Waste Core Strategy First Consultation
22nd July – 30th September 2011
Summary of Consultation Responses
The Waste Core Strategy (WCS) First Consultation represented the first formal steps
towards the preparation of North Yorkshire Waste Core Strategy. The consultation
exercise ran from 22nd July 2011 until 30th September 2011, spanning 10 weeks. 1
In total 1323 representations were received from 203 interested parties in relation to
the Waste Core Strategy First Consultation document.
A brief summary of the main issues raised in the Waste Core Strategy First
Consultation is provided below. The table below indicates to which areas of the
document the representations relate.
Question
Respondents
Question Box 1 – Stakeholder Involvement
186
Question Box 2 - Evidence Base
190
Question Box 3 - North Yorkshire Context
187
Question Box 4 - Policy Context
192
Question Box 5 - Waste Context
195
Question Box 6 - Spatial Vision
188
Question Box 7 – General / Additional
185
What were the main Issues raised in response?
The tables below indicate the key Issues raised in the representations, in question
order:
Question Box 1 - Stakeholder Involvement
“Do you agree that the overall approach to stakeholder involvement, set out in this
section of the document, is appropriate?”
Total
Yes
No
Didn’t Say
Did not answer
the question
25
158
3
16
1
The consultation exercise took place in the run-up to the expected submission of an
application for a major waste treatment facility (Allerton Waste Recovery Park) and the
interest in this proposal appears to have been reflected in the responses received. As a result
of this, an action group produced a standard response which accounted for the majority of
responses to the consultation.
Waste Core Strategy First Consultation – Summary of Responses
1
“If not, what other approach would you suggest?”
Approach
Total
Don’t present the Allerton Waste Recovery Park (AWRP) Proposal
as a fact and not ‘up for discussion’
141
Evaluation of consultation responses should be made independently
122
Make clear that waste management includes treatment and
transportation elements
118
The online questionnaire was difficult to use and the multiple choice
questions were susceptible to wrong interpretation
116
Ensure a copy of the response can be retained by the respondent
102
The AWRP Proposal should be decided after the WCS is adopted
6
Place more effort in publicising the consultation
5
The consultation period should be longer and not over the holiday period
3
Stakeholders must have a genuine opportunity to shape policy
3
Encourage the involvement of everyone affected by waste issues by
more targeted consultation
2
At evaluation stage all options for waste treatment and disposal should
be up for consideration
2
Provide balanced information
2
Hold road shows or other such events during later stages of WCS
production to involve more people
2
Focus publicising consultation around existing waste management sites
2
Hold one-to-one meetings and workshops with relevant stakeholders
2
Create an internet bulletin board/forum for the WCS
1
Waste Core Strategy First Consultation – Summary of Responses
2
Ensure that the views gathered through consultation contribute to
formulating policy
1
Greater emphasis needs to be placed on detailed consultation with all
residents and their representatives
1
Simplify the approach to stakeholder involvement
1
Stakeholders should be involved in the evaluation of the consultation
responses
1
Any large waste proposal should be accompanied by a transport
assessment and cumulative impact assessment
1
Work alongside Highways Agency to ensure policy developed gives
consideration to sustainable accessibility and transport issues
1
Figure 2 could be improved by including reference to Habitat
Regulations Assessment (HRA) and Sustainability Appraisal (SA)
process
1
Continue to work with English Heritage as waste developments may
impact on historic buildings and landscape
1
Continue to work with industry to build a complete and accurate
evidence base, and reflects views and aspirations of stakeholders
1
Undertake pre-application community involvement for significant
applications to ensure views of local community are taken into account
1
Four stages in the Development Plan Document (DPD) process is too
many, could be reduced to 2
1
Ensure proper evidence base upon which to base consultations
1
Ensure WCS fully reflects identified current and future requirements for
managing municipal waste
1
Carry out parish council presentations
1
Have an accessible LDF website which is regularly updated
1
More evidence needed on promoting recycling before considering an
incinerator
1
Clarify the word stakeholder, and explain different types
1
Note: The vast majority of respondents mentioned more than one issue when responding
to qualitative questions. As a result of this the total number of issues raised does not
correspond to the total number of respondents to the question.
Waste Core Strategy First Consultation – Summary of Responses
3
Question Box 2 - Evidence Base
“Do you agree that the range of evidence for the preparation of the Waste Core
Strategy is sufficient?”
