Creating markets for recycled resources

es at g

Aggre

Promotional Campaign to Local port:

Authorities to increase the specification, Re procurement and use of recycled and secondary aggregates in Highway and Street Maintenance

Project Code: AGG0051 FINAL VERSION 11/05/05

Date of commencement: September 2004 Finish date: April 2005

Written by:

Gilli Hobbs, Katherine Adams – BRE Murray Reid, Mary Treen - TRL

Published by:

The Waste & Resources Action Programme The Old Academy, 21 Horse Fair, Banbury, Oxon OX16 0AH Tel: 01295 819900 Fax: 01295 819911 www.wrap.org.uk WRAP Business Helpline: Freephone: 0808 100 2040

27th May 2005

ISBN: 1-84405-202-8

Prepared by

Katherine Adams, Murray Reid and Name Mary Treen

Position Project team

Approved on behalf of BRE

Signature

Name Gilli Hobbs

Director Centre for Resource Position Management

Date 27th May 2005

BRE Bucknalls Lane Garston Watford WD25 9XX

Tel : 01923 664000 Fax : 01923 664010

Email : [email protected] Website : www.bre.co.uk

1 Promotional Campaign to Local Authorities – Recycled Roads Executive Summary

Over the period January to March, 2005 a series of highly successful interactive workshops was run for local authorities throughout England to help them maximise the use of recycled and secondary aggregates (RSA) in highways and street maintenance.

‘Recycled Roads – Building Knowledge, Engineering Confidence’ was a series of ten events funded by WRAP and managed by BRE and TRL. Almost 500 delegates attended, drawn from over 100 local authorities, their advisors and suppliers and each event in the series generated highly positive feedback and a real appreciation of the opportunities and benefits of using recycled materials.

The workshops focused on three key areas : how to make recycling work; how to use the procurement process to specify more recycled material; and how technical and design specifications are readily available for ‘quick wins’. Each of these themes was covered in an interactive session with delegates able to bring forward their own experience and share best practice. A strong local flavour was provided at each event, with regionally-based speakers providing local case study examples.

Speakers at the events were drawn from leading exponents in highways, recycling and procurement. These included Murray Reid from TRL, Gilli Hobbs and Katherine Adams from BRE, Steve Biczysko from Atkins and David O’Farrell from Capita Symonds. In addition to speaker presentations and workshops, a small exhibition at each event helped to enhance the delivery of knowledge and provide practical examples of recycled products, techniques and applications.

One of the particularly useful outcomes from the workshops was the feedback and injection of ideas from delegates, both during the events and as part of the post-event feedback questionnaire. This has provided a great deal of highly useful information on the opportunities, barriers and requirements for an increased level of recycling for highways maintenance. For example, over two-thirds of questionnaire respondents knew that their organisation had a corporate policy related to sustainability and recycling and delegates reported the need for a stronger link between this type of high level policies and highways maintenance.

Delegates also reported that term contracts are the most popular procurement method, closely followed by partnering. Partnering is highlighted as a major opportunity, giving greater scope for innovation, a focus on quality and providing encouragement for continuous improvement. The use of Key Performance Indicators related to resource efficiency and recycling was also recommended as well as giving a greater weighting to quality over price in tender evaluations as a means of encouraging more recycling.

Over three-quarters of local authorities use the Specification for Highway Works (SHW) and about a third use this with local variations. The impact the SHW has on local authority highways maintenance and increasing recycled content cannot be over-estimated and it may be beneficial to develop the SHW for different classes of roads.

The workshops provided an excellent picture of the current state-of-play in highways recycling. The most popular application for recycled materials is in footways and cyclepaths, followed by bituminous pavements. Typically, County Councils are involved in a wider range of applications than other smaller local authorities. County Council’s in the South East and East Anglia were typically slightly ahead than their counterparts in other regions.

2 Promotional Campaign to Local Authorities – Recycled Roads Smaller local authorities have cited problems including a lack of resources and difficulties in finding suitable sites for storing and processing waste arisings. This suggests there is real need to target these smaller local authorities and address the barriers, as well as to continue to encourage County Councils to continue developing their usage, especially for higher value applications.

It is estimated that around 7% of all local authorities (8.5% in England) require recycling in their highways contracts. Undoubtedly, this series of workshops will contribute to an increase in this figure and help WRAP to reach their target ‘to promote and facilitate the specification, procurement and use of recycled and secondary aggregates such that 20% of local authorities are specifying these materials by 2006’. A number of local authorities who attended one or more events have already reported that they are already implementing reuse and recycling policies as a result of the workshops.

It is anticipated that at least two more ‘Recycled Roads’ events will be held this Autumn. The workshops were very well attended and in many cases were quickly fully booked and generated a waiting list of would-be attendees. This excellent turnout can be attributed to the focused marketing strategy and the support provided by a number of key organisations including Highways Agency, Institution of Civil Engineers, the Civil Engineering Contractors Association, Constructing Excellence, County Surveyors’ Society, Institute of Highways Incorporated Engineers and the Institution of Highways and Transportation.

The ‘Recycled Roads’ brand created by this series of workshops is now well established and in a position whereby WRAP could move forward in a proactive way to provide more information, guidance and assistance to local authorities, their contractors and consultants. This could include undertaking similar events in Scotland and Wales, regular newsletters, email alerts, a question and answer or a forum section on the AggRegain website (www.aggregain.org.uk).

Importantly, a forward programme of similar styled events would maintain momentum, further enhance uptake and develop the opportunities for recycling. Clearly there is a strong interest amongst local authorities and a ready desire for the tools, guidance and techniques to allow them to increase the size and scope of their recycling activities for highways.

3 Promotional Campaign to Local Authorities – Recycled Roads Contents

1. Introduction 5

2. Description of workshops 7

3. Delegate attendance 13

4. Delegate feedback and assessment of current practice 25

5. Conclusions and recommendations 35

Appendix A – Workshop programme 37

Appendix B – Questionnaire sent to delegates 38

Appendix C – Delegate list 41

Appendix D – Combined list of all Local Authorities attending Recycled Roads 53

Appendix E – Figures of Local Authorities attendance by Council type 56

Appendix F – List of attendees and non-attendees for District and Borough Councils 59

Appendix G – Waiting lists 64

Appendix H – Summary of feedback from 10 workshops 68

4 Promotional Campaign to Local Authorities – Recycled Roads 1 Introduction

The aim of the promotional campaign was to provide Local Authorities with sufficient information, practical guidance and motivation to change or improve existing practices for the use of recycled and secondary aggregates in street maintenance. This included those involved in procurement, specification and the use of aggregates in highway and street maintenance.

The objectives of the programme were to:

• Produce an effective campaign programme, including event content and training materials. • Establish a skilled team of expert presenters, for delivery of the campaign. • Identify, target and attract relevant attendees for each regional event. • Produce and implement a marketing campaign for the events. • Deliver ten regional events with a minimum of 30 Local Authority highway and street maintenance staff, their consultants and contractors, per event. • Produce delegate packs incorporating details of the event presentations and appropriate guidance. • Manage ten regional events, including event logistics and delegate registration • Complete a project review and produce a summary report providing an indication of potential changes in awareness, attitude and practice as a result of the promotional campaign, and recommendations for future measurement of changes in behaviour.

This report aims to satisfy the last objective. The workshops entitled ‘Recycled Roads’ were highly successful with over 500 delegates registered, 300 of these from Local Authorities, representing over 100 Local Authorities in the UK. Over three quarters of County Councils were represented and over half of Metropolitan Councils.

Initially the promotional campaign was split into two key parts:

Part A – preparation of the workshop material and provision of other support related to marketing and delivering the programme Part B – marketing and management of the workshops.

However, the two aspects were developed in tandem, as this was the logical way to produce a consistent and well prepared programme of events.

The first part of the programme of work revolved around developing the content for suitably informative and inspirational workshops around England. This also involved identifying and signing up speakers to form the core part of the workshop content, with two regional speakers per event to provide a local flavour to the key messages. Simultaneously, 10 suitable venues were identified and reserved across England to maximise Local Authority participation, including 2 in London. The workshops were branded under the ‘Recycled Roads’ label to give the campaign an easily recognisable identity, which WRAP could continue to use.

It was vital to market the workshops in a targeted way to get a good mix of Local Authority representatives and their contractors. The target was to get between 30 and 50 delegates to each venue. A mini flyer was produced to advertise the forthcoming events and register an initial interest. These were sent to the target list of potential delegates and distributed at other events that potential delegates might be attending.

5 Promotional Campaign to Local Authorities – Recycled Roads Once the programme and venues were finalised, a final programme and invitation to register was sent to the targeted listing of potential delegates and those who had registered an interest in attending. The workshops were also advertised on websites (TRL, BRE, WRAP and others), trade journals and other magazines. In addition, a small amount of exhibition space was made available to suppliers at each venue. Attendance and exhibiting was free of charge. The main flyer was also inserted into the Surveyor. However, this proved partly unnecessary as the workshops had, by that time, attracted sufficient numbers of delegates to proceed.

In addition, a number of key organisations were approached to endorse and market the workshops and enlisted to help in the identification of regional speakers. The organisations were the Civil Engineering Contractors Association (CECA), Constructing Excellence (the Local Government Task Force), County Surveyors’ Society, Highways Agency, Institute of Highway Incorporated Engineers, the Institution of Highways and Transportation and the Institution of Civil Engineers.

A steering group was also set up, led by Jason Russell of the London Borough of Merton. The steering group provided input to the content of the workshops, assisted in obtaining regional speakers and marketed the workshops.

Delegates who attended the workshops were given a branded ‘Recycled Roads’ A4 Ring Binder containing copies of the presentations, briefing papers and a CD containing the presentations. Additional delegate materials were inserted into a branded “Recycled Roads” bag made from cotton from a sustainable source. These included WRAP documents, case studies and useful web links; plus a branded pen and coaster

The workshops relate to two important targets of the WRAP Aggregates Programme:

• to bring about a 10% increase in the use of recycled and secondary aggregates in higher value applications by 2006 • to promote and facilitate the specification, procurement and use of recycled and secondary aggregates such that 20% of Local Authorities are specifying these materials by 2006.

6 Promotional Campaign to Local Authorities – Recycled Roads 2 Description of the workshops

10 workshops were held from January to March 2005. Table 1 below lists the dates and venues of the workshops.

Table 1: Dates and locations of the 10 workshops

Date Venue and Location 21st January Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre, London 26th January Mere Golf and Country Club, Nr Manchester 2nd February Marriott Gosforth Park, Newcastle 3rd February Queens Hotel, Leeds 9th February Marriott City Centre, Bristol 10th February Hilton, Southampton 24th February Renaissance Hotel, Solihull, Nr Birmingham 2nd March Park Plaza Hotel, Nottingham 3rd March The Cambridge Belfry, Cambridge 9th March Savoy Place, London

The programme for the workshops is in Appendix A. It was agreed by the project team and WRAP that the day should be interactive with a mix of presentations and workshops sessions. It was imperative to give clear, consistent messages with regard to the opportunities and benefits of using recycled and secondary aggregates (RSA). In addition, references to work undertaken by WRAP which could guide the attendees were given at every opportunity. It was decided that the workshops should focus on three key areas: how to make recycling work with case studies, how to specify more recycled content through the procurement process, and technical specifications.

Overall, the project team felt that the events ran smoothly and were well organised. Many of the delegates appeared to be on a fact finding mission with regards to recycling and the balance of the overall programme served the delegates well. A stronger message could have been given with regards to composting and the use of non-aggregate products within the highways environment, including highlighting it earlier in the day. More information could also have been included with regards to recycled products availability in that local area. Delegates enjoyed the networking opportunities and exhibitions and for future events, longer breaks and lunches should be considered.

All of the venues met the needs of the events, although the Southampton and London venues were rather small for the audience and Nottingham also had limited space. The IT management was adequate, after a slow start, although the opening animation could have been better. Direct contact between the client and the IT/staging company early on in the process would have been beneficial. Extra signage, to help delegates find their way around the venue more easily, would also have been beneficial at some of the venues.

Content of the workshops All workshops followed the same programme. The presentations are outlined below along with the key messages for each one.

7 Promotional Campaign to Local Authorities – Recycled Roads Welcome and introduction – this was given by a WRAP Aggregates Team Member and focused on the WRAP Aggregates Programme, AggRegain and the objectives for the day.

