randd.defra.gov.ukrandd.defra.gov.uk/document.aspx?document=wr0121_8315_fra.pdf · quality control...

Resourc

WRO121 – UnderstandinAuthor

FINAL REPOR

RF Project no: 506

e Futures

g Waste Growth at Locality Level
T ADDENDUM

Resource Futures

WRO121 – Understanding Waste Growth at LocalAuthority Level

ADDENDUM

Prepared for Defra

Client Project no: WR0121

RF project no: 506

October 2009

Resource Futures

Create Centre, Smeaton Road, Bristol, BS16XN

Tel: 0117 930 4355

www.resourcefutures.co.uk

Quality control sheet RF 506

Report prepared for:

Waste and Resources Evidence ProgrammeDepartment for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra)Area 5DErgon HouseHorseferry RoadLondon SW1P 2AP

Report prepared by:

Ashley Robb and Dr Julian Parfitt and Ashley RobbDirector and Principal ConsultantResource FuturesFirst FloorRoyal House28 Sovereign StreetLeedsLS1 4BJ

E-mail: [email protected]

Report approved by:

Dr Julian ParfittResearch and Technical Director

File name: WR0121 addendum FINALVersion: FINALDate: October 2009

mailto:[email protected]

Contents

1. Addendum ............................................................................................................................ 1

1.1 Case Study 1: Ribble Valley Borough Council ................................................................ 11.1.1 Local authority profile .................................................................................................. 11.1.2 Waste collection arrangements ................................................................................... 11.1.3 Summary of waste trends............................................................................................ 31.1.4 Summary of factors ................................................................................................... 4

1.2 Case study 2: East Riding of Yorkshire Council.............................................................. 81.2.1 Local authority profile .................................................................................................. 81.2.2 Waste collection arrangements ................................................................................... 81.2.3 Summary of waste trends............................................................................................ 91.2.4 Summary of factors ................................................................................................. 10

1.3 Case study 3: Hambleton District Council ..................................................................... 141.3.1 Local authority profile ................................................................................................ 141.3.2 Waste collection arrangements ................................................................................. 141.3.3 Summary of waste trends.......................................................................................... 161.3.4 Summary of factors ................................................................................................. 19

1.4 Case Study 4: Broadland District Council ..................................................................... 211.4.1 Local authority profile ................................................................................................ 211.4.2 Waste collection arrangements ................................................................................. 211.4.3 Summary of waste trends.......................................................................................... 24

1.5 Case study 5: Hart District Council................................................................................ 271.5.1 Local authority profile ................................................................................................ 271.5.2 Waste collection arrangements ................................................................................. 271.5.3 Summary of waste trends.......................................................................................... 29

1.6 Case study 6: London Borough of Islington .................................................................. 331.6.1 Local authority profile ................................................................................................ 331.6.2 Waste collection arrangements ................................................................................. 331.6.3 Summary & interpretation of waste trends ................................................................ 36

1.7 Case study 7: South Norfolk District Council................................................................. 411.7.1 Local authority profile ................................................................................................ 411.7.2 Waste collection arrangements ................................................................................. 411.7.3 Summary of waste trends.......................................................................................... 44

1.8 Case study 8: Hyndburn Borough Council .................................................................... 471.8.1 Local authority profile ................................................................................................ 471.8.2 Waste collection arrangements ................................................................................. 471.8.3 Summary of waste trends.......................................................................................... 491.8.4 Summary of causal factors ........................................................................................ 50

1.9 Case study 9: Mole Valley District Council.................................................................... 551.9.1 Local authority profile ................................................................................................ 551.9.2 Waste collection arrangements ................................................................................. 551.9.3 Summary of waste trends.......................................................................................... 561.9.4 Summary of factors ................................................................................................. 57

1.10 Case study 10: Milton Keynes Council .......................................................................... 601.10.1 Local authority profile ............................................................................................ 601.10.2 Waste collection arrangements ............................................................................. 601.10.3 Summary of causal factors .................................................................................... 62

1.11 Case Study 11: Basildon District Council ...................................................................... 661.11.1 Local authority profile ............................................................................................ 661.11.2 Waste collection arrangements ............................................................................. 661.11.3 Summary of waste trends...................................................................................... 671.11.4 Summary of factors ............................................................................................. 68

1.12 Case study 12: Gateshead Metropolitan Borough Council ........................................... 711.12.1 Local authority profile ............................................................................................ 711.12.2 Waste collection arrangements ............................................................................. 711.12.3 Summary of waste trends...................................................................................... 72

1.12.4 Summary of factors ............................................................................................. 751.13 Case study 13: Wakefield Council................................................................................. 78

1.13.1 Local authority profile ............................................................................................ 781.13.2 Waste collection arrangements ............................................................................. 781.13.3 Summary of waste trends...................................................................................... 791.13.4 Summary of factors ............................................................................................. 82

1.14 Case study 14: Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council .............................................. 841.14.1 Local authority profile ............................................................................................ 841.14.2 Waste collection arrangements ............................................................................. 841.14.3 Summary of waste trends...................................................................................... 851.14.4 Summary of factors ............................................................................................. 86

1.15 Case study 15: London Borough of Sutton ................................................................... 891.15.1 Local authority profile ............................................................................................ 891.15.2 Waste collection arrangements ............................................................................. 891.15.3 Summary of waste trends...................................................................................... 901.15.4 Summary of factors ............................................................................................. 92

1.16 Case study 16: Birmingham City Council ...................................................................... 951.16.1 Local authority profile ............................................................................................ 951.16.2 Waste collection arrangements ............................................................................. 951.16.3 Summary of waste trends...................................................................................... 961.16.4 Summary of factors ............................................................................................. 97

1.17 Case study 17: Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council .............................................. 991.17.1 Local authority profile ............................................................................................ 991.17.2 Waste collection arrangements ............................................................................. 991.17.3 Summary of waste trends.................................................................................... 1001.17.4 Summary of factors ........................................................................................... 101

1.18 Case Study 18: Somerset County Council .................................................................. 1041.18.1 Local authority profile .......................................................................................... 1041.18.2 Waste collection arrangements and policy development .................................... 1041.18.3 Summary of waste trends.................................................................................... 1061.18.4 Changes in composition and arisings following introduction of SORT IT!........... 1061.18.5 Conclusions ......................................................................................................... 107

1.19 Case study 19: Stirling Council.................................................................................... 1071.19.1 Local authority profile .......................................................................................... 1071.19.2 Waste collection arrangements ........................................................................... 1071.19.3 Summary of waste trends.................................................................................... 1081.19.4 Summary of factors ........................................................................................... 110

1.20 Case study 20: Cardiff Council ................................................................................... 1141.20.1 Local authority profile .......................................................................................... 1141.20.2 Waste collection arrangements ........................................................................... 1141.20.3 Summary of factors ........................................................................................... 117

1.21 Case study 21: Powys County Council ....................................................................... 1191.21.1 Local authority profile .......................................................................................... 1191.21.2 Waste collection arrangements ........................................................................... 1191.21.3 Summary of waste trends.................................................................................... 1221.21.4 Summary of factors ........................................................................................... 123

1.22 Case study 22: Derby City Council.............................................................................. 1251.22.1 Local authority profile .......................................................................................... 1251.22.2 Waste collection arrangements ........................................................................... 1251.22.3 Summary of waste trends.................................................................................... 1261.22.4 Summary of factors ........................................................................................... 127

1.23 Case study 23: Rother District Council........................................................................ 1301.23.1 Local authority profile .......................................................................................... 1301.23.2 Waste collection arrangements ........................................................................... 1301.23.3 Summary of waste trends.................................................................................... 1301.23.4 Summary of factors ........................................................................................... 131

1.24 Case study 24: Rhondda Cynon Taf Council .............................................................. 1351.24.1 Local authority profile .......................................................................................... 1351.24.2 Waste collection arrangements ........................................................................... 1351.24.3 Summary of waste trends.................................................................................... 138

1.24.4 Summary of factors ........................................................................................... 1391.25 Case study 25: Flintshire ............................................................................................. 140

1.25.1 Local authority profile .......................................................................................... 1401.25.2 Waste collection arrangements ........................................................................... 1401.25.3 Summary of waste trends.................................................................................... 1421.25.4 Summary of factors ........................................................................................... 143

1.26 Case study 26: Belfast City Council ............................................................................ 1441.26.1 Local authority profile .......................................................................................... 1441.26.2 Waste collection arrangements ........................................................................... 1441.26.3 Summary of waste trends.................................................................................... 1461.26.4 Summary of factors ........................................................................................... 148

1.27 Case study 27: Down District Council ......................................................................... 1511.27.1 Local authority profile .......................................................................................... 1511.27.2 Waste collection arrangements ........................................................................... 1511.27.3 Summary of waste trends.................................................................................... 1521.27.4 Summary of factors ........................................................................................... 153

1.28 Cases study 28: West Dunbartonshire Council........................................................... 1541.28.1 Local authority profile .......................................................................................... 1541.28.2 Waste collection arrangements ........................................................................... 1541.28.3 Summary of waste trends.................................................................................... 155Summary of factors ............................................................................................................ 158

WR0121 – Defra Municipal Waste Growth Study: Addendum Draft - 1 -October 2009

1. Addendum

1.1 Case Study 1: Ribble Valley Borough Council

1.1.1 Local authority profile

Ribble Valley (RV) is a mainly rural authority with three main towns: Clitheroe, Longridge andWhalley. There are 25,000 households and the population is growing due to an influx from ELancashire. The district is the largest borough in Lancashire at 240 square miles with thesmallest population of 58,300 in 24,594 households. The area has a small economy based on theknowledge, skills (23.8% of total employment) and qualifications of residents. Over one third ofemployment is with the public sector. There are very low levels of unemployment, and high levelsof prosperity. Low levels of deprivation occur, mainly in the form of lack of affordable housing.The quality of the natural environment is one of the highest in the country with areas of naturalbeauty.

Future planned growth in the area is for an additional 2900 dwellings by 2021. In delivering thislevel of housing the council would be seeking to achieve at least 51% as affordable housing units,in line with the findings of the current Strategic Housing Market Assessment. This figure will ofcourse be kept under annual review. In practice the council has to date seen levels of provisionon mixed sites at around 20% as developers struggle to attain viability. If these levels continuethen it is possible that additional housing will need to be released over and above the plannedrequirement. Whilst at this stage it is not possible to determine precise figures, if the shortfallcontinues at present levels it could require anything up to an additional 1000 homes to bereleased. This would have particular planning related consequences as planned growth isexceeded and significant additional areas of land were needed. Similarly this would have asignificant impact on the demands for waste collection provision if that level of housing orsomewhere close to it, was the eventual outturn. Ultimately this position can only be kept underreview as it will be dependant upon the local and national economic situation over the next fewyears.

The Council is preparing its Core Strategy for its Local Development Framework. Options to datehave examined the release of land around the key service centres of Clitheroe, Whalley andLongridge with factors such as land availability and access to rail transport and the potential toimprove facilities important considerations. Patterns of growth based on relatively significantextensions to the built up areas are under consideration over the longer term. In the short termsay five to six year period it is likely that development will take place at existing settlementsacross the Borough through incremental but dispersed growth that will have the effect ofincreasing demands on established, localised waste collection rounds.

1.1.2 Waste collection arrangements

A 3-stream collection operates using red 140 litre wheeled bins for residual waste, a blue 140 litrewheeled bin for glass, cans, aerosols, plastic bottles, foil, and a green 140 litre bin for gardenwaste. Residual waste is collected weekly, recycling and garden wastes are collected alternateweekly. Mixed paper and cardboard waste is collected fortnightly by bag by a private contractor.There are no plans to go onto an alternate weekly collection for the residual domestic waste.Waste is collected in split body vehicles. Sacks are still provided where wheeled bins are notpractical to approx 4% of properties. 240 litre bins are available for families of 6+ persons;currently less than 200 have been issued.

Where possible, shared collection points have been developed for properties with restrictedspace and access, and wheeled bins are required to be left at the curtilage of the property, whichmay be at the end of lane in more remote areas.

No side waste is collected, except over Xmas week (this may be extended to include New Yearweek). Where side waste is left, a sticker is put on it advising that it is not accepted and to put it inthe bin for the next collection. Stickers are also put on bins containing contaminated recyclables.

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

2

Policies are applied rigorously. Bins are chipped, and will eventually be used to monitorparticipation rates.

The new 3-stream scheme was promoted through press coverage and information in the councilnewsletter. Each household received a letter with a map of where bins should be left, and whereappropriate, contact details of who would be sharing the bins, this was followed by an informationpack containing an explanatory letter, a calendar of collection dates, a list of FAQs and addresslabels for the wheeled bins.

Home composters have had a good take up via the Lancashire Waste Partnership (LWP)scheme, with 80% of properties with a garden having at least one compost bin (10338 distributedin RV). The WRAP 0800 no. is promoted.

Real Nappies are promoted through the LWP. RV funded a nappy laundry service and freegiveaways in 2002 (approx) but was not viable. A total of 192 real nappy vouchers have beendistributed in RV since 2005-06.

Bulky household waste collections are free for up to 4 items. RV has tried to work with localfurniture projects, but due to little social deprivation within the district there is little demand forused furniture etc. They do promote community furniture projects based in neighbouringauthorities such the Hyndburn Used Furniture Store.

A trade waste service is offered for general waste. The introduction of wheeled bins hasincreased the take up of the service with 82 customers using wheeled bins (1100l, 660l, 360l,240l bins used) with 374 businesses using a sack collection. Some vehicles have weighingequipment and eventually all will be fitted with this equipment.

Lancashire County Council operates 3 HWRCs in RV – Henthorn, Longridge and Petre Arms.There is a possibility of x-border movements towards Burnley HWRC, inward migration isunlikely, apart from to Longridge although this would only be minor.

The HWRCs are operated by SITA under contract to LCC. Trade waste permits were introducedat these sites in 2003-04. Incentivized contracts were also introduced with recycling thresholdsand penalties for failure. These were reviewed in 2008. The base recycling rate in 2003-04 was43%, and has increased to 60% in 2007-08.

Bric-a-brac and items suitable for reuse are intercepted by licensed traders who operate on thesites. Furniture reuse organizations do not operate on the HWRCS. The HWRCs in Hyndburnhave had the best recycling rates, reflecting the earlier lack of kerbside recycling service.

LCC has a waste minimisation team that promotes home composting, real nappies, and carriesout radio campaigns, bill board and bus promotions, and works with schools. The LCC newsletterwhich goes to every household carries features about recycling. Promotional funding is availableto districts for specific promotional campaigns.

Waste policy mapping of Ribble Valley Borough Council Pre-2006 weekly waste collection by black sacks.

Pre-2002 paper recycling service to 50% of households.

2002 paper recycling extended to cover 95 % of residents and with the introduction of the3 stream collection system coverage is now to 100% of households and now includescardboard.

2003 kerbside collection of green waste in compostable bags.

2003 Introduction of trade waste permits at HWRC sites and introduction of performancerelated contracts by Lancashire County Council.

April 2006 trial of 3-stream recycling to 4750 households.

Nov 2007 extension of 3 stream recycling to further 7250 residents, and introduction ofcardboard recycling.

July 2008 extension of 3 stream recycling to all remaining residents.


3

1.1.3 Summary of waste trends

It should be note that the figures reported in these tables combine the waste collected by RibbleValley Council and the County Household Waste Recycling Centres and may not truly reflect theimpact in change of policy/system by each authority.

Household waste arisings

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

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

Year

To

nn

es

/p

a

HWRC other (not accounted forelsewhere)

HWRC green waste

HWRC dry recycables

Bring dry recyclables

Kerbside collected green waste

Kerbside collected dry recyclables

HWRC waste (Disposal)

Other household sources*

Regular household collection

Introduction of trade waste permits at HWRCs

Introduction of kerbside green waste collection


4

Non household and total MSW arisings

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

2000-

01

2001-

02

2002-

03

2003-

04

2004-

05

2005-

06

2006-

07

2007-

08

Year

To

nn

es

Total Disposal

Total Recycled

Total Arising

Total MSW

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

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

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

Year

To

nn

es Total Disposal

Total Recycled

Total Arisings

1.1.4 Summary of factors

Key respondent considerations


5

The waste collection service is operating at maximum capacity and any increase inhousehold numbers through large developments will require a major review of allcollection rounds.

The use of split body vehicles has been found to be very efficient.

The data illustrated above precedes the introduction of the majority of the 3-streamcollection service using 140 litre wheeled bins.

A LATS fee has been imposed on the collection authorities by LCC to pass on the cost ofthe commercial waste disposal to the customer, rather than be subsidized by LCC. Thismay result in commercial waste disappearing from MSW as operations become less costeffective.

The LCC HWRCs are being reviewed. This may result in a more consistent serviceacross the county and the redevelopment of sites and introduction of new ones.

The regular review of HWRC contracts ensures that staff remain incentivized to increaserecycling rates.

It is difficult to make any assumptions about waste arisings as contracts continuallychange and there are movements of waste from / to Schedule 2 waste as work movesfrom and to the private sector for large establishments e.g. care homes, campsites etc,which can have a significant impact on waste arisings. Once the changes were made toinclude Schedule 2 properties as household waste the impact was immediate and can besupported by tonnages from schedule 2 contracts.

Modelling of data with regards to demographics has been found to be very difficult. LCChave tried to consider population migration, number of new households etc. but found theaccuracy of data to be questionable. It is difficult to make assumptions based on trends,with so many variables operating e.g. change in commercial waste contracts can have animpact on total MSW.

There is variation in how collection authorities report their waste arisings e.g. some reportfly tipping, others do not. Side waste may be classed as ‘flytipping’ by some authoritiesmoving the designation of the waste from household municipal waste to non-householdmunicipal waste. Flytipping is not classed as household waste and therefore RibbleValley do not include as such. Side waste/excess waste is still as legislation confirmshousehold waste although local authorities are allowed to determine how it is collected.

The quality of data is extremely important due to the impact of LATS. LCC has anextensive waste data management system which involves multiple in-built checks ondata supplied by many sources including collection authorities by cross referencing withdata received from weighbridges at waste disposal and treatment sites. Whilst manyLancashire districts provide LCC data direct other districts such as Ribble Valley do not.Instead they allow LCC reading rights to the information submitted quarterly throughWaste Data Flow, the government database.

LCC carry out regular waste composition analysis to monitor the change in waste as newrecycling initiatives, composting and food waste collection have an impact.

Key findings - the overall findings are based on combined waste streams The total amounts of household waste recycled have increased from 3,370 tonnes in

2000-01 to 11,254 in 2006-07, and the total household waste arisings increased from28,748 tonnes to 31,915 tonnes over this time frame including material collected at theHWRCs.

The rate of increase in total arisings appeared to have reduced between 2005-06 and2006-07.

The quantities of residual domestic waste continue to rise from 2000-01 to 2006-07.


6

However overall household arisings have exhibited a downturn in 2007/08 marked adramatic reduction in the amount of household kerbside residual waste collected from17,877 tonnes in 2006/07 to 16,085 tones in 2007/08.

The introduction of 140 l wheeled bins to part of the area has not resulted in an increasein the amount of waste produced, possible due to the smaller size of the bins notencouraging residents to increase their waste arisings.

Historical data shows a steady increase in both total household waste arisings andhousehold waste for disposal, with recycling levels fairly static.

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

Scale Nature of activity

1 No level ofenforcement

No enforcement policies (either formal or informal) in place. Residents are free toleave material next to waste receptacles so long as contained or bagged and notconstrued as being fly-tipped or littering.

2 Informalenforcementpolicy inplace

A ban on side is in place but not rigorously enforced. Publicising the policy isconfined to resident information leaflets, the use of bin stickers alerting theresidents to the policy and waste collection operatives leaving waste in situ. Nopenalty notices have been issued although cautions have been periodically beenmade.

3 Formalenforcementpolicy inplace

A ban on side waste is in place and legally enforced although some ‘top-hatting’ /‘crocodile lids’ are allowed. The above measures are also adopted (as in 2 above)and following a number of cautions the householder will be issued with a fixedpenalty notice. Evidence of a small number of such notices being issued.

4 Formalenforcementpolicy inplace andrigorouslyenforced

A ban on side waste is in place and legally enforced and ‘top-hatting’ / ‘crocodilelids’ is not allowed. The same cautionary procedures are adopted as in 2 and 3above, although there is evidence of a high number of Section 80 (accumulationsof household refuse in back yards) and Section 46 (householder non-compliantwith Council’s waste collection arrangements) notices issued to non-complianthouseholds. Enforcement is taken very seriously by the council.

Ribble Valley described their side waste enforcement policy as ‘3 – Formal enforcement policyin place’.

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

Practice

Maturity Scale

Definition

1 Ad-hoc Communication is generally unplanned, reactive and disorganised. There is nooverall responsibility for communication, no strategy and little or no budget toenable effective delivery. Projects may run over budget and over schedule. Poorquality of materials.

2 Emerging Some communication, but it may be sporadic and delivered only when required.The importance of communication has been recognised, but strategy andprocesses are still embryonic. Some resources have been allocated for theproduction of essential materials. Responsibility for communication has beenagreed.

3 Planned Communication activity is planned. Limited resources have been allocated fordelivery. Responsibility has been assigned, but there is little or no measurement ofperformance.


7

4 Co-ordinated Delivery is regular and routine. A strategy has been developed to determine thebest way for the organisation to communicate and responsibility for itsimplementation is defined. Resources are sufficient to cover the outputsrecommended in the strategy. Materials are good quality, but have the potential tobe more effective. There is some assessment of performance.

5 Evaluated There is commitment to the development and delivery of effective communicationand is measuring its success in order to get a better understanding of how it canimprove performance. Materials are well resourced delivered proficiently.

6 Optimised Effective communication is seen as vital and is integrated into all systems andprocesses. The link between the organisation’s strategic objectives and effectivecommunications is clear, delivery purposeful and proactive and the resourcesallocated reflect this. Strategy, delivery and support are reviewed and enhancedusing formal frameworks such as scrutiny, best value, continuous improvement andquality management systems.

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

Waste data reporting The quality of waste data collection is improving for the purposes of reporting against

recycling targets and other waste indicators.

There is a requirement for very good waste data collection in view of LATS. LCC has setup a data management system that allows the checking of returns provided by wastecollection authorities against weighbridge receipts and weights processed in contracts. Asignificant level of double counting has occurred in the past, leading to discrepanciesbetween actual residual waste and that reported, which in a LATS year would haveincurred a £2 million LATS fine.

Variations still exist in how local authorities report data.

Demographics

2000-

01

2001-

02

2002-

03

2003-

04

2004-

05

2005-

062006-07

1. Household numbers (000s) 33 33 33 33 33 34 34

2. Average persons / household 2.37 2.36 2.34 2.33 2.32 2.3 2.2

5. Net inflow 0.7 0.6 1 0.9 0.5 0.4

6. Total population (000s) 53.6 54.1 54.8 55.9 56.9 57.4 57.8

7. Number of new-build properties 198 172 187 226 157 74 71

The population shows a steady increase, whilst household size is reducing. This mayreflect a more ageing population or more single-person households.

The number of new build has declined in recent years. This trend may be reversed inview of the need to increase the levels of affordable housing in the area, and also theidentification of the area for accelerated growth in the Regional Spatial Strategy.


8

1.2 Case study 2: East Riding of Yorkshire Council


The East Riding of Yorkshire (ERY) is a mainly rural, affluent authority with the main centres ofBridlington (34,000), Beverley (17,000), Goole (17,000), Pocklington (8,000), Cottingham(17,000), Hessle (15,000), Driffield (11,000), Hornsea (8,000), Willerby (8,000), Brough (8,000)and Anlaby (7,000). Small pockets of deprivation occur in the larger settlements. The populationis skewed, and is older than the U.K average, with 18.4% of the population of retirement age(age>65), (Census 2001). It has a low density population (135 people/square kilometre), and isnot very ethnically diverse with (98.3% of the population white, 1.1% S.Asian). East Riding hostsseveral military bases including RAF Leconfield, the Full Sutton, Wolds, Everthorpe prisons andBishop Burton Agricultural College, and Hull University halls of residences at The Lawns,Cottingham.


Present at meeting: two senior officers from the waste management strategy team .

Since 2004-05, residual domestic waste has been collected either weekly (180 litre bin) or bi-weekly (240 litre bin) according to the type of bin provided. 30% of the district has been providedwith 240 litre bins, the remainder have 180 litre bins. Black bags continue to be provided forproperties with no yard. Bins need to be put out before 7.00am.

The prevention of crocodile lids, side waste and early presentation of waste are enforced. Thistends to be in the form of 2 letters to a whole street, the second giving warning of enforcementunder the duty of care and risk of prosecution. No prosecutions have been made so far, althoughthe policy is currently being reviewed.

A four-weekly collection of a blue 240l wheeled bin is provided for plastic and cans (in separatecarrier bags), and paper. Cardboard collection and an increased frequency of collection are to beintroduced in 2010. Glass is not collected currently although this service is complemented by 140bring sites which allow the collection of glass. Waste strategy aims to increase this number by 10per year, though finding new sites is difficult. Glass, paper, plastic bottles, cans and textiles arecollected at the bring sites.

The trade waste collection service is in-house, collecting on average 6000 tonnes per year from3000 customers.

A charged bulky waste service is provided at a fee of £25 for up to 5 items. Calls are directed tolocal furniture reuse organisations by the call centre, if items are of good enough quality forreuse.

An opt-out garden waste service is provided to 20,000 households, to be rolled out to allhouseholds in 2009, with compostable bags provided where bins are not appropriate. There is aconcern that this collection may be attracting additional waste, and that householders may not beusing composters. A total of 150,000 reusable green waste bags were given out free at HWRCsin 2006 to encourage the self-transport of green waste to HWRCs.

A trial is being carried out with 25 green cone digesters and 25 wormeries using volunteers.

A total of 4 community composting schemes have been developed with some financial supportfrom the Council. Community groups collect garden waste where the garden waste collectiondoes not exist, and earn recycling credits which can be reinvested in the scheme.

There are 10 HWRCS (operated by WRG) providing recycling for a large range of householditems. A permit scheme has existed since 2001, which allows 12 visits per year by registeredvehicles. Hazardous household waste is collected at all HWRCs using chemical banks, as well asWEEE and fluorescent tubes. A garage-size amount of asbestos can be delivered double baggedfor £50 to Airmyn, Carnaby, Humberfield and Preston HWRCs. Recycling targets are included onthe contracts for the operation of the HWRCs.


9

The entire waste service is driven by Target 45%, the joint sustainable waste managementstrategy for the East Riding of Yorkshire and Hull City Council, referring to the recycling target for2010 (ERY achieved 36% in Dec 2008). A decline in tonnages of both residual and recyclingwastes has been noted since Nov 2008.

ERY is considering action to overcome low participation though different methods(communications, door knocking, and competitions). Mini-road shows have been used ahead ofthe roll out of new schemes, and has worked well. The team has a Target 45 trailer and vandedicated to promoting the service at local shows, schools, partner events, community groups.Target 45 also has a dedicated page in the free monthly East Riding News newsletter that goesto all households. ERY does a lot of partnership working e.g. with the Fire Service, Police,Primary Care Trust, and the third sector.

Rigorous checks have been introduced into every stage of data entry for the waste service inorder to instil confidence in the recycling tonnages and rates achieved. An internal performancesystem “Performance Plus” has been used to assist with this process. Weighbridge tickets arerequired for all routine waste streams, and agreed weights have been determined for moreunusual waste streams e.g. bins of books, CDs etc.


Household Waste Arisings

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

350,000

400,000

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

Year

To

nn

es Total arisings

Total recycled

Total disposal

Non-household waste arisings

0

50000

100000

150000

200000

250000

300000

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

Year

To

nn

es

Total MSW

Total Arising

Total Recycled

Total Disposal


10

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

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

160,000

180,000

1995-6 1996-7 1997-8 1998-9 1999-00

Year

To

nn

es

Total Disposal

Total Recycled

Total Arisings

Total MSW

Waste policy mapping 2000-01: 70% of households served by a weekly collection of black sacks, with no

restriction on the number of bags collected. 30% of households use 240 litre wheeledbins collected bi-weekly (variation due to local government reorganisation). Subsidisedcompost bins were also introduced with 6082 units sold.

2001-02: Opening of new HWRC at Carnaby which achieved recycling rates of 80%. Thiscoincided with the introduction of a ban on all larger vehicles, trailers and commercialvehicles at all 10 HWRCs.

2003-04: all HWRCs are open 7 days a week and the range of recyclables was graduallyincreased.

2004-05: Replacement of the black sack collection with a weekly green 180 litre wheeledbin collection for residual waste. (Black sacks continue to be provided to properties withno yard.) This coincided with a 3-year roll out of a kerbside collection using a blue 180litre wheeled bin for plastic bottles, cans (in carrier bags), loose paper and magazinescollected on a 4-weekly basis. A “no side waste” policy was introduced at this time. 240litre bins are provided for recyclable wastes, if required.

2006-07: an alternate weekly collection trial was carried out on 1120 households, withalternate weekly collections of residual waste and garden waste collected in a brownwheeled bin, with dry recyclables continuing to be collected 4-weekly. This will beextended to all households in 2009. Approximately 150,000 free green garden wastebags were distributed at HWRCS to encourage the increased recycling of green waste.


Key respondent considerations The focus is on meeting the requirements of Target 45+. There is a great deal of

innovation in developing partnership working within council departments and withexternal partners in order to share resources and achieve mutually beneficial outcomes.

The communication of the recycling campaign is very important. ERY are currentlyreviewing how to target poor participation rates, by using different methods e.g. for areaswith ethnic minorities.

Phased introduction of the wheeled bin and kerbside recycling service has worked well.

Key findings


11

MSW arisings were rising, and now have stabilised.

As the quantities of household waste recycled have increased with the extended service,this has been mirrored by a decline in waste going for disposal.

Waste recycled and composted at HWRCs showed a dramatic increase in 2004-5, from20,000 tonnes to 29,000 tonnes approx. with the quantities of dry recyclables increasingby 64%. The large increase in dry recyclable arisings is due to a general increase inrecycling rates across the full range of wastes collected, with greatest increasesoccurring for wood waste as the range of types collected was extended. This increasemay also include soil collected separately at the sites.

The total amount of household waste for disposal is steadily declining, whilst the totalhousehold waste arisings continue to increase,

The gradual replacement of the black sack service with no limits on waste, by a 180 litrebin with a “no side waste policy” from 2004-5 is likely to have had a waste growth limitingeffect.




No enforcement policies (either formal or informal) in place. Residents arefree to leave material next to waste receptacles so long as contained orbagged and not construed as being fly-tipped or littering.


A ban on side is in place but not rigorously enforced. Publicising the policyis confined to resident information leaflets, the use of bin stickers alertingthe residents to the policy and waste collection operatives leaving waste insitu. No penalty notices have been issued although cautions have beenperiodically been made.


A ban on side waste is in place and legally enforced although some ‘top-hatting’ / ‘crocodile lids’ are allowed. The above measures are also adopted(as in 2 above) and following a number of cautions the householder will beissued with a fixed penalty notice. Evidence of a small number of suchnotices being issued.


A ban on side waste is in place and legally enforced and ‘top-hatting’ /‘crocodile lids’ is not allowed. The same cautionary procedures are adoptedas in 2 and 3 above, although there is evidence of a high number of Section80 (accumulations of household refuse in back yards) and Section 46(householder non-compliant with Council’s waste collection arrangements)notices issued to non-compliant households. Enforcement is taken veryseriously by the council.

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

The 3000 tonnes increase in green waste collected at HWRCS in 2006-7 may be aresponse to the issuing of 150,000 free green waste bags at HWRCs in 2006.

ERY has a number of establishments (military bases, prisons, college halls of residence)which introduce a significant loading onto the waste service without the residents beingincluded in the population statistics.

ERY has a significant tourism industry along the East Coast, with a high concentration ofhotels and bed and breakfast businesses in the Bridlington area. Tourists will cause aseasonal increase in the levels of waste produced, and the waste from bed and breakfastbusinesses is likely to enter the domestic waste stream.


12

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

Practice

Maturity Scale

Definition

1 Ad-hoc Communication is generally unplanned, reactive and disorganised. Thereis no overall responsibility for communication, no strategy and little or nobudget to enable effective delivery. Projects may run over budget andover schedule. Poor quality of materials.

2 Emerging Some communication, but it may be sporadic and delivered only whenrequired. The importance of communication has been recognised, butstrategy and processes are still embryonic. Some resources have beenallocated for the production of essential materials. Responsibility forcommunication has been agreed.

3 Planned Communication activity is planned. Limited resources have beenallocated for delivery. Responsibility has been assigned, but there is littleor no measurement of performance.

4 Co-ordinated Delivery is regular and routine. A strategy has been developed todetermine the best way for the organisation to communicate andresponsibility for its implementation is defined. Resources are sufficient tocover the outputs recommended in the strategy. Materials are goodquality, but have the potential to be more effective. There is someassessment of performance.

5 Evaluated There is commitment to the development and delivery of effectivecommunication and is measuring its success in order to get a betterunderstanding of how it can improve performance. Materials are wellresourced delivered proficiently.

6 Optimised Effective communication is seen as vital and is integrated into all systemsand processes. The link between the organisation’s strategic objectivesand effective communications is clear, delivery purposeful and proactiveand the resources allocated reflect this. Strategy, delivery and supportare reviewed and enhanced using formal frameworks such as scrutiny,best value, continuous improvement and quality management systems.

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

Data reporting Rigorous checks have been introduced into every stage of data entry for the waste

service in order to have confidence in the recycling tonnages and rates achieved. Aninternal performance system “Performance Plus” has been used to assist with thisprocess.

Weighbridge tickets are required for all routine waste streams, and agreed weights havebeen determined for more unusual waste streams e.g. bins of books, CDs etc.

Due to a change in the collections and personnel, no data can be traced back to 1995/6,the earliest records are for 2000/01.

Calculations are made where commercial and domestic waste streams are mixed.Tonnages are checked three times a year, with seasonal variation to obtain the averageweight to be used in calculations.

Demographics The population of ER is steadily increasing.


13

The average size of a household is declining. This could be due to a combination of anincreasingly aged population, and more single person households.

There is a significant new building quota added every year which will increase thehousehold waste arisings in ERY.

Year

2000-

01

2001-

02

2002-

03

2003-

04

2004-

05

2005-

06

2006-

07

1. Householdnumbers (000s) 129 131 134 136 138 143 1452. Average persons /household 2.38 2.36 2.35 2.34 2.34 2.31 2.31

5. Net inflow 4.4 4.7 4.2 3 2.1 2.26. Total population(000s) 314.9 318.8 322.4 326.3 329.2 330.97. Number of new-build properties 1053 964 1064 1285 864 851 803


14

1.3 Case study 3: Hambleton District Council


Hambleton is a rural district of 13,117 hectares, with a predominantly white, affluent population of87,000 residents in 38,602 households which is steadily increasing (+1% between 2001 and2005). The average household size is 2.4 persons and there is a high proportion of the populationat retirement age. The main centres of population are Bedale (4580), Thirsk (9350), Northallerton17,680), Easingwold (4180), Great Ayrton (4620) and Stokesley (4760). The employment rate istypically half of the national figure, with no wards showing unemployment levels greater than thenational average. There is a significantly higher proportion of the workforce employed inagriculture, forestry and fishing, and a significantly lower proportion employed in manufacturing,financial services and property services sectors compared to national levels. Other employers areconstruction, hotels and restaurants (reflecting the local tourism industry), transport, storage andcommunication. There are a large number of small businesses, with medium to large firms underrepresented in the area compared to the national average. Self employment accounts for 16.9%of all employment, compared to 11.5% for Great Britain. Hambleton is ranked 315/366 districtsindicating very low levels of deprivation. The Core Structure plan indicates a planned annualincrease in properties of 320 (2004-11), 290 (2012-16) and 260 (2016-21). There are a largenumber of second homes.


Present at separate meetings: the Recycling Officer from Hambleton D.C provided detailsregarding the current and historical waste collection service provided and the Waste Strategy &Performance Manager of North Yorkshire County Council provided information regarding theoperation of the HWRCs and the county-wide recycling initiatives.

A comprehensive waste service is provided by alternate weekly collection of a 240 litre blackwheeled bin for residual waste and a 240l green wheeled bin for garden waste which is collectedfree of charge.

Approximately 91% of households receive a recycling service provided by a 55l blue kerbside boxfor plastic bottles, cans, glass and a bag for paper. There is a “No side waste” policy - thepresence of side waste is logged and if persistent, a letter will be sent to the resident. Howeverno fines have been made.








A ban on side waste is in place and legally enforced although some ‘top-hatting’ /‘crocodile lids’ are allowed. The above measures are also adopted (as in 2above) and following a number of cautions the householder will be issued with afixed penalty notice. Evidence of a small number of such notices being issued.

4 Formalenforcementpolicy inplace and

A ban on side waste is in place and legally enforced and ‘top-hatting’ / ‘crocodilelids’ is not allowed. The same cautionary procedures are adopted as in 2 and 3above, although there is evidence of a high number of Section 80 (accumulationsof household refuse in back yards) and Section 46 (householder non-compliant


15

rigorouslyenforced

with Council’s waste collection arrangements) notices issued to non-complianthouseholds. Enforcement is taken very seriously by the council.

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

Hambleton D.C. as part of the York and North Yorkshire Waste Partnership (YNYWP) providesdiscounted compost bins in partnership with WRAP. Compost bins are available in a number ofsizes: 220 litre (£17), 330 litre (£20), green Komp 250 (£40) ordered through the Recycle Nowwebsite and 0800 telephone number. A total of 6552 home composters have been sold in theHambleton district to the end of 2008. There has been a reduction in sales as the WRAP pricehas increased. Food digesters are also available at a discounted price. The WRAP scheme hasnow stopped and prices have increased.

Real nappies are also promoted through the YNYWP with a cashback incentive scheme of £30per baby.

Recycling opportunities are also provided by approximately 130 bring sites, which are located atschools, village halls, car parks, pubs, supermarkets, tourist information centres. The range ofwastes collected depends on the location but can include paper, glass, cans, textiles, books,plastic bottles, and cartons. The number of bring sites is gradually increasing.

Bulky domestic waste has always incurred a charge, currently £35 for up to 4 items, with no limiton the number of collections a year. Building and demolition wastes are excluded from thisservice. Householders are encouraged to donate reusable furniture to the Richmond andHambleton Furniture Store in Northallerton, and also referred to Freecycle on the council website.

A trade waste collection service is provided to 1200 businesses using sacks, 360 litre, 660 litreand 1100 litre bins. Waste from mixed hereditament is classed as commercial waste. There is nocommercial waste recycling service.

There are 5 HWRCs operated by Environmental Waste Controls (EWC) on behalf of NorthYorkshire County Council (NYCC) at Northallerton, Stokesley, Sowerby, Leeming Bar andTholthorpe. Restrictions apply to trade, large vehicles and trailers using the sites through the useof HWRC permits and restricted times for larger vehicles and trailers. A formalized system existsfor the free tipping by charities using a credit card style permit scheme. Construction anddemolition waste are restricted to 2 car boots a month. Automatic number plate recognitionequipment has been installed at all HWRCs. The Northallerton site accepts paid commercialwaste (residual and recyclables). Asbestos is accepted at the Stokesley HWRC, if it is doublebagged and the householder is able to carry it. Larger loads can be booked in. Hazardoushousehold waste is not accepted at the HWRCs, as this is collected by a free milk round service.

There may be cross border movement of waste into Hambleton which borders withMiddlesborough and Teesside. This is likely to have the biggest impact on the Stokesley HWRCsite.

The area is host to a number of military bases which provide accommodation to a largepopulation. These include Alanbrooke Barracks at Topcliffe and RAF Leeming.

The YNYWP has developed a waste management strategy with waste reduction targets andproduce an annual action plan, to ensure that the various local authorities all work to a consistentmessage, using leaflets provided by NYCC. The following campaigns are regularly promotedReal Nappy Week, Compost Awareness Week and the more recent Buy Recycled, Love FoodHate Waste campaigns have been adopted.

The recycling service is regularly promoted in a double page spread in the Hambleton localauthority newspaper that is produced three times a year and goes to all households. Calendarsand kerbside leaflets are also produced twice a year.


16



0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

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

Year

To

nn

es Total Arising

Total Recycled

Total Disposal

Non- household waste arisings

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

80,000

2000-

01

2001-

02

2002-

03

2003-

04

2004-

05

2005-

06

2006-

07

2007-

08

Year

To

nn

es

Total MSW

Total Arising

Total Recycled

Total Disposal


17

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

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

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

Year

To

nnes Total Disposal

Total Recycled

Total MSW

Waste policy mapping Provision of subsidised compost bins

Pre-2000 black sack waste collection with a garden waste collection offered usingCouncil supplied free sacks

2000-01 recycling trial on 1000 (3%) households for paper, glass, plastics and cans.

Plastic bottle banks were introduced at bring sites in 2001 (funded by Yorventure landfilltax).

2002-03 introduction of alternate weekly collection for residual and green waste in 240lwheeled bins to 15% of households

2002-3 introduction of bagged paper recycling service to 54% of households

2003-4 AWC extended to 53% of households

2003-4 bagged paper recycling service extended to 81% of households

2004 green waste collections provided at all HWRCs


2005 (July) new contracts for HWRCs included minimum composting and recyclingtargets. This coincided with staff being employed (rather than self-employed) and alsothe introduction of compactor skips. This led to the introduction of textiles recycling andthe resale of reusable furniture at auction rather than sold on-site at furniture resaleareas. Only verified sales for reuse are counted in recycling targets. These changescaused recycling rates to rise from <40% to >60%.


Compost bins provided at greatly reduced rate as part of WRAP scheme

2006 introduction of the Real Nappy incentive scheme

2006 (February) closure of the West Tanfield HWRC


18

2006-7 Improved signage at HWRCs listing all materials recycled at site entrances

2007 (November) introduction of additional 55l kerbside blue box extending the recyclingservice to included plastic bottles, cans, glass and paper (in bag) for 88% of households

2008 Plastic recycling introduced at all HWRCs

2008 (April) introduction of HWRC permits and restricted access times for larger vehicles,trailers and commercial vehicles. Also introduction of a limit on the quantity of soil andrubble brought by householders (2 car boot loads per month). These changes havecaused a reduction in construction and demolition waste of 27% across the whole NYCCHWRC network, and throughput at the sites has reduced by 19%. (No data is availablespecifically for the Hambleton HWRCs.)

Waste arisings observations Historical waste data shows the total arisings fairly stable at about 45,000 tonnes for the

period 1995-99. There is a sudden increase in arisings in 1999-00 to 55,000 tonnes.

Total household waste arisings from both HWRCs and kerbside have remained fairlysteady at about 48,000 to 52,000 tonnes.

Household collected residual waste has declined throughout the period 2000-01 to 2006-7, with the greatest declines in 2003-4 and 2004-5 which coincides with the introductionof the AWC service for residual waste and garden waste and also the kerbside papercollection. The decline corresponds to an increase in the amount of kerbside collectedgreen waste which continues to rise throughout the time frame studied, whereas thekerbside collection of paper stabilises at about 2000 tonnes after 2004-05.

The quantities of green waste collected at HWRCs rises from 800 tonnes in 2000-01 to4000 tonnes in 2001-02, presumably reflecting the collection of the waste at moreHWRCs. The quantities of green waste collected at the HWRCs has declined from 2005-6 onwards possibly reflecting the increased use of the kerbside garden waste collection.

The quantities of residual waste produced at HWRCs declines in 2005-06 by 3000tonnes, though this is not accompanied by a corresponding increase in quantities ofmaterial recycled or composted.

The closure of the West Tanfield HWRC is not reflected in a decrease in the total wastearisings at the HWRCs.

The levels of commercial waste collected during the period 2000-01-2006-07 have risenfrom 3000 tonnes approx to 6000 tonnes.

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


19

Practice

Maturity

Scale

Definition

1 Ad-hoc Communication is generally unplanned, reactive and disorganised. There isno overall responsibility for communication, no strategy and little or nobudget to enable effective delivery. Projects may run over budget and overschedule. Poor quality of materials.


3 Planned Communication activity is planned. Limited resources have been allocatedfor delivery. Responsibility has been assigned, but there is little or nomeasurement of performance.

4 Co-ordinated

Delivery is regular and routine. A strategy has been developed to determinethe best way for the organisation to communicate and responsibility for itsimplementation is defined. Resources are sufficient to cover the outputsrecommended in the strategy. Materials are good quality, but have thepotential to be more effective. There is some assessment of performance.


6 Optimised Effective communication is seen as vital and is integrated into all systemsand processes. The link between the organisation’s strategic objectives andeffective communications is clear, delivery purposeful and proactive and theresources allocated reflect this. Strategy, delivery and support are reviewedand enhanced using formal frameworks such as scrutiny, best value,continuous improvement and quality management systems.

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


Key respondent considerations The YNYWP provides a forum for delivery staff, senior officers and elected members

from the districts to meet to agree an Annual Action Plan as a means to deliver theWaste Minimisation Strategy which has been developed from the Joint Municipal WasteManagement Strategy. This has allowed good working relationships to develop betweenthe partnership members with the sharing of resources ensuring that a consistentmessage is delivered across the area. The partnership is an effective conduit for supportfrom ROTATE for regional capacity building, and also from the Government Office(Yorkshire & Humber), and Defra.

A Local Authority Trading Scheme (LATS) fee has been introduced by NYCC, as thewaste disposal authority (WDA) in 2008-9 on commercial waste collected by the districtauthorities. This is to cover the LATS disposal cost incurred by NYCC for the disposal ofcommercial waste under the LATS scheme.

Hambleton has a large number of non-registered residents, due to the local militarybases, the local tourist industry and the large number of second homes, who arehousehold waste producers, but are absent from the statistics. The review of the national


20

indicator to count waste produced per household should improve the performance ofHambleton D.C.

Key findings There has been a steady increase in the levels of total household waste produced which

is reflected in the BVPI 84.

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

kg/head 346.72 306.75 374.65 351.12 380.48 404.46 413.96

There has been a steady decline in the amount of household waste sent for disposal.This is due to a combination of factors but mainly the introduction of an alternate weeklycollection for residual waste and green waste, and a paper recycling collection.

Total MSW arisings peaked at about 60,000 tonnes in 2004-05 and has steadily declinedsince then, due to a decline in the amount of non-household waste collected.

The change in the contracts for the operation of the HWRCs, to include targets forrecycling and composting, has encouraged the contractors to extend the range of wasteto be recycled, and ensure that as much waste as possible is recycled. This hasincreased recycling rates from <40% to > 60%.

The data presented does not cover the recent (2008) introduction of HWRC permits forlarger vehicles, trailers and commercial vehicles and also a limit on the amount of rubbleand soil delivered by householders. These changes have caused a reduction inconstruction and demolition waste of 27% across the whole NYCC HWRC network, andthroughput at the sites has reduced by 19%. (No data is available specifically for theHambleton HWRCs.)

Waste data reporting There was little confidence in the data for the period 1995-2000, with no easy way of

checking the validity of the figures and no personnel available who had been involved inthe preparation of the original data. There are no figures available for non-householdmunicipal waste and it is assumed that these quantities are included in the totals.

The introduction of WDF has improved the quality of waste data gathering however thereis still scope for a varied interpretation between different individuals, and local authorities.With the introduction of the Local Authority Trading Scheme (LATS), NYCC, as the wastedisposal authority, is dependant upon data received from seven districts. This iscompared with the data received via the waste disposal contracts as a check procedure.

Demographics Household numbers are steadily increasing: 38,602 households in January 2008

accommodating 87,000 residents.

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

1. Householdnumbers (000s) 34 35 35 35 36 362. Averagepersons /household 2.38 2.36 2.35 2.34 2.34 2.316. Total population(000s) 84.2 84.8 85.1 85.4 85.5 86.37. Number of new-build properties 352 289 150 123 148 292 226


21

kg per head (BVPI84) 346.72 306.75 374.65 351.12 380.48 404.46 413.96

The waste arisings for the area are likely to be impacted on by the local tourism industry,and high number of second homes and also the presence of military bases, all of whichresult in an influx of visitors to the area who generate waste, but are not included in thepopulation statistics as they are not registered residents.

The Core Structure plan indicates a planned annual increase in properties of 320 (2004-11), 290 (2012-16) and 260 (2016-21).

1.4 Case Study 4: Broadland District Council


The number of households has increased from 51,582 in 2000/01 to 53,153 in 2005/06.

IMD = 10.09

Population, mid-2007 estimate = 123,000

Land area, hectares = 55,324

Population density, inhabitants per hectare = 2.22

ONS classification (2001 standardised):

Supergroup: 5 Prospering UK

Group: 5.7 Prospering Smaller Towns

Subgroup: 5.7.13 Prospering Smaller Towns - B


Kerbside residual

Kerbside residual has been collected in 240l wheeled bins since 1989. In 2003/04 the districtswitched to AWC, still using 240l bins. Side waste was collected until AWC roll-out, whereupon ano side waste & closed bin lid policy was enforced, along with no garden waste in residual or dryrecycling bins. Moreover, the maximum allowable residual bin weight was 70 kg.

Kerbside dry

Historically there was a kerbside box recycling service for 20,000 households, collecting paperand glass. With the roll-out of AWC in 2003/04, this was switched to commingled collections in240l bins, targeting paper, cardboard, cans and plastic bottles. Kerbside glass collection ceased.The commingled collection service was extended to nearly all properties in the district during2004 (99.2% coverage).

Kerbside garden waste

In 2003/04 an optional garden waste service was offered to all households, with an annual feelevied with no exemptions, and collections carried out fortnightly. Take-up of this service, interms of numbers of households, has been as follows:

By 31/3/2004 6,672

By 31/3/2005 10,705

By 31/3/2006 12,476

By 31/3/2007 14,880

By 31/3/2008 17,024

Current 18,606

Kerbside food waste


22

Although Broadland participated in the WRAP supported food waste trials, these did notcommence until the end of 2007/08.

Bring sites

The bring site network has been gradually developed over 2000 to 2007, in particular to targetglass after the introduction of kerbside commingled collections (which do not target glass).

Bulky waste collections are charged.

HWRCs

No significant changes in HWRC provision have been reported, apart from a new contract in2007, which coincided with a revamp of bin signage, collection of a few additional (small tonnage)materials and easier access to bulk skips at some sites.

Home composting

Data has been provided on the number of subsidized home composting bins distributed, asfollows:

2002/03: 6,705

2003/04: 4,622

2004/05: 1,071

2005/06: 1,010

2006/07: 4,543











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

Communications


23

The district has carried out significant communications work during AWC roll-out in 2003/04 and,within Norfolk Waste Partnership – with a waste minimization focus – in 2005/06 and 2006/07.These activities have included roadshows and significant positive coverage in the local media.With the roll-out of AWC, the district introduced a “yellow card” and “red card” system forresidents, to assist them in using their kerbside services properly.


Practice

Maturity Scale

Definition









24


The following chart shows district tonnages for household generated wastes from 2000/01 to2007/08:

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

Interpretation

Essentially, arisings were fairly static from 2000/01 to 2002/03, and fairly static at somewhatlower tonnages from 2004/05 to 2006/07, but with a “spike” in tonnages coinciding with AWCrollout during 2003/04. The lower tonnages during the later period are best explained by theconstraining effects of AWC on waste arisings. These are somewhat offset by significanttonnages of collected garden waste as more householders subscribe to this service, which couldexplain why tonnages have remained steady, rather than fallen as AWC properly “beds in”.

The spike in 2003/04 is curious, coinciding as it does with at least partial AWC coverage (AWCwas being rolled out in this period) and significant communications activities alongside AWCintroduction. No climatic factors were considered important (i.e. unusually wet weather etc).There does not appear to have been a significant diversion of kerbside wastes to HWRC due toAWC during 2003/04. Moreover, home composting was well promoted in 2003/04 (and theprevious period). Bring tonnages increased slightly in 2003/04, due to the targeting of glass(collected in the partial kerbside box service previously and not collected in the commingledservice). However the main increase has been in kerbside dry recycling, with only a smallcorresponding decrease in kerbside residual tonnages. This might be a data reporting issue,though this is considered unlikely, since the district expresses a high level of confidence in thesefigures.

Another explanation may be that the provision of 240l bins for both residual and dry kerbsidecollections provided householders with an invitation to utilize this capacity, particularly in terms ofdepositing some “extra” dry recycling that the householder might have previously stored inanticipation of the introduction of commingled collections. However, probably more importantly,the provision of 240l bins for both residual and dry provided an insufficient physical constrainingeffect on kerbside arisings.

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

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

KS RES KS DRY KS GW

CSO BRING DRY HWRC RES

HWRC DRY HWRC GW Street sweepings: recycled


25

Moreover, the communications activities from 2005/06 onwards were focused on wasteprevention, suggesting that communications is an important factor in obtaining the constrainingbenefits of AWC.

With regard to street sweepings, from 2004/05 recycling of some of this material was carried out(primarily via a trommel, to extract compostable wastes and soil), with around 95% of streetsweepings recycled by 2006/07. It is thought likely that disposed street sweepings were includedin kerbside residual waste figures.

HWRCs

Tonnages for HWRCs in Broadland are illustrated below the following page; along withcorresponding tonnages for HWRCs located in Norwich, for comparison.

Some Broadland residents are thought to use HWRCs in Norwich. A dramatic drop in tonnagesat Norwich HWRCs is apparent from 2003/04, which coincides with a renewed effort acrossNorfolk HWRCs to exclude trade waste, through enforcing a ban on construction & demolitionwaste disposal at the county’s HWRCs. An overall increase in tonnages for HWRCs inBroadland is apparent between 2004/05 and 2006/07. Whilst some of this material may havebeen diverted from Norwich HWRCs (where tonnages dropped substantially), this is unlikely to bethe main factor in HWRC tonnages increases in South Norfolk, since the overhaul of trade wasterestrictions at Norfolk HWRCs around 2003/04 was carried out reasonably consistently acrossthe county. The most plausible explanation for increased tonnages at Broadland HWRCs duringthis period is the leakage of kerbside wastes to HWRCs due to AWC introduction. However anoticeable decrease in tonnages for HWRCs in Broadland occurs in 2007/08, possibly suggestingthat the leakage of material from kerbside to HWRCs was no longer taking place.


26

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

Broadland HWRCs

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

10000

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

REC

GW

RES

Norwich HWRCs

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

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

REC

GW

RES


27

1.5 Case study 5: Hart District Council


The number of households has increased from around 32,000 in 2000/01 to 35,000 in 2005/06.

IMD = 4.13






Group: 5.9 Prospering Southern England

Subgroup: 5.9.16 Prospering Southern England - A


Kerbside residual

240l wheeled bins have been used to collect refuse weekly since 1988/89. During 2006/07 AWCwas introduced, with district-wide coverage achieved during that period. The district has a noside waste policy, except over Christmas; but with the roll-out of AWC, the no side waste policyhas been extended to the Christmas period. The district also introduced a policy of no gardenwaste in residual waste along with AWC roll-out.

Kerbside dry

Co-mingled collections using wheeled bins have been carried out since 1997, though glass is notcollected. With roll-out of AWC in 2006/07, glass has been collected as well via a separate box.

Kerbside garden

Garden waste collections were rolled out during 2004/05, with the service offered to all residents.An annual fee is levied, with no exemptions. Garden waste is collected fortnightly.

Bulky waste collections

Historically there has been a charge of 3 items for £21. In 2005/06 the pricing policy waschanged, with different prices for different types of item. The net effect was an average increasein fees levied.

Home composting

Before 2000 free home composting bins were provided to residents, with take-up estimated to bearound 33% to 50% of households in the district. No further significant activity promoting homecomposting was carried out between 2000 and 2006. During 2006/07 the district joined WRAPhome composting promotion scheme.

HWRCs

Hart residents mostly use the Hartley Witney and Rushmoor sites (the latter being located justoutside the district, and is probably more widely used by residents than the Hartley Witney sitelocated within the district). Aside from general improvements in recycling services offered acrossall Hampshire HWRCs, no significant changes were reported for these two sites. Two factorsmay be significant:

2005 Recycle for Hampshire campaign promoted through all HWRCs

2008 improved trade waste controls introduced at Hampshire HWRCs.


28











The respondent classified their enforcement activities as ‘2 - Informal enforcement policy inplace’.

Communications

The district employed several recycling officers as part of Project Integra’s public awarenessraising campaign up to 2005/06. However these posts were removed during 2005/06 and nofurther communications activities were carried out for a period of around 14 months until the roll-out of AWC during 2006/07. During AWC, considerable communications activities were againcarried out.The Council was asked to complete a self assessment of the communications activity theyundertake. This has been adapted from a paper entitled ‘Strategic Communication Audits’ (JuliaCoffman, 2004) that aims to develop a better understanding of strategic communications auditsand the main steps involved. The presents a scale (Practice Maturity Scale) which has beenadapted for this project as detailed below.

Practice

Maturity Scale

Definition



3 Planned Communication activity is planned. Limited resources have beenallocated for delivery. Responsibility has been assigned, but there is little


29

or no measurement of performance.4 Co-ordinated Delivery is regular and routine. A strategy has been developed to

determine the best way for the organisation to communicate andresponsibility for its implementation is defined. Resources are sufficient tocover the outputs recommended in the strategy. Materials are goodquality, but have the potential to be more effective. There is someassessment of performance.



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



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

At first glance, there seems to be a fair degree of fluctuation in the district’s arisings. Howeverthere are some plausible interpretations for these fluctuations. It is notable that there is asignificant decrease in arisings across 2002/03 to 2005/06. This applies also to kerbsidecollected wastes, despite the introduction of garden waste collections; though the fact that thesewere charged and fortnightly has probably minimized the introduction of any additional gardenmaterial to the municipal waste stream. During the same period, the number of households in thedistrict increased slightly (33,000 to 35,000 households). Therefore there appears to have beena genuine decrease in the amount of waste generated per household in the district.

However in 2006/07, when AWC was rolled out, arisings increased significantly, which seemscounter-intuitive. The most likely explanation is that the Project Integra communications activity

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

40,000

45,000

50,000

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

HWRC GW

HWRC DRY

HWRC RES

BRING DRY

BWC RES

KS GW

KS DRY

KS RES


30

effected a significant change in public behaviour, resulting in the decreases during 2002/03 to2005/06. The recycling officer posts were removed in 2005/06, resulting in an increase inarisings which became apparent during 2006/07. Although AWC was rolled out in this period,there was insufficient time for the new collection arrangements to constrain waste arisings; and itis notable that HWRC arisings were high in that period, suggesting that in the initial stages ofAWC roll-out, some extra material was diverted to HWRCs from kerbside.

HWRC tonnage figures lend some support to this supposition. Tonnages for HWRCs used byHart residents are shown here in two charts below, relating respectively to:

1 HWRC located in Hart 2nd

chart

combined tonnages for 3 HWRCs in neighbouring DCs thought by the County Council tobe commonly used by Hart residents.

The charts suggest increased HWRC tonnages from Hart residents during 2007, indicating thediversion of some kerbside residual waste to HWRC residual waste. During 2008 HWRCtonnages fell, which may suggest that material that was diverted from kerbside to HWRC duringroll out of AWC in 2007 was no longer being diverted in 2008; (suggesting perhaps thathouseholders that took additional black bag waste to HWRCs when AWCs were first introducedgot bored of doing this and learnt to live with their new kerbside residual waste capacity).

Additionally, some charities restricted the types of items that they would accept from the publicduring 2006/07, which may also explain the relatively higher HWRC tonnages in 2006 & 2007.


31


HWRC in Hart: Hartley Wintney

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

RES

GW

REC

Combined tonnages for 3 HWRCs in DCs neighbouring Hart, thought to

be used by Hart residents

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

40,000

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

RES

GW

REC


32

Non-household wastes

Non-household tonnages have significantly decreased during time series, as illustrated in thefollowing chart. These decreases are mainly attributable to the local authority reducing itscommercial waste collection service.

Non-household tonnages

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

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

Non-hh recycling

Non-hh disposal


33

1.6 Case study 6: London Borough of Islington


The borough’s housing stock consists of a roughly 50:50 split of terraces and flats. Around 40%of residents are 25-40 yr old single professionals.


IMD = 38.96





Supergroup: 3 London Centre

Group: 3.5 London Centre

Subgroup: 3.5.8 London Centre - A


Kerbside residual

Containment is black sack for terraces and communal bins for flats. Collection arrangementshave been the same since 1998 when the current contract commenced (PFI 15 year contract).There is now more oversight of the contract by the borough than previously, with issues such aslandlords requesting more communal bins than are always required, (whereas as previouslycontractor would supply as many bins as requested without querying landlords).

The borough is not intending to introduce wheeled bins for sack properties (terraces) or changerefuse frequency in the future. However the borough is considering carrying out some smallscale measures in terms of reducing communal bin capacity & collection frequency to reflecthouseholder requirements. In future the borough intends to remove some more residual bins &replace with commingled recycling bins, to encourage recycling.

Kerbside dry recycling

Green box scheme

In 1998, 500 properties were served with CSO (community sector organization) dry recyclingcollections via a green box. This scheme was extended, first through a 1999 pilot extension andthen borough wide in 2000, with 55l green boxes, but only for street facing properties with somefrontages (~50% households in borough). This equated to 12 rounds, 45,000 households in total,serviced with an electric vehicle, and using kerbside sort. Materials collected were paper, glass(separate colours), mixed cans and textiles.

In December 2004 commingled collections were piloted across 3 of 12 rounds covered by thekerbside sort scheme (~11,000 households?), with the addition of cardboard and plastic bottles,but with textiles no longer collected. Commingled dry recycling was collected by RCV (refusecollection vehicles). Learning from the experience of neighbouring boroughs that had recentlycarried out a similar service change, Islington carried out a lot of communications work toreassure residents that materials thus collected in RCVs were indeed being recycled. From Mayto October 2005 the pilot was extended to the remaining 9 rounds covered by the originalkerbside sort scheme.

In July 2005 pilot collections from flats were carried out, across 5 estates. These were mostlyusing a reusable sack collected from landings & communal areas (though with 55l boxes in a fewcases).


34

In January 2006 this was extended to 23,000 properties and is now around 25,000 properties.This leaves around 20,000 (?) properties unserved with kerbside collections, which is due tosome landlords being unwilling to engage with the service, or logistical difficulties in serving someproperties.

In December 2005 collections from flats above shops was piloted, which was gradually increasedto around 10,000 properties by January 2007. Many of these collections are daily.

Organics collections

In September 2004 the London Recycling Fund (LRF) funded the building of an IVC and pilotcollections. This covered 8,000 properties with gardens, equating to around 14,000 households.In June 2005 food waste was added to these collections. During July to October 2005 thesecollections (garden & food waste) were rolled out so that a total of 45,000 “street” properties wereserved. This is a weekly collection, with caddies and 25l buckets provided, with garden wastepresented in reusable sacks provided by the council, or open waste sacks. (ripped open by crewsand then loaded into collection vehicle).

Kerbside collection day synchronisation

In September 2007, refuse & dry/organics collection days were rescheduled to synchroniserefuse and recycling collection days, i.e. same day collection. Split body vehicles wereintroduced for collecting dry / organics (70/30 dry/organics split in each vehicle). Following roll-out of this service, the borough discerned a significant increase in recycling tonnages; and anincrease in participation over time (though the latter may be due to communications activitiesrather than the service change). Also the service change brought about higher levels of publicsatisfaction (as well as financial efficiencies).

Bring sites

Since at least 1999 there were 25 bring sites collecting glass, paper, cans & textiles. During2002/03 the LRF funded a 2-year roll out of 160 bring banks for flats. These were 1,280lEurobins collecting glass (separate colours), paper & cans. Due to limited space, around half ofthese sites were located in street areas rather than on estates themselves. From 2005 co-mingled bins were gradually added for flats, to a total of 230 at present.

During late 2006/07 food waste collections were piloted to around 500 flatted properties.Collection weights are minimal. The borough is intending to develop this service in the future.

Bulky waste collections are free.

HWRC

Historically the CA site had been an “old school council tip”, basically just for refuse, but withscrap metal pulled out. In May 2004 the old site was shut.

In August 2004 a new site was launched with a strong focus on recycling. At the new site staffwere much better at policing trade waste abuse (though there is no permit system for vans etc inplace). No corresponding increase in flytipping was noted by the borough and in general flytippingis not considered to be a significant issue in Islington.

