Development of the plan is at a very early stage and a number of public consultation exercises are under way. One such briefing / consultation / workshop was run the other evening at the Rose Theatre in Kingston. Some notes taken at the meeting follow below.
Agenda
• Welcome and introduction by Cllr Brian Mahoney
• Purpose and structure of Workshop - Susan Parham, CAG Consultants (the team of 3 facilitators)
• About the waste plan - Emma Smyth, South London Waste Plan Manager
• Question & answer session
• Breakout sessions / discussion groups
1. How much waste should the South London Waste Plan, plan to manage (i.e. 97% or 100% of the amount identified by the Mayor's office "apportioned" to the four boroughs working together)
2. Where will the facilities go?
3. Should the South London Waste Plan specify what waste development is suitable for each site identified?
• Next steps
Notes
40 - 50 people present.
Besides Cllr Brian Mahoney, Emma Smythe, also present were Cllr Richard Hudson and Rob Dixon - the services director for environmental matters.
Talked about the plan development.
Year long process.
Currently at Issues & Options stage.
Will lead to a draft plan in years time which will also be consulted upon.
Forms part of Local Development Plan (which succeeds the UDP).
The South London Waste Plan will:
• Identify sufficient and suitable sites for development of waste management facilities.
• Developers will then make applications for use with specific function and technologies to address all waste streams.
• These will be subject to normal planning controls, protections and consultation.
The plan will not:
• Identify specific technologies
• Change local refuse collection arrangement
The Mayor of London has set a target of being self sufficient for managing 85% of its own waste. As such each Borough or group has received an allocation of the total to deal with. This is called the "Apportionment".
Bizarrely despite the focus on waste, recycling etc, waste is forecast to increase from some 3/4 million tonnes today (managed by the 4 boroughs in 14 sites over some 11 hectares) to 1.3 million tonnes by 2021 (an estimated 17 hectares of facilities are required).
The figures strike one as being a bit odd. When challenged, the audience were told that the numbers were based in the main down to some assumptions in population expansion. This clearly does not take into account measure to counter the production of waste (www.foe.co.uk/pubsinfo/briefings/html/20010424152100.html) and other independent initiatives by specific retailers.
The base level of the 1.3 million tonnes which has to be taken account of is 97%. One of the questions for the breakout groups to consider was: How much waste should the South London Waste Plan, plan to manage (i.e. 97% or 100% of the amount identified by the Mayor's office "apportionment")?
Various questions, queries (and points on the part of Kingston Friends of the Earth for example) were raised. It was apparent that not everyone has read the detailed information available on line regarding the SLWP at:
http://southlondonwasteplan.limehouse.co.uk/portal
One particularly valid point was raised around the amount of retail waste and the lack of accountability by the manufacturer and the retailer in the supply chain to take responsibility for the waste they are generating.
The attendees were then broken out into three groups.
A question was raised about potential 'horse trading' between the Boroughs as to who would do what.
Rob Dixon commenting on the incineration as one option, mentioned that the most advanced facilities would only be able to cope with some 10% of the projected 1.3 million tonnes.
UK currently spends £60 - £80 per tonne on dealing with waste, compared to £100 - £120 on the continent. Dealing with more waste will cost more.
The consensus was that the SLWP should attempt to deal with 100% of the apportionment.
As to where facilities should be located, comment was made that consideration should be given to collection and transportation as well as recycling.
Note the region differs from some in that it already has a landfill site.
Geography and location matters were discussed but in general most contributors felt that they would have benefited from more knowledge as to the type of facilities and their effectiveness in dealing with various types of waste to add more relevance / context.
Some key points raised included: "Environmental Justice" - ensuring that any developments do not adversely impact areas of social deprivation. Rathermore, any new facilities should be assessed on a principle of their positive impact against a set of pre-determined criteria.
It was concluded that it was not the type of technology / facility at a specific location which matters but more so the the impact of the facility (both positive and negative).
Rob Dixon pointed out that it would be nigh on impossible to control inter-regional waste processing e.g. SLWP facilities taking waste from other regions and processing it for money, except by licence or controls implemented as part of the overall planning policies.
In justifying the evenings activity, however effectively managed, one of the stakeholders said "In 2012 when we are asked why you chose one particular course of action over another, they can point to consultation exercises such as this one tonight as evidence of what people thought."
In terms of next stages, the draft will be put out for consultation around October 2009. The final plan will follow in February 2010 before going on for review by the Secretary of State.
As a final matter and a key concern echoed throughout the evening, a member of the audience again asked what was being done to try and reduce the total amount of waste under consideration with particular reference to retail and supermarket waste.
This was supported by a number of other comments. A response was given that the points would be noted and taken into account and that various other initiatives were focused on such matters. However, It was then pointed out that there seemed to be a glaring majority of people who thought the SLWP should explicitly cover such matters with a number of key objectives to reduce the 1.3 million tonnes included in the plan. A show of hands showed that this was the majority view of the audience. It will be interesting to see whether the final report reflects such intentions.
No comments:
Post a Comment