Recycling in a Local Highway Works (Anything is Possible) – four recent case studies prepared for WRAP were presented by Murray Reid of TRL. These focused on a variety of applications and types of RSA including earthworks, granular fly ash, bituminous and concrete pavements, and in- situ recycling. Main messages from this session included the fact that recycling is more effective when driven by the client, that early contractor involvement encourages innovation, and quality control is essential.

Procurement and specifying recycled content – presented by either Katherine Adams or Gilli Hobbs of BRE. This included key messages from the Big Picture: Specifying recycled in local authority contracts for highway maintenance: good practice, an introduction to the WRAP project on a model approach to procurement practice including best practice, the use of tender and contract clauses (another WRAP publication) and forward planning.

Making Recycling Work in the Local Authority Environment – presented by Steve Biczysko of Atkins who discussed local authority corporate objectives, the difficulties of making recycling work, a strategy for reusable materials, reuse impact potential and a case study from Northamptonshire.

Specifications to Encourage Recycling – David O’Farrell from Capita Symonds presented information relating to specifications and what was currently available, how to describe materials in terms of fitness for purpose and design guidance.

Using Composting in Landscaping Works – presented by a WRAP Composting Team Member or a WRAP Aggregates Team Member focused on the benefits of compost, compost applications, case studies and the benefits of other recycled products including mulch and plastic.

Summary – Steve Biczysko of Atkins provided the summary for the day which incorporated all of the key messages and a strong message of ‘go forth and recycle’.

Regional speakers 2 regional speakers spoke at each workshop for approximately 15 minutes. All of the speakers presented on issues related to recycling in highways maintenance. Table 2 below shows the regional speakers for each workshop. 35% of the speakers were from Local Authorities, the remaining 65% were a combination of suppliers and contractors. The regional speakers were essential to the success of the events in illustrating the practical aspects of recycling, although at some venues it proved difficult in obtaining them. More Local Authorities should be encouraged to speak at similar events as these speakers usually empowered the audience (especially the delegates representing Local Authorities).

8 Promotional Campaign to Local Authorities – Recycled Roads Table 2: List of regional speakers per event

Event Regional Speakers London Jason Russell – London Borough of Merton Garry Warner – London Borough of Bexley Manchester Michael Turley – Colas Gary Cook – Roadstone Recycling Newcastle Michael Turley - Colas David Wilkinson – Durham County Council Leeds Michael Turley – Colas Gary Cook – Roadstone Recycling Bristol Nigel Overall – Gloucestershire County Council Mark Murrin-Earp - RMC Southampton Brian Hicks – Colas David Smith – Foster Yeoman Birmingham Colin Loveday – Tarmac Garry Morris – Wrekin Construction Nottingham Steve Blackburn – Ringway Gary Cook – Roadstone Recycling Cambridge Bob Noakes – Norfolk County Council Derek Oldham – Suffolk County Council London Garry Warner – London Borough of Bexley Marie-Louise ter Beek – London Remade

In addition, 3 interactive workshops were held throughout the day as outlined below:

Workshop 1: Local authority procurement practices The aim of this workshop was firstly, to establish if there is a direct link between having corporate objectives relating to sustainability and actual recycling performance (though there will always be some exceptions). Secondly, by discussing various procurement methods, to make delegates aware of how innovative methods such as partnering and frameworks can favour recycling and create a favourable climate among all stakeholders, leading to greater innovation and better recycling performance. Finally, to enable delegates to look at the practices of their own organisation and decide what they would like to change to encourage greater recycling.

A questionnaire was sent out to delegates prior to the event asking the following questions. The full questionnaire is in Appendix B.

Q1: Does your organisation have any corporate policies relating specifically to recycling or generally to sustainability? Please give brief details.

Q2: What procurement methods do you use for highway and street maintenance (circle one or more from the list below)? Direct tender, term contract, framework, partnering, PFI and other

Q3: Do you require/specify the use of recycled content in the highways and street maintenance procurement methods (as identified above)? If yes, please give brief details

9 Promotional Campaign to Local Authorities – Recycled Roads Q4: Do you have set targets for recycled content in contracts for highway and street maintenance? If yes, please give brief details.

Q5: What specifications do you use for highway and street maintenance? Do they permit the use of recycled materials? Specification for Highway Works, SHW with local variations, HAUC specifications, TRL 386/611, Local Authority adoption specifications

Q 6: Do you regularly use recycled materials or in-situ/ex-situ asphalt recycling techniques in any of the following applications? Footways/cycle paths, structural concrete, concrete pavements, bituminous pavements: surface course and surface dressing, bituminous pavements: base and binder course, haunching, sub base, capping and earthworks.

The results to these questions were then presented and discussed in the first workshop, along with these 3 questions:

• Is there a link between corporate sustainability objectives and higher levels of recycling in practice?

• What are the advantages and disadvantages of different methods of procurement in terms of encouraging recycling?

• What would you like to change in your organisation to encourage greater recycling?

Workshop 2: Procurement options Delegates were asked to answer the following questions for each case study, based on their own experience and group discussions for each case study.

• Do you agree that this is good practice?

• If not, what would you recommend?

• Can you use this within your own environment, if not, why not?

Case Study 1: Incentivisation and reward of a contractor under an existing non- partnering type contract • Set up a partnership way of working with own Board and cost centre • Share out the profit, with the local authority getting the biggest percentage, all profit put back into highways maintenance • All works designed using a standard schedule of works based on traditional rates and specifications, if cheaper the partnership will get a profit. • Set up a working party (brief from the Board) to come up with a policy to use as much recycled material as possible - therefore recycled materials are looked at as the first option.

Case Study 2: Key Performance Indicators (KPI’s) usage within a contract • % by mass of recycled and secondary material in un-bound aggregates used for all sub-base and capping works • % by mass of recycled and secondary materials in bituminous bound aggregates in all footway and pavement works

10 Promotional Campaign to Local Authorities – Recycled Roads • % by mass of all bituminous bound aggregate derived from recycled glass of domestic origin • % of heavy vehicles taking backhaulage to or from the site • % of all aggregates (including recycled and secondary) sourced within a 50km radius of the site • % all arisings from the construction works (including wastage, excavated material, planings, etc) which is not disposed of to landfill or incineration • % energy savings in material production and/or usage compared with conventional alternatives

Case Study 3: Criteria for tender evaluation Returned tenders assessed against a quality/cost model

Criterion Indicative Weight (%) Cost 60 Managerial experience of key personnel 5 Method statements 5 Quality assurance plan 5 Programme 5 Heath and safety planning 5 Sustainability policy 5 Sustainability questionnaire 5 Recycled and secondary aggregate usage 5

Total 100

The aim of this workshop was to produce examples of good practice of specifying recycled and secondary aggregates within the procurement process, share best practice and understand any requirements and limitations.

Workshop 3: Specifications to encourage recycling Delegates at each table were asked discuss the following two examples of situations that are commonly faced by Local Authority Highway Engineers in urban and rural situations and consider ways to maximise recycling.

Example 1 It is proposed to reconstruct a 300 metre length of a principal road in an urban area.

The existing construction has been investigated by coring and was found to be a variable thickness of asphalt (150mm – 250mm) overlying a granular material. In-situ DCP testing indicates that this granular material would meet the performance requirements for a class 2 foundation. The new structure will be designed for a life of 20msa.

A footway with paving slabs (flagstones) runs along both sides of the road. Many of the flagstones are cracked or broken and sections of the footway are uneven. The decision has been made to renovate the footway.

What options are there to use recycled materials in this scheme and how would you specify them?

• for the carriageway

11 Promotional Campaign to Local Authorities – Recycled Roads • for the footway

Example 2 It is proposed to construct some cycle tracks and a car parking area in a large Country Park. Some areas of the car park and some of the adjoining paths are required to be suitable for wheelchair users. Some of the cycle tracks will be constructed on top of a disused railway embankment and the remainder will be in “greenfield” conditions following the existing ground profile.

What options are there to use recycled materials in this scheme and how would you specify them?

• for the parking and wheelchair accessible areas

• for the cycle tracks

The aim of the workshop was to give delegates a chance to use their experience and imagination to use recycling in two situations, one urban and one rural.

The overall messages and results from each workshop were recorded and sent to all of the delegates. Key messages from Workshops 1 and to a lesser extent, Workshop 2 are discussed in the delegate feedback part of this report.

The workshops sessions worked sufficiently well, although there was a lack of time in these sessions to cover all of the material and workshops 1 and 2 could have been more structured. They did however, encourage the opportunity for transferring knowledge between organisations and networking. It could also be difficult to get contributions from all delegates, especially those doing little recycling currently.

Each table had around 40 minutes of discussion per workshop, followed by a 10 minute opportunity to offer main points in a rounding up session. The notes from each table and round up were later typed up and emailed out to the delegates.

12 Promotional Campaign to Local Authorities – Recycled Roads 3 Delegate attendance

The total number of registered delegates for all 10 events was 553 with 478 attending. This averages 55 delegates registered per event. Of these 553, 291 were from Local Authorities representing an overall 53%. If those delegates attending from public / private partnerships are included, the figure rises to 310 delegates or 56% of the total audience.

A total of 102 Local Authorities attended the workshops (including regional speakers). Of these 89 were English Local Authorities, 8 were Welsh Local Authorities, 4 were Scottish Local Authorities and 1 from the Isle of Man. Table 3 shows the Local Authorities per event, and Appendix C has a combined list for all 10 events.

Table 3: Listing of Local Authorities attending at each event

Event Local Authority Attendance London, January • Brighton and Hove City Council • East Sussex County Council • Greenwich Council • Hackney Council • Hertfordshire County Council • Leicester City Council • London Borough of Camden • London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham • London Borough of Hillingdon • London Borough of Newham • London Borough of Tower Hamlets • Surrey County Council • West Sussex County Council • London Borough of Bexley • London Borough of Merton

Manchester • Blackburn with Darwen Borough Council • Blackpool Council • Bury Metropolitan Borough Council • Cheshire County Council • Flintshire County Council • Gwynedd Council Consultancy • Halton Borough Council • Isle of Man Government • Kirklees Metropolitan Council • Lancaster City Council • Manchester City Council • Metropolitan Borough of Wirral • Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council • Salford City Council • Sefton Council • St Helens Council

13 Promotional Campaign to Local Authorities – Recycled Roads • Staffordshire County Council • Warrington Borough Council • Wigan Council

Newcastle • Durham County Council • Northumberland County Council • Perth & Kinross Council • West Lothian Council • Sedgefield Borough Council • South Lanarkshire Council • Newcastle City Council • Blyth Valley Borough Council • Gateshead Council • North Yorkshire County Council

Leeds • York Engineering Consultancy • Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council • Rotherham Borough Council • Leeds City Council • Wakefield Metropolitan District Council • North Yorkshire County Council • Middlesbrough Council • Durham County Council • Scottish Borders Council • Cheshire County Council • Manchester City Council • Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council • Burnley Borough Council

Bristol • Cornwall County Council • Devon County Council • Gloucestershire County Council • Somerset County Council • South Hams Council • Bath and North East Somerset Council • Swindon Borough Council • Caerphilly County Borough Council • Neath Port Talbot County Borough Council • Torfaen County Borough Council • Vale of Glamorgan Council • Monmouthshire County Council

Southampton • Dorset County Council • Hampshire County Council • West Sussex County Council • Brighton and Hove City Council • Guildford Borough Council • Arun District Council • Worthing Borough Council • Surrey Highways Partnership • Colas (for Portsmouth City Council?)

14 Promotional Campaign to Local Authorities – Recycled Roads

Birmingham • Warwickshire County Council • Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council • Worcester Highways Partnership • Borough of Telford & Wrekin • Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council • Oxfordshire County Council • Walsall Council • Birmingham City Council

Nottingham • Leicester City Council • North Lincolnshire Council • Staffordshire County Council • Nottinghamshire County Council • Derby City Council • Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council • Broxstowe Borough Council • Northamptonshire County Council • Shropshire County Council • Rugby Borough Council

Cambridge • Norfolk County Council • Suffolk Highways Partnership • Essex County Council • Cambridge City Council • Cambridgeshire County Council • Buckinghamshire County Council • London Borough of Tower Hamlets • Leicestershire Highways

London, March • London Borough of Islington • London Borough of Tower Hamlets • London Borough of Hackney • London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham • London Borough of Camden • Westminster City Council • Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames • Croydon Council • Brentwood Borough Council • Brighton and Hove City Council • Hampshire County Council • Surrey County Council • West Berkshire Council • Isle of Anglesey County Council • Dundee City Council

Figure 1 shows the distribution of Local Authorities which attended the events throughout England, a total of 89. There is a good overall coverage throughout England.

