Waverley Borough Council Home Page Waverley Borough Council Home Page


Waverley Borough Council Committee System - Committee Document

Meeting of the Executive held on 24/07/2006
Letter to SCC




S J Thwaites BSc DipEP MRTPI
Director of Planning and Development
Fax No: 01483-523118
Your ref:
Our ref: P20/3
When calling please ask for: Geraldine Molony
Direct line: 01483 523296
E-mail:gmolony@waverley.gov.uk
Date: 8th December 2005

Mr R Hargreaves
Head of Planning and Countryside
Surrey County Council
County Hall
Kingston upon Thames
Surrey KT1 2DT

Dear Roger

SURREY WASTE PLAN – THE PREFERRED PLAN 2005 :FOR CONSULTATION

The Waverly Borough Executive considered the Surrey Waste Plan on the 6th December, and have the following comments to make:

1. The Environment and Leisure Overview and Scrutiny Committee
2. The diagram of the Waste Hierarchy as presented in the draft of The Surrey Waste Plan should be inverted, so that “Reduction” has the most emphasis.

3. The first objective should read, “To provide for sustainable management of all Surrey’s waste including municipal solid waste, commercial and industrial waste, construction and demolition waste and hazardous waste.”

4. An additional objective should be included. The Plan should positively encourage certain types of approach, should be more proactive and be clearer about the direction in which it is travelling. It should indicate the general way in which waste disposal is to be planned for. This should minimise adverse environmental impact whilst maximising the beneficial outputs that can come from waste (e.g. biogas). The wider benefits that will accrue from the strategy should also be set out.
5. Transport and road traffic issues need to be given greater emphasis.

6. There should be clearer references to about links with other plans and strategies, particularly the Waverley Local Development Framework and the Surrey Minerals Plan.

7. Surrey should consider best UK and international practice and technologies available when determining types of thermal treatment. This should include a wide range of biotreatments, which incorporates energy recovery. The Waste Plan gives an over-emphasis to thermal treatments and insufficient emphasis to biotechnologies and treatments. A clear hierarchical structure should be included in the Waste Plan to give priority to biotreatments and energy recovery. Second preference should be given to benign thermal treatments such as autoclave. Incineration should only be considered as a last resort.

8. Limitations on “in vessel” composting, as set out in Policy WD4 of the Plan are too restrictive, especially as it relates to temporary periods only at landfilling and landraising sites.

9. Improvement of Surrey’s Civic Amenity sites should be a priority as they could make a greater contribution to recycling and therefore reduce future demand for landfill or other disposal facilities and become a focus for community education and initiatives.
10. Surrey County Council should consider imposing a requirement to recycle materials on new building sites and encourage District Councils to seek minimisation of waste in construction generally. Waverley welcomes playing an active role in this as part of the development of the Local Development Framework and has included a policy on reusing materials in its draft.

11. There is not enough emphasis in the Plan put on the fact that the strategy is an ideal opportunity of connecting with the other Surrey Districts and Boroughs. The County needs to make full reference to this in the Waste Plan.

12. Whilst the draft of the Surrey Minerals Plan has not yet been published, It needs to be made clear in both The Waste Plan and the Minerals Plan that holes in the ground will not be used in the future for landfill.

13. The Plan does not refer to the importance of national fiscal resources in controlling demand for landfill. Surrey should take account of the unfair and disproportionate way fiscal measures impact across the County, failing to reward good recycling and waste minimisation in particular boroughs such as Waverley.

14. The Plan does not draw out clearly the fundamental importance of sustainability. It needs to be emphasised more strongly especially that economic growth must be decoupled from growth in waste production.

15. The recycling target should be identified as innovative, challenging and achievable. Recycling and other targets should be used in the plan as a way of measuring how it is being implemented. Recycling targets should be set for difficult to reach material such as plastic. 16. Surrey County Council should be encouraged to take further effective action to reduce packaging waste. This should include direct action to raise public awareness as well as lobbying government, retailers and producers. This should form a key part of the strategy in line with the approach suggested in paragraph 2 above. 17. Landfill sites should not be used for the disposal of unsegregated waste. This approach could be applied in the first instance to Surrey’s own function as Waste Disposal Authority. Other specific waste streams, such as cadmium based batteries should also be provided for so such that they are not disposed of to landfill.
18. Waverley would welcome the opportunity to work together with Surrey
County Council to encourage positive changes in public attitudes and
behaviour that will reduce future demand for disposal facilities. Town
and Parish councils should be encouraged to assist where possible to
give a strong local base to initiatives.
20. The Council would wish to see Surrey implementing a programme of research, in particular of international best practice so as to learn from elsewhere.

These comments are submitted subject to any further observations from the Waverley Waste Special Interest Group on 12th December and Full Council on 13th December 2005.

Yours sincerely




Geraldine Molony
Principal Planning Officer