bournemouth borough council municipal waste management … · 2018. 6. 4. · hyder consulting (uk)...

Bournemouth Borough Council

Municipal Waste Management Strategy

Strategic Environmental Assessment - Environmental Report

Municipal Waste Management Strategy—Strategic Environmental Assessment - Environmental Report

Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited-2212959

Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited

2212959

Firecrest Court Centre Park Warrington WA1 1RG United Kingdom

Tel: +44 (0)1925 800 700

Fax: +44 (0)1925

www.hyderconsulting.com

Bournemouth Borough Council

Municipal Waste Management Strategy

Strategic Environmental Assessment - Environmental Report

Author Alison Morrissy

Checker David Hourd

Approver David Hourd

Report No 002-WX64100-UE31R-02-F

Date 15th November 2011

This report has been prepared for Bournemouth Borough

Council in accordance with the terms and conditions of

appointment for Strategic Environmental Assessment -

Environmental Report dated September 2009. Hyder

Consulting (UK) Limited (2212959) cannot accept any

responsibility for any use of or reliance on the contents of

this report by any third party.


Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited-2212959 Page i

CONTENTS

ABBREVIATIONS ....................................................................................... 1

NON-TECHNICAL SUMMARY .................................................................... 2

1 INTRODUCTION............................................................................... 9

1.1 Municipal Waste Management Strategy ............................................. 9

1.2 Background to and Purpose of Strategic Environmental Assessment .. 9

1.3 Purpose and Structure of the Environmental Report ........................... 9

1.4 Consultation .................................................................................... 10

2 THE BOURNEMOUTH MWMS ....................................................... 12

2.2 The Purpose of the Bournemouth MWMS ........................................ 12

2.3 The Aims and Objectives of the Bournemouth MWMS ...................... 13

2.4 The Contents of the Bournemouth MWMS ....................................... 14

3 SEA APPROACH ............................................................................ 15

3.1 Requirement for SEA ...................................................................... 15

3.2 Stages in the SEA Process .............................................................. 15

4 COMPATIBILITY OF THE MWMS AIMS AND OBJECTIVES .......... 42

5 ASSESSMENT OF THE SHORT LISTED PREFERRED OPTIONS. 44

5.1 Short Listed Preferred Options Assessment ..................................... 44

5.2 Summary of Assessment Findings ................................................... 44

5.3 Cumulative Issues ........................................................................... 54

5.4 Enhancements and Mitigation Recommendations ............................ 55

5.5 Overall Ranking of the Short Listed Preferred Options ...................... 56

6 ASSESSMENT OF THE PREFERRED OPTION ............................. 58

6.1 Assessment of the Preferred Option ................................................ 58

6.2 Summary of the Assessment ........................................................... 62

6.3 Cumulative Issues ........................................................................... 62

6.4 Enhancements and Mitigation Recommendations ............................ 63

7 MONITORING................................................................................. 64

7.1 Introduction ..................................................................................... 64

7.2 Approach ........................................................................................ 64

7.3 Proposed Monitoring Framework ..................................................... 64

7.4 Management and Responsibilities ................................................... 68

Appendices

Appendix A


Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited-2212959 Page ii

Review of Plans, Programmes and Environmental Protection

Objectives

Appendix B

Baseline Data

Appendix C

Scoping Consultation Responses

Appendix D

Short List Preferred Options Assessment Matrices


Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited-2212959 Page 1

ABBREVIATIONS

AC Autoclave

AD Anaerobic Digestion

AWC Alternate Weekly Collections

BAP Biodiversity Action Plan

BBC Bournemouth Borough Council

CO2 Carbon Dioxide

CRC Community Recycling Centre

Defra Department for Farming, Environment and Rural Affairs

EfW Energy from Waste

EIA Environmental Impact Assessment

IVC In-Vessel Composting

KAT Kerbside Analysis Tool

LATS Landfill Allowances and Trading Scheme

LDF Local Development Framework

MBT Mechanical Biological Treatment

MRF Materials Recovery Facility

MWMS Municipal Waste Management Strategy

NRC Neighbourhood Recycling Centres

ODPM Office of the Deputy Prime Minister

RDF Refuse Derived Fuel

SA Sustainability Appraisal

SEA Strategic Environmental Assessment

SuDS Sustainable Drainage Systems

WC Windrow Composting

WRAP Waste and Resources Action Programme

WRATE Environment Agency Waste and Resources Assessment Tool



NON-TECHNICAL SUMMARY

Introduction

Bournemouth Borough Council (BBC) is currently in the process of preparing its Municipal

Waste Management Strategy (hereinafter referred to as the Bournemouth MWMS) which will set

a framework of how BBC intend to manage their municipal waste (including domestic and some

commercial waste) between 2010 and 2026. The overall aim will be to promote and implement

sustainable municipal waste management. The Bournemouth MWMS is being prepared to

replace the 2001 adopted Strategy ‘A Waste Management Strategy for Bournemouth’ (2001 to

2020), in order to take into account Defra’s 2005 revised guidance on the format of MWMS’s

(Guidance on Municipal Waste Management Strategies1).

Hyder Consulting was appointed by BBC to undertake a Strategic Environmental Assessment

(SEA) of the emerging Bournemouth Municipal Waste Management Strategy.

SEA is a process used for evaluating the environmental consequences of plans and

programmes, to ensure that environmental issues are integrated and assessed at the earliest

opportunity in the decision-making process.

The Bournemouth MWMS is required to be assessed using the SEA process under the SEA

Regulations2, which directly apply the SEA Directive

3 into UK law. The aim of the SEA Directive

is to ‘provide for a high level of protection of the environment and to contribute to the integration

of environmental considerations into the preparation and adoption of plans and programmes

with a view to promoting sustainable development’.

The SEA covers some relevant social and economic issues to ensure a holistic assessment of

sustainability.

The SEA Process

The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister’s (ODPM’s) SEA Practical Guide4 subdivides the SEA

process into a series of distinct stages, although the intention is that the process is iterative.

In order to ensure a holistic assessment, the SEA has been expanded to cover some relevant

social and economic issues. This also accords with recommendations set out in the ‘Guidance

on Municipal Waste Management Strategies’ (Department for the Environment, Food and Rural

Affairs (Defra), July 2005), which encourages Local Authorities to undertake a thorough

evaluation of social and economic factors.

� Stage A: Setting the context and objectives, reviewing relevant plans, policies and

programmes, establishing the baseline and deciding on the scope

1 Defra (2005) A Practical Guide for the Development of Municipal Waste Management Strategies

2 S.I. 2004 No. 1633: The Environmental Assessment of Plans and Programmes Regulations, 2004

3 Directive 2001/42/EC on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment, June

2001

4 ODPM (2005) A Practical Guide to the Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive



� Stage B: Developing and refining alternatives and assessing effects (as detailed in the

above section on MWMS Development)

� Stage C: Preparing the Environmental Report (for which this is the non-technical

summary)

� Stage D: Consulting on the draft plan or programme and the Environmental Report

� Stage E: Monitoring implementation of the plan or programme

Relevant Plans, Policies and Programmes

A review of international, national, regional and local plans and programmes and environmental

protection objectives that have the potential to generate implications upon the preparation of the

Bournemouth MWMS was undertaken in order to contribute to the development of both the SEA

and the Bournemouth MWMS. This review included:

� Identification of any external social, environmental or economic objectives, indicators or

targets that should be reflected in the SEA process.

� Identification of any baseline data relevant to the SEA.

� Identification of any external factors that might influence the preparation of the MWMS,

for example sustainability issues.

� Identification of any external objectives or aims that would contribute positively to the

development of the MWMS.

� Determining whether there are clear potential conflicts or challenges between other

identified plans, programmes or sustainability objectives and the Bournemouth MWMS.

Baseline Context and Sustainability Issues

The scope of the SEA includes consideration of the environmental, social and economic effects

of the Bournemouth MWMS. The baseline characterisation has therefore reflected the required

topics set out in the SEA Directive, but also considers relevant additional social and economic

topics as recommended in Defra’s ‘Guidance on Municipal Waste Management Strategies’.

The following topics have been considered in the SEA:

Topics covered in the SEA Relevant topics listed in Annex I of the SEA

Directive

Waste Material Assets

Biodiversity; flora; fauna Biodiversity; flora; fauna

Water and Soil Water

Soil

Air Quality Air

Energy and Climate Change Climatic Factors

Socio-economic

(including population, deprivation, economy and

education)

Population

Human Health

Material Assets

Cultural Heritage and Landscape Cultural Heritage




Directive

Landscape

Transportation Material Assets

Transboundary Issues All SEA Directive Topics

Municipal Waste Management Strategy Development

Options Development

An intermediate list of collection and treatment options was drawn up by Council Officers. These

options were discussed during a series of stakeholder consultations including public focus

groups, workshops and industry consultations. The feedback received was used in the

development of the Bournemouth MWMS.

Five options for collection were short listed based on the outcomes of these consultations.

A combination of tools has been used to analyse the environmental, financial and operational

outputs. A series of treatment options, including Mechanical and Biological Treatment (MBT),

Pyrolysis, Gasification, Energy from waste (EfW), Windrow composting, Anaerobic digestion

(AD), In-vessel composting (IVC) and use of a Materials Recycling Facility (MRF) were

modelled using the Environment Agency Waste and Resources Assessment Tool (WRATE)5.

A further modelling exercise has provided outputs covering the recycling, residual, energy, cost,

carbon and Landfill Allowances and Trading Scheme (LATS) achievements for various

scenarios. These have influenced the SEA methodology.

Eight treatment options were ranked based on the following indicators and the most preferable

technologies carried forward to produce a shortlist of six treatment options.

Short listed Preferred Options

Five short listed Preferred Options were proposed for the Bournemouth MWMS. These are

guided by the short listed collection options as these will determine the treatment options

suitable in each scenario. For example, windrow composting is not suitable where food waste is

mixed with green waste, so IVC or AD are the only suitable treatment options.

5 WRATE software, standard version 2.0.1.4, Environment Agency



The Short Listed Preferred Options

Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 (Business as Usual Scenario) Option 4 Option 5

Weekly Refuse (AC or MBT) Co-mingled Recycling Fortnightly (MRF) Food Waste Separately Weekly (AD or IVC) Green Waste Separately Fortnightly (WC)

Weekly Refuse (AC or MBT) Co-mingled Recycling Fortnightly (MRF) Food and Green Waste Together Weekly (AD or IVC)

Weekly Refuse (AC or MBT) Co-mingled Recycling Fortnightly (MRF) Green Waste Fortnightly (WC)

Fortnightly Refuse (AC or MBT) Co-mingled Recycling Fortnightly (MRF) Food Waste Separately Weekly (AD or IVC) Green Waste Separately Fortnightly (WC)

Fortnightly Refuse (AC or MBT) Co-mingled Recycling Fortnightly (MRF) Food and Green Waste Together Weekly (AD or IVC)

Residual

Waste Residual waste would continue to be

collected as per Option 3, but materials

may use either the AC or MBT process.

The technology is not currently used in

the UK at a commercial scale; however a

demonstration project exists at Poole in

Dorset.

Residual waste would continue to

be collected as per Option 3, but

materials may use either the AC or

MBT process. The technology is not

currently used in the UK at a

commercial scale; however a

demonstration project exists at

Poole in Dorset.

Kerbside residual waste is currently treated by New Earth Solutions (NES) at their

Mechanical Biological Treatment (MBT) plant (Canford, Dorset) together with

elements of the trade waste collection, beach waste and street sweeping litter.

Outputs from the NES MBT plant contribute to BBC recycling and landfill diversion

targets and these have been factored into the model. Outputs from the MBT plant

for secondary treatment are:

� Nutria 9 compost – used as capping material for Whites pit landfill, Wimborne

� Ferrous metals - taken to Simms Wimborne

� Scrap non-ferrous metals taken to Reliant Recycling located in Poole

� Plastics – taken to commercial recycling (reprocessor) at Wimborne

� Residuals – taken to Transwaste Cement kiln, East Yorkshire North Foriby

Residual waste would continue to be

collected as per Option 3, but





demonstration project exists at Poole

in Dorset.








in Dorset.

Dry

Recycling As per Option 3. As per Option 3. Collected material transported straight to a transfer station located in Poole, where

it is bulked and added with Poole’s kerbside material then transported by road to

Viridor Materials Recycling Facility (MRF) located in Crayford in Kent.

As per Option 3. As per Option 3.

Green

Waste Green waste would continue to be

treated by Windrow Composting, with

food waste collected separately for

treatment by either IVC or AD

processes.

Green waste and kitchen waste

would be collected from 2012.

Waste would no longer be treated

by Windrow Composting but

diverted to either IVC or AD

processes.

This includes green waste collected at kerbside and collected directly at Millhams

HWRC site, currently taken to the In-Vessel Composter (IVC) and/or Windrow

composting plant run by Eco-Sustainable Solutions at Parley, Christchurch. Also

small quantities are gathered in the summer months via Euro bins that are put out

in Kings Park for green waste collection.

Green waste would continue to be

treated by Windrow Composting,

with food waste collected separately

for treatment by either IVC or AD

processes.

Green waste and kitchen waste would

be collected from 2012. Waste would

no longer be treated by Windrow

Composting but diverted to either IVC

or AD processes.



Summary of the SEA Methodology

The SEA Framework is a suite of 15 SEA Objectives and associated criteria against which the

draft Bournemouth MWMS has been assessed. The SEA Objectives are intended to be

overarching and aspirational.

The Findings of the SEA

Short listed Preferred Options Assessment

Each of the Short listed Preferred Options were tested against the SEA Objectives and

indicators to determine their positive and negative effects. Uncertainties about the nature and/or

significance of the effects were also identified.

The assessment identified benefits to changing the waste management regime to encourage

further diversion form landfill. The assessment considered each collection and treatment option

in the combinations described for each preferred option. This included green and food waste

and residual waste collections, autoclave, MBT, anaerobic digestion, in-vessel composting and

windrow composting. Some recommendations were made to enhance the options and to

mitigate potential direct, indirect and cumulative impacts and a monitoring strategy was

developed.

A ranking exercise was completed using the summary assessment matrix prepared as part of

the SEA. The following table shows a rank of the five options from the option showing a higher

level of support (to the left) for the objective to the option showing the lowest level of support (to

the right). A Draft Environmental Report was produced to present the conclusions and

recommendations of the assessment process for further consideration during ongoing

consultations and MWMS development.

Op

tion

4

Op

tion

1

Op

tion

5

Op

tion

2

Op

tion

3

To protect biodiversity, including rare and endangered species, and priority

habitats

+/- +/- - - +/-

To minimise adverse impacts upon human health and wellbeing, and local

amenity

+/- +/- +/- +/- -

To guard against land contamination and encourage the appropriate re-use of

brownfield sites

? ? ? ? -

To protect and enhance soil quality and resources + + - - -

To protect and enhance ground and surface water quality + + - - -

To protect and improve air quality + + + +/- -

To limit and adapt to climate change +/- +/- +/- +/- +/-

To ensure the sustainable use of natural resources + ++ + +/- +/- +/-

To minimise waste production and ensure sustainable waste management + ++ + +/- +/- +/-

To maximise re-use, recycling and recovery rates + + ++ + + + +/-

To increase energy efficiency and the use of renewable energy sources +/- +/- +/- +/- -

To minimise transport impacts associated with waste management + + + + 0

To protect the cultural heritage resource ? ? ? ? ?

To protect the existing townscape and landscape character and quality ? ? ? ? ?

To encourage sustainable economic growth, provide employment opportunities

and encourage economic inclusion

+ + + + 0



Preferred Option Assessment

Extensive consultation was undertaken on the Draft Headline Strategy alongside the Draft

Environmental Report which contained the five Short listed Preferred Options for the MWMS.

Consultation addressed the ability of each of the options to achieve the seven objectives set out

for the strategy and the relative market, public, political and partnership acceptability.

The consultation has determined that Option 3 (Business As Usual Scenario) is the Preferred

Option for the MWMS and a detailed assessment was undertaken.

It was concluded that by retaining a business as usual scenario the option generally makes little

contribution to the achievement of the objectives.

The option avoids the need to develop new waste management facilities which supports some

of the environmental objectives where localised direct impacts would have been anticipated for

new development. This also reduces the opportunity for introducing new potentially

contaminating uses into undeveloped areas. However, in retaining the current situation, this also

reduces the opportunities for environmental enhancement, for example through green

infrastructure, water quality improvements or the opportunities to reuse brownfield sites.

The option does not seek to reduce the impacts associated with the current regime, which

shows little support for the objectives. For example, using existing collection routes and routines

will not reduce the emissions associated with transport alone, and further development of the

option is required to address this issue.

The option will not give the most advantageous adaptation option to mitigate climate change

impacts and in particular does not contribute to any great extent to the achievement of the sub-

objectives to reduce carbon emissions.

Current trends show that progress in materials recovery and landfill diversion is below the

Unitary Authority average. As the option does promote the production and use of compost and

the recycling and recovery of a significant amount of waste, it has shown some support for the

objectives to minimising waste production.

However there would be no progress made towards improving materials recovery rates from

residual waste over the current situation. In the long term, it is not obvious that the option will

ensure waste management targets are met. Further initiatives will be required alongside the

business as usual collection and treatment scenario.

Maintaining existing businesses within the area will contribute towards a sustainable local

economy, however there will not be any major new employment opportunities created. A natural

increase in employment opportunities may arise with rising population and waste production

rates. Whilst the option will not detract from the achievement of the objective, it would not

positively encourage improvements to the current situation.

It is not anticipated that there will be any new cumulative issues associated with the Preferred

Option.

Enhancements and Mitigation Recommendations

The following recommendations have been made to enhance the Preferred Option.

� A review should be undertaken of the current waste management facilities to ensure that

they have long term capacity to process waste associated with a growing population.



� Facilities should ensure that they are operating in line with environmental good practice to

minimise the risk of impacts to the surrounding environment.

� A public communications strategy should be developed to ensure clear information and

education is provided to residents to assist in the implementation of the strategy and

improve recycling uptake rates. Further initiatives may be required to increase the amount

of waste recycled, reused and composted.

� The Council should review the size and suitability of current waste receptacles to ensure

existing and potential emerging health or environmental issues associated with waste

storage are addressed.

� The MWMS should seek to encourage new employers connected to the MWMS to

provide training and development support.

� BBC should seek to ensure that all residents have sufficient access to waste disposal

services to avoid fly tipping, other illegal disposal routes or additional personal journeys

for waste disposal.

� The MWMS should seek to reduce emissions to air and transport impacts associated with

current waste management practices. This may be through encouraging an increase in

home composting, rationalising routes or improving the collection fleet efficiency. The

MWMS could include an intention to improve the efficiency of the collection fleet through

replacement or new vehicle procurement.

� The option should seek to increase recovery rates and to reduce carbon emissions in line

with targets. Additional measures should be included within the strategy to help achieve

this, such as further encouragement/incentives to minimise waste production, and options

to ensure higher recovery rates.

� The option could be improved to recover waste which is not currently processed as part

of the regime, for example food waste.

� It is recommended that opportunities to introduce new technology later within the MWMS

life span are taken where viable. The autoclave option would introduce job opportunities,

potentially requiring a higher skill level than current treatment options.

Monitoring Framework

An important part of the process is establishing how the significant (positive and negative)

sustainability effects of implementing the MWMS will be monitored. The Monitoring Framework

provides a framework for monitoring the effects of the MWMS and determines whether

predicted environmental effects will be realised. A monitoring framework based around the SEA

Objectives has been developed and includes the following elements:

� The potentially significant impact that needs to be monitored or the area of uncertainty

� A suitable monitoring indicator

� A target (where one has been devised)

� The potential data source

� The frequency of the monitoring



1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Municipal Waste Management Strategy

Bournemouth Borough Council (BBC) are currently in the process of preparing their Municipal

Waste Management Strategy (hereinafter referred to as the Bournemouth MWMS), which will

set out how municipal waste within the borough will be managed between 2010 and 2026.

Once adopted, the Bournemouth MWMS will replace the 2001 adopted Strategy ‘A Waste

Management Strategy for Bournemouth’ (2001 to 2020).

Hyder Consulting has been commissioned to undertake a Strategic Environmental Assessment

(SEA) of the MWMS. An assessment of the Short listed Preferred Options was undertaken prior

to consultation to inform the decision making process for the overall Preferred Option. During

consultation Option 3 (Business as Usual Scenario) was found to be the most acceptable

option. The findings of the assessment of the Preferred Option is presented in this

Environmental Report.

1.2 Background to and Purpose of Strategic Environmental Assessment

SEA is a systemic process for evaluating the environmental consequences of plans and

programmes, to ensure that environmental issues are integrated and assessed at the earliest

opportunity in the decision-making process.

The Bournemouth MWMS is subject to SEA under the SEA Regulations6, which directly

transpose the SEA Directive7 into UK law. The aim of the SEA Directive is to ‘provide for a high

level of protection of the environment and to contribute to the integration of environmental

considerations into the preparation and adoption of plans and programmes with a view to

promoting sustainable development’.

SEA sets out legal obligations to perform certain activities, as detailed in Section 3, SEA

Approach. These obligations have been, and will continue to be, adhered to throughout the

SEA for the Bournemouth MWMS.






1.3 Purpose and Structure of the Environmental Report

This Environmental Report documents the stages of the SEA, and outlines the scope, approach,

alternatives, detailed assessment of the MWMS and details of the remaining stages of the SEA

process. The SEA process was initiated at the earliest possible stage of the development of the

6 S.I. 2004 No. 1633: The Environmental Assessment of Plans and Programmes Regulations, 2004

7 Directive 2001/42/EC on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment, June

2001



Bournemouth MWMS to ensure it makes a positive contribution from the outset. The structure

and contents of this Environmental Report are outlined in Table 1-1.

Table 1-1 Structure and Contents of SEA Report

Report Section Outline of Contents

Abbreviations Provides a list of abbreviations used in this report.

Non Technical Summary Summary of the overall approach, the findings from the assessment of

alternative options and preferred strategy and the SEA recommendations.

1. Introduction Provides an introduction to the MWMS, SEA and the purpose of this


2. The Bournemouth

MWMS

Provides background to the Bournemouth borough, the MWMS and an

overview of the MWMS’s contents.

3. SEA Approach This section includes details of the requirements for SEA, the stages of the

SEA process (including those stages that have been completed and have

yet to be completed) and the methodologies used to undertake the SEA.

This section also includes a summary of updated baseline information and

an updated review of plans, policies and programmes.

4. Compatibility Of The

MWMS Aims And

Objectives

This section contains a compatibility assessment of the Aims and

Objectives of the MWMS when compared to the SEA Objectives.

5. Short listed Preferred

Options Assessment

This section provides details of the SShort listed Preferred Options for the

MWMS and includes a detailed assessment and summary.

6. Preferred Option

Assessment

This section provides an assessment of the collection and treatment

options chosen through consultation regarding market, public, political and

partnership acceptability.

7. Monitoring Provides a framework for monitoring the significant effects of the Preferred

Option for the MWMS.

Appendix A Appendix A provides a detailed review of Plans, Programmes and

Environmental Protection Objectives.

Appendix B Appendix B provides detailed baseline data for the Bournemouth borough.

Appendix C Summary of consultee responses from the Statutory Bodies on the SEA

Scoping Report. This section also outlines where in the Environmental

Report the consultee comments have been addressed.

Appendix D Short listed Preferred Options Assessment Matrices

1.4 Consultation

1.4.1 Scoping Report Consultation

An SEA Scoping Report was produced during the initial stages of the Draft Bournemouth

MWMP in January 2010.

The Scoping Report was consulted upon in accordance with Regulation 12 (5) of the SEA

Regulations, which requires consultation with the Statutory Bodies (English Heritage, the

Environment Agency and Natural England) upon the scope and level of detail of the

Environmental Report. Consultation responses from the Statutory Bodies are detailed within



Appendix C along with reference to how their comments were incorporated into the


1.4.2 Bournemouth MWMS and Environmental Report Consultation

In accordance with Regulation 13 of the SEA Regulations, the Bournemouth MWMS and

accompanying Environmental Report is being made available for consultation.

Further consultation has been undertaken by BBC to consult with a range of stakeholders on

the options presented in the Bournemouth MWMS to determine the most acceptable Preferred

Option. Further information on this consultation can be obtained from the Headline Strategy

document available at www.bournemouth.gov.uk.



2 THE BOURNEMOUTH MWMS

2.1.1 Background to Bournemouth

Bournemouth is a predominantly urban borough comprising an area of 46km2 in size, with open

and rural areas situated along the outskirts to the north and east. It is located in central Dorset

on the south coast and has a number of sites designated for ecological importance (refer to

baseline data in Appendix B for further details).

Accessibility by road within and around Bournemouth is an issue, as the strategic roads are

relatively poor and not well-connected. Congestion is therefore a concern to local residents and

visitors. However, the area is well connected to London by rail and further afield by domestic

and international air services from Bournemouth Airport.

The majority of the borough is developed, with the highest number of people per hectare within

the south west. Although population increase is generally lower than regional and national

levels, its population density is high in comparison.

BBC currently provides a range of waste collection and recycling services to the local

population, including household refuse, recycling and green waste collections, a chargeable

bulky household waste collection, and a trade refuse service. There are in addition 11

Neighbourhood Recycling Centres (NRC) and also a Community Recycling Centre (CRC) (i.e.

the Civic Amenity Site). Although municipal waste production within Bournemouth has

decreased over the last five years, this trend is beginning to plateau.

2.2 The Purpose of the Bournemouth MWMS

The Bournemouth MWMS will set a framework of how BBC intend to manage their municipal

waste (including domestic and some commercial waste) between 2010 and 2026. The overall

aim will be to promote and implement sustainable municipal waste management. The

Bournemouth MWMS is being prepared to replace the 2001 adopted Strategy ‘A Waste

Management Strategy for Bournemouth’ (2001 to 2020), in order to take into account Defra’s

2005 revised guidance on the format of MWMS’s (Guidance on Municipal Waste Management

Strategies’).

The Council Directive 1999/31/EC on the landfill of waste (The Landfill Directive) sets

mandatory targets for the reduction of biodegradable municipal waste sent to landfill. Local

Authorities are central to meeting these targets. The Bournemouth MWMS will set out how

Bournemouth intends to optimise current service provision, and provide the basis for any new

operations or infrastructure that is required. The Bournemouth MWMS will reflect community

and key stakeholder aspirations, and will seek to ensure cost-effective compliance with all

statutory obligations.

In line with the ‘Guidance on Municipal Waste Management Strategies’ (Defra, 2005), the

Bournemouth MWMS will ensure the following:

� Action and Delivery: Clearly agreed objectives and a framework of how these will be

achieved will be set out. The setting of objectives will ensure consideration of all relevant

obligations.

� Data Collection and Analysis: The Bournemouth MWMS will be based upon sound

analysis of reliable data.

Municipal Waste Management Strategy – Strategic Environmental Assessment - Environmental Report


� Evaluation of Options: The Bournemouth MWMS will provide a critical evaluation of

alternative options for waste management, with consideration of the Waste Hierarchy

(reduce, re-use, recycling and composting, energy recovery and disposal as a last resort).

� Timescales: A long-term strategic vision will be set out. In addition, a series of Action

Plans will be produced to set out how BBC will meet the set aims and objectives. These

will be regularly reviewed and updated.

� Integration with Other Plans: The Bournemouth MWMS will align with existing national,

regional and local waste management frameworks.

� Strategy Scope: The Bournemouth MWMS will encourage businesses and communities

to manage waste sustainably. Although it is expected that the Bournemouth MWMS will

initially focus upon Municipal Waste which remains within BBC’s control, the

appropriateness for inclusion of other wastes within the scope will be considered.

� Partnership Working: The Bournemouth MWMS will identify opportunities to work in

partnership with other Local Authorities, key stakeholders and the public, to help to

deliver common goals.

� Communication and Consultation: The Bournemouth MWMS will need to ensure

understanding of the waste challenge, and ensure community support for the

management of municipal waste. Key stakeholders and the public will be engaged at an

early stage in the process.

� Risk Management: BBC will identify and minimise key risks to the delivery of the

Bournemouth MWMS, which will be continuously managed.

� Monitoring and Evaluation: The delivery of the Bournemouth MWMS will be monitored

and evaluated. Clear indicators and targets will be set, against which progress will be

measured.

2.3 The Aims and Objectives of the Bournemouth MWMS

The aims of the Bournemouth MWMS as noted in the Headline Strategy are:

� To ensure sustainable waste management

� To promote behavioural change within the Council and amongst residents and visitors

alike, with regards to the way in which we/they manage waste

� To make sure services are fair and accessible to all

� To maximise opportunities to convert waste into a resource

� To reduce the impact of waste management activities on the local environment and

human health

� To be a leader in environmental best practice

� To provide community leadership

The objectives of the Bournemouth MWMS as noted in the Headline Strategy are:

� To meet all UK and EU targets

� Objective 2:To reduce the total household waste arisings

� To decouple the growth in waste from the growth in the economy

� To adhere to the waste hierarchy



� To follow the proximity principle

� To reduce the carbon burden of waste management activities

� To make sure the strategy is financially acceptable to the public

2.4 The Contents of the Bournemouth MWMS

The content of the Bournemouth MWMS is currently in a draft format and includes the following

key components:

� Headline Strategy, which documents the key aims and objectives, the challenges to

waste management, targets, details of current collection systems, methodology for the

MWMS development (with consideration of the Waste Hierarchy), options and appraisals

and policy proposals.

� Baseline Report containing information and statistics for a range of key issues pertinent

to Bournemouth and the development of the MWMS, in order to demonstrate current

waste trends and performance.

� Key Drivers Report, which will identify the driving forces (including legislation,

obligations and targets etc) behind the requirement for the MWMS.

� Waste Treatment Technologies Report, which will consider the treatment technologies

available to BBC in relation to recycling, biodegradable waste (including food) and

residual waste (rubbish).

� Options Appraisal Report, which will outline the methodology behind the development

of waste collection, treatment, disposal and reduction options, together with the process

by which the Preferred Strategy was reached.

� Consultation Report, detailing methodologies and results of pre-draft consultation and

post-draft consultation.

� The Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) Environmental Report (this

document) which details the likely environmental effects of the Headline Strategy.

� A series of Action Plans that identify proposals and campaigns relating to different

elements of waste management, as identified below. Joint working with Dorset County

Council and the borough of Poole Council will be encouraged.

� Waste Reduction and Re-Use Action Plan

� Recycling and Composting and Biodegradable Waste Action Plan

� Commercial Waste Action Plan



3 SEA APPROACH

3.1 Requirement for SEA

The Bournemouth MWMS has been identified as a plan to be subject to SEA under the SEA

Regulations6, which directly transpose the SEA Directive

7 into UK law. The aim of the SEA

Directive is to ‘provide for a high level of protection of the environment and to contribute to the

integration of environmental considerations into the preparation and adoption of plans and

programmes with a view to promoting sustainable development’.






3.2 Stages in the SEA Process

The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister’s (ODPM’s) SEA Practical Guide8 subdivides the SEA

process into a series of distinct stages, although the intention is that the process is iterative.

These stages are identified in Table 3-1 below.

Table 3-1 Stages in the SEA Process

SEA Stage Details and Links to the Bournemouth MWMS

Stage A: Setting the context and objectives, establishing the baseline and deciding on the

scope

A1: Identifying other relevant

policies, plans and

programmes and

environmental protection

objectives

In accordance with the SEA Directive, the Scoping Report was issued

to Statutory Bodies (Environment Agency, English Heritage and

Natural England), to obtain feedback / comments on the scope and

level of detail the Environmental Report should contain. A minimum

five week consultation period is mandatory in accordance with The

Regulations.

During the Scoping Stage, evidence gathering to inform the ongoing

development of the MWMS was undertaken.

During the Scoping consultation period, preparation of the alternative

options for the MWMS was initiated.

As a result of comments received from Statutory Bodies, minor

changes were made to the SEA Framework. Details of comments

received can be found in Appendix C.

A2: Collecting baseline

information

A3: Identifying environmental

issues and problems

A4: Developing the SEA

Framework

A5: Consulting on the scope

of the SEA

Stage B: Developing and Refining Alternative Options and Assessing Effects

B1: Testing the MWMS

objectives against the SEA

Framework

The objectives for the MWMS have been tested against the SEA

framework in Section 4.

Stage B2 of the SEA process relates to the development of alternative

options for the MWMS, the selection of the Preferred Option(s) (i.e. B2: Developing the MWMS

8 ODPM (2005) A Practical Guide to the Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive



SEA Stage Details and Links to the Bournemouth MWMS

Alternative Options the Preferred Strategy) and the assessment of potential environment

effects.

To prepare the MWMS, the Environment Agency Waste and

Resources Assessment Tool for the Environment (WRATE) was

initially used to analyse a ‘long list’ of 72 alternative options prepared

by the Council and help select the Short listed Preferred Options (See

3.2.4 for background on the development of the options).

It was essential that interaction took place between the plan-making

and SEA teams at this stage, to ensure potential adverse effects were

considered in advance and therefore avoided/minimised, and potential

environmental benefits maximised.

Ongoing stakeholder engagement was undertaken during this stage,

to inform the development of alternative options and the selection of

the Short listed Preferred Options. These were first assessed in the

Draft Environmental Assessment Report (Report Number 002-

WX64100-UE31R-01-F). Enhancement and mitigation for each of the

options was also detailed. A monitoring framework was also

suggested at this time. This assessment also forms part of this report.

The Short listed Preferred Options were then taken out to further

stakeholder and public consultation to determine the most acceptable

Preferred Option. The Preferred Option (Option 3) is assessed in this

report, together with recommendations and a monitoring framework.

B3: Predicting the effects of

the MWMS, including

alternative options

B4: Evaluating the effects of

the Preferred Strategy

B5: Considering ways of

mitigating adverse effects and

maximising beneficial effects

B6: Proposing measures to

monitor the significant effects

of implementing the MWMS

Stage C: Preparing the Environmental Report

C1: Preparing the

Environmental Report

The Environmental Report (this document) records the results of the

SEA of the Short listed Preferred Options which are the viable

alternatives for the Bournemouth MWMS.

Stage D: Consultation on the Bournemouth MWMS and the Environmental Report

D1: Consulting on the

Bournemouth MWMS and

Environmental Report

The Draft Environmental Report (Report Number 002-WX64100-

UE31R-01-F) was consulted upon alongside the Draft Bournemouth

MWMS Headline Strategy.

D2: Assessing significant

changes

Following the consultations noted in D1, this Environmental Report

presents the assessment of the Preferred Option.

D3: Decision making and

providing information

Stage E: Monitoring the significant effects of implementing the MWMS

E1: Finalising aims and

methods for monitoring

Monitoring will commence once the final Bournemouth MWMS has

been adopted.

E2: Responding to adverse

effects

3.2.1 Stage A: Setting the context and objectives, establishing the baseline and deciding on the scope

During the Scoping Stage, evidence gathering to inform the ongoing development of the MWMS was undertaken. This included a review of relevant plans, policies and programmes and the current baseline situation which should be considered in the SEA and the preparation of the Bournemouth MWMS.



Review of Relevant Plans, Policies and Programmes

The box below stipulates the SEA Directive requirements for this stage of the process.

Box 1: SEA Directive Requirements for the Review of Plans Programmes and Environmental

Protection Objectives

A review of international, national, regional and local plans and programmes and environmental

protection objectives that have the potential to generate implications upon the preparation of the

Bournemouth MWMS was undertaken in order to contribute to the development of both the SEA

and the Bournemouth MWMS. This review included:

� Identification of any external social, environmental or economic objectives, indicators or

targets that should be reflected in the SEA process.

