1.1 As part of the process of preparing a Waste Local Plan for Wiltshire and Swindon, an Issues and Options Document was published in November 1999 for public consultation.

1.2 The Waste Planning Authorities (Wiltshire County Council and Swindon Borough Council) decided to hold three Open Days around the county during December 1999 to facilitate the consultation process. Stakeholder seminars were held for invited audiences during the mornings of the Open Days and the general public were invited to view exhibition material and talk with representatives from the waste planning, regulation, disposal and collection authorities and representatives from the County Council’s waste contractors, in the afternoons.

1.4 This is mainly a report of the discussions at the Stakeholder Seminars. The full notes of the discussions at the seminars are held at County Hall. A short report on the afternoon sessions is included under section 3.1.

1.5 Over 700 organisations deemed to have a special interest in the issue of waste in the plan area were identified as stakeholders. They included organisations with a strategic or statutory role such as the Environment Agency, Regional Development Agency, waste operators and local authorities; those with an interest in localised issues such as community groups, residents associations, parish councils, secondary schools and colleges; and those with environmental, commercial or other special interests. These stakeholder organisations were invited to send a representative to take part in one or more of the seminars to gather information and discuss their views and concerns about the Issues and Options document with other stakeholders. It was hoped that the seminars would aid these organisations in making their formal responses to the document and encourage them to be involved in the plan preparation process in the future.

1.6 The stakeholder seminars were facilitated by independent planning consultants and planning aid volunteers, from Yorkshire Planning Aid. The planners from Wiltshire County Council and Swindon Borough Council who had authorised the Issues and Options document were in attendance to offer additional factual information and clarification but did not otherwise take part in the discussions. Elected members were invited, but only as observers, given the ample opportunity they would have to influence the process at other stages.

1.7 A total of 120 people took part in the seminars (excluding the facilitators and waste planning authority staff). Parish councils, waste operators, community based organisations, environmental groups, business networks, waste producers, statutory agencies, district and county council staff, were all well represented. Schools and the utilities were under-represented.

1.8 Following an open floor session, the seminars split up into four workshops to discuss:

1.9 Each participant was able to take part in two workshops of their choice. Summaries of the discussions were fed back to a plenary session after lunch and a further opportunity was provided to take comments from the floor.

1.10 The event evaluation indicated that more then 85% of participants felt that they had become better informed and been able to express their views appropriately. It had been useful to them to meet with other interested parties and the notion of establishing a Waste Forum, through which to continue their involvement in the plan preparation process, received substantial support.

1.11 There was widespread support for the waste hierarchy: to reduce, re-use, recover and dispose in that order of priority, as the basis for reducing waste in the plan area by 2011 and in particular that currently being buried in landfill sites.

1.12 The authorities proposed a six point land use strategy for developing and locating facilities, by:

1.14 The Preferred Options for developing integrated facilities at Westbury Cement Works, and Barnfield Road in Swindon received support, especially if more waste could be received at these sites by rail rather than road. The A36 corridor of search, to the south of Salisbury for a similar strategic facility proved universally controversial. Why had other sites in the area not been included? Was the criterion of nearness to the New Forest Heritage Area not applied?

1.15 Rail was favoured as a means of transport for waste, but it was not clear from the Issues and Options document, nor from the debate as to how economically viable this was for Wiltshire. Many participants wanted Wiltshire to become self-sufficient in being able to deal with its own waste, not just the region.

1.16 For many the key to reducing the waste problem and maximising the opportunities, centred on minimising the generation of waste and dealing with it at source. This placed the emphasis on re-use and recovery – strategies that it was widely felt went beyond land use planning, but which if not dealt with in the Plan could seriously undermine the achievement of the key objectives of the Plan.

1.17 Participants repeatedly came up with ambitious and innovative suggestions for the planners to consider in preparing the draft Waste Local Plan. These included:

1.19 A number of outstanding issues were raised by participants in the stakeholder seminars which will need to be addressed in the next stage of consultation, if the draft Plan is to:

1.20 Participants found it difficult to judge between one option and another in the document, mainly because of a lack of information. So, better information will be needed in the draft Plan about:

1.21 The planners from the waste planning authorities will soon begin preparing the draft Waste Local Plan. Participants in the stakeholder seminars will be looking for evidence that their views, suggestions and concerns have been considered by elected members and officers and have found expression in the draft Waste Local Plan either as policies, additional information, or additional and revised options.

