Consultation outcome

Summary of responses and government response

Updated 27 January 2021

Purpose of the consultation

Under the Waste (England and Wales) Regulations 2011 the Secretary of State must ensure that there are one or more plans containing policies in relation to waste management in England. The Devolved Administrations and Gibraltar are producing separate Waste Management Plans for their geographical territories. The consultation and this summary apply to England only.

The content of the Waste Management Plan (the Plan) is determined by the requirements of regulation 8 of and Schedule 1 to the Waste (England and Wales) Regulations 2011. The Plan provides an analysis of the current waste management situation in England. It is primarily about the quantity of waste there is in England and how that waste is managed. The Plan sets out a summary of current policies, not new policies or announcements. It reflects the policies included in the government’s Resources and Waste Strategy for England, published in 2018.

The Plan is a national plan, produced by a public body, required by legislation and covers waste management. As such, it is within the scope of The Environmental Assessment of Plans and Programmes Regulations 2004. These require the identification, description and evaluation of the likely significant environmental effects of the Plan. The assessment helps identify appropriate measures envisaged to prevent, reduce and where possible offset any significant adverse effects on the environment of implementing the Plan. The Environmental Report contains the findings of the assessment and was issued for public consultation alongside the draft Plan.

Overall, the assessment found the draft Plan would have positive effects across most of the Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) topics considered. This broadly reflects the socio-economic and environmental benefits associated with sustainable waste management and moving waste up the waste management hierarchy. The assessment did identify negative effects associated with the construction and operation of new waste management infrastructure as well as the implementation of new waste collection services. The location of new waste management sites would be addressed through planning policy and their subsequent development, construction and operation would require relevant planning permissions, environmental consents and/or permits.

The consultation documents comprised of:

• the draft revised Waste Management Plan for England
• an Environmental Report - produced as part of the Strategic Environmental Assessment
• the non-technical summary - outlining the main findings of the Environmental Report

The consultation was launched on the 20 August 2020 and ran for eight weeks, closing on 15 October 2020. This document summarises the responses received and how the government will take forward the Plan in light of these responses.

Overview of the respondents

A total of 79 responses were received, 63 of which were submitted via the Citizen Space website and 16 via email. Of those that responded via email, not all directly answered the consultation questions. We have taken on board all responses; however, this accounts for why questions did not receive a 100% response rate.

Of the 79 responses, 28 were from Local Authorities (LAs), 10 from Industry, 12 from Industry or Professional Associations or bodies, 12 from Local Authority Associations or bodies, 7 from individuals and 3 from Environmental Campaign Groups. Seven responses were received from other types of organisations which included: a combined authority mayor, a local neighbourhood community group, a regulator, a group of construction site project managers, an environmental consultancy, a waste management company and a regional authority. No campaign responses were received in response to the consultation. A list of consultees who did not wish to remain anonymous is attached at Annex A.

Number of overall consultation responses by organisation

Organisation	Number of responses
Individuals	7
Local authority	28
Local authority association or body	18
Industry or professional associations or body	12
Industry	10
Environmental campaign groups	2
Other	8

Summary of responses

Key stakeholders in the waste sector and the consultation bodies set out in the SEA regulations and the Waste (England and Wales) Regulations 2011 were contacted directly and informed of the consultation. Anyone with an interest had the opportunity to respond on the Citizen Space website.

Views were sought on three questions:

Question 1. Will the draft Waste Management Plan for England – when combined with the location specific guidance in waste planning policy – meet the requirements of Schedule 1 of the Waste (England and Wales) Regulations 2011? If you answered No to this question, please give your reason.

Question 2. Do you agree with the conclusions of the Environmental Report? Do you have evidence to support your view? If you answered Yes to this question, please provide the evidence that supports your view and state which part or parts of the environmental report it relates to. Please include links to published evidence where relevant.

Question 3. Do you agree or disagree with the following statement: ‘There will be no additional burdens for businesses, consumers and local authorities arising directly from the adoption of the Plan’? If you disagree with the statement, please provide evidence to support your view.

