agenda 12.30pm, thursday 23 june 2016 venue fareham ......7 performance 2015/16 – tonnages, ni’s...

Project Integra – Agenda

Name of meeting PI Strategic Board

Date of meeting 10am – 12.30pm, Thursday 23 June 2016

Venue Fareham Borough Council

Introductions & Domestic Arrangements

1 Apologies

2 Declarations of Interest

3 Minutes of the last Board meeting held 4 February 2016 (Report 045)

4 Matters arising from the minutes

5 CASH (Common Approach to Safety and Health) Annual report (Report 046)

6

PI Waste Prevention Plan update (Report 047)

7 Performance 2015/16 – Tonnages, NI’s and contamination (Report 048)

8

Hampshire Waste Partnership project update

9 Joint working and Procurement (Report 049)

10 PI Accounts 2015/16 (Report 050)

11 Any Other Business

12 Date of Next Meeting Thursday 13 October 2016 – Hampshire County Council

of 60

Project Integra – minutes of meeting Please note these minutes contain notes from the confidential section of the meeting, and as such are not for wider circulation.

Name of meeting Project Integra Strategic Board– Minutes of Meeting Date of meeting Thursday 4 February 2016 Venue Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council Attendees Councillors:

Sean Woodward (SW) Hampshire CC (Chairman) Frank Pearson (FP) Winchester CC (Vice Chairman) Steve Forster (SF) Hart DC Hayley Eachus (HE) Basingstoke DC Phil North (PN)

Jacqui Rayment (JR) Test Valley BC Southampton CC

Sophie Beeton (SB) New Forest DC Tiffany Harper (TH)

Roland Dibbs (RD) Tony Briggs (TB)

Fareham BC Rushmoor BC Havant BC

Hampshire Waste Services (Veolia Environmental Services): Lee Phelan (LP)

Forbes McDougall(FMD)

Officers Attending: John Elson (JE)

Maria Massarella (MM) Basingstoke and Deane BC/ Hart DC Basingstoke and Deane BC/ Hart DC

Paul Doran (PD) Fareham BC Colin Rowland (CRo) Southampton CC Paul Wykes (PW) Test Valley BC Colin Read (CRe)

Andrew Trayer (AT) New Forest DC Eastleigh BC

Rob Heathcock (RH) Winchester CC/ East Hants DC Stevyn Ricketts (SR)

Chris Mathias (CM) Gosport BC Havant BC

Sam Horne (SH) Martyn Cole (MC) Campbell Williams (CW) Emily Moon (EM) Colette Hill (CH)

Hampshire County Council Hampshire County Council Hampshire County Council Hampshire County Council Portsmouth City Council

Chris Noble (CN) Tara Fitzpatrick (TF)

PI PI

045

of 60

Actions

1 Introductions and apologies for Absence 1.1 SW welcomed all to the meeting. 1.2 Apologies:

Councillor Graham Stallard – Test Valley Borough Council Councillor Rupert Kyrle – Eastleigh Borough Council Councillor Judy Onslow – East Hants District Council Councillor Piers Bateman – Gosport Borough Council Councillor Robert New – Portsmouth City Council James Duggin – Rushmoor Borough Council

2 Declarations of Interest 2.1 None were made

3 Minutes of the last Board meeting held 15 October 2015 (Report 042) 3.1 RESOLVED That the minutes of the previous board meeting from 15 October 2015 were

agreed and signed by the Chairman.

4 Matters arising from the minutes 4.1 4.2

SW noted this would be the last PISB for CRo as he is starting a new role at BDBC. CRo has worked for over 10 years in waste for SCC, HCC, EBC and HBC. SW and the Board all wished CR well in the future. 6.1 from last minutes– Defra Resources Minister Rory Stewart’s constituency’s local council is Eden Council. Noted that they collect garden waste, pots, tubs and trays (PTT’s) and glass but no separate food waste. Source separated and weekly collection sacks used. Performance is average when compared nationally.

5

Havant Borough Council – Joint Venture Update

5.1

TB and CM updated the Board on Havant’s joint venture contract (JVC) with Norse. Main points were:

£1.5 million shortfall in budget therefore HBC chose a joint venture option to allow time to build an income through operational services.

Estimate that in 5 years the joint venture will produce between £750,000 and £1 million in income.

Teckal principal states an LA can sell 20% of their services. Members wanted to protect services and various options were considered such as a public-private contract but felt a public- public partnership would best allow HBC to grow services and introduce commercial elements.

Norse South East will be a company limited by guarantee – 80% of shares are Norse’s as they underwrite the business, and 20% shares belong to

of 60

5.2 6 6.1

HBC. However HBC entitled to a 50% profit. HBC didn’t want to sell anything and determined to maintain control to

ensure services accountable to members and protect jobs. In depth process from July 2015 to this point. 20 January 2016 JVC was

approved and 1 April it will begin. JE asked how HBC envisage growing the business. CM – realise it will be slow growth but have identified quick wins e.g. trade waste and their MOT garage. Decisions are to be made whether HBC can offer services out to other LA’s. Veolia and the Circular Economy CN reminded Members of the current context of EU package which states a 60% recycling rate by 2025 and 65% by 2030. Forbes McDougall, the Head of Circular Economy for Veolia provided a presentation to Board. Highlights include:

Importance of material sourcing and planning, security of supply of raw materials and recognition that we cannot continue to consume at the rate we are today.

Very high tech jobs required for circular economy. FMD appreciates comments that were made at the last PISB that this is not going to be without challenges and barriers and it will take time. For example changes to packaging; a simple change to a label can take 6 months so changing design of packaging itself is something that will be a lengthy process.

Some of challenges lie in moving from products to services. Costs will drive this and will deliver benefits and advantages – but FMD advised businesses will have to take hits for it to be a long term success.

Products need to be made repairable i.e. Microsoft have created a modular phone so parts can be removed and repaired. Also sharing platforms have been put in place where people pool their resources rather than everyone buying an item that they seldom use (e.g. power drills)

A good example of a company now selling a service instead of a product is Philips – customers given contracts for their lighting installations to provide the most energy and cost efficient way. They are made as durable and reusable as possible so Philips won’t have to come and replace them.

FMD believes LA’s must liaise with procurement to buy back items such as coffee cups, paper towels to make it closed loop.

Also key to the circular economy challenge is encouraging residents to move towards circular behaviour e.g. Uber taxi service is a circular business model.

CN asked what the main impact on LA’s from the EU package may be. FMD – the pressure will come to meet the higher recycling rates. If the public are not engaged in circular economy then only way to do it is to increase costs. If more of simple things are done then there will be a big knock on effect on green loop and getting materials back. RD highlighted the barriers around the built in obsolescence of equipment we buy. FMD stated marketing of certain products such as popular smart

of 60

6.2 6.3 6.4

to come and replace them.

FMD believes LA’s must liaise with procurement to buy back items such as coffee cups, paper towels to make it closed loop.

Also key to the circular economy challenge is encouraging residents to move towards circular behaviour e.g. Uber taxi service is a circular business model.

CN asked what the main impact on LA’s from the EU package may be. FMD – the pressure will come to meet the higher recycling rates. If the public are not engaged in circular economy then only way to do it is to increase costs. If more of simple things are done then there will be a big knock on effect on green loop and getting materials back. RD highlighted the barriers around the built in obsolescence of equipment we buy. FMD stated marketing of certain products such as popular smart phones make things more difficult but accepts we live in a consumer focussed society. It may be that eventually our data will be stored on a cloud and that we just have a robust link to it. Ink cartridges may still be a problem though. RD added he uses a company where he sends back old cartridges and they fill them up and sent back out – again tied in to a contract. These steps in the right direction are encouraging. SB asked about bio-plastics – tech products can then be composted. FMD supportive of this but pointed out that a bio degradable phone will still contain chip boards etc. but could rip off outer shell.

7 PI Action Plan – Annual report (Report 043) 7.1

CN advised the Board of progress on the Action Plan. It was agreed this would be a true 3 year plan and wouldn’t look to review it, only to update annually. Waste Prevention and CASH (Common Approach to Safety and Health) will have their own separate reports at June PISB.

Future challenges mainly around circular economy package and advised PI should not be complacent on 2020 50% recycling rate target for the UK.

Most recent Defra stats show that growth in recycling rate nationally has slowed. Hampshire – in first 6 months a 1% increase in household waste tonnages recorded and a small increase of tonnages to ERF and 6.5% to landfill. Very small improvement to recycling rate. Context around oil prices and economy in China having a knock on effect.

Noted Courtauld agreement 2025 revision – food waste is a key stream to focus on. Would coincide with WP work if PI as a partnership signed up to this.

RCTR work focussed on PTT’s and Material Recovery Facility residue. Contamination noticed when Materials Analysis Facility samples are taken form a load is now being reported back to districts daily. More sampling of residue being planned at MAF – will be reported in June.

Waste disposal contract with Veolia extended therefore there are opportunities to be considered as part of the Whole System Costs

of 60

7.2 7.3

project. Joint procurement – work around vehicles is continuing. Significant

quantities of vehicles are being purchased in near future so work being done to consider what benefits of joint procurement may be.