1.22 It is important that, having tried to impress upon people that waste is not just the local authorities’ problem but everyone’s problem, the draft Plan addresses the needs and interests of all stakeholders.

1.23 The stakeholder seminars worked well at diffusing potential conflict, and in generating a sense of ownership, amongst stakeholders for the problems and possible solutions. This now needs nurturing by keeping those who want to be, close to the Plan preparation process and by strengthening partnerships capable of tackling the issues in a practical way. The proposed Waste Forum may be one way of achieving this, the purpose of which might be to:

1.24 This report and details of the next phase in the Plan preparation process, possibly including some draft terms of reference for the Waste Forum, need to be fed back to all stakeholders (not just those who attended the seminars) for comment.

2.1 In reporting the discussions at the stakeholder seminars, a content analysis has been carried out (by the independent facilitator) on the notes from each workshop and the plenary sessions. The results from the three seminars have been combined under the main topic headings:

2.3 Given that the number of participants in the stakeholder seminars was 120, this is essentially a qualitative analysis providing an indication of the strength with which a certain view was held, obvious areas of consensus, differences of opinion, gaps in knowledge and suggestions put forward for further consideration. It should be emphasised that there was considerable consensus between different stakeholder groupings over many issues, and some conflict over a few issues which will require further discussion to resolve.

2.4 The results of the analysis of these in-depth discussions on the Issues and Options document, must be added to and compared with the findings of the quantitative survey of responses to the tick box questions on the insert in the Key Issues Summary Booklet and on the comment form in the Issues and Options document, the results of the public meetings held by the planners, and letters of representation.

2.5 Key Objective 1 in the Issues and Options document seeks to ensure that there are sufficient waste management facilities to deal with an amount of waste equivalent to that produced within Wiltshire and Swindon. Queries were raised by many participants in the stakeholder seminars as to whether Wiltshire would itself generate sufficient waste to warrant the need for a new large-scale integrated facility. If not, it seemed likely that waste would need to be imported from surrounding counties, but participants felt that this would undermine a key element of the proposed strategy to reduce the amount of landfill in the plan area by 2020. Others felt so strongly about this that they suggested there be a ban on all imports into the plan area, so as to protect the existing landfill capacity for longer. This view was maintained in the knowledge that Wiltshire also exports some its most difficult wastes for disposal to other counties.

2.6 Whilst accepting that it would make sense for there to be some movement of waste across the county boundary, participants generally felt that the strategy should be to minimise those movements and for the plan area (let alone the region) to aim to become self-sufficient in dealing with its waste.

2.7 Various alternative strategies, to the provision of one new, large strategic facility, were suggested by participants:

2.8 A number of general points were made in the discussion about options in the Issues and Options document. Firstly, participants felt there was a lack of information in the document about how much waste (and of what types) was produced in the plan area, how much was already being re-used or recycled, how successful waste minimisation efforts were being, and the environmental impacts and cost implications for the different options put forward. The Environment Agency explained that they hoped the information they were responsible for supplying would improve in the near future. Without better information it was felt that the general public would be unable to evaluate their preferred options at the draft Plan consultation stage. For example would three strategic facilities, as proposed in the document, be sufficient?

2.9 The nature of a given waste material, where it was being generated, its BPEO and the implications of the options as to where it might be processed, all had to be considered before a decision could be made as to how best to deal with it within the plan area, region or beyond.

2.10 The need for someone, somewhere, to balance conflicting interests was seen as inevitable but the document did not make clear who would set the priorities or criteria against which these judgments would be made. This is a key consideration for elected members.

2.11 The information about regional issues and proposals was also felt to be inadequate within the Issues and Options document. Participants generally favoured the notion that more waste should be transported by rail, but understood that location of railheads and the likely economies of scale that would be needed, had significant implications for whether this could be achieved in Wiltshire.

2.12 Apart from exporting clinical and other special waste, information was given at the discussions that some of Wiltshire’s recoverable wastes were also being exported: aluminium cans go to Scotland, textiles go to Huddersfield and plastics to Birkenhead, and all, it was presumed, by road.

2.13 The proposed timescale of the Plan up to 2011 was seen by many as too short for investors to provide new facilities with any confidence. Preferences were expressed for a 25 year plus timescale but with the proviso that the waste authorities made contract specifications more demanding of operators and insisted on more frequent reviews of contracts to allow greater flexibility in the planning, collection and management of waste, over this longer time period.

