonnes per year)

Year	2010	2013	2020
Recycling/composting	440	465	510
Recovery/Treatment	230	295	450
Landfill	495	410	195

3. Construction and Demolition Waste

(Thousands of tonnes per year)

Year	2010	2013	2020
Transfer/treatment	220	220	220
Inert Landfill	380	380	380

Data Source – South West Regional Waste Strategy, October 2004

18. These indicative waste treatment capacity targets for the West of England have been incorporated into the draft South West Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS), and they will be tested through the Examination in Public. Waste Development Plan Documents are expected to make provision for facilities based on these indicative capacity allocations. However, more detailed modelling of the municipal waste stream carried out as part of the Joint Waste Management Strategy has identified some changes since the figures in Table 1 were prepared. The latest forecasts for municipal waste are set out in Table 2 below.

Table 2

Indicative Capacities for Municipal Waste Based on the Joint Waste Management Strategy (‘000 tonnes)

Year	2010	2013	2020
Recycling/composting	190	200	225
Recovery/Treatment	30	290-305	310-325
Landfill	360	50-70	50-70

Data Source – Joint Residual Municipal Waste Management Strategy, Jacobs Babtie 2006

19. The draft Regional Spatial Strategy identifies managing waste as one of the greatest challenges facing the region and endorses the approach set out in the Regional Waste Strategy of minimising the amount of waste produced in the region and then to make a major shift away from the current reliance on landfill of untreated waste. Policy W1 of the draft RSS deals with the provision of capacity to handle waste and requires waste planning authorities to make provision in their waste development plan documents for a network of sites to deal with the indicative allocations for their area, see Table 1 above.

20. In the interests of using the most up to date and accurate information it is proposed to plan on the basis of the figures set out in Table 2 with regard to municipal waste.

21. The draft Regional Spatial Strategy has been submitted to the Secretary of State and will have its Examination in Public in Spring 2007. It is proposed to submit these revised figures on municipal waste to the Examination into the draft RSS so as to enable this information to be taken into account in formulating a revision of the indicative municipal waste management capacity because the Joint Waste Plan is required to be in general conformity with the Regional Spatial Strategy.

22. In the absence of information to challenge the allocations for Industrial and Commercial and Construction and Demolition waste set out in Table 1, the West of England will need to make provision in accordance with these regional allocations.

WE WANT YOUR VIEWS ON THE REGIONAL ALLOCATIONS

1 Do you agree that the Joint Waste Plan should use the most up-to-date information and forecasts available in the Joint Waste Management Strategy?

Yes □ No □

Comments

2 Do you have any information on the accuracy of the regional allocations for Commercial & Industrial and Construction & Demolition waste in the West of England?

Yes □ No □

Comments

Shaping the Strategy of the Joint Waste Plan

Introduction

23. This section sets out the initial thoughts of the four Unitary Authorities on the key elements of the waste planning strategy. This includes what the strategy might cover, what it is aiming to achieve and by when.

Issue 3 – The scope of the Vision and Aims of the Joint Waste Plan.

Issue 4 – The type and capacity of waste management facilities to be covered by the Joint Waste Plan.

The Draft Strategy

24. It is considered that the Joint Waste Plan should establish the overall spatial strategy for dealing with all waste in the West of England. The overall aim should be to drive the treatment of waste up the Waste Hierarchy and to identify the type and number of waste management facilities required and their locations. This would inform the preparation of each Unitary Authority’s Core Strategy.

25. In order to drive the treatment of waste up the Waste Hierarchy, it is suggested that the strategy element of the Joint Waste Plan considers the following:

Waste minimisation and re-use

Establishing a sub regional approach that seeks to minimise waste in all types of new development, e.g.:

· new developments to be accompanied by waste audits which document how waste is to be minimised/ managed during construction and throughout the life of the development; and

· sustainable resource use during construction.

Recycling and composting

· incorporating capacity targets into provision requirements;

· identifying sites for the required facilities; and

· the design and layout of new and refurbished developments to include provision for storage and collection of recycling and composting material.

Treatment/Recovery

· incorporating capacity targets into provision requirements;

· identifying sites for the required facilities; and

· considering the contribution that different technologies could make to regional renewable energy targets; and

· identifying the nature and quantity of residual waste remaining after treatment and consequent disposal requirements.

Disposal

· incorporating capacity targets into provision requirements;

· identifying sites for the required facilities; and

· considering whether the phasing of facilities is required so as to prevent their over provision.

26. The strategy could distribute out the identified requirement for waste management facilities between the four Unitary Authorities areas. This will ensure the provision of waste management facilities at the nearest appropriate location having regard to the need to reduce travel and the consequent environmental costs. The locational strategy could also promote community self-containment. Waste management facilities serving new planned growth areas in the West of England could be incorporated at the outset within the design and layout of these areas, including the opportunity to utilise combined heat and power.

27. The second part of the Joint Waste Plan would then set out the policies and proposals to implement that part of the above strategy that relates to the following waste facilities:

· All hazardous and clinical waste treatment and disposal facilities;

· All landfill / landraise facilities for non inert waste;

· All Mechanical, Biological and Thermal treatment facilities regardless of capacity; and

· Recycling and composting facilities with a capacity of 30,000 tonnes per annum or over.

28. All new disposal and mechanical, biological or thermal treatment capacity for non inert waste is considered to be of importance to the West of England because of the current lack of such facilities in the area and the need for the area to take greater responsibility for its own waste. Facilities for dealing with clinical and hazardous waste are specialist in nature and have a wide catchment area so planning for these facilities in a Joint Waste Plan is also considered appropriate.

29. It is considered that only larger scale recycling and composting facilities, which are of sufficient size to cause significant flows of waste between individual Unitary Authority areas, should be included in the Joint Waste Development Plan Document. This would mean facilities with a capacity of 30,000 tonnes per annum or more.

30. All other waste facilities will continue to be planned for as part of the individual Unitary Authority’s portfolio of development plan documents and would not, therefore, be included in the Joint Waste Development Plan Document. This would include:

· Inert landfill and recycling facilities;

· Household Waste Recycling Centres (Civic Amenity sites);

· Waste transfer stations

· Composting and recycling facilities with a capacity of less than 30,000 tonnes per annum; and

· Waste water treatment facilities.

31. Inert waste has a low value and does not usually travel significant distances for either treatment or disposal. Such waste is currently dealt with at either where it is produced or at local facilities. It is considered that facilities for this type of waste should remain a local issue with each Unitary Authority making its own provision.

32. Because the local Councils provide Household Waste Recycling Centres as a service for their local residents, it is considered that their planning and provision is a matter for individual authorities.

33. Waste transfer stations are primarily designed to bulk up material from a local area before moving it elsewhere for treatment and disposal. Their provision is also a local issue but will depend on the nature and location of the disposal and treatment facilities. The composting and recycling facilities currently operational in the West of England are local facilities that are dealing with waste from the local area in which they are located and where these facilities continue to deal with waste primarily generated within a single Unitary Authority area it is considered that their future provision should remain a local issue.

Vision and Aims

34. Taking account of the preceding paragraphs, it is suggested that the draft Vision for the Joint Waste Plan should be:

“The West of England will take responsibility for its own waste by providing a network of waste management facilities. This network will be consistent with the Waste Hierarchy principle, take account of the environmental, social and economic needs of the area, and assist in moving towards the longer-term aim of achieving Zero Waste.”

35. The Aims of the Joint Waste Plan which would deliver this Vision are considered to be:

· To encourage waste minimisation in new development;

· To identify sufficient sites to enable the development of an integrated network of waste management facilities that maximises re-use, recycling and composting and then recovers energy from the remaining residual waste;

· To enable sufficient and timely provision of waste management facilities to meet forecast sub-regional requirements;

· To encourage the provision of waste management facilities at appropriate locations having regard to the need to reduce travel;

· To take account of the needs of business and opportunities for economic growth and the development of environmental technologies; and

· To ensure that waste management facilities do not harm the environment or endanger human health.

Timescales

36. The proposed timescale for the Development Plan Document is 2006 to 2026.

The end date is the same as that used for the Regional Spatial Strategy and would therefore ensure consistency with the next tier of planning guidance for this area. The implementation of the Joint Waste Plan policies and proposals will be monitored on an annual basis and the Plan reviewed every five years.

WE WANT YOUR VIEWS ON SHAPING THE STRATEGY

1 Do you agree with the draft Vision and Aims of the Joint Waste Plan? (paragraphs 34 and 35)

Yes □ No □

Comments

2 Do you agree with the types of waste management facilities listed for inclusion in (paragraph 27) and exclusion from (paragraph 30) the Joint Waste Plan?

Yes □ No □

Comments

3 Do you agree that only recycling and composting facilities with a capacity of 30,000 tonnes per annum or over should be considered in the Joint Waste Plan (paragraph 29)?

Yes □ No □

Comments

The Capacity Gap

Introduction

37. The current and future situation in respect of the quantity of waste to be managed in the West of England is set out in Appendix B and summarised in Table 3 below.

Table 3

Indicative Municipal Waste Management Capacity Targets for the West of England (‘000 tonnes)

Year	2005/6	2010	2013	2020
Recycling/compost	161	190	200	225
Recovery/Treatment	0	30	290-305	310-325
Landfill	397	360	50-70	50-70

Indicative Industrial and Commercial Waste Management Capacity Targets for the West of England (‘000 tonnes)

Year	2000/1	2010	2013	2020
Recycling/compost	433	440	465	510
Recovery/Treatment	0.26	230	295	450
Landfill	336	495	410	195

Note for 2000/1 553,000 tonnes were recorded under transfer.

Issue 5 – The need for additional recycling/composting, recovery/treatment and landfill capacity in the West of England.

Issue 6 – The need for the West of England to make adequate provision to manage all the waste that it creates.

What is Required?

38. The key issue to resolve at an early stage in the preparation of the Joint Waste Plan is the shortfall between the amount of waste managed at existing waste management facilities in the West of England and the amount of waste that will need to be managed at new facilities in the future, taking into account the need to divert substantial amounts of municipal, commercial and industrial waste from landfill.

39. To assist in the task of identifying the “gap” between existing capacity and future requirements, the Environment Agency is preparing an assessment of the baseline capacity of waste management facilities for the West of England. When completed the baseline Capacity Study will be made available on the West of England Waste Management and Planning Strategy website (www.rubbishorresource.co.uk). No capacity gap issues in the West of England have been identified with regard to inert waste and hazardous waste. The following sections therefore focus on non inert (municipal, industrial and commercial) waste.