15 Promotional Campaign to Local Authorities – Recycled Roads

Figure 1: Distribution of Local Authorities attending the workshops in England

Figure 2 shows the distribution of London Boroughs who attended the events. Overall the coverage is relatively poor, especially considering 2 events were held in London. 13 London Boroughs attended the workshops out of 33, representing 39%. It is recommended that WRAP target the remaining London Borough’s and Transport for London.

Figure 3 shows the distribution of Scottish Local Authorities who attended the workshops. Although the workshops were targeted and held in England, 4 did attend. A series of similar roadshows (possibly 2) could be held in Scotland with support from the Scottish Executive and SEPA. The content of the workshops would have to be altered to reflect the issues and concerns pertinent to Scotland. Similarly, Figure 4 shows the distribution of Welsh Local Authorities who attended the workshops, with a total of 8. Again, it is recommended that at least one workshop could be held in Wales, supported by the Welsh Assembly Government. The workshop content should be altered to reflect issues pertinent to Wales.

16 Promotional Campaign to Local Authorities – Recycled Roads Figure 2: Distribution of Local Authorities attending the workshops from London

Figure 3: Distribution of Scottish Local Authorities attending the workshops

17 Promotional Campaign to Local Authorities – Recycled Roads

Figure 4: Distribution of Welsh Local Authorities attending the workshops

The Local Authorities attending have been analysed in terms of their type i.e. County Council, Unitary Council, Metropolitan Council, City Council, London Metropolitan Council and Borough and District Council. This is because the functions of the types of Local Authorities in terms of highways maintenance varies dependant upon their type and role. County, Unitary and Metropolitan Councils will usually be responsible for the highways within their area, these will be principal, non-principal and unclassified roads. The Highways Agency is responsible for the motorway and trunk road network. In London, Transport for London is responsible for the red routes and the London Boroughs manage the rest of the road network. City, Borough and District Councils may be contracted to manage the road network for their areas by the County Council’s.

A list is provided for each type of local authority who did attend the workshops and those who did not, including the percentage for the category. This will enable WRAP to target each type of local authority in terms of specifying more recycled content and those who did not attend the workshops. Appendix D has a number of figures displaying the geographical distribution of the Local Authorities by type.

Table 4: Percentage of local authority attendees by local authority type

Local Authority Type Percentage County Council 76% London Borough 39% Unitary 29% Metropolitan 58% City 12% Borough/District 5%

18 Promotional Campaign to Local Authorities – Recycled Roads

76% of County Councils attended the events, totalling 26 out of a possible 34. In addition, a further 3 County Councils were on the waiting list (denoted in italics), as shown by Table 5.

Table 5: Attendees and non-attendees for County Councils

Attendees Non-attendees Buckinghamshire County Council Bedfordshire County Council Cambridgeshire County Council Cumbria County Council Cheshire County Council Derbyshire County Council Cornwall County Council Kent County Council Devon County Council Lancashire County Council Dorset County Council Leicestershire County Council Durham County Council Lincolnshire County Council East Sussex County Council Wiltshire County Council Essex County Council Gloucestershire County Council Hampshire County Council Hertfordshire County Council Norfolk County Council North Yorkshire County Council Northamptonshire County Council Northumberland County Council Nottinghamshire County Council Oxfordshire County Council Shropshire County Council Somerset County Council Staffordshire County Council Suffolk Highways Partnership Surrey County Council Warwickshire County Council West Sussex County Council Worcester Highways Partnership Total: 26 Total: 8

For London Boroughs, 39% attended the events, equating to 13 out of 33, with a further 2 on the waiting list (Table 6)

19 Promotional Campaign to Local Authorities – Recycled Roads Table 6: Attendees and non-attendees for London Borough Councils

Attendees Non-attendees

Bexley Council Corporation of the City of London London Borough of Barking of & Croydon Council Dagenham Greenwich Council London Borough of Barnet London Borough of Camden London Borough of Brent London Borough of Hackney London Borough of Bromley London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham London Borough of Ealing London Borough of Hillingdon London Borough of Enfield London Borough of Islington London Borough of Haringey London Borough of Merton London Borough of Harrow London Borough of Newham London Borough of Havering London Borough of Tower Hamlets London Borough of Hounslow Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames London Borough of Lambeth

Westminster City Council London Borough of Lewisham

London Borough of Redbridge London Borough of Richmond upon Thames

London Borough of Southwark London Borough of Sutton

London Borough of Walton Forest

London Borough of Wandsworth Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea Total: 13 Total: 20

For Unitary Councils, 29% attended, 13 out of a possible 47, with a further 3 on the waiting list. This represents one of the lowest percentages and therefore it is recommended that more attention is focused on getting these to appropriate events in the future.

20 Promotional Campaign to Local Authorities – Recycled Roads Table 7: Attendees and non-attendees for Unitary Councils

Attendees Non-attendees Bath and North East Somerset Council Bournemouth Borough Council Blackburn with Darwen Borough Council Bracknell Forest Borough Council Blackpool Council Bristol City Council Borough of Telford & Wrekin Darlington Borough Council Brighton and Hove City Council East Riding of Yorkshire Council Derby City Council Harlepool Council Halton Borough Council Herefordshire Council Leicester City Council Isle of Wigh Council Middlesbrough Council Kingston upon Hull City Council North Lincolnshire Council Luton Borough Council Swindon Borough Council Medway Council Warrington Borough Council Milton Keynes Borough Council West Berkshire Council North East Lincolnshire Council North Somerset Council Nottingham City Council Peterborough Council Plymouth City Council Poole Borough Council Portsmouth City Council Reading Borough Council Redcar & Cleveland Borough Council Rutland County Council Slough Borough Council South Gloucestershire Council South Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council Southampton Council Southend on Sea Borough Council Stockton on Tees Borough Council Stoke on Trent City of Thurrock Council Torbay Borough Council Windsor & Maidenhead Royal Borough Council Wokingham District Council York City Council Total: 13 Total: 34

For Metropolitan Councils, 58% attended the events of these did attend the events (19 out of a possible 33). In addition , another 5 were on the waiting list totalling 72% of metropolitan councils, as shown by Table 8.

21 Promotional Campaign to Local Authorities – Recycled Roads Table 8: Attendees and non-attendees for Metropolitan Councils

Attendees Non-attendees Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council Council Birmingham City Council Bradford, City of Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Bury Metropolitan Borough Council Council Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council Coventry City Council Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Gateshead Council Council Kirklees Metropolitan Council Liverpool City Council Oldham Metropolitan Borough Leeds City Council Council Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Manchester City Council Council Metropolitan Borough of Wirral Sheffield City Council Stockport Metropolitan Borough Newcastle City Council Council Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council Sunderland City Council Tamside Metropolitan Borough Salford City Council Council Trafford Metropolitan Borough Sefton Council Council Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council Wolverhampton City Council St Helens Council Wakefield Metropolitan District Council Walsall Council Wigan Council Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council Total: 19 Total: 14

For City Councils, 2 out of a possible 17 attended the events, representing 12%, no City Councils were on the waiting lists (Table 9). It is unknown how may of these Local Authorities actually undertake highway maintenance activities.

22 Promotional Campaign to Local Authorities – Recycled Roads Table 9: Attendees and non-attendees for City Councils

Attendees Non-attendees Cambridge City Council Canterbury City Council Lancaster City Council Carlisle City Council Chester City Council Chichester City Council City of Ely Council Durham City Council Exeter City Council Gloucester City Council Lichfield City Council Lincoln City Council Norwich City Council Oxford City Council Wells City Council Winchester City Council Worcester City Council Total: 2 Total: 15

For District and Borough Councils, 11 out of a possible 232 attended these events, representing 5%, with a further 2 on the waiting list. Similarly, it is unknown how may of these Local Authorities actually undertake highway maintenance activities. A combined list for Borough and District Councils attendees and non-attendees is in Appendix F.

23 Promotional Campaign to Local Authorities – Recycled Roads Waiting lists There was a waiting list for each event with 172 would-be attendees and of these, 67 were from Local Authorities

Table 10: Waiting lists for Local Authorities (that did not have delegates attending the events)

County Leicestershire County Council Lincolnshire County Council Derbyshire County Council Unitary Bournemouth Borough Council Nottingham City Council Stockton on Tees Borough Council Borough/District Bedford Borough Council Huntingdon District Council Metropolitan Caldedale Metropolitan Borough Council Coventry City Council Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council Sheffield City Council Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council London Borough London Borough of Enfield London Borough of Hounslow Northern Ireland Dept for Regional Development Roads Service Wales Carmarthenshire County Council

Figure 5: Distribution of Local Authorities on the waiting list

24 Promotional Campaign to Local Authorities – Recycled Roads 4 Delegate feedback and assessment of current practice

This section presents delegate feedback from the workshops and from the feedback form. From this information an assessment of current practice is made. The questionnaire sent out for workshop 1 had a return rate of about 25%.

Workshop 1 For the first question for workshop 1, does your organisation have any corporate policies relating specifically to recycling or generally to sustainability, 105 respondents answered yes (66%), 21 answered no (13%) and the remaining 33 didn’t know (21%). A total of 159 forms were received out of a possible 583, the response rate being 27%. Encouragingly two-thirds did know that they had a corporate policy for sustainability, but perhaps better communication is required in organisations which didn’t know.

When Local Authorities (including public/private partnerships) in England only were considered, the patterns were very similar to the overall result, though the number of responses (77) was less than half the total received. 71% of LA respondents answered yes, 8% answered no and the remainder (21%) didn’t know.

For question 2, what procurement methods do you use for highway and street maintenance, 65% of respondents (148 in total) both use term contract and direct tender. Nearly a quarter (24%) use framework contracts, 51% are in some form of partnering arrangement and 11% in a PFI style contracts. The categories are not mutually exclusive, with most organisations being involved in a variety of contractual arrangements. For Local Authorities in England only there were some significant differences. The proportion involved in term contracts and partnering was similar to the overall survey, at 65% and 55% respectively. However, the number of Local Authorities involved in direct tenders (43%), frameworks (13%) and PFI contracts (6%) was significantly lower than for the respondents as a whole.

Encouragingly it seems that more Local Authorities are working towards partnering types of procurement, which usually allows more innovation, focus on quality and encouragement for continuous improvement, including the scope of using RSA. Partnering was used by Local Authorities in all parts of England, but only at the Cambridge event was it the most popular form of contractual arrangement. The breakdown of contractual arrangements for all Local Authority respondents in England (77) is shown on Figure 6.

25 Promotional Campaign to Local Authorities – Recycled Roads Figure 6: Type of procurement used by Local Authorities in England based on delegates answers

70

60

50

40

(%)

30

20

10

0 Direct tender Term contract Framework Partnering PFI Other Method of procurement

Assessment of current practice Question 3 related to the requirement/specification of the use of recycled content in the highways and street maintenance procurement methods. The response was 41% did require this, 46% didn’t and the remaining 13% did not know. This is an important question as it relates to the WRAP target of 20% of all Local Authorities specifying recycled content in local authority highways maintenance. In hindsight, it seems that the question was too loosely worded and the term ‘require/specify’ could be misconstrued. Therefore, for 6 of the 10 workshops, a straw poll was carried out to determine the current baseline figure. By doing this, the Local Authorities who had not completed their questionnaire could also be counted

The number of Local Authorities who did say they required recycling in their contracts for highways maintenance was 15 (14 English and 1 Welsh). For Local Authorities in England this represents 15% of all Local Authorities that attended the event (14 out of 91). The Local Authorities are:

• Cornwall County Council • Devon County Council • Gloucestershire County Council • Monmouthshire County Council • Dorset County Council • Hampshire County Council • Staffordshire County Council • Nottinghamshire County Council • Broxstowe Borough Council • Northamptonshire County Council

26 Promotional Campaign to Local Authorities – Recycled Roads • Essex County Council • Cambridgeshire County Council • London Borough of Islington • London Borough of Merton • Bexley Council

These do not include the first four workshops in London (January), Manchester, Newcastle and Leeds. Indications from these workshops were that relatively few Local Authorities had a requirement for recycling.

