Understanding Waste Growth at Local Authority Level FINAL REPORT ADDENDUM

Resource Futures

WRO121 – Understanding Waste Growth at Local Authority Level FINAL REPORT ADDENDUM

RF Project no: 506 Resource Futures

WRO121 – Understanding Waste Growth at Local Authority Level

ADDENDUM

Prepared for Defra Client Project no: WR0121 RF project no: 506 October 2009

Resource Futures Create Centre, Smeaton Road, Bristol, BS16XN Tel: 0117 930 4355 www.resourcefutures.co.uk Quality control sheet RF 506

Report prepared for: Waste and Resources Evidence Programme Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) Area 5D Ergon House Horseferry Road London SW1P 2AP

Report prepared by: Ashley Robb and Dr Julian Parfitt and Ashley Robb Director and Principal Consultant Resource Futures First Floor Royal House 28 Sovereign Street Leeds LS1 4BJ

E-mail: [email protected]

Report approved by: Dr Julian Parfitt Research and Technical Director

File name: WR0121 addendum FINAL Version: FINAL Date: October 2009 Contents

1. Addendum ...... 1 1.1 Case Study 1: Ribble Valley Borough Council ...... 1 1.1.1 Local authority profile ...... 1 1.1.2 Waste collection arrangements ...... 1 1.1.3 Summary of waste trends...... 3 1.1.4 Summary of factors ...... 4 1.2 Case study 2: East Riding of Yorkshire Council...... 8 1.2.1 Local authority profile ...... 8 1.2.2 Waste collection arrangements ...... 8 1.2.3 Summary of waste trends...... 9 1.2.4 Summary of factors ...... 10 1.3 Case study 3: Hambleton District Council ...... 14 1.3.1 Local authority profile ...... 14 1.3.2 Waste collection arrangements ...... 14 1.3.3 Summary of waste trends...... 16 1.3.4 Summary of factors ...... 19 1.4 Case Study 4: Broadland District Council ...... 21 1.4.1 Local authority profile ...... 21 1.4.2 Waste collection arrangements ...... 21 1.4.3 Summary of waste trends...... 24 1.5 Case study 5: Hart District Council...... 27 1.5.1 Local authority profile ...... 27 1.5.2 Waste collection arrangements ...... 27 1.5.3 Summary of waste trends...... 29 1.6 Case study 6: London Borough of Islington ...... 33 1.6.1 Local authority profile ...... 33 1.6.2 Waste collection arrangements ...... 33 1.6.3 Summary & interpretation of waste trends ...... 36 1.7 Case study 7: South Norfolk District Council...... 41 1.7.1 Local authority profile ...... 41 1.7.2 Waste collection arrangements ...... 41 1.7.3 Summary of waste trends...... 44 1.8 Case study 8: Hyndburn Borough Council ...... 47 1.8.1 Local authority profile ...... 47 1.8.2 Waste collection arrangements ...... 47 1.8.3 Summary of waste trends...... 49 1.8.4 Summary of causal factors ...... 50 1.9 Case study 9: Mole Valley District Council...... 55 1.9.1 Local authority profile ...... 55 1.9.2 Waste collection arrangements ...... 55 1.9.3 Summary of waste trends...... 56 1.9.4 Summary of factors ...... 57 1.10 Case study 10: Milton Keynes Council...... 60 1.10.1 Local authority profile ...... 60 1.10.2 Waste collection arrangements ...... 60 1.10.3 Summary of causal factors ...... 62 1.11 Case Study 11: Basildon District Council ...... 66 1.11.1 Local authority profile ...... 66 1.11.2 Waste collection arrangements ...... 66 1.11.3 Summary of waste trends...... 67 1.11.4 Summary of factors ...... 68 1.12 Case study 12: Gateshead Metropolitan Borough Council ...... 71 1.12.1 Local authority profile ...... 71 1.12.2 Waste collection arrangements ...... 71 1.12.3 Summary of waste trends...... 72 1.12.4 Summary of factors ...... 75 1.13 Case study 13: Wakefield Council...... 78 1.13.1 Local authority profile ...... 78 1.13.2 Waste collection arrangements ...... 78 1.13.3 Summary of waste trends...... 79 1.13.4 Summary of factors ...... 82 1.14 Case study 14: Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council ...... 84 1.14.1 Local authority profile ...... 84 1.14.2 Waste collection arrangements ...... 84 1.14.3 Summary of waste trends...... 85 1.14.4 Summary of factors ...... 86 1.15 Case study 15: London Borough of Sutton ...... 89 1.15.1 Local authority profile ...... 89 1.15.2 Waste collection arrangements ...... 89 1.15.3 Summary of waste trends...... 90 1.15.4 Summary of factors ...... 92 1.16 Case study 16: Birmingham City Council ...... 95 1.16.1 Local authority profile ...... 95 1.16.2 Waste collection arrangements ...... 95 1.16.3 Summary of waste trends...... 96 1.16.4 Summary of factors ...... 97 1.17 Case study 17: Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council ...... 99 1.17.1 Local authority profile ...... 99 1.17.2 Waste collection arrangements ...... 99 1.17.3 Summary of waste trends...... 100 1.17.4 Summary of factors ...... 101 1.18 Case Study 18: Somerset County Council ...... 104 1.18.1 Local authority profile ...... 104 1.18.2 Waste collection arrangements and policy development ...... 104 1.18.3 Summary of waste trends...... 106 1.18.4 Changes in composition and arisings following introduction of SORT IT!...... 106 1.18.5 Conclusions ...... 107 1.19 Case study 19: Stirling Council...... 107 1.19.1 Local authority profile ...... 107 1.19.2 Waste collection arrangements ...... 107 1.19.3 Summary of waste trends...... 108 1.19.4 Summary of factors ...... 110 1.20 Case study 20: Cardiff Council...... 114 1.20.1 Local authority profile ...... 114 1.20.2 Waste collection arrangements ...... 114 1.20.3 Summary of factors ...... 117 1.21 Case study 21: Powys County Council ...... 119 1.21.1 Local authority profile ...... 119 1.21.2 Waste collection arrangements ...... 119 1.21.3 Summary of waste trends...... 122 1.21.4 Summary of factors ...... 123 1.22 Case study 22: Derby City Council...... 125 1.22.1 Local authority profile ...... 125 1.22.2 Waste collection arrangements ...... 125 1.22.3 Summary of waste trends...... 126 1.22.4 Summary of factors ...... 127 1.23 Case study 23: Rother District Council...... 130 1.23.1 Local authority profile ...... 130 1.23.2 Waste collection arrangements ...... 130 1.23.3 Summary of waste trends...... 130 1.23.4 Summary of factors ...... 131 1.24 Case study 24: Rhondda Cynon Taf Council ...... 135 1.24.1 Local authority profile ...... 135 1.24.2 Waste collection arrangements ...... 135 1.24.3 Summary of waste trends...... 138 1.24.4 Summary of factors ...... 139 1.25 Case study 25: Flintshire ...... 140 1.25.1 Local authority profile ...... 140 1.25.2 Waste collection arrangements ...... 140 1.25.3 Summary of waste trends...... 142 1.25.4 Summary of factors ...... 143 1.26 Case study 26: Belfast City Council ...... 144 1.26.1 Local authority profile ...... 144 1.26.2 Waste collection arrangements ...... 144 1.26.3 Summary of waste trends...... 146 1.26.4 Summary of factors ...... 148 1.27 Case study 27: Down District Council ...... 151 1.27.1 Local authority profile ...... 151 1.27.2 Waste collection arrangements ...... 151 1.27.3 Summary of waste trends...... 152 1.27.4 Summary of factors ...... 153 1.28 Cases study 28: West Dunbartonshire Council...... 154 1.28.1 Local authority profile ...... 154 1.28.2 Waste collection arrangements ...... 154 1.28.3 Summary of waste trends...... 155 Summary of factors ...... 158 1. Addendum

1.1 Case Study 1: Ribble Valley Borough Council

1.1.1 Local authority profile Ribble Valley (RV) is a mainly rural authority with three main towns: Clitheroe, Longridge and Whalley. There are 25,000 households and the population is growing due to an influx from E Lancashire. The district is the largest borough in Lancashire at 240 square miles with the smallest population of 58,300 in 24,594 households. The area has a small economy based on the knowledge, skills (23.8% of total employment) and qualifications of residents. Over one third of employment is with the public sector. There are very low levels of unemployment, and high levels of prosperity. Low levels of deprivation occur, mainly in the form of lack of affordable housing. The quality of the natural environment is one of the highest in the country with areas of natural beauty. Future planned growth in the area is for an additional 2900 dwellings by 2021. In delivering this level of housing the council would be seeking to achieve at least 51% as affordable housing units, in line with the findings of the current Strategic Housing Market Assessment. This figure will of course be kept under annual review. In practice the council has to date seen levels of provision on mixed sites at around 20% as developers struggle to attain viability. If these levels continue then it is possible that additional housing will need to be released over and above the planned requirement. Whilst at this stage it is not possible to determine precise figures, if the shortfall continues at present levels it could require anything up to an additional 1000 homes to be released. This would have particular planning related consequences as planned growth is exceeded and significant additional areas of land were needed. Similarly this would have a significant impact on the demands for waste collection provision if that level of housing or somewhere close to it, was the eventual outturn. Ultimately this position can only be kept under review as it will be dependant upon the local and national economic situation over the next few years. The Council is preparing its Core Strategy for its Local Development Framework. Options to date have examined the release of land around the key service centres of Clitheroe, Whalley and Longridge with factors such as land availability and access to rail transport and the potential to improve facilities important considerations. Patterns of growth based on relatively significant extensions to the built up areas are under consideration over the longer term. In the short term say five to six year period it is likely that development will take place at existing settlements across the Borough through incremental but dispersed growth that will have the effect of increasing demands on established, localised waste collection rounds.

1.1.2 Waste collection arrangements A 3-stream collection operates using red 140 litre wheeled bins for residual waste, a blue 140 litre wheeled bin for glass, cans, aerosols, plastic bottles, foil, and a green 140 litre bin for garden waste. Residual waste is collected weekly, recycling and garden wastes are collected alternate weekly. Mixed paper and cardboard waste is collected fortnightly by bag by a private contractor. There are no plans to go onto an alternate weekly collection for the residual domestic waste. Waste is collected in split body vehicles. Sacks are still provided where wheeled bins are not practical to approx 4% of properties. 240 litre bins are available for families of 6+ persons; currently less than 200 have been issued. Where possible, shared collection points have been developed for properties with restricted space and access, and wheeled bins are required to be left at the curtilage of the property, which may be at the end of lane in more remote areas. No side waste is collected, except over Xmas week (this may be extended to include New Year week). Where side waste is left, a sticker is put on it advising that it is not accepted and to put it in the bin for the next collection. Stickers are also put on bins containing contaminated recyclables.

WR0121 – Defra Municipal Waste Growth Study: Addendum Draft - 1 - October 2009 Policies are applied rigorously. Bins are chipped, and will eventually be used to monitor participation rates. The new 3-stream scheme was promoted through press coverage and information in the council newsletter. Each household received a letter with a map of where bins should be left, and where appropriate, contact details of who would be sharing the bins, this was followed by an information pack containing an explanatory letter, a calendar of collection dates, a list of FAQs and address labels for the wheeled bins. Home composters have had a good take up via the Lancashire Waste Partnership (LWP) scheme, with 80% of properties with a garden having at least one compost bin (10338 distributed in RV). The WRAP 0800 no. is promoted. Real Nappies are promoted through the LWP. RV funded a nappy laundry service and free giveaways in 2002 (approx) but was not viable. A total of 192 real nappy vouchers have been distributed in RV since 2005-06. Bulky household waste collections are free for up to 4 items. RV has tried to work with local furniture projects, but due to little social deprivation within the district there is little demand for used furniture etc. They do promote community furniture projects based in neighbouring authorities such the Hyndburn Used Furniture Store. A trade waste service is offered for general waste. The introduction of wheeled bins has increased the take up of the service with 82 customers using wheeled bins (1100l, 660l, 360l, 240l bins used) with 374 businesses using a sack collection. Some vehicles have weighing equipment and eventually all will be fitted with this equipment. Lancashire County Council operates 3 HWRCs in RV – Henthorn, Longridge and Petre Arms. There is a possibility of x-border movements towards Burnley HWRC, inward migration is unlikely, apart from to Longridge although this would only be minor. The HWRCs are operated by SITA under contract to LCC. Trade waste permits were introduced at these sites in 2003-04. Incentivized contracts were also introduced with recycling thresholds and penalties for failure. These were reviewed in 2008. The base recycling rate in 2003-04 was 43%, and has increased to 60% in 2007-08. Bric-a-brac and items suitable for reuse are intercepted by licensed traders who operate on the sites. Furniture reuse organizations do not operate on the HWRCS. The HWRCs in Hyndburn have had the best recycling rates, reflecting the earlier lack of kerbside recycling service. LCC has a waste minimisation team that promotes home composting, real nappies, and carries out radio campaigns, bill board and bus promotions, and works with schools. The LCC newsletter which goes to every household carries features about recycling. Promotional funding is available to districts for specific promotional campaigns.

Waste policy mapping of Ribble Valley Borough Council  Pre-2006 weekly waste collection by black sacks.  Pre-2002 paper recycling service to 50% of households.  2002 paper recycling extended to cover 95 % of residents and with the introduction of the 3 stream collection system coverage is now to 100% of households and now includes cardboard.  2003 kerbside collection of green waste in compostable bags.  2003 Introduction of trade waste permits at HWRC sites and introduction of performance related contracts by Lancashire County Council.  April 2006 trial of 3-stream recycling to 4750 households.  Nov 2007 extension of 3 stream recycling to further 7250 residents, and introduction of cardboard recycling.  July 2008 extension of 3 stream recycling to all remaining residents. 2 WR0121 – Defra Municipal Waste Growth Study: Addendum Draft - - October 2009 1.1.3 Summary of waste trends It should be note that the figures reported in these tables combine the waste collected by Ribble Valley Council and the County Household Waste Recycling Centres and may not truly reflect the impact in change of policy/system by each authority.

Household waste arisings

35000 Introduction of trade waste permits at HWRCs HWRC other (not accounted for elsewhere) 30000 HWRC green waste

25000 HWRC dry recycables a p

20000 Bring dry recyclables / s e n Kerbside collected green waste n

o 15000 T Introduction of kerbside green waste collection Kerbside collected dry recyclables 10000 HWRC waste (Disposal) 5000 Other household sources*

0 Regular household collection 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 Year

3 WR0121 – Defra Municipal Waste Growth Study: Addendum Draft - - October 2009 Non household and total MSW arisings

35,000

30,000

25,000 Total Disposal s e 20,000 Total Recycled n n o 15,000 Total Arising T Total MSW 10,000

5,000

0 2000- 2001- 2002- 2003- 2004- 2005- 2006- 2007- 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 Year

Total household waste arisings (1995/6 - 1999/00)

30,000

25,000

20,000

s Total Disposal e n

n 15,000 Total Recycled o

T Total Arisings 10,000

5,000

0 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 Year

1.1.4 Summary of factors Key respondent considerations

4 WR0121 – Defra Municipal Waste Growth Study: Addendum Draft - - October 2009  The waste collection service is operating at maximum capacity and any increase in household numbers through large developments will require a major review of all collection rounds.  The use of split body vehicles has been found to be very efficient.  The data illustrated above precedes the introduction of the majority of the 3-stream collection service using 140 litre wheeled bins.  A LATS fee has been imposed on the collection authorities by LCC to pass on the cost of the commercial waste disposal to the customer, rather than be subsidized by LCC. This may result in commercial waste disappearing from MSW as operations become less cost effective.  The LCC HWRCs are being reviewed. This may result in a more consistent service across the county and the redevelopment of sites and introduction of new ones.  The regular review of HWRC contracts ensures that staff remain incentivized to increase recycling rates.  It is difficult to make any assumptions about waste arisings as contracts continually change and there are movements of waste from / to Schedule 2 waste as work moves from and to the private sector for large establishments e.g. care homes, campsites etc, which can have a significant impact on waste arisings. Once the changes were made to include Schedule 2 properties as household waste the impact was immediate and can be supported by tonnages from schedule 2 contracts.  Modelling of data with regards to demographics has been found to be very difficult. LCC have tried to consider population migration, number of new households etc. but found the accuracy of data to be questionable. It is difficult to make assumptions based on trends, with so many variables operating e.g. change in commercial waste contracts can have an impact on total MSW.  There is variation in how collection authorities report their waste arisings e.g. some report fly tipping, others do not. Side waste may be classed as ‘flytipping’ by some authorities moving the designation of the waste from household municipal waste to non-household municipal waste. Flytipping is not classed as household waste and therefore Ribble Valley do not include as such. Side waste/excess waste is still as legislation confirms household waste although local authorities are allowed to determine how it is collected.  The quality of data is extremely important due to the impact of LATS. LCC has an extensive waste data management system which involves multiple in-built checks on data supplied by many sources including collection authorities by cross referencing with data received from weighbridges at waste disposal and treatment sites. Whilst many Lancashire districts provide LCC data direct other districts such as Ribble Valley do not. Instead they allow LCC reading rights to the information submitted quarterly through Waste Data Flow, the government database.  LCC carry out regular waste composition analysis to monitor the change in waste as new recycling initiatives, composting and food waste collection have an impact. Key findings - the overall findings are based on combined waste streams  The total amounts of household waste recycled have increased from 3,370 tonnes in 2000-01 to 11,254 in 2006-07, and the total household waste arisings increased from 28,748 tonnes to 31,915 tonnes over this time frame including material collected at the HWRCs.  The rate of increase in total arisings appeared to have reduced between 2005-06 and 2006-07.  The quantities of residual domestic waste continue to rise from 2000-01 to 2006-07.

5 WR0121 – Defra Municipal Waste Growth Study: Addendum Draft - - October 2009  However overall household arisings have exhibited a downturn in 2007/08 marked a dramatic reduction in the amount of household kerbside residual waste collected from 17,877 tonnes in 2006/07 to 16,085 tones in 2007/08.  The introduction of 140 l wheeled bins to part of the area has not resulted in an increase in the amount of waste produced, possible due to the smaller size of the bins not encouraging residents to increase their waste arisings.  Historical data shows a steady increase in both total household waste arisings and household waste for disposal, with recycling levels fairly static. The table below illustrates a set of criteria against which we asked the Council to evaluate the level of enforcement imposed on the presentation of side waste:

4 Formal A ban on side waste is in place and legally enforced and ‘top-hatting’ / ‘crocodile enforcement lids’ is not allowed. The same cautionary procedures are adopted as in 2 and 3 policy in above, although there is evidence of a high number of Section 80 (accumulations place and of household refuse in back yards) and Section 46 (householder non-compliant rigorously with Council’s waste collection arrangements) notices issued to non-compliant enforced households. Enforcement is taken very seriously by the council. Ribble Valley described their side waste enforcement policy as ‘3 – Formal enforcement policy in place’. The Council was asked to complete a self assessment of the communications activity they undertake. This has been adapted from a paper entitled ‘Strategic Communication Audits’ (Julia Coffman, 2004) that aims to develop a better understanding of strategic communications audits and the main steps involved. The presents a scale (Practice Maturity Scale) which has been adapted for this project as detailed below.

6 WR0121 – Defra Municipal Waste Growth Study: Addendum Draft - - October 2009 4 Co-ordinated Delivery is regular and routine. A strategy has been developed to determine the best way for the organisation to communicate and responsibility for its implementation is defined. Resources are sufficient to cover the outputs recommended in the strategy. Materials are good quality, but have the potential to be more effective. There is some assessment of performance. 5 Evaluated There is commitment to the development and delivery of effective communication and is measuring its success in order to get a better understanding of how it can improve performance. Materials are well resourced delivered proficiently.

Ribble Valley classify their communications activities as ‘5 – Evaluated’.

Waste data reporting  The quality of waste data collection is improving for the purposes of reporting against recycling targets and other waste indicators.  There is a requirement for very good waste data collection in view of LATS. LCC has set up a data management system that allows the checking of returns provided by waste collection authorities against weighbridge receipts and weights processed in contracts. A significant level of double counting has occurred in the past, leading to discrepancies between actual residual waste and that reported, which in a LATS year would have incurred a £2 million LATS fine.  Variations still exist in how local authorities report data.

Demographics

2000- 2001- 2002- 2003- 2004- 2005- 2006-07 01 02 03 04 05 06

1. Household numbers (000s) 33 33 33 33 33 34 34 2. Average persons / household 2.37 2.36 2.34 2.33 2.32 2.3 2.2 5. Net inflow 0.7 0.6 1 0.9 0.5 0.4 6. Total population (000s) 53.6 54.1 54.8 55.9 56.9 57.4 57.8 7. Number of new-build properties 198 172 187 226 157 74 71

 The population shows a steady increase, whilst household size is reducing. This may reflect a more ageing population or more single-person households.  The number of new build has declined in recent years. This trend may be reversed in view of the need to increase the levels of affordable housing in the area, and also the identification of the area for accelerated growth in the Regional Spatial Strategy.

7 WR0121 – Defra Municipal Waste Growth Study: Addendum Draft - - October 2009 1.2 Case study 2: East Riding of Yorkshire Council

1.2.1 Local authority profile The East Riding of Yorkshire (ERY) is a mainly rural, affluent authority with the main centres of Bridlington (34,000), Beverley (17,000), Goole (17,000), Pocklington (8,000), Cottingham (17,000), Hessle (15,000), Driffield (11,000), Hornsea (8,000), Willerby (8,000), Brough (8,000) and Anlaby (7,000). Small pockets of deprivation occur in the larger settlements. The population is skewed, and is older than the U.K average, with 18.4% of the population of retirement age (age>65), (Census 2001). It has a low density population (135 people/square kilometre), and is not very ethnically diverse with (98.3% of the population white, 1.1% S.Asian). East Riding hosts several military bases including RAF Leconfield, the Full Sutton, Wolds, Everthorpe prisons and Bishop Burton Agricultural College, and Hull University halls of residences at The Lawns, Cottingham.

1.2.2 Waste collection arrangements Present at meeting: two senior officers from the waste management strategy team . Since 2004-05, residual domestic waste has been collected either weekly (180 litre bin) or bi- weekly (240 litre bin) according to the type of bin provided. 30% of the district has been provided with 240 litre bins, the remainder have 180 litre bins. Black bags continue to be provided for properties with no yard. Bins need to be put out before 7.00am. The prevention of crocodile lids, side waste and early presentation of waste are enforced. This tends to be in the form of 2 letters to a whole street, the second giving warning of enforcement under the duty of care and risk of prosecution. No prosecutions have been made so far, although the policy is currently being reviewed. A four-weekly collection of a blue 240l wheeled bin is provided for plastic and cans (in separate carrier bags), and paper. Cardboard collection and an increased frequency of collection are to be introduced in 2010. Glass is not collected currently although this service is complemented by 140 bring sites which allow the collection of glass. Waste strategy aims to increase this number by 10 per year, though finding new sites is difficult. Glass, paper, plastic bottles, cans and textiles are collected at the bring sites. The trade waste collection service is in-house, collecting on average 6000 tonnes per year from 3000 customers. A charged bulky waste service is provided at a fee of £25 for up to 5 items. Calls are directed to local furniture reuse organisations by the call centre, if items are of good enough quality for reuse. An opt-out garden waste service is provided to 20,000 households, to be rolled out to all households in 2009, with compostable bags provided where bins are not appropriate. There is a concern that this collection may be attracting additional waste, and that householders may not be using composters. A total of 150,000 reusable green waste bags were given out free at HWRCs in 2006 to encourage the self-transport of green waste to HWRCs. A trial is being carried out with 25 green cone digesters and 25 wormeries using volunteers. A total of 4 community composting schemes have been developed with some financial support from the Council. Community groups collect garden waste where the garden waste collection does not exist, and earn recycling credits which can be reinvested in the scheme. There are 10 HWRCS (operated by WRG) providing recycling for a large range of household items. A permit scheme has existed since 2001, which allows 12 visits per year by registered vehicles. Hazardous household waste is collected at all HWRCs using chemical banks, as well as WEEE and fluorescent tubes. A garage-size amount of asbestos can be delivered double bagged for £50 to Airmyn, Carnaby, Humberfield and Preston HWRCs. Recycling targets are included on the contracts for the operation of the HWRCs.

8 WR0121 – Defra Municipal Waste Growth Study: Addendum Draft - - October 2009 The entire waste service is driven by Target 45%, the joint sustainable waste management strategy for the East Riding of Yorkshire and Hull City Council, referring to the recycling target for 2010 (ERY achieved 36% in Dec 2008). A decline in tonnages of both residual and recycling wastes has been noted since Nov 2008. ERY is considering action to overcome low participation though different methods (communications, door knocking, and competitions). Mini-road shows have been used ahead of the roll out of new schemes, and has worked well. The team has a Target 45 trailer and van dedicated to promoting the service at local shows, schools, partner events, community groups. Target 45 also has a dedicated page in the free monthly East Riding News newsletter that goes to all households. ERY does a lot of partnership working e.g. with the Fire Service, Police, Primary Care Trust, and the third sector. Rigorous checks have been introduced into every stage of data entry for the waste service in order to instil confidence in the recycling tonnages and rates achieved. An internal performance system “Performance Plus” has been used to assist with this process. Weighbridge tickets are required for all routine waste streams, and agreed weights have been determined for more unusual waste streams e.g. bins of books, CDs etc.

1.2.3 Summary of waste trends

Household Waste Arisings

400,000

350,000

300,000

250,000

s Total arisings e n

n 200,000 Total recycled o

T Total disposal 150,000

100,000

50,000

0 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 Year

Non-household waste arisings

300000

250000

200000 Total MSW s

e Total Arising n

n 150000

o Total Recycled T 100000 Total Disposal

50000 9 WR0121 – Defra Municipal Waste Growth Study: Addendum Draft - - October 20090 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 Year Total household waste arisings (1995/6 - 1999/00

180,000 160,000 140,000 120,000 Total Disposal s

e 100,000 Total Recycled n n

o 80,000 Total Arisings T 60,000 Total MSW 40,000 20,000 0 1995-6 1996-7 1997-8 1998-9 1999-00 Year

Waste policy mapping  2000-01: 70% of households served by a weekly collection of black sacks, with no restriction on the number of bags collected. 30% of households use 240 litre wheeled bins collected bi-weekly (variation due to local government reorganisation). Subsidised compost bins were also introduced with 6082 units sold.  2001-02: Opening of new HWRC at Carnaby which achieved recycling rates of 80%. This coincided with the introduction of a ban on all larger vehicles, trailers and commercial vehicles at all 10 HWRCs.  2003-04: all HWRCs are open 7 days a week and the range of recyclables was gradually increased.  2004-05: Replacement of the black sack collection with a weekly green 180 litre wheeled bin collection for residual waste. (Black sacks continue to be provided to properties with no yard.) This coincided with a 3-year roll out of a kerbside collection using a blue 180 litre wheeled bin for plastic bottles, cans (in carrier bags), loose paper and magazines collected on a 4-weekly basis. A “no side waste” policy was introduced at this time. 240 litre bins are provided for recyclable wastes, if required.  2006-07: an alternate weekly collection trial was carried out on 1120 households, with alternate weekly collections of residual waste and garden waste collected in a brown wheeled bin, with dry recyclables continuing to be collected 4-weekly. This will be extended to all households in 2009. Approximately 150,000 free green garden waste bags were distributed at HWRCS to encourage the increased recycling of green waste.

1.2.4 Summary of factors Key respondent considerations  The focus is on meeting the requirements of Target 45+. There is a great deal of innovation in developing partnership working within council departments and with external partners in order to share resources and achieve mutually beneficial outcomes.  The communication of the recycling campaign is very important. ERY are currently reviewing how to target poor participation rates, by using different methods e.g. for areas with ethnic minorities.  Phased introduction of the wheeled bin and kerbside recycling service has worked well.

Key findings

10 WR0121 – Defra Municipal Waste Growth Study: Addendum Draft - - October 2009  MSW arisings were rising, and now have stabilised.  As the quantities of household waste recycled have increased with the extended service, this has been mirrored by a decline in waste going for disposal.  Waste recycled and composted at HWRCs showed a dramatic increase in 2004-5, from 20,000 tonnes to 29,000 tonnes approx. with the quantities of dry recyclables increasing by 64%. The large increase in dry recyclable arisings is due to a general increase in recycling rates across the full range of wastes collected, with greatest increases occurring for wood waste as the range of types collected was extended. This increase may also include soil collected separately at the sites.  The total amount of household waste for disposal is steadily declining, whilst the total household waste arisings continue to increase,  The gradual replacement of the black sack service with no limits on waste, by a 180 litre bin with a “no side waste policy” from 2004-5 is likely to have had a waste growth limiting effect.

The table below illustrates a set of criteria against which we asked the Council to evaluate the level of enforcement imposed on the presentation of side waste:

Scale Nature of activity 1 No level of No enforcement policies (either formal or informal) in place. Residents are enforcement free to leave material next to waste receptacles so long as contained or bagged and not construed as being fly-tipped or littering. 2 Informal A ban on side is in place but not rigorously enforced. Publicising the policy enforcement is confined to resident information leaflets, the use of bin stickers alerting policy in the residents to the policy and waste collection operatives leaving waste in place situ. No penalty notices have been issued although cautions have been periodically been made. 3 Formal A ban on side waste is in place and legally enforced although some ‘top- enforcement hatting’ / ‘crocodile lids’ are allowed. The above measures are also adopted policy in (as in 2 above) and following a number of cautions the householder will be place issued with a fixed penalty notice. Evidence of a small number of such notices being issued. 4 Formal A ban on side waste is in place and legally enforced and ‘top-hatting’ / enforcement ‘crocodile lids’ is not allowed. The same cautionary procedures are adopted policy in as in 2 and 3 above, although there is evidence of a high number of Section place and 80 (accumulations of household refuse in back yards) and Section 46 rigorously (householder non-compliant with Council’s waste collection arrangements) enforced notices issued to non-compliant households. Enforcement is taken very seriously by the council.

ERY classify their enforcement activities as ‘4 - Formal enforcement policy in place and rigorously enforced’).

 The 3000 tonnes increase in green waste collected at HWRCS in 2006-7 may be a response to the issuing of 150,000 free green waste bags at HWRCs in 2006.  ERY has a number of establishments (military bases, prisons, college halls of residence) which introduce a significant loading onto the waste service without the residents being included in the population statistics.  ERY has a significant tourism industry along the East Coast, with a high concentration of hotels and bed and breakfast businesses in the Bridlington area. Tourists will cause a seasonal increase in the levels of waste produced, and the waste from bed and breakfast businesses is likely to enter the domestic waste stream. 11 WR0121 – Defra Municipal Waste Growth Study: Addendum Draft - - October 2009  The Council was asked to complete a self assessment of the communications activity they undertake. This has been adapted from a paper entitled ‘Strategic Communication Audits’ (Julia Coffman, 2004) that aims to develop a better understanding of strategic communications audits and the main steps involved. The presents a scale (Practice Maturity Scale) which has been adapted for this project as detailed below.

Practice Definition Maturity Scale 1 Ad-hoc Communication is generally unplanned, reactive and disorganised. There is no overall responsibility for communication, no strategy and little or no budget to enable effective delivery. Projects may run over budget and over schedule. Poor quality of materials. 2 Emerging Some communication, but it may be sporadic and delivered only when required. The importance of communication has been recognised, but strategy and processes are still embryonic. Some resources have been allocated for the production of essential materials. Responsibility for communication has been agreed. 3 Planned Communication activity is planned. Limited resources have been allocated for delivery. Responsibility has been assigned, but there is little or no measurement of performance. 4 Co-ordinated Delivery is regular and routine. A strategy has been developed to determine the best way for the organisation to communicate and responsibility for its implementation is defined. Resources are sufficient to cover the outputs recommended in the strategy. Materials are good quality, but have the potential to be more effective. There is some assessment of performance. 5 Evaluated There is commitment to the development and delivery of effective communication and is measuring its success in order to get a better understanding of how it can improve performance. Materials are well resourced delivered proficiently. 6 Optimised Effective communication is seen as vital and is integrated into all systems and processes. The link between the organisation’s strategic objectives and effective communications is clear, delivery purposeful and proactive and the resources allocated reflect this. Strategy, delivery and support are reviewed and enhanced using formal frameworks such as scrutiny, best value, continuous improvement and quality management systems.

ERY classify their communications activities as ‘5 - Evaluated’.

Data reporting  Rigorous checks have been introduced into every stage of data entry for the waste service in order to have confidence in the recycling tonnages and rates achieved. An internal performance system “Performance Plus” has been used to assist with this process.  Weighbridge tickets are required for all routine waste streams, and agreed weights have been determined for more unusual waste streams e.g. bins of books, CDs etc.  Due to a change in the collections and personnel, no data can be traced back to 1995/6, the earliest records are for 2000/01.  Calculations are made where commercial and domestic waste streams are mixed. Tonnages are checked three times a year, with seasonal variation to obtain the average weight to be used in calculations.

Demographics  The population of ER is steadily increasing. 12 WR0121 – Defra Municipal Waste Growth Study: Addendum Draft - - October 2009  The average size of a household is declining. This could be due to a combination of an increasingly aged population, and more single person households.  There is a significant new building quota added every year which will increase the household waste arisings in ERY.

2000- 2001- 2002- 2003- 2004- 2005- 2006- Year 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 1. Household numbers (000s) 129 131 134 136 138 143 145 2. Average persons / household 2.38 2.36 2.35 2.34 2.34 2.31 2.31 5. Net inflow 4.4 4.7 4.2 3 2.1 2.2 6. Total population (000s) 314.9 318.8 322.4 326.3 329.2 330.9 7. Number of new- build properties 1053 964 1064 1285 864 851 803

13 WR0121 – Defra Municipal Waste Growth Study: Addendum Draft - - October 2009 1.3 Case study 3: Hambleton District Council

1.3.1 Local authority profile Hambleton is a rural district of 13,117 hectares, with a predominantly white, affluent population of 87,000 residents in 38,602 households which is steadily increasing (+1% between 2001 and 2005). The average household size is 2.4 persons and there is a high proportion of the population at retirement age. The main centres of population are Bedale (4580), Thirsk (9350), Northallerton 17,680), Easingwold (4180), Great Ayrton (4620) and Stokesley (4760). The employment rate is typically half of the national figure, with no wards showing unemployment levels greater than the national average. There is a significantly higher proportion of the workforce employed in agriculture, forestry and fishing, and a significantly lower proportion employed in manufacturing, financial services and property services sectors compared to national levels. Other employers are construction, hotels and restaurants (reflecting the local tourism industry), transport, storage and communication. There are a large number of small businesses, with medium to large firms under represented in the area compared to the national average. Self employment accounts for 16.9% of all employment, compared to 11.5% for Great Britain. Hambleton is ranked 315/366 districts indicating very low levels of deprivation. The Core Structure plan indicates a planned annual increase in properties of 320 (2004-11), 290 (2012-16) and 260 (2016-21). There are a large number of second homes.

1.3.2 Waste collection arrangements Present at separate meetings: the Recycling Officer from Hambleton D.C provided details regarding the current and historical waste collection service provided and the Waste Strategy & Performance Manager of North Yorkshire County Council provided information regarding the operation of the HWRCs and the county-wide recycling initiatives. A comprehensive waste service is provided by alternate weekly collection of a 240 litre black wheeled bin for residual waste and a 240l green wheeled bin for garden waste which is collected free of charge. Approximately 91% of households receive a recycling service provided by a 55l blue kerbside box for plastic bottles, cans, glass and a bag for paper. There is a “No side waste” policy - the presence of side waste is logged and if persistent, a letter will be sent to the resident. However no fines have been made. The table below illustrates a set of criteria against which we asked the Council to evaluate the level of enforcement imposed on the presentation of side waste:

14 WR0121 – Defra Municipal Waste Growth Study: Addendum Draft - - October 2009 rigorously with Council’s waste collection arrangements) notices issued to non-compliant enforced households. Enforcement is taken very seriously by the council. The respondent classified their enforcement activities as ‘2 – Informal enforcement policy in place’. Hambleton D.C. as part of the York and North Yorkshire Waste Partnership (YNYWP) provides discounted compost bins in partnership with WRAP. Compost bins are available in a number of sizes: 220 litre (£17), 330 litre (£20), green Komp 250 (£40) ordered through the Recycle Now website and 0800 telephone number. A total of 6552 home composters have been sold in the Hambleton district to the end of 2008. There has been a reduction in sales as the WRAP price has increased. Food digesters are also available at a discounted price. The WRAP scheme has now stopped and prices have increased. Real nappies are also promoted through the YNYWP with a cashback incentive scheme of £30 per baby. Recycling opportunities are also provided by approximately 130 bring sites, which are located at schools, village halls, car parks, pubs, supermarkets, tourist information centres. The range of wastes collected depends on the location but can include paper, glass, cans, textiles, books, plastic bottles, and cartons. The number of bring sites is gradually increasing. Bulky domestic waste has always incurred a charge, currently £35 for up to 4 items, with no limit on the number of collections a year. Building and demolition wastes are excluded from this service. Householders are encouraged to donate reusable furniture to the Richmond and Hambleton Furniture Store in Northallerton, and also referred to Freecycle on the council website. A trade waste collection service is provided to 1200 businesses using sacks, 360 litre, 660 litre and 1100 litre bins. Waste from mixed hereditament is classed as commercial waste. There is no commercial waste recycling service. There are 5 HWRCs operated by Environmental Waste Controls (EWC) on behalf of North Yorkshire County Council (NYCC) at Northallerton, Stokesley, Sowerby, Leeming Bar and Tholthorpe. Restrictions apply to trade, large vehicles and trailers using the sites through the use of HWRC permits and restricted times for larger vehicles and trailers. A formalized system exists for the free tipping by charities using a credit card style permit scheme. Construction and demolition waste are restricted to 2 car boots a month. Automatic number plate recognition equipment has been installed at all HWRCs. The Northallerton site accepts paid commercial waste (residual and recyclables). Asbestos is accepted at the Stokesley HWRC, if it is double bagged and the householder is able to carry it. Larger loads can be booked in. Hazardous household waste is not accepted at the HWRCs, as this is collected by a free milk round service. There may be cross border movement of waste into Hambleton which borders with Middlesborough and Teesside. This is likely to have the biggest impact on the Stokesley HWRC site. The area is host to a number of military bases which provide accommodation to a large population. These include Alanbrooke Barracks at Topcliffe and RAF Leeming. The YNYWP has developed a waste management strategy with waste reduction targets and produce an annual action plan, to ensure that the various local authorities all work to a consistent message, using leaflets provided by NYCC. The following campaigns are regularly promoted Real Nappy Week, Compost Awareness Week and the more recent Buy Recycled, Love Food Hate Waste campaigns have been adopted. The recycling service is regularly promoted in a double page spread in the Hambleton local authority newspaper that is produced three times a year and goes to all households. Calendars and kerbside leaflets are also produced twice a year.