Recycling and Composting

40. Table 3 identifies that approximately 161,000 tonnes of municipal waste is being recycled and composted in the West of England. Adequate facilities to compact and sort kerbside recyclables exist but, as previously identified, there is a shortage of composting facilities. This results in some of this material being exported from the area for treatment. The shortage of suitable composting facilities is delaying the introduction of more comprehensive food and kitchen waste collection schemes by the waste management authorities. The current recycling and composting capacity for municipal waste in the West of England is therefore estimated at 130,000 tonnes

41. Based on detailed modelling carried out as part of the Joint Waste Management Strategy, future capacity targets are identified in Table 3. This identifies a need for 190,000 tonnes of annual capacity for recycling and composting by 2010, which means there is a need for additional facilities with a capacity of 60,000 tonnes by 2010. Additional capacity of 10,000 tonnes per annum by 2013 and 25,000 tonnes per annum by 2020 means there is an overall need for an additional 95,000 tonnes of recycling and composting capacity to be provided over the 20 year life of the Joint Waste Plan if these targets are to be achieved.

42. If the above recycling /composting rates are not achieved then increased tonnages will need to go through a mechanical, biological or thermal treatment process.

43. Major expansion of composting facilities will be required if these targets are to be achieved, with the provision of two 30,000 + tonnes per annum capacity facilities required. Additional recycling capacity for handling kerbside collected recyclables will also be required with a need for at least one new facility.

44. In respect of industrial and commercial waste current figures indicate that the west of England has adequate capacity to meet the 2010 regional targets but that additional capacity of 60,000 tonnes per annum will be required by 2020. The greatest potential for increasing recycling and composting rates in this sector is considered to exist in the commercial waste stream that has similar properties to the municipal waste stream (paper, card and food waste). Therefore the extension of recycling and composting initiatives in the municipal sector to include commercial waste could assist in this regard. But there would be a need for a further two recycling/composting facilities of 30,000 tonnes per annum capacity each to achieve this.

Summary A minimum of five recycling/composting facilities by 2020 (each of 30,000 tonnes capacity per annum).

Recovery (Mechanical, Biological or Thermal Treatment)

45. Apart from the planned trial plant at Compact Power in Avonmouth there is no mechanical, biological or thermal treatment capacity for municipal, industrial or commercial waste in the sub region.

46. The indicative capacity targets (see Table 3) identify the need for a combined (municipal and industrial/commercial) total of 230,000 tonnes per annum by 2010, increasing to 600,000 by 2013 and 775,000 tonnes per annum by 2020.

47. Additional treatment capacity may also be required if the recycling/composting targets set out above are not achieved.

48. The options for meeting this need within the sub region could be to either plan for two large (400,000+ tonnes per annum) facilities or for a series of smaller (100,000+ tonnes per annum) facilities. Alternatively to allow for flexibility the Joint Waste Plan could identify a range of sites of varying capacities to allow a combination of the above approaches to be implemented.

Summary

Option 1: Two recovery facilities (each of 400,000 + tonnes capacity per

annum);

Option 2:   Up to 8 smaller facilities (each of 100,000 plus tonnes per annum
                   capacity);
Option 3:   A combination of Options 1 and 2.

Landfill and Land-Raise

49. Permitted landfill capacity which is suitable for municipal, commercial and industrial (non inert) waste is extremely limited in the West of England with total capacity estimated at only 900,000 tonnes, which is the equivalent of less than two years supply of capacity. Additional capacity will be provided by Shortwood Landfill on the north east fringe of Bristol, at a rate of 200,000 tpa over 10 years when this site becomes operational in 2007/8.

50. However the capacity targets for non inert waste (Table 3) in 2010 is 855,000 tpa, reducing to 480,000 tpa in 2013 and 285,000 tonnes per annum in 2020. To make provision for this within the West of England will require the identification of voidspace, which can deal with an initial input of approximately 600,000 tonnes per annum, reducing to 280,000 tpa by 2013 onwards.

51. This could potentially mean a further three disposal facilities, each with a capacity of 200,000 tonnes per annum. However to prevent over provision in later years it will be necessary to reduce inputs in line with capacity targets. Again the provision of facilities with smaller or larger annual throughputs would increase or decrease the number of facilities required accordingly.

52. There are a number of substantial voids in the West of England created as a result of limestone extraction. However having regard to the need to protect water resources these voids are not considered suitable for the disposal of non inert waste. Given the need that has been identified for additional disposal capacity this could mean the identification of areas suitable for land raise facilities or for preference to be given to energy recovery processes that produce an inert residue.

53. If acceptable sites cannot be identified within the West of England there will be a continuing need for the area to export waste to the surrounding counties for final disposal. In the event of this occurring the West of England will need to reach agreement with the surrounding counties and reciprocal arrangements may be appropriate.

Summary : Landfill or landraise voidspace for 4 – 4.5 million tonnes to 2020.

Summary of Requirements

54. The above assessment identifies the need for the Joint Waste Plan to make provision to enable the following tonnages of non inert (municipal and industrial/commercial) waste to be managed in the West of England:

Table 4 – Summary of Requirements for New Non Inert Waste Management Annual Capacity (‘000 tpa)

	2010	2013	2020
Recycling/composting	60	100	160
Treatment/Recovery	230	600	775
Disposal	655	280	265

55. Combined with the strategy of making adequate provision for a network of sites within the West of England it is considered that there should be a policy approach preventing these sites from being used to treat waste from outside of the West of England unless it can be clearly demonstrated that such a facility would be the nearest appropriate waste management facility for the waste to be treated.

WE NEED YOUR VIEWS ON THE CAPACITY GAP FOR MUNICIPAL, INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITIES

1. Do you think that the West of England should deal with its own waste and not continue exporting to other areas?

Yes □ No □

Comments

2. Do you think that the West of England should only plan to deal with waste from the West of England?

Yes □ No □

Comments

3. Do you agree with the need identified in Table 4 for additional waste management facilities?

Yes □ No □

Comments

4. Do you agree that this need should be met by building the facilities identified in paragraphs 39 to 55?

Yes □ No □

Comments

Spatial Implications for the Joint Waste Development Plan Document

Introduction

56. This section considers the different locational strategies that could be used to address the shortfall in capacity identified in the West of England having regard to the suggested strategy for the Joint Waste Plan and the identified capacity gap. It then goes on to identify the land use requirements of the principal waste recycling, composting and recovery technologies and the proposed site selection methodology.

Issue 7 – The need to define the locational strategy for waste management facilities in the West of England.

Issue 8 – The distribution and number of sites required to deliver the locational strategy.

Issue 9 – The need to establish how to select sites.

Issue 10 – The need to suggest sites or areas which should be included in the assessment process, so that opportunities are not overlooked at a later stage.

Locational Strategies

57. It is considered that there are three broad locational strategies that may be appropriate for the West of England. These are

· A concentrated approach based on fewer larger facilities

· A dispersed approached based on a higher number of smaller facilities

· A combination of these two approaches

58. In considering the implications for each of these approaches for the West of England it will necessary to ensure that adequate sites can be identified to ensure a range of recycling, composting and recovery facilities can be provided to enable the treatment of waste to be moved up the waste hierarchy. Regard has also been paid to where the waste is generated and the social, environmental and economic needs of the area.

59. The concentrated approach would generally involve waste travelling longer distances to treatment facilities but have less potential to impact on local communities because fewer sites would be required. Conversely the dispersed option would reduce the need to travel but would have greater potential to impact on local communities because of the need for more sites. A combined approach of larger facilities serving Bristol where the majority of the waste is generated and smaller facilities serving the other areas may therefore offer the best balance between reducing the need to travel and potential impacts on local communities.

Recycling/Composting

60. The concentrated option would be based on the need to identify two sites within or in close proximity to Bristol to provide centralised composting and recycling facilities to serve the West of England. This would require two sites of between 2 to 4 ha. It would also require the four Unitary Authorities to work jointly on recycling and composting schemes, which is not currently proposed.

61. The dispersed option would look at making this a much more local activity and could involve identifying sites for up to 10/11 facilities with a capacity of 15,000 tpa. This would require 4 sites to be identified within or in close to proximity to Bristol and sites to serve Nailsea/Clevedon, Weston super Mare, Bath, Keynsham, Yate and Thornbury. This would require 10/11 sites of between 1 to 2 ha to be identified at the above locations.

62. The combined approach would look at identifying a single larger site to serve Bristol and then a single smaller site within each of the other Unitary Authority areas to serve Bath/Keynsham, Yate/Thornbury and Nailsea/Weston. This would require a single site of in excess of 5ha and three further sites of between 2 to 4ha.

63. It is also noted that the need for additional Household Waste Recycling Centre (HWRC) capacity both new and replacement has been identified. It is not currently proposed to deal with HWRCs in the Joint WDPD but if this situation were to change following consultation there will be a need to a identify at least four additional sites to serve Bristol, Bath, Stoke Gifford and North Somerset.

Summary

Concentrated Option – Two sites within Bristol, each of 2-4 hectares

Dispersed Option – Four sites within Bristol, one site at Nailsea/Clevedon, one site at Weston-super-Mare, one site at Bath, one site at Keynsham, one site at Yate and one site at Thornbury, each of 1-2 hectares.

Combined Option – One site within Bristol of 5+ hectares, one site to serve Bath/Keynsham, one site to serve Yate/Thornbury and one site to serve Nailsea/Weston, each of 2-4 hectares.

Treatment/Recovery

64. The concentrated option would look at providing, by 2020, two 400,000 tonnes per annum facilities within or in close proximity to Bristol because this is where the largest quantities of non inert waste are generated. This would require two sites in excess of 5 ha located either East/West or North/South of the city with good access to the primary road network. The dispersed option would need eight 100,000 tonnes per annum facilities to provide adequate capacity and having regard to the centres of population this could require facilities to be located as follows:

· Three facilities to serve Bristol and one facility each to serve Nailsea/Clevedon; Yate, Keynsham, Bath and Weston super Mare.

This would involve identifying eight sites of approximately 1 to 4 ha to serve the above locations.