Total
Yes
No
Didn’t Say
Did not answer
the question
15
165
10
12
“If not, what other evidence should the Council be seeking to obtain to help it in its
work?”
Comment/Theme
Total
Waste Projections
138
Evidence is too narrow
91
Lack of financial information
91
The attempt to underpin the AWRP Proposal is not justified by evidence
91
Waste management information from neighbouring Authorities
5
Growth areas and proposed development
3
Strategic transport assessment
3
Evaluation of single site versus multiple sites
3
Analysis of potential sites for waste treatment facilities
2
Survey of waste operators
2
Site selection criteria/call for sites
2
Assessment of carbon costs and climate impacts
2
Location of key habitats and populations of species in National and
Local Biodiversity Action Plans
Biodiversity opportunity and ecological network mapping (The Yorkshire
and Humber Biodiversity Forum)
1
1
Yorkshire and Humber Climate Change Adaption Study
1
Future waste capacity
1
Courtland Commitment and Food Industry Sustainability Strategy
1
Revised Waste Framework Directive
1
District plans and Strategies
1
Waste Core Strategy First Consultation – Summary of Responses
4
A Zero Waste UK document
1
Waste management and employability
1
Information on designated sites for landscape value, biodiversity and
geological conservation
1
Sustainable Development Commission reports on waste
1
Evidence about nature and state of Historic Assets in Plan area
1
Managing Landscape Change Study
1
Flood Water Management Act 2010
1
Evaluation of main methods of waste treatment
1
Environmental and health information
1
Information on the costs of alternative approaches to waste
management
1
Location of areas of groundwater and aquifers
1
Emerging waste recovery and disposal technology
1
Question Box 3 - North Yorkshire Context
“Do you agree with the summary provided in the text box in section 5?”
Total
Yes
No
Didn’t Say
Did not answer
the question
20
159
8
15
“If not, why?”
Issue
Total
Geography of the county and poor east/west access lends itself to
multiple sites e.g. Scarborough waste should not be transported
across the county
142
The increasing cost of transporting waste by road
124
Ignores the proximity principle with regard to municipal waste
112
The strategy should consider sites which use more sustainable transport
e.g. by rail/water
112
Lack of consideration of co-locating waste treatment facilities with
new economic developments
109
Waste Core Strategy First Consultation – Summary of Responses
5
Consideration should be given to a joint plan to share facilities across
boundaries
4
There should be an emphasis on more local sites at each of the major
population areas in the county
3
There is poor access from the west, including the Yorkshire Dales
National Park. This area could be better served by using waste
facilities outside of the county
The electricity generation industry in the Leeds region will need
increasing volumes of waste in future years - an opportunity for local
income
2
2
The scope for local multi-waste sites should be explored
2
Growth projections have not been considered
1
There is no direct correlation between economic activity and waste
arisings
1
“What other important issues do you think there are?”
Issue
Total
The plan area provides opportunities for sustainable waste
management facilities to contribute to environmental objectives e.g.
climate change, waste recovery and recycling
116
Mention other treatment options, such as the Power Stations in
Selby and outside of the Plan area
114
Potential transport modes such as rail links
114
Needs to include a wider regional context
113
Make clear that ‘waste management’ includes treatment
113
Needs to discuss the electricity network and heat demand
112
The rural nature of the County provides opportunities for small scale
community based waste management
6
Need to consider the distance to waste management sites across
authority boundaries
4
Need to consider the size of the County in greater detail when
considering the transportation of waste
4
Waste Core Strategy First Consultation – Summary of Responses
6
Transportation of waste in rural areas, and its impact, needs to be
considered in greater detail
3
Transporting waste east/west along the A56 is not safe
2
More emphasis needed on the relevance of population to transport links
2
Waste management in the Plan area is inefficient
2
The plan ignores integrating with existing power generation stations
2
North Yorkshire should not have to provide for the larger urban areas
2
Consideration should be given to a joint plan to share facilities and
coordinate across boundaries.