15 WR0121 – Defra Municipal Waste Growth Study: Addendum Draft - - October 2009 1.3.3 Summary of waste trends

Household Waste Arisings

120,000

100,000

80,000

s Total Arising e n

n 60,000 Total Recycled o

T Total Disposal 40,000

20,000

0 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 Year

Non- household waste arisings

80,000

70,000 60,000

50,000 Total MSW s

e Total Arising n 40,000 n

o Total Recycled T 30,000 Total Disposal 20,000 10,000 0 2000- 2001- 2002- 2003- 2004- 2005- 2006- 2007- 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 Year

16 WR0121 – Defra Municipal Waste Growth Study: Addendum Draft - - October 2009 Total household waste arisings (1995/96-1999/00)

60,000

50,000

40,000

s Total Disposal e

n 30,000 Total Recycled n o

T Total MSW

20,000

10,000

0 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999/00 Year

Waste policy mapping  Provision of subsidised compost bins  Pre-2000 black sack waste collection with a garden waste collection offered using Council supplied free sacks  2000-01 recycling trial on 1000 (3%) households for paper, glass, plastics and cans.  Plastic bottle banks were introduced at bring sites in 2001 (funded by Yorventure landfill tax).  2002-03 introduction of alternate weekly collection for residual and green waste in 240l wheeled bins to 15% of households  2002-3 introduction of bagged paper recycling service to 54% of households  2003-4 AWC extended to 53% of households  2003-4 bagged paper recycling service extended to 81% of households  2004 green waste collections provided at all HWRCs  2004-5 AWC extended to 85% of households  2005 (July) new contracts for HWRCs included minimum composting and recycling targets. This coincided with staff being employed (rather than self-employed) and also the introduction of compactor skips. This led to the introduction of textiles recycling and the resale of reusable furniture at auction rather than sold on-site at furniture resale areas. Only verified sales for reuse are counted in recycling targets. These changes caused recycling rates to rise from <40% to >60%.  2005-6 AWC extended to 100% of households  Compost bins provided at greatly reduced rate as part of WRAP scheme  2006 introduction of the Real Nappy incentive scheme  2006 (February) closure of the West Tanfield HWRC 17 WR0121 – Defra Municipal Waste Growth Study: Addendum Draft - - October 2009  2006-7 Improved signage at HWRCs listing all materials recycled at site entrances  2007 (November) introduction of additional 55l kerbside blue box extending the recycling service to included plastic bottles, cans, glass and paper (in bag) for 88% of households  2008 Plastic recycling introduced at all HWRCs  2008 (April) introduction of HWRC permits and restricted access times for larger vehicles, trailers and commercial vehicles. Also introduction of a limit on the quantity of soil and rubble brought by householders (2 car boot loads per month). These changes have caused a reduction in construction and demolition waste of 27% across the whole NYCC HWRC network, and throughput at the sites has reduced by 19%. (No data is available specifically for the Hambleton HWRCs.)

Waste arisings observations  Historical waste data shows the total arisings fairly stable at about 45,000 tonnes for the period 1995-99. There is a sudden increase in arisings in 1999-00 to 55,000 tonnes.  Total household waste arisings from both HWRCs and kerbside have remained fairly steady at about 48,000 to 52,000 tonnes.  Household collected residual waste has declined throughout the period 2000-01 to 2006- 7, with the greatest declines in 2003-4 and 2004-5 which coincides with the introduction of the AWC service for residual waste and garden waste and also the kerbside paper collection. The decline corresponds to an increase in the amount of kerbside collected green waste which continues to rise throughout the time frame studied, whereas the kerbside collection of paper stabilises at about 2000 tonnes after 2004-05.  The quantities of green waste collected at HWRCs rises from 800 tonnes in 2000-01 to 4000 tonnes in 2001-02, presumably reflecting the collection of the waste at more HWRCs. The quantities of green waste collected at the HWRCs has declined from 2005- 6 onwards possibly reflecting the increased use of the kerbside garden waste collection.  The quantities of residual waste produced at HWRCs declines in 2005-06 by 3000 tonnes, though this is not accompanied by a corresponding increase in quantities of material recycled or composted.  The closure of the West Tanfield HWRC is not reflected in a decrease in the total waste arisings at the HWRCs.  The levels of commercial waste collected during the period 2000-01-2006-07 have risen from 3000 tonnes approx to 6000 tonnes. The Council was also asked to complete a self assessment of the communications activity they undertake. This has been adapted from a paper entitled ‘Strategic Communication Audits’ (Julia Coffman, 2004) that aims to develop a better understanding of strategic communications audits and the main steps involved. The presents a scale (Practice Maturity Scale) which has been adapted for this project as detailed below.

18 WR0121 – Defra Municipal Waste Growth Study: Addendum Draft - - October 2009 Practice Definition Maturity Scale 1 Ad-hoc Communication is generally unplanned, reactive and disorganised. There is no overall responsibility for communication, no strategy and little or no budget to enable effective delivery. Projects may run over budget and over schedule. Poor quality of materials. 2 Emerging Some communication, but it may be sporadic and delivered only when required. The importance of communication has been recognised, but strategy and processes are still embryonic. Some resources have been allocated for the production of essential materials. Responsibility for communication has been agreed. 3 Planned Communication activity is planned. Limited resources have been allocated for delivery. Responsibility has been assigned, but there is little or no measurement of performance. 4 Co- Delivery is regular and routine. A strategy has been developed to determine ordinated the best way for the organisation to communicate and responsibility for its implementation is defined. Resources are sufficient to cover the outputs recommended in the strategy. Materials are good quality, but have the potential to be more effective. There is some assessment of performance. 5 Evaluated There is commitment to the development and delivery of effective communication and is measuring its success in order to get a better understanding of how it can improve performance. Materials are well resourced delivered proficiently. 6 Optimised Effective communication is seen as vital and is integrated into all systems and processes. The link between the organisation’s strategic objectives and effective communications is clear, delivery purposeful and proactive and the resources allocated reflect this. Strategy, delivery and support are reviewed and enhanced using formal frameworks such as scrutiny, best value, continuous improvement and quality management systems.

The respondent classified their communications activities as ‘4 – Co-ordinated’.

1.3.4 Summary of factors Key respondent considerations  The YNYWP provides a forum for delivery staff, senior officers and elected members from the districts to meet to agree an Annual Action Plan as a means to deliver the Waste Minimisation Strategy which has been developed from the Joint Municipal Waste Management Strategy. This has allowed good working relationships to develop between the partnership members with the sharing of resources ensuring that a consistent message is delivered across the area. The partnership is an effective conduit for support from ROTATE for regional capacity building, and also from the Government Office (Yorkshire & Humber), and Defra.  A Local Authority Trading Scheme (LATS) fee has been introduced by NYCC, as the waste disposal authority (WDA) in 2008-9 on commercial waste collected by the district authorities. This is to cover the LATS disposal cost incurred by NYCC for the disposal of commercial waste under the LATS scheme.  Hambleton has a large number of non-registered residents, due to the local military bases, the local tourist industry and the large number of second homes, who are household waste producers, but are absent from the statistics. The review of the national

19 WR0121 – Defra Municipal Waste Growth Study: Addendum Draft - - October 2009 indicator to count waste produced per household should improve the performance of Hambleton D.C.

Key findings  There has been a steady increase in the levels of total household waste produced which is reflected in the BVPI 84.

Year 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07

kg/head 346.72 306.75 374.65 351.12 380.48 404.46 413.96

 There has been a steady decline in the amount of household waste sent for disposal. This is due to a combination of factors but mainly the introduction of an alternate weekly collection for residual waste and green waste, and a paper recycling collection.  Total MSW arisings peaked at about 60,000 tonnes in 2004-05 and has steadily declined since then, due to a decline in the amount of non-household waste collected.  The change in the contracts for the operation of the HWRCs, to include targets for recycling and composting, has encouraged the contractors to extend the range of waste to be recycled, and ensure that as much waste as possible is recycled. This has increased recycling rates from <40% to > 60%.  The data presented does not cover the recent (2008) introduction of HWRC permits for larger vehicles, trailers and commercial vehicles and also a limit on the amount of rubble and soil delivered by householders. These changes have caused a reduction in construction and demolition waste of 27% across the whole NYCC HWRC network, and throughput at the sites has reduced by 19%. (No data is available specifically for the Hambleton HWRCs.)

Waste data reporting  There was little confidence in the data for the period 1995-2000, with no easy way of checking the validity of the figures and no personnel available who had been involved in the preparation of the original data. There are no figures available for non-household municipal waste and it is assumed that these quantities are included in the totals.  The introduction of WDF has improved the quality of waste data gathering however there is still scope for a varied interpretation between different individuals, and local authorities. With the introduction of the Local Authority Trading Scheme (LATS), NYCC, as the waste disposal authority, is dependant upon data received from seven districts. This is compared with the data received via the waste disposal contracts as a check procedure.

Demographics  Household numbers are steadily increasing: 38,602 households in January 2008 accommodating 87,000 residents.

2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 1. Household numbers (000s) 34 35 35 35 36 36 2. Average persons / household 2.38 2.36 2.35 2.34 2.34 2.31 6. Total population (000s) 84.2 84.8 85.1 85.4 85.5 86.3 7. Number of new- build properties 352 289 150 123 148 292 226

20 WR0121 – Defra Municipal Waste Growth Study: Addendum Draft - - October 2009 kg per head (BVPI 84) 346.72 306.75 374.65 351.12 380.48 404.46 413.96  The waste arisings for the area are likely to be impacted on by the local tourism industry, and high number of second homes and also the presence of military bases, all of which result in an influx of visitors to the area who generate waste, but are not included in the population statistics as they are not registered residents.  The Core Structure plan indicates a planned annual increase in properties of 320 (2004- 11), 290 (2012-16) and 260 (2016-21).

1.4 Case Study 4: Broadland District Council

1.4.1 Local authority profile The number of households has increased from 51,582 in 2000/01 to 53,153 in 2005/06. IMD = 10.09 Population, mid-2007 estimate = 123,000 Land area, hectares = 55,324 Population density, inhabitants per hectare = 2.22 ONS classification (2001 standardised): Supergroup: 5 Prospering UK Group: 5.7 Prospering Smaller Towns Subgroup: 5.7.13 Prospering Smaller Towns - B

1.4.2 Waste collection arrangements Kerbside residual Kerbside residual has been collected in 240l wheeled bins since 1989. In 2003/04 the district switched to AWC, still using 240l bins. Side waste was collected until AWC roll-out, whereupon a no side waste & closed bin lid policy was enforced, along with no garden waste in residual or dry recycling bins. Moreover, the maximum allowable residual bin weight was 70 kg. Kerbside dry Historically there was a kerbside box recycling service for 20,000 households, collecting paper and glass. With the roll-out of AWC in 2003/04, this was switched to commingled collections in 240l bins, targeting paper, cardboard, cans and plastic bottles. Kerbside glass collection ceased. The commingled collection service was extended to nearly all properties in the district during 2004 (99.2% coverage). Kerbside garden waste In 2003/04 an optional garden waste service was offered to all households, with an annual fee levied with no exemptions, and collections carried out fortnightly. Take-up of this service, in terms of numbers of households, has been as follows: By 31/3/2004 6,672 By 31/3/2005 10,705 By 31/3/2006 12,476 By 31/3/2007 14,880 By 31/3/2008 17,024 Current 18,606 Kerbside food waste

21 WR0121 – Defra Municipal Waste Growth Study: Addendum Draft - - October 2009 Although Broadland participated in the WRAP supported food waste trials, these did not commence until the end of 2007/08. Bring sites The bring site network has been gradually developed over 2000 to 2007, in particular to target glass after the introduction of kerbside commingled collections (which do not target glass). Bulky waste collections are charged. HWRCs No significant changes in HWRC provision have been reported, apart from a new contract in 2007, which coincided with a revamp of bin signage, collection of a few additional (small tonnage) materials and easier access to bulk skips at some sites. Home composting Data has been provided on the number of subsidized home composting bins distributed, as follows: 2002/03: 6,705 2003/04: 4,622 2004/05: 1,071 2005/06: 1,010 2006/07: 4,543

The table below illustrates a set of criteria against which we asked the Council to evaluate the level of enforcement imposed on the presentation of side waste:

The respondent classified their enforcement activities as ‘3 - Formal enforcement policy in place’, though primarily through effective communication with residents and standard service (i.e. non-collection of side waste) across all rounds. Communications

22 WR0121 – Defra Municipal Waste Growth Study: Addendum Draft - - October 2009 The district has carried out significant communications work during AWC roll-out in 2003/04 and, within Norfolk Waste Partnership – with a waste minimization focus – in 2005/06 and 2006/07. These activities have included roadshows and significant positive coverage in the local media. With the roll-out of AWC, the district introduced a “yellow card” and “red card” system for residents, to assist them in using their kerbside services properly. The Council was asked to complete a self assessment of the communications activity they undertake. This has been adapted from a paper entitled ‘Strategic Communication Audits’ (Julia Coffman, 2004) that aims to develop a better understanding of strategic communications audits and the main steps involved. The presents a scale (Practice Maturity Scale) which has been adapted for this project as detailed below.

The respondent classified their communications activities as ‘4 – Co-ordinated’.

23 WR0121 – Defra Municipal Waste Growth Study: Addendum Draft - - October 2009 1.4.3 Summary of waste trends The following chart shows district tonnages for household generated wastes from 2000/01 to 2007/08:

70,000

60,000

50,000

40,000

30,000

20,000

10,000

0 2000/01 2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08

KS RES KS DRY KS GW CSO BRING DRY HWRC RES HWRC DRY HWRC GW Street sweepings: recycled

HWRC = Household Waste Recycling Centre; GW = Garden Waste; DRY = Dry Recycling; RES = Residual; CSO = Community Sector Organisation collections; KS = Kerbside.

Interpretation Essentially, arisings were fairly static from 2000/01 to 2002/03, and fairly static at somewhat lower tonnages from 2004/05 to 2006/07, but with a “spike” in tonnages coinciding with AWC rollout during 2003/04. The lower tonnages during the later period are best explained by the constraining effects of AWC on waste arisings. These are somewhat offset by significant tonnages of collected garden waste as more householders subscribe to this service, which could explain why tonnages have remained steady, rather than fallen as AWC properly “beds in”. The spike in 2003/04 is curious, coinciding as it does with at least partial AWC coverage (AWC was being rolled out in this period) and significant communications activities alongside AWC introduction. No climatic factors were considered important (i.e. unusually wet weather etc). There does not appear to have been a significant diversion of kerbside wastes to HWRC due to AWC during 2003/04. Moreover, home composting was well promoted in 2003/04 (and the previous period). Bring tonnages increased slightly in 2003/04, due to the targeting of glass (collected in the partial kerbside box service previously and not collected in the commingled service). However the main increase has been in kerbside dry recycling, with only a small corresponding decrease in kerbside residual tonnages. This might be a data reporting issue, though this is considered unlikely, since the district expresses a high level of confidence in these figures. Another explanation may be that the provision of 240l bins for both residual and dry kerbside collections provided householders with an invitation to utilize this capacity, particularly in terms of depositing some “extra” dry recycling that the householder might have previously stored in anticipation of the introduction of commingled collections. However, probably more importantly, the provision of 240l bins for both residual and dry provided an insufficient physical constraining effect on kerbside arisings.

24 WR0121 – Defra Municipal Waste Growth Study: Addendum Draft - - October 2009 Moreover, the communications activities from 2005/06 onwards were focused on waste prevention, suggesting that communications is an important factor in obtaining the constraining benefits of AWC. With regard to street sweepings, from 2004/05 recycling of some of this material was carried out (primarily via a trommel, to extract compostable wastes and soil), with around 95% of street sweepings recycled by 2006/07. It is thought likely that disposed street sweepings were included in kerbside residual waste figures. HWRCs Tonnages for HWRCs in Broadland are illustrated below the following page; along with corresponding tonnages for HWRCs located in Norwich, for comparison. Some Broadland residents are thought to use HWRCs in Norwich. A dramatic drop in tonnages at Norwich HWRCs is apparent from 2003/04, which coincides with a renewed effort across Norfolk HWRCs to exclude trade waste, through enforcing a ban on construction & demolition waste disposal at the county’s HWRCs. An overall increase in tonnages for HWRCs in Broadland is apparent between 2004/05 and 2006/07. Whilst some of this material may have been diverted from Norwich HWRCs (where tonnages dropped substantially), this is unlikely to be the main factor in HWRC tonnages increases in South Norfolk, since the overhaul of trade waste restrictions at Norfolk HWRCs around 2003/04 was carried out reasonably consistently across the county. The most plausible explanation for increased tonnages at Broadland HWRCs during this period is the leakage of kerbside wastes to HWRCs due to AWC introduction. However a noticeable decrease in tonnages for HWRCs in Broadland occurs in 2007/08, possibly suggesting that the leakage of material from kerbside to HWRCs was no longer taking place.

25 WR0121 – Defra Municipal Waste Growth Study: Addendum Draft - - October 2009 Broadland HWRCs

10000 9000 8000 7000 6000 REC 5000 GW 4000 RES 3000 2000 1000 0 2000/01 2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08

Norwich HWRCs

25000

20000

15000 REC GW 10000 RES

5000

0 2000/01 2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08

REC = recycling, excluding garden waste; GW = garden waste; RES = residual. These tonnages exclude rubble and/or soil separated for recycling.

26 WR0121 – Defra Municipal Waste Growth Study: Addendum Draft - - October 2009 1.5 Case study 5: Hart District Council

1.5.1 Local authority profile The number of households has increased from around 32,000 in 2000/01 to 35,000 in 2005/06. IMD = 4.13 Population, mid-2007 estimate = 89,900 Land area, hectares = 21,527 Population density, inhabitants per hectare = 4.18 ONS classification (2001 standardised): Supergroup: 5 Prospering UK Group: 5.9 Prospering Southern England Subgroup: 5.9.16 Prospering Southern England - A

1.5.2 Waste collection arrangements Kerbside residual 240l wheeled bins have been used to collect refuse weekly since 1988/89. During 2006/07 AWC was introduced, with district-wide coverage achieved during that period. The district has a no side waste policy, except over Christmas; but with the roll-out of AWC, the no side waste policy has been extended to the Christmas period. The district also introduced a policy of no garden waste in residual waste along with AWC roll-out. Kerbside dry Co-mingled collections using wheeled bins have been carried out since 1997, though glass is not collected. With roll-out of AWC in 2006/07, glass has been collected as well via a separate box. Kerbside garden Garden waste collections were rolled out during 2004/05, with the service offered to all residents. An annual fee is levied, with no exemptions. Garden waste is collected fortnightly. Bulky waste collections Historically there has been a charge of 3 items for £21. In 2005/06 the pricing policy was changed, with different prices for different types of item. The net effect was an average increase in fees levied. Home composting Before 2000 free home composting bins were provided to residents, with take-up estimated to be around 33% to 50% of households in the district. No further significant activity promoting home composting was carried out between 2000 and 2006. During 2006/07 the district joined WRAP home composting promotion scheme. HWRCs Hart residents mostly use the Hartley Witney and Rushmoor sites (the latter being located just outside the district, and is probably more widely used by residents than the Hartley Witney site located within the district). Aside from general improvements in recycling services offered across all Hampshire HWRCs, no significant changes were reported for these two sites. Two factors may be significant:  2005 Recycle for Hampshire campaign promoted through all HWRCs  2008 improved trade waste controls introduced at Hampshire HWRCs.

27 WR0121 – Defra Municipal Waste Growth Study: Addendum Draft - - October 2009 The table below illustrates a set of criteria against which we asked the Council to evaluate the level of enforcement imposed on the presentation of side waste:

The respondent classified their enforcement activities as ‘2 - Informal enforcement policy in place’. Communications The district employed several recycling officers as part of Project Integra’s public awareness raising campaign up to 2005/06. However these posts were removed during 2005/06 and no further communications activities were carried out for a period of around 14 months until the roll- out of AWC during 2006/07. During AWC, considerable communications activities were again carried out. The Council was asked to complete a self assessment of the communications activity they undertake. This has been adapted from a paper entitled ‘Strategic Communication Audits’ (Julia Coffman, 2004) that aims to develop a better understanding of strategic communications audits and the main steps involved. The presents a scale (Practice Maturity Scale) which has been adapted for this project as detailed below.

28 WR0121 – Defra Municipal Waste Growth Study: Addendum Draft - - October 2009 or no measurement of performance. 4 Co-ordinated Delivery is regular and routine. A strategy has been developed to determine the best way for the organisation to communicate and responsibility for its implementation is defined. Resources are sufficient to cover the outputs recommended in the strategy. Materials are good quality, but have the potential to be more effective. There is some assessment of performance. 5 Evaluated There is commitment to the development and delivery of effective communication and is measuring its success in order to get a better understanding of how it can improve performance. Materials are well resourced delivered proficiently. 6 Optimised Effective communication is seen as vital and is integrated into all systems and processes. The link between the organisation’s strategic objectives and effective communications is clear, delivery purposeful and proactive and the resources allocated reflect this. Strategy, delivery and support are reviewed and enhanced using formal frameworks such as scrutiny, best value, continuous improvement and quality management systems.

The respondent classified their communications activities as ‘2 – Emerging’.

1.5.3 Summary of waste trends The following chart shows district tonnages for household generated wastes from 2000/01 to 2006/07:

50,000

45,000

40,000

35,000 HWRC GW HWRC DRY 30,000 HWRC RES BRING DRY 25,000 BWC RES 20,000 KS GW KS DRY 15,000 KS RES

10,000

5,000

0 2000/01 2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08

HWRC = Household Waste Recycling Centre; GW = Garden Waste; DRY = Dry Recycling; RES = Residual; BWC = Bulky Waste Collections; KS = Kerbside. At first glance, there seems to be a fair degree of fluctuation in the district’s arisings. However there are some plausible interpretations for these fluctuations. It is notable that there is a significant decrease in arisings across 2002/03 to 2005/06. This applies also to kerbside collected wastes, despite the introduction of garden waste collections; though the fact that these were charged and fortnightly has probably minimized the introduction of any additional garden material to the municipal waste stream. During the same period, the number of households in the district increased slightly (33,000 to 35,000 households). Therefore there appears to have been a genuine decrease in the amount of waste generated per household in the district. However in 2006/07, when AWC was rolled out, arisings increased significantly, which seems counter-intuitive. The most likely explanation is that the Project Integra communications activity 29 WR0121 – Defra Municipal Waste Growth Study: Addendum Draft - - October 2009 effected a significant change in public behaviour, resulting in the decreases during 2002/03 to 2005/06. The recycling officer posts were removed in 2005/06, resulting in an increase in arisings which became apparent during 2006/07. Although AWC was rolled out in this period, there was insufficient time for the new collection arrangements to constrain waste arisings; and it is notable that HWRC arisings were high in that period, suggesting that in the initial stages of AWC roll-out, some extra material was diverted to HWRCs from kerbside. HWRC tonnage figures lend some support to this supposition. Tonnages for HWRCs used by Hart residents are shown here in two charts below, relating respectively to:  1 HWRC located in Hart 2nd chart  combined tonnages for 3 HWRCs in neighbouring DCs thought by the County Council to be commonly used by Hart residents. The charts suggest increased HWRC tonnages from Hart residents during 2007, indicating the diversion of some kerbside residual waste to HWRC residual waste. During 2008 HWRC tonnages fell, which may suggest that material that was diverted from kerbside to HWRC during roll out of AWC in 2007 was no longer being diverted in 2008; (suggesting perhaps that householders that took additional black bag waste to HWRCs when AWCs were first introduced got bored of doing this and learnt to live with their new kerbside residual waste capacity). Additionally, some charities restricted the types of items that they would accept from the public during 2006/07, which may also explain the relatively higher HWRC tonnages in 2006 & 2007.

30 WR0121 – Defra Municipal Waste Growth Study: Addendum Draft - - October 2009 HWRC in Hart: Hartley Wintney

8,000

7,000

6,000

5,000 RES 4,000 GW

3,000 REC

2,000

1,000

0 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Combined tonnages for 3 HWRCs in DCs neighbouring Hart, thought to be used by Hart residents

40,000 35,000 30,000

25,000 RES 20,000 GW 15,000 REC 10,000 5,000 0 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

REC = recycling, excluding garden waste; GW = garden waste; RES = residual. These tonnages exclude rubble and/or soil separated for recycling.

31 WR0121 – Defra Municipal Waste Growth Study: Addendum Draft - - October 2009 Non-household wastes Non-household tonnages have significantly decreased during time series, as illustrated in the following chart. These decreases are mainly attributable to the local authority reducing its commercial waste collection service.

Non-household tonnages

7000

6000

5000

4000 Non-hh recycling

3000 Non-hh disposal

2000

1000

0 2000/01 2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08

32 WR0121 – Defra Municipal Waste Growth Study: Addendum Draft - - October 2009 1.6 Case study 6: London Borough of Islington

1.6.1 Local authority profile The borough’s housing stock consists of a roughly 50:50 split of terraces and flats. Around 40% of residents are 25-40 yr old single professionals. The number of households has increased from around 80,000 in 2000/01 to 86,000 in 2005/06. IMD = 38.96 Population, mid-2007 estimate = 187,800 Land area, hectares = 1,486 Population density, inhabitants per hectare = 126.38 ONS classification (2001 standardised): Supergroup: 3 London Centre Group: 3.5 London Centre Subgroup: 3.5.8 London Centre - A

1.6.2 Waste collection arrangements Kerbside residual Containment is black sack for terraces and communal bins for flats. Collection arrangements have been the same since 1998 when the current contract commenced (PFI 15 year contract). There is now more oversight of the contract by the borough than previously, with issues such as landlords requesting more communal bins than are always required, (whereas as previously contractor would supply as many bins as requested without querying landlords). The borough is not intending to introduce wheeled bins for sack properties (terraces) or change refuse frequency in the future. However the borough is considering carrying out some small scale measures in terms of reducing communal bin capacity & collection frequency to reflect householder requirements. In future the borough intends to remove some more residual bins & replace with commingled recycling bins, to encourage recycling. Kerbside dry recycling Green box scheme In 1998, 500 properties were served with CSO (community sector organization) dry recycling collections via a green box. This scheme was extended, first through a 1999 pilot extension and then borough wide in 2000, with 55l green boxes, but only for street facing properties with some frontages (~50% households in borough). This equated to 12 rounds, 45,000 households in total, serviced with an electric vehicle, and using kerbside sort. Materials collected were paper, glass (separate colours), mixed cans and textiles. In December 2004 commingled collections were piloted across 3 of 12 rounds covered by the kerbside sort scheme (~11,000 households?), with the addition of cardboard and plastic bottles, but with textiles no longer collected. Commingled dry recycling was collected by RCV (refuse collection vehicles). Learning from the experience of neighbouring boroughs that had recently carried out a similar service change, Islington carried out a lot of communications work to reassure residents that materials thus collected in RCVs were indeed being recycled. From May to October 2005 the pilot was extended to the remaining 9 rounds covered by the original kerbside sort scheme. In July 2005 pilot collections from flats were carried out, across 5 estates. These were mostly using a reusable sack collected from landings & communal areas (though with 55l boxes in a few cases).

33 WR0121 – Defra Municipal Waste Growth Study: Addendum Draft - - October 2009 In January 2006 this was extended to 23,000 properties and is now around 25,000 properties. This leaves around 20,000 (?) properties unserved with kerbside collections, which is due to some landlords being unwilling to engage with the service, or logistical difficulties in serving some properties. In December 2005 collections from flats above shops was piloted, which was gradually increased to around 10,000 properties by January 2007. Many of these collections are daily. Organics collections In September 2004 the London Recycling Fund (LRF) funded the building of an IVC and pilot collections. This covered 8,000 properties with gardens, equating to around 14,000 households. In June 2005 food waste was added to these collections. During July to October 2005 these collections (garden & food waste) were rolled out so that a total of 45,000 “street” properties were served. This is a weekly collection, with caddies and 25l buckets provided, with garden waste presented in reusable sacks provided by the council, or open waste sacks. (ripped open by crews and then loaded into collection vehicle). Kerbside collection day synchronisation In September 2007, refuse & dry/organics collection days were rescheduled to synchronise refuse and recycling collection days, i.e. same day collection. Split body vehicles were introduced for collecting dry / organics (70/30 dry/organics split in each vehicle). Following roll- out of this service, the borough discerned a significant increase in recycling tonnages; and an increase in participation over time (though the latter may be due to communications activities rather than the service change). Also the service change brought about higher levels of public satisfaction (as well as financial efficiencies). Bring sites Since at least 1999 there were 25 bring sites collecting glass, paper, cans & textiles. During 2002/03 the LRF funded a 2-year roll out of 160 bring banks for flats. These were 1,280l Eurobins collecting glass (separate colours), paper & cans. Due to limited space, around half of these sites were located in street areas rather than on estates themselves. From 2005 co- mingled bins were gradually added for flats, to a total of 230 at present. During late 2006/07 food waste collections were piloted to around 500 flatted properties. Collection weights are minimal. The borough is intending to develop this service in the future. Bulky waste collections are free. HWRC Historically the CA site had been an “old school council tip”, basically just for refuse, but with scrap metal pulled out. In May 2004 the old site was shut. In August 2004 a new site was launched with a strong focus on recycling. At the new site staff were much better at policing trade waste abuse (though there is no permit system for vans etc in place). No corresponding increase in flytipping was noted by the borough and in general flytipping is not considered to be a significant issue in Islington. Home composting The borough provides home composting bins at a subsidised rate of £10 and also subsidies wormeries, green cones and green johannas. Side waste policy The table below illustrates a set of criteria against which we asked the Council to evaluate the level of enforcement imposed on the presentation of side waste:

34 WR0121 – Defra Municipal Waste Growth Study: Addendum Draft - - October 2009 Scale Nature of activity 1 No level of No enforcement policies (either formal or informal) in place. Residents are enforcement free to leave material next to waste receptacles so long as contained or bagged and not construed as being fly-tipped or littering. 2 Informal A ban on side is in place but not rigorously enforced. Publicising the policy enforcement is confined to resident information leaflets, the use of bin stickers alerting policy in the residents to the policy and waste collection operatives leaving waste in place situ. No penalty notices have been issued although cautions have been periodically been made. 3 Formal A ban on side waste is in place and legally enforced although some ‘top- enforcement hatting’ / ‘crocodile lids’ are allowed. The above measures are also policy in adopted (as in 2 above) and following a number of cautions the place householder will be issued with a fixed penalty notice. Evidence of a small number of such notices being issued. 4 Formal A ban on side waste is in place and legally enforced and ‘top-hatting’ / enforcement ‘crocodile lids’ is not allowed. The same cautionary procedures are policy in adopted as in 2 and 3 above, although there is evidence of a high number place and of Section 80 (accumulations of household refuse in back yards) and rigorously Section 46 (householder non-compliant with Council’s waste collection enforced arrangements) notices issued to non-compliant households. Enforcement is taken very seriously by the council.

The respondent classified their enforcement activities as ‘1 – No level of enforcement’. Communications The borough has had a fairly consistent and high level of communications engagement, particularly through:  Door knocking & pledges to recycle (with increased recycling tonnages noted in targeted rounds)  Leaflets & local media  i-recycle centre, (educational facility). The borough’s communications activities have been cited as best practice, including by WRAP. See separate box below to see summary of extent of communications activities. The Council was also asked to complete a self assessment of the communications activity they undertake. This has been adapted from a paper entitled ‘Strategic Communication Audits’ (Julia Coffman, 2004) that aims to develop a better understanding of strategic communications audits and the main steps involved. The presents a scale (Practice Maturity Scale) which has been adapted for this project as detailed below.

Practice Definition Maturity Scale 1 Ad-hoc Communication is generally unplanned, reactive and disorganised. There is no overall responsibility for communication, no strategy and little or no budget to enable effective delivery. Projects may run over budget and over schedule. Poor quality of materials. 2 Emerging Some communication, but it may be sporadic and delivered only when required. The importance of communication has been recognised, but strategy and processes are still embryonic. Some resources have been allocated for the production of essential materials. Responsibility for communication has been agreed. 3 Planned Communication activity is planned. Limited resources have been allocated 35 WR0121 – Defra Municipal Waste Growth Study: Addendum Draft - - October 2009 for delivery. Responsibility has been assigned, but there is little or no measurement of performance. 4 Co-ordinated Delivery is regular and routine. A strategy has been developed to determine the best way for the organisation to communicate and responsibility for its implementation is defined. Resources are sufficient to cover the outputs recommended in the strategy. Materials are good quality, but have the potential to be more effective. There is some assessment of performance. 5 Evaluated There is commitment to the development and delivery of effective communication and is measuring its success in order to get a better understanding of how it can improve performance. Materials are well resourced delivered proficiently. 6 Optimised Effective communication is seen as vital and is integrated into all systems and processes. The link between the organisation’s strategic objectives and effective communications is clear, delivery purposeful and proactive and the resources allocated reflect this. Strategy, delivery and support are reviewed and enhanced using formal frameworks such as scrutiny, best value, continuous improvement and quality management systems.

The respondent classified their communications activities as ‘6 – Optimised’.

1.6.3 Summary & interpretation of waste trends The following chart shows the borough’s tonnages for municipal wastes from 2000/01 to 2007/08:

120,000

100,000

80,000

60,000

40,000

20,000

0 2000/01 2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08

Kerbside residual Kerbside dry Kerbside organics Street cleansing, parks, clinical Bring + HWRC recycling HWRC residual Commercial residual Commercial recycling

If we disregard Commercial residual, tonnages have shown a decrease. This is particularly the case with kerbside arisings (residual + recycling + organics). The reduction in kerbside residual tonnages is somewhat complicated by the consideration that kerbside and commercial residual are co-collected and apportioned respectively to household and commercial as follows: Conflict between NLWA and LBI data: Until 2008/09 survey information was used to allocate the split between co-collected trade and household refuse. NLWA used a figure of approx 72:28% based on a 1995 survey. The use of this old survey data was criticised by AC during BV audits of LBI so from 2004-05 LBI used the best survey data available - while NLWA could not get political agreement to do this themselves. From 2004-05 we used a split based on a NLWA - AEA survey which was supported by LBI's own HH waste survey, this split was approx 63.5:36.5 HH:Trade 36 WR0121 – Defra Municipal Waste Growth Study: Addendum Draft - - October 2009 So from 2004/05 a lower proportion of this tonnage was allocated to kerbside residual. Since Islington considers that this method of apportionment is more accurate than the one used previously, this suggests that up to 2003/04 the amount of kerbside residual was somewhat overstated (and commercial residual likewise somewhat understated). The “Commercial residual” tonnages shown in the above chart consist mostly of collections from commercial premises. However these tonnages also contain some highways wastes and (in the latter years only) flytipping wastes; though the borough has not reported separate tonnages for these fractions. The majority of “Commercial recycling” tonnages are thought to consist of Construction & Demolition wastes and DIY type wastes from the borough’s HWRC. There were some uncertainties in the HWRC tonnage data for one period, which were resolved through using reference data on HWRC performance in the borough. Taking into account all these considerations, it appears that there is nevertheless an overall decrease in household waste + recycling tonnages; though commercial residual has increased, resulting in fairly static total MSW arisings. MSW tonnages are slightly lower tonnage in 2004/05 (though – despite the borough’s explanation above – it is suspected that some HWRC recycling tonnages may still be missing from the tonnages incorporated in the chart above). Interpretation It appears that household tonnages have decreased, but these are more likely to have actually remained fairly static, due to the apportionment of less residual waste to regular household collections (and more to commercial collections). Our best data suggests that the number of households has increased from 80,000 in 2000/01 to 86,000 in 2005/06. Thus it seems that there has been a genuine gradual decrease in terms of total waste generated per household. Some - but not all - of this is probably attributable to reduced trade waste abuse at the HWRC following launch of the new site in 2004. A more significant factor is likely to be public behaviour change, with slightly less waste + recycling being produced per household year on year. This is likely to be due to:  communications activities (see box below)  improvement in recycling systems (particularly kerbside dry & organics and HWRC) contributing to public thinking of the waste they produce somewhat more in the context of recycling and sustainability.

Additional information on communications activities:

From an email from the borough’s communications officer:  As a council we were one of the first councils to start main streaming reduce reuse recycle.  We were one of the first councils in the UK to use reduce and reuse as central parts of our recycling advertising campaigns. These include the greener, cleaner recycling advertising campaign in Autumn 2006 and the reduce reuse recycle advertising campaign in Autumn 08.  Waste reduction information was then included in all our leaflets from this point. Our leaflets are seen as best practice by WRAP  We also developed specific information leaflets and areas on our website around waste reduction and reuse in late 2007 - early 2008.  The promotion of reduce and reuse was increased further in April 2008 when we completely wrapped our 16 refuse trucks with reduce and reuse messages  The Green Teams doorkncking campaign of 2008/09 have also been upping the profile of waste reduction as part of their remit

37 WR0121 – Defra Municipal Waste Growth Study: Addendum Draft - - October 2009  The watch your waste challenge in October 2008 also gave us a chance to focus action in this areas

Watch Your Waste Challenge – results

1. Residents a) Results The residents that took part in the Challenge did brilliantly in reducing their waste by an amazing 47.6%.

An estimated 147.5kg of waste was diverted from landfill, with the average weight of each household’s waste falling from 11kg before the Challenge to only 5.8kg during the week itself.

Of the seven boroughs taking part in Watch Your Waste Week, Islington had the most households signed up to take part in the Challenge, and accounted for 31% of reported participants (79 people).

The Challenge was also covered by the Islington Tribune in a recent article: http://www.thecnj.co.uk/islington/2008/103108/inews103108_17.html b) Evaluation

o 84% of participants made lifestyle changes as a result of the Week. o The most common lifestyle changes people said they would make were to start buying goods in less packaging and buying goods in recyclable packaging. o 89% of participants would like to take part in the Challenge again. o 96% found the information contained in the Challenger’s pack useful and informative.

2. Schools Of the three schools in North London that took part in the Challenge, two of them were from Islington. They did brilliantly, as a total of 653 pupils played their part in cutting their waste by an average of 53.2%.

We are very pleased with the results and the enthusiasm with which the people of Islington rose to the challenge. Provisional data on MSW tonnage reductions during 2008/09: Data from 2008/09 suggests that a decrease in MSW arisings is currently taking place. Some reductions in Islington’s tonnages are due to loss of commercial waste collection contracts. Once this is taken into account, the borough believes that a genuine decrease in household waste (residual & recycling) is taking place. The borough’s interpretation is that their demographic is particularly susceptible to the effects of the credit crunch, which have lead to lower levels of household consumption. However it is also possible that the borough’s waste minimization activities have been an important factor.

38 WR0121 – Defra Municipal Waste Growth Study: Addendum Draft - - October 2009 This chart shows a reduction in regular residual waste collections (household + commercial):

Chart Title 7000 6800 Refuse 6600 Linear (Refuse) 6400 6200 6000 5800 5600 5400 5200 Some5000 of this is attributable to loss of commercial waste collection contracts: 7 8 7 8 8 7 7 7 7 8 8 8 8 8 7 7 7 8 8 8 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ------l l r r t r t y y v v n g n n g p c b p c u u

4100 a p c p c a a o o u a u u u e e e e e J J

A Number of contracts A J J J

4000 O M O A N F A N M S M S D D 3900 Poly. (Number of contracts) 3800 3700 3600 3500 3400 3300 3200 3100 Ap M Ju J Au Se Oc No De Ja Fe M Ap M Ju J Au Se Oc No De r- ay- n- ul- g- p- t- v- c- n- b- ar- r- ay- n- ul- g- p- t- v- c- 07 07 07 07 07 07 07 07 07 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08

However this cannot account for all of the decrease. This supposition is supported by the observation that not many commercial collection contracts were lost after around Jun 2008, but that total refuse tonnages have continued to decrease (though some of this may be due to seasonal variation in household generated residual waste). Total recycling tonnages (almost all from household sources) have also decreased:

Chart Title 2200.00 tonnage collected for recycling 2100.00 2000.00 1900.00 1800.00 1700.00 1600.00 1500.00 7 7 7 8 8 8 7 7 8 8 8 7 7 7 7 8 8 8 8 8 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ------l l t t r r r v v y n y n g c n g c p b p u u c c p a p o o a u a u u e a u e e e e J J J O J O A J A N M N A F A M S D M S D

39 WR0121 – Defra Municipal Waste Growth Study: Addendum Draft - - October 2009 Other MSW streams have also been affected. This chart shows a reduction in total bulky waste collection and street sweepings tonnages.

