Examination of Witnesses (Question Numbers
40-59)
DR PAUL
LEINSTER AND
MS LIZ
PARKES
15 OCTOBER 2008
Q40 Chairman: I appreciate there
is a difference between practicality, shouting and strategy but
it seems to me to be heavily loaded to the official policy-making
as opposed to the practical.
Ms Parkes: I think practical experience
is always invaluable. We bring an element of practical experience
as a delivery body and as a regulator.
Chairman: Somebody from the trade end
might be a useful addition to the board.
Q41 Lynne Jones: There is concern
about the ability for us to get the waste infrastructure treatment
programme to deal with all this waste and one of the major problems
identified is the planning system. Could you comment on whether
the planning regime is adequate and what could be done to improve
it? When we were at the Viridor site in Sutton last week, they
said even a straightforward planning applications which were not
really controversial were taking months to deliver due to shortage
of planning officers. Have you looked at what the constraints
are in the system and how these blockages can be dealt with to
smooth the process?
Ms Parkes: I know that Defra's
waste infrastructure development programme is charged with making
sure these things come forward and they are certainly looking
at what is happening, how quickly things are coming forward and
understanding the reasons for delay. It is true that it is still
taking an awfully long time for planning applications to get through.
There have been a number of reviews of the system. At the end
of the day, it is the local democratic system and waste facilities
are still not popular. This is where we have been trying to encourage
partnership working. A question was asked earlier about do we
think the Strategy is a good thing. There was a desperate need
at the time the Strategy came out for a single strategy that people
could get behind and stop arguing about what it did not say, to
start delivering what it did say. I think it has provided that
opportunity to brigade opinion, hopefully trying to give the public
some confidence that it is not a question about objecting to everything
but agreeing what facilities are needed where. I think it is inevitable
that delays are built into a democratic process.
Q42 Lynne Jones: Can the Environment
Agency do anything to help with the partnership working?
Ms Parkes: We do help. We have
guidelines that we have issued to help the applicants find their
way through the process, to help give the public confidence. We
dual track applications which means that you can make an application
for your planning permission at the same time as your permit so
that there is no delay from our side. We provide views to try
again to give the public confidence that if this facility is granted
planning permission we can be satisfied that it will not cause
a problem to the environment, but we are aware these things still
take time.
Q43 Lynne Jones: Is the money available
in the infrastructure delivery programme adequate?
Ms Parkes: It is a huge programme
and the infrastructure seems to be coming forward. The indications
are that it is on track.
Q44 Paddy Tipping: Could I just ask
you about the Planning Bill that is going through Parliament at
the moment? That is not going to help waste infrastructure at
all, is it?
Ms Parkes: My understanding is
that it will only impact on very, very large waste infrastructure.
Applications of that size are unlikely to come forward because
they would not be very popular with the public, so I think it
does not really impact on waste infrastructure.
Q45 Paddy Tipping: Is there a need
to look at that during the course of the Bill?
Dr Leinster: There has always
been this tension between the regional strategies because there
are regional waste strategies and each region has a technical
advisory body. They have done work which has identified the mix
of the facilities that should be provided within a given region
for the mix of waste which is being produced, but there has always
been a disconnect between that strategic approach and the local,
and locational approach. I remember giving evidence in front of
a committee here probably about six or seven years ago, talking
about the disconnect between the regional, strategic approach
and the locational approach. It is still there. One of the other
things that we have done to help in this process and speed the
process through from our side is that we now issue, if operators
are willing to accept them, licences with standard conditions.
If you accept a licence with a standard condition, it just goes
straight through.
Q46 Paddy Tipping: You told us that
the permit system and the planning system could run together in
sync. That does not always happen, does it?
Ms Parkes: No. It is up to the
applicant whether they wish to put both applications in. Some
may want to wait until they have the certainty of planning permission
but many will work jointly with us and the planning authority.
Then we can make sure that information does not need to be submitted
twice. I think it also helps the public. This can look very confusing
if you have two different permit bodies, so we do work very closely
and I think where industry puts its mind to it it can get applications
through in a reasonable time but it does require quite a lot of
investment and forward planning. You have to take your local populations
with you.