Incinerator Bottom Ash letter to Rory Stewart – circular economy package was not clear on how IBA Aggregate details not released until later this year, seemingly not keen to undermine the waste hierarchy. SW added that Raymond Brown are processing the IBA- if it was included in recycling rates, PI’s recycling rate would be 10% higher and closer to 50% target. CN advised PI will continue to lobby through National Association of Waste Disposal Officers (NAWDO). HE informed the Board that Basingstoke MP Maria Miller is keen to meet with CN to understand the background to IBA issue before she can progress within central government. Veolia have a lobbying strategy on IBA and its impacts and are hoping to engage with Rory Stewart in the future. FP highlighted importance of waste prevention work with the potential for Government to push for up to 100,000 new homes in Hampshire, and the resulting impact on waste infrastructure. SB advised that NFDC are keen to return another letter to Defra and then give support to local members writing to MP’s. RD added Defra should be reminded that they did agree to IBA inclusion but withdrew it for a reason unknown. CN suggested going forward via a combination of things; expert advice on lobbying from MP Maria Miller may be the first step and if she believes going back to Defra again is sensible then we can do so and ensure it is a more coordinated approach. Also could cc in local MPs to show strength of feeling and engage more MPs. RESOLVED That members noted the progress that has been made and priorities ahead, that members agreed for the Head of PI to sign the partnership up to the Courtauld 2025 commitment and that notice is given to iESE to withdraw PI’s membership from 1 April. In addition members discussed and agreed to continue to lobby on the issue of issue of IBA.

8 Any Other Business 8.1

None.

9 9.1

Confidential item – Future of Recycle for Hampshire Education programme (Report 044)

CN advised the Board of the background of changes to the R4H campaign and the Education programme. In the last three months, three authorities have communicated their intention to withdraw from the Education Programme, and it has not been possible to find a way of continuing the programme. However if programme does cease it is not clear that the curriculum will naturally absorb subject, usually depends on discretion of teachers. Resources for teachers will

of 60

9.2 10

remain on R4H website and will review point of contact. CN advised of significance of ceasing programme for EO to remaining partners.

RESOLVED That members agreed to cease the Recycle for Hampshire Education programme from 31 May 2016, the Education Officer will be placed into a three month redeployment period funded through R4H historic underspend and any resulting redundancy costs are shared amongst remaining R4H partners accordingly.

Date of Next Meeting

Thursday 23 June, Fareham Borough Council.

of 60

Project Integra – Report

Title of report 2015-16 CASH Annual Report

Report for Project Integra Strategic Board

Date 23 June 2016

Approval required No – for information only

1 Purpose of Report 1.1 To inform Members of the progress made in 2015-16 by the County-wide health and safety group,

Common Approach to Safety and Health (CASH). 2 Executive Summary 2.1 The CASH group has continued to make progress over the last year on a number of fronts, including

making recommendations for improvements to working practices and procedures ensuring that the health and safety of staff and the public is paramount.

2.2 Working groups have driven forward work in several areas including noise from kerbside glass

collections, litter picking and other work on public highways, and induction training. 3 Background 3.1 The purpose of the CASH group, is to develop, promote, facilitate and share best practice in safety and

health amongst those working on municipal waste management, including functions which overlap or where there is an essential use of Hampshire’s Waste Management facilities (Transfer Stations) i.e. street scene and grounds maintenance.

3.2 The CASH terms of reference were revised during 2015, and key functions are now defined as follows:

To co-operate, and share information, ideas and experience on safety and health in municipal waste management or other areas as described in 3.1.

To identify common issues and jointly undertake projects which have been identified within the Project Integra (PI) Action Plan or agreed with the PI Strategy Officers Group and to find solutions and develop best practice.

Establish links with external bodies regionally and nationally and promote CASH on the national stage.

3.3 Membership is made up of representatives of all organisations (local authorities and contractors)

working in municipal waste management, street scene and grounds maintenance in Hampshire. The group brings together colleagues with operational responsibilities as well as professional health and safety practitioners.

3.4 As and when required, CASH will convene working groups consisting of volunteers working on specific

issues that will benefit from closer attention.

046

of 60

4 CASH Task and Finish groups 4.1 Kerbside Glass Noise Task Group 4.1.1 This CASH group is continuing to liaise with the National Noise Working Group, along with the HSE

(Health & Safety Executive), LAWS (Local Authority Waste Safety and Health Forum), other LAs, contractors and bin and vehicle manufacturers. Locally the CASH group has fulfilled its role having developed the resource pack for partners last year. This resource pack aims to limit the impact of glass collections on staff rather than eliminate it altogether.

4.2 Highways Works Task Group 4.2.1 This group was set up to review, comment on, and prepare for the release of new HSE guidance on safe

cleansing of highways. As street cleansing operations are not within PI’s remit this is not covered in detail in this report.

4.3 CASH Conference 4.3.1 It was agreed by the group that a decision on whether to hold another conference would be taken later

in 2016. 4.4 Driving on Pavements Task Group 4.4.1

This issue concerns members of the public driving on pavements to get around waste collection vehicles, which put themselves, staff, and pedestrians at risk. The scale of this issue has been difficult to quantify, but feedback from crews indicate it is not uncommon, and the consequences are potentially serious. The group has been working on several strands relating to this work.

4.4.2 Hampshire Constabulary – engaging with the police to understand how they may be able to assist.

Because of pressures on police time, any incidents reported to the police would need to meet a certain threshold – for example the severity of the incident in question, and what, if any, evidence there may be to support a prosecution. Other police action e.g. requesting drivers attend awareness courses) may be a suitable alternative to prosecution. The potential role for LA Civil Enforcement Officers is also being investigated. Developing a protocol for reporting of incidents to the police will be one of the key outputs from this group

4.4.3 360 degree cameras – seven out of thirteen WCAs in Hampshire have 360 degree cameras on at least 1

vehicle. The group has identified the following pros and cons associated with such systems: Pros – the ability to use footage to record:

Incidents of cars driving dangerously in the vicinity of crews (this could be referred to the police, depending on the agreed protocol described above)

Incidents related to valid or invalid insurance claims. This may lead to reductions in insurance claims, although it has not been possible to quantify this.

Service quality

Incidents involving verbal or physical abuse

Accident and near miss incidents investigation

Monitor crew behaviour and working methods, e.g. wearing PPE, smoking in vehicle etc.

of 60

Cons:

Potential opposition from Trade Unions

Systems must comply with Data Protection Act

Cost – estimate at c£3k to retrofit each collection vehicle. Suitable software may be at additional cost. It may be that systems are more cost effective if included in specification at the time of vehicle procurement. There is also a monthly download charge.

Overall the group has felt that the decision around 360 degree cameras is one for individual partners, according to the pros and cons detailed above.

Communications – the group is devising a proposal for a county-wide push to raise awareness. This

would be via press releases, web activity and social media, as well as council publications where appropriate.

4.5 Induction Training 4.5.1 In order to improve standardisation of induction training across Hampshire and raise the overall

standard of training, a task group was formed to bring together best practice. The group collated and analysed the training material and produced a report highlighting importance of training, topic areas that should be included, how training should be administered, principles for success, and a template for a training check sheet. This report will be a live document that will be updated and recirculated when new information is received.

5 CASH investigations and issues 5.1 This section summarises some key areas of work the group has been focussing on. 5.2 HSE inspections and interventions – the latest round of HSE visits to WCAs commenced in April 2015.

B&DBC, GBC, HDC and EHDC/ WCC were the only partners to receive visits and were able to provide feedback to the rest of CASH. Continuous sharing of experiences aids greater understanding of future inspections.

5.4 After the Fatal Accident Inquiry (FAI) into the Glasgow bin lorry tragedy in December 2014, a small

group of officers examined the inquiry’s outcomes. A briefing was produced for partners to reinforce the importance around driver fitness for work and licence checks. It also recommended that partners review existing policies and practices in line with the FAI recommendations.

6 Accident Statistics 6.1

The CASH group collates county-wide statistics on health and safety, including:

Accidents, dangerous occurrences, diseases. Absences resulting from accidents. Types of accidents e.g. slips/trips/falls, fire, manual handling. Accidents by service area

6.3 The statistics relate to the calendar year 2015. The statistics have been moved into Microsoft Excel and

more detail added regarding which service areas are included in the statistics. In future years it will be possible to monitor progress against this baseline.

of 60

Officer contact details

Name Andy Bower

Position Chair of CASH and Environment Services Health and Safety Advisor at NFDC

E-mail [email protected]

of 60


Title of Report PI Waste Prevention Plan Update

Name of meeting Project Integra Strategic Board

Date of meeting 23 June 2016

Approval Required Yes

1 Purpose of this report 1.1 To present Members with an update on progress against the PI Waste Prevention Plan (PIWPP)

2014-17. 1.2 To propose key areas of activity in 2016-17. 2 Executive summary 2.1 The 2013-16 PI Action Plan included within it an action to develop and implement a waste

prevention plan. The plan, covering the period 2014-17, was approved by the PI Strategic Board (PISB) in June 2014. The plan proposed to report back to PISB on the anniversary of the plan’s approval.

2.2 Performance information for 2015-16 shows an increase in overall household waste and in residual

waste tonnages. Analysis of waste composition shows that food waste is the most significant component of residual waste, but that this proportion reduced in 15-16, as did the KG of food waste per household.

2.3 Significant activity has been carried out on activities set out in the PI WPP. This work has been

particularly focused on organic waste and bulky waste (items too large for a household bin). 2.4 Key priorities for 16-17 have been identified for PISB‘s approval. This includes utilising an

underspend from the PI Executive Budget to support PI’s commitment to Courtauld 2025. 3 Background 3.1 The 2013-16 PI Action Plan included within it an action to develop and implement a waste

prevention plan. Development of the plan was led by HCC, with input from the PI Executive and a PI working group consisting of representation from 12 PI partners.

3.2 The plan, covering the period 2014-17, was approved by the PI Strategic Board in June 2014. For

reference, the plan can be found on the PI Website (here) 3.3 The plan was developed as a result of the following drivers:

A need to improve performance – in 2013-14 HCC had the highest KG/HH of residual waste per household of any shire county in England, and SCC and PCC have some of the highest of England’s unitary authorities.

