Transformation and Sustainability
SHEFFIELD DEVELOPMENT
FRAMEWORK
CORE STRATEGY SUBMISSION VERSION
WASTE MANAGEMENT
BACKGROUND REPORT
Development Services
Sheffield City Council
Howden House
1 Union Street
SHEFFIELD
S1 2SH
September 2007
CONTENTS
Chapter
Page
1.
Introduction
1
2.
Waste Development Objectives
5
3.
Safeguarding Major Waste Facilities
21
4.
Provision for Recycling and Composting
31
Appendix A - Delivery of Core Strategy Waste Management
policies
43
List of Tables
Page
1
Provision for Municipal and Commercial/Industrial Waste
14
1
INTRODUCTION
The Context
1.1
This report provides background information and evidence to support the
submitted policies for the Core Strategy of the Sheffield Development
Framework.
1.2
The Sheffield Development Framework is Sheffield’s Local Development
Framework, which the local planning authority is now required to produce. It will
contain all of the City’s planning policies and proposals and will replace the
outgoing Unitary Development Plan. Further information about the Sheffield
Development Framework can be found in the project programme, known as the
Local Development Scheme1.
1.3
The Core Strategy is the first of the development plan documents in the
Framework. It sets out the overall planning aims and objectives and establishes
the broad spatial framework for all the other documents.
1.4
The Core Strategy has been prepared in several stages, based on periods of
consultation. These stages were about:




Emerging Options
Preferred Options
Additional Options (for a few issues only)
Submission, for final representations and public examination.
The Emerging Options
1.5
The Emerging Options were the broad choices for the Core Strategy and they
were set out in a separate document2. They were drawn up to enable the
Council to consider and consult on all the possibilities early in the process of
drawing up the Strategy. The City Council consulted on these options and then
decided which to take forward as Preferred Options. The other options have
been rejected but this document sets out how they were taken into account and
why the Council is proposing the Preferred Options instead.
1 Sheffield
Development Framework: The Local Development Scheme. Sheffield City Council (revised
October 2006). SDF Local Development Scheme 2006
2 Sheffield Development Framework: Emerging Options for the Core Strategy. (Sheffield City Council,
May 2005, SDF Core Strategy Emerging Options 2005. For background to the options, see Chapter 1.
-1-
The Preferred Options
1.6
The Preferred Options were published3 and consulted on as the ones that the
Council was minded to take forward to submission. However, the choice of
option and the way it was expressed remained subject to public comment. The
Preferred Options document outlined how the Council had arrived at them and
the justification for choosing them. It also indicated which Emerging Options had
been rejected. In most cases these Preferred Options were taken forward as
policies in the draft submitted Core Strategy4.
Additional Options
1.7
Further work indicated that there were a few issues to be covered that had not
featured in the earlier options consultations and there were some issues that had
been considered where a new option needed to be considered. These were set
out in the Additional Options Report 5 and consulted on.
Submission Version
1.8
Much of the Submission Version follows the approach proposed in the Preferred
and Additional Options and takes account of comments made about those
documents. However, the opportunity remains in the final period for
representations to draw attention to any outstanding matters that would make the
submitted document unsound.The soundness of the document will be decided by
a Planning Inspector through a process of public examination.
1.9
The Background Reports set out the Council’s evidence for considering that the
Core Strategy is sound. They are prepared specifically to help consultees and
the Inspector come to a view about the Council’s position. The Core Strategy
itself has space only to summarise the reasons for the chosen policies. So, the
more detailed background information and analysis there is all found in the
Background Reports.
1.10
The Background Reports are not actually part of the Sheffield Development
Framework but they clearly contribute to the statutory process of preparing it.
The regulations refer to ‘DPD [Development Plan Document] documents’ and
these may include:
3
Sheffield Development Framework: Preferred Options for the Core Strategy. Sheffield City Council,
(May 2005). SDF Core Strategy Preferred Options 2006
4 Sheffield Development Framework: Core Strategy – Draft for submission to the Secretary of State.
Sheffield City Council (September 2007)
5Sheffield Development Framework: Core Strategy – Additional Options. Sheffield City Council (February
2007) SDF Core Strategy Additional Options 2007
-2-
“such supporting documents as in the opinion of the authority are relevant to
the preparation of the DPD”6
1.11
The Background Reports all fall within this definition. The versions of the
Background Reports supporting the submitted Core Strategy have been made
available for inspection with the Core Strategy.
The Scope of this Report
1.12
This report supports the submitted citywide spatial policies for Waste
Management. The chapters are based on each of the issues covered in chapter
12 on Waste Management and they deal with each of the Inspectorate’s
soundness tests in turn.
Introduction to the Issues
1.13
The waste content of the Core Strategy comprises a set of three policies
designed to provide a strong framework that links higher tier policies to local
regulatory and allocation documents in the rest of the Local Development
Framework. The over-arching approach to achieving more sustainable waste
management is covered in policy SW1 – Waste Development Objectives. This
shows how the city intends to move waste management up the ‘waste hierarchy’ 7
in providing for future waste arisings.
1.14
The main spatial implications for the city are followed up in two complementary
policies. Policy SW2 – Safeguarding Major Waste Facilities, establishes the longterm use of two disposal facilities that are key elements of the overall waste
strategy. Other provision that is significant for achieving the citywide aim of
increasing recycling is covered in policy SW3 – Provision for Recycling and
Composting.
1.15
The three core policies will be supported by further policies in the City Policies
document that will inform decisions about planning applications. Any firm
proposals for major new waste infrastructure will be allocated sites in the City
Sites document, which is intended to be reviewed on a more frequent basis than
other documents in the Local Development Framework.
6
The Town and Country Planning (Local Development) (England) Regulations 2004, Regulation 24(4)
The ‘waste hierarchy’ is a conceptual framework that prioritises reduction, re-use, recycling and
composting and energy recovery solutions, in that descending order, with disposal to landfill being seen
as a last resort.
7
-3-
-4-
2
WASTE DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVES
Introduction
2.1
Clear policy objectives are needed at the local level in planning for future capacity
and the distribution of waste facilities, and they should be supported by careful
analysis of the available data and development opportunities. Those policy
objectives need to show alignment with relevant national planning policy, reflect
the contribution to delivering the Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) and integrate
with other relevant local strategies specifically the city’s Community Strategy and
the current Municipal Waste Strategy8. Specific targets that underpin the
approach need to be formulated and monitored to keep the strategy on track. The
following policy has been submitted to address these requirements.
Policy SW1
2.2
The City’s waste will be managed more sustainably by:
(a) encouraging less consumption of raw materials through the
reduction and re-use of waste products; and
(b) making the best use of existing landfill capacity and only using the
city’s Landfill Allowance Trading Scheme allocations when disposing
of organic municipal waste; and
(c) restricting consent for additional landfill to those cases where local
provision can be justified; and
(d) meeting the national staged targets for recovering value from
municipal waste by utilising the existing energy-from-waste plant and
developing services and facilities to meet agreed performance
targets for recycling or composting household waste; and
(e) permitting a range of additional treatment facilities, mainly in
industrial areas, sufficient to meet the regional apportionment for
commercial and industrial waste together with requirements for other
waste streams where the city is best placed to meet local and wider
needs; and
(f) avoiding the unnecessary use of greenfield land when identifying
suitable sites/ areas and permitting other waste development.
Municipal waste includes household waste collected from kerbside and ‘bring’ sites together with other
wastes collected by the Council from parks, trade premises and fly-tipped sites.
8
-5-
Policy Background (Soundness Test 4)
National Policy
2.3
National planning policy on waste management in England is set out in Planning
Policy Statement 10: Planning for Sustainable Waste Management9. This forms
part of the national waste management plan for the UK. It’s policies complement
other national planning policies and has to be read in conjunction with other
Government policies for sustainable waste management in particular those set
out in the national waste strategy, Waste Strategy for England 200710. A
companion guide to PPS1011 provides practical guidance on implementing waste
policies.
2.4
Paragraph 16 of PPS 10 requires that a core strategy should set out policies and
proposals for waste management that ensure sufficient opportunities for the
provision of waste management facilities in appropriate locations, including for
waste disposal, for a period of at least 10 years after its adoption. It should
accomplish this with reference to the waste component of RSS and any relevant
municipal waste strategy. In a note prepared by the Department of Communities
and Local Government appended to guidance on LDFs by the Planning
Inspectorate12, authorities are encouraged to prepare core strategies that are
both spatial and bespoke to add value to higher tier waste policies.
2.5
It is considered that submitted policy SW1 fulfils the requirements of soundness
test 4 being part of a spatial plan that is consistent with the relevant provisions of
national planning policy on waste management. The following paragraphs
support this view.
2.6
Clauses (a) to (d) show how the city positively supports the overall objective on
waste within the Government’s strategy for sustainable development by moving
waste up the ‘waste hierarchy’, addressing waste as a resource and minimising,
but meeting, landfill disposal needs (paragraph 1 of PPS10). Read as a whole,
the policy provides part of the spatial framework ensuring that there will be
sufficient opportunities in appropriate locations taking account of the local context
(paragraph 2 of PPS10).
2.7
In particular, clauses (b), (d) and (e) indicate how sites and areas will be retained
or identified, and establish some criteria and broad locations for subsequent
designation or allocation in other development plan documents (paragraph 17 of
PPS10). Clause (f) has been drafted to be consistent with the national priority
9
Planning Policy Statement 10: Planning for Sustainable Waste Management, ODPM, (July 2005).
Waste Strategy for England 2007. DEFRA, (May 2007).
11 Planning for Sustainable Waste Management: Companion Guide to Planning Policy Statement 10.
DCLG, (2006).
12 Local Development Frameworks: Lessons Learnt Examining Development Plan Documents. The
Planning Inspectorate, (June 2007).
10
-6-
given to using previously developed land in identifying suitable waste
management facilities (paragraph 21ii of PPS10).
2.8
Finally the policy demonstrates consistency with the Key Planning Objectives
required of planning strategies in that it provides a framework for the city to meet
most of its needs for locally generated waste whilst also making a strong
contribution to achieving national recovery targets for the municipal waste stream
(paragraph 3 of PPS10).
