Scottish Government

3 COMMENTS MADE ON DRAFT SPP10

3.1 General Comments on Draft SPP10

The comments received on SPP10 covered both general and specific issues. This report seeks to identify the key issues or concerns that arise from those comments. To do so each of the following sections reflect those in the SPP and are split between general comments and issue-specific comments.

The clear message from respondents is that the review of SPP10 is welcomed but that more detail is required on certain elements and a different direction taken on others e.g. the model policy.

The following sections of this report deal with the topics in the order that they appear in SPP10.

3.2 Policy Context *

3.2.1 General

This section explains the purpose of the SPP in support of the National Waste Plan; on compliance with environmental legislation; the commitment to improvements in waste management; waste hierarchy options and preferences and the challenges for Scotland's prosperity and environmental record.

The responses in this section were limited and generally split between those from local authorities, business, the community and Scottish Environment Protection Agency ( SEPA).

One local authority simply stated that the SPP was in line with their policy context whereas others felt that it didn't go far enough and suggested that:

• Reference should be made to SPP6: Renewable Energy in identifying waste as a source of energy;
• The links between planning and licensing regimes were not set out clearly enough in the SPP;
• The SPP should set out the role of design briefs in advocating the inclusion of waste collection facilities for future developments; and
• By including a plan-led approach to identifying sites for waste facilities e.g. thermal treatment plants, the SPP may adversely impact on a local authority's ability to meet future strategic targets for the provision of such plants.

The Scottish Society of Directors of Planning ( SSDP) considered that the SPP does not contain enough advice on non-municipal waste (a recurring theme), the receipt of special waste or the siting of waste to energy plants.

The business responses took a different direction and identified that the lack of detailed waste related policies or site specific allocations for waste uses is a flaw in the current planning system. They also suggested that the SPP should set out the measures and actions that could be pursued where Councils failed to meet their statutory targets.

Some business comments reflected the views of local authorities, specifically that the SPP should be expanded to set out the full range of relevant legislation controlling waste and its treatment. One business respondent considered the purpose of the SPP unclear. Some suggested that the policy framework table should be included within the SPP rather than annexed to it. This is a matter of presentation rather than content.

SEPA's view was that the process of identifying appropriate locations for waste installations is a key role for local authorities. They felt that further information is required to point local authorities to the appropriate guidance on how to carry out this process. A common theme that will be dealt with more thoroughly in the omissions section of this report was set out early in SEPA's response - the need to establish a clear policy context for non-municipal waste as well as municipal waste.

Key Issues:

• The link between planning and licence regimes is not clear enough;
• Reference should be made to SPP6 in relation to waste as an energy source;
• The potential impact of a plan-led approach in delivering the provision of infrastructure against strategic targets. This presents timing and process conflicts;
• Business responses welcomed the recognition of waste within the planning policy context but suggested the SPP set measures and actions against those councils that fail to meet targets.

Executive response: The purpose of the SPP has been clarified by paragraph 1. The absence of focus on non-municipal waste has been addressed. SEPA's role in permitting and licensing has been much amended to explain planning policy more clearly. A cross-reference to SPP 6 has been provided. The design section can accommodate recommendations on design statements. A plan-led approach is not negotiable so meeting targets where plans are out of date should be addressed by planning authorities or departure procedures followed. A new section on Waste Streams has been provided. Local plan updating continues to take place but there is no proposal for policy-specific sanctions.

3.2.2. Planning White Paper and the Planning Bill (3-4)

This section outlines the programme of planning modernisation, the importance of community engagement, efficiency and the lead for development plans to provide for infrastructure delivery. The section does not detail all of the policy context which is instead contained in an annex of the SPP.

There were few planning authority responses to this section with 11 responses received in total. These, however, included a general welcome of the SPP's recognition of the role that planning authorities play in the process and the distinct separation of that role from other more technical aspects. The latter should be left to the appropriate regulatory authorities to control and assess. Respondents expressed some concern on the contradiction between the emphasis on working with communities and the possibility that large developments could be determined centrally.

The Royal Town Planning Institute ( RTPI) suggested that further guidance could be included on the role of the National Planning Framework and relationship with the National Waste Strategy when identifying national or major developments. In a similar vein SEPA welcomed the emphasis on the primacy of the development plan, and the importance of waste management in such plans, but sought clarification on the role of secondary legislation in defining waste installations that might be classed as "national" or "major" developments.

The business response requested that the needs of commercial, industrial and other waste sectors be considered including the recognition that much of this waste will be serviced at the same sites as municipal waste (again referring to the omission of detail on non-municipal waste). The planning system must be capable, therefore, of dealing with very large waste infrastructure projects.

The business sector too suggested that research into permitted development rights should include the waste sector ( e.g. for local scale infrastructure, minor operational changes at existing waste sites and infrastructure required to deliver energy from thermal treatment plants to customers). District heating networks should be considered to have the same permitted development status as other infrastructure providers such as water, gas, sewage etc. The SSDP indicated that the extension of permitted development rights is important.

SEPA too welcomed the research into permitted development rights but suggested that the last sentence should explain the broad purpose of the GPDO review i.e. to promote efficiency within the planning system and better regulation. Scottish Environmental Services Association ( SESA) goes further and suggests that a stronger statement on the benefits of permitted development rights should be included. They suggested the following wording:

"Whilst research is ongoing the proposed introduction of a planning hierarchy presents an opportunity to introduce permitted development rights for small-scale, uncontroversial developments at existing waste management facilities."

The community response supported the concept of greater involvement to reflect local views but thought that any comments on the GPDO were premature in light of the ongoing review.

Key Issues:

• The distinction between the role of a planning authority from those with more technical input was supported;
• The contradiction between working with communities and 'national' or 'major' projects determined centrally was a concern;
• Further advice was sought on the type of waste installation that might be classed as 'national' or 'major';
• Further guidance on the role of interaction with the National Waste Strategy and the National Planning Framework is required;
• Consideration of full waste spectrum should lead to a planning system capable of dealing with large waste facilities; and
• Research into permitted development rights should include the waste sector, although the community response was that any comment on GPDO review was premature.

Executive response: The SPP will refer to consultation on draft hierarchy regulations. Community engagement will be an important part of and not disconnected from centrally determined proposals - no change necessary. A general update on planning reform is threaded throughout the final SPP. Shared sites for large MSW and non- MSW facilities are not ruled out; the SPP applies to all waste installations. Changes to permitted development rights are noted but this is a separate and wider exercise, not specific to the SPP.

3.2.3 Waste Infrastructure (5)

A description of the different types of infrastructure, other than landfill, ranges from bottle banks to technologies supporting sorting and treatment. A number of sources of information are referred to. Reference is also made to the requirement for and an increase in the number and type of installations to 2020 including fewer but larger landfills.

This section of the SPP received a mixed welcome with 19 responses received in total. Some respondents (business representatives in particular) welcomed the recognition that fewer landfills would be required in the future and that these should be more geographically spread. Others felt that even though this was the case, smaller sites serving local or specialist needs would still be required. One individual view contradicted the emphasis on fewer larger sites and suggested that smaller sites and facilities should be provided more frequently.

Some local authorities also considered that the final sentence of this section contradicts the proximity principle and that any new facility should be located to allow sea and rail transport. In addition, one local authority considered that the SPP needs to take a more realistic view rather than expect the ideal situation where landfill would only be required for residual waste.

Clarification was sought by Craiglockhart Community Council on how planning authorities are to pursue the identification of larger landfill sites. Respondents indicated a general support for a clear distinction between land-use controls and those that fell to others (such as SEPA), for greater promotion of joint working between authorities and a requirement for a clearer explanation of the benefits of fewer, larger landfills. In this era of integrated pollution control, the severance between land-use and pollution control may be considered a little backward looking. A 'clear distinction' could be considered a 'clear understanding of roles' but co-ordination is equally important.

