Conclusions and recommendations
1. The
NPS should be amended so that it is clear on the face of the document
what evidence has been used to underpin the assessment of need,
particularly in relation to capacity. We welcome the Minister's
reassurance that data collection will be an ongoing process and
we recommend that Defra review its most recent assessment of installed
and planned capacity before the NPS is first reviewed. (Paragraph
15)
2. We recommend that
the NPS be amended to make clear that renewals of time-limited
planning permission for existing landfill sites will continue
to be dealt with under the planning consent regime set out in
the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Similarly, the NPS should
make clear that increases in void space will only be dealt with
under the NPS process where the capacity of the site would be
increased by more than 100,000 tonnes per annum. (Paragraph 23)
3. We believe that
the inconsistent terminology used in the draft NPS could lead
to uncertainty. We recommend that Defra amend the NPS so that
the language used to describe the interaction between the IPC,
developers and consenting bodies is consistent and accurate throughout
the document. A failure to achieve legal standards of drafting
in the NPS will increase the likelihood of legal challenge in
the planning process, increasing costs and introducing delay.
(Paragraph 25)
4. It is clear that
there are significant concerns about the way that the draft NPS
deals with the interaction between applications for Environmental
Permits and development consent. We recommend that Defra consider
how the two application processes could be streamlined with a
view to avoiding unnecessary duplication and bureaucracy, thereby
reducing costs for developers. Opportunities for the information
provided by developers to be shared between the IPC and the Environment
Agency rather than submitted separately should be exploited.
(Paragraph 30)
5. We share the concerns
of the Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management
that the draft NPS does not take sufficient account of the risks
that flooding of hazardous waste facilities may pose. We recommend
that the NPS be amended to require the IPC to attach greater weight
to flood risk considerations. With the exception of ship recycling
facilities, hazardous waste infrastructure should be located in
Flood Zones 2 and 3 only in the most exceptional and compelling
circumstances. (Paragraph 35)
6. We recommend that
Defra ensure that the consideration of flood risk in the NPS remains
as detailed and robust as that currently set out in PPS 25 and
its associated guidance, and is not watered down by proposed changes
to broader planning policy. (Paragraph 37)
7. The draft NPS should
be amended to direct the IPC to refuse development consent where
the Environment Agency advises against a development on flood
risk grounds. (Paragraph 38)
8. We recommend that
Defra provide clarity to developers by including a definition
of whole-life costing in the NPS. (Paragraph 39)
9. We recommend that
insect infestation be removed from the generic impacts section
of the draft NPS. In light of Government's stated intent to remove
the regulatory burden on businesses, it is unsatisfactory that
the inclusion of irrelevant impacts in this NPS has been justified
as being part of a "belt and braces" approach. (Paragraph
42)
10. Government must
play a more proactive role in educating the public about the need
for and benefits of new hazardous waste infrastructure. We expect
Defra in its response to this report to set out how it will seek
to improve public awareness and perceptions of hazardous waste
facilities. This could include production of a short factual guide
which developers could make available to local communities as
part of the consultation process. (Paragraph 49)
11. It is very disappointing
that despite our criticisms of Defra's consultation on the draft
Waste Water NPS, the consultation on the draft Hazardous Waste
NPS has received even fewer responses. This underlines the need
for the Department to do far more to engage with the public in
this policy area. (Paragraph 52)
12. We recommend that
the draft NPS be amended to include guidance on how community
stress and anxiety assessments should be carried out. (Paragraph
55)
13. We recommend that
Government amend the guidance to developers on conducting pre-application
consultations so that developers are required to invite local
communities to propose specific mitigation measures. (Paragraph
58)
14. The IPC's How
to have your say advice note should also be amended to encourage
local people to suggest how the impacts of a development may be
mitigated. (Paragraph 59)
15. We recommend that
Defra develop guidance about the factors which the Secretary of
State should take into account in deciding whether to exercise
the power set out in Section 35 of the Planning Act 2008 in the
context of Hazardous Waste infrastructure. Such guidance should
be published alongside the final NPS. (Paragraph 61)
16. We recommend that
decisions on hazardous waste NSIPs be made jointly by the Secretary
of State for Communities and Local Government and the Secretary
of State for Defra. (Paragraph 64)
| 
