London Wider Waste Strategy - London - Greater London Authority

More documents

Recommendations

Info

measurement of wastes from construction and demolition activities, and (b) detailed compositional analysis of different types of construction project of relevance to London. R.47 It is recommended that Government should be lobbied to impose financial instruments and/or support other measures, such as demonstration projects and dissemination of best practice, to promote the treatment and reuse – rather than disposal – of contaminated soils from demolition and construction sites. R.48 It is recommended that consideration should be given to the opportunities that exist to improve the gathering of C&D waste management data, including cooperation with trade associations and discussions with the Environment Agency with regard to incorporation into licensing requirements. R.49 It is recommended that the promotion of waste exchanges for C&D waste should not be a priority in London at this point in time. R.50 It is recommended that consideration should be given to how to adopt, or influence Government to adopt, including those measures that have been effective in achieving high recycling rates of C&D waste in other European Member States, such as: • Banning or partial banning landfill of C&D waste. • Requiring separation and re-use/recycling of C&D waste. • Encouraging the use of the Sustainable Construction Code of Practice, and the Demolition Protocol. • Working with the C&D industry and trade associations to establish targets, and methods to encourage separation, re-use and recycling. • Enabling waste planning authorities to require developers to provide a demolition plan with an associated C&D waste management plan before they are given permission to demolish a building or structure, and to attach conditions to planning permissions/building permits to stimulate the use of secondary materials. Recommendations: Hazardous Wastes R.51 It is recommended that caution should be exercised in relation to the number of hazardous wastes landfill sites that it is anticipated will become available in the near future; rather the situation should be monitored during the next few months since the actual number of permitted hazardous waste sites may vary significantly from that predicted. R.52 It is recommended that in response to the prohibition of co-disposal of hazardous and non-hazardous waste urgent consideration is given to the opportunities for on-site treatment of contaminated soils, and the way in which the resultant increased costs of brownfield site development may affect other policy objectives (eg. housing provision, as well as short to medium term commercial development). R.53 In the light of the anticipated significant increase in hazardous waste arisings under the new Hazardous Waste Regulations, it is recommended that a separate investigation is carried out into the likely quantity and type of these ‘new’ hazardous wastes to inform the development of a strategy to improve the degree of London’s self-sufficiency in managing such wastes. 134
R.54 It is strongly recommended that in developing future policy for waste management in London, the time required to plan, authorise and construct new facilities in providing hazardous waste treatment facilities should be taken note of. R.55 It is recommended that urgent consideration should be given to measures to address this situation in the short to medium term. Such measures may include: • An awareness raising campaign for London’s hazardous waste producers, particularly focused on SMEs (refer also to recommendations on C&I wastes). • Supporting contaminated land treatment technologies focusing on assessing and promoting those most appropriate to London. This may include information dissemination, showcasing technologies, assessment of technology used overseas, assessment of the technical requirements for London, set-up of one or more major interim treatment sites within easy reach of London (such as on former landfill sites), and consideration of ways to support development that incorporates on-site treatment methods. • Supporting interim storage solutions for easily handled low volume, packaged hazardous wastes. R.56 Due to the short timescale until transposition of the Hazardous Waste Regulations, it is recommended that developing a strategy for the treatment of London’s hazardous wastes should be accorded a very high priority. R.57 As part of London’s drive towards self-sufficiency in waste management, it is recommended that ways to encourage the development of a hazardous waste processing industry should be explored, particularly for the ‘new’ hazardous wastes that will result from the implementation of the hazardous waste regulations in mid-2005. It is recommended that a strategy is developed to mimimise and prevent illegal waste management activities in London resulting from the advent of the new Hazardous Waste Regulations. R.58 It is recommended that steps are taken to better inform all waste producers - including the large community of SME’s in London - about their statutory responsibilities with respect to ‘controlled waste’ in general, and ‘hazardous waste’ in particular. R.59 It is recommended that a strategy is developed to manage contaminated soil from construction and demolition works in London, as a matter of urgency. 135