A mixed response was also received on technological aspects. Friends of the Earth clearly stated that thermal treatment plants were not a sustainable option, contrary to the views of some local authorities. Business respondents indicated that anaerobic digestion was a valid option that had not been mentioned. Other respondents requested clarification on the capacity of installations that would be required. Friends of the Earth (Moray) considered that the details of new generation installations and their technologies were poor within the SPP. An opposite view on the subject of technologies from SESA suggested that the SPP should not be technologically prescriptive and any reference to waste treatment technologies should be removed from paragraph 5.

Some local authorities indicated support for the notion that new waste technologies are often indistinguishable from other industrial processes and can be accommodated on industrial estates, subject to environmental safeguards.

Comments from SHREWS Ltd in respect of the SPP's reliance on other documents indicated that the ODPM guidance referred to is out of print and if the SPP relies on the advice of PAN63 then the PAN should be reviewed urgently.

Local delivery of community infrastructure ( e.g. recycling facilities) was generally welcomed but a requirement sought for developers, in all forms of development, to demonstrate consultation with local authorities over its provision. EnviroCentre referred to best practice guidance in the "Code of Practice - Planning for Resource Sustainable Communities" in this respect.

Other local authority comments included a requirement for the Development Plan to safeguard all waste facilities that contribute to the sustainable management of waste and not just landfill sites. Infrastructure requirements should be referred to in the Development Plan but dealt with in more detail in Area Waste Plans.

The following specific amendment was suggested:

- the specific reference to waste treatment technologies in paragraph 5 should be removed as the approach should not be technology prescriptive ( SESA); and

- the third sentence of the Summary referring to landfill continuing to be safeguarded in development plans should be expanded to include the safeguarding of all facilities that contribute to the sustainable management of waste to reflect the waste hierarchy (City of Edinburgh Council)

Key Issues:

• Further advice is sought on the balance, type and scale of waste infrastructure required depending on local, regional and national requirements;
• Contradictory views were presented on the benefits of small and large scale waste infrastructure;
• There is a potential contradiction between this section and the proximity principle in respect of its relationship to transport networks - particularly rail and sea where transport networks don't reach local areas;
• The SPP should encourage greater promotion of joint working between authorities in general and in identifying large landfill sites;
• Clarity is required on benefits of fewer larger landfill sites;
• Differing views were received on thermal treatment as an option;
• There is no mention of anaerobic digestion; and
• Local authorities felt that development plans should safeguard all sustainable waste management facilities and not just landfill sites.

Executive response: Removing the section on waste infrastructure would devalue the SPP. It is intended only to be descriptive not prescriptive. Anaerobic digestion is now mentioned but it is not the purpose of the SPP to specify the appropriate technologies. It is for the planning system to accommodate the capacity requirements of waste management, guided by data where available. The SPP has been amended to record the trend towards larger landfills and to specify that there is a requirement but not necessarily at this scale. Planning for Waste Management Facilities may be out of print but is available on line. PAN 63 remains current and is not to be reviewed. City of Edinburgh's point is already covered in the section on Proximity to Settlements.

3.2.4 SEPA's Planning Role (6-7)

Under planning reform, SEPA may be designated a key agency to engage with development planning. Objectives common to the Executive and SEPA arise from the National Waste Plan. The section also explains SEPA's role in commenting on development plans and development proposals.

Respondents indicated a general welcome and support for this section in setting out the role of SEPA, from across all respondent groups and the role of the SPP in establishing this. Fifteen responses were received in relation to this section.

Respondents from local authorities in particular welcomed the role of SEPA as a statutory consultee and considered that it offered an opportunity to avoid duplication of conditions relating to planning permissions and those relating to license arrangements. Other respondents welcomed this with a suggestion that the SPP should place more emphasis on SEPA taking a lead role.

Some concern across all sectors, however, was expressed on the confusion between the respective roles of councils and SEPA in relation to the approval and operation of waste facilities. Clackmannanshire Council suggested that an annex addressing this issue might be useful.

SESA suggested that the role of SEPA be further enhanced as champion for the development of appropriate facilities.

SEPA welcomed their role as a statutory consultee, but suggested that it may be more accurate to say that they are a statutory consultee for certain types of development proposals, including the use of land for the deposit of any kind of refuse or waste, including slurry or sludge.

Respondents also commented on the requirement for draft development plans to take account of the National Waste Plan and Area Waste Plans with further clarification sought on this process in particular at what level e.g. strategic policy. There was a suggestion that the Structure Plan should be the tool to translate National Waste Plans and Area Waste Plans into the Development Plan, with SEPA having effective powers to ensure that this happens and avoid duplication and confusion of roles and responsibilities. The new Planning Etc (Scotland) Bill presents a different climate in which to view these comments. Further guidance on how the objectives of the National Waste Plan and Area Waste Plan are translated into planning policy might be worthwhile.

Clarification was sought by respondents from various sectors on the reference to 'draft' in the last sentence of paragraph 6. Two of the respondents suggested that this should be removed on the basis that it should not only be draft plans that take account of the National Waste Plan and Area Waste Plan objectives but all plans. Also, the inclusion of draft sits in a different context when the Planning Bill comes fully into operation, as there will no longer be a requirement to produce draft plans.

SEPA also suggested that in relation to paragraph 7 it may be useful to indicate that the purpose of statutory consultation with SEPA on waste development proposals is to indicate at an early stage of the planning process whether the development is likely to be capable of being consented in the context of SEPA's environmental objectives and other document and the opportunity should be taken to cross refer to PAN51 in relation to the guidance on interaction.

Key Issues

• SEPA is viewed positively as a statutory consultee offering an opportunity to avoid duplication of roles and decision making processes;
• An annex setting out the respective roles of SEPA and planning authorities is sought;
• Some support was expressed for SEPA taking a more proactive or lead role; and
• Further guidance on translation of National Waste Plan into new form of development plan emerging from the bill is required.

Executive response: No need for annex explaining SEPA's role as SPP now cross-refers to PAN 51 which explains this more fully. SEPA's likely key agency role under the Planning etc Scotland Act has been explained.

3.3 Sustainable Waste Management

3.3.1 General (8-17)

The section notes that municipal waste arisings are continuing to increase but the waste hierarchy aims to guide choices on options. The polluter-pays principle applies to business waste producers. Sustainable locations for waste infrastructure are described in a footnote and guided by the NPF and SPP. A framework for development plans is provided by SEA, for related plans by BPEO and for development proposals by EIA.

In general respondents indicated support for the section on sustainable waste management: with welcome for the approach, support for the polluter-pays principle and clarification of the scope of planning control. In addition, the response from Bidwells suggested that the SPP should make a better link with job creation and sustainable waste infrastructure as outlined in the European Commission's Thematic Strategy on the Prevention and Recycling of Waste.

A number of respondents across all sectors felt that further consideration was required on the co-location of facilities, to maximise thermal CHP energy and heating output and recycling of waste.

Some respondents suggested that the SPP does not encourage brownfield development, in both rural and urban areas, effectively.

Renfrewshire Council sought clarification on the reference to "a development strategy" in paragraph 9 and what is meant by this term, as it is not set in any particular context.

3.3.2 Waste Management Health & the Environment (10)

Health should seldom be a planning issue according to independent research on municipal solid waste or where sites are properly licensed and well run. Approval processes include a number of safeguards where health can be taken into account.

A total of 11 responses were received on this section. Respondents expressed general support for the inclusion of health within the SPP, in particular where it brings planning and health issues closer together.

There were a number of comments, from various sectors, in relation to the consultation process and advice on health. Some respondents expressed concern about the ability of planning authorities to judge health impacts and whether health boards should play a greater role in the planning process.

Guidance was sought on how Strategic Environmental Assessment ( SEA) and/or Environmental Impact Assessment ( EIA) can address health issues. RTPI Scotland outlined that health considerations are often a fundamental concern for communities and a more integrated approach is necessary. The RTPI also suggested that further guidance on the relationship of SEA to Development Plans and Area Waste Plans is required where health issues should be addressed.

On a specific point, the SPP should clarify that SEA and Best Practicable Environmental Option ( BPEO) essentially set out to achieve the same end, and as SEA is now mandatory, BPEO should not be required where it duplicates the process.

