Meeting documents

Key Issues Highlighted by the West of England

Joint Scrutiny Committee

Officer Response

The Joint Scrutiny Committee welcomes the opportunity to comment on the draft pre-Consultation Preferred Options Document and Consultation Plan.

Noted.

Joint Waste Core Strategy:

It needs to be clearly set out what the status of the strategy is and the relationship with other core strategies.

This is set out under paragraphs 1.1. - 1.3 of the Preferred Options Consultation Document.

Regional Spatial Strategy Proposals:

It is acknowledged that the Pre-Consultation Document is prepared in the context of the emerging Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) and that it is required to be in general conformity with the RSS. Although representations have been made to the Examination in Public Panel that the indicative waste capacity apportionments should be based on the latest data available, it was concluded that the delay and cost involved in providing up-dated apportionments could not be justified given the urgent requirements for new treatment facilities other than landfill. The Committee does not find this acceptable. The baseline data used to inform the sub-regional apportionments for recovery capacity set out in the draft Regional Spatial Strategy is out of date and not sufficiently robust to justify the proposals in Policy

W1.

The Joint Scrutiny Committee recommends that in responding to the Proposed Changes to the draft Regional Spatial Strategy, the West of England Unitary Authorities should request that RSS Policy W1 be amended to require more up-to-date data to be taken into account by waste planning authorities when making proposals for strategic waste management facilities.

With improvements in recycling and re-use, it should be recognised that there will be less need for the indicative waste capacity apportionment proposed by the draft Regional Spatial Strategy.

Supported. Representations should be made to GOSW to the effect that Policy W1 be amended to enable waste planning authorities to have regard to up-to-date data when making planning policy proposals or when determining waste related planning applications.

An early review of the sub-regional apportionments in the form of a'partial review' of the Regional Spatial Strategy would provide a more robust basis for planning strategic waste management facilities.

Waste arising data should be monitored to take account the implications of improvements in recycling, re-use and the construction of additional houses.

Less Waste, more Resource: Less waste involves a more efficient use of resources, and requires less waste collection and treatment. Continued improvements in waste minimisation are imperative if we are to achieve a more sustainable approach to the management of waste. More needs to be done to promote a reduction in Commercial and Industrial waste, although it is recognised that this is outside of the remit of the Joint Waste Core Strategy.

Whilst it is noted that, other than landfill facilities, there are limited commercial and industrial facilities located in the West of England there may in the future be more scope for the joint use of treatment facilities by municipal and commercial and industrial waste.

More efficient re-use and recycling that meets or exceeds national waste strategy targets will also promote the better use of resources, and the Joint Scrutiny Committee recognises that the Joint Waste Core Strategy does have a role to play in enabling a strategic network of recycling and composting sites within the West of England also taking into account developments in those authorities outside the West of England boundaries.

Agree.

Agree.

Agree.

Cross Boundary Issues - Proposals for Strategic Waste Management Facilities:

Whilst it is recognised that there is a continuing need for landfill / landraise in the West of England, reliance must be kept to an absolute minimum. The Committee is keen to see dialogue taking place with other authorities on cross-boundary issues. There may be waste management facilities, including landfill, available in adjoining authorities with spare capacity. There may also be scope for Commercial and Industrial facilities either within or outside of the area to be used to manage Municipal waste.

Agree. Consultation on the Preferred Options Document would be a good opportunity to discuss with stakeholders, including adjoining authorities and the waste management industry, future waste management opportunities of a strategic nature.

Proposed Strategic Waste Sites:

It is noted that the proposal is that the Joint Waste Core Strategy should be technology neutral and that proposed sites have been chosen because they are suitable for a range of waste treatment technologies, thus increasing the flexibility to allow new technologies to come forward at a later date.

However, because of the status of the strategy equal to a planning policy document and material to the consideration of planning applications concerning strategic waste management facilities and to create greater clarity for stakeholders and the public, the consultation document should contain some description of the type of waste facility and scale of operations suitable for the site.

Whilst it is acknowledged that the list of sites was drawn up 18 months previously and circumstances will change every effort should be made to ensure the accuracy of the sites listed. The Committee agreed that the table in the consultation document relating to `general areas' should be deleted to avoid confusion. Also it should be made clear that strategic waste sites refer to `recovery' sites.

Agreed that the Joint Waste Core Strategy is technology neutral, in accordance with guidance in PPS10'Planning for Sustainable Waste Management' and its accompanying guide. The type of strategic waste management facilities suitable for the sites identified under Table 5 are'recovery' facilities. The specific technique or technology, in accordance with national planning policy, is not identified.

