environmental report on changes to waste strategy 2000...

ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT ON CHANGES TO WASTE STRATEGY 2000 FOR THE STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs January 2005

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Nobel House 17 Smith Square London SW1P 3JR Telephone 020 7238 6000 Website: www.defra.gov.uk © Crown copyright 2005 Copyright in the typographical arrangement and design rests with the Crown. Copies of this publication may be obtained from: James Stevens Local Authority Waste Policy and Performance Zone 7/E14 Ashdown House 123 Victoria Street SW1E 6DE e-mail: [email protected] Telephone: 0207 082 8932 This document is also available on the Defra website www.defra.gov.uk Published by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION 1

2. BACKGROUND 2

3. SEA BASELINE, OBJECTIVES AND FRAMEWORK 7

4. PLAN ISSUES AND OPTIONS 19

5. PLAN POLICIES 20

6. MONITORING AND REVIEW 26

7. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 26

1

1. INTRODUCTION

Background

1.1 The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) is responsible for the National Waste Strategy for England. This is currently set out in Waste Strategy 2000, which forms part of the waste management plan required by Article 7 of the EU Waste Framework Directive1. Defra is also responsible for providing guidance to waste management authorities on the development of Municipal Waste Management Strategies.

1.2 In considering the need for any revisions to this guidance, Defra has reviewed the decision-making principles set out in Waste Strategy 2000. This review has been informed by research on implementation of the principles and extensive dialogue with stakeholders on the effectiveness of current practice.

1.3 Defra’s proposals are set out in Changes to Waste Management Decision Making Principles in Waste Strategy 2000, which is shortened in this report to Changes to WS2000. Waste Strategy 2000 is abbreviated as WS2000.

1.4 Within the parameters described, this SEA has been undertaken2 in compliance with Council Directive 2001/42/EC on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment (the ‘SEA Directive’) and the “Environmental Assessment of Plans and Programme Regulations 2004”, and as far as is practicable consistent with relevant practice guidance on SEA.

Consultation within Government

1.5 Drafting of Changes to WS2000 has closely involved the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM) and has involved discussions with other consultees. Defra has also drawn on evidence from research sponsored by both Government and the private sector into the waste plan and strategy making system.

1.6 A Scoping Report covering the proposed scope of the SEA process and the Environmental Report was submitted to the consultation bodies (the Environment Agency, English Nature, the Countryside Agency and English Heritage). Advice from the consultation bodies was sought on the following topics:

(i) the proposed general approach to SEA;

(ii) the proposed level of detail;

(iii) relevant plans and programmes;

(iv) baseline data;

(v) specific waste-related environmental issues;

(vi) the strategic options and alternatives under consideration;

(vii) the proposed environmental objectives, indicators and targets.

1 Council Directive 75/442/EEC on waste, as amended (see paragraph 2.14 for further detail). 2 This report is based on work undertaken for Defra by Capita Symonds Ltd.

2

1.7 Advice from the four consultation bodies has informed the preparation of the assessment and, as appropriate is referred to in this Environmental Report.

Public Consultation

1.8 Public consultation on Changes to WS2000 and other associated documents is scheduled to run until the end of March 2005. Following this “… a statement summarising how environmental considerations have been integrated into the (final version of the amended WS2000) and how the Environmental Report, … the opinions expressed … and the results of consultations … have been taken into account, … and the reasons for choosing the (options) as adopted, in the light of the other reasonable alternatives dealt with”3 will be provided.

1.9 Following the consultation period any significant changes to Changes to WS2000 will be assessed, and that assessment included in the final Environmental Report.

2. BACKGROUND

Purpose of SEA and the Environmental Report

2.1 SEA is a process of environmental assessment which is consistent with the SEA Directive. It is designed to ensure a high level of protection of the environment and to contribute to the integration of environmental considerations into the preparation and adoption of plans and programmes with a view to promoting sustainable development.

2.2 The Environmental Report documents the assessment procedure and its main findings.

Compliance with SEA Guidance

2.3 ODPM has produced draft guidance for undertaking SEAs and preparing Environmental Reports, and this is available from their website. A report entitled A Draft Guide to the Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive (July 2004) provides key facts together with guidance on how to comply with the Directive in an environmental assessment of a plan or programme. This SEA has been undertaken in compliance with the SEA Directive, the Environmental Assessment of Plans and Programme Regulations 2004 insofar as it applies to policies, and follows the ODPM’s draft practical guidance on SEA as far as is practicable.

WS2000: Objectives and Outline Content

2.4 When first published, WS2000 drew together the main strands of waste management policy as they applied at that time to England and Wales. One of the purposes of WS2000 was to fulfil the Government’s “… legal obligation under the 1990 Environmental Protection Act (as amended by the 1995 Environment Act) to prepare a national waste strategy. This requirement flows from our obligation under the Waste Framework Directive … to develop a waste management plan”. WS2000 now applies to England only.

2.5 Part 1 of WS2000 comprises five chapters which deal with:

(i) the need for change;

(ii) the Government’s vision;

(iii) levers for change;

3 Based on wording in ODPM’s Draft Practical Guide to the SEA Directive (July 2004), page 7.

3

(iv) delivering change; and

(v) monitoring and review.

2.6 Part 2 comprises a further eight chapters and four annexes, including consideration of specific waste management techniques and specific waste streams.

2.7 In November 2002 the Cabinet Office Strategy Unit published Waste not Want not. A Strategy for Tackling the Waste Problem. The Government’s response to this, including 42 recommendations for action, was published by Defra in Februrary 2003.

2.8 The proposal for change affects the mechanism to be used by planners and decision makers to determine “… the option that provides the most benefits or the least damage to the environment, as a whole, at acceptable cost, in the long term as well as the short term”4. This wording comes from the description of the process for determining Best Practicable Environmental Option (BPEO). Defra has acknowledged in Changes to WS2000 that the guidance currently in WS2000 on determining BPEO “… is considered by many to be hindering effective delivery on the ground … allowing for interpretation at a local level … (and) … leading to confusion about how it should be applied, at what scale, what data should be included and at what cost. As it stands it produces an outcome which is easy to criticise and hard to defend”.

