Home » Councillors and How the Council Works > Reasons restricted > Meeting documentation

Meeting documents

Cabinet
Wednesday, 5th November, 2008

APPENDIX D

Minutes of Unitary Authority Scrutiny Bodies' Responses to the Pre-Consultation Draft of the Joint Waste Core Strategy DPD Preferred Options Document

MINUTES OF BATH AND NORTH EAST SOMERSET COUNCIL, BRISTOL CITY COUNCIL, NORTH SOMERSET COUNCIL AND SOUTH GLOUCESTERSHIRE COUNCIL SCRUTINY COMMITTEES:

DRAFT MINUTES

Bath and North East Somerset Council

Enterprise and Economic Development Overview &

Scrutiny Panel meeting on 15th July 2008

 

Joint Waste Core Strategy: Preferred Options Document and Consultation Plan

The Chairman welcomed Chris Marks (Planning Consultant, Clive Miller & Associates).

Mr Marks explained that the draft consultation document "Preferred Options" dealt with "where" rather than "what", because the pace of innovation was so great that it would be unwise to base the strategy on currently-available technology. The most pressing question at present was the identification of the sites at which waste should be dealt with. Landfill was a difficult issue and was also an expensive option. In response to a question from Cllr Whelan, he said that there no landfill sites in the Bath and North East Somerset area at present.

Cllr Darracott commented that there was not much information in the consultation document about the number of sites required. He thought that Keynsham was the only sensible site for waste recovery.

Cllr Edwards said that composting facilities were often unpopular with local residents because they emitted spores and bad smells. At some facilities compost was transferred between fields along narrow lanes, resulting in spillages. Composting facilities should be located where they would not cause nuisance to residents. Mr Marks agreed that there was a great deal of concern about open composting, whereas composting in closed vessels did not give rise to the same problems. It made sense to have composting facilities as close as possible to the source of the waste material. At present 300,000 tonnes of material went for composting in the West of England; this would increase as waste recovery gathered pace. Cllr Darracott noted that no new sites had been identified for composting .The Chairman suggested that the former landfill site at Bannerdown might be used for composting; this would provide an opportunity to clear up the site. He thought that residents would find a new composting facility more acceptable than the existing dump, and that there was a need for a more creative approach to gaining local support for such facilities.

Cllr Romero asked whether it would be more cost- and energy-efficient to have a single site to process waste for the whole of the West of England Partnership or to have smaller sites in the areas of each of the member local authorities. Mr Marks replied that what was proposed was a half-way house between these extremes, namely a couple of large sites to be shared by the authorities in the Partnership. There were economies of scale in having fewer but larger sites, because this allowed the technology to be used to best advantage. There might be scope for local collection and concentration facilities.

Cllr Romero asked whether local authorities had any powers to compel supermarkets to reduce the amount of packaging they used. Mr Marks said this was not his area of expertise, though he understood that some local authorities had achieved success in this regard. The Director of Customer Services said that there were no general powers available to local authorities, though the London Borough of Kensington and Chelsea was introducing a byelaw. He felt that market forces were driving the supermarkets to adopt more sustainable practices.

Cllr Roberts said that the use of green bins varied from area to area and that effort should be given to encouraging use in the low-use areas.

The Chairman asked whether Bath and North East Somerset made sufficient efforts to have waste transported to the closest suitable landfill site. The Director of Customer Services replied that a new contract for landfill has now been let and that road transport will be used to landfill sites at Dimmer and Shortwood, following the Cabinet Member's decision.

Cllr Romero asked whether inert waste could be offered to the building trade. Mr Marks replied that most development sites now used inert waste as hardcore.

Cllr Whelan wondered whether incineration might again be an option in the future. The Director of Customer Services replied that B&NES had decided not to participate in the energy from waste element of the joint waste strategy and that this would preclude it from joining for the duration of the PFI contract, which was likely to be thirty years. Cllr Clarke said that the technology for producing energy from waste was developing so quickly that it would be very unwise for B&NES to commit to a project for thirty years. He noted that households in Japan had 45 different types of bin for different kinds of waste.