Regional Policy
2.9
The Yorkshire and Humber Plan (RSS)13 has been prepared in draft and
examined by a Panel. The Panel have issued their recommendations and the
Government was due to report their proposed changes to the strategy in
September 2007. Adopted regional waste policies in the strategy published in
December 2004 are considered to be deficient and they have been significantly
revised in the current draft. Despite some concerns about compliance of the new
waste policies (ENV 12-14) with PPS10, the Panel has recommended on balance
that they should be adopted as part of the RSS subject to some further revisions.
Those policies are therefore considered to be the most appropriate ones to use at
present in testing general conformity to the regional waste plan.
2.10
Policy SW1 conforms with regional waste management objectives in that it gives
support to waste minimisation (policy ENV12A) and it shows how the
management of municipal and commercial/industrial waste streams will be moved
up the ‘waste hierarchy’ (policy ENV12C). In particular, the policy commits to
meeting agreed performance targets for recycling/composting household waste
and achieving the national staged targets for recovering value 14 from municipal
waste which have recently been raised to 75% by 2020 in the new national waste
strategy.
2.11
SW1 also conforms to policy ENV13 on the provision of waste management
facilities in that it uses the proposed regional apportionments for tonnages of
municipal and commercial/industrial waste as benchmarks for its spatial policy. In
line with the Panel Report15 and the Companion Guide to PPS10 (paragraph 18
of Annex D) the policy uses mid-points of the ranges given in the revised Waste
Tables at Annex C1 and C2. For comparison purposes, and as explained below,
the policy also tests available capacity against a lower figure for growth in
municipal waste, that is more consistent with the new national waste strategy.
Table 12.1 of the submitted Core Strategy sets out an assessment that compares
the apportioned waste streams against locally available capacity to demonstrate
13
The Yorkshire and Humber Plan, Draft for Public Consultation. Yorkshire and Humber Assembly,
(December 2005).
14 Recovering value includes recycling, composting and energy recovery.
15 Chapter 6 of Volume1 of the Report of the Panel, Examination in Public of the Yorkshire and Humber
Plan, (March 2007).
-7-
that there is currently an equivalent 10 year supply. The assessment takes
account of the contribution made by committed and existing waste facilities and
their anticipated lifespan. The table shows tonnages that will be passing through
the various management methods in a way that conforms to the desired minimum
recovery targets set out in policy ENV13.
2.12
Finally, SW1 also conforms to locational criteria in policy ENV14E in that it
effectively prioritises the use of previously developed land when assessing the
suitability of waste management sites.
Sub-Regional Policy
2.13
There are no formal sub-regional documents that have a bearing on this issue.
Section 2.52 refers to some advice from the Regional Assembly relating to
capacity in licensed landfills in the sub-region that the policy has taken into
account.
Other Sheffield Policies
2.14
The Council approved a Household Waste Strategy16 covering the period 20032010 (May 2003) that deals with the management of waste for which it is directly
responsible. Policy SW1 has been informed by that document and a subsequent
report to the Council’s Cabinet in August 2004 relating to its implementation.
Given the level of investment already committed to waste infrastructure, there are
no significant land use requirements arising from the strategy apart from the need
for an additional Household Waste Recycling Centre17 (HWRC) to improve the
pattern of centres in the city (see section 4).
2.15
Owing to its investment in recycling and composting and the development of a
new and larger Energy from Waste plant, the Council will be able to accept
DEFRA’s target tonnages for limiting the landfill of biodegradable waste in the city
for the duration of the Landfill Allowance Trading Scheme 18(LATS). Clause (b) of
policy SW1 takes account of this aspect of the operational waste strategy.
2.16
The policy is also based on the intention that a target rate of 30% for recycling
/composting will be achieved during the plan period and that this will be improved
further by extending bring facilities including an extra HWRC.
16
A Household Waste Strategy for Sheffield 2003/2010. Sheffield City Council, (May 2003).
A ‘Household Waste Recycling Centre’ is a facilitiy where the public can deliver their household waste,
including garden waste and oversized items, for recycling or disposal. They are sometimes also referred
to as civic amenity sites.
18 LATS is a trading scheme for municipal waste, operational since April 2005, and designed to help
waste authorities to contribute effectively to achieving our national obligations under the European Landfill
Directive.
17
-8-
Relationship to City Strategy (Soundness Test 5)
2.17
The Core Strategy of the SDF provides the spatial expression of the City Strategy
for Sheffield19 which is the name being used for the local statutory Community
Strategy. The partnership responsible for the strategy has agreed five themes for
strengthening the City in an approved updated version that looks forward to 2010.
Under the ‘Environmental Excellence’ theme there is a commitment to pursuing
strategies for sustainable energy production and waste management that
contributes to a reduced ecological and carbon footprint for the city. The existing
central district heating scheme powered by the Energy from Waste plant is
strongly promoted in the strategy. Policy SW1 has regard to this priority by
demonstrating how critical it is to achieving desired recovery targets for municipal
waste in the city. Clause (a) of the policy will assist with the aim of meeting
carbon reduction targets by encouraging more waste reduction and re-use
options.
Consistency with Other Planning Documents (Soundness Test 6)
Core Strategy Objectives
2.18
Waste management objectives have been developed to dovetail with objectives
for other spatial planning concerns in the city and they particularly amplify specific
core objectives for sustainable use of natural resources. Clauses (a) to (d)
interpret the strategic objective S12.4 on the positive use of the ‘waste hierarchy’
and clause (f) shows that waste development will be expected to contribute to
objective S12.1 by using previously developed land before ‘greenfield’ land. The
policy as a whole provides a positive framework for other core policies on waste
for lower level plans and for development management.
Adjoining local authorities’ plans
2.19
The policy does not conflict with the known waste content of other development
plan documents under preparation in the sub-region, nor with the adopted Derby
and Derbyshire Waste Local Plan20. The policy has now been drafted to
encourage appropriate development that helps to move waste management up
the ‘waste hierarchy’ and should therefore address a concern raised by
Derbyshire CC at Preferred Options stage (see section 2.57).
2.20
The text of policy SW1 refers to the long- term contingency of the City possibly
having to export some waste for final disposal to landfill sites in the rest of the
sub-region. The Regional Planning Body accepts21 that there is around a 20 year
supply of landfill based just on licensed space in the sub-region against RSS
19
Sheffield City Strategy 2005-2010, Sheffield First Partnership, (August 2007).
Derby and Derbyshire Waste Local Plan, DerbyshireCC and DerbyCC, (March 2005)
21 Revised Waste Data RTAB Document & Strategic Messages, Yorkshire & Humber Assembly, (August
2006) – a submission to the Public Examination of Draft RSS in October 2006.
20
-9-
forecast requirements for this management method. No intention has been
expressed to revoke the relevant planning permissions and it is assumed that this
option of exporting some waste would be available once local capacity is
eventually exhausted.
Options Considered (Soundness Test 7)
2.21
No core policy on this issue was presented at Emerging or Preferred Options
stages on the basis that there was probably little scope to elaborate on objectives
already set out in national and regional policy and very limited new land-use
requirements were being generated in the Council’s Household Waste Strategy.
An option EW1 setting out relevant regulatory principles for waste management
was included in the City Policies document at Emerging Options stage. In
response to calls for a broader context for the sole proposal to expand the
recycling network, that particular option was re-presented as a new Additional
(Preferred) Option AW1 – Waste Development Objectives (see below). The
submitted policy draws on that option but includes other elements to provide a
more distinctive spatial statement on objectives for managing waste in the City.
Option a – Define local Waste Management Objectives ( as in submitted
policy SW1).
2.22
The strengths of this option are:
(a) Supports the sustainable development agenda showing how the
management of the city’s waste will be moved up the ‘waste hierarchy’,
especially by achieving a high recovery target for municipal waste.
(b) Provides an appropriate framework for identifying and designating areas
for retained or new waste management facilities in other core policies or
subsequent development plan documents.
(c) Takes on board the need to ensure sufficient opportunities for facilities to
manage forecast waste arisings set out in RSS.
2.23
The weaknesses of this option are:
(a) Wider waste streams such as hazardous waste are not specifically
covered as spatial guidance has yet to be developed at regional level.
(b) Policy has had to be formulated in advance of an anticipated review of the
Council’s municipal waste strategy.
Option b – Have no local policy on this issue and rely on national/regional
policy.
-10-
2.24
The strength of this option is that:
(a) The City will be expected to take account of national and regional
objectives for waste management and these are already quite
comprehensive.
2.25
The weaknesses of this option are:
(a) There would be no local context for any other core policies.
(b) No demonstration of how the City intends to move the management of its
waste up the ‘waste hierarchy’.
2.26
As mentioned above, a new preferred option was to be added to the Waste
Management chapter to strengthen the strategic thrust. That option, repeated
below, sets out some general guiding principles for sustainable waste
management practice at the local level.
Additional Option AW1 – Waste Development Objectives
Waste development will be promoted where:
(a) there is a clearly established need for the facilities to cater for locally
generated waste or waste from the sub-region that it would be
appropriate to manage within the city; and
(b) the development accords with the objectives and principles of
sustainable waste management and contributes to targets for better
management of controlled waste resulting from the Regional Spatial
Strategy, national strategy and European Directives; and
(c) the facilities are located and designed to prevent significant adverse
environmental impacts, pollution risks or danger to public health
resulting from the activity.
This option had the benefit of linkage to European, national and regional waste
targets and incorporation of principles protecting human health and the
environment when considering waste development. Although the option received
support from various stakeholders it has been rejected and replaced by a more
bespoke and spatial policy (SW1) that is more explicit on the objectives that the
City will follow in sustainable management of its projected waste arisings.
Reasons for the Submitted Policy (Soundness Test 7)
2.27
Having considered meaningful alternatives it is considered that the submitted
policy is the most appropriate approach on setting waste management objectives
-11-
for the reasons given below. All key assumptions that underpin the policy are
covered in this section of the report.
Planning Reasons – Moving Waste up the ‘Waste Hierarchy’
2.28
Firstly, the policy strongly supports the sustainable development agenda set out
at national and regional level by showing that waste will be treated as a resource,
and that the City’s waste will be managed in a way that moves it up the ‘waste
hierarchy’.
2.29
The Government is now placing a stronger emphasis on waste prevention as part
of the drive to tackle climate change. Clause (a) embraces this stance through
encouragement for waste reduction and re-use. The planning system cannot
exert a strong influence in this area but this part of the policy can provide a
platform for other initiatives such as possible obligations for developers to provide
home composters or maximise the on-site management of demolition waste.
