Report to Devon County Council by Andrew S Freeman BSc(Hons) DipTP DipEM FRTPI FCIHT MIEnvSc an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Date: 6th October 2014

PLANNING AND COMPULSORY PURCHASE ACT 2004 (AS AMENDED) SECTION 20

REPORT ON THE EXAMINATION INTO THE DEVON WASTE PLAN

Document submitted for examination on 28 March 2014 Examination hearings held between 15 and 23 July 2014

File Ref: PINS/J1555/429/5

ABBREVIATIONS USED IN REPORT Examination documents (referenced in parentheses in the text) are prefixed by the letters ED, MD, SD, PS, RD or XD

AA

Appropriate Assessment

AONB

Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty

cu

cubic

LDS

Local Development Scheme

m

metres

MM

main modification

Para

Paragraph

PPS

Planning Policy Statement

PSED

Public Sector Equality Duty

SA

Sustainability Appraisal

SAC

Special Area of Conservation

SCI

Statement of Community Involvement

SCS

Sustainable Community Strategy

-2-

Devon Waste Plan, Inspector’s Report, October 2014

Non-Technical Summary This report concludes that the Devon Waste Plan provides an appropriate basis for the planning of Devon1 over the next 17 years providing a number of modifications are made to the Plan. Devon County Council has specifically requested me to recommend any modifications necessary to enable the Plan to be adopted. All of the modifications to address this were proposed by the Council and I have recommended their inclusion after considering the representations from other parties on these issues. The principal main modifications can be summarised as follows:          

Expressing policies in positive terms; Ensuring that the Vision and Objectives reflect national policy; Limiting total combined provision at Hill Barton and Greendale Barton; Identifying matters critical to the spatial strategy; Explaining the adequacy of existing permitted capacity in meeting future reuse, recycling and materials recovery needs; Justifying the future energy recovery requirement; Making provision for the recycling of incinerator bottom ash; Carefully reviewing landfill capacity and the need for any early partial review of the Plan; Securing timely provision by stating target requirements at key dates; and Ensuring that development management policies are fully effective; also the provisions regulating development at the strategic energy recovery locations.

1

The area covered by the Plan is called Devon or, in this report, the County. Devon means the county of Devon excluding the administrative areas of Plymouth, Torbay, Dartmoor National Park and that part of Exmoor National Park that lies within the county of Devon. “Greater Devon” is the term used to include all Devon areas. -3-

Devon Waste Plan, Inspector’s Report, October 2014

Introduction 1.

This report contains my assessment of the Devon Waste Plan in terms of Section 20(5) of the Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (as amended). It considers first whether the Plan’s preparation has complied with the duty to co-operate, in recognition that there is no scope to remedy any failure in this regard. It then considers whether the Plan is sound and whether it is compliant with the legal requirements. The National Planning Policy Framework (Paragraph 182) makes clear that, to be sound, a local plan should be positively prepared, justified, effective and consistent with national policy.

2.

The starting point for the examination is the assumption that the local authority has submitted what it considers to be a sound plan. The basis for my examination is the Pre-submission Consultation version of the Plan dating from December 2013 (SD01). This is the document upon which consultation took place between 2 December 2013 and 24 February 2014.

3.

My report deals with the main modifications that are needed to make the Plan sound and legally compliant and they are identified in bold in the report (MM). In accordance with Section 20(7C) of the 2004 Act, the Council requested that I should make any modifications needed to rectify matters that make the Plan unsound/not legally compliant and thus incapable of being adopted. These main modifications are set out in Appendix A and Annex A.

4.

The main modifications that are necessary for soundness all relate to matters that were discussed at the examination hearings. Following these discussions, the Council prepared a schedule of proposed main modifications and this schedule has been subject to public consultation for six weeks. I have taken account of the consultation responses in coming to my conclusions in this report. One of the proposed main modifications (MM16) warrants clarification. In this regard, I have made a minor change as further proposed by the Council.

Assessment of Duty to Co-operate 5.

Section 20(5)(c) of the 2004 Act requires that I consider whether the Council complied with any duty imposed on them by Section 33A of the 2004 Act in relation to the Plan’s preparation. Section 33A requires constructive, active and ongoing engagement with local authorities and a variety of prescribed bodies in order to maximise the effectiveness of plan preparation.

6.

The way in which the duty to co-operate was met is documented in the paper “Duty to Cooperate Statement” (SD08) and its addendum (SD08A). In addition there is a Memorandum of Understanding with Torbay Council (XD06), with Cornwall Council (XD07) and with Somerset County Council (XD13); also a Statement of Common Ground between Devon County Council and Plymouth City Council (XD20).

7.

Devon’s strongest relationships with regard to waste movements are with the other Greater Devon authorities and with the adjoining counties of Somerset and Cornwall although Devon’s hazardous waste has a more dispersed pattern of movement. Co-operation with the other Greater Devon waste planning authorities has been undertaken through consultation on the emerging Plan; -4-

Devon Waste Plan, Inspector’s Report, October 2014

responses on other authorities’ plans; workshops; meetings; correspondence; and the preparation of evidence documents on waste forecasts and crossboundary movements. 8.

Similar measures have been undertaken with adjoining county waste planning authorities. The outcomes of all this co-operation are reflected in the emphasis on accommodating cross-boundary movements in the Plan.

9.

Plymouth City Council would prefer to have prepared a joint needs assessment with Devon County Council to better understand the needs arising in the city. However, it is now agreed2 that this would not have been feasible given the different timescales for the preparation of the plans of the respective authorities.

10. For hazardous waste, co-operation has been undertaken with the waste planning authorities representing the main areas that receive such waste from Devon. In this way, the County Council has established the willingness and capacity for such movements to continue. 11. The County Council has regular dialogue with Devon’s district councils in the context of both the Waste Plan and the districts’ local plans sections. A workshop specifically for district councils was held at an early stage of the Waste Plan. Contact and correspondence with individual authorities has continued subsequently. The emerging Plan was amended to reflect their responses. 12. Co-operation with statutory consultees and other relevant organisations has generally been undertaken on an individual basis. The frequency of contact has varied depending on the relevance of waste planning to the body. Engagement has been greater with the statutory environmental bodies (Environment Agency, Natural England and English Heritage) including through workshops, individual discussions and consultation on site appraisal methodology and sustainability appraisal scoping and reporting. 13. I conclude that the County Council has worked collaboratively with other authorities and bodies and has co-operated effectively through a continuous period of engagement. The local planning authority has fulfilled the duty to co-operate with regard to the Devon Waste Plan.

Assessment of Legal Compliance 14. My examination of the compliance of the Plan with the legal requirements is summarised in the table below. I conclude that the Plan meets them all. However, I comment below on the Habitats Regulations Assessment. 15. The Habitats Regulations Final Report (SD09, Version 1) is based on an earlier draft final report and includes amendments suggested by Natural England. It also sets out the screening that has taken place for likely significant effects and concludes that it is not considered necessary to undertake appropriate assessment of the Plan or any of its individual elements.

2

XD20, Para 5.5 -5-

Devon Waste Plan, Inspector’s Report, October 2014

16. An amended version of the report (SD09, Version 2) was subsequently prepared to take into account the emerging North Devon / Torridge and Mid Devon Local Plans (possible in-combination effects on the Culm Grasslands SAC). Natural England subsequently confirmed (XD25) that the Habitats Regulations Assessment of the Devon Waste Plan has been adequately updated to reflect the current position. Again it is concluded by the Council that appropriate assessment is not considered necessary.3 17. The main modifications have also been the subject of screening (MD04). No further assessment under the Habitats Regulations is deemed to be necessary.

LEGAL REQUIREMENTS Local Development Scheme (LDS)

Statement of Community Involvement (SCI) and relevant regulations Sustainability Appraisal (SA) Appropriate Assessment (AA) National Policy Sustainable Community Strategy (SCS) Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) 2004 Act (as amended) and 2012 Regulations

The Devon Waste Plan is identified within the approved Minerals and Waste Development Scheme (Third Revision, October 2013) which sets out an expected adoption date of October 2014. The Local Plan’s content and timing are compliant with the Scheme. The SCI (First Revision) was adopted in March 2013 and consultation has been compliant with the requirements therein, including consultation on the post-submission proposed “main modification” changes (MM). SA has been carried out and is adequate. The Habitats Regulations Assessment Final Report (Version 2, July 2014) sets out why AA is not considered necessary.4 The Local Plan complies with national policy except where indicated and modifications are recommended. Satisfactory regard has been paid to the SCS. The Local Plan complies with the Duty and is adequate. The Local Plan complies with the Act and the Regulations.

Assessment of Soundness Preamble 18. The Devon Waste Plan (SD01) is intended to provide the policy framework for decisions by Devon County Council on waste matters over the period up to

3

SD09 (Version 2), Para 4.11 See also Schedule of Main Modifications Screening for Sustainability Appraisal and Habitats Regulations Assessment (MD04) 4

-6-

Devon Waste Plan, Inspector’s Report, October 2014

2031. Upon its adoption, the Plan will replace the Devon County Waste Local Plan June 2006 (RD01). 19. The Plan aims to facilitate reuse, recycling and materials recovery such that levels of at least 64% for household and business waste can be achieved by the end of the plan period. For construction and demolition waste, the target is at least 90%. The future waste management development needs of Devon have been assessed with these targets in mind. 20. In terms of reuse, recycling and materials recovery, it is concluded that sufficient waste management capacity is already in place within Devon. However, to minimise future landfill (to less than 5% by 2031), provision needs to be made for “other recovery”. In this regard, the development of up to 377,000 tonnes a year of energy recovery capacity is addressed in the Plan. Five strategic locations are identified where appropriate provision could be made. 21. In considering the soundness of the Plan, I have had regard to Government policy and guidance. This includes the National Planning Policy Framework, National Planning Practice Guidance, the Waste Management Plan for England and Planning Policy Statement 10: Planning for Sustainable Waste Management. 22. In July 2013, the Department for Communities and Local Government entered into a consultation on waste policy that would replace that set out in Planning Policy Statement 10.5 This emerging policy was discussed, where appropriate, at the examination hearings. I have had regard to the consultation draft in writing this report. However, at the time of writing, the final version of the policy has not been published. 23. Specific waste policies are not included in the National Planning Policy Framework. However, other policies in the Framework are relevant to the content of waste local plans. In particular, when testing soundness, it is necessary to consider whether the Plan has been “positively prepared”. 24. For my part, I find that the Devon Waste Plan has been positively prepared and is sound in this regard. The Plan provides for the necessary management capacity to meet the forecast waste arisings taking into account anticipated cross-boundary movements. Locations for strategic energy recovery facilities are identified (Policy W6). Flexibility for waste management development to take place at other levels of the waste hierarchy is provided in other policies (Policies W3, W5, W7, W8 and W9). 25. Risks to the delivery of necessary capacity are addressed in the Plan (Section 5.3). There is sufficient flexibility to address future variations in the levels of waste and the possible non-delivery of strategic facilities. 26. A presumption in favour of sustainable development is set out in Policy W1 of the Plan. This confirms that the Council will take a positive approach in considering waste development proposals. Planning applications that accord with the policies in the Plan will be approved unless material considerations indicate otherwise. However, several of the policies in the Plan are couched in 5

Updated national waste planning policy: Planning for sustainable waste management -7-