2.14 The Proximity Principle – to locate facilities as close as practicable to where the waste is produced ie the main towns - was widely supported by participants but with due deference to the arguments about economies of scale required by large facilities.

2.15 It was felt that this principle linked to, and had to be supported by, policies to encourage householders and businesses to manage waste at source, and to provide more recycling facilities to serve local needs and job creation.

2.16 There was a degree of cynicism that local authorities would not be prepared to support, let alone implement, this principle as they have seemed reluctant to make neighbourhood provision in the past. The reluctance of some local authorities to provide for kerbside collections was cited as an example. Some operators too were clearly not in favour of decentralising waste collection to this extent.

2.17 There was widespread support for the waste hierarchy: waste reduction or minimisation was the priority and one person even suggested that a strategy for waste elimination should be included. Recovery, and particularly recycling, was favoured over disposal to landfill or incineration, but there was disagreement as to whether landfill was worse or better than incineration as a last resort.

2.18 This having been said there was a significant degree of concern that policy and provision for reduction and recovery were not land use issues and would not therefore be adequately dealt with within the Waste Local Plan. This will be a major challenge to the planners.

2.19 Recycling was recognised as a fickle and highly underdeveloped cultural and economic activity, complicated by a volatility in market prices. Who would be responsible for developing more sorting, repairing and processing initiatives to support householders and businesses generating recoverable waste? Who would develop and promote new local markets for recycled goods and compost? If recovery failed for lack of a strategic approach, Wiltshire could end up with having to landfill or incinerate more waste by default.

2.20 More information was requested on the Best Practicable Environmental Options (BPEOs) for a variety of goods. For example is it more or less environmentally costly to transport paper products long distances for recycling (especially in a poor market) or to incinerate it locally but add to carbon dioxide emissions. The Environment Agency explained that life cycle analysis was due to be introduced soon to provide better guidance for manufacturers and waste managers on this issue.

2.21 The discussion on key objectives 5 and 6 (controlling the impacts of waste, restoration and after care, are covered in sections 2.38 and 2.57).

2.22 Several participants emphasised the need for national government to commit to tackling waste (and difficult waste in particular) by listening more to what local communities had to say, providing local authorities with more funds to invest in local facilities and education initiatives, to raise landfill tax rates, impose penalties for those who fail to reduce, re-use and recover and to lobby the EU to eradicate the conflict created by policies that prevent the recycling of certain goods e.g. farm twine and compost.

2.23 Participants generally found it quite difficult to weigh up the benefits and dis-benefits of the key objectives. It was strongly felt that the proposed policy areas would not be able to influence provision and performance for the reduction, re-use and recovery elements of the waste hierarchy strategy; nor the education of householders and businesses about waste management. Participants wanted the planners to create policies in the following areas:

2.24 A request was made for the Plan to contain case study material of successful initiatives from around the plan area and country and there was wide spread support for the Plan to contain an action plan within it, to promote implementation of its policies and proposals against timescales, targets and other indicators.

2.25 Participants were looking for the Waste Local Plan to be integrated with the Waste Strategy. As a way of ensuring that the Plan would be coordinated with other strategies and initiatives relating to the collection and management of waste in the county (rather than land use planning) participants supported the establishment of a Waste Forum. Such a forum could also be a valuable tool for ensuring that the interests of all stakeholders are represented throughout the preparation of the Waste Local Plan, and then in the monitoring, evaluation and review of it, at a later stage.

2.26 Overall it was felt that the Issues and Options document did not explain well enough what was needed from local communities at neighbourhood level, and if the Plan was not to address this where would it be addressed?

2.27 More information was requested about the location of existing initiatives in the plan area on waste collection, recycling, composting and the like. Many participants emphasised the need for the planners to find ways of incorporating policies into the Plan about educating the public and businesses on the waste problem and their contribution to solving it.

2.28 Participants stressed the need for waste separation and collection to be made easy for householders and businesses. Better support would be needed from local authorities to supply segregated bins, regular kerbside collections, and well-managed sites with a range of facilities appropriate to the locality. Opinion varied as to whether householders and others should be required to pay for bins or special bags.

2.30 There was some discussion about incentives needed to encourage more people to re-use and recycle. The Plan should provide information about how many households and businesses were engaged in re-using and recycling waste and what the benefits of this were to them and their local communities.

2.31 Some thought would be needed to encourage villages to share facilities or develop collaborative projects, as most would be too small to warrant their own facility.

