Hertfordshire Household Waste Recycling Centre Service

APPENDIX A

HERTFORDSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL

WASTE MANAGEMENT CABINET PANEL

WEDNESDAY 9 JULY 2008 AT 2.00 P.M.

HERTFORDSHIRE HOUSEHOLD WASTE RECYCLING CENTRE SERVICE

Report of the Director of Environment

Author: Matthew King Tel: 01992 556207

Executive Member: Derrick Ashley

1. Purpose of report

To provide further analysis of the implications of closure of the Tring and Watford Household Waste Recycling Centres and results of the consultation on proposed closures, enabling the panel to make any recommendations to the Cabinet.

2. Summary

2.1 The Environment Scrutiny Committee undertook a review of the Household Waste Recycling Centre (HWRC) service in June 2007 and identified matters for attention and/or future improvement under three broad headings: purpose and function, location and scale and style.

2.2 This Panel, on 13 September 2007, received a report and a presentation on the possible rationalisation of the County Council’s HWRC service. There was discussion on the adequacy of the sites and an overview of the Service Properties Priority reports. The Panel noted there was scope to improve the service by having fewer centres with better on-site facilities and accessibility.

2.3 The Panel received a report at the meeting on 4 March 2008 and recommended that notice be given of the proposed closure of the Tring and Watford HWRCs and to invite representations on the proposal. The closure proposals were subsequently publicised giving a deadline of 20 June 2008 for receipt of comments. The Panel asked officers to explore the impact of the proposed closures on local highways, the carbon footprint, the proximity and accessibility to sites for residents in the areas, the risks of fly-tipping and the possibility of expansion of the Watford HWRC through discussions with Watford Borough Council.

2.4 The recommendations on proposed closure were considered at a special meeting of the Environment Scrutiny Committee on 16 May 2008. The minutes of the Environment Scrutiny Committee meeting are shown as Appendix A to this report.

161110 Appendix A, Watford Household Waste Recycing Centre 1 2.5 The Waste Management Unit received 666 letters / emails during the consultation period (Tring: 490; Watford: 176) citing ‘top’ concerns as increased fly tipping, unacceptable journey distances / cost, CO2 emissions and the County Council is sending out the wrong message. Amongst the letters were objections to the closures from Dacorum, Three Rivers and Watford Councils. The Three Rivers Public Services and Health Policy and Scrutiny Committee debated the issue on 5 June. Five separate petitions were also received totalling 5,313 signatures (Tring: 3,353; Watford 1,960). Details of the main concerns raised, the petitions and the Three Rivers Scrutiny Committee debate are shown in Appendix B.

3. Recommendations

3.1 That the Panel considers the further technical assessments of the impacts of closure of the Tring and Watford Household Waste Recycling Centres, together with the responses to the consultation exercise and comes to a view about the closure or otherwise of one, or both, sites and make recommendations to Cabinet accordingly.

3.2 That, in light of their comprehensive review of the Household Waste Recycling Centre service and the information gathered during the recent consultation, the Hertfordshire Waste Partnership be invited to consider how the HWRC service and local household waste collection, re-use and recycling services are more effectively integrated as a means of meeting waste strategy targets.

4. Background and Analysis

4.1 At its meeting on 4 March the Panel completed its assessment of the adequacy of the Household Waste Recycling Centres (HWRC) service and each of the 19 sites which make up the network. The Panel concluded that notice should be given of the County Council’s intention to close the HWRCs at Tring and Watford, that interested parties be given an opportunity to comment and that any representations would be considered by the Panel before recommendations are made to the Cabinet.

4.2 The discussion on 4 March highlighted the need for further work to be done on the transport/traffic and carbon footprint implications of the closures, an assessment of the risk of increased fly-tipping and the prospects for enlargement of the Watford HWRC.

4.3 The former Environment Scrutiny Committee held a special meeting on 16 May to look at the Panel’s conclusions. The meeting provided a focal point for individuals and organisations opposed to the closure of the Tring and Watford HWRCs to express their views.

4.4 The potential impact on highways in the areas affected by closures has been assessed by the Environment Department’s Highways Development Control Team. In summary, the assessment shows that closure of the Tring and Watford HWRCs would not cause significant congestion or delay in either area. Details are shown in Appendix C.

161110 Appendix A, Watford Household Waste Recycing Centre 2 4.5 The potential effect on the carbon footprint for Hertfordshire has been calculated and is set out in detail in Appendix D. Closure of the Tring HWRC is estimated to increase CO2 emissions by 152.5 tonnes / annum. Closure of the Watford site is estimated in increase CO2 emissions by 227 tonnes / annum. The combined figure of 379.5 tonnes represents 0.01% of the Hertfordshire road transport total in 2005.

4.6 Analysis of proximity to and accessibility of HWRCs shows that, for some residents (notably to the north and west of Tring and south of Watford), journey times to alternative HWRC facilities would be increased, from 10 minutes to 15 minutes and from 5 minutes to 10 minutes respectively. This issue has been one of the most strongly debated by interested parties and has led to questions about the purpose and function of HWRCs and their role in relation to local collection recycling services. It is felt that more should be done to help residents dispose of items such as plastics, batteries, light bulbs etc. without the need for car journeys. It has also been noted that theoretical journey times can, in reality, be significantly affected by disturbances on the road network such as major road works or road traffic accidents. Details are shown in Appendix E.

4.7 Risks of fly-tipping is assessed through the Environment Agency’s Flycapture database. This shows a downward trend of 41% in reported incidents of fly tipping between 2004 and 2007 for the Watford, Three Rivers and Dacorum districts. Closure of the Hunton Bridge HWRC in 2004 saw no significant increase in fly tipping at or near the site or in the adjacent district areas. Further details are set out in Appendix F.

4.8 Since the last Panel meeting discussions with Watford Borough Council have continued. The Borough Council have indicated sufficient additional land is available for the expansion of the existing Watford HWRC which could alleviate the current, severe operational difficulties. Furthermore, the land may be available on beneficial terms, involving a nominal peppercorn rent. Any such expansion would entail capital investment. It is estimated that modest enhancements could be carried out at a cost of approximately £60,000. Further details are set out in Appendix G.

5. Conclusions

5.1 To reach its conclusions on 4 March the Panel made use of the criteria devised by the Environment Scrutiny Committee in June 2007 (set out in full as Appendix H). The consultation exercise and the further technical assessments provide a helpful challenge to these criteria: the findings bear out the significance of purpose and function, location and scale and style of HWRCs in determining service improvements.

5.2 The HWRC network clearly has an important role to play in allowing the disposal of bulky wastes. The network is a vital part of the overall waste management effort and a high-performing supplement to Hertfordshire’s overall recycling targets. Closure of the Tring and Watford HWRCs would not

161110 Appendix A, Watford Household Waste Recycing Centre 3 significantly affect the purpose and function of the network although, when linked to proximity and accessibility, does demand closer alignment with local collection / recycling services.