2.9 The proposal will affect both the planning function and the waste management function, and is to use a different mechanism to determine the preferred option for waste management. This mechanism is SEA and/or Sustainability Assessment (SA) of options, which are to be used as part of the development of Regional Spatial Strategies and Local Development Frameworks (both of which incorporate waste strategies) and Municipal Waste Management Strategies. The use of SEA and SA for development plans is already required by the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. Most proposals for substantial waste management facilities will then be required to demonstrate that they represent Best Available Technology (BAT) as part of the process of pollution control and waste management licensing. Detailed guidance on judging what comprises BAT for a wide range of processes is available from the Environment Agency.

2.10 Changes to WS2000 therefore proposes to remove references to the specific process of determining BPEO and replace them where appropriate with references to SEA and SA.

2.11 In summary, the proposed changes to WS2000 will affect:

(i) plan makers at all levels (regional, county, unitary and district), and the organisations that they consult when formulating their waste management strategies and plans;

(ii) local authority waste managers in both waste collection authorities and waste disposal authorities; and

(iii) waste management companies who need to apply for planning permission for waste management facilities.

The Relationship Between WS2000 and the Planning System

2.12 In parallel to Changes to WS2000, the Government is proposing to replace Planning Policy Guidance Note 10 (PPG10) Planning and Waste Management, published in 1999 with

4 The full quote, from the 12th Report of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution is: “… the outcome of a systematic and consultative decision-making procedure which emphasises the protection and conservation of the environment across land, air and water. The BPEO procedure establishes, for a given set of objectives, the option that provides the most benefits or the least damage to the environment, as a whole, at acceptable cost, in the long term as well as the short term.”

4

Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 10 Planning for Sustainable Waste Management and accompanying guidance. The purpose of PPS10 is to provide regional planning bodies, planning authorities and users of the planning system with a clear statement of Government policy on planning for sustainable waste management. The Consultation Draft of PPS10 covers forward planning and development control, and reinforces general guidance on process in PPS11 (Regional Spatial Strategies) and PPS12 (Local Development Frameworks). A collective objective of PPS10 and other relevant PPSs is to give guidance on achieving the objectives behind The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

2.13 The key planning objectives set out in Draft PPS10 are that regional planning bodies and planning authorities should prepare and deliver planning strategies that:

(i) help deliver sustainable development through driving waste management up the waste hierarchy, addressing waste as a resource and looking to disposal as the last option but one which must be adequately catered for;

(ii) enable sufficient and timely provision of waste management facilities to meet the needs of their communities;

(iii) help implement the national waste strategy, and supporting targets, and are consistent with obligations required under European legislation;

(iv) help secure the recovery or disposal of waste without endangering human health and without harming the environment and ensure waste is disposed of as near as possible to its place of production;

(v) reflect the concerns and interests of local communities, the needs of waste collection authorities, waste disposal authorities and business and encourage competitiveness;

(vi) protect green belts but recognise the particular locational needs of some types of waste management and that the wider environmental and economic benefits of sustainable waste management are material considerations that should be given significant weight in determining whether proposals should be given planning permission;

(vii) ensure the layout and design of new development supports sustainable waste management.

The EU Waste Policy Background to WS2000

2.14 The UK’s accession (in 1973) to what was then called the European Communities coincided with a conscious effort on the part of the European Commission and the Member States to shift the main focus of waste management policy away from disposal, and towards re-use and recycling. This effort resulted (in 1975) in the adoption of the first version of the Waste Framework Directive (i.e. Council Directive 75/442/EEC on waste). Three years later the complementary Council Directive 78/318/EEC on toxic and dangerous wastes was adopted.

2.15 In 1991 both of these Directives were updated, as follows:

(i) the Waste Framework Directive was extensively revised by Council Directive 91/156/EEC; and

(ii) Council Directive 91/689/EEC on hazardous waste replaced Council Directive 78/318/EEC in its entirety.

5

2.16 Since 1991 the overall structure of the waste management regime has been set by these two complementary Directives. The European Commission’s Guide to the Approximation of European Union Environmental Legislation (published as SEC(97) 1608 on 25 August 1997) describes their role as follows. “These directives establish the framework for waste management structures, which have been elaborated by two types of ‘daughter’ directives: one group sets down requirements for the permitting and operations of waste disposal facilities. The other group deals with specific types of waste such as oils, packaging and batteries.” The most notable ‘daughter’ directive dealing with waste disposal facilities was Council Directive 99/31/EC on the landfill of waste (generally referred to as the ‘Landfill Directive’).

2.17 The term ‘Waste Framework Directive’ now means ‘Directive 75/442/EEC on waste as amended, most notably by Council Directive 91/156/EEC, Council Directive 91/692/EEC, Commission Decision 96/350/EC and Commission Decision 2000/532/EC’. Council Directive 91/692/EEC changed the reporting arrangements, but had no impact on waste management. Commission Decision 96/350/EC replaced two annexes in Directive 91/156/EC listing waste disposal and recovery operations, and Commission Decision 2000/532/EC replaced two earlier decisions establishing lists of wastes. Commission Decision 2000/532/EC has itself been further amended, but it still provides the basic structure of what has become known as the ‘European Waste Catalogue’.

2.18 Among the most important ‘daughter’ directives (almost all of which have subsequently been amended to some degree) are the following (in date order of the original directives):

(i) 75/439/EEC on the disposal of waste oils;

(ii) 78/176/EEC on waste from the titanium dioxide industry;

(iii) 86/278/EEC on the use of sewage sludge in agriculture;

(iv) 91/157/EEC on batteries and accumulators containing dangerous substances;

(v) 94/62/EC on packaging and packaging waste;

(vi) 96/59/EC on the disposal of PCBs and PCTs;

(vii) 99/31/EC on the landfill of waste;

(viii) 2000/53/EC on end-of-life vehicles;

(ix) 2000/76/EC on the incineration of waste;

(x) 2002/96/EC on waste electrical and electronic equipment (and the complementary 2002/95/EC on the restriction of the use of certain hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment).

2.19 Regulation 259/93/EEC (as amended) on the supervision and control of shipments of waste within, into and out of the European Community is not a ‘daughter’ directive (because it is a regulation rather than a directive), but in all other respects it can be considered in the same category.