Devon Waste Plan, Inspector’s Report, October 2014

negative terms. To ensure that the Plan has been positively prepared in all respects, and to be consistent with national policy, a number of main modifications are necessary. Main modifications MM23 (part), MM25, MM29 (part), MM32 (part), MM34, MM35 (part), MM37 (part), MM39 and MM40 refer. Main Issues 27. Taking account of all the representations, written evidence and the discussions that took place at the examination hearings, I have identified three main issues upon which the soundness of the Plan depends. Issue 1 – Whether sufficient new waste management capacity of the right type would be provided in the right place and at the right time Vision and objectives 28. Chapter 3 of the Devon Waste Plan provides a Vision of how waste management would be undertaken within the Plan area by 2031. This Vision is supported by a number of Objectives. The Vision and Objectives have been prepared in the context of national policy on waste management. 29. In terms of the Vision, there are two areas where there is an inadequate reflection of national policy. First, Planning Policy Statement 10 states that, amongst other things, the planning system is pivotal to the adequate and timely provision of the new facilities that will be needed.6 The Plan itself refers to 2031 as the reference date whereas provision should be a continuous and on-going process. As such, “Over the period to 2031” should be referred to as the appropriate timeframe. 30. Secondly, the Waste Management Plan for England sets out the key aim of working towards a zero waste economy.7 This important ambition is not reflected in the Plan. Main modification MM08 would address both these matters and bring the Plan into line with national policy. 31. In terms of the Objectives, Objective 6 is concerned to limit the adverse impacts of waste transportation by locating waste management facilities close to major sources of waste. This would be in accordance with the proximity principle as enshrined in national policy.8 However, the proximity principle can also be satisfied by locating facilities close to opportunities for the beneficial use of waste. In addition, seeking to ensure the absence of adverse impacts (rather than limiting the effects) would be a more justifiable objective and policy. These matters are addressed in main modifications MM09 and MM10. Spatial strategy 32. Policy W6 identifies a number of specific locations where strategic energy recovery facilities could be developed. In the main, the sites have been chosen so that provision would be made in different parts of Devon relatively close to the larger centres of population. However, there are two sites in the Exeter area. These are known as Hill Barton (W6C) and Greendale Barton 6 7 8

Planning Policy Statement 10 (RD09), Para 1 Waste Management Plan for England (RD12), Page 1 Waste Management Plan for England (RD12), Pages 29 to 30 -8-

Devon Waste Plan, Inspector’s Report, October 2014

(W6D). The choice of two sites in the same area has led to concerns that there would be undesirable cumulative effects. In particular, both locations are served by the A3052 where there are existing air quality issues, notably at Clyst St Mary. 33. Policy W6 is supportive of the development of energy recovery capacity of up to 80,000 tonnes a year at any of the strategic energy recovery locations. In theory, this would allow the development of new energy recovery facilities with a combined capacity of 160,000 tonnes of waste a year at Hill Barton and Greendale Barton. This would be on top of the capacity of facilities for which planning permission has already been granted (80,000 tonnes a year at Hill Barton) or that already exists within the areas. 34. In response to these concerns, the Council has suggested that further provision at these two facilities over and above the currently permitted capacity should not exceed 80,000 tonnes in total. However, representors are still concerned about the possible cumulative, visual and environmental effects. 35. For my part, I saw that both employment areas are suitable in land use terms for further waste management development. In addition, I am aware that, although development at Hill Barton would involve an extension of the employment area, further development at Greendale Barton would take place within the confines of the existing estate. 36. With regard to the concerns of representors, I consider that adequate safeguards would be in place. In particular, development would be controlled in accordance with the development management policies and the tables of issues and constraints in Appendix B of the Plan. I would expect air pollution issues to be addressed in the environmental impact assessment and informed by the Transport Assessment or Transport Statement. I realise that environmental health controls may sometimes be limited. However, if there were demonstrable harm, I would expect any related planning application to be refused. 37. In all the circumstances, I agree that further provision at the two locations should not exceed total capacity of 80,000 tonnes a year. This would be as set out in main modification MM19 and justified as being the most appropriate strategy. 38. In terms of non-identified locations, the Plan policy (Policy W3: Spatial Strategy) refers to strategic recycling, recovery and disposal facilities within or close to Exeter, Barnstaple and Newton Abbot or at other large towns within Devon. However, the wording of the policy is not justified by the evidence. In this respect, and having regard to information elsewhere within the Plan, there is confusion over what is meant by “within or close to”; also the meaning of “other large towns”. 39. In considering proximity to the principal settlements, it will be important for the Council to have regard to the local road network as well as the needs of waste collection and disposal authorities and businesses in the area. As to “other large towns”, the main objective is to locate facilities where there are opportunities for the efficient use of heat and power that are accessible to the

-9-

Devon Waste Plan, Inspector’s Report, October 2014

identified settlements. The use of previously developed land or redundant buildings is also an important consideration. These matters would be addressed in main modifications MM11, MM12 and MM13. Quantitative provision 40. Several representors have sought to question calculations and assumptions upon which the provisions of the Devon Waste Plan are predicated. Key matters are discussed below. Existing permitted capacity – recycling and materials recovery 41. Existing permitted capacity at recycling and materials recovery facilities in Devon is summarised in Table 2.2. In this regard, I have no reason to suppose that the identified facilities and their permitted capacities are not accurately reflected in the table. However, waste can pass through more than one of the facilities as part of its management in advance of being recycled. In addition, the facilities do not necessarily operate at full capacity. As such, the stated capacity is likely to be greater than the practical available capacity. 42. Be that as it may, the total capacity is a substantial figure (3,678,000 tonnes) and well in excess of the capacity that is likely to be required (1,252,500 tonnes9), over the period up to 2031, in order for the Council to meet its various targets. For the Plan to be justified, there should be a proper explanation of the circumstances (main modification MM01). However, the subsequent provisions of the Plan are not undermined in any way. Energy recovery capacity 43. In terms of energy recovery capacity (Table 2.3), the main arguments have concerned what facilities should be included within the total. For example, allowance has been made for a contribution of 60,000 tonnes a year from the energy from waste facility at Devonport. However, the total capacity of the Devonport energy from waste plant is known to be 245,000 tonnes a year. If more of the capacity were used to treat Devon’s waste, less new capacity would be needed. 44. It is true that existing and future energy recovery facilities outside Devon may have capacity to manage waste arising within Devon. However, there is no certainty that such capacity will remain available for Devon’s waste. The allowance of 60,000 tonnes at Devonport is the contracted capacity for local authority-collected waste. In other respects, and in accordance with the Plan’s Vision, the approach is to provide sufficient capacity within the County to meet Devon’s anticipated energy recovery needs. 45. The position with regard to Devonport and other out-of-county facilities is an important element of the calculation. In justification of the Council’s approach, an explanation should be provided within the Plan. Main modification MM02 refers. However, no adjustment of the figures is necessary.

9

Table 2.7 - 10 -

Devon Waste Plan, Inspector’s Report, October 2014

Statistical sources 46. A third area of argument has concerned the origin and date of baseline figures on waste arisings. In this regard, it has been noted that the baseline figures stem from different dates. In addition, the appropriateness of the source of the data has been questioned. 47. In respect of the principal categories of waste arisings, the data does indeed stem from different dates. For example, as shown in Figure 2.3, the data for commercial and industrial waste dates from 2009. In contrast, that for local authority-collected waste is from 2012/13. 48. By far the biggest component of the calculations is the figure for local authority-collected waste. Forecasts of future municipal waste arisings are normally central to the Municipal Waste Management Strategy. Sufficient data are often available via this route. This is indeed the source used by the waste planning authority in Devon. In addition, as shown in Table 2.4 (Estimated waste arisings in Devon at 2013), all the figures on waste arising have been reduced to a common year (2011) as a basis for the projections. 49. I am satisfied that the Council has used the most up-to-date and appropriate sources of data, having regard to proportionality and cost. No modifications are necessary in this regard. Targets 50. A fourth area of challenge concerns the targets that have formed the basis of the County’s statistical calculations. In particular, it is felt that the proposed recycling target is low and unambitious. 51. For local authority-collected waste, the Council is aiming to recycle at least 61% by 2021 (64% by 2031). The present level of recycling (2012/13) is 54%. For my part, I do not find the Council’s targets to be too unambitious. By way of comparison, the national waste plan10 sets out the obligation of taking measures to ensure that, by 2020, at least 50% by weight of waste from households is prepared for reuse or recycled. 52. The desire for higher recycling targets is, in part, motivated by a wish to see less energy recovery, particularly energy recovery involving incineration. However, the legitimacy or otherwise of incineration is a different matter. In terms of the targets put forward by the Council, I deem them to be acceptable. 53. On a separate matter, the implementation and monitoring provisions (Table 5.2) include a target for energy efficiency from energy recovery facilities. The figure (40%) takes into account that existing facilities are likely to be less efficient than those to be developed in the future. Future facilities are assumed to have an efficiency in the region of 60%. However, the Plan is not justified in the sense that the targets and assumptions have not been addressed in the text. This would be dealt with under main modification MM20.

10

Waste Management Plan for England (RD12), Page 4 - 11 -

Devon Waste Plan, Inspector’s Report, October 2014

Energy recovery requirement 54. The energy recovery requirement set out in Policy W6 (377,000 tonnes by 2031) has not been fully justified because it is not clear how this figure and others have been arrived at. This would be addressed through inclusion of a flow diagram showing total required provision (437,000 tonnes) less committed energy recovery capacity (60,000 tonnes) giving 377,000 tonnes. The diagram would also show clearly operational and committed capacity as well as the capacity for which provision is made under Policy W6 parts 2 (c) and (d). Main modification MM18 refers. Types of waste management capacity 55. Amongst the types of waste for which waste planning authorities normally plan are agricultural waste and waste water. Whilst waste water treatment is addressed in Policy W8, the Plan is silent on the topic of agricultural waste. However, in continuation of the foregoing discussion, I first consider whether the Plan gives undue support to incineration as a method of waste management. Incineration 56. My conclusions on the coverage of incineration in the Devon Waste Plan are as follows:

11 12



The Plan does not support incineration without energy recovery. In terms of the waste hierarchy, this would fall into the “disposal” category, the lowest rung of the hierarchy. As stated in Para 3.7.7 of the Plan, it is not envisaged that any further proposals for thermal treatment without energy recovery will emerge.



In terms of thermal treatment with energy recovery, the Plan does not give any preference to incineration. Reference is made to a range of technologies11 including both biological and thermal (incineration, gasification and pyrolysis). However, other than giving support to anaerobic digestion, the Plan takes a clearly stated “technology neutral” approach.



Incineration with energy recovery is not against Government policy. This is clear from a reading of documents such as Energy from Waste A guide to the debate (RD13).



I am aware that there are health risks associated with incineration. However, national policy12 indicates that waste planning authorities should not concern themselves with processes which are a matter for the pollution control authorities. They should work on the assumption that the relevant pollution control regime will be properly applied and enforced.

See, for example, Para 3.6.3 to 3.6.5 of the Plan Planning Policy Statement 10 (RD09), Para 26 - 12 -

Devon Waste Plan, Inspector’s Report, October 2014



Safeguards are available within the Devon Waste Plan. For example, under Policy W18 (Quality of Life), dust and other reduction in air quality would need to be strictly controlled.

57. In all the circumstances, I am satisfied that the Devon Waste Plan does not give undue support to incineration. No related main modifications are needed. Agricultural waste 58. Through the examination, it was adduced that the low level of arisings of inorganic agricultural waste requiring management away from farms does not warrant any specific provision through the Devon Waste Plan. However, in order to ensure that this matter is addressed in the Plan, the addition of appropriate text is recommended (main modification MM07). Waste water 59. Policy W8 on waste water treatment is lacking in a number of respects: 

There is a failure to state the spatial objective of providing a Countywide network of facilities.



In the context of the water environment, there is a failure to include reference to the achievement of the conservation objectives of waterdependent Natura 2000 sites and Sites of Special Scientific Interest.



In terms of the quality of life of local communities, the policy only refers to odours and emissions.



The policy would automatically view favourably proposals for the cotreatment of waste with other organic waste.