900 Refuse (Bulk) 800 Sweepings Parks 700 Construction 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 7 7 7 7 8 8 8 8 8 7 7 7 7 7 8 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ------l l t r r r y v y n c n n g p b u u c a p p a o a u e a u u e e J J A J O J A J N M A S D F M M

40 WR0121 – Defra Municipal Waste Growth Study: Addendum Draft - - October 2009 1.7 Case study 7: South Norfolk District Council

1.7.1 Local authority profile The number of households has increased from around 46,000 in 2000/01 to 51,000 in 2006/07. IMD = 10.84 Population, mid-2007 estimate = 117,300 Land area, hectares = 90,891 Population density, inhabitants per hectare = 1.29 ONS classification (2001 standardised): Supergroup: 5 Prospering UK Group: 5.7 Prospering Smaller Towns Subgroup: 5.7.13 Prospering Smaller Towns – B

1.7.2 Waste collection arrangements Kerbside residual Historically the district has collected kerbside residual waste in sacks weekly, though this has been switched over the 140l or 240l wheeled bins (depending on household size) along with the gradual roll-out of AWC. Households with more than 5 people are allowed two bins. Roll-out of AWC in terms of % households served has been:  2002/03: 15%  2003/04: 50%  2004/05: 80%  2005/06: ~100% (completed March 2006, i.e. end of this period). A few multi-occupancy properties are still on weekly collections with clear sacks. All side waste is collected. Kerbside dry Co-mingled collections in 240l wheeled bins were introduced alongside AWC. Kerbside garden Historically the district has offered a garden waste collection service, via tie on labels for sacks that householders have to pay for. These sacks were disposed by collection crews alongside refuse sacks. From 2004/05 a brown bin service was offered to residents and garden waste collected through this system was separately collected for composting. This is an opt-in scheme with an annual fee levied. This service was offered to 7% of householders during 2004/05 and the offer of the service was extended to all households by the end of 2005/06. Bring banks There has been little change to the bring bank network from 2000 to 2007. The banks have traditionally targeted glass (which has presumably not been targeted by the commingled collections introduced alongside AWC). Bulky waste collections are charged, except for householders in receipt of benefits. HWRCs

41 WR0121 – Defra Municipal Waste Growth Study: Addendum Draft - - October 2009 No significant changes in HWRC provision have been reported, apart from a new contract in 2007, which coincided with a revamp of bin signage, collection of a few additional (small tonnage) materials and easier access to bulk skips at some sites.

Home composting No home composting promotion activity was undertaken until January 2006, when the district participated in WRAP’s promotion of home composting. The table below illustrates a set of criteria against which we asked the Council to evaluate the level of enforcement imposed on the presentation of side waste:

The respondent classified their enforcement activities as ‘2 – Informal enforcement policy in place’. Communications Since 2002/03, and running alongside AWC roll-out, the district has employed 3 recycling officers. From 2005/06 their activities had a greater focus on waste minimization and recycling. The Council was asked to complete a self assessment of the communications activity they undertake. This has been adapted from a paper entitled ‘Strategic Communication Audits’ (Julia Coffman, 2004) that aims to develop a better understanding of strategic communications audits and the main steps involved. The presents a scale (Practice Maturity Scale) which has been adapted for this project as detailed below.

42 WR0121 – Defra Municipal Waste Growth Study: Addendum Draft - - October 2009 Practice Definition Maturity Scale 1 Ad-hoc Communication is generally unplanned, reactive and disorganised. There is no overall responsibility for communication, no strategy and little or no budget to enable effective delivery. Projects may run over budget and over schedule. Poor quality of materials. 2 Emerging Some communication, but it may be sporadic and delivered only when required. The importance of communication has been recognised, but strategy and processes are still embryonic. Some resources have been allocated for the production of essential materials. Responsibility for communication has been agreed. 3 Planned Communication activity is planned. Limited resources have been allocated for delivery. Responsibility has been assigned, but there is little or no measurement of performance. 4 Co-ordinated Delivery is regular and routine. A strategy has been developed to determine the best way for the organisation to communicate and responsibility for its implementation is defined. Resources are sufficient to cover the outputs recommended in the strategy. Materials are good quality, but have the potential to be more effective. There is some assessment of performance. 5 Evaluated There is commitment to the development and delivery of effective communication and is measuring its success in order to get a better understanding of how it can improve performance. Materials are well resourced delivered proficiently. 6 Optimised Effective communication is seen as vital and is integrated into all systems and processes. The link between the organisation’s strategic objectives and effective communications is clear, delivery purposeful and proactive and the resources allocated reflect this. Strategy, delivery and support are reviewed and enhanced using formal frameworks such as scrutiny, best value, continuous improvement and quality management systems.

The respondent classified their communications activities as ‘3 – Planned’.

43 WR0121 – Defra Municipal Waste Growth Study: Addendum Draft - - October 2009 1.7.3 Summary of waste trends The following chart shows district tonnages for household generated wastes from 2000/01 to 2006/07:

60,000

50,000

40,000

30,000

20,000

10,000

0 2000/01 2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08

KS RES KS DRY KS GW BWC RES BRING DRY HWRC RES HWRC DRY & GW

HWRC = Household Waste Recycling Centres; GW = Garden Waste; DRY = Dry Recycing; RES = Residual; BWC = Bulky Waste Collections; KS = Kerbside.

Trends & interpretation There was a significant increase between 2000/01 and 2001/02 which is not easy to explain. Some of the increase relates to HWRC tonnages (it is notable that HWRC recycling increased) but kerbside residual plus recycling also increased. Between 2001/02 and 2005/06 household waste arisings have remained reasonably static (or have slightly decreased) – though interrupted by a “spike” in 2004/05 (see comments below). This trend is probably attributable to the gradual roll-out of AWC and its constraining effects on kerbside arisings. There does not appear to have been much (if any) leakage of kerbside waste to HWRC as a result of AWC – with the possible exception of 2004/05; (supported by further analysis HWRC tonnages, see below). Waste arisings then increased in 2006/07, which may be attributable to a greater take-up of the brown bin garden waste collections in this period. These collections are charged and the period also coincides with the district promoting home composting as part of WRAP’s scheme, so on initial consideration this explanation does not appear adequate. However the brown bin garden waste scheme involves a switch over from the previous garden sack scheme (also paid for) to providing a wheeled bin. This represents an increase in containment capacity, which arguably makes this explanation more convincing – i.e. the brown bin scheme may be introducing new garden waste into the MSW stream, by virtue of the additional containment capacity available to householders who take up this scheme. In fact, containment capacity may be an overriding issue for this authority. Significant containment capacity is provided for:  AWC refuse

44 WR0121 – Defra Municipal Waste Growth Study: Addendum Draft - - October 2009  Kerbside commingled dry  Kerbside brown bin garden waste, charged opt-in scheme. This, in the context of the district not applying any restrictions to the collection of side waste, could indicate that the constraining effects of AWC are weakened. Gradual decreases have been experienced during gradual AWC roll-out (2002/03 onwards); supported by communications activity (which has focused more on waste prevention from 2005/06); but this has not been enough to prevent “spikes” in waste arisings during 2004/05 and 2006/07. However it is important to note that South Norfolk has historically had one of the lowest levels of waste arisings per household in England. Therefore the district has been proceeding from a low waste arisings baseline, which may explain why the waste reduction effects seen in many other AWC systems are not so unequivocally visible in the case of South Norfolk. The spike in 2004/05 remains curious, since this coincides with the advanced stages of AWC roll- out (with coverage being increased from 50% to 80% during this period). HWRC arisings are higher in this period, but not significantly so, and there is no significant increase in HWRC residual waste. It could be the case (as suggested for Broadland) that introducing commingled dry recycling alongside AWC has encouraged householders to introduce additional material to the waste stream, through storing dry recyclables in anticipation of the introduction of dry recycling collections. Although this is not an entirely convincing explanation, it is somewhat supported by the observation that between 2003/04 and 2004/05 kerbside residual tonnages only decreased slightly, whilst kerbside dry recycling tonnages increased. A more convincing explanation may be that the containment capacity new kerbside system did not constrain arisings in the manner that we would normally expect from AWC collections. However, this does not explain lower tonnages in 2003/04 and 2005/06. The drop in waste arisings in 2005/06 may be explained by the AWC system “bedding in” and householders exhibiting a delayed response in terms of changing their disposal and recycling behaviour as a result of the AWC system.

Non-household waste consists primarily of residual waste, collected from commercial premises. These tonnages have been around 2,000 to 3,000 tonnes per year, though with higher tonnages of around 3,700 tonnages in 2002/03 and 2003/04. No explanation has been found for these higher tonnages. Additional information South Norfolk trialled chipped bins several years ago – apart from a media furore, there were also some bin weighing problems, which may have caused some errors in the data in earlier periods. HWRCs Tonnages for HWRCs in South Norfolk are illustrated on the following page; along with corresponding tonnages for HWRCs located in Norwich, for comparison. Some South Norfolk residents are thought to use HWRCs in Norwich. A dramatic drop in tonnages at Norwich HWRCs is apparent from 2003/04, which coincides with a renewed effort across Norfolk HWRCs to exclude trade waste, through enforcing a ban on construction & demolition waste disposal at the county’s HWRCs. In contrast to Broadland HWRCs, HWRC arisings at South Norfolk sites saw a steady decline from 2000/01 to 2003/04. This suggests that management arrangements at the sites were changed or improved, perhaps through the improvement of trade waste controls. However the reduction has not been the dramatic drop seen at Norwich HWRCs. From 2003/04 HWRC tonnages have been gradually increasing. Whilst some of this material may have been diverted from Norwich HWRCs (where tonnages dropped substantially), this is unlikely to be the main factor in HWRC tonnages increases in South Norfolk, since the overhaul of trade waste restrictions at Norfolk HWRCs around 2003/04 was carried out reasonably consistently across the county. The most plausible explanation is that the majority of the increases in HWRC 45 WR0121 – Defra Municipal Waste Growth Study: Addendum Draft - - October 2009 tonnages in South Norfolk are due to the leakage of material from kerbside to HWRC, arising from gradual AWC introduction from 2002 to 2006. On the other hand, it is also possible that site inputs at South Norfolk may have been “normalizing” to an extent, following the decrease in site inputs up to 2000/01. Overall, it is considered likely that there a moderate degree of leakage of material from kerbside to HWRCs due to AWC introduction.

South Norfolk HWRCs

12000

10000

8000 REC 6000 GW RES 4000

2000

0 2000/01 2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08

Norwich HWRCs

25000

20000

15000 REC GW 10000 RES

5000

0 2000/01 2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08

REC = recycling, excluding garden waste; GW = garden waste; RES = residual. These tonnages exclude rubble and/or soil separated for recycling.

46 WR0121 – Defra Municipal Waste Growth Study: Addendum Draft - - October 2009 1.8 Case study 8: Hyndburn Borough Council

1.8.1 Local authority profile Hyndburn is urban authority covering 72.99 km2, with a population density of 1123/km2. The population of 82,000 is mainly white (90.2%) with a large mainly S.Asian ethnic population (8.4%). The economy of the area is very small, but has a good business enterprise base. There is a low level of skills in the workforce, which attracts wages that are much lower than the national average, and makes the area less attractive to new businesses. Employment has declined 11.6% in the period 2004-7. There are high levels of deprivation in the area, caused by disadvantages in income, crime, health, employment. Housing prices are very low, resulting in a high level of ownership, and a poor rental market, and there are a high proportion of dwellings that are classed as being unfit ( 3rd highest in the country). The majority of the Pakistani minority population lives in the most deprived wards.

1.8.2 Waste collection arrangements Present at separate meetings: information was gathered through meetings with the senior Waste Officer at HBC, and the Data Management Officer at Lancashire County Council. An alternate weekly collection is provided with a 240 litre grey wheeled bin for residual waste, a, a blue 55l box for glass, a blue sack for cans, foil and plastic bottles, a white sack for paper, a green sack for textiles. Cardboard should be neatly stacked or tied up. 306l bins were provided to larger families, these are now being replaced by 240l and 140l bins as they are easier to move. New additional capacity bins are easily recognized as they have brown lids, which make it easier for the enforcement teams to identify unauthorized extra bins in use. The service extends to farms and more isolated properties using a small caged vehicle. AWC of Schedule 2 waste also occurs. A green waste collection using a 240l wheeled bin is provided to 14,000 properties with a garden (about 33% of the total). This service is not provided to terraced properties with a small grass areas or farms. Modern terraced housing developments being built in Hyndburn as part of the East Lancashire Elevate regeneration programme will be provided with recycling facilities for waste. Since 2006, the “no side waste” policy has been rigorously enforced by Environmental Health Services (following the introduction of the recycling of plastic bottles and cardboard). The policy had to be suspended for 8-12 months until these wastes were being recycled due to their bulky nature contributing to the side waste issue. In 2007 & 2008, HBC have issued 500 x S80 notices (accumulations of household refuse in back yards), 600 x S46 notices (householder non-compliant with councils waste collection arrangements), 15 x S47 notices (inappropriate arrangements for managing business waste). This has led to 6 prosecutions and 1 formal caution under S46, 6 X S80 (with 3 on-going), 3 x S34 (2a) householder duty of care with 1 formal caution and I ongoing. The council runs enforcement campaigns every 8 weeks, for 500-600 properties, targeting problem areas. An initial assessment checks that all correct bins and literature are provided, skips are then provided to clean up the area. This is followed by strict enforcement of the no side waste policy. HBC also do multi-agency “stop and search” campaigns targeting white van drivers for flytipping. Bring sites have been gradually phased out in the borough as they attract flytipping. Only 1 remains, in an ASDA supermarket car park. Bulky waste collections are free for up to 6 items a month, no D-I-Y waste is accepted. Calls to the call centre are screened to establish if items are reusable, if so they are directed to ring Hyndburn Used Furniture Store (HUFS) direct. Electrical items are collected by the council and return to the depot where the HUFS group collects the material and gains an income from either

47 WR0121 – Defra Municipal Waste Growth Study: Addendum Draft - - October 2009 reuse, repair or recycling. FRN weights are used to claim recycling credits from Lancashire County Council (LCC). The commercial waste stream and flytipping are collected as part of a domestic round. A formula is used to calculate the amounts. A recycling service for glass, paper and cardboard in commercial waste is provided by the use of separate containers ranging from bags to 1100l bins. The cost is covered by the trade waste fees. All organisations that are classed as Schedule 2 organisations (in accordance with Defra guidance) are included in their domestic tonnages. They were moved from their trade waste collection tonnages over two years ago. The respondent was unable to provide a tonnage figure as to how much these waste streams amounted to. Leaves collected by the street cleansing service are composted. HBC delivers a coherent, and consistent communication campaign for the recycling service through a variety of means. A specially designed calendar is produced every year, in November, which provides lots of information including all collection dates for the coming year, using imagery similar to that used by WRAP to give a consistent appearance. It carries a wide range of recycling messages and information and has a customer satisfaction questionnaire included. A simple resident guide to recycling is sent out every year with new Council Tax bills. Distinctive leaflets have been provided to warn about the “no side waste” policy, emphasizing the £100 fine that may be incurred. The “gripper” signs on waste vehicles are changed every 6 weeks to coincide with the images on the calendars, or to tie in with other campaigns e.g. recycling at Xmas, bonfires. Radio advertising is being considered. LCC HWRCs are situated at Whinney Hill and Great Harwood and are operated by SITA. Trade waste permits were introduced at these sites in 2003-04. Incentivized contracts were also introduced with recycling thresholds and penalties for failure. These were reviewed in 2008. The base recycling rate in 2003-04 was 43%, and has increased to 60% in 2007-08. Bric-a-brac and items suitable for reuse are intercepted by licensed traders who operate on the sites. Furniture reuse organizations do not operate on the HWRCS. Free compost bins are provided by LCC. 7872 have been provided to Hyndburn residents. 158 reusable nappy vouchers have also been provided via the incentive scheme operated by LCC. LCC has a waste minimization team that promotes home composting, real nappies, and carries out radio campaigns, bill board and bus promotions, and works with schools. The LCC newsletter which goes to every household carries features about recycling. Promotional funding is available to districts for specific promotional campaigns.

48 WR0121 – Defra Municipal Waste Growth Study: Addendum Draft - - October 2009 1.8.3 Summary of waste trends

Non household and total MSW arisings

50,000 45,000 40,000 35,000 Total Disposal

e 30,000 g

a Total Recycled

n 25,000

n Total Arising o

T 20,000 Total MSW 15,000 10,000 5,000 0 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-7 Year

Total household waste arisings (1995/96 - 1999/00)

35,000

30,000

25,000

s 20,000 Total Disposal e n

n Total Recycled o

T 15,000 Total Arising

10,000

5,000

0 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 Year

Waste policy mapping  Pre-2000 collection of residual waste by black sack, with opt-in paper recycling scheme.  2003-4 3-year roll out of alternate weekly collection for residual waste and dry recyclables. Trade waste permits are introduced at the HWRCs sites along with contracts with recycling targets.  2004 plastic bottles added to the kerbside collection 49 WR0121 – Defra Municipal Waste Growth Study: Addendum Draft - - October 2009  2005-6 all households covered by AWC service. Addition of cardboard and textiles to kerbside service.  Dec 2006- Feb 07 one-off green waste collection  2006 trade waste is collected separately from domestic waste (estimated in mixed loads prior to this). The “no side waste“ policy is enforced.  Introduction of recycling of paper and cardboard for commercial waste customers  2008-9 introduction of glass recycling for commercial waste customers Waste arisings observations  The total household waste arisings were declining before the introduction of the alternate weekly collection service in 2003-4. The introduction of this service may have stimulated an initial slight increase in total household waste arisings in 2004-5 perhaps due to the availability of a larger bin compared to the sack system. This effect is short lived and a steady decline in total household waste arisings follows.  The total household waste tonnages have declined from 37,914 tonnes in 32,197 tonnes in 2006-07  The quantities of kerbside recyclable wastes continued to rise even after the full implementation of the AWC system.  The introduction of permits are the HWRC causes a reduction in the amount of residual waste arising at the sites and the quantities of materials recycled at the sites rises in the following year.  The total quantities of waste recycled have increases from 4000 tonnes in 2000-01 to 12,000 tonnes in 2006-07.  The total MSW also declines over the period 2000-01 to 2006-07, from 41,876 tonnes in 2000-01 to 39,346 tonnes in 2006-07.

1.8.4 Summary of causal factors Key respondent considerations  The “no side waste” policy could not be enforced until plastic bottles and cardboard had been removed from the residual bins by recycling, due their bulky nature. The strict enforcement of the policy, with prosecutions and very distinctive warning leaflets may have contributed to the continued increase in kerbside recycling tonnages after the roll out of AWC had been fully implemented for over a year.  Information was designed to be as simple as possible, whilst keeping to a Recycle Now – type of appearance for consistency. The annual calendar has proved very popular and provides feedback through its questionnaire. Comments are acted upon.  The introduction of permits at the HWRCs helped to curtail the illegal disposal of commercial waste, as shown in the reduction in the residual waste tonnages at the sites.  Smaller caged vehicles used for the residual domestic collection in the rural parts of the borough are also used for the collection of recyclables, allowing this service to be offered to more isolated properties and farms.  As the recyclable materials are separated at source there had been no problems selling it to reprocessors.  HBC waste management staff have a good working relationship with the elected members and senior council executives who are supportive and well aware of the challenges that the team faces.  With such an urban area, with few gardens, there are limited opportunities to increase recycling rates by collecting green waste, compared to many parts of the country.

50 WR0121 – Defra Municipal Waste Growth Study: Addendum Draft - - October 2009  A LATS fee has been imposed on the collection authorities by LCC to pass on the cost of the commercial waste disposal to the customer, rather than be subsidized by LCC. This may result in commercial waste disappearing from MSW as operations become less cost effective.  The LCC HWRCs are being reviewed. This may result in a more consistent service across the county and the redevelopment of sites and introduction of new ones.  The regular review of HWRC contracts ensures that staff remain incentivized to increase recycling rates.  It is difficult to make any assumptions about waste arisings as contracts continually change and there are movements of waste from/to Schedule 2 waste as work moves from and to the private sector for large establishments e.g. hospitals, universities, prisons, which can have a significant impact on waste arisings.  Modelling of data with regards to demographics has been found to be very difficult. LCC have tried to consider population migration, number of new households etc. but found the accuracy of data to be questionable. It is difficult to make assumptions based on trends, with so many variables operating e.g. change in commercial waste contracts can have an impact on total MSW.  There is variation in how collection authorities report their waste arisings e.g. some report flytipping, others do not. Side waste may be classed as flytipping by some authorities moving the designation of the waste from household municipal waste to non-household municipal waste.  The quality of data is extremely important due to the impact of LATS. LCC has an extensive waste data management system which involves multiple in-built checks on data supplied by many sources including collection authorities by cross referencing with data received from weighbridges at waste disposal and treatment sites. Quarterly reported data is inaccurate until the final quarter when all receipts have been received and early over-reporting has been corrected.  LCC carry out regular waste composition analysis to monitor the change in waste as new recycling initiatives, composting and food waste collection have an impact. Key findings  The phased introduction of the AWC combined with a well planned and designed, easy to understand communications programme has led to sustained reduction in household waste arisings, with a continuing increase in the quantities of recyclable materials collected at the kerbside.  The “no side waste“ policy could not be enforced until recycling provision had been made for the most bulky wastes, cardboard and plastic bottles.  Enforcement of the side waste policy tends is effective, residents tend to exhibit improved behaviour after being exposed to the enforcement regime, though some individuals will not comply and result in the prosecution cases listed. Problem areas may need to be tackled repeatedly. The enforcement process is time consuming and requires the necessary resources to make it effective. Partnership working between different local authority and government agencies has been successful.

The table below illustrates a set of criteria against which we asked the Council to evaluate the level of enforcement imposed on the presentation of side waste:

51 WR0121 – Defra Municipal Waste Growth Study: Addendum Draft - - October 2009 2 Informal A ban on side is in place but not rigorously enforced. Publicising the policy enforcement is confined to resident information leaflets, the use of bin stickers alerting policy in the residents to the policy and waste collection operatives leaving waste in place situ. No penalty notices have been issued although cautions have been periodically been made. 3 Formal A ban on side waste is in place and legally enforced although some ‘top- enforcement hatting’ / ‘crocodile lids’ are allowed. The above measures are also adopted policy in (as in 2 above) and following a number of cautions the householder will be place issued with a fixed penalty notice. Evidence of a small number of such notices being issued. 4 Formal A ban on side waste is in place and legally enforced and ‘top-hatting’ / enforcement ‘crocodile lids’ is not allowed. The same cautionary procedures are adopted policy in as in 2 and 3 above, although there is evidence of a high number of Section place and 80 (accumulations of household refuse in back yards) and Section 46 rigorously (householder non-compliant with Council’s waste collection arrangements) enforced notices issued to non-compliant households. Enforcement is taken very seriously by the council.

The respondent at Hyndburn Borough Council classed their enforcement activity as ‘4 – Formal enforcement policy in place and rigorously enforced’ although he did point out that they do not religiously enforce a closed lid policy. The crews will however leave excess refuse sacks that are piled at the top or side of the bin. The only other issue of noteworthy attention is that the strict additional capacity policy has limited the number of properties that can officially have additional capacity. The respondent also stated that they are in the process of re-assessing every household that has been issued additional capacity or who has more than 1 bin on their property. Once re-assessed, and if approved, then the bins are colour coded so officers/crews know that this household is official and that any other property which has more than 1 bin and are not colour coded can be removed / not emptied.  Bring sites have been removed from use as they attracted high levels of flytipping.  Large electrical items and white good are intercepted in the bulky waste service and recycled through HUFS, who refurbish items where possible for reuse. Smaller consumer electrical items are not so easily recycled and there is not an easy route for intercepting this waste other than by WEE collection at the HWRCs.  Trade waste estimated until mid-2006, then collected separately.  Flytipped waste weights increased sharply when separate collections occurred. The weights have been estimated before this, as it was collected with the domestic waste stream.  Phased introduction of 3 stream recycling.  The Council was asked to complete a self assessment of the communications activity they undertake. This has been adapted from a paper entitled ‘Strategic Communication Audits’ (Julia Coffman, 2004) that aims to develop a better understanding of strategic communications audits and the main steps involved. The presents a scale (Practice Maturity Scale) which has been adapted for this project as detailed below.

Practice Definition Maturity Scale 1 Ad-hoc Communication is generally unplanned, reactive and disorganised. There is no overall responsibility for communication, no strategy and little or no budget to enable effective delivery. Projects may run over budget and over schedule. Poor quality of materials. 2 Emerging Some communication, but it may be sporadic and delivered only when 52 WR0121 – Defra Municipal Waste Growth Study: Addendum Draft - - October 2009 required. The importance of communication has been recognised, but strategy and processes are still embryonic. Some resources have been allocated for the production of essential materials. Responsibility for communication has been agreed. 3 Planned Communication activity is planned. Limited resources have been allocated for delivery. Responsibility has been assigned, but there is little or no measurement of performance. 4 Co-ordinated Delivery is regular and routine. A strategy has been developed to determine the best way for the organisation to communicate and responsibility for its implementation is defined. Resources are sufficient to cover the outputs recommended in the strategy. Materials are good quality, but have the potential to be more effective. There is some assessment of performance. 5 Evaluated There is commitment to the development and delivery of effective communication and is measuring its success in order to get a better understanding of how it can improve performance. Materials are well resourced delivered proficiently. 6 Optimised Effective communication is seen as vital and is integrated into all systems and processes. The link between the organisation’s strategic objectives and effective communications is clear, delivery purposeful and proactive and the resources allocated reflect this. Strategy, delivery and support are reviewed and enhanced using formal frameworks such as scrutiny, best value, continuous improvement and quality management systems.

The respondent from Hyndburn Borough Council classified their communications activities as being in excess of 4 (co-ordinated) in some areas around 5 (Evaluated) because they are measuring the effectiveness through resident surveys / focus groups. However, when considering their communications activities across the spectrum of waste services then the respondent suggested they would be more likely to be classified as 6 – optimised.  Hyndburn has the lowest collected household waste per head of population in the country.

Year 2003-4 2004-5 2005-6 2006-7 2007-8

kg/person 346 339 323 302 293

Demographics

 The number of households is increasing whilst the average size of households is decreasing.  The population is 82,000 in 36,319 households (2008-09).

53 WR0121 – Defra Municipal Waste Growth Study: Addendum Draft - - October 2009  New build has continued at a fairly steady rate. This may increase due to the Elevate regeneration programme to improve the housing stock of the area and replace some of the many dwellings that are unfit for use.

2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07

1. Household numbers (000s) 34 35 35 36 36 36 36.2 2. Average persons / household 2.37 2.36 2.34 2.33 2.32 2.3 5. Net inflow 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6. Total population (000s) 81.5 81.5 81.9 82 82.2 82.2 82 7. Number of new-build properties 178 143 164 169 170 259 140

54 WR0121 – Defra Municipal Waste Growth Study: Addendum Draft - - October 2009 1.9 Case study 9: Mole Valley District Council

1.9.1 Local authority profile Mole Valley District Council is a Collection Authority, which serves a resident population of 80,500. There are 34,000 households in the district, of which 77.1% are owner occupied. The average HH size is 2.33 people. The main towns in Mole Valley include Leatherhead, Fetcham, Bookham, Ashtead and Dorking. New build properties are on the increase in the district. Mole Valley is principally a rural district covering 258 square kilometres. The largest ethnic group is ‘White’ accounting for 97.4% of the population in the District.

1.9.2 Waste collection arrangements Present at meeting: Adam Read from AEA met with Steve Strickland, Waste & Recycling Manager. In 2005-06 an alternate weekly refuse and recycling collection scheme was rolled out to the whole district. Two wheeled bins were provided to the residents, with residual waste being collected one week in the black bin and the next week recyclables collected in the green bin. In 2004-05 a trial of this scheme had been rolled out to 18% of the district – which was a success. Pre 2004-05 all residents received a weekly black plastic bag residual collection and 90% of residents received a fortnightly recycling collection. Pre 2004-05 the materials that could be recycled included news and pams and cans, this was extended in 2005-06 to include paper and cardboard, plastics, glass bottles and jars (glass was added in January 2008). Pre 2002 the District Council was recycling 15% and they set a target to recycle 42% by 2009. From the AWC trials in 2004, the modelled performance suggested that a recycling rate of 36% would be achieved. Therefore in 2005 the District Council put a ‘no-side waste’ policy in place with a 100% of households (except for those with young children or medical concerns). With no limitation to the amount of recyclables that would be collected. This was intended to exceed the 36% level. In 2006/07 they introduced a chargeable garden waste collection (was £24 per year and is now £28 per year) and there are approx. 10,000 properties on the system. This has increased the tonnage of materials being collected in total by the District Council. A food waste trial between 2007-09 has proved to be successful with 50% diversion being achieved at the kerbside, however a lack of Council budget means that this is going to be put on hold until 2012 when the new contract starts. The food waste trial was held in one crew area only to improve the quality of the data collected. They found the overall tonnage of material stayed the same, but the amount going into the residual bin decreased significantly (15% swing on average). The District Council has 19 bring sites (possibly one site less now than in 1995) and have increased the mix of material at all sites (textiles, tetrapak, shoes etc). The Council charges for its bulky household waste collection.

55 WR0121 – Defra Municipal Waste Growth Study: Addendum Draft - - October 2009 1.9.3 Summary of waste trends

Household waste arisings

55,000 50,000 Trial AWC introduced 45,000 TOTAL DISPOSAL 40,000 TOTAL RECYCLED 35,000 TOTAL ARISING s

e 30,000 AWC rolled out n to whole District n

o 25,000 T 20,000 Charged garden waste collection 15,000 introduced 10,000 5,000 0 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 Year

Non-household waste and MSW arisings 55,000 50,000 45,000

40,000 New trade 35,000 waste

s calculation Introduction of AWC and e 30,000 introduced wheeled bin scheme & n TOTAL DISPOSAL stop in trade waste n TOTAL RECYCLED

o 25,000 scheme T 20,000 TOTAL ARISING TOTAL MSW 15,000 10,000 5,000 0 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 Year

Waste policy mapping  In 2004/05 an AWC trial of two 240litre wheeled bins, one for refuse collection and one for co-mingled recycling was put in place. The trial covered 18% of 56 WR0121 – Defra Municipal Waste Growth Study: Addendum Draft - - October 2009 households. In 2005/06 the scheme was extended out to all properties in the District including flats. Households of 4 persons or less were issued with 240 litre bins and households of 5 or above could apply for a second refuse bin. Extra recycling bins were provided to anyone household that wanted one.

1.9.4 Summary of factors Waste Data Recording  In 2003/04 Surrey CC introduced a new formula for accounting for trade waste in household collections, which caused a big jump in arisings – from 200 tpa to 4,000 tpa.  In 2005/06 the new AWC and wheel bin scheme, as well as a stop in the trade waste scheme meant a big drop in this type of arisings (4000 tpa to only 1,600 tpa).  Historically some trade waste was being collected with MSW, which was not fully understood but in 2005/06 the true level became evident (due to use of wheel bins and sale of trade collections).  Mole Valley has 2002 composition data and Surrey CC have data from 2008.

Waste Data at County  During the AWC and food waste trials the WDA (Surrey CC) did not record any changes in waste arisings at CA sites.

Waste Prevention  In 2002/03 the District Council sold low cost (subsidised) compost bins and since 2006 the home compost scheme has been supported by WRAP.  Since 2007/08 the District Council has sold subsidised green cones at £10 per bin – they have sold 1,900 of their 2,000 available units.

Communication  Waste communications activity whilst rolling out the AWC and food waste trial scheme included:  Personalised leaflets (staged attack).  Community road shows to explain changes.  Strong focus on schools – increased recycling services in schools (at cost), which is well below the cost of a commercial trade waste collection – 90% take-up!  There is no hard-line enforcement (no fines) but they do leave contaminated bins as a ‘message’.

The Council was also asked to complete a self assessment of the communications activity they undertake. This has been adapted from a paper entitled ‘Strategic Communication Audits’ (Julia Coffman, 2004) that aims to develop a better understanding of strategic communications audits and the main steps involved. The presents a scale (Practice Maturity Scale) which has been adapted for this project as detailed below.

57 WR0121 – Defra Municipal Waste Growth Study: Addendum Draft - - October 2009 Practice Definition Maturity Scale 1 Ad-hoc Communication is generally unplanned, reactive and disorganised. There is no overall responsibility for communication, no strategy and little or no budget to enable effective delivery. Projects may run over budget and over schedule. Poor quality of materials. 2 Emerging Some communication, but it may be sporadic and delivered only when required. The importance of communication has been recognised, but strategy and processes are still embryonic. Some resources have been allocated for the production of essential materials. Responsibility for communication has been agreed. 3 Planned Communication activity is planned. Limited resources have been allocated for delivery. Responsibility has been assigned, but there is little or no measurement of performance. 4 Co-ordinated Delivery is regular and routine. A strategy has been developed to determine the best way for the organisation to communicate and responsibility for its implementation is defined. Resources are sufficient to cover the outputs recommended in the strategy. Materials are good quality, but have the potential to be more effective. There is some assessment of performance. 5 Evaluated There is commitment to the development and delivery of effective communication and is measuring its success in order to get a better understanding of how it can improve performance. Materials are well resourced delivered proficiently. 6 Optimised Effective communication is seen as vital and is integrated into all systems and processes. The link between the organisation’s strategic objectives and effective communications is clear, delivery purposeful and proactive and the resources allocated reflect this. Strategy, delivery and support are reviewed and enhanced using formal frameworks such as scrutiny, best value, continuous improvement and quality management systems.

The respondent classified their communications activities as ‘4 – Co-ordinated’.

The table below illustrates a set of criteria against which we asked the Council to evaluate the level of enforcement imposed on the presentation of side waste:

Scale Nature of activity 1 No level of No enforcement policies (either formal or informal) in place. Residents enforcement are free to leave material next to waste receptacles so long as contained or bagged and not construed as being fly-tipped or littering. 2 Informal A ban on side is in place but not rigorously enforced. Publicising the enforcement policy is confined to resident information leaflets, the use of bin stickers policy in alerting the residents to the policy and waste collection operatives place leaving waste in situ. No penalty notices have been issued although cautions have been periodically been made. 3 Formal A ban on side waste is in place and legally enforced although some ‘top- enforcement hatting’ / ‘crocodile lids’ are allowed. The above measures are also policy in adopted (as in 2 above) and following a number of cautions the place householder will be issued with a fixed penalty notice. Evidence of a small number of such notices being issued. 4 Formal A ban on side waste is in place and legally enforced and ‘top-hatting’ / enforcement ‘crocodile lids’ is not allowed. The same cautionary procedures are 58 WR0121 – Defra Municipal Waste Growth Study: Addendum Draft - - October 2009 policy in adopted as in 2 and 3 above, although there is evidence of a high place and number of Section 80 (accumulations of household refuse in back yards) rigorously and Section 46 (householder non-compliant with Council’s waste enforced collection arrangements) notices issued to non-compliant households. Enforcement is taken very seriously by the council. The respondent classified their enforcement activities as ‘3 – Formal enforcement policy in place’.

Demographics  A large amount of elderly people living in the District (very high levels of +75s).  Emphasis has been on simplicity and coverage at the kerbside.

2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08

Household numbers 33 34 34 34 34 34 36 36 (000s) Average 2.39 2.38 2.37 2.36 2.35 2.33 2.25 2.24 persons/household Total population 78.9 80.3 80.1 80.5 80.5 80.5 81.1 80.5 Number of new-build 106 184 223 126 169 237 475 n/a properties

Looking ahead  Residual tonnages will decrease (AWC and recycling).  Garden waste will increase – more customers.

59 WR0121 – Defra Municipal Waste Growth Study: Addendum Draft - - October 2009 1.10 Case study 10: Milton Keynes Council

1.10.1 Local authority profile Milton Keynes is a unitary authority serving a resident population of 228,400, covering an area of 76,297 acres. The number of households in the borough was 98,106 in 2008, the majority (74%) of which are owner occupied. There is a projected rise in Milton Keynes population to 266,930 by 2015. The Office for National Statistics estimates 16.3% of the population in 2005 was from black and minority ethnic groups. Milton Keynes is still expanding with people generally moving there for work (not to retire) and as such it is a vibrant area with people having disposable income that can lead to higher than average waste production.

1.10.2 Waste collection arrangements Present at meeting: Adam Read from AEA met with two representatives from Milton Keynes Council waste department: Gill King, Waste Strategy Officer and Chris Harbutle, Waste Information Officer. Householders are offered a refuse bag residual waste collection, a weekly boundary recycling service and a chargeable fortnightly garden waste collection from March through to November. There are two container types for collecting recyclable materials, a pink sack and a blue box. In the pink sack residents should place their paper and cardboard, cans, plastic bottles and foil – these are sorted at the local MRF. The blue box is for glass bottles and jars. A green garden waste bin is provided to all of the residents who want to participate in the charged service. No new customers are being accepted in early 2009 for this chargeable service, because a new food and garden waste service will be rolled out across the borough in two phases for all residents by the end of the summer of 2009. They sell home composting units with free delivery to residents to encourage composting at home – these are at a reduced rate. Recycling is complemented through a network of 11 bring sites and three household waste recycling centres (HWRCs). Trade waste is also accepted at all three HWRCs. In 2005-06 the Council introduced a recycling incentive scheme for operatives at the HWRCs to increase the percentage of materials recycled. For households the Council operates a continuous communication campaign to promote recycling, however in 2006-07 the intensity of the communication campaign was increased. The communication campaign does not involve door knocking. The council also offers a weekly cash incentive where by two households picked at random can win £100 if they are recycling correctly. In 2005-06 the Council introduced a separate food waste collection into 1% of households – this was part of a trial scheme. Bulky waste collections are free in an attempt to offset fly tip clean-up costs. However, they have introduced a £30 (now £40) cost if you want a fixed item such as a whole bathroom suite or kitchen cabinets removed (this is for trade customers really). Summary of waste trends There has been a general increase of waste arisings over the period (from 95,000 tpa to 120,000 tpa). There has also been a significant increase in recycling tonnage over this period (12,000 tpa to 42,000 tpa).