Page 1 and 2:
Policy & Partnerships London Wider
Page 3:
CONTENTS 1. Introduction 1 2. Waste
Page 6 and 7:
Chapter 2 summarises the principal
Page 8 and 9:
Key policy proposals in ‘Waste St
Page 10 and 11:
2.8. The national Planning Policy G
Page 12 and 13:
• where waste cannot be dealt wit
Page 14 and 15:
Policies of neighbouring regions 2.
Page 16 and 17:
• A Thematic Strategy on waste re
Page 18 and 19:
2.34. Legislation applying to speci
Page 20 and 21:
addresses eight main environmental
Page 22 and 23:
3.19. The London Regional Technical
Page 24 and 25:
4.3. There then follows a section o
Page 26 and 27:
Table 4.1: Arisings and basic compo
Page 28 and 29:
Table 4.3: Total commercial and ind
Page 30 and 31:
around London but not on the quanti
Page 32 and 33:
Table 4.6: Number and weight of sam
Page 34 and 35:
through a 20mm sieve Total 73 27.4
Page 36 and 37:
handling and transport in London, r
Page 38 and 39:
4.66. Not surprisingly, all of the
Page 40 and 41:
some construction companies had the
Page 42 and 43:
necessary that the waste producers
Page 44 and 45:
4.101. One other potential major in
Page 46 and 47:
SMEs comprise a slightly lower prop
Page 48 and 49:
Drivers for Sustainable Waste Manag
Page 50 and 51:
4.123. Whilst sustainable waste man
Page 52 and 53:
Encouragement of waste minimisation
Page 54 and 55:
companies. There is no service offe
Page 56 and 57:
their companies than the larger com
Page 58 and 59:
such as road construction, it close
Page 60 and 61:
LREs wishing to model the viability
Page 62 and 63:
Table 4.10: Eco-sites established w
Page 64 and 65:
• Support for the development and
Page 66 and 67:
two internationally recognised stan
Page 68 and 69:
London. A phased approach is recomm
Page 70 and 71:
encouraged, and that guidance and/o
Page 72 and 73:
number of employees of perhaps some
Page 74 and 75:
4.230. The NHS provided a detailed
Page 76 and 77:
4.241. For over half of the WCAs th
Page 78 and 79:
5. Construction and Demolition Wast
Page 80 and 81:
5.7. The findings for England and W
Page 82 and 83:
City Limits 5.14. An alternative re
Page 84 and 85:
Figure 5.1: Average total waste ari
Page 86 and 87:
5.23. The hazardous waste component
Page 88 and 89: 5.29. Nevertheless, the data estima
Page 90 and 91: Consultations 5.38. Consultations w
Page 92 and 93: to be so in to the future. However
Page 94 and 95: visit and review specific pages. A
Page 96 and 97: European Literature Review and Cons
Page 99 and 100: 6. Special/Hazardous Waste Introduc
Page 101 and 102: ‘Technical Assessment for Waste M
Page 103 and 104: accurate record of hazardous waste
Page 105 and 106: Figure 6.2: Breakdown of recorded h
Page 107 and 108: wastes to London are the closest, i
Page 109: Figure 6.4: Breakdown of hazardous
Page 112 and 113: 6.47. There are a range of views fr
Page 114 and 115: Table 6.5: In-house landfills which
Page 116 and 117: equirements for the ‘new’ hazar
Page 118 and 119: options to improve treatment, such
Page 120 and 121: 6.80. However, the new hazardous wa
Page 122 and 123: 6.90. The future treatment of asbes
Page 124 and 125: 7.7. London’s total hazardous was
Page 126 and 127: 7.19. There is only limited composi
Page 128 and 129: waste management obligations and be
Page 130 and 131: construction and demolition compani
Page 132 and 133: the precise amount of landfill capa
Page 134 and 135: R.14 In order to more effectively t
Page 136 and 137: R32 It is recommended that a reduct
Page 140 and 141: Future Actions Table 7.1: Summary o
Page 142 and 143: Theme 3: Support for Existing Initi
Page 144 and 145: for contaminated soils within Londo
Page 147 and 148: Appendix A: Waste policy and legisl
Page 149 and 150: • whole used tyres (from 2003);
Page 151 and 152: UK Policy The majority of UK waste
Page 153 and 154: • Requires consents to discharge
Page 155 and 156: • Prohibits certain types of wast
Page 157 and 158: Green Paper on PVC Key Features •
Page 159 and 160: Chris Searles, Searles Associates D
Page 161 and 162: Table C1. Data by Number (from Smal
Page 163 and 164: Appendix D: Results of Further Anal
Page 165 and 166: Total 100 598.8 70.7 423.4 29.8 178
Page 167 and 168: Appendix E: Local Authority C&I Col
Page 169 and 170: All of the respondents said that th
Page 171 and 172: proportion of waste collected from
Page 173 and 174: Finally, the authorities were asked
Page 175 and 176: The authorities were asked how the
Page 177 and 178: All authorities were asked how they
Page 179 and 180: Table E11: Do you expect to meet th
Page 181 and 182: Table E15: What is the situation re
Page 183 and 184: Appendix F: Consultees for Construc
Page 185 and 186: Appendix G: Policy, legislative and
Page 187 and 188: Measure Germany Denmark Belgium The
Page 189 and 190:
Measure Germany Denmark Belgium The
show all

London Wider Waste Strategy - London - Greater London Authority

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?