Home composting

The borough provides home composting bins at a subsidised rate of £10 and also subsidieswormeries, green cones and green johannas.

Side waste policy



35







A ban on side waste is in place and legally enforced although some ‘top-hatting’ / ‘crocodile lids’ are allowed. The above measures are alsoadopted (as in 2 above) and following a number of cautions thehouseholder will be issued with a fixed penalty notice. Evidence of a smallnumber of such notices being issued.


A ban on side waste is in place and legally enforced and ‘top-hatting’ /‘crocodile lids’ is not allowed. The same cautionary procedures areadopted as in 2 and 3 above, although there is evidence of a high numberof Section 80 (accumulations of household refuse in back yards) andSection 46 (householder non-compliant with Council’s waste collectionarrangements) notices issued to non-compliant households. Enforcementis taken very seriously by the council.

The respondent classified their enforcement activities as ‘1 – No level of enforcement’.

Communications

The borough has had a fairly consistent and high level of communications engagement,particularly through:

Door knocking & pledges to recycle (with increased recycling tonnages noted in targetedrounds)

Leaflets & local media

i-recycle centre, (educational facility).

The borough’s communications activities have been cited as best practice, including by WRAP.See separate box below to see summary of extent of communications activities.


Practice

Maturity Scale

Definition



3 Planned Communication activity is planned. Limited resources have been allocated


36

for delivery. Responsibility has been assigned, but there is little or nomeasurement of performance.

4 Co-ordinated Delivery is regular and routine. A strategy has been developed to determinethe best way for the organisation to communicate and responsibility for itsimplementation is defined. Resources are sufficient to cover the outputsrecommended in the strategy. Materials are good quality, but have thepotential to be more effective. There is some assessment of performance.



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

1.6.3 Summary & interpretation of waste trends

The following chart shows the borough’s tonnages for municipal wastes from 2000/01 to 2007/08:

If we disregard Commercial residual, tonnages have shown a decrease. This is particularly thecase with kerbside arisings (residual + recycling + organics).

The reduction in kerbside residual tonnages is somewhat complicated by the consideration thatkerbside and commercial residual are co-collected and apportioned respectively to householdand commercial as follows:

Conflict between NLWA and LBI data: Until 2008/09 survey information was used to allocatethe split between co-collected trade and household refuse. NLWA used a figure of approx72:28% based on a 1995 survey. The use of this old survey data was criticised by AC duringBV audits of LBI so from 2004-05 LBI used the best survey data available - while NLWA couldnot get political agreement to do this themselves. From 2004-05 we used a split based on aNLWA - AEA survey which was supported by LBI's own HH waste survey, this split was approx63.5:36.5 HH:Trade

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

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

Kerbside residual Kerbside dry Kerbside organics Street cleansing, parks, clinical

Bring + HWRC recycling HWRC residual Commercial residual Commercial recycling


37

So from 2004/05 a lower proportion of this tonnage was allocated to kerbside residual. SinceIslington considers that this method of apportionment is more accurate than the one usedpreviously, this suggests that up to 2003/04 the amount of kerbside residual was somewhatoverstated (and commercial residual likewise somewhat understated).

The “Commercial residual” tonnages shown in the above chart consist mostly of collections fromcommercial premises. However these tonnages also contain some highways wastes and (in thelatter years only) flytipping wastes; though the borough has not reported separate tonnages forthese fractions. The majority of “Commercial recycling” tonnages are thought to consist ofConstruction & Demolition wastes and DIY type wastes from the borough’s HWRC. There weresome uncertainties in the HWRC tonnage data for one period, which were resolved through usingreference data on HWRC performance in the borough.

Taking into account all these considerations, it appears that there is nevertheless an overalldecrease in household waste + recycling tonnages; though commercial residual has increased,resulting in fairly static total MSW arisings. MSW tonnages are slightly lower tonnage in 2004/05(though – despite the borough’s explanation above – it is suspected that some HWRC recyclingtonnages may still be missing from the tonnages incorporated in the chart above).

Interpretation

It appears that household tonnages have decreased, but these are more likely to have actuallyremained fairly static, due to the apportionment of less residual waste to regular householdcollections (and more to commercial collections). Our best data suggests that the number ofhouseholds has increased from 80,000 in 2000/01 to 86,000 in 2005/06. Thus it seems that therehas been a genuine gradual decrease in terms of total waste generated per household.

Some - but not all - of this is probably attributable to reduced trade waste abuse at the HWRCfollowing launch of the new site in 2004. A more significant factor is likely to be public behaviourchange, with slightly less waste + recycling being produced per household year on year. This islikely to be due to:

communications activities (see box below)

improvement in recycling systems (particularly kerbside dry & organics and HWRC)contributing to public thinking of the waste they produce somewhat more in the context ofrecycling and sustainability.

Additional information on communications activities:

From an email from the borough’s communications officer:

As a council we were one of the first councils to start main streaming reduce reuserecycle.

We were one of the first councils in the UK to use reduce and reuse as central parts ofour recycling advertising campaigns. These include the greener, cleaner recyclingadvertising campaign in Autumn 2006 and the reduce reuse recycle advertisingcampaign in Autumn 08.

Waste reduction information was then included in all our leaflets from this point. Ourleaflets are seen as best practice by WRAP

We also developed specific information leaflets and areas on our website around wastereduction and reuse in late 2007 - early 2008.

The promotion of reduce and reuse was increased further in April 2008 when wecompletely wrapped our 16 refuse trucks with reduce and reuse messages

The Green Teams doorkncking campaign of 2008/09 have also been upping the profile ofwaste reduction as part of their remit


38

The watch your waste challenge in October 2008 also gave us a chance to focus actionin this areas

Watch Your Waste Challenge – results

1. Residentsa) ResultsThe residents that took part in the Challenge did brilliantly in reducing their waste by an amazing47.6%.

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

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

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

b) Evaluation

o 84% of participants made lifestyle changes as a result of the Week.o The most common lifestyle changes people said they would make were to start

buying goods in less packaging and buying goods in recyclable packaging.o 89% of participants would like to take part in the Challenge again.o 96% found the information contained in the Challenger’s pack useful and

informative.

2. SchoolsOf the three schools in North London that took part in the Challenge, two of them were fromIslington. They did brilliantly, as a total of 653 pupils played their part in cutting their waste by anaverage of 53.2%.

We are very pleased with the results and the enthusiasm with which the people of Islington roseto the challenge.

Provisional data on MSW tonnage reductions during 2008/09:

Data from 2008/09 suggests that a decrease in MSW arisings is currently taking place. Somereductions in Islington’s tonnages are due to loss of commercial waste collection contracts. Oncethis is taken into account, the borough believes that a genuine decrease in household waste(residual & recycling) is taking place. The borough’s interpretation is that their demographic isparticularly susceptible to the effects of the credit crunch, which have lead to lower levels ofhousehold consumption. However it is also possible that the borough’s waste minimizationactivities have been an important factor.

http://www.thecnj.co.uk/islington/2008/103108/inews103108_17.html


39

This chart shows a reduction in regular residual waste collections (household + commercial):

Some of this is attributable to loss of commercial waste collection contracts:

However this cannot account for all of the decrease. This supposition is supported by theobservation that not many commercial collection contracts were lost after around Jun 2008, butthat total refuse tonnages have continued to decrease (though some of this may be due toseasonal variation in household generated residual waste).

Total recycling tonnages (almost all from household sources) have also decreased:

Chart Title

50005200540056005800600062006400660068007000

Apr-

07

May-0

7

Jun-0

7

Jul-07

Aug-0

7

Sep-0

7

Oct-

07

Nov-0

7

Dec-0

7

Jan-0

8

Feb-0

8

Mar-

08

Apr-

08

May-0

8

Jun-0

8

Jul-08

Aug-0

8

Sep-0

8

Oct-

08

Nov-0

8

Dec-0

8

Refuse

Linear (Refuse)

31003200330034003500360037003800390040004100

Apr-07

May-07

Jun-07

Jul-07

Aug-07

Sep-07

Oct-

07

Nov-07

Dec-07

Jan-08

Feb-08

Mar-08

Apr-08

May-08

Jun-08

Jul-08

Aug-08

Sep-08

Oct-

08

Nov-08

Dec-08

Number of contracts

Poly. (Number of contracts)

Chart Title

1500.00

1600.00

1700.00

1800.00

1900.00

2000.00

2100.00

2200.00

Ap

r-0

7

Ma

y-0

7

Ju

n-0

7

Ju

l-0

7

Aug

-07

Se

p-0

7

Oct-0

7

No

v-0

7

Dec-0

7

Jan

-08

Fe

b-0

8

Ma

r-0

8

Ap

r-0

8

Ma

y-0

8

Ju

n-0

8

Ju

l-0

8

Aug

-08

Se

p-0

8

Oct-0

8

No

v-0

8

Dec-0

8

tonnage collected for recycling


40

Other MSW streams have also been affected. This chart shows a reduction in total bulky wastecollection and street sweepings tonnages.

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900A

pr-

07

Ma

y-0

7

Jun

-07

Ju

l-0

7

Au

g-0

7

Se

p-0

7

Oct-

07

No

v-0

7

De

c-0

7

Jan

-08

Fe

b-0

8

Ma

r-0

8

Ap

r-0

8

Ma

y-0

8

Jun

-08

Ju

l-0

8

Refuse (Bulk)

Sweepings

Parks

Construction


41

1.7 Case study 7: South Norfolk District Council



IMD = 10.84






Group: 5.7 Prospering Smaller Towns

Subgroup: 5.7.13 Prospering Smaller Towns – B


Kerbside residual

Historically the district has collected kerbside residual waste in sacks weekly, though this hasbeen switched over the 140l or 240l wheeled bins (depending on household size) along with thegradual roll-out of AWC. Households with more than 5 people are allowed two bins. Roll-out ofAWC in terms of % households served has been:

2002/03: 15%

2003/04: 50%

2004/05: 80%

2005/06: ~100% (completed March 2006, i.e. end of this period).

A few multi-occupancy properties are still on weekly collections with clear sacks. All side waste iscollected.

Kerbside dry

Co-mingled collections in 240l wheeled bins were introduced alongside AWC.

Kerbside garden

Historically the district has offered a garden waste collection service, via tie on labels for sacksthat householders have to pay for. These sacks were disposed by collection crews alongsiderefuse sacks. From 2004/05 a brown bin service was offered to residents and garden wastecollected through this system was separately collected for composting. This is an opt-in schemewith an annual fee levied. This service was offered to 7% of householders during 2004/05 andthe offer of the service was extended to all households by the end of 2005/06.

Bring banks

There has been little change to the bring bank network from 2000 to 2007. The banks havetraditionally targeted glass (which has presumably not been targeted by the commingledcollections introduced alongside AWC).

Bulky waste collections are charged, except for householders in receipt of benefits.

HWRCs


42

No significant changes in HWRC provision have been reported, apart from a new contract in2007, which coincided with a revamp of bin signage, collection of a few additional (small tonnage)materials and easier access to bulk skips at some sites.

Home composting

No home composting promotion activity was undertaken until January 2006, when the districtparticipated in WRAP’s promotion of home composting.












Communications

Since 2002/03, and running alongside AWC roll-out, the district has employed 3 recyclingofficers. From 2005/06 their activities had a greater focus on waste minimization and recycling.



43

Practice

Maturity Scale

Definition







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


44



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

Trends & interpretation

There was a significant increase between 2000/01 and 2001/02 which is not easy to explain.Some of the increase relates to HWRC tonnages (it is notable that HWRC recycling increased)but kerbside residual plus recycling also increased.

Between 2001/02 and 2005/06 household waste arisings have remained reasonably static (orhave slightly decreased) – though interrupted by a “spike” in 2004/05 (see comments below).This trend is probably attributable to the gradual roll-out of AWC and its constraining effects onkerbside arisings. There does not appear to have been much (if any) leakage of kerbside wasteto HWRC as a result of AWC – with the possible exception of 2004/05; (supported by furtheranalysis HWRC tonnages, see below).

Waste arisings then increased in 2006/07, which may be attributable to a greater take-up of thebrown bin garden waste collections in this period. These collections are charged and the periodalso coincides with the district promoting home composting as part of WRAP’s scheme, so oninitial consideration this explanation does not appear adequate. However the brown bin gardenwaste scheme involves a switch over from the previous garden sack scheme (also paid for) toproviding a wheeled bin. This represents an increase in containment capacity, which arguablymakes this explanation more convincing – i.e. the brown bin scheme may be introducing newgarden waste into the MSW stream, by virtue of the additional containment capacity available tohouseholders who take up this scheme.

In fact, containment capacity may be an overriding issue for this authority. Significantcontainment capacity is provided for:

AWC refuse

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

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

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


45

Kerbside commingled dry

Kerbside brown bin garden waste, charged opt-in scheme.

This, in the context of the district not applying any restrictions to the collection of side waste,could indicate that the constraining effects of AWC are weakened. Gradual decreases have beenexperienced during gradual AWC roll-out (2002/03 onwards); supported by communicationsactivity (which has focused more on waste prevention from 2005/06); but this has not beenenough to prevent “spikes” in waste arisings during 2004/05 and 2006/07.

However it is important to note that South Norfolk has historically had one of the lowest levels ofwaste arisings per household in England. Therefore the district has been proceeding from a lowwaste arisings baseline, which may explain why the waste reduction effects seen in many otherAWC systems are not so unequivocally visible in the case of South Norfolk.

The spike in 2004/05 remains curious, since this coincides with the advanced stages of AWC roll-out (with coverage being increased from 50% to 80% during this period). HWRC arisings arehigher in this period, but not significantly so, and there is no significant increase in HWRCresidual waste.

It could be the case (as suggested for Broadland) that introducing commingled dry recyclingalongside AWC has encouraged householders to introduce additional material to the wastestream, through storing dry recyclables in anticipation of the introduction of dry recyclingcollections. Although this is not an entirely convincing explanation, it is somewhat supported bythe observation that between 2003/04 and 2004/05 kerbside residual tonnages only decreasedslightly, whilst kerbside dry recycling tonnages increased. A more convincing explanation may bethat the containment capacity new kerbside system did not constrain arisings in the manner thatwe would normally expect from AWC collections. However, this does not explain lower tonnagesin 2003/04 and 2005/06.

The drop in waste arisings in 2005/06 may be explained by the AWC system “bedding in” andhouseholders exhibiting a delayed response in terms of changing their disposal and recyclingbehaviour as a result of the AWC system.

Non-household waste consists primarily of residual waste, collected from commercial premises.These tonnages have been around 2,000 to 3,000 tonnes per year, though with higher tonnagesof around 3,700 tonnages in 2002/03 and 2003/04. No explanation has been found for thesehigher tonnages.

Additional information

South Norfolk trialled chipped bins several years ago – apart from a media furore, there were alsosome bin weighing problems, which may have caused some errors in the data in earlier periods.

HWRCs

Tonnages for HWRCs in South Norfolk are illustrated on the following page; along withcorresponding tonnages for HWRCs located in Norwich, for comparison.

Some South Norfolk residents are thought to use HWRCs in Norwich. A dramatic drop intonnages at Norwich HWRCs is apparent from 2003/04, which coincides with a renewed effortacross Norfolk HWRCs to exclude trade waste, through enforcing a ban on construction &demolition waste disposal at the county’s HWRCs.

In contrast to Broadland HWRCs, HWRC arisings at South Norfolk sites saw a steady declinefrom 2000/01 to 2003/04. This suggests that management arrangements at the sites werechanged or improved, perhaps through the improvement of trade waste controls. However thereduction has not been the dramatic drop seen at Norwich HWRCs. From 2003/04 HWRCtonnages have been gradually increasing. Whilst some of this material may have been divertedfrom Norwich HWRCs (where tonnages dropped substantially), this is unlikely to be the mainfactor in HWRC tonnages increases in South Norfolk, since the overhaul of trade wasterestrictions at Norfolk HWRCs around 2003/04 was carried out reasonably consistently acrossthe county. The most plausible explanation is that the majority of the increases in HWRC


46

tonnages in South Norfolk are due to the leakage of material from kerbside to HWRC, arisingfrom gradual AWC introduction from 2002 to 2006. On the other hand, it is also possible that siteinputs at South Norfolk may have been “normalizing” to an extent, following the decrease in siteinputs up to 2000/01. Overall, it is considered likely that there a moderate degree of leakage ofmaterial from kerbside to HWRCs due to AWC introduction.


South Norfolk HWRCs

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

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

REC

GW

RES

Norwich HWRCs

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

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

REC

GW

RES


47

1.8 Case study 8: Hyndburn Borough Council


Hyndburn is urban authority covering 72.99 km2, with a population density of 1123/km

2. The

population of 82,000 is mainly white (90.2%) with a large mainly S.Asian ethnic population(8.4%).

The economy of the area is very small, but has a good business enterprise base. There is a lowlevel of skills in the workforce, which attracts wages that are much lower than the nationalaverage, and makes the area less attractive to new businesses. Employment has declined 11.6%in the period 2004-7. There are high levels of deprivation in the area, caused by disadvantages inincome, crime, health, employment. Housing prices are very low, resulting in a high level ofownership, and a poor rental market, and there are a high proportion of dwellings that are classedas being unfit ( 3

rdhighest in the country). The majority of the Pakistani minority population lives

in the most deprived wards.


Present at separate meetings: information was gathered through meetings with the seniorWaste Officer at HBC, and the Data Management Officer at Lancashire County Council.

An alternate weekly collection is provided with a 240 litre grey wheeled bin for residual waste, a,a blue 55l box for glass, a blue sack for cans, foil and plastic bottles, a white sack for paper, agreen sack for textiles. Cardboard should be neatly stacked or tied up. 306l bins were providedto larger families, these are now being replaced by 240l and 140l bins as they are easier to move.New additional capacity bins are easily recognized as they have brown lids, which make it easierfor the enforcement teams to identify unauthorized extra bins in use.

The service extends to farms and more isolated properties using a small caged vehicle. AWC ofSchedule 2 waste also occurs.

A green waste collection using a 240l wheeled bin is provided to 14,000 properties with a garden(about 33% of the total). This service is not provided to terraced properties with a small grassareas or farms.

Modern terraced housing developments being built in Hyndburn as part of the East LancashireElevate regeneration programme will be provided with recycling facilities for waste.

Since 2006, the “no side waste” policy has been rigorously enforced by Environmental HealthServices (following the introduction of the recycling of plastic bottles and cardboard). The policyhad to be suspended for 8-12 months until these wastes were being recycled due to their bulkynature contributing to the side waste issue.

In 2007 & 2008, HBC have issued 500 x S80 notices (accumulations of household refuse in backyards), 600 x S46 notices (householder non-compliant with councils waste collectionarrangements), 15 x S47 notices (inappropriate arrangements for managing business waste).This has led to 6 prosecutions and 1 formal caution under S46, 6 X S80 (with 3 on-going), 3 xS34 (2a) householder duty of care with 1 formal caution and I ongoing. The council runsenforcement campaigns every 8 weeks, for 500-600 properties, targeting problem areas. Aninitial assessment checks that all correct bins and literature are provided, skips are then providedto clean up the area. This is followed by strict enforcement of the no side waste policy. HBC alsodo multi-agency “stop and search” campaigns targeting white van drivers for flytipping.

Bring sites have been gradually phased out in the borough as they attract flytipping. Only 1remains, in an ASDA supermarket car park.

Bulky waste collections are free for up to 6 items a month, no D-I-Y waste is accepted. Calls tothe call centre are screened to establish if items are reusable, if so they are directed to ringHyndburn Used Furniture Store (HUFS) direct. Electrical items are collected by the council andreturn to the depot where the HUFS group collects the material and gains an income from either


48

reuse, repair or recycling. FRN weights are used to claim recycling credits from LancashireCounty Council (LCC).

The commercial waste stream and flytipping are collected as part of a domestic round. A formulais used to calculate the amounts. A recycling service for glass, paper and cardboard incommercial waste is provided by the use of separate containers ranging from bags to 1100l bins.The cost is covered by the trade waste fees. All organisations that are classed as Schedule 2organisations (in accordance with Defra guidance) are included in their domestic tonnages. Theywere moved from their trade waste collection tonnages over two years ago. The respondent wasunable to provide a tonnage figure as to how much these waste streams amounted to.

Leaves collected by the street cleansing service are composted.

HBC delivers a coherent, and consistent communication campaign for the recycling servicethrough a variety of means. A specially designed calendar is produced every year, in November,which provides lots of information including all collection dates for the coming year, using imagerysimilar to that used by WRAP to give a consistent appearance. It carries a wide range of recyclingmessages and information and has a customer satisfaction questionnaire included. A simpleresident guide to recycling is sent out every year with new Council Tax bills. Distinctive leafletshave been provided to warn about the “no side waste” policy, emphasizing the £100 fine that maybe incurred. The “gripper” signs on waste vehicles are changed every 6 weeks to coincide withthe images on the calendars, or to tie in with other campaigns e.g. recycling at Xmas, bonfires.Radio advertising is being considered.

LCC HWRCs are situated at Whinney Hill and Great Harwood and are operated by SITA. Tradewaste permits were introduced at these sites in 2003-04. Incentivized contracts were alsointroduced with recycling thresholds and penalties for failure. These were reviewed in 2008. Thebase recycling rate in 2003-04 was 43%, and has increased to 60% in 2007-08.

Bric-a-brac and items suitable for reuse are intercepted by licensed traders who operate on thesites. Furniture reuse organizations do not operate on the HWRCS.

Free compost bins are provided by LCC. 7872 have been provided to Hyndburn residents. 158reusable nappy vouchers have also been provided via the incentive scheme operated by LCC.

LCC has a waste minimization team that promotes home composting, real nappies, and carriesout radio campaigns, bill board and bus promotions, and works with schools. The LCC newsletterwhich goes to every household carries features about recycling. Promotional funding is availableto districts for specific promotional campaigns.


49



0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

40,000

45,000

50,000

2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-7

Year

To

nn

ag

e

Total Disposal

Total Recycled

Total Arising

Total MSW


0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

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

Year

To

nn

es Total Disposal

Total Recycled

Total Arising

Waste policy mapping Pre-2000 collection of residual waste by black sack, with opt-in paper recycling scheme.

2003-4 3-year roll out of alternate weekly collection for residual waste and dryrecyclables. Trade waste permits are introduced at the HWRCs sites along withcontracts with recycling targets.

2004 plastic bottles added to the kerbside collection


50

2005-6 all households covered by AWC service. Addition of cardboard and textiles tokerbside service.

Dec 2006- Feb 07 one-off green waste collection

2006 trade waste is collected separately from domestic waste (estimated in mixed loadsprior to this). The “no side waste“ policy is enforced.

Introduction of recycling of paper and cardboard for commercial waste customers

2008-9 introduction of glass recycling for commercial waste customers

Waste arisings observations The total household waste arisings were declining before the introduction of the alternate

weekly collection service in 2003-4. The introduction of this service may have stimulatedan initial slight increase in total household waste arisings in 2004-5 perhaps due to theavailability of a larger bin compared to the sack system. This effect is short lived and asteady decline in total household waste arisings follows.

The total household waste tonnages have declined from 37,914 tonnes in 32,197 tonnesin 2006-07

The quantities of kerbside recyclable wastes continued to rise even after the fullimplementation of the AWC system.

The introduction of permits are the HWRC causes a reduction in the amount of residualwaste arising at the sites and the quantities of materials recycled at the sites rises in thefollowing year.

The total quantities of waste recycled have increases from 4000 tonnes in 2000-01 to12,000 tonnes in 2006-07.

The total MSW also declines over the period 2000-01 to 2006-07, from 41,876 tonnes in2000-01 to 39,346 tonnes in 2006-07.

1.8.4 Summary of causal factors

Key respondent considerations The “no side waste” policy could not be enforced until plastic bottles and cardboard had

been removed from the residual bins by recycling, due their bulky nature. The strictenforcement of the policy, with prosecutions and very distinctive warning leaflets mayhave contributed to the continued increase in kerbside recycling tonnages after the rollout of AWC had been fully implemented for over a year.

Information was designed to be as simple as possible, whilst keeping to a Recycle Now –type of appearance for consistency. The annual calendar has proved very popular andprovides feedback through its questionnaire. Comments are acted upon.

The introduction of permits at the HWRCs helped to curtail the illegal disposal ofcommercial waste, as shown in the reduction in the residual waste tonnages at the sites.

Smaller caged vehicles used for the residual domestic collection in the rural parts of theborough are also used for the collection of recyclables, allowing this service to be offeredto more isolated properties and farms.

As the recyclable materials are separated at source there had been no problems selling itto reprocessors.

HBC waste management staff have a good working relationship with the electedmembers and senior council executives who are supportive and well aware of thechallenges that the team faces.

With such an urban area, with few gardens, there are limited opportunities to increaserecycling rates by collecting green waste, compared to many parts of the country.


51

A LATS fee has been imposed on the collection authorities by LCC to pass on the cost ofthe commercial waste disposal to the customer, rather than be subsidized by LCC. Thismay result in commercial waste disappearing from MSW as operations become less costeffective.

The LCC HWRCs are being reviewed. This may result in a more consistent serviceacross the county and the redevelopment of sites and introduction of new ones.

The regular review of HWRC contracts ensures that staff remain incentivized to increaserecycling rates.

It is difficult to make any assumptions about waste arisings as contracts continuallychange and there are movements of waste from/to Schedule 2 waste as work movesfrom and to the private sector for large establishments e.g. hospitals, universities,prisons, which can have a significant impact on waste arisings.

Modelling of data with regards to demographics has been found to be very difficult. LCChave tried to consider population migration, number of new households etc. but found theaccuracy of data to be questionable. It is difficult to make assumptions based on trends,with so many variables operating e.g. change in commercial waste contracts can have animpact on total MSW.

There is variation in how collection authorities report their waste arisings e.g. some reportflytipping, others do not. Side waste may be classed as flytipping by some authoritiesmoving the designation of the waste from household municipal waste to non-householdmunicipal waste.

The quality of data is extremely important due to the impact of LATS. LCC has anextensive waste data management system which involves multiple in-built checks ondata supplied by many sources including collection authorities by cross referencing withdata received from weighbridges at waste disposal and treatment sites. Quarterlyreported data is inaccurate until the final quarter when all receipts have been receivedand early over-reporting has been corrected.

LCC carry out regular waste composition analysis to monitor the change in waste as newrecycling initiatives, composting and food waste collection have an impact.

Key findings The phased introduction of the AWC combined with a well planned and designed, easy to

understand communications programme has led to sustained reduction in householdwaste arisings, with a continuing increase in the quantities of recyclable materialscollected at the kerbside.

The “no side waste“ policy could not be enforced until recycling provision had been madefor the most bulky wastes, cardboard and plastic bottles.

Enforcement of the side waste policy tends is effective, residents tend to exhibit improvedbehaviour after being exposed to the enforcement regime, though some individuals willnot comply and result in the prosecution cases listed. Problem areas may need to betackled repeatedly. The enforcement process is time consuming and requires thenecessary resources to make it effective. Partnership working between different localauthority and government agencies has been successful.






52







The respondent at Hyndburn Borough Council classed their enforcement activity as ‘4 – Formalenforcement policy in place and rigorously enforced’ although he did point out that they donot religiously enforce a closed lid policy. The crews will however leave excess refuse sacks thatare piled at the top or side of the bin.

The only other issue of noteworthy attention is that the strict additional capacity policy has limitedthe number of properties that can officially have additional capacity.

The respondent also stated that they are in the process of re-assessing every household that hasbeen issued additional capacity or who has more than 1 bin on their property. Once re-assessed,and if approved, then the bins are colour coded so officers/crews know that this household isofficial and that any other property which has more than 1 bin and are not colour coded can beremoved / not emptied.

Bring sites have been removed from use as they attracted high levels of flytipping.

Large electrical items and white good are intercepted in the bulky waste service andrecycled through HUFS, who refurbish items where possible for reuse. Smaller consumerelectrical items are not so easily recycled and there is not an easy route for interceptingthis waste other than by WEE collection at the HWRCs.

Trade waste estimated until mid-2006, then collected separately.

Flytipped waste weights increased sharply when separate collections occurred. Theweights have been estimated before this, as it was collected with the domestic wastestream.

Phased introduction of 3 stream recycling.

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

Practice

Maturity Scale

Definition


2 Emerging Some communication, but it may be sporadic and delivered only when


53

required. The importance of communication has been recognised, butstrategy and processes are still embryonic. Some resources have beenallocated for the production of essential materials. Responsibility forcommunication has been agreed.





The respondent from Hyndburn Borough Council classified their communications activities asbeing in excess of 4 (co-ordinated) in some areas around 5 (Evaluated) because they aremeasuring the effectiveness through resident surveys / focus groups. However, when consideringtheir communications activities across the spectrum of waste services then the respondentsuggested they would be more likely to be classified as 6 – optimised.

Hyndburn has the lowest collected household waste per head of population in thecountry.

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

kg/person 346 339 323 302 293

Waste data reporting The quality of waste data collection is improving for the purposes of reporting against

recycling targets and other waste indicators.

There is a requirement for very good waste data collection in view of LATS. LCC has setup a data management system that allows the checking of returns provided by wastecollection authorities against weighbridge receipts and weights processed in contracts. Asignificant level of double counting has occurred in the past, leading to discrepanciesbetween actual residual waste and that reported, which in a LATS year would haveincurred a £2 million LATS fine.

Variations still exist in how local authorities report data.

Demographics

The number of households is increasing whilst the average size of households isdecreasing.

The population is 82,000 in 36,319 households (2008-09).


54

New build has continued at a fairly steady rate. This may increase due to the Elevateregeneration programme to improve the housing stock of the area and replace some ofthe many dwellings that are unfit for use.

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

1. Household numbers (000s) 34 35 35 36 36 36 36.2

2. Average persons / household 2.37 2.36 2.34 2.33 2.32 2.3

5. Net inflow 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

6. Total population (000s) 81.5 81.5 81.9 82 82.2 82.2 82

7. Number of new-build properties 178 143 164 169 170 259 140


55

1.9 Case study 9: Mole Valley District Council


Mole Valley District Council is a Collection Authority, which serves a resident population of80,500. There are 34,000 households in the district, of which 77.1% are owner occupied. Theaverage HH size is 2.33 people. The main towns in Mole Valley include Leatherhead, Fetcham,Bookham, Ashtead and Dorking. New build properties are on the increase in the district.

Mole Valley is principally a rural district covering 258 square kilometres. The largest ethnic groupis ‘White’ accounting for 97.4% of the population in the District.


Present at meeting: Adam Read from AEA met with Steve Strickland, Waste & RecyclingManager.

In 2005-06 an alternate weekly refuse and recycling collection scheme was rolled out to thewhole district. Two wheeled bins were provided to the residents, with residual waste beingcollected one week in the black bin and the next week recyclables collected in the green bin. In2004-05 a trial of this scheme had been rolled out to 18% of the district – which was a success.

Pre 2004-05 all residents received a weekly black plastic bag residual collection and 90% ofresidents received a fortnightly recycling collection. Pre 2004-05 the materials that could berecycled included news and pams and cans, this was extended in 2005-06 to include paper andcardboard, plastics, glass bottles and jars (glass was added in January 2008).

Pre 2002 the District Council was recycling 15% and they set a target to recycle 42% by 2009.From the AWC trials in 2004, the modelled performance suggested that a recycling rate of 36%would be achieved. Therefore in 2005 the District Council put a ‘no-side waste’ policy in placewith a 100% of households (except for those with young children or medical concerns). With nolimitation to the amount of recyclables that would be collected. This was intended to exceed the36% level.

In 2006/07 they introduced a chargeable garden waste collection (was £24 per year and is now£28 per year) and there are approx. 10,000 properties on the system. This has increased thetonnage of materials being collected in total by the District Council.

A food waste trial between 2007-09 has proved to be successful with 50% diversion beingachieved at the kerbside, however a lack of Council budget means that this is going to be put onhold until 2012 when the new contract starts. The food waste trial was held in one crew area onlyto improve the quality of the data collected. They found the overall tonnage of material stayedthe same, but the amount going into the residual bin decreased significantly (15% swing onaverage).

The District Council has 19 bring sites (possibly one site less now than in 1995) and haveincreased the mix of material at all sites (textiles, tetrapak, shoes etc).