A number of other Local Authorities are also known to require recycling for their contracts1, including:

• Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council • Norfolk County Council • Surrey County Council • Lincolnshire County Council • Cheshire County Council • Kent County Council • Oxfordshire County Council • Nottingham City Council • Manchester City Council

This makes a total of 24 Local Authorities (23 in England), as shown by Figure 7. Keystroke Knowledge Ltd2, who have datasets relating to Local Authorities activities, believe there are 333 highway clients in the UK, with 270 of these in England. There are also 201 DLOs in the England, although this figure will overlap with the clients. Therefore using these figures for highway clients, set against known Local Authorities who require recycling in their contracts, 8.5% of English Local Authorities currently require recycling in their highways maintenance contracts. For the UK, the figure is 7.2%. This is recommended as the baseline for WRAP to use for measuring progress towards their target. It would be useful to obtain a complete listing of highways clients and tailor this to the work carried out by the various types of Local Authorities. This should form the basis of monitoring towards the WRAP target and short email questionnaires and telephone surveys should be carried out on a 6 month basis under the Recycled Roads banner to gather up-to-date information.

It is recommended that the above mentioned Local Authorities are interviewed to discuss how they actually require recycled content within their contracts, if not already known.

For question 4, which asked if any targets had been set for recycled content in contracts for highways and street maintenance, 34% (49 respondents) did set targets, 45% (64 respondents) did not, and a further 21% didn’t know. It would be useful, from these respondents to know what types of targets they actually set, if they are being achieved, and what are the incentives or dis- incentives for achieving them.

1 From research work undertaken for the WRAP Procurement programme 2 This information is purchasable, varying on the license type. It costs £220 for 1000 names and a £10 administration fee. The contact person is Peter Ennor of Keystone Knowledge Ltd on 01665 608100.

27 Promotional Campaign to Local Authorities – Recycled Roads Figure 7: Local Authorities that currently require recycling in their highways maintenance contracts

Question 5, asked what specifications were used for highway and street maintenance and the results for Local Authorities in England are shown in Figure 8. 77% (59 respondents) use the Specification for Highway Works (SHW), and 36% use this with local variations, 43% use the HAUC specification, 12% use TRL 386/611 and 38% use local authority adoption specifications. The pattern was very similar for the respondents as a whole. The categories are not exclusive, with most respondents using several specifications. Therefore the SHW has an enormous impact on local authority highways maintenance and increasing recycled content. It may be appropriate to investigate the level and type of local variations and having a SHW which is suitable for different classes of roads.

28 Promotional Campaign to Local Authorities – Recycled Roads

Figure 8: Types of specification used by Local Authorities in England based on delegates answers

90

80

70

60

50 (%) 40

30

20

10

0 Specification for Highway SHW with local variations HAUC specifications TRL 386/611 Local authority adoption Works specifications Specification

Question 6 focused on the use recycled materials or in-situ/ex-sit asphalt recycling techniques in a variety of applications, as shown for Local Authorities in England by Figure 9. Footways and cycle paths were the most popular with 75% using recycled materials, followed by bituminous pavements: base and binder at 70% and sub-base at 66%. Recycled materials were used in earthworks by 39% of the respondents and capping by over half (55%). 43% used recycled materials in haunching and 34% in the surface course of bituminous pavements. Amounts used in pavement concrete and structural concrete were much lower at 6% and 4% respectively. The figures were very similar for the respondents as a whole. The popularity of footways and cycle paths may be explained by the fact that they are an easy, low-risk way to try new methods and materials. However, most respondents use a number of applications, as shown by the high proportion using RSA in bituminous base and binder course and sub-base.

These figures are important as they give WRAP an idea of how recycled materials are used and the value of their application, relating to a WRAP target of increasing the use of recycled materials in higher value applications – encouragingly 34% are using recycled materials for bituminous pavements – surface course and dressing. The questionnaire asked for details of the amount of RSA used, but very few respondents provided any information on this topic. Some of the non-Local Authorities respondents gave the total tonnage of RSA handled by their organisations, but not specific details at the level of individual Local Authorities. It is thus not clear whether the usage is restricted to a few demonstration projects or is standard practice.

A total of 43 Local Authorities in England stated that they used RSA in one or more of the applications listed on Question 6. A full breakdown of results is shown on Figure 10. The Local Authorities are listed in geographical rather than alphabetical order, starting in London, working through the south of England into the Midlands and finally the North West and North East. The

29 Promotional Campaign to Local Authorities – Recycled Roads main distinction, however, is between County Councils and the other, smaller authorities, with the County Councils being involved in a wider range of applications.

Figure 9: Applications using recycled materials based on delegates answers for Local Authorities in England

Other

Footways/ Cycle paths

Structural concrete

Concrete pavements

Bituminous pavementsSurface course and surface dressing

Bituminous pavements:Base and binder course

Haunching

Sub base

Capping

Earthworks

0 1020304050607080 (%)

Within the County Councils there is a geographic trend, with the greatest number of applications used by councils in the South East and East Anglia, with the Midlands and South West slightly behind in number of applications but with many councils using them. The top local authority in terms of number of applications is Surrey County Council with 9, with Hampshire, Essex and Norfolk all on 8. In the North West and North East the number of county councils responding to the questionnaire is less, but the Local Authority structure is complicated in this area with a number of sizeable Metropolitan Boroughs, many of whom presumably have responsibility for roads in their areas. These councils tend to use much fewer applications of RSA. In London there is a similar pattern, with a poor response rate to the questionnaire and the councils that did respond only using a few, generally relatively low value applications. In discussions during the workshops, these smaller councils were more likely to cite problems of lack of resources and difficulty in finding suitable sites for storing and processing arisings than the County Councils. Clearly there is a need to target these smaller Local Authorities and address the problems that they face as well as encouraging the County Councils to continue developing their use of RSA.

30 Promotional Campaign to Local Authorities – Recycled Roads Figure 10. Applications of RSA used by Local Authorities in England from responses to delegate questionnaire

31 Promotional Campaign to Local Authorities – Recycled Roads Workshop 2 Workshop 2 focused on procurement options and presented three case studies with 3 questions asked: is this good practice?, if not what would you recommend?, and can you use this within your environment, if not, why not?. The first case study looked at a partnering approach, whereby recycling is driven as a quality issue and the contractor is incentivised as any profit is put back into the highways providing opportunities for more maintenance work to be undertaken. General feedback was that partnering was seen as the best way to encourage innovation and recycling and that the pain/gain element encourages involvement. For this system to work it would require a good working relationship between the client and contractor based on trust and open book accounting. Encouragingly the majority of Local Authorities believed this system could work in their environment, with a number already doing so e.g. Norfolk County Council, York City Council, Dorset County Council and Hampshire County Council.

Case study 2 focused on the use of Key Performance Indicators (KPI’s) within a contract related to resource efficiency and recycling. The majority agreed that the use of KPI’s is good practice as long as they are relevant and meaningful and that it is important to link them to incentives. The majority preferred fewer KPI’s which should be linked to local requirements and be specific to the project.

Case study 3 analysed a tender evaluation based on a cost/quality model (60:40). Feedback suggested that more weighting should be given to quality and there was a requirement to monitor the performance during the contract, this performance could then be used as a basis to score the next project/contract. A pre-qualification questionnaire and/or a two stage tendering process focusing on quality issues including sustainability are being used by a number of Local Authorities.

Feedback form from the events A feedback form was distributed at the events and the content and quality of each presentation and workshop was recorded from a scale of 1 to 5. (1 being poor and 5 being excellent). In total, 352 feedback forms were received, representing 74% of actual delegates. The first two questions addressed the issues of did the day meet your needs and expectations and were you motivated to implement sustainable construction in your projects by what you heard, which scored an average of 4.39 and 4.29 respectively.

The scores varied between 3.4 and 4.1 for the speakers, Appendix H, has a summary of the feedback from all workshops. The best scoring presentations belonged to Steve Biczysko, ‘Making Recycling Work in the Local Authority Environment’ and the final summary. The lowest scoring was ‘The Use of Composting in Landscaping Works’, this is not surprising as the focus of the workshop was on RSA. The workshops scored slightly lower than the presentations. Overall, the scores were very consistent over the ten events for the regular speakers and workshops. From these results, the project team have delivered a consistent, high quality event that has successfully engaged the audience.

The feedback form asked for any suggestions and general comments and the majority of responses believed the event was very good, worthwhile and provided them with enough information and motivation to take the recycling agenda forward. Specific comments included having more information during the events on the following topics:

• Contractor/industrial experience • Specific examples of reuse • Financial information including cost/benefits • Minor maintenance • Term contracts

32 Promotional Campaign to Local Authorities – Recycled Roads • Specific products • KPIs • WRAP’s aims and objectives

Questions were raised over the relevance of composting to urban Local Authorities, and the amount of material (too much) and time given to the workshops (too little), although most delegates enjoyed the workshop sessions and the opportunities to learn and network with a variety of delegates.

Suggestions includes having a Q&A section on the AggRegain website, extracts from the AggRegain modules/reports made available in the packs, regular updates, to encourage Directors, Assistant Directors, senior management, more planners and designers to attend, and the possibility of a WRAP award, e.g. considerate contractors scheme to be extended/adapted to include a ‘sustainable contract’ by WRAP.

Delegates were also asked to suggest further topics that would be useful if the programme was to be run again. Popular topics included:

• HAUC specification and recycling • Licensing aspects and legal requirements of waste management/storage of planings, cold mix batching etc • Industrial experience (contractors and suppliers) and case studies • Information on recycled materials availability in the local area and their application • Use of RSA in surface courses/dressings • Opportunities for use of other recycled materials e.g. plastics, glass • Street furniture, highway drainage, ironwork • Environmental benefits of recycling (including energy usage)

Other topics included stabilisation (foundations, car parks etc), recycling of street lights, use of recycled materials for developers, kerbs and material handling, gully waste, small scale recycling, advantages and disadvantages of different materials including durability and performance monitoring, top soil and sub soil recycling, learning from failures (if any), total sustainability, EU standards and technical details.

A number of delegates would like more regional/local workshops and a follow up to these events. This included design workshops utilising available technical information for a range of recycled products.

Feedback on marketing campaign The feedback questionnaire asked delegates how they heard about the events, and out of 216 replies, the largest percentage at 28% (60 delegates) heard about it from a colleague or a line manager, although it is unclear how they originally heard about it. A further 6% were informed by their training departments. Emailing the flyer to the target audience attracted 19% of the delegates, direct mailing 15% and the Surveyor 8%. The remaining marketing activities such as advertising through networks, websites, magazines and WRAP accounted for the remaining 32%. Therefore in summary a combination of direct marketing activities (email and mail shots) followed by indirect activities (use of existing networks, websites/magazines) was the most effective in attracting the target audience. Results are summarised in Figure 11 and Table 11.

33 Promotional Campaign to Local Authorities – Recycled Roads Figure 11: Percentage breakdown of how delegates heard about the events

Other 5% 1% Email 6% 19% Direct mail 6% Networks

8% Colleague/Line Manager Website

4% 15% From client/contractor 4% The Surveyor

4% Training department 28% Magazine WRAP

Table 11: Delegates feedback on how they heard about the events

Type Total Other 3 Email 41 Mail 32 Networks 8 Colleague/Line 60 Manager Website 8 From 9 client/contractor The Surveyor 18 Training 12 department Magazine 14 WRAP 11

34 Promotional Campaign to Local Authorities – Recycled Roads 5 Conclusions and recommendations

The Recycled Road events proved an effective mechanism for encouraging Local Authorities to consider recycling for their highways maintenance activities. The Recycled Road events have been very well received especially by Local Authorities. Delegates were very much encouraged to promote recycling where practicable. The programme and content of the events scored highly and the majority of feedback was positive.

In order for WRAP to meet their targets and to keep the brand of the ‘Recycled Roads’ alive a number of recommendations have been made and are listed below. Obviously the follow up depends on the allocation of WRAP’s resources, however it is important to note that a readymade ‘Recycled Roads’ community is already in existence and some actions would be at minimal cost.

The WRAP recycling targets require continued engagement with the Local Authority community, and a forward programme of similarly styled events would ensure maintained momentum and enhanced uptake. These Recycled Road events illustrated that ‘Anything Is Possible’, a series of Recycled Road events in 2006 could be sub-titled `Making It Happen`. The pattern of lecture/presentation and workshops should be maintained but the syndicate workshop sessions this time could focus upon role play sessions from three perspectives to elaborate/identify and create the `tools` to make recycling and reuse happen at an enhanced level of activity. These syndicate exercises could be structured from the perspectives of (i) a Local Authority Councillor, (ii) a Head of Service, and (iii) a practicing Engineer and could include such aspects as a `Sustainability Action Plan for Highway Maintenance`, etc.

