HERTFORDSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL
PLANNING AND EXTERNAL RELATIONS PANEL
TUESDAY 6 MAY 2008 AT 10.00AM
Agenda Item No.
3
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
1
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.
2
Table 1: Number and type of representations on Submission Waste Core
Strategy
Type of
representation
Number of
representations
Unsound
representations preferred means
of taking forward
objection
Type of
Examination
General
Comment
75
Sound
Unsound
Totals
63
83
221
In
writing
24
Examination
53
Formal
hearing
5
Informal
hearing
3
No
details
6
Round table
discussions
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
83
This section highlights the key reasons respondents currently find
aspects of the plan ‘unsound’. Comments below are categorised under
a number of headings.
3
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
4
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 selfsufficiency. 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.
5
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
6
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.
7
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.
8