The Council charges for its bulky household waste collection.


56



0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

40,000

45,000

50,000

55,000

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

Year

To

nn

es

TOTAL DISPOSAL

TOTAL RECYCLED

TOTAL ARISING

Non-household waste and MSW arisings

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

40,000

45,000

50,000

55,000

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

Year

To

nn

es

TOTAL DISPOSAL

TOTAL RECYCLED

TOTAL ARISING

TOTAL MSW

Waste policy mapping

In 2004/05 an AWC trial of two 240litre wheeled bins, one for refuse collectionand one for co-mingled recycling was put in place. The trial covered 18% of

New tradewastecalculationintroduced

Introduction of AWC andwheeled bin scheme &stop in trade wastescheme

Trial AWC introduced

AWC rolled outto whole District

Charged gardenwaste collectionintroduced


57

households. In 2005/06 the scheme was extended out to all properties in theDistrict including flats. Households of 4 persons or less were issued with 240litre bins and households of 5 or above could apply for a second refuse bin. Extrarecycling bins were provided to anyone household that wanted one.


Waste Data Recording In 2003/04 Surrey CC introduced a new formula for accounting for trade waste in

household collections, which caused a big jump in arisings – from 200 tpa to 4,000 tpa.

In 2005/06 the new AWC and wheel bin scheme, as well as a stop in the trade wastescheme meant a big drop in this type of arisings (4000 tpa to only 1,600 tpa).

Historically some trade waste was being collected with MSW, which was not fullyunderstood but in 2005/06 the true level became evident (due to use of wheel bins andsale of trade collections).

Mole Valley has 2002 composition data and Surrey CC have data from 2008.

Waste Data at County During the AWC and food waste trials the WDA (Surrey CC) did not record any changes

in waste arisings at CA sites.

Waste Prevention In 2002/03 the District Council sold low cost (subsidised) compost bins and since 2006

the home compost scheme has been supported by WRAP.

Since 2007/08 the District Council has sold subsidised green cones at £10 per bin – theyhave sold 1,900 of their 2,000 available units.

Communication Waste communications activity whilst rolling out the AWC and food waste trial scheme

included:

Personalised leaflets (staged attack).

Community road shows to explain changes.

Strong focus on schools – increased recycling services in schools (at cost), which is wellbelow the cost of a commercial trade waste collection – 90% take-up!

There is no hard-line enforcement (no fines) but they do leave contaminated bins as a‘message’.



58

Practice

Maturity Scale

Definition











No enforcement policies (either formal or informal) in place. Residentsare free to leave material next to waste receptacles so long as containedor bagged and not construed as being fly-tipped or littering.


A ban on side is in place but not rigorously enforced. Publicising thepolicy is confined to resident information leaflets, the use of bin stickersalerting the residents to the policy and waste collection operativesleaving waste in situ. No penalty notices have been issued althoughcautions have been periodically been made.


A ban on side waste is in place and legally enforced although some ‘top-hatting’ / ‘crocodile lids’ are allowed. The above measures are alsoadopted (as in 2 above) and following a number of cautions thehouseholder will be issued with a fixed penalty notice. Evidence of asmall number of such notices being issued.

4 Formalenforcement

A ban on side waste is in place and legally enforced and ‘top-hatting’ /‘crocodile lids’ is not allowed. The same cautionary procedures are


59

policy inplace andrigorouslyenforced

adopted as in 2 and 3 above, although there is evidence of a highnumber of Section 80 (accumulations of household refuse in back yards)and Section 46 (householder non-compliant with Council’s wastecollection arrangements) notices issued to non-compliant households.Enforcement is taken very seriously by the council.

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

Demographics

A large amount of elderly people living in the District (very high levels of +75s).

Emphasis has been on simplicity and coverage at the kerbside.

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

Household numbers(000s)

33 34 34 34 34 34 36 36

Averagepersons/household

2.39 2.38 2.37 2.36 2.35 2.33 2.25 2.24

Total population 78.9 80.3 80.1 80.5 80.5 80.5 81.1 80.5

Number of new-buildproperties

106 184 223 126 169 237 475 n/a

Looking ahead

Residual tonnages will decrease (AWC and recycling).

Garden waste will increase – more customers.


60

1.10 Case study 10: Milton Keynes Council


Milton Keynes is a unitary authority serving a resident population of 228,400, covering an area of76,297 acres. The number of households in the borough was 98,106 in 2008, the majority (74%)of which are owner occupied. There is a projected rise in Milton Keynes population to 266,930 by2015. The Office for National Statistics estimates 16.3% of the population in 2005 was fromblack and minority ethnic groups.

Milton Keynes is still expanding with people generally moving there for work (not to retire) and assuch it is a vibrant area with people having disposable income that can lead to higher thanaverage waste production.


Present at meeting: Adam Read from AEA met with two representatives from Milton KeynesCouncil waste department: Gill King, Waste Strategy Officer and Chris Harbutle, WasteInformation Officer.

Householders are offered a refuse bag residual waste collection, a weekly boundary recyclingservice and a chargeable fortnightly garden waste collection from March through to November.There are two container types for collecting recyclable materials, a pink sack and a blue box. Inthe pink sack residents should place their paper and cardboard, cans, plastic bottles and foil –these are sorted at the local MRF. The blue box is for glass bottles and jars. A green gardenwaste bin is provided to all of the residents who want to participate in the charged service. Nonew customers are being accepted in early 2009 for this chargeable service, because a new foodand garden waste service will be rolled out across the borough in two phases for all residents bythe end of the summer of 2009.

They sell home composting units with free delivery to residents to encourage composting athome – these are at a reduced rate.

Recycling is complemented through a network of 11 bring sites and three household wasterecycling centres (HWRCs). Trade waste is also accepted at all three HWRCs. In 2005-06 theCouncil introduced a recycling incentive scheme for operatives at the HWRCs to increase thepercentage of materials recycled.

For households the Council operates a continuous communication campaign to promoterecycling, however in 2006-07 the intensity of the communication campaign was increased. Thecommunication campaign does not involve door knocking. The council also offers a weekly cashincentive where by two households picked at random can win £100 if they are recycling correctly.

In 2005-06 the Council introduced a separate food waste collection into 1% of households – thiswas part of a trial scheme.

Bulky waste collections are free in an attempt to offset fly tip clean-up costs. However, they haveintroduced a £30 (now £40) cost if you want a fixed item such as a whole bathroom suite orkitchen cabinets removed (this is for trade customers really).

Summary of waste trends

There has been a general increase of waste arisings over the period (from 95,000 tpa to 120,000tpa). There has also been a significant increase in recycling tonnage over this period (12,000 tpato 42,000 tpa).


61


0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

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

Year

To

nn

es

TOTAL DISPOSAL

TOTAL RECYCLED

TOTAL ARISING


0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

160,000

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

Year

To

nn

es TOTAL DISPOSAL

TOTAL RECYCLED

TOTAL ARISING

TOTAL MSW

MSW arisings have increased over the period.

Waste policy mapping No wheeled bins have been introduced for residual waste collections.

In 2002/03 the kerbside recycling collection scheme changed from alternate to weeklybut since then there have been no major changes to the basic waste infrastructure orservice delivery that are likely to have impacted upon waste growth.

In 2003/04 a chargeable (£10 per household per year) fortnightly scheme was introducedbetween March and November. This scheme covered 22% of households. In 2004/05the charge increased to £12 and the percentage of households on the scheme increased


62

to 25%. In 2005/06 the price increased to £13 with 30% of households on scheme and in2006/07 the price increased to £15 with 31% of households on the scheme.

In 2005/06 there was the introduction of food waste collection to 1% of households.

In 2005/06 there was the introduction of a recycling incentive scheme for operators atHWRCs.

In 2004/05 a charge was introduced for the collection of bulky wastes.

In 2005/06 there was a major promotion of reusable nappies that included cash back,which was taken up by only 130 residents.

1.10.3 Summary of causal factors

Key findings MSW growth has exceeded household growth.

In 2008 they are predicting a decrease in total MSW, even though the number ofhouseholds continues to grow.

135,000 tpa of MSW will drop to 130,000 (2008 predictions), which the Council has putdown to the economic downturn. This is the first time the Council has seen a reduction intotal tonnage.

CA sites have seen a decrease in hardcore (less DIY).

Charity shops are busy – people looking for bargains.

Population increase is slowing and waste production per head / household is nowdeclining. Latest statistics show that total household arisings fell by 3.56% in 2007/08.

Waste data reporting Milton Keynes has improved their data collection to meet reporting needs.

Discrepancies have been found in the last 6 months regarding how their two contractorsare reporting the data, WRG for the disposal contract and Cory for the collection andtransfer contract. The discrepancies are from data classification errors where the driversof vehicles are not correctly describing the waste they are carrying, so flytipping, streetcleansing and some trade are all being declared as “dayworks” to WRG. Cory in theirinternal reports is then logging them differently.

The Council is also investigating whether Cory have been putting trade waste into thegeneral refuse lorries over the last 2 years, which would effect waste tonnages.

There is a difficulty in classifying the type of material that is collected, because many ofthe Council’s vehicles have a number of purposes depending on the day of the week (i.e.fly tipping, bulky, street sweepings).

An example being that in one year bulky waste decreased from 400tpa to only 100tpa,yet in the following year it went up to 600tpa. This difference in tonnages is due to whichvehicles are collecting this material and what it is classified as.

Another example of changing waste classification is hardcore that was going to makeroads on landfill sites and was classified as reuse, however as WasteDataFlow would notallow this classification it was changed to landfilled material, however it is back to beingcalled material diverted from landfill

As the Council try to improve the quality of data they are identifying gaps.

MKC recommend that we use total MSW as the key indicator, as this will allow fordiscrepancies in categorisation.

Economic/Retailer Impact


63

In 2006 MSW growth was significant and this has been attributed to the IKEA affect – anumber of large retail stores opened in MKC and people were able to completelyredecorate their house for a smaller than normal budget – led to lots of furniture /equipment being thrown out.

Leaky Boundaries Milton Keynes Council is a net importer of waste. MKC does not have restrictions on

usage like a number of neighbouring counties. Bedfordshire County Council limited tradevehicle usage in 2005 and Buckinghamshire County Council and NorthamptonshireCounty Council have also experimented with restrictions – this has led to material flowinginto MKC (affects data).

CA site operator incentive scheme This scheme was started in about 2006. Targeting wood and hardcore materials. The

figures / tonnage shot up as the operator was encouraged to segregate this material,however much of this is believed to be from ‘trade’ with the operators more interested inthe money than the good practice.

CA sites are paid a re-use incentive for the number of items (different classes dependingon size) that are re-used – avoids weighing everything and lengthy paperwork. However,this is not an easily recordable measurable.

CA sites are considered the operational weakness, being addressed in current contractdesign & procurement.

Garden waste MKC has had a garden waste collection for along time, so there will be no impact on the

data in question. In other authorities (and when the scheme was set up in MKC) thesystem would have brought new material to the system and therefore an increase intonnage.

Changing outlets In 2007 the wood waste outlet was closed by the Environment Agency, which took

treated wood from MKC. However, the new outlet that MKC used did not take treatedwood, leading to a drop overnight in the waste recycled from 6,000tpa to 3,000tpa.

Weather If it is a dry summer then green waste tonnage drops off (less growth).

As green waste is a significant percentage of total MSW it has a big impact.

In wet years tonnage goes up. However, if it is too wet (this year) then gardeners can’tget out doing the pruning etc. so it waits until March (2009) and so the tonnage movesyear.



64

Practice

Maturity Scale

Definition














3 Formalenforcementpolicy in

A ban on side waste is in place and legally enforced although some ‘top-hatting’ / ‘crocodile lids’ are allowed. The above measures are alsoadopted (as in 2 above) and following a number of cautions the


65

place householder will be issued with a fixed penalty notice. Evidence of a smallnumber of such notices being issued.




Demographics

It is estimated that the population in Milton Keynes will increase by 38,000 by 2015.

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

Household numbers(000s)

~82 88 89 90 91 93 95 97


2.49 2.48 2.47 2.47 2.46 2.44 2.34 2.32

Total population 204,180 211,017 213,247 215,180 217,042 219,709 223,072 224,880


n/a n/a 1,331 1,096 1,086 1,425 2,142 n/a

Other Thoughts

Would be interesting to see how different ACORN groups change their waste productionduring the credit crunch.

The food waste scheme was altered in April 2008 so that the area of the trial that wasrecycling food waste only was converted to food and garden waste combined. This willhave increased the average weights collected.


66

1.11 Case Study 11: Basildon District Council


Basildon District Council is a Collection Authority that serves a resident population of 165,668.The largest resident populations are predominantly in the three main towns of Billericay, Basildonand Wickford.

Basildon has the highest population in Essex and covers some 42.5 square miles. There are72,192 houses in the District, of which 12,120 are owned by the Council and 7,793 RegisteredSocial Landlords. This makes Basildon District Council one of the largest housing authorities inEngland, outside major cities.

Ethnic minority groups account for 3.1% of the population.


Present at meeting: Andy Maunder from AEA met with: Stuart Noyce, Refuse and RecyclingManager; and James Hendry, Waste Management Officer.

Residents are provided with a weekly, black sack collection for residual waste; a fortnightly, pinksack recycling service for dry recyclables and a box for glass; and a fortnightly 240litre green binfor garden waste.

Since 2003/04 the council has provided a free bulky waste collection service for up to five itemsat any one time. Uptake is high with some 30,000 items collected a year.

The Council has provided free home composting bins to over 100 residents in 2005/06 and afurther 1,263 WRAP subsidised bins were purchased the following year.

Communications and promotional initiatives have included door knocking low recyclingperforming estates and districts, participation monitoring and in 06/07 the introduction of Section46 EPA enforcement to 1,100 properties. A fixed penalty notice of £75 was introduced forpersistent offenders and recycling tonnages showed a small increase.

The council provides a trade waste collection to just over a quarter of Basildon’s commercial andindustrial businesses (857 of the 3,379). This is co-mingled with the household waste collectionservice so calculations for the trade waste element are based upon prescribed formulae relatingto sizes of bin and collection frequency. A recycling collection for commercial glass has alsorecently been introduced.

Basildon is part of the Essex Waste Partnership that is in the process of procuring a long-termwaste management contract. The service will include a (kitchen caddy) food waste collection, co-mingled with garden waste, for processing by an anaerobic digestion facility.


67



0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

80,000

90,000

100,000

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

Year

To

nn

es

TOTAL DISPOSAL

TOTAL RECYCLED

TOTAL ARISING


0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

80,000

90,000

100,000

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

Year

To

nn

es

TOTAL DISPOSAL

TOTAL ARISING

TOTAL MSW

Waste policy mapping In 2000/01 the District introduced an opt-in clear sack scheme for garden waste for 33%

of households. In 2001/02 this was followed up with a trial of wheeled bins for garden

In 2003/04, 2004/05, 2005/06, 2006/07 theDistrict extended the mixed dry recyclablescheme

Glass introduced torecycling scheme


68

waste for a route with 1530 households. In 2002/03 the opt-in garden waste collectionscheme was offered to 45,000 properties. The following year there was a change fromclear bags to biodegradable cornstarch bags. In 2006/07 the District trialled a wheeledbin garden waste collection scheme in an area that had not received garden wastecollections previously. There were 12,000 (17%) households trialled on this scheme.

2003/04 – a mixed material recycling trial was introduced to 12,000 (17%) households.Half the households in the trial area were provided with bags and the other half weregiven boxes. This was an extension to the kerbside paper collection scheme that alreadyexisted. In 2004/05 the bag scheme for dry recyclables was extended to 60% ofhouseholds. In addition a kerbside glass collection was introduced to 14,000 housesusing a 55 litre container. In 2005/06 the scheme was expanded to 80% of householdsfor both dry recyclables and glass. In 2006/07 the amount of plastic collected wasincreased by introducing a new estate onto the scheme, which increased the coverage ofthe scheme to 92%.

2003/04 - Charges of £6 for special collections (5 bulky items) suspended.

2005/06 - Three bring sites closed due to low usage.

2005/06 – 1000+ free home composting units distributed in 05/06 and in 2006/07 anadditional 1263 were delivered and purchased.

In 2004/05 door knocking was carried out for one low performing estate – 933households. In 2005/06 there was participation monitoring in Northlands Park, which is alow performing area of the district. In 2006/07 three low performing areas were targetedprior to introduction of Section 46 EPA enforcement in one of the areas.

In 2006/07 Section 46 of EPA was enforced, 1100 properties. This resulted in recyclingtonnages increased by 5 tonnes on average.

In 2006/07 fines were introduced for incorrect use of refuse/recycling sacks, a fixedpenalty notice of £75 for persistent offenders.

2008/09 - The Council has determined that residents do not want any form of AlternateWeek Collection (AWC) service in future waste management service provision.

Waste arisings observations Overall household waste arisings have remained reasonably constant at around 90,000

tonnes p.a.

Expansion of the dry recyclables service has resulted in increased collection tonnagesand a corresponding fall in waste for disposal.

Since April 2002 garden waste collections have remained remarkably constant at around4,500 tonnes p.a. despite several different collection receptacles being trialled.




69

Practice

Maturity Scale

Definition







The respondent classified their communications activities as ‘4/5 – Co-ordinated/ Evaluated’






A ban on side is in place but not rigorously enforced. Publicising thepolicy is confined to resident information leaflets, the use of bin stickersalerting the residents to the policy and waste collection operativesleaving waste in situ. No penalty notices have been issued althoughcautions have been periodically been made.



4 Formalenforcement

A ban on side waste is in place and legally enforced and ‘top-hatting’ /‘crocodile lids’ is not allowed. The same cautionary procedures are


70

policy inplace andrigorouslyenforced

adopted as in 2 and 3 above, although there is evidence of a highnumber of Section 80 (accumulations of household refuse in back yards)and Section 46 (householder non-compliant with Council’s wastecollection arrangements) notices issued to non-compliant households.Enforcement is taken very seriously by the council.


The Council currently has a 'collect all that is put out' policy across the district, as long as it is putout on the correct day at the correct collection point. However, they have introduced Section 46enforcement in two areas, with populations of roughly 1000.

Demographics Household numbers are increasing while household sizes are decreasing:

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

Householdnumbers (000s)

68 69 70 71 71 73 73 73.5


2.39 2.38 2.37 2.36 2.35 2.30 2.29 2.29

Total population 164.9 165.9 166.7 166.6 167.3 168 167 168.6

Waste Trend

Overall household waste arisings have remained relatively stable with increases inrecycling accounting for corresponding reductions in waste for disposal.

Modest growth in household numbers and total population has not manifested itself in acorresponding increase in waste arisings indicating the waste produced per householdand per capita is gradually falling.

Data Reporting

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


71

1.12 Case study 12: Gateshead Metropolitan Borough Council


Gateshead is a unitary authority, covering 14,360 hectares (55 square miles), with over half thearea being rural. The urban areas of Gateshead, Felling, Dunston, Blaydon and the ruralsettlements of Whickham and Ryton. The population of 190,500 residents (mid year 2007), ismainly white (98.4%) and lives in 91,500 households of, which 66.1% are owner occupied. Theaverage household size is 2.1 persons. The population is relatively stable.

The area has suffered from the decline of traditional industries. Nearly half the population lives inthe top 20% most deprived area in England, making Gateshead the 26

thmost deprived local

authority out of 354 in England. There is a growing population of older people. There is a small,but growing population of black Asian and minority ethnic communities and a large OrthodoxJewish community representing 2.6% of the population.

Gateshead is a major retail centre for the north, with the Metro Centre and also has the TeamValley Trading Estate, one of the largest purpose-built commercial estates. Gateshead isredeveloping into a focus for arts and culture through the development of the Gateshead Quayscultural quarter with the Baltic Centre for Contemporary Art and the Sage Gateshead, a centre formusic and the performing arts.

It is predicted that there will be a net increase in the number of new homes being constructed peryear until at least 2015-16.


Present at meeting: 2 representatives of the waste department, including the senior waste andcontracts manager.

Residual waste is collected on a weekly basis in 240l wheeled bins. A “no side waste” policyoperates, which is waived over the Xmas period. Larger households (6+) are eligible for a 360lbin.

Enforcement of the side waste policy is used if persuasion and communications are unable toencourage recycling and compliance. If side waste is left out in the street, the rubbish is searchedto establish where it came from (name and address). A letter is sent inviting the resident to comein for an interview to explain, if they cannot give a justified reason a fixed penalty notice of £50 isissued. A total of 98 fixed penalty notices have been issued over since 2006.

The fortnightly Kerb-It recycling service comprises a 55 litre black box for glass, paper and cans.Side waste is accepted, if segregated. There is 100% coverage of all non-high rise homes. Highrise blocks are provided with recycling collection points either at the main entrances or in the binstore alongside the general rubbish bins.

The free Green-it garden waste collection in green 240 litre bins operates to 60-65% ofhouseholds. This occurs fortnightly at the same time as the Kerb it collection, reducing to monthlycollections in winter.

Home composting bins are sold at the standard WRAP rates (100-300 per year) - 9-10,000 weresold in a major initiative in 1998 in one month. Compost bins were subsidized until March 2007.

Xmas cards are collected for recycling at council offices and libraries; 40 x 55l boxes of cardswere collected for the Woodland Trust in 2007.There is no local real nappy scheme.

The recycling service is extended by 35-40 bring sites that are slowly increasing in number.Plastic bottle banks were introduced at 18 sites in February 2008. The bring sites arecomplimented by 42 on-street recycling bins.

Gateshead has 2 HWRC sites; one is at Blaydon and a second is situated in Sunderland atCampground in Wrekenton. This site is shared with Sunderland Council. Wastes arising andrecyclables are divided 30% Sunderland: 70% Gateshead according to results of 2 surveys ofpostcodes of users. There is a “no trade waste” policy, with permits required for vans, pickups


72

and trailers. Large vans / lorries over 5 metres in length, agricultural vehicles and trailers greaterthan 3 metres in height are not permitted for H&S reasons. SITA have the contract to operate theHWRCs and also the waste disposal contract. The HWRCS are only closed on Xmas Day, andare open 8am-5pm (winter) and 8am-8pm (summer).

Bulky waste is collected for a £5 charge for up to 8 items. Larger items e.g. dismantled shed,fencing and rubble will be removed after a visit by an officer to give a quote for the removal.Gateshead MBC are trying to work with a local furniture reuse organisation (Renew) whorefurbish white goods, by delivering up to 300 units per year. Renew also collect from theHWRCs. Bulky waste is also diverted to Foundation Furniture who supply reusable furniture tothose on low incomes.

Construction and demolition waste was removed from the non-household figures in 2003-4following consultation with Defra, resulting in the reduction of approx, 75,000t of waste, asdiscussed later in this document.

The trade waste service was sold in 2005 following a best value review in 2000, reducing MSWby 5-10,000 tonnes. Gateshead uses a standard weight for bins from mixed hereditament, andcalculates the weight of household waste. This was reviewed 3-4 years ago.

Since 2006, the council has developed a communications plan, prior to that this communicationsand awareness raising was ad hoc. The most cheap and effective measure has been the use ofstickers on bins to remind householders not to put items in the bin, but to recycle them. Thisincreased kerbside participation by 10-15% 2-3 years ago. Radio advertising has been found tobe expensive with no obvious benefit. Up to date recycling performance figures are listed on thecouncil website.

The waste team has a regular feature in the Council newsletter for all residents, and also a freecalendar. Periodic emails about recycling are sent out to all council staff (10,500 employees, ofwhich up to 70% are on email). This happens 2-3 times year e.g. for recycling week, Xmas etcwhile presentations are given to community groups and schools.



0

20000

40000

60000

80000

100000

120000

2000-

01

2001-

02

2002-

03

2003-

04

2004-

05

2005-

06

2006-

07

2007-

08

Year

To

nn

es

/p

a

HWRC /Bring organics

HWRC/ Bring dry recyclables


Kerbside collected dry recyclables


Other household sources*


Introduction of control measures(Waste permit system) at HWRCsand enhanced recycling andcomposting performance (includingthe introduction of Green-it collectionscheme).


73

Total non-household and MSW arisings

0

50000

100000

150000

200000

250000

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

Year

To

nn

es

/p

a Total disposal

Total recycled

Total arisings

Total MSW


0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

70000

80000

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

Year

To

nn

es

Total Disposal

Total Recycled

Total Arisings

Total MSW

Removal of construction anddemolition waste from theMSW


74


0

20000

40000

60000

80000

100000

120000

140000

160000

180000

200000

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

Year

To

nn

es

/p

a Total disposal

Total recycled

Total arisings

Total MSW

Waste policy mapping 1996 introduction of 240 litre wheeled bins, with a “no side waste policy”.

1998 major initiative to sell home composting bins amounts to sales of 9-10,000 units.

2004-5 introduction of fortnightly Kerb-it recycling collection using a 55 litre box for paper,cans, glass with 100% coverage to all non-high rise households.

2003-04 removal of construction and demolition wastes from total MSW followingconsultation with Defra.

2005 introduction of free Green-it kerbside collection of green waste to 60-65% ofhouseholds.

2005 sale of trade waste service reducing total MSW by 5-10,000tonnes per annum.

2005 introduction of permit scheme at HWRCs introduced, resulting in an immediatereduction in waste arisings by up to 8000 tonnes.

2006 development of Communications Plan for the waste service.

2007 end of provision of subsidized compost bins.

2007 provision of recycling facilities at 34 high rise blocks.

2007 collection of Xmas cards for Woodland Trust at council buildings.

2007 introduction of fee for bulky waste collection service.

2008 installation of 42 on-street recycling bins.

Waste arisings observations The historic waste data showing the total waste arisings increasing steadily to

approximately 70,000 tonnes in 1999-00.

Since 2005-06 the total household waste arisings have stabilised at approximately100,000 tonnes. Previous to this the arisings were showing a steady increase.

The reduction in household waste going for disposal mirrors the increase in the dryrecyclables and green waste collected at the kerbside and HWRCs. The impact of theintroduction of the Kerb-it and Green-it schemes are clearly visible in the waste returns.


75

The introduction of the HWRC permit scheme resulted in a drop in residual waste of 8000tonnes in 2004-05 which has been maintained.

The removal of construction and demolition waste from the MSW in 2003-4 lead to adramatic reduction in the total MSW of approximately 75,000 tonnes.

The sale of the trade waste service in 2002 following a Best Value review in 2000, led toa reduction in waste arisings of approximately 8 -10,000 tonnes.

The introduction of the Green-it scheme has reduced the quantities of green wastecollected at the HWRCs.


Key respondent considerations Future plans to continue waste reduction and less waste going to landfill, include the

provision of a third wheeled bin for dry recyclables. The introduction of alternate weeklycollections may also be considered in the future. At the present time there is no intentionto collect food waste, though this will be reviewed against performance in recyclingtargets.

The introduction of waste recycling facilities at high rise blocks was done with fullconsultation of residents regarding location etc, and has resulted in very little vandalism.

There is confidence in the waste data from 1996 to 2000.

Key findings The introduction of the Green-it scheme has reduced the use of the HWRCs for green

waste as the public use the home collection service

The introduction of the permit scheme at HWRCs has reduced the levels of trade wastebeing disposed of illegally at these sites. This waste may be travelling across theauthority boundary to Sunderland and Tyneside where a permit scheme does not exist.There has not been an increase in the levels of trade waste collection by the privatewaste sector.

The commercial waste service used to receive 60-65% of all commercial and industrialwaste for the area. It was sold off to Biffa in 2005, and this led to a reduction in MSW of5-10,000 tonnes.

Removal of C&D waste from non-household MSW statistics gives an apparent steepdecline in total MSW.

The introduction of charging for the bulky waste collection led to a reduction in thenumber of jobs logged (from 100,000 to 25,000) however the quantity of waste hasremained about the same, with more waste per collection, an average of 40-60 kg.Collections take longer to do and the number carried out per day has reduced from 45 to40.

Communications are now according to a delivery plan rather than on an ad hoc basis.



76

Practice

Maturity Scale

Definition








Gateshead used to include construction and demolition waste produced by the DSO inthe MSW figures (approx 70,000 t/yr). Following receipt of clarification from Defra, thiswaste is no longer included, giving huge reductions in total waste arisings in 2003-4. Thiswas because it was directly related to labour organisation operations.

The light weighting of packaging has reduced the weight of dry recyclables.

The staff are keen to increase the levels of waste recycled in the district in the mostpractical manner. As 5% of the population lives in high rise blocks, recycling facilitieshave been provided at 34 of the high rise blocks. On-street recycling bins have also beenintroduced.



77











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

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

kg/head(BVPI84) 535.7 534.9 541.62 531.64 540.11 525.79 521.4 514.4

Demographics Household numbers are increasing (190,500 2007-8) whilst the size of households is

declining. There is an annual net increase in the number of new properties built each year, after

taking into consideration those lost through demolition. There has been a net outflow of population 2006-07 of 0.3%

2000-

01

2001-

02

2002-

03

2003-

04

2004-

05

2005-

06

2006-

07

1. Household numbers (000s) 84 84 85 85 85 86 912. Average persons /household 2.34 2.32 2.31 2.30 2.29 2.26 2.1

6. Total population (000s) 191.2 190.9 190.7 190.4 190.4 190.5Number of properties for socialhousing 34 12 79 59 89 36 59

Net new build * 378 146 578 832 412 337 472


78

1.13 Case study 13: Wakefield Council


Wakefield Council is a Unitary Authority that covers some 350 square kilometres and is home to321,000 people in a diverse range of city, urban and rural communities, in an amalgam of whatwere previously 14 different local authorities. There are approximately 145,000 households withan average household size of 2.31 persons.

The northwest includes Horbury, Ossett, Wrenthorpe, Stanley and Altofts, while Normanton,Castleford, Pontefract, Knottingley, Featherstone and a host of smaller settlements make up thefive towns. In the southeast, there are the towns of Hemsworth, South Kirkby and South Elmsallas well as other communities.

Some 70% of the rural communities of the district are designated as green belt.

The district has emerged from over a century of reliance on coal mining to become a thrivingmanufacturing, shopping and distribution centre, taking full advantage of its place at the heart ofthe region's transport network.


Present at meeting: Andy Maunder from AEA met with: Jay Smith, Waste Minimisation andRecycling Officer; Glynn Humphries, Waste Services Manger; Steve Sharp, Data PerformanceAnalysis; Claire Hawxwell, Waste Services Finance Manager; and John Lawson, HouseholdWaste Recycling Centre Manager.

Wakefield is in the process of procuring a new long-term waste management contract. Thewaste management officers have therefore invested significant time and effort into investigationsof historic waste trends given the importance of waste growth to future infrastructure capacityrequirements. This has included detailed examination of collection round data for individualmaterial streams and, for example, the consideration of the impacts of weather (temperature andrainfall) on green waste arisings.

In terms of service provision Wakefield residents have been provided with a 240litre residualwaste bin since 1994 and from 2002/03 a kerbside recycling bin and separate garden waste binwere gradually introduced. In November 2007 a swift, four-phased roll out of a switch to anAlternate Week Collection service was initiated.

The trade waste collection service accounts for about 12-15% of the total MSW airings and apaper recycling service has recently been introduced to a small number of businesses. Thecommercial waste collected is kept separate from domestic waste.

Multi-occupancy dwellings are typically serviced by Eurobin facilities and seven HWRCs areavailable to Wakefield residents only (following domestic permitting arrangements put in place in2003).


79



0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

160,000

180,000

200,000

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

Year

To

nn

es

TOTAL DISPOSAL

TOTAL RECYCLED

TOTAL ARISING


0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

160,000

180,000

200,000

220,000

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

Year

To

nn

es

TOTAL DISPOSAL

TOTAL RECYCLED

TOTAL ARISING

TOTAL MSW

Waste policy mapping In 2002/03 the Council provided 24,000 (43.5%) of properties with 240litre wheeled bins

for paper and card on a monthly collection, 24,000 properties with 55 litre box and 12,000properties were supplied with a plastic sack both of which were collected fortnightly.

Domestic permittingintroduced at HWRCs

Introduction of dryrecyclable and greenwaste collectionsschemes

Introduction of AWC11 month trial


80

In 2004/05 60,000 properties were provided with a 140 litre bin for paper and card on amonthly collection. The 12, 000 households that were using a plastic sack for paperrecycling had their sack replaced by this new bin.

