Ïã¸ÛÁùºÏ²Ê×ÊÁÏͼ¿â

Target: 0% of permissions granted for waste management development contrary to the EA advice on flooding

2020 Performance: 0% (Of the five permissions granted, none were contrary to EA advice on flooding)

Trend: 

• 2019: 0% (Of the nine permissions granted, none were contrary to EA advice on flooding)
• 2018: 0% (The single permission granted was not contrary to EA advice on flooding)

Explanation: No applications were permitted in 2018, 2019 or 2020 for waste management development contrary to EA advice on flooding.

Target: 0% of permissions granted for waste management development contrary to the EA advice on water quality

2020 Performance: 0% (Of the five permissions granted, none were contrary to EA advice on water quality)

Trend:

• 2019: 0% (Of the nine permissions granted, none were contrary to EA advice on water quality)
• 2018: 0% (The single permission granted was not contrary to EA advice on water quality)

Explanation: No applications were permitted in 2018, 2019 or 2020 for waste management development contrary to EA advice on water quality.

Target: 100% of permissions for waste management development to include measures for energy efficiency

2020 Performance: 0% (Of the six permissions granted, none included measures for energy efficiency)

Trend:

• 2019: 0% (Of the nine permissions granted, none included measures for energy efficiency)
• 2018: 0% (The single permissions granted did not include measures for energy efficiency)

Explanation: Although this target has technically been missed, the waste management applications that were permitted in 2018, 2019 or 2020 were not for the types of development that would typically allow for energy efficiency measures. As such, no action is considered necessary.

Target: 100% of relevant permissions for waste management development to include 10% renewable energy

2020 Performance: 100% (1 relevant permission, with 10% renewable energy required by condition)

Trend:

• 2019:100% (1 relevant permission, with 10% renewable energy required by condition)
• 2018: No relevant permissions granted within the 2018 monitoring year

Explanation: Indicator W4 looks at waste permissions with a gross floorspace of >1000m2 and whether they gain at least 10% of their energy supply annually from renewable energy sources (policy WCS11 (d)). The requirement for renewable energy will often be secured through one or more conditions attached to the grant of planning permission. As such, relevant permissions that include such condition(s) are deemed to satisfy indicator W4, even where the planning application itself does not include such provision. 

Target: 100% of permissions for waste management development to include measures for water efficiency

2020 Performance: 0% (Of the five permissions granted, none included measures for water efficiency)

Trend:

• 2019: 11% (Of the nine permissions granted, one included measures for water efficiency)
• 2018:17% (Of the six permissions granted, one included measures for water efficiency)

Explanation: This indicator looks at how water demand has been reduced where possible and how water efficiency has been considered in the design and operation of all new built development (policy WCS11 (b)). Although the headline percentage figures suggest that performance against this target is very poor, this is largely due to the nature of the applications for which permission has been granted. In most cases the type of application does not offer scope for water efficiency measures (for example, the development may include no buildings and may not use water within its operations) or, where there are water efficiency measures, they may be controlled through different regulatory frameworks (such as environmental permitting). 

Target: 100% of permissions for new landfill capacity to include landfill gas recovery systems

2020 Performance: N/A. No permissions were granted for new landfill capacity

Trend:

• 2019: N/A. No permissions were granted for new landfill capacity
• 2018: N/A. No permissions were granted for new landfill capacity

Explanation: Applications for new landfill capacity are rare, and none were permitted within the period of this AMR.

Target: 100% of relevant permissions for new built waste management development to include provision for biodiversity enhancement

2020 Performance: 75% (Out of four applications, three included biodiversity enhancement)

Trend:

• 2019: 100% (Out of two applications, both included biodiversity enhancement)
• 2018: 100% (Out of three applications, all three included biodiversity enhancement)

Explanation: This indicator helps to measure performance against policy WCS 9(c).

Target: No permissions to have an unacceptable adverse impact

2020 Performance: 0% (0 of 5)

Trend:

• 2019: 0% (Of the nine permissions granted, none had unacceptable adverse impacts)
• 2018: 0% (Of the six permissions granted, none had unacceptable adverse impacts)

Explanation: This indicator helps to measure performance against policy WCS 9(b).

Target: No relevant permissions to have an unacceptable adverse change on either AONB

2020 Performance: 0% (Of the five permissions granted, none had unacceptable adverse impacts)

Trend:

• 2019: 0% (Of the nine permissions granted, none had unacceptable adverse impacts)
• 2018: 0% (Of the six permissions granted, none had unacceptable adverse impacts)

Explanation: This indicator helps to measure performance against policy WCS 12(b).

Target: No relevant permissions to have an unacceptable adverse impact

2020 Performance: 0% (Of the five permissions granted, none had an unacceptable adverse impact)

Trend:

• 2019: 0% (Of the nine permissions granted, none had an unacceptable adverse impact)
• 2018: 0% (Of the six permissions granted, none had an unacceptable adverse impact)

Explanation: This indicator helps to measure performance against policy WCS 12(a).

Target: No relevant permissions to have an unacceptable adverse impact

2020 Performance: 0% (Of the five permissions granted, none had an unacceptable adverse impact)

Trend:

• 2019: 0% (Of the nine permissions granted, none had an unacceptable adverse impact)
• 2018: 0% (Of the six permissions granted, none had an unacceptable adverse impact)

Explanation: This indicator helps to measure performance against policy WCS 14.