2.30
The current level of landfilling of municipal waste in Sheffield is relatively low as
much of it is already being diverted by a modern Energy from Waste plant
together with a supporting Material Recovery Facility. Clause (b) recognises that
the Council will therefore be able to keep to the target tonnages that DEFRA has
imposed for limiting the landfill of biodegradable waste until the end of the current
LATS period in 2020.
2.31
There will still be a continuing need for landfill in the City to deal with the final
disposal of residual material including commercial/industrial waste that cannot be
treated further and this must be adequately catered for. The landfill site at
Parkwood Springs is the only remaining open-gate facility left in the City and
there are very few opportunities for any significant new landfill developments
given the physical and environmental constraints in the area. Clause (b) therefore
acknowledges that it is important to make the best use of this site as part of a
responsible and balanced approach on waste management. Policy SW2
emphasises the importance of retaining this particular facility until its consented
capacity is used up, and its role in ensuring a 10 years supply to cater for forecast
arisings in RSS is covered in section 2.49 below.
2.32
There may be cases where modest provision can be justified in future for
landfilling of particular wastes but in view of the capacity available within the city
at Parkwood and within the rest of the sub-region, it is appropriate that clause (c)
adopts a firm line on restricting further landfill development to minimise the use of
this method of last resort.
2.33
The City has achieved statutory recycling/composting targets set for it through the
Best Value Performance regime. It is understood that the Government is
developing proposals for local authority waste indicators to be included as part of
a new local performance framework. The City expects to continue its contribution
to this aspect of landfill diversion on the basis that individual recycling rates
-12-
above universal ‘floor‘ targets will be subject to agreement based on local
circumstances. Clause (d) makes the commitment to developing appropriate
services to ensure that the household waste stream will be managed in line with
those targets.
2.34
On the basis of anticipated growth rates, and its existing investment in waste
infrastructure, the City can also commit to meeting the national staged targets for
recovery of municipal waste (now 53% by 2010, 67% by 2015 and 75% by 2020).
Once again, the contribution of the Energy from Waste plant is critical to this level
of performance that is expressed in clause (d).
Planning Reasons – Providing a Framework for Identifying Sites
2.35
Secondly, policy SW1 has been formulated to provide a firm framework for
designating and identifying sites for waste management in other core policies and
other development plan documents.
2.36
The Core Strategy is not expected to allocate sites or specific areas for waste
management in its own right but it does need to indicate broad locations or
include criteria that will help define such areas. Clauses (b) and (d) refer to
current landfill and energy recovery facilities that are critical to the delivery of the
strategy’s vision for waste management. This is taken up in policy SW2 and will
be translated into specific designations in the City Policies document.
2.37
Clauses (e) and (f) contain criteria relating to the type of areas – established
industrial areas and ‘non-greenfield’ land – that will be suitable for new or
enhanced waste management facilities. These strategic criteria will be refined
further in the City Policies document and any necessary allocations for firm
proposals will be included in the City Sites document at the appropriate time.
Planning Reasons – Meeting Identified Needs
2.38
Lastly, the Core Strategy is expected to contain policies and proposals that
demonstrate sufficient provision of opportunities to meet identified needs of the
area for waste management. It is expected to do this in a way that supports the
spatial pattern and specific apportionments set out in RSS. The present draft
RSS does not yet have a strong spatial basis for proposed facilities but it does
provide estimated requirements for municipal and commercial/industrial waste
arisings in the City in the form of apportioned tonnages.
2.39
Policy SW1 appropriately uses those benchmark figures and information on
operational facilities to demonstrate the necessary requirement to have sufficient
capacity to manage expected waste from those streams for at least 10 years
beyond adoption of the Core Strategy. The assessment of provision is set out in
Table 12.1 of the submitted Core Strategy that is repeated below. The following
paragraphs cover the assumptions that have been used in the analysis.
-13-
Table 1 Provision for Municipal and Commercial/Industrial Waste (million
tonnes)
2007-2018
2007-2021
Revised
requirement
(draws on
English Waste
Strategy 2007)
2007-21
3.58
0.60
8.72
12.90
4.68
0.75
10.97
16.39
4.20
0.12
10.97
15.29
0.97
1.35
1.21
2.60
6.60
3.25
8.25
3.25
8.25
2.74
12.91
2.75
15.61
2.66
15.37
Draft RSS Forecast
Requirement
Requirement
Municipal waste
Incinerator Bottom Ash
Commercial and Industrial Waste
Total requirement
Provision
Recycling and composting of
municipal waste
Energy-from-waste facility
Other treatment facilities for
Commercial and Industrial Waste
Capacity at Parkwood Landfill Site
Total Provision
Surplus/shortfall
+0.00
-0.78
+0.09
Apparent errors due to rounding. Variations in figures for tonnes of landfill is
due to differences in the composition and density of waste because of the
different amounts of incinerator bottom ash.
2.40
Estimated tonnages of municipal and commercial/industrial waste requiring
management in the City during the plan period have been identified in draft RSS
Waste Tables at Annex C. They are expressed as ranges, and in the case of
municipal waste the forecasts are based on local historical trend and DEFRA’s
advised 3% per annum growth rate at the time the regional plan was being
prepared. In the case of commercial/industrial waste, the baseline figures rely on
modelled data supplied by the Environment Agency, and the range is generated
by using an historic trend and an aspirational option related to increased levels of
activity in the regional economy. Draft RSS suggests that the latter figures need
to be treated with caution at district level because of the reliance on modelled
data.
2.41
In line with advice in the Companion Guide to PPS10 (Annex D paragraph 18) the
assessment carried out for the Core Strategy uses mid-point figures of the
respective ranges for the two waste streams that were included in the amended
versions of Tables C1 and C2 presented to the Public Examination. Although
-14-
there is some minor increase towards the end of the time horizon used, the
figures approximate to annual growth rates of some 2.7% for municipal waste and
0.042% for commercial/industrial waste up to 2021.
2.42
Up to 50,000 tonnes per annum of residual incinerator bottom ash (IBA) from
processing waste at the City’s Energy from Waste plant will also need to be
added back into the requirement figure as this will need to be sent to landfill if it is
not recycled.
2.43
It was acknowledged by officers of Yorkshire and Humber Regional Assembly at
the Public Examination in 2006 that the assumptions used for Annex C figures
had been superseded. In particular the 3% per annum growth in municipal waste
is now considered to be too high as it does not reflect sufficient progress on
waste reduction or the lower levels now expected in the new English Waste
Strategy (2007). The latter states that this waste stream is now growing much
less quickly than the economy at 0.5% per annum.
2.44
In the absence of more up to date information from the Regional Planning Body
the assessment also models the implications of a lower growth rate of 1.5% per
annum for municipal waste in the third column of Table 12.1. This is considered
to be a more realistic figure based on local experience of waste growth together
with some allowance for growth in the number of households. It also represents
the median growth option set out in Waste Strategy 200722. The revised
requirement figures also take account of the probable development by the
Council’s waste contractor of an IBA recycling plant by 2010 to manage this
stream either within the City or the wider region. Diversion of this waste would
have a corresponding reduction in landfill requirements.
2.45
The supply side of Table 12.1 is based on a careful assessment of remaining
landfill space and the capacity of existing and committed infrastructure for
recycling/composting, energy recovery and treatment facilities for
commercial/industrial waste.
2.46
With the present infrastructure the Council is achieving a 25% household
recycling rate and the approved Household Waste Strategy envisages that this
could be raised to 30% principally through the roll-out of a ‘green waste’ collection
scheme to most of the city. This can be accommodated without the need for any
major new facilities as composting capacity already exists at a site in Tinsley and
on local farms. The assessment assumes that recycling of municipal waste is
raised to an average of 30% during the 5 year period up to 2018 and that this is
increased to 35% thereafter following the introduction of additional bring facilities.
2.47
The new Energy from Waste plant has a design capacity of 225,000 tonnes per
annum but allowing for necessary downtime to undertake maintenance it is
reasonable to assume that around 216,00 tonnes pa will be available throughout
22
Paragraph 13 of Annex A, Impact of Waste Strategy 2007, DEFRA, (May 2007)
-15-
the plan period. Although the facility will mainly manage municipal waste it has
been designed and sized to accept some commercial/industrial waste too and it is
therefore assumed that the available capacity will be taken up.
2.48
Provision of treatment facilities for commercial/industrial waste is estimated at a
capacity of not less than 550,000 tonnes per annum based on relatively stable
throughput figures for metal recycling (320,00 tonnes), waste transfer stations
(150,000 tonnes) and a physico-chemical treatment plant (75,000 tonnes). The
figures are derived from the Environment Agency’s Strategic Waste Management
Assessment Report (2000) for Yorkshire and the Humber, and other updated
information reports produced for the region by the Agency.
2.49
Following completion of tipping at other sites, the Parkwood Landfill site is now
the last remaining open-gate facility in the city. Planning consent was granted in
2006 for re-phasing of this tip with infilling expected to be completed by the start
of 2019, unless otherwise agreed by the local planning authority. The operator’s
returns to the Environment Agency stated the remaining voidspace to be 3.383
million cubic metres at the end of December 2005. This is likely to have fallen to
around 3.12 million cubic metres by the start of 2007 given the likely input rates.
To express that figure in terms of a tonnage it is necessary to apply a conversion
factor. No conversion is required for the proportion of incinerator bottom ash
tipped because of the equivalent density of this waste, but using a factor of 0.85
for other municipal and commercial/industrial waste would give a remaining total
capacity of some 2.74 million tonnes. This figure would reduce slightly if the tip is
no longer required to manage IBA or any other waste stream with such a high
density.
2.50
When assessed against the forecast RSS requirements, policy SW1 shows that
the City will have equivalent capacity for managing municipal and
commercial/industrial waste streams for the 10 years period up to the end of
2018. Although the margin appears tight there is no apparent ‘capacity gap’
because the capacity summarised in Table 12.1 is almost entirely made up of
existing facilities that will be available throughout this period, and beyond in most
cases. The implications are however, that existing major waste infrastructure
should be designated exclusively for waste management purposes and other
facilities that contribute significantly to the supply should be placed, wherever
possible, in ‘waste management compatible’ industrial areas in supporting
development plan documents. Although current supply satisfies the broad test on
ensuring sufficient opportunities, specific requirements are likely to emerge from
the waste industry that will generate the need for additional facilities. The City has
extensive and established industrial areas that already host many existing waste
facilities and they will continue to provide suitable opportunities for marginal
additions to the stock during the plan period without compromising the supply of
industrial land.