� Identification of any baseline data relevant to the SEA.

� Identification of any external factors that might influence the preparation of the MWMS,

for example sustainability issues.

� Identification of any external objectives or aims that would contribute positively to the

development of the MWMS.

� Determining whether there are clear potential conflicts or challenges between other

identified plans, programmes or sustainability objectives and the Bournemouth MWMS.

The key themes relevant to the Bournemouth MWMS, together with appropriate references to

some of the international, national, regional and local plans and programmes and environmental

protection objectives that have been reviewed, are summarised in Table 3-2. The full list of

documents reviewed is presented in Appendix A.

The review resulted in many common themes and issues relevant to the Bournemouth MWMS,

a summary of which is presented in Table 3-2.

The SEA Directive requires that the SEA covers:

‘an outline of the contents, main objectives of the plan or programme and relationship

with other relevant plans and programmes’ (Annex 1 (a)).

‘the environmental protection objectives, established at international, Community or

Member State level, which are relevant to the plan or programme and the way those

objectives and any environmental considerations have been taken into account during

its preparation’ (Annex 1 (e))



Table 3-2 Key themes relevant to the Bournemouth MWMS from the review of plans, programmes and environmental protection objectives

Topic Key Aims Relevant to the MWMS from the Review Potential Implications for the development of the MWMS

Environment Protection and enhancement of biodiversity and the natural

environment, as an integral part of economic, social and

environmental development.

The development of new infrastructure / facilities has the potential to impact upon biodiversity and the

natural environment. The MWMS should therefore recognise this and where possible ensure

development that can enhance such features.

There are a wide range of plans that make the protection and enhancement of biodiversity a priority at

all levels. The majority of the national, regional and local policies relating to the conservation of

designated sites and protected species derive from the overarching EU ‘Habitats Directive’

(92/43/EEC). Other key documents include ‘Conserving Biodiversity – The UK Approach (2007) and

the UK Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP), which both seek to conserve and enhance biological diversity.

Protection and enhancement of the landscape and

townscape, and also the historic environment.

Promotion of higher levels of sustainable design.

The development of new infrastructure / facilities has the potential to impact upon the quality and

character of the townscape and landscape, and also cultural heritage features. Conflicts could also

occur between the desire to promote high quality and sustainable development in building design and

the existing character. The development of the MWMS should recognise these challenges, and

ensure appropriate design.

The protection of landscape, townscape and cultural heritage features, together with the promotion of

sustainable design, is brought out through many of the plans that have been reviewed, particularly

those relating to spatial planning and the development of sustainable communities. Although

currently on hold, the Draft Heritage Protection Bill (2008) will eventually reform heritage protection

systems, once adopted, seeking to support sustainable communities by placing the historic

environment at the heart of an effective planning system.

Recognition of the challenge of climate change and the need

to adapt to the associated threats posed, including flood risk.

The MWMS will need to ensure that options for waste management do not contribute to increased

greenhouse gas emissions.

Additional traffic movements can contribute to increased greenhouse gas emissions. The siting of

new facilities should therefore ensure they do not contribute to an increase in associated travel, and

are located within sustainable locations that make the most of existing sustainable transport links.

Flood risk can be increased through development within floodplains. It is therefore important that the

MWMS recognises this and ensures that the siting of new infrastructure / facilities avoid areas at risk

from flooding. In addition, the implementation of measures to offset such impacts should be

promoted in new development, for example use of renewable energy and Sustainable Drainage

Systems (SuDS).

A range of plans at all levels seek to ensure adaptation to climate change through provisions to

ensure a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions and flood risk. The key international conventions




relating to climate change include the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Kyoto

Protocol. The ‘Climate Change Strategy for Bournemouth’ (2003, reviewed in 2007) seeks to deliver

the UK climate change programme at the local level within Bournemouth. The UK Climate Change

Act (2008) sets out new targets and requirements to ensure a reverse trend in the effects of climate

change.

Reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, energy efficiency,

and promotion of renewable energy and technologies.

Protection and enhancement of air quality.

Additional traffic movements can contribute to increased greenhouse gas emissions. It is therefore

important that the MWMS recognises this, and ensures that the siting of new facilities do not

contribute to an increase in associated travel, and are located within sustainable locations that make

the most of existing sustainable transport links. By ensuring accessibility to waste disposal facilities,

together with good home and business collection and recycling opportunities, the MWMS could

contribute to a reduction in associated travel.

The MWMS should promote environmentally sustainable development, and seek to ensure energy

efficiency and an increase in the proportion of renewable energy use within waste management

operations.

The Bournemouth, Dorset and Poole Draft Energy Efficiency Strategy and Action Plan (2009) seeks

to ensure energy efficiency and sets out targets to reduce CO2 emissions within the region, and the

2005 Renewable Energy Strategy and Action plan seeks to encourage renewable energy

development. Although it is important to consider local provisions such as these, the 2008 Energy Bill

sets out new energy related legislation.

The Directive on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe (2008/50/EC) and the EU Air Quality

Framework Directive (96/62/EC) (and Daughter Directive (2004/107/EC)) are the prominent pieces of

legislation for the protection and enhancement of air quality. In addition, the UK 2007 Air Quality

Strategy sets out air quality objectives and policy options to further improve air quality and associated

health implications in the long term.

The prudent use of natural resources and the development

of more sustainable patterns of production and consumption.

The better use of natural resources can contribute to a reduction in the generation of harmful

emissions. The MWMS should ensure that waste management operations and new facilities /

infrastructure consider the sustainable use of natural resources.

The plans relating to sustainable development generally include provisions that seek to ensure a

reduction in the use of natural resources. The World Summit on Sustainable Development,

Johannesburg (2002) seeks to reverse the trend in loss of natural resources, and the European and

UK Sustainable Development Strategies aim to conserve and mange natural resources. In addition,

the overriding aim of the 2007 Waste Strategy for England is to reduce waste by making products




with fewer natural resources.

Protection and enhancement of water quality and resources. The development of new infrastructure / facilities and waste management operations could generate

adverse implications upon water quality, through pollution and contaminated runoff and emissions. It

is therefore important that the MWMS recognises this and promotes measures to avoid such impacts.

Waste management operations should seek to minimise the requirements for water use.

The Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC) is the primary legislation for the protection of inland

surface waters, transitional waters, coastal waters and groundwater, the provisions of which filter

down into more local scales. The Flood and Water Management Act (2010) also provides for better

management of water resources and quality, particularly in relation to climate change.

Protection and enhancement of soil resources and guard

against land contamination.

The development of new infrastructure / facilities and waste management operations has the potential

to generate adverse impacts upon the quality of the soil through contamination. It is therefore

important that the MWMS recognises this and promotes measures to avoid such impacts. Efficient

design should be ensured to minimise the footprint of developments, and therefore the associated

loss of soil resource.

The principal document relating to the protection of soil resources is the 2006 ‘Soil Thematic

Strategy’, for which the overall objective is protection and sustainable use of soil. Soil is also

indirectly protected through the comprehensive range of waste management pollution prevention

related obligations.

Promotion of sensitive and sustainable waste management. The MWMS should ensure sustainable waste management as an overarching aim. It should seek to

minimise waste production and maximise re-use, recycling and recovery rates. The MWMS should

ensure that the development of new facilities are appropriately located in relation to the main sources

of waste production.

The MWMS will need to engage and empower the public in relation to sustainable waste

management, e.g. through encouraging the waste hierarchy concept.

A comprehensive system of legislation and policy documents seek to ensure sustainable waste

management, including those that seek to ensure sustainable development and communities. The

2009 Waste Development Framework provides overarching legislation to ensure sustainable waste

management, as does the 2007 Waste Strategy for England and PPS10: Planning for Sustainable

Waste Management (2005). There are a number of specific waste related documents at the more

local levels, for example the 2006 Bournemouth, Dorset and Poole Waste Local Plan, which provides

guidance on where new waste and recycling facilities should be provided with regards to waste

management strategies. In addition to the Bournemouth Sustainable Communities Strategy 2007-




2011 (revised 2009) sets out goals relating to waste.

Social The need for long-term sustainable patterns of development

that provide for the economic and social needs of all

populations.

The MWMS should ensure that waste management facilities and services are distributed so as to

meet all local needs.

It is also important that waste management facilities and operations ensure vermin control so as not

to reduce the quality of the local environment.

Sustainable development is an inherent principal in many plans that have been reviewed. The World

Summit on Sustainable Development, Johannesburg (2002) and the European and UK Sustainable

Development Strategies are the key documents in this respect.

At a more local level, the Sustainability Shaper (the Sustainable Development Framework for the

South West of England) 2006/7 translates the UK's Sustainable Development Strategy, setting an

agreed agenda to ensure that sustainability principles influence decision makers in government, and

the voluntary and community sectors. Bournemouth Vision 2026 – Sustainable Communities

Strategy 2007-2011 (revised 2009) also provides for the creation of a sustainable environment

Raising levels of health and wellbeing of the population.

Achievement of an overall improvement in quality of life for

all residents.

Waste management facilities and operations have the potential to generate nuisance impacts upon

local amenity and health, e.g. dust, odour, noise, litter and vermin. The MWMS should therefore

ensure that measures are proposed to mitigate such impacts. The MWMS should also ensure that

any emissions do not contribute to adverse human health impacts.

The MWMS should ensure opportunities for public engagement and stakeholder participation in

relation to decision making for the borough’s waste management. The development of waste facilities

can be a highly emotive subject. A thorough assessment of proposed facilities should therefore be

undertaken, initially at a strategic level and then at a site specific level through Environmental Impact

Assessments (EIA).

A variety of international and national plans seek to improve health and wellbeing, including those

seeking to achieve sustainable communities. At an international level, Together for Health: A

Strategic Approach for the EU 2008 – 2013 provides an overarching strategic framework to address

health issues across the EU and health in all policies, and at the local level, the Health and well-being

in Bournemouth and Poole, Joint Strategic Needs Assessment / Public health report (2008) intends to

support commissioning and strategic planning decisions to improve population health and wellbeing.

As discussed above, a reduction in pollution associated with waste management has the potential to

generate health benefits in the long-term, therefore plans relating to air quality and greenhouse gas




emissions are also pertinent.

Economy Promotion of a diverse, value-added economy.

Promotion of sustainable economic development and a

range of employment opportunities that meet the needs of all

sectors of the population and all skills levels.

The creation of new and sustainable waste management solutions, technologies and operations,

together with the development of new facilities, could help to diversify the economic base of the

borough and provide increased employment opportunities for a range of skills levels. By raising

awareness of waste reduction, the MWMS could help to generate cost savings for companies.

Many of the plans reviewed, including those that seek to achieve sustainable waste management,

indirectly make provisions for increased employment for all, diversification of the economic base and

economic inclusion, e.g. by encouraging the development of new technologies and the development

of sustainable communities etc.

Transport and

Access

Promote sustainable transport (including walking and

cycling) and improve movement and accessibility.

Waste related transport has the potential to increase as population grows and waste management

facilities and operations increase. The MWMS should therefore ensure that the siting of facilities

contributes to a reduction in the need for people to travel, and be focussed in areas of sustainable

infrastructure. An efficient and sustainable household recycling and collection scheme would help to

reduce waste related movement.

The MWMS should also recognise the potential indirect effects of traffic upon local air quality and

climate change.

The range of plans that seek to encourage sustainable development include provisions to ensure

sustainable transport. More specifically, the overarching documents are the Future of Transport

White Paper A Network for 2030, which seeks to address the challenges faced over the next 20 to 30

years, and the Low Carbon Transport: A Greener Future (2009), which sets out how greenhouse gas

emissions from transport will be reduced. At a more local level the South East Dorset Local Transport

Plan 2006-2011 seeks to make better use of the existing transport network within the region,

improving access to essential services, promoting public transport, cycling and walking, and more

sensible use of the car.



Baseline Context and Sustainability Issues

Box 2: Characterising the Baseline Environment

Characterising the environmental and sustainability baseline, issues and context is an important

activity in defining the framework for the SEA. It involves the following elements:

� Characterising the current state of the environment of the borough including social and economic aspects; and

� Using this information to identify existing problems and opportunities which could be considered in the MWMS.

Methodology

The scope of the SEA includes consideration of the environmental, social and economic effects

of the Bournemouth MWMS. The baseline characterisation has therefore reflected the required

topics set out in the SEA Directive, but also considers relevant additional social and economic

topics as recommended in Defra’s ‘Guidance on Municipal Waste Management Strategies’.

The SEA Directive requires, ‘material assets’ to be considered within the SEA. Material assets

refer to the stock of valuable assets within a study area and can include many things from

valuable landscapes, natural and cultural heritage through to housing stock, schools, hospitals

and quality agricultural land. It is considered that material assets of the borough are

appropriately incorporated within the identified baseline topics, and consequently will not be

repeated as a separate section.

Table 3-3 identifies the topics covered, together with their relationship with the topics listed in

Annex I of the SEA Directive.

Table 3-3 Topics covered in the SEA and relevant SEA Directive topics


Directive

Waste Material Assets

Biodiversity; flora; fauna Biodiversity; flora; fauna

Water and Soil Water

Soil

Air Quality Air

Energy and Climate Change Climatic Factors

Socio-economic

(including population, deprivation, economy and

education)

Population

Human Health

Material Assets

The SEA Directive requires that the SEA covers:

‘the environmental characteristics of the areas likely to be significantly affected’

(Annex 1(b), (c))

‘any existing environmental problems which are relevant to the plan or programme

including, in particular, those relating to any areas of a particular environmental

importance, such as areas designated pursuant to Directives 79/409/EEC and

92/43/EEC’ (Annex 1 (d))




Directive

Cultural Heritage and Landscape Cultural Heritage

Landscape

Transportation Material Assets

Transboundary Issues All SEA Directive Topics

The baseline was characterised through the following methods:

� Review of relevant local, regional and national plans, strategies and programmes.

� Data gathering using a series of baseline indicators developed from the SEA Directive

topics, the ODPM’s SEA Practical Guide and the data available for the borough.

� Consideration of the scope and contents of the Bournemouth MWMS.

� This review has also drawn from relevant baseline information provided through the SA of

both the BBC Local Development Framework (LDF) and the Core Strategy.

Appendix B summarises the key baseline trends across the borough. Each section is

subdivided to present the following:

� The baseline indicators that have been used (some are also contextual indicators and

may not actually form part of the SEA Framework).

� Descriptive text, graphs and statistics about the borough.

� Key data gaps.

Paragraphs below present an overview of the key sustainability issues and opportunities

relevant to the MWMS and relevant to each SEA topic.

Waste

� Although local municipal and household production has decreased over the last five

years the reduction rate is beginning to plateau.

� The major strategic landfill site for the borough is located in a neighbouring authority,

which has associated capacity and transport implications. The diversion of waste from

landfill should continue, which would generate associated financial benefits as Landfill

Tax increases in the future.

� Although costly to BBC, the green waste collection is important to ensure Landfill

Allowances and Trading Scheme (LATS) targets are met. Increased uptake of this

scheme could divert a large proportion of waste away from landfill.

� Opportunities for a food waste collection could also contribute to an increased diversion

of waste away from landfill.

� Opportunities should be sought to further improve recycling performance, to ensure that

the recycling targets set out in the Waste Strategy for England 2007 are achieved.

� Opportunities should be sought to further improve composting performance.

Opportunities for the local use of composting should be sought.

� Under the Big Bin / Little Bin recycling scheme up to 13% of the contents of the residual

waste bin in 2008/09 are potentially recyclable. A good distribution of recycling facilities

across the borough would help to further encourage recycling within the local community.

� Opportunities to increase energy from waste should be considered.



Biodiversity, Flora and Fauna

� Bournemouth borough comprises a very high quality environment which needs to be

preserved and enhanced. Many parts of Bournemouth are located close to sensitive

nature conservation sites. The wetlands of Turbary and Kinson Commons and

Christchurch Harbour are particularly susceptible to disturbance or pollution.

� The provision of new waste management facilities has the potential to increase pressure

on the high quality nature conservation resources across the borough. Their location,

design and environmental performance needs to be appropriate to the nature of the

environment, and should be assessed to ensure there is no adverse impact upon the

habitats and species. Opportunities for enhancement should be sought where possible.

� Increased recycling and composting would divert waste away from landfill, and therefore

has the potential to generate benefits across nature conservation sites in terms of soil

and air quality.

Water and Soil

� The principal watercourse in the borough is of a high quality and discharges to

Christchurch Harbour, which is an important site for nature conservation. It should be

ensured that the development of any new waste management facilities or operations do

not adversely impact upon the quality and integrity of these features.

� High permeability soils increase the risk of serious pollution occurring as a result of

spillage of contaminants, which could be an issue at those recycling facilities dealing with

potentially hazardous waste.

� All composting facilities should capture and treat runoff, to prevent escape of harmful

runoff containing pathogens and other contaminates.

� Increased diversion of waste away from landfill would generate benefits upon soil and air

quality.

� Development within brownfield sites should encourage remediation of any contaminated

land.

� As a result of an increased population in the future, the land take requirement for waste

treatment and disposal could increase. However, this would depend upon the options

used for waste management.

Air Quality

� Bournemouth has very low levels of polluting industry which are not considered to have

significant air quality impacts. It is therefore important that new waste facilities and

operations do not generate adverse implications upon local air quality and the existing Air

Quality Management Area (AQMA).

� There are concerns in the borough over poor air quality from traffic emissions.

Opportunities to limit waste related transport and travel should therefore be sought, in

terms of waste vehicles and also the distance needed to travel to recycling facilities.

Energy and Climate Change

� Climate change is a key issue for consideration through the Bournemouth MWMS.

Shifting Bournemouth’s reliance away from landfill, and to waste management techniques

that reduce Bournemouth’s impact on climate change, presents a significant challenge.

� The MWMS will need to ensure that options for waste management do not contribute to

increased greenhouse gas emissions.



� Where possible the Bournemouth MWMS should contribute to a reduction in the

borough’s carbon footprint through energy conservation and efficiency and the promotion

of renewable energy sources within waste management facilities and operations.

� The Bournemouth MWMS should consider opportunities to incorporate sustainable

design principles within new and existing waste management infrastructure.

� Areas at risk from flooding should be protected from development. New facilities should

be encouraged to use SuDS to manage runoff and further reduce flood risk.

Cultural Heritage and Landscape

� The borough’s high quality landscape and townscape is an important resource for

attracting visitors. The Bournemouth MWMS should ensure that new facilities or

infrastructure avoid adverse impacts upon the character and quality of townscape /

landscape.

� The borough has a range of high quality cultural heritage features. The Bournemouth

MWMS should ensure that new facilities and operations do not adversely impact upon the

condition and setting of these features. In addition, it is important that the wider historic

landscape and non-designated heritage and archaeological resources are conserved.

Socio-economic

Issues affecting population, human health and society are complex and diverse and it is not

anticipated that the Bournemouth MWMS will be likely to affect many of these issues. However,

the following potential issues have been identified within the scope of the MWMS for this topic:

� Bournemouth’s population is growing, albeit more slowly than nationally and regionally,

creating an increasing demand for services. Population growth, together with

requirements for new housing build, will lead to an increase in waste arisings and

ultimately increase demands on waste management facilities. The MWMS will need to

take into account new housing development when considering waste collection services

and facilities.

� The high proportion of flats poses particular issues with regard to bin storage and waste

collection, and a large amount of waste stored in a relatively small area can lead to

vermin problems.

� The availability of waste management facilities for the high proportion of older residents

within the borough needs to be considered.

� There is therefore a need for accessible, adequate and efficient waste collection and

recycling facilities to be available for all groups. It is important that efficient household

recycling facilities are available, to encourage recycling from home. Adequate waste

management facilities throughout the borough would also help to reduce incidents of fly

tipping, which generates adverse impacts upon the local townscape.

� It is important that waste management facilities and collection routes do not lead to an

increase of odour, litter and vermin which could lead to health implications.

� It is important that the Bournemouth MWMS seeks opportunities to raise awareness of

waste and recycling related issues and associated initiatives.

� Pockets of deprivation exist, most notably in Boscombe, Springbourne and Kinson. It is

important that these areas have good access to recycling facilities, as people living in

these areas are less likely to have access to a car.

� The creation of new and sustainable waste management solutions, technologies and

operations, together with the development of new facilities, could help to diversify the

economic base of the borough and provide increased employment opportunities for a

range of skills levels.



Transportation

� Traffic congestion is a significant problem in the borough, which is likely to be amplified

through future housing development and population growth. It will therefore be important

that siting of facilities avoids, where possible, the need for the local community to travel

significant distances.

� The limited rail network and lack of port facilities within the borough, despite its coastal

location, places a heavy reliance upon the road network for the transport of freight. Waste

collection and transfer is therefore predominantly undertaken via road. The location of

new waste facilities needs to make most of sustainable travel where possible.

� The road network passes through high-density urban areas with large numbers of

receptors sensitive to noise, air pollution, vibration and odour from passing traffic.

Opportunities should be sought to minimise the impact of waste collection vehicles.

Transboundary Issues

The geographical scale of particular baseline issues means that they relate closely to

neighbouring authorities. In order to help to characterise the baseline further, some of these

key ‘transboundary’ issues have been identified below.

� Some of the waste management facilities within the borough serve areas of East Dorset

as well as the local Bournemouth population. Waste disposal could therefore in the future

be a significant strategic issue in terms of impacts upon traffic movements.

� The lack of landfill sites within Bournemouth could generate a significant transboundary

issue if waste production increases. However if recycling trends continue to increase

within the borough this impact will be kept to a minimum.

3.2.2 The SEA Framework

Development of the SEA Framework

The SEA Framework underpins the assessment methodology. A suite of 15 SEA Objectives

have been developed, against which the Draft Bournemouth MWMS has been assessed. The

SEA Objectives are intended to be overarching and aspirational. A series of SEA Appraisal

Criteria have been developed in order to support each SEA Objective to add further clarity and

to assist the assessment process. These criteria will be considered when undertaking appraisal.

In accordance with the ODPM’s SEA Practical Guide, the SEA Objectives have been developed

in line with the SEA Directive topics, together with others deemed relevant through the baseline

review. Their development has been informed by the issues and opportunities identified

through the baseline data collection, and supplemented with direction from the key plans,

programmes and environmental objectives reviewed, as identified in Appendix A.

In addition, the development of the SEA Objectives has drawn from those developed through

the SA of both the BBC LDF and the Core Strategy. As the overall aims and influences of the

LDF documents differ to those of the Bournemouth MWMS, some of the LDF SA Objectives are

not relevant to the scope of the MWMS, and it has not been possible to fully align the

Objectives.

The SEA Objectives, together with their relevant criteria, are identified in Table 3-4 below.



Table 3-4 SEA Objectives and SEA Appraisal Criteria for the Bournemouth MWMS

SEA Topic SEA Objective SEA Appraisal Criteria

Biodiversity, Flora

and Fauna (SEA

Directive Topic)

1 To protect biodiversity,

including rare and

endangered species, and

priority habitats

To what extent will the MWMS generate adverse impacts upon designated sites, protected species, or

BAP priority habitats and species?

To what extent will the MWMS contribute to the development of the South East Dorset Green

Infrastructure Framework9?

Population and

Human Health

(SEA Directive

Topic)

2 To minimise adverse impacts

upon human health and

wellbeing, and local amenity

To what extent will new facilities or waste management activities create nuisance problems (e.g. noise,

dust and odour)?

To what extent will new facilities or waste management activities generate an increase in litter and

vermin?

To what extent will emissions from any new facility or waste management activity generate health

implications?

To what extent will the MWMS enhance opportunities for public and stakeholder participation, education

and engagement in waste management?

Soil (SEA Directive

Topic)

3 To guard against land

contamination and

encourage the appropriate

re-use of brownfield sites

To what extent will new facilities use previously developed land?

To what extent will the MWMS lead to an increase in land contamination?

4 To protect and enhance soil

quality and resources

To what extent will new facilities or waste management activities generate impacts upon soil structure and

composition?

Water (SEA

Directive Topic)

5 To protect and enhance

ground and surface water

quality

To what extent will new facilities or waste management activities generate adverse or beneficial impacts

upon ground and surface water quality?

Air (SEA Directive

Topic)

6 To protect and improve air

quality

To what extent will new facilities or waste management activities (including transport) generate adverse or

beneficial impacts upon local and transboundary air quality?

9 The purpose of the Green Infrastructure Framework is to guide the development of a high quality and accessible network of green spaces.




Climatic Factors

(SEA Directive

Topic)

7 To limit and adapt to climate

change10

To what extent will the MWMS contribute to Bournemouth Borough Council’s target to reduce the CO2

emissions of its operations by a third over 5 years from April 2010?

To what extent will the MWMS contribute to Bournemouth Borough Council’s target to reduce the town’s

carbon emissions by at least 34% by 2020, and to at least 80% by 2050?

To what extent will the MWMS be resilient to the impacts of local extreme weather conditions and

respond to the predicted climate change impacts for Bournemouth?

To what extent will the siting of new facilities avoid areas at risk from flooding?

To what extent will new facilities ensure the use of Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS)?

Material Assets

(SEA Directive

Topic)

8 To ensure the sustainable

use of natural resources

To what extent will the MWMS encourage a reduced demand for raw materials?

To what extent will the MWMS promote the use of recycled and secondary materials?

9 To minimise waste

production and ensure

sustainable waste

management

To what extent will the MWMS reduce waste production?

To what extent will the MWMS conform to waste policy and relevant waste management targets?

To what extent will the MWMS reduce the amount of waste to landfill?

10 To maximise re-use,

recycling and recovery rates

To what extent will the MWMS increase the proportion of waste recycling and re-use?

To what extent will the MWMS increase the proportion of waste recycled and composted?

11 To increase energy

efficiency and the use of

renewable energy sources

To what extent will the MWMS increase the proportion of renewable energy used?

To what extent will the MWMS seek to increase the production of energy from waste?

To what extent will the MWMS increase energy efficiency and reduce energy use?

12 To minimise transport

impacts associated with

To what extent will the MWMS ensure that any new facility would be appropriately located in relation to

the main sources of municipal waste, thereby contributing to a reduction in the need for people to travel?

10 Further details on these targets can be found in the Climate Change & Sustainable Bournemouth Community Action Plan at http://www.bournemouth.gov.uk/gogreen/.




waste management To what extent will the siting of new facilities make the most of existing sustainable transport links?

To what extent will any new facility or waste management activity affect local infrastructure and road

movements?

To what extent will the MWMS maximise the accessibility and equality of waste collection / disposal

facilities / services?

Cultural Heritage

and Landscape

(SEA Directive

Topic)

13 To protect the cultural

heritage resource

To what extent will new facilities and waste management activities conserve historic buildings, areas,

sites, features (and their setting) and the wider historic landscape and townscape value?

14 To protect the existing

townscape and landscape

character and quality

To what extent will new infrastructure generate visual intrusion?

To what extent will the MWMS promote sensitive and sustainable design of new facilities?

Economy and

Employment

15 To encourage sustainable

economic growth, provide

employment opportunities

and encourage economic

inclusion

To what extent will the MWMS contribute to diversification of the economic base?

To what extent will the MWMS encourage investment in new sustainable technologies and solutions in

waste management?

To what extent will the MWMS contribute to increased employment opportunities and help to reduce

overall unemployment?

To what extent will the MWMS contribute to higher skill level employment opportunities?

To what extent will the MWMS contribute to the local Green Knowledge Economy11

?

11 The Green Knowledge Economy is a concept that focuses on promoting economic growth through the development of green industries.



3.2.3 Internal Compatibility of the SEA Objectives

The 15 SEA Objectives identified in Table 3-4 have also been tested for their compatibility with

each other. The results are presented in Table 3-5 and described below.

The internal compatibility of the SEA Objectives was generally assessed as positive as they are

all seeking to improve the quality of the environment and human health. However, the

compatibility of some SEA Objectives were assessed as uncertain. These uncertainties are

outlined in the paragraphs below.

The compatibility between SEA Objective 1 ‘To protect biodiversity, including rare and

endangered species, and priority habitats’ and SEA Objective 3 ‘To guard against land

contamination and encourage the appropriate re-use of brownfield sites’ is uncertain as

brownfield land may still be home to large biodiversity resources even if the site is not

designated. However, the SEA Objective does only encourage ‘appropriate re-use of brownfield

sites’. Ensuring new waste development occurs outside of sensitive areas and does not

increase land contamination would benefit local biodiversity resources.

The compatibility between SEA Objectives 13 ‘To protect the cultural heritage resource’ and 14

‘To protect the existing townscape and landscape character and quality’ with SEA Objective 3

‘To guard against land contamination and encourage the appropriate re-use of brownfield sites’

is also uncertain. Although land has been previously developed it may contain important

heritage features, important buried archaeology or located in an area of high landscape quality.

However, any new development has the potential to lead to adverse effects on heritage and

landscape resources as well as provide enhancements.

There may also be possible conflicts between SEA Objective 6 ‘To protect and improve air

quality’ and 11 ‘To increase energy efficiency and the use of renewable energy sources’ as the

production of energy from waste may lead to adverse effects on local air quality.

SEA Objectives are often likely to have some degree of conflict when implementing specific

schemes. The appraisal process necessarily seeks to identify the trade-offs between any such

conflicts.



Table 3-5 Internal Compatibility of the SEA Objectives

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

1

2 +

3 ? +

4 + 0 +

5 + 0 0 0

6 + + 0 0 0

7 + + 0 0 + +

8 0 0 + 0 0 0 0

9 0 0 + 0 0 + + +

10 0 0 + 0 0 0 + + +

11 0 0 0 0 0 ? + + + +

12 0 + 0 0 0 + + + + 0 +

13 0 0 ? 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

14 + 0 ? 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 +

15 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + + + 0 0

NB numbers refer to the SEA Objectives described in Table 3-4.

Scoping Consultation

The SEA Framework has been amended slightly following receipt of the Scoping Report

consultation responses from Statutory Bodies.

English Heritage suggested amending the SEA Appraisal Criteria for Objective 13 ‘To what

extent will new facilities and waste management activities seek to conserve historic buildings

and sites features (and their setting) and the wider historic landscape and townscape value?’ to

read ‘To what extent will new facilities and waste management activities conserve historic

buildings, areas, sites, features (and their setting) and the wider historic landscape and

townscape value?’. Their comments have been incorporated into the SEA Framework.

3.2.4 Stage B: Developing and Refining Alternative Options and Assessing Effects

As identified in Box 3, the SEA Directive requires that the assessment process considers

alternatives:

Objectives are compatible = + No clear impact on each other = 0

Mutually incompatible = -

Compatibility unknown = ?



Box 3: Consideration of Alternatives

The Practical Guide advises that only realistic and relevant alternatives should be considered

and they should be sufficiently distinct to enable a meaningful comparison of their different

environmental effects.

Alternative Options Development

Council officers concluded that collection of waste was an area which the Council had a direct

control of, being customer facing and relatively easy to change in comparison to technologies,

which are further removed from the management of the Council.

It was therefore agreed that ‘collections’ would be considered prior to technologies. Once an

intermediate list of collection options had been drawn up, the intermediate list of technologies

could be compiled ensuring compatibility of the collection system to the treatment.

Collection Options

The MWMS collection options were initially developed through a stakeholder engagement

programme including a series of public focus groups, workshop and industry consultations. The

feedback recorded during these initial sessions formed the foundations for the development of

the MWMS.

Following on from early consultations, Council Officers then drew up a long list of potential

collection options, concentrating on three main waste streams – dry recycling, green waste and

residual waste.

72 variations were developed for consideration; these can be seen in their entirety in

Supplementary Report: Options Appraisal Report12

which will form part of the MWMS portfolio.

The Bournemouth MWMS contains further details on the development of the viable alternatives

which are assessed in this report from the initial 72 variations.

Five options for collection were short listed based on the outcomes of these consultations.

Treatment Options

A combination of tools have been used to analyse the environmental, financial and operational

outputs.

A full series of treatment options, including Mechanical and Biological Treatment (MBT),

Pyrolysis, Gasification, Energy from waste (EfW), Windrow composting, Anaerobic digestion

(AD), In-vessel composting (IVC) and use of a Materials Recycling Facility (MRF) were

modelled using the Environment Agency Waste and Resources Assessment Tool (WRATE)13

.

This assessment takes account of the life cycle carbon emissions connected to collection and

treatment and model the exact transport distances involved.

12 Supplementary Report: Options Appraisal Report (2009) Hyder Consulting Date

13 WRATE software, standard version 2.0.1.4, Environment Agency

“..an environmental report shall be prepared in which the likely significant effects on the

environment of implementing the plan or programme, and reasonable alternatives taking

into account the objectives and the geographical scope of the plan or programme, are

identified, described and evaluated”.



A bespoke mass flow model provided outputs covering the recycling, residual, energy, cost,

carbon and LATS liability for various scenarios to reflect the combinations of potential treatment

processes for the municipal waste arisings specifically for the Bournemouth situation.

The eight options were ranked based on the following indicators and the most preferable

technologies carried forward to produce a shortlist of six treatment options.

� Performance (combined recycling and composting)

� Cost

� Direct Carbon Dioxide (CO2)emissions

� Indirect CO2 emissions

� LATS allowances used

� LATS allowances surplus

Short Listed Preferred Options

As the type of collection undertaken will go some way in determining the treatment options

which are then suitable for that collected waste, the collection and treatment options were

combined into five scenarios for assessment purposes. The Short listed Preferred Options are

presented here separately and then in their combined form.

Collection Options

The five collection options in Table 3-6 are to be considered the realistic alternatives for the

Bournemouth MWMS. The Waste and Resources Action Programme’s (WRAP) Kerbside

Analysis Tool (KAT) 14

has been used to perform a detailed analysis of each of the collection

options (covering transport, material type, type of collection, cycle time for collection) and this

enables detailed modelling for weekly, fortnightly collections and produces an indicative

financial output.

14 Kerbside Analysis Tool, Version 2.6 (2006). WRAP



Table 3-6 Short Listed Refuse and Recycling Options

Resid

ual W

aste

Weekly

Resid

ual W

aste

Fo

rtn

igh

tly

Co

-min

gle

d R

ecyclin

g

Fo

rtn

igh

tly

Gre

en

Waste

an

d F

oo

d

Mix

ed

Weekly

Gre

en

Waste

Sep

ara

tely

Fo

rtn

igh

tly

Fo

od

Waste

Sep

ara

tely

Weekly

Option 1 X X X X

Option 2 X X X

Option 3 (Baseline) X X X

Option 4 X X X X

Option 5 X X X `

Treatment Options

The following six treatment options are to be considered as the realistic alternatives for the

Bournemouth MWMS. WRATE assessment takes account of the life cycle carbon emissions

connected to collection and treatment and model the exact transport distances involved.

A bespoke mass flow model has provided outputs covering the recycling, residual, energy, cost,

carbon and LATS liability for various scenarios to reflect the combinations of potential treatment

processes for the municipal waste arisings specifically for the Bournemouth situation.

� Residual Waste Treatment Options:

� Mechanical Biological Treatment (MBT)

� Autoclaving (AC)

� Recycling:

� Materials Reclamation Facility (MRF)

� Composting:

� Anaerobic Digestion (AD)

� In-Vessel Composting (IVC)

� Windrow Composting (WC)

The following provide further information regarding each of the treatment options to be

assessed.

Mechanical Biological Treatment

Waste is mixed and shredded. The mechanical separation step comes before the treatment of

the biological fraction of the waste (MBT). There are a number of different ways that the waste

can be separated:



� Screens to remove the larger pieces of waste,

� Magnetic separation - for removal of ferrous metals (cans made of steel),

� Eddy current separation - for removal of non-ferrous metals (cans made of aluminium),

� Optical separation - separation of certain types of plastics,

� Air classification can help to separate light and heavy materials (paper/plastic film for

example).