65. A combined approach could involve locating a large (400,000 tpa) facility to serve Bristol and a smaller facility (1/200,000 tpa) within each of the other Unitary Authority areas to serve Bath / Keynsham; Yate and Weston /Nailsea. This would require identifying one large (5 ha plus) site within Bristol and one smaller (1-4ha) site in Bath and North East Somerset, South Gloucestershire and North Somerset.

Summary

Concentrated Option – Two sites within/in close proximity to Bristol, each of 5 plus hectares.

Dispersed Option – Three sites to serve Bristol, one to serve Nailsea / Clevedon, one to serve Weston, one to serve Bath, one to serve Keynsham and one to serve Yate, each of 1-4 hectares

Combined Option – One site to serve Bristol of 5+ hectares, one site to serve Bath / Keynsham, one site to serve Nailsea / Weston and one site to serve Yate / Thornbury, each of 1-4 hectares.

Disposal

66. The situation in respect of disposal is slightly different because there is a geological element to be taken into account and also the need for capacity will decline rather than increase over the plan period. The need for non inert disposal capacity in the early part of the plan period also remains quite high as the Joint Waste Management Strategy is based on a recovery facility not becoming operational until 2013. Post 2013 the need for disposal capacity drops substantially.

67. The only new disposal capacity currently permitted in the West of England is at Shortwood Quarry in South Gloucestershire. It is also considered unlikely that there will be any new disposal capacity provided in Bristol. Therefore in order to provide a balanced network of disposal facilities to serve the West of England a need for sites in North Somerset and Bath and North East Somerset has been identified.

68. The options for meeting this need are considered to be as follows:

· Potential to extend existing sites

· Identify new landfill void capacity

· Identify new land raise capacity

· Continue to export to surrounding counties.

69. The existing facility in North Somerset is Yanley Landfill which has limited remaining capacity. Proposals to extend Yanley have previously been considered and turned down at inquiry. However in light of the need for new disposal capacity that has been identified it may be appropriate to explore options within the existing footprint of the landfill. The remaining voids in North Somerset are in limestone and are not considered suitable for non inert waste. However if a recovery option which produces an inert residue is used there is substantial inert disposal capacity in North Somerset. If these options are not available then it would be necessary to either identify areas of search for new land raise disposal facilities in areas beyond the current Green Belt boundaries or to continue to export waste for disposal.

70. There are no existing non inert disposal facilities in Bath and North East Somerset Council. In respect of new landfill capacity the only site which could offer any potential is Stowey Quarry although the availability and the acceptability of this site for non inert waste disposal would need to be tested through this consultation process. However an existing permission at Stowey does allow for the deposit of inert waste to assist in the restoration of the site. But if Stowey is not suitable the remaining options are again an area of search for a new land raise facility on land beyond the existing Green Belt boundary or a continuation of the current situation of exporting waste to the surrounding counties.

71. However, whatever option is selected, given the current lack of disposal facilities in the West of England and that residual municipal waste treatment facilities are not planned to come on stream until 2013 it is considered likely that some non inert waste will continue to be exported from the West of England for disposal until 2013.

Land Use Requirements

72. The following table, Table 5, has been prepared by Jacobs Babtie and provides information on the land use requirements for the most common type of waste management facilities based on a throughput of 100,000 tonnes per annum. Larger capacity facilities would require larger sites, with a 400,000 tonnes per annum facility requiring a site of between 5 and 20 has depending on the technology proposed. Similarly smaller facilities would require less land but a minimum site size of 1-2ha is proposed for the type of facility that the Joint Waste Plan is proposing to deal with.

	Landfill	Energy from Waste	Biological Mechanical Treatment	Mechanical Biological Treatment	Autoclave	Anaerobic Digestion	Pyrolysis/ Gasification	Materials Recycling Facility.	In-Vessel Composting Facility.

Site area/ land take (hectares) ¹	2-20	1.5-3.5	2-4	2-4	2-3	1-2	2-4	2 - 4	4 - 8
Building footprint (hectare) ²	-	1.4	0.6	1.8	0.6	1.2	1.1	0.5	2.6
Maximum Height (metres) ³	-	60-80	10-20	10-20	15	15	30 - 70	12	4 - 5
Hours of operation per day ⁴	~ 8	24	8 to up to 24	8 to up to 24	8 to up to 24	8 to up to 24	8 to up to 24	8 per single shift. Can double or triple shift	~ 8
Emissions CO₂(approx kg per tonne of waste processed)⁵	~ 300	~ 1,000	~ 180	~ 180	~ 98	~ 275	~ 956	~ 34	~ 180
Facility lead in time (years)⁶	2.5	4	3	3	3	3	3.5	2.5	2.5
Number of similar facilities operating in the UK ⁷ treating MSW	> 250	~ 20	~ 5	~ 2 (2 more in contract negotiation)	11 in development	2	1 in development	> 150	> 125 (all composting facilities)

Site Selection Methodology

73. In 2003, Entec UK Ltd. prepared a study of Waste on behalf of Bath and North East Somerset, Bristol City, North Somerset and South Gloucestershire Councils. A key part of this study was for Entec to develop a methodology that could be used to identify and appraise areas and sites that may be suitable for waste development.

74. The recommended methodology is described below, and is available for consultation with this report. The chosen methodology is intended to be transparent and founded in ‘best practice’ so it will be capable of withstanding scrutiny at an Examination into the soundness of the Development Plan Document. It is also intended to be generally applicable across the West of England so as to ensure a consistent approach and relate to different types of strategic waste management facility.

75. Having decided to prepare a Joint Waste Development Plan Document for certain types of waste facilities, the four Unitary Authorities have decided to consult on the methodology before further assessing selected sites. This is in order to seek acceptance of the approach to be used for the identification and assessment of sites for strategic waste development.

76. The methodology comprises of four stages. The first three stages are an assessment of constraints and opportunities that can be used to identify the general location of areas acceptable for waste uses.

The recommended approach involves the following:

Stage 1 The identification of constraints that WILL rule out waste development as a matter of policy, such as nationally designated landscape, historical or ecological areas. These have been termed “Level 1” Negative Indicators.

Stage 2 The identification of constraints that MAY rule out waste development as a matter of policy, such as Green Belt. These have been termed “Level 2” Negative Indicators.

Stage 3 The identification of “Positive” Locations for waste development, such as previously developed land or industrial, waste or mineral sites. These are intended to represent sites or locations where uses such as waste management facilities would tend to be located and where they would generally be acceptable in planning policy terms.

Table 6 – Indicators for Site Selection Methodology

Level 1: Negative Indicators

Existing land use allocations, zones and proposals in Development Plans

Ancient Woodland

Undeveloped land in the Coastal Zone

Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty

Surface water

Groundwater protection zones

Ramsar sites

Special Protection Areas

Special Areas of Conservation

Sites of Special Scientific Interest

National Nature Reserves

World Heritage Sites

Scheduled Ancient Monuments

Grade 1 Listed Buildings/Historic parks and gardens

Grade II* Listed Buildings/Historic parks and gardens

Level 2: Negative Indicators

Any indirect effects on the designations listed in Level 1 Negative Indicators

Green field land

Green Belt

Forest of Avon

Distance from areas of need for waste management facilities

Distance from primary route network

Standard of access to highway

Local landscape areas

Floodplains

Major and minor aquifers

Air quality management areas

Local nature conservation designations

Conservation areas

Registered battlefields

Sites and monuments records

Areas of special archaeological significance

Airport safeguarding zones

Level 3: “Positive” Locations

Land previously developed and existing redundant buildings

Industrial Areas (B2 / B8)

Existing and former waste management facilities

Locations within and adjacent to urban areas/population centres

Distance from primary route network

Existing in use or redundant railways/waterways

77. The final stage provides the detailed framework for the site assessments. The identification and assessment of sites will take place as a separate exercise following this current consultation on the proposed methodology.

Stage 4 The assessment of sites following the application of the above
constraints and opportunities against site-specific criteria.

78. The assessment of sites and locations will need to be subject to a “sequential” approach. Set in the context of a locational strategy (see paragraphs 56 – 72), this will enable the best sites available within required locations to be chosen for use as waste management facilities. Table 7 sets out the proposed objectives and indicators for site assessment criteria. These are subject to consultation as part of this report.

Table 7 - Objectives and Indicators for Site Assessment Criteria

Objectives

Indicators

To avoid the loss or damage to protected trees and groups of trees

Existence of Tree Preservation Orders

To avoid impact upon public footpaths and public rights of way

Existence of public footpaths or rights of way

To protect the best and most versatile agricultural land

Agricultural land quality

To ensure site is large enough to accommodate the proposed facility

Land available for development

To avoid detrimental impact on employment uses

Nature and character of existing employment uses

To ensure the site is physically accessible to a standard acceptable to the Highway Authority

Adequate unconstrained highway frontage

To promote sites in locations that avoid access through residential areas and sensitive land uses

Residential areas and sensitive land uses

To minimise potential detrimental impacts of noise/vibration

Location of sensitive land uses (eg residential, schools, hospitals)

To minimise potential detrimental impacts of odour

Location of sensitive land uses (eg residential, schools, hospitals)

To minimise potential detrimental impacts of nuisance (vermin, pests, litter, lighting pollution)

Location of sensitive land uses (eg residential, schools, hospitals)

To minimise any potential detrimental effects to air quality

Location of sensitive land uses (eg residential, schools, hospitals)

To minimise the impact on wildlife interests

Presence of protected species, location of wildlife corridors

To prevent the creation of unacceptable visual impacts

Magnitude and sensitivity of potential receptors

WE WANT YOUR FEEDBACK ON THE SPATIAL / PLANNING IMPLICATIONS OF THE JOINT WASTE PLAN

1. Generally do you think we should plan for :

a small number of large facilities; □

a large number of small facilities □

a combination of facilities of various site size? □ Tick one box only

Comments

2. What landfill disposal option do you favour? :

Extending/utilising existing sites; □

New land raise sites □

Export to surrounding counties □ Tick one box only

Comments

3. Do you agree that the objectives and indicators set out in Tables 6 and 7 are the most suitable for identifying and assessing areas and sites for waste management purposes?

