buckinghamshire county council sustainability appraisal of the...

Buckinghamshire County Council Sustainability Appraisal of the Minerals and Waste Core Strategy Appendices August 2011

rlwilliams

Typewritten Text

CS 1.3

Document Control Sheet BPP 04 F8

Client: Buckinghamshire County Council Project: Minerals and Waste Core Strategy Project No: B1279819 Document Title: Sustainability Appraisal of the

Minerals and Waste Core Strategy

Originated by Checked by Reviewed by Approved by

NAME NAME NAME NAME ORIGINAL Susan Gilfrin & Jillianne Webb

Scott D. Johnson Scott D. Johnson Jon Mullins

DATE INITIALS SMG INITIALS SDJ INITIALS SDJ INITIALS JM

August 2011 Document Status Final

NAME NAME NAME NAME REVISION

DATE INITIALS INITIALS INITIALS INITIALS

Document Status



Document Status



Document Status



Document Status

Jacobs Engineering U.K. Limited This document has been prepared by a division, subsidiary or affiliate of Jacobs Engineering U.K. Limited (“Jacobs”) in its professional capacity as consultants in accordance with the terms and conditions of Jacobs’ contract with the commissioning party (the “Client”). Regard should be had to those terms and conditions when considering and/or placing any reliance on this document. No part of this document may be copied or reproduced by any means without prior written permission from Jacobs. If you have received this document in error, please destroy all copies in your possession or control and notify Jacobs. Any advice, opinions, or recommendations within this document (a) should be read and relied upon only in the context of the document as a whole; (b) do not, in any way, purport to include any manner of legal advice or opinion; (c) are based upon the information made available to Jacobs at the date of this document and on current UK standards, codes, technology and construction practices as at the date of this document. It should be noted and it is expressly stated that no independent verification of any of the documents or information supplied to Jacobs has been made. No liability is accepted by Jacobs for any use of this document, other than for the purposes for which it was originally prepared and provided. Following final delivery of this document to the Client, Jacobs will have no further obligations or duty to advise the Client on any matters, including development affecting the information or advice provided in this document. This document has been prepared for the exclusive use of the Client and unless otherwise agreed in writing by Jacobs, no other party may use, make use of or rely on the contents of this document. Should the Client wish to release this document to a third party, Jacobs may, at its discretion, agree to such release provided that (a) Jacobs’ written agreement is obtained prior to such release; and (b) by release of the document to the third party, that third party does not acquire any rights, contractual or otherwise, whatsoever against Jacobs and Jacobs, accordingly, assume no duties, liabilities or obligations to that third party; and (c) Jacobs accepts no responsibility for any loss or damage incurred by the Client or for any conflict of Jacobs’ interests arising out of the Client's release of this document to the third party.

Sustainability Appraisal Appendices

Contents

Appendix A SEA Directive 1

Appendix B Review of Relevant Plans, Policies, Programmes and Initiatives 5

Appendix C Alterations to the Sustainability Appraisal Framework 11

Appendix D Options Appraisal Conclusions from Previous Version of the SA (Preferred Options, 2008) 33

Appendix E Review of Calvert Proposals 37

Appendix F Review of New Options 90

Appendix G Effects of the Plan 144

Appendix H Assumed Construction Controls 186

Appendix I Calvert Endnotes 190


Sustainability Appraisal Appendices 1

Appendix A SEA Directive

The following tables demonstrate how this SA Report and supporting documentation achieves compliance with the requirements of the Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive.

The requirements of the SEA Directive Where covered in the Buckinghamshire Minerals and

Waste Core Strategy SA Report Preparation of an environmental report in which the likely significant effects on the environment of implementing the plan or programme, and reasonable alternatives taking into account the objectives and geographical scope of the plan or programme, are identified, described and evaluated. The information to be given is (Art. 5 and Annex I):

Covered throughout the SA Report, which highlights the significant effects on the environment of implementing the Core

Strategy and of the alternative options that were also considered, taking into account the objectives and geographical scope of the plan. The main effects are identified, described and

evaluated, particularly in Sections 5 and 6 of the SA Report.

a) An outline of the contents, main objectives of the plan or programme, and relationship with other relevant plans and programmes;

An outline of the contents of the Core Strategy is provided in Executive Summary of the SA Report. The plan objectives are

outlined in Section 4.1 of the SA Report. The relationship between the SA and other policies, plans and programmes is outlined in Section 3 of the SA Report and, in further detail, in

the Review of Relevant Plans, Policies, Programmes and Initiatives Topic Paper (TP3).

b) The relevant aspects of the current state of the environment and the likely evolution thereof without implementation of the plan or programme;

Aspects of the current state of the environment, relevant to Buckinghamshire and to the context of a minerals and waste

plan, and their likely evolution without the plan, are set out in the sustainability framework in Section 3, and in more detail in the

Spatial Context Topic Paper (TP7).

c) The environmental characteristics of areas likely to be significantly affected;

The environmental characteristics of areas likely to be affected are summarised in the sustainability framework in Section 3 and

provided in further detail in the Spatial Context Topic Paper (TP7) and Climate Change Topic Paper (TP1), and, for the

Calvert proposals, in the site-specific baseline, set out in the Area Statement (TP9).

d) Any existing environmental problems which are relevant to the plan or programme including, in particular, those relating to any areas of a particular environmental importance, such as areas designated pursuant to Directives 79/409/EEC and 92/43/EEC;

Existing environmental problems which are relevant to the plan are set out in the sustainability framework in Section 3 of the SA Report and in detail in the Spatial Context Topic Paper, which includes a statement about the importance of protecting areas

designated for their importance for biodiversity, particularly those designated pursuant to European Directives regarding

habitats and conservation of wild birds. At the site level, for the Calvert proposals, any nearby protected areas are noted in the

site specific baseline, set out in the Area Statement (TP9).

e) The environmental protection objectives, established at international, Community or national level, which are relevant to the plan or programme and the way those objectives and any environmental considerations have been taken into account during its preparation;

The environmental protection objectives established at international, European and national level which are of

relevance to the Core Strategy have been taken into account in the development of the SA objectives, as shown in the Review of Relevant Plans, Policies, Programmes and Initiatives (TP3) and in the Sustainability Framework set out in Section 3 of the

SA Report.



Waste Core Strategy SA Report

f) The likely significant effects on the environment, including on issues such as biodiversity, population, human health, fauna, flora, soil, water, air, climatic factors, material assets, cultural heritage including architectural and archaeological heritage, landscape and the interrelationship between the above factors. (Footnote: These effects should include secondary, cumulative, synergistic, short, medium and long-term permanent and temporary, positive and negative effects);

The likely effects on the environment of the plan and the alternative options, including on issues such as biodiversity,

population, human health, fauna, flora, soil, water, air, climatic factors, material assets, cultural heritage including architectural and archaeological heritage, landscape and the interrelationship

between the above factors, are set out in Sections 5 and 6 of the SA Report. These effects include secondary, cumulative,

synergistic, short, medium and long-term permanent and temporary, positive and negative effects

g) The measures envisaged to prevent, reduce and as fully as possible offset any significant adverse effects on the environment of implementing the plan or programme;

A range of mitigation measures has been proposed to prevent, reduce and, as fully as possible, offset any significant adverse effects on the environment of implementing the Core Strategy; these are set out in Sections 5, 6 and 7 of the SA Report and in the detailed Calvert proposals, new options and effects of the

plan reviews in Appendices E, F and G.

h) An outline of the reasons for selecting the alternatives dealt with, and a description of how the assessment was undertaken including any difficulties (such as technical deficiencies or lack of know-how) encountered in compiling the required information;

The reasons for selecting the alternatives dealt with are outlined in Section 5 of the SA Report. A description of how the

assessment was undertaken is set out in Section 2 of the SA Report, including statements about difficulties encountered in

compiling the required information. Further details of the approach the appraisal is set out at the beginning of each of the

detailed review documents in Appendices E, F and G.

i) a description of measures envisaged concerning monitoring in accordance with Article 10;

A description of the monitoring measures envisaged is set out Section 7 of the SA Report.

j) a non-technical summary of the information provided under the above headings.

A non-technical summary is provided in Executive Summary of the SA Report.

The report shall include the information that may reasonably be required taking into account current knowledge and methods of assessment, the contents and level of detail in the plan or programme, its stage in the decision-making process and the extent to which certain matters are more appropriately assessed at different levels in that process to avoid duplication of the assessment (Art. 5.2).

The SA Report has been written in light of these considerations and seeks to avoid, in particular, covering site-specific work that

will be undertaken as part of Environmental Impact Assessments that will accompany planning applications. Links

to other tiers of plans and programmes and the project level are set out in Section 7.1 of the SA Report.

Consultation: authorities with environmental responsibility,

when deciding on the scope and level of detail of the information to be included in the environmental report (Art. 5.4).

authorities with environmental responsibility and the public shall be given an early and effective opportunity within appropriate time frames to express their opinion on the draft plan or programme and the accompanying environmental report before the adoption of the plan or programme (Art. 6.1, 6.2).

other EU Member States, where the implementation of the plan or programme is likely to have significant effects on the environment of that country (Art. 7).

With regard to the Minerals and Waste Local Development Framework, consultation has, and will continue to be, carried

out in line with Government guidelines, which includes consulting with statutory consultees with environmental

responsibilities, in particular the Environment Agency, English Heritage and Natural England, together with the general public.

The environment of other EU Member States will not be significantly effected by the Core Strategy, so were not

consulted.



Waste Core Strategy SA Report

Taking the environmental report and the results of the consultations into account in decision-making (Art. 8)

Examples of how the SA has informed decision-making are highlighted throughout the SA Report.

The results of previous consultations on minerals and waste issues have been taken into account in the SA of the Core

Strategy, as set out in Section 2.3 of the SA Report. The results of the current round of consultation will also be taken into account in the SA process and in the finalising of the Core

Strategy.

Provision of information on the decision: When the plan or programme is adopted, the public and any countries consulted under Art.7 shall be informed and the following made available to those so informed: the plan or programme as adopted; a statement summarising how environmental

considerations have been integrated into the plan or programme and how the environmental report pursuant to Article 5, the opinions expressed pursuant to Article 6 and the results of consultations entered into pursuant to Article 7 have been taken into account in accordance with Article 8, and the reasons for choosing the plan or programme as adopted, in the light of the other reasonable alternatives dealt with; and

the measures decided concerning monitoring (Art. 9 and 10)

This information has been required has been provided at each stage of the consultation process, both as paper copies and on

Buckinghamshire County Council’s website.

Monitoring of the significant environmental effects of the plan’s or programme’s implementation (Art. 10)

The proposals for monitoring the significant environmental effects of the Core Strategy’s implementation are set out in

Section 7 of the SA Report.

Quality assurance: environmental reports should be of a sufficient standard to meet the requirements of the SEA Directive (Art. 12).

This Appendix highlights that the SA Report is of a sufficient standard to meet the requirements of the SEA Directive.

Quality Assurance Checklist

Objectives and context The plan’s purpose and objectives are made clear Sustainability issues, including international and EC objectives, are considered in developing objectives and

targets SA objectives are clearly set out and linked to indicators and targets where appropriate Links with other related plans, programmes and policies are identified and explained Conflicts that exist between SA objectives and plan objectives, and between SA objectives and other plan

objectives are identified and described Scoping

The environmental consultation bodies are consulted in appropriate ways and at appropriate times on the content and scope of the SA Report

The appraisal focuses on significant issues Technical, procedural and other difficulties encounters are discussed; assumptions and uncertainties are

made explicit Reasons are given for eliminating issues from further consideration

Options / Alternatives Realistic alternatives are considered for key issues, and the reasons for choosing them are documented Alternatives include ‘do nothing’ and/or ‘business as usual’ scenarios wherever relevant The sustainability effects (both adverse and beneficial) of each alternative are identified and compared Inconsistencies between the alternatives and other relevant plans, programmes or policies are identified and

explained – N/A – no such inconsistencies identified Reasons are given for selection or elimination of alternatives

Baseline information Relevant aspects of the current state of the environment and their likely evolution without the plan are

described Characteristics of areas likely to be significantly affected are described, including areas wider than the

physical boundary of the plan where it is likely to be affected by the plan where practicable Difficulties such as deficiencies in information or methods are explained

Prediction and evaluation of likely significant effects Likely significant social, environmental and economic effects are identified, including those listed in the SEA


Directive (biodiversity, population, human health, fauna, flora, soil, water, air, climate factors, material assets, cultural heritage and landscape), as relevant

Both positive and negative effects are considered, and where practicable, the duration of effects (short, medium or long-term) is addressed

Likely secondary, cumulative and synergistic effects are identified where practicable Inter-relationships between effects are considered where practicable Where relevant, the prediction and evaluation of effects makes use of accepted standards, regulations and

thresholds Methods used to evaluation the effects are described

Mitigation measures Measures envisaged to prevent, reduce or offset any significant adverse effects of implementing the plan are

indicated Issues to be taken into account in development consents are identified

The Sustainability Appraisal Report Is clear and concise in its layout and presentation Uses simple, clear language and avoids or explains technical terms Uses maps and other illustrations where appropriate (in topic papers to illustrate spatial material) Explains the methodology used Explains who was consulted and what methods of consultation were used Identifies sources of information, including expert judgement and matters of opinion Contains a non-technical summary

Consultation The SA is consulted on as an integral part of the plan-making process The consultation bodies, consultees and the public are consulted in ways which give them an early and

effective opportunity within appropriate time frames to express their opinions on the draft plan and SA Report

Decision-making and information on the decision The SA Report and the opinions of those consulted are taken into account in finalising and adopted the plan

– this has occurred to date and will occur following the current consultation process An explanation is given of how they have been taken into account – this has occurred to date and will occur

following the current consultation process Reasons are given for choices in the adopted plan, in the light of other reasonable options considered – this

has occurred to date and will occur following the current consultation process Monitoring measures

Measures proposed for monitoring are clear, practicable and linked to the indicators and objectives used in the SA

Monitoring is used, where appropriate, during implementation of the plan to make good deficiencies in the baseline information in the SA – this has occurred to date and will continue to occur into the future

Monitoring enables unforeseen adverse effects to be identified at an early stage (these effects may include predictions which prove to be incorrect) – such monitoring will take place into the future

Proposals are made for action in response to significant adverse effects


Appendix B Review of Relevant Plans, Policies, Programmes and Initiatives

A comprehensive review of relevant plans, policies, programmes and initiatives at international, European, national, regional and local level has been undertaken. From a Sustainability Appraisal perspective, this process aims to ensure that the key issues, objectives and targets included within these documents are taken into account in the development of the Sustainability Appraisal Framework. An initial set of documents was reviewed as part of the development of the Scoping Report for the Buckinghamshire Minerals and Waste Local Development Framework in 2006. The documents have been re-examined and the review’s scope has been widened for each stage of consultation, most recently for the Core Strategy Preferred Options consultation in 2008, and prior to this consultation in 2011, in light of consultation feedback, the publication of updated editions, and the publication of new documents in light of changes in policy. The review of relevant documents, which has also been utilised in the development of the Core Strategy itself, is now contained in the ‘Other Plans, Policies, Programmes and Initiatives Topic Paper’ (Topic Paper 3). It has been restructured into a theme-based order to make it more accessible, and international and European policy has not been covered in detail where it is implemented through, and thus repeated at, national level. The following documents have been examined for the latest review of relevant plans, policies, programmes and initiatives:

A. Key Planning Policy for Minerals and Waste Planning: Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 1: Delivering Sustainable

Development (2005) Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 10: Planning for Sustainable

Waste Management (2005) Minerals Policy Statement (MPS) 1: Planning and Minerals (2006) Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 12: Local Spatial Planning

(2008) Localism Bill (Dec 2010) South East Plan, including the Sub-Regional Strategy for Milton

Keynes and Aylesbury Vale (2009)

B. Sustainable Development: Securing the Future – UK Sustainable Development Strategy

(2005) Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 1: Delivering Sustainable

Development (2005) Government Statement: Presumption in Favour of Sustainable

Development (June 2011) South East Plan (2009) South East England Regional Sustainability Framework (2008) Reducing South East England’s Ecological Footprint – A Route

Map (2008) Sustainable Community Strategy for Buckinghamshire 2009-2026

(2009)


Buckinghamshire County Council Sustainability Strategy (2009) Aylesbury Vale District Council Sustainable Community Strategy

Consultation Document (2006) South Buckinghamshire District Council Draft Sustainable

Community Strategy (2009) Chiltern District Council Sustainable Community Strategy (2009) Wycombe District Council Sustainable Community Plan (2005) Local Area Plans (2010) – Amersham; Buckingham; Chepping

Wye Valley; Chesham and Chiltern Villages; Great Brickhill, Wing and Ivinghoe; Greater Aylesbury; Haddenham and Long Crendon; The Missendens; Waddesdon; Wendover

C. Climate Change:

Climate Change: The UK Programme (2006) The UK Low Carbon Transition Plan: National strategy for climate

and energy (2009) Planning and Climate Change – Supplement to Planning Policy

Statement (PPS) 1 (2007) (Draft) Carbon Plan, HM Government (April 2011) South East Plan (2009)

D. Minerals:

Minerals Policy Statement (MPS) 1: Planning and Minerals (2006) Minerals Policy Statement (MPS) 2: Controlling and Mitigating the

Environmental Effects of Mineral Extraction in England (2005) Minerals Planning Guidance (MPG) 7: Reclamation of Mineral

Workings (1996) South East Plan (2009)

E. Waste:

Waste Strategy for England (2007) Government Review of Waste Policy in England (DEFRA) (2011) Draft of ‘The Waste (England and Wales) Regulations 2010’ –

implements EU Waste Framework Directive (2008) Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 10: Planning for Sustainable

Waste Management (2005) – including March 2011 update Planning Policy Guidance (PPG) 14: Development on Unstable

Land (1990) South East Plan (2009) The London Plan: Spatial Development Strategy for Greater

London (2011) Joint Municipal Waste Management Strategy: Headline Strategy

(2007) – produced by Waste Partnership for Buckinghamshire (County Council and the four District Councils)

Strategic Environmental Assessment for the Joint Municipal Waste Management Strategy (above) (2006)

Waste Disposal Authority (Buckinghamshire County Council) procurement process – Energy from Waste project

F. Air Quality:

Air Quality Strategy for the UK (2007) Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 23: Planning and Pollution

Control (2004) South East Plan (2009)


Bucks and Milton Keynes Regional Air Quality Strategy (2006), including Local Air Quality Strategy Action Reports of all four districts and Milton Keynes

Air Quality Management Area (AQMA) Statements South Bucks Consultation Draft Air Quality Action Plan (2006)

South Bucks Air Quality Updating and Screening Assessment (2009)

Wycombe District Council Air Quality Updating and Screening Assessment (2009)

Wycombe Air Quality Progress Report (2010) Aylesbury Vale District Council Air Quality and Updating and

Screening Assessment (2009) Aylesbury Vale Air Quality Progress Report (2010) Chiltern District Council Updating and Screening Assessment

(2009) Chiltern Air Quality Progress Report (2010)

G. Water & Flooding:

Water Strategy for England – Future Water (2008) Upper Ouse and Bedford Ouse Catchment Abstraction

Management Strategy (CAMS) (2005) Thame and Southern Chiltern Catchment Abstraction

Management Strategy (CAMS) (2007) Colne Catchment and Abstraction Management Strategy (CAMS)

(2007) Thames River Basin Management Plan (RBMP) (2009) Anglian River Basin Management Plan (RBMP) (2009) Thames Catchment Flood Management Plan (2009) Anglian (Great Ouse River) Catchment Flood Management Plan

(2010) Implications of the Flood and Water Management Action (2010) Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 23: Planning and Pollution

Control (2004) Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 25: Development and Flood Risk

(2010) South East Plan (2009) Buckinghamshire Level 1 Strategic Flood Risk Assessment

(SFRA) for the Minerals and Waste LDF (2010) Aylesbury Vale Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA) (2009) South Buckinghamshire Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA)

(2008) Chiltern District Council Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA)

(2008) Wycombe District Council Strategic Flood Risk Assessment

(SFRA) (2008) H. Biodiversity & Geodiversity:

Conserving Biodiversity – the UK Approach (2007) Working with the Grain of Nature – A Biodiversity Strategy for

England (2002) UK BAP (Biodiversity Action Plan) (1994) Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 9: Biodiversity and Geological

Conservation (2005)


Draft Planning Policy Statement: Planning for a Natural and Healthy Environment (2010)

Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 23: Planning and Pollution Control (2004)

South East Plan (2009) Buckinghamshire and Milton Keynes Biodiversity Action Plan

(2000-2010) (2008 Revision) Buckinghamshire Green Infrastructure Strategy (2006) Biodiversity and Planning in Buckinghamshire (2010) Government White Paper: The Natural Choice: Securing the Value

of Nature (June 2011) I. Soils & Agricultural Land Quality:

Safeguarding Our Soils – A Strategy for England (2009) Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 7: Sustainable Development in

Rural Areas (2004) Draft Planning Policy Statement: Planning for a Natural and

Healthy Environment (2010) Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 23: Planning and Pollution

Control (2004) South East Plan (2009)

J. Human Health & Noise Nuisance:

Choosing Health: Making healthy choices easier (2004) Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 23: Planning and Pollution

Control (2004) Planning Policy Guidance (PPG) 24: Planning and Noise (1994) South East Plan (2009) A Healthy Communities Strategy for Buckinghamshire (2009-

2014) Government White Paper: The Natural Choice: Securing the Value

of Nature (June 2011) K. Historic Environment:

Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 5: Planning for the Historic Environment (2010)

South East Plan (2009) L. Landscape and Townscapes:

Planning Policy Guidance (PPG) 2: Green Belts (1995, as amended in 2001)

Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 7: Sustainable Development in Rural Areas (2004)


South East Plan (2009) Government White Paper: The Natural Choice: Securing the Value

of Nature (June 2011) Landscape Plan for Buckinghamshire (2000) Buckinghamshire and Milton Keynes Historic Landscape

Characterisation (HLC) Report (2006) Buckinghamshire Green Infrastructure Strategy (2006) Chilterns AONB Management Plan (2007)


M. Economy: Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 4: Planning for Sustainable

Economic Growth (2009) Regional Economic Strategy for the South East (2006-2016) South East Plan (2009) Government White Paper: The Natural Choice: Securing the Value

of Nature (June 2011) N. Recreation:

Planning Policy Guidance (PPG) 17: Planning for Open Space, Sport and Recreation (2002)


South East Plan (2009) Government White Paper: The Natural Choice: Securing the Value

of Nature (June 2011) Buckinghamshire Green Infrastructure Strategy (2006) Rights of Way Improvement Plan 2008-2018 (2008) Rights of Way Improvement Plan Review (2008-2009) Chilterns AONB Management Plan (2007)

O. Transport:

Planning Policy Guidance (PPG) 13: Transport (2001) High Speed 2 Rail Link (HS2) project (ongoing) Crossrail project (ongoing) South East Plan (2009) Buckinghamshire Local Transport Plan (LTP) (2006/7-2010/11) Buckinghamshire Freight Strategy (2010)

P. Energy:

Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 22: Renewable Energy (2004) South East Plan (2009) Government Review of Waste Policy in England (DEFRA) (2011) Renewable Energy in 2010 (DECC, June 2011)

Q. Saved Minerals and Waste Policies:

Buckinghamshire Minerals and Waste Local Plan (2004-2016, adopted 2006) – saved policies

R. Plans of Districts within Buckinghamshire:

Aylesbury Vale District Council Proposed Submission Core Strategy (2009) – now withdrawn

Chiltern District Council Draft Core Strategy (March 2010) (Proposed Submission version)

South Bucks District Council Proposed Submission Core Strategy (March 2010) (revised October 2010)

Wycombe District Council Core Strategy (2008) (adopted) S. Plans of Neighbouring Authorities:

Core Strategies of each local authority (Cherwell, Dacorum, Milton Keynes, Luton and South Bedfordshire, Slough, South Oxfordshire, Three Rivers, West Northamptonshire, Windsor and Maidenhead)


Minerals and Waste plans of each authority (Berkshire Councils, Central Bedfordshire, Hertfordshire, Milton Keynes, Northamptonshire, Oxfordshire).

It is acknowledged that these documents may be updated or replaced during the consultation process and into the future and that new documents of relevance will be developed. The analysis of relevant plans, policies, programmes and initiatives will therefore need to be reviewed and updated as part of the on-going monitoring process, as detailed in Section 7 of this report.


Appendix C Alterations to the Sustainability Appraisal Framework

The tables below show the changes to the Sustainability Appraisal Framework since the last consultation (the Preferred Options stage consultation) in 2008. The Key Issues and Challenges have been substantially revised and updated due to significant changes in the evidence base since the last edition of the Sustainability Appraisal and as a result of comments received from the last public consultation in 2008. The new text is shown in the table below. However, the changes did not resulted in the need to alter any of the 20 Sustainability Objectives. However, in order to clarify the scoring against the objectives it was necessary to have clear positive and negative elements to them; four of the Sustainability Objectives have therefore been revised to accordingly. However, no change was sufficient to alter the outcome of any evaluation in the last edition of the SA (2008).

Previous ‘Key Issues and Challenges’ (2008 edition)

Latest ‘Key Issues and Challenges’ (2011 edition)

SA Objective (including revisions)

Air quality targets at European and national level need to be met. Air quality in Buckinghamshire is generally good, but Air Quality Management Areas (AQMA) have been identified in several parts of the county. Vehicle movements associated with minerals and waste facilities and the facilities themselves can add to emissions within the county.

Air Quality Air quality targets at European and national level need to be met. Air quality in Buckinghamshire is generally good, but Air Quality Management Areas (AQMA) have been identified in several parts of the county, mainly associated with road transport emissions. Vehicle movements associated with minerals and waste facilities and the facilities themselves can add to emissions within the county. Localised impacts, including dust, need to be taken into account. Potential impacts on human health and the environment need to be taken into account (links with other SA objectives).

SA1: To protect and enhance air quality

Climate change is an internationally recognised issue and a key Government priority. Buckinghamshire needs to play its part in minimising impacts on climate change and in being prepared for the impact climate change may have on Buckinghamshire.

Climate Change Climate change is an internationally recognised issue and a key Government priority. Buckinghamshire needs to play its part in minimising impacts on climate change and in being prepared for the impacts climate change may have on Buckinghamshire. Potential impacts from and on climate change in relation to minerals and waste activities need to be considered. Key issues are the production of methane from landfill, which is a significant greenhouse gas contributing to climate change, carbon dioxide emissions from transport associated with minerals and waste activities, and emissions from the extraction and processing of minerals.

SA2: To minimise impacts on and effects from climate change Now revised to: SA2: To avoid additional climate change emissions, seek their reduction, and reduce the future effects of climate change based on predictions.

There is a potential for significant disturbance to residents living, or people working, near minerals and waste sites or on associated transport routes from associated negative impacts, such as noise, dust, odour and visual impact.

Living Conditions and Amenity There is a potential for significant disturbance to residents living, or people working, in close proximity to minerals and waste sites or on associated transport routes from associated negative impacts, such as noise, dust, odour and visual impact.

SA3: To protect, and where possible enhance, the living conditions and amenities of local residents and people working in local businesses from the adverse effects of minerals and/or waste development, including noise and dust Now revised to: SA3: To protect the living conditions and amenities of local residents and people working in local businesses from the adverse



Latest ‘Key Issues and Challenges’ SA Objective (including (2011 edition) revisions)

effects of minerals and/or waste development, and seek enhancements where possible.

Potential safety problems have been identified in relation to the location of minerals and waste facilities near aerodromes, in particular increased risk bird strike and disturbance to air flow. Concerns have also been raised about potential human health and public safety issues associated with minerals and waste operations and associated transport movements.

Human Health and Public Safety Potential safety problems have been identified in relation to the location of minerals and waste facilities near aerodromes, in particular increased risk of bird strike and disturbance to air flow. Potential human health and public safety issues associated with minerals and waste operations and associated transport movements have raised notable concerns amongst those in close proximity to sites and transport routes. Minerals and waste activities can also be associated with ground instability, which can have safety implications.

SA4: To minimise adverse impacts on human health and ensure public safety with regard to minerals and waste activities. Now revised to: SA4: To avoid adverse impacts on human health and ensure public safety with regard to minerals and waste activities, seeking positive benefits where possible.

There are numerous sites of biodiversity value in the county with designations ranging from the international to the local level; these need to be protected and, where possible, enhanced.

Biodiversity There are numerous sites of biodiversity value in the county with designations ranging from the international to the local level; these need to be protected and, where possible, enhanced. Protected species may also be present on sites, so potential impacts from proposed uses will need to be considered. Biodiversity Opportunity Areas exist throughout the county where targeted action will have the greatest benefit through the maintenance, restoration and creation of BAP (Biodiversity Action Plan) priority habitats.

SA5: To protect and enhance biodiversity and create new habitats.

There is potential for damage to occur to important archaeological sites and the historic environment within the county from minerals extraction and waste management facilities; such sites require protection, but opportunities may also arise for enhancement.

Archaeology and the Historic Environment There are numerous sites, buildings and areas of archaeological and/or historic importance throughout Buckinghamshire. There is potential for damage to occur to such features from minerals extraction and the development of waste management facilities in close proximity. They require protection, but opportunities may also arise for enhancement.

SA6: To protect areas of archaeological importance and conserve and, where appropriate, enhance the historic environment.

There is potential for damage to occur to soil resources and sites of geological interest within the county from minerals extraction and waste management facilities; these features require protection, but opportunities may also arise for enhancement.

Soils and Geology There is potential for damage to occur to soil resources and sites of geological interest, including designated sites, within the county from minerals extraction and waste management facilities, including through disturbance and pollution. Best and most versatile agricultural land, found in certain parts of the county, should be conserved. High quality soils and important geological features require protection, but opportunities may also arise for enhancement.

SA7: To protect and seek to improve soil resources and quality, and protect and enhance sites of geological interest

There are several sites designated as of landscape or townscape value within the county, particularly the AONB; these need to be protected, and where possible enhanced. Minerals and waste operations can have potentially significant impacts on landscapes and townscapes.

Landscapes and Townscapes Minerals and waste operations can have significant impacts on landscapes and townscapes. There are several sites designated as of landscape or townscape value within the county, particularly the Chilterns AONB, which covers a large percentage of the southern half of Buckinghamshire; these need to be protected, and where possible enhanced. A notable percentage of Buckinghamshire is Green Belt; although Green Belt is not

SA8: To conserve and enhance the quality and distinctiveness of landscapes and townscapes, in particular the AONB




strictly a landscape or townscape designation, it can have an impact on landscape and townscape by maintaining openness, preventing urban sprawl, and preserving the setting and special character of historic towns.

The importance of conserving and carefully using natural resources is recognised at international and national level. Buckinghamshire needs to play its part in avoiding the wasteful use of natural resources and in increasing the use of alternatives to offset the need to use primary materials; minerals and waste are of particular relevance to this issue.

Natural Resources The importance of conserving and carefully using natural resources is recognised at international and national level. Buckinghamshire needs to play its part in avoiding the wasteful use of natural resources and in increasing the use of alternatives to offset the need to use primary materials; minerals and waste are of particular relevance to this issue. The predicted growth in the economy and population in the county will increase pressure on natural resources.

SA9: To avoid the wasteful use of natural resources and to encourage the use of alternatives to primary materials

Water resources and water quality within and flowing through the county are generally in good condition. However, minerals and waste operations have the potential to pollute water bodies and disrupt flow; such resources must therefore be protected and, if possible, improved.

Water Water quality varies across the county and water resources are becoming increasingly scarce. Minerals and waste operations have the potential to pollute water bodies and disrupt flow. They can also use water as part of their processes. Such resources must therefore be protected and, if possible, improved.

SA10: To protect water resources and seek to improve water quality

Most new development, including that associated with minerals and waste operations, has the potential to increase flood risk. Although flooding is not a substantial problem within the county, climate change is predicted to increase flood risk; there are some locations in the county where flood risk is problem. It is therefore important to avoid increasing and, where possible, seek to reduce flood risk.

Flood Risk Most new development, including that associated with minerals and waste operations, has the potential to increase flood risk. Although flooding is not a substantial problem within the county, climate change is predicted to increase flood risk; there are some locations in the county where flood risk is problem. It is therefore important to avoid increasing and, where possible, seek to reduce flood risk.

SA11: To avoid increasing and, where possible, reduce flood risk

Minerals are finite resources and so need to be conserved and used carefully; however, it is also important to ensure that potential minerals sites remain accessible for future use. Buckinghamshire needs to play its part in ensuring supplies of minerals are available for use by future generations.

Mineral Resources Commercially viable deposits of sand and gravel and Chiltern brick clay are only found in certain parts of Buckinghamshire. Minerals are finite resources and so need to be conserved and used carefully; however, it is also important to ensure that potential minerals sites remain accessible for future use. The potential to extract mineral deposits can be lost (sterilised) by non-mineral related development. Buckinghamshire needs to play its part in ensuring supplies of minerals are available for use by future generations by safeguarding resources.

SA12: To conserve mineral resources and prevent their sterilisation

Minerals and waste sites, including those in Buckinghamshire, can have significant negative visual impacts on the landscape during their lifetime; however, their development and end of use can both mark opportunities to improve their value in both recreational, soil quality and biodiversity terms.

Restoration and After Use Minerals and waste sites, including those in Buckinghamshire, can have significant adverse impacts upon sites, habitats and green spaces during their lifetime; however, their development and end of use can mark opportunities to contribute towards the enhancement of environmental assets, including biodiversity, historic environment, landscape, recreation and soil quality. Aylesbury Vale has been identified as having a green infrastructure deficit that restoration and after use can contribute towards reducing.

SA13: To promote the effective restoration and appropriate after use of minerals and waste sites




The sustainable management of both minerals and waste can increase their ability to be used as resources, for example through recycling, and minimise associated negative impacts, such as potential pollution. It is important that Buckinghamshire play its part in sustainably managing its waste and minerals.

Sustainable Management of Minerals and Waste The sustainable management of both minerals and waste can contribute to minimising the amount of natural resources used, waste produced, and a more efficient use of resources and increased energy generation, for example through recycling or using waste as an energy source, and minimise associated negative impacts, such as potential pollution. It is important that Buckinghamshire play its part in sustainably managing its waste and minerals. Population expansion and economic growth in the county, the level of which is currently uncertain, could increase demand for minerals and the capacity required to deal with the county’s waste sustainably. The design and construction of developments can also assist with the sustainable management of minerals and waste through the reuse of on-site demolition and excavation materials, minimising the amount of waste produced, increasing the use of alternative construction materials and reducing the amount of primary natural resources used. To ensure sustainability, flexibility will be needed to take account of future changes in technologies, mineral extraction and waste management processes, and demand for resources and waste management capacity.

SA14: To contribute positively to the sustainable management of waste and minerals

Traditional methods of generating energy have led to the production of significant carbon dioxide emissions, which contribute to climate change, and use finite non-renewable resources. It is therefore important to both use energy efficiently and to seek to produce energy from renewable and low carbon sources; it is important that Buckinghamshire play its part in this. Little energy is currently produced in Buckinghamshire through waste activities.

Energy Traditional methods of generating energy have led to the production of significant carbon dioxide emissions, which contribute to climate change, and use finite non-renewable resources. It is therefore important to both use energy efficiently in mineral extraction and waste management processes and seek to produce energy from renewable and low carbon sources; it is important that Buckinghamshire play its part in this. Little energy is currently produced in Buckinghamshire through waste activities.

SA15: To use energy efficiently and to increase the production of energy from renewable and low carbon sources

Many of Buckinghamshire’s roads are already congested, mainly as a result of the high level of car ownership and use within the county. Road traffic also contributes to public safety, air quality and climate change problems. Minerals and waste are currently transported around and through the county by road, thereby contributing to the problem; it is therefore important to minimise the number and length of these road journeys.

Road Journey Reduction Many of Buckinghamshire’s roads are already congested, mainly as a result of the high level of car ownership and use within the county. Road traffic also contributes to public safety, air quality and climate change problems. Minerals and waste are currently transported around and through the county mainly by road, thereby contributing to the problem; it is therefore important to minimise the number and length of these road journeys. The use of Buckinghamshire’s waterways and rail network should also be considered, although such infrastructure is only present in limited parts of the county or is not currently viable.

SA16: To minimise the number and length of road journeys associated with waste facilities and minerals workings.

Community participation is recognised internationally, nationally and locally as an important element of sustainable development. Individual people and businesses also play a significant role in waste production and minerals use. It is therefore important that

Community Participation and Individual Responsibility Community participation is recognised internationally, nationally and locally as an important element of sustainable development. Individual people and businesses also play a significant role in

SA17: To maximise community participation in minerals and waste issues and individual responsibility for their own waste production and minerals use




Buckinghamshire’s minerals and waste planning policy recognises both these aspects.

waste production and minerals use. It is therefore important that Buckinghamshire’s minerals and waste planning policy recognises both these aspects and ensures public waste sites are accessible for all, and that individuals and businesses are encouraged to reduce their waste and increase their recycling and composting, and to use alternative building materials.

Minerals and waste operations, including those in Buckinghamshire, can potentially cause significant damage and disruption to resources valued for recreation, including public rights of way. These impacts can, however, be minimised and there is potential for recreational resources to be created and enhanced through planning processes.

Recreation Minerals and waste operations, including those in Buckinghamshire, can potentially cause significant damage and disruption to resources valued for recreation, including public rights of way and open spaces. These impacts can, however, be minimised and there is potential for recreational resources to be created and enhanced through planning processes.

SA18: To protect, enhance and create (where possible) resources valued for recreation, including public rights of way

Buckinghamshire currently has a thriving local economy; however, to maintain this it is important to have sufficient land and premises available for employment use. It is therefore important that minerals and waste operations avoid causing any adverse economic impact on land and premises in employment use to enable local businesses to continue to be successful. Benefits to local businesses should also be sought, including reducing current impacts from sites and transport routes and ensuring waste management facilities are constructed to handle business waste.

Employment Land Buckinghamshire currently has a strong local economy; however, to maintain this it is important to have sufficient land and premises available for employment use. It is therefore important that minerals and waste operations avoid causing any adverse economic impact on land and premises in employment use.

SA19: To avoid adverse economic impacts on land and premises in employment use Now revised to: SA19: To avoid adverse economic impacts on land and premises in employment use and seek positive benefits where possible

Buckinghamshire currently has high levels of employment which are projected to continue. It is therefore important that minerals and waste operations within the county do not harm local employment and instead contribute positively to job opportunities.

Job Opportunities Buckinghamshire currently has higher levels of employment than the national average, which is projected to continue. The mineral and waste industries directly contribute a relatively small number of job opportunities within the county. The provision of construction aggregate (sand and gravel) and of adequate capacity for commercial wastes contributes to the efficiency of the county’s economy and, therefore, employment. The Chilterns AONB also contributes to tourism-related business. It is therefore important that minerals and waste operations within the county do not harm local employment and instead contribute positively to job opportunities.

SA20: To maintain or improve job opportunities within the county

The changes to the Key Issues and Challenges, together with feedback from the last round of public consultation in 2008, have resulted in the need to alter several of the Decision-Making Criteria. However, no change was sufficient to alter the outcome of any evaluation in the last edition of the SA (2008).


Latest SA Objectives (2011 edition)

Previous Decision-Making Criteria (2008

edition)

Latest Decision-Making Criteria (2011 edition)

Air Quality Air quality targets at European and national level need to be met. Air quality in Buckinghamshire is generally good, but Air Quality


a. Will it have a positive or negative impact on the existing air quality baseline?

b. Will it increase or

a. Will it have a positive or negative impact on the existing air quality baseline, including





Latest Decision-Making Criteria

edition) (2011 edition) Management Areas (AQMA) have been identified in several parts of the county, mainly associated with road transport emissions. Vehicle movements associated with minerals and waste facilities and the facilities themselves can add to emissions within the county. Localised impacts, including dust, need to be taken into account. Potential impacts on human health and the environment need to be taken into account (links with other SA objectives).

decrease the emissions of air pollutants from facilities?

c. Will it increase or decrease the emissions of air pollutants from transport?

any AQMAs? b. Will it increase or

decrease the emissions of air pollutants from the site?

c. Will it increase or decrease the emissions of air pollutants from transport?


SA2: To avoid additional climate change emissions, seek their reduction, and reduce the future effects of climate change based on predictions

a. Will it have a positive or negative impact on the emissions of carbon dioxide from minerals and waste transportation in the county?

b. Will it reduce methane emissions from landfill in the county?

c. Will it contribute to a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions from traditional forms of energy generation?

d. Will it contribute to or cope with an increased risk of flooding?

a. Will it have a positive or negative impact on the emissions of carbon dioxide from minerals and waste transportation in the county?

b. Will it reduce methane emissions from landfill in the county?

c. Will it contribute to a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions from traditional forms of energy generation?

d. Will it contribute to or cope with the increased risk of flooding predicted as a result of climate change?

e. Will it provide a carbon sink?

f. Will it contribute to a negative or positive impact on the emissions of carbon dioxide from mineral extraction?


SA3: To protect, the living conditions and amenities of local residents and people working in local businesses from the adverse effects of minerals and/or waste development, and seek enhancements where possible

a. Will there be any positive or negative impacts on local amenity (noise, dust, light, vermin, odour)?

b. Will there be any positive or negative impact on recreational and open spaces?

c. Will there be any improvement or degradation of the quality of the surroundings where people live?

a. Will there be any amenity impacts (including noise, dust, light, vermin and odour) on sensitive receptors (including residents and workers)?

b. Will there be any improvement or degradation of the quality of the surroundings (including open spaces) where people live as a result of site development or transport routes?

c. Will there be any positive or adverse economic impact on land and premises





edition)

Latest Decision-Making Criteria (2011 edition) in residential use?


SA4: To avoid adverse impacts on human health and ensure public safety with regard to minerals and waste activities., seeking positive benefits where possible

a. Will there be a positive or negative impact on human health?

b. Will there be a positive or negative impact on public safety?

a. Will there be a positive or negative impact on human health from relevant sites or transport routes?

b. Will there be a positive or negative impact on public safety from relevant sites or transport routes?

c. Will it potentially cause or be affected by land instability?

d. Will activities on site be monitored?1



a. Are there any designated or non-statutory nature conservation sites that may be affected?

b. Is there any evidence of protected species that may be affected?

c. Will there be any opportunities for enhancing or recovering wildlife resources?

d. Will any potential restoration contribute to local BAP targets?

e. Will there be any opportunities to create new habitats?

a. Are there any designated or non-statutory nature conservation sites that may be affected? If designated, to what level (European, national, local etc) is the designation?

b. Is there any evidence of protected species that may be affected?

c. Will there be any opportunities for enhancing or recovering wildlife resources?

d. Will there be any potential to contribute to BAP (Biodiversity Action Plan) targets?

e. Will there be any opportunities to create new habitats and/or green infrastructure of biodiversity value?



a. Are there any sites of archaeological importance that can be positively or negatively affected?

b. Are there any historic landscapes that can be positively or negatively affected?

c. Are there any listed buildings that can be positively or negatively affected?

a. Are there any sites of archaeological importance that can be positively or negatively affected?

b. Are there any historic landscapes that can be positively or negatively affected?

c. Are there any listed buildings that can be positively or

1 The Environment Agency regulates waste facilities, so it has been assumed that this will occur so a separate decision‐making criterion will not be required.






edition) (2011 edition) negatively affected?

d. Are there any conservation areas that can be positively or negatively affected?



a. Will it increase or decrease land contamination?

b. Will it result in an increase or loss of good quality soil resources?

c. Will it improve or degrade soil quality?

d. Will it involve development on previously used land?

a. Will it increase or decrease land contamination?

b. Will it impact upon good quality soil resources? Will it improve or degrade soil quality, including of agricultural soils? [second part was separate indicator]

c. Will it involve development on previously used land?

d. Will there be a positive or negative impact any sites designated for their geological importance? If so, what is the level of their designation?

Landscapes and Townscapes Minerals and waste operations can have significant impacts on landscapes and townscapes. There are several sites designated as of landscape or townscape value within the county, particularly the Chilterns AONB, which covers a large percentage of the southern half of Buckinghamshire; these need to be protected, and where possible enhanced. A notable percentage of Buckinghamshire is Green Belt; although Green Belt is not strictly a landscape or townscape designation, it can have an impact on landscape and townscape by maintaining openness, preventing urban sprawl, and preserving the setting and special character of historic towns.


a. Will it have a positive or negative impact on landscapes or townscapes?

b. Will it have a positive or negative impact on designated landscapes, such as the AONB?

c. Will it have a positive or negative impact on Green Belt? (e.g. maintaining extent, openness)

a. Will it have a positive or negative impact on landscapes or townscapes of national or local importance, such as the AONB, in terms of both character and visual impact?

b. Will it have a positive or negative impact on Green Belt? (e.g. maintaining extent, openness)

c. Will there be any opportunities to create green infrastructure of landscape / townscape value?

Natural Resources The importance of conserving and carefully using natural resources is recognised at international and national level. Buckinghamshire needs to play its part in avoiding the wasteful use of natural resources and in increasing the use of alternatives to offset the need to use primary materials; minerals and waste are of particular relevance to this issue. The predicted growth in the economy and population in the


a. Will it facilitate an increase in the level of waste materials reused, recycled and/or composted?

b. Will it avoid the wasteful use of natural resources?

c. Will it encourage the use of alternatives to primary materials?

a. Will it facilitate an increase in the level of waste materials reused, recycled and/or composted?

b. Will it avoid the wasteful use of natural resources?

c. Will it encourage the use of alternatives to primary materials?






edition) (2011 edition) county will increase pressure on natural resources.



a. Will there be an increase or decrease in the discharge of pollutants to water?

b. Will there be an increase or decrease in water consumption from facilities?

c. Will it have a positive or negative effect on water quality?

a. Will there be an increase or decrease in water quality (e.g. through the discharge of pollutants to water)?

b. Will there be an increase or decrease in water consumption from facilities?

c. Will it have a positive or negative effect on waterbodies and Water Framework Directive objectives?

d. Will there be a positive or negative impact on water flow?



a. Will it contribute to an increase in flood risk?

b. Will it contribute to a reduction in flood risk?

a. Will it contribute to an increase in flood risk on site or elsewhere?

b. Will it contribute to a reduction in flood risk on site or elsewhere?

c. Is the proposed use suitable in the flood zone of the site according to Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 25?



a. Will it help to conserve minerals resources for potential use by future generations?

b. Will it prevent sterilisation so that future generations can still potentially access deposits?

a. Will it help to conserve minerals resources for potential use by future generations?

b. Will it result in or prevent sterilisation so that future generations can still potentially access deposits?

Restoration and After Use Minerals and waste sites, including those in Buckinghamshire, can have significant adverse impacts upon sites, habitats and green spaces during their lifetime; however, their development and end of use can mark opportunities to contribute towards the enhancement of environmental


a. Will any potential restoration result in enhancing or recovering wildlife resources?

b. Will any potential restoration contribute to local BAP targets?

c. Will any potential restoration provide recreational

a. Will any potential restoration result in enhancing or recovering wildlife resources?

b. Will any potential restoration contribute to local BAP targets?

c. Will any potential






edition) (2011 edition) assets, including biodiversity, historic environment, landscape, recreation and soil quality. Aylesbury Vale has been identified as having a green infrastructure deficit that restoration and after use can contribute towards reducing.

opportunities? restoration / after use provide recreational, amenity or leisure opportunities for local people?

d. Will restoration result in improvements to soil quality?

e. Will any potential restoration provide opportunities for enhancing green infrastructure and contributing to reducing the green infrastructure deficit in Aylesbury Vale?



a. Is it deliverable in reality? b. Will it contribute to or

encourage waste minimisation?

c. Will it help to facilitate the economic benefits of waste minimisation?

d. Will it contribute to an increase in the level of reuse, recycling or composting?

e. Will it contribute to a reduction or increase in the proportion of waste landfilled?

f. Will it contribute to enabling the county’s waste to be managed within the county?

a. Are the proposals in line with the waste hierarchy?

b. Will it contribute to or encourage waste minimisation?

c. Will it contribute to an increase in the level of reuse, recycling or composting?

d. Will it contribute to a reduction or increase in the proportion of waste landfilled?

e. Will it contribute to enabling the county’s waste to be managed within the county?

f. Will it increase the use of secondary and recycled aggregates?

g. Is it flexible to account for future changes in technology, processes or needs?

Energy Traditional methods of generating energy have led to the production of significant carbon dioxide emissions, which contribute to climate change, and use finite non-renewable resources. It is therefore important to both use energy efficiently in mineral


a. Will it use energy efficiently?

b. Will it contribute to an increase in the production of energy from renewable and low carbon sources?

a. Will it use energy efficiently?

b. Will it contribute to an increase in the production of energy from renewable and low carbon sources?

c. Will any energy






edition) (2011 edition) extraction and waste management processes and seek to produce energy from renewable and low carbon sources; it is important that Buckinghamshire play its part in this. Little energy is currently produced in Buckinghamshire through waste activities.

(heat / electricity) be produced?

d. Will any energy produced (heat / electricity) be used locally?



a. Will it increase or decrease the kilometres travelled by waste or minerals?

b. Will it have a positive or negative impact on traffic congestion?

c. Will there be a positive or negative impact on local infrastructure?

d. Will there be an increase or reduction in the number of movements of waste or minerals?

e. Will it reduce reliance on the car?

a. Will it increase or decrease the kilometres travelled by waste or minerals by road?

b. Will it have a positive or negative impact on traffic congestion?

c. Will there be a positive or negative impact on local infrastructure?

d. Will there be an increase or reduction in the number of movements of waste or minerals?

e. Will it reduce reliance on the car?

f. Will it reduce the need to travel?

Community Participation and Individual Responsibility Community participation is recognised internationally, nationally and locally as an important element of sustainable development. Individual people and businesses also play a significant role in waste production and minerals use. It is therefore important that Buckinghamshire’s minerals and waste planning policy recognises both these aspects and ensures public waste sites are accessible for all, and that individuals and businesses are encouraged to reduce their waste and increase their recycling and composting, and to use alternative building materials.


a. Will it facilitate good and equitable access to waste services?

b. Will it improve or degrade access to waste services for those most in need?

c. Will it increase or decrease opportunities for public and/or business participation?

d. Will it increase or decrease opportunities for education and awareness raising on minerals and waste issues?

a. Will it facilitate good and equitable access to waste services for all?

b. Will it increase or decrease opportunities for public and/or business participation?

c. Will it increase or decrease opportunities for education and awareness raising on minerals and waste issues?

d. Will it enable individuals and organisations to take responsibility for their own waste – e.g. through local management?

e. Will it enable Buckinghamshire to achieve net-self sufficiency for minerals and/or waste?

Recreation Minerals and waste operations, including those in Buckinghamshire, can potentially cause significant damage and disruption to resources valued for recreation, including public rights of way and open spaces. These


a. Will there be any negative impact on resources valued for recreation, including public rights of way?

b. Are there any opportunities for the enhancement of or to

a. Will there be any impact on resources valued for recreation, including public rights of way?

b. Will there be any opportunities to






edition) (2011 edition) impacts can, however, be minimised and there is potential for recreational resources to be created and enhanced through planning processes.

create new resources valued for recreation, including public rights of way?

create green infrastructure of recreational value, including public rights of way?

Employment Land Buckinghamshire currently has a strong local economy; however, to maintain this it is important to have sufficient land and premises available for employment use. It is therefore important that minerals and waste operations avoid causing any adverse economic impact on land and premises in employment use to enable local businesses to continue to be successful. Benefits to local businesses should also be sought, including reducing current impacts from sites and transport routes and ensuring waste management facilities are constructed to handle business waste.

SA19: To avoid adverse economic impacts on land and premises in employment use and seek positive benefits where possible

a. Will there be any adverse economic impacts on land and premises in employment use? (e.g. from land take or need for businesses to relocate)

a. Will there be any adverse economic impacts on land and premises in employment use? (e.g. from land take or the need for businesses to relocate of from the transport routes used)

b. Will there be any benefits for local businesses and landowners?



a. Will there be a resulting reduction in or creation of jobs in the waste or minerals industry?

b. Will there by a positive or negative impact on jobs opportunities in non-waste or non-minerals businesses?

a. Will there be a resulting reduction in or creation of jobs in the waste or minerals industry?

b. Will there by a positive or negative impact on jobs opportunities in non-waste or non-minerals businesses?

Changes were also needed to the SA Indicators which support each objective as a result of changes in the baseline, consultation responses and feedback from Buckinghamshire County Council on the practicalities of gathering particular information. New indicators developed by Buckinghamshire County Council for the Core Strategy have also been utilised for and incorporated into the SA where relevant. A range of Contextual Indicators have been added to give a general comparative baseline for Buckinghamshire as a county, in relation to each SA objective, rather than being indicators that directly relate to minerals and waste activities.



Previous Indicators (2008 edition)

Latest Indicators (2011 edition)

Air Quality Air quality targets at European and national level need to be met. Air


1/1: Number of complaints received about air quality issues (including odours and dist) associated with new (a)

Contextual indicators: 1/1: Number of AQMAs within Buckinghamshire 1/2: Air quality in

ty Appraisal Appendices 2Sustainabili 3





quality in Buckinghamshire is generally good, but Air Quality Management Areas (AQMA) have been identified in several parts of the county, mainly associated with road transport emissions. Vehicle movements associated with minerals and waste facilities and the facilities themselves can add to emissions within the county. Localised impacts, including dust, need to be taken into account. Potential impacts on human health and the environment need to be taken into account (links with other SA objectives).

waste facilities and (b) minerals workings. 1/2: Number of days when local air quality targets exceeded at, or close to, (a) waste sites and (b) minerals extraction sites. 1/3: Number of waste management sites in or close to AQMAs

Buckinghamshire in comparison to National Air Quality Standard SA indicators: 1/1: Number of complaints received about air quality issues (including odours and dust) associated with new (a) waste facilities and (b) minerals workings. 1/2: Number of days when local air quality targets exceeded at, or close to, (a) waste sites and (b) minerals extraction sites. 1/3: Number of waste management sites in or close to AQMAs



2/1: Level of carbon dioxide emissions from waste facilities in the county 2/2: Level of carbon dioxide emissions from (i) minerals and (ii) waste transportation in the county 2/3: Level of methane emissions from waste facilities in the county 2/4: Proportion of proposals for new facilities that have included proposals for minimising impacts on and effects from climate change as part of their planning application

Contextual indicators: Total CO2e (carbon dioxide equivalent) emissions in the county. SA indicators:2 2/1: Level of methane or carbon dioxide equivalent emissions from waste facilities in the county 2/2: Level of carbon dioxide emissions from (i) minerals transportation and (ii) waste transportation in the county 2/3: Level of carbon dioxide emissions from waste facilities in the county 2/4: Proportion of proposals for new facilities that have included proposals for minimising impacts on and effects from climate change as part of their planning application 2/5: Number of waste sites accommodating (i) renewable energy installations or (ii) biomass cultivation (also CS indicator for Policy CS22).


SA3: To protect the living conditions and amenities of local residents and people working in local businesses from the adverse effects of minerals and/or waste development, and seek enhancements where possible

3/1: Proximity of waste treatment sites to houses 3/2: Number of complaints from residents on issues of noise, vibration, dust, odour, litter and other direct environmental impacts of new (a) waste management facilities or (b) minerals extraction.

Contextual indicators: None – will be site-specific SA indicators: 3/1: Proximity of (a) minerals and (b) waste treatment sites to sensitive receptors 3/2: Number of

2 These have been re‐ordered to take account of the importance of methane production with regard to climate change




Previous Indicators Latest Indicators (2008 edition) (2011 edition)

3/3: Ambient noise levels at waste sites 3/4: Number of road traffic accidents associated with traffic from (a) waste facilities and (b) minerals extraction facilities 3/5: Number of recorded fly-tipping incidents

complaints from residents on issues of noise, vibration, dust, odour, litter and other direct environmental impacts of new (a) waste management facilities or (b) minerals extraction. 3/3: Ambient noise levels at waste sites 3/4: Number of recorded fly-tipping incidents


SA4: To avoid adverse impacts on human health and ensure public safety with regard to minerals and waste activities, seeking positive benefits where possible

4/1: Number of reported incidences of illness associated with (a) waste management facilities and (b) minerals extraction sites.

Contextual indicators: AS FOR SA3 SA indicators: AS FOR SA3



5/1: Number of designated sites adversely affected by (a) waste management facilities and (b) minerals extraction sites. 5/2: Number of sites where biodiversity has been created or enhanced as a result of waste management or minerals extraction activities. 5/3: Change in priority habitats and species (by type) on minerals and waste sites in the county.

Contextual indicators: 5/1: Number of biological and geological SSSIs in Buckinghamshire which are in ‘favourable’ or ‘recovering’ condition in comparison to national target (also 7/3) 5/3: Percentage of Buckinghamshire protected by (a) any level of habitat designation (international, national or local) and (b) only international or national habitat designation. SA indicators: 5/1: Number of designated sites adversely affected by (a) waste management facilities and (b) minerals extraction sites. 5/2: Number of sites where biodiversity has been created or enhanced as a result of waste management or minerals extraction activities. 5/3: Change in priority habitats and species (by type) on minerals and waste sites in the county. 5/4: Change in areas of





biodiversity importance as a result of minerals and waste development (also Plan indicator for Policy CS17) 5/5: Number of proposals granted planning permission in designations of international / national importance against Minerals Planning Authority (MPA) or Waste Planning Authority (WPA) approval (also Plan indicator for Policy CS17) (also 6/3 & 7/3). 5/6: Number of proposals granted planning permission in designations of local importance against MPA or WPA approval (also Plan indicator for Policy CS19) (also 6/4 & 7/4) 5/7: Increasing contribution to local Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) targets from minerals restoration schemes and waste development (also Plan indicator for Policy CS22) 5/8: Number of former mineral workings identified for ecological, heritage or amenity value (also Plan indicator for Policy CS22) (also 6/5 & 13/2).



6/1: Number of features of archaeological importance which have been adversely affected by (a) waste management facilities and (b) minerals extraction sites. 6/2: Number of features of heritage significance which have been adversely affected by (a) waste management facilities and (b) minerals extraction sites.

Contextual indicators: 6/1: Number of the following within the county: (a) Scheduled Monuments, (b) registered historic parks and gardens, (c) listed buildings, (d) conservation areas. SA indicators: 6/1: Number of features of archaeological importance which have been adversely affected by (a) waste management facilities and (b) minerals extraction sites. 6/2: Number of features of heritage significance which have been adversely affected by (a) waste management facilities and (b) minerals extraction sites. 6/3: Number of proposals granted planning permission in

ty Appraisal Appendices 2Sustainabili 6





designations of international / national importance against Minerals Planning Authority (MPA) or Waste Planning Authority (WPA) approval (also Plan indicator for Policy CS17) (also 5/5 & 7/3). 6/4: Number of proposals granted planning permission in designations of local importance against MPA or WPA approval (also Plan indicator for Policy CS19) (also 5/6 & 7/4). 6/5: Number of former mineral workings identified for ecological, heritage or amenity value (also Plan indicator for Policy CS22) (also 5/8 & 13/2).



7/1: Loss of agricultural land by grade to (a) waste sites and (b) minerals extraction. 7/2: Grade of restored land as compared with the site pre-void creation.

Contextual indicators: 7/1: Percentage of Buckinghamshire with higher quality agricultural land (ALC Grades 1 (excellent) and 2 (very good))3 7/2: Percentage of development on previously developed land within Buckinghamshire 7/3: Number of biological and geological SSSIs in Buckinghamshire which are in ‘favourable’ or ‘recovering’ condition in comparison to national target (also 5/2). SA indicators: 7/1: Loss of agricultural land by grade to (a) waste sites and (b) minerals extraction. 7/2: Grade of restored land as compared with the site pre-void creation. 7/3: Number of proposals granted planning permission in designations of international / national importance against Minerals Planning Authority (MPA) or Waste Planning Authority (WPA) approval (also Plan indicator for Policy CS17) (also 5/5 & 6/3). 7/4: Number of

3 High quality agricultural land also includes Grade 3a but this data cannot be separated from the rest of Grade 3 so cannot be included.





proposals granted planning permission in designations of local importance against MPA or WPA approval (also Plan indicator for Policy CS19) (also 5/6 & 6/4).

Landscapes and Townscapes Minerals and waste operations can have significant impacts on landscapes and townscapes. There are several sites designated as of landscape or townscape value within the county, particularly the Chilterns AONB, which covers a large percentage of the southern half of Buckinghamshire; these need to be protected, and where possible enhanced. A notable percentage of Buckinghamshire is Green Belt; although Green Belt is not strictly a landscape or townscape designation, it can have an impact on landscape and townscape by maintaining openness, preventing urban sprawl, and preserving the setting and special character of historic towns.


8/1: Number of (a) waste management facilities and (b) minerals extraction works within designated landscape areas, by type.

Contextual indicators: 8/1: Percentage of Buckinghamshire designated as Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) 8/2: Percentage of Buckinghamshire designated as local landscape areas SA indicators: 8/1: Number of (a) waste management facilities and (b) minerals extraction works within designated landscape areas, by type 9/1: Number of proposals granted planning permission in the Chilterns AONB against Minerals Planning Authority (MPA) / Waste Planning Authority (WPA) approval (also Plan indicator for Policy CS20).

Natural Resources The importance of conserving and carefully using natural resources is recognised at international and national level. Buckinghamshire needs to play its part in avoiding the wasteful use of natural resources and in increasing the use of alternatives to offset the need to use primary materials; minerals and waste are of particular relevance to this issue. The predicted growth in the economy and population in the county will increase pressure on natural resources.


9/1: Total waste arisings, by sector. 9/2: Proportion of waste recycled, by sector. 9/3: Proportion of waste composted, by sector. 9/4: Proportion of waste sent to landfill, by sector. 9/5: Proportion of Construction and Demolition waste recycled as aggregates.

Contextual indicators: As SA indicators, but compared to national averages. SA indicators: 9/1: Total waste arisings, by sector 9/2: Proportion of waste recycled, by sector 9/3: Proportion of waste composted, by sector 9/4: Proportion of waste sent to landfill, by sector 9/5: Proportion of Construction and Demolition waste recycled as aggregates 9/6: Amount of (a) secondary and (b) recycled aggregate produced in the Minerals Planning Authority (MPA) area in tonnes per annum (also Plan indicator for Policy CS6) 9/7: Amount of additional Construction and Demolition (C&D waste) recycling or secondary processing capacity (a) permitted per annum; (b) operational; (c) life of





consent (also Plan indicator for Policy CS6) 9/8: Percentage of C&D waste recycled at mineral sites (also Plan indicator for Policy CS6) 9/9: Percentage of recycled aggregate produced at permanent facilities (also Plan indicator for Policy CS6) 9/10: Number of waste audits submitted against the number of relevant planning applications (also Plan indicator for Policy CS8) 9/11: Sites granted planning consent with submitted Site Waste Management Plans (also Plan indicator for Policy CS8 9/12: Breakdown of capacity of new recycling and composting facilities – (a) new permitted capacity and (b) new operational capacity by each District (also Plan indicator for Policy CS10).



10/1: Water quality of rivers in close proximity to waste or minerals sites. 10/2: Water quality of groundwater in close proximity to waste or minerals sites. 10/3: Number of incidents of water pollution (including pollution of abstraction points) deriving from waste or minerals facilities.

Contextual indicators: 10/1: Water quality of (a) rivers and (b) groundwater in Buckinghamshire in comparison to national average 10/2: Availability of water for abstraction from (a) rivers and (b) groundwater in Buckinghamshire in comparison to national average SA indicators: 10/1: Water quality of rivers in close proximity to waste or minerals sites. 10/2: Water quality of groundwater in close proximity to waste or minerals sites. 10/3: Number of incidents of water pollution (including pollution of abstraction points) deriving from waste or minerals facilities. 10/4: Number of planning permissions granted contrary to Environment Agency advice on flooding and water quality grounds (also Plan indicator for





Policy CS19) (also 11/2).



11/1: Number of waste or minerals sites within indicative flood plains.

Contextual indicators: 11/1: Percentage of Buckinghamshire in (a) Flood Zone 2 and (b) Flood Zone 3. SA indicators: 11/1: Number of waste or minerals sites within indicative flood plains. 11/2: Number of planning permissions granted contrary to Environment Agency advice on flooding and water quality grounds (also Plan indicator for Policy CS19) (also 10/4).



12/1: Number of permitted planning applications for waste facilities which would be likely to sterilise economic mineral deposits.

Contextual indicators: 12/1: Proportion of Buckinghamshire with viable minerals deposits. SA indicators: 12/1: Number of permitted planning applications for waste facilities which would be likely to sterilise economic mineral deposits 12/2: Amount of sand and gravel sterilised by LPAs granting planning permission for non-mineral development within the Minerals Safeguarding Area (MSA) against Minerals Planning Authority (MPA) requirement (also Plan indicator for Policy CS1) 12/3: Amount of sand and gravel extracted prior to non-mineral development within the MSA (also Plan indicator for Policy CS1) 12/4: Amount in tonnes of mineral extraction granted planning permission against MPA approval (also Plan indicator for Policy CS2) 12/5: Amount in tonnes of non-aggregate mineral extraction granted planning permission (also Plan indicator for Policy CS3) 12/6: Number of proposals for non-aggregate mineral extraction granted planning permission against MPA approval





(also Plan indicator for Policy CS3) 12/7: Extraction compared to previous years (also Plan indictor for Policy CS3).

Restoration and After Use Minerals and waste sites, including those in Buckinghamshire, can have significant adverse impacts upon sites, habitats and green spaces during their lifetime; however, their development and end of use can mark opportunities to contribute towards the enhancement of environmental assets, including biodiversity, historic environment, landscape, recreation and soil quality. Aylesbury Vale has been identified as having a green infrastructure deficit that restoration and after use can contribute towards reducing.


13/1: Number and proportion of sites (a) restored to beneficial use and (b) with detailed plans in place for restoration.

Contextual indicators: None – site specific SA indicators: 13/1: Number and proportion of sites (a) restored to beneficial use and (b) with detailed plans in place for restoration 13/2: Number of former mineral workings identified for ecological, heritage or amenity value (also Plan indicator for Policy CS22) (also 5/8 & 6/5).



AS FOR SA9 Contextual indicators: AS FOR SA9 & SA12 SA indicators: AS FOR SA9 & SA12

Energy Traditional methods of generating energy have led to the production of significant carbon dioxide

SA15: To use energy efficiently and to increase the production of energy from renewable and low carbon

15/1: Amount of energy, by type, produced from waste.

Contextual indicators: 15/1: Amount of energy, by type, produced from waste within





emissions, which contribute to climate change, and use finite non-renewable resources. It is therefore important to both use energy efficiently in mineral extraction and waste management processes and seek to produce energy from renewable and low carbon sources; it is important that Buckinghamshire play its part in this. Little energy is currently produced in Buckinghamshire through waste activities.

sources Buckinghamshire, compared to the national average. SA indicators: 15/1: Amount of energy, by type, produced from waste 15/2: Percentage of waste facilities that produce energy utilising (a) heat and (b) electricity locally 15/3: Waste facilities achieving energy efficiency certification (also Plan indicator for Policy CS21).



16/1: Accessibility of (a) waste facilities and (b) minerals sites by non-car/lorry modes. 16/2: Modal split of waste / minerals traffic. 16/3: Kilometres travelled by road to and from (a) waste and (b) minerals sites.

Contextual indicators: 16/1: List of strategic roads within Buckinghamshire that are recognised as congested. SA indicators: 16/1: Accessibility of (a) waste facilities and (b) minerals sites by non-car/lorry modes. 16/2: Modal split of waste / minerals traffic. 16/3: Kilometres travelled by road to and from (a) waste and (b) minerals sites. 16/4: Total amount of mineral transported by rail (exports / imports / intra-county movements, including hard rock) (also Plan indicator for Policy CS7).

Community Participation and Individual Responsibility Community participation is recognised internationally, nationally and locally as an important element of sustainable development. Individual people and businesses also play a significant role in waste production and minerals use. It is therefore important that Buckinghamshire’s minerals and waste planning policy recognises both these aspects and ensures public waste sites are accessible for all, and that individuals and businesses are encouraged to reduce their waste and increase their recycling and composting, and to use alternative building materials.


17/1: Percentage of households participating in household recycling collections.

Contextual indicators: 17/1: Percentage of households in Buckinghamshire participating in household recycling collections compared to the national average. SA indicators: 17/1: Percentage of households participating in household recycling collections. 17/2: The number of waste audits submitted against the number of planning applications (also Policy CS indicator for CS8).

Recreation Minerals and waste operations, including those in Buckinghamshire, can potentially cause significant damage and disruption to resources valued for


18/1: Number of public footpaths and bridleways adversely affected by waste or minerals sites. 18/2: Proportion of planning permissions which include,

Contextual indicators: 18/1: Length (in km) of public rights of way, including footpaths, bridleways and National Trails, in





recreation, including public rights of way and open spaces. These impacts can, however, be minimised and there is potential for recreational resources to be created and enhanced through planning processes.

where appropriate, provision for new or improved recreational resources.

Buckinghamshire. SA indicators: 18/1: Number of public footpaths and bridleways adversely affected by waste or minerals sites. 18/2: Proportion of planning permissions which include, where appropriate, provision for new or improved recreational resources.

Employment Land Buckinghamshire currently has a strong local economy; however, to maintain this it is important to have sufficient land and premises available for employment use. It is therefore important that minerals and waste operations avoid causing any adverse economic impact on land and premises in employment use.

SA19: To avoid adverse economic impacts on land and premises in employment use and seek to benefit such businesses where possible

19/1: Number of complaints from commercial uses in close proximity to waste or minerals sites relating to the operation of those facilities. 19/2: Number of businesses relocating in order to move away from new waste facilities, and rate of take-up of any sites thus vacated. 19/3: Amount of employment land lost to waste management facilities and minerals sites.

Contextual indicators: 19/1: Percentage of land in Buckinghamshire in or proposed for employment use. SA indicators: 19/1: Number of complaints from commercial uses in close proximity to waste or minerals sites relating to the operation of those facilities. 19/2: Number of businesses relocating in order to move away from new waste facilities, and rate of take-up of any sites thus vacated. 19/3: Amount of employment land lost to waste management facilities and minerals sites.



20/1: Number of jobs gained or lost due to the creation of new waste facilities or minerals sites within the county.

Contextual indicators: 20/1: Percentage of the working age population of Buckinghamshire in employment, compared to the national average. SA indicators: 20/1: Estimated number of jobs gained or lost due to the creation of new waste facilities or minerals sites within the county.


Appendix D Options Appraisal Conclusions from Previous Version of the SA (Preferred Options, 2008)

Minerals Options The Preferred Options stage minerals options review drew the following conclusions:

All three land-use options (1A, 1B and 1C) included a provision to identify

safeguarding areas to secure future extractable minerals reserves. Options 1A and 1B envisaged identifying preferred areas for mineral extraction from within the safeguarded areas, whereas Option 1C was less systematic and proactive in its approach to site selection and instead relied upon landowners and operators within the minerals industry to investigate potential sites and submit planning applications thereon. Option 1C tended to compare less favourably against the SA framework on the basis that the selection of sites is reactive rather than proactive, thereby significantly impairing opportunities for selecting sites and ordering their timing for extraction in order to minimise negative social and environmental impacts associated with the minerals extraction process.

Option 1A envisaged that preferred areas would be identified in order to meet the annual apportionment set at regional level, whereas Option 1B envisaged that preferred areas would be identified to allow for a higher level of provision than the annual apportionment to ensure that the annual apportionment can definitely be met. The predicted effects of Options 1A and 1B were very similar and largely related to the potential for the operation of minerals extraction sites to generate heavy goods traffic and the potential for both local people and the environment to be disturbed by intrusive development. Option 1A appeared to be preferable to Option 1B as the latter increased the potential for more than the annual apportionment of minerals to be extracted and increases the potential for more sites to be opened, thereby increasing the number of potential human and environmental receptors.

In selecting preferred areas, further and more detailed studies should be undertaken into the social, environmental and economic effects of extracting minerals from each site, with the aim of minimising potentially negative impacts and maximising potentially positive benefits. For example, sites should be selected that are situated away from sensitive receptors (human and environmental) and that avoid development in floodplains, as far as practicable; transport assessments should also be undertaken to minimise transport-related impacts associated with new minerals workings.

Options 2A and 2B looked at transportation options, with 2A envisaging the use of road transport, whereas Option 2B envisaged the use of water and rail transportation to offset some of the use of road transport; both options use Option 1A as the basis for the extraction plans. Option 2B appeared preferable as it minimises many of the negative impacts associated with the transportation of minerals, particularly regarding climate change (SA2) and road journeys (SA16).


A range of mitigation measures to be required at the application stage

should be developed for each site to minimise the predicted negative effects of the development and operation of minerals workings.

The options review process identified several potential sustainability benefits that could be gained if relevant policies and mitigation measures are included, particularly regarding biodiversity (SA5), restoration and after use (SA13) and recreation (SA18).

Waste Options The Preferred Options stage waste options review drew the following conclusions:

All of the options appeared broadly acceptable in sustainability terms, subject to the conclusions of more detailed site-specific investigations to be undertaken at application stage, and the inclusion of suitable mitigation measures. None of the options appeared to have any significantly negative effects; this is unsurprising since they are formed of combinations of the same small selection of sites which have already passed through previous stages of investigation. Numerous sites which raise potentially significant issues were removed from consideration at a much earlier stage of the site evaluation process.

None of the options appeared to have negative effects on the local

economy, mainly because the sites have been chosen to avoid using employment land wherever possible. All the options scored well against sustainability objectives SA19 (land and premises in employment use) and SA20 (job opportunities).

All the options scored well against sustainability objectives SA9 (natural resources and use of alternatives), SA14 (sustainable management), SA15 (energy efficiency and the production of energy from renewable and low carbon sources) and SA17 (community participation and individual responsibility) as all options have been designed to maximise benefits with regard to these issues. The options also all have a neutral effect on SA12 (minerals resources and sterilisation) as they have been selected to ensure that sterilisation is avoided.

There are two main sets of social and environmental impacts – those resulting from the transportation of waste around the county, and those resulting from the proposed sites.

Site-based information, such as regarding biodiversity and archaeology, is currently only available at a high level for each site under consideration; this information has raised several issues through the SA process that will require more detailed consideration as part of EIA studies for any development proposals that come forward and has highlighted a range of potential mitigation measures that will be required to maximise the sustainability of any development and minimise negative impacts. However, it was not possible to make detailed comparisons of site-specific impacts between the options because:


o the current site-based information was of insufficient detail to draw such conclusions;

o the actual impacts will also depend upon the exact development proposals for each site, which are currently not known; and

o many of the potentially negative effects identified in the SA process could be reduced through mitigation and, indeed, many positive effects could be achieved, but this will depend upon the exact mitigation measures put in place, which cannot be known with any certainty at present.

An EIA and a range of other similarly specific studies would be required to be able to draw more detailed conclusions on site-specific impacts; such studies should be required to accompany any planning application.

As highlighted above, although the SA highlighted numerous potentially

negative impacts from each option, many, particularly at the site level, may be reduced through mitigation. The SA objectives concerned are, in particular, SA5 (biodiversity), SA6 (archaeology and the historic environment), SA10 (water resources and water quality) and SA11 (flood risk).

It was not certain, however, that the negative impacts on landscapes and townscapes (SA8) can be fully mitigated due to the size of the strategic facilities to be constructed; those options which include sites in, or visible from, areas of landscape significance therefore scored more negatively than those which do not include sites in, or visible from, such areas. Without mitigation, options 1D, 2H, 3A and 3C had minimal negative scores against SA8, whereas the remainder had moderate negative scores; option 3E had a substantial potential negative impact against SA8.

Differentiation between options can, however, be made regarding

transport-related (i.e. mileage) impacts; these particularly concern SA2 (climate change) and SA16 (road journeys). The transport assessment undertaken by Jacobs, and which formed part of the SA evidence, highlighted that:

(a) Sites in the south of the county appear preferable in terms of

transport-related impacts, mainly because two-thirds of the population live in the south, and therefore approximately two-thirds of the county’s waste is generated there.

(b) For the same reason, if municipal waste and commercial waste are to be sent to different sites, it is preferable to send commercial waste to the south and municipal to the north as there is more commercial waste than municipal produced in the county.

(c) The inclusion of waste transfer stations appears to increase the total mileage (where two-site options are considered).

The transport assessment highlighted that, in terms of mileage, options 3A, 3B, 3C, 3D, 4A and 4C are preferable, with the least mileage and therefore least negative related impacts. Options 1A, 1C, 2Fii, 2Hi, 2Hii, 2Ji, 2Jii, have the highest associated mileage and therefore the most associated negative impacts.


From a strategic point of view, options scenario 3 appeared to be the

most sustainable option, with the exception of option 3E. Options 3A to 3D included a small number of sites for each (only two), which meant that there were less overall site-based impacts; other options included more sites and therefore increased the potential for impacts. The location of the two sites – one in the north of the county and one in the south – meant that transport-related impacts are also minimised in comparison to most other options. Options 3A and 3C appeared particularly preferable as they avoid the need for transfer stations located in the AONB and are away from significant landscapes. If it is possible to mitigate most of the negative associated site-based impacts, then option 3A may be slightly more preferable to 3C if a new road is built bypassing Calvert Green as it may improve quality of life for local residents who live near the existing landfill site, whereas Woodham currently has no waste activities on site.

If Calvert was to be selected for municipal waste, then the inclusion of rail

to transport waste from South Bucks district to the site appeared to reduce associated negative impacts, with the reduction in road mileage and so associated carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide emissions being particularly significant (although some road transfer would still be needed). Benefits would be further increased if waste from the southern parts of Chiltern and Wycombe districts was also transported by rail instead of road.

There appeared to be no significant benefit or loss from a sustainability

perspective in having a transfer station at the site off Osier Way, Buckingham. The most significant differentiator concerned transport, with the transport assessment showing that the total mileage was notably higher with the additional transfer station at Osier Way than without it.

All of the site combinations resulted in the need for a range of mitigation

measures to minimise potential negative effects and maximise the positive, particularly regarding flood risk, biodiversity, archaeology and the historic environment, water resources and water quality, and climate change.

There appeared to be significant potential for achieving positive effects from all the options, particularly regarding restoration and after-use (SA13), recreation (SA18) and biodiversity (SA5), if relevant policies are included with Development Plan Documents and suitable measures are required at application stage.


Appendix E Review of Calvert Proposals

This assessment considers the effects (or risks of effects occurring) of the development of a waste management facility at the Calvert site under the SA Framework. Under the scenario assessed, the Calvert site would be supported by two Waste Transfer Stations (WTSs) but no specific waste management technology is considered. The scores given relate to the net effect whilst taking account of a realistic, or reasonable, ‘worst case’ scenario with respect to making judgements about the scale of effects on the existing baseline situation (the current situation at the site whilst taking account of any existing permissions and uses). This considers both potential negative effects and positive benefits. The individual site assessments look at effects from the operation of each site in isolation. The effects of the sites working together, including transport implications, are considered in the ‘cumulative’ column. Mitigation measures are also suggested. These are actions that can help to reduce negative impacts or increase positive benefits. The final column sets out the potential significant effects of the final Core Strategy with respect to the proposals for Calvert and the supporting WTS only, and how the mitigation measures and any residual risks of negative effects are taken into account in the Core Strategy policies. The assessment draws out the impacts of the proposals for Calvert, High Heavens and London Road. Often, the impacts identified are local effects, such as the effect of land take on biodiversity, as a result of the development of the sites. Given the importance of the Calvert site to the MWCS as a Strategic Waste Complex (SWC), the assessment inherently extends to county-wide effects for some of the SA objectives, most notably SA14 and SA2. A full assessment of the wider effects of the plan across the county is considered in the ‘Effects of the Plan’ section of the SA. The relevant option reviewed for the previous version of the SA in 2008 was Option 1A: All recovery capacity (460,000 tpa) at Calvert only (tpa = tonnes per annum, or tonnes per year), with waste transfer stations at London Road and High Heavens. It should be noted that the amount of energy recovery capacity proposed has now reduced from 460,000 tpa to 360,000 tpa in light of a re-run of computer modelling to take account of more up-to-date data. However, at the time the evidence base was prepared, it was based on the higher tonnage and so impacts, such as the number of movements associated with the waste transfer stations will be less than previously calculated. The data sources used for each evaluation are noted at the end of this document. A key to the symbols used in order to summarise each assessment is provided below.


Key:

Highly beneficial effect likely on the SA objective

CERTAINTY:

Moderate beneficial effect likely on the SA objective

Minor beneficial effect likely on the SA objective

L LOW Assessment is based on speculation, due to incomplete or missing baseline data, lack of available research, or a potential random effect.

N Neutral or negligible effect on the SA objective

Minor adverse effect likely on the SA objective

M MEDIUM

Depends upon the way in which a policy is implemented on the ground, or the assessment replies upon a value judgement due to conflicting messages / effects.

Moderate adverse effect likely on the SA objective

Highly adverse effect likely on the SA objective

H HIGH The effect is likely to occur as assessed, with little variation in degree and severity.

The options / sites have been assessed against the baseline in relation to each decision-making criterion. The score for the overall assessment given at the top of each box is a judgement of the cumulative effect on the baseline of the SA objective, balancing the effects of the decision-making criteria. The scoring given at the top of each box is the overall assessment of impact on the current baseline in relation to each SA objective and not the decision-making criteria, although the decision-making criteria are taken into account. The assessment focuses on the medium- and long-term impacts (those occurring / existing after implementation of proposals and beyond the plan period). The matrix provided in Appendix H sets out the likelihood of construction phase impacts occurring. Where these are judged to be likely to have a moderate or high probability of occurring, an assessment of their impact is incorporated into the assessment table below. A commentary is given outlining how the overall score has been evaluated. Background The Area Statements for Calvert, High Heavens and London Road set out the existing baseline and environmental enhancement opportunities at the sites. For Calvert, it should be noted that there is an existing permission for the landfill of non-hazardous and inert waste which expires in 2047. The Calvert site currently imports waste by road from Aylesbury Vale District and rail-borne waste from East and West London and Avon. There are also extant planning permissions for clay extraction, an in-vessel composting facility and two rail sidings for the import of rail-borne waste, hazardous waste cell and for an on-site power plant capturing landfill gas connected to the National Grid.


SA

Objective Calvert

(Without Mitigation)

High Heavens (Without Mitigation)

London Road (Without Mitigation)

Cumulative (Without Mitigation)

Evaluation With Mitigation

Impacts of Latest Plan (2011) in relation to

Calvert Proposals only4

SA1: To protect and enhance air quality Result of 2008 Review: / ? D5 i 6 Decision-making criteria:

N (M) Small overall releases in air pollutants, though tightly regulated and likely to be kept within established limit values.

It may be found at project level that the net effect is negligible, and concentrations remain within established standards at all receptor locations, including any affected by transport.

N (M) Small overall releases in air pollutants, though tightly regulated and likely to be kept within established limit values.

It may be found at project level that the net effect is negligible, and concentrations remain within established standards at all receptor locations, including any affected by transport.

N (L) Small overall releases in air pollutants, though tightly regulated and likely to be kept within established limit values It may be found at project level that the net effect is negligible, and concentrations remain within established standards at all receptor locations, including any affected by transport.

(M) Impact of traffic on local road significant.

It may be found at project level that the net effect is negligible, and concentrations remain within established standards at all receptor locations.

(M) Option with mitigation maximises use of rail and minimised impacts on local road network.

It may be found at project level that the net effect is negligible, and concentrations remain within established standards at all receptor locations.

(M) Policies support minimising emissions to air, provide for a new access road and promote the use of rail for waste transportation. The plan acknowledges waste transfer to Calvert will be by road through the plan period. This is likely to increase transportation distances and consequently emissions to air associated with transport, as at present most residual waste is managed at local landfill sites. The use of rail is considered to be a longer-term measure, rather than a short- to medium-term one. The impact on air quality receptors over the long-term may be positive both for Buckinghamshire and locally. The distances involved in transporting waste to the north of the county could make waste transfer by rail more economically viable than road transportation. Refer to the ‘Effects of the Plan’ section of the SA for county-wide impacts.

A. Will it have a positive or

A. No AQMAs are situated within the

A. Site is not located within an AQMA.

A. Site is not located within, or within the

A. Vehicles with bulked residual waste would be

A. Calvert and WTS: Air Quality

A. Policies CS11 and CS12 provide for a new access road

4 The impacts of the latest Core Strategy (2011) on the current baseline as a whole are considered in the ‘Effects of the Plan’ section of the SA Report. This review only considers the impacts of the Core Strategy in relation to the Calvert Proposals evaluation, particularly to assess whether account has been taken of recommended mitigation measures and to put forward any additional recommendations. 5 D = Positive impact relies on mitigation, or impacts depends on how the DPD is implemented; ? = Highly uncertain impact. These elements of the scoring methodology have now been replaced with a ‘Low’, ‘Medium’ and ‘High’ certainty rating to improve clarity. 6 All Endnotes are located in Appendix I to this report.

SA Objective

Calvert (Without

Mitigation)




Evaluation With Impacts of Latest Plan Mitigation (2011) in relation to


negative impact on the existing air quality baseline, including any AQMAs?

immediate vicinity of the site. Some emissions will be generated from the site, but will be kept within regulated levels and meet established standards. The effects of the operation of a strategic waste facility at the site are likely to be negligible.

N (M) A and C. Air quality impacts during construction will be of short duration only. No data available on likely trip generation during construction.

(L) .

However it is located within 1km of the M40, which is in an AQMA. It is reasonable to expect that additional refuse collection vehicles would pass through the AQMA in South Buckinghamshire to reach and leave the site. However a transport assessment indicates that impacts from air pollution would not differ from those currently experienced as a result of local waste collections.


(L)

vicinity of an AQMA. Some emissions will be generated from the site, but will be kept within regulated levels and meet established standards.


(L)

likely to pass through the AQMA along the M40 to reach the Calvert site from High Heavens. 84 additional movements per day potentially through the AQMA. Some existing vehicle movements to the Calvert site are likely to pass through the AQMA.

(M) A and C. Air quality impacts during construction of WTS and SWC will be of short duration only. No data available on likely trip generation during construction.

(L)

Assessment to demonstrate no unacceptable negative impacts on air quality baseline.

N (M)

A. Calvert: Develop a new access route to the site through options appraisal that by-passes Calvert village to relieve local road network of HGV traffic.

(M) A and C. Construction phase impacts likely to be managed through planning permission process, however some residual emissions to air likely.

(L)

to avoid impacts on the local road network. A and B. The impacts of all new waste developments on air quality are managed by CS22 which states that to be permissible, it must be demonstrated that emissions to air are minimised and that the transporting of materials must take into account proximity issues, amenity, routing, vehicle choice and bulking.

B. Will it increase or decrease the emissions of air pollutants from the site?

B. The type of waste management activity and technologies utilised would determine the types of emissions released from the site. Emissions from facilities would be maintained within strict European standards. An air dispersion modelling study shows that air quality impacts from the site are unlikely to breach AQS objectives at receptors in the area.

B. In-vessel composting and a household waste recycling centre are already operational and are likely to be ongoing, and a waste pulveriser plant is available but not currently operational. The addition of a waste transfer facility will not directly increase air pollutants released from the site. Waste transfer activities would be located within a building, and therefore odour release would be minimised.

B. The addition of a waste transfer facility at the site will not directly increase air pollutants released from the site. Waste transfer activities would be located within a building, and therefore odour release would be minimised.

N (M)

B. The type of waste management activity and technologies utilised would determine the types of emissions released from the Calvert site. Emissions from the Calvert site would be maintained within strict European standards. An air dispersion modelling study shows that air quality impacts from the Calvert site are unlikely to breach AQS objectives at receptors in the area. Landfill

B. Calvert: Air dispersion modelling study indicates that increasing stack height would further reduce air quality impacts. Some residual emissions to air would still be generated.

N (M)

A and B. The impacts of all new waste developments on air quality are managed by CS22 which states that to be permissible, it must be demonstrated that emissions to air are minimised and that the transporting of materials must take into account proximity issues, amenity, routing, vehicle choice and bulking.


SA Objective

Calvert (Without

Mitigation)






Landfill activities are already operational on-site and are likely to be ongoing, but at a lower rate to allow the disposal of residues that cannot be recycled, treated or composted. Therefore emissions to air from landfilling will reduce.

N (H)

N (M) activities are already operational on the Calvert site and are likely to be ongoing, but at a lower rate to allow the disposal of residues that cannot be recycled, treated or composted. Therefore emissions to air from landfilling will reduce. The operation of two WTS would not directly increase air pollutants released from the WTS sites.

N (H)

C. Will it increase or decrease the emissions of air pollutants from transport?

C. Overall the traffic impact of the proposed development is considered to be small with percentage daily traffic increases typically less than 10%. The additions to traffic flow on the A41 would be indistinguishable from normal daily variations in traffic flow. A transport assessment for the site recorded no expected air quality issues as a result of traffic.

N (H)

C. An existing planning condition at the site restricts the movements of heavy goods vehicles to a maximum of 140 movements each day (70 in and 70 out). A transport assessment shows that the site would add 84 vehicle movements per day to the transport network (data . The TA concludes that the development would contribute a very small percentage increase to the existing traffic flows and will have a negligible impact upon the surrounding highway network. The impacts on air pollution will not differ from those currently experienced as a result of local waste collections The transport assessment suggests that air quality impacts would not differ from

C. A transport assessment indicates that there may be a possible impact on local air quality, associated with the addition of 84 vehicle movements per day to the local highway network. It is concluded that utilisation of the site as a WTS will add only a very small percentage increase to the existing traffic flows. However, it is felt that this impact is unlikely to amount to a breach of air quality thresholds, and thus no significant effect.

N (L)

C. The operation of the Calvert site with two transfer stations would create 376 vehicle daily movements, based on a 5-day working week. This is a 12% increase in traffic on the local rural road network. This is considered to be significant in terms of an increase in local traffic. Impacts on the A41 at Gallows Bridge (a local pinch-point n traffic) would be within normal variations in traffic flow. A Transport Assessment for the sites recorded a potential impact on air quality associated with the London Road WTS.

(H)

C. Calvert: Maximise potential for use of rail for importing waste to site; all bulked waste to be transferred by rail, rather than road.

N (M) C. WTS Maximise the bulking of materials to reduce the number of trips from the sites to Calvert.

(M)

C. Policy CS11 requires that opportunities to maximise the use of rail for the transportation of residual waste from the south of the county be taken. Policy CS14 also safeguards two sites as rail transfer facilities. Policy CS12 supports the use of WTS to be used for the bulking of waste from the south to Calvert. However, the plan acknowledges waste transfer to Calvert will be by road through the plan period. This is likely to increase transportation distances, as at present most residual waste is managed at local landfill sites. The use of rail is considered to be a long-term measure, rather than a short- to medium-term effect of the MWCS.


SA Objective

Calvert (Without

Mitigation)






those currently experienced as a result of local waste collections.

N (H) SA2: To avoid additional climate change emissions, seek their reduction, and reduce the future effects of climate change based on predictions Result of 2008 Review: / ? Dii Decision-making criteria:

(M) The benefits of reducing emissions of greenhouse gases by diverting waste from landfill outweighs the addition of greenhouse gases associated with the transportation of waste materials (see Climate Change Topic Paper).

(M) This site would also divert waste from landfill to an extent. Emissions of greenhouse gases would be increased by transportation from the WTS on top of baseline levels, however it has been concluded in the Climate Change Topic Paper that this impact represents a small element by comparison to other emissions.

(M) This site would also divert waste from landfill to an extent. Emissions of greenhouse gases would be increased by transportation from the WTS on top of baseline levels, however it has been concluded in the Climate Change Topic Paper that this impact represents a small element by comparison to other emissions.



(M) UK government policy is to apply the waste hierarchy and reduce waste sent to landfill. Policy CS15 states that no new non-hazardous landfill would be permitted within the plan period; however the Calvert site has an existing permission for landfill up to 2047. Policy CS12 promotes the use of Calvert for alternative methods of waste management to landfill. Therefore it is expected that the delivery of new facilities will divert waste from landfill. The benefits of reducing emissions of greenhouse gases by diverting waste from landfill outweighs the addition of greenhouse gases associated with the transportation of waste materials (see Climate Change Topic Paper).

A. Will it have a positive or negative impact on the emissions of carbon dioxide from minerals and waste transportation in the County?

A. The impact of the site with respect to the percentage of daily traffic increases would be a 10% increase on the A41, thereby increasing transport-related carbon dioxide emissions.

(H) A. During construction, there is embodied carbon in construction vehicles and tools, plus emissions

A. An existing planning condition at the site restricts the movements of heavy goods vehicles to a maximum of 140 movements each day (70 in and 70 out). A transport assessment shows that the site would add 84 vehicle movements per day to the transport network, thereby increasing transport-related carbon dioxide emissions.

(H)

A. A transport assessment shows that the site would add 84 vehicle movements per day to the transport network, thereby increasing transport-related carbon dioxide emissions.

(H) A. During construction, there is embodied carbon in construction vehicles and tools, plus emissions associated

A. The operation of the Calvert site with two transfer stations would create 376 vehicle daily movements, based on a 5-day working week. This is a 12% increase in traffic on the local highway network. This would increase transport-related carbon dioxide emissions. It is expected that the overall distances travelled by waste would be increased as all MSW

A. Calvert: Maximise potential for use of rail and bulking of waste for importing waste to site.

(L) A. Calvert: Encourage the provision of landscape and planting schemes to sequester carbon and form resilient and adaptable

A. It is expected that the operation of the Calvert site would increase traffic on the road network and that overall, distances travelled for waste disposal are likely to increase. However, without the plan, waste may be required to be transported to new sites further afield as existing landfill capacity is used up. Policy CS11 requires that opportunities to maximise the use of rail for the transportation of residual waste from the south of the county be taken.


SA Objective

Calvert (Without

Mitigation)






associated with construction activities, e.g. deliveries and off-site movements of materials.

(L)

A. During construction, there is embodied carbon in construction vehicles and tools, plus emissions associated with construction activities, e.g. deliveries and off-site movements of materials.

(L)

with construction activities, e.g. deliveries and off-site movements of materials.

(L)

recovery capacity would be at one location in the north of the county.

(M) A. During construction, there is embodied carbon in construction vehicles and tools, plus emissions associated with construction activities, e.g. deliveries and off-site movements of materials.

(L)

habitats. Seek more sustainable choice of vehicles. Consider possibility of requiring waste transportation companies to offset their annual carbon emissions.

(M) A. During construction, there is embodied carbon in construction vehicles and tools, plus emissions associated with construction activities. It is not possible to mitigate easily to offset embodied carbon. Construction transportation movements are likely to be managed through planning permission process, however some residual emissions to air likely.

(L)

Policy CS14 also safeguards two sites as rail transfer facilities. Policy CS12 supports the use of WTS to be used for the bulking of waste from the south to Calvert. Policy CS22 requires that landscaping and planting schemes include appropriate native plants that are adaptable to climate change and sequester carbon.

B. Will it reduce methane emissions from landfill in the County?

B. Site is suitable for a range of waste management sites to be located there and co-located. Waste management techniques that reduce the volume of material that would otherwise be sent to landfill reduce the amount of organic waste sent to landfill and reduce the

B. The Operation of Waste Transfer Station will indirectly reduce methane emissions from landfill in the county, as the WTS is part of a wider strategy to achieve this (see ‘cumulative’ column).

(H)

B. The Operation of Waste Transfer Station will not directly reduce methane emissions from landfill in the county, however the WTS is part of a wider strategy to achieve this (see ‘cumulative’ column).

(H)

B. The operation of a SWC to manage RSW and supporting WTS for the bulking of residual waste is intended to directly divert waste away from landfill.

(M)

B. None.

B and C. UK government policy is to apply the waste hierarchy and reduce current reliance on landfill. Policy CS15 states that no new non-hazardous landfill would be permitted within the plan period. Policy CS11 allows for the development of alternative waste management facilities to landfill thereby directly diverting waste from landfill and significantly reducing associated methane


SA Objective

Calvert (Without

Mitigation)






production of landfill gases.

(M)

emissions. Policy CS15 states that no new non-hazardous landfill would be permitted within the plan period. Therefore methane emissions from landfills will reduce as landfill space expires.

C. Will it contribute to a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions from traditional forms of energy generation?

C. Depends upon the technology chosen for the site. The site is of a size capable of taking a range of technologies which is likely to include facilities that rely on alternative forms of energy generation.

(L)

C. Waste Transfer Station and other existing and proposed waste management facilities at the site will not directly affect reducing carbon dioxide emissions from traditional forms of energy generation.

N (H)

C. Waste Transfer Station and other existing management facilities at the site will not directly affect management of waste by traditional forms of energy generation.

N (H)

C. Depends upon the technology chosen for the site. The site is of a size capable of taking a range of technologies which is likely to include facilities that rely on alternative forms of energy generation.

(L)

C. Calvert: Maximise potential of site to recover heat and generate and supply electricity to the grid locally. Investigate possibility of bio-fuel production as part of woodland management.

(M)

B and C. Policy CS11 allows for the recovery of power and heat from residual waste, thereby directly diverting waste from landfill and reducing CO2 emissions produced by traditional forms of energy generation. Policy CS22 also requires that waste sites deliver high standards of energy efficiency and maximise the production and use of renewable energy.

D. Will it contribute to or cope with the increased risk of flooding predicted as a result of climate change?

D. Environment Agency Flood Zone mapping illustrates that flood zones 2 and 3a and 3b cut across the centre of the site. Development of waste management facilities would not be permissible in Zone 3b. Only small areas of flood Zone 2 are present on site. Therefore, development at the site would be largely restricted to flood Zone 1 areas (less than 0.1% annual probability).

N (H)

D. The site is not situated in an area at risk of flooding.

N (H)

D. Part of the site is situated within Flood Zone 2 and 3 of the River Misbourne. WTS would be regarded as ‘less vulnerable’ under PPS25, in which case development in flood Zone 3a may be acceptable, however compensatory storage would need to be provided. Development in flood Zone 3b would not be permissible under PPS25.

N (H)

D. Parts of the Calvert and London Road sites are located in floodplain. The requirements of PPS25 mean that no development of waste management facilities is permissible in the 1:20 floodplain (flood Zone 3b). Waste treatment facilities may be permissible in Zone 3a (1:100 floodplain). Any floodplain lost would need to be balanced by compensatory storage.

N (H)

D. Calvert: Ensure the site allows space for water by stipulating a buffer between the river corridor and built development. Accommodate as much of the development as possible in Flood Zone 1.

N (H)

D. Policy CS11 states that no development would be permitted in areas of flood risk and that the design of buildings and hardstandings must not increase flood risk either onsite or elsewhere. Policy CS22 also requires that developments be ‘climate proofed’ and incorporate resistance and resilience measures to the effect on and effects from climate change. Topic Paper 9: Area Statements sets out the requirement to consider buffer strips along watercourses at the Calvert site. The planning process cannot determine exact vehicle routes for waste vehicles from source to Calvert, although they would be expected to use the primary road network. It is expected



SA Objective

Calvert (Without

Mitigation)







that flood resilience of the primary road network will be managed and increased as appropriate through other planning processes. Policies CS11 and CS12 provide for a new access road to avoid impacts on the local road network. This would be considered as part of the FRA for the Calvert application.

E. Will it provide a carbon sink?

E. The site will not act as a carbon sink.

N (H)


N (H)


N (H)

E. The sites will not act as a carbon sink.

N (H)

E. Encourage the provision of landscape and planting schemes to sequester carbon and seek more sustainable choice of vehicles. Consider possibility of requiring waste transportation companies to offset their annual carbon emissions.

(M)

E. Policy CS22 requires that landscaping and planting schemes include appropriate native plants that are adaptable to climate change and sequester carbon.

F. Will it contribute to a negative or positive impact on the emissions of carbon dioxide from mineral extraction.

F. N/A.

F. N/A.

F. N/A.

F. N/A.

F. N/A.

SA3: To protect the living conditions and amenities of local residents and people

(M) Impacts on living conditions could be significant if noise/disturbance and visual impacts are not mitigated.

(M) Potential for cumulative effects upon living conditions associated with disturbance issues including visual impacts.

(M) Potential for cumulative effects upon living conditions associated with disturbance issues including visual impacts.

(M) Impacts on living conditions could be significant if noise/disturbance and visual impacts are not mitigated.

(M) Strong opportunities for Green Infrastructure improvements. Mitigation includes a new access road. However some local

(M) Impacts on amenity protected through policy and opportunities sought for improvements to local amenity. Some local disturbance is assumed.

SA Objective

Calvert (Without

Mitigation)






working in local businesses from the adverse effects of minerals and/or waste development, and seek enhancements where possible Result of 2008 Review: / ? Diii Decision-making criteria:

The developable area at Calvert landfill site (Stable land which has not been subject to clay extraction and subsequent landfilling) is located at the southern two thirds of the site, away from a majority of residential properties at Calvert Green Village, providing a significant buffer between the properties and potential development.

disturbance is assumed. The effectiveness of aesthetic design and landscape mitigation is uncertain.

No new non-hazardous landfill would be permitted within the plan period, however Calvert has existing permission for landfill which lasts beyond the plan period. In the very long term, the facilities delivered at Calvert could divert waste from landfill at Calvert, into the new facilities. Refer to the ‘Effects of the Plan’ section of the SA for county-wide impacts. Existing “saved” Policy 29 of the BM&WLP requires suitable buffering between the development and sensitive uses.

A. Will there be any positive or negative impacts on local amenity (including noise, dust, light, vermin and odour) on sensitive receptors (including residents and workers)?

A. Local traffic will increase as a result of the development of the site. This is likely to generate noise, and vibration impacts for properties along access routes to the site.

(M)

A. Increasing the intensity of use at the site is likely to increase light pollution.

(M) A. Potential for dust to be generated during construction. This would be for a short duration only.

(L)

A. Traffic will increase as a result of the operation of the site. This is likely to generate noise and vibration impacts for properties along access routes to the site.

(M)

A. The increase in the working area of the site may increase light pollution from the site. Odour may also be generated by WTS.

(M) A. Potential for dust to be generated during construction. This would be for a short duration only.

(L)

A. Traffic will increase as a result of the operation of the site. This is likely to generate noise and vibration impacts for properties along access routes to the site. An initial noise assessment indicates that the effect of the site in combination with existing operations with vehicle movements will be minor.

(M)

A. The increase in the working area of the site may increase light pollution from the site. Odour may also be generated by WTS.

(M) A. Potential for dust to

A. Local traffic will increase as a result of the development proposals and there is likely to be an increase in larger HGVs delivering bulk waste from transfer stations. This is likely to generate noise, dust and vibration impacts for properties along access routes to the sites.

(M) A. Increasing the intensity of use of the sites is likely to increase light pollution in rural areas. Odour may also be generated by WTS.

(M) A. Potential for dust to be generated during

A and B. Calvert: Develop a new access route from the A41 to the site that by-passes Grendon Underwood, Edgecott and Calvert Green and is subject to options appraisal investigations that minimises disturbance to local residents. This can remove existing traffic which passes through these areas, leading to net benefits.

(M) A. Calvert and WTS: Stipulate site layout and building designs that minimise light

A. Policies CS11 and CS12 require a new access road to avoid impacts on the local road network. A. Policy CS22 states that to be permissible, it must be demonstrated that emissions to air are minimised and that the transporting of materials must take into account proximity issues, amenity, routing, vehicle choice and bulking. A. Saved Policy 28 in the BM&WLP also acts to protect local amenity from the adverse effects of waste development. A and B. Policy CS22 states that applicants for new waste developments will be required to demonstrate that noise, air and odour pollution are minimised and appropriate mitigation is provided.


SA Objective

Calvert (Without

Mitigation)






be generated during construction. This would be for a short duration only.

(L)

construction. No feasible cumulative effect relating to dust generation associated with the large distances of the sites from each other.

(L)

pollution and manage odour through Environmental Management Plans.

(M) A and B. Calvert and WTS: Secure amenity improvements as part of site development, including buffering between the site and surrounding receptors and habitat improvements. Stipulate high quality land restoration and after care over the long-term on relevant parts of the sites. Deficit in Aylesbury Vale in Green Infrastructure. Site restoration should be designed to directly contribute to improving Green Infrastructure / natural green space.

(M)

A. Potential for dust to be generated during construction. This would be for a short duration only and would be mitigated through the planning systems e.g. requirement for a

CS22 requires that demonstration of compliance with the policy be provided in D&A Statements or other supporting statements, which may include EMPs.


SA Objective

Calvert (Without

Mitigation)






dust management plan to be implemented.

(L) R = Secure planning conditions for the site that set limits on HGV sizes, routing agreements and times of access. R = Require noise and air quality (dust) assessments to be undertaken to demonstrate that mitigation measures can be included to reduce these impacts to acceptable levels.

B. Will there be any improvement or degradation of the quality of the surroundings (including open spaces) where people live as a result of site development or transport routes?

B. The site is currently used as a landfill site for non-hazardous and inert waste. The development of the site would increase the level of activity at the site as well as increasing the amount of built development in a flat landscape. Some waste management technologies necessitate large structures which would be highly visible in a flat landscape. The. developable area is within the land area under existing consent for extraction and landfill.

(M)

B. The development of the site would increase the level of activity at the site as well as increasing the amount of built development in the landscape. The existing visual quality of the site is considered to be low.

(M)

B. The development of the site would increase the level of activity at the site as well as increasing the amount of built development in the landscape.

(M)

B. Sending all waste to Calvert with waste from the south of the county being bulked up at London Road and High Heavens would increase the levels of activity local to these sites at the site as well as increasing the amount of built development in the landscape. A Transport assessment has shown that the increase in traffic on the local road network around Calvert would be significant.

(M)

A and B. Calvert: Develop a new access route from the A41 to the site that by-passes Grendon Underwood, Edgecott and Calvert Green and is subject to options appraisal investigations that minimises disturbance to local residents.

(L) A and B. Calvert and WTS: Secure amenity improvements as part of site development, including buffering

B. Policy CS11 requires that opportunities to integrate development successfully into the site and surrounding landscape are taken. B. Policy CS23 stipulates that proposals for new waste sites must demonstrate how the design and layout of the development will ensure the positive integration of the site within the wider landscape as well as contributing to the Buckinghamshire Green Infrastructure strategy. B. Policy CS19 stipulates that waste development would not be permitted where locally important landscapes are significantly affected. It allows for exceptions to be made when it can be demonstrated that impacts will be minimised


SA Objective

Calvert (Without

Mitigation)






between the site and surrounding receptors and habitat improvements. Stipulate high quality land restoration and after care over the long-term on relevant parts of the sites. Deficit in Aylesbury Vale in Green Infrastructure. Site restoration should be designed to directly contribute to improving Green Infrastructure / natural green space.

(M)

A and B. Calvert and WTS: Require noise and air quality (dust) assessments to be undertaken to demonstrate that mitigation measures can be included to reduce these impacts to acceptable levels.

(M)

B. Calvert: Locate odour-generating activities in areas of the site furthest from local residents and businesses, on the far side of existing and continuing non-hazardous landfill site. Considered negligible, though this should be

through mitigation or appropriate compensation measures (improvements in other locations to off-set impacts that cannot be mitigated) put in place. B. Waste Transfer Stations required to support the delivery of CS11 would be permissible as long as the proposals are appropriate in scale and design.

B. Policy CS22 requires that the massing and scale of waste developments must be sensitive to the surrounding environment, particularly in areas within or adjacent to the AONB.


SA Objective

Calvert (Without

Mitigation)






confirmed by detailed modelling at the design stage.

N (M) B. Calvert and WTS: Secure designs for the site layout that minimise visual impacts and stipulate high architectural design standards. Impact likely to be negative.

(L)

C. Will there be any positive or adverse economic impacts on land and premises in residential use?

C. The site is an existing waste site, and new waste management facilities would be delivered within the existing site area. Socio-economic assessment would be required at the EIA stage to evaluate socio-economic impacts.

N (L)

C. The site is an existing waste site, and a new waste management facility would be delivered within the existing site area.

N (L)

C. The site is an existing waste site, and a new waste management facility would be delivered within the existing site area.

N (L)

C. The sites are an existing waste use, and new waste management facilities would be delivered within the existing site area. Socio-economic assessment would be required at the EIA stage to evaluate socio-economic impacts.

N (L)

C. Calvert and WTS: Socio-economic impact assessment required to demonstrate no unacceptable impacts prior to the development of the sites.

N (L)

SA4: To avoid adverse impacts on human health and ensure public safety with regard to minerals and waste activities, seeking positive benefits where

N (M) Air emissions increases are not expected to lead to significant effects, as would remain within established standards.



(M) Potential for traffic to increase, and for increased traffic associated with waste transportation to pass through an AQMA. It may be found at project level that the net effect is negligible, and concentrations remain within established standards at all receptor locations. Specific potential receptors


(M) Minor cumulative impact potentially associated with transport-related air pollutants, however this could be neutral with mitigation.



SA Objective

Calvert (Without

Mitigation)







possible Result of 2008 Review: / Div Decision-making criteria:

unknown at this stage.

A. Will there be a positive or negative impact on human health from relevant sites or transport routes?

A. Environment Agency, Defra and the Health Protection Agency advise that waste sites that are run in compliance with relevant European legislation do not pose a risk to human health or the environment with respect to emissions. An air dispersion modelling study shows that air quality impacts from the site are unlikely to breach AQS objectives (designed to protect human health) at receptors in the area.

N (M)

A. Site is not located within an AQMA. However it is located within 1km of the M40, which is in an AQMA. It is reasonable to expect that some refuse collection vehicles would pass through the AQMA in South Buckinghamshire to reach and leave the site. An air quality assessment would be required to determine whether the additional traffic would be likely to cause AQS to be breached. However a transport assessment indicates that impacts from air pollution would not differ from those currently experienced as a result of local waste collections.

N (M)

A. Site is not located within an AQMA. Increases in traffic are small-scale and therefore would not be expected to result in adverse impacts upon health.

N (H)

A. Vehicles transporting residual waste to High Heavens and during onward transfer to Calvert are likely to pass through the AQMA in South Buckinghamshire. Some existing vehicle movements to the Calvert site are likely to pass through the AQMA. Emissions to air from the operation of the WTS would be low. Environment Agency, Defra and the Health Protection Agency advise that waste sites that are run in compliance with relevant European legislation do not pose a risk to human heath or the environment with respect to emissions. An air dispersion modelling study shows that air quality impacts from the Calvert site are unlikely to breach AQS objectives (designed to protect human health) at receptors in the area.

(M)

A. Calvert and WTS: Ensure that any proposals incorporate a Health Impact Assessment or Health Risk Assessment and Transport Assessment to set appropriate mitigation measures such as working hours and transport routes.

N (M)

A. Policy CS22 states that to be permissible, it must be demonstrated that the transporting of materials must take into account proximity issues, routing, vehicle choice and bulking. This would be expected to be delivered through a Transport Assessment. Saved Policy 28 in the BM&WLP also acts to protect local receptors from the adverse effects of waste development. Policy CS11 encourages rail transfer as a long tern objective, which will help to reduce emissions.

B. Will there be a positive

B. Unauthorised public access is not currently




B. New access may B. Policies CS11 and CS12 provide for a new access road

SA Objective

Calvert (Without

Mitigation)






or negative impact on public safety from relevant sites or transport routes?

permitted and will continue to not be permitted on the site.

N (H) B. A Transport Assessment completed for the site concluded that collisions on the local road network are not associated with road geometry or the road environment. More vehicles may increase the potential for human error, but the risk is expected to be very small/negligible.

N ( (L)

permitted and will continue to not be permitted on the site. The use of the site as a WTS would create a small increase in the number of vehicles on the surrounding road network and may increase the potential for human error.

N ( (L)

permitted and will continue to not be permitted on the site. The use of the site as a WTS would increase the number of vehicles on the surrounding road network and may increase the potential for human error.

N ( (L)

permitted at any of the sites and will continue to not be permitted on the site. The increase the number of vehicles on the surrounding road network may increase accidents as a result of human error.

N ( (L)

reduce the potential for traffic accidents on the local road network.

N (L)

to avoid impacts on the local road network.

C. Will it potentially cause or be affected by land instability?

C. Previously landfilled areas exist at the site. These areas would not be suitable for development. Developable area of the site in area of unexploited clay geology.

N (L)

C. Site previously developed as a Household Waste recycling centre.

N (L)

C. Undeveloped greenfield site. No known land instability issues.

N (L)

C. Previously landfilled areas exist at the Calvert site. This would not be suitable for development. To be deliverable, the developed area would need to be outside this area.

N (H)

C. Require land instability issues to be investigated as part of development proposals.

N (M)

C. N/A. Site development / geotechnical issue. Not considered appropriate to cover in the MWCS.

D. Will activities on site be monitored?

D. Site activities must be monitored to comply with legislation.

N (H)

D. Site would be regulated by the EA and through planning conditions.

N (H)

D. Site would be regulated by the EA and through planning conditions

N (H)

D. Site activities must be monitored to comply with legislation.

N (H)

D. Require site monitoring of emissions from and planning conditions attached to all waste management sites, including public safety impacts associated with transport routes.

N (H)

D. N/A. Sites would be required to be monitored in line with legislation. Not considered appropriate to reiterate in the MWCS. Saved Policy 39 and Policy CS24 ensure that waste sites will be monitored.

SA5: To protect and

(M) Assumes negative




(M) Assumes the

(M) Assumes the benefits delivered


SA Objective

Calvert (Without

Mitigation)






enhance biodiversity and create new habitats Result of 2008 Review: ?v Decision-making criteria:

impacts on on-site and off-site species. However, planned enhancements could offset habitat losses – see Area Statements for a description of enhancement opportunities and mitigation.

impacts on onsite and off-site species. However, planned enhancements could offset habitat losses – see Area Statements for a description of enhancement opportunities and mitigation.



benefits delivered through habitat enhancements and mitigation through seeking on and off-site improvements will outweigh the disturbance effects of waste development in the longer term.

through habitat enhancements and mitigation through seeking on and off-site improvements will outweigh the disturbance effects of waste development in the longer term. Refer also to SA7 and SA10, which can have indirect and secondary implications for biodiversity.

A. Are there any designated or non-statutory nature conservation sites that may be affected? If designated, to what level (European, national, local etc) is the designation?

A. The site is not situated within, or within 3km of a SPA, SAC, Ramsar site, NNR or LNR. The site is situated within 2km of 3 SSSIs, one of which is adjacent to the north boundary of the site. A LWS and BNS are situated close to the boundary of the site. An assessment of the emission of air pollutants and impacts upon surrounding SSSI sites concluded that modelled impacts on SSSIs are low. At this stage, a minor negative effect cannot be ruled out completely – see mitigation.

(M)

A. The site is not situated within, or within 3km of a SPA, SAC, Ramsar site or NNR. Widdenton Park wood SSSI is situated 1.5km northwest of the site. And Moorend Common is situated 3km to the west of the site. Chairborough Road LNR is situated 2.5km to the north of the site. The site is situated next to two BNSs.

(M)

A. The site is not situated within, or within 3km of a SPA, SAC, Ramsar site, NNR or LNR. The site is situated next to a BNS and there are three further BNSs within 1km of the site. There are two SSSIs within 2km of the site.

(M)

A. The operation of the Calvert and London Road sites site may disturb adjacent SSSI, LWS and BNS. An assessment of the emission of air pollutants and impacts upon surrounding SSSI sites concluded that modelled impacts on SSSIs are low.

(M)

A. Calvert and WTS: The screening, lighting and operation of the sites should be designed carefully to minimise impacts on nearby wildlife sites. A detailed assessment of the air quality impacts of any proposed facility at the Calvert site should be included as part of an EIA and based on detailed modelling. Any significant effects should be avoided, minimised and then any residual effect managed and/or compensated for.

N (L)

A. Policy CS18 directly confers the protection of internationally and nationally designated habitats and CS19 affords protection to environmental assets of local importance.

B. Is there any evidence of protected species that may be affected?

B. The site is located in an area with an existing planning permission for extraction and landfilling, and

B. A phase 1 ecological assessment for the site concluded that the development of the site (including construction) may disturb the habitat

B. A phase 1 ecological assessment for the site concluded that the development of the site (including construction) may disturb the habitat

B. Development at Calvert and the WTS the site (including construction) is likely to disturb the habitat of protected (including

B. Calvert and WTS: Species translocation in advance of construction, off-site compensation and

B. N/A. MWCS does not repeat national legislative requirements for protected species.


SA Objective

Calvert (Without

Mitigation)






therefore this proposal is not different from the future baseline, leading to a neutral effect at the SA level. However, it is recognised that in order to assist planning at the project level, a Phase 1 ecological assessment for the site concluded that the site’s construction could possibility affect the habitats of protected (including European protected species) and BAP species. It is accepted that further confirmation and/or detailed mitigation will be required, with agreement with Natural England as appropriate.

N (H)

of protected and BAP species.

(H)

of protected and BAP species.

(H)

European protected species) and BAP species.

(H)

on-site habitat enhancements are likely to be required to avoid impacts on protected species.

N (M)

C. Will there be any opportunities for enhancing or recovering wildlife resources?

C. The built area of the site is likely to be a small proportion of the overall site. Significant potential exists to enhance existing wildlife resources (e.g. woodland, lowland meadow, hedgerow and ponds), including on-site and off-site/adjoining opportunities. The additional investment created by this proposal could lead to a much greater achievement of enhancement

C. The part of the site that would be likely to be developed is a former landfill site and scrap yard. There may be small opportunities to enhance boundary vegetation or create nesting habitats.

(M)

C and D. There may be opportunities to make improvements to habitats on-site (e.g. chalk river, lowland meadow and hedgerow). The River Misbourne is situated close to the site; and there may be opportunities for river enhancements as part of the development of the site. The morphological quality of the River Misbourne is limited at this location.

(M)

C. There may be some opportunities to enhance existing wildlife resources, including off-site receptors.

(M)

C. Calvert and WTS: Require there to be improvements in wildlife resources as a result of development and seek positive enhancement measures in line with the recommendations of a qualified ecologist, including both on-site and off-site measures. Benefit may be better than assessed, however difficult to predict due to mixed

C and D. Policies CS22 and CS23 requires that new waste development must take opportunities to deliver biodiversity enhancements consistent with BAP targets. This may include on and off-site enhancements and link to wider Green Infrastructure objectives.


SA Objective

Calvert (Without

Mitigation)






opportunities than otherwise would occur, including relative to the large size of the site.

(M)

success rates and limitations of man-made habitat.

(M)

D. Will there be any potential to contribute to local BAP (Biodiversity Action Plan) targets?

D. Site proposals could potentially contribute to local BAP targets.

(M)

D. The development of the site is unlikely to contribute to local BAP targets, however Hill Green Wood and High Heavens Woods are BAP habitats and there may be opportunities to create enhancements.

(L)

C and D. There may be opportunities to make improvements to habitats on-site (e.g. chalk river, lowland meadow and hedgerow). The River Misbourne is situated close to the site; and there may be opportunities for river enhancements as part of the development of the site. The morphological quality of the River Misbourne is limited at this location.

(M)

D. Enhancing existing habitats or off-site habitats could contribute to local BAP targets.

(M)

D. Calvert and WTS: Require proposals to be designed to create BAP priority habitats, either on site or at off-site receptors local to the site; e.g. woodland, lowland meadow, hedgerows and ponds. Benefit may be better than assessed, however difficult to predict due to mixed success rates and limitations of man-made habitat.

(M)

C and D. Policy CS23 requires that new waste development must take opportunities to deliver biodiversity enhancements consistent with BAP targets. This may include on and off-site enhancements and link to wider Green Infrastructure objectives. D. CS11 and CS12 require that opportunities for nature conservation enhancement be maximised as part of the development of a SWC and any supporting infrastructure.

E. Will there be any opportunities to create new habitats and/or green infrastructure of biodiversity value?

E. Potential exists to create new habitats. It is noted that whilst existing potential of the site to support protected species is considered to be high and habitats could be lost through the development of the site, it is likely that such habitats would still be lost under the ‘no development’ scenario due to future clay extraction and landfill.

(L)

E. Opportunities to deliver new habitats could be delivered as part of the development of the site (e.g. ancient semi-natural; woodland to the north of the site).

(M)

E. Potential exists to enhance existing habitats however the existing potential of the site to support protected species is considered to be high and habitats could therefore be lost through the development of the site.

N (L)

E. Potential exists to create new habitats; however the sites have existing potential to support protected species and habitats will be lost through the development of the sites.

N (L)

E. Calvert and WTS: Seek the creation of new habitats as part of the site development; such as river corridor/hedgerow improvements; creating links between wildlife designations. However, the existing potential of the site to support protected species is considered to be high and habitats could therefore be


SA Objective

Calvert (Without

Mitigation)






lost through the development of the site.

(M)

SA6: To protect areas of archaeological importance and conserve and, where appropriate, enhance the historic environment Result of 2008 Review: vi Decision-making criteria:

(M) Potential adverse effects on a Grade II Listed Building. Some potential for encountering buried archaeology during the construction of the site.

(L) There is a risk of negative effects on buried archaeology. Depends upon site-specific conditions, but the risk cannot be avoided at this level of assessment and planning.

(L) There is a risk of negative effects on buried archaeology. Depends upon site-specific conditions, but the risk cannot be avoided at this level of assessment and planning.

(M) Potential effects on a Grade II Listed Building and buried archaeology are retained.

(M) There is a risk of a negative impact on the setting of Grade II Listed Buildings, and also buried archaeology (unknown). There remains the potential to have a net positive effect on the Listed Building with detailed and considerate mitigation,. However, it may prove difficult given possibly conflicting land uses / design fundamentals. A qualitative negative effect is scored, as the risk cannot be eliminated at this level of assessment and planning.

(M) Impact on setting of Listed Building uncertain. Could be negative or positive, depending upon the mitigation incorporated. Also, potential effects on buried archaeology. Wider overall benefits to buried archaeology may be expected under the Plan, given that no new non-hazardous landfill would be permitted within the plan period. Refer to the ‘Effects of the Plan’ section of the SA for county-wide impacts.

A. Are there any sites of archaeological importance that can be positively or negatively affected?

A. No archaeological designations within the site boundary. Adjacent Archaeological Notification Areas designated for below ground features. Some potential for encountering buried

A. No archaeological designations within the site boundary or in close proximity to the site. Adjacent Archaeological Notification Areas e.g. at Hillgreen Wood are designated for below ground features. Some potential for

A. No archaeological designations within the site boundary or in close proximity to the site. Some potential for encountering buried archaeology during the construction of the site.

(L)

A. No archaeological designations within the boundary of the sites or in close proximity to the sites. Some potential for encountering buried archaeology during the construction of the sites.

(L)

A. Require archaeological investigation where buried features may be encountered and use to define mitigation measures.

(L)

A - D. Policy CS18 directly confers the protection of internationally and nationally designated heritage assets and adverse impacts on heritage assets would only be permissible when the benefits of the development clearly outweigh the harm to the asset. Policy CS19 affords protection



SA Objective

Calvert (Without

Mitigation)







archaeology during the construction of the site.

(L)

encountering buried archaeology during the construction of the site.

(L)

to heritage assets of local importance.

B. Are there any historic landscapes that can be positively or negatively affected?

B. There are no Registered Parks and Gardens within 500m of the site. Claydon Registered Park and Garden is located 2.5km to the northeast of the site. One Scheduled Monument is situated 3km to the southwest of the site. A mixture of pre18th century, 19th century and 20th century enclosed fields are present, including Parish Boundaries. The scale and nature of the facilities proposed at Calvert and the local topography are such that the facilities could represent a substantial change in the integrity of these historic landscapes, changing their character from agricultural enclosed fields much further than existing development has done.

(M)

B. There are no Registered Parks situated within 3km of the site. There are no scheduled Monuments within 3km of the site.

N (H)

B. There are no Registered Parks and Gardens, within 3 km of the site. There are no Scheduled Monuments within 3 km of the site.

N (H)

B. There are no historic landscapes that would be directly affected.

N (H)

B. Encourage historic hedgerows / woodland patterns to be retained and restored.

(M)

A - D. Policy CS18 directly confers the protection of internationally and nationally designated heritage assets and adverse impacts on heritage assets would only be permissible when the benefits of the development clearly outweigh the harm to the asset. Policy CS19 affords protection to heritage assets of local importance.