Organisation type	Total	Q1			Q2			Q3
		Yes	No	NA	Yes	No	NA	Agree	Disagree	NA
Local authorities	28	22	2	4	21	3	4	11	13	4
Local authority professional association or body	12	9	1	2	7	3	2	6	4	2
Industry	10	7	1	2	6	2	2	3	5	2
Industry professional association or body	12	4	5	3	5	4	3	5	4	3
Environmental campaign groups	3	0	3	0	1	2	0	1	2	0
Individuals	7	4	3	0	2	5	0	2	5	0
Other	7	3	3	1	3	3	1	2	4	1
Total	79	49	18	12	45	22	12	30	37	12

We are grateful to everyone who took the time to respond and share their views and suggestions. This document highlights the main issues raised but is not an exhaustive commentary on every response received. Our response to this consultation draws on analysis of the consultation responses completed by Defra, an external consultancy and by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG). We have considered all the responses to this consultation and have made changes to the Waste Management Plan where appropriate; some of these changes are set out in our government response below.

We welcome that the majority of respondents agreed that the Plan will meet the legislative requirements set out in the Waste (England and Wales) Regulations 2011 and agree with the conclusions of the Environmental Report. We recognise that many consultees believed that the Plan would impose burdens on local authorities mainly due to the introduction of extended producer responsibility (EPR), a deposit return scheme (DRS) and consistency of recycling collections in England. Changes to the Plan were not made as a result of these comments due to the second round of consultations for the major waste reforms being launched in 2021 where we will invite views on the scope of these policies – we encourage those with an interest to take part.

Q1: Will the draft Waste Management Plan for England – when combined with the local specific guidance in waste planning policy – meet the requirements of Schedule 1 of the Waste (England and Wales) Regulations 2011? If you answered no to this question, please give your reason.

85% of respondents answered this question. Of those that responded:

• 73% answered yes
• 27% answered no

Key themes

Calls for the Plan to be more ambitious and reviewed more frequently

A number of respondents raised concern about the perceived lack of ambition set out in the plan. They stated it was a missed opportunity to link government’s agenda on waste policy to other major government strategies or plans, such as the 2050 net zero target. The Plan was seen as considering waste management in silo, failing to provide a holistic view. Consistently raised was that the Plan should also be reviewed more frequently, rather than the 6-year period currently set out in legislation.

‘A reviewed plan could then evolve beyond the strict legislative requirements and, whilst addressing waste management, could move more clearly to link and align with circular economy, natural capital and carbon emissions reduction policy agendas.’

Government response

The Plan is a high-level document which is non-site specific, providing an analysis of the current waste management situation in England. It is not the intention of the Plan to introduce new policies or to change the landscape of how waste is managed in England. However, we noted comments suggesting the Plan should include links to the government’s net zero target. We have amended the Plan in light of this and set out how the policies in the Plan will contribute to meeting net zero by 2050. Now the UK has left the EU, we have the ability to move away from the legislative requirements of the Plan which set out the scope and content of Waste Management Plans. This may enable the Plan to become broader, including more connections to other government policy and may be reviewed more frequently.

Further clarity required in the Plan on future waste management infrastructure requirements

A number of respondents gave the view that the Plan should provide clarity on future waste management infrastructure needs. This was suggested due to the changes to the composition of waste expected following implementation of the major waste reforms, banning the export of plastic waste to non-OECD countries and the UK’s departure from the EU. Respondents also called for information on the impact of new and emerging technologies on infrastructure planning, such as chemical recycling. One respondent expressed specific concern about future energy from waste (EfW) capacity and carbon impacts, stating that over-capacity could undermine the UK’s recycling targets and hamper efforts to decarbonise the electricity and heat network.

‘A key concern is the inadequate coverage concerning the issues of infrastructure and planning, particularly as outlined in Part 2. There is a clear need for a high-level and strategic assessment of the new infrastructure.’

Government response

The National Planning Policy for Waste requires waste planning authorities to prepare Local Plans which identify sufficient opportunities to meet the identified needs of their areas for the management of waste streams. This includes agreement on a set of priorities for planning for sustainable waste management, recognition of the need for waste management facilities that drive waste up the waste hierarchy and consideration of the extent to which the capacity of existing operational facilities will satisfy any identified need.