Some comment was received on the 'Review of Environmental and Health Effects of Waste Management' published by DEFRA. The SSDP were concerned about its applicability in the SPP. They indicated it is important not to allow the findings of the report to be a reason for discounting health considerations as a planning consideration. West Lothian Council stated that it is important to bear in mind that certain new technologies may not have been covered in the report.

Only one of the community groups responded on this issue expressing concern that there was no guarantee from the SPP that health issues would be considered. Anything that could affect the health of individuals should be regarded as a material consideration in planning terms.

On other specific points, SESA suggested that the SPP should differentiate between the health issues to be considered at the planning stage and the PPC/Waste management stages.

The CIWM outlined that it may be beneficial to indicate in many cases that an SEA will not be required. Duplication was raised as a potential problem, where planning authorities should not be duplicating the provisions of other legislative regimes or seeking to control matters that are the concern of health authorities.

Key Issues:

• Concern was expressed over the role of planning authorities and their ability/expertise to judge health impacts and, subsequently, is a potentially greater role for other parties;
• Further guidance was sought on how SEA can address health concerns seen as fundamental for communities;
• The potential overlap between BPEO and SEA, duplication of effort is to be avoided;
• The potential over-reliance on existing published documents and their suggestion that waste management facilities do not impact on health;
• The community view that health issues should be regarded as a material consideration; and
• The need to avoid duplication between planning and other legislative regimes.

Executive response: The introduction now refers to the Business Waste Framework but is otherwise unchanged. The section has been clarified to explain SEPA's complementary but separate role in protecting human health. The application of SEA to development plans on health or other issues are matters for interpretation within published guidance on SEA rather than SPP 10 alone. The community view is accommodated by the use of planning conditions where appropriate - on which SEPA would advise.

3.3.3 Waste Management & The Proximity Principle (11)

The proximity principle aims to ensure that where waste is created it can also be treated, applying at Area Waste Plan level. Proximity may not be an over-riding principle as other considerations include environmental justice, cumulative impact, brownfield renewal, sustainable development, green jobs and the trend to fewer but larger landfills. Development plans should contain allocations of suitable industrial land.

A total of 17 responses were received in relation to this section. This issue attracted general support across all respondent groups, including the use of brownfield land for waste management facilities and for the principle to be applied at Area Waste Plan level.

SEPA expressed a requirement for the SPP to provide guidance on how best to ensure that development plans have regard to the proximity principle and for the principle to be seen as a material consideration in development management decisions.

There were mixed views on the scale of facilities, with local authorities and individual respondents agreeing with the principle of small facilities, whilst some of the business responses suggesting that larger facilities offer a more appropriate means of providing for waste management needs.

The proximity principle should be able to take into account circumstances where economies of scale and more sustainable forms of accessibility may override the benefits of dealing with waste locally. The trend towards these fewer larger facilities over-rides the principle in terms of having to deal with waste from other areas.

The practicalities of non-road transport should be clearly set out in the SPP, as many deliveries to local facilities will be directly by collection vehicles on the local road network. Reliance on the proximity principle may mean compromise. Local facilities may rely more on road-borne traffic with large facilities relying on more sustainable means of transport leading to waste being dealt with further from its source.

On paragraph 11, which sets out the merits of waste being transported to nearby facilities and preferably by modes other than road, SEPA would welcome specific reference to rail and water based transport systems such as barges, as preferred methods for transporting waste.

SITAUK Ltd suggested that the proximity principle be extended to include thermal treatment facilities. SEPA suggested that it might be useful to identify the number of jobs associated with waste management in Scotland and the economic impact of new means of treating waste as a spin-off benefit.

Specific comment and clarification was sought on the following:

• paragraph 2.1.2 of the National Waste Plan makes no reference to transport, therefore should reference be made to page 13 of the National Waste Strategy instead ( SHREWS Ltd);
• paragraph 11 requires to be reworded as it currently suggests that new waste management facilities are less damaging than landfill and could be justified on the basis of social justice and economic opportunities ( SEPA); and
• the basis for environmental justice should be clearly stated for the avoidance of doubt ( CIWM).

Key Issues:

• SEPA requested that the proximity principle be designated a material consideration in development management decisions;
• Mixed views were received on the scale of facilities required, therefore stronger guidance is required from the Scottish Ministers on the balance of facilities; and
• Other views support larger facilities with associated economies of scale and where accessibility benefits are also provided.

Executive response: The text on proximity has been expanded with further reference to material from the NWS and NWP, to cover the way in which it can reasonably be interpreted. Material considerations are not defined in law which means that anything, including proximity can be considered. The principle would also apply to any type of installation.

3.3.4 Working with Communities (12-15)

Modern infrastructure, like other industries may be an unwelcome intrusion close to some communities. Providing information is crucial and development plans should identify sensitivities. Planning reform expects the adequacy of publicity and consultation to be considered in examining development plans and pre-application consultation to be reported for a range of developments giving an opportunity to alter proposals. The section also covers the role of community liaison, good neighbour agreements and community benefit arising from planning permissions.

All sectors generally welcomed this section, particularly local authorities who considered working with communities as essential. A total of 21 responses were received to this section.

Local authorities highlighted that community consultation and participation in the planning process had some difficulties. Despite best efforts it is not always possible to reach a consensus or overcome community hostility. If there is this reliance written into the SPP, but the community does not engage, then this should not be grounds for refusal of an application. SESA too, suggested that communities do not always engage and therefore failure to conduct a pre-application consultation with an application should not be grounds for refusing it.

Similar to concerns raised in previous sections, respondents from various sectors indicated that the potential contradiction created by 'major' developments being determined centrally through the National Planning Framework, and the requirement for working with communities in a meaningful manner was of concern.

Once again issues surrounding the division of roles between planning and licensing arose. Respondents outlined that the division of roles may create problems/frustrations in fulfilling the community engagement ambitions of the SPP.

Good neighbour agreements ( GNAs) received a mixed response. Some local authorities expressed support for the use of GNAs and sought clarification of their role in respect of future waste installations. This view was contrary to those received from community groups, who expressed concern at the use of GNAs. In particular, they did not regard them as a suitable means of resolving issues since community groups have little statutory authority and may not have access to professional advice or the expertise to deal with them. Community groups therefore expressed a preference for concerns to be addressed by local officers and councillors.

Respondents from local authorities also outlined that it is often difficult to police voluntary agreements, with financial penalties the only real deterrent for operators.

The response from SESA indicated where GNAs are seen as being desirable then the content of these should only be determined once a development has received planning permission. It may be useful, therefore, to set out procedures either in SPG or through the Planning etc (Scotland) Act. In other words GNAs cannot be a condition of a Section 75.

SEPA welcomed the emphasis on the role of community liaison or advisory panels for the largest installations but considered that these are more likely to be specified in planning agreements than planning conditions.

Better public education on the issues and implication of waste management facilities was sought by Moray Council at a national level to ensure that public involvement is better informed and does not create resource problems during in-depth community involvement exercises.

Key Issues:

• There is strong support for working with communities, but the SPP needs to recognise that it is not always possible to achieve a consensus;
• The contradiction of 'major' development being determined centrally and meaningful involvement of the community in such developments;
• The division of roles between planning and licensing and the involvement of both may result in difficulties in terms of the community engagement process;
• GNAs are supported by Local Authorities, but communities are suspicious of their operation;
• Clarify the role of GNAs;
• The business view agrees with community involvement but considered that where the community have failed to engage then this should not be a reason for refusal; and
• A suggestion that nationally produced public information on benefits of local waste management infrastructure might assist in community engagement/discussion on issues.

3.3.5 Proximity to Settlements (16-17)

The proximity principle advocates handling waste close to source and this means towns and cities will often be the best locations. Existing waste operations should be protected from land uses that would compromise operations. Other than for landfill or outdoor composting, the draft SPP does not specify buffer zones.

Some 22 responses were received here. Many respondents felt that this section was too general and that guidance should be revised to require the identification of existing strategic waste management facilities in development plans, as well as greater emphasis on towns and cities as being the best location for new facilities.

