Democratic Services
Overview and Scrutiny: Waste Task and Finish Group
Wednesday, 26 October 2016
18:00
Milton Keynes Waste Recovery Park, 9 Dickens Road, Old Wolverton, MK12 5QF
McCall (Chair) Hopkins Hosking McPake Petchey and Webb
If you have any enquires about this agenda please contact: Clerk Name: Dwight McKenzie Page 1 of 64
Clerk Telephone: 01908 252177 Clerk Email: [email protected]
Page 2 of 64
Health and Safety Please take a few moments to familiarise yourself with the nearest available fire exit, indicated by the fire evacuation signs. In the event of an alarm sounding during the meeting you must evacuate the building immediately and follow all instructions provided by the fire evacuation officer who will identify him/herself should the alarm sound. You will be assisted to the nearest designated assembly point until it is safe to return to the building. Mobile Phones Please ensure that your mobile phone is switched to silent or is switched off completely during the meeting. Agenda Agendas and reports for the majority of the Council’s public meetings can be accessed via the Internet at: http://milton-keynes.cmis.uk.com/milton-keynes/ Wi Fi access is available in the Council’s meeting rooms. Users of Windows 7 and above can simply click the link to any documents you wish to see. Users of Windows XP will need to right click on the link and select ‘open in browser’. Recording of Meetings The proceedings at this meeting may be recorded for the purpose of preparing the minutes of the meeting. In accordance with the Openness of Local Government Bodies Regulations 2014, you can film, photograph, record or use social media at any Council meetings that are open to the public. If you are reporting the proceedings, please respect other members of the public at the meeting who do not want to be filmed. You should also not conduct the reporting so that it disrupts the good order and conduct of the meeting. While you do not need permission, you can contact the Council’s staff in advance of the meeting to discuss facilities for reporting the proceedings and a contact is included on the front of the agenda, or you can liaise with staff at the meeting. Guidance from the Department for Communities and local government can be viewed at the following link: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/34318 2/140812_Openness_Guide.pdf Comments, Complaints and Compliments Milton Keynes Council welcomes comments, complaints and compliments from members of the public in order to make its services as efficient and effective as possible. We would appreciate any suggestions regarding the usefulness of the paperwork for this meeting, or the conduct of the meeting you have attended. Please e-mail your comments to [email protected] If you require a response please leave contact details, ideally including an e-mail address. A formal complaints / compliments form is available online at http://www.milton-keynes.gov.uk/complaints/
Page 3 of 64
A G E N D A
1 Welcome and Introductions The Chair to welcome Members and officers to the meeting and introduce Members and officers who are present.
2 Apologies
3 Disclosures of Interest Councillors to declare any disclosable pecuniary interests, or personal interests (including other pecuniary interests) they may have in the business to be transacted, and officers to declare any interests they may have in any contract to be considered.
4 Minutes 7 - 12 To approve, and the Chair to sign as a correct record, the Notes of the meeting held on 28 September 2016 (Item 4)
5 Site Tour Members to be given a tour of the Milton Keynes Waste Residual Waste Treatment Facility (Item 5) by Waste Service officers
6 Report - Review of Future Trends/Demand Predictability 13 - 64 (What Will Waste Look Like in 5 years), and What Happens Elsewhere in Waste Service Management such as with other Local Authorities To consider trends and demand for waste services in the future, and local authority practices in waste service management and provision (Item 6)
7 Notice of Intention to Hold the Meeting in Private The public and press may be excluded from the remainder of the meeting by virtue of Paragraph 3 (Information Relating to the Financial or Business Affairs of the Authority) of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972, in order that the meeting may consider the following:
Annex 14 of Item 6
The Proper Officer of the Council has determined that the annex should be considered in the absence of the public and press as disclosure would not be in the public interest. No representations have been received about why those matters referred to above should be considered with the public and press present.
8 Exclusion of Public and Press
To consider excluding the publicPage and4 of press64 from the meeting by
virtue of Paragraph 3 (Information Relating to the Financial or Business Affairs of the Authority) of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972, in order that the meeting may consider the following:
Annex 14 of Item 6
9 Proposed Work Programme
• November 2016- Review of shortlist with the varied options/pilots considered in development of the new Waste Strategy broken down into costs, benefits, medium term financial plans/projections.
• December 2016- Review of Strategy direction based on evidence gathered and particular option(s) chosen.
Page 5 of 64
Page 6 of 64 ITEM 4 Notes of the Waste Strategy Task and Finish Group meeting held on Wednesday, 28 September 2016
Present: Councillors D McCall, D Hopkins, V McPake, and M Petchey
Officers: D McKenzie (Overview and Scrutiny Officer) A Hudson (Head- Environment and Waste) D Proctor (Waste Contracts Manager) D Carr (Operational Customer Service Manager)
Apologies: Councillors D Hosking and A Webb
Welcome & Introductions
Councillor D McCall welcomed Members and officers to the meeting.
Disclosure of Interest
None
Minutes
The Minutes of the meeting of the Task and Finish Group held on 6 September was approved with the below amendments: - Page 3 “Serco has the existing contract for the Council’s collection, cleansing and grounds maintenance” replace “Serco has the existing contract for the management of waste”. “Serco has the existing contract for the Council’s management of waste” replace “This contract is also currently up for renewal and the contractor’s performance will be reviewed by the service” Page 4 “Members” be added to Community views to be taken into account. Scoping Document Page 4 “Development of the Strategy will also incorporate any potential for the Council to sell waste services to other local authorities so as to generate income” be added to the Background. Page 6 “Review of the Council’s potential capacity to sell waste services to other local authorities and generate income” be added to the Proposed Terms of Reference.
Page 7 of 64 1
Report- What customers want and think of waste services (Evidence of a pilot and satisfaction surveys)
The Chair outlined that the focus of this meeting was to identify what customers in Milton Keynes wanted of waste services. Also outlined was that data possessed and provided by the Council’s waste service contractor; Serco, Customer Services and feedback from a pilot would be useful in the meeting’s discussion.
Dwight McKenzie introduced the Report, and provided Members with a broad overview of its contents. He pointed out:- Achieving customer satisfaction in waste service provision had always been important to the Council as evidenced by the Zero Waste Strategy Refresh 2013. Waste service provision was strongly guided by legislation, and development of a new Waste Strategy should help in ensuring that the Council’s actions are in keeping with legislative changes and developments.
Following this overview, Members queried of officers whether waste was separated upon collection as required by the Waste (England and Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2012. Particular concern was raised as regards the collection of glass items. Officers informed that the regulation obliged this to be done by the Council when it was technically and economically practical (TEP). In applying the TEP test, the Council was meeting its legal obligations in waste collection. Members were also informed that to make possible the easier separation of waste, waste service providers had together launched a campaign for waste recycling which encourages the public to recycle items, including separating items being disposed.