5.3 The closure(s) would still ensure that 99.6% of the population of Hertfordshire are within 5 miles ‘as the crow flies’ of their nearest HWRC. The areas of proposed closure would be no worse off in terms of distance to travel to the nearest HWRC than other areas of the County such as Hitchin, Welwyn, Hatfield, Sawbridgeworth and Hertford. Some residents would have longer journeys to alternative HWRCs within the network and the cost of reaching those HWRCs would be greater due to the distance travelled and escalating fuel prices. This was a concern expressed by a number of respondents during the consultation period and is detailed in Appendix D.

5.4 The provision of 19 HWRCs in Hertfordshire equates to a service ratio of 56,500 residents per HWRC. This compares favourably to the overall average of South and South East England which is 60,000 per HWRC and more favourably in comparison with the immediate neighbouring waste authorities which is 63,000. The reduction to 18 HWRCs in Hertfordshire would mean each HWRC serving 60,000 and a reduction to 17 HWRCs, 63,000. The Panel noted that the Tring and Watford HWRCs are both in areas well served by other facilities such as the newly built or refurbished Rickmansworth and Waterdale HWRCs and the proposed Buckinghamshire development at Aston Clinton that is due for completion in April 2009 and which will be capable of processing 15,000 tonnes of waste per annum.

5.5 The Berkhamsted facility has previously processed 5,000 tonnes of waste per annum which is the estimated quantity that will be delivered by Hertfordshire residents should the Tring HWRC close. Should all 4,000 tonnes of waste from Tring be diverted, the Berkhamsted HWRC still has the capacity to process the required 7,000 tonnes per annum. It is not, however anticipated that the quantity of waste being diverted from Tring to Berkhamsted would actually reach the estimated 2,000 tonnes per annum requiring disposal. This is because the new facility in Aston Clinton would serve the Buckinghamshire residents who, it is thought, deliver a greater proportion of the total Tring HWRC waste due to the lack of green garden waste collection schemes in the Aylesbury Vale area.

5.6 The Panel noted the operational difficulties associated with the Watford site. Discussions with Watford Borough Council have indicated that additional land is available for the enlargement of the HWRC and that it is sufficient to relieve the current operational difficulties. Watford Borough Council has expressed itself happy, in principle, to consider any reasonable proposal from the County Council which would keep the facility open and improve it on the basis of including the existing land and additional land in a peppercorn lease agreement for 99 (or less) years subject to suitable use clauses.

5.7The Panel is aware of the need for a decision to be made regarding the nature and numbers of HWRCs comprising the network and of the current tender process. It is likely that any decision to delay the closure of the facilities could result in

161110 Appendix A, Watford Household Waste Recycing Centre 4 increased operational costs in the short term to cover the expense of suppliers providing containers for waste disposal and staffing at the HWRCs which might shortly close.

5.8 Bringing together the Panel’s earlier assessment with the recent analysis and consultation results shows that:-

 Closure of the Tring and Watford HWRCs would not adversely affect the overall ability of the network to provide a service to the majority of Hertfordshire residents, 99.6% of whom would be within 5 miles ‘as the crow flies’ of a facility. There will however be residents in the Tring and Watford areas who would incur longer journey times to alternative sites. At the same time, Buckinghamshire residents (who make up 50% of users of the Tring site) will, from next year, be able to take advantage of the new HWRC facility at Aston Clinton.

 Apart from relative over-provision in South West and North West Hertfordshire, the other big concern of the Panel’s is the difficulty of operating an effective service at Watford. The Borough Council’s offer of land effectively removes this difficulty, although would require capital expenditure to implement an enhancement.

The Panel will wish to consider what recommendations to make on the closure or otherwise of one or both HWRCs.

6. Financial Implications

6.1 There would be revenue savings from the HWRC closures calculated at £188,000 for Tring and £115,000 for Watford, a total of £303,000.

6.2There would in due course be a significant capital receipt from the sale of the land at Tring although the short term costs to the County’s land agents is in the region of £50,000 to cover site security costs, which could be covered by the revenue savings.

6.3 The estimated cost of a modest expansion / enhancement of the Watford HWRC, based upon previous construction works, is £60,000 which could be funded from the Waste Infrastructure Capital Grant Programme.

161110 Appendix A, Watford Household Waste Recycing Centre 5 161110 Appendix A, Watford Household Waste Recycing Centre 6 APPENDIX A (page 1 of 6)

To: All Members of the County Council From: County Secretary’s All Chief Officers Department Ask For: Neil Terry Cc: Environment Officers ) Tel: 01992 555413 Officers named for action) e-mail My ref: Democratic Services ) Your ref:

ENVIRONMENT SCRUTINY COMMITTEE 16 MAY 2008

MINUTES

ATTENDANCE

MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE

N Bell (substituting for S E Jones), C L Berry, M E Coxage (substituting for J T Metcalf), D J Drake, S B A Giles-Medhurst (Chairman), M D R Muir, A Oaten (substituting for M Cowan), D A A Peek, S L Rackett, W A Storey, R A C Thake, J W A Usher

ALSO PRESENT:

Other Members:

R S Clements, R Roberts, A M R Searing, L Spencer

MEMBERSHIP

The Committee noted that N Bell had been appointed to replace S E Jones, M E Coxage had been appointed to replace J T Metcalf and A Oaten had been appointed to replace M Cowan as members of the Committee for this meeting only.

MINUTES

The minutes of the meeting held on the 4 March 2008 were agreed as a correct record by the Committee.

PUBLIC PETITIONS

There were no petitions presented to the Committee.

161110 Appendix A, Watford Household Waste Recycing Centre 7 APPENDIX A (page 2 of 6) QUESTIONS (Standing Order C 9 (4))

There were no questions presented to the Committee.

PART 1 (OPEN BUSINESS) ACTION

CHAIRMAN’S ANNOUNCEMENTS

The Chairman welcomed members of the public and representatives from local authorities to the meeting.

1 HOUSEHOLD WASTE RECYCLING CENTRE SERVICE

1.1 The Chairman opened the meeting and Tom Hawkyard, Head of Scrutiny, informed the Committee that in accordance with Standing Order [SC.3/4] three members had requisitioned a special meeting of the Committee by notice in writing to the County Secretary.

As a consequence, the business of the meeting was to scrutinise the decision of the Waste Management Cabinet Panel of 4th March to recommend that:

Notice be given of the County Council's intention to close in October 2008 the Household Waste Recycling Centres Tringford Road, Tring and Wiggenhall Road, Watford.

1.2 A report was introduced by Richard Brown, Assistant Director Environmental Management, providing the Committee with background to the Waste Management Cabinet Panel’s recommendations on Household Waste Recycling Centres (HWRCs) and to report progress on issues raised at the Panel’s meeting on 4 March.

The Committee were informed that consultation is ongoing and the outcomes will be reported to the Waste Management Cabinet Panel on 9 July 2008.

Matt King, Senior Waste Manager, reported on the consultation responses received so far. It was noted that the closing date for responses was the 20 June 2008.

