Select Committee on Environmental Audit Appendices to the Minutes of Evidence


APPENDIX 7

Letter to the Clerk of the Committee from Andrew Price, Chairman, Planning Officers Society Minerals and Waste Topic Group

  Thank you very much for consulting the Society on the Government's response to the Environmental Audit Committee's report. We note that many of the views and concerns raised by the Committee have drawn a helpful response, and would make only a few brief comments. We set these out below in relation to the numbered key comments made in the Environmental Audit Committee's report.

6.   Missing Targets

    —  We would question the adequacy of resources made available under the Waste Minimisation and Recycling Fund and point to the need for more generous resourcing of the successor Performance Reward Fund. We have several reservations as well about the competitive nature of this process, with costly time and effort spent on preparing bids and then providing quarterly accounting returns on a recurring basis for those that are successful.

    —  In relation to the Waste and Emissions Trading Bill we are unclear as to what is meant by the intention "to provide more strategic waste planning at a local level in two tier authorities". This should be clarified.

9.   Definition of Waste (see also paragraph 19 under comment 5)

    —  We have a major concern that waste is dealt with under different categories when the real problem is that we should be managing all wastes better. The UK interprets municipal waste as being predominantly household waste, whilst in Europe this definition more appropriately includes a wider range of wastes, including industrial and commercial.

12.   Environmental and Health Effects of Waste Management Options

    —  We welcome the commissioning of this review, but must record our concerns that the Environmental Audit Committee has sought a moratorium on "all larger scale municipal incinerators". Our fear is that this may result in further delay in progressing towards meeting targets, given the very long lead times needed to bring forward major new infrastructure and our belief that incineration must play a part on achieving targets within the integrated portfolio of waste management practices. We are not convinced there is a proven case on health risks and believe that other options also carry health and environmental risks.

15.   Waste Strategy

    —  Introduction of tradable landfill allowances demonstrates an intention to move towards landfill diversion, by pressurising local authorities through financial means. Whilst there is a crucial need to limit landfill, the key requirement is for clarity on the means by which waste that cannot be avoided, recycled or composted should in future be managed. There is a clear need for Government policy statements and leadership on what alternatives should be pursued to replace landfills.

18.   Planning Uncertainty and Delay

    —  The Government's intentions to speed up the planning system and review PPG10 are noted, but the fundamental need is for clear and unambiguous guidance from Government on waste management policy which will allow long term planning to be undertaken with confidence. Development of regional and more particularly local waste plans need to be well-founded in clear statements of Government waste strategy policy.

  We trust these points may be of some assistance to the Committee, and thank you once again for the opportunity to be further involved in their important work.

September 2003


 
previous page contents

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2003
Prepared 20 October 2003