The West of England Waste Management and Planning Partnership consisting of Bath & North East Somerset, Bristol, North Somerset, and South Gloucestershire has developed this Joint Residual Municipal Waste Management Strategy (JRMWMS) to define the strategic framework for managing residual waste over the period 2007 to 2027.

The strategy has been developed in response to the significant challenges facing the management of municipal waste in the UK; including local, national and international obligations in terms of environmental targets and policies. Targets for reducing the amount of biodegradable municipal waste (BMW) being sent for disposal in landfill have been set down by The European Union and there is now a ‘significant risk that local authorities in England will fail to reduce tonnages of biodegradable waste sent to landfill by enough to meet the EU targets for 2010 and 2013. To meet the EU targets the UK will require the construction of waste treatment and recovery plants, such as mechanical biological treatment (MBT) and energy from waste (EfW) facilities’[1].

Preparation of this JRMWMS has been underpinned by the following 'vision' agreed by all authorities:

The four local authorities in the West of England area are working together to develop, in consultation with local residents and other stakeholders, a range of facilities for the treatment of municipal residual waste.

These will deliver significant reductions in the amount of waste, particularly biodegradable waste, being sent to landfill sites. They will also maximise the efficient recovery of resources and encompass environmental, social and economic factors.

Each local authority will maintain a long term commitment to increase waste reduction, recycling and composting, and will move toward a longer term aim of achieving zero waste.

The West of England Waste Management and Planning Partnership authorities are active in all aspects of waste management particularly waste minimisation, recycling, and composting. However, even if high rates of minimisation, recycling and composting are achieved there will still be a large quantity of waste ‘left over’ that will need to be managed and ultimately disposed of. This waste is usually collected from householders in black bags or wheeled bins, or is deposited by them at household waste recycling centres (HWRC) and is described as ‘residual waste’. This JRMWMS only considers the management of residual waste and it is intended to sit alongside the authorities’ existing waste management strategies, which include schemes for waste minimisation, reuse and recycling.

The overall quantity of waste the Partnership have to manage is expected to rise in the future despite the general trend of reducing waste quantities per household. The majority of this growth is due to an increase in households across the sub-region. By 2026/27 the partnership will be required to manage approximately 660,000 tonnes of Municipal Solid Waste (an increase of over 100,000 tonnes from 2005/6 levels).

The current nature of waste management and future projections for waste arisings and LATS performance has been modelled. This has shown that without some form of secondary waste treatment facility the Partnership will fail to meet LATS targets in the first target year (2009/10) onwards. This will potentially lead to the Authorities having to purchase permits or face fines which would have a huge financial implication for the Authorities. For example, if the Partnership carried on as they are today in 2026/27 there is likely to be a LATS deficit of approximately 173,200 tonnes. This could translate into a possible fine for that year in the region of £25,950,000. The authorities are therefore working together to develop a range of waste facilities to treat this waste. These facilities will take some time to procure and are not likely to be operational before 2013/14, the Authorities are therefore also developing individual strategies for reducing the quantity of biodegradable municipal waste going to landfill before this time.

Steps have been taken to ensure that the JRMWMS accords with Government Guidance and that services are delivered to a high standard, consistent with the principles of best value whilst considering the evaluation of the economic, social and environmental impacts.

An in-depth consultation process has been carried out in conjunction with the development of the JRMWMS and the Joint Waste Development Plan Document (JWDPD). The Strategy has therefore been written alongside a very extensive consultation campaign with the public, the waste management industry and with stakeholders. The information and views obtained during this consultation were considered during the decision making process.

The strategy does not consider the sites available for the location of waste treatment facilities as this process is covered by the Joint Waste Development Plan Document (JWDPD). The main aim of the JWDPD is to define the strategy for the provision of strategic municipal waste management facilities and to allocate sites for waste management facilities for municipal and all other wastes for which allocations have been made in the Regional Waste Strategy for the South West (RWSSW).

The JRMWMS considers municipal waste treatment technologies that may be suitable for implementation in the region and subjects a number of options to an appraisal process to produce a preferred option(s). During this process the technical performance of each option is modelled/ assessed and also subjected to quantitative and qualitative criteria to assess the environmental, economic and social implications of each option.