In order provide additional information to stakeholders and the public the following statement is included at the beginning of the Preferred Options Consultation Document:

'Government guidance contained in Planning Policy Statement 10 advises that Local Development Documents, including Core Strategies, will not generally prescribe the waste management techniques that will be used to deal with specific waste streams, but will just indicate a particular type such as'Recovery'. In reality, there are likely to be some technologies which are not appropriate or deliverable on the sites identified. This could be as a result of a range of issues including environmental and land ownershipconstraints.'

Agree.

Agree to include reference to 'Recovery' at Table 5. The terms'recovery' and 'recycling' are defined in the Glossary.

Urban Extensions/ Opportunities for Combined Heat and Power Schemes powered by waste:

As a planning document, the Joint Waste Core Strategy also has a significant role to play in promoting better use of waste in new development, both during the construction stage and during the operational life of the development. It is recognised that the additional houses and employment proposed in the draft Regional Spatial Strategy will have implications for the future management of waste. This will present opportunities to enhance the network of waste management facilities and this opportunity must be taken.

The document should strongly support the opportunities in relation to Urban Extensions in providing local waste disposal options, for example, recycling, composting, combined heat and power facilities. In planning terms it should be necessary to include these in development proposals unless there is proven reason not to. The opportunity to install such facilities from the outset should be tested during the early planning/master planning stages.

The opportunities for waste, either directly or indirectly (through the production of "Refuse Derived Fuel") to contribute to Combined Heat and Power (CHP) schemes as part of the proposed urban extensions should be investigated as a matter of urgency.

Waste Audits should be prepared for specified development. They would provide information about the way in which waste during the construction and operational phases of development are dealt with.

Agreed that there should be scope within Urban Extensions for recycling, composing and, in certain circumstances, Combined Heat and Power facilities. The proposed waste framework policy area (Section 6) states that the proposed Urban Extensions should become areas of search for Combined Heat and Power schemes. It is also stated that: "Opportunities for waste minimisation schemes and local recycling / composting facilities should also be considered."

Waste should be considered as a resource. The opportunities for the development of an energy centre comprising Combined Heat and Power facilities should be considered during the preparation of urban extension masterplans / area action plans. Locally sourced "Refuse Derived Fuel" providing a feedstock to a CHP plant is one option to fuel such a plant.

Hazardous Waste:

The Joint Scrutiny Committee accepts that due to the specialist nature of its treatment, hazardous waste should continue to be exported.

Agree.

Consultation:

The Joint Scrutiny Committee supports the proposal to engage with the public and stakeholders on the spatial options and possible sites suitable for delivering the much-needed waste management infrastructure within the West of England in order to divert residual waste away from landfill.

Whilst the Committee acknowledges that the proposed consultation includes more that the `drop in' events in each constituent authority area there needs to be a clear and detailed public consultation and awareness plan in order to be able to effectively engage the public and stakeholders in different ways. The consultation proposals should also be seen as an opportunity to raise awareness with the public on these issues and there need to be `awareness raising', media and communications plans.

The consultation document must be clear and explanatory in its use of terminology - for example what is recovery, recycling, Energy from Waste.

The document itself should make better use of photographs in order to help people visualise what is being proposed.

Noted.

Supported by the Communications Strategy, it is proposed to increase the number of planned events included in the Consultation Strategy. It is proposed to increase the number of public "drop-in" consultation events to at least two per Council area, and to hold two facilitated stakeholder events, one of which focuses on environmental issues and another which provides a forum for the waste management industry and landowners.

The following is a draft enhanced programme:

• Formal Consultation with Statutory Consultees;
  
• Consultation with interested bodies (e.g. environmental organisations);
  
• Public Exhibitions at Council Offices and other suitable locations;
  
• On-line information, discussion groups and response form;
  
• Publicity and promotion and distribution of documents;
  
• Drop-in events - two per Council area;
  
• Respond to invitations from Parish / Town Councils and other groups to attend their meetings;
  
• Two Stakeholder and Industry Events / Workshops.

Photographs could be included in the Information Leaflet.

Key Issues Highlighted by the Scrutiny Committees of the

West of England Unitary Authorities

Officer Response

The document should be clearer about the relationship between the Joint Waste Core Strategy and the individual Core strategies of individual authorities and further afield e.g. Wiltshire and thus the importance of ensuring the policies in the overarching Joint Waste Core Strategy which sets the guidance for all constituent authorities are appropriate.

