Results and Interpretation of the Sustainability Appraisal of Scenarios

 

6.18 The sustainability appraisal of the scenarios is presented more fully in the Waste Management Statement, available on the Regional Assembly’s website (www.southeastra.gov.uk).

 

6.19 The results of the appraisal indicate that no single scenario outperforms all the other options. The findings are complex and simply reveal the strengths and weaknesses associated with each scenario. For example, half of the

options have the highest score against at least one indicator, yet also have the lowest score against another.

 

6.20 It also indicates that scenarios including large facilities consistently out-perform those including only small facilities due to the scaling of impacts associated with the requirement for a higher number of individual small facilities. However, the appraisal also highlights that smaller facilities may have reduced transport impacts (lower number of ‘waste miles’) through potentially being in closer proximity to sources of waste.

 

6.21 Although a number of different patterns can be identified, the following three options were determined to have the relatively better performance:

 

6.22 The three options with the relatively poorest performance were:

 

Identifying a Preferred Option

 

6.23 The selection of a preferred option has been based on the following considerations:

·         the need to meet, as a minimum, the targets for recycling and recovery of waste set out in the Landfill Directive and Waste Strategy 2000;

·         advice provided by SERTAB, and through stakeholder and Regional Assembly member consultation throughout the development of the Strategy;

·         moving up the waste hierarchy prioritizing minimisation and achieving as high as practicable recycling and composting rates.

 

 

Meeting Recycling and Recovery Targets

 

6.24 It is clear that continuing to manage waste as we do at present will not meet the various targets for diverting waste away from landfill through recycling, composting and recovery. The Strategy therefore does not consider this

as a viable option. All of the scenarios presented in the Waste Management Statement, and described above, will meet or exceed these targets and all require a shift in the way waste is managed.

 

6.25 The Regional Assembly considers that the preferred option should be ambitious and aspirational, but also achievable. In setting high recovery targets, recycling and composting should be pursued to the maximum practicably achievable levels.

 

Stakeholder Opinion and Advice

 

6.26 The Regional Assembly and SERTAB undertook a survey of stakeholder opinions in the winter of 2001/2 followed up by stakeholder seminars in February and July 2002. A number of workshops for Assembly Members were also held during 2002. The opinions expressed have guided the approach taken in the Strategy and the selection of a preferred option. Overall, stakeholders expressed strong support for the Strategy to place emphasis on waste minimisation and means of achieving this.

 

6.27 However, the need to plan for adequate infrastructure to manage waste to achieve the diversion targets was also stressed, as was the need to include all available technologies and management methods to achieve this.

6.28 In considering option selection, stakeholders consistently advised that the Strategy should, in principle, aim to exceed national waste recovery and diversion targets (as achieved in scenarios 4-6).

 

Sustainability/BPEO Appraisal Results

 

6.29 The scenarios were developed for use in the sustainability appraisal and present extremes (large scale or small scale only facilities). The proportion of each waste stream going to recycling, composting, thermal treatment (energy recovery) and landfill for different scenarios is estimated in the Waste Management Statement and provides the

rationale behind the estimates of infrastructure requirements used in the appraisal.

 

6.30 Although the scenarios featuring only large facilities consistently scored more highly than those with only small facilities, this stark choice is unlikely to be realistic. Delivery will most likely be through the provision of a mixture of

facility types and sizes, including sizes in between the two extremes appraised. Indeed, the appraisal highlights the potential advantages of smaller facilities particularly in reducing transport distance through enabling proximity to sources of waste by a greater number of smaller facilities.

 

6.31 The sustainability appraisal does not indicate that any one management method should be excluded from the Strategy. Scenario 5b scores highly against a range of objectives, particularly those concerning maximising recovery, reducing emissions, conservation of resources, education of waste management and reliability of delivery (planning permission). However, as this scenario excludes additional thermal treatment, it should not be pursued in

isolation. The strong messages from the appraisal should, however, inform the determination of a preferred strategy and its prioritisation of increasing recycling and composting.

 

6.32 The appraisal therefore indicates that the preferred option should be a mixture of scenarios 5 and 6, with the relative benefits of large-scale facilities stressed (informed by the sustainability appraisal findings), priority placed

on recycling and composting but including a mixture of facility types and sizes.

 

6.33 The potential region-wide infrastructure implications of pursuing such an option were developed for the sustainability appraisal and are summarised in Table 6.2. Although only illustrative, they provide an indication of the

significant scale of provision of new facilities (cumulative totals) required across the region for all scenarios.

 

6.34 The large increase in requirements between 2020 and 2025 is artificial and reflects the assumption used in the Waste Management Statement that facilities will have a 20 year lifespan. In reality, there will be refurbishment and renewal of facilities throughout this period and some sites will have a longer lifespan.

 

6.35 Table 6.2 demonstrates that a much greater number of new small scale facilities would be required than large facilities (by an order of magnitude) to meet the same rates of recovery. This strongly influenced the sustainability appraisal. It should also be stressed that the estimates of existing capacity in the region were based on incomplete data and should be treated with caution. However, the urgent need for new recovery facilities of all types is clear, with a regional requirement by 2010 of:

 

Table 6.2

Illustrative Cumulative Number of New Facilities Required for Future Waste Management in the Region as a Whole (Scenarios 5b, 6a and 6b of the Waste Management Statement)

 

Scenario

5b (large facilities)

6a (small facilities)

6b (large facilities)

 

Year

Large

EfW

Large

MRF

Large Compost

Small

EfW

Small

MRF

Small Compost

Large

EfW

Large

MRF

Large Compost

2005/06

0

2

18

13

0

99

6

0

10

2010/11

0

50

40

27

42

178

11

15

18

2013/14

0

79

58

36

94

232

15

34

24

2016/17

0

99

70

44

125

268

18

45

27

2020/21

0

118

77

50

156

296

20

56

30

2024/25

0

192

92

61

327

353

25

117

36

 

Note: This table only highlights the requirement for new recovery infrastructure, and not additional landfill provision. Full details are in Tables 7.6 and 7.7 of the Waste Management Statement.