Target: No relevant permissions granted on greenfield sites

2020 Performance: 0% (Of the five permissions granted, none were on greenfield sites)

Trend:

• 2019: 0% (Of the nine permissions granted, none were on greenfield sites)
• 2018: 0% (Of the six permissions granted, none were on greenfield sites)

Explanation: This indicator helps to measure performance against policy WCS 6.

Target: No unacceptable cumulative impact on the purposes of Green Belt designation

2020 Performance: 0 (1 of 6 applications were in the Green Belt, but no unacceptable cumulative impact)

Trend:

• 2019: 0 (5 of 9 applications were in the Green Belt, but no unacceptable cumulative impact)
• 2018: 0 (1 of 6 applications were in the Green Belt, but no unacceptable cumulative impact)

Explanation: This indicator helps to measure performance against policy WCS 13

Target: 100% of relevant permissions granted in accordance with Highways advice

2020 Performance: 100% (All of the six permissions granted were in accordance with Highways advice)

Trend:

• 2019: 100% (All of the nine permissions granted were in accordance with Highways advice)
• 2018: 100% (All of the six permissions granted were in accordance with Highways advice)

Explanation: This indicator helps to measure performance against policy WCS 8(c)

Target: 100%

2020 Performance: 100% (6 of 6)

Trend: 

• 2019: 100% (9 of 9)
• 2018: 100% (6 of 6)

Explanation: 100% of applications for waste management development determined were within 13 weeks (16 weeks for EIA development), or within an agreed extension of time in 2020.

Target: Increase

2020 Performance: Increase to 83% (5 of 6)

Trend: 

• 2019: Increase to 78% (7 of 9)
• 2018: Decrease to 71% (5 of 7)

Explanation: 83% of waste management applications determined in 2020 had been discussed with Ïã¸ÛÁùºÏ²Ê×ÊÁÏͼ¿â County Council at pre-application stage. This was an increase on the 2019 result when 78% had been discussed at pre-application stage.

Target: Increase

2020 Performance: 39 proposals discussed.

Trend: 

• 2019: 28 proposals discussed
• 2018: 25 proposals discussed

Explanation: 39 waste management proposals discussed with Ïã¸ÛÁùºÏ²Ê×ÊÁÏͼ¿â County Council at pre-application stage in 2020. This was an increase on the 2019 result when 28 waste management proposals were discussed at pre-application stage.

Target: 100%

2020 Performance: 0% (0 of 6)

Trend: 

• 2019: 22% (2 of 9)
• 2018: 17% (1 of 6)

Explanation: No applications approved in 2020 included a consultation statement, therefore this indicator has failed to meet its target. This has been highlighted in previous AMRs, with action taken in the form of the adoption of the Validation Document alongside the Waste Core Strategy as a mechanism intended to support the delivery of this objective. Therefore, it is not considered this is a failure of the Waste Core Strategy which requires modifications to policies to rectify. Therefore, it has been determined that although there is a failure to deliver this objective, no actions are required at this time.

Target: None

2020 Performance: None.

Trend: 

• 2019: None.
• 2018: None.

Explanation: There were no decisions where there were no relevant policies in the development plan, or where policies were absent or out of date, in 2020.

Target: Increase

2020 Performance: Not yet available

Trend: 

• 2019: 1.1% of Ïã¸ÛÁùºÏ²Ê×ÊÁÏͼ¿â GVA.
• 2018: 1.1% of Ïã¸ÛÁùºÏ²Ê×ÊÁÏͼ¿â GVA.

Explanation: Estimated Gross Value Added (GVA) from waste management in Ïã¸ÛÁùºÏ²Ê×ÊÁÏͼ¿â was £152m in 2019, representing 1.1% of total GVA. This is the same proportion as in 2018, but there has been a steady fall since 2015, when the proportion was 3.6%. Due to a revised ONS methodology, the GVA figures are not directly comparable with any figures in previous AMRs.

Target:100% of new 'other recovery' and disposal (excluding landfill) capacity at level 1 and 2 of the geographic hierarchy. 

2020 Performance: 0 of 1 relevant application permitted in level 1 or 2 of the geographic hierarchy.

Trend: 

• 2019: No relevant applications.
• 2018: 0 of 1 relevant application permitted in level 1 or 2 of the geographic hierarchy.

Explanation: In both 2018 and 2020, only one application was permitted for new 'other recovery' or disposal (excluding landfill) facilities in the county. In both these cases, the applications were permitted despite being in level 5 of the geographic hierarchy. For the application in 2018, this was deemed to be acceptable as the application was located on a current waste management site, while in 2020 the application demonstrated a local need for the facility.

Target: 100% of new re-use, recycling, storage, sorting and transfer capacity at level 1 and 2 of the geographic hierarchy. 

2020 Performance: 1 of 2 relevant application permitted in level 1 or 2 of the geographic hierarchy (50%).

Trend: 

• 2019: No relevant applications.
• 2018: 0 of 1 relevant application permitted in level 1 or 2 of the geographic hierarchy.

Explanation: In both 2018, only one application was permitted for new re-use, recycling, storage, sorting and transfer capacity. In this case, the application was permitted despite being in level 5 of the geographic hierarchy due to a demonstrated need for the facility in the application process. In 2020, two applications were permitted for new re-use, recycling, storage, sorting and transfer capacity. One of these was located in level 2 of the hierarchy, however the other was permitted in level 5, this was deemed to be acceptable as the application was temporary