RESOLVED that the Panel notes the report and the comprehensive information contained therein. The Panel believes waste minimisation to be a key element for the local authority and will be undertaking various measures to reduce waste, including the encouragement of domestic composting. With respect to the identification of sites, land for any substantial recycling is only likely to be found in the Keynsham and North Radstock areas. We will identify our sites for delivery of household waste, recycling and composting within our Local Development Framework, which may include small development-related sites when appropriate. We note that composting too near to housing presents difficulties. With regard to recovery sites, we think all options to be viable, but the Option C five-sites solution is the preferred one. With regard to landfill, we will make provision in our Local Development Framework for a site for inert waste. We accept that hazardous waste will have to be exported and also advise that residual waste will be sent to landfill under a new five-year contract while we continue our efforts to reduce the volume.

BRISTOL CITY COUNCIL

DRAFT EXTRACT MIN - SD&T SCRUTINY COMMISSION - 24 JULY 2008.

SDT

18.7/08 JOINT WASTE CORE STRATEGY: PREFERRED OPTIONS DOCUMENT AND CONSULTATION PLAN

The commission considered a report of the West of England Partnership Office (agenda item no. 9) noting and making views on the Preferred Options Consultation Draft Document and Consultation Plan.

Kate Hoare, Head of Strategic Development, made the following points by way of introduction:-

  • the Commission was invited to have early input into the document which would go out to consultation later in the year;
  • the strategy details the options for strategic waste management ie. where and how it might happen and not what technology might be used. This included the entire waste stream and not simply municipal waste;
  • after early input from this Commission and the Joint Scrutiny Committee, the strategy would go out for wider consultation. This would be developed into the submission document.

The following points were made as a result of a question and answer session :-

  • Councillor Bolton stated that the choice of technologies was a critical issue to where sites would be as each technology had a different local impact. Kate Hoare replied that whatever technology proposed would still be required to go through the planning process and would be considered as part of the normal planning process on its merits. It was true that some sites could be considered more appropriate for some technologies but the sites had been chosen so that they could potentially be used for a range of technologies. However, it was made clear that the Regional Spatial Strategy had indicated a capacity space for any proposed site which would need to be conformed to;
  • the fine detail of any proposals would be considered as part of the impact assessment carried out by developers when submitting a planning application;
  • The Chair referred to the paragraph on Urban Extensions on Pg 19 and felt that the comment in the second paragraph ending with...'also be considered' should be much more strongly worded;
  • With respect to the proposed ' Drop in' Events, the Commission did not feel that one in each of the four constituent authorities was sufficient. Councillor Jackson suggested the use of the Citizen's Panel for consultation purposes which officers noted as a possibility;
  • Councillor McDermott expressed his concern that it was not possible to comment on Options when there was no information regarding costs available. It was made clear that costs were not part of current consideration and would become so much further down the line;
  • with respect to flood risks, it was noted that the Bristol City wide study was nearly complete and flood risk might well have an impact on any option taken forward. Avonmouth sites would remain in the options as it was possible to build in flood plain providing safety issues were addressed;
  • Councillor Bolton expressed his difficulty in commenting on Option proposals without first knowing what the technology would be, but stated that his preferred option was B, 8 smaller sites each of less than 100,000 tonnes. Kate Hoare stated that there was not currently a focus on the technology as it was envisaged that new technologies would become viable in the future which sites would need to be able accommodate;
  • Councillor Rogers expressed concern that this matter was being revisited when the Commission had already expressed their views previously. He confirmed his support for several combined heat and power sites of less than 1000 tonnes that were locally sustainable, and rejected any larger scale options. Kate Hoare replied the process was an ongoing, lengthy process and further work had been done on the issues and options since Members were last consulted. He moved that the Commission support Option B only, with some flexibility within that option and this was seconded by Councillor Bolton. On being put to the vote, there were 2 votes for, 3 against and 2 abstentions. The motion was therefore not carried;
  • it was agreed that there would be merit in holding a workshop so that commission members could examine matters in greater detail.