60. In order to address these shortcomings, in line with national policy, a number of changes are proposed. These are set out in main modification MM24. Types of waste management facilities 61. Through the examination process, the Council demonstrated that sufficient capacity already exists to increase rates of reuse, recycling and materials recovery in accordance with the stated targets. There remains the question of whether adequate provision has been made for other recovery and disposal. Two particular matters are the management of incinerator bottom ash and provision for disposal to landfill. Incinerator bottom ash 62. In addition to other facilities, waste from Devon will be managed at energy from waste facilities at Exeter and at Devonport (Plymouth). The Exeter facility has recently been completed. It is expected that around 16,000 tonnes of incinerator bottom ash will be produced each year. The Devonport facility is scheduled for completion in 2015. The production of approximately 60,000 tonnes of incinerator bottom ash a year is anticipated. The planning permission requires that at least 95% of the incinerator bottom ash should be recycled.

- 13 -

Devon Waste Plan, Inspector’s Report, October 2014

63. Although the Devonport facility lies within the administrative boundaries of Plymouth City Council, it is likely to prove difficult to manage the incinerator bottom ash within Plymouth. Provision needs to be made for the management, within Devon, of the incinerator bottom ash particularly from the Devonport facility.13 64. Unless and until a facility is available for the recycling of incinerator bottom ash, it is likely that the material would go to landfill. This would be contrary to the provisions of the waste hierarchy and those of the planning permission for the Devonport facility; also contrary to Objective 1 of the Devon Waste Plan which aims to treat waste as a resource and avoid its landfilling. 65. To be consistent with national policy, the Plan should make specific provision for the treatment of incinerator bottom ash. The text should recognise the matters referred to above. Policy encouragement for the provision of facilities for the recycling of incinerator bottom ash and/or other non-hazardous thermal treatment residues arising within Greater Devon should be made through the modification of Policy W5 (Reuse, Recycling and Materials Recovery). Main modifications MM03, MM04, MM05, MM06, MM16 and MM17 (part) are recommended. Landfill 66. The need for additional landfill capacity within Devon is shrouded in uncertainty. The Council’s “best estimate” is that capacity will expire in 2022/23. This is based on “Scenario 4”.14 However, this scenario does not take into account the disposal to landfill of recovery outputs (such as incinerator bottom ash). More particularly, the scenario assumes that timely progress can be made in meeting the Council’s recycling and recovery targets. For local authority collected waste, this would require 95% recycling and recovery by 2021 (presently 54%). The equivalent target for commercial and industrial waste is also 95% (67% now). 67. The landfill strategy as set out in the Plan can be summarised as follows: 

There are no landfill allocations.



There is support in principle for extensions to temporary planning permissions (although those in themselves would not yield any extra capacity).



Permission for new capacity (whether new sites or extensions to existing sites) could be granted under Policy W7 (Waste Disposal) where there is a demonstrable need and subject to appropriate safeguards.

68. Representors are understandably concerned at the lack of specificity within the Plan. This is underlined by one of the conclusions of Waste Topic Paper 3:15 “…there are sites available within Devon which have the potential to be

13

A legal agreement for the new Exeter facility requires the use of reasonable endeavours to market the material as a secondary aggregate. 14 Waste Topic Paper 3: Future waste management needs assessment (ED03) 15 ED03, Para 5.11.4 - 14 -

Devon Waste Plan, Inspector’s Report, October 2014

delivered if the need for additional capacity can be demonstrated.” They argue that a transparent assessment of sites should take place now. 69. For my part, I do not consider that it would be in the wider public interest to delay progress on the Devon Waste Plan for want of an assessment of potential landfill sites. It is a matter of considerable uncertainty. In addition, there is no immediate need for new capacity. Nevertheless, it is a situation that needs close monitoring. For this part of the Plan to be justified and effective, I consider that stringent monitoring targets should be included within the Plan. For example, an immediate partial review of the Plan should be triggered if non-hazardous capacity at 2015 fell below 1.54 million cu m (the permitted capacity available at Devon’s landfill sites at that date). 70. In addressing this matter, modifications to the text and to the implementation and monitoring provisions are necessary. These are detailed in main modifications MM22 and MM43. Timely provision 71. As noted above, national policy places emphasis on the “timely provision” of new facilities. In Devon, the most important facilities in question are energy recovery facilities. These are covered by Policy W6. There is reference to the requisite quantitative provision (377,000 tonnes). However, the timeframe for provision is “by 2031”. 72. The terms of the policy are justified neither by the evidence nor by national policy. The Council’s clear intention is to improve rates of reuse, recycling and material recovery throughout the period to 2031. It is possible to identify the targets that it is intended to reach as certain key dates (2016, 2021, 2026 and 2031). Progress towards a reduction in the amount of waste sent to landfill can be measured in similar terms. 73. In recognition of the need for timely provision, a number of main modifications are recommended (MM17(part), MM21 (part), MM23 (part), MM42 and MM44). Through these main modifications, targets and key dates would be introduced into Policy W5 (Reuse, Recycling and Materials Recovery), Policy W6 (Energy Recovery) and Policy W7 (Waste Disposal). Appropriate monitoring provisions would be set out in Table 5.2 (Implementation and Monitoring Framework). Main modification MM21 would also make clear the way in which Part 3 of Policy W6 is intended to operate. Additional locations 74. In terms of energy recovery, the Council has put forward five locations where related development would be acceptable in principle. These are identified in Policy W6 (Energy Recovery). The locations are known as Brynsworthy Environment Centre (W6A), Tiverton Eastern Urban Extension (W6B), Hill Barton (W6C), Greendale Barton (W6D) and Heathfield (W6E). The acceptability of these sites in environmental and other terms in discussed below under Issue 3. However, a number of other sites have also been put forward through representations. 75. The main contenders are at Brynsworthy (extended), Deepmoor and Cranbrook. However, they share a number of considerations. None of the - 15 -

Devon Waste Plan, Inspector’s Report, October 2014

sites are needed in spatial or quantitative terms. In addition, they have not been the subject of public consultation, sustainability appraisal or assessment under the Habitats Regulations. The Devon Waste Plan is sound without the inclusion of any of these sites. 76. By way of brief commentary, I note that the Brynsworthy proposal would involve an extension to the east and west of the site already to be allocated. The land in question is open countryside. It is agricultural land and “Unconfirmed Wildlife Site”.16 Although the inclusion of additional land could facilitate the development of the allocated site, no need has been demonstrated at this stage. 77. In common with the Brynsworthy site, the site at Deepmoor is in northwest Devon. It is seen as a site that would add flexibility to the Council’s strategy. It is an existing waste management site that includes a landfill site, recycling centre and composting facility. There is a current planning application under which the acceptability of the site, the benefits of a willing developer and the prospect of the early provision of additional waste management facilities will be tested. 78. As a new community, Cranbrook is the sort of development where use of energy from waste would be in tune with national policy. However, the development is well advanced. There is no evidence to indicate that, at this stage, those involved in the promotion of the development and its infrastructure are interested in recovering energy from waste. Issue 2 - Whether there are clear and appropriate policies that, amongst other things, are consistent with national policy and would ensure that there would be no unacceptable adverse effects on the environment or communities Waste prevention 79. In common with national policy, one of the central themes of the Devon Waste Plan is driving waste up the waste hierarchy. This starts with waste prevention, the top-most tier of the waste hierarchy. In this regard, the Plan has a waste prevention policy (Policy W4). Policy W4 includes a requirement for waste audits to be submitted in support of major developments. However, the policy gives no real indication of the important matters that would need to be addressed, at both the construction and operational stages, to achieve waste prevention within the control of the planning system. 80. In support of national policy, and to give maximum effect to the desirability of waste prevention and minimisation, the policy, related text and monitoring provisions need to address a number of matters:

16



Sustainable procurement.



Measure to ensure accordance with the waste hierarchy at the demolition and construction phases.

As identified on the site allocation inset plan - 16 -

Devon Waste Plan, Inspector’s Report, October 2014



Measure to ensure accordance with the waste hierarchy during the operational phase.



Measures to minimise the generation of hazardous waste.

81. These matters are covered in main modifications MM14, MM15 and MM41. The main modifications are hereby recommended. Safeguarding waste management capacity 82. The Devon Waste Plan includes a policy on safeguarding existing waste management capacity (Policy W10: Protection of Waste Management Capacity). However, the policy fails to take account of the legitimacy of proposals that are in accordance with a site allocation in an adopted local plan. To make the Plan effective in this regard, main modification MM26 is recommended. Development management 83. Section 4 of the Plan contains a number of development management policies. These have been reviewed, principally with a view to ensuring consistency with national policy. The policies where main modifications are necessary to ensure soundness are considered below. Biodiversity and geodiversity 84. Policy W11 of the Plan seeks to protect and enhance wildlife and geodiversity. In this regard, and in respect of international nature conservation and geological sites, Paragraph 118 of the National Planning Policy Framework (RD08) seeks to avoid impacts from all proposed developments. This provision is not reflected in Policy W11. 85. In addition, Policy W11 states that proposals that can show a positive contribution to the restoration, creation, protection, enhancement and management of ecological networks at the landscape scale will be favourably considered. Whilst encouragement of such proposals would be in order, it would not be appropriate to give automatic favourable consideration. 86. To make the Plan sound in these respects, and consistent with national policy, a main modification is necessary. Main modification MM27 is recommended. Landscape and visual impact 87. Paragraphs 115 and 116 of the National Planning Policy Framework concern conserving landscape and scenic beauty in areas that include Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Planning permission should be refused for major developments in these designated areas except in exceptional circumstances. In order for the Plan to be consistent with national policy, Policy W12 of the Plan and the related Paragraph 4.3.3 need to be modified. Main modifications MM28 and MM29 (part) refer.

- 17 -

Devon Waste Plan, Inspector’s Report, October 2014

Historic environment 88. The Historic Environment is addressed in Section 4.4 of the Plan which includes Policy W13 (The Historic Environment). However, the provisions are unsound in a number of respects: 

Part 2 of Policy W13 is not consistent with the tests in Paragraphs 132 and 133 of the National Planning Policy Framework.



Part 2 (c) of Policy W13 undermines the protection provided by the National Planning Policy Framework.



By presupposing that harm is acceptable, Paragraph 4.4.2 is not consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework.



The wording of Paragraph 4.4.3 is inconsistent with the National Planning Policy Framework at Paragraph 139.