2.20 Further directives at the proposals stage include a replacement directive on batteries and accumulators, and new directives on ‘biowaste’ and waste from the extractive industries.

2.21 Underlying all of these directives is the objective of protecting human health and the environment. This is expressed as follows in Article 4 of the Waste Framework Directive:

6

“Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that waste is recovered or disposed of without endangering human health and without using processes or methods which could harm the environment, and in particular:

(i) without risk to water, air, soil and plants and animals,

(ii) without causing a nuisance through noise or odours,

(iii) without adversely affecting the countryside or places of special interest.”

2.22 Other directives make reference to specific areas of environmental protection. For example, the ‘recitals’ which precede Article 1 of The Landfill Directive include the following phrases:

(i) “… (measures to avoid) the pollution of groundwater by leachate infiltration into the soil …” (recital 12);

(ii) “… measures should be taken to reduce the production of methane gas from landfills, inter alia, in order to reduce global warming …” (recital 16).

2.23 By referring to human health as well as the environment, the Waste Framework Directive effectively identifies all of the potential receptors listed in Directive 85/337/EEC (on the assessment of the effect of certain public and private projects on the environment, as amended by Directive 97/11/EC) and the SEA Directive. These receptors are set out in Annex I(f) to the SEA Directive, and they are: “… biodiversity, population, human health, fauna, flora, soil, water, air, climatic factors, material assets, cultural heritage including architectural and archaeological heritage, landscape and the interrelationship between the above factors”.

2.24 Therefore a wide range of other European Directives are relevant, most notably:

(i) Directive 79/409/EEC on the conservation of wild birds and Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (the Habitats Directive) (which between them created the Natura 2000 network of protected sites);

(ii) Directive 96/61/EC on integrated pollution prevention and control (the IPPC Directive);

(iii) Directive 96/62/EC on ambient air quality assessment and management (the Air Quality Framework Directive); and

(iv) Directive 2000/60/EC establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy (the Water Framework Directive).

2.25 The above European directives have been transposed into English law, but the links between these directives on the one hand and Acts, Regulations and other Statutory Instruments are not set out here in full. However, it should be noted that the Government’s commitment to the protection of a wide range of elements of the environment where developments of all types require planning permission is set out in a series of Planning Policy Guidance Notes (PPGs) and Planning Policy Statements (PPSs). The most directly relevant of these as far as the SEA Directive is concerned are:

(i) PPG2: Green Belts;

(ii) PPS7: Sustainable Development in Rural Areas;

(iii) PPG9: Nature Conservation;

7

(iv) PPG15: Planning and the Historic Environment;

(v) PPG16: Archaeology and Planning;

(vi) PPS22: Renewable Energy;

(vii) PPS23: Planning and Pollution Control;

(viii) PPG24: Planning and Noise.

3. SEA BASELINE, OBJECTIVES AND FRAMEWORK

Environmental Baseline

3.1 The purpose of establishing the environmental baseline is to assist in the process of setting meaningful environmental objectives, targets and indicators for use in the SEA process (and in subsequent monitoring of the effectiveness of WS2000 as amended).

3.2 WS2000 is part of the waste management plan required by Article 7 of the Waste Framework Directive. As such its success, and that of any amendments to it, can only be judged in the wider context of progress towards more sustainable waste management.

3.3 A large number of national indicators of environmental quality (and, more widely, quality of life) are published by Defra, and relevant ones are reproduced below. These cover topics such as the percentages of different waste streams recycled, and the concentration in the wider environment of specified pollutants commonly associated to some degree with waste management.

3.4 These provide the best available current broad-order national data on waste arisings and how selected waste streams are managed. They also provide information on related topics, such as pollutants which, while widely found in the environment, are frequently associated with certain wastes and certain waste management processes (such as cadmium and mercury which are often associated with batteries and electronic waste, and dioxins which are associated with combustion processes, including waste combustion processes).

3.5 The range of environmental receptors that could be affected by waste management activities is very wide, and potentially wider than the indicators selected. This was commented on by the consultation bodies in their responses to the Scoping Report (for example, English Nature expressed concern that “… the proposed assessment and Environmental Report will be focused on waste arisings … rather than on the effects of waste on environmental assets. Whilst it may prove easier to assess impacts of the strategy on waste arisings, ultimately it is the potential impacts of those arisings on the environment that need to be evaluated.“ The Countryside Agency remarked that “… landscape conservation and local access to it should be essential elements of the plans that flow from Changes to WS2000, so these topics should be part of the scope of the SEA.”). However, the consultation bodies did not demur from the general point made in the Scoping Report that, in most cases, waste management has only accounted for a small proportion of those impacts which have adversely affected (for example) sensitive wildlife habitats and species, areas of high landscape quality, historic artefacts, groundwater and soil, and human health.

3.6 It is acknowledged that inappropriately located, poorly run and inadequately regulated waste management facilities could pose risks to:

(i) biodiversity, fauna, flora and the landscape;

8

(ii) soil and water;

(iii) air and climatic factors;

(iv) the human population and particularly human health;

(v) material assets and cultural heritage (including architectural and archaeological heritage); and

(vi) the interrelationship between the above factors.

3.7 These linkages are discussed further below under the heading ‘Environmental Issues Associated with Waste’. However, all other policies on waste management and the planning policies applied to the countryside or places of special interest remain unchanged, and it has been concluded that seeking to describe the complete environmental baseline for England would be disproportionate to the scale of changes likely to be associated with what is proposed. This is consistent with guidance on SEA, which recognises the concept of a hierarchy of plans, and the importance of avoiding unnecessary duplication.

3.8 The following relevant baseline data are all available from Quality of Life Counts – Update 2004 on the Government’s sustainable-development.gov.uk website.

Figure 3.1: Household waste and recycling: 1983/84 to 2001/02

(Coverage: England & Wales, Source: Defra, Environment Agency)

9

Figure 3.2: Waste arisings and management of controlled waste from households, commerce and industry: 1998/99 to 2000/01

(Coverage: UK, Source: Defra, Environment Agency, ODPM, SEPA, WAG, NIEHS)

Figure 3.3: Methods of commercial and industrial waste disposal by sector:

1998/99

(Coverage: England & Wales, Source: Environment Agency)

10

Figure 3.4: Metals recycling: 1984 to 2002

(Coverage: UK, Source: Defra, industry bodies)

Figure 3.5: Other (non-metals) recycling: 1984 to 2002

(Coverage: UK, Source: Defra, industry bodies)

11

Figure 3.6: Special / hazardous waste arisings: 1986/87 to 2002 (NB: The definition of special waste changed in October 1996)

(Coverage: UK, Source: Environment Agency)

Figure 3.7: Waste and Gross Value Added by sector: 1997

(Coverage: UK, Source: Defra, Environment Agency)

12

Figure 3.8: Construction and demolition waste going to landfill (including some unidentified inactive industrial waste): 1997 to 2003

(NB: From 1 October 1999 excludes waste used to restore landfill sites or backfill quarries)

(Coverage: UK, Source: HMC&E)

Figure 3.9: Amounts of secondary / recycled aggregates used compared with virgin aggregates: 1989 to 2001

(Coverage: UK 1989 England 2001, Source: ODPM)

Figure 3.10: Annual concentrations of dioxins in air: 1991 to 2002

(Coverage: England & Wales, Source: NETCEN)

13

Figure 3.11: Exceedences of Environmental Quality Standards for Cadmium in water: 1995 to 2002

(Coverage: England & Wales, Source: Environment Agency)

Figure 3.12: Exceedences of Environmental Quality Standards for Mercury in water: 1995 to 2002

(Coverage: England & Wales, Source: Environment Agency) 3.9 The future environmental background without the proposed changes to WS2000 (but with the

underpinning waste policy and the ‘new planning architecture’) is unlikely to be significantly different from the pattern suggested by established trends. This would imply:

(i) an overall year-on-year growth in household, commercial and industrial waste arisings (though see paragraph 3.13 below);

(ii) a modest annual growth in recycling of household, commercial and industrial waste taken as a whole, and reduction in the proportion of waste sent to landfill (though it is reckoned that the recycling of household waste is growing at 15 % per year, which is a significant growth rate);

(iii) an improvement in air and water quality; and

14

(iv) some instances of damage to sensitive sites, particularly due to unauthorised waste management and historic waste management activities.

3.10 There is, however, a risk of these limited improvements being prejudiced if the planning process fails to deliver sufficient facilities of the right type, in the right place and at the right time.

Assumptions and Limitations

3.11 National data have been used as this is the coverage of WS2000. However some of the data cover England & Wales, and some the whole of the UK, as specified individually in Figures 3.1 to 3.12. The data sets do not cover groundwater, soil, natural habitats, areas of high quality landscape or the historic environment, all of which, without proper control, could be affected by waste management activities. These issues are considered in more detail below under the heading ‘Environmental Issues Associated with Waste’.

3.12 This does not, however, mean that groundwater, soil, natural habitats, areas of high quality landscape and the historic environment are not explicitly protected by waste policy and regulation. Indeed, one of the most important objectives underpinning waste management policy concerns the protection of groundwater from pollution, and good predictive tools now exist to enable the pollution control authorities to manage such risks effectively, particularly insofar as new installations are concerned. However, the legacy of historical waste management sites constitutes one of a range of on-going threats to groundwater quality and other environmental receptors.

3.13 With comprehensive waste statistics not having been collated over an extended period, there are doubts about some of the trends in waste arisings. Whereas it is generally accepted that arisings of municipal waste have continued to grow, the same certainty does not attach to commercial and industrial waste. Despite the evidence of growth presented by Figure 3.2, the continuing pattern of industrial restructuring suggests that some major waste flows may reduce or cease. Other flows, such as excavation waste from redevelopment of brownfield sites will always be irregular, affected by the specifics of sites as well as the property market and the economics of remediation. Further data collection currently being undertaken by the Environment Agency should help to clarify some of these issues. It should be stressed that the proposed Changes to WS2000 are intended to influence the way that waste is managed, not the volumes of arisings.

Environmental Issues Associated with Waste

3.14 Historically, dealing with waste has been associated with a range of risks to the environment. Some examples, related to the SEA Directive, are:

(i) inert waste dumped in unregulated tips risking damage to biodiversity, fauna, flora, landscape and townscape quality and the historic environment;

(ii) insensitive backfilling of quarries risking damage to the geological heritage and landscape quality;

(iii) inappropriate handling and management of hazardous and other non-inert solid waste risking damage to soil, the water environment, air quality and human health, particularly if it is not properly managed in a suitably engineered facility;

(iv) sludges and other organic wastes spread on farm land, leading to nutrient enrichment of soils, and consequent impacts on surface water quality, groundwater and local biodiversity;

15

(v) uncontrolled excavation work risking damage to the archaeological and historic baseline, either through direct damage, or as a result of visual intrusion.

3.15 Stronger regulation, stricter enforcement and improved technologies help reduce these risks. It is now normal practice:

(i) to line and cap landfills to minimise impacts associated with leachate, and to collect and use methane;

(ii) to site landfills further from dwellings and other occupied buildings;

(iii) to remove a very high proportion of most pollutants from the stack emissions of incinerators;

(iv) to provide composting sites with areas of hard standing beneath windrows to prevent infiltration of pollutants into the soil and groundwater;

(v) to enclose many sites where waste other than green waste is composted, and to install biofilters to intercept bio-aerosols, ammonia and odours;

(vi) to provide scrap yards (and other sites where, for example, waste electrical and electronic equipment is stored) with hard standing and roofing;

(vii) to regulate an increasing number of processes under IPPC legislation, and to apply risk-based criteria to their inspection;

(viii) in other words, to require an increasing proportion of wastes to be controlled and contained at all stages of their management, thus reducing their environmental impacts.

3.16 In his introduction to research sponsored by Defra into the health effects of the management of household (and similar) wastes5, the Minister of State for the Environment concluded that “… on the evidence from studies so far, the treatment of municipal solid waste has at most a minor effect on health in this country particularly when compared with other health risks associated with ordinary day to day living. The evidence on environmental effects is limited, but such as there is does not appear to suggest adverse environmental effects of waste management, other than those we know about already and are already addressing, such as methane emissions from landfill”.