Some respondents were concerned about the preference in the SPP for large facilities close to towns and cities. Individual responses expressed support for smaller scale facilities within the community that do not impact on amenity. These could assist in spreading the environmental impact amongst the communities who create the waste rather than the disproportionate impact from fewer larger facilities on a small proportion of the population. Many respondents particularly from the waste/energy businesses and local authorities suggested that the SPP offers an opportunity to promote within a policy context, the benefit of locating facilities close to neighbouring communities e.g. district heating scheme. This was not true for all waste streams and the business respondents make it clear that locations around towns may be good for municipal waste but not necessarily for non-municipal waste e.g. agriculture, fisheries etc.

The majority of responses received were in relation to distances from facilities/buffer zones. There appears to be widespread support for the principle of buffer zones, with some mixed views on the distance proposed.

Currie Community Council sought clarification on the basis for the 250m buffer zone. Other local authorities recognised that this was to accord with the Landfill (Scotland) Regulations 2003 and they expressed their support for this figure. The reference to the buffer zone was considered useful and could be used as a national minimum standard.

Responses from various groups indicated, however, that the 250m limit may not be suitable across the board as buffer zones should take account of local topography to represent actual impact on the ground. This is particularly relevant for rural authorities and Shetland Council outlined that high wind speeds in the coastal regions also need to be acknowledged. Other respondents outlined further factors that buffer zones should require to take into account including:

• nature of operations;
• acoustic treatment to be applied;
• noise pollution;
• light pollution; and
• smell.

In addition SEPA outlined that bio-aerosol emissions and their spread are specific to sites and this also requires to be taken into account.

In relation to existing waste facilities there was a suggestion of reverse buffer zones to safeguard these facilities so that new development does not compromise their operation.

West Lothian Council specifically commented on spray curtains, suggesting that in their experience they are not necessarily able to overcome odour emissions. It is inaccurate, therefore, to suggest composting can take place less than 250m from housing if a spray curtain is in place.

Most respondents suggested that the SPP propose stand-off distances from different types of facilities to neighbouring land uses. The ODPM guidance, 'Planning for Waste Management Facilities' should be included as an appendix to clarify differing requirements. Further guidance was requested on buffer zones for newer and less well known waste management activities.

Definitions were sought on the following:

• "sensitive receptor" in relation to composting;
• "nearby"; and
• "appropriate sites and existing allocations".

The following amendment was suggested:

• reference to new waste transfer, separation and handling installations should also refer to treatment ( SEPA).

Key Issues:

• Mixed support for the range of facilities, small scale in community, larger facilities out of town but concern over impact each of these might have;
• Widespread support for buffer zones but concern over standard distance;
• Buffer zones should take account of topography and context and provide for flexible solutions to local context; and
• Specific suggestion that ODPM guidance be included as appendix/reference.

Executive response: A considerable re-write of this section in response to widespread concerns from respondents and the Parliament's Communities Committee more accurately reflects the range of buffer zones that might be appropriate - without specifying a fixed distance. The text on composting site spray curtains is an operational matter and has been deleted. For the same reason, factors affecting buffers do not need to be referred to as distances have generally been calculated to take them into account. The ODPM guidance is cross-referred, available on-line and not necessary as an appendix to the SPP. The definitional issues have been addressed where necessary.

3.4 Development Plans and Waste Management

3.4.1 General (18-32)

Against the background of sustainable development and environmental regulation, this section explains how to provide for AWP capacity requirements and other infrastructure in existing development plans and under the new planning system, sets the context for strategic development plans and local development plans.

Respondents expressed general support for the SPP treatment of the interaction between development plans and waste management. More detailed guidance, however, was sought from a number of sectors on the importance and implications of the NPF and its new status, joint working and the potential conflict in timescales between the development plan and National or Area Waste Plans. In light of the responses, a strong requirement emerged for a review of PAN63 to provide further guidance.

Respondents from local authorities and national organisations outlined that the requirement for separate SEA of both the development plan and Area Waste Plans may duplicate assessment, therefore greater rationalisation of the requirements was required.

There was general welcome for city region or associated strategic plans to provide a vision statement and general proposals for waste management underpinned by SEA and identification of sites. Respondents did however highlight that it is important to recognise and reflect accurately the respective roles of the area waste plan and development plan, in particular that conflict could potentially arise between the timescales of Area Waste Plans (or the NPF) and the requirement to include sites identified within these in development plans with a shorter time frame. Another respondent outlined that sites for strategic waste management facilities should be identified in NPF and National Waste Plans rather than development plans.

Difficulties arising from cross-boundary issues were also highlighted by respondents, with clarification sought by local authorities on the roles of strategic plans in relation to joint working. A suggestion was that a joint waste subject plan could help overcome problems in identifying strategic sites to be used by more than one authority.

Identification of sites and appraisal of appropriate locations should be robust. It is therefore critical that all relevant parameters for site selection are understood.

Clarification was sought on the following:

• using 'spatial' for Area Waste Plan infrastructure and 'locational' for other infrastructure could be confusing ( SEPA);
• the role of City Regions in identifying sites i.e. will they be required to identify specific sites ( SEPA); and
• reference to planning issues of odour control at wastewater treatment works and how this relates to Sewerage Nuisance (Code of Practice)(Scotland) Order 2006 (Scottish Water).

The suggested amendments to this whole section were as follows:

• Scottish Water propose the removal of statement 'some but not all waste water treatment works will bear significant similarities to leachate treatment plants' as incorrect;
• Paragraph 18 should refer to SPP1 in the context of balancing economic, social and environmental considerations ( SEPA);
• SEPA also outline that paragraph 19 should refer to the review of the NPF; and

• Information on the practical difficulties associated with procuring waste infrastructure through the PPP process would be useful (Midlothian Council).

Executive response: The SPP can perform its function without a review of PAN 63. The SPP cannot and does not dictate SEA requirements for AWPs. The SPP gives as much steer as possible in the context of the NPF which will when published, provide relevant spatial policy. The section also provides further clarity on strategic and local development plans. Joint working is a matter for planning authorities and where required for MSW infrastructure procurement, remains consistent with development planning in general terms to accommodate non- MSW facilities. Scottish Water's request for deletion of reference to waste water and leachate treatment plant is accepted. Procurement difficulties do not negate the need for a plan-led approach.

3.4.2 Need (22)

This section explains that justification for infrastructure based on good data and capacities identified in AWPs should assist development plan preparation.

A total of 12 responses were received regarding this issue. Respondents indicated support for the approach and efforts at improving the quality of waste data. Clarification was sought from Perth and Kinross Council on whether high [recycling] rates negate the need for a waste facility in the area, with further guidance sought from other respondents on how data referred to is to be used by planning authorities. SEPA suggested that the SPP should refer to the fact that SEPA:

• Is reviewing its National Waste Data Strategy, and will consider possible improvements to data collection for commercial and industrial waste;
• Holds information on waste types, quantities, facilities etc. as collated from the site operators' quarterly returns;
• Holds information on all licensed waste facilities as well as activities exempt from licensing;
• Has also carried out work on material-based priority waste projects and industry-based national best practice projects ¹;
• Holds information on the management of municipal waste gathered directly on a quarterly basis, from local authorities; and
• Holds information on special waste consignments, including waste types, quantities, producers and facilities handling the waste.

SEPA felt that a timetable indicating when Strategic Outline Cases will be agreed is important and that the final SPP should clarify that if these cases do not comply with the agreed BPEO of the Area Waste Plan, then a review with full public consultation will be required. Further clarification with SEPA is needed.

Consideration of need should also take account of waste growth projections to ensure that an appropriate level of waste management infrastructure is provided to meet long-term demand.

The following amendment was suggested:

- The sentence 'it will be inappropriate for a local plan to require no waste management infrastructure' should be reworded to clarify that the local plan should reflect the requirement for infrastructure in Area Waste Plans or other sources (Renfrewshire Council).

Key Issues:

• SEPA is a source of further information when determining need; and
• Waste projections should be used to ensure future infrastructure meets future demand.

Executive response: An indication that SEPA holds additional quarterly information has been included. SEPA's key agency role and work on commercial and industrial waste streams has been referred to.