2.51
If the more realistic figures are used to reflect slower growth in municipal waste,
and IBA from the Energy from Waste facility starts to be recycled soon after the
-16-
Core Strategy is adopted, then the equivalence referred to above should be
maintained for the 2021 plan horizon used in the draft RSS. In the event that the
requirement were nevertheless to exceed those figures, then it would be
necessary to make some contingency arrangements after 2018, particularly in
regard to landfill capacity as this could be exhausted by that date.
2.52
The City has limited opportunities for further landfill development but spare
capacity has already been identified in the rest of the sub-region. In developing
the draft RSS, the Regional Planning Body stated that South Yorkshire had
around 19-21 years supply of licensed landfill space if municipal and
commercial/industrial wastes are landfilled at the maximum rate (i.e no more than
33%of arisings) set out in the Waste Tables at Annex C23. On this basis, it should
be possible to consider managing the disposal of waste to landfill sites in the rest
of the sub-region if this proves necessary in the longer term. In the light of this
supply, and other unimplemented permissions, the Regional Assembly has
supported the view that provision of further consents for landfill capacity should
be resisted in the sub-region. Given these circumstances it should be possible to
negotiate variations to the City’s regional waste apportionments in consultation
with adjoining authorities to address this mismatch if this proves necessary.
Sustainability Appraisal
2.53
The sustainability appraisal has been applied in a way that supports the
Government’s objectives for waste management in PPS10 through the
incorporation of a specific aim relating to positive use of the ‘waste hierarchy’.
2.54
Policy SW1 was assessed as having a positive impact on all main sustainability
themes and was superior to reliance on national/regional objectives because it
shows how Key Planning Objectives (paragraph 3 of PPS10) for waste
management can be achieved locally. The policy scores better than the rejected
option by minimising the transport of waste and the emissions associated with
this and by indirectly promoting the provision of local jobs in waste management.
The option does this by providing a framework for the City to take responsibility
for its own waste and to achieve national recovery targets in managing that
waste.
Equality Appraisal
2.55
The submitted policy and its alternative option have been assessed as having no
impact on any of the groups identified for the purposes of this appraisal.
23
Statement made as part of Strategic Messages for the period 2005-2015 in document referred to in
footnote 21.
-17-
Consultation Responses
2.56
The submitted policy has not been subject to previous consultation but an
Additional (Preferred) Option AW1 was prepared to meet a need for a wider and
more strategic approach that complied with guidance in PPS10 for positive use of
the ‘waste hierarchy’ whilst also catering adequately for disposal needs. That
option addressed some of the comments made at earlier stages by Government
Office for Yorkshire and the Humber (ref. 4871.026), the Environment Agency
(ref. 5281.034), Derbyshire CC (ref. 4925.007) and Viridor Waste Management
Ltd (ref. 5119.006). The option was supported unconditionally by Yorkshire
Forward (ref.949), Natural England (ref.621) and Viridor (ref. 829).
2.57
However, the Environment Agency (ref.1692) and the Regional Assembly (ref.
623) still felt there was a need for the policy to be more explicit in moving the
management of the City’s apportioned waste streams up the ‘waste hierarchy’.
The Environment Agency and the local Green Party (ref.115) also echoed other
earlier concerns in wanting more support for waste reduction and Derbyshire CC
(ref.4925.005) wanted the proposed local ’needs test’ confining to landfill rather
than all waste management methods to mirror their own policy. There was also a
need for the policy to be more explicit in its coverage of non-municipal waste
streams. The submitted policy now addresses those specific additional concerns
as part of a spatially distinctive approach on objectives that will deliver more
sustainable waste management in the City.
2.58
There are still outstanding concerns raised by Burngreave Area Panel (ref.
5263.015) and the Green Party (ref.115) with another individual (ref.1415) that
centre around avoiding landfill and energy recovery measures altogether whilst
maximising recycling initiatives. Amendments to the policy along those lines have
not been accepted. It is considered that the key objectives of the waste strategy
cannot embrace comprehensive recycling regardless of the cost and must
recognise the contribution of energy recovery and other disposal methods as part
of a balanced approach that fits with local circumstances. The submitted policy
has been formulated in close consultation with the Council’s Waste Management
service.
Conclusions on Reasons for Selecting the Policy
2.59
The submitted policy has been selected because its strengths outweigh any
weaknesses and it is preferable to have a local vision for waste management that
is set within the context of higher tier policies rather than simply deferring to them.
Policy SW1 is the most appropriate option for demonstrating how the City can
manage its waste in a way that moves it up the ‘waste hierarchy’. The option
provides a firm framework for subsequent designation and identification of waste
management sites. Finally, it fulfils the requirement to evidence that there will be
sufficient provision to meet identified needs set out in RSS. The advantages of
the policy are borne out by the results of sustainability and equality appraisals
that are themselves supportive of national objectives for waste management. The
-18-
policy also addresses most of the concerns raised through consultation, and the
Council’s Waste Management Service has co-operated in its formulation.
Implementation and Monitoring (Soundness Test 8)
2.60
It is submitted that this policy meets the requirements of soundness test 8 in
terms of having clear mechanisms for implementation and monitoring. The
Delivery Schedule at Appendix A summarises the implementation arrangements.
2.61
The policy will apply throughout the plan period. Elements at clauses (b) and (d)
relating to LATS and recycling performance will be implemented by the Waste
Management Authority with delivery being set out in detail in the current
Household Waste Strategy and subsequent reviews. Planning control will be
exercised in securing the delivery of any new facilities provided by the private
sector or the Council’s waste contractor. Clause (c) will operate as a strategic
development control policy but other elements set out in clauses (a),(b),(e) and (f)
will need to be taken forward in supporting development plan documents to
establish more specific regulatory policy and possible site allocations.
2.62
The key target for the policy is to recycle and recover energy from 80% of the
City’s municipal waste by 2015. The related indicator is therefore:

2.63
The percentage of municipal waste managed through recycling/ composting
or energy recovery.
A further Government Core Output Indicator (6b) will also be used to monitor the
policy:

Amount of municipal waste arising, and managed by management type, and
the percentage each management type represents of the waste managed.
All the above measures will be included in the SDF’s Annual Monitoring Report.
Flexibility and Risk Assessment (Soundness Test 9)
2.64
The policy has been drafted with a view to the likely risks involved in its
implementation. Sheffield is already in a position to trade landfill allowances to
other authorities that cannot meet their diversion targets. Given maintenance of
the current waste infrastructure, and in particular the energy from waste plant, it is
highly unlikely that the Council will need to buy or borrow future allowances as it
will be able to limit landfilling of its municipal waste well below the projected
allocations in the LATS system.
2.65
The policy has been written to provide a consistent framework for development
management. In terms of waste minimisation, it is conceded that the planning
system can do little to influence matters such as excessive packaging of goods,
-19-
but Government policy is now placing greater responsibility on businesses to
respond themselves on this issue. It may be necessary to consider strengthening
policy SW1 when firmer guidance on managing hazardous waste is prepared at
regional level.
Conclusion
2.66
It is submitted that policy SW1 should be adopted as part of the Core Strategy
having considered appropriate requirements and the criteria set out in the various
soundness tests. It is considered to be the most appropriate policy for this issue
as faced by the City and its content is based on a robust and credible evidence
base that is summarised in section 2.59 (test 7). The policy has been prepared in
accordance with national planning and waste policy, conforms to the draft RSS
and has regard to other relevant plans and strategies, including the City’s
Community Strategy (tests 4&5). As drafted, the policy forms part of a coherent
spatial approach to managing the City’s waste in the LDF and there are no
conflicts with relevant plans prepared by neighbouring authorities (test 6). Clear
mechanisms for implementing and monitoring the policy have been developed,
including a specific and measurable target relating to recovery of municipal
waste. Finally, the policy incorporates some flexibility in providing a reasonably
robust framework for development management of future waste infrastructure
(tests 8&9).
-20-
3
SAFEGUARDING MAJOR WASTE FACILITIES
Introduction
3.1
This policy deals with the issue of protecting the future role of waste facilities that
are locally significant. It links with policy SW1 in affirming the location and role of
two major facilities that are key to the overall waste strategy.
Policy SW2
3.2
The energy recovery plant at Bernard Road and the landfill site at Parkwood
Springs will be retained to meet the city’s long-term requirements for waste
management.
Policy Background (Soundness Test 4)
National Policy
3.3
Sections 2.3 and 2.4 refer to relevant national policy on waste management and
the function of the Core Strategy for this topic. Waste Strategy for England (2007)
reminds local authorities of their obligations to demonstrate compliance with
Article 7 of the Waste Framework Directive and associated directives. Those
directives require the UK to operate a planning system that sets out specific sites
for waste facilities or have sufficiently clear locational criteria that acceptable sites
can be identified.
3.4
It is considered that submitted policy SW2 fulfils the requirements of soundness
test 4 being part of a spatial plan that is consistent with the relevant provisions of
national planning policy. The following paragraphs support this view.
3.5
Policy SW2 satisfies requirements of a core strategic policy in that it helps to
provide sufficient spatial guidance to ensure that land will be allocated to support
the overall waste strategy, including for waste disposal, in line with the RSS. It
also looks forward to the longer- term horizon set out in the regional strategy
(paragraph 16 of PPS10).
3.6
The policy forms part of a planning strategy that complies with the Key Planning
Objectives for sustainable waste management in that safeguarding the energyfrom- waste facility helps to drive waste up the ‘waste hierarchy’, and retaining
the landfill site allows the city to take responsibility for its own waste disposal
needs. Both facilities help to secure the safe recovery or disposal of the city’s
waste in urban locations close to where it is generated (paragraph 3 of PPS10).
-21-
3.7
The policy also demonstrates compliance with Article7 of the Waste Framework
Directive24 that particularly requires development plans to identify suitable
disposal sites or installations for waste management purposes. Until such time as
supporting documents are in place this policy provides some clarity over the
location of two strategic disposal facilities needed by the city.
3.8
SW2 also supports the new national waste strategy through continuation of a
vigorous energy-from-waste policy locally that helps to divert waste from landfill.
The technology involved in the Sheffield plant is particularly beneficial in that both
heat and electricity can be recovered from the treatment process.