2
There should not be the need for the County to develop its own waste
management capacity if facilities exist elsewhere in areas which can be
accessed from North Yorkshire
2
The size of North Yorkshire suggests several sites would be better than
a single site at AWRP Proposal Site
2
Source protection Zones and Principal Aquifers need to be considered in
the environment section
1
The impact of the recession on the level of commercial/industrial activity
and likely future capacity needs
1
Focus on re-use rather than on recycling
1
It should not be assumed that waste facilities should be located close to
the main north/south corridors unless robust evidence is provided
1
Consider locating sites on previously developed land, and co-location of
sites
1
The strategy should ensure that waste allows for sustainable use of the
County’s soil resources
1
Waste treatment solutions should include landfilling of inert material for
restoration of mineral sites in the county
1
Multiple sites are needed to reduce the need to transfer waste
1
Waste Core Strategy First Consultation – Summary of Responses
7
The spatial implications of a ‘zero waste economy’
1
North Yorkshire is predominantly agricultural allowing a greater use of
Anaerobic Digestion which would create local sites and employment
1
Opposition to incineration on numerous grounds including impact on the
environment of the County
1
The location of the AWRP Proposal site is not well serviced from the
motorway network
1
Centralisation of a waste facility in the County is not optimal due to
geography of the area and cost
1
Smaller site operations would be amore amenable
1
The council seems fixed on one idea (AWRP Proposal) as there are
alternatives that are being completely ignored.
1
Question Box 4 - Policy Context
“Do you agree with the summary points provided in the text boxes in this section?”
Total
Yes
No
Didn’t Say
Did not
answer the
question
15
147
13
10
Online
Responses
(See table
below)
17
“If not, why?“
Issue
Total
Fails to report emerging policy e.g. focus on the 2008 EU Waste
Directive rather than the impending new waste directive and others
e.g. energy and climate
133
The increased need to recycle has not been explored to a degree that
reflects the government’s strategy
91
Too much focus on energy-from-waste (by incineration)
5
The WCS should be decided before the York and North Yorkshire
Municipal Waste Management Strategy (Y&NY MWMS)
4
Insufficient evidence to indicate recognition of the 2011 Government
Review of Waste Policy
4
Waste Core Strategy First Consultation – Summary of Responses
8
The summary is at odds with the Council’s intention to build the AWRP
Proposal
4
The document appears to be looking backwards rather than forwards
3
Too much emphasis on ‘moving up the waste hierarchy’
2
This approach closes the door to new technologies for waste
management
2
Targets for recycling and reuse are too low
2
The evidence is too narrow
2
It does not consider exporting waste to treatment plants in other areas
1
No reference to the government’s new policies on climate change and
energy efficiency
1
Ignores the impact of incineration of waste upon climate change
1
More flexible solutions to waste management should be considered
1
The concept of a ‘Zero Waste Economy’ has not been covered
1
Objectives of the Y&NY MWMS, to maximise reuse, recycling and
composting, will not be realised if AWRP Proposal proceeds
1
The document is underweighted on treatment and management of waste
issues
1
It fails to note the international obligations the UK has in relation to
climate change
1
Ensure consistency with the revised 2008 Waste Framework
Directive
1
Waste Core Strategy First Consultation – Summary of Responses
9
“To what extent do you agree or disagree with the relevance of the summaries
provided in the policy context section” (Online Response Question only)
Strongly
Agree
Agree
Neither
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
Don’t
Know
European Policies and
Strategies
1
4
6
1
4
1
National Planning Policy
2
4
6
4
1
Regional Policies
1
4
4
3
4
1
Local Policies
2
2
5
2
5
1
“What other key relevant policy context should the Council be taking into account in
developing the Waste Core Strategy?”