C. Are there any listed buildings that can be positively or negatively affected?

C. The setting of Lower Greatmoor Farm, a Grade II Listed Building is likely to be affected by the development of the site which may be a

C. There are no Listed Buildings in within the site boundary. There is a Listed Building within 500m of the site. The setting of this building is may be affected by

C. There are no Listed Buildings in within the site boundary. There is a Listed Building within 250m of the site. The setting of this building is may be affected by

C. The setting of Lower Greatmoor Farm, a Grade II Listed Building (farm and farmhouse) is likely to be affected by development at the Calvert site which may

C. Calvert and WTS: Limited mitigation feasible other than landscaping work / detailed site planning and impact

A - D. Policy CS18 directly confers the protection of internationally and nationally designated heritage assets and adverse impacts on heritage assets would only be permissible when the benefits

SA Objective

Calvert (Without

Mitigation)






significant feature in a flat landscape.

(M)

development at the site. (L)

development at the site.

(L) be a significant feature in a flat landscape.

(M)

assessment to reduce impacts on Listed Buildings. Establish possibility of using/repairing the building as part of the development site

(L)

of the development clearly outweigh the harm to the asset. Policy CS19 affords protection to heritage assets of local importance. C. Policy CS11 requires that opportunities should be taken to integrate the site into the surrounding landscape. R = Area Statement to require protection of, or where not possible, minimise adverse effects on Listed Building.

D. Are there any conservation areas that can be positively or negatively affected?

D. The site is not situated within a Conservation Area. Grendon Underwood Conservation Area is located 2km to the southwest of the site. An assessment is required before the impact can be fully evaluated.

(L)

D. The site is not situated within a Conservation Area. There are no Conservation Areas within 1km of the site.

N (H)

D. The site is not situated within a Conservation Area. There are no Conservation Areas within 1km of the site.

N (H)

D. The sites are not situated within Conservation Areas. Grendon Underwood Conservation Area is located 2km to the southwest of the site. Without mitigation, the effect of bulk transfer of waste could be significant. An assessment is required before the impact can be fully evaluated.

(L)

D. Require routing of traffic to minimise impacts on Conservation Areas and other sensitive settlements.

(L)

A - D. Policy CS18 directly confers the protection of internationally and nationally designated heritage assets and adverse impacts on heritage assets would only be permissible when the benefits of the development clearly outweigh the harm to the asset. Policy CS19 affords protection to heritage assets of local importance. Policy CS22 states that it must be demonstrated that the transporting of materials must take into account proximity issues and routing; thereby protecting the setting of environmental assets. Policy CS23 requires that conservation areas must be considered in the design and layout of the development.

SA7: To protect and seek to improve soil resources and quality,

(M) Local impact only – see ‘Effects of the Plan’ section of the SA to note wider county and regional benefits.

(L) Local impact only – see ‘Effects of the Plan’ section of the SA to note wider county and regional benefits.



(L) Local impact only – see ‘Effects of the Plan’ section of the SA to note wider county and regional

(L) Loss of undeveloped soils to development, increase in developed footprint. Mitigation is to minimise losses of undeveloped soils through site


SA Objective

Calvert (Without

Mitigation)






and protect and enhance sites of geological interest Result of 2008 Review: N ?vii Decision-making criteria:

Loss of undeveloped soils to development, increase in developed footprint.

Increase in developed footprint, however any existing land contamination may be managed.

Increase in developed footprint, some soil losses expected.

Loss of undeveloped soils to development, increase in developed footprint.

benefits. Minimise losses of undeveloped soils through site planning and management.

planning and management. In contrast, there are wider overall benefits to soil quantity and quality expected under the Plan, given that this presents a major alternative to landfill in the short, medium and long term. For the wider effects if the plan, refer to the ‘Effects of the Plan’ section of the SA.

A. Will it increase or decrease land contamination?

A. The site currently operates as a non-hazardous/ inert landfill and has outline consent for a composting facility and hazardous waste cell. Increasing the scale of development at the site increases the potential for pollution events to soils. The hazardous waste cell could accept the Air Pollution Control residues or other hazardous residues from waste management processes.

(M)

A. The development of the site is likely to require the remediation of any existing contamination caused by the former use of the site.

(L)

A. The development of the site is unlikely to increase or decrease land contamination.

N (M)

A. Increasing the scale of the development at the Calvert site and the management of some hazardous waste increases the potential for pollution events to soils to occur.

(M)

A. Stipulate management of site activities according to planning conditions and recognised Environmental Management Systems.

N (M)

A. No policy wording on site environmental management. Not an issue for the MWCS, however requirement of use of EMS may be outlined within M&WDPD.

B. Will it impact upon good-quality soil resources? Will it improve or degrade soil quality, including agricultural

B. Loss of undeveloped soils (Grade 4 poor quality agricultural land and non-agricultural grade soils) to development associated with construction. Change of land use increases proportion of site

B. The site is currently an existing waste management facility; therefore the risk of losing good-quality soil resources is low. However potential increase in the proportion of the site that is developed

B. The site is not in agricultural use. However the quality of the soils at the site is unknown. Potential increase in the proportion of the site that is developed associated with construction. Some soils

B. Loss of undeveloped soils (Grade 4 poor quality agricultural land and non-agricultural grade soils) to development at the Calvert site. Lower potential for loss of soils at High Heavens as the site has been previously

B. Calvert and WTS: Minimise natural soils lost through site design/layout.

(M)

B. No policy wording on minimising losses of natural soils. R = WDPD to require that good quality soil resources are appropriately protected or managed.


SA Objective

Calvert (Without

Mitigation)






soils?

developed. Some soils may also be lost as a result of handling/stockpiling, although this is expected to not be significant in volume.

(M)

associated with construction. Some soils may also be lost as a result of handling/stockpiling, although this is expected to not be significant in volume.

(L)

may also be lost as a result of handling/stockpiling, although this is expected to not be significant in volume.

(L)

developed. Overall, a change of land use at the sites increases the proportion of built development associated with construction. Some soils may also be lost as a result of handling/stockpiling, although this is expected to not be significant in volume.

(M)

C. Will it involve development on previously used land?

C. The site currently operates as a non-hazardous/ inert landfill however the developed footprint of the site will increase.

(M)

C. Potential to develop on previously used land

(L)

C. The site is an existing waste management site, however the area which is likely to be developed is greenfield land.

(M)

C. Increase in the developed area at each of the sites.

(M)

C. Calvert and WTS: Maximise development of previously developed land by the site design/layout.

(M)

C. Policies CS9, CS11 and CS12 CS13 provide for additional waste management capacity (and supporting infrastructure) to be delivered either through the intensification or extension of existing sites, or the development of new sites. Therefore the policy supports the re-use of previously developed land, though not exclusively.

D. Will there be a positive or negative impact on sites designated for their geological importance? If so, what is the level of their designation?

D. There are no sites of geological interest within the site boundary or in close proximity to the site.

N (H)


N (H)


N (H)

D. There are no sites of geological interest within the site boundaries or in close proximity to the sites.

N (H)

D. None.

D. Policy CS18 protects Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) which confer protection to nationally important geological sites. CS19 also protects sites of local importance, including Regionally Important Geological Sites (RIGS).

SA8: To conserve and enhance the quality and distinctiveness of

(M) Although the landscape is considered to be somewhat degraded

(M) There are extremely limited views into the site, however the WTS is in the Chilterns

(M) The site is enclosed and well related to existing industrial development, however the WTS is in

(M) SWC and WTS likely to be significant features in the landscape.

N (L) Scale of mitigation will determine impact on landscape.

(L) Scale of mitigation will determine impact on landscape locally. However, wider benefits on


SA Objective

Calvert (Without

Mitigation)







landscapes and townscapes, in particular the AONB Result of 2008 Review: viii Decision-making criteria:

at present, SWC likely to be significant in height and scale in flat landscape and an unsympathetic design could have negative effects.

AONB. and there remains the potential for any new development (including any ancillary development) or increased transport to have a negative landscape impact..

the Chilterns AONB. and there remains the potential for any new development (including any ancillary development) or increased transport to have a negative landscape impact..

Avoiding any significant negative impacts may require high-quality design using established guidance documents and integrated stakeholder engagement.

landscape may be generated by planning for waste recovery at one location. This avoids the potential for sensitive landscape being affected by traditional forms of waste management at new sites. Refer to the ‘Effects of the Plan’ section of the SA Report for county-wide impacts.

A. Will it have a positive or negative impact on landscapes or townscapes of national or local importance, such as the AONB in terms of both character and visual impact?

A. The site is not situated within an AONB and there are no Local Landscape Areas in proximity to the site. The level of built development at the site in a rural and low-lying location will increase. Waste management facilities installed at the site will be likely to be of significant height and scale.

(M)

A. The site is not situated within an AONB. There are no Local Landscape Areas situated within 500m of the site. The level of built development at the site in a rural and low-lying location will increase. Facilities at the site may be of significant height and scale and may impact

A. The site is surrounded by small, enclosed agricultural fields. There are no Local Landscape Areas situated within 500m of the site. Sensitive receptors include properties to the north and south of the site, footpath networks to the north and west of the site that lead to Clay Lane. The site is an existing waste management facility. This lowers the visual quality of the site area. Landscape quality around the site is reduced by the presence of urban areas and major transport routes.

(M)

A. The site is situated within the Chilterns Landscape Character Area and the Incised Dip Slope Landscape Character Zone. The site is situated within the

A. A Local Landscape Area is situated within 500m of the site. Visual receptors situated to the north of the site, adjacent to the site and from PROW close to the site, though site is well contained by mature boundary vegetation.

(M) A. The site is situated within the Chilterns AONB. A Local Landscape Area is situated within 500m of the site. Visual receptors situated to the north of the site, adjacent to the site and from PROW close to the site, though site is well contained by mature boundary vegetation.

(M) A. The presence of a construction site may impact the local landscape for a temporary period.

A. Development of a large facility at the Calvert site in particular in a rural and low-lying location will increase. Waste management facilities installed at the site will be likely to be of significant height and scale. Views from an Area of Attractive Landscape could be affected by development at the Calvert site in particular.

(M)

A. Each of the sites is under an existing waste management use. London Road and high Heavens WTS are within the Chilterns AONB. Development at the Calvert site may affect an Area of Attractive Landscape.

(M) A. The presence of construction sites rural or rural-fringe locations

A. Calvert and WTS: Detailed landscape assessment is required to determine impacts in detail and to set out the extent of mitigation required, including construction phase mitigation. Stipulate that development must accord with the objective of conserving or enhancing the landscape and countryside.

(L) A. Calvert: Stipulate requirement to contribute to the priorities of the Northern Clay Vale Landscape Zone.

(M)

A. Calvert and WTS: Secure positioning and designs for site layouts and

A. Policy CS11 requires that opportunities to integrate development successfully into the site and surrounding landscape are taken. B. Policy CS19 stipulates that waste development would not be permitted where locally important landscapes are significantly affected. It allows for exceptions to be made when it can be demonstrated that impacts will be minimised through mitigation or appropriate compensation measures (improvements in other locations to off-set impacts that cannot be mitigated) put in place. A. Policy CS12 stipulates that development proposals for waste transfer sites must respect the character of the Chilterns AONB and take opportunities to protect landscape character and integrate the development into the surrounding landscape. A. Policy CS22 states that to


SA Objective

Calvert (Without

Mitigation)







an Area of Attractive Landscape.

(M) A. The presence of a construction site in a rural and low-lying location may impact the local landscape for a temporary period.

(L)

Chilterns AONB. There are no Local Landscape Areas situated within 500m of the site. The level of built development at the site in a rural and low-lying location will increase. Landscape quality around the site is reduced by the presence of urban areas and major transport routes. The site is also an existing waste management facility.

(M) A. The presence of a construction site may impact the local landscape for a temporary period.

(L)

(L)

may impact the local landscape for a temporary period, including an Area of Attractive Landscape.

(L)

buildings that minimise visual impacts from all types of development and stipulate high architectural design standards. Ensure ‘best fit’ into the existing landscape for example by maximising the retention of natural landscape and habitat features including boundary vegetation. Stipulate protection of existing trees and vegetation. Secure more buffer planting and tree cover to reinforce any existing screening vegetation. May involve off-site screen planting, false cuttings, bunds and integration planting (woodland and hedgerows).

(L)

be permissible, it must be demonstrated that the transporting of materials must take amenity into account.

B. Will it have an effect on Green Belt (e.g. maintaining extent, openness) that will impact positively or negatively on the landscape?

B. Site is not within the Green Belt

N (H)

B. Site is within the Green Belt. Site is under existing waste management use. Development would be on an area of previously developed land.

(H)

B. Site is within the Green Belt. Wider site is under existing waste management use, however likely location of WTS would be on a greenfield site.

(H)

B. The two waste transfer sites are located within the Green Belt, Both sites are in existing waste management use; one of which is brownfield and one of which is greenfield.

(H)

B. Policy CS22 requires that the massing and scale of waste developments must be sensitive to the surrounding environment, particularly in areas within or adjacent to the AONB. B. Policy CS20 states that waste management facilities in Green Belt would only be permitted where it can be demonstrated that there are no suitable alternatives in the


SA Objective

Calvert (Without

Mitigation)







county outside the Green Belt. Policy CS20 allows infrastructure to support Policy CS11 and contingent sites under CS13 to be developed in Green belt as very special circumstances.

C. Will there be any opportunities to create green infrastructure of landscape and/or townscape value?

C. The site lies within the North Aylesbury Vale Green Infrastructure Priority Action Area (3). Development in the GI area would reduce the extent of existing GI. Opportunities are possible across undeveloped parts of the site to preserve and enhance existing mature hedgerows and connect with the adjacent habitat designations.

(L)

C. The site is not located within a Green Infrastructure priority Action Area. The site offers the potential for Green infrastructure opportunities, but perhaps not very significant in the wider landscape – see biodiversity and amenity.

N (M)

C. The site is not located within a Green Infrastructure priority Action Area. The site is adjacent to the Central Chilterns Chalk Rivers Biodiversity Opportunity Area. The River Misbourne is of low geomorphological conservation status close to the site and immediately upstream. Off-site mitigation and enhancement measures may therefore be sought, but unknown if significant to the wider landscape.

N (M)

C. The Calvert site lies within the North Aylesbury Vale Green Infrastructure Priority Action Area (3). Development in the GI would reduce the extent of existing GI, however there are large opportunities to enhance existing green infrastructure and connect or enhance features of green infrastructure.

(L)

C. Calvert and WTS Stipulate a requirement to maximise Green Infrastructure area as part of the development of sites.

(M)

C. Calvert and WTS: Seek off-site compensation and enhancement measures, e.g. where river corridors run close to the sites. Due to the size of Calvert, there is significant opportunity to for Green Infrastructure on the site.

(M)

C. Policy CS23 stipulates that proposals for new waste sites must demonstrate how the design and layout of the development will ensure the positive integration of the site within the wider landscape as well as contributing to the Buckinghamshire Green Infrastructure strategy.


(M) Size of the site favours delivery of a range of waste management facilities including energy recovery.

(L) Allows the bulking of residual waste for onward transfer to a SWC.

(L) Allows the bulking of residual waste for onward transfer to a SWC.

(M) SWC site favours delivery of a range of waste management facilities including energy recovery. Supported by WTS delivering bulked residual waste.




SA Objective

Calvert (Without

Mitigation)







Result of 2008 Review: /

ix D Decision-making riteria: c

A. Will it facilitate an increase in the level of waste materials reused, recycled and/or omposted? c

A. The significant size of the site would enable the development of a range of facilities that will contribute to the waste hierarchy, making more efficient use of natural resources. The overall impact will depend upon the final facilities proposed.

(M)

A. As part of a wider network of sites, the WTS will support driving waste up the waste hierarchy. Certain other operations / volumes of waste handling would not be f thout it. easible wi

(M)

A. As part of a wider network of sites, the WTS will support driving waste up the waste hierarchy. Certain other operations / volumes of waste handling would not be feasible without it..

(M)

A. The significant size of the Calvert site would enable the development of a range of facilities that will contribute to the waste hierarchy, making more efficient use of natural resources. The overall impact will depend upon the final facilities proposed.

(M)

A. None

A and C. Policy CS11 in particular, supported by Policy CS12, provides for a facility to manage Buckinghamshire’s residual waste, co-located with other waste facilities such as recycling, composting and orting. s

B, Will it avoid the wasteful use of natural esources? r

B. Waste management facilities that allow the recovery of energy from waste will be accommodated on the site. This would make the maximum use of waste that cannot be recycled. Heat may also be recovered from this type of facility.

(M)

B. The WTS itself will not affect the use of natural re s. source

N (H)

B. The WTS itself will not affect the use of natural re s. source

N (H)

B. Waste management facilities that allow the recovery of energy from waste could be accommodated on the Calvert site and supplied with residual waste from the WTS that would otherwise be sent to landfill. This would make use of waste that cannot be recycled. Heat may also be recovered from this type . of facility

(M)

B. None

B. Policy CS11 supports the development of an energy recovery facility at Calvert and stipulates that the facility must maximise opportunities for the on- and off-site recovery of power and heat. It also requires that a Sustainability Statement be produced alongside any development

roposals for the site. p

C. Will it encourage the use of alternatives to primary materials?

C. Waste management facilities at the site would be required to support the waste hierarchy and may include recycling,

C. The WTS will allow the bulking of residual waste for onward transportation to a waste management plant where facilities may

C. The WTS will allow the bulking of residual waste for onward transportation to a waste management plant where facilities may

C. Waste management facilities at the Calvert site would be required to support the waste hierarchy and may include recycling, sorting

C. Require that where possible, any bottom ash produced is considered for use an alternative

A and C. Policy CS11 in particular, supported by Policy CS12, provides for a facility to manage Buckinghamshire’s residual waste, co-located with other waste facilities such as


SA Objective

Calvert (Without

Mitigation)







ergy rgy nergy aggresorting and generatingenergy from waste. It would also increase the use of secondary aggregate and recycling of construction and demolit . ion waste

(M)

exist for enrecovery.

(H)

exist for enerecovery.

(H)

and generating efrom waste. The provision of strategic / co-located facilities at Calvert would also increase the use of secondary aggregate and recycling of construction and demoliti on waste.

(M)

gate. (M)

recyclingorting.

, composting and s C. Policy CS6 encourages the production of secondary aggregates, which includes

ottom ash. b

SA10: To protect water resources and seek to improve water quality Result of 2008 Review: / Dx Decision-making riteria: c

(L) SWC is expected to be an extensive development. Therefore water consumption from the site is likely to increase. Surface water and groundwater waterbodies also present.

(L) Increase in development/site activity raises potential for pollution incidents.

(L) Increase in development/site activity raises potential for pollution incidents.

(L) SWC is expected to be an extensive development. Therefore water consumption from the site is likely to increase. Surface water and groundwater waterbodies also present.

(M) Some increase in water consumption expected, however may be minimised through water efficiencies.

(M) Some increase in water consumption expected, however may be minimised hrough water efficiencies. t

No new non-hazardous landfill would be permitted within the plan period, meaning the risk of additional leachate to manage is reduced. However landfill, including for the landfilling of hazardous waste at Calvert, already has planning permission. Refer to the ‘Effects of the Plan’ section for ounty-wide impacts. c

A. Will there be an increases or decrease in water quality (e.g. through the discharge of pollutants of

ater)? w

A. Increasing the amount of development on site raises the potential for discharges of pollutants of water; however the reduction in landfill would reduce the risks posed to water by leachate – this is addressed in the ‘Effects of the Plan’ section.

(L)

A. Increasing the amount of development on site raises the potential for discharges of polluta water. nts of

(L)

A. Increasing the amount of development on site raises the potential for discharges of pollutants of water. Site is situated on a major aquifer.

(L)

A. Increasing the amount of development at the sites raises the potential for discharges of pollutants of water; however the reduction in landfill would reduce the risks posed to water by leachate. London Road site is situated on a major aquifer.

(L)

A. Stipulate sites are operated in line with high quality Environmental Management Plans to reduce the potential for uncontrolled releases to water. Consider use of sustainable interception methods as part of managing controlled discharges.

N (M)

A. No policy wording on site environmental management as not an issue for the MWCS. However requirement of use of EMS may be outlined within M&WDPD. Policy CS22 requires the inclusion of SUDS in designs where appropriate.


SA Objective

Calvert (Without

Mitigation)







B. Will there be an increase or decrease in water consumption

om facilities? fr

B. The development of waste management facilities is likely to increase water consumption from the site.

(L)

B. The use of the site as a WTS would not be expected to increase water consumption from the site to a significant extent.

N (L)

B. The use of the site as a WTS would not be expected to increase water consumption from the site to a significant extent.

N (L)

B. The development of waste management facilities at the Calvert site in particular is likely to increase water consumption from the site.

(L)

B. Calvert and WTS: Plan to stipulate waste management facilities set targets to reduce water use and maximise opportunities for greywater recycling from cooling/washing processes

(L)

B. Policy CS22 requires that waste developments comply with the principles of sustainable design and construction. Policy CS11 also requires that a Sustainability Statement be part of and

evelopment proposals. d B. Policy CS22 requires that water efficiencies be delivered and that water pollution be

voided /minimised. a

C. Will it have a positive or negative effect on waterbodies and Water Framework Directive

bjectives? o

C. Potential for some impacts on local water bodies.

(M)

C. There are no surface water bodies at the site.

N (H)

C. There are no surface water bodies at the site; however the River Misbourne is situated close to the site. The site is situated above a major aquifer; however the aquifer would be unlikely to be significantly affected by surface development.

N (M)

C. Development at the Calvert site in particular may impact on local water bodies.

(M)

C. Calvert and London Road: Stipulate improvements in on-site water bodies or off-site waterbodies where they are in close proximity to the site, e.g. seek opportunities to re-connect the River and its floodplain and improve flow dynamics.

(M)

C and D. Policy CS19 require that water resources including natural and artificial waterbodies are protected from significant adverse effects. Further to this, Policy CS22 requires that development proposals must demonstrate how adverse impacts on the water environment, water infrastructure, groundwater flows, water resources and water quality (including

ollution) will be avoided. p Policy CS23 requires that enhancements to wildlife corridors (which may include watercourses) be delivered.

D. Will there be a positive or negative impact on

ater flow? w

D. Not in a SPZ and permission for clay to be extracted from site, therefore not considered to be located on a major aquifer. SWS likely to require large foundations and therefore there is the potential for some local disturbance to

D. Not in a SPZ. Construction of a WTS unlikely to affect water flows.

N (L)

D. Site situated on major chalk aquifer. Potential to disturb groundwater flows through development.

(L)

D. London Road WTS situated on major chalk aquifer. Potential to disturb groundwater flows through development.

(L)

D. Development proposals required to demonstrate no adverse effect on ground ows. water fl

N (H)

C and D. Policy CS19 require that water resources including natural and artificial waterbodies are protected from significant adverse effects. Further to this, Policy CS22 requires that development proposals must demonstrate how adverse impacts on the water environment, water infrastructure, groundwater flows, water resources and


SA Objective

Calvert (Without

Mitigation)







groundwatemoveme

r nt. L) (

water quality (including ollution) will be avoided. p

SA11: To avoid increasing and, where possible, reduce flood isk r

Result of 2008 Review:

/ Dxi N Decision-making riteria: c

N (M) Expected that PPS25 will mean that any loss in flood storage would not be permissible at the site. Sequential approach required to be applied to site development.

N (H) The site is not located in an area at risk from looding. f



N (M) Expected that PPS25 will mean that any loss in flood storage would not be permissible at the site. Sequential approach required to be applied to site developm nt. e

N (M) The planning process cannot determine exact vehicle routes for waste vehicles from source to Calvert, although they would be expected to use the primary road network. It is expected that flood resilience of the primary road network will be managed and increased as appropriate through other

lanning processes. p

A. Will it contribute to an increase in flood risk on site or

lsewhere? e B. Will it contribute to a reduction in flood risk on site or

lsewhere? e C. Is the proposed use suitable in the flood zone of the site according to Planning policy Statement (PPS) 25?

A, B and C. Environment Agency flood zone mapping illustrates that a band of functional floodplain (flood Zone 3b - 5% or greater annual probability of flooding) cuts across the centre of the site. Development of waste management facilities would not be permissible in this zone. Current mapping indicates that flood Zone 3b (estimated functional floodplain) corresponds with the outline of flood Zone 3a (1% or greater annual probability of flooding). Only small areas of flood Zone 2 are present on site.

A, B and C. The site is not located in an area at risk from flooding.

N (H)

A, B and C. Part of the site is situated within Flood Zone 2 and 3 of the River Misbourne. WTS would be regarded as ‘less vulnerable’ under PPS25, in which case development in flood Zone 3a may be acceptable, however compensatory storage would need to be provided. Sequential Approach required under PPS25. PPS25 also requires that access and egress routes are considered in any FRA.

N (M) A, B and C. The presence of construction plant situated temporarily in areas of floodplain may locally

A, B and C. Parts of the Calvert and London Road sites are situated in floodplain. The requirements of PPS25 would ensure that no net loss of flood storage volume would be permissible and that acceptable run-off rates from the developed areas of the sites are achieved. Sequential Approach required for Calvert and London Road under PPS25. PPS25 also requires that access and egress routes are considered in

ny FRA. a

N (M) A, B and C. The presence of construction plant situated temporarily in areas of

A, B and C. Calvert: Ensure the site allows space for water by stipulating a buffer zone between the river corridor and built development. Stipulate use of Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems in attenuating water discharge. Seek opportunities to re-connect the River and its floodplain. PPS25 also requires that access and egress routes are considered in any

RA. F

N (M) A, B and C. Planning system

Policy CS11 states that no development would be permitted in areas of flood risk and that the design of buildings and hardstandings must not increase flood risk either onsite or elsewhere. Policy CS12 also states that development must be avoided in areas at flood risk and must not increase flood risk either on site or

lsewhere. e Policy CS22 requires the SUDS Hierarchy be employed n designs. i


SA Objective

Calvert (Without

Mitigation)







Therefore, development at the site would be largely restricted to flood Zone 1 areas (less than 0.1% annual probability). Sequential Approach required under PPS25. PPS25 also requires that access and egress routes are considered in any FRA.

N (M) A, B and C. The presence of construction plant situated temporarily in areas of floodplain may locally increase flood risk. The effect would be expected to be very minor.

(L)

increase flood riseffect would be expected to be very minor.

k. The

(L)

floodplain may locally increase flood risk. The effect would be expected to be very minor.

(L)

may require that theconstruction phase is considered in any Flood Risk Assessment prepared for the sites.

N (L)

SA12: To conserve mineral resources and prevent their terilisation s

Result of 2008

iew: Revxii N

Decision-making riteria: c

N (H)

N (H)

N (H)

N (H)

N (H)

N (H)

A. Will it help to conserve

A. The site has consent for the

A and B. There are no mineral deposits

A and B. There are no mineral deposits

A. The Calvert site has consent for the

A. Calvert: Brick clay extraction not

A and B. Brick clay extraction not required in t e County. h


SA Objective

Calvert (Without

Mitigation)







minerals resources for potential use by future

enerations? g B. Will it result in or prevent sterilisation so that future generations can still potentially access

eposits? d

extraction of clay andevelopment could sterilise the existing clay resource. However, little clay is currently extracted due to low demand as no brickworks are available to support clay extraction. Clay which is extracted is currently stored on-site or used for restorati oses.

d d n the

on purpN (H)

B. As above.

N (H)

appropriate for xploitation at the site. e

N (H)

appropriate for xploitation at the site. e

N (H)

extraction of clay andevelopment could sterilise the existing clay resource. However, little clay is currently extracted due to low demand. Clay which is extracted is currently stored on-site or used for restor urposes. ation p

N (H) B. As above.

N (H)

required iCounty.

N (H)

SA13: To promote the effective restoration and appropriate after use of minerals and waste site Result of 2008

iew: Rev Nxiii

Decision-making riteria: c

(M) Positive benefits likely through restoration opportunities.

N N/A: Restoration of WTS is not a formal requirement as it is for minerals site and sites disposing, reusing or recycling waste sites.

N N/A: Restoration of WTS is not a formal requirement as it is for minerals site and sites disposing, reusing or recycling waste sites.



(M) Positive benefits likely through estoration opportunities. r

County-wide benefits may be expected under the Plan, given that no new non-hazardous landfill would be permitted within the plan period. Refer to assessment of the ‘Effects of he Plan’ section of the SA. t

A. Will any potential restoration result in enhancing or recovering wildlife esources? r

A. Restoration will be required for landfilling operations on the site, providing opportunities for wildlife improvements in addition to that already agreed f ite. or the s

(M)

N/A N/A A. Restoration will be required for landfilling operations on the site, providing opportunities for wildlife improvements in addition to that already agreed for the site.

(M)

A and B. Calvert: Require proposals to be designed to create BAP priority habitats, wildlife resources and recreation facilities as part of high quality aftercare/site

A and D. Policy CS22 requires that the restoration of waste sites should contribute to delivering biodiversity and wider ecosystem services considered to include soils). (

A. CS11 and CS12 require that opportunities for nature


SA Objective

Calvert (Without

Mitigation)







restoration. (M)

conservation enhancememaximised as part of the development of a SWC and

ny supporting infrastructure.

nt be

a

B. Will any potential restoration contribute to local BAP argets? t

B. Potential to create local BAP habitat as part of restoration and after use.

(M)

N/A N/A B. Potential to create local BAP habitat as part of restoration and after use.

(M)

A and B. Calvert: Require proposals to be designed to create BAP priority habitats, wildlife resources and recreation facilities as part of high quality aftercare/site restoration.

(M)

B and E. Policies CS22 and CS23 require that new waste development must take opportunities to deliver biodiversity enhancements consistent with BAP targets. This may include on and off-site enhancements and link to wider Green Infrastructure objectives. Policy CS23 also stipulates that proposals for minerals developments demonstrate consistency with the Buckinghamshire Green Infrastructure Strategy; creating green spaces and corridors that deliver multiple benefits. Saved Policies 31 and 32 support the restoration of waste sites to other beneficial

ses. u

C. Will any potential restoration / after use provide recreational, amenity or leisure opportunities for local

eople? p

C. Potential to create additional leisure/amenity facilities as part of restoration and after use.

(M)

N/A N/A C. Potential to create additional leisure/amenity facilities as part of restoration and after use.

(M)

C. Require decommissioning strategy and restoration strategy as part of applications for the development of the site that maximise habitat and recreation amenity gain, including connecting existing and new Green Infrastructure features.

(M)

C. Policies CS11 and CS12 require that opportunities must be taken to improve recreational facilities for site users and the adjoining communities. Policies CS22 and CS23 seek the provision of recreational opportunities and require that proposals for waste sites must demonstrate the retention of existing or permissive footpaths, or where this is not possible secure a diversion or replacement to an equivalent standard of recreational value. Consideration is also required to be given to new routes, in line with the Buckinghamshire Rights of Way Improvement


SA Objective

Calvert (Without

Mitigation)







Plan.

D. Will restoration result in improvements o soil quality? t

D. Complete restoration may include improvements to soil quality, e.g. through potential soil contamination remediation; however it is difficult to assess this at this stage.

(L)

N/A N/A D. Complete restoration may include improvements to soil quality, e.g. through potential soil contamination remediation; however it is difficult to assess this at this stage.

(L)

D. None.

A and D. Policy CS22 requires that the restoration of waste sites should contribute to delivering biodiversity and wider ecosystem services (considered to include soils).

E. Will any potential restoration provide opportunities for enhancing green infrastructure and contributing to reducing the green infrastructure deficit in Aylesbury Vale?

E. Complete restoration may include improvements to green infrastructure in the North Aylesbury Vale Green Infrastructure Priority Action Area. Opportunities are possible across undeveloped parts of the site to preserve and enhance existing mature hedgerows and connect with the adjacent habitat designations.

(M)

N/A N/A E. Complete restoration may include improvements to green infrastructure in the North Aylesbury Vale Green Infrastructure Priority Action Area. Significant opportunities are possible on Calvert Landfill Site including to preserve and enhance existing mature hedgerows and connect with the adjacent habitat designations.

(M)

E. None. B and E. Policies CS22 and CS23 require that new waste development must take opportunities to deliver biodiversity enhancements consistent with BAP targets. This may include on and off-site enhancements and link to wider Green Infrastructure objectives. Policy CS23 also stipulates that proposals for minerals developments demonstrate consistency with the Buckinghamshire Green Infrastructure Strategy; creating green spaces and corridors that deliver multiple benefits. Saved Policies 31 and 32 support the restoration of waste sites to other beneficial

ses. u

SA14: To contribute positively to the sustainable management of waste and minerals Result of 2008 Review:

(M) Site offers opportunity for co-location of facilities, directly reducing landfill moving the management of the county’s residual MSW and some C&I waste up the waste hierarchy.

(M) Supports the bulking of waste for onward transfer to a SWC.

(M) Supports the bulking of waste for onward transfer to a SWC.

(M) Calvert site offers opportunity for co-location of facilities, directly reducing landfill moving the management of the county’s residual MSW and some C&I waste up the waste hierarchy.




SA Objective

Calvert (Without

Mitigation)







/ xiv Decision-making riteria: c

A. Are the proposals in line with the waste

ierarchy? h

A. The site is of sufficient size to enable a range of waste management facilities to be developed on site in line with the waste hierarchy.

(H)

A. As part of a wider network of sites, the WTS will support driving waste up the waste hierarchy. Certain other operations / volumes of waste handling would not be f thout it. easible wi

(M)

A. As part of a wider network of sites, the WTS will support driving waste up the waste hierarchy. Certain other operations / volumes of waste handling would not be feasible without it..

(M)

A. The Calvert site is of sufficient size to enable a range of waste management facilities to be developed on site in line with the waste hierarchy.

(H)

A. None.

A, B, C, D and F. Policies CS9, CS11and CS12 provide for additional waste management capacity (and supporting infrastructure) in The policies are designed to directly divert waste from landfill and to increase the proportion of waste that is re-used, recycled and composted. Policy CS11 in particular, supported by Policy CS12, provides for a facility to manage Buckinghamshire’s residual waste, co-located with other waste facilities such as recycling, composting and orting. s

B. Will it contribute to or encourage waste

inimisation? m

B. Development of waste management facility will not minimise waste at source.

N (H)

B. Development of WTS will not minimise waste at source.

N (H)

B. Development of WTS will not minimise waste at source.

N (H)

B. Development of waste management facility and supporting WTS will not minimise waste at source.

N (H)

B. None.

A, B, C, D and F. Policies CS9, CS11and CS12 provide for additional waste management capacity (and supporting infrastructure) in The policies are designed to directly divert waste from landfill and to increase the proportion of waste that is re-used, recycled and composted. Policy CS11 in particular, supported by Policy CS12, provides for a facility to manage Buckinghamshire’s residual waste, co-located with other waste facilities such as recycling, composting and orting. s



SA Objective

Calvert (Without

Mitigation)







C. Will it contribute to an increase in the level of reuse, recycling or composting?

C. The site is of sufficient size to enable a range of waste management facilities to be developed on site, potentially including re-use, recycling and composting facilities.

(H)

C. The site will be used to bulk up residual waste for onward transfer to a waste management facility. This will support the re-use of residual waste for energy recovery.

(H)

C. The site will be used to bulk up residual waste for onward transfer to a waste management facility. This will support the re-use of residual waste for energy recovery.

(H)

C. The Calvert site is of sufficient size to enable a range of waste management facilities to be developed on site, potentially including re-use, recycling and composting facilities. The bulking of residual waste for onward transfer to Calvert will support the re-use of residual waste.

(H)

C. None.

A, B, C, D and F. Policies CS9, CS11and CS12 provide for additional waste management capacity (and supporting infrastructure) in The policies are designed to directly divert waste from landfill and to increase the proportion of waste that is re-used, recycled and composted. Policy CS11 in particular, supported by Policy CS12, provides for a facility to manage Buckinghamshire’s residual waste, co-located with other waste facilities such as recycling, composting and sorting.

D. Will it contribute to a reduction or increase in the proportion of waste landfilled?

D. The site is of sufficient size to enable a range of waste management facilities to be developed on site, which are likely to include alternatives to landfill. Currently the majority of Buckinghamshire’s RMSW and RC&I waste is landfilled.

(H)

D. The site will be used to bulk up residual waste for onward transfer to a waste management facility. This will support the re-use of residual waste for energy recovery and contribute to the avoidance of landfilling residual waste. Currently the majority of Buckinghamshire’s RMSW and RC&I waste is landfilled

(H)

D. The site will be used to bulk up residual waste for onward transfer to a waste management facility. This will support the re-use of residual waste for energy recovery and contribute to the avoidance of landfilling residual waste. Currently the majority of Buckinghamshire’s RMSW and RC&I is landfilled

(H)

D. The Calvert site is of sufficient size to enable a range of waste management facilities to be developed on site, which are likely to include alternatives to landfill. The Calvert site will be supported by WTS which will send bulk residual waste to the SWC that will directly reduce the amount of waste landfilled. Currently the majority of Buckinghamshire’s RMSW and RC&I waste is landfilled

(H)

D. None.

A, B, C, D and F. Policies CS9, CS11and CS12 provide for additional waste management capacity (and supporting infrastructure) in The policies are designed to directly divert waste from landfill and to increase the proportion of waste that is re-used, recycled and composted. Policy CS11 in particular, supported by Policy CS12, provides for a facility to manage Buckinghamshire’s residual waste, co-located with other waste facilities such as recycling, composting and sorting.

E. Will it contribute to enabling the county’s waste to be managed

E. The site is located within the county and is likely to be a strategic facility to deal with County’s MSW and C&I waste. The

E. The site is located within the county and will support a strategic facility dealing with the County’s MSW and C&I waste.

E. The site is located within the county and will support a strategic facility dealing with the County’s MSW and C&I waste.

E. The site is located within the county and is likely to be a strategic facility to deal with County’s waste. The provision of a SWC is

E. None.

E. Policy CS11 is supported by Policies CS9, CS13 and CS16 that stipulate that energy recovery capacity will reflect Buckinghamshire’s waste management needs only.

SA Objective

Calvert (Without

Mitigation)







within the county?

provision of a SWC is likely to increase the proportion of residual, recyclable and compostable waste managed in the county and diverted from landfill.

(M)

(M)

(M)

likely to increase the proportion of residual C&I wastes managed in the county through the presence of an alternative to landfill.

(M)

Provision of energy recovery from imported waste would only be permitted where the activity would benefit Buckinghamshire’s waste management objectives.

F. Will it increase the use of secondary and recycled aggregates?

F. The site may facilitate the processing of secondary aggregates or aggregate recycling. This may increase the use of secondary and recycled aggregates. Depending on the technology, residues from Energy recovery processes can be reprocessed into secondary aggregate.

(L)

F. The WTS will not increase or decrease the use of secondary and recycled aggregates.

N (H)

F. The WTS will not increase or decrease the use of secondary and recycled aggregates.

N (H)

F. The Calvert site may facilitate the processing of secondary aggregates or aggregate recycling. This may increase the use of secondary and recycled aggregates. Depending on the technology, residues from Energy recovery processes can be reprocessed into secondary aggregate.

(L)

F. None.

A, B, C, D and F. Policies CS9, CS11and CS12 provide for additional waste management capacity (and supporting infrastructure) in The policies are designed to directly divert waste from landfill and to increase the proportion of waste that is re-used, recycled and composted. Policy CS11 in particular, supported by Policy CS12, provides for a facility to manage Buckinghamshire’s residual waste, co-located with other waste facilities such as recycling, composting and sorting. Policy CS6 gives favourable consideration to development for the recycling of C&D waste and processing of secondary aggregate.

G. Is it flexible to account for future changes in technology, processes or needs?

G. The site is of sufficient size to enable a range of waste management facilities to be developed on site. It is a well-established site for waste management and therefore represents a location where changes in processes or technology could be accommodated.

G. The site is proposed to be used as a WTS. The need to accommodate fluctuating levels of residual waste will need to be considered in any proposals for the site.

(L)

G. The site is proposed to be used as a WTS. The need to accommodate fluctuating levels of residual waste will need to be considered in any proposals for the site.

(L)

G. The Calvert site is of sufficient size to enable a range of waste management facilities to be developed on site. It is a well-established site for waste management and therefore represents a location where changes in processes or technology could be accommodated.

(H)

G. None.

G. No policy wording included on the need to account for future changes in technology, as not a MWCS issue. Policy CS11 however encourages the co-location of facilities which could be delivered at different stages and allows for the delivery of different technologies.


SA Objective

Calvert (Without

Mitigation)







(H)

SA15: To use energy efficiently and to increase the production of energy from renewable and low carbon sources Result of 2008 Review: / Dxv Decision-making criteria:

(M) Size of the site favours delivery of a range of waste management facilities. This could include energy recovery.

(L) - temporary Energy will be expended during construction, through the burning of fuels to power construction plant and tools, and the use of electricity. Impact will be restricted to the construction phase only. Impacts associated with the operation phase N/A.

(L) - temporary Energy will be expended during construction, through the burning of fuels to power construction plant and tools, and the use of electricity. Impact will be restricted to the construction phase only. Impacts associated with the operation phase N/A.



(M) Size of the site favours delivery of a range of waste management facilities. Policies promote energy recovery facilities.

A. Will it use energy efficiently?

A. This depends upon the type of facility developed on the site. The production of energy from the site will be in line with the waste hierarchy.

(L) A. Energy will be expended during construction, through the burning of fuels to power construction plant and tools, and the use of electricity.

(L)

A. Energy will be expended during construction, through the burning of fuels to power construction plant and tools, and the use of electricity. (L) - temporary

A. Energy will be expended during construction, through the burning of fuels to power construction plant and tools, and the use of electricity. (L) - temporary

A. This depends upon the type of facility developed on the site. The production of energy from the site will be in line with the waste hierarchy.

(L)

A. Calvert and WTS: Encourage innovative energy efficient design that achieves more than building regulations standards.

(L)

A. Policy CS22 requires that development proposals comply with the principles of sustainable design and construction, including higher levels of energy efficiency. Policy CS11 also requires the production of a Sustainability Statement.

B. Will it contribute to an increase in the production of energy from

B, C and D. This depends upon the type of facility developed on the site. The site is of sufficient

N/A: SA Objectives/criteria relevant to waste management sites; however the WTS will be

N/A: SA Objectives/criteria relevant to waste management sites; however the WTS will be

B, C and D. This depends upon the type of facility developed on the site. The site is of sufficient size to enable

B and C. Calvert and WTS: Encourage innovative designs that include low and

B, C and D. Policy CS11 supports the development of an energy recovery facility at Calvert and stipulates that the facility must maximise


SA Objective

Calvert (Without

Mitigation)







renewable and low carbon sources? C. Will any energy (heat / electricity) be produced? D. Will any energy produced (heat / electricity) be used locally?

size to enable a range of waste management facilities to be developed which could potentially utilise waste as an energy resource to provide heat and/or electricity.

(M)

used for the bulking of residual waste which could be used at a waste management facility to generate energy from residual waste.

used for the bulking of residual waste which could be used at a waste management facility to generate energy from residual waste.

a range of waste management facilities to be developed which could potentially utilise waste as an energy resource to provide heat and/or electricity.

(M)

zero carbon technologies to provide energy for on-site and off-site use.

(M)

C. Calvert: Ensure heat and power, if produced on site, will be utilised locally as well as connecting to the national grid.

(M)

opportunities for the on- and off-site recovery of power and heat.

SA16: To minimise the number and length of road journeys associated with waste management facilities and minerals workings Result of 2008 Review: xvi Decision-making criteria:

(M) Increase in traffic as a result of the operation of the site and potentially significant impacts on the capacity of the local road network.

(H) Small increase in traffic as a result of the operation of the site.

(H) Small increase in traffic as a result of the operation of the site.

(M) Increase in traffic as a result of the operation of the site and potentially significant impacts on the capacity of the local road network.

(M) Assumes all bulked waste is transported by rail to Calvert. This is a long-term position, rather than a short-term effect of the Plan.

(M) Assumes all bulked waste is transported by rail to Calvert. This is a long-term position, rather than a short-term effect of the Plan. The short to medium -term effect of the plan is likely to be to increase road transportation distances for waste, albeit maximising the use of bulked road transport. R = monitor delivery of waste transfer to Calvert by rail. Monitor future policy to ensure it reflects markets for waste transportation and facilitates the most sustainable options for waste movement.

A. Will it increase or decrease the kilometres travelled by waste or minerals by road?

A. Depends upon location of other waste infrastructure developed across the County. It is expected that the overall distances travelled by residual waste would be increased as all MSW and C&I

A. The bulking of residual waste at the WTS would reduce the waste movements that would otherwise occur in the transportation of residual waste to landfill. Considering the site in isolation, it is not possible to asses

A. The bulking of residual waste at the WTS would reduce the waste movements that would otherwise occur in the transportation of residual waste to landfill. Considering the site in isolation, it is not possible to asses

A and D. The bulking of residual waste at the WTS would reduce the waste movements that would otherwise occur in the transportation of residual waste to landfill. However, it is expected that the overall distances travelled by

A and D. Calvert: Maximise use of rail for importing waste to site; all bulked waste to be transferred by rail, rather than road. Secure a transportation plan for the operation of

A and D. Policy CS11 requires that opportunities to maximise the use of rail for the transportation of residual waste from the south of the county be taken. Policy CS14 also safeguards two sites as rail transfer facilities. Policy CS12 supports the use of WTS to be used for the bulking of waste


SA Objective

Calvert (Without

Mitigation)







recovery capacity would be at one location in the north of the county.

(L)

whether the road mileage of waste haulage would be increased or decreased.

N (L)

whether the road mileage of waste haulage would be increased or decreased.

N (L)

residual waste would be increased as all MSW and C&I recovery capacity would be at one location in the north of the county.

(L)

the site that sets limits on HGV sizes, access routes and times of access. Maximise opportunities to bulk waste to reduce overall mileage travelled by waste.

(L)

from the south to Calvert.

B. Will it have a positive or negative impact on traffic congestion?

B. The impact of the site with respect to the percentage of daily traffic increases on the A41 would be less than a 10% increase. The local road network would be more significantly affected by the increase in HGV traffic. A Transport Assessment states that a new access from the A41 would be required.

(H)

B, C and D. The majority of waste transfer movement currently occurs outside of network peaks. The WTS would add c. 84 vehicle movements per day to the highway network. There is sufficient capacity to accommodate this and background traffic growth.

(H)

B, C and D. The WTS would add c. 84 vehicle movements per day to the highway network. There is sufficient capacity to accommodate this and background traffic growth.

(H)

B and C. A Transport Assessment indicates that the impact of the Calvert site (plus the two WTS) with respect to the percentage of daily traffic increases would be a 12% increase on the local highway network. This is considered to be significant in terms of capacity. Impacts on the A41 at Gallows Bridge (a local pinch-point n traffic) would be within normal variations in traffic flow.

(H)

B and C. Calvert: Develop a new access route to the site that by-passes Calvert and other villages without increasing pressure on infrastructure in other locations.

(L)

B and C. Policies CS11 and CS12 provide for a new access road to avoid impacts on the local road network.

C. Will there be a positive or negative impact on local infrastructure?

C. The impact of the site with respect to the percentage of daily traffic increases on the A41 would be less than a 10% increase. The proportion of larger HGVs would also increase which are not suited to the local existing road network. The Gallows Bridge (A41/The Broadway) junction is reaching capacity.

(H)


(H) C. During construction, material assts such as


(H) C. During construction, material assts such as highway infrastructure may be damaged. This would be temporary.

B and C. A Transport Assessment indicates that the impact of the Calvert site (plus the two WTS) with respect to the percentage of daily traffic increases would be a 12% increase on the local rural road network. This is considered to be significant in terms of capacity. Impacts on the A41 at Gallows Bridge (a local pinch-point n traffic) would be within

B and C. Calvert: Develop a new access route to the site that by-passes Calvert and other villages without increasing pressure on infrastructure in other locations.

(L) C. Planning process expected to require measures to minimise damage

B and C. Policies CS11 and CS12 provide for a new access road to avoid impacts on the local road network.


SA Objective

Calvert (Without

Mitigation)







C. During construction, material assts such as highway infrastructure may be damaged. This would be temporary.

(L)

highway infrastructure may be damaged. This would be temporary.

(L)

(L)

normal variations in traffic flow.

(H) C. During construction, material assts such as highway infrastructure may be damaged. This would be temporary.

(L)

during construction and developers to provide for the full repair of any damage to material assets.

N (L)

D. Will there be an increase or reduction in the number of movements of waste or minerals?

D. A greater proportion of waste would be treated at the site than is currently the case.. Overall the traffic impact of the proposed development is considered to be small with percentage daily traffic increases typically less than 10%. The additions to traffic flow on the A41 would be indistinguishable from normal daily variations in traffic flow

(H)


(H)


(H)

A and D. The bulking of residual waste at the WTS would reduce the waste movements that would otherwise occur in the transportation of residual waste to landfill. However, it is expected that the overall distances travelled by waste would be increased as all MSW and C&I recovery capacity would be at one location in the north of the county.

(L) D. It is expected that the overall distances travelled by waste would be increased as all MSW recovery capacity would be at one location in the north of the county, rather than split between the north and south of the county as is currently the case.

(L)

A and D. Calvert: Maximise use of rail for importing waste to site; all bulked waste to be transferred by rail, rather than road. Secure a transportation plan for the operation of the site that sets limits on HGV sizes, access routes and times of access. Maximise opportunities to bulk waste to reduce overall mileage travelled by waste.

(M)

A and D. Policy CS11 requires that opportunities to maximise the use of rail for the transportation of residual waste from the south of the county be taken. Policy CS14 also safeguards two sites as rail transfer facilities. Policy CS12 supports the use of WTS to be used for the bulking of waste from the south to Calvert. D and E. No specific policy wording included to reduce reliance in the private car. Not considered relevant to scope of MWCS.

E. Will it reduce reliance on the car?

E. The site is remote from large population centres and staff would be likely to access the site by car and there are

E. The facility will neither increase nor decrease the reliance on the car.

N (H)

E. The facility will neither increase nor decrease the reliance on the car.

N (H)

E. The Calvert site is remote from large population centres and staff would be likely to access the site by car and there are alternative

E. None.

D and E. No specific policy wording included to reduce reliance in the private car. Not considered relevant to scope of MWCS.


SA Objective

Calvert (Without

Mitigation)







alternative travel modes to the site. The site is not intended to be a public facility.

(L)

travel modes to the site. The site is not intended to be a public facility.

(L)

F. Will it reduce the need to travel?

F. The facility will neither increase nor decrease the need to travel.

N (H)


N (H)


N (H)

F. The sites will neither increase nor decrease the need to travel.

N (H)

F. None.

SA17: To maximise community participation in minerals and waste issues and individual responsibility for their own waste production and minerals use Result of 2008 Review: xvii Decision-making criteria:

(L) Supports the provision of further waste management facilities to be provided.




(M) Supports the provision of further waste management facilities to be provided.

(M) Supports the provision of further waste management facilities to be provided, deigned to manage an equivalent volume of waste to that generated in Buckinghamshire.

A. Will it facilitate good and equitable access to waste services for all?

A. N/A for site assessment. Site will form part of the wider Buckinghamshire network of waste management sites to maintain waste services for the county. Public do not and will not use the site for waste services.


N (H)


N (H)

A. Sites will form part of the Buckinghamshire network of waste management sites to maintain waste services for the county. Public do not and will not use the site for waste services.

N (H)

A. None.

A. N/A.


SA Objective

Calvert (Without

Mitigation)







N (H)

B. Will it increase or decrease opportunities for public and/or business participation?

B. Site will not be a public amenity, but will enable further waste management facilities to be provided for individuals/businesses.

(L)


(L)


(L)

B. Sites will not be public amenities, but will enable further waste management facilities to be provided for individuals/businesses.

(L)

B. None.

B. N/A.

C. Will it increase or decrease opportunities for education and awareness raising on minerals and waste issues?

C. No direct impact on education and awareness raising.

N (H)


N (H)


N (H)


N (H)

C. Calvert: Plan could contribute to awareness raising of waste management issues such as waste management and biodiversity and technologies by encouraging the provision of a visitor/education centre on site, for example.

(M)

C. N/A.

D. Will it enable individuals and organisations to take responsibility for their own waste – e.g. through local management?

D. No direct impact on local waste management.

N (H)


N (H)


N (H)

D. No direct impact on local waste

management N (H)

D. None.

D. N/A.

E. Will it enable Buckinghamshire to achieve net self-sufficiency for minerals and/or waste?

E. SWC will serve as the main repository for RMSW and C&I waste that is currently landfilled in the county. It is expected that the SWC will encourage more

E. WTS alone will not allow Buckinghamshire to achieve net self-sufficiency for minerals and/or waste, but will support transfer of bulk residual waste to a SWC.

E. WTS alone will not allow Buckinghamshire to achieve net self-sufficiency for minerals and/or waste, but will support transfer of bulk residual waste to a SWC.

E. SWC will serve as the main repository for RMSW that is currently landfilled in the county. It is expected that the SWC will encourage more residual C&I waste to be diverted from

E. None.

E. Policy CS11, supported by Policy CS12, provides for a facility to manage Buckinghamshire’s residual waste, co-located with other waste facilities such as recycling, composting and sorting. Policy CS11 is supported by Policies CS9,


SA Objective

Calvert (Without

Mitigation)







residual MSW and C&I waste to be diverted from landfill. This will allow existing net self-sufficiency to continue. The allocation of Calvert would improve net self-sufficiency for recycling and composting.

(L)

N (H)

N (H)

landfill. This will allow existing net self-sufficiency to continue. The allocation of Calvert would improve net self-sufficiency for recycling and composting.

(L)

CS13 and CS16 that stipulate that energy recovery capacity will reflect Buckinghamshire’s waste management needs only. Provision of energy recovery from imported waste would only be permitted where the activity would benefit Buckinghamshire’s waste management objectives.

SA18: To protect, enhance and create (where possible) resources valued for recreation, including public rights of way Result of 2008 Review: Nxviii Decision-making criteria:

(M) Opportunities for improvements to PROW likely to outweigh diversions to accommodate the increased intensity in use at the site.



(M) Opportunities for improvements to PROW likely to outweigh diversions to accommodate the increased intensity in use at the sites.

(M) Opportunities for improvements to PROW likely to outweigh diversions to accommodate the increased intensity in use at the sites. Assumed that new infrastructure will involve an entirely new recreational opportunity,

(M) Opportunities for improvements to PROW assumed to include an entirely new recreational opportunity, and likely to outweigh diversions to accommodate the increased intensity in use at the site. Refer to assessment of the ‘Effects of the Plan’ section of the SA for county-wide impacts.

A. Will there be any impact on resources valued for recreation, including public rights of way?

A. Development proposals may necessitate the permanent diversion of public rights of way.

(M) A. Development proposals may necessitate the temporary diversion of public rights of way during construction.

(M)

A. Development at the site may affect views from a public right of way adjacent to the northwest part of the site.

(M) A. Construction at the site may affect views from a public right of way adjacent to the northwest part of the site.

A. Development at the site may affect views from a public right of way adjacent to the northwest part of the site

(M) A. Construction at the site may affect views from a public right of way adjacent to the northwest part of the site.

(M)

A. Development proposals may necessitate the diversion of public rights of way locally.

(M) A. construction activities proposals may necessitate the temporary diversion of public rights of way.

(M)

A. Calvert and WTS: Minimise the diversion of PROWs across the sites and increase accessibility along PROWs across and around the sites as far as practicable in the design of the layout of the sites, including the construction phase.

(M)

A. Policies CS11 and CS12 require that opportunities must be taken to improve recreational facilities for site users and the adjoining communities. Policy CS23 requires that proposals for waste sites must demonstrate the retention of existing or permissive footpaths, or where this is not possible secure a diversion or replacement to an equivalent standard of recreational value.


SA Objective

Calvert (Without

Mitigation)







(M)

Consideration is also required to be given to new routes, in line with the Buckinghamshire Rights of Way Improvement Plan.

B. Will there be any opportunities to create green infrastructure of recreational value including public rights of way?

B. Opportunity for increased provision of green infrastructure (e.g. paths, corridors) at the site.

(M)

B. Potential opportunity to improve adjacent PROW as part of development of the site.

(M)

B. Potential opportunity to improve local PROW and Central Chilterns Chalk Rivers Biodiversity Opportunity Area as part of development of the site.

(M)

B. Opportunity for increased provision of green infrastructure (e.g. paths, corridors) at the sites.

(M)

B. Include the requirement to maximise the provision of green infrastructure at the site.

(M)

B. Policy CS23 stipulates that proposals for new waste sites must demonstrate how the design and layout of the development contribute to the Buckinghamshire Green Infrastructure strategy.

SA19: To avoid adverse economic impacts on land and premises in employment use and seek to benefit such businesses where possible Result of 2008 Review: xix Decision-making criteria:

N (H)

N (H)

N (H)

N (H)

N (H)

N (H)

A. Will there be any adverse economic impacts on

A. The site currently operates as a non-hazardous/ inert landfill and will extend the current use of the

A. Given the existing use of the site as a waste management facility, the use of the site as a WTS will not

A. Given the existing use of the site as a waste management facility, the use of the site as a WTS will not

A. Given the existing use of the sites as waste management facilities, and are safeguarded as such, adverse impacts

A. None.

A. N/A.


SA Objective

Calvert (Without

Mitigation)







land and premises in employment use? (e.g. from land take or the need for businesses to relocate or from the transport routes used)?

site, rather than replacing any other business uses.

N (H)

create adverse impacts on land and premises in economic use.

N (H)

create adverse impacts on land and premises in economic use.

N (H)

on land and premises in economic use would not be expected.

N (H)

B. Will there be any benefits for local businesses and landowners?

B. No predicted benefits to local businesses and landowners.

N (L)


N (L)


N (L)


N (L)

B. None.

B. N/A.

SA20: To maintain or improve job opportunities within the county Result of 2008 Review: xx Decision-making criteria:

N (L) Generation of a small number of jobs. No conflict with existing employment uses.





N (L) Generation of a small number of jobs anticipated, however this depends upon the range of facilities delivered on the site. No conflict with existing employment uses. The consolidation of waste management facilities at one site may mean fewer jobs in the long-term as landfill sites work to reach their existing permissions and no additional non-hazardous landfill will be permitted. Refer to assessment of the ‘Effects of the Plan’ section of the SA for county-wide impacts.

A. Will there be a resulting reduction in or creation of jobs in the

A. The new waste management facility is likely to create a small number (less than 50) of new jobs; however

A. The new WTS is likely to create a very small number of jobs (e.g. 5-10).

N (L)

A. The new WTS is likely to create a very small number of jobs (e.g. 5-10).

N (L)

A. The new waste management facility and WTS are likely to create a small number (less than 50) of new jobs. It

A. None.

A and B. N/A.



SA Objective

Calvert (Without

Mitigation)







waste or minerals industry?

the number of jobs is dependent upon the type of waste management facility.

N (L)

is expected that existing waste sites will continue to function according to their existing permissions.

N (L)

B. Will there be a positive or negative impact on jobs opportunities in non-waste or non-minerals jobs?

B. Site not proposed for specific employment use in District level plans. Unlikely to impact on nearby businesses.

N (H)


N (H)


N (H)

B. Sites are not proposed for specific employment use in District level plans. Unlikely to impact on nearby businesses.

N (H)

B. None. A and B. N/A.

Other Plans Policies and Programmes of Particular Relevance to the Sites

High Speed 2 (2010) – rail line serving Calvert is identified as the preferred route for the new high speed line, which may potentially hinder or prevent its use for waste deliveries. The site owners have, however, been informed by HS2 that waste deliveries will be able to continue. Buckinghamshire Green Infrastructure Strategy (2009) – Calvert is on the edge of Priority Action Area 1: North Aylesbury Vale. Not within a specific action area, but could make a contribution to the County’s green infrastructure. Buckinghamshire Landscape Plan (2000) – Calvert is located in Zone 5: Northern Clay Vale. Zone priorities: management and new planting of black poplars; establish medium and large areas of new woodland; reduce the impact of pylon lines; improve the management of hedgerows; conserve ridge and furrow and associated remains of deserted settlements. Aylesbury Vale Local Plan (2004) – No significant development proposals for the area; the Calvert Brickworks Site identified in the plan for mixed-use development (to the north of Calvert) is now mainly developed. The plan supports the use of the rail line serving Calvert for the East West Rail link, but this is unlikely to prevent its continued use for the Calvert site. Aylesbury is a key growth area for housing in the county. Wycombe Local Plan (2004) – No significant development proposals are in place at the High Heavens site, or in proximity to the site. Chiltern District Local Plan (2004) – No significant development proposals are in place at the London Road site, or in proximity to the site.

Previous Option Review (2008) –

Potential to link two SSSI sites by the creation of an ecological corridor through the site. Strategic Waste complex – co-located activities.

Cumulative, Secondary and Synergistic Impacts Summary of Assessment

Evaluation of the Calvert site supported by two Waste Transfer Stations (WTS) shows that the option allows for a range of co-located facilities to be delivered at a Strategic Waste Complex (SWC). The SWC is not within Green Belt or an AONB and is an existing waste site. However, the visibility and landscaping of a SWC will be a key issue that will require careful assessment and design. The two WTS are both located in Green Belt and in the Chilterns AONB. Detailed assessment of impacts upon landscape associated with both visual intrusion and traffic generation from the WTS will be required to determine feasible and appropriate mitigation measures. The proposals at Calvert are expected to increase the number of waste transportation movements and increase the distances travelled by residual waste compared with baseline levels. Every opportunity to maximise the use of rail transfer to reduce the impacts of traffic associated with waste transportation and bulking of waste should be explored. A new access road would be required to reduce the impacts of traffic generation on the local road network around the Calvert site. The routing of transportation to the sites and timing should be carefully planned to reduce impacts on receptors sensitive to disturbance by transport. The development of a SWC will directly reduce the amount of residual municipal solid waste and commercial and industrial waste landfilled in Buckinghamshire. This will reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the landfill in the county; a greater contributor to greenhouse gas emissions than waste-related transport. The sites are not situated within any ecological designations, however designated sites are situated close to the sites, for example a SSSI is situated to the north of the Calvert site. Opportunities exist to improve adjacent habitat sites as part of any development proposals that might come forward on the sites. Improvements in habitats and ecological enhancements made should be delivered in tandem with the plan. Opportunities to maximise green infrastructure provision through the development of the sites should be explored to help sequester carbon and to provide habitat and recreational improvements.