RESOLVED: That the Waste Service’s separation of waste when collected be monitored by the Council.
Members also queried whether legislation guiding waste collection was underpinned by Europe Union (EU) regulations and the potential impact of Brexit on the current and future mode of operation for the Waste Service. Officers advised that UK legislation for waste recycling was influenced by many EU regulations and laws which the government would have to unpick in going forward with Brexit. However, as the UK was currently a member of the EU, the Waste Service would remain guided by current legislation and its underpinnings.
Members asked of officers for an explanation of the apparent contradiction in the use of pink sacks in the Report. It was pointed out that page 18 of the Report had indicated households were not putting out pink sacks and instead putting out many black sacks, whereas on page 19 of the Report reference was made to a “decline in the number of black sacks put out” in the pilot. Officers explained that their efforts in encouraging recycling was not restricted to the use of pink sacks, and so other things such as the use of green bins was also taken into account in reporting household behaviour and whether there was a decrease or increase in recycling rates.
Members considered the robustness of the pilot survey methodology. In providing Page 8 of 64
to Members an explanation of the methodology that had been used in the pilot survey, it was pointed out:-
The area in which the survey was conducted had been chosen by the Cabinet member A second survey was not undertaken because development of the new Waste Strategy required Service personnel resources and had to be given priority.
There was some concern by Members that the pilot survey had only a 20% response rate with 44 households responding. The Chair however pointed out that in survey research a 20% response rate was not unusual, a view that was shared by officers, and as a result the pilot response rate was a good return. Members accepted that there was often a challenge getting responses in public surveys.
Beyond the methodology, Members sought to understand what the survey had in fact revealed and whether the pilot variation in bag distribution and collection had resulted in an increase in rat infestation. In response officers advised:-
There had been no noticeable increase in rat infestation in the survey pilot area In volume terms, survey feedback was that 2 bags were adequate for households
Notwithstanding the results of the pilot Survey, Members encouraged caution in generalising the survey’s results. Members indicated for example that they would have desired information as to whether the social demography of an area had an impact on waste recycling in that area.
Customer Service- Waste Service contacts and statistics Deborah Carr (Operational Customer Service Manager) provided Members with a snapshot of public contacts received by Customer Service in 2015 regarding the waste service, and how they were processed and resolved.
It was pointed out that:- Customer Service had a very good completion rate for contacts, with the majority resolved at the first point of contact. Only those which required further investigation and action were left open by the Service. Thermstat had replaced CERM as the new customer interface system. This allowed the Service to collect more qualitative data. A high volume of contacts is received for Public Realm on a whole including waste service contacts, with approximately 6,500 during the month of July 2016. However, only 3.8% were escalated which was an indicator of the Services good performance in resolving such contacts. August 2016 had 2.86% escalation rate and September’s results would be analysed and known in the very near future. A significant issue faced by the Service is not being able to determine the effective resolution of a complaint (though contractor feedback) once it had been escalated and referred to the Waste contractor (Serco). Customer Service was desirous of improving its resolution rate as regards
Page 9 of 64
abandoned trolleys.
In the resultant discussion about customer contacts, Members referenced a blue bin campaign by the Council which had in the past been successful. However, one of the problems which had affected the campaign was bins being stolen when they were delivered to households, before householders had a chance to take possession. It was suggested that theft could be a potential contributor to complaints regarding recycling bins. Waste Service officers are reviewing the problem of theft of bins, but separate to the development of the new Waste Strategy.
Members asked of officers whether incidents of refuse sacks being collected but litter or waste litter still left behind by contractors was prevalent, and how this was managed. Officers informed that both Customer Service and the Waste Service were working together to see how best this problem could be addressed. Ms. Carr informed that data for this type of complaint is held by Customer Service, and would be provided to the Group for the period April 2016.
RESOLVED Customer Service to provide data to the Waste Task and Finish Group for waste left behind after collection.
In discussion, Members identified flytipping as an issue of particular concern. Members asked officers whether there was comparative data available on the level flytipping before and after the Council started to impose a charge for bulky waste collection. Of concern was whether by imposing this charge, the Council was incurring costs brought about by increased flytipping. Waste Service officers committed to obtain this data including using “Flycapture” (National database) and provide it to Members but assured Members there had been no noticeable significant increase after the charge was introduced.
RESOLVED Waste Service provide flytipping data to the Waste Task and Finish Group comparing the period before and after the bulky waste charge was introduced. Waste Service provide flytipping costs incurred by the Council before and after the bulky waste charge was introduced. Customer Service provide data for flytipping complaints differentiated by those received from the public and those received from Council Service areas such as Housing.
The activity of a number of Resident Associations in organising area cleans ups was identified by Members as a potentially valuable source of flytipping data. It was outlined that information from these clean-ups could reveal whether fly tipping had increased or decreased in the borough before and after the bulky waste charge was introduced.
Officers informed that “kangaroo runs” are currently done by the Council such as in Wolverton, where waste service vehicles visit areas on particular days to collect bulky waste. This was funded by Town and Parish Councils. Members commended this action on the part of the Waste Service, but consider whether this service Page 10 of 64
should not be provided free to the public. Officers advised that this would be problematic as whereas the cost of waste pick up could be absorbed by the Council, there was a significant cost incurred in actual disposal of waste collected.
Members raised the issue of litterpicking and whether this has led to increased complaints. They were however re-assured by officers that this had not lead to an increase in complaints.
Ms. Carr advised that because there was a restriction on what people can report, this had impacted data collection. Customer Service so as to ensure the strength the robustness of data collected through complaints a verification process had been introduced. This meant individuals had to first raise an issue for example missed bin collection with the relevant service area before the matter was recorded by the Service as a complaint.
Waste Service Andy Hudson (Head- Environment and Waste) and David Proctor (Waste Contracts Manager) lead officer discussion with Members on the Waste Service’s performance. Members focussed much on Milton Keynes performance in waste collection and recycling relative to other local authorities and neighbouring boroughs. Concern was expressed that Milton Keynes’s performance might have been declining over the years. Officers cautioned that there were limitations in the extent to which local authorities could be compared in waste collection due for example to the employment of different contractors who collect waste in different ways. Data for recycling could however be compared as more “like for like”. In this comparison officers assured Members that the Council’s recycling performance was very good relative to other local authorities, and from data available such as from Serco which has numerous waste service contracts with other local authorities, Milton Keynes’s performance in waste recycling was the best.
Members discussed whether lessons could be learnt from how waste was managed in other countries such as Germany. It was pointed out that Germany for example has MBT plants with which they specifically treat compost. There were however cultural differences between Germany and the UK which had to be taken into account in any lesson learning.
