scoping consultation report final by 3Q6Zu6B

VIEWS: 6 PAGES: 45

									Sustainability
appraisal of the
NLWP
Report of scoping
consultation
June 2007
This document summarises the feedback from the initial
consultation about the sustainability of the North London Waste
Plan. If you require assistance with translation or need assistance
because you are blind or partially sighted, please complete and
return this form.
Albanian            Ky dokument bënë një përmbledhje të mendimeve nga
konsultimi fillestar rreth qëndrueshmërisë së Planit të Mbeturinave të Londrës
Veriore. Në qoftë se ju duhet ndihmë me përkthimin, lutemi shënoni (tick) këtë
kuti, shkruani emrin dhe adresën tuaj tek kutia në fund të këtij formulari dhe
dërgojeni tek adresa e dhënë.
                                               QuickTime™ and a
                                      TIFF (Uncompressed) decompre ssor
                                         are neede d to see this picture.




                                               QuickTime™ and a
                                      TIFF (Uncompressed) decompre ssor
                                         are neede d to see this picture.




                                             QuickTime™ and a
                                    TIFF (Uncompressed) decompre ssor
                                       are neede d to see this picture.




French         Ce document résume le feedback de la consultation initiale
concernant la soutenabilité du Plan des Déchets du Nord de Londres. Si vous
avez besoin d’une traduction, vous êtes prié de cocher cette case, d’inscrire votre
nom et adresse dans la case au bas de ce formulaire et de nous le retourner à
l’adresse montrée.
Greek 





                                        QuickTime™ and a
                              TIFF (Un compressed) decompressor
                                 are neede d to see this picture.




                                        QuickTime™ and a
                              TIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor
                                 are needed to see this picture.


 Polish        Niniejszy dokument zawiera streszczenie wyników wstępnych
konsultacji dotyczących długoterminowego wpływu Projektu Zagospodarowania
Odpadów w Północnym Londynie ( North London Waste Plan) na środowisko.
Jeśli potrzebujesz pomocy w zakresie tłumaczenia, zaznacz powyższą kratkę,
wpisz swoje imię, nazwisko i adres w puste pole w dolnej części formularza i
odeślij pod wskazany adres.
Somali       Warqaddani waxay soo koobaysaa ra’yicelinta wadatashigii hore
ee ku saabsanaa sugista qorshaha qashinka ee woqooyiga London. Haddii aad u
baahantahay taageero tarjumad ah, fadlan calaamadi sanduuqan, ku qor
magacaaga iyo cinwaankaaga sanduuqa ku yaal foomkan hoostiisa kuna soo celi
cinwaanka ku qoran.
Spanish           Este documento resume la información proveniente de la
consulta inicial realizada acerca de la sostenibilidad del plan de desechos del
norte de Londres [North London Waste Plan]. En caso de requerir traducción,
marque esta casilla, escriba su nombre y dirección en el recuadro que aparece en
la parte inferior de este formulario y envíelo a la dirección que se indica.
Turkish        Bu belge Kuzey Londra Atık Planı’nın sürdürülmesiyle ilgili
yapılan ilk müzakerenin destek bilgilerini özetlemektedir. Eğer tercümeyle ilgili
yardıma gereksinme duyarsanız, lütfen bu kutuyu işaretleyin ve bu formun
sonundaki kutuya adınızı ve soyadınızı ekledikten sonra belirtilen adrese
gönderin.

                                  QuickTime™ an d a
                         TIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor
                            are need ed to see this picture.



This document summarises the feedback
from the initial consultation about the
sustainability of the North London Waste
Plan. If you are blind or partially sighted and
require assistance with this document,
please tick this box, add your name and
address in the box at the bottom of this form
and return to the address shown.
                                                Return to:
Name_______________________
                                                Archie Onslow
Address_____________________                    Programme Manager
                                                North London Waste Plan
                                                Camden Town Hall
                                                Argyle Street
                                                London WC1H 8EQ
Sustainability appraisal of the North London Waste Plan
Report of scoping consultation

A report by CAG Consultants

June 2007


CAG CONSULTANTS
Gordon House
6 Lissenden Gardens
London NW5 1LX
Tel/fax 020 7482 8882
hq@cagconsult.co.uk
www.cagconsultants.co.uk
Contents

Contents                                                                        1

Introduction                                                                    2

Workshop 1 and follow-up questionnaire                                          3
  Aims of the workshop and questionnaire                                         3
  Attendees and respondents                                                      3
  Format of the workshop                                                         4
  Findings                                                                       5


Workshop 2 and follow-up questionnaire                                      22
  Aims of the workshop and questionnaire                                        22
  Attendees and respondents                                                     22
  Format of the workshop                                                        23
  Findings                                                                      23


Appendix A – Invitees to the Sustainability Appraisal Panel                 33

Appendix B – Questionnaire 1                                                34
  Introduction                                                                  34
  Your details                                                                  34
  Key issues                                                                    35
  Data                                                                          36
  Completed questionnaires                                                      36


Appendix B – Questionnaire 2                                                37
  Introduction                                                                  37
  Objectives, indicators and targets                                            38
  Completed questionnaires                                                      41




                                             Report of scoping consultation 1
Introduction

Mouchel Parkman and CAG Consultants are working with the seven North London
boroughs (Barnet, Camden, Enfield, Hackney, Haringey, Islington and Waltham
Forest) to produce the North London Waste Plan1. The Plan will consider all waste
in the area up to 2020 and identify sufficient sites for waste management
facilities in the area to deal with this waste, using a mix of technologies, ranging
from recycling and composting through to energy recovery and disposal.

The government require a sustainability appraisal (SA) of the North London
Waste Plan to be carried out, and the appraisal process will be central to the
process of preparing the Plan. It involves testing the Plan against an agreed set
of economic, social and environmental criteria throughout the preparation
process.

Early involvement of the key stakeholders is one of the keys to success in
undertaking a SA. A ‘Sustainability Appraisal Panel’, made up of key
stakeholders, has therefore been formed to act as an informal sounding board
throughout the SA process. The organisations invited to join the Sustainability
Appraisal Panel are listed in Appendix A. This report presents the findings from
the first stage of consultation with the Panel, which consisted of:

1. workshop 1, exploring key sustainability issues for the Plan, the implications
   of these issues for the Plan, and potential data sources relating to these
   issues;

2. a follow-up questionnaire covering the same issues as workshop 1 (see
   Appendix B), which allowed those who attended the workshop to make
   additional comments. All those stakeholders unable to attend the scoping
   workshop were also asked to complete the questionnaire;

3. workshop 2, which sought to identify appropriate sustainability appraisal
   objectives, indicators and targets; and

4. a follow-up questionnaire covering the same issues as workshop 2 (see
   Appendix C), which allowed those who attended the workshop to make
   additional comments. All those stakeholders unable to attend the scoping
   workshop were also asked to complete the questionnaire.




1
    Officially known as the North London Joint Waste Development Plan Document




                                                                    Report of scoping consultation 2
Workshop 1 and follow-up
questionnaire

Aims of the workshop and questionnaire
The aims of the workshop were as follows:

   1. Initiate a programme of sound on-going communication with key
      stakeholders in the SA process
   2. Provide an introduction to the SA process of the North London Waste Plan
   3. Gain views/feedback on key sustainability issues associated with the Plan




Attendees and respondents
The following stakeholder organisations were represented at the workshop:

      Environment Agency
      Middlesex University
      Health Protection Agency
      North London Waste Authority
      Transport for London
      GLA - Waste Policy
      London Borough of Enfield
      London Borough of Waltham Forest
      London Borough of Barnet
      London Borough of Islington
      London Borough of Camden
      London Borough of Hackney
      Lee Valley Regional Park Authority
      North Finchley LA21 Group
      British Waterways London
      Friends of the Earth

In addition, representatives of the following organisations returned
questionnaires:

      Natural England
      Transport for London
      Islington Friends of the Earth (2 responses)
      London Biodiversity Partnership
      Greater London Authority waste policy team




                                                          Report of scoping consultation 3
Format of the workshop
Sustainability appraisal is one of the key means of developing and refining policy
options. In order to help decide what the criteria for the appraisal should be, the
workshop aimed to explore all of the likely significant economic, social and
environmental impacts of the North London Waste Plan which will need to be
addressed in the appraisal.

Some initial scoping of sustainability issues for waste planning in North London
was undertaken prior to the workshop through reviewing a range of relevant
strategy documents and other economic, social and environmental information
about the area. This highlighted a number of issues as being particularly
pertinent to the waste planning process. These were summarised for the
Sustainability Appraisal Panel during the workshop.

The participants were asked to choose from one of three themed workshop
groups:

      Social, health and economic
      Environment and climate change
      Waste and transport

Each group considered a number of topics within each of these subject areas. In
the workshop groups, the participants were asked to consider the following
questions:

      Are the sustainability issues identified, the key sustainability issues in this
       topic area? Or are there others?
      What are the main implications of these issues for waste planning?
      Can you suggest any data sources for monitoring the impact of the Plan on
       these issues?

The findings from each of the workshop groups are summarised in tabular format
below, categorised according to the issues addressed.




                                                             Report of scoping consultation 4
Findings
Human health issues
Are the sustainability issues identified, the key sustainability issues in this
topic area? Or are there others?

