In waste and recycling operations, there is, more often than not, a strong focus on getting the environmental permit right. However, the most overlooked and critical element of a successful Deposit for Recovery (DfR) scheme is getting the planning permission right from the outset.
We regularly see projects that scream Recovery and have a very sound case for DfR that become delayed, challenged, or, in some cases, rejected (through receipt of the dreaded response from the Environment Agency (EA) to the submitted Waste Recovery Plan: “We do not agree with your assessment that your activity is a recovery operation”), all because of how the development has been framed in planning.
The reality is that planning and permitting for DfR schemes are fundamentally linked. If the planning application and subsequent permission points in any way towards disposal rather than recovery, it can create significant problems further down the line with permitting. And one of the biggest mistakes made is the language used to describe the proposed development and the material required to achieve it.
Terms such as landfill, tipping, and waste are still commonly used in planning applications for schemes that are actually intended to be recovery operations. A planning permission that subsequently mentions these terms will always be scrutinised to determine the intention of the original application.
A DfR scheme is not landfill. The principle of Recovery is that waste is being used as a substitute for non-waste materials to achieve a useful and necessary purpose. That could mean quarry restoration, engineering development platforms, creating acoustic bunds, stabilising land, or improving agricultural land quality.
If a planning application repeatedly references “landfill/waste” or focuses on the importation of waste as opposed to the development that is being applied for, regulators begin to view the scheme as disposal. This can later conflict with the case being made to the EA through a Waste Recovery Plan, where the operator must demonstrate genuine need and beneficial use.
We’ve seen many examples where planning permissions create difficulties because the approved description of development, supporting statement, or committee reports imply Disposal rather than Recovery. Getting the planning right from day one can avoid these issues.
The emphasis in planning should be on the beneficial outcome being achieved. The use of waste is purely the vehicle to facilitate the development. For example, rather than describing a proposal as ‘the importation of inert material to fill a void for the creation of a development platform’, the focus should be on the development objective (in this case, the development platform) being delivered.
Equally important is ensuring consistency across all documents. The planning statement, design drawings, restoration plans, EIA reports and assessments should all use the same language. If one document describes recovery while another references disposal, it could raise unnecessary questions.
In most cases, DfR schemes are sustainable, circular economy projects that reduce reliance on virgin materials while delivering a meaningful land improvement or restoration outcome. But even the clearest Recovery schemes can encounter problems if planning is treated as an afterthought. So before thinking about permitting, get the planning position right. Because the wording and narrative used in planning applications can ultimately determine whether a DfR project succeeds or fails.
For assistance on planning and permitting, get in touch with the MPG team here.
