EHDC & WCC Joint Environmental Services Committee Agenda

East Hampshire District Council Winchester City Council Penns Place, Petersfield City Offices, Colebrook Street, Hampshire. GU31 4EX Winchester, Hampshire SO23 9LJ Telephone 01730 266551 Telephone 01962 840 222 www.easthants.gov.uk www.winchester.gov.uk Chief Executive: Sandy Hopkins Chief Executive: Simon Eden

Date: 25 March 2015 Time: 2.30 pm Venue: Council Chamber, Penns Place, Petersfield, GU31 4EX

Membership

Membership: Cllr R Millard (Chairman)

Councillors (EHDC) Councillors (WCC) Cllr Melissa Maynard Cllr Steve Miller Cllr Bill Mouland Cllr Frank Pearson Cllr Patricia Stallard

Deputy Members

Councillors (EHDC) Councillors (WCC) Cllr Dean Phillips Vacancy

The business to be transacted is set out below:

Jo Barden-Hernandez Service Manager – Legal& Democratic Services

Date of Publication : Tuesday, 17 March 2015

Contact Officer: James Harris 01730 234098 Email: [email protected]

Pages

PART 1 (Items open for public attendance)

1 Apologies for Absence

To receive and record any apologies for absence.

2 Chairman's Announcements

3 Confirmation of Minutes

To confirm the minutes of the previous meeting held on 26 November 2014.

4 Declarations of Interest

5 Environmental Services Audit Update 1 - 12

6 Contract Management Team Update

Verbal update by the Service Manager (Contract Management Team)

7 The Waste (England and Wales) Regulations 2011 (Amended 13 - 34 2012)

8 Project Integra Update 35 - 106

9 Litter Picking and Road Safety 107 - 128

10 Matters Referred from the WCC/EHDC Environmental Services 129 - 134 Joint Scrutiny Committee

PART 2 (Confidential Items - closed to the public)

The committee is asked to consider whether to pass a resolution excluding the public from the meeting during consideration of any of the items on the agenda. If councillors wish to do so then this could be achieved by passing the following resolution. Councillors are not required to pass the resolution but the Solicitor to the Council recommends this as to the item set out below.

That the public be excluded from the meeting during consideration of the item headed and numbered as below because:

(a) it is likely, in view of the nature of the business to be transacted or the nature of the proceedings, that if members of the public were present during that item there would be disclosure to them of exempt information of the descriptions specified in paragraphs of Part 1 of Schedule 12A (as amended) of the Local Government Act 1972 shown against the heading in

ii question; and

(b) in all the circumstances of the case, the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information.

Item 11 – Public Conveniences Cleaning Contract (Paragraph 3 - Information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding that information); and

Item 12 – Textiles Income Update (Paragraph 3 - Information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding that information).

11 Public Conveniences Cleaning Contract 135 - 140

12 Textiles Income Update 141 - 148

GENERAL INFORMATION

IF YOU WOULD LIKE A VERSION OF THIS AGENDA, OR ANY OF ITS REPORTS, IN LARGE PRINT, BRAILLE, AUDIO OR IN ANOTHER LANGUAGE PLEASE CONTACT DEMOCRATIC SERVICES ON 01730 234073.

Internet

This agenda and its accompanying reports can also be found on the East Hampshire District Council website: www.easthants.gov.uk

Public Attendance and Participation

Members of the public are welcome to attend and observe the meetings. Many of the Council’s meetings allow the public to make deputations on matters included in the agenda. Rules govern this procedure and for further information please get in touch with the contact officer for this agenda.

Disabled Access

All meeting venues have full access and facilities for the disabled.

No Smoking Policy

All meeting venues operate a no smoking policy on all premises and grounds.

iii This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 5

NON-EXEMPT

EAST HAMPSHIRE DISTRICT COUNCIL & WINCHESTER CITY COUNCIL

EHDC & WCC Joint Environmental Services 25 March 2015 Committee

Environmental Services Audit Update Report by Service Manager (Contract Management Team)

For Information

Portfolios: Cllr Melissa Maynard (EHDC, Environment), Cllr Richard Millard (EHDC, Commercial Contracts), Cllr Patricia Stallard (WCC, Environment, Health & Wellbeing)

Key Decision: No

1.0 Purpose of Report

1.1 To advise the Joint Environmental Services Committee on the outcome of the 2013/14 audit of the Joint Environmental Services Contract undertaken by the Southern Internal Audit Partnership for both East Hampshire District & Winchester City Councils, and the progress on the Management Action Plan which senior officers of both councils have agreed with our auditors.

1.2 JESC previously considered this matter in October 2014 and asked for an update report to be brought back in March 2015.

2.0 Recommendations

(a) That the Committee notes the progress made in respect to delivery of the Audit Management Action Plan.

3.0 Detail

3.1 The report of the Joint Environmental Services Audit was issued in August 2014. Its focus was to assess the effectiveness of controls in place focusing on those designed to mitigate risk in achieving the following key objectives:

Page 1

• Governance arrangements and management and operational responsibilities are clearly documented and communicated to all relevant parties; • Works and supplies meet the requirements and quality of the agreed contracts and specifications; • The performance of the contract is regularly reviewed and appropriate action taken with the contractor; • Relevant Members and senior management are regularly informed of compliance with the contracts and associated costs; • Administrative arrangements at both authorities ensure that processes are efficient and costs are transparent, fair and representative. 3.2 The overall opinion of the review based on the position in early 2014 was that a limited assurance could be placed on the effectiveness of the framework of risk management, control and governance designed to support the achievement of management objectives. 3.3 In particular, the audit identified that business processes had not been formally designed to support the Joint Client Team (JCT) activities and had evolved over the life of the partnership and are not fit for purpose. This resulted in a number of issues which the resultant Management Action Plan has already addressed.

3.4 Additionally, the audit confirmed that there were some weaknesses in contract monitoring, strategic and operational performance management of the contracts and there was inconsistent reporting of performance to both the senior officers (JESB) and councillors (JESC) during 2013.

3.5 An update report was requested by the Partnership in December 2014. Progress has continued with the delivery of the actions and the latest position is attached at Appendix A. This report provides a summary of that update and confirms that significant progress has already been made in addressing the issues identified and many have now been completed.

3.6 Whilst the overall opinion from the original audit was one of ‘limited assurance’, the auditors assessment of the Management Action Plan was that completion of the actions would mitigate any future risks. It is not yet known whether the progress made will result in a reassessment of that judgement and a further audit is due during the current calendar year.

4.0 Implications

4.1 Resources: There are no specific additional resource requirements arising from this report. Many of the actions have been completed as part

Page 2

of the implementation of the Joint Client Team review previously considered by JESC.

4.2 Legal: there are no legal implications directly from this report.

4.3 Strategy: No direct implications

4.4 Risks: The implementation of Management Action Plan has helped to reduce the risks to the two councils to an acceptable level.

4.5 Communications: There are no direct communication issues arising from this report.

Appendices:

Appendix A - Environmental Services Audit Action Plan Update

Contact Officer: Rob Heathcock Job Title: Service Manager (Contract Management Team) Telephone: 01730 234283 E-Mail: [email protected]

Page 3

Appendix A Action plan 1

Objective Governance arrangements and management and operational responsibilities are clearly documented and communicated to all relevant parties Management action What Priority Responsible officer Progress update Dec 2014 (High, Medium, Low) 1.1 Review terms of reference and governance Low J Batchelor / S Completed - terms of reference arrangements for joint scrutiny committee to Tilbury reviewed and agreed at Joint

Page 4 ensure that councillors and officers in each Scrutiny Cttee. council are clear as to responsibilities of the joint committee. 1.2 The sequencing of the work programme for, Low J Batchelor / R Completed JESB, JESC and JESSC has been reviewed to Heathcock ensure that key decisions are taken by JESC following consideration by JESB & JESSC as appropriate. 1.3 Programme of BPR has been established with Medium S Watson Completed support from the Business Improvement Team to review, harmonise and document all processes within the JCT. 1.4 Completion of all BPR / process reviews and Medium S Watson In Progress - Review implementation / rollout of new processes programme underway. Progress including staff training. JCT Procedure Manual being delayed by need to will be also be written. complete options appraisal on Lagan CRM system. Work to continue throughout 2015.

1.5 Temporary restructuring of the admin resource Medium S Watson Completed within the JCT from May this year has provided cover for the Performance & Development Officer 1.6 Confirmation of key officer responsibility for Medium R Heathcock Completed – JCT review ensuring ongoing consistency and reviewing identified need to make Projects business processes within the JCT will be and Admin Manager post identified in JCT review. permanent and agreed by JESC. Implementation plan to recruit to post in hand. 1.7 Reinstate a cycle of regular team, & contract Low R Heathcock Completed meetings and individual manager / staff 1-1 meetings

Page 5 1.8 Review function & timing of contract and team Low R Heathcock Completed meetings 1.9 Set 14/15 performance objectives and targets Low R Heathcock Completed in accordance with for JCT staff corporate timescales by 1 June 2014 1.10 Review training requirements and produce Low R Heathcock In Progress - training 2014 -16 training and development plan for requirements reviewed as part JCT, to inform budget build for 2015/16. of 2014 mid-year appraisals and will be refreshed during Team awayday in January 2015. 1.11 Review work undertaken in 2013 and establish Low R Heathcock Completed - work programme work programme for 2014/15 completed in addition to waste Minimisation Plan which has been approved by JESC. 1.12 Hold JCT Management workshop on risk Low R Heathcock Completed – workshop not held management but Risk Register updated and discussed with EHDC lead

officer for risk. 1.13 Prepare JCT Risk Management Plan and refer Med R Heathcock In Progress - draft risk register to JESB for approval considered by JESB at Nov 2014 meeting. Being updated based on comments received. Risk management now a standing item on all JESB meetings.

Page 6

Action plan 2 Objective Works and supplies meet the requirements and quality of the agreed contracts and specifications Management action What Priority Responsible officer Target date / Progress (High, Medium, Low) 2.1 Following completion of street cleansing and High R Heathcock Completed and approved on 7 grounds maintenance updated schedules August 2014 following resolution of the contract dispute, a

Page 7 formal Contract Monitoring Plan is to be considered by JESB to include confirmation of the process for dealing with contractor returns and proactive monitoring of contracts by CMOs. 2.2 Current arrangements for processing invoices Medium J Knight & R Completed and payments have been reviewed and Heathcock improved as part of the ongoing review of processes as part of the new EHDC Finance System 2.3 Implement new processes including relevant Medium J Knight Completed training in both WCC & EHDC 2.4 Review process for monthly monitoring and High M Taylor & J Knight In progress - Review reconciliation of Biffa invoices, credit notes and completed. Written procedure payments in JCT and Finance Teams at EHDC to be developed to put in practice. 2.5 Six monthly review of process to ensure Medium R Heathcock & J 1 March 2015 compliance Knight

2.6 Complete review of all outstanding VAT issues High M Taylor Completed & defaults and resolve with Biffa; all outstanding monies are now being dealt with as part of the monthly payments to Biffa. 2.7 Review procedure for implementation of Medium M Bailey Completed contract variations with TLG, EHDC legal & finance officers which will provide an audit trail & accountability at each stage of process.

Page 8

Action plan 3 Objective The performance of the contract is regularly reviewed and appropriate action taken with the contractor Management action What Priority Responsible officer Target date / progress (High, Med, Low) 3.1 Strategic Performance Framework (SPF) Medium J Batchelor Completed agreed by JESC for TLG in March. Biffa (SPF) agreed in June 2014 with the timing of its implementation be delegated to the Executive Page 9 Head Environment and Neighbourhood Quality, in consultation with the relevant Portfolio Holders at WCC and EHDC. 3.2 Complete work on developing process maps High S Watson Completed and procedure notes for CMOs to issue and record rectifications & defaults for all three Environmental Services Contract 3.3 Undertaken training of relevant staff on High S Watson Completed operation of procedure 3.4 Joint Client Team Manager to agree Low R Heathcock Completed standardised agenda for all contract meetings to cover key performance matters. 3.5 Identification of existing processes requiring Medium S Watson Completed improvement. 3.6 Redesign of processes and reconfigure Medium S Watson In Progress – due for database as appropriate including procurement completion 31 March 2015 of external expertise as required

Action plan 4

Objective Relevant Members and senior management are regularly informed of compliance with the contracts and associated costs Management action What Priority Responsible Target date / progress (High, officer Medium, Low) 4.1 Review of previous dashboard has been Medium S Watson Completed

Page 10 carried out and revised dashboard(s) created for each of the three contracts which will be considered by JESB in August 2014. 4.2 Subject to 4.1 above quarterly performance Medium S Watson Completed - first report management reports will be reported to provided to December JESB JESC from quarter 2 . meeting. Will be refined based on comments for next cycle. 4.3 Review of Joint Client team will include a Medium R Heathcock Completed - JCT review review of cost allocation principles considered and agreed by November JESC meeting 4.4 Approval of any revisions to cost allocation Medium R Heathcock In progress - budget bids to principles by respective Council’s to inform be considered by respective 15/16 budget Cabinets as part of 15/16 budget setting process.

Priority Priority rating Current risk High A significant risk of; failure to achieve objectives; fraud or impropriety; system breakdown; loss; or qualification of the accounts by the organisation’s external auditors. Such risk could lead to adverse impact on the organisation or expose the organisation to criticism. Medium A serious, but not immediate risk of: failure to achieve objectives; system breakdown; or loss. Low Areas that individually have no major impact, but where management would benefit from improved risk management and / or have the opportunity to achieve greater efficiency and / or effectiveness.

Page 11

This page is intentionally left blank

Page 12 Agenda Item 7

NON EXEMPT

EAST HAMPSHIRE DISTRICT COUNCIL & WINCHESTER CITY COUNCIL

EHDC & WCC Joint Environmental Services 25 March 2015 Committee

The Waste (England and Wales) Regulations 2011 (Amended 2012) Service Manager (Contract Management Team)

For Decision

Portfolios: Cllr Melissa Maynard (EHDC, Environment), Cllr Richard Millard (EHDC, Commercial Contracts), Cllr Patricia Stallard (WCC, Environment, Health & Wellbeing)

Key Decision: No

1.0 Purpose of Report

1.1 To seek Members approval of the assessment of East Hampshire District Council and Winchester City Council’s waste and recycling collection arrangements, to comply with the requirements of The Waste (England and Wales) Regulations 2011 (Amended 2012).

2.0 Recommendation

The Joint Committee approve the retention of the current Hampshire wide arrangements for the collection of recyclables (co-mingled and not separated) as:

a) it is not necessary to collect recyclable materials separately in either East Hampshire or Winchester District’s in order to facilitate or improve recovery.

b) it is not technically, environmentally and economically practicable to do so.

3.0 Detail

3.1 Regulation 13 of The Waste (England and Wales) Regulations 2011 (Amended 2012) states that from the 1 January 2015 :

“(3) Subject to paragraph (4), every waste collection authority must, when making arrangements for the collection of waste paper, metal,

Page 13

plastic or glass, ensure that those arrangements are by way of separate collection.

(4) The duties in this regulation apply where separate collection -

(a) is necessary to ensure that waste undergoes recovery operations in accordance with Articles 4 and 13 of the Waste Framework Directive and to facilitate or improve recovery; and

(b) is technically, environmentally and economically practicable.”

3.2 This regulation originates from the Revised Waste Framework Directive (rWFD, 2008/98/EC) and is designed to improve the quality of recycling that is collected. All local authorities in Hampshire, including EHDC and WCC, as members of the Project Integra (PI) partnership collect paper, plastic and metal mixed together in a co- mingled service and are therefore required to demonstrate that collecting these materials separately is not necessary or practicable, if we are to continue to collect in this way.

3.3 The Waste & Resources Action Programme (WRAP) has produced a guidance document “Waste Regulations Route Map” to help local authorities understand what recycling services they are legally obliged to provide under waste law. The Route Map developed by a working group comprising of members of the local authority waste networks and WRAP aims to reduce the extent to which individual authorities need to invest in advice, and help bring consistency and clarity to the way that the Waste England and Wales Regulations 2011 are interpreted. An overview of this guidance is attached as Appendix A.

3.4 There are 2 parts to the Waste Route Map

a) The necessity test; and b) The TEEP test (Technically, Environmentally, Economically Practicable)

3.5 In order to ensure compliance with the legislation, an assessment of the current waste & recycling collection arrangements has been undertaken via the application of the Waste Route Map. Consultants were commissioned to carry out this work on behalf of the partnership and the resultant reports are attached at Appendices B &C.

4 Conclusion

4.1 The reviews and assessments of current collection arrangements confirms that moving to separate recycling collections is not necessary to achieve high quality recyclables and is not technically, environmentally and economically practicable at this time.

Page 14

4.2 Whilst it is not necessary to change the collection method at the present time, it will be necessary at suitable intervals to revisit these findings in order to ensure the recyclable services provided still meet the requirements of this legislation in the future. Clearly prior to the procurement of any new services or amendments of existing services would be ideal times, therefore it is recommended a review takes place:

a) in 2019 which will be the end of the existing Waste Collection Contract and consideration will have to be given to an extension of existing arrangements for a further 8 years.

b) at any such time that new recycling and/or waste collection services are procured.

c) should amendments to any acceptance of new materials at the MRF be agreed by all PI partners.

5.0 Implications

5.1 Resources: There are no resource implications from this report as the review has confirmed that it is not necessary to make changes to the existing method of collection.

5.2 Legal: The reviews have confirmed that both Councils are complying with the requirements of The Waste (England and Wales) Regulations 2011 (Amended 2012).

5.3 Strategy: There are no implications in this respect arising from this report.

5.4 Risks: The Environment Agency is responsible for enforcing the regulations and has advised all authorities of the approach they will be using to confirm compliance.

5.5 The Council will be open to challenge from other organisations who consider the assessment via the application of the Waste Route Map and outcomes are insufficient to comply with the regulations. Any such challenge will have to be addressed on an individual basis, should the issue arise. However the report’s conclusions will help to counter any such accusations.

5.5 Communications: There are no specific aspects arising from this report.

Appendices:

Appendix A – TEEP Route Map Appendix B – EHDC TEEP Assessment Appendix C – WCC TEEP assessment

Page 15

Background Papers: none

Contact Officer: Rob Heathcock Job Title: Service Manager (Contract Management Team) Telephone: 01730 234283 E-Mail: [email protected]

Page 16

Waste Regulations Route Map Appendix A

Page 17

This page is intentionally left blank

Page 18

! "# $ "" %& "!' ('") ) "*"& !' %+&% ,, - ) ! "#-$ !' . '/ "" ) ) "*" % ('" ", " #% ,")" "" $& . ''& * ) 0 ", " , #0 $& R# $ 2 !*3!") ) "' !' *% 0 "& ! % 0 "4 ) ""% ,'" "/ ' "! '"&% "" ")4*#// ('"5$!' ! "" ' !(%4")& "" %'% ", " !( ' ) "'/ +) ' '" " !& ! ' ' (" 2' , %"" ) "' / !"") ' 3! -% 4 ,#-$6778 -'"-"'!" 6799% " % /'!" #% %!*. .! ",%$ "!'!" 9:'' "" '"&"&" ) "'/ %3! '!" 9:"#//'"&"& " ) "'$ !"* "" ")*!)* "" * ! % * % !" "")& "") , "") *")# $/ ""679;- !*"-'!" ! /-<=%4*) " ') * ! / = + +<-

-* ! !*"*)- & "" %' )% 4%) !', !'/

Page 19 !" % "" ,2 !% "" )/ % "" *' , ! " %/ ! % "" ) "" ! " #'"& "& " $ ) "' *! "" %&5 '"/ !*"'! " "" '%) "" ' %*! %/ ,) %# "" !"%$ !'') -"/ !*"'! " "" *!"4)% ) "" "% ) '! ) "'/ !" % %'%% ) "/ !" ! "% !") ) "2*! ,) !'') - "/ ) ) " "" "" ) "&5 / *% 0 !" "" % 4(! ) "'' 2"," ! - "" ! )/ =% !' '/+!"4)%" ) "% */ : " % ) % * " !' ! (4' '' " ) "' " ') % "" " ') '"")/ & , """ ,""& ,)& . '" )*" / '!* 3! 4" !) '"&"& " /- 4' !'3!

