NORTH LONDON WASTE AUTHORITY
REPORT TITLE:
STRATEGY UPDATE
REPORT OF:
PROCUREMENT DIRECTOR
FOR SUBMISSION TO:
NORTH LONDON WASTE AUTHORITY
DATE:
22nd June 2012
SUMMARY OF REPORT
The report provides an update on waste, energy, planning and finance strategy issues that
are relevant to the Authority and its current procurement exercise.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The Authority is recommended to:
1.
Note the HMRC position on Landfill Tax rates as outlined in Section 2;
2.
Delegate authority to the Director of Procurement to provide responses to the
following three Enfield planning documents in line with the information provided in
Section 3:



Enfield’s Draft Development Management Document;
Enfield’s Central Leeside Area Action Plan; and
Draft Meridian Water Masterplan Supplementary Planning Document.
3.
Approve the officer response as submitted to meet the consultation response
deadline for the Haringey Local Plan Strategic Policies document (formerly the
Core Strategy) as summarised in Section 4 and attached at Appendix 1;
4.
Delegate authority to the Director of Procurement in consultation with the Chair
and Vice Chair to provide a consultation response to the Waste Electrical and
Electronic Equipment: call for evidence (Section 5);
5.
Delegate authority to the Director of Procurement to provide a response to the
forthcoming Government consultation on waste wood restrictions to landfill in line
with the information provided in Section 5; and
6.
Delegate authority to the Director of Procurement to provide a response to the
forthcoming Government consultation on the MRF Code of Practice in line with
the information provided in Section 5.
SIGNED:
…………Director of Procurement
th
DATE: 13 June 2012 ……………………………….
1.
PURPOSE OF REPORT
1.1
This report provides an update on strategy issues that are relevant to
the Authority’s operations and procurement. This includes:

Government changes to Landfill Tax (Section 2);

Three Enfield planning documents (Section 3);

Haringey Local Plan: Strategic Policies (formerly Core Strategy)
(Section 4);

Detail on forthcoming consultations including the waste electrical and
electronic equipment: call for evidence consultation; restricting wood
waste to landfill and the MRF code of practice.
1.2
The Authority is invited to note the report except where specific
delegated authority is required to respond to consultations or where a
draft consultation response is attached for approval.
2.
CHANGES TO LANDFILL TAX
2.1
In May 2012, the HMRC issued a brief for landfill site operators and their
advisors. The brief sought to clarify the landfill tax rates (i.e. the lower
landfill tax rate of £2.50/tonne or the standard landfill tax rate of
£64/tonne) available for different materials. This is to ensure that all
landfill operators consistently apply the landfill tax legislation, allowing
operators to compete fairly. It had been reported that some landfill
operators were incorrectly applying the lower rate. The brief also
provided guidance on the evidence that would need to be supplied to
demonstrate that the lower landfill tax rate would apply.
2.2
The HMRC has clarified that the standard rate will apply to inert
materials (e.g. fines, rock and soil) that are contaminated with other
waste types, for example, organic waste and plastics. This is important
to the Authority as inert materials sent to landfill from waste transfer
stations, MRFs and HWRCs that are mixed with other wastes will now
be charged at the full rate. The lower rate will only apply if materials can
be shown to be genuinely inert materials.
2.3
Officers are currently reviewing the HMRC guidance and will obtain
clarity from contractors on which materials will operationally attract the
standard rate of landfill tax. However, the initial view is that it will not
have significant impact on current operations There may also be the
opportunity to use the existing energy from waste facility to process any
commercial wastes contaminated with other waste types that will now be
subject to the standard landfill tax rate. Officers are discussing with
bidders on it’s procurement if the update will have any impact on their
proposals.
2.4
The HMRC briefs are not consultation documents so no response is
required. However, if the changes are of significance to the Authority’s
ongoing operations and procurement, officers will discuss any concerns
with the LGA.
3.
ENFIELD PLANNING DOCUMENTS
Draft Development Management Document (DMD)
3.1
Enfield is currently consulting on its proposed draft development
management document (DMD). This document is relevant to the
Authority as it sets out the policies against which any planning
application at the Edmonton EcoPark site will be determined.
3.2
Officers have reviewed this document and consider that while the draft
policies are in line with a standard approach from local planning
authorities, some of the proposed policies may impact the Authority’s
plans for the EcoPark site and the Authority is recommended to
delegate authority to the Director of Procurement to submit a
consultation response to the draft DMD on the basis that:

There will be an emphasis on achieving good design for any new
developments along the River Lee, which includes any new
developments on the EcoPark site. This policy should be supported,
but further information should be provided as how good design
should be approached for different building types and land uses.