Members outlined that any waste recycling campaign by the Council should have a strong educational component. This would for example teach the public about how to use green bins. The example was given of Monkston Ward which currently has a “silver caddy” campaign. It was recommended that schools especially primary schools be included in such a campaign, and that Sarah Spicer would be a good resource person for this activity. Officers pointed out that schools are currently visited to educate them about waste management and recycling, and further an educational drive is planned by the Waste Service which will cover issues such as littering
RESOLVED The new Waste Strategy should incorporate public education
Page 11 of 64
Members expressed concern that rotation of Serco staff and potential industrial action might affect waste service provision and satisfaction in the borough, and enquired of officers whether this was the case. Officers advised that there was no data currently available to suggest an impact on services.
The freedom which the Council had to change the terms of the waste contract was explored by Members. Officers advised that the Council had this ability however this had potential cost implications for the Council. Information was sought from officers as to whether bi-weekly bin collection would incur a cost, to which officers confirmed that the Council would incur a cost with such collection.
Members enquired as to the reliability of vehicles currently used in waste service collection, and whether they should be changed before their optimum had time had passed. The reliability of vehicles was assured by Officers, and further that Serco was cooperative in implementing changes when required by the Council.
The Chair concluded the item discussion by thanking officers for their contribution to the meeting.
Work Programme
The Group agreed the below Work Programme for the remainder for the financial year:-
26 October 2016- Future trends/demand predictability (what will waste look like in 5 years), what happens elsewhere in waste service management such as with other local authorities, and the impact of the new waste recycling treatment plant on the waste stream.
23 November 2016- November shortlist with the varied options/pilots considered in development of the new Waste Strategy broken down into costs, benefits, medium term financial plans/projections.
January 2017 (Proposed) - Strategy direction based on evidence gathered and particular option(s) chosen.
For this meeting Councillor McCall will liaise with Dwight McKenzie to determine a suitable specific date for the Council’s last meeting.
Page 12 of 64
ITEM 6 Scrutiny: Waste Strategy Task and Finish Group
Meeting: 26 October, 2016
Topic: Review of Future Trends/Demand Predictability (What Will Waste Look Like in 5 years), and What Happens Elsewhere in Waste Service Management such as with other Local Authorities
Introduction Milton Keynes Council in the development of the new Waste Strategy has taken into account projected future trends in waste, and associated predicted demand on waste services. So as to ensure that the new Waste Strategy is of a high quality, the Council is also understanding of what happens in other Local Authorities so that appropriate lessons can be learnt. This Report provides insight of some of these issues which are important to development of the new Waste Strategy.
Waste and Recycling- Current Trends Government data shows that the amount of household rubbish being rejected for recycling in England has increased by 84% over the past four years. Many Local Authorities were found to be unable to recycle 338,000 tonnes of waste in 2014-15, an increase from 184,000 tonnes in 2011-121.
Although this information suggests an increase in non-recycling levels, Department for Environment data shows recyclable waste in the same period increased from 10.7m to 11m tonnes.
The above data suggests that in the recent period at the national level, there has been an overall increase in waste generated of the both the recyclable and non-recyclable type. As high consumption is often attributed to lifestyle and consumerism associated with developed countries, this potential trend is one which many local authorities will have to contend in the future. Local Authorities therefore have to ensure that waste service capacity is adequate to meet legal obligations, and at the same time encourage and facilitate recycling by the public.
Research by The British Broadcasting Corporation has revealed that for the period 2013-14, 97% of rejected rubbish by local authorities was incinerated or sent to landfill (the most recent year for which figures are available). This represents an increase relative to the 2011-12 period when 270,000 tonnes was sent to landfill2. This potential future trend is one which Local Authorities will have to monitor and manage.
Statistics show that 45% of household waste is currently recycled in the United Kingdom, whereas the European Union (EU) target is for the United Kingdom to recycle at least 50% by 2020.3 The full implication of the United Kingdom’s June 2016 Brexit vote to leave the EU is not yet known in terms of
Page 13 of 64
whether this target will be kept or revised by the government. However the rate remains a future target of which Local Authorities still have to be aware in light of the United Kingdom’s current membership of the EU.
What Can be Recycled In determining waste trends and predictability in the United Kingdom, it has to be noted that there is some variation among Local Authorities as to what is collected from households and recycled subject to a Local Authority’s policy, resources and capacity.
Recyclables generally include:- Paper: cardboard boxes, newspapers, magazines, envelopes, junk mail, food and drink cartons including Tetra Pak Plastic: margarine and ice cream tubs, yogurt pots, fruit punnets and ready meal trays Bottles: drink, shampoo and detergent bottles Tins and cans: both steel and aluminium, as well as aerosols Kitchen foil and foil trays Glass: all colours but no broken glass or ovenware
Many other items including textiles, electronics, plastic bags and batteries can also be recycled at designated centres and some supermarkets.
Non-recyclables generally include:- Tissue and kitchen roll Plastic wrap, cling film, bubble wrap and plastic bags Coffee cups Plastic and paper contaminated with food - including grease-stained pizza boxes and paper food plates Crisp packets and sweet wrappers Polystyrene Nappies Soft plastic / metallic packaging like pet food pouches
Waste and Recycling- Future Trends Identifying future tends and predicting demand is not an easy endeavour for Milton Keynes Council or any Local Authority. This is because many things can have an impact such as demand eg from China, legislation (and changes), oil prices, availability of treatment facilities (not many paper processors in the UK) and Brexit.
Notwithstanding this difficulty, the Council’s Waste Service has been proactive in engaging with a number of professional waste bodies. Service officers attend national and regional group meetings e.g. National Association of Waste Disposal Officers (NAWDO), Neighbouring Authorities Waste Forum (including from Leicestershire, Warwickshire, Bedfordshire, Northamptonshire, Derbyshire, Nottinghamshire, Lincolnshire and Staffordshire). The Council is also represented on a number of industry boards e.g. RECOUP and at more specific meetings e.g. AMEY Client Group (IoW, MKC, North Yorkshire, York City, Cambridgeshire).
Page 14 of 64 2
This degree of engagement has provided the Council with valuable information as to what other Local Authorities are doing, from which lessons can be learnt (Annex 1- National Association of Waste Disposal Officers CA Site Saving Survey).