   The key sustainability issues depend on the method of waste disposal – air pollution
    is a large problem as a result of combustion and odours can be created through
    combustion and storage. Water and noise pollution also significant.
   Issues include: pests e.g. rats, flies etc feeding on organic waste, which can cause
    local nuisance, excreta on land, buildings, waterways, disease hazards including
    Weil's disease from rodent urine in watercourses. Also seagulls can be a problem.
   Edmonton’s Incinerator is well controlled and it gets audited frequently.
   Perception is also a human health issue. Residents who live close to waste facilities
    often have a feeling of deprivation. This impacts upon a feeling of social wellbeing.
    Also impacts on business employees.
   Transportation issues lead to noise and air pollution.
   Environmental/air pollution benefits of alternative transport fuels such as waste
    derived bio-diesel, waste derived hydrogen
   Other related issues:
        a. Transport route planning and timing
        b. Compliance with transport regulations
        c. Vehicle and fuel (renewable) technologies
        d. Storage and transfer of wastes and duty of care legislation

What are the main implications of these issues for waste planning?

   The plan should have no negative impact upon human health and should make a
    positive contribution through improvements in a) water quality, by preventing
    sewerage overflow problems b) air pollution, through the avoidance of odours from
    sewerage treatment works.
   Where possible the plan should also provide opportunities for increased access to
    recreation opportunities/greenspace for the local communities in order to maximise
    the potential positive health outcomes of the project.
   Transport of waste raises human health issues. We should be looking to optimise
    existing sustainable transport methods e.g. making efficient use of river/canal and
    rail transport links. However a limiting factor could be that there are plans to
    increase passenger services on certain train lines into/out of London which could
    limit the amount of freight transportation.
   More modern transportation methods are more efficient.
   Integrated smaller schemes reduce direct transportation impact.
   New modern waste facilities will have less human health issues so less traditional
    sites/locations could be looked at.
   The health issue must be dealt with – there is already lots of legislation in place i.e.
    odours from composting etc.
   Improving acceptability of waste facilities.
   Reduce the deprivation associated with waste facilities.
   The Plan might wish to require all new facilities to undergo individual Health Impact
    Assessments.




                                                                  Report of scoping consultation 5
Can you suggest any data sources for monitoring the impact of the Plan on
these issues?

   The Department of Health
   The Faculty of Public Health
   Air quality Strategies (Local Authorities)
   Relevant studies showing impact by technology and location
   Refer to previous studies i.e. Heathrow T5
   Questionnaires


Crime
Are the sustainability issues identified, the key sustainability issues in this
topic area? Or are there others?

   Lucrativeness of waste disposal can lead to crime. Make waste disposal affordable
    and then less fly tipping will occur.
   Fly tipping is illegal – it can also lead to more crime e.g. burning cars.
   Fly tipping, in particular of toxic waste, can lead to health problems. Other
    associated impacts could be the increase of vermin.

What are the main implications of these issues for waste planning?

   The plan should not lead to any increase in crime although it is difficult to see how it
    could reduce it, though if particular schemes present an opportunity to re-model or
    re-landscape in a way that could reduce crime in an area of neighbourhood this
    should be considered a positive.
   Unregulated dumping means that no quality control measures are in place.
   Require separate facilities for recycling located close to residents, in particular
    provision for flats. This should lead to a decrease in waste associated crime.
   To decrease unregulated fly tipping, Local Authorities could introduce penalties
    and/or incentives for recycling.

Can you suggest any data sources for monitoring the impact of the Plan on
these issues?

   British Crime Surveys
   Local Authorities




                                                                  Report of scoping consultation 6
Safety
Are the sustainability issues identified, the key sustainability issues in this
topic area? Or are there others?

   Identity fraud is a big issue e.g. Bank statements left exposed in waste facilities can
    lead to crime, therefore sufficient safety mechanisms must be in place to stop this.
    Security on site is essential.
   Clinical waste is a big issue which is particularly relevant to the North London area.
   Safety issues arising from pests and diseases associated with waste.
   Safety of waste operatives should be addressed.
   Other issues:
    a. Transport movements inside and outside waste sites
    b. Loading/ unloading
    c. Vehicle access and manoeuvring
    d. Driver training and operator standards

What are the main implications of these issues for waste planning?

   There needs to be a balance between ensuring that members of the public cannot
    climb over fences and into the facilities and, turning them into fortified prisons.
   How long should waste remain outside homes before it is collected? Collection of
    rubbish needs to be adequate.
   How do we deal with commercial waste? And low level radioactive waste?
   The role of planning is limited.

Can you suggest any data sources for monitoring the impact of the Plan on
these issues?

Not addressed


Employment
Are the sustainability issues identified, the key sustainability issues in this
topic area? Or are there others?

   Perception that there are limited employment opportunities – really limited to those
    already in the industry. However, by definition, more waste facilities in London
    equals more employment.
   There are some limited employment opportunities in waste for low level skills e.g.
    manually separating waste.
   Alternative view also put forward - that there is a lot of research to evidence that
    there are significant direct and indirect employment gains, particularly in the high-
    value, creative and highly skilled areas.
   Education centres at, or neighbouring, waste sites.
   Recruitment of drivers – skills shortages for road drivers and barge operators
   Driver skills, training and standards
   Construction employment opportunities associated with new or extended facilities




                                                                 Report of scoping consultation 7
What are the main implications of these issues for waste planning?

   Manage waste locally, employ locally - an example of waste being used to
    contribute to employment is at Dagenham where 4 garages were turned into a
    green waste facility which was run by the community, for the community. Another
    example is Quaker Court in Islington which is a mini recycling centre which is
    managed locally and employs locally.
   The plan should work in conjunction with local training agencies/providers to
    identify any skills gaps and where these could be addressed, and thereby sourced,
    locally.
   A market needs to be stimulated for recyclable goods – this should be promoted,
    the goods processed and then used/sold locally. This will not only provide
    employment but should encourage recycling rates. The factories and the goods sold
    from waste could be located in industrial sites close to the waste facility which
    would encourage urban regeneration too through enhancement and further attract
    businesses.
   With better technology, less people are employed. However, also pointed out that
    this can also lead to higher skilled employment.

Can you suggest any data sources for monitoring the impact of the Plan on
these issues?

Not addressed


Urban and rural regeneration
Are the sustainability issues identified, the key sustainability issues in this
topic area? Or are there others?

   Regeneration is an important issue to consider.
   Social integration is key to contributing to regeneration.
   Waste can stimulate regeneration but it can also be negative when associated with
    a negative image/perception therefore marketing of the waste facility plays a vital
    role.
   How vocal the community is, is important. Deprived areas often have a less vocal
    community.
   Possibilities for local use of waste products, e.g. compost to improve green spaces.
   London Plan has set a target for London to be 80 per cent self-sufficient in
    municipal waste by 2020 (85 per cent self-sufficient in all waste). To meet this
    challenge, c.328 hectares additional land is required for waste management
    purposes in London between 2005-2020 (215 hectares of this is additional capacity
    not currently in waste use). The majority of this provision is anticipated to come
    from existing industrial land. (figures from GLA).




                                                                Report of scoping consultation 8
What are the main implications of these issues for waste planning?

   Siting waste facilities. In London, competition for land is extremely high. Another
    important factor to consider in the siting of waste is the existing land use of the
    land designated for new waste facilities. If, for example, a site is chosen which is
    close to residential properties but which, as it stands, is the only undeveloped piece
    of land in the vicinity, the waste facility may create a visual eyesore as this land is
    usurped. However, also suggested that well-designed facilities need not be
    eyesores.
   Land implications in respect of increased housing levels and waste need to be
    considered together with implications on biodiversity and ecology in respect of land
    take.
   Development is limited to brownfield sites in London.
   Waste needs to be dealt with locally, in particular localised “green sites”. An
    example of waste being used to contribute to regeneration is at Dagenham where 4
    garages were turned into a green waste facility which was run by the community,
    for the community.
   Education and participation is important. In Norway, the whole community got
    involved with the waste facility which processes and deals with their own waste so
    they know where it is going and what happens to it. Providing heat from the waste
    ensures that waste is seen as a resource and the community can see the whole
    benefits.
   Urban regeneration could be encouraged through the creation of a market for
    recyclable goods – this should be promoted, processed and then used/sold locally.
    This will not only provide employment but should encourage recycling rates. The
    factories and the goods sold from waste could be located in industrial sites close to
    the waste facility which would encourage urban regeneration too through
    enhancement and further attract businesses.
   Certain waste facilities could be linked with benefits e.g. CHP (Combined Heat &
    Power) generation to broadband Internet. This encourages social integration.
   High unemployment areas could be tapped into through the location of waste
    facilities.
   The incentive is high because of the increasing “waste” taxes.
   Impact of Section 106 Agreements.
   The plan should work in conjunction with other existing regeneration initiatives or
    schemes operating in the areas concerned in order to maximise the social,
    environmental and economic benefits of the scheme. Examples, from an
    environmental perspective, could include the Green Grid, GLA’s Areas of Deficiency
    etc.

Can you suggest any data sources for monitoring the impact of the Plan on
these issues?

   Existing regeneration plans.
   Consult the index of multiple deprivation – how have areas linked to waste facilities
    performed in recent years.




                                                                  Report of scoping consultation 9
Waste market – growth and competitiveness
Are the sustainability issues identified, the key sustainability issues in this
topic area? Or are there others?

   Increase in recycling/composting and self-sufficiency means that market is rapidly
    expanding.
   Major economic/legislative drivers such as the rising landfill tax, rising haulage
    costs, rising virgin material prices, the international market for recyclables etc.
   City Fringe Issues – the growth agenda is about mixed uses i.e. office space,
    housing, university expansion, retail growth.
   Consideration of economics on viability is essential to help determine the suitability
    of a site.