Once separated some of the materials can go on for further recycling (for example glass can be

used as low grade aggregate).

Two treatment options have been considered for the biological part of the waste.

� In-Vessel Composting - Described below.

� Anaerobic Digestion – Described below.

Autoclaving

Autoclaving is a term that is used to describe a number of different processes that involve the

mechanical (separation) and thermal (heat) treatment of waste. This is an emerging technology.

Shredded and mixed waste is processed for about an hour in a pressurised container to reduce

the material to what is known as a ‘flock’. Metals and glass are partially cleaned by the

autoclave process and can be removed and recycled. Plastics become deformed in the process

- some types become suitable for recycling whereas others become very difficult to recycle,

tending to melt into clumps. Once recyclables have been removed, the remaining material is

used as fuel (Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF)) in a thermal heating process (generally combustion)

to produce energy and heat. This method is a steam treatment process that is often used for

treating clinical waste. The technology is not currently used in the UK at a commercial scale;

however a demonstration project exists at Poole in Dorset.

Aerothermal, the company that trial the process in the Dorset area have provided data on the

process suggesting that 100% of metal, glass and plastics can be removed from residual waste

and 1100MJ of energy recovery can be achieved per tonne of waste. There is currently no way

of verifying this data.15

Materials Recycling Facility

Recyclable materials are collected from the kerbside and the MRF process uses a broad range

of technologies in order to separate a mixed or partially separated waste into purer component

parts so they can be recycled, however, manual separation remains a key aspect. Once

materials are separated, the recyclable waste becomes a valuable commodity and is sold to be

manufactured into new items.

Anaerobic Digestion

Anaerobic digestion is the breaking down of organic waste by bacteria in the absence of air

(oxygen). On arrival at the facility waste is shredded and screened into organic and inorganic

fractions. The separated biological (organic) material is fed into an enclosed vessel and heated

to around 40ºc. As the material heats and breaks down, a biogas (mostly methane and carbon

dioxide) is produced. The gas is captured as part of the process and can be burnt to generate

either heat and/or electricity. The ‘digestion’ process results in a digestate (a liquid that has

some of the food/green waste fragments remaining in it). The digestate can be filtered so that

15 Carbon Analysis – Poole, Bournemouth and Dorset Councils. 2011, Mouchel.



the solid and liquid parts are separated and then either recycled back into the process or used

as a soil improver. The end use of the digestate depends on what waste has been used in the

process. If food waste containing meat and fish has been used then the digestate will be

regulated under the Animal By-Products Regulations in the same way as compost from an IVC.

The products include a compost-like material from the digestate and biogas (suitable for sale as

fuel or combusted in gas engines to generate electricity). This SEA assumes that biogas

production will be offset against electricity production for the process.

In-Vessel Composting

Garden wastes and kitchen wastes (as well as catering food waste), including meat and fish,

can be mixed together in a closed vessel or tunnel for treatment. The waste is screened to

remove unsuitable materials and then shredded.

The process takes place inside a horizontal tunnel or vertical vessel. As the waste is enclosed

the composting process can be accelerated by pumping air in, by either increasing or

decreasing the moisture content of the waste and by increasing or decreasing the temperature

within the tunnel or vessel. The amount of air or water that needs to be added to the waste

during the process depends on the composition of the waste. For example, if the waste load has

a high content of food waste then less water will be needed. All IVC plants are regulated by the

State Veterinary Service and fall under the Animal By-Products Regulations. Higher grade

compost is generally achieved using the IVC method compared to windrows.

Windrow Composting

This form of composting is used for green and garden wastes. It requires no special technology

and is suitable for large quantities of green waste. Any unsuitable materials are removed and

green waste is shredded into small pieces (mulched). This material is then heaped into long

piles. The piles are aerated at set intervals (about every 2-3 weeks), either by mechanical

turning or by piping (blowing or extracting) air through the pile. Windrow composting can take

place inside a building or outdoors, usually in rural or farm locations. The process can take

between 12 to 16 weeks after which the material is screened to remove any unwanted materials

or oversized particles. The size of a windrow facility can vary but they are typically between 1

and 3ha. The final product is compost.

Short Listed Preferred Options for Assessment

Table 3-8 provides the short listed Preferred Options which were proposed for the Bournemouth

MWMS. These are lead by the short listed collection options as collection determines the

treatment options suitable in each scenario. For example, windrow composting is not suitable

where food waste is mixed with green waste.

To ensure a thorough assessment was undertaken identifying the environmental effects

associated with all elements of the options, each short listed collection and treatment option was

considered separately in a series of assessment matrices (Appendix D). A summary

assessment matrix was then produced summarising the key effects and mitigations for each

short listed Preferred Option and a summary of the assessment findings produced.

The ‘option’ for dry recyclables (materials recovery facility) has not been considered in this

options assessment as it is common to all options. This has been assessed for the Preferred

Option only.

The purpose of this assessment was to determine the sustainability strengths and weaknesses

of each collection or treatment option, so as to inform the selection of the Preferred Option for

the Bournemouth MWMS. Positive and negative effects are considered and recommendations

for enhancement of the options and future mitigation have been noted where possible.



An assessment of the collection and treatment options was been undertaken using the SEA

Framework which was initially produced in the SEA Scoping Report.

For options development, a WRATE, bespoke mass-flow model and KAT analysis were

undertaken to inform the selection of viable options for assessment. The output of these

assessments and the baseline data provided in Appendix B have been used to assess the

compatibility of each option with the SEA Framework.

The assessment criteria used for the options appraisal is noted in Table 3-7 below. Alongside

this, an indication of confidence in the option to support of detract from the achievement of the

objective has also been indicated on a scale of High (H), Medium (M) and Low (L).

The assessment of the short listed Preferred Options is presented in Section 5.

Table 3-7 Assessment Criteria

Notation Explanation

++ The option strongly supports the achievement of the SEA Objective.

+ The option supports the achievement of the SEA Objective.

0 The option does not achieve or detract from the achievement of the SEA Objective.

- The option detracts from the achievement of the SEA Objective

- - The option strongly detracts from the achievement of the SEA Objective.

+/- The option both supports and detracts from the achievement of the SEA Objective.

Some aspects may support it whilst other aspects detract.

? It cannot be determined if the option will support or detract from the achievement of

the SEA objective.

L-T Beyond the operational life of facilities, and assumed to be beyond the plan period.

Includes possible decommissioning/demolition & restoration effects.

M-T Throughout operation of facility and up to the end of the facility’s operational life.

S-T Impacts likely to arise from establishment of technologies, e.g. from site development

construction and into first few years of operation.

D Direct effects which are most likely to be determined by the specific qualities of the

receiving environment.

I Indirect effects which for example could involve impacts on designated sites of nature

conservation importance due to water abstraction, or contamination resulting from air,

water or soil pollution.



Table 3-8 Overview of Options to be Assessed

Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 (Business as Usual Scenario) Option 4 Option 5






Residual

Waste Residual waste would continue to



MBT process. The technology is

not currently used in the UK at a



Poole in Dorset.

Residual waste would continue to







Poole in Dorset.

Kerbside residual waste is currently treated by New Earth Solutions (NES) at their


















in Dorset.








in Dorset.

Dry

Recycling As per Option 3. As per Option 3. Collected material transported straight to a transfer station located in Poole, where



As per Option 3. As per Option 3.

Green Waste Green waste would continue to be


with food waste collected

separately for treatment by either

IVC or AD processes.

Green waste and kitchen waste

would be collected from 2012.

Waste would no longer be treated

by Windrow Composting but

diverted to either IVC or AD

processes.

This includes green waste collected at kerbside and collected directly at Millhams


composting plant run by Eco-Sustainable Solutions at Parley, Christchurch.

Also small quantities are gathered in the summer months via Euro bins that are put

out in Kings Park for green waste collection.

Green waste would continue to be


with food waste collected separately

for treatment by either IVC or AD

processes.

Green waste and kitchen waste would

be collected from 2012. Waste would

no longer be treated by Windrow

Composting but diverted to either IVC

or AD processes.



The Preferred Option

After consultation it has been determined that the preferred collection regime is Option 3. There

is also to be no change to the existing treatment technologies at this time, however the Headline

Strategy does note that when autoclave technology becomes available locally, this should be

reconsidered in comparison to the existing MBT technology for residual waste.

The Preferred Option constitutes:

Weekly Refuse Collection – Treatment By MBT Co-mingled Recycling Fortnightly Collection – Treatment By MRF Green Waste Fortnightly Collection – Treatment By IVC and Windrow Composting

Residual

Waste Kerbside residual waste is currently treated by New Earth Solutions (NES) at their











Dry

Recycling Collected material transported straight to a transfer station located in Poole, where



Green

Waste This includes green waste collected at kerbside and collected directly at Millhams


composting plant run by Eco-Sustainable Solutions at Parley, Christchurch.

Also small quantities are gathered in the summer months via Euro bins that are

put out in Kings Park for green waste collection.

The Preferred Option has been assessed as in Section 6.

3.2.5 Stage C: Preparing the Environmental Report (this stage)

Stage C corresponds with the preparation of this Environmental Assessment Report and

presents the findings of the assessment to-date including the information collated in Stage A

and during scoping. The results of the appraisal together with any mitigation measures

proposed are recorded in the remaining chapters of this document.

The Environmental Assessment Report incorporates the requirements for Environmental

Reports under the SEA Directive.

3.2.6 Stage D: Consultation on the Bournemouth MWMS and the Environmental Report

Stage D corresponds to the consultation on the Environmental Report and the Bournemouth

MWMS. Consultation has been undertaken by BBC to consult with a range of stakeholders on



the options presented in the Bournemouth MWMS to determine the most acceptable Preferred

Option. Further information on this consultation can be obtained from the Headline Strategy

document available at www.bournemouth.gov.uk.

This consultation considered the acceptability of each option for market, public, political and

partnership acceptability.

3.2.7 Stage E: Monitoring the significant effects of implementing the MWMS

The activities relevant to monitoring that are stipulated in the SEA Directive are outlined in Box 4

below. Based on the assessment conducted on the Preferred Option and identification of

potential significant environmental effects, a monitoring framework has been prepared and is

presented in Section 7.

Box 4: SEA Directive Requirements Applicable to Monitoring

“Member States shall monitor the significant environmental effects of the implementation of plans and programmes... in order, inter alia, to identify at an early stage unforeseen adverse effects, and to be able to undertake appropriate remedial action” (Article 10.1). The Environmental Report should provide information on “a description of the measures envisaged concerning monitoring” (Annex I (i)).



4 COMPATIBILITY OF THE MWMS AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

A compatibility assessment has been undertaken of the MWMS Aims and Objectives against

the SEA Framework Objectives as shown in Table 4-1. The numbers of the SEA Objectives

refer to those described in Table 3-4.

The compatibility assessment demonstrates that the intention of the MWMS is generally

compatible with the SEA objectives.



Table 4-1 Assessment Compatibility of the MWMS Aims and Objectives

Compatible = + No clear impact on each other = 0

Mutually incompatible = - Compatibility unknown = ?

SEA Objectives

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 M

WM

S A

ims a

nd

Ob

jecti

ves

To ensure sustainable waste management + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

To promote behavioural change within the

Council and amongst residents and visitors + + + + + + + + + + + + 0 0 0

To make sure services are fair and accessible to

all 0 + + + + + + + + + + + 0 0 0

To maximise opportunities to convert waste

into a resource 0 + + + + ? + + + + + 0 0 +

To reduce the impact of waste management

activities on the local environment and human

health

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

To be a leader in environmental best practice + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

To provide community leadership + + 0 0 0 0 + + + + + + 0 0 0

To meet all UK and EU targets + + + + + + + + + + 0 + 0 0 0

To reduce the total household waste arisings + + + + + + + + + + 0 + + + 0

To decouple the growth in waste from the

growth in the economy 0 + + + + + + + + + 0 + + + ?

To adhere to the waste hierarchy + + + + + + + + + + 0 + + + 0

To follow the proximity principle + + + + + + + + + + + + ? ? 0

To reduce the carbon burden of waste

management activities + + + + + + + + + + + + 0 0 0

To make sure the strategy is financially

acceptable to the public 0 + + + + 0 + + + + 0 + 0 0 +



5 ASSESSMENT OF THE SHORT LISTED PREFERRED OPTIONS

5.1 Short Listed Preferred Options Assessment

Five Short listed Preferred Options were presented for the purposes of the SEA, lead by the

collection options which go some way in determining suitable treatment options,

To ensure a thorough assessment was undertaken identifying the environmental effects

associated with all elements of the options, each Short listed collection and treatment option

was considered separately in a series of assessment matrices (Appendix D):

1 Assessment of treatment of residual waste with MBT and autoclave

2 Assessment of treatment of green and food waste with IVC, AD or Windrow composting

3 Assessment of collection of residual waste weekly and fortnightly

4 Assessment of collection of food waste and green waste separately and mixed

A summary assessment matrix was then produced summarising the key effects and mitigations

for each preferred option and a summary of the assessment findings produced.

5.2 Summary of Assessment Findings

A summary matrix (Table 5-1) provides an overview of the compatibility of the Short listed

Preferred Options with the SEA Framework for comparison and a ranking of the overall

performance of the options against the SEA objectives was undertaken as contained in Section

5.5.



Table 5-1 Assessment of Waste Collection and Treatment Options for Bournemouth Waste Minimisation Strategy

SA Objective Assessment of Waste Collection and Treatment Options

Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 – Baseline Situation (Business

as Usual Scenario)

Option 4 Option 5






1 To protect

biodiversity,

including rare

and endangered

species and

priority habitats

+/- Whilst the collection options themselves will

not detract or contribute to achieving the

objective, the option supports the objective

by encouraging separating food and green

waste, resulting in relatively less

environmentally damaging treatment options

being considered with IVC/AD and WC

being considered.

It is assumed any new facilities required

which could pose a direct risk to biodiversity

and protected species. Once additional

detail on the siting and type of facilities

required, it is assumed impacts may be

avoided or mitigated through the design

process. This would limit impacts to short

term construction of establishment impacts.

(D, S-T)

- The option generally detracts from the

objective by choosing a collection regime

which encourages a relatively more

environmental damaging treatment option

than the baseline situation by limiting

treatment to AD/IVC.


which could pose a direct risk to

biodiversity and protected species. Once

additional detail on the siting and type of

facilities required, it is assumed impacts

may be avoided or mitigated through the

design process. This would limit impacts

to short term construction of

establishment impacts. (D, S-T)

+/- Composting green waste at the existing

facility would avoid some potential

impacts to biodiversity and habitat loss,

which is in support of the objective.

There may still be some impacts

associated with constructing a new facility

for residual waste treatment; however it is

assumed any new facilities required









+/- Whilst the collection options themselves

will not detract or contribute to achieving

the objective, the option supports the

objective by encouraging separating food

and green waste, resulting in relatively

less environmentally damaging treatment

options being considered with IVC/AD

and WC being considered.









establishment impacts. (D, S-T).

- The option generally detracts from the

objective by choosing a collection regime

which encourages a relatively more

environmental damaging treatment

option than the baseline situation.










2 To minimise

adverse impacts

upon human

health and

wellbeing and

local amenity

+/- A weekly residual waste collection and the

introduction of food waste collections will not

detract or contribute to the achievement of

the objective.

However, collecting green and food waste

separately will encourage treatment

methods in enclosed situations for food

waste only and go some way in reducing

the perceived health risk. (I, M-T)

Composting will still be relatively exposed to

the elements which may lead to localised

emissions which without good site

management practices could have health

impacts. (I, M-T)

CO2 emissions are also generally lower

where food waste is treated separately to

green waste.(I, M-T)

Appropriate sized waste storage bins will be

key to reducing health, odour and vermin

issues.

+/- A weekly residual waste collection and the

introduction of food waste collections will

not detract or contribute to the

achievement of the objective.

However, collecting green and food waste

together will ensure treatment methods

take place in enclosed situations and help

to reduce the perceived health risk.(I, M-

T)

However, CO2 emissions are generally

higher where food waste is treated

combined with green waste. (I, M-T)

Appropriate sized waste storage bins will

be key to reducing health, odour and

vermin issues.

- The option has some conflicts with the

objective. A weekly residual waste

collection will not detract or contribute to

the achievement of the objective.



vermin issues associated with the green

waste collection.

Composting will still be relatively exposed

to the elements which may lead to

localised emissions which without good

site management practices could have

health impacts (I, M-T).

.

+/- A fortnightly residual waste collection and

the introduction of a food waste collection

may detract from the achievement of the

objective by increasing the risk or vermin

and litter becoming an issue. With good

management and education this risk can

be kept to a minimum.

However, collecting green and food

waste separately will encourage

treatment methods in enclosed situations

for food waste only and go some way in

reducing the perceived health risk. (I, M-

T). Composting will still be relatively

exposed to the elements which may lead

to localised emissions which without

good site management practices could

have health impacts. (I, M-T)

CO2 emissions are also generally lower

where food waste is treated separately to

green waste.(I, M-T)



vermin issues.

+/- A fortnightly residual waste collection

and the introduction of a food waste

collection may detract from the

achievement of the objective by

increasing the risk or vermin and litter

becoming an issue. With good

management and education this risk can

be kept to a minimum.

However, collecting green and food

waste together will ensure treatment

methods take place in enclosed

situations and help to reduce the

perceived health risk.(I, M-T)

However, CO2 emissions are also

generally higher where food waste is

treated combined with green waste. (I,

M-T)



vermin issues.

3 To guard

against land

contamination

and encourage

the appropriate

? Collection options are unlikely to detract or

contribute to the achievement of the

objective.

It is assumed any new facilities will built to a

good standard with consideration for siting

? Collection options are unlikely to detract

or contribute to the achievement of the

objective.

It is assumed any new facilities will built to

a good standard with consideration for

- Collection options are unlikely to detract


objective.

The windrow process may release some

emissions which could cause some



objective.

It is assumed any new facilities will built

to a good standard with consideration for



objective.







as Usual Scenario)

Option 4 Option 5






re-use of

brownfield sites

and design. However, the location and size

of any new development is unknown at this

time.

siting and design. However, the location

and size of any new development is

unknown at this time.

localised contamination. Good site

management will ensure that no long

term impacts arise. (I, M-T)












4 To protect and

enhance soil

quality and

resources

+ Collection options are unlikely to detract or


objective.

However, as the collection option allows

separate treatment of green and food

waste, this would positively contribute to

achieving the objective. There is a negative

acidification potential which would positively

contribute to the protection and

enhancement of soil quality. Impacts are

likely to be localised and limited to the

duration of plant operation. (D, M-T). There

may be impacts associated with new

facilities; however it is assumed impacts


design process. This would limit impacts to

short term construction of establishment

impacts. (D, S-T)



objective.

However, as the collection option only

permits treatment of green and food

waste together, this may detract from

achieving the objective. There is still a

negative acidification potential, but this is

higher than the baseline situation.

Impacts are likely to be localised and

limited to the duration of plant operation.

(D, M-T)

There may be impacts associated with

new facilities; however it is assumed

impacts may be avoided or mitigated

through the design process. This would

limit impacts to short term construction of




objective.

The windrow can involve release of

emissions which could have

environmental impacts and cause some

localised contamination (including Volatile

Organic Compounds. (I, M-T)







+ Collection options are unlikely to detract


objective.

However, as the collection option allows

separate treatment of green and food

waste, this would positively contribute to

achieving the objective. There is a

negative acidification potential which

would positively contribute to the

protection and enhancement of soil

quality. Impacts are likely to be localised

and limited to the duration of plant

operation. (D, M-T)









objective.

However, as the collection option only

permits treatment of green and food

waste together, this may detract from

achieving the objective. There is still a

negative acidification potential, but this is

higher than the baseline situation.

Impacts are likely to be localised and

limited to the duration of plant operation.

(D, M-T)







5 To protect and

enhance ground

and surface

water quality

+ Collection options are unlikely to detract or


objective.

The option supports the objective by

providing a negative acidification potential

and a negative fresh water aquatic

ecotoxicity value. The eutrophication

potential of IVC/AD is noticeably lower when

food waste and green waste are treated

separately.

There may be impacts associated with new

facilities; however it is assumed impacts


design process. This would limit impacts to

short term construction of establishment

impact and potentially some long term

improvements (D, S-T, L-T)



objective.

Where food and green are combined for

treatment, there is a higher eutrophication

potential. [Note: AD generally has a

higher eutrophication potential than the

baseline].

The eutrophication potential of IVC/AD is

noticeably higher when food waste and

green waste are treated separately.






establishment impact and potentially

some long term improvements (D, S-T,



objective.

There are some conflicts with the

objective as it may involve release of


environmental impacts (including Volatile

Organic Compounds). Good site

management will ensure that no long









L-T)

+ Collection options are unlikely to detract


objective.

The option supports the objective by

providing a negative acidification

potential and a negative fresh water

aquatic ecotoxicity value. The

eutrophication potential of IVC/AD is

noticeably lower when food waste and









L-T)



objective.

Where food and green waste are

combined for treatment, there is a higher

eutrophication potential. The

eutrophication potential of IVC/AD is

noticeably higher when food waste and









L-T)





as Usual Scenario)

Option 4 Option 5






L-T)

6 To protect and

improve air

quality

+ A weekly residual waste collection would not

generate additional transport impacts

beyond the baseline, however in

combination with a new food and green

waste collection there would be additional

traffic movements. This increases the

potential for emissions to air to reduce air

quality. There would be relatively higher

emissions associated with separate green

and food waste collections. (D, M-T)

However, there are anticipated to be lower

CO2 emissions associated with separate

food and green waste treatments. In

combination with autoclave, there would be

a significant contribution to carbon reduction

targets. (D, M-T)

Appropriate sized waste storage bins will be

key to reducing health, odour and vermin

issues.

+/- A weekly residual waste collection would

not generate additional transport impacts



waste collection there would be additional

traffic movements. This increases the

potential for emissions to air to reduce air

quality. There would be relatively lower

emissions associated with separate green

and food waste collections. (D, M-T)

Where green waste and food waste are

treated together, CO2 emissions are

relatively high, however in combination

with autoclave carbon savings, there

could still be a benefit in choosing this

option. (D, M-T)



vermin issues.

- This process can involve release of

emissions to air which could have health

impacts (including Volatile Organic

Compounds). It is assumed that the

current site is exposed to the elements.

However with good site management

nuisance levels can be controlled. Good

site management will ensure that no long


+ A weekly residual waste collection would




waste collection there would be

additional traffic movements. This

increases the potential for emissions to

air to reduce air quality. There would be

relatively higher emissions associated

with separate green and food waste

collections. (D, M-T)

CO2 emissions associated with separate

food and green waste treatments. In

combination with autoclave, there would

be a significant contribution to carbon

reduction targets. (D, M-T)



vermin issues.

+ A weekly residual waste collection would




waste collection there would be

additional traffic movements. This

increases the potential for emissions to

air to reduce air quality. There would be

relatively lower emissions associated

with separate green and food waste

collections. (D, M-T)

Where green waste and food waste are

treated together, CO2 emissions are

relatively high, however in combination

with autoclave carbon savings, there

would still be a benefit in choosing this

option. (D, M-T)



vermin issues.

7 To limit and

adapt to climate

change

+/- Maintaining a weekly residual waste

collection and providing additional separate

green and food waste collections will not

contribute towards reducing carbon

emissions to meet the agreed targets. (I, M-

T)

Carbon emissions associated with green

and food waste are reduced when they are

treated separately. (I, M-T)

Either the MBT process or autoclave

process will contribute to carbon reduction

targets (Note: autoclave has a more

significant reduction impact). (I, M-T)

Opportunities for developing new facilities

should consider climate change adaptation

in design to maximise any long term

benefits. (L-T)

+/- Providing an additional green and food

waste collections will not contribute

towards reducing carbon emissions to

meet the agreed targets, however this

impact could be reduced by combining

the collections. (I, M-T)


and food waste are increased when they

are treated together. (I, M-T)


process will contribute to carbon reduction

targets (Note: autoclave has a more

significant reduction impact). (I, M-T)


should consider climate change

adaptation in design to maximise any long

term benefits. (L-T)

+/- The collection option for green waste is

unlikely to detract or contribute towards

the achievement of the objective.


process will contribute to carbon

reduction targets (Note: autoclave has a

more significant reduction impact). (I, M-

T)


should consider climate change

adaptation in design to maximise any

long term benefits. (L-T)

+/- Providing additional separate green and

food waste collections will not contribute


meet the agreed targets, however part of

this effect can be offset by reducing

residual waste collection frequency (I, M-

T)


and food waste are reduced when they

are treated separately. (I, M-T)





T)

Opportunities for developing new

facilities should consider climate change








the collections and reducing residual

waste collection frequency. (I, M-T)


and food waste are increased when they

are treated together. (I, M-T)





T)

Opportunities for developing new

facilities should consider climate change



8 To ensure the

sustainable use

of natural

resources

+ + Introducing green and food waste

collections will promote the production of

energy and composting. (M-T)

There is a lower abiotic resource depletion

potential when green and food waste are

treated separately. (M-T).

+/- Introducing green and food waste



There is a higher abiotic resource

depletion potential when green and food

waste are treated together. (M-T).

+/- The option will promote the production

and use of compost.(M-T) Autoclave does require a higher energy input compared to MBT. This option would not maximise recovery of energy and materials and reduce significantly reduce the amount of




There is a lower abiotic resource


waste are treated separately. (M-T).




There is a higher abiotic resource


waste are treated together. (M-T).





as Usual Scenario)

Option 4 Option 5






Autoclave does require a higher energy

input compared to MBT.



diversion from landfill from the baseline situation.





9 To minimise

waste

production and

ensure

sustainable

waste

management


collections will promote recycling and

recovery of materials and energy. (M-T)

Where green and food waste are treated

separately this will positively contribute to

landfill avoidance (M-T).

MBT and autoclave both positively support

the achievement of this objective (M-T).





together this results in relatively higher

levels of waste being diverted to landfill

(M-T).

MBT and autoclave both positively

support the achievement of this objective

(M-T).

+/- The option will promote a reduction in materials which are headed for landfill, however it will not maximise this reduction to the full potential by excluding food waste. MBT and autoclave both positively support the achievement of this objective

(M-T).




Research shows that AWC schemes

actively encourage participation in for

some recycling schemes.


separately this will positively contribute to

landfill avoidance (M-T).



(M-T).








together this results in relatively higher

levels of waste being diverted to landfill

(M-T).



(M-T).

10 To maximise re-

use recycling

and recovery

rates

++ This option will positively encourage the

proportion of waste recycling and

composted beyond the baseline scenario.

(M-T)

MBT, AC, AD and IVC all contribute to

maximising recycling and recovery rates

(M-T).

+ This option will positively encourage the


composted beyond the baseline scenario.

(M-T)



(M-T).

+/- MBT and AC will contribute to recycling

and recovery rates (M-T). However, the

option will seek to maintain the current

rate of composting and materials

recovery.

+ + This option will positively encourage the


composted beyond the baseline

scenario. (M-T)






(M-T).

+ + This option will positively encourage the



scenario. (M-T)






(M-T).

11 To increase

energy

efficiency and

the use of

renewable

energy sources

+/- A weekly collection and separate green and

food waste collection will not contribute to

reducing energy in waste collection. (D, M-

T)

Treating food and green waste separately

will result in lower recovery of energy from

waste as the yield is lower.(I, M-T)

Whilst both MBT and autoclave contribute to

the achievement of the objective, autoclave

does require a higher energy input

compared to MBT.

+/- A weekly collection and additional green

and food waste collection will not

contribute to reducing energy in waste

collection, however in combining green

and food waste collections there will be

some reduction in the over energy use.

(D, M-T)

Combining food and green waste for

treatment will positively contribute to the

recovery of energy from waste as the

yield is higher when food is processed

with green waste.(I, M-T)

Whilst both MBT and autoclave contribute

to the achievement of the objective,

autoclave does require a higher energy


- The option does not seek to increase

energy production from waste as the

option will seek to maintain the current

rate of composting and materials

recovery.

Whilst both MBT and autoclave contribute

to the achievement of the objective,

autoclave does require a higher energy


+/- A fortnightly collection and additional

green and food waste collection will not

contribute to reducing energy in waste

collection, however reducing residual

waste to fortnightly collections there will

be some reduction in the over energy

use. (D, M-T)

Treating food and green waste

separately will result in lower recovery of

energy from waste as the yield is

lower.(I, M-T)

Whilst both MBT and autoclave


objective, autoclave does require a

higher energy input compared to MBT.






the collections and reducing residual

waste collection frequency. (D, M-T)

Combining food and green waste for

treatment will positively contribute to the

recovery of energy from waste as the

yield is higher when food is processed

with green waste.(I, M-T)

Whilst both MBT and autoclave


objective, autoclave does require a

higher energy input compared to MBT.

12 To minimise

transport

impacts

+ Maintaining a weekly residual waste

collection and providing additional separate

green and food waste collections will not

+ A weekly collection and additional green

and food waste collection will not

contribute to reducing transport impacts

0 Overall, it is not expected this option will

detract or support the minimisation of

transport impacts as traffic movements

+ A fortnightly collection and additional

green and food waste collection will not

contribute to reducing transport impacts,

+ Providing an additional green and food


towards reducing transport impacts,





as Usual Scenario)

Option 4 Option 5






associated with

waste

management

contribute towards reducing transport

impacts. (D, M-T)

however in combining green and food

waste collections there will be some

reduction in the over energy use. (D, M-

T)

are not likely to change from the baseline

situation.

however reducing residual waste to

fortnightly collections there will be some

reduction in the over energy use. (D, M-

T)

however this impact could be reduced by

combining the collections and reducing

residual waste collection frequency. (D,

M-T)

13 To protect the

cultural heritage

resource

? The option is not anticipated to detract or

support the achievement of the objective. It

is assumed any new facilities will built to a




stage.


support the achievement of the objective.





unknown at this stage.






















14 To protect the

existing

townscape and

landscape

character and

quality


support the achievement of the objective. It

is assumed any new facilities will built to a




stage.









support the achievement of the objective. ? The option is not anticipated to detract or














15 To encourage

sustainable

economic

growth, provide

employment

opportunities

and encourage

economic

inclusion

+ The option positively contributes to the

objective by introducing new facility(ies) and

a new technology to the area, the option

would create new employment opportunities

which would contribute to a higher skill level

and new technologies being introduced to

the area. (I, M-T)

With autoclave being a relatively young,

emerging technology, this option would

have a benefit over the current MBT

process. (I, M-T)

+ The option positively contributes to the

objective by introducing new facility(ies)

and a new technology to the area, the

option would create new employment

opportunities which would contribute to a

higher skill level and new technologies

being introduced to the area. (I, M-T)




process. (I, M-T)

0 Whilst the option would not detract from

the achievement of the objective, it would

not positively encourage improvements to

the current situation.




process. (I, M-T)

+ It is anticipated there will be some

savings made by switching to a

fortnightly residual waste collection. (I,

M-T).

The option positively contributes to the






being introduced to the area.(I, M-T)




process. (I, M-T)

+ It is anticipated there will be some

savings made by switching to a

fortnightly residual waste collection. (I,

M-T).







being introduced to the area. (I, M-T)




process. (I, M-T)



5.2.1 Residual Waste Treatment Options (Matrix 1)

Mechanical Biological Treatment

Using an existing facility will avoid some direct impacts associated with new development. Being

an established site, additional nuisance problems are unlikely, however good practice in

management of this type of site to avoid nuisance should be ensured. Using MBT for residual

waste treatment will encourage sustainable use of resources and seek to maximise recovery

rates.


Unitary Authority average. In maintaining this business as usual process, there would be no

progress made towards improving materials recovery rates from residual waste over the current

situation, giving autoclave an advantage in being a new relatively cleaner and more efficient

technology.

Autoclave

A new facility would be required for autoclave treatment on this scale, as facilities are currently

unavailable. Appropriate consideration of the environmental and social impacts should be

undertaken to maximise benefits and minimise impacts in a sustainable design. There could

potentially be impacts to biodiversity, including protected species and habitats, local amenity,

soil resources, surface water quality, cultural heritage, landscape, townscape and air quality.

Additional nuisance may also arise in terms of noise and odour, however the extent of this is

unknown at this time, but likely to be limited to the vicinity of new facilities.

Autoclave will encourage the sustainable use of resources and seek to maximise recovery rates

and when considered in context of the area and other local authorities, there may be an

opportunity for further processing using this technology. This could provide a sustainability

benefit cumulatively, by widening the scope for carbon emissions reduction in waste

management.

In developing an autoclave facility on this scale will also introduce a new high end technology

and associated new skills to the area, which could be of benefit to the local workforce. With

training support from new employers, long term benefits could be achieved.

Summary of Residual Treatment Options Assessment

Both MBT and autoclave generally support the achievement of most objectives. MBT poses an

advantage over autoclave, through being an established process with an established facility.

This would avoid impacts associated with new development.

However, maintaining this business as usual process would not seek to improve the efficiency in

processing residual waste, giving autoclave an advantage in being a relatively cleaner and more

efficient technology. Whilst both options will encourage sustainable use of resources and seek

to maximise recovery rates, there is an advantage in autoclave as it produces a very pure

recyclate, has higher materials recovery rates and energy recovery rates. The autoclave option

also introduces a new technology and associated skills to the area.



5.2.2 Green and Food Waste Treatment Options (Matrix 2)

Anaerobic Digestion

It has been assumed that opting to use AD will require the construction of a new facility as

although some local facilities do exist, the capacity of these to undertake additional processing

was not known at the time of assessment. Appropriate consideration of the environmental and

social impacts should be undertaken to maximise benefits and minimise impacts in a

sustainable design. There could potentially be impacts to biodiversity, including protected

species and habitats, local amenity, soil resources, surface water quality, cultural heritage,

landscape, townscape and air quality. Additional nuisance may also arise in terms of noise and

odour, however the extent of this is unknown at this time, but likely to be limited to the vicinity of

new facilities.

Bournemouth currently has very low levels of polluting industry which are not considered to

have significant air quality impacts. There will be limited emissions to air associated with AD and

so there is unlikely to be an environmental or health risk and carbon emissions will be lower

than the baseline situation (IVC or Windrow Composting).

It should be noted that carbon emissions will be higher and slightly more waste is diverted to

landfill where green is combined with food waste for treatment. This suggests a benefit in opting

to collect green and food waste separately (as assessed in Matrix 4, Appendix D).

AD positively contributes to achieving materials and energy recovery rates. However, it should

be noted that energy recovery is higher where green and food wastes are combined for

processing.

Introducing a new facility to the area will also introduce employment opportunities to the area,

which would be relatively highly skilled. With training support from new employers, long term

benefits could be achieved.

In-Vessel Composting

It has been assumed that opting to use IVC will require the construction of a new facility as

although some local facilities do exist, the capacity of these to undertake additional processing

was not known at the time of assessment. Appropriate consideration of the environmental and

social impacts should be undertaken to maximise benefits and minimise impacts in a

sustainable design. There could potentially be impacts to biodiversity, including protected

species and habitats, local amenity, soil resources, surface water quality, cultural heritage,

landscape, townscape and air quality. Additional nuisance may also arise in terms of noise and

odour; however the extent of this is unknown at this time, but likely to be limited to the vicinity of

new facilities.


have significant air quality impacts. There will be limited emissions to air which are unlikely to

pose an environmental or health risk and carbon emissions will be lower than opting to use

Windrow Composting, as is often the case for the baseline situation.