60 WR0121 – Defra Municipal Waste Growth Study: Addendum Draft - - October 2009 Household waste arisings

140,000

120,000 TOTAL DISPOSAL 100,000 TOTAL RECYCLED

s TOTAL ARISING

e 80,000 n n

o 60,000 T

40,000

20,000

0 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 Year

Non-household waste and MSW arisings

160,000

140,000

120,000

s 100,000 TOTAL DISPOSAL e

n TOTAL RECYCLED 80,000 n TOTAL ARISING o

T 60,000 TOTAL MSW 40,000

20,000

0 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 Year

MSW arisings have increased over the period.

Waste policy mapping  No wheeled bins have been introduced for residual waste collections.  In 2002/03 the kerbside recycling collection scheme changed from alternate to weekly but since then there have been no major changes to the basic waste infrastructure or service delivery that are likely to have impacted upon waste growth.  In 2003/04 a chargeable (£10 per household per year) fortnightly scheme was introduced between March and November. This scheme covered 22% of households. In 2004/05 the charge increased to £12 and the percentage of households on the scheme increased

61 WR0121 – Defra Municipal Waste Growth Study: Addendum Draft - - October 2009 to 25%. In 2005/06 the price increased to £13 with 30% of households on scheme and in 2006/07 the price increased to £15 with 31% of households on the scheme.  In 2005/06 there was the introduction of food waste collection to 1% of households.  In 2005/06 there was the introduction of a recycling incentive scheme for operators at HWRCs.  In 2004/05 a charge was introduced for the collection of bulky wastes.  In 2005/06 there was a major promotion of reusable nappies that included cash back, which was taken up by only 130 residents.

1.10.3 Summary of causal factors Key findings  MSW growth has exceeded household growth.  In 2008 they are predicting a decrease in total MSW, even though the number of households continues to grow.  135,000 tpa of MSW will drop to 130,000 (2008 predictions), which the Council has put down to the economic downturn. This is the first time the Council has seen a reduction in total tonnage.  CA sites have seen a decrease in hardcore (less DIY).  Charity shops are busy – people looking for bargains.  Population increase is slowing and waste production per head / household is now declining. Latest statistics show that total household arisings fell by 3.56% in 2007/08.

Waste data reporting  Milton Keynes has improved their data collection to meet reporting needs.  Discrepancies have been found in the last 6 months regarding how their two contractors are reporting the data, WRG for the disposal contract and Cory for the collection and transfer contract. The discrepancies are from data classification errors where the drivers of vehicles are not correctly describing the waste they are carrying, so flytipping, street cleansing and some trade are all being declared as “dayworks” to WRG. Cory in their internal reports is then logging them differently.  The Council is also investigating whether Cory have been putting trade waste into the general refuse lorries over the last 2 years, which would effect waste tonnages.  There is a difficulty in classifying the type of material that is collected, because many of the Council’s vehicles have a number of purposes depending on the day of the week (i.e. fly tipping, bulky, street sweepings).  An example being that in one year bulky waste decreased from 400tpa to only 100tpa, yet in the following year it went up to 600tpa. This difference in tonnages is due to which vehicles are collecting this material and what it is classified as.  Another example of changing waste classification is hardcore that was going to make roads on landfill sites and was classified as reuse, however as WasteDataFlow would not allow this classification it was changed to landfilled material, however it is back to being called material diverted from landfill  As the Council try to improve the quality of data they are identifying gaps.  MKC recommend that we use total MSW as the key indicator, as this will allow for discrepancies in categorisation.

Economic/Retailer Impact

62 WR0121 – Defra Municipal Waste Growth Study: Addendum Draft - - October 2009  In 2006 MSW growth was significant and this has been attributed to the IKEA affect – a number of large retail stores opened in MKC and people were able to completely redecorate their house for a smaller than normal budget – led to lots of furniture / equipment being thrown out.

Leaky Boundaries  Milton Keynes Council is a net importer of waste. MKC does not have restrictions on usage like a number of neighbouring counties. Bedfordshire County Council limited trade vehicle usage in 2005 and Buckinghamshire County Council and Northamptonshire County Council have also experimented with restrictions – this has led to material flowing into MKC (affects data).

CA site operator incentive scheme  This scheme was started in about 2006. Targeting wood and hardcore materials. The figures / tonnage shot up as the operator was encouraged to segregate this material, however much of this is believed to be from ‘trade’ with the operators more interested in the money than the good practice.  CA sites are paid a re-use incentive for the number of items (different classes depending on size) that are re-used – avoids weighing everything and lengthy paperwork. However, this is not an easily recordable measurable.  CA sites are considered the operational weakness, being addressed in current contract design & procurement.

Garden waste  MKC has had a garden waste collection for along time, so there will be no impact on the data in question. In other authorities (and when the scheme was set up in MKC) the system would have brought new material to the system and therefore an increase in tonnage.

Changing outlets  In 2007 the wood waste outlet was closed by the Environment Agency, which took treated wood from MKC. However, the new outlet that MKC used did not take treated wood, leading to a drop overnight in the waste recycled from 6,000tpa to 3,000tpa.

Weather  If it is a dry summer then green waste tonnage drops off (less growth).  As green waste is a significant percentage of total MSW it has a big impact.  In wet years tonnage goes up. However, if it is too wet (this year) then gardeners can’t get out doing the pruning etc. so it waits until March (2009) and so the tonnage moves year. The Council was also asked to complete a self assessment of the communications activity they undertake. This has been adapted from a paper entitled ‘Strategic Communication Audits’ (Julia Coffman, 2004) that aims to develop a better understanding of strategic communications audits and the main steps involved. The presents a scale (Practice Maturity Scale) which has been adapted for this project as detailed below.

63 WR0121 – Defra Municipal Waste Growth Study: Addendum Draft - - October 2009 Practice Definition Maturity Scale 1 Ad-hoc Communication is generally unplanned, reactive and disorganised. There is no overall responsibility for communication, no strategy and little or no budget to enable effective delivery. Projects may run over budget and over schedule. Poor quality of materials. 2 Emerging Some communication, but it may be sporadic and delivered only when required. The importance of communication has been recognised, but strategy and processes are still embryonic. Some resources have been allocated for the production of essential materials. Responsibility for communication has been agreed. 3 Planned Communication activity is planned. Limited resources have been allocated for delivery. Responsibility has been assigned, but there is little or no measurement of performance. 4 Co-ordinated Delivery is regular and routine. A strategy has been developed to determine the best way for the organisation to communicate and responsibility for its implementation is defined. Resources are sufficient to cover the outputs recommended in the strategy. Materials are good quality, but have the potential to be more effective. There is some assessment of performance. 5 Evaluated There is commitment to the development and delivery of effective communication and is measuring its success in order to get a better understanding of how it can improve performance. Materials are well resourced delivered proficiently. 6 Optimised Effective communication is seen as vital and is integrated into all systems and processes. The link between the organisation’s strategic objectives and effective communications is clear, delivery purposeful and proactive and the resources allocated reflect this. Strategy, delivery and support are reviewed and enhanced using formal frameworks such as scrutiny, best value, continuous improvement and quality management systems.

The respondent classified their communications activities as ‘4 – Co-ordinated’. The table below illustrates a set of criteria against which we asked the Council to evaluate the level of enforcement imposed on the presentation of side waste:

Scale Nature of activity 1 No level of No enforcement policies (either formal or informal) in place. Residents are enforcement free to leave material next to waste receptacles so long as contained or bagged and not construed as being fly-tipped or littering. 2 Informal A ban on side is in place but not rigorously enforced. Publicising the policy enforcement is confined to resident information leaflets, the use of bin stickers alerting policy in the residents to the policy and waste collection operatives leaving waste in place situ. No penalty notices have been issued although cautions have been periodically been made. 3 Formal A ban on side waste is in place and legally enforced although some ‘top- enforcement hatting’ / ‘crocodile lids’ are allowed. The above measures are also policy in adopted (as in 2 above) and following a number of cautions the 64 WR0121 – Defra Municipal Waste Growth Study: Addendum Draft - - October 2009 place householder will be issued with a fixed penalty notice. Evidence of a small number of such notices being issued. 4 Formal A ban on side waste is in place and legally enforced and ‘top-hatting’ / enforcement ‘crocodile lids’ is not allowed. The same cautionary procedures are policy in adopted as in 2 and 3 above, although there is evidence of a high number place and of Section 80 (accumulations of household refuse in back yards) and rigorously Section 46 (householder non-compliant with Council’s waste collection enforced arrangements) notices issued to non-compliant households. Enforcement is taken very seriously by the council. The respondent classified their enforcement activities as ‘1 – No level of enforcement’. Demographics  It is estimated that the population in Milton Keynes will increase by 38,000 by 2015.

2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 Household numbers ~82 88 89 90 91 93 95 97 (000s) Average 2.49 2.48 2.47 2.47 2.46 2.44 2.34 2.32 persons/household Total population 204,180 211,017 213,247 215,180 217,042 219,709 223,072 224,880 Number of new-build n/a n/a 1,331 1,096 1,086 1,425 2,142 n/a properties

Other Thoughts  Would be interesting to see how different ACORN groups change their waste production during the credit crunch.  The food waste scheme was altered in April 2008 so that the area of the trial that was recycling food waste only was converted to food and garden waste combined. This will have increased the average weights collected.

65 WR0121 – Defra Municipal Waste Growth Study: Addendum Draft - - October 2009 1.11 Case Study 11: Basildon District Council

1.11.1 Local authority profile Basildon District Council is a Collection Authority that serves a resident population of 165,668. The largest resident populations are predominantly in the three main towns of Billericay, Basildon and Wickford. Basildon has the highest population in Essex and covers some 42.5 square miles. There are 72,192 houses in the District, of which 12,120 are owned by the Council and 7,793 Registered Social Landlords. This makes Basildon District Council one of the largest housing authorities in England, outside major cities. Ethnic minority groups account for 3.1% of the population.

1.11.2 Waste collection arrangements Present at meeting: Andy Maunder from AEA met with: Stuart Noyce, Refuse and Recycling Manager; and James Hendry, Waste Management Officer. Residents are provided with a weekly, black sack collection for residual waste; a fortnightly, pink sack recycling service for dry recyclables and a box for glass; and a fortnightly 240litre green bin for garden waste. Since 2003/04 the council has provided a free bulky waste collection service for up to five items at any one time. Uptake is high with some 30,000 items collected a year. The Council has provided free home composting bins to over 100 residents in 2005/06 and a further 1,263 WRAP subsidised bins were purchased the following year. Communications and promotional initiatives have included door knocking low recycling performing estates and districts, participation monitoring and in 06/07 the introduction of Section 46 EPA enforcement to 1,100 properties. A fixed penalty notice of £75 was introduced for persistent offenders and recycling tonnages showed a small increase. The council provides a trade waste collection to just over a quarter of Basildon’s commercial and industrial businesses (857 of the 3,379). This is co-mingled with the household waste collection service so calculations for the trade waste element are based upon prescribed formulae relating to sizes of bin and collection frequency. A recycling collection for commercial glass has also recently been introduced. Basildon is part of the Essex Waste Partnership that is in the process of procuring a long-term waste management contract. The service will include a (kitchen caddy) food waste collection, co- mingled with garden waste, for processing by an anaerobic digestion facility.

66 WR0121 – Defra Municipal Waste Growth Study: Addendum Draft - - October 2009 1.11.3 Summary of waste trends

Household waste arisings

100,000

90,000

80,000

70,000

s 60,000

e TOTAL DISPOSAL In 2003/04, 2004/05, 2005/06, 2006/07 the n 50,000 TOTAL RECYCLED

n District extended the mixed dry recyclable

o scheme TOTAL ARISING

T 40,000

30,000

20,000 Glass introduced to recycling scheme 10,000

0 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 Year

Non-household waste and MSW arisings

100,000

90,000

80,000

70,000 TOTAL DISPOSAL 60,000 TOTAL ARISING s

e TOTAL MSW n 50,000 n o

T 40,000

30,000

20,000

10,000

0 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 Year

Waste policy mapping  In 2000/01 the District introduced an opt-in clear sack scheme for garden waste for 33% of households. In 2001/02 this was followed up with a trial of wheeled bins for garden 67 WR0121 – Defra Municipal Waste Growth Study: Addendum Draft - - October 2009 waste for a route with 1530 households. In 2002/03 the opt-in garden waste collection scheme was offered to 45,000 properties. The following year there was a change from clear bags to biodegradable cornstarch bags. In 2006/07 the District trialled a wheeled bin garden waste collection scheme in an area that had not received garden waste collections previously. There were 12,000 (17%) households trialled on this scheme.  2003/04 – a mixed material recycling trial was introduced to 12,000 (17%) households. Half the households in the trial area were provided with bags and the other half were given boxes. This was an extension to the kerbside paper collection scheme that already existed. In 2004/05 the bag scheme for dry recyclables was extended to 60% of households. In addition a kerbside glass collection was introduced to 14,000 houses using a 55 litre container. In 2005/06 the scheme was expanded to 80% of households for both dry recyclables and glass. In 2006/07 the amount of plastic collected was increased by introducing a new estate onto the scheme, which increased the coverage of the scheme to 92%.  2003/04 - Charges of £6 for special collections (5 bulky items) suspended.  2005/06 - Three bring sites closed due to low usage.  2005/06 – 1000+ free home composting units distributed in 05/06 and in 2006/07 an additional 1263 were delivered and purchased.  In 2004/05 door knocking was carried out for one low performing estate – 933 households. In 2005/06 there was participation monitoring in Northlands Park, which is a low performing area of the district. In 2006/07 three low performing areas were targeted prior to introduction of Section 46 EPA enforcement in one of the areas.  In 2006/07 Section 46 of EPA was enforced, 1100 properties. This resulted in recycling tonnages increased by 5 tonnes on average.  In 2006/07 fines were introduced for incorrect use of refuse/recycling sacks, a fixed penalty notice of £75 for persistent offenders.  2008/09 - The Council has determined that residents do not want any form of Alternate Week Collection (AWC) service in future waste management service provision.

Waste arisings observations  Overall household waste arisings have remained reasonably constant at around 90,000 tonnes p.a.  Expansion of the dry recyclables service has resulted in increased collection tonnages and a corresponding fall in waste for disposal.  Since April 2002 garden waste collections have remained remarkably constant at around 4,500 tonnes p.a. despite several different collection receptacles being trialled.

1.11.4 Summary of factors The Council was also asked to complete a self assessment of the communications activity they undertake. This has been adapted from a paper entitled ‘Strategic Communication Audits’ (Julia Coffman, 2004) that aims to develop a better understanding of strategic communications audits and the main steps involved. The presents a scale (Practice Maturity Scale) which has been adapted for this project as detailed below.

68 WR0121 – Defra Municipal Waste Growth Study: Addendum Draft - - October 2009 Practice Definition Maturity Scale 1 Ad-hoc Communication is generally unplanned, reactive and disorganised. There is no overall responsibility for communication, no strategy and little or no budget to enable effective delivery. Projects may run over budget and over schedule. Poor quality of materials. 2 Emerging Some communication, but it may be sporadic and delivered only when required. The importance of communication has been recognised, but strategy and processes are still embryonic. Some resources have been allocated for the production of essential materials. Responsibility for communication has been agreed. 3 Planned Communication activity is planned. Limited resources have been allocated for delivery. Responsibility has been assigned, but there is little or no measurement of performance. 4 Co-ordinated Delivery is regular and routine. A strategy has been developed to determine the best way for the organisation to communicate and responsibility for its implementation is defined. Resources are sufficient to cover the outputs recommended in the strategy. Materials are good quality, but have the potential to be more effective. There is some assessment of performance. 5 Evaluated There is commitment to the development and delivery of effective communication and is measuring its success in order to get a better understanding of how it can improve performance. Materials are well resourced delivered proficiently. 6 Optimised Effective communication is seen as vital and is integrated into all systems and processes. The link between the organisation’s strategic objectives and effective communications is clear, delivery purposeful and proactive and the resources allocated reflect this. Strategy, delivery and support are reviewed and enhanced using formal frameworks such as scrutiny, best value, continuous improvement and quality management systems.

The respondent classified their communications activities as ‘4/5 – Co-ordinated/ Evaluated’ The table below illustrates a set of criteria against which we asked the Council to evaluate the level of enforcement imposed on the presentation of side waste:

69 WR0121 – Defra Municipal Waste Growth Study: Addendum Draft - - October 2009 policy in adopted as in 2 and 3 above, although there is evidence of a high place and number of Section 80 (accumulations of household refuse in back yards) rigorously and Section 46 (householder non-compliant with Council’s waste enforced collection arrangements) notices issued to non-compliant households. Enforcement is taken very seriously by the council. The respondent classified their enforcement activities as ‘1 – No level of enforcement’. The Council currently has a 'collect all that is put out' policy across the district, as long as it is put out on the correct day at the correct collection point. However, they have introduced Section 46 enforcement in two areas, with populations of roughly 1000.

Demographics  Household numbers are increasing while household sizes are decreasing:

2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08

Household 68 69 70 71 71 73 73 73.5 numbers (000s) Average 2.39 2.38 2.37 2.36 2.35 2.30 2.29 2.29 persons/household Total population 164.9 165.9 166.7 166.6 167.3 168 167 168.6

Waste Trend  Overall household waste arisings have remained relatively stable with increases in recycling accounting for corresponding reductions in waste for disposal.  Modest growth in household numbers and total population has not manifested itself in a corresponding increase in waste arisings indicating the waste produced per household and per capita is gradually falling.

Data Reporting  Commercial waste tonnage data is incomplete prior to 2006/07; although tonnages are low, so they do not significantly affect overall MSW arisings.

70 WR0121 – Defra Municipal Waste Growth Study: Addendum Draft - - October 2009 1.12 Case study 12: Gateshead Metropolitan Borough Council

1.12.1 Local authority profile Gateshead is a unitary authority, covering 14,360 hectares (55 square miles), with over half the area being rural. The urban areas of Gateshead, Felling, Dunston, Blaydon and the rural settlements of Whickham and Ryton. The population of 190,500 residents (mid year 2007), is mainly white (98.4%) and lives in 91,500 households of, which 66.1% are owner occupied. The average household size is 2.1 persons. The population is relatively stable. The area has suffered from the decline of traditional industries. Nearly half the population lives in the top 20% most deprived area in England, making Gateshead the 26th most deprived local authority out of 354 in England. There is a growing population of older people. There is a small, but growing population of black Asian and minority ethnic communities and a large Orthodox Jewish community representing 2.6% of the population. Gateshead is a major retail centre for the north, with the Metro Centre and also has the Team Valley Trading Estate, one of the largest purpose-built commercial estates. Gateshead is redeveloping into a focus for arts and culture through the development of the Gateshead Quays cultural quarter with the Baltic Centre for Contemporary Art and the Sage Gateshead, a centre for music and the performing arts. It is predicted that there will be a net increase in the number of new homes being constructed per year until at least 2015-16.

1.12.2 Waste collection arrangements Present at meeting: 2 representatives of the waste department, including the senior waste and contracts manager. Residual waste is collected on a weekly basis in 240l wheeled bins. A “no side waste” policy operates, which is waived over the Xmas period. Larger households (6+) are eligible for a 360l bin. Enforcement of the side waste policy is used if persuasion and communications are unable to encourage recycling and compliance. If side waste is left out in the street, the rubbish is searched to establish where it came from (name and address). A letter is sent inviting the resident to come in for an interview to explain, if they cannot give a justified reason a fixed penalty notice of £50 is issued. A total of 98 fixed penalty notices have been issued over since 2006. The fortnightly Kerb-It recycling service comprises a 55 litre black box for glass, paper and cans. Side waste is accepted, if segregated. There is 100% coverage of all non-high rise homes. High rise blocks are provided with recycling collection points either at the main entrances or in the bin store alongside the general rubbish bins. The free Green-it garden waste collection in green 240 litre bins operates to 60-65% of households. This occurs fortnightly at the same time as the Kerb it collection, reducing to monthly collections in winter. Home composting bins are sold at the standard WRAP rates (100-300 per year) - 9-10,000 were sold in a major initiative in 1998 in one month. Compost bins were subsidized until March 2007. Xmas cards are collected for recycling at council offices and libraries; 40 x 55l boxes of cards were collected for the Woodland Trust in 2007.There is no local real nappy scheme. The recycling service is extended by 35-40 bring sites that are slowly increasing in number. Plastic bottle banks were introduced at 18 sites in February 2008. The bring sites are complimented by 42 on-street recycling bins. Gateshead has 2 HWRC sites; one is at Blaydon and a second is situated in Sunderland at Campground in Wrekenton. This site is shared with Sunderland Council. Wastes arising and recyclables are divided 30% Sunderland: 70% Gateshead according to results of 2 surveys of postcodes of users. There is a “no trade waste” policy, with permits required for vans, pickups 71 WR0121 – Defra Municipal Waste Growth Study: Addendum Draft - - October 2009 and trailers. Large vans / lorries over 5 metres in length, agricultural vehicles and trailers greater than 3 metres in height are not permitted for H&S reasons. SITA have the contract to operate the HWRCs and also the waste disposal contract. The HWRCS are only closed on Xmas Day, and are open 8am-5pm (winter) and 8am-8pm (summer). Bulky waste is collected for a £5 charge for up to 8 items. Larger items e.g. dismantled shed, fencing and rubble will be removed after a visit by an officer to give a quote for the removal. Gateshead MBC are trying to work with a local furniture reuse organisation (Renew) who refurbish white goods, by delivering up to 300 units per year. Renew also collect from the HWRCs. Bulky waste is also diverted to Foundation Furniture who supply reusable furniture to those on low incomes. Construction and demolition waste was removed from the non-household figures in 2003-4 following consultation with Defra, resulting in the reduction of approx, 75,000t of waste, as discussed later in this document. The trade waste service was sold in 2005 following a best value review in 2000, reducing MSW by 5-10,000 tonnes. Gateshead uses a standard weight for bins from mixed hereditament, and calculates the weight of household waste. This was reviewed 3-4 years ago. Since 2006, the council has developed a communications plan, prior to that this communications and awareness raising was ad hoc. The most cheap and effective measure has been the use of stickers on bins to remind householders not to put items in the bin, but to recycle them. This increased kerbside participation by 10-15% 2-3 years ago. Radio advertising has been found to be expensive with no obvious benefit. Up to date recycling performance figures are listed on the council website. The waste team has a regular feature in the Council newsletter for all residents, and also a free calendar. Periodic emails about recycling are sent out to all council staff (10,500 employees, of which up to 70% are on email). This happens 2-3 times year e.g. for recycling week, Xmas etc while presentations are given to community groups and schools.

1.12.3 Summary of waste trends

Introduction of control measures Household waste arisings (Waste permit system) at HWRCs and enhanced recycling and composting performance (including 120000 the introduction of Green-it collection scheme). 100000

HWRC /Bring organics 80000 HWRC/ Bring dry recyclables a p

Kerbside collected green waste /

e 60000 Kerbside collected dry recyclables n

n HWRC waste (Disposal) o T 40000 Other household sources* Regular household collection

20000

0 2000- 2001- 2002- 2003- 2004- 2005- 2006- 2007- 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 Year

72 WR0121 – Defra Municipal Waste Growth Study: Addendum Draft - - October 2009 Total non-household and MSW arisings

250000 Removal of construction and demolition waste from the 200000 MSW

a 150000 Total disposal p

/ Total recycled s e

n Total arisings n o

T 100000 Total MSW

50000

0 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 Year

Total household waste arisings (1995/96 - 1999/00)

80000 70000 60000 Total Disposal

s 50000

e Total Recycled n 40000 n

o Total Arisings

T 30000 Total MSW 20000 10000 0 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 Year

73 WR0121 – Defra Municipal Waste Growth Study: Addendum Draft - - October 2009 Total non-household and MSW arisings

200000 180000 160000 140000

a Total disposal p

120000 / Total recycled s

e 100000

n Total arisings n 80000 o

T Total MSW 60000 40000 20000 0 1995/96 1996/97 1997/98 1998/99 1999/00 Year

Waste policy mapping  1996 introduction of 240 litre wheeled bins, with a “no side waste policy”.  1998 major initiative to sell home composting bins amounts to sales of 9-10,000 units.  2004-5 introduction of fortnightly Kerb-it recycling collection using a 55 litre box for paper, cans, glass with 100% coverage to all non-high rise households.  2003-04 removal of construction and demolition wastes from total MSW following consultation with Defra.  2005 introduction of free Green-it kerbside collection of green waste to 60-65% of households.  2005 sale of trade waste service reducing total MSW by 5-10,000tonnes per annum.  2005 introduction of permit scheme at HWRCs introduced, resulting in an immediate reduction in waste arisings by up to 8000 tonnes.  2006 development of Communications Plan for the waste service.  2007 end of provision of subsidized compost bins.  2007 provision of recycling facilities at 34 high rise blocks.  2007 collection of Xmas cards for Woodland Trust at council buildings.  2007 introduction of fee for bulky waste collection service.  2008 installation of 42 on-street recycling bins.

Waste arisings observations  The historic waste data showing the total waste arisings increasing steadily to approximately 70,000 tonnes in 1999-00.  Since 2005-06 the total household waste arisings have stabilised at approximately 100,000 tonnes. Previous to this the arisings were showing a steady increase.  The reduction in household waste going for disposal mirrors the increase in the dry recyclables and green waste collected at the kerbside and HWRCs. The impact of the introduction of the Kerb-it and Green-it schemes are clearly visible in the waste returns. 74 WR0121 – Defra Municipal Waste Growth Study: Addendum Draft - - October 2009  The introduction of the HWRC permit scheme resulted in a drop in residual waste of 8000 tonnes in 2004-05 which has been maintained.  The removal of construction and demolition waste from the MSW in 2003-4 lead to a dramatic reduction in the total MSW of approximately 75,000 tonnes.  The sale of the trade waste service in 2002 following a Best Value review in 2000, led to a reduction in waste arisings of approximately 8 -10,000 tonnes.  The introduction of the Green-it scheme has reduced the quantities of green waste collected at the HWRCs.

1.12.4 Summary of factors Key respondent considerations  Future plans to continue waste reduction and less waste going to landfill, include the provision of a third wheeled bin for dry recyclables. The introduction of alternate weekly collections may also be considered in the future. At the present time there is no intention to collect food waste, though this will be reviewed against performance in recycling targets.  The introduction of waste recycling facilities at high rise blocks was done with full consultation of residents regarding location etc, and has resulted in very little vandalism.  There is confidence in the waste data from 1996 to 2000.

Key findings  The introduction of the Green-it scheme has reduced the use of the HWRCs for green waste as the public use the home collection service  The introduction of the permit scheme at HWRCs has reduced the levels of trade waste being disposed of illegally at these sites. This waste may be travelling across the authority boundary to Sunderland and Tyneside where a permit scheme does not exist. There has not been an increase in the levels of trade waste collection by the private waste sector.  The commercial waste service used to receive 60-65% of all commercial and industrial waste for the area. It was sold off to Biffa in 2005, and this led to a reduction in MSW of 5-10,000 tonnes.  Removal of C&D waste from non-household MSW statistics gives an apparent steep decline in total MSW.  The introduction of charging for the bulky waste collection led to a reduction in the number of jobs logged (from 100,000 to 25,000) however the quantity of waste has remained about the same, with more waste per collection, an average of 40-60 kg. Collections take longer to do and the number carried out per day has reduced from 45 to 40.  Communications are now according to a delivery plan rather than on an ad hoc basis. The Council was also asked to complete a self assessment of the communications activity they undertake. This has been adapted from a paper entitled ‘Strategic Communication Audits’ (Julia Coffman, 2004) that aims to develop a better understanding of strategic communications audits and the main steps involved. The presents a scale (Practice Maturity Scale) which has been adapted for this project as detailed below.

75 WR0121 – Defra Municipal Waste Growth Study: Addendum Draft - - October 2009 Practice Definition Maturity Scale 1 Ad-hoc Communication is generally unplanned, reactive and disorganised. There is no overall responsibility for communication, no strategy and little or no budget to enable effective delivery. Projects may run over budget and over schedule. Poor quality of materials. 2 Emerging Some communication, but it may be sporadic and delivered only when required. The importance of communication has been recognised, but strategy and processes are still embryonic. Some resources have been allocated for the production of essential materials. Responsibility for communication has been agreed. 3 Planned Communication activity is planned. Limited resources have been allocated for delivery. Responsibility has been assigned, but there is little or no measurement of performance. 4 Co-ordinated Delivery is regular and routine. A strategy has been developed to determine the best way for the organisation to communicate and responsibility for its implementation is defined. Resources are sufficient to cover the outputs recommended in the strategy. Materials are good quality, but have the potential to be more effective. There is some assessment of performance. 5 Evaluated There is commitment to the development and delivery of effective communication and is measuring its success in order to get a better understanding of how it can improve performance. Materials are well resourced delivered proficiently. 6 Optimised Effective communication is seen as vital and is integrated into all systems and processes. The link between the organisation’s strategic objectives and effective communications is clear, delivery purposeful and proactive and the resources allocated reflect this. Strategy, delivery and support are reviewed and enhanced using formal frameworks such as scrutiny, best value, continuous improvement and quality management systems.

The respondent classified their communications activities as ‘3 – Planned’.  Gateshead used to include construction and demolition waste produced by the DSO in the MSW figures (approx 70,000 t/yr). Following receipt of clarification from Defra, this waste is no longer included, giving huge reductions in total waste arisings in 2003-4. This was because it was directly related to labour organisation operations.  The light weighting of packaging has reduced the weight of dry recyclables.  The staff are keen to increase the levels of waste recycled in the district in the most practical manner. As 5% of the population lives in high rise blocks, recycling facilities have been provided at 34 of the high rise blocks. On-street recycling bins have also been introduced. The table below illustrates a set of criteria against which we asked the Council to evaluate the level of enforcement imposed on the presentation of side waste:

76 WR0121 – Defra Municipal Waste Growth Study: Addendum Draft - - October 2009 Scale Nature of activity 1 No level of No enforcement policies (either formal or informal) in place. Residents are enforcement free to leave material next to waste receptacles so long as contained or bagged and not construed as being fly-tipped or littering. 2 Informal A ban on side is in place but not rigorously enforced. Publicising the policy enforcement is confined to resident information leaflets, the use of bin stickers alerting policy in the residents to the policy and waste collection operatives leaving waste in place situ. No penalty notices have been issued although cautions have been periodically been made. 3 Formal A ban on side waste is in place and legally enforced although some ‘top- enforcement hatting’ / ‘crocodile lids’ are allowed. The above measures are also adopted policy in (as in 2 above) and following a number of cautions the householder will be place issued with a fixed penalty notice. Evidence of a small number of such notices being issued. 4 Formal A ban on side waste is in place and legally enforced and ‘top-hatting’ / enforcement ‘crocodile lids’ is not allowed. The same cautionary procedures are adopted policy in as in 2 and 3 above, although there is evidence of a high number of Section place and 80 (accumulations of household refuse in back yards) and Section 46 rigorously (householder non-compliant with Council’s waste collection arrangements) enforced notices issued to non-compliant households. Enforcement is taken very seriously by the council.

The respondent classified their enforcement activities as ‘3 – Formal enforcement policy in place’.

The total household waste (kg) per head of population are listed in the table below:

Year 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08

kg/head (BVPI 84) 535.7 534.9 541.62 531.64 540.11 525.79 521.4 514.4

Demographics  Household numbers are increasing (190,500 2007-8) whilst the size of households is declining.  There is an annual net increase in the number of new properties built each year, after taking into consideration those lost through demolition.  There has been a net outflow of population 2006-07 of 0.3%

2000- 2001- 2002- 2003- 2004- 2005- 2006- 01 02 03 04 05 06 07

1. Household numbers (000s) 84 84 85 85 85 86 91 2. Average persons / household 2.34 2.32 2.31 2.30 2.29 2.26 2.1 6. Total population (000s) 191.2 190.9 190.7 190.4 190.4 190.5 Number of properties for social housing 34 12 79 59 89 36 59 Net new build * 378 146 578 832 412 337 472

77 WR0121 – Defra Municipal Waste Growth Study: Addendum Draft - - October 2009 1.13 Case study 13: Wakefield Council

1.13.1 Local authority profile Wakefield Council is a Unitary Authority that covers some 350 square kilometres and is home to 321,000 people in a diverse range of city, urban and rural communities, in an amalgam of what were previously 14 different local authorities. There are approximately 145,000 households with an average household size of 2.31 persons. The northwest includes Horbury, Ossett, Wrenthorpe, Stanley and Altofts, while Normanton, Castleford, Pontefract, Knottingley, Featherstone and a host of smaller settlements make up the five towns. In the southeast, there are the towns of Hemsworth, South Kirkby and South Elmsall as well as other communities. Some 70% of the rural communities of the district are designated as green belt. The district has emerged from over a century of reliance on coal mining to become a thriving manufacturing, shopping and distribution centre, taking full advantage of its place at the heart of the region's transport network.

1.13.2 Waste collection arrangements Present at meeting: Andy Maunder from AEA met with: Jay Smith, Waste Minimisation and Recycling Officer; Glynn Humphries, Waste Services Manger; Steve Sharp, Data Performance Analysis; Claire Hawxwell, Waste Services Finance Manager; and John Lawson, Household Waste Recycling Centre Manager. Wakefield is in the process of procuring a new long-term waste management contract. The waste management officers have therefore invested significant time and effort into investigations of historic waste trends given the importance of waste growth to future infrastructure capacity requirements. This has included detailed examination of collection round data for individual material streams and, for example, the consideration of the impacts of weather (temperature and rainfall) on green waste arisings. In terms of service provision Wakefield residents have been provided with a 240litre residual waste bin since 1994 and from 2002/03 a kerbside recycling bin and separate garden waste bin were gradually introduced. In November 2007 a swift, four-phased roll out of a switch to an Alternate Week Collection service was initiated. The trade waste collection service accounts for about 12-15% of the total MSW airings and a paper recycling service has recently been introduced to a small number of businesses. The commercial waste collected is kept separate from domestic waste. Multi-occupancy dwellings are typically serviced by Eurobin facilities and seven HWRCs are available to Wakefield residents only (following domestic permitting arrangements put in place in 2003).

78 WR0121 – Defra Municipal Waste Growth Study: Addendum Draft - - October 2009 1.13.3 Summary of waste trends

Household waste arisings

Introduction of AWC 200,000 11 month trial 180,000

160,000

140,000

s 120,000 TOTAL DISPOSAL e

n 100,000 Domestic permitting TOTAL RECYCLED n introduced at HWRCs o Introduction of dry TOTAL ARISING

T 80,000 recyclable and green 60,000 waste collections schemes 40,000

20,000

0 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 Year

Non-household waste and MSW arisings

220,000 200,000 180,000 160,000 TOTAL DISPOSAL 140,000 TOTAL RECYCLED s

e 120,000 TOTAL ARISING n

n TOTAL MSW 100,000 o

T 80,000 60,000 40,000 20,000 0 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 Year

Waste policy mapping  In 2002/03 the Council provided 24,000 (43.5%) of properties with 240litre wheeled bins for paper and card on a monthly collection, 24,000 properties with 55 litre box and 12,000 properties were supplied with a plastic sack both of which were collected fortnightly.

79 WR0121 – Defra Municipal Waste Growth Study: Addendum Draft - - October 2009  In 2004/05 60,000 properties were provided with a 140 litre bin for paper and card on a monthly collection. The 12, 000 households that were using a plastic sack for paper recycling had their sack replaced by this new bin.  In 2002/03 36,000 properties were supplied with a 240 litre bin for garden waste only. This was a non-chargeable service and the bins were collected fortnightly in the spring, summer and autumn and 6 weekly in the winter. Average participation was 80% in summer and 25% in winter.  In 2006/07 12,000 properties were supplied with a chipped 240 litre bin for garden waste only.  In 2005/06 an additional 5 bring sites in Wakefield and a further 5 sites in 2006/07.  In 2006/07 a chargeable service was introduced for bulky waste after the first three collections, which are free. Compositing units sold at cost from 2002/03, with around 20,000 distributed to date.  In 2005/06, 3 doorsteppers visited 30,000 properties that resulted in recycling rates increasing by an average of 10%.  2007/08 – Introduction of the AWC service from Nov 07 over the next 11 months.

Waste arisings observations  The Council Officers have been maintaining and analysing detailed records of waste management performance for a number of years. An example of performance assessment against monthly targets is shown below for total household waste tonnages.

 The most significant change to waste management service provision in Wakefield in recent years (the change to AWC) has only been in operation since Nov 07 and was phased in over 11 months. Initial assessment suggests an appreciable increase in recycling participation and capture rate, a ~13% fall in waste to landfill and a 3% reduction in overall tonnages. The Council was also asked to complete a self assessment of the communications activity they undertake. This has been adapted from a paper entitled ‘Strategic Communication Audits’ (Julia Coffman, 2004) that aims to develop a better understanding of strategic communications audits and the main steps involved. The presents a scale (Practice Maturity Scale) which has been adapted for this project as detailed below.

80 WR0121 – Defra Municipal Waste Growth Study: Addendum Draft - - October 2009 Practice Definition Maturity Scale 1 Ad-hoc Communication is generally unplanned, reactive and disorganised. There is no overall responsibility for communication, no strategy and little or no budget to enable effective delivery. Projects may run over budget and over schedule. Poor quality of materials. 2 Emerging Some communication, but it may be sporadic and delivered only when required. The importance of communication has been recognised, but strategy and processes are still embryonic. Some resources have been allocated for the production of essential materials. Responsibility for communication has been agreed. 3 Planned Communication activity is planned. Limited resources have been allocated for delivery. Responsibility has been assigned, but there is little or no measurement of performance. 4 Co-ordinated Delivery is regular and routine. A strategy has been developed to determine the best way for the organisation to communicate and responsibility for its implementation is defined. Resources are sufficient to cover the outputs recommended in the strategy. Materials are good quality, but have the potential to be more effective. There is some assessment of performance. 5 Evaluated There is commitment to the development and delivery of effective communication and is measuring its success in order to get a better understanding of how it can improve performance. Materials are well resourced delivered proficiently. 6 Optimised Effective communication is seen as vital and is integrated into all systems and processes. The link between the organisation’s strategic objectives and effective communications is clear, delivery purposeful and proactive and the resources allocated reflect this. Strategy, delivery and support are reviewed and enhanced using formal frameworks such as scrutiny, best value, continuous improvement and quality management systems.

The respondent classified their communications activities between 5 Evaluated and 6 Optimised The table below illustrates a set of criteria against which we asked the Council to evaluate the level of enforcement imposed on the presentation of side waste:

Scale Nature of activity 1 No level of No enforcement policies (either formal or informal) in place. Residents are enforcement free to leave material next to waste receptacles so long as contained or bagged and not construed as being fly-tipped or littering. 2 Informal A ban on side is in place but not rigorously enforced. Publicising the policy enforcement is confined to resident information leaflets, the use of bin stickers alerting policy in the residents to the policy and waste collection operatives leaving waste in place situ. No penalty notices have been issued although cautions have been periodically been made. 3 Formal A ban on side waste is in place and legally enforced although some ‘top- enforcement hatting’ / ‘crocodile lids’ are allowed. The above measures are also adopted policy in (as in 2 above) and following a number of cautions the householder will be place issued with a fixed penalty notice. Evidence of a small number of such notices being issued. 4 Formal A ban on side waste is in place and legally enforced and ‘top-hatting’ / enforcement ‘crocodile lids’ is not allowed. The same cautionary procedures are adopted policy in as in 2 and 3 above, although there is evidence of a high number of Section place and 80 (accumulations of household refuse in back yards) and Section 46 81 WR0121 – Defra Municipal Waste Growth Study: Addendum Draft - - October 2009 rigorously (householder non-compliant with Council’s waste collection arrangements) enforced notices issued to non-compliant households. Enforcement is taken very seriously by the council.