Yes □ No □

Comments

4. Do you have any suggestions for sites or areas which should be included in the assessment process?

Yes □ No □

Comments

5. Which concerns do you think would have to be overcome to locate a waste management facility in your area?

Odour □ Health/pollution □ Litter □

Noise □ Traffic □ Vermin □

Dust □ Visual □ Other □

(please specify)

Image □

Comments

Part 2 – The Joint Residual Municipal Waste Management Strategy
Shaping The Joint Waste Management Strategy

Introduction

79. The Joint Waste Management Strategy only considers the management of residual municipal waste and it is not intended to replace the unitary authority’s existing waste strategies, which already consider source segregation of materials for recycling and composting. Residual waste is the waste that requires management after the material that can be recycled or composted has been recovered. Currently the majority of the residual waste produced in the West of England is disposed of to landfill outside the region.

80. The Joint Waste Management Strategy will set out the objectives and proposals for waste treatment and disposal that will apply across the region, and the options for meeting performance standards and targets.

Issue 11 - The West of England needs to develop a range of facilities for the treatment of residual municipal waste between now and 2013 which will meet the required landfill diversion targets.

Draft Vision and Objectives

81. The proposed draft vision and objectives of the Joint Waste Management Strategy is as follows:

The four local authorities in the West of England area are working together to develop, in consultation with local residents and other stakeholders, a range of facilities for the treatment of municipal residual waste.

These will deliver significant reductions in the amount of waste, particularly biodegradable waste, being sent to landfill site. They will also maximise the efficient recovery of resources and encompass environmental, social and economic factors.

Each local authority will maintain a long term commitment to increase waste reduction, recycling and composting and will move toward a longer term aim of achieving zero waste.

Objective 1.

To deliver operational municipal residual waste treatment facility capacity, between now and 2013, which will result in:

· Meeting the financial and environmental objectives of the four waste disposal authorities in the sub-region, including landfill diversion targets;

· Meeting tonnage/treatment requirements of the Regional Waste Strategy;

· Minimising waste disposal cost in the West of England;

· Moving waste management up the waste hierarchy and developing more sustainable practices.

Objective 2.

To secure sufficient funding to implement the Joint RMWMS.

Objective 3.

To provide the opportunity for local residents and community & special interest groups to inform the delivery of the strategic objectives;

Objective 4.

To develop and implement an external communications campaign which will:-

· Raise awareness of the waste management challenges facing the Partnership;

· Raise awareness about requirement to provide treatment capacity in the West of England area and initiate discussion on treatment technology options.

· Enable the opportunity for participation in the process by all residents in the West of England

Timescales

82. The Joint Waste Management Strategy is intended to create a pathway for residual municipal waste management for the next 20 years, up to 2026, in alignment with the Waste Development Plan Document. However, it is anticipated that some treatment facilities will still be operating for some time after 2026.

83. Waste management is a dynamic area and there can be uncertainty about legislation and technology beyond the short to medium term. As a matter of protocol the Joint Waste Management strategy should therefore be fully reviewed every five years by the Unitary Authorities.

WE WANT YOUR VIEWS ON SHAPING THE STRATEGY

1 Do you agree with the draft Vision and Objectives of the Joint Waste Management Strategy?

Yes □ No □

Comments

The Technology Options for the Joint Residual Municipal Waste Management Strategy

Introduction

84. Jacobs Babtie have evaluated a range of technologies and undertaken a modelling exercise on behalf of the West of England waste partnership to enable the different options to be consulted on.

Issue 12 – The need to select a robust and deliverable technology to manage the residual municipal waste in the West of England to meet landfill diversion targets and avoid financial penalty.

Issue 13 – The need to have a robust evaluation process.

Options Appraisal Summary

85. As part of the West of England Waste Management and Planning Partnership’s (the Partnership) waste management strategy development for the treatment of residual Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) the Partnership conducted an Options Appraisal (OA) to evaluate a range of residual waste treatment technology options available. Figure 1 illustrates in a schematic the process of selecting a reference project through an options appraisal process.

Figure 1: The Options Appraisal Process

86. The OA process, facilitated by Jacobs U.K. Limited (Jacobs) has provided the Partnership Authorities with a model for the seven technology options selected.

87. Each technology option was evaluated against both qualitative and quantitative criteria – i.e. environmental, socio-economic, technical and financial, in order to provide a relative ranking of the technology options against each other.

88. In order to provide a process that is transparent, accountable and robust, the selection of the evaluation criteria involved a wide range of stakeholders through consultation. A wide range of stakeholder representatives were consulted at key stages of the OA process, including participation at the Evaluation Criteria and Scoring Consultation workshops. In addition to the four Unitary Authority (UA) Executive Members on the Partnership’s Member Project Board, appropriate Scrutiny Panel Councillors also took part. Representatives from umbrella organisations in the West of England were also invited for consultation, including environmental interest groups, waste industry, regional government and agencies, health trusts and parish councils. Stakeholder groups from each UA’s local area were invited for consultation, including housing associations, pensioner’s forums, waste management forums, environment interest groups, residents' groups, citizen’s panels and local strategic partnerships. In addition, the Member Project Board also considered the outcomes from these inputs and the criteria and weightings. This process is also considered essential in the engagement of stakeholders and allows their considerations to be taken into account and allows the stakeholder groups to focus and explore specific areas of concern.

89. The technology options were ranked against all the Quality Evaluation Criteria at a Scoring Consultation Day including the same stakeholder groups invited to the Criteria Consultation Day, as well as Scrutiny Panel Councillors, the outcomes of which were considered by the Member Project Board, which further considered the indicative costs of each option, the final product being a ranking of the technology options.

90. The OA process carried out by Jacobs does not serve to draw any conclusion from the evaluation process, but serves to provide further information that can then be taken forward in this document and the Joint Residual Municipal Waste Management Strategy (the Joint Waste Management Strategy). This public consultation is being carried out on the process and outcomes before a preferred technology option is identified and agreed to be taken forward to form an Outline Business Case (OBC) for the procurement of residual waste management services.

91 The Joint waste Management Strategy is being produced to create a framework for managing municipal residual waste generated in the West of England sub-region in a sustainable manner. It is fundamental that a waste strategy is in place to steer all important decisions and commitments. The Joint Waste Management Strategy is intended to provide a long term structure for the management of residual waste and to anticipate longer-term pressures so that they can be planned for.

92. The OBC is relevant to any major procurement project as the purpose of the OBC is to support and justify the choice of service delivery route as recommended in the JRMWMS and to provide decision-makers with all of the relevant project information to enable approval to be given.

TECHNICAL MODELLING OF WASTE TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES

93. A key element of the OA is a Technical Options Appraisal, the aims of which are to undertake technical modelling of selected residual waste treatment technologies in order to:

· Compare their performance against Landfill Allowance Trading Scheme (LATS) biodegradable municipal waste landfill diversion targets;

· Identify the recycling and recovery rates likely to be achieved in conjunction with the current and proposed collection systems and identify potential additional materials that could be collected if necessary;

· Allow the Partnership to determine the size and type of facility;

· Determine the indicative capital and operational costs associated with the options;

· Allow the Partnership to identify a preferred option and develop a reference case for use in a final OBC;

· Complete the OBC; and,

· Assist in the production of the JRMWMS.

94. The modelling of technologies is integral to the OA process. Figure 2 below illustrates in a schematic the technical modelling process undertaken.

Figure 2: The technical modelling process

95. As part of the appraisal process, Jacobs were required to forecast future waste arisings of the Partnership authorities. Historical data on waste arisings and composition has been provided by the Partnership authorities, which has been used, along with housing projection data to model a potential waste arisings scenario over the next 30 years.

96. Current source segregation activities that the UAs undertake were analysed in detail i.e. kerbside collections, Household Waste Recycling Centres (HWRCs), bring banks etc. The quantity of source segregated material is subtracted from the total MSW to estimate the quantity of residual waste that remains for treatment.

SCENARIOS

97. A Status Quo (SQ) scenario and a Programmed Service Improvement (PSI) Scenario were modelled in the Capture Rate Model. The SQ option sits alongside the technologies in the Technology Model, whilst the PSI option forms the baseline performance on top of which the technology options (1 to 7) are modelled.

· SQ - The Partnership carry on as they are today (2005/06) with no changes to future source segregation performance; and,

· PSI - The Partnership implement all the service improvements that are currently planned beyond 2005/06 i.e. improving source segregation performance.

98. Inclusion of these two scenarios gives a comparative performance for the technologies against the current situation (SQ) and projected future changes (PSI).

99. In order for the models produced to have an acceptable degree of accuracy in relation to facilities currently offered by the market, specific technology types and manufacturers were modelled.

100. The waste treatment technologies modelled reflect technologies that are operating and proven in the market (not just in the UK), that are being proposed in local authority contracts at this time, and that are considered to be bankable and do not have unacceptable risks associated with delivering them. The options are based on the best current available data; however, this does not preclude other technologies that may be proven in the future, being included at a later date.

101. For each technology option two scenarios were then modelled in the Technology Model, the Meet (LATS) Targets and the Exceed (LATS) Targets scenarios:

· Under the Meet Targets scenario the treatment technology is modelled to process the minimum amount of available and appropriate waste throughput required in order to comply with the Partnership’s LATS targets. A 10% buffer was incorporated on top of the targets as a comfort zone.

· Under the Exceed Targets scenario the treatment technology is modelled to process the maximum amount of waste that is available and appropriate. This gives the best possible performance against LATS targets.

102. A hypothetical contract period of 28 years has been modelled, based on experience with current contracts being negotiated. This 28 year period was applied to the technical modelling.

103. The technology options modelled are shown below in Table 8.

Table 8 - Technology options modelled

Option	Description	Acronyms
SQ	The Status Quo	SQ
PSI	Programmed Service Improvements	PSI
1	Energy from Waste (EfW)	EfW
2	Biological Mechanical Treatment + 3^rd Party Thermal Treatment of solid recovered fuel (SRF) + In-Vessel Composting of waste derived compost	BMT + IVC + TT (3rd)
3	Mechanical Biological Treatment + 3^rd Party Thermal Treatment of SRF + Landfill of stabilised output	MBT + TT (3rd) + Lf
4	Autoclave + Anaerobic Digestion of Fibres	AC + AD
5	Mechanical Treatment + 3^rd Party Thermal Treatment of SRF + Anaerobic Digestion of waste derived compost + maturation of digested compost product	MT + TT (3rd) + AD + Mtn
6	Autoclave + Thermal Treatment of Fibre	AC + TT (gas)
7	Pyrolysis / Gasification (with mechanical fuel preparation)	MT + TT (pyrolysis/ gas)

104. More detailed descriptions of the technology options are provided below, using acronyms from Table 8.

Option: Status Quo (SQ)

The Status Quo option simply models the current planned level of source segregation to maintain the existing level of service i.e. the performance at 2005/06 continuing throughout the 28 year modelled period.