In 2002/03 36,000 properties were supplied with a 240 litre bin for garden waste only.This was a non-chargeable service and the bins were collected fortnightly in the spring,summer and autumn and 6 weekly in the winter. Average participation was 80% insummer and 25% in winter.

In 2006/07 12,000 properties were supplied with a chipped 240 litre bin for garden wasteonly.

In 2005/06 an additional 5 bring sites in Wakefield and a further 5 sites in 2006/07.

In 2006/07 a chargeable service was introduced for bulky waste after the first threecollections, which are free. Compositing units sold at cost from 2002/03, with around20,000 distributed to date.

In 2005/06, 3 doorsteppers visited 30,000 properties that resulted in recycling ratesincreasing by an average of 10%.

2007/08 – Introduction of the AWC service from Nov 07 over the next 11 months.

Waste arisings observations The Council Officers have been maintaining and analysing detailed records of waste

management performance for a number of years. An example of performanceassessment against monthly targets is shown below for total household waste tonnages.

The most significant change to waste management service provision in Wakefield inrecent years (the change to AWC) has only been in operation since Nov 07 and wasphased in over 11 months. Initial assessment suggests an appreciable increase inrecycling participation and capture rate, a ~13% fall in waste to landfill and a 3%reduction in overall tonnages.



81

The respondent classified their communications activities between 5 Evaluated and 6 Optimised









4 Formalenforcementpolicy inplace and

A ban on side waste is in place and legally enforced and ‘top-hatting’ /‘crocodile lids’ is not allowed. The same cautionary procedures are adoptedas in 2 and 3 above, although there is evidence of a high number of Section80 (accumulations of household refuse in back yards) and Section 46

Practice

Maturity Scale

Definition








82

rigorouslyenforced

(householder non-compliant with Council’s waste collection arrangements)notices issued to non-compliant households. Enforcement is taken veryseriously by the council.



DemographicsIn general household numbers are increasing while household sizes are decreasing as illustratedin the Table below. However there is also recent anecdotal evidence to suggest that somesmaller (e.g. 2 bedroom) properties, e.g. flats, are becoming increasingly populated by larger,economic migrant, families.

The Regional Spatial Strategy forecast 1,600 new build properties in 08/09 but this figure willneed to be downgraded significantly as a result of the current economic climate.

2000-

01

2001-

02

2002-

03

2003-

04

2004-

05

2005-

06

2006-

07

2007-

08


131 132 134 135 136 139 142 144


2.38 2.36 2.35 2.34 2.34 2.31 2.25 2.22


Number of new-build properties

1097 1283 1136 972 1024 1020 1208 n/a

Reductions in Waste Domestic permitting arrangements at HWRCs were introduced in 2003 and reduced the

throughput at those sites, demonstrating the historic use of those facilities by non-Wakefield residents.

Impacts of the recently introduced AWC are currently being recorded but initial evidencesuggests it may have helped reduce overall household waste, as illustrated in the graphbelow.


83

Household Waste - Average Kg per Household per Collection 2008/9 - All NWC

Depots

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

April May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan

Month 2008 / 2009

Kg

Household Waste

Target - 19 kg

Overall Average17.7 kg

Increases in Waste Primary factors for increases in waste arisings have been the increasing population and

number of households and also the expansion of the green waste collection service.

Data Reporting Confidence in the data is good and regular analysis is conducted to assess performance

of the current infrastructure and service.

For example, investigations of potential impacts of weather (temperature and rainfall) ongreen waste arisings have been conducted, as shown in the following graph.

Garden Waste and Climate - 2004 Onwards

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Tem

pc

/R

ain

fall

cm

/T

on

nag

ex

100

TEMP

RAINFALL

TONNES x 100


84

1.14 Case study 14: Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council


Sandwell MBC has a population of around 287,500 (2007 mid year estimate) and just over121,000 households (with 5,000 vacant dwellings). This comprises six main population centreshowever a quarter of the population lives in West Bromwich.

It is an area of high deprivation, ranking 14th

highest out of 354 English districts in the 2007 Indexof Multiple Deprivation, with a number of regeneration initiatives underway. Owner occupiedhousing is around 60%.

Sandwell has a high urban density and is often compared demographically to some of the Englishnorthern authorities and inner London Borough Councils. There has been a steady annualincrease in the proportion of the population that is of Black and Minority Ethnic origin from 20.4%in 2001/02 to 22.6% in 2006/07.

Politically Sandwell MBC is a Labour controlled council (surrounded by a multitude ofConservative authorities).


Present at meeting: Andy Maunder from AEA met with Julia Bridgett, Waste Disposal Manager;Mark Gidden, Waste Performance Officer; Alex Hawley, Research & Information Manager, JasonCopp, Senior Research Officer.

Sandwell is one of the few remaining authorities in the UK that still operates a ‘back door dustbincollection service’ for 90litre bins. A kerbside recycling service (sack collection of paper, cansand textiles) was introduced to the area in the 1990s through the involvement of the communitygroup Community Recycling Venture – a company limited by guarantee. CRV currently servicessome 68,000 properties (20,000 still using a sack but the other 48,000 use a box).

In 2003/04 Defra funding assisted in the role out of a 55litre box for paper, glass and cans toaround 22,000 properties. The kerbside recycling service has more recently expanded to includetwo collection rounds (~15,000 properties) using a 240litre blue bin accepting five materials.

Current kerbside recycling service is therefore available to some 105,000 properties.

A free green garden waste kerbside collection was introduced to 30,000 properties, covering thesix major urban centres, in 2005/06. This fortnightly 240litre bin collection was then expanded toa further 70,000 properties in 2007/08.

There are four collection rounds servicing ~3,000 commercial contracts, that operate in isolationof the household waste service, which collect a total of ~13,000 tonnes of residual C&I tradewaste. However this figure includes an estimated ~1,500 tonnes of schools waste which is thenaccounted for in the household waste data.

Sandwell is in the process of procuring a new 25 year integrated waste & cleansing servicescontract (to begin in 2010). The future service will include a separate food waste collection(allowing continued use of open windrow composting for separate green waste collection) andenergy recovery from residual waste through a partnership agreement with Staffordshire’s EfWPFI contract.


85



0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

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

Year

To

nn

es TOTAL DISPOSAL

TOTAL RECYCLED

TOTAL ARISING


0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

160,000

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

Year

To

nn

es

TOTAL DISPOSAL

TOTAL RECYCLED

TOTAL ARISING

TOTAL MSW

Strict new trade waste policyintroduced at HWRCs

Introduction of gardenwaste collections

Garden waste serviceexpanded

Strict non-tradewaste policyimplemented


86

Waste policy mapping 2004/05 - Recycling incentives trialled including ‘lottery style’ prize draw.

2005/06 - Strict non-trade waste policies implemented under the new HWRC contract(with ECT Recycling; now May Gurney) as well as the introduction of a booking systemfor vans / cars with trailers.

2005/06 - Charging was brought in for bulky waste collections.

2005/06 - A fortnightly 240litre bin for garden waste (only) introduced to 30,000properties.

2006/07 - By the end of 2006 over 7,000 new compost bins had been distributedcompared to 400 the previous year.

2006/07 - Promotional campaigns supporting Real Nappy use instigated.

2007/08 - The fortnightly garden waste collection was expanded to a further 70,000properties.

2008/09 - Recently commissioned (MORI) surveys have shown residents’ preferredkerbside waste collection service should involve a maximum of 3 receptacles.

2008/09 - The Council has determined that residents do not want any form of AlternateWeek Collection (AWC) service or ‘chipped’ bins in future waste management serviceprovision.

2008/09 – introduction of a trial collection service of co-mingled recyclables on afortnightly basis from 15,000 households

Waste arisings observations Sandwell shows a general decline in MSW arisings with a small increase in 2007/08

when the kerbside green waste service was expanded to the majority of households.

Current modelling assumptions by consultants from SLR for Sandwell of 1.13% wastegrowth appear to be overstated in light of waste trend data and will need revisiting.


Reductions in Waste Major decrease in HWRC tonnage in 2005/06 and subsequent years due to the effect of

strict non-trade waste policies under the new HWRC contract as well as the introductionof a booking system for vans and cars with trailers:

o 2004/05 HWRC throughput was ~42,500 tonnes (site was built in 1984 for18,000 tonnes p.a. capacity!) and the recycling rate was only 10-13%

o 2007/08 HWRC throughput now ~21,500 tonnes with ~50% recyclingo Dec 06 MEL compositional analysis report supplied.o 50% recycling

Over 2,200 tonnes of bulky waste was collected in 2004/05. Charging was brought in forbulky waste collections in 2005/06 and tonnages fell to 1,449 tonnes and in 2006/07 only788 tonnes was collected.

WRAP Home composting bin campaign initiated Jan 06; over 7,000 new bins distributedcompared to ~400 in 2005. (Data provided)

Increases in Waste The provision of a fortnightly 240litre bin for garden waste (only) to 30,000 properties in

2005/06 increased the garden waste tonnage to 5,132 compared to 1,164 the previousyear (when only a small number of garden waste collections were made through a freebagged collection service).


87

In 2007/08 the fortnightly garden waste collection was expanded to a further 70,000properties creating a further rise in reported waste arisings.


Practice

Maturity Scale

Definition







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






3 Formalenforcementpolicy in

A ban on side waste is in place and legally enforced although some ‘top-hatting’ / ‘crocodile lids’ are allowed. The above measures are also adopted(as in 2 above) and following a number of cautions the householder will be


88

place issued with a fixed penalty notice. Evidence of a small number of suchnotices being issued.



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


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

Household numbers 118,334 117,001 117,904 118,545 119,512 120,619 121,253


2.41 2.44 2.42 2.42 2.40 2.38 2.37

Total population 284,600 285,000 285,700 286,400 287,100 287,600 287,500


465 528 891 863 909 864 n/a


89

1.15 Case study 15: London Borough of Sutton


The London Borough of Sutton is a Unitary Authority that serves a resident population of some184,400 (2006). The Borough occupies a total land area of 4,385 hectares. Within Sutton itselfthere are sharp contrasts, with the affluent areas in the south of the borough (Sutton and Cheam)and amongst the most deprived in London in the north in areas such as Rosehill and St. Helier.

The resident population of the Borough is projected to increase by 3,256 (1.8%) over the next 10years. There were 79,175 households living with the Borough in 2006, with an expected increaseto 87,412 by 2016, which represents an increase of 6.6% over the 10-year period. The averagehousehold size is estimated to be 2.29 persons in 2006, with a predicted decrease in the next 10-years to 2.19 persons per household by 2016.

Approximately 55,430 (72.6% of the Borough’s households are owner occupied, 11,682 (15.3%)households live in the social rented sector and 9,247 (12.1%) live in private rentedaccommodation. An increasing number of people are living in flats. The Borough is expectingethnic minorities to grow from 11% in 2008 to 20% by 2020.


Present at meeting: Adam Read from AEA met with two representatives from the wastedepartment: Matt Clubb, Head of Waste Management and Fleet Services; and Penny Spirling,Recycling Manager.

The Council offers a weekly 140-litre brown-wheeled bin service for the collection of householdresidual waste, a fortnightly green-wheeled (140l or 240l) bin collection for recyclables and a freefortnightly collection service for green waste from April to December. The Council provides achargeable bulky waste collection service and, since 2008, has had a ‘no side waste’ policy.

In the green wheeled bin households can recycle all paper, cardboard, cans and plastic bottles.All houses and some flats also receive a fortnightly kerbside glass bottle and jar recyclingcollection. Residents can recycle brown, green and clear glass bottles and jars in the specialplastic blue bins, which are supplied free of charge to each household.

Garden waste collection can be placed into two reusable (120 litre) sacks and residents can alsopurchase extra biodegradable sacks (non-returnable) if required for £1 each.

WRAP has helped support the Council to provide free home composting units to all households.For more then one home composting unit the household is required to pay the subsidised priceon £17 for 220 litre bin or £20 for 330 litre bin. Kitchen caddies are also available at £4 each forstoring vegetable waste before taking to your composter.

In support of the kerbside schemes the Council also has one HWRC (re-use and recyclingcentre) and 38 bring sites. The HWRC accepts fridges and freezers free of charge, which areremoved from the site by ARC Croydon (a local charity) and this tonnage does not show on thedata. Since 2006 trade waste has not been accepted at the site. A change of contractor at thesite in 2009 has increased the recycling rate dramatically from around 30% to over 70%,Changes to opening hours may come later with the site reopening on Mondays, which has nothappened for the last 7 years. The site was closed on Mondays to save money and also to allowmaintenance to the previous site when operational changes from using compactors to tipping onthe floor were introduced.


90



0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

80,000

90,000

100,000

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

Year

To

nn

es TOTAL DISPOSAL

TOTAL RECYCLED

TOTAL ARISING

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

Non household waste and MSW arisings

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

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

Year

To

nn

es

TOTAL DISPOSAL

TOTAL RECYCLED

TOTAL ARISING

TOTAL MSW



91

Wheeled bins were introduced across the borough from 1997 to 2000 for the collection ofresidual waste. Originally this was an alternate weekly collection, but it reverted toweekly waste and fortnightly recycling in January 2001 because of residents’ dislike ofthe new frequency and a problem with contamination of the green recycling bin byresidents disposing of their food waste along with their dry recyclables.

All households going onto wheeled bins were offered a free home composter from 1997-2001.

In 2003/04 textiles were excluded from the green wheeled bin because they were gettingtoo wet from the remains of liquids in plastic bottles that were among the dry recyclables.All 64,000 households were covered by this textile and shoe ban.

In 1997/8 a kerbside garden waste collection was introduced to replace occasional skipservice for garden and bulky household waste. The service is offered to all householdswith gardens and also to some flats where residents have individual gardens. Freeunlimited reusable sacks (120 litres each) were provided. In June to September 2008 theborough experimented with a charged service but residents did not like it and followingconsultation in September the service reverted from April 2009 to being a free service,but with households limited to 2 x reusable (120 litre) sacks and able to purchase extrabiodegradable sacks (non-returnable).

In 2006/07 Sutton was part of a three-borough WRAP trial for food waste. SuttonBorough made the collections for Sutton, Merton and Croydon. The trial was for a total of7,000 households with Sutton collecting food waste from 2,500 households. WRAPprovided the bins and caddies. The Sutton trial is continuing. A report can be found athttp://www.wrap.org.uk/local_authorities/research_guidance/food_waste/lb_sutton.html

In 2006/07 a new re-use and recycled centre opened with an emphasis on greaterrecycling.

In 2006/07 a programme of bank recycling was introduced for blocks of flats.

In 2000/01 bulky waste was collected free of charge for up to three items. This changedin 2002/03 with a charge being introduced of £10 for up to three items. In 2007/08individual changes were introduced for bulky waste collections, with prices ranging from£4 to £20 per item.

In 2007/08 a cash back scheme was introduced for using reusable nappies.

In 2006/7 Sutton took part in Defra’s Household Incentive project, which involved doorknocking in the central Sutton ward (approx 2000 households). Volunteers were used tospread the recycling message.

In 2002/03 a 3-year communications project was started using an external PR company.The aim was to raise awareness to recycling and waste reduction, which involved visits toschools, leaflets, press releases and outdoor events.

In 2006/07 the borough worked more closely with local furniture and electrical re-usecharities: The Vine Project and The Arc, Croydon.

Waste arisings observations The data shows that total waste arisings have been fairly consistent throughout 2000/01-

2005/06, with a reduction in waste being seen in 2006/07 and latest data shows a fall of4.84% in total waste arisings for 2007/08. This reduction could be a result of a number ofinitiatives put in place by the Council:

Food waste trial

New re-use and recycling centre

Bank recycling for flats

The household incentive project

http://www.wrap.org.uk/local_authorities/research_guidance/food_waste/lb_sutton.html


92

Stopping trade waste at CA sites

It is also considered that the fall in waste tonnage over the last 12 months could be linkedto the economic climate.

Residual waste at the CA site is 11% down on this time last year (wheel bin MSW isdown by 7%).

Garden waste at kerbside down by 60% (some to CA site and some to homecomposting).


Waste Data The accuracy of waste tonnage data pre 2000 is questionable.

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

Practice

Maturity Scale

Definition








This categorisation would be true for the last year or two. For a couple of years, 2006-8 theCouncil felt they did not have an effective communications plan and prior to 2006, from 2003-2006 they had an external provider for a three year contract in place.


93











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

Demographics The population is expected to increase in the Borough by 1.8% by 2016, with a 6.6%

growth in household numbers, which will result in an increase in waste arisings for theBorough.

An increasing number of people are going to be living in flats has the potential to impacton waste arisings.

Ethnic minorities are expected to grow from 11% in 2008 to 20% by 2020 has thepotential to impact on waste arisings and waste composition.

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


75 76 77 78 78 79 78 79


2.39 2.38 2.37 2.36 2.35 2.34 2.36 2.34

Total population 179.3 181.5 181.8 182 181.9 183.1 184.4 184.4

Number of new-build properties

441 191 372 273 670 400 455 n/a

Communications / PR From 2003 to 2006 there was a large-scale communications programme, which did have

an impact but not really a significant tonnage difference seen.


94

However it was seen as important to raise public awareness. The communication programme was delivered in parallel with the wider GLA

communications campaign, to hopefully reinforce the message. Money has been spent on communications when rolling out AWC and food waste trial

schemes. This included personalized leaflets (staged attack) and community road showsto explain changes. A strong focus was on schools, with increased recycling servicesprovided in schools (at cost), which are below the cost of a commercial trade wastecollection – 90% take up.

South London Waste Partnership Residual waste contract starts in September 2009 (CA site contract in Feb 2009).

Overall waste tonnage in SLWP has been stable in last 12 months.

Introducing a permit scheme across the 4 boroughs with consistent opening times.

Waste Prevention Delivered 14,000 home compost units (free until end of March 2009).

Looking ahead Residual tonnages will decrease (stronger policies and enforcement).

Garden waste will increase – free bags all over again!


95

1.16 Case study 16: Birmingham City Council


Birmingham City Council is a Unitary Authority that serves a floating resident population of approx1million (from 900,000 one year to 1.1 million the next). The number of households inBirmingham is currently 421,000 (an average of 2.36 persons per household), with 65,000 newhouseholds planned for development in Birmingham over the next 10 years. The total landcoverage for Birmingham according to the latest census in 2001 is 267.8km

2.

The latest census recorded that 26.9% of the City’s population were from an ethnic group otherthan white, compared with 9.1% for England as a whole. The ‘white’ households are thought tobe shrinking in terms of their average persons per household, whilst Asian households aregrowing (extended families etc). Birmingham is expected to have a white minority by 2019, whichwill impact the waste production and composition.

In the next five years there is expected to be a shift in the type of housing tenure to more flats. Itis estimated that there is currently 60,000 to 80,000 flats in Birmingham, however a significantnumber are empty because of the current economic climate.


Present at meeting: Adam Read from AEA met with two representatives from the BirminghamCity Council waste department: Stuart Lattimer, Waste Management Contracts Manager and PhilBrook, Waste Minimisation Officer.

Household waste collection services comprises of a weekly black plastic sack residual wastecollection, a fortnightly co-mingled dry recycling collection in a green plastic box, a fortnightlypaper, card and junk mail only collection in a blue plastic box and a fortnightly garden wastecollection using green plastic sacks. The dry recycling service covered 90% of households in2007/08, with this increasing to 95% this year as they expand into flats. The recycling level hasincreased as the service has been rolled out since 2006 up from 18% to just over 30% this year.The garden waste collection covers 100% of households with gardens.

Subsidised home composting units were distributed to 8,000 units in 2006/07, with only 3,000being distributed in 2007/08 – a reflection of the increased cost of the units since WRAP stoppedfunding them (2007/08).

Recycling is complemented by the materials collected at the five household recycling centres(HRCs) in Birmingham, which are tasked with diverting a minimum of 55% of the materials fromthe sites. This has involved more staff on site, more monitoring of usage, and re-organisation ofsites to make dropping of materials easier. The reported satisfaction levels are 90%

A food waste collection scheme is being trialled at schools, but is not yet being considered forhouseholds because of the costs of implementing and operating this service.

Birmingham City Council does not operate a ‘side waste’ policy as all residual waste is collectedin sacks. However, in an attempt to restrict the number of sacks used the Council since 2006 isonly delivering a roll of 26 sacks every 6 months. It is possible though for residents to purchasesadditional sacks at a low price if they require more.

The waste minimisation schemes that are in place include a nappy library, where for £10 aresident can borrow some re-usable nappies and see how they work, or can get up to £30 offbuying real nappies. Also the Council work with the community sector (Ladywood FurnitureProject, Community Transport and Betel) on recovery of furniture.

The Council offers a commercial waste collection service to some 9,000 outlets including smallshops. There used to be more small contracts, as well as contracts with the airport and the threeuniversities, however these contracts were lost in 2002 and subsequently the tonnage of tradewaste has declined.


96



0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

350,000

400,000

450,000

500,000

550,000

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

Year

To

nn

es TOTAL DISPOSAL

TOTAL RECYCLED

TOTAL ARISING

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


0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

350,000

400,000

450,000

500,000

550,000

600,000

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

Year

To

nn

es

TOTAL DISPOSAL

TOTAL RECYCLED

TOTAL ARISING

TOTAL MSW



97

The service for residual waste collection has been a weekly black sack collectionthroughout the period in question and there has been no change in this service from2000 to 2007.

In 2005/06 a fortnightly free kerbside collection of co-mingled and a separate papercollection was introduced to 50% of households, with a green plastic box and a blueplastic box being provided. This service was extended to 75% of households in 2006/07.

In 2005/06 a fortnightly free kerbside collection of green waste was introduced to 10% ofhouseholds, with a green plastic sack being provided. This service was extended to 50%of households in 2006/07

Since 2000 subsidised home composting units have been provided to households at acharge of £10, in 2006/07 this charge was increased to £17.


Waste Data The latest data from 2007/08 shows the first reduction in overall household waste

arisings (3.42% reduction) since 2001/02.

Birmingham City Council predicts that approximately 10% of waste at CA site is trade andare looking to reduce this going forward – new campaigns and enforcement is planned.

Approx 10-15% of waste at CA site is thought to be from outside of Birmingham and theyare looking to target this also – looking at permits.

Compositional analysis data is available from the EfW and the transfer stations, but this islimited and could do with improving.

Demographics There has been an increase of 60,000 households in Birmingham since 1995 and there

are development plans for 65,000 new households over the next 10 years.

The number of people per households is decreasing in the white ethnic household withan increase in the size of Asian households.

In the next five years there is expected to be a shift in the type of housing tenure to flats.

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

Household numbers (000s) 386 391 395 397 399 407


2.43 2.41 2.40 2.39 2.38 2.36

Total population 985.1 984.6 988.9 991.6 995.5 1003.0 1006.5


1738 1845 2121 1720 1538 2774 1879

Communications Until 2006 there was very little done in the way of waste awareness and education.

In 2006 a communication plan was initiated due to WRAP funding and also because ofthe creation of a new job post.

The new communications (branding and media) was linked to the rollout of Birmingham’smulti-material recycling collection scheme and the roll out of garden waste collection.

Anecdotal discussions


98

In 1995/96 with the conversion from Building Societies to Banks the general public hadmore disposable income and so spent it and wasted more.

BCC predicts that next year as redundancy levels increase, people will spend theirseverance pay and waste arisings could go up again (expecting a decrease this year).

Birmingham City Council will save £1million this year on waste disposal costs as peopleare producing less waste.

Plans in 2009 Looking at a permit scheme for use of CA sites (households must provide proof of

residence).

They have been reviewing residual waste operations – usually 1 driver and 4 crew, butsince 2004/05 the volume of material has declined by 20% so now looking at ‘right sizing’crews to reflect the volume of material on their patch. Very little drop off in urban areas,but the suburban crews were 20% down on average.


99

1.17 Case study 17: Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council


Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council is a Waste Collection Authority that serves a residentpopulation of 113,900 (mid 2006 estimate). There are in excess of 46,000 households in theborough, of which 76% are owner occupied. The size of the borough is 24,013 hectares.

T&MBC is part of the Kent Waste Partnership, with Kent County Council having responsibility forWaste Disposal. A Local Area Agreement Target for 2010/11 sets the context for the collectionauthorities developing waste services and infrastructure.


Present at meeting: Andy Maunder from AEA met with: Michael Campbell-Lenaghan, WasteManagement Officer; Dennis Gardner, Waste & Street Scene Services Manager; and PhilBeddoes, Head of Waste and Streetscene Services.

Residual waste has been collected in 240 litre wheeled bins in Tonbridge and Malling since 1988and a green box for kerbside collection of dry recyclables (mixed papers and cans) has beenavailable to all residents since 1998. There is however no HWRC within the authority boundary.

Following a trial in 2000/01 an Alternate Week Collection service, including a green waste andcardboard collection, was gradually rolled out having secured unanimous Council Member buy-inand covered: 15% properties in 04/05, 45% by 05/06, 70% (06/07) and 95% by 07/08.

Bring site provision has been maintained with an expansion programme of about 2 sites perannum. In October 2006, 10 bring sites introduced a plastic bottle bank which has not beeneconomically advantageous but has been well received by residents.

A charged bulky waste collection service is available in addition to a free of charge Saturdaycollection.

No trade waste is collected by T&MBC.

The authority achieves near net self-sufficiency through the kerbside collected paper beingprocessed at Aylesford Newsprint, organics going to a local IVC facility and residual waste beingincinerated at Allington.

T&MBC expects to achieve a level of residual household waste per household (National Indicator191) of 582kg by the end of 2008/09 which is below the 2010/11 LAA target of 591kg.


100



0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

Quantity

(tonnes)

Quantity

(tonnes)

Quantity

(tonnes)

Quantity

(tonnes)

Quantity

(tonnes)

Quantity

(tonnes)

Quantity

(tonnes)

Quantity

(tonnes)

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

Year

To

nn

es TOTAL DISPOSAL

TOTAL RECYCLED

TOTAL ARISING


0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

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

Year

To

nn

es

TOTAL DISPOSAL

TOTAL RECYCLED

TOTAL ARISING

TOTAL MSW

Expansion of AWC scheme;increase predominantly fromgarden waste collection


101

Waste policy mapping The majority (97%) of households had wheeled bins for their residual waste pre 2000 and

all had a kerbside box for mixed papers and cans.

In 2000/01 a trial AWC green waste, cardboard and raw food waste collection wasintroduced to 1100 properties. Those not on the trial kept with having a weekly residualcollection and no green waste service.

In 2004/05 the trial was expanded to a further 6000 (15%) properties however food wastewas no longer included. Food waste was re-introduced in April 2006 as an In-vesselfacility, out of county, became available.

Scheme extended in 2005/06 to 45% of properties and again in 2006/07 to 70% ofproperties.

Since 2000/01 bring sites have been expanded across the Borough by two sites perannum and in 2006/07 plastic bottle banks were introduced at 10 sites.

Waste arisings observations Total household waste arisings have shown a gradual annual increase in line with the

increasing number of households and resident population.

Roll-out of the AWC has only increased dry recyclables capture by a few hundred tonesper annum however the garden waste collection has seen a massive increase: from 930t(04/05) to 4,200t (05/06), then 8,543t (06/07) and 10,673t (07/08).


Data Reporting

Data confidence is good with T&MBC maintaining detailed monthly records.

There is no HWRC with the authority boundary simplifying data calculations.

There is also no trade waste collection that again reduces the margin of error whencalculating municipal solid waste arisings.


Practice

Maturity Scale

Definition

1 Ad-hoc Communication is generally unplanned, reactive and disorganised. There is no overallresponsibility for communication, no strategy and little or no budget to enable effectivedelivery. Projects may run over budget and over schedule. Poor quality of materials.

2 Emerging Some communication, but it may be sporadic and delivered only when required. Theimportance of communication has been recognised, but strategy and processes arestill embryonic. Some resources have been allocated for the production of essentialmaterials. Responsibility for communication has been agreed.

3 Planned Communication activity is planned. Limited resources have been allocated for delivery.Responsibility has been assigned, but there is little or no measurement ofperformance.

4 Co-ordinated Delivery is regular and routine. A strategy has been developed to determine the bestway for the organisation to communicate and responsibility for its implementation isdefined. Resources are sufficient to cover the outputs recommended in the strategy.Materials are good quality, but have the potential to be more effective. There is someassessment of performance.

5 Evaluated There is commitment to the development and delivery of effective communication and


102

is measuring its success in order to get a better understanding of how it can improveperformance. Materials are well resourced delivered proficiently.

6 Optimised Effective communication is seen as vital and is integrated into all systems andprocesses. The link between the organisation’s strategic objectives and effectivecommunications is clear, delivery purposeful and proactive and the resourcesallocated reflect this. Strategy, delivery and support are reviewed and enhanced usingformal frameworks such as scrutiny, best value, continuous improvement and qualitymanagement systems.









A ban on side waste is in place and legally enforced although some ‘top-hatting’ /‘crocodile lids’ are allowed. The above measures are also adopted (as in 2 above)and following a number of cautions the householder will be issued with a fixedpenalty notice. Evidence of a small number of such notices being issued.


A ban on side waste is in place and legally enforced and ‘top-hatting’ / ‘crocodilelids’ is not allowed. The same cautionary procedures are adopted as in 2 and 3above, although there is evidence of a high number of Section 80 (accumulationsof household refuse in back yards) and Section 46 (householder non-compliantwith Council’s waste collection arrangements) notices issued to non-complianthouseholds. Enforcement is taken very seriously by the council.



103

Demographics

Household numbers and total population are both increasing creating an overall increasein waste arisings.

The average value for collected household waste per person has however remainedaround 455kg over the past 8 years despite the availability of a green waste collection inrecent years.

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

Household numbers 44,132 44,512 45,092 45,432 46,106 46,261 46,607 47,943


2.44 2.44 2.39 2.39 2.38 2.40 2.41 2.38

Total population(000s)

107.9 108.6 107.8 108.8 109.6 110.9 112.4 113.9

Collectedhousehold wasteper person (kg)

452 459 455 452 456 451 462 456

Increases in Arisings Expansion of the garden waste collection, as part of the AWC roll-out, has created a

significant rise in that particular material stream. Bring site capture rate for dry recyclables has shown a steady annual rise from 2,737

tonnes in 2000/01 to over 5,000 tonnes in 2007/08.

Reductions in Arisings AWC roll-out has reduced the level of residual household waste collected – broadly in

line with the increase recorded in green waste collection.


104

1.18 Case Study 18: Somerset County Council


In the 2001 census the population of the Somerset County Council area was 498,093 withpopulation growth higher than the national average, the County has recorded a 6.4% increasesince 1991, and a 17% increase since 1981. The population density is 1.4 persons per hectare,which can be compared to 2.07 persons per hectare for the South West region. It is a largely ruralarea. Within the County, population density ranges 0.5 in West Somerset to 2.2 persons perhectare in Taunton Deane. The proportion of the population who are economically active is higherthan the regional and national average, and the unemployment rate is lower than the regional andnational average.

The Somerset Waste Partnership manages waste services on behalf of the districts of Mendip,Sedgemoor, South Somerset, West Somerset, Taunton Deane Borough Council and SomersetCounty Council. About 300,000 tonnes of municipal waste is currently handled by SWP. Thispartnership arrangement has resulted in progressively integrated policies towards wastecollection and recycling across the County. As it is a predominantly rural area, this policy hasresulted in cost-savings through the joint-running of collections and sharing of depots/ infra-structure.

Currently the recycling rate for the County is 50.9%, the highest of all English counties in2007/08. Three of the districts have reported amongst the lowest residual waste per household in2007/08: with South Somerset the second lowest (361 kg / household /year) and Taunton Deanethe fourth (375 kg / household /year). Mendip received 12

thposition in the ranking (446 kg

/household / year). The County is also the first to publish an ‘end use register’ for theconsignment of all recycled materials combined with an account of the carbon offset value ofeach material recycled.

1.18.2 Waste collection arrangements and policy development

Present at meeting: Julian Parfitt met with: David Mansell, Strategy & Communications TeamLeader; John Helps, Performance Officer. A separate interview was carried out with Chris Jonas,Regional Manager for Contracts at Viridor Waste Management.

As a result of partnership working, a single client team has been established with all wastefunctions delegated to it, including a single collection contract. The current contractors are Viridor(landfill, composting, operation of 18 HWRCs and haulage) and May Gurney (kerbside recycling,refuse and garden waste with some commercial collections).