047

http://documents.hants.gov.uk/project-integra/PISBMeetingreports26June2014.pdf

of 60

A need for PI partners to reduce expenditure and increase income – c£96m is spent by PI partners managing waste per annum.

The refreshed PI Core Strategy 2013-23 (Joint Municipal Waste Management Strategy, JMWMS) includes 3 objectives related to Waste Prevention – if these are to be achieved, a coherent strategy was required.

Central Government launched a Waste Prevention Programme for England in December 2013 - a key recommendation of which is for local authorities to develop their own plans. There is also a legal requirement for authorities to apply the waste hierarchy to the materials that they collect – waste prevention sits at the top of this hierarchy:

Figure 1 – Waste Hierarchy

3.4 The plan proposed to report back on progress to the PISB annually. This report summarises key

areas of progress in the last 12 months, and proposes priorities for 2016-17. 4 Progress at national level 4.1 The Government’s Waste Prevention Plan for England (WPPE), launched in December 2013, set

out the actions that Government, businesses, the wider public sector (including local authorities), civil society and consumers can take to deliver waste prevention, while highlighting the environmental, economic and social benefits which can be achieved. The Government has not produced a national progress update since December 2014. However, the following developments can be reported:

It was decided that the third phase of WRAP’s Innovation in Waste Prevention Fund would not proceed. The aim of the fund was to demonstrate new or innovative ways of preventing waste, and it was felt after phase 2 that sufficient outcomes would be gained from the first two phases without needing to progress to a third.

The 5p charge for single-use plastic bags was introduced in England in October 2015. There have been no official statistics from Defra but in the two months since the charge was introduced Tesco and Morrison reported the number of single use carrier bags had dropped by 78% and 80% respectively. These reductions are broadly in line with the reductions seen in the other countries of the UK in recent years.

WRAP continues to operate and develop voluntary agreements with various sectors. It has launched the next phase of the Courtauld agreement (Couthauld 2025) designed to reduce food waste – more details on this in section 6.3.

A waste industry stakeholder group is investigating ways of increasing reuse by examining the legal definition of waste and other perceived barriers.

Monitoring of a suite of metrics to observe how waste arisings have changed over time has continued. Note that despite the data being released in January 2016, the most recent year covered in the release is 2014, with much of it relating to 2012:

o Raw Material Consumption per unit of GDP – remained constant between 2012

of 60

and 2013. o Waste arisings by sector – household and construction waste reduced between

2010 and 2012 but commercial & industry (C&I), waste increased. o Hazardous waste arisings by sector - C&I and construction waste increased, but

household waste reduced. o Waste arising per unit of gross value added for the commercial and industrial

sector – no net change between 2009 and 2012. o Greenhouse gas emissions from landfill – reduced between 2012 and 2013. o Gross value added of the repair and reuse sector – increased across all sectors

between 2011 and 2014.

Circular economy package – the European Commission’s proposal includes measures to promote repairability, durability and recyclability of products, and to encourage Member States to take measures to promote prevention of food waste. The Package has been covered in detail in previous PI Reports.

4.2 The most recent full-year data available nationally (England) is for 2014-15. Figure 2 below shows

how total household waste has been increasing for the last 2 years, and Project Integra levels of waste are higher than the national average. Figure 2: KG of household waste per head, 2011-2015

5 PI Performance & Monitoring 5.1 Please note that much of the data in this section which relates to 15-16 is provisional and subject

to change. 5.2 Headline data for PI 5.2.1 The PIWPP included:

A long term aspiration for PI’s waste generation to be in line with or lower than the national average – Figure 2 above shows that PI waste generation levels remain above those seen nationally.

An aim for the 14-17 plan to support the PI JMWMS target of limiting annual growth in residual waste per household to less than 0.5%.

5.2.2 Figure 3 below shows PI performance with regard to NI 191 - Residual (i.e. non-recycled) waste per

of 60

household (KG) for:

a) All of PI b) Just the Waste Collection Authorities

Figure 3: KG of residual waste per household (NI191) 2007-2016

The amount of residual waste per household increased by 0.8% during 15-16, therefore just slightly missing the target of limiting growth to less than 0.5%. Appendix I shows district-level performance under this indicator as well as BVPI84a (KG Household waste per head) for the last three years. It also ranks performance against other authorities nationwide in 14/15. It reveals that for NI191, 8 out of 12 PI partners are ranked in the bottom half of English authorities. However for BVPI84a, all partners (bar one) are ranked in the top 25% of English authorities. The following could be contributing to this apparent contrast:

Low recycling rates in some Hampshire authorities, meaning that proportionately there is a greater amount of residual waste.

Hampshire has a high density of HWRCs compared to other counties, which will lead to greater quantities of waste being deposited into the household waste stream.

5.2.3 Figure 4 below shows total household waste from 2004 to 2016. Tonnages reduced during the

economic downturn but have significantly increased since 2012-13. See PI performance report for 15-16 for explanation of the tonnage increase seen in 2015-16. In the future, waste management systems will come under increasing pressure from rising household numbers. Figure 4: Tonnes of Household Waste in PI, 2004-16 (KT)

of 60

5.3 Other monitoring and performance data 5.3.1 The PIWPP acknowledged that there was a gap in our data with regard to waste composition. The

PI Resource Capture and Treatment Review made an estimate of household waste composition in 13-14. Since then, the amount of residual waste sampling carried out in the Materials Analysis Facility (MAF) has significantly increased, allowing us to use this as the basis for an estimate of the composition of the residual waste stream. This is shown below. As expected, food waste makes up the highest proportion, and is therefore a key focus for waste prevention activity. Note that the significant proportion of “other” waste is due to:

Limitations on the number of categories that the MAF can feasibly sort into.

The nature of residual waste – i.e. much of it is wet/putrescible waste that has been compacted on collection, making it difficult to identify its nature.

Figure 5: Composition of PI residual waste as calculated by MAF, 15-16

of 60

5.3.2 A separate programme of food waste sampling was carried out at the MAF (Materials Analysis

Facility) during 2015-16. This involved categorising food waste found in residual waste and Dry Mixed Recycling (DMR) samples into “avoidable” (food that could have been eaten) and “non-avoidable” (for example apple cores, banana skins). The table below shows the proportion of residual waste samples taken that contained food waste, and the change seen between 14-15 and 15-16. Overall, the amount of food waste per household per year dropped from 116kg to 108kg.

Figure 6: Avoidable and non avoidable food waste in PI residual waste, 2015-16

5.3.3 In 2015, HCC (supported by all district partners) ran a survey which gathered views, behaviours

and motivations on a range of WP subjects including food waste, home composting and bulky waste. The survey was designed to both inform future projects, and to develop a baseline against which performance can be measured in future. There were 1,087 responses to this survey, and some of the key findings are below:

• There is some confusion over the differences between “best before”, “use by” and “display until”.

• Only 10% admitted to throwing away leftovers from a meal. • Biggest motivator for reducing food waste is saving money. • Biggest barriers to home composting – concerns around smells or vermin, not having

enough room in the garden, and lack of knowledge or understanding. • When asked what they did the last time they had a bulky or electrical item to get rid of,

only 4% had it collected by the council – 23% used a HWRC, 15% had it collected by a charity and 14% took it to a charity shop. The answers given highlighted the range of options and sectors involved in managing bulky waste.

The survey is currently being repeated, and the results will be used to see if WP campaigns have been effective in terms of changing behaviour.

5.3.4 In addition, as part of the wider work on reducing whole system costs, a satisfaction survey was

distributed to 4,000 homes across the PI area. Surveys were also distributed nationally, to allow benchmarking. Several questions related to waste prevention, and the key findings were as

of 60

follows:

Bulky waste - Satisfaction levels with the range of items collected (52%), cost of collections (36%), and ease of arranging collections (50%) were all lower than the national average.

Information - Knowledge of how to donate bulky items (59%) was higher than the national average, but satisfaction with information on how to reduce waste (62%) and how to home compost (61%) was lower than the national average.

5.3.5

The graph below shows overall stability in kerbside bulky waste tonnages collected in the last three years, following significant decreases seen in 09-10 and 10-11. Figure 7: PI Bulky waste tonnages 2009-16

Much of the decreases seen can be attributed to the impact of the recession but also increases in kerbside collection charges. Between 13-14 and 15-16, 8 of 13 WCAs increased charges to some extent. Charges in Hampshire are, generally speaking higher than in other parts of the country (reflected by lower than average satisfaction as detailed in 5.3.4. Charges across PI for 2016-17 are shown below – there is still a significant range of pricing policies in use. Table 1: Charges for bulky waste services across PI partners

Charges (£) in 16-17 for…

1 item 4 items

High £52 £76

Low £20 £31

Average £32 £52

6 Progress against the PI WP plan key objectives 6.1 Progress has been made against the plan as the result of work carried out by HCC and other

of 60

individual partners, the PI Executive, a PI working group on Waste Prevention (which continues to meet every 2-3 months). This section outlines progress against the key work streams for 15-16 – bulky waste, organics, and other activity.

6.2 Bulky waste 6.2.1 One of the best ways to divert bulky waste material away from the household waste stream is to

ensure that adequate information is available to residents – in particular at the point at which the resident contacts the council to arrange a bulky waste collection service. To ensure consistency across PI partners, a “model” call centre script has been developed for use across the partnership. The script asks some basic questions to ascertain the suitability of the items for reuse, and advises on other outlets for the items, in particular third sector furniture reuse projects. The table below highlights progress on introducing the script in individual partners. Where necessary, the script is flexible in order to fit with existing call centre systems and processes.