Notes (including assumptions): SA1: To protect and enhance air quality

Data source: High Heavens Site Profile, London Road Site Profile, Calvert Site Profile, National Air quality Archive website http://aqma.defra.gov.uk/maps.php, Jacobs (2008) Atmospheric Dispersion Modelling of Potential Anaerobic Digestion and Energy from Waste Plants, Effects on SSSIs surrounding the proposed Calvert and Woodham waste sites., Buckinghamshire Minerals and Waste Local Development Framework: Minerals and Waste Core Strategy Development Plan Document, Preferred Options Consultation Report , response to Natural England Comments on Calvert/Woodham Sites, 26th June 2008, Buckinghamshire County Council, 2009, Minerals and Waste Core Strategy, Calvert Landfill Site Transport Evaluation, Revision 2, Buckinghamshire County Council, 2009, Minerals and Waste Core Strategy, Waste Transfer Stations, Transport Evaluation.

Emissions from waste sites must meet stringent targets set by EU legislation and emissions are regulated by the Environment Agency. Site operators are required to monitor trace emissions on a regular basis. Environment Agency, Defra and the Health Protection Agency state that waste sites that are run in compliance with relevant European legislation do not pose a risk to human heath or the environment with respect to emissions. See separate topic paper on human health impacts.

See separate topic paper on emissions / impacts from different waste technologies / facilities. Road borne waste deliveries are limited to 260 HGV movements per day and it is assumed that future development of the site will be required to comply with this. The Calvert site

currently receives 208 HGV movements per day. SA2: To minimise impacts on and effects from climate change


http://aqma.defra.gov.uk/maps.php

Data source: PPS25: Development and Flood Risk, Environment Agency Flood Risk Maps, Overview Paper (Buckinghamshire County Council 2011), Buckinghamshire County Council, 2009, Minerals and Waste Core Strategy, Calvert Landfill Site Transport Evaluation, Revision 2, Buckinghamshire County Council, 2009, Minerals and Waste Core Strategy, Waste Transfer Stations, Transport Evaluation.

Development of non-hazardous waste facilities are compatible on Flood Zone 2 and must satisfy the Exception Test in PPS25 for development in flood Zone 3a. Development of any hazardous waste (more vulnerable) facilities must satisfy the Exception Test in PPS25 for development in Flood Zone 2 and will not be permitted in Flood Zone

3. Loss of floodplain must be compensated for on a level-for-level and volume-for-volume basis. For any development, site drainage will be required to be attenuated to greenfield run-off rates to reduce impacts of development on rates of surface water run-off from the site.

SA3: To protect, and where possible enhance, the living conditions and amenities of local residents and people working in local businesses from the adverse effects of minerals and/or waste development

Data source: Online mapping, Buckinghamshire County Council, March 2008, Waste preferred Options Sites, Initial Transport Assessment, Buckinghamshire County Council, Minerals and Waste Core Strategy, Calvert Landfill Site Transportation Evaluation, 2009.

Road access at Calvert is restricted by planning condition to an entrance on Brackley Lane on the northern boundary of the site, adjacent to Calvert Green housing development. The route uses c-class roads through the villages of Grendon Underwood, Edgcott and Calvert, accounting for 60-75% of waste vehicle movements.

A Transport Assessment completed for the site concludes that the increased volumes of traffic and larger vehicles would not make the use of the existing access route viable. The site is only viable for waste management if a new access road is constructed.

Licensing conditions and Pollution, prevention and control (PPC) permitting ensure that pest infestations are minimised and controlled.

See separate topic paper on emissions / impacts from different waste technologies / facilities (including odour).

Recovery plant likely to have long life – e.g. 25 years.

SA4: To minimise adverse impacts on human health and ensure public safety with regard to minerals and waste activities

Data source: Jacobs (2008) Atmospheric Dispersion Modelling of Potential Anaerobic Digestion and Energy from Waste Plants, Effects on SSSIs surrounding the proposed Calvert and Woodham waste sites, National Air quality Archive website http://aqma.defra.gov.uk/maps.php, Buckinghamshire County Council, March 2008, Waste preferred Options Sites, Initial Transport Assessment, Buckinghamshire County Council Draft Health Topic Paper, January 2010.

Emissions from all waste sites and technologies (including landfill) must meet stringent targets set by EU legislation and emissions are regulated by the Environment Agency. Site operators are required to monitor trace emissions on a regular basis.

Environment Agency, Defra and the Health Protection Agency state that waste sites that are run in compliance with relevant European legislation do not pose a risk to human heath or the environment with respect to emissions. See separate topic paper on human health impacts. SA5: To protect and enhance biodiversity and create new habitats

Data source: High Heavens Site Profile, London Road Site Profile, Calvert site profile (MWCS Ecological Assessment: Waste Processing Site Options, Jacobs 2009). Site Environmental Constraints Maps, MAgIC website. SA6: To protect areas of archaeological importance and conserve and, where appropriate, enhance the historic environment

Data source: High Heavens Site Profile, London Road Site Profile, Calvert site profile. Site Environmental Constraints Maps. MAgIC website. SA7: To protect and seek to improve soil resources and quality, and protect and enhance sites of geological interest

Data source: High Heavens Site Profile, London Road Site Profile, Calvert site profile. Site Environmental Constraints Maps. Site will be subject to normal pollution control regulatory provisions.


Data source: Jacobs, 2010, River Misbourne Fluvial Audit (relevant to London Road site only). High Heavens Site Profile, London Road Site Profile, Calvert Site Profile, Detailed Site Assessment for Potential Waste Management facilities in Buckinghamshire (TPD08) RPS, 2008. Site Environmental Constraints Maps, MAgIC website.


http://aqma.defra.gov.uk/maps.php


The exact impact of the height/scale of waste management facilities would be determined at the application stage based on landscape, dispersion modelling technology, topography, plant emissions, existing air quality and weather conditions. It has been assumed that the height and scale of the energy recovery development would be significant and that the extent to which the development could be mitigated would vary dependent upon the facility at the site. However, the actual development may potentially have a lower impact in reality. SA9: To avoid the wasteful use of natural resources and to encourage the use of alternatives to primary materials

Data source: High Heavens Site Profile, London Road Site Profile, Calvert Site Profile, Buckinghamshire County Council Waste Topic Paper SA10: To protect water resources and seek to improve water quality

Data source: High Heavens Site Profile, London Road Site Profile, Calvert Site Profile. The discharge of water from waste management sites will be within licensed limits and regulated by the Environment Agency. Site will be subject to normal pollution control legislation. Water company approval would be required for water use.


Data Source: PPS25: Development and Flood Risk, Environment Agency Flood Risk Maps, Buckinghamshire County Council Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA) for Minerals and Waste Local Development Framework, February 2011.

Results of SFRA Stage 2 have not yet been included.

Development of non-hazardous waste facilities are compatible on Flood Zone 2 and must satisfy the Exception Test in PPS25 for development in flood Zone 3a.

Development of hazardous waste (more vulnerable) facilities must satisfy the Exception Test in PPS25 for development in Flood Zone 2 and will not be permitted in Flood Zone 3.

Loss of floodplain must be compensated for on a level-for-level and volume-for-volume basis.

Site drainage will be required by PPS25 to be attenuated to greenfield run-off rates to reduce impacts of development on rates of surface water run-off from the site. SA12: To conserve mineral resources and prevent their sterilisation

Data source: High Heavens Site Profile, London Road Site Profile, Calvert Site Profile, site allocation boundary maps. Assessment without mitigation assumes the site will be developed regardless of whether the site has been worked for clay extraction.

SA13: To promote the effective restoration and appropriate after use of minerals and waste site

Data source: High Heavens Site Profile, London Road Site Profile, Calvert Site Profile

SA14: To contribute positively to the sustainable management of waste and minerals Data source: High Heavens Site Profile, London Road Site Profile, Calvert Site Profile Assumed that waste management facilities are deliverable at the site, given that part of the site is already used as a waste management site and consultation has taken place with

the waste industry. Planning application at Calvert Landfill Site has been submitted for the site by the owner, so demonstrating that the site is deliverable from an industry perspective.


Data source: High Heavens Site Profile, London Road Site Profile, Calvert Site Profile SA16: To minimise the number and length of road journeys associated with waste management facilities and minerals workings

Data source: High Heavens Site Profile, London Road Site Profile, Calvert Site Profile, Buckinghamshire County Council, 2009, Minerals and Waste Core Strategy, Calvert Landfill Site Transport Evaluation, Revision 2, Buckinghamshire County Council, 2009, Minerals and Waste Core Strategy, Waste Transfer Stations, Transport Evaluation. SA17: To maximise community participation in minerals and waste issues and individual responsibility for their own waste production and minerals use


Data source: High Heavens Site Profile, London Road Site Profile, Calvert Site Profile SA18: To protect, enhance and create (where possible) resources valued for recreation, including public rights of way

Data source: OS mapping, High Heavens Site Profile, London Road Site Profile, Calvert Site Profile Any dissected PROWs would be required to be diverted to enable their continued use. Topic Paper 9: Area Statements

SA19: To avoid adverse economic impacts on land and premises in employment and residential use

Data source: High Heavens Site Profile, London Road Site Profile, Calvert Site Profile

SA20: To maintain or improve job opportunities within the county Data source: High Heavens Site Profile, London Road Site Profile, Calvert Site Profile Potential waste management uses and potential employment gains: o Composting – approx. 5 staff (based on 25ktpa), though part of existing baseline as already permitted. o Anaerobic digestion – approx. 5 staff (based on 40ktpa) o Large-scale thermal treatment – approx. 12 split on three shift system (based on 250ktpa) o MBT – approx. 9 on split three shift system (based on 50ktpa) o Recycling (sorting/processing) – approx. 10 operatives if mechanical sorting (potentially 50+ on shift rotation, based on 50ktpa)

2008 Review Results: 1 2008 Review of SA1 (Air Quality): / ? D

Moderate population (approx. 300 homes) adjacent to site. Currently substantial landfill operation at site. Local residents currently complain about smells.

Would be an increase in lorry movements and consequently an increase in transport-related pollution such as nitrous oxides and particulates. However, a new road to A41 would move site traffic away from residential area.

Would have to move all waste south of county to north – increase in transport-related emissions.

Quantities of waste going north to Calvert will be more than waste coming south to Calvert as more population in south.

Would reduce impact on A41 and the south re traffic, but impact going north would be greater (additional waste lorry movements) with a potential pinch-point at Aylesbury (but may be bypass in place by time the site in place?).

May be additional movements and consequently increased emissions from transporting residues, such as bottom ash from energy recovery processes, for reprocessing, but is option of using void space (landfill) on site.

Depending on technology, would be a negligible increase in emissions from the waste facility.

Additional dust from new facility would be limited, depending on technology.

London landfill to be continued at site.

D = Positive score depends on: 1) new access road going in; 2) new facility not being sited near to local residential premises.

AIR QUALITY ASSESSMENT NEEDED 1 2008 Review of SA2 (Climate Change): / ? D

Part of Calvert site in floodplain. Consequently, development at the site may reduce the capacity for flood storage. Part of London Road site also in floodplain.

D = Positive evaluation depends on: 1) no building on parts of sites that are in floodplain; 2) quantity of energy production from secondary sources.

Could be used as an alternative means of energy generation supplied to grid and CHP to local residential area & prison (Calvert some distance from main town) - existing grid


connection at Calvert and co-located waste uses but transmission losses. Use of methane (a contributing gas to climate change) as an energy source reduces methane from landfill.

Some additional lorry movements – transporting waste from south of county to north, thereby potentially increasing transport-related emissions of carbon dioxide and nitrous oxides. 1 2008 Review of SA3 (living conditions and amenity): / ? D

Already landfill in Calvert – will continue

Calvert – permitted landfill, would increase volume of waste being transported, thereby potentially increasing the level of disruption/ disturbance to local residents, with respect to noise and vibration and generation of odours

Calvert – new access road could reduce impact on local communities.

Enclosed technology may be quieter and contain more of dust and smells indoors.

D = Positive evaluation depends on: 1) controls on hours and vehicle movements.

Only residents at London Road transfer station, likely to be affected by more lorry movements and larger facilities. Facilities already there. 1 2008 Review of SA4 (human health and public safety): / D

Increased lorry movements from the South, thereby potentially increasing traffic-generated pollutants locally that may adversely affect health. However, new access road would be beneficial to local residents

Would be increases in lorry movements at some sites, but decrease at others. D = Positive evaluation depends on: 1) new access road going in. New technologies would be subject to stringent emissions controls and monitoring.

1 2008 Review of SA5 (biodiversity): ?

Calvert – notable species in and around the site. SSSIs, Biological Notification Sites and Local Wildlife Sites within the 500m buffer zones, but not within the site. London Road – BNS (hedgerows) along adjoining road. High Heavens – BNS within 500m buffer zone. FURTHER DETAILED MODELLING TO BE CARRIED OUT INTO LIKELY IMPACT ON SSSI AT CALVERT, INCLUDING WHETHER SUITABLE MITIGATION MEASURS CAN

BE PUT IN PLACE 1 2008 Review of SA6 (heritage):

Calvert – no archeologically or historically important sites within site boundary. Three Archaeological Notification Areas within 500m buffer.thereby potentially increasing the possibility of encountering buried artefacts of archaeological importance

London Road – no archeologically or historically important sites within site boundary. Listed Building within 500m buffer zone, therefore potential to detract from the setting of the Listed Building.

High Heavens – no relevant features. 1

C

2008 Review of SA7 (soil and geology): N ?

alvert + transfer stations – no sites of geological interest within the site or the 500m buffer zone.

1 2008 Review of SA8 (landscapes and townscapes):

Calvert – no landscapes or townscapes of note in or around the site

HH – in but on edge of AONB – little likely visual impact on AONB due to surrounding trees.

LR – in AONB – site more prominent than HH – site currently screened by trees, but new facility may still be visible. Local Landscape Area situated within 500m buffer.


1 2008 Review of SA9 (natural resource use): / D

Production of energy using waste, which would otherwise be landfilled, reduces need to use fossil fuels. More efficient to use heat and electricity locally than just export electricity to grid.

Potential to use heat and electricity in neighbouring prison and within co-located of waste activities.

D = Additional positive evaluation depends on: 1) potential to use energy locally and put generated heat to good use. 1 2008 Review of SA10 (water resources and quality): / D

D = Positive evaluation depends on: 1) type of impacts upon water resources of technologies/techniques adopted on site Landfill has more potential for negative impacts. Could look for possibilities for improving water quality. The site is not within a groundwater protection zone, however the site is crossed by a number of watercourses including the River Ray, and ponds are also present at the site. Such

eatures may be affected by activities at the site. f 1 2008 Review of SA11 (flood risk): N / D

Part of Calvert site in floodplain (Flood Zone 3). Part of London Road site in floodplain. HH not in floodplain. D = Positive evaluation depends on: 1) no building in or in close proximity to floodplain; 2) existing run-off rates/areas of hardstanding. No likely increase to flooding from technologies Presence of capped landfill can reduce permeability, but can be drained after careful capture and treatment

1 2008 Review of SA12 (conserving mineral resources): N

Clay extraction currently permitted at Calvert, but unlikely to be used as little demand. No relevant minerals deposits at transfer stations.

1 2008 Review of SA13 (restoration and after use): N

Will be completely restored eventually, but site currently due to be in operation until approximately 2050.

No additional landfill would need to be permitted within the period.

Energy technologies on site would increase time void space would be open. Restoration would only be slightly slower, but likely to be of a higher quality. 1 2008 Review of SA14 (sustainable management of minerals and waste): /

Options assume no additional landfill than existing permissions and that energy will be generated from secondary sources; thereby situating option higher up in the waste hierarchy han disposal. t 1 2008 Review of SA15 (energy): / D

Production of energy using secondary resources. More efficient to use heat and electricity locally than just export electricity to grid. Potential to use heat and electricity in neighbouring prison and co-located waste uses. D = Additional positive evaluation depends on: 1) potential to use energy locally and put generated heat to good use.

1 2008 Review of SA16 (minimising road journeys):

More waste journeys south to north than would be in reverse as larger population in south. More waste journeys than at present. Annual mileage scenario from transport assessment (compared to other options) – HIGH

1 2008 Review of SA17 (community participation and individual responsibility):

Public have had opportunities to be involved in planning process, which will continue. Scale of residual waste facilities is dependent on individual members of the public and businesses actively minimising waste and participating in waste reduction, reuse and


r ecycling.

1 2008 Review of SA18 (recreation): N

Footpath around the Calvert site - nothing through it.

alvert site would be reverted back to agricultural land, but restoration not likely until approximately 2050. C

R

ights of way unlikely to be affected by new activity on transfer station sites.

1 2008 Review of SA19 (land and premises in employment use):

o impacts on existing employment land. N

T

ransfer stations not being built on employment land.

1 2008 Review of SA20 (job opportunities): New waste complex likely to lead to new jobs –positive impact in Calvert area as there is limited employment. Would also be additional transport jobs, e.g. lorry drivers, and need

for transfer station staff.


Appendix F Review of New Options

This assessment considers the effects (or risks of effects occurring) of each of the new potential policy options. The scores given relate to the net effect against the baseline of the existing Buckinghamshire Minerals and Waste Local Plan, as set out in the table below, whilst taking account of a realistic, or reasonable, ‘worst case’ scenario with respect to making judgements about the scale of effects on the existing baseline situation. This considers both potential negative effects and positive benefits. Mitigation measures are also recommended; these are actions that can help to reduce negative impacts or increase positive benefits. It should be noted that this assessment is assessing the concept of these policies, and is not assessing the eventual detailed policies, which will follow on from this assessment. The data sources used for each evaluation are the Topic Papers produced as part of the evidence base for both the Core Strategy and the Sustainability Appraisal. Key:

Highly beneficial effect likely

on the SA objective

CERTAINTY:






M MEDIUM Depends upon the way in which a policy is implemented on the ground, or the assessment replies upon a value judgement due to conflicting messages / effects.




The options have been assessed against the baseline in relation to each decision-making criterion. The score for the overall assessment given at the top of each box is a judgement of the cumulative effect on the SA objective, balancing the effects of the decision-making criteria. The assessment considers long-term impacts (those occurring / existing beyond the plan period), medium-term impacts (those existing within the plan period) and short-term impacts (those immediate impacts associated with displacement caused by the physical structure of development resulting from that policy option). A commentary is given outlining how the overall score has been evaluated.


Options Review – New Minerals Options

SA Objective 3 – Have a policy that specifically seeks extensions to existing minerals sites before permitting new

sites

4 – Identify a more limited Area of Search7 for potential minerals extraction in the north of the

county, in light of new information from the British Geological Society regarding potentially viable

minerals deposits in part of the north of the county Background and baseline£ The current minerals planning policies in force are the ’saved’

policies contained in the Buckinghamshire Minerals and Waste Local Plan 2004-2016 (BMWLP, 2006)8. It is these policies

that form the baseline for considering potential future options. The ‘saved’ policies do not include a specific policy covering

the preference for new extensions over new sites.

The Preferred Options version (previous draft version) of the Core Strategy (2008) did not contain a specific policy covering

this issue.

The location of existing minerals sites is shown on a map contained in the Spatial Context Topic Paper (TP7). They are spread across the south of the county, where the only viable

minerals deposits can be found.

The current minerals planning policies in force (the ‘saved’ policies contained in the BMWLP, 2006), which form the

baseline for considering potential future options, include a policy (Policy 4) that defines the Area of Search as covering the whole administrative area of Buckinghamshire including

the Minerals Safeguarding Area9. This Plan will be replaced by the new Buckinghamshire Minerals and Waste Local

Development Framework, which includes the new Core Strategy.

The Preferred Options version (previous draft version) of the

Core Strategy (2008) did not identify any Area of Search.

Viable sand and gravel deposits are not generally found in the area being removed from the Area of Search by the above

option. The area in the north to be retained has been identified by the BGS as having some potential for viable deposits.

SA1: To protect and enhance air quality Decision-making criteria: A. Will it have a positive or negative impact on the existing air quality baseline, including any AQMAs? B. Will it increase or decrease the emissions of air pollutants from the site? C. Will it increase or decrease the emissions of air pollutants from transport?

(L) – worst case

(L) – net effect

((M) - with mitigation set out in recommendations)

In theory, there are circumstances where the above option could result in new extensions at existing sites with existing air quality sensitivities. Therefore, in the worst case, this option

could seek development in locations which results in cumulative negative impacts.

However, there is also the likelihood that existing sites are

located in less sensitive areas than where any new sites might

N (H) This option would result in a substantial part of central and north of the county being taken out of the existing Area of Search (as detailed in the current Local Plan (2006)). The

removed area would then be unlikely to have new minerals workings, and the associated air pollution, but since there is

little minerals activity in the existing Area of Search at present, the resulting change is likely to be negligible. The rest of the

county (the new limited Area of Search and the Minerals Safeguarding Area to be identified in the new Core Strategy) is

already within the current Area of Search (as it covers the whole County at present), so there will be no change to the

existing baseline.

7 Areas of Search = broader area(s) where knowledge of mineral resources may be less certain, but within which planning permission could be granted to meet any shortfall in supply if uitable applications are made. See Minerals Topic Paper for further details. s

8 Some of the policies that were in the original 2006 version of the Plan have subsequently been deleted. The policies that remain in force are those that have been ‘saved’. These policies will subsequently be replaced by those contained in the various documents of the Buckinghamshire Minerals and Waste Local Development Framework, including the Core Strategy, as they are developed. 9 Minerals Safeguarding Areas = areas protected in order that proven resources are not needlessly sterilised (preventing extraction) by non-mineral development, although there is no presumption that resources defined in MSAs will be worked. See Minerals Topic Paper for further details.



sites



minerals deposits in part of the north of the county otherwise be located. Therefore, maximising the use of

existing sites to meet demand can prevent worse impacts elsewhere, including cumulative impacts (construction or

operation).

RECOMMENDATION: Policy should mitigate potential for continuing or accentuated impacts by only permitting

extensions to sites where environmental impacts have proven to be acceptable to date and where any impacts will not be

accentuated, for example by bringing development nearer to residential or business premises.

SA2: To avoid additional climate change emissions, seek their reduction, and reduce the future effects of climate change based on predictions Decision-making criteria: A. Will it have a positive or negative impact on the emissions of carbon dioxide from minerals and waste transportation in the county? B. Will it reduce methane emissions from landfill in the county? C. Will it contribute to a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions from traditional forms of energy generation? D. Will it contribute to or cope with the increased risk of flooding predicted as a result of climate change? E. Will it provide a carbon sink? F. Will it contribute to a negative or positive impact on the emissions of carbon dioxide from mineral extraction?

(L) The option relates solely to the location of new minerals sites rather than to quantities excavated. Impacts will depend upon the exact location and baseline of both new extensions and

the alternative potential new minerals sites (e.g. risk of flooding, carbon dioxide emissions from transportation etc.),

however there will inevitably be some synergies between minimising new carbon emissions and using an existing site. Much of the fundamental infrastructure and also mitigation

measures will already be in place, for example.


removed area would then be unlikely to have new minerals workings, and the associated climate change impacts, but since there is little minerals activity in the existing Area of

Search at present, the resulting change is likely to be negligible. The rest of the county (the new limited Area of

Search and the Minerals Safeguarding Area to be identified in the new Core Strategy) is already be within the current Area of Search (as it covers the whole County at present), so there will

be no change to the existing baseline.

SA3: To protect the living conditions and amenities of local residents and people working in local businesses from the adverse effects of minerals and/or waste development, and seek enhancements where possible Decision-making criteria: A. Will there be any amenity impacts (including noise, dust, light, vermin and odour) on sensitive receptors (including residents and workers)? B. Will there be any improvement or degradation of the quality of the surroundings (including open spaces) where people live as a result of site development or transport routes?

(M) (with mitigation set out in recommendations)

The majority of active mineral sites in the county exist within

areas which were chosen as a result of extensive testing, including amenity issues. Therefore, active sites are likely to have the fewest potential impacts as compared to new sites, leading to a minimum slight beneficial impact of implementing this policy option. Also, the existing site (or “parent site” from

which the extension would be made) would be better understood than a new site, and this knowledge should lead to

further avoidance or minimisation of any impacts.

N (M) This option would result in a substantial part of central and north of the county being taken out of the existing Area of Search (as detailed in the current Local Plan (2006)). The

removed area would then be unlikely to have new minerals workings, and the associated amenity impacts, but since there

is little minerals activity in the existing Area of Search at present, the resulting change is likely to be negligible. The rest of the county (the new limited Area of Search and the Minerals Safeguarding Area to be identified in the new Core Strategy) is already be within the current Area of Search (as it covers the whole County at present), so there will be no change to the

existing baseline.



sites



minerals deposits in part of the north of the county C. Will there be any positive or adverse economic impact on land and premises in residential use?

However, it is not possible at this level of planning to determine in detail the balance of positive and negative effects

between extending existing sites vs. developing new sites.

The option would also prevent impacts from new sites in areas that do not currently have minerals workings and which, given new ancillary infrastructure, could have more negative impacts

on more sensitive receptors.


extensions to sites where environmental impacts and social have proven to be acceptable to date and where any impacts will not be accentuated, for example by bringing development nearer to residential or business premises or by substantially

delaying restoration.

The option does, however, give certainty to those who own or rent residential premises outside the new Area of Search that

there will not be minerals workings within their area.

SA4: To avoid adverse impacts on human health and ensure public safety with regard to minerals and waste activities, seeking positive benefits where possible Decision-making criteria: A. Will there be a positive or negative impact on human health from relevant sites or transport routes? B. Will there be a positive or negative impact on public safety from relevant sites or transport routes? C. Will it potentially cause or be affected by land instability? D. Will sites be actively monitored?

(M) (with mitigation set out in recommendations)


areas which were chosen as a result of extensive testing, including health and safety issues. Therefore, active sites are likely to have the fewest potential impacts as compared to new

sites, leading to a minimum slight beneficial impact of implementing this policy option. Also, the existing site (or

“parent site” from which the extension would be made) would be better understood than a new site, and this knowledge

should lead to further avoidance or minimisation of any impacts.

However, it is not possible at this level of planning to

determine in detail the balance of positive and negative effects between extending existing sites vs. developing new sites.

The option would prevent impacts from new sites in areas that do not currently have minerals workings and which could have

more negative impacts on more sensitive receptors.


extensions to sites where environmental and social impacts have proven to be acceptable to date and where any impacts will not be accentuated, for example by bringing development

nearer to residential or business premises.


removed area would then be unlikely to have new minerals workings, and the associated health and safety impacts, but

since there is little minerals activity in the existing Area of Search at present, the resulting change is likely to be

negligible. The rest of the county (the new limited Area of Search and the Minerals Safeguarding Area to be identified in the new Core Strategy) is already be within the current Area of Search (as it covers the whole County at present), so there will

be no change to the existing baseline.



sites



minerals deposits in part of the north of the county SA5: To protect and enhance biodiversity and create new habitats Decision-making criteria: A. Are there any designated or non-statutory nature conservation sites that may be affected? If designated, to what level (European, national, local etc) is the designation? B. Is there any evidence of protected species that may be affected? C. Will there be any opportunities for enhancing or recovering wildlife resources? D. Will there be any potential to contribute to local BAP (Biodiversity Action Plan) targets? E. Will there be any opportunities to create new habitats and/or green infrastructure of biodiversity value?

(L) (with mitigation set out in recommendations)


areas which were chosen as a result of extensive testing, including biodiversity issues. Therefore, active sites are likely

to have the fewest potential impacts as compared to new sites, leading to a minimum slight beneficial impact of implementing this policy option. Also, the existing site (or “parent site” from

which the extension would be made) would be better understood than a new site, and this knowledge should lead to

further avoidance or minimisation of any impacts.

However, it is not possible at this level of planning to determine In detail the balance of positive and negative effects

between extending existing sites vs. developing new sites. There would be additional impacts on species / habitats on the

new land to be excavated on the extended sites, which are currently unknown, but mitigation may be possible and

principles for mitigation will have been established which could also apply elsewhere. Some disturbance may have already

occurred as a result of the works on the existing neighbouring minerals site. Extended sites may also need to disturb less

land due to the existing excavated area and having the supporting infrastructure from the ongoing minerals working

already in place.

RECOMMENDATION: Policy should mitigate potential for continuing impacts by only permitting extensions to sites

where environmental impacts have proven to be acceptable to date. The policy should also ensure that extensions are only permitted where the additional impacts from the use of the

new area of land are acceptable and where suitable mitigation can be achieved.


removed area would then be unlikely to have new minerals workings, and the associated biodiversity, but since there is

little minerals activity in the existing Area of Search at present, the resulting change is likely to be negligible. The rest of the

county (the new limited Area of Search and the Minerals Safeguarding Area to be identified in the new Core Strategy) is already be within the current Area of Search (as it covers the whole County at present), so there will be no change to the

existing baseline.

SA6: To protect areas of archaeological importance and conserve and, where appropriate, enhance the historic environment Decision-making criteria: A. Are there any sites of archaeological importance that can be positively or negatively affected? B. Are there any historic landscapes that can be positively or negatively affected?



areas which were chosen as a result of extensive testing, including historic environment issues. Therefore, active sites are likely to have the fewest potential impacts as compared to

new sites, leading to a minimum slight beneficial impact of implementing this policy option. Also, the existing site (or

“parent site” from which the extension would be made) would


removed area would then be unlikely to have new minerals workings, and the associated heritage impacts, but since there

is little minerals activity in the existing Area of Search at present, the resulting change is likely to be negligible. The rest of the county (the new limited Area of Search and the Minerals Safeguarding Area to be identified in the new Core Strategy) is



sites



minerals deposits in part of the north of the county C. Are there any listed buildings that can be positively or negatively affected? D. Are there any conservation areas that can be positively or negatively affected?

be better understood than a new site, and this knowledge should lead to further avoidance or minimisation of any

impacts.

However, it is not possible at this level of planning to determine in detail (particularly for buried archaeology) the balance of positive and negative effects between extending

existing sites vs. developing new sites. There would be additional impacts on heritage on the new land to be excavated on the extended sites, which are currently

unknown, but mitigation may be possible and principles for mitigation will have been established which could also apply

elsewhere. Extended sites may also need to disturb less land due to existing excavated areas and having the supporting infrastructure from the ongoing minerals working already in

place.


where heritage impacts have proven to be acceptable to date. The policy should also ensure that extensions are only

permitted where the additional impacts from the use of the new area of land are acceptable and where suitable mitigation

can be achieved.

already be within the current Area of Search (as it covers the whole County at present), so there will be no change to the

existing baseline.

SA7: To protect and seek to improve soil resources and quality, and protect and enhance sites of geological interest Decision-making criteria: A. Will it increase or decrease land contamination? B. Will it impact upon good quality soil resources? Will it improve or degrade soil quality, including of agricultural soils? C. Will it involve development on previously used land? D. Will there be a positive or negative impact on sites designated for their geological importance? If so, what is the level of their designation?


Option would use sites with existing infrastructure in place,

and which may require less area of excavation due to extending existing excavations. This would prevent impacts from new sites in areas that do not currently have minerals

workings. The sensitivity of the baseline (e.g. quality of soils) either at extensions or new sites is currently unknown, and so this assessment assumes a relatively similar distribution of soil

quality at all locations.



new area of land are acceptable (including consideration of the presence of Grade 1, 2 and 3a soils) and where suitable

mitigation can be achieved.


removed area would then be unlikely to have new minerals workings, and the associated impacts on soils, but since there

is little minerals activity in the existing Area of Search at present, the resulting change is likely to be negligible. The rest of the county (the new limited Area of Search and the Minerals Safeguarding Area to be identified in the new Core Strategy) is


existing baseline.



sites



minerals deposits in part of the north of the county SA8: To conserve and enhance the quality and distinctiveness of landscapes and townscapes, in particular the AONB Decision-making criteria: A. Will it have a positive or negative impact on landscapes or townscapes of national or local importance, such as the AONB, in terms of both character and visual impact? B. Will it have a positive or negative impact on Green Belt (e.g. maintaining extent, openness)? D. Will there be any opportunities to create green infrastructure of landscape and/or townscape value?


Option will result in a continuation of any existing landscape /

townscape impacts from existing sites, as new areas open and others close as excavation is completed. However, the option

would prevent impacts from new sites in areas that do not currently have minerals workings, which are likely to be

located within more sensitive landscape settings. Extended sites are also likely to need to disturb less land as the

supporting infrastructure from the ongoing minerals working would already be in place. The majority of existing sites have been through a previous site selection process, so should be broadly acceptable, although extension areas may not have

been specifically examined.


extensions to sites where landscape / townscape impacts have proven to be acceptable to date and where any impacts will not be accentuated, for example by making the minerals

development more visible in a sensitive landscape.


removed area would then be unlikely to have new minerals workings, and the associated landscape impacts, but since

there is little minerals activity in the existing Area of Search at present, the resulting change is likely to be negligible. The rest of the county (the new limited Area of Search and the Minerals Safeguarding Area to be identified in the new Core Strategy) is


existing baseline.

SA9: To avoid the wasteful use of natural resources and to encourage the use of alternatives to primary materials Decision-making criteria: A. Will it facilitate an increase in the level of waste materials reused, recycled and/or composted? B, Will it avoid the wasteful use of natural resources? C. Will it encourage the use of alternatives to primary materials?

(H) This option would maximise the use of existing infrastructure

to achieve the same output of minerals, and thus would reduce construction materials and waste. It would likewise have potential to require less overall excavation, and reduce

operational waste, being based on previously established development areas.


removed area would then be unlikely to have new minerals workings, and the associated excavation of natural resources, but since there is little minerals activity in the existing Area of


Search and the Minerals Safeguarding Area to be identified in the new Core Strategy) is already within the current Area of

Search (as it covers the whole County at present), so there will be no change to the existing baseline.

SA10: To protect water resources and seek to improve water quality Decision-making criteria: A. Will there be an increases or decrease in water quality (e.g. through the discharge of pollutants to water)? B. Will there be an increase or decrease in water consumption



areas which were chosen as a result of extensive testing, including water resource issues. Therefore, active sites are

likely to have the fewest potential impacts as compared to new sites, leading to a minimum slight beneficial impact of


removed area would then be unlikely to have new minerals workings, and the associated potential water quality and water

resource impacts, but since there is little minerals activity in the existing Area of Search at present, the resulting change is



sites



minerals deposits in part of the north of the county from facilities? C. Will it have a positive or negative effect on waterbodies and Water Framework Directive objectives? D. Will there be a positive or negative impact on water flow?

implementing this policy option. Also, the existing site (or “parent site” from which the extension would be made) would

be better understood than a new site, and this knowledge should lead to further avoidance or minimisation of any

impacts.

However, it is not possible at this level of planning to determine the balance of positive and negative effects

between extending existing sites vs. developing new sites. Option may result in a continuation of any environmental

impacts from existing sites (again, where new areas open and others close as excavation is completed). The option would prevent impacts from new sites in areas that do not currently have minerals workings. There may be additional impacts on

water quality and water resources from the new land to be excavated on the extended sites, which are currently

unknown, but mitigation may be possible and principles for mitigation will have been established which could also apply

elsewhere. Extended sites may also need to disturb less land due to existing excavated areas and having the supporting infrastructure from the ongoing minerals working already in place. This means less overall risk of conflicts with water bodies (assuming a uniform baseline at all sites), but it is impossible to compare the relative potential severity of

impacts.




likely to be negligible. The rest of the county (the new limited Area of Search and the Minerals Safeguarding Area to be identified in the new Core Strategy) is already within the current Area of Search (as it covers the whole County at

present), so there will be no change to the existing baseline.

SA11: To avoid increasing and, where possible, reduce flood risk Decision-making criteria: A. Will it contribute to an increase in flood risk on site or elsewhere? B. Will it contribute to a reduction in flood risk on site or elsewhere? C. Is the proposed use suitable in the flood zone of the site according to Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 25?

N (M) (with mitigation set out in recommendations)

National Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 25 defines sand

and gravel workings as ‘water-compatible development’, with other mineral working and processing as ‘less vulnerable’. Subject to meeting a range of requirements set out in the

policy, including not impeding water flows and not increasing flood risk elsewhere, sand and gravel working can take place

in any location, including the functional floodplain. Other mineral working and processing can take place in any flood


removed area would then be unlikely to have new minerals workings, and the associated potential flood risk impacts, but

since there is little minerals activity in the existing Area of Search at present, the resulting change is likely to be

negligible. The rest of the county (the new limited Area of Search and the Minerals Safeguarding Area to be identified in the new Core Strategy) is already within the current Area of



sites



minerals deposits in part of the north of the county zone except the functional floodplain (Zone 3b). Therefore, no

impact would be expected from minerals extraction locations.

However, extended sites may also have less reliance on new infrastructure in or near to floodplains, as supporting

infrastructure from the ongoing minerals working would already be in place. This means less mitigation burden on

developers (cost, risk management, etc.).





SA12: To conserve mineral resources and prevent their sterilisation Decision-making criteria: A. Will it help to conserve minerals resources for potential use by future generations? B. Will it prevent sterilisation so that future generations can still potentially access deposits?

(M) Promoting the extension of sites may force developers to look

harder at options to maximise the output from existing sites before restoration to an appropriate after use. Once restored,

it may be less economically viable to go back to those sites and extract minerals again, so this policy option has the effect

of preventing de facto sterilisation.


removed area would then be unlikely to have new minerals workings, and the associated use of mineral resources, but since there is little minerals activity in the existing Area of




SA13: To promote the effective restoration and appropriate after use of minerals and waste sites Decision-making criteria: A. Will any potential restoration result in enhancing or recovering wildlife resources? B. Will any potential restoration contribute to local BAP targets? C. Will any potential restoration / after use provide recreational, amenity or leisure opportunities for local people? D. Will restoration result in improvements to soil quality? E. Will any potential restoration provide opportunities for enhancing green infrastructure and contributing to reducing the

(M) ( short-term only)

Continuing the life of a site will delay its overall restoration. However, if a suitable restoration scheme is put in place for the new area, then there should be no adverse long-term

impact. This option would reduce the need for new sites which require additional time, resource and effort to plan and

implement a suitable after use, whilst existing sites will already have an after use either planned or being considered.


removed area would then be unlikely to have new minerals workings, and the associated potential restoration and after use benefits, but since there is little minerals activity in the existing Area of Search at present, the resulting change is

likely to be negligible. The rest of the county (the new limited Area of Search and the Minerals Safeguarding Area to be identified in the new Core Strategy) is already within the current Area of Search (as it covers the whole County at




sites



minerals deposits in part of the north of the county green infrastructure deficit in Aylesbury Vale?

SA14: To contribute positively to the sustainable management of waste and minerals Decision-making criteria: A. Are the proposals in line with the waste hierarchy? B. Will it contribute to or encourage waste minimisation? C. Will it contribute to an increase in the level of reuse, recycling or composting? D. Will it contribute to a reduction or increase in the proportion of waste landfilled? E. Will it contribute to enabling the country’s waste to be managed within the county? F. Will it increase the use of secondary and recycled aggregates? G. Is it flexible to account for future changes in technology, processes or needs?

(H) This option would maximise the use of existing infrastructure

to achieve the same output of minerals, and thus would reduce construction materials and waste. It would likewise have potential to require less overall excavation, and reduce

operational waste, being based on previously established development areas.


removed area would then be unlikely to have new minerals workings, but since there is little minerals activity in the

existing Area of Search at present, the resulting change is likely to be negligible. The rest of the county (the new limited

Area of Search and the Minerals Safeguarding Area to be identified in the new Core Strategy) is already within the current Area of Search (as it covers the whole county at


SA15: To use energy efficiently and to increase the production of energy from renewable and low carbon sources Decision-making criteria: A. Will it use energy efficiently? B. Will it contribute to an increase in the production of energy from renewable and low carbon sources? C. Will any energy (heat / electricity) be produced? D. Will any energy produced (heat / electricity) be used locally?

(L) This option would maximise the use of existing infrastructure

to achieve the same output of minerals, and thus would reduce construction fuels used. It would likewise have potential to

require less overall excavation, and reduce operational waste, being based on previously established development areas.

Whilst it is not possible to compare transport distances between existing sites, and prospective new sites, the

locations of minerals deposits in the county are such that it would make little difference to transport distances. This takes

account of export locations outside of the county boundary.

N (H) The scope of the option means that it is unlikely to have any

notable impacts on energy use or production.

SA16: To minimise the number and length of road journeys associated with waste management facilities and minerals workings Decision-making criteria: A. Will it increase or decrease the kilometres travelled by waste or minerals by road? B. Will it have a positive or negative impact on traffic congestion?

N (M) The impact of this option will depend upon the distance of the travel distances associated with current sites to be extended, compared to the location of new sites proposed, the data for

which is not available as it depends upon market demand. It is not possible to compare transport distances between existing sites, and prospective new sites, and these may be marginally

different given the distances involved.


removed area would then be unlikely to have new minerals workings, and the associated road journeys, but since there is little minerals activity in the existing Area of Search at present, the resulting change is likely to be negligible. The rest of the

county (the new limited Area of Search and the Minerals Safeguarding Area to be identified in the new Core Strategy) is



sites



minerals deposits in part of the north of the county C. Will there be a positive or negative impact on local infrastructure? D. Will there be an increase or reduction in the number of movements of waste or minerals? E. Will it reduce reliance on the car? F. Will it reduce the need to travel?


existing baseline.

The option does, however, recognise the potential for viable minerals deposits in the north of the county; this is particularly

important in seeking to reduce road journeys in light of its proximity to Aylesbury Vale, which is likely to see the largest

amount of growth and development within the county.

SA17: To maximise community participation in minerals and waste issues and individual responsibility for their own waste production and minerals use Decision-making criteria: A. Will it facilitate good and equitable access to waste services for all? B. Will it increase or decrease opportunities for public and/or business participation? C. Will it increase or decrease opportunities for education and awareness raising on minerals and waste issues? D. Will it enable individuals and organisations to take responsibility for their own waste – e.g. through local management? E. Will it enable Buckinghamshire to achieve net self-sufficiency for minerals and/or waste?


notable impacts on community participation or individual responsibility.


notable impacts on community participation or individual responsibility.

SA18: To protect, enhance and create (where possible) resources valued for recreation, including public rights of way Decision-making criteria: A. Will there be any impact on resources valued for recreation, including public rights of way? B. Will there be any opportunities to create green infrastructure of recreational value, including public rights of way?

N (L) (with mitigation set out in recommendations)

The impact of the option will depend on the recreational issues associated with extending the current site, as opposed to

those at any new potential sites, together with the enhancement potential for both. Extended sites may need to disturb less land, and therefore recreational resources, than

developing new sites as the supporting infrastructure from the ongoing minerals working would already be in place.



new area of land are acceptable and where suitable mitigation


removed area would then be unlikely to have new minerals workings, and the associated potential recreational impacts, but since there is little minerals activity in the existing Area of






sites



minerals deposits in part of the north of the county can be achieved.

SA19: To avoid adverse economic impacts on land and premises in employment use and seek to benefit such businesses where possible Decision-making criteria: A. Will there be any adverse economic impacts on land and premises in employment use? (e.g. from land take or the need for businesses to relocate or from the transport routes used) B. Will there be any benefits for local businesses and landowners?

N (L) (with mitigation set out in recommendations)

It is not possible at this level of planning to determine the

balance of positive and negative effects between extending existing sites vs. developing new sites. The impact of the

option will depend on surrounding land uses for existing sites and the potential land uses of such sites, compared to those factors in relation to potential new sites. Extending existing

sites may prolong any negative impacts on land and premises in business use associated with the minerals working, but

would prevent such impacts at new locations.


extensions to sites where environmental, social and economic impacts have proven to be acceptable to date and where any

impacts will not be accentuated, for example by bringing development nearer to business premises.


removed area would then be unlikely to have new minerals workings, and the associated potential impacts on employment

land, but since there is little minerals activity in the existing Area of Search at present, the resulting change is likely to be



The option does, however, give certainty to those who own or

rent employment premises outside the new Area of Search that there will not be minerals workings within their area.

SA20: To maintain or improve job opportunities within the county Decision-making criteria: A. Will there be a resulting reduction in or creation of jobs in the waste or minerals industry? B. Will there be a positive or negative impact on jobs opportunities in non-waste or non-minerals businesses?

(M) Minerals can only be dug from the limited areas in which they

are naturally occurring, and preventing their sterilisation by extending existing sites prior to restoration can have a

significant positive impact within the industry.

It is not possible at this level of planning to determine the balance of positive and negative effects on other land and premises in employment use, however businesses in other

industries can be located more freely around the county. The specific impact upon non-minerals job opportunities will

depend upon the location of the site, the nature and scale of existing local businesses related to the site, detail on any potential conflicts and future employment potential in the

vicinity of sites.


removed area would then be unlikely to have new minerals workings, and the associated potential impact on local jobs,

but since there is little minerals activity in the existing Area of Search at present, the resulting change is likely to be



Summary Extensions to existing sites are likely to result in a continuation of any environmental and social impacts from existing sites. However, the option would prevent impacts from new sites in

areas which do not currently have minerals workings and could have more sensitive receptors that could be adversely

affected by minerals working.

The option, compared to the current baseline (2006 local plan) will result in a substantially decreased Area of Search from its current size. However, the impact of this change is likely to be negligible as it only identifies an area of potentially viable sand and gravel deposit that was already within the previous Area of

Search. The rest of the county (excluding the Minerals



sites



minerals deposits in part of the north of the county

It should also be considered that any extended site would also cover new land, not currently excavated, so new location-specific impacts could arise, such as impacts on on-site

archaeological remains, soils, or species or habitats found in the new excavation area. The excavation of new areas may

also accentuate negative impacts already noted from the site, for example, by bringing excavations closer to residential or

commercial premises, or by making the site more visible within the landscape.

It should be noted that many operational impacts from

minerals excavation are temporary in nature, lasting only for the life of the workings, such as air quality and noise. Others

may be permanent due to the excavation, including impacts on heritage and soils. This will apply whether existing sites are

extended or new sites are excavated.

Extending sites may prolong the time period until restoration takes place. However, this will only be a short-term impact if a suitable restoration scheme for the whole site is put in place.

The overall benefit of the option will depend upon whether the

impacts of the extension are less or more acceptable than those at any potential new site, for example, whether transport distances are lower. This will not be clear until potential new

sites are investigated as part of the development of the Minerals DPD.

Overall, the option should prove to be beneficial, but only if suitable mitigation is put in place within policy wording. The potential for a continuation of negative impacts arising from existing sites by extending them should be mitigated by only

permitting extensions to sites where environmental, social and economic impacts have proven to be acceptable to date and

where potential new or accentuated impacts can be mitigated.

Safeguarding Area) would be outside of the new Area of Search so less likely to be subjected to minerals workings, but these were already unlikely due to the lack of viable mineral deposit in the area. The option does, however, provide more

certainty to landowners, residents and businesses outside the new Area of Search and Minerals Safeguarding Area that

there is unlikely to be minerals development in their area, and acknowledges the presence of potentially viable mineral deposits in the north of the county where the majority of

housing development within Buckinghamshire is likely to be expected during the plan period. The options ensure that the

potential area of deposits is safeguarded until further investigation has been undertaken to ascertain their economic

importance.

It would therefore be beneficial to include a policy covering this option within the Core Strategy.


Options Review – New Waste Options

SA Objective

5A – Select a specific reserve site for inclusion and allocation10 within the Core Strategy as a contingency for Calvert if it

should prove to be undeliverable

5B – Do not select a specific reserve strategic site for

inclusion and allocation within the Core Strategy but instead

have criteria in the Core Strategy to help determine the most

suitable strategic waste contingency site to be applied to all potential sites brought forward if the Calvert site is undeliverable

6 – Include a policy that sets out an indicative local provision of additional

recycling and composting capacity proportionate to the population for each district

7 – Safeguard11 existing waste sites / capacity from

non-waste related development

Background and baseline

The current waste planning policies in force are the ‘saved’ policies contained in the Buckinghamshire Minerals and Waste Local Plan (BMWLP, 2006)12. It is these

policies that form the baseline for considering future options. No specific sites are included as contingency sites within the current waste Local Plan (BMWLP, 2006).

The ‘saved’ policies contain a range of criteria against which different types of facilities will be judged, particularly Policy 10, including strategic-level non-landfill

waste facilities; however, these envisage applications being brought forward when a site is required, rather than a proactive process of determining suitable sites in

advance.

The Preferred Options version of the Core Strategy contained two specific contingency sites (Policy 4), neither of which are now seen by Buckinghamshire

County Council as suitable for allocation as a Strategic Waste Complex.

The previous site selection process has identified that there are sites available that would be suitable for strategic-level non-landfill waste facilities, but not large enough

for co-located waste management facilities, with the exception of Calvert.

The current waste planning policies in force are the ‘saved’ policies

contained in the Buckinghamshire Minerals and Waste Local Plan

(BMWLP, 2006). It is these policies that form the baseline for

considering future options. Policy 13 of the BMWLP only provides criteria for assessing planning applications on an ad-hoc basis. Policies 10 and 13 set out current land uses where

such waste facilities could be acceptably located. However, the BMWLP does not contain a policy

that seeks to apportion recycling and composting capacity proportionate to

the population for each district.

The Preferred Options version of the Core Strategy contained a policy identifying the amount of extra

recycling and composting capacity needed (Policy 2), but provided no specific guide as to its location or apportionment across the county.

The current waste planning policies in force are the ‘saved’

policies contained in the Buckinghamshire Minerals and

Waste Local Plan (BMWLP, 2006). It is these policies that form the baseline for considering future

options. Policy 15 of the BMWLP seeks to safeguard three sites for key waste transfer facilities and

Policy 18 seeks the efficient use of landfill void space. However, the

BMWLP does not contain a specific policy which safeguards

existing waste management sites / capacity from development into

non-waste uses.

The Preferred Options version of the Core Strategy contained a policy (Policy 4) safeguarding

five13 key waste transfer station sites However, it did not contain a

specific policy that seeks to safeguard existing waste

10 An ‘allocation’ is an area of land or a site that has been identified for a specific use, which has a presumption in favour of development for that intended use, subject to a suitable planning application. 11 A ‘Safeguarding’ is an area identified that could be suitable for a specific use, such as waste management, which is protected by the county Council for that use and from non-related development, such as housing or business use. However, unlike allocations, there is less certainty as to the feasibility or viability of the site for the specific use. Such sites do not have the same status as an ‘allocation’ in that there is not a presumption in favour of development. In general, further testing/appraisal is required prior to such sites being allocated. Existing operational sites may also be safeguarded The County Council will need to be consulted on any proposals for non-related development on safeguarded minerals or waste sites. 12 Some of the policies that were in the original 2006 version of the Plan have subsequently been deleted. The policies that remain in force are those that have been ‘saved’. These policies will subsequently be replaced by those contained in the various documents of the Buckinghamshire Minerals and Waste Local Development Framework, including the Core Strategy, as they are developed. 13 Including two further sites, in addition to the three already safeguarded in the BWMLP.

SA Objective











It should be noted that it would be

the role of the Waste DPD to identify sites within each district to make

provision for the required capacity. The new recycling and composting

capacity to be identified would be for both municipal (mainly household)

waste and commercial and industrial waste.

management sites / capacity from development into non-waste uses.

It should be noted that the

suitability of existing sites to be safeguarded would be tested

further in the Waste DPD as part of the process in seeking new additional waste management

capacity.

A map showing the location of existing waste sites, which are

distributed throughout the county, is shown in the Waste Topic Paper

(TP5)


N (M) (with mitigation set out in

recommendations)

Impacts would depend upon the specific site chosen.

Policy 10 of the BMWLP only requires that sites conform with environmental

policies contained within the plan, which only include indirect reference to air

quality, rather than specifically requiring air quality impacts to be considered;

therefore a site selection process would be beneficial over current BMWLP policy

if such a process included specific consideration of air quality.

If a contingency site were selected, this

would provide greater certainty in relation to potential air quality impacts.


recommendations)

Eventual impacts would depend upon

the specific site chosen.


policies contained within the plan, which only include indirect reference to air

quality, rather than specifically requiring air quality impacts to be considered;

therefore new criteria would be beneficial over current BMWLP policy if specific consideration of air quality were

included.

However, the existing criteria under the BMWLP Policy 10 which would be in place without the Core Strategy may

(M) The option does not envisage

altering the amount of additional recycling and composting capacity required, but only its distribution

within the county. Exact locations for new facilities are not identified.

The option should encourage

capacity to be added nearer to greater areas of population, which are therefore producing the greater

quantities of materials to recycle and compost.

The exact impact on air quality will depend upon existing baselines in

the final locations of the new facilities. More densely populated

areas are likely to have poorer baseline air quality, but the policy should also result in decreasing


recommendations)

A continuation of the existing baseline would most likely result from continued waste use. The policy would generally prevent

alternative uses, which could have improved or degraded the existing

baseline. The policy would also reduce the number of new sites required for waste uses, which

should generally be positive for the existing baseline.

However, it should be noted that

not all existing waste sites may be suitable for a continued or new waste use from an air quality

perspective, for example due to


SA Objective











However, the existing criteria under the BMWLP Policy 10 which would be in place without the Core Strategy may also select the same site. In other

words, there is no guarantee that the site chosen through this new process would be better than one approved through a

speculative planning application already enabled through, and using, the existing

criteria process under BMWLP Policy 10,, although it does afford the

opportunity to test a range of sites against relevant criteria, which could

include air quality if specifically included.

RECOMMENDATION: Air quality impacts, including upon AQMAs, should

be taken into account in detailed site selection. Opportunities to improve air

quality should also be considered.

also select the same site. In other words, there is no guarantee that the site chosen through this new process would

be better than the ‘without Core Strategy’ scenario.

This option would continue to allow for flexibility such that all sites that may be suitable from an air quality perspective

can come forward at a later date, including those that have not previously been considered, which could potentially

include sites of suitable size for a strategic waste complex.

RECOMMENDATION: Air quality

impacts, including upon AQMAs, should be included within detailed site selection

criteria. Opportunities to improve air quality should also be considered.

transport distances and therefore pollution associated with that as

there will be more journeys to and from the recycling / composting sites

(which would be reduced by the option) than there will be when that

material is taken on to the next stage of processing / use (which can be

within or outside of the county).

known negative impacts on neighbouring properties (e.g. from

reports to local Environmental Health teams) or because their

transport routes involve significant lorry movements through AQMAs;

alternative locations for waste sites could be preferable. The

nature of safeguarding is that it would not retain all sites

regardless, but initially holds the position and forces site-by-site

consideration.

RECOMMENDATION: Existing waste sites with known air quality problems related to their waste use should not be safeguarded

from non-waste related development in the longer term (to be considered further in the Waste

DPD).



recommendations)



policies contained within the plan, which do not specifically cover climate change, rather than specifically requiring climate

change-related impacts to be considered; therefore a site selection

process would be beneficial over current


recommendations)

Eventual impacts would depend upon the specific site chosen.


policies contained within the plan, which do not specifically cover climate change, rather than specifically requiring climate

change-related impacts to be considered; therefore new criteria would be beneficial over current BMWLP policy




The option should ensure capacity is

added nearer to greater areas of population, which are therefore

producing the greater quantities of materials to recycle and compost, making facilities more accessible

and attractive and thus encouraging their use; this could result in reduced


recommendations)

A continuation of the existing

baseline would most likely result from continued waste use at the

safeguarded sites. The policy would generally prevent alternative uses, which could have improved or degraded the existing baseline. The policy would also reduce the number of new sites required for

waste uses.


SA Objective











Decision-making criteria: A. Will it have a positive or negative impact on the emissions of carbon dioxide from minerals and waste transportation in the county? B. Will it reduce methane emissions from landfill in the county? C. Will it contribute to a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions from traditional forms of energy generation? D. Will it contribute to or cope with the increased risk of flooding predicted as a result of climate change? E. Will it provide a carbon sink? F. Will it contribute to a negative or positive impact on the emissions of carbon dioxide from mineral extraction?

BMWLP policy if such a process included specific consideration of climate

change.

If a contingency site were selected, this would provide greater certainty in

relation to potential climate change-related impacts. However, there is no

guarantee that the site chosen through this new process would be better than one approved through a speculative planning application already enabled

through, and using, the existing criteria process under BMWLP Policy 10,

although it does afford the opportunity to test a range of sites against relevant criteria, which could include climate

change if specifically included.

RECOMMENDATION: Carbon dioxide emissions from transportation and the

potential for off-setting energy produced by more traditional forms of generation should be taken into account in detailed site selection criteria, together with flood

risk.

if specific consideration of climate change were included.

However, there is no guarantee that the site chosen through this new process would be better than one approved through the current criteria process

under BMWLP Policy 10, which would be replaced by the Core Strategy.

This option would continue to allow for flexibility such that all sites that may be

suitable from a climate change perspective can come forward at a later

date, including those that have not previously been considered, which could potentially include sites of suitable size

for a strategic waste complex.

RECOMMENDATION: Carbon dioxide emissions from transportation and the

potential for off-setting energy produced by more traditional forms of generation should be included within detailed site

selection criteria, together with flood risk.

methane emissions if more waste is diverted from landfill.

The option could also result in

decreasing the transport distances involved in waste management,

reducing associated carbon dioxide emissions as there will be more

journeys to and from the recycling / composting sites (which would be reduced by the option) than there

will be when that material is taken on to the next stage of processing / use

(which can be within or outside of the county).

However, it should be noted that not all existing waste sites may be

suitable for a continued or new waste use from a climate change perspective, for example due to

negative impacts on or from flood risk or from excessive vehicle journey lengths; alternative

locations for waste sites could be preferable. The nature of

safeguarding is that it would not retain all sites regardless, but initially holds the position and

forces site-by-site consideration.

RECOMMENDATION: Existing waste sites should only be

safeguarded in the longer term (to be considered further in the Waste

DPD) where any known flood issues can be successfully

managed, and their location assists with minimising emissions

associated with transport movement.

SA3: To protect the living conditions and amenities of local

(M) ( with mitigation set out in

recommendations)



recommendations)


(L)

The option does not envisage altering the amount of additional

recycling and composting capacity required, but only its distribution

within the county. Exact locations for


recommendations)

A continuation of the existing baseline would most likely result. from continued waste use at the


SA Objective











residents and people working in local businesses from the adverse effects of minerals and/or waste development, and seek enhancements where possible Decision-making criteria: A. Will there be any amenity impacts (including noise, dust, light, vermin and odour) on sensitive receptors (including residents and workers)? B. Will there be any improvement or degradation of the quality of the surroundings (including open spaces) where people live as a result of site development or transport routes? C. Will there be any positive or adverse economic impact on land and premises in residential use?

Policy 10 of the BMWLP only requires that sites conform with other policies contained within the plan, rather than

specifically requiring amenity impacts to be considered; however, the plan does include a specific policy (Policy 28) on

amenity, although it only covers protection, and not also enhancement.

Therefore a site selection process would be beneficial over current BMWLP policy

if such a process included specific consideration of amenity enhancement.


would provide greater certainty in relation to potential amenity impacts.

However, there is no guarantee that the site chosen through this new process would be better than one approved

through a speculative planning application already enabled through, and using, the existing criteria process under

BMWLP Policy 10, although it does afford the opportunity to test a range of

sites against relevant criteria, which could include living conditions and

amenity if specifically included.

However, more importantly the potential for a significant waste use on the

allocated contingency site could result in property blight, even though such

development may never occur. The level of impact will depend upon the type of development currently at the selected site, thus the change in this baseline.

RECOMMENDATION: Potential impacts

on sensitive receptors (including local


specifically requiring amenity impacts to be considered; however, the plan does include a specific policy (Policy 28) on

amenity, although it only covers protection, and not also enhancement.

Therefore new criteria would be beneficial over current BMWLP policy if

specific consideration of amenity enhancement were included.




suitable from a living conditions and amenity perspective can come forward

at a later date, including those that have not previously been considered, which

could potentially include sites of suitable size for a strategic waste complex.


on sensitive receptors (including local residents and workers) should be

included within detailed site selection criteria. Opportunities for amenity

improvements should also be considered.

new facilities are not identified.

The option should encourage capacity to be added nearer to

greater areas of population, which are therefore producing the greater


The exact impact on living conditions

and amenity will depend upon existing baselines in the final

locations of the new facilities. More densely populated areas will have higher numbers of residents and workers that could potentially be

negatively affected by new facilities, but the policy should also result in

decreasing transport distances and therefore impacts on local people

associated with that.


waste uses, which should generally be positive for the

existing baseline.


suitable for a continued or new waste use when taking account of

impacts on local residents and businesses, for example due to

negative impacts on neighbouring properties; alternative locations for

waste sites could be preferable. The nature of safeguarding is that

it would not retain all sites regardless, but initially holds the position and forces site-by-site

consideration.

Local businesses and residents who post-date the relevant waste

facility should not be able to prevent a continuation of waste uses at a site without notable

justification as they would have decided upon their business /

residential location with knowledge of the existing local waste use.

RECOMMENDATION: Existing

waste sites with known problems that impact unacceptably on local

residents or businesses, in relation


SA Objective











residents and workers) should be taken into account in detailed site selection,

particularly the impact of blight on residential properties. Opportunities for amenity improvements should also be

considered.

to their waste use, should not be safeguarded from non-waste

related development in the longer term (to be considered further in

the Waste DPD).

SA4: To avoid adverse impacts on human health and ensure public safety with regard to minerals and waste activities, seeking positive benefits where possible Decision-making criteria: A. Will there be a positive or negative impact on human health from relevant sites or transport routes? B. Will there be a positive or negative impact on public safety from relevant sites or transport routes? C. Will it potentially cause or be


recommendations)



specifically requiring human health and public safety impacts to be considered; however, the plan does include a policy on buffer zones (Policy 29), which could provide some protection, but does not also seek health and safety benefits.


if such a process included specific consideration of human health and

public safety protection and enhancement.


would provide greater certainty in relation to potential human health and

public safety impacts. However, there is no guarantee that the site chosen through this new process would be better than one approved through a

speculative planning application already


recommendations)



specifically requiring human health and public safety impacts to be considered; however, the plan does include a policy on buffer zones (Policy 29), which could provide some protection, but does not also seek health and safety benefits.

Therefore new criteria would be beneficial over current BMWLP policy if specific consideration of human health

and public safety protection and enhancement were included.


under BMWLP Policy 10 which would be replaced by the Core Strategy.


(L) (N with mitigation set out in

recommendations) The option does not envisage






The exact impact on human health and public safety will depend upon

existing baselines in the final locations of the new facilities. More densely populated areas will have higher numbers of residents and workers that could potentially be

negatively affected by new facilities, but the policy should also result in

decreasing transport distances and therefore impacts on local people

associated with that.

RECOMMENDATION: Potential


recommendations)





existing baseline.


suitable for a continued or new waste use from a human health or

public safety perspective, for example due to negative impacts in the local area from the site or related transport movements; alternative locations for waste sites could be preferable. The




SA Objective











affected by land instability? D. Will sites be actively monitored?

enabled by, and using, the existing criteria process under BMWLP Policy

10, although it does afford the opportunity to test a range of sites

against relevant criteria, which could include human health and public safety

impacts if specifically included.

RECOMMENDATION: Potential impacts on human health and public safety

should be taken into account in detailed site selection. Opportunities for human health and public safety improvements

should also be considered.

suitable from a human health and public safety perspective can come forward at a later date, including those that have not previously been considered, which

could potentially include sites of suitable size for a strategic waste complex.


on human health and public safety, including land instability, should be

included within detailed site selection criteria. Opportunities for human health and public safety improvements should

also be considered.

impacts on sensitive receptors (including local residents and

workers) should be included within detailed site selection criteria.

Opportunities for amenity improvements should also be

considered.

consideration.

RECOMMENDATION: Existing waste sites with known human

health or public safety problems related to their waste use should

not be safeguarded from non-waste related development in the

longer term (to be considered further in the Waste DPD).

SA5: To protect and enhance biodiversity and create new habitats Decision-making criteria: A. Are there any designated or non-statutory nature conservation sites that may be affected? If designated, to what level (European, national, local etc) is the designation? B. Is there any evidence of protected species that may be affected? C. Will there be any opportunities for


recommendations)



policies contained within the plan, rather than specifically requiring biodiversity

impacts to be considered; however, the plan does include policies which seek to protect important habitats (Policies 24 and 25), but it does not contain polices

that also seek biodiversity enhancements. Therefore a site

selection process would be beneficial over current BMWLP policy if such a

process included specific consideration of biodiversity enhancement.



recommendations)



policies contained within the plan, rather than specifically requiring biodiversity

impacts to be considered; however, the plan does include policies which seek to protect important habitats (Policies 24 and 25), but it does not contain polices

that also seek biodiversity enhancements. Therefore new criteria

would be beneficial over current BMWLP policy if specific consideration of

biodiversity enhancement were included.

However, there is no guarantee that the site chosen through this new process

(L) The option does not envisage



The exact impact on biodiversity will depend upon existing baselines in

the final locations of the new facilities. More densely populated

areas could have fewer sites of high biodiversity value that could

potentially be negatively affected by new facilities. The policy should also

result in decreasing transport distances and therefore impacts on

biodiversity associated with that.

(M) A continuation of the existing



waste uses, which should generally be positive for the existing baseline. The policy

avoids displacing existing waste uses to alternative sites, which may have a negative impact on biodiversity baseline at the new

site.


SA Objective











enhancing or recovering wildlife resources? D. Will there be any potential to contribute to local BAP (Biodiversity Action Plan) targets? E. Will there be any opportunities to create new habitats and/or green infrastructure of biodiversity value?

would provide greater certainty in relation to potential biodiversity impacts. However, there is no guarantee that the site chosen through this new process would be better than one approved


BMWLP Policy 10, which will be replaced by the Core Strategy, although

it does afford the opportunity to test a range of sites against relevant criteria,

which could include biodiversity impacts if specifically included.


on biodiversity should be taken into account in detailed site selection.

Opportunities for biodiversity enhancements should also be

considered.

would be better than one approved through the current criteria process


This option would continue to allow for flexibility such that all sites that may be suitable from a biodiversity perspective




on biodiversity, including protected species and important habitats, should

be included within detailed site selection criteria. Opportunities for biodiversity

enhancements should also be considered.

SA6: To protect areas of archaeological importance and conserve and, where appropriate, enhance the historic environment Decision-making criteria: A. Are there any sites of archaeological


recommendations)



specifically requiring heritage impacts to be considered; however, the plan does include policies which seek to protect

important heritage features (Policies 24 and 25), but it does not contain polices that also seek heritage enhancements.


recommendations)



specifically requiring heritage impacts to be considered; however, the plan does include policies which seek to protect

important heritage features (Policies 24 and 25), but it does not contain polices that also seek heritage enhancements.

N/A The option does not envisage



The exact impact on historic

environment will depend upon existing baselines in the final locations of the new facilities.

However, the policy will not impact on the historic environment as it is the general distribution, rather than the quantity of capacity and exact locations, that is affected by this





existing baseline. The overall result of such a policy would be neutral or positive, particularly when considering that impacts from waste activities would be


SA Objective











importance that can be positively or negatively affected? B. Are there any historic landscapes that can be positively or negatively affected? C. Are there any listed buildings that can be positively or negatively affected? D. Are there any conservation areas that can be positively or negatively affected?


if such a process included specific consideration of heritage enhancement.


would provide greater certainty in relation to potential heritage impacts.

However, there is no guarantee that the site chosen through this new process would be better than one approved



sites against relevant criteria, which could include heritage impacts if

specifically included.

RECOMMENDATION: Potential impacts on heritage should be taken into account in detailed site selection. Opportunities for heritage enhancements should also

be considered.


specific consideration of heritage enhancement were included.



This option would continue to allow for flexibility such that all sites that may be suitable from a heritage perspective can come forward at a later date, including

those that have not previously been considered, which could potentially include sites of suitable size for a

strategic waste complex.

RECOMMENDATION: Potential impacts on heritage, including designated sites and listed buildings, should be included

within detailed site selection criteria. Opportunities for heritage enhancements

should also be considered.

option. Both urban and rural locations for waste facilities can

have impacts on the historic environment.

This SA objective is therefore not

applicable to this option.

displaced elsewhere if the waste activities were moved. The level of

negative impact on heritage prevented from avoiding such

displacement of waste activities would depend on the baseline heritage situation at alternative

sites.



recommendations)




recommendations)






The exact impact on soil and

geology will depend upon existing baselines in the final locations of the




waste uses, which should


SA Objective











Decision-making criteria: A. Will it increase or decrease land contamination? B. Will it impact upon good quality soil resources? Will it improve or degrade soil quality, including of agricultural soils? C. Will it involve development on previously used land? D. Will there be a positive or negative impact on sites designated for their geological importance? If so, what is the level of their designation?

specifically requiring soil and geological impacts to be considered; however, the plan does include policies which seek to protect nationally important geological

features (Policy 24), but it does not contain polices that protect regionally important geological sites or soils, nor

policies which also seek relevant enhancements. Therefore a site


process included specific consideration of such issues.


would provide greater certainty in relation to potential soil and geological

impacts. However, there is no guarantee that the site chosen through this new

process would be better than one approved through a speculative planning application already enabled through, and using, the existing criteria process under


sites against relevant criteria, which could include soil and geological impacts

if specifically included.

RECOMMENDATION: Potential impacts on soils and geology should be taken into account in detailed site selection.

Opportunities for relevant enhancements should also be considered.

specifically requiring soil and geological impacts to be considered; however, the plan does include policies which seek to protect nationally important geological

features (Policy 24), but it does not contain polices that protect regionally important geological sites or soils, nor

policies which also seek relevant enhancements. Therefore new criteria

would be beneficial over current BMWLP policy if specific consideration of such

issues were included.




suitable from a soils and geology perspective can come forward at a later

date, including those that have not previously been considered, which could potentially include sites of suitable size

for a strategic waste complex.

RECOMMENDATION: Potential impacts on soils and geology, including

designated sites, should be included within site selection criteria.

Opportunities for relevant enhancements should also be considered.

new facilities. More densely populated areas, which would have more new recycling and composting capacity under this option, should have fewer sites of high soil and

geodiversity value that could potentially be negatively affected by

new facilities, due the amount of development that has already taken

place.

generally be positive for the existing baseline. The overall

result of such a policy would be neutral or positive, particularly when considering that impacts from waste activities would be

displaced elsewhere if the waste activities were moved. The level of

negative impact on soils and geology prevented from avoiding

such displacement of waste activities would depend on the

baseline soil and geological situation at alternative sites.

SA8: To conserve and enhance the




altering the amount of additional



SA Objective











quality and distinctiveness of landscapes and townscapes, in particular the AONB Decision-making criteria: A. Will it have a positive or negative impact on landscapes or townscapes of national or local importance, such as the AONB, in terms of both character and visual impact? B. Will it have a positive or negative impact on Green Belt (e.g. maintaining extent, openness)? D. Will there be any opportunities to create green infrastructure of landscape and/or townscape value?

recommendations)


Policy 10 of the BMWLP only requires that sites conform with other policies contained within the plan, rather than specifically requiring landscape and

townscape impacts to be considered; however, the plan does include policies

which seek to protect important landscape and townscape features (Policies 24 and 25), but it does not

contain polices that also seek relevant enhancements. Therefore a site


process included specific consideration of landscape and townscape

enhancement.

If a contingency site were selected, this would provide greater certainty in relation to potential landscape and

townscape impacts. However, there is no guarantee that the site chosen through this new process would be better than one approved through a


criteria process under BMWLP Policy 10, although it does afford the

opportunity to test a range of sites against relevant criteria, which could include landscape and townscape

impacts if specifically included.


recommendations)


Policy 10 of the BMWLP only requires that sites conform with other policies contained within the plan, rather than specifically requiring landscape and

townscape impacts to be considered; however, the plan does include policies

which seek to protect important landscape and townscape features (Policies 24 and 25), but it does not

contain polices that also seek relevant enhancements. Therefore new criteria

would be beneficial over current BMWLP policy if specific consideration of

landscape and townscape enhancement were included.



This option would continue to allow for flexibility such that all sites that may be suitable from a landscape perspective




on landscapes and townscapes,



The exact impact on landscapes and

townscapes will depend upon existing baselines in the final

locations of the new facilities. More densely populated areas, which

would have more new recycling and composting capacity under this

option, could have fewer sites of landscape and townscape value that

could potentially be negatively affected by new facilities. The policy

should also result in decreasing transport distances and therefore

impacts on landscapes and townscapes associated with that.

recommendations)





existing baseline.


suitable for a continued or new waste use from a landscapes and

townscapes perspective, for example due to significant local

visual impacts; alternative locations for waste sites could be

preferable. The nature of safeguarding is that it would not retain all sites regardless, but initially holds the position and


RECOMMENDATION: Existing waste sites with significant

negative visual impacts related to their waste use, judged through

consultation with national and local landscape bodies, should not be

safeguarded from non-waste related development in the longer

term (in the Waste DPD).


SA Objective











on landscapes and townscapes should be taken into account in detailed site selection. Opportunities for relevant


including designated sites, should be included within detailed site selection

criteria. Opportunities for relevant enhancements should also be

considered.


N/A The timing of site selection is unlikely to have an impact upon this SA objective

as the site selection process to date has demonstrated that alternative sites for strategic-level non-waste facilities are

available, although not sites large enough for a strategic waste complex.



N/A The timing of site selection is unlikely to have an impact upon this SA objective

as the site selection process to date has demonstrated that alternative sites for strategic-level non-waste facilities are

available, although not sites large enough for a strategic waste complex.








quantities of materials to recycle and compost. It could therefore help to encourage people to utilise public

facilities, and organisations to access business facilities, and

increase their level of recycling and composting.

(M) The safeguarding of sites in waste uses could potentially ensure the continued provision of local waste facilities, thus helping to maximise participation in sustainable waste

management.



recommendations)

Impacts would depend upon the specific


recommendations)

Eventual impacts would depend upon



within the county. Exact locations for

N (M) (with mitigation and

recommendations)



SA Objective











Decision-making criteria: A. Will there be an increases or decrease in water quality (e.g. through the discharge of pollutants to water)? B. Will there be an increase or decrease in water consumption from facilities? C. Will it have a positive or negative effect on waterbodies and Water Framework Directive objectives? D. Will there be a positive or negative impact on water flow?

site chosen.


specifically requiring water-related impacts to be considered; however, the plan does include a policy which seeks to protect groundwater (Policy 33), but

no further protection is provided, nor are policies included which also seek

relevant enhancements. Therefore a site selection process would be beneficial over current BMWLP policy if such a



would provide greater certainty in relation to potential water-related




sites against relevant criteria, which could include water-related impacts if


RECOMMENDATION: Potential impacts on water resources and water quality

should be taken into account in detailed site selection. Opportunities for relevant


the specific site chosen.


specifically requiring water-related impacts to be considered; however, the plan does include a policy which seeks to protect groundwater (Policy 33), but

no further protection is provided, nor are policies included which also seek

relevant enhancements. Therefore new criteria would be beneficial over current BMWLP policy if specific consideration

of such issues were included.



This option would continue to allow for flexibility such that all sites that may be suitable from a water perspective can come forward at a later date, including

those that have not previously been considered, which could potentially include sites of suitable size for a


RECOMMENDATION: Potential impacts on water resources and water quality should be included within detailed site

selection criteria. Opportunities for relevant enhancements should also be

considered.


The exact impact on water resources and water quality will

depend upon existing baselines in the final locations of the new

facilities. However, the policy should not impact on water resources and

water quality as it is the general distribution, rather than the quantity of capacity or exact locations, that is affected by this option. Both urban

and rural locations for waste facilities can have impacts on the water

environment. This SA objective is therefore not applicable to this

option.




existing baseline.


suitable for a continued or new waste use from a water quality and

water resources perspective, for example due to pollution risk to local water sources; alternative

locations for waste sites could be preferable. The nature of



RECOMMENDATION: Existing waste sites with problematic water resource and water quality impacts related to their waste use should

not be safeguarded from non-waste related development in the

longer term (to be considered further in the Waste DPD).


SA Objective













recommendations)



specifically requiring flood risk impacts to be considered; however, the plan does include a policy which seeks to protect the floodplain (Policy 33), but no further protection measures are provided, nor

are policies included which also seek to reduce flood risk. Therefore a site



However, it should be noted that PPS25

would also ensure that any flood risk issues are addressed whether sites are considered under current policy or a site

selection process.

If a contingency site were selected, this would provide greater certainty in

relation to potential flood risk impacts. However, there is no guarantee that the site chosen through this new process would be better than one approved




recommendations)



specifically requiring flood risk impacts to be considered; however, the plan does include a policy which seeks to protect the floodplain (Policy 33), but no further protection measures are provided, nor

are policies included which also seek to reduce flood risk. Therefore new criteria would be beneficial over current BMWLP

policy if specific consideration of such issues were included.

However, it should be noted that PPS25

would also ensure that any flood risk issues are addressed whether sites are considered under current policy or new

criteria.

There is no guarantee that the site chosen through this new process would be better than one approved through the current criteria process under BMWLP Policy 10, which would be replaced by

the Core Strategy.

This option continue to would allow for flexibility such that all sites that may be

suitable from a flood risk perspective can come forward at a later date, including

those that have not previously been




The exact impact on flood risk will depend upon existing baselines in

the final locations of the new facilities. However, the policy not impact on flood risk as it is the

general distribution, rather than the quantity of capacity or exact

locations, that is affected by this option. Both urban and rural

locations for waste facilities can have impacts on flood risk. This SA objective is therefore not applicable

to this option.


recommendations)




waste uses.


suitable for a continued or new waste use from a flood risk

perspective (those in Flood Zones 3b in particular); alternative

locations for waste sites could be preferable. It should be noted that

this is unlikely to apply to many operational waste sites. The



consideration.

RECOMMENDATION: Existing waste sites should only be

safeguarded in the longer term (in the Waste DPD) where any known flood issues can be successfully

managed.



SA Objective











sites against relevant criteria, which could include flood-risk impacts if


RECOMMENDATION: Potential impacts on and of flood risk should be taken into

account in detailed site selection. Opportunities to reduce flood risk should

also be considered.

considered, which could potentially include sites of suitable size for a


RECOMMENDATION: Potential impacts on and of flood risk should be included within detailed site selection criteria.

Opportunities to reduce flood risk should also be considered.


N/A If a contingency site were selected, this

would provide greater certainty in relation to potential mineral resource


process would be better than one approved through a speculative planning application enabled through, and using,

the existing criteria process under BMWLP Policy 10, although it does

afford the opportunity to test a range of sites against relevant criteria, which

could include mineral resource impacts if specifically included.

However, regardless of whether or not a

site is selected in advance, minerals resources could be extracted prior to any

development that would prevent them being accessed in future.



N/A The option would continue to allow for all

sites that may be suitable from a minerals resource perspective to come forward at a later date, including those

that have not previously been considered.



More importantly, regardless of whether

new criteria are introduced, minerals resources could be extracted prior to any

development that would prevent them being accessed in future.






Impacts on mineral resources would

depend upon the specific sites chosen.

However, minerals resources could

be extracted prior to any development that would prevent them being accessed in future.



N/A A safeguarding policy does not

have a clear relationship with the sterilisation of minerals. Any

relationship has more to do with the overall capacity of waste

management and combination of all sites and their efficiency or

effectiveness at driving waste up the waste hierarchy.

SA13: To promote the effective restoration

N/A Potential benefits from or impacts on

restoration and after-use would depend

N/A Potential benefits from or impacts on

restoration and after-use would depend


altering the amount of additional

N (M) A safeguarding policy would help

to ensure the continued waste use

SA Objective











and appropriate after use of minerals and waste sites Decision-making criteria: A. Will any potential restoration result in enhancing or recovering wildlife resources? B. Will any potential restoration contribute to local BAP targets? C. Will any potential restoration / after use provide recreational, amenity or leisure opportunities for local people? D. Will restoration result in improvements to soil quality? E. Will any potential restoration provide opportunities for enhancing green infrastructure and contributing to reducing the green infrastructure deficit in Aylesbury Vale?

upon the specific site chosen, rather than the process for choosing it.


would provide greater certainty in relation to potential impacts on site restoration. However, there is no


through, and using, the existing criteria process under BMWLP Policy 10. In addition, visual and land-use impacts

would occur whether or not the site was currently subject to a restoration

proposal.

This SA objective is therefore not applicable to this option.

upon the specific site chosen, rather than the process for choosing it.

This option would continue to allow for flexibility such that all sites can come

forward at a later date, including those that have not previously been

considered, that may be suitable in terms of the potential benefits that could be gained from their restoration and after

use.


under BMWLP Policy 10, which would be replaced by the Core Strategy. In addition, visual and land-use impacts

would occur whether or not the site was currently subject to a restoration

proposal.




Impacts on restoration would

depend upon whether the specific sites chosen were previously

minerals or waste sites. Option 6, which only considers the general

distribution of recycling and composting facilities rather than

specific sites, is unlikely to have any notable impact on SA13.



on safeguarded sites, potentially prevent their restoration. However, considering the notable increase in waste management capacity that is likely to be required through the

plan period, any closure and restoration of a waste site is likely

to displace waste activities to alternative new locations, which would then also require eventual

restoration.

SA14: To contribute positively to the

(M)

( with mitigation set out in recommendations)

N (M) ( with mitigation set out in

recommendations)


altering the amount of additional recycling and composting capacity

(M) ( with mitigation set out in

recommendations)


SA Objective











sustainable management of waste and minerals Decision-making criteria: A. Are the proposals in line with the waste hierarchy? B. Will it contribute to or encourage waste minimisation? C. Will it contribute to an increase in the level of reuse, recycling or composting? D. Will it contribute to a reduction or increase in the proportion of waste landfilled? E. Will it contribute to enabling the country’s waste to be managed within the county? F. Will it increase the use of secondary and recycled aggregates? G. Is it flexible to account for future changes in technology, processes or needs?

Current BMWLP policies could enable future strategic-level non-landfill sites to gain planning permission. The previous site selection process has determined that alternative sites are available for strategic-level non-landfill facilities to

facilitate more sustainable waste management processes, but not a site of

suitable size for a strategic waste complex, which would allow co-location

and added flexibility.

The inclusion of a specific site within the Core Strategy would provide certainty

that a suitable contingency site is immediately available to ensure the

sustainable management of a significant proportion of Buckinghamshire’s waste within the county, rather than requiring any further site selection processes.

However, future flexibility may be limited

in terms of ensuring that the site is optimal for the technology, processes or

needs prevalent at the time the contingency is required. The previous site selection process has determined

that Calvert is the only suitable site for a strategic waste complex within the

county at present, but a suitably large site may become available in future.

RECOMMENDATION: Include suitability of site for each type of technology within

site selection criteria, with the aim of ensuring that it is suitable for the widest

range possible to provide flexibility.

Current BMWLP policies could enable future strategic-level non-landfill sites to gain planning permission. The previous site selection process has determined that alternative sites are available for strategic-level non-landfill facilities to

facilitate more sustainable waste management processes, but not a site of

suitable size for a strategic waste complex, which would allow co-location

and added flexibility.

The inclusion of new site selection criteria within the Core Strategy would

continue to maximise flexibility to ensure that the site is optimal for the latest

technology, processes and needs. The new criteria could also continue to

potentially enable new sites of suitable size for a strategic waste complex to forward in future, which would allow a

greater range of facilities to be co-located on one site. Specific criteria

could be included to seek co-location.

RECOMMENDATION: Include flexibility of the site and potential for co-location

within site selection criteria.

required, but only its distribution within the county. Exact locations for


The option should encourage capacity to be added nearer to

greater areas of population, which are therefore producing the greater

quantities of materials to recycle and compost. It could therefore help to encourage people to utilise local public facilities and increase their

level of recycling and composting. It could also help to reduce number

and distance of transport movements in association with

waste management in the county.

The inclusion of the word ‘indicative’ in the option is also helpful. Having a

policy which distributes capacity according to population at the time new facilities are required (and is reviewable over the plan period)

allows for flexibility, which numbers set at the start of the plan period

according to population at that point does not. Population distribution can

change over plan periods, particularly if the potential additional

growth in Aylesbury Vale district goes ahead; the need for new

recycling and composting facilities in different areas can therefore change

accordingly.

The safeguarding of existing waste sites / capacity should help to

ensure that waste can be managed sustainably within the

county through a network of facilities of the various types

required. A safeguarding policy would reduce the need to identify new sites for waste management

facilities (and associated environmental, social and

economic impacts identified elsewhere within this assessment),

save the costs associated with developing new facilities, and will help to ensure that waste can be managed as locally as possible.

However, it should be noted that not all existing waste sites will be

suitable for a continued waste use, for example because of poor

location or significant negative impacts on local receptors (e.g.

local people, the water environment, wildlife).

RECOMMENDATION: Existing

waste sites should only be safeguarded in the longer term (to be considered further in the Waste DPD) where they can continue to

make a useful contribution to sustainable waste management.


SA Objective













recommendations)

Potential benefits from energy efficiency and energy generation would depend

upon the specific site chosen.

Policy 10 of the BMWLP seeks the recovery of energy from waste from any

new facilities where possible, but no further detail than that; therefore a site selection process would be beneficial over current BMWLP policy if such a

process included specific consideration of more detailed energy generation

considerations, such as whether heat and electricity can be produced or whether it could be used locally.


would provide greater certainty in relation to potential energy-related




sites against relevant criteria, which could include energy-related impacts if


RECOMMENDATION: The potential for positive energy benefits should be taken

into account in detailed site selection.


recommendations)

Potential benefits from energy efficiency and energy generation would depend

upon the specific site chosen.

Policy 10 of the BMWLP seeks the recovery of energy from waste from any

new facilities where possible, but no further detail than that; therefore new

criteria would be beneficial over current BMWLP policy if specific consideration

of more detailed energy generation considerations were included, such as

whether heat and electricity can be produced or whether it could be used

locally.




forward at a later date, including those that have not currently been considered,

that may be suitable in terms of the potential benefits that could be gained

from energy efficiency and energy generation. This could potentially include

sites of suitable size for a strategic waste complex, which could utilise the energy produced on site in co-located

facilities.

N/A (with mitigation set out in

recommendations)

The option does not envisage altering the amount of additional



Green waste could be used to produce energy (e.g. through

anaerobic digestion (AD)). Option 6 should encourage recycling and composting capacity to be added

nearer to greater areas of population, which are therefore

producing the greater quantities of materials to recycle and compost.

This may provide local source-segregated materials that could be used to generate energy such as to feed AD facilities. This benefit to the energy SA objective would only be

realised if such facilities are developed, otherwise there would be

no direct relationship between the distribution of facilities and the ability

to achieve the SA objective.

RECOMMENDAITON: In the future, the Waste DPD should seek to

ensure that sites are available to facilitate the development of smaller,

non-strategic AD facilities, as an alternative to composting, in areas

with large population centres.

(M) (with mitigation set out in

recommendations)

The level of energy generation potential associated with any

particular site is likely to be site specific and so variable across the

county. However, the policy will help to ensure that any existing waste sites that are suitable for

energy generation will be retained in a waste use.

RECOMMENDATION: Those sites

that are particularly suitable for energy generation from waste

activities should be safeguarded from alternative uses. The nature of safeguarding is that it would not

retain all sites regardless, but initially holds the position and



SA Objective











RECOMMENDATION: The potential for

positive benefits should be included within detailed site selection criteria.

SA16: To minimise the number and length of road journeys associated with waste management facilities and minerals workings Decision-making criteria: A. Will it increase or decrease the kilometres travelled by waste or minerals by road? B. Will it have a positive or negative impact on traffic congestion? C. Will there be a positive or negative impact on local infrastructure? D. Will there be an increase or reduction in the number of movements of waste or minerals? E. Will it reduce reliance on the car?


recommendations)

Impacts would depend upon the specific site chosen and the local transport

infrastructure.

Policy 10 of the BMWLP includes proximity, accessibility from urban areas

and good transport connections, including rail and water within site criteria; therefore a site selection

process would be beneficial over current BMWLP policy if such a process

included specific consideration of traffic congestion and other wider issues, in

addition to those covered above. If those impacts included in Policy 10, which the site selection process would replace with regard to finding a contingency, did not

include those issues covered in that policy then there may be a negative

impact on the SA objective if the eventual site were to be utilised.


would provide greater certainty in relation to potential energy-related


process would be better than one approved through a speculative planning


recommendations)

Eventual impacts would depend upon the specific site chosen and the local

transport infrastructure.

Policy 10 of the BMWLP includes proximity, accessibility from urban areas

and good transport connections, including rail and water within site

criteria; therefore new criteria would be beneficial over current BMWLP policy if

specific consideration of traffic congestion and other wider issues were included, in addition to those covered

above. If those impacts included in Policy 10, which the new criteria would

replace with regard to finding a contingency, did not include those

issues covered in that policy then there may be a negative impact on the SA

objective if the eventual site were to be utilised.









The option could, therefore, result in decreasing the transport distances and number of vehicle movements involved in waste management as there will be more journeys to and

from the recycling / composting sites (which would be reduced by the

option) than there will be when that material is taken on to the next stage

of processing / use (which can be within or outside of the county).


recommendations)

Impacts would depend upon the specific site in question and the

local transport infrastructure. The policy would help to ensure that

those sites that have a particularly suitable location from a

transportation perspective (in order to minimise journey numbers and length) could be preserved in

waste use.

However, it should be noted that not all existing waste sites will be suitably located from a transport

movement perspective. The nature of safeguarding is that it

would not retain all sites regardless, but initially holds the position and forces site-by-site

consideration.

RECOMMENDATION: Only those waste sites with suitable locations such that they help to minimise the

number and length of road journeys and do not make a

significant contribution to traffic congestion should be safeguarded

in the longer term (to be


SA Objective












application already enabled through, and using, the existing criteria process under


sites against relevant criteria, which could include transport-related impacts if


RECOMMENDATION: Potential impacts from associated transportation and

vehicle movements should be taken into account in detailed site selection with the aim of reducing the number and length

of associated road journeys.


suitable from a transportation perspective can come forward at a later

date, including those that have not currently been considered. This could

potentially include sites of suitable size for a strategic waste complex, which would reduce the need to transport

materials be co-locating facilities on one site. The option also continues to allow for changes in transport infrastructure

from the beginning of the plan period to the identification of a contingency site to be taken into account in site selection.


from associated transportation and vehicle movements should be included within detailed site selection criteria with

the aim of reducing the number and length of associated road journeys.

considered further in the Waste DPD).

SA17: To maximise community participation in minerals and waste issues and individual responsibility for their own waste production and minerals use Decision-making

(M) Eventual potential benefits in terms of community participation and individual responsibility would depend upon the

specific site chosen and whether its size and location would permit the inclusion of positive education and awareness

raising features.

Policy 10 of the BMWLP only requires that sites conform with other policies contained within the plan, rather than specifically requiring community or

individual responsibility impacts to be considered; however, the plan does not contain any policies covering this issue.


recommendations)

Eventual potential benefits in terms of community participation and individual responsibility would depend upon the

specific site chosen and whether its size and location would permit the inclusion of positive education and awareness

raising features.







quantities of materials to recycle and compost. It could therefore help to encourage people to utilise local public and business facilities and

(H) The safeguarding of sites in

existing waste use will help to ensure that a network of local

facilities can be provided within Buckinghamshire to help

individuals and organisations to participate in sustainable waste

management and take responsibility for their waste.


SA Objective











criteria: A. Will it facilitate good and equitable access to waste services for all? B. Will it increase or decrease opportunities for public and/or business participation? C. Will it increase or decrease opportunities for education and awareness raising on minerals and waste issues? D. Will it enable individuals and organisations to take responsibility for their own waste – e.g. through local management? E. Will it enable Buckinghamshire to achieve net self-sufficiency for minerals and/or waste?


if such a process included specific consideration of such issues.


would provide greater certainty in relation to potential community and

individual responsibility impacts. However, there is no guarantee that the site chosen through this new process would be better than one approved



sites against relevant criteria, which could include community and individual

responsibility impacts if specifically included.

It should also be noted that the provision of a contingency site in advance of when

it is needed will not allow the views of local communities to be taken into

account nearer the time when the site is actually required.

RECOMMENDATION: The potential for

positive waste education and participation benefits should be taken into account in detailed site selection. However, the issue of preventing local

community views being taken into account nearer to the time when the site is actually required cannot be mitigated.

specifically requiring community or individual responsibility impacts to be

considered; however, the plan does not contain any policies covering this issue.


specific consideration of such issues were included.




forward at a later date, including those that have not currently been considered,

that may be suitable in terms of the potential educational and awareness raising benefits that could be gained, including larger sites that would have

more opportunities for educational and awareness raising benefits.

The option also continues to allow for the views of local communities to be

taken into account for the entire period until the application decision for the

actual site.

RECOMMENDATION: The potential for positive waste education and

participation benefits should be included within detailed site selection criteria.

increase their level of recycling and composting.


SA Objective













recommendations)

Potential impacts and benefits in terms of recreation would depend upon the

specific site chosen.


specifically requiring impacts on recreation to be considered; however, the plan does include a policy which

seeks to protect important certain local recreational assets (Policy 25), but it does not contain polices that protect

recreational resources more widely nor does it seek recreation enhancements.


if such a process included specific consideration of such issues.


would provide greater certainty in relation to potential impacts on

recreational resources. However, there is no guarantee that the site chosen through this new process would be better than one approved through a




include impacts on recreation if specifically included.


recommendations)

Potential impacts and benefits in terms of recreation would depend upon the

specific site chosen.


specifically requiring impacts on recreation to be considered; however, the plan does include a policy which

seeks to protect important certain local recreational assets (Policy 25), but it does not contain polices that protect

recreational resources more widely nor does it seek recreation enhancements.


specific consideration of such issues were included.



This option would continue to allow for flexibility such that all sites that may be suitable from a recreational perspective

can come forward at a later date, including those that have not currently

been considered.

RECOMMENDATION: The potential




The exact impact on recreational

resources (including rights of way) will depend upon existing baselines

in the final locations of the new facilities. However, the policy should not impact on recreation as it is the general distribution, rather than the

quantity of capacity or exact locations, that is affected by this


have impacts on recreational resources, including rights of way.







existing baseline. The overall result of such a policy should be

positive, particularly when considering that impacts from

waste activities would be displaced elsewhere if the waste

activities were moved. The level of negative impact on recreation prevented from avoiding such

displacement of waste activities would depend on the baseline

recreational situation at alternative sites.


SA Objective











RECOMMENDATION: The potential

recreational impacts and benefits should be taken into account in detailed site

selection.

recreational impacts and benefits should be included within detailed site selection

criteria.

SA19: To avoid adverse economic impacts on land and premises in employment use and seek to benefit such businesses where possible Decision-making criteria: A. Will there be any adverse economic impacts on land and premises in employment use? (e.g. from land take or the need for businesses to relocate or from transport routes used)



recommendations)


Policy 10 of the BMWLP only requires that sites conform with other policies contained within the plan, rather than specifically requiring impacts on land

and premises in employment use to be considered; however, the plan does

include policies on amenity and buffer zones (Policies 28 and 29), which could provide some protection, but it does not

specifically seek to avoid economic impacts on land and premises in

employment use, nor does it seek relevant enhancements. Therefore a site




would provide greater certainty in relation to potential impacts on land and premises in employment use. However,

there is no guarantee that the site chosen through this new process would be better than one approved through a


recommendations) Impacts would depend upon the specific

site chosen.

Policy 10 of the BMWLP only requires that sites conform with other policies contained within the plan, rather than specifically requiring impacts on land

and premises in employment use to be considered; however, the plan does

include policies on amenity and buffer zones (Policies 28 and 29), which could provide some protection, but it does not

specifically seek to avoid economic impacts on land and premises in

employment use, nor does it seek relevant enhancements. Therefore new criteria would be beneficial over current BMWLP policy if specific consideration

of such issues were included.



This option would continue to allow for




The exact impact on land and

premises in employment use will depend upon existing baselines in

the final locations of the new facilities. However, the policy should not impact on such land uses as it is the general distribution, rather than

the quantity of capacity or exact locations, that is affected by this


have impacts on land and premises in employment use.




recommendations)

This policy is likely to assist in ensuring economically viable

waste management facilities are retained, and may also prevent

waste and other development from being less advantageously

located.


suitable for a continued or new waste use when taking account of impacts on land and premises in

employment use, for example due to negative impacts on other local businesses; alternative locations

for waste sites could be preferable. The nature of



Local business uses that post-date the relevant waste facility should

not be able to prevent a continuation of waste uses at a site as they would have been



SA Objective














include impacts on land and premises in employment use if specifically included.

The potential for a significant waste use

on a site to resulting in the blight of business use class if a site is allocated,

even though such development may never occur, should also be considered; however, this may not be as significant as the potential of residential property blight. The level of impact will depend

upon the type of development currently at the selected site, thus the change in

this baseline.

RECOMMENDATION: Potential impacts on employment land should be taken into account in detailed site selection.

This may also help to mitigate any impact on business property values.

Potential benefits to businesses should also be considered.

flexibility such that all sites that have minimal adverse impacts on land and

premises in employment use can come forward at a later date, including those

that have not currently been considered.

RECOMMENDATION: Potential impacts on employment land should be included

within detailed site selection criteria. Potential benefits to businesses should

also be considered.

developed with knowledge of the local waste use.

RECOMMENDATION: Existing waste sites that are known to

create unacceptable problems for other local businesses due to their

waste use should not be safeguarded from non-waste

related development in the longer term (in the Waste DPD).

SA20: To maintain or improve job opportunities within the county Decision-making criteria: A. Will there be a

N (M) (with mitigation as set out in

recommendations)


Policy 10 of the BMWLP only requires that sites conform with other policies

N (M) (with mitigation as set out in

recommendations)


Policy 10 of the BMWLP only requires that sites conform with other policies




The exact impact on job

opportunities will depend upon




SA Objective











resulting reduction in or creation of jobs in the waste or minerals industry? B. Will there be a positive or negative impact on jobs opportunities in non-waste or non-minerals businesses?

contained within the plan, rather than specifically requiring impacts on job

opportunities to be considered; however, the plan does not contain any policies which seek to maintain or improve job

opportunities. Therefore a site selection process would be beneficial over current

BMWLP policy if such a process included specific consideration of such

issues.

If a contingency site were selected, this would provide greater certainty in relation to potential impacts on job opportunities. However, there is no


through, and using, the existing criteria process under BMWLP Policy 10,

although it does afford the opportunity to test a range of sites against relevant

criteria, which could include impacts on job opportunities if specifically included.


on employment should be taken into account in detailed site selection. Improvements in job opportunities should be sought where possible.

contained within the plan, rather than specifically requiring impacts on job

opportunities to be considered; however, the plan does not contain any policies which seek to maintain or improve job opportunities. Therefore new criteria

would be beneficial over current BMWLP policy if specific consideration of such

issues were included.



This option would continue to allow for

flexibility such that all sites whose development will result in a positive, rather than negative, impact on job

opportunities can come forward at a later date, including those that have not

currently been considered.

RECOMMENDATION: Potential impacts on employment should be included within detailed site selection criteria. Improvements in job opportunities should be sought where possible.

existing baselines in the final locations of the new facilities.

However, the policy should not impact on jobs as it is the general

distribution, rather than the quantity of capacity or exact locations, that is affected by this option. Both urban

and rural locations for waste facilities can have impacts on job

opportunities.



existing baseline, as other more job intensive uses for such sites

could be found. The overall result of such a policy should be positive, particularly when considering that impacts from waste activities on

the local employment market would be displaced elsewhere if the waste activities were moved.

Summary For both Options 5A and 5B, the eventual environmental and social impacts would depend upon the exact site(s) chosen and their current baseline environment, and so

such impacts are currently unknown.

However, whichever option is chosen, to maximise the sustainability of the site option(s) chosen, a range of sustainability criteria should be taken into account in

site appraisal, including potential impacts on air quality, flood risk, biodiversity,

Option 6 does not envisage altering the amount of additional recycling and composting capacity required over the plan period, but only its

distribution within the county. The impact on SA indicators from this

option is therefore likely to be limited

Option 7 should result in a continued waste use on existing sites that are safeguarded and

therefore, generally, a continuation of the existing baseline. The policy would generally prevent alternative uses, which could have improved


SA Objective











heritage, geology, soils, landscapes and townscapes, water resources, water quality, human health, public safety, and impacts on local amenity. Transport impacts,

including distances and modes, will also need to be considered, in addition to site-based effects.

If Option 5B is pursued, this level of detail may be inappropriate for a higher level

Core Strategy but could be set out in a lower-level DPD or SPD, but cross-referred to in higher level policy. The Core Strategy policy/ies should instead state that ‘a range

of environmental, social, economic and land-use criteria will be considered in the selection of the reserve site if it is subsequently required’, perhaps listing specific

higher level criteria that will be included for the initial site selection, such as excluding sites that will, even with mitigation, have a significant negative impact upon nationally

/ internationally designated features / sites (including the Chilterns AONB). The potential for positive benefits should be considered, such as opportunities for producing low and zero carbon energy, or improving local green infrastructure, in

addition to whether any negative impacts can be mitigated.

The benefit of Option 5A over 5B is that it provides certainty that a suitable site will be available as a contingency if required. However, this could also cause

unnecessary negative impacts resulting from property blight in association with a contingency that may never be utilised. In addition, it would prevent the views of the community being taken into account in site selection nearer to the time the facility

would be required as the contingency site would already have been chosen.

The site selection process to date has shown that there are suitable sites available for strategic-level non-landfill waste facilities, but not for co-location, including

beyond the Green Belt and Chilterns AONB. In addition, if Option 5B were pursued sites already thought to have potential for a strategic-level waste site through the site

selection process could be safeguarded as part of the Core Strategy and Waste DPD to ensure that BCC are consulted on any development proposals that may

prejudice that future use.

The particular benefit of Option 5B over 5A is that it will allow all sites that might be suitable from a sustainability perspective to come forward at a later date, including those that have not currently been considered, which could potentially include site that is large enough for a strategic waste complex with co-located facilities. Option 5B also maximises flexibility in terms of changes in technology, process and need

over the Plan period, so the most suitable site can be found.

as many effects are location-specific.

However, there are some notable benefits from distributing facilities

according to population, particularly with regard to the potential to reduce transport movements and distances

and to increase awareness and participation through the provision of

sufficient local facilities.

The inclusion of the word ‘indicative’ in the option is also helpful. Having a

policy which distributes capacity according to population at the time new facilities are required (and is reviewable over the plan period)

allows for flexibility, which numbers set at the start of the plan period

according to population at that point does not. Population distribution

could change over the plan period, particularly if the potential additional

growth in Aylesbury Vale district goes ahead; the need for new

recycling and composting facilities in different parts of the county can therefore change accordingly.

It should, however, be noted, that the benefits of this option can only be maximised by taking account of existing recycling and composting

capacity (and its level of use) in the distributional calculations, such that overall capacity is distributed across

the county by population, and not just new capacity. This should be

or degraded the existing baseline.

The policy would also reduce the number of new sites required for

waste uses, which should, in general, be positive for the existing

baseline.

The safeguarding of existing waste sites / capacity should help to

ensure that waste can be managed sustainably within the

county, and as locally as possible to its source, through a network of

facilities of the various types required. Overall, the introduction of such a policy should therefore

be beneficial.

However, a few existing waste sites may not be suitable for a

continued or new waste use for a variety of reasons; alternative

locations for waste sites could be preferable in some cases. In

undertaking a further assessment of sites in the Waste DPD, existing

waste sites with known environmental or social problems related to their waste use should only be safeguarded where such impacts are considered to be at

acceptable levels.



SA Objective











assessed further when undertaking a site search exercise in the Waste

DPD to identify new sites and assess the capability of enhancing

existing sites.


Options Review – New Generic Options

SA Objective 1 – Include policy in the Core Strategy concerning the protection of environmental assets of local

importance, rather than relying on national policy

2 – Include a policy on climate change and good-quality

sustainable design within the Core Strategy

3 – Seek environmental and recreational enhancements through proactive policy, in addition to more

general mitigation measures

Background and baseline The current minerals and waste planning policies in force are the ‘saved’ policies contained in the

Buckinghamshire Minerals and Waste Local Plan (BMWLP, 2006)14. It is these policies that form

the baseline for considering potential future options. This includes a policy (Policy 25) that

seeks to protect certain local sites and features of environmental importance.

The Preferred Options version (previous draft

version) of the Core Strategy (2008) also contained a policy (Policy 10) that seeks to protect such features, although with some

variation in the list of sites and features covered from the Local Plan list.

The current minerals and waste planning policies in force (the ‘saved’ policies

contained in the BMWLP, 2006), which form the baseline for considering potential future options, do not include a policy on

climate change and/or good quality design. The ‘saved’ environmental policies it

contains are focused around mitigating negative impacts directly resulting from the

proposed activity rather than providing proactive policy.

The Preferred Options version (previous draft version) of the Core Strategy (2008)

had a policy covering climate change, transport assessments, and providing a

high standard of restoration, but not seeking proactive design benefits.

The current minerals and waste planning policies in force (the ‘saved’ policies contained

in the BMWLP, 2006), which form the baseline for considering potential future options, do not include a policy seeking

environmental enhancement. The ‘saved’ environmental policies are focused around

mitigating negative impacts directly resulting from the proposed activity rather than

providing proactive policy.

The Preferred Options version (previous draft version) of the Core Strategy (2008) also

focused around mitigating negative impacts, rather than seeking positive benefits, although

high standards of restoration are sought (Policy 11).


N (H) The option will have a negligible impact on air

quality. It will prevent or limit minerals and waste development in certain areas, but will only relate to development arising in a small percentage of

the County.

(M) This option could lead to some reduced emissions from sites and/or transport to

and from sites. The degree of impact will depend upon the degree of overlap

between climate change / sustainable design and air quality. This will in turn

depend upon some of the baseline detail of particular developments, and whether any

measures taken actually prevent Air Quality Objectives (AQOs) from being exceeded

where they otherwise might have been, or reduce pollution in Air Qulaity Management

Areas (AQMAs).

(M) Policy could provide minor improvements in the air quality baseline through the provision

of additional or improved green spaces, which may provide a nearer alternative compared to

existing amenity (reducing transport). This depends upon the location concerned and the

use or condition of the existing site.

SA2: To avoid additional climate change emissions, seek their reduction, and reduce the future effects of

N (H) The option will have a negligible impact on

climate change. It will prevent or limit minerals and waste development in certain areas, but will

(M) A policy that seeks to reduce impacts on

and from climate change will directly address this sustainability objective. Level

(M) Such a policy may link with climate change

policy / sustainable design. Landscape planting and other measures may assist in

14 Some of the policies that were in the original 2006 version of the Plan have subsequently been deleted. The policies that remain in force are those that have been ‘saved’. These policies will subsequently be replaced by those contained in the various documents of the Buckinghamshire Minerals and Waste Local Development Framework, including the Core Strategy, as they are developed.




sustainable design within the Core


Strategy general mitigation measures

climate change based on predictions Decision-making criteria: A. Will it have a positive or negative impact on the emissions of carbon dioxide from minerals and waste transportation in the County? B. Will it reduce methane emissions from landfill in the County? C. Will it contribute to a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions from traditional forms of energy generation? D. Will it contribute to or cope with the increased risk of flooding predicted as a result of climate change? E. Will it provide a carbon sink? F. Will it contribute to a negative or positive impact on the emissions of carbon dioxide from mineral extraction?

only relate to development arising in a small percentage of the County.

of impact will depend upon the inclusion of relevant policy wording, but should be

beneficial.

The degree of impact will also depend upon the baseline detail and potential

opportunities inherent in particular developments, which cannot be predicted

by this SA – hence benefits could be lesser or possibly greater.

RECOMMENDATION: Both transport and site-based impacts should be considered. Policy should also cover the provision of

planting in order to sequester (absorb and retain) carbon, which can contribute to

minimising carbon dioxide emissions, thus acting as a carbon ‘sink’. Best practice

guidance on design and climate change should be utilised in policy development.

carbon sequestration and also temperature regulation as a climate change adaptation

measure. The impact will depend upon the nature of the detailed site baseline and which

specific proposals are put forth.

RECOMMENDATION: In addition to the provision of green space, policy should cover the provision of planting in order to sequester

(absorb and retain) carbon, which can contribute to minimising carbon dioxide

emissions, thus acting as a carbon ‘sink’.

SA3: To protect the living conditions and amenities of local residents and people working in local businesses from the adverse effects of minerals and/or waste development, and seek enhancements where possible Decision-making criteria: A. Will there be any amenity impacts (including noise, dust, light, vermin and odour) on sensitive receptors (including residents and workers)? B. Will there be any improvement or degradation of the quality of the surroundings (including open spaces) where people live as a result of site development or transport routes? C. Will there be any positive or adverse economic impact on land and premises in residential use?

(L) N - if same level of protection for locally

important amenity land as in BMWLP - if additional locally important amenity land is protected as part of the policy, as recommended

below

The current BMWLP provides for the protection

of country parks, common land and village greens, however this option does not clearly

specify these features, so protection could be lessened if the new policy does not also protect these features. A negative effect is qualitatively scored, with low certainty (depends upon further

policy detail).

The option will have a negligible impact on living conditions, but should ensure continued amenity benefits if policy wording includes the same level of protection of local open spaces, recreational land etc as at present. The level of protection

N (H)

- if amenity benefits sought through policy wording

A policy that seeks good quality design could benefit local residents and people

working in local businesses. Level of benefit will depend upon inclusion of

relevant policy wording.

There is only negligible potential for climate change mitigation measures (in isolation) to

significantly benefit living conditions and amenities or change relevant performance

indicators on a significant scale.

RECOMMENDATION: Could seek net benefits by linking sustainable design with the provision of local amenity alongside

landscape planting which simultaneously functions for carbon sequestration.

(M) A policy that seeks environmental

enhancements should benefit local residents and people working in local businesses

providing positive recreational and environmental benefits. Level of benefit will depend upon policy wording, as well as the

detailed site baseline and which specific proposals are put forth (which, again, this SA cannot predict – degree of benefit could be

lesser or greater).








given will depend upon the wording of the policy. The policy should, however, provide clarity to

developers and local people on sites to be protected and the potential implications of

development.

RECOMMENDATION: Include additional protection for locally important green spaces and recreational assets within the policy and ensure any impacts on such features are minimised and

mitigated.

SA4: To avoid adverse impacts on human health and ensure public safety with regard to minerals and waste activities, seeking positive benefits where possible Decision-making criteria: A. Will there be a positive or negative impact on human health from relevant sites or transport routes? B. Will there be a positive or negative impact on public safety from relevant sites or transport routes? C. Will it potentially cause or be affected by land instability? D. Will sites be actively monitored?


human health and public safety with regard to minerals and waste activities

N (H)

- if recommendations included in policy wording

Impact will depend upon the inclusion of



significantly benefit human health or change human health performance


RECOMMENDATION: In addition to seeking to minimise negative impacts on

human health and public safety, the policy should seek positive benefits, such as

minimising the number of HGV movements, in relation to associated emissions and the potential to injure

pedestrians and other drivers.

RECOMMENDATION: Could seek net benefits by linking sustainable design with the provision of local amenity alongside


(M) Policy could provide indirect benefits for public

health by increasing recreational, and therefore exercise, opportunities.

SA5: To protect and enhance biodiversity and create new habitats

(L) N - if same level of protection for locally

N (M)

- if policy wording seeks habitat

(M) Impact will depend upon policy wording, but

the provision of environmental and recreation









Decision-making criteria: A. Are there any designated or non-statutory nature conservation sites that may be affected? If designated, to what level (European, national, local etc) is the designation? B. Is there any evidence of protected species that may be affected? C. Will there be any opportunities for enhancing or recovering wildlife resources? D. Will there be any potential to contribute to local BAP (Biodiversity Action Plan) targets? E. Will there be any opportunities to create new habitats and/or green infrastructure of biodiversity value?

important biodiversity sites and open spaces as in BMWLP

- if additional locally important biodiversity sites and open spaces are protected as part of

the policy

The current BMWLP provides for the protection of local nature reserves, areas of nature

conservation importance and ancient semi-natural woodlands, however this option does not

clearly specify these features, so protection could be lessened if the new policy does not also

protect these features. A negative effect is qualitatively scored, with low certainty (depends

upon further policy detail).

The option should continue to protect biodiversity if policy wording includes the protection of sites of local importance for biodiversity which are not

covered by international and national designations. The level of protection given will

depend upon the wording of the policy, so could potentially be reduced as well as enhanced. It should, however, provide clarity to developers

and local people on sites to be protected and the potential implications of development.

RECOMMENDATION: Include protection of locally important biodiversity sites and open

spaces within the policy and ensure any impacts on such features are minimised and mitigated.

creation, including as part of carbon sequestration



RECOMMENDATION: In addition to seeking to minimise negative biodiversity impacts, the policy should seek positive benefits, such as seeking to provide or

improve habitats and contributing to local BAP targets. Best practice guidance on

design should be utilised in policy development.

enhancement should be beneficial for biodiversity. Recreational enhancements can include green space, which in turn can have

synergies with habitat creation and enhancement.

The degree of impact will also depend upon

the baseline detail and potential opportunities inherent in particular developments, which

cannot be predicted by this SA – hence benefits could be lesser or possibly greater.

RECOMMENDATION: Policy should seek

specific positive benefits for biodiversity, such as seeking to provide or improve habitats and

contributing to local BAP targets.

SA6: To protect areas of archaeological importance and conserve and, where appropriate, enhance the historic environment Decision-making criteria: A. Are there any sites of archaeological importance that can be positively or negatively affected? B. Are there any historic landscapes that

N (M) - if locally important heritage sites and features are protected as part of the policy

Locally identified heritage assets are not protected by the current BMWLP policy.

The option should help to ensure the protection of assets of local heritage importance if policy wording covers such issues, otherwise it will

make negligible difference to the current

N (M)

- if policy wording seeks preservation and enhancement of heritage features


significantly link with the historic environment or change relevant

performance indicators on a significant scale.

(M) Impact will depend upon the inclusion of

relevant policy wording, which is not clear from the option, however it is likely that

environmental and recreational enhancement proposals will recognise the historic

environment and synergies with improving its integrity and educational benefits. The degree of impact will depend upon the

number and extent of synergies with the historic environment inevitably discovered.








can be positively or negatively affected? C. Are there any listed buildings that can be positively or negatively affected? D. Are there any conservation areas that can be positively or negatively affected?

situation. The level of protection given will depend upon the wording of the policy. It should, however, provide clarity to developers and local people on sites to be protected and the potential

implications of development.

RECOMMENDATION: Include protection of locally important heritage sites and features

within the policy and ensure any impacts on such features are minimised and mitigated.

RECOMMENDATION: Could seek net benefits by linking sustainable design with

preservation and enhancement of any historic features on- or off-site. Best

practice guidance on design (including such issues as scale, mass, layout,

materials, energy efficiency, aesthetics and good place making) should be utilised in

policy development.

RECOMMENDATION: Policy should seek

positive heritage benefits, such as seeking to sensitively integrate heritage features within

the development, and to improve their setting. Best practice guidance on design (including

such issues as scale, mass, layout, materials, energy efficiency, aesthetics and good place

making) should be utilised in policy development.

SA7: To protect and seek to improve soil resources and quality, and protect and enhance sites of geological interest Decision-making criteria: A. Will it increase or decrease land contamination? B. Will it impact upon good quality soil resources? Will it improve or degrade soil quality, including of agricultural soils? C. Will it involve development on previously used land? D. Will there be a positive or negative impact on sites designated for their geological importance? If so, what is the level of their designation?

N (M) - if locally important geological sites and

features are protected as part of the policy

Locally identified geological assets are not protected by the current BMWLP policy.

The option should help to ensure the protection of assets of local geological importance if policy

wording covers such issues, otherwise it will make negligible difference to the current

situation. The level of protection given will depend upon the wording of the policy. It should, however, provide clarity to developers and local people on sites to be protected and the potential

implications of development.

Soils are designated at a national level so the policy will have a negligible impact.

N (M)

- if policy wording seeks soil and geological enhancements

There is only negligible potential for climate change mitigation measures (in isolation) to significantly affect soils resources above or

beneath the impacts which may already occur due to development generally.

RECOMMENDATION: In addition to

seeking to minimise negative impacts on soil quality and geology, the policy should seek positive benefits, such as seeking to improve soil quality above the baseline as part of restoration proposals. Best practice guidance on design should be utilised in

policy development.

N (L)

– if a range of positive enhancements are sought

Impact will depend upon inclusion of relevant

policy wording, which is not clear from the option. It should be noted that geological sites

can be an important recreational resource.

RECOMMENDATION: Policy should seek positive soil and geological benefits, such as

seeking to improve soil quality above the baseline as part of restoration proposals. This

can be achieved also through creation and enhancement of native ecosystems which

sustain soils.

RECOMMENDATION: The creation or enhancement of new areas for geologically

associated leisure activities should be sought where possible but this depends upon a wide

variety of circumstances to create the opportunity in the first place.

SA8: To conserve and enhance the quality and distinctiveness of landscapes and townscapes, in particular the AONB Decision-making criteria: A. Will it have a positive or negative impact

(M) - if additional locally important landscapes and townscapes are protected as part of the

policy

The current BMWLP provides for the protection of Designated Areas of Attractive Landscape,

N (M)

- if policy wording seeks landscape and townscape enhancements



There is only negligible potential for climate

(M) Impact will depend upon policy wording, but

the provision of environmental enhancements should be beneficial for landscapes and

townscapes.

RECOMMENDATION: Policy should seek positive landscape and townscape benefits,







on landscapes or townscapes of national or local importance, such as the AONB, in terms of both character and visual impact? B. Will it have a positive or negative impact on Green Belt (e.g. maintaining extent, openness)? D. Will there be any opportunities to create green infrastructure of landscape and/or townscape value?

however this option does not clearly specify these features, so protection could be lessened if

the new policy does not also protect these features. A negative effect is qualitatively

scored, with low certainty (depends upon further policy detail).

The option should continue to protect

landscapes and townscapes if policy wording includes the protection of those of local

importance which are not covered by national designations. The level of protection given will

depend upon the wording of the policy, so could potentially be reduced as well as enhanced. It should, however, provide clarity to developers

and local people on sites to be protected and the potential implications of development.

RECOMMENDATION: Include protection of

locally important landscapes and townscapes within the policy and ensure any impacts on such

features are minimised and mitigated.

change mitigation measures (in isolation) to significantly benefit the landscape or

change relevant performance indicators on a significant scale.

RECOMMENDATION: Could seek net

benefits by linking sustainable design with landscape enhancements, including the positive integration of development and restoration and planting schemes. Best practice guidance on design should be

utilised in policy development.

such as seeking landscape enhancements and ensuring the design and layout of proposed development seeks positive integration of the site within the wider

landscape.


N (H) Option will not impact upon the quantity of

primary mineral excavated, but will only limit the location in a small proportion of the County.

N (M)

- if policy wording incorporates the recommendations

The degree of impact will depend upon the

detailed policy wording.

RECOMMENDATION: In addition to seeking to minimise the wasteful use of

natural resources in construction, the policy should seek positive benefits, such as encouraging the use of alternatives to

primary materials in construction.

RECOMMENDATION: Climate change policy should include a cradle-to-grave

approach to sustainable design, including embodied carbon within materials and

designing to minimise transport impacts.

N (H) Option will not impact upon the quantity of

primary mineral extracted.

SA10: To protect water (L) N (M) N (M)








resources and seek to improve water quality Decision-making criteria: A. Will there be an increases or decrease in water quality (e.g. through the discharge of pollutants to water)? B. Will there be an increase or decrease in water consumption from facilities? C. Will it have a positive or negative effect on waterbodies and Water Framework Directive objectives? D. Will there be a positive or negative impact on water flow?

N - if same level of protection for locally important water resources as in BMWLP - if additional locally important water

resources are protected as part of the policy

The current BMWLP provides for the protection of ground and surface water, however this Core Strategy policy option does not clearly specify

these features, so protection could be lessened if the new policy does not also protect these features. A negative effect is qualitatively


The option should help to ensure locally

important water resources are protected if policy wording includes the protection of such features, otherwise it will make negligible difference to the

current situation. The level of protection given will depend upon the wording of the policy. It

should, however, provide clarity to developers and local people on sites to be protected and the

potential implications of development.

RECOMMENDATION: Include protection of locally important waterbodies within the policy and ensure any impacts on such features are

minimised and mitigated.




RECOMMENDATION: In addition to seeking to minimise negative impacts on water resources and water quality, the

policy should seek positive benefits, such as seeking to improve on-site waterbodies

in line with Water Framework Directive objectives. Best practice guidance on

design should be utilised in policy development.

RECOMMENDATION: Climate change

policy should include efficient use of water and Sustainable Urban Drainage System

(SUDS) methods within sustainable design.

- if locally important water resources, such as local rivers, are enhanced as part of the policy. The possibility of an impact will

depend upon the location of sites and whether there are any synergies with the water

environment.

RECOMMENDATION: Policy should seek positive water resource and water quality

benefits, such as seeking to improve on-site waterbodies in line with Water Framework

Directive objectives.


N (H) The option will have a negligible impact on flood

risk. It will prevent or limit minerals and waste development in certain areas, but will only relate to development arising in a small percentage of

the County.

(M)

- if policy wording seeks maximum incorporation of SUDS

PPS25 as existing policy will remain the

dominant flood risk protection mechanism. The degree of impact will depend upon both the detailed policy wording and the level of commitment made to SUDS over

and above what may occur without such a policy and seeking to reduce flood risk.

Some inclusion of a move from engineered to natural drainage has been assumed as a

minimum in a climate change policy.

(L) There may be some synergies between

environmental and recreational enhancement and flood risk management. The benefit may

be negligible, or it may be more positive, depending upon the precise development

locations and opportunities available.

RECOMMENDATION: Policy should seek positive flood risk minimisation benefits, such as the provision of SUDS to help reduce flood risk as part of any enhancement proposals.








RECOMMENDATION: The policy should seek maximum incorporation of SUDS to

help reduce flood risk. Best practice guidance on design should be utilised in

policy development.


N (H) The option will have a negligible impact on minerals resources. It will prevent or limit

minerals and waste development in certain areas, but will only relate to a small percentage

of the county.

N (H) The scope of this option is such that it will

have a negligible impact on this sustainability objective.

N (H) The scope of this option is such that it will

have a negligible impact on this sustainability objective.

SA13: To promote the effective restoration and appropriate after use of minerals and waste sites Decision-making criteria: A. Will any potential restoration result in enhancing or recovering wildlife resources? B. Will any potential restoration contribute to local BAP targets? C. Will any potential restoration / after use provide recreational, amenity or leisure opportunities for local people? D. Will restoration result in improvements to soil quality? E. Will any potential restoration provide opportunities for enhancing green infrastructure and contributing to reducing the green infrastructure deficit in Aylesbury Vale?

N (M) - if policy includes a clear requirement to mitigate any detrimental impacts upon locally important features, or provide compensation

measures if this is not possible, prior to permitting development.

Current BMWLP policy does not explicitly require

mitigation and/or compensation where development is allowed that will have a

detrimental impact upon a locally important asset, except in supporting text.

Option will not impact upon the restoration and

after use as it will generally prevent minerals and waste development that would negatively impact

upon locally important assets. There will therefore be no use to restore in these areas,

which are already seen as a local asset.

RECOMMENDATION: Include requirement to mitigate any detrimental impacts upon locally important features, or provide compensation

measures if this is not possible, prior to

(M)

It is expected that a climate change and design policy will promote sustainable

restoration and after use as part of sustainable design, or will link in with other

policies on restoration and after use. The degree of impact will depend upon both the detailed policy wording and the

level of commitment made to finding synergies between climate change

mitigation and site after use.

RECOMMENDATION: A range of positive benefits should be sought, including a

range of green infrastructure improvements and contributions to local BAP targets.

(M)

A policy that seeks recreational enhancements should seek high-quality restoration and appropriate after use of

minerals and waste sites. The level of impact will depend on policy wording, but a range of

positive benefits should be sought, including a range of green infrastructure improvements

including public access, recreational opportunities and contributions to local BAP

targets.








permitting development.

SA14: To contribute positively to the sustainable management of waste and minerals Decision-making criteria: A. Are the proposals in line with the waste hierarchy? B. Will it contribute to or encourage waste minimisation? C. Will it contribute to an increase in the level of reuse, recycling or composting? D. Will it contribute to a reduction or increase in the proportion of waste landfilled? E. Will it contribute to enabling the country’s waste to be managed within the county? F. Will it increase the use of secondary and recycled aggregates? G. Is it flexible to account for future changes in technology, processes or needs?

N (H) The scope of the option means that it is unlikely

to have any notable impacts on this SA objective.