2.32 The proposed waste audit for new developments of over 50 dwellings was generally, though not universally, supported and thought worthy of extending into energy and transport issues for new developments. It was noted that people are rarely prepared to walk more than 400m to local facilities such as shops and open spaces and this needed to be borne in mind.

2.33 Green waste collection needed better policies and enforcement: one participant reported that people did not separate this waste out at her local Household Recycling Centre despite being directed to do so.

2.34 The discussion on co-location of a diverse range of facilities at Household Recycling Centres and how to judge the appropriateness of facilities needed by different types of rural and urban communities was discussed in some depth.

2.35 Whilst there was a perceived need for many more local facilities it was also widely felt that these had to be appropriate to local needs. An example was given of an estate where 4,500 inhabitants have no access to a car. Similarly there were areas of the county with a need for aggregated recycling facilities. Community composting schemes might not be suitable for rural areas where people generally composted at home, but could be very valuable on housing estates in towns.

2.36 The integration of a full range of a facilities on one site was also generally approved of, providing that a precautionary approach be taken to minimise impacts on local communities near such sites from traffic and other sorts of pollution that could arise from concentrating a variety of waste in this way.

2.37 Perhaps more incentives would be needed to encourage local provision such as using landfill tax credits to set up neighbourhood facilities, ensuring that any economic benefits derived from local initiatives were ploughed back into developing local waste management or other community facilities or amenities. Incentives would also be needed to encourage businesses to deal with their waste locally. Some felt disposal was too easy an option for business at the moment and that even those promoting the fact that they were recycling their waste might actually be transporting it half way round the globe to do so. As business generated far more waste than households, more effort was warranted in exploring options for neighbourhood facilities than was catered for in the Issues and Options document.

2.38 Chapter Three of the Issues and Options document deals with controlling the impacts of waste management and suggests a total of 17 policy areas.

2.39 The key to minimising impacts was seen to be strong policies within the Plan on reduction and re-use, education of the public and business, and the design and management of waste facilities. Take-back schemes, such as those operated by Dysons, Motorola, BT and others were to be encouraged, especially amongst car manufacturers.

2.40 Several people called for the elimination of putrescible waste from landfill sites to eliminate impacts associated with birds, vermin, odour and groundwater pollution. Composting at home or at other points of source, was considered more appropriate for this type of waste.

2.41 Enclosed facilities, be they incinerators, composting schemes, recycling centres or transfer stations were favoured to reduce impacts.

2.42 A query was raised as to whether the listing of impacts on residential amenity (see section 3.4.11 in the Issues and Options document) implied any hierarchy as some felt that impacts from vermin and birds (or indeed chemical pollution that could not be seen) were worse than that on visual amenity.

2.43 Buffer zones were approved of and felt to be worthy of greater emphasis within the Plan. Account should be taken of potential adjacent land uses in the long term, not just at the time of an application. Examples were cited of where landfill sites had been located too close to towns in the past. When such towns had expanded, developments had been allowed to cut into buffer zones.

2.44 Birds were regarded as a major problem at landfill sites because of their contamination of surrounding land. Control by flying hawks and falcons, was considered preferable to loud bang machines.

2.45 Concern about emissions from waste processing facilities was widespread amongst participants and particularly so from incinerators, but also landfill sites and unenclosed composting systems. There was a general lack of confidence about information currently available on emissions, and indeed a lack of information in general on this issue in the document.

2.46 The point was also made that impacts on people’s health should be considered option by option and made more explicit within the Plan.

2.47 The proposal to transport waste by rail wherever possible was generally supported by participants although as discussed elsewhere, it was felt that there was insufficient information available in the document for them to be able to judge how viable an option this was for Wiltshire. People could see that an east-west link across the county might be achievable, but not necessarily a north-south link without considerable investment. Comments were made that such infrastructure should be in place to and from a new waste facility before it started operation and that railheads (with waste facilities located adjacent to them) at either end of transport lines were considered essential to reduce the need to transport the waste further and by road.

2.48 The option of using the canal network for waste transportation was not discussed in any detail.

2.49 The perception that waste generation within the plan area is dispersed and not concentrated in any particular places, generated questions as to where the critical transport nodes for waste movement might be. Some went further and suggested that the Plan should show designated routes for waste transfer and therefore a degree of integration between the county’s waste and transport local plans.

2.50 Options for a rail link to Barnfield Road, the Studley Grange and Purton facilities should be addressed.

2.51 Local traffic impacts at civic amenity sites needed to be addressed within the Plan. It was recognised that these impacts would potentially increase, if the policies to increase the amount of waste to be recovered, via the provision of more neighbourhood facilities, proved successful. If a sufficient number of recycling and composting facilities could be provided within easy walking distances of homes (e.g. 300-400m) this impact would be mitigated. Good examples were cited from Spain where neighbourhood facilities are well designed, fenced, gated, managed and controlled. It was less clear as to whether the provision of more neighbourhood facilities would be a better option than kerbside collections. Waste operators seemed uncertain of the economic viability of kerbside collections.

2.52 One participant commented that not all agricultural land was precious enough to be protected from development for waste facilities. The issue of visual impact also needed to be addressed in relation to the wider countryside, not just residential amenity alone. Thorny Down was considered to be well tucked away, but the Whiteparish landfill site at Salisbury Hill was considered to be very visible and concerns were expressed about the impact of the proposed facility south of Marlborough.

2.53 The proposed policy areas relating to green belt and the Swindon rural buffer were not discussed.

2.54 The suggested policy areas (regarding designated and undesignated sites) did not appear to take account of the effects of packaging litter on wildlife, but should.

2.55 There was some heated discussion (at the Salisbury Open Day in particular) about the viability of an area of search for a strategic facility along the A36 corridor south of Salisbury, given its proximity to the New Forest Heritage Area. Why had the A36 corridor north east of Salisbury not been considered, or indeed anywhere else in the vicinity, including the military land in the area? SSSI status appeared to constrain the use of military land, but it was felt by some that this was being used as an excuse and that some military land would be well suited.

2.56 Other policy suggestions on areas of landscape importance, the Great Western Community Forest, archaeology, the historic environment, disused canals, rights of way and airfields were not discussed.

2.57 Discussion on these issues was pre-empted by several voices calling for policies on the appropriate preparation of sites prior to the start of operations. The pre-planting of trees to a width of 20m around the peripheries of sites, to screen operations, was requested. It was however pointed out by an operator that there was usually insufficient time allowed between the approval of planning permission and confirmation that a waste management licence would be awarded, for operators to get on site to achieve this. Operators taking the risk of advanced tree planting was suggested as a sensible commercial option.

2.58 This proved to be a controversial issue which was discussed in some depth in the minimising impacts workshops, as elsewhere.

2.59 Concerns were expressed about the pollution caused to air quality by the emissions of dioxins and other chemicals, and that the resultant ash generally had to be landfilled anyway. There was a general lack of confidence about the efficiency of incineration technology and whether or not it could be fully enclosed.

2.60 The arguments that incineration discourages strategies for reduction, re-use and recovery were also rehearsed in these workshops, as was the concern that the EU directive on packaging undermined such strategies too.

2.61 Apart from the ideas that have already been covered above the following were also suggested that:

2.62 The discussions in these workshops centred around the waste hierarchy, the relative benefits of one process over another, and the need to develop markets for waste products and support for businesses.

2.63 The general view was that it was necessary to promote the maximisation of benefits to local communities and industries, but that a bigger gain might come from promoting the minimisation of waste to begin with.

2.64 The general view was that there were huge potential savings for business if it could reduce the amount of waste it produced because it would cost less to have less removed and dealt with. Apart from the benefits this would have for the environment and the tax payer, participants felt businesses could enhance their reputations with customers by promoting their green credentials. Some of the waste operators queried this benefit, but others felt that it was as important if not more important to get businesses to engage more in the waste reduction effort, rather than just householders.

2.65 A new culture aimed at achieving zero waste was needed, supported by an incentives regime. Motorola have a take back scheme in operation as they no longer see landfill as an option for their business. Whilst it was acknowledged that large companies could not afford to be seen as polluting, it was felt unlikely that small and medium sized enterprises would be persuaded to change their ways without tax incentives.

2.66 The public would undoubtedly benefit too from better designed goods with fewer sealed in parts (to reduce built in obsolescence) and less packaging, but this would require a greater degree of environmental consciousness to be developed in the minds of designers to achieve this. There was also some concern that new EU regulations requiring the use of more biodegradable packaging might actually increase the need for incinerators.

2.67 It was pointed out that whilst recycling initiatives received funds from the landfill tax, waste reduction initiatives did not.