Table 2: summary of progress on introducing scripts in PI partners

Script introduced FBC, HBC, EBC, GBC

Script use being investigated NFDC, B&DBC, HDC, SCC

Further work needed to assess feasibility of introducing script

PCC, RBC, EHDC, WCC, TVBC

To gauge the success of this measure, the number of calls and bulky items diverted to the third sector are being recorded, where possible. In HBC, 34 bulky items were diverted to reuse in the first 3 months of the new script’s use.

6.2.2 HCC, in partnership with (among others) PI and four individual WCAs, was awarded £40k from the

WRAP Innovation in Waste Prevention Fund, to increase reuse and repair capacity within the Hampshire Furniture Reuse Network. Most of the work on this project was completed during 2015. The project focussed on upskilling staff and volunteers within reuse charities, and to give them the tools needed to carry out minor repairs and improvements on items collected from householders. This included training sessions on furniture, WEEE (waste electrical and electronic equipment) and textiles that included both practical repair and business development elements. These sessions were attended by 85 staff and volunteers from 5 charities. The project culminated in an event attended by all stakeholders, which summarised the success of the project and looked to the future. The legacy of this project is a toolkit, aimed at reuse organisations, which includes practical help and guidance on repairing commonly received items. This is available on the HCC website and can also be used by member of the public.

6.2.3 Working on the above project has also had the following knock-on effects:

RBC, a partner in the above project, reviewed their options for diverting bulky waste for reuse. As a result they have installed a storage container within their depot, into which any suitable items collected by the bulky waste collection crew can be deposited. The local reuse charity can then take away any items suitable for reuse or minor repair. A similar approach is being investigated in HDC and B&DBC, and depending on its success could be rolled out more widely.

An arrangement has been put in place between HCC, Veolia and a local reuse charity to divert suitable unsold items from the Basingstoke HWRC resale area to the charity. Work is in progress to roll this arrangement out to other HWRCs and reuse charities.

There are now better links between TSOs and councils in Hampshire, and options for continuing to develop these working relationships and involving more stakeholders, are being explored.

Identification of key issues facing Hampshire’s TSOs – for example, a significant barrier to

of 60

reuse of sofas is that many people remove fire safety labels, meaning the sofa cannot legally be sold to another household.

An Andover-based reuse charity (Ugly Duckling) is working with HCC to move into new premises which will allow it to expand its capacity and capability for reuse and repair activity.

6.2.4 A video promoting the use of furniture reuse charities was produced by HCC and has been

promoted by partners. 6.2.5 A new contract for provision of HWRC services across Hampshire commenced with Veolia on 1st

April. The new service is looking to develop and expand use of resale areas at HWRCs. In addition it is providing comprehensive data on reuse activity on HWRCs, which will allow for better understanding of the use of these facilities.

6.3 Organic Waste 6.3.1 During 2015, HCC recruited volunteer community champions to spread WP messages among

Hampshire communities. This has focussed on enabling residents to reduce the amount of food wasted in the home by, for example, better planning, shopping and management of food. There are now 28 champions, with at least one in all but two district areas. HCC team members and champions have attended 30 events and distributed over 2,000 information packs to residents. 260 volunteer hours have been logged, and regular newsletters are produced to inform and engage with the volunteer network.

6.3.2 The national “Love Food Hate Waste” campaign continues to be supported at a local level. In

addition, HCC will be trialling a more focussed behaviour change trial for a small number (c100) of households. This will focus on the financial benefits to householders who reduce food waste. Results will be fed back to partners as and when available.

6.3.3 PI authorities have renewed membership of the national framework for compost bin provision,

known as Get Composting, with prices frozen at 15-16 levels. Over 64,000 compost bins have been sold in Hampshire via this scheme since it began around 10 years ago. There was no increase in sales of home compost bins in 15-16 when compared to the previous year, but where targeted communications was carried out, an increase in sales was seen.

6.3.4 At the Feb 2016 PISB meeting (report 043), the Board agreed a recommendation to sign up to the

next phase of the Courtauld Commitment. The Commitment is a voluntary agreement aimed at improving resource efficiency and reducing waste within the UK grocery sector. The agreement is funded by Westminster, Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland governments and delivered by WRAP, which is responsible for the agreement and works in partnership with leading retailers, brand owners, manufacturers and suppliers who sign up and support the delivery of the targets. It was launched in 2005 and the third phase came to a close in 2015.

6.3.5 The commitment has led to significant reductions in the amount of food waste – for example it is

estimated that phase 2 of the commitment (2010-13) led to a decrease in waste of over 1.7m tonnes. However WRAP acknowledge that more still needs to be done, as waste levels are still too high and the UK population is growing. WRAP are keen to focus the next phase of the commitment on:

Collaboration along the whole supply chain

Changing consumer behaviour to value food and drink more

A longer term vehicle for change

of 60

6.3.6 The next phase Commitment (“Courtauld 2025”) moves beyond the traditional relationship with food producers and retailers. WRAP asked for LA delivery partners to:

Work with others to identify and develop good practice in engaging with residents of food consumption

Engage with residents and colleagues to enable changes in consumption habits – for example deliver Love Food Hate Waste messaging

Report annually to WRAP on what we have done to engage with residents 6.3.7 Since the last PISB meeting, the partnership has signed up to the commitment. Individual partners

are also free (but not obliged) to sign up in their own right. WRAP have also released two further initiatives under C2025. There will be a series of collaborative working groups, one of which is “consumer engagement” and which the Head of PI has expressed an interest in contributing to. There is also an opportunity to express an interest in obtaining WRAP support for projects which will contribute to the aims of C2025.

6.4 Other activity 6.4.1 The dedicated WP website (click here) continues to involve into a useful resource for residents.

This is supported by social media activity. 6.4.2 In November, an online reuse database was launched. This allows residents to search for reuse

outlets available by postcode area, including recycling banks, charity shops, second hand shops etc.

6.4.3 The PI Waste Prevention Plan demonstrates PI partner commitment to waste prevention. Other

activity around improving council’s internal waste prevention performance has been limited due to the focus on public facing projects – however, research has been carried out and case studies obtained – this will be further developed in 15-16.

6.4.4 WCA collection policies – it has been recognised that collection policies at a local level can have a

significant impact upon waste generation levels, particularly in relation to collection frequencies and container sizes. WCAs continue to keep collection policies under review, with some making changes to bin sizes and introducing bans on certain materials in residual waste bins.

6.4.5 A summary of district level activity is included as appendix II. 7 Priorities for 2016-17 7.1 Participation in C2025 Commitment 7.1.1 As part of PI’s contribution to C2025, the PI Executive will:

o Maintain a list of activities, events etc o Promote LFHW via social media o Ensure any monitoring data is fed back to WRAP as and when required o Periodically review waste prevention content on partner websites and provide feedback

where appropriate o Identify opportunities for joint working with other Courtauld signatories (e.g. the private

sector) 7.1.2 The PI Waste Prevention Working Group is proposing that the following should be carried out by

all PI partners:

http://www3.hants.gov.uk/smartliving

http://www3.hants.gov.uk/waste-recycling/smartliving/inthehome/reusesites.htm

of 60

o Notifying PI Executive of any activity related to LFHW on an ongoing basis, so we can keep

track of all activity for reporting back to WRAP annually. Advanced notice is welcomed, as it may enable PI/HCC to offer support.

o Supporting the Smart Living and Recycle for Hampshire feeds via own social media activity (re-posting, sharing etc)

o Providing clear information of waste prevention on websites, or providing links to the Smart Living web pages which are specifically aimed at WP messages.

o Notify HCC of any opportunities for community engagement that may be suitable for waste prevention champions.

o At events already planned, promote LFHW 7.1.3 The PI Executive is looking into the potential to store a “library” of localised LFHW resources (press

releases, web copy etc) for use by partners. In addition, there may be an opportunity to utilise some of the PI Executive Budget for some LFHW communications that would support our contribution to C2025. For 16-17, an underspend of £15k is forecast because the HCC/PI SLA cost is predicted to be lower than expected. The PI WP group has suggested that communications via the following routes could be cost effective:

Via council tax reminders

Via existing council publications

Via bin hangers or stickers This communication would be short and concise, focusing on 4 or 5 practical measures that householders could take to reduce food waste and save money (e.g. similar to WRAP’s recently promoted ‘Five Little Wins’). Further details will be agreed by partners after further investigation. At the time of writing, WRAP have just announced some support for C2025 initiatives, and it may be that a PI project could receive support or be linked with other Courtauld signatories (e.g. supermarkets) to widen the reach of the messages in Hampshire.

7.2 Other priorities for 2016-17 7.2.1 As follows:

The WP champions programme will move from a recruitment phase to a retention phase

Targeted communications to promote home composting

Build links with other public services – e.g. public health/welfare – to broaden reach of LFHW messages

Develop guide for PI partners to use to minimise waste in their own operations

Maximise use of bulky waste call centre scripts in as many partners as possible

Monitor success of bulky waste diversion measures in RBC and roll out to others where appropriate

Maintain and develop relationships with third sector and other stakeholders 7.2.2 All partners should continue to support relevant working groups, carry out community

engagement activity at a local level where possible, and support wider communications efforts through local channels. In particular, local support for the community champions scheme will be integral to its success. Co-ordination of partner activity will need to be overseen by the PI WP group.