Paragraph 1.3 makes it clear that the Joint Waste Core Strategy will be part of each local development framework and sitting alongside the emerging Core Strategy of each Unitary Authority. It will not be part of the local development frameworks of adjoining authorities, but these will be taken into account (particularly in relation to waste policies and proposals).

The glossary of terms should be revised to ensure explanations are made in the context of the document.

The glossary of terms has previously been amended to more closely reflect the definitions used in the Joint Residual Municipal Waste Management Strategy. Further revisions to the glossary of terms will be included in the Preferred Options Document, prior to comsultation.

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.

The Joint Waste Core Strategy is proposed to be technology neutral. The presumption is that identified sites will be suitable for a range of strategic waste management facilities, unless otherwise limited in their use for a specific planning reason.

It would be useful to refer to the scale of operations for any particular operation/site.

The focus of the Joint Waste Core Strategy is to provide a range of sites for different scales of operation in order to deliver the preferred spatial option. Consideration of the scale of operations suitable for individual sites is a matter for the planning application stage.

Cross boundary issue with other authorities outside the West of England Authorities and sites being constructed in these areas for example Somerset, the Mendips and Midsomer Norton. Map of surrounding facilities needed by members.

Agree that it is important to consider cross-boundary issues, particularly where waste management facilities are located close to the boundary of the West of England with the adjoining Counties. This is to ensure that waste is managed in a sustainable manner. Strategic waste management facilities in Somerset include the Walpole and Dimmer Landfill sites.

In Wiltshire the major landfill facilities are located at Chapel Farm (Blunsdon) near Swindon and at Compton Bassett, Calne. A hazardous waste landfill facility is located at Parkgate Farm, Purton.

In Gloucestershire there are four main landfill sites for disposing of non-hazardous waste. These are at Hempstead, Gloucester; Wingmoor Farm East and Wingmoor Farm West, Bishops Cleeve and Frampton, Stroud.

Uncertainties such as air quality, biodiversity and flood risk. The strategy should include reference to climate change strategies of constituent UAs, peak oil.

A Habitats Regulations Assessment is being undertaken which will consider the potential harm of waste management facilities located at identified sites on international wildlife sites. Each Unitary Authority is undertaking a Strategic Flood Risk Assessment. The Joint Waste Core Strategy will need to take account of a range of other strategies including Climate Change Strategies (paragraph 4.7 of the Preferred Options Consultation Document refers).

Need to use accurate figures for MSW and recycling and also to ensure that up to date figures on housing projections are used when waste planning authorities propose or consider proposals for new waste management facilities.

The Joint Waste Core Strategy is required to be in general conformity with the Regional Spatial Strategy, which makes proposals, among other things, for Recovery capacity. It is proposed to make representations to GOSW that Policy W1 is amended to require that up-to-date information is taken into account when making proposals in planning documents or in considering relevant planning applications.

CO₂ emissions and the relative impact of transport and facility emissions.

These considerations have generally been taken into account in the Sustainability Appraisal of the Preferred Options Consultation Document.

Detail on the assumptions in the WRATE analysis of transport impacts required by members.

Noted.

Figures on the split between MSW and C&I needed by members.

For Landfill by 2020, the draft Regional Spatial Strategy indicative apportionment for the West of England is 120,000 tonnes and 190-200,000 for Municipal and for Commercial & Industrial respectively.

In relation to Secondary Treatment / Recovery by 2020, indicative apportionment is for 370 and 430-470,000 tonnes for Municipal and for Commercial and Industrial respectively.

The relationship between choice of site and technology and the numbers of sites.

The number of sites and their locations will be a matter for the Published Submission Document following consultation on the Preferred Options and taking into account the technology neutral stance of the Joint Waste Core Strategy.

The impact of economies of scale/fuel price on different options.

'Economies of scale' has been taken into account in the Sustainability Appraisal of the Preferred Options Consultation Document.

Consideration of urban extensions should be more strongly worded- a map showing urban extensions is required and reference be made to the provision of CHP in new developments.

The proposed policy framework (at page 19) proposes that the urban extensions will become 'areas of search' for combined heat and power schemes.

Consultation drop in events - is one in each authority enough. Possibility of using Citizens Panel for consultation purposes.

Noted.

The issue of dealing with waste close to the source of production and a focus on recycling waste.

Noted.

Issues regarding composting facilities and where they would be located.

Table 4 includes general proposals for recycling / composting facilities. The identification of suitable sites is a matter for the appropriate sites allocations documents prepared by each Unitary Authority.