2.68 The general view was that though policies supporting re-use might result in the loss of manufacturing jobs, these jobs would be compensated for by the creation of new opportunities in the repair and processing industries.

2.69 The construction industry was seen as a major target for re-use policies. There is currently little or no incentive for the construction industry to re-use material from old buildings, roads etc, except to reduce the amount they must pay for this waste to be disposed of in landfill. Some participants felt that only a small part of construction waste was re-usable, whilst others thought tackling this problem could make a substantial contribution to the achievement of the Plan’s objectives to reduce and re-use waste.

2.70 There was a call to bring back some of the old re-use schemes, such as deposit bottles, which were remembered as helping to engender community feeling. Others cautioned the need to ensure the legitimacy of repair mechanisms, especially for white goods, against safety legislation.

2.71 The discussion on these two topics covered both the benefits and dis-benefits of recycling and composting methods for dealing with waste. It was agreed that profits could be made from recycling with sufficient investment in the right technology backed up with sufficient markets. More research and development was needed on recycled products and markets. Compost from schemes was generally too rich to be used on its own and had to be mixed with some other soil-based substrate beforehand. It was pointed out that vast quantities of soil and sub-soil were already being dumped in the county.

2.72 Separation at source, kerbside collections and enough localised processing facilities were considered the key to maximising benefits from these methods, at least for household rubbish. Not all industrial, organic waste is suitable for composting. The Nestlé representative explained that coffee manufacture produces large husk waste which is too watery for composting without pre-treatment.

2.73 The major benefits of incineration were seen to be its ability to deal with clinical and other special wastes, and to reduce dependency on fossil fuels for energy generation. Many more participants were concerned about how safe incinerators were and whether acceptance of this option might discourage recycling and thereby undermine the main thrust of the Plan to reduce, re-use and recover, before disposal.

2.74 Anaerobic digestion, as a closed system, was favoured over open air composting, because it reduced leachate, organic bulk and the escape of gaseous emissions such as methane. The view was that this method needed to be accessible for more waste than just that arising from households, but questions were asked about whether it was a proven, and economically viable, technology. The point was also made that the digestate produced through this process is of a lower quality than compost, suitable only for agricultural, not horticultural, purposes.

2.75 As a technique landfill was recognised as being relatively cheap to establish and a potentially useful way of recovering energy from waste disposal through the collection and use of methane emissions in particular. It was also recognised as a cost-effective method for restoring mined out landscapes.

2.76 It was felt that this was a topic that required a much greater level of debate than had been possible at the workshops. There was uncertainty about the quality of ash and other end products from different waste treatment processes. It was widely held that for energy recovery to be economic it had to be undertaken on a large-scale, but then the travel impacts of this would also be large-scale.

2.77 New markets were emerging for recycled plastic products such as bollards, garden furniture and paving. However, questions were raised as to how plastic waste was currently being dealt with within the plan area. It was reported that there was a limit to the number of times plastic could be recycled, as the polymer chain became progressively shorter and weaker each time and burning it was only 12% efficient.

2.78 More effort was needed to promote markets or initiatives for the recycling of furniture and white goods. Questions were asked about whether the market for recycled paper and cardboard products was, or was not, diminishing because the quality of products was falling. New businesses to process terry towelling nappies, to cut down on the amount of disposables going to waste disposal, were also needed.

2.80 The Environment Agency’s video ‘Less waste, more value’ was deemed to be useful in this respect.

2.81 Waste auditing was supported but seen to be difficult for developers to quantify.

2.82 Chapter 5 of the Issues and Options document outlines a land use strategy derived from the six key objectives. This strategy advocates:

2.83 This strategy was generally supported by participants with some important caveats as described elsewhere relating to neighbourhood facilities, conflicts created by the use of incinerators, the need for education, the lack of information about commercial and industrial arisings and the impacts of options (on costs, transport, health and community benefit) in addition to those on the environment.

2.84 A number of the preferred options for the location of new facilities which would strengthen the integrated network and reduce the waste going to landfill or landraise were discussed in some depth.

2.85 Draft projections suggest that more waste needs to be recovered in this area in order to meet government targets by 2010 for household, and industrial and commercial waste.

2.86 The Open Day discussions centred on the proposal for a strategic integrated waste management facility at Westbury Cement Works. There is a landfill site in operation there already, adjacent to the cement works, and the planners see the potential to develop facilities here for aggregate recycling, composting, and energy recovery.