89. To be consistent with national policy, modifications are needed notably in relation to the harm to or loss of assets, the need for assessment of heritage assets, the “exceptional” test, the scope for mitigation and enhancement and procedures for assessments. These would be effected through main modifications MM30, MM31 and MM32 (part). Sustainable and quality design 90. Policy W14 addresses the topic of sustainable and quality design including measures related to surface water run-off. In order for the policy to be effective, the provisions should seek to prevent (rather than avoid) surface run-off from development sites exacerbating flood risk elsewhere. This is the subject of main modification MM33. Natural resources 91. Part 2 of Policy W16 (Natural Resources) refers to waste management developments on previously developed land. Development that utilises previously developed land in preference to undeveloped land, and/or achieves the remediation of contaminated land, will be viewed favourably. As in other policies, it would not be appropriate to give automatic favourable consideration to such developments. In order for the policy to be effective, related developments should be encouraged rather than viewed favourably. Main modification MM35 (part) is recommended. Transportation and access 92. Paragraph 4.8.2 of the Plan states that the strategic energy recovery locations are those with a high level of accessibility both to the major road network and to the use of alternative modes of transport including rail. However, in the event, none of the strategic sites are accessible by alternative modes of transport. To this extent, the statement in the paragraph is not justified. It would be corrected through main modification MM36. 93. On a separate matter, one of the recurrent themes at the examination hearings was a concern regarding the potential cumulative effects of vehicle - 18 -

Devon Waste Plan, Inspector’s Report, October 2014

movements particularly the movement of heavy goods vehicles. Paragraph 32 of the National Planning Policy Framework refers to this topic by stating that development should only be prevented or refused on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts of development are severe. However, the Plan itself is silent on the matter. In order to ensure consistency with national policy, main modification MM37 (part) is recommended. Quality of life 94. Policy W18 (Quality of Life) already seeks to protect peoples’ quality of life and amenity from the adverse effects of waste management development and transportation. However, in common with the foregoing sub-section on the subject of transportation and access, reference to cumulative effects would be appropriate and consistent with national policy. Main modification MM38 is recommended. Monitoring 95. A number of main modifications are necessary with regard to the monitoring provisions within the Devon Waste Plan. The majority of these modifications have been dealt with in the forgoing report in relation to the matters that give rise to the monitoring requirement. However, there is an outstanding matter in respect of local liaison groups and monitoring visits. 96. The role of local liaison groups and monitoring visits is noted in the body of the text of the Waste Local Plan. They are also identified as monitoring indicators in Table 5.2 of the Plan (Implementation and Monitoring Framework). However, these indicators do not support policies within the Plan. In order for the Plan to be effective in this regard, the related indicators should be deleted. This would be achieved under main modification MM45. Issue 3 - Whether the strategic energy recovery locations are acceptable in environmental terms and in other respects; whether the locations are deliverable; and whether the waste briefs provide an appropriate context for the successful development of waste management facilities Brynsworthy Environment Centre 97. As with all the proposed strategic energy recovery locations, there is a table of issues and constraints relevant to the Brynsworthy Environment Centre (Appendix B). This sets out matters that will need to be addressed in future planning applications. However, the information is lacking in a number of respects: 

In ensuring deliverability of the site, account needs to be taken of the needs of North Devon Council (as occupiers of part of the site) in terms of car parking and vehicular access.



There is a failure to identify factors relevant to the use of the B3232.



Matters relevant to biodiversity are inadequately addressed notably in relation to the Culm Grasslands SAC.

- 19 -

Devon Waste Plan, Inspector’s Report, October 2014



There is inadequate expression of requirements in relation to land contamination.



In terms of landscape character, there is inadequate consideration of potential visual impacts including effects on the North Devon AONB.



The location of the site within a Critical Drainage Area is not identified.

98. The effectiveness and deliverability of the policy provisions are at fault. For the Plan to be sound, a number of main modifications are recommended. These are main modifications MM46, MM47, MM48, MM49, MM50 and MM51. Tiverton Eastern Urban Extension 99. On a preliminary point, the extent of the proposed energy recovery location at the Tiverton Eastern Urban Extension is not supported by the evidence. The boundary needs to be reduced in size to reflect the employment land allocation in Tiverton’s Eastern Urban Extension Masterplan Supplementary Planning Document (RD20). Main modification MM55 refers. 100. A further cartographic change relates to the identification of the Blundell’s Conservation Area, designated after the final adjournment of the examination hearings. This is an important constraint and needs to be shown on the related plan. The boundary would also be shown under main modification MM55. 101. There are a number of other areas where the effectiveness of matters relating to the historic environment need to be addressed: 

Unscheduled archaeological assets wholly or partly within the site should be referenced.



Reference should be made to the presence and relevance of Knightshayes Grade I listed building and Grade II* registered park and garden.



Reference should be made in the text to the Blundell’s Conservation Area and matters of relevance.

102. Changes to be made under main modification MM54 would address these soundness issues. With these changes in place, the Plan would be effective in relation to the historic environment. 103. There remain a number of key concerns principally with regard to employment prospects at the urban extension and potential effects on Blundell’s School. These concerns go to the heart of whether the allocation is justified and deliverable. 104. It is proposed that any strategic energy recovery facility would be sited within the area allocated for employment purposes at the western end of the urban extension. The employment area is intended, by the owners, to be a business park environment. However, they see an energy recovery facility as being - 20 -

Devon Waste Plan, Inspector’s Report, October 2014

prejudicial to this vision; also resulting in reduced employment densities. Their concern is such that the Chettiscombe Trust (owner) “is not prepared to release the land” for the purpose of energy recovery.17 105. I appreciate that the economies of scale, and the function of the facility, will influence the design of a related waste development. However, from my experience of such projects, I have no reason to suppose that an acceptable design solution could not be achieved, one that would be sympathetic both to the Conservation Area and to a business park. In addition, I would not expect employment densities to be materially affected. An energy recovery facility would not necessarily have limited employment. In addition, a prestige business park is likely to have comparatively low employment densities. 106. I am also mindful of the fact that the Council’s proposed allocation is very much in tune with Government thinking. For example, the National Waste Management Plan for England states that, “Any given technology is more beneficial if both heat and electricity can be recovered. Particular attention should therefore be given to the location of the plant to maximise opportunities for heat use.”18 Similar encouragement is given in the emerging planning policy on waste.19 107. I appreciate that a certain meeting of minds is going to be necessary before energy recovery takes place at the Tiverton East Urban Extension. However, bearing in mind the Government’s support for such projects, I am firmly of the opinion that the Council’s allocation and the opportunity for a strategic energy recovery facility should be endorsed. 108. There remains the question of traffic effects, notably on Blundell’s Road which bisects the Conservation Area and the estate of Blundell’s School. As a first phase, a “left in, left out” junction on the A361 is to be constructed to serve the urban extension. In the fullness of time, this would be replaced by a full grade separated junction. However, until this happens, traffic associated with the development is likely to use Blundell’s Road. 109. If an energy recovery facility did not take place, the allocated land is likely to be developed by some other employment use. The proportion of heavy goods vehicles serving the site could then be lower but this is by no means certain. Whatever the circumstances, I would expect all aspects of the traffic effects to be tested through the development management process. Safeguards would be available through the policies and other Plan provisions; the necessity for the submission of a Transport Statement or Transport Assessment; and through environmental impact assessment. 110. By way of main modifications, and on the grounds of effectiveness, the importance of traffic flow on Blundell’s Road as well as the timing and implementation of the new access onto the A361 need to be recognised. This is as set out in main modification MM52. 111. A final matter concerns biodiversity. The related section of the issues and constraints table needs to be clarified and corrected to ensure effectiveness. 17

PS8/3, Para 1.1 Waste Management Plan for England (RD12), Page 33 19 Update national waste planning policy: Planning for sustainable waste management, Consultation, July 2013, Footnote 4 18

- 21 -

Devon Waste Plan, Inspector’s Report, October 2014

In particular, there needs to be explicit reference to the need for Habitats Regulations Assessment at the project stage. Such matters are dealt with under main modification MM53. Hill Barton 112. In the foregoing discussion (Issue 1 – Spatial Strategy), I noted the acceptability, in land use terms, of Hill Barton as a location for further waste management development. This conclusion also applies to energy recovery on the land the subject of the allocation which is to the northeast of the existing employment area. However, this acceptability assumes that adequate safeguards are in place. In this regard, the table of issues and constraints is deficient in a number of respects: 

There is inadequate identification of the properties that might be affected and of the need for adequate control and mitigation with regard to human health and amenity.



Matters relevant to the operation of Exeter International Airport need to be set out.



Attention needs to be drawn to the highway network and the possible need for mitigation at constrained junctions.



The relationship with the East Devon AONB and the requirement for mitigation for visual impact needs to be stated.

113. The effectiveness of the Plan is undermined by these shortcomings. Related soundness would be assured through main modifications MM56, MM57, MM58 and MM59. Greendale Barton 114. The acceptability in principle of Greendale Barton as a location for waste management development has also been noted above. This is especially so bearing in mind that any energy recovery would take place within the confines of the existing industrial area. National policy is supportive of the consideration of industrial sites as locations for new or enhanced waste management facilities.20 Again, however, additional safeguards need to be built into the Plan:

20



There is inadequate identification of the properties that might be affected and of the need for adequate control and mitigation with regard to human health and amenity.



Matters relevant to the operation of Exeter International Airport need to be set out.



Attention needs to be drawn to the highway network and the possible need for mitigation at constrained junctions.

Planning Policy Statement 10 (RD09), Para 20 - 22 -

Devon Waste Plan, Inspector’s Report, October 2014



There should be reference to the setting of the East Devon AONB and the need to limit building heights.

115. Main modifications MM60, MM61, MM62 and MM63 are hereby recommended. With these modifications in place, the effectiveness of the Plan in this regard would be addressed. Heathfield 116. Heathfield is the final proposed strategic energy recovery location to be considered. It has operated as a non-hazardous landfill since 1979. Other waste management facilities undertaken at the site are the generation of electricity from landfill gas and in-vessel composting. In addition, permission exists (unimplemented) for the development of two materials recovery facilities. 117. It is clear that residents in the vicinity of Heathfield have experienced adverse impacts from the site and its associated traffic over the years. However, local authority-collected waste that is currently landfilled here will shortly be diverted to the energy recovery facilities at Exeter and Devonport. From January 2015, there should be a marked reduction in the scale of operations at the site. 118. Heathfield is well located in relation to sources of waste in southern Devon including Torbay. It is well placed to accommodate an energy recovery facility to manage commercial and industrial waste that is currently landfilled. It is also an area where recent highway improvements (B3193 re-alignment) have taken place. Given the safeguards that are built into the Plan, I consider that Heathfield is an appropriate location for the development of strategic energy recovery facilities. The Devon Waste Plan is sound in this regard.

Overall Conclusion and Recommendation 119. The Plan has a number of deficiencies in relation to soundness and/or legal compliance for the reasons set out above which mean that I recommend nonadoption of it as submitted, in accordance with Section 20(7A) of the Act. These deficiencies have been explored in the main issues set out above. 120. The Council has requested that I recommend main modifications to make the Plan sound and/or legally compliant and capable of adoption. I conclude that with the recommended main modifications set out in Appendix A and Annex A the Devon Waste Plan satisfies the requirements of Section 20(5) of the 2004 Act and meets the criteria for soundness in the National Planning Policy Framework.

Andrew S Freeman INSPECTOR This report is accompanied by Appendix A (Main Modifications) and Annex A (Flow diagram to be inserted after Paragraph 3.6.9)

- 23 -

Appendix A – Main Modifications The modifications below are expressed either in the conventional form of strikethrough for deletions and underlining for additions of text, or by specifying the modification in words in italics. The page numbers and paragraph numbering below refer to the submission (Pre-submission Consultation Version) local plan and do not take account of the deletion or addition of text. The flow diagram to be inserted after Paragraph 3.6.9 (Main Modification MM18) is contained in Annex A (separate).