8 Recommendations 8.1 That Members note the progress so far in the area of waste prevention.

of 60

8.2 That Members agree the key priorities as detailed in section 7 above.


Name Chris Noble

Position Head of Project Integra

Tel 01962 832302


Appendix I – partner performance, NI191 and BV84a 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16

Kg residual waste per HH (NI191)

NI 191 - Rank of

authority compared

to others in England

Kg HH waste per

head (BVPI84a)

BVPI84a - Rank of

authority compared

to others in England

Kg residual waste per HH (NI191)

NI 191 - Rank of

authority compared to others

in England

Kg HH waste per

head (BVPI84a)

BVPI84a - Rank of

authority compared to others

in England

Kg residual

waste per HH

(NI191)

Kg HH waste per

head (BVPI84a)

Basingstoke and Deane

614.18 221/273 346.37 70/273 622.24 232/252 348.56 59/252 594.16 336.15

East Hampshire

488.24 134/273 311.01 24/273 484.88 108/252 307.23 15/252 495.27 311.59

Eastleigh 439.93 64/273 304.82 17/273 443.58 60/252 313.1 24/252 452.85 314.89

Fareham 475.16 111/273 311.99 25/273 473.61 95/252 307.29 16/252 518.61 320.90

Gosport 501.4 155/273 287.79 2/273 496.26 127/252 284.22 6/252 515.44 285.89

Hart 521.85 173/273 329.65 47/273 519.2 152/252 331.85 41/252 519.01 331.68

Havant 500.61 153/273 309.86 22/273 503.47 135/252 311.02 23/252 518.69 315.78

New Forest 517.69 168/273 330.97 51/273 512.19 144/252 333.36 36/252 531.19 336.95

Portsmouth (incl. HWRC)

673.35 56/91 367.87 19/91 675.66 243/252 373.94 95/252 693.39 381.28

Rushmoor 594.9 216/273 324.56 41/273 589.33 215/252 324.52 30/252 599.36 326.87

Southampton (incl. HWRC)

688.77 69/81 379.17 19/91 683.09 n/a* 394.52 n/a* 700.23 397.79

Test Valley 530.44 181/273 334.9 56/273 536.96 174/252 335.64 47/252 545.53 342.59

Winchester 488.93 136/273 316.63 28/273 478.77 99/252 314.93 25/252 483.21 309.92

PI (incl. HWRC) 661.42 N/A 425.35 N/A 662.72 N/A 436.04 N/A 676.49 444.44

*

*because of changes in WDF reporting, it was not possible to rank SCC's performance

of 60

Appendix II – partner activity, 15-16

WP Activity, 2015/16

All Partners

Maintaining communication of local WP activity between partners

Promotion of key schemes (e.g. home composting) on websites

B&DBC Participation in PI WP working group

Financial support given to Community Furniture project, which particularly focuses on collection of fridges/freezers for reuse in the areas.

Diversion of bulky waste to CF project.

Project to reduce the number of residual waste bins in circulation

Implemented ban on recyclables and garden waste in residual bins

EBC Participation in PI WP working group

Continuing to replace 240l residual waste bins for 180l bins

Trialling of bulky waste scripts

EHDC Participation in PI WP working group

Change bulky waste script

Review of two bin properties with waste contractor on going

Textile bank expansion project ongoing

FBC Participation in PI WP working group

Trialling new Bulky Waste script with Customer Service Centre, to divert more to TSOs – data being sent to HCC

Developing local on-line LFHW resource

GBC Participation in PI bulky waste group

Trialling Bulky waste scripts

HCC Participation in PI WP working group

Organic waste champions scheme

Legacy of WRAP-funded reuse/repair project – toolkit

On going work on development and trialling of Bulky waste scripts with districts

Continued development of LFHW and composting promotion – online, events, advertising

HDC Participation in PI WP working group

Diversion of bulky waste to Community Furniture project

Project to reduce the number of residual waste bins in circulation

HBC Participation in PI WP working group

NFDC Promotion of LFHW messages via work with community groups

PCC Participation in PI WP working group

Some LFHW stands at community events and University of Portsmouth Students union in the reuse initiatives, 'The BIG move out' and 'The BIG move in'

Developed specific WP plan in support of PIWPP

RBC Participation in PI WP working group

Rolling replacement of 240l residual waste bins for 140l bins.

Following on from WRAP project provided depot for temporary storage of bulky waste Partner in WRAP-funded reuse/repair project

SCC Participation in PI WP working group

LFHW workshops and promotion of home composting at gardening events.

TVBC Participation in PI WP working group

Promoting overall recycling and waste prevention messages via Recycling Stars campaign

WCC Participation in PI WP working group

Review of two bin properties with waste contractor ongoing

of 60

Change CSC script on Bulky Waste to look to divert items from landfill

Bring Site Audit completed and changed skips and igloos to 770l bins

Textile bank expansion project ongoing

WINACC activities include LFHW campaign and The Great Waste Event (now finishing)

of 60

Project Integra – Report Title of report Performance 2015/16 – Tonnages, NIs and contamination


Date 23 June 2016

Approval required Yes

1 Purpose 1.1 To provide Members with waste management performance monitoring data for 2015-16. Please note that

the statistics presented here are provisional and should not be taken as final figures. 1.2 To present data and provide some commentary on recent trends in waste arisings and performance

indicators in PI. 1.3 To present the results from the main operations of the Materials Analysis Facility (MAF) during 2015/16

including contamination monitoring. 1.4 To update on PI engagement with Defra on the future of measuring performance.

2 Executive Summary 2.1 In 2015-16, PI saw an increase in recycling rates, an increase in waste sent to landfill and an increase in

residual waste and total household waste. 2.2 Dry Mixed Recycling (DMR) tonnages fell by 1.2% - this continues the trend of falling DMR tonnages seen

over the last few years. 2.3 The average DMR contamination level was calculated to be 9.44% (reducing from 9.02% in 2014/15).

Capture of DMR increased from 81% to 74%. 2.4 It is too early to say if these trends have been replicated nationally, but comparisons will be made as soon as

data is available. PI still has one of the best levels of performance in the UK when it comes to diversion from landfill – for example in 14-15, Hampshire was the 4th best English shire county.

2.5 PI has continued to lobby central government over the issue of Incinerator Bottom Ash and its omission

from recycling rates. If IBA recycling were to be included in recycling rates, the PI recycling rate would increase to 46.16% from 35.71%.

3 Introduction 3.1 Waste management performance in local authorities is still generally measured and compared via three

now defunct NIs: For all authorities:

NI 191 – KG of residual waste per household

NI 192 – percentage of household waste reused, recycled and composted

048

of 60

For authorities with responsibility for waste disposal:

NI 193 – percentage of municipal waste sent to landfill

3.2 Table 1 below shows the changes in key household waste streams observed between 13-14 and 15-16. Section 4 onwards focuses on key elements of this. The data is combined for all PI authorities. Table 1 – summary tonnage and NI data for PI, 2013-2016

2013/14 2014/15 2015/16

% Change 14/15-15/16

Ton

nes

Rec

ycle

d Kerbside & Banks 156,453 161,986 167,011 3.1

HWRCs 108,815 110,482 119,751 8.4

Total 265,267 272,468 286,762 5.2

Res

idu

al

Incinerated - Kerbside 387,493 396,076 385,102 -2.8

Incinerated - HWRC Combustible 17,114 18,713 30,362 62.2

Incinerated - HWRC Wood 38,493 39,001 39,772 2.0

Landfilled 60,780 52,347 60,959 16.5

Total 503,880 506,137 516,196 2.0

HH

Total Household Waste 769,148 778,605 802,958 3.1

KG

NI 191 - Residual Waste Per Household 661.42 657.84 666.62 1.33

%

NI 192 - Household waste reused and composted 34.48% 34.99% 35.71% 0.72

NI 193 - Municipal waste landfilled 7.85% 6.72% 7.67% 0.95

3.3 The 2013-14 PI performance report (Report no. 15, presented to PISB in June 2014) provided a significant amount of commentary on recent waste trends. Many of the issues in that report are still relevant. To avoid duplication, this is not repeated here but can be referred to by clicking here. PI partners will have been aware that since 2011-12, recycling rates have plateaued or reduced. There has been a slight increase in recycling rates in 2014-15 and 2015-16.

3.4 Data available at a national level will not be available until later in 2016. However, data released by Defra covering the first quarter of 2015-16 shows a slight (1.2%) decrease in recycling rate when compared with the same quarter in the previous year, continuing the national trend of a flat lining recycling rate.

3.5 Another key measure of performance for PI partners is contamination of DMR. This, and other measures, are calculated through a sampling programme at the Materials Analysis Facility (MAF), set up by Project Integra in March 2006 and located within the grounds of the Alton Materials Recovery Facility (MRF). The findings of this analysis influence interpretation of changes in recycling rate and other measures, so is dealt with first in this report

4.0 MAF Analysis

4.1 Contamination


of 60

4.1.2 The aim was to sample every household waste DMR collection round once for each weekday that it operated. The results are shown in table 2 below. Table 2 – Sampling success in 2015/16

Authority rounds sampled 2015/16

rounds targeted 2015/16

percentage of targeted rounds sampled

2014/15 2015/16

BDBC 74 74 100% 100%

EBC* 64 65 86% 98%

EHDC 41 43 95% 95%

FBC* 44 44 98% 100%

GBC 27 27 100% 100%

HBC 36 36 97% 100%

HDC 37 40 100% 93%

NFDC* 78 78 100% 100%

PCC* 49 51 96% 96%

RBC 29 29 100% 100%

SCC 88 90 89% 98%

TVBC 55 55 100% 100%

WCC 43 44 90% 98%

ALL 665 676 96% 98%

*these councils also had their mixed household and commercial waste collection rounds sampled

4.1.3 Overall success rate increased in 201516. Where targeted rounds were missed the Authorities were contacted, and where possible the programme was amended to rebook the rounds.