Within the draft DMD, there is a policy that sets standards related to
the Buildings Research Establishment Environmental Assessment
Method (BREEAM) for the sourcing of materials. This policy should
be supported, but recommend that an equivalent standard can be
used where relevant.

Policy within the draft DMD relating to tall buildings should be made
more clearly supportive for large buildings in industrial areas.

Energy efficiency standards are proposed within the draft DMD.
Further information is required to understand how these would apply
to new waste treatment facilities on the EcoPark site.

Within the draft DMD, there is a policy that requires all new
developments to be “air quality neutral”, as far as possible by
applying best available techniques. It is recommended that further
information is provided on what this means and whether there will be
different targets for different building types.

Within the draft DMD, there is a policy requiring high water efficiency
standards which proposes a requirement for a greywater and
rainwater harvesting feasibility study for all large non-residential
development. It is recommended that further clarity is provided for
industrial water uses and whether alternative standards would apply.

Within the draft DMD, there is a policy which supports the use of
freight by water at the EcoPark. This policy should be supported.

Some requirements are not reasonably related to the development of
the EcoPark, for example the requirement that new developments
should contribute to improving green infrastructure such as parks,
allotments, recreation grounds and play areas and the draft DMD
should take this into account.
Discover Central Leeside
3.3
This interim Area Action Plan (AAP) is relevant to the Authority as it
provides a framework for development in and around the EcoPark area.
Generally the AAP is complementary to the Authority’s plans for the
EcoPark site.
3.4
The Authority is recommended to delegate authority to the Director of
Procurement to submit a consultation response to the interim AAP on
the basis that:

The Edmonton EcoPark forms a key site within the AAP area and
this document acknowledges that the site is the flagship waste
treatment site for north London and that this use will be its core
purpose. The document also emphasises the potential of the
proposed Upper Lee Valley Decentralised Energy Network (ULV
DEN) and links the EcoPark as the primary energy source for the
DEN. The supportive language on the provision of new waste
facilities is to be welcomed, but a concern remains on whether the
ULV DEN will be delivered. Consideration will also need to be given
as to how the ULV DEN will impact the planning of new waste
management developments on the site.

The Interim AAP also highlights that there will be increasing pressure
on the design and management of the EcoPark, as new residential
developments are located closer the site and as expectations of
design quality rise. It is important to fully understand what these
expectations are.

The document shows proposed footpaths running across the
southern end of the EcoPark site and along the eastern bank (i.e. the
EcoPark side) of Salmon’s Brook. This appears to replicate the
proposal within the GLA’s Upper Lee Valley draft Opportunity Area
Planning Framework (ULV OAPF). In line with the Authority’s
previously submitted (please refer to December 2011 Strategy
Update) response to the ULV OAPF, this should be opposed on the
grounds of health and safety, lack of desire lines and incompatibility
with development requirements for the site.

The leisure role of the River Lee and the paths along it are
highlighted and proposed to be strengthened within the document.
Although river freight is also supported, there is the concern that the
latter opportunity will be undermined by an expectation that the first
priority is for the amenity and convenience of waterside users and
leisure uses of the river itself.
Enfield Meridian Water Supplementary Planning Document (SPD)
3.5
Enfield is currently consulting on the masterplan for the Meridian Water
area, which will be adopted as a Supplementary Planning Document
(SPD). The masterplan does not create policy, but explains how the key
objectives established in the Core Strategy for the Meridian Water Place
Shaping Area could be delivered. Therefore, it will be a material
consideration in the determination of planning applications.
3.6
The Authority has previously responded to an earlier consultation on the
Meridian Water Masterplan (please refer to September 2011 Strategy
Report). This response commented specifically upon the practical
barriers to the development of a DEN to supply the Meridian Water
development as well as expressing concern that development proposals
for new bridges across the River Lee from and to the development
should not restrict the potential movement of freight along the river
3.7
The Authority is recommended to delegate authority to the Director of
Procurement to submit a consultation response to the Meridian Water
SPD on the basis that:

Images of design proposals for bridges to and from the development
such as Angel Works Bridge still show bridge bases close to the
water level, raising concerns as previously noted about the
restrictions they might impose upon use of the river Lee for freight
transport to and from the EcoPark which is north of the site.