The Resources and Waste Strategy recognises the value of waste infrastructure stating, ‘we cannot increase resource efficiency without the right waste infrastructure’. The introduction of the waste reforms, alongside other measures such as the HMT plastic tax should provide a steer to the market as to what infrastructure is required. Defra is currently commissioning research into the methodologies used to predict future waste arisings as well as the environmental impacts of residual waste technologies. These projects will allow government to gain further information on the future waste infrastructure needs for England highlighting those with the best environmental outcome, which could be integrated into the next iteration of the Waste Management Plan or through a separate document.

We will also continue to review future EfW capacity and update our evidence in this area. We want to ensure that EfW does not compete with wider waste prevention, reuse and recycling measures.

Concern that measures in Plan will not be enough to meet recycling targets

Many respondents expressed concern on whether the policies set out in the Plan would enable England to meet the 65% municipal recycling target by 2035 as set out in the Resources and Waste Strategy. Some noted that a barrier to meeting this target was that recycling rates from flats are deemed to be harder to increase due to lack of space for recycling bins.
‘Household recycling rates are generally appreciably lower for blocks of flats than for individual houses. London’s recycling rate could be significantly improved if more policy instruments could be brought to bear on recycling from flats.’

Government response

We want to work closely with LAs to help them improve their recycling, we will be developing a framework of non-binding performance indicators to help us identify which LAs need extra support with recycling. The government are aware of the issues around recycling in flats and want to encourage more recycling to be collected from these buildings, we will be providing guidance on how to achieve this. The Environment Bill will legislate for recycling to be separately collected from all households and this is expected to increase recycling rates.

Calls for the Plan to include guidance on the best option to treat food waste

Some of the respondents stated the Plan lacked information on the necessary infrastructure requirements needed to deal with the increase in food waste collected as a result of the introduction of consistency in recycling collections. There were calls for the Plan to include further clarity around the best treatment option for food waste and for information on environmental outcomes of some specific treatment options.

‘We would welcome further work to be undertaken to demonstrate that Anaerobic Digestion is the best environmental outcome and meets the tests of technical feasibility and economic viability’

Government response

Anaerobic digestion is the preferred option for treating food waste; landfill is always the last resort and there are targets aimed at restricting food and other biodegradable waste sent to landfill. The Plan states that ‘the government continues to support anaerobic digestion (AD) as the most effective way to treat separately collected food waste to produce energy and valuable bio-fertiliser’. Government will be launching the second round of consultations on consistency in recycling in 2021 and plans to publish guidance on treating food waste upon its introduction.

Calls for the Plan to include a section on emergency responses

Some respondents said that in light of the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic, the Plan should include a section on emergency preparedness for the waste sector. They called for consideration to be given to the impact of an increase in material collected from households and the corresponding drop in volumes of waste and recycling from businesses. Respondents also referenced disruption to collection services, the impact on reprocessing and sorting infrastructure and the need for targeted additional support funding.

‘While it is understood that the Plan was prepared before the current pandemic, it is important to have a waste management plan that is resilient to current and future crises and that can provide guidance on how best to proceed under national or international emergency management procedures.’

Government response

Throughout the Coronavirus pandemic the waste management system in England continued to function and contingency plans implemented by local authorities allowed for essential household waste and recycling collections and processes to continue.

Guidance from government was published to help LAs prioritise their waste collection services during the pandemic. This is on gov.uk along with guidance to help LAs manage their Household Waste and Recycling Centres while maintaining social distancing. The guidance is updated to align with other government guidance and regulations on coronavirus. We will continue to provide support and guidance as necessary.

Plan should be linked to the Planning for the Future White Paper

A number of respondents raised the view that the Plan fails to link with the Planning for the Future White Paper, which contains government’s proposals to streamline and modernise the planning system in England. The National Planning Policy on Waste (NPPW) forms part of the planning framework and sets out detailed waste planning policies. The NPPW is proposed for review. Waste planning authorities should read the NPPW and the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) in conjunction with the National Waste Management Plan.

The Resources and Waste Strategy contained a commitment that Defra would work with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to ensure that the NPPW reflects the policies of the Strategy. Respondents were keen to see a review of the NPPW that promotes resource efficiency and the circular economy through location-specific guidance in Local Plans and which ensures the strategic planning of new waste management infrastructure.