It should be noted that carbon emissions will be higher and slightly more waste is diverted to

landfill where green is combined with food waste for treatment. This suggests a benefit in opting

to collection green and food waste separately (as assessed in Matrix 4, Appendix D).



IVC positively contributes to achieving materials and energy recovery rates. However, it should

be noted that energy recovery is higher where green and food wastes are combined for

processing.

The option will introduce employment opportunities to the area, which would be relatively highly

skilled. With training support from new employers, long term benefits could be achieved.

Windrow Composting

The use of the existing facility would avoid the need for new build facilities and associated

environmental impacts. There may be localised environmental impacts from existing facilities

associated with noise, odour, air quality and health issues; however this is not anticipated to be

worse than the current situation. It is presumed the site is established with good management

procedures, however due to the facility being relatively exposed to the elements, it would be

advisable to ensure that the facility can process the additional collections of green waste without

posing an additional environmental risk.

Maintaining the current situation with regards to treatment would not introduce a food waste

treatment process diverting additional waste from landfill. Although encouraging some energy

recovery and reuse, this option would not progress BBC performance towards the aims of the

MWMS.

Summary of Green and Food Waste Treatment Options Assessment

The options to use AD and IVC would result in higher materials and energy recovery, positively

supporting the objectives. Continuing to use windrow composting would also support the

achievement of the objectives, however much lower levels of support would be achieved where

there is no food collection. It is recommended that food and green waste are collected to ensure

that the Bournemouth MWMS seeks to progress against waste minimisation, landfilling and

carbon emissions targets.

It is noted that carbon emissions and landfill rates will be higher where green is combined with

food waste for treatment, but energy recovery rates are also improved. However, as waste

management contributes approximately 3% (www.london.gov.uk/mayor) to total greenhouse

gas emissions in the UK, largely made up of methane emissions from organic waste degrading

in landfill, diverting food waste from landfill proves to be an advantage over the current situation.

The objectives for energy recovery, carbon reduction and landfill avoidance should be put into

some order of priority to ensure that the most important objectives are achieved with a preferred

option.

The IVC and AD options would introduce additional employment opportunities to the area, which

could have long term benefits in increasing the skills pool of the local workforce.

Should a new facility be required, appropriate environmental and social impact consideration in

design would seek to minimise any impacts.

5.2.3 Residual Waste Collections Options (Matrix 3)

Weekly Collections

Weekly collections are unlikely to provide any environmental effects which are worse than the

baseline situation. However, in maintaining the current collection regime, this will not seek to

achieve the aims of objectives to improve air quality, limit and adapt to climate change, reduce



energy use (taken to be in collection for the assessment of these options) and associated

transport impacts. Continuing the weekly collection in addition to other new collections would

ensure residents have sufficient access to waste disposal facilities and services.

Fortnightly Collections

There may be some (perceived) associated health risks with switching to a fortnightly collection,

however with appropriate management and public awareness of hygiene and storage

requirements this can be reduced. Where this option is to be combined with a food and green

waste collection, this would further reduce the risks associated with residual waste storage by

removing the organic component from bins.

There will be associated transportation (and financial) benefits with switching to a fortnightly

collection, which would contribute to BCC and UK aims for carbon emissions reduction.

As research shows that Alternative Weekly Collection (AWC) schemes actively encourage

participation in recycling other waste streams, this option would actively encourage further

energy and materials recovery.

Summary of Residual Waste Collection Options Assessment

There are no clear benefits in maintaining the current weekly residual waste collection option

and this would not assist BBC in improving waste management for the duration of the plan.

There are some clear advantages in switching to a fortnightly collection, which include reduced

transport requirements and encouraging participation in recycling other waste streams.

5.2.4 Green and Food Waste Collection Options (Matrix 4)

Separate Green Waste (Fortnightly) and Food Waste (Weekly)

The ability to recycle/reuse more waste than the current situation is a benefit.

There could be some health risks associated with this collection regime; however this is unlikely

to give rise to significant environmental or health impacts with appropriate consideration for

storage containers and capacities.

By opting for separate collections, this will ensure that AD or IVC are viable treatment options

with green waste being sent for the less expensive Windrow Composting option. This

encourages sustainable waste management, by ensuring the benefits identified in Matrix 2 (for

separate processing) are maximised and encouraging high recovery and recycling rates.

There will be higher transport (and associated impacts) requirements for separate green and

food waste collections; however with the long term scope of the Bournemouth MWMS, BBC

should consider opportunities to improve the efficiency of the current waste collection fleet when

procuring vehicles. In addition, further job creation is likely to be an aspect of additional

collections.

Mixed Green and Food Waste (Weekly)

The ability to recycle/reuse more waste than the current situation is a benefit.

There could be some health risks associated with this collection regime; however this is unlikely

to give rise to significant environmental or health impacts with appropriate consideration for

storage containers and capacities.



This option will encourage high recovery and recycling rates, however AD or IVC become the

only viable treatment options which would add to the cost of the overall process. As noted in

Matrix 2, there are environmental advantages in terms of materials recovery and carbon

emissions in treating these wastes separately.

Transport requirements for collection are generally lower for combined collections, which would

result in fewer emissions to air and contribute to carbon targets. In addition, further job creation

is likely to be an aspect of additional collections.

Green Waste (Fortnightly)

The baseline option encourages materials and energy recovery, but would only include green

waste and not food. This would not be entirely progressive in supporting the will of BBC to

improve their current record on diverting waste from landfill.

Summary of Green and Food Waste Collection Options Assessment

The introduction of a food waste collection would increase the overall amount and type of waste

which is diverted from landfill. Whilst the baseline option does encourage recovery and

sustainable waste management, it would not provide the same amount or scope of energy and

materials recovery as for the other two options. The ability to recycle/reuse more waste than the

current situation is an overall improvement over the baseline situation.

Generally the food and green waste collection options are very similar and in isolation from

treatment options, one does not provide a clear advantage over the other. Both will actively

encourage recycling and recovery, and have associated (perceived) health risks which can be

easily mitigated.

However, when considered with the treatment options, there are distinct advantages in separate

green and food waste collections, mainly related to the types of treatment options available post

collection. This would ensure the maximum amount of materials and energy recovery, for the

least cost (apart from the baseline situation).

5.3 Cumulative Issues

Due to the largely non-spatial nature of the options, there were relatively few cumulative issues

identified. It was recommended that the following potential cumulative issues were considered in

Preferred Option Development to avoid cumulative issues arising in the implemented of the

MWMS.

• Construction of new facilities – There may be potential cumulative impacts associated

with the siting, operational and construction impacts of any new facilities. Design should

seek to ensure impacts to landscape, cultural heritage, water quality and soil resources

are minimised. Design should seek to protect and enhance biodiversity and green

infrastructure, whilst minimising flood risk. A recommendation for inclusion of a

statement on new development is included in the enhancements and mitigation

recommendations section below.

• The construction of a new autoclave, IVC or AD facility may encourage other local

authorities within the area to use the same process. BCC should consult with other local

authorities in the area to consider the scale of new facilities required in order to ensure

that joint carbon emissions savings can be achieved. A positive cumulative impact

would be anticipated here.



• Transport impacts – Additional collections for food and green waste will require

additional road traffic movements which could give rise to environmental and social

impacts. There may also be more than one new facility required which could generate

additional traffic movements in the immediate vicinity of a facility associated with

deliveries.

5.4 Enhancements and Mitigation Recommendations

The following recommendations and opportunities for enhancement of the short listed Preferred

Options were identified:

Relevant to Autoclave, IVC and AD options:

• Where new facilities are required for the implementation of the MWMS, the strategy

should seek to ensure that appropriate settings and a high quality of design are

procured.

• New development should take account of location and the use of brownfield sites where

possible.

• The MWMS should include requirements to protect and/or enhance soil resources,

surface water and air quality where new development is required.

• The MWMS includes a requirement for new development to consider the environmental,

social and transport impacts for the construction and operational phases, and maximise

opportunities to improve the local environmental where possible. Design should seek to

ensure impacts to landscape, cultural heritage, water quality and soil resources are

minimised. Design should seek to protect and enhance biodiversity and green

infrastructure, whilst minimising flood risk.

• BBC should use the introduction of a new technology to the area as an opportunity for

public engagement and education.

Relevant to Windrow Composting options:

• A review should be undertaken of the current Windrow Composting facility to ensure

that the facility can process the additional collections of green waste without posing an

additional environmental risk.

Relevant to All Options:

• The objectives for energy recovery, carbon reduction and landfill avoidance should be

put into some order of priority to ensure that the most important objectives are achieved

with a preferred option.

• A public communications strategy should be developed to ensure clear information and


improve recycling uptake rates.

• Specific consideration should be given to food and green waste collection schemes

where residents live within flats, multi-occupancy accommodation or do not have

gardens - particularly those properties currently served by a daily black bag collection.

Suitable containers and locations for waste storage are considered to keep litter and

vermin to a minimum.



• There should be a general briefing to staff involved in the collection, transportation and

management of waste to avoid unnecessary health, safety and environmental incidents.

• The MWMS should seek to encourage new employers connected to the MWMS to


• The next stages of the MWMS development seek to ensure that all residents have

sufficient access to waste disposal services to avoid fly tipping, other illegal disposal

routes or additional personal journeys for waste disposal.

• The MWMS should include an intention to improve the efficiency of the collection fleet

through replacement or new vehicle procurement.

5.5 Overall Ranking of the Short Listed Preferred Options

The following Table 5-2 shows a rank of the five options from the option showing a higher level

of support (to the left) for the objective to the option showing the lowest level of support (to the

right).

Table 5-2 Ranking of the Options

Op

tion

4

Op

tion

1

Op

tion

5

Op

tion

2

Op

tion

3

To protect biodiversity, including rare and endangered species, and priority

habitats

+/- +/- - - +/-

To minimise adverse impacts upon human health and wellbeing, and local

amenity

+/- +/- +/- +/- -

To guard against land contamination and encourage the appropriate re-use of

brownfield sites

? ? ? ? -

To protect and enhance soil quality and resources + + - - -

To protect and enhance ground and surface water quality + + - - -

To protect and improve air quality + + + +/- -

To limit and adapt to climate change +/- +/- +/- +/- +/-

To ensure the sustainable use of natural resources + + + + +/- +/- +/-

To minimise waste production and ensure sustainable waste management + + + + +/- +/- +/-

To maximise re-use, recycling and recovery rates + + ++ + + + +/-

To increase energy efficiency and the use of renewable energy sources +/- +/- +/- +/- -

To minimise transport impacts associated with waste management + + + + 0

To protect the cultural heritage resource ? ? ? ? ?

To protect the existing townscape and landscape character and quality ? ? ? ? ?

To encourage sustainable economic growth, provide employment opportunities + + + + 0



Op

tion

4

Op

tion

1

Op

tion

5

Op

tion

2

Op

tion

3

and encourage economic inclusion



6 ASSESSMENT OF THE PREFERRED OPTION

6.1 Assessment of the Preferred Option

An assessment has been undertaken of the Preferred Option as shown in Table 6-2. The

Preferred Option consists of the Business as Usual Scenario described in Section 3.2.4.

Autoclave may be considered as an option when it becomes locally available. For the purposes

of this assessment, the inclusion of autoclave has not been considered as part of the Preferred

Option.

The following assessment criteria apply to this matrix.

Table 6-1 Assessment Criteria

Notation Explanation

++ The option strongly supports the achievement of the SEA Objective.

+ The option supports the achievement of the SEA Objective.

0 The option does not achieve or detract from the achievement of the SEA Objective.

- The option detracts from the achievement of the SEA Objective

- - The option strongly detracts from the achievement of the SEA Objective.

+/- The option both supports and detracts from the achievement of the SEA Objective.

Some aspects may support it whilst other aspects detract.

? It cannot be determined if the option will support or detract from the achievement of

the SEA objective.



Table 6-2 Assessment of the Preferred Option

SEA Objective Scale of Effect Level of

Certainty

Commentary Recommended Mitigation

S/t

(<5yrs)

M/t (5-

10yrs)

L/t

(>10yrs)

To protect

biodiversity,

including rare and

endangered

species, and

priority habitats

Urban 0 0 0

Medium

By retaining a business as usual scenario, there will unlikely be a need to develop new

facilities in the short to long term, providing that existing facilities have sufficient capacity to

process collected waste.

Using existing facilities will avoid some potential impacts to biodiversity and habitat loss,

which is in support of the objective; however this also reduces the opportunities for

biodiversity and green infrastructure to be enhanced.

The MWMS is unlikely to contribute to the development of the South East Dorset Green

Infrastructure Network.

NA

Rural 0 0 0

Transboundary 0 0 0

To minimise

adverse impacts

upon human health

and wellbeing, and

local amenity

Urban 0 0 0

Medium

The current regime includes fortnightly recycling and green waste collections. Appropriate

sized waste storage bins will be key to reducing health, odour and vermin issues associated

with the green waste collection.

Composting is relatively exposed to the elements in comparison to some of the other

treatment options that were considered, which may lead to localised emissions and

potentially dust, which without good site management practices could have health impacts.

However, as this is a business as usual scenario, practices are unlikely to change from the

current situation. This is unlikely to detract from the objective, or contribute to the


The Council should review the size and

suitability of current waste receptacles to ensure

existing and potential emerging health or

environmental issues associated with waste

storage are addressed. A public

communications strategy should be developed

to ensure that BBC send a clear message on

good waste management practices and to

increase uptake.

Rural 0 0 0

Transboundary 0 0 0

To guard against

land contamination

and encourage the

appropriate re-use

of brownfield sites

Urban +/- +/- +/-

Medium

The windrow process releases some emissions which could cause some localised

contamination. Good site management will ensure that no long term impacts arise.

The option does however, partially guard against further contamination in new areas, which

may have arisen from new waste management uses in currently unused areas. This

contributes to the achievement of the objective.

As the option does not require further development, there is unlikely to be any

encouragement to use brownfield sites.

Facilities should ensure that they are operating

in line with environmental good practice to

minimise the risk of impacts to the surrounding

environment.

Rural +/- +/- +/-

Transboundary 0 0 0

To protect and

enhance soil

quality and

resources

Urban +/- +/- +/-

Medium

Windrow composting can involve release of emissions which could have environmental

impacts and cause some localised contamination (including Volatile Organic Compounds.

Good site management will ensure that no long term impacts arise.

As the option does not require further development, there is unlikely to be any further

impact on soil structure and composition.



minimise the risk of impacts to the surrounding

environment.

Rural +/- +/- +/-

Transboundary 0 0 0

To protect and

enhance ground

and surface water

quality

Urban +/- +/- +/-

Medium

There are some conflicts with the objective as it may involve release of emissions which

could have environmental impacts (including Volatile Organic Compounds). Good site

management will ensure that no long term impacts arise.

Providing good waste management practices are practised, there are unlikely to be issues

relating to water resources.

The option does not seek to specifically protect or enhance water resources.



minimise the risk of impacts to the water

environment.

Rural +/- +/- +/-

Transboundary 0 0 0

To protect and

improve air quality

Urban +/- +/- +/-

Medium


have significant air quality impacts. As the sites to be used are established, significant

additional nuisance problems are unlikely. This supports the objective.

Using existing collection routes and routines will not reduce the emissions associated with

transport alone, and further development of the option may be possible to address this

issue. The option does not currently support the objective.

The MWMS should seek to reduce emissions to

air associated with current waste management

practices. This may be through encouraging an

increase in home composting, rationalising

routes or improving the collection fleet efficiency.

Rural +/- +/- +/-

Transboundary 0 0 0

To limit and adapt

to climate change

Urban 0 0 0 Medium

Bournemouth currently demonstrates a good level of waste recycling and recovery. This

option will see the current level of management maintained, however it will not give the

most advantageous adaptation option to mitigate climate change impacts. The option does

The option should seek to increase recovery

rates to reduce carbon emissions in line with

targets. Additional measures should be included Rural 0 0 0




Certainty


S/t

(<5yrs)

M/t (5-

10yrs)

L/t

(>10yrs)

Transboundary 0 0 0 not contribute to any great extent to the achievement of the sub-objectives to reduce carbon

emissions.

within the strategy to help achieve this, such as

further encouragement/incentives to minimise

waste production, and options to ensure higher

recovery rates.

To ensure the

sustainable use of

natural resources

Urban + + +

Medium

The option does promote the production and use of compost and the recycling and recovery

of a significant amount of waste. This option will see the current level of management

maintained which does ensure a significant amount of materials are recycled to useable

products. The option could be improved if there is clear potential to increase recovery rates.

The option could be improved by showing clear

potential to increase recovery rates. Rural + + +

Transboundary 0 0 0

To minimise waste

production and

ensure sustainable

waste

management

Urban + + +/-

Medium


Unitary Authority average. The option will promote a reduction in materials which are

headed for landfill, however it will not maximise this reduction to the full potential by

maintaining current collections, treatments and by excluding food waste.

In maintaining this business as usual process, this would contribute towards the

achievement of the objective to some degree, however there would be no progress made

towards improving materials recovery rates from residual waste over the current situation. In

the long term, it is not obvious that the option will ensure waste management targets are

met.

The option could be improved to recover waste which is not currently processed as part of the regime, for example food waste. Rural + + +/-

Transboundary 0 0 0

To maximise re-

use, recycling and

recovery rates

Urban +/- +/- +/-

Medium


Unitary Authority average. The option will promote a reduction in materials which are

headed for landfill, but in maintaining the current regime is unlikely to increase the

proportion of waste recycling and reuse, and the proportion of waste recycled and

composted. Further initiatives will be required alongside the business as usual collection

and treatment scenario.

Further initiatives may be required to increase

the amount of waste recycled, reused and

composted. Rural +/- +/- +/-

Transboundary 0 0 0

To increase energy

efficiency and the

use of renewable

energy sources

Urban +/- +/- +/-

Medium

The option does include the MBT process which recovers energy from waste. However, the

option will seek to maintain the current rate of composting and materials recovery. Further

initiatives will be required alongside the business as usual collection and treatment

scenario.

Further initiatives may be required to increase

the amount of waste collected to improve energy

recovery. Rural +/- +/- +/-

Transboundary 0 0 0

To minimise

transport impacts

associated with

waste

management

Urban 0 0 0

Medium

The option is unlikely to significantly detract or support the achievement of the objective, as

it does not introduce a significant change in transport usage.

However, using existing collection routes and routines will not reduce the emissions

associated with transport and further development of the option may be possible to address

this issue. The option does not currently support the objective.

The MWMS should seek to reduce transport

impacts associated with current waste

management practices. This may be through

encouraging an increase in home composting,

rationalising routes or improving the collection

fleet efficiency.

Rural 0 0 0

Transboundary 0 0 0

To protect the

cultural heritage

resource

Urban 0 0 0

High

The option is unlikely to require any large scale development that will potentially affect

cultural heritage resources. The option is not anticipated to detract or support the


NA

Rural 0 0 0

Transboundary 0 0 0

To protect the

existing townscape

and landscape

character and

quality

Urban 0 0 0

High

The option is unlikely to require any large scale development that will potentially detract

from the existing townscape, landscape character or quality. The option is not anticipated to

detract or support the achievement of the objective.

NA

Rural 0 0 0

Transboundary 0 0 0

To encourage Urban 0 0 0 High Maintaining existing businesses within the area will contribute towards a sustainable local It is recommended that opportunities to




Certainty


S/t

(<5yrs)

M/t (5-

10yrs)

L/t

(>10yrs)

sustainable

economic growth,

provide

employment

opportunities and

encourage

economic inclusion

Rural 0 0 0 economy, however there will not be any major new employment opportunities created. A

natural increase in employment opportunities may arise with rising population and waste

production rates.

Whilst the option will not detract from the achievement of the objective, it would not

positively encourage improvements to the current situation. The option is unlikely to

contribute toward any significant achievement against the objective, but is unlikely to have

any detrimental impact on current employment levels.

introduce new technology later within the

MWMS life span are taken where viable. The

autoclave option would introduce job

opportunities, potentially requiring a higher skill

level than current treatment options.

Transboundary 0 0 0



6.2 Summary of the Assessment

By retaining a business as usual scenario the option generally makes little contribution to the

achievement of the objectives, although it also does little to detract from them. It has been

assumed that facilities have sufficient capacity to take current and future waste forecasts,

however a recommendation has been included to ensure this is the case.

The option avoids the need to develop new waste management facilities which supports some

of the environmental objectives where localised direct impacts would have been anticipated for

new development. This also reduces the opportunity for introducing new potentially

contaminating uses into undeveloped areas. However, in retaining the current situation, this also

reduces the opportunities for environmental enhancement, for example through green

infrastructure, water quality improvements or the opportunities to reuse brownfield sites.

The current regime includes fortnightly recycling and green waste collections. Appropriate sized

waste storage bins will be key to reducing health, odour and vermin issues associated with the

green waste collection.

The option does not seek to reduce the impacts associated with the current regime, which

shows little support for the objectives. For example, using existing collection routes and routines

will not reduce the emissions associated with transport alone, and further development of the

option is required to address this issue.

The option will not give the most advantageous adaptation option to mitigate climate change

impacts and in particular does not contribute to any great extent to the achievement of the sub-

objectives to reduce carbon emissions.


Unitary Authority average. As the option does promote the production and use of compost and

the recycling and recovery of a significant amount of waste, it has shown some support for the

objectives to minimising waste production.

However there would be no progress made towards improving materials recovery rates from

residual waste over the current situation. In the long term, it is not obvious that the option will

ensure waste management targets are met. Further initiatives will be required alongside the

business as usual collection and treatment scenario.

Maintaining existing businesses within the area will contribute towards a sustainable local

economy, however there will not be any major new employment opportunities created. A natural

increase in employment opportunities may arise with rising population and waste production

rates. Whilst the option will not detract from the achievement of the objective, it would not

positively encourage improvements to the current situation.

6.3 Cumulative Issues

It is not anticipated that there will be any new cumulative issues associated with the Preferred

Option.



6.4 Enhancements and Mitigation Recommendations

The following recommendations have been made to enhance the Preferred Option.

� A review should be undertaken of the current waste management facilities to ensure that

they have long term capacity to process waste associated with a growing population.

� Facilities should ensure that they are operating in line with environmental good practice to

minimise the risk of impacts to the surrounding environment.

� A public communications strategy should be developed to ensure clear information and


improve recycling uptake rates. Further initiatives may be required to increase the amount

of waste recycled, reused and composted.

� The Council should review the size and suitability of current waste receptacles to ensure

existing and potential emerging health or environmental issues associated with waste

storage are addressed.

� The MWMS should seek to encourage new employers connected to the MWMS to


� BBC should seek to ensure that all residents have sufficient access to waste disposal

services to avoid fly tipping, other illegal disposal routes or additional personal journeys

for waste disposal.

� The MWMS should seek to reduce emissions to air and transport impacts associated with

current waste management practices. This may be through encouraging an increase in

home composting, rationalising routes or improving the collection fleet efficiency. The

MWMS could include an intention to improve the efficiency of the collection fleet through

replacement or new vehicle procurement.

� The option should seek to increase recovery rates and to reduce carbon emissions in line

with targets. Additional measures should be included within the strategy to help achieve

this, such as further encouragement/incentives to minimise waste production, and options

to ensure higher recovery rates.

� The option could be improved to recover waste which is not currently processed as part

of the regime, for example food waste.

� It is recommended that opportunities to introduce new technology later within the MWMS

life span are taken where viable. The autoclave option would introduce job opportunities,

potentially requiring a higher skill level than current treatment options.



7 MONITORING

7.1 Introduction

This section provides an outline monitoring framework and advice for monitoring the significant

effects (both positive and negative) of implementing the Bournemouth MWMS. Monitoring is an

ongoing process which will be integral to the implementation of the MWMS. Monitoring can be

used to:

� Determine the performance of the strategy and its contribution to objectives and targets

� Identify the performance of any mitigation measures

� Fill data gaps identified earlier in the SEA process

� Identify undesirable sustainability effects

� Confirm whether sustainability predictions were accurate

7.2 Approach

The monitoring framework has been developed to measure the performance of the MWMS

against changes in defined indicators that are linked to its implementation. These indicators

have been developed based on the following:

� The objectives, targets and indicators that were developed for the SEA Framework

� Features of the baseline that will indicate the effects of the plan

� The likely significant effects that were identified during the effects assessment

� The mitigation measures that were proposed to offset or reduce significant adverse

effects

Where relevant, the indicators and targets have been updated since publication of the Scoping

Report in January 2010.

The monitoring framework has been designed to focus mainly on significant sustainability

effects.

7.3 Proposed Monitoring Framework

Table 7-1 provides a framework for monitoring the effects of the MWMS and determining

whether the predicted environmental effects are realised. The framework is based around the

SEA Objectives and includes the following elements:

� The potentially significant impact that needs to be monitored or the area of uncertainty

� A suitable monitoring indicator

� A target (where one has been devised)

� The potential data source

� The frequency of the monitoring

The framework that has been developed will require review should there be any significant

changes made to the Bournemouth MWMS.



Those indicators written in italics highlight current data gaps which will be reviewed and

additional information gathered where possible. Some of these are highlighted as data gaps, as

they relate to specific factors or circumstances that may be generated by the Bournemouth

MWMS.



Table 7-1 Proposed Monitoring Framework

SA Objective Effect to be Monitored Indicator and Target (sources are provided where relevant) Review Timescale

To protect biodiversity, including rare and endangered species and priority habitats

Potential effects associated with new development on protect habitats and species.

Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) habitats and species: No decrease. To ensure that the MWMS does not compromise current level of LBAP species and habitats, and contributes positively towards the achievement of targets. Number and condition of designated sites within 5km of waste management facilities: No net loss of designated sites or reduction in quality as a result of waste management activities. .

Annual (BAP) Every five years

To minimise adverse impacts upon human health and wellbeing and local amenity

Perceived health risks associated with storage of waste and problems with vermin and odour.

Percentage of population with limiting long-term illness: No increase Every two years

Emissions of VOC’s to air from waste treatment processes.

Distribution/number of Air Quality Management Areas (AQMAs): No net increase in number or change in distribution as a result of waste management activities. However, waste treatment processes should not exacerbate current AQMA issues. Exceedances of Air Quality Objectives (AQOs) for NO2, sulphur dioxide (SO2), 1,3-butadiene, benzene, ozone (O3), carbon monoxide (CO) and particulate matter (PM10) No increase in exceedences as a result of waste management activities. Type and distribution of industrial sites registered under the Environmental Permitting (England & Wales) Regulations 2007: No increase in waste treatment facilities within proximity of sensitive land uses.

Annual (Air Quality Strategy) Annual Annual

To protect and enhance soil quality and resources

Impacts associated with new development.

Distribution of soil types: No overall change to soil resource available. Existing soil pollution associated with existing waste management facilities or operations: No increase in levels or recorded incidents.

Ad hoc related to new development. Annual Impacts associated with operational

phase of waste treatment option(s).

To protect and enhance ground and surface water quality

Impacts associated with new development.

Quality of surface watercourses: No decrease in water quality. Extent of EA-designated groundwater Source Protection Zones: No increased risk to groundwater attributed to waste management activities.

Every two years Every two years Impacts associated with operational

phase of waste treatment option(s).

To protect and improve air quality To minimise transport impacts associated with waste management

Emissions to air associated with new collection and treatment processes. Reduction in transport impacts associated requirements associated with waste management for duration of the plan.

Distribution/number of Air Quality Management Areas (AQMAs): No increase. However, waste treatment processes should not exacerbate current AQMA issues. Exceedances of Air Quality Objectives (AQOs) for NO2, sulphur dioxide (SO2), 1,3-butadiene, benzene, ozone (O3), carbon monoxide (CO) and particulate matter (PM10) No increase in exceedences as a result of waste management activities. Type and distribution of industrial sites registered under the Environmental Permitting (England & Wales) Regulations 2007: No increase in proximity of sensitive land uses.

Annual (Air Quality Strategy) Annual Annual



SA Objective Effect to be Monitored Indicator and Target (sources are provided where relevant) Review Timescale

Mean yearly background nitrogen dioxide (NO2) levels: to ensure new collection and treatment processes do not compromise the Air Quality Strategy for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Irelands target ‘to achieve and maintain 40µg.m-3 of annual average NO2‘ (The Air Quality Strategy for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland (2007)).

Annual

To limit and adapt to climate change

Carbon emissions associated with preferred waste collection option(s)

To reduce carbon emissions: To achieve a 30% reduction in CO2 emissions by 2020, relative to 2005, in line with national targets (Bournemouth, Dorset & Poole Draft Energy Efficiency Strategy & Action Plan (2009)). National goal is to reduce CO2 emissions by some 60% by 2050 (Climate Change – The UK Programme 2006: Tomorrow’s Climate Today’s Challenge).

Every two years

To minimise waste production and ensure sustainable waste management

Reduction in waste diverted to landfill.

Percentage of House Hold Waste Landfilled: Reduce current baseline position of 57.8% of

waste produced by residents of Bournemouth taken to landfill. To meet LATS targets - First target year 2009/10 - reduce landfilling of Biodegradable Municipal Waste (BMW to 75% of 1995 levels; Second target year 2012/13 - reduce landfilling of BMW to 50% of 1995 levels; Final target year 2019/20 - reduce landfilling of BMW to 35% of 1995 levels (Landfill Allowance Trading Scheme).

Annual Annual

To maximise re-use recycling and recovery rates

Increases in recycling and recovery rates for materials

Percentage of municipal waste sent for re-use: Increase from the current baseline of 340 tonnes Bournemouth Borough Council Municipal Waste Management Strategy 2010-2026 Baseline Report). Percentage of municipal waste composted: Increase Bournemouth’s composting performance to above the Unitary Authority average. Percentage of municipal waste recycled: The Waste Strategy for England (2007) sets the following targets for recycling and composting: 40% by 2010; 45% by 2015; and 50% by 2020.

Annual Annual Annual

Increases in recycling and recovery rates for energy

Energy from Waste Performance - % of municipal waste used to recover other energy sources: Increase % of municipal waste used in refuse derived fuel technology. 64-84MW of energy from renewable energy in Dorset by 2010 (Revision 2010: Empowering the Region – Renewable Energy Targets for the South West (2004))

Annual

To increase energy efficiency and the use of renewable energy sources

Reduction/increase (depending on Option) in energy requirements associated with waste collection.

Energy from Waste Performance - % of municipal waste used to recover other energy sources: Increase % of municipal waste used in refuse derived fuel technology. 64-84MW of energy from renewable energy in Dorset by 2010 (Revision 2010: Empowering the Region – Renewable Energy Targets for the South West (2004))

Annual

Reduction/increase (depending on Option) in energy requirements associated with waste treatment.

To encourage sustainable economic growth, provide employment opportunities and encourage economic inclusion

Contribution of new skills and employment opportunities to the area.

To improve current unemployment rates in Bournemouth: Decrease in unemployment rates.

Every two years



7.4 Management and Responsibilities

The monitoring data should be collated in a structured manner so patterns and trends can be

identified and remedial action implemented. It is recommended that the data be collated in a

tabular format and record the following:

� The SEA Objective

� The indicator being used

� The data recorded

� The trend i.e. is the situation improving or deteriorating

� The need for remedial action

� The remedial action to be taken

� The date for the implementation of remedial action

Table 7-2 provides a framework to be used to record responsibilities and results of monitoring.

Table 7-2 Monitoring Responsibilities

Monitoring

Activity

Responsible

Body

Dates and

frequency

Format of

Results

Status Issues

Encountered



Appendix A

Review of Plans, Programmes and Environmental Protection Objectives



Summary of International Plans

International Plans

Key Objectives Relevant to the Strategy and SEA Key Targets and Indicators Relevant to the

Strategy and SEA

Implications for the Strategy Implications for SEA

World Summit on Sustainable Development, Johannesburg (2002)

The World Summit reaffirmed the international commitment to sustainable development. The aims are to:

� Accelerate the shift towards sustainable consumption and production with a 10-year framework of programmes of action.

� Reverse trend in loss of natural resources.

There are no specific targets or indicators, however key actions include:

� Greater resource efficiency.

� Support business innovation and take up of best practice in technology and management.

� Waste reduction and producer responsibility.

� Sustainable consumer consumption and procurement.

The MWMS needs to recognise the importance of resource efficiency.

The SEA should include objectives, indicators and targets relating to the action areas, such as promoting more efficient use of resources.

� Urgently and substantially increase the global share of renewable energy.

� Create a level playing field for renewable energy and energy efficiency.

� New technology development.

� Push on energy efficiency.

� Low-carbon programmes.

The MWMS should recognise the importance of renewable energy and the need to reduce energy consumption and improve energy efficiency.

The SEA Framework should include an objective addressing the use of renewable energy and reducing energy use.

� Significantly reduce the rate of loss of biodiversity by 2010.

� Reduced impacts on biodiversity. The MWMS should include provisions for the protection and enhancement of biodiversity.

The SEA should include an objective that addresses biodiversity.

European Sustainable Development Strategy (2006)

The Strategy sets out how the European Union (EU) will effectively live up to its long-standing commitment to meet the challenges of sustainable development. It reaffirms the need for global solidarity and the importance of strengthening work with partners outside of the EU.

The Strategy sets objectives and actions for seven key priority challenges until 2010. The priorities are:

• Climate change and clean energy

• Sustainable transport

• Sustainable consumption and production

• Conservation and management of natural resources

There are no specific indicators or targets of relevance.

The LDF needs to take on board the key objectives, actions and priorities of the Strategy and contribute to the development of more sustainable communities by creating places where people want to live and work.

The SEA Framework should include objectives that complement those of this Strategy.

A cross section of objectives are required that cover a number of themes.



International Plans


Strategy and SEA


• Public Health

• Social inclusion, demography and migration

• Global poverty and sustainable development challenges

European Spatial Development Perspective (ESDP) (1999)

The European Spatial Development Perspective is based on the EU aim of achieving balanced and sustainable development, in particular by strengthening environmentally sound economic development and social cohesion.

There are no specific targets or indicators of relevance.

The development of the MWMS should be mindful of sustainable development principles.

The SEA should include objectives that complement the principles of the ESDP.

The provisions of National Strategy should already encompass the provisions of this Development Perspective. However, care should be taken when preparing the SEA to make sure it encompasses the philosophy of both national and international strategy documents.

UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (1992)

The Convention sets an overall framework for intergovernmental efforts to tackle the challenge posed by climate change. It acknowledges that the climatic system is affected by many factors and is a shared system. Under the Convention governments have to:

� Gather and share information on greenhouse gas emissions.

� Launch national strategies for climate change.

� Cooperate in preparing for adaptation to the impacts of climate change.


The MWMS should recognise that local action needs to be taken with regards to climate change issues.

The SEA should include objectives, indicators and targets that relate to climate change, flooding and the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.



International Plans


Strategy and SEA


Kyoto Protocol to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (1997)

The Kyoto protocol, adopted in 1997, reinforced the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. It addressed the problem of anthropogenic climate change by requiring developed countries to set legally binding emission reduction targets for greenhouse gases.

Industrial nations agreed to reduce their collective emissions of greenhouse gases by 5.2% from 1990 levels by the period 2008 to 2012. The UK target is to reduce emissions to 12.5% below 1990 levels by 2012 (NB: the UK has imposed further targets upon itself since then). Countries can achieve their Kyoto targets by:

� Reducing greenhouse gas emissions in their own country.

� Implementing projects to reduce emissions in other countries.

� Trading in carbon. Countries that have achieved their Kyoto targets will be able to sell their excess carbon allowances to countries finding it more difficult or too expensive to meet their targets.

The MWMS needs to encompass the broad goals of the Kyoto Protocol, e.g. recognising that local action needs to be taken with regards to climate change issues.


EU Sixth Environmental Action Plan (2002-2012)

The EAP reviews the significant environmental challenges and provides a framework for European environmental policy up to 2012.