A series of follow on Recycled Road events in 2007 could be subtitled `Engineering the Solution` and again the same Recycled Road events pattern retained. On this occasion however the syndicate exercises could be structured to yield engineered designs and environmental impact considerations. There are a whole range of prospective applications here including, unbound mixtures, visco-elastic bound mixtures (emulsions, foam, warm, etc) and hydraulic bound mixtures (cement, lime, slag, flyash etc) but the focus would be the practical application of `Securing the Future` for highway maintenance and in particular those aspects relating to climate change, energy efficiency and protection of natural resources as a key part of the sustainable development of highways.

Other recommendations include:

• Regular newsletter based on updates from the AggRegain website, but branded as Recycled Roads. The first newsletter could include extracts from the Executive Summary and this report. • Use email alerts to interested parties when specific topics relating to roads and highways maintenance have been added to the AggRegain website. • Use part of the AggRegain website as a question and answer section with an interactive forum/discussion area. • Undertake similar events in Wales and Scotland, altering the context to reflect their regional circumstances. • Understand and analyse the Local Authorities that currently procure highways maintenance contracts. • Use a Local Authorities listing to carry out short email questionnaires and telephone surveys every 6 months under the Recycled Roads banner to gather up-to-date information in relation to WRAP’s progress towards their targets.

35 Promotional Campaign to Local Authorities – Recycled Roads • Link with established groups such as CSS, IHT and TAG to promote WRAP and Recycled Roads. • Undertake at least another 2 Recycled Road events in the autumn, for those on the waiting list and dependant upon numbers target Local Authorities that did not attend the first series. • Focus part of the Recycled Road campaign on difficulties preventing smaller Local Authorities using more RSA. • Target Local Authorities to events that have not attended the Recycled Road events. • Contact all Local Authority delegates to ask if they have changed or our currently altering their practices to favour recycling as a result of these workshops, and what training/issues they would like for further workshops • Dependant upon Local Authority requirements hold specific events and/or provide guidance on issues such as the HAUC specification, use of RSA in the surface courses/dressings, local recycled materials availability and the environmental benefits of recycling.

36 Promotional Campaign to Local Authorities – Recycled Roads Appendix A – Workshop programme

09.30 Registration and coffee

10.00 Welcome and Introduction WRAP Aggregates team member

10.20 Recycling in Local Authority highway works Murray Reid, TRL / Viridis

10.40 Procurement and specifying recycled content Katherine Adams / Gilli Hobbs, BRE

11.00 Coffee

11.15 Workshop and feedback: Local authority procurement practices

11.55 Making recycling work in the local authority environment Steve Biczysko, Atkins Highways and Transportation

12.15 Regional speaker

12.30 Discussion

12:40 Lunch

13:30 Workshop and Feedback: Procurement options

14.10 Specifications to encourage recycling David O’Farrell, Capita Symonds

14.30 Workshop and feedback: Specifications for recycling

15.10 Using composts in landscaping works WRAP Organics team member

15.25 Tea

15.40 Regional Speaker

15.55 Discussion

16:05 Final summary and close

37 Promotional Campaign to Local Authorities – Recycled Roads Appendix B – Questionnaire sent to delegates

As part of this series of workshops, WRAP wishes to assess the current state of procurement and specification practice for recycled materials in highway and street maintenance. This brief questionnaire has been designed to obtain this information. The results will be aggregated and used anonymously to inform the workshop session on local authority procurement practices.

Please take a few minutes to complete the form and return it at least one week in advance of the event by post or fax to:

Mary Treen TRL Crowthorne House Nine Mile Ride Wokingham Berkshire RG40 3GA. Fax: 01344 770880 Tel: 01344 770514

Note: This form is designed primarily for employees of Local Authorities. Employees of consultants or contractors working for Local Authorities should complete the form for the local authority for which they do most work, and should indicate which local authority this is. The form should reflect the practices of a single local authority, not a combination of several authorities.

Delegate Name: ……………………………………………………………………………

Organisation: ………………………………………………………………………………

Event Venue: ……………………………………… Date: ……………………………

Are you a: Client Contractor Consultant Supplier (please circle)

Other (please specify)

If you are not directly employed by a Local Authority, which Local Authority do you do most of your work for?

Q1: Does your organisation have any corporate policies relating specifically to recycling or generally to sustainability? If yes, please give brief details.

Q2: What procurement methods do you use for highway and street maintenance? (please circle all that apply)

Direct tender Term contract Framework Partnering

PFI Other

Comments

38 Promotional Campaign to Local Authorities – Recycled Roads Q3: Do you require/specify the use of recycled content in the highways and street maintenance procurement methods (as identified above)? If yes, please give brief details

Q4: Do you have any targets relating to the use of recycled materials for highway and street maintenance? If yes, please give brief details.

Q5: What specifications do you use for highway and street maintenance? (Please circle all that apply) Do they permit the use of recycled materials?

Specifications Use of recycled materials (Yes/No)

Specification for Highway Works Yes / No

SHW with local variations Yes / No

HAUC Specification Yes / No

TRL 386/611 Yes / No

Local Authority adoption specifications Yes / No

Other

Q6: Do you regularly use recycled materials or in-situ/ex-situ asphalt recycling techniques in any of the following applications? Please give brief details of the types of materials and an estimate of the tonnages.

Earthworks

Capping

Sub-base

Haunching

Bituminous pavements – base and Binder course:

Bituminous pavements – surface course and surface dressing

Concrete pavements

Structural concrete

Footways / cycle paths

Other

39 Promotional Campaign to Local Authorities – Recycled Roads If you have any other comments on the use of recycled materials by your organisation, please give them here.

40 Promotional Campaign to Local Authorities – Recycled Roads Appendix C – Delegate list

London 21 January 2005

Ian Furnell Brighton & Hove City Council Ross Cleveland Brighton & Hove City Council David Ives C J Pryor (Contracts) Ltd Ray Howes C J Pryor (Contracts) Ltd Andy Kavanagh Carillion Road Maintenance Veljko Komad Carillion Road Maintenance John Wilson Civil Engineering Contractors Association Mike Turville East Sussex County Council Paul Haffenden East Sussex County Council Richard Weeden East Sussex County Council Andrew Holmes F.M Conway Limited Chris Rhodes F.M Conway Limited John Manning Greenwich Council Les Davies Greenwich Council Andrew Cunningham Hackney Council John Moriarty Hackney Council TBC Hackney Council Trevor Lawson Hackney Council Andy Steadman Hanson Recycling & Demolition Dave Holman Hanson Recycling & Demolition Jacky Hollis Hanson Recycling & Demolition Lee Phelan Hanson Recycling & Demolition Peter Lamprell Hertfordshire County Council Vasilis Maroulas Imperial College David French Greenslade JPCS Ltd Peter Buckley JPCS Ltd Mark Jeffcote Leicester City Council David Wells London Borough of Camden Patrick Williams London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham Denis Chamberlin London Borough of Hillingdon Gurmeet Matharu London Borough of Hillingdon Sue Neal London Borough of Newham Zito Fonseca London Borough of Newham David Wigmore London Borough of Tower Hamlets Jay Judge London Borough of Tower Hamlets Jeff Aghoghogbe London Borough of Tower Hamlets Siva Sivagnanasuriar London Borough of Tower Hamlets Marie-Louise ter Beek London Remade Cornel Mawhinney Mouchel Parkman Andrew Clark Ridgeway Consulting Ltd Gayan Liyanage Scanmoor Construction Ltd Stuart Mance Stabilised Pavements Stabilised Pavements Bosco Leung Surrey County Council

41 Promotional Campaign to Local Authorities – Recycled Roads Derek Poole Surrey County Council John Pettett Surrey County Council Tarmac Recycling Limited Jim De Souza Transport for London Robert McLoughlin West Sussex County Council Steve Warren West Sussex County Council Phil Wilson WRAP Malcolm Simms Quarry Products Association

Manchester 26 January 2005

Peter O'Gorman Rochdale MBC Terry Leedham Rochdale MBC Les Prescott Rochdale MBC Steve Holsgrove Staffordshire County Council Steve Woodcock Staffordshire County Council Steve Brown Staffordshire County Council Kevin Earle Enterprise Liverpool John Davies Enterprise Liverpool Orry Mitchell Isle of Man Government Peter Botterill Tarmac Recycling Limited Mike Smithard Cheshire County Council Mike Young Cheshire County Council Paul Hughes Cheshire County Council David Dean Salford City Council Andrew Toogood RMC Northern Keith Wills RMC Northern Roger Mayfield RMC Northern Chris Allen National Grid Transco Steve Mangan Salford City Council Reza Qureshi Salford City Council Alan Nadin Salford City Council Ian Thew Salford City Council John Horrocks Salford City Council Steve Southam Hanson Aggregates Bill Larner Sefton Council Erik Moen Sefton Council Martin Bowler Kirklees MC David Straw Kirklees MC Jessica Richardson National Grid Transco Ian Latto National Grid Transco Steven Lowe Wigan Council David Calcott Metropolitan Borough of Wirral Sue Weldon Metropolitan Borough of Wirral Mike Hopwood Cheshire County Council Gareth Hansom Cheshire County Council Tim Pemberton Cheshire County Council Steve Moorhouse Warrington Borough Council

42 Promotional Campaign to Local Authorities – Recycled Roads Jim Simpson Blackburn with Darwen Borough Council Adrian Harper Blackburn with Darwen Borough Council Harry Howard Bury M B C Peter Davies-Colley Manchester City Council Paul Swann Manchester City Council Dave Smith Cheshire County Council Prakash Sinha Halton Borough Council Robert Pugh Halton Borough Council Ian Munro Halton Borough Council Craig Needs Flintshire County Council David James Flintshire County Council Julian Cunliffe Blackpool Council Mark Anderson Blackpool Council Paul Brooks Blackpool Council Philip Johnson Gwynedd Council Consultancy Harvey Danson Lancaster City Council Ian Moore Lancaster City Council David Clarkson Lancaster City Council Alan Prescott St Helens Council Adrian Lawrenson St Helens Council Dave Robinson St Helens Council Rory Lingham St Helens Council

Newcastle 2 February 2005

David Wilkinson Durham County Council Gordon Hutton Durham County Council Jonathan Cardy Durham County Council David Mobbs Durham County Council Nicola Humble Durham County Council Richard Hayes Northumberland County Council Andrew Anderson Perth & Kinross Council John Jeffrey Colas North Tarmac Recycling Limited John Thompson Northumberland County Council Tim Dent Northumberland County Council Dave Pringle West Lothian Council Norman Adamson West Lothian Council Gordon Wilson West Lothian Council Andrew Hope Lafarge Aggregates Ltd Ian Watson Capita Symonds Ltd Paul Butterworth Capita Symonds Ltd Mark Nicholson Capita Symonds Ltd Nigel Butcher Capita Symonds Ltd Chris Temple Capita Symonds Ltd Mark Readman Durham County Council Charlie Rand Durham County Council Jim Adams Durham County Council Mark Towers Highways Regeneration & Housing Directorate

43 Promotional Campaign to Local Authorities – Recycled Roads Tony Croasdell Cumbrian Industrials Ltd Tony Chard Cumbrian Industrials Ltd Neil Sutheran Cumbrian Industrials Ltd John Tucker Cumbrian Industrials Ltd Don Andrews Cumbrian Industrials Ltd Mike O'Grady Cumbrian Industrials Ltd Alan Kempsey Sedgefield Borough Council Philip Anderson Sedgefield Borough Council Michael Coulson Mowlem plc Nigel Hardy Nynas Bitumen Graham Reeves K.W.Purvis Limited Andrew Little K.W.Purvis Limited Malcolm Smith Northumberland County Council Dale Rumney Northumberland County Council Geoff Marshall Northumberland County Council Geoff Johnson Northumberland County Council Chris Thompson Northumberland County Council James Turner South Lanarkshire Council Chris Meyrick Government Office for Yorkshire and the Humber Peter White Newcastle City Council Paul Davidson Newcastle City Council Paul Young Newcastle City Council Michael George Newcastle City Council John Robinson Newcastle City Council Grant Forster Newcastle City Council David Newton Tarmac Ltd Kevin Kenmir Tarmac Ltd Peter Best Sherburn TBA Sherburn Steve Bucknall Blyth Valley Borough Council Graham Bucknall Blyth Valley Borough Council Ali Johnson Blyth Valley Borough Council Doug Huzzard North Yorkshire County Council Ian Holland South Ayreshire Council Vernon Spall Gateshead Council James Young Gateshead Council