‘The Plan references the “Planning for the Future” White Paper government consultation on changes to the planning system, but there is an apparent disconnect between the papers: most notably the Planning for the Future White Paper is silent on waste and minerals planning.’

Government response

The Planning for the Future White Paper has not sought to identify every form of development type but proposes reforming the planning system generally. It covers a package of proposals for reform of the planning system in England, covering plan-making, development management, development contributions, and other related policy proposals. It was open to everyone during its consultation period to make representations on it.

The NPPW is currently planned to be reviewed to reflect the governments Resources and Waste Strategy and the Waste Management Plan for England. Any review will be carried out in the context of the proposed planning reforms as set out in the Planning for the Future White Paper.

Plan shows conflict with the Planning White Paper’s proposal to abolish the duty to co-operate

A further issue associated with waste planning picked up by respondents related to the proposal contained in the Planning White Paper to abolish the Duty to Co-operate. The importance of the duty as a means for strategic cross-boundary waste planning, particularly with regard to the location of waste infrastructure, was raised and concern was expressed about what mechanism would be introduced to replace it.

‘Planning for the Future proposes the abolition of the Duty to Cooperate, a fundamental mechanism for waste planning in London. The Plan discusses the need for waste planning authorities to co-operate on strategic matters without proposing how this might be done in its absence. Clarity is needed on this matter, whether through the Plan or the Planning for the Future proposals.’

Government response

The need for co-operation between local waste planning authorities is recognised and the Planning White Paper acknowledges that further consideration will be given to the way in which strategic cross-boundary issues, such as major infrastructure or strategic sites, can be adequately planned for. This includes the scale at which plans are best prepared in areas with significant strategic challenges. This is a matter that will be addressed in taking any planning reforms forward.

Q2: Do you agree with the conclusions of the Environmental Report? Do you have evidence to support your view? If you answered yes to this question, please provide the evidence that supports your view and state which part or parts of the Environmental Report it refers to.

84% of respondents answered this question. Of those that responded:

• 67% answered yes
• 33% answered no

Overview of responses and issues raised

For the majority of respondents, the Environmental Report provided a comprehensive study of the potential impacts to the environment which may arise as the result of the implementation of the Plan. Support was expressed for the objectives of the draft Plan to move wastes up the waste hierarchy and the positive environmental effects that would result. Consultees generally agreed that the location-specific negative effects could be addressed through relevant planning policies, planning permissions, environmental consents and permits. There was widespread comment and support for the need for careful monitoring of the effects to ensure the environment is not negatively impacted by waste management strategies.

Issues raised in response to the Environmental Report concerned:

• the use of Energy from Waste and the effects on low carbon commitments
• the use of anaerobic digestion and management of food waste and digestate
• the implementation of the Deposit Return Scheme (DRS)
• the implications for rural communities
• the need to take into account the Committee on Climate Change proposed recommendations for recycling

Government response

The government welcomes that the majority of respondents supported the conclusions of the Environmental Report and the objectives of the Plan.

The range of issues raised by respondents relates to the scope, objectives and commitments of the Plan rather than its assessment. For those responses that concerned the use of specific waste management technologies and their environmental effects, such use is considered within the Plan within the context of the waste hierarchy, and the government’s ambitions for maximising the value of resources and minimising waste. Whilst reflecting on the responses, the government continues to support efficient energy recovery from residual waste, consistent with Resources and Waste Strategy drive to improve efficiency and the Clean Growth Strategy ambition to deliver a low carbon future. Committee on Climate Change advice is taken into account in policy development. The Waste (England and Wales) Regulations 2011 already place a legal requirement on all waste holders, operating alongside the wider waste regulatory regime, to manage waste in accordance with the hierarchy in a way that limits its impact on the environment and achieves the best overall environmental outcome. The government considers anaerobic digestion as the most effective way to treat separately collected food waste to produce energy and valuable bio-fertiliser noting the importance of managing the appropriate use of nitrogen-rich digestate.

The government aims to launch the second round of consultations on a DRS for drinks containers in England, Wales and Northern Ireland in 2021 and will continue to engage with industry, other organisations, businesses and stakeholders to progress the proposals. In adopting such schemes, as well as those for the separate collection for waste recyclables, the government remains mindful of the need to take into account effects on all communities, whether rural or urban.