Ref

Page

Policy / Paragraph

MM01

Page 28

2.3.39

MM02

Page 30

2.3.43

MM03

Page 34

2.4.8

Main Modification

The table below summarises the capacity currently available in Devon for recycling and materials recovery, with the total being considerably in excess of the total waste arisings for Devon indicated in paragraph 2.3.6. It should be noted that whilst the total recycling capacity is a large figure, waste can pass through more than one of these facilities as part of its management in advance of being recycled. In addition, these facilities do not necessarily operate at full capacity. Insert additional paragraph after 2.3.43: Existing or future energy recovery facilities outside Devon may have capacity to manage waste arising within Devon that could reduce the amount capacity required in Devon. However, there is no certainty that such capacity will remain available for Devon’s waste, while outward flows of waste for recovery will be offset by current and potential inward movements. With the exception of the contracted capacity for local authority-collected waste at the Plymouth facility, the Devon Waste Plan therefore seeks to provide sufficient capacity within the county to meet Devon’s anticipated energy recovery needs, rather than assuming that capacity in other areas will remain available. The Waste Plan incorporates the aspiration to recover energy from all waste that is left over after recycling has taken place. In this context, it is necessary for the level of energy recovery capacity to increase so that it is sufficient to manage to approximately 36% of the total LACW and CIW produced by 2031 (on the assumption that recycling reaches the anticipated level of 64%). This will assist in diverting waste which cannot be recycled from landfill, with provision for reusable and recyclable materials to be recovered separately. It is assumed that the non-hazardous residues of thermal treatment (including incinerator bottom ash) will be recycled, rather than being landfilled, and that the digestate residue of anaerobic digestion is beneficially used. From 2014, it is anticipated that around 16,000 tonnes of incinerator bottom ash will be generated by the Exeter incinerator, with a further 60,000 tonnes from the -2-

Ref

MM04

MM05

Page

Page 35

Page 36

Policy / Paragraph

2.4.17

2.4.20

Main Modification

new Plymouth facility. There is also a close relationship between Devon and Plymouth in terms of waste management. In future, around 60,000 tonnes of LACW from southwest Devon will be sent to the energy from waste facility in Plymouth currently under construction (together with approximately 30,000 tonnes of LACW from Torbay that is currently landfilled in Devon). This is a sub-regional facility which will manage in the region of 245,000 tonnes of waste per annum in total. Capacity to manage this waste will therefore not be needed in Devon. However, the facility will generate around 60,000 tonnes of incinerator bottom ash, with its planning permission requiring at least 95% to be recycled. There are currently no facilities within Greater Devon to recycle this material. Similar to the situation in Torbay, work undertaken by Plymouth City Council has underlined that there are no suitable sites in Plymouth to meet the landfill needs of the city. Currently much waste from Plymouth requiring landfill is sent to Cornwall, with a smaller proportion coming to Devon. As a result, there is a need to plan to meet some of the landfill needs of Plymouth in Devon. These cross-boundary waste issues have been assessed in detail. The findings from this assessment suggest that it is necessary to plan to accommodate up to 48,300 tonnes of CIW from Torbay for energy recovery and up to 30,700 tonnes of non-hazardous waste from Plymouth, Torbay and a small amount from Somerset, for disposal. These totals are indicated in Table 2.6 and have been incorporated to the overall needs assessment in order to ensure sufficient capacity is planned for. Across all waste streams no additional recycling capacity for waste generated outside of Devon has been identified. This is because recycling capacity needs are typically met locally. No additional disposal capacity for CDEW generated outside of Devon has been

-3-

Ref

Page

Policy / Paragraph

MM06

Page 38

2.4.28

MM07

Page 40

Following 2.4.39

MM08

Page 43

3.1.4 - Vision

MM09

Page 44

3.1.5 Objectives

Main Modification

identified as only a very small amount of CDEW generated outside of Devon is disposed at sites within Devon. However, the incinerator bottom ash arising in Plymouth mentioned in 2.4.17 will require a facility for its recycling, and potential difficulties in accommodating this within Plymouth may require a facility to be developed within Devon. Informed by the level of existing capacity at waste recycling facilities across the County, it is not necessary to identify further strategic recycling facilities within the County during the plan period for recycling in general, and the existing network of facilities is broadly sufficient to manage projected waste arisings. However, Tthis approach does not preclude additional facilities or indeed extensions to existing facilities from coming forward, particularly for waste streams, such as incinerator bottom ash, which are not capable of being managed at existing facilities but recognises that the existing network of facilities is broadly sufficient to manage projected waste arisings. Insert additional paragraph: The low level of arisings of inorganic agricultural waste requiring management away from the farm does not warrant any specific provision through the Devon Waste Plan, and it is anticipated that the existing waste management network will enable recycling and disposal of this waste stream. Amend the first sentence: By Over the period to 2031, Devon will lead the way in sustainable waste management by working towards a zero waste economy while reducing the generation of waste and treating unavoidable waste as a valuable resource. Objective 6: Transportation of Waste To limit ensure no adverse impacts from waste transportation by locating waste management facilities close to the major sources of waste or opportunities for its beneficial use, encouraging the use of sustainable transport modes and considering local impacts through development

-4-

Ref

Page

Policy / Paragraph

MM10

Page 46

MM11

Page 47

Policy W2: Sustainable Waste Management 3.3.4

MM12

Page 47

3.3.6

MM13

Page 47

Policy W3: Spatial Strategy

Main Modification

management. Amend criterion 1(e) [remainder of policy unaltered]:  minimise the avoid adverse impacts of waste management development on the transport network; Policy W3 recognises the role of Exeter, Barnstaple and Newton Abbot as foci for growth and seeks the location of strategic recovery and recycling facilities13 at or close to those settlements. In applying this policy the WPA will have regard to the needs of waste collection authorities, waste disposal authorities and businesses in the area that the proposed development is intended to serve, together with the suitability of the local road network. Newton Abbot is also well-located to accommodate the potential crossboundary movements of waste from Torbay identified in Table 2.6, which are anticipated to be primarily commercial and industrial waste following the diversion of its local authority collected waste to the Plymouth energy recovery facility from 2015. Scope is also identified for the development of energy recovery capacity at other large towns opportunities in Devon to take advantage of opportunities for utilise heat and power as a sustainable energy source in major residential or commercial development to utilise heat and power as a sustainable energy source. The provision of new waste management facilities should accord with the following mixed spatial approach, having regard to the other policies of the Plan: (a)

strategic recycling, recovery and disposal facilities shall be located: • within or close to Exeter, Barnstaple and Newton Abbot; and/or • at other large towns opportunities within Devon providing an

-5-

Ref

Page

Policy / Paragraph

Main Modification

opportunity for the efficient use of heat and power from energy recovery that are accessible to the settlements identified above in major developments;

MM14

Page 49

3.4.3

(b)

non-strategic reuse, recycling and recovery facilities should be located at the settlements identified in (a) or within or close to Devon’s other towns; and

(c)

small-scale community-based reuse, recycling and composting facilities should be located within or close to the community they serve and/or at the point of the arising or final use of the waste materials.

For all facilities, regard will be had to the merits of the use of previouslydeveloped land or redundant buildings and/or co-location with other waste management facilities, and the potential cumulative effects of doing so. The main scope for waste prevention through development management is by placing responsibility on the developer to demonstrate how waste will be minimised and managed, not only during the construction phase but subsequently as the site is occupied for its approved use. A waste audit statement accompanying a planning application should therefore cover the construction phase (including any demolition) and the operational life of the development, and identify measures to avoid waste occurring and make provision for the management of any waste that is generated in accordance with the waste hierarchy. The statement should also identify the measures taken to minimise the generation of hazardous waste, including use of less harmful materials. Developers should be encouraged to utilise demolition and construction waste within the site by reusing or recycling it, for example by crushing concrete for use as fill material, and thereby reducing the need for

-6-

Ref

MM15

Page

Page 49

Policy / Paragraph

Policy W4: Waste Prevention

Main Modification

transportation elsewhere. 1. Sustainable construction, procurement and waste management in Devon will achieve a reduction in the waste generated through all forms of development. 2.

Planning applications for major development must include a waste audit statement demonstrating how the demolition, construction and operational phases of the development will minimise the generation of waste and provide for the management of waste in accordance with the waste hierarchy, including the incorporation of facilities for the segregated storage of recyclable and non-recyclable waste within the development. Each statement should include the following information where relevant to the development being proposed: (a)

sustainable procurement measures to minimise the generation of waste during the construction process, including avoidance of over-ordering and reduced use of hazardous materials;

(b)

the types and quantities of waste that will be generated during the demolition and construction phases and the measures to ensure that the waste is managed in accordance with the waste hierarchy including:  the segregation of waste materials to enable their separate reuse, recycling or recovery;  the recycling of construction, demolition and excavation waste for use on site or at the nearest suitable facility; and  for any waste materials that are unsuitable for reuse, recycling or recovery, confirmation of the location for their disposal;

-7-

Ref

Page

Policy / Paragraph

Main Modification

(c)

MM16

Page 50

3.5.4

MM17

Page 50

Policy W5: Reuse, Recycling and Materials

the types and quantities of waste that will be generated during the operational phase of the development and measures to ensure that the waste is managed in accordance with the waste hierarchy including:  methods for limiting the generation of waste;  the provision of sufficient storage facilities to enable the segregation of reusable and recyclable waste from waste requiring disposal; and any other steps that are necessary to secure the maximum diversion of waste from disposal. Recent years have seen the emergence of facilities undertaking recycling and recovery of specific waste streams, indicating the increasing viability of recycling and the availability of markets for the processed materials. As well as the facilities collecting food and other organic waste for composting, examples include waste wood and tyre recycling facilities and a soils recovery operation. Future delivery of energy recovery facilities will also generate a range of residual materials that are capable of recycling into new products such as aggregates. The planning permission for the new incinerator in Plymouth requires the recycling of the residual incinerator bottom ash, with a legal agreement for the new Exeter facility requiring that reasonable endeavours be used to market the material as a secondary aggregate. Delivery of new capacity to enable this recycling will assist in meeting Objective 1 in treating this waste material as a resource and avoiding its landfilling. 1. Sustainable waste management in Devon will aim to achieve and maintain sufficient capacity to enable the reuse, recycling or composting of waste in accordance with the following targets: at least

-8-

Ref

Page

Policy / Paragraph

Main Modification

Recovery

64% of forecast arisings of local authority-collected and commercial and industrial waste and 90% of forecast arisings of construction, and demolition waste by 2031.: 2016 57% LACW 58% CIW 88% CDEW Minimum % of waste to 2.

2021 2026 2031 61% 64% 64% 60% 62% 64% 89% 89% 90% be recycled by key plan period dates

To achieve this capacity, planning permission will be granted for additional facilities enabling preparation for reuse, sorting, transfer, materials recovery, composting and/or recycling of waste, unless material considerations indicate otherwise, where they: (a)

are located at or close to the source of the waste or opportunities for its beneficial use; and/or

(b)

achieve the segregation of reusable, recyclable or compostable materials prior to energy recovery or disposal of the residual waste; and/or

(c)

are co-located with a complementary waste management operation; and/or

(d)

enable use of previously-developed land or vacant or redundant buildings.

-9-

Ref

MM18

Page

Page 52

Policy / Paragraph

3.6.9

Main Modification

(d) achieve the recycling of incinerator bottom ash and/or other nonhazardous thermal treatment residues arising within Greater Devon. After taking account of currently operational and committed capacity within Devon (which is around 153,000 tonnes), a balance of 224,000 tonnes of energy recovery capacity is required to divert non-reusable or recyclable waste from landfill (although this requirement will be lower if any of the ‘uncommitted’ permitted capacity amounting to 155,000 tonnes is developed). Figure 3.X provides a flow diagram displaying how the key energy recovery figures relate to one another and their implications for the Plan in terms of the additional capacity provision required. [Flow diagram displayed in Annex A to be inserted here]

MM19

Page 53

3.6.12

MM20

Page 53

3.6.17

[New paragraph] To accord with the mixed spatial approach proposed in Policy W3, it is envisaged that this capacity requirement would be delivered by up to three or four new energy recovery facilities, and Policy W6 therefore indicates a maximum capacity for any new individual facility of around 80,000 tonnes to avoid over-concentration of capacity at one site. Insert additional paragraph after 3.6.12: Two of the locations identified in Policy W6 – Hill Barton and Greendale Barton – lie close together, with the former having permitted energy recovery capacity of 80,000 tonnes. To avoid over-concentration of energy recovery capacity in one part of Devon, which would be contrary to the Plan’s mixed spatial approach, further provision at these two locations over and above the currently-permitted capacity should not exceed 80,000 tonnes in total. Policy W6 underlines the need to ensure the best feasible use of the waste

- 10 -

Ref

MM21

Page

Page 54

Policy / Paragraph

Policy W6: Energy recovery

Main Modification

resource in terms of extracting recyclable materials, utilising the energy secured from the recovery process and recycling any residual materials, including incinerator bottom ash, arising from the recovery process. An overall Devon target of 40% for energy efficiency from energy recovery facilities is included in Table 5.2. This takes into account that existing facilities are likely to be less efficient than those to be developed in future. It is expected that future facilities should have an efficiency in the region of 60%. Proposals for the recycling of non-hazardous residual materials arising from thermal treatment will be considered by reference to Policy W5, while the landfilling or other disposal of such materials is addressed through Policy W7. 1. Sustainable waste management in Devon will aim to achieve and maintain sufficient capacity to recover energy from all local authoritycollected and commercial and industrial waste that cannot be reused or recycled. This will require provision of up to 377,000 tonnes of energy recovery capacity within Devon to meet forecast waste arisings by 2031. in accordance with the following targets for annual capacity:  by 2016 – up to 154,000 tonnes  by 2021 – up to 356,000 tonnes  by 2026 – up to 361,000 tonnes  by 2031 – up to 377,000 tonnes [No change to part 2 of policy] 3.