3.4.3 Areas of Search & Site Assessment (23-27)

Development plans should identify areas of search or sites. Cross-references to sources of information to assist with that process are provided, with a focus on industrial sites, and detailed locational issues on waste water treatment works and landfills. Opportunities exist for co-locating upstream collection and downstream manufacturing at some sites that can be discussed with the Enterprise Network in plan preparation. The section introduces the reasoning for a proposed model policy - the next sub-heading in the draft SPP.

Some 22 responses were received on this issue. The views lodged showed general support for the long-term protection of waste management sites in the development plan but sought further clarification on a number of issues, detailed below.

Various sectors indicated general support and recognition of the importance for 'areas of search' as the best way of identifying opportunities. Concern was expressed by local authorities, however, that this commitment to the plan-led approach would delay operation of new facilities and impact on ability to meet future statutory targets for their delivery.

Widespread support for the principle of simplification of site search issues was evident. Some local authorities and national agency/organisations sought more detail on:

- the process of identifying sites and areas of search; and
- where development plan policies and sites should take account of environmental sensitivities and not just the requirements of area waste and national waste plans.

Local circumstances vary and planning authorities suggested that they should have the flexibility to choose whether a site-specific or criteria-based approach in their development plan is most appropriate.

On landfill sites, Aberdeenshire Council suggested that areas of search for new sites should be indicated in supplementary planning guidance rather than the development plan.

Further promotion of joint working between adjoining authorities and guidance on how this might be achieved within the scope of the development was also sought by various respondents. Again, this ties in with the changes to the planning system expected in the near future. Some reference to these changes and joint working may be appropriate.

Scottish Enterprise responded specifically on the consultation process outlining that they may not always be best placed to become involved in the process therefore, consultation with business representatives such as the Federation of Small Businesses and Area Waste Groups may be more appropriate. The business respondents too outlined that the waste industry should play a key role in identifying sites.

Key Issues:

• Further clarification was sought on the process of identifying sites and areas of search;
• Local authorities sought flexibility in development plans and advice on where a criteria-based or site-specific approach is more appropriate;
• Potential areas of search for landfill sites could be included within supplementary planning guidance (although this raises issues of how such guidance is prepared and public involvement in that process);
• Strong suggestion that PAN63 should be updated; and
• The waste industry should play a key role in identifying sites.

Executive response: Helpful responses on the model policy have allowed this section to be simplified and reconfigured offering clarity on the preference for industrial land supported by additional policy options.

3.4.4 Model Policy (28-31)

Intended to simplify an approach across Scotland's development plans, the model policy proposes a focus on Class 5 (General industrial), Class 6 (Storage or Distribution) or Class 4 (Business) land, with additional support in particular circumstances for development plan allocations on greenfield sites or in forestry strategies.

Consultees were invited to specifically comment on the model policy within the SPP and this section received the highest number of responses, totalling 38. There was general agreement across respondents that a model policy was a welcome addition.

The exact details of such a model policy received widespread comment and attracted a mixed response, with some viewing it as too broad and others as too complex.

Clarification was also sought by local authorities on whether the model policy is aimed at strategic or local planning guidance. This relates closely to the modern planning system being delivered through the Planning Etc (Scotland) Bill 2006.

Many local authorities outlined that the model policy as proposed is too complex and further guidance is required on what it hopes to achieve. The use of more general terms would allow planning authorities the flexibility to employ the provisions most appropriate in their areas. It may also be more appropriate to refer to general industrial land in the model policy without going into detail on the use classes order, subject to site related issues. A step further was that the policy be simplified to specify that waste management use is appropriate, subject to the standard siting/amenity based criteria.

The response received from the Waste Recycling Group indicated that the model policy was too broad stating that:

• materials recovery and waste transfer stations may be appropriate on class 6 land;
• waste to energy plants to be related more closely to users of the energy; and
• that certain materials recovery facilities, waste transfer stations and household recycling facilities might be appropriate in residential areas.

An overarching theme amongst respondents from across all sectors, is the unsuitability of Class 4: Business Land for waste management infrastructure and therefore its inclusion in the model policy. There was no wholesale comment on why it is not appropriate but some issues raised included:

• that it wouldn't be acceptable because of the differing nature of waste management infrastructure and business;
• incompatibility of uses;
• potential negative impact on high quality business/technology parks; and
• the inclusion of waste facilities in high quality business/technology parks could encourage reliance on road-serviced transport, contrary to the proximity principle.

There is an interesting tension between the proximity principles leading to recycling facilities in residential areas but not in Class 4 areas. Respondents suggested that Class 4 businesses produce significant waste which could, in these circumstances be sent elsewhere. If Class 4 land is to be included then further guidance is required on the type of facilities that may be suitable in order to strengthen the policy.

The policy as it currently stands does not give guidance as to where smaller facilities and rural facilities could be located. It also does not include reference to the potential expansion of existing waste facilities and may exclude other appropriate locations including former quarries.

General industrial land was considered appropriate for certain waste management facilities but local authorities also made a strong suggestion that a criteria-based locational policy is required instead of, or as well as, the locational policy.

Community groups considered greenfield sites to be unsuitable for waste management facilities and other locations should be explored. Some local authorities sought more specific guidance on the appropriateness of greenfield sites. Referring back to previous sections the business respondents were clear that larger facilities in sustainable locations might need to be in greenfield locations.

On sewage sludge, Scottish Natural Heritage stated that the SPP should restrict the use of sewage sludge where important or sensitive habitats are at risk. Another respondent questioned the role of development plans to address in any way the issue of where or how sewage sludge should be used.

West Lothian Council sought clarification on the legal status of the use of sewage sludge on forested land - afforestation is permitted development, guided by Indicative Forest Strategies, and it is not clear why this needs to be restated in development plans. SEPA also sought clarification on the use of sewage sludge in 'areas of new planting'.

The following amendments were also suggested:

• some reference should be made to bad neighbour development in relation to waste planning policies (Clackmannanshire Council);
• amend to include combined heat and power combustion based waste management units; and
• should also recognise that certain residues from anaerobic digestion and composting of solid wastes may also be appropriate for use in forests and new planting.

Key Issues:

• The model policy was generally welcomed but its policy principles were questioned;
• Clarification is sought on whether the model policy is aimed at strategic or local planning guidance;
• Some planning authorities sought greater flexibility in the model policy;
• A strong objection to the use of Class 4 business land for waste management infrastructure; and
• Strong support for a criteria based policy that could replace or sit alongside revised model policy.

Executive response: Comments on this section were most helpful and informative, with appropriate adjustments made to the text. Clearly, the model policy is aimed at local plans as strategic plans are not site specific. The flexibility exists to opt for non-industrial land where justified or to meet other planning objectives. Class 4 is deleted from the model policy. Criteria based policies may have a supporting but not central role in relation to the model policy and this has been added to the SPP.

3.4.5 Supplementary Planning Guidance ( SPG) (32)

Detailed planning issues on micro-siting or design may be suitable for supplementary planning guidance rather than in the body of a development plan. Some examples are given.

The consultation produced widespread support for the use of supplementary planning guidance amongst the 10 responses received. Local authorities indicated that this would be a useful tool to support the design and integration of waste management, especially in new residential areas, and for mini-recycling sites. The scope of SPG could be wider and include waste management, energy reclamation, district heating etc. Can SPG, however, require something that is not policy in the adopted local plan?

On good practice, respondents suggested that the approach in Scotland would benefit from examples elsewhere e.g. Greater London Authority's SPG on Sustainable Design and Construction which offers overarching policy support within a flexible framework. This may also assist in developing innovative approaches to non-municipal waste management. It was suggested by Forward Scotland that the Scottish Executive publish generic SPG on sustainable waste management, design and construction, to be referenced in the SPP and to ensure consistency of approach across Scottish planning authorities.

Key Issues:

• SPG was supported as a useful tool to ensure integrated waste management in new development;
• Respondents suggested that the Scottish Executive publish generic supplementary planning guidance to assist local authorities; and
• The role of SPG and Development Plans as waste management infrastructure determinants needs careful consideration.