161110 Appendix A, Watford Household Waste Recycing Centre 8 APPENDIX A (page 3 of 6)

1.3 The Committee received representations from the following:

 Cllr Nick Hollinghurst on behalf of Tring Town Council (petition presented to the Committee)  Cllr Julie Laws on behalf of Berkhamsted Town Council  Olive Conway on behalf of the Tring Residents Association (petition presented to the Committee)  Brian Scott on behalf of Dacorum Borough Council  Alan Gough on behalf of Watford Borough Council  Mike Castro on behalf of Oxhey Hall Residents Association (OHRA)  David Steer on behalf of the Carpenders Park Residents Association  Cllr Phil Brading, Executive Member for Public Services and Health, Three Rivers District Council  Cllr Geoff Dunne on behalf of Three Rivers District Council (petition presented to the Committee)  Cllr Tony Poole on behalf of Watford Borough Council (petition presented to the Committee)  Cllr Chris Leslie on behalf of Watford Borough Council  Cllr Roy Clements for Oxhey Park  Cllr Stephen Giles-Medhurst for Central Oxhey

Copies of the presentations and petitions were forwarded to the Waste Management Team.

1.4 The Committee gave consideration to the background information set out in the report from officers and the Waste Management Cabinet Panel’s recommendations on Household Waste Recycling Centres (HWRCs).

Members raised concerns and asked a number of questions on the following issues:  Congestion around HWRCs  Increased journey time and length for residents in Tring and Watford  Carbon Footprint Calculations  Capacity of alternative sites  Purpose of HWRCs  Effect on fly-tipping in the Tring and Watford areas  Suitability of the Elstree HWRC

1.5 The Committee split into two groups to identify the key issues associated with each site. The findings were presented to the Committee by Tom Hawkyard and Neil Terry and are recorded below.

1.6 Watford Site Issues

1. Pedestrian Usage  Surveys  Journey Times 2. District Collection of WEEE Items – Non collection 3. Closure of WRAP – Watford Recycling Arts Project 4. Congestion around Riverside site 5. Displacement Journeys 6. Costing unclear – opening hours of alternative sites 7. Elstree Site – not a suitable alternative 8. Cost of Fly-tipping Collection – Waste Collection Authority

1.7 Tring Site Issues

1. Berkhamsted – access issues. Are there safety issues leaving Berkhamsted? 2. Capacity of Berkhamsted – will it be over capacity between April and June? 3. Travelling Costs – what will it cost Tring residents in extra transport costs to go to Berkhamsted? Is it more than HCC say? 4. What will it cost Dacorum Borough Council in additional recycling costs? 5. Justify journey to Berkhamsted – shop in Berkhamsted, take trade away from Tring. 6. Savings of £82,500. Is it a true saving? It is a cost that will disappear, £7k savings on containers – surely we will have to spend more on containers at Berkhamsted? County maybe saving but Tring residents will pay more. 7. Will Buckinghamshire limit Hertfordshire residents accessing Aston Clinton? 8. Where are the savings going? Are they being ploughed back into the service? 9. Is Hertfordshire site recycling working in Tring? 10.Do all the residents of Tring know what they can recycle? 11.Green bins only have limited capacity. 12.Aylesbury is growing – pressure on capacity at Aston Clinton 13.Dacorum have fortnightly collections which has received negative press. People not recycling properly. 14.People can miss the fortnightly collection. 15.Being clear on what sites are for so they are used correctly

16.Recycling e.g. batteries – recycle through Boroughs. Not appropriate for journey to tip 17.Aston Clinton up and running in 2009. Should Tring not close until 6 months after Aston Clinton opens so we can see the effect? 18.When Aston Clinton opens, costs are reduced because Tring are not subsidising Buckinghamshire’s land fill tax 19.When were Tring tip surveys carried out? For how long etc… 20.Some Buckinghamshire residents will be nearer Berkhamsted than Aston Clinton 21.Tring case based on Aston Clinton being open. Makes no difference to the mileage, 5 miles to Berk and 5 miles to Aston Clinton 22.Tring tip in an ideal situation, out of town with land around it. 23.Is service better elsewhere – purpose & function? 24.Square meters – how big is it, conflicting figures in report. 25.Site would be improved if mirror fitted on bridge and yellow lines painted.

1.8 An executive summary was provided by Richard Roberts, Chairman of the Waste Management Panel, who was substituting for Derrick Ashley, Executive Member for Planning, External Relations and Waste.

Questions relating to the role and function of HWRCs, how they compliment local recycling efforts and the traditional use of HWRCs catering for bulky waste items would need to be Richard considered by the Waste Management Panel. Brown

Representatives were encouraged to attend and speak at the Waste Management Panel meeting in July 2008.

Conclusion

1.9 The Committee:

 listened to the key concerns of residents who would be affected by the closures which were: -a potential increase in fly tipping -increased journey distances - increases in CO2 emissions, congestion and time it takes to recycle - the wrong message about recycling being sent out -sites are a valued local amenity  were informed that there is currently no evidence that it is possible to convert the Watford site into something fit for purpose;  noted there are different rules in different authorities for waste disposal and that the exchange of material between authorities balances out;  acknowledged that work can be done to ease congestion at new sites;  requested that officers look at the outcomes of the focus groups and ensure the points raised were covered in their report to the Waste Management Richard Panel; Brown  thanked Members of Public and other representatives for their attendance and participation.

Andrew Laycock County Secretary

161110 Appendix A, Watford Household Waste Recycing Centre 12 APPENDIX B (page 1 of 9)

Consultation responses – Tring HWRC

490 letters/emails about the Tring HWRC were received up to the 20th June 2008. A breakdown of the comments on the potential closure is as follows:-

 Concerns regarding increased fly tipping (73%): Impacts include significant costs of cleanup to Dacorum Borough Council, vermin, public health and safety and environmental impacts on local Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). Residents were also concerned that the Hunton Bridge example given to Environment Scrutiny Committee was not reliable because alternative sites in this case are further away.  Unacceptable journey distance (54%): A round trip of at least 10 miles is disputed because of high fuel prices, the transfer of County Council cost savings onto residents, problems with multiple journeys for bulky items and a lack of accessibility for those who have no access to a car or car share (predominantly the elderly).  County Council sending out the wrong message (54%): Closure of Tring HWRC would undermine Government drives to increase recycling and cut CO2 emissions. It would also go against the proximity principle and may negatively impact quality of life indicators.

 CO2 emissions (53%): Increased journey length will lead to greater emissions of the greenhouse gas and other airborne pollutants which are detrimental to the environment and human health.  Tring HWRC is a key local amenity (49%) and is efficient and well run (40%): The site received many compliments from members of the public, especially from the elderly and disabled. Many respondents view the site as key to encouraging the local population to recycle a more extensive range of materials than is offered by Dacorum Borough Council as it is situated so conveniently.  Increased disposal of recyclables in black bags (30%) and disincentivising recycling through cutting the HWRC network (27%) (Total 57%): Those residents who are unable or unwilling to make the journey to the Berkhamsted HWRC may resort to placing recyclable materials into black bags. As a result there will be increased landfill costs and a negative impact on the County’s LATS position.  Concerns over Berkhamsted HWRC capacity (27%): If all Tring HWRC users were to travel to Berkhamsted, residents question whether the site will be able to cope with the extra demand, especially at peak times.  Short term savings and a false economy (18%): Residents are concerned that County Council savings will be negated by fly tipping clear up costs and landfill disposal.  Inefficient use of council tax (17%): Aggravation at what is perceived as another in a number of local service cuts including bus routes and post offices.

