Draft Black Country Plan

Comment

Representation ID: 21225

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: The West Midlands Resource Technical Advisory Body

Duty to Cooperate
Dudley, Sandwell, Walsall and the City of Wolverhampton comprise the four local authorities (Black Country Authorities (BCAs) that are jointly preparing the BCP and all four authorities of WMRTAB are members of WMRTAB. WMRTAB is pleased to note that these authorities are all active members of WMRTAB with an officer from each of the Councils regularly attending the group’s meeting and contributing to its work. WMRTAB has therefore facilitated discussion between the Black Country authorities and other neighbouring waste planning authorities to assist with meeting its Duty to Cooperate on matters pertaining to the planning for waste management within the Black Country area.

Page 306 of the Plan indicates that a document entitled ‘Black Country Plan - Duty to Co-operate: Waste and Minerals - Strategic Matters (2020)’ exists within the evidence base, however it has not been possible to find this document. Clearly such a document would be helpful in demonstrating how the Black Country authorities have met their Duty to Cooperate responsibilities associated with strategic waste planning. WMRTAB would be happy to consider this document and provide comments were it to be made available at a later date.

Comment

Representation ID: 21226

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: The West Midlands Resource Technical Advisory Body

Planning for sufficient waste management capacity
Para 11.18 of the BCP states that the Black Country is a net importer of waste, providing significant capacity for surrounding authorities of around four million tonnes
annually. As a result, as stated in para 11.22, the Black Country is currently achieving net self-sufficiency in its waste management overall. However, ‘capacity gaps’ are
identified over the plan period in relation to waste management capacity and the BCP Page 3 of 9 notes that the following additional capacity will need to be developed between 2018 to 2038 to maintain net self-sufficiency:
a) Re-use/Recycling (non-hazardous municipal waste) – 0.75 to 1.0 million
tonnes per annum (tpa)
b) Reuse/Recycling (inert construction demolition and excavation waste) – 0.75
to 1.0 million tpa
c) Energy Recovery (residual municipal waste) – 1.0 to 1.2 million tpa
Notwithstanding the fact that the maintenance of net self sufficiency does not appear to be an objective within the BCP, WMRTAB consider this to be a sound basis on which to plan for future capacity as this helps ensure that the Black Country is providing for the equivalent of its waste management requirements. Furthermore, for the avoidance of doubt, WMRTAB consider that such an objective should be clearly set out within the BCP.

about how the management of waste can contribute to the mitigation of climate change and, in light of national policy (and plan making legislation), suggest that this is an area in need of attention. A review of the policies to ensure they are aligned with this agenda is recommended. Such a review might consider how energy from waste facilities could be required to ensure
that use of heat produced, as well as electricity, is maximised.

Policy CC5 on Flood Risk, identifies waste (and mineral) facilities as the only types of development where all such proposals would require a flood risk assessment and surface water drainage strategy. While proposals for certain types of waste facilities may need such assessment, WMRTAB suggest that the BCAs check whether this blanket approach is justified.

Comment

Representation ID: 21227

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: The West Midlands Resource Technical Advisory Body

It is noted that no land for new waste management facilities has been allocated that might provide certainty that the capacity gaps can be addressed. The BCP explains “To have sufficient confidence to allocate a site, it would need to be actively promoted for waste management use by one or more of the BCAs, other waste planning authorities, a landowner, or a commercial waste operator.” On this basis it is assumed that the BCAs have robust evidence to demonstrate that such bodies have been given adequate opportunity to promote a site and WMRTAB suggest that this should extend beyond passive consultation e.g. landowners specifically invited top promite sites for waste management development.

The requirement for additional waste management capacity is clearly quantified in Table 9 of the BCP and this includes an estimate of the land area required which is shown to be significant. WMRTAB are unclear whether this quantum of capacity will actually be achieved, especially in light of the fact that no land has been specifically allocated, and this suggests some assessment of how such land will become available is required. This assessment should consider whether changes to policy are required which might provide greater encouragement for the development of this
capacity.