Page 20 • "" '"&"&" ) "'>< • "" " > '" )2 & # ) *")3! *%$ • "" ) !% ) "> M% "" ) "'# /$ ) " •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

Page 21 • !"") ('" "!''"2

• % ('"%'"2

• D# ('"&'"&A $2

• "!''"/

* 4 )" ,' )" 6796A9: * 4 ! !' ! Q ' @R % !"" , # $ % DA(C #8/B6$& '") "" !"% %"* '") ) "'/ " * 4 , %4") "" " '") !" %2* 4' !%5*) Q '@R !' ! *! !* ! / )& 5" A * ) " * "" "/! "" '")") "" " ('"& /'/" /

) % 6796A9:* 4 % * *)!"")'!* ! " &;B&CB76796A9:&*)* 4)" 4'A ! "&,'*)9&777/

!" #$ ' (" %" ! &$!! ) * ! +, '- . / ! $ 6 !5 :77 F 0" - 6GB 9; ( (, 6;6 !"") ('" /'" '")%A* : !5 66: 9: %4*!) 66: C 696 9C +% 6:9 ('"D'" '") 4D* 5 B !*' 6;C ('"DA '")%A* 9 0"") 9;6 '")%A* !"") ('"5 /'" G , 4 9:C -4") 4 8 ! 9G: D '")%A*&* 5 ; -5 6:9 -4")* 5 97 9F7 /'" '")* 5 99 F6 '")* 5 96 *' ""' FF 5 /'" '")* 5

Page 22 / " !" #$

:67 ## !"") ('" ('" :77 0+ D'" 687 A 6F7 , 6;7 ('" D'" 667 +, G; ('"& 677 F9 '" 0 8F 987 A C: 1# 9F7 =" :77 , 9;7 6GB "&" & 8; FG 967 6;6 C6 ('"#$ 66: 66: & '" 977 696 " 9FB 9FB 87 9C :9 1 11 9;6 9;6 9:C F7 F6 68 ;7 G7 F: F7 2&$!" !$ 3 67 :9 6B 7 C F

4 ! & '! 4 ! & 4 ! & 4 ! & (" ) * ! &$!! #$ ) * ! / ! 5$ +, +6110 # #$ !"") ('" '") -A* 6CG 96&GF8 :&979 /'" ('"D -A*&+ 5 '") 678 97&::F FFB '" 4 -A*&+ 5 D '") 98: B&7FC (F76 4 '") + 5 9F7 G&BCB (9&G7B /'"#$ -4") + 5 9GB 8&88; (G8: /'"#-$

Page 23 / " 4 ! & ,0 6F7 6;7 667 #7 +, 677 7 0+ 987 C9 A 1# 9F7 F8 =" 9;7 8B 6CG 967 G9 "&" & 977 ;9 87 9C; ('" 9;6 ; #$ F7 ;8 C; " ;7 FB 67 6; 2&$!" !$ 3 67 69 9: 7

, " & R","5 ) * 4! % "" '")* ")** 4' !*) -5 % "" %4")*/ *" %& & , "! '! ! , ! ,' %) 4*( % ' ('"'&% (, !"") ('" , / !"* " 3!")3!) ) ""' !"")/ *") * "" " "")& , "") "") *"> )& "" ! %-/' ) "' ! %4 "" / 979&777 ! " 98( 0 % !"&*" *'6F( 0/

Page 24 4' ! " ! & !" ! ) "' ! %4&% ! ,) 5 9&6F7 )2" % ! '" "" / ""!,"!% " ' !4%*", "" % !" * / !9/76 "" / & !& *) , . '& % %& , !") & !C;G&96C !',' "" /!;G:&777!/ % "" !'4*( " ')& ! "" '")&!' * 4 !% !"""*):C4' ! "!M % & ) "'","% !" *) ,9&GC7 / & %,&% A ) "'&%4") "" &" - 5 "&% !"*3!/-<= " !""9; ) "' !% !"*3!& ' "" " !9/C"" " "A ) "' % !" ! *" % ! "" & ""' '!/ 679:A9;) ) "*" "" o IC&BGC/:6

o ":8;/:B

o " * "CGC/89

o !*( " F&B:C/C6

o =":&::9

% " !"

o !:9C&:F;

o '"!976&C6G

o ) "' '"!96B&6:;

o " !,06,

!& " " ' ! '' "" " ') ', 3! *% 0 &% (-'!" % 5!" /676C/

Page 25 !" " * "" '" ") ('" 5 ! !"""' 3! !")R"%""'. ''3!") " ) " , ''( 3!/ - !"* "") ,*) ! " / * ! )2 " / ,%# F ! $&%*",!" ,) "2,% !" ")4" %,%, '""),% !(! " "" A / A-<=A9/9C

Page 26

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

+!!"--"+#+ !'!##!&(!** &! 5& !"(. !"(0

Page 27 !"#! &!##!!. 3" &!##! *0 & !##! +( !. !"!# &0 " & !##! * ! !## !" * # $(#' *#' -- -#% ! #( +" ! !## - & *'6-! (#&!## !*+ (0 -"+#("#! !!##!!!!( & *!##( &- *+"!!!&0 !. !*!!&$!##- ! "#& *% !"( ( !*-#0 -"+#("#! !!##!!+"#5 & *!## --#& - !*!( " #(0 !"#! !&& **(&& #0 "#!"!#&!" # #3+" !. !"( ( !* -#0 #!#### #'6-! !*0! +& 1 !"#- ! !##!&! **5)"-! #*(( !*!3#.#!!*!*" ! !##!"! 0 = & !"(!*-!(0,"#5 &#! #& +0 - ; # ! & & + --# !"(!" !)*5( - ! ( ( #! ! #( *!!#!( ! & !##! *!!#!( ( ## 0 ' *!.! !*### *!!. ##' !. ' !/ ( --# + # ! 0 ("*+ !4"! 5 #!!!" *!(#'*#'-- -#0! 5( !"(4"!

Page 28 • ! !##(#'*#'-- -#! #(> • - !##! -#> ! (# 3 ! ! *' ! $! - +# 4"!!+& % • - !##! !" & #>!M&!##! #($- !*!*0% # • -- ! ! - !##! ## ' . !*## !!*## - +#>!M!##!&(!& 4"# 4" ! #(! 0 4"# ! #(! '## !* #!###. !$! !##+ (% #' &6-!!!*0 !*! -! ("# # !"( !/ ( ! ! *- !##!"! '&(!!#!#!!&!*! *"-0##!* ! ( !*&-#0 , ! (!(4"# #+#$-#+!#'!#!" )- (#%+ 5-((# -- - * # . * 5+# (!!- &##+( #& @& . -!+#0 *!4" ' (!!#!.&!&!*!!#!( # *"*! !"#+.&- !##!0 78:7A:; !## :<; 5( - !"!# ! #+# 5 +0 ! ( ! #!&'78:;A:<(" ! 5 +!##!& 4".#!:B<5(- !"!#0 (" 6#"(#&'*!+!.'!##"(+ (0.!#"*!(# &!"#+ ((" !!. 7885(- !"!#0

+#:(" :!&5 + #( #5(A!"!#! (+!" $%'#! !!##! * ( #0 # +! !( . !*#!&! 78:7A:;$# ! &"(" & .#+#!!#+*!# %0 (+!" "*+ !& !#"*3#!& "*+ '*! *# ! 0 +# #! !& #( ! 4" !!##!0

Page 29 +#7(" 7!&5 + #( #5(A!"!#! 78:7A:; * #(!!##!&( #(!##! *

• "## !)*(##"((#3

• &! *!)*(#&- (#3

• C *$!)*(#'(#'-- A %3

• - *#"((#0

+* 5 # . ( ! # 78:7A:; ! +* 5 "! "- ( !"-Q !- (@R&!*"#-#- .!$ %&CA)B!! $90:E%'! (# !##!! "#& !*&#+! (# #(0!# +* 5 - !. ! &5# !##! ! - * # ! (# "# &3 +* 5( !"-&6-+ !Q !- (@R "- ( !"-!!+""*+ ! !*- ! "! 0 ! *' 6# A! + * #! + !## !# *0 "! !##( *# - * # * !## !* * # !)*(#' 0(0 -#0!- !&! ! 78:7A:;+* 5! & !+ + *"#-# ( "*+ ! !"!# '

!" #$ ' (" %" ! &$!! # ) ! *"+ , * ! $ 7 !"6! ;88 ! (# &A+ < 1#! ! 7GF ! (# &A+ :B. # 7B; ! (# +!6 "## !)*(#0(# 9 ! )!).! 7<7 ! (# &A+ E "6 77; ! (# &A+ ; ! * 7:7 ! (# &A+ :: , &!! 7;: ! (# 5 !)*(#C(# B *- :FB ! (# &A+ :8 !" *+ ( 7

Page 30 * " !" #$ ;78 ## "## !)*(# !)*(# ;88 -. C(# ! -- A - 798 * / 7E8 / 7<8 778 ./ G< !)*(#' 788 E: !(# !)*(# 60(# 9E - H :98 0# B; - ' !(# :E8 =# ;88 / 0 :<8 7GF ! )*(#$% EG :78 7

 1&$!" !$ 2 78 ;: ;: 78 8

3 ! & '! 3 ! 3 ! & 3 ! & & (" ) ! &$!! #$ ) ! * ! )$ -45 # #$ "## !)*(# ! (# A+ 7BG :7'9:G B'EF8 0=# !)*(#C A+',!6 ! (# 7:7 :8'BEE ;'<;9 =# A! 5 A+',!6 C * ! (# :9; F':88 :'FG7 ! 5 - * ! (# ,!6 :G8 9'<

 Page 31 * " 3 ! & /- 7E8 7<8 778 788 5 5 B: :98 -# - A 

:E8 E9 =# :<8 F7 7BG GB :78 #'-#' :88 ! <: 98 :E: ! )*(# :<; < <9 $% E8 B7 !# <8 EF 7: 7<

 1&$!" !$ 2 78 7E :E 8

*!. !*#- ! *' R#.# 6! !+* 5"! &!##- *!! (# +!# + +* 5( !"-+ 6! &!!##!&5# +0 +# !&' ! ' * ! .!#"* ("* " .!" ! *!.( & !* 5 +)! !& !*( !!)*(#(' &!) * .! "## !)*(# .0 !"#+# ! 4"# 4" ! #* # ( "## 0 +# !+ - !##!!* # *!!*## ' . !*## ! ## *- +#> *!!!* ' !##! !" & 0 ( #( !" &5 ! !## !* 0 :8:'888 !"!# ! ! :9)! 1 ! - !- & "#'+#+(7E)! 10

Page 32 5(!"!-# !" ' "#!" #( !"&5'&- !". !6!:'7E8- !- - 0##" . -#"&!#! (" * 5 &+#.!! !##!&!"#+0!E98'8880!'!!" ' !+ !* . !* !/ ( '&&'- .!"# '!<;;'FFG"(.( !##!!!0!7

o - H B'G880E8!

o #;E<0F:!

o #+!#B<9089!

o "+)!#! E'E:;0BF!

o =#;';;:!

!*! &#"#

o !* !*!;8:'

o !* !*(#!E:'EB;

o #( ! (#!G8'99:

o !#!* !4..-

" ' !##( !"! !((!##!*!!#!( (. 4" *!! +& 1 '&- )("#!&! !6- "#0787B0

Page 33 !"# #! + ! !## (# - # !* !)*(# *6 " "###( 4" *!! "# R# &## (*/! ! ( (4"# ! * # # / (()! 4" 0 !***!"#+! *## -- !.+ -- !- !"# !**0 +! ! "! 3 ! *# ! 0 *! .&$ -E!"-%'&+#. "#!* . # 3 .&!"#!# 5-#&. & . ( ## .&! ")"-! -#*! ! !##!A! ! *0 A =A:0:B

 Page 34 Agenda Item 8

NON EXEMPT

EAST HAMPSHIRE DISTRICT COUNCIL & WINCHESTER CITY COUNCIL

EHDC & WCC Joint Environmental Services 25 March 2015 Committee

Project Integra Update Service Manager (Contract Management Team)

For Decision

Portfolios: Cllr Melissa Maynard (EHDC, Environment), Cllr Richard Millard (EHDC, Commercial Contracts), Cllr Patricia Stallard (WCC, Environment, Health & Wellbeing)

Key Decision: No

1.0 Purpose of Report

1.1 This report is to provide Members with an update on recent developments within the Project Integra Partnership. It also seeks approval of the latest Project Integra Action Plan in accordance with the PI constitution.

2.0 Recommendations

The Joint Committee

1. Note the current developments in relation to Project Integra 2. Approve the Project Integra Action Plan as attached as Appendix B to this report.

3.0 Detail

3.1 There have been 2 recent important developments in relation to Project Integra that JESC need to be aware of as set out below

3.2 The first phase of the Resource Capture & Treatment Review (RCTR) has now been completed and the report is attached as Appendix A. The review was conducted following a July 2013 PI Board meeting to review the range of materials collected and collection/processing methods so that any actions could be included in the 2014-17 PI Action Plan.

Page 35 3.3 The review also considered the requirement for separate collections of paper, glass, plastic and metal as set out in the Waste (England and Wales) Regulations 2011, as amended in 2012.

3.4 Since the last review in 2009/10, there have been changes in markets, infrastructure, contracts, local collection services and legislative requirements – these factors are covered within the report. The report takes 10 different waste streams in turn, discussing how each is dealt with under different levels of the waste hierarchy. Where there is potential to move material up the waste hierarchy, these opportunities are discussed in more detail. Conclusions and recommendations are then made for each waste stream.

3.5 There are clear next steps regarding the MRF input specification, namely:

• Officer/Member visits to alternative MRFs and a PRF (plastic recovery facility) – this has already taken place.

• Prepare full costings for pots, tubs and trays acceptance at PI MRFs – reporting back in June 2015.

• Engage with WRAP and the Plastics Industry Recycling Action Plan (PIRAP) to see how they can assist in overcoming some of the barriers that are beyond PI’s controlAgree the recommended approach for each material as outlined in the report

3.6 The PI Board meeting in January agreed that this phase of the RCTR, i.e. research and development of options, is complete and have asked Officers to prepare an implementation plan for the recommended actions for future consideration by the Board.

3.7 The other significant development is the completion of the PI Action Plan 2015-2018 as attached at Appendix B. This has been approved at the February PI Board meeting but under the terms of the PI constitution requires individual approval by each PI partner.

3.8 The delivery of the EHDC/WCC Partnership’s contributions to the PI Action Plan is contained within their shared Waste Minimisation Plan which has already been approved by JESC but which is attached as Appendix C for the purposes of completeness and to remind Members of the actions proposed during 2015.

4.0 Implications

4.1 Resources: There are no specific resource implications from this report as the actions to deliver the Waste Implementation plan have already

Page 36 been accounted for and the PI Action Plan will be delivered from within Partnership funding.

4.2 The final conclusions of the Resource capture Review will be important in terms of not only future recycling rates but also income from the sale of recyclables which at present are reducing because of market conditions.

4.3 Legal: There are no legal implications arising from this report.

4.4 Strategy: The work of the JCT delivers services which help to meet a number of the aims of the corporate strategy including Financial Sustainability, Environmental Sustainability, Public Service Excellence and Creativity and Innovation.

4.5 Risks: There are no specific risks associated with this report although the impact of market conditions on recycling income is being monitored closely

4.6 Communications: If the resource and capture review does identify the potential to incr4sae the range of materials collected at the kerbside it will be necessary to implement a comprehensive communications campaign.

Appendices:

Appendix A – PI Resource & Capture Review Appendix B – Project Integra Action Plan 2015-2018 Appendix C – WCC/EHDC Waste Minimisation Plan 2014-2017

Background Papers: none

Contact Officer: Rob Heathcock Job Title: Service Manager (Contract Management Team) Telephone: 01730 234283 E-Mail: [email protected]

Page 37 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 38 029

Project Integra – report

Report for Project Integra Strategic Board Date 5 February 2015 Title of report Resource Capture and Treatment Review Approval required Yes

1 Purpose of Report

1.1 The Resource Capture and Treatment Review report is attached to this report. The report contains a series of recommendations for how to proceed with certain materials.

1.2 The report requires approval so that development of certain options can be carried forward.

2 Executive Summary

2.1 At the July 2013 PISB, it was decided that a review of materials collected and collection/processing methods would be included in the 2014-17 PI Action Plan. This work would also incorporate the requirement for separate collections of paper, glass, plastic and metal as set out in the Waste (England and Wales) Regulations 2011, as amended in 2012.

2.2 An information pack was provided to all PI Partners in 2014 to aid with local decision-making regarding separate collections.

2.3 Since the last review of this nature in 2009/10, there have been changes in markets, infrastructure, contracts, local collection services and legislative requirements – these factors are covered within the report.

2.4 PI performance is good under some criteria (e.g. cost of waste management per household and waste diversion from landfill) but less good under others (recycling rates and waste generation levels).

2.5 The report takes 10 different waste streams in turn, discussing how each is dealt with under different levels of the waste hierarchy. Where there is potential to move material up the waste hierarchy, these opportunities are discussed in more detail. Conclusions and recommendations are then made for each waste stream.

2.6 There are clear next steps regarding the MRF input specification, namely: • Officer/Member visits to alternative MRFs and a PRF (plastic recovery facility) • Prepare full costings for pots, tubs and trays acceptance at PI MRFs – reporting back in June 2015. • Engage with WRAP and the Plastics Industry Recycling Action Plan (PIRAP) to see how they can assist in overcoming some of the barriers that are beyond PI’s control.

3 Recommendations

3.1 That the Board: • Agree the recommended approach for each material as outlined in the report • Agree that this phase of the RCTR, i.e. research and development of options, is complete • Agree that Officers devise an implementation plan for the recommended actions

Page 39 PI Resource Capture and Treatment Review 2014-15

Project Integra

Resource Capture and Treatment Review 2014-15

2 Page 40 PI Resource Capture and Treatment Review 2014-15

Contents

Contents Introduction ...... 4 General ...... 4 Drivers ...... 5 Aim and Objectives ...... 5 Scope ...... 5 Project Structure ...... 6 Background Information...... 6 Legislation ...... 6 EU targets ...... 7 Tonnage and Performance Trends ...... 7 Waste Composition ...... 12 Changes since 2009-10 ...... 14 Key Materials ...... 14 Current DMR materials ...... 14 Mixed Plastics ...... 17 Cartons ...... 19 Food Waste ...... 20 Foil ...... 22 Textiles ...... 23 Glass ...... 24 Garden Waste ...... 26 Batteries and Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) ...... 26 Residual waste i.e. kerbside collected black bag waste ...... 28 Conclusions and Recommendations...... 29 Next Steps ...... 32 Appendix I – abbreviations used in this report...... 33 Appendix II – Links to further information ...... 34 Appendix III - WCA collection services summary...... 36

3 Page 41 PI Resource Capture and Treatment Review 2014-15

Appendix IV – top 10 English performers, NI 192...... 38 Appendix V – changes in collection services, 2009-2014 ...... 39

Introduction

General

Since the formation of Project Integra (PI) in the 1990s, there has been a consistent mix of dry recyclables collected and sorted by Hampshire’s Waste Collection Authorities (WCAs) and Waste Disposal Authorities (WDAs). PI has also worked to expand other recycling services – as at 2014 there is a fairly consistent waste collection service across Hampshire: • Dry Mixed Recycling (DMR – paper, card, cans, plastic bottles, aerosols) collections from a wheeled bin (with exception of NFDC collecting from sacks) • Residual waste collections from a wheeled bin (with exception of NFDC and PCC collecting from sacks) • Garden waste collections (13/13, although containers and charging policies vary) • Collection frequency is more variable; with 8/13 LAs collecting residual waste and DMR on alternate weeks. • Approaches to glass also vary – 7/13 collect at the kerbside, the remainder relying solely on bring site provision. • Only one authority, Eastleigh BC, currently collect food waste at the kerbside.

Information on all collection systems in operation in PI is shown in Appendix III. Changes in collection systems made since 09/10 is shown in appendix V.

In 2010, a PI Collection & Processing (C&P) Review was led by HCC officers, with support from PI Strategy Officers. The aim of this review was “to state the position of material collections in Hampshire and to review, validate and assess practical options for increased recycling.” The review delivered a position paper, waste stream data sheets, a recycling scenarios model and a supporting report from WRAP (Waste and Resources Action Programme).

The recommendations from the C&P review are shown in table 1 below:

Table 1: Key recommendations of 2009-10 C&P review Material Recommendation in 2010 Review Food No infrastructure changes, promote use of home composting Glass and paper/card Keep these two streams separate from each other, extend collections Textiles Do not pass through MRF. Promote third sector outlets. Mixed plastics and cartons No action but keep under review and monitor markets WEEE Promote HWRCs, liaise with 3rd sector re potential for kerbside service Batteries Push for greater producer responsibility Aerosols Put in place appropriate technology to capture aerosols Residual Waste Minimise size of residual waste containers

Since this review, PI Members have expressed a desire to look again at the opportunities for capture of materials in addition to those currently collected. This is in response to changes in markets and infrastructure over the last five years, particularly with regard to plastic, cartons and food waste.

At the July 2013 PISB, it was decided that this would be included in the 2014-17 PI Action Plan, with core activity to be planned for 2014. It also became clear that there are significant implications resulting from the requirement for

4 Page 42 PI Resource Capture and Treatment Review 2014-15 separate collections of paper, glass, plastic and metal as set out in the Waste (England and Wales) Regulations 2011, as amended in 2012. The approach to these new Regulations was also incorporated into this review, given that many of the issues to consider around financial and economic sustainability are the same.

Drivers

The key drivers behind this action include the opportunity to:

Divert more waste from landfill and EfW Maximise use of existing infrastructure Halt the stagnation and/or reduction in recycling rates for many authorities in recent years Test current and future collection methods against material quality criteria and requirements for separate collection as required in the Waste (England and Wales) Regulations 2011. Maximise the value of material resources in line with the waste hierarchy Satisfy public demand for services that collect more materials Reduce carbon emissions through diversion from disposal. Be innovative and take PI forward as a partnership. Address issues of rising population and waste growth.

Aim and Objectives

Aim: To identify opportunities to change the range of materials collected and/or the current capture and processing methods to enable reduction in whole system costs, increased recycling and improved service quality.

Objectives, split into areas of common themes:

Objective 1 – Using existing data, illustrate current material flows in Hampshire and identify priority materials.

Objective 2 – Utilising performance information and whole system cost data, set out current collection methods in Hampshire and identify those which may lead to low cost, high recycling rate and high customer satisfaction.

Objective 3 – Identify optimum methods of collection and capture of existing and new collected materials.

Objective 4 – Test current and future collection methods in the context of the requirements for “separate collection” as set out in the Waste (England and Wales) Regulations 2011, and demonstrate that separate collections are not required to produce high quality recyclate and/or are not technically, economically or environmentally practicable.

Objective 5 – Identify opportunities in material processing technology and infrastructure, including Plastic Recovery Facilities (PRF), Anaerobic Digestion (AD), and pre-processing options.

Objective 6 – Assess financial and environmental sustainability of material markets for existing and new collected materials.

Objective 7 – Present options for how current collection and processing can be improved or added to, to contribute to the circular economy.

Scope

Materials to be considered, in no particular order, are as follows (other materials are not excluded):

5 Page 43 PI Resource Capture and Treatment Review 2014-15

Current DMR materials Textiles Mixed plastics Glass Cartons Garden waste Food waste Batteries and WEEE Foil Residual waste

Project Structure

A steering group guided and monitored the project. The group had representation from 8 PI partners. It was agreed at June 2014 PISB that the project would be funded through the PI Executive underspend. It was subsequently confirmed to PI Strategy Officers that the estimated total cost would be £14-17k. This project has been delivered on budget.

Background Information

Legislation

This section highlights two key pieces of legislation which are important to the review – the Revised Waste Framework Directive (rWFD, 2008/98/EC) and Waste (England and Wales) Regulations 2011 (as amended 2012)

Detailed information on the above pieces of legislation and their impact is given in the document “Project Integra - Assessment of compliance with Regulations 12 and 13 of the Waste (England and Wales) Regulations 2011 (as amended 2012) - Information for Partners.” However the important elements of this legislation are summarised below.

There is now a statutory requirement to apply the waste hierarchy as a priority order when producing, collecting, transporting, recovering or disposing of waste. The waste hierarchy is shown below in Figure 1:

Figure 1: The waste hierarchy

It is however possible to depart from the above hierarchy if the following are taken into account:

(a) the general environmental protection principles of precaution and sustainability; (b) technical feasibility and economic viability; (c) protection of resources;

6 Page 44 PI Resource Capture and Treatment Review 2014-15

(d) the overall environmental, human health, economic and social impacts.

In 2011, Defra issued Guidance on Applying the Waste Hierarchy , which has been utilised for this report.

Regulation 13 of the Waste (England and Wales) Regulations 2011 (as amended 2012), states that from 1st January 2015:

“(3) Subject to paragraph (4), every waste collection authority must, when making arrangements for the collection of waste paper, metal, plastic or glass, ensure that those arrangements are by way of separate collection. (4) The duties in this regulation apply where separate collection— (a) is necessary to ensure that waste undergoes recovery operations in accordance with Articles 4 and 13 of the Waste Framework Directive and to facilitate or improve recovery; and (b) is technically, environmentally and economically practicable.”