The interim outcome of the process was a range of residual waste treatment combinations with the positive and negative factors of each identified for consideration.

The three technology options emerged with the highest scores which were:

1. Mechanical Treatment + Thermal Treatment;

2. Energy from Waste; and,

3. Biological Mechanical Treatment + Thermal Treatment + Landfill.

The options will then be assessed on Capital Expenditure (CAPEX), Operating Expenditure (OPEX) and revenue assessments based on the size and number of facilities determined in the Technology Model.

The same range of waste treatment options will be subject to consultation with the public, as part of the Phase Two Consultation scheduled for early 2007 before the preferred option is chosen to form the Outline Business Case for residual municipal waste management facilities.

2. Introduction

2.1. The Purpose of this Strategy

This Joint Residual Municipal Waste Management Strategy (JRMWMS) has been produced to create a framework for managing municipal residual waste generated in the West of England sub-region in a sustainable manner. The West of England Waste Management and Planning Partnership (The Partnership) recognise that waste management is changing rapidly and that a local authority’s role now includes more than the simple collection and disposal of waste. National and European legislation is the driving force behind the need to manage waste in a more sustainable way. Local authorities are required to reduce the amount of biodegradable waste that they dispose of to landfill or face economic penalties under the Landfill (Scheme Year and Maximum Landfill Amount) Regulations 2004, pursuant to Waste and Emissions Trading Act, 2003.

The Partnership was formed in 2005 with the intention of creating a strategy to manage residual waste and provide the infrastructure for its disposal in a more sustainable manner and to meet increasingly demanding legislation.

The Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) policy guidance states that “Long-term strategic planning is vital to all authorities in securing both the infrastructure and service developments necessary to deliver more sustainable waste management. It is Government’s view that all local authorities should either produce or contribute to a strategy or equivalent.”^{^[2]}

It is fundamental that a waste strategy is in place to steer all important decisions and commitments. The JRMWMS is intended to provide a structure for the management of residual waste in the long term and to anticipate longer-term pressures so that they can be planned for.

This JRMWMS only considers the management of residual waste and it is not intended to replace each authority’s existing waste strategies, which already consider source segregation of materials for recycling and composting. This JRMWMS uses a working definition of residual waste as: ‘Waste from household sources containing materials that have not been separated and sent for reprocessing’[3]. In this case the residual municipal waste includes trade waste which comes under the authority’s control.

Currently the majority of the residual waste produced in the West of England is disposed of to landfill sites, many of which are located outside the region.

The JRMWMS acknowledges that there should be major changes to our waste management practices and that maintaining the ‘Status Quo' is not an option. This JRMWMS sets out the objectives and proposals for waste treatment and disposal that will apply across the sub-region, and the options for meeting performance standards and targets.

2.2. The Strategy Vision

The JRMWMS vision is intended to provide a ‘clear, non technical statement of the direction of travel’2. The Vision has been adopted to influence and guide the work and activities of the Partnership and is as follows:

Each local authority will maintain a long term commitment to increase waste reduction, recycling and composting, and will move toward a longer term aim of achieving zero waste.

2.3. Who Has Prepared This Strategy?

2.3.1. The West of England Waste Management and Planning Partnership

This strategy has been prepared by Officers working for all members of the West of England Waste Management and Planning Partnership, (described as the Partnership from here onwards) in conjunction with Waste Management Consultants, Jacobs. These four unitary authorities are statutorily responsible for the collection, treatment, disposal, and planning of municipal waste management.

The West of England Waste Management and Planning Partnership

· South Gloucestershire Council

· Bristol City Council

· North Somerset Council

· Bath & North East Somerset Council

The Authorities believe working in Partnership offers economic, environmental and social advantages such as:

· Maximising economies of scale;

· Minimising environmental impacts;

· Minimising transport requirements; and

· Providing best value for the tax payer.