Additional Key Policy
Total
Adhere to the ‘Zero Waste Economy’ concept
119
The WCS should be decided before AWRP Proposal
119
Focus on moving the treatment of waste up the waste hierarchy
112
Develop a clear planning framework, utilising examples from other Local
Authorities
7
Waste disposal options should be examined from a financial standpoint
3
Focus upon waste reduction
3
The emerging National Planning Policy Framework (2011)
3
Impending new EU Directives on energy efficiency and climate change
3
Maintain flexibility to ensure ability to utilise technology advancements
3
PPS10 – Planning for Sustainable Waste Management, and its
Companion Guide
Documents on waste management produced by ‘Greenpeace’ and
‘Friends of the Earth’ (e.g. Residual Waste Research Phase II)
The strategy needs to include emerging waste policy in addition to
existing policy
Needs to be based on properly evaluated viable options, including
AWRP Proposal
2
2
2
2
Need to increase opportunities for households to recycle
2
Government Review of Waste Policy in England (2011)
2
Need to take account of public and business concerns
2
Exporting waste to plants that are outside our region
2
Waste Core Strategy First Consultation – Summary of Responses
10
Take into account the emerging Localism Bill
1
Self contained localised sites determined by residents/voters
1
Increase recycling levels
1
OSPAR Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the
North East Atlantic
1
UN Stockholm Convention
1
Keep the treatment of Household and Industrial waste separate
1
Focus more effort in educating residents to recycle more
1
The Council need to be more outward looking
1
Encourage campaigns for increased recycling and waste minimisation in
the commercial and industrial sector
1
Ensure infrastructure is in place to support the transport of waste
1
Biodiversity and Geological Conservation considerations through the
Regional Biodiversity Strategy
1
Water Resources Management Plan (2009) produced by United Utilities
1
Harrogate District Core Strategy, particularly policy EQ1
1
Work with District/Borough Councils to produce a joint strategy
1
The Strategy needs to justify the need and proposed location of the
AWRP Proposal site
1
Green Alliance – ‘A Zero Waste UK’ (2006)
1
Economic and Social Research Council – ‘Consumption: Reducing,
Reusing and Recycling’ (2007)
1
The Waste (England and Wales) Regulations (2011)
1
Anaerobic Digestion Strategy and Action Plan (June 2011)
1
Energy White Paper ‘Meeting the Energy Challenge’ (May 2007)
1
Draft PPS: Planning for a Low Carbon Future in a Changing Climate
(March 2010)
DECC – Review of the generation of costs and deployment potential of
renewable electricity technologies in UK Study Report (June 2011)
1
1
National Policy Statement for Energy Infrastructure (June 2011)
1
Y&NY Municipal Waste Management Strategy (June 2006)
1
The North Yorkshire Local Transport Plan 2011-2016 (LTP3)
1
Recent Parliamentary Advisory Committee discussions upon the high
cost and low effectiveness of Private Finance Initiative
1
Waste Core Strategy First Consultation – Summary of Responses
11
Define methods by which a new public awareness of waste issues will
be realised
1
Need a clear policy for alternative methods to manage waste
1
Need to place importance upon and protect countryside areas outside of
Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and Special Landscape
Areas (SLA)
Recognise and value permitted footpaths and open access paths in
addition to Public Rights of Ways
In terms of carbon emissions, properly managed landfill is a better
solution than combustive processes
The WCS should not avoid ruling out waste management technologies
that do not accord with our aspirations
1
1
1
1
“What specific issues raised in section 6 (Policy Context) do you think are a priority in
North Yorkshire?”
Policy Context : Issue
Restrict energy recovery to residual waste that cannot be reused or
recycled
Work with adjoining authorities to avoid risks of creating excess or
inappropriate capacity
Total
128
126
The WCS should inform and not be constrained by other policies
113
Increase re-use, composting and recycling
10
Ensure policies are not short term
10
Reduction and prevention of waste
7
Reduce the transportation of waste
7
Prioritise environmental and human health
5
Reduce climate change impacts
4
Diversion of waste from Landfill
4
Improve sustainable transport of waste
4
Co-ordination of waste policies with adjoining authorities and
district/borough councils within North Yorkshire
4
Sustainable development/construction
3
Solutions need to be flexible
2
Proximity Principle, treat waste as close to its source as possible
2
Develop proposals which have the support of local communities
2
Negating impact upon local communities
2
Waste Core Strategy First Consultation – Summary of Responses
12
More information should be available to the public with regard to waste
policy/applications
The Council should view itself as the ‘provider of last resort’ with regard
to waste management sites
The priority of policy levels should be national, followed by regional and
then European
2
1
1
Note advantages of co-locating opportunities for waste facilities
1
Focus on developing/emerging issues/policy
1
Ensure consistency with national strategy
1
The Council should not view waste management facilities as a
mechanism for generating income from other Local Authorities
1
Meeting future demand whilst limiting environmental impacts
1
Mitigation of any shortfall in supply of water resources
1
Locate Energy-from-Waste facilities where the energy can be used
effectively
1
Separate collection of food waste
1
Recognise the role of waste management as a driver for local economic
growth
1
Managing Industrial waste
1
Implementation of the policy for joint municipal waste management set
out in the Y&NY MWMS
Greater emphasis needs to be placed upon the changing definition of
municipal waste which now incorporates commercial wastes with similar
properties to municipal waste
Community and business education on the impacts of disposing of
waste
1
1
1
Drive the management of waste up the ‘Waste Hierarchy’
1
Anaerobic Digestion of biodegradable waste
1
Facilitate Commercial recycling schemes
1
AWRP Proposal should be allocated as a Strategic Waste Management
Allocation within the WCS to accord with PPS12
Strategic Waste Management Facilities should be supported by an
adequate on-site educational facility
1
1
Consideration of the current Regional Spatial Strategy
1
Provide a clear and systematic planning framework
1
Need to explain how AWRP Proposal links to the policy to maximise reuse, recycling and composting of household waste
Utilisation of residues from Thermal Mechanical Biological Treatment as
restoration of disused quarries
Reflect the concerns and interests of communities
Waste Core Strategy First Consultation – Summary of Responses
1
1
1
13
Waste management options, that assume arisings of waste will not be
reduced by recycling initiatives, should not be considered
1
Place importance upon the collection of waste data
1
Question Box 5 - Waste Context
“Which of the issues in the text box in this section do you think will be particularly
important when planning for waste in the area?”