 Extra space is available for expansion (13%): Many respondents made reference to the additional land in front of the main gates which could be used for expansion rather than closure.  Inconvenience to Tring residents (12%): Those residents who wish to continue regular recycling will be severely inconvenienced by the closure.  Congestion and ‘wear and tear’ of the road network (11%): Concerns that the increased traffic levels will degrade the road network more quickly, will increase congestion and will demand more money for road maintenance.  Tring HWRC has a good recycling rate (11%): Confusion as to why the County Council is seeking to close a site which achieves such a high recycling rate.  Inadequate District Council collections (11%): Residents are disappointed with the range of materials collected by Dacorum Borough Council and would be unable to recycle as great a range of materials post closure.

Summary of all Tring Complaints Above 10%, By Type.

0% Site Issues Waste Management Issues Council Policy Increased Frequency of Longer Journeys

Tring HWRC is a Key Local Concerns regarding Increased County Council sending out the Unacceptable Journey Distance Amenity (49%) Fly Tipping (73%) Wrong Message (54%) and Fuel Use (54%)

Tring HWRC is Efficient and Well Increased disposal of Recyclable Short Term Savings and False Increased CO2 Emissions (53%) Run (40%) Materials in Black Bags (30%) Economy (18%)

Extra Space is Available for Disincentivising Recycling by Inefficient Use of Council Tax Capacity Concerns at Expansion (13%) cutting HWRC Network (27%) through Service Cuts (17%) Berkhamsted HWRC (27%)

Tring HWRC has a Good District Collections are not Inconvenience to Tring Residents Recycling Rate (11%) Comprehensive Enough (11%) (12%)

Increased Congestion and Wear & Tear on the Road Network (11%)

Consultation responses – Watford HWRC

During the same period 176 letters/emails about the Watford HWRC were received. A breakdown of the comments on the potential closure are as follows:-

 Concerns regarding fly tipping (62%): Impacts include significant costs of cleanup to Watford Borough Council, degradation of street cleanliness, vermin and public health and safety. Residents were also concerned that the Hunton Bridge example given to Environment Scrutiny Committee was not reliable because alternative sites in this case are further away.  Unacceptable journey distance (62%): The increased distance to alternative sites prompted complaints because of high fuel prices, the transfer of County Council cost savings onto residents, problems with multiple journeys for bulky items and a lack of accessibility for those who have no access to a car or car share (predominantly the elderly).  A key local amenity (53%): Many respondents view the site as key to encouraging the local population to recycle a more extensive range of materials as its location is so convenient.

 CO2 emissions (49%): Increased journey length will lead to greater emissions of the greenhouse gas and other airborne pollutants which are detrimental to the environment and human health.  County Council sending out the wrong message (43%): Closure of the Watford HWRC would undermine government drives to increase recycling and cut CO2 emissions. It would also go against the proximity principle and may negatively impact quality of life indicators.  Congestion and wear and tear of the road network (27%): Concerns that the increased traffic levels will degrade the road network more quickly, will increase congestion and will demand more money for road maintenance.  Extra space is available to expand Watford HWRC (23%): Residents call on the County Council to use the extra land offered by Watford Borough Council to expand the site for the future and to reduce congestion at peak times.  Disincentivising recycling through cutting the HWRC network (21%) and increased disposal of recyclables in black bags (11%) (Total 33%): Those residents who are unable or unwilling to make the journey to alternative HWRCs may resort to placing recyclable materials into black bags. As a result there will be increased landfill costs and a negative impact on the County’s LATS position.  Inconvenience to Watford residents (19%). Those residents who wish to continue regular recycling will be severely inconvenienced by the closure.  Inadequate District Council collections (17%): Residents are disappointed with the range of materials collected by Watford Borough Council and will be unable to recycle as great a range of materials post closure.

 Concerns over alternative HWRC capacity (16%): If all Watford HWRC users were to travel to Elstree, Waterdale and Rickmansworth, residents question whether the sites will be able to cope with the extra demand, especially at peak times.  Watford HWRC is efficient and well run (15%): The site received compliments from members of the public with regard to its day to day operation.  Inefficient use of council tax (14%): Aggravation at what is perceived as another in a number of local service cuts including bus routes and post offices.  Short term savings and false economy (13%): Residents are concerned that County Council savings will be negated by fly tipping clear up costs and landfill disposal.

Sum m ary of all Watford Com plaints Above 10%, By Type.

0% Site Issues Waste Management Issues Council Policy Increased Frequency of Longer Journeys

Watford HWRC is a Key Local Concerns regarding Increased County Council sending out the Unacceptable Journey Distance Amenity (53%) Fly Tipping (62%) Wrong Message (43%) and Fuel Use (62%)

Extra Space is Available for Disincentivising Recycling by Inefficient Use of Council Tax Increased CO2 Emissions (49%) Expansion (23%) cutting HWRC Network (21%) through Service Cuts (14%)

Watford HWRC is Efficient and District Collections are not Short Term Savings and False Increased Congestion and Wear & Well Run (15%) Comprehensive Enough (17%) Economy (13%) Tear on the Road Network (27%)

Increased disposal of Recyclable Inconvenience to Watford Materials in Black Bags (11%) Residents (19%)

Capacity Concerns at Alternative HWRCs (16%)

One letter of support was also received regarding the Watford HWRC closure stating that the Wiggenhall Road site is outdated and badly positioned. The respondent also stated that despite living in the near vicinity of the site he preferred using Waterdale HWRC due to its superior layout and lack of congestion, especially as he only made the journey 3 or 4 times a year.

Consultation responses – Petitions for the Tring HWRC

2 Petitions – total of 3,353 signatures.

 Cllr Nick Hollinghurst on behalf of Tring Town Council (Liberal Democrats) – 521 signatures.  Olive Conway on behalf of the Tring Residents Association (Tring Conservatives) - 2,832 signatures.

Consultation responses – Petitions for the Watford HWRC

3 Petitions – total of 1,960 signatures.

 Cllr Geoff Dunne on behalf of Three Rivers District Council – 390 signatures.  Cllr Tony Poole on behalf of Watford Borough Council – 1,156 signatures.  Cllr Stephen Giles-Medhurst on behalf of Central Oxhey – 414 respondents via an electronic petition. This petition was received on three separate occasions but recorded once as they were identical apart from a small number of respondents.