The formation of the Partnership will also greatly improve the proximity and self sufficiency of waste management in the sub-region. The concepts of Proximity and Self Sufficiency were introduced in Planning Policy Statement 10[4]. Proximity is referred to as: “disposing of waste at the nearest appropriate installation, by means of the most appropriate methods and technologies” and self sufficiency as “individuals, communities and organisations taking responsibility for their waste”. The Partnership will consider these two principles in decision making and will aim to maximise proximity and self sufficiency in waste management.

2.4. The Strategy Scope

The Strategy has been developed broadly in accordance with Defra guidance on the preparation of Municipal Waste Management Strategies[5], although the strategy is not typical because it is only includes the management of residual waste.

2.4.1. Residual Waste

The Partnership was formed to provide a strategy for the management of residual waste only and therefore this document does not include in-depth analysis of the waste minimisation, recycling and composting strategies and related infrastructure that the Authorities have in place. However, this data has informed the strategy and has been included in calculations and models of future residual waste growth. Other wastes and issues that are not considered by the strategy include:

· Non controlled agricultural waste;

· Nuclear and radioactive wastes;

· Sewage;

· Waste minimisation & awareness raising;

· Waste/ recyclate collection services;

· Cleansing services.

2.4.2. Sites for the Location of Waste Management Facilities

The Strategy also excludes the consideration of any locations for waste management facilities. In parallel with the preparation of this strategy, Waste Planning Officers are developing a Joint Waste Development Plan Document, which will address this issue. Waste Managers and Planners are working closely to ensure both the Joint Municipal Residual Waste Management Strategy and Joint Waste Development Plan Document will inform and complement each other.

2.5. Consultation

The Partnership acknowledges that this strategy has to be produced with the views and wishes of the local residents in mind, since the householder has such a crucial role to play in the achievement of new standards in waste management. It is also important that all other organisations and individuals who have a stake in the process are engaged, including commercial waste management companies which will provide many of the services, technologies and investment required to deliver change.

The Strategy has therefore been written alongside an extensive consultation campaign with the public, the waste management industry and with stakeholders. The information and views obtained during this consultation was included in the decision making process, particularly the Technical Options Appraisal, through which a range of preferred waste management options for the Partnership were developed and evaluated. Further details of the consultation process are described in Section 2.5 and a separate Strategy Consultation Report[6].

2.6. Strategy Timescale

The JRMWMS is intended to create a pathway for residual municipal waste management for the next 20 years, up to 2027 (assuming it is adopted in 2007), in alignment with the Waste Development Plan Document. However, it is anticipated that waste treatment facilities could still be operating for some time after 2027.

Waste management is a dynamic area and there can be uncertainty about legislation and technology beyond the short to medium term. For this reason certain sections of the JRMWMS will be under constant review, for example, targets, action plans, and monitoring arrangements. There will inevitably be times when significant changes will need to be made to the JRMWMS to reflect changing commitments and investments. As a matter of protocol the JRMWMS will be fully reviewed every five years by the Partnership.

3. Where is The Partnership today?

This section provides a baseline review of the Partnership authority’s current waste management position and includes the following elements:

· An outline of existing key policy and legal requirements;

· Roles and responsibilities of the Authorities;

· Contextual information about the West of England and each Authority;

· Analysis of waste data;

· Forward projections of waste quantities; and,

· Business as usual LATS balance.

3.1. Key Policy and Legal Requirements

This section provides an overview of the current key legal and policy requirements which may impact on residual waste management. In order for the Partnership to put forward an action plan they will need to ensure that all actions are aligned with the relevant legislation and focused towards achieving statutory targets identified by Government. APPENDIX A- FURTHER RELEVANT LEGISLATION includes a more comprehensive list of other relevant legislation.

Figure 1 outlines the hierarchy of legislation, regulation and guidelines that influence Local Authority residual waste management policies and strategies for their areas. Guidelines and codes of practice may not have a statutory basis but they often provide a valuable framework from which local and regional strategies can develop.

Figure 1 Flowchart outlining the hierarchy of legislation, regulation and guidelines that influence Local Authority residual waste management policies and strategies

3.1.1. EU Directives

3.1.1.1. Landfill Directive, 1999

The Landfill Directive was developed as a climate protection measure because of concern over the high levels of methane produced by the decomposition of biodegradable waste in landfills. The directive requires an increasing amount of municipal waste to be either pre-treated (to reduce biodegradability) or managed by methods other than landfill. The Landfill Directive[7] was transcribed into UK law as The Landfill (England and Wales) Regulations 2002.