Proposals for energy recovery capacity (up to a maximum annual capacity of approximately 80,000 tonnes at any one facility) other than at locations identified in 2. will be permitted, unless material considerations indicate otherwise, where:

- 11 -

Ref

Page

Policy / Paragraph

Main Modification

(a)

it can be demonstrated that adequate capacity cannot be delivered at the strategic sites identified in 2.; and/or

(b)

the proposed site is located at or close to the source of the waste being managed, or will achieve a reduction in the distance that waste is transported in comparison with the strategic locations identified in 2.; and

Proposals at other locations not identified in 2. must also demonstrate how: (c)

the proposed site will achieve efficiency in the use of the recovered energy greater than or equivalent to the strategic locations identified in 2.; and

(d)

the facility will manage waste arising from within Devon unless it can be clearly demonstrated that the proposal represents the most sustainable option for managing waste arising from outside the county.

[No change to part 4 of policy] 5.

All proposals for energy recovery facilities must demonstrate how they will achieve the maximum feasible level of: (a)

the extraction of reusable and recyclable materials prior to treatment; and

- 12 -

Ref

Page

Policy / Paragraph

Main Modification

(b) the maximum feasible efficiency in the use of the energy resource, including heat, consistent with the scale and type of facility; and

MM22

Page 56

3.7.6

(c) the maximum feasible level of reuse or recycling of the residual materials remaining after energy recovery. Where a need for further non-hazardous landfill capacity can be demonstrated after taking account of the above factors, it is only likely to be on a small scale due to implementation of facilities for managing waste at a higher level of the hierarchy. While it is unlikely to be economically viable to deliver this capacity through development of a new landfill site, Policy W7 does not rule out the scope for any limited additional capacity to be achieved through a new site rather than an physical extension to an existing site. Consideration of the merits of an extension to an existing non-hazardous landfill site or development of a new site should include the cumulative effects on local communities from previous waste management operations and other forms of development. It is not practicable for a specific site to be identified at present as future rates of filling and completion cannot be firmly identified. The availability of landfill capacity will be reviewed through the annual monitoring process. This will help to inform the undertaking of a partial review of the Plan in relation to this matter within five years of the adoption of the Plan. If through the annual monitoring process it becomes clear that landfill capacity is being utilised at a faster rate than projected, the review date will be brought forward. This commitment to monitoring and a partial review will ensure the Plan’s approach remains sound in light of a change in circumstances in regard to this matter. The review (although a future review of the Devon Waste Plan

- 13 -

Ref

MM23

Page

Page 56

Policy / Paragraph

Policy W7: Waste Disposal

Main Modification

will consider the need for identification of a location for future capacity in the light of any greater certainty that may emerge as existing sites develop). Consideration of the merits of an extension to an existing non-hazardous landfill site or development of a new site should include the cumulative effects on local communities from previous waste management operations and other forms of development. 1. Sustainable waste management in Devon will achieve a significant reduction by 2031, to a level equivalent to a maximum of 5% of forecast arisings of local authority-collected and commercial and industrial wastes and 10% of construction, demolition and excavation waste, in the proportion of waste that is landfilled or otherwise disposed of in accordance with the following targets: 2016 2021 2026 2031 12% 5% 5% 5% LACW 24% 5% 5% 5% CIW 12% 11% 11% 10% CDEW Maximum % of waste to be disposed by key plan period dates 2.

Planning permission will normally be granted for the retention use of remaining capacity for landfilling of non-hazardous and inert waste where a temporary permission will expire prior to the permitted capacity being utilised.

3.

Planning permission will only be granted for new capacity for the disposal of non-hazardous waste where there is a demonstrable need to accommodate residual waste that is incapable of recycling or recovery that cannot be met through existing disposal capacity. Where such a - 14 -

Ref

Page

Policy / Paragraph

Main Modification

need for disposal is identified, consideration shall be given to the cumulative effects of this and other waste management operations on local communities and the environment. 4.

MM24

Page 58

Policy W8: Waste Water Treatment

Planning permission will only be granted for new capacity for the disposal of inert waste if it can be demonstrated that: (a)

the proposal will achieve a significant reduction in the distance that the waste is transported; and

(b)

the materials being disposed of are limited to residual nonrecyclable waste.

5. All proposals for disposal facilities should be supported by sufficient information for Habitat Regulations Assessment of the implications of the proposal, alone or in combination with other plans and projects, on any Natura 2000 site. The conclusions of this assessment must show that the proposal can be delivered without adverse effect on the integrity of any Natura 2000 site. Policy W8: Waste Water Treatment The development or expansion of waste water treatment capacity will be permitted where: (a)

it would play a role in providing a county-wide network of facilities to meeting current or forecast need; and

(b)

the management of the waste will be undertaken in accordance with

- 15 -

Ref

Page

Policy / Paragraph

Main Modification

the waste hierarchy as far as is consistent with the characteristics of the specific type of waste; and (c)

it would not have a significant adverse impact on: (i)

the water environment, including achievement of the conservation objectives of water-dependent Natura 2000 sites and SSSIs;

(ii)

flood risk;

(iii) the condition, functionality or safety of water supply or waste water infrastructure; and/or (iv)

MM25

Page 59

Policy W9: The Management of Special Wastes

MM26

Page 60

Policy W10: Protection of Waste Management Capacity

quality of life for local communities including through odours and other emissions.

Proposals for the co-treatment of waste water with other organic waste that accord with the other Policies of the Devon Waste Plan will be viewed favourably encouraged. Amend part 2 of policy [part 1 unaltered]: 2. Development for the management of special types of waste will only be permitted where it: [criteria (a) and (b) of policy unaltered] [Part 1 of policy is unchanged] 2. Planning applications for non-waste development adjacent or close to a waste management site (as identified in 1.) will be permitted where it can be demonstrated by the applicant that:

- 16 -

Ref

Page

Policy / Paragraph

Main Modification

(a) the proposal will not prevent or restrict the operation of the existing or permitted waste management facility; or

MM27

Page 63

Policy W11: Biodiversity and Geodiversity

(b)

any potential impacts on the operation of the waste management facility can be adequately mitigated by the applicant; or

(c)

there is no longer a need for the waste management facility, having regard to the availability of equivalent capacity within Devon; or

(d)

a suitable and deliverable alternative location can be provided for the waste management facility; or

(e) the proposal is in accordance with a site allocation in an adopted Local Plan. Policy W11: Biodiversity and Geodiversity 1.

Waste management development will protect and enhance wildlife and geodiversity through its siting, design and operational practices. Protection of sites and species will be commensurate with their status and the contribution that they make to Devon’s ecological networks.

2.

International Sites International nature conservation and geological sites (including Natura 2000 sites) will be protected and all proposed development should seek to avoid impacts. Where appropriate, proposals for waste development should be supported by sufficient information for the waste planning authority to complete a Habitats Regulations Assessment of the

- 17 -

Ref

Page

Policy / Paragraph

Main Modification

implications of the proposal on Natura 2000 sites. Planning permission for waste management development within or otherwise affecting a Natura 2000 site will only be granted where the conclusions of this assessment demonstrate that the proposal will have no adverse impacts on the integrity of the site, either alone or in combination with other plans or projects. 3.

National Sites and Habitats Sites of Special Scientific Interest, National Nature Reserves, Marine Conservation Zones and irreplaceable priority habitats such as ancient woodland and aged or veteran trees will be protected. Waste management development which impacts on one or more of these assets will only be permitted where the impact does not conflict with the wildlife or geological conservation interests of that asset.

4.

Local Sites, Local Nature Reserves and Other Priority Habitats Waste management development that will impact on local sites (County Wildlife Sites and County Geological Sites) and other priority habitats will only be permitted where it can be demonstrated that: (a) the proposal will not significantly harm the site; or (b) the benefits of the development outweigh any adverse effects and such effects can be satisfactorily mitigated or, as a last resort, compensated for through offsetting.

5.

Species Waste management development that would impact on legally

- 18 -

Ref

Page

Policy / Paragraph

Main Modification

protected species, UK priority species and other key Devon species will only be permitted where it can be demonstrated that: (a) favourable conservation status of the species is maintained; and (b) appropriate avoidance, mitigation and enhancement measures are put in place. 6.

MM28

Page 64

4.3.3

MM29

Page 65

Policy W12:

Waste management development proposals will only be permitted where they result in a net gain for wildlife proportionate to the nature and scale of the proposal.

7. Proposals that can show a positive contribution to the restoration, creation, protection, enhancement and management of ecological networks at the landscape scale (including areas identified on the Devon Rebuilding Nature Map) will be favourably considered encouraged. The national level of planning policy relating to landscape is set out in the NPPF. This identifies the importance of protecting valued landscapes in conserving and enhancing the natural environment. In particular, it identifies that a core principle of planning is to recognise the intrinsic value of the countryside, stating the critical importance of the landscape and scenic beauty in areas of national designations including National Parks and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Lastly the NPPF identifies the importance of protecting designated areas from general major development, stating that development in these areas should be refused unless in exceptional circumstances and when it can be demonstrated that it is in the public interest, and these principles are reflected in Policy W12. Policy W12: Landscape and Visual Impact

- 19 -

Ref

Page

Policy / Paragraph

Landscape and Visual Impact

Main Modification

1.

The scale, design and location of all waste management development should be sympathetic to the qualities, distinctive character and setting of the landscape. Development proposals should be supported by Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment that is proportionate to the nature, scale and location of development, in order to convey likely significant effects and demonstrate: (a)

how the siting, scale and design of proposals respond to the landscape context and can be integrated into the landscape without harming its distinctive character or valued qualities;

(b)

how any potential adverse visual impacts on sensitive receptors will be avoided or minimised to acceptable levels within a reasonable period; and

(c)

the opportunities that are being taken to improve the character and quality of the area and the way it functions.

In taking landscape into account, reference should be made to relevant landscape character assessments. 2.

Waste management development will not be permitted where it will have an adverse effect on the natural beauty, distinctive landscape character and special qualities of Dartmoor National Park, Exmoor National Park or their settings.

3.

Waste management development will only be permitted within an Area

- 20 -

Ref

Page

Policy / Paragraph

Main Modification

of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB), or at locations that would harm the special qualities or the setting of that AONB, where it can be demonstrated that:

MM30

Page 66

4.4.2

(a)

there are no deliverable alternative sites outside the AONB and its setting; and

(b)

any impacts on the special qualities of the AONB can be avoided or adequately mitigated to acceptable levels; and/or

(c)

the environmental, social and economic benefits of the proposal outweigh the adverse impacts on the AONB; and

(d)

in the case of major development, exceptional circumstances have been demonstrated.