The Programme aims at:

� Emphasising climate change as an outstanding challenge of the next 10 years and beyond and contributing to the long term objective of stabilising greenhouse gas concentrations .

� Protecting, conserving, restoring and developing the functioning of natural systems, natural habitats, wild flora and fauna with the aim of halting desertification and the loss of biodiversity.

� Contributing to a high level of quality of life and social wellbeing for citizens.

� Better resource efficiency and resource and waste management to bring about more sustainable production and consumption patterns, thereby decoupling the use of resources and the generation of

Objectives and priority areas for action on tackling climate change. The aims set out in the document are to be pursued by the following objectives (Please note some of these targets are now out of date):

� Ratification and entering into force of the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations framework Convention on climate change by 2002 and fulfilment of its commitment of an 8 % reduction in emissions by 2008-12 compared to 1990 levels for the European Community as a whole, in accordance with the commitment of each Member State set out in the Council Conclusions of 16 and 17 June 1998.

� Realisation by 2005 of demonstrable progress in achieving the commitments under the Kyoto Protocol.

� Placing the Community in a credible position to advocate an international agreement on more stringent reduction targets for the second

The MWMS needs to encompass the broad goals of the EU Plan e.g. recognising that local action needs to be taken with regards to climate change issues, protecting and enhancing biodiversity and encouraging waste reduction, re-use and recycling.

The SEA should be mindful that documents prepared will need to conform with EU goals and aims, and should therefore include appropriate objectives, indicators and targets in the SEA Framework.

The SEA Framework should include an objective addressing the protection and enhancement of biodiversity, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, reducing pollution and promoting more sustainable patterns of production and consumption.



International Plans


Strategy and SEA


waste from the rate of economic growth and aiming to ensure that the consumption of renewable and non-renewable resources does not exceed the carrying capacity of the environment.

commitment period provided for by the Kyoto Protocol. This agreement should aim at cutting emissions significantly, taking full account, inter alia, of the findings of the IPCC 3rd Assessment Report, and take into account the necessity to move towards a global equitable distribution of greenhouse gas emissions.

Together for Health: A Strategic Approach for the EU 2008 – 2013

The document aims to provide an overarching strategic framework addressing health issues across the EU and health in all policies.

The strategy is based around the following principles:

� A strategy based on shared health values.

� Health is the greatest wealth.

� Health in all policies.

� Strengthening the EU’s Voice in global Health.

The document acknowledges that health policy at the community level should foster good health, protect citizens from threats and support sustainability. To meet these challenges the strategy identifies three objectives as key areas for the future years.

Objective 1 – Fostering good health in an ageing Europe

Objective 2 – Protecting citizens from health threats

Objective 3 – supporting dynamic health systems and new technologies

There are no specific indicators or targets in the strategy.

The MWMS should consider the importance of protecting human health.

The SEA framework should include an objective addressing the need to protect human health.

The European Environment and Health Action Plan 2004 – 2010

The action plan is designed to give the EU scientifically grounded information needed to help all 25 EU member States to reduce the adverse health impacts of certain environmental factors and to endorse better co-operation between actors in the environment, health and research fields.






International Plans


Strategy and SEA


Aarhus Convention (Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters) (1998)

In order to contribute to the protection of the right of every person of present and future generations to live in an environment adequate to his or her health and well-being, each Party subject to the Convention shall guarantee the rights of access to information, public participation in decision-making, and access to justice in environmental matters in accordance with the provisions of this Convention.

As this is a high level EU policy document, responsibility for implementation has been deferred to the Member States:

Each Party shall take the necessary legislative, regulatory and other measures, including measures to achieve compatibility between the provisions implementing the information, public participation and access-to-justice provisions in this Convention, as well as proper enforcement measures, to establish and maintain a clear, transparent and consistent framework to implement the provisions of this Convention.

The development of the MWMS needs to be a transparent process.

The SEA should be mindful that while the MWMS will be prepared mostly under the provisions of national legislation and strategies, it still needs to comply with the principles of this Convention. This would be achieved through the stakeholder consultation process.

EU Air Quality Framework Directives (96/62/EC) and Daughter Directive (2004/107/EC)

The Framework Directive establishes a framework under which the EC will agree air quality limit values or guide values for specified pollutants in a series of Daughter Directives. The Directives contain limit values relating to the pollutants and it is necessary for these targets to be translated into UK legislation. All Daughter Directives (apart from 2004/107/EC) have been replaced by the Directive on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe.

They seek to maintain ambient-air quality where it is good and improve it in other cases with respect to sulphur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide and oxides of nitrogen, particulate matter and lead.

Thresholds for pollutants are included in the Directive.

The MWMS should consider the maintenance of good air quality and the measures that can be taken to improve it, for example, reducing the number of vehicle movements.

The SEA Framework should include objectives that address the protection of air quality.

Directive on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe (2008/50/EC)

This Directive demonstrates the EU’s strong commitment to improving air quality by setting binding standards and target dates for reducing concentrations of fine particle (PM2.5) pollution.

It merges four previous Directives (96/62/EC, 1999/30/EC, 2000/69/EC, and 2002/3/EC) and a Council Decision (97/101/EC) into a single directive on air quality.

The Directive establishes ambitious, cost-effective targets

Thresholds for pollutants are included in the Directive.

The MWMS should have regard to the limits and requirements set out in the Directive, e.g. by reducing vehicle movement etc.

The SEA Framework should include objectives that address the protection of air quality. Options for waste management will need to comply with the limits set out in the Directive.



International Plans


Strategy and SEA


for improving human health and environmental quality up to 2020.

EU Thematic Strategy on Air Quality (2005)

This thematic strategy on air pollution establishes interim objectives for air pollution in the EU and proposes appropriate measures for achieving them. It recommends that current legislation be modernised, be better focused on the most serious pollutants and that more is done to integrate environmental concerns into other policies and programmes.

It is proposed that Member States undertake more comprehensive monitoring of ambient levels of PM2.5 in urban areas as a first step in reducing average urban concentrations throughout their territory. A uniform interim reduction target of 20% is proposed for all Member States to be attained between 2010 and 2020.

More efficient use of energy and better use of natural resources can all help to reduce harmful emissions. The EU has set itself the indicative target of producing 12% of energy and 21% of electricity from renewable energy sources by 2010.

The MWMS should seek to achieve the objectives of the Strategy.


National Emissions Ceiling Directive (2001/81/EC)

The aim of the directive is to gradually improve, through a stepwise reduction of pollutants, the protection both of human health and the environment throughout the EU.


The MWMS should seek to achieve the objectives of the Strategy and contributes to reducing emissions from waste management facilities.


Directive on Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (2008/1/EC)

The IPPC Directive has been in place for over 10 years and the Commission has undertaken a 2 year review with all stakeholders to examine how it, and the related legislation on industrial emissions, can be improved to offer the highest level of protection for the environment and human health while simplifying the existing legislation and cutting unnecessary administrative costs. The results of this review have provided clear evidence of the need for action to be taken at a Community level.


The MWMS should seek to achieve the objectives of the Strategy.


The Soil Thematic Strategy (2006)

This strategy takes into account the different functions that soils can perform, their variability and complexity and the


The MWMS should consider soil management principles.

The options should be consistent with the principles



International Plans


Strategy and SEA


range of different degradation processes to which they can be subject, while also considering socio-economic aspects. The overall objective is protection and sustainable use of soil, based on the following guiding principles:

(1) Preventing further soil degradation and preserving its functions.

(2) Restoring degraded soils to a level of functionality consistent at least with current and intended use, thus also considering the cost implications of the restoration of soil.

of this Strategy.

Thematic Strategy on the Sustainable Use of Natural Resources 2005

The strategy emphasises the importance of integration of environmental concerns into other policies that affect environmental impacts of natural resources use but does not attempt to implement specific initiatives in areas that are already covered by well-established policies. It sets out an analytical framework with a view to allowing the environment impact of resource use to be routinely factored into public policymaking. If applied, this approach will help to move European economies towards a situation in which growth objectives are met by using natural resources more efficiently, without further eroding the natural resource base.


The MWMS should adhere with the principles to encourage the sustainable use of resources.

The options should be consistent with the principles of this Strategy.

Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC)

The purpose of this Directive is to establish a framework for the protection of inland surface waters, transitional waters, coastal waters and groundwater which:

(a) prevents further deterioration and protects and enhances the status of aquatic ecosystems and, with regard to their water needs, terrestrial ecosystems and wetlands directly depending on the aquatic ecosystems

(b) promotes sustainable water use based on a long-term protection of available water resources

(c) aims at enhanced protection and improvement of the aquatic environment, inter alia, through specific measures for the progressive reduction of discharges, emissions and losses of priority substances and the cessation or phasing-

Objectives for surface waters:

� Achievement of good ecological status and good surface water chemical status by 2015

� Achievement of good ecological potential and good surface water chemical status for heavily modified water bodies and artificial water bodies

� Prevention of deterioration from one status class to another

� Achievement of water-related objectives and standards for protected areas

Objectives for groundwater:

� Achievement of good groundwater quantitative

The MWMS policies should consider how the water environment can be protected and where possible enhanced, and include policies that promote the sustainable use of water resources.

The SEA Framework should include objectives that consider effects upon water quality and resources. Options will have to comply with the EA standards and the development of the options would need to consider the water environment.



International Plans


Strategy and SEA


out of discharges, emissions and losses of the priority hazardous substances

(d) ensures the progressive reduction of pollution of groundwater and prevents its further pollution

(e) contributes to mitigating the effects of floods and droughts

and chemical status by 2015

� Prevention of deterioration from one status class to another

� Reversal of any significant and sustained upward trends in pollutant concentrations and prevent or limit input of pollutants to groundwater

� Achievement of water related objectives and standards for protected areas

Groundwater Directive (2006/118/EC).

This Directive prohibits the direct or indirect discharge into groundwater of List I substances and limits discharges of List II substances so as to avoid pollution.

� The Directive does not apply to discharges of domestic effluents from isolated dwellings not connected to a sewerage system


The MWMS should consider the protection of water resources

The SEA Framework should include objectives that seek to protect environmental quality and promote enhancements where possible. The effects on the water environment will need to be considered within the options.

Nitrates Directive (91/676/EEC)

This Directive has the objectives of:

� Reducing water pollution caused or induced by nitrates from agricultural sources

� Preventing further such pollution

The Directive provides guidelines for monitoring nitrate levels for the purpose of identifying vulnerable zones.


The SEA Framework should include objectives that seek to protect environmental quality and promote enhancements where possible. The effects on the water environment will need to be considered within the options.

Drinking Water Directive (98/83/EC)

Sets standards for a range of drinking water quality parameters.

The Directive includes standards that constitute legal limits.


The SEA Framework should include objectives that seek to protect environmental quality and promote enhancements where possible. The effects on the water environment will



International Plans


Strategy and SEA


need to be considered within the options.

Directive on the Assessment and Management of Flood Risks (2007/60/EC)

This Directive aims to reduce and manage the risks that floods pose to human health, the environment, cultural heritage and economic activity. It requires Member States to assess whether all water courses and coast lines are at risk from flooding, to map the flood extent and assets and humans at risk in these areas, and to take adequate and coordinated measures to reduce this flood risk. It also reinforces the rights of the public to access this information and to have a say in the planning process.

The Directive shall be carried out in coordination with the Water Framework Directive, most notably through flood risk management plans and river basin management plans, and also through coordination of the public participation procedures in the preparation of these plans.


The MWMS should consider potential flood risk, and prevent development within floodplain.

The SEA Framework should include objectives that promote the reduction and management of flood risk. Options will need to consider the potential of flood risk.

Bern Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats (1979)

The Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats (the Bern Convention) was adopted in Bern, Switzerland in 1979, and came into force in 1982.

The principle objectives are to conserve wild flora and fauna and their natural habitats, especially those species and habitats whose conservation requires the co-operation of several States, and to promote such co-operation. Particular emphasis is given to endangered and vulnerable species, including endangered and vulnerable migratory species.


The MWMS must take into account the habitats and species that have been identified under the Convention, and should include provision for the preservation, protection and improvement of the quality of the environment as appropriate.

The SEA Framework should take into account the conservation provisions of the Convention, including provision for the preservation, and also enhancement of the natural environment.

UN Convention on Biological Diversity

This was one of the main outcomes of the 1992 Rio Earth Summit. The key objectives of the Convention are:

� The conservation of biological diversity.

� The sustainable use of its components.

� The fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising


It is essential that the development of the MWMS should consider the protection and enhancement of biodiversity.

The SEA Framework should include objectives relating to the protection and enhancement of biodiversity.



International Plans


Strategy and SEA


from the use of genetic resources.

The achievement of the objectives in the Convention relies heavily upon the implementation of action at the national level.

Directive on the Conservation of European Wild Birds (79/409/EEC)

Relates to the conservation of all species of naturally occurring birds in the wild state in the European territory of the Member States to which the Treaty applies, including the designation of certain habitats as Special Protection Areas. It covers the protection, management and control of these species and lays down rules for their exploitation, and also the prevention of pollution / deterioration of habitats or any disturbances affecting the birds.

The preservation, maintenance and re-establishment of biotopes and habitats shall include primarily the following measures:

� Creation of protected areas

� Upkeep and management in accordance with the ecological needs of habitats inside and outside the protected zones

� Re-establishment of destroyed biotopes

� Creation of biotopes

The MWMS should take into account the habitats and species that are identified under the Directive, and seek to protect and enhance biodiversity.

The SEA should include objectives, indicators and targets relating to the protection and enhancement of biodiversity.

Bonn Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (1979)

The Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (also known as the Bonn Convention or CMS) was adopted in Bonn, Germany in 1979, and is an intergovernmental treaty under United Nations Environment Programme. The aim is for contracting parties to work together to conserve terrestrial, marine and avian migratory species and their habitats (on a global scale) by providing strict protection for endangered migratory species.

The overarching objectives set for the Parties are:

� Promote, co-operate in and support research relating to migratory species

� Endeavour to provide immediate protection for migratory species included in Appendix I

� Endeavour to conclude Agreements covering the conservation and management of migratory species


The MWMS should take into account the habitats and species that have been identified under this convention, and should include provision for their protection, preservation and improvement.

The SEA Framework should include objectives protecting and enhancing biodiversity.



International Plans


Strategy and SEA


included in Appendix II

Directive on the Conservation of Natural habitats and of Wild Fauna and Flora (92/43/EEC)

Directive seeks to conserve natural habitats, and wild fauna and flora within the European Community.

Member States are required to take measures to maintain or restore at favourable conservation status, natural habitats and species of Community importance. This includes Special Areas of Conservation and Special Protection Areas and it is usually accepted as also including Ramsar sites (European Sites).

Plans that may adversely affect the integrity of European sites may be required to be subject to Appropriate Assessment under the Directive.

The MWMS should take into account the habitats and species that have been identified under this Directive, and should include provision for the preservation, protection and improvement of the quality of the environment as appropriate.

The SEA should include the conservation provisions of the EU Directive, and include objectives that address the protection of biodiversity.

Directive on the Landfill of Waste (99/31/EC)

The Directive is intended, by way of stringent operational and technical requirements on the waste and landfills, to prevent or reduce the adverse effects of the landfill of waste on the environment, in particular on surface water, groundwater, soil, air and human health.

The Directive establishes guidelines and targets for the quantities or biodegradable waste being sent to landfill.

The key targets given in the directive are given maximum timeframes from the start year in which to have them achieved.

� By 2010, biodegradable municipal waste going to landfills must be reduced to 75 % of that produced in 1995.



The MWMS should conform to the Directive and seek to achieve the targeted reductions in land filled waste.

Options should be developed to ensure any specified targets are achieved.

Thematic Strategy on the Prevention and Recycling of Waste (2005)

This Thematic Strategy would generate implications for current practices in the Member States and to create new opportunities for waste management options other than landfill, thereby encouraging a general move up the waste hierarchy. These are listed below:


The MWMS should seek to achieve the provisions of this Strategy e.g. encourage better waste management and recycling targets.

The SEA Framework should be consistent with the waste management principles of this Strategy.

The options for waste should



International Plans


Strategy and SEA


� Less waste to landfill.

� More compost and energy recovery from waste.

� More and better recycling.

be developed with the aim of achieving the provisions of the Strategy.

Packaging and Packaging Waste Directive (94/62/EC) (as amended by 2004/12/EC and 2005/20/EC)

This Directive covers all packaging placed on the market in the Community and all packaging waste, whether it is used or released at industrial, commercial, office, shop, service, household or any other level, regardless of the material used. This Directive provides that the Member States shall take measures to prevent the formation of packaging waste, which may include national programmes and may encourage the reuse of packaging.

All relevant targets are now out of date The MWMS should conform to the requirements of this Directive.

The options developed should be consistent with the waste management principles of this Directive.

European Sustainable Development Strategy (2006)

The Strategy sets out how the EU will effectively live up to its long-standing commitment to meet the challenges of sustainable development. It reaffirms the need for global solidarity and the importance of strengthening work with partners outside of the EU.

The Strategy sets objectives and actions for seven key priority challenges until 2010. The priorities are:

� Climate change and clean energy.

� Sustainable transport.

� Sustainable consumption and production.

� Conservation and management of natural resources.

� Public health.

� Social inclusion, demography and migration.

� Global poverty and sustainable development challenges.


The MWMS needs to consider the key objectives, actions and priorities of the Strategy, and ensure efficient waste collection and disposal mechanisms.

The SEA Framework should include objectives that complement those of this Strategy, addressing climate change, promoting sustainable travel and transport and promoting more sustainable communities.

European Transport Policy for 2010: A Time to Decide (2001)

This policy outlines the need to improve the quality and effectiveness of transport in Europe. A strategy has been


The development of the MWMS should consider issues relating to

The SEA Framework should include objectives relating to



International Plans


Strategy and SEA


proposed which is designed to gradually break the link between transport growth and economic growth to reduce environmental impacts and congestion. The policy advocates measures that promote an environmentally friendly mix of transport services.

transport and access. the need for a sustainable and efficient transport system, especially with the regard to waste disposal.

European Landscape Convention (2000)

The aims are to promote European landscape protection, management and planning, and to organise European co-operation on landscape issues. The Convention is part of the Council of Europe’s work on natural and cultural heritage, spatial planning, environment and local self-government, and establishes the general legal principles which should serve as a basis for adopting national landscape policies and establishing international co-operation in such matters.

The UK is a signatory to this Convention and is committed to its principles.


The plan needs to consider the preservation and enhancement of the landscape.

The SEA Framework should include objectives that relate to landscape protection and enhancement.

Waste Framework Directive (2008/98/EC)

Waste Framework Directive (2008/98/EC) replaces the old Waste Framework Directive (2006/12/EC).

The aims of the new Waste Framework Directive (2008/98/EC) are:

� To provide a comprehensive and consolidated approach to the definition and management of waste.

� To shift from thinking of waste as an unwanted burden to a valued resource and make Europe a recycling society.

� To ensure waste prevention is the first priority of waste management.

� To provide environmental criteria for certain waste streams, to establish when a waste ceases to be a waste (rather than significantly amending the definition of waste).


The MWMS should seek to achieve the objectives of the Directive.

Options should be developed with the aim of achieving the Directives objectives.



International Plans


Strategy and SEA


Waste Electronic and Electrical Equipment Directive (2002/96/EC)

The Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Directive (WEEE Directive) aims to:

� Minimise the impact of electrical and electronic goods on the environment.

� Increase re-use and recycling of WEEE.

� Reduce the amount of WEEE going to landfill.

It seeks to achieve this by making producers responsible for financing the collection, treatment, and recovery of waste electrical equipment, and by obliging distributors to allow consumers to return their waste equipment free of charge.

The UK Regulations implementing the WEEE Directive came into force on 2 January 2007.


It is essential that the MWMS conforms with the Waste Electronic and Electrical Equipment Directive.

The options development should consider the provisions of the WEEE Directive.

Environmental Liability Directive 2004/35/EC

The Environmental Liability Directive (ELD) is a piece of European legislation that is based on the ‘polluter pays‘ principle.

It forces polluters to prevent and remedy ‘environmental damage’ caused by their activities. It applies to :

� Serious damage to EU protected species and habitats or damage to Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI)

� Serious damage to water

� Land contamination that adversely affects human health.


This Directive should be considered throughout the development of the MWMS.

The SEA Framework should take this Directive into consideration, and include objectives for the protection of the natural environment.

Directive on the Incineration of Waste (2000/76/EC)

The Waste Incineration Directive (WID) aims to prevent or limit as far as practicable the negative effects of waste incineration on the environment, in particular pollution by emissions into air, soil, surface water and groundwater and the resulting risks to human health, from the incineration and co-incineration of waste.

The Directive sets stringent operational conditions and technical requirements.

It also sets emission limit values for waste incineration and co-incineration.

The MWMS will need to conform to this Directive.

Any incineration options will need to comply with the requirements of the Directive.



International Plans


Strategy and SEA


The Convention for the Protection of the Architectural heritage of Europe (Granada Convention) (1985)

The main purpose of the Convention is to reinforce and promote policies for the conservation and enhancement of Europe's heritage. It also affirms the need for European solidarity with regard to heritage conservation and is designed to foster practical co-operation among the Parties. It establishes the principles of "European co-ordination of conservation policies" including consultations regarding the thrust of the policies to be implemented.


The development of the MWMS should consider issues relating to the protection of archaeological heritage.

The SEA Framework should include objectives relating to the need for protecting archaeological heritage from inappropriate development.

The European Convention on the Protection and Management of Archaeological Heritage (Valetta Convention) (1992)

The European Charter for the Protection and Management of the Archaeological Heritage defines archaeological heritage very broadly. It deals with the inventorying and protection of sites and areas, the mandatory reporting of chance finds and the control of illicit trade in antiquities. It also promotes high standards for all archaeological work, which should be authorised and should be carried out by suitably qualified people. It recommends the creation of archaeological reserves, and requires the conservation of excavated sites and the safe-keeping of finds. It follows closely current British practice (as set out in PPS5) for the protection and recording of archaeology during development and contains provisions for the funding for development-led archaeology (again following closely current British practice) and for research. Articles 7 and 8 cover the collection and dissemination of information while Article 9 is about the promotion of public awareness and access. Article 12 deals with mutual technical and scientific assistance internationally.


The development of the MWMS should consider issues relating to the protection of archaeological heritage.

The SEA Framework should include objectives relating to the need for protecting archaeological heritage from inappropriate development.



Summary of National Plans

National Plans


Strategy and SEA


UK Sustainable Development Strategy: Securing the Future (2005) and the UK’s Shared Framework for Sustainable Development, One Future – Different Paths (2005)

The strategy for sustainable development aims to enable all people throughout the world to satisfy their basic needs and enjoy a better quality of life without compromising the quality of life of future generations.

As a result of the 2004 consultation to develop new UK sustainable development strategy the following issues have been highlighted as the main priority areas for immediate action:

� Sustainable consumption and production - working towards achieving more with less

� Natural resource protection and environmental enhancement - protecting the natural resources on which we depend

� From local to global: building sustainable communities creating places where people want to live and work, now and in the future

� Climate change and energy - confronting the greatest threat

In addition to these four priorities changing behaviour also forms a large part of the Governments thinking on sustainable development.

There are 68 high level UK government strategy indicators, which will be used to measure the success with which the above objectives are being met. The most relevant are:

� Greenhouse gas emissions: Kyoto target and CO2 emissions

� CO2 emissions by end user: industry, domestic, transport (excluding international aviation), other

� Renewable electricity: renewable electricity generated as a percentage of total electricity

� Energy supply: UK primary energy supply and gross inland energy consumption

� Water resource use: total abstractions from non-tidal surface and ground water sources

� Waste: arisings by (a) sector (b) method of disposal

� Bird populations: bird population indices (a) farmland birds (b) woodland birds (c) birds of coasts and estuaries (d) wintering wetland birds

� Biodiversity conservation: (a) priority species status (b) priority habitat status

� River quality: rivers of good (a) biological (b) chemical quality

� Air quality and health: (a) annual levels of particles and ozone (b) days when air pollution is moderate or higher

The MWMS needs to take on board the key objectives of the strategy and contribute to the development of more sustainable communities where possible.

The SEA Framework should include objectives, indicators and targets that cover social, economic and environment issues, including those issues identified in the Strategy.

Securing the Regions’ Futures – Strengthening the Delivery of Sustainable Development in the English Regions (2006)

This document sets out the Governments approach to There are no specific indicators or targets of The MWMS needs to consider This plan is primarily



National Plans


Strategy and SEA


strengthening the delivery of sustainable development at the regional level, following the publication of ‘Securing the Future: The UK Sustainable Development Strategy’. This Strategy included a review of the regional arrangements for the delivery of sustainable development, increase the effectiveness of regional implementation.

This document sets out an additional 20 commitments (with clear guidance) in order to help regions make a step change in their contribution to delivering sustainable development.

relevance. sustainable development through its development.

concerned with delivery of sustainable waste management and sustainable development at the regional level. While not all elements are of relevance to this study, ensuring sustainable development in the English regions is essential, and should be considered through the SEA process.

Sustainable Communities: Building for the Future (2003)

This action programme marks a step change in the policies for delivering sustainable communities for all. The plan allies measures to tackle the housing provision mis-match between the South-East and parts of the North and the Midlands, with more imaginative design and the continuation of an agreeable and convenient environment.

It is part of the Government’s wider drive to raise the quality of life in our communities through increasing prosperity, reducing inequalities, increasing employment, better public services, better health and education, tackling crime and anti-social behaviour, and much more. It reflects our key principles for public service reform: raising standards, devolving and delegating decision-making, providing greater flexibility over use of resources and choice for customers. The main elements are:

� Sustainable communities.

� Step change in housing supply.

� New growth areas.

� Decent homes.

� Countryside and local environment.


The MWMS needs to consider sustainable development through its development.

Options will need to comply with the principles of this document.

Draft Heritage Protection Bill (2008)

The Draft Heritage Protection Bill will reform and unify the There are no specific targets or indicators of The development of the MWMS The SEA Framework



National Plans


Strategy and SEA


terrestrial and marine heritage protection systems in England and Wales, and the marine heritage protection system in Northern Ireland. The marine elements are also capable of applying to Scotland. The Bill seeks to support sustainable communities by placing the historic environment at the heart of an effective planning system.

relevance. should consider the principles of the Draft Bill.

should include objectives that relate to the protection and enhancement of the historic environment. The siting of new facilities should consider the enhancement and protection of heritage features.

English Heritage: Climate Change and the Historic Environment (2008)

This statement, updates and replaces English Heritages 2006 position paper, which sets out their current thinking on the implications of climate change for the historic environment. It is intended both for the heritage sector and also for those involved in the wider scientific and technical aspects of climate change; in the development of strategies and plans relating to climate change impacts; or in projects relating to risk assessment, adaptation and mitigation.


It is important to consider the historic environment within the MWMS.

The SEA Framework should include objectives that relate to the protection and enhancement of the historic environment. The siting of new facilities should consider the enhancement and protection of heritage features.

Rural Strategy (2004)

Rural Strategy 2004 sets out the Government’s new approach. It identifies three key priorities for rural policy, and explains our modernised delivery arrangements.

The Government’s three priorities for rural policy are:

� 1. Economic and Social Regeneration – supporting enterprise across rural England, but targeting greater resources at areas of greatest need.

� 2. Social Justice for All – tackling rural social exclusion wherever it occurs and providing fair access to services and opportunities for all rural people.

� 3. Enhancing the Value of our Countryside – protecting the natural environment for this and future generations.


Rural issues should be considered in the development of the MWMS.

The options development should be mindful of the rural strategy.



National Plans


Strategy and SEA


These priorities will inform the Government’s rural policy for the next three to five years and the modernised delivery arrangements that will drive progress forward. This Strategy sets out the specific action that will be taken.

The Future of Transport White Paper A Network for 2030 (2004)

The strategy builds on the progress that has already been made since the implementation of the 10 Year Plan for transport. Investment plans have been extended out to 2014-15 but the strategy also looks even further ahead, at the challenges faced over the next 20 to 30 years. This document reflects the approach taken in the Air Transport White Paper.


The preparation of the MWMS should consider sustainable transport.

The SEA Framework should include an objective relating sustainable transport.

Options development should ensure that sustainable transport is considered.

Low Carbon Transport: A Greener Future – A Carbon Reduction Strategy for Transport (2009)

This strategy is intended to enable the UK to meet the requirements of the carbon budgets set under the Climate Change Act 2008.

Sets out how greenhouse gas emissions from transport will be reduced.

Relevant targets include:

� 16% reduction in greenhouse gases by 2020 (on 2005 levels) across those sectors not covered by a trading scheme. Collectively this is known as the non-traded sector – comprising mainly domestic transport, heat, agriculture and waste.

� Source 10% of transport’s energy from sustainably produced renewables by 2020.

The preparation of the MWMS should consider the accessibility of waste development.

The SEA Framework should include an objective relating to the accessibility of waste management facilities by sustainable modes of transport.

UK Climate Change Act (2008)

The Act makes it the duty of the Secretary of State to ensure that the net UK carbon account for all six Kyoto greenhouse gases for the year 2050 is at least 80% lower than the 1990 baseline. The Act aims to enable the United Kingdom to become a low-carbon economy and gives ministers powers to introduce the measures necessary to achieve a range of greenhouse gas reduction targets. An independent Committee on Climate Change has been created under the Act to provide advice to UK Government on these targets and related policies.

It is the duty of the Secretary of State to ensure that the net UK carbon account for the year 2050 is at least 80% lower than the 1990 baseline.





National Plans


Strategy and SEA


UK Low Carbon Transition Plan – National Strategy for Climate Change and Energy (2009)

The UK Low Carbon Transition Plan plots how the UK will meet the 34 percent cut in emissions on 1990 levels by 2020, set out in the budget.

By 2020:

� More than 1.2 million people will be in green jobs.

� 7 million homes will have benefited from whole house makeovers, and more than 1.5 million households will be supported to produce their own clean energy.

� Around 40 percent of electricity will be from low-carbon sources, from renewables, nuclear and clean coal.

� We will be importing half the amount of gas that we otherwise would.

� The average new car will emit 40 percent less carbon than now.



Adapting to Climate Change in England (2008)

The Government’s Adapting to Climate Change (ACC) Programme brings together the work already being led by Government and the wider public sector on adapting to climate change, and will co-ordinate and drive forward the development of the Government’s work on this in the future. The Programme is led by the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), which acts as central co-ordinator for the Programme.


It should be ensured that the key principles are considered in the preparation of the MWMS.

The SEA Framework should include objectives that address climate change issues including flooding and the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Energy Bill 2008

The Bill will implement the legislative aspects of the 2007 Energy White Paper: Meeting the Energy Challenge. It will update the legislative framework by setting out new legislation to:

� Reflect the availability of new technologies (such as CCS and emerging renewable technologies).

� Correspond with our changing requirements for security of supply infrastructure (such as offshore gas storage).


The MWMS should encourage the reduction in carbon dioxide emissions whilst promoting sustainable economic growth.

The SEA Framework should include an objective relating to minimising greenhouse gas emissions. Options development should consider the provisions set out in the Bill.



National Plans


Strategy and SEA


� Ensure adequate protections for the environment and the tax payer as our energy market changes.

This policy is driven by the two long-term energy challenges faced by the UK: tackling climate change by reducing carbon dioxide emissions, and ensuring secure, clean and affordable energy.

The Energy Bill, alongside the Planning and Climate Change Bills, will seek to ensure the legislation underpins the long-term delivery of the energy and climate change strategy. The following issues are addressed in the Bill:

� Offshore gas supply infrastructure.

� Carbon Capture and Storage.

� Renewables.

� Decommissioning of offshore renewables and oil and gas installations.

� Improvements to offshore oil and gas licensing.

� Nuclear waste and decommissioning financing.

� Offshore electricity transmission.

� Housekeeping.



National Plans


Strategy and SEA


The Egan Review – Skills for Sustainable Communities

The key components of sustainable communities are:

� Governance – effective and inclusive participation, representation and leadership.

� Transport and connectivity – Good transport services and communications linking people to jobs, schools, health and other services.

� Services – a full range of appropriate, accessible public, private community and voluntary services.

� Environmental – providing places for people to live in an environmentally friendly way.

� Economy – A flourishing and diverse local economy.

� Housing and the Built Environment – a quality built and natural environment.

� Social and cultural – vibrant, harmonious and inclusive communities.

A series of indicators are defined for each of the key components to monitor progress. Those that are relevant include:

� Percentage of residents surveyed and satisfied with their neighbourhoods as a place to live.

� Percentage of respondents surveyed who feel they ‘belong’ to the neighbourhood (or community).

� Percentage of adults surveyed who feel they can influence decisions affecting their local area.

� Household energy use (gas and electricity) per household.

� Percentage people satisfied with waste recycling facilities.

� Average no. of days where air pollution is moderate or higher for NO2, SO2, O3, CO or PM10.

� Percentage of residents surveyed finding it easy to access key local services.

The MWMS should seek to support the principles of the Egan Review.

There are a number of objectives and indicators in the document that should be integrated into the SEA Framework.

Climate Change – The UK Programme 2006: Tomorrow’s Climate Today’s Challenge

Although the 2000 Climate Change Programme helped put the UK on track, and even beyond, to meet the Kyoto greenhouse gas reduction commitment, this 2006 programme contains further commitments to help to achieve the national goal of reducing carbon dioxide by 20% below 1990 levels by 2010 and, in the long-term, reduce emissions by 60 per cent by 2050. The Programme therefore sets out the Strategy for both international and national action.

This Programme is based on a number of principles:

� The need to take a balanced approach with all sectors

The document outlines that the national goal is to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by some 60% by 2050.

It should be ensured that the key principles are considered in the preparation of the MWMS.

The SEA Framework should include objectives that address climate change issues including flooding and the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.



National Plans


Strategy and SEA


and all parts of the UK playing their part.

� The need to safeguard, and where possible enhance, the UK’s competitiveness, encourage technological innovation, promote social inclusion and reduce harm to health.

� The need to focus on flexible and cost effective policy options which will work together to form an integrated package.

� The need to take a long-term view, looking to targets beyond the first Kyoto commitment period and considering the need for the UK to adapt to the impacts of climate change.

� The need for the Programme to be kept under review.

Strong and Prosperous Communities Local Government White Paper (2006)

This White Paper is on the side of individuals and families who want to make a difference, both to their own lives and to the communities in which they live. It vision is to revitalised local authorities, working with their partners, to reshape public services around the citizens and communities that use them.


The MWMS should consider the themes of this white paper throughout its development.

The SEA Framework should include objectives that promote sustainable communities.

The Air Quality Strategy for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland (2007)

This Strategy sets out air quality objectives and policy options to further improve air quality in the UK from today into the long term. As well as direct benefits to public health, these options are intended to provide important benefits to quality of life and help to protect our environment.

This updated strategy provides a clear, long-term vision for improving air quality in the UK and offers options for further consideration to reduce the risk to health and the environment from air pollution.

The Strategy sets objectives and targets for each air quality pollutant, e.g. to achieve and maintain 40µg.m-3 of annual average nitrogen dioxide.

The MWMS should aim to achieve the targets/objectives set out in this Strategy.


Working with the Grain of Nature: a Biodiversity Strategy for England (2006)

The Strategy seeks to ensure biodiversity considerations become embedded in all main sectors of public policy and

A key Defra objective is: to protect and improve the rural, urban, marine and global environment and lead

The MWMS should support the principles of biodiversity protection.

The SEA Framework should include



National Plans


Strategy and SEA


sets out a programme for the next five years to make the changes necessary to conserve, enhance and work with the grain of nature and ecosystems rather than against them.