Option: Programmed Service Improvements (PSI)

The PSI option assumes that the Partnership takes steps to improve source segregation performance, for example, by increasing recycling and composting through improving participation in current kerbside schemes or collecting additional materials. This does not include the construction of any residual treatment facility. This option is useful as a comparison against other options and will also demonstrate the need for the project by presenting the performance of this option against LATS targets. The PSI option represents the baseline source segregation performance and is used as the baseline model for the technology options 1 to 7.

Option 1: EfW

The residual waste in this option is put through a basic mechanical treatment process, which primarily removes oversize and contrary material. The remaining materials are processed at the EfW facility, which is modelled on mass burn / moving grate technology. The waste is combusted to produce steam and electricity and the ash residues produced are landfilled. In the majority of UK operating facilities, ferrous and non-ferrous metals are typically recovered from the bottom ash after the thermal treatment, however, they may also be removed at the start of the process and therein count towards BVPI recycling targets. There are issues, which would need to be considered by the operator, over product quality of metals recovered from the start of the process, as recovered metal quality generally improves post thermal treatment,

Option 2: MBT + IVC + TT

This option assumes that residual waste is treated at an MBT facility. The compostable material from the MBT process can then be sent to an IVC facility for further processing and stabilisation. The remaining material forms a SRF with a high Static Respiration Index that can be sent to a thermal treatment process.

Option 3: MBT + TT (3^rd) +LF

This option models the residual waste being mechanically treated to remove metals, plastics to produce an SRF. The SRF is recovered at a 3^rd party thermal treatment facility. The remaining fine fraction material is then moved to a hall where it undergoes an aerobic composting process for a period of approximately 6-7 weeks stabilising the waste by reducing its biodegradability. The resultant “bio stabilised” compost like output material can then be landfilled.

Option 4: AC + AD

This option is based on an autoclave and treatment of the output material though an AD process. Residual waste is loaded into a rotating autoclave (sealed cylinder) and using steam and pressure treatment technology the biodegradable fraction of the waste is broken down into a homogeneous organic “fibre”. The process outputs are sanitised secondary recyclate, for example, metals and plastics for re-manufacture and an organic ‘recyclable’ fibre.

The fibre is then passed to an AD process is carried out within sealed, cylindrical digestion tanks where the organic waste is liquefied, heated and broken down by bacteria. The methane gas produced by the digestion process in the tanks can be harnessed and used to generate electricity. The resulting output is a ‘digestate’ product which can be marketed as a compost soil improver.

Option 5: MT + AD + TT (3^rd) + Mtn

The organic fraction from the mechanical separation process is fed into an AD process for further treatment. Anaerobic Digestion is carried out within sealed, cylindrical digestion tanks, where the organic waste is liquefied, heated and broken down by bacteria. The methane gas produced by this process in the tanks can be harnessed and used to generate electricity. The resulting output is a ‘digestate’ product, which can be marketed for spreading to land applications.

Option 6: AC + TT

This option is based on an autoclave and treatment of the output material through a thermal treatment such as pyrolysis or gasification. Residual waste is loaded into a rotating autoclave using steam treatment technology and the waste is broken down into its organic and inorganic elements. The process outputs are sanitised secondary recyclate, for example, metals and plastics and a fibre. The fibre is then passed to a thermal treatment process, to be combusted to produce electricity and the ash residue produced is landfilled.

Option 7: MT+TT

The residual waste in this option is put through a mechanical treatment process which prepares the waste for combustion. The remaining materials are processed at a Pyrolysis / Gasification facility. The waste is combusted to produce electricity and the ash residue produced is landfilled.

RESULTS OF THE TECHNOLOGY MODELLING

105. The waste technology modelling results displayed in Figure 3 below shows that SQ and PSI options both fail to meet LATS targets. This demonstrates the need for a residual waste treatment technology in order to meet the shortfall against LATS targets. The figures also show that each technology option (1 to 7) is capable of meeting LATS targets under Exceed targets scenarios.

106. The performance of each technology option against BVPI recycling and composting targets (82a and 82b) is presented in Figure 4 against the Exceed Targets scenario.

107. The results from the BVPI modelling show that the technologies would all improve BVPIs (82a and 82b) to varying degrees. Table 9 below tabulates the performance against LATS targets and Table 10 tabulates the performance against BVPI.

Table 9 - The performance against LATS targets in 2019/20 under the Exceed targets model (figures rounded)

	Option	Tonnage Shortfall or excess of BMW landfilled against 2019/20 LATS target (98,223t)	Total tonnes of BMW Landfilled
SQ	SQ	-169,200	267,400
1	EfW	63,400	34,900
2	BMT + IVC + TT (3rd)	67,900	30,400
3	MBT + TT (3rd) + Lf	28,600	69,700
4	AC + AD	61,800	36,400
5	MT + TT (3rd) + AD + Mtn	29,500	68,700
6	AC + TT (gas)	57,000	41,200
7	MT + TT (pyrolysis/ gas)	51,400	46,800

Table 10 - The BVPI performance of each technology option in 2019/20 (figures rounded)

	Option	BVPI Tonnage baseline	BVPI Tonnage added	Total BVPI %
SQ	SQ	161,900	0	28.3
1	EfW	228,400	0	40.2
2	BMT + IVC + TT (3rd)	228,400	60,600	50.8
3	MBT + TT (3rd) + Lf	228,400	18,700	43.4
4	AC + AD	228,400	200,600	75.4
5	MT + TT (3rd) + AD + Mtn	228,400	69,500	52.4
6	AC + TT (gas)	228,400	34,700	46.3
7	MT + TT (pyrolysis/ gas)	228,400	0	40.2

108. In addition to the Recycling and Composting BVPI, it should be noted that a BVPI exists for energy recovery, namely BVPI 82c. This OA has not explicitly measured performance against BVPI 82c, but has considered energy recovery of technology options in evaluating against other level two sub-criteria, which are explained in the next section.
OPTIONS APPRAISAL EVALUATION CRITERIA

109. In addition to the technical appraisal each waste technology option was also evaluated against a series of weighted qualitative and quantitative assessment criteria including, socio-economic, environmental and financial criteria.

110. A long list of potential Level Two Sub-Criteria were listed against four Level One Criteria (Technical, Environmental, Socio-Economic and Financial) as set out in Table 11 and Table 12 below. This long list was drafted by Jacobs and the Partnership’s Waste Management Officers at a meeting on 5 September 2006. The long list was developed using Government, ODPM, 4Ps, Defra guidance, experience from a number of options appraisals conducted with other local authorities, feedback from industry and the Sustainability Appraisal indicators provided by ERM (Defra appointed external advisors).

111. The industry was invited to feedback their views on Level One and Level Two sub-criteria via an Industry Consultation Day held on 20 July 2006. These were used to help determine the long list of Level Two sub-criteria.

112. Whilst the Member Project Board recommended a short-list of Level Two Sub-criteria to be used in the OA, it was recognised that the transparency and robustness of the OA Process would be significantly enhanced if a wider range of stakeholders were involved in the criteria short listing and weighting process.

113. Therefore, representatives from a range of stakeholder organisations were briefed on the process for the selection of evaluation criteria at a meeting on 7 September 2006. Attendees were invited to submit their initial thoughts on Level Two sub-criteria by email or post. The information and opportunity to participate was also provided to a number of other stakeholder representatives by email.

114. To provide a further and final opportunity for input into the Evaluation Criteria selection process, a Criteria Consultation Day was held on 22 September 2006. A wide range of stakeholders were invited to participate in the day, they were also provided with the opportunity to participate electronically if they could not attend the event.

115. The attendees were asked to shortlist Technical, Environmental and Socio-economic Level Two Evaluation sub-criteria, and to weight those short-listed criteria. The results of this short-listing exercise are presented in Table 11, which shows the Level Two sub-criteria used in the OA process; it also shows the percentage weightings proposed by stakeholders at Criteria Consultation Day.

Table 11 - Criteria used in the Options Appraisal process recommended by the Member Project Board

Level 1	Level Two Sub-Criteria	Weighting
Environmental	Climate change - energy balance - Emissions of greenhouse gases (CO₂, CH₄, transport)	38%
Environmental	Air emissions (SOx, NOx, PM10, Dioxins and Furans)	26%
Environmental	Sustainable Waste Management - Compatibility with waste hierarchy (% recycled, composted, recovered, landfilled)	36%
		100 %
Socio-economic	Impacts on human health/amenity (deaths brought forward, noise, odour, dust)	31%
Socio-economic	Transport (Vehicle movements)	25%
Socio-economic	Contribution to self-sufficiency and proximity principles.	21%
Socio-economic	Planning Risk	22%
		100 %
Technical	Technology Risk (Proof of technologies, volume risk, composition risk, operational risk)	29%
Technical	LATS risk - Ability and risk of diverting biodegradable municipal solid waste from landfill i.e. will the technologies meet the expectations of the Landfill Allowance Trading Scheme (LATS)	27%
Technical	Contributes to recycling and composting performance.	22%
Technical	Market/ product outlet risk	22%
		100 %

116. Participants at the Criteria Consultation Day were not invited to feedback on potential Level Two sub-criteria under the Level One Financial criterion. It was agreed by the Member Project Board at the meeting of 7 September 2006 that Cost/ finance would be considered exclusively by the Member Project Board. Only one financial Level Two sub-criterion was taken forward, being ‘Financial Cost - costs of delivery of each option.’

117. The Member Project Board considered the weighting of Level One criteria i.e. Socio-Economic, Environmental and Technical. An anonymous vote was taken to weight the Level One Criteria. The Member Project Board was then presented with the outcome of Level One weighting determined at Criteria Consultation Day, in order to compare their weightings. The Board considered the differences and resolved the following Level One criteria weightings to be taken forward to Scoring Consultation Day shown in Table 12.

Table 12 - Weightings for Level One criteria recommended by the Member Project Board

Level One Criteria	Recommended at Member Project Board 26 September 2006
Environment	37.0%
Technical	36.0%
Socio-economic	27.0%

118. Members then considered the Level Zero weighting i.e. Cost versus Quality, where the Quality Level Zero criteria encompasses the Socio-Economic, Environmental and Technical Level One criteria.