Regional Policy
3.9
Section 2.9 refers to relevant regional planning policy on waste management. As
mentioned in section 2.38, the current draft RSS does not yet have a strong
spatial component that identifies a desired pattern of waste management
facilities. It is submitted that the two facilities safeguarded by policy SW2 are of
sufficient regional or sub-regional significance to register as part of that pattern
when this aspect of regional policy is addressed.
3.10
Although the national waste strategy now uses slightly different terms for them,
policy SW2 conforms to the ‘proximity’ and ‘self sufficiency’ principles set out in
RSS in policy ENV 12C. The capacity of these existing facilities and their lifespan
has been properly considered in assessing local supply against the apportioned
waste streams estimated by RSS in policy ENV 13A.
Sub-Regional Policy
3.11
There are no formal sub-regional documents that have a bearing on this issue.
Despite the sub-regional position on landfill referred to in section 2.52, it is
reasonable to safeguard the Parkwood Springs facility as all of its capacity is
needed to cater for locally generated municipal and commercial/industrial waste
as part of the City’s overall strategy.
Other Sheffield Policies
3.12
Policy SW2 reflects the vision set out in the Council’s approved Waste
Management Strategy. Firstly, that strategy anticipated the development of a new
and larger energy-from-waste plant that was subsequently completed in 2006.
The plant is now a key element in the authority’s strategy for achieving more selfsufficiency for waste management because it has the capacity to process most of
the non-recycled portion of the municipal waste stream.
3.13
Secondly, the strategy assumes that the city’s residual waste would continue to
be managed within the district by sending it to the Parkwood Springs landfill site
24
These obligations are set out in the Waste Management Regulations 1994.
-22-
until such time as infilling is complete there. Policy SW2 acts as a spatial delivery
tool for the operational waste strategy by safeguarding these key facilities.
Relationship to City Strategy (Soundness Test 5)
3.14
Section 2.17 refers to the status of the statutory Community Strategy. The
existing central district heating scheme powered by the energy-from-waste plant
is strongly promoted as part of its theme of sustainable energy production and
waste management. Policy SW2 reflects this priority by giving protection to its
continued operation in planning terms.
Consistency with Other Planning Documents (Soundness Test 6)
Core Strategy Objectives
3.15
The policy helps to amplify the core aim for sustainable use of natural resources
by interpreting strategic objective S12.4 on the positive use of the ‘waste
hierarchy’. It identifies key locations that provide land for energy recovery and
final disposal of waste. The policy is consistent with the over-arching policy on
waste management objectives SW1, and it will help to provide a basis for a
specific development control policy on these facilities in the City Policies
document.
Adjoining local authorities’ plans
3.16
The policy does not conflict with the known waste management content of other
development plan documents under preparation in the sub-region, nor with the
adopted Derby and Derbyshire Waste Local Plan.
3.17
Whilst there are no planning conditions preventing waste being imported from
other districts to the Parkwood landfill facility, there is no reliance placed on the
use of its remaining capacity as part of plans being prepared by neighbouring
authorities. Conversely, Section 2.20 covers the long-term contingency of the City
possibly having to export some waste for final disposal to consented landfill sites
in the rest of the sub-region once tipping is complete at Parkwood Springs.
3.18
Planning consent for the Energy-from-Waste facility does allow for the option of
up to 10% of its capacity to be used to process municipal waste from Rotherham
or NE Derbyshire if necessary, but this has not been taken up, and there is no
evidence that it has been built in to the waste strategies for those districts.
Options Considered (Soundness Test 7)
3.19
No options were presented on this issue at Emerging or Preferred Options stages
although the preamble to the preferred option PW1 on waste recycling centres
-23-
made it clear that the Council would be taking advantage of the new Energy-fromWaste plant at Bernard Road to expand the central district heating network.
3.20
At Emerging Options stage the City Policies document contained two separate
regulatory options EW3 and EW4 specifying the use of the Bernard Road location
and the Parkwood Springs Landfill site respectively. However they were not
linked to the Core Strategy until a new Additional (Preferred) Option AW2Safeguarding Major Disposal Facilities was made available for consultation in
February 2007. The option was proposed to affirm these facilities as part of the
wider spatial strategy. The wording of that option is repeated below.
Additional Option AW2 - Safeguarding Major Disposal Facilities
‘The energy recovery plant at Bernard Road and, whilst capacity remains,
the landfill site at Parkwood Springs will be retained to meet the city’s longterm requirements for waste management.’
3.21
The submitted policy is identical to the option above except for the deletion, with
respect to the Parkwood site, of the redundant phrase ‘whilst capacity remains’.
The facilities identified in this policy are already in use and form a critical element
in the current waste strategy. Therefore, the choice was either to affirm their
future through a safeguarding policy or discount them and develop or use
equivalent alternative capacity. To ensure compliance with landfill diversion
targets this would effectively mean developing alternative energy recovery
facilities to the Bernard Road plant elsewhere in the city. In the case of landfill,
the alternative would be to dispose of other residual waste to sites in
neighbouring districts.
Option a – Safeguard Existing Major Waste Facilities (as in submitted policy
SW2).
3.22
The strengths of this option are:
(d) Retention of both facilities is an efficient use of existing infrastructure and
previously developed land.
(e) The City would satisfy Key Planning Objectives for waste management by
taking more responsibility for managing its own waste which would be
disposed of in one of the nearest appropriate installations.
(f) The existing energy-from-waste plant is sited optimally to serve the central
district heating network as well as providing electricity for the national grid.
3.23
The weaknesses of this option are:
(c) Retention of the Parkwood Springs landfill site delays the eventual
restoration of the land for a new park.
-24-
(d) The energy-from-waste buildings will continue to impact on city centre
views.
Option b – Build an alternative EFW plant elsewhere in Sheffield and export
residual waste to landfill sites in neighbouring districts.
3.24
The strengths of this option are:
(b) Parkwood Springs landfill site could be fully restored at an earlier date with
benefits to the well-being of the local community.
(c) The impact of the existing energy-from-waste buildings on City Centre
views will be removed if the plant is de-commissioned.
3.25
The weaknesses of this option are:
(c) Writing off investment in these facilities is unlikely to be affordable and
would involve some loss of jobs.
(d) Exporting to neighbouring authorities will involve waste travelling far
greater distances than if it were managed within the city.
(e) An alternative location for an EFW plant will not supply the central district
heating network as efficiently or as flexibly.
Reasons for the Submitted Policy (Soundness Test 7)
3.26
Having considered meaningful alternatives, it is considered that the submitted
policy is the most appropriate approach to identifying major disposal facilities for
the reasons given below. All assumptions that underpin the policy are covered in
this section of the report.
Planning Reasons
3.27
Higher tier policies stress the importance of identifying sites and areas suitable
for waste management facilities to give confidence that the local waste strategy is
robust and deliverable. Policy SW2 affirms the role of two key facilities in both
diverting waste from landfill and catering for final disposal needs in the City’s
waste management strategy. Those facilities are capable of handling more than
40% of the anticipated arisings of municipal and commercial/industrial waste in
the city and their locations therefore need to be safeguarded for that purpose.
The strategic policy acts as a signpost to supporting regulatory policies in the City
Policies document that clearly define the nature and physical extent of these
waste management areas.
-25-
3.28
Following a thorough and detailed assessment, planning permission and a permit
under the Pollution and Prevention Control regime were granted for a new
Energy-from-Waste facility at Bernard Road to replace the city’s municipal waste
incinerator. Alternative sites for the facility were considered as part of an
Environmental Statement accompanying the planning application25. The sites
assessment that was undertaken by Terence O’Rourke Associates established
that the central location offered by Bernard Road is optimal for using and
expanding the current central district heating network and to minimising the
distance that collected waste needs to travel. None of the other 15 sites
considered were superior for the various criteria used in that assessment.
3.29
The new energy-from waste plant has been fully operational since the middle of
2006. It is acknowledged that it is the type of good quality combined heat and
power plant that supports the Government’s policies for both energy supply and
waste management, and it offers a much better option than landfilling residual
waste. Although it has been designed primarily to take municipal waste it is
flexible enough to accept some non-municipal waste. The plant is a key element
in the City’s strategy of achieving more self-sufficiency for waste management
because it has been sized to process most of the non-recycled portion of the
anticipated municipal waste stream.
3.30
Given the urgency attached to diverting municipal waste from landfill to comply
with the Landfill Directive, the City could not afford the time and expense involved
in de-commissioning the present plant and procuring alternative facilities. Such
facilities are unlikely to be able to supply the existing central district heating
network, serving over 140 buildings, as efficiently as the present plant.
3.31
The amount of municipal waste that needs to be landfilled has been significantly
reduced since the new energy-from-waste plant came into operation, and it
should reduce further when the Council’s waste contractor builds a new plant to
recycle ash produced by the facility. However despite this, and the contribution of
other recycling and recovery services, there will still be a need for landfill in the
city to deal with final disposal of residual material that can not be recycled or
treated further at economic cost.
3.32
Following the closure of the Beighton site the only large open-gate commercial
facility in the City is the landfill site currently run by Viridor Waste Management
Ltd at Parkwood Springs. The site has planning permission and a licence to
accept non-hazardous and inert waste. Acting on the recommendations of an
Inquiry set up by the City Council, the operator applied for and was granted
consent in 2006 to rephase tipping operations and restore the site progressively
in six phases. Based on their analysis of the future market locally for waste
25
Sheffield ERF Planning Supporting Statement, Appendix 1: Alternative Site Assessment, Terence
O’Rourke plc (November 2001).
-26-
disposal and the available voidspace, consultants representing Viridor26 agreed
that there would be sufficient arisings (of at least 345,000 tonnes per annum) to
complete infilling operations by December 2018.
3.33
There are now no other significant open-gate landfill facilities within 10 kilometres
of the City Centre. The Parkwood site is located approximately 2.5 km north east
of the centre and it has direct access to the strategic highway network and close
links to the city’s industrial areas. It is therefore well located to manage residual
non-hazardous waste arisings in the city. The next nearest landfills are located in
neighbouring authorities at Chesterfield, Rotherham, Doncaster and Worksop.
The alternative of revoking the current planning permission at Parkwood, with
consequent compensation, and relying instead on the capacity in other areas
would not be a good use of public money. Such an option would also represent
an unsustainable waste management practice, as waste would be hauled over
much longer distances for final disposal than is necessary.
3.34
Given that it is both a scarce resource in the city, and need has been clearly
established to the satisfaction of the planning authority, it is considered essential
to reserve the Parkwood site to ensure that there is sufficient capacity for local
residual municipal and commercial/industrial waste arisings.
