Partnership Logos

More from Less

 

 

Introduction Paper No 3

Element 3: Delivery on the ground

 

Introduction

Delivering a resource management approach will require a major switch to ‘industrialised’ waste handling, process activities and facilities. To achieve this Hampshire needs appropriate land on which to site these facilities. Existing land-use policy frameworks do not provide for this need.

 

Work completed to date

The Hampshire, Portsmouth and Southampton Minerals and Waste Local Plan (HPSMWLP) was adopted by the three Councils in December 1998 and covers the period up to end of 2001. In 1999, a review of the Plan for the period up to 2011 was scheduled. The Plan Review was to be carried out as two alterations – firstly a review of the minerals part of the plan and secondly a review of the waste part of the plan.

Work commenced on the minerals part of the Minerals and Waste Local Plan Review (MWLPR) in 1999.

In 1999, it was considered that the Minerals Review should examine the need for additional sand and gravel sites, the need for aggregate wharves and rail depots and the need to identify sites for secondary and recycled aggregates supply. This work has been progressed but has not been completed.

The three authorities (Hampshire County Council, Portsmouth City Council and Southampton City Council) took a pro-active approach and engaged stakeholders in dialogue at an early stage in the review process. Over 100 local stakeholders attended a series of workshops to contribute to the Minerals Review. During this dialogue process, a common theme to emerge was the desirability of combining minerals and waste matters.

 

Changes to the planning system

The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill was introduced in Parliament in December 2002. This proposes radical changes to the planning system including the preparation of Minerals and Waste Development Frameworks (MWDFs) which will, in the future, replace minerals and waste local plans. MWDFs will comprise a number of Local Development Documents (LDDs) including a core strategy, proposals and area action plans.

The MWDF will be prepared over the forthcoming 15 months based on a review of the MWLP and covering the whole area of Hampshire, Portsmouth and Southampton. This will form a key part of the third MRS element – delivery on the ground.

The Government wishes local planning authorities to rigorously examine their procedures for engaging the community in the preparation of plans and under the proposed new legislation requires that a `Statement of Community Involvement' be prepared. The stakeholder dialogue already undertaken as part of the Minerals Review is a model for this new style of approach.

 

Current thinking

Implementing the MRS will require a major switch to ‘industrialised’ waste handling, process activities and facilities. This will result in a need for land to locate reception and storage sites, materials recovery facilities, aggregate processing sites, composting sites, anaerobic digestion and other energy recovery plants. There will also be a need for land to locate dis-assembly plants, a range of new market development industries that use the recovered materials and turn them into a range of new materials and products.

This adds up to the need for many more facilities and land which is not, specifically, provided for by the existing land-use policy plans.

The Hampshire MWDF (HMWDF) will cover the planning / land use implications of the MRS. It is proposed that the HMWDF will be a slim document containing core strategic policies and spatial policies. In addition, there will be some criteria based policies that will give guidance in how to judge proposals when they are submitted and some Area Action Plans.

The main new facility requirements related to material resource management can be broadly categorised as follows:

    • Activities involving largely open storage, such as aggregate recycling and open windrow composting.
    • Activities of an industrial nature dealing with largely segregated wastes and requiring enclosed premises, such as materials recovery facilities, dis-assembly plants and market development industries
    • Activities dealing with mixed wastes and more closely related to traditional waste treatment like, anaerobic digestion plants and energy from waste facilities.
    • Hybrid activities that utilise sites with buildings and open areas, like enclosed composting systems.

There would be benefits implementing new facilities by adopting the ‘resource recovery park’ concept where related resource management activities are clustered together on land designated for the purpose.

As part of the Hampshire Natural Resources Initiative, the County Council is investigating possible resource park options on land in its ownership with a view to piloting the concept.

For minerals, the implications of the new Minerals Planning Guidance (MPG6), which will result in apportionment of mineral production to each region, will need to be considered in the HMWDF. There is also the need to appraise issues on chalk and clay, oil and gas.

The MRS will be published in draft form in October 2004 and the formal Deposit of the HMWDF is programmed for December 2004. Public objections to the HMWDF will be considered during 2005 with a Public Examination likely to be held in December 2005. Under the proposed legislation, the report of the Inspector will be binding on the local planning authorities. The adoption of the HMWDF is likely to be completed by Autumn 2006.

 

Further Work

The main tasks involved in preparing the HMWDF are:

  1. An analysis of future waste management requirements - this will need to be informed by national, regional and local strategies and policies including the Hampshire Natural Resources Initiative.
  2. The identification of strategic options - this will need to consider a matrix of various waste forecasts and the development requirements associated with each.
  3. An appraisal of preferred strategies – this will have to consider the land use needs of the different waste and material resource strategies and the physical, social and environmental constraints of each.
  4. The spatial implications of the options - this will need to cover the amount and location of land required for the planned facilities and proximity issues, i.e. managing waste close to source; decisions dealing with large numbers of small facilities vs small number of large facilities etc.
  5. Consideration of other materials – including inert waste, special waste, electrical goods and abandoned vehicles. A separate examination of waste water and sewage sludge will also be needed in the HMWDF.

 

Barriers to completing the MRS and HMWDF

The whole proposal for the HMWDF is linked to the proposed new legislation. The Government has indicated that it considers that the new Act will be in place by Summer 2004 but this cannot be guaranteed.

There is a considerable challenge to identifying the type and quantity of suitable facilities to implement the MRS. The number of facilities might depend on economies of scale with either a few large plants or many smaller operations.

There will be a major challenge to identifying sufficient appropriate sites. Some infrastructure is suitable for an urban location while the countryside may be able to accommodate only certain types of activity. A variety of sites will be considered including industrial land, brown field sites, redundant farm yards, quarries/landfills and, as a last resort, open countryside and green belt.

The more innovative natural resource management activities will at first be marginal in economic terms and availability of affordable land will be vital. This is a major challenge in the South East given the pressure on land and its high value and degree of property intervention to bring forward sites may be required initially.

There are also staffing and budgetary implications to completing and implementing the MRS and HMWDF proposals.

 

Effective progress

One of the largest challenges to effective progress will be the debate on the siting of minerals and waste infrastructure. A consensus on the generic site solutions for types of facilities would enhance the progress and implementation of the MRS.

Ultimately sufficient provision to deliver the proposals of the MRS on the ground will depend on adequate public and private investment. Financial institutions and Government will have a key role in ensuring delivery of new infrastructure.

The next 10 –15 years will be a period of major change. There is a need for leadership to ensure that the MRS is seen through to action on the ground. A common understanding and commitment will be a pre-requisite to achieving solutions to the challenge we are facing.

 

Questions for discussion

  1. Bearing in mind the broader needs of a successful MRS, what are the issues/barriers/needs/concerns associated with achieving delivery of the MRS on the ground?
  2. What are the challenges associated with completing the further work on the HMWDF?
  3. How do you think stakeholders should be involved in the MRS?

uparrow  Top of page