3.17 This study covered a wide range of waste management techniques. Although the conclusions cannot be applied uncritically to other waste streams, the challenges posed by household waste are more varied and complex than those associated with many other wastes.

3.18 Any prediction of environmental outcomes associated with Changes to WS2000 must assume the delivery of the objectives, other than where the policy is incorrectly or inadequately applied. Given this assumption, which implies that site selection processes are carried out in such a way as to avoid unacceptable impacts on sensitive sites, and that established technical norms (such as landfill liners that comply with the Landfill Directive, and air pollution controls on incinerators which comply with the relevant directive) are respected as part of the pollution control regime, the linkages that would be expected between selected waste management facilities and environmental receptors are as set out below.

5 Review of Environmental and Health Effects of Waste Management: Municipal Solid Waste and Similar Wastes (Enviros and others for Defra, 2004)

16

Facility type Receptors historically at threat, but protected by ‘normal’ design and site selection

Emissions and impacts now expected after ‘normal’ design and site selection

Landfills Groundwater, air quality (methane), land

Noise, air quality (limited)

Combustion plants Air quality (most) Air quality (NOx, mercury, acid gases, traces of dioxins), CO2, water (thermal load from cooling water)

Composting sites Groundwater, surface water Bio-aerosols, noise, CO2

Scrap yards Groundwater, surface water, land Noise, visual intrusion

CA sites (Household Waste Recovery sites)

Traffic, noise

3.19 Several of the emissions and effects identified in the final column of the table above (e.g.

noise, air quality including bioaerosols, visual intrusion and the disruptive effects of traffic) are ultimately linked to human receptors and human health and wellbeing.

SEA Framework

3.20 The assessment framework is based on a set of SEA objectives with associated targets, the achievement of which is measurable using indicators. These have been developed taking into account the baseline information collected and the environmental problems identified.

3.21 Although not specifically required by the SEA Directive, objectives are a recognised way of considering the environmental effects of plans and programmes (including the comparison of the effects of alternatives).

3.22 Each of the data sets illustrated in Figures 3.1 to 3.12 above has an associated indicator in Quality of Life Counts – Update 2004 and a linked objective (which may also be attached to other indicators). The links between these objectives and indicators were established as part of the process of developing Quality of Life Counts, not as part of this SEA. Nevertheless, their existence and ready availability creates a strong argument in favour of using them to monitor the effects of national environmental and planning policies, including waste policy and Changes to WS2000 in particular. Guidance on SEA says that “… measures for monitoring should be clear, practicable and linked to the indicators and objectives used in the SEA”.

3.23 The objectives linked to Figures 3.1 to 3.12 are as follows:

(i) Objective associated with Figures 3.1 to 3.6: Move away from disposal of waste towards waste reduction, re-use, recycling and recovery;

(ii) Objective associated with Figure 3.7: Take-up of best practice in key sectors;

(iii) Objective associated with Figure 3.8: Greater use of sustainable construction materials;

(iv) Objective associated with Figure 3.9: Aim to maximise efficient use of materials and greater use of recycled and waste materials;

(v) Objective associated with Figures 3.10 to 3.12: Must not store up pollutant problems for the future.

3.24 There are also specific targets set in the Landfill Directive (for the diversion of biodegradable municipal waste from landfill) and in other ‘daughter’ directives (such as those covering packaging waste and waste from electrical and electronic equipment) for future recovery and recycling rates.

17

3.25 Although some of these objectives and targets are primarily ‘managerial’, they are driven by and designed to deliver desirable environmental outcomes. For example, ‘move away from disposal of waste towards waste reduction, re-use, recycling and recovery’ is a tangible management strategy for achieving the desirable environmental outcomes of reducing both resource use and the risk of pollution potentially associated with waste disposal.

3.26 The SEA process requires plans and programmes to be tested against environmental objectives, and four of the five objectives identified above (omitting only ‘take-up of best practice in key sectors’, on the grounds that it is too general). For the purposes of this SEA, the objectives and targets which have been used are as set out below:

SEA Objectives Targets Indicators

Move away from disposal of waste towards waste reduction, re-use, recycling and recovery.

Achieve waste diversion targets as set in the Landfill Directive and Waste Strategy 2000.

• Household waste and recycling

• Waste arisings and management of controlled waste from households, commerce and industry

• Methods of commercial and industrial waste disposal by sector

• Metals recycling

• Other (non-metals) recycling

• Special / hazardous waste arisings

Aim to maximise efficient use of materials and greater use of recycled and waste materials.

Increase share of recycled and waste materials used in construction.

• Amounts of secondary / recycled aggregates used compared with virgin aggregates

Avoid storing up pollutant problems for the future (particularly dioxins).

Achieve year-on-year reductions in annual concentrations of dioxins in air.

• Annual concentrations of dioxins in air

Avoid storing up pollutants problems for the future (particularly cadmium and mercury).

Reduce to zero the number of instances of cadmium and mercury in water greater than the environmental quality standard (EQS).

• Exceedences of EQSs for Cadmium in water

• Exceedences of EQSs for Mercury in water

3.27 In Section 5 of this Environmental Report Changes to WS2000 is assessed against each of these SEA objectives, and in each instance the likely effect on the existing baseline is predicted (as accurately as possible) and an assessment made as to whether any change will occur in the short, medium and longer term. Predicted changes are described, as appropriate, in terms of their magnitude, their geographical scale, the period of time over which they occur, whether they are permanent or temporary, positive or negative, probable or improbable, frequent or rare and whether or not there are secondary, cumulative and/or synergistic effects.

3.28 The consultation bodies suggested that the SEA process use a larger number of objectives and associated indicators and targets. Their requests centred on the impacts of waste management on sensitive wildlife habitats and species, areas of high landscape quality, historic artefacts, groundwater and soil, and human health. Given the nature and scope of the SEA process, it was considered inappropriate to include general indicators on (for example) overall biodiversity or soil contamination, because it would be unrealistic to conclude that any particular change (either positive or negative) in such indicators would be attributable to Changes to WS2000 or not.