What are the main implications of these issues for waste planning?

   Need to use waste facilities as a source for attracting other business.
   Commercial waste is not controlled, so it is open to the market.

Can you suggest any data sources for monitoring the impact of the Plan on
these issues?

Not addressed




                                                                Report of scoping consultation 10
Air
Are the sustainability issues identified, the key sustainability issues in this
topic area? Or are there others?

     Methane gas, a by product of landfills, is a major contributor to greenhouse gases.
     Pollution from transport involved in collecting/transporting waste. There are issues
      from the whole area but pollution from the industrial zone in the east is of particular
      concern.
     Key areas for air pollution from A41, M1, North Circular, A1000. However, with the
      development of cleaner engines the amount of pollution is reducing. However, this
      will be offset by 35,000 news homes being built and their respective cars. Also
      need to consider increased amount of waste.
     Couple of sites (unnamed) around Wembley have dust problems as a result of poor
      management
     Odour can be an issue with existing sites particularly badly run composting sites.
      There is an associated health risk from bio-aerosols. This won’t be satisfactory near
      development of facilities near Olympic sites
     Possibility of heavy metal pollution - both land and air - from industrial waste sites.
     How to deal with cumulative effects that arise from the impact of one SA topic on
      another or as a consequence of related development e.g. Olympics / Lee Valley
      regeneration corridor.
     Not clear if baseline info is good enough (public and private statistics) and difficult
      to say with certainty how much of air quality problems are due to transportation of
      waste.
     It is unknown what kind of vehicles will be used to move waste or if it needs to go
      by road. Look at barges in the Lee navigation. Size and frequency of movement is
      also an issue. Could have lots of small facilities and small vehicles resembling milk
      floats
     Issue of juxtaposition of industry and sites of natural beauty in the Lee Valley. Few
      people resident in these areas that can object to developments. Waste arising from
      industrial sites needs to be considered when allocating sites for industrial use.
     Special regulations for containment of CFCs to prevent release from waste sites.
      Need to look wider than CFCs - where do substances that can't be treated in usual
      sites within the plan area go, asbestos for example? All related compounds have to
      be contained. However, there will never be hazardous waste landfill sites in north
      London although there may be hazardous waste treatment facilities.
     Need to bear in mind the London Low Emission Zone (LEZ)




                                                                  Report of scoping consultation 11
What are the main implications of these issues for waste planning?

   How to balance NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) objections against the advantages
    that could arise from local processing of waste to minimise transport related effects
   How to reduce km travelled by waste
   Waste likely to arise from proposed new housing development in plan area
   To what extent will plan address waste reduction and potential for waste reduction?
   What will be the impact of introduction of new technology?
   What are the impacts of transport of hazardous waste outside the plan area for
    treatment?
   The plan should aim to improve overall air quality near to treatment works and
    minimise the visual pollutant to the surrounding area caused during and post-
    implementation. In addition, the scheme should also work to ensure that there is no
    additional noise or air pollution generated during the scheme by additional site
    traffic by looking for alternative mechanisms for transporting goods and materials
    required where this is possible, for example via the use-re-use of local canal
    networks and navigable rivers.

Can you suggest any data sources for monitoring the impact of the Plan on
these issues?

Not addressed


Noise
Are the sustainability issues identified, the key sustainability issues in this
topic area? Or are there others?

   Very few "tranquil" areas within the Plan area.
   If facilities located near industrial sites the noise will impact on workers.
   Need to look at hours of operation.
   Need information about the type of noise that different types of facilities create.
    Recycling can be noisy (machinery, bottle banks etc.)
   Could it be mitigated by insulation? In fact it's no different from ordinary industrial
    process so perhaps a good idea to put alongside industrial facilities.
   Bring back reusable bottles!
   Mechanical street sweepers can disturb people more than a broom!
   The scope of the plan deals with management of waste not with the collection.
   If waste is pre-sorted, there will be less mrfs (materials reclamation facility) to
    procure (and therefore less noise)

What are the main implications of these issues for waste planning?

   Co-location of noisy waste management activity with other noise generating
    activities e.g. industrial areas, railway lines




                                                                 Report of scoping consultation 12
Can you suggest any data sources for monitoring the impact of the Plan on
these issues?

   Do we have information about noise levels within the plan area? The CPRE (Council
    for the Protection of Rural England) tranquillity maps are dated. Not sure if DEFRA
    (Department for the Environment, Food & Rural Affairs) noise mapping project is to
    do with transport rather than other sources?


Water resources
Are the sustainability issues identified, the key sustainability issues in this
topic area? Or are there others?

   Ground water - area significant for supply from ground water.
   Serious groundwater hazard if objects containing toxic material are sent to landfill.
    These should be dealt with by site itself. E.g. batteries, compact fluorescent tubes.
    If they go to a modern site there should be no problem.
   Risk from River Lee flooding. There will be strategic flood risk assessment as part of
    the Plan-making process.
   Could be secondary impact on surface water. Pollutants released through transport
    of waste and spillages on site.
   What about surface water and sewage flooding as a result of more short spells of
    intensive rain? How does it relate to waste facilities?
   Need to increase number of rain water retention tanks to try and stop flash
    flooding. The cause of the flooding is lack of capacity of the public surface water
    sewers during and after heavy storms. But will start breaking down through lack of
    maintenance.
   Environment Agency is looking to Boroughs to identify flood storage areas (over the
    next 40-50 years). Could consider use of land allocated for waste facilities in this
    context i.e. later use as part of flood storage capacity
   Flood risk - high rises expected in next 50 years. Need different approaches
    dependent on sea level rises.
   Waterborne transport of waste. Look for facilities near the river.
   Short term facility could be developed in areas likely to be subject to flooding the
    future and then dismantle the facility when the area floods. This could result in
    problems of serious contamination. A recycling plant for glass or metal would be
    ok. See PPS25.
   There is no plan dealing with waste water management but there is one for sludge
    that has become hazardous waste.
   Need to monitor fly tipping impacts on land and water.
   To what extent is plan going to cope with emerging technologies for which there are
    no proper collection systems in place?
   Biodiversity value - still need water available for wetlands and need to ensure no
    adverse effect on water quality - surface or ground.
   PCBs should be considered a water pollution issue.
   Any scope to recycle nitrogen- or phosphorus- rich output from organic waste and
    waste water, for fertilizer applications, will reduce progressive pollution by such
    chemicals.




                                                               Report of scoping consultation 13
What are the main implications of these issues for waste planning?

   What about things such as batteries that slip through the net? Modern landfills
    should be lined and designed to accommodate the small proportion of things that do
    slip through the net.
   There are no landfill facilities in North London and never will be.
   Need for special facilities for certain types of waste e.g. fluorescent tubes
   The Lee Valley is highly dependent on maintenance of water supply and water
    quality
   No waste facility should have adverse effects on surface water or groundwater
    quality
   Brownfield land (after remediation) should be considered for location of waste
    facilities

Can you suggest any data sources for monitoring the impact of the Plan on
these issues?

   Environment Agency should have up to date and accurate information about
    flooding.
   Phil Ackerley, Environment Agency has information on fly-tipping impacts on land
    and water [Phil Ackerley to pass on info to Mouchel Parkman].


Land and soil
Are the sustainability issues identified, the key sustainability issues in this
topic area? Or are there others?

   London Plan promotes mixed-use development and the strategic co-location of
    waste producers/waste facilities.
   Could manage the sites so that half is left for biodiversity and half used.
   Where are all the brownfield sites? Can ex industrial sites be used for recreational
    use (next to river for example)?
   Issue of re-use of materials from brownfield sites.

What are the main implications of these issues for waste planning?

   Brownfield land or contaminated land - ideal opportunity to clean it up and use. Lee
    Valley Regional Park was contaminated land and has been turned around.

Can you suggest any data sources for monitoring the impact of the Plan on
these issues?

Not addressed




                                                               Report of scoping consultation 14
Biodiversity
Are the sustainability issues identified, the key sustainability issues in this
topic area? Or are there others?

   Plan area includes 6 Sites of Special Scientific Interest, 20 nature reserves, Epping
    Forest, Lee Valley
   Where does Hampstead Heath fit in this?
   Assessment of plan for the Lee Valley. Can we demonstrate how the plan will affect
    it? We can identify some sites that would be ok for some waste not others.
   This plan needs to be developed in combination with the other plans.
   Need to check that proposals don't fall foul of the Habitats Directive.
   Containment of wastes and leachates (transport vehicles, containers and storage).

What are the main implications of these issues for waste planning?

   Buffer zones around areas of biodiversity interest
   Identify types of facility that could be located close to European designated areas
    without any impact on their integrity
   Cumulative impacts require assessment
   Enhance biodiversity where possible. Need to beware of over-santizing for the sake
    of human health goals. Need to choose the most humane method of pest control
    where necessary. The plan has the potential to make a significant local contribution
    to both the London Biodiversity Partnerships habitats and species condition and
    expansion targets for 2015 and the GLA’s own London Plan targets for priority
    London habitats. The plan should actively seek out ways in which it can increase
    biodiversity, especially where the resultant improved quality of the environment and
    greenspace can increase opportunities for local people living and working in areas of
    deficiency to gain access to the natural environment. This is not only beneficial for
    wildlife but also for the health and well being of local communities.
   Natural England cautiously recognise need for new or expanded sites, although
    there will need to be strenuous discussion as to the need for certain sites, and
    confirmation that all other suitable sites have been considered. Support for and
    recommendation to the reinstatement of lost green belt or metropolitan land will
    also need to be confirmed together with any potential risks to wildlife habitats.
    Species surveys for both flora and fauna will need to be carried out in advance of
    any approved site considerations/planning applications and strong consideration will
    need to be given to PPS 9 – Biodiversity.