119. A decision to propose the weighting split shown in Table 13 was taken by the Member Project Board on 26 September 2006.

Table 13 - Weightings for level ‘Zero’ criteria recommended by the Member Project Board

Level Zero Criteria	Proposed at Member Project Board 26 September 2006
Cost	35.0%
Quality	65.0%

SCORING CONSULTATION DAY

120. The agreed OA evaluation criteria that comprise the Level Zero Quality criterion were used to evaluate each technology option. This process was conducted at a stakeholder workshop, Scoring Consultation Day, on 12 October 2006, where participants were divided into five groups with every group scoring each technology option against each of the criteria. Technical presentations preceded each scoring session to provide stakeholders with appropriate information and data on which to base their evaluations.

121. The stakeholders that were invited to participate at Scoring Consultation Day are shown below in Table 14.

Table 14 - OA invitees

Groups/organisations common to the Partnership

Resource Futures; ECT; Sustainability West / Business West; South West Community Recycling Network; Environment Agency; Government Office South West (Waste); Government Office South West (Planning); Public Health (Director, B&NES PCT); West of England Partnership; Avon LCA; Environmental Services Association; and, Confederation of British Industry.

Bath & North East Somerset

Executive Member for Sustainability and the Environment; Scrutiny representative; LSP Officer / Rep; Envolve; Federation of Bath Residents’ Associations; Somerset Community Housing Trust; Parish Council (ALCA); and, Democratic Action for B&NES Youth (DAFBY).

Bristol

Executive Member for Environment and Community Safety; Executive Member for Transport and Development Control; Executive Member for Economic Development and Regeneration; Scrutiny lead for Neighbourhood and Housing Services; LSP Rep; Community Group/ Waste forums; Citizens Panel; and, Green Party (Southville Councillor).

North Somerset

Executive Member for Environment and Community; Executive Member for Strategic Planning and Transport; Waste - Scrutiny representatives; Planning - Scrutiny representatives; LSP Officer / Rep; Community Group/Waste forum; Parish Council (ALCA); Pensioners Forum; and, Council for Protection of Rural England.

South Gloucestershire

Executive Member for Planning, Transportation & Strategic Environment; Executive Member for Communities; Scrutiny Panel representatives; Chair of South Gloucestershire Waste Forum; LSP Officer / Rep; South Gloucestershire Waste Management Forum; South Gloucestershire Friends of the Earth; and, South Gloucestershire ALCA.

122. The scores for each group were then entered into a database where they could be averaged and weighted according to the method set out above and the agreed weightings of evaluation criteria. The outcomes from the process are shown in Figure 5.

Figure 5 - Results of the consultation scoring day against the Level Zero Quality criterion

123. Figure 5 firstly shows that the Status Quo option scored poorly and demonstrated that stakeholders did not believe that this method of waste management was viable in the future. The three technology options that emerged with the highest scores were:

1. Mechanical Treatment + Thermal Treatment (63.3);

2. Energy from Waste (58.6);

3. Biological Mechanical Treatment + Thermal Treatment + Landfill (57.2).

124. The SQ option was evaluated as the poorest against the criteria and therefore ranked last.

COST CRITERION

125. The cost of each option has also been modelled in an indicative Cost Model as illustrated in Figure 1. This Cost Model used outputs from the Technology Model, in terms of projected facility throughputs. Against a series of cost modelling assumptions the capital expenditure, the operating expenditure and the potential revenues for each technology option was projected over the 28 year hypothetical contract period to determine an indicative service cost in terms of a Net Present Value (£). This service cost included the costs for managing source segregated materials i.e. at kerbside, at HWRCs and at bring banks, though excludes capital expenditure on infrastructure associated with managing these wastes.

126. The Cost criterion ‘costs of delivery of each option’ was considered at a Member Project Board meeting on 24 October 2006. The indicative Net Present Value (£) for each technology option is presented in Table 15.

Table 15 - Net present values of technology options (£) (rounded)

Option	Technology	NPV £
SQ	SQ: Status Quo	£ 939,316,000
E1	E1: EfW	£ 658,827,000
E2	E2: BMT + IVC + TT	£ 798,050,000
E3	E3: MBT + TT + Lf	£ 841,133,000
E4	E4: AC + AD	£ 781,237,000
E5	E5: MT + AD + TT + Lf	£ 852,881,000
E6	E6: AC + TT	£ 742,480,000
E7	E7: TT	£ 632,382,000

127. The Member Project Board Members scored the technology options in the same way that that scoring was undertaken at Scoring Consultation Day.

Figure 6 - Results of the evaluation of the Cost Criterion at the Member Project Board of 24 October 2006

Overall Outcome of Options Appraisal Evaluation Process

128. In combining the scores at the Level Zero Quality and the Cost criterion, the following ranking of the technology options emerges.

Table 16 - Summary of scores and ranking of technology options against Quality and Cost Criterion to produce total weighted score and rank.

Option		Quality Score (%) Unweighted	Cost Score (%) Unweighted	Total Score (% and weighted)	Overall Rank
SQ	SQ	37.1	0.0	24.1	8
1	EfW	58.6	28.0	66.1	2
2	BMT + IVC + TT	57.2	17.5	54.7	3
3	MBT + TT + Lf	42.7	7.0	34.8	7
4	AC + AD	52.0	17.5	51.3	4
5	MT + TT + AD	48.8	7.0	38.7	6
6	AC + TT	49.5	17.5	49.7	5
7	MT + TT	63.3	28.0	69.2	1

129. The results are presented in Table 16 and illustrated below in Figure 7.

Figure 7 - Summary total weighted scores

130. To summarise, the ranking of technology options as evaluated against a series of evaluation criteria through a robust, transparent and comprehensive OA is shown in Table 17.

Table 17 - Summary ranking of technology options as recommended by the Member Project Board

Technology Option			Overall Rank
7	Pyrolysis/ Gasification (with fuel preparation)	MT + TT	1
1	Energy from Waste	EfW	2
2	Biological Mechanical Treatment + 3rd Party Thermal Treatment of SRF + In-Vessel Composting of waste derived compost.	BMT + IVC + TT	3
4	Autoclave + Anaerobic Digestion of Fibres	AC + AD	4
6	Autoclave and Thermal Treatment of fibre.	AC + TT	5
5	Mechanical Treatment + 3rd Party Thermal Treatment of SRF + Anaerobic Digestion of waste derived compost + maturation of digested compost product	MT + TT + AD	6
3	Mechanical Biological Treatment + 3rd Party Thermal Treatment of SRF + landfill of stabilised output	MBT + TT + Lf	7
SQ	Status Quo	SQ	8

131. The OA process has taken place over a six month period from May to November 2006. There has been considerable activity during this period, as such, a summary of the key meetings and workshops that have taken place are described in Table 18.

Table 18 - Summary of the key decisions, actions and activities during the Options Appraisal process

Date	Who was involved	Process/ Activity
May 15, 2006	Member Project Board	Project board meeting re. Options Appraisal process
June 13, 2006	Officers/ Jacobs	Technology options workshop
6 July, 2006	Member Project Board	Consideration of technology options
10 July, 2006	NS Officers/ Jacobs	Capture rate model meeting
12 July, 2006	BCC Officers/ Jacobs	Capture rate model meeting
14 July, 2006	B&NES Officers/ Jacobs	Capture rate model meeting
20 July, 2006	Industry/ Officers/ Jacobs	Industry Consultation Day
26 July, 2006	SG Officers/ Jacobs	Capture rate model meeting
16 August, 2006	Officers/ Jacobs	Technical modelling outcomes 1
25 August, 2006	Officers/ Jacobs	Technical modelling outcomes 2
5 September, 2006	Officers/ Jacobs	Meeting re. Long list of evaluation criteria
7 September, 2006	Member Project Board	Long list of evaluation criteria
7 September, 2006	Stakeholder consultees	Options Appraisal Process and Long list of evaluation criteria
22 September, 2006	Officers, stakeholder consultees, Jacobs	Criteria Consultation Day – short-listing evaluation criteria and weighting those criteria
26 September, 2006	Member Project Board	Consideration of outcomes from Criteria Consultation Day
12 October, 2006	the public, Members from the Project Board, Scrutiny Members, local stakeholder organisations, Officers, Jacobs	Scoring Consultation Day
24 October, 2006	Member Project Board	Consideration of outcomes from Scoring Consultation Day and evaluation of Cost criterion.

WE NEED YOUR VIEWS ON THE TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS

Which of the seven options is your preferred choice?

Please rank them in order of your preference with 1 being the option you most prefer and 7 being the least preferable option.

□ Mechanical Treatment with Energy from Waste.

□ Biological Mechanical Treatment followed by third party thermal treatment of SRF, followed by in vessel composting of waste derived compost.

□ Mechanical Biological Treatment followed by third party thermal treatment of SRF followed by landfill of stabilised output.

□ Autoclave followed by anaerobic digestion of fibres.

□ Mechanical Treatment followed by third party thermal treatment of SRF followed by anaerobic digestion of waste derived compost which includes maturation of digested compost product.

□ Autoclave followed by thermal treatment of fibre.

□ Pyrolysis/Gasification (with fuel preparation.

Is there any one of these options which you would rule out entirely?

Option Number □

Comments

Do you agree with the methodology used for assessing the technology options?

