Agenda item

Report of the Corporate Director of Place Shaping

Members received a report of the Corporate Director of Place Shaping which presented the results of the consultation held in February and March 2011 on the West London Waste Plan (WLWP) Proposed Sites and Policies Consultation Document.  The report introduced the next version of the Plan – the Pre-Submission document – proposed for publication for public consultation in January 2012.

The officer outlined the content of the report and reminded Members that the West London Waste Plan Proposed Sites and Policies Consultation Document had been considered by the Committee on 2 November 2010 and had subsequently been approved by Cabinet for publication for public consultation.  The report outlined the arrangements that had been made to involve the public and key stakeholder in that stage of the consultation and the main concerns that had been raised.  These included the four objections to the proposed Council Depot site in terms of the impact on the residential amenity and access.

The officer advised that the Pre-Submission documents had been amended to take account of the consultation responses, the findings by the consultants in terms of the detailed Site Delivery Assessment, a Sustainability Appraisal and Equalities Impact Assessment.  He reported the main changes to the draft Plan and the timetable for the preparation of the WLWP.

A Member questioned the economies of scale that could be derived from the proposed Plan in terms of recyclables and waste going to landfill, suggesting that a specific site deal with all recyclables or land fill and expressed concern that the report did not address this issue.  The officer advised that there were two elements to this; the Council’s policy and planning functions and the Council’s function as a waste authority.  He advised that the West London Municipal Waste Strategy provided the detail to which the Member referred and was an operational document whilst the West London Waste Plan enabled the allocation of sites and was a policy document.  The distinction was key. Another Member stated that it would be helpful to consider both of the afore-mentioned documents at the same time.

In response to the comments, the officer advised that the West London Waste Authority and the technical group that supported them had been involved in the preparation of the WLWP and did not wish the Council to pre-judge which facilities would be on which site.  The WLWA had received eight bids to divert waste from landfill.  The Council could assess but not be seen to be prejudicial.

A Member questioned whether the facilities could be expanded by the use of Colnbrook rather than building a new facility.  He expressed the view that the Depot was poorly served in terms of road linkages and that it would therefore be sensible to keep the import of waste to a minimum.  He added that the Major Developments Panel had been considering sites for development and that there was a perception that there appeared to be a lack of joined up thinking between this report and the proposals under consideration by that Panel.  The officer responded that consideration was being given to the expansion of Colnbrook and he acknowledged that waste might still need to be treated outside of Harrow.  There was, however, an assumption that waste would also be imported for treatment but this did not necessarily mean a significant increase in the number of road trips that would need to be made.  A new waste facility on the Depot site would enable the Council to modernise the Civic Amenity Site.  In terms of the MDP, the officer added there were policies for the Depot within the Area Action Plan (AAP).

Members made a number of other comments and asked questions as follows:

·                     A Member questioned how white electrical waste would be dealt with. The officer undertook to look into this and to advise the Member accordingly.

·                     A Member sought clarification on paragraph 3.8 of the draft Plan in terms of the source of agricultural waste and its composition.  The officer undertook to establish the position on this aspect of the Plan.

·                     A Member expressed the view that paragraph 7.1.2 of the draft Plan was inadequate as it did not state who was responsible and who would manage this aspect.  The officer took these comments on board.

·                     Inclusion of the timescales setting out when the Plan would be coming ‘on stream’ would be helpful.

The Chair thanked the officer his presentation and responses.

RESOLVED:  That the report be noted and the comments of the Committee be forwarded to Cabinet.