The respondent classified their enforcement activities as ‘3 – Formal enforcement policy in place’.

1.13.4 Summary of factors Demographics In general household numbers are increasing while household sizes are decreasing as illustrated in the Table below. However there is also recent anecdotal evidence to suggest that some smaller (e.g. 2 bedroom) properties, e.g. flats, are becoming increasingly populated by larger, economic migrant, families. The Regional Spatial Strategy forecast 1,600 new build properties in 08/09 but this figure will need to be downgraded significantly as a result of the current economic climate.

2000- 2001- 2002- 2003- 2004- 2005- 2006- 2007- 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 Household 131 132 134 135 136 139 142 144 numbers (000s) Average 2.38 2.36 2.35 2.34 2.34 2.31 2.25 2.22 persons/household Total population 311.8 315.4 316.8 318.3 319.4 320.3 321.2 321.2 Number of new- 1097 1283 1136 972 1024 1020 1208 n/a build properties

Reductions in Waste  Domestic permitting arrangements at HWRCs were introduced in 2003 and reduced the throughput at those sites, demonstrating the historic use of those facilities by non- Wakefield residents.  Impacts of the recently introduced AWC are currently being recorded but initial evidence suggests it may have helped reduce overall household waste, as illustrated in the graph below.

82 WR0121 – Defra Municipal Waste Growth Study: Addendum Draft - - October 2009 Household Waste - Average Kg per Household per Collection 2008/9 - All NWC Depots

25.0

20.0 Household Waste

15.0

g Target - 19 kg K 10.0 Overall Average 5.0 17.7 kg

0.0 April May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Month 2008 / 2009

Increases in Waste  Primary factors for increases in waste arisings have been the increasing population and number of households and also the expansion of the green waste collection service.

Data Reporting  Confidence in the data is good and regular analysis is conducted to assess performance of the current infrastructure and service.  For example, investigations of potential impacts of weather (temperature and rainfall) on green waste arisings have been conducted, as shown in the following graph.

Garden Waste and Climate - 2004 Onwards

35 0

0 30 1

e g

a 25 TEMP n n

o RAINFALL T

20 /

m TONNES x 100 c

l l 15 a f n i a

R 10

p 5 m e T

83 WR0121 – Defra Municipal Waste Growth Study: Addendum Draft - - October 2009 1.14 Case study 14: Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council

1.14.1 Local authority profile Sandwell MBC has a population of around 287,500 (2007 mid year estimate) and just over 121,000 households (with 5,000 vacant dwellings). This comprises six main population centres however a quarter of the population lives in West Bromwich. It is an area of high deprivation, ranking 14th highest out of 354 English districts in the 2007 Index of Multiple Deprivation, with a number of regeneration initiatives underway. Owner occupied housing is around 60%. Sandwell has a high urban density and is often compared demographically to some of the English northern authorities and inner London Borough Councils. There has been a steady annual increase in the proportion of the population that is of Black and Minority Ethnic origin from 20.4% in 2001/02 to 22.6% in 2006/07. Politically Sandwell MBC is a Labour controlled council (surrounded by a multitude of Conservative authorities).

1.14.2 Waste collection arrangements Present at meeting: Andy Maunder from AEA met with Julia Bridgett, Waste Disposal Manager; Mark Gidden, Waste Performance Officer; Alex Hawley, Research & Information Manager, Jason Copp, Senior Research Officer. Sandwell is one of the few remaining authorities in the UK that still operates a ‘back door dustbin collection service’ for 90litre bins. A kerbside recycling service (sack collection of paper, cans and textiles) was introduced to the area in the 1990s through the involvement of the community group Community Recycling Venture – a company limited by guarantee. CRV currently services some 68,000 properties (20,000 still using a sack but the other 48,000 use a box). In 2003/04 Defra funding assisted in the role out of a 55litre box for paper, glass and cans to around 22,000 properties. The kerbside recycling service has more recently expanded to include two collection rounds (~15,000 properties) using a 240litre blue bin accepting five materials. Current kerbside recycling service is therefore available to some 105,000 properties. A free green garden waste kerbside collection was introduced to 30,000 properties, covering the six major urban centres, in 2005/06. This fortnightly 240litre bin collection was then expanded to a further 70,000 properties in 2007/08. There are four collection rounds servicing ~3,000 commercial contracts, that operate in isolation of the household waste service, which collect a total of ~13,000 tonnes of residual C&I trade waste. However this figure includes an estimated ~1,500 tonnes of schools waste which is then accounted for in the household waste data. Sandwell is in the process of procuring a new 25 year integrated waste & cleansing services contract (to begin in 2010). The future service will include a separate food waste collection (allowing continued use of open windrow composting for separate green waste collection) and energy recovery from residual waste through a partnership agreement with Staffordshire’s EfW PFI contract.

84 WR0121 – Defra Municipal Waste Growth Study: Addendum Draft - - October 2009 1.14.3 Summary of waste trends

Household waste arisings

140,000

120,000

100,000

Strict new trade waste policy s 80,000 TOTAL DISPOSAL e introduced at HWRCs

n TOTAL RECYCLED n

o 60,000 Garden waste service TOTAL ARISING T expanded 40,000 Introduction of garden waste collections 20,000

0 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 Year

Non-household waste and MSW arisings

160,000

140,000 TOTAL DISPOSAL 120,000 Strict non-trade waste policy TOTAL RECYCLED implemented s 100,000 TOTAL ARISING e

n TOTAL MSW

n 80,000 o T 60,000

40,000

20,000

0 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 Year

85 WR0121 – Defra Municipal Waste Growth Study: Addendum Draft - - October 2009 Waste policy mapping  2004/05 - Recycling incentives trialled including ‘lottery style’ prize draw.  2005/06 - Strict non-trade waste policies implemented under the new HWRC contract (with ECT Recycling; now May Gurney) as well as the introduction of a booking system for vans / cars with trailers.  2005/06 - Charging was brought in for bulky waste collections.  2005/06 - A fortnightly 240litre bin for garden waste (only) introduced to 30,000 properties.  2006/07 - By the end of 2006 over 7,000 new compost bins had been distributed compared to 400 the previous year.  2006/07 - Promotional campaigns supporting Real Nappy use instigated.  2007/08 - The fortnightly garden waste collection was expanded to a further 70,000 properties.  2008/09 - Recently commissioned (MORI) surveys have shown residents’ preferred kerbside waste collection service should involve a maximum of 3 receptacles.  2008/09 - The Council has determined that residents do not want any form of Alternate Week Collection (AWC) service or ‘chipped’ bins in future waste management service provision.  2008/09 – introduction of a trial collection service of co-mingled recyclables on a fortnightly basis from 15,000 households

Waste arisings observations  Sandwell shows a general decline in MSW arisings with a small increase in 2007/08 when the kerbside green waste service was expanded to the majority of households.  Current modelling assumptions by consultants from SLR for Sandwell of 1.13% waste growth appear to be overstated in light of waste trend data and will need revisiting.

1.14.4 Summary of factors

Reductions in Waste  Major decrease in HWRC tonnage in 2005/06 and subsequent years due to the effect of strict non-trade waste policies under the new HWRC contract as well as the introduction of a booking system for vans and cars with trailers: o 2004/05 HWRC throughput was ~42,500 tonnes (site was built in 1984 for 18,000 tonnes p.a. capacity!) and the recycling rate was only 10-13% o 2007/08 HWRC throughput now ~21,500 tonnes with ~50% recycling o Dec 06 MEL compositional analysis report supplied. o 50% recycling  Over 2,200 tonnes of bulky waste was collected in 2004/05. Charging was brought in for bulky waste collections in 2005/06 and tonnages fell to 1,449 tonnes and in 2006/07 only 788 tonnes was collected.  WRAP Home composting bin campaign initiated Jan 06; over 7,000 new bins distributed compared to ~400 in 2005. (Data provided)

Increases in Waste  The provision of a fortnightly 240litre bin for garden waste (only) to 30,000 properties in 2005/06 increased the garden waste tonnage to 5,132 compared to 1,164 the previous year (when only a small number of garden waste collections were made through a free bagged collection service). 86 WR0121 – Defra Municipal Waste Growth Study: Addendum Draft - - October 2009  In 2007/08 the fortnightly garden waste collection was expanded to a further 70,000 properties creating a further rise in reported waste arisings. The Council was also asked to complete a self assessment of the communications activity they undertake. This has been adapted from a paper entitled ‘Strategic Communication Audits’ (Julia Coffman, 2004) that aims to develop a better understanding of strategic communications audits and the main steps involved. The presents a scale (Practice Maturity Scale) which has been adapted for this project as detailed below.

Scale Nature of activity 1 No level of No enforcement policies (either formal or informal) in place. Residents are enforcement free to leave material next to waste receptacles so long as contained or bagged and not construed as being fly-tipped or littering. 2 Informal A ban on side is in place but not rigorously enforced. Publicising the policy enforcement is confined to resident information leaflets, the use of bin stickers alerting policy in the residents to the policy and waste collection operatives leaving waste in place situ. No penalty notices have been issued although cautions have been periodically been made. 3 Formal A ban on side waste is in place and legally enforced although some ‘top- enforcement hatting’ / ‘crocodile lids’ are allowed. The above measures are also adopted policy in (as in 2 above) and following a number of cautions the householder will be 87 WR0121 – Defra Municipal Waste Growth Study: Addendum Draft - - October 2009 place issued with a fixed penalty notice. Evidence of a small number of such notices being issued. 4 Formal A ban on side waste is in place and legally enforced and ‘top-hatting’ / enforcement ‘crocodile lids’ is not allowed. The same cautionary procedures are adopted policy in as in 2 and 3 above, although there is evidence of a high number of Section place and 80 (accumulations of household refuse in back yards) and Section 46 rigorously (householder non-compliant with Council’s waste collection arrangements) enforced notices issued to non-compliant households. Enforcement is taken very seriously by the council.

The respondent classified their enforcement activities as ‘1 – No level of enforcement’. SMBC currently operates a collection service for residual waste via backdoor dustbin collections and we have a 'clear all' policy. The current local political climate is not conducive to introducing enforcement.

Demographics  Household numbers are increasing while household sizes are decreasing:

2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08

Household numbers 118,334 117,001 117,904 118,545 119,512 120,619 121,253 Average 2.41 2.44 2.42 2.42 2.40 2.38 2.37 persons/household Total population 284,600 285,000 285,700 286,400 287,100 287,600 287,500 Number of new-build 465 528 891 863 909 864 n/a properties

88 WR0121 – Defra Municipal Waste Growth Study: Addendum Draft - - October 2009 1.15 Case study 15: London Borough of Sutton

1.15.1 Local authority profile The London Borough of Sutton is a Unitary Authority that serves a resident population of some 184,400 (2006). The Borough occupies a total land area of 4,385 hectares. Within Sutton itself there are sharp contrasts, with the affluent areas in the south of the borough (Sutton and Cheam) and amongst the most deprived in London in the north in areas such as Rosehill and St. Helier. The resident population of the Borough is projected to increase by 3,256 (1.8%) over the next 10 years. There were 79,175 households living with the Borough in 2006, with an expected increase to 87,412 by 2016, which represents an increase of 6.6% over the 10-year period. The average household size is estimated to be 2.29 persons in 2006, with a predicted decrease in the next 10- years to 2.19 persons per household by 2016. Approximately 55,430 (72.6% of the Borough’s households are owner occupied, 11,682 (15.3%) households live in the social rented sector and 9,247 (12.1%) live in private rented accommodation. An increasing number of people are living in flats. The Borough is expecting ethnic minorities to grow from 11% in 2008 to 20% by 2020.

1.15.2 Waste collection arrangements

Present at meeting: Adam Read from AEA met with two representatives from the waste department: Matt Clubb, Head of Waste Management and Fleet Services; and Penny Spirling, Recycling Manager. The Council offers a weekly 140-litre brown-wheeled bin service for the collection of household residual waste, a fortnightly green-wheeled (140l or 240l) bin collection for recyclables and a free fortnightly collection service for green waste from April to December. The Council provides a chargeable bulky waste collection service and, since 2008, has had a ‘no side waste’ policy. In the green wheeled bin households can recycle all paper, cardboard, cans and plastic bottles. All houses and some flats also receive a fortnightly kerbside glass bottle and jar recycling collection. Residents can recycle brown, green and clear glass bottles and jars in the special plastic blue bins, which are supplied free of charge to each household. Garden waste collection can be placed into two reusable (120 litre) sacks and residents can also purchase extra biodegradable sacks (non-returnable) if required for £1 each. WRAP has helped support the Council to provide free home composting units to all households. For more then one home composting unit the household is required to pay the subsidised price on £17 for 220 litre bin or £20 for 330 litre bin. Kitchen caddies are also available at £4 each for storing vegetable waste before taking to your composter. In support of the kerbside schemes the Council also has one HWRC (re-use and recycling centre) and 38 bring sites. The HWRC accepts fridges and freezers free of charge, which are removed from the site by ARC Croydon (a local charity) and this tonnage does not show on the data. Since 2006 trade waste has not been accepted at the site. A change of contractor at the site in 2009 has increased the recycling rate dramatically from around 30% to over 70%, Changes to opening hours may come later with the site reopening on Mondays, which has not happened for the last 7 years. The site was closed on Mondays to save money and also to allow maintenance to the previous site when operational changes from using compactors to tipping on the floor were introduced.

89 WR0121 – Defra Municipal Waste Growth Study: Addendum Draft - - October 2009 1.15.3 Summary of waste trends

Household waste arisings

100,000

90,000

80,000

70,000

60,000 s TOTAL DISPOSAL e n 50,000 TOTAL RECYCLED n o

T 40,000 TOTAL ARISING

30,000

20,000

10,000

0 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 Year

Waste arisings have remained stable over the period in question, although since 2005/06 there has been a noticeable drop (over 5,000 tpa).

Non household waste and MSW arisings

120,000

100,000

80,000 TOTAL DISPOSAL s e TOTAL RECYCLED n 60,000 n

o TOTAL ARISING T TOTAL MSW 40,000

20,000

0 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 Year

Waste policy mapping 90 WR0121 – Defra Municipal Waste Growth Study: Addendum Draft - - October 2009  Wheeled bins were introduced across the borough from 1997 to 2000 for the collection of residual waste. Originally this was an alternate weekly collection, but it reverted to weekly waste and fortnightly recycling in January 2001 because of residents’ dislike of the new frequency and a problem with contamination of the green recycling bin by residents disposing of their food waste along with their dry recyclables.  All households going onto wheeled bins were offered a free home composter from 1997- 2001.  In 2003/04 textiles were excluded from the green wheeled bin because they were getting too wet from the remains of liquids in plastic bottles that were among the dry recyclables. All 64,000 households were covered by this textile and shoe ban.  In 1997/8 a kerbside garden waste collection was introduced to replace occasional skip service for garden and bulky household waste. The service is offered to all households with gardens and also to some flats where residents have individual gardens. Free unlimited reusable sacks (120 litres each) were provided. In June to September 2008 the borough experimented with a charged service but residents did not like it and following consultation in September the service reverted from April 2009 to being a free service, but with households limited to 2 x reusable (120 litre) sacks and able to purchase extra biodegradable sacks (non-returnable).  In 2006/07 Sutton was part of a three-borough WRAP trial for food waste. Sutton Borough made the collections for Sutton, Merton and Croydon. The trial was for a total of 7,000 households with Sutton collecting food waste from 2,500 households. WRAP provided the bins and caddies. The Sutton trial is continuing. A report can be found at http://www.wrap.org.uk/local_authorities/research_guidance/food_waste/lb_sutton.html  In 2006/07 a new re-use and recycled centre opened with an emphasis on greater recycling.  In 2006/07 a programme of bank recycling was introduced for blocks of flats.  In 2000/01 bulky waste was collected free of charge for up to three items. This changed in 2002/03 with a charge being introduced of £10 for up to three items. In 2007/08 individual changes were introduced for bulky waste collections, with prices ranging from £4 to £20 per item.  In 2007/08 a cash back scheme was introduced for using reusable nappies.  In 2006/7 Sutton took part in Defra’s Household Incentive project, which involved door knocking in the central Sutton ward (approx 2000 households). Volunteers were used to spread the recycling message.  In 2002/03 a 3-year communications project was started using an external PR company. The aim was to raise awareness to recycling and waste reduction, which involved visits to schools, leaflets, press releases and outdoor events.  In 2006/07 the borough worked more closely with local furniture and electrical re-use charities: The Vine Project and The Arc, Croydon.

Waste arisings observations  The data shows that total waste arisings have been fairly consistent throughout 2000/01- 2005/06, with a reduction in waste being seen in 2006/07 and latest data shows a fall of 4.84% in total waste arisings for 2007/08. This reduction could be a result of a number of initiatives put in place by the Council: Food waste trial New re-use and recycling centre Bank recycling for flats The household incentive project

91 WR0121 – Defra Municipal Waste Growth Study: Addendum Draft - - October 2009 Stopping trade waste at CA sites  It is also considered that the fall in waste tonnage over the last 12 months could be linked to the economic climate.  Residual waste at the CA site is 11% down on this time last year (wheel bin MSW is down by 7%).  Garden waste at kerbside down by 60% (some to CA site and some to home composting).

1.15.4 Summary of factors Waste Data  The accuracy of waste tonnage data pre 2000 is questionable.

The Council was also asked to complete a self assessment of the communications activity they undertake. This has been adapted from a paper entitled ‘Strategic Communication Audits’ (Julia Coffman, 2004) that aims to develop a better understanding of strategic communications audits and the main steps involved. This presents a scale (Practice Maturity Scale) which has been adapted for this project as detailed below.

The respondent classified their communications activities as ‘6 – Optimised’. This categorisation would be true for the last year or two. For a couple of years, 2006-8 the Council felt they did not have an effective communications plan and prior to 2006, from 2003- 2006 they had an external provider for a three year contract in place.

92 WR0121 – Defra Municipal Waste Growth Study: Addendum Draft - - October 2009 The table below illustrates a set of criteria against which we asked the Council to evaluate the level of enforcement imposed on the presentation of side waste:

The respondent classified their enforcement activities as ‘2 – Informal enforcement’.

Demographics  The population is expected to increase in the Borough by 1.8% by 2016, with a 6.6% growth in household numbers, which will result in an increase in waste arisings for the Borough.  An increasing number of people are going to be living in flats has the potential to impact on waste arisings.  Ethnic minorities are expected to grow from 11% in 2008 to 20% by 2020 has the potential to impact on waste arisings and waste composition.

2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08

Household 75 76 77 78 78 79 78 79 numbers (000s) Average 2.39 2.38 2.37 2.36 2.35 2.34 2.36 2.34 persons/household Total population 179.3 181.5 181.8 182 181.9 183.1 184.4 184.4 Number of new- 441 191 372 273 670 400 455 n/a build properties

Communications / PR  From 2003 to 2006 there was a large-scale communications programme, which did have an impact but not really a significant tonnage difference seen. 93 WR0121 – Defra Municipal Waste Growth Study: Addendum Draft - - October 2009  However it was seen as important to raise public awareness.  The communication programme was delivered in parallel with the wider GLA communications campaign, to hopefully reinforce the message.  Money has been spent on communications when rolling out AWC and food waste trial schemes. This included personalized leaflets (staged attack) and community road shows to explain changes. A strong focus was on schools, with increased recycling services provided in schools (at cost), which are below the cost of a commercial trade waste collection – 90% take up.

South London Waste Partnership  Residual waste contract starts in September 2009 (CA site contract in Feb 2009).  Overall waste tonnage in SLWP has been stable in last 12 months.  Introducing a permit scheme across the 4 boroughs with consistent opening times. Waste Prevention  Delivered 14,000 home compost units (free until end of March 2009). Looking ahead  Residual tonnages will decrease (stronger policies and enforcement).  Garden waste will increase – free bags all over again!

94 WR0121 – Defra Municipal Waste Growth Study: Addendum Draft - - October 2009 1.16 Case study 16: Birmingham City Council

1.16.1 Local authority profile Birmingham City Council is a Unitary Authority that serves a floating resident population of approx 1million (from 900,000 one year to 1.1 million the next). The number of households in Birmingham is currently 421,000 (an average of 2.36 persons per household), with 65,000 new households planned for development in Birmingham over the next 10 years. The total land coverage for Birmingham according to the latest census in 2001 is 267.8km2. The latest census recorded that 26.9% of the City’s population were from an ethnic group other than white, compared with 9.1% for England as a whole. The ‘white’ households are thought to be shrinking in terms of their average persons per household, whilst Asian households are growing (extended families etc). Birmingham is expected to have a white minority by 2019, which will impact the waste production and composition. In the next five years there is expected to be a shift in the type of housing tenure to more flats. It is estimated that there is currently 60,000 to 80,000 flats in Birmingham, however a significant number are empty because of the current economic climate.

1.16.2 Waste collection arrangements Present at meeting: Adam Read from AEA met with two representatives from the Birmingham City Council waste department: Stuart Lattimer, Waste Management Contracts Manager and Phil Brook, Waste Minimisation Officer. Household waste collection services comprises of a weekly black plastic sack residual waste collection, a fortnightly co-mingled dry recycling collection in a green plastic box, a fortnightly paper, card and junk mail only collection in a blue plastic box and a fortnightly garden waste collection using green plastic sacks. The dry recycling service covered 90% of households in 2007/08, with this increasing to 95% this year as they expand into flats. The recycling level has increased as the service has been rolled out since 2006 up from 18% to just over 30% this year. The garden waste collection covers 100% of households with gardens. Subsidised home composting units were distributed to 8,000 units in 2006/07, with only 3,000 being distributed in 2007/08 – a reflection of the increased cost of the units since WRAP stopped funding them (2007/08). Recycling is complemented by the materials collected at the five household recycling centres (HRCs) in Birmingham, which are tasked with diverting a minimum of 55% of the materials from the sites. This has involved more staff on site, more monitoring of usage, and re-organisation of sites to make dropping of materials easier. The reported satisfaction levels are 90% A food waste collection scheme is being trialled at schools, but is not yet being considered for households because of the costs of implementing and operating this service. Birmingham City Council does not operate a ‘side waste’ policy as all residual waste is collected in sacks. However, in an attempt to restrict the number of sacks used the Council since 2006 is only delivering a roll of 26 sacks every 6 months. It is possible though for residents to purchases additional sacks at a low price if they require more. The waste minimisation schemes that are in place include a nappy library, where for £10 a resident can borrow some re-usable nappies and see how they work, or can get up to £30 off buying real nappies. Also the Council work with the community sector (Ladywood Furniture Project, Community Transport and Betel) on recovery of furniture. The Council offers a commercial waste collection service to some 9,000 outlets including small shops. There used to be more small contracts, as well as contracts with the airport and the three universities, however these contracts were lost in 2002 and subsequently the tonnage of trade waste has declined.

95 WR0121 – Defra Municipal Waste Growth Study: Addendum Draft - - October 2009 1.16.3 Summary of waste trends

Household waste arisings

550,000 500,000 450,000 400,000 350,000 s TOTAL DISPOSAL e 300,000 n TOTAL RECYCLED n 250,000 o TOTAL ARISING T 200,000 150,000 100,000 50,000 0 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 Year

Waste arisings have risen over the period in question – although not significantly.

Non-household waste and MSW arisings

600,000 550,000 500,000

450,000 TOTAL DISPOSAL 400,000 TOTAL RECYCLED

s 350,000

e TOTAL ARISING

n 300,000

n TOTAL MSW

o 250,000 T 200,000 150,000 100,000 50,000 0 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 Year

Waste policy mapping

96 WR0121 – Defra Municipal Waste Growth Study: Addendum Draft - - October 2009  The service for residual waste collection has been a weekly black sack collection throughout the period in question and there has been no change in this service from 2000 to 2007.  In 2005/06 a fortnightly free kerbside collection of co-mingled and a separate paper collection was introduced to 50% of households, with a green plastic box and a blue plastic box being provided. This service was extended to 75% of households in 2006/07.  In 2005/06 a fortnightly free kerbside collection of green waste was introduced to 10% of households, with a green plastic sack being provided. This service was extended to 50% of households in 2006/07  Since 2000 subsidised home composting units have been provided to households at a charge of £10, in 2006/07 this charge was increased to £17.

1.16.4 Summary of factors Waste Data  The latest data from 2007/08 shows the first reduction in overall household waste arisings (3.42% reduction) since 2001/02.  Birmingham City Council predicts that approximately 10% of waste at CA site is trade and are looking to reduce this going forward – new campaigns and enforcement is planned.  Approx 10-15% of waste at CA site is thought to be from outside of Birmingham and they are looking to target this also – looking at permits.  Compositional analysis data is available from the EfW and the transfer stations, but this is limited and could do with improving.

Demographics  There has been an increase of 60,000 households in Birmingham since 1995 and there are development plans for 65,000 new households over the next 10 years.  The number of people per households is decreasing in the white ethnic household with an increase in the size of Asian households.  In the next five years there is expected to be a shift in the type of housing tenure to flats.

2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07

Household numbers (000s) 386 391 395 397 399 407 Average 2.43 2.41 2.40 2.39 2.38 2.36 persons/household Total population 985.1 984.6 988.9 991.6 995.5 1003.0 1006.5 Number of new-build 1738 1845 2121 1720 1538 2774 1879 properties

Communications  Until 2006 there was very little done in the way of waste awareness and education.  In 2006 a communication plan was initiated due to WRAP funding and also because of the creation of a new job post.  The new communications (branding and media) was linked to the rollout of Birmingham’s multi-material recycling collection scheme and the roll out of garden waste collection.

Anecdotal discussions

97 WR0121 – Defra Municipal Waste Growth Study: Addendum Draft - - October 2009  In 1995/96 with the conversion from Building Societies to Banks the general public had more disposable income and so spent it and wasted more.  BCC predicts that next year as redundancy levels increase, people will spend their severance pay and waste arisings could go up again (expecting a decrease this year).  Birmingham City Council will save £1million this year on waste disposal costs as people are producing less waste. Plans in 2009  Looking at a permit scheme for use of CA sites (households must provide proof of residence).  They have been reviewing residual waste operations – usually 1 driver and 4 crew, but since 2004/05 the volume of material has declined by 20% so now looking at ‘right sizing’ crews to reflect the volume of material on their patch. Very little drop off in urban areas, but the suburban crews were 20% down on average.

98 WR0121 – Defra Municipal Waste Growth Study: Addendum Draft - - October 2009 1.17 Case study 17: Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council

1.17.1 Local authority profile Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council is a Waste Collection Authority that serves a resident population of 113,900 (mid 2006 estimate). There are in excess of 46,000 households in the borough, of which 76% are owner occupied. The size of the borough is 24,013 hectares. T&MBC is part of the Kent Waste Partnership, with Kent County Council having responsibility for Waste Disposal. A Local Area Agreement Target for 2010/11 sets the context for the collection authorities developing waste services and infrastructure.

1.17.2 Waste collection arrangements Present at meeting: Andy Maunder from AEA met with: Michael Campbell-Lenaghan, Waste Management Officer; Dennis Gardner, Waste & Street Scene Services Manager; and Phil Beddoes, Head of Waste and Streetscene Services. Residual waste has been collected in 240 litre wheeled bins in Tonbridge and Malling since 1988 and a green box for kerbside collection of dry recyclables (mixed papers and cans) has been available to all residents since 1998. There is however no HWRC within the authority boundary. Following a trial in 2000/01 an Alternate Week Collection service, including a green waste and cardboard collection, was gradually rolled out having secured unanimous Council Member buy-in and covered: 15% properties in 04/05, 45% by 05/06, 70% (06/07) and 95% by 07/08. Bring site provision has been maintained with an expansion programme of about 2 sites per annum. In October 2006, 10 bring sites introduced a plastic bottle bank which has not been economically advantageous but has been well received by residents. A charged bulky waste collection service is available in addition to a free of charge Saturday collection. No trade waste is collected by T&MBC. The authority achieves near net self-sufficiency through the kerbside collected paper being processed at Aylesford Newsprint, organics going to a local IVC facility and residual waste being incinerated at Allington. T&MBC expects to achieve a level of residual household waste per household (National Indicator 191) of 582kg by the end of 2008/09 which is below the 2010/11 LAA target of 591kg.

99 WR0121 – Defra Municipal Waste Growth Study: Addendum Draft - - October 2009 1.17.3 Summary of waste trends

Household waste arisings

60,000

50,000

40,000

s TOTAL DISPOSAL e

n 30,000 Expansion of AWC scheme; TOTAL RECYCLED n increase predominantly from o TOTAL ARISING

T garden waste collection 20,000

10,000

0 Quantity Quantity Quantity Quantity Quantity Quantity Quantity Quantity (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes)

2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 Year

Non-household waste and MSW arisings

60,000

50,000 TOTAL DISPOSAL 40,000 TOTAL RECYCLED

s TOTAL ARISING e

n 30,000 TOTAL MSW n o T 20,000

10,000

0 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 Year

100 WR0121 – Defra Municipal Waste Growth Study: Addendum Draft - - October 2009 Waste policy mapping  The majority (97%) of households had wheeled bins for their residual waste pre 2000 and all had a kerbside box for mixed papers and cans.  In 2000/01 a trial AWC green waste, cardboard and raw food waste collection was introduced to 1100 properties. Those not on the trial kept with having a weekly residual collection and no green waste service.  In 2004/05 the trial was expanded to a further 6000 (15%) properties however food waste was no longer included. Food waste was re-introduced in April 2006 as an In-vessel facility, out of county, became available.  Scheme extended in 2005/06 to 45% of properties and again in 2006/07 to 70% of properties.  Since 2000/01 bring sites have been expanded across the Borough by two sites per annum and in 2006/07 plastic bottle banks were introduced at 10 sites. Waste arisings observations  Total household waste arisings have shown a gradual annual increase in line with the increasing number of households and resident population.  Roll-out of the AWC has only increased dry recyclables capture by a few hundred tones per annum however the garden waste collection has seen a massive increase: from 930t (04/05) to 4,200t (05/06), then 8,543t (06/07) and 10,673t (07/08).

1.17.4 Summary of factors Data Reporting  Data confidence is good with T&MBC maintaining detailed monthly records.  There is no HWRC with the authority boundary simplifying data calculations.  There is also no trade waste collection that again reduces the margin of error when calculating municipal solid waste arisings. The Council was also asked to complete a self assessment of the communications activity they undertake. This has been adapted from a paper entitled ‘Strategic Communication Audits’ (Julia Coffman, 2004) that aims to develop a better understanding of strategic communications audits and the main steps involved. The presents a scale (Practice Maturity Scale) which has been adapted for this project as detailed below.

2 Emerging Some communication, but it may be sporadic and delivered only when required. The importance of communication has been recognised, but strategy and processes are still embryonic. Some resources have been allocated for the production of essential materials. Responsibility for communication has been agreed. 3 Planned Communication activity is planned. Limited resources have been allocated for delivery. Responsibility has been assigned, but there is little or no measurement of performance. 4 Co-ordinated Delivery is regular and routine. A strategy has been developed to determine the best way for the organisation to communicate and responsibility for its implementation is defined. Resources are sufficient to cover the outputs recommended in the strategy. Materials are good quality, but have the potential to be more effective. There is some assessment of performance. 5 Evaluated There is commitment to the development and delivery of effective communication and 101 WR0121 – Defra Municipal Waste Growth Study: Addendum Draft - - October 2009 is measuring its success in order to get a better understanding of how it can improve performance. Materials are well resourced delivered proficiently.

6 Optimised Effective communication is seen as vital and is integrated into all systems and processes. The link between the organisation’s strategic objectives and effective communications is clear, delivery purposeful and proactive and the resources allocated reflect this. Strategy, delivery and support are reviewed and enhanced using formal frameworks such as scrutiny, best value, continuous improvement and quality management systems. The respondent classified their communications activities as ‘4 – Co-ordinated’. The table below illustrates a set of criteria against which we asked the Council to evaluate the level of enforcement imposed on the presentation of side waste:

Scale Nature of activity 1 No level of No enforcement policies (either formal or informal) in place. Residents are free to enforcement leave material next to waste receptacles so long as contained or bagged and not construed as being fly-tipped or littering. 2 Informal A ban on side is in place but not rigorously enforced. Publicising the policy is enforcement confined to resident information leaflets, the use of bin stickers alerting the policy in residents to the policy and waste collection operatives leaving waste in situ. No place penalty notices have been issued although cautions have been periodically been made. 3 Formal A ban on side waste is in place and legally enforced although some ‘top-hatting’ / enforcement ‘crocodile lids’ are allowed. The above measures are also adopted (as in 2 above) policy in and following a number of cautions the householder will be issued with a fixed place penalty notice. Evidence of a small number of such notices being issued. 4 Formal A ban on side waste is in place and legally enforced and ‘top-hatting’ / ‘crocodile enforcement lids’ is not allowed. The same cautionary procedures are adopted as in 2 and 3 policy in above, although there is evidence of a high number of Section 80 (accumulations place and of household refuse in back yards) and Section 46 (householder non-compliant rigorously with Council’s waste collection arrangements) notices issued to non-compliant enforced households. Enforcement is taken very seriously by the council.

The respondent classified their enforcement activities as ‘2 – Informal enforcement policy in place’.

102 WR0121 – Defra Municipal Waste Growth Study: Addendum Draft - - October 2009 Demographics  Household numbers and total population are both increasing creating an overall increase in waste arisings.  The average value for collected household waste per person has however remained around 455kg over the past 8 years despite the availability of a green waste collection in recent years.

2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08

Household numbers 44,132 44,512 45,092 45,432 46,106 46,261 46,607 47,943 Average 2.44 2.44 2.39 2.39 2.38 2.40 2.41 2.38 persons/household Total population 107.9 108.6 107.8 108.8 109.6 110.9 112.4 113.9 (000s) Collected household waste 452 459 455 452 456 451 462 456 per person (kg)

Increases in Arisings  Expansion of the garden waste collection, as part of the AWC roll-out, has created a significant rise in that particular material stream.  Bring site capture rate for dry recyclables has shown a steady annual rise from 2,737 tonnes in 2000/01 to over 5,000 tonnes in 2007/08.

Reductions in Arisings  AWC roll-out has reduced the level of residual household waste collected – broadly in line with the increase recorded in green waste collection.

103 WR0121 – Defra Municipal Waste Growth Study: Addendum Draft - - October 2009 1.18 Case Study 18: Somerset County Council

1.18.1 Local authority profile In the 2001 census the population of the Somerset County Council area was 498,093 with population growth higher than the national average, the County has recorded a 6.4% increase since 1991, and a 17% increase since 1981. The population density is 1.4 persons per hectare, which can be compared to 2.07 persons per hectare for the South West region. It is a largely rural area. Within the County, population density ranges 0.5 in West Somerset to 2.2 persons per hectare in Taunton Deane. The proportion of the population who are economically active is higher than the regional and national average, and the unemployment rate is lower than the regional and national average. The Somerset Waste Partnership manages waste services on behalf of the districts of Mendip, Sedgemoor, South Somerset, West Somerset, Taunton Deane Borough Council and Somerset County Council. About 300,000 tonnes of municipal waste is currently handled by SWP. This partnership arrangement has resulted in progressively integrated policies towards waste collection and recycling across the County. As it is a predominantly rural area, this policy has resulted in cost-savings through the joint-running of collections and sharing of depots/ infrastructure. Currently the recycling rate for the County is 50.9%, the highest of all English counties in 2007/08. Three of the districts have reported amongst the lowest residual waste per household in 2007/08: with South Somerset the second lowest (361 kg / household /year) and Taunton Deane the fourth (375 kg / household /year). Mendip received 12th position in the ranking (446 kg /household / year). The County is also the first to publish an ‘end use register’ for the consignment of all recycled materials combined with an account of the carbon offset value of each material recycled.

1.18.2 Waste collection arrangements and policy development Present at meeting: Julian Parfitt met with: David Mansell, Strategy & Communications Team Leader; John Helps, Performance Officer. A separate interview was carried out with Chris Jonas, Regional Manager for Contracts at Viridor Waste Management.

As a result of partnership working, a single client team has been established with all waste functions delegated to it, including a single collection contract. The current contractors are Viridor (landfill, composting, operation of 18 HWRCs and haulage) and May Gurney (kerbside recycling, refuse and garden waste with some commercial collections). The first policy measure to note was the introduction of a new regime at HWRCs, introduced from 2001/02. Two main policies were introduced: the combating of trade waste abuse and incentives for HWRC staff to recycle more. With the letting of a new contract in 2002/03, these policies were further strengthened. These actions led to a significant fall in residual waste at HWRCs that in turn contributed to a significant fall in total municipal (and household) waste across the County between 2001/02 and 2003/04. Across the 18 HWRCs within the SWP area the average recycling rate for 2007/08 was 71%. On the kerbside collections side, Somerset’s SORT IT! collections were introduced in October 2004 and rolled out in phases and expanded to cover over 160,000 households throughout Mendip, South Somerset and Taunton Deane in 2006. SORT IT! provides householders with an integrated package of waste collection services, which includes:

• weekly recycling and food waste collections, with recyclables sorted at the kerbside; • fortnightly refuse collections, with 180-litre wheeled bins provided to most households; • an optional fortnightly charged garden waste collection using wheeled bins or compostable paper sacks.

104 WR0121 – Defra Municipal Waste Growth Study: Addendum Draft - - October 2009 The scheme was supported through £6m funded from Defra’s Waste Minimisation and Recycling Fund. The integrated service package was designed following an options appraisal exercise in which different combinations of collection frequencies and policies towards food and garden waste collections were assessed in relation to affordability and overall recycling performance.

The advantages of the chosen system are clearly stated in SWP’s SORT IT! information pack: . fortnightly refuse collections with wheeled bins helps to restrict the amount of refuse put out and so encourages recycling and composting, especially through more frequent weekly recycling and food waste services; . fortnightly refuse collections reduces costs compared to a weekly refuse service; . separate collections for food waste clearly targets this material, compared to alternative options where it is collected mixed with garden waste; . collecting garden waste separately, rather than mixed with food waste, allows garden waste to be processed at a lower cost in windrows, rather than in-vessel to food waste standards; . weekly food waste collections makes fortnightly refuse collections more acceptable; . charging for garden waste collections encourages home composting and avoids the increase in waste arisings and high costs associated with free garden waste collections; . fees for garden waste collections helps to reduce net costs.

Somerset Waste Partnership have been careful to control collected household waste through the design of AWC systems for refuse, with appropriate apportionment of containment capacities between weekly recycling and AWC refuse. 3 of 5 SWP districts (about 70% of households) are now served by SORT IT! In South Somerset and Taunton Deane, which were previously on black sack collections, households have been issued with 180 litre refuse bins as standard. Although households in these districts receive less residual capacity than the more widely issued 240 litre bin, SWP see this ‘restriction’ more along the lines of a ‘capacity exchange’. Because Mendip already used 240-litre wheeled bins for refuse collections before the introduction of SORT IT!, it has allowed an inadvertent demonstration of the impact of extra kerbside residual waste capacity on recycling performance. The extra residual capacity is associated with lower overall recycling rates in Mendip for 2007/08 (45%) compared with South Somerset and Taunton Deane (both close to 50%).