Can you suggest any data sources for monitoring the impact of the Plan on
these issues?

   All boroughs are doing their own SA/SEAs for other plans and programmes. So
    much of the same type of info is being collected and we need a database that
    covers it all.
   Greenspace Information for Greater London (GiGL) act as London’s records centre.
    They have information and data on habitat type, species, landuse, geology, and
    greenspace amenities. They can be contacted on 020 7803 4278.




                                                               Report of scoping consultation 15
Climate change
Are the sustainability issues identified, the key sustainability issues in this
topic area? Or are there others?

   Problem of methane. There could be release of other gases from waste which could
    impact on climate change. Could affect decomposition of waste whilst waiting to be
    transferred.
   Cities tend to be hotter than surroundings. Landscaping around waste sites/facilities
    could be used to offset the ‘heat island’ effect.
   Nuisance issue of less frequent collection of waste.
   Green roofs and space between buildings.
   Edmonton incinerator exports electricity.
   A waste to energy plant was discussed previously but there was no funding
    available.
   CO2 emissions - make sure waste not contributing more waste. Suggested that
    better to avoid anaerobic but promote aerobic, although London Plan promotes
    anaerobic digestion as a treatment method.
   CO2 from transport use.
   Local authority collection vehicles are more energy efficient (evidence for this
    questioned). Needs to be covered in SA but can't put in target if no baseline data.
   Fuel efficiency of waste vehicles, types of fuels, levels of modal switch and journey
    planning all important.
   Carbon footprint of waste sites.
   Increasing flood risk resulting from climate change is an issue in the siting of
    facilities.
   Opportunity to create renewable (depending on feedstock) energy from waste,
    which is essential in the battle against climate change. Edmonton plant generates
    energy but in a very inefficient way in comparison to advanced technologies such as
    gasification/anaerobic digestion.
   Opportunities for local decentralized energy production.
   There are potential ‘whole world’ climate benefits of some processing actions, e.g..
    maximum reclamation of aluminium cans from waste has particular benefit because
    the emissions saved by producing a can from recycled material are relatively high
    compared with its production from raw material.

What are the main implications of these issues for waste planning?

   Application of sustainable design principles in construction of waste management
    facilities
   Develop CHP systems using energy within waste management facility
   Consider good practice examples elsewhere e.g. Woking

Can you suggest any data sources for monitoring the impact of the Plan on
these issues?

   London Climate change Action Plan
    http://www.london.gov.uk/mayor/environment/climate-change/ccap/index.jsp
   The Mayor will shortly be releasing a piece of research which assesses the
    greenhouse gas emissions from different waste treatment technologies which
    should be fed into this research




                                                               Report of scoping consultation 16
Sustainable waste management
Are the sustainability issues identified, the key sustainability issues in this
topic area? Or are there others?

   Waste minimisation and re-use are key. Need for a publicity campaign to raise
    awareness.
   Need to consider the various European Union waste directives e.g. End of Life
    Vehicles, WEEE (EC Directive on Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment) etc.
   Household waste gets the most attention, but it is only 1/4 of the total waste
    produced. Need to focus more on Construction & Demolition (re-use on site,
    including on-site treatment) and Commercial & Industrial waste streams.
   Is the recyclates market in North London substantial? This has a large effect on the
    value of recycling.
   Will the residual waste and the some of the recyclates still need to be transported
    outside the region? Opportunities for modal shift?
   Promotion of waste derived fuels, including supply chain development to support
    this.
   We operate in an international marketplace for recyclates. There are also important
    inter-regional opportunities.

What are the main implications of these issues for waste planning?

   Commercial waste holds the biggest challenge. Getting hold of the supply chain and
    implementing strategies to deal with that waste, increase recycling, reduce
    transportation etc. Currently for example on a shopping parade each different shop
    will have a different waste contractor. Encouraging joined-up working between
    shops will have large impacts on the management of commercial waste.
   With commercial waste, need to address the issue of the balance in costs of
    disposal against recycling. Environmentally responsible disposal methods need to be
    more economically viable than landfill to make them an attractive option. Corporate
    Social Responsibility will control the management of the Commercial & Industrial
    waste stream.
   Education is needed to encourage movement up the waste hierarchy; however this
    must be supported by the appropriate facilities for reuse and recycling. New
    facilities could include the provision of education centres.
   Natural England is supportive of the waste hierarchy and commends the
    consideration of tightening/strengthening/encouraging the recycling and reuse of
    Construction and Demolition waste at or near construction sites, and would support
    these policies being taken forward.
   Should consider biogas from waste, and consider thermal depolymerisation systems
    which output biogas, liquid fuel and liquid fertilizer from a variety of soft organic
    wastes as well as from waste rubber.




                                                               Report of scoping consultation 17
Can you suggest any data sources for monitoring the impact of the Plan on
these issues?

   Transport for London currently have a programme encouraging retail to work
    together with service and delivery plans (covering many issues not just waste).
   For commercial waste targets are needed, forcing individual boroughs to do
    something.
   Mayor’s Plan for business waste
    http://www.london.gov.uk/mayor/environment/waste/business_waste.jsp
   ‘Creating a Recycling Loop for London: Part B Report – Evidence Base’, London
    Development Agency, June 2006.
   GLA have produced a new report (available next week) on greenhouse gases and
    climate change and the impacts of each type of technology. The plan will need to
    set out the facts of what the considered technologies effects will be on greenhouse
    gases and climate change.


Sustainable waste facility design
Are the sustainability issues identified, the key sustainability issues in this
topic area? Or are there others?

   The health impacts of different technologies and facility designs need to be carefully
    considered and made available. This is linked with the issues of public perception
    around waste facilities.
   Land take is a key issue in North London. There is a need to consider lots of
    different options for site sizes, location, etc. This is a planning issue.

What are the main implications of these issues for waste planning?

   North London needs to reduce the amount of waste (approx 700,000 to 1 milllion
    tonnes of waste being transported out of London by 2020. This is one of the main
    issues.
   The lack of available, suitably sized sites in good locations across North London
   The North London Waste Strategy adopted by the 7 boroughs has the main aims of
    increasing recycling across the boroughs, using biological treatment of waste, and
    using other treatment methods (e.g. Energy from Waste, pyrolysis, gasification).
   The Mayor’s Municipal Waste Management Strategy highlights the role of the waste
    industry in meeting decentralised alternative energy sources targets. Need to
    evaluate what the impacts of producing energy are.
   Waste contractors need to have incentives to build more sustainable facilities, and
    facilities which treat waste further up the waste hierarchy.
   Facilities (e.g. Materials Reclamation Facilities) need to have quality sorting facilities
    in order to produce good quality end streams which can be used effectively. This
    would minimise the amount of sorting which is done overseas.
   What policy drivers are in place in setting the targets?
   Need to ensure compliance with PPS 1 and PPS 10




                                                                  Report of scoping consultation 18
Can you suggest any data sources for monitoring the impact of the Plan on
these issues?

   Life cycle analysis of different facility types.
   The GLA/LDA and Design for London are planning a project this year to produce
    waste facility best practice design guidance


Sustainable transport
Are the sustainability issues identified, the key sustainability issues in this
topic area? Or are there others?

   Huge amounts of waste are transported outside of London for landfill. The Mayor’s
    Waste Strategy will mean that this needs to be reduced (in 2010, 2015, 2020).
   Waterborne and rail transport need to be considered as options. London Waste is
    actively looking at transporting waste by water. British Waterways are already
    transporting some waste for composting at the London Waste site at Edmonton.
    Edmonton is not the only site on the canal that waste could be taken to.
   Bio-fuels produced from waste could be used in transportation. Need for
    development of supply chain.
   The use of multi-modal collection vehicles should be considered.
   Potential sharing of new and existing facilities for e.g. MSW and C&I wastes –
    consolidation.
   Transportation of residual wastes and recyclates outside the region will continue
    and needs to be considered.

What are the main implications of these issues for waste planning?

   Use of the Canals as waste transportation methods means that sites would need to
    be secured along the canals in the future. This would be in competition with
    recreation, housing developers, and other users of the canals, this could push the
    prices up. More than one site would be needed in order to get access to the site for
    loading waste. It would also be good to have reprocessors located on the canals.
   As road congestion increases and fewer trips are able to be completed in a day,
    transport by water looks more favourable. Road haulage was previously a cheap
    method of transport, however, the impacts of congestion are pushing the prices up.
    This will be increased significantly if road pricing comes in.
   Suggested that the ability of sites/facilities to process varying forms of waste would
    allow for greater flexibility and a reduction in the number of sites and land take.
    Suggested that this should be considered, as this will also help alleviate some of the
    waste mileage travelled. Suggested that central multi use sites/facilities preferable
    to a number of satellite facilities spread around the joint waste area.
   Need for journey planning and transport assessments.
   New schemes should take opportunities to improve provision of sustainable
    transport options in the area, e.g. provision of cycle routes.




                                                               Report of scoping consultation 19
Can you suggest any data sources for monitoring the impact of the Plan on
these issues?