This has helped the Waste Service in terms of greater capacity and knowledge to predict and understand future trends and demands, which will be of particular value in development of the new Waste Strategy:-
Annex 2- Forecast of Future Waste Growth Annex 3- Forecast of Steel Cans Material Price (2010-15) Annex 4- Forecast of Mixed Glass Material Price (2010-15) Annex 5- Forecast of Aluminium Cans Material Price (2010-15) Annex 6- Forecast of Mixed Plastic Material Price (2010-15) Annex 7- Forecast of Paper Material Price (2010-15) Annex 8- Forecast of HDPE Mixed Material Price (2010-15) Annex 9- Forecast of Residual Treatment Price (2010-15) Annex 10- Forecast of Organic Treatment Price (2010-15)
The Waste Service also has a 25year forecasting model for the period 2004/05 to 2039/40 which incorporates:-
Key assumptions e.g. social and demographic growth Key indicators e.g. Recycling Rate, waste per household, waste to landfill Forecast tonnages broken down by multiple streams: kerbside, recycling, food, garden, CRC tonnages, CRC trade waste, tyres, street sweepings, cleansing etc. etc. Forecast where waste streams will go e.g. into MKWRP, into composting, to landfill etc. Waste Data Flow reconciliation CRC Trade P&L predictions Key budget info
Waste and Recycling- Local Authorities Among Local Authorities, Milton Keynes’ recycling performance has been good. Comparative data with other and neighbouring Local Authorities for the 2014/15 period has revealed that the Council’s recycling rate is among the highest (Annex 11- Recycling Rate 2014/15).
This data also reveals that there is wide variation in recycling rates among Local Authorities. As an example, 3 of 4 English Local Authorities provide alternative weekly collections4. The approach of Local Authorities in addressing poor performance in waste and recycling for the future, for example Plymouth Council has also varied (Annex 12- MRW Article).
For the future, the “Materials Recycling World” has indicated that it is greater consistency in collections by Local Authorities that could increase recycling
Page 15 of 64 3
rates by 7% by 20255. The potential impact of a “Framework for Greater Consistency in Household Recycling for England” on Local Authorities for the future is outlined by Annex 13- MRW Article.
Waste and Recycling- Milton Keynes For Milton Keynes, the Waste Service will use all relevant information to ensure that a high quality Waste Strategy that effectively serves the future needs of the borough is developed. This includes for example reviewing options for Milton Keynes’s Waste Recycling Plant to see how the new facility is capable of dealing with changes (Annex 14- Milton Keynes Waste Recovery Park, Schedule 3- Contractor Proposals- Confidential).
Conclusion Milton Keynes Council’s Waste Service is able to predict future trends and demand for waste and recycling with a high degree of confidence, and has valuable knowledge of waste service management in other Local Authorities. This ability and knowledge will be used to ensure that a high quality new Waste Strategy is developed for the borough.
1 Rejected recyclable waste up 84% in England since 2011, data show, BBC, 23 August 2016 2 Rejected recyclable waste up 84% in England since 2011, data show, BBC, 23 August 2016 3 Rejected recyclable waste up 84% in England since 2011, data show, BBC, 23 August 2016 4 Struggling council plans collections switch, Material Recycling World, Rob Preston, October 2016 5 Collection consistency would boost recycling over 50%, Robin Latchem, Material Recycling World, September 2016
Page 16 of 64 4
Annex 1
CA Site Saving Survey
Local Authority Saving Option Result Lesson Learned
Cambridgeshire County Council Introduction of permit scheme for vans and We are currently out to public We are currently out to vehicles with trailers (not implemented yet, consultation on a variety of options and consultation on the earliest implementation likely to be April 2015) are discussing the costs / analysis with proposals. However, the Waste PFI Contractor early indications suggest (AmeyCespa). As such no results are that this option is quite available at this stage. popular to ensure that the issue of trade waste is tackled. At present we are looking at providing this via our call centre at a neutral cost to the authority which would involve a small admin charge for the permit.
Cambridgeshire County Council Reduction of hours midweek across the existing We are currently out to public We are currently out to 9 sites to standard opening hours (10 – 4). consultation on a variety of options and consultation on the Retention of existing hours at the weekends, are discussing the costs / analysis with proposals. However, although looking to make these consistent the Waste PFI Contractor early indications suggest across all the sites, as at present the hours are (AmeyCespa). As such no results are that residents would all different. This has the potential to save a available at this stage. prefer a reduction in minimum of 6,207 hours per annum hours midweek rather than the permanent closure of sites.
Cambridgeshire County Council Charging for Construction and Demolition type We are currently out to public We are currently out to waste such as soils & hardcore, plasterboard, consultation on a variety of options and consultation on the Page 17 of 64 Page 1 of 20
Local Authority Saving Option Result Lesson Learned and gas bottles. are discussing the costs / analysis with proposals. However, the Waste PFI Contractor early indications suggest (AmeyCespa). As such no results are that residents are available at this stage. concerned that this would lead to flytipping.
Cambridgeshire County Council Closure of sites for 2 days midweek, which is We are currently out to public We are currently out to being considered alongside a reduction in the consultation on a variety of options and consultation on the midweek hours for all 9 sites. are discussing the costs / analysis with proposals. However, the Waste PFI Contractor early indications suggest (AmeyCespa). As such no results are that residents would available at this stage. prefer a reduction in days / hours midweek rather than the permanent closure of sites.
Cambridgeshire County Council Closure of between 1 and 3 sites (not We are currently out to public We are currently out to implemented yet, earliest implementation would consultation on a variety of options and consultation on the be April 2015) are discussing the costs / analysis with proposals. However, the Waste PFI Contractor early indications suggest (AmeyCespa). As such no results are that closing sites are not available at this stage. popular. When looking at the potential savings related to this option we have factored in some money to address any flytipping to address any ‘cost shunting’ to the Districts.
Cambridgeshire County Council Transfer of between 1 and 3 sites to the 3rd We are currently out to public We are currently out to
Page 18 of 64 Page 2 of 20
Local Authority Saving Option Result Lesson Learned Sector (charity or voluntary organisations) with a consultation on a variety of options and consultation on the reduction in sites run by CCC (not implemented are discussing the costs / analysis with proposals. However, yet, earliest implementation would be April 2015) the Waste PFI Contractor early indications suggest (AmeyCespa). As such no results are that transferring sites are available at this stage. not popular, particularly as this is likely to result in a charge for the service.