Leeds 3 February 2005

Gary Frost York Engineering Consultancy Chris Mcintee York Engineering Consultancy Jason Walker York Engineering Consultancy Allan Forsythe York Engineering Consultancy Tarmac Recycling Limited Bernard Minnikin Doncaster MBC Philip Millward Doncaster MBC Keith Sleightholme Skanska UK Civils Robin Davies Cumbrian Industrials Ltd Richard Dawson Cumbrian Industrials Ltd

44 Promotional Campaign to Local Authorities – Recycled Roads Steven Bryson Cumbrian Industrials Ltd Eddie Maley Cumbrian Industrials Ltd Geoff Splinter Cumbrian Industrials Ltd Mike Levesley Rotherham Borough Council Dave Hepworth Rotherham Borough Council Neil Foster Rotherham Borough Council Dean Ziolkowski Rotherham Borough Council Faizal Mamujee Leeds City Council Nigel Eastwood Leeds City Council Tony Penniston Leeds City Council Eric Jubb Wakefield Metropolitan District Council John Bourke Wakefield Metropolitan District Council David Bowe North Yorkshire County Council Mike Roberts North Yorkshire County Council David White-Cooper Leeds City Council Hanson Aggregates & Hanson Construction Richard Bird Projects Hanson Aggregates & Hanson Construction Andrew Yates Projects Hanson Aggregates & Hanson Construction Jeremy Kemp Projects Colin Brown Middlesbrough Council TBA Middlesbrough Council Garry Sleet Hanson Aggregates David Knott Hanson Aggregates Jon Sharp Hanson Aggregates Chris Long Durham County Council Brian Taylor Durham County Council Joe Blair Durham County Council Paul Stretton Durham County Council Chris Hope Hanson Aggregates Kenny Hastings Scottish Borders Council Tony Pringle Scottish Borders Council Edmund Nuttall Edmund Nuttall Edmund Nuttall Edmund Nuttall Tony King Manchester City Council Catherine Hitchen Biwater Treatment Ltd Michael Brown White Young Green Fred Higham White Young Green Nic Smith White Young Green Eamonn Murphy Birse Civils Ltd Julie Bankes Interserve Project Services Ltd Vima McGarrie GMJV Keith Troughton GMJV Graham Bateson Barnsley MBC David Bramall DRD Roads Service

45 Promotional Campaign to Local Authorities – Recycled Roads

Bristol 9 February 2005

Michael Cowley Bardon Aggregates Nigel Overal Gloucestershire County Council Geoffrey Dight Somerset County Council Brian Cull Somerset County Council Arthur Player Somerset County Council Howard Norman Somerset County Council Alun Griffiths Alun Griffiths (Contractors) Ltd Chris Pogson Alun Griffiths (Contractors) Ltd Tarmac Recycling Limted Peter Dyer Devon County Council Keith Grant Devon County Council Chris Mellor Bardon Aggregates Brian Davis Bardon Aggregates Andy Pritchard Gloucestershire County Council Chris Masters Bardon Contracting Bob Abbott TQ Exel Ltd Sam Abbott TQ Exel Ltd Tony Gouier TQ Exel Ltd Les Dutton TQ Exel Ltd Keith Jones The Vale of Glamorgan Council Andrew Gwinnell The Vale of Glamorgan Council Trevor Burt Hanson Aggregates Ian Innes Hanson Aggregates Andy Smythe South Hams District Council Andrew Smith Atkins Steve McKellan Atkins Andy Hills Atkins David May Atkins Derek Edgington Swindon Borough Council Helen Viveash Swindon Borough Council Andy Stevenson Cornwall County Council Andy James Cornwall County Council Steve Wells Cornwall County Council Rebecca Dickson Cornwall County Council Robert Hancock Cornwall County Council Paul Wilkinson Cornwall County Council Mark Stephenson Cornwall County Council Simon Clabburn Hanson Aggregates Paul Steer Lafarge Contracting James Pritchard Balfour Beatty Steven Greenough Balfour Beatty Martin Pacey Somerset County Council George Bottin Bath & North East Somerset Council Steve Jones Bath & North East Somerset Council Graham Smaridge SWH Roads

46 Promotional Campaign to Local Authorities – Recycled Roads Neil Roberts Tarmac Amanda Matthews Foster Yeoman Ltd TBC Foster Yeoman Ltd Andrew Loosemore Neath Port Talbot County Borough Council Alan Rees Neath Port Talbot County Borough Council John Matthews Neath Port Talbot County Borough Council TBC Neath Port Talbot County Borough Council Nigel Holpin Tarmac Ltd

Southampton 10 February 2005

Peter Kelly Brighton & Hove City Council Doug Roberts Brighton & Hove City Council Stuart Wilson Brighton & Hove City Council Steve Kew c/o Kate Fowler Mark Pemberthy Colas Ltd TBC Colas Ltd TBC Colas Ltd TBC Colas Ltd TBC Colas Ltd TBC Colas Ltd Jon Munslow Dorset County Council Paul Hobbs Dyer & Butler Ltd Steve Jayne Dyer & Butler Ltd TBC East Sussex TBC East Sussex TBC East Sussex TBC East Sussex Andrew Holmes F.M Conway Limited Amanda Matthews Foster Yeoman Ltd TBC Foster Yeoman Ltd Simon French Geoffrey Osborne Limited Dave Levett Geoffrey Osborne Limited Mark Reid Geoffrey Osborne Limited Mark Brown Hampshire County Council Simon Fryer Hampshire County Council Andy Harding Hampshire County Council Rowan Sheppard Hampshire County Council Jeremy Smith Hampshire County Council Steve White ? Hampshire County Council Martin Elford Hanson Recycling & Demolition Nathan Hedley Hanson Recycling & Demolition Nathan Watson Hanson Recycling & Demolition Joel Weeks Hanson Recycling & Demolition Simon Holloway Isis Accord Gill Moore Isis Accord Iain McGregor Mott MacDonald Michael Roberts Mott MacDonald Helen Currie Surrey Highways Partnership

47 Promotional Campaign to Local Authorities – Recycled Roads Sara Pegram Surrey Highways Partnership Peter Watts Surrey Highways Partnership Tarmac Recycling Limited Tony Collins West Sussex County Council Eddie Rumsey West Sussex County Council Alan Muncaster Weymouth & Portland Borough Council Graham Barnwell Wokingham District Council Garteh Wiseman Wokingham District Council Martyn Payne Worthing Borough Council Derek Ovington U.M.A Ltd William Weller Tarmac Ltd

Birmingham 24 February 2005

Janet Chapman Warwickshire County Council Robert Allen Aggregate Industries UK Ltd Mike Gower Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council Mike Gay Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council Bill Screen Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council Tarmac Recycling Limited Max McDonogh Warwickshire County Council Chris Horn Warwickshire County Council TBC Warwickshire County Council TBC Warwickshire County Council TBC Warwickshire County Council Phil Hopkinson Borough of Telford & Wrekin Darren Gilbert Borough of Telford & Wrekin Dave Denning Worcester Highways Partnership Jason Griffin Worcester Highways Partnership Martin Hunt Worcester Highways Partnership Andrew Bate Lafarge Aggregates Ltd Andrew Holmes F.M Conway Limited Keith Smith Borough of Telford & Wrekin Roger Davies Borough of Telford & Wrekin Andrew Goldie Carillion Highway Maintenance Ltd Yosief Tewolde Carillion Highway Maintenance Ltd Mike Palmer Carillion Highway Maintenance Ltd Sarah Collins Carillion Highway Maintenance Ltd Steve Watts Carillion Highway Maintenance Ltd Damian McGettrick Carillion Highway Maintenance Ltd John Lay RMC Materials Ltd Phillip Green John A Bates (Contractors) Ltd Phil James Ennstone Johnston Bob Binnie Ennstone Johnston Phil Tomkinson Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council Nick Kirby Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council Dave Bradbury Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council John Finch Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council Paul Price Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council

48 Promotional Campaign to Local Authorities – Recycled Roads Simon Marsden Oxfordshire County Council Paul Foot Oxfordshire County Council Steve Bowden Oxfordshire County Council Louise Harrison Oxfordshire County Council Glyn Oliver Walsall Council Tim Edwards Walsall Council Richard Pohribnyj Walsall Council Ray Bell AW Construction plc Martin Farrell AW Construction plc Rachel Moseley AW Construction plc Robert Broadhurst AW Construction plc Steve Smith AW Construction plc Richard Nigel Latham Edmund Nuttall Ltd Edward Pinfield Currall Lewis & Martin Peter Cutteridge Currall Lewis & Martin Peter Abel Laing O'Rourke Civil Engineering Keith Sexton Amey plc Robert Hunt Birmingham City Council Bill Morgan Birmingham City Council Delroy Amory Birmingham City Council Adrian Brain Birmingham City Council Estelle Herszenhorn WRAP Stuart Mance Stabilised Pavements Stabilised Pavements David Morris Tarmac Ltd Mike Elford Tarmac Ltd

Nottingham 2 March 2005

TBC North Lincs Council TBC North Lincs Council TBC North Lincs Council TBC North Lincs Council TBC Scott Wilson Pavement Engineering Paul Tysoe Northamptonshire County Council Terry Matthews Northamptonshire County Council Malcolm Scott Broxstowe Borough Council Royston Howe Broxstowe Borough Council Tarmac Recycling Limited Steve Gilpin Arup Brian James Quarry Products Association Andrea Deakin Lafarge Aggregates Ltd Sean Roberts Lafarge Aggregates Ltd Susan Fisher Atkins ESL Kieron Hill Atkins ESL Alan Adcock Leicester City Council Barry Johnson Jarvis Glenn Reid Nottinghamshire County Council Mazher Rashid Nottinghamshire County Council

49 Promotional Campaign to Local Authorities – Recycled Roads Mike Draper Tarmac Limited Geoff Varney Tarmac Limited Steve Waite WRAP Gerry Howe Geofirma John Boyle Geofirma

Cambridge 3 March 2005

John Jacobs London Borough of Hackney Tony Palmer Norfolk County Council Nick Tupper Norfolk County Council Martin Jeffs Norfolk County Council Alastair McKenzie Jacobs Babtie Engineering Labs Robert Devereux Jacobs Babtie Engineering Labs Tarmac Recycling Limited Chris Rhodes F.M Conway Limited Andrew Holmes F.M Conway Limited Chris Cowell Atkins Consultants Ltd Harry Potter Atkins Consultants Ltd Paul Flack Atkins Consultants Ltd Victoria Carter Atkins Consultants Ltd Guy Brook Atkins Consultants Ltd Paul Oliver Atkins Consultants Ltd Andrew Hobster May Gurney Highways Louise Collier May Gurney Highways Riaan Kruger May Gurney Highways Suffolk Highways Partnership Suffolk Highways Partnership Suffolk Highways Partnership Suffolk Highways Partnership Suffolk Highways Partnership Suffolk Highways Partnership Lawrence McKeogh Essex County Council Patrick Gregory Essex County Council Colin Carruth Essex County Council Terry Radford Cambridge City Council John Clarke Cambridge City Council Evan Laughlin Cambridge City Council Peter Robotham Miles Drainage Limited Graham Mallott Cambridgeshire County Council Richard Kingston Cambridgeshire County Council Steve Dighton Cambridgeshire County Council Martin Baughurst Costain Ltd Bob Carr Norfolk County Council Phill Moulson Norfolk County Council Rod Kelly Norfolk County Council

