Managing waste
Question MW 1
Do you agree with the suggested policy approach towards managing waste, as set out in MW 1 'Managing waste' above? If not please suggest how it could be amended?
33 comments
| Theme | Summary |
| General agreement with suggested policy approach MW 1 | Multiple respondents explicitly support or agree with the overall suggested policy approach in MW 1, indicating broad endorsement. |
| Protect historic environment, heritage and waterways | Comments emphasise conserving and enhancing the historic environment, safeguarding heritage assets and canal infrastructure, and mitigating vibration, dust, noise, and water quality impacts of waste operations. |
| Recycling centre access, closures and limitations | Concerns that closing or restricting use of recycling centres is counterproductive; increased housing will intensify demand; ease of disposal is vital to deter fly‑tipping. |
| Frodsham household waste site – retain vs. constraints | Mixed views: retain the Frodsham household waste site due to high use, but access is poor, steps to skips are difficult, expansion is opposed; calls for alternative provision and restoration of accepted materials. |
| Emissions monitoring and environmental safeguards | Requests for electric vehicles for waste transport, continuous emissions monitoring, carbon capture for incineration, and strong safeguards for waterways, ecology and structural integrity. |
| Expand household recycling – soft plastics | One respondent suggests extending household recycling to include soft plastics such as bags and films. |
| Additional waste capacity needed due to growth | Another respondent states that new housing growth will require additional or new waste sites to avoid traffic and capacity pressures, e.g., around Winsford and Northwich. |
| Transport, HGV movements and infrastructure impacts | Promote sustainable modes for waste movement; engage National Highways early to assess cumulative HGV impacts; route planning must protect historic canal bridges and avoid congestion and safety risks. |
| Energy recovery, net zero and circular economy | Strengthen policy alignment with zero‑waste and net‑zero goals; safeguard strategic sites (e.g., Lostock Works) for regional waste and low‑carbon energy; encourage co‑location of waste, energy and industry for circular economy clusters. |
| Anaerobic digestion and food waste (from 2026) | One respondent clarifies suitable locations for non‑farm anaerobic digestion in light of simpler recycling and household food waste collections starting April 2026. |
| Education, behaviour change and fly‑tipping | Calls for stronger public education on recycling and littering; easy access to disposal to prevent fly‑tipping; suggestions for more public bins/toilets with growth. |
| Cross‑boundary waste management capacity | One respondent states their interest in continued discussions regarding cross‑boundary waste capacity and cooperation. |
| Industry comments – flexibility and capacity | Another respondent is supportive of a flexible policy noting sufficient waste management capacity per the Waste Needs Assessment 2023. |
| Support for the waste hierarchy | One respondent a ffirms prioritising waste minimisation, re‑use and recycling ahead of disposal in line with the waste hierarchy. |
Question MW 2
The Waste Needs Assessment (2023) identifies that there is sufficient waste management capacity in existing sites and sites with planning permission to meet the projected management requirements up to 2045 (apart from landfill). However, we are not proposing to limit waste management development or prevent future developments due to a lack of ‘need’, as there will be waste flows between authority areas. Any new proposals for waste developments would be assessed on their own merits and against the criteria identified above. Do you agree with this approach? Please provide reasons for your answer.
13 comments
| Theme | Summary |
| General agreement/support for the proposed flexible approach | Most respondents support a flexible approach to future waste management development, agreeing that proposals should be assessed on their merits given cross‑boundary waste movements. |
| Cross‑boundary movements and uncertainty in long‑term needs | One respondent recognises ongoing cross‑boundary waste flows and acknowledges uncertainties in predicting future needs, supporting a reasonable flexible policy stance. |
| Support with conditions – local impacts, community concerns, and evidence requirements | Another responded offers cautious support emphasising that waste proposals must demonstrate local necessity, carbon reduction, and community benefit, noting public concern about Frodsham being a ‘dumping ground’. |
| Market‑driven provision and risks of over/ under capacity | One respondent highlights that recycling and recovery facilities are driven by market forces; over‑provision rarely occurs, and under‑provision risks insufficient capacity for local and neighbouring needs. |
Question MW 3
We do not currently have an operational landfill site within Cheshire West and we are not proposing to allocate a site for landfill. Do you agree with this approach? Please provide reasons for your answer.
11 comments
| Theme | Summary |
| General agreement with not allocating landfill | Most respondents explicitly agree with the approach of not allocating a landfill site, stating support for the council’s direction and noting landfill should be a last resort. |
| Landfill is environmentally unsustainable / negative impacts | Several comments raise concerns that landfill is environmentally damaging, producing odours, affecting wellbeing, and posing risks to habitats, waterways, and local air quality. |
| Policy should include criteria for any future landfill proposals | One respondent notes that although no landfill is allocated, a criteria‑based policy should be available in case applications such as Kinderton Lodge come forward. |
| Support for landfill phase‑out and shift to circular economy | Another respondent advocates for an explicit commitment to phasing out landfill and investing in repair, reuse and recycling infrastructure, aligning with national trends. |
| Traffic, HGV and local environmental risks | One respondent raised concerns includes HGV traffic, leachate, landscape harm, and risks to ancient woodland, highlighting localised environmental sensitivities. |
Question MW 4
It is proposed that at Protos, only existing built waste uses, sites under construction for waste uses and individual plots with extant planning permission for waste uses will be safeguarded for waste use. On the other remaining plots at Protos, waste uses would be acceptable, as would development associated with reducing carbon emissions or sustainable energy generation (as set out in suggested policy approach EP 3 'Origin - Protos' ). This is different to the policy approach in the current Local Plan, which safeguards the whole of Protos for waste uses. Do you agree with this approach?
Please explain your answer
14 comments
| Theme | Summary |
| General agreement with approach | Respondents express clear agreement with suggested policy approach MW 4, highlighting support for safeguarding existing waste uses. |
| Priority for carbon capture and emissions reduction | One respondent emphasises capturing carbon emissions at source as the most effective approach to reducing environmental impacts. |
| Environmental protection and safeguarding | Another respondent stresses the importance of safeguarding and protecting the environment, including habitats and natural assets. |
| Retaining current plan for site / future needs | One respondent prefers retaining the current site plan to ensure available land for unforeseen future needs. |
| Evidence of sufficient capacity (Needs Assessment) | One respondent agrees that the CWaC Needs Assessment 2023 appears to show sufficient waste capacity; therefore suggested policy approach MW 4 is deemed reasonable. |
| Protos site – additional safeguarding requested (Encyclis) | Encyclis supports the approach but requests additional safeguarding for land north of the ERF and mapping of Carbon Capture Utilisation and Storage (CCUS) and Energy Recovery Facility (ERF) sites, emphasising long‑term operational resilience and flexibility. |
| Limit risks to nearby communities | One respondent supports suggested policy approach MW 4 on the basis that it mitigates risks to nearby communities from waste‑related activities. |
| Balanced approach with safeguards (Frodsham, biodiversity, community benefit) | Another respondent broadly agrees but calls for safeguards relating to biodiversity, air quality, cumulative impact, and community benefit frameworks. |
| Need tighter controls on Protos waste | Respondents call for stricter controls on waste‑related activities at Protos. |
| Industry support for flexibility and alignment with suggested policy approach EP 3 | One industry respondent supports a flexible approach recognising sufficient capacity and alignment with sustainable energy and environmental technology uses at Protos. |
Please note: this summary contains content generated by Artificial Intelligence (AI). AI generated content has been reviewed by the author for accuracy and edited/revised where necessary. The author takes individual responsibility for this content.