Van and Trailer permitting scheme (launched Initial reduction of approximately 9% in Volume of complaints Cornwall Council 2011) waste arising at CA/HWRC sites. higher than anticipated Saving £1m. and more robust application system would Subsequently waste has increased to have helped. Also, it former levels and beyond. would be helpful to have vehicle counter at HWRC sites to record visits at sites Cornwall Council Standardising opening hours in Summer to 9 – 4 Saving approximately £100k Could have been (from 9 – 6) (April 2012) enacted earlier as few complaints received
Cornwall Council Charging at CA/HWRC sites for specific Estimated saving 14-15 (£450k) Unknown at present. materials (Asbestos, Plasterboard, Tyres, 15-16 (£500k) Rubble/Soil) – September 2014
Page 19 of 64 Page 3 of 20
Local Authority Saving Option Result Lesson Learned
Derbyshire County Council Officers are currently exploring the feasibility of Potential income estimated to be the following options with a view to raising between £670k and £940k. income from the HWRC sites:
Charging a small fee for householders at some of the HWRC’S to help off-set Estimated £25K-£40K income could be costs. generated
Charging for disposal of vehicle tyres. Estimated that up to £780,000 income could be generated Charging for disposal of Construction and Demolition waste Estimated that between £75k and Charging for disposal of asbestos £120K income could be generated
Note: Charges for tyres/C&D and asbestos is likely to involve a profit share arrangement with the HWRC contractor. There would be an initial outlay to set up the required systems
Measures aimed at making operational savings Potential savings still to be determined are also being explored: Restrictions on the acceptance of plasterboard i.e. only accepting the material at certain designated sites Potential savings still to be determined Reduced HWRC opening hours Introduction of charging for soil& rubble, £1.8 m budget savings; 25% reduction Clear messages to the asbestos, plasterboard and tyres. Closure of two in waste throughput; small increase in public – one site was Devon County Council weekend only recycling centres and stopping overwhelmed prior to the Page 20 of 64 Page 4 of 20
Local Authority Saving Option Result Lesson Learned the rural skip service. Introduction of vehicle C&I waste flytipping; increase in introduction of charging restrictions (no tractors, horseboxes, trailers recycling rate as some members of the over 3 m long, vehicles over 3.5t including box public thought all waste vans) - 1st April 2011 would be charged for. Some public opposition. Anecdotal evidence of behaviour change – more use of freecycle and increase use of private skip hire.
£137k per annum Devon County Council Reduction in site opening times – 1 hour less am Very little reaction to and 1 hour less pm during weekdays. Reduction reduced opening times – in number of opening days for two rural sites; could have done this capping free disposal for charities of 10t per sooner. Reduction in annum ( 1st April 2013) days at the two rural sites was less than proposed due to public opposition. Some grumbles from the charity groups Gateshead Council Gateshead currently has 2 sites. A saving Public Consultation carried out and Political sensitivities proposal was put forward in 2013 to close one of 37% agreed to a closure with 58% around the potential the sites against a closure. closure of a HWRC site
In Aug 2014, it was confirmed that this saving proposal would not be taken due to the political sensitivities. The savings would have to be found elsewhere within the service.
Page 21 of 64 Page 5 of 20
Local Authority Saving Option Result Lesson Learned Gateshead Council Procurement of a HWRC management, 4 Tenders returned. A workshop was held to transportation and processing Contract explain the pricing The successful tender was within the schedule and summarise A business case was drafted in June 2013 to affordability range. the specification. This review the available options which was well attended and recommended a fully inclusive externalised The bid back performance target for we received positive contract. There were several reasons including recycling was 63% for the Gateshead feedback on this event. lack of a COTC holder in the Council, a reducing sites giving a considerable increase This may have helped level of staff at the Council and the Councils lack from 42 & 48% currently. with the number of of experience in dealing with materials tenders returned. processors and markets. A financial saving to the council of around £16K per annum and an Site visits were also held The new contract would have to be within the improved level of service will be on the same day as the current budget. There was no more revenue provided. workshop and bidders funding available. were able to appreciate Therefore an affordability range was set which A multi authority discount was offered the operational issues was the current budget as the maximum figure as the bidder was succesful for both the associated with the sites. and Budget minus 5% for the lower end to try Gateshead and Sunderland lots. and achieve savings. By procuring an incentive We did question whether the contract was The contract has been awarded and based contract economically viable and if we would receive commenced on 1st September 2014. Gateshead should affordable bids due to the detailed specification dramatically improve that had been written. recycling performance at An incentive based contract was chosen which the sites and expand the would help guarantee and possibly increase range of materials recycling rates at the sites and reduce overall available to recycle. disposal costs effectively producing savings for the Council. All types of contracts will need to achieve Having looked at various other incentive based efficiencies and savings contracts we decided on a variant based on our in future in order for own circumstances Councils to meet their • Incentives are payable over 55% at £50 funding gaps. per tonne Important principles will
Page 22 of 64 Page 6 of 20
Local Authority Saving Option Result Lesson Learned • The minimum performance level is 45% be working in partnership and the Contractor would have to pay a where possible, being deduction of £116 per tonne if below this innovative including (2012/13 Budgeted disposal cost) trying different ways of • Performance between 45 and 55 % working (ie incentive attracts no incentives or deductions. based contracts), • Figures exclude Inert Waste benchmarking what others are doing and Benefits to Council – having a good team to Reduction in waste disposal costs and make key decisions. Improved performance Benefits to Contractor Incentive payments made by the Council Reduces the overall cost to deliver the Service (affordability envelope) The Pricing Schedule allowed the contractor to increase the recycling rate which reduced disposal costs and made their bid more affordable. For the purposes of evaluation we applied the resultant savings from the waste disposal budget to the affordability envelope.
Hampshire County Council Implemented: Trade waste controls across the 26 HWRCs in Full year savings of £1m achieved. Policy amendments Hampshire, Portsmouth & Southampton. Van made to size of trailers and trailer ban and permit system with ANPR at permitted, 2 day all sites. Introduced in February 2008. allowance only for hire vehicles, house visits Proposed Changes: after applying for 3 C&I waste from SMEs at sites – allowing SMEs Subject to the outcome of the public permits in one year. to access sites and disposal of waste/recycle for consultation that is underway and due Page 23 of 64 Page 7 of 20
Local Authority Saving Option Result Lesson Learned a charge. to be completed on 22 August 2014. 12 week consultation on the potential changes Charging for DIY waste – continue to accept with a range of options soil and rubble, plasterboard and asbestos but Procurement for a new management under each one. charge a fee to cover the cost of handling and contract to start in April 2015 is treating/disposing of these materials. underway and it is anticipated that the proposed changes, subject to member So far had over 5000 Trade Waste Controls – enhancing the existing approval, will be implemented at the responses and whilst the trade waste controls system through either start of the new contract. final results are not introduction of height barriers or trade waste available, the options to enforcement officers at the entrance to sites. Level of savings is unknown due to the close sites and charge unknown costs of the new management for DIY waste seem to be HWRC Opening Hours – reducing opening contract. the least popular with hours to reflect the times that sites are most accepting C&I waste, used by the public. Potentially closing earlier trade waste controls and during the summer months or starting later in the working with the third morning all year round. sector being the most acceptable. Site Closures – looking at rationalising the network to remove small, expensive sites / those Key concern is around fly that have planning, lease or H&S issues. tipping related to reduced Includes re-provisioning of 2 or more of the services and increased above with large, modern strategic sites. queuing at sites. Almost all responses state that Third Sector Engagement – Aiming to maximise the HWRCs are a key re-use across the sites through working in local service that they partnership with the third sector. want to see remain.