4.1.4 Results from the contamination programme, Authority requests and any random sampling were sent out each month. As part of the steps agreed during the Resource Capture and Treatment Review (RCTR) to reduce MRF rejects, MAF sample record sheets were sent to the relevant Authority as soon as possible after receipt. These sheets highlight any obvious and significant amounts of contamination delivered into the infrastructure.

4.1.5 Contamination monitoring sampling took place throughout the year except for periods around Bank Holidays.

4.1.6 Results for authorities collectively and individually are shown in Appendix I and II:

The average contamination level was calculated to be 9.44% (increasing from 9.02% in 2014/15);

Most of the Authorities continue their normal pattern of tracking above or below the average rate, but generally the level of contamination as reported by the MAF is slowly rising.

The gap between high and low performance levels has also narrowed in comparison with previous years.

4.1.7 The results will be used to calculate individual Authority’s share of MRF residues and thus to calculate income and performance figures for Authorities for DMR collected in the year 2016/17.

4.1.8 The contamination programme for 2016/17 has been set following consultation with the Authorities to ensure that all DMR rounds are identified and targeted at the correct sites.

4.2 MRF Reject and Residue

of 60

4.2.1 It is noted that the level of contamination suggested by the results of the MAF sampling does not directly correspond with the actual level of residues (residue rate) resulting from the MRF process. Please see appendices III and IV for further information on the sources of MRF residue, and the differences between MAF contamination rate and MRF residue rate.

4.2.2 MRF Residue is made up:

“Reject” – non-target items which are rejected from the stream, mostly by manual means, and mostly at an early stage in the process

“Process Residue” - material which travels through the sorting facility without being separated into a clean waste stream and which is sent for disposal.

4.2.3 The table below contains the residue rate from the Alton and Portsmouth MRFs since 2011/12. The proportion of Reject continues to rise. Table 3 – trends in MRF residue, 2012-16

2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16

MRF Residue Rate 13.87% 15.73% 16.55% 17.60%

Of Which: 12.45%

10.33%

10.06%

9.86% Process Residue

Reject 1.42% 5.40% 6.50% 7.74%

(note – changes in sampling methodology have lead to greater confidence in the accuracy of this split from 13-14 onwards)

4.2.4 There was also interest in how much of the reject stream was DMR contained in bags (i.e. clean material which has been sorted by the resident but incorrectly put into a bag). Except for approved DMR sacks (e.g. from NFDC), bags are not opened for H&S and quality assurance purposes. The 886kg of reject material described above was sampled to ascertain the amount of bagged material within in. Only 4% of the reject stream was bagged material, with 38% of that being bagged DMR. Given the small proportion of bagged material, further analysis was not carried out.

4.2.5 An analysis of reject material at Portsmouth MRF in January revealed unexpectedly high levels of DMR. As a result, more sampling was commissioned for early May 2016. This sampling revealed that 21-30% of the reject material was DMR.

4.2.6 Process residue was also sampled during 2015-16. This sampling identifies any DMR found within the process residue. The result of this analysis from the last three years is shown below. This shows a reduction in DMR found within process residue at Alton, but an increase at Portsmouth.

of 60

Figure 1 – Results of process residue sampling

4.2.7 A programme of sampling is being developed to more closely monitor the levels of DMR within both the reject and process residue streams.

4.3 Residual Waste Analysis and Capture Rate

4.3.1 The composition of household residual waste was examined in order to:

Continue building up a picture of the composition of residual waste across the partnership.

Calculate capture rates for kerbside collected recyclables.

4.3.2 To increase confidence in the accuracy of these sampling results, the number of samples was significantly increased from 50 in 2014-15 to 198 in 2015-16. In 2016-17, this number will be increased again, to around 250, which will be taken throughout the year and in proportion to WCA inputs of residual waste.

4.3.3 The capture rate is the proportion of a material present in the overall waste stream that is recovered for recycling. It is possible to use the residual waste sampling data to establish capture rates for DMR recovered through the MRF process. However, these results do need to be treated with caution due to:

the relatively small number of residual waste samples taken (although as highlighted in 5.2, this number was higher than in previous years)

the inherent difficulties with identifying some – particularly fibre based – materials within residual waste, as they are mixed with putrescible waste and compacted before being sampled.

4.3.4 Capture rates, including the breakdown by material, are shown below.

of 60

Table 5 – Capture rates, 2013-16

Estimated tonnage

in Residual

Waste (1)

Authority Tonnes

Recovered at MRF

(2)

Estimated total tonnage in domestic

waste streams (3)

Estimated Capture Rate

13/14

14/15 15/16

News / Mags

4,922 23,198 28,120 86.18%

88.06% 82.50%

Mixed paper 11,813 38,416 50,229 83.78%

83.74% 76.48%

Cardboard 1,793 10,331 12,124 86.19%

94.70% 85.21%

Plastic bottles

5,274 6,992 12,266 59.24%

64.24% 57.00%

Alu cans & aerosols

1,617 1,293 2,910 41.33%

50.98% 44.43%

Steel cans & aerosols

4,289 3,407 7,696 46.46%

50.78% 44.27%

Total 29,709 83,637.00 113,346 78.31%

80.88% 73.79%

4.3.5 Changes in capture rates are affected by a multitude of factors, including:

Efficacy of MRF processes

Contamination within source material

Changes in tonnages of DMR collected

Changes over time in the mix of presented DMR

Changes over time in the amount of DMR estimated to be contained in residual waste

4.3.6 The figures appear to show a general worsening of capture rates (of around 6-7% points) with cardboard falling more markedly. Work carried out as part of the Resource Capture & Treatment Review compared capture of DMR in Hampshire with capture in statistically similar authorities. Compared with these authorities, Hampshire has good capture rates for paper and card, but less good rates for cans and plastic bottles. It has not been possible to identify the reasons for these lower levels of capture.

4.3.7 Using these figures it is possible to gauge the value of recyclable material in the waste stream (based on estimated £76.00 per tonne for 2015/16) This suggests a figure £8.6 million of which £2.26 million is currently not captured. The Authorities share of this would be £1.13 million. Whilst 100% capture is an unrealistic aim these figures indicate the significant scope and benefits from increasing capture of recyclable materials – particularly high value ones.

4.3.8 Figure 2 below shows changes in the amount of DMR found within the overall domestic waste stream. There have been significant decreases in the amount of news/magazines. Metals and plastic bottles have remained broadly consistent, but cardboard and mixed paper have increased. Overall the amount of DMR material in the waste stream has decreased by 5% since 2011.

of 60

Figure 2 – tonnage of material available in overall household waste stream

5 Tonnage and NI analysis, 2014-15

5.1 Kerbside and Bank recycling tonnages

5.1.1 Total kerbside and bring bank material rose by 3.1%. This increase is mostly due to:

A 6% increase in kerbside collected garden waste tonnages – several WCAs have introduced wheeled bins as a garden waste container, which has seen garden waste scheme subscriptions and tonnages increase.

A 1.6% increase in glass tonnages – this was a general increase seen from all authorities.

5.1.2 Tonnages of household DMR sent to market reduced in 15-16. However this was due to an increased MRF residue rate rather than a decrease in collected tonnage. The recent trend in DMR tonnage is shown below. The rate of decrease in both tonnage delivered and tonnage recycled has slowed in recent years.

of 60

Figure 3: Recent trend in municipal DMR tonnages collected in PI

5.1.3 This decrease should be considered in light of the reducing amount of material available and changes in capture rates, as discussed earlier.

5.2 HWRC recycling tonnages

5.2.1 Tonnages of recycling processed through HWRCs increased by 8.4% between 14-15 and 15-16.

5.2.2 The most significant contributing factor to this was the inclusion of a proportion of recycled soil and rubble which for the purpose of recycling calculations can now be classified as household waste whereas before it was a non-household waste.

5.3 Residual waste incinerated and sent to landfill

5.3.1 Overall waste tonnages sent for energy recovery or to landfill increased by 2% in 15-16 compared to 14-15. This can partially be explained by an increase in household numbers, but waste per household also increased (see NI191 further down).

5.3.2 During 15-16, waste to landfill increased by 16.5%. The major contributor to this was an increase in MRF residues sent to landfill. MRF residues are either sent to ERF or to landfill, but in the event of capacity issues at the ERF, the residue is diverted to landfill because it is not a waste stream which is well suited to the ERF process. Processing this waste via landfill causes significant additional cost for the WDAs. It is worthwhile highlighting the link here to two PI workstreams:

1. Reduction of contamination – if the quality of MRF inputs is improved, there will be less MRF residue

2. Waste Prevention – if overall household residual waste reduces, this frees capacity at the ERFs and reduces the need for landfill.

It is hoped that expansion of a scheme to recycle mechanical street sweepings will reduce landfill again in

of 60

201617

5.4 National Indicators

5.4.1 Recent trends in NI191 (KG of residual waste per household) are indicated in figure 4 below. 2015-16 saw a slight increase, compared to the levelling off seen in the previous year. Figure 4: NI191 Performance for PI, 2007 to 2015

5.4.2 NI 192 (recycling rate) increased by 0.72 percentage points. Figure 5 below highlights the recent trend in NI192, and figure 6 shows changes for each district between 14-15 and 15-16. The recycling rate stayed broadly consistent because both the tonnage of waste recycled, and the tonnage of residual waste increased.

of 60

Figure 5: NI192 in PI, 2000-16

20 19

23 24

2729

34

37 38 38

3537

35 34 35 36

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

%

Figure 6:NI 192 by District

N.B. January to March figures (2015/16) have not been reconciled with WasteDataFlow; please expect changes

Recycling Rates

Comparisons April 2015 to

March 2016

Basingstoke

and DeaneHart Rushmoor

East

HampshireFareham Gosport

Portsmouth

District & HWRCHavant

Test

Valley

New

ForestEastleigh

Southampton

District & HWRCWinchester

Total Recycling Rate 2014/15 24.60% 37.15% 25.89% 32.59% 34.43% 23.51% 22.72% 29.17% 31.99% 29.77% 40.59% 26.10% 35.34%

Total Recycling Rate 2015/16 26.27% 37.45% 25.85% 32.72% 31.77% 21.75% 23.15% 28.58% 32.56% 29.10% 40.22% 27.34% 34.50%

5.4.3 NI 193 (% municipal waste sent to landfill) increased by 0.95 percentage points. Figure 7 below highlights the recent trend in NI193. Despite this increase, landfill diversion in Hampshire remains one of the best levels of performance in the UK.

of 60

Figure 7: NI193 in PI, 2007-16

6 The future of performance reporting, indicators and targets

6.1 EU Target and review

6.1.1 EU Member States are required to recycle or reuse 50% of their household waste by 2020, as set out in the revised Waste Framework Directive. Based on current progress, it is likely that the UK will not meet this target.