The first policy measure to note was the introduction of a new regime at HWRCs, introduced from2001/02. Two main policies were introduced: the combating of trade waste abuse and incentivesfor HWRC staff to recycle more. With the letting of a new contract in 2002/03, these policies werefurther strengthened. These actions led to a significant fall in residual waste at HWRCs that inturn contributed to a significant fall in total municipal (and household) waste across the Countybetween 2001/02 and 2003/04. Across the 18 HWRCs within the SWP area the averagerecycling rate for 2007/08 was 71%.

On the kerbside collections side, Somerset’s SORT IT! collections were introduced in October2004 and rolled out in phases and expanded to cover over 160,000 households throughoutMendip, South Somerset and Taunton Deane in 2006. SORT IT! provides householders with anintegrated package of waste collection services, which includes:

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_Census_2001

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_growth

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_density

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hectare

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_West_England

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Somerset

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taunton_Deane


105

The scheme was supported through £6m funded from Defra’s Waste Minimisation and RecyclingFund. The integrated service package was designed following an options appraisal exercise inwhich different combinations of collection frequencies and policies towards food and gardenwaste collections were assessed in relation to affordability and overall recycling performance.

The advantages of the chosen system are clearly stated in SWP’s SORT IT! information pack: fortnightly refuse collections with wheeled bins helps to restrict the amount of refuse put

out and so encourages recycling and composting, especially through more frequentweekly recycling and food waste services;

fortnightly refuse collections reduces costs compared to a weekly refuse service; separate collections for food waste clearly targets this material, compared to alternative

options where it is collected mixed with garden waste; collecting garden waste separately, rather than mixed with food waste, allows garden

waste to be processed at a lower cost in windrows, rather than in-vessel to food wastestandards;

weekly food waste collections makes fortnightly refuse collections more acceptable; charging for garden waste collections encourages home composting and avoids the

increase in waste arisings and high costs associated with free garden waste collections; fees for garden waste collections helps to reduce net costs.

Somerset Waste Partnership have been careful to control collected household waste through thedesign of AWC systems for refuse, with appropriate apportionment of containment capacitiesbetween weekly recycling and AWC refuse. 3 of 5 SWP districts (about 70% of households) arenow served by SORT IT! In South Somerset and Taunton Deane, which were previously on blacksack collections, households have been issued with 180 litre refuse bins as standard. Althoughhouseholds in these districts receive less residual capacity than the more widely issued 240 litrebin, SWP see this ‘restriction’ more along the lines of a ‘capacity exchange’. Because Mendipalready used 240-litre wheeled bins for refuse collections before the introduction of SORT IT!, ithas allowed an inadvertent demonstration of the impact of extra kerbside residual waste capacityon recycling performance. The extra residual capacity is associated with lower overall recyclingrates in Mendip for 2007/08 (45%) compared with South Somerset and Taunton Deane (bothclose to 50%).

The householder receives more recycling capacity through the weekly collections of food and dryrecyclables in exchange for less available capacity on the refuse collection system. The effectivecombined weekly capacity of recycling and refuse systems is 210 litres.

Garden waste collections have been charged, with promoting of home composting as the bestenvironmental option for garden waste. Residents can pay an annual fee for the use of a wheeledbin and/or purchase compostable paper sacks for garden waste collections. Annual fees for binsare £15 in Taunton Deane and £25 in Mendip and South Somerset. Sacks are sold in packs of 10for £5 in Taunton Deane and £7.50 in Mendip and South Somerset. Collections are fortnightly onalternate cycles to refuse.

SWP authorities have the following service rules to:• only collect accepted materials on recycling collections.• not to collect contaminated food or garden waste bins on composting collections.• not to collect excess refuse with sack collections or side waste alongside wheeled bins.• collect wheeled bins with lids closed (no crocodile lids).• discourage garden waste from being put out with refuse for disposal and only accept smallquantities.• only accept small quantities of rubble or bulky waste with refuse.

On the enforcement of SORT IT! collections, SWP has largely tried to adopt a common-senseapproach. Contamination, the setting out of non-target materials and side/excess waste shouldnot be accepted by crews and they are instructed to attach labels or stickers to inform residentsof the problem and to provide a contact number for further advice. In some cases, 'excess waste'stickers are issued to allow people to clear their excess problem and give them advice on how toavoid the problem in future (including in few cases, sorting through refuse bins to advise


106

householders on what can be recycled). Although South Somerset and Taunton Deane have 180litre refuse bins as standard, larger or additional refuse bins are permitted if genuinely requiredand if households are also making full use of kerbside recycling services available to them.

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


SWP hold extensive datasets that they have used to analyse trends and inform their wastecollection and HWRC policies. The quality of the data is excellent. The charts below show thetonnages landfilled, recycled or composted by the Somerset Waste partnership between 1995and 2009.

Over the last 6 years, waste per household (kg/household/year) has fallen significantly, fromnearly 1,400 kg per household to under 1,200 kg. Part of this was due to the drop in 'persons perhousehold'. Beyond this demographic driver, analysis of the trends within individual Districts andbetween HWRCs and collected streams demonstrate some clear impacts of changes in Councils'services and policies: HWRC controls and the introduction of SORT IT! Best estimates suggestthat the current underlying trend (i.e. excluding impacts of further changes to policy/service) isthat waste per household is stable.

1.18.4 Changes in composition and arisings following introduction of SORT IT!

The SWP case study is unusual in that compositional datasets have been used to interpret theimpacts of collection system changes on different waste fractions, as well as on overall arisings.This has provided SWP with an important evidence base that demonstrates the causal linksbetween household waste compositional changes and collection system characteristics.

A comprehensive four season waste composition study was undertaken in 2002/03 across all 5districts. Refuse collections and residual skips at HWRCs were sampled and sorted into separatewaste fractions. A smaller single season study was undertaken in the spring of 2006, includingareas served by SORT IT! The 2006 study suggested that the SORT IT! service had affectedSomerset’s waste composition, reducing some materials and shifting others from kerbsidecollections to HWRCs. Actual total arisings data confirmed that SORT IT! districts have WCAarisings that are 15% lower (by 137 kg/household /year) in total than districts that currentlycontinue to provide fortnightly recycling collections and weekly refuse collections. Up to about35% of this appears to have been diverted from kerbside and led to slightly higher arisings atHWRCs in SORT IT! districts.

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


107

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

1.18.5 Conclusions

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

TOTAL WEIGHT OF MATERIALS RECYCLED, COMPOSTED & LANDFILLED IN SOMERSET1995/96 TO 2008/09

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

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

Th

ousa

nds

WE

IGH

T(T

ON

NE

S)

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


108

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

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

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

Tho

usan

ds

WE

IGH

T(T

ON

NE

S)

HWRC Recycling HWRC Composting HWRC Landfilled HWRC Total Arisings

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

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

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

Tho

usan

ds

WE

IGH

T(T

ON

NE

S)

WCA Recycled - Banks & 3rd Parties WCA Recycled - Dry Kerbside WCA Composted - FW Kerbside WCA Composted - GW Kerbside

WCA Composted - Street Sweepings WCA Landfilled WCA Total Arisings


109

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

WE

IGH

T(K

G/H

H/Y

R)


106

Household waste trends 2001/02 to 2007/08 across Somerset districts: kg per household per year

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

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

HWRC Contract and combattingtrade waste abuse

Separate Garden Wastecollections begin in SedgemoorDC and West Somerset DC, withGW excluded from refuse

Additional HighbridgeHWRC site opens

New PriorswoodHWRC site opens

Knock-on impact of SORT IT! binrestriction: with AWC refuse

SORT IT! bin restriction and food waste reduction inMendip DC, South Somerset DC and TauntonDeane BC


1.19 Case study 19: Stirling Council


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


Present at meeting: three representatives from waste department, including head of wasteservices and someone with responsibility for waste data reporting, 2 representatives fromeconomic development and planning.

Householders are offered a comprehensive waste collection service, comprising a fortnightly 240litre grey wheeled bin for residual waste, a brown 240 litre bin for garden waste (includingcardboard and collected free of charge) and a weekly kerbside box for paper, glass, cans, textilesand plastic bottles. The residual waste is alternated with the garden/cardboard waste collections.Kerbside vehicles are equipped with 9 separate stillages. The Council is currently piloting a threemonth food waste collection to 900 households with the collected material being taken to an IVCat Forth, West Lothian. Over the next 12 months the pilot will be rolled to the majority of the40,000 households within the Stirling Council area.

The recycling of TetraPak is another trial in operation. This however, is a very light material andwill not produce large tonnages of recyclables. It is high volume waste and therefore more difficultto add to their kerbside recycling operations.

Discounted compost bins are offered to residents via the WRAP scheme while a householder canarrange for the collection of bulky items at a cost of £25 plus VAT. A total of 8941 units havebeen issued in the past three years through the WRAP scheme. Prior to this date a further 3000were distributed to residents. This equates to approximately 10,000 home composting units beingissued in total.

They are also trialling the use of a dirty MRF for the Residual Waste accepted at the LowerPolmaise HWRC. Over the first three months this has achieved a 50% recycling of that material.This may be retained as a permanent feature, with similar materials being processed from theirthree rural HWRC locations. It is also possible that consideration may be given to streetsweepers tonnages in the future.

Recycling is complemented through a network of 36 bring sites and 4 HWRCs. Of the 4 HWRCs,one has a 10,000 tonne capacity whilst the remaining three have small throughputs. They havealready converted two of their sites into larger and more modern HWRC facilities at LowerPolmaise, near Stirling and Balfron. Their Callander site is also due for refurbishment in the nextyear. Commercial waste can be disposed of at the Lower Polmaise Transfer Station bypurchasing a Tip Permit at Viewforth reception. Each permit entitles the holder to dispose of up tohalf a tonne: Mixed Waste Permit £39.37 (up to 500kg); Green Waste Permit £24.09 (up to500kg) - NB: this service is for low volume producers and vehicle size is limited. Disposal chargeshave not risen this year.

The council offers a commercial waste collection service through wheeled bins and sacks. Thereis no commercial waste recycling service.

The Council enforces a strict excess waste enforcement policy. Frequently, excess waste resultswhen people do not recycle as much as possible. When excess waste is identified, StirlingCouncil Waste Services has three steps to deal with it:


White Sticker on the bin; advice about waste reduction and recycling

Yellow Warning Sticker on the bin; bin not lifted ; continued advice

Second Yellow Warning Sticker; Bin not lifted; continued advice and potential fixedpenalty

Over the past year, the Waste Services has successfully rolled out excess waste enforcementcampaigns across the area. Excess waste has dropped from 10% to less than 1% after only afew weeks in the enforcement areas. Ongoing campaigns and continued monitoring are planned.



0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

2000-

01

2001-

02

2002-

03

2003-

04

2004-

05

2005-

06

2006-

07

2007-

08

Year

To

nn

es TOTAL DISPOSAL

TOTAL RECYCLED

TOTAL ARISING


0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

70000

80000

90000

2000-

01

2001-

02

2002-

03

2003-

04

2004-

05

2005-

06

2006-

07

2007-

08

Year

To

nn

es

Total non-hhld disposal

Total non-hhld recycled

Total arising

Total MSW

Introduction of AWCs 2003/04 to 2004/05

Rigorous enforcement of side waste ban

Reconfiguration ofcommercial wasteservices


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

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

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

Year

To

nn

es TOTAL DISPOSAL

TOTAL RECYCLED

TOTAL ARISING

Waste policy mapping The original provision of wheeled bins included 360-Ltr units (Introduced in 1992).

2000/01 – 4 CA sites and 39 bring sites, charged for "Special Uplifts" (except for OAPsand UB40 Holders) and offered subsidised compost bins with advice and support.

2001/02 – a dry recyclable kerbside collection pilot. The service was offered to 11,000houses with over 45% “Opting In” which meant 13% of all households initially used theKerbside Recycling Service. A further bring site was introduced, bring the total to 40.

2002/03 - Introduced a 2nd bin for Category E Clinical Waste (120/240-ltrs - byApplication), out of 12,000 houses offered the kerbside recycling service, over 60%“Opted In” thus joining the household kerbside dry recycling collection representing 19%of all housing, a ban on side waste was introduced, and employed full time School WasteEducation Officer.

2003/04 - reduced residual waste collection frequency to fortnightly, as kerbside recyclingand garden collections rolled out, started the "Roll-out of the kerbside Recycling Servicein Sept 03 (Weekly collection) and no longer was an "Opt-In" scheme, introduced a "Pilot"fortnightly garden waste collection scheme, then started roll-out later in 2003, bring sitesreduced to 37, singled out special uplifts from domestic collection routes to deliver a boxvan collection with separation.

2004/05 - started to phase out the use of 660 & 1100 litre residual waste bins for blocksof houses, smaller rural areas added to existing kerbside dry recyclable collectionrounds, continued roll-out of fortnightly collections for residual waste andgarden/cardboard, bring site network reduced to 36 sites, fridges uplifted free whilst bulkywaste still charged for.

2005/06 - changed the qualification for a 360-Ltr Bin (6 residents now required), otherrural areas added to dry recyclables kerbside weekly collections, bring site networkmaintained at 36 sites, 4635 home composters, sold or issued free, prior to 31/03/06 (themajority were sold at discounted rates), from June 2005 free reusable nappies weremade available to householders although no data was available on numbers.

2006/07 - reduced the capacity of bins for category E clinical waste (Only 120-Ltr Binsissued), no change in kerbside / AWC arrangements or coverage, proposing to introducea separate food waste collection in spring 2009, started in late 2007 not to uplift excessrefuse, and enforcement of regulation, started converting the Lower Polmaise CA site in2007, into a HWRC, 36 Bring Sites – changed from 1100-Ltr Bins to 1,500 and 2,500-LtrBell Banks for Glass & Cans - more of the sites had Textile Banks added, box vans now


allowed to deposit materials in HWRC to maximise recycling recovery, 2557 Composterssold or issued Free (the majority were sold at discounted rates), availability of free CastleCompost, implementation of side waste and bin lids down enforcement campaign, finesintroduced on side waste in 2008, plan to build a re-use centre in the summer of 2009.

Waste arisings observations

Household waste arisings (from both HWRCs and the kerbside) averaged a stable 48 –50,000 tonnes pa.

Household collected residual waste continued to increase until 2003, and then reduceddramatically between 2004/05 and 2005/06 following the introduction of AWCs. As onewould expect, this reduction was off-set by a significant increase in the amount of dryrecyclables and green waste collected. Interestingly, over this period bring site tonnagesreduced and HWRC dry recyclable tonnages conversely increased.

Collectively, however, the overall household waste tonnages have reduced from 53,195tonnes in 2004/05 to 47,970 in 2007/08.

Commercial residual waste increased from 15,789 tonnes in 2000/01 to 34,913 tonnes in2002/03. It dramatically reduced to 10,903 tonnes in 2003/04 following thereconfiguration of waste services and increased commercial competition.

Commercial waste recycling tonnages have been maintained at a relatively stable levelalthough overall collected commercial waste has steadily declined since 2003/04.

Overall, these individual waste stream reductions have been instrumental in reducingMSW from a total of 61,958 tonnes in 2004/05 to 55,552 tonnes in 2007/08.


The commercial waste collection service is taken up by approximately 1100 of the 3100 rateablebusinesses in Stirling, although the service has suffered from a high level of competition from theprivate sector. There has been anecdotal evidence of unauthorised collections of trade wastewhich has attributed to high levels of growth up until 2002/03. Also prior to this date commercialwaste used to be commingled with domestic waste leading to data being estimated between thetwo waste streams. Now there are three crews servicing the commercial rounds using two RELvehicles, one of which operates day and back shifts.


Have been actively promoting the waste hierarchy to the public and within schools since 1996 ina comprehensive manner including: open days, exhibitions, schools competitions and visits andpromoting Community Waste Planning (CWP). CWP takes a measured approach in tacklingwaste challenges at a local level and raised awareness fully within communities. Wastecompositional analysis - measuring detailed bin contents and developing communications andcampaigns around this. Offering the public waste audits, particularly for householders whostruggle with the volume restrictions. Strict policy on volume restrictions for larger households.

Stirling Council has based future tonnages on an overall increase of only 0.5%, as opposed to alarger figure generally in use. In addition they have found that in reality their overall householdtonnages (landfill, recycling and composting combined) have, in fact, decreased in the last fewyears. However, their recycling and composting tonnages are increasing considerably, with thelandfill portion decreasing by an even greater figure. The respondent suggested that the onlyreason that they can put forward for this overall decrease is that the business sector has reducedthe packaging used for their produce, or products, and householders being more selective in theirshopping methods, thus reducing the waste household have for disposal.

Key findings MSW was increasing and is now decreasing despite population increases.

The Council takes the issue of waste growth very seriously and has taken a number ofmoves to actively reduce waste and manage it in an effective manner.

The current waste disposal fee is £67/tonne rising to £77/tonne in April 2009.


The meeting attendees all agreed that lifestyle changes and changes in productpackaging all have contributed to this change.

The introduction of AWCs (2003/04) has had a dramatic impact on increasing recyclinglevels and in reducing overall household waste arisings.

To complement this, the Council enforces a rigorous side waste enforcement procedureand has done so since 2005/06. Even wheeled bins that are overly full will not becollected. Continued non-conformance will lead to a £50 fixed penalty notice. In onehousing estate, Raploch, before the ‘Bins Lids Down’ initiative the yield was 0.58 tonnes /hhld and after the introduction of the policy the yields reduced to 0.55 tonnes / hhld (areduction of 36 tonnes – a 5% reduction). Interestingly, there was no noticeable increasein fly tipping (approx 22 incidents per month for the entire Stirling Council area) nor theamount of waste disposed of at the HWRCs.











Stirling Council classify their enforcement activities as ‘3 - Formal enforcement policy in place’(although they are close to being in scale ‘4 - Formal enforcement policy in place and rigorouslyenforced’).

Tourist numbers have been steady at approximately 4,300,000 pa. although it isanticipated that this number will increase as more people holiday in the UK during therecession and the Scottish Govt pledge to increase tourist numbers.

Small B&Bs generate waste that will enter the domestic residual waste stream.

Despite the introduction of trade waste controls at the HWRCs in 2002/03 (introducedpermit scheme and number plate recognition software) there was no dramatic drop inwaste arisings.

10% to 12% of MSW is commercial waste.

Communications and awareness raising has not influenced the decline in waste arisingsbut has instead acted to underpin the changes in waste policy measures. The Councilcontinues to undertake lots of waste education work at schools.


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

Practice

Maturity Scale

Definition




4 Co-ordinated

Delivery is regular and routine. A strategy has been developed to determinethe best way for the organisation to communicate and responsibility for itsimplementation is defined. Resources are sufficient to cover the outputsrecommended in the strategy. Materials are good quality, but have thepotential to be more effective. There is some assessment of performance.



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

Waste data reporting Waste data reporting has dramatically improved since the introduction of WDF. The

distinction between domestic and commercial tonnages has improved and in particularthe way in which the latter is reported.

Under MSW other commercial waste delivered to HWRCs reduced from 24,282 tonnes(2002/03) to 1,044 tonnes (2003/04). This was due to the fact that around that time theirroad’s section used that facility, as did other commercial sources, and the data may nothave been recorded quite as accurately as it now.

The pre 2003/04 data is a bit in doubt, as a lot of it was not readily available.

The 1995 - 2000 section is really estimates, as the data provides more totals -Household, Commercial (Including Non MSW Tonnages) and Other (respondent was notsure what "Other" meant back in the 90's.

There have been some weighbridge discrepancies whereby vehicles had inadvertentlynot used the weighbridge on entering a site. Recycling data is based on output tonnagesdelivered to reprocessors . Overall waste data has been of a reasonably good quality.


HWRC Waste was split on a percentage basis, Domestic v Commercial. They now onlypermit "Domestic" waste into those sites and as tonnages did not drop, the percentagesused would appear to have been inaccurate.

There was a change in data reporting when compared against the LAWAS – highwayswaste was included in the LAWAS survey whereas it is now not included in WDF asMSW.

Demographics

Household numbers are increasing while household sizes are decreasing – 39,001households in Dec 08, 86 – 87,000 residents.

2000-

01

2001-

02

2002-

03

2003-

04

2004-

05

2005-

06

2006-

07

1. Household numbers(000s) 35.5 36 36.5 36.7 37 37.2 37.32. Average persons /household 2.43 2.4 2.37 2.36 2.35 2.36 2.36

5. Total population (000s) 86,200 86,150 86,370 86,370 86,930 87,810 88,1906. Number of new-buildproperties 371 596 348 150 437 127 338

There are approximately 450 new build properties each year although there were only127 in 2005.

The Council has a structure plan of increasing the population to 100,000 people by 2025,with 500 new homes pa.

There is a resident student population of 9000, a proportion of which are in Halls. TheCouncil does not collect waste from these residencies.

Despite these demographic factors, waste arisings continue to decline.


1.20 Case study 20: Cardiff Council


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


Present at meeting: Two representatives from waste department; Jane Cherrington and AlanMcCoy.

Households: Weekly refuse collections, alternating fortnightly recycling (green sack one week,organics next)

Residual: Currently 70% on black wheeled bins, remainder on black sacks (mostly properties ininner city with access issues). In 2002 the service was black sack only. The first wheeled binswere rolled out as part of a trail of fortnightly residual collections (alternating with recycling theother week). In 2001/02 this trial was with 3000 households and 2002/03 expanded to cover20,000 households. Different bin sizes were on offer (120l, 240l and 360l). The trial did not havemuch in way of enforcement (e.g. of no side waste), which may be why in 2005/06 when apolitical decision was taken to stay with weekly residual collections for all there was noobservable increase in arisings from these properties. Now main bin size is 240l. No 360s (hadissues with bins coming off wagons). Some 140ls, where required e.g. for assisted collectionsfrom elderly or where there’re access issues.

In 2005/06, introduced front of property only collections policy and rolled out wheelie bins tomajority of the city (all bins were bar-coded). This did away with collections from back lanes(which are characteristic of city’s fabric). Reasons for this included health & safety issues withback lane collections and operational difficulties. The policy was not well received by the public,and there was substantial negative press about the issue. This is felt to have brought waste &recycling top of mind. Since then, a lot of work has gone in to promoting the scheme, and peopleare now ‘in favour of the bins’.

Recycling: Fortnightly collection in green sack. Co-mingled (takes glass, paper, plastics, cardand tin). In early days (2000-2002) the sacks were charged. Then, in 2001/02 with the trial to 3Khouseholds of AWC, they were free to them (but to remaining 60K still charged). And in 2002/03the AWC trial households (20K) received free collections (50K still on charged). Did also trialkerbside boxes in first year of trials (2001/02), but this wasn’t liked by public or operatives (wholike speed of sacks collection) so have stuck with sack as container.

Organics: Green wheeled bin collection system was introduced in 2005/06. (Since 2008 foodwaste can now also be taken, co-mingled with garden waste, in this container. The councilprovide an aerated kitchen caddy and biodegradable bags for this purpose).

Compost bins: Have subsidised compost bins since 2000.

Bring sites: 21 bring sites in total at present. Some expansion of bring sites network in 2005/06and 2006/07 but not substantial in impact. There used to be textile recycling banks in the city runand emptied by a commercial/charitable company but these are not well serviced. Alan estimatesthat all sites in the city not manned by the council are taking approximately 50 tonnes of clothesper annum.

HWRCs: 4 HWRCs, one of which is fairly new (2006/07). Some redevelopment of sites(improving recycling facilities, signage etc.) in 2003/04 and 2005/06. New one in 2006/07. Addedfacilities to segregate green waste to HWRCs in 2001/02. Van & trailer bans in operation atHWRCs. If operatives suspect someone of having commercial waste to dispose, they are turnedaway and redirected to the Lamby Way HWRC/Landfill, where they can be assessed & redirectedappropriately. No height restrictions or permit scheme in operation at the sites. Since 2007improvements have included on-going site operative training and in 2009 vehicle recognition wasintroduced.


Bulky: Conduct own bulky waste collections. No FRPs to redirect to, and no FRPs operating atHWRCs. Used to have a ‘partnership’ with Track 2000 but this soured when the company wouldcherry pick from waste at kerbside, leaving behind non-reusable items. Since 2005 and ODS regsseparate out these units, and are now doing WEEE too. Bulky waste collections are free tohouseholders; although fixtures & fittings (e.g. toilet, bath) are £6/item. Also used to offer a bulkygreen waste collection in summer (since 2004/05) which was free, but this has all but stoppednow (since everyone has a green bin). The council have, historically, also run ‘community skip’days, which are basically a free-for-all in which whole neighbourhoods can have clearouts andput the waste into skips (or now, rather than skips they use vans). There were attempts atsegregation for recycling, but these didn’t work. They tend to happen once or twice a year incertain wards. The waste department would like to phase these out, but there is political pressureto continue them and a cultural expectation in the communities which have experienced them inthe past that they will continue.

Education: Initial trials of AWC recycling were not very well promoted. Media coverage was alsonot positive. This created greater need for proactive engagement. Therefore a dedicated teamwas created to do this type of work. Doorstepping in trial areas took place, and the team hasremained, growing to 10 at present. Real nappies are promoted (but no incentive scheme;although investigating use of credit union plan to help in purchasing). The education team provideboth reactive and pro-active functions, responding to queries (by phone or, if necessary,conducting a house visit to those who may be struggling with the service). They also staffroadshows (conducting 4-5 in certain wards when, for example, new service rolled out). Alsodoor-knocking of key streets identified as problematic.

Enforcement: Council now has an enforcement team (was 4 in 2004, grown now to 17). Theyoperate alongside education team (working complementarily). They issue Fixed Penalty Notices(price of which is set by Welsh Assembly Government). In 2005 this was £50. Now it’s £75. Usethese to fine for things like: waste out on wrong day, small-scale fly-tipping. Use a three strikespolicy. Council now enforces a no side waste policy (since introduction of wheelie bins), and top-hatting is technically not allowed either (although this is less rigorously enforced – it is up tocrews to assess if genuinely overloaded). For bins that are overloaded, or contaminated, crewsare able to (a) leave sticker on the bin describing problem and (b) scan the bin’s bar-code and thehouseholder can then be sent a letter about the issue. The table below illustrates a set of criteriaagainst which we asked the Council to evaluate the level of enforcement imposed on thepresentation of side waste:





A ban on side is in place but not rigorously enforced. Publicising thepolicy is confined to resident information leaflets, the use of bin stickersalerting the residents to the policy and waste collection operatives leavingwaste in situ. No penalty notices have been issued although cautionshave been periodically been made.




A ban on side waste is in place and legally enforced and ‘top-hatting’ /‘crocodile lids’ is not allowed. The same cautionary procedures areadopted as in 2 and 3 above, although there is evidence of a highnumber of Section 80 (accumulations of household refuse in back yards)and Section 46 (householder non-compliant with Council’s wastecollection arrangements) notices issued to non-compliant households.Enforcement is taken very seriously by the council.

The respondent classified their enforcement activities as ‘3 – Formal enforcement policy inplace’. This policy has been developed over time and is enforced by collection crews andenforcement / education teams.


Non-household waste

Schools: The waste department provides 152 schools with a free recycling service, collected onsame rounds as domestic collections. It’s mostly paper. Council used to collect all schools waste,and charge accordingly, but with devolved budgets some schools have taken their waste to othercontractors. The waste department hopes to see a new procurement policy which will requireschools to use internal services.

Commercial waste: The proportion of MSW which is commercial was estimated until 2004/05 (at20% of MSW). Mostly this is dealt with by commercial waste contractors. It can also be disposedof at the Lamby Way Landfill site. In 2006 commercial recycling service started – using dedicatedcommercial recycling vehicles (hence, tonnage figures are available). Silt: In 2003/04 and2004/05 the council dredged a local lake (Roath’s Park Lake). The silt from this operation waslandfilled, and increased the total waste arisings by approximately 6,000 tonnes. There was somedebate about how it should be classified (as compostable or not). It currently sits (in ourspreadsheets) as included in the 13,757 figure for ‘kerbside collected green waste’ in 2003/04.

With regards to business premises, the authority only provides a service where the businessagrees to participate in recycling collections. Indeed, some of the authority’s contracts withbusinesses are for the collection of recycling only. Therefore where businesses are unable orunwilling to separate some of their waste for recycling, the authority will not provide the serviceand the business will need to arrange waste collections with the private sector.

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

Practice

Maturity Scale

Definition








The respondent classified their communications activities as ‘4 – Co-ordinated’. The authorityhas an education team which has been utilised to develop awareness amongst public regardingcollection of differing waste stream materials. The authority is currently seeking to integratecommunications activities with waste collection, street cleansing and enforcement operations, inorder to provide a broad approach to addressing waste awareness issues.

Summary of waste trends:

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

Due to inconsistent data reporting across the time series, it has been necessary to aggregatesome municipal waste streams in the above chart. In particular, separate tonnages havesometimes been stipulated for dry recycling from various sources (kerbside, HWRC, bring and/orCSO collections); whereas for other periods one or more of these streams has been included inanother dry recycling category. Therefore an overall tonnage for all dry recycling has beencalculated for the above chart.

Non-household tonnages have decreased significantly after 2005/06. This is primarily due to thereclassification of wastes that were previously considered to constitute municipal waste andsubsequently be regarded as being non-municipal wastes. In crude terms, the redefinitionclassifies municipal wastes as only those wastes which are collected by the authority’s collectionvehicles (or collection systems, where HWRC / bring etc are concerned) as part of normaloperational activities.


The main issue felt by Cardiff waste department to have impacted on changing figures is thereclassification of certain waste categories. In 2002/03 MSW figures had to include categorieslike parks, housing and highways wastes, then in 2005 these were taken out again.

Key findings

Major peak in MSW is probably due to classifications of waste as MSW, rather thanarisings per se

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

160,000

180,000

200,000

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

Kerbside residual Street sweepings, parks, clinical, MRF rejects

Dry recycling: KS, HWRC, Bring & CSO Kerbside GW

HWRC residual HWRC GW

Non-hh disposal Non-hh recycling

Reclassification of somecategories of waste as non-MSW

Inclusion of 6,000 tonnes ofsilt from dredging of local lake– classified at ‘compostable’


2005/06 saw introduction of current services 3 containers system for recyclate, residual &green waste (to which food waste has now been added for collection since 2008)

Waste data reporting

Commercial waste arisings were estimated at 20% of total MSW until 2003/04.

Since 2003, and introduction of WasteDataFlow, figures are likely to be more accurate

Changes in classification of wastes as MSW or not in various years will have createdimpression of increases & decreases that weren’t actually real.

Demographics

The number of households in Cardiff is higher now than census data suggests (Alanestimates 141,700 are receiving a service – he has counted the properties on a GISsystem, and also referred to the council’s rates database). The last figures on WDF arefrom 2004 and therefore also out of date (and are locked in, so cannot be changed).

Total population served is estimated at 330,000. Indeed, there is an on-going disputeabout whether or not the census data was ever actually accurate for Cardiff.

There is a large student population in Cardiff (circa 90,000).

There is also a micro-tourist base of people who attend large-scale events in the city,creating an impact on commercial waste operations and street cleansing (but notparticularly influencing pattern of MSW arisings)


1.21 Case study 21: Powys County Council


Powys is a very rural, upland county of 2,000 square miles, with a sparse population of 131,963in 55,600 households. The county includes the Brecon Beacons and Berwyn Mountains, and theUst, Wye and Severn river valleys. 89% of land is in agricultural use and 59% of the populationlives in isolated villages, hamlets and dwellings. There is a net inward migration due to theattraction of the area to urban migrants. The population is mainly white (99.3%).

The number of households has increased due to population growth and diminishing householdsize. Agriculture and tourism are important to the local economy. There is a high level of selfemployment and small businesses in the region, where the public sector is an importantemployer. Powys is host to the Gurkha barracks and Sunnybridge Army Camp.


Household waste is collected weekly in black sacks. Householders are provided with a roll of 52sacks, every year. In rural areas, point bins (central collection points) are used, which are sharedby at least 4-5 properties. These attract dumping.

