Agenda item

- report by Adrian Gabriel, Waste Strategy Manager

The Waste Strategy Manager presented a report on the above Strategy with the favoured option for the future management of waste.  The Strategy had been subject to extensive public consultation and had undergone a Best Practical Environmental Option (BPEO) appraisal required in accordance with Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs guidelines.

There were a number of issues to note out of the final document which included:-

-                    Around 11,500 householders replied to the consultation (10% response rate).

-                    88% of respondents to the Strategy would support more ambitious recycling rates up to 45%.

-                    The public/stakeholder consultation and BPEO technical assessment showed a consistent desire for the Council to develop mechanical biological treatment as the waste processing option for Rotherham.  (Approximately £17M capital investment).

-                    There needed to be a commitment to maximise the potential of existing recycling schemes supported with the development of further recycling options in the future to meet targets.

-                    The Strategy recognised the need to further develop a kerbside green waste collection service.  However, this needed to include for the provision of an alternate week collection service to stem the growth in waste.

-                    The Municipal Waste Management Strategy had been developed using the latest growth data within Rotherham.  It would be necessary to employ a dedicated team to develop educational and waste reduction programmes to support the Strategy.  (A bid included within the Medium Term Financial Plan to develop a Team)

-                    There would be a requirement for waste processing facilities to be in place between 2009-2012 dependent upon the success of maximising recycling and the availability of other sub-regional capacity to treat waste and thus achieve landfill diversion targets.  A procurement plan would be developed by December, 2005, to commence contract development with effect from the early part of 2006.

-                    All current waste contracts expired in August, 2008, therefore, a decision would have to be made in the near future about the future procurement of waste services.

The implementation of the Strategy would require significant long term investment including the acquisition of land and the construction of a waste processing facility, the development of a Waste Minimisation Team, industry specialists to assist in the procurement process and future service developments.  Following development of a procurement plan, it would be necessary to employ technical experts to assist the Council in the contracting process for waste processing facilities.  An initial requirement for consultancy had been included within the Medium Term Financial Plan 2005/06.

It was noted that the Corporate Management Team had asked for clarification on a number of issues around comparison risks of the various options especially against waste to energy. 

Discussion ensued on the proposal.  The following points were raised/highlighted:-

o                   Green waste produced by allotments was not included in the Council’s Performance Indicators.  Allotment users would be encouraged to participate in on-site composting.

o                   A bid of £150,000 had been made to the Medium Term Financial Plan for consultancy fees.  Wakefield had undergone a similar process and required technical expertise in developing a PFI and indicated fees in the region of £4-500,000.

o                   A sub-regional group that reported to the Chief Executives and Leaders of the four Authorities, had been established and was to hold its first meeting shortly.

o                   The proposed Waste Minimisation Team would work with social and community enterprises to develop collections.

o                   The Mechanical Biological Treatment (MBT) option had been chosen based on the BPEO.  It was a proven technology on the continent.  Leicester’s plant was now up and running.  Gassification was considered more unproven that MBT.

o                   Planning Policy Guidance No. 10 was subject to review at the present time as the Government realised that it had caused delays in the past.  The Government aimed to make it an easier process for developing waste facilities.

o                   ENVIROS were fully independent consultants who now worked with DEFRA on the waste implementation process and assisted in training schemes and developing seminars in relation to the various technologies available.  They also worked with the Environment Agency setting up Waste Demonstrator Programmes.

o                   The Waste Resource Programme was looking at waste minimisation issues and to develop markets for such things as waste derived fuel which would be needed once plants came on board. 

o                   There would be higher recycling through the kerbside schemes than at present to pull out as much as possible at the “front end” so only the residual waste would be treated by MBT.  Biodegradable waste would go to composting.

o                   Between now and 2020, under the Waste Emissions Trading Bill, the Council had been given an initial target for the amount of biodegradable waste that could go to landfill.  Based on the Authority’s 2001/02 figures, it was forecast that it would increase from 80/90,000 tonnes to 120,000 tonnes in 2020.  Landfill permits could be banked or borrowed up to a limit of 5%.  If the Authority exceeded its initial target, taking into account 5% borrowing, there would be a fine of £150 per tonne.  There were 3 target years laid down by the European Landfill Directive where biodegradable waste into landfill had to be reduced i.e. 75% of 95 levels in 2009/10, 50% of 95 levels in 2012/13 and 35% of 95 levels in 20190/2020.  In 2020 there would be a £500,000 per day fine levied on countries that did not meet the targets.

o                   Tentative discussions were taking place with Sheffield City Council and Onyx regarding the incinerator.

o                   Based on current trends, the Authority was approximately 20,000 tonnes off its licence target.  The Strategy had been developed to maximise recycling and ensured Rotherham met all its licences and all the outcomes of the Strategy.

o                   There were economies of scale and opportunities to develop such.  There may be certain issues that were better for Rotherham to look at and others in partnership with neighbouring authorities.

o                   Each Authority had to have its own Waste Strategy.

o                   At the moment village halls etc. that were hired out for various functions at a charge were classed as a business and, therefore, charged for the removal of commercial waste.  Work was underway to ascertain if there were opportunities to place bring sites in convenient locations.

o                   The Strategy was hoping to set up a dedicated team to concentrate on waste minimisation and, as part of the restructure of the Waste Management Unit, look to develop the role of posts to that of a more pro active role and encourage the public to recycle.

o                   Flytipping was taken to household recycling centres and sorted into the various skips.

The Procurement Plan was to be developed in 2005 and submitted to the Council for a decision by the end of the year.

Resolved:-  (1)  That the Scrutiny Panel support:-

(a)  the Municipal Waste Management Strategy 2005-2020.

(b)  the development of a Procurement Plan for Waste Management Services 2008-2020 based on the approved Strategy.

(c)  the development of services in line with the Waste Management Strategy.

(d)  the submission of the Municipal Waste Management Strategy for Rotherham to Government Office.

(2)  That a joint visit with the Regeneration Scrutiny Panel be arranged to the Leicester MBT plant.