Q47 David Lepper: I am just wondering
about the example of my own area and the East Sussex and Brighton
& Hove waste plan. I think the consultation on that strategy
began before I was elected here in 1997. The leader of the council
who initiated it has had an illustrious career, not only in local
government but here in this place and is now Government Chief
Whip in the House of Lords and still the elements of the plan
are not all in place. That is something like 11 or 12 years that
this process has dragged on. I am not sure how common that is
and I would welcome your comment on that. It seems to me that
the problem, when there is that slow progress or the lack of it,
is that there are continual, one hopes, advances in the scientific
basis of the infrastructure which, as time goes on, are likely
to discredit almost some of the earlier parts of the consultation
on the strategy. It is as if we have to start all over again.
Maybe that is what the opponents of it want but I am not sure
how common that sort of situation is and what can be done about
it if it is a common occurrence.
Ms Parkes: I could not comment
on the speed with which plans are coming forward but I think,
as Paul said, there is a disconnect often between the plans that
are there and the infrastructure being delivered. It is left to
the market to bring forward facilities at the right time. The
thing that has changed in recent years is that there is more confidence
now around the industry that, when new requirements are coming
in, they will come in on time and they will be enforced. Many
years ago there were complaints from parts of the industry that
they had invested in new technology for fridge treatment for instance—we
all remember that—and there were delays to legislation being
brought forward. We just have not seen that kind of delay in the
last five years and there is much more confidence that the regulations
will come forward and that we will then enforce those rigorously.
Inevitably there is a time lag.
Dr Leinster: There is this disconnect
between what people produce and throw into their bins and where
they think it is dealt with. At some stage people do have to accept
that facilities are required to deal with the waste that we as
a society produce.
Ms Parkes: I heard a recent example
from a councillor who objected to a civic amenity site over many
years on the basis that it would be a bad neighbour facility.
He is now very pleased because it is bringing residents into the
town who are then spending money in local shops. We are perhaps
a little way away from that but once you have made the trip to
the supermarket the next stop down at the tip on a Sunday morning
does seem to be very common. People have to make that linkage
between what they are buying and what they are throwing away.
Chairman: People feel very virtuous when
they have been to the civic amenity site. They feel they have
done a good thing.
Q48 Dan Rogerson: Following on from
Paddy's question about the Planning Bill, it occurs to me that
the whole point about the Planning Bill is that bigger schemes
will come forward and it will not matter what the local people
think. Do you think there are things that could be done to allow
us to follow more the Scandinavian model rather than companies
and local authorities finding that the only option they can work
out between them is for bigger scale things that allow large amounts
of waste being transferred?
Ms Parkes: I think that is about
getting waste management built into regional spatial strategies
and being looked at as an integral part of all the developments
going on, looking at neighbourhood facilities, a plan led process
where local authorities are practically thinking about what they
do want rather than waiting for the proposal to come forward that
is not perhaps going to be well received.
Q49 Lynne Jones: Can I ask about
energy from waste? First of all, how would you define energy from
waste? Some people think that it is an acceptable way of describing
very unwanted operations such as incineration and anaerobic digestion.
Ms Parkes: It is kind of what
it says it is. It is generating energy from waste in whatever
form. I know the public may think it is a euphemism for incineration
but no one is just building incinerators any more. No one would
build a plant like that and indeed we require heat to be recovered
from these plants so it is an all-encompassing term.
Q50 Lynne Jones: Currently I understand
we are dealing with 10% of our waste through energy from waste
and the target in the Waste Strategy was 25% by 2020, although
back in 2000 there was a target of 34% by 2015. Why have we reduced
our targets and is the current target sufficiently ambitious?
Dr Leinster: The Waste Strategy
2000 estimated how many incinerators there might be, depending
on what facilities came forward, rather than setting a target.
It was more looking at what potential mix of facilities there
would be and then it derived a figure. All that they have done
now within the revision is to again look at what is happening
in practice and provide another estimate. It is not a target to
be achieved; it is a consequence of decisions which are being
made.
Q51 Lynne Jones: You think that the
current target is realistic?