Different dry recyclable collections have developed for different geographical areas. The serviceprovided by the DSO ranges from a kerbside box (glass, cans, cardboard, plastic) and a bag(paper) to a two bag collection which is provided to 45,000 households. The bag with red writingon it is for plastic bottles, cans, carrier bags and plastic film, and the bag with black writing in it isfor paper, textiles, light cardboard, handbags, belts and shoes. Glass is not accepted.

In some areas the 2 bag system also collects glass.

The third sector group, Cae Post, provides a 2 box kerbside collection service to 20,000households and also services many of the bring sites in N.Powys. The remaining (34%) ofhouseholds are provided with survival bags in 2005-06 a service which is unpopular due to localsuspicion that as they are collected with the general waste, materials are being landfilled ratherthan recycled. The survival bags are picked out at the Bryn Posteg MRF and transported to a sitein Lampeter for sorting.

A food waste collection service is provided to 10,300 homes in the Newtown, Welshpool andMontgomery area by third sector organization, Cwm Harry Land Trust, which is processed in ananaerobic digester operated by Greenfinch at Ludlow.

A paid green waste collection service is provided (90p a sack). Compost bins are sold from theHWRC sites for £10, or £15 delivered. 4,143 units have been sold since 2004-5. Green wasteskips are provided at most bring sites.

Real nappies are promoted, though an incentive scheme does not exist. A local third sectororganization also promotes real nappies in the district.

There are 6 HWRCs operating in Powys. The sites are privately owned and operated, by fouroperators (Brecon Recycling (1), JPR Recycling (1), Potters Recycling (3), and JLA Recycling (1).Traders registered with Powys Council as part of the Trade Recycling Permit Scheme are able totake recyclable materials to the sites for an annual fee of £186 per annum, Furniture and otherreusable items are accepted at the sites and either sold for profit, or to raise funds for localschools.

There are 72 community bring sites in Powys, (including 30 at schools collecting paper andcans). An “adopt- a –site” system operates where a community group looks after a site and keepsit tidy, in return for payment for wastes collected in recycling credits (£26/tonne for glass, paper,cardboard and a lower rate for textiles and green waste). This has introduced issues regardingtrade waste being permitted (e.g. glass from pubs), and the lack of support for kerbsidecollections due to loyalty to the community bring site.

Flytipping at bring sites has increased and fines are to be introduced.

The fee for the bulky waste service is £20 for 6 items, then £3 per additional item. Householderswith reusable items are directed to the Phoenix Community Furniture Scheme which operates in


Llandrindod and Newtown areas. Bulky waste tonnages are included in the regular householdcollection weights.

Commercial and domestic waste are collected together, and weights are based on commercialwaste =20%. The quantities of commercial waste have reduced due to falling numbers ofcustomers. Recycling of trade glass started in 2007.











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

Communications

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

The Council was also asked to complete a self assessment of the communications activity theyundertake. This has been adapted from a paper entitled ‘Strategic Communication Audits’ (JuliaCoffman, 2004) that aims to develop a better understanding of strategic communications auditsand the main steps involved.


The presents a scale (Practice Maturity Scale) which has been adapted for this project asdetailed below.

Practice

Maturity Scale

Definition







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





2000-1 Kerbside collection for dry recyclables introduced in Welshpool area and CA siteopens in Welshpool

2001-2 Kerbside collection for dry recyclables introduced in Newtown area, and CA sitesopen in Newtown and Llandegley

2002-3 Kerbside collection for dry recyclables introduced in Llandrindrod Wells, Brecon,Machynlleth, and Buith Wells and opening of CA sites in Ystradgynlais, Machynlleth.

2003-4 Kerbside collection for dry recyclables introduced in Ystradgynlais and SE Powysand start of paper sack collection of garden waste in Newtown, Welshpool and Brecon

2004-5 Opening of CA site in Brecon and promotion of compost bins

2005-6 Survival bag rounds introduced to 45,000 households in Radnorshire andMontgomeryshire, not covered by the existing schemes. A food waste collection is alsostarted to 10,300 homes provided by third sector group, Cwm Harry Land Trust

2007-8 introduction of recycling of glass from commercial waste customers


The total household waste arising have continued to increase.

The total household waste going for disposal has declined very slightly.

There has been a steady rise in the total amounts of recyclables collected at both thekerbside, and at the CA sites.

The amount of residual waste at HWRCs has increased (as the no. of sites hasincreased).

Use of the free kerbside collected green waste service increased until a fee wasintroduced in 2006-7. This coincides with an increase in the amount of green wastedeposited at the bring sites indicating a shift to using the more local sites.

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

80,000

90,000

100,000

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

Non-hh recycling

Non-hh disposal

HWRC GW

HWRC DRY

HWRC RES

BRING ORGANICS

BRING DRY

KS FW

KS GW

CSO

KS DRY

Street cleansing

KS RES


Bring organics includes approx 5,000t of leaves per annum collected by the council forcomposting.

Commercial waste has declined due to the decline in the local economy.

The bring sites appear to be as well supported as the CA sites. This is likely to reflect theimportance of the bring sites as a conduit for recycling in such a rural county where thedistances to CA sites may be prohibitive. It may also reflect the local support that existsfor using community adopted sites in preference to the CA sites as they benefit thecommunity.

The reuse of waste by the Phoenix Community Furniture Scheme has steadily increasedto 500 t/annum in 2006-7 compared to 205 t/annum in 2002-3.

Quantities of street cleansing waste are estimated.

Kerbside garden waste tonnages decreased after 2005/06 since the local authorityphased out the scheme due to cost pressures. The authority continues to offer residentsa charged collection for garden waste and materials thus collected are disposed.

RCV collected residual waste is apportioned to household and non-household sourceson the basis of an 80%:20% apportionment. This ratio was arrived at via a survey carriedout by the authority in 2007, assessing collection weights from, respectively, householdand non-household premises over one week, covering 3 collection rounds. The authorityis currently considering carrying out further survey work on the apportionment ofhousehold / non-household wastes.


Powys has several military bases, prisons, boarding schools, and second homes, all of which areused by a significant visiting population that is not included in population statistics. The localtourism industry will also introduce a waste burden onto the county as waste generated in bedand breakfast establishments is likely to enter the domestic waste stream and tourists will alsocontribute to street litter and increase the waste produced by tourist sector businesses.


The geography of the county leads to operational difficulties in terms of distancestravelled, topography and the varying identities of the communities served.

The main issue with the waste collection service in Powys is the very rural nature of thecounty with more than half the population living in isolated villages and hamlets. This haslead to the use of survival bags for recyclable materials, which are collected alongsidethe residual waste, in the same vehicle for subsequent separation, in order to reducetransport and staff costs. 45,000 households are served by this service and there hasbeen some concerns raised by the public that the material is not being recycled despiteinformation being put on the county website explaining how the waste is separated outand then sorted for recycling.

The isolated nature of the region has led to the development of community adopted bringsites. These are very well used, collecting as much waste for recycling as the 6 CA sites.This is likely to be due to the distances from CA sites.

The use of community adopted bring sites can lead to difficulties where a kerbsidecollection is introduced as this is seen to compete with the local site.

CA sites have only developed in the county relatively recently.

The use of operator-owned CA sites has lead to difficulties in negotiating new contractswith recycling and composting targets. They are currently incentivized to divert wastefrom landfill by the savings gained on landfill tax and disposal fees if this occurs.

Demographics

There is a steady influx of people migrating into the county from urban areas, and this iscomplemented by the building of new properties. Both of these factors are likely to increase theamount of household waste produced.


There are approximately 200 properties owned by the MOD that are excluded from council taxand therefore are omitted from the estimates of household numbers, whilst contributing to thewaste burden of the county.

2000-

01

2001-

02

2002-

03

2003-

04

2004-

05

2005-

06

2006-

07

1. Household numbers(000s) 55.0 55.4 56.0 56.5 57.1 57.6 58.42. Average persons /household 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3

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

5. Total population (000s) 126.4 127.3 128.5 129.7 130.4 131.16. Number of new-buildproperties 454 347 370 448 468 394 300


1.22 Case study 22: Derby City Council


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


Present at meeting: Andy Maunder from AEA met with Malcolm Price, Policy and StrategyManager (Waste Management); and Geoff Woolley, Waste Officer.

Derby City Council has provided a wheeled bin for residual waste collection since theirintroduction between 1987 and 1991 – with over 95% of household and commercial collectionscovered. Accordingly there has been a ‘no side waste’ policy since 1987. Charges for bulkycollections and garden waste were introduced in 1997, although fridges and freezers are stillcollected free of charge.

An alternate weekly collection service has been steadily extended following initial role out inMarch 2003 to 5,400 (5%) of properties. The co-mingled blue box scheme was replaced by a140litre bin in 2005/06, although paper is collected separately in a sack. Coverage was 65% atthe end of 06/07.

A separate garden waste collection (240litre bin) was also introduced in 02/03 (for the monthsApril to October) and expanded annually. Coverage was 64% at the end of 06/07. Food wasteand cardboard were added to the garden waste collection in September 2006, for processing byan In-Vessel Composting facility, and collections now continue through the months of Novemberto March.

The council possesses one HWRC which has had a licensed capacity of 25,000 tonnes but it wasexpanded to have a licensed capacity of 75,000 tonnes in 2008. No trade waste is accepted andpermits are required for vans and trailers owned by Derby residents (together with a heightrestriction in place). The recovery rate average is 50%. In 2008 the number of bring sitesavailable to Derby residents was reduced significantly from 87 down to 32.

Since 2005 there have been regular waste communications campaigns, including the promotionof reusable nappies and more recently home composting (with around 11,000 bins distributed todate).

Neighbourhood Environmental Action Teams (NEAT) were introduced in Derby in 2006 / 07 infive priority areas plus Derwent. These have now been rolled out across the city and haveincreased engagement with neighbourhood boards. The NEAT teams have had a significantimpact on the local environment.

Kerbside recycling has been very successful with Derby in the top quartile for performance in07/08 with hopes for improving on their position this year. The scheme needs to be rolled out to12,000 more properties to complete the scheme, though the annual target has already beenachieved.

Environmental Services are currently looking at how to use enforcement powers aroundenvironmental crime but emphasised that this would not focus on prosecuting people for thecontent of their bins. The focus will be on raising awareness, and any possible enforcementwould be around obstruction of the streets.




0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

80,000

90,000

100,000

110,000

120,000

130,000

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

Year

To

nn

es

TOTAL DISPOSAL

TOTAL RECYCLED

TOTAL ARISING


0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

80,000

90,000

100,000

110,000

120,000

130,000

140,000

150,000

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

Year

To

nn

es

TOTAL DISPOSAL

TOTAL RECYCLED

TOTAL ARISING

TOTAL MSW

AWC expansion


Waste policy mapping 1987-1991 - Wheeled bins introduced for residual waste, covering 95% of households

2002/03 - Introduction of AWC, including a green waste collection (5% householdscovered).

2003/04 - AWC coverage extended to 10% of households.




2006/07 - Food waste and cardboard co-collected with garden waste; bring site numbersreduced from 87 to 32.

2008/09 – HWRC licensed capacity expanded from 25kt to 75kt.


Green waste tonnages have increased significantly following expansion of the servicesince 2003 increasing from 1,000 tonnes to over 15,000 tonnes in 3 years.

Dry recyclables collections have also increased since the implementation of AWCgrowing from 5,400 tonnes 03/04 to 15,300 in 06/07.


Reductions in Waste

Derby CC waste officers suggest that the more recent reductions in waste arisings, i.e. afall in collected household waste per person from 522kg (06/07) to 504kg (07/08), aredirectly linked to the current economic climate.

Circumstantial evidence at the HWRC supports this theory with a marked decline in thenumber of television sets and other electrical goods being deposited.

Increases in Waste A significant factor for the increase in waste arisings in the early 2000s has been the

increasing number of households. Household numbers have risen by 8.7% from 92,000(00/01) to 100,000 (05/06) whilst household waste arisings has grown by 13.3% from103kt (00/01) to 117kt (05/06).

Green waste tonnages increased significantly following expansion of the AWC service,rising from 1kt (03/04) to 5.2kt (04/05), 9.6kt (05/06) and 15.4kt (06/07).



Practice

Maturity Scale

Definition







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












Data Reporting

Apportionment of trade waste was standardized in 06/07 following the introduction ofWaste Data Flow - rubble and soil are excluded from HWRC disposal figures as this isnot defined as Household Waste.


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


92 95 96 97 98 100 103 104


2.38 2.37 2.36 2.35 2.34 2.31 2.27 2.27



1.23 Case study 23: Rother District Council


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

There are no sizeable ethnic minority groups in the District.


Present at meeting: Adam Read from AEA met with four representatives from the wastedepartment: Madelaine Gorman, Head of Service; Alan Dodge, Waste Manager; FergusCameron, Recycling Officer; and Lucy MacColl, Information Officer.

The Council offers an AWC scheme to 84% of household, with residual waste collected in ablack-wheeled bin and dry recyclables collected in two boxes. The dry recyclables collectedinclude newspapers, magazines, paper, plastic bottles, cans and aerosol cans. The residual binsize is 180-litre bin, with 240 litre bins available for families with proven need. This scheme hasbeen in place for the last 12 months.

A garden waste collection introduced September 2007 will be extended to all households who arecurrently on AWC from March 2009, the garden waste collected will be sent for composting.Previously the garden waste collection was a charged service and the garden waste was sent tolandfill pre 2007.

To complement the recycling service offered at the kerbside there areas 4 Household WasteRecycling Centres (HWRCs) in Rother and 36 bring sites. The council offers a charged bulkywaste collection service that is subsidised. The council is looking to implement a web-based self-booking scheme for this service.

The council does not collect commercial waste.

Looking forward Rother will be implementing closer, joint working with East Sussex CountyCouncil, as the WDA. Food waste collections are still deemed to be some way off but cardboardmay come on stream much sooner.



0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

40,000

45,000

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

Year

To

nn

es TOTAL DISPOSAL

TOTAL RECYCLED

TOTAL ARISING


Arisings have been increasing during the period of investigation – but only by a fewthousand tonnes. However, since 2006 there has been a noticeable decline.

Waste Policy Mapping

In 2003/04 a fortnightly dry recyclable collection scheme was introduced to 24% ofhouseholds, with a 55-litre box being distributed to those on the scheme. In 2005/06 thisscheme was extended to 63% of households.

AWC was introduced in May 2007. In early 2007 a comprehensive door knockingcampaign was set up, in addition to focus groups, road shows etc to introduce the newAWC.

Throughout 2000-2007 heavy-duty paper bags could be purchased for garden waste,with the garden waste being collected as part of residual waste. In 2007 the gardenwaste was sent to composting.

In 2007 a no side waste policy was introduced.


New AWC system was introduced in June 2007 (recycling rate increased from 17% to40% overnight).

Dry recycling level (cans, plastics, paper) is now consistent at 23%.


Key findings

Since the introduction of AWC waste arisings dropped nearly 10% in the first year. Therewas no increase in fly tipping noted and no complaints from neighbouring authorities.

There was a tonnage decrease, which could be because the previous contractorcollected some ‘commercial waste’ with MSW – but since the new system there is aharder ‘policy line’ on this.

Current contract won’t allow mixed (commercial and MSW) loads, where as previouslythey could. There was previously an agreement that the contractor would declare thenumber of commercial bags collected and an average bag weight multiplier applied.

They expect waste arisings to increase this year due to the roll-out of free garden wastescheme (but expect a decrease in green waste at WDA CA sites – data not collected bythe District Council). Provisional figures show arisings to have risen by under 4% on 07-08, but still 5.5% down on 06-07.


0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

40,000

45,000

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

Year

To

nn

es

TOTALDISPOSALTOTALRECYCLEDTOTAL ARISING

TOTAL MSW


Communications

The Council openly communicates the impending closure of the local landfill. The Councilencourages residents to produce less waste, and recycle more.

The Council produced a Policy Document 12 months after the AWC scheme roll-out, thedocument gives a clear message to everyone (including elected members, call centrestaff etc.) about the policies and enforcement.

From late 2006, comprehensive door knocking, focus group, 100% coverage introductionbooklet and road shows were all part of the communication campaign to launch AWCservice from May 2007.

Much stronger education and enforcement policies on ‘no side’ and no ‘commercial’wastes.

A hard line taken at Christmas about extra waste – supported by communications!


Practice

Maturity Scale

Definition

1 Ad-hoc Communication is generally unplanned, reactive and disorganised. Thereis no overall responsibility for communication, no strategy and little or nobudget to enable effective delivery. Projects may run over budget and overschedule. Poor quality of materials.



4 Co-ordinated

Delivery is regular and routine. A strategy has been developed todetermine the best way for the organisation to communicate andresponsibility for its implementation is defined. Resources are sufficient tocover the outputs recommended in the strategy. Materials are good quality,but have the potential to be more effective. There is some assessment ofperformance.


6 Optimised Effective communication is seen as vital and is integrated into all systemsand processes. The link between the organisation’s strategic objectivesand effective communications is clear, delivery purposeful and proactiveand the resources allocated reflect this. Strategy, delivery and support arereviewed and enhanced using formal frameworks such as scrutiny, bestvalue, continuous improvement and quality management systems.

The respondent classified their communications activities as ‘5/6 – Evaluated/Optimised’.This categorisation is true from the beginning of 2007 until early 2009, however a newcommunications plan is now being developed and it is not yet clear what form this will take.











A ban on side waste is in place and legally enforced and ‘top-hatting’ /‘crocodile lids’ is not allowed. The same cautionary procedures are adoptedas in 2 and 3 above, although there is evidence of a high number ofSection 80 (accumulations of household refuse in back yards) and Section46 (householder non-compliant with Council’s waste collectionarrangements) notices issued to non-compliant households. Enforcementis taken very seriously by the council.



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

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

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

Recyclates have better quality data – this is outside of the historical County Councildisposal contract.

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

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

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

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

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


Demographics

There will be some household growth in next 2 years linked to new road from Bexhill toHastings (1800 households)

Waste arisings per household is low

30% of households are single occupancy

Elderly population (second highest in the UK) – 35% of population is over 65; 20% ofpopulation is over 75 - this is why they could go with a policy of small (180 litre) residualbins

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


38.0 38.0 39.0 39.0 39.0 40.0 42.8 43.1


2.39 2.38 2.37 2.36 2.35 2.33 2.13 2.18

Total population 86 85.5 86 86.5 87 87.4 86.0 87.6


1.24 Case study 24: Rhondda Cynon Taf Council


Rhondda Cynon Taf is a County Borough Council with serves a resident population of 231,946residents. The council was formed through the merger of 3 councils in 1996 (each represented inthe current name). Some anomalies in current waste collection services arise from this fact – e.g.differences in containers for residual waste within the county borough. No attempt has beenmade, or is planned at this stage, to standardize across the board (there is interest in the WasteDepartment in restricting residual waste but owing to political resistance the status quo willremain for the foreseeable future).

The following general/background information is taken from the council’s Community Plan:

“Rhondda Cynon Taf lies to the north of Cardiff, at the heart of South Wales. Bounded by theBrecon Beacons and the M4 Motorway. It is the second largest local authority in Wales, covering424 square kilometres and with a population of 231,946. It embraces an upland plateau and threevalleys in the north, with rolling farmland and woods in the South… The County Borough isexperiencing a period of major change, bringing fresh challenges and opportunities, but alsocreating uncertainty, and the need to overcome a recent legacy of severe economic and socialdeprivation.”

This document also states that the council has a Community Waste Forum which it engages interms of community consultations, and that this group “also examined community issues such asa concerted anti-litter campaign and the remediation of the Council’s municipal landfill site, whichwas closed recently as part of the wider waste strategy.”


Present at meeting: Two representatives from waste department attended the meeting – NigelWheeler (head of StreetScene services (Service Director for Street Care, who has been at thecouncil since 2004); Keith Lewis (Waste Manager, been at the council for many years, sincebefore 2000); Bryn Jones (responsibility for waste data reporting).

Household services: Weekly collection of both residual and recyclate. Same day collections(since 2004/5).

Residual: Two-thirds of the borough are on 240l black bins for residual (i.e. in those areaspreviously covered by two of the councils in the now merged authority). The remaining one-thirdis on black sacks. There is no restriction on residual, and political resistance to any considerationof options for this (whether it be AWC, bans on side waste or other alternatives). Unofficially,since April ’08 residents have been encouraged to downsize and use 120ls instead (wherenew/replacement bins are needed).

Recycling: Dry recycling and green waste collection service was rolled out in 2001/02 to 25,000properties (Feb 02). Second roll out was 40,000 households in October 2002. Third roll out was67,000 household in May 2003. Fourth roll-out was November 2005 to remaining households.Total approx 102,000-104,000 properties. The same containers – clear sacks – are used for this.Residents are asked to separate as follows: use clear sack for paper and card, use another clearsack for other dry recyclables (glass, cans, mixed plastic, Tetrapaks) and use another clear sackfor garden waste. If they wish to, residents can now also put clothes in another clear sack,although this is only a recent development (since Dec 08). (Previous policy was to avoidduplicating charities’ efforts, but demand was high and the council decided to collect this materialas they get a good price for it.) Batteries can be recycled at kerbside using a small red pouchprovided.

Food: Since Jan 07 the authority has been trialling food waste in 3 areas (of 600 householdseach; one group in each of the three previous authorities and spread across affluent and lessaffluent areas). Results showed 5.5kg/hh/week; so the authority is now rolling out the service to afurther 10K households, and aim to cover 15K to 20K by end of the year. Only recyclers are beingallowed the service; although non-recyclers are being targeted by an in-house team to encourageparticipation so that they can also be put on the scheme. The system uses a large kitchen caddywith oxidegradable bags (some frustration expressed that this type of bag isn’t supported by


Welsh Assembly) and a 49l bin for putting material out on the kerbside. (The authority believesthat the large size of container has contributed to the larger than average yields they are pickingup of food waste).

HWRCs: Six HWRCs have served the area until recently (one closed down in Dec 08). All haveundergone improvements in signage over the years and now use WRAP’s standard iconographyfor material streams. All have also operated a permit scheme for commercial vehicles since 2000.A recent trial (2008) took place at the Treforest Industrial Estate HWRC (where depot offices alsoare located) in which proof of residency was required; though the scheme is still in its earlystages.

Bring: The bring site network has steadily increased in number to currently approx 120. They arecalled ‘sort centres’ and were significantly increased in number in 2004/5, although there was noperceived increase in recycling via this route as shortly after this further kerbside services wereintroduced to remaining properties.

Compost: Discounted compost bins are offered to residents, and have been since 2003. Initiallythis was via bin sales, but now it’s via ‘Original Organics’ (based in Devon) and promoted throughleaflets. Not current part of the WRAP scheme. Number of bins sold in total since April 2004 is2962. Each year, a few more are sold (estimate a few 100) but the waste manager believes thearea is now saturated: “anyone who wants a bin has now got one”. There is no pro-activepromotion of home composting, but they are subsidised.

Bulky: A householder can arrange for the collection of bulky items for free.

Non-household: Commercial waste can be disposed of via local contractors (Biffa mentioned asan example). The council also offers a Trade Waste service, and a recycling collection service.This is mostly used by shops, so the waste is pretty much similar. The waste is collected on samerounds as residual for householders (so is not readily identifiable in tonnage terms) but thecommercial recyclate is collected separately by two vehicles (blue sacks also used, on similarbasis as for householder). Figures therefore available for the recycled commercial waste.Accurate data for commercial trade waste figures is not readily available; although frominstinctive assessment Bryn believes it has hovered around 11,800-12,800 range when hestarted looking at it (before 2003). A recent estimate for 2008 was 6,355 tonnes. But withoutinformation in between it is difficult to establish a trend. The figures in the graph have beenproduced using estimates from raw data supplied regarding where waste arose and wasdisposed of.




No enforcement policies (either formal or informal) in place. Residents are freeto leave material next to waste receptacles so long as contained or bagged andnot construed as being fly-tipped or littering.




A ban on side waste is in place and legally enforced although some ‘top-hatting’/ ‘crocodile lids’ are allowed. The above measures are also adopted (as in 2above) and following a number of cautions the householder will be issued with afixed penalty notice. Evidence of a small number of such notices being issued.


A ban on side waste is in place and legally enforced and ‘top-hatting’ / ‘crocodilelids’ is not allowed. The same cautionary procedures are adopted as in 2 and 3above, although there is evidence of a high number of Section 80(accumulations of household refuse in back yards) and Section 46 (householdernon-compliant with Council’s waste collection arrangements) notices issued tonon-compliant households. Enforcement is taken very seriously by the council.

The respondent classified their enforcement activities as ‘1 - No level of enforcement’.


Communications

Rhondda Cynon Taf deliver on-going communications and promotions of recycling to residents,heavily branded with Rhys Cycle and SORT. Expenditure is approximately £250K/year on thiswork. Work includes roadshows (for which they have a trailer), vehicle livery, website, workingwith local/Welsh celebrities and clubs (e.g. football clubs). Schools education work includeslandfill safaris and in-school promotions. Also pair up with schools to run competitions. For thirdyear this year will be running Enviro-vision song quest with children at comprehensive schools.Also plan to do a fashion show this year, featuring recycled/recyclable materials. A lot of workalso goes into creating videos and interactive media – linking in with messages about pollutionand littering as well as recycling. The council does not wish to fine people for incorrect behaviour– and seeks to keep positive messages going. Action has been taken in the past, however,against businesses – particularly those using HWRCs to dispose of waste as if it was domestic orshops which put materials out in clear sacks for collection on domestic rounds.


Practice

Maturity Scale

Definition







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



The following chart illustrates household waste arisings trends for the local authority.

The following chart provides a breakdown of household arisings in terms of household wastes(residual and recycling respectively) and all non-household collected wastes. Consistent data isnot available for a more detailed breakdown of these municipal waste streams.


0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

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

Year

To

nn

es

TOTAL HH DISPOSAL TOTAL HH RECYCLED TOTAL HH ARISING

Municipal waste arisings

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

160,000

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

TOTAL HH DISPOSAL TOTAL HH RECYCLED TOTAL NON-HH ARISINGS

Classification of commercialwaste as MSW (prior to thisperiod wasn’t classified as such)

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



Key findings

MSW figures dropped dramatically in 2002/03 (possibly owing to WAG reclassificationsreferred to)

MSW then was increasing until 2004/05 and 2005/06 since when it has been on thedecrease.

The current waste disposal fee is £17.04+£32=£49.04 in landfill tax per tonne rising to£57.04/tonne in April 2009 (owing to £8 increase in landfill tax).

The meeting attendees believed that the primary significant changes that will be seen indata will be due to waste categories being removed from MSW.

The main cause of substantial changes in figures is believed by the Waste Manager to bethe reclassification of materials which used to be considered MSW and were then takenout. This is essentially waste which is handled / generated by other departments but notdealt with by the waste department. Highways waste was cited as one example, so wasschools waste which if a school contracts out it’s collections to a waste contractor (ratherthan having it collected by the council) is also not counted as MSW. Parks waste wasalso identified as a category which was moved out of MSW. Gully emptyings is also anexample. This change took place in 2005/06, so the 2006/07 figures are the first time thatthey’re not included in the MSW arisings. (The only one still included is cleansing).

Note also that another change which took place in terms of classifications was theinclusion for the first time in 2001/02’s figures of commercial waste as a MSW. Prior tothis, commercial waste had not been included.


Data is provided to WasteDataFlow (WDF). Systems for recording and providing datawere redeveloped at the time of WDF’s introduction, and have undergone improvements(but not radical changes) since then. No data is available for before 2000.

No weighbridge discrepancies are known to be affecting data.

There was a change in classification of certain data – highways waste was removed frombeing classified as MSW. Similarly schools waste not collected by the authority, andparks waste are now not counted as MSW.

Up to 2006/07, the same tonnage figure has been reported for non-household wastes, of12,300 tonnes per annum. Residual waste from commercial collections is co-collectedwith residual waste from households. The method for allocating these tonnages to,respectively, household and commercial sources is not known. The authority reports thatthe number of commercial customers has remained fairly constant of the time series,which may explain why the same tonnage figure has been applied for each period. It isnotable that in 2007/08, non-household residual waste tonnages (reported in provisionalWDF figures) were approximately half of this tonnage. It is unknown whether this isattributable to a genuine reduction in collected commercial waste or whether this is adata reporting issue.


1.25 Case study 25: Flintshire


Flintshire is a county in the North East of Wales. It borders the Dee Estuary to the north, Cheshireto the east, Wrexham to the south and Denbighshire to the west.

The population of Flintshire grew from 142,036 in 1991 to 150,077 in 2006. 97.7% of thepopulation in Flintshire described themselves as British – White. The largest BME population wasfound in the Shotton area (1.5%), with people of Asian origin making up the most significantminority, but across the rest of the authority, rates are low. The ethnic minority population ofFlintshire is small. It is likely that this sector of the population will have grown since the accessionof 8 new member countries to the European Union in 2004.

In total 91,230 tonnes of waste was produced in Flintshire in 2006/07. Of this, 56,286 tonnes waslandfilled (61.70%), and 34,852 tonnes was either reused recycled or composted – including soiland rubble (38.20%). All waste not recycled or composted was, up until December 2007,disposed in landfill at Brookhill landfill site in Buckley. However, since the closure of this siteFlintshire’s residual black sack waste is being transferred out of the County to Pen y Bont orHafod landfill site in Wrexham. Considerations for future provisions of landfill are ongoing. Interms of National Assembly for Wales Performance Indicators (NAWPIs), 19.58% recycled /reused (16,565 tonnes) and 13.77% composted (11,647 tonnes) is a total of 33.35% recycled andcomposted (combined). This exceeds the national target of 25% by 8.35%.


Present at meeting: One representative from the waste department: Gabrielle Povey.

Household waste

Residual: Weekly refuse collections in black sacks. Collection contract with DSO.

Recycling: Kerbside collection of paper in blue bag (64,800 households, 98%) on fortnightlybasis using reusable blue plastic sacks. Dedicated vehicles operated by DSO take this to ShottonPaper Mill (just down road!). Fortnightly kerbside collection of 55L blue box which takes dryrecyclables (glass, plastic bottles, cans/tins and textiles). Started this in July 2001, with LTCS,with 7,500 households. Continued expansion across the years (25% of all households by end2001/02; none in 02/03; 50% mid-year 2003/04 94% by 2004/05). Another 2% added in 2005/06.Another 0.5% in 2006/07. Textiles no longer collected in the box.

Organics: Introduced in April 2003, continued expansion until now 82% covered. (In period ofinterest 10% had it in 2003, 21.5% in 2004, 42% by 2005, 80% by 2006). 140L wheeled binsused, service provided on fortnightly basis during 11 months (reduces to monthly service duringJanuary only). Operated by DSO. Skips are provided for Parks & Gardens team for collection oftheir organic waste.

Compost bins: Have subsidised compost bins since 2000. Bin sales figures start in 2000 at1,619, increasing by 85-100/year each year until 2005 when 626 sold (owing to big promotion).Couple hundred more in 2006/07.

Bring sites: 26 bring sites in total at present. Banks take paper, glass, plastic, cans, textiles,shoes and books. Some sub-contracting of management of these.

HWRCs: Known as Recycling Parks, there are eight in Flintshire of which one was new in 2004/5and another was changed to 100% recycling in April 2005. Historically, provision concentratedthem in the centre and East of the County (hence opening of Greenfields site in Oct 05 to serveWest – modern 10 bay facility). AD Waste Ltd is the Local Authority Waste Disposal Company(LAWDC) and has managed the sites under contract with requirement to increase % recycledover time. (Historically, a few community skips were provided to serve areas in rural western partof the county which were beyond 4 miles of closest recycling park, which has recently beendiscontinued.)

A key issue discussed at the meeting was the introduction in July 2005 of the Van Ban as part ofthe new contract issued to AD Waste. This combined with new signage, a change tonomenclature (calling them Recycling Parks, not ‘tips’) and change in infrastructure in place


(removal of so many skips for inert waste and more focus on recycling containers) made a bigdifference to arisings from these parks. Noticeable reductions were seen in Commercial Wasteespecially. Householders with pick-up style vehicles or trailers need to have permits in order toaccess the site – obtainable by showing proof of private ownership. Gaby also suspects sometransboundary waste movements – coming in from Chester, Denbighshire and Wrexham, whichthis van ban helped to deal with.

Council was relieved when they introduced the van ban to note that fly-tipping did not increase. Itwas feared that it would when planning its introduction, but it has not been the case.