THREE RIVERS DISTRICT COUNCIL

At a meeting of the Public Services and Health Policy and Scrutiny Committee held in the Penn Chamber, Three Rivers House, Rickmansworth, on Thursday 5 June 2008 from 7.30pm to 10.00 pm

Present: Councillors Stephen Giles-Medhurst (Chairman), Barbara Green (Vice- Chairman), Kemal Butt, Leighton Dann, Joy Mann, Kate Turner and Brian White

Officers in attendance:-

Karl Murdoch - Head of Environmental Protection Alison Page - Environmental Protection Manager Ted Massey - Chief Environmental Health Officer Sarah Haythorpe - Principal Committee Manager

Also in attendance: Councillors Phil Brading, Mary Connolly, Peter Ray and Ann Shaw OBE, Richard Brown, Assistant Director, Environment, Hertfordshire County Council

An apology for absence was received from Councillor Russell Smith

PH.PP1/08 MINUTES

The Minutes of the meeting of the Public Services and Health Policy and Scrutiny Committee held on 13 March 2008 were confirmed as a correct record and were signed by the Chairman.

PH.PP2/08 NOTICE OF OTHER BUSINESS

PH.PP3/08 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

Councillor Stephen Giles-Medhurst declared a personal and prejudicial interest in the report on the environmental and grounds maintenance contracts as a member of his family worked for one of the tenderers.

Councillor Leighton Dann declared a personal and prejudicial interest in the report on Grounds and Environmental Maintenance Contracts – In-House Bid – Croxley Green Parish Council as a Croxley Green Parish Councillor.

The Head of Environmental Protection declared a personal and prejudicial interest in the report on the environmental and grounds maintenance contracts as he was leading the team involved in putting together the in-house bid for both contracts.

PH.PP4/08 WATFORD HOUSEHOLD WASTE RECYCLING CENTRE, WIGGENHALL ROAD

The Chairman welcomed Richard Brown, Assistant Director, Environment at Herts County Council to the meeting. He was attending the meeting to answer questions on the proposal to close the Watford Household Waste Recycling Centre in Wiggenhall Road. He explained that in June 2007, a review of all the Hertfordshire Waste Recycling Centres (HWRC) was initiated by Herts County Council to ensure the network could continue to contribute to implementation of the Hertfordshire Waste Management Strategy and complement the service provided by the Hertfordshire District Authorities. Following the review, a notice of an intention to close the Tring and Watford HWRCs was published.

The Committee noted that there were significant operating difficulties at the Watford HWRC due to the limited space, with users of the centre regularly experiencing delays in accessing the centre and frequent temporary closures. It was considered that the proposed closure would not affect the County Council’s ability to provide an acceptable service to the overall majority of residents within a 5 miles radius. A further report would be presented to the County Councils Waste Management Cabinet Panel on 9 July which would incorporate the points raised at the Environment Scrutiny Committee meeting on 16 May about the impact on traffic, distance to travel, congestion, carbon footprint and the possible enhancement of the Watford recycling centre which was being discussed with Watford Borough Council. It was reported that the County Council had received 45 letters/emails raising a number of concerns over the proposal to close the Watford HWRC and all comments received would be advised to the Panel.

The Chairman advised that there had been a lot of public concern within Carpenders Park, South Oxhey and Oxhey Hall over the proposal to close the Watford HWRC.

In response to questions raised by the Committee, Mr Brown advised that:

. Watford was one of 19 HWRCs in Hertfordshire; . It was one of the most difficult recycling centres to operate due to the shape and logistics of the site;

. The concerns raised at the Scrutiny Committee meeting on 16 May 2008 about the assumptions made on the proximity/accessibility of the site, fuel costs of travel to alternative recycling centres and the carbon footprint were being investigated further for presentation to the Waste Management Cabinet Panel in July; . A petition had been received against the closure of the Watford HWRC; . Consideration needed to be given by the Hertfordshire Waste Partnership to the more effective recycling of smaller items like batteries and light bulbs for which traditional HWRCs may not be the most appropriate solution.

The Chairman raised concern that the Allum Lane recycling centre in Elstree was to remain open. He said that although waste-streams had reduced at the Watford HWRC, recycling tonnage had increased whereas at other HWRCs it had reduced. He questioned the distance of 5 miles to the next nearest HWRC and advised that this was certainly not the case for a lot of residents in South Oxhey, Carpenders Park and Oxhey Hall.

The Assistant Director, Environment advised that both the Allum Lane and Wiggenhall Road HWRCs had significantly less scope for improvement than other sites in Hertfordshire, but there continued to be particular operational difficulties at the Watford recycling centre. The County Council were reconsidering the mileage and proximity to other HWRCs following the Environment Scrutiny Committee meeting in May.

The Head of Environmental Protection advised that there had been a downturn in flytipping across the District.

A Member of the Committee noted the operational difficulties with the Watford HWRC but asked if the offer of additional land by Watford Borough Council had been discussed. Another Member of the committee also raised concern that the Allum Lane HWRC was on the edge of the County, nearer to Barnet, and potentially over half the residents who used the site were not residents of Hertfordshire.

Mr Brown replied that the County Council would be meeting with Watford Borough Council regarding the offer of additional land. He said although some neighbouring Authorities imposed strict rules (that only residents in that Authority could use the recycling centre), the County Council’s view was not to impose these conditions.

The Committee said there were a number of unanswered questions regarding travelling distances, the carbon footprint and the impact on residents if the Watford HWRC was to close.

The Portfolio Holder for Public Services and Health said kerbside collections had diverted some green waste from HWRC but residents needed to have access to a HWRC as there was more garden waste than the kerbside collection could manage. He said there was a limit on the capacity of the brown bins, and at certain times of the year it was difficult to keep up with the garden waste needed to be collected. With regard to the recycling of wood, metals, batteries and light bulbs, it was feared that the closing of the Watford HWRC before alternative mechanisms were in place was a concern. He said the Herts Waste Partnership needed to discuss this to agree a way forward.

The Chairman proposed, duly supported by the Committee, that the Director of Community and Environmental Services, in consultation with the Chairman of the Public Services and Health Policy and Scrutiny Committee and the Portfolio Holder for Public Services and Health, draft a letter, to be approved by the Executive Committee, to Herts County Council in response to the consultation on the proposal to close the Watford Household Waste Recycling Centre to include the following points:

 the Council did not support the proposal to close the Watford HWRC;  the proposal from Watford Borough Council of additional space for the Watford HWRC needed to be explored;  the high use of the Watford HWRC by residents;  the increase in the carbon footprint;  the distances that some residents would need to travel if the Watford HWRC closed would be in excess of 9.5 miles;  the potential increase in flytipping and the potential costs which would fall on Three Rivers District Council;  alternative arrangements should be in place for recycling small specialist items (light bulbs, wood, metals and batteries) to compliment the kerbside facilities being provided; and  the additional car journeys on the road network;

The Chairman thanked Richard Brown for attending the meeting and updating the Committee on the proposals for the Wiggenhall Recycling Centre.

