HERTFORDSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL
PLANNING AND EXTERNAL RELATIONS PANEL
TUESDAY 6 MAY 2008 AT 10.00AM
MINERALS AND WASTE DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK – WASTE CORE STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT PLAN DOCUMENT – Summary of Submission Consultation Responses
Report of the Director of Environment
Author: Julie Greaves Tel: 01992 556227
Executive Member: Derrick Ashley
1. Purpose of report
1.1 To present the panel with the outcome of the public consultation on the Waste Core Strategy Development Plan Submission Document.
2. Summary
2.1 The review and replacement of the adopted Hertfordshire Waste Local Plan, with a new suite of documents, is continuing with the Core Strategy nearing the end of the statutory process. The Waste Core Strategy will set out the Council’s vision and overarching spatial strategy for sustainable waste management in the county. It will also describe how sites for new waste management facilities will be allocated, although the site allocations will be identified in a separate Development Plan Document.
3. Conclusion
3.1 The Core Strategy was formally submitted to the Secretary of State on 28th January 2008. The Planning Inspectorate has appointed an independent inspector to examine the soundness of the plan, which is timetabled for this summer.
3.2 As part of the submission process, the Core Strategy has been subject to a further round of consultation. This report summarises the consultation responses received on the submitted document. All representations made at this stage will be assessed by the Inspector.
4. Background
4.1 Each of the Development Plan Documents has been produced in accordance with the Town and Country Planning (Local Development)(England)Regulations 2004 and consultations undertaken in line with the County Council’s adopted Statement of Community Involvement.
4.2 The Core Strategy has been subject to three separate rounds of public consultation and is now with the Planning Inspector for its examination.
4.3 The purpose of the examination is to determine whether the document is sound, the presumption being that it is sound unless shown otherwise by the evidence considered at the examination. Each representation made which suggests that the plan is unsound should be linked clearly to a test. There are nine criteria against which a Development Plan is tested; the tests are set out in Appendix 1 to this report.
5. Consultation responses
5.1 The Submission Waste Core Strategy was subject to public consultation between January and March 2008. Fifty two organisations/individuals made 221 separate representations on a number of issues. Table 1 summarises the number and type of representations.
5.2 Sixty three of the representations find aspects of the Core Strategy sound, whilst 83 representations state that aspects of the plan are currently unsound. Seventy five representations make general comments on the Core Strategy that do not relate to soundness issues.
Table 1: Number and type of representations on Submission Waste Core Strategy
Type of representation / General Comment / Sound / Unsound / TotalsNumber of representations / 75 / 63 / 83 / 221
Unsound representations - preferred means of taking forward objection / In writing / Examination / No details
24 / 53 / 6 / 83
Type of Examination / Formal hearing / Informal hearing / Round table discussions
5 / 3 / 45 / 53
Of the 83 ‘unsound’ representations, 62 raise new issues, not made at the earlier consultation stages.
5.3 As table 1 illustrates, respondents have stated that 24 of the ‘unsound’ representations can be dealt with in writing, but 53 of the representations request an appearance. Six representations give no details about how the issue should be dealt with. Of the 53 representations that request an appearance, most favour round table discussions.
5.4 The following sections summarise the key issues raised by respondents.
SOUND
5.5 Sixty four representations by eight organisations find all or part of the Waste Core Strategy ‘sound’. Dacorum Borough Council, St Albans District Council, Tring Town Council, Biffa Waste Services, Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) and East Herts District Council conclude that the Strategy is sound against all the tests. Comments include reference to good strategic and spatial context, support for the vision, objectives and policies and praise for the inclusion of reasoned justification. Kelshall Parish Council considers that the location of facilities is effective and therefore complies with soundness test 4.
5.6 East of England Regional Assembly (EERA) state that the Waste Core Strategy is in conformity with the East of England Plan and therefore consider the strategy ‘sound’.
UNSOUND
5.7 This section highlights the key reasons respondents currently find aspects of the plan ‘unsound’. Comments below are categorised under a number of headings.
5.8 Vision and objectives
Most respondents support the core strategy vision, however one industry representative and one district believe it to be too challenging and therefore difficult to achieve. The County Council feels that the vision should be challenging and that it is achievable with through partnership working.
5.9 One district also believes that the objectives are not taken forward in the policies within the core strategy. Although the objectives may not be explicitly repeated within the policy, the intention of the policies is to meet the objectives listed.
Facility Numbers
5.10 A number of respondents state that the core strategy does not clearly set out the number and type of facilities needed within the plan period. Concern is also raised that there is a discrepancy between the estimated facility numbers needed over the pan period in the core strategy and the site allocations document.
5.11 There is not a discrepancy in the figures, however it is accepted that the description of facility numbers in the core strategy is confusing and could be set out more clearly.
Spatial Strategy
5.12 Four respondents consider the core strategy at present does not provide an adequate spatial strategy and that it is not spatially distinct in that it does not adequately identify broad locations for future waste management facilities. The county council do not agree with this objection as the core strategy provides a spatial framework for the location of waste management facilities both in Waste Core policy 3 and in the supporting text. The policy provides a sequential approach to the allocation of sites, which sets out a spatial framework for the identification of suitable sites across the County. For example, bullet point a) prioritises industrial/employment sites particularly in urban areas, bullet point b) then allows the allocation of sites close to Hertfordshire’s urban areas and/or easily accessible by the strategic road network.
5.13 Within this sequential approach a number of principles will be applied, such as a preference for previously developed land, avoidance of international and nationally designated sites and the use of land outside the Green Belt before sites within the Green Belt. As such the County Council considers that the policy provides a spatial framework, which sets out the locations in the county where waste management facilities are considered appropriate. Furthermore, there are clear indications for allocating sites in the reference to the Key Centres for Development and Change and requirements for a central Municipal Solid Waste facility in paragraphs 6.27 – 6.29. On this basis, the county council believe the Core Strategy spatially specific as it sets out the criteria for allocating sites and outlines broad locations for waste management facilities (e.g. a central area of search and the five Key Centres for Development and Change).