Domestic waste has not really reduced. Some slight reductions recently, which – it is suspected -are down to economic factors.

Bulky: Available for furniture and excess garden waste. Free for householders on benefits, elseminimum charge of £10.00 (up to 5 items) and £2/item thereafter. Limit of 10 items in 12 monthperiod. This charge rose from £7 to current rate in 2006/07.

Education: The van ban was well communicated to users, with meet & greet staff providinginformation and leaflets. Also all media and councillors were informed. They have done generalawareness-raising work over time, and have a continued schools programme. Website updatesalso. Adopted the national campaigns, so participate in things like Recycle Week, CompostingWeek (at which promote subsidized bins) Yellow Woods and promotions at Christmas etc.

Enforcement: Only of van ban. Focus is on fly-tipping and Abandoned Vehicles and illegal tradewaste.











The respondent classified their enforcement activities as ‘1 - No level of enforcement’. Thisclassification is in the context of the authority providing kerbside residual waste collections viablack sacks.

Non-household waste

Schools: The waste department provides 90 schools with a recycling service linked in withkerbside schemes.

Libraries and Public Building are likewise provided with recycling services.

Commercial waste: Trade waste collection service is provided by DSO collecting from approx1,000 business properties. Recycling services also provided. Plus, eight glass bring banks on anumber of premises.


Markets: The Council is also responsible for removal of waste from Flintshire markets, collectedon schedule basis from weekly markets (Mold, Connah’s Quay, Holywell and Flint).

With respect to non-household wastes, between 2002/03 and 2006/07, on average around10,000 tonnes of waste per annum is reported (in the information capture template), of whichrecycling typically consists of around 75% of these tonnages. The recycling fraction from non-household sources is separately weighted. The majority of non-household residual wastes areseparately weighed; though they include a small portion of wastes from small commercialpremises (corner shops, etc) which are co-collected with residual household waste. For thesehousehold waste rounds, approximately 1% is apportioned to these small commercial premises.This method of apportionment is based on an estimate of the number of commercial premises inrelation to the number of households included in the collections.

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

Practice

Maturity Scale

Definition










1

1



Key findings

Flintshire believe the most important contributing factor to reduced waste arisings is theirvan ban at HWRCs in 2005.

There has been a staged increase/expansion in services offered year-on-year since thecommencement of kerbside collections in 2001/02 until 2005 when most current serviceswere by then in place.

They did also raise that there have been changes in the way that different waste arisingshave been categorised in the past.


Sketchy ways of doing this before 2000. System of detailed excel spreadsheets wasintroduced in 2002/03 which provides more detailed/thorough data. Has been developedover time, for use and rapid entry of data into Waste Data Flow. One main person (ortheir method) has been doing it since WDF was introduced, so consistent use.

Demographics

No known significant changes. A few new builds, but nothing known to be of significance.

The authority’s profile document provided does say that population increased by more thandouble the rate of Wales as a whole, but figure is less than 8,000 over 14 years. Also, householdfigures in local data spreadsheets show very little change in the period of interest.

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

00,000

20,000

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

Kerbside residual Kerbside dry

Kerbside organics HWRC residual

Bring + HWRC recycling HWRC GW

Commercial residual Commercial recycled

Street cleansing, parks, clinical, flytipping

Introduction of HWRC vanban & permit controls


1.26 Case study 26: Belfast City Council


Belfast City Council is the largest of 26 district councils in Northern Ireland. Belfast's populationhas been in gradual, but persistent, decline from a historic high of over 400,000 before World WarOne. According to mid-year estimates for 2007/08, Belfast has a population of 267,374, whichrepresents 15.35% of the Northern Ireland total population of 1,741,619. After a period ofsustained population loss, Belfast's population has begun to stabilise. Between 2004 and 2006the city lost only 0.6% of its population compared with almost 12% in the previous 20 years. Thepopulation density of Belfast is 2,439 persons per km2. The wider Belfast Metropolitan Area hasa population of 645,536.

There was a slow decline in population density (people per square kilometre) between 1991 and2006 with a definite decrease in the number of residents in Belfast (down by 8.7% over theperiod). By comparison, over the same period, the outlying area of Carrickfergus had apopulation density growth of 19.7% while Lisburn had density growth of 11.8%. In Belfast, 98% ofthe residents are of white ethnic origin. The largest minority ethnic groups within Belfast are theChinese community (with 1,318 residents) and the mixed community (with 729 residents).

Some key facts:

The city, and its wider metropolitan area, is the largest settlement in the region and thesecond largest city on the island of Ireland. It lies at the head of Belfast Lough in thelower reaches of the Lagan valley.

The Belfast district council area sits at the heart of the growing population of the widerBelfast Metropolitan Area, which also comprises the surrounding district council areas ofCastlereagh, Lisburn, North Down, Newtownabbey and Carrickfergus.

44.9% of the population is under 30 years of age.

The city's working age population (16-64) accounts for 60% of the total population.

According to the Northern Ireland Index of Multiple Deprivation (2005):

Belfast is the most deprived out of the 26 Local Government Districts (LGDs).

Belfast has eight of the 10 most deprived wards in Northern Ireland.

Belfast has nine of the 10 worst wards in the region in relation to health deprivation.

There are 82,986 people in Belfast experiencing income deprivation and 30,119 peopleexperiencing employment deprivation.

Belfast has 150 Super Output Areas (SOAs) in total and 34% of these SOAs fall withinthe most deprived 10% of all SOAs in Northern Ireland.

6.5% of the city's population live in 10% of the most deprived SOAs in Northern Ireland.

Source: Northern Ireland Multiple Deprivation Measure 2005 (NISRA).

The Council has been working under the banner arc21 in partnership with its neighboringcouncils to develop proposals and procure treatment and disposal facilities to meet therequirements of the EC Landfill Directive since 2000.


Black 240 litre wheeled bins are used for general household waste that is not suitable forrecycling. The collection of the black bin alternates with the collection of the blue bin (240 litre). Ifa resident only has a black bin it will be collected every week. All bins are collected on the sameday each week.

Most households in Belfast now have a blue bin or a kerbside box. The following items can beplaced in the blue bin: paper, cardboard, drink and food cans and plastic bottles (with screw topattached and including shampoo, detergent and drinks bottles). For the 70,000 households on theblue bin collection service, these are collected every other week and are available in the followingsizes: 140 litre, 240 litre and 360 litres. The remaining households in the city which do not have a


blue bin receive a kerbside box for recycling accepting: glass, plastic bottles, paper, newspapers,magazines, cardboard, cans and tins, aluminium foil, textiles and old hand tools. These boxes arecollected on a weekly cycle by Bryson Recycling.

Brown bins which capture the garden waste, are not collected in December, January or February.Collections will restart in March 2009. Garden waste can be taken to one of their recyclingcentres during the winter months. Brown bins are collected every other week, in the same weekas the black bin.

Home composters are used to recycle garden waste and some food waste. They cost £5(including delivery) and come with a free waste receptacle to transport the kitchen or gardenwaste to the compost unit.

A new food waste collection service is being trialled to make it easier for residents to recycleleftover food. The trial scheme began in June 2008 and will run until October 2009. It covers7,000 homes in the following areas: lower Ormeau, Markets, Ballynafeigh, Sydenham, DonegallRoad and Falls.

There are four centres for recycling household waste. The Council also provides free heavy dutyplastic sacks to make it easier for residents to carry their waste to their nearest recycling centre.There are more than 40 bottle banks where residents can recycle glass bottles and jars.

The Council also operates a textile recycling scheme for schools. ‘Cash for Clobber’ is a schemethat encourages textile recycling in schools by exchanging bags of unwanted clothes for cash.For each bag donated schools will receive £2.75 and an additional 25p will be donated to theNorthern Ireland Cancer Fund for Children (NICFC). Cookstown Textile Recyclers (CTR) willcollect and weigh bags from registered schools, regularly until the end of April 2009. The primaryand secondary school that collect the most clothes, in kilogrammes per pupil, will win a state ofthe art computer and an additional big prize. Good quality clothes will be sent to the developingworld. Garments that cannot be re-worn will be turned into industrial cleaning cloths andupholstery filling. Clothes, pairs of shoes, hats, scarves, handbags, and curtains are all accepted.The scheme has been very successful in schools all over Ireland, including Belfast. Last yearover £80,000 was paid out to local schools and over £7,000 was raised for the NICFC.

The Council also offers a commercial waste collection service, in addition to disposing ofdomestic waste. The services include: a collection service across the whole city, a choice ofcontainers, Saturday collections in certain parts of Belfast, and an evening collection service inthe city centre.

A commercial recycling service is available for cardboard and paper only. Both can be placed inthe same container - Euro bins and wheeled bins.

Belfast also offers a free bulky waste collection service to householders. This includes items suchas sofas, cookers, doors, mattresses and beds.




0

20000

40000

60000

80000

100000

120000

140000

160000

180000

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

Year

To

nn

es

/p

a

Total disposal

Total recycled

Total arisings


0

20000

40000

60000

80000

100000

120000

140000

160000

180000

200000

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

Year

To

nn

es

/p

a Total disposal

Total recycled

Total arisings

Total MSW


Waste policy measures

2003/04 – Blackstaff HWRC opens (no trade waste), covering the west of the city (withanticipated 70% recovery rate), 60 home composters distributed.

2004/05 – 2 * (redeveloped) HWRCs are opened in the north and east of the city, 3452home composters distributed.

2005/06 – June 2005 saw the introduction of AWCs (phased in over 18 months),introduction of free garden waste collections phased in with AWCs, 561 homecomposters distributed, Resource Advisors deployed to increase participation and reducecontamination, Council agrees to spend £300,000 pa for the next three years on acommunications campaign.

2006/07 – expansion of black box across the inner city to 50,000 households (Feb 2007),now approximately 40 bring sites city wide, 911 composters distributed.

Observations

Between 1996 and 2000 there appears to have been a steady year-on-year increase inmunicipal waste arisings of 2.26% per annum.

Total non-household waste has decreased from 36,179 tonnes in 2001/02 to 20,959tonnes in 2006/07, split between commercial and fly tipped waste with the formerrepresenting the largest portion. It should be noted that from 2004/05-2007/08 the fly-tipped waste was included in the household figures. This has changed from 2008/09onwards and the fly-tipped materials will revert back to the non-household category.

Household waste arisings have overall exhibited quite volatile trend patterns increasingfrom 118,000 tonnes in 2003/04 to 134,000 tonnes in 2004/05 and reduced thereafter to~119,000 tonnes in 2006/07.

Household recycling tonnages have steadily increased (although a dramatic rise waswitnessed between 2003 and 2005) from 6121 tonnes in 2001/02 to 27,743 tonnes in2006/07. This has largely been a legacy of a move to city wide kerbside recycling andAWCs.

In 2006/07 – the waste per head of population was 547 kgs / head and has sincedecreased to 540 kgs / head in 2007/08.

The data for 1995 to 2000 is of good quality and represents a true reflection of householdwaste trends.


Practice

Maturity Scale

Definition





















Under NILAS (Northern Ireland Landfill Allowance Scheme), Belfast CC will not meet itslandfill allowance targets from 2009/10 onwards – it is anticipated that it will exceed theallowances by approximately 5,000 tonnes, based on latest projections (Cttee report Apr2009)

ARC21, representing 11 councils, is looking at MBT and EfW as a possible long termwaste treatment solution. There are 3 possible sites for such facilities, one of which is inBelfast. There are 6 shortlisted bidders, and it is anticipated that the MBT facility could beon-line by 2012, with the EfW facility by 2014.


The Council is currently trialing a food waste collection to ~7000 households. The initialresults have been encouraging – 3.5 kgs/participating hhld/wk, with a 30% participationrate. The trial is targeting all types of socio-demographic areas.

With the advent of dry recycling and the on-set of AWCs, the Council has invested a lotof time, money and effort in communicating with residents through door-knocking andawareness raising. Until recently, they had 20 temporary Resource Advisors, which thenbecame 10 * 3 yr fixed term contracts and then ultimately 5 permanent positions. Theyact as ambassadors for the whole service and have been instrumental to the high levelsof recycling and the downturn in waste arisings being witnessed across Belfast. Thecurrent recycling rate stands at ~27%.

While the Council operates AWCs it does not have a strict restricted side waste policy –the Council much prefers the ‘carrot’ rather than the ‘stick’ approach. Interestingly,following the introduction of AWCS, the council only received 6 formal complaints.

The waste awareness work stems back to 2003 with the creation of new contractmanagement and policy units. At the same time the city’s HWRC’s underwent aredevelopment and relocation programme which lasted several years.

The Council also focused its attention on its own internal working practices by introducingcomprehensive waste reduction and recycling targets for its own civic waste.

The Council representative also believes that the downturn in waste arisings is also alegacy of the economic climate – residents purchasing less and being more frugal withregards the products they waste.

The Council is soon to publish a Zero Waste policy – whereby no waste is to be sentdirectly to landfill by 2015.

There is no commingling of domestic or commercial waste and thus the data for the twoseparate waste streams is accurate.

The Council is also leading on an EC Interreg proposal to develop ‘Carbon RewardCards’ for residents to use to potentially encourage holders to adopt moreenvironmentally benign choices.

Street cleansing waste, primarily due to tourism, is estimated to be 10% of MSWalthough this seems to be falling, due to continued street litter awareness raising andfixed penalty notices (issued through street wardens) and the placement of splitcompartment recycling litter bins.

Waste data collection / recording

The Council representative has faith in the reported waste arisings statistics certainlysince the advent of WDF.

In the past contractors have not necessarily been good at supplying data on time. Thishas now changed.

There are no significant anomalies that contribute to waste trends.

The graph below portrays the change in recycling rate increases over part of the timeseries together with quarterly fluctuations.


Demographics

There is a resident student population of 10,000 students.

The Belfast housing stock differs greatly from neighbouring councils with approximately60% of households categorized as terraces or flats.

As affluence increases there is a greater tendency for residents to move out of the city,as overall the population is decreasing within the city.

Due to PPS 14, there has been a moratorium on the development of new builds althoughthis has not affected apartment developments within the city boundaries. This is beingreplaced by PPS 18.

Recycling Rate %

4.72 55.86

6.867.92

9.0710.05

11.86

13.2714.46

16.3517.2

17.9518.95

20.02

21.11

0.00

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

25.00

30.00

Jan-

Mar'03

Apr-

Jun'03

Jul-

Sep'03

Oct-

Dec'03

Jan-Mar'

04

Apr-Jun

'04

Jul-Sep

'04

Oct-Dec

'04

Jan-Mar'

05

Apr-Jun

'05

Jul-

Sep05

Oct-

Dec05

Jan-Mar

06

Apr-Jun

06

Jul-Sep

06

Oct-

Dec06

Jan-Mar

07

Apr-Jun

07

Jul-Sep

07

Time

%

% Qtr Annualised Rolling %


1.27 Case study 27: Down District Council


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


Down District Council operates an AWC kerbsider collection service. The black 240 litre wheeledbin is collected one week, blue (240 litre) and brown bin (240 litre) the next) - they must be at thekerbside by 07:30 on the day of collection, otherwise collection cannot be guaranteed. Thedistrict’s current recycling rate is approximately 30%. All households receive this service and theLA representative estimates that approximately 90% of householders’ participate although thereare three areas that suffer with contamination issues. The recycling collections are operated byBryson Recycling.

A blue bin scheme operates that accepts paper, cardboard, plastic bottles and cans. The Councilalso operates a brown bin scheme that accepts garden waste. This is collected twice a monthduring the spring and summer months and collected once a month during the winter/autumnmonths. The collected green waste is currently taken to a windrow facility although there is a planfor the material to be delivered to an IVC plant.

The Council will not lift excess waste, (e.g. bags/boxes), left beside bins during normal collectionsalthough there is no strict enforcement policy in place. Excess waste will only be lifted when acollection has been missed due to a public holiday. Additional bins: Households with six or moreresidents or anyone with a medical complaint that means they have excessive waste are entitledto a second black bin, and blue bin. Assisted collection: Anyone who has difficulty moving theirbin can apply for an assisted collection.

Down District Council encourages home composting by offering a subsidised compost bin for just£5 and is promoting the use of washable nappies to reduce waste buried in landfill. They offer a£30 discount to help paying for the initial outlay.

The Council operates three HWRCs at Cloonagh Road centre in Downpatrick, DrumanakellyCentre near Seaforde, and Bann Road Household Recycling Centre, Castlewellan. One of thesesites is a state of the art facility (with a ~75% recovery rate), one is a mediocre performer and thelast facility is classed as being quite poor. A further two sites have been earmarked fordevelopment into HWRCs. The overall HWRC recovery rate is estimated to be ~40%. None ofthe sites operate a permit system and there is a suspicion that commercial waste is entering thesites, some of which is likely to be as a result of ‘backhanders’ given to site operatives.

In addition the district has a mobile civic amenity service, which currently is for residual wasteonly. A Saturday morning Civic Amenity Service is available at the following locations throughoutthe Down District Council Area for disposing of any excess household refuse, cardboard boxes,small household items or garden waste.

The Council offers home composters to residents at a cost of £5 / unit.

The Council operates 34 bring sites targeting a number of materials, but most commonly glass,cans and textiles.

The Council will lift up to 6 items of bulky refuse from households free of charge. Items include:washing machines, fridges, beds, cookers, and other furniture. The Council will not collect thefollowing items: builder's rubble, garden waste, bags, boxes, domestic household waste anditems containing glass.

A commercial waste collection is offered to local businesses although there is no recyclingservice, though there are plans to introduce such a scheme when a new transfer facility becomesoperational. The trade waste collection is quite a good revenue generator (averaging 4000 tonnes/ pa) given that there is no real competition from the private sector which is largely focused in


Belfast and other conurbations. The commercial waste collections are carried out using a singleRCV and 2/5ths of another vehicle. The district has a number of caravan parks and holiday letsand thus a significant number of tourists during the summer months which can have a significanteffect on waste arisings including street cleansing wastes.



0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

40000

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

Year

To

nn

es Total disposal

Total recycled

Total arisings

Total non-houshold waste arisings and MSW

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

40000

45000

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

Year

To

nn

es

Total arisngs

Total MSW



In 2004/05 the Council introduced AWCs which not only increased the amount of dryrecyclable material collected but also had a significant impact on the amount of residentstaking glass to the network of 35 glass bank sites across the district – tonnagesincreased enormously.

Since the introduction of AWCs, the recycling tonnages have remained fairly static at~4500 tonnes / pa.

The move to AWCs was accepted quite well by residents – only a minority had an issuewith the new service. Since the introduction, residual waste tonnages have decreasedand overall household waste arisings have dropped despite the resident populationincreasing. There were no reported increases in fly-tipping.

The ban on side waste is not heavily enforced although contamination labels have beenissued alerting householders of the need not to include non-targeted material in the blueand brown bins.

With regards the HWRCs the recovery levels have continually improved. It is suspectedthere may be a little cross border usage although not significant.

2004 saw the distribution of home composters to residents. These were mostly issued toresidents in rural areas and committed recyclers in urban areas – the LA representativesuspects that these residents already composted much of this waste anyway, so thelikely impact on waste arising was considered insignificant. In excess of 1000 units / pahave been issued.

The brown bins collect approximately 3000 tonnes of garden waste each year.

The Council is hoping to introduce food waste collections in August – this is likely to becommingled with garden waste, although the introduction is dependent on securing atransfer facility in Armagh.

The Council has been particularly proactive in terms of its waste education work. Itemploys a full time education officer whose role it is to engage with schools andcommunity organizations.


The Council has always had a weighbridge and all waste consignments have beenaccurately recorded.

The Council has faith in the data recorded under WDF but not so much confidence inwaste data prior to 2003/04.

Commercial and domestic waste has been separately collected since 1993 so there is alot of confidence in the split in tonnages associated with the data.

There is a suspicion that 3 to 4 years ago that some highways waste was entering theMSW stream.

Demographics

The overall population has been steadily increasing over the time series from a total of64,100 residents in 2000/01 to approximately 69,200 in 2006/07, according to NISRAestimates.

Equally, average household size has reduced from 2.80 to 2.65 persons / hhld over thesame time period. However, this is high when compared to typical household sizes inEngland for example. However, as the LA representative pointed out, typical householdstend to be larger per se due average family sizes.

There has been an influx of eastern Europeans, particularly Polish in some of the localfishing communities – the immigration however has been less pronounced than in othermore urbanized parts of Northern Ireland.


New build has, until recently, been fairly buoyant in the district. However, the EHS hasrecently placed a moratorium on new developments in the district which will have aneffect on the number of new permanent residents entering the area.

1.28 Cases study 28: West Dunbartonshire Council


The Unitary Authority of West Dunbartonshire is located in the west Central Region of Scotland; itcovers an administrative area of 176Km² and in 2001 was home to a population of 91,400persons, that represents 1.81% of the population of Scotland and 0.16% of the population of theentire United Kingdom.

West Dunbartonshire is one of the 32 local government council areas of Scotland. Bordering ontothe west of the City of Glasgow, containing many of Glasgow's commuter towns and villages aswell as the city's suburbs. West Dunbartonshire also Borders onto Argyll and Bute. The area isadministered from Dumbarton, although Clydebank is the largest town. The Council has onlyexisted since 1996, and was comprised of a number of smaller borough councils and theresponsibilities of the previous region of Strathclyde.

The population of children and young people aged 0-19 years in West Dunbartonshire isestimated to have fallen by over 2,500 between 1996 and 2005.


West Dunbartonshire Council operates a minimum weekly waste collection service forhouseholders. The waste is collected by means of individual wheeled bins, communal bins orplastic sacks. The specific day of collection is fixed for the whole year, apart from over theChristmas and New Year holiday period when essential changes to collection days are notified tothe householders who will be affected. There are 43,000 households in the area, all of whichreceive a weekly waste collection. A total of 30,000 households receive a monthly collection oftheir blue bin (introduced in 2004) and brown garden waste bin (introduced in 2005). Theremaining 13,000 households receive a bi-weekly blue box collection (introduced in 2007). Thereis no restriction on the presentation of side waste.

A free uplift service is available for bulky household items such as old three-piece suites or otherlarge household items which cannot fit easily into a wheeled bin. It should be noted that theCouncil has a duty to impose a charge for certain special uplift items resulting from homeimprovement works. The council will not remove builder’s rubble, bricks, soil, asbestos or gascylinders though it operates services for the collection of good quality items of furniture and wasteelectronic and electrical equipment (WEEE) which residents no longer require. Local charityHome from Home, in partnership with the Council, will collect good quality reusable items offurniture, anything ranging from beds to wardrobes, sofas and dining tables, and provide theseitems at very low cost to local residents who need to furnish their homes.

The Council, Greenlight Recycling and the Scottish Government have recently extended a pilotscheme for the collection of recyclable materials from flats, tenements and multi-storey propertiesand households where a wheeled bin service is not available. These households have a blue boxand a bag for the collection of paper, cardboard, plastic bottles and cans. The boxes and bagsare collected every two weeks from householder’s doorsteps. In accordance with Fire Serviceregulations, blue boxes and bags should be stored inside the home and placed on the doorstepon collection days.

There are three Household Waste Recycling Centres in West Dunbartonshire, at Dalmoak, nearRenton; Ferry Road, Old Kilpatrick and Stanford Street, Clydebank. Stanford Street does notaccept household refuse and is designed specifically to collect a wide range of segregatedmaterials for recycling. Two of these sites were redeveloped following award of funding throughthe Strategic Waste Fund (SWF) leading to considerable improvement in the levels of materialrecovery.

There are 40 Communal Recycling Points throughout West Dunbartonshire which accept anumber of recyclables. West Dunbartonshire Council is working in partnership with two

http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Scotland


organisations to roll out a pilot scheme for the recycling of drink and food cartons at five bringsites in the area. The Council can offer residents a free 'Helping Hands' box. This will enable aresident to neatly store recyclable items in the home then take them to the nearest RecyclingCentre when the box needs to be emptied.

West Dunbartonshire Council provides a commercial waste service to businesses within itsboundaries. As part of the waste prevention initiatives they offer a recycling service forcommercial premises. A business may receive a discount in the charge for the uplift of theirwaste if they participate in recycling schemes. Commercial waste customers are offered blue binswhere they can recycle the same materials as local residents, as part of the Councils integratedduty of care arrangements. There has been over 40% take up of this service. The Council hasincreased waste collection charges year on year and as such is a significant revenue generator,generating an annual income of over £500,000 pa, although there is keen competition fromnational waste collection companies

The Council spends £20k/pa on a school waste education programme and hosts a wasteprevention month in April of each year.


0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

2000-

01

2001-

02

2002-

03

2003-

04

2004-

05

2005-

06

2006-

07

2007-

08

Year

To

nn

es

/p

a

HWRC other (not accounted forelsewhere)

HWRC green waste

HWRC dry recycables

Private and voluntary collections


Kerbside collected dryrecyclables





0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

70000

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

Year

To

nn

es

/p

a Total non-houshold disposal

Total non-houshold recycled

Total non-household arisings

Total MSW

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

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

40000

45000

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

Year

To

nn

es

Regular householdcollection


TOTAL DISPOSAL

Kerbside collected dryrecyclables

Private and voluntarycollections

TOTAL RECYCLED

TOTAL ARISING


Total non-houshold and MSW arisings (1995/96 - 1999/00)

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

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

Year

To

nn

es

MSW commercial waste

MSW fly tipped waste

MSW other *

TOTAL DISPOSAL

MSW source separatedcommercial dry recyclables

TOTAL RECYCLED

TOTAL ARISING

TOTAL MSW

Waste policy mapping Wheeled bins introduced in 1996.

2000/01 – weekly collections with unrestricted side waste.

2003/04 – Strategic Waste Implementation Plan approved, 13 bring sites in place, freecomposters available for householders.

2004/05 – dry recyclables kerbside collection introduced to 30,000 households, 2HWRCs upgraded, a total of 25 bring sites in place, introduced a real nappy scheme,introduced a waste education programme, introduced a furniture redistribution schemeand introduced April as the Waste Prevention month.

2005/06 – a garden waste collection was introduced to 30,000 households, built anadditional HWRC, the bring network was increased to 35 sites, a charge for bulky DIYwastes was introduced and a waste prevention portal was introduced on the Council’sweb site.

2006/07 – the dry recyclables kerbside collection was extended to a further 12,000households on a fortnightly collection frequency, cardboard added to blue bin/boxschemes, the bring network was extended to 40 sites, they introduced a subsidizedhome composter scheme in partnership with WRAP and an internal waste preventionplan was adopted by WDC employees.

2007/08 – Tetra-pak pilot programme commenced


Household collected waste has overall slowly declined since 2002/03 but has increasedsince 2006/07 despite waste policy improvements.

The amount of household waste recycled has increased dramatically since 2004/05.

The segmentation of household waste streams has improved dramatically since theadvent of WDF as evidenced in the first graph that exhibits the split of HWRC wastestreams and the introduction of kerbside garden waste collection tonnages.

Overall household waste arisings have increased by 13,000 tonnes between 2000/01and 2007/08.

The amount of non-household waste disposed of (largely commercial waste) hasreduced from a high of ~17.5 ktpa in 2000/01 to ~6 ktpa in 2007/08.


The amount of non-household waste (largely commercial waste) has broadly remained inthe range 435 to 724 tonnes/pa.

Overall non-household waste has reduced dramatically from 17,662 tonnes (2000/01) to6474 tonnes (2007/08) yet overall MSW has increased from ~57 ktpa (2000/01) TO ~65ktpa (2004/05). Since this year there has been an overall decline in MSW to 60 ktpa in2007/08. It is thought that much of this volatility is a legacy of inconsistent data reporting.However, as noted by the respondent there is now much more faith in the data reportedsince the advent of WDF.

Historic waste data has been provided (1995/96 – 1999/00) although it should be notedthat caution should be placed on the use of this data due to data confidence issues.While data since this date appears more volatile it is considered to be more accurate.

Summary of factors

Confidence in waste data was not good until the introduction of WDF and certainly priorto 2001/02 confidence was very limited.

Each year the Council hosts a waste prevention month and there has been anecdotalevidence that suggests reuse has temporarily increased with a greater demand on localfurniture reuse services and a dip in bulky items entering the Council’s HWRCs.

Current cost of disposal is very cheap at £46 / tonne meaning that alternativemanagement options are fairly cost sensitive, the Council’s recycling rate is currently32.8%.

Of the three HWRCs, one has a capacity of 12,000 tonnes / pa. The sites currentlyaccept trade waste although a trade waste ban is to be introduced as of March 31

st2009.

The sites are managed by Greenlight Recycling but are not policed out of hours– there isa suspicion that some illicit material is deposited at the sites.

Commercial waste services are suffering in the presence of private sector collectionproviders. They have lost 300 customers since 2005.

In terms of LATs, as of 2008/09 the council is in a deficit situation with a likelihood ofincurring £150,000 worth of penalties, £750,000 of penalties in 2009/10 increasing to ananticipated level of £1.5m in 2013.

It is expected that a new interim waste treatment contract will be devised in partnershipwith Inverclyde and Argyll and Bute. The Council also belongs to the same WasteStrategy Area as Glasgow, who are looking to commission an autoclave and gasificationtype treatment process for residual waste, although such a process is unlikely to beoperating before 2013.

The Council has witnessed a steady growth in MSW and household arisings since2000/01. Although there has been a temporary reduction in 2004/05 – possibly a legacyof waste data reporting following the introduction of WDF.

In order to improve recycling performance, the Council is considering doubling thefrequency of blue / brown bins collections and move residual waste to AWCs. By 2010they hope to introduce food waste collections. They also plan to collect glass from 13,000tenement properties through the use of 55 litre boxes. However it should be noted that allof this is subject to approval.

The quality of data pre WDF and especially in the 1990s is questionable. There islikelihood that outturn data was based on outputs from reprocessors etc rather thancollected tonnages.

In 2004/05 construction and demolition waste (industrial waste) was sent to landfill ratherthan being used for infill for a marina development due to a failed contract negotiation –the material was included as MSW. Also the Council won a kitchen replacement contractfor social housing; the removed kitchens were landfilled as MSW thus compoundingdisposal tonnages.

Up until 2003/04, the amount of commercial waste appearing as MSW was estimated.


Demographic changes – household numbers are based on Council Tax registrations.The resident population is approximately 93k although the population is predicted todecrease. The average household size is approximated at 2.10 persons and the majorityof the population is white with very few minority ethnic groups.

New build vs demolition of old housing negates housing growth.

There is an anecdotal belief by the Council representative that there is a behaviouralchange with regards waste prevention, reuse and recycling – not just within the councilarea but more of a societal trend across the population. Waste is now accepted as anissue of concern.












The Council was also asked to complete a self assessment of the communications activity theyundertake. This has been adapted from a paper entitled ‘Strategic Communication Audits’ (JuliaCoffman, 2004) that aims to develop a better understanding of strategic communications auditsand the main steps involved.


The presents a scale (Practice Maturity Scale) which has been adapted for this project asdetailed below.

Practice

Maturity Scale

Definition

1 Ad-hoc Communication is generally unplanned, reactive and disorganised. Thereis no overall responsibility for communication, no strategy and little or nobudget to enable effective delivery. Projects may run over budget and overschedule. Poor quality of materials.



4 Co-ordinated

Delivery is regular and routine. A strategy has been developed todetermine the best way for the organisation to communicate andresponsibility for its implementation is defined. Resources are sufficient tocover the outputs recommended in the strategy. Materials are good quality,but have the potential to be more effective. There is some assessment ofperformance.


6 Optimised Effective communication is seen as vital and is integrated into all systemsand processes. The link between the organisation’s strategic objectivesand effective communications is clear, delivery purposeful and proactiveand the resources allocated reflect this. Strategy, delivery and support arereviewed and enhanced using formal frameworks such as scrutiny, bestvalue, continuous improvement and quality management systems.


Overall household waste (and MSW) arisings continue to increase despite a continued fall in theresident population and the introduction of waste prevention and recycling / compostingmeasures over the past six years. The recycling performance overall for the Council is very goodand one possible consideration is that these new measures may in fact be attracting new materialinto the system. It would be interesting to see whether a move to AWCs and enforcement of aside waste policy would have any affect on mitigating this growth in household waste.

randd.defra.gov.ukrandd.defra.gov.uk/document.aspx?document=wr0121_8315_fra.pdf · quality control...

Documents