(M) - risk of increasing cost of mitigatory actions to over-burden projects. The

environmental and social benefits sought through policy could render important

minerals / waste development economically unviable. A careful balance needs to be sought to ensure such facilities can be

provided. However, the County Council would not seek to deter necessary

development by excessive demands.

It is expected that such a policy will lead to synergies being maximised between climate change mitigation, other high-

quality design measures and sustainable minerals and waste management.

(M) - risk of increasing cost of mitigatory actions to over-burden projects. The

environmental and social benefits sought through policy could render important

minerals / waste development economically unviable. A careful balance needs to be sought to ensure such facilities can be

provided. However, the County Council would not seek to deter necessary development by

excessive demands.

It is expected that such a policy will lead to synergies being maximised between

environmental and recreational enhancements and sustainable minerals and

waste management.


N (H) The scope of the option means that it is unlikely

to have any notable impacts on this SA objective.

(M)

- if policy wording incorporates the recommendations highlighted below

This policy is likely to incorporate energy-

efficient construction and design. The degree of impact will depend upon the detailed policy wording and also the

baseline detail and potential opportunities inherent in particular developments, which

cannot be predicted by this SA – hence benefits could be lesser or possibly

greater..

RECOMMENDATION: The policy should seek positive benefits, such as energy

N (H) The scope of the option means that it is

unlikely to have any notable impacts on this SA objective.









efficient design and the provision of on-site renewable and/or low carbon energy

generation where possible. The use of CHP (Combined Heat and Power) should be encouraged where it improves energy

efficiency. Local uses for any heat / electricity produced, such as for local

businesses and homes, should be sought in preference to exporting to the National

Grid, which is less efficient due to transmission losses. Best practice

guidance on design should be utilised in policy development.

RECOMMENDATION: Climate change policy should include a cradle-to-grave

approach to sustainable design, including energy used in the construction of the

facility, as well as operation and transport.

SA16: To minimise the number and length of road journeys associated with waste management facilities and minerals workings Decision-making criteria: A. Will it increase or decrease the kilometres travelled by waste or minerals by road? B. Will it have a positive or negative impact on traffic congestion? C. Will there be a positive or negative impact on local infrastructure? D. Will there be an increase or reduction in the number of movements of waste or minerals? E. Will it reduce reliance on the car? F. Will it reduce the need to travel?

N (M) Impact will depend upon site location and the

local assets that are protected, but could further restrict the use of some sites which may be

preferable from a mileage reduction perspective. However, the number of locations impacted is likely to be minimal,.and the overall impact is

likely to be negligible.

(M)

- if policy wording seeks relevant proactive measures



RECOMMENDATION: In addition to seeking to minimise road journeys, the

policy should seek positive benefits, such as seeking the use of non-road modes of transport where possible. Best practice guidance on design should be utilised in

policy development.

RECOMMENDATION: This policy should include a cradle-to-grave approach to sustainable design, including various

aspects such as designing to minimise construction and operational transport.



SA17: To maximise community participation in minerals and waste issues

N (M) Option could further restrict the use of some

N (M)

- if policy wording incorporates the








and individual responsibility for their own waste production and minerals use Decision-making criteria: A. Will it facilitate good and equitable access to waste services for all? B. Will it increase or decrease opportunities for public and/or business participation? C. Will it increase or decrease opportunities for education and awareness raising on minerals and waste issues? D. Will it enable individuals and organisations to take responsibility for their own waste – e.g. through local management? E. Will it enable Buckinghamshire to achieve net self-sufficiency for minerals and/or waste?

sites which may be preferable as public waste facilities that local people and businesses could

utilise. However, the number of locations impacted is likely to be minimal, although this

depends upon the local assets that are protected. The overall impact is likely to be

negligible.

recommendations

Impact will depend upon the inclusion of relevant policy wording

RECOMMENDATION: The policy should seek relevant positive benefits, such as

maximising the accessibility of those waste sites that are open to the public, and

providing waste education facilities on-site where appropriate. Best practice guidance

on design should be utilised in policy development.

RECOMMENDATION: Incorporation of sustainable design requirements should

provide another vehicle by which communities can participate in how their minerals and waste developments are

designed.



(M) N - if same level of protection for locally

important recreational assets as in BMWLP - if additional locally important recreational assets are explicitly protected as part of the

policy

The current BMWLP policy does not explicitly

protect sites that are considered locally important for recreational purposes, but does seek to

protect country parks, common land and village greens, which could be used for recreational

purposes. This option does not clearly specify these features, so protection could be lessened if

the new policy does not also protect these features. A negative effect is qualitatively


The option should continue to protect

recreational assets if policy wording includes the protection of those of local importance. The level

N (M)





significantly benefit living conditions and amenities or change relevant performance


RECOMMENDATION: In addition to seeking to minimise negative recreational impacts, the policy should seek positive benefits, such as the provision of green

infrastructure of recreational value, such as public rights of way. Best practice guidance

on design should be utilised in policy development.

RECOMMENDATION: Could seek net

(M) The policy specifically seeks recreational

enhancements, although the level of impact will depend upon policy wording.

RECOMMENDATION: Policy should seek a

range of positive recreational benefits, including the provision of green infrastructure of recreational value, such as public rights of

way.








of protection given will depend upon the wording of the policy, so could potentially be reduced as well as enhanced. It should, however, provide

clarity to developers and local people on sites to be protected and the potential implications of

development.

RECOMMENDATION: Include protection of locally important recreational resources within

the policy and ensure any impacts on such features are minimised and mitigated.

benefits by linking sustainable design with the provision of local amenity alongside


SA19: To avoid adverse economic impacts on land and premises in employment use and seek to benefit such businesses where possible Decision-making criteria: A. Will there be any adverse economic impacts on land and premises in employment use? (e.g. from land take or the need for businesses to relocate or from the transport routes used) B. Will there be any benefits for local businesses and landowners?


employment land. It will prevent or limit minerals and waste development in certain areas, but will

only relate to development arising in a small percentage of the County.

(M) A policy that seeks good-quality design

should seek to minimise negative impacts on local employment land and should be beneficial. However, impacts will depend

upon the condition of the current development site in comparison to its

proposed use.

Any energy produced from waste facilities at the site could potentially be utilised by

local businesses, which could be beneficial if cheaper for them than other supply

options.

RECOMMENDATION: Include consideration of potential impacts on local employment land in design, and look for

possible benefits, such as providing them with heat and power. Best practice

guidance on design should be utilised in policy development.

(M) A policy that seeks environmental and recreational enhancements should be beneficial for local employment land.

However, the level of benefit will depend upon the condition of the current development site

in comparison to its proposed use.

SA20: To maintain or improve job opportunities within the county Decision-making criteria: A. Will there be a resulting reduction in or creation of jobs in the waste or minerals industry?

N (H) The option will have a negligible impact on job

opportunities. It will prevent or limit minerals and waste development in certain areas, but will only

relate to development arising in a small percentage of the County.


job opportunities due to its scope.

N (H) The option will have a negligible impact on job

opportunities due to its scope.


143








B. Will there be a positive or negative impact on jobs opportunities in non-waste or non-minerals businesses?

Summary Continuing to have a policy which seeks to

protect environmental assets of local importance would help to protect such assets that do not

enjoy the protection of national or international designation.

The overall level of benefit, in sustainability

terms, will depend upon the exact wording of the policy and the range local environmental assets

to be protected. It should be recognised that sites of international and national importance are

already protected in national policy. Assets of local importance in terms of heritage, recreation,

biodiversity and geodiversity, landscapes and potentially soils (if not protected through other

policy) should be considered for protection. Land and water environments will need to be taken

into account.

Policy wording should be included to require any detrimental impacts upon locally important

features to be adequately mitigated, or provide compensation measures if this is not possible, prior to permitting development, thus allowing

some impacts on locally important environmental assets if it results in the most sustainable option

overall being pursued.

Including a policy in the Core Strategy on climate change and good quality design

should provide a range of environmental, social and economic benefits and will be in

line with Government policy on climate change. Seeking positive design benefits will be essential, covering issues such as

biodiversity enhancement and energy-efficient design. Best practice guidance on

design should be utilised in policy development, such as the DEFRA design

guidance for waste facilities (2008)15; further details of such guidance can be

found in the Design Topic Paper.

However, consideration will have to be given to associated economic costs to the

project, should policy demands force socially and environmentally important

projects to be abandoned due to excessive cost. A careful balance will be needed to

maximise the sustainability of the outcome, although significant benefits should be

possible. Level of benefit will depend upon the exact

wording of the policy.

The option will have obvious environmental, social and economic benefits and a wide

range of potential benefits should be considered for inclusion within the policy.

However, consideration will have to be given to associated economic costs to the project,

should they force socially and environmentally important projects to be abandoned due to excessive cost. A careful balance will be

needed to maximise the sustainability of the outcome, although significant benefits should

be possible.

Level of environmental and social benefit will therefore depend upon the exact wording of

the policy.

15 DEFRA (2008) Designing Waste Facilities: a guide to modern design in waste


Appendix G Effects of the Plan

This assessment considers the effects on the achievement of the SA Objectives of the Buckinghamshire Minerals and Waste Core Strategy Development Plan Document, read in conjunction with the other planning documents with which it will operate once adopted – national planning policy, ‘saved’ policies from the Buckinghamshire Minerals and Waste Local Plan (BMWLP) (which will be replaced by a subsequent Minerals DPD and Waste DPD), existing BCC Supplementary Planning Guidance and district level plans. This assessment considers the effects (or risks of effects occurring) of each of the new potential generic policy options. The scores given relate to the net effect whilst taking account of a realistic, or reasonable, ‘worst case’ scenario with respect to making judgements about the scale of effects on the existing baseline situation. This considers both potential negative effects and positive benefits. Mitigation measures are also recommended; these are actions that can help to reduce negative impacts or increase positive benefits. The impacts related to minerals and waste are considered separately as they can differ. The effects of Core Strategy as a whole are considered together under the ‘cumulative assessment’ heading. Any data sources used for the evaluation are noted at the end of this document. A key to the symbols used in order to summarise each assessment is provided below. Recommendations are also given. These are actions that can help to reduce negative impacts or increase positive benefits. Key:

Highly beneficial effect likely on the SA objective

CERTAINTY:






M MEDIUM Depends upon the way in which a policy is implemented on the ground, or the assessment replies upon a value judgement due to conflicting messages / effects.




The options have been assessed against the baseline in relation to each decision-making criterion, which is set out below. The score for the overall assessment given at the top of each box is a judgement of the cumulative effect on the SA objective, balancing the effects of the decision-making criteria. The assessment considers long-term impacts (those occurring / existing beyond the plan period), medium-term


impacts (those existing within the plan period) and short-term impacts (those immediate impacts associated with displacement caused by the physical structure of development resulting from that policy option). A commentary is given outlining how the overall score has been evaluated.

round

A Objective Baseline:

hich have been utilised in this valuation and are listed at the end of this appendix.

olicy Baseline:

which expires 2016. The Core Strategy will replace several policies in

xtraction Principles

for Sand and Gravel Extraction

egates Production

inciples tes

rt only)

ly)

ent of Sewage Sludge

Protection of Other Key Environmentally Important Sites and

port (part only) Policy 33: Groundwater and Floodplain Protection.

Introduction and Backg

S The evaluation against each SA objective, set out in the table below, includes any key relevant baseline data specific to that SA objective. Further details of the baseline can also be found in relevant Topic Papers, we P The policy baseline, the current minerals and waste planning policy, consists of the ‘saved’ policies16 contained in the Buckinghamshire Minerals and Waste Local Plan (BMWLP),that plan:

Policy 1: Overarching Minerals E Policy 2: Aggregates Landbank Policy 3: Preferred Areas Policy 4: Area of Search Policy 6: Alternative Aggr Policy 8: Other Minerals Policy 10: Overarching Waste Management Pr Policy 11: Imported Wastes and Landfill Si Policy 12: Integrated Waste Management Policy 13: Recycling / Composting Facilities (pa Policy 15: Waste Transfer Facilities (part only) Policy 17: Energy from Waste Plant (part only) Policy 18: Landfill and Landraising (part on Policy 19: Calvert Landfill Site (part only) Policy 22: Inert Wastes and Inert Waste Recycling Policy 23: Sewage Treatment Works and Managem Policy 24: Protection of Key Environmental Assets Policy 25:

Features Policy 27: Protection of Green Belt Policy 30: Proximity Principle and Sustainable Trans

It should be noted that those policies directly referred to as part of the assessment below are those that will continue in force after the Core Strategy as they will be replaced by subsequent Minerals DPD or Waste DPD policies at a future date.

16 The ‘saved’ policies are those that continue to be in force after 2009 following a review of Government-led review of local planning policy. Policies 26 (Protection of Agricultural Land) and 35 (Best Practicable Environmental Option) were deleted from the BMWLP following that review.


However, the assessment does note where replacement Core Strategy policies are r differ from those that exist in the entire BMWLP as it currently stands.

ntly allocated in the MWLP have now been permitted and will be insufficient to meet the Government

gregate minerals could also e permitted. However, demand is expected to remain low, but steady over the Core

he Core Strategy continues support new sites for secondary and recycled

arl required per annum in the

(b) the decrease in the Area of Search from covering the entire county beyond the MSA to a smaller area in the north of Buckinghamshire.

es are available nd policies are in place to deal with development proposals put forward to meet the

similar to o

Minerals:

The landbank, set by the Government, has increased from 0.99 mtpa to 1.05 mpta, a 6% increase, so more sites will need to be identified, but this does not necessarily mean that more sites will be worked as this will depend on market demand for minerals, which has been steadily declining in recent years, as set out in the Minerals Topic Paper (TP6); a continuation in this trend is not, however, guaranteed, so a worst-case scenario that envisages an increase in the amount of minerals produced has to taken forward in the evaluation of the Core Strategy. Preferred Areas will be alllocated in the Minerals DPD (Policy CS5) to meet the Government-requirement of at least a seven-year landbank (Policy CS4). These are mainly likely to be in the Minerals Safeguarding Area (unchanged from the BMWLP), where the most significant and viable deposits of sand and gravel are located, in the south of Buckinghamshire (Policy CS1), although an Area of Search has been identified in the north of the county (Policy CS2). Priority will be given to extensions of existing sites where environmentally acceptable, but new sites (to be identified in the forthcoming Minerals DPD) will be needed as those curreBlandbank requirements through to the end of the plan period. Policy CS3 supports the continuation of the Chiltern Brick industry, as the BMWLP had done. Further sites extracting clay could be developed as part of producing traditional Chiltern bricks. Further sites for other non-agbStrategy period as set out in the Minerals Topic Paper. Taggregates (Policy CS6), as per the previous BMWLP. The main changes to the minerals baseline from the BMWLP to the Core Strategy

e therefore: (a) the 6% increase tonnage of sand and grave

landbank (the landbank must be at least seven years, as before), which necessitates the allocation of new sites; and

Waste: Buckinghamshire County Council is preparing the Core Strategy in their capacity as the Waste Planning Authority (WPA). Decisions about waste technologies to be utilised for waste management are made by the Council’s separate Waste Development Authority function for municipal waste (mainly household waste) and by the private sector for commercial and industrial (C&I) and construction and demolition (C&D) waste. The WPA needs to ensure that sufficient sitaBuckinghamshire’s waste management needs over the plan period. The proposed Core Strategy states the ‘Waste Planning Strategy’ to be that the County Council will plan for an equivalent amount of waste to that generated within


the county (net self-sufficiency) in managing its wastes to 2026, and to meet prevailing targets for increased recycling and diversion from landfill. The sentiments of the Core Strategy are the same as for the BMWLP, although the targets for increased recycling and diversion from landfill have increased since the

&I residual waste (the mainder after recycling and composting) instead being sent for energy recovery.

ove, ut they will be filled with inert (non-biodegradable) waste, rather than non-

consented landfill sites or create new inert waste landfills here a significant proportion of the waste handled would originate outside

roposals for non-landfill facilities primarily intended for the management of

orted aste in exceptional circumstances where there are demonstrable benefits to

urrent BMWLP policy.

development of the BMWLP, thus requiring more waste capacity of a differing nature to those facilitated by the previous plan.

The Core Strategy envisages additional capacity being required to cope with predicted changing and increasing waste management needs. Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) (mainly household waste) and Commercial and Industrial (C&I) waste generated within the county is predicted to increase, the former substantially, with the majority of this increase in waste being recycled or composted. Although the total annual Construction and Demolition (C&D) waste tonnage is predicted to remain fairly constant, the plan envisages and encourages a significant increase in the percentage recycled. All waste and recycling figures are detailed in the Waste Topic Paper (TP5). Substantial additional recycling and composting facilities will therefore be required, although the proposed locations for these will be established in the subsequent Waste DPD. The amount of waste sent to landfill is predicted to decrease dramatically, with the majority MSW and CreThe significant increase in recycling, composting and energy recovery capacity required through the plan period is detailed in Policy CS9. Policy CS15 confirms that no new non-hazardous landfill (mainly used for MSW and C&I waste) will be provided in Buckinghamshire during the plan period; excavations, which take place as part of minerals workings, will still take place, as noted abbhazardous waste). This is a change in position from the BMWLP, which provided for continuing but declining non-hazardous landfill capacity within the plan period. Policy CS16 provides for a decline in imports of waste from London over the plan period. Policies CS15 and CS16 are more restrictive on the landfilling of waste from out of the county than the equivalent policies in the BMWLP, now preventing the development of new non-hazardous landfill completely and resisting proposals to extend the life of existing wBuckinghamshire (in the BMWLP this restriction only applied to waste from outside of the south-east region). Pimported wastes will also be resisted (Policy CS16); this is a continuation of current BMWLP policy. The Core Strategy policy does, however, permit energy recovery from impwBuckinghamshire, which includes where this improves the viability of recovery activity within the county, which is also consistent with c The Core Strategy continues to favour the co-location of waste facilities, in line with Government policy, as was the case with the BMWLP. Policies CS11 and CS12 of the Core Strategy state that, for waste that cannot be recycled, land will be allocated at the Calvert Landfill Site for a single Strategic


Waste Complex (SWC) to include an energy recovery facility (no such facility currently exists within the county) and an on-site facility to deal with any hazardous waste produced, together with a new road link to the site. Calvert is already a permitted landfill site for non-hazardous and inert waste and ‘special’ (hazardous)

uarded for potential future rail transfer of aste in the Core Strategy (Policy CS14), in addition to Richings Park, which is also

nt departure from the limited safeguarding policy of the BMWLP.

waste arisings produced by the population.

atment works where they are need (Policy CS17), in line with the

th

posting and energy recovery;

cilities to deal with waste imports from

e facilities and a new

policy, with new site appraisal criteria;

strial Area in Aylesbury Vale District;

a waste audit that goes beyond current statutory requirements;

waste, with permissions lasting beyond the plan period for the Core Strategy (to 2026), although it does not currently have an Environment Agency permit for hazardous waste.

The Core Strategy also proposes linked waste transfer stations at High Heavens Waste Complex in High Wycombe, and London Road Depot in Amersham to support the Calvert site; these transfer station locations are safeguarded in the BMWLP. Thorney Mill has been safegwsafeguarded in the BMWLP. The reasoning behind this decision is detailed in the supporting text for these policies. The implications of the Calvert proposals are reviewed in more depth in Appendix E. Policy CS14 also safeguards all existing waste sites in Buckinghamshire and the Woodham Industrial Area in Aylesbury Vale District for future waste use, which is a significa Policy CS8 is a further new policy avenue, requiring waste audits which go beyond current statutory requirements, unlike the BMWLP, which does not contain a similar policy. Policy CS10 provides for the new MSW and C&I recycling and composting capacity, which will be identified in the Waste DPD, to be distributed to each district across the county in proportion to The Core Strategy continues to support the construction of new and extended sewage treprevious BMWLP policy.

The main changes to the waste baseline from the BMWLP to the Core Strategy are erefore:

(a) the significant increase in the number of new and extended facilities envisaged for recycling, com

(b) the position on landfill, with no new non-hazardous waste sites now permitted;

(c) the reduced provision for waste faoutside Buckinghamshire;

(d) the specific and detailed policy providing for a Strategic Waste Complex, including an energy recovery facility, hazardous wastaccess road, at Calvert;

(e) a new contingency(f) the safeguarding of all existing waste sites in Buckinghamshire and the

Woodham Indu(g) the additional safeguarding of Thorney Mill as a potential future rail waste

transfer site; and (h) a requirement for


(i) the provision of new recycling and composting capacity to be distributed to each district across the county in proportion to waste arisings produced by the population.

General Environmental Policies: The Core Strategy continues to seek to protect sites of national importance (CS18), including the Chilterns AONB (Policy CS21), and local importance (CS19), with broader terms used to define the latter in the latest plan in comparison to the BMWLP, allowing for the protection of a wide range of sites with biodiversity heritage, landscape or recreational importance. Water resources are also specific

ally protected in the Core Strategy, which they were not in the BMWLP. The ore Strategy does allow for development to take place which could have negative

, cognising the wider social, environmental and economic benefits development can

The Core Strategy also continues to protect the Green Belt (Policy CS20), in line with the BMWLP, although providing further clarity on the very special circumstances in which waste development in the Green Belt would be permitted. The new Core Strategy also contains detailed policies on design and climate change and on seeking environmental enhancements, which the BMWLP does not.

Cimpacts, but only In limited circumstances and with appropriate mitigation required; the BMWLP contained similar wording, although the Core Strategy is clearer with regard to the limited circumstances in which development would be permittedrebring.


SA Objective Assessment


Key Relevant Baseline: The air quality baseline in Buckinghamshire is generally good, with the exception of AQMAs located in association with motorway and town centre traffic at certain points across the county. In the future, it is expected that air quality will continue to be generally good, with the exception of areas declared as AQMAs that are likely to continue to remain under pressure. Predicted population rise and new development may lead to more AQMAs being declared in future in relation to emission from traffic. Cumulative Impact:

N (M) – net impact county-wide (L) – ‘worst case’ local impact

Impacts considered across Buckinghamshire as a whole are likely to be negligible. However, the Core Strategy could, without mitigation, result in a negative impact on localised air quality near minerals and waste sites and potentially along roads (traffic–related), including in some AQMAs. This would only be significant if air

quality objectives are breached, or if impacts occur in areas where they are already exceeded – i.e. AQMAs or candidate / prospective AQMAs. In order to address

this issue, the Core Strategy’s polices seek to minimise any potential decrease in air quality. The certainty is low, as there are only few sites / areas and no

proposals at this stage, and thus the specific areas to be affected are not all known. Also, it is uncertain whether Core Strategy policy on minimising air quality

impacts could strengthen controls and thus in effect prevent or reduce impacts which would have occurred without this policy in place, such as from existing sites

that may be subject to new planning applications. This could lead to positive impacts, and possibly net benefits.

Minerals:

N (L)

Impacts on air quality from new minerals workings will generally be local to the minerals sites (except for transport emissions), so impacts on air quality will depend upon the local baselines at sites / areas to be identified in the Minerals DPD. The new sites, which

represent a change from the current BMWLP, may prove impossible to separate from those which may have come forward as a speculative application without the Core Strategy.

Simultaneously, the provision for minerals sites within the County, as at present, prevents the

need for minerals to be transported from further afield, which would result in increased transport emissions that could negatively impact upon air quality. It cannot be said whether

such impacts would lead to exceedences of air quality limit values.

Policy CS2 identifies a potential new area for minerals excavation in the north of the county. If minerals were excavated in that area and could be utilised locally, where there is predicted

to be growth, this would result in minerals being transported shorter distances, with less associated air pollution.

Policy CS5 states that a key consideration in identifying Preferred Areas for minerals

excavation in the Minerals DPD will be the potential for more sustainable movements of materials from the site and the distance and suitability of access to the Primary Road

Network and other Strategic Inter-Urban Corridors. This would help to minimise local air emissions for transport, but may impact upon AQMAs, particularly in the south of the county, which include local motorway routes, if utilised for road transportation. The increase in lorry movement is not, however, expected to be significant due to the relatively small increase in

minerals excavation that is likely. It should also be noted that Policy CS5 specifically ensures that the cumulative impacts of simultaneous and/or successive working of a number of

minerals sites or extensions to sites in proximity of one another should be taken into account.

Proposals to recycle, store and transfer Construction, Demolition and Excavation (C&D) waste at minerals and landfill sites for a period not exceeding the life of the site and for new

or extended secondary aggregate production facilities (Policy CS6) could increase emissions to air locally to sites (depending on existing on-site activities) and on transport routes.

However, emissions to air generated by recycling and storage of inert materials are likely to be lower than emissions to air associated with the winning of primary materials.


SA Objective Assessment T h

wh an

contained in district level plans will also red as part of the planning application process.

S o

in

ato so ions

overall, as well as potential impacts along specific transport routes in the county.

– ‘worst case’ local impact

ton m

t avoidance of landfill will ben ally without knowing where

that landfill woul

th developed. Transport location of the sites

chosen and the subsequent routes adopted.

P

suc e. There is no policy similar to es not seek any particular

distribution of such facilities.

be

increased transport emissio nsport waste elsewhere if an existing waste ere to close.

Pol s;

significance of thi y affected road routes. It will, however, minimise the need for new sites.

CS12 for a new road to fer stations to reduce the number of vehicle movements required.

he impacts of new minerals workings on air quality are managed by Policy CS22 whicstates that it must be demonstrated that emissions to air are minimised and that the

transporting of materials must take into account proximity issues, amenity, routing, vehicle choice and bulking. CS7 also supports the provision of rail aggregate depots and wharves

ere they are located in proximity to the Primary Road Network and Strategic Inter-UrbCorridors as part of reducing transportation-related emissions to air. AQMA policies

be conside

ummary: The Core Strategy provides a similar level of air quality protection in relation tminerals development as the previous BMWLP policies being replaced. The potential

crease in minerals production resulting from the increased landbank required may result ina negative impact on localised air quality near such sites and on traffic related air quality, including in some AQMAs, due to the potential increase in production, particularly in the south of the county where the sites will be concentrated. However, the Core Strategy’s polices seek to minimise any potential decrease in air quality. Impacts spread across

Buckinghamshire as a whole are likely to be negligible, but there could be some localised issues. It should be noted that negative air quality impacts would be significantly lower that

the minimal increase predicted, if the potential increase in minerals production is not realised, nd also, it is unknown whether lack of any new provision within the county would simply lead

urcing minerals from further afield to meet demand, and thus lead to greater emiss

Waste: N (M) – net impact county-wide

(L)

As noted above, the Core Strategy provides for a significant increase in recycling, composting and energy recovery capacity, in line with the expected increase in waste nages generated in Buckinghamshire. Whilst this will facilitate a diversion of waste frolandfill which has its own air quality impacts (see SA2), this is likely to result, without

mitigation, in a corresponding increase in air pollution at new or more intensively used sites, and in association with the transportation of increasing tonnages of waste. It is unknown at his stage how the baseline at each specific site compares, and it is impossible to predict how

efit air quality and receptors specificd have occurred.

Localised site-based air quality impacts will depend on the existing baseline at the actual sites chosen and the likely emissions associated with the facilities proposed. Locations for e additional recycling and composting capacity will not be identified until the Waste DPD is

-related emissions would also depend upon the

olicy CS10 seeks to spread new recycling and composting capacity across the county inproportion to the waste produced by each district’s population, and thus any associated

emissions would likewise be distributed. The earlier options review highlights concludes that h a policy would likely have a minor beneficial impact due to savings in vehicle mileag

this in the BMWLP, which do

Policy CS14 safeguards existing waste sites for continued waste use, unlike the existing

BMWLP, (although the actual waste use on-site could potentially change), thus reducing the need for new alternative sites. The earlier options review highlights the potential positive and negative impacts of this policy on air quality, concluding that it could potentially have a minor

nefit if the existing sites currently had an acceptable air quality baseline. Existing facilities already serve existing markets, so their continued operation would potentially prevent

ns that could result from needing to tra site w

icy CS10 also encourages extending, intensifying and re-developing existing waste sitea similar policy does not appear in the BMWLP. This policy could result in a negative

cumulative impact on the existing air quality baseline associated with these sites, but the s will depend upon the baseline at each site and along an

The review of the Calvert-related proposals has identified them to have a minor negative

impact on air quality as they are likely to result in a notable increase in associated transport emissions on the local road network, but they will be minimised by the requirement in Policy

the site and for and the development of trans


SA Objective Assessment P

B o

cur in sit s, including dust’. Policy CS13 also requires that proposals comply with relevant policies

be r

co s

change from curr able to continue operating over the Core Strategy period, with fficient landfill capacity for inert waste within

ex of

impacts from the requir ort routes. In addition, AQMA policies contained in district level plans ill also be considered as part of the planning

In le

of such sites in tation of waste materials away from the road network. Howe r, the supporting text clarifies that this is an

tha ’s

across Buckinghamshire as a whole me localised negative impacts, only considered significant if pollutant concentration limit values

are exceeded.

R

i

emissions. It s rals DPD and Waste DPD will need to be subjected to sustainability appraisal, thereby enabling their

RECOMMENDATION: Options for rail transfer of waste should be further investigated and e maximised through ‘partnership working’.

olicy CS13 provides for the identification of an alternative site or sites should an applicationat Calvert not come forward; a contingency policy does not appear in the BMWLP. The MWLP does include criteria for evaluating sites that come forward for permission, but n

specific criteria on air quality. The policy notes that site selection will take account of site and environmental factors in conformity with prevailing waste locational criteria, which are

rently set out in Annex E to Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 10 and could also be usede appraisal under current BMWLP policies; the list in Annex E includes ‘air emission

contained in Section 5 of the Core Strategy, which includes those identified below.

It should be noted that, as stated in Policy CS15, no new non-hazardous landfill will be provided in Buckinghamshire during the plan period as a significant proportion of waste will

diverted to re-use, recycling, composting and energy recovery. This would prevent any aiemissions that would have been associated with new non-hazardous landfill that would be required in the long-term, which could have been located in various locations across the unty (including in the Green Belt as fill material for minerals workings), but non-hazardou

waste may need to be transported further to Calvert as a result. This policy is a significant ent BMWLP policy. Existing permitted landfills will be

susouthern Buckinghamshire through the plan period.

The impacts of all new waste developments on air quality are managed by Policy CS22 (supplemented by supporting wording), which states that a high standard of design is

pected, including ensuring that emissions to air are minimised and that the transporting materials takes into account proximity issues, amenity, routing, vehicle choice and bulking.

This policy, more proactive than that in the BMWLP, will help to minimise the adverse ed additional facilities and associated transp

wapplication process, as occurs at present.

common with the BMWLP, Policy CS14 supports safeguarding of sites considered suitab

as rail waste transfer stations, including an additional site at Thorney Mill. The potential use support of strategic waste sites would divert the transpor

veaim for longer-term delivery, dependent upon viability.

Summary: The increase in total waste tonnages will result in more facilities being needed to

manage waste and more road miles being needed to transport it, which is likely to result, without mitigation, in a negative impact on localised air quality near such sites and on traffic related air quality, including in some AQMAs. The change of policy away from landfill means

t waste may need to be transported further to be processed. However, the Core Strategymore proactive polices seek to minimise any potential decrease in air quality. Impacts spread

are likely to be negligible, but there could be so

ecommendations:

RECOMMENDATION: Any further site selection, whether for waste contingency sites or as part of the Waste DPD or Minerals DPD, should take account of impacts on air quality,

ncluding upon AQMAs, both from sites and associated transport. It should be noted that, for waste sites, prevailing waste locational criteria might not always continue to include air

hould, however, be noted that all sites considered for the Mine

consideration against a full range of sustainability objectives.

uptak

SA2: To avoid additional climate change emissions,their reduction, anreduce the future effects of cli

seek d

mate hange based on

ve

umulative Impact:

p

cpredictions Decision-making criteria: A. Will it have a positi

C (M)

The Core Strategy includes several policies designed to minimise climate change related emissions from minerals and waste sites and associated transport

movements. However, despite these policies, the Core Strategy is likely to lead to a significant increase in mileage in association with waste management activities in

articular. The Climate Change Topic Paper does, however, highlight that the most significant impact by far that the waste sector has on climate change is emissions from landfill, with the impact from transport emissions being small in comparison.

The move away from landfill towards alternative processes and technologies


SA Objective Assessment or negative impact on themissions of

e carbon

ioxide from minerals and

. Will it reduce methane

o a

ioxide emissions from

or the increased

sk of flooding predicted

n

pact on the emissions of carbon dioxide from mineral extraction.

a impact on red dition, unlike

the BMWLP, the Core Strategy contains specific policies designed to ‘climate proof’ minerals and waste development for the future.

Minerals:

CS2, CS5, CS7 and CS22 he County, as at present, prevents the nee

emissions from landfill. The erate renewable energy on

In wi s

emphasised in Policy CS23 on environm ement. The combined measures could cumulatively

sites to d

S fr r

minimise any such impacts. In addition, the Core Strategy contains new roactive policies designed to ‘climate proof’ minerals development for the future.

Waste:

B

C

mil ay from major ce tside of the

dwaste transportation in the county? Bemissions from landfill inthe county? C. Will it contribute treduction in carbon dtraditional forms of energy generation? D. Will it contribute to cope with rias a result of climate change? E. Will it provide a carbosink? F. Will it contribute to a negative or positive im

higher up the waste hierarchy that is facilitated by the Core Strategy, producing dditional energy in the process, should therefore have a significantly beneficial

ucing emissions associated with climate change. In ad

(M)

The Core Strategy envisages the potential for an increase in annual minerals production of up to 6%, although this increase may not happen in reality; any increase is likely to result in

additional emissions from sites and road journeys, particularly in the south of the county, although this is likely to be a small proportion above current levels. As detailed in relation to

SA16 below, the Core Strategy includes several policies that seek to reduce related road transport distances and thus associated carbon dioxide emissions; these include Policies

. The provision for minerals sites within td for minerals to be transpo ed from further afield, which would produce

additional transport-related emissions.

Minerals-related waste is not biodegradable and therefore has no impact on methane re is also little opportunity to gen

rt

minerals site due to the nature of their activi s. More energy-efficient mineral extraction relates to operational aspects.

addition to policies that seek to reduce or avoid adverse impacts upon flood risk associated

th minerals development, as detailed in relation to SA11 below, Policy CS22 promote

tie

drainage improvements and climate proofingcope with the predicted future increases in flood risk as a result of climate change.

Policy CS22 ‘Design and Climate Change’ specifically seeks to reduce impacts on and from

climate change associated with minerals development. This proactive policy is new; an equivalent does not appear in the BMWLP. It covers issues including greenhouse gas

emissions, sustainable transport, flood management, impacts on the water environment and water infrastructure, drainage, and biodiversity. It states that minerals and waste

development should be ‘climate proof’ – incorporating resistance and resilience measures toallow future adaptation and sustainable, safe, uninterrupted operation. Policy CS22 further

states that where relevant, development proposals should ensure that landscape and planting schemes comprise appropriate native species able to successfully adapt to climate

change and sequester carbon, and provide corridors for biodiversity. The latter is further ental enhanc

, which should help to enable development to

and by the very long term, lead to a substantial avoidance and/or sequestration of carbon.

Policy CS22 further states that the potential of restoration of minerals sites to contribute to

climate change mitigation and adaptation should be considered, including the ability of such eliver biodiversity, water and flood management, and wider ecosystem services. It

should be noted that the BMWLP does not contain a specific policy on climate change and that Policy CS22 therefore represents as significant policy advancement.

Summary: The small potential increase in annual minerals production allowed for in the Core

trategy may have a minor negative associated impact on climate change related emissionsom sites and transport, although having sufficient sites within the county offsets the need fo

sites outside of the county and the need to transport them in. Core Strategy policies do, however, seek tospecific p

(M)

The Core Strategy provides for a significant increase in waste management capacity in uckinghamshire, whether as new, extended or more intensively used facilities, to deal with

the predicted increase in waste produced in the county and the range of facilities required to divert waste further up the waste hierarchy and away from landfill. The operation of the

d by transfer stations to reduce mileagalvert site, even supporte e, would increase overall associated road mileage for waste transport, as would the operation of new additional

recycling and composting capacity. As detailed in relation to SA16 below, some mileage will be offset by the reduced use of landfill sites, but the overall increase in tonnages will necessitate an increase in overall eage, as will the location of the Strategic Waste Complex in the north of the county, aw

ntres of population as a result of the need to site development ou


SA Objective Assessment Green Belt. The Core Strategy does however, include a range of policies designed to

minimise the number and length of journeys, as shown above.

n additional to helping to reduce transport emissions, Policy CS10, which seeks to spread new recycling and composting capacity across the county in proportion to the waste

each district’s population, could also help to increase participation

I

produced by in recycling and composting by providing more local facilities, thus helping to divert more waste from

Pol fill

biodegradable). The Core Strategy will directly uce the proportion of waste sent to landfill,

The impacts of new waste sites on greenhous gas emissions are managed by Policy CS22, wh s

th recover ioxide

emissions than the recovery of power. Policy S22 states that built waste proposals must

of national and local policy and the Environment Agency’s review of most planning

p

generation of greenhouse gases asso rocurement of new materials. It can also reduce the transportation distances of materials suitable for re-use, by helping to identify l

Po ,

se r

emissions. They should also maximise the use of renewable energy. The policy also states th resi on.

from road to rail in the long term. ppen, Policy CS14 includes the safeguarding of sites considered suitable as rail waste transfer stations, in common with the

th

h cha s

landfill, reducing associated emissions. There is no policy similar to this in the BMWLP, which does not seek any particular distribution of such facilities.

The proportion of waste landfilled will be significantly reduced, as the proportion of waste reused, recycled and composted will be increased and residual waste sent to an energy recovery facility. In a significant change from BMWLP policy, no additional capacity for

landfilling non-hazardous waste will be provided in Buckinghamshire in accordance with icy CS15, with existing permissions sufficient to deal with the predicted reduced land

requirement. Inert waste does not produce greenhouse gases when landfilled (being non- red

thereby reducing associated greenhouse gas emissions and emissions from waste management across the county, despite the overall increase in waste management capacity.

e

ich states directly that applications for waste sites must demonstrate that greenhouse gaemissions are minimised; there is no similar policy in the BMWLP.

Policy CS11 allows for the recovery of power and heat from residual waste at Calvert, ereby reducing CO2 emissions produced by traditional forms of energy generation. The

y of heat from EfW processes can be more effective in reducing carbon d C

maximise the deployment and use of renewable energy in accordance with prevailing standards and best practice; again, there is no similar policy in BMWLP.

As detailed in relation to SA11 below, although the increase in waste-related development

envisaged by the Core Strategy could lead to a negative impact on flood risk, the combination

applications, is such that any impacts are likely to be negligible. In addition local policies romote drainage improvements and climate proofing, which should help to reduce flood risk.

Policy CS8 requires that planning applications for large construction projects are supported by waste audits to demonstrate how construction, demolition and excavation waste will be

minimised, reused, recycled or recovered. No similar policy exists in the BMWLP. This policy promotes the re-use of materials and the use of secondary materials, thereby reducing the

ciated with the p

ocal sources for re-use and disposal and reducing carbon emissions associated with wastetransportation.

licy CS22 directly addresses design and climate change and is new the Core Strategy

with no equivalent in the BMWLP. It stipulates that high-quality design is required, including demonstrating how the proposals reduce flood risk, and that landscaping and planting schemes must comprise native species that are able to adapt to climate change and

quester carbon. The policy further states that waste site applications must also considethe delivery of biodiversity improvements and water and flood management opportunities as part of climate change mitigation and adaptation measures. They must also comply with the

principles of sustainable design with respect to energy efficiency and greenhouse gas

at minerals and waste development should be ‘climate proof’ – incorporating resistance andlience measures to allow future adaptation and sustainable, safe, uninterrupted operati

Although not currently deliverable, the Core Strategy seeks to divert waste transportation

To enable this to ha

BMWLP. If rail transfer were to occur, this could reduce emissions from the transportation of waste to Calvert.

Summary: The Core Strategy includes several policies designed to minimise climate change related emissions from waste sites and associated transport movements. However, despite ese policies, the need for significant new waste capacity to deal with predicted increases in

waste tonnages and the need to locate most waste-related development outside of the green belt to comply with national policy are likely to jointly result in a significant increase in mileage

in association with waste management activities. The Climate Change Topic Paper does, owever, highlight that the most significant impact by far that the waste sector has on climate

nge is emissions from landfill, particularly methane which is over 20 times more potent a


SA Objective Assessment a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide; the impact from the increase in transport emissions is

therefore small in comparison. The move away from landfill towards alternative processes e waste and technologies in accordance with th hierarchy that is facilitated by the Core

Strategy, producing additional energy in the ocess, should therefore have a significantly g emissions associated with climate change. In addition, the Core

s designed waste development for the

R

the Waste DPD or Minerals DPD, should take account of impacts on and from climate

appraisal, thereby enabling of sustainability objectives.

impacts and options should be further assessed as part of PD an D to minimise associated road mileage,

as detailed in relation to SA16 below.

prbeneficial impact on reducin

Strategy contains specific policie to ‘climate proof’ future.

ecommendations:

RECOMMENDATION: Any further site selection, whether for contingency sites or as part of

change, both from sites and associated transport. It should, however, be noted that all sites considered for the Minerals DPD and Waste DPD will need to be subjected to sustainability

their consideration against a full range

RECOMMENDATION: Transport the development of the Minerals D d Waste DP

SA3: To protect tliving conditions and amenities of local residents and people working in local businesses from the adverse e

he

ffects of inerals and/or waste

oise, dust, ght, vermin and odour)

s ts and

ncluding open spaces) a ment

ny positive or adverse economic impacts on land and premises in residential use?

C

tra e

d to process the waste produced by Buckinghamshire’s residents, es and other organisations, ould otherwise have significant

negative health and safety impacts for and working across the county. M

depending on d for minerals development. The identification of Preferred Areas for new mineral workings will not take

p

adverse impacts upon the amenity of all y be affected by minerals and waste development proposals, which would include local residents and people working in local

wa r

states that permissio iding environmental concerns’, but it is not clear from this policy rding what these ‘environmental concerns’

in clo y

mdevelopment, and seek nhancements where e

possible Decision-making criteria: A. Will there be any amenity impacts (including nlion sensitive receptor(including residenworkers)? B. Will there be any improvement or degradation of the quality of the surroundings (iwhere people live as result of site developor transport routes? C. Will there be a

umulative Impact: (M)

Although the Core Strategy envisages the need for increased minerals and waste development, which could, without mitigation, result in negative impacts on living

conditions and amenity at a local level near minerals and waste sites and on nsport routes, the Core Strategy’s polices seek to minimise any such negativ

impacts. The Core Strategy also actively seeks high-quality design and enhancement measures to be included with development proposals to a greater

extent than the BMWLP, which could have a beneficial impact for the wider community. In addition, the Core Strategy prevents the negative impacts

associated with new non-hazardous landfill, unlike the BMWLP, and continues to facilitate the development of essential waste management facilities, which are

requirebusiness which c

people living

inerals: (L)

Local living conditions and amenity locally to sites may, without mitigation, be negatively affected by new minerals sites or the extension of existing sites, which will be required to meet demand. The increased landbank requirement means that there is the potential for

more minerals production per annum than at present. However, the level of impact will vary the existing situation and works proposed at each site identifie

place until the Minerals DPD is developed. It should be noted that, if such sites were not rovided within the county, the minerals would likely be sourced from elsewhere, nationally or

internationally, with unknown impacts on their local baseline.

Policy CS5 specifically requires that Preferred Areas will be selected to avoid significant those who ma

businesses. The policy also requires consideration of cumulative impacts of simultaneous and/or successive working of a number of sites or extensions to sites in proximity to one

another.

Proposals to recycle, store and transfer Construction, Demolition and Excavation (C&D) ste at existing minerals and landfill sites for a period not exceeding the life of the site undePolicy CS6 may increase the level of activity or intensity of use of particular minerals and

landfill sites. Such cumulative impacts may affect living conditions or local amenity, particularly in close proximity to such sites, but the policy will prevent new alternative sites being required where impacts on amenity could potentially be more negative. The policy

n will only be granted where there are ‘no overrwo

clude and therefore whether the living conditions and amenity of those living or working inse proximity will be protected; however, such issues are covered by other Core Strateg

policies and ‘saved’ policies, as noted below.


SA Objective Assessment Policy CS6 also permits new permanent or temporary facilities or extensions to existing

permanent inert waste recycling facilities for the protection of secondary aggregates. However, the policy also states that such activities will only be permitted where ‘they would

ensitive uses’, whichnot result in adverse impacts upon s is defined in ‘saved’ Policy 29 from the BMWLP to include uses such as resident

i

reprotect the am evelopment proposals and will not grant planning permission for proposals which are likely to generate

include esses.

‘S y

Proposals to develop wharf and a der Policy CS7 may affect living conditions or local amenity if they are in close proximity to local communities. However, living

I also partly mana tate directly that

applications for minerals sites must incorporate measures that enhance the environment,

There could be adverse economic impacts on land and premises in residential use during the life e

with uch

issues. I ould be significantly lower, or even negligible, if the potential increase in minerals production is not

realised. It should also be noted that the Co Strategy policies also seek higher quality on proposals that the BMWLP envisages, which could have longer-term positive benefits for local people acros ographical area of the county.

Wa

composting and energy recovery capa with the expected increase in waste tonnages generated in Buckinghamshire. Without mitigation, this could result in a

Localised impacts on living conditions and amenity will depend on the existing baseline at the actua t be

Bu o

ial premises, schools and hospitals; although it is not an exclusive list and these are only examples, it is not entirely clear whether those

nterpreting the policy would include all those working in local businesses within the definition of a sensitive use.

However, this is balanced by ‘saved’ Policy 28 from the BMWLP which protects sensitive ceptors from a range of negative impacts on amenity, stating that ‘the County Council will

enity of all those who may be affected by minerals and waste d

significant adverse levels of disturbance, both near the site and on routes to and from it, for noise, vibration, dust, fumes, gases, odour, illumination, litter, birds or pests’; this would

both residents and those working in local busin

aved’ Policy 29 of the BMWLP requires adequate buffer zones, detailed in SupplementarPlanning Guidance, between the proposed minerals development and neighbouring existing

or proposed sensitive uses (defined above).

ggregates depots un

conditions and amenity will be protected by ‘Saved’ Policies 28 and 29 noted above. In addition, the increased use of rail and water may reduce impacts from the transportation of

minerals by road.

t should be noted that the impacts of new minerals sites on living conditions and amenity areged by new Core Strategy Policies CS22 and CS23 which s

such as biodiversity enhancements, creating green spaces, ensuring the positive integration of developments with landscapes / townscapes and maintaining or improving rights of way

networks; these go further than existing BMWLP policies.

of the minerals workings, which are generally temporary developments. However, thercould be significant longer term amenity benefits from the high quality restoration proposals

sought by the Core Strategy.

Summary: The potential increase in minerals production resulting from the increased landbank required would result more sites being required or sites being extended, potentially,

out mitigation, resulting in negative impacts on living conditions and amenity near ssites and on traffic routes during the life of the minerals working, particularly in the south of the county where the sites will be concentrated. However, the Core Strategy’s polices, in

common with previous BMWLP policies, seek to minimise any potential negative impacts on living conditions and amenity from minerals development. Impacts spread across

Buckinghamshire as a whole are likely to be negligible, but there could be some localised t should be noted that negative impacts on living conditions and amenity w

rerestorati

s a wider ge

ste: (M)

As noted above, the Core Strategy provides for a significant increase in recycling,

city, in line

corresponding increase in negative impacts on living conditions and amenity at new or more intensively used sites, and in association with the transportation of increasing tonnages of

waste.

l sites chosen. Locations for the additional recycling and composting capacity will noidentified until the Waste DPD is developed. Transport related impacts would also depend

upon the location of the sites chosen and the subsequent routes adopted.

It should be noted that, as stated in Policy CS15, no new landfill will be provided in ckinghamshire during the plan period as a significant proportion of waste will be diverted t


SA Objective Assessment re-use, recycling, com ny amenity impacts

that would have been associated with new landfill, which could be notable, including dust, s

impacts on living conditions and amenity w rly be distributed. The earlier options re s

sim .

BMW the

P a similar policy does not appear in the BMWLP. This policy could result in a negative

cumul ance of ill,

howeve could provide an opportunity to enhance amenit existing sites with current permissions.

Pol on

curre d in site appraisal under current BMWLP policies; t of amenity is ope ctly

protects hat ‘the County Council will protect the amenity of all those who may be affected by minerals and

land from it, for noise, vib on, litter, birds or pests’;

this would include both residents and those working in local businesses.

‘Pla or

In addition, Policy CS23 states that applications for waste sites must incorporate measures

a

a

posting and energy recovery. This would prevent a

mells and vermin. New landfill sites could have been located in various locations across thecounty (including in the Green Belt as fill material for minerals workings). This policy is a significant change from current BMWLP policy. Existing permitted landfills will be able to

continue operating over the Core Strategy period.

Policy CS10 seeks to spread new recycling and composting capacity across the county in proportion to the waste produced by each district’s population, and thus any associated

ill similaview highlights the potential positive and negative impacts of this policy on living condition

and amenity, concluding that it may have a minor negative effect by increasing the likelihood of facilities being located close to local populations (sensitive receptors). There is no policy

ilar to this in the BMWLP, which does not seek any particular distribution of such facilities

Policy CS14 safeguards existing waste sites for continued waste use, unlike the existing LP, (although the actual waste use on site could potentially change) thus reducing

need for new alternative sites. The earlier options review concluding that it could potentially have a minor benefit if the existing sites currently had an acceptable baseline situation.

olicy CS10 encourages extending, intensifying and re-developing existing waste sites;

ative impact on the existing living conditions and amenity baseline, but the significthis will depend upon the baseline at each site and along any affected road routes. It w

r, minimise the need for new sites and the potential adverse impacts andy at

Some local disturbance is assumed in relation to the Calvert site and supporting infrastructure (Policies CS11 and CS12) but, as identified in the option review, this is

mitigated to a degree by additional Core Strategy policies noted below.

icy CS13 provides for the identification of an alternative site or sites should an applicatiat Calvert not come forward; a contingency policy was not included in the BMWLP because

that plan did not make site-specific proposals for recovery capacity. The BMWLP does include criteria for evaluating sites that come forward for permission; but these include limited

consideration of amenity. The policy notes that site selection will take account of site and environmental factors in conformity with prevailing waste locational criteria, which are ntly set out in Annex E to Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 10 and could also be use

he list in Annex E includes a range sues, including impacts from dust, odours, vermin, noise and vibration, although impacts on

n spaces and economic impacts on land and premises in residential use are not direconsidered. However, Policy CS13 requires that proposals comply with relevant policies

contained in Section 5 of the Core Strategy, which includes those identified below.

The impacts of new waste sites on living conditions and amenity are moderated by Policy CS22, which states that applicants for new waste developments will be required to

demonstrate high quality design, including showing that pollution, for example in relation to noise, air and odour, has been minimised. This policy will help to minimise the adverse impacts from the required new facilities. In addition ‘saved’ Policy 28 from the BMWLP

sensitive receptors from a range of negative impacts on amenity, stating t

waste development proposals and will not grant planning permission for proposals which are ikely to generate significant adverse levels of disturbance, both near the site and on routes to

ration, dust, fumes, gases, odour, illuminati

Saved’ Policy 29 of the BMWLP requires adequate buffer zones, detailed in Supplementary

nning Guidance, between the proposed waste development and neighbouring existingproposed sensitive uses (defined above).

that enhance the environment, such as biodiversity enhancements, creating green spaces, ensuring the positive integration of developments with landscapes / townscapes and

maintaining or improving rights of way networks. There is no equivalent of this proactivepolicy in the BMWLP.

Summary: The increase in waste capacity required would result more sites being required nd / or sites being extended, potentially resulting, without mitigation, in negative impacts on

living conditions and amenity near such sites and on traffic routes. However, the Core Strategy’s polices seek to minimise any potential negative impacts on living conditions and menity from waste development, with some additions to previous BMWLP policy. Impactsspread across Buckinghamshire as a whole are therefore likely to be negligible, but there


SA Objective Assessment could be some localised issues. It should, however, be noted that, to a greater extent than the BMWLP, the Core Strategy also seeks high-quality design and restoration proposals,

fits for local people across a wwhich could have positive bene ider geographical area of the county. Significantly, the Core Strategy prevents the introduction of new non-hazardous waste landfill, with its associated negative amenity impacts. In addition, it is important to

re Strategy continues to facilitate the development essential e waste produced by Buckinghamshire’s residents, businesses

a f

R

R p

and amenity, both fr ted that, for waste sites, prevailing waste locational criteria might ot always include issues of relevance to living

e current PPS10 list is also not necessarily fully comprehensive, y additional considerations where necessary. It should,

however, be noted that all sites consider Minerals DPD and Waste DPD will be

recognise that the Coinfrastructure to deal with thnd other organisations, which the, which would have significant negative amenity impacts i

not adequately disposed of.

ecommendations:

RECOMMENDATION: Ensure the definition of ‘sensitive uses’ is clarified in the Minerals DPD to specifically include those working nearby who would be adversely impacted by

minerals development.

ECOMMENDATION: Any further site selection, whether for waste contingency sites or asart of the Waste DPD or Minerals DPD, should take account of impacts on living conditions

om sites and associated transport. It should be non

conditions and amenity. Thso should be supplemented b

ed for thesubjected to full testing and sustainability appraisal, thereby enabling their consideration

against a full range of sustainability objectives.

SA4: To avoid advimpacts on humhealth and

erse an

ensure ublic safety with

from levant sites or transport

ially cause by land

instability? D. Will activities on site be monitored?

Cu

tr

BMWLP. ociated ith new non-hazardous landfill, unlike the BMWLP, and continues to facilitate the development of essential waste management facilities, which are required to

e waste produced by Buckinghamshire’s residents, businesses and other organisations, which could oth ave significant negative health and

safety impacts for people liv working across the county. M

sit if su

P ill

Under Policy CS Demolition and Excavation (C&D) waste at minerals and landfill sites for a period not extending the life of the

pregard to minerals and

aste activities, wseeking positive benefits where possible. Decision-making criteria: A. Will there be a positive or negative impact on human health fromrelevant sites or transport routes? B. Will there be a positive or negative impact on public safetyreroutes?

. Will it potentCor be affected

mulative Impact: (M)

Although the Core Strategy envisages the need for increased minerals and waste development, which could, without mitigation, result in negative impacts on living

conditions and amenity at a local level near minerals and waste sites and on ansport routes, the Core Strategy’s polices and a strict regulatory and monitoring

regime ensure any such negative impacts are negligible, in common with the In addition, the Core Strategy prevents the negative impacts ass

w

process therwise hing and

inerals: N (M)

Health issues associated with minerals and waste development are set out in the Health

Topic Paper (TP10).

Impacts on human health and public safety from minerals sites and transport routes will depend upon the specific sites / areas selected. The Plan does not identify specific minerals

es – Preferred Areas will be identified later in the Minerals DPD. It should be noted that,ch sites were not provided within the county, the minerals would likely be sourced fromelsewhere, nationally or internationally, with unknown impacts on their local baseline.

olicy CS5 specifically requires that Preferred Areas for future sand and gravel extraction w

be selected to avoid significant adverse impacts upon the amenity and quality of life of local residents, which should minimise existing impacts. It also favours sites that offer more sustainable movements of materials and proximity to major roads thereby minimising emissions of transport-related air pollutants and reducing the use of more local roads.

6, proposals to recycle, store and transfer Construction,

site and for new or extended secondary aggregate production facilities would increase emissions to air locally and may increase the level of activity or intensity of use of particular

minerals sites. However, emissions to air generated by recycling and storage of inert materials that can be used as recycled aggregates are considered to be lower than emissions

to air associated with the winning of primary materials.


SA Objective Assessment Policy CS7 supports the transportation of aggregates by alternative means to road by the

N may affect human h rail and water may

reduce impacts from the transportation of minerals by road.

w r

In additio ge of negative impacts on amenity, that could also have impacts on human health, stating that ‘the

w land f sts’;

this would include both residents and those working in local businesses.

Alt

P s wo e

and tipping of mineral waste nitored to ensure that the operation and restoration of the site does not c e land instability. In addition, ‘saved’ Policy

n

fo o

The ce

enforcement action; this policy is due to eplaced with new policy as part of the

D and trict

Environm ch sites.

Summary: Although the Core Strategy could sult in increased minerals production, which ntially have negative health and safety implications, sufficient policy and regulatory

n place to ensure any gligible. The Core Strategy provides a similar level of protection to human ublic safety in relation to minerals

Was

composting and energy recovery ca ith the expected increase in waste tonnages generated in Buckinghamshire. This could, without mitigation, increase the potential fo

public safety.

safeguarding of existing rail aggregates depots and supporting the development of new rail and wharf aggregate depots, where they are located in proximity to the Primary Road

etwork and Strategic Inter-urban Corridors. New facilities in the vicinity of local communitiesealth and public safety. However, the increased use of

The impacts of new minerals workings on human health are also managed by Policy CS22 hich states that it must be demonstrated that emissions to air, together with noise and odoumust be minimised and that the transporting of materials must take into account proximity

issues, amenity, routing, vehicle choice and bulking.

n, ‘saved’ Policy 28 from the BMWLP protects sensitive receptors from a ran

County Council will protect the amenity of all those who may be affected by minerals and aste development proposals and will not grant planning permission for proposals which are

ikely to generate significant adverse levels of disturbance, both near the site and on routes to rom it, for noise, vibration, dust, fumes, gases, odour, illumination, litter, birds or pe

With regard to potential impacts on aviation safety, although the proposed Core Strategy

does not contain a specific policy on this issue, ‘saved’ Policy 34 from the current BMWLP sets out policies to ensure relevant aviation interests are consulted on planning applications.

This policy is due to be replaced by new policy in the forthcoming Minerals DPD.

hough no specific mention is given to land instability in the proposed Core Strategy (nor is there a specific policy in the current BMWLP), national planning policy (including Minerals

olicy Statement 1 and Planning Policy Guidance 14) recognise the potential for mineralrkings to cause land instability and require proposals for mineral extraction and the storag

to be designed and appropriately moreat

29 of the BMWLP requires buffer zones between proposed minerals development and eighbouring existing or proposed sensitive uses, which should help to prevent any potential

land instability problems; this policy is due to be replaced by subsequent policy in the rthcoming Minerals DPD. Minerals extraction / restoration can also potentially help t

improve any land instability issues.

proposed Core Strategy does not cover ongoing site monitoring to ensure complianwith planning conditions, but it does cover enforcement through Policy CS24, which cross

refers to BCC’s Planning Enforcement Protocol, which is currently being developed. ‘Saved’ Policy 39 from the current BMWLP details proposed site inspections and potential

be rforthcoming Minerals DPD. The regular monitoring of minerals sites takes place in accordance with the Council’s new Monitoring Framework (as agreed by the BCC

evelopment Control Committee in June 2010), which is consistent with relevant legislationGovernment guidance. It should also be noted that the Environment Agency and dis

ental Health teams also have powers to monitor pollution from su

recould pote

safeguards are i impact is ne healt and ph

development as the previous BMWLP policies being replaced.

te: (M)

Health issues associated with minerals and waste development are set out in the Health

Topic Paper (TP10).

As noted above, the Core Strategy provides for a significant increase in recycling, pacity, in line w

r impacts on human health and public safety at new or more intensively used sites, and inassociation with the transportation of increasing tonnages of waste. It should also be noted

that the increase in recycling and composting facilities also diverts waste from otherwise being used for energy recovery or landfill, which also have impacts on human health and

Localised site-based human health and public safety impacts will depend on the existing


SA Objective Assessment baseline at the actual sites chosen. Locations for the additional recycling and composting capacity will not be identified until the Waste DPD is developed. Transport-related impacts ould also depend upon the location of the sites chosen and the subsequent routes adopted

noted that, as stated in Policy CS15, no new landfill will be p

w .

It should be rovided in Buckinghamshire during the plan period as a significant proportion of waste will be diverted to

a

able to

receptors any particular distribution of such facilities.

Po g BMW the

have a minor bene health and public safety baseline which would not be y any waste use change.

routes. It will, however, minimise the need for new sites.

h t

in to

P

have only indirect rel t directly addressing the issue. The policy notes that site selection will take account of site and environmental

CStrategy, which includes those identified below.

r

p

In common with the BMWLP, waste water and sewage treatment works, which are essential

The impacts of new waste sites on pollutants that could impact upon human health and public sa n

re-use, recycling, composting and energy recovery. This would prevent any human health nd public safety impacts that would have been associated with new landfill, including from

dust, vermin and leachate. New landfill sites could have been located in various locations across the county (including in the Green Belt as fill material for minerals workings). This

policy is a significant change from current BMWLP policy. Existing permitted landfills will be continue operating over the Core Strategy period.


human health and air quality impacts will be similarly distributed. The earlier options review concluded that the policy would have a negligible impact if sites in proximity to sensitive

were avoided. There is no policy similar to this in the BMWLP, which does not seek

licy CS14 safeguards existing waste sites for continued waste use, unlike the existinLP, (although the actual waste use on site could potentially change) thus reducing

need for new alternative sites. The earlier options review concluded that it could potentially fit if the existing sites currently had an acceptable human

impacted b

Policy CS10 encourages extending, intensifying and re-developing existing waste sites; a similar policy does not appear in the BMWLP. This policy could result in a negative cumulative impact on the existing human health and public safety baseline, but the

significance of this will depend upon the baseline at each site and along any affected road

The review of the Calvert proposals finds it to have a minor negative impact upon human ealth and public safety due to the likely increase in transport-related emissions, although icould be neutral with mitigation. Impacts from emissions have been minimised through

cluding a requirement to build a new access road (CS12), encouraging rail transfer of waste Calvert as a longer term objective (CS11) and the monitoring and legislative control noted

below.

olicy CS13 provides for the identification of an alternative site or sites should an applicationat Calvert not come forward; a contingency policy does not appear in the BMWLP. The

BMWLP does include criteria for evaluating sites that come forward for permission, but these evance to human health and public safety, withou

factors in conformity with prevailing waste locational criteria, which are currently set out in Annex E to Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 10 and could also be used in site appraisal

under current BMWLP policies; the list in Annex E includes several of relevance to human health and public safety, although the issues are not directly considered. However, Policy S13 requires that proposals comply with relevant policies contained in Section 5 of the Core

However, it should be noted that the development of any new waste facilities, including for energy recovery, would be run in accordance with strict health and safety guidelines, with egulation and monitoring by the Environment Agency. Therefore, no adverse impacts on

human health would therefore be expected. The County Council monitoring and enforcement olicies and procedures noted above in relation to minerals sites also apply to waste sites.

infrastructure from a human health and public safety perspective, are expressly permitted through Policy CS17 where the need for new or extended facilities is identified within the county. Policy CS17 further states that they must, however, be compliant with ‘saved’

BMWLP and subsequent Waste DPD policies. In additional, any planning application will be considered against all relevant Plan policies, including these seeking the protection and

enhancement of a range of social, environmental and economic issues in Section 5.

fety are managed by Policy CS22, which states that it must be demonstrated that pollutiohas been minimised and that the transporting of materials must take into account residential amenity. In addition, ‘saved’ Policy 28 from the BMWLP protects sensitive receptors from a range of negative impacts on amenity, including noise, vibration, dust, fumes, gases, odour, illumination, litter, birds or pests, which could all have an impact on well-being and human

health.