RESOLVED - that a workshop be arranged to further examine matters.

31

SOUTH GLOUCESTERSHIRE JOINT WASTE CORE STRATEGY: PREFERRED OPTIONS DOCUMENT AND CONSULTATION PLAN (Agenda Item 11)


The Chair welcomed Allan Davies from the West of England Partnership Office. He gave a presentation on the West of England Joint Waste Core Strategy Preferred Options Consultation Draft. (a copy of the presentation has been placed in the Minute Book). The following comments on the 11 July report to the WOE joint scrutiny body and the associated draft consultation document were made:-

  • The Chair advised that the way the strategy would be jointly scrutinised at WOE level was still being finalised particularly how the constituent authorities would endorse any such joint scrutiny.
  • Officers advised that the amount of residual waste generated by the sub region would not be sufficient to landraise sufficient area along the Severn Estuary and thus provide a flood free area for future growth.
  • The document should be clearer about the relationship between the JWCS and the individual Core strategies of individual authorities and thus the importance of ensuring the policies in the overarching JWCS which sets the guidance for all constituent authorities, are appropriate.
  • The glossary of terms should be revised to ensure explanations are made in the context of the document .
  • It is noted that the final version may need to include caveats about the type of waste facilities which might be possible to be established on individual sites.
  • It would be useful to refer to the scale of operations for any particular operation/site.
  • The executive member and some select members believed that that all photographs used should have explanatory captions and that more use of photographs would be useful.
  • Page 4 - the points raised in the box do not appear to have been given much weight in the rest of the document, eg having a number of dispersed sites , each with an energy generation capacity.
  • Page 8 - para 2.3 - should refer to the current congestion experienced with the current transport infrastructure which might be exacerbated by increased waste related traffic.
  • Page 11 - it is noted that the waste figures shown are based on the original RSS and take no account of the proposed Modifications to household numbers.
  • Page 12, paras 13.9 & 13.10 - the role of more efficient technologies (eg combined heat and power) is not given sufficient profile and will weaken any moves to have a higher profile in individual Core strategies.
  • Page 14 - waste as a renewable power source should be highlighted.
  • Page 14, para 4.1-4.4 - -more explanation is needed on the effect of recovery, recycling etc on landfill.
  • Page 14, papra 4.8 -- it is noted that the effect of the increasing cost of fuel on the transport of waste is not a planning issue.
  • Page 17, Table 2 - it is noted that officers are reconsidering the inclusion of this and other tables. Table 2 refers to all municipal waste thought this is not clear.
  • Page 22 t able 3 contains at least one error in that Area 44, Aldermoor Way is a retail park not an industrial estate. The table should be checked for accuracy and also should indicate what type of facilities might be appropriate for individual sites. The context and relevance of the table needs to be reconsidered. The relationship between this list of sites and individual authority planning documents should be clearer.
  • Page 19 the chair considered there was not enough emphasis on combined heat and power (CHP)facilities within urban extensions.
  • Page 19 - -it should be clarified that these criteria are for strategic facilities not local facilities.
  • Page21 , para 6.9 - CHP schemes are mentioned but it is not clear if all the sites listed at page 22 are appropriate for CHP facilities.
  • Page 24 - Mention should be made of the ability of urban extensions to accommodate recycling and composting facilities, as a 'hook' for local core strategy documents.
  • Page 27 - should clarify the difference between small and large scale composting facilities and the need where relevant of 'cordon sanitaires'.
  • Page 28 - it is not clear how Table 6 relates to table 3. It is noted that officers believe Table 6 is more useful.
  • Page 29 onwards (Options) - it is noted officers believe option C is the preferred option as it is most likely to deliver what is required in the requisite timeframe.
  • Page 31, para 6.48 - -needs revision to take into account the fact that most waste is industrial not domestic , so the relevance of population date is questionable.
  • Page 33, para 6.50 - Members query the planning relevance of 'economies of scale'.
  • Page 37 - members queried why the Cattybrook facility had not been mentioned within the detail.
  • Page 44 onwards(the questionnaire) - member noted that this was still being worked on and its shortcomings as identified by members at the meeting , had been already recognised by officers . It would be improved to cater for both technical experts and the general public.