3.29 If waste-specific indicators linked to the above topics become regularly available, they could be used to monitor the long-term impact of Changes to WS2000. Examples of such indicators could include:

18

(i) number of SSSIs identified as significantly damaged by authorised waste management activities in a given year, as a proportion of all such sites damaged by human activity and as a proportion of all such sites;

(ii) number of SSSIs identified as significantly damaged by unauthorised waste disposal (including fly tipping) in a given year, as a proportion of all such sites damaged by human activity and as a proportion of all such sites;

(iii) number of waste management facilities granted planning permission in a given year against the advice of the Countryside Agency (where the advice related to landscape quality in landscapes of national importance);

(iv) number of enforcement actions initiated by the Environment Agency against operators of waste management facilities in a given year as a consequence of significant damage to the water environment.

3.30 The Environmental Report which arose out of the SEA process applied to PPS10 also identified this issue, and made certain proposals for remedying the situation. That report also noted (in paragraph 108) that “… a lack of nationally relevant and regularly collected information on the environment which can be used to monitor the effectiveness of a measure such as PPS10. Indicators which record change to an environmental receptor (such as groundwater) or group of receptors (such as areas of high quality landscape) without recording the sources of those changes are of little or no value in monitoring a measure which only applies to the waste sector.” It went on (in paragraph 109) to state that “Monitoring would be more effective if it enabled causes to be linked to effects. A regionalised data set which recorded instances of damage to a group of receptors (such as areas of high landscape value) and assigned those cases to (for example) new road schemes, existing road schemes, new housing, new industry, existing industry, new waste management facilities, existing waste management facilities, etc would enable more informed judgements to be made about the effectiveness of a wide range of policies and their application. Production of such data sets (on an annual or biennial basis) may best be achieved through collaboration with the consultation bodies and other relevant bodies.”

3.31 As well as stating that “… Government will look for suitable opportunities to establish such monitoring arrangements”, the Environmental Report ended by confirming (in paragraph 111) that “… further consideration will be given to developing and producing a wider range of national and regional environmental indicators as described above.”

3.32 The development of such indicators will also enable the effects of Changes to WS2000 to be monitored more effectively.

Definition of Significance and other Assessment Terms

3.33 A major purpose of SEA is to identify those changes which are both expected to occur and to be significant. In the context of an SEA of high-level policy, the assessment of significance has to be based on professional judgement rather than a ‘tick-box’ approach. The following guidance has been used:

(i) significant positive effects are those that are judged likely to produce gains of high magnitude and probability when measured against the relevant national indicators, and which are directly attributable to the course of action under consideration;

(ii) significant negative effects are those that are judged likely to produce losses of high magnitude and probability when measured against the relevant national indicators, which are directly attributable to the course of action under consideration, and which justify either mitigation or a change to the proposed course of action;

19

(iii) effects of low significance are those that are judged likely to produce changes of no more than medium magnitude and/or probability when measured against the relevant national indicators; and

(iv) effects of medium significance fall between those that are ‘of low significance’ and ‘significant’. Negative effects of medium significance would not necessarily justify a change to the proposed course of action.

3.34 Where the magnitude of an effect is concerned, any judgement has to take account of both the baseline condition and trend, and the quantum of any expected change. Where the national environmental baseline is satisfactory, a negative change would have to be substantial to be termed ‘high magnitude’. Where the national environmental baseline is already of poor quality, even a relatively small change might be termed ‘high magnitude’. With this guidance in mind:

(i) high magnitude effects are those that are judged likely to raise or lower the national environmental baseline and trend by a clear and appreciable amount;

(ii) low (or small) magnitude effects are those that are judged likely to real but of little consequence for the national environmental baseline and trend; and

(iii) medium magnitude effects are those that fall between high and low magnitude.

3.35 Where probability is concerned, it has to be assessed on the basis of judgement rather than quantitative analysis, and:

(i) high probability means more than a two-in-three chance;

(ii) low probability means less than a one-in-ten chance; and

(iii) medium probability means between high and low probability.

3.36 Where time scale is concerned:

(i) a long time period is 20 years or more;

(ii) a short time period is five years of less; and

(iii) a medium time period is between these two.

3.37 All other terms used in the assessment have their everyday meanings.

4. PLAN ISSUES AND OPTIONS

Background to Selection of Options

4.1 The fundamentals of waste policy which transpose and implement European Directives on waste remain essentially unchanged. The purpose of the current revision is limited to removing inappropriate references to BPEO, prompted by a wider package of changes to the planning system.

4.2 The option of carrying out further revisions to WS2000 (which is not included below) will be considered when WS2000 is reviewed as a whole. At that point, a wider SEA of options for change will be carried out.

20

4.3 The consultation bodies were generally agreed that, given the nature of the current SEA process, the following two options represent the most realistic alternatives. They welcomed the intention to carry out a wider SEA when WS2000 is subject to a more comprehensive review.

Option 1: Do Nothing

4.4 The ‘Do Nothing’ option would not leave waste management planning in its pre-2004 state, because the planning system has already been changed by the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and associated guidance in the form of Planning Policy Statements (PPSs) 11&12. There is a parallel proposal from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister to replace Planning Policy Guidance (PPG) 10 with PPS10.

4.5 Leaving WS2000 unchanged would therefore mean that planning authorities would be required to use the techniques of SA and SEA when establishing their plans and strategies, and BPEO and BAT when determining planning applications for waste management facilities. No guidance would be available on dealing with conflicting conclusions coming out of these different procedures.

4.6 Although the Environment Agency had initiated research with a view to providing guidance on what constitutes BPEO for municipal waste, this is currently ‘work in progress’ which was put on hold when other research evidence pointed to SA and SEA as Defra’s preferred approach to waste planning. It was therefore decided not to take account of possible future guidance on BPEO as part of Option 1.

Option 2: The Proposed Course of Action

4.7 The proposed course of action is to revise WS2000 leaving the objectives and expected environmental outcomes unchanged, but changing the delivery mechanism from BPEO to a combination of SA and SEA (for plans and strategies) and BAT (for the licensing of many of the more substantial waste management facilities).

