The recent draft National Policy Statement on Renewables refers to energy from waste playing an increasing role in meeting UK energy needs, where in accordance with the waste hierarchy.  It also states that applicants for development consent should assess their proposal's conformity with the waste hierarchy as part of their application.

It is critical that any such "waste hierarchy" overlay is very carefully applied.  We have already seen examples of slavish, unthinking adherence to the waste hierarchy.  Rigid application of the revised hierarchy, without consideration of what is commercially practicable and technically feasible, carries an inherent danger for energy from waste.  It could even have a detrimental effect on how end-of-waste fuels are treated, because of the unfortunately worded new definition of “recycling”.

However, the waste hierarchy is not intended to be applied unthinkingly.  It is explicit in the new Waste Framework Directive (WFD) that Member States must encourage options which deliver the best environmental outcome, and that this may require departure from the hierarchy for specific waste streams.

It is difficult to see how the Infrastructure Planning Commission is in a position to assess the conformity of proposals with the waste hierarchy, when the best environmental outcome is essentially waste stream specific.  Justification for departure from the waste hierarchy is to be based on lifecycle analysis, a highly technical assessment, often subject to debate and scientific argument, and does not, therefore, lend itself to administrative decision-making.

Time will tell, but it is to be hoped that the express terms of the WFD are applied, along with engagement on the technical issues arising, rather than a lazy adherence to the preferred hierarchy.

AUTHOR: Vincent Brown