ACTION AGREED:-

That the Director of Community and Environmental Services, in consultation with the Chairman of the Public Services and Health Policy and Scrutiny Committee and the Portfolio Holder for Public Services and Health, draft a letter, to be approved by the Executive Committee, to Herts County Council in response to the consultation on the proposal to close the Watford Household Waste Recycling Centre in Wiggenhall Road to include the points raised above.

161110 Appendix A, Watford Household Waste Recycing Centre 21 Impact on highways APPENDIX C (page 1 of 2)

The information provided to measure the impact of closure on the road network in the surrounding area of the alternate HWRCs has been given by the Environment Department’s Highways Development Control Team.

The analysis uses the TRICS software package to challenge and validate assumptions about the transport impacts of new developments. It is the only national trip generation and analysis database, containing trip generation data and site information for around 3,000 sites.

For this report the TRICS system was not used to estimate the traffic generated by a new development. It was used to estimate how many vehicles are likely to arrive and leave Tring and Watford HWRCs at the present time.

Within the TRICS database there are traffic count surveys for five Hertfordshire Household Waste Recycling Centres; Welwyn Garden City, Turnford, Royston, St Albans and Elstree. These are comparable sites to the two in question due to location, controlling authority, land use and the timing of the surveys.

Each survey counted all traffic entering and leaving each site over the course of a week. TRICS interrogates this data in such a way that it is able to give an estimated trip rate for Hertfordshire HWRCs in general. It presents this as Trips per Hectare split into hour long time slots. By factoring in the size of a particular site it is possible to estimate how many vehicles could reasonably be expected to enter and leave the site at any given hour of the day.

The potential impact on highways for the Tring area

During the weekend peak periods the Tring HWRC is likely to generate up to 50 trips an hour. If the closure of the site at Tring coincides with the opening of the new Aston Clinton facility it is anticipated that a proportion of residents that used Tring will transfer to Aston Clinton and the remaining trips will divert to the alternative HWRC in Berkhamsted.

The Berkhamsted site is located at the end of Northbridge Road which is a wide, straight industrial estate road approximately 1km in length. On the occasions (mainly at weekends) when the site is likely to be busy, vehicles will be forced to queue outside. Due to the nature of the road a small amount of queuing vehicles is unlikely to cause a hazard, although the introduction of measures such as extended opening hours would ease this situation.

It has been impossible to model the effects of the displacement of traffic, however, the anticipated increased use of the Berkhamsted HWRC is unlikely to have any significant impact on the surrounding junctions at Billet Lane, High Street and Bridgewater Road.

161110 Appendix A, Watford Household Waste Recycing Centre 22 APPENDIX C (page 2 of 2)

The potential impact on highways for the Watford area

The Saturn computer model for South West Hertfordshire cannot be used for predicting the effects of such small-scale changes of trip generation as proposed here. It has therefore been impossible to use it to model the displacement of traffic. The alternative sites are similar distances (5 to 7km) away from and disposed evenly around the Wiggenhall Road site. The numbers of trips generated by the Watford site has been estimated to be around 60 per hour or 440 per day.

Analysis of residual waste volumes and opening times gives predicted shares of the displaced trips of 21% to Elstree, 33% to Rickmansworth and 46% to Waterdale. This equates to additional trips per hour and per day of 13 and 92 to Elstree, 20 and 145 to Rickmansworth and 28 and 200 to Waterdale. There will also be a small number of HGV trips associated with disposal of the additional waste collected at each site.

Roads at Rickmansworth likely to be most effected by the car and HGV trips displaced by closure of the Wiggenhall Road site would be A404 Riverside Drive/ London Road, A4145 Moor Lane/ Tolpits Lane/ Hagden Lane/ Vicarage Road and A412 Rectory Road/ Park Road/ Scots Hill/ Watford Road/ Rickmansworth. Roads at Waterdale likely to be most effected by the car and HGV trips displaced by closure of the Wiggenhall Road site would be A405 St Albans Road North Orbital/ Kingsway North Orbital and A412 St Albans Road north of the A41. Roads at Elstree likely to be most effected by the car and HGV trips displaced by closure of the Wiggenhall Road site would be B5378 Allum Lane, A5183 Elstree Hill North, A411 Watford Road/ Elstree Road/ Sparrows Herne and the A41 North Western Avenue.

Household Waste Recycling Centres are at their busiest at weekends and public holidays. This is when the road network is generally running under lighter load than during the weekday peaks. The volumes of displaced traffic predicted will not cause significant congestion or delays at any of the key junctions around each site. The access and internal layouts at each site will be able to provide sufficient safe capacity to manage these volumes.

161110 Appendix A, Watford Household Waste Recycing Centre 23 161110 Appendix A, Watford Household Waste Recycing Centre 24 APPENDIX D (page 1 of 3)

The potential effect on the carbon footprint

The potential effect of the closures on the carbon footprint for Hertfordshire can be assessed by consideration of the average journey length by residents to the current facilities and the distance for these residents to travel to the alternative HWRCs. The additional journey length is then multiplied by the total number of journeys that are affected.

Inc. Return Additional Distance Herts Only TRING Distance (km) Number of Visits TRING Trip (km) Traveled to Berkhamsted Residents A l l P a t r o n s 3 . 9 8 7 . 9 6 All Visitors 14.48 99,226 TRICS Data 49613 P r e C l o s u r e H e r t f o r d s h i r e H e r t f o r d s h i r e R e s i d e n t s O n l y 2 . 5 5 5 . 1 R e s i d e n t s O n l y 13.44 141,594 Waste Data 70797 A l l P a t r o n s c h a n g i n g t o 11 . 2 2 2 2 . 4 4 B e r k h a m s t e d P o s t C l o s u r e H e r t f o r d s h i r e R e s i d e n t s O n l y 9 . 2 7 18 . 5 4 c h a n g i n g t o B e r k h a m s t e d

Inc. Return Additional Distance WATFORD Distance (km) Number of Visits - TRICS Data Trip (km) Travelled to Alternative Pre Closure All Visitors 2.95 5.9 To Elstree 7.36 Total Number Diverted to Alternative Sites

Watford Patrons changing to 6.63 13.26 To Waterdale 6.64 Elstree (21%) 23772 Elstree Watford Patrons changing to Post Closure 6.27 12.54 To Rickmansworth 4.18 113,202 Waterdale (46%) 52073 Waterdale Watford Patrons changing to 5.04 10.08 Rickmansworth (33%) 37357 Rickmansworth

Number of Visits - Waste Data

HERTFORDSHIRE TOTAL Distance (km) Total Number Diverted to Alternative Sites Hertfordshire Average 3.74 Elstree (21%) 48695 (with 19 Sites) Hertfordshire Average 4.21 231,881 Waterdale (46%) 106665 (with 17 Sites)

Rickmansworth (33%) 76521

There are assumptions used in these calculations such as a CO2 factor of 0.22 kgCO2/km, an average used for a petrol car with 1.4 to 2 litre engines, to provide the gross ‘gain’ in carbon emissions by closing the facilities.