4.8 The proposed approach is required to be consultative, ultimately aiming to enhance effective implementation of strategies. There is greater emphasis on community responsibility in waste disposal, and a move away from local assessment to a more regional one. There is also an increased emphasis on using the waste hierarchy when assessing waste management options.

5. PLAN POLICIES

Predicted Environmental Effects, and their Assessment

5.1 The SEA process is primarily intended to be applied to plans and programmes, and notably to regional and local development plans (formerly Structure Plans and Local or Unitary Development Plans, but now regional spatial strategies and local development documents under the ‘new planning architecture’). Such plans typically include a series of individual policies designed to address the issues identified as priorities for action. These policies are specific to the development plans, and to some degree the plans comprise the sum of their individual policies.

5.2 The SEA process evaluates these policies, individually and in combination, against agreed environmental objectives. The purpose is to see whether the policies are likely to achieve those objectives, or whether they should be amended.

21

5.3 This is not the case with Changes to WS2000, which proposes an amendment to one delivery mechanism, but with all underlying policies left unchanged. The policies are not in any sense draft policies open to amendment: they have been adopted and their application is already obligatory. The assessment of Changes to WS2000 which follows is therefore a general assessment of the likely impact of this amendment.

5.4 The following summary table sets out the predicted environmental effects of Option 2 on the SEA objectives and indicators previously identified. It suggests the nature and significance of predicted changes associated with Changes to WS2000. Likely differences attributable to Option 1 are considered in the text that follows the summary table.

5.5 The summary table does not deal with those topics (such as sensitive wildlife habitats and species, areas of high landscape quality, historic artefacts, groundwater and soil, and human health) for which suitable indicators are not currently available, as discussed above.

5.6 Changes to WS2000 is intended to make it easier for the waste management industry to deliver appropriate facilities in the most suitable locations and at the time when they are required by making it easier for them to agree with the planning authorities whether or not the proposed solution is sustainable. It proposes to do this by replacing the hard-to-use concept of BPEO with the almost equally demanding but more extensively documented techniques of SEA and/or SA, and BAT (combined with Environmental Impact Assessment). These techniques are required by the existing Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and the IPPC Regulations, neither of which makes any mention of BPEO. Changes to WS2000 therefore has to be judged in combination with PPS10.

5.7 The following paragraphs comment in turn (and in more detail than the summary table) on the expected effects of Changes to WS2000 on the various SEA Objectives.

5.8 By helping to provide a greater variety of waste management facilities Changes of WS2000 is likely to lead to more re-use, recycling and recovery of waste where there has been deadlock over decisions regarding which technology represents the best choice. It is unlikely to have any impact on waste arisings or waste reduction. These benefits are expected to be among its most clearcut impacts, particularly where municipal and similar waste is concerned, because it is in connection with these waste streams that pressure for change, and therefore the need for new facilities, is greatest.

5.9 These changes are likely to be:

(i) of medium magnitude;

(ii) on a national scale;

(iii) spread over a long time period;

(iv) permanent in nature;

(v) positive in character;

(vi) probable;

(vii) neither frequent nor rare;

(viii) cumulative (in the sense that they reinforce the impacts from other policy measures).

22

Option 2: The Proposed Course of Action

SEA Objectives Indicators Effect Significance Comment

Household waste and recycling Arisings: 0

Recycling: + Medium

Positive effect associated with more timely delivery of facilities in most appropriate locations. National effect of medium magnitude and high probability. Likely to become more positive over time.

Waste arisings and management of controlled waste from households, commerce and industry, and methods of commercial and industrial waste disposal by sector (2 indicators)

Arisings: 0 Management: +

Medium

Positive effect associated with more timely delivery of facilities in most appropriate locations. National effect of medium magnitude and high probability. Likely to become more positive over time.

Metals and non-metals recycling (2 indicators) 0 Low (or none)

There is little dispute over what comprises the most suitable techniques for recycling metals. National effect of low (or no) magnitude.

Move away from disposal of waste towards waste reduction, re-use, recycling and recovery.

Special / hazardous waste arisings 0 Low

Arisings not affected by WS2000. (Arisings of contaminated / hazardous waste soils from brownfield sites likely to continue to rise, with the emphasis shifting from landfill to treatment.)

Aim to maximise efficient use of materials and greater use of recycled and waste materials.

Amounts of secondary / recycled aggregates used compared with virgin aggregates

0 Low (or none) There is little dispute over what comprises the most suitable techniques for recycling aggregates. National effect of low (or no) magnitude.

Avoid storing up pollutants problems for the future (particularly dioxins).

Annual concentrations of dioxins in air - Low

Dioxins associated with some thermal treatments of waste. Strongly downward trend over recent years. Local effect of small magnitude and high probability. Likely to be slightly negative in short, medium and long term, as planning system delivers more alternatives to landfill.

Avoid storing up pollutants problems for the future (particularly cadmium and mercury).

Exceedences of EQSs for Cadmium and Mercury in water (2 indicators)

+ Low

Recovery of Cadmium and Mercury associated with better management of electrical waste and batteries. National effect of small magnitude and high probability. Likely to become more positive over time.

23

5.10 By stimulating more effective provision of some recycling and recovery facilities Changes to WS2000 will encourage more efficient use of certain resources, including recycled materials. However, the only available SEA Indicator directly relevant to resource efficiency covers the contribution which recycled aggregate makes to total aggregate provision. Recycling of construction, demolition and excavation waste is already at a high level and on an upward trend6, so any additional impact would be modest at best. Because there is little disagreement on what comprises the most appropriate technology for aggregates recycling, the switch from BPEO to SEA / SA is unlikely to make a difference. Any impact on the recycling of other materials is covered by the previous SEA Objective.

5.11 If any impacts are observed on the contribution from recycled aggregate, are likely to be:

(i) of very small magnitude;





(vi) of very low probability;

(vii) very rare;


5.12 At the heart of waste policy is the need to divert material away from landfill. Incineration with energy recovery comes higher up the waste hierarchy than landfilling, and if Changes to WS2000 facilitates the provision of alternatives to landfill it is reasonably probable that this will include some additional incineration. Research sponsored by Defra7 has shown that incineration of municipal solid waste has at most a minor effect on human health. Nevertheless, more incineration will very probably be associated with marginally higher concentrations of dioxins in air (which is the characteristic measured by the available indicator) compared to the landfill alternative.