6.1.2 The European Commission revealed its initial proposals for a new “Circular Economy Package” in 2015, which included new Member State targets to recycle 60% by 2025 and 65% by 2030. The exact impact of new EU measures and/or targets is not likely to be known for 2 years during a period of negotiation at EU level and subsequent transition of European legislation into UK law.

6.2 Incinerator Bottom Ash

6.2.1 Full background to this issue was provided in the 2013-14 PI performance report (Report no. 15, presented to PISB in June 2014, found here). In summary:

Incinerator Bottom Ash (IBA) is the residue that falls through the grate after the energy has been recovered from the waste. It contains glass, brick, rubble, sand, grit, metal, stone, ceramics and ash. Metal is removed from the ash at the EfW facilities, and the ash is taken to a sorting facility. There it is separated into various size fractions with any remaining metals in the ash extracted and sent for further processing. The finished product is known as Incinerator Bottom Ash Aggregate (IBAA) and is ready to be used in building and civil engineering projects.

Despite several consultations and guidance issued to the contrary, recycling rates (NI192) do not allow for inclusion of this recycled material.

6.2.2 In response to both confusion over different recycling rate and the anomaly of IBA exclusion, PI has made several approaches to central Government in recent years, including attending meetings with Ministers. Our


of 60

case is based around the improved performance (c5 percentage points) that would be seen in England’s recycling rate if IBA recycling was included in performance figures.

6.2.3 Since the last meeting of PISB in February, the PI Executive has been working with Maria Miller MP to bring closer scrutiny to this issue. Around 30 LAs who are each successfully recycling at least 10k tonnes of IBA pa, have been identified, and using this information we are currently taking a two pronged approach:

1. Maria Miller, has written to MPs representing some of those areas identified in the list of 30. Maria Miller is asking them to support her call for a Westminster Hall debate on this issue.

2. The interim Chair of Project Integra, Cllr Frank Pearson, has written to portfolio holders in the 30

authorities, asking them to pledge support. A copy of this letter is included as Appendix V.

Members and Officers will be kept up to date on this issue in the period between the June and October PISB meetings.

6.2.4 Figure 8 below shows a comparison between PI recycling rates calculated on the basis of NI192 and what that figure would be if we were also able to add metal and/or IBAA recovery. Figure 8: Changes in NI192 after IBA inclusion

7 Recommendations

7.1 That the latest performance trends are noted, in the context of current and future PI Action Plans.

7.2 That the MAF programme for 2016/17 includes:

The sampling of every DMR and COMDRYREC round for contamination

Residual waste analysis to be done each month of the year in proportion to each Authority’s inputs

Authority requests if they can be accommodated within the Contamination Monitoring, Waste Prevention and Residual sampling programmes

Further analysis of MRF rejects and residues

7.3 That PI continues to pursue lobbying opportunities with regard to classification of IBA.

of 60


Name Chris Noble


Tel 01962 832302


of 60

Appendix I: Graph – Contamination Monitoring - Comparison of Authorities Contamination Rates 2006/07-2015/16

of 60

Appendix II: Graphs - Contamination Monitoring - Comparison of individual Authority Contamination Rates 2006/07-2015/16 with the PI average rate

of 60

Appendix III: Source of MRF Residue

of 60

Appendix IV: Differences between MAF Contamination Rate and MRF residue rate

Contamination Rate MRF Residue Rate

Definition An estimation of the amount of non-target material in MRF inputs. The rate calculated by sampling a small proportion of MRF inputs from each WCA in the MAF. Samples taken at WCA delivery point.

This is the % of all MRF inputs that are not subsequently sent to market as a recyclable product. The rate is based on actual tonnages rather than sampling.

Accuracy Provides a snapshot of the tonnage that the MRFs process. Of the 98,659 tonnes of DMR delivered by the Authorities during 2013/14, 93 (0.09%) tonnes was analysed by the MAF.

Based on actual tonnages and is therefore likely to be a more accurate measure of the quality of inputs.

Bulky items

Does not fully take into account all bulky items presented within a DMR load (plastic chairs, black bags, textiles etc) which are removed before the sample is taken.

Includes bulky items that are extracted at the earliest opportunity in the MRF.

Operating times

Sampling avoids periods around Bank Holidays when loads generally contain more contamination.

Is representative of residue all year round.

Inclusions Seeks non-target material only. As well as non-targeted material rejected, the residue rate will include some targeted material (i.e. DMR that was not successfully separated by the MRF) within the process residue.

of 60

Appendix V – letter from Cllr Pearson to other LAs

Economy , T r anspo r t and En v i r onment Depar tment

E l i zabe th I I Cour t Wes t , T he Cas t l e

Winches t e r , Hampsh i r e SO23 8UD Te l : 0845 603 5634 (Recyc l i n g Was te & P l ann ing )

Tex tphone 0845 603 5625

Fax 01962 847055

www.han ts . gov .uk

E nq u i r i e s t o Chris Noble My r e f e r e n c e PI/2016/IBA/FP

D i r e c t L i n e 01962 832302 Yo u r r e f e r e n c e

Da t e E ma i l [email protected] Dear Incinerator Bottom Ash and Recycling Rates In my position as the interim Chair of Hampshire’s waste partnership, Project Integra, I am writing to update you on an issue which I feel may be of interest to you, and which has the potential to increase the recognised level of recycling in our authorities, in England and in the UK. For many years, Project Integra has been recovering energy and value from residual waste which cannot be sent for traditional recycling. I am writing in particular to Councils which, like Hampshire, have developed Energy Recovery Facilities (ERFs) as a vital alternative to landfill, and made a valuable contribution to the nation’s energy supply. You may be aware that these facilities produce a by-product, known as Incinerator Bottom Ash (IBA), the constituent parts of which are recyclable – metals can be extracted and sent for reprocessing, and the remaining material can be used as a building aggregate. For example in Hampshire, this aggregate reduces the need for local quarrying and it has been used in local construction and maintenance projects. Whilst individual local authorities in the UK do not have statutory recycling targets, the UK (like all EU Member States) has a target to recycle, reuse or compost 50% of waste from households by 2020. Recent stalling of the recycling rate in England means that this target is going to be extremely challenging, and may not be met. The size of the challenge is exacerbated by the current exclusion of recycled IBA from the UK’s performance figures – the rationale given for this is that waste sent for treatment at an ERF is treated as a recovery operation rather than a recycling one. However, others have recognised the valuable contribution of IBA recycling. For example:

of 60

The Welsh Government allows Welsh LAs to include IBA recycling in their

recycling performance figures

A report commissioned by the Chartered Institution of Wastes Management in

2015 evidenced that other EU Member States, including Germany, France

and Sweden, are allowing IBA recycling to be included in their recycling

figures

In 2014-15, around 1.2m tonnes of IBA was recycled in England, some of which came from your authority. If IBA were included in recycling rate calculations, it would increase Hampshire’s recycling rate by 11%, and England’s official recycling rate by approximately 5 percentage points. This would dramatically improve the chances of meeting the EU target and would put us on a level playing field with the other Member States already mentioned. I am seeking your support in presenting the following point of view to the relevant Government Ministers:

The UK should be including all forms of IBA recycling in its calculation of the

national recycling rate to ensure our performance is based on the same

practice as other EU member States.

There should be one standardised measure of recycling rate that is reported

by the UK, individual countries of the UK, and individual local authorities, to

allow for fair comparisons to be made.

The UK should support the case for IBA recycling to be included in relevant

calculations as part of a drive to simplify definitions and standardise waste

and recycling performance measures across the EU as part of the recently

announced legislative proposals known as the Circular Economy Package.

As part of our efforts to influence central Government, we are also working with a Hampshire MP, with the aim of securing a Parliamentary debate on this issue. If your authority were able to express your support, in writing, for the three statements above, this will add further weight to our argument and show that there is a unified voice among Councils in England. Please direct correspondence to: Chris Noble Head of Project Integra Hampshire County Council EII Court West, 1st Floor Sussex Street Winchester Hampshire SO23 8UD I look forward to hearing from you.

of 60

Yours sincerely

Councillor Frank Pearson Interim Chairman of Project Integra& Winchester City Council Environment, Health & Wellbeing Portfolio Holder

of 60

1.0 Purpose of Report

1.1 To update Members on progress made toward identifying joint working and procurement opportunities for Project Integra.

2.0 Executive Summary 2.1 In addition to day-to-day PI partnership working, there are several examples of Hampshire councils working

closely together in the waste sector and in support services. 2.2 There are many national procurement frameworks which can be used to purchase many goods and services used

in waste management. A summary of these frameworks has been produced for the benefit of PI partners. 2.3 Both nationally and within Hampshire, councils are looking at new ways of commissioning waste collection

services, in addition to the traditional DSO or contracting models. Several Hampshire councils will be taking decisions about future services within the next few years.

