Agenda item


Purpose of the report:  Policy Development and Review


Surrey County Council in its roles as the Waste Planning Authority is preparing a new Surrey Waste Local Plan. The first stage of consultation, the Issues & Options stage, ran from 2 September to 25 November 2016.


This paper is provided to update the Board on the results of the consultation and outline the next stages of preparation of a new Surrey Waste Local Plan. 




Katelyn Symington, Principal Planning Policy Officer

Paul Sanderson, Minerals & Waste Policy Team Manager

Mike Goodman, Cabinet Member for Environment and Planning


Declarations of interest:



Key points raised during the discussion:

  1. The Minerals & Waste Policy Team Manager introduced the report and outlined that the current waste plan was adopted in 2008 and was in need of review to cover the period from 2018 to 2033.


  1. As the Waste Planning Authority it was Surrey County Council’s responsibility to create a new waste plan, which would be adopted from 2018 onwards.


  1. Members were presented with a presentation (Annex 1) where Officers touched upon the issues, draft vision and objectives of the Surrey Waste Local Plan Issues and Options consultation results, which ran for a 12 week period.


  1. It was noted that no sites were included at this particular stage and the plan included all types of waste streams such as municipal, commercial and industrial and construction and demolition.


  1. Officers were queried on the elimination of landfill waste, in terms of reducing it to nothing.  Officers responded that it would be more specialist going forward, and likely to be seen as a regional resource rather than local, as there will be less waste being sent to landfill. The Chairman indicated that it would be beneficial to look upon Hampshire’s approach who for the last 10 years have paid zero landfill tax for its municipal waste.


  1. A Member raised concern with contamination in recyclable waste and raising awareness to educate the public on this issue. The Officer shared the view that there was lack of understanding and also problems accessing information regarding this. Members were assured that comments had been passed on to the Waste Disposal Authority (WDA) to resolve this.


  1. The Cabinet Member for Environment and Planning shared the view that there was a big issue with contamination, where waste was rejected as a result of this. Although a campaign on contamination had been carried out, Members were advised more work was essential to reduce this and working with schools and the Waste and Resources Action Plan (WRAP) would help alleviate this.


  1. The Board were informed that WRAP were the organisation used by Government to advise on waste and having links with them continues to advantageous.


  1. There was a discussion around Brexit and the impact this may have on the future of waste plans. Officers reported that there was uncertainty going forward and that certain risks would be involved. However at this stage the Board were advised the service would continue to carry on as normal until any legislative changes.


  1. Officers were asked whether on a national level, the issue of packaging would be reviewed in terms of generating less waste going forward. The Officer informed the Board that the WDA were working on this and had representatives on the packaging Board.  At a local level SCC is taking accountability by looking at trends and making changes where necessary.


  1. It was noted that Surrey was innovative. Examples to illustrate this included having the best recycling rates with Surrey Heath being ranked third in the country with 64%. The Cabinet Member for Environment and Planning also commended the work of the Surrey Waste Partnership on its new innovative approach.


  1.  In terms of business waste, Officers reported that they are trying to engage directly with businesses and discuss their objectives and views in taking responsibility for waste. The Cabinet Member for Environment and Planning emphasised the point that businesses should take more responsibility and was keen to work with WRAP to protect the environment. It was noted that there was a low response rate from businesses in the recent waste plan consultation.


  1.  With regards to construction and demolition waste, Members were informed a lot of this waste was recycled on development sites, since this made economic sense. Such inert waste could also be positively used to help restore mineral workings.


  1.  A Member referred to the current move to mixed kerbside recycling facilities asking whether there was any evidence to show how successful this has been. The Cabinet Member for Environment and Planning reported that Surrey Heath used commingle recycling facilities and this was the way forward for councils, It was noted that separate containers would make the process complex.


  1.  Furthermore, a Member requested whether a statement in relation to recycling could be provided since charges have been introduced at CRC’s. Officers informed the Board this information would be collated by the WDA and could be available to Members at a later date.


  1. It was explained that although the new plan would be from 2018-33, it would in all probability not formally be adopted until 2019. Officers would look at this but reassured Members that by 2018 a draft plan would be well advanced and would be given increased weight in decision making as it neared formal adoption.


  1. It was stated that the consultation had included text which could be perceived as misleading. In particular the ‘zero waste to landfill’ which a Member explained could be over looked by the public in terms of actually representing energy to waste initiatives. It was suggested that the wording in the consultation be amended and tested with members of the public.




The Economic Prosperity, Environment and Highways Board:


a. Noted the results of the Issues and Options Consultation related to the preparation of the new SWLP.


b. Noted the summary report that sets out the responses to the Issues and Options Consultation (Annexe 1).





Supporting documents: