6.18 The
sustainability appraisal of the scenarios is presented more fully in the Waste
Management Statement, available on the Regional Assembly’s website
(www.southeastra.gov.uk).
6.19 The
results of the appraisal indicate that no single scenario outperforms all the
other options. The findings are complex and simply reveal the strengths and
weaknesses associated with each scenario. For example, half of the
options have
the highest score against at least one indicator, yet also have the lowest
score against another.
6.20 It
also indicates that scenarios including large facilities consistently
out-perform those including only small facilities due to the scaling of impacts
associated with the requirement for a higher number of individual small
facilities. However, the appraisal also highlights that smaller facilities may
have reduced transport impacts (lower number of ‘waste miles’) through
potentially being in closer proximity to sources of waste.
6.21 Although
a number of different patterns can be identified, the following three options
were determined to have the relatively better performance:
6.22 The
three options with the relatively poorest performance were:
6.23 The
selection of a preferred option has been based on the following considerations:
·
the need to
meet, as a minimum, the targets for recycling and recovery of waste set out in
the Landfill Directive and Waste Strategy 2000;
·
advice
provided by SERTAB, and through stakeholder and Regional Assembly member
consultation throughout the development of the Strategy;
·
moving up
the waste hierarchy prioritizing minimisation and achieving as high as practicable recycling and composting rates.
Meeting Recycling and Recovery Targets
6.24 It
is clear that continuing to manage waste as we do at present will not meet the
various targets for diverting waste away from landfill through recycling,
composting and recovery. The Strategy therefore does not consider this
as a viable option. All of the scenarios presented in the Waste
Management Statement, and described above, will meet or exceed these targets
and all require a shift in the way waste is managed.
6.25 The
Regional Assembly considers that the preferred option should be ambitious and
aspirational, but also achievable. In setting high recovery targets, recycling
and composting should be pursued to the maximum practicably achievable levels.
Stakeholder Opinion and Advice
6.26 The
Regional Assembly and SERTAB undertook a survey of stakeholder opinions in the
winter of 2001/2 followed up by stakeholder seminars in February and July 2002.
A number of workshops for Assembly Members were also held during 2002. The
opinions expressed have guided the approach taken in the Strategy and the selection
of a preferred option. Overall, stakeholders expressed strong support for the
Strategy to place emphasis on waste minimisation and means of achieving this.
6.27 However,
the need to plan for adequate infrastructure to manage waste to achieve the
diversion targets was also stressed, as was the need to include all available
technologies and management methods to achieve this.
6.28 In
considering option selection, stakeholders consistently advised that the
Strategy should, in principle, aim to exceed national waste recovery and
diversion targets (as achieved in scenarios 4-6).
Sustainability/BPEO Appraisal Results
6.29 The
scenarios were developed for use in the sustainability appraisal and present
extremes (large scale or small scale only facilities). The proportion of each
waste stream going to recycling, composting, thermal treatment (energy
recovery) and landfill for different scenarios is estimated in the Waste
Management Statement and provides the
rationale behind the estimates of infrastructure requirements used in
the appraisal.
6.30 Although
the scenarios featuring only large facilities consistently scored more highly
than those with only small facilities, this stark choice is unlikely to be
realistic. Delivery will most likely be through the provision of a mixture of
facility types and sizes, including sizes in between the two extremes
appraised. Indeed, the appraisal highlights the potential advantages of smaller
facilities particularly in reducing transport distance through enabling
proximity to sources of waste by a greater number of smaller facilities.
6.31 The
sustainability appraisal does not indicate that any one management method
should be excluded from the Strategy. Scenario 5b scores highly against a range
of objectives, particularly those concerning maximising recovery, reducing
emissions, conservation of resources, education of waste management and
reliability of delivery (planning permission). However, as this scenario
excludes additional thermal treatment, it should not be pursued in
isolation. The strong messages from the appraisal should, however,
inform the determination of a preferred strategy and its prioritisation of
increasing recycling and composting.
6.32 The
appraisal therefore indicates that the preferred option should be a mixture of
scenarios 5 and 6, with the relative benefits of large-scale facilities
stressed (informed by the sustainability appraisal findings), priority placed
on recycling and composting but including a mixture of facility types
and sizes.
6.33 The
potential region-wide infrastructure implications of pursuing such an option
were developed for the sustainability appraisal and are summarised in Table
6.2. Although only illustrative, they provide an indication of the
significant scale of provision of new facilities (cumulative totals)
required across the region for all scenarios.
6.34 The
large increase in requirements between 2020 and 2025 is artificial and reflects
the assumption used in the Waste Management Statement that facilities will have
a 20 year lifespan. In reality, there will be refurbishment and renewal of
facilities throughout this period and some sites will have a longer lifespan.
6.35 Table
6.2 demonstrates that a much greater number of new small scale facilities would
be required than large facilities (by an order of magnitude) to meet the same
rates of recovery. This strongly influenced the sustainability appraisal. It
should also be stressed that the estimates of existing capacity in the region
were based on incomplete data and should be treated with caution. However, the
urgent need for new recovery facilities of all types is clear, with a regional
requirement by 2010 of:
Table 6.2
Illustrative Cumulative Number of New Facilities Required for Future
Waste Management in the Region as a Whole (Scenarios 5b, 6a and 6b of the Waste
Management Statement)
|
Scenario |
5b (large
facilities) |
6a (small
facilities) |
6b (large
facilities) |
|
Year |
Large EfW |
Large MRF |
Large Compost |
Small EfW |
Small MRF |
Small Compost |
Large EfW |
Large MRF |
Large Compost |
|
2005/06 |
0 |
2 |
18 |
13 |
0 |
99 |
6 |
0 |
10 |
|
2010/11 |
0 |
50 |
40 |
27 |
42 |
178 |
11 |
15 |
18 |
|
2013/14 |
0 |
79 |
58 |
36 |
94 |
232 |
15 |
34 |
24 |
|
2016/17 |
0 |
99 |
70 |
44 |
125 |
268 |
18 |
45 |
27 |
|
2020/21 |
0 |
118 |
77 |
50 |
156 |
296 |
20 |
56 |
30 |
|
2024/25 |
0 |
192 |
92 |
61 |
327 |
353 |
25 |
117 |
36 |
Note: This table only highlights the
requirement for new recovery infrastructure, and not additional landfill
provision. Full details are in Tables 7.6 and 7.7 of the Waste Management
Statement.