Collecting recyclable materials co-mingled is not a form of “Separate Collection.”

This regulation originates from the Revised Waste Framework Directive (rWFD, 2008/98/EC) and is designed to improve the quality of recycling that is collected. All PI partners collect paper, plastic and metal mixed together in a co-mingled service and are therefore required to demonstrate that collecting these materials separately is not necessary or practicable, if they are to continue to collect in this way. This issue is covered in in the information pack already referred to and provided to each PI partner – it is therefore not covered in detail in this report.

EU targets

EU states have a target (set in the rWFD) of achieving 50% recycling rates by 2020. The rate at which the recycling is currently increasing will not enable the UK to meet this target. This could lead to fines for the UK Government for infraction. Under the terms of Section 48 of the Localism Act, these fines could be passed to LAs – although Defra have not confirmed that this will be the case and there is no clear mechanism for how this would work in practice.

In 2014 the European Commission published a proposal to amend six waste-related Directives. These amendments would include new targets for Member States for the period 2020 to 2030. However in late 2014 the proposal was withdrawn, with a pledge that the package would be replaced with something “more ambitious.” It is likely that any changes will look to simplify waste legislation and improve implementation and consistency across Member States. The scrutiny and negotiation process, plus a period for States to transpose the law into national legislation, means that we are unlikely to know for certain how the changes will affect LAs until around 2018.

Tonnage and Performance Trends

National Indicators

Local authorities continue to use three “National Indicators” (NIs) to measure and report on performance. Recent trends for PI are shown in the three figures below.

7 Page 45 PI Resource Capture and Treatment Review 2014-15

Figure 2: Residual waste per Household (NI 191), 2007-2014

Figure 3: Household waste recycled/reused/composted (NI 192), 2000-2014

8 Page 46 PI Resource Capture and Treatment Review 2014-15

Figure 4 : Household waste recycled/reused/composted (NI 192), by authority, 2013-14

Figure 5: % municipal waste landfilled, 2007-2014

Observing this data allows several key observations: • Residual waste per household had been steadily declining, but has seen a sharp increase since 2011/12 • Recycling rates have plateaued and then reduced since 2009/10, following steady increases earlier in the decade. • Use of landfill has continued to fall (in fact falling from 80% in 2000)

9 Page 47 PI Resource Capture and Treatment Review 2014-15

PI report numbers 15 and 25 from 2014-15 have offered some further analysis and explanation for the trends that have been seen over the last two years – particularly the significant increase in residual waste seen in 2013-14. It is a significant concern that residual and total waste tonnages may increase further as the economy recovers from recession, having an impact on collection and disposal costs across PI.

An analysis of PI authority yields for DMR show that 5 of the 6 authorities with lowest yield collect residual waste on a weekly basis, as illustrated by the graph below (striped bars).

Figure 6 – Yield of DMR across PI authorities in 2012-13

PI performance in the national context

Table 2 below illustrates how the recycling rate in England has stagnated in recent years. Please note that the “waste from households” measure is slightly different from NI192, but the data illustrates a very similar trend to that seen in PI. Residual waste per household has continued to fall nationally, in contrast to the increases seen in PI.

Table 2: % of “Waste from Households” recycled in England Year Recycling rate 2010 41.1% 2011 43.3% 2012 44.1% 2013 44.2%

The following statements summarise PI performance in 2013-14 in the national context. Note that HCC performance comprises district WCAs and HWRCs.

• NI 191 – KG of residual waste per household o Best performer – Vale of White Horse DC, 270.13kg o PI Performance and rank (out of 352 English authorities) HCC – 654.66kg (330)

10 Page 48 PI Resource Capture and Treatment Review 2014-15

PCC - 673.35kg (338) SCC – 688.77 (341) • NI192 - % of household waste recycled/reused/composted o Best performer – South Oxon DC, 65.7% o PI Performance and rank (out of 352 English authorities) HCC – 37.73% (246) SCC – 23.53% (341) PCC – 22.17% (344) • NI193 - % of municipal waste landfilled o Best performer – Council of the Scilly Isles & Western Riverside Waste Authority, 0% o PI Performance and rank (out of 123 English authorities) HCC – 6.17% (17) PCC – 9.17% (30) SCC – 16.95% (41)

A key driver for this review is the desire to increase recycling rates. Therefore it is relevant to look at the top 10 performing English authorities in this respect. The highest performer is South Oxfordshire DC, which had a recycling rate of 65.71% in 13-14. A summary of the top 10 highest performing English authorities for NI 192 is shown in Appendix IV. Key observations are as follows:

• All ten collect glass at kerbside, most of them in a co-mingled collection • All ten collect residual waste on a fortnightly basis • Eight collect pots, tubs and trays • Nine collect foil and cartons • Nine have a food waste collection • Five collect textiles

In terms of service provision, the key to high recycling rates appears to be collecting a wide range of dry materials, providing a food waste service, and collecting residual waste on a fortnightly basis. Generally speaking, high recycling rate also leads to good performance in NI 191 – 6 of the top 12 authorities for NI191 are in the top 10 for NI 192.

Cost Analysis

Recycling rate is only one measure of service quality. In 2013/14, a detailed analysis of the Whole System Cost (WSC) of waste management was carried out, and reported to PISB in June 2014 were:

• The total cost of household waste management in Hampshire in 2012-13 was £97m, of which £65m was disposal authority activity, and £32m was collection authority activity. • Cost of waste collection per household varied across authorities from £29.13 to £55.04, with an average of £42.26. This is shown in figure 7 below. The factor that dominates cost is the frequency of residual waste collection. Those WCAs collecting weekly tend to have higher collection costs than those collecting fortnightly. • Average cost of waste disposal per household was £85.69.

11 Page 49 PI Resource Capture and Treatment Review 2014-15

Figure 7 ( solid bars = contracted out authorities, stripy bars = in-house (DSO) authorities):

The PI WSC exercise was bespoke, and different to calculations of cost used nationally. Therefore it is difficult to accurately compare PI costs with other authorities outside of the county. Statistics released by the Chartered Institute of Public Finance Accountants for 2012/13 allow some comparisons. This has to be caveated, because accounting practices in different authorities vary significantly. However:

• Hampshire’s WCAs do compare favourably when considering cost per household of waste services (excluding street cleansing) - of 224 authorities with data released by CIPFA, 6/11 Hampshire WCAs are among the 75 authorities with lowest cost. All but one Hampshire WCA have costs that are lower than the average (£48.04 per household). • Hampshire’s UAs also compare favourably. Of 92 authorities with data released by CIPFA, Hampshire’s UAs are 12th and 38th lowest cost. Both are under the average cost of £145.93 per household. • HCC compare favourably with other WDAs. Of 31 authorities with data released by CIPFA, HCC are 3rd lowest cost, and well below the average cost of £98 per household.

Waste Composition

An analysis of existing compositional data for Hampshire and other areas led to an estimate of waste composition being made as detailed in Figure 8 below. Note that this should be used as a guide only as it is not based on a statistically significant primary research project, which at the current time is prohibitively expensive.

12 Page 50 PI Resource Capture and Treatment Review 2014-15

Figure 8 : Estimated waste composition, PI

Figure 9 below shows the destination of household waste collected in PI in 2013-14:

Figure 9: household waste destination

13 Page 51 PI Resource Capture and Treatment Review 2014-15

Changes since 2009-10

As discussed earlier, the Collections and Processing Review from 2009/10 made several recommendations that were based on the services and conditions at that time. Therefore it is pertinent to highlight key changes that have occurred since that time, which will add context to recommendations that may be made as part of this review. Some of these have been covered in more detail earlier in the report:

• Government funding – councils have seen significant budget reductions since 2009, as have central government departments (e.g. Defra) and agencies (e.g. WRAP) • National Indicators – were discontinued by central government in 2010. Although they are still used to compare performance, there are no targets set for local authorities by central government • Local waste services – some authorities have introduced new services during this period (see appendix V). • Hampshire Waste Disposal Contract – has now been extended, to an end date of 2030 • Project Integra – was reviewed and restructured 2010-12. • The Circular Economy – there has been a shift from waste management to resource management – trying to retain the value of materials, to benefit the economy, in line with the waste hierarchy • Material quality - there is now a strong emphasis on material quality, because of tightening market specifications, a new MRF sampling code of practice, and requirements for separate collections • Performance – In PI, recycling rates in PI have reduced, kg of residual waste has increased, and landfill has reduced. Across England, residual waste and landfill have reduced, recycling rates have stagnated. • Plastic processing – nationally, more authorities have begun collecting more types of plastic – sorting and processing capacity has increased as a result. • Food waste processing – there are now 5 AD facilities either operational or with planning permission in Hampshire (there were none in 2009). • National agreements with industry on Packaging and food waste - WRAP have continued to work with retailers and manufacturers via a series of “Courthauld Commitments”. The Courtauld Commitment 3 launched early May 2013 and runs until 2015. It aims to further reduce the weight and carbon impact of household food waste, grocery product and packaging waste, both in the home and the UK grocery sector. The next phase (still in development phase) is proposed to be a new ten-year framework (2016-2025).

Key Materials

This section takes key materials in turn and discusses the current situation and future opportunities, in the context of the waste hierarchy. Conclusions are summarised later in the report rather than within each individual section that follows. Note that in PI, tonnage to landfill is very small – it is mostly comprised of MRF residue, bulky waste, street cleansing waste and HWRC residual waste that is unsuitable for energy recovery. Very little of the kerbside collected material discussed here will be sent to landfill.

Note that there are individual fact sheets for each material that contain a lot of the background data – these are available upon request.

Current DMR materials

Materials currently collected via the co-mingled recycling service in Hampshire are paper, card, cans (including aerosols), and plastic bottles. Each of the DMR materials are taken in turn in consideration of the waste hierarchy, shown below in tables 3-5.

The existing DMR materials are an important source of income for PI WCAs. The quarterly report produced by HCC on behalf of PI highlights key market trends. The average quarterly income rate per tonne received from the sale of DMR has been consistent for the last 11 quarters, varying only slightly between £41.01 and £48.79. It is likely that the low

14 Page 52 PI Resource Capture and Treatment Review 2014-15 oil prices will drive the value of plastic and other materials down in the near future.

The high income achieved is a result of the high quality material produced by PI MRFs. Quality will become increasingly important if material values significantly reduce in future – reprocessors will only want to best possible quality material, which means PI will continue to find an outlet. This was proven in the previous significant material price crash, when PI continued to place material on the market whilst others were forced to stockpile or send material for disposal. It is inevitable that, if new materials are added to the DMR, quality of existing materials would be affected – the extent to which this is the case would need careful consideration prior to making a decision about MRF input specifications.

Some of the DMR materials do have good capture rates, but it is estimated that around 25,523 tonnes of metal, plastic bottles, card, paper and cans are being disposed of via energy recovery each year, because of poor segregation at the kerbside. This material would have a value to PI WCAs of over £1m, if it were instead sent for sorting at the MRFs.

The MRF residue rate is the % of inputs to the MRF which do not leave the MRF as a saleable output. Much of this residue is non-recyclable material i.e. contamination which has been incorrectly placed into recycling containers by residents. A proportion of residue is DMR, which has not been positively sorted into the correct output stream. The residue rate has been increasing in recent years, from 8.14% in 07/08 to 15.73 in 13/14, whilst the estimated contamination rate calculated by the Materials Analysis Facility (MAF) has stayed broadly consistent. This increase in residue has coincided with the increasing demands of the reprocessing industry for quality materials. Therefore to maintain quality and maximise income, it may mean that some “process loss” in the MRFs is inevitable. Sampling of MRF residue indicates that around 15%, or 2,108 tonnes, is DMR – although the proportion of this that would be saleable is at this stage unknown. Further work is required to understand the opportunities for extracting more DMR from the residue; this is discussed further later in this report.

Table 3 – Paper and Card on the Waste Hierarchy, 2013-14 Current position on Details Tonnages Options for moving material up the waste waste hierarchy (where hierarchy known)

Prevention Activity under the Unknown n/a WP plan Preparing for reuse No significant Unknown n/a activity

Recycling DMR collections 74,644 Limited across PI

Other recovery EfW 13,232 (est) 1. Behaviour change 2. Waste collection policies 3. Shredded paper – home composting Disposal Landfill Minimal (from Review of MRF residue is being carried out MRF residue) (further details later in report)

The PI Waste Prevention Plan includes smaller initiatives, which incorporate activity such as encouraging residents to sign up to the Mailing Preference Service which should reduce junk mail. In the course of promoting home composting, shredded paper will be highlighted as a compostable material (it is not accepted as DMR). Paper tonnages have changed significantly in recent years – for example tonnages of “News and Pams,” the highest grade separated at the MRF, are down 40% since 2008-9, due to the reduction in newspaper circulation and the rise in

15 Page 53 PI Resource Capture and Treatment Review 2014-15 online media (but card has increased in the same period). Paper and card are highly recyclable, and have a high estimated capture rate in PI of 85%. Effective separation of recovered paper from glass, even if it cannot be kept separate from other waste materials, is of great importance to paper recycling companies – this is being achieved as glass is not included in PI’s DMR mix. The following steps may help to move more paper from recovery to recycling (they are discussed further in this report):

• Behaviour Change – improving the knowledge and understanding of Hampshire residents • Waste collection policies – container type and size, collection frequency and enforcement.

Table 4 – Metal cans and aerosols on the Waste Hierarchy, 2013-14 Current position on Details Tonnages Options for moving material up the waste waste hierarchy (where hierarchy known)

Prevention No significant n/a n/a activity Preparing for reuse No significant n/a n/a activity Recycling DMR collections 4,795 Limited across PI Other recovery EfW 5,816 (est) 1. Behaviour change 2. Waste collection policies Disposal Landfill Minimal (from Review of MRF residue is being carried out MRF residue) (further details later in report)

There is no significant activity on prevention of metal waste. Metal is a highly recyclable material, with a high value, and it is important to divert as much as possible from recovery to recycling. Currently the capture rate for metal is low at 45.2%, but high prices can be achieved for recovered aluminium in particular, meaning that significant value is being lost here. A significant quantity of metal sent for recovery will be extracted from Incinerator Bottom Ash (IBA) at and sent for recycling, although this material cannot be included in recycling performance figures. The following steps may help to move more metal from recovery to recycling:

• Behaviour Change – improving the knowledge and understanding of Hampshire residents • Waste collection policies – container type and size, collection frequency and enforcement.

Table 5 – Plastic Bottles on the Waste Hierarchy, 2013-14 Current position on Details Tonnages (where Options for moving material up the waste hierarchy known) waste hierarchy Prevention No significant n/a n/a activity Preparing for reuse No significant n/a n/a activity Recycling DMR collections 7,186 Limited across PI Other recovery EfW 4,944 (est) 1. Behaviour Change 2. Waste Collection Policies Disposal Landfill Minimal (from MRF Review of MRF residue is being carried residue) out (further details later in report)

16 Page 54 PI Resource Capture and Treatment Review 2014-15

There are no significant activities focussed on plastic bottles in the PI WP plan. Plastic bottles are highly recyclable, but the capture rate for PI is relatively low at 55% (although that is only just below a national average of 55%). The following steps may help to move more plastic bottles from recovery to recycling:

• Behaviour Change – improving the knowledge and understanding by Hampshire residents may increase the quantity and quality of plastic bottles that is put into the recycling stream. A report ( Analysis of Plastic Waste Arisings ) completed on behalf of PI and HCC by the consultants Axion suggested that communications/education could be used to achieve this. Subsequently, the R4H campaign secured £40k of external funding to implement a campaign focussed on increasing plastic bottle capture. The results of this are being monitored and will be reported back to PISB in June 15. • Waste Collection Policies – container type and size, collection frequency and enforcement

Mixed Plastics

Currently only plastic bottles can be recycled in the PI co-mingled mix. This is because, at the time at which the MRFs were commissioned, markets for other forms of plastic were relatively undeveloped. Tables 6 and 7 provide information on both films and pots/tubs/trays (PTT), which are the most common plastic materials not currently recycled in PI.

Table 6 - Plastic Film on the Waste Hierarchy, 2013-14 Current position on Details Tonnages (where Options for moving material up the waste hierarchy known) waste hierarchy

Prevention No significant n/a n/a activity Preparing for reuse No significant n/a n/a activity Recycling None 0 Limited Other recovery EfW 17,000 to 30,000 1. Recycling collections (est) 2. Third parties i.e. supermarkets Disposal Landfill Minimal (from MRF Review of MRF residue is being carried residue and HWRCs) out (further details later in report)

There is no current WP or reuse activity on plastic films. PI MRFs are not currently configured to collect this material – in fact only 13% of UK local authorities collect it at kerbside. This is because: • the material can be difficult to separate from others, e.g. paper, due to it having similar characteristics (i.e. light and flat), although it is technically possible. • It has often been in contact with food, and if unwashed can contaminate other streams of recyclate. • It is difficult obtain high capture rates (Axion suggest a 30% capture rate would be a maximum) • Film is rarely just one plastic type and may be multi layered, resulting in sub-standard material for recycling • There is a shortage of UK-based reprocessors • The material has low value – film is likely to have a value of £0-£50 per tonne of baled, separated material – compared for example to baled milk bottles worth £400-£450 per tonne.

UK supermarkets now have plastic film containers for public use which historically have been used for carrier bags but which now accept all plastic films. Directing residents to facilities such as this would be beneficial environmentally and financially. In addition, the new charge on plastic bags due to commence in October 2015 may reduce the amount of plastic film in the PI waste stream. This will be a 5p charge on all single-use plastic carrier bags in England.

17 Page 55 PI Resource Capture and Treatment Review 2014-15

Table 7 - Plastic Pots, Tubs and Trays (PTT) on the Waste Hierarchy, 2013-14 Current position on Details Tonnages (where Options for moving material up the waste hierarchy known) waste hierarchy

Prevention No significant n/a n/a activity Preparing for reuse No significant n/a n/a activity Recycling None 0 Limited Other recovery EfW 12,000 (est) 1. Recycling collections at kerbside 2. Bring site collections Disposal Landfill Minimal (from MRF Review of MRF residue is being carried residue and HWRCs) out (further details later in report)

To inform this piece of work, two independent reports were commissioned to look into recycling more plastic. These are summarised below.

Report By: Axion Consulting

Purpose : Jointly funded by PI and HCC, to estimate the quantity and composition of all plastic in the

residual waste, DMR, and HWRC streams.

Method : Mostly a desktop analysis of existing data supplied by HCC, plus Axion’s industry data and some

dedicated MAF sampling.

Report By: WRAP

Purpose : Support provided FOC to PI, to advise on likely capture rates for each individual PI partner, as well as commenting on capacity and contamination issues.

Method : Looked at estimated yield for each individual PI partner, based on current yield of DMR and comparing with Statistical Nearest Neighbours.

Subsequent work has been carried out by Veolia, HCC and the PI Executive, focussing specifically on issues of quality, markets and costs. Completion of all this work allows us to make the following statements:

• 3,500-4,500 tonnes of PTT could be captured (at approx. 30% capture rate) if it was added to DMR collections • Capacity for WCAs (i.e. in bins/bags) should not be a significant issue • Maximum recycling rate increase per PI partner would vary from 0.46 to 0.96 percentage points There may however be increases in capture of other DMR materials as a result of the expanded range of materials collected and accompanying communications. • PTT cannot simply be added to the DMR mix. Most of the authorities in the UK collecting PTT have included it their MRF input specification from the beginning. The PI MRFs would require investment in equipment in order to be able to extract PTT to a satisfactory standard. • The more types of material accepted as an input, the more likely it is that cross-contamination of MRF outputs will occur.

18 Page 56 PI Resource Capture and Treatment Review 2014-15

• Plastic bottles are generally one of two types of plastic: PET and HDPE. The low number of polymers involved and the high value of those polymers makes bottles a valuable commodity. In contrast, there are four main polymer types used in PTTs: PP, PS, PVC and PET. Note that PET PTT is of a lower grade and value than PET bottles and reprocessors do not want to mix the two. The main PTT polymer with value is PP – but this equates to just 22% of all PTT. • Mixed PTT has to be sorted by polymer at a Plastics Recovery Facility (PRF). • Markets are most favourable for plastic bottles, but there are markets for some other plastics. A “residual mixed plastic” stream which does not include HDPE or PET bottles will most likely end up being disposed of due to the low material value and high sorting costs • Many producers of PTT are struggling to find a viable end market. Although PTT may be collected for recycling, it appears that in many cases it is being sent for energy recovery or to landfill further down the chain, because a combination of low market value and high sorting/transport costs makes it uneconomic to recycle it. Whether or not the material is still counted as recycling depends on how far each WCA follows material along the chain. This may change as the result of changes in national MRF sampling requirements since October 2014 and by changes in the Waste Data Flow reporting system due to come into effect in April 2015. • Current low oil prices are making it particularly difficult for recycled plastic to compete with virgin material.

Confidence in the statements above is high, and the issues appear to be common to other LA areas which are also considering making similar changes to collected materials. Further work is needed to quantify risks and benefits.

As well as kerbside collections, capturing PTT at bring sites is also an option. B&DBC installed nine bring sites in 2014, designed to collect plastic pots, tubs and trays, and food and drink cartons (e.g. tetra pak). This material is being segregated and sent for recycling. At the time of writing, there is insufficient tonnage information available to draw conclusions about the composition and amount of material being diverted via this scheme.

Cartons

Cartons are a composite packaging item made from paper, plastic and aluminium foil. They are typically used to package fruit juice, soup and long-life milk. Two authorities in Hampshire, TVBC and B&DBC have bring sites for cartons; otherwise the main route for cartons is energy recovery. It is estimated that 0.2-0.45% of the household waste stream is made up of cartons.

Table 8 – Cartons on the Waste Hierarchy, 2013-14 Current position on Details Tonnages (where known) Options for moving material up waste hierarchy the waste hierarchy Prevention No significant n/a n/a activity Preparing for reuse No significant n/a n/a activity Recycling None 8.68 (TVBC bring site Limited tonnage) Other recovery EfW 1,571-2,640 (est) 1. Recycling collections at kerbside 2. Bring site collections Disposal Landfill Minimal (e.g. from MRF Limited residue)

Until 2013, there was no dedicated UK facility to recycle cartons, and collected cartons were often sent to a plant in

19 Page 57 PI Resource Capture and Treatment Review 2014-15

Sweden. However there is now a UK facility in Yorkshire operated by Ace UK, (Alliance for Beverage Cartons and the Environment). The facility recycles the fibre element of cartons to make industrial tube and core products. However, a fraction of cartons known as “poly aluminium” does not currently have an end use. It is being stockpiled whilst an outlet is found, which is expected to be within the next 12 months and is likely to involve some kind of energy recovery. Ace UK are currently offering around £55 per tonne for material delivered direct to the facility.