The householder receives more recycling capacity through the weekly collections of food and dry recyclables in exchange for less available capacity on the refuse collection system. The effective combined weekly capacity of recycling and refuse systems is 210 litres. Garden waste collections have been charged, with promoting of home composting as the best environmental option for garden waste. Residents can pay an annual fee for the use of a wheeled bin and/or purchase compostable paper sacks for garden waste collections. Annual fees for bins are £15 in Taunton Deane and £25 in Mendip and South Somerset. Sacks are sold in packs of 10 for £5 in Taunton Deane and £7.50 in Mendip and South Somerset. Collections are fortnightly on alternate cycles to refuse.

SWP authorities have the following service rules to: • only collect accepted materials on recycling collections. • not to collect contaminated food or garden waste bins on composting collections. • not to collect excess refuse with sack collections or side waste alongside wheeled bins. • collect wheeled bins with lids closed (no crocodile lids). • discourage garden waste from being put out with refuse for disposal and only accept small quantities. • only accept small quantities of rubble or bulky waste with refuse. On the enforcement of SORT IT! collections, SWP has largely tried to adopt a common-sense approach. Contamination, the setting out of non-target materials and side/excess waste should not be accepted by crews and they are instructed to attach labels or stickers to inform residents of the problem and to provide a contact number for further advice. In some cases, 'excess waste' stickers are issued to allow people to clear their excess problem and give them advice on how to avoid the problem in future (including in few cases, sorting through refuse bins to advise 105 WR0121 – Defra Municipal Waste Growth Study: Addendum Draft - - October 2009 householders on what can be recycled). Although South Somerset and Taunton Deane have 180 litre refuse bins as standard, larger or additional refuse bins are permitted if genuinely required and if households are also making full use of kerbside recycling services available to them.

Communications and education activities: SWP has done a lot of work on communications and education, with an education team (SWAP) working with schools and community groups from early 2000s; county-wide SWP communication campaigns from 2003 and a behaviour change campaign targeted on low-performing rounds in 2006. Communications work has included doorstepping, leaflets, website, e-newsletter, newsletter distribution, local press and radio advertising, prize draws for participants, attaching reminder stickers to bins and boxes on low-performing rounds, providing in a few areas liner starter packs for food waste collections and many more initiatives.

1.18.3 Summary of waste trends SWP hold extensive datasets that they have used to analyse trends and inform their waste collection and HWRC policies. The quality of the data is excellent. The charts below show the tonnages landfilled, recycled or composted by the Somerset Waste partnership between 1995 and 2009. Over the last 6 years, waste per household (kg/household/year) has fallen significantly, from nearly 1,400 kg per household to under 1,200 kg. Part of this was due to the drop in 'persons per household'. Beyond this demographic driver, analysis of the trends within individual Districts and between HWRCs and collected streams demonstrate some clear impacts of changes in Councils' services and policies: HWRC controls and the introduction of SORT IT! Best estimates suggest that the current underlying trend (i.e. excluding impacts of further changes to policy/service) is that waste per household is stable.

1.18.4 Changes in composition and arisings following introduction of SORT IT! The SWP case study is unusual in that compositional datasets have been used to interpret the impacts of collection system changes on different waste fractions, as well as on overall arisings. This has provided SWP with an important evidence base that demonstrates the causal links between household waste compositional changes and collection system characteristics.

A comprehensive four season waste composition study was undertaken in 2002/03 across all 5 districts. Refuse collections and residual skips at HWRCs were sampled and sorted into separate waste fractions. A smaller single season study was undertaken in the spring of 2006, including areas served by SORT IT! The 2006 study suggested that the SORT IT! service had affected Somerset’s waste composition, reducing some materials and shifting others from kerbside collections to HWRCs. Actual total arisings data confirmed that SORT IT! districts have WCA arisings that are 15% lower (by 137 kg/household /year) in total than districts that currently continue to provide fortnightly recycling collections and weekly refuse collections. Up to about 35% of this appears to have been diverted from kerbside and led to slightly higher arisings at HWRCs in SORT IT! districts.

Compositional analysis of waste collections in Somerset indicates that the introduction of SORT IT! collections have led to half as much wood, electrical items and hazardous waste being put out in refuse collections, as well as significant reductions in cardboard and plastics. It is likely that much of these waste materials have been taken to HWRCs and Plastic Bottle Banks instead. Compositional analysis also suggests that total food waste collected through the SORT IT! (for composting and in the residual bin) is about 24% less than collected previously through weekly refuse collections (30-35 kg/household /year less in total in SORT IT! districts). This reduction may be due to the new food waste collections reducing food waste by highlighting to householders how much food they waste (who then shop less wastefully), by encouraging more home composting or through moisture loss in storing and transferring food waste for composting. Compositional analysis of HWRC waste suggests that more food waste being taken to HWRCs for disposal is only a small factor. SWP officers and their contractors have been attempting to secure funding to carry out more comprehensive research on this issue, so far without success.

106 WR0121 – Defra Municipal Waste Growth Study: Addendum Draft - - October 2009 SORT IT! has also resulted in a reduction in garden waste, which appears to be 14-19 kg/household/year less in total in SORT IT! districts. It has been suggested that this could be as a result of SORT IT! encouraging more home composting. Other material categories reduced in WCA waste with SORT IT! are cardboard, plastics, DIY and renovation waste, bric-a-brac, electrical items and soil. Some of these may have been diverted to Household Waste Recycling Centres, although results of the 2006 study do not confirm increased arisings at Household Waste Recycling Centres in all cases.

1.18.5 Conclusions

SWP have good quality data and a set of local collection and management policies deliberately aimed at maximising recycling and minimising residual, whilst avoiding growth in household waste arisings. They have achieved this very successfully through their ‘capacity exchange’, in offering householders a fair balance between AWC residual waste containment capacity and weekly recycling/ food waste capacity. The avoidance of free garden waste collections and a range of communications and education initiatives have also contributed to this outcome.

TOTAL WEIGHT OF MATERIALS RECYCLED, COMPOSTED & LANDFILLED IN SOMERSET 1995/96 TO 2008/09

350 s d n a s u o h T 300

250 ) S E

N 200 N O T (

T H G I 150 E W

100

0 95-96 96-97 97-98 98-99 99-00 00-01 01-02 02-03 03-04 04-05 05-06 06-07 07-08 08-09

Total Recycled Total Composted Total Landfilled Total Recycled & Composted Total Arisings

107 WR0121 – Defra Municipal Waste Growth Study: Addendum Draft - - October 2009 SOMERSET HWRC RECYCLING, COMPOSTING & LANDFILL TRENDS - 2000/01 TO 2008/09

120 s d n a s u o h T 100

80 ) S E N N O T (

60 T H G I E W

0 00-01 01-02 02-03 03-04 04-05 05-06 06-07 07-08 08-09

HWRC Recycling HWRC Composting HWRC Landfilled HWRC Total Arisings

WCA RECYCLING, COMPOSTING & LANDFILL TRENDS - 2000/01 TO 2008/09

200 s d n a s u

o 180 h T

160

140 )

S 120 E N N O T (

100 T H G I E

W 80

0 00-01 01-02 02-03 03-04 04-05 05-06 06-07 07-08 08-09

WCA Recycled - Banks & 3rd Parties WCA Recycled - Dry Kerbside WCA Composted - FW Kerbside WCA Composted - GW Kerbside WCA Composted - Street Sweepings WCA Landfilled WCA Total Arisings

108 WR0121 – Defra Municipal Waste Growth Study: Addendum Draft - - October 2009 109 WR0121 – Defra Municipal Waste Growth Study: Addendum Draft - - October 2009 Household waste trends 2001/02 to 2007/08 across Somerset districts: kg per household per year

1600

1400

1200

) 1000 R Y / H

H SORT IT! bin restriction and food waste reduction in /

G Mendip DC, South Somerset DC and Taunton

K 800 (

Deane BC T H G I E

W 600 Separate Garden Waste collections begin in Sedgemoor DC and West Somerset DC, with HWRC Contract and combatting GW excluded from refuse trade waste abuse 400 Knock-on impact of SORT IT! bin restriction: with AWC refuse

200 New Priorswood Additional Highbridge HWRC site opens HWRC site opens 0 2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08

Total HWRC Waste (kg/hh/yr) Total WCA Waste (kg/hh/yr) Total Waste (kg/hh/yr)

106 WR0121 – Defra Municipal Waste Growth Study: Addendum Draft - - October 2009 1.19 Case study 19: Stirling Council

1.19.1 Local authority profile Stirling Council serves a resident population of 88,190 persons (2007 mid year estimate of population), covering a land area of 848 square miles. The largest population settlements are Stirling (33,060), Dunblane (8,840), Bannockburn (7,270) and Bridge of Allan (5,120). As of 2007, there were a total of 37,328 households, the majority (67%) of which is owner occupied. The biggest economic sectors are distribution, hotels and restaurants (26%), banking finance and insurance (20%) and public admin, education and heath (33%). The numbers of migrant workers registering in Stirling has recently increased faster than Scottish or UK levels: a total of 720 registered for NI numbers in 2005/06; almost a third of these were from Poland, whilst another quarter are from other new EU member states; there is a trend for an increasingly male proportion of migrant workers; Stirling’s share of Scotland’s total is relatively small but has increased to be 1.7% of all registrations, mirroring Stirling’s share of Scotland’s total population.

1.19.2 Waste collection arrangements Present at meeting: three representatives from waste department, including head of waste services and someone with responsibility for waste data reporting, 2 representatives from economic development and planning. Householders are offered a comprehensive waste collection service, comprising a fortnightly 240 litre grey wheeled bin for residual waste, a brown 240 litre bin for garden waste (including cardboard and collected free of charge) and a weekly kerbside box for paper, glass, cans, textiles and plastic bottles. The residual waste is alternated with the garden/cardboard waste collections. Kerbside vehicles are equipped with 9 separate stillages. The Council is currently piloting a three month food waste collection to 900 households with the collected material being taken to an IVC at Forth, West Lothian. Over the next 12 months the pilot will be rolled to the majority of the 40,000 households within the Stirling Council area. The recycling of TetraPak is another trial in operation. This however, is a very light material and will not produce large tonnages of recyclables. It is high volume waste and therefore more difficult to add to their kerbside recycling operations. Discounted compost bins are offered to residents via the WRAP scheme while a householder can arrange for the collection of bulky items at a cost of £25 plus VAT. A total of 8941 units have been issued in the past three years through the WRAP scheme. Prior to this date a further 3000 were distributed to residents. This equates to approximately 10,000 home composting units being issued in total. They are also trialling the use of a dirty MRF for the Residual Waste accepted at the Lower Polmaise HWRC. Over the first three months this has achieved a 50% recycling of that material. This may be retained as a permanent feature, with similar materials being processed from their three rural HWRC locations. It is also possible that consideration may be given to street sweepers tonnages in the future. Recycling is complemented through a network of 36 bring sites and 4 HWRCs. Of the 4 HWRCs, one has a 10,000 tonne capacity whilst the remaining three have small throughputs. They have already converted two of their sites into larger and more modern HWRC facilities at Lower Polmaise, near Stirling and Balfron. Their Callander site is also due for refurbishment in the next year. Commercial waste can be disposed of at the Lower Polmaise Transfer Station by purchasing a Tip Permit at Viewforth reception. Each permit entitles the holder to dispose of up to half a tonne: Mixed Waste Permit £39.37 (up to 500kg); Green Waste Permit £24.09 (up to 500kg) - NB: this service is for low volume producers and vehicle size is limited. Disposal charges have not risen this year. The council offers a commercial waste collection service through wheeled bins and sacks. There is no commercial waste recycling service. The Council enforces a strict excess waste enforcement policy. Frequently, excess waste results when people do not recycle as much as possible. When excess waste is identified, Stirling Council Waste Services has three steps to deal with it:

WR0121 – Defra Municipal Waste Growth Study: Addendum Draft - 107 - October 2009  White Sticker on the bin; advice about waste reduction and recycling  Yellow Warning Sticker on the bin; bin not lifted ; continued advice  Second Yellow Warning Sticker; Bin not lifted; continued advice and potential fixed penalty Over the past year, the Waste Services has successfully rolled out excess waste enforcement campaigns across the area. Excess waste has dropped from 10% to less than 1% after only a few weeks in the enforcement areas. Ongoing campaigns and continued monitoring are planned.

1.19.3 Summary of waste trends

Household waste arisings

60000 Introduction of AWCs 2003/04 to 2004/05 Rigorous enforcement of side waste ban 50000

40000

s TOTAL DISPOSAL e n

n 30000 TOTAL RECYCLED o

T TOTAL ARISING 20000

10000

0 2000- 2001- 2002- 2003- 2004- 2005- 2006- 2007- 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 Year

Non household and total MSW arisings

90000

80000

70000

60000 Total non-hhld disposal s

e 50000 Total non-hhld recycled n n

o 40000 Total arising T Total MSW 30000 Reconfiguration of 20000 commercial waste services 10000

0 2000- 2001- 2002- 2003- 2004- 2005- 2006- 2007- 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 Year

WR0121 – Defra Municipal Waste Growth Study: Addendum Draft - 108 - October 2009 Total household waste arisings (1995/96 1999/00)

60000

50000

40000

s TOTAL DISPOSAL e n

n 30000 TOTAL RECYCLED o

T TOTAL ARISING 20000

10000

0 1995/96 1996/97 1997/98 1998/99 1999/00 Year

Waste policy mapping  The original provision of wheeled bins included 360-Ltr units (Introduced in 1992).  2000/01 – 4 CA sites and 39 bring sites, charged for "Special Uplifts" (except for OAPs and UB40 Holders) and offered subsidised compost bins with advice and support.  2001/02 – a dry recyclable kerbside collection pilot. The service was offered to 11,000 houses with over 45% “Opting In” which meant 13% of all households initially used the Kerbside Recycling Service. A further bring site was introduced, bring the total to 40.  2002/03 - Introduced a 2nd bin for Category E Clinical Waste (120/240-ltrs - by Application), out of 12,000 houses offered the kerbside recycling service, over 60% “Opted In” thus joining the household kerbside dry recycling collection representing 19% of all housing, a ban on side waste was introduced, and employed full time School Waste Education Officer.  2003/04 - reduced residual waste collection frequency to fortnightly, as kerbside recycling and garden collections rolled out, started the "Roll-out of the kerbside Recycling Service in Sept 03 (Weekly collection) and no longer was an "Opt-In" scheme, introduced a "Pilot" fortnightly garden waste collection scheme, then started roll-out later in 2003, bring sites reduced to 37, singled out special uplifts from domestic collection routes to deliver a box van collection with separation.  2004/05 - started to phase out the use of 660 & 1100 litre residual waste bins for blocks of houses, smaller rural areas added to existing kerbside dry recyclable collection rounds, continued roll-out of fortnightly collections for residual waste and garden/cardboard, bring site network reduced to 36 sites, fridges uplifted free whilst bulky waste still charged for.  2005/06 - changed the qualification for a 360-Ltr Bin (6 residents now required), other rural areas added to dry recyclables kerbside weekly collections, bring site network maintained at 36 sites, 4635 home composters, sold or issued free, prior to 31/03/06 (the majority were sold at discounted rates), from June 2005 free reusable nappies were made available to householders although no data was available on numbers.  2006/07 - reduced the capacity of bins for category E clinical waste (Only 120-Ltr Bins issued), no change in kerbside / AWC arrangements or coverage, proposing to introduce a separate food waste collection in spring 2009, started in late 2007 not to uplift excess refuse, and enforcement of regulation, started converting the Lower Polmaise CA site in 2007, into a HWRC, 36 Bring Sites – changed from 1100-Ltr Bins to 1,500 and 2,500-Ltr Bell Banks for Glass & Cans - more of the sites had Textile Banks added, box vans now

WR0121 – Defra Municipal Waste Growth Study: Addendum Draft - 109 - October 2009 allowed to deposit materials in HWRC to maximise recycling recovery, 2557 Composters sold or issued Free (the majority were sold at discounted rates), availability of free Castle Compost, implementation of side waste and bin lids down enforcement campaign, fines introduced on side waste in 2008, plan to build a re-use centre in the summer of 2009. Waste arisings observations  Household waste arisings (from both HWRCs and the kerbside) averaged a stable 48 – 50,000 tonnes pa.  Household collected residual waste continued to increase until 2003, and then reduced dramatically between 2004/05 and 2005/06 following the introduction of AWCs. As one would expect, this reduction was off-set by a significant increase in the amount of dry recyclables and green waste collected. Interestingly, over this period bring site tonnages reduced and HWRC dry recyclable tonnages conversely increased.  Collectively, however, the overall household waste tonnages have reduced from 53,195 tonnes in 2004/05 to 47,970 in 2007/08.  Commercial residual waste increased from 15,789 tonnes in 2000/01 to 34,913 tonnes in 2002/03. It dramatically reduced to 10,903 tonnes in 2003/04 following the reconfiguration of waste services and increased commercial competition.  Commercial waste recycling tonnages have been maintained at a relatively stable level although overall collected commercial waste has steadily declined since 2003/04.  Overall, these individual waste stream reductions have been instrumental in reducing MSW from a total of 61,958 tonnes in 2004/05 to 55,552 tonnes in 2007/08.

1.19.4 Summary of factors The commercial waste collection service is taken up by approximately 1100 of the 3100 rateable businesses in Stirling, although the service has suffered from a high level of competition from the private sector. There has been anecdotal evidence of unauthorised collections of trade waste which has attributed to high levels of growth up until 2002/03. Also prior to this date commercial waste used to be commingled with domestic waste leading to data being estimated between the two waste streams. Now there are three crews servicing the commercial rounds using two REL vehicles, one of which operates day and back shifts. Key respondent considerations Have been actively promoting the waste hierarchy to the public and within schools since 1996 in a comprehensive manner including: open days, exhibitions, schools competitions and visits and promoting Community Waste Planning (CWP). CWP takes a measured approach in tackling waste challenges at a local level and raised awareness fully within communities. Waste compositional analysis - measuring detailed bin contents and developing communications and campaigns around this. Offering the public waste audits, particularly for householders who struggle with the volume restrictions. Strict policy on volume restrictions for larger households. Stirling Council has based future tonnages on an overall increase of only 0.5%, as opposed to a larger figure generally in use. In addition they have found that in reality their overall household tonnages (landfill, recycling and composting combined) have, in fact, decreased in the last few years. However, their recycling and composting tonnages are increasing considerably, with the landfill portion decreasing by an even greater figure. The respondent suggested that the only reason that they can put forward for this overall decrease is that the business sector has reduced the packaging used for their produce, or products, and householders being more selective in their shopping methods, thus reducing the waste household have for disposal.

Key findings  MSW was increasing and is now decreasing despite population increases.  The Council takes the issue of waste growth very seriously and has taken a number of moves to actively reduce waste and manage it in an effective manner.  The current waste disposal fee is £67/tonne rising to £77/tonne in April 2009.

WR0121 – Defra Municipal Waste Growth Study: Addendum Draft - 110 - October 2009  The meeting attendees all agreed that lifestyle changes and changes in product packaging all have contributed to this change.  The introduction of AWCs (2003/04) has had a dramatic impact on increasing recycling levels and in reducing overall household waste arisings.  To complement this, the Council enforces a rigorous side waste enforcement procedure and has done so since 2005/06. Even wheeled bins that are overly full will not be collected. Continued non-conformance will lead to a £50 fixed penalty notice. In one housing estate, Raploch, before the ‘Bins Lids Down’ initiative the yield was 0.58 tonnes / hhld and after the introduction of the policy the yields reduced to 0.55 tonnes / hhld (a reduction of 36 tonnes – a 5% reduction). Interestingly, there was no noticeable increase in fly tipping (approx 22 incidents per month for the entire Stirling Council area) nor the amount of waste disposed of at the HWRCs. The table below illustrates a set of criteria against which we asked the Council to evaluate the level of enforcement imposed on the presentation of side waste:

Scale Nature of activity 1 No level of No enforcement policies (either formal or informal) in place. Residents are enforcement free to leave material next to waste receptacles so long as contained or bagged and not construed as being fly-tipped or littering. 2 Informal A ban on side is in place but not rigorously enforced. Publicising the policy enforcement is confined to resident information leaflets, the use of bin stickers alerting policy in the residents to the policy and waste collection operatives leaving waste in place situ. No penalty notices have been issued although cautions have been periodically been made. 3 Formal A ban on side waste is in place and legally enforced although some ‘top- enforcement hatting’ / ‘crocodile lids’ are allowed. The above measures are also policy in adopted (as in 2 above) and following a number of cautions the place householder will be issued with a fixed penalty notice. Evidence of a small number of such notices being issued. 4 Formal A ban on side waste is in place and legally enforced and ‘top-hatting’ / enforcement ‘crocodile lids’ is not allowed. The same cautionary procedures are policy in adopted as in 2 and 3 above, although there is evidence of a high number place and of Section 80 (accumulations of household refuse in back yards) and rigorously Section 46 (householder non-compliant with Council’s waste collection enforced arrangements) notices issued to non-compliant households. Enforcement is taken very seriously by the council.

Stirling Council classify their enforcement activities as ‘3 - Formal enforcement policy in place’ (although they are close to being in scale ‘4 - Formal enforcement policy in place and rigorously enforced’).  Tourist numbers have been steady at approximately 4,300,000 pa. although it is anticipated that this number will increase as more people holiday in the UK during the recession and the Scottish Govt pledge to increase tourist numbers.  Small B&Bs generate waste that will enter the domestic residual waste stream.  Despite the introduction of trade waste controls at the HWRCs in 2002/03 (introduced permit scheme and number plate recognition software) there was no dramatic drop in waste arisings.  10% to 12% of MSW is commercial waste.  Communications and awareness raising has not influenced the decline in waste arisings but has instead acted to underpin the changes in waste policy measures. The Council continues to undertake lots of waste education work at schools.

WR0121 – Defra Municipal Waste Growth Study: Addendum Draft - 111 - October 2009 The Council was asked to complete a self assessment of the communications activity they undertake. This has been adapted from a paper entitled ‘Strategic Communication Audits’ (Julia Coffman, 2004) that aims to develop a better understanding of strategic communications audits and the main steps involved. This presents a scale (Practice Maturity Scale) that has been adapted for this project as detailed below.

Practice Definition Maturity Scale 1 Ad-hoc Communication is generally unplanned, reactive and disorganised. There is no overall responsibility for communication, no strategy and little or no budget to enable effective delivery. Projects may run over budget and over schedule. Poor quality of materials. 2 Emerging Some communication, but it may be sporadic and delivered only when required. The importance of communication has been recognised, but strategy and processes are still embryonic. Some resources have been allocated for the production of essential materials. Responsibility for communication has been agreed. 3 Planned Communication activity is planned. Limited resources have been allocated for delivery. Responsibility has been assigned, but there is little or no measurement of performance. 4 Co- Delivery is regular and routine. A strategy has been developed to determine ordinated the best way for the organisation to communicate and responsibility for its implementation is defined. Resources are sufficient to cover the outputs recommended in the strategy. Materials are good quality, but have the potential to be more effective. There is some assessment of performance. 5 Evaluated There is commitment to the development and delivery of effective communication and is measuring its success in order to get a better understanding of how it can improve performance. Materials are well resourced delivered proficiently. 6 Optimised Effective communication is seen as vital and is integrated into all systems and processes. The link between the organisation’s strategic objectives and effective communications is clear, delivery purposeful and proactive and the resources allocated reflect this. Strategy, delivery and support are reviewed and enhanced using formal frameworks such as scrutiny, best value, continuous improvement and quality management systems.

Stirling Council classify their communications activities as ‘4 – Co-ordinated’.

Waste data reporting  Waste data reporting has dramatically improved since the introduction of WDF. The distinction between domestic and commercial tonnages has improved and in particular the way in which the latter is reported.  Under MSW other commercial waste delivered to HWRCs reduced from 24,282 tonnes (2002/03) to 1,044 tonnes (2003/04). This was due to the fact that around that time their road’s section used that facility, as did other commercial sources, and the data may not have been recorded quite as accurately as it now.  The pre 2003/04 data is a bit in doubt, as a lot of it was not readily available.  The 1995 - 2000 section is really estimates, as the data provides more totals - Household, Commercial (Including Non MSW Tonnages) and Other (respondent was not sure what "Other" meant back in the 90's.  There have been some weighbridge discrepancies whereby vehicles had inadvertently not used the weighbridge on entering a site. Recycling data is based on output tonnages delivered to reprocessors . Overall waste data has been of a reasonably good quality.

WR0121 – Defra Municipal Waste Growth Study: Addendum Draft - 112 - October 2009  HWRC Waste was split on a percentage basis, Domestic v Commercial. They now only permit "Domestic" waste into those sites and as tonnages did not drop, the percentages used would appear to have been inaccurate.  There was a change in data reporting when compared against the LAWAS – highways waste was included in the LAWAS survey whereas it is now not included in WDF as MSW. Demographics  Household numbers are increasing while household sizes are decreasing – 39,001 households in Dec 08, 86 – 87,000 residents.

2000- 2001- 2002- 2003- 2004- 2005- 2006- 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 1. Household numbers (000s) 35.5 36 36.5 36.7 37 37.2 37.3 2. Average persons / household 2.43 2.4 2.37 2.36 2.35 2.36 2.36

5. Total population (000s) 86,200 86,150 86,370 86,370 86,930 87,810 88,190 6. Number of new-build properties 371 596 348 150 437 127 338

 There are approximately 450 new build properties each year although there were only 127 in 2005.  The Council has a structure plan of increasing the population to 100,000 people by 2025, with 500 new homes pa.  There is a resident student population of 9000, a proportion of which are in Halls. The Council does not collect waste from these residencies.  Despite these demographic factors, waste arisings continue to decline.

WR0121 – Defra Municipal Waste Growth Study: Addendum Draft - 113 - October 2009 1.20 Case study 20: Cardiff Council

1.20.1 Local authority profile Cardiff Council serves a population of approximately 330,000 persons (2007 mid year estimate of population), in circa 141,700 households. The city had a large student population (estimated at approximately 90,000 students) - there are three universities (University of Wales, UWIC and Glamorgan University) along with the Welsh College of Music and Drama and a few other educational institutions.

1.20.2 Waste collection arrangements Present at meeting: Two representatives from waste department; Jane Cherrington and Alan McCoy. Households: Weekly refuse collections, alternating fortnightly recycling (green sack one week, organics next) Residual: Currently 70% on black wheeled bins, remainder on black sacks (mostly properties in inner city with access issues). In 2002 the service was black sack only. The first wheeled bins were rolled out as part of a trail of fortnightly residual collections (alternating with recycling the other week). In 2001/02 this trial was with 3000 households and 2002/03 expanded to cover 20,000 households. Different bin sizes were on offer (120l, 240l and 360l). The trial did not have much in way of enforcement (e.g. of no side waste), which may be why in 2005/06 when a political decision was taken to stay with weekly residual collections for all there was no observable increase in arisings from these properties. Now main bin size is 240l. No 360s (had issues with bins coming off wagons). Some 140ls, where required e.g. for assisted collections from elderly or where there’re access issues. In 2005/06, introduced front of property only collections policy and rolled out wheelie bins to majority of the city (all bins were bar-coded). This did away with collections from back lanes (which are characteristic of city’s fabric). Reasons for this included health & safety issues with back lane collections and operational difficulties. The policy was not well received by the public, and there was substantial negative press about the issue. This is felt to have brought waste & recycling top of mind. Since then, a lot of work has gone in to promoting the scheme, and people are now ‘in favour of the bins’. Recycling: Fortnightly collection in green sack. Co-mingled (takes glass, paper, plastics, card and tin). In early days (2000-2002) the sacks were charged. Then, in 2001/02 with the trial to 3K households of AWC, they were free to them (but to remaining 60K still charged). And in 2002/03 the AWC trial households (20K) received free collections (50K still on charged). Did also trial kerbside boxes in first year of trials (2001/02), but this wasn’t liked by public or operatives (who like speed of sacks collection) so have stuck with sack as container. Organics: Green wheeled bin collection system was introduced in 2005/06. (Since 2008 food waste can now also be taken, co-mingled with garden waste, in this container. The council provide an aerated kitchen caddy and biodegradable bags for this purpose). Compost bins: Have subsidised compost bins since 2000. Bring sites: 21 bring sites in total at present. Some expansion of bring sites network in 2005/06 and 2006/07 but not substantial in impact. There used to be textile recycling banks in the city run and emptied by a commercial/charitable company but these are not well serviced. Alan estimates that all sites in the city not manned by the council are taking approximately 50 tonnes of clothes per annum. HWRCs: 4 HWRCs, one of which is fairly new (2006/07). Some redevelopment of sites (improving recycling facilities, signage etc.) in 2003/04 and 2005/06. New one in 2006/07. Added facilities to segregate green waste to HWRCs in 2001/02. Van & trailer bans in operation at HWRCs. If operatives suspect someone of having commercial waste to dispose, they are turned away and redirected to the Lamby Way HWRC/Landfill, where they can be assessed & redirected appropriately. No height restrictions or permit scheme in operation at the sites. Since 2007 improvements have included on-going site operative training and in 2009 vehicle recognition was introduced.

WR0121 – Defra Municipal Waste Growth Study: Addendum Draft - 114 - October 2009 Bulky: Conduct own bulky waste collections. No FRPs to redirect to, and no FRPs operating at HWRCs. Used to have a ‘partnership’ with Track 2000 but this soured when the company would cherry pick from waste at kerbside, leaving behind non-reusable items. Since 2005 and ODS regs separate out these units, and are now doing WEEE too. Bulky waste collections are free to householders; although fixtures & fittings (e.g. toilet, bath) are £6/item. Also used to offer a bulky green waste collection in summer (since 2004/05) which was free, but this has all but stopped now (since everyone has a green bin). The council have, historically, also run ‘community skip’ days, which are basically a free-for-all in which whole neighbourhoods can have clearouts and put the waste into skips (or now, rather than skips they use vans). There were attempts at segregation for recycling, but these didn’t work. They tend to happen once or twice a year in certain wards. The waste department would like to phase these out, but there is political pressure to continue them and a cultural expectation in the communities which have experienced them in the past that they will continue. Education: Initial trials of AWC recycling were not very well promoted. Media coverage was also not positive. This created greater need for proactive engagement. Therefore a dedicated team was created to do this type of work. Doorstepping in trial areas took place, and the team has remained, growing to 10 at present. Real nappies are promoted (but no incentive scheme; although investigating use of credit union plan to help in purchasing). The education team provide both reactive and pro-active functions, responding to queries (by phone or, if necessary, conducting a house visit to those who may be struggling with the service). They also staff roadshows (conducting 4-5 in certain wards when, for example, new service rolled out). Also door-knocking of key streets identified as problematic. Enforcement: Council now has an enforcement team (was 4 in 2004, grown now to 17). They operate alongside education team (working complementarily). They issue Fixed Penalty Notices (price of which is set by Welsh Assembly Government). In 2005 this was £50. Now it’s £75. Use these to fine for things like: waste out on wrong day, small-scale fly-tipping. Use a three strikes policy. Council now enforces a no side waste policy (since introduction of wheelie bins), and top- hatting is technically not allowed either (although this is less rigorously enforced – it is up to crews to assess if genuinely overloaded). For bins that are overloaded, or contaminated, crews are able to (a) leave sticker on the bin describing problem and (b) scan the bin’s bar-code and the householder can then be sent a letter about the issue. The table below illustrates a set of criteria against which we asked the Council to evaluate the level of enforcement imposed on the presentation of side waste:

Scale Nature of activity 1 No level of No enforcement policies (either formal or informal) in place. Residents enforcement are free to leave material next to waste receptacles so long as contained or bagged and not construed as being fly-tipped or littering. 2 Informal A ban on side is in place but not rigorously enforced. Publicising the enforcement policy is confined to resident information leaflets, the use of bin stickers policy in alerting the residents to the policy and waste collection operatives leaving place waste in situ. No penalty notices have been issued although cautions have been periodically been made. 3 Formal A ban on side waste is in place and legally enforced although some ‘top- enforcement hatting’ / ‘crocodile lids’ are allowed. The above measures are also policy in adopted (as in 2 above) and following a number of cautions the place householder will be issued with a fixed penalty notice. Evidence of a small number of such notices being issued. 4 Formal A ban on side waste is in place and legally enforced and ‘top-hatting’ / enforcement ‘crocodile lids’ is not allowed. The same cautionary procedures are policy in adopted as in 2 and 3 above, although there is evidence of a high place and number of Section 80 (accumulations of household refuse in back yards) rigorously and Section 46 (householder non-compliant with Council’s waste enforced collection arrangements) notices issued to non-compliant households. Enforcement is taken very seriously by the council. The respondent classified their enforcement activities as ‘3 – Formal enforcement policy in place’. This policy has been developed over time and is enforced by collection crews and enforcement / education teams.

WR0121 – Defra Municipal Waste Growth Study: Addendum Draft - 115 - October 2009 Non-household waste Schools: The waste department provides 152 schools with a free recycling service, collected on same rounds as domestic collections. It’s mostly paper. Council used to collect all schools waste, and charge accordingly, but with devolved budgets some schools have taken their waste to other contractors. The waste department hopes to see a new procurement policy which will require schools to use internal services. Commercial waste: The proportion of MSW which is commercial was estimated until 2004/05 (at 20% of MSW). Mostly this is dealt with by commercial waste contractors. It can also be disposed of at the Lamby Way Landfill site. In 2006 commercial recycling service started – using dedicated commercial recycling vehicles (hence, tonnage figures are available). Silt: In 2003/04 and 2004/05 the council dredged a local lake (Roath’s Park Lake). The silt from this operation was landfilled, and increased the total waste arisings by approximately 6,000 tonnes. There was some debate about how it should be classified (as compostable or not). It currently sits (in our spreadsheets) as included in the 13,757 figure for ‘kerbside collected green waste’ in 2003/04. With regards to business premises, the authority only provides a service where the business agrees to participate in recycling collections. Indeed, some of the authority’s contracts with businesses are for the collection of recycling only. Therefore where businesses are unable or unwilling to separate some of their waste for recycling, the authority will not provide the service and the business will need to arrange waste collections with the private sector. Communications The Council was asked to complete a self assessment of the communications activity they undertake. This has been adapted from a paper entitled ‘Strategic Communication Audits’ (Julia Coffman, 2004) that aims to develop a better understanding of strategic communications audits and the main steps involved. The presents a scale (Practice Maturity Scale) which has been adapted for this project as detailed below.

WR0121 – Defra Municipal Waste Growth Study: Addendum Draft - 116 - October 2009 The respondent classified their communications activities as ‘4 – Co-ordinated’. The authority has an education team which has been utilised to develop awareness amongst public regarding collection of differing waste stream materials. The authority is currently seeking to integrate communications activities with waste collection, street cleansing and enforcement operations, in order to provide a broad approach to addressing waste awareness issues.

Summary of waste trends: The following chart illustrates trends in municipal waste arisings for the authority:

Reclassification of some 200,000 categories of waste as non-MSW 180,000Inclusion of 6,000 tonnes of silt from dredging of local lake – classified at ‘compostable’ 160,000

140,000

120,000

100,000

80,000

60,000

40,000

20,000

0 2000/01 2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08

Kerbside residual Street sweepings, parks, clinical, MRF rejects Dry recycling: KS, HWRC, Bring & CSO Kerbside GW HWRC residual HWRC GW Non-hh disposal Non-hh recycling

Due to inconsistent data reporting across the time series, it has been necessary to aggregate some municipal waste streams in the above chart. In particular, separate tonnages have sometimes been stipulated for dry recycling from various sources (kerbside, HWRC, bring and/or CSO collections); whereas for other periods one or more of these streams has been included in another dry recycling category. Therefore an overall tonnage for all dry recycling has been calculated for the above chart. Non-household tonnages have decreased significantly after 2005/06. This is primarily due to the reclassification of wastes that were previously considered to constitute municipal waste and subsequently be regarded as being non-municipal wastes. In crude terms, the redefinition classifies municipal wastes as only those wastes which are collected by the authority’s collection vehicles (or collection systems, where HWRC / bring etc are concerned) as part of normal operational activities.

1.20.3 Summary of factors The main issue felt by Cardiff waste department to have impacted on changing figures is the reclassification of certain waste categories. In 2002/03 MSW figures had to include categories like parks, housing and highways wastes, then in 2005 these were taken out again. Key findings  Major peak in MSW is probably due to classifications of waste as MSW, rather than arisings per se

WR0121 – Defra Municipal Waste Growth Study: Addendum Draft - 117 - October 2009  2005/06 saw introduction of current services 3 containers system for recyclate, residual & green waste (to which food waste has now been added for collection since 2008) Waste data reporting  Commercial waste arisings were estimated at 20% of total MSW until 2003/04.  Since 2003, and introduction of WasteDataFlow, figures are likely to be more accurate  Changes in classification of wastes as MSW or not in various years will have created impression of increases & decreases that weren’t actually real. Demographics  The number of households in Cardiff is higher now than census data suggests (Alan estimates 141,700 are receiving a service – he has counted the properties on a GIS system, and also referred to the council’s rates database). The last figures on WDF are from 2004 and therefore also out of date (and are locked in, so cannot be changed).  Total population served is estimated at 330,000. Indeed, there is an on-going dispute about whether or not the census data was ever actually accurate for Cardiff.  There is a large student population in Cardiff (circa 90,000).  There is also a micro-tourist base of people who attend large-scale events in the city, creating an impact on commercial waste operations and street cleansing (but not particularly influencing pattern of MSW arisings)

WR0121 – Defra Municipal Waste Growth Study: Addendum Draft - 118 - October 2009 1.21 Case study 21: Powys County Council

1.21.1 Local authority profile Powys is a very rural, upland county of 2,000 square miles, with a sparse population of 131,963 in 55,600 households. The county includes the Brecon Beacons and Berwyn Mountains, and the Ust, Wye and Severn river valleys. 89% of land is in agricultural use and 59% of the population lives in isolated villages, hamlets and dwellings. There is a net inward migration due to the attraction of the area to urban migrants. The population is mainly white (99.3%). The number of households has increased due to population growth and diminishing household size. Agriculture and tourism are important to the local economy. There is a high level of self employment and small businesses in the region, where the public sector is an important employer. Powys is host to the Gurkha barracks and Sunnybridge Army Camp.