   Pan London Construction and Waste Transport Modelling (Start: 9 th May 2007) –
    This project will develop a model that will hold key logistics and waste management
    data on the movement of all wastes across the Capital. The model will provide
    the key information which will support sustainable waste transport planning at a
    strategic and tactical level enhancing sustainable construction and waste
    management practices. Construction & Demolition waste will be included as a 1 st
    phase (September 2007) with other streams, Commercial & Industrial and Municipal
    Solid Waste, being added later. The model will include all landfill sites that
    Construction & Demolition waste is taken to, even outside of the London area.
   There are a number of studies on the West London Canal Network and the River Lee
    that may also be of use. A number of these are available for downloading on the
    web site on www.tfl.gov.uk/freight. More recent studies will be made available on
    request.


Access
Are the sustainability issues identified, the key sustainability issues in this
topic area? Or are there others?

   The options for communities sites (Household Waste Recycling Centres) are either
    lots of little local sites or fewer further spread out larger sites. At present there is
    approximately 1 civic amenity site per borough. There are more mini recycling sites
    (e.g. bottle banks in supermarket car parks) in North London with approximately 1
    within 1000m of every residential property.

What are the main implications of these issues for waste planning?

   The use of waterborne transport would result in less environmental impacts.
    Reductions in noise, air pollution, and road accidents, which are associated with
    waste transport by road, would be likely. There would be no detrimental effects to
    water quality if this was properly managed. Potential odour problems could be
    mitigated if biodegradable waste is transported in sealed containers.
   If waste isn’t properly managed and controlled this could result in increased fly-
    tipping incidents.

Can you suggest any data sources for monitoring the impact of the Plan on
these issues?

Not addressed


General issues raised
During the plenary discussions, a number of more general issues were raised:

   The SA needs to address impacts on cultural heritage, including impact of emissions
    on sites and structures. There may also be opportunities to improve access to
    cultural heritage.




                                                                 Report of scoping consultation 20
   The SA needs to deal with the linkages between the different topic areas e.g.
    transport issues impact on air quality / noise etc.
   The SA needs to feed effectively into the plan making process (it needs to be
    integrated and things arising from the SA discussions need to be taken into account
    by the planning team)
   The Plan must deal with emerging technologies
   Timescales are important. The Plan runs to 2020 but must not compromise the
    subsequent use of land.
   The interface between collection/disposal is an important issue.
   What are the cumulative impacts of the Plan with the separate borough spatial
    planning initiatives, SFRA/FRA etc. There is a need to integrate the relevant
    datasets used for SA/SEA at borough level and at the Waste DPD level.
   The impact of the Olympics as generator of wastes needs to be considered (direct,
    indirect, cumulative and synergistic effects).
   The SA needs to address equalities impacts.
   Mayor’s plan for business waste
    http://www.london.gov.uk/mayor/environment/waste/business_waste.jsp and the
    SEA/SA and HIA reports accompanying this, might help in the assessment of issues.




                                                             Report of scoping consultation 21
Workshop 2 and follow-up
questionnaire

Aims of the workshop and questionnaire
The aims of the workshop were as follows:

   1. continue the on-going communication with statutory consultees and other
      relevant stakeholders on the SA;
   2. present the findings of the key sustainability issues identified;
   3. present and discuss the proposed SA objectives; and
   4. provide an opportunity to discuss the indicators, targets and trends for the
      SA objectives.




Attendees and respondents
The following stakeholder organisations were represented at the workshop:

      Environment Agency
      Friends of the Earth
      Health Protection Agency
      North London Waste Authority
      LB Islington
      Transport for London
      LB Waltham Forest
      Natural England
      North London Business
      LB Camden
      London Rail
      LB Barnet
      Lee Valley Regional Park Authority
      North Finchley LA21 Group
      LB Camden
      LB Enfield
      LB Hackney
      LB Haringey

In addition, representatives of the following organisations returned
questionnaires:

      Greater London Authority waste policy team (2 responses)
      London Biodiversity Partnership
      North London Waste Authority
      Natural England
      Environment Agency




                                                            Report of scoping consultation 22
Format of the workshop
Following workshop 1, the consultancy team prepared draft sustainability
appraisal objectives relating to the key sustainability issues identified. These
were summarised for the Sustainability Appraisal Panel during the workshop. The
workshop provided an opportunity to discuss the proposed SA objectives,
indicators and targets, which will provide the framework for the appraisal work.

The participants were asked to choose from one of three themed workshop
groups, covering:

       Social objectives
       Environment objectives
       Economic objectives

In the workshop groups, the participants were asked to consider the following
questions:

       Do you think the draft SA objectives are sufficient for the NLWP?
       Do you agree that these objectives can be achieved?
       What indicators, targets and trends are needed to meet the SA objectives?

The findings from each of the workshop groups relating to each of the draft
objectives are summarised in tabular format below.




Findings
No. Draft objective
1   To create conditions to improve health of community and workers, and reduce
    health inequalities
  A Health Impact Assessment (HIA) was undertaken for the Low Emission Zone
   (LEZ). This could provide some useful baseline information.
  This objective is also covered indirectly within other objectives i.e. environment,
   transport.
  Could use indicators around air quality, rates of adult and infant
   mortality/morbidity, life expectancy, number of complaints to Environmental Health,
   accident numbers and from resident’s attitude surveys which all London Borough’s
   contribute to. MORI polls would also provide useful info. Could also look at number
   of days off sick. The occupational work risk is covered within transport assessments
   so these could be referred to.
  PCTs would be good sources of information.

2    To reduce waste related crime and fear of crime
   This is concerned primarily with fly tipping and duty of care issues. The Freight plan
    covers both these issues down to a borough level. Compliance issues are also an
    factor – “what is perceived as waste crime?”
   What does ‘fear of crime’ mean? Torching abandoned cars can also contribute to
    waste related fear of crime. Perhaps it is an issue in relation to perception and not




                                                                Report of scoping consultation 23
    fear? The wording is too strong – it is about tackling negative perceptions of waste
    crime. Replace ‘fear of crime’ with ‘public perception of crime’.
   Indicators could be identified through Environment Agency statistics, surveys (no.
    of complaints made and dealt with, no. of fly-tipping incidents etc), Met Police
    statistics.

3    To actively challenge discrimination against all marginalised groups in a consistent
     and comprehensive way
   Objectives 3 and 4 are closely linked. There are only two areas of discrimination –
    education and employment. The location of the waste facility will be an issue within
    this objective.
   Remove “against all marginalised groups”.
   This objective will be hard to measure. Both 3 and 4 could be measured in terms of
    the number of ethnic minorities employed in certain jobs (measuring the skills base
    of ethnic minority communities). Look at the no. of people employed in the local
    area.

4    To tackle poverty and social exclusion
   Refer to social ‘inclusion’ rather than ‘exclusion’ – use positive rather than negative
    words.
   Add: ‘…through contributing to reducing poverty and promoting employment’.
   Indicators: from employment indices, percentage of people in receipt of benefits.
   See comments on objective 3.

5    To improve safety for operators and the community
   There are schemes in the Freight Plan to improve driver standards. Occupational
    fatality is 10x worse with waste transport than any transport. Waste, Industry,
    Safety and Health (WISH) group of the HSE is undertaking a campaign on the
    health and safety of waste operators. Freight vehicles are heavy and cyclists are
    particularly vulnerable to being squashed by them. This objective is directly related
    to the km travelled by waste.
   Possibly merge objectives 5 and 1, then have sub-objectives? However these issues
    would be treated separately by Transport for London (TFL) so merging them is not
    necessarily a good idea.
   Look at road statistics on the TFL website (causes of accidents).
   Possible indicator: No. of accidents for operators (information from the Health &
    Safety Executive)

6    To improve the image of North London as an exemplary sustainable part of the city
   Is this objective really relevant? Could this objective reflect a standard-setting
    exercise that can be compared with other cities (sustainable waste management)?
    This is all about perception. The look of the facility improves perception/local
    quality. External perception –shows that people are taking responsibility for their
    own waste.
   ‘North London’ is not precise – need to specifically state the area that the plan
    concerns, i.e. the North London Waste Authority area.
   Environmental quality is measured by the Local Authorities’ corporate plans. The
    quantity of waste leaving the district could be a measure of how sustainable the city
    is, together with the amount of landfill tax paid.
   Other suggested indicators: Carbon footprint of new waste developments; emission
    levels from the facility (information from technology supplier).
   Suggested target: Compliance with regulatory standards and recognised industry




                                                                 Report of scoping consultation 24
    good practice.

7    To protect, manage and, where necessary, improve local environmental quality
   Objectives 7 and 8 more closely tied than 6 and 7. Objective 7 could describe 8 and
    have indicators contained within.
   Suggested indicators: SSSI’s with agreed Management Plans in place, number of
    Parks with Green Flag status.
   Environmental Health stats to measure vermin. Noise and vibration could be
    measured and recorded (part of licenses). Perception surveys could be used to
    measure improvements in the local environmental quality. Complaints made would
    provide an indicator (approval ratings). The health of the population could also be
    measured by looking at respiratory infections/diseases.
   Greenspace Information for Greater London (GIGL) for the provision of biodiversity
    data including details of statutory and non-statutory sites, distribution of protected
    species and location of habitats and species of nature conservation value. GIGL has
    a sizeable and rapidly expanding database of biodiversity and other green-space
    data.
   Environment Agency data on air quality and water quality.

8    To minimise noise, dust, light, vermin and odour impacts for example
   Add ‘vibration’ impacts.
   Please refer to comments on objective 7.
   Suggested target: Compliance with regulatory standards and recognised industry
    good practice.
   Information from technology suppliers for new facilities.