Dr Leinster: I do not think it
is a target. It is just something which will happen, depending
on the waste contracts that individual local authorities and groups
of authorities make with waste companies.
Q52 Lynne Jones: If we have the necessary
infrastructure?
Dr Leinster: Yes.
Q53 Chairman: Is that because your
standpoint as an agency is looking principally at waste as a resource
first and foremost and you do not want to be seen to be encouraging
energy from waste in case that gets in the way of that principal
objective?
Dr Leinster: The objective for
me would be that you should not have an incinerator which then
destroys waste minimisation programmes or interrupts re-use and
recycling although, as Miss McIntosh was saying earlier, some
other countries, because they have moved to a different position,
are now reviewing that. I think it is possible to have high levels
of minimisation, re-use and recycling and still have higher levels
of incineration than we currently have. If there is going to be
incineration in the mix, we believe—and one of our permit
requirements is—that there must be associated heat recovery
from that. Incinerators work best when they have a defined input
because, just as with any fuel, you want to know what the calorific
value is of the material that you are putting in so that you have
efficient burning.
Q54 Lynne Jones: What would be the
most appropriate material for incineration and what is the most
appropriate material for anaerobic digestion? Presumably food
waste for the latter?
Ms Parkes: Food waste for the
latter and probably wood for the former. At the end of the day
we need the right mix of options and it is for local authorities
to determine what is going to work for them in their circumstances.
What would have been a shame is if we had a diversion from landfill
straight to energy from waste, bypassing consumer behaviour because,
when people put material out for recycling, hopefully they will
also start to think about what they buy as well as the feel good
factor from recycling. Now we are at the level of where our continental
partners were, I think the time is right to look at what more
can be done for energy from waste but, as Paul says, not at the
expense of those other, very vital programmes.
Q55 Lynne Jones: I was pleased to
hear you say that new plants would have heat recovery but last
week we were discussing an anaerobic digester that has been built
near Heathrow and yet none of the heat from that has been recovered.
We were told that 60% of the energy from waste plants, whether
they are incinerators or AD, is simply wasted because there is
not the infrastructure to collect the heat to feed it into buildings
and so on. Even when we are recovering, the gas is being used
for electricity generation rather than the more efficient use
for heat. What can we do? How should we proceed to try and deal
with this problem? It is not just about waste management. It is
about having recipients for the heat.
Dr Leinster: Yes, which comes
down to a locational decision as well.
Lynne Jones: This AD was right next to
Heathrow. Why could not somebody join up those two projects?
Q56 Paddy Tipping: Can I talk to
you about specifics because you are a consultee on the planning
process? There is a big new incinerator planned in north Nottinghamshire.
You have not objected to it even though there is no heat being
used from this incinerator. Why is that?
Dr Leinster: I will look into
it.
Q57 Paddy Tipping: I was told by
your local people that you were going to issue a policy paper
that defined your position on the use of heat, but it is clear
to me that this incinerator is going to be built with nowhere
for the heat to go. In principle you ought to be objecting to
it.
Ms Parkes: We do have a policy
that requires heat to be recovered so we will have to look at
why that has not happened.
Q58 Paddy Tipping: This has been
built by means of a 25 year pfi. During the 25 years and in the
next 25 years the way that we dispose of our waste will change
radically. I do not think in 25 years' time there will be enough
waste to feed this incinerator. Is that a concern of yours?
Dr Leinster: Absolutely. What
we should not be doing is having incinerators which then mean
minimisation, re-use, recycling get impacted and that has to be
over the 25 year period. I do have concerns over locking technologies
in on a 25 year basis when technologies are moving as fast as
they do.
Chairman: It will be all right. When
they run out of municipal waste because of the new technologies,
all the old Environment Agency records will be gone.
Q59 Lynne Jones: Birmingham already
has a 30 year contract for its incinerator and huge amounts of
waste which could be recovered are sent there. Why cannot Nottingham
send some of their stuff that should be incinerated? There should
be co-operation between the different authorities rather than
new incinerators.
Ms Parkes: Defra's advice on the
Waste Strategy is very clear, that local authorities need to avoid
being locked into long term contracts or plant that is too big.
They need to be responsive to future, technological changes.
| 