3.35
It is considered that the weaknesses identified for the submitted policy in section
3.23 should not be given much weight. Although the Energy-from-Waste Plant is
dominant in some City Centre views it is not practical to consider screening the
development and it is considered that the design of the main buildings are of a
reasonable quality for such large structures.
3.36
Similarly, whilst there will inevitably be more delay to comprehensive restoration
of the Parkwood Springs landfill site than if it were no longer to be used for waste
disposal purposes, the current planning consent has provided for re-phased
operations to ensure that the area can be restored progressively. It is therefore
likely that early stages of the site, comprising restored phases 1-3, will be
available for public access before the infilling operations at the site are complete.
Sustainability Appraisal
3.37
The sustainability appraisal has been applied in a way that supports the
Government’s Key Planning Objectives for waste management through the
incorporation of a specific aim relating to the positive use of the ‘waste hierarchy’.
3.38
Policy SW2 was assessed as having several positive impacts, and especially for
aims associated with the resource efficiency theme. In comparison the rejected
option only has neutral or negative impacts across the board. The submitted
policy is particularly superior for maintaining energy supply to the district heating
26
Chapter 16 and Table 6 of Environmental Statement with planning application ref.05/02877/FUL
prepared by MJC Associates, (July 2005).
-27-
network and making efficient use of existing waste infrastructure. Health impacts
have been scored as neutral because research carried out for the Government27
to date shows that there is no credible evidence of adverse health outcomes for
those living near to modern incinerators or landfill sites that do not accept special
waste. The option of discounting this infrastructure and developing or using
alternative facilities would waste resources, involve excessive costs and be less
sustainable in moving residual waste around.
Equality Appraisal
3.39
The submitted policy was assessed as having no impacts on any of the groups
identified in the appraisal method.
Consultation Responses
3.40
Additional (Preferred) Option AW2 was formulated to cover the management of
more than just the municipal waste stream by emphasising the flexibility of the
Energy-from-Waste plant and the importance of retaining general capacity for
landfill in the city. That option therefore addressed comments made at earlier
stages by Government Office for Yorkshire and the Humber (refs. 4871.41 and
6.137), Viridor Waste Management (refs. 4656.07 and 5119.005/6) and two
individuals (refs.4471.04 and 4462.19).The option was supported by Yorkshire
Forward (ref.949) and Viridor (ref.829). The latter also suggested that the
Parkwood Landfill site should be specifically protected against non-waste related
development, and that it could be shown as being suitable for other uses that
might complement its waste disposal role. These are considered to be valid
comments but they will be taken up in a preferred option for a regulatory policy in
the City Policies document, The Parkwood site is also shown on the Key Diagram
for the Core Strategy as suggested by Viridor (ref.5119.001).
3.41
The Environment Agency (refs.591.16 and 1692) requested that the waste
management chapter should clarify whether the policy on the Parkwood landfill
relates to the footprint for the consented scheme or some further extension, and
also that the issue be addressed of where disposal will take place once tipping is
complete at this site. The wording of paragraph 12.10 in the submitted Core
Strategy has been amended to clarify the first point and paragraph 12.3 covers
contingency arrangements if the Parkwood site is exhausted before the end of
the plan period.
3.42
There are outstanding concerns raised by Burngreave Area Panel (ref. 5623.015)
and two individuals (refs.4462.19 and 1415) that the Parkwood tip should close
early for amenity reasons and that the strategy should be based on
comprehensive recycling/waste reduction with no or less incineration.
Amendments to the policy along those lines have not been accepted for the same
27
Review of Effects of Environmental and Health Effects of Waste Management, Enviros Consulting Ltd.
and Birmingham University, (May 2004).
-28-
reasons that are set out in section 2.58. The submitted policy has been
formulated in close consultation with the Council’s Waste Management Service.
Conclusions on Reasons for Selecting the Policy
3.43
The policy has been selected because its strengths outweigh its weaknesses
and the alternative option is both impractical and wasteful of public resources.
The policy satisfies the requirement to identify facilities that are critical to the
overall strategy. There is no superior site to Bernard Road for supplying energy
recovered from municipal waste to the existing district heating network, and the
current plant is a ‘state of the art’ facility. The City has a need for landfill space
that is only available locally at Parkwood Springs. The advantages of the policy
are borne out by sustainability and equality appraisals which themselves are
supportive of national objectives for waste management. The policy addresses
most of the concerns raised during consultation and the Council’s Waste
Management Service supports its content.
Implementation and Monitoring (Soundness Test 8)
3.44
It is submitted that this policy meets the requirements of soundness test 8 in
terms of having clear mechanisms for implementation and monitoring. The
Delivery Schedule at Appendix A summarises the implementation arrangements.
3.45
The facilities referred to in the policy already exist and are part of the City’s
current waste strategy. They are operated by private sector companies with the
benefit of recent planning permissions and waste management licences. The
policy will therefore be delivered by Veolia ES Sheffield Ltd and Viridor Waste
Management Ltd, or their successors, continuing to run these facilities. In the
case of the Energy-from-Waste plant this is guaranteed as part of an integrated
waste contract with the City Council that lasts until 2036.
3.46
In the case of the Parkwood facility, Viridor have agreed to re-phase their original
landfilling operation at the site in a way that lessens nuisance impact on adjoining
residential properties and reduces the potential life of the tip by an estimated 8
years. This should mean that infilling operations could be completed by the start
of December 2019 with all restoration completed within a further two years unless
it is necessary for the planning authority to agree otherwise. Those dates are
based on assumptions on waste growth and the future market for waste disposal
in the city. It is therefore unlikely that the company would wish to curtail its
operations until that programme is completed. The City Council will support the
policy by designating the facilities within Waste Management Areas subject to
appropriate land-use policies within the City Policies document.
3.47
Progress on implementing the policy will be monitored by checking the
performance of the waste management facilities annually and including the
results in the SDF Annual Monitoring Report. A key target has been set that at
-29-
least 5.5 million tonnes of waste will be managed at the two sites by 2021. This is
considered to be an achievable target that allows some flexibility for
improvements in waste reduction and/or some under-utilisation of capacity during
this period.
Flexibility and Risk Assessment (Soundness Test 9)
3.48
The policy has been drafted with a view to the likely risks involved in its
implementation. The companies operating the facilities are leading organisations
providing waste management services in the UK, and they have strong financial
backing. Both companies have a vested interest in maintaining their facilities
throughout their expected lifespan. In theory it is possible that there could be
changes in law that could impact on the continuation of these facilities in future
but it is not possible to foresee such changes happening at present.
3.49
The submitted policy has been written to provide a consistent framework for
development management. The weaknesses of the policy are not considered to
be significant and they are mitigated to some extent as described at sections 3.35
and 3.36.
Conclusion
3.50
It is submitted that policy SW2 should be adopted as part of the Core Strategy
having considered appropriate requirements and the criteria set out in the various
soundness tests. It is considered to be the most appropriate policy for this issue
as faced by the City and its content is based on a robust and credible evidence
base that is summarised in section 3.43 (test 7). The policy has been prepared in
accordance with national planning policy and the national waste strategy. It
conforms to the draft RSS and has regard to other relevant plans and strategies,
including the City’s adopted Community Strategy and approved Waste
Management Strategy (tests 4&5).
3.51
As drafted the policy forms part of a coherent spatial approach to managing the
city’s waste in the LDF and there are no conflicts with relevant plans prepared by
neighbouring authorities (test 6). Clear mechanisms for implementing and
monitoring the policy have been developed, including a specific and measurable
target relating to the throughput of waste that the facilities are expected to handle
during the plan period. Finally the policy, and its associated target, incorporates
some flexibility in providing a reasonably robust framework for development
management of these existing facilities (tests 8&9).
-30-
4
PROVISION FOR RECYCLING AND COMPOSTING
Introduction
4.1
The Council already operates a successful kerbside collection scheme for
household waste paper and card, which is taken to a Materials Recovery Facility
(MRF) at Beighton. The City’s five Household Waste Recycling Centres (HWRCs)
have also recently been refurbished and now recycle around half of the waste
material that is brought in. To date, these services have helped the city to achieve
specific recycling targets set out in the Government’s Best Value regime.
However, additional investment is required to fulfil the aim of recycling more
municipal waste as set out in the City’s Environment Strategy28 and to address
any waste indicators that will result from the Government’s new local performance
framework. Some parts of the city are still relatively remote from any of the
HWRCs and improvement to the network would help to increase access for
potential users.
4.2
Similarly, although the Council’s waste contractor is promoting home composting
through subsidising compost bins, there is a need to promote other local facilities,
and the city will need to collect and manage significant volumes of ‘biowaste’ 29 if it
is to meet targets derived from the Landfill Directive. The Council therefore needs
to promote a range of facilities to achieve the citywide aim of improving
performance for recycling and composting of municipal waste. The following
policy has been formulated to support that aim.
Policy SW3
4.3
Increased recycling and composting will be enabled by:
(a) supporting the development of a network of small-scale community
composting schemes and new technologies for treating mixed
organic waste and using green waste composting facilities at Tinsley
and on local farms; and
(b) retaining and improving the current network of five major Household
Waste Recycling Centres and, in the longer term, building a new
facility to serve the south-west area of the city; and
(c) expanding the number of local recycling points, particularly in
existing shopping centres, transport interchanges and at education
and health facilities.
28
Sheffield Environment Strategy 2003-2006, Sheffield First Partnership (2003).
‘biowaste’ is the biodegradable fraction of waste which comprises mainly paper/card, green waste,
kitchen waste and some textiles.
29
-31-
Policy Background (Soundness Test 4)
National Policy
4.4
Paragraphs 2.3 and 2.4 refer to relevant national policy on waste management
and the functions of the Core Strategy for this topic. New national waste strategy
is calling for greater separation and sorting of all waste streams to allow more
efficient recycling of materials. This requires an expansion in collection and
processing facilities and an extension of recycling ‘culture’ into areas beyond the
home and office. The strategy also sees the treatment of ‘green waste’ as a good
target for increasing landfill diversion whilst gaining environmental benefits at the
same time.
4.5
It is considered that submitted policy SW3 fulfils the requirements of soundness
test 4 being part of a spatial plan that is consistent with the relevant provisions of
national planning policy. The following paragraphs support this view.