Issue
Total
The WCS should be decided before the AWRP Proposal
146
An incinerator will discourage recycling
17
Progress of the AWRP Proposal
7
Waste transportation
5
Robust information on waste facilities in the Plan area and the amount
of waste they produce
Making provision for future waste arisings while managing impacts of
these facilities
Impact of development of waste facilities on environment and local
communities need to be taken into account
3
3
3
Interaction with adjacent waste authorities
3
Proximity principle
3
Any long term strategy should be sufficiently flexible to adapt to change
3
Increasingly demanding targets for more sustainable waste
management
Take account of the issues which overlap with the Minerals Core
Strategy
Reduction in overall amount of waste produced
A range of waste streams and waste management methods will need to
be planned for
Opportunity to deliver social, environmental and economic benefits
through evolving waste management practices
2
2
2
1
1
East/west transport links restricted
1
Consider the carbon footprint of moving waste
1
The disposal of industrial waste and its impact upon the visual amenity
and landscape
1
Reduce amount going to landfill
1
Reduce the amount of waste from power stations
1
Waste Core Strategy First Consultation – Summary of Responses
14
Increase re-use, and do not classify it with recycling
1
Put waste facilities in existing industrial locations to minimise impact
1
Recycling targets should be more ambitious
1
There is not one body responsible for managing the entire waste
stream in the County, there would be benefits if there were.
1
Incineration should be one of the last options not the first
1
Waste should be recognised as a resource to fulfil the strategy of zero
waste strategy
1
“Which of the following issues do you think will be particularly important when
planning for waste in the Plan area?” (Online Response Question only)
Very
Important
Important
Neither
A range of waste streams and
waste management methods
will need to be planned for
6
9
2
Increasingly demanding
targets for more sustainable
waste management will
require the development of
more waste management
facilities and this will need
to be appropriately managed
3
11
2
The interactions in waste
arisings and management
between the Plan area and
adjacent waste planning
authorities and regions will
need to be considered
7
3
5
Robust information on the
number of waste facilities in
the Plan area and the amount
of waste they process will be
important for future planning,
and industry assistance with
this will be needed
8
7
1
A key challenge for the WCS
will be making adequate
provision for future waste
arisings whilst managing the
impacts of these facilities on
the environment and local
amenity
10
4
3
The progress of proposals for
Allerton Waste Recovery Park
will need to be factored in to
development of the WCS as
the project continues
2
4
2
Un important
Waste Core Strategy First Consultation – Summary of Responses
Very Unimportant
Don’t
Know
1
1
1
1
2
6
1
15
Development of waste
facilities can have impacts on
the environment and local
communities and these need
to be acknowledged and
taken into account
13
4
The opportunity to deliver
social and environmental, as
well as economic benefits,
through evolving waste
management practices, which
should be explored
5
9
2
It is important to take into
account the issues which
overlap with those that may
be relevant to the Minerals
Core Strategy
4
10
3
1
“What other important issues, not identified in this section do you think should be
addressed in developing a waste planning strategy for the plan area?”