GLOSSARY OF TERMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

Aerate	Expose to the air.
Aerobic Fermentation	Shredded waste material is placed in long rows and air is drawn through and out of the material. This flow of oxygen speeds up the fermentation of the waste. The circulation of air also draws the moisture away from the waste. At the end of the process the mass of the waste will be reduced by 25% and the material remaining will be a stabilised, sanitised and virtually odourless.
Anaerobic Digestion	Biodegradable material is broken down in the absence of oxygen. Material is placed into a closed vessel and in controlled conditions it breaks down into digested material and biogas.
AONB	Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
Autoclave	A method of sterilisation. Waste is loaded into a rotating sealed cylinder and the biodegradable fraction of this waste is then broken down by steam treatment into an homogeneous organic “fibre”
Biodegradable	Materials which can be chemically broken down by naturally occurring micro-organisms into simpler compounds. Waste which contains organic material can decompose giving rise to gas and leachate and other by-products
BPEO	Best Practicable Environment Option - the most cost-effective and environmentally-friendly solution
BMT	Biological Mechanical Treatment
BMW	Biodegradable Municipal Waste
BVPI	Best Value Performance Indicators Targets set by the Audit Commission to assess the performance of different aspects of a Council’s work
Clinical Waste	Waste arising from medical, nursing, dental, veterinary, pharmaceutical or similar practices, which may present risks of infection
Commercial Waste	Waste from premises used wholly, or mainly, for the purpose of a trade or business or for sport, recreation or entertainment
Community Strategy	The Local Government Act 2000 requires local authorities to prepare a Community Strategy. It sets out the broad vision for the future of the local authority’s area and proposals for delivering that vision.
Composting	A biological process which takes place in the presence of oxygen (aerobic) in which organic wastes, such as garden and kitchen waste are converted into a stable granular material. This can be applied to land to improve soil structure and enrich the nutrient content of the soil.
Construction and Demolition Waste	Waste, generally inert, arising from the construction, maintenance or demolition of buildings or other civil engineering structures
DEFRA	Department for the Environment Food and Rural Affairs Government department with national responsibility for sustainable waste management
Development Plan	The system of Structure and Local Plans prepared by local authorities as a framework for development and land use decisions in their area. Now being replaced by the Local Development Framework
Dioxins	Chlorinated organic compound: a by-product of the papermaking process that uses chlorine as a bleaching agent. Dioxins can be released into the atmosphere through the incineration of chlorinated paper. They are believed to be highly toxic to humans.
DPD	Development Plan Document These are statutory local development documents prepared under the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, which set out the spatial planning strategy and policies for an area. They have the weight of development plan status and are subject to community involvement, public consultation and independent examination
EA	Environment Agency
EfW	Energy from Waste - energy that is recovered by thermally treating waste
Energy Recovery	The combustion of waste under controlled conditions in which the heat released is recovered to provide hot water and steam (usually) for electricity generation (see also Recovery)
Gasification	The thermal breakdown of organic material by heating waste in a low-oxygen atmosphere to produce a gas. This is then used to produce heat/electricity. Similar to Pyrolysis
GOSW	Government Office South West
Green Belt	A planning designation aimed at preventing urban sprawl and encroachment into the country side.
Greenfield Site	A site previously unaffected by built development.
Household Waste	Waste from a private dwelling or residential house or other such specified premises, and includes waste taken to household waste recycling centres
HWRC	Household Waste Recycling Centres Recycling centres are facilities provided by the Unitary Authorities to which the public can bring domestic waste, such as bottles, textiles, cans, paper, green waste and bulky household items/waste for free disposal.
Inert Waste	Waste that is not active – it does not decompose or otherwise change
In-vessel Composting	Shredded waste is placed inside a chamber or container through which air is forced. This speeds up the composting process.
JRMWMS	Joint Residual Municipal Waste Management Strategy
JWDPD	Joint Waste Development Plan Document
Joint Replacement Structure Plan	A broad land use and transport strategy which establishes the main principles and priorities for future development within the West of England. Prepared jointly by the four Unitary Authorities as part of the Development Plan
Kerbside Collection	Any regular collection of recyclables from premises, including collections from commercial or industrial premises as well as from households. Excludes collection services delivered on demand.
Landfill	The deposit of waste onto and into land, in such a way that pollution or harm to the environment is prevented and, through restoration, to provide land which may be used for another purpose.
LATS	Landfill Allowance Trading Scheme Process of apportionment, by local authority area, of the tonnage of bio-degradable municipal waste that may be disposed of to landfill to meet EU Landfill Directive targets
Landraise	The deposit of waste material above existing or original ground level.
LDD	Local Development Document A document that forms part of the Local Development Framework. Can either be a Development Plan Document or a Supplementary Planning Document.
LDF	Local Development Framework A portfolio of local development documents that will provide the framework for delivering the spatial planning strategy and policies for an area.
Leachate	Liquid from a landfill site containing chemical components of the buried waste
MBT	Mechancial Biological Treatment
MRF	Materials Recycling Facility or Materials Recovery Facility
MSW	Municipal Solid Waste – waste that is left over after recycling and composting has taken place
Municipal Waste	Household waste and waste from municipal parks and gardens, beaches, fly tipped materials, rubble and street sweepings.
PFI	Private Finance Initiative
PPS10	Planning Policy Statement 10 Guidance documents which set out national planning policy
PSI	Programmed Service Improvements - the planned level of improvements to kerbside collections and recycling programmes.
Pyrolysis -	The heating of waste in a closed environment (i.e. in the absence of oxygen) to produce a secondary fuel product
Ramsar Site	A wetland of Special Scientific Interest which is of international importance
Recovery	The process of extracting a product of value from waste materials, including recycling, composting and energy recovery
Recycling	Recovering re-usable materials from waste or using a “waste” material for a positive purpose.
RSS Regional Spatial Strategy	A document being prepared by the South West Regional Assembly to replace the Regional Planning guidance for the South West.
Regional Waste Strategy	This document provides a vision and approach for achieving sustainable waste management within the South West for the period to 2020.
Re-use	The re-use of materials in their original form, without any processing other than cleaning.
Residual Waste	Waste collected by local authorities which is not re-used, recycled or composted and remains to be treated through the recovery of energy and/or materials or through disposal to landfill.
RDF	Refuse Derived Fuel Material produced from MSW that has undergone processing. Processing can include separation of recyclables and non-combustible materials, shredding, size reduction, and palletising.
RMWMS	Residual Municipal Waste Management Strategy This document provides the framework for managing municipal waste in a sustainable manner over a prescribed time period.
RPG10	Regional Planning Guidance Note 10– Produced by the Government Office for the South West (GOSW) on behalf of the Secretary of State. Until it is replaced by the new Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) it provides a regional strategy within which Local Development Documents and the Local Transport Plan should be prepared.
SEA	Strategic Environmental Assessment
Self-sufficiency	Dealing with wastes within the administrative region where they are produced
SRF	Solid Recovered Fuel
SSSI	Site of Special Scientific Interest A specifically defined area which protects ecological or geological features.
Status Quo (SQ)	Making no changes at all to waste collections and disposal
Sustainable Waste Management	Using material resources efficiently to cut down on the amount of waste we produce and, where waste is generated, dealing with it in a way that actively contributes to economic, social and environmental goals of sustainable development
Thermal Treatment	Treatment by heat. For waste this includes incineration, pyrolysis and gasification
Third Party treatment	Processes or systems obtained from independent organisations or those outside the West of England.
TPA or tpa	Tonnes per annum
Voidspace	The remaining capacity in active or committed landfill or landraise sites
Volume reduction	Processing waste materials to decrease the amount of space the materials occupy. It is accomplished by mechanical, thermal or biological means
Waste	Unwanted materials as defined by the Environmental Protection Act 1990. Waste includes any scrap metal, effluent or unwanted surplus substance or article that requires to be disposed of because it is broken, worn out, contaminated or otherwise spoiled. Explosives and radioactive wastes are excluded.
Waste Arising	The amount of waste generated in a given locality over a given period of time.
WCA	Waste Collection Authority – Organisation responsible for collection household waste
WDA	Waste Disposal Authority – Organisation responsible for disposing of municipal waste
Waste Hierarchy	An order of waste management methods based on their predicted sustainability
Waste Minimisation	Reducing the volume of waste that is produced. This at the top of the Waste Hierarchy.
Waste Transfer Station	A facility where waste is delivered for sorting prior to transfer to another place for recycling, treatment or disposal
WDPD	Waste Development Plan Document
WEEE	Waste from Electrical and Electronic Equipment.
Zero Waste	A long term vision to reduce consumption of goods by ensuring that products are made to be reused, repaired or recycled, so that what is now regarded as waste should instead be regarded as a mixture of resources to be used again

Appendix A – Policy Review

Introduction

A1 This section sets out the relevant European, national, regional and local policy drivers for waste management and planning which will need to be taken into account in the preparation of the planning and waste management strategies for the West of England.

European

A2. National waste management policy is heavily influenced by a number of European Directives. These include the Waste Framework Directive (75/442/EEC as amended by 91/56/EEC); the Waste Incineration Directive (200/76/EC) and the Landfill Directive (99/31/EC). The aim of these directives is to move waste management practices away from landfill by reducing waste production and adopting waste management methods which focus on resource recovery, together with a requirement to manage and dispose of waste near to its point of origin.

National

A3. On the 10^th November 2003, Parliament gave its final seal of approval to the Waste and Emissions Trading Bill. This implements Articles 5(1) and 5(2) of the EC Landfill Directive in the UK. The Waste and Emissions Trading Act 2003 introduced a system of tradable allowances (LATS) to help the UK meet the Landfill Directive requirements set out below in the National Waste Strategy. The Secretary of State has set gradually reducing biodegradable municipal waste landfill limits for England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, and can set specific targets for any year (target years) and any individual country. Regional governments (the Scottish Minister, the National Assembly for Wales and the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland and, in the future, regional assemblies) share out the total biodegradable municipal waste landfill allowance for their regions between the local disposal authorities. The total regional allowance cannot be exceeded and Councils will be fined about £150 per tonne, three to four times the average cost of landfill, if they do not take reasonable steps to secure sufficient landfill allowances for the amount of waste they need to landfill.

A4. The National Waste Strategy is the Government’s objectives and targets for the management of waste. The targets include:

· By 2010 to reduce biodegradable municipal waste

landfilled to 75% of that produced in 1995;

· By 2013 to reduce biodegradable municipal waste

landfilled to 50% of that produced in 1995; and

· By 2020 to reduce biodegradable municipal waste

landfilled to 35% of that produced in 1995.

Waste Strategy 2000 imposes the following targets on local authorities to improve recycling, composting and recovery rates:

Recycling and Composting:

· To recycle or compost at least 30% of household waste by 2010

· To recycle or compost at least 33% of household waste by 2015

A5. In February 2006 Government launched its consultation on the review of England’s Waste Strategy inviting views on whether recycling targets of 40% in 2010, 45% in 2015 and 50% in 2020 would be more appropriate. The outcome of this review is still awaited.

Recovery (which includes the recovery of energy from waste as an integral part of the recovery of value):

· To recover value from 45% of municipal waste by 2010

· To recover value from 67% of municipal waste by 2015

A6. However landfill remains the predominant method of waste management in the UK. Nationally, approximately 83% of municipal waste and 54% of commercial and industrial waste is disposed of in this way. In terms of the waste hierarchy, landfill is viewed as the least acceptable waste management option, although it remains an important part of the waste management equation since there will always be a significant proportion of waste, which cannot be re-used or recycled.