Executive response: The support for SPG is welcomed - an endorsement for the examples referred to. There is no proposal to update PAN 63 nor generic SPG at this stage. That is a role for planning authorities. The provisions for SPG in the 2006 Act are referred to.

3.5 Assessing Development Proposals

Introductory paragraph - explaining the policy background against which assessments are made.

3.5.1 General (33 - 47)

The responses in this section were limited. The small number of local authorities that provided comments on this section suggested that SEPA guidelines be used by Planning Authorities when developing policies or assessing proposals. In particular Dumfries and Galloway Council outlined that the SPP provided a rather inflexible 'one size fits all' solution in relation to source segregation and appropriate kerbside collections of recyclable materials in all new housing development. They felt that further consideration should be given to dealing with waste at central locations and the SPP should take a flexible approach to waste collection and segregation in different areas.

Three specific responses were received from national organisations. These included a request for the SPP to indicate policy priority (where it would be helpful to prioritise policies SPP, National Waste Plan, Area Waste plan) and attach the appropriate weighting to each for local authority assessment purposes.

More specifically consultees outlined that further guidance is required on how cumulative impacts are assessed through the application of SEA.

Both the RTPI and West Lothian Council sought further information on groundwater impacts including questioning the ability of planning authorities to take into account the impact of landfill on groundwater.

Key Issues:

• Clear hierarchy of planning policy and guidance was requested; and
• Further guidance on how to assess cumulative impacts is sought.

Executive response: It is for authorities to take account of the development plan then weight all relevant material considerations as they see fit. The SEA process will apply to all elements of plan-making not specific to SPP 10 in relation to cumulative impacts. Taking into account groundwater impact arises from the Landfill Regulations and there is no opt out. In practice, planning authorities will consider information that accompanies applications presented to them.

3.5.2 Thermal Treatment and Energy from Waste (34 - 36)

The National Waste Plan indicates that there are opportunities for capturing the energy or heat value of waste through thermal treatment, subject to SEPA guidelines and compliance with the Waste Incineration Directive. These and other sources of information should inform development plans.

A number of the 19 responses received on this section were from the business sector. Around a third of the respondents indicated specific support for the co-location of thermal treatment plants with industry and other heat users in support of the potential for energy recovery from waste for use in nearby development.

The use of biomass to produce heat, electricity and/or biofuel should be more positively promoted and digestion technology be included in this section.

The SPP refers to the NWP figure of 14% for thermal treatment of waste. Respondents felt that this figure did not reflect true potential. Individual Area Waste Plans or Strategic Outline Cases offer an increased figure, with 30% of municipal waste considered plausible to be handled by thermal treatment. Shetland Council stated that 66% of their solid municipal waste is treated by thermal treatment. A review of the 14% figure may be appropriate.

Paragraph 35 makes reference to transportation in relation to meeting the objectives of sustainable development. Respondents, however, outlined that transport issues are not the only issues that will determine whether a waste to energy plant is located in a sustainable location. Overall accessibility and not just route miles is a key issue, as are surrounding land uses, amenity and community perspectives. Moray Friends of the Earth state that thermal treatment is not a sustainable option.

Respondents once more expressed a concern regarding timescales. If site identification is to be through a local plan alteration or a subject local plan then this may take two years to prepare and impact on the ability to meet future statutory waste management targets.

Energy from waste is increasingly being viewed as a business opportunity and the economic impact should be recognised in the SPP and considered by planning authorities in developing policies, allocating sites or assessing development.

Aberdeen City Council indicated that the Area Waste Plan for north-east Scotland requires one energy for waste facility for the whole of the north-east. There is, therefore, no need to provide such facilities in all areas. Another respondent suggested that the requirement for energy from waste sites to be identified in development plans should be removed altogether.

SHREWS Ltd suggested that a change in focus might be needed as energy from waste facilities do not need to be large. They can be small scale and capable of taking forms of waste other than simply municipal waste.

Respondents from across the sectors also requested that further consideration is required on the provision/requirements for CHP facilities in new developments.

A number of specific amendments to this section were suggested as follows:

• amend first sentence to read 'and to generate electricity' to reflect combined heat and power plants can generate both ( SEPA), this is however a complex issue;
• refer to SPP6 as well as PAN45 as appropriate advice on siting, design and consideration of planning application for biomass developments (Scottish Renewables);
• revise sentence 2 of paragraph 35 to read 'close to energy grids and to potential users' ( SEPA);
• first line of paragraph 36 should be changed to 'will comply' rather than 'should' (Waste Recycling Group Ltd);
• remove 'therefore normally' from the final sentence to avoid any ambiguity (South Lanarkshire Council); and
• definition of 'urban waste' in paragraph 35 ( SHREWS Ltd and SEPA).

Key Issues:

• General support for an increase in the potential for energy from waste plants;
• Business support for co-location of industry and thermal treatment plants and the use of biomass or digestion technology;
• Moray Friends of the Earth consider thermal treatment as a non-sustainable option;
• Recognition that energy from waste is a business opportunity with associated economic impact in the SPP and development plan;
• A change of focus is needed to account for smaller energy from waste facilities capable of taking both municipal and non-municipal waste.

Executive response: The clear and emerging spatial link between thermal treatment and combined heat and power networks is now reflected in the SPP. Better cross-references to SPP 6 are now provided. The detailed comments were very helpful and by and large accommodated in the finalised SPP.

3.5.3 Landfill (37-38)

Landfill is still required for residual wastes that cannot otherwise be treated and in some cases landfill will assist in land recovery.

There were a limited number of responses, 6 in total, received in relation to this section, with those received being from local authorities, SEPA and the business community.

There was general support for the principles of paragraph 37, however SEPA requested further guidance on how other options are to be tested, for example demonstrate how pre-treatment is being achieved to demonstrate that landfill will not impact adversely on existing recycling/recovery activities. Another respondent, CIWM, sought clarification on what the test is and how it will be conducted.

In relation to paragraph 38, respondents suggested that this be amended to take account of non-municipal waste and to make it clear that not only biodegradable waste is subject to the Landfill Regulations, but all waste.

Respondents indicated general support for the recognition that landfill disposal sites are still needed and that well-engineered sites can be used to improve the appearance of land. In some cases this can bring land back into productive use.

Support was expressed for the principle of energy recovery from landfill and the opportunity to collect energy (landfill gas) from sites.

Further guidance was sought on landfill sites and the development plan. Some local authorities suggested that development plans identify sites that remain in use during all or part of the lifetime of the plan and those with consent but that are not active. The respondent also suggested that sites with no planning consent should not be shown in development plans.

Key Issues:

• Support for an ongoing need for landfill sites;
• Development plans should identify all landfill - active, previously in use and future; and
• The principle of energy from landfill (landfill gas) has some merit.

Executive response: There is little need for change to this section. On balance the development plan may not be appropriate for identifying all active or previous landfills. The test - is the test against the Executive's current policies on waste prevention and reduction.

3.5.4 Land Raising (39)

The section explains the rationale for land raising, the range of circumstances where it is appropriate, how its impact can be mitigated and the policy against land raising for agricultural improvement.

A very limited 3 responses were received in relation to this particular section, with those comments received only from local authorities.

It was suggested that the SPP include a requirement for future landfill planning applications to include both pre and post settlement contours and sections, in order for the local authority to monitor the height and profile of the site.

Another respondent from a local authority sought further clarification in relation to paragraph 39, suggesting that without clear guidelines to assess alternative solutions then the wording as currently suggested could be used to justify land raising.

The following amendments were suggested in relation to this section:

• The second last sentence be reworded or deleted to take account that the potential for an operator returning to a site following final completion or completion of a development phase can create unnecessary uncertainty and unrest amongst neighbours. Reprofiling does not have to involve the importation of municipal waste (South Lanarkshire Council).

Key Issues:

• Further clarity of the guidelines is required.

Executive response: It is asserted that the text is clear but is it agreed that the requirement for land raising to achieve levels should be "justified" rather than "necessary".

3.5.5 Landfill (Scotland) Regulations 2003 (40-42)

Regulations applying to landfill and the groundwater criterion (no longer an issue solely for SEPA) are a consideration for planning authorities. The Landfill Allowance Scheme is referred to in passing.