Issue
Total
Acknowledge the impact waste facilities can have upon the
environment and local communities
123
AWRP Proposal has failed to engage with the local community
112
Consider impact of post minerals extraction use, such as landfill, on
underground water sources, such as aquifers
4
Link with the Minerals Core Strategy
4
The environmental impact of transporting waste must be considered
3
Look at alternatives to incineration of waste
2
Take into account likely changes in technology to treat waste
2
The WCS should be decided before AWRP Proposal
2
The pattern of waste development, few large sites versus many small
ones
Robust information on waste facilities and their capacities and
capabilities
2
2
Make more use of rail as a mode of transport
2
Consider the proximity principle
2
Recognise that inappropriate technology choices can impact upon
economic development and the health of local people
2
Increase the focus upon the need to recycle
1
Waste Core Strategy First Consultation – Summary of Responses
16
Attach greater weight to the waste hierarchy
1
Place greater emphasis upon waste minimisation
1
Take account of the changing nature of waste
1
Focus upon creating a zero waste economy
1
Ensure accountability of decision makers
1
Ask the public if they want an incinerator
1
The overall spatial approach to waste, an important point for
sustainability appraisal
1
Transportation of waste will have a bearing on the strategy chosen
1
The use of waste as a resource
1
Take account of the effect of the new strategy on the local community
and county as a whole
Mitigation measures will need to be in place to offset any negative
effects on the environment
Construction and demolition waste needs to be better addressed in the
WCS
Encourage the reuse of existing buildings rather than demolishing them
Encourage development of facilities for reuse of demolition waste,
especially where material can be used to help repair historic buildings
The carbon impact of waste will be used as a method of assessment
more than tonnages in the future
1
1
1
1
1
1
Minerals sites able to host waste management facilities
1
No mention of waste water issues in main body of the document
1
Agricultural waste management has changed over recent years, and
this needs to be taken into account
Waste management can be carried out on agricultural land and should
be seen as part of the local solution to waste management
1
1
Do not place any new facilities near to waste water infrastructure
1
Households should be encouraged to recycle more
1
Encourage manufacturers to reduce packaging
1
More emphasis on the role that landfill will play in the future
1
Consider the overlap issues with national policy/strategy for sustainable
energy supply and climate change
Consider interactions between facilities where waste is treated/sorted to
provide recycling opportunities and facilities where recyclate material
can be used as a resource
Long term strategy should be flexible
Waste Core Strategy First Consultation – Summary of Responses
1
1
1
17
There does not appear to be an alternative to the AWRP Proposal
1
Local sustainability
1
Develop a long term policy for reducing waste
1
Listen and consult with people in an open manner without prejudice
1
Need to include site selection criteria
1
Start to look at potential options
1
Concerned industry views will be prioritised over members of the public
1
Waste data should take account of the nature and types of waste being
managed, identifying them and categorising them
The loss of valuable agricultural land and adverse impact on landscape
restoration as a result of the proposed diversion of waste from landfill
Energy produced from waste should be put to a sustainable and
environmentally friendly use
1
1
1
Question Box 6 - Spatial Vision
“Do you agree that the points set out in the text box in section 8 could provide a
suitable starting point for the development of a vision?”