2.3 Significant work has been carried out looking at vehicle procurement, and it is hoped this can lead to closer joint

working in the future. 3.0 Introduction 3.1 Annual local authority spend on waste management is significant. In 2012-13, PI partners spent approximately

£97m managing Hampshire’s household waste. An estimation of the cost of household waste management for 14-15 is currently being estimated based on the data submitted by PI partners. A report summarising these costs will be presented to PISB in October 2016, and this will allow PI to see whether costs have increased or decreased over that 2 year period.

3.2 Given that Hampshire Councils are carrying out very similar operations, there are opportunities for joint

procurement in waste management. The Hampshire and Isle of Wight Procurement Partnership (HIOWPP) has in the past facilitated some of this procurement, e.g. for purchase of vehicle fuel and Personal Protective Equipment (PPE).

4.0 Framework Agreements 4.1 A framework agreement is a quick and easy way of procuring goods or services, which can also save on

procurement costs. If a number of councils want to buy the same, or similar, products or services, it is possible to establish a framework agreement. This means the lengthy and expensive procurement process happens when the framework is established – then councils can buy goods or services through the framework and avoid having to go through the whole procurement process individually.

Title of report Joint Working and Procurement


Date 23 June 2016

Approval required No – for information only

049

of 60

4.2 A framework typically has a lifetime of up to four years during which time councils can use it to buy the relevant

product or service, by running a ‘mini-tender’ whereby those suppliers on the framework bid for the business. Technically, a framework is a formal statement of contractual terms that apply to each purchase made through the agreement.

4.3 Using such an agreement has the following advantages:

It gives the freedom to award contracts without the need to re-advertise and re-apply the selection and award criteria, saving the substantial time and cost of repeat bidding.

Framework contacts are potentially more attractive to the market due to the likelihood of large orders therefore prices are competitive.

A framework agreement procured by reputable organisations will have been procured by experts with a great deal of experience therefore producing good quality agreements.

Frameworks have been in use and tested for more than ten years in the private sector and many case studies have demonstrated that framework agreements deliver better value, year on year.

4.4 However using such agreements has the following limitations:

Agreements can be relatively unresponsive to change. There may be new suppliers or new solutions in the market that were not included when the framework agreement was initially set up.

Agreements tend to apply a ‘one size fits all’ approach, which might make it difficult for authorities to satisfy their own procurement objectives.

Most frameworks do not guarantee that suppliers will get any business from them. Therefore some suppliers may not go to the trouble of applying to be on the framework.

As a customer of a framework agreement you are reliant upon how the Contracting Authority has established and manages the framework agreement.

4.5 The PI Executive publishes a regular list of waste-related framework contracts every six months, for circulation to

all PI partners. Partners should notify the PI Executive if they are aware of framework agreements relating to waste management which are not included on the list.

4.6 The major providers of Framework Agreements include:

Braintree District Council - “Essex Procurement Hub”

Crown Commercial Service (formerly Government Procurement Service)

Yorkshire Purchasing Organisation (YPO)

Eastern Shires Purchasing Organisation (ESPO) 4.7 The above list is not designed to be exhaustive. The Pro5 group, is a centralised portal which brings together the

frameworks available from four individual organisations, including YPO and ESPO, which are the two main Pro5 providers with significant waste-related frameworks.

5.0 Waste collection services in Hampshire 5.1 Current service provision arrangements in PI partners are detailed below in figure 1. Five PI partners have in-

house collection services, one is in a joint venture arrangement and seven are contracted out – four of which are part of one of two joint contracts (HDC-B&DBC and EHDC-WCC).

of 60

Figure 1 – current service provision arrangements in PI authorities

5.2 After considering several options for service delivery, Havant BC moved from an in-house operation to a Joint

Venture arrangement with Norse Commercial Services Group, in April 2016. This is a 10 year arrangement covering many front line services, including waste and street cleansing. The operating model is based around the ability of the new joint venture company (JVC), which has been named Norse South East, to trade commercially and generate income outside of the core council services.

5.3 In the period 2018-19, the two joint contracts plus PCC’s contract will be at an extension or re-procurement

stage. The PI Executive is currently assisting EHDC and WCC with an options appraisal being conducted, looking at the future delivery model for environmental services. As a result of this, the Head of PI will be producing, for to all PI partners, a report covering:

Current market trends

New service delivery models

Pros and cons of different delivery models

Case studies from other authorities This will encompass commentary alongside some of the recent discussions in the industry over the benefits of in-sourcing versus outsourcing. It will complete in time for the next SOG meeting in September.

6.0 Joint Procurement Opportunities 6.1 Waste Containers – bins, bags, boxes 6.1.1 Waste containers were identified at an early stage as providing an opportunity for joint procurement. They are a

of 60

significant area of spend for all authorities and with multiple suppliers there is potential to drive down costs. During 2014, significant work on this was carried out, including gathering data and engaging with suppliers. This culminated in a briefing being taken to PI Strategy Officers in September 2014 (a copy is available on request).

6.1.2 It was decided at that time that there would not be significant benefit in a Hampshire-specific procurement of

containers. 6.2 Vehicles 6.2.1 The PI Executive, a small working group, and Strategy Officers have carried out significant work on vehicle

procurement in 2015-16. The key findings have been set out in a separate Officer’s briefing, but can be summarised as follows:

There are 5 in-house authorities in PI which purchase refuse/recycling collection vehicles on a regular basis, usually as part of a rolling replacement plan. Contracted authorities have vehicles supplied/operated by the contractor, although some will still have purchasing responsibilities for other vehicles.

Most partners currently purchase vehicles via procurement frameworks rather than directly with suppliers. Relevant frameworks, as well as the fees charged under each one, have been listed.

Refuse vehicles with a combined value of c£20m will be purchased over the next nine years.

Purchase and maintenance costs have been collated and compared among partners, although identifying the key factors affecting costs has been difficult where there is patchy data and numerous influences on costs.

There could be a saving on vehicle purchase price if framework contracts are not used, as well as ongoing operational savings that could come with a more standardised fleet of vehicles across multiple authorities.

6.2.2 Partners have agreed to continue to share information on purchase and maintenance costs and to create and

maintain a procurement pipeline, giving details of vehicle requirements in the future in order to identify joint procurement opportunities, and to share pricing information where appropriate.

6.3 Training 6.3.1 Identification of training requirements has focussed on “Driver CPC” – i.e. the requirements for drivers of HGVs

to complete 5 days of training over a set period. There is already some informal joint working among partners. Information on future requirements has been requested from partners and will form the basis for a proposal to partners at a future date.

Officer Contact Details

Name Chris Noble



Telephone 01962 832302

of 60


Title of Report Project Integra Accounts 2015-16

Report For Project Integra Strategic Board

Date of meeting 23 June 2015

Approval Required Yes

1 Purpose 1.1 To present Members with:

A statement of the final outturn for the PI Executive Budget for 2014/15

A letter of assurance from HCC, as the host authority for the PI Executive 2 Background 2.1 The Executive Budget forms a part of the PI Action Plan which is approved by all PI partners. 2.2 In previous years, as a Small Body, PI has been required by the Audit Commission/National

Audit Office to submit an Annual Return. However as of 2015-16 this is not longer a requirement.

2.3 PI Report No. 041 set out the ongoing audit requirements for the PI Executive. 3 2014/15 Statement of Final Outturn 3.1 The end of year budget monitoring statement is included below.

Table 1 – 2015-16 financial statement

Original

Budget

Actual

Cost

Balance

Expenditure

Staff costs 75,300 72,665

Communications & Research SLA

41,000 26,000

Other costs 2,700 5,457

Net Expenditure 119,000 104,122

Income

Annual Membership Fees -119,000 -104,122

Net Income -119,000 -104,122

Closing balance 2014-15 -75,681 -75,734

050

http://documents.hants.gov.uk/project-integra/PISBReports15October2015.pdf

of 60

3.2 Expenditure from the PI Executive Budget amounted to £104,122 against an original

forecast of £119,100. This underspend was mostly due to lower than expected costs associated with the Service Level Agreement that exists between PI and HCC, providing support in areas such as data management, MAF management, legal, finance and communications support. Income from PI partners, via annual subscriptions, will equal this expenditure. Partner contributions to the PI Executive for 2015-16 are shown below. Contributions are calculated according to the PI Financial Protocol.

LA PI Executive Contribution (£)

Basingstoke 7,584

East Hampshire 5,230

Eastleigh 5,602

Fareham 5,056

Gosport 3,825

Hart 3,904

Havant 5,557

New Forest 8,415

Portsmouth 11,648

Rushmoor 4,052

Southampton 13,379

Test Valley 5,285

Winchester 5,262

Hampshire 14,942

Veolia 4,382

Total 104,122

3.3 There is a balance brought forward to 15-16 of £75,734. 4 Letter of Assurance 4.1 The PI Financial Protocol states the following:

“as the accounting entries are transaction based, a letter of assurance from HCC will be a provided annually. This will be provided to the Board following HCC’s internal audit work undertaken on HCC central debtors and creditors, the functions used by Project Integra.”

4.2 Accordingly, the letter of assurance is included in appendix I. 5 Recommendations 7.1 That Members note the annual budget outturn and letter of assurance

Officer contact details Name Chris Noble


Tel 01962 832302


of 60

Appendix I

agenda 12.30pm, thursday 23 june 2016 venue fareham ......7 performance 2015/16 – tonnages, ni’s...

Documents