HCC have just awarded the contract to run its Saving of £750k per annum. Member engagement Hertfordshire County Council CA sites to AmeyCespa. Based on their process needs to be proposed changes a public consultation has The contract length is 8 years, 5 particularly robust in been held and Members will make a decision on months with a 7 year extension order to mitigate against the suggested service changes in September. available. challenges to service provision suggestions.
Page 24 of 64 Page 8 of 20
Local Authority Saving Option Result Lesson Learned Suggested service changes: Closure of 2 CA sites, Reduce opening at all sites form 7 to 5 days a week (currently 17 sites), Standardisation of opening hours, Also: Share of income from recycled material and reuse. Deter improper use of sites by
Issuing of permits was Hull City Council Introduction of permit scheme for commercial Reduction in tonnage in first year of more time consuming vehicles (August 2001) 27%. than first envisaged. Not a full proof system, with some residents attempting to abuse the system. Waste Management Officer is needed on site during implementation of scheme.
Hull City Council Closure of Wilmington CA Site on 1st April 2011. Saving on annual management fee. Closing the site meant 1 of 4 sites Reduction in waste going through CA that residents were sites overall an associated saving from diverted to modern this. Less cross border waste coming purpose built sites where into the authority area. Saving £50k. recycling rates improved.
Hull City Council Reduction in opening hours at three remaining Saving in management charge, Minimal impact – less CA sites from 8am – 6pm to 10am-6pm (2 hour reduction in waste overall. Overall objection than first Page 25 of 64 Page 9 of 20
Local Authority Saving Option Result Lesson Learned reduction) from 1st April 2011. saving c£20k envisaged. It did have the additional benefit of residents from outside the boundary being unable to dispose of waste on their way in to work. Some customer complaints about inconvenience.
Hull City Council Cease free waste disposal for charities and the Reduction in waste through sites and Originally a member Hull Accredited Landlord Scheme (HALS) overall saving on cost per tonne of decision based on a disposal. business case for £90k for Charities and £40k for HALS. savings associated with banning of charity waste from the sites. This was then reversed by members after complaints from the Charities. HALS still cannot dispose of waste at the sites.
Hull City Council Implementing a resident’s pass scheme to The scheme was introduced over a The scheme has been in ensure that the HWRCs in Hull are accessed by three month period from April 2011 with place for more than three Hull residents only. the access policy being fully years and the Council implemented from July 2011. There still receives complaints Residents are issued with a pass to display in were some complaints from Hull that residents were their car windscreen or bring to the sites when residents and those from outside the unaware of the change. they want to deposit waste. As an alternative, boundary on various issues relating to However, the Council do residents can bring prove their address in the the inconvenience and the way the continually communicate form of a utility bill or driving licence to gain policy was policed on site. However, the message of the access. the policy has resulted in a saving of resident’s pass scheme circa £110,000 on disposal for the through the annual
Page 26 of 64 Page 10 of 20
Local Authority Saving Option Result Lesson Learned Council by preventing cross border recycling and waste waste entering the Hull sites. information pack and on the Council website. Kent County Council POLICIES: New Policies/ Trade Waste controls Overall waste volumes managed at A full policy review 18 were implemented across all 18 HWRCs in Kent the HWRCs was approximately months on from in October 2012; 45,000 tonnes less (24%) for the implementation identified Vehicle Voucher Scheme introduced in the following period October 2012 – September October 2012 for all commercial type amendments to be made 2013, when compared to the vehicles (vans and pick-ups) and private to achieve further previous year ending September savings and improve type vehicles over 2 metres in height e.g. 2012. customer service; camper vans, people carriers. Customers The Introduction of a are only eligible for vouchers if this is the The five materials attributing to the one off exception sole vehicle in their household. Successful largest financial savings are residual voucher for hire applicants will receive 12 vouchers per year. waste, soil and hardcore, garden vehicles/ bulky waste waste, asbestos and wood. disposal. (Date TBC). A limit on trailer size (2.05 metres) introduced. The facility to dispose of tyres and asbestos A 90kg per visit limit on soil, rubble and at all 18 HWRCs hardcore waste. across the network. ST A limit to 2 tyres per visit with a £5 charge (From 1 November made per 2 tyres. Tyres only accepted at 2014 ) 5/18 HWRCs. The 90kg per visit limit A limit to one sheet/ one bag of asbestos per on soil rubble and visit with asbestos only accepted at 5/18 sites hardcore to be amended to a 90kg per day limit. (No charge made as this would be in breach of st current legislation (From 1 November http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2012/811/sche 2014). dule/1/made) Kent County Council HWRC CLOSURES: The closure of one HWRC Small saving made as a result of no A further review of the on the network (reduction from 19 to 18 sites) in further management fees. network will be Page 27 of 64 Page 11 of 20
Local Authority Saving Option Result Lesson Learned August 2013. This particular HWRC received a undertaken to consider if relatively low level of customers and the lowest further closures can be tonnage throughput of all 19 sites. There are two made to rationalise the other alternative sites within the area. network. Kent County Council HWRC ACCESS: A permit scheme for residents The number of people who live outside has been in place at one HWRC since 1998 to Kent who still choose the use the site limit ‘free use’ of the site to Kent residents only. has significantly reduced over time. A payment scheme is in place for those who live During the 2013/14 financial year only out of borough and wish to use this site- £5 per £720 worth of payments were taken visit (HWRC sits on border with London from non-Kent residents. boroughs). Currently reviewing application of permits to other HWRCs with proximity to county borders, to minimise cross border usage. Further data will be collected during November 2014 to assess viability. Kent County Council PROCUREMENT AND CONTRACT Significant contract management MANAGEMENT: New Contractor procured to savings predicted. manage 12 of 18 HWRCs. 80% of material title passed to Provider. New contract transfers responsibility to minimise landfill tonnages. New contracts due to start 1st Nov 2014. Reduced opening days at most sites. Were Saving = £400k per annum on running Whilst running costs Lincolnshire County Council open 7 days but now 4 days per week (closed costs. reduced as expected, the Tue, Wed & Thu). Small additional saving in disposal reduced tonnage costs due to reduced tonnage. throughput was a surprise. No rise in flytipping was noted (other than briefly outside sites on closed days). Profit sharing (with site contractors) on high Income = £120k p/a. Profit sharing (rather Lincolnshire County Council value waste streams – e.g. scrap metal. than retaining all of it) encourages contractors to maximise the quantity
Page 28 of 64 Page 12 of 20
Local Authority Saving Option Result Lesson Learned recovered. Framework contract for processing of recycling No saving due to increased haulage Costs comparison Lincolnshire County Council streams. Prices submitted every 2 months and processing costs, but regular includes haulage costs enabling selection of the best available price. submission of prices ensure market (paid to a separate variations are included. contractor) leading to, in some cases, the use of several different disposal contractors. Norfolk County Council April 2014 Savings of around £1.4m/annum Early indications are that expected savings will be delivered. Using existing Teckal exempt company in an open-book accounting way to deliver service at 19/20 sites. Council takes on all risks.