1.21.2 Waste collection arrangements Household waste is collected weekly in black sacks. Householders are provided with a roll of 52 sacks, every year. In rural areas, point bins (central collection points) are used, which are shared by at least 4-5 properties. These attract dumping. Different dry recyclable collections have developed for different geographical areas. The service provided by the DSO ranges from a kerbside box (glass, cans, cardboard, plastic) and a bag (paper) to a two bag collection which is provided to 45,000 households. The bag with red writing on it is for plastic bottles, cans, carrier bags and plastic film, and the bag with black writing in it is for paper, textiles, light cardboard, handbags, belts and shoes. Glass is not accepted. In some areas the 2 bag system also collects glass. The third sector group, Cae Post, provides a 2 box kerbside collection service to 20,000 households and also services many of the bring sites in N.Powys. The remaining (34%) of households are provided with survival bags in 2005-06 a service which is unpopular due to local suspicion that as they are collected with the general waste, materials are being landfilled rather than recycled. The survival bags are picked out at the Bryn Posteg MRF and transported to a site in Lampeter for sorting. A food waste collection service is provided to 10,300 homes in the Newtown, Welshpool and Montgomery area by third sector organization, Cwm Harry Land Trust, which is processed in an anaerobic digester operated by Greenfinch at Ludlow. A paid green waste collection service is provided (90p a sack). Compost bins are sold from the HWRC sites for £10, or £15 delivered. 4,143 units have been sold since 2004-5. Green waste skips are provided at most bring sites. Real nappies are promoted, though an incentive scheme does not exist. A local third sector organization also promotes real nappies in the district. There are 6 HWRCs operating in Powys. The sites are privately owned and operated, by four operators (Brecon Recycling (1), JPR Recycling (1), Potters Recycling (3), and JLA Recycling (1). Traders registered with Powys Council as part of the Trade Recycling Permit Scheme are able to take recyclable materials to the sites for an annual fee of £186 per annum, Furniture and other reusable items are accepted at the sites and either sold for profit, or to raise funds for local schools. There are 72 community bring sites in Powys, (including 30 at schools collecting paper and cans). An “adopt- a –site” system operates where a community group looks after a site and keeps it tidy, in return for payment for wastes collected in recycling credits (£26/tonne for glass, paper, cardboard and a lower rate for textiles and green waste). This has introduced issues regarding trade waste being permitted (e.g. glass from pubs), and the lack of support for kerbside collections due to loyalty to the community bring site. Flytipping at bring sites has increased and fines are to be introduced. The fee for the bulky waste service is £20 for 6 items, then £3 per additional item. Householders with reusable items are directed to the Phoenix Community Furniture Scheme which operates in

WR0121 – Defra Municipal Waste Growth Study: Addendum Draft - 119 - October 2009 Llandrindod and Newtown areas. Bulky waste tonnages are included in the regular household collection weights. Commercial and domestic waste are collected together, and weights are based on commercial waste =20%. The quantities of commercial waste have reduced due to falling numbers of customers. Recycling of trade glass started in 2007. The table below illustrates a set of criteria against which we asked the Council to evaluate the level of enforcement imposed on the presentation of side waste:

The respondent classified their enforcement activities as ‘1 – No level of enforcement’, in the context of the authority providing black sack collections for kerbside residual waste.

Communications

Communications work has been limited to through the quarterly council newsletter. In June 2008, waste education officers were reassigned to carry out more waste awareness work and publicity. A communications strategy is being developed.

WR0121 – Defra Municipal Waste Growth Study: Addendum Draft - 120 - October 2009 The presents a scale (Practice Maturity Scale) which has been adapted for this project as detailed below.

The respondent classified their communications activities as ‘3 – Planned’, (though the authority is currently enacting measures that would classify it as ‘4 – Co-ordinated’).

WR0121 – Defra Municipal Waste Growth Study: Addendum Draft - 121 - October 2009 1.21.3 Summary of waste trends The following chart illustrates trends in municipal waste arisings for the authority:

100,000

90,000

80,000 Non-hh recycling 70,000 Non-hh disposal HWRC GW HWRC DRY 60,000 HWRC RES BRING ORGANICS 50,000 BRING DRY KS FW KS GW 40,000 CSO KS DRY 30,000 Street cleansing KS RES 20,000

10,000

0 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08

Waste policy mapping  2000-1 Kerbside collection for dry recyclables introduced in Welshpool area and CA site opens in Welshpool  2001-2 Kerbside collection for dry recyclables introduced in Newtown area, and CA sites open in Newtown and Llandegley  2002-3 Kerbside collection for dry recyclables introduced in Llandrindrod Wells, Brecon, Machynlleth, and Buith Wells and opening of CA sites in Ystradgynlais, Machynlleth.  2003-4 Kerbside collection for dry recyclables introduced in Ystradgynlais and SE Powys and start of paper sack collection of garden waste in Newtown, Welshpool and Brecon  2004-5 Opening of CA site in Brecon and promotion of compost bins  2005-6 Survival bag rounds introduced to 45,000 households in Radnorshire and Montgomeryshire, not covered by the existing schemes. A food waste collection is also started to 10,300 homes provided by third sector group, Cwm Harry Land Trust  2007-8 introduction of recycling of glass from commercial waste customers Waste arisings observations  The total household waste arising have continued to increase.  The total household waste going for disposal has declined very slightly.  There has been a steady rise in the total amounts of recyclables collected at both the kerbside, and at the CA sites.  The amount of residual waste at HWRCs has increased (as the no. of sites has increased).  Use of the free kerbside collected green waste service increased until a fee was introduced in 2006-7. This coincides with an increase in the amount of green waste deposited at the bring sites indicating a shift to using the more local sites.

WR0121 – Defra Municipal Waste Growth Study: Addendum Draft - 122 - October 2009  Bring organics includes approx 5,000t of leaves per annum collected by the council for composting.  Commercial waste has declined due to the decline in the local economy.  The bring sites appear to be as well supported as the CA sites. This is likely to reflect the importance of the bring sites as a conduit for recycling in such a rural county where the distances to CA sites may be prohibitive. It may also reflect the local support that exists for using community adopted sites in preference to the CA sites as they benefit the community.  The reuse of waste by the Phoenix Community Furniture Scheme has steadily increased to 500 t/annum in 2006-7 compared to 205 t/annum in 2002-3.  Quantities of street cleansing waste are estimated.  Kerbside garden waste tonnages decreased after 2005/06 since the local authority phased out the scheme due to cost pressures. The authority continues to offer residents a charged collection for garden waste and materials thus collected are disposed.  RCV collected residual waste is apportioned to household and non-household sources on the basis of an 80%:20% apportionment. This ratio was arrived at via a survey carried out by the authority in 2007, assessing collection weights from, respectively, household and non-household premises over one week, covering 3 collection rounds. The authority is currently considering carrying out further survey work on the apportionment of household / non-household wastes.

1.21.4 Summary of factors Powys has several military bases, prisons, boarding schools, and second homes, all of which are used by a significant visiting population that is not included in population statistics. The local tourism industry will also introduce a waste burden onto the county as waste generated in bed and breakfast establishments is likely to enter the domestic waste stream and tourists will also contribute to street litter and increase the waste produced by tourist sector businesses. Key respondent considerations  The geography of the county leads to operational difficulties in terms of distances travelled, topography and the varying identities of the communities served.  The main issue with the waste collection service in Powys is the very rural nature of the county with more than half the population living in isolated villages and hamlets. This has lead to the use of survival bags for recyclable materials, which are collected alongside the residual waste, in the same vehicle for subsequent separation, in order to reduce transport and staff costs. 45,000 households are served by this service and there has been some concerns raised by the public that the material is not being recycled despite information being put on the county website explaining how the waste is separated out and then sorted for recycling.  The isolated nature of the region has led to the development of community adopted bring sites. These are very well used, collecting as much waste for recycling as the 6 CA sites. This is likely to be due to the distances from CA sites.  The use of community adopted bring sites can lead to difficulties where a kerbside collection is introduced as this is seen to compete with the local site.  CA sites have only developed in the county relatively recently.  The use of operator-owned CA sites has lead to difficulties in negotiating new contracts with recycling and composting targets. They are currently incentivized to divert waste from landfill by the savings gained on landfill tax and disposal fees if this occurs. Demographics There is a steady influx of people migrating into the county from urban areas, and this is complemented by the building of new properties. Both of these factors are likely to increase the amount of household waste produced.

WR0121 – Defra Municipal Waste Growth Study: Addendum Draft - 123 - October 2009 There are approximately 200 properties owned by the MOD that are excluded from council tax and therefore are omitted from the estimates of household numbers, whilst contributing to the waste burden of the county.

2000- 2001- 2002- 2003- 2004- 2005- 2006- 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 1. Household numbers (000s) 55.0 55.4 56.0 56.5 57.1 57.6 58.4 2. Average persons / household 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3

5. Net inflow (000s) 1.29 1.57 1.48 1 0.93 1.02

5. Total population (000s) 126.4 127.3 128.5 129.7 130.4 131.1 6. Number of new-build properties 454 347 370 448 468 394 300

WR0121 – Defra Municipal Waste Growth Study: Addendum Draft - 124 - October 2009 1.22 Case study 22: Derby City Council

1.22.1 Local authority profile Derby City Council is a highly urbanized, Unitary Authority in the East Midlands that serves a population of 236,300. There are approx 100,000 households in Derby currently, of which 69.2% are owner occupied. Approximately 24% of the households are terraced housing and 10% are flats. There is a significant number of black and minority ethnic communities living in Derby City Council.

1.22.2 Waste collection arrangements Present at meeting: Andy Maunder from AEA met with Malcolm Price, Policy and Strategy Manager (Waste Management); and Geoff Woolley, Waste Officer. Derby City Council has provided a wheeled bin for residual waste collection since their introduction between 1987 and 1991 – with over 95% of household and commercial collections covered. Accordingly there has been a ‘no side waste’ policy since 1987. Charges for bulky collections and garden waste were introduced in 1997, although fridges and freezers are still collected free of charge. An alternate weekly collection service has been steadily extended following initial role out in March 2003 to 5,400 (5%) of properties. The co-mingled blue box scheme was replaced by a 140litre bin in 2005/06, although paper is collected separately in a sack. Coverage was 65% at the end of 06/07. A separate garden waste collection (240litre bin) was also introduced in 02/03 (for the months April to October) and expanded annually. Coverage was 64% at the end of 06/07. Food waste and cardboard were added to the garden waste collection in September 2006, for processing by an In-Vessel Composting facility, and collections now continue through the months of November to March. The council possesses one HWRC which has had a licensed capacity of 25,000 tonnes but it was expanded to have a licensed capacity of 75,000 tonnes in 2008. No trade waste is accepted and permits are required for vans and trailers owned by Derby residents (together with a height restriction in place). The recovery rate average is 50%. In 2008 the number of bring sites available to Derby residents was reduced significantly from 87 down to 32. Since 2005 there have been regular waste communications campaigns, including the promotion of reusable nappies and more recently home composting (with around 11,000 bins distributed to date). Neighbourhood Environmental Action Teams (NEAT) were introduced in Derby in 2006 / 07 in five priority areas plus Derwent. These have now been rolled out across the city and have increased engagement with neighbourhood boards. The NEAT teams have had a significant impact on the local environment. Kerbside recycling has been very successful with Derby in the top quartile for performance in 07/08 with hopes for improving on their position this year. The scheme needs to be rolled out to 12,000 more properties to complete the scheme, though the annual target has already been achieved. Environmental Services are currently looking at how to use enforcement powers around environmental crime but emphasised that this would not focus on prosecuting people for the content of their bins. The focus will be on raising awareness, and any possible enforcement would be around obstruction of the streets.

WR0121 – Defra Municipal Waste Growth Study: Addendum Draft - 125 - October 2009 1.22.3 Summary of waste trends

Household waste arisings

130,000 120,000 110,000 TOTAL DISPOSAL 100,000 TOTAL RECYCLED 90,000 TOTAL ARISING 80,000 s

e 70,000 n AWC expansion n 60,000 o

T 50,000 40,000 30,000 20,000 10,000 0 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 Year

Non-household waste and MSW arisings

150,000 140,000 130,000 120,000

110,000 TOTAL DISPOSAL 100,000 TOTAL RECYCLED 90,000 s TOTAL ARISING e 80,000 n TOTAL MSW n 70,000 o

T 60,000 50,000 40,000 30,000 20,000 10,000 0 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 Year

WR0121 – Defra Municipal Waste Growth Study: Addendum Draft - 126 - October 2009 Waste policy mapping  1987-1991 - Wheeled bins introduced for residual waste, covering 95% of households  2002/03 - Introduction of AWC, including a green waste collection (5% households covered).  2003/04 - AWC coverage extended to 10% of households.  2004/05 - AWC coverage extended to 31% of households.  2005/06 - AWC coverage extended to 49% of households.  2006/07 - AWC coverage extended to 64% of households.  2006/07 - Food waste and cardboard co-collected with garden waste; bring site numbers reduced from 87 to 32.  2008/09 – HWRC licensed capacity expanded from 25kt to 75kt. Waste arisings observations  Green waste tonnages have increased significantly following expansion of the service since 2003 increasing from 1,000 tonnes to over 15,000 tonnes in 3 years.  Dry recyclables collections have also increased since the implementation of AWC growing from 5,400 tonnes 03/04 to 15,300 in 06/07.

1.22.4 Summary of factors Reductions in Waste  Derby CC waste officers suggest that the more recent reductions in waste arisings, i.e. a fall in collected household waste per person from 522kg (06/07) to 504kg (07/08), are directly linked to the current economic climate.  Circumstantial evidence at the HWRC supports this theory with a marked decline in the number of television sets and other electrical goods being deposited. Increases in Waste  A significant factor for the increase in waste arisings in the early 2000s has been the increasing number of households. Household numbers have risen by 8.7% from 92,000 (00/01) to 100,000 (05/06) whilst household waste arisings has grown by 13.3% from 103kt (00/01) to 117kt (05/06).  Green waste tonnages increased significantly following expansion of the AWC service, rising from 1kt (03/04) to 5.2kt (04/05), 9.6kt (05/06) and 15.4kt (06/07). The Council was also asked to complete a self assessment of the communications activity they undertake. This has been adapted from a paper entitled ‘Strategic Communication Audits’ (Julia Coffman, 2004) that aims to develop a better understanding of strategic communications audits and the main steps involved. The presents a scale (Practice Maturity Scale) which has been adapted for this project as detailed below.

WR0121 – Defra Municipal Waste Growth Study: Addendum Draft - 127 - October 2009 Practice Definition Maturity Scale 1 Ad-hoc Communication is generally unplanned, reactive and disorganised. There is no overall responsibility for communication, no strategy and little or no budget to enable effective delivery. Projects may run over budget and over schedule. Poor quality of materials. 2 Emerging Some communication, but it may be sporadic and delivered only when required. The importance of communication has been recognised, but strategy and processes are still embryonic. Some resources have been allocated for the production of essential materials. Responsibility for communication has been agreed. 3 Planned Communication activity is planned. Limited resources have been allocated for delivery. Responsibility has been assigned, but there is little or no measurement of performance. 4 Co-ordinated Delivery is regular and routine. A strategy has been developed to determine the best way for the organisation to communicate and responsibility for its implementation is defined. Resources are sufficient to cover the outputs recommended in the strategy. Materials are good quality, but have the potential to be more effective. There is some assessment of performance. 5 Evaluated There is commitment to the development and delivery of effective communication and is measuring its success in order to get a better understanding of how it can improve performance. Materials are well resourced delivered proficiently. 6 Optimised Effective communication is seen as vital and is integrated into all systems and processes. The link between the organisation’s strategic objectives and effective communications is clear, delivery purposeful and proactive and the resources allocated reflect this. Strategy, delivery and support are reviewed and enhanced using formal frameworks such as scrutiny, best value, continuous improvement and quality management systems.

The respondent classified their communications activities as ‘3 – Planned’. The table below illustrates a set of criteria against which we asked the Council to evaluate the level of enforcement imposed on the presentation of side waste:

WR0121 – Defra Municipal Waste Growth Study: Addendum Draft - 128 - October 2009 Data Reporting  Apportionment of trade waste was standardized in 06/07 following the introduction of Waste Data Flow - rubble and soil are excluded from HWRC disposal figures as this is not defined as Household Waste.

Demographics  Household numbers are increasing while household sizes are decreasing:

2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08

Household 92 95 96 97 98 100 103 104 numbers (000s) Average 2.38 2.37 2.36 2.35 2.34 2.31 2.27 2.27 persons/household Total population 219.0 230.7 232.0 233.0 234.1 235.1 233.7 236.3

WR0121 – Defra Municipal Waste Growth Study: Addendum Draft - 129 - October 2009 1.23 Case study 23: Rother District Council

1.23.1 Local authority profile Rother District Council is a collection authority that serves a resident population of approx 88,200, with a notably higher proportion of elderly compared to county, regional and national averages. The total number of households in Rother is 43,250 with an average household size of 2.04 persons. In 2001 the large majority (78%) of households were owner-occupied. The largest settlements in Rother are Battle, Rye and Bexhill on Sea.

There are no sizeable ethnic minority groups in the District.

1.23.2 Waste collection arrangements Present at meeting: Adam Read from AEA met with four representatives from the waste department: Madelaine Gorman, Head of Service; Alan Dodge, Waste Manager; Fergus Cameron, Recycling Officer; and Lucy MacColl, Information Officer. The Council offers an AWC scheme to 84% of household, with residual waste collected in a black-wheeled bin and dry recyclables collected in two boxes. The dry recyclables collected include newspapers, magazines, paper, plastic bottles, cans and aerosol cans. The residual bin size is 180-litre bin, with 240 litre bins available for families with proven need. This scheme has been in place for the last 12 months. A garden waste collection introduced September 2007 will be extended to all households who are currently on AWC from March 2009, the garden waste collected will be sent for composting. Previously the garden waste collection was a charged service and the garden waste was sent to landfill pre 2007. To complement the recycling service offered at the kerbside there areas 4 Household Waste Recycling Centres (HWRCs) in Rother and 36 bring sites. The council offers a charged bulky waste collection service that is subsidised. The council is looking to implement a web-based self- booking scheme for this service. The council does not collect commercial waste. Looking forward Rother will be implementing closer, joint working with East Sussex County Council, as the WDA. Food waste collections are still deemed to be some way off but cardboard may come on stream much sooner.

1.23.3 Summary of waste trends

Household waste arisings

45,000

40,000

35,000

30,000

s TOTAL DISPOSAL

e 25,000

n TOTAL RECYCLED n

o 20,000

T TOTAL ARISING

15,000

10,000

5,000

0 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 Year

WR0121 – Defra Municipal Waste Growth Study: Addendum Draft - 130 - October 2009 Arisings have been increasing during the period of investigation – but only by a few thousand tonnes. However, since 2006 there has been a noticeable decline.

Non-household waste and MSW arisings

45,000

40,000

35,000

30,000 TOTAL DISPOSAL

s 25,000 TOTAL e

n RECYCLED

n TOTAL ARISING o

T 20,000 TOTAL MSW 15,000

10,000

5,000

0 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 Year

Waste Policy Mapping  In 2003/04 a fortnightly dry recyclable collection scheme was introduced to 24% of households, with a 55-litre box being distributed to those on the scheme. In 2005/06 this scheme was extended to 63% of households.  AWC was introduced in May 2007. In early 2007 a comprehensive door knocking campaign was set up, in addition to focus groups, road shows etc to introduce the new AWC.  Throughout 2000-2007 heavy-duty paper bags could be purchased for garden waste, with the garden waste being collected as part of residual waste. In 2007 the garden waste was sent to composting.  In 2007 a no side waste policy was introduced. Waste arisings observations  New AWC system was introduced in June 2007 (recycling rate increased from 17% to 40% overnight).  Dry recycling level (cans, plastics, paper) is now consistent at 23%.

1.23.4 Summary of factors Key findings  Since the introduction of AWC waste arisings dropped nearly 10% in the first year. There was no increase in fly tipping noted and no complaints from neighbouring authorities.  There was a tonnage decrease, which could be because the previous contractor collected some ‘commercial waste’ with MSW – but since the new system there is a harder ‘policy line’ on this.  Current contract won’t allow mixed (commercial and MSW) loads, where as previously they could. There was previously an agreement that the contractor would declare the number of commercial bags collected and an average bag weight multiplier applied.  They expect waste arisings to increase this year due to the roll-out of free garden waste scheme (but expect a decrease in green waste at WDA CA sites – data not collected by the District Council). Provisional figures show arisings to have risen by under 4% on 07- 08, but still 5.5% down on 06-07.

WR0121 – Defra Municipal Waste Growth Study: Addendum Draft - 131 - October 2009 Communications  The Council openly communicates the impending closure of the local landfill. The Council encourages residents to produce less waste, and recycle more.  The Council produced a Policy Document 12 months after the AWC scheme roll-out, the document gives a clear message to everyone (including elected members, call centre staff etc.) about the policies and enforcement.  From late 2006, comprehensive door knocking, focus group, 100% coverage introduction booklet and road shows were all part of the communication campaign to launch AWC service from May 2007.  Much stronger education and enforcement policies on ‘no side’ and no ‘commercial’ wastes.  A hard line taken at Christmas about extra waste – supported by communications! The Council was also asked to complete a self assessment of the communications activity they undertake. This has been adapted from a paper entitled ‘Strategic Communication Audits’ (Julia Coffman, 2004) that aims to develop a better understanding of strategic communications audits and the main steps involved. The presents a scale (Practice Maturity Scale) which has been adapted for this project as detailed below.

Practice Definition Maturity Scale 1 Ad-hoc Communication is generally unplanned, reactive and disorganised. There is no overall responsibility for communication, no strategy and little or no budget to enable effective delivery. Projects may run over budget and over schedule. Poor quality of materials. 2 Emerging Some communication, but it may be sporadic and delivered only when required. The importance of communication has been recognised, but strategy and processes are still embryonic. Some resources have been allocated for the production of essential materials. Responsibility for communication has been agreed. 3 Planned Communication activity is planned. Limited resources have been allocated for delivery. Responsibility has been assigned, but there is little or no measurement of performance. 4 Co- Delivery is regular and routine. A strategy has been developed to ordinated determine the best way for the organisation to communicate and responsibility for its implementation is defined. Resources are sufficient to cover the outputs recommended in the strategy. Materials are good quality, but have the potential to be more effective. There is some assessment of performance. 5 Evaluated There is commitment to the development and delivery of effective communication and is measuring its success in order to get a better understanding of how it can improve performance. Materials are well resourced delivered proficiently. 6 Optimised Effective communication is seen as vital and is integrated into all systems and processes. The link between the organisation’s strategic objectives and effective communications is clear, delivery purposeful and proactive and the resources allocated reflect this. Strategy, delivery and support are reviewed and enhanced using formal frameworks such as scrutiny, best value, continuous improvement and quality management systems.

The respondent classified their communications activities as ‘5/6 – Evaluated/Optimised’. This categorisation is true from the beginning of 2007 until early 2009, however a new communications plan is now being developed and it is not yet clear what form this will take. The table below illustrates a set of criteria against which we asked the Council to evaluate the level of enforcement imposed on the presentation of side waste:

WR0121 – Defra Municipal Waste Growth Study: Addendum Draft - 132 - October 2009 Scale Nature of activity 1 No level of No enforcement policies (either formal or informal) in place. Residents are enforcement free to leave material next to waste receptacles so long as contained or bagged and not construed as being fly-tipped or littering. 2 Informal A ban on side is in place but not rigorously enforced. Publicising the policy enforcement is confined to resident information leaflets, the use of bin stickers alerting policy in the residents to the policy and waste collection operatives leaving waste in place situ. No penalty notices have been issued although cautions have been periodically been made. 3 Formal A ban on side waste is in place and legally enforced although some ‘top- enforcement hatting’ / ‘crocodile lids’ are allowed. The above measures are also adopted policy in (as in 2 above) and following a number of cautions the householder will be place issued with a fixed penalty notice. Evidence of a small number of such notices being issued. 4 Formal A ban on side waste is in place and legally enforced and ‘top-hatting’ / enforcement ‘crocodile lids’ is not allowed. The same cautionary procedures are adopted policy in as in 2 and 3 above, although there is evidence of a high number of place and Section 80 (accumulations of household refuse in back yards) and Section rigorously 46 (householder non-compliant with Council’s waste collection enforced arrangements) notices issued to non-compliant households. Enforcement is taken very seriously by the council.

The respondent classified their enforcement activities as ‘2 – Informal enforcement’.

Waste data reporting

 Most of the waste tonnage data has come from County Council, as Rother do not have their own weighbridge.

 Rother does have concerns about quality. Although they believe data quality is improving, some vehicles (RCVs) might pick up bulky waste alongside regular MSW and when they get to the site the ‘workers’ discuss this and then the whole load is noted on the weighbridge ticket as ‘bulky’ (clearly not right).

 100% accuracy over fridges – delivered to a separate site and collected separately.

 Recyclates have better quality data – this is outside of the historical County Council disposal contract.

 Poorer quality data on beach cleansing, street sweepings and dog wastes – all get collected with MSW so no accurate breakdown. (One month dog-waste figures from County Council said 7 tonnes (huge number) which was probably a ‘correction’ from previous month’s under-reporting).

 County data has been much better over the last 18 months, as collected by Veolia.

 On waste arisings data sheet they have added a separate table to reflect the tonnage at a non Bexhill CA site, which takes approx. 1/3 of its input from Bexhill residents.

 Rother are much less confident about the non-household data.

 Estimate of non-household waste: The significant issue tends to be the relationship between driver and weighbridge operator. In most cases, loads delivered can only be categorised under one heading, and mixed loads are categorised as one - or the other, but not both. Rother believe beach cleaning and bulky refuse suffer particularly.

WR0121 – Defra Municipal Waste Growth Study: Addendum Draft - 133 - October 2009 Demographics  There will be some household growth in next 2 years linked to new road from Bexhill to Hastings (1800 households)  Waste arisings per household is low  30% of households are single occupancy  Elderly population (second highest in the UK) – 35% of population is over 65; 20% of population is over 75 - this is why they could go with a policy of small (180 litre) residual bins

2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 Household 38.0 38.0 39.0 39.0 39.0 40.0 42.8 43.1 numbers (000s) Average 2.39 2.38 2.37 2.36 2.35 2.33 2.13 2.18 persons/household Total population 86 85.5 86 86.5 87 87.4 86.0 87.6

WR0121 – Defra Municipal Waste Growth Study: Addendum Draft - 134 - October 2009 1.24 Case study 24: Rhondda Cynon Taf Council

1.24.1 Local authority profile Rhondda Cynon Taf is a County Borough Council with serves a resident population of 231,946 residents. The council was formed through the merger of 3 councils in 1996 (each represented in the current name). Some anomalies in current waste collection services arise from this fact – e.g. differences in containers for residual waste within the county borough. No attempt has been made, or is planned at this stage, to standardize across the board (there is interest in the Waste Department in restricting residual waste but owing to political resistance the status quo will remain for the foreseeable future). The following general/background information is taken from the council’s Community Plan: “Rhondda Cynon Taf lies to the north of Cardiff, at the heart of South Wales. Bounded by the Brecon Beacons and the M4 Motorway. It is the second largest local authority in Wales, covering 424 square kilometres and with a population of 231,946. It embraces an upland plateau and three valleys in the north, with rolling farmland and woods in the South… The County Borough is experiencing a period of major change, bringing fresh challenges and opportunities, but also creating uncertainty, and the need to overcome a recent legacy of severe economic and social deprivation.” This document also states that the council has a Community Waste Forum which it engages in terms of community consultations, and that this group “also examined community issues such as a concerted anti-litter campaign and the remediation of the Council’s municipal landfill site, which was closed recently as part of the wider waste strategy.”

1.24.2 Waste collection arrangements Present at meeting: Two representatives from waste department attended the meeting – Nigel Wheeler (head of StreetScene services (Service Director for Street Care, who has been at the council since 2004); Keith Lewis (Waste Manager, been at the council for many years, since before 2000); Bryn Jones (responsibility for waste data reporting). Household services: Weekly collection of both residual and recyclate. Same day collections (since 2004/5). Residual: Two-thirds of the borough are on 240l black bins for residual (i.e. in those areas previously covered by two of the councils in the now merged authority). The remaining one-third is on black sacks. There is no restriction on residual, and political resistance to any consideration of options for this (whether it be AWC, bans on side waste or other alternatives). Unofficially, since April ’08 residents have been encouraged to downsize and use 120ls instead (where new/replacement bins are needed). Recycling: Dry recycling and green waste collection service was rolled out in 2001/02 to 25,000 properties (Feb 02). Second roll out was 40,000 households in October 2002. Third roll out was 67,000 household in May 2003. Fourth roll-out was November 2005 to remaining households. Total approx 102,000-104,000 properties. The same containers – clear sacks – are used for this. Residents are asked to separate as follows: use clear sack for paper and card, use another clear sack for other dry recyclables (glass, cans, mixed plastic, Tetrapaks) and use another clear sack for garden waste. If they wish to, residents can now also put clothes in another clear sack, although this is only a recent development (since Dec 08). (Previous policy was to avoid duplicating charities’ efforts, but demand was high and the council decided to collect this material as they get a good price for it.) Batteries can be recycled at kerbside using a small red pouch provided. Food: Since Jan 07 the authority has been trialling food waste in 3 areas (of 600 households each; one group in each of the three previous authorities and spread across affluent and less affluent areas). Results showed 5.5kg/hh/week; so the authority is now rolling out the service to a further 10K households, and aim to cover 15K to 20K by end of the year. Only recyclers are being allowed the service; although non-recyclers are being targeted by an in-house team to encourage participation so that they can also be put on the scheme. The system uses a large kitchen caddy with oxidegradable bags (some frustration expressed that this type of bag isn’t supported by

WR0121 – Defra Municipal Waste Growth Study: Addendum Draft - 135 - October 2009 Welsh Assembly) and a 49l bin for putting material out on the kerbside. (The authority believes that the large size of container has contributed to the larger than average yields they are picking up of food waste). HWRCs: Six HWRCs have served the area until recently (one closed down in Dec 08). All have undergone improvements in signage over the years and now use WRAP’s standard iconography for material streams. All have also operated a permit scheme for commercial vehicles since 2000. A recent trial (2008) took place at the Treforest Industrial Estate HWRC (where depot offices also are located) in which proof of residency was required; though the scheme is still in its early stages. Bring: The bring site network has steadily increased in number to currently approx 120. They are called ‘sort centres’ and were significantly increased in number in 2004/5, although there was no perceived increase in recycling via this route as shortly after this further kerbside services were introduced to remaining properties. Compost: Discounted compost bins are offered to residents, and have been since 2003. Initially this was via bin sales, but now it’s via ‘Original Organics’ (based in Devon) and promoted through leaflets. Not current part of the WRAP scheme. Number of bins sold in total since April 2004 is 2962. Each year, a few more are sold (estimate a few 100) but the waste manager believes the area is now saturated: “anyone who wants a bin has now got one”. There is no pro-active promotion of home composting, but they are subsidised. Bulky: A householder can arrange for the collection of bulky items for free. Non-household: Commercial waste can be disposed of via local contractors (Biffa mentioned as an example). The council also offers a Trade Waste service, and a recycling collection service. This is mostly used by shops, so the waste is pretty much similar. The waste is collected on same rounds as residual for householders (so is not readily identifiable in tonnage terms) but the commercial recyclate is collected separately by two vehicles (blue sacks also used, on similar basis as for householder). Figures therefore available for the recycled commercial waste. Accurate data for commercial trade waste figures is not readily available; although from instinctive assessment Bryn believes it has hovered around 11,800-12,800 range when he started looking at it (before 2003). A recent estimate for 2008 was 6,355 tonnes. But without information in between it is difficult to establish a trend. The figures in the graph have been produced using estimates from raw data supplied regarding where waste arose and was disposed of. The table below illustrates a set of criteria against which we asked the Council to evaluate the level of enforcement imposed on the presentation of side waste:

Scale Nature of activity 1 No level of No enforcement policies (either formal or informal) in place. Residents are free enforcement to leave material next to waste receptacles so long as contained or bagged and not construed as being fly-tipped or littering. 2 Informal A ban on side is in place but not rigorously enforced. Publicising the policy is enforcement confined to resident information leaflets, the use of bin stickers alerting the policy in residents to the policy and waste collection operatives leaving waste in situ. No place penalty notices have been issued although cautions have been periodically been made. 3 Formal A ban on side waste is in place and legally enforced although some ‘top-hatting’ enforcement / ‘crocodile lids’ are allowed. The above measures are also adopted (as in 2 policy in above) and following a number of cautions the householder will be issued with a place fixed penalty notice. Evidence of a small number of such notices being issued.

WR0121 – Defra Municipal Waste Growth Study: Addendum Draft - 136 - October 2009 Communications Rhondda Cynon Taf deliver on-going communications and promotions of recycling to residents, heavily branded with Rhys Cycle and SORT. Expenditure is approximately £250K/year on this work. Work includes roadshows (for which they have a trailer), vehicle livery, website, working with local/Welsh celebrities and clubs (e.g. football clubs). Schools education work includes landfill safaris and in-school promotions. Also pair up with schools to run competitions. For third year this year will be running Enviro-vision song quest with children at comprehensive schools. Also plan to do a fashion show this year, featuring recycled/recyclable materials. A lot of work also goes into creating videos and interactive media – linking in with messages about pollution and littering as well as recycling. The council does not wish to fine people for incorrect behaviour – and seeks to keep positive messages going. Action has been taken in the past, however, against businesses – particularly those using HWRCs to dispose of waste as if it was domestic or shops which put materials out in clear sacks for collection on domestic rounds. The Council was asked to complete a self assessment of the communications activity they undertake. This has been adapted from a paper entitled ‘Strategic Communication Audits’ (Julia Coffman, 2004) that aims to develop a better understanding of strategic communications audits and the main steps involved. The presents a scale (Practice Maturity Scale) which has been adapted for this project as detailed below.

The respondent classified their communications activities as currently being ‘4 – Co-ordinated’; (though the authority is currently implementing measures which will classify it as ‘5 – Evaluated’).

WR0121 – Defra Municipal Waste Growth Study: Addendum Draft - 137 - October 2009 1.24.3 Summary of waste trends The following chart illustrates household waste arisings trends for the local authority.

Household Waste Arisings

140,000

120,000

100,000 s

e 80,000 n

n 60,000 o T 40,000

20,000

0 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 Year

TOTAL HH DISPOSAL TOTAL HH RECYCLED TOTAL HH ARISING

The following chart provides a breakdown of household arisings in terms of household wastes (residual and recycling respectively) and all non-household collected wastes. Consistent data is not available for a more detailed breakdown of these municipal waste streams.

Municipal waste arisings

160,000

140,000

120,000

100,000

Classification of commercial 80,000 waste as MSW (prior to this period wasn’t classified as such) 60,000

40,000 Reclassification of these ‘internal’ waste as no longer MSW (e.g. 20,000 parks, housing, highways)

0 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08

TOTAL HH DISPOSAL TOTAL HH RECYCLED TOTAL NON-HH ARISINGS

WR0121 – Defra Municipal Waste Growth Study: Addendum Draft - 138 - October 2009 1.24.4 Summary of factors Key findings  MSW figures dropped dramatically in 2002/03 (possibly owing to WAG reclassifications referred to)  MSW then was increasing until 2004/05 and 2005/06 since when it has been on the decrease.  The current waste disposal fee is £17.04+£32=£49.04 in landfill tax per tonne rising to £57.04/tonne in April 2009 (owing to £8 increase in landfill tax).  The meeting attendees believed that the primary significant changes that will be seen in data will be due to waste categories being removed from MSW.  The main cause of substantial changes in figures is believed by the Waste Manager to be the reclassification of materials which used to be considered MSW and were then taken out. This is essentially waste which is handled / generated by other departments but not dealt with by the waste department. Highways waste was cited as one example, so was schools waste which if a school contracts out it’s collections to a waste contractor (rather than having it collected by the council) is also not counted as MSW. Parks waste was also identified as a category which was moved out of MSW. Gully emptyings is also an example. This change took place in 2005/06, so the 2006/07 figures are the first time that they’re not included in the MSW arisings. (The only one still included is cleansing).  Note also that another change which took place in terms of classifications was the inclusion for the first time in 2001/02’s figures of commercial waste as a MSW. Prior to this, commercial waste had not been included. Waste data reporting  Data is provided to WasteDataFlow (WDF). Systems for recording and providing data were redeveloped at the time of WDF’s introduction, and have undergone improvements (but not radical changes) since then. No data is available for before 2000.  No weighbridge discrepancies are known to be affecting data.  There was a change in classification of certain data – highways waste was removed from being classified as MSW. Similarly schools waste not collected by the authority, and parks waste are now not counted as MSW.  Up to 2006/07, the same tonnage figure has been reported for non-household wastes, of 12,300 tonnes per annum. Residual waste from commercial collections is co-collected with residual waste from households. The method for allocating these tonnages to, respectively, household and commercial sources is not known. The authority reports that the number of commercial customers has remained fairly constant of the time series, which may explain why the same tonnage figure has been applied for each period. It is notable that in 2007/08, non-household residual waste tonnages (reported in provisional WDF figures) were approximately half of this tonnage. It is unknown whether this is attributable to a genuine reduction in collected commercial waste or whether this is a data reporting issue.

WR0121 – Defra Municipal Waste Growth Study: Addendum Draft - 139 - October 2009 1.25 Case study 25: Flintshire

1.25.1 Local authority profile Flintshire is a county in the North East of Wales. It borders the Dee Estuary to the north, Cheshire to the east, Wrexham to the south and Denbighshire to the west. The population of Flintshire grew from 142,036 in 1991 to 150,077 in 2006. 97.7% of the population in Flintshire described themselves as British – White. The largest BME population was found in the Shotton area (1.5%), with people of Asian origin making up the most significant minority, but across the rest of the authority, rates are low. The ethnic minority population of Flintshire is small. It is likely that this sector of the population will have grown since the accession of 8 new member countries to the European Union in 2004. In total 91,230 tonnes of waste was produced in Flintshire in 2006/07. Of this, 56,286 tonnes was landfilled (61.70%), and 34,852 tonnes was either reused recycled or composted – including soil and rubble (38.20%). All waste not recycled or composted was, up until December 2007, disposed in landfill at Brookhill landfill site in Buckley. However, since the closure of this site Flintshire’s residual black sack waste is being transferred out of the County to Pen y Bont or Hafod landfill site in Wrexham. Considerations for future provisions of landfill are ongoing. In terms of National Assembly for Wales Performance Indicators (NAWPIs), 19.58% recycled / reused (16,565 tonnes) and 13.77% composted (11,647 tonnes) is a total of 33.35% recycled and composted (combined). This exceeds the national target of 25% by 8.35%.