4. Waste management development that would not maintain the character of the undeveloped coast, including areas defined as Heritage Coast, will not be permitted. The NPPF is clear that heritage assets are an irreplaceable resource and therefore Local Plans should conserve them in accordance with their significance. Waste management development can have a variety of impacts on the historic environment, including direct loss together with partial damage and degradation from the impacts of traffic and emissions. The severity of the impact will be dependent on the nature of the asset being affected and the type of development proposed. The County Council has published a planning guidance note on archaeology [http://www.devon.gov.uk/guidance_archaeology-2.pdf] and this should

- 21 -

Ref

Page

Policy / Paragraph

MM31

Page 66

4.4.3

MM32

Page 66

Policy W13: The Historic Environment

Main Modification

be used to inform the preparation of waste planning applications. Early consultation with the County Council’s Historic Environment team is also advised. In many cases development impact will be acceptable or potentially mitigated appropriately. In other cases the impact will be severe enough to warrant the refusal of planning permission. There is not a finite list of heritage assets as discoveries are regularly made. As a result, waste Waste management development may lead to the identification of new heritage assets. When this is the case, site surveys may be required to determine the nature and extent of the asset together with its importance significance. Depending on the likely impact, development may be able to go ahead leading to the removal of the asset. When considering proposals, the Council should identify and assess the particular significance of any heritage asset which may be affected (including its setting), taking account of the available evidence and necessary expertise. Policy W13: The Historic Environment 1.

Waste management development will conserve and enhance Devon’s historic and cultural environment through its siting, design, landscaping and the arrangement of buildings and structures on site. Development proposals should include an assessment of the presence and significance of heritage assets that may be affected and make provision for appropriate survey and recording.

2.

Waste management development that would have an adverse effect on the integrity or setting of a lead to harm to the significance of a designated or non-designated heritage asset, including its setting, will only be permitted if it can be demonstrated that:

- 22 -

Ref

Page

Policy / Paragraph

Main Modification

(a)

the environmental, social and economic substantial public benefits of the proposal outweigh the harm to the heritage asset; or and

(b)

all significant adverse effects can be adequately mitigated.; or

(c)

there are exceptional conservation grounds that warrant the adverse effect.

In assessing proposals affecting heritage assets, appropriate weight will be given to the status of the asset and the extent of loss or harm. Where such harm is justified, the Council will require archaeological excavation and/or historic building recording as appropriate, followed by analysis and publication of the results.

MM33

Page 68

Policy W14: Sustainable and Quality Design

3. Proposals for waste management development that improve the integrity or setting of a heritage asset and/or improve understanding of that asset will be treated favourably encouraged. Policy W14: Sustainable and Quality Design Waste management development will contribute to the achievement of sustainable development, climate change resilience and mitigation, and the maintenance of Devon’s distinctive character and environmental quality. Proposals should demonstrate how the site design, layout and operation will, where consistent with the scale and type of development: (a)

minimise energy demand and heat loss and make provision for the use of renewable and low carbon energy to meet on-site needs;

- 23 -

Ref

MM34

MM35

Page

Page 68

Page 70

Policy / Paragraph

Policy W15: Infrastructure and Community Services

Policy W16: Natural Resources

Main Modification

(b)

be delivered using sustainable construction practices, including the use of secondary and recycled materials in preference to primary materials;

(c)

make efficient use of water resources and incorporate measures to avoid prevent surface water run-off from the site exacerbating flood risk elsewhere;

(d)

utilise landscape design to offset carbon emissions and regulate extremes of temperature;

(e)

enhance biodiversity, respect heritage assets and respond to the distinctive character and visual sensitivity of the area it affects; and

(f) integrate the development into its setting and connect with the adjoining green infrastructure network. Policy W15: Infrastructure and Community Services Amend the second part of Policy W15 [part one unaltered]: 2. Waste management development should not will be permitted where it would not have a significant adverse effect on the operation or safety of infrastructure or services, including utilities, communications infrastructure and military and civil aerodromes. Policy W16: Natural Resources 1.

Waste management development will conserve and enhance natural resources, and proposals will only be permitted where they would not:

- 24 -

Ref

Page

Policy / Paragraph

MM36

Page 70

4.8.2

MM37

Page 71

Policy W17: Transportation and Access

Main Modification

(a)

have a significant adverse effect on the quality and/or availability of water or soil resources;

(b)

sterilise or otherwise constrain economic mineral resources; or

(c)

result in the loss of the best and most versatile agricultural land unless the environmental, social and economic benefits of the proposal outweigh this loss.

2. Waste management development that utilises previously-developed land in preference to undeveloped land, and/or achieves the remediation of contaminated land, will be viewed favourably encouraged. The spatial strategy for the Devon Waste Plan, as expressed in Policy W3, seeks to align the location of waste management facilities with the origin of the waste being managed in order to limit the need for transportation of the waste materials. For the strategic facilities, the locations identified are those with a high level of accessibility, both to the major road network and to opportunities for the use of alternative modes of transport including rail. Policy W17: Transportation and Access 1.

Waste management development should seek to minimise the distance that waste is transported while maximising opportunities for sustainable transportation and access by a variety of modes.

2.

Waste management development will only be permitted where it would not have an significant adverse effect on: (a)

road safety;

- 25 -

Ref

MM38

Page

Page 72

Policy / Paragraph

Policy W18: Quality of Life

Main Modification

(b)

the capacity and functionality of the transportation network for all users; or

(c)

public rights of way and permissive routes.

3. The transportation impacts of waste management development, including any cumulative effects in conjunction with other development, on local communities and the environment should be mitigated appropriately through improvements to transportation infrastructure and services for vehicular and non-vehicular modes. Policy W18: Quality of Life Peoples’ quality of life and amenity will be protected from the adverse effects of waste management development and transportation, including any cumulative effects in conjunction with other development. Development proposals should demonstrate that the following adverse impacts will be strictly controlled to avoid any significant nuisance being caused to dwellings and other sensitive properties close to the site or its transportation routes: [Remainder of policy unaltered]

MM39

Page 73

Policy W19: Flooding

Policy W19: Flooding 1.

Waste management development must be resilient to the impacts of flooding and not lead to an increased risk of fluvial, surface water or groundwater flooding. This will be achieved through application of a sequential approach that favours the location of development in Flood

- 26 -

Ref

Page

Policy / Paragraph

Main Modification

Zone 1. 2.

Consideration will be given to sites within Flood Zone 2 if it can be demonstrated that no suitable locations within Flood Zone 1 are available.

3.

Within Flood Zone 3a, proposals for water-compatible and ‘less vulnerable’ waste management development will be permitted only where it can be demonstrated that no suitable locations are available within Flood Zones 1 and 2. For ‘more vulnerable’ waste management development, including all hazardous waste management and the landfilling of non-hazardous waste, proposals will only be permitted if it can be demonstrated through the Exception Test that:

4.

(a)

the development provides wider sustainability benefits to the community that outweigh flood risk, informed by Devon County Council’s Strategic Flood Risk Assessment; and

(b)

the development will be safe for its lifetime, will not increase flood risk elsewhere and, where possible, will reduce flood risk overall.

Proposals for waste management development within Flood Zone 3b will not be permitted unless if they are water-compatible or, if classified as ‘essential infrastructure’, meet the Exception Test.

5. All proposals for waste management development on sites exceeding one hectare, or any site within Flood Zones 2, 3a and 3b, will be accompanied by a Flood Risk Assessment that considers all forms of flooding; demonstrates

- 27 -

Ref

MM40

Page

Page 75

Policy / Paragraph

Policy W20: Restoration and Aftercare

Main Modification

how flood risks will be managed for the facility’s lifetime, taking account of climate change; and identifies any measures necessary to avoid prevent increased flood risk elsewhere including through the use of Sustainable Drainage Systems. Policy W20: Restoration and Aftercare 1. Proposals for temporary waste management development, including landfilling or landraising, will only be permitted where they provide for the restoration and aftercare of the site in a phased manner during its operation and/or promptly on completion of the operation. [Part 2 of policy is unchanged]

MM41

MM42

Page 80

Page 82

Table 5.2 (Objective 1)

Table 5.2: Indicator 2.1 –

Insert additional indicator prior to Indicator 1.1: Indicator

Baseline

Waste Audit Statements

Not available

Target

100% of major planning permissions supported by or requiring a waste audit statement [Remainder of indicator unchanged] Non-hazardous energy recovery: up to

- 28 -

Trigger for review of the Plan/Policy Less than 75% of major planning permissions supported by or requiring a waste audit statement

Ref

MM43

Page

Page 82

Policy / Paragraph

Main Modification

Capacity of operational waste management facilities

2016: 2021: 2026: 2031:

115,000 353,000 364,000 377,000

Table 5.2 (Objective 2)

Insert additional indicator after Indicator 2.2: Indicator Baseline Target

Permitted capacity available at Devon’s landfill sites

154,000 tonnes 356,000 tonnes 361,000 tonnes tonnes

Non-hazardous (including SNRHW): 2.89 million m3 Inert: 2.68 million m3

- 29 -

Non-hazardous (including SNRHW) 2015: 1.54 million m3 2016: 1.20 million m3 2017: 0.88 million m3 2018: 0.71 million m3 2019: 0.54 million

Trigger for review of the Plan/Policy Immediate review of Plan required if capacity falls below target

Ref

Page

Policy / Paragraph

Main Modification

m3

MM44

Page 83

Table 5.2: Indicator 2.3 – Proportion of Devon’s waste managed in the Plan area

Inert 2015: 2.28 million m3 2016: 2.15 million m3 2017: 2.03 million m3 2018: 1.92 million m3 2019: 1.81 million m3 Target

Indicator

Baseline

2.3 Proportion of Devon’s waste managed in the plan area

LACW: )62% (2011) CIW: ) Non-hazardous waste: 62% (2011) Hazardous waste: 28.7% (2011)

- 30 -

LACW: at least 85% CIW: at least 85% Non-hazardous waste: 2016: at least 68% 2021: at least 73% 2026: at least

Trigger for review of the Plan/Policy Failure to reach a target by a margin of 5 % points

Ref

MM45

MM46

Page

Page 85

Page 94

Policy / Paragraph

Table 5.2: Indicators 4.1 and 4.2

Appendix B W6A Brynsworthy Environment Centre

Main Modification

Indicator

Baseline

4.1 Local liaison groups

Six (2013)

79% 2031: at least 85% Hazardous waste: at least 30% from 2016 to 2031 Target Maintenance of existing groups and establishment of additional groups for any new energy recovery facilities 100%

Trigger for review of the Plan/Policy N/A

4.2 Proportion of 100% (2013) N/A landfill sites receiving at least one monitoring visit per year In the second column alongside Land use constraints: The site is located within the MOD Chivenor Safeguarding Area, and consultation with the Ministry of Defence is required for any development. North Devon Council is undertaking the relocation of staff to Brynsworthy Environment Centre, and delivery of an energy recovery facility should ensure that the Council’s operational needs for car parking and vehicular access are - 31 -

Ref

Page

Policy / Paragraph

MM47

Page 94

Appendix B W6A Brynsworthy Environment Centre

MM48

Page 95

Appendix B W6A Brynsworthy Environment Centre

Main Modification

not constrained. In the second column alongside Transport: The access routes for the site will require assessment, subject to consideration of existing waste traffic movements in the area. Roundswell Roundabout to the north, offering access to the A39 and A361, is currently over capacity, and a waste facility may add pressure and congestion; however, the planned improvements to this junction will help to ease congestion. To the south, use of the B3232 poses is problematic for large vehicles, in particular at St Johns Chapel and Newton Tracey, although diversion of waste from Deep Moor landfill site should result in reduced use of this route. Walking and cycling accessibility to the site is poor, and consideration should be given to development of a walking and cycling route to Roundswell. These issues will need to be addressed through the Transport Assessment. In the second column alongside Biodiversity: A Habitats Regulations Assessment is required to assess hydrological and air quality impacts due to proximity of Braunton Burrows SAC (7 km away), with consideration given to the need for management of surface water and emissions. This Assessment will also need to demonstrate that traffic generated by the site will not cause any adverse effects on the integrity of the Culm Grasslands SAC. The site lies within the transition zone for the UNESCO Biosphere Reserve, and consideration should be given to potential effects on the downstream core and buffer zones. An ecological appraisal conducted for the site advises that the habitats and species potentially present are not considered to be show stoppers providing the appropriate further species-specific surveys effort and any necessary mitigation is employed are undertaken.