The SPD envisages that Meridian Water will create a new energy
demand in the area and that a resilient and secure energy system
will be critical to the sustainability of masterplan. The opportunity to
create a DEN at Meridian Water, fitting with Mayoral objectives,
reducing carbon emissions, supporting new industries and providing
communities and businesses with reliable and efficient energy
supplies is supported within the SPD. The EcoPark is seen as
providing an opportunity to kick start the DEN but as noted above
concern remain whether the ULV DEN will be delivered.
Consideration will also need to be given as to how the ULV DEN will
impact the planning of new waste management developments on the
site.

The SPD notes that the Authority “is in the process of procuring new
waste services, which will include redeveloping the 43 ha (EcoPark)
site to accommodate a range of waste recycling facilities and a Solid
Recovered Fuel plant”. A response is required to confirm that
Authority fuel generated from the Waste Service Contract will be
committed under the procurement to the Fuel Use Contractor and
will therefore not be available.
4.
HARINGEY’S LOCAL PLAN: STRATEGIC POLICIES
4.1
This is the new name for the Haringey Core Strategy, which is being
reviewed in light of the publication of the Government’s National
Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and following an Examination in
Public (EiP) of the Plan.
4.2
The majority of the changes are word replacements e.g. changing all
references from ‘Core Strategy’ to ‘Local Plan Strategic Policies’. There
is also a proposal to insert a new paragraph in the document explicitly
supporting the presumption in favour of sustainable development which
is enshrined in the NPPF.
4.3
The Authority has previously provided a response to the Core Strategy
consultation (June 2010) and specifically supported the allocation of the
Pinkham Way site as a Locally Significant Industrial Site (LSIS). This
was one the key issues on which the EiP was held earlier this year.
4.4
In the light of the nature of the proposed changes and modifications
officers have submitted a response to the Local Plan Strategic Policies
document which principally endorses the changes proposed and
reiterates the points made in previous representations.
4.5
To meet the deadline for the response officers have submitted a
response which is attached at Appendix 1. The Authority is
recommended to approve the officer response at Appendix 1.
5.
FORTHCOMING CONSULTATIONS
Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment: Call for Evidence
5.1
The Department for Business Innovation and Skills (BIS) is calling for
evidence from electronic producers and producer compliance schemes
on the costs of compliance with the WEEE regulations. There are
concerns within the industry that it is costly for businesses to comply
with the WEEE regulations. The majority of obligated companies pay for
the cost of WEEE reuse and recycling through producer compliance
schemes. Typically producer compliance schemes contract with local
authorities to ensure that sufficient WEEE is collected to meet the
statutory obligations for the reuse and recycling of WEEE. The NLWA
has a contract with a producer compliance scheme on behalf of the
seven north London Boroughs. Therefore, the consultation may be
relevant to the Authority’s ongoing operations and procurement if it
potentially impacts the service provided by the producer compliance
schemes.
5.2
Officers are currently reviewing the consultation document and it is
recommended to delegate authority to the Director of Procurement in
consultation with the Chair and Vice Chair to submit a consultation
response if necessary.
Restricting Wood Waste to Landfill
5.3
On 12 June, the Government announced that an informal consultation
will be launched in July 2012 on restricting waste wood to landfill.
5.4
The wood waste market is changing significantly with the development
of higher value applications such as panelboard and animal bedding
which is leading to higher quality standards for wood waste segregation.
There is also a rapidly increasing demand for wood-based biofuel,
including a new ‘woodfuel’ hub/distribution centre in north London.
5.5
The main route for collecting municipal dirty, i.e. treated and painted and
clean (untreated or unpainted) wood waste is via the network of
HWRCs, with a proportion of arboricultural wood collected either via the
HWRC network or by green garden waste collection services. The
remainder is furniture for recycling or reuse, and a proportion of wood
waste will also be disposed as residual waste.
5.6
The Authority’s reference case for the Waste Services Contract
procurement is consistent with restricting wood waste to landfill. All the
existing HWRCs in north London already segregate wood waste and the
Constituent Boroughs are engaging proactively with the London Reuse
Network which is expanding furniture reuse services across London.
5.7
The Authority is recommended to delegate authority to the Director of
Procurement to submit a consultation response to the informal
consultation on restricting wood waste to landfill the basis that whilst a