‘Working with the Grain of Nature – taking it forward Volume 1: Full report on progress under the England Biodiversity Strategy 2002-2006’ was published in 2006, to report on the first four years of implementation. The report describes the progress made since 2002, sets a new vision, provides an overview of the progress made taking a holistic approach, reviews the headline indicators, provides progress reports for each workstream of the strategy, and sets out forward work programmes to 2010. A companion volume, updating the indicators first published in the implementation of the England Biodiversity Strategy, is published as Volume II of this report.

on the integration of these with other policies across Government and internationally.

Under this objective, key targets are:

� To care for our natural heritage, make the countryside attractive and enjoyable for all and preserve biological diversity by

� Reversing the long-term decline in the number of farmland birds by 2020, as measured annually against underlying trends

� Bringing into favourable condition by 2010 95% of all nationally important wildlife sites

The Government is already committed, in its Quality of Life Counts indicators, to using key indicators to measure progress with sustainable development in the UK. The ones that are particularly important for biodiversity are:

� The populations of wild birds

� The condition of Sites of Special Scientific Interest

� Progress with Biodiversity Action Plans

� Area of land under agri-environment agreement

� Biological quality of rivers

� Fish stocks around the UK fished within safe limits

sustainability objectives, indicators and targets that address the protection and enhancement of biodiversity.

Conserving Biodiversity – The UK Approach (2007)

The purpose of the document is to set out the vision and approach to conserving biodiversity within the UK’s devolved framework. It sets out an approach to biodiversity conservation that is designed to meet the commitment to halt the loss of biodiversity by 2010 but also to guide action into the second decade of the 21

st century.

The document comprises:

� A shared purpose in tackling the loss and restoration

In June 2007 the UK Biodiversity Partnership published 18 indicators that can be used to monitor biodiversity progress across the UK. They will be used as part of a wider evidence base to determine whether the target to halt biodiversity loss is being achieved. Some of the relevant indicators include:

� Trends in populations of selected species (birds)

� Trends in populations of selected species

It is essential that the development of the MWMS should consider biodiversity protection and enhancement.

The SEA Framework should include objectives relating to the protection and enhancement of biodiversity resources.



National Plans


Strategy and SEA


of biodiversity.

� The guiding principles that we should follow to achieve it.

� Priorities for the action in the UK and internationally.

� Indicators to monitor the key issues on a UK basis.

(butterflies)

� UK BAP Priority Species

� UK BAP Priority Habitats

� Protected areas

� Sustainable woodland management

� Area of agri-environment land

� Sustainable fisheries

� Ecological impact of air pollution

� Invasive species

� Habitat connectivity

� River quality

UK Biodiversity Action Plan (1994)

This Plan has been prepared in response to Article 6 of the Biodiversity Convention, to develop national strategies for the conservation of biological diversity and the sustainable use of biological resources. The Convention on Biological Diversity (1992) aimed to halt the worldwide loss of animal and plant species and genetic resources and save and enhance biodiversity. The Action Plan is monitored, reviewed and updated when required.

The overall goal of the UKBAP is ‘To conserve and enhance biological diversity within the UK and to contribute to the conservation of global biodiversity through all appropriate mechanisms’.

The plan contains action plans for 382 priority species and 9 priority species-groups.

Individual plans have been developed for 45 priority habitats.

Specific targets are established for each of these action plans which are considered too detailed for this PPP review.

It is essential that the development of the MWMS should consider biodiversity protection.

The SEA Framework should include objectives relating to the protection and enhancement of biodiversity resources and include relevant baseline information.

The options development needs to consider biodiversity resources.

The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations (2010)

These Regulations make provision for the purpose of implementing, for Great Britain, Council Directive 92/43/EEC[8] on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora.

They replace and update the Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994 (as amended) in England and Wales (and to a limited degree, Scotland - as regards reserved matters).


It is essential that the development of the MWMS should consider biodiversity protection. Any development affecting European designated sites or protected sites will need to comply with the legislation.

The SEA Framework should include objectives relating to the protection and enhancement of biodiversity resources. The options development will need to consider the requirements of the regulations.



National Plans


Strategy and SEA


Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981(as amended)

The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 remains one of the most important pieces of wildlife legislation in Great Britain, concerning the protection of wildlife, the identification and declaration of special sites (e.g. SSSI and NNR).


It is essential that the development of the MWMS should consider biodiversity protection, and complies with the legislation.

The SEA Framework should include objectives relating to the protection and enhancement of biodiversity resources. The options development will need to consider the requirements of the regulations.

Making Space for Water: Taking Forward a New Government Strategy for Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk Management (2005)

This strategy has a 20 year time horizon and seeks to implement a more holistic strategy to flood and coastal erosion risks.

The aim is to manage risks by employing an integrated portfolio of approaches which reflect both national and local priorities to reduce the threat to people and their property and to deliver the greatest environmental, social and economic benefits.

A whole catchment and whole shoreline approach will be adopted and adaptation to climate change will be an inherent part of flood and coastal erosion decisions.


The MWMS should consider flood risk issues through its development. It should seek to avoid siting new facilities in floodplain and ensure the sustainable use of water resources.

The SEA Framework should include objectives, targets and indicators that address flooding risk and the need to manage runoff effectively.

The siting of any new facilities should avoid development in the floodplain. Options development should consider sustainable water use.

Flood and Water Management Act (2010)

The Act will provide better, more comprehensive management of coastal erosion and flood risk for people, homes and businesses. It also contains financial provisions related to the water industry.

The Act will give the EA an overview of all flood and coastal erosion risk management and unitary and county councils the lead in managing the risk of local floods. It will also enable better management of water resources and quality, and will help to manage and respond to severe




The siting of any new facilities should avoid development in the



National Plans


Strategy and SEA


weather events such as flood and drought. floodplain. Options development should consider sustainable water use.

GP3 (Groundwater Protection Policy and Practice)

The EA’s GP3 documents describe how they manage and protect groundwater now and for the future. There are two key risks to groundwater, these are:

1. Pollution - groundwater is vulnerable to contamination and is difficult to clean. Nitrate, pesticides, solvents and other chemicals can get into groundwater from both surface water and soils.

2. Demand - over use of groundwater depletes the public water supply, so we might not be able to rely on it in the future. Many rivers and wildlife also depend heavily on groundwater and may be harmed, or lost, if groundwater levels become too low. 35% of groundwater bodies are classified as at ‘poor quantitative status’ under the EU Water Framework Directive because of abstraction pressures.

These documents put the EA’s understanding, the tools used to assess risks and their policies for activities that may impact on groundwater resources and quality in a single place.


The MWMS should consider ground water protection issues through its development. It should seek to avoid siting new facilities in areas sensitive to groundwater pollution.

The siting of any new facilities should avoid development areas sensitive to groundwater pollution.

Policy and Practice for the Protection of Floodplains (1997)

Whilst this is quite an old document the principles of it remain very important. This is an Environment Agency publication which seeks to secure and, where necessary, restore the effectiveness of floodplains for flood defence and environmental purposes.

The key principles of the policy are:

� Development should not occur which has an unacceptable risk of flooding, leading to danger to life,




The siting of any new facilities should avoid development in the



National Plans


Strategy and SEA


damage to property and wasteful expenditure on remedial works.

� Development should not exacerbate or create flooding in other locations.

� Development should not occur which would prejudice possible works to reduce flood risk.

� Development should not result in adverse environmental impacts.

� Natural floodplain areas should be retained and where possible restored to fulfil their natural functions.

floodplain. Options development should consider sustainable water use.

Water Resources Strategy for England and Wales (2009)

This document forms the EA’s strategy for water resource management for the next 25 years.

The focus of the strategy is on understanding the present state of water resources and planning for the management of water resources to prevent long-term environmental damage and degradation. The strategy highlights where water abstractions are unsustainable and where further water is needed. The issue of climate change and its impact upon our water resources is also considered.

30 action points are identified to deliver the strategy, which include developing leakage control, encouraging good practice when using water and promoting the value of water.


The MWMS needs to consider the protection and enhancement of water resources.

The SEA Framework should include objectives that promote the protection of the water environment.

Waste Strategy for England (2007)

The aim has to be to reduce waste by making products with fewer natural resources. The link between economic growth and waste growth must be broken. Most products should be re-used or their materials recycled. Energy should be recovered where possible. Land filling of residual waste, in small amounts, may be necessary.

The strategy highlights that significant progress has been made since the 2000 strategy. However, performance still

The strategy expects a reduction of commercial and industrial waste going to landfill by at least 20% by 2010 compared to 2004.

A number of indicators are used in the strategy to characterise current waste management in England.

The MWMS needs to meet the objectives of this Strategy through its promotion of sustainable waste management and minimisation of resource use.

The SEA Framework should include objectives, indicators and targets that address sustainable waste management.

The development of the options needs to consider the themes presented in



National Plans


Strategy and SEA


lags behind other European countries.

The Government’s key objectives are:

� To decouple waste growth from economic growth and put more emphasis upon waste prevention and re-use.

� Meet and exceed the Landfill Directive diversion targets for biodegradeable municipal waste in 2010, 2013 and 2020.

� Increase diversion from landfill of non-municipal waste and secure better integration of treatment for municipal and non-municipal waste.

� Secure the investment in infrastructure needed to divert waste from landfill and for the management of hazardous waste.

� Get the most environmental benefit from investment through increased recycling of resources and recovery of energy from residual waste using a mix of technologies.

this Strategy.

Landfill Tax Regulations 1996 (amended 2009)

These regulations came into force on the 1st October 1996, and in summary introduced a tax of £7 per tonne for active waste and £2 per tonne for inactive waste.


It is essential that any landfill requirements in the MWWS comply with the legislation, and seek to achieve the targeted reductions in land filled waste.


Landfill (England & Wales) Regulations 2002 (as amended)

These regulations provide the framework for which the Landfill Directive is applied under.


It is essential that any landfill requirements in the MWWS comply with the legislation, and seek to achieve the targeted reductions in land filled waste.


Landfill Allowance Trading Scheme (2005)

The Landfill Allowance Trading Scheme, LATS, is an initiative by the UK government, through DEFRA to help reduce the amount of biodegradable municipal waste (BMW) sent to landfill. The LATS was launched on 1 April


It is essential that any landfill requirements in the MWWS comply with the legislation, and seek to achieve the targeted reductions in

Options should be developed to ensure any specified targets are



National Plans


Strategy and SEA


2005. Allowances were allocated to each waste disposal authority at a level that will enable England to meet its targets, as a contribution to the UK targets, under the Landfill Directive.

land filled waste. achieved.

Waste Incineration (England and Wales) Regulations 2002

These regulations provide the framework for which the Waste Incineration Directive is applied under.


The MWMS will need to conform to these regulations.

Options will need to comply with the requirements of these regulations.



National Plans


Strategy and SEA


Relevant National Planning Policy Statements (PPS), Planning Policy Guidance Notes (PPG)

PPS1: Delivering Sustainable Development (2005)

The PPS highlights a number of principles that should be applied to ensure that development plans and decisions taken on planning applications contribute to the delivery of sustainable development.

Planning Policy Statement: Planning and Climate Change – Supplement to PPS1 (2007)

This PPS sets out how spatial planning (in providing for the new homes, jobs and infrastructure needed by communities) should contribute to reducing emissions and stabilising climate change (mitigation) and take into account the unavoidable consequences (adaptation).

PPG2: Green Belts (1995, amended 2001)

The aim of this PPG is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open; the most important attribute of Green Belts is their openness.

PPS4: Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth (2009)

PPS4 brings together all planning policy relating to economic development formerly set out in several PPGs.

The overarching objective of Government policy is sustainable economic growth. More specific objectives are to:

� Build prosperous communities by improving economic

performance

� Reduce economic inequality, promote regeneration and

tackle deprivation

� Deliver more sustainable patterns of economic

development and reduce the need to travel

� Promote the vitality and viability of town and other

centres

� Raise the quality of life and the environment in rural


It should be ensured that the MWMS fully adheres to the recommendations and guidance contained in PPGs and PPSs.

The development of options should consider the advice contained within these documents.



National Plans


Strategy and SEA


areas

PPS5: Planning for the Historic Environment (2010)

PPS5 combines several former PPGs and sets out the planning policies on the conservation of the historic environment. The policies in this PPS must be taken into account by Local Planning Authorities (LPAs) in the preparation of Local Development Documents (LDDs).

It comprises policies that will enable the Government’s vision for the historic environment to be implemented through the planning system, where appropriate. The Government’s overarching aim is that the historic environment and its heritage assets should be conserved and enjoyed for the quality of life they bring to this and future generations.

PPS9: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation (2005)

In moving towards the Government’s vision for conserving and enhancing biological diversity in England, set out in ‘Working with the Grain of Nature: A Biodiversity Strategy for England’ (Defra 2002), the Governments objectives for planning are set out in this PPS.

PPS10: Planning for Sustainable Waste Management (2005) and a Companion Guide to PPS10 (2006)

Positive planning has an important role in delivering sustainable waste management through the development of appropriate strategies for growth, regeneration and the prudent use of resources, and by providing sufficient opportunities for new waste management facilities of the right type, in the right place and at the right time. Local authorities should:

� Help deliver sustainable waste management through driving waste management up the waste hierarchy, addressing waste as a resource and looking to disposal as the last option but one which must be catered for

� Provide a framework in which communities take more



National Plans


Strategy and SEA


responsibility for their own waste

� Help implement the national waste strategy, and supporting targets

� Help secure the recovery or disposal of waste without endangering human health and without harming the environment

� Ensure the design and layout of new development supports sustainable waste management

� Reflect the concerns and interests of communities, the needs of waste collection authorities, waste disposal authorities, business, and encourage competitiveness

� Protect greenbelts but recognise the particular locational needs of some types of waste management facilities when defining detailed greenbelt boundaries and in determining planning applications. These locational needs, together with the wider environmental and economic benefits of sustainable waste management, are material considerations that should be given significant weight in determining whether proposals should be given planning permissions

The planned provision of new capacity should be based on clear policy objectives

PPS12: Local Spatial Planning (2008)

This PPS explains local spatial planning and how it benefits communities.

PPG13: Transport (2001)

The objectives of this guidance are to integrate planning and transport at the national, regional, strategic and local level. It also provides guidelines for Local Authorities to assist in delivering the objectives of the guidance.

PPS22: Renewable Energy (2004) and a Companion Guide to PPS22 (2004)

Sets out the Government's planning policies for renewable energy, which planning authorities should have regard to when preparing local development documents and when taking planning decisions.



National Plans


Strategy and SEA


PPS23: Planning and Pollution Control (2004)

The PPS requires that international environmental and pollution control obligations are met, whilst at the same time meeting sustainable development objectives and applying the precautionary principle in considering development documents

PPG24: Planning and Noise (1994)

This PPG gives guidance to local authorities in England on the use of their planning powers to minimise the adverse impact of noise and builds

PPS25: Development and Flood Risk (2010)

PPS25 sets out Government policy on development and flood risk.



Summary of Regional and County Plans

Regional and County Level Plans


Strategy and SEA


Dorset, Poole and Bournemouth Waste Local Plan (June 2006)

The Bournemouth, Dorset and Poole Waste Local Plan provides guidance on where new waste and recycling facilities should be provided with regards to waste management strategies. The findings within this plan are binding on the three councils.

The plan will play an important role in enabling the major shift away from landfill to more sustainable waste management methods.

The policies and proposals of the Plan have been formed on the following key objectives which are aimed at promoting sustainable waste management:

A – To develop a balance between the need for waste management facilities and

the need to protect the environment which maximises the sustainability of both;

B – To encourage re-use, recycling and recovery of waste materials within a hierarchy of waste management options and to take account of the potential for waste minimisation;

C – To identify areas where the requirement for waste management facilities can take place without prejudicing the best of the local environment or the amenities or living conditions of its residents and visitors now and in the future;

D – To seek to minimise adverse environmental impacts resulting from the handling,

processing, transport and disposal of waste;

E – To ensure that, where appropriate, land taken for waste management facilities is restored at the earliest opportunity, and, for waste disposal, progressively, to an agreed after-use and standard which does not detract from the quality of the local environment;

F – To ensure, where appropriate and practicable, a


It is essential that the MWMS is developed in accordance with The Waste Local Plan.

The SEA Framework should include objectives that promote sustainable waste management.

Options need to be developed in accordance with the principles of this local plan.





Strategy and SEA


positive contribution in terms of landscape enhancement, habitat creation, public access or recreational uses on restored waste sites;

G – To seek the co-operation of the waste industry in upgrading the built development, operations and restoration of existing permitted sites to the best current standards;

H – To prevent the unnecessary sterilisation of valuable waste management resources by other forms of development;

I – To develop an integrated network of facilities for all waste streams which meets the needs of business and encourages competitiveness;

J – To ensure that opportunities for incorporating re-use and recycling facilities in new developments are properly considered.

This Plan was based on the old Planning Policy Guidance 10 and the Waste Strategy 2000. All updates with regard to the new PPS10 and the Waste Strategy 2007 will be made in the review of this plan.

Draft Minerals Core Strategy (2010)

The MCS is a plan setting out a vision, objectives and proposed policies for meeting Dorset, Bournemouth and Poole's mineral requirements.

The Minerals Core Strategy will eventually replace the Dorset, Poole and Bournemouth Waste Local Plan once adopted.


The MWMS should be developed taking into account the draft Minerals Core Strategy.

The SEA Framework should take into consideration the objectives draft minerals Core Strategy.





Strategy and SEA


Bournemouth 2026 - Multi Area Agreement (June 2008)

Bournemouth, Poole and Dorset have been selected by the Department of Communities and Local Government (CLG) as one of seven pilot Multi-Area Agreements (MAA) in the country. The MAA is a formal agreement between local authorities, public sector partners in Bournemouth, Poole and Dorset and the Government to improve the economic performance in South East Dorset looking at the following key areas: Business growth, skills, transport and Connectivity, housing and the environment.

To achieve Waste Strategy 2007 recycling & composting targets of >40% by 2010 and >45% by 2015 and to achieve >53% municipal waste recovery by 2010 and >67% recovery by 2015.

The MWMS should seek to achieve the targets set out.

The options should seek to meet the objectives and targets as set out in the Multi Area Agreement.

Draft Regional Spatial Strategy 2006-2026 (once approved due to be replaced by Regional Planning Guidance for the South West (RPG10)

The Regional Spatial Strategy, or RSS, is a new kind of plan for the South West for up to the year 2026. The final RSS will set the regional context for planning in the South West until 2026. It will:

� Guide the planning process at a local level – in District Local Development Frameworks

� Help deliver the region’s Integrated Regional Strategy

� Include a Regional Transport Strategy to guide investment in transport facilities

� Provide policy guidance on issues ranging from minerals extraction and waste treatment to

� Economic development and housing, health, culture, environment

� Include District level housing numbers

The final Regional Spatial Strategy will be published in the summer 2009.

Managing waste is one of the greatest challenges facing the region over the period of the RSS. The South West’s approach to waste is to “minimise the amount of waste produced in the region, and then to make a major shift away from current reliance on landfill of untreated waste, so that by 2020 less than 20% of waste produced in the region will be landfilled”. The Strategy was prepared prior to the publication of Planning Policy Statement 10 on Waste (PPS10) in 2005.

The policies and proposals in the draft RSS should be taken into consideration by the MWMS.

The SEA Framework should take into consideration the objectives of the RSS although not formally adopted.

The Sustainability Shaper (the Sustainable Development Framework for the South West of England) 2006/7

Sets an agreed agenda to ensure that sustainability principles influence decision makers in government, and

There are no specific targets or indicators of The Operating Principles in the Sustainability Shaper should be

The SEA should include objectives that complement





Strategy and SEA


the voluntary and community sectors.

To achieve the South West's sustainability Mission a set of practical sustainability 'operating principles' have been developed for the region. These translate the UK's sustainable development strategy Securing the Future which provides a set of national guiding principles. All the South West's ten sustainability Principles should be applied across all areas of activity in the region for the Mission to be achieved.

South West Sustainability Operating Principles:

� Develop sustainability learning and skills

� Improve physical and mental well-being

� Improve equality in meeting basic needs

� Be resource wise

� Support thriving low carbon economies

� Reduce high carbon travel

� Use local and ethical goods and services

� Enhance local distinctiveness and diversity including biodiversity

� Help everyone to join in public decision-making

� Take a long term approach

relevance. considered when developing the MWMS.

the principles of this document.

Sustainable Communities in the South West – Building for the Future (2003)

This regional plan sets out proposals for implementing

Sustainable communities: Building for the future in the South West. It does not attempt to cover all the issues of importance to communities. It highlights actions to address housing, planning and neighbourhood renewal issues.

The Government Office for the South West will be working with regional and local partners over the coming month to build on these proposals, to link them with relevant programmes, and to turn policies into action.


The development of the MWMS should consider the proposals in this document.

The SEA should include objectives that complement the principles of this document.





Strategy and SEA


Regional Economic Strategy for the South West of England 2006-2015 (2005) (South West Regional Development Agency due to close by March 2012)

The Regional Economic Strategy (RES) was prepared by the South West of England Regional Development Agency. The vision of the RES is: ‘The South West of England will have an economy where the aspirations and skills of our people combine with the quality of our physical environment to provide a high quality of life and sustainable prosperity for everyone’. This RES aims to achieve this vision by reaching the following strategic targets:

Strategic Objective 1: Successful and Competitive Businesses. The RES describes the first strategic objective as ‘to create the conditions that will enable the region’s businesses to be more successful by increasing their productivity’

Strategic Objective 2: Strong and Inclusive Communities. This strategic objective is described as being ‘about ensuring that all people can participate in, and benefit from, the growing economy’

Strategic Objective 3: An Effective and Confident Region. The RES describes successful regions as those that have ‘a clear and well articulated image and purpose, strong leadership and effective partnerships and networks to make things happen. They have effective transport and communications networks; they nurture and promote the assets of the region and they successfully lobby and influence at national and international levels’.


The overarching theme and priorities of this document should be considered in the development of the MWMS.

The SEA Framework should include objectives, indicators and targets that ensure sustainable economic growth.

A Strategy for the Historic Environment in the South West (2004)

This is the first strategy for the historic environment in the South West. It has been prepared by English Heritage on behalf of the South West Historic Environment Forum, a group representing the key historic agencies and organisations active within the region. It represents an important first step in raising the profile of the historic environment and ensuring it is reflected fully in the key strategies, plans and policies that will guide change over


Protecting the heritage of the Borough should be an important consideration in the development of the MWMS.

The SEA Framework should include objectives that relate to the protection and enhancement (where possible) of the historic environment.





Strategy and SEA


the coming years. Priorities for the Historic Environment Strategy are to:

� Ensure the Historic Environment is integrated into the Region’s Policy Framework;

� Develop positive and creative partnerships that reflect the many linkages and opportunities in the South West;

� Ensure the Historic Environment is accessible and relevant to people in their everyday lives;

� Raise awareness of the historic dimension of the wider environment and its contribution to quality of life; Share knowledge and build a better understanding of the role and potential of the Historic Environment through ‘Heritage Counts’ an annual state of the Historic Environment report.

Action for Biodiversity in the South West – A Series of Habitat and Species Plans to Guide Delivery (1997)

The aim of the South West biodiversity action plan (SWBAP) is to influence the developing regional structures and inform the local BAP process. The SWBAP now needs updating to take account of the current biodiversity policy context.


It is essential that the development of the MWMS should consider biodiversity protection. Local BAPS can be used to provide further information on more local priorities.

The SEA Framework should include objectives relating to the protection and enhancement of biodiversity resources.

South East Dorset Local Transport Plan 2006-2011

This Local Transport Plan concentrates on making better use of the existing transport network, improving access to essential services, promoting public transport, cycling and walking, and more sensible use of the car.


The preparation of the MWMS should consider sustainable transport.

The SEA Framework should include an objective relating sustainable transport.

Options development should ensure that sustainable transport is considered.

Regional Renewable Energy Strategy for the South West of England 2003-2010 (2003)

Overall vision of the Strategy (by the Government Office for the South West) is to maximise the social, environmental and economic benefits of renewable energy through the


The MWMS should consider the principles to encourage the reduction in carbon dioxide emissions through

The SEA Framework should include an objective relating to promotion of





Strategy and SEA


integration of renewable energy into mainstream policy and practice at all levels within the region. In order to achieve its aims, the strategy proposes 50 actions, suggests a time scale for their implementation and begins to identify which partners can deliver them.

the promotion of renewable energy. renewable energy. Renewable energy should be considered when developing options.

Revision 2010: Empowering the Region – Renewable Energy Targets for the South West (2004)

Revision 2010 (GOSW and the South West Regional Assembly) seeks to secure greater support for renewables within the region by encouraging the adoption of county or sub regional targets for the development of renewable electricity up to 2010. The project assumes seven county/sub regional areas including Cornwall, Devon, Somerset, Dorset, Wiltshire, former Avon and Gloucestershire.

Targets Draft target of 64-84MW of energy from renewable energy in Dorset by 2010

The MWMS should consider the principles to encourage the reduction in carbon dioxide emissions through the promotion of renewable energy.

The SEA Framework should include an objective relating to promotion of renewable energy. Renewable energy should be considered when developing options.

South West Regional Waste Strategy - From Rubbish to Resource 2004 - 2020 (2004)

The Waste Strategy sets out how the South West Regional Assembly can deliver the ‘South West Vision for Waste: Minimum Waste, Maximum Benefit’. Its vision states:

“The South West will become a minimum waste

region by 2030, with households and businesses

maximising opportunities for reuse and recycling’’.

The Waste Strategy aims to ensure that by the year 2020 over 45% of waste is recycled and reused and less than 20% of waste produced in the region will be landfilled.

MWMS needs to be developed in accordance with The South West Regional Waste Strategy, and should seek to achieve the targets set out.

The SEA Framework should include objectives that promote sustainable waste management.

Options should be developed to ensure the targets in the strategy are achieved.

Bournemouth, Dorset and Poole Renewable Energy Strategy and Action Plan (2005)

The production of this strategy is a response to the current policy context, but also a response to the urgent need for Dorset to play its part in developing renewable energy sources in order to mitigate climate change. It is also a response to the economic opportunities for Dorset that could come from harnessing its renewable energy resources.

The strategy has four aims, which are to:

� maximise the potential for local economic benefit and

There are no specific indicators or targets. However, the strategy proposes actions within six priority areas, namely:

� developing positive planning policies for renewable energy

� developing biomass energy and renewable energy from waste in Dorset

� increasing application of sustainable energy in buildings

� raising awareness and understanding about

The MWMS should ensure that principles are in place to encourage the reduction in carbon dioxide emissions.

The SEA Framework should include an objective relating to the reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.

Options should be developed to accord with the principles contained within the Strategy and Action Plan.





Strategy and SEA


diversification

� facilitate renewable energy development that is appropriate to Dorset’s environment and communities

� encourage a high degree of community involvement, understanding and benefit from using energy more efficiently and developing Dorset’s renewable energy resources

� enable Dorset to play its part in reducing greenhouse gas emissions in line with local, regional, national and international targets

sustainable energy

� developing community renewable energy initiatives and exemplars

� researching and developing new areas for action on sustainable energy

Bournemouth, Dorset & Poole Draft Energy Efficiency Strategy & Action Plan (2009)

The Dorset Energy Efficiency Strategy includes the domestic, business, public (local authorities only), and community and charitable sectors, and covers both energy efficiency and fuel poverty.

The vision for this strategy is:

“For the people of Bournemouth, Dorset and Poole to work together to improve energy efficiency in our homes, communities and workplaces and cut our carbon emissions.”


� To achieve a 30% reduction in CO2 emissions by 2020, relative to 2005, in line with national targets.

The MWMS Should consider the provisions set out in the Strategy.

The SEA should include an objective relating to energy efficiency. Options development should consider the potential for energy efficiency.

The Dorset Stour Catchment Abstraction Management Strategy (2004)

Catchment Abstraction Management Strategies (CAMS) are strategies for management of water resources at a local level.

They make more information on water resources and licensing practice publicly available and allow the balance between the needs of abstractors, other water users and the aquatic environment to be considered in consultation with the local community and interested parties.

The strategy for the Dorset Stour CAMS identifies the status of the river and its tributaries throughout the catchment and the licensing implications of this status for new licence applicants.

There are no relevant targets or indicators within this strategy.

The MWMS should consider the findings of the CAMS strategy and ensure that any new waste development does not exacerbate current abstraction issues.

The SEA Framework should take into the consideration of the CAMS strategy for the area.





Strategy and SEA


The strategy also addresses issues concerning some present licences and the investigations that need to take place before the next CAMS cycle.

River Stour Catchment Flood Management Plan (2007)

The overall objective for the Stour CFMP is to reduce the risk of flooding to people and the communities within the Stour CFMP catchments. The Environment Agency developed a set of objectives for specific flooding issues within the catchment and used these objectives to select catchment policies. The following are the final set of objectives that were developed and refined following consultation:

� Provide sustainable flood risk management options to manage the risk of fluvial flooding to the built environment, taking account of future climate, sea level and landuse changes. This includes Ashford, Canterbury, Sandwich, Dover, Folkestone, Whitstable, Herne Bay and other towns, villages and isolated communities, as well as scheduled ancient monuments and designated historic sites.

� Make sure new developments do not have a negative effect on flood risk in the catchment, but give planning authorities enough scope to identify and allocate land for development or redevelopment.

� Conserve, restore and enhance environmentally designated sites and promote opportunities to create freshwater habitat to provide environmental and amenity benefits, whilst contributing to sustainable flood risk management.

� Protect and enhance the character of the landscape, recognising its value for agriculture, recreation and tourism, whilst contributing to sustainable flood risk management, particularly within ‘Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty’.

� Avoid increasing the current fluvial flood risk to all transport links and reduce flood risk to key road and rail routes including road and rail network and routes

There are no relevant targets or indicators within the plan.







Strategy and SEA


used for emergency access to areas prone to flooding.

� Minimise the flood risk to key infrastructure, including the Sellindge Converter, Channel Tunnel Rail Link (CTRL) and the M20.

Poole & Christchurch Bays Shoreline Management Plan (2011)

A Shoreline Management Plan (SMP) provides a large-scale assessment of the risks associated with coastal evolution and presents a policy framework to address these risks to people and the developed, historic and natural environment in a sustainable manner. In doing so, a SMP is a high-level document that forms an important part of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) strategy for flood and coastal defence (Defra, 2001). The objectives of the SMP process (as distinct from the objectives for management of the coast) are as follows:

� To provide an understanding of the coast, its behaviour and its values

� To define, in general terms, the risks to people and to the developed, natural and historic environment within the SMP area over the next century

� To identify the likely consequence of different management approaches and from this

� To identify the preferred policies for managing those risks or creating opportunity for sustainable management

� To examine the consequences of implementing the preferred policies in terms of the objectives for management

� To set out procedures for monitoring the effectiveness of the SMP policies

� To inform others so that future land use and development of the shoreline can take due account of

There are no relevant targets or indicators within this plan.

The objectives of the SMP should be considered during the development of the MWMS.

The SEA Framework should consider the principles of the SMP and ensure its policies are incorporated and not compromised.





Strategy and SEA


the risks and preferred SMP policies

� To comply with international and national nature conservation legislation and biodiversity obligations.

Bournemouth, Christchurch, East Dorset, North Dorset and Salisbury Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (2008)

In July 2007, a consortium of the following five Councils commissioned a Level 1 Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA): Bournemouth BC; Christchurch BC; East Dorset DC; North Dorset DC; and Salisbury DC.

The SFRA was prepared to support the application of the Sequential Test outlined in Planning Policy Statement 25: Development and Flood Risk (PPS25), and to provide information and advice in relation to land allocations and development control. The SFRA assesses all forms of flood risk: fluvial (rivers), tidal, surface water, groundwater, sewer and flooding from artificial sources (reservoirs), both now and in the future given the likely impacts of climate change. The purpose of the SFRA is to:

� Inform the sustainability appraisal so that flood risk is taken into account when considering options in the preparation of strategic land use policies

� Propose appropriate policy recommendations for the management of flood risk within the Local Development Documents

� Determine the acceptability of flood risk in relation to emergency planning capability

� Identify the level of detail required for future site-specific Flood Risk Assessments (FRAs) that support planning applications

There are no relevant targets or indicators within this assessment.



Dorset Biodiversity Strategy (2003)

The Strategy is part of a local biodiversity process with functions that aim to:

� Ensure that national targets for species and habitats, as specified in the UK BAP, are translated into effective action at the local level

� Identify targets for species and habitats appropriate to

The strategy contains a detailed action plan with many specific targets relating to species and habitats within Dorset which should be incorporated into the SEA and the MWMS.

It is essential that the development of the MWMS should consider the protection and enhancement of biodiversity.

The SEA Framework should include objectives relating to the protection and enhancement of biodiversity.





Strategy and SEA


the local area, and reflecting the values of people locally

� Develop effective local partnerships to ensure that programmes for biodiversity conservation are maintained in the long term

� Raise awareness of the need for biodiversity conservation in the local context

� Ensure that opportunities for conservation and enhancement of the whole biodiversity resource are fully considered

� Provide a basis for monitoring progress in biodiversity conservation, at both local and national level



Summary of Local Plans

Local Plans


Strategy and SEA


Bournemouth Vision 2026 – Sustainable Communities Strategy 2007-2011 (Revised 2009)

Bournemouth 2026 brings together hundreds of representatives from organisations from the public, private, voluntary, faith and community sectors to work together for a better future.

The aims:

� Identify and address the challenges facing Bournemouth

� Develop a shared vision and action plan

� Encourage all partners to ensure that their strategies and

� Plans work towards achieving the vision

� Identify and seek support to deliver our goals

The vision covers five themes, one of which is Sustainable Environment. Within this theme the goals that relate to waste are:

� Recover energy from residual waste

� Reduce use of packaging

� Increase recycling

� Increase composting

� Reduce waste to landfill

The goals of this Strategy should be considered throughout the development of the MWMS.

The SEA should include an objective relating to sustainable waste management practices.

The development of options should consider the goals of the strategy.

Climate Change Strategy for Bournemouth (2003) (Reviewed 2007)

In October 2007 the Council reviewed its Climate Change Strategy. This review is currently in draft form and has just undergone public consultation.

This Strategy aims to:

� Contribute, at a local level, to the delivery of the UK climate change programme.

� Address the causes and effects of climate change and secure maximum benefit for our communities.

� Achieve reduction of greenhouse gas emissions from: energy purchase and use, travel and transport, waste production and disposal and the purchasing of goods and services.

� Encourage the local community to reduce their own greenhouse gas emissions.

� Work with key providers, to assess the potential effects of climate change on our communities, and identify

Both targets that were set out the original Strategy have now been achieved.

� Reducing CO2 emissions from energy use in buildings by 10% by 2005.

� Reduce water use in buildings by 5% by 2005.

The MWMS should consider the implications of climate change with regard to waste management practices.

The SEA Framework should include objectives that address climate change issues. The development of options should consider the aims of the strategy.



Local Plans


Strategy and SEA


ways in which we can adapt.

� Provide opportunities for the development of renewable energy generation.

� Monitor the progress of our plan against the actions needed and publish the results.

The Earth Charter

The Earth Charter is a declaration of fundamental ethical principles for building a just, sustainable and peaceful global society in the 21st century. The Earth Charter is centrally concerned with the transition to sustainable ways of living and sustainable human development.

The Earth Charter covers four Principles:

� Respect and care for the community of life

� Ecological Integrity

� Social and economic justice

� Democracy, non-violence and peace

With particular regards to waste the Charter proposes the following actions:

� Reduce, reuse, and recycle the materials used in production and consumption systems, and ensure that residual waste can be assimilated by ecological systems

� Promote the development, adoption, and equitable transfer of environmentally sound technologies.