B&NES scrutiny agreed that Option C five-site solution was the preferred option. With regard to landfill, they would make provision in their LDF for a site for inert waste.

Noted.

Bristol scrutiny voted on a preferred option, but no agreement was reached.

Noted.

South Gloucestershire Council: Planning, Transportation and Strategic Environment Select Committee 30^th July 2008

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

Noted.

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.

Noted.

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.

Paragraph 1.3 makes it clear that the Joint Waste Core Strategy will be part of the local development framework of each of the constituent authorities, sitting alongside the emerging Core Strategy of each Unitary Authority. It will not be part of the local development frameworks of adjoining authorities, but these will need to be taken into account.

The glossary of terms should be revised to ensure explanations are made in the context of the document.

The glossary of terms has previously been amended to more closely reflect the definitions used in the Joint Waste Strategy. Further revisions will be considered in response to public consultation, for inclusion as part of the Published Submission 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

The Joint Waste Core Strategy is intended to be technology neutral. The presumption is that identified sites will be suitable a range of strategic waste management facilities, unless otherwise limited for a specific planning reason.

It would be useful to refer to the scale of operations for any particular operation/site

The focus of the Joint Waste Core Strategy to provide a range of sites for different scales of operation in order to deliver the preferred spatial option. Consideration of the scale of operations suitable for individual sites is a matter for the detailed planning application stage.

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.

It is proposed that the Preferred Options Consultation Document should generally not include photographs.

Page 4 - the points raised in the box do not appear to have been given much weight in the rest of the document, e.g. having a number of dispersed sites, each with an energy generation capacity.

The Joint Waste Core Strategy is principally concerned with the provision of strategic waste management facilities designed to manage the residual waste management requirements set out in the Regional Spatial Strategy. These, together with existing facilities and a range of smaller facilities provided for in appropriate sites allocations documents, will form part of a network of waste management sites.

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.

As part of 'A Spatial Portrait' paragraph 2.3 is draws attention to the elements of regional and national importance, such as the M4 and M5, Bristol International Airport and the Port of Bristol. The Sustainability Appraisal has taken into account the transport-related aspects of the proposals of the Joint Waste Core Strategy Preferred Options.

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.

The text (new para 3.10) has been amended to make it clear that Table 1 takes the average apportionment figure for Industrial and Commercial Waste and incorporates figures derived from work undertaken by Jacobs in preparing the Joint Waste Strategy. It is noted that the indicative apportionment figures included within the draft Regional Spatial Strategy are based on information prepared as part of the Regional Waste Strategy (BPEO Study). This data has not been updated.

Page 12, paras 13.9 & 13.10 - the role of more efficient technologies (e.g. combined heat and power) is not given sufficient profile and will weaken any moves to have a higher profile in individual Core strategies

The Joint Waste Core Strategy, as a planning document, is technology neutral. However, the proposed policy framework (at page 19) proposes that the urban extensions will become areas of search for combined heat and power schemes.

Page 14 - waste as a renewable power source should be highlighted

The Joint Waste Core Strategy, as a planning document, is technology neutral. However, the proposed policy framework (at page 19) proposes that the urban extensions will become areas of search for combined heat and power schemes.

Page 14, para 4.1-4.4 - -more explanation is needed on the effect of recovery, recycling etc on landfill.

The amount of waste being managed at landfill sites over time will reflect a number of factors. The Joint Waste Core Strategy must be in general conformity with the Regional Spatial Strategy, which includes indicative apportionments for future capacity of Recovery and Landfill.

Page 14, para 4.8 -- it is noted that the effect of the increasing cost of fuel on the transport of waste is not a planning issue

Noted.

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.

It is proposed to retain Table 2 with a brief explanation of the source of the data. Table 2 refers to Municipal and Non-Municipal Waste.

Page 22 Table 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.

It is proposed to delete Table 3. The table lists industrial and trading estates and general areas which are considered suitable for waste management facilities.

Page 19 the chair considered there was not enough emphasis on combined heat and power (CHP) facilities within urban extensions

The proposed policy framework (at page 19) proposes that the urban extensions will become areas of search for combined heat and power schemes (CHP). Opportunities for CHP as part of the detailed may come forward as part of the detailed planning of the proposed urban extensions.

Page 19 --it should be clarified that these criteria are for strategic facilities not local facilities

This section has been re-formatted to highlight the general principles set out in a green box. As part of a Core Strategy document, these principles relate to strategic 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.

Table 3, which lists 'general areas' is proposed to be deleted.

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

The proposed policy framework (at page 19) suggests that the urban extensions may present opportunities for waste minimisation schemes and local recycling / composing facilities.