50 Promotional Campaign to Local Authorities – Recycled Roads London 9 March 2005

Ian Furnell Brighton & Hove City Council Ross Cleveland Brighton & Hove City Council David Ives C J Pryor (Contracts) Ltd Ray Howes C J Pryor (Contracts) Ltd Andy Kavanagh Carillion Road Maintenance Veljko Komad Carillion Road Maintenance John Wilson Civil Engineering Contractors Association Mike Turville East Sussex County Council Paul Haffenden East Sussex County Council Richard Weeden East Sussex County Council Andrew Holmes F.M Conway Limited Chris Rhodes F.M Conway Limited John Manning Greenwich Council Les Davies Greenwich Council Andrew Cunningham Hackney Council John Moriarty Hackney Council TBC Hackney Council Trevor Lawson Hackney Council Andy Steadman Hanson Recycling & Demolition Dave Holman Hanson Recycling & Demolition Jacky Hollis Hanson Recycling & Demolition Lee Phelan Hanson Recycling & Demolition Peter Lamprell Hertfordshire County Council Vasilis Maroulas Imperial College David French Greenslade JPCS Ltd Peter Buckley JPCS Ltd Mark Jeffcote Leicester City Council David Wells London Borough of Camden Patrick Williams London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham Denis Chamberlin London Borough of Hillingdon Gurmeet Matharu London Borough of Hillingdon Sue Neal London Borough of Newham Zito Fonseca London Borough of Newham David Wigmore London Borough of Tower Hamlets Jay Judge London Borough of Tower Hamlets Jeff Aghoghogbe London Borough of Tower Hamlets Siva Sivagnanasuriar London Borough of Tower Hamlets Marie-Louise ter Beek London Remade Cornel Mawhinney Mouchel Parkman Andrew Clark Ridgeway Consulting Ltd Gayan Liyanage Scanmoor Construction Ltd Stuart Mance Stabilised Pavements Stabilised Pavements Bosco Leung Surrey County Council Derek Poole Surrey County Council John Pettett Surrey County Council Tarmac Recycling Limited Jim De Souza Transport for London

51 Promotional Campaign to Local Authorities – Recycled Roads Robert McLoughlin West Sussex County Council Steve Warren West Sussex County Council Phil Wilson WRAP Malcolm Simms Quarry Products Association

52 Promotional Campaign to Local Authorities – Recycled Roads Appendix D – Combined list of all Local Authorities attending Recycled Roads

England

• Greenwich Council • Hackney Council • London Borough of Camden • London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham • London Borough of Hillingdon • London Borough of Newham • London Borough of Tower Hamlets • London Borough of Islington • London Borough of Hackney • London Borough of Camden • Westminster City Council • Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames • Croydon Council • Brentwood Borough Council • Hertfordshire County Council • Hampshire County Council • Surrey County Council • West Berkshire Council • Brighton and Hove City Council • East Sussex County Council • West Sussex County Council • Guildford Borough Council • Arun District Council • Worthing Borough Council • Surrey Highways Partnership • Dorset County Council • Cornwall County Council • Devon County Council • Gloucestershire County Council • Somerset County Council • South Hams Council • Bath and North East Somerset Council • Swindon Borough Council • Norfolk County Council • Suffolk Highways Partnership • Essex County Council • Cambridge City Council • Cambridgeshire County Council • Buckinghamshire County Council • Warwickshire County Council • Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council • Worcester Highways Partnership

53 Promotional Campaign to Local Authorities – Recycled Roads • Borough of Telford & Wrekin • Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council • Oxfordshire County Council • Walsall Council • Birmingham City Council • Leicestershire Highways • Leicester City Council • North Lincolnshire Council • Staffordshire County Council • Nottinghamshire County Council • Derby City Council • Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council • Broxstowe Borough Council • Northamptonshire County Council • Shropshire County Council • Rugby Borough Council • Blackburn with Darwen Borough Council • Blackpool Council • Bury Metropolitan Borough Council • Cheshire County Council • Halton Borough Council • Kirklees Metropolitan Council • Lancaster City Council • Manchester City Council • Metropolitan Borough of Wirral • Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council • Salford City Council • Sefton Council • St Helens Council • Warrington Borough Council • Wigan Council • York Engineering Consultancy • Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council • Rotherham Borough Council • Leeds City Council • Wakefield Metropolitan District Council • North Yorkshire County Council • Cheshire County Council • Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council • Burnley Borough Council • Middlesbrough Council • Durham County Council • Northumberland County Council • Sedgefield Borough Council • Newcastle City Council • Blyth Valley Borough Council • Gateshead Council • London Borough of Bexley • London Borough of Merton

A total of 91 Councils

54 Promotional Campaign to Local Authorities – Recycled Roads Wales

• Isle of Anglesey County Council • Caerphilly County Borough Council • Neath Port Talbot County Borough Council • Torfaen County Borough Council • Vale of Glamorgan Council • Monmouthshire County Council • Flintshire County Council • Gwynedd Council Consultancy

A total of 8 Councils

Scotland

• Scottish Borders Council • Perth & Kinross Council • West Lothian Council • Dundee City Council

A total of 4 Councils

Other

• Isle of Man Government

A total of 1 Council

Grand Total: 103 Councils

55 Promotional Campaign to Local Authorities – Recycled Roads Appendix E – Figures of local authority attendance by council type

Figure E1: Distribution of County Council Attendees

Figure E2: Distribution of London Borough Council Attendees

56 Promotional Campaign to Local Authorities – Recycled Roads

Figure E3: Distribution of Unitary Council Attendees

Figure E4: Distribution of Metropolitan Council Attendees

57 Promotional Campaign to Local Authorities – Recycled Roads

Figure E5: Distribution of City Council Attendees

Figure E6: Distribution of Borough/District Council Attendees

58 Promotional Campaign to Local Authorities – Recycled Roads Appendix F – List of attendees and non- attendees for District/Borough Councils

Attendees Non-attendees Arun District Council Allerdale Borough Council Blyth Valley Borough Council Amber Valley Borough Council Brentwood Borough Council Ashford Borough Council Broxstowe Borough Council Barrow in Furness Borough Council Basingstoke & Deane Borough Burnley Borough Council Council Guildford Borough Council Bedford Borough Council Rotherham Borough Council Boston Borough Council Rugby Borough Council Broxbourne Borough Council Sedgefield Borough Council Castle Morpeth Borough Council Worthing Borough Council Castle Point Borough Council South Hams Council Charnwood Borough Council Chelmsford Borough Council Cheltenham Borough Council Chesterfield Borough Council Chorley Borough Council Christchurch Borough Council Colchester Borough Council Congleton Borough Council Copeland Borough Council Corby Borough Council Crawley Borough Council Crewe & Nantwich Borough Council Dacorum Borough Council Dartford Borough Council East Staffordshire Borough Council Eastbourne Borough Council Eastleigh Borough Council Ellesmere Port & Neston Borough Council Elmbridge Borough Council Epsom & Ewell Borough Council Erewash Borough Council Fareham Borough Council Fylde Borough Council Gedling Borough Council Gosport Borough Council Gravesham Borough Council Great Yarmouth Borough Council Harrogate Borough Council Hastings Borough Council

59 Promotional Campaign to Local Authorities – Recycled Roads Havant Borough Council Hertsmere Borough Council High Peak Borough Council Hinckley & Bosworth Borough Council Hyndburn Borough Council Ipswich Borough Council Kettering Borough Council King's Lynn & West Norfolk Borough Council Macclesfield Borough Council Maidstone Borough Council Melton Borough Council Newcastle under Lyme Borough Council North Bedfordshire Borough Council North Warwickshire Borough Council Northampton Borough Council Nuneaton & Bedworth Borough Council Oadby & Wigston Borough Council Oswestry Borough Council Pendle Borough Council Preston Borough Council Redditch Borough Council Reigate & Banstead Borough Council Restormel Borough Council Ribble Valley Borough Council Rossendale Borough Council Runnymede Borough Council Rushcliffe Borough Council Rushmoor Borough Council Scarborough Borough Council Shrewbury & Atcham Borough Council South Ribble Borough Council Spelthorne Borough Council St Edmundsbury Borough Council Stafford Borough Council Stevenage Borough Council Stockwell Borough Council Surrey Heath Borough Council Swale Borough Council Tamworth Borough Council Taunton Deane Borough Council Test Valley Borough Council Tewkesbury Borough Council Tonbridge & Malling Borough Council Tunbridge Wells Borough Council Vale Royal Borough Council

60 Promotional Campaign to Local Authorities – Recycled Roads Watford Borough Council Waverley Borough Council Wellingborough Borough Council West Devon Borough Council Weymouth & Portland Borough Council Woking Borough Council Wyre Borough Council

Adur District Council Alnwick District Council Alyn & Deeside District Council Ashfield District Council Aylesbury Vale District Council Babergh District Council Basildon District Council Bassetlaw District Couincil Berwick upon Tweed District Council Blaby District Council Bolsover District Council Braintree District Council Breckland District Council Bridgnorth District Council Broadland District Council Bromsgrove District Council Cannock Chase District Council Caradon District Council Carrick District Council Cherwell District Council Chester le Street District Council Chichester District Council Chiltern District Council Cotswold District Council Craven District Council Daventry District Council Derbyshire Dales District Council Derwentside District Council Dover District Council Easington District Council East Cambridgeshire District Council East Devon District Council East Hampshire District Council East Hertfordshire District Council East Lindsey District Council East Northamptonshire District Council Eden District Council Epping Forest District Councils

61 Promotional Campaign to Local Authorities – Recycled Roads Fenland District Council Forest Heath District Council Forset of Dean District Council Hambleton District Council Harborough District Council Harlow District Council Hart District Councils Horsham District Council Huntington District Council Kennet District Council Lewes District Council Lichfield District Council Maldon District Council Malvern Hills District Council Mansfield District Council Mendip District Council Mid Bedfordshire District Council Mid Devon District Council Mid Suffolk District Council Mid Sussex District Council Mole Valley District Council New Forest District Council Newark & Sherwood Homes Newark & Sherwood District Council North Cornwall District Council North Devon District Council North Dorest District Council North Hertfordshire District Council North Kesteven District Council North Norfolk District Council North Shropshire District Council North West Leicestershire District Council North Wiltshire District Council North East Lincolnshire District Council Penwith District Council Purbeck District Council Richmondshire District Council Rochford District Council Rother District Council Ryedale District Council Salisbury District Council Sedgemoor District Council Selby District Councils Sevenoaks District Council Shepway District Council South Bedfordshire District Council

62 Promotional Campaign to Local Authorities – Recycled Roads South Bucks District Council South Cambridgeshire District Council South Derbyshire District Council South Herefordshire District Council South Holland District Council South Kesteven District Council South Lakeland District Council South Norfolk District Council South Nottinghamshire District Council South Oxfordshire District Council South Shropshire District Council South Somerset District Council South Staffordshire District Council St Albans City & District Council Staffordshire Moorlands District Council Stratford on Avon District Council Stroud District Council Suffolk Coastal District Council Tandridge District Council Teesdale District Council Teignbridge District Council Tendring District Council Thanet District Council Three Rivers District Council Torridge District Council Tynedale District Council Uttlesford District Council Vale of White Horse District Council Warnsbeck District Council Warwick District Council Waveney District Council Wealden District Council Wear Valley District Council Welwyn Hatfield District Council West Dorest District Council West Lancaster District Council West Lindsey District Council West Oxfordhire District Council West Somerset District Council West Wiltshire District Council Woodspring District Council Wychavon District Council Wycombe District Council Wyre Forest District Council Total: 11 Total: 221

63 Promotional Campaign to Local Authorities – Recycled Roads Appendix G - Waiting lists

In total, there was 172 would be delegates, from 86 organisations. The table below shows a total of 28 Local Authorities (26 in England) who are on the waiting list totalling 67 delegates. Of these 22 Local Authorities, 18 (16 in England) of these did not have any delegates attending the events

First Name Surname Local Authority

Joe Allen Bedford Borough Council Michael Wood Bournemouth Borough Council Ikenna Akubueze-Bernard Brighton & Hove City Council Graham Dendle Caldedale Metropolitan Borough Council David Groome Cambridgeshire County Council Robin Hobbs Cambridgeshire County Council Steve Isaacs Cambridgeshire County Council Andy Tipple Cambridgeshire County Council Aled Evans Carmarthenshire County Council Ainsley Williams Carmarthenshire County Council Harvey Cullen Coventry City Council Malcolm Spandley Coventry City Council Dawson Wray Dept for Regional Development Roads Service Richard Barber Derbyshire County Council Richard Binns Derbyshire County Council Mick Housley Derbyshire County Council Alan Mullins Derbyshire County Council Neil Wainwright Derbyshire County Council Lester Burton East Riding Council John Breach Hampshire County Council Gavin Cole Hampshire County Council Emma Cooper Hampshire County Council Steve Farrow Hampshire County Council Alan Giles Hampshire County Council Chris Lait Hampshire County Council Andy Langton Hampshire County Council Emily Moon Hampshire County Council Robin Nicholls Hampshire County Council Colin Norris Hampshire County Council Derek Osborne Hampshire County Council Claire Sawle Hampshire County Council Andrew Wood Hampshire County Council Michael Rolfe Hampshire Highways Alex Alexander Huntingdon District Council Roy Ashley Huntingdon District Council Steve Douglas Huntingdon District Council John Carr Leicestershire County Council Jane Chapman Leicestershire County Council J Howe Lincolnshire County Council M Huddleston Lincolnshire County Council

64 Promotional Campaign to Local Authorities – Recycled Roads T Mawson Lincolnshire County Council Sue Glass London Borough of Enfield Natasha Epstein London Borough of Hounslow Dominic Allen Norfolk County Council Quentin Brogdale Norfolk County Council Ian Taylor Norfolk County Council Kevin Vessey North Lincolnshire Council Richard Brady Northumberland County Council Simon Carter Nottingham City Council Peter Mann Nottingham City Council Ian Cowgill Nottinghamshire County Council Ian Horton Nottinghamshire County Council

Ivan Morley Nottinghamshire County Council David Bland Oldham MBC Cliff Jackson Oldham MBC Vanessa Buckley Oxfordshire County Council Trevor Fletcher Sandwell MBC Highways Nigel Underwood Sandwell MBC Highways Steve Walker St Helens Council David Sowels Stockton on Tees Borough Council Robin Mayell Surrey County Council Andrew England West Berkshire Council Nigel Dyke Worcestershire County Council Neil Jost Worcestershire County Council Nick Yarwood Worcestershire County Council

Other Organisations

58 other organisations are on the waiting list and these include suppliers, contractors, Universities and consultants, totalling 105 delegates.