5.14 Similarly, Go-East also criticise WCS Policy 1 for its lack of spatial detail, by ‘merely seeking to secure a network of waste management facilities’ (para. 10) of different sizes and technologies. Given the difficulty of finding and developing suitable sites for waste facilities (as outlined in paragraph 6.53) the County Council considers that it is appropriate to take forward a flexible approach to the location of sites. Being too prescriptive in the Core Strategy could stifle the development of new waste facilities, needed to help Hertfordshire move towards self- sufficiency. This is exaggerated by the reality that we need to plan for a wide range of type and size of facilities that have different locational requirements.
Implementation issues
5.15 Concerns about the implementation of policies and targets are raised by a number of respondents. The policies as they are drafted at present are said to be ‘statements of intent’ rather than policy, however they have been written positively and after looking at other Local Development frameworks as suggested in PPS12.
5.16 There is also criticism that the core strategy contains development control policies. The county council consider that the policies within the core strategy are necessary to ensure that waste sites are considered against an up to date policy framework whilst the subsequent Development Plan Document’s are being drafted for submission.
Waste Core Strategy Policies
WCS 5 Safeguarding
5.17 Industry representatives state that the current wording to safeguard existing sites is at odds with the granting of temporary permissions and therefore does not provide certainty. However, temporary planning permissions are given for specific reasons and can range from a few months to a number of years. The site specific allocations document will detail criteria for assessing the safeguarding of waste sites and therefore should provide a degree of certainty for the waste industry. In the mean time it is important to safeguard existing waste sites and ensure that replacement facilities are provided where appropriate.
WCS 7 Sustainable Transport
5.18 A number of respondents have stated that it is not clear how the delivery of sustainable transport alternatives will be achieved.
WCS 8 Energy Recovery
5.19 Again respondents state that there is a lack of clarity in terms of the number and type of facilities that are or will be required. The need for a more flexible approach as set out in the core strategy at present, reflects the progress of the Hertfordshire Municipal Waste Management Strategy. The Municipal Waste Management Core Strategy was published in November 2007 and gives no preference to particular residual treatment facilities (other than an encouragement for energy recovery) and relegates the possible location of any municipal facilities to subsequent documents. As such the Core Strategy is not able to be more locationally specific with regard to municipal waste and WCS Policy 8 reflects the Municipal Waste Management study, by giving preference to technologies for the treatment of residual waste which have an energy dimension.
Sustainability Appraisal
5.20 Two organisations criticised the sustainability appraisal with general concerns of inconsistency with the conclusion of other sustainability appraisals carried out on their behalf. One respondent also expressed concern that the policies within the core strategy are not currently sufficiently articulated to assist a full appraisal. The rebuttal to these comments will be considered by the external consultants who carried out the sustainability appraisal work.
General Comments
5.21 Seventy five representations from a range of individuals and organisations make general comments about the core strategy, which do not relate directly to the tests of soundness.
5.22 A significant number of comments received from the general public related to the provision of recycling facilities and concerns about incineration. A number of statutory undertakers gave general comments regarding their particular function and the Highways Agency highlighted the importance of transport assessments.
5.23 Some representatives broadly support aspects of the core strategy; however some query the wording of some policies and would like to see them strengthened.
5.24 Four organisations responded to confirm they have no comments to make.
6. Next steps
6.1 An Inspector has been appointed to undertake the Examination into soundness. A request has been made for a number of documents from the evidence base and the Inspector is also likely to ask a number of specific questions regarding the Core Strategy. The County Council will have three weeks to respond to these questions. If the answers are not considered sufficient, the Inspector will then request an exploratory meeting which will be publicised on the web and at deposit points. If an exploratory meeting is required it is intended to be held in June.
6.2 The next stage of the process will be the Pre-Examination meeting (provisionally to take place in July) and will be to discuss the management of the examination. The Inspector will identify areas that she wants to examine further, but will discourage the need for formal hearings and the use of legal representation. The authority should not make any Pre Examination Changes (in light of representations or otherwise). There will be the opportunity for the County council to write issue papers, but these will be on the issues that the Inspector wished to examine.
6.3 It is anticipated that the hearing will follow on from the pre-examination meeting in September.
7. Financial Implications
7.1 The cost of producing the core strategy (printing, distribution, adverts etc), the required SEA/SA and the cost of the examination are included in existing budgets.
8. Conclusions
8.1 To note the content of this report.
Appendix 1
Local Development Plan Document - Tests of Soundness
· Procedural
i. It has been prepared in accordance with the local development scheme;
ii. It has been prepared in compliance with the statement of community involvement, or with the minimum requirements set out in the Regulations 47 where no statement of community involvement exists;
iii. The plan and its policies have been subjected to sustainability appraisal;
· Conformity
iv. It is a spatial plan which is consistent with national planning policy and in general conformity with the regional spatial strategy for the region or, in London, the spatial development strategy and it has properly had regard to any other relevant plans, policies and strategies relating to the area or to adjoining areas;
v. It has had regard to the authority’s community strategy;
· Coherence, consistency and effectiveness
vi. The strategies/policies/allocations in the plan are coherent and consistent within and between development plan documents prepared by the authority and by neighbouring authorities, where cross boundary issues are relevant;
vii. The strategies/policies/allocations represent the most appropriate in all the circumstances, having considered the relevant alternatives, and they are founded on a robust and credible evidence base;
viii. There are clear mechanisms for implementation and monitoring; and
ix. The plan is reasonably flexible to enable it to deal with changing circumstances.
4