4.6
The policy forms part of a planning strategy that complies with the Key Planning
Objectives for sustainable waste management in that the proposed provision for
recycling and composting helps to drive waste up the ‘waste hierarchy’ and
supports targets relating to the diversion of household waste from landfill set out
in the national waste strategy. Through the development of an extra HWRC it
also helps bulky waste to be disposed of locally without harm to the environment
that might otherwise occur. Finally, the policy reflects local concerns and interests
expressed during consultation that the strategy should provide more opportunities
for recycling or composting waste (paragraph 3 of PPS10).
4.7
Policy SW3 satisfies one of the main requirements of a core strategy in that it
helps to identify the type of new or enhanced recycling facilities that should be
provided together with some locational criteria for siting them (paragraph 17 of
PPS10).
4.8
The policy supports a new theme in the national waste strategy with its proposals
to increase the number of recycling points in public places such as shopping
centres, interchanges and large institutions. It’s support for composting initiatives,
including new technologies, is in line with Government’s current thinking on using
‘green waste’ as a key material in its landfill diversion strategy.
Regional Policy
4.9
Section 2.9 refers to relevant regional planning policy on waste management.
Policy SW3 conforms with regional waste management objectives in that it will
help the City to achieve statutory performance targets relating to recycling and
composting (policy ENV12C). Clauses (b) and (c) also comply with the specific
requirement on establishing an accessible network of civic amenity or other public
‘bring’ sites for recycling purposes (policy ENV13C).
-32-
Sub-Regional Policy
4.10
There are no formal sub-regional documents that have a bearing on this issue. In
an expanded version of Annex C waste tables included in the draft RSS produced
for the Public Examination30, the Regional Assembly has drawn attention to the
low level of large-scale composting in South Yorkshire compared with other parts
of the region. Policy SW3 will allow the City to make a greater contribution to
providing extra treatment capacity for this management method in the sub-region.
Other Sheffield Policies
4.11
Policy SW3 gives spatial expression to some important elements of the Council’s
approved operational waste management strategy. The Council, along with
community partners, has used funds from the Government’s Recycling Fund to
develop a series of small-scale composting centres similar to those operating at
Heeley City Farm. This initiative allows for green waste collected in parts of the
city to be processed into quality compost as well as creating jobs in the
community.
4.12
The Council has also used the DEFRA Challenge Fund to set up kerbside
collection of green waste from around 45,000 homes in the city. The roll-out of
this service to the remainder of the city is likely to be the next major service
priority because it will reduce landfill costs and it is considered to be one of the
most efficient way of achieving a 30% recycling/composting rate locally. At
present, no additional processing facilities have been proposed to treat this waste
as there is likely to be sufficient capacity on land at Tinsley and on local farms.
The Council is however, keen to explore the scope for new technologies that
could, for instance, convert local sewage residues and some ‘biowaste’ to
produce energy and compost.
4.13
The Council has recently refurbished the five existing HWRCs to allow them to be
used more efficiently. Additional measures are necessary, however, to ensure
that the 30% recycling target can be met. These are likely to include a doubling in
the number of local ‘bring’ banks across the city together with an extra HWRC.
These facilities need to be strategically sited but it is clear that the south west
sector of the city between the A57 and A61 corridors lacks a large multi-purpose
centre for people to take recyclates and dispose of their bulky household waste
items. Policy SW3 reflects all the above strategic initiatives derived from the
present Household Waste Strategy.
30
Statement made as part of Strategic Messages for the period 2005-2015 in document referred to in
footnote 21.
-33-
Relationship to City Strategy (Soundness Test 5)
4.14
Section 2.17 refers to the status of the statutory Community Strategy. Under the
‘Environmental Excellence’ theme there is a commitment to pursuing strategies
for sustainable waste management and energy production that can contribute to
a reduced ecological and carbon footprint for the city. Policy SW3 has regard to
that priority as the provision of additional facilities for recycling/composting will
reduce greenhouse gas emissions through landfill diversion and the re-use of
waste materials. The policy particularly assists a priority of Sheffield First
Partnership’s Environmental Strategy to improve the household recycling rate
with its proposals for composting more green waste and expanding the number of
sites for bringing recyclable materials.
Consistency with Other Planning Documents (Soundness Test 6)
Core Strategy Objectives
4.15
The policy helps to amplify the core aim for sustainable use of natural resources
by interpreting the strategic objective S12.4 on the positive use of the ‘waste
hierarchy’. It proposes facilities for recycling/composting waste materials, and
these particular methods are at the higher end of the hierarchy, which is accepted
as a good general guide to relative environmental benefit of different
management options.
4.16
The policy is consistent with the over-arching core policy on waste management
objectives SW1, and it will help to provide a basis for specific development
control policies in the City Policies document and any site allocations in the City
Sites document.
Adjoining local authorities’ plans
4.17
The policy does not conflict with the known waste management content of other
local development documents under preparation in the sub-region, nor with the
adopted Derby and Derbyshire Waste Local Plan.
4.18
The specific proposal for a new HWRC in south- west Sheffield is unlikely to be
an important factor in the recycling plans of any neighbouring authorities given
that the search area is relatively remote from communities living just beyond the
city boundary.
Options Considered (Soundness Test 7)
4.19
At Emerging Options stage, that part of the submitted policy relating to HWRCs
was expressed as an option to ‘ continue with the present Household Waste
Strategy which calls for one new centre to serve the south west area’. In order to
emphasise its contribution to the pattern of centres, at Preferred Options stage, it
-34-
was modified slightly to read, ‘The current network of major HWRCs will be
expanded by building a new facility to serve the south west area of the city’.
4.20
Two alternative options were considered for improving the distribution of major
recycling centres for household waste. The first involved using density guidelines
of the adopted RSS (2004) of one civic amenity site per 15,000 households,
which would have meant providing another 10 new centres. The second option
relied on providing centres on the basis of catchment areas of around 5
kilometres, which implied a further two or three centres to fill existing gaps.
4.21
To broaden its scope, and to address concerns raised during consultation, the
submitted policy SW3 has been expanded to include significant proposals for
extending the local ‘bring’ recycling network and managing more green waste.
Those extra elements are drawn from an Emerging Option EW2 (a) to (d) on
‘Promoting Material Recovery’ contained in the City Policies document.
Option A – Provision for Recycling and Composting ( as in submitted policy
SW3).
4.22
The strengths of this option are:
(a) It identifies the main area lacking a HWRC in line with the Council’s Waste
Management Strategy.
(b) The new HWRC can assist the Council to provide a more cost effective
kerbside collection service in a less densely populated part of the City.
(c) It provides a more integrated strategy for improving recycling performance
because it combines one new HWRC with a denser network of local
recycling points and an expanded kerbside collection service.
(d) Expanding the number of recycling points in public places will make it
easier to recycle away from homes and offices.
(e) It identifies locations and methods for increasing composting of waste.
4.23
The weakness of this option is:
(a) Lack of a sufficiently dense HWRC network could reduce the potential
volume of material that is brought for recycling.
Option B – Providing 10 new HWRCs to comply with proposed density
guideline in adopted RSS.
4.24
The strength of this option is:
-35-
(a) A major expansion in the number of HWRCs would improve accessibility
for those bringing waste to such centres.
4.25
The weaknesses of this option are:
(a) The suggested density standard is no longer included in the new draft
RSS (2005).
(b) In isolation, the standard is arbitrary because it is not integrated with
desired standards for local bring sites and kerbside collection schemes.
(c) It is unlikely that such provision would be affordable or good value for
money in achieving the city’s recycling objectives.
Option C – Providing new HWRCs based on catchment areas of 5 km.
4.26
The strength of this option is:
(a) Some expansion in the number of HWRCs would improve accessibility for
those bringing waste to such facilities.
4.27
The weaknesses of this option are:
(a) It may represent poor value for money if it involved having to relocate any
existing refurbished HWRCs in order to comply with proposed travel
distances.
(b) In isolation, the accessibility standard may not assist recycling objectives
because it is not integrated with desired provision of local bring sites and
kerbside collection service.
Reasons for the Submitted Policy (Soundness Test 7)
Planning Reasons
4.28
Having considered meaningful alternatives, it is considered that the submitted
policy is the most appropriate approach on strategic provision for recycling and
composting for the reasons given below.
4.29
The underlying purpose of the policy is to make a local contribution to more
sustainable waste and resource management by implementing some cost
effective recycling/composting measures. In the first instance, the policy responds
to the identified local need for an additional HWRC to serve the south- west area
of the city because that sector is relatively remote from any of the other 5 existing
centres. Without a new facility people living in that area will have to continue
-36-
travelling long distances to access multi-purpose recycling facilities and a place to
deposit over-sized or bulky waste.
4.30
The Household Waste Recycling Act passed in 2003 means that every waste
authority will have to provide a second kerbside collection of at least two
recyclable materials by 2010. If this is not provided then the onus is on the local
authority to prove that it is either too costly to achieve, or that there are sufficient
other recycling opportunities. Whilst the Council will endeavour to provide an
appropriate collection service, the development of a strategically sited HWRC,
together with a denser network of local recycling points, may offer a more cost
effective means of complying with the Act in a less densely populated area such
as SW Sheffield.
4.31
The Audit Commission has recommended that it is good practice to provide one
‘bring’ bank for every 750 households. There are now some 200 ‘bring’ sites
across the city, but extra sites are needed to achieve the above standard and
provision in some districts is lacking. A relatively dense network of local sites can
help to improve the recovery of some materials like glass, cans, plastic and
textiles which are generally more expensive for authorities to collect with kerbside
services.
4.32
The policy proposes to expand the number of local recycling points concentrating
on well-used public areas like shopping centres, transport interchanges and large
institutional campuses. These facilities will be sited to address deficiencies in the
current network. This strategy should result in a cleaner local environment,
spread the message that recycling is positive and help to extend the recycling
‘culture’ beyond the home and office. It is understood that the Government
intends to publish specific guidance and a voluntary code of practice that
authorities can use to enlist the support of owners and developers of major
facilities in achieving co-ordinated schemes.
4.33
If they are to accept a broad range of waste materials, the capital costs of
providing a new HWRC can be quite substantial, particularly where an authority
needs to acquire land. Rather than investing heavily in several large centres the
submitted policy reflects the Council’s decision to go for a more integrated
strategy in pursuing its recycling objectives. This combines the advantages of
developing an additional well-sited HWRC with a denser pattern of local recycling
points and an expanded kerbside service, mainly collecting extra green waste.