There is also consideration given to the reduction in CO2 emissions from residents from outside the County boundary who, it is assumed, will not travel to Berkhamsted but instead to a nearer HWRC provided in their county and the reduction in heavy vehicle movements not travelling to remove waste from the facilities. This gross ‘reduction’ assumes a CO2 factor of 0.76 kgCO2/km, an average used for a rigid diesel lorry, and also takes into account the energy consumption of the two facilities in KW per annum. It is assumed that the energy consumption at Tring and Watford will cease after closure and that there will be an increase of some 25% at Berkhamsted to account for the possibility of increased opening hours and the increase in waste through the compaction machines used for residual and green garden waste. The energy consumption is assumed to be 0.43 kgCO2/kWh.

161110 Appendix A, Watford Household Waste Recycing Centre 25 APPENDIX D (page 2 of 3)

The current calculated carbon footprints show the following:

Additional CO2 from closing Tring (resident trips): 178 tonnes. Additional CO2 from closing Watford (resident trips): 227 tonnes. Energy consumption net CO2 savings: (-1.4) tonnes Lorry movement net CO2 reduction - Tring: (-24.1) tonnes Lorry movement net CO2 reduction - Watford: 0.0 tonnes

Total approximated at 379.5 tonnes additional CO2 per annum

According to the Quality of Life Report 2007, produced for the Hertfordshire Environmental Forum, and to put these figures into context; the total CO2 emissions from road transport in Hertfordshire during 2005 was 2,986,000 tonnes. The additional emissions for the closure of Tring and Watford HWRCs would represent 0.01% of the 2005 road transport total.

The above calculations have included a number of assumptions, not least the number of visits to the HWRCs under review. The number of visits based on weight data is taken from a compositional analysis of the residual waste at 9 of the 19 HWRCs and was funded by the Local Authority Support Unit. This report measured an average weight of residual waste of 23.09 kg per person. This can be used to detail the numbers of people using the HWRC network to deliver residual waste only and was expanded to reflect the total number of visitors based on the assumption that 49% of the waste at the time of the survey was residual waste.

The TRICS database as described in Appendix C provides an alternative to the above assumptions concerning the number of residents based on waste delivered to the site and it is felt that, a more accurate reflection of the numbers of residents using the facilities is between these two sets of data. Therefore, the figures are shown for both the numbers of visitors using the TRICS database and for the projections based on waste delivered to each of the HWRCs.

More detailed work and investment would be needed to provide comprehensive site usage data, information on vehicle type and behaviour of site users such as frequency of visit and type of waste disposed at the facility.

161110 Appendix A, Watford Household Waste Recycing Centre 26 APPENDIX D (page 3 of 3)

Concerns over the cost of additional transport can be expressed as follows:

Watford HWRC:

TRICS database: 113,202 residents meaning an additional 423,049 miles travelled. Waste projections: 231,881 residents meaning an additional 866,568 miles travelled.

Using an average of 30 mpg (Average for 1.6 to 2 litre car), the average additional miles are 644,808.5 equating to 21,494 gallons of petrol (at mid May price of £5 per gallon) this shows an additional cost to residents of £107,468 per annum.

The Average number of residents is 172,541.5 therefore the additional cost per resident visit is an anticipated £0.62.

Tring HWRC (Hertfordshire residents only):

TRICS database: 49,613 residents meaning an additional 416,749 miles travelled. Waste projections: 70,797 residents meaning an additional 594,695 miles travelled.

Using an average of 30 mpg (Average for 1.6 to 2 litre car), the average additional miles are 505,722 equating to 16,857 gallons of petrol (at mid May price of £5 per gallon) this shows an additional cost to residents of £84,287 per annum.

The Average number of residents is 60,205 therefore the additional cost per resident visit is an anticipated £1.40.

161110 Appendix A, Watford Household Waste Recycing Centre 27 161110 Appendix A, Watford Household Waste Recycing Centre 28 Proximity and accessibility APPENDIX E (page 1 of 7)

The effect of the closures on the proximity and accessibility of sites for residents has been expressed using maps from the Accession software package used by the Environment Department’s Transportation Planning & Policy Unit. The software produces maps showing time contours of theoretical journey times to the existing HWRCs and with the closure of the Tring and Watford facilities. These show some small changes from the 5 to 10 minute theoretical journey times, and identifies, which areas are most affected. The assessment of the existing 5 mile ‘as the crow flies’ criteria shows that over 99.6% of the population will be covered by the 17 household waste recycling centres. Also shown is the existing 19 HWRC scenario with theoretical journey times and the 17 HWRC scenario. It can be clearly seen that some areas of the County are currently worse off than those who are likely to be affected by the closure of either the Tring or Watford HWRCs.

Accession is a software tool designed to explore relative accessibility of specified destinations from a series of specified origins. It will then provide a quantitative assessment of the time and distance based on a number of parameters within the system.

For the purposes of calculating the figures used in this report the following data was used.  ITN road network – national road network data including network speeds based on classification only (i.e. M-ways 70mph, A roads 60mph, B roads 40mph and all others 30mph).  Postcode dataset – for origins based on ordnance survey grid references for the centroids of each postcode.  Household waste sites – points representing the location of the household waste sites.

The average distance for postcodes to the nearest waste site is confidently reported. The figure for time is however based on default theoretical figures for the base network. The maps therefore should be considered together as they illustrate the relative effect of closing either of the two sites on residents in parts of the county. Less weight should be attributed to the absolute measure of journey time as this will be affected by local conditions speed limits, traffic volumes, weather and road works etc. The system does not take in to account legal speeds or real attainable speeds.

In summary, the following maps and tables describe the relative ease, based on time and distance by road, by which residents of Hertfordshire can access their nearest HWRC.

161110 Appendix A, Watford Household Waste Recycing Centre 29 APPENDIX E (page 2 of 7)

The following data assumes the use of a car as means of transport to the HWRCs.

Inc. Return TRING Time (min) Distance (km) Trip (km)

All Patrons 4.32 3.98 7.96 Pre Closure Hertfordshire Residents Only 2.80 2.55 5.1

All Patrons changing to 9.33 11.22 22.44 Post Berkhamsted Closure Hertfordshire Residents Only 7.24 9.27 18.54 changing to Berkhamsted

Inc. Return WATFORD Time (min) Distance (km) Trip (km) Pre All Visitors 2.18 2.95 5.9 Closure Watford Patrons changing to 4.61 6.63 13.26 Elstree Post Watford Patrons changing to 4.21 6.27 12.54 Closure Waterdale Watford Patrons changing to 3.71 5.04 10.08 Rickmansworth

HERTFORDSHIRE TOTAL Time (min) Distance (km)

Hertfordshire Average (with 19 Sites) 3.25 3.74

Hertfordshire Average (with 17 Sites) 3.58 4.21

The current travel distance to the Watford HWRC is below the average for all Hertfordshire residents for their nearest HWRC, and although the Tring average is higher than that for all sites, those residents using the facility that are from within the County boundary reduce the travel time to below the average for all sites.