From a resident perspective, kerbside collection within the existing DMR waste stream would be the most convenient collection method. Analysis shows that only around 2-4 litres of capacity would be required in recycling containers, which is not likely to lead to significant containment issues. A kerbside service achieving a 55% capture rate (akin to plastic bottles) would yield around 900-1500 tonnes per annum across PI (or between 40 and 220 tonnes per WCA, depending on size of borough and current recycling performance)

In terms of sorting, it is likely that separating cartons from other materials at the PI MRFs would mostly be a manual process. Consideration would need to be given to how this process would be accommodated within the existing sorting arrangements and what the subsequent costs may be. Some authorities that collect cartons as part of a mixed stream send them to paper mills as part of the paper or card stream. It would seem that some paper mills may accept loads containing up to 5% cartons but it is unclear whether this material would then processed and recycled, or removed from the stream and used for energy recovery. Regardless, including cartons with paper and/or card streams will reduce the quality of that stream. That would lead to reduced value of the stream and may make rejection of material by reprocessors more likely.

ACE UK finances bring bank schemes for some local authorities, but has now ceased offering such a scheme in new areas. TVBC have 5 bring sites under this scheme, collected fortnightly, which together yield around 8.7 tonnes per annum. As described under PTT there are also bring sites accepting cartons which have been introduced in B&DBC.

Carton bring sites could be expanded to other areas in Hampshire. If a similar yield was achieved to that seen in TVBC, that would yield around 130 tonnes of material per annum. At current market value, that could lead to £7k of income, but that would not cover the cost of container provision, maintenance, servicing or transport of the material from multiple sites across Hampshire.

Food Waste

Table 9 – Food waste on the waste hierarchy, 2013-14 Current position on Details Tonnages (where known) Options for moving material up waste hierarchy the waste hierarchy

Prevention Significant activity in unknown n/a PI WP plan Preparing for reuse No significant n/a n/a activity Recycling EBC kerbside food 2,092 (EBC food waste 1. Waste prevention waste collection, and collection),]. Tonnage home composting through home composting is unknown. Other recovery EfW 115,450 1. Kerbside collection 2. Home composting Disposal Landfill Minimal

Prevention of food waste is a key priority for PI, and it forms a central part of the PI Waste Prevention Plan 2014-17 . Activity is being led by HCC, and will be carried out throughout 2015. It will include working with Hampshire communities to spread messages under the banner of the national “Love Food Hate Waste” campaign. Home

20 Page 58 PI Resource Capture and Treatment Review 2014-15 composting (a recycling activity) will also be promoted, for food waste that still arises. At present, it is estimated that 4,684 tonnes of organic material a year is composted at home in Hampshire, but it is not possible to split this between garden waste, food waste and other material (e.g. card/paper). This activity and the role of waste prevention is covered in more detail under the PI WP plan, and progress will be reported to the June 2015 PISB.

In 2013/14, 54% of local authorities in England offered a kerbside collection of food waste - either through separate collections or mixed with garden waste. Separate collection of food waste is one of the service elements common to nine out of 10 of the top performing authorities in terms of recycling rate. However it is not the only factor leading to high performance – range of dry materials collected, collection frequencies and local demographics are also key factors. Currently, Eastleigh Borough Council is the only PI partner to offer such a collection – a separate weekly collection of food waste with residual waste collected fortnightly.

Food can be collected for recycling either via a dedicated separate collection, or it can be mixed with garden waste. The latter requires treatment in an IVC (In Vessel Composter). Because of a lack of these in Hampshire, the lower yields achievable, higher gate fees, and the fact that PI infrastructure for garden waste is already provided as open- windrow composting, this mixed option has not been considered further. In fact, there are examples of authorities collecting garden waste and food mixed which have ceased such a service because of high cost and low yield (e.g. Lichfield District Council in 2014)

Based on WRAP performance information and EBC’s current capture of food waste, a weekly separate kerbside collection across PI would yield around 30,500 tonnes. Collecting 30,500 tonnes would impact upon individual WCA recycling rates to varying degrees, the minimum being a 3.67% point increase and the maximum being a 6.61% point increase.

The tonnages detailed above equate to a capture rate of around 27% - this is low compared to the capture rate of other materials collected from the kerbside. Food waste collections can receive a mixed response from members of the public and there are some barriers that would need to be addressed by authorities considering rolling out a food waste collection scheme, including:

• Residents do not believe they produce enough food waste to warrant using the service • Residents use home composting • Potential hygiene, vermin or odour misconceptions • Ran out of caddy liners early on in scheme

Many of these barriers can be partially addressed through clear, effective communications.

Key collection cost considerations for food waste include:

• Containers – around £3.63 per household, with 2-4% annual replacement rate • Container liners - some WCAs provide them free of charge, some supply at a reduced rate and others require residents to purchase them from retail outlets or go without. • Vehicles and collection staff – there are multiple vehicle options for collecting food waste – from dedicated vehicles (c£65) to large Refuse Collection Vehicles with a small food waste “pod” on the side c£160k). Which vehicles are used would depend on many factors including payload, fuel, crew, health and safety, maintenance, replacement programme, authority rurality and accessibility, tipping/transfer issues and a vehicles ability to hold liquid. Additional maintenance costs would need to be factored in • Communications – a comprehensive communications programme would be needed for new services such as this, with a suggested spend of £1-1.50 per household.

In 2013, FBC investigated the feasibility of a food waste collection service . Several option for vehicles and service configuration were considered, with the following outcome:

21 Page 59 PI Resource Capture and Treatment Review 2014-15

Table 10 – Estimates for food waste collection services, FBC Option Capital costs Revenue costs Dedicated food collection vehicles £0.61m £0.84m Split body vehicles (to collect food £2.03m £0.58m and refuse at same time)

FBC decided not to proceed on the basis of this expense. FBC also said that more work was required to demonstrate the environmental benefit of such a service, when food waste is not being sent to landfill in Hampshire and there would be additional fleet mileage and emissions. In 2014, A Worcestershire District, Wychavon, stopped its separate food waste service due to concerns over cost and low participation. They instead decided to focus on food waste prevention measures. Kerbside collection may be prohibitively expensive for WCAs unless introduced with another significant service change e.g. reducing frequency of residual waste collection.

A proposal to collect food waste separately needs to consider the following from a processing perspective:

• The impact upon the calorific value (CV) of black bag waste being sent for energy recovery. The CV would be increased if wet food waste is removed, which may have an impact upon ERF efficiency. • Impact upon the WDA and the contract for provision of waste infrastructure in Hampshire.

AD is the breakdown of biodegradable material in the absence of oxygen by microorganisms. AD results in two end products - Biogas, which is burnt and used to generate electricity and potentially heat; and Biofertiliser, which is nutrient-rich and can be used as a replacement for mineral fertilisers. There is now a quality standard for AD digestate (PAS110) which must be achieved. AD has received considerable government support in recent years, due to its renewable energy credentials – the risk is that this support reduces in future, which may make AD a less attractive option.

AD plants are different compared to other waste processing options in that they have a very large capital expenditure in comparison to their yearly revenue. However there is a large income from on-site electricity generation that can be sold to the national grid. An example of estimated costs for a new 50,000 tonne capacity AD facility is £12.5m capital expenditure, and £1.35m per annum running costs.

The AD industry in the UK is growing rapidly. There has been a 34% increase in the total number of operational AD plants between 2012 and 2013, up from 87 to 117 plants. In Hampshire there are now five AD sites which are either operational or have planning permission granted. Four of these can accept food waste as a feedstock.

The average gate fee for AD in 2013/14 according to the WRAP Gate Fees Report was £40/tonne Lower gate fees are thought to be achievable on a local basis, but more investigation into local facilities, operational or planned, would be needed if food waste is to be taken forward as an option. The distance travelled to site would have an impact on any carbon saving associated with food recycling and the cost of the service.

Foil

Aluminium foil is not currently collected as part of the co-mingled collection service. TVBC and B&DBC have some aluminium banks at bring sites that are serviced by local charities or community groups. Table 11 shows foil in the context of the waste hierarchy.

22 Page 60 PI Resource Capture and Treatment Review 2014-15

Table 11 - Foil on the Waste Hierarchy, 2013-14 Current position on Details Tonnages Options for moving material up the waste waste hierarchy (where hierarchy known) Prevention No significant n/a n/a activity Preparing for reuse No significant n/a n/a activity Recycling Limited community 5 Limited bring sites in TVBC and B&DBC Other recovery EfW – although 2,500 (est) 1. Kerbside recycling aluminium in the 2. Bring sites bottom ash will ultimately be recycled. Disposal Landfill Minimal

Although many authorities in the UK accept foil in their kerbside recycling scheme, most include the tonnages in their aluminium can output, making it difficult to estimate yields. However one south coast county that collects foil as part of a co-mingled kerbside service has estimated they collect just 0.115kg/hh/yr. A similar performance in Hampshire would result in just 87.5 tonnes of foil per year across the county. This material, if processed via the MRFs, would be included in the aluminium can stream.

The current outlet for PI’s aluminium cans has designated foil as a contaminant. Contamination in any one load must not exceed 2%, or the load may be rejected or the income available reduced. In 13/14, 1,080 tonnes of aluminium cans were sent for reprocessing from PI. If 87.5 tonnes of foil were to be included, that would be a contamination rate of 7.5%, significantly above the maximum allowable rate.

In addition, unwashed foil could have a negative impact on the paper and card streams at the MRF, which would then lower the income received for these. Advice from authorities collecting foil is that they do have some issues with food contamination. They therefore centre key messages around “clean” foil. They also refer residents to the scrunch test so recycling is not contaminated with items such as crisp packets.

Collecting foil in bring banks in partnership with local community groups could provide a service at little or no cost to authorities. However, the tonnages are likely to be very low and the collection and processing would need to be undertaken by the community in return for their receiving the income, as collections by the authority would not be cost-effective.

Textiles

The data below shows an estimated capture rate in 13-14 of 27%. However, a difficulty with quantifying textile reuse and recycling is that much of the activity involved takes place outside of the municipal waste management system. The actual tonnage of textiles reused and recycled will be much higher, as a result of activity including use of charity shops, jumble sales, and passing clothes between friends and family.

23 Page 61 PI Resource Capture and Treatment Review 2014-15

Table 12 – textiles on the waste hierarchy, 2013-14 Current position on Details Tonnages Options for moving material up the waste hierarchy (where waste hierarchy known) Prevention No activity unknown n/a Preparing for reuse Textile Banks across Hampshire 4,589 n/a (including HWRCS) Recycling Textile banks across Hampshire 510 Limited (assumes that around 10% of bring site tonnage would be recycled rather than reused) Other recovery EfW 13,435 (est) 1. Kerbside collection 2. Further use of bring sites 3. Waste Collection Policies Disposal Landfill Minimal

Comparing Hampshire bring site yield with other authorities nationally does reveal a relatively high yield being achieved. Many Hampshire WCAs now retain some income from textile collection banks, either via a FBC-led framework for provision for banks, or via local arrangements with the third sector. The table above shows that an estimated 13,435 tonnes of textiles are being sent to energy recovery. Based on December 2014 national average values, this material would be worth between £3.36m and £4.43m if it was diverted to bring sites.

Some WCAs provide regular collections of textiles at the kerbside. The level of yield differs significantly among authorities but using an average level of performance, it can be estimated that this could yield around 820 tonnes. This is a significantly lower tonnage than what is being achieved via bring sites, and would not justify the capital and revenue costs involved.

Other authorities work in partnership with the third sector to provide collections 3-4 times a year, with dates published on the website and reminders left on bins two weeks before the collection. Such schemes can collect clothes, shoes, bric-a-brac, small electrical items and toys. They may be funded by the third sector, but in return they would retain ownership of the donated items. Around 935 tonnes per year may be collected in this manner from across PI – but it is not clear how much of this would have gone to textile banks/charity shops anyway, so not all the material collected will be new reuse/recycling.

The PI Waste Prevention Plan 2014-17 aims to improve Hampshire’s performance and move the management of waste up the waste hierarchy. PI authorities can continue to divert textiles away from the waste stream by directing residents to charity reuse shops, repair workshops and charity or community reuse and recycling initiatives such as give and take days. Messages promoting the reuse or recycling textiles should make it clear that there is a market for low grade textiles. Anecdotal evidence suggests that residents will dispose of damaged or very outdated textiles in the residual stream because they believe it has no value. Advice from the British Heart Foundation encourages multiple outlets for textiles as they have found residents who donate in charity shops are unlikely to use textile banks. Having multiple outlets will increase the capture of the material and divert textiles from the residual stream. A reuse database is being published by PI which will allow residents to access information about outlets for textile reuse in their area.

Glass

24 Page 62 PI Resource Capture and Treatment Review 2014-15

Table 13 – glass on the waste hierarchy, 2013-14 Current position on Details Tonnages Options for moving material up the waste waste hierarchy (where known) hierarchy

Prevention No activity unknown n/a Preparing for reuse No significant unknown n/a activity Recycling Kerbside, HWRC and 36,301 Limited bring site collections Other recovery EfW 15,000 (est) 1. More kerbside collections 2. Further use of bring sites 3. Waste Collection Policies Disposal Landfill Minimal (some Limited material within MRF residue)

All Hampshire authorities currently collect household glass bottles and jars but the method of collection differs. All authorities offer a bring bank scheme, with seven partners now offering a kerbside collection as well. Results from MAF analysis of DMR and residual streams highlight the difference in capture of glass bottles and jars between authorities that collect at the kerbside and those that do not. Authorities collecting glass bottles and jars through bring banks have an average capture rate of 61%. For authorities operating kerbside collections and a bring site network, average capture is 82%.

These yields are largely comparable with CIPFA nearest neighbour authority yields. If all PI partners could achieve 82% capture, an extra 8,600 tonnes of glass would be recycled, effectively reducing by half the amount of glass currently going to ERF. A WCA glass collection service is unlikely to be cost neutral – however an analysis of the whole system cost is required to see if further kerbside glass collection services are economically viable, taking into account collection costs (vehicles, crews, containers), income (from value of glass), and savings in waste disposal expenditure.

In areas outside of Hampshire where glass is collected as part of a fully co-mingled service, yields tend to be higher. In 2013, a briefing note on Potential Implications of Co-mingled Glass Collection was produced. It outlined why glass should not be collected with DMR in PI – in summary:

• Increased contamination of material going to market • Reductions in income for material sold • Renegotiations on existing waste disposal contract • Significant changes to PI MRFs required • Requirements of new legislation relating to maintaining material quality and collecting materials separately where necessary/practicable

This situation needs to be kept under review, as markets, tonnages and technology improves.

Bring sites in operation in Hampshire may segregate glass between different colours or collect mixed glass. Collecting from bring sites using colour segregation may be more expensive operationally, but the attraction for doing so in the past has been the higher level of income available for segregated streams. However in recent times, the difference in the value of mixed glass versus colour separated has narrowed, meaning that there may now be a business case for providing mixed glass banks only. An analysis on the financial benefits of this was carried out by the Head of PI in 2014 and distributed to affected partners (this is available again on request).

25 Page 63 PI Resource Capture and Treatment Review 2014-15

The PI contract for processing of glass reached the end of its initial 5 year term in 2016, and a decision will be made in 2015 as to whether that contract should be extended for two years or re-procured. There is also potential for closer joint working on bring bank emptying.

The following steps may help to move more glass from recovery to recycling:

• Behaviour Change – improving the knowledge and understanding of Hampshire residents • Waste collection policies – container type and size, collection frequency and enforcement

Garden Waste

Table 14 – garden waste on the waste hierarchy, 2013-14 Current position on Details Tonnages Options for moving material up the waste waste hierarchy (where hierarchy known) Prevention No activity n/a n/a Preparing for reuse No activity n/a n/a Recycling Home Composting, 65,911 Limited Kerbside collections (HWRCs) and HWRCs 31,153 (kerbside) Other recovery EfW 10,000-50,000 1. Home composting tonnes (est) 2. Waste Collection Policies Disposal Landfill Minimal Limited

Estimating the amount of garden waste within residual waste sent to EfW is difficult because it is a difficult material to sample and is highly seasonal. There is little or no waste prevention activity applicable to garden waste, as home composting is classed as a recycling activity. However, home composting is covered by the PI waste prevention plan, as it is an activity which can be promoted alongside messages around food waste.

Kerbside garden waste collections are provided by all PI WCAs. The way in which such a service is configured will determine the yield that is achieved. A free, weekly garden waste service using wheeled bins is likely to achieve highest yield, but may not be cost effective. Authorities who have replaced reusable bags with wheeled bins have seen increases in tonnage and customer income. However collection frequency and charging policies will need to be determined locally according to operational and political needs.

Most PI partners have banned garden waste in the residual waste. Whilst this may be difficult to enforce, this policy should be reiterated where necessary.

Batteries and Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE)

Although tonnages are included below, it should be pointed out that monitoring of the WEEE and battery system is difficult because of the number of outlets available for this material. As well as the outlets provided by councils (HWRCs, bulky waste collections etc) there are also charity outlets and retailer take back. This section splits these streams into large appliances, small WEEE and batteries.

26 Page 64 PI Resource Capture and Treatment Review 2014-15

Table 15 – small WEEE and batteries on the waste hierarchy, 2013-14 Current position on Details Tonnages (where Options for moving material up the waste hierarchy known) waste hierarchy

Prevention No activity Combined n/a prevention/reuse Preparing for reuse No activity tonnage: 85 tonnes n/a (B&D) Recycling Home Composting, WEEE from WCAs: 494 1. Working with third sector on Kerbside collections Batteries from WCAs: reuse schemes and HWRCs 7.28 Batteries from HWRCs: 51.77 Other recovery EfW Batteries: 356 tonnes 1. Bring sites (est) 2. Kerbside collections WEEE: 2,300 tonnes 3. Signposting to other outlets 9est)

It is fair to say that large appliances such as washing machines and fridges) have a high capture rate for reuse of recycling, because of the comprehensive options for residents – i.e. the HWRC network and WCA bulky waste services. There should be no large appliances sent for energy recovery. More could be done to move waste from recycling into reuse – this is a key area of work for the PI Waste prevention Plan, with actions including: • Standardisation of bulky waste scripts to divert more reusable WEEE to the third sector • Collation of a reuse database to advise the public on outlets for reusable items • Working with the third sector to encourage greater participation in bulky waste services, as is currently operated in B&DBC.

Small WEEE was the subject of a PI report in 2013 . A PI working group looked into several options for increasing diversion of this material – because of the size of small WEEE items they are often placed into residual waste bins. In summary the group’s main conclusions were: • The repair and reuse of small electrical items would be preferable to recycling. There are limited outlets at this time for reuse and repair for several reasons including that items have a low perceived value, items are often worn, incomplete or damaged, and are often uneconomic to repair. • Bring sites: to investigate whether a county-wide bring site scheme could be provided on a cost neutral basis. A bring site service is currently provided in HDC and B&DBC. • Kerbside collections: to investigate potential for this when designing new services and procuring new contracts.

The bring site option was not found to be feasible without incurring cost, because of the high cost of collection containers and logistics for servicing banks and the low value of the collected material. It would be expected that such a service could not be delivered for less than £500 per bank per year, for a yield of around 1.2 tonnes per bank per year. PCC started a trial collection of small WEEE in July 2014 for approximately 12,000 of their households. A recycling vehicle was fitted with an 80 litre box and residents asked to present small electrical items in a carrier alongside their regular recycling. The scheme collected 1.68 tonnes in the first seven weeks, after an initial surge, the amount of items being presented reduced considerably. Portsmouth is proposing to roll out the scheme in stages across the rest of city. It is estimated that a kerbside service provided across PI would yield around 100 tonnes per

27 Page 65 PI Resource Capture and Treatment Review 2014-15 annum.

In December 2014, the WEEE Distributor Takeback Scheme announced £800k of funding for local authorities, available on a competitive basis, for practical projects that increase reuse or recycling of WEEE. A PI group met in January to discuss potential bids and is currently assessing whether there is potential for a joint bid from PI that could attract funding.

Battery collections are provided at kerbside by two authorities in PI – RBC and EBC. Tonnages are small, as there are numerous other outlets for batteries (most retailers for example offer an in-store take-back). It is estimated that a kerbside service provided across PI would yield around 44 tonnes per annum.

Residual waste i.e. kerbside collected black bag waste

In 2013-14 there were 348,000 tonnes of black bag waste collected from the kerbside. The analysis described so far is designed to reduce this amount by diverting material up the waste hierarchy. However there will always be residual waste requiring treatment. The current PI infrastructure processes this waste at the level of “recovery” by sending it to one of three Energy Recovery Facilities. However there are potentially “pre-treatment” options that could extract recyclables and reduce the weight of material going to ERF.

In 2014, HCC commissioned a review of the potential for pre-treating residual kerbside collected waste (Black Bag) before treatment at the ERFs.

Table 16 : The technology options considered included Treatment Description Residual waste Residual waste streams are subjected to waste preparation and separation processes to (“dirty”) MRF separate out designated recyclable materials with the residual fraction going on to thermal treatment or disposal. Mechanical An integration of several processes commonly found in other waste management Biological technologies usually combining pre-treatment technologies used in a dirty-MRF with a Treatment (MBT) biological treatment process designed to reduce the mass of the residual waste.

Mechanical Heat Steam based heat treatment, with or without pressure, in conjunction with mechanical Treatment (MHT) processing. The purpose of MHT is to reduce the moisture content, and therefore the mass of the waste, through drying and to separate a mixed municipal waste stream into several component parts, to give further options for recycling and energy recovery.

Different configurations of these technologies underwent a technical assessment to assess their impact upon recycling rates, residual waste weight reduction, deliverability and impact on calorific value (CV). A financial appraisal was then conducted to assess medium and long term impacts of a short list of technology options.

The conclusion of this study was that maintaining the status quo (i.e. not introducing new pre-treatment technology) was considered the most favourable option. This was based on: • The current financial situation in Hampshire • The assumptions in relation to recyclate income • The extent to which Hampshire County Council is able to save money through diversion from the ERFs.

However, this conclusion will be periodically reviewed, in particular in circumstances where there are changes in: • Pending legislation and target changes • Changes to recyclate revenue; • Changes to the capacity revenue sharing at the ERFs

28 Page 66 PI Resource Capture and Treatment Review 2014-15

Conclusions and Recommendations

This section provides conclusions from the Review and recommends further areas of work.