Page 27 - should clarify the difference between small and large scale composting facilities and the need where relevant of 'cordon sanitaires'

The reference to 'composting facilities' relates to larger scale facilities. Provision for smaller scale facilities will need to be made elsewhere.

Page 28 - it is not clear how Table 6 relates to table 3. It is noted that officers believe Table 6 is more useful.

It is proposed to delete Table 3.

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.

Noted.

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 data is questionable.

The Joint Waste Core Strategy is concerned with the provision of facilities for industrial and commercial as well as domestic residual waste.

Page 33, para 6.50 - Members query the planning relevance of 'economies of scale'

The Sustainability Appraisal has taken into account 'Economies of Scale' because it is required to consider the economic impact of proposals.

Page 37 - members queried why the Cattybrook facility had not been mentioned within the detail.

It is understood that this site has limited capacity for Landfill.

Page44 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.

Noted.

Extract from Bristol City Council Sustainable Transport and Development Scrutiny Commission - 24^th July 2008

A Member stated that the choice of technologies was a critical issue to where sites would be as each technology had a different local impact.

Proposed technologies would be subject to the planning process and considered on its merits. Although some sites could be considered more appropriate for some technologies, the sites had been chosen so that they could potentially be used for a range of technologies.

The Chair referred to the paragraph on Urban Extensions on Page 19 and felt that the comment in the second paragraph ending with...'also be considered' should be much more strongly worded;

The inclusion of waste minimisation schemes and local recycling / composting facilities is considered to be a local matter for consideration in the relevant sites allocations documents relating to urban extensions.

With respect to the proposed ' Drop in' Events, the Commission did not feel that one in each of the four constituent authorities was sufficient. A Member suggested the use of the Citizen's Panel for consultation purposes which officers noted as a possibility;

The proposal set out in the above report is for one "Drop in" Event to be held in each Unitary Authority area.

Member's views are requested on the number of such events that should be planned for.

A Member 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.

In addition to being technology neutral, the Joint Waste Core Strategy as a planning document does not take into specific account the costs associated with differing technologies.

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.

Noted.

A Member 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 1000 tonnes.

The Joint Waste Core Strategy is technology neutral.

A Member expressed concern that this matter was being revisited when the Commission had 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. 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 is noted that the process is an ongoing, lengthy process and further work had been done on the Issues and Options since Members were last consulted.

Noted.

it was agreed that there would be merit in holding a workshop so that commission members could examine matters in greater detail.

Noted.

North Somerset Council: Strategic Planning and Economic Development Policy and Scrutiny Panel: 1^st July 2008

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.

Noted.

The undertaking of Strategic Flood Risk Assessments was welcomed.

Noted.

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 the importance of recycling fuels and finding uses for waste materials.

The Joint Waste Core Strategy aims to reduce reliance on Landfill as a waste management technology, while recognising that there will be a continuing but reducing need for Landfill capacity. The draft Regional Spatial Strategy incorporates indicative apportionments for Recovery and Landfill facilities.

Noted.

The Panel considered that Climate Change Strategy should be included in the Strategy document.

The Joint Waste Core Strategy will need to take account of a range of Strategies, including Climate Change Strategies.

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 proposed policy framework (at page 19) proposes that the urban extensions will become areas of search for combined heat and power schemes.

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

The Joint Waste Core Strategy is technology neutral.

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.

Conclusions Noted.

Bath and North East Somerset Council: Enterprise and Economic Development Panel 15^th July 2008

Are there any landfill sites in Bath and North East Somerset at present?

None known.

A Member 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.

Table 7 (Version 11) identifies a range of sites that could potentially deliver Option C, the preferred option, which envisages the distribution of facilities having a range of capacities.

A Member 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.

A Member 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.

Noted.

Noted.

A Member 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.

There would be economies of scale in having fewer but larger sites, because this allowed the technology to be used to best advantage.

A Member asked whether local authorities had any powers to compel supermarkets to reduce the amount of packaging they used.

There are no general powers available to local authorities, though the London Borough of Kensington and Chelsea was introducing a byelaw. It seems likely that market forces were driving the supermarkets to adopt more sustainable practices.

A Member 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.

Noted.

The Chairman asked whether Bath and North East Somerset made sufficient efforts to have waste transported to the closest suitable landfill site.

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.

A Member asked whether inert waste could be offered to the building trade.

Most development sites now used inert waste as hardcore.

A Member 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. Another Member noted 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.

Noted.

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.

Noted.