The Environmental Report was produced before the Committee on Climate Change (CCC) recommendations for recycling however, CCC advice is taken into account in policy development.

We welcome the support given to the proposals for monitoring and will continue the development of indicators outlined in the Resources and Waste Strategy for tracking performance against the government’s strategic commitments and ambitions related to resource use, waste production and waste management.

Q3: Do you agree or disagree with the following statement: ‘There will be no additional burdens for business, consumers or local authorities arising directly from the adoption of the Plan’. If you disagree with the statement, please provide evidence to support your view.

87% of respondents answered this question. Of those that responded:

• 45% agreed with the statement
• 55% disagreed with the statement

Key themes

Too early to predict burdens of the Plan

A large number of consultees felt that it was too early to give an informed response to this question due to uncertainties around the final scope of the waste reforms, which are subject to further consultation. Many respondents stated these policies may introduce significant burdens for LAs. Consultees wanted allocation of funds to take account of a range of factors, including local social economic conditions, scope for private long-term investment and existing long-term contractual obligations.

‘In so much as there are no new policy announcements in this plan, there is much detail still needed on the requirements of the Resource and Waste Management Strategy and how they will affect local authority operations and costs. We have been told that additional burdens for local authorities will be funded, but there is no details on these plans as yet.’

Government response

The Plan does not intend to introduce new burdens, but we recognise that the policies set out in the Plan may result in burdens to local authorities, businesses or consumers. We are still consulting on the scope of the major waste reforms and welcome comments in the next round of consultations due to be launched in 2021. The Plan states that we have committed to funding the net costs of new burdens on local authorities arising from new statutory duties introduced to increase consistency in recycling. We will work with local government bodies to develop our assessment of costs. Government’s proposals for the introduction of EPR, in the first instance packaging EPR, will provide local authorities with a new source of income for the collection and management of packaging waste.

A need to ensure producers meet the full net costs of the policies through EPR

Many respondents expressed concern that policies set out in the Plan would place financial burdens on local authorities. Some called for clarification on whether Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) would cover the full net cost of the waste reforms such as a DRS and consistency in recycling. Some responses also stated there was uncertainty in the sector as to whether the costs of transitioning to the new EPR arrangements would be covered by EPR funding.

‘Whilst EPR could see funding flowing into local authorities, we are concerned that the manner in which the UK is looking to interpret “full net cost” will mean that not all local authorities will have appropriate “full net costs” covered.’

Government response

We are currently reviewing the timeline for introduction of an EPR system for packaging; we have provided our initial response to the feedback received on the key proposals set out in the 2019 consultation and indicated where we propose to undertake further work. This work is underway, and we are planning a second consultation on these reforms in 2021.

Introduction of a DRS could impact on LA revenue

Many consultees highlighted that the introduction of an ‘all in’ DRS could remove valuable materials from kerbside recycling collections such as aluminium cans. This would reduce the market desirability for LA collected waste resulting in a corresponding reduction in income for LA’s.

‘An ‘on the go’ style DRS offers a true opportunity to capture materials which currently are not being recycled. A large proportion of the items proposed for inclusion in a DRS collection will be consumed at home where the material can easily be recycled through the kerbside collections. This means current kerbside collections will be cannibalised of certain materials, some of which have a high value, like aluminium cans.’

Government response

The specific details of a DRS, including its scope, will be presented in a second consultation in 2021 and a full new burdens assessment will be carried out once final policy decisions have been taken. New burdens arising from the introduction of DRS, including upfront transition costs and ongoing operational costs will be funded.

Free collection of garden waste would cause a burden to local authorities

Many respondents indicated there would be significant burdens to LAs if free garden waste collections were introduced as outlined in the Plan. This is due to many LAs currently charging to collect garden waste. Removing this would result in a loss of income and the additional direct costs associated with separate collection of garden waste, such as upgrading collection vehicles. Many respondents therefore called for the free collection of garden waste to continue to be at the discretion of each local authority.

‘[we]currently offer garden waste collections for a fee which generates an income and is delivered according to demand..’