restriction on wood waste to landfill would mean increased competition
of supply of material to recycling and reuse applications, overall the
potential introduction of wood waste restrictions to landfill can be
supported.
MRF Code of Practice
5.8
On 12 June, Government announced that a consultation on the MRF
code of practice will be launched in August 2012.
5.9
Officers have previously reported to the Authority on the proposed MRF
code of practice (please refer to June 2011 and April 2012 Authority
Strategy Update reports).
5.10
The aim of the MRF code of practice will be to address the performance
of co-mingled collections, which has become increasingly important due
to the proposed change of the transposition of the Waste Framework
Directive. The code is expected to be developed with input from the
Environmental Services Association (ESA) and industry and will initially
be voluntary for MRF operators to sign up to and is likely to become
mandatory.
5.11
It is anticipated that the code will include requirements for the
measurement of the quality of input and output material as this will give
users of MRF’s confidence
contamination levels.
in
the
quality of
recyclates and
5.12
Both of the Authority’s existing MRF services suppliers have confirmed
that they welcome the proposals for an industry-led code of practice at
MRFs and that they support a code of practice which assists with
confirming the quality of MRF outputs. To date the NLWA feedstock
supplied to the MRFs has been of high quality and it is not anticipated
that the introduction of a code of practice, which will include
requirements for measuring the quality of input material as well as
output material, would cause difficulties for the Authority or the
constituent boroughs’ collection services.
5.13
As part of the procurement process for its new Waste Management
Contract, the Authority has set requirements on the quality of input and
output material to and out of any MRF used. These requirements are in
line with good industry practice and should the code become mandatory
Waste Service Bidders will be required to achieve the requirements of
the code.
5.14
The Authority is recommended to delegate authority to the Director of
Procurement to submit a consultation response to the consultation on
the MRF code of practice the basis that if the code is in line with good
industry practice it will be supported.
6.
LEGAL ADVISER COMMENTS
The Legal Adviser has been consulted and has no comments to add.
7.
FINANCE ADVISER COMMENTS
7.1
The Financial Adviser has been consulted and has no comments to add.
REPORT ENDS
Contact:
Tim Judson
Director of Procurement
Mobile 07748 656 467
Tim.Judson@Camden.gov.uk
Local Government Act 1972- Access to Information
Documents used:
HMRC (2012) Revenue and Customs Brief 15/12. Landfill Tax: material used on
a landfill site and classification of waste
HMRC (2012) Revenues and Customs Brief 18/12. Landfill tax: further
clarification on Revenue and Customs Brief 15/12
London Borough of Enfield (May 2012) Discover Enfield, Enfield’s Draft
Development Management Document (DMD) – ‘Planning a better Enfield with
you’
London Borough of Enfield (May 2012) Discover Central Leeside - Towards a
draft Area Action Plan – ‘Planning a better Enfield with you’
London Borough of Enfield (May 2012) Meridian Water, Supplementary
Planning Document, Draft
Upper Lea Valley boroughs: Enfield, Hackney, Haringey and Waltham Forest
and the GLA family: Transport for London (TfL), the London Development
Agency (LDA) and the Mayor of London (November 2011) Upper Lee Valley
Opportunity Area Planning Framework – Consultation draft
London Borough of Enfield (November 2010) The Enfield Plan – Core Strategy
2010-2025 (Core Strategy) Development Plan Document (DPD)
London Borough of Haringey (April 2012) Haringey’s Local Plan (formerly the
Local Development Framework), National Planning Policy Framework –
Proposed Changes to Haringey’s Local Plan Strategic Policies (formerly the
Core strategy). Available at:
http://www.haringey.gov.uk/index/housing_and_planning/planningmainpage/policy_and_projects/local_development_framework/corestrategy.htm
Department for Communities and Local Government, (March 2012) National
Planning Policy Framework. Available at:
http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/planningandbuilding/nppf
Department for Business Innovation and Skills (May 2012) Waste Electrical and
Electronic Equipment: call for evidence. Available at:
http://www.bis.gov.uk/Consultations/waste-electrical-and-electronic-equipmentcall-for-evidence?cat=open
APPENDIX 1: OFFICER RESPONSE TO HARINGEY’S LOCAL PLAN
STRATEGIC POLICIES (FORMERLY THEIR CORE STRATEGY)
By email to: ldf@haringey.gov.uk
LDF Team
London Borough of Haringey
6th Floor River Park House
225 High Road
Wood Green
London
N22 8HQ
13th
June 2012
Dear Local Development Framework Team,
Ref: Consultation on Haringey's Local Plan: Strategic Policies (formerly
Core Strategy)
The North London Waste Authority (NLWA) understands that the LB Haringey is
consulting on the former Core Strategy, now the Haringey Local Plan: Strategic