9    To maintain, restore, enhance the quality of open spaces in North London, to
     create new open space as appropriate, and to ensure that access to open space
     and the wider public realm is maintained
   London Boroughs have open space deficiency maps.
   This objective is very wordy – needs to be more concise. Access to open space is
    also important. Could objectives 9 and 10 be merged? Other opinion suggested that
    they should remain separate as they are dealing with different elements. Open
    space is an important issue on its own.
   Indicators could include hectares of land removed/replaced, location of facilities,
    PROW (increase/decrease), Brownfield sites restored, land take required by new
    developments.
   Other indicator: Ability to meet the objectives contained within the GLA’s Areas of
    deficiency strategy on access to greenspace in London (this identifies greenspaces
    across London – incl North London – that could be improved and made more
    accessible to ensure Londoners have greater access to high quality green space)
   Possible targets: Ensure that all borough greenspaces covered in the waste plan
    area achieve greenflag status and are brought up to Borough grade 1 status; lowest
    possible land-take per tonne of waste treated.
   Monitoring information from GLA Parks and Greenspaces Forum, London
    Biodiversity Partnership Parks and Open Spaces Habitat Action Plan, technology
    suppliers for new facilities.
   Natural England believes that local authorities should consider the provision of
    natural areas as part of a balanced policy to ensure that local communities have
    access to an appropriate mix of greenspaces providing for a range of recreational
    needs, of at least 2 hectares of accessible natural green-space per 1,000 population
    (ANGST standards). This can be broken down by the following system:




                                                                Report of scoping consultation 25
       No person should live more than 300 metres from their nearest area of natural
         green-space;
       There should be at least one accessible 20 hectare site within 2 kilometres;
       There should be one accessible 100 hectares site within 5 kilometres;
       There should be one accessible 500 hectares site within 10 kilometres.

10    To encourage sustainable development that is compact and mixed use as
      appropriate with improved accessibility to key local services and amenity, reducing
      the need to travel
    Possible indicator: Accessibility of services i.e. is there a bus stop near the recycling
     points? What is the distance travelled to the nearest waste facility?
    Who is this objective targeting? If targeted at the community then this is ok but if
     at operators then this is questionable. This is similar to objective 17 – link these two
     together.

11    To maximise opportunities of and benefits for regeneration through waste
      management activities
    This is a social inclusion and resource issue (training and employment). Social
     inclusion is covered elsewhere.
    Avoid the use of the word “regeneration” and replace with the word “development”
     (not everywhere will be deprived and not everywhere will be regenerated).
    This is a big objective – perhaps objectives 4 and 9 could be sub-objectives of this
     one? Other viewpoints suggested that equality needed to be kept separately as it
     should be highlighted. Could this be linked to objectives 9 and 10?
    Indicators could include looking at what the site was used for previously.

12     To support voluntary and community networks, assist social inclusion and ensure
       community involvement in decision making for waste planning
    Better to refer to ‘ensure active voluntary and community engagement’ rather than
     ‘support voluntary and community networks’.
    This objective should be more about community involvement. Social inclusion is
     covered by objective 4 so ‘assist social inclusion and ensure community
     involvement’ could be removed. This is also about community/public perception.
    It’s worth taking a look at the Scottish planning system where they are focusing on
     promoting more community involvement.
    For indicators, could look at figures from consultation events i.e. which community
     groups/organisations attended, methods of communication.

13 To provide opportunities for waste education and awareness raising
  This is similar to objective 11 but education value of facilities is a good one to
   include.
  As indicators, the no. of school visits, no. and types of courses offered (facilities
   with education options) and recycling volumes coming back (awareness of recycling,
   facilities utilised and targets achieved) could be used.
  Suggested target: every site to have visitor/education facilities that are
   commensurate with the scale of the development.

14    To reduce the need to travel and improve choice and use of more sustainable
      transport modes
    80% of climate change impact is reduced by rail and river/canal transport.
    This is not very well worded. Travel impacts are covered in objectives 10, 17 and 18
     – important aspect is sustainable travel.




                                                                  Report of scoping consultation 26
    This objective should be removed.

15 To reduce the kilometres travelled by waste
  This concerns journey planning. Modelling logistics software show a 10-30% saving
   on distance travelled through effective planning.
  Conflict between objectives 15 and 16?
  Possible indicators: % of population living within 3km of an Household Waste
   Recycling Centre; distance travelled by waste adjusted for method of transport to
   account for differences in transport methods.
  Target should be about minimising the kilometres travelled.
  Information from Transport for London.

16 To minimise the impacts of waste related transport
  Possible indicator: Increased level of waste transported by canal/boat. Possible
   target: 25% of all waste to be transported by boat/canal. Information from British
   Waterways.

17   To focus development at locations which are currently well served by public
     transport with spare existing capacity, walking or cycling, or at locations where
     improvements are planned to achieve increases in their modal share
No comments

18 To improve investment in and use of sustainable rail and water freight transport
  Possible indicator: Increased level of waste transported by water/rail. Target to
   increase above current levels.
  Information from Transport for London.

19 To protect and enhance biodiversity
  Suggested indicator: Increase in quantity and quality of habitats and species found
   within the Borough. Could link into the 2015 targets for the London Biodiversity
   Action Plan (currently being prepared) or the GLA’s draft London plan targets
   [increase Acid Grassland by 20Ha, heathland by 30Ha, woodland by 20Ha, meadows
   and pastures by 20Ha, restore 15km of rivers and streams, ensure 10Ha of
   wasteland habitat are included in new development sites]
  Other possible indicators: Area of Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation; Area
   of wildlife habitat created around waste sites; Condition of designated sites and
   those of local importance; Changes in population of species in BAPs
  Possible target: No net loss due to implementation of the Waste Plan.
  Information from London Biodiversity Partnership, Greater London Authority
   Biodiversity team and www.magic.gov.uk
  See ANGST standards (objective 9)

20    To increase tree cover as appropriate and ensure active and sustainable
      management of existing woodland
    General view that this would be better fitted as an indicator for the biodiversity
     objective (19)
    This needs thinking about in terms of why this objective is there. Do not want
     increased tree cover in areas where a more appropriate habitat could be promoted
     for which tree planting would have a detrimental impact i.e. meadows/river &
     stream improvements etc. Tree removal may be needed in some instances. This
     qualification, however, does not apply to street trees.
    Could link into the London Biodiversity Woodland Habitat action plan and relevant




                                                                Report of scoping consultation 27
     Borough Biodiversity Action Plans.
    Possible target: contribute to London target to increase area of Woodland by 20Ha
     by 2015. Suggest aim for between 5-10ha target. Ensure all existing woodland sites
     covered in the strategy area are brought into condition.
    Information from London Biodiversity Partnership Woodland Habitat Action Plan.

21    To protect and improve water quality including river and canal ecological and
      amenity qualities
    Feeling that this is a bit detailed. Replace with "To protect and improve surface and
     ground water quality". Specific reference to ‘…river and canal..’ may be
     unnecessary. River and canal ecological and amenity qualities could then be used as
     an indicator.
    EA have data on water quality.
    However, how much will the DPD have the potential to affect water quality –
     possibly through promotion of water-borne transportation of waste.
    If an old facility is to be removed and a new one built, EA request that river banks
     are left free for fishing, but this is not a legal requirement. Along the Thames
     there's a formal distance within which you shouldn't develop. May be something
     similar on the River Lee.
    Suggested indicators: Groundwater quality and quantity, General Quality
     Assessment (GQA) biological and chemical grades of rivers, Number of pollution
     incidents (info on all these from EA)
    Could use the quality indicators for habitat improvement quality in the London
     Biodiversity Partnership Rivers and Streams, and Canals habitat action plan.
    Possible targets: At least 5km of rivers restored; biodiversity enhancement works
     undertaken along 5km of canals.
    Information from Greenspace Information for Greater London (GiGL), British
     Waterways, Environment Agency and Lee Valley Park Authority.

22 To encourage sustainable use of water
  This can probably be deleted given that it is picked up by 36. The water efficiency of
   facilities being built should also be picked up in 38.
  Suggested indicators: Daily water consumption per capita, % of developments with
   water efficiency measures.

23 To avoid development that will impact on areas at high risk from flooding.
  This is a subset of the following objective (24).
  Under PPS25 certain types of development may be allowed in areas of high flood
   risk. The draft wording may be too strong.
  Suggested indicators: developments within EA Flood Zone 3, number of applications
   subject to an objection from EA on flood risk grounds (info on both from EA)

24 To mitigate and adapt to climate change including flood risk
  Crossover with 24
  Suggested indicators: Creation of flood storage areas on land at high risk of flooding
   in the form of new parkland/habitat; Developments incorporating sustainable
   drainage; Developments within EA Flood Zones 2 & 3.
  Possible target: 1 new major flood storage area created and utilised for parkland or
   habitat creation.

25 To protect, manage and restore land and soil quality
  This needs to be reconciled with indicator 36, without losing the ‘protect’ aspect.




                                                                Report of scoping consultation 28
    36 does seem to be about consuming resources more efficiently as opposed to
     issues of the quality of land and soil that's out there.
    It’s difficult to understand what this objective is trying to do. It’s also partially
     covered by 26.