2.87 The site is already rail linked but questions were raised as to the viability of this site for a rail-based operation. If it did become a large-scale operation, would it become the dumping ground of Wiltshire? Could it not just be developed as a transfer station or as this in combination with a Materials Recycling Facility?

2.88 Others were concerned that development of this facility would exacerbate existing traffic congestion on the A350, and that leachates from any landfill might penetrate and therefore contaminate the surrounding limestone used in cement manufacture.

2.89 There was general support for the notion of an integrated facility here and indeed some positive suggestions about the possibilities for developing an energy park on the site producing electricity, methane and heat from a variety of processes including bio-digestion of farm slurry and sewage sludge. The possibility of processing forestry waste here was also raised.

2.90 One participant asked whether there was already an incinerator on this site. The site owners and waste operators of Westbury clarified this and confirmed there was no incinerator there at present. There is therefore a need to amend the references to a "Westbury Incinerator" in Appendix 4 of the Issues and Options document.

2.91 An environmental impact assessment and sustainability appraisal were requested for each option for the Westbury site and surrounding buffer zone (part of which it was thought to have been suggested for housing). The need for the county and local planning authorities to work closely in developing this proposal was also emphasised.

2.92 The proposal for a Household Recycling Centre at Devizes (Preferred Option 8) was questioned because it was thought that planning permission for waste disposal there had already been refused, a large part of the extension area had already been developed and there was therefore very little space left on the site for further development.

2.93 The proposed Household Recycling Centre at Marlborough (Preferred Option 9) was recognised as being close to the town (therefore supporting the Proximity Principle) and also close to a possible rail link that could be re-instated. However there would be a negative visual impact on those using the forest walks which look down on the proposed site and the bats in the railway tunnel would need to be re-located.

2.94 Several queries were raised about the two proposed facilities in this area: a strategic integrated facility along the A36 corridor south of Salisbury and a household recycling facility at Amesbury.

2.95 It appeared that both these facilities would be entirely dependent on road-based transportation (rather than rail). Was there no possibility of developing light railway or even cableway transport for transferring Salisbury’s waste, especially given the projected growth figures for the city and the inevitable increase in road traffic that would be generated?

2.96 It was felt that the area of search along the A36 was not well justified (at both the seminar and afternoon session for the general public). Why was the northern corridor of the A36 not considered? Was the criterion of nearness to the New Forest Heritage Area not applied? Why were other sites not considered, and if they had been, why were they eliminated so early in the process?

2.97 Others felt it would be better to develop existing facilities in the catchment area and increase efforts on recovery.

2.98 It was suggested that the Valley Farm landfill site (for inert waste) at Chitterne might be developed as an integrated facility, but it was then explained that the existing contract there runs until 2016.

2.99 Other comments questioned whether the proposals for the Salisbury area were sufficiently far sighted. Were there likely to be any advantages in finding a solution that might provide for both Salisbury and parts of Hampshire?

2.100 As for the other two waste catchment areas, several participants felt that justification for the proposals in the Swindon area were also lacking within the Issues and Options document.

2.101 There was support for the notion of developing Barnfield Road as a strategic integrated facility for recycling and recovery from sewage sludge, composting and co-digestion of sewage sludge and household waste. Good sorting facilities would be needed with an option to incinerate the residue. This site was deemed to be close to sources of waste and therefore supportive of the Proximity Principle. However, access was already poor and often congested.

2.102 At the two proposed Household Recycling Centres (Faraday Road and Radway Road) participants were looking for co-location of bring’n’buy, bikes, furniture, spare parts, soil conditioner, compost and any other recycled goods that could be made available for sale from the site.

2.103 A suggestion was put forward that skip-based digestion systems, where water is added to organic waste (and especially that with a high solid content) and allowed to decompose for three days in a closed system before being moved to an open air composting facility, might be particularly appropriate in rural areas.

2.104 There was widespread support for the waste hierarchy: to reduce, re-use, recover and dispose in that order of priority, as the basis for reducing waste by 2020 and particularly currently being buried in landfill sites.

2.105 The authorities proposed a six point land use strategy for developing and locating facilities by:

2.107 The Preferred Options for developing integrated facilities at Westbury Cement Works, and Barnfield Road in Swindon received support, especially if more waste could be received at these sites by rail rather than road. The A36 corridor of search, to the south of Salisbury for a similar strategic facility proved universally controversial.