April 2014 Savings of around £300k/annum Currently in delivery expected stages, but some early Norfolk County Council Cease acceptance of liquid paint from negative publicity. householders, accept through an annual Queues at sites with amnesty event. larger amounts of HHW being delivered than expected.
April 2014 Savings of around £40k/annum Early stages, but little expected negative publicity nor Norfolk County Council Cease acceptance of vehicle tyres from reported increase in fly- householders, other than at 8/20 sites and only tipping. Some on payment of £2.50 tyre with a maximum of 5 householders continuing tyres. to use service, possibly as a result of some local garages etc increasing their charge to around £3.50 tyre. April 2015 Savings of around £167k/annum Yet to be introduced
Page 29 of 64 Page 13 of 20
Local Authority Saving Option Result Lesson Learned Norfolk County Council expected Additional 5/20 sites to become part-time (opening Friday to Monday inclusive) making 11/20 in total.
April 2016 Possible income of around Yet to be introduced Norfolk County Council £280k/annum Charging £2.00/visit for householders at 9/20 sites to help off-set costs.
Cease management contract with private £150k savings on £1.2m spend Reliance on contractor to contractor for HRC sites and return service in- record accurately and North Lincolnshire More accurate recording of tonnages house in November 2012 honestly proven to be (recycling % changed noticeably!) inconsistent Concentrate staff focus onto customer Greater knowledge of care material volumes North Lincolnshire Establish arrangements for the disposal or £100k+ income from scrap metal + staff Greater understanding of recycling of the various waste streams from time savings (no longer sort out non- market conditions for the
HRC sites ferrous) various materials New recycling services for No longer subject to a mattresses/carpets and hard plastics flat increase across the board Have been able to contain price increases to below inflation rises Building relations with through re-tendering local SMEs who can win this work
Savings re-invested to make more savings New ANPR and CCTV system will allow If there wasn’t profit in it us to tackle illegal disposal at the HRC for them, the private North Lincolnshire sites by businesses (£40k savings sector were not target) interested in our policy Page 30 of 64 Page 14 of 20
Local Authority Saving Option Result Lesson Learned agenda Delivery points used for residual, green and inert Minor savings (<£10k yearly), but every Develop a model that North Yorkshire County Council wastes continually optimised to reduce little helps! does the calculations, combined transport and disposal price then keep using it. Green waste framework contracts set up – able £150k savings realised in last 3 years Nothing adverse – keep North Yorkshire County Council to run further competitions each year simply to an eye on forthcoming stimulate competition dynamic procurements Converting LAWDC to Teckal exempt company Reduced procurement costs. None yet. Work in North Yorkshire County Council in 2014. All services delivered at cost – i.e no progress. profit margin for HMRC to take a slice of.
Borough of Poole Implemented: Increased promotion of commercial waste Regular SMEs using the service, Provides a good service tipping income of £19k. for local SMEs but hasn’t reduced commercial waste entering CA site as household waste, income is relatively small (less than £20k) Height barrier at 2.1m Effective for only large vans, most vehicles can still gain entry including The height barrier could commercial vehicles. be lowered to reduce the number of commercial vehicles that can fit under it but this could affect residents with large domestic vehicles (people carriers/4x4s) – Vans (over 2.1m) only allowed access one day Already receiving per week (Wednesday). Allows effective targeting of vans on constant damage (to multi-agency enforcement days. barrier and vehicles) Increased staffing needed on Wednesdays to manage increased 70% of vehicles entering
Page 31 of 64 Page 15 of 20
Local Authority Saving Option Result Lesson Learned loads. Deters commercial operators site on a Wednesday are Increased multi-agency enforcement days- due to limited access times. vans (30% on other Police, VOC, EA, HMRC (customs & excise) weekdays) Short term benefit in reduction of Agreed Change: commercial vehicles entering the site
Charging for non-household materials (soil & rubble, asbestos, plasterboard, tyres & gas Needs to be carried out bottles). regularly to be effective. Estimated to save £50,000, savings are estimated to be from income raised Proposed change: from charges and disposal savings from reduction in tonnages. Van permit scheme (proposal is currently being Not yet implemented- developed and not yet agreed by Members) starting October 2014
Possible savings of £75,000 Options reviewed but not taken forward:
Reduced site opening hours/ days Looking for this to help improve the systems and method we have for Was felt that other options (detailed cross border charging above) could make similar levels of with neighbouring savings with less negative public Athorities reaction due to perceptions of reduction in service. Oxfordshire County Council Introduction of a van and trailer permitting Savings Nov 10 to Oct 11 (based on System had to be scheme at HWRCs in Nov 2010 previous 12 mths) adapted to allow for 6200 tonnes those with large gardens £266k to have additional ‘green waste’ permit visits.
Page 32 of 64 Page 16 of 20
Local Authority Saving Option Result Lesson Learned Now looking to move to a electronic Originally a 2 year expiry permit system to reduce admin burden date was included, and cost, (and paper) however as the majority of residents had not used all of their visits this was scrapped to avoid the need to reapply
Oxfordshire County Council Closure of Dean Pit HWRC (smallest site) in Management fee saved, Good comms messages 2011 Have not seen a reduction in waste and 6 month notice across the district however period helped to inform the general public. Close Flytipping levels did not increase liaison with district enforcement officers to try and discourage flytipping.
Local residents are still campaigning for the site to reopen/ a replacement site to be found. There is to be a review of transfer stations (2) The review of HWRC is expected to Yet to be realised South Gloucestershire Council and HWRC (4) to improve efficiency of the sites deliver between £300- £400k per and identify opportunities to reduce the cost of annum through a combination of Current arrangements are on running the sites. The review will comprise: reduced costs and income our website under sections on A review of opening days and hours opportunities. The changes would Special rules and Special waste: looking at closing sites during quiet impact front line services and will periods require consultation. The timescales for http://www.southglos.gov.uk/en A review of staffing levels and staff rota’s this work stream are as follows: vironment-and- to deliver efficiencies Consultation – Autumn 2014 planning/recycling-rubbish-and- Income opportunities to charge for Decision – Spring 2015 waste/recycling-sites/ disposal of all non-household waste e.g. Implementation Summer 2015 construction and demolition waste and Full Year Saving from 1 April Sites are run by SITA under an tyres. 2016 Page 33 of 64 Page 17 of 20
Local Authority Saving Option Result Lesson Learned existing 25 year integrated PFI Review of Van and trailer restrictions (current year 15) with the option to introduce permits Consideration of resident registration to The following proposals and minimise cross boundary issues options are currently not in the Review of the re-use shop (currently public domain and we are in one) and resource being used to support early discussions with our this contractors over the detail of Review the opportunity to increase these. This work also forms part market value of material and recycling of the wider Council’s Savings by segregating material such as wood Programme. A report which into different grades includes the CSP Options is going to committee in early September.