Existing DMR materials

Conclusions in the context of the waste hierarchy: • Potential for WP activity to have significant impact on tonnages is limited, and the materials are highly recyclable with stable markets and end uses. • Very little material is sent to landfill, any DMR sent for disposal is recovered via ERF. There are however 26,000 tonnes of DMR going to ERF which could be recycled. • About 15% of MRF residue is recyclable. • Quality materials are crucial to maintaining income and end uses for collected material

Recommendations: • Provide explanation for rising MRF residue rate and provide costed options for reducing residue levels – reporting back in June 2015. • Ensure that local communications are focussed on changing behaviour to increase capture and reduce contamination. • Individual partners consider changes in collection policies that will increase capture of DMR – it has been shown for example that yields of DMR are higher in these authorities with fortnightly residual waste collection. The results of any bans on DMR within residual waste bins will be monitored for effectiveness.

Mixed Plastic

Conclusions in the context of the waste hierarchy: • Potential for WP activity to have significant impact on tonnages is limited. • Very little material is sent to landfill, any DMR sent for disposal is recovered via ERF. There are however significant amounts of plastic going to ERF which could be recycled. • There are significant financial and technical issues associated with recycling of non-bottle plastic .

Recommendations: • Recycling of plastic film should not be explored further. Communications should focus on directing residents to existing supermarket outlets for that material. Plastic bag charge due later in 2015 should help reduce the amount of film n the residual waste stream. • Prepare full costings for pots, tubs and trays acceptance at PI MRFs and quantify the risks identified – reporting back in June 2015. • Carry out site visit (Members and Officers) to view a MRF collecting a wider range of material, and a PRF which is sorting mixed plastics. • Engage with WRAP – WRAP is facilitating an industry initiative called the Plastics Industry Recycling Action Plan (PIRAP) to help the UK industry to increase the recycling of UK plastic packaging waste and meet recycling targets. PIRAP has working groups covering key areas of interest, including: “enhancing UK sorting and reprocessing infrastructure” and “generating demands and markets for recycled plastics.” The Head of PI has already attended a PIRAP workshop on PTT and will continue to engage with WRAP to see how they can assist in overcoming some of the barriers that are beyond PI’s control. • Monitor new technology for plastic recycling and identify any new opportunities as they arise. • Monitor success of bring site collections in B&DBC.

Cartons

29 Page 67 PI Resource Capture and Treatment Review 2014-15

Conclusions in the context of the waste hierarchy: • Potential for WP activity to have significant impact on tonnages is limited. • Very little material is sent to landfill, any cartons sent for disposal are recovered via ERF. • Based on a capture rate similar to that of plastic bottles, 900-1500 tonnes of cartons could be collected at kerbside. This would not have a noticeable impact upon recycling rates. • There is now a UK-based recycling facility, but there is no outlet yet secured for all fractions of a carton. • Adding cartons will reduce paper/card quality.

Recommendations: • Monitor success of bring site collections in B&DBC. • Carry put site visit (Members and Officers) to view a MRF collecting a wider range of material. • Prepare full costings for cartons acceptance at PI MRFs.

Food waste

Conclusions in the context of the waste hierarchy: • Most food waste in the residual waste stream is recovered at the ERF, very little ends up in landfill. • Waste prevention will deliver the best results financially and environmentally. • In terms of collecting food waste for recycling, collecting it separately (i.e. rather than mixed with garden waste), would achieve better results. There are now more commercial AD facilities operational and planned in Hampshire, some of which accept food waste. • Kerbside collection may be prohibitively expensive unless introduced with another significant service change e.g. reducing frequency of residual waste collection.

Recommendations: • Continue to focus on waste prevention, via the PI WP plan 14-17. • Monitor success of WP work on food waste, with a view to assessing other options in future should it not prove successful in moving food waste up the hierarchy. • Authorities wishing to explore options for food waste further should engage with partners at earliest opportunity.

Foil

Conclusions in the context of the waste hierarchy: • Most foil in the residual waste stream is recovered at the ERF, very little ends up in landfill. Metals in IBA are then sent for recycling. • The quantity of foils that would be collected for recycling via kerbside is very small, and it would have a negative impact on the value and recyclability of the aluminium waste stream. • The quantity of foils that would be collected via bring sites is negligible and would not be cost effective.

Recommendations: • Continue to support community initiatives, where they exist, via websites and other communications

Textiles

Conclusions in the context of the waste hierarchy: • There is significant prevention/reuse activity already, via textile bank provision. • Most textiles in the residual waste stream are recovered at the ERF, very little ends up in landfill. • A significant quantity of material is reused outside the municipal waste area e.g. in charity shops. • PI authorities achieve good yields via bring site services which can be a source of income. • Anticipated yield from a regular kerbside service would not achieve significant yield or cover cost.

30 Page 68 PI Resource Capture and Treatment Review 2014-15

Recommendations: • Do not progress option of kerbside collection by WCAs. • Approach third sector and develop options for working more closely on kerbside services. • Continue to promote Bring Sites for textiles through the PI WP plan and other communications. In particular promote the value of textiles of perceived low grade material. • All partners should give consideration to the Fareham Borough Council framework, available to join until 2017, or to making arrangements with charity bank providers to maximise tonnage and income.

Glass

Conclusions in the context of the waste hierarchy: • Potential for WP activity to have significant impact on tonnages is limited • Most glass in the residual waste stream is recovered at the ERF and will be used as IBAA (Incinerator Bottom Ash Aggregate), very little ends up in landfill. • Capture of glass for recycling is higher where a kerbside collection is provided. • Collecting glass in separate colour streams may not be the most cost effective collection method

Recommendations: • Authorities still collecting glass in separate colour streams to consider switch to mixed glass collections. • Potential for closer working between authorities on bring site emptying to be investigated. • Individual partners consider changes in collection policies that will increase capture of glass – it has been shown for example that yields of glass are higher in these authorities with fortnightly residual waste collection. Banning glass within residual waste bins has been introduced in B&DBC • Future assessments of viability of kerbside glass collections to consider impact on while system cost, to including waste disposal costs.

Garden waste

Conclusions in the context of the waste hierarchy: • Potential for WP activity to have significant impact on tonnages is limited. • Most garden waste in the residual waste stream is recovered at the ERF, very little ends up in landfill. • Set up of kerbside collection services will impact upon yields. Low cost, high frequency collections in wheeled bins appear to attract highest yields.

Recommendations: • Continue PI WP plan implementation, including messages around home composting • Most partners have black bin bans for garden waste, this should be enforced where possible. • Individual partners to assess container provision to ensure highest possible yields being achieved.

Batteries and WEEE

Conclusions in the context of the waste hierarchy: • WP activity is currently limited, apart from some areas (B&DBC) where work with the third sector is ongoing. • A significant quantity of material is reused outside the municipal waste area e.g. via retail take-back schemes etc. • Most WEEE in the residual waste stream is recovered at the ERF, very little ends up in landfill.

Recommendations: • Work closer with third sector to divert more large appliances to reuse – PI Bulky waste working group • There are plentiful recycling outlets for batteries that should be signposted to residents rather than introducing

31 Page 69 PI Resource Capture and Treatment Review 2014-15

widespread new collection services. • Assess potential for joint or individual bids for funding for a small WEEE recycling scheme.

Residual Waste

Conclusions in the context of the waste hierarchy: • All the activity described in this report is designed to reduce the amount of waste requiring disposal • Residual waste is dealt with at a level above landfill – energy recovery. The main waste streams going to landfill are bulky waste from kerbside, non-combustible waste from HWRCs, and street cleansing waste. Through the use of new technology, steps are in place to divert even more of this material into recovery or recycling. • Introducing new pre-treatment technology is not financially viable at present.

Recommendations: • Continued exploration of landfill diversion for bulky waste and street cleansing waste. • Keep under review the factors that have led to conclusions around pre-treatment.

General recommendations

• IBA lobbying – continue to lobby central Government over the exclusion of metal and aggregate writing IBA from recycling performance figures. This recycled material replaces virgin material, and that environmental benefit should be recognised. • Incentive schemes – impact of SCC and PCC incentive schemes should be monitored to see if they create a business case for similar schemes. • Separate Collections and the Waste Regulations Requirements – any PI partner making changes to collection system that is likely to impact upon the necessity or practicability of separate collections should ensure they carry out the relevant assessments process as detailed with the Waste Regulations Route Map.

Next Steps

The findings thus far are to be presented to PI Members, and approval sought to progress to the next stage. This will involve development of an implementation plan for materials where further action is required.

32 Page 70 PI Resource Capture and Treatment Review 2014-15

Appendix I – abbreviations used in this report

AD Anaerobic Digestion C&P Collection and processing DMR Dry Mixed Recyclables ERF/EfW Energy Recovery Facility / Energy from Waste EU European Union HCC Hampshire County Council HWRC Household Waste Recycling Centre IBA Incinerator Bottom Ash IBAA Incinerator Bottom Ash Aggregate IVC In Vessel Composting JMWMS Joint Municipal Waste Management Strategy MAF Materials Analysis Facility MBT Mechanical Biological Treatment MHT Mechanical Heat Treatment MRF Materials Recovery Facility PTT Pots, Tubs and Trays PI Project Integra PISB Project Integra Strategic Board PRF Plastics Recovery Facility RCTR Resource Capture & Treatment Review rWFD Revised Waste Framework Directive WCA Waste Collection Authority WDA Waste Disposal Authority WEEE Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment WRAP Waste and Resources Action Programme WP Waste Prevention WSC Whole System Cost

33 Page 71 PI Resource Capture and Treatment Review 2014-15

Appendix II – Links to further information

The below are referenced within the main report.

PI Collections and processing review – final report on sharepoint here or available upon request

Project Integra - Assessment of compliance with Regulations 12 and 13 of the Waste (England and Wales) Regulations 2011 (as amended 2012) - Information for Partners – each PI partner has been supplied with an information pack. This pack includes detailed information on the legislative context and the approach as recommended by the WRAP- endorsed Route Map. Available again upon request.

Project Integra – Reports on performance and indicators – Report 15, June 2014 and Report 25, October 2014

Project Integra – Report on Whole System Costs – Report 20, June 2014

Guidance on applying the waste Hierarchy - produced by Defra in 2011, found here.

Analysis of Plastics Waste Arisings – Report by Axion, on sharepoint here or available on request

High Level Analysis of the Impact of Adding Non-Bottle Rigid Plastic Packaging to Kerbside Collections in Hampshire – report by WRAP, available on sharepoint here or available on request

PI Waste Prevention Plan 2014-17 – Report 018, June 2014

FBC food waste report – July 2013, found here

Potential Implications of Co-mingled Glass Collection – PI briefing note, available here on sharepoint or on request

PI report on small WEEE – Report 003, Nov 2013

34 Page 72 PI Resource Capture and Treatment Review 2014-15

35 Page 73 PI Resource Capture and Treatment Review 2014-15

Appendix III - WCA collection services summary RESIDUAL DMR GARDEN WASTE GLASS OTHER MATERIALS COLLECTIO CONTAINER COLLECTION CONTAINER CHARGES CONTAINER TYPE COLLECTION CONTAIN N TYPE FREQUENCY TYPE FREQUENCY ER TYPE FREQUENC Y BDBC Weekly 240l Fortnightly 240l £30 per year/ pro rata 120l sacks k/s Green batteries wheeled bin wheeled bins fortnightly box or sacks EHDC Fortnightly 240l Fortnightly 240l Annual wheeled bin 90 litre green sack k/s monthly 38l green n/a Page 74 wheeled bin wheeled bins licence £55, reusable up to 16kg or 240 box sack licence £30 litre brown wheeled bin

EBC Fortnightly 140l Fortnightly 240l £30 per year or £21 for 6 240l wheeled bin, k/s monthly 38l box/ k/s food wheeled bin wheeled bins months 140lwheeled bin 240 litre waste, available wheeled monthly k/s bin batteries FBC Fortnightly 180l/ 240l Fortnightly 180l/ 240l Free for one sack, £5.50 Sacks or Bring sites only n/a wheeled bin wheeled bin for 5 disposable bags

GBC Fortnightly 240l Fortnightly 240l £1.60 per sack (£1.20 Green sacks up to Bring sites only n/a wheeled bin wheeled bin OAP), GBC own sacks 13kg or clear sacks collected only HDC Fortnightly wheeled bin Fortnightly wheeled bin 1/2 sacks with/ without Reusable sacks or k/s 140 litre Batteries at concessions £20.70/ 140/ 240 litre fortnightly wheeled civic office £41.40 £41.40/ £62.10 or wheeled bins bin or a 140/ 240 litre bins with/ crate without concessions

PI Resource Capture and Treatment Review 2014-15

£20.70/ £41.40 £41.40/ £61.80 HBC Fortnightly 240l Fortnightly 240l 1/2/3 lidded bin no Sacks hold up to n/a n/a n/a wheeled bin wheeled bin concession 70 litres/ 20kg. £56/£110/£164 or 1/2 Wheeled bins also sack without concession available- 240 £30/ £55 or 1 sack with litres. concession £20.10 NFDC Weekly Black sacks Weekly Clear sacks £29 annually, £24 for 9 Reusable bag up k/s monthly Plastic n/a months £18 for 6 months to 20kg box

PCC Weekly Black sacks Fortnightly 140, 180, £40 annually 180 or 240 litre n/a n/a n/a 240 litre wheeled bin - or wheeled 70 litre paper

Page 75 bins, or 1-3 x sacks 55l boxes RBC Weekly 140l Fortnightly Wheeled bin £38 per year for bins, £31 240 litre brown k/s Box k/s fortnightly wheeled bin per year for 2 sacks wheeled bin or 2 fortnightly batteries reusable hard wearing 90 litre bags SCC Weekly 240l Fortnightly 240l Wheeled bins 140l/ 240l/ 240/ 360 litre k/s box n/a wheeled bins wheeled bins 360l cost £32.50/ £35/ wheeled bins or fortnightly or sacks £55 annually, bags disposable bags £37.50

TVBC Fortnightly 240l Fortnightly 240l Annual fee £28.50 or £27 Reusable sacks n/a n/a n/a wheeled bins wheeled for online application, 6 also 240 litre bins months £16 wheeled bins from August 2014 WCC Fortnightly 240l Fortnightly 240l One sack free, additional Green sacks up to n/a n/a n/a wheeled bins wheeled bins £25 for one £75 for two 15kg

PI Resource Capture and Treatment Review 2014-15

Appendix IV – top 10 English performers, NI 192 Authority 13-14 NI Dry recycling collected co-mingled at kerbside (in Food Textiles Residual 192 addition to paper, card, cans, aerosols) waste at waste performan service? kerbside? collection ce frequency Glass Plastic PTT Plastic Cartons Foil Bottles Film South Oxon 65.71 Fortnightly DC Rochford DC 65.47 Fortnightly Vale of White 65.27 Fortnightly Horse DC

ThreePage 76 Rivers 62.44 Fortnightly DC Stockport 61.11 Fortnightly MBC* Calderdale 60.08 Fortnightly MBC** Rutland CC 60.01 Fortnightly Stratford- 59.06 Fortnightly upon-Avon DC Epping Forest 58.58 Fortnightly BC# North 58.14 Fortnightly Somerset Council## * Stockport MBC – paper/card/cartons collected in separate container top other co-mingled materials ** Calderdale MBC – glass and cans collected separately to # Epping Forest BC – glass collected in separate blue box ## North Somerset – materials collected via a box scheme

PI Resource Capture and Treatment Review 2014-15

Appendix V – changes in collection services, 2009-2014

B&DBC • Kerbside glass introduced during 2011 and into 2012. • WEEE banks introduced during 2014 • Ban on side waste introduced 2011 • Ban on glass in waste bin introduced 2013 EHDC • Joined textile bank framework contract • Wheeled bin option added to garden waste service EBC • Reducing the size of black (household waste) bin from 240L to 180L – rolling replacement • Garden waste (sack) collection has been changed to a fortnightly wheeled bin collection. FBC • Letting of a four year contract for textile recycling. Network of bring bank sites has gone from 14 to 29 as a result. • Changed from 3 free garden waste sacks to one, with extra chargeable, from 2009. GBC • Zero side waste policy introduced 18.11.13 with 240 ltr bins being the standard size. HDC • WEEE banks introduced during 2014 • Ban on glass in waste bin 2013 HBC • Joined textile bank framework contract NFDC • Glass collections added to kerbside service, collected once every four weeks in a 44 litre box • Removed some mixed can and plastic bottle banks from bring sites PCC • In 2013 a new chargeable home, garden waste kerbside collection scheme introduced – 140/240 litre wheeled bins or single use compostable paper sacks • Joined textile bank framework contract • 2010 - replaced all colour segregated glass banks with mixed glass banks and opened ten new glass collection bring sites RBC • April 2009 – Kerbside Glass collection service rolled out borough wide. • April 2010 – Garden Waste wheeled bins introduced. • July 2012 – Kerbside Battery collection service introduced.

SCC • April 2013 - garden waste collections changed from a free service using reusable sacks to a chargeable service using wheeled bins • March 2014 - the council introduced mixed glass bottle and jar collections from houses and flat blocks around the city. 40 litre glass box, fortnightly collection • August 2013 – Reward scheme introduced • August 2014 – bring site licences issues to range of textile recycling providers. TVBC • Sep 2014 - Garden waste now collected in wheeled bins as well as sacks. • Number of Local Recycling Centres increased by about 10. • April 2013 - charging for wheeled bins - free upgrade from 140litre brown to 240 litre brown • April 2010 - change to bulky waste collections. Residents on certain benefits only two free collections per rolling 12 month period. WCC • Joined textile bank framework contract

39 Page 77 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 78

030

Project Integra – report

Report for Project Integra Strategic Board Date 5 February 2015 Title of report Project Integra Action Plan 2015-18 Approval required Yes

1 Purpose of Report

1.1 The Draft Project Integra Action Plan 2015-18 is attached to this report. The draft is put before the Board today for approval in accordance with the Constitution.

1.2 An amendment to the existing PISB Constitution is also proposed and is attached to this report.

2 Action Plan

2.1 The detailed plan is included as Appendix I to this report. It has been developed following presentation of an outline plan at the PISB meeting in October 2014 and subsequent consultation with partners.

2.2 In accordance with the Constitution, a Partner Authority may approve the Draft Action Plan subject to a reservation in respect of any particular matter that it has concerns with.

3 PISB Constitution

3.1 As discussed at the PISB meeting in October 2014, it is proposed that the PISB Constitution is amended.

3.2 The proposed change is that the PI Action Plan becomes a true three year plan, rather than a rolling three year plan. This is designed to reduce the time spent by the PI Executive and Partner authorities in reviewing and approving action plans and allows a more strategic approach to be taken. The proposed amendment is included as Appendix II – please see tracked changes in sections 1 and 13.

4 Recommendations

4.1 That the Board endorse the attached Draft PI Action Plan 2015-18 and revised constitution for approval by all partners.

4.2 That Members ensure approval for both documents is sought at the appropriate level within their organisations in time for the next Strategic Board meeting in June 2015.

Page 79

Project Integra Draft Action Plan 2015 - 2018

APPENDIX I

Draft Project Integra Action Plan

2015-2018

2 Page 80

Project Integra Draft Action Plan 2015 - 2018

1 Introduction

1.1 Project Integra is partnership of local authorities with responsibility for waste management in Hampshire, Portsmouth and Southampton. The long term waste disposal contractor Veolia Environmental Services (VES) is a non-voting member of the Partnership.

1.2 The Project Integra Strategic Board is constituted as a Joint Committee of the 14 local authorities, and is the decision making body for the partnership.

1.3 The Project Integra Review and the refresh of the Joint Municipal Waste Management Strategy led to development of focused action plans covering the periods 2013-2016 and 2014-17. Both these plans have been rolling three year plans, refreshed every year, in accordance with the PI Strategic Board Constitution. Some of these actions have now been completed, and some will remain on the next action plan. In addition there are some new actions added.

1.4 This Draft Action Plan has been developed in parallel with a proposed change to the PI Strategic Board Constitution. The proposal changes the planning process as follows:

Current procedure Proposed Procedure Rolling three-year Action Plan Action Plan is a true three-year produced annually. A draft is plan. It is approved every three signed off by Board and then years instead of annually. Progress taken by each PI partner for reports are still delivered at the end approval in their own authority. of each year. Amendments can be Approval must be confirmed from made to the plan during the three all partners before Action Plan is year period. adopted.

1.5 This Draft Action Plan therefore covers the period 2015-18. Amendments to this plan can be made during this period, and progress will be regularly reported. The next full Action Plan to follow this one will cover the period 2019-22.

1.6 An outline proposal for the Action Plan was presented at PISB in October 2014, and this has been used to develop this Draft Action Plan.

2 PI aims and objectives

2.1 The refreshed (2012) Joint Municipal Waste Management Strategy (JMWMS) had the following overarching vision:

“In period to 2023 Hampshire will manage the effectiveness of its sustainable material resources system to maximise efficient re-use and recycling of material resources and minimise the need for disposal in accordance with the national waste hierarchy.”

2.2 The PISB also agreed, in 2012, the operational focus for its activities through a number of work streams as follows: “Working to reduce costs across the whole system” through :

3 Page 81

Project Integra Draft Action Plan 2015 - 2018

1. Communication and behaviour change. 2. Waste prevention including reuse. 3. Recycling and performance improvements - for instance through reducing contamination, increasing capture of materials, improving income for materials, changing management arrangements. 4. Reducing landfill. 5. Joint working arrangements and activities. 6. Improve efficiency and effectiveness of services through collaboration with neighbouring authorities including SE7.”

3 Future challenges and opportunities

3.1 Existing and future targets

3.1.1 National targets for household waste were set for England by the Waste Strategy 2007. The targets are to recycle or compost at least 45% of household waste by 2015 and 50% by 2020. The latter is a requirement of the EU Waste Framework Directive (the EU target applies to Member States as a whole i.e. the UK. rather than individual local authorities).

3.1.2 The rate at which recycling is currently increasing will not enable the UK to meet this target. This could lead to fines for the UK Government for infraction. The UK government has not set targets for individual local authorities, but under the terms of Section 48 of the Localism Act, these fines could be passed to the local authorities which are deemed to be responsible for the UK Government’s non-compliance. Defra have not confirmed that this will be the case and there is no mechanism for how this would work in practice.

3.1.3 In July 2014, the European Commission published a proposal to amend six waste-related Directives. The proposal included setting more challenging waste-related targets for the period 2020-2030. However the new EU Commissioner withdrew this proposal, in favour of developing something “more ambitious” in 2015. Given the lead times for developing new waste legislation, the impact of this work is unlikely to be fully understood until 2018 onwards.

3.2 Waste trends

3.2.1 At the time of writing, the latest statistical update from Defra covers the calendar year 2013. It notes that, for England: • The annual rate of recycling of ‘waste from households’ was 44.2 per cent in 2013 and continues to be stable with just a slight increase from 44.1 per cent in 2012. • Total ‘waste from households’ dropped 1.8 per cent to 21.6 million tonnes. • Local authority managed waste to landfill and incineration fell by 5.2 per cent

3.2.2 In the PI area, residual waste tonnages increased significantly (4.67%) in 2013-14. It could be expected that increasing residual waste tonnages will be a key pressure on collection and disposal infrastructure if the economic recovery continues. This means the PI Waste Prevention Plan acquires an even higher level of significance in reducing whole system costs.