First Name Surname Company Mike Park Alfred McAlpine Capital Projects Liam Ellis Alfred McAlpine plc Gary Witham Alfred McAlpine plc Jonathan Millard Arup Nick Shires Ashridge Construction Ltd Tony Hipperson Ayton Products David Pickering Ayton Products Steve Southworth Ayton Products Larry Walsh Ayton Products D Perry Balfour Beatty Civil Engineering Ltd Mark Hampson Balfour Beatty Utilities Ltd Paul Grundrill Bardon Aggregates Martin Kehoe Bardon Aggregates Ross Kelly Bardon Aggregates Chris Masters Bardon Aggregates J Appleby Bardon Contracting

65 Promotional Campaign to Local Authorities – Recycled Roads C Masters Bardon Contracting Stuart Cameron Bennett Soil Technology Lee Tinkler Birse Civils Limited Amanda Chance Building Software Limited John Grieco Capita Symonds Stephan van der Walt Capita Symonds Mike Gibb Chris Britton Consultancy David Kemp Clean Merseyside Centre Steven Chaplin Complete Utilities Ltd Michele Charlton Complete Utilities Ltd Jock Soutar Complete Utilities Ltd Peter Yates Dorset Engineering Consultancy Paul Gould Dorset Works Organisation Marie-Anne Erven Edmund Nuttall Limited Richard Henderson Edmund Nuttall Limited Rosemary Ogle Edmund Nuttall Limited David Pickering Edmund Nuttall Limited Alistair Powell Edmund Nuttall Limited David Uprichard Edmund Nuttall Limited Alan Ferguson Ennstone plc Gary Fulcher Environment Agency Nick Humby Foster Yeoman Contractors David Bickerton Geoffrey Osborne Limited Ken Moody Halcrow Group Ltd David Griffiths Highways Agency Geoff Richards Highways Agency Dale Foster Huber Technology John Baker J Murphy & Sons Ltd Peter Hurst J Murphy & Sons Ltd Stephen Marr J Murphy & Sons Ltd Stephen Marr J.Murphy & Sons Paul Sylvester J.Murphy & Sons Phil Thomas J.Murphy & Sons Mujibur Rahman Jacobs Babtie Tim Jobling Purser Jobling Purser Ltd Onoriode Efih John Martin Construction Ltd Ramees Miller John Martin Construction Ltd Davy Pillay John Martin Construction Ltd Jabed Choudhury Kier Nuttall Andy Merris KPMG LLP Peter Dawson LCR Highways Ltd R Hancock LCR Highways Ltd Paul Fleming Loughborough University Matthew Frost Loughborough University John Lambert Loughborough University Damian O'Hara Loughborough University Glenn Cox McNicholas plc Robin Gregory McNicholas plc Gareth Morgan Morrison John Hyland Mouchel Parkman

66 Promotional Campaign to Local Authorities – Recycled Roads Bill Wright National Grid Transco Sean O'Callaghan National Road Planing Miles Williamson Nynas Bitumen Derek Fordyce Pavement Technology Ltd Derek Fordyce Pavement Technology Ltd Sian Williams Power Technology Robin Brownless Raynesway Construction Southern Lawrence Ireland Raynesway Construction Southern Mark Scarr Raynesway Construction Southern Ian Nicholson Responsible Solutions Ltd David Coyte-Smith Ringway Group Limited David Gibby Ringway Highway Services (South) Kevin Perrett Ringway Highway Services (South) Martin Clack Ringway Limited Bill Deards Ringway Limited Nick Radford Ringway Specialist Treatments Ltd Simon Bartlett RMC Surfacing Centre & Northern Tina McHugh RMC Surfacing Ltd Andy Reynolds RMC Surfacing Ltd Jen Barton Scientifics Limited Sue Haywood Scott Wilson Jayne Walker Scott Wilson Mark Hartharn Scott Wilson Kirkpatrick & Co Dave Hooton Scott Wilson Kirkpatrick & Co Dave Manning Scott Wilson Kirkpatrick & Co Cliff Ellis Sheffield Hallum University Lucy Tyler Stabilised Pavements Ltd Patricia Hough Tarmac Tris Taylor Tarmac Limited Chris Mabbott Tarmac Northern Limited John Brookes Tarmac Southern Mark Swan Tarmac Southern Steve Martin The Erith Group Kevin Carroll The Murphy Group Andrew Stearn University of Bath Andrew Wallace Waterman Aspen John Joy WSP Consulting Engineers Agnes Boscoe-Wallace Tony Stock

67 Promotional Campaign to Local Authorities – Recycled Roads Appendix H – summary of feedback from 10 workshops

RECYCLED MATERIALS IN HIGHWAY AND STREET MAINTENANCE r o e te pt am tle l l ridg as hes b c ingh tol don 1 ds don 2 t nc utham s FEEDBACK FROM WORKSHOPS lihu Totals i Lon Ma New Lee Br So So Not Cam Lon No. of registered delegates 52 61 58 59 60 53 63 62 53 62 583 Actual no. of delegates 39 53 54 53 50 41 44 52 49 43 478 No. of questionnaires* 27 43 39 42 32 34 34 34.0 35.0 32 352 % response rate 69.2 81.1 72.2 79.2 64.0 82.9 77.3 65.4 71.4 74.4 73.6 * The no. represents the total no. of responses received, but at each event there are responses that did not complete all questions. Overall workshop questions Average Did the day meet your needs and expectations? Q1 4.82 4.26 4.30 4.31 4.26 4.31 4.46 4.34 4.27 4.55 4.39 Are you motivated by what you learned at this event to Q2 4.43 4.45 4.22 4.12 4.32 4.27 4.38 4.26 4.19 4.31 4.29 implement sustainable construction in your projects?

Content of presentations Average Welcome and Introduction I 4.0 3.7 3.7 3.7 4.1 4.0 3.9 3.8 3.8 4.2 3.88 Recycling in local authority highway works P1 4.2 3.9 3.8 3.9 4.0 4.1 4.1 3.9 3.9 4.0 3.96 Procurement and specifying recycled content P2 4.0 3.6 3.8 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.5 3.9 3.74 Workshop 1: LA procurement practices W1 3.8 3.3 3.4 3.7 3.7 3.6 3.7 3.5 3.6 3.8 3.60 Making recycling work in the LA environment P3 4.1 4.0 3.8 3.9 4.2 4.1 4.2 3.9 3.9 4.1 4.02

Regional Speaker P4 4.0 3.6 3.7 3.6 4.3 3.9 4.2 3.8 3.7 4.1 3.88 Workshop 2: Procurement options W2 3.7 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.4 3.6 3.5 3.5 3.4 3.6 3.51 Specifications to encourage recycling P5 4.3 4.0 4.1 4.0 3.8 4.0 3.9 4.0 3.8 3.8 3.96 Workshop 3: Specifications for recycling W3 3.8 3.6 3.6 3.5 3.4 3.8 3.8 3.5 3.4 3.7 3.61 Using composts in landscaping works P6 3.8 3.8 3.2 3.4 3.7 3.6 3.5 3.3 2.9 3.2 3.44 Regional Speaker P7 4.3 4.2 3.5 4.2 4.0 4.4 4.0 4.3 3.8 3.5 4.00 Final Summary S 4.3 3.9 4.2 3.9 4.2 4.3 4.1 4.2 3.9 4.0 4.09

Quality of presentations Average

Welcome and Introduction I 4.1 3.4 3.9 3.7 4.2 3.9 3.8 4.0 4.0 4.39 3.93 Recycling in local authority highway works P1 4.0 3.7 4.0 3.9 4.1 3.9 3.9 3.9 4.0 4.04 3.94 Procurement and specifying recycled content P2 3.9 3.6 3.8 3.6 4.0 3.6 3.5 3.8 3.7 3.70 3.72 Workshop 1: LA procurement practices W1 3.7 3.5 3.6 3.6 3.7 3.6 3.6 3.7 3.4 3.83 3.62 Making recycling work in the LA environment P3 4.2 4.0 4.0 3.8 4.3 4.1 4.2 4.0 4.0 4.04 4.05

Regional Speaker P4 3.8 3.6 3.8 3.5 4.3 3.9 4.2 3.8 3.7 3.96 3.86 Workshop 2: Procurement options W2 3.6 3.3 3.8 3.6 3.6 3.7 3.4 3.7 3.4 3.65 3.58 Specifications to encourage recycling P5 4.1 3.6 4.1 3.8 3.9 3.6 3.6 3.9 3.8 3.64 3.80 Workshop 3: Specifications for recycling W3 3.7 3.4 3.9 3.4 3.7 3.7 3.5 3.7 3.5 3.52 3.61 Using composts in landscaping works P6 4.0 3.9 3.5 3.1 3.9 3.3 3.6 3.6 2.9 3.20 3.50 Regional Speaker P7 4.3 4.2 3.7 4.1 4.1 4.3 3.6 4.3 3.4 3.39 3.93 Final Summary S 4.3 4.0 4.2 4.0 4.3 4.3 4.1 4.2 4.0 4.00 4.15

68 Promotional Campaign to Local Authorities – Recycled Roads

Appendix H – continued

Combined scores

Welcome and Introduction I 8.0 7.1 7.6 7.5 8.3 7.8 7.7 7.8 7.7 8.6 7.81 Recycling in local authority highway works P1 8.2 7.6 7.8 7.8 8.1 8.0 7.9 7.8 7.9 8.1 7.91 Procurement and specifying recycled content P2 7.8 7.2 7.6 7.4 7.7 7.4 7.3 7.5 7.2 7.6 7.47 Workshop 1: LA procurement practices W1 7.5 6.8 7.0 7.2 7.5 7.2 7.3 7.1 7.0 7.7 7.22 Making recycling work in the LA environment P3 8.3 8.0 7.8 7.7 8.5 8.2 8.3 7.9 7.9 8.1 8.08 Regional Speaker P4 7.7 7.2 7.5 7.1 8.6 7.8 8.4 7.6 7.4 8.1 7.75 Workshop 2: Procurement options W2 7.4 6.6 7.2 7.1 7.0 7.3 6.9 7.2 6.8 7.3 7.09 Specifications to encourage recycling P5 8.3 7.6 8.1 7.8 7.7 7.6 7.4 7.9 7.6 7.5 7.76 Workshop 3: Specifications for recycling W3 7.5 7.0 7.5 6.9 7.1 7.6 7.3 7.2 7.0 7.2 7.22 Using composts in landscaping works P6 7.9 7.7 6.7 6.4 7.6 6.9 7.1 6.9 5.8 6.4 6.94 Regional Speaker P7 8.6 8.3 7.1 8.2 8.0 8.7 7.6 8.6 7.2 6.9 7.93 Final Summary S 8.6 8.0 8.4 7.9 8.4 8.6 8.2 8.4 8.0 8.0 8.23 Lo Ma N L Br S Solih No Ca Lo eed o e i nd nd w mb ut tti nc s to cas ha n s ul on on hes r l g i l mp d Venue h 1 2 t l g a t e er e m t o n

69 Promotional Campaign to Local Authorities – Recycled Roads