Staffordshire County Council August 2012 - August 2013 Savings will be in the region of £240k Well structured, per annum as an annualised average, commercially driven Re-procurement of contract for Operation of for the next 11 years (2024). contract with clear and HWRC Services. suitable risk allocation In addition to savings made, the service can deliver suitable Combining public sector and private sector has been enhanced in a number of HWRC performance at consultancy to deliver an output based ways, such as: extended opening an affordable price. specification, requesting bidders to propose hours, materials accepted have now solutions through Competitive Dialogue. been standardised across all 14 In addition, private sector HWRCs, additional materials also now input on both sides of the accepted (hard plastics, carpets and table during competitive mattresses). dialogue, has helped to achieve these savings
Page 34 of 64 Page 18 of 20
Local Authority Saving Option Result Lesson Learned and service enhancements.
Trialled on 2 sites first Suffolk County Council Accepting trade waste at all remaining sites, for <£10kpa using separate bins, then a charge rolled out to all sites using WRAP apportionment tool. Only competitive for some customers. Not worth doing for the income, but good service for those who want it. Delivered savings. Suffolk County Council Reduced opening hours at remaining sites £400kpa Increased congestion during new hours. Has put pressure on contractor re: transport in shorter windows and re: HR issues from staff working less hours. Savings package: £6.3m savings over 7 years Most unpopular action is Warwickshire County Council 1. Insource 6 sites and subsequently sub Reduction in arisings / inputs early closing despite contract 2 smallest sites to social enterprise Increase in HWRC recycling rates members of public 2. Slash weekday closing time to 3.30pm* in stating that this was the line with measured demand (vehicle least unpopular measure counters at all sites) during consultation 3. Tighten vehicle restrictions e.g. ban transit phase (alternatives sized vans and only issue 6 vouchers per included moving from 7- annum for small vans day to 5-day opening, 4. Invite charities and waste management shutting least popular operators to bid for re-use shop franchises sites etc) (up to £50,000 fee per annum per site)
Page 35 of 64 Page 19 of 20
Local Authority Saving Option Result Lesson Learned 5. Encourage visitors to pre sort materials + highlight the cost to taxpayers of residual Waste disposal On site signs and banners Leaflets Online ‘War on Waste’ animation http://youtu.be/reRVJYHoHy4
* 6.30pm late night opening on Wednesdays during summer months
Recent intro of extended commercial waste service. 3 elements: - Commercial recycling permit - Pre-paid residual waste sacks and - Pay-as-you throw by weight or volume www.warwickshire.gov.uk/commercial waste
Page 36 of 64 Page 20 of 20 Annex 2
180000 1.35
160000 1.3
140000
1.25 120000
1.2 100000 Tonnes 80000 1.15 Tonnes Tonnes per Household
60000 1.1
40000
1.05 20000
0 1
Total Local Authority Collected Municipal Waste (LACMW) - (Post April 2012 definition) Total LACW Recycled/Composed MSW per household Page 37 of 64
Page 38 of 64 Annex 3
Steel Cans
160
140
120
100
80 Steel Cans £ £ per Tonne
60
40
20
0 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Page 39 of 64
Page 40 of 64 Annex 4
Mixed Glass
20
15
10
5 Mixed £ £ per Tonne
0 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
-5
-10 Page 41 of 64
Page 42 of 64 Annex 5
Mixed Glass
20
15
10
5 Mixed £ £ per Tonne
0 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
-5
-10 Page 43 of 64
Page 44 of 64 Annex 6
Mixed Plastic
250
230
210
190
170
150 Mixed £ £ per tonne
130
110
90
70
50 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Page 45 of 64
Page 46 of 64 Annex 7
Paper 45
40
35
30
25
Mixed Paper News and Pams £ £ per tonne 20
15
10
5
0 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Page 47 of 64
Page 48 of 64 Annex 8
HDPE (mixed)
240
220
200
180
HDPE (mixed) £ £ per tonne
160
140
120
100 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Page 49 of 64
Page 50 of 64 Annex 9
120
100
80
60 £ £ per tonne
40
20
0 Jul Jul Jul Jul Jan Jan Jan Jan Jun Jun Jun Jun Oct Oct Oct Apr Apr Apr Apr Feb Sep Feb Sep Feb Sep Feb Dec Dec Dec Aug Aug Aug Aug Nov Nov Nov Mar Mar Mar Mar May May May May
EfW Landfill + Tax RDF Page 51 of 64
Page 52 of 64 Annex 10
45
40
35
30
25
£ £ per tonne 20
15
10
5
0 Jul Jul Jul Jan Jan Jan Jan Jun Jun Jun Jun Oct Oct Oct Apr Apr Apr Apr Feb Sep Feb Sep Feb Sep Feb Dec Dec Dec Aug Aug Aug Nov Nov Nov Mar Mar Mar Mar May May May May
Open Air Windrow IVC AD Page 53 of 64
Page 54 of 64 Annex 11
Recycling Rate 2014/15 0.7
North Somerset Council Rutland County Council 0.6
West Berkshire District Council Central Bedfordshire, Milton Keynes Council Southend-on-Sea Borough Council 0.506943487 Halton Borough Council, North Lincolnshire Council Warrington Borough Council Medway Borough Council Royal BoroughSouth of Gloucestershire Kingston upon Council 0.487971098 Windsor and Maidenhead 0.5 ThamesShropshire Wigan MBC Redcar and Cleveland Borough Telford and Wrekin Council Borough Council Peterborough City CouncilPoole BoroughCouncil CouncilSolihull MBC Middlesbrough Borough Council Wokingham Council Thurrock Council Wiltshire Leeds City CouncilNorthumberland MBC South Tyneside MBC WalsallWolverhamptonYork MBC City Council MBC Rotherham MBC Torbay Council North Tyneside Council Sandwell MBCSwindon Borough Council 0.4 Newcastle-upon-TynePlymouth City City Council Council Sutton LB Bedford, 0.368483369 Leicester City CouncilMertonMBC LB Stockton-on-Tees Borough Southwark LB Luton Borough Council Reading Borough CouncilStoke-on-TrentCouncil City Council Wakefield City MDC North NottinghamEast Lincolnshire City CouncilCouncil Sunderland City Council Kirklees MBC Sheffield City Council 0.3 Slough Borough Council Portsmouth City CouncilSouthampton City Council
Tower Hamlets LB 0.2 Lewisham LB Westminster City Council
0.1
0 Page 55 of 64
Page 56 of 64 Page 57 of 64
Page 58 of 64 Page 59 of 64
Page 60 of 64 Page 61 of 64
Page 62 of 64 Page 63 of 64
Page 64 of 64