One waste/energy business respondent has outlined that it is important to ensure that the enthusiasm for new-generation waste management facilities doesn't overlook the continuing need for landfill.

SEPA suggested that this section be expanded to include 'restoration' advice that outlines the type of information required to be lodged with a planning application and the issues for a planning authority to consider to secure restoration.

Key Issues:

• This section should be expanded to include restoration advice.

Executive response: SEPA's request for the addition of restoration advice is dealt with by a reference to PAN 64. The Landfill Allowance Scheme reference has been removed.

3.5.6 Cumulative Impacts (Landfill) (43-44)

The cumulative impact of landfill particularly within a 5km. radius of a site, together with other minerals and opencast coal operations is a consideration for settlements and landscapes, spatially and over time. Impacts should be rigorously assessed, mitigated and where consent is granted, controlled by planning conditions and monitored.

There was general support from the 13 respondents on the contents of this section. A minimal response was received from local authorities on this issue with the similar response from North and South Lanarkshire Council reflecting earlier views and requesting clarification on the division of roles between the planning authority and SEPA in relation to monitoring and regulatory functions.

The waste/energy business community questioned the 5km radius for cumulative assessment as being both arbitrary and over-restrictive. It was suggested that the 5km distance be replaced by guidance reminding applicants that EIA should consider cumulative impacts of potential significance regardless of distance. This view was also expressed by one of the community groups suggesting that cumulative impacts should be considered for any new proposal and not just those within 5km of a settlement.

Concern was expressed by SESA about the requirement for planning authorities to take account of the cumulative impacts of landfill, with a reminder that each must be assessed on their own merits. Landfill also presents an opportunity to restore redundant mineral workings back to a productive use.

One local authority respondent also suggested that a possible amendment might assert that cumulative transport impacts are of particular importance. Assessment of cumulative transport flows should therefore have regard to any cross-boundary or long distance flows from outside the immediate locality, arising from consented, operational or proposed facilities.

The following amendment was suggested:

• A local authority response suggested that consideration should be given to the sentence referring to 'two or more operational or consented sites within 5km of any nearby settlement' should be amended to include reference to proposed sites at planning application stage. One of the community respondents suggested that this be changed to any site.

Key Issues:

• 5km radius is considered arbitrary and over restrictive. A further review is therefore required.

Executive response: On the 5km radius, the policy approach should accord with SPP 4 and SPP 16. That provides certainty and consistency but does not override EIA conclusions. It could be construed as unjust to include in the assessment of cumulative impacts, proposals not yet permitted. However the value judgement that cumulative impact from closing or remediating sites might be lower has been adjusted to be more objective and related to the "language" of EIA.

3.5.7 Sewage and Other Process Sludges (45)

Sludges require disposal and where this is to land, Regulations and a Code of Practice apply. On agricultural land, spreading is exempt from licensing and planning controls. On non-agricultural land, even where exempt from licensing, there may be development plan and development management considerations to take into account.

In general the 10 respondents across various sectors welcomed the inclusion of the controlled use of sewage sludge within developments that result in substantial land restoration, such as quarrying or open cast. Another respondent was opposed to this mandatory requirement to allow sewage sludge to be used for this purpose and, if sludge is to be used, this should be stated at the outset in any EIA for proposed mineral development. A minerals scheme must be assessed on its own merits and not be an avenue for sewage sludge deposition, without community consultation. Furthermore, another respondent suggested that this requirement could act as a major ground for objections to mineral proposals.

Respondents from local authorities also suggested that the SPP should promote sewage sludge as a fuel source although this could conflict with EU Waste Incineration Directive. The SPP should also recognise that certain residues from anaerobic digestion and composting of solid wastes may also be appropriate for use in forests and new planting.

Clarification was sought on the following issues:

• legal status of the use of sewage sludge on forested land;
• normally separate planning consent will be required to import sewage sludge for restoration purposes - does the second last sentence mean that planning consent may now not be required (North Lanarkshire Council);
• afforestation is permitted development and it is not clear why this needs to be re-stated in development plans (West Lothian Council); and
• it may be useful to explain, after the sentence which deals with developments that are 'exempt from licensing under the 1994 regulations', to add 'unless the exemption criteria are breached in which case a license or permit may be required' ( SEPA).

Key Issues:

• Mixed response was received to the use of sewage sludge;
• Suggestion that the SPP could promote sewage sludge as a fuel source; and
• Recognise that certain residues from anaerobic digestion and composting could also be used in a similar manner.

Executive response: The other comments are informative but where unrelated to planning policy have not required adjustments. The SPP does not give legal views. The Sewage Sludge sub-heading is under Assessing Development Proposals and there is no reference to afforestation and development plans, however adjustments have been made to the potential requirement for separate consents if sewage sludge is part of a restoration programme e.g. for a landfill.

3.5.8 Waste Management Planning in Other Developments (46-47)

Waste management design considerations apply to residential, commercial and industrial properties. Advice from the Scottish Building Standards Agency and PAN63 is referred to.

A total of 8 responses were received in relation to this issue. Widespread support was received for waste management and energy recovered from waste being integrated into new development and for commercial and industrial properties to adopt practices that will encourage waste separation and collection.

EnviroCentre outlined that the SPP should include a requirement for demonstrating consideration of waste management infrastructure in the design of all developments. Another respondent from the waste/energy business sector emphasised that waste in new developments should be conceived of in more detail than simply indicating where a facility should be and should also consider whether new developments should have their own waste treatment facilities.

Respondents from various sectors suggested that planning policy should also consider the provision of district heating and CHP through small-scale thermal treatment plants and the benefits that these bring to development.

Forward Scotland in their response suggested that the SPP make reference to good practice approaches (such as those in the code of practice) and that new waste management infrastructure should complement the objectives of the Area Waste Plan.

Key Issues:

• Widespread support for including appropriate scale waste management infrastructure in all development; and
• Consider CHP and district heating for appropriate development types and scale.

Executive response: CHP receives reference elsewhere in the SPP. The support for this section is welcomed. Updated references have been added to the SPP.

3.6 Development Management

Introductory paragraph only, describing Planning Bill and relevant policy commitments.

3.6.1 General (48-52)

In general the development management section was welcomed by respondents.

Two local authorities thought it would be useful to have further information on the respective roles of planning authorities and SEPA.

Some respondents from various sectors felt that the section is focussed towards planning permission being granted, they therefore, requested that the SPP, when re-drafted, should allow for refusal even if it accords with area and national waste plans where there are sound and clear-cut planning reasons for doing so.

Key Issues:

• Further information sought on roles of and relationship between planning and SEPA.

Executive response: Further clarity on SEPA's role has been provided in the relevant section. The SPP aims to provide for a positive approach to secure the step change necessary to meet obligations and targets but planning permission and judgement on material considerations are in the hands of decision-makers ( SPP 1) so the SPP is considered to be unbiased in that regard.

3.6.2 Planning Conditions, Licensing Powers, Monitoring and Enforcement (49-50)

While the dividing line is not always clear cut, planning and licensing controls should avoid duplication. A range of guidance and advice is available. Conditions requiring environmental audits are a particular means of monitoring development impacts. Modernisation of enforcement under Planning Bill proposals is referred to.

In line with the provisions of the new planning bill the responses indicated strong support for a greater role for enforcement. There were however, concerns. Communities were particularly concerned about whether a strong monitoring and enforcement regime can operate 24 hours a day.

This was reflected in the concerns raised by local authorities on the possible resource implications of attempting to monitor and enforce compliance with such conditions.

There was some support for the roles of SEPA and the planning authority, but further clarification was sought on differentiation of issues. SEPA outlined that it may be worth considering that they can work with planning authorities regarding enforcement on waste management issues.

Both the SSDP and West Lothian Council felt that the SPP should be stronger on the issue of bonds, especially in the case of new landfill proposals, as there is no reason why these should not be subject to a bond in the same way as opencast coal and mining proposals are.

Clarification was sought on the requirement for operators to carry out an audit of environmental impacts as a result of planning conditions. These should be limited to those impacts identified with the EIA.