A7. The continued disposal of untreated wastes is seen as unsustainable and wasteful of primary resources. In order to achieve more sustainable waste management, both Europe and Central Government are seeking to bring about dramatic changes within very short timescales in the way that waste is treated by introducing challenging targets for reduction in landfill, by increasing recycling, composting and recovery.

A8. In July 2005, the Government published, “Changes to Waste Management Decision Making Principles in Waste Strategy 2000”. Decisions on waste management, including decisions on suitable sites and installations for treatment and disposal, should have the objective of reducing the overall environmental impact and protecting human health and the environment.

Waste decision-making should be based on the following principles:

· Individuals, communities and organisations should take responsibility for their waste.

· Consider alternative options in a systematic way.

· Effective community engagement should be an important and integral part of the decision-making process.

· The environmental impacts for possible options should be assessed looking at both the long and short term.

· Decisions should seek to deliver the environmental outcomes that do most to meet the objectives in the National Waste Strategy, taking account of what is feasible and what is an acceptable cost.

A9. Planning Policy Statement 10 Planning for Sustainable Waste Management (PPS10), published in July 2005, explains how these objectives and decision-making principles will be applied in the planning system. Waste Planning Authorities are responsible for identifying suitable site opportunities for waste treatment or disposal installations. The Government expects Waste Planning Authorities to:

· take full account of the National Waste Strategy;

· take an integrated approach to waste management;

· move substantially away from landfill towards recycling, composting and energy from waste;

· ensure consistency with the quantity of tradable landfill allowances available and with statutory performance standards for recycling;

· implement national planning policy for sustainable waste management fully and quickly;

· ensure their local assessments reflect and in turn inform regional spatial strategies; and

· promote informed debate with the public and businesses in their area about the need for waste management facilities and available options.

A10. PPS10 provides guidance about identifying land for waste management facilities in development plan documents and the factors to take into account in assessing the suitability of an area or site. Waste planning authorities need to consider:

· opportunities for on-site management of waste where it arises, and

· a broad range of locations including industrial sites, looking for opportunities to co-locate facilities together and with complimentary activities (which are defined in a footnote as ‘reflecting the concept of resource parks’).

Regional

A11. Regional planning guidance for the South West is currently set out in Regional Planning Guidance for the South West (RPG10), published in September 2001. Policy RE5 refers to the need to give priority to the provision of waste management facilities that will recover value from waste at or near to Principal Urban Areas.

A12. The South West Regional Assembly launched the South West Regional Waste Strategy in October 2004. Waste planning authorities are expected to take account of it in making planning decisions and drawing up and revising waste planning and municipal waste strategies. It provides a vision and an approach for achieving sustainable waste management in the South West for the period up to 2020.

The Vision of the Regional Waste Strategy is to:

“minimise the amount of waste produced in the region, and then to make a major shift away from current reliance on landfill of untreated waste, so that by 2020 less than 20% of waste produced in the region will be landfilled.”

And the Strategy is based on the following strategic principles:

· Priority should be given to initiatives and facilities which will encourage and promote waste reduction and the reuse of materials and products

· Local authorities should work with each other and their regional partners. These will include the business sector, the Environment Agency, the waste industry, non-government organisations (NGOs) and community groups to ensure the integration of strategies and proposals for waste management with the regional waste strategy’s aims

· Sub-regional partnerships and constituent authorities should have regard to the policies and guidelines for amounts of waste to be dealt with in this Regional Waste Strategy. They should seek to identify the combination of facilities and other waste management options which best meets environmental, social and economic needs for their areas based on the following general sustainable waste management principles:

- the need to reduce the reliance on landfill

- adoption of the waste hierarchy

- regional and sub-regional self-sufficiency

- the proximity principle (ie waste should be managed close to where it was produced); and

- consideration of the Best Practicable Environmental Option (BPEO) for the region and their area if appropriate (although BPEO has now been superseded by the guidance in PPS 10).

A13. The Regional Waste Strategy goes on to set challenging targets for recycling/composting and promotes greater emphasis on recovering value from mixed residual waste through mechanical, biological or thermal treatment. The challenge for private industry is to develop and install new technology to deal with wastes in innovative ways and for waste planning authorities to find sites for new treatment facilities.

A14. The effect of implementing the Regional Waste Strategy approach to waste management in the West of England would be to significantly reduce reliance on landfill by 2020 at which time all waste would undergo some form of treatment and only residual waste from these processes would be landfilled. Achieving the aims of the Regional Waste Strategy would result in less than 20% of waste going to landfill, compared with about 80% currently. To reduce the reliance on landfill will require a step change in the way in which waste is managed.

A15. The Regional Waste Strategy incorporates the Region’s waste management requirements to 2020. The indicative waste management capacity targets for the West of England, which are based on the area becoming self-sufficient in waste management capacity, are set out in Table A1.

Table A1
South West Regional Waste Strategy (October 2004)

Indicative Waste Treatment Capacity Targets for the West England

1. Municipal Waste

(Thousands of tonnes per year)

Year	2010	2013	2020
Recycling/composting	230	280	310
Recovery/Treatment	150	220	370
Landfill	300	240	120

2. Commercial and Industrial Waste

(Thousands of tonnes per year)

Year	2010	2013	2020
Recycling/composting	440	465	510
Treatment/Recovery	230	295	450
Landfill	495	410	195

3. Construction and Demolition Waste

(Thousands of tonnes per year)

Year	2010	2013	2020
Transfer/treatment	220	220	220
Inert Landfill	380	380	380

Data Source – South West Regional Waste Strategy, October 2004

A16. These indicative waste treatment capacity targets for the West of England have been incorporated in the South West Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) where policies require Waste Development Plans to make provision for facilities based on these indicative allocations. These indicative allocations will be tested through the examination in public of the RSS and more detailed modelling of the municipal waste stream carried out as part of the Joint RMWMS has identified some changes since the figures in Table A1 were prepared. The latest forecasts for municipal waste are set out in Table A2 below.

Table A2

Indicative Capacities for Municipal Waste Based on the Joint RMWMS (‘000 tonnes)

Year	Recycling/composting	Recovery/Treatment	Landfill
2010	190	30	360
2013	200	290-305	50-70
2020	225	310-325	50-70

Data Source – Joint Residual Municipal Waste Management Strategy, Jacobs Babtie 2006

A17. The draft RSS identifies managing waste as one of the greatest challenges facing the region and endorses the approach set out in the Regional Waste Strategy of minimising the amount of waste produced in the region and then to make a major shift away from the current reliance on landfill of untreated waste. Policy W1 of the draft RSS deals with the provision of capacity to handle waste and requires waste planning authorities to make provision in their waste development plan documents for a network of sites to deal with the indicative allocations for their area, see Table 1 above. However in the interests of using the most up to date and accurate information it is proposed to plan on the basis of the figures set out in Table 2 with regard to municipal waste. Policy W2 deals with the spatial distribution of waste facilities and establishes the principles for making provision for waste management facilities in accordance with the waste hierarchy and the use of established and proposed industrial sites and other previously developed land including existing mineral and waste sites. Policy W3 looks at hazardous waste and the need to make provision for transfer, treatment and disposal facilities where necessary. Finally policy W4 looks at controlling, re-using and recycling waste in development and requires that larger scale development should include a waste audit report as part of their planning application setting out details of how waste will be managed during the construction process and over the lifetime of the development.

A18. The RSS has been submitted to the Secretary of State and will have its examination in public in Spring 2007. Any changes arising from this examination will be taken into account as the Joint WDPD progresses, as the DPD is required to be in general conformity with the RSS.

West of England

Joint Replacement Structure Plan

A19. The Joint Replacement Structure Plan 2002 includes a specific policy on waste management. Policy 29 encourages the four Unitary Authorities to co-operate on the provision of waste management facilities. The emphasis is on sustainable waste management, and the policy encourages the use of previously developed land in preference to the development of greenfield sites. The Structure Plan will eventually be replaced by the above RSS when this is adopted.

A20. The following adopted and emerging local plans produced by the four Unitary Authorities contain local waste policies:

· Bath and North East Somerset Local Plan (including Minerals and Waste Policies), Revised Deposit Draft, published in July 2003 and approved for development control purposes; the Inspector’s report was received in May 2006 and is currently being considered;

· Bristol Local Plan, adopted in December 1997; First Deposit Proposed Alteration to the Bristol Local Plan, including Minerals and Waste Policies, published in February 2003 (Draft for Consultation);

· North Somerset Waste Local Plan, adopted in January 2002;

· South Gloucestershire Minerals and Waste Local Plan, adopted May 2002.

A21. These local plans and their policies are based on and reflect the objectives of Government policy at the time of their preparation. The plans generally favour the location of waste management facilities on sites or land specifically designated for this purpose, including employment areas, within which all kinds of commercial and industrial developments, including waste management facilities, can be appropriately located. Sites, which already accommodate operational waste management facilities, are also seen as the most appropriate locations for new facilities.

Municipal Waste Management Strategies

A22. The existing municipal waste management strategies of the 4 Unitary Authorities have many common elements including:

· A commitment to pursuing and assessing the options for working together;

· To achieve or better landfill diversion targets;

· Provide best value through balance of costs and environmental benefits;

· Support the waste hierarchy;

· Aim to minimise waste through reduction, recycling and composting;

· Support maximising resource recovery from waste;

· Disposal to landfill considered as a last resort;

· Reduce the environmental impact of transporting waste;

· Support home and community composting schemes; and

· Support and encourage kerbside recycling.

A23. This close alignment of waste management policy assists the preparation of the joint waste management and planning strategies. However there is one area where the individual policies of the 4 authorities are not currently in alignment, this in respect of the Zero Waste policy adopted by Bath and North East Somerset Council. This policy is an aspiration that the Council is aiming for, but which it accepts will take considerable time to achieve. The other Councils accept much that underpins Zero Waste and have therefore proposing a reference to it in the draft visions for the Joint Waste Planning and Waste Management Strategies which will see the authorities moving towards a longer term aim of achieving zero waste.

Community Strategies

A24. The Community Strategies of the 4 Unitary Authorities have a common aim running through them - to reduce the overall amount of waste produced and to incr