Date:              03 December 2008

Embargo:       None

Report on ESA at the Efra Select Committee Inquiry

The EFRA Select Committee has continued to take evidence on their inquiry into the Waste Strategy 2007.

ESA has now given oral evidence represented by Chairman Richard Skehens, to strengthen ESA’s voice on the need for improvements to planning, Chief Executive Dirk Hazell, and Gill Weeks of ESA’s Regulation Committee and Veolia’s Director of Regulation.

Asked about the likelihood of the targets of Waste Strategy 2007 being met, ESA Chief Executive Dirk Hazell said that whilst England’s 35% household recycling rate of 2007 implied the 2010 target of 40% recycling was likely to be met, delays in the planning system or in funding could jeopardise targets for 2013 and beyond. He went on to argue how all stakeholders would benefit from better quality data, of the type OECD have been seeking, showing the environmentally best way to treat various materials and then decisions could be made also taking economic and social factors into account.

Asked about waste minimisation policies, Mr Hazell stated that ESA did not oppose minimisation but the waste hierarchy was neither a rigid imperative nor an infallible guide to what was best for protection of human health and the environment. Article 4 in the new Waste Framework Directive allowed both diversions from the hierarchy where this was best for the environment and also economic feasibility to be taken into account. ESA was concerned that an official focus on minimisation would not achieve dramatic reductions in waste arisings for some time to come and could further depress the rate at which new infrastructure came on stream to take waste diverted from landfill.

Mr Hazell also argued that the Government’s approach to producer responsibility had generally been too timid.

Asked about how planning could be improved to deliver the waste infrastructure needed, ESA Chairman Richard Skehens outlined five specific recommendations.

First, local authorities must have up to date development plans with provision for the allocation of waste sites: he noted that the Planning Inspectorate had only approved five local authorities’ waste development plans.

Second, he made ESA’s case for extending Permitted Development Rights to the sector.

Third, on dual tracking he stated that the applicant should be free, in common with other IPPC industrial processes, to choose to submit an application for a permit before the application for planning consent.

Fourth, he set out how in practice more force should be given to PPS10.

Finally, he noted why a National Policy Statement for waste management should extend beyond very large facilities.

Answering questions on energy from waste (Efw), Ms Weeks made the case for using enhanced capital allowances to encourage more energy from waste, also stating that the provision of Renewable Obligation Certificates (ROCs) to conventional Efw would also help. In this context, she also observed the helpful role of the rising Landfill Tax.

ESA supported the Environment Agency’s evidence that some Landfill Tax revenue should be spent to tackle environmental crime. It was also noted that far more effort needed to be made in ensuring that SMEs knew they had a duty of care for their waste.

ENDS

For further information on the inquiry visit
http://www.parliament.uk/parliamentary_committees/environment__food_and_rural_affairs/efrawastestrategy.cfm