Policy CS23 states directly that applications for waste developments must incorporate easures that enhance the environment, such as biodiversity enhancements, creating greenaces, ensuring the positive integration of developments with landscapes / townscapes and

ntaining or improving rights of way networks, which should help to enhance quality of lor local people and thus be beneficial to human health. There is no similarly proactive policy

in the BMWLP.

Summary: Although the Core Strategy would result in increased waste-related development, ave negative health and safety implicati

m sp mai ife f

which could potentially h ons without mitigation, sufficient policy and regulatory safeguards ar in place to ensure any impact is negligible.

tive enhancement measures are also sought. Significantly, the uction of w non-hazardous waste landfill, with its

as to

infrastructure to deal with the wa y

R

RECOMMENDATION: Any further site selection, whether for waste contingency sites or as rals DPD, should take account of impacts on human health

ustainability objectives.

eUnlike the BMWLP, proac

Core Strategy prevents the introd nesociated negative human health and public safety impacts. In addition, it is important

recognise that the Core Strategy continues to facilitate the development essential aste produced by Buckinghamshire’s residents, businesses

nd other organisations, which the, which would have significant negative health and safetimpacts if not adequately disposed of.

ecommendations:

RECOMMENDATION: Review whether a local land stability policy is required when developing the Minerals DPD.

RECOMMENDATION: Require Health Impact Assessment in association with planning

applications for any new waste management developments.

part of the Waste DPD or Mineand public safety, both from sites and associated transport. It should be noted that for waste

sites, prevailing waste locational criteria might not always continue to include issues of relevance to public health and safety. The current PPS10 list should be supplemented by

additional considerations where necessary. It should, however, be noted that all sites considered for the Minerals DPD and Waste DPD will need to be subjected to sppraisal, thereby enabling their consideration against a full range of sustainabilitya

SA5: To protect anenhance biodiversity and create new habita Decision-making criteria:

d

ts

. Are there any

that ay be affected? If

evel

. Is there any evidence that

pportunities for ing

te to cal BAP (Biodiversity

Action Plan) targets? E. Will there be any opportunities to create new habitats and/or green infrastructure of biodiversity value?

e: re site of both national designation located across the

uba Cum

A

m

mechanism of future potential im impacts on biodiversity may be generated in the very short term, associ with the development of individual

which habitats may be lost or species disturbed. However, suitable mitigation measures would be requ whilst important sites and species continue to be protected by poli ulation. In the medium to long

p

Minerals:

will be id rovided within the county, the minerals would likel be sourced from elsewhere, nationally or

Adesignated or non-statutory nature conservation sites mdesignated, to what l(European, national, local etc) is the designation? Bof protected species may be affected? C. Will there be any oenhancing or recoverwildlife resources? D. Will there be any potential to contribulo

Key Relevant BaselinThere ac

and local ounty. Pressures on habitats may increase with the rising population tilising sites and future increases in development. The biodiversity

seline is further detailed in the Spatial Context Topic Paper.

ulative Impact: (M)

lthough the Core Strategy envisages the need for increased minerals and wastedevelopment, negative impacts on biodiversity considered across

Buckinghamshire as a whole are likely to be negligible when taking account of itigation. Waste policy in particular helps to minimise the amount of new land

required for waste management, which is a very fundamental avoidance pacts. Negative

ated sites from

ired for such sites, and regcy

term (course of the plan and beyond), the new Core Strategy enhancement olicies are expected to have a positive effect on biodiversity, beyond that afforded

by the BMWLP.

(M)

Impacts on biodiversity from minerals sites and transport routes will depend upon the specific sites / areas selected. The Plan does not identify specific minerals sites – Preferred Areas

entified in the Minerals DPD. It should be noted that, if such sites were not py

internationally, with unknown impacts on their local baseline.



olicy CS5 includes the direct presumption against development that would adversely affectternationally or nationally designated environmental assets, including the effects of multiple

s in combination. Policy CS18 directly protects nationally designated habitats (SSSIs) an

P in site d

Policy CS19 affords protection to environmental assets of local importance; these provide

b t pr f

therefore continues to ensure that protected species and internationally designated sites

P po s to deliver biodiversity enhancements consistent with Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) targets

The P

difference to local wildlife and biodiversity, although impacts from climate change or other societal influences may mask certain bene gh performance indicators.

Summary: Without mitigation, negative impacts on biodiversity may be generated in the very , associated with the development of individual sites from which habitats may be ecies disturbed. However, as a suitable mitigation measures would be

required for such sites, and important sit cies continue to be protected by policy a

W


more in sites.

intensive . However, to) that have already been excavated for minerals, this policy will no vent the land disturbance associated with

prop ed biodiversity impacts. The earlier options revie ncluded that there could be minor positive

emi not

B need for new pacts of the

policy are likely be moderately positive effect on biodiversity as a result of this.

cumulative impact on the existing biodiversity eline, but the significance of this will depend

h

similar protection to that provided under the BMWLP (Policies 24 and 25).

As stated in supporting text to Policy CS18 and in national Planning Policy Statement 9 on iodiversity, protected species and internationally designated sites are already afforded thaotection under a range of legislative provisions and therefore specific policies in respect othese issues should not be included in local development documents. Existing legislation

specific to Buckinghamshire will not be significantly affected by minerals development.

olicy CS22 encourages proposals to take opportunities, where appropriate, to increase thetential for biodiversity. Policy CS23 requires that minerals developments take opportunitie

and take account of the priorities of the nearest Biodiversity Opportunity Areas; this may include on and off-site enhancements and link to wider Green Infrastructure objectives.

These proactive policies are new to the Core Strategy and do not appear In the BMWLP.

re are considerable opportunities as part of site restoration schemes to contribute to BAhabitats. In the long term, this cumulative habitat creation could make a substantial

fits as seen throu

short termlost or sp t present,

es a d spennd regulation. In the medium- to long-term (course of the plan and beyond) the new

proactive enhancement policies are expected to have a positive effect on biodiversity.

aste: (M)

composting and energy recovery capacity, in line with the expected increase in waste tonnages generated in Buckinghamshire. Without mitigation, this could to result in a

corresponding potential increase on impacts on existing biodiversity at new, extended or tensively used

Localised site based biodiversity impacts will depend on the existing baseline at the actual

sites chosen. Locations for the additional recycling and composting capacity will not be identified until the Waste DPD is developed.

Policy CS15 prevents the need for new non-hazardous landfill, which is particularly land-use

as landfill tends to fill ‘voids’ (as they are referred t pre

excavation.

Policy CS10 seeks to spread new recycling and composting capacity across the county in ortion to the waste produced by each district’s population, and thus any associat

w cobenefits from this policy from the likely use of more urban areas and reduced transport ssions that would result. There is no policy similar to this in the BMWLP, which does

seek any particular distribution of such facilities.

Policy CS14 safeguards existing waste sites for continued waste use, unlike the existing MWLP (although the actual waste use on site could potentially change) thus reducing the

alternative sites. The earlier options review concludes that the im

Policy CS10 encourages extending, intensifying and re-developing existing waste sites; a

similar policy does not appear in the BMWLP. This policy could result in a negative bas

upon the baseline at each site. It will, however, minimise the need for new sites which could ave otherwise had negative biodiversity impacts (perhaps worse than at existing sites, if


SA Objective Assessment direct habitat loss were to occur at greenfield sites) and could provide an opportunity to

enhance biodiversity at existing sites with current permissions.

The Calvert proposals review found that the habitat enhancements and mitigation through seeking on and off-site improvements through a range of policies would likely outweigh the

disturbance effects of waste development on the sites concerned in the longer term.

Policy CS13 provides for the identification of an alternative site or sites should an application at Calvert not come forward; a contingency policy does not appear in the BMWLP. The

BMWLP does include criteria for evaluating sites that come forward for permission; these provide protection for important biodiversity sites, but do not seek relevant enhancements.

T con to Planning Policy Statem praisal under current BMWLP policies; the list in Annex E includes ationally and nationally

p

In terms of protecting biodiversity, Policy CS18 directly protects nationally designated

bio t pro of

these issues sh ting legislation therefore ensures that protected species and internationally designated sites will not be

U

Summary: Without mitigation, negative impacts on biodiversity may be generated in the very the development of individual sites from which habitats may be

w Core Strate y policies specifically help to minimise the

RECOMMENDATION: Any further site selection, whether for contingency sites or as part of the Waste DPD

incl ed

a

he policy notes that site selection will take account of site and environmental factors informity with prevailing waste locational criteria, which are currently set out in Annex E

ent (PPS) 10 and could also be used in site ap the protection of intern

designated sites, but not local designations, and enhancement measures are not sought. However, Policy CS13 also requires that any contingent site is an existing site or a brownfield site, potentially reducing impacts on biodiversity, although brownfield sites can often support

protected species. In addition, Policy CS13 requires that proposals comply with relevant olicies contained in Section 5 of the Core Strategy, which includes those identified below.

habitats (SSSIs) and Policy CS19 affords protection to environmental assets of local importance, in common with BMWLP policies.

As stated in supporting text to Policy CS18 and in national Planning Policy Statement 9 on

diversity, protected species and internationally designated sites are already afforded thatection under a range of legislative provisions and therefore specific policies in respect

ould not be included in local development documents. Exis

significantly affected by minerals development.

nlike the BMWLP, Core Strategy Policies CS22 and CS23 also requires that new wastedevelopment must take opportunities to deliver biodiversity enhancements consistent with BAP targets, including wildlife corridors and taking into account the priorities of the nearest Biodiversity Opportunity Area. This may include on- and off-site enhancements and link to

wider Green Infrastructure objectives. Policies CS11 and CS12 regarding Calvert and associated supporting infrastructure require that opportunities for nature conservation

enhancement be maximised as part of the development.

short term, associated withlost or species disturbed. Ne g

amount of new land required for waste management facilities more proactively than previous BMWLP policies. In addition, suitable mitigation measures would be required for such sites and important sites and species have been protected by policy and regulation, in common

with the current situation under the BMWLP. In addition, in the medium to long term (course of the plan and beyond), the more proactive enhancement policies contained in the Core

Strategy are expected to have a positive effect on biodiversity, beyond that afforded by the BMWLP.

Recommendations:

or Minerals DPD, should take odiversity. It should be noted that, for waste sites, prevailing waste locational criteria might not always continue to

ude issues of relevance to biodiversity. The current PPS10 list should be supplementby additional considerations where necessary. It should, however, be noted that all sites

considered for the Minerals DPD and Waste DPD will need to be subjected to sustainability ppraisal, thereby enabling their consideration against a full range of sustainability objectives.

account of impacts on bi

SA6: To protect areas of archaeological importance and conserve and, where appropriate, enhance he histort ic

:

gh the Core Strategy envisages the need for increased minerals and waste ment, only minor negative impacts on archaeology and the historic nt would be expected whe d across Buckinghamshire as a

whole, due to potential damage asso ith minerals and waste development environment Decision-making criteria

Cumulative Impact: (M)

Althou

developenvironme n considere

ciat d weactivities. It is not possible to fully eliminate risk at this high level of assessment.

However, policy and legislation continue to seek to ensure that internationally,


SA Objective Assessment A. Are there any sites ofarchaeological importance that can be positively o

r negatively ffected?

be y

ffected?

C. Are there any listed buildings that can be positively or negatively affected? D. Are there any conservation areas that can be positively or negatively affected?

n

Im s wil e im re Strategy does n dentified in the

Minerals DPD. It

Policy CS5 includes the dire that would adversely affect

affords p t, in the

It is unknown whether without the Core Strat y, lack of an increase in minerals provision lead to sourcing minerals from f her afield to meet demand, and thus lead to

similar risks of impacts on heritage assets nationally or internationally.

Summary: Although minerals development has the potential to cause damage to heritage asse the life e lik s

increase the risk of damage to h

ton a corresponding p

chosen, however there remains a r which needs to be the subject of

ongoing a

a B. Are there any historic landscapes that can positively or negativela

ationally and locally important heritage assets are protected. Core Strategy policyalso seeks relevant enhancements where possible, and future measures taken at

the development stage may be able to avoid, minimise and/or offset impacts.

Minerals: (M)

pacts on archaeology and the historic environment from minerals sites and transport routel depend upon the specific sites / areas selected, however there remains a risk of negativpacts which needs to be the subject of ongoing awareness and management. The Co

ot identify specific minerals sites – Preferred Areas will be ishould be noted that, if such sites were not provided within the county, the

minerals would likely be sourced from elsewhere, nationally or internationally, with unknown impacts on their local baseline.

ct presumption against development

internationally or nationally designated environmental assets, which later policies state to include heritage assets. In common with the BMWLP, Policy CS18 directly confers the protection of internationally and nationally designated heritage assets, and Policy CS19

rotection to heritage assets of local importance. Policy CS19 states thavicinity of locally important assets where development is permitted, impacts must be

minimised, mitigated and compensated where necessary.

Policy CS23 requires proposals for minerals development to address how they have taken account of the Landscape Character Assessments and conservation areas and appraisals, as appropriate, in their proposed enhancement measures, which is a more proactive policy

than that contained in the BMWLP. eg

would simply urt

ts, particularly through excavation and visual impacts (the latter particularly though of the works), the policies included in the Core Strategy continue to seek to minimise thelihood of damage to international, national and local heritage assets. Potential impact

will, however, depend upon the specific areas selected for minerals working in the Minerals DPD, but the increase in the amount of mineral provided for within the Core Strategy will

eritage assets.

Waste: (M)


composting and energy recovery capacity, in line with the expected increase in waste nages generated in Buckinghamshire. Without mitigation, this could result in

otential increase on impacts on the historic environment at new, extended or more intensively used sites.

Localised site based heritage impacts will depend on the existing baseline at the actual sites

isk of negative impactswareness and management. Locations for the additional recycling and composting

capacity will not be identified until the Waste DPD is developed.

Policy CS15 prevents the need for new non-hazardous landfill, which is particularly land-use intensive However, as landfill sites fill sites that have already been excavated for minerals,

this policy will not prevent the land disturbance associated with excavation


heritage impacts. The earlier options review that this policy is unlikely to have any notable impacts on heritage.


BMWLP, (although the actual waste use on site could potentially change) thus reducing the need for new alternative sites. The earlier options review concludes that the impacts of this policy are likely to be a moderately positive effect on the historic environment, particularly as

it would prevent alternative, potentially less disturbed sites being required.


SA Objective Assessment P

im

Policy CS13 prov ld an application at Calvert not come forward; a contingency olicy does not appear in the BMWLP. The

s

fac in

n requires that any contingent site is an ex or a brownfield site, potentially reducing impacts on the historic environment compared to the use of a greenfield site. In addition,

P

Although some disturbance to the historic environment may occur with any development, u

permissible when the benefi eigh the harm to the asset. Policy CS19 affords protection to heritage assets of local importance. The policies therefore

posals for waste development to address how they have taken er Assessm and conservation areas and appraisals,

Summ se

i

s

RECOMMENDATION: Area Statement for Ca ert should require protection of, or where not effects on the Listed Building on site. Consideration of its future -term maintena ld be incorporated into proposals.

cosh ill

olicy CS10 encourages extending, intensifying and re-developing existing waste sites; asimilar policy does not appear in the BMWLP. This policy could result in a negative

cumulative impact on the existing heritage baseline, but the significance of this will depend upon the baseline at each site. It will, however, minimise the need for new sites.

The only notable concern identified in the Calvert proposals review related to potential

pacts on the Listed Building that exists on the Calvert site, as the impact upon its setting isuncertain; a relevant recommendation is set out below. In addition, in common with other

sites, there is the potential for disturbance to buried archaeology, but this concern would be equally applicable if the land was excavated and subsequently used for landfill.

ides for the identification of an alternative site or sites shou

pBMWLP does include criteria for evaluating sites that come forward for permission; these

eek to protect both nationally and locally important sites, but enhancement opportunities are not sought. The policy notes that site selection will take account of site and environmental

tors in conformity with prevailing waste locational criteria, which are currently set outAnnex E to Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 10 and could be used in site appraisal under current BMWLP policies; the list in Annex E includes the protection of internationally and

ationally designated sites, but not sites of local importance. However, Policy CS13 alsoisting site

olicy CS13 requires that proposals comply with relevant policies contained in Section 5 ofthe Core Strategy, which includes those identified below.

nder the Core Strategy, there is a presumption in favour of the conservation of designatedand undesignated heritage assets. Policy CS18 directly confers the protection of nationally

designated heritage assets and adverse impacts on heritage assets would only be ts of the development clearly outw

seek to protect areas of archaeological importance, in common with previous BMWLP policies.

Policy CS22 requires that the design of building and structures for waste development is sensitive in massing and scale to the surrounding environment, particularly in respect of

locations within or adjoining settlements or designated areas.

Policy CS23 requires proaccount of the Landscape Charact ents as appropriate, in their proposed enhancement measures, which is a more proactive stance

than that taken by the BMWLP.

ary: Although, without mitigation, wa te development has the potential to causdamage to heritage assets, particularly through excavation for building works and visual

mpacts, the policies included in the Core Strategy seek to minimise the likelihood of damageto national and local heritage assets. Potential impacts will, however, depend upon the

pecific areas selected for waste sites in the Waste DPD, but there remains some inevitable potential for damage to heritage features from the additional development required.

Recommendations: lv

possible, minimise adverseoccupation and long nce shou

RECOMMENDATION: Any further site selection, whether for contingency sites or as part of the Waste DPD or Minerals DPD, should take account of impacts on heritage. It should be noted that, for waste sites, prevailing waste locational criteria might not always continue to include issues of relevance to heritage. The current PPS10 list is also not necessarily fully mprehensive, so should be supplemented by additional considerations where necessary. It ould, however, be noted that all sites considered for the Minerals DPD and Waste DPD w

need to be subjected to sustainability appraisal, thereby enabling their consideration against a full range of sustainability objectives.

SA7: To protect and

y,

Core Strategy envisages the need for increased minerals and waste , only minor negative impa nd geology would be expected

when considered across Buckingham s a whole, due to potential damage

seek to improve soil resources and qualitand protect and enhance sites of geological interest

Cumulative Impact: (L)

Although the

development cts on soils ashire a


SA Objective Assessment Decision-making

. Will it increase or

criteria:

ve lity,

cluding agricultural soils? C. Will it involve development on previously used land? D. Will there be a positive or negative impact on sites designated for their geological importance? If so, what is the level of their designation?

improvement. Habit over the

m

los n

a

could potentially y. ‘Saved’ P

d

require the use of previously developed land, but n anning policy already includes a

impacts on nationally

It should be noted that, if such sites were not ovided within the county, the minerals would likely be sourced from elsewhere, nationally o nationally, with unknown impacts on their

local baseline.

: Minerals development has the potential to damage both soil resources and sites of geological interest across Buckinghamshire. Policy seeks to minimise impacts by

protecting nationally and regionally importan geological sites, the latter not having been previ with hig o

risk of damage to ological assets.

Adecrease land contamination? B. Will it impact upon good quality soil resources? Will it improor degrade soil quain

associated with minerals and waste development activities. However, Core Strategy policy seeks to ensure that nationally and, unlike the BMWLP, locally

important geological sites are protected and the sites with higher-quality soils are avoided. Although Core Strategy policy continues to seek to return soils to a

suitable standard, there remains no clear policy steer seeking soil quality at creation can lead to ecosystems which benefit soils

long term.

Minerals: (L)

There are no specific policies on preventing land contamination from minerals activities in the

proposed Core Strategy. However, national planning policy, including Minerals Policy Statement 2 and Planning Policy Statement 23, seek to minimise land contamination from

development. The Environment Agency also monitors polluting activities. In addition, onitoring of planning conditions is undertaken by the County Council in accordance with

their new Monitoring Framework, as detailed in relation to SA4 above.

Policies CS1, CS2, CS3, CS4, CS5, CS6 and CS7 all promote the development of minerals sites or extensions to existing sites to meet the county’s minerals needs. Therefore the excavation of new minerals sites in typically rural or urban-fringe areas can result in the ses of soil resources. The exact level of impact will depend on the sites / areas selected i

the Minerals DPD at a later date.

National policy in Planning Policy Statement 7 and Minerals Policy Statement 1 require that, if gricultural land has to be used, poorer-quality land should be used where possible, with highstandards of restoration required. Supporting text to proposed Core Strategy Policy CS5

states that agricultural value will be considered when selecting Preferred Areas in the Minerals DPD. National minerals planning policy contains detailed requirements and guidance that aim, as far as possible, to ensure that high-quality agricultural soils are

returned to their pre-development condition, with poorer-quality soils returned to a condition fit for the proposed post-restoration land use; this guidance is echoed in BCC’s existing

Supplementary Planning Guidance. Policy CS22 of the proposed Core Strategy requires restoration for minerals proposals to consider including ‘wider ecosystem services’, which

include soils, although this is not clear from the Core Strategolicy 31 requires the restoration of sites to an appropriate use, including agriculture, but no

direct mention is made to expectations of soil quality. Policy therefore steers minerals evelopment away from best and most versatile agricultural land where possible, and seeks to ensure previous soil quality is maintained as far as possible, but, in common with the

BMWLP, there is no clear policy steer to suggest that opportunities will be sought to improvesoil quality, although this may be a detailed matter to be covered in the Minerals DPD.

Although minerals development is not generally undertaken on previously used land, it is a

temporary activity, so should be returned to a suitable condition after excavation. Policies for more permanent minerals structures in (part of Policies CS6 and CS7) do not specifically

ational plpreference for locating development on previously used land.

Policy CS18 protects Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), which confer protection to nationally important geological sites, in common with existing BMWLP policy. Policy CS19 protects sites of local importance, including Regionally Important Geological Sites (RIGS), which are not included within the BMWLP. Policy CS5 gives priority to the extensions of

existing sites where it is environmentally acceptable and directly requires the avoidance of designated environmental assets, which would include geological sites.

prr inter

Summary

t ously protected through BMWLP policy, and steering development away from sites

h-grade soils. Although policy seeks to return site soils to a suitable standard, there is nclear policy steer seeking soil quality improvements, in common with the previous BMWLP. The increase in the amount of mineral provided for within the Core Strategy will increase the

soils and ge



Waste: (L)

provides for As noted above, the Core Strategy a significant increase in recycling,

be identified until the Waste DPD is developed.

Policy CS10 seeks to spread new recycli mposting capacity across the county In

im e

need for new alternative sites such as g The earlier options review concludes

Policy CS13 provides should an application

criteria, which are currently set ou Statement (PPS) 10 and

p

In I), w f loc

The Core Strategy therefo logical importance in the

With regard to soland has to be used, poore

composting and energy recovery capacity, in line with the expected increase in waste tonnages generated in Buckinghamshire. Without mitigation, this is likely to result in a

corresponding potential increase on impacts on soils and geology at new or more intensively used sites.

Localised site-based impacts on soils and geology will depend on the existing baseline at the actual sites chosen. Locations for the additional recycling and composting capacity will not

Policy CS15 prevents the need for new non-hazardous landfill, which is particularly land-use intensive. However, as landfill tends to fill ’voids’ (as they are referred to) that have already

been excavated for minerals, this policy will not prevent the land disturbance associated with excavation

ng a d con

proportion to the waste produced by each district’s population, and thus any associated pacts on soils and geology. The earlier options review concludes that the policy could hav

a minor positive benefit as it likely to result in more facilities being built on brownfield sites in more populated areas, preventing some disturbance of higher quality soils and geological

features. There is no policy similar to this in the BMWLP, which does not seek any particular distribution of such facilities.


BMWLP, (although the actual waste use on site could potentially change) thus reducing the reen fie d sites.l

that the impacts of this policy are likely to be a moderately positive effect on soils and geology, as it reduces the need for alterative new and potentially undisturbed sites to be

utilised.

Policy CS10 encourages extending, intensifying and re-developing existing waste sites; a similar policy does not appear in the BMWLP. This policy could result in a negative

cumulative impact on the existing soil and geology baseline, but the significance of this will depend upon the baseline at each site. It will, however, minimise the need for new sites and

supports the re-use of previously developed land.

The Calvert proposals review identifies that the new facilities will result in soil losses from increased developed footprints, although these could be minimised through site planning and

management.

for the identification of a alternative site or sites nat Calvert not come forward; a contingency policy does not appear in the BMWLP. The

BMWLP does include criteria for evaluating sites that come forward for permission; however, it only seeks to protect nationally, and not regionally, important geological sites, nor soils, and enhancement opportunities are also not sought. The policy notes that site selection will take

account of site and environmental factors in conformity with prevailing waste locational t in Annex E to Planning Policy

could also be used in site appraisal under current BMWLP policies; the list in Annex E includes the protection of nationally designated sites, including SSSIs which can be

designated for geology, but not sites of local importance, nor soils. However, Policy CS13 also requires that any contingent site is an existing site or a brownfield site, minimising the otential for undisturbed soils to be developed as part of waste sites. In addition, Policy CS13

requires that proposals comply with relevant policies contained in Section 5 of the Core Strategy, which includes those identified below.

common with the BMWLP, Policy CS18 protects Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSShich confer protection to nationally important geological sites. Policy CS19 protects sites oal importance, including Regionally Important Geological Sites (RIGS), unlike the BMWLP.

re seeks to protect more sites of geocounty than the BMWLP.

ils, national policy in Planning Policy Statement 7 requires that, if agricultural

r-quality land shoul used where possible, thus protecting high-d be quality soils. Policy CS22 of the proposed Core Strategy requires restoration for waste

proposals to consider including ‘wider ecosystem services’, which could potentially include soils, although this is not clear from the Core Strategy. ‘Saved’ Policy 31 requires the

restoration of sites to an appropriate use, including agriculture, but no direct mention is made


SA Objective Assessment to t

and most versatile agricul no clear policy steer to suggest that opportunities will be sought to prove soil quality, although this may be a

ered in the Waste DPD. The Core Strategy policies on soils are similar to those under the BMWLP.

development of new faci e impacts by protecting

R RECOMMENDATION: Policy wor e Minerals DPD and Waste DPD to require that good-quality soil resources are appropriately protected and managed, and that

y is improved as part of any restoration scheme.

RECOMMENDATION: Policy wording is r ed in the Minerals DPD and Waste DPD to require th

R

expectations of soil quality. Policy therefore steers minerals development away from bestural land where possible, but there is

imdetailed matter to be cov

It should also be noted that BCC’s existing detailed Supplementary Planning Guidance will continue to be enforced, which also covers the preservation of soils removed for minerals

excavation and their return after landfilling.

Summary: Waste development has the potential, without mitigation, to damage both soil resources and sites of geological interest across the Buckinghamshire as part of the

lities. Core Strategy policy seeks to minimisnationally and, unlike the BMWLP, regionally important geological sites and steering

development away from sites with high-grade soils. Although policy seeks to return site soils to a suitable standard, in common with the BWMLP, there remains no clear policy steer

seeking soil quality improvement.

ecommendations:

ding is recommended in th

soil qualit

ecommendat an Environmental Management System (EMS) should be used for each site to

help to minimise the likelihood of pollution.

ECOMMENDATION: Any further site selection, whether for contingency sites or as part ofthe Waste DPD or Minerals DPD, should take account of impacts on soils and geology. It should be noted that, for waste sites, prevailing waste locational criteria might not always

continue to include issues of relevance to geology. The current PPS10 list should be supplemented by additional considerations where necessary. It should, however, be noted that all sites considered for the Minerals DPD and Waste DPD will need to be subjected to

sustainability appraisal, thereby enabling their consideration against a full range of sustainability objectives.

SA8: To conserve and enhance the quality and

istinctivd eness of

B

. Will it have a positive

or uch as of

oth character and visual

B. Will it have an effect on Green Belt (e.g. maintaining extent, openness) that will impact positively or negatively upon the landscape? C. Will there be any opportunities to create green infrastructure of landscape and/or townscape value?

Cu

e Core Strategy envisages the need for increased minerals and waste

development, only townscapes would be expected when consid re as a whole, due to the

potential visual impact asso ste development activities.

p

M

I upon the specific sites / areas select Strategy does not identify specific

minerals sites – Preferred Areas will be ident PD. It should be noted that ed fr .

secured. Restoration could, in the es and townscapes, but that will depend on the nature and quality of the base minerals development a

landscapes and townscapes, in particular the AON Decision-making criteria: Aor negative impact onlandscapes or townscapes of national local importance, sthe AONB in terms bimpact?

mulative Impact: (L)

Although thminor negative impacts on landscapes and

ered across Buckinghamshiciated with mi als and waner

Negative impacts are likely to be most significant in close proximity to sites, articularly larger facilities that are harder to blend into the landscape even with

mitigation, although impacts will depend upon the size of facility and local topography. The need for new non-hazardous landfill sites, with associated visual

impacts, will however be prevented as a result of policy decisions. Additionally, Core Strategy policy continues to seek to ensure that nationally and locally important areas are protected, visual impacts minimised and enhancements

sought where possible.

inerals: (L) – in the short and medium term

N (L) – in the long term

mpacts on landscapes and townscapes from minerals sites and transport routes will depended. The Core

ified in the Minerals D, if such sites were not provided within the county, the minerals would likely be sourc

om elsewhere, nationally or internationally, with unknown impacts on their local baseline

The nature of minerals working is such that visual impacts could be significant, although they are likely to be temporary to the life of the minerals workings, but only if suitable restoration is

ory, enhance landscapline landscape prior to

gainst the landscape’s status post-restoration. It is not possible, however, to guarantee a


SA Objective Assessment net benefit at the SA level of assessment.

Policies CS3 and CS21 support the continuation of the Chiltern brick industry, in common

with previous BMWLP policy. The industry produces materials that contribute to the hire’s landscaarchitectural character of Buckinghams pe and townscape in particular within the AONB.

environm in or in conflict with the objectives of the Chilterns AONB. Policy CS21 stipulates that any minerals

b

imp als

affected, in comm that is judged to affect locally important landscapes, impacts must be minimised by adequate mitigation

In l its m

Ne y

new landscaping and tree planting areas d that developments must be integrated into the adjoining landscape or townscape her to this, Policy CS23 stipulates that

s for minerals developments must demonstrate how the design and layout of the and pl emes, will ensure the positive integration

of the site within the wider landscape o account the Landscape Character Assessments an

minerals can only be excavate which that naturally occur. In

d

this should from the increased numbe

W

A , composting and energy recovery capacity, line with the expected increase in waste

L

pr

be utilised to minimise impacts on m There is no policy similar to this in the BMWLP, which does not seek any articular distribution of such facilities.

PBMW the

Policy CS5 supports extensions to existing sand and gravel sites where these are

entally acceptable and directly requires that locations are avoided with

proposals located within or that conflict with the objectives of the AONB designation will not e permitted. These policies provide similar protection to the AONB to that provided through

the existing BMWLP.

Policy CS5 also requires that significant impacts on nationally designated environmental assets, which include landscapes, are avoided, and that consideration is given to cumulative

acts from multiple or successive minerals workings. Policy CS19 stipulates that minerdevelopment would not be permitted where locally important landscapes are significantly

on with the BMWLP. Where development is permitted

measures.

ine with national policy and in common with existing BMWLP policy, Policy CS20 permineral extraction within the Green Belt as it is considered temporary development, although

any applications would need to meet other plan policy requirements.

w proactive policies on design and enhancement have been added to the Core Strategthat were not in the previous BMWLP. Policy CS22 requires that opportunities to provide

be taken an. Furt

proposaldevelopment, including restoration anting sch

, taking intd areas, and conservation areas and appraisals, as well as contributing to

the Buckinghamshire Green Infrastructure Strategy.

Summary: Although minerals developments are generally temporary, without mitigation they can have a potentially significant visual impact on landscapes and townscapes. However,

d from the limited area incommon with the BMWLP, the Core Strategy policy seeks to protect locally and nationally esignated areas and minimise impacts on landscapes and townscapes. In addition, positivedesign measures seek to mitigate any impacts and enhancements sought where possible;

help to minimise any negative landscape and townscape impactsr and/or size of sites envisaged by the Core Strategy to meet the required

landbank.

aste: (L)

s noted above, the Core Strategy provides for a significant increase in recycling

intonnages generated in Buckinghamshire. Without mitigation, this could result in a

corresponding potential increase on impacts on landscapes and townscapes at new or more intensively used sites.

ocalised site based impacts on landscapes and townscapes will depend on the existing

baseline at the actual sites chosen. Locations for the additional recycling and composting capacity will not be identified until the Waste DPD is developed.

Policy CS10 seeks to spread new recycling and composting capacity across the county in

oportion to the waste produced by each district’s population, and thus any associatedimpacts on landscapes and townscapes. The earlier options review highlights the potential impacts of this policy on landscapes and townscapes, concluding that it could have a minor positive benefit, depending upon the extent to which more urban and developed areas could

ore rural landscapes. p

olicy CS14 safeguards existing waste sites for continued waste use, unlike the existing LP, (although the actual waste use on site could potentially change) thus reducing

need for new alternative sites. The earlier options review highlights several potential impacts of this policy on landscapes and townscapes, concluding that it could have a minor positive


SA Objective Assessment effect if existing sites currently had an acceptable baseline impact on landscapes and

acted by any waste utownscapes which would not be imp se change, as it reduces the need for alterative new sites in potentiall e scenic settings to be utilised.

P

cu of

sit

su e o

contributes to the o distinctiveness of landscapes will depend upon the implementation of the provisions of Policy CS23 and Policy

P

sought. Policy e Green Belt and the Chilterns AONB. The policy notes that site selection will take account of site and

c

Policy CS13 also requires that any contingent site is an existing site or a brownfield site, potentially reducing impacts on landscape nscapes. In addition, Policy CS13

lo . T

be able to continue operating er the Core Strategy period.

In terms of conserving and enhancing landsc es and townscapes, Policy CS23 stipulates

de ll

proa ent w

w Green Belt. P sites under

Policy CS13 to be developed in Green Belt as very special circumstances. This represents a

Belt can in turn have landscape implications.

P

y mor


mulative impact on the existing landscape and townscape baseline, but the significance this will depend upon the baseline at each site. It will, however, minimise the need for new es and could provide an opportunity to enhance the visual appearance of existing sites with

current permissions.

Policy CS11 promotes the development of a SWC at Calvert. Although Calvert is an existing waste site, a SWC is likely to be a significant feature in the landscape. The Policy also

requires that opportunities to integrate development successfully into the site and rrounding landscape are taken. However, the Calvert proposals review concludes that thverall impacts on the landscape are unclear. The extent to which Policy CS11 ultimately

bjective to conserve and enhance the quality and

CS19, noted below.

olicy CS13 provides for the identification of an alternative site or sites should an applicationat Calvert not come forward; a contingency policy does not appear in the BMWLP. The

BMWLP does include criteria for evaluating sites that come forward for permission; these seek to protect landscapes and townscapes of importance, but enhancements are not

CS13 specifically prioritises to identify sites that are beyond th

environmental factors in conformity with prevailing waste locational criteria, which are urrently set out in Annex E to Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 10 and could also be used in

site appraisal under current BMWLP policies; the list in Annex E includes visual intrusion and the protection of nationally designated sites, but not sites of local importance. However,

s and towrequires that proposals comply with relevant policies contained in Section 5 of the Core

Strategy, which includes those identified below.

It should be noted that, as stated in Policy CS15, no new landfill will be provided in Buckinghamshire during the plan period as a significant proportion of waste will be diverted to

re-use, recycling, composting and energy recovery. This would prevent any visual impacts that would have been associated with new landfill, which could have been located in various cations across the county (including in the Green Belt as fill material for minerals workings)his policy is a significant change from current BMWLP policy. Existing permitted landfills will

ov

Policy CS12 stipulates that development proposals for waste transfer sites must respect the character of the Chilterns AONB, in which they are both located, and take opportunities to

protect landscape character and integrate the development into the surrounding landscape. However, the Calvert option review concludes that the overall impacts on the landscape are

unclear. ap

that proposals for new waste sites must demonstrate how the design and layout of the velopment will ensure the positive integration of the site within the wider landscape as we

as contributing to the Buckinghamshire Green Infrastructure strategy, which represents more ctive policy than that under the BMWLP. Policy CS19 stipulates that waste developm

ould not be permitted where locally important landscapes are significantly affected, in linewith current BMWLP policy. It allows for exceptions to be made when it can be demonstrated

that impacts will be minimised through mitigation or appropriate compensation measures (improvements in other locations to off-set impacts that cannot be mitigated) put in place.

Policy CS20 states that waste management facilities in Green Belt would only be permitted here it can be demonstrated that there are no suitable alternatives in the county outside the

olicy CS20 allows infrastructure to support Calvert and contingent

continuation of current BMWLP policy. However, it should be noted that Green Belt land is not necessarily of high landscape value, although impacts upon the openness of the Green

olicy CS21 stipulates that any waste proposals that conflict with the objectives of the AONB

will not be permitted. However, the new Waste Tansfer Stations required to support the delivery of Policy CS11 would be permissible in the AONB, in recognition of their necessity,

as long as the proposals are appropriate in scale and design in line with the current restrictions on permission for Waste Transfer Stations in the AONB under the BMWLP.


SA Objective Assessment Policy CS21 also allows for waste management facilities in or adjoining the Chilterns AONB to be provided under the circumstances that they meet local recycling or composting needs

and do not compromise the quality of the AONB; this could potentially allow for more of such ONB than under more restrictive BWMLP policy. However, the

n states that facilities that meet local needs can be provided

g to blend into the landscape, even with mitigation. However, the cross the count be relative small, they help to prevent

the need for new landfill sites across ch has visual impacts of its own, and actual visual impacts would depend upon the site baseline. In common with the BMWLP,

Cor se impa ible.

R

TION: Any further site selection, whether for contingency sites or as part of DPD or Minerals DPD, sho ccount of impacts on landscapes and

townscapes. It should be noted that, for waste sites, prevailing waste locational criteria might not always continue to include issues of relevance to landscapes and townscapes. The

cu y

appraisal, thereby enabling their consider st a full range of sustainability objectives.

facilities to be built in the AChilterns AONB Management Pla

within the AONB; in addition, Core Strategy Policy CS21 states that facilities would not be permitted where they conflicted with the objectives of the AONB.

Policy CS22 requires that the massing and scale of waste developments must be sensitive to the surrounding environment, particularly in areas within or adjacent to the AONB and Green

Belt.

Summary: Without mitigation, waste development can have a potentially significant visual impact on landscapes and townscapes,; this is particularly so for the larger facilities that

would be more challenginnumber of large facilities a y is likely to

the county, whi

e Strategy policy seeks to protect locally and nationally designated areas and minimicts on landscapes and townscapes, with positive enhancements sought where poss

ecommendations:

RECOMMENDA

the Waste uld take a

rrent PPS10 list is also not necessarily fully comprehensive, so should be supplemented badditional considerations where necessary. It should, however, be noted that all sites

considered for the Minerals DPD and Waste DPD will need to be subjected to sustainability ation again

SA9: To avoid the

f ary

aterials Decision-making criteria: A. Will it facilitate an increase in the level of waste materials reused, recycled and/or composted? B, Will it avoid the wasteful use of natural resources? C. Will it encourage the use of alternatives to primary materials?

beneficial impact on avoiding the w eful use of natural resources and

M

The Core Strategy has to include policies that provide for the primary minerals landbank by the Government. Policies CS1 and CS2 safeguard those resources to ensure

wasted through sterilisatio with policies contained in the previous

P

De of a p

li

S

(H)

e

wasteful use of natural resources and to encourage the use olternatives to prima

m


The Core Strategy should, through a range of new policies, have a highly

astencouraging the use of alternatives to primary minerals when considered across

Buckinghamshire as a whole, as this is part of the core focus of the plan.

inerals: N (M)

stipulatedthey are not n, in common

BMWLP.

olicy CS6 directly encourages the use of alternative materials to primary resources throughsupporting the location of temporary recycling, storage and transfer of Construction,

molition and Excavation (C&D) waste at minerals and landfill sites over the permitted life site. It also supports extensions to existing permanent inert waste recycling facilities for theroduction of secondary aggregates. Policy CS6 replaces a similar policy within the BMWLP.

It should be noted that, if such sites were not provided within the county, the minerals would kely be sourced from elsewhere, nationally or internationally, with unknown impacts on their

local baseline.

ummary: The Core Strategy therefore continues to seek to avoid wasteful use of minerals resources and to facilitate the use of alternatives to primary minerals, in common with

previous BMWLP policies.

Waste:

As noted above, the Core Strategy provides for a significant increase in the tonnages of

waste (and percentages) recycled and composted, as detailed in Policy CS9. Facilities to nable re-use will also be available at some of the new, and existing, local waste sites.


SA Objective Assessment Policy CS10 seeks to spr city across the county in proportion to the waste produced by each district’s population. The earlier options review

Policy CS14 safeguards e e use, unlike the existing

BMWLP, (although the actual waste use on site could potentially change) thus reducing the

m

In a significant change from the existing BMWLP, the Core Strategy does not make provision f

Strategic Waste Complex at Calvert that favo rs delivery of a range of waste management to re-process bottom ash if any is produced on site, which could be utilised as a secondary aggregate.

Policy CS8 requires that planning applica projects are supported

m of secon re is no

I

re f

ead new recycling and composting capa

highlights that this policy should have a moderately beneficial impact, encouraging capacity to be added nearer to communities that produce the waste, facilitating increased levels of recycling and composting. There is no policy similar to this in the BMWLP, which does not

seek any particular distribution of such facilities.

xisting waste sites for continued wast

need for new alternative sites. The earlier options review highlights that this could have a inor beneficial effect by potentially ensuring the continued provision of local waste facilities,

thus helping to maximise participation in sustainable waste management.

or the development of new non-hazardous landfill and supports the diversion of much of thewaste that would otherwise be landfilled to an energy recovery facility, thus gaining energy

from waste that would otherwise be buried. Policy CS11 seeks the development of a u

facilities, including a facility

tions for large construction

by waste audits to demonstrate how construction, demolition and excavation waste will be minimised, reused, recycled or recovered. The use of site waste management plans and

aterials management plans directly promote the re-use of materials in schemes and the usedary materials as alternatives to the procurement of primary materials. The

similar policy in the current BMWLP.

n addition, unlike the current BMWLP, Core Strategy Policy CS22 requires compliance withthe principles of sustainable design and construction, with supporting text making specific

reference to the use of tools such as BREEAM, which includes several measures that seek the efficient use of natural resources in areas such as energy and materials.

Summary: The Core Strategy therefore seeks to avoid wasteful use of a range of natural sources and to facilitate the use of alternatives to primary minerals, through a wide range o

policies, many of which are new to the Core Strategy and not found in the BMWLP.

SA10: To protect waterresources and seek to improve water qualit

y

be an creases or decrease in

water quality (e.g. through the discharge of pollutants of water)? B. Will there be an increase or decrease in water consumption from facilities? C. Will it have a positive or negative effect on waterbodies and Water Framework Directive objectives? D. Will there be a positive or negative impact on water flow?

Cu

The increase in minerals and waste deve pment envisaged by the Core Strategy tially result in an increase in the number of water pollution risks to be

managed at new, extended o ntensively used sites across Buckinghamshire, although policies d ent the need for more landfill with its

lik ’s polices see y or water

long-term aver ement

M

Impacts on water resources (surface and grou dwater) and water quality from minerals sites a

In common with the previous BMWLP, Policy S7 encourages the development of river or

Decision-making criteria: A. Will there in

mulative Impact:

(L) lo

could potenr more io p evr

associated leachate management requirement and pollution risk. Even well managed risks can lead to pollution incidents (e.g. through vehicle accidents or equipment failure, or other emergency), and these are both extremely rare, and ewise unpredictable in terms of timing and extent of impact. The Core Strategy

k to minimise any potential negative impacts on water qualitresources, together with the permitting, monitoring and enforcement processes that are in place, as a result of which, impacts should be negligible. Overall, the

age rate or extent of poll n incidents from waste managutiowould not be expected to increase significantly as a result of the Core Strategy.

Alternatively, it may decrease as a result of the lack of new landfill sites and gradual neutralisation of existing risks in the long term. Policies also seek wider water body enhancements, which could provide longer-term benefits across a

wider area.

inerals: (L)

n

nd transport routes will depend upon the specific sites / areas selected. The Core Strategydoes not identify specific minerals sites – Preferred Areas will be identified in the Minerals DPD. The small increase in minerals excavation envisaged by the Core Strategy could,

without mitigation, put added pressure on the water environment. C


SA Objective Assessment canal based wharf facilities and may therefore directly affect waterbodies.

In terms of water-related protection, Policy CS5 requires that Preferred Areas avoid adverse

acts on groundwater Source Protection Zones and other designated water interestswith previous BMWLP policy. Policy CS19 requires that local water resources, includnatural and artificial waterbodies, are protected from significant adverse effects, with misation, mitigation or compensation required for negative impacts where appropria

Policy CS22 requires that development proposals must demonstrate how adverse impacts onthe water environment and water infrastructure, including surface water and groundwater

flows, demand on water resources and water quality will be avoided or minimised. Policies CS19 and CS22 represent more detailed and holistic protection for the water environment

than previous BMWLP policy.

In additional to the protection sought by BMWLP policies, the Core Strategy also seeks S22 also states that restor

imp , in line ing

mini te.

proactive enhancement. Policy C ation proposals for minerals sites should consider the potential for water and flood management benefits. Policy CS23 requires

re ’

e

accordance with the Council’s reed by the BCC Development Control Committee in June 2010), which is consistent with relevant legislation

guidance. It should also be noted that the Environment Agency and district ental Health teams also have po

enforcement action where necessary. Th d discharge of water is controlled by the wate ced on d en t

be re Strateg ative

enhancements as part of r vide longer-term benefits

W


to l i

and these are both extremely rare, and ictable in terms of timing and extent of impact. Other risks to water include modifi ation of watercourses or waterbodies (e.g.

Loc es

B e

for as

P

that biodiversity enhancements must be incorporated, in line with BAP targets; these may include targets for wetland or river habitats.

The proposed Core Strategy does not cover ongoing site monitoring to ensure compliance with planning conditions, but it does cover enforcement through Policy CS24, which cross-fers to BCC’s Planning Enforcement Protocol, which is currently being developed. ‘Saved

Policy 39 from the current BMWLP details proposed site inspections and potential nforcement action; this policy is due to be replaced with new policy as part of the

forthcoming Minerals DPD. The regular monitoring of minerals sites takes place in new Monitoring Framework (as ag

and GovernmentEnvironm wers to monitor pollution from such sites and take

e use anr companies and the Environment Agency to ensure excessive demands are not pla

water resources and excessive pressures on water quality. This suite of monitoring anforcement measures will ensure a continuation of the protection to the water environmen

afforded by the BMWLP.

Summary: Without mitigation, the potential increase in minerals production resulting from the increased landbank required could potentially result in a negative impact on waterbodies

affected by new or extended sites, particularly in the south of the county where the sites will concentrated, albeit that minerals works are temporary developments. However, the Co

y’s polices go further than the BMWLP in seeking to minimise any potential negimpacts on water quality or water resources, together with the permitting, monitoring and

enforcement processes that are in place, as a result of which, impacts should be negligible. Policies in the Core Strategy, unlike its predecessor, also seek wider waterbody

estoration schemes, which could proacross a wider area.

aste: (L)

composting and energy recovery capacity, in line with the expected increase in waste nnages generated in Buckinghamshire. This could result in a corresponding potentia

ncrease in the number of water pollution risks to be managed at new, extended or moreintensively used sites across Buckinghamshire. Even well managed risks can lead to

pollution incidents (e.g. through vehicle accidents or equipment failure, or other emergency), likewise unpred

cchannelisation or flood defence) and general site management (e.g. siltation).

alised site-based impacts on water will depend on the existing baseline at the actual sit

chosen. Locations for the additional recycling and composting capacity will not be identified until the Waste DPD is developed.

Policy CS14 safeguards existing waste sites for continued waste use, unlike the existing MWLP, (although the actual waste use on-site could potentially change) thus reducing th

need for new alternative sites. The earlier options review concluded that there is a potential a minor positive effect if the existing sites currently have an acceptable water baseline,

it reduces the need for alterative new and potentially undisturbed sites to be utilised.



SA Objective Assessment cumulative impact on the existing water resources and water quality baseline, but the

e of this will depend upon the baseline at each site. It will, however, minsignificanc imise the need for new sites, utilising existing water resources and mitigation measures in protection of

in

cr d

includes tential impacts of water consumption, not directly impacts on Water Framework Directive objectives.

H

Buckinghamshire du will be diverted to re-use, recycling, composting and energy recovery. This would prevent any potential water

b

In al

Poli on

flows, demand on water resources and w ality will be avoided or minimised. These policies are more proactive than those con

enforcement measures continue to be in place to minimise any dies, as noted above in relation to minerals development.

SummCore Strategy could potentially y new,

ed sites across Buckinghamshire. However, it also prevents

in ise any potential negative impacts on water quality or water resources,

d enforcement processes that are in place, acts should be negligible. Policies also seek wider waterbody

enhancements, unlike the BMWLP, which vide longer-term benefits across a wider

R

R

w

n

water quality.

The Calvert option review identifies the increased potential for pollution from the more intensive activities on each site, but notes these to be minimised, and potentially offset, by

the environmental policies detailed below. The review does, however, note that some crease in water consumption is a likely outcome from the development, although this may

be minimised through water efficiencies.


BMWLP does include criteria for evaluating sites that come forward for permission, including seeking some protection for groundwater. The policy notes that site selection will take account of site and environmental factors in conformity with prevailing waste locational iteria, which are currently set out in Annex E to Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 10 ancould also be used in site appraisal under current BMWLP policies; the list in Annex E

the proximity of vulnerable surface and groundwater, but does not consider po

owever, Policy CS13 requires that proposals comply with relevant policies contained inSection 5 of the Core Strategy, which includes those identified below.

It should be noted that, as stated in Policy CS15, no new landfill will be provided in

ring the plan period as a significant proportion of waste

pollution that would have been associated with new non-hazardous landfill, which could have een located in various locations across the county (including in the Green Belt as fill material

for minerals workings). This policy is a significant change from current BWMLP policy. Existing permitted landfills will continue operating over the Core Strategy period.

terms of protection measures, Policy CS19 requires that water resources, including naturand artificial waterbodies, are protected from significant adverse effects. Further to this, cy CS22 requires that development proposals must demonstrate how adverse impacts

the water environment and water infrastructure, including surface water and groundwater ater qu

tained in the existing BMWLP. In addition, permitting, monitoring and

impact on water bo

Policy CS22 also states that restoration proposals for waste sites should consider the potential for water and flood management benefits. Policy CS23 requires that biodiversity

enhancements must be incorporated, in line with BAP targets; these may include targets for wetland or river habitats. These policies are more detailed and seek further benefits for the

water environment than equivalent BMWLP policy.

ary: Without mitigation, the increase in waste related development envisaged by the result in a negative impact on waterbodies affected b

extended or more intensively usthe need for new landfill sites, which could also have potentially negative impacts on

waterbodies. In addition, the Core Strategy’s polices go further than BMWLP equivalentsseeking to minim

together with the existing permitting, monitoring anas a result of which, imp

could proarea.

ecommendations:

ECOMMENDATION: Any further site selection, whether for contingency sites or as part ofthe Waste DPD or Minerals DPD, should take account of impacts on water resources and ater quality. It should be noted that, for waste sites, prevailing waste locational criteria mightnot always continue to include water issues. The current PPS10 list is also not necessarily

fully comprehensive, so should be supplemented by additional considerations where ecessary. It should, however, be noted that all sites considered for the Minerals DPD andWaste DPD will need to be subjected to sustainability appraisal, thereby enabling their

consideration against a full range of sustainability objectives.


Key Relevant Baseline: ire’s Strategic Flood Risk Asses ment (SFRA) shows that flood risk varies nty.

Buckinghamshacross the cou

s


SA Objective Assessment Decision-making criteria: A. Will it contribute to an increase in flood risk on site or elsewhere? B. Will it contribute to a reduction in flood risk on site or elsewhere? C. Is the proposed use suitable in the flood zone of the site according to Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 25?

are highly likely to preven combination of national

inherent nefit, as improvements may only be sufficient to prevent a worsening of flood risk in the

M

Im

i

min wn

National Planning Polic el workings as ‘water-compatible development’, with other mineral orking and processing as ‘less vulnerable’.

place in ne 3b).

P

an d

e

adaptation measures. Development proposals must also be ‘climate proof’ through the incorporation of resistance and resilience measures to allow future adaptation and

sustainable, safe, uninterrupted operation.

It should, however, be noted that national the key policy with regard to development and flood risk. Most development proposals w

As r

e

applications is inuation of the impacts from exi

benefits k in the

re


The increase in minerals- and waste-related development envisaged by the Core Strategy could potentially lead to a negative impact, however ancillary measures

t increases in flood risk. Thepolicy, local policy and the Environment Agency’s review of most planning

applications is such that any impacts are likely to be negligible. In addition, local policies promote drainage improvements and climate proofing. Such mitigation and ancillary measures are likely to include SUDS, and this leads to the likely reduction flood risk against the future baseline, however climate models have

uncertainty and it is difficult to guarantee the exact level of be

long term.

inerals: (M)

pacts on and from flood risk from minerals sites will depend upon the specific sites / areas

selected. The Plan does not identify specific minerals sites – Preferred Areas will be dentified in the Minerals DPD. The small increase in minerals excavation envisaged by the

Core Strategy could potentially, without mitigation, put added pressure on the water environment. It should be noted that, if such sites were not provided within the county, the

erals would likely be sourced from elsewhere, nationally or internationally, with unknoimpacts on their local baseline.

y Statement (PPS) 25 defines sand and gravw

Subject to meeting a range of requirements set out in the policy, including not impeding water flows and not increasing flood risk elsewhere, sand and gravel working can take place in any location, including the functional floodplain. Other mineral working and processing can take

any flood zone except the functional floodplain (Zo

olicy CS5 requires that Preferred Areas are identified which avoid adverse impacts ondefined flood zones.

Policy CS22 states that minerals development proposals should seek to reduce flood risk

from all known sources, including river flooding within the flood plain, surface water flooding d groundwater flooding. The policy further states that development proposals should avoior minimise adverse impacts on the water environment and water infrastructure including direct impacts on surface water and groundwater flows. It also states that the Sustainable

Drainage Systems (SUDS) Hierarchy should be applied in integrating sustainable water fficiency, treatment and storage options, recognising the benefits of such systems for floodrisk management. The policy also stipulates that minerals applications must also consider

water and flood management opportunities as part of climate change mitigation and

PPS25 is

ill continue to be accompanied by a Flood Risk sessment as required by PPS25, and referred to the Environment Agency to seek thei

views on the application in relation to flood risk.

Summary: Although, without mitigation, the potential increase in minerals production nvisaged by the Core Strategy could lead to a negative impact on flood risk, the combination

of national policy, local policy and the Environment Agency’s review of most planning such that any impacts are likely to be negligible, providing a cont

sting BMWLP policy. In addition, new local Core Strategy policies promote drainage improvements and climate proofing, which are not covered by existing BMWLP policy. There is the therefore potential to reduce flood risk against the future baseline,

however climate models have inherent uncertainty and it is difficult to guarantee significant , as improvements may only be sufficient to prevent a worsening of flood ris

long term, but the new Core Strategy policies, which seek to address the added risks with gard to flooding associated with climate change, are an improvement on previous BMWLP

policy.


SA Objective Assessment W

tonn a

PPS25 defines landfill and hazardous w re vulnerable’ and are

need for new alternative sites. The earlie review concluded that the policy could

se

Bthe general protection of the floo t site selection will take account of si nd

polices; the lidiscussed above ly with relevant

p

g m

flood management opportun mitigation and adaptation measures. Development proposals must also be ‘climate proof’ through the incorporation of

e measures to allow future adaptation and sustainable, safe, policies are significantly more detailed and developed than

increase in waste-related development envisaged by the Core gation, lead to impact on flood risk, the combination of

national and local policy and the Environm ’s review of most planning applications, is such that any impacts are likely to be negligible. In addition local policies promote drainage

aste: (M)


composting and energy recovery capacity, n line with the expected increase in waste iages generated in Buckinghamshire. Without mitigation, this could potentially result in

corresponding increase on impacts on flood risks at new or more intensively used sites. However, any new site development will need to meet the requirements of PPS25, which

seeks to prevent development in unsuitable flood zones and requires that development does not contribute to an increase in flood risk on site or elsewhere.

aste sites are defined as ‘mo

not permitted in flood zone 3b and only in 3a in certain circumstances. Other waste treatment sites and suitable sewage treatment works classified as ‘less vulnerable’ in PPS25, so they

are permitted in any flood zone except the functional floodplain (Zone 3b).

Buckinghamshire’s Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA) shows that flood risk varies across the county. Localised site-based impacts on water will depend on the existing

baseline at the actual sites chosen. Locations for the additional recycling and composting capacity will not be identified until the Waste DPD is developed


BMWLP, (although the actual waste use on site could potentially change) thus reducing the r op ionst

potentially have a minor positive effect if sites currently have an acceptable flooding baseline, as it reduces the need for alterative new and potentially less suitable sites to be utilised.

Further to this, with regard to the development at Calvert, Policy CS11 states that no

development would be permitted in areas of flood risk and that the design of buildings, hard standings and the site layout should not increase flood risk either on site or elsewhere. A quential test undertaken for Calvert showed there to be sufficient developable area within

flood Zone 1 for the development of a SWC and that a sequential approach should be applied to development proposals.

Policy CS13 provides for the identification of an alternative site or sites should an application

at Calvert not come forward; a contingency policy does not appear in the BMWLP. The MWLP does include criteria for evaluating sites that come forward for permission, including

dplain. The policy notes thate and environmental factors in conformity with prevailing waste locational criteria a

flooding criteria, which are currently set out in Annex E to Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 10 and PPS25 respectively and could also be used in site appraisal under current BMWLP

st in Annex E includes the suitability of locations subject to flooding (PPS25 is ). In addition, Policy CS13 requires that proposals comp

olicies contained in Section 5 of the Core Strategy, which includes Policy CS22 identifiedbelow.

Policy CS22 states that waste development proposals should seek to reduce flood risk from all known sources, including river flooding within the flood plain, surface water flooding and roundwater flooding. The policy further states that development proposals should avoid orinimise adverse impacts on the water environment and water infrastructure including direct

impacts on surface water and groundwater flows. It also states that the Sustainable Drainage Systems (SUDS) Hierarchy should be applied in integrating sustainable water efficiency,

treatment and storage options, recognising the benefits of such systems for flood risk management. The policy also stipulates that waste applications must also consider water and

ities as part of climate change

resistance and resiliencuninterrupted operation. These

equivalent BMWLP policy.

It should, however, be noted that national PPS 25 is the key policy with regard to development and flood risk. Most development proposals will be accompanied by a Flood Risk Assessment, as required by PPS25, and referred to the Environment Agency to seek

their views on the application in relation to flood risk.

Summary: Although theStrategy could, without miti a negative

ent Agency

improvements and climate proofing, which are not covered by existing BMWLP policy. There is therefore the potential to reduce flood risk against the future baseline,


SA Objective Assessment however climate models have inherent uncertainty and it is difficult to guarantee

significant benefits, as improvements may only be sufficient to prevent a worsening risk in the long term, but the new Core Strategy policies, which seek to aof flood ddress

the added risks with regard to flooding associated with climate change, are an improvement on previous BMWLP policy.

Recommendations:

cMinerals DPD an y

enabling their consideration again objectives.

RECOMMENDATION: Any further site selection, whether for contingency sites or as part of the Waste DPD or Minerals DPD, should take account of impacts on and from flood risk. It should be noted that, for waste sites, prevailing waste locational criteria might not always

ontinue to include flood issues. It should, however, be noted that all sites considered for the d Waste DPD will need to be subjected to sustainability appraisal, thereb

st a full range of sustainability

SA12: To conserve mineral resources and prevent their sterilisation Decision-making criteria: A. Will it help to conserve minerals resources for potential use by future generations? B. Will it result in or prevent sterilisation so that future generations can still potentially access deposits?

Cu

Th al

existing minerals reserves from being sterilised as a result of development and to

Minerals:

p lan

(P r minerals ex

p

sterilisation of the minerals or to to avoid transporting

from the BMWLP

In common with existing BMWLP policies, Policies CS1 and CS2 directly protect known resources from the sterilising effects of other development. The aforementioned

‘windfall sites lt from this.

Policy

mulative Impact: N (M)

e pre-existing policies of the BMWLP already prevent the sterilisation of miner

resources, however this will be reinforced by the Core Strategy policies, which seek to conserve minerals for future use, whilst ensuring sufficient minerals are

available to meet the needs of current generations. Policies seek both to prevent

facilitate the increased use of alternatives to primary resources.

N (M)

The Government continues to require all Minerals Planning Authorities, such as Buckinghamshire County Council, to provide for a landbank of sand and gravel in order to

provide a specified tonnage per year for a period of at least seven years to ensure the current generation have access to sufficient minerals resources. The Council is therefore unable to

preserve these minerals for potential use by future generations, except to minimise the landbank to that specified by the Government.

Policy CS4 seeks to maintain that landbank as a minimum, in line with Government

requirements, and Policy CS5 states that Preferred Areas, which have a presumption of lanning permission for mineral extraction, will be identified (in the Minerals DPD) to meet the

dbank requirements set out in Policy CS4. Supporting text to Policy CS4 and Policy CS5 referred Areas) states that BCC will phase the release of Preferred Areas (sites) fo

traction; this will ensure that su als are permitted to meet the fficient minerlandbank requirement, but, together with the planning application process, should help to revent any excessive provision above that figure. These policies are similar to those under

the BMWLP.