This approach provides a richer hierarchy of opportunities for people to engage in
recycling.
4.34
Finally, for completeness, the policy clarifies the way the Council will continue to
process green waste that is collected as part of the municipal waste stream.
4.35
Whilst the alternative options (B&C) of building more HWRCs would undoubtedly
improve the accessibility of those people wanting to bring waste to such centres,
they are unlikely to be as cost-effective as the submitted policy in helping the City
-37-
to achieve its overall recycling objectives. The Regional Assembly has excluded
the specific density standard on Civic Amenity sites from its draft RSS. The City
Council has always argued that the standard was arbitrary, uncoordinated and an
unnecessary constraint on developing local recycling strategies. Without a clear
definition of the intended size and scope of the proposed CA sites, the regional
standard lacked any meaning in planning terms. It was also unclear on the
balance to be struck between desired provision of CA and non-CA facilities.
Whilst Option C would have addressed the uneven access to larger recycling
facilities it still fails to provide a fully integrated response that makes the best use
of resources available to the Council for improving recycling performance.
4.36
The weakness identified for the submitted policy is not deemed to be significant.
The disadvantages of having 6 HWRCs are likely to be offset by the convenience
of having both a denser network of local recycling points and the opportunity to
participate in an enhanced kerbside collection scheme. A major expansion of
larger recycling centres will not necessarily result in a proportionate increase in
recycling tonnages as waste may simply be shared out amongst the available
deposit points.
Sustainability Appraisal
4.37
The sustainability appraisal has been applied in a way that supports the
Government’s objectives for waste management in PPS10 through the
incorporation of a separate aim relating to positive use of the ‘waste hierarchy’.
4.38
Policy SW3 was assessed as having a positive impact on all main sustainability
themes and in particular the resource efficiency aim relating to maximising
recycling/composting of household waste. The other two options also scored well
for this aim and the option of providing new centres to achieve the density of one
per 15,000 households scored marginally better overall because it would be likely
to result in greater accessibility for users of these facilities. For the reasons given
above, it does not necessarily follow that this option would be superior for
maximising recycling though. Despite the appraisal results, the submitted policy
has been selected in preference to either of the alternative options. This is
because it addresses the uneven distribution of existing HWRCs in a more cost
effective way when complemented by proposed additional kerbside collections
and an extended network of local bring sites, as set out in clause (c) of the policy.
Equality Appraisal
4.39
The submitted policy is assessed as having no negative impacts on any of the
groups identified for the purposes of this appraisal. Small-scale composting
facilities and the expansion of kerbside collections and local recycling points is
likely to be more beneficial for people with low access to private transport than
building several larger centres that people will be expected to drive to.
-38-
Consultation Responses
4.40
As explained in paragraph 4.21, the submitted policy now combines a strategic
Preferred Option PW1 on the ‘Distribution of Recycling Centres’ (now SW3b) with
part of an Emerging Option on ‘Promoting Material Recovery’ (now SW3a & c),
that was included in the City Policies document. This section deals with all
responses to the options that are now relevant to the submitted policy.
4.41
At Emerging Options stage for the Core Strategy there was just one objection to
SW3b (referred to below). There were 7 comments that were either supportive or
neutral, because respondents recognised the need for linkage with other policies
for more local bring sites and kerbside collection of recyclable waste.
4.42
At Preferred Options stage, 7 respondents supported option SW3b (including the
Environment Agency (ref. 5218.029, and 3 residents groups (refs.174.009,
5126.009, 5288.005 and 5217.001). There were two new objectors (see below)
and Government Office (ref.4871.023) queried whether there was a need for
more facilities to process recyclates collected by the Council. There is no need to
adjust the policy to include such facilities since it is expected that the existing
MRF at Beighton would be able to manage any new collections of dry recyclates,
and sites are already available within and adjacent to the urban area to accept
more green waste. Clause (a) of the submitted policy clarifies that point.
4.43
There were opposing views submitted by Viridor Waste Management Ltd. (ref.
4656.04), Sheffield First Environment Partnership (ref.5257.006) and the local
Green Party (ref.4886.011), who all preferred that the Council should aspire to
achieve the density guidelines in adopted RSS (2004) as set out as option B. The
Council has rejected that option. The guideline no longer appears in the Draft
RSS (2005) and the Council has always regarded such a prescriptive standard as
arbitrary because it does not take account of local bring site provision and
kerbside collection services. The level of expansion implied in the guideline would
not represent value for money in achieving recycling objectives in the City when
compared to the more integrated strategy set out in policy SW3.
4.44
The submitted policy addresses most of the other concerns raised during
consultation including comments on the Emerging Options in City Policies that
sought an increase in local recycling points (Broomhill Forum ref. 4903.09),
including at new or expanded supermarkets (local Liberal Democrat Party refs.
4865.10 and 5086.06). In its submitted form, policy SW3 expresses spatial
elements of the Council’s approved Household Waste Strategy and it has been
formulated in close consultation with the Waste Management Service.
Conclusions on Reasons for Selecting the Policy
4.45
The policy has been selected because its strengths far outweigh its weaknesses
and the alternative options do not represent affordable and integrated strategies
for improving recycling performance. The advantages of the policy are borne out
-39-
by sustainability and equality appraisals, which are themselves supportive of
national objectives for waste management. Whilst alternative option B was
assessed as slightly better in the sustainability appraisal, the methodology used
does not take account of resources that are available to deliver options and this
must be a consideration for the local authority. The policy addresses most of the
concerns raised through consultation and the Council’s Waste Management
Service supports its content.
Implementation and Monitoring (Soundness Test 8)
4.46
It is submitted that this policy meets the requirements of soundness test 8 in
terms of having clear mechanisms for implementation and monitoring. The
Delivery Schedule at Appendix A summarises the implementation arrangements.
4.47
The expansion in the number of local recycling points will be secured both
through the Council’s waste contract with Veolia ES Sheffield Ltd. and through
obligations associated with planning permissions for major developments. The
latter will be taken up, alongside other recycling initiatives, in the City Policies
document.
4.48
The proposal for an additional HWRC in the south west will be subject to
available resources within the waste contract and a site being identified to serve
the sector between the Manchester Road and Chesterfield Road corridors. At
present, the facility seems more likely to be implemented between 5 and 10 years
from the adoption of the Core Strategy. The City Sites document may be used to
allocate suitable land for this specific purpose when resources are committed to
this project.
4.49
Progress on implementing the policy will be monitored by recording the number of
additional recycling points provided and the tonnages of recycled material
delivered to the HWRCs. A key target has been set that the city will have a
network of 6 HWRCs by 2018.
Flexibility and Risk Assessment (Soundness Test 9)
4.50
The policy has been drafted with a view to the likely risks involved in its
implementation. The proposed investment in public facilities depends to a large
extent on the ability of the Council to provide sufficient funds in its Waste
Management budget to fully implement its current Waste Management Strategy.
In its funding strategy the Council is likely to carefully evaluate the contribution
that individual proposals can make towards the priority of achieving agreed
performance targets for recycling.
4.51
The submitted policy has been written to provide a consistent framework for
development management. The weaknesses of the policy are not considered to
-40-
be significant and they are mitigated to some extent as described at paragraph
4.36.
Conclusion
4.52
It is submitted that policy SW3 should be adopted as part of the Core Strategy
having considered appropriate requirements and the criteria set out in the various
soundness tests. It is considered to be the most appropriate policy for this issue
as faced by the City and its content is based on a robust and credible evidence
base that is summarised in section 4.45 (test 7). The policy has been prepared in
accordance with national planning policy on waste management and the national
waste strategy. It conforms to the draft RSS and has regard to other relevant
plans and strategies, including the City’s adopted Community Strategy and
especially the City’s approved Waste Management Strategy (tests 4&5).
4.53
As drafted the policy forms part of a coherent spatial approach to managing the
city’s waste in the LDF and there are no conflicts with relevant plans prepared by
neighbouring authorities (test 6). Clear mechanisms for implementing and
monitoring the policy have been developed, including a specific and measurable
target relating to improving the network of HWRCs. Finally the policy, and its
associated target, incorporates some flexibility in providing a reasonably robust
framework for development management of these recovery facilities (tests 8&9).
-41-
Appendix A
Delivery of Core Strategy Waste Management policies
Policy: SW1 Waste Development Objectives
Target: Recycle and recover 80% of the City’s Municipal waste by 2015
Actions required
Agencies
Timing
Probability/risks
To deliver:
Implement waste reduction measures and
additional recycling services and trade in
LATS allocations

SCC- Waste Management
Limit additional landfill developments and
permit additional treatment facilities through
planning decisions

SCC- Planning
0-10
years
Some commitment in existing
Household Waste Strategy but specific
funding needs to be identified
To support:
Include regulatory policies and allocation
Within 5
 SCC- Planning
proposals in supporting Development Plan
years
Documents
Monitoring Indicator(s): Record waste arisings and proportions of municipal waste that is recycled/composted, recovered or sent to
final disposal.
-43-
Policy: SW2 Safeguarding Major Waste Facilities
Target: At least 5.5 million tonnes of waste managed at facilities at Bernard Road and Parkwood Landfill site by 2021
Actions required
Agencies
Timing
To deliver:
Continued operation of these treatment and
disposal facilities

Veolia ES Sheffield Ltd. and
Viridor Waste Management
Ltd.
Throughout
plan period
or until
infilling is
completed
at
Parkwood
site
To support:
Designation of these facilities in Waste
 SCC-Planning
Management Areas in supporting
Development Plan Documents
Monitoring Indicator(s): Checking the throughput of these facilities annually.
-44-
Within 5
years
Probability/risks
-45-
Policy: SW3 Provision for Recycling and Composting
Target: Six Household Waste Recycling Centres to be operating by 2018
Actions required
Agencies
Timing
Probability/risks
To deliver:
Identify and develop more local recycling
points

SCC-Waste Management
Oblige major developments to provide or
contribute to local recycling facilities through
planning decisions

SCC-Planning
Identify and acquire site to build the southwest HWRC

SCC-Waste Management
5-10
years

SCC-Planning
Within 5
years
0-10
years
Commitment exists in the adopted
Household Waste Strategy but specific
funding still needs to be identified
To support:
Include regulatory policies and allocation
proposals in supporting Development Plan
Documents
Monitoring Indicator(s): Recording the number of additional local recycling points introduced and the tonnages of recycled material
passing through the Household Waste Recycling Centres.
-46-