The following amendments were suggested:

• reference to the use of planning conditions to manage waste on development sites should be deleted - not sure if planning system is the best means of regulating this (Angus Council); and
• surrounding communities should be added to the end of the second bullet point (North Lanarkshire Council).

Key Issues:

• Can enforcement be effective if it doesn't operate 24hrs/day and potentially without adequate resources?
• Strong support for greater role for enforcement;
• Consideration should be given to the role of bonds for landfill sites; and
• Potential for SEPA to work in partnership with local authorities.

Executive response: The enforcement regime is due for significant enhancement under the 2006 Act. The scope for environmental audit is open to the planning authority to determine. SEPA's complementary role is recognised and will be part of its proposed key agency remit at development plan stage.

3.6.3 Design (51)

Complementing paragraph 46 on building-in design to facilitate waste management, the paragraph draws attention to the industrial nature of waste operations but nevertheless the sometimes innovate approach to the design of some of the largest installations across Europe but with a focus on safety, accessibility and fitness-for-purpose.

Consultation resulted in a general welcome across the 4 responses for the benefits that would result from principles of good design.

A number of respondents did suggest that reference to the 'European examples' should be made, with further thought given to providing up-to-date examples of good practice and new technological developments, possibly through PANs.

Key Issues:

• Generally welcomed across all respondents
• May be useful to cite European examples of good practice, possible through review of PAN63.

3.6.4 Site Waste Management Plans (52)

Executive response: The SPP focuses on policy principles, rather than good practice which is available from other sources, many of them cross-referenced. The new Planning Act's proposals for design statements has been added.

3.6.4 Site Waste Management Plans (52)

Emerging policy approaches consistent with sustainable development include Site Waste Management Plans and demolition protocols. These are supported by the draft SPP.

The majority of the 13 responses received on this section were from local authorities.

Many of these welcomed the usefulness of site waste management plans, however there were contradictory views regarding the appropriateness of a project value cut-off point of £200,000.

Respondents indicated some support for the value set, however it was thought by others that this was too low and a more focussed approach was necessary. Local authorities thought this could be problematic in terms of their resources. The response received from East Renfrewshire Council questioned the project value altogether as a way to justify projects and suggested whether tonnage of waste on site may be a more appropriate gauge.

Respondents also sought further guidance on the type of development that would be subject to site waste management plans.

Some comments were forthcoming in relation to demolition protocols, with suggestions that the ICE Demolition Protocol be signposted as an example of best practice, or be taken on board in a model policy.

Clarification was sought on the following:

• query raised as to why only development over £200k requires site waste management plan (various).

Key Issues:

• Contradictory views were expressed on the suggested project value. Other potential solutions were identified.

Executive response: Adjustments to the text on SWMPs is considered appropriate and have been drawn from the Business Waste Framework. The SWMP concept remains entirely voluntary. The ICE demolition protocol is signposted.

3.7 Monitoring and Implementation

A plan-led system that engages communities and achieves statutory targets will further the aims of sustainable waste management. Good publicity early on about new facilities also fosters inclusion but the industry too, relies on an efficient planning system. Improved monitoring of development plans and planning consents in the waste management field will be pursued by the Executive. The SPP, when finalised, will be material to Ministers' decisions on development plan approval and in cases where they determine development proposals.

3.7.1 General (53-55)

The revised reporting arrangements for planning authorities and recognition of the role of the planning system in delivering and supporting the Scottish Executive policies received support.

The partnership approach was also supported but some respondents suggested that a change of focus to cover greater inter-authority co-operation is required. The need for closer links between authorities and need for actions at the strategic levels was also supported.

The SPP should set out the information required from the waste management sector to allow forward planning. SESA in their response suggested that a robust monitoring process is required to report on the progress of development plans and planning consents in facilitating new waste infrastructure.

The community respondents expressed concern about how to deal with cases where no satisfactory solution has been found in respect of community complaints.

Key Issues:

• Support for partnership approach to monitoring and implementation with more focus on inter-authority co-operation.

Executive response: There are a number of generic issue raised in response to this section which will be pursued under the umbrella of planning reform. Inter-authority co-operation is encouraged.

3.8 Policy Framework Annex

A ten-point summary of the waste management policy framework is presented in a table.

3.8.1 General

There were few comments received in relation to the policy annex, only 5 in total. The comments ranged from support stating that it provided a useful clarification of key issues to a suggestion that the annex required further context and background information.

More specific comments suggested that Section 7 might refer to SPP6 regarding the use of waste for energy production and that packaging guidelines need to be reviewed to reduce waste.

Renfrewshire Council referred to the joint working procedure to provide strategic outline cases under item 8, but that this provision is not included in the main body of the SPP. If this is to be the preferred method to make the link from the National Waste Plan and Area Waste Plan to identify specific sites, then this should be in the main body of the document.

Executive response: Additional references to the Pollution Prevention and Control Regulations, the National Waste Management Plan for Scotland Regulations, the Business Waste Framework and the UK's Policy on Low Level Radioactive Waste Management have been added to the Table.

3.9 Issues Raised Outwith the Structure of the Draft SPP10

Community groups view pre-application consultation with suspicion, requiring a greater level of information and safeguards that their views are being reported properly and taken into account.

One comment was received on the statutory consultee process suggesting that SPP10 should allow the planning authority to assume that a statutory consultee, such as the HSE, does not wish to comment if they have not responded within the 14 day period in order to avoid delay.

BAA made a specific comment on the potential conflict between aircraft and birds, which may be attracted to waste facilities. Safeguarding maps are issued to local authorities to indicate the area within which a development likely to attract birds requires consultation with the aerodrome operator. Often the risk presented by these proposals can be mitigated through careful design and the implementation of appropriate operational and bird management procedures. The SPP should make some reference to this.

On delivery of new waste infrastructure one local authority commented on possible delays due to the uncertainty and the protracted timescale related to the allocation of funding from the Scottish Executive strategic waste fund.

Executive response: Consistent with SPP 4, a reference to Circular 2/2003 - Safeguarding of Aerodromes etc. has been added. Uncertainty surrounding the strategic waste fund is separate from development plan preparation in the context of the model policy approach provided in the SPP.

3.10 Omissions

The key issue that emerged from the majority of the respondents was the lack of reference and guidance to non-municipal waste throughout the SPP. A large number of respondents highlighted the importance of this, including local authorities, national organisations and the business community. Business waste volumes need to be taken into consideration as part of the decision making and investment process and the spatial and locational needs for dealing with business waste need to be addressed across the planning hierarchy.

There is no reference to hazardous waste within the SPP and clarification is sought on whether this SPP offers an opportunity to provide guidance on the most appropriate sites and locations for facilities to deal with such waste.

A number of respondents suggested that a glossary should be included within the SPP to help clarify a number of terms. One possible source of clarification was the National Waste Strategy.

The SPP should clarify the information required to be provided by the waste management monitoring and regulatory sector to assist planning authorities in forward planning.

Rural authorities outlined that the guidance in the SPP needed to take better account of the current realities and resource difficulties in areas with low, dispersed populations, the continuing importance of road-based transport and significantly higher development costs.

Scottish Water seeks a separate section of the SPP to deal with wastewater and the siting of these facilities, or a separate SPP on this topic.

Key Issues:

• Non-municipal waste is not dealt with effectively in the SPP;
• Hazardous waste is not dealt with effectively in the SPP;
• It was suggested that a glossary is required to help explain some key terms;
• Differentiation between circumstance and conditions in rural areas compared to urban areas; and
• Suggestion that wastewater facilities should be referred to in the SPP.

Executive response: Further references to the importance of the need for the planning system to address non-municipal waste have been added to the SPP. The SPP is aimed at all relevant waste streams. A glossary has not been added as advice is widely available elsewhere and some of these sources are referred to in the SPP. The model policy and for example the criteria-based approach promoted in the SPP provides planning authorities with the flexibility necessary to deal with rural situations. PAN 79: Water and Drainage provided relevant advice on waste water treatment works.

* Figures in parentheses refer to the paragraph numbers of the draft SPP (et seq.)