1.25.2 Waste collection arrangements Present at meeting: One representative from the waste department: Gabrielle Povey. Household waste Residual: Weekly refuse collections in black sacks. Collection contract with DSO. Recycling: Kerbside collection of paper in blue bag (64,800 households, 98%) on fortnightly basis using reusable blue plastic sacks. Dedicated vehicles operated by DSO take this to Shotton Paper Mill (just down road!). Fortnightly kerbside collection of 55L blue box which takes dry recyclables (glass, plastic bottles, cans/tins and textiles). Started this in July 2001, with LTCS, with 7,500 households. Continued expansion across the years (25% of all households by end 2001/02; none in 02/03; 50% mid-year 2003/04 94% by 2004/05). Another 2% added in 2005/06. Another 0.5% in 2006/07. Textiles no longer collected in the box. Organics: Introduced in April 2003, continued expansion until now 82% covered. (In period of interest 10% had it in 2003, 21.5% in 2004, 42% by 2005, 80% by 2006). 140L wheeled bins used, service provided on fortnightly basis during 11 months (reduces to monthly service during January only). Operated by DSO. Skips are provided for Parks & Gardens team for collection of their organic waste. Compost bins: Have subsidised compost bins since 2000. Bin sales figures start in 2000 at 1,619, increasing by 85-100/year each year until 2005 when 626 sold (owing to big promotion). Couple hundred more in 2006/07. Bring sites: 26 bring sites in total at present. Banks take paper, glass, plastic, cans, textiles, shoes and books. Some sub-contracting of management of these. HWRCs: Known as Recycling Parks, there are eight in Flintshire of which one was new in 2004/5 and another was changed to 100% recycling in April 2005. Historically, provision concentrated them in the centre and East of the County (hence opening of Greenfields site in Oct 05 to serve West – modern 10 bay facility). AD Waste Ltd is the Local Authority Waste Disposal Company (LAWDC) and has managed the sites under contract with requirement to increase % recycled over time. (Historically, a few community skips were provided to serve areas in rural western part of the county which were beyond 4 miles of closest recycling park, which has recently been discontinued.) A key issue discussed at the meeting was the introduction in July 2005 of the Van Ban as part of the new contract issued to AD Waste. This combined with new signage, a change to nomenclature (calling them Recycling Parks, not ‘tips’) and change in infrastructure in place

WR0121 – Defra Municipal Waste Growth Study: Addendum Draft - 140 - October 2009 (removal of so many skips for inert waste and more focus on recycling containers) made a big difference to arisings from these parks. Noticeable reductions were seen in Commercial Waste especially. Householders with pick-up style vehicles or trailers need to have permits in order to access the site – obtainable by showing proof of private ownership. Gaby also suspects some transboundary waste movements – coming in from Chester, Denbighshire and Wrexham, which this van ban helped to deal with. Council was relieved when they introduced the van ban to note that fly-tipping did not increase. It was feared that it would when planning its introduction, but it has not been the case. Domestic waste has not really reduced. Some slight reductions recently, which – it is suspected - are down to economic factors. Bulky: Available for furniture and excess garden waste. Free for householders on benefits, else minimum charge of £10.00 (up to 5 items) and £2/item thereafter. Limit of 10 items in 12 month period. This charge rose from £7 to current rate in 2006/07. Education: The van ban was well communicated to users, with meet & greet staff providing information and leaflets. Also all media and councillors were informed. They have done general awareness-raising work over time, and have a continued schools programme. Website updates also. Adopted the national campaigns, so participate in things like Recycle Week, Composting Week (at which promote subsidized bins) Yellow Woods and promotions at Christmas etc. Enforcement: Only of van ban. Focus is on fly-tipping and Abandoned Vehicles and illegal trade waste. The table below illustrates a set of criteria against which we asked the Council to evaluate the level of enforcement imposed on the presentation of side waste:

WR0121 – Defra Municipal Waste Growth Study: Addendum Draft - 141 - October 2009 Markets: The Council is also responsible for removal of waste from Flintshire markets, collected on schedule basis from weekly markets (Mold, Connah’s Quay, Holywell and Flint). With respect to non-household wastes, between 2002/03 and 2006/07, on average around 10,000 tonnes of waste per annum is reported (in the information capture template), of which recycling typically consists of around 75% of these tonnages. The recycling fraction from non- household sources is separately weighted. The majority of non-household residual wastes are separately weighed; though they include a small portion of wastes from small commercial premises (corner shops, etc) which are co-collected with residual household waste. For these household waste rounds, approximately 1% is apportioned to these small commercial premises. This method of apportionment is based on an estimate of the number of commercial premises in relation to the number of households included in the collections. Communications The Council was asked to complete a self assessment of the communications activity they undertake. This has been adapted from a paper entitled ‘Strategic Communication Audits’ (Julia Coffman, 2004) that aims to develop a better understanding of strategic communications audits and the main steps involved. The presents a scale (Practice Maturity Scale) which has been adapted for this project as detailed below.

The respondent classified their communications activities as ‘3 – Planned’.

1.25.3 Summary of waste trends The following chart illustrates trends in municipal waste arisings for the authority:

WR0121 – Defra Municipal Waste Growth Study: Addendum Draft - 142 - October 2009 120,000

100,000

80,000

60,000

40,000

20,000 Introduction of HWRC van ban & permit controls

0 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08

Kerbside residual Kerbside dry Kerbside organics HWRC residual Bring + HWRC recycling HWRC GW Commercial residual Commercial recycled Street cleansing, parks, clinical, flytipping

1.25.4 Summary of factors Key findings  Flintshire believe the most important contributing factor to reduced waste arisings is their van ban at HWRCs in 2005.  There has been a staged increase/expansion in services offered year-on-year since the commencement of kerbside collections in 2001/02 until 2005 when most current services were by then in place.  They did also raise that there have been changes in the way that different waste arisings have been categorised in the past. Waste data reporting  Sketchy ways of doing this before 2000. System of detailed excel spreadsheets was introduced in 2002/03 which provides more detailed/thorough data. Has been developed over time, for use and rapid entry of data into Waste Data Flow. One main person (or their method) has been doing it since WDF was introduced, so consistent use. Demographics  No known significant changes. A few new builds, but nothing known to be of significance. The authority’s profile document provided does say that population increased by more than double the rate of Wales as a whole, but figure is less than 8,000 over 14 years. Also, household figures in local data spreadsheets show very little change in the period of interest.

WR0121 – Defra Municipal Waste Growth Study: Addendum Draft - 143 - October 2009 1.26 Case study 26: Belfast City Council

1.26.1 Local authority profile Belfast City Council is the largest of 26 district councils in Northern Ireland. Belfast's population has been in gradual, but persistent, decline from a historic high of over 400,000 before World War One. According to mid-year estimates for 2007/08, Belfast has a population of 267,374, which represents 15.35% of the Northern Ireland total population of 1,741,619. After a period of sustained population loss, Belfast's population has begun to stabilise. Between 2004 and 2006 the city lost only 0.6% of its population compared with almost 12% in the previous 20 years. The population density of Belfast is 2,439 persons per km2. The wider Belfast Metropolitan Area has a population of 645,536. There was a slow decline in population density (people per square kilometre) between 1991 and 2006 with a definite decrease in the number of residents in Belfast (down by 8.7% over the period). By comparison, over the same period, the outlying area of Carrickfergus had a population density growth of 19.7% while Lisburn had density growth of 11.8%. In Belfast, 98% of the residents are of white ethnic origin. The largest minority ethnic groups within Belfast are the Chinese community (with 1,318 residents) and the mixed community (with 729 residents). Some key facts:  The city, and its wider metropolitan area, is the largest settlement in the region and the second largest city on the island of Ireland. It lies at the head of Belfast Lough in the lower reaches of the Lagan valley.  The Belfast district council area sits at the heart of the growing population of the wider Belfast Metropolitan Area, which also comprises the surrounding district council areas of Castlereagh, Lisburn, North Down, Newtownabbey and Carrickfergus.  44.9% of the population is under 30 years of age. The city's working age population (16-64) accounts for 60% of the total population. According to the Northern Ireland Index of Multiple Deprivation (2005):  Belfast is the most deprived out of the 26 Local Government Districts (LGDs).  Belfast has eight of the 10 most deprived wards in Northern Ireland.  Belfast has nine of the 10 worst wards in the region in relation to health deprivation.  There are 82,986 people in Belfast experiencing income deprivation and 30,119 people experiencing employment deprivation.  Belfast has 150 Super Output Areas (SOAs) in total and 34% of these SOAs fall within the most deprived 10% of all SOAs in Northern Ireland.  6.5% of the city's population live in 10% of the most deprived SOAs in Northern Ireland. Source: Northern Ireland Multiple Deprivation Measure 2005 (NISRA). The Council has been working under the banner arc21 in partnership with its neighboring councils to develop proposals and procure treatment and disposal facilities to meet the requirements of the EC Landfill Directive since 2000.

1.26.2 Waste collection arrangements Black 240 litre wheeled bins are used for general household waste that is not suitable for recycling. The collection of the black bin alternates with the collection of the blue bin (240 litre). If a resident only has a black bin it will be collected every week. All bins are collected on the same day each week. Most households in Belfast now have a blue bin or a kerbside box. The following items can be placed in the blue bin: paper, cardboard, drink and food cans and plastic bottles (with screw top attached and including shampoo, detergent and drinks bottles). For the 70,000 households on the blue bin collection service, these are collected every other week and are available in the following sizes: 140 litre, 240 litre and 360 litres. The remaining households in the city which do not have a

WR0121 – Defra Municipal Waste Growth Study: Addendum Draft - 144 - October 2009 blue bin receive a kerbside box for recycling accepting: glass, plastic bottles, paper, newspapers, magazines, cardboard, cans and tins, aluminium foil, textiles and old hand tools. These boxes are collected on a weekly cycle by Bryson Recycling. Brown bins which capture the garden waste, are not collected in December, January or February. Collections will restart in March 2009. Garden waste can be taken to one of their recycling centres during the winter months. Brown bins are collected every other week, in the same week as the black bin. Home composters are used to recycle garden waste and some food waste. They cost £5 (including delivery) and come with a free waste receptacle to transport the kitchen or garden waste to the compost unit. A new food waste collection service is being trialled to make it easier for residents to recycle leftover food. The trial scheme began in June 2008 and will run until October 2009. It covers 7,000 homes in the following areas: lower Ormeau, Markets, Ballynafeigh, Sydenham, Donegall Road and Falls. There are four centres for recycling household waste. The Council also provides free heavy duty plastic sacks to make it easier for residents to carry their waste to their nearest recycling centre. There are more than 40 bottle banks where residents can recycle glass bottles and jars. The Council also operates a textile recycling scheme for schools. ‘Cash for Clobber’ is a scheme that encourages textile recycling in schools by exchanging bags of unwanted clothes for cash. For each bag donated schools will receive £2.75 and an additional 25p will be donated to the Northern Ireland Cancer Fund for Children (NICFC). Cookstown Textile Recyclers (CTR) will collect and weigh bags from registered schools, regularly until the end of April 2009. The primary and secondary school that collect the most clothes, in kilogrammes per pupil, will win a state of the art computer and an additional big prize. Good quality clothes will be sent to the developing world. Garments that cannot be re-worn will be turned into industrial cleaning cloths and upholstery filling. Clothes, pairs of shoes, hats, scarves, handbags, and curtains are all accepted. The scheme has been very successful in schools all over Ireland, including Belfast. Last year over £80,000 was paid out to local schools and over £7,000 was raised for the NICFC. The Council also offers a commercial waste collection service, in addition to disposing of domestic waste. The services include: a collection service across the whole city, a choice of containers, Saturday collections in certain parts of Belfast, and an evening collection service in the city centre. A commercial recycling service is available for cardboard and paper only. Both can be placed in the same container - Euro bins and wheeled bins. Belfast also offers a free bulky waste collection service to householders. This includes items such as sofas, cookers, doors, mattresses and beds.

WR0121 – Defra Municipal Waste Growth Study: Addendum Draft - 145 - October 2009 1.26.3 Summary of waste trends

Household waste arisings

180000

160000

140000

120000 a p

/ Total disposal

100000 s e Total recycled n n 80000 Total arisings o T 60000

40000

20000

0 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 Year

Total non-household and MSW arisings

200000

180000

160000

140000

120000 a Total disposal p

/ Total recycled s e 100000 n Total arisings n o

T Total MSW 80000

60000

40000

20000

0 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 Year

WR0121 – Defra Municipal Waste Growth Study: Addendum Draft - 146 - October 2009 Waste policy measures  2003/04 – Blackstaff HWRC opens (no trade waste), covering the west of the city (with anticipated 70% recovery rate), 60 home composters distributed.  2004/05 – 2 * (redeveloped) HWRCs are opened in the north and east of the city, 3452 home composters distributed.  2005/06 – June 2005 saw the introduction of AWCs (phased in over 18 months), introduction of free garden waste collections phased in with AWCs, 561 home composters distributed, Resource Advisors deployed to increase participation and reduce contamination, Council agrees to spend £300,000 pa for the next three years on a communications campaign.  2006/07 – expansion of black box across the inner city to 50,000 households (Feb 2007), now approximately 40 bring sites city wide, 911 composters distributed. Observations  Between 1996 and 2000 there appears to have been a steady year-on-year increase in municipal waste arisings of 2.26% per annum.  Total non-household waste has decreased from 36,179 tonnes in 2001/02 to 20,959 tonnes in 2006/07, split between commercial and fly tipped waste with the former representing the largest portion. It should be noted that from 2004/05-2007/08 the fly- tipped waste was included in the household figures. This has changed from 2008/09 onwards and the fly-tipped materials will revert back to the non-household category.  Household waste arisings have overall exhibited quite volatile trend patterns increasing from 118,000 tonnes in 2003/04 to 134,000 tonnes in 2004/05 and reduced thereafter to ~119,000 tonnes in 2006/07.  Household recycling tonnages have steadily increased (although a dramatic rise was witnessed between 2003 and 2005) from 6121 tonnes in 2001/02 to 27,743 tonnes in 2006/07. This has largely been a legacy of a move to city wide kerbside recycling and AWCs.  In 2006/07 – the waste per head of population was 547 kgs / head and has since decreased to 540 kgs / head in 2007/08.  The data for 1995 to 2000 is of good quality and represents a true reflection of household waste trends. The Council was also asked to complete a self assessment of the communications activity they undertake. This has been adapted from a paper entitled ‘Strategic Communication Audits’ (Julia Coffman, 2004) that aims to develop a better understanding of strategic communications audits and the main steps involved. The presents a scale (Practice Maturity Scale) which has been adapted for this project as detailed below.

WR0121 – Defra Municipal Waste Growth Study: Addendum Draft - 147 - October 2009 4 Co-ordinated Delivery is regular and routine. A strategy has been developed to determine the best way for the organisation to communicate and responsibility for its implementation is defined. Resources are sufficient to cover the outputs recommended in the strategy. Materials are good quality, but have the potential to be more effective. There is some assessment of performance. 5 Evaluated There is commitment to the development and delivery of effective communication and is measuring its success in order to get a better understanding of how it can improve performance. Materials are well resourced delivered proficiently. 6 Optimised Effective communication is seen as vital and is integrated into all systems and processes. The link between the organisation’s strategic objectives and effective communications is clear, delivery purposeful and proactive and the resources allocated reflect this. Strategy, delivery and support are reviewed and enhanced using formal frameworks such as scrutiny, best value, continuous improvement and quality management systems.

The respondent classified their communications activities as ‘6 – Optimised’.

The table below illustrates a set of criteria against which we asked the Council to evaluate the level of enforcement imposed on the presentation of side waste:

The respondent classified their enforcement activities as ‘2 – Informal enforcement policy in place’.

1.26.4 Summary of factors  Under NILAS (Northern Ireland Landfill Allowance Scheme), Belfast CC will not meet its landfill allowance targets from 2009/10 onwards – it is anticipated that it will exceed the allowances by approximately 5,000 tonnes, based on latest projections (Cttee report Apr 2009)  ARC21, representing 11 councils, is looking at MBT and EfW as a possible long term waste treatment solution. There are 3 possible sites for such facilities, one of which is in Belfast. There are 6 shortlisted bidders, and it is anticipated that the MBT facility could be on-line by 2012, with the EfW facility by 2014.

WR0121 – Defra Municipal Waste Growth Study: Addendum Draft - 148 - October 2009  The Council is currently trialing a food waste collection to ~7000 households. The initial results have been encouraging – 3.5 kgs/participating hhld/wk, with a 30% participation rate. The trial is targeting all types of socio-demographic areas.  With the advent of dry recycling and the on-set of AWCs, the Council has invested a lot of time, money and effort in communicating with residents through door-knocking and awareness raising. Until recently, they had 20 temporary Resource Advisors, which then became 10 * 3 yr fixed term contracts and then ultimately 5 permanent positions. They act as ambassadors for the whole service and have been instrumental to the high levels of recycling and the downturn in waste arisings being witnessed across Belfast. The current recycling rate stands at ~27%.  While the Council operates AWCs it does not have a strict restricted side waste policy – the Council much prefers the ‘carrot’ rather than the ‘stick’ approach. Interestingly, following the introduction of AWCS, the council only received 6 formal complaints.  The waste awareness work stems back to 2003 with the creation of new contract management and policy units. At the same time the city’s HWRC’s underwent a redevelopment and relocation programme which lasted several years.  The Council also focused its attention on its own internal working practices by introducing comprehensive waste reduction and recycling targets for its own civic waste.  The Council representative also believes that the downturn in waste arisings is also a legacy of the economic climate – residents purchasing less and being more frugal with regards the products they waste.  The Council is soon to publish a Zero Waste policy – whereby no waste is to be sent directly to landfill by 2015.  There is no commingling of domestic or commercial waste and thus the data for the two separate waste streams is accurate.  The Council is also leading on an EC Interreg proposal to develop ‘Carbon Reward Cards’ for residents to use to potentially encourage holders to adopt more environmentally benign choices.  Street cleansing waste, primarily due to tourism, is estimated to be 10% of MSW although this seems to be falling, due to continued street litter awareness raising and fixed penalty notices (issued through street wardens) and the placement of split compartment recycling litter bins.

Waste data collection / recording

 The Council representative has faith in the reported waste arisings statistics certainly since the advent of WDF.  In the past contractors have not necessarily been good at supplying data on time. This has now changed.  There are no significant anomalies that contribute to waste trends.  The graph below portrays the change in recycling rate increases over part of the time series together with quarterly fluctuations.

WR0121 – Defra Municipal Waste Growth Study: Addendum Draft - 149 - October 2009 Recycling Rate %

30.00

25.00

21.11 20.00 20.02 18.95 17.95 17.2 16.35 15.00 % 14.46 13.27 11.86 10.00 10.05 9.07 7.92 6.86 5.86 5.00 4.72 5

0.00 Jan- Apr- Jul- Oct- Jan-Mar' Apr-Jun Jul-Sep Oct-Dec Jan-Mar' Apr-Jun Jul- Oct- Jan-Mar Apr-Jun Jul-Sep Oct- Jan-Mar Apr-Jun Jul-Sep Mar'03 Jun'03 Sep'03 Dec'03 04 '04 '04 '04 05 '05 Sep05 Dec05 06 06 06 Dec06 07 07 07 Time

% Qtr Annualised Rolling %

Demographics

 There is a resident student population of 10,000 students.  The Belfast housing stock differs greatly from neighbouring councils with approximately 60% of households categorized as terraces or flats.  As affluence increases there is a greater tendency for residents to move out of the city, as overall the population is decreasing within the city.  Due to PPS 14, there has been a moratorium on the development of new builds although this has not affected apartment developments within the city boundaries. This is being replaced by PPS 18.

WR0121 – Defra Municipal Waste Growth Study: Addendum Draft - 150 - October 2009 1.27 Case study 27: Down District Council

1.27.1 Local authority profile The county forms an area of 250 square miles (65,000 hectares). The estimated population is approximately 69,200 with approximately 24,900 households. The county town is Downpatrick about 33km south of Belfast. Down contains both the southernmost point in Northern Ireland and the easternmost point on the island. The county borders County Antrim and is rural / semi-rural in nature. They are part of the ARC21 group of authorities which includes Belfast.

1.27.2 Waste collection arrangements Down District Council operates an AWC kerbsider collection service. The black 240 litre wheeled bin is collected one week, blue (240 litre) and brown bin (240 litre) the next) - they must be at the kerbside by 07:30 on the day of collection, otherwise collection cannot be guaranteed. The district’s current recycling rate is approximately 30%. All households receive this service and the LA representative estimates that approximately 90% of householders’ participate although there are three areas that suffer with contamination issues. The recycling collections are operated by Bryson Recycling. A blue bin scheme operates that accepts paper, cardboard, plastic bottles and cans. The Council also operates a brown bin scheme that accepts garden waste. This is collected twice a month during the spring and summer months and collected once a month during the winter/autumn months. The collected green waste is currently taken to a windrow facility although there is a plan for the material to be delivered to an IVC plant. The Council will not lift excess waste, (e.g. bags/boxes), left beside bins during normal collections although there is no strict enforcement policy in place. Excess waste will only be lifted when a collection has been missed due to a public holiday. Additional bins: Households with six or more residents or anyone with a medical complaint that means they have excessive waste are entitled to a second black bin, and blue bin. Assisted collection: Anyone who has difficulty moving their bin can apply for an assisted collection. Down District Council encourages home composting by offering a subsidised compost bin for just £5 and is promoting the use of washable nappies to reduce waste buried in landfill. They offer a £30 discount to help paying for the initial outlay. The Council operates three HWRCs at Cloonagh Road centre in Downpatrick, Drumanakelly Centre near Seaforde, and Bann Road Household Recycling Centre, Castlewellan. One of these sites is a state of the art facility (with a ~75% recovery rate), one is a mediocre performer and the last facility is classed as being quite poor. A further two sites have been earmarked for development into HWRCs. The overall HWRC recovery rate is estimated to be ~40%. None of the sites operate a permit system and there is a suspicion that commercial waste is entering the sites, some of which is likely to be as a result of ‘backhanders’ given to site operatives. In addition the district has a mobile civic amenity service, which currently is for residual waste only. A Saturday morning Civic Amenity Service is available at the following locations throughout the Down District Council Area for disposing of any excess household refuse, cardboard boxes, small household items or garden waste. The Council offers home composters to residents at a cost of £5 / unit. The Council operates 34 bring sites targeting a number of materials, but most commonly glass, cans and textiles. The Council will lift up to 6 items of bulky refuse from households free of charge. Items include: washing machines, fridges, beds, cookers, and other furniture. The Council will not collect the following items: builder's rubble, garden waste, bags, boxes, domestic household waste and items containing glass. A commercial waste collection is offered to local businesses although there is no recycling service, though there are plans to introduce such a scheme when a new transfer facility becomes operational. The trade waste collection is quite a good revenue generator (averaging 4000 tonnes / pa) given that there is no real competition from the private sector which is largely focused in

WR0121 – Defra Municipal Waste Growth Study: Addendum Draft - 151 - October 2009 Belfast and other conurbations. The commercial waste collections are carried out using a single RCV and 2/5ths of another vehicle. The district has a number of caravan parks and holiday lets and thus a significant number of tourists during the summer months which can have a significant effect on waste arisings including street cleansing wastes.

1.27.3 Summary of waste trends

Household waste arisings

40000

35000

30000

25000

s Total disposal e

n 20000 Total recycled n o

T Total arisings 15000

10000

5000

0 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 Year

Total non-houshold waste arisings and MSW

45000

40000

35000

30000 s

e 25000 Total arisngs n n

o 20000 Total MSW T

15000

10000

5000

0 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 Year

WR0121 – Defra Municipal Waste Growth Study: Addendum Draft - 152 - October 2009 1.27.4 Summary of factors  In 2004/05 the Council introduced AWCs which not only increased the amount of dry recyclable material collected but also had a significant impact on the amount of residents taking glass to the network of 35 glass bank sites across the district – tonnages increased enormously.  Since the introduction of AWCs, the recycling tonnages have remained fairly static at ~4500 tonnes / pa.  The move to AWCs was accepted quite well by residents – only a minority had an issue with the new service. Since the introduction, residual waste tonnages have decreased and overall household waste arisings have dropped despite the resident population increasing. There were no reported increases in fly-tipping.  The ban on side waste is not heavily enforced although contamination labels have been issued alerting householders of the need not to include non-targeted material in the blue and brown bins.  With regards the HWRCs the recovery levels have continually improved. It is suspected there may be a little cross border usage although not significant.  2004 saw the distribution of home composters to residents. These were mostly issued to residents in rural areas and committed recyclers in urban areas – the LA representative suspects that these residents already composted much of this waste anyway, so the likely impact on waste arising was considered insignificant. In excess of 1000 units / pa have been issued.  The brown bins collect approximately 3000 tonnes of garden waste each year.  The Council is hoping to introduce food waste collections in August – this is likely to be commingled with garden waste, although the introduction is dependent on securing a transfer facility in Armagh.  The Council has been particularly proactive in terms of its waste education work. It employs a full time education officer whose role it is to engage with schools and community organizations. Waste data reporting  The Council has always had a weighbridge and all waste consignments have been accurately recorded.  The Council has faith in the data recorded under WDF but not so much confidence in waste data prior to 2003/04.  Commercial and domestic waste has been separately collected since 1993 so there is a lot of confidence in the split in tonnages associated with the data.  There is a suspicion that 3 to 4 years ago that some highways waste was entering the MSW stream. Demographics  The overall population has been steadily increasing over the time series from a total of 64,100 residents in 2000/01 to approximately 69,200 in 2006/07, according to NISRA estimates.  Equally, average household size has reduced from 2.80 to 2.65 persons / hhld over the same time period. However, this is high when compared to typical household sizes in England for example. However, as the LA representative pointed out, typical households tend to be larger per se due average family sizes.  There has been an influx of eastern Europeans, particularly Polish in some of the local fishing communities – the immigration however has been less pronounced than in other more urbanized parts of Northern Ireland.

WR0121 – Defra Municipal Waste Growth Study: Addendum Draft - 153 - October 2009  New build has, until recently, been fairly buoyant in the district. However, the EHS has recently placed a moratorium on new developments in the district which will have an effect on the number of new permanent residents entering the area.

1.28 Cases study 28: West Dunbartonshire Council

1.28.1 Local authority profile The Unitary Authority of West Dunbartonshire is located in the west Central Region of Scotland; it covers an administrative area of 176Km² and in 2001 was home to a population of 91,400 persons, that represents 1.81% of the population of Scotland and 0.16% of the population of the entire United Kingdom. West Dunbartonshire is one of the 32 local government council areas of Scotland. Bordering onto the west of the City of Glasgow, containing many of Glasgow's commuter towns and villages as well as the city's suburbs. West Dunbartonshire also Borders onto Argyll and Bute. The area is administered from Dumbarton, although Clydebank is the largest town. The Council has only existed since 1996, and was comprised of a number of smaller borough councils and the responsibilities of the previous region of Strathclyde. The population of children and young people aged 0-19 years in West Dunbartonshire is estimated to have fallen by over 2,500 between 1996 and 2005.

1.28.2 Waste collection arrangements West Dunbartonshire Council operates a minimum weekly waste collection service for householders. The waste is collected by means of individual wheeled bins, communal bins or plastic sacks. The specific day of collection is fixed for the whole year, apart from over the Christmas and New Year holiday period when essential changes to collection days are notified to the householders who will be affected. There are 43,000 households in the area, all of which receive a weekly waste collection. A total of 30,000 households receive a monthly collection of their blue bin (introduced in 2004) and brown garden waste bin (introduced in 2005). The remaining 13,000 households receive a bi-weekly blue box collection (introduced in 2007). There is no restriction on the presentation of side waste. A free uplift service is available for bulky household items such as old three-piece suites or other large household items which cannot fit easily into a wheeled bin. It should be noted that the Council has a duty to impose a charge for certain special uplift items resulting from home improvement works. The council will not remove builder’s rubble, bricks, soil, asbestos or gas cylinders though it operates services for the collection of good quality items of furniture and waste electronic and electrical equipment (WEEE) which residents no longer require. Local charity Home from Home, in partnership with the Council, will collect good quality reusable items of furniture, anything ranging from beds to wardrobes, sofas and dining tables, and provide these items at very low cost to local residents who need to furnish their homes. The Council, Greenlight Recycling and the Scottish Government have recently extended a pilot scheme for the collection of recyclable materials from flats, tenements and multi-storey properties and households where a wheeled bin service is not available. These households have a blue box and a bag for the collection of paper, cardboard, plastic bottles and cans. The boxes and bags are collected every two weeks from householder’s doorsteps. In accordance with Fire Service regulations, blue boxes and bags should be stored inside the home and placed on the doorstep on collection days. There are three Household Waste Recycling Centres in West Dunbartonshire, at Dalmoak, near Renton; Ferry Road, Old Kilpatrick and Stanford Street, Clydebank. Stanford Street does not accept household refuse and is designed specifically to collect a wide range of segregated materials for recycling. Two of these sites were redeveloped following award of funding through the Strategic Waste Fund (SWF) leading to considerable improvement in the levels of material recovery. There are 40 Communal Recycling Points throughout West Dunbartonshire which accept a number of recyclables. West Dunbartonshire Council is working in partnership with two

WR0121 – Defra Municipal Waste Growth Study: Addendum Draft - 154 - October 2009 organisations to roll out a pilot scheme for the recycling of drink and food cartons at five bring sites in the area. The Council can offer residents a free 'Helping Hands' box. This will enable a resident to neatly store recyclable items in the home then take them to the nearest Recycling Centre when the box needs to be emptied. West Dunbartonshire Council provides a commercial waste service to businesses within its boundaries. As part of the waste prevention initiatives they offer a recycling service for commercial premises. A business may receive a discount in the charge for the uplift of their waste if they participate in recycling schemes. Commercial waste customers are offered blue bins where they can recycle the same materials as local residents, as part of the Councils integrated duty of care arrangements. There has been over 40% take up of this service. The Council has increased waste collection charges year on year and as such is a significant revenue generator, generating an annual income of over £500,000 pa, although there is keen competition from national waste collection companies The Council spends £20k/pa on a school waste education programme and hosts a waste prevention month in April of each year.

1.28.3 Summary of waste trends

60000

HWRC other (not accounted for elsewhere) 50000 HWRC green waste

HWRC dry recycables 40000 a

p Private and voluntary collections

e 30000

n Kerbside collected green waste n o T Kerbside collected dry 20000 recyclables HWRC waste (Disposal) 10000 Regular household collection

0 2000- 2001- 2002- 2003- 2004- 2005- 2006- 2007- 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 Year

WR0121 – Defra Municipal Waste Growth Study: Addendum Draft - 155 - October 2009 Total non-household and MSW arisings

70000

60000

50000

a Total non-houshold disposal

p 40000

/ Total non-houshold recycled s e

n Total non-household arisings n

o 30000

T Total MSW

20000

10000

0 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 Year

Total houshold waste arisings (1995/96 - 1999/00)

45000 Regular household 40000 collection 35000 HWRC waste (Disposal) 30000 TOTAL DISPOSAL s

e 25000 n n

o 20000 Kerbside collected dry T 15000 recyclables 10000 Private and voluntary collections 5000 TOTAL RECYCLED 0 1995/96 1996/97 1997/98 1998/99 1999/00 TOTAL ARISING Year

WR0121 – Defra Municipal Waste Growth Study: Addendum Draft - 156 - October 2009 Total non-houshold and MSW arisings (1995/96 - 1999/00) MSW commercial waste 60000 MSW fly tipped waste 50000 MSW other * 40000 s e TOTAL DISPOSAL n 30000 n o T 20000 MSW source separated commercial dry recyclables 10000 TOTAL RECYCLED

0 TOTAL ARISING 1995/96 1996/97 1997/98 1998/99 1999/00 Year TOTAL MSW

Waste policy mapping  Wheeled bins introduced in 1996.  2000/01 – weekly collections with unrestricted side waste.  2003/04 – Strategic Waste Implementation Plan approved, 13 bring sites in place, free composters available for householders.  2004/05 – dry recyclables kerbside collection introduced to 30,000 households, 2 HWRCs upgraded, a total of 25 bring sites in place, introduced a real nappy scheme, introduced a waste education programme, introduced a furniture redistribution scheme and introduced April as the Waste Prevention month.  2005/06 – a garden waste collection was introduced to 30,000 households, built an additional HWRC, the bring network was increased to 35 sites, a charge for bulky DIY wastes was introduced and a waste prevention portal was introduced on the Council’s web site.  2006/07 – the dry recyclables kerbside collection was extended to a further 12,000 households on a fortnightly collection frequency, cardboard added to blue bin/box schemes, the bring network was extended to 40 sites, they introduced a subsidized home composter scheme in partnership with WRAP and an internal waste prevention plan was adopted by WDC employees.  2007/08 – Tetra-pak pilot programme commenced Waste arisings observations  Household collected waste has overall slowly declined since 2002/03 but has increased since 2006/07 despite waste policy improvements.  The amount of household waste recycled has increased dramatically since 2004/05.  The segmentation of household waste streams has improved dramatically since the advent of WDF as evidenced in the first graph that exhibits the split of HWRC waste streams and the introduction of kerbside garden waste collection tonnages.  Overall household waste arisings have increased by 13,000 tonnes between 2000/01 and 2007/08.  The amount of non-household waste disposed of (largely commercial waste) has reduced from a high of ~17.5 ktpa in 2000/01 to ~6 ktpa in 2007/08.

WR0121 – Defra Municipal Waste Growth Study: Addendum Draft - 157 - October 2009  The amount of non-household waste (largely commercial waste) has broadly remained in the range 435 to 724 tonnes/pa.  Overall non-household waste has reduced dramatically from 17,662 tonnes (2000/01) to 6474 tonnes (2007/08) yet overall MSW has increased from ~57 ktpa (2000/01) TO ~65 ktpa (2004/05). Since this year there has been an overall decline in MSW to 60 ktpa in 2007/08. It is thought that much of this volatility is a legacy of inconsistent data reporting. However, as noted by the respondent there is now much more faith in the data reported since the advent of WDF.  Historic waste data has been provided (1995/96 – 1999/00) although it should be noted that caution should be placed on the use of this data due to data confidence issues. While data since this date appears more volatile it is considered to be more accurate.

Summary of factors  Confidence in waste data was not good until the introduction of WDF and certainly prior to 2001/02 confidence was very limited.  Each year the Council hosts a waste prevention month and there has been anecdotal evidence that suggests reuse has temporarily increased with a greater demand on local furniture reuse services and a dip in bulky items entering the Council’s HWRCs.  Current cost of disposal is very cheap at £46 / tonne meaning that alternative management options are fairly cost sensitive, the Council’s recycling rate is currently 32.8%.  Of the three HWRCs, one has a capacity of 12,000 tonnes / pa. The sites currently accept trade waste although a trade waste ban is to be introduced as of March 31st 2009. The sites are managed by Greenlight Recycling but are not policed out of hours– there is a suspicion that some illicit material is deposited at the sites.  Commercial waste services are suffering in the presence of private sector collection providers. They have lost 300 customers since 2005.  In terms of LATs, as of 2008/09 the council is in a deficit situation with a likelihood of incurring £150,000 worth of penalties, £750,000 of penalties in 2009/10 increasing to an anticipated level of £1.5m in 2013.  It is expected that a new interim waste treatment contract will be devised in partnership with Inverclyde and Argyll and Bute. The Council also belongs to the same Waste Strategy Area as Glasgow, who are looking to commission an autoclave and gasification type treatment process for residual waste, although such a process is unlikely to be operating before 2013.  The Council has witnessed a steady growth in MSW and household arisings since 2000/01. Although there has been a temporary reduction in 2004/05 – possibly a legacy of waste data reporting following the introduction of WDF.  In order to improve recycling performance, the Council is considering doubling the frequency of blue / brown bins collections and move residual waste to AWCs. By 2010 they hope to introduce food waste collections. They also plan to collect glass from 13,000 tenement properties through the use of 55 litre boxes. However it should be noted that all of this is subject to approval.  The quality of data pre WDF and especially in the 1990s is questionable. There is likelihood that outturn data was based on outputs from reprocessors etc rather than collected tonnages.  In 2004/05 construction and demolition waste (industrial waste) was sent to landfill rather than being used for infill for a marina development due to a failed contract negotiation – the material was included as MSW. Also the Council won a kitchen replacement contract for social housing; the removed kitchens were landfilled as MSW thus compounding disposal tonnages.  Up until 2003/04, the amount of commercial waste appearing as MSW was estimated.

WR0121 – Defra Municipal Waste Growth Study: Addendum Draft - 158 - October 2009  Demographic changes – household numbers are based on Council Tax registrations. The resident population is approximately 93k although the population is predicted to decrease. The average household size is approximated at 2.10 persons and the majority of the population is white with very few minority ethnic groups.  New build vs demolition of old housing negates housing growth.  There is an anecdotal belief by the Council representative that there is a behavioural change with regards waste prevention, reuse and recycling – not just within the council area but more of a societal trend across the population. Waste is now accepted as an issue of concern. The table below illustrates a set of criteria against which we asked the Council to evaluate the level of enforcement imposed on the presentation of side waste:

Scale Nature of activity 1 No level of No enforcement policies (either formal or informal) in place. Residents are enforcement free to leave material next to waste receptacles so long as contained or bagged and not construed as being fly-tipped or littering. 2 Informal A ban on side is in place but not rigorously enforced. Publicising the policy enforcement is confined to resident information leaflets, the use of bin stickers alerting policy in the residents to the policy and waste collection operatives leaving waste in place situ. No penalty notices have been issued although cautions have been periodically been made. 3 Formal A ban on side waste is in place and legally enforced although some ‘top- enforcement hatting’ / ‘crocodile lids’ are allowed. The above measures are also policy in adopted (as in 2 above) and following a number of cautions the place householder will be issued with a fixed penalty notice. Evidence of a small number of such notices being issued. 4 Formal A ban on side waste is in place and legally enforced and ‘top-hatting’ / enforcement ‘crocodile lids’ is not allowed. The same cautionary procedures are policy in adopted as in 2 and 3 above, although there is evidence of a high number place and of Section 80 (accumulations of household refuse in back yards) and rigorously Section 46 (householder non-compliant with Council’s waste collection enforced arrangements) notices issued to non-compliant households. Enforcement is taken very seriously by the council.

The respondent classified their enforcement activities as ‘1 – No level of enforcement’. The Council was also asked to complete a self assessment of the communications activity they undertake. This has been adapted from a paper entitled ‘Strategic Communication Audits’ (Julia Coffman, 2004) that aims to develop a better understanding of strategic communications audits and the main steps involved.

WR0121 – Defra Municipal Waste Growth Study: Addendum Draft - 159 - October 2009 The presents a scale (Practice Maturity Scale) which has been adapted for this project as detailed below.

Practice Definition Maturity Scale 1 Ad-hoc Communication is generally unplanned, reactive and disorganised. There is no overall responsibility for communication, no strategy and little or no budget to enable effective delivery. Projects may run over budget and over schedule. Poor quality of materials. 2 Emerging Some communication, but it may be sporadic and delivered only when required. The importance of communication has been recognised, but strategy and processes are still embryonic. Some resources have been allocated for the production of essential materials. Responsibility for communication has been agreed. 3 Planned Communication activity is planned. Limited resources have been allocated for delivery. Responsibility has been assigned, but there is little or no measurement of performance. 4 Co- Delivery is regular and routine. A strategy has been developed to ordinated determine the best way for the organisation to communicate and responsibility for its implementation is defined. Resources are sufficient to cover the outputs recommended in the strategy. Materials are good quality, but have the potential to be more effective. There is some assessment of performance. 5 Evaluated There is commitment to the development and delivery of effective communication and is measuring its success in order to get a better understanding of how it can improve performance. Materials are well resourced delivered proficiently. 6 Optimised Effective communication is seen as vital and is integrated into all systems and processes. The link between the organisation’s strategic objectives and effective communications is clear, delivery purposeful and proactive and the resources allocated reflect this. Strategy, delivery and support are reviewed and enhanced using formal frameworks such as scrutiny, best value, continuous improvement and quality management systems.

The respondent classified their communications activities as ‘3 – Planned’. Overall household waste (and MSW) arisings continue to increase despite a continued fall in the resident population and the introduction of waste prevention and recycling / composting measures over the past six years. The recycling performance overall for the Council is very good and one possible consideration is that these new measures may in fact be attracting new material into the system. It would be interesting to see whether a move to AWCs and enforcement of a side waste policy would have any affect on mitigating this growth in household waste.

WR0121 – Defra Municipal Waste Growth Study: Addendum Draft - 160 - October 2009