26    To use derelict, vacant or previously developed land and buildings and that is
      remediated as appropriate
    This could interfere with the biodiversity objective given that derelict land often has
     a high biodiversity value. The wording needs to be tidied up. Also needs to be able
     to control development adjacent to rivers (EA to advise).
    As well as encouraging use of derelict, vacant or reclaimed land, needs to cover
     minimising impact of new facilities on land.
    Suggested target: Amount of development
    Possible target: All new developments to incorporate green roofs of brownfield
     habitat.
    Information from London Biodiversity Partnership and Livingroofs.org.

27 To improve air quality
  This will not work in the NL context. Preference for words similar to national
   objective i.e. To prevent air pollution or limit it to levels that do not damage natural
   systems (including human health).
  Monitoring is difficult - discharges of persistent environmental pollutants (e.g.
   toxins, pcbs, heavy metal, nitrogen and phosphorous species) coming out of
   incinerator chimneys can be measured but at same time could be broadcast over
   wider area and can accumulate in the environment.
  In London those who are disadvantaged tend to have the worst air quality as
   estates/poorer homes nearer to roads. Could this be covered in an indicator?

28    To reduce greenhouse gas emissions from waste management facilities, processes
      and transportation
    Covered by the ‘mitigate’ bit in 24?
    Should it be expanded to include all emissions?
    Suggested indicator: CO2 emissions per capita.

29    To encourage energy efficiency and substantially increase the proportion of energy
      both purchased and generated from renewable and sustainable resources
    Feeling that "To encourage energy efficiency" is the main objective with the rest as
     sub-objective/indicator.
    Possible indicators: Usage rates of renewable and sustainable energy; energy
     efficiency of construction and operation of new facilities (information from
     technology suppliers); % waste used to recover heat, power and other energy;
     number of schemes using CHP.
    Possible target: 100% of all energy to be from a renewable or sustainable source
     with at least 30% comprising energy from a renewable source.

30    To maintain and enhance the quality, integrity and distinctiveness of North
      London's landscape and townscape.
    Combine with 31 by adding: "including its historic environment and cultural assets"

31    To maintain and enhance the historic environment and cultural assets of North
      London
    Combine with 30




                                                                    Report of scoping consultation 29
32    To reduce the amount of waste requiring final disposal through waste
      minimisation, and to increase in order of priority, the proportion of waste reused,
      recycled and composted, and recovered
    This and objective 33 can be combined but it is felt that there needs to be an
     objective to cover each step of the waste hierarchy to make sure that this is all
     covered. These should be rephrased completely.
    More emphasis should be placed on Waste Minimisation, not enough is currently
     made of it. This is of massive importance, particularly in North London due to
     further population increases. However it is difficult to see how to achieve this in
     planning of sites and facilities.
    In addition, the emphasis should be on waste treatment/processing taking place
     locally.
    Also need to include the development of markets for secondary materials.
    Indicators could be: kg waste per household / kg waste per person; % municipal
     waste to landfill. Need to consider more indicators for Commercial and Industrial
     waste. The London Plan targets for recycling and self-sufficiency should be used.
    Could utilise LATS targets.
    Sources of information could include Local Authorities and NLWA for Municipal
     Waste. Only tonnages of Commercial and Industrial waste collected by the 7 North
     London boroughs is reported to NLWA. Also Waste Data Flow (Local Authorities have
     to provided data for this), the Environment Agency (waste returns), the Mayor’s
     Office (capital waste facts website), TfL and Further Alterations to the London Plan.
    Untilise Best Value Performance Indicators 82 a, b, c, d & 84 (information from
     Audit Commission)

33    Enhance measures to reduce the amount of waste arising and to improve
      utilisation of resources (i.e. the amount recycled/re-used)
    As above

34 To reduce the amount and hazardous properties of hazardous waste
  Does this mean that the facilities will reduce the amount and hazardous properties
   of hazardous waste? This objective may need to be reworded.
  Should seek to prioritise the on-site management of hazardous waste where
   applicable.
  It was felt that the inclusion of facilities within the plan which reduce the hazardous
   properties of waste as it passes through the facility would be very beneficial, as
   there is currently a lack of hazardous waste facilities within London. Developing
   hazardous waste facilities in the North London area would also have positive
   impacts on the economy of the waste industry. This objective would fit in well with
   the Mayors Plan.
  A possible indicator would be a net reduction in hazardous waste arising notified to
   the Environment Agency. Data could come from the Environment Agency. Target
   could be net reduction in the amount of hazardous waste exported from North
   London.
  Further information from the Further Alterations to the London Plan.
  Noted that there have been recent problems with the definition of hazardous waste
   in legislation, where previously non-hazardous materials are now classified as
   hazardous. This makes it look as though there has been an increase in volumes of
   hazardous waste produced by boroughs.

35    To actively promote new clean technologies, particularly potential growth sectors




                                                                Report of scoping consultation 30
      of the environmental economy
    This objective was thought to be very general / vague. What can be classed as a
     clean technology? Why does it only focus on ‘new’ technologies? There are various
     existing technologies which could benefit North London. It was felt therefore this
     objective should be revised to read ‘….to promote clean technologies, particularly…’
     or ‘…to promote advanced waste technologies, particularly…’
    This is difficult to measure as we don’t want to be too prescriptive at this stage, it
     was thought options should be kept open at the present time, and innovation is key.
     However, site sizes will determine in some cases what types of facilities can be
     located on them.
    Should also seek to prioritise the most sustainable treatment methods. This is often
     dependent on the material type.
    Suggested indicators included BPEO assessments (This process identifies the
     preferred waste material route which provides the optimum balance in terms of
     protection of the environment as well as realistic in monetary terms). This
     potentially could be incorporated in the Environmental Impact Assessment stage?

36    To ensure that North London uses natural resources more efficiently, in particular
      soil, mineral aggregates, water and energy
    Add: … more efficiently "and sustainably", in particular ...
    This could be achieved through sustainable design and construction and imposing
     planning restrictions on new developments. However, individual boroughs may be
     reluctant to implement planning restrictions for fear of forcing development
     elsewhere.
    The plan should comply with the Mayor’s Strategy and targets for energy use.
    Can we assume that C&I will aim to keep their costs down, or should we include
     BREEAM regulations in planning?

37    To promote a high quality of urban design in conjunction with sustainable
      construction principles and techniques
    This could be combined with Objective 38 and reworded.
    Information from Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment (CABE)
     and Building Research Establishment’s BREEAM Construction Industry Standards

38    To promote sustainable design for both new and existing waste management
      facilities
    Could be combined with 37.

39    To create a climate for investment in North London, with a modern employment
      structure based on a combination of indigenous growth and inward investment
    Recycling should be reprocessed locally. Some glass recycling is currently sent to
     Cheshire for reprocessing. The aim should be to maintain the supply chain in North
     London by having reprocessing facilities and markets established. London Remade
     would be a good source of information.
    Statistics on NI numbers, numbers of people working in the waste management
     industry, unemployment stats.

40    To exploit the growth potential of business sectors, new businesses and new
      technologies for waste
    Clear planning guidelines are needed for small businesses so that they know where
     they stand and what is expected of them in planning applications.
    Once again there is too much focus on ‘new’ technologies and businesses and does




                                                                Report of scoping consultation 31
     not support existing ones. The objective should be amended to ‘….of business
     sectors, new and existing businesses and technologies for waste’.
    There should be more focus on ‘local’ - North London.
    There should also be a focus on ensuring that older facilities are up to modern day
     standards.
    A reduction in the number of km’s travelled shows the use of local markets and
     facilities.
    The number of VAT registered waste management related businesses in each
     borough is a good indicator.
    Need to safeguard sites / floorspace for such industry / businesses.

41    To ensure that inward investment projects are environmentally, socially and
      economically sustainable
    London Remade give various grants. Do these have rules and regulations to ensure
     that businesses act environmentally, socially, and economically responsible? Grants
     could be more geared towards these aims.
    Is there a possibility to give rates reductions from councils (environmental
     development zones)?

42 To improve the competitiveness and productivity of the waste industry business
  There needs to be investment in modern technologies. The government is helping
   this by increasing the landfill tax and forcing waste producers to find alternatives.
  The number of businesses in the sector is an indicator. However, over-
   competitiveness could be a negative thing. There is no way to see individual
   companies accounts and therefore see how productive they are.
  Measures from Best Value Performance Indicators show the level of recycling
   collection in each borough. This and information on the amount of waste going for
   reprocessing in North London rather than elsewhere would show how competitive
   the industry in North London is compared to elsewhere.
  Could possibly add the word ‘local’ to the objective title.
  The number of businesses created and closed in the area would indicate the
   strength of the industry.

43 Increase job opportunities and access to employment opportunities and occupation
  This could be included in Objective 39 or could be an indicator of success. More
   should be made about safeguarding existing employment.
  Less waste to manage does not necessarily mean fewer jobs in the sector. Local
   reuse schemes, and other waste minimisation businesses can employ people. Need
   to make sure that there are opportunities for unskilled labour and for those that are
   harder to employ, possibly in local recycling/reuse industry.
  Indicators could include; number of available jobs, employment/unemployment
   rate, number of new jobs, number of new businesses (measured via VAT
   registration). Potential data sources are; DCLG, BVPI, census, Office of National
   Statistics, Local Authorities

44    To contribute towards the development of London’s tourism industry in ways that
      are economically, socially and environmentally beneficial
    It was initially felt that this could not be achieved by the plan. However, after
     discussions of how waste facilities in their siting can contribute towards the growth
     of tourism, and how tourism impacts on waste management, it was felt that it
     should be retained and not reworded.