Total
Yes
No
Didn’t
Say
Did not answer the
question
Online Responses
(See table below)
15
147
9
14
17
“To what extent do you agree or disagree with how the following statements can
provide a suitable starting point for development of the vision” (Online Response
Question only)
Strongly
Agree
Agree
Neither
Ensure that Waste
management takes place as far
up the waste hierarchy as
practicable
8
4
3
Support a good fit between
waste management facilities
and sources of waste arisings,
appropriate to there scale and
nature of waste arisings being
dealt with and consider the
implications of transporting
waste
8
6
1
1
3
5
6
1
Where practicable provide
enough waste management
Disagree
Waste Core Strategy First Consultation – Summary of Responses
Strongly
Disagree
Don’t
Know
2
1
1
1
18
capacity to deal with its waste
arisings throughout the plan
period to 2030
Ensure that those elements of
North Yorkshire’s environment,
important for there own sake
and to residents and visitors,
are given appropriate protection
12
4
Ensure that the highest
practicable standards of
operation are applied and that
the waste management industry
are working effectively with local
communities
9
4
1
2
2
“What other important objectives should waste planning in this area be seeking to
achieve?“
Issue
Comment
Sufficient flexibility to accommodate changes in waste volumes,
recycling and technology
141
Deliverance of ‘value for money’ of waste facilities
131
Support the local economy by maximising the use of locally owned
and operated facilities
121
Focus on waste minimisation and recycling
2
Include mitigating the effects of climate change
2
Support the movement of waste up the waste hierarchy
2
Must be acceptable to stakeholders/members of the public
2
Include more ambitious targets
1
Adopt a non-incineration policy
1
Minimise carbon impact
1
Reduce visual intrusion from waste facilities
1
A vision which brings together all sectors of the community
1
Minimise environmental pollution
1
Require waste facilities to resubmit licences annually
1
Welcome use of waste hierarchy, proximity principle and
self sufficiency where practicable to inform the vision
1
Welcome protection of the environment and communities
1
Waste Core Strategy First Consultation – Summary of Responses
19
Welcome achievement of highest standards of operation and
partnership working with communities
Will need to provide stronger support for maximising transportation of
waste by sustainable means, ensuring new waste facilities can be
supported by existing infrastructure
Make reference to increasing opportunities for reducing greenhouse
gas emissions, and adapting to a changing climate
The WCS should protect the County’s most important landscapes
WCS should seek to protect and enhance the County’s biodiversity and
geodiversity
Welcome commitment to ensure that elements which contribute to
distinct character and quality of life of the communities of North
Yorkshire are safeguarded
The draft vision does not include a statement on sustainability, using
waste as a resource
Should reinforce the importance of pre-application community
involvement regarding new waste developments
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Vision too wordy
1
Need to include cross cutting issues
1
The word ‘practicable’ should be clarified
1
Ensure local sorting sites are set up for reclamation, repair and sale of
recovered items from the waste stream, aim to benefit the local
economy
1
The plan is expensive and inflexible
1
Ensure energy recovery from residual waste is restricted to waste
which cannot be recycled
Capitalise on synergies between different types of waste and waste
management techniques
1
1
Consider using existing facilities
1
Consider the impact on the economy provided by tourism
1
Plan long term to 2030
1
The plan must ensure that it provides a sound basis for the objectives
of the strategy
1
Include local sustainability
1
Ensure the plan can accommodate changes in recycling techniques,
ratios and volumes
1
The vision fails to provide any aspiration in terms of reducing waste
1
Does not include anything about local labour input
1
Waste Core Strategy First Consultation – Summary of Responses
20
A revised vision suggested by one of the respondents:
“By 2030 North Yorkshire’s communities and businesses will be managing their waste locally
and in a sustainable manner. The County will have an ambitious and modern waste industry
that manages waste as a resource to be re-used in line with the waste hierarchy, and which is
part of wider economy that supports green energy and other sustainable technologies.
We will be producing less waste, reusing more and striving to exceed national recycling
targets as far as practically possible. Disposal via landfill will be the last resort once options to
re-use, recycle or recover have been exhausted.
The geographical spread of waste facilities will be designed to minimise transport, closely
linked to the concentrations of population. Larger facilities will be located close to the main
urban areas of York/Harrogate, Scarborough/Whitby, Skipton, Richmond/Northallerton, and
Selby. Rural communities will be supported by smaller-scale schemes and, where
appropriate, farm-based initiatives.
All waste development schemes will respect and enhance those elements of the North
Yorkshire environment, wildlife, landscape and heritage that are important for their own sake
and to residents and visitors. They will successfully mitigate their possible impacts on climate
change.”
Question Box 7- General / Additional
“Are there any additional matters or issues not covered in your responses to earlier
questions that you think the Waste Core Strategy should address?”