3.2.3 Recycling rates in PI authorities have plateaued or even reduced in recent years. Previous PI reports have looked further into this, but in summary there is a decreasing quantity of recyclate available (especially paper) but residual waste tonnages have increased.

4 Page 82

Project Integra Draft Action Plan 2015 - 2018

3.3 Other future areas of policy and legislation

3.3.1 Defra’s role in waste policy development - A letter sent by Defra to stakeholders in November 2013 revealed the future direction of Defra in the waste/resources sector - “From April 2014 we will be stepping back in areas where businesses are better placed to act and there is no clear market failure.”

3.3.2 Quality of materials - As of 1st October 2014, new legislation require all MRFs to sample inputs and outputs according to a common methodology, which will allow more accurate comparisons between facilities. This sampling data is submitted to the EA on a quarterly basis and once verified will be available in the public domain. These Regulations, along with the requirements for separate collection of paper, glass, metal and plastic, as per the Waste (England and wales) Regulations 2011 (as amended 2012), means there is a need to have a strong focus on material quality in the future.

3.3.3 Plastic Bag Levy - The Government announced in 2014 that they will introduce a 5p charge on all single-use plastic carrier bags in England in October 2015. This may reduce the quantity of plastic bags in DMR bins and in the waste stream overall. There could be opportunities for PI partners to communicate with residents in the run-up to October 2015, to advise of both the charge itself and the requirement for loose recyclate.

3.3.4 Landfill Tax - Landfill tax has been increasing by £8 per year, currently standing at £80 per tonne. From 1st April 2015, it shall increase annually in line with the RPI.

3.3.5 National agreements with industry on Packaging and food waste - WRAP have been working with retailers and manufacturers since 2005 via a series of “Courthauld Commitments,” aiming to reduce the weight and carbon impact of household food waste, grocery product and packaging waste, both in the home and the UK grocery sector. WRAP has been having discussions with governments and industry stakeholders about a new framework for collaborative action in the UK to follow Courtauld 3. This is proposed to be a new ten-year framework (2016-2025). Courtauld 2025 is still being developed and currently no targets have been identified. WRAP will announce a formal proposition in 2015.

3.4 WDA Developments

3.4.1 The existing HWRC contract has been extended to the end of March 2016, but some policy changes will be trialled during this period. Procurement of a new contract, from 2016, is underway. The waste disposal contract with VES has been extended to 2030.

3.4.2 WDAs and VES have been exploring a number of options to increase landfill diversion – for example diverting HWRC Amenity Wastes to Veolia’s Solid Recovered Fuel (SRF) and Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF) facility and recycling street sweepings – these trials may be extended and expanded if successful.

3.5 Housing trends

3.5.1 HCC provides forecasts of population and no. of dwellings. Between 2015 and 2018, a 2.75% increase in house numbers is expected across Hampshire, equating to 21,000 new homes. WCC, TVBC and HDC will see the most significant increases. Increases of this order will have significant impact of quantities of waste for collection and disposal.

5 Page 83

Project Integra Draft Action Plan 2015 - 2018

4 PI Action Plan 2015-18

4.1 In order to meet the aims of the JMWMS and the challenges described, the action plan will consist of the following actions.

Action 1 Activity to increase quality and quantity of recyclable Workstream material Contribution Detail Increasing capture of and reducing contamination of • Communication and materials collected for recycling by PI will have a significant behaviour change impact upon whole system costs. It is also increasingly • Waste prevention important in order to comply with recent legislation. In the including reuse absence of an ongoing county-wide communications • Recycling and campaign, the following is required: performance • A focus on local communications by each partner improvements authority. • Reducing landfill • When appropriate work together on communications • Joint working where an approach will have a known impact or clear arrangements and business case, and pursue external funding to this end, activities including partnerships with other sectors. • Sharing of best practice in communications among PI partners e.g. via Recycling officer group. • Development of an agreed set of communications principles for use across the partnership, to ensure that messages across Hampshire are consistent. • Further development of the PI Contamination Compact • Monitoring of MRF sampling data and benchmarking with other MRFs • Identify methods of reducing MRF residue, developing business cases where appropriate Targets • Increase material capture from 78.3% (13-14) • All partners reduce own input contamination rates • Reduce MRF residue rate from 15.73% (13-14) • Agree set of principles (see above) by October 2015. How will this • Monitoring capture, contamination and residue rates via be measured? the Materials Analysis Facility • Benchmarking of data with other LAs and MRFs Responsibility • All PI partners • Led by Head of Project Integra Resources • At partner level • External funding where available • Business cases presented where appropriate Timescale 2015-18 – progress reported annually

6 Page 84

Project Integra Draft Action Plan 2015 - 2018

Action 2 Schools Education Workstream Contribution Detail • To deliver the Schools Education Programme to • Communication participating partners. Partners to be engaged in design and behaviour of the education programme within their own authority change areas to ensure all needs are met. • Waste • Educational resources available to schools across prevention Hampshire to be revised to enable and encourage self- including reuse service in schools and other groups. • Recycling and • Individual partners to support schools where possible. performance • Opportunities for partnerships with other sectors will improvements continue to be explored. • Reducing landfill Targets • Deliver revised educational resources for all partners • Joint working (Oct 2015) arrangements • Improve awareness of waste & resource management and activities among the population as a result of the education programme. • Targets for no. of school visits and level of engagement to be agreed with individual partners. How will this • Parent and school surveys be measured? • Monitoring capture, contamination and residue rates via the Materials Analysis Facility • Note that attributing specific changes in performance to a schools education programme is not straightforward Responsibility • All PI partners • Led by Head of Project Integra Resources • Schools Education programme cost TBC once participating partners are confirmed • At partner level • External funding where available Timescale Annual Programme to be agreed with individual partners, progress reported termly to partners and annually to PISB.

Action 3 Waste Prevention Plan (WPP) Workstream Contribution Detail Implementation of PI WPP 2014-17, approved by PISB in • Communication June 2014 (further detail available within that plan). Key and behaviour activity to include: change • Annual report on progress (June) • Waste • Bulky waste – improving communications, liaising with prevention 3rd sector, identifying new ways of working. including reuse • Organics – programme of activity around home • Recycling and composting and Love Food Hate Waste. performance • HWRCs – maximising reuse opportunities within new improvements contract • Reducing landfill • Waste collection policies – reviewing and developing • Joint working new waste collection policies that may reduce waste – arrangements collection frequencies, size and number of waste and activities container etc. Targets • Limit annual increases in residual waste to 0.5% per

7 Page 85

Project Integra Draft Action Plan 2015 - 2018

annum. • Reduce organic and bulky waste How will this • Waste tonnage data be measured? • MAF analysis Responsibility • Head of PI – monitoring of progress against WPP • Responsibilities around specific actions detailed in the approved WPP - all Project Integra authorities have a role Resources • PI working groups where appropriate • Resources allocated via HCC WP workstream Timescale Approved plan of activity up to June 2017.

Action 4 Resource Capture and Treatment Review - Workstream Implementation Contribution Detail Implementation of recommendations from RCTR. These will • Recycling and include: performance • Development of business cases where appropriate improvements • Actions for the partnership and for individual partners to • Reducing landfill consider improvements in current collection/disposal • Joint working systems arrangements Targets • Increased recycling rates and activities • Reduced whole system costs • Present costed proposal to increase capture of plastic (June 2015) • Exact targets TBC following completion of RCTR How will this • Waste data and MAF analysis be measured? • Monitoring of cost benefits Responsibility • Led by Head of Project Integra • Actions for individual partners TBC Resources • At individual partner level • Business case development where appropriate Timescale • Costed proposal on plastic at June 2015 PISB • Exact targets TBC following completion of RCTR

Action 5 Joint Working outside of PI Workstream Contribution Detail Ensure engagement with: • All • Further developments of the SE7 waste workstream • Waste partnerships in the south east region • iESE Waste and Resources Innovation Club • Other networks including National Association of Waste Disposal Officers • Central Govt, to influence future policy development Target Increased opportunities for performance improvement and reduced costs, and influence of future waste policy How will this Annual report from Head of PI be measured? Responsibility Led by Head of Project Integra Resources Project Integra Executive Budget. Membership of iESE Waste & Resources Innovation Club is £2,750 pa which will

8 Page 86

Project Integra Draft Action Plan 2015 - 2018

in 15-16 would be funded from underspend held on PI account rather than increased partner contributions, and then reviewed for 16-17. Timescale 2015-18

Action 6 Health and Safety Workstream Contribution Detail Through the PI group Common Approach to Safety and • Joint working Health (CASH) ensure best practice shared and projects arrangements delivered by task and finish groups, including: and activities • Noise impact of glass collections • Organising a CASH conference • Induction training review Review current group set up and reporting lines to ensure effectiveness. Target • Reduction in lost-time incidents in Hampshire How will this be • Monitoring of H&S statistics measured? • Produce annual report for PISB on the progress made by the group • Influence national H&S debate through multi-agency H&S forums Responsibility Head of Project Integra, Chair of CASH, Joint Client team Manager WCC/EHDC Resources Individual partner officer time. Timescale Annual Report at June PISB. Review completed by June 2015.

Action 7 Glass Processing Contract Workstream Contribution Detail PI authorities have a joint contract for processing of glass • All collected at kerbside or via bringsites. Current contract ends in 2016, but there is a 2-year extension option. Depending on decision of PISB, either: (a) Extend for 2 years and re-procure contract ahead of 2018 (b) Do not extend, re-procure contract during 2015 Target To secure a value for money outlet for PI glass from 2016 and beyond. Achieve income levels at or above the national average. How will this be Monitoring of average values of collected glass. measured? Responsibility Lead Head of Project Integra in partnership with a lead authority for procurement - TBC Resources To be determined Timescale As described above, depending on option chosen.

9 Page 87

Project Integra Draft Action Plan 2015 - 2018

Action 8 Joint Procurement Workstream Contribution Detail Carry out joint procurement exercises where feasible, • Joint working including for example: arrangements • Vehicles and activities • Training and work placements • Whole system Targets • Achieve better value for money and significant savings costs for Project Integra partners. • Recycling and • Produce annual report on progress. performance Responsibility Lead Head of Project Integra improvements With procurement advice from a lead individual authority • Reducing landfill when required Resources Project Integra Budget Timescale 2015-18

Action 9 Joint Municipal Waste Management Strategy (JMWMS) Workstream Contribution Detail The existing strategy stated that it would be reviewed in • Joint working 2017. The legal status of JMWMSs in the future is not arrangements clear, but PI will benefit from an overarching strategy to and activities guide the partnership. • Whole system Targets Review or replace the existing JMWMS. costs Responsibility Lead Head of Project Integra • Recycling and Resources TBC performance Timescale 2017 improvements • Reducing landfill

10 Page 88

Project Integra Draft Action Plan 2015 - 2018

5 Resources

5.1 The forecast for the PI Executive and Materials Analysis Facility for the next three years is given in Table 1. Note that these are estimates only, and that more accurate forecasts will be given annually in the annual report on Action Plan progress. Authority contributions are based on: • Executive - total number of households with elements for collection (80%) and disposal (20%); • Materials Analysis Facility – one third WCAs (evenly split), one third WDAs (split by tonnage), one third VES. The contributions for each authority are set out in Table 2.

5.2 Proposals to utilise the current underspend held on the PI account will be agreed by the PI Strategic Board as and when required.

5.3 Individual partner authorities will need to give consideration to how they will support the actions in this plan, through staff or other resources, to ensure the partnership achieves its objectives.

11 Page 89

Project Integra Draft Action Plan 2015 - 2018

Table 1

Budgets

2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 Forecast Forecast Forecast

Expenditure

Salaries and On-Costs 72,600 73,300 74,000 Staff Training and subscriptions 700 700 700 Staff Travel Expenses 2,000 2,000 2,000 Staff Costs 75,300 76,000 76,700

Conference Expenses 1,000 1,000 1,000 Events & Activities 1,000 1,000 1,000

Printing & Stationery 500 500 500 Legal Costs / Audit 1,200 1,200 1,200 Communications & Research SLA 46,000 46,000 46,000 Other 47,700 47,700 47,700

Gross Expenditure 124,000 124,700 125,400

Income

Annual Membership Fees -124,000 -124,700 -125,400 Annual Interest 0 0 0

Total Income -124,000 -124,700 -125,400

12 Page 90

Project Integra Draft Action Plan 2015 - 2018

Table 2

Authority Contributions

Partner Contributions 2015/16 Partner Contributions 2016/17 Partner Contributions 2017/18 Dwellings PI Executive MAF Total PI Executive MAF Total PI Executive MAF Total Basingstoke 72,530 9,096 6,267 15,363 9,139 6,423 15,519 9,182 6,584 15,680 East Hampshire 50,010 6,272 6,267 12,539 6,302 6,423 12,695 6,331 6,584 12,856 Eastleigh 53,570 6,718 6,267 12,985 6,750 6,423 13,141 6,782 6,584 13,302 Fareham 48,350 6,064 6,267 12,331 6,092 6,423 12,487 6,121 6,584 12,648 Page 91 Gosport 36,580 4,588 6,267 10,855 4,609 6,423 11,011 4,631 6,584 11,172 Hart 37,330 4,682 6,267 10,949 4,704 6,423 11,105 4,726 6,584 11,266 Havant 53,140 6,664 6,267 12,931 6,696 6,423 13,087 6,727 6,584 13,248 New Forest 80,470 10,092 6,267 16,359 10,140 6,423 16,515 10,187 6,584 16,676 Portsmouth 89,110 13,969 15,781 29,750 14,035 16,175 30,144 14,101 16,579 30,548 Rushmoor 38,750 4,860 6,267 11,127 4,883 6,423 11,283 4,906 6,584 11,444 Southampton 102,350 16,045 17,194 33,239 16,121 17,624 33,669 16,196 18,065 34,110 Test Valley 50,540 6,338 6,267 12,605 6,368 6,423 12,761 6,398 6,584 12,922 Winchester 50,320 6,311 6,267 12,578 6,341 6,423 12,734 6,370 6,584 12,895 Hampshire 571,590 17,921 61,026 78,947 18,006 62,552 80,473 18,091 64,116 82,037 Veolia 4,382 81,467 85,849 4,513 83,504 88,017 4,648 85,592 90,240 Total 124,002 244,402 368,404 124,699 250,512 374,645 125,397 256,775 381,044

This page is intentionally left blank

Page 92

Joint Waste Minimisation Plan East Hampshire District Council & Winchester City Council

2014 - 2017

Page 93

East Hampshire District Council and Winchester City Council Waste Minimisation Plan 2014-2017

1. Introduction

1.1 East Hampshire District Council and Winchester City Councils are both members of the Project Integra Partnership which leads on waste prevention within Hampshire. This Waste Minimisation Plan reflects the key targets and is coterminous with the latest Project Integra Waste Prevention Plan 2014-17 and will help to deliver both Council’s aims to reduce waste and improve the capture of key recyclables to improve performance at a local level.

1.2 The Governments revised Waste Framework Directive (2013) expresses that we must increase the percentage of waste collected from households which is recycled or re-used if the UK is to meet the revised Waste Framework Directive target to recycle or re-use 50% of waste by 2020. Local councils are encouraged to have in place their own Waste prevention plan, and apply the following waste hierarchy.

1.3 This Waste Prevention Plan (WPP) builds on these principles and the actions already delivered through the partnership’s previous Waste to Resources Action Plan. It will be kept under annual review and adjusted as required depending on the strategic direction develop by Project Integra.

2. Guiding Principles

2.1 The following principles aims have been used to influence the development of this WPP:

• Potential Waste Impact – the level of waste diversion that could be achieved by each of the actions

• Contribution to Targets – how the actions listed will help to contribute towards any existing PI targets and any corporate plans/targets at each Council

• The chances of success for any behavioural change campaign - how easy it will be for residents to change current behaviours and attitudes towards recycling. Page 94 • Ease of Implementation – How much time, effort and resources will be required to deliver a work stream

• Value for money – the cost of delivering the campaign compared to the expected benefit including the opportunity where possible to increase income streams from the sale of recyclables.

• Other environmental benefits – the degree of wider impact such as reducing carbon emissions through either diversion of waste or reduced transport.

• Fit with other projects – such as community-based projects at each authority.

• Local circumstances – including third sector groups looking to expand furniture reuse activities.

• Longevity – the length of time the campaign/activity is likely to be sustained and how often it will need to be revisited or refreshed.

• The ease with which the success of each priority will be measured – including use of KPIs relating to the overall recycling contamination rate and the amount of residual per household.

3. Identified Priorities

3.1 Using the principles listed above both Council will adopt the following priorities within the WPP which are aimed at not only increase recycling rates but also hopefully increasing income to each authority:

(i) Increase capture of key materials (e.g. DMR, textiles and glass) (ii) Reduce overall contamination of recyclables (iii) Reduce the amount of residual waste per household

3.2 This plan uses these 3 clearly defined areas as the framework for the actions planned using the following headings

• Increasing Capture • Reducing Contamination • Reduction of Household Waste

4. Monitoring

4.1 Appendices ! & 2 contains a summary of the 2013/14 waste and recycling performance data for each authority which will be used as the baseline information against which progress of this plan will be monitored.

4.2 It is proposed that an annual report of progress will be produced and reported to the Joint Environmental Services Committee as well as any additional scrutiny requirements within each authority.

4.3 Should any significant factors occur such as major policy or procedural changes occur within the ProjectPage Integra 95 framework then the plan will be revisited and revised as appropriate.

Priority 1 - Increasing Capture

Work Stream 1 - Improve resident awareness of what can be recycled

No. Initiative Specific activities Cost Lead Target How will Expected Officer Completion Date outcome be Outcome measured RA1 Website Revise existing web Nil SW Jan 2015 Income/weight Increase in pages pages including an data income from on-line A-Z guide on recyclables recycling opportunities RA2 Bin Hangers Investigate options Nil - SW Costs to be Successful Increase in and stickers for using bin hangers Final costs confirmed by Nov distribution and income from Page 96 and/or stickers to depend on 2014. use of recyclables promote materials option chosen Decisions within 2 promotional that can be recycled. months of PI material materials review RA3 Press Issue 4 press Nil SW I press release Number of press Increase in releases releases promoting per quarter releases covered income from targeted materials in local media recyclables such as metals (e.g. Yes you ‘Can’ campaign), glass (Xmas) RA4 Vehicles Include promotional Nil SW Panels installed Increase in recycling messages by April 2015 income from on sides of refuse following recyclables vehicles when Biffa completion of PI replace current materials review panels Work Stream 2 – Improving the bring site network

No. Initiative Specific activities Cost Lead Target Completion How will Expected Officer Date outcome be Outcome measured BN1 Additional Investigate the Scheme will SW Jan 2015 Number of Increase capture recycling potential other only be additional of materials such streams recyclable streams implemented if materials that as batteries, small that can not be at nil net cost are collected at WEEE, foil. recycled through bring sites the kerbside but could be at brings sites. BN2 Increase textile Expand existing Nil SW Dec 2014 Tonnage and Increase capture

Page 97 bank network network to private income data from out of the residual sites with written collection waste stream with local agreements contractor matching income

Work Stream 3 – Improving participation

No. Initiative Specific activities Cost Lead Target How will Expected Officer Completion outcome be Outcome Date measured IP1 EHDC Garden Include advert on all Nil SW Oct - 2014 Reviewing the Increase in the waste service EHDC 2014 refuse and number of new number of new promotion recycling collection customers to the customers. calendars service IP2 EHDC Garden Install advertising panels £500 SW Oct - 2014 Reviewing the Increase in the waste service on the sides of the EHDC number of new number of new

Page 98 promotion operations technicians customers to the customers. vehicles. service IP3 EHDC Textile Install advertising panels £500 SW Oct - 2014 Increased Increased income bank network on the sides of the EHDC tonnage of operations technicians material collected vehicles. IP4 WCC Textile Include advert on all WCC Nil SW Oct - 2014 Increased Increased income bank network 2014 refuse and recycling tonnage of collection calendars material collected IP5 WCC glass Include advert on all WCC Nil SW Oct - 2014 Increased Increased income bring sites 2014 refuse and recycling tonnage of collection calendars material collected IP6 Bring site Develop bring site Nil – final costs to SW April 2015 Increased Increased income feedback improvement programme depend on tonnage of with feedback panels on scheme chosen material collected recycling rates achieved

Priority 2 - Reducing Contamination

Work Stream 1 – Better Information

No. Initiative Specific activities Cost Lead Target How will Expected Officer Completion outcome be Outcome Date measured BI1 Publicity of Advertise the current Nil SW Sep-14 MAF and PI Reduced performance performance of each authority contamination contamination and promote a 'we can do level data levels better' message through web sites, press releases and any Page 99 council publications BI2 Improve quality Promote the message of clean £0 SW Dec-14 MAF and PI Reduced dry and loose through website (already contamination contamination and bin hangers inc in level data levels CA1 above) BI3 Targeting New Investigate options for £1.50 SW Nov-14 Reduction in calls Reduced Residents producing a new residents per to the CSC contamination pack which will be sent to pack levels properties.

Work Stream 2 – Policies & Procedures

No. Initiative Specific activities Cost Lead Target How will outcome Expected Outcome Officer Completion be measured Date PP1 Returns policy Complete the variation to 0 MT Nov 2014 Monthly performance Reduced level of the current contract to data collected via contamination and encourage crew springboard/Lagan numbers of bins engagement in checking including number of rejected for emptying contamination of bins bins tagged as contaminated PP2 Contamination Review of existing tags 0 SW Nov 2014 Monthly performance Reduced level of tags and supply contractor with data collected via contamination and Page 100 new tags. springboard/Lagan numbers of bins including number of rejected for emptying bins tagged as contaminated PP3 Crew training Produce and deliver a 0 SW Sep-14 Monthly performance Reduced level of crew toolbox talk on with data collected via contamination and contamination checks and support springboard/Lagan numbers of bins rejection with a phased from including number of rejected for emptying roll out programme across CMO's bins tagged as all collection rounds contaminated PP4 Contractor Produce and implement a 0 SW Nov 2014 Monitoring data on Reduced level of monitoring procedure for contractor monthly supervisor contamination and crew checks. and CMO crew numbers of bins checks rejected for emptying PP5 Communal bin Giveaway existing free 0 SW & Dec 2014 Monitoring of content To see a 80% areas reusable clear sacks for CMO's of communal bins by reduction in plastic properties with communal CMO's bags found within bin areas. communal bins.