2.108 Rail was favoured as a means of transport for waste, but it was not clear from the Issues and Options document, nor from the debate as to how economically viable this was for Wiltshire. Many participants wanted Wiltshire to become self-sufficient in being able to deal with its own waste, not just the region.

2.109 For many the key to reducing the waste problem and maximising the opportunities, centred on minimising the generation of waste and dealing with it at source. This placed the emphasis on re-use and recovery – strategies that it was widely felt went beyond land use planning, but which if not dealt with in the Plan could seriously undermine the achievement of the key objectives of the Plan.

2.110 Participants repeatedly came up with ambitious and innovative suggestions for the planners to consider in preparing the draft Waste Local Plan. These included:

2.112 A number of outstanding issues were raised by participants in the stakeholder seminars which will need to be addressed if the next stage of consultation, on the draft Plan is to generate further informed debate, build on the consensus achieved at this first stage, reduce the number of objections and strengthen emerging partnerships that will be needed to realise the Plan’s objectives.

2.113 Participants found it difficult to judge between one option and another in the document, mainly because of a lack of information. So better information will be needed in the draft plan about:

3.1 The surgeries were run during the afternoons of the Open Days between 3.00pm and 7.30pm, at the same locations as the stakeholder seminars. They were designed to enable members of the public to drop in, look at display material and talk with staff from the waste planning and disposal authorities, the Environment Agency and the waste contractors. Copies of the Key Issues Summary Booklet were made available.

3.2 Despite heavy promotion of these events in the local press, on radio stations, at libraries, and through parish and town councils, public attendance was disappointingly low. It is estimated that attendance by the public at each event was between 10 and 15 individuals.

3.3 Recognising this low turn out and the need to consult with the wider public, the display material and the Key Issues Summary Booklets were put up and distributed in major supermarkets. Further interviews were also given to local papers.

3.4 In addition to the Open Day surgeries and in recognition of the strong concerns expressed at them by certain parish councils affected by the area of search to the south of Salisbury, the planners attended a series of four public meetings: two in Whiteparish, one in Grimstead and one in Landford.

3.5 A further public meeting was offered to Westbury Town Council given the concerns expressed at the stakeholder seminars about incineration, but this was not taken up as the town council had already formalised its response to the Issues and Options document.

3.6 A separate report has been made to elected members about the outcome of these meetings.

4.1 The planners from the waste planning authorities will soon begin preparing the draft Waste Local Plan. Participants in the stakeholder seminars will be looking for evidence that their views, suggestions and concerns have been considered by elected members and officers and have found expression in the draft Waste Local Plan either as policies, additional information, or additional and revised option proposals.

4.2 It is important that, having tried to impress upon people that waste is not just the local authorities’ problem but everyone’s problem, the daft Plan addresses the needs and interests of all stakeholders.

4.3 The stakeholder seminars worked well at diffusing potential conflict, and in generating a sense of ownership, amongst stakeholders for the problems and possible solutions, and at a much earlier, less critical, stage in the planning process.

4.4 A constructive level of debate was achieved and of much greater depth than has been achieved in the traditional style public meetings that have been held by officers and the questionnaire survey in the Key Issues Summary booklet.

4.5 This now needs nurturing by firstly, keeping those who want to be, close to the Plan preparation process, and secondly, by strengthening partnerships capable of tackling the issues in a practical way that began to emerge at the seminars. This type of collaborative, consensus building planning should lead to a greater degree of agreement amongst all stakeholders about the policies and proposals in the Waste Local Plan, and also to collaborative action by stakeholders.

4.6 The collaborative planning approach is supportive of the concepts of sustainable development, modernising local government and ‘Best Value’ such that:

4.7 Collaborative style planning seeks to inform, strengthen and support the normal democratic process, not undermine it.

4.8 The proposed Waste Forum may be a key element in achieving a collaborative style of planning for the next stages of preparing the Waste Local Plan.

4.10 This report and details of the next phase in the Plan preparation process, possibly including some draft terms of reference for the Waste Forum, need to be fed back to all stakeholders (not just those who attended the seminars) for comment.

4.11 Further work now needs to be done by the authorities to design the next stages of the Plan preparation process: who should be invited to participate and over what.

4.13 This type of approach has implications for the role of elected members and that of planning officers. Elected members need to view the process as one which should yield better information on which to base their decisions, and therefore greater confidence in the decisions made. In the case of planners, a shift is required from the approach of decide – announce – defend, to one of managing a process, building consensus on policies, promoting implementation and enforcing compliance.