The MWMS should consider the implications of waste management on climate change issues.

The SEA should include an objective relating to sustainable waste management practices.

Medium Term Financial Plan

The Medium Term Financial Plan covering the period until 2014 proposes the following actions with regards to waste management:

� A waste disposal contract procurement saving through re-profiled waste diversion

� Cessation of the Kings Park Green Waste Bring site

� Review of the Neighbourhood Recycling Centres (bring banks), with proposed closure of 50% of sites

� Trade Waste Services at Millhams Community Recycling Centre

� Review of Refuse, Recycling and Green Waste collection rounds. Refuse in particular with regards to reduced waste volumes


The actions of this plan should be incorporated into the MWMS.

The provisions of this Plan should be considered within the development of the options.

Bournemouth’s Housing Strategy 2008-2011



Local Plans


Strategy and SEA


The following seven strategic aims have been adopted for the lifetime of this strategy which define the priority outcomes to be achieved:

1. increase affordable housing to address housing needs

2. improve the quality and energy efficiency of all housing

3. promote independence and inclusion

4. prevent and tackle homelessness

5. make best use of housing and ensure sustainable communities

6. improve access to information about housing services and options

7. deliver cost effective housing services with well developed partnership working.

Bournemouth is currently required to provide 730 new dwellings each year up until 2011, totalling 12,400 new properties (gross). This target was exceeded by April 2007 with a total of 12,616 completions.

The MWMS considers should consider the effects that housing within the borough will have on waste generation. The MWMS will need to ensure that any new housing development is taken into account when considering waste management within the Borough.

The development of options needs to take into account the implications new housing will have on waste management.

Health and well-being in Bournemouth and Poole, Joint Strategic Needs Assessment / Public health report (2008)

This document is primarily intended to support commissioning and strategic planning decisions to improve population health and well-being in Bournemouth and Poole. Strategic needs assessment is an exercise that uses local data and intelligence from a number of sources to:

� Estimate the impact of health problems and concerns on the local population

� Collate data on the numbers of people who are currently having services provided to them for these conditions

� Derive a sense of where the major gaps exist between services currently provided, and what the population health indicators are showing as priorities for the local population.




Bournemouth Local Area Action Agreement (2009)

This document outlines a number of indicators and targets along with dates these targets should be achieved by within the Bournemouth Area.


� 400 new affordable homes to be delivered by 2010/11

� Per capita CO2 emissions in the LA area - 6.8 %

The actions of this agreement should be incorporated into the MWMS.

The targets of this agreement should be considered within the development of the



Local Plans


Strategy and SEA


reduction from baseline ( 5.31 tonnes) options.

Appendix B

Baseline Data



B1. Waste

The following indicators were used to characterise the baseline conditions and key trends:

� Waste collection and recycling information

� Details and location of waste and recycling facilities across the Borough

� Tonnes of municipal waste produced annually

� Percentage of municipal waste sent for re-use

� Percentage of municipal waste composted

� Percentage of municipal waste recycled

� Recycling and composting rates

� Tonnes of municipal waste sent for recovery

� Percentage of waste to landfill

Data for the indicators listed above was obtained from the Bournemouth Borough Council

Municipal Waste Management Strategy 2010 – 2026 Baseline Report.

Waste Collection and Recycling Services

Household Refuse Collection

Bournemouth Borough Council operates refuse collection from 82,235 properties on a weekly

basis with 140 litre bins. Properties with communal bins are provided with a combination of 660

litre and 1100 litre bins. Approximately 200 town centre properties are still serviced with black

bin bags on a daily basis.

Fly-tipped waste collected by Bournemouth Borough Council is incorporated into the volume of

municipal waste collected.

Household Recycling Collection

Bournemouth Borough Council introduced the household Big Bin/Little Bin scheme in

September 2006, where big bins are used for fortnightly recycling waste collection, and little

bins are used for weekly refuse collection. Recycling (including paper, cardboard, plastic

bottles, cans and glass) is collected every two weeks from the kerbside in large 240 litre

wheeled bins. Properties with communal bins are serviced with 240 litres, 660 litres and 1100

litres bins, from which the recycling waste is collected. All recyclables are collected and then

taken to the Nuffield Depot located in Poole where it is bulked up with Poole’s recyclables.

From Poole, recyclables are then transported to a Materials Reclamation Facility (MRF), located

in Kent, where it is sorted into individual material streams.

Household Green Waste Collection

Green (garden) waste is collected between April and November. The number of households

from which green waste is collected increased from 21,500 in 2008 to 22,400 in 2009.

Residents were offered a choice of 35 75 litre biodegradable sacks (to last them the length of

the scheme) or a 140 litre wheeled bin, the majority of whom opted for the bins. Although

approximately 46% of properties within Bournemouth have a garden, the scheme is a free

service for residents and available funding therefore limits the number of places. The green



waste is treated for composting separately to municipal waste.

Commercial Refuse and Recycling Collection

Bournemouth offers a trade refuse service, for which it currently has 1,401 accounts for

collection from 1530 properties. Trade refuse is charged on a per lift basis dependent upon the

size of the bin or per bag, and is taken to New Earth Solutions Ltd for treatment and disposal.

In 2008 a Trade Recycling Collection was made available to businesses within Bournemouth,

for which it currently has 212 accounts. The service enables them to recycle the same co-

mingled mix as householders or to recycle single stream paper or cardboard, dependent upon

the businesses needs. This service is also charged on a per lift basis, where a bin is used or

per number of bags used. Co-mingled recyclables are sent to the MRF under the domestic

recycling contract. Single Stream paper and cardboard are currently recycled through a

contract with Weymouth and Sherbourne Recycling.

Recycling On the Go

There are currently 150 on-street recycling bins distributed throughout the borough. In addition,

five solar powered compacting recycling bins are situated on Pier Approach on the seafront.

Recycling bins are generally located within shopping areas and/or precincts, or outside schools,

and cater for plastic bottles, glass and cans. Paper and cardboard were not included due to the

high risk of contamination from food items (fast food packaging).

Free Recycling for Schools

In 2008, Bournemouth Borough Council introduced free recycling for schools to reduce waste

and improve awareness.

Bulky Household Waste Collection

A Bulky Household Waste collection is operated in conjunction with Watson Contract Cleaning

Services, for which residents are not obliged to use. Item collection is priced on appointment,

and taken to Millhams CRC for re-use where possible. This service however, is currently under

review.

Waste Vehicles

Bournemouth Borough Council operates 14 refuse collection vehicles. They are based at

Southcote Road and also take waste to New Earth Solutions. Seven recycling collection

vehicles are operated, taking waste to Nuffield Depot in Poole, for transfer to the MRF. Three

green waste collection vehicles operate seasonally between April and November.

Waste Facilities

Landfill Sites

According to the Environment Agency website there are no active landfill sites within the

Bournemouth Borough Council boundary. Landfill waste is taken to New Earth Solutions where

approximately a fifth is treated through the Mechanical Biological Treatment (MBT) process.

New Earth Solutions then take the remaining waste to Blue Haze Landfill in Verwood, Dorset.

Waste Transfer Station

There is one Waste Transfer Station within the borough, located at Southcote Road Depot.



in 2007.

Reduction Performance

Bournemouth currently produces 80,281tonnes of Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) annually, which

equates to 513kg of waste per head. Figure B-1 illustrates the trends in waste collection over

the last five years. Although local municipal and household production has decreased over the

last five years (partly due to the introduction of the Big Bin/Little Bin scheme and Business

Recycling Services), the reduction rate is beginning to slow down.

The borough currently meets is Landfill Allowance Trading Scheme (LATS) targets (to reduce

the amount of Biodegradable Municipal Waste (BMW) going to landfill).

Figure B-1 Trends in Household and Municipal Waste Collected (Source: Bournemouth

Borough Council)

Re-Use Performance

The re-use figures, shown in Figure B-2, have been dropping steadily over the last few years

due to a decline in the amount of items being re-used by Dorset Reclaim, a charity which the

Council has close links with. Dorset Reclaim has been in operation for a number of years and

started off strong but over recent years their figures have been declining. Re-use figures are

however set to increase over the coming years with the re-introduction of the re-use area at

Millhams Community Recycling Centre. This can be seen in the increase from 2008 to 2010.

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

80,000

90,000

2006/2007 2007/2008 2008/2009 2009/2010

Ton

ne

s

Year

Trend in Household Waste Collected

Linear

(Household

Waste)



Figure B-2 Municipal Waste Sent for Re-use (Source: Bournemouth Borough Council)

Composting Performance

Bournemouth’s composting performance is below the Unitary Authority average and is

historically quite low. However, the introduction of Green Waste Kerbside Collection trials in

2006 and the introduction of the Green Waste Collection Scheme in 2008 are helping to

improve the Councils performance on composting, demonstrated on Figure B-3. The increase

in performance between 2006/07 and 2007/08 would have been more pronounced except for

the fact that street sweepings which were composted in previous years were not composted in

2007/08. From 2008 to 2010 there was a much greater increase in the amount of waste

composted.

Figure B-3 Municipal Waste Sent for Composting (Source: Bournemouth Borough

Council)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

2006/2007 2007/2008 2008/2009 2009/2010

Ton

ne

s

Year

Household Waste Sent for Re-use

Waste Sent

for Re-use



Recycling Performance

In 2007/08, 33.36% of household waste was recycled, which has consistently increased since

2004/05 when 16.9% was recycled. However, published 2009/10 figures announced by Defra

show Bournemouth's official recycling rate has increased to 50%.

Recycling and Composting Performance

In 2006, Bournemouth Borough Council’s combined recycling and composting rate was 23.5%.

However, following the introduction of the Big Bin/Little Bin scheme the rate rose to 36.27% in

2006/07 (based on a half year with the new scheme), and then further increased to 41.01% in

2007/08. The Waste Strategy for England (2007) sets the following targets for recycling and

composting:

� 40% by 2010

� 45% by 2015

� 50% by 2020

Bournemouth Borough Council is currently just exceeding the 2010 target however more work

will need to be done to meet the 2015 and 2020 targets.

Recovery Performance

Recovery performance increased from 2005/06 to 2006/07 due to the introduction of the Big

Bin/Little Bin Kerbside Recycling scheme. Any contamination collected was separated out at

the MRF and sent for recovery. As the residents of Bournemouth adjusted to the Kerbside

Recycling Scheme contamination has decreased, therefore resulting in a drop in recovery

figures. There is a dramatic increase in the amount of waste sent for recovery from 2008/09 to

2009/10.

Figure B-4 Municipal Waste Sent for Recovery (Source: Bournemouth Borough Council)

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

2006/2007 2007/2008 2008/2009 2009/2010

Ton

ne

s

Year

Household Waste Sent for Composting

Waste Sent for

Composting



Landfill Disposal Performance

57.78% of waste produced by Bournemouth’s residents is taken to landfill, which has decreased

from 77.8% in 2004/5 (2004/05 AMR), however this is still higher than the Unitary Authority

average.

Energy from Waste Performance

0.04% of municipal waste was used to recover other energy sources, which has decreased

since 2006/07 when 0.19% was used.

Data Gaps and Uncertainties

There were no significant data gaps or uncertainties identified.

B2. Biodiversity, Flora and Fauna


� Number and distribution of designated sites including Natura 2000 sites (Special Area of

Conservation (SAC), candidate Special Areas of Conservation (cSAC), Special Protection

Area (SPA), potential Special Protection Area (pSPA) and Ramsar site), Sites of Special

Scientific Interest (SSSI), Local Nature Reserves (LNR), and Sites of

Local/Natural/Biological Importance (Sites of Nature Conservation Interest (SNCI))

� Area of land (ha) designated as either SAC, SPA or Ramsar (2008)

� Condition of SSSIs

� Key Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) species present

The South East Dorset conurbation lies within close proximity of several areas designated for

their nature conservation importance. European designated sites are found to the west in Poole

Harbour, to the north along the Avon Valley, and to the east in the New Forest National Park.

15933 31

3380

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

2006/2007 2007/2008 2008/2009 2009/2010

Ton

ne

s

Year

Household Waste Sent for Recovery

Waste Sent

for Recovery



Bournemouth itself comprises a number of protected sites, several of which have multiple

designations. There are four SSSIs within Bournemouth (Turbary and Kinson Commons SSSI,

Christchurch Harbour SSSI, Poole Bay Cliffs SSSI and River Avon System SSSI), together

comprising approximately185 ha of land. The SSSIs are designated for a variety of attributes

such as the Plateau gravels and Bagshot Beds at Turbary and Kinson Commons SSSI, meso-

tidal estuarine sedimentation at Pool Bay Cliffs SSSI and varied habitats with good

ornithological examples at Christchurch Harbour SSSI. Christchurch Harbour and Kinson and

Turbary Commons SSSIs are also designated as an SAC (covering approximately 76.1 ha),

SPA (covering approximately 64.7 ha) and Ramsar site (covering approximately 37.4 ha),

details of which are outlined in Table B-1 below.

Table B-1 Natura 2000 Sites within Bournemouth (Source: Jncc)

Natura 2000 Sites Designation

Dorset Heathlands Ramsar

Dorset Heathlands SPA

Dorset Heaths SAC

Natural England’s SSSI condition survey updated in March 2011 summarised the condition of

Bournemouth’s SSSI as follows:

� Christchurch Harbour SSSI - 80.56% favourable and 19.44% unfavourable recovering.

� Poole Bay Cliffs SSSI – 19.48% favourable, 49.68% unfavourable recovering, 7.63%

unfavourable no change and 23.21% unfavourable declining.

� Turbary and Kinson Commons SSSI – 17.76%unfavourable recovering and 82.24%

unfavourable declining.



Bournemouth Borough Council has designated a total of 14 SNCIs covering approximately

134.8 ha of land, and ten LNRs covering approximately 304.3 ha. The most recent LNR to be

designated was the Boscombe Chine in 2008. The LNRs within the borough lie within the

northwest around Kinson, and the southeast at Hestingbury Head. Table B-2 identifies all LNR’s

within the borough.

Table B-2 Local Nature Reserves in Bournemouth (Source: Parks - Leisure Services,

Bournemouth Borough Council)

Local Nature Reserve Area (ha)

Boscombe and Southbourne 8.7

Boscombe Chine 3.6

Hengistbury Head 155.0

Iford Meadows 15.5

Kinson Common 14.9

Millhams Mead 18.6

Pug’s Hole 4.2

Redhill Common 7.0

Stour Valley 33.7

Turbary Common 43.1

Bournemouth is home to 14 BAP priority species and 14 priority habitat types including coastal,

floodplain grazing marsh, maritime cliffs and slopes, lowland dry acid grassland, reedbeds,



lowland heathland and fens, all of which are listed within the Borough’s Nature Conservation

Strategy. Bournemouth Borough Council has no plans to increase the number of BAP priority

habitats but aims to maintain and improve existing habitats. Of particular note are the remnants

of lowland heath, over which much of the town has been constructed, which is a nationally rare

habitat and home to several protected species of birds, reptiles and plants.


There were no significant data gaps or uncertainties identified.

B3. Water and Soil


� Distribution and quality of surface watercourses

� Description and distribution of soil types

� Extent of EA-designated groundwater Source Protection Zones (SPZs)

Bournemouth lies in a region of relatively low rainfall and highly permeable geology. Surface

watercourses across the borough are therefore limited in number and scale. The principal

surface watercourse within Bournemouth is the River Stour, which rises north of Shaftesbury in

north Dorset and enters Christchurch Harbour on the borough’s eastern boundary. Water

quality data collected by the EA for the lower Stour in 2009 (Iford Bridge-Tuckton(Estuary))

placed both the chemical quality of the river at Grade A (Very Good) and the biological quality of

the river at grade C (Good). However, levels of nitrates and phosphates were a concern, being

classified as 5 High-Very High.

Other watercourses within the Borough consist of small streams that reach the coast in narrow

gullies, or chines. The largest of these is the River Bourne, which passes through the town from

its source close to Canford Heath in Poole. The river is diverted into a subterranean culvert

near Bournemouth Pier, prior to reaching the sea.

Soil maps produced by the Soil Resources Institute at Cranfield University indicate three major

soil types present within the borough. The majority of the land area is underlain by freely

draining very acid sandy and loamy soils, characterised by very low fertility. To the west of the

town centre, the dominant type is naturally very wet very acid sandy and loamy soils. Both

types are of very low fertility and naturally characterised by lowland heath, remnants of which

survive. Freely draining floodplain soils are present within the River Stour corridor, which are of

much higher fertility. The high sand content of these soils make them highly permeable.

Groundwater storage is minimal and there are no identified SPZs for the protection of

groundwater beneath the borough.


� Existing water or soil pollution associated with existing waste management facilities or

operations

B4. Air Quality

The following air quality indicators were used to characterise the baseline environmental

conditions and key trends:

� Distribution/number of Air Quality Management Areas (AQMAs)



� Mean yearly background nitrogen dioxide (NO2) levels

� Exceedances of Air Quality Objectives (AQOs) for NO2, sulphur dioxide (SO2), 1,3-

butadiene, benzene, ozone (O3), carbon monoxide (CO) and particulate matter (PM10)

� Type and distribution of industrial sites registered under the Environmental Permitting

(England & Wales) Regulations 2007 (‘the Regulations’)

Air quality affects the state of the natural environment and health. Bournemouth has very low

levels of polluting industry which are not considered to have significant air quality impacts.

Concerns over poor air quality arise from traffic emissions, particularly on routes carrying slow

moving vehicles and large numbers of Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGVs).

AQMAs are designated when Local Authorities identify places where national air quality

objectives are unlikely to be achieved. In May 2006, an AQMA was designated within

Bournemouth, encompassing a stretch of Wimborne Road between the junctions with Calvin

Road to the north and Bryanstone Road to the south.

NO2, SO2, 1,3-butadiene, benzene, O3, CO and PM10 are monitored at an Air Quality

Management Unit at Portchester School as part of the nationwide Automatic Urban and Rural

Network (AURN). NO2 is also monitored through a network of diffusion tubes. Bournemouth

Borough Council’s 2008 Air Quality Progress Report presents the annual results of this network

of monitoring sites. The report indicates that the annual mean NO2 level recorded by the

diffusion tube network was 15.73µg/m3, which has gradually decreased since 2003 from

22.0µg/m3. The report also indicates that concentrations of all pollutants are within acceptable

limits with two exceptions:

In 2007 there were a number of exceedances of the 8-hour running mean for O3, although this

pollutant is tackled on a national rather than Local Authority basis due to its transboundary

nature.

NO2 concentrations are approaching UK Air Quality Objective (AQO) limits in a number of

locations, and therefore further detailed assessment was carried out during 2008.

There is one installation in Bournemouth listed under Part A(2) of the Regulations and a further

40 under Part B, all regulated by Bournemouth Borough Council. None of the sites are waste

management facilities.


� Existing air quality pollution or deposition issues associated with existing waste

management facilities or operations

B5. Energy and Climate Change


� Distribution of areas at risk from flooding

� Number of planning applications permitted contrary to Environment Agency advice on

flooding

� Total capacity of renewable energy (Mega Watts (MW))

� Local estimates of CO2 emissions (kt CO2) – Domestic emissions per capita

Although climate change is a global phenomenon, the consequences are being increasingly felt



at the local level, for example flooding. The eastern boundary of the borough is the only area at

risk from flooding associated with the River Stour. According to the 200/010 AMR, no planning

permissions were granted contrary to advice on flooding or water quality from the EA in the

borough in 2009/010. In 2007/08 there were 434 properties affected by flooding within the

borough, within flood zones 1 and 2.

The 2007/08 AMR states that in 2007/08, 1.1MW of renewable energy was produced by a

sewage sludge digestion installation within the borough (unknown for 2008/09 and unknown for

2009/10). No details are included in relation to municipal (and industrial solid waste) renewable

sources.

The Audit Commission indicates that in 2008 5.6 tonnes of CO2 (also 5.6 tonnes in 2003) was

produced in Bournemouth, 2.5 tonnes (2.7 tonnes in 2003) of which was domestic related.

Domestic production is slightly below the national average (2.6 tonnes), and also Dorset County

Council figures (2.9 tonnes). Waste management contributes approximately 3%

(www.london.gov.uk/mayor) to total greenhouse gas emissions in the UK, largely made up of

methane emissions from organic waste degrading in landfill.


� Total capacity of renewable energy (Mega Watts (MW))

� Local statistics for waste related greenhouse gas emissions

B6. Cultural Heritage and Landscape


� Distribution and number of listed buildings, Scheduled Ancient Monuments (SAMs),

Conservation Areas, Registered Parks and Gardens

� Percentage of Grade I and Grade II* listed buildings at risk

� Distribution and area of Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB), National Parks and

county landscape designations

� Distribution of greenbelt

Bournemouth has 242 listed buildings, three of which are Grade I (Church of St Peter, St

Clement’s Church and the Church of St Stephen), and four are Grade II* (Church of The

Annunciation, Church of St Michael and Tower, Russell Cotes Art Gallery and the House of

Bethany). None of these are listed as being at risk. The remainder of the listed buildings are

Grade II, with some still carrying an old B or C Grade.

There are three SAMs within Bournemouth, which comprise Hengistbury Head, a round barrow

west of Wick, and two round barrows 270m to the northwest of Double Dykes, Hengistbury

Head. English Heritages ‘Heritage at Risk Register 2010’ identifies the two round barrows as

SAMS at risk.

Bournemouth has 21 Conservation Areas. Holdenhurst Village East and West was first

designated in 1974, and Boscombe Spa was the last to be designated in 1994. English

Heritages ‘Heritage at Risk Register 2010’ identifies Holdenhurst Village East as a Conservation

Area at risk.

There are two Registered Parks and Gardens within the borough; Wimborne Road

Cemetery(Grade II) and the Central Gardens (Grade II*), both of which are located to the



Housing

Bournemouth has a housing stock of approximately 82,235, 43% of which are flats. Housing

tenure is predominantly owner-occupied, with the remainder being social housing and private

rented. Housing needs that were forecast in the 2008 Bournemouth Housing Strategy

recommended that 16,100 dwellings should be built over the plan period (2008 to 2011), which

equates to 805 dwellings each year (net conversions).

Human Health

34.1% of the population was recorded with one or more person with a limiting long-term illness

in households.

Deprivation


� 2010 Indices of Deprivation – Indices of Multiple Deprivation

� 2010 Indices of Deprivation – ‘Outdoors’ Living Environment Sub-domain

Bournemouth is among the most deprived of the Local Authority districts in the south west and

ranked 107th most deprived of the 354 Local Authority districts in England, according to the

English Indices of Deprivation 2010 (refer to Figure B-6). Overall deprivation levels are

generally higher in parts of the Kinson South, Kinson North, and Strouden Park wards, together

with those within the city centre areas such as Westbourne and West Cliff, Central, East Cliff

and Springbourne, Boscombe West and Boscombe East.

Figure B-6 2010 Indices of Deprivation – Index of Multiple Deprivation (Source:

Bournemouth Borough Council)



The ‘Outdoors’ Living Environment sub domain indicators comprises overall air quality and road

accidents. The air quality element is relevant to the Bournemouth MWMS, as new waste

management facilities have the potential to impact on air quality through direct emissions or via

transport related operations. Figure B-7 illustrates that the wards in the more central parts of

the borough generally experience higher ‘outdoor’ living environment related deprivation.

Figure B-7 2010 Indices of Deprivation – ‘Outdoors’ Living Environment Sub-domain

(Source: Bournemouth Borough Council)



Economy and Education

� Location of key industries and major employers

� Employment by sector and by occupation

� Economic activity rate

� Number of wards with Lower Super Output Areas (LSOAs) in the bottom 20% most

deprived for employment deprivation

� Unemployment rates

The South East Dorset region is the largest non-industrial urban area in Europe.

Bournemouth’s economic base is founded on service sector activities, which in 2007 constituted

92.9% of all paid employment (source: NOMIS), and is currently experiencing substantial

economic growth. 6.7% of the workforce is engaged in manufacturing and construction,

compared with 15.5% nationally. Tourism accounts for 12.6% of all jobs. The main sectors of

employment are distribution, hotels and restaurants (28.9%), public administration, education

and health (28.0%) and finance, IT and other business activities (26.5%). Of these, the latter is

responsible for the largest share of wealth generation, with companies such as Nationwide

Building Society, JP Morgan, Unisys, RIAS, Standard Life and Liverpool Victoria having

operations in the town. These firms employ significant numbers of customer-service and

secretarial staff, boosting employment in these types, as shown in Figure B-8.

Figure B-8 Employment by Type, 2008 (Source: NOMIS annual population survey)



Over the period April 2009 to March 2010, 73.1% (76,400) of the working age population in

Bournemouth were economically active, that is either employed or actively seeking work. For

working age males, this increased to just over 78% (52,600) whilst a lower proportion of working

age females, around 68% (51,900), were economically active in this period (Annual Population

Survey April 2009 to March 2010, NOMIS, ONS,October 2010).

The 2007 Indices of Deprivation indicate that employment deprivation is particularly prevalent in

Bournemouth, with around 25% of LSOAs within the 20% most deprived nationally. In terms of

unemployment, the number of claimants in Bournemouth has decreased slightly between April

2009 and September 2010 from 3.6% to 3.3%, with January showing a peak percentage

increase of 10.3%. The rate has remained fairly steady otherwise, with the greatest percentage

decrease between May and June 2010 (5.3%). The unemployment rate in Dorset has

decreased from 2.1% to 1.6% of the resident population aged 16-64. Poole's rate of

unemployment has also decreased, from 2.8% to 2.2%16

(Claimant count, Labour Market First

Release, various dates, NOMIS, ONS).

In 2009 – 2010 there were 1,520 total incidents of fly tipping within Bournemouth borough

according to statistics compiled by Defra (Flycapture results April 2009 - March 2010).


� Information on waste management related health issues

� Percentage of population with respiratory diseases

� Percentage employment within the waste industry

16 Please note, rate comparison with previous reports is not possible as the method of calculating rates has changed.

The population estimate used has been revised to include both males and females aged 16 to 64, whereas in previous

years, it only included males aged 16 to 64 and females aged 16 to 59.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

1 Managers and

senior officials

2 Professional

occupations

3 Associate

professional &

technical

4 Administrative

& secretarial

5 Skilled trades

occupations

6 Personal

service

occupations

7 Sales and

customer

service occs

8 Process plant

& machine

operatives

9 Elementary

occupations

Pe

rce

nta

ge

of

Wo

rkfo

rce

Bournemouth Great Britain



B8. Transportation


� Distribution of major transport systems – roads, airports, ports, rail

Accessibility to, from, and within Bournemouth is currently constrained for many travellers. The

main roads include the A338 (linking Bournemouth to the A31 north of the Borough, and to the

M3 to Southampton and London), the A35 (passing through the town from west to east) and the

A347 (running north to Ferndown). However, these strategic road links are of relatively poor

quality.

The future development of transport infrastructure is restricted by Bournemouth’s coastal

location, and also the presence of several designated sites for nature conservation. In addition,

the presence of three district centres at Poole, Bournemouth and Christchurch has led to the

development of an unusual non-radial network of main roads, which create barriers to road

traffic movement. This, together with high levels of car ownership, high levels of tourist activity,

and a high proportion of retired residents, results in congestion in many parts of the area.

Due to substantial economic growth within the Borough, Bournemouth Airport is expanding its

domestic and international air services. In addition, Bournemouth has good rail connections

eastwards to Southampton and London Waterloo, and westwards to Poole, Wareham and

Weymouth. There are also direct services from Bournemouth to Birmingham and Manchester.

Buses are the main public transport option for most local journeys.



Appendix C

Scoping Consultation Responses



Organisation

Name

Comments Received MWMS Response

Natural England Natural England commented that the Scoping Report correctly identified the key environmental

protection objectives that should form part of the SEA process.

Natural England consider that the suite of sustainability issues, as presented in Section 5 of the

report form a sound basis for the SEA.

Natural England supports the proposed SEA Objectives and the SEA criteria in Table 6-1, in

particular the recognition that the MWMS should not only protect biodiversity and other natural

resources (water, soils, air) from any potential harmful effects of the MWMS, but that there may be

a positive contribution to be made through the implementation of the MWMS.

Natural England welcomes the reference to the contributing to the South East Dorset Green

Infrastructure Framework which is a useful measure of how the MWMS might contribute to

biodiversity/GI enhancements.

Comments noted.

Environment

Agency

Question A

The Environment Agency have produced a large amount of guidance to aid the production of SEA,

which they understand will be incorporated into SAs. The Environment Agency suggest visiting

www.environment-agency.gov.uk and reviewing their SEA information at http://www.environment-

agency.gov.uk/research/policy/32901.aspx

The Environment Agency state the following plans and programmes should be included in the SEA

process.

National Plans

Groundwater Protection: Policy and Practice (GP3) – Environment Agency

Regional Plans and County Level Plans

Dorset Stour CAMS

Comments noted. Additional plans and programmes have

been incorporated into Appendix A.



Organisation

Name


Dorset Stour Catchment Flood Management Plans CFMP

Poole & Christchurch Bays Shoreline Management Plan

Bournemouth Borough Council Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA)

Dorset Biodiversity Action Plan

Question B

The Environment Agency state that baseline data from the Environment Agency can be found at:

under ‘Source of Information’ section.

The Environment Agency consider the indicators and sustainability issues identified in the

document reasonable for the consideration of the MWMS.

Comments noted.

Question C

The Environment Agency note that the SEA Objectives and Appraisal Criteria cover issues

appropriately.

Comment noted.

Question D

Consideration needs to be given to the potential impacts and benefits of Combined Heat and

Power and associated infrastructure such as heat distribution networks.

Consideration needs to be given to the potential of increasing commercial and industrial waste

collections.

The SEA will broadly consider the effects of energy from

waste schemes, however, due to the high level nature of

the MWMS at this stage, the spatial location of any

required facilities and distribution networks are as yet

unknown.

The MWMS considers solid municipal waste, including

that from trade waste collections from shops and small

trading estates where some waste collection agreements

are in place.

Industrial wastes are not currently collected by the council



Organisation

Name


and therefore are not a consideration in the MWMS.

However, it is accepted that this should be a

consideration of feasibility where new treatment facilities

are required. This is currently beyond the scope of this

assessment.

English Heritage English Heritage acknowledge the intended consideration of the historic environment in the SEA of

the Waste Plan and in particular the appraisal criteria.

To what extent will new facilities and waste management activities seek to conserve historic

buildings and sites features (and their setting) and the wider historic landscape and townscape

value?

You may however wish to correct this as follows. – omit “seek”, add “areas” after “buildings”, and

add a coma after “sites”.

The attached ‘live’ draft English Heritage SEA guidance may also suggest other adjustments

particularly at 5.3.6, re indicators and the SEA objectives. We hope you find this guide of use for

this and perhaps other SEA’s you’re working on. We intend to tidy this draft and formally publish it

after PPS15 has been issued.

Comments noted.

The minor rewording recommended was included in SEA

Framework.



Appendix D

Short List Preferred Options Assessment Matrices



Assessment Matrix 1: Residual Waste Treatment Options – Mechanical Biological Treatment and Autoclave

SA Objective Residual Waste Treatment Options

Mechanical Biological Treatment (MBT) Autoclave


including rare and

endangered species and

priority habitats

0 (H)

There is an existing plant for MBT which can be used for

treatment.

The option is unlikely to have any impact on habitats of species

and so can be understood to be indirectly protecting additional

habitats from destruction assuming the current plant is sufficient

to cope with all waste produced in future years.

The option will neither detract nor support the achievement of

the objective.

+/- (L)

It is likely that with autoclave, an additional facility will be

required to deal with collected waste. This poses a direct risk to

biodiversity whereby some protected habitats or species may be

lost as a result of new development. (D, L-T).

Once further detail is available on the location of new facilities,

impacts may be avoided or mitigated with appropriate design

and incorporated mitigation and limited to short term

construction or establishment impacts. (S-T).

New development could provide BBC with the opportunity to

protect or enhance habitats and contribute to the South East

Dorset Green Infrastructure Framework. (D, L-T)

2 To minimise adverse

impacts upon human health

and wellbeing and local

amenity

0 (H) The MBT option would minimise adverse impacts upon human

health and wellbeing as it is not expected to produce additional

nuisance problems (assuming the current plant is sufficient to

cope with all waste produced in future years).

Using an existing facility would avoid additional short term

health impacts associated with construction.

The use of the existing facility would not detract from or support

from the achievement of the objective.

+/- (L)

Autoclave provides an indirect benefit in terms of the product

obtained being highly sterile and reducing the requirement for

handpicking of materials. This will reduce the risk associated

with health hazards in direct handling and working with

materials, and to the immediate vicinity of a new facility. (D, M-

T)

Autoclave does result in significantly lower carbon emissions

than the traditional MBT process throughout the operational life

of the plant. 15

This could indirectly reduce health risks

associated with emissions from plant operation (I, M-T) and

indirectly contribute to reducing the eventual effects of climate

change (I, L-T).

Using the autoclave process will introduce a new skill/high

technology to the area which may increase the opportunity for

public engagement/interest and education in waste

management. There is a potential for improving education

amongst the local community in the environmental benefits of





emerging technologies. (I, L-T).

The autoclave process would require a new facility to be

developed which has the potential to reduce local amenity

without appropriate siting and design. Once the details are

know, new development should duly consider the amenity of the

surrounding environmental and the social impacts associated

with the siting in a particular place. This would work to ensure

that impacts are short term, associated mainly with construction.

(S-T).


contamination and



0 (H) The MBT does not support or detract from the achievement of

the objective. The process will use currently available facilities

and will not expose additional land to new activities or

development.

? It is likely that with autoclave, an additional facility will be

required to deal with collected waste. It would be preferable if

this used previously developed land to avoid unnecessary

development of greenfield land and maximise opportunities to

redevelop previously used land. New development could

potentially improve the land resource where remediation is

undertaken.

However, at this stage it cannot be determined if the option

would detract or support the achievement of this objective.

4

To protect and enhance soil



the objective. The process will use currently available facilities

and will not expose additional soil to new activities or

development.


required to deal with collected waste.


would detract or support the achievement of this objective. The

MWMS should seek to protect and enhance soil quality and

resources which would support the objective.



quality


the objective. The process will use currently available facilities.


required to deal with collected waste.


would detract or support the achievement of this objective. The

MWMS should seek to protect and enhance water quality which

would support the objective.


quality

0 (M) The use of MBT is unlikely to generate additional air quality

impacts beyond the baseline scenario and therefore does not

+ (M) Autoclave results in a reduction in carbon equivalent emissions

due to the high amount of energy recovery possible. Indirectly





detract from the achievement of the objective or support it.

this would contribute to some improvements in air quality and

towards the achievement of carbon reduction targets for the

duration of plant operation (I, M-T).


change

- (H)

By continuing the MBT process, this is unlikely to support BBC

and UK carbon emissions reduction targets. Business as usual

would retain current outputs and directly contribute to

cumulative climate change issues.

+ (M)

Autoclave results in a reduction in carbon equivalent emissions

due to the high amount of energy recovery possible. This would

directly support the achievement of BBC and UK reduction

targets. (M-T)

Any new plant should be designed for resilience to climate

change and ensure SUDs and other relevant climate change

adaptation measures are incorporated as appropriate.



+ (M)

The MBT process encourages the use of recycled and

secondary materials by making them available for reuse. This

positively contributes to sustainable resource use which would

be felt for the duration of plant operation. (M-T).

+/- (M)

The process does encourage the use of recycled and secondary

materials by making them available for reuse. The option may

positively support the objective by producing a very pure

recyclate and materials for reclamation. (M-T)

However, the autoclave process requires a large energy input

which may indirectly affect the sustainable use of natural

resources. Further quantification of the energy input

requirements should be considered in terms of a life cycle

assessment.

9 To minimise waste


sustainable waste

management

++ (H)

The MBT process encourages reclamation of materials which

would otherwise be disposed of into landfill. This option would

positively support the objective for the duration of plant

operation. (M-T)

++ (M)

The autoclave process encourages reclamation of materials

which would otherwise be disposed of into landfill. The positively

supports the objective. This option would positively support the

objective for the duration of plant operation. (M-T)

10 To maximise re-use


++ (H)

The MBT process positively increases the amount of waste

recycled, reused or composted. This option would positively

support the objective for the duration of plant operation. (M-T)

++ (H)

The autoclave process positively increases the amount of waste

recycled, reused or composted. This option would positively

support the objective for the duration of plant operation. (M-T)




++ (H)

The MBT process positively contributes to the production of

energy from waste. This option would positively support the

objective for the duration of plant operation. (M-T)

++ (H)

The autoclave process positively contributes to the production of

energy from waste. The process does require a large energy

input which should undergo appropriate consideration before

venturing on a new development; however it is reported to

produce a relatively high energy yield per tonne. 15

This option

would positively support the objective for the duration of plant





operation. (M-T)



waste management

0 (M) The use of the MBT process would not increase transport

impacts beyond the current situation.

+/- (M)

The location of a new autoclave facility is likely to be in the local

area (Poole) which would support the achievement of this

objective for the duration of the plant operation. (M-T)

However a new facility may add additional road traffic to the

area (not necessarily associated just with the MWMS but

cumulatively with other local authorities and commercial waste

movements should a new facility be developed). Transport

impacts should be considered in the development of new

facilities to ensure there is no impact on the local infrastructure.

Environmental effects associated with transportation are likely to

be indirect and felt in the immediate vicinity of a new facility

during the operational period. (I, M-T).


heritage resource

0 (H) The option is unlikely to detract from or support the achievement

of this objective.

? With appropriate siting and design, the option is unlikely to

detract from or support the achievement of this objective.

However, the location and size of any new development is





0 (H) The option is unlikely to detract from or support the achievement

of this objective.

? With appropriate siting and design, the option is unlikely to

detract from or support the achievement of this objective.

However, the location and size of any new development is






inclusion

0 (H) The option will secure jobs within the area, but not necessarily

create new job opportunities.

++ (H)

Opting to use the autoclave process will directly introduce a new

skill/high technology to the area. The positively supports the

objective. There is the potential for some of the new skills to

remain within the area beyond the lifetime of the plant. (D, L-T).

Summary Mechanical Biological Treatment

Using an existing facility will avoid some direct impacts associated with new development. Being an established site, additional nuisance problems are unlikely. The option will encourage sustainable use of resources and seek to maximise recovery rates. However, maintaining this business as usual process would not seek to improve the efficiency in processing residual waste, giving autoclave an advantage in being a new relatively cleaner and more efficient technology.





Autoclave

A new facility would be required for this option, and appropriate consideration of the environmental and social impacts should be undertaken to maximise benefits and minimise impacts in a sustainable design. The option will encourage the sustainable use of resources and seek to maximise recovery rates. Cumulatively, the availability of a new facility may provide an opportunity to improve the waste management situation in surrounding authorities. The option will also introduce a new high end technology and skills to the area, which would be of benefit to the local workforce.

Summary

Both MBT and autoclave generally support the achievement of most objectives. MBT poses an advantage over autoclave, through being an established process with an established facility. This would avoid impacts associated with new development. However, maintaining this business as usual process would not seek to improve the efficiency in processing residual waste, giving autoclave an advantage in being a new relatively cleaner and more efficient technology. Whilst both options will encourage sustainable use of resources and seek to maximise recovery rates, there is an advantage in autoclave as it produces a very pure recyclate, has higher materials recovery rates and energy recovery rates. The autoclave option also introduces a new technology and associated skills to the area. It is recommended that:

- The MWMS should include requirements to protect and/or enhance soil resources, surface water and air quality where new development is required. The use of brownfield land should be maximised where possible and appropriate climate change and sustainability considerations made as part of the design.

- The MWMS include a requirement for new development should consider the environmental, social and transport impacts for the construction and operational phases, and maximise opportunities to improve the local environmental where possible.

- BBC uses the introduction of a new technology to the area as an opportunity for public engagement and education.



Assessment Matrix 2: Green and Food Waste Treatment Options - Anaerobic Digestion, In-Vessel Composting and Windrow Composting

SA Objective Green and Food Waste Treatment Options

Anaerobic Digestion In-Vessel Composting Windrow Composting (Green Waste

Only)


including rare and

endangered species and

priority habitats

+/- (M)

+ The option to use AD supports the

objective by providing a negative

acidification potential and a negative

fresh water aquatic ecotoxicity value.17

-

There is a higher eutrophication

potential than the current baseline

situation. This potential is noticeably

higher where green and food waste are

combined for treatment. 17

It is assumed that a new facility will be

required. This poses a risk to

biodiversity and protected habitats;

however with careful siting and design

this risk can be mitigated. Impacts to

biodiversity are most likely to be direct

and restricted to the immediate vicinity

of the facility during operation. (D, M-T)

+/- (M)

+ The option to use IVC supports the



fresh water aquatic ecotoxicity value.17

-





combined.17

It is assumed that a new facility will be

required. This poses a risk to

biodiversity and protected habitats;

however with careful siting and design

this risk can be mitigated. Impacts to

biodiversity are most likely to be direct

and restricted to the immediate vicinity

of the facility during operation. (D, M-T)

+ (H)

The use of the existing facility within

the area would avoid the need for any

direct impacts on habitats of species

and so can be understood to be

protecting additional habitats from

destruction assuming the current

facility is sufficient to cope with all

waste produced in future years).

It is unlikely that there would be any

indirect impacts to biodiversity

providing the site is suitably managed

to avoid environmental incidents.


impacts upon human health

and wellbeing and local

amenity

+/- (M)

+ As AD is an enclosed process, there

are not anticipated to be any adverse

emissions to air which would pose a

health risk. This supports the objective.

+/- (M)

+ As IVC is an enclosed process, there


emissions to air which would pose a

health risk. This supports the objective.

- (M)

The option has some conflicts with the

objective.

This process can involve release of

emissions to air which could have

17 WRATE Assessments for Bournemouth Borough Council, 2011. Hyder Consulting Ltd





Only)

CO2 emissions from the process are

lower than the baseline situation when

food waste is processed separately to

green waste.

-

When green waste is combined with

food waste for treatment, CO2

emissions are higher than the baseline. 17

Emissions from the process could pose

indirect threats, limited to the

operational life of the plant. (I, M-T)




green waste.

-



emissions are higher than the baseline. 17

Emissions from the process could pose

indirect threats, limited to the

operational life of the plant. (I, M-T)

health impacts (including Volatile

Organic Compounds). It is assumed

that the current site is exposed to the

elements and therefore noise is not

easily contained.


nuisance levels can be controlled.

Impacts are likely to be indirect and

limited to the operational life of the

plant. (I, M-T)


contamination and



? Should an additional facility be required

to deal with collected waste, it would

be preferable if this used previously

developed land. However, at this stage

it cannot be determined if the option

would detract or support the

achievement of this objective.

? Should an additional facility be required

to deal with collected waste, it would

be preferable if this used previously

developed land. However, at this stage

it cannot be determined if the option

would detract or support the

achievement of this objective.

- (M)


objective.



environmental impacts and cause

some localised contamination

(including Volatile Organic

Compounds). These direct impacts

would be relatively localised and of low

frequency during operation (D, M-T).

It is assumed that the current site is

exposed to the elements and that good

site management can reduce nuisance

levels to acceptable levels.

4 To protect and enhance soil


+ (M)

Where food waste is processed

separately, there is a negative

acidification potential which would

+ (M)

Where food waste is processed

separately, there is a negative

acidification potential which would

+/- (M)

+ The use of the existing facility within

the area would avoid the need for any





Only)

positively contribute to the protection

and enhancement of soil quality.

Should an additional facility be required

to deal with collected waste, the

MWMS should seek to protect and

enhance soil quality and resources.

Impacts are likely to be direct on the

surrounding environment to a new

facility and experienced for the duration

of the plant operation. (D, M-T)

positively contribute to the protection

and enhancement of soil quality.

Should an additional facility be required

to deal with collected waste, the

MWMS should seek to protect and

enhance soil quality and resources.

Impacts are likely to be direct on the

surrounding environment to a new

facility and experienced for the duration

of the plant operation. (D, M-T

further development and disruption to

soils.

- However, the process has some

conflicts with the objective. This

process can involve release of


environmental impacts and cause

some localised contamination

(including Volatile Organic

Compounds. These direct impacts

would be relatively localised and of low




quality

+/- (M)

+ The option to use AD supports the



fresh water aquatic ecotoxicity value.

-





combined.17

Choosing to construct a new plant may

cause direct environmental impacts

and opportunities for improving water

quality. The impacts may be

associated with short term construction

+/- (M)

+ The option to use IVC supports the



fresh water aquatic ecotoxicity value.

-





combined.17

Choosing to construct a new plant may

cause direct environmental impacts

and opportunities for improving water

quality. The impacts may be

associated with short term construction

- (M)


objective.


emissions which could have health and

environmental impacts (including

Volatile Organic Compounds). It is

assumed that the current site is

exposed to the elements.



These direct impacts would be

relatively localised and of low






Only)

impacts, medium term impacts

associated with the operation of the

plant and enhancements to the local

water environment, which could be

long term improvements. (D, S-T, M-T

and L-T)

impacts, medium term impacts

associated with the operation of the

plant and enhancements to the local

water environment, which could be

long term improvements. (D, S-T, M-T

and L-T)


quality

+/- (M)

+ The option would positively contribute

to the objective by introducing a

negative acidification potential.

As AD is an enclosed process, there


emissions to air from the treatment

itself. Transport emissions cannot be

quantified at this time, although it is

expected that a new facility would be

located as local as possible. This

supports the objective.




green waste. (M-T)

-



emissions are higher than the

baseline.17

(M-T)

+/- (M)

+ The option would positively contribute

to the objective by introducing a

negative acidification potential.

As IVC is an enclosed process, there


emissions to air from the treatment

itself. Transport emissions cannot be



located as local as possible. This

supports the objective.




green waste. (M-T)

-




baseline.17

(M-T)

- (M)


objective.


emissions to air which could have

health impacts (including Volatile

Organic Compounds). It is assumed

that the current site is exposed to the

elements.



These direct impacts would be

relatively localised and of low



change

+/-(M)

+ CO2 emissions from the process are


+/- (M)

+ CO2 emissions from the process are


+ (M)

The process will result in the recovery

of materials from waste, and there are

some associated savings in terms of





Only)


green waste. (M-T)

It is anticipated that any new facilities

will be designed with flood risk and

climate change adaptation in mind.

Depending on the location of new

developments, there may be

opportunities to improve local flooding

issues and predicted requirements for

climate change adaptation. (L-T)

-




baseline.17

(M-T)


green waste. (M-T)

It is anticipated that any new facilities

will be designed with flood risk and

climate change adaptation in mind.

Depending on the location of new

developments, there may be

opportunities to improve local flooding

issues and predicted requirements for

climate change adaptation. (L-T)

-




baseline.17

(M-T)

CO2 reduction. (M-T)



+ (H)

+ AD will directly contribute to the

objective by ensuring materials and

energy is recovered for the duration of

the plant operation. The AD process

has negative abiotic resource depletion

potential. (M-T)

-

This negative abiotic resource

depletion potential is less negative (i.e.

worse) when green and food wastes

are combined. 17

(M-T)

+ (H)

+ IVC will directly contribute to the

objective by ensuring materials and

energy is recovered for the duration of

plant operation. The IVC process has

negative abiotic resource depletion

potential. (M-T)

-

This negative abiotic resource

depletion potential is less negative (i.e.

worse) when green and food wastes

are combined.17

(M-T)

+ (H)

Composting will direct contribute to the

recovery of materials for reuse for the

duration of the plant operation. (M-T)





Only)

9 To minimise waste


sustainable waste

management

+/- (H)

+ The AD process without green waste

and with only food waste, will positively

contribute to reducing the amount of

waste resulting in landfill. (M-T)

-

With green waste and food waste

combined, there is a slightly higher

amount of waste diverted to landfill

than the baseline situation. 17

(M-T)

+/- (H) + The IVC process without green waste

and with only food waste, will positively

contribute to reducing the amount of

waste resulting in landfill. (M-T)

-

With green waste and food waste

combined, there is a slightly higher

amount of waste diverted to landfill

than the baseline situation.17

(M-T)

+ (H)


reduction in materials which result in

landfill. (M-T)



++ (H)

The AD process would positively

contribute to increasing the rate of

composting (above baseline situation

rates). 17

(M-T)

++ (H) The IVC process would positively

contribute to increasing the rate of

composting (above baseline situation

rates). 17

(M-T)

0 (H) The option will seek to maintain the

rate of composting.




++ (H)

The AD process positively contributes

to the recovery of energy from waste.

(M-T)


food waste for treatment, energy

recovery is higher than for food waste

alone.17

19

(M-T)

++ (H)

The IVC process positively contributes

to the recovery of energy from waste.

Energy recovery from IVC is lower than

baseline when food is processed

separately. When green waste is

combined with food waste for

treatment, energy recovery is higher

than the baseline situation. 17

19

(M-T)

- (H) The process does not increase energy

production from waste. Energy

production would remain as per the

baseline situation. This would not

support an objective which is seeking

to increase energy efficient and energy

production from waste over the

baseline situation. (M-T)



waste management

? Transport emissions cannot be



? Transport emissions cannot be



0 (H) With the use of existing facilities, it is

not expected this option will detract or

support the minimisation of transport





Only)

located as local as possible. located as local as possible. impacts.


heritage resource

? The option is unlikely to detract from

the achievement of this objective,

providing sensitive siting and design

are considered for any new facilities.

However, the location and size of any

new development is unknown at this

stage.







stage.

0 (H) The option is unlikely to detract from

the achievement of this objective.










stage.







stage.







inclusion

+ (M)

By introducing a new facility and a new

technology to the area, the option

would create new employment

opportunities which would contribute to

a higher skill level and new

technologies being introduced to the

area. The effect of this option would be

indirect, and with appropriate training

and support from any new employers,

could secure a long term benefit to the

local workforce (I, L-T)

+ (M)

By introducing a new facility and a new

technology to the area, the option

would create new employment

opportunities which would contribute to

a higher skill level and new

technologies being introduced to the

area. The effect of this option would be

indirect, and with appropriate training

and support from any new employers,

could secure a long term benefit to the

local workforce (I, L-T)



Summary Anaerobic Digestion It has been assumed that opting to use AD will require the construction of a new facility, which should be appropriately mitigated for to reduce environmental impacts during construction and operation. However, there may also be opportunities for environmental improvements where new facilities are required – BCC should maximise these opportunities. There will be limited emissions to air which could pose an environmental or health risk and carbon emissions will be lower than the baseline





Only) situation. However it is noted that carbon emissions will be higher and slightly more waste is diverted to landfill where green is combined with food waste for treatment. This suggests a benefit in opting to collection green and food waste separately (See Matrix 4). The option positively contributes to achieving materials and energy recovery rates. However, it should be noted that energy recovery is higher where green and food wastes are combined for processing. The option will introduce employment opportunities to the area, which would be relatively highly skilled. With training support from new employers, long term benefits could be achieved. In-Vessel Composting It has been assumed that opting to use IVC will require the construction of a new facility, which should be appropriately mitigated for to reduce environmental impacts during construction and operation. However, there may also be opportunities for environmental improvements where new facilities are required – BCC should maximise these opportunities. There will be limited emissions to air which could pose an environmental or health risk and carbon emissions will be lower than the baseline situation. However it is noted that carbon emissions will be higher and slightly more waste is diverted to landfill where green is combined with food waste for treatment. This suggests a benefit in opting to collection green and food waste separately (See Matrix 4). The option positively contributes to achieving materials and energy recovery rates. However, it should be noted that energy recovery is higher where green and food wastes are combined for processing. The option will introduce employment opportunities to the area, which would be relatively highly skilled. With training support from new employers, long term benefits could be achieved. Windrow Composting The use of the existing facility would avoid the need for new build facilities and associated environmental impacts. It is presumed the site is established with good management procedures, however due to the facility being relatively exposed to the elements, it would be advisable to ensure that the facility can process the additional collections of green waste without posing an additional environmental risk. Maintaining the current situation with regards to treatment would not introduce a food waste treatment process diverting additional waste from landfill. Although encouraging some energy recovery and reuse, this option would not progress BCC performance towards the aims of the MWMS. Summary The options to use AD and IVC would result in higher materials and energy recovery, positively supporting the objectives. Maintaining the current situation of solely WC would not progress the aims of MWMS to reduce future waste production and maximise recovery.





Only) It is noted that carbon emissions and landfill rates will be higher where green is combined with food waste for treatment, but energy recovery rates are also improved. These objectives for energy recovery, carbon reduction and landfill avoidance should be put into some order of priority to ensure that the most important objectives are achieved with a preferred option. The IVC and AD options would introduce additional employment opportunities to the area, which could have long term benefits in increasing the skills pool of the local workforce. Should a new facility be required, appropriate environmental and social impact consideration in design would seek to minimise any impacts. It is recommended that:

- The MWMS should include requirements to protect and/or enhance soil resources, surface water and air quality where new development is required. The use of brownfield land should be maximised where possible and appropriate climate change and sustainability considerations made as part of the design.

- The MWMS include a requirement for new development should consider the environmental, social and transport impacts for the construction and operational phases, and maximise opportunities to improve the local environmental where possible.

- A review is undertaken of the current Windrow Composting facility to ensure that the facility can process the additional collections of green waste without posing an additional environmental risk.

- The objectives for energy recovery, carbon reduction and landfill avoidance should be put into some order of priority to ensure that the most important objectives are achieved with a preferred option.

- The MWMS should seek to encourage new employers connected to the MWMS to provide training and development support.

- BBC uses the introduction of a new technology to the area as an opportunity for public engagement and education.



Assessment Matrix 3 - Residual Waste Collections – Weekly Collection in comparison with Fortnightly Collection

SA Objective Residual Waste Collection Options

Weekly Collections (Options 1, 2 and 3) Fortnightly Collections (Options 4 and 5)

1 To protect

biodiversity,

including rare

and

endangered

species and

priority

habitats

0 (H) The option is not anticipated to detract from the achievement of the

objective. BBC should ensure waste management is undertaken with

due skill and care in the movement and storage of material to avoid any

pollution incidents.

0 (H) The option is not anticipated to detract from the achievement of the

objective. BBC should ensure waste management is undertaken with

due skill and care in the movement and storage of material to avoid any

pollution incidents.

2 To minimise

adverse

impacts upon

human health

and wellbeing

and local

amenity

0 (H) Odours and flies may occur with a weekly collection where poor waste storage practices are being used. Using black bin liners (as is the current situation in Option 3) would increase the risk of litter and vermin becoming an issue. These are perceived by residents to be an increased risk to health. This is a risk common to all options.

18 Effects associated

with this option are likely to be indirect and limited to the vicinity of waste storage areas whilst this is being stored. Impacts would be short term, but regular, but with appropriate mitigation would be no worse than the baseline situation. (I, S-T) If weekly collection becomes the preferred residual waste collection option, an appropriate size bin will need to be provided to ensure lids can shut to avoid nuisance. Some authorities decide to reduce the size of available residual waste bins, which could lead to an increase in the

perceived health risk. 18

Overall, retaining a weekly collection is not likely to produce any issues which are not already part of the baseline situation. The option does not support or detract from the achievement of the objective.

- (M) WRAP guidance on moving to Alternative Weekly Collections (AWC) suggests that the weight of bins on a fortnightly collection is approximately 1.5 times the weight of a bin on weekly collection. This could result in additional manual handling injuries, however risks should be assessed and suitable mitigation can be used to manage the

risk.18

This is a risk common to all options. The option may detract from the objective by increasing odours and flies which may occur where poor waste storage practices are being used. Effects associated with this option are likely to be indirect and limited to the vicinity of waste storage areas whilst this is being stored. Impacts would be relatively short term, but regular. (I, S-T) Using black bin liners (as is the current situation in Option 3) would increase the risk of litter and vermin becoming an issue. These are perceived by residents to be an increased risk to health. The appropriate size bin will need to be provided to ensure lids can

shut to avoid nuisance.18

3 To guard

against land

contamination

and

0 (H) The option is unlikely to detract from the achievement of this objective. 0 (H) The option is unlikely to detract from the achievement of this objective.

18 Health impact assessment of alternate week waste collections of biodegradable waste, 2007. Defra Waste Implementation Programme. Defra/Wycombe District Council, London

Report ref. DE0110102A Cranfield University & Enviros Consulting Ltd.





encourage

the

appropriate

re-use of

brownfield

sites

4 To protect

and enhance

soil quality

and

resources


5 To protect

and enhance

ground and

surface water

quality


6 To protect

and improve

air quality

+/-(H) The option will not generate additional traffic and associated indirect air quality issues in isolation, however in combination with other collections BBC should be seeking to reduce transport and associated air quality impacts in line with a reduction of residual waste generation.

The option to continue weekly waste collections in combination with other waste collections may reduce the need for additional personal journeys for residual waste disposal resulting in a reduction in transport impacts (I, M-T). This would ensure that accessibility to waste collection services is maximised.

+ (H) The option will seek to improve air quality impacts from collection. The Mass flow Modelling of the collection options for residual waste has demonstrated that switching to fortnightly collections will significantly reduce the number of waste collection vehicles required from 12 to 7. This would result in considerably fewer emissions to air as a result of residual waste collections in comparison with the weekly collection regime and the current situation.

19 Effects will be indirect,

and associated with the operational phase of a fortnightly collection (I, M-T)

7 To limit and

adapt to

climate

- (H) The option will not contribute to reducing BBC or the town’s carbon

emissions to meet to agreed targets.

+ (H) The option will seek to reduce the operational carbon emissions of BBC

and the town through reduced transport requirements. Based on the

Mass flow Modelling, the weekly collection option results in higher

19 Waste strategy options appraisal: Collection and treatment options assessment. 2011. Hyder Consulting Ltd.





change carbon emissions than the fortnightly option. There is a carbon saving

with switching the fortnightly collection, as the number of vehicles

required reduces from 12 to 7.19

This indirect beneficial effect would be

felt for the duration of the fortnightly collection operation. (I, M-T)

8 To ensure the

sustainable

use of natural

resources

0 (H) The option will not directly affect the use of raw, secondary or recycled materials.

0 (H) The option will not directly affect the use of raw, secondary or recycled materials.

9 To minimise

waste

production

and ensure

sustainable

waste

management

0 (H) The option is not anticipated to directly affect the production of waste.


Research has shown that AWC schemes result in an increase in both

participation in recycling and set out of recycling containers.

Authorities operating AWC schemes have recorded participation rates

in the range of 80-95% for some recycling schemes.20

(M-T)

10 To maximise

re-use

recycling and

recovery

rates


Coupled with other treatment options and collections, authorities can

encourage increased recycling by providing smaller bins which would in

turn reduce the amount of waste which is landfilled.20

++ (L) Experience has shown that AWC schemes result in an increase in both

participation in recycling and set out of recycling containers.

Authorities operating AWC schemes have recorded participation rates

in the range of 80-95% for some recycling schemes.20

(M-T)

11 To increase

energy

efficiency and

the use of

renewable

energy

sources

- (M) The option will not seek to reduce energy use in collection. There is a

possibility in combination with other additional collections (e.g. green

waste) that the continuation of a weekly collection may create an overall

increase in energy use for waste collection. (I, M-T)

+ (M) The option would seek to improve energy efficiency. The Mass flow

Modelling has demonstrated that a fortnightly collection uses less

energy than a weekly collection which could pose some environmental

benefits (through a reduced number of vehicles and reduced carbon

emissions). 19

(I, M-T)

20 Alternative Collections Guidance, 2007. WRAP





12 To minimise

transport

impacts

associated

with waste

management

+/- (H) The option will not generate additional traffic and associated indirect air quality issues in isolation, however in combination with other collections BBC should be seeking to reduce transport and associated air quality impacts in line with a reduction of residual waste generation.

The option to continue weekly waste collections in combination with

other waste collections may reduce the need for additional personal

journeys for residual waste disposal resulting in a reduction in transport

impacts (I, M-T). This would ensure that accessibility to waste collection

services is maximised.

+/- (M) The option positively works towards reducing impacts associated with

waste management. Switching to fortnightly collection results in a

reduction in vehicle use from 12 to 7. This reduces the amount of fuel

used in collection as represented by the reduction in carbon emissions.

There are lower transportation impacts associated with a switch to

fortnightly collections.19

(I, M-T)

However, unless a good public communications strategy is maintained

the reduction in frequency of collection may result in additional

personal journeys for waste disposal. The option may detract from the

accessibility of waste disposal services.

13 To protect the

cultural

heritage

resource


14 To protect the

existing

townscape

and

landscape

character and

quality

0 (H) The option is unlikely to detract from the achievement of this objective.

There are currently some town centre properties which are served with

black bins bags. Should these properties also experience a change to a

weekly bin collection, this will improve the street scene. 20

0 (H) The option is unlikely to detract from the achievement of this objective.

There are currently some town centre properties which are served with

black bins bags. Should these properties also experience a change to a

weekly bin collection, this will improve the street scene. 20

15 To encourage

sustainable

economic

growth,

provide

employment

opportunities

and

encourage

economic

inclusion

0 (H) The option is unlikely to detract from the achievement of this objective. +/- (M) It is estimated (through the Mass flow Modelling) that a saving of 34%

of residual waste costs could be made by switching to fortnightly

collections. However, there could be a reduction in the number of staff

required for less frequent collections which could potentially add to long

term unemployment figures if insufficient job creation is no offered

elsewhere (D, L-T). 19





Summary Weekly Collections Weekly collections are unlikely to provide any environmental effects which are worse than the baseline situation. However, in maintaining the current collection regime, this will not seek to achieve the aims of objectives to improve air quality, limit and adapt to climate change, reduce energy use (taken to be in collection for the assessment of these options) and associated transport impacts. Continuing the weekly collection in addition to other new collections would ensure residents have sufficient access to waste disposal facilities and services. Fortnightly Collections There may be some (perceived) associated health risks with switching to a fortnightly collection, however with appropriate management and public awareness of hygiene and storage requirements this can be reduced. Where this option is to be combined with a food and green waste collection, this would further reduce the risks associated with residual waste storage by removing the organic component from bins. There will be associated transportation (and financial) benefits with switching to a fortnightly collection, which would contribute to BCC and UK aims for carbon emissions reduction. As research shows that AWC scheme actively encourage participation in recycling other waste streams, this option would actively encourage further energy and materials recovery. Summary There are no benefits in maintaining the current weekly collection option and this would not assist BBC in improving waste management for the duration of the plan. There are some clear advantages in switching to a fortnightly collection, which include reduced transport requirements and encouraging participation in recycling other waste streams. It is recommended that:

- Suitable containers and locations for waste storage are considered to keep litter and vermin to a minimum. There should be some special consideration for properties which do not have gardens (43% of the Bournemouth housing stock are flats) and those currently using black bin bag collections (with a view to improving the street scene).

- The next stages of the MWMS development seek to ensure that all residents have sufficient access to waste disposal services to avoid fly tipping, other illegal disposal routes or additional personal journeys for waste disposal

- Residents are educated as to how to use a new regime, with clear instructions on which containers should be used for each type of waste.



Assessment Matrix 4: Green and Food Waste Collection Options – Separate Collections or Mixed Weekly Collections

SA Objective Green and Food Waste Collection Options

Separate Green Waste (Fortnightly) and

Food Waste (Weekly) (Options 1 and 4)


(Options 2 and 5)

Green Waste (Fortnightly) (Baseline

Option 3)

1 To protect

biodiversity, including

rare and endangered

species and priority

habitats

0 (H) The option is not anticipated to detract


BBC should ensure waste management

is undertaken with due skill and care in

the movement and storage of material to

avoid any pollution incidents.














impacts upon human

health and wellbeing

and local amenity

- (M) The option may detract from the


Odours and flies may occur where poor

waste storage practices are being used.

These are perceived by residents to be

an increased risk to health.

Any environmental/health effects

associated with this option are likely to

be direct and limited to the vicinity of

waste storage areas whilst this is being

stored. Impacts would be short term, but

regular. (D, S-T)

An appropriate size bin will need to be

provided to ensure lids can shut to avoid

nuisance.18












regular. (D, S-T)

An appropriate size bin will need to be provided to ensure lids can shut to avoid

nuisance.18

0 (H) Research suggests that handling green

waste collections poses no further health

risks than handling household residual

waste when a safe system of work is

used.21

The option is unlikely to support

or detract from the achievement of the

objective.


contamination and


or support the achievement of the



0 (H) The option is not anticipated to detract or

support the achievement of the objective

21 Green Waste Collection – Health Issues. Health and Safety Executive, 2007.







(Options 2 and 5)


Option 3)

encourage the

appropriate re-use of

brownfield sites

objective objective

4 To protect and

enhance soil quality

and resources



objective



objective



5 To protect and

enhance ground and

surface water quality



objective



objective



6 To protect and

improve air quality












regular. (D, S-T)



nuisance.18

Transport impacts associated with a

separate food and green waste

collection are anticipated to be

higher than with joint collections,

+/- (M) The option may detract from the











regular. (D, S-T)



nuisance.18

The option to combine green and

food waste would positively

contribute to a reduction in the

number of collections required and

0 (H) Research suggests that handling green

waste collections poses no further health

risk than handling household residual

waste where a safe system of work is

used.21

The option is unlikely to support

or detract from the achievement of the

objective.







(Options 2 and 5)


Option 3)

particularly where the weekly

residual waste collection is also

retained. This could give rise to

higher emissions affecting air quality

around the vicinity of end delivery

locations (I, M-T). There may be

opportunities for mitigation/

improvement for BBC to consider in

terms of investing in a new fleet

during the implementation of the

plan.

therefore minimise transport impacts

and associated air quality impacts.

(I, M-T) There may be opportunities

for mitigation/ improvement for BBC

to consider in terms of investing in a

new fleet during the implementation

of the plan.

7 To limit and adapt to

climate change



objective



objective



8 To ensure the

sustainable use of

natural resources

++ (H) The option will promote the production

and use of composting and energy

recovery. (M-T)

++ (H) The option will promote the production

and use of composting and energy

recovery. (M-T)

+ (H) The option will promote the production

and use of compost. (M-T)

9 To minimise waste

production and

ensure sustainable

waste management

++ (H) The option to dispose of food waste and

recover it will positively contribute to a

reduction in the proportion of residual

waste produced. (M-T)

++ (H) The option to dispose of food waste and

recover it will positively contribute to a

reduction in the proportion of residual

waste produced. (M-T)

+ (H) The option promotes the reduction in

residual waste by providing an

alternative disposal route for green

waste. (M-T)


recycling and

recovery rates

++ (H) The option will positively encourage the

proportion of waste recycled and


scenario. (M-T)

++ (H) The option will positively encourage the

proportion of waste recycled and


scenario. (M-T)

+ (H) The option will positively encourage the

recycling and composting. (M-T)


efficiency and the use

of renewable energy

sources

++ (H) A food waste collection will determine a

treatment option which would involve an

element of energy recovery from waste.

This option therefore supports energy

recovery. (M-T)

++ (H) A food waste collection will determine a

treatment option which would involve an

element of energy recovery from waste.

This option therefore supports energy

recovery. (M-T)









(Options 2 and 5)


Option 3)


impacts associated

with waste

management

- (M) Transport impacts associated with a

separate food and green waste

collection are anticipated to be higher

than with joint collections, particularly

where the weekly residual waste

collection is also retained. This could

give rise to higher emissions affecting

air quality around the vicinity of end

delivery locations (I, M-T).

+ (M) The option to combine green and food

waste would positively contribute to a

reduction in the number of collections

required and therefore minimise

transport impacts and associated air

quality impacts. (I, M-T)

0 (H) A single collection would minimise the

number of collections required for green

and food waste, however the collections

for residual waste would be anticipated

to remain the same as the baseline.


heritage resource



objective



objective




townscape and

landscape character

and quality



objective



objective



15 To encourage

sustainable economic

growth, provide

employment

opportunities and

encourage economic

inclusion

+ (M) The separate collection of green and

food waste could create some additional

jobs for the area. (I, M-T)

+ (M) The collection of food and green wastes

together results in reduced collection

costs compared to separate collections,

There may be some additional jobs

created from dual additional collections,

however the extent of this is not clear. (I,

M-T)

0 (H) The collection of green was fortnightly

was the lowest cost option considered

for the options assessment, however it

would not provide further employment or

encourage economic inclusion.

Summary Separate Green Waste (Fortnightly) and Food Waste (Weekly)

The ability to recycle/reuse more waste than the current situation is a benefit. There could be some health risks associated with this collection regime; however this is unlikely to give rise to significant environmental or health impacts with appropriate consideration for storage containers and capacities. By opting for separate collections, this will ensure that AD or IVC are viable treatment options with green waste being sent for the less expensive Windrow Composting option. This encourages sustainable waste management, by ensuring the benefits identified in Matrix 2 (for separate processing) are maximised and encouraging high recovery and recycling rates.







(Options 2 and 5)


Option 3) There will be higher transport (and associated impacts) requirements for separate green and food waste collections, however with the long term scope of the Bournemouth MWMS, BBC should consider opportunities to improve the efficiency of the current waste collection fleet when procuring vehicles. In addition, further job creation is likely to be an aspect of additional collections. Mixed Green and Food Waste (Weekly) The ability to recycle/reuse more waste than the current situation is a benefit. There could be some health risks associated with this collection regime; however this is unlikely to give rise to significant environmental or health impacts with appropriate consideration for storage containers and capacities. This option will encourage high recovery and recycling rates, however AD or IVC become the only viable treatment options which would add to the cost of the overall process. As noted in Matrix 2, there are environmental advantages in terms of materials recovery and carbon emissions in treating these wastes separately. Transport requirements for collection are generally lower for combined collections, which would result in fewer emissions to air and contribute to carbon targets. In addition, further job creation is likely to be an aspect of additional collections. Green Waste (Fortnightly) The baseline option encourages materials and energy recovery, but would only include green waste and not food. There are many objectives which the option does not support of detract from the achievement of. . This would not be entirely progressive in supporting the will of BBC to improve their current record on diverting waste from landfill. Summary Generally the food and green waste collection options are very similar and in isolation from treatment options, one does not provide a clear advantage over the other. Both will actively encourage recycling and recovery, and have associated (perceived) health risks which can be easily mitigated. However, when considered with the treatment options, there are distinct advantages in separate green and food waste collections, mainly related to the types of treatment options available post collection. This would ensure the maximum amount of materials and energy recovery, for the least cost (apart from the baseline situation). Whilst the baseline option does encourage recovery and sustainable waste management, it would not provide the same amount or scope of energy and materials recovery as for the other two options. It is recommended that:

- Residents are educated as to how to use a new regime, with clear instructions on which containers should be used for each type of waste.

- Suitable containers and locations for waste storage are considered to keep litter and vermin to a minimum. There should be some special consideration for properties which do not have gardens (43% of the Bournemouth housing stock are







(Options 2 and 5)


Option 3) flats).

- An intention to improve the efficiency of the collection fleet through replacement or new vehicle procurements is included in the MWMS.