Priority 3 - Reduction of Household Waste

Work Stream 1 – Household Information

No. Initiative Specific activities Cost Lead Target How will outcome Expected Outcome Officer Completion be measured Date

HI 1 Small WEEE Promotion of recycling £1,500 SW Nov-14 MAF Sampling Reduction in weight diversion options should show of waste per reduction in this household material in the waste stream

Page 101 HiI2 Targeting New Produce a new residents £1.50 SW Nov-14 Reduction in calls to Reduction in weight Residents pack per the CSC of waste per pack household HI 3 Website pages Revise existing web pages Nil SW Jan 2015 Number of hits on Reduction in weight including advice on how to website and of waste per reduce household waste. reduction in weight household of waste per household Hi4 ‘Love Food Hate Develop proposals for a Nil – SW April 2015 MAF Sampling Reduction in weight Waste’ Campaign campaign including budget should show of waste per budget required and costs reduction in this household delivery mechanism TBC material in the waste stream

Work Stream 2 – Waste reduction

No. Initiative Specific activities Cost Lead Target How will outcome Expected Outcome Officer Completion be measured Date WR1 Review of 'two bin' Review all existing two bin £500 MT Dec-14 Monitoring of the Reduction in properties properties to check number of number of provision is still valid. households with two households with two bins. bin and a reduction in household waste per head.

Page 102 WR2 Unauthorised Implement a project in Nil MT Dec 2014 Number of reduction in containers conjunction with Biffa to unauthorised household waste ensure removal of all containers removed per head. unauthorised additional containers WR3 Contractor Issue tool box talk for 0 MT Dec-14 Monitoring of cases reduction in performance crews regarding on springboard household waste procedure for dealing with per head. side waste

Appendix 1

East Hampshire NI191 - Residual Waste per Household 2012/13 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Total for 2013/14 Household Waste not sent for recycling reuse or composting (Tonnes) 6154.54 5823.08 6135.98 6218.2 24331.8 Number of Households 49,590.00 49,590.00 49,590.00 50,010.00 50,010.00 Residual HH Waste (Kg’s) 124.11 117.42 123.73 124.34 486.54

NI192 - Percentage HH

Page 103 Waste Sent for Reuse, Recycling or Composting 2012/13 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Total for 2013/14 HH Waste Sent fro Recycling, reuse or composting 2943.75 3088.03 2996.35 3139.93 12,168.06 Total HH Waste Collected Reuse, Recycling and composted (Tonnes) 9089.29 8911.11 9132.33 9358.13 34,499.86 % 32.40% 34.70% 32.80% 33.60% 33.30%

Percentage of Household Waste arisings which have been sent for recycling 2012/13 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Total for 2013/14 Household Dry Recycling (Tonnes) 10,380.58 2,454.51 2,638.42 2,499.89 2,700.20 10,293.02 Total Household Waste (Tonnes) 35,566.12 9,036.12 8,843.47 9,074.15 9,300.74 36,254.48 Dry Recycling (%) 29.19% 27.16% 29.83% 27.55% 29.03% 28.39%

Percentage of Household Waste sent for composting or Page 104 anaerobic digestion 2012/13 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Total for 2013/14 Household Composting (Tonnes) 1,744.06 429.34 382.2 439.46 297.5 1,548.50 Total Household Waste (Tonnes) 35,566.12 9,036.12 8,843.47 9,074.15 9,300.74 36,254.48 Composting Rate (%) 4.90% 4.75% 4.32% 4.84% 3.20% 4.27%

Household Waste Collection (Kilograms per head) 2012/13 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Total for 2013/14 Waste Collected (Tonnes) 35,566.12 9,036.12 8,843.47 9,074.15 9,300.74 36,254.48 Population (Tonnes) 116,400 116,400 116,400 116,400 116,400 116,400 Waste Collection Per Head (Kg’s) 305.55 77.6 76 78 79.9 311.46

Appendix 2

Winchester City NI191 - Residual Waste per Household 2012/13 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Total for 2013/14 Household Waste not sent for recycling reuse or composting (Tonnes) 5,952.62 5,853.80 6,167.75 6,630.32 24,604.49 Number of Households 49,780.00 49,780.00 49,780.00 50,320.00 50,320.00 Residual HH Waste (Kg’s) 119.58 117.59 123.9 131.76 488.96

NI192 - Percentage HH Waste Sent for Reuse,

Page 105 Recycling or Composting 2012/13 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Total for 2013/14 HH Waste Sent fro Recycling, reuse or composting 3,602.96 3,184.43 3,304.63 2,826.55 12,918.57 Total HH Waste Collected Recuse, Recycling and composted (Tonnes) 9,555.58 9,038.23 9,472.38 9,456.87 37,523.06 % 37.70% 35.20% 34.90% 29.90% 34.40%

Percentage of Household Waste arisings which have been sent for recycling 2012/13 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Total for 2013/14 Household Dry 9,105.75 2,129.96 1,979.18 2,227.35 2,053.87 8,390.36 Recycling (Tonnes) Total Household Waste (Tonnes) 36,840.19 9,497.22 8,977.17 9,408.32 37,311.83 37,311.83 Dry Recycling (%) 27.72% 2.43% 22.05% 23.62% 21.83% 22.49%

Percentage of Household Waste sent for composting or anaerobic digestion 2012/13 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Total for 2013/14 Household Composting (Tonnes) 3,857.10 1,418.31 1,145.37 1,034.28 727.68 4,325.64 Total Household Waste (Tonnes) 36,840.19 9,497.20 8,977.17 9,429.12 9,408.32 37,311.83 Page 106 Composting Rate (%) 10.47% 14.93% 12.76% 10.97% 7.73% 11.59%

Household Waste Collection (Kilograms per head) 2012/13 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Total for 2013/14 Waste Collected (Tonnes) 36,840.19 9,497.22 8,977.17 9,429.12 9,408.32 37,311.83 Population (Tonnes) 117,702 117,702 117,702 117,702 117,702 117,702 Waste Collection Per Head (Kg’s) 313 80.7 76.3 80.1 79.9 317

Agenda Item 9

NON EXEMPT

EAST HAMPSHIRE DISTRICT COUNCIL & WINCHESTER CITY COUNCIL

EHDC & WCC Joint Environmental Services 25 March 2015 Committee

Road Safety Measures & Community Litter Picks Service Manager (Contract Management Team)

For Decision

Portfolios: Cllr Melissa Maynard (EHDC, Environment), Cllr Richard Millard (EHDC, Commercial Contracts), Cllr Patricia Stallard (WCC, Environment, Health & Wellbeing)

Key Decision: No

1.0 Purpose of Report

1.1 This report has been prepared in order to give Members an update on recent development in relation to the undertaking of litter picking activities on or near the highway and the implications for voluntary community litter picks across both Districts.

2.0 Recommendations

The Joint Committee

a) Notes the current position regarding the road safety requirements relating to litter picking operations; and b) Endorses the approach being taken to support Community Litter Picks as described in section 4 of this report.

3.0 Detail

3.1 For some years there has been legislation regarding working on the highway with guidance in the form of a Code of Practice clarifying the methods to be followed by operatives working on the highway, such as utilities companies carrying out digging etc. However this guidance has not been aimed at litter picking operatives,

Page 107 3.2 Last year the ‘Safety at Street works and Road Works: a Code of Practice’ guidance (also referred to as ‘Chapter 8’) issued by the Department of Transport was amended following fatalities of litter picking operatives.

3.3 The amendments provide clarification that the Code of practice now also covers the practice of litter picking on the highway. As a result it is now a criminal offence for litter picking contractors not to comply with the revised code of practice. In the event of a fatality or serious incident, the HSE will use the code of practice in order to carry out prosecutions of the companies involved.

3.4 As an example whilst working on the highway the operatives must ensure there is a safety zone between the area of work and the live carriageway of at least 1.2m for roads with a speed limit of 50mph or more. This is reduced to 0.5m for roads of 40mph or less.

3.5 The impact of these changes is being felt nationally. Of particular concern locally in both Districts are the high speed single carriageway roads, such as the A272, A33 and rural roads which are narrow and without a wide verge or pavement. These now require a marked vehicle and signage and potentially lane closures to create the required safety zone. In addition, clearing of high speed trunks roads such as the A3 and A34 is also likely to require lane closures in some cases.

3.6 The Contract Management Team have been in discussions with The Landscape Group (TLG) regarding these new requirements in order to ensure that all necessary training, signage, risk assessments and method statements are in place so that work can be carried out safely.

3.7 Attached at Appendices A – D are the method statement provided by TLG for this work. Where there are wide verges and safe areas to work then litter picking can take place as normal. Where traffic management is required this work will be scheduled for the year to coincide with activities.

3.8 Contact has also been made with EM Highways who coordinate the traffic management for the A34, A303 and the A3. Updates will now be received regularly and TLG will aim to piggyback litter picking work onto these closures where possible.

3.9 Further guidance from the HSE regarding street cleaning and horticultural work (shrubs, grass, etc.) on the highway is expected in the next few months and this will also be considered once received.

3.10 There are no issues in relation to grass cutting operations as the Chapter 8 requirements for this work are already clearly referred to in the contract

Page 108 specification with the guidance confirming the signage required for this activity. TLG have also trained their grass cutting crew team leaders on the requirements.

4.0 Implications

4.1 Unfortunately with the uncertainty over the new requirements and heavy demand on traffic management contractors there have been delays in completing the litter picking work on many roads across both districts over the last 6 months. In the case of high speed roads work was last completed in May 2014 so is well overdue.

4.2 Now that the position is clearer TLG have produced a ‘Litter Recovery Programme ‘ as attached at Appendix E which confirms the arrangements to return the roads to a compliant standard. Contract monitoring staff will be monitoring this closely in order to ensure that it is delivered and work has already been completed on some of the roads.

4.3 The other aspect to be resolved is the question of Community Litter Picks which are a valuable addition to the baseline street cleaning programmes within the contract. As such they are supported by both Councils each year with equipment such as litter pickers, tabards and black sacks provided to volunteers upon request.

4.4 There is an obvious need to ensure that anyone involved in a Community Litter Pick is kept safe but the challenges in these cases are that the activity is not an ‘at work’ activity so the Council does not have the same level of legal duty as it does with a contractor.

4.5 Many Councils have been grappling with this dilemma in order to avoid the need to withdraw support for these activities in case it implies some form of liability upon the Council. Such a decision would be most unpopular with groups who have an inherent enthusiasm for litter picking and wish to put something back into their community. It has an added advantage that those carrying out litter picking within their community are more likely to challenge individuals seen to drop litter thereby offering an additional deterrent.

4.6 In order to address this issue the CMT has developed the guidelines attached at Appendix F which will be given to co-ordinators who contact the council for support. To accompany the guidelines a card is also being developed (see the draft at Appendix G) which can be given to individual volunteers to remind them of the need to consider their own safety.

4.7 The important aspect is the guidelines emphasises that Community Litter Picks are solely a voluntary operation and therefore participants should

Page 109 not take part unless they understand and accept that participation is entirely at their own risk. The guidance clarifies that volunteers are not working for, or on behalf of the Council, therefore the Council will not be held responsible for any loss, damage injuries or inconvenience caused as a result of the actions and omissions of volunteers or this guidance.

4.8 This approach will allow litter picks to still take place with the support of the Council and JESC are asked to approve this approach so that it can be adopted as policy at both Councils.

4.9 The location of the lead service within each council to co-ordinate Community Pick requests was considered as part of the CMT review and it was recommended that it was taken out of the CMT to another service at both councils. Discussions have begun on this process as part of the implementation of the review recommendations but these will not be complete in time for the 2015 requests which frequently take place at this time of the year to coincide with National campaigns and Spring Clean events. As a result the CMT will oversee the requests for this year and agree handover arrangements once this programme has been completed.

5.0 Implications

5.1 Resources: There are no identified additional resources implications from this report at present although the new requirements may result in additional costs to TLG as a result of an increased need for traffic management arrangements in some locations. This will be investigated during the year and if a contract variation is required to cover these costs it will be reported back as part of routine budget monitoring and if required a budget growth bid submitted for 2016/17.

5.2 Legal: Compliance with the new legal requirements by TLG will be achieved through routine contract monitoring processes. The new guidelines for volunteers carrying out Community Litter Picks have been prepared in order to satisfy that aspect.

5.3 Strategy: The work of the JCT delivers services which help to meet a number of the aims of the corporate strategy including Financial Sustainability, Environmental Sustainability, Public Service Excellence and Creativity and Innovation. Volunteer contributions help to further support this work and enhance baseline standards.

5.4 Risks: There was a reputational risk associated with the cessation of support for Community Litter Picks but this has been addressed through the new guidelines which allow this support to continue. The guidelines and disclaimer also deal with the potential risk of liability from volunteers carrying out this work.

Page 110

5.5 Communications: there will be a need to properly communicate the new requirements and guidelines to litter groups and this process has already begun. Communications such as website updates and press releases have been used in response to the recent adverse reaction to delays in completing the litter picking activities across both districts and this seems to have proved effective in addressing these issues.

Appendices:

Appendix A – D TLG Guidelines on Litter picking operations Appendix E - Litter Recovery Programme Appendix F – Community Groups Litter Guidelines Appendix G – Litter Volunteer advice card

Background Papers: none

Contact Officer: Rob Heathcock Job Title: Service Manager (Contract Management Team) Telephone: 01730 234283 E-Mail: [email protected]

Page 111 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 112 Non Highway Highway Page 113

Non VergewayVergeway RoadwayRoadway Vergeway Highway This page is intentionally left blank

Page 114 Starting Point place? (See Highways Works – Locations and Methods Locations)

Works Location Off Highway Vergeway Roadway

Medium/Long Temporary Short Duration Existing task Method Duration – Traffic Control – - Method Group 1 Road (30mph methodology to Vergeway 1 Method Method Roadway 1 single carriageway) be adopted Roadway2 Roadway 3

Medium/Long Temporary Short Duration Method Duration – Traffic Control – Method Group 2 Road (40mph Vergeway 2 Method Method Roadway 1 single carriageway) Roadway 2 Roadway 3

Page 115 Medium/Long Temporary Short Duration Mobile Works – Method Duration – Traffic Control – – Method Roadway Group 3 Road (50mph Vergeway 3 Method Method Roadway 1 Method 5 single carriageway) Roadway 2 Roadway 3

Medium Long Nearside Outside Short Duration Mobile Works – Duration – Method Method – Method Roadway Group 2D & 3D Road (Dual Method Vergeway 2 Vergeway 4 Roadway 4 Method 5 Carriageways to 50mph) Roadway 6

Rural Nat. Medium Long Short Duration Mobile Works – Speed Limit – Duration – – Method Roadway Method Method Group 4 Road (Nat Speed Roadway 4 Method 5 Limit Rural Road) Vergeway 5 Roadway 6

Medium Long Motorway & Short Duration Mobile Works Duration – Trunk Road – Method Roadway Group 5 Road Method Vergeway 5 Roadway 4 Method 5 (Motorway/Arterial Trunk Roadway 6 Road) This page is intentionally left blank

Page 116 Means of delivery for Non highway works. Work not on either the Roadway or Vergeway.

TLG Highway Method Vehicle Parking and access Signage & Guarding Road type by group Summary Methodology Competencies required PPE Requirements details Requirements Group 0 – off highways No specific measures required other No specific highway No specific Highway Vehicle to be parked safely activity (Parks, Cemetery, Method Routine Off Highway than those included in the task risk signage other than to As per the specific task risk related training other and securely and avoiding Schools, subject to site and Method – For all works that assessment. This may include other warn pedestrians and site assessment and in compliance than activity causing an obstruction to contract requirements) are off carriageway. controls for pedestrian safety or users of presence and with existing site rules. competencies roadway or footway. information. activity

Means of delivery for Vergeway works. Must comply with lateral safety distances of 1.2m for workers and 0.5m for equipment and / or vehicles

Road type by group TLG Highway Method Summary Methodology Competencies required Vehicle Parking and access Signage & Guarding PPE Requirements details Requirements None other than task This is low risk in terms of highway competence. working, so a proportionate approach Vehicle to be parked safely Method Vergeway 1- For all If advance signage is Page 117 Group 1- Highways to a to risk is to be maintained. and securely and avoiding Task specific PPE, with the use minor verge and footpath required then an Not normally required maximum of 30mph Good practice for staff to work towards causing an obstruction to of Hi viz vests works operative with C&G any oncoming traffic to be able to roadway or footway. Streetworks Unit 2 is monitor traffic movements required. Vehicle to be parked safely Men at Work with Set out advance warning signs to alert and securely off the supplementary board Group 2 – Highways to a road users of work. Park vehicle off Task specific carriageway, without causing (task and distance) Hi Viz with long sleeves and maximum of 40mph. With Method Vergeway 2 – For all carriageway. Work towards oncoming competencies along with an obstruction. Twin bands. good visibility and no site verge and footpath works traffic to monitor movement and speed. C&G Streetworks Unit 2 beacons and blue directional Men at Work – End Task specific PPE as per Risk specific layout or traffic Maintain Safe working distances of for signage arrow to be employed when assessment for task. problems 0.5m from carriageway edge. slowing, parking or Height of signs – min. manoeuvring. 750mm Vehicle to be parked safely Men at Work with Set out advance warning signs to alert Hi Viz with long sleeves and and securely off the supplementary board road users of work. Park vehicle off bands. Group 3 - Highways to a Task specific carriageway, without causing (task and distance) carriageway. Work towards oncoming Hi Viz Trousers with reflective maximum of 50mph Method Vergeway 3 – For all competencies along with an obstruction. Twin traffic to monitor movement and speed. bands verge and footpath works C&G Streetworks Unit 2 beacons and blue directional Men at Work – End Maintain Safe working distances Hard Hat for signage arrow to be employed when maintained of 1.2m from carriageway Task specific PPE as per Risk slowing, parking or Height of signs – min. edge. assessment for task manoeuvring. 750mm Group 2D – Dual C ’way to Vehicle to be parked safely Men at Work with Method Vergeway 2 - for Hi Viz with long sleeves and max 40 mph. Set out advance warning signs to alert and securely off the supplementary board nearside verges and large bands. Group 3D – Dual C ‘way to a road users of work. Park vehicle off Task specific carriageway, without causing (task and distance) central reservation type Hi Viz Trousers with reflective max of 50mph carriageway. Work towards oncoming competencies along with an obstruction. Twin areas that can be accessed bands With good visibility and no traffic to monitor movement and speed. C&G Streetworks Unit 2 beacons and blue directional Men at Work – End by a vehicle and can be Hard Hat site specific layout or traffic Maintain Safe working distances of for signage arrow to be employed when maintained fully from with Task specific PPE as per Risk problems 1.2m from carriageway edge. slowing, parking or Height of signs – min. the area. assessment for task manoeuvring. 750mm Method Vergeway 4 All Vehicle to be parked safely Group 2D – Dual C ’way to other central reservations and securely off the Hi Viz with long sleeves and max 40 mph. that do not fit the previous Task specific carriageway, without causing bands. Group 3D – Dual C ‘way to a description (not accessible Mobile lane closure operation or static competencies and an obstruction or within the All TM and signage by Hi Viz Trousers with reflective max of 50mph for vehicles or easily lane closure by competent TM provider, instruction and briefing closed lane work area. Twin competent appointed TM bands With good visibility and no maintained from within the with GM work taking place within it. on working within TM beacons and blue directional contractor Hard Hat site specific layout or traffic island or cases where the situation. arrow to be employed when Task specific PPE as per Risk problems sideways safety distance of slowing, parking or assessment for task 1.2m cannot be delivered. manoeuvring. Consider suitability of using Vehicle Vehicle to be parked safely protection, Mobile lane/ hard shoulder and securely off the Hi Viz with long sleeves and closure operation or static lane closure Task specific carriageway, without causing All TM and signage by bands. by competent TM provider. competencies and an obstruction or within the competent persons. Hi Viz Trousers with reflective Group 4 Rural and trunk Method Vergeway 5 – for In any event - All works to be instruction and briefing closed lane work area. Twin Use of lane closure bands roads (National speed) nearside verges completed at least 1.2m from live on working within TM beacons and blue directional techniques by Competent Hard Hat carriageway and facing the oncoming situation. arrow to be employed when TM provider. Task specific PPE as per Risk traffic to observe movements and slowing, parking or assessment for task approaching vehicles manoeuvring. Consider suitability of using Vehicle Vehicle to be parked safely protection, Mobile lane/ hard shoulder and securely off the Hi Viz with long sleeves and closure operation or static lane closure Task specific carriageway, without causing All TM and signage by bands.

Page 118 Group 5 Motorways/ by competent TM provider. competencies and an obstruction or within the competent persons. Hi Viz Trousers with reflective Highways agency routes Method Vergeway 5 – All In any event - All works to be instruction and briefing closed lane work area. Twin Use of lane closure bands with/ without hard high speed routes completed at least 1.2m from live on working within TM beacons and blue directional techniques by Competent Hard Hat shoulder (Arterial routes) carriageway and facing the oncoming situation. arrow to be employed when TM provider. Task specific PPE as per Risk traffic to observe movements and slowing, parking or assessment for task approaching vehicles manoeuvring.