It should be noted that the identified sites may not actually be worked, as this depends on market demand, which responds to society’s needs, which is been notably less than

predicted in recent years, as set out in the Minerals Topic Paper.

As noted in the supporting to Policy CS5, ‘windfall sites’ may also be identified outside of the Preferred Areas during the Core Strategy period. Examples include major infrastructure

projects or housing schemes where minerals need to be dug as part of the scheme to avoid provide a local minerals supply

minerals from further afield. Such sites may make a contribution towards the aforementioned landbank, but cannot be relied upon to provide a steady and continuous supply of minerals, so are not included within the sites identified to meet the required landbank. ‘Saved’ Policy 5

continues to support such sites.

Policies CS4 and CS5 therefore seek to maintain the landbank of minerals in accordance with national policy based on the apportionment as set out by the Government. The phasing

of Preferred Areas and the planning application process continue to be the key tools to ensure the conservation of minerals is maximised (while still meeting Government

requirements) to provide sources for use by future generations.

minerals’ can resu

CS6 directly encourages the use of alte ative materials to primary resources through rn


SA Objective Assessment s

Demolition and Excavation waste s over the permitted life of a site. It also supports extensions to existing perm ert waste recycling facilities for the

ggregates. A similar policy can be found in the existing BMWLP. y minera ore primary resources to be conserved

for use b rations.

Policies seek both to prevent existing m rves from being sterilised as a result of nt and to facilitate the increased use of alternatives to primary resources. The y will therefore result in a cont ection of minerals resources

offere

Wa

N

upporting the location of temporary recycling, storage and transfer of Construction,at minerals and landfill site

anent inproduction of secondary a

The use of alternatives to primar ls enables my future gene

It should be noted that, if such sites were not provided within the county, the minerals would likely be sourced from elsewhere, nationally or internationally, with unknown impacts on their

local baseline.

Summary: The Core Strategy policies continue to seek to conserve minerals for future use, whilst ensuring sufficient minerals are available to meet the needs of current generations.

inerals resedevelopme

Core Strateg inuation of the protd by the BMWLP.

ste: N (M)

ot applicable. Waste sites will be subjected to the same sterilisation prevention policies as

any other development, with significant minerals deposits being removed prior to development if required.

SA13: To promote the

inerals and aste sites

ia:

l

. Will any potential restoration contribute to local BAP targets? C. Will any potential restoration / after use provide recreational, amenity or leisure opportunities for local people? D. Will restoration result in improvements to soil quality? E. Will any potential restoration provide opportunities for enhancing green infrastructure and contributing to reducing the green infrastructure deficit in Aylesbury Vale?

C

T

polic d therefore result in longer-term improvem ts that could have both local and wider

‘Saved’ mes be

manage MWLP.

23 states that minerals develo easures to demonstrate how proposals will contribute to biodive , including BAP targets, integrate with

wider landscape and townscape characte retain and enhance rights of way, and be co e

proposals. Po ider benefits than those sought by the BMWLP; it is also more clearly linked to achieving the spatial aims

a agricultural land where possible and seek to ensure previous soil quality is maintained as far

im s

Summary: Th d continuing ‘saved’ policies, more actively promote effective restoration and after use than existing the

b

effective restoration and appropriate after use of mw Decision-making criter A. Will any potentiarestoration result in enhancing or recovering wildlife resources? B


he new Core Strategy policies, taken in conjunction with national and continuing

‘saved’ policies, more actively promote effective restoration and after use than the existing BMWLP, seeking a range of potential benefits for sites, although a clearer

y steer could be provided to seek to improve soil quality. The policies shoulen

benefits.

Minerals: (M)

Policy 31 from the BMWLP will cont restoration scheinue to require that

submitted with development proposals, demonstrating how they will be restored to an appropriate use, such as agriculture, forestry or amenity uses.

In addition, new Policy CS22 directly requires the potential for restoration and after use of

minerals sites to be considered, particularly in delivering biodiversity, water and flood ment and recreation benefits; a similar policy does not exist in the B

Policy CS pment must incorporate m

rsity habitatsr,

nsistent with the Buckinghamshire Green Infrastructure Strategy. These could take placboth during the lifetime of proposed minerals development and/or as part of restoration

licy CS23 therefore represents a more detailed policy seeking w

of other Buckinghamshire strategies, including those regarding green infrastructure and biodiversity.

As noted in relation to SA7 above, the proposed policies, read in conjunction with national

nd ‘saved’ policies, steer minerals development away from best and most versatile

as possible, but there is no clear policy steer to suggest that opportunities will be sought to prove soil quality, although this may be a detailed matter to be covered in the Mineral

DPD. This does, however, represent a continuation of BMWLP policy.

e new Core Strategy policies, taken in conjunction with national an

BMWLP, seeking a range of potential benefits for sites, although a clearer policy steer could e provided to seek to improve soil quality. The policies should therefore result in longer-

term improvements that could have both local and wider benefits.



W

Policy CS14 safeguar e, unlike the existing B

The C

nge of measures m to enhance the environment through

towards the place both

land be

Summary: The new Core Strategy policies, taken in conjunction with national and continuing ‘saved’ policies, more actively promote effective restoration and after use than the existing

BMWLP, seeking a range of potential benefits for sites, although a clearer policy steer could be provided to seek to improve soil quality. The policies should therefore result in longer-term

improvements that could have both local and wider benefits.

Recommendations:

RECOMMEDATION: Draw out specific restoration opportunities associated with Policy CS11 in the Area Statement for the Calvert and Waste Transfer sites.

RECOMMENDATION: Potential impacts on restoration proposals should be considered when

deciding whether sites should remain in a waste use in the Waste DPD.

RECOMMENDATION: As noted for SA7, policy wording is recommended in the Minerals DPD and Waste DPD to require that good quality soil resources are appropriately protected

or managed, and that soil quality is improved as part of any restoration scheme.

RECOMMENDATION: Any further site selection, whether for contingency sites or as part of the Waste DPD or Minerals DPD, should take account of impacts on any existing restoration

proposals and the potential for effective restoration and after use for any new or extended sites. It should, however, be noted that all sites considered for the Minerals DPD and Waste

DPD will need to be subjected to sustainability appraisal, thereby enabling their consideration against a full range of sustainability objectives.

aste: (M)

‘Saved’ Policy 31 from the BMWLP will continue to require that restoration schemes be submitted with development proposals, demonstrating how they will be restored to an

appropriate use, such as agriculture, forestry or amenity uses.

ds existing waste sites for continued waste usMWLP. Some existing waste sites may already have restoration proposals in place as part

of their existing permission, particularly landfill sites. Potential impacts on these restoration proposals should be considered when deciding whether they should remain in a waste use.

However, if new site were utilised, these would also require eventual restoration.

alvert option review identifies that Policies CS11 and CS12 require that opportunities for nature conservation and recreational enhancement be maximised as part of the development of a SWC and any supporting infrastructure, thus providing positive

enhancement opportunities. The site offers significant opportunity to contribute towards a range of Green Infrastructure pr vision and BAP habitat targets. o

Unlike the existing BMWLP, Core Strategy Policy CS22 states that proposals should consider

the potential of restoration of waste sites to contribute to climate change mitigation and adaptation, particularly in delivering biodiversity, water and flood management benefits and

wider ecosystem services, together with the accommodation of renewable energy installations and/or biomass cultivation.

Policy CS23 includes a ra that ai

development proposals. These include biodiversity enhancements, including opportunities to contribute to local BAP targets, landscaping, providing new rights of way, and contributing

objectives of the Green Infrastructure Strategy. These could takeduring the lifetime of proposed waste development and/or as part of restoration proposals. This policy is significantly more detailed and seeks further enhancement measures than

those envisaged by current BMWLP policy.

As noted in relation to SA7 above, the proposed policies, read in conjunction with national and ‘saved’ policies, steer waste development away from best and most versatile agricultural

where possible, but there is no clear pol cy steer to suggest that opportunities willisought to improve soil quality, although this may be a detailed matter to be covered in the

Waste DPD. This does, however, represent a continuation of BMWLP policy.

Restoration is likely to be a long-term impact with respect to a site occupied by a SWC as it occurs after the uses has ended, however other types of waste sites or parts of strategic

waste sites not being utilised for plant may be restored earlier.


SA Objective Assessment SA14: To contribute positively to the sustainable management of waste and minerals Decision-making criteria: A. Are the proposals in line with the waste hierarchy? B. Will it contribute to or encourage waste minimisation? C. Will it contribute to an increase in the level of reuse, recycling or composting? D. Will it contribute to a reduction or increase in the proportion of waste landfilled? E. Will it contribute to enabling the county’s waste to be managed within the county? F. Will it increase the use of secondary and recycled aggregates? G. Is it flexible to account for future changes in technology, processes or needs?


The Core Strategy continues to seek to ensure that the net equivalent of all the

waste produced by the residents, businesses and other organisations of Buckinghamshire can be processed within the county boundaries. It is significantly

more proactive than the BMWLP in seeking to follow the waste hierarchy and is designed to be sufficiently flexible to account for future changes.

Minerals:

N (M)

Policy CS6 directly encourages the use of alternative materials to primary resources through supporting the location of temporary recycling, storage and transfer of Construction,

Demolition and Excavation waste at minerals and landfill sites over the permitted life of a site. It also supports extensions to existing permanent inert waste recycling facilities for the

production of secondary aggregates. This represents a continuation of positive BMWLP policy and supports the MWCS target of achieving the Waste Framework Directive target of 70% recycling of C&D by 2026. The use of alternatives to primary minerals enables more

primary resources to be conserved for use by future generations and enables CD&E waste to be diverted from landfill.

It should be noted that, if such sites were not provided within the county, the minerals would likely be sourced from elsewhere, nationally or internationally, with unknown impacts on their

local baseline. Waste:

(M)

The Core Strategy seeks to follow and is consistent with the waste hierarchy. The Core Strategy, in common with the existing BMWLP, seeks net self-sufficiency for the county,

ensuring that Buckinghamshire is able to deal with the equivalent waste that that it produces within its own borders (recognising that some trans-boundary movements are inevitable).

As noted above, the Core Strategy provides for a significant increase in recycling and

composting capacity, in line with the expected increase in waste tonnages generated in Buckinghamshire and the expected increase in the percentage of waste to be recycled and

composted.

Policy CS10 seeks to spread new recycling and composting capacity across the county in proportion to the waste produced by each district’s population and Policy CS14 safeguards

existing waste sites for continued waste use. The earlier options review concludes that these policies will have a positive benefit on sustainable waste management in ensuring the provision of local facilities across the county in close proximity to the sources of waste,

encouraging their use. The assigned tonnages in Policy CS10 are also not fixed, so allow for future flexibility according to changes in technology, process or needs. There are no policies

similar to these in the BMWLP, which does not seek any particular distribution of such facilities and does not safeguard all existing waste sites.

The Core Strategy also seeks to divert a significant proportion of its residual waste from landfill to an energy recovery facility, enabling energy to be gained, again in line with the

waste hierarchy. Policy CS15 sets out that no additional landfill capacity for non-hazardous waste will be provided in Buckinghamshire over the plan period. Policy CS16 also states that

proposals to extend the life of existing landfills or to create new landfills where a significant amount of the waste to be managed originated outside Buckinghamshire will be resisted.

These policies are a significant change from existing BMWLP policy.

Policies CS9 and CS16 stipulate that energy recovery capacity will reflect Buckinghamshire’s waste management needs only. Provision of energy recovery from imported waste would only be permitted where the activity would benefit Buckinghamshire’s waste management

objectives.

The policies are designed to directly divert waste from landfill and to increase the proportion of waste that is re-used, recycled and composted. Policy CS11 in particular, supported by

Policy CS12, provides for a facility to manage Buckinghamshire’s residual waste, co-located with other waste facilities such as recycling, composting and sorting. The size of the Calvert site is such that it can accommodate a range of facilities and technology types. ‘Saved’ Policy

16 continues Council support for anaerobic digestion and mechanical-biological treatment plant, in addition to energy from waste plant (incineration, pyrolysis and gasification) (‘saved’


SA Objective Assessment Poli

waste from landfill and higher up the wa te hierarchy than the existing BMWLP.

The to

enc no

second waste minimisation, re-use and recycling as alternatives to disposal by landfilling.

BMWLP in seeking to follow the ed to be sufficiently flexible to account for future changes.

cy 17). New Core Strategy policy more specifically and directly seeks the diversion of s

County Council in their role as the Waste Planning Authority have little opportunitycontribute to waste minimisation, but their requirement for a waste audit for major

developments under Policy CS8 that goes further than current statutory requirements will ourage minimisation of construction waste; this policy is new to the Core Strategy, with similar policy in the BMWLP. The use of site waste management plans and materials management plans directly promote the re-use of materials in schemes and the use of

ary materials. This is consistent with the waste hierarchy and will encourage

Summary: The Core Strategy continues to seek to ensure that the net equivalent of all the waste produced by the residents, businesses and other organisations of Buckinghamshire can be processed within the county boundaries. It is significantly more proactive than the

waste hierarchy and is design



The Core Strategy is significantly more proactive than the BMWLP in seeking to

promote energy efficiency and increase the production of energy from waste, which is recognised by the UK Government as a source of renewable and low

carbon energy.

Minerals: N (M)

Minerals developments are temporary in nature so present limited opportunities for energy

generation. The planning regime has little scope for improving the energy efficiency of minerals working. More energy efficient mineral extraction relates to operational aspects.

Waste: (M)

Unlike the BMWLP, Core Strategy Policy CS22 requires that waste sites deliver high

standards of energy efficiency and maximise the production and use of renewable energy in accordance with prevailing standards and best practice, which would include local use of

energy in appropriate circumstances. The policy also requires that the restoration proposals for waste sites consider the ability of such sites to accommodate renewable energy

installations and / or biomass cultivation.

UK energy statistics show that energy created by energy recovery facilities contributes a


SA Objective Assessment larg ch

s

heat. It also requires that a Sustain duced alongside any development proposals for the site.

BM ly beneficial effec ble for energy

generation from waste will be retained in a waste use.

Po n

B

could also be used in si e list in Annex E does not include suitability for energy generation.

B

g

Existing permitted landfill ucing energy from gas emissions, over the Core Strategy period.

Su to

recognised by the UK Government as a source of renewable and low carbon energy.

RE of

DPD and W y enabling their consideration against a full nge of sustainability objectives.

e proportion of the UK government renewable energy targets. Unlike the BMWLP, whiseeks energy to be produced from waste where possible, Core Strategy Policy CS11

pecifically supports the development of an energy recovery facility at Calvert and stipulatesthat the facility must maximise opportunities for the on- and off-site recovery of power and

ability Statement be pro


WLP. The earlier options review concludes that this could potentially have a moderatet by helping to ensure that any waste sites that are suita

licy CS13 provides for the identification of an alternative site or sites should an applicatioat Calvert not come forward; a contingency policy does not appear in the BMWLP. The MWLP does include criteria for evaluating sites that come forward for permission, but nospecific criteria on energy. The Core Strategy policy notes that site selection will take account of site and environmental factors in conformity with prevailing waste locational

criteria, which are currently set out in Annex E to Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 10 and te appraisal under current BMWLP policies; th

Unlike the BMWLP, Core Strategy Policy CS15 states that no new landfill will be provided in uckinghamshire during the plan period – a significant proportion of waste will be diverted tore-use, recycling, composting and energy recovery. This would prevent any energy being enerated from new landfills, but more significant energy generation capacity will instead beprovided through other waste management technologies in line with the waste hierarchy.

s will be able to continue operating, and prod

mmary: The Core Strategy is significantly more proactive than the BMWLP in seeking promote energy efficiency and increase the production of energy from waste, which is

Recommendations:

COMMENDATION: Any further site selection, whether for contingency sites or as part the Waste DPD or Minerals DPD, should take account of the suitability of the site for

renewable and low carbon energy generation sources. It should be noted that, for waste sites, the current prevailing waste locational criteria, Annex E to PPS10, does not include energy generation. It should, however, be noted that all sites considered for the Minerals

aste DPD will need to be subjected to sustainability appraisal, therebra

SA16: To minimise thenumber and lenroad journeys associated with waste management facilities

gth of

nd minerals workings

ecision-making criteria:

s r

inerals by road?

n

affic congestion?

ve

cal infrastructure?

ction in

of waste or inerals?

Cumulative Impact:

T

dist f a

hierarchy is likely to reduc waste movements at an unknown point in the future.

The Co nd, by

d

further afield, and thu ever this may not be a significant chang from the BMWLP.

m

a D A. Will it increase or decrease the kilometretravelled by waste om B. Will it have a positiveor negative impact otr C. Will there be a positior negative impact onlo D. Will there be an increase or reduthe number of movementsm

)(L

he Core Strategy responds to projections of a significant increase in waste management demand with the ability to provide a proportionate amount of

additional waste management capacity. However, it does not create this demand, only respond to it. Without the Core Strategy, by the very long term, local landfill capacity may fall behind demand, and waste would need to be transported longer

ances, possibly to locations outside of the county. Therefore, the provision ostrategic waste facility and supporting facilities to move waste up the waste

e the number and distance of

re Strategy also responds to projected increases in minerals demahaving the ability to support an increase in minerals production in

Buckinghamshire. This includes new and extended facilities, but again, the emand is not generated by the Core Strategy, and it only responds to it. Localprovision of sufficient minerals can prevent this demand from being met from

s reduce road transport of minerals, howe

It is noted that the location of the Strategic Waste Complex in the north of the county, away from major centres of population as a result of the need to site development outside of the Green Belt, will necessitate an increase in overall ileage. The Core Strategy does however, include a range of policies designed to


SA Objective Assessment E. Will it reduce reliance


mare n

for sufficient minerals and waste s the county prevents the need for waste to be transported from further afield, which would result in increased

mile ge.

Minerals:

T

propminerals sites w

guaranteed. This area was already part o Area of Search identified in the BMWLP, w

Uand the dis

road t of new

development proposals to show nsport impacts, considered the

I

lik s is ,

minimi n, the continued provision for minerals sites within the county prevents the need for minerals to be

transported from further afield, which would result in increased mileage.

Waste:

wa e

on the car?

inimise the number and length of journeys for both minerals and waste, which more proactive than BMWLP equivalents. In addition, the continued provisio

ites within

a

N (L)

he Core Strategy can only safeguard areas for minerals working where viable deposits areknown to exist, in this case in most of the south of the county via Policy CS1. This means that some mineral will need to be transported to the north of the county or from out of the county to be utilised in the north, as occurs at present. The Core Strategy envisages the potential for an increase in annual minerals production of up to 6%, although this increase

may not happen in reality; any increase is likely to result in additional road journeys, particularly in the south of the county, although this is likely to be a correspondingly small

ortion above current levels. Impacts on the number and length of road journeys from ill depend upon the specific sites / areas selected. The Plan does not identify

specific minerals sites – Preferred Areas will be identified in the Minerals DPD.

The provision for minerals sites within the y, as at present, prevents the need for minerals to be transported from further afield, which would result in increased mileage.

Policy CS2 defines an Area of Search in the north of County, in light of more recent research that indicates that the area may also contain potentially viable minerals deposits; this would

help to reduce minerals transportation distances if they can be worked, which is not f the larger

count

hich has now been reduced to the area that more recent research has identified as likely to be viable.

nder Policy CS5, the potential for more sustainable movements of materials from the site

tance and suitability of access to the Primary Road Network and other Strategic Inter-Urban Corridors is stated to be a key consideration in the identification of Preferred

Areas for minerals working, in common with similar BMWLP policy.

Policy CS7 continues to support the transportation of aggregates by alternative means to by the safeguarding of existing rail aggregates depots and supports the developmen

rail and wharf aggregate depots, where th are located in proximity to the Primary Road Network and Strategic Inter-Urban Corridors, all in line with current BMWLP policy.

‘Saved’ Policy 30 from the BMWLP, to be replaced in the Minerals DPD, also requires

how they have minimised tra

ey

use of alternative means of transport to roads nd are utilising suitable roads, particular the Strategic Highway Network.

n addition, Policy CS22 states that new minerals development proposals must demonstrate

that they will be transporting materials in more sustainable ways, taking into account

, a

proximity issues, routing, vehicle choice and bulking; this represents more detailed policy wording than that in the BMWLP and could potentially have some small positive benefit.

Summary: The Core Strategy envisages the potential for an increase in annual minerals production of up to 6%, although this increase may not happen in reality; any increase is ely to result in additional road journeys, particularly in the south of the county, although thi likely to be a small proportion above current levels. There is potential, without mitigationfor associated traffic to make a small contribution to traffic congestion, particularly in the south of the county on busy strategic routes. However, Core Strategy policies seek to

se any additional journeys and contribution to traffic congestion. In additio

(M)

As noted above, the Core Strategy responds to projections of a significant increase in waste management demand with the ability to provide a proportionate amount of additional waste

management capacity. However, it does not create this demand, only respond to it. Without the Core Strategy, by the very long term, local landfill capacity may fall behind demand, and

ste would need to be transported longer distances, possibly to locations outside of th


SA Objective Assessment county. Therefore, the provision of a strategic waste facility and supporting facilities to move

corresponding increas of additional mileage required will depend upon the location of the network of waste facilities required to deal with

th e

need f s the nor positive effect on the number and length of road journeys if existing sites

a

P

Was l for a moderate benefit to the aim ging capacity to be

provided in proximity to waste arisings. This should help to decrease transport distances.

Policy CS10 also encourages extendin nd re-developing existing waste sites; a similar policy does not appear in the BMWLP. This policy could help to reduce the number an e

r tra a

SWC in the north of the county would increase transportation mileage. The extent to which

P th

safeguards two sites as rail trans than the BMWLP. However, the supporting text to the Core Strategy acknow hat the use of rail for the transfer of C

A tra ffic associated with the Calvert site would be of si work although at

If

Buckingh visages such materials being treated on site, with an ining residue disposed of to hazardous

P n

S the list in Annex E includes traffic and not consider impacts from the length or number of journeys required. In addition, Policy CS13 requires that proposals comply with

waste up the waste hierarchy is likely to reduce the number and distance of waste movements at an unknown point in the future.

However, the Core Strategy does still provide for a significant increase in recycling,

composting and energy recovery capacity, in line with the expected increase in waste tonnages generated in Buckinghamshire. Without mitigation, this could result in a

e in the number of road journeys. The amount

e county’s waste. Locations for the additional recycling and composting capacity will not bidentified until the Waste DPD is developed.


BMWLP, (although the actual waste use on site could potentially change), thus reducing the or new alternative sites. The earlier options review concluded that the policy ha

potential for a mire currently in acceptable locations with regard to minimising mileage, as it would safeguard

waste sites that are currently in good locations to help achieve this objective.

olicy CS10 seeks to spread new recycling and composting capacity across the county inproportion to the amount of waste produced by each district’s population, as detailed in the

te Topic Paper. The earlier options review concluded that the policy has the potentia of reducing road mileage by encoura

There is no policy similar to this in the BMWLP, which does not seek any particular distribution of such facilities.

g, intensifying a

d length of road journeys associated with waste management by dealing with more waston each site.

Policy CS11 and CS12 allow for the management of MSW and C&I waste at a SWC at

Calvert in the north of the county, supported by two WTS in the south of the county where esidual materials would be bulked up to reduce the number of lorry movements required. A

nsport assessment of the SWC options also indicated that the distances travelled to

the transportation of waste by road is minimised will depend upon the proportion of waste bulked up and the use of rail transfer as a means of delivering waste to the SWC.

olicy CS11 in relation to Calvert requires that opportunities to maximise the use of rail fore transportation of residual waste from the south of the county be taken, providing similar

encouragement to that within existing BMWLP policy. In support of this, Policy CS14 fer facilities, one more

ledges tounty’s waste is a long-term aspiration (beyond the plan period), rather than a short to

medium term reality.

nsportation assessment for the Calvert site indicated that the increase in tragnificance to the local road net

acceptable levels on the primary road network. In light of this, Policies CS11 and CS12 provide for a new access road to avoid impacts on the local road network.

the recovery technology at Calvert Landfill site takes the form of EfW the incinerator bottom

ash and aggregate (IBAA) could contribute to the construction needs of north amshire, reducing transport distances for such materials. Policy CS11 en

y remalandfill on site; this would prevent the need to transport such residues around the county and

represents a more proactive policy than that contained in the BMWLP.

olicy CS13 provides for the identification of an alternative site or sites should an applicatioat Calvert not come forward; a contingency policy does not appear in the BMWLP. The

BMWLP does include criteria for evaluating sites that come forward for permission; these indirectly include support for the use of rail and road for the transfer of waste. The policy

notes that site selection will take account of site and environmental factors in conformity with prevailing waste locational criteria, which are currently set out in Annex E to Planning Policy tatement (PPS) 10 and could also be used in site appraisal under current BMWLP policies;

access, but does

relevant policies contained in Section 5 of the Core Strategy, which includes Policy CS22 identified below.


SA Objective Assessment Policy CS22 helps to of road journeys by

seeking the transportation of materials in more sustainable ways and stipulating that the

ch d

d fo

p h

mileage in the short te de a range of policies

designed to minimise the number and length of journeys, as shown above, which are more uivalents. In addition, the continued provision for sufficient waste revents the need fo to be transported from further afield,

Re

the th

current PPS10 list is also not necessarily fully comprehensive, so should be supplemented by

considered for the Minerals DPD and Waste DPD will need to be subjected to sustainability ap .

RECOMMENDATION: Further assessments of the mileage associated with minerals and be carried out in advance of production of the Minerals DPD and propriate con n be given to locational and facilities options that minimise road mileage.

encourage a minimisation of the number and length

transporting of materials must take into account proximity issues, amenity, routing, vehicle oice and bulking; this represents more detailed policy wording than that in the BMWLP an

could potentially have some small positive benefit.

Summary: Without the Core Strategy, by the very long term, local landfill capacity may fall behind demand, and waste would need to be transported longer distances, possibly to

locations outside of the county. Therefore, the provision of a strategic waste facility and supporting facilities to move waste up the waste hierarchy is likely to reduce the number and istance of waste movements at an unknown point in the future. The Core Strategy provides

r a significant increase in waste management capacity in Buckinghamshire, whether asnew, extended or more intensively used facilities, to deal with the predicted increase in waste roduced in the county and the range of facilities required to divert waste further up the waste

ierarchy and away from landfill. Some mileage will be offset by the reduced use of landfillsites and the use of more local facilities. However, the location of the Strategic Waste

Complex in the north of the county, away from major centres of population as a result of the need to site development outside of the Green Belt, will necessitate an increase in overall

rm. The Core Strategy does however, inclu

proactive than BMWLP eqsites within the county p r waste

which would result in increased mileage.

commendations:

RECOMMENDATION: Any further site selection, whether for contingency sites or as part of Waste DPD or Minerals DPD, should take account of impacts on the number and lengof associated road journeys. It should be noted that, for waste sites, prevailing waste

locational criteria might not always continue to include issues of relevance to this issue. The

additional considerations where necessary. It should, however, be noted that all sites

praisal, thereby enabling their consideration against a full range of sustainability objectives

RECOMMENDATION: Options for rail transfer of waste should be further investigated.

waste transportation shouldWaste DPD to ensure ap sideration ca

SA17: To maximise community participation in minerals and waste

sues and individual

d

. Will it increase or s

s

opportunities r education and

g on ste

C

playing their part in ensuring was waste hierarchy diverting it from landfill. The strategy also seeks to ensure that shire remains net self-s th regard to waste and self-sufficient

for ls.

There s due to the nature o

tra r the permitted life of a site. It also supports e tensions to existing permanent inert waste

re ca in

isresponsibility for their

wn waste production oand minerals use Decision-making criteria: A. Will it facilitate gooand equitable access to waste services for all? Bdecrease opportunitiefor public and/or businesparticipation? C. Will it increase or decreasefoawareness raisinminerals and waissues? D. Will it enable individuals and


The Core Strategy is significantly more proactive than the BMWLP in facilitating

the provision of new waste management capacity, through a range of facility types, including at the local level, to ensure Buckinghamshire’s residents and business community are able to actively participate in re-use, recycling and composting –

te can be managed further up the and

Buckingham ufficient wikey minera

Minerals:

(M)

are limited opportunities for direct community participation with regard to mineralf their operation.

However, more significantly, Policies CS1, CS2, CS4 and CS5 allow Buckinghamshire to continue to remain self-sufficient for key minerals, particularly sand and gravel.

In common with the BMWLP, Policy CS6 directly encourages the use of alternative materials

to primary resources through supporting the location of temporary recycling, storage and nsfer of Construction, Demolition and Excavation waste at minerals and landfill sites ove

xcycling facilities for the production of secondary aggregates. This will ensure such facilitiesn be provided within the county to enable the county’s CD&E waste to be processed with


SA Objective Assessment organisations to responsibility for theirown waste – e.g.local management?

take

through

. Will it enable Buckinghamshire to achieve net self-sufficiency for minerals and/or waste?

its own boundaries, and ensuring local supplies of alternatives to primary aggregates.

Although minerals develop ssociated community participation, the Core Strategy seeks at Buckinghamshire can remain self-

suffi


its o elf-

Policy CS14 safeguards existing waste sites for continued waste use, unlike the existing B

proportio te Topic Paper. The earlier options review concluded that the policy could be moderately beneficial as

Su g the provision of new waste management capacity, through a range of facility types, including

Buckinghamshire’s residents and business community are able to ecycling and co posting – playing their part in ensuring waste

c

Rec

RECOMMENDATION: The potential for posit e waste education and participation benefits etailed waste site selection criteria. It should, however, be noted r the Minerals aste DPD will need to be subjected to

sustainability appraisal, thereby ena onsideration against a full range of

E

Summary: ment activities have limited a to ensure th

cient for key minerals and provide local supplies of alternatives to primary aggregates.

Waste: (M)

composting and energy recovery capacity, in line with the expected increase in waste tonnages generated in Buckinghamshire. This will enable the county to continue to deal with

wn waste needs (or the equivalent amount of waste) within the county, achieving net ssufficiency.

MWLP, (although the actual waste use on site could potentially change). The earlier optionsreview concluded that the policy is likely to have a moderate positive effect on the SA objective, as it would safeguard waste sites that are currently in good locations to help

achieve this objective.

Policy CS10 seeks to spread new recycling and composting capacity across the county in n to the waste produced by each district’s population, as detailed in the Was

it has the potential for encouraging capacity to be provided in areas proximate to where waste arises, thus helping to encourage people to utilise local public and business facilities and increase their level of recycling and composting. There is no policy similar to this in the

BMWLP, which does not seek any particular distribution of such facilities.

mmary: The Core Strategy is significantly more proactive than the BMWLP in facilitatin

at the local level, to ensure actively participate in re-use, r man be managed further up the waste hierarchy and diverting it from landfill. The strategy also

continues to ensure that Buckinghamshire is net self-sufficient with regard to waste.

ommendations: iv

should be included within dthat all sites considered fo DPD and W

bling their csustainability objectives.

SA18: To protect, enhance and create

g

. Will there be any

f

there be any pportunities to create

green infrastructure of recreational value including public rights of way?

Cu

public rights of way in rural a m both minerals and waste nt; other types of leisure facil will be protected through amenity and policies, as occurs at pres on, unlike the BMWLP, the Core

Strategy seeks enhancement measu n have wider community benefits in

M

Im d upon the speci nerals sites – Preferred Areas will be identified in the Miner s DPD. It should be noted that, as minerals d

(where possible) sources valued for re

recreation, includinpublic rights of way Decision-making criteria: Aimpact on resources valued for recreation, including public rights oway? B. Willo

mulative Impact: (M)

The Core Strategy provides for a significant increase in waste management

capacity and a potential increase in minerals production in Buckinghamshire, which, without mitigation, increases the potential for negative impacts on

recreational resources. Unlike the BMWLP, the strategy specifically seeks to minimise the need for new or extended waste sites and the potential for associated

recreational impacts though safeguarding existing sites. It also directly protects nd urban areas fro

developmedistrict level

ity ent. In additi

res that cathe longer term.

inerals: (M)

pacts on recreational resources, including rights of way, from minerals sites will depen

fic sites / areas selected. The Plan does not identify specific mial

evelopments are generally temporary in nature, many impacts on recreational resourceswould only last for the duration of the workings. In addition, if such sites were not provided

within the county, the minerals would likely be sourced from elsewhere, nationally or


SA Objective Assessment internationally, with unknown impacts on their local baseline.

However, Policy CS23 requires that proposals for minerals sites must demonstrate the

p .

Rights of Wa e policy on this i

A

account would be taken in the planning ap rocess of recreational facilities protected through district level plans, as occurs with the BMWLP at present.

In

: The Core Strategy specifically seeks to protect public rights of way, which are the al resource that will be i ies, which are generally

temporary in nature. Other types of lei ill be protected through amenity and district leve

W

tonnages gen ill result in a corresponding potential increase in negative impacts on recreational resources, such as

at th will


rwould safeguard wa to help achieve this

objective, rather than requiring further new ites, which could adversely affect existing

W

includes protection for certain recre policy notes that site selection will take account of site and environmental factors in conformity with prevailing waste locational

co s

Policy CS22 requ th communities should be demonstrated in applications wh re appropriate. Policy CS23 requires that

a

does not contain simila policy on this issue.

A e Co 5

of th ing

retention of existing or permissive footpaths, cycleways or bridleways or, where this is not ossible, secure a diversion or replacement to an equivalent standard of recreational valueConsideration is also required to be given to new routes, in line with the Buckinghamshire

y Improvement Plan. The BMWLP does not contain a similar proactivssue.

lthough impacts on other types of recreational facility are not specifically considered in theCore Strategy, they would be considered in relation to the various amenity policies and

plication p

terms of positive benefits, unlike the BMWLP, Policies CS22 and CS23 also stipulate thatproposals for minerals developments demonstrate consistency with the Buckinghamshire Green Infrastructure Strategy, creating green spaces and corridors that deliver multiple

benefits.

Summarykey recreation mpacted by minerals facilit

sure facility wl policies, as at present. In addition, unlike the BMWLP, the Core Strategy seeks

enhancement measures that can have wider community benefits in the longer term.

aste: (M)


composting and energy recovery capacity, in line with the expected increase in waste erated in Buckinghamshire. Without mitigation, this w

rights of way.

Localised site based impacts on recreational resources will depend on the existing baseline e actual sites chosen. Locations for the additional recycling and composting capacity

not be identified until the Waste DPD is developed.

BMWLP, (although the actual waste use on site could potentially change). The earlier options eview concluded that the policy might have a minor positive effect on the SA objective, as it

ste sites that are currently in good locations s

recreational opportunities.

ith regard to the SWC at Calvert and the required supporting infrastructure, Policies CS11and CS12 require that opportunities must be taken to improve the recreational facilities for

site users and the adjoining communities.


BMWLP does include criteria for evaluating sites that come forward for permission, which ational assets. The

criteria, which are currently set out in Annex E to Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 10 and uld also be used in site appraisal under current BMWLP policies; the list in Annex E doe

not include recreational impacts. However, Policy CS13 requires that proposals comply with relevant policies contained in Section 5 of the Core Strategy, which includes Policy CS23

identified below.

ires that recreational opportunities and improved links wie

proposals for waste sites must demonstrate the retention of existing or permissive footpaths, cycleways or bridleways, or where this is not possible secure a diversion or replacement to

n equivalent standard of recreational value. Consideration is also required to be given tonew routes, in line with the Buckinghamshire Rights of Way Improvement Plan. The BMWLP

r proactive

lthough impacts on other types of recreational facility are not specifically considered in thre Strategy, they would be considered in relation to the various amenity policies (Section

e Core Strategy and ‘saved’ policies) and account would be taken in the plann


SA Objective Assessment a

Strategy; creating ultiple benefits.

y specifically seeks to minimise the need for new or extended sociated recreational impacts though safeguarding existing sites.

R

RECOMMENDATION: Any further site selection, whether for contingency sites or as part of s DPD, should take account of recreational impacts. It should be

a nal criteria does not cover this issue. It should therefore be supplemented by add nsiderations where necessary. It should,

w

pplication process of recreational facilities protected through district level plans, as occurs atpresent.

Unlike the BMWLP, Core Strategy Policy CS23 also stipulates that proposals for waste developments demonstrate consistency with the Buckinghamshire Green Infrastructure

green spaces and corridors that deliver m

Summary: The Core Strategsites and the potential for as

It also directly protects public rights of way in rural and urban areas; other types of leisure facility will be protected through amenity and district level policies, as at present. In addition,

unlike the BMWLP, the Core Strategy seeks enhancement measures that can have wider community benefits in the longer term.

ecommendations:

the Waste DPD or Mineralnoted that, for waste sites, prevailing w ste locatio

itional coho ever, be noted that all sites considered for the Minerals DPD and Waste DPD will need to

be subjected to sustainability appraisal, thereby enabling their consideration against a full range of sustainability objectives.

SA19: To avoid adverse

d

economic pacts on land and

ent ke

ocate or t routes


Cum

Strategy provides for a signific ncrease in waste management capacity and a potential increase in m roduction in Buckinghamshire, which

increases the potential for negative eco omic impacts on land and premises in

M

Ne ay negatively affect local b amshire, particularly in

more rural locations where minerals development tends to be located, through both site and tr

identi rals D

w

local businesses, ssociated access routes, but the policy will also prevent new alt native sites being required where impacts on

f

In co nt or temporary facilities or extensions to existing permanent inert (non-biodegradable) waste

economic impacts on nd and premises in la

employment use anseek to benefit suchbusinesses whre possible. Decision-making criteria: A. Will there be any adverseimpremises in employmuse (e.g. from land taor the need for businesses to rel

om the transporfrused)?

ulative Impact: N (M)

The Core ant i

inerals pn

employment use. The strategy does, however, continue to provide policy safeguards to minimise potential significant impacts.

inerals: N (M)

w minerals sites or the extension of existing sites, which the Core Strategy envisages, m

usinesses mainly in the south of Buckingh

ansport-based impacts. However, the level of impact will vary depending on the existingsituation and works proposed at each site identified for minerals development. The fication of Preferred Areas for new mineral workings will not take place until the Mine

PD is developed. It should be noted that, if such sites were not provided within the county, the minerals would likely be sourced from elsewhere, nationally or internationally, with

unknown impacts on their local baseline.

Policy CS5 specifically requires that Preferred Areas for new minerals workings will be selected to avoid significant adverse impacts upon the amenity of all those who may be

affected by minerals and waste development proposals, which would include local businesses. The policy also requires consideration of cumulative impacts of simultaneous and/or successive working of a number of sites or extensions to sites in proximity to one

another. This is in common with similar policies in the BMWLP.

Proposals to recycle, store and transfer Construction, Demolition and Excavation (C&D) aste at existing minerals and landfill sites for a period not exceeding the life of the site underPolicy CS6, which is similar to existing BMWLP policy, may increase the level of activity or intensity of use of particular minerals and landfill sites. Such cumulative impacts may affect

particularly those in close proximity to such sites or their aer

local businesses could potentially be more negative. The policy states that permission will only be granted where there are ‘no overriding environmental concerns’, but it is not clear rom this policy wording what these ‘environmental concerns’ include and therefore whetherthis will sufficiently protect local landowners and employment premises from any adverse

economic impacts associated with such development; however, such issues are covered by other Plan policies and ‘saved’ policies, as noted below.

mmon with BMWLP policy, Core Strategy Policy CS6 also permits new permane

recycling facilities for the production of secondary aggregates. The policy also states that such activities will only be permitted where ‘they would not result in adverse impacts upon


SA Objective Assessment s

w .

psignificant adverse levels of disturbance, r the site and on routes to and from it, for

noise, vibration, dust, fumes, gases, odour, illumination, litter, birds or pests’; this policy could

or pbusinesses would also be classified as a sensitive use in light of the definition discussed

associated acce d from adverse economic impacts by ‘Saved’ Policies 28 and noted above. In addition, the increased use

It s for mi y enhancements, creating green spaces, ensuring the positive integration of developments with

landscapes / townscapes and maintaining or improving rights of way networks, could have some indirect positive benefits for some local businesses.

Summary: The likely location of minerals development is such that it will not impact upon a t number of businesses. In addition, in line with current BMWLP policies, the Core y and the remaining ‘saved’ pol to minimise any associated negative

impacts through the temporary life of mi rkings to avoid any significant impacts.

W

composting and en increase in waste tonnages generated in Buckinghamshire, but prevents the need for new landfill capacity. The

employment use in relation to those proposals.

c

re

(al w

being required taking up land that could be used for other business uses or impacting on

Unlike the BMWLP, Core Strategy rds Woodham Industrial Area in

ensitive uses’, which is stated in ‘saved’ Policy 29 from the BMWLP to include uses such asresidential premises, schools, hospitals and housed livestock; although it is not an exclusive

list and these are only examples, it is not entirely clear whether those interpreting policy ould include other local business uses within the definition of a sensitive use

However, this is balanced by ‘saved’ Policy 28 from the BMWLP which protects sensitive

receptors from a range of negative impacts on amenity, stating that ‘the County Council will protect the amenity of all those who may be affected by minerals and waste development roposals and will not grant planning permission for proposals which are likely to generate

both nea

therefore potentially help to protect local businesses from adverse impacts.

‘Saved’ Policy 29 of the BMWLP requires adequate buffer zones, detailed in Supplementary Planning Guidance, between the proposed minerals development and neighbouring existing

roposed sensitive uses; however, it is not clear whether all potentially impacted local

above.

Proposals to develop wharf and aggregates depots under Policy CS7, a continuation of existing BMWLP policy, may affect businesses located in close proximity to such sites or

ss routes. However, some local businesses may be protecte29

of rail and water may reduce impacts from the transportation of minerals by road.

hould be noted that new Policies CS22 and CS23, which state directly that applications nerals sites must incorporate measures that enhance the environment, such as biodiversit

significanStrateg icies seek

nera s wol

aste: N (M)


ergy recovery capacity, in line with the expected

increase in capacity and more local recycling provision will reduce the costs of waste management for business. The plan proposals could result in a corresponding potential

increase in negative economic impacts land and premises in employment use, but would obviate any negative impacts from landfill sites.

The Calvert option review did not identify any significant impacts on land and premises in

Localised site based impacts on land and premises in employment will depend on the existing baseline at the actual sites chosen. Locations for the additional recycling and

omposting capacity will not be identified until the Waste DPD is developed. However, PolicyCS10 does include ‘suitable sites in employment areas’ and ‘rural areas’ (the latter with gard to windrow / community composting facilities only); the former would be less likely tobe impacted by new landfill capacity, but an increased burden would likely fall more rural

areas.

Policy CS14 safeguards existing waste sites for continued waste use, unlike the BMWLP, though the actual waste use on site could potentially change). The earlier options revie

concluded that the policy might have a minor positive effect on the SA objective, if existing sites had an acceptable baseline in terms of current impacts on local businesses, as it would

safeguard waste sites that are currently in good locations, and prevent further new sites

more local businesses.

Policy CS14 also safegua


SA Objective Assessment Aylesbury Vale for its p

processes. It is a former landfill, botential as a strategic waste site and for small-scale recycling

ut not curr y in existing waste use. However, despite sa

Summimpacted by new waste facilities.

R

their p ed by minerals development.

further site selection, whether for contingency sites or as part of

or Minerals DPD, should t nt of potential economic impacts on land and premises in emplo

l

entlfeguarding, BCC will not seek to prejudice the existing industrial estate use. Considerationwill be given within the Waste DPD as to the boundary of any allocation for Woodham.

ary: There is potential for land and businesses in employment use to be negatively

However, p y safeguards continue to seek to minimise olicany significant impacts.

ecommendations:

RECOMMENDATION: Ensure the definition of ‘sensitive uses’ is clarified in the Minerals DPD to specifically include land uses and businesses already located near to such sites or

roposed access routes whose economic activities would be adversely impact

RECOMMENDATION: Anythe Waste DPD ake accou

yment use. It should be noted that, for waste sites, prevailing waste ocational criteria does not cover this issue. It should therefore be supplemented by additionalconsiderations where necessary. It should, however, be noted that all sites considered for the Minerals DPD and Waste DPD will need to be subjected to sustainability appraisal, thereby

enabling their consideration against a full range of sustainability objectives.

SA20: To maintain or improve job opportunities withounty

in the

g reduction in or reation of jobs in the

waste or minerals industry? B. Will there be a positive or negative impact on jobs opportunities in non-waste or non-minerals jobs?

Cumulative Impa

The Core Strategy provides for a t increase in waste management capacity and a potential increase in min production in Buckinghamshire. This

m

inerals: (M)

Policies CS1, CS2, CS3, CS4, CS5, CS6 all promote the development of minerals sites or extensions to existing sites to meet

n con nt

Waste:

landfill sites. As a result, a small number of n w jobs at new, extended, intensified or new e likely to be created where sites are located.

fu .

Recommendations:

o

c Decision-making criteria: A. Will there be a resultinc

ct: (M)

significan

e ls rais likely to provide limited new job opportunities in the minerals and waste industry across the county, due to the nature of minerals and waste operations. However,

inerals are required for the construction industry across the county, and beyond,which does provide significant employment.

M

and CS7 the county’s minerals needs. This may generate a

small number of new job opportunities in the minerals industry. There is unlikely to be any otable impact on local non-minerals jobs due to the nature of the industry; however, thetinued provision of minerals is vital to the construction industry, which provides significa

employment across the county and the UK.

N (M)

Waste sites do not generally have a significant associated workforce. As noted above, the Core Strategy provides for a significant increase in recycling, composting and energy recovery capacity, in line with the expected increase in waste tonnages generated in

Buckinghamshire, but obviates some jobs that may have otherwise been created on new e

sites ar

Existing waste sites will continue to function according to their existing permissions. Policy CS14 safeguards existing waste sites for continued waste use, unlike the BMWLP (although the actual waste use on site could potentially change). The earlier options review concluded that the policy might have a minor positive effect on the SA objective, as it would safeguard waste sites that are currently in good locations, and therefore the jobs on site, and prevent rther new sites being required taking up land that could be used for other employment uses

RECOMMENDATION: Any further site selection, whether for contingency sites or as part of

the Waste DPD or Minerals DPD, should take account of potential impacts on job pportunities. It should be noted that, for waste sites, prevailing waste locational criteria does

not cover this issue. It should therefore be supplemented by additional considerations where necessary. It should, however, be noted that all sites considered for the Minerals DPD and

Waste DPD will need to be subjected to sustainability appraisal, thereby enabling their


SA Objective Assessment consideration against a full range of sustainability objectives.

Additional general comments w

development of Waste DPD h policy wording should not refer to specific guidance as it may become ou of date during the plan period. Such guidance s sub o

a r

positiv bility.

th its im ore Strategies. Amendments to current local planning policy may be required to fill any policy

gaps that emerge.

continue to be provided with adequate training and information to enable them to keep up to

hem to make minerals and

county. Specialist advice from internal or external experts e to be sought where required to aid informed decision-making.

Best practice guidance of relevance to minerals and waste development is available on a ide range of topics including biodiversity, heritage, climate change and design. Best practice

guidance, particularly from Government sources, should continue to be utilised in the and Minerals DPD policy, althoug

t hould also be utilised in the appraisal of sites specifically included within future plans and in

sequent pre-application discussions for potential development. Consideration should alsbe given to the development of specific Supplementary Planning Guidance where relevant.

BCC should ensure that where ‘saved’ policies from the BWMLP are referred to above and re important in ensuring the achievement of sustainability objectives, their effect should beetained in future Minerals DPD and Waste DPD policies to ensure the continuation of their

e impact on sustaina

As required by the Government, BCC rely on national policy in places to meet elements of some sustainability objectives, as noted in the assessment above. The Government is

currently reviewing national planning policy. It is therefore uncertain whether future national policy will continue to provide the coverage required of sustainability issues. All plans should

erefore be reviewed when the final National Planning Framework is published to establishpact depending on transitional arrangement which are put in place for existing C

It should also be noted that planning officers involved in development management should

date with relevant environmental, social and economic knowledge to enable tinformed decisions on planning applications and maximise the sustainability of

waste development within theshould continu

ing the following background documents:

pic Paper

aper

Waste Topic Paper Climate Change Topic Paper Health Topic Paper Buckinghamshire Strategic Flood Risk Assessment Earlier options reviews Calvert proposals review

The above evaluation was undertaken us

Other Plans, Policies, Programmes and Initiatives To Spatial Context Topic P Minerals Topic Paper


Appendix H Assumed Construction Controls

The following table screens the likely significance of negative construction phase impacts on the baseline of the SA objectives. The assessments within this report have been conducted on the basis that standard construction-phase controls outlined in the table below would be implemented. The residual probability is the likelihood of a hazard becoming an impact (i.e. coming to fruition). It is expected that a hazard of ‘low’ residual probability will not occur, whilst hazards considered to represent a moderate or high probability of occurring were subject to further assessment.

SA Topic Hazards Standard Controls Residual Probability

Construction traffic leading to reductions in air quality

Planning permission will require that transport conditions are met.

High - can avoid AQMAs in some instances, but not all, and emissions will still occur.

Site clearance and exposure of soil and dust from debris to the air

Planning conditions will require measures to suppress dust

Moderate - can minimise dust, but will still occur, particularly within and adjacent to a site.

SA1: Air quality

Chemicals, including those stored and used on-site and diesel fuel combustion

Regulatory framework and legal enforcement (e.g. by the Environment Agency).

Low

SA2: Climate change

Emissions from vehicles and embodied carbon from materials and equipment / tools

N/A

High – unable to mitigate effectively as implicit in the construction process.

Construction traffic affecting a recreational or tourist destination, formal or informal community meeting place, open space or other important local facility (e.g. doctor's surgery, post office, etc.)

Planning permission can restrict vehicle routing if necessary using Section 106 agreement.

Low

SA3: Living conditions and amenities

Construction noise or vibration exceeding statutory limits and causing disturbance

Regulatory framework and legal enforcement by the Council (e.g. Section 61 agreement under COPA 1974). Planning permission will include conditions to limit working hours to avoid potential disturbance.

Low

SA4: Human health and public safety

Construction traffic or works presenting a danger to the public

Planning permission will require that transport conditions are met, including safety considerations.

Low


SA Topic Residual

Hazards Standard Controls Probability

Legal and Health & Safety Executive requirements will apply - ensure a safe-working construction site.

Low

Harm to protected species or habitats

y

y

ural England. Planing conditions would be put in place by the

Low

Measures would be taken blicensed specialised to avoid harm to protected species (licensed by NE). Regulatorframework and legal enforcement by Nat

County Council in line with Natural England’s recommendations.

SA5: Biodiversity

will still

ill be most protected.

Harm to other habitat or wildlife

Planning permission will takesuch considerations into account.

High - can minimise harm, but it occur. Highest value habitat and wildlife w

Destruction of below-ground archaeology

Planning permission will besubject to archaeological evaluation in accordance with PPS5.

High - varies site-by-site

SA6: The historic environment Noise, vibration, air quality

act to

Regulatory framework and presume

construction methods will be

ed to protect designated

or other indirect impdesignated historicstructures

legal enforcement by the Council and English Heritage.

Low -

condition

sites

Harm to protected geological sites

Regulatory framework and forcement by Natural

England and the Council. legal en Low

Loss of soil surface area inthe footprint of the schem

e

y

None.

High - unable tomitigate effectivelas implicit in the construction process.

Loss of soil quality where temporarily stripped and stored (e.g. for site compounds & haul routes).

e Moderate - can

using 'best ce' but some

quality is normally

Planning permission will taksuch considerations into account.

store practi

lost.

SA7: Soil and geology

re and

nment Agency).

Disturbance, exposuspread of contaminated land

Regulatory framework and legal enforcement (e.g. bythe Enviro

Low

SA8: Landscape and townscape

Harm to views / landscape due to presence of construction compounds, plant etc.

Planning permission will take such considerations into account.

High - depends on the baseline as to what the likely impact will be.


SA Topic Residual


SA9: Use of alternatives to primary materials

Use of construction materials from primary sources such as wood or aggregate.

Planning permission may take such considerations into account, through requirement for developers to consider the use of secondary materials as alternatives to primary materials. However, the use of secondary materials is likely to be market led. The requirements for the use of secondary materials in construction does not fall within the scope of land use planning policy.

High – construction process likely to require the use of primary materials.

Site clearance and exposure of soil and dust from debris to rainwater, then runoff to water bodies.


Low

SA10: Water resources

Chemicals, including those stored and used on-site and diesel fuel combustion.


Low

Putting construction vehicles, chemicals and plant in the floodplain, and thus exacerbating the impact of flooding.

Planning permission will follow EA advice on such issues. Substances with high potential toxicity would not be permitted in the flood plain.

Moderate - depends upon the baseline & construction site, but highest risks will be averted by controls. SA11: Flood risk

Increasing flood risk during construction through removal of soil & construction of project.

Planning permission will require application of PPS25 and creation of appropriate measures in advance of works

Low

SA12: Conservation of mineral resources

Loss of future potential mineral resources as a result of sterilisation to allow construction.

Impact will be assessed by the Council and developers may propose that mineral resources are excavated. Permission will not be granted where there is significant risk of sterilisation.

Moderate – depends upon the identification of a suitable minerals safeguarding area.

SA13: After-use and restoration of minerals and waste sites

N/A - construction unlikely to adversely affect the after-use of restoration of a minerals and waste site.

N/A N/A

SA14: Sustainable waste and minerals management

N/A - construction unlikely to adversely affect objectives for sustainable waste and minerals management.

N/A N/A

SA15: Energy efficiency and renewable energy

Energy will be inevitably consumed during the construction process.

This is outside of the remit of planning to control, but it is in the interests of the developer to minimise their energy consumption.

High

SA16: Transportation Construction traffic affecting the road network.


Low


SA Topic Residual


Construction causing damage to other infrastructure (including pavements or street furniture) or causing disruption in their use.

County Highways will assess planning application to ensure that proposals demonstrate that essential infrastructure is not disrupted in the first instance and fully reinstated where damage occurs. Permission will not be granted unless proposals are satisfactory.

Moderate

SA17: Community Participation

N/A - construction unlikely to adversely affect objectives for community participation in waste and minerals management.

N/A N/A

Construction traffic affecting a recreational or tourist destination.

Planning permission can restrict vehicle routing if necessary using Section 106 agreement.

Low

SA18: Recreation Construction requiring temporary closure or diversion of a PROW or footpath.

County Council will take such considerations into account and seek temporary diversions with signage and reinstatements as required using powers under the Highways Act.

Moderate - temporary closures and diversions often permitted.

Construction traffic affecting a business.


Low

SA19: Economy

Construction noise or vibration affecting a sensitive business.

Regulatory framework and legal enforcement by the Council (e.g. Section 61 agreement under COPA 1974). Planning permission will include conditions to limit working hours to avoid potential disturbance.

Low

SA20: Employment N/A - construction unlikely to adversely affect employment opportunities.

N/A N/A


Appendix I Calvert Endnotes

2008 Review Results: i 2008 Review of SA1 (Air Quality): / ? D

Moderate population (approx. 300 homes) adjacent to site. Currently substantial landfill operation at site. Local residents currently complain about smells.

Would be an increase in lorry movements and consequently an increase in transport-related pollution such as nitrous oxides and particulates. However, a new road to A41 would move site traffic away from residential area.

Would have to move all waste south of county to north – increase in transport-related emissions.

Quantities of waste going north to Calvert will be more than waste coming south to Calvert as more population in south.

Would reduce impact on A41 and the south re traffic, but impact going north would be greater (additional waste lorry movements) with a potential pinch-point at Aylesbury (but may be bypass in place by time the site in place?).

May be additional movements and consequently increased emissions from transporting residues, such as bottom ash from energy recovery processes, for reprocessing, but is option of using void space (landfill) on site.

Depending on technology, would be a negligible increase in emissions from the waste facility.

Additional dust from new facility would be limited, depending on technology.

London landfill to be continued at site.

D = Positive score depends on: 1) new access road going in; 2) new facility not being sited near to local residential premises.

AIR QUALITY ASSESSMENT NEEDED

ii 2008 Review of SA2 (Climate Change): / ? D

Part of Calvert site in floodplain. Consequently, development at the site may reduce the capacity for flood storage. Part of London Road site also in floodplain.

D = Positive evaluation depends on: 1) no building on parts of sites that are in floodplain; 2) quantity of energy production from secondary sources.

Could be used as an alternative means of energy generation supplied to grid and CHP to local residential area & prison (Calvert some distance from main town) - existing grid connection at Calvert and co-located waste uses but transmission losses. Use of methane (a contributing gas to climate change) as an energy source reduces methane from landfill.

Some additional lorry movements – transporting waste from south of county to north, thereby potentially increasing transport-related emissions of carbon dioxide and nitrous oxides.

iii 2008 Review of SA3 (living conditions and amenity): / ? D

Already landfill in Calvert – will continue

Calvert – permitted landfill, would increase volume of waste being transported, thereby potentially increasing the level of disruption/ disturbance to local residents, with respect to noise and vibration and generation of odours

Calvert – new access road could reduce impact on local communities.

Enclosed technology may be quieter and contain more of dust and smells indoors.

D = Positive evaluation depends on: 1) controls on hours and vehicle movements.

Only residents at London Road transfer station, likely to be affected by more lorry movements and larger facilities. Facilities already there.

iv 2008 Review of SA4 (human health and public safety): / D

Increased lorry movements from the South, thereby potentially increasing traffic-generated pollutants locally that may adversely affect health. However, new access road would be beneficial to local residents

Would be increases in lorry movements at some sites, but decrease at others. D = Positive evaluation depends on: 1) new access road going in. New technologies would be subject to stringent emissions controls and monitoring.

v 2008 Review of SA5 (biodiversity): ?

Calvert – notable species in and around the site. SSSIs, Biological Notification Sites and Local Wildlife Sites within the 500m buffer zones, but not within the site.

London Road – BNS (hedgerows) along adjoining road. High Heavens – BNS within 500m buffer zone.


FURTHER DETAILED MODELLING TO BE CARRIED OUT INTO LIKELY IMPACT ON SSSI AT CALVERT,

INCLUDING WHETHER SUITABLE MITIGATION MEASURS CAN BE PUT IN PLACE

vi

thereby potentially increasing the possibility of encountering buried artefacts of

ry. Listed Building within detract from the setting of the Listed Building.

High Heavens – no relevant features.

vi

Calvert + transfer stations – no sites of geological interest within the site or the 500m buffer zone.

viii

y screened by trees, but new facility may still be visible. Local Landscape Area situated within 500m buffer.

ix

es need to use fossil fuels. More

dditional positive evaluation depends on: 1) potential to use energy locally and put generated heat to good use.

aluation depends on: 1) type of impacts upon water resources of technologies/techniques

the River Ray, and ponds are also present at the site. Such features may be affected by activities at the site.

xi

. ds on: 1) no building in or in close proximity to floodplain; 2) existing run-off

Presence of capped landfill can reduce permeability, but can be drained after careful capture and treatment

xi

nlikely to be used as little demand. No relevant minerals deposits at transfer stations.

xiii

operation until approximately 2050.

time void space would be open. Restoration would only be slightly slower, but likely to be of a higher quality.

xi

be generated from secondary sources; thereby situating option higher up in the waste hierarchy than disposal.

xv

g secondary resources. More efficient to use heat and electricity locally than just

dditional positive evaluation depends on: 1) potential to use energy locally and put generated heat to good use.

2008 Review of SA6 (heritage): Calvert – no archeologically or historically important sites within site boundary. Three Archaeological Notification

Areas within 500m buffer.archaeological importance

London Road – no archeologically or historically important sites within site bounda500m buffer zone, therefore potential to

i 2008 Review of SA7 (soil and geology): N ?

2008 Review of SA8 (landscapes and townscapes):

Calvert – no landscapes or townscapes of note in or around the site

HH – in but on edge of AONB – little likely visual impact on AONB due to surrounding trees.

LR – in AONB – site more prominent than HH – site currentl

2008 Review of SA9 (natural resource use): / D

Production of energy using waste, which would otherwise be landfilled, reducefficient to use heat and electricity locally than just export electricity to grid.

Potential to use heat and electricity in neighbouring prison and within co-located of waste activities.

D = A

x 2008 Review of SA10 (water resources and quality): / D

D = Positive evadopted on site

Landfill has more potential for negative impacts. Could look for possibilities for improving water quality. The site is not within a groundwater protection zone, however the site is crossed by a number of watercourses

including

2008 Review of SA11 (flood risk): N / D Part of Calvert site in floodplain (Flood Zone 3). Part of London Road site in floodplain. HH not in floodplain D = Positive evaluation depen

rates/areas of hardstanding. No likely increase to flooding from technologies

i 2008 Review of SA12 (conserving mineral resources): N

Clay extraction currently permitted at Calvert, but u

2008 Review of SA13 (restoration and after use): N

Will be completely restored eventually, but site currently due to be in

No additional landfill would need to be permitted within the period.

Energy technologies on site would increase

v 2008 Review of SA14 (sustainable management of minerals and waste): /

Options assume no additional landfill than existing permissions and that energy will

2008 Review of SA15 (energy): / D Production of energy usin

export electricity to grid. Potential to use heat and electricity in neighbouring prison and co-located waste uses. D = A


xvi 2008 Review of SA16 (minimising road journeys):

More waste journeys south to north than would be in reverse as larger population in south More waste journeys than at present.

.

xvi

the public and businesses actively minimising waste and participating in waste reduction, reuse and recycling.

xv

ly until approximately 2050.

Rights of way unlikely to be affected by new activity on transfer station sites.

in employment use):

Transfer stations not being built on employment land.

mited employment. Would also be additional transport jobs, e.g. lorry drivers, and need for transfer station staff.

Annual mileage scenario from transport assessment (compared to other options) – HIGH

i 2008 Review of SA17 (community participation and individual responsibility): Public have had opportunities to be involved in planning process, which will continue. Scale of residual waste facilities is dependent on individual members of

iii 2008 Review of SA18 (recreation): N

Footpath around the Calvert site - nothing through it.

Calvert site would be reverted back to agricultural land, but restoration not like

xi

xx

x 2008 Review of SA19 (land and premises

No impacts on existing employment land.

2008 Review of SA20 (job opportunities):

New waste complex likely to lead to new jobs –positive impact in Calvert area as there is li