RESOLVED: that Mr Davies be thanked for his presentation and that the comments made on the pre-consultation draft West of England Joint Waste Core Strategy be used to inform the next stage of refining the consultation draft.

SPE

8

NORTH SOMERSET COUNCIL
Joint Waste Core Strategy - Preferred Options Document and Consultation Plan (Agenda Item 5.2) 1 July 2008

This matter had been considered by the West of England Waste Management and Planning Strategy Member Project Board at its meeting on 17th June 2008. The Member Project Board had agreed to undertake pre-consultation on the Preferred Options Pre-Consultation Draft Document and Consultation Plan with the Joint Overview and Scrutiny Reference Group and the respective Unitary Authority Scrutiny Committees/Panels, and for their views to be reported back to the Member Project Board.

The Panel received a PowerPoint presentation on the items. A hard copy of the presentation has been placed in the signed minute book, and would be included with the agenda papers on the Council's website. The presentation highlighted the following matters -

  • Regional Spatial Strategy - challenges and indicative waste management capacity
  • The four phases of the Joint Waste Management Strategy
  • The vision of the Strategy (less waste going to landfill, integrated network of waste management facilities to meet identified residual waste needs, less waste miles and substantial self-sufficiency)
  • Strategic Recovery Facilities
  • Indicative capacity assumptions
  • Why Option C is the preferred option
  • Landfill/Landraise Capacity Study
  • The next steps

The representative of the Director of Development and Environment responded to Members' questions, queries and comments which included the approximate split between the amounts of domestic and commercial waste, and also the need for a joint waste strategy approach.

A Member commented that North Somerset did not do enough to minimise waste, and added that waste should be dealt with as near as possible to the source of production. The undertaking of Strategic Flood Risk Assessments was welcomed.

Another Panel Member expressed disappointment at the apparent emphasis on landfill, when efforts should be made to encourage alternative technologies. Reference was made also to importance of recycling fuels and finding uses for waste materials.

The Panel considered that Climate Change Strategy should be included in the Strategy document. The representative of the Director of Development and Environment undertook to inform Councillor Keating which officer was preparing the North Somerset Climate Change Strategy.

A Panel Member commented that Urban Extensions should be included in the updated draft with particular reference to the provision of combined heating and power in new developments

The Chairman queried why there was no reference to methane digesters.

The Panel was informed that

(i) 100% of North Somerset's waste was currently sent out of the district to landfill. The Panel received an explanation of the criteria for landfill sites. No sites in North Somerset had yet been designated for landfill. The need to bring forward sites, having regard to the pending LATs liability was recognised.

(ii) Landfill was a particularly sophisticated operation. It was envisaged that the need for landfill sites would continue for some time, notwithstanding a possible phased approach over several years whilst new technologies were considered/introduced.

(iii) Water management catchment plans had been taken into account.

(iv) It was acknowledged that landraising was not a popular option.

Concluded: that this minute be reported back to the West of England Waste Management and Planning Strategy Member Project Board, together with the following specific recommendation that the Preferred Options Draft Consultation Document be updated to

include :

(i)    Climate Change Strategy;

(ii) reference to peak oil;

(iii) the issue of dealing with waste close to the source of production;

(iv) a focus on recycling waste;

(v) the provision of combined heat and power in new developments.