                                                                 Report of scoping consultation 32
Appendix A – Invitees to the
Sustainability Appraisal Panel

   A planning/sustainability officer or other representative from each of the
    seven North London Boroughs
   Members from relevant statutory bodies:
       o Environment Agency
       o Natural England
       o English Heritage
   Members of other public agencies including:
       o North London Waste Authority
       o Greater London Authority (sustainability and waste policy officers)
       o Government Office for London
       o NHS London (the Strategic Health Authority for London)
       o Health Protection Agency
       o Transport for London
       o London Development Agency
       o Lee Valley Regional Park Authority
   Members of other stakeholder groups including:
       o Industry representatives (via the Environmental Services Association)
       o North London Recycling Forum
       o Chambers of Commerce
       o London Wildlife Trust
       o London Biodiversity Partnership
       o British Waterways London
       o Friends of the Earth
       o Academic experts




                                                        Report of scoping consultation 33
Appendix B – Questionnaire 1

Sustainability appraisal of the North London Waste Plan*
Scoping questionnaire




Introduction
Sustainability appraisal is central to the process of preparing the North London Waste
Plan. Sustainability appraisal involves testing the Plan against an agreed set of
economic, social and environmental criteria throughout the preparation process. We
need your help to decide what these criteria should be. This is the first stage of
sustainability appraisal, and is known as ‘scoping’.

To help us identify the key economic, social and environmental issues affecting waste
planning in North London, we would be extremely grateful if you could complete the
questionnaire below. You may have a particular interest in one or two key iss ues but
we would be grateful if you could attempt to respond to all questions as far as possible.

You will see that we are asking you to consider key issues under a series of subject
headings, such as health, economic impacts and so on. We would also like you to tell
us if there are any other subject areas that we should be considering, but which are not
covered in the questionnaire.

Add text by clicking on the ‘grey boxes’.




Your details
    Contact name:

    If you are responding on behalf of an organisation:
    Organisation Name:
    Position:

    Address:

    Post code:

    Telephone:                                         E-mail:


*
    Officially known as the North London Joint Waste Development Plan Document




                                                                    Report of scoping consultation 34
Key issues
What are the key issues which the sustainability appraisal of the North London Waste
Plan needs to address? Please complete as many of the sub-sections below as possible.

    Issues relating to human health (including noise, air, odour) and crime




    Issues relating to safety both on waste sites and for the surrounding population




    Issues relating to direct and indirect employment from waste activities




    Issues relating to wider economic impacts




    Issues relating to urban and rural regeneration




    Issues relating to pollution – land, air, water and noise




    Issues relating to climate change




    Issues relating to nature conservation and biodiversity




    Issues relating to cultural heritage and landscape




    Issues relating to sustainable waste management (reuse, recycling)




                                                                 Report of scoping consultation 35
    Issues related to sustainable design and renewable energy production



    Issues relating to sustainable transport (e.g. reducing distance travelled by
     waste)


    Are there any other kinds of issues that we should be considering, apart from
     those listed above?




Data
For the issues that you have identified above, do you know of any data sources or
ongoing studies which could be used to monitor the impact of the Plan?




Completed questionnaires
Please return completed questionnaires by email to tm@cagconsult.co.uk or by post to:

Tim Maiden
CAG Consultants
8 Broxholm Road
Newcastle-upon-Tyne
NE6 5RL

The deadline for completed questionnaires is Friday 11 May 2007.




                                                               Report of scoping consultation 36
Appendix B – Questionnaire 2

Sustainability appraisal of the North London Waste Plan*
Scoping questionnaire 2




Introduction
Sustainability appraisal is central to the process of preparing the North London Waste
Plan. Sustainability appraisal involves testing the Plan against an agreed set of
economic, social and environmental criteria throughout the preparation process.

The first meeting of the Sustainability Appraisal Panel and the associated questionnaire
focused on identifying the key economic, social and environmental issues affecting
waste planning in North London. At the second meeting we considered what the
objectives for the sustainability appraisal should be. We also need to develop indicators
and targets to measure progress against these objectives. Each of the draft objectives
is listed in the table below and there are additional boxes, in which you can add
suggested indicators, targets and potential sources of data for measuring progress
against these indicators and targets.

In addition, you can suggest changes to the draft objectives. The ‘track changes’
function is turned on so simply make any changes to the text and save the
questionnaire without accepting the changes.

We would be very grateful for your input. Please add text by clicking on the grey boxes.


Your details
    Contact name:

    If you are responding on behalf of an organisation:
    Organisation Name:
    Position:

    Address:

    Post code:

    Telephone:                                         E-mail:




*
    Officially known as the North London Joint Waste Development Plan Document




                                                                    Report of scoping consultation 37
Objectives, indicators and targets
SA Topic       Proposed SA Objective             Suggested    Suggested        Sources of
                                                 Indicators   Targets          Information

Health         To create conditions to
               improve health of community
               and workers, and reduce
               health inequalities
               To reduce waste related crime
               and fear of crime
               To actively challenge
               discrimination against all
               marginal groups in a
               consistent and comprehensive
               way
               To tackle poverty and social
               exclusion
               To improve safety for
               operators and the community
Quality of     To improve the image of North
Surroundings   London as an exemplary
               sustainable part of the city
               To protect, manage and,
               where necessary, improve
               local environmental quality
Amenity        To minimise noise, dust, light,
               vermin and odour impacts for
               example
               To maintain, restore, enhance
               the quality of open spaces in
               North London, to create new
               open space as appropriate,
               and to ensure that access to
               open space and the wider
               public realm is maintained
Access to      To encourage sustainable
Services       development that is compact
               and mixed use as appropriate
               with improved accessibility to
               key local services and
               amenity, reducing the need to
               travel
               To maximise opportunities of
               and benefits for regeneration
               through waste management
               activities
Public         To support voluntary and
Involvement    community networks, assist
               social exclusion and ensure
               community involvement in
               decision making for waste
               planning
               To provide opportunities for
               waste education and
               awareness raising
Transport      To reduce the need to travel
               and improve choice and use of




                                                              Report of scoping consultation 38
SA Topic        Proposed SA Objective             Suggested    Suggested        Sources of
                                                  Indicators   Targets          Information

                more sustainable transport
                modes
                To reduce the kilometres
                travelled by waste
                To minimise the impacts of
                waste related transport
                To focus development at
                locations which are currently
                well served by public transport
                with spare existing capacity,
                walking or cycling, or at
                locations where improvements
                are planned to achieve
                increases in their modal share
                To promote investment in and
                use of sustainable rail and
                water freight transport
Biodiversity    To protect and enhance
                biodiversity
                To increase tree cover as
                appropriate and ensure active
                and sustainable management
                of existing woodland
Water           To protect and improve water
Resources       quality including river and
                canal ecological and amenity
                qualities
                To encourage sustainable use
                of water
                To avoid development that will
                impact on areas at high risk
                from flooding
                To mitigate and adapt to
                climate change including flood
                risk
Land and Soil   To protect, manage and
                restore land and soil quality
                To use derelict, vacant or
                previously developed land and
                buildings and that is
                remediated as appropriate
Air Quality     To improve air quality
Climate         To reduce greenhouse gas
Change          emissions from waste
                management facilities,
                processes and transportation
                To encourage energy
                efficiency and substantially
                increase the proportion of
                energy both purchased and
                generated from renewable and
                sustainable resources
Landscape       To maintain and enhance the
                quality, integrity and




                                                               Report of scoping consultation 39
SA Topic      Proposed SA Objective              Suggested    Suggested        Sources of
                                                 Indicators   Targets          Information

              distinctiveness of North
              London’s landscape and
              townscape
Historic      To maintain and enhance the
Environment   historic environment and
              cultural assets of North
              London
Sustainable   To reduce the amount of
Waste         waste requiring final disposal
Management    through waste minimisation,
              and to increase in order of
              priority, the proportion of
              waste reused, recycled and
              composted, and recovered
              Enhance measures to reduce
              the amount of waste arising
              and to improve utilisation of
              resources (i.e. the amount
              that is recycled or re-used)
              To reduce the amount and
              hazardous properties of
              hazardous waste
              To actively promote new clean
              technologies, particularly
              potential growth sectors of the
              environmental economy
Sustainable   To ensure that North London
use of        uses natural resources more
Resources     efficiently, in particular soil,
              mineral aggregates, water and
              energy
              To promote a high quality of
              urban design in conjunction
              with sustainable construction
              principles and techniques
              To promote sustainable design
              for both new and existing
              waste management facilities
Sustainable   To create a climate for
Economic      investment in North London,
Growth        with a modern employment
              structure based on a
              combination of indigenous
              growth and inward investment
              To exploit the growth potential
              of business sectors, new
              businesses and new
              technologies for waste
              To ensure that inward
              investment projects are
              environmentally, socially and
              economically sustainable
              To improve the
              competitiveness and
              productivity of the waste




                                                              Report of scoping consultation 40
SA Topic        Proposed SA Objective            Suggested    Suggested        Sources of
                                                 Indicators   Targets          Information

                industry business
Employment      Increase job opportunities and
                access to employment
                opportunities and occupation
                To contribute towards the
                development of London’s
                tourism industry in ways that
                are economically, socially and
                environmentally beneficial




Completed questionnaires
Please return completed questionnaires by email to tm@cagconsult.co.uk or by post to:

Tim Maiden
CAG Consultants
8 Broxholm Road
Newcastle-upon-Tyne
NE6 5RL

The deadline for completed questionnaires is Tuesday 5 June 2007.




                                                              Report of scoping consultation 41

								
To top