5.13 Impacts on levels of dioxins in air are likely to be:

(i) of very small magnitude;

(ii) on a national scale (or on a series of local scales: the distinction is not clearcut);



(v) negative in character;

(vi) probable;


6 See Survey of Arisings and Use of Construction, Demolition and Excavation Waste as Aggregate in England in 2003, ODPM October 2004 7 Review of Environmental and Health Effects of Waste Management: Municipal Solid Waste and Similar Wastes (Enviros and others for Defra, 2004)

24


5.14 Three recent initiatives at European level8 have been prompted to a significant degree by the need to keep mercury and cadmium out of the wider environment. These require the provision of new waste collection and processing capacity, which should be easier to deliver as a result of PPS10. More widespread provision of such waste management capacity will assist the diversion of electrical equipment and batteries away from both landfills and incinerators, leading to reduced uncontrolled emissions into the wider environment (mercury is particularly difficult to control if it is put into an incinerator: techniques used to trap other pollutants are ineffectual against mercury vapour). Mercury which is volatilised into the atmosphere tends to settle on land and in water bodies, where it becomes particularly hazardous to fauna.

5.15 Impacts on levels of mercury and cadmium in water are likely to be:

(i) of small magnitude;





(vi) probable;



5.16 As explained above, environmental benefits associated with Option 2 would arise mainly from the more effective application of policy for protecting the environment, including the timely delivery of the most appropriate waste management facilities. Leaving in place contradictory advice (to base decisions on BPEO in WS2000, but to use SEA / SA and BAT in PPS10), would lead to additional costs and time and so delay the delivery of more appropriate waste management facilities. This could be compounded should the different processes lead to different conclusions in the absence of advice on how to deal with these circumstances. Option 1 would make the present circumstances worse rather than better.

5.17 Were this effect to materialise, more waste would be managed lower down the waste hierarchy for longer.

5.18 Leaving WS2000 unchanged in combination with the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 might appear to offer the possibility of greater environmental protection because BPEO would focus particularly on the environmental issues and would be additional to the SA. However it needs to be considered that:

(i) in the planning system SA will incorporate the requirements of SEA as well as incorporating the principles of BPEO, in particular assessing the environmental impacts of possible options over the long and short term. An SEA will be required for municipal waste management strategies;

(ii) BPEO was not intended to be simply an environmental assessment. It should also take account of practicability and cost;

8 The WEEE Directive, the Replacement of Hazardous Substances Directive and the proposed new batteries Directive

25

(iii) SA is an explicit process for assessing the social and economic effects as well as the environmental effects to provide a better basis for decisions where, if trade-offs are required, they are done in a transparent way;

(iv) BAT and EIA will generally be required for individual installations;

(v) delay in establishing better waste management facilities is likely in itself to have negative environmental consequences because waste will not stop arising and will have to be dealt with in the currently available less suitable facilities. This is unlike industrial processes where delay in establishing new enterprises may benefit the environment through delay, although with possible negative social and economic effects.

5.19 Taken together these considerations suggest that in practice keeping BPEO in place in WS2000 would not provide greater environmental protection.

5.20 As far as sensitive wildlife habitats and species, areas of high landscape quality, historic artefacts, groundwater and soil, and human health are concerned, it is concluded that any impacts due to the more timely delivery of facilities in the most appropriate locations would be more likely to be positive or neutral for these receptors than negative.

Proposed Mitigation Measures and Assessment of Residual Effects

5.21 It must be stressed that whether Option 1 or 2 is chosen, the full range of technical and licensing controls applicable to waste management facilities would remain unchanged. These controls all contribute to the delivery of the obligation contained in Article 4 of the Waste Framework Directive (that waste be managed “… without endangering human health and without using processes or methods which could harm the environment”).

5.22 There should therefore be no need for additional mitigation measures, and none are proposed. The process of monitoring and review (see below) will check whether the practical application of Changes to WS2000 reveals a need for as-yet unidentified mitigation. Should this be the case, measures can be added at a later stage.

Risks and Uncertainties

5.23 The process of SEA reported in this Environmental Report has been carried out at a national level. It is possible that some particular effects at the regional or local level have not been identified. These would be expected to be identified and appraised when the decisions relating to the spatial impacts of the policies underlying Changes to WS2000 in combination with PPS10 are implemented through regional spatial strategies and local development documents, and subjected to SEA.

5.24 There are uncertainties associated with the future patterns of market forces, and of technical change. Much recycling is economically driven, and the viability and availability of more advanced techniques will both increase with higher prices for recycled products, as well as with higher costs for disposal.

5.25 These economic and technical uncertainties will in turn spill over into uncertainty over the timing of some changes.

5.26 For example, changes in the way in which waste electrical and electronic equipment is regulated, which includes minimum standards for separate collection facilities and a ban on the disposal of untreated waste in most landfills, is currently creating circumstances in which the national demand for dedicated fluorescent light tube recycling capacity is likely to grow. How many plants are required, and where they might best be sited, will change over time.

26

Directly comparable considerations affect some other important waste streams, including waste tyres and end-of-life vehicles.

6. MONITORING AND REVIEW

6.1 Defra will monitor and review the effectiveness of Changes to WS2000 as part of a wider continuing review of WS2000 as a whole. Further changes to WS2000 are expected to be proposed during 2005.

7. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

7.1 The SEA process has not revealed any significant or unacceptable environmental effects likely to arise from the adoption of Changes to WS2000 as proposed in the Consultation Draft now available for review. By contrast, the impacts of adopting Option 1 would be wholly negative because they would compound existing difficulties in delivering new waste management facilities. It is therefore recommended that Option 2 be adopted.

7.2 It is recommended that, as part of the consultation with planning and other practitioners linked to Changes to WS2000, guidance on Municipal Waste Management Strategies and PPS10 (to take place through a series of workshops in January - February 2005), soundings should be taken on the need for specific guidance on the preparation of SAs and SEAs in the context of waste.

environmental report on changes to waste strategy 2000...

Documents