Means of delivery for tasks completed from within the Roadway. (this includes all works that cannot achieve the relevant sideways/ lateral safety distances or requires the vehicle or equipment to be parked in the road )

TLG Highway Road type by Method Summary Methodology Competencies required Vehicle Parking and access details Signage & Guarding Requirements PPE Requirements group

Work ahead of works vehicle using the Hi Viz with long sleeves and Park Vehicle in same direction as None for short duration works other than Method Roadway vehicle as a protective ‘barrier’ Task specific bands. traffic flow, using highway beacons, signage and lighting items already 1 – Short duration. between oncoming traffic and work competencies along Hi Viz Trousers with reflective rear chevron and blue directional mounted on the vehicle. If on bends or For activities for 30 area. Distance of work ahead of with C&G Streetworks bands arrow other road hazards then use advance minutes or less. vehicle to be more than 10m and less Unit 2 for signage Task specific PPE as per Risk signage to warn others Group 1- than 50m assessment for task Highways to a Obtain permission from highways maximum of authority prior to starting to works Park vehicle within safety working Method Roadway Hi Viz with long sleeves and 30mph and Set out safe working area as per the Task specific zone, using suitable safe access and 2 - for medium or Men at work signs on all approaches bands. Group 2 - Streetworks Approved code of competencies along exit points, as per Streetworks. long duration. Road narrowing from left signs (Road Hi Viz Trousers with reflective Highways to a practice, to include advance signing, with C&G Streetworks Employ twin beacons, rear chevron (Further drawings narrow from right on opposite approach) bands maximum of safety taper, safety zone, working Unit 2 for setting out and blue directional arrow when on subsequent Blue directional arrow on corner of vehicle Task specific PPE as per Risk 40mph. zone and end taper. All distances and signage manoeuvring, reversing or slowing pages) assessment for task With good set up in accordance with Code page down. visibility and no 25 – 27 and 105 site specific Method Roadway Set out safe working area as per the Task specific

Page 119 Park vehicle within safety working Hi Viz with long sleeves and layout or traffic 3 for all works on Streetworks Approved code of competencies along zone, using suitable safe access and bands. problems. the carriageway practice, to include temporary traffic with C&G Streetworks Men at work signs on all approaches exit points, as per Streetworks. Hi Viz Trousers with reflective where the control, advance signing, safety taper, Unit 2 for signage/ Road narrowing from left signs (Road Employ twin beacons, rear chevron bands minimum width of safety zone, working zone and end lighting and guarding. narrow from right on opposite approach) and blue directional arrow when Hard Hat clear/ open taper. All distances and set up in Including the use of Blue directional arrow on corner of vehicle manoeuvring, reversing or slowing Task specific PPE as per Risk carriageway cannot accordance with Code page 52-69 and temporary traffic down. assessment for task be achieved.* 105 control Method Roadway 4 For nearside lane Work ahead of secondary escort Hi Viz with long sleeves and activities for 30 vehicle with large scale directional bands. minutes or less. On arrow and flashing beacons and then Task specific Park Vehicle in same direction as Group 2D 30mph None for short duration works other than Hi Viz Trousers with reflective roads where work ahead of the works vehicle using competencies along traffic flow, using twin beacons, rear dual carriageway signage and lighting items already bands visibility can be this as a protective ‘barrier’ between with C&G Streetworks chevron and blue directional arrow Group 3 (&3D)– mounted on the vehicle Hard Hat maintained and oncoming traffic and work area. Unit 2 for signage 50 mph road Task specific PPE as per Risk road users can Distance of work ahead of vehicle to (and Dual assessment for task easily see the be more than 15m and less than 60m Carriageway), works Group 4- Rural Hi Viz with long sleeves and National Speed Vehicle to be parked safely and bands. limit Mobile lane closure operation or static Task specific securely off the carriageway, without All TM and signage by competent Method Roadway Hi Viz Trousers with reflective lane closure by competent TM competencies along causing an obstruction. Twin beacons appointed TM contractor 5 for both nearside bands provider, with GM work taking place with C&G Streetworks and blue directional arrow to be and outside lanes Hard Hat within it. Unit 2 for signage employed when slowing, parking or Task specific PPE as per Risk manoeuvring. assessment for task Group 1- Method Roadway Set out advance warning signs to alert Task specific Not applicable during mobile works. Working vehicle to be fitted with Twin Hi Viz with long sleeves and Highways to max 6 for all mobile road users of work. Work in the competencies along Leave carriageway when work is not Beacons, visible from 360 degrees, Blue bands. 30mph works operations direction of the traffic flow with with C&G Streetworks being carried out (breaks / Directional arrow to rear of unit (on the Hi Viz Trousers with reflective Group 2 - beacons displayed at all times. Unit 2 for signage maintenance etc) offside of the unit) and chevrons to cover bands TLG Highway Road type by Method Summary Methodology Competencies required Vehicle Parking and access details Signage & Guarding Requirements PPE Requirements group

Highways to max the rear of the unit. Blue arrow to only be Hard Hat. All PPE to be worn at all 40mph displayed when working, to be covered at times when leaving the vehicle Group 3 - all other times cab on the highway. Highways to max Task specific PPE as per Risk 50mph assessment for task Group 5– Trunk Method Roadway Mobile lane closure operation or static Task specific Vehicle to be parked safely and All TM and signage by competent Hi Viz with long sleeves and Roads & 5 for any duration. lane closure by competent TM competencies along securely off the carriageway, without appointed TM contractor bands. Motorways For both nearside provider, with GM work taking place with C&G Streetworks causing an obstruction. Twin beacons Hi Viz Trousers with reflective and outside lanes within it. Unit 2 for signage and blue directional arrow to be bands employed when slowing, parking or Hard Hat manoeuvring. Task specific PPE as per Risk assessment for task

Potential reasons for methods not being applicable or suitable

Reason for not being suitable or controls being adequate Action to be taken to make safe Page 120 Traffic is too heavy (flow rates or at peak times) Cease work and return when traffic is less busy

Work will block the carriageway or reduce the width to below 5.5m for Cease task and plan to complete works under method Roadway 3 residential streets Work will block the carriageway or reduce the width to below 6.75m for Cease task and plan to complete works under method Roadway 3 routes with HGV/ Buses. HGV, Buses and other Larger vehicles are present at a higher than expected Escalate to next method to ensure risks are adequately controlled rate Visibility is poor – weather – rain, fog, mist or spray, darkness, Cease work and return when conditions are safe to do so

Blind Bends, hill summits or obstructed views. Locate additional advance warning signage at each bend, hill or obstruction to ensure all drivers are pre warned about the work being completed. If still not thought to be safe, consider Method Roadway 4 Junctions and other routes interfering with safe system of work Locate additional advance warning signage at each approach / junction to ensure all drivers are pre warned about the work being completed. If still not thought to be safe, consider Method Roadway 4 Traffic is too fast (exceeding the recognised speed limit) Escalate method to the appropriate method for the suspected actual speed of the traffic.

Priority routes litter picking schedule

EHDC Area Start date week commencing Target Completion date Comments Location

A339 – Alton to Selborne – that is the B3006r Complete A339 from Alton to Selborne (odd areas) Complete A339 from Alton to Basingstoke DC boundary (odd areas) 30/03/15 01/04/15 Ditch clearance and cutting back B3349 from Alton to the Golden Pot (odd areas) Complete B3006 – Ham Barn to Selborne – particularly the stretch from Stairs Hill to Lions Mouth Partially complete TM required to complete works B3004 from Alton to East Worldham (odd areas) 30/03/15 02/04/15 B3004 – Sleaford Junction to East Worldham 30/03/15 03/04/15 B3004 – Passfield to Liphook. 06/04/15 10/04/15 Alton Road from Hedge Corner (Monkwood/East Tisted)) to The Trooper Inn (Froxfield) 13/04/15 15/04/15 Hawthorn Road, Four Marks from junction with Lyeway Lane to junction with Hawthorn Lane 13/04/15 16/04/15 A325 – needs to include Woolmer Link – from the Digby Way roundabout to A3 slip roads 13/04/15 17/04/15 A325 – Eco station to Holt Pound – this stretch is particularly bad, needs priority pick 20/04/15 24/04/15 Headley Road (Lindford to Headley) 27/04/15 01/01/15 A272 Complete A3 entire length from Horndean North bound particularly 15/03/15 completed to Grayshott from Ham Barn roundabout northbound A3 slip road at Horndean/ Clanfield Southbound. From A3 to ABA trucks.. 15/03/15 completed to Grayshott from Ham Barn roundabout northbound Dell Piece West Horndean from A3 to Portsmouth Road 04/05/15 08/05/15 Chalton Lane Clanfield from Green Lane down past Hampshire Hog down to Gravel Hill and slip road to A3 11/05/15 13/05/15 B2149 Road from Horndean to Rowlands Castle both sides litter building up. 11/05/15 15/05/15 Old A3 from Sheet to Rake 18/05/15 22/05/15 All roads around Whitehill/Bordon – Liphook Rd, Walldown Road, Hollywater Road (bit by cemetery is ok), Standford Lane, Standford Hill, Lindford Road. Complete A31 from Four Marks to County boundary (Surrey), both carriageways. Complete Under lane closure A32 from Chawton roundabout to Hedge Corner, (odd areas) Complete Under lane closure Garrison Hill (A32) 25/05/15 26/05/15 A32 Wickham to Droxford 25/05/15 28/05/15 A 325 Petersfield Road Bordon. From Selbourne roundabout through to jet Garage Complete Footpath areas B2177 Southwick Road - Wickham to jct Hundred Acres Raod 01/06/15 01/06/15 Tichfield Lane - Railway Line to jct A34 01/06/15 04/06/15

Page 121 Swanmore Bishops Wood Road - jct Gravel Hill to jct Newmans Hill 08/06/15 09/06/15 Wickham A324 Hoads Hill 08/06/15 11/06/15

WCC Area

Morestead Road Complete Road closure commences 02/03/15 for 3 weeks, possibly utilise for litter picking operations Belomore Lane Complete Corehampton Lane Complete Stakes Lane 16/03/15 20/03/15 Road closed following avian flu outbreak B2150 16/03/15 20/03/15 Sailors Lane 16/03/15 20/03/15 Morestead Road - from laybys down to junction heavy litter. (1.27km) Complete Heavy litter visable after grass cut. M3 /A33 Roundabout 16/03/15 20/03/15 A3090 Hursley Schedule 1/14/29. From roundabout to Enmill Lane. (1.29km) Laybys Sched 40 16/03/15 20/03/15 Badger Farm Road (A3090) has dumped refuse in the entrance area to Bushfield Camp and also a lot of litter on the grass verges near Sainsburys. 16/03/15 20/03/15 Saint Cross Road from Five Bridges Road to roundabout on verge 16/03/15 20/03/15 Hockley Link Road by the viaduct, slip roads onto the M3 northbound and southbound. The area under the motorway bridge by the river also gets bad. 16/03/15 20/03/15 B3335 (Coxs Hill) From traffic lights to Bourne Lane 16/03/15 20/03/15 Andover Road - the layby before the roundabout leading to the A34 has a lot of litter opposite it in the bushes. 16/03/15 20/03/15 Poles Lane layby at the Otterbourne end near the golf course has whereas some dumped rubbish and the road is quite littered in places due to contractors clearing ditches. 16/03/15 20/03/15 Bar End, along the A31 up to the roundabout A31 with A272 16/03/15 20/03/15 Sheperds Farm Lane Complete B2177 - Portsmouth road - From Lower Upham to jct Winters Hill 16/03/15 20/03/15 B2177 - Coppice Hill - Bishops Waltham 16/03/15 20/03/15 B3035 - The Hangers - Bishops Waltham 16/03/15 20/03/15 Shirral Heath High Street 16/03/15 20/03/15 Whiteley Lane - railway line to rdabout Lady Bettys Drive 16/03/15 20/03/15 Beeches Hill 16/03/15 20/03/15 Snakemore Lane B3325 - B2177 16/03/15 20/03/15 Botley to Shedfield 16/03/15 20/03/15 More detail required A334 Winchester Road - Ashley Manor to jct Buddens Road 16/03/15 20/03/15

Central reservation works

A3 - works undertaken during day light hours ten days to complete works 16/03/15 03/04/15 A303 - works undertaken during night closure five days to complete works 16/03/15 10/04/15 A34 - works undertaken during night closure five days to complete works 16/03/15 17/04/15

Not on schedule. From B3335/B3334 Colden Common junction to Spring Lane junction This page is intentionally left blank

Page 122

Volunteer Litter Picking Guidance Notes

Thank you for your support in helping to keep XXXXX Council District clear of litter. We really do value the support that community events provide to our routine services.

Because litter picking can be a hazardous activity in some locations, in order to make your event as enjoyable and safe as possible we ask that the following health and safety advice be taken into consideration. Please make sure all volunteers are aware of the risks before an event takes place.

Prior to any event it is important that the lead volunteer assesses any potential risks and hazards which may need to be avoided on the day.

Top 10 tips for a Safe Event

• Do not enter any restricted areas such as road works or where the public do not have a right of entry. • Litter picking near roads should be restricted to wide verges or pavements, suitable for pedestrians, and should be carried out facing oncoming traffic. • It is essential that volunteers are visible to road users, for that reason, hi-visibility waistcoats must be worn and litter picks should only take place in clear daylight. • Volunteers should not attempt to clear litter from the carriageway. • If volunteers are litter picking on roads they should work on one side to avoid excess crossing. • Avoid reaching into hedges or undergrowth in such a way as to expose the face, eyes and skin to scratches from thorns or branches. • Avoid working next to rivers or steep slopes as there is an increased risk of slips and falls. • Be mindful of wildlife. In the Spring time avoid disturbing animals and birds that may be nesting and in the Summer time be wary of wasp and bee nests. Volunteers should avoid areas contaminated by rats: Leptospirosis (Weil’s disease) is a very rare infection carried in rats’ urine and can be fatal. To minimise risk of an accident if an item of litter cannot be safely reached with a litter picker, leave it.

• If there is any doubt about the safety of a site or material, then it should be avoided.

We suggest the following equipment is used at all times when carrying out a litter pick:

• Gloves - to remove the risk of exposure to hazardous materials.

Page 123

• Reflective hi-visibility vests/jackets - to make sure volunteers are highly visible to both traffic and pedestrians. • Litter pickers - to reduce risk of injury sustained from repetitive bending and remove risk of any direct contact with litter/Hazardous materials. • Appropriate footwear - Strong boots/shoes which have adequate grip and support, reducing the risk of any slips/falls. This is especially important in winter months when ice may pose a threat. • Mobile phones (where possible) & First aid kits - in case of emergency. • Suitable outdoor/weather appropriate clothing - as not to expose any bare areas of skin to hazards; whether that is from noxious or dangerous materials or the weather itself (sunburn) • We advise all volunteers to take bottled water as to guard against dehydration during the event.

Items to be avoided

If you come across any of the following items leave them where they are, record the location and inform the Council who will arrange removal.

• Broken glass and Nails - Avoid direct hand contact; remove using a litter picker and dispose of in a solid container NOT a plastic bag. • Drug related litter/hypodermics - Needles should under no circumstances be picked / touched. • Suspect materials - Batteries, asbestos, miscellaneous chemicals or Fly-tipping should not be touched.

Collection and Disposal

For one-off litter picks, where larger quantities of litter are likely to be collected, the Council can supply bags and arrange for the litter collected to be disposed of after the event. Please contact the Council in advance to arrange this.

Page 124

Insurance

Volunteer litter pickers are not working for, or on behalf of, XXXX Council so it is strongly recommended that you arrange your own public liability insurance. This will provide cover for your legal liability arising from accidental damage or injury that may occur during the event, including damage or injury to a member of the public or their property.

Disclaimer

Volunteers should not participate in litter picks unless they understand and accept that participation is entirely at their own risk . Volunteers are not working for, or on behalf of XXXXX Council, therefore the Council will not be held responsible for any loss, damage injuries or inconvenience caused as a result of the actions and omissions of volunteers or this guidance.

Further resources

Further advice is available from www.keepbritaintidy.org or www.litteraction.org.uk if required.

Page 125 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 126

Community Litter Pickers HEALTH AND SAFETY CHECKLIST East Hampshire District Council and Winchester City Council are committed to the safety of its staff and residents. This includes all those who may be volunteering on council managed land, carrying out a variety of tasks. Your health and safety is important to us and this is why we have compiled this checklist to help you continue to enjoy your work to help keep our area litter free. DO Always let a member of your family know where you are going and when you are expected home

BEFORE Carry a mobile phone in case of emergencies (if you have one). Always use gloves and litter pickers when collecting litter Try to wear reflective or light coloured clothing

DURING Wear strong boots or shoes. Always wash your hands after litter picking Inform the Council of any problems or issues

AFTER that you may have noticed.

Page 127

DO NOT Handle any needles or sharp objects Work on any busy roads Work in or near any watercourses Lift anything that is too heavy Work when it is dark or unsafe Approach any unknown people Work when you are tired. If any of your equipment needs replacing, please contact the Council and we will be happy to help. KEY CONTACTS East Hampshire & Winchester Councils 0300 300 0013 Hampshire Police (non-emergency number) 0845 045 45 45 Emergency Number (mobile phone only) 112

Page 128 Agenda Item 10 1

NON EXEMPT

EAST HAMPSHIRE DISTRICT COUNCIL & WINCHESTER CITY COUNCIL

EHDC & WCC Joint Environmental Services 25 March 2015 Committee

Environmental Services Joint Scrutiny Committee Referred Minutes Service Manager (Contracts Management Team)

For Decision

1.0 Purpose of Report

1.1 The purpose of this report is to refer minutes from the last meeting of the Environmental Services Joint Scrutiny Committee for JESC consideration.

2.0 Recommendation

2.1 That the Committee consider its response to the comments of the Environmental Services Joint Scrutiny Committee meeting on 9 th February

3. Detail

3.1 The last meeting of the Environmental Services Joint Scrutiny Committee took place on 9 th February 2015. After considering the 2013/14 Environmental Services Contracts Annual Reports the Committee asked that the following matters be brought to JESC’s attention at the next meeting:

3.2 Public Conveniences Cleaning Contract – the committee requested that consideration should be given to altering the model by which the contract is let to place greater emphasis on quality. In addition, JESC should recognise the importance of any contractor’s reporting systems under the contract. Members also emphasised the importance of ensuring public conveniences were deep cleaned regularly.

3.3 A separate report on this JESC agenda considers the tender evaluation criteria which will include aspects such as on-line reporting systems as well as other quality issues. Deep cleansing of the facilities is also included in the contract specification.

3.4 Waste Minimisation Plan – the committee expressed concerns about the fall in recycling rates and increase in contamination of waste.

Page 129 2

3.5 There are a number of factors which are impacting upon these aspects and work has begun across the Project Integra Partnership to address these concerns. The Waste Minimisation Plan previously agreed by JESC contains the proposed actions to deliver

• Improved capture of recyclable material • Reduction in contamination of materials collected • Reduction in the amount of household waste collected.

3.6 There have been some delays in the delivery of the Plan during 2014/15 whilst the work to complete the review of the Contract management Team was completed. This included secondment of the Project Officer to important work to improve contract monitoring processes. This work is nearing completion and the Project Officer post will be filled shortly which will improve progress with the delivery of the action plan.

Appendices:

Appendix A Minutes from the Environmental Services Joint Scrutiny Committee meeting 9 th February 2015

Contact Officer: Rob Heathcock Job Title: Service Manager (Contract Management Team) Telephone: 01730 234283 E-Mail: [email protected]

Page 130 3

Appendix A

WINCHESTER CITY COUNCIL/EAST HAMPSHIRE DISTRICT COUNCIL (WCC/EHDC) ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES JOINT SCRUTINY COMMITTEE

9 February 2015

Attendance:

Councillors:

Chairman: Thompson – Winchester City Council (P)

Winchester City Council East Hampshire District Council McLean (P) Onslow (P) Pines (P) Vacancy

Deputy Members:

Councillor Denston (standing deputy for East Hampshire District Council vacancy)

Officers in Attendance:

Mr S Tilbury – Corporate Director, WCC Mr R Heathcock – Joint EHDC/WCC Client Team Manager

1. MINUTES

In response to questions, Mr Heathcock confirmed that the possibility of introducing a small number of recycled glass collection facilities at sheltered housing accommodation would be investigated on a trial basis.

RESOLVED:

That the minutes of the previous meeting held 3 November 2014, less exempt minute, be agreed as a correct record.

2. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

There were no questions asked or statements made.

3. 2013/14 ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES CONTRACTS ANNUAL REPORTS (Report ES006 refers)

In response to questions, Mr Heathcock advised that the Council hoped to recoup all the additional costs incurred as a result of having to re-let the public conveniences contract. The Committee noted that the new temporary

Page 131 4

contractors were performing well, with existing employees transferred over under the temporary contract under TUPE rules.

Mr Heathcock stated that a Report would be submitted to the Joint Environmental Services Committee (JESC) in March 2015 for a decision on the future letting of the public conveniences contract. Following discussion, the Committee agreed that the JESC be requested to consider altering the model by which the contract was let to place greater emphasis on quality. In addition, it should recognise the importance of any contractor’s reporting systems under the contract. Members also emphasised the importance of ensuring public conveniences were deep cleaned regularly.

In response to questions, Mr Heathcock advised that it was not appropriate for either Council to instruct contractors on the detailed management of their staff. However, regular liaison meetings did take place where suggestions were sometimes made. In relation to the Biffa contract, he confirmed that the proposed refuse collection round re-scheduling was in part to future proof against an increase in property numbers due to new housing developments etc.

The Committee noted that recycling rates were dropping across the County for a variety of reasons. The Waste Minimisation Plan would seek to reduce the contamination of recyclable waste and Mr Heathcock agreed to recirculate this Plan to all Committee Members for information. Members requested that their concerns about the fall in recycling rates and increase in contamination of waste be highlighted to the JESC.

In response to questions, Mr Heathcock advised that dog waste could now be collected with litter and disposed of, so there was no requirement for separate dog waste bins. The Councils were working with Parish Councils to consider whether current bin arrangements could be altered accordingly.

There was some discussion about leaf clearance and Mr Heathcock emphasised that specific examples of any contract failures were required. In addition, flexibility under the contract was essential to respond to differing situations year or year.

RESOLVED:

That the performance during the 2013/14 contract be noted and the JESC be requested to have regard to the specific areas of concern highlighted above.

4. JESC BUDGET GROWTH BIDS 2015/16 (Report ES007 refers)

RESOLVED:

That the JESC budget growth bids be noted.

Page 132 5

5. JOINT CLIENT TEAM REVIEW (Report ES008 refers)

RESOLVED:

That the conclusions of the Joint Client Team Review be noted.

6. ARRANGEMENTS FOR FUTURE MEETINGS

Mr Heathcock requested items for discussion at future meetings of the Committee. In response, the following subjects were suggested:

• Report back on recent work of Project Integra; • Recycling rates (including contamination); • Income from textile recycling; • Consideration of contract performance in key areas (e.g. grass cutting) • Examination of differences in two Councils contracts (e.g. glass collection)

It was suggested that future meetings be arranged for June/July 2015; September/October 2015 and January/February 2016.

7. EXEMPT BUSINESS

RESOLVED:

1. That in all the circumstances, the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information.

2. That the public be excluded from the meeting during the consideration of the following items of business because it is likely that, if members of the public were present, there would be disclosure to them of ‘exempt information’ as defined by Section 100I and Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972.

Minute Item Description of Number Exempt Information

## Exempt minute ) Information relating to the ) financial or business affairs ) of any particular person ) (including the authority ) holding that information). ) (Para 3 Schedule 12A refers)

Page 133 6

8. EXEMPT MINUTE

RESOLVED:

That the exempt minute of the previous meeting held 3 November 2014 be agreed as a correct record.

The meeting commenced at 2.00pm and concluded at 3.25pm

Chairman

Page 134 By virtue of paragraph(s) 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A Agenda Item 11 of the Local Government Act 1972.

Document is Restricted

Page 135 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 140 By virtue of paragraph(s) 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A Agenda Item 12 of the Local Government Act 1972.

Document is Restricted

Page 141 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 144 By virtue of paragraph(s) 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972.

Document is Restricted

Page 145 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 146 By virtue of paragraph(s) 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972.

Document is Restricted

Page 147 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 148