Government response

A decision has not been made on whether LAs would have a duty to provide a free minimum service for garden waste collections. This is still under consideration and will be consulted on in the second round of consultations on consistency of recycling collections in 2021. Should this measure be introduced, the government is committed to covering costs to councils regarding new statutory duties.

Concern expressed over costs of food waste collection for local authorities

Many respondents stated the introduction of consistency for food waste collections would be a burden for LAs due to the costs of upgrading collection vehicles, increase in labour and contamination in food waste. However, it was recognised that this policy is due for another round of consultation in which most respondents are intending to provide further comments.

‘there are robust financial reasons why there are still local authorities that do not have a food waste collection service. As with garden waste the mandating of a food waste collection service for all local authorities will have large financial implications.’

Government response

The government has committed to covering the costs of new burdens that would arise as a result of implementing consistency in recycling, including the separate collection of food waste. We welcome views on the implementation of separate food waste collections in the second round of consultations for consistency in recycling which will be launched in 2021. Government will also work with WRAP and local authorities to promote good practice to support separate food waste collections.

Conclusion

Government welcomes the responses received to this consultation. The requirements and objectives of the Waste (England and Wales) Regulations 2011 in relation to the content and scope of Waste Management Plans is set out in the Plan under the chapters entitled ‘Objectives and Scope of the Plan’ and ‘The Waste Management Plan and the objectives of The Waste (England and Wales) Regulations 2011’.

Of those respondents that answered Question 1 of the consultation, 73% agreed that the Plan as drafted met the requirements of the Regulations. Meaning they believed that the Plan comprehensively sets out waste management policies which, taken together, protect the environment and human health by preventing or reducing the generation of waste, the adverse impacts of the generation and management of waste, and by reducing overall impacts of resource use and improving the efficiency of such use.

It is therefore government’s intention to adopt the version of the Plan that was consulted on, subject to some changes. We believe that it will be a useful guide to the waste sector by bringing current waste management policies into one Plan as well as providing information to the public on how waste is currently managed in England.

List of respondents

Below is a list of consultees who responded to this consultation and did not request confidentiality.

• Allerdale Borough Council
• Allerdale Waste Services Ltd
• Anaerobic Digestion and Bioresources
• Association Association for Renewable Energy and Clean Technology (REA)
• Biffa Waste Services Ltd
• Lucy Billen
• Bio-based and Biodegradable Industries Organisation
• BioHiTech and Member of Food Equipment Association (FEA)
• Broadland District Council
• British Glass
• British Pest Control Association
• Cambridgeshire County Council
• Charlie Trousdell Associates Ltd
• Charnwood Borough Council
• Chartered Institution of Wastes Management
• Cumbria Strategic Waste Partnership
• East of England Waste Technical Advisory Body
• East Sussex County Council
• Environmental Concern Group (Wyre Forest)
• Environmental Services Association
• FCC Environment
• Feedback Global
• Friends of Rodwell Trail and Sandsfoot Castle Gardens [FoRT]
• Gosport Borough Council
• Roy Halliwell
• Hampshire County Council
• Professor Stephen Jenkinson
• Kent Resource Partnership
• Labour Group at the London Assembly
• LARAC (The Local Authority Recycling Advisory Committee)
• Tim Lewis
• London Borough of Hounslow
• London Borough of Redbridge
• London Waste Planning Forum
• London Waste and Recycling Board (LWARB)
• Medway Council
• Mineral Products Association
• National Association of Waste Disposal Officers (NAWDO)
• Norfolk County Council
• Northamptonshire Waste Partnership
• North London Waste Authority
• Nuleaf
• Oadby and Wigston Borough Council
• Ørsted A/S
• Oxfordshire County Council
• Oxfordshire Resources and Waste Partnership
• Project Integra
• Deborah Sacks
• Sheffield City Council
• Southampton City Council
• South Norfolk Council
• South Gloucestershire Council
• Stevenage Borough Council
• David Stowe
• SUEZ
• Suffolk Waste Partnership
• The Compost Bag Company Ltd
• The Wood Recyclers’ Association (WRA)
• Think Globally Act Locally Ltd
• Torbay Council
• United Kingdom Without Incineration Network (UKWIN)
• Viridor Limited
• West Sussex County Council