161110 Appendix A, Watford Household Waste Recycing Centre 35 161110 Appendix A, Watford Household Waste Recycing Centre 36 APPENDIX F (page 1 of 1)

Risks of fly-tipping

Fly tipping is a crime and carries a maximum penalty of £20,000 or a prison term of up to five years and this may be a significant factor in the reductions seen in recent years as shown in the graph below with a 41% reduction in reported incidents in Dacorum, Three Rivers and Watford between 2004 and 2007.

Experience following the closure of the Hunton Bridge facility has shown that fly tipping was not a significant problem. Waste was left outside the facility gates for up to a week before stopping and the surrounding area did not suffer from any sharp increases in unlawful disposal. The information is taken from the reported incidents on the Environment Agency’s Flycapture database.

Flytipping in Dacorum, Three Rivers and Watford

450 400 g n

i 350 p p

i 300 t y l f

250 2004 f o 200 2007 s t n

e 150 d i

c 100 n I 50 0 June July August Month

161110 Appendix A, Watford Household Waste Recycing Centre 37 161110 Appendix A, Watford Household Waste Recycing Centre 38 APPENDIX G (page 1 of 3)

Enlargement of Watford HWRC

The possible enhancement or enlargement of the existing Watford facility has been assessed on estimates of recent builds and redevelopments within the HWRC network:

Firstly, an assessment of the estimated costs for the basic expansion, this could alleviate the significant operational difficulties as detailed later in this Appendix but would not provide the appearance of a brand new facility such as those newly refurbished or expanded HWRCs.

ESTIMATED COSTS FOR A BASIC EXPANSION OF WATFORD HOUSEHOLD WASTE RECYCLING CENTRE

Rate Description Quantity Unit (£) Total

Pavements Hardicrete for bin areas 860 m2 21 18060 High Stone Content Overlay 1205 m2 10 12050

Fencing 2.4m Pallisade 69 m 100 6900 7m Pallisade Gates 1 no. 3500 3500

Excavation Excavation in Hard 75 m3 10 750

Disposal of material 75 m3 15 1125

Drainage Gullies 5 no. 1500 7500 100mm connections & pipework 100 m 10 1000 Clean out existing foul system 1 item 2500 2500

Linemarkings New Layout 1 Item 2500 2500

Demolition Vehicle Wash 1 Item 5000 5000

Total Improvement Cost 60885

161110 Appendix A, Watford Household Waste Recycing Centre 39 APPENDIX G (page 2 of 3)

The following options are set out to give indicative costs of upgrading the Watford HWRC to improve the aesthetics and appearance of the facility although they are not necessary for alleviating the operational difficulties:

Additional Items for brand new facility

Design Fees & Payments to statutory undertakers 1 Item 35000 35000 Red anti slip 1 Item 1500 1500 New Recycle Now Signage 1 Item 8000 8000 New Office Install 1 Item 25000 25000 Site Lighting Scheme include excavations 1 Item 25000 25000 Additional Drainage & New Interceptor 1 Item 20000 20000 Additional Litter fencing (River Side) 60 m 250 15000 Fire Fighting/Wash down Equipment - Fire hose Reels & Water Supplies 3 no. 10000 30000 CCTV 1 Item 10000 10000 Bin Bump Stops 60 m 40 2400

Additional Costs 171900

NOTES:

The construction period for the minimum works would be in the region of 6 weeks, taking into account the requirement of the CDM Regulations 2007. The HWRC would have to be closed for this period due to its restricted nature and to protect the health and safety of contractors, nearby residents and the members of the public.

These figures are based on previous construction works carried out by the County Council. The existing levels of the site means resurfacing is required to achieve suitable drainage.

The additional items could be added to a small scale construction contract, but represent an indicative value of such works. Additional drainage would be needed and this must be agreed with Thames Water trade effluent team before any works or design could be progressed.

Planning permission will be dependant on the existing permission/land use of the depot. The Environment Agency would also need to be consulted over an extension to the site’s environmental permit, as currently the depot and the HWRC are permitted separately in their respective areas.

161110 Appendix A, Watford Household Waste Recycing Centre 40 APPENDIX G (page 3 of 3

A complete reconstruction of the HWRC as opposed to the option for basic expansion shown above would be in the region of £750,000. This figure is based on similar developments recently carried out within Hertfordshire.

Effect of an upgraded Watford HWRC:

The current operational difficulties are detailed in the report which the Panel considered in March 2008. The possible expansion could alleviate these problems as follows:

The current provision of 13 containers for waste could be increased to 20 containers. This means an increase to the separation of recyclable materials and an increase in the rate of recycling that could be achieved at the HWRC. The increased number of containers also increases the capacity of the HWRC and therefore reduces the requirement to close for unavoidable servicing during peak periods.

The current facility has provision for 18 car parking spaces, this is reduced by the encroachment of a number of waste containers to a practical number of 15. The traffic flow within the site is also very restricted and in reality the exit is frequently blocked by vehicles causing delays. An expansion could accommodate 22 car parking spaces, an improved traffic flow through the facility and significantly, a ‘running lane’ that removes vehicles from the highway and allows a controlled queuing space instead of the current concerns with the Wiggenhall Road depot.

161110 Appendix A, Watford Household Waste Recycing Centre 41 161110 Appendix A, Watford Household Waste Recycing Centre 42 APPENDIX H (page 1 of 2)

Environment Scrutiny Committee Findings – June 2007

The key findings of the Scrutiny Committee, endorsed by the Panel, covered three main areas:-

Purpose and function

 The HWRCs should be flexible and adaptable to meet future needs or changes in legislation.

 The HWRCs should have increased capacity for reuse of household waste and should continue to incentivise recycling and reuse.

 The HWRCs should be places for the receipt of specialised household waste not collected by the district and borough councils.

 The purpose of the HWRCs is not to encourage ‘overspill’ from the district and borough council collections.

 The HWRCs should form part of a unified and integrated collection and disposal service between the County Council and the district and borough councils.

 The HWRCs should be included in the ongoing partnership working between local authorities and contractors.

Location

 Accessibility to the HWRCs is paramount.

 Scrutiny Committee thought the HWRC network should be part of a ‘whole system’ across county boundaries and between organisations e.g. collection authorities and supermarkets

 The current ‘5 miles as the crow flies’ proximity criteria should be reviewed and take into account the provision of HWRCs outside the County. The Scrutiny Committee questioned the need for nineteen sites.

 It was thought that new facilities should be linked to new developments through s.106.

161110 Appendix A, Watford Household Waste Recycing Centre 43 APPENDIX H (page 2 of 2)

Scale and style

 Think of the HWRCs as ‘one-stop-shops’ for recycling and disposal.

 Cleanliness and attractiveness with efficient layouts are important.

 Ensure that site staff are informed and helpful.

 Thought should be given to making use of any ability to charge for certain categories of waste.

 The Scrutiny Committee discussed the merits of a Countywide information booklet.

 Is it impossible to automate processes at HWRCs to speed-up visits?

 The importance of close monitoring of sites was stressed.

161110 Appendix A, Watford Household Waste Recycing Centre 44