Policies document in the light of the publication of the NPPF and the Planning
Policy for Traveller Sites and provides an officer response below. Members will
review the response at the next Authority meeting on 22nd June; any further
changes to this response will be submitted thereafter.
As the proposed changes outlined in the consultation documents, including the
Schedule of Modifications are principally factual changes to update the
document in the light of the publication of national policy and framework
publications, the Authority has no specific comments upon the changes
proposed. Accordingly the Authority supports the changes that are outlined in
the consultation documentation – these updates are necessary to bring
Haringey’s Local Plan: Strategic Policies in line with national guidance.
The NLWA submitted a representation on the Core Strategy Proposed
Submission in June 2010 and further wrote in support of the document in
November 2011. A NLWA officer additionally attended the EiP of the then Core
Strategy in March 2012. We reiterate our previous comments below:
Specifically we support the designation of the Former Friern Barnet Sewage
Works as a Locally Significant Industrial Site (LSIS). The NLWA is a part owner
of this site, and has submitted a planning application for the site to be used for a
waste facility and vehicle depot in partnership with LB Barnet, which is currently
on hold, pending the outcome of the North London Waste Plan EiP.
The site is already designated in Haringey’s UDP as a Defined Employment
Area (Employment Location) and changing the classification to LSIS will
provide the appropriate level of protection to the long term future of this
site and facilitate bringing it back into beneficial use.
The site’s use as an industrial area is well established, having been previously
used as a sewage treatment works (STW) and landfill site. The remnants of the
STW are still visible at the northern end of the site.
We consider that the site is suitable for designation as a LSIS use for the
following reasons:
 it is a brownfield site;
 it has good access to the adjacent North Circular;
 the majority of the site is in Flood Zone 1;
 beyond immediate transport corridors it is already adjacent to the Bounds
Green Industrial Estate and Friern Bridge Retail Park;
 It does not have any national or international environmental,
archaeological or heritage designations;
 it is a suitable size for a LSIS; and
 it is separated from residential neighbours by the north circular road and
the retail park to the north, by the railway and commercial area to the
east, by the golf club to the south and by Hollickwood Park to the west
Following an extensive site selection and consultation process, the site has
been identified as being suitable for waste use in the North London Waste Plan
(NLWP) Submission Version. The characteristics of a waste management
facility are considered to strongly reflect those of many industrial activities, and
the compatible allocation in the NLWP therefore serves to reinforce that the site
is correctly designation in the Core Strategy.
Finally, the designation of Pinkham Way as a LSIS is also consistent with the
recently adopted London Plan. Policy 4.4 requires boroughs to work with the
Mayor and other partners to “a adopt a rigorous approach to industrial land
management to ensure a sufficient stock of land and premises to meet the
future needs of different types of industrial and related uses in different parts of
London”.
The Mayor’s Industrial Capacity SPG (2008) elaborates on this policy and lists a
number of criteria in paragraphs 4.11 – 4.13 which may justify the retention or
release of a site in industrial use. The criteria are based on general economic
and land use factors and indicators of industrial demand. In developing criteriabased policies, boroughs should seek to retain those sites in industrial use that
are functionally the most important for industrial users. Pinkham Way site scores
well when considered against the majority of these criteria, but in particular its
designation meets the following criteria:
 meets demonstrable local strategic long term demand for industrial
development and/or long term strategic demand;
 meets demand and addresses the particular needs of waste
management, recycling, energy, transport and utilities and enabling waste
to be managed in one of the nearest appropriate installations;




is well located in relation to the strategic highway network or local
highway network, in particular causing minimal traffic impact in residential
areas;
offers potential for 24-hour working, or provides facilities for ‘bad
neighbour uses’ without detriment to residential amenity, being well
screened from neighbouring uses, particularly residential areas;
provides sufficient space for adequate operational parking and turning
space for goods vehicles; and
has been vacant for a considerable period (normally at least two years,
and up to five years in areas of generally strong demand), without
realistic prospect of industrial re-use.
Please do not hesitate to contact me should you require any further information.
Yours sincerely
David Beadle
Managing Director