Despite the diminishing amount of waste requiring non hazardous landfill, this is still a waste stream that needs to be planned for and WMRTAB notes that there is little consideration of this matter in the BCP. Indeed Table 9 ‘Black Country Waste Capacity Requirements 2018 – 2039’ makes no mention of this matter. A report prepared for WMRTAB on landfill in the West Midlands indicates the following for 2019:

There are five landfill sites for inert, non-hazardous & hazardous waste in the Black Country. At the end of 2019, active inert landfill capacity was estimated at 690,000 (m3), non-hazardous LF capacity estimated at 11,666,401 (m3) and non-hazardous LF capacity with SNRHW cell estimated at 418,953 (m3). Landfill sites have been Page 4 of 9 allocated in Walsall1 which allow a further increase inert landfill capacity of 3,000,000
(m3) in future.

Despite the apparent plentiful supply of non hazardous landfill capacity in the Black Country, WMRTAB consider that the BCP should clearly consider how requirements for non hazardous landfill will met, taking account of any unmet requirements in neighbouring areas. This should consider how imports to non hazardous landfill in the Black Country might increase as landfill capacity elsewhere becomes exhausted.

As a significant net importer of non-hazardous and hazardous waste, it is important that BCP is clear about how the BCAs plan to continue to meet the needs of other areas, in order that they can plan for their needs accordingly.

Support

Representation ID: 21228

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: The West Midlands Resource Technical Advisory Body

Waste management development considerations
WMRTAB supports the development considerations set out in Policies W2, W3 & W4 in relation to employment areas, minimising harm to human health and the environment, and other impacts of waste management proposals such as on surrounding buildings, resources and constraints on development. WMRTAB suggest additional clarity could be provided regarding the acceptability of proposals in terms of their impact on road networks.

In particular, WMRTAB supports the approach set out in Policy W2 of protecting existing waste facilities from other development which may impact on their operation. This is an important consideration, especially in an area where there is a need to find suitable land to alleviate other development pressures.

Support

Representation ID: 21229

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: The West Midlands Resource Technical Advisory Body

Waste management development considerations WMRTAB supports the development considerations set out in Policies W2, W3 & W4 in relation to employment areas, minimising harm to human health and the environment, and other impacts of waste management proposals such as on surrounding buildings, resources and constraints on development. WMRTAB suggest additional clarity could be provided regarding the acceptability of proposals in terms of their impact on road networks.

Support

Representation ID: 21230

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: The West Midlands Resource Technical Advisory Body

Waste management development considerations
WMRTAB supports the development considerations set out in Policies W2, W3 & W4 in relation to employment areas, minimising harm to human health and the environment, and other impacts of waste management proposals such as on surrounding buildings, resources and constraints on development. WMRTAB suggest additional clarity could be provided regarding the acceptability of proposals in terms of their impact on road networks.

Comment

Representation ID: 21231

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: The West Midlands Resource Technical Advisory Body

WMRTAB notes that that no explicit mention is made about how the management of waste can contribute to the mitigation of climate change and, in light of national policy (and plan making legislation), suggest that this is an area in need of attention. A review of the policies to ensure they are aligned with this agenda is recommended. Such a review might consider how energy from waste facilities could be required to ensure that use of heat produced, as well as electricity, is maximised.

Policy CC5 on Flood Risk, identifies waste (and mineral) facilities as the only types of development where all such proposals would require a flood risk assessment and surface water drainage strategy. While proposals for certain types of waste facilities may need such assessment, WMRTAB suggest that the BCAs check whether this blanket approach is justified.

Comment

Representation ID: 45954

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: The West Midlands Resource Technical Advisory Body

Best available evidence WMRTAB notes that the BCP waste policies are supported by a waste needs assessment that utilises data derived from 2017. Unless this assessment is updated it seems likely that at the time of submission of the BCP, this data could be over four years out of date and WMRTAB suggest that an updated waste needs assessment be prepared using the latest available data that may at least include that from 2020.