Comments
The WCS should be decided before the AWRP Proposal
The online questionnaire was difficult to use and the multiple choice
questions were susceptible to misinterpretation
Implementation of the Y&NY MWMS would pre-empt the outcomes of
the WCS
Total
140
122
4
The ‘fact sheet’ approach is helpful and accurate
3
Document too long and complicated
3
Greater explanation and debate of AWRP Proposal
3
Broadly support the proposals within the document
2
Energy recovery from waste treatment should be near to areas that can
use it
The WCS consultation process is meaningless because it includes the
AWRP Proposal
Government want to see increase in Anaerobic Digestion, so this should
form a key part of the WCS
Public not generally aware of this consultation so limited response will
be received
2
2
2
2
Identify and stop rogue waste disposal/transfer activities
1
Ensure waste minimisation is a focus
1
Waste Core Strategy First Consultation – Summary of Responses
21
The AWRP Proposal should generate electricity
1
Integrated approach to SA is welcomed
1
Consider taking all waste management into public hands
1
Approach to green infrastructure is welcomed
1
Ensure SA links with WCS are not tenuous and objectives can easily be
monitored
1
The strategy does not clearly identify specific sites at this stage
1
MoD should be consulted on any waste schemes within the airfield
safeguarding consultation zones
1
Need a robust environmental evidence base
1
Plan making should be guided by the objectives of the WCS, SA and
HRA
Waste prevention and reduction, sustainable resource use,
environmental protection and protection of health and amenity are well
represented
The Council should consider planning applications for Anaerobic
Digestion facilities on farms to be non-waste applications
Need to make sure that there is an adequate supply of feedstock for
future facilities in the WCS
Consideration must be given to the markets for compost and digestate
outputs
Should consider the agricultural landbank available for spreading
increased volumes of waste-derived materials
Waste developments should not be permitted until infrastructure
capacity is available
The Council should obtain local capacity information from water
companies to identify areas where there is capacity for development
The Council should consider the full carbon impact of future
developments
Take account of draft policy IN2 of Harrogate District Sites and Policies
DPD and Leeds City Region Green Infrastructure Strategy
Protect the landscape by requesting Landscape and Visual Impact
Assessments (LVIA) where necessary
Harrogate BC is seeking to designate a buffer zone around the World
Heritage site Studley Royal Park
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Avoid disposal methods which pollute the environment
1
Anticipate likely changes in legislation e.g. carbon taxes
1
The proximity principle should form a key part of the strategy
1
The WCS is not fully consistent with the Y&NY MWMS
1
The tests of soundness are not met
1
Support moving away from landfill to more recyclable waste
1
Waste Core Strategy First Consultation – Summary of Responses
22
There is no attempt to demonstrate how the strategic needs of the
Council develop into a suite of spatial recommendations
1
There is a lack of ambition in the draft vision
1
Packaging and plastic bags minimisation should be included
1
Concern that due to high recycling rates being met there will not be
enough waste to fuel the incinerator
1
More emphasis should be given to low level radioactive waste
1
Take account of potential mineral sterilisation and mining legacy when
looking at site allocations or areas of search
The Council should facilitate/promote recycling co-ops for Small and
Medium Sized Enterprises to make it viable for waste collection
companies to collect items from them
Anaerobic Digestion is more acceptable for decomposable waste, with
the methane and compost produced able to be utilised
If all reusable materials have been removed from waste then calorific
value so low will not burn, so landfill preferable to incineration
Recycling is always preferable to incineration, only non-recyclable waste
should be incinerated
There should not be any waste disposal facilities in Leyburn or
Wensleydale
WCS should look at long term issues of local sustainability and reducing
waste production by promoting behaviour changes
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Support small scale sites suited to the geography of the County
1
There is a lack of facts in the document
1
A centralised modern plant makes sense to take advantage of
economies of scale
Incinerator may be a financial burden on the Council and need funds
diverted from other services to support it
1
1
The WCS should not predetermine treatment methods to be used
1
Having one centralised facility goes against the proximity principle
1
WCS does not elaborate on the ‘social and economic objectives’
mentioned in the document
A high volume of waste will be needed to fuel the incinerator so recycling
rates will go down
1
1
Road transport network not suitable to support the AWRP Proposal
1
Consultation period too short
1
Some questions ambiguous
1
Should set targets for reducing carbon impact of waste, encouraging
waste prevention and reuse, increase recycling, get the most out of
residual waste
1
Questions online different to paper response form
1
Need a more flexible view in the future as waste management has
changed
1
Waste Core Strategy First Consultation – Summary of Responses
23
WCS makes reference to relationship between minerals and waste, this
is important in terms of transport
1
Research the viability of new rail links to new or existing waste facilities
1
Provide cost implications of using existing facilities compared to the
provision of a single facility
1
Consider the implications of the loss of Best and Most Versatile Land
1
Consider the length of time taken to restore quarries if we divert waste
away from landfill
Provide data on utilising waste treatment plants in neighbouring
authorities close to the boundary
Waste Core Strategy First Consultation – Summary of Responses
1
1
24