- 32 -

Ref

Page

Policy / Paragraph

Main Modification

There are ecologically valuable features contained within the site, including marshy grassland, broadleaved woodland and a stream. Development should avoid that results in the loss of any part of these habitats and should enhance and integrate them the remaining habitat into the development through appropriate management. Bats: Mature trees within the north of the site are considered to have a low potential to support roosting bats. Buildings on site are considered to have negligible potential to support bats. The tree lined stream to the west of the Environmental Centre has been identified as an important commuting route for bats and should be protected from disturbance. Fields surrounding the site are used by foraging bats included the rare Barbastelle and Greater Horseshoe Further bat activity survey would be required at the development control management stage. Dormice: The small area of woodland within the site is likely to support dormice. Further survey is required and, if loss of habitat supporting dormice cannot be avoided, a licence will be required from NE Natural England. Reptiles: there is a very small area of habitat which may support protected reptiles. Otter: It is possible that otters pass through the stream on site and could be affected by pollution / and other impacts on the stream. Development of the site should avoid loss of and disturbance to, habitats, especially those which support European Protected Species such as bats and

- 33 -

Ref

Page

MM49

Page 95

MM50

Page 95

MM51

Page 96

Policy / Paragraph

Appendix B W6A Brynsworthy Environment Centre Appendix B W6A Brynsworthy Environment Centre

Appendix B W6A Brynsworthy

Main Modification

dormice. If habitat loss cannot be avoided then appropriate compensatory habitat should be provided. In the second column alongside Land and soil: Further assessment, including a Phase 1 type report, is required to identify if any contaminated land contamination arising from previous land uses is present. In the second column alongside Landscape: The landscape sensitivity varies across the site. The developed central part of the site benefits from a strong wooded boundary in a shallow valley feature. The southern higher parts of the site forms part of the rural backdrop to Barnstaple, including in views from the North Devon AONB. A facility located here could erode rural tranquil character and the setting of the AONB, although previous site uses reduces sensitivity. There is a medium visual sensitivity on the site. Again, a facility located within the shallow valley feature would help limit wider visual impacts, although large scale development and tall structures could exert visual impacts. Therefore, a small scale An energy recovery facility of a similar height to the existing building, with a stack of limited projection above the roof, without stacks could be accommodated without significant harm if undeveloped land is avoided, high design quality respecting the rural context is used and hedgerows are retained and strengthened. Access Any alterations to access should be gained to the site from A39 to avoid changes in character to other adjacent roads of a more rural character. Any development should address these impacts and achieve mitigation through a Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment. In the second column alongside Water: A watercourse extends through this site west of the existing buildings, and there are numerous other watercourses within 500m of site. The site is within

- 34 -

Ref

Page

Policy / Paragraph

Environment Centre

MM52

Page 99

Appendix B W6B Tiverton Eastern Urban Extension

MM53

Page 99

Appendix B W6B Tiverton Eastern Urban Extension

Main Modification

a Critical Drainage Area, and Development development and any associated infrastructure should not increase surface runoff into local watercourses and should avoid any risk of surface water runoff carrying pollution from the site. Any proposed changes to the watercourse will need to consider the geomorphology and impacts on wildlife in an EIA. As the site for development is likely to exceed 1ha, a Flood Risk Assessment will be required. In the second column alongside Transport: The site has potential to impact on M5 Junction 27 in combination with the wider Eastern Urban Extension, as well as traffic flow on Blundell’s Road, and this these impacts, together with the timing of implementation of the new access onto the A361, should be addressed in the Transport Assessment. In the second column alongside Biodiversity: A Habitats Regulation Assessment is required to assess air quality impacts and demonstrate that traffic generated by the site will not cause any adverse effects on the integrity of the Culm Grasslands SAC. The Tidcombe Fen SSSI is within 500 metres and the Grand Western Canal Local Nature Reserve LNR and County Wildlife Site CWS are within 500m 1 km of the site. Implications Any potential impacts on air quality and hydrology/water quality will need to be assessed. An ecological appraisal of the site found there are hedgerows are likely to be of ecological importance under the Hedgerows Regulations 1997. There is also the potential for bats to use the site for foraging and community commuting and also evidence of dormice was also found. There may thus be a need to conduct site specific surveys to identify any legally Protected and Biodiversity Action Plan priority species.

- 35 -

Ref

Page

Policy / Paragraph

Main Modification

There are Tthree Tree Preservation Orders that are relevant to site, and protection is required through careful siting, design and layout of the facility at the detailed planning application stage.

MM54

Page 99

Appendix B W6B Tiverton Eastern Urban Extension

In the second column alongside Historic Environment: There is a Scheduled Ancient Monument located to the east of the site, with two undesignated archaeological assets wholly or partially within the site. Predetermination archaeological evaluation is required, with provision for recording should planning consent be granted for any subsequent detailed proposals in future. There are two undesignated heritage assets within the site. Pre-determination archaeological evaluation required, recording will be needed should planning consent be granted for any subsequent detailed proposals in future. The site also forms part of the setting of Knightshayes Grade I listed building and Grade II* registered park and garden, and assessment is required of the effects on the setting of these assets from an energy recovery facility, together with measures that may be required to avoid or reduce any harm and achieve enhancement.

MM55

Page 101

Appendix B

Land to the west is included within the Blundell’s Conservation Area, and any development should contribute to preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the Area and ensure no significant impacts on its openness, views and setting. Amend the site boundary in the map for W6B to reflect the employment land

- 36 -

Ref

MM56

Page

Page 102

Policy / Paragraph

Main Modification

W6B Tiverton Eastern Urban Extension

allocation in Mid Devon District Council’s Tiverton Eastern Urban Extension SPD as indicated below, and identify the Blundell’s Conservation Area, as indicated below:

Appendix B W6C Hill Barton

In the second column alongside Human health and amenity: There are 54 residential properties and businesses within 500m of the site, together with further properties on the A3052 that may be affected by traffic generated by the site. Planning permission has also been given for the construction of an additional 11 houses within 350 metres of the boundary of

- 37 -

Ref

Page

Policy / Paragraph

MM57

Page 102

Appendix B W6C Hill Barton

MM58

Page 102

Appendix B W6C Hill Barton

MM59

Page 103

Appendix B W6C Hill Barton

Main Modification

W6C. Therefore Development proposals should demonstrate that impacts from noise, dust, air pollution, odour and vibration, including cumulative impacts arising from other development, should be assessed can be controlled and, if necessary, adequately mitigated. Visual impacts may be significant for those surrounding the site, and sufficient screening and a suitable scale should be proposed. In the second column alongside Land use constraints: Any development will require consultation with Exeter Airport. Detailed discussions will be required at the pre application stage; some waste technologies may be unacceptable. Pre-application discussions should be held with Exeter International Airport to ensure that their operations are not adversely affected. Potential impacts may be caused by lighting, craneage during construction, and the risk of increased bird activity from landscaping, building height and surface water management measures. In the second column alongside Transport: The capacity of the existing transportation network is constrained. The A3052 and adjoining highway network is likely to be able to accommodate development at this location with little or no modification to existing infrastructure. However, Cconstraints at Junction 30 on the M5 and at the A376/A3052 roundabout at Clyst St Mary in peak times will need to be addressed through the Transport Assessment. In the event of that Assessment identifying any residual severe impact at these junctions, the need for mitigation will need to be addressed in discussion with Devon County Council and/or the Highways Agency. There are also constraints at various locations along the A3052 corridor such as Newton Poppleford and Sidford where mitigation is extremely difficult. In the second column alongside Landscape amend the second paragraph: Additionally, the site has a high-medium visual sensitivity due to the visual receptors, which include a few scattered rural dwellings, the few PROW users - 38 -

Ref

Page

Policy / Paragraph

MM60

Page 105

Appendix B W6D Greendale Barton

MM61

Page 105

Appendix B W6D Greendale Barton

MM62

Page 106

Appendix B W6D Greendale

Main Modification

and from the surrounding nearby AONB. To minimise landscape and visual impact, any development should locate within the industrial estate rather than in currently open field to the north, if within open fields, will require mitigation for visual impact required such as retaining and including strengthening hedgerows for screening, recessing buildings, sensitive consideration of building heights and design and avoidance of access through surrounding rural lanes. Any development should address these impacts and achieve mitigation through a Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment. In the second column alongside Human health and amenity: In total, there are 105 address points located within 500m of the site, together with further properties on the A3052 that may be affected by traffic generated by the site. There are currently businesses associated with waste operations on site, meaning it is likely any impacts from noise, dust, air pollution, odour and vibration can be mitigated. Development proposals should demonstrate that impacts from noise, dust, air pollution, odour and vibration, including cumulative impacts arising from other development can be controlled and, if necessary, adequately mitigated. The visual impact will be the most a significant issue, and sufficient screening and a suitable scale should be proposed. In the second column alongside Land use constraints: Any development will require consultation with Exeter Airport. Detailed discussions will be required at the pre application stage; some waste technologies may be unacceptable.Pre-application discussions should be held with Exeter International Airport to ensure that their operations are not adversely affected. Potential impacts may be caused by lighting, craneage during construction, and the risk of increased bird activity from landscaping, building height and surface water management measures. In the second column alongside Transport: The capacity of the existing transportation network is constrained. The A3052 - 39 -

Ref

Page

Policy / Paragraph

Barton

MM63

Page 106

Appendix B W6D Greendale Barton

Main Modification

and adjoining highway network is likely to be able to accommodate development at this location with little or no modification to existing infrastructure. However, Cconstraints at Junction 30 on the M5 and at the A376/A3052 roundabout at Clyst St Mary in peak times will need to be addressed through the Transport Assessment. In the event of that Assessment identifying any residual severe impact at these junctions, the need for mitigation will need to be addressed in discussion with Devon County Council and/or the Highways Agency. In the second column alongside Landscape: The site is of medium landscape sensitivity, and large industrial buildings would result in adverse cumulative impact increasing the perceived size of the whole development, furthering eroding the rural character seen by surrounding views. The visual sensitivity of the site is seen to be highmedium, meaning significant harm could potentially result to the predominately rural character of the area and the setting of the East Devon AONB. To not significantly impact on landscape character and quality, visually important vegetation should be retained and strengthened, building heights should be limited to those of existing buildings and access should be avoided by rural lanes. Any development should address these impacts and achieve mitigation through a Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment.

- 40 -

ANNEX A Figure to be inserted in Paragraph 3.6.9

Total energy recovery capacity provision required to meet the waste management needs of Devon and its functional waste management catchment area:

= 437,000 tonnes per annum

Less the committed energy recovery capacity for the management of Devon’s waste to be provided outside of Devon (60,000 tonnes per annum at the Plymouth Dockyard facility):

= 377,000 tonnes per annum

Less the operational capacity in Devon (153,000 tonnes per annum)

= 224,000 tonnes per annum to be provided through Policy W6

Policy W6 part 2(b): = 0 - 155,000 tonnes per annum

Policy W6 parts 2(c) or 3: = 69,300 – 224,000 tonnes per annum