Proposed amendments in light of the Strategic Environmental Assessment/ Sustainability Appraisal advice
Waste Core Strategy
Plan ref / SEA/SA comments / Proposed amendments/explanationWCS Objectives / There were 11 Core Strategy objectives in the 2008 Submission version, and there are now 7 Core Strategy objectives, which are either the same as some of the previous objectives, or incorporate elements of more than one objective.
However, three of the previous objectives have not been covered (relating to community engagement, avoiding harm to the environment and human health, and recognising the employment opportunities from waste management), which means that the set of Core Strategyobjectives as a whole are less compatible with SA objectives 1, 5, 6 and 7. / Some objectives were revised to avoid duplication with national/regional policy (e.g. moving waste up the waste hierarchy)
Add “avoiding harm to the environment and human health” to Objective 1
Add “recognising that waste managementgenerates employment and is part of the infrastructure which supports businesses and communities” to Objective 6.
(Community engagement forms part of the Joint Municipal Waste Management Strategy through WasteAware”
WCS 5 / As currently drafted, it is unclear what type of sites and locations are referred to in this policy. / Add additional words to preamble to clarify that this policy refers to applications:
- submitted on land that is not designated as a Preferred Site or Preferred EmploymentLand Area(PELA)
- submitted on land that is not designated as Employment Land Areas of Search (ELAS)
- for facilities identified in Policy 2 but are outside of the Broad Locations referred to in that Policy
WCS 8 / This policy is a revision of WCS Policies 9 and 10 in the Waste Core Strategy Submission DPD. The policy wording is very similar, and SA scores have been amalgamated. However this new policy excludes any specific reference to landscape effects which was well covered in Policy 9 of the Waste Core Strategy Submission DPD and Policy WDP4 in the Development Policies Preferred Options DPD. The new policy does refer to the need for environmental safeguards and avoiding unacceptable environmental risks but is weaker in terms of landscape protection.
The policy no longer encourages proposals for Landfill Gas Utilisation, which reduces the positive effect on SA objective 3b (reducing greenhouse gas emissions).
Thefirst sentence of the supporting text at para 4.31 is confusing and should be re-worded to ‘landfill is an exhaustive resource’. / Add “landscape” after “environmental” in the last line of Policy 9.
Reinstate relevant elements of former WDP4
“Applications for landfill and landraise should provide details of:
- How waste is to be pre-treated/sorted;
- How effective the pre-treatment/sorting process will be; and
- The control measures to be put in place to ensure only pre-treated/sorted waste is accepted;
- reclamation proposals;
- Landfill gas utilisation where appropriate.
Reclamation proposals should ensure that the site is restored to a state that is of equal or greater environmental value than the previous land use.”
Agreed
WCS 10 / The policy in the Development Policies DPD referred to the need to ensure traffic impacts would not adversely impact the ‘local environment’. This version of the policy refers to the ‘surrounding area’ but it is unclear what the ‘surrounding area’ includes. / Replace “surrounding area” with “the ‘local environment”.
WCS 11 / This policy contains a point reading: ‘Applications for hazardous waste facilities should address issues of security and additional risks to human health and the environment’. This point is repeated in Policy 12 and should only be in one or the other. / Delete from Policy 11
WCS 12 / Supporting text at para 4.2 states that ‘The reuse of previously developed land (PDL) for waste management facilities is prioritised’. However this point is not included within Policy 12. It is acknowledged that this point is covered in Policy 5, but as Policy 5 only relates to certain proposals for waste development, not all proposals, it might be worth include PDL in the criteria for Policy 12 as well for completeness. / Agreed
Waste Site Allocations
Plan ref / SEA/SA comments / Proposed amendments/explanationHarper Lodge Farm / Composting listed as potentially suitable use when SA 2007 findings recommended not. / Delete composting as a potential use
Other recommendations
Plan ref / Comments / Proposed amendments/explanationWCS2 / Presumably, the second paragraph “Given that approximately two thirds of Hertfordshire is covered by Green Belt…preference will be given to proposals for new waste management sites within the Preferred Areas and ELAS” is referring to proposals that may come forward for waste facilities other than the municipal waste facilities required in the first paragraph and points a, b, and c? It would be clearer if the paragraph explicitly made reference to the need for facilities to manage other waste streams. / Add “municipal” to first para
“Taking into account the existing waste management capacity within and contracts outside of the County and planning for future waste capacity requirements, preference for new municipal waste management facilities will be given to sites in the following broad locations:”
Given that approximately two thirds of Hertfordshire is covered by Green Belt designations which will constrain the number and spread of suitable sites for waste management facilities in Hertfordshire, preference will be given to proposals for new waste management sites to manage other waste streams within the Preferred Areas and Employment Land Areas of Search.
1
090921 20 Waste Development Framework Appendix 3