The Directive sets requirements to reduce the amount of biodegradable municipal waste (BMW) that can be sent to landfill. The starting point for the targets is the amount of BMW that was produced (not landfilled) in 1995. Each country can then only landfill the following amounts of BMW:

· by 2010, only 75% of the amount produced in 1995;

· by 2013, that reduces to 50%;

· by 2020, that reduces to 35%

Therefore the amount of waste that can be landfilled over the next 20 years is tied to the amount produced in 1995, even though waste quantities are still rising. This ever increasing gap is producing the greatest force for change in waste management in the UK.

A recent study by the National Audit Office [8] stated that the increase in recycling had been offset by the growth in waste produced and that there is “a significant risk that the targets will not be met”. There are also likely to be heavy financial penalties if local authorities do not meet the targets, which could be up to £180 million a year⁸. The UK Government has stated that any fines will be passed onto Local Authorities who fail to meet the targets.

3.1.2. UK Acts

3.1.2.1. Waste and Emissions Trading Act (WET), 2003

The Act is intended to facilitate England meeting its European obligations under the Landfill Directive for the diversion of biodegradable waste from landfill. The Act involves the allocation, by the government, of 'landfill allowances' to waste disposal authorities each year. Authorities can then either stick to their landfill limits each year, or they can trade these allowances. High landfilling authorities may need to buy more allowances if they expect to landfill more than their limit. Authorities with low landfill rates can sell their surplus allowances to those authorities that may require them. The Act sets the statutory framework to implement a Landfill Allowance Trading Scheme (LATS).

3.1.2.2. Landfill Allowance Trading Scheme (LATS), 2005

Reflecting the intention of the Landfill Directive the LATS system sees progressively tighter restrictions on the amount of biodegradable municipal waste - include kitchen waste, green or garden wastes, paper, card, cork and even some textiles[9] - that disposal authorities can landfill.

Local authorities have been allocated allowances for the amount of BMW they can landfill for every year of the scheme until 2020. These allowances are tradable, so that high landfilling authorities can buy more allowances if they expect to landfill more than the allowances they hold. Similarly, authorities with low landfill rates can sell their surplus allowances.

Authorities do not have to trade allowances. If they want to avoid the complication of trading, they are able to comply with the regulations so long as they do not landfill more than the total amount of allowances they hold. This is achieved by increasing reduction, recycling and composting and the development of a facility to process residual waste. Local authorities can also bank unused allowances or borrow from their future allocations within certain rules.

The consequences of failing to meet the diversion targets are as follows:

· The cost of purchasing additional permits (if available);

· Increased operational costs of haulage/ disposal and landfill tax;

· Cost of being penalised for exceeding permits (approx £150 tonne); and,

· Possible increased fines above £150 per tonne in the ‘target years’ (2010, 2013, 2020) as fines from Europe will be apportioned between offending authorities, in proportion to their tonnes landfilled over permits held.

In addition, the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s Landfill tax escalator continues to apply with an ongoing increase of £3 per tonne per year.

The scheme applies to all waste collected by the local authorities and therefore operates as a disincentive to collect waste from commercial and industrial premises. However, the Partnership intends to try and maximise the quantity of non-municipal waste that can be recycled in the region through other means.

3.1.3. National Waste Strategies, 2000 (Review 2006)

Waste Strategy 2000[10] was published as a response to the recognition that England’s waste management position was unsustainable. The Strategy set down national guidance for waste management that all local authorities must have regard. The strategy was revised in 2005[11] in response to concerns over the underpinning decision-making principles and procedures.

The strategy focuses on the importance of driving waste management up the waste hierarchy. The waste hierarchy was originally described in the Waste Framework Directive[12] and stresses that waste prevention and reduction should take priority over other methods of waste management with disposal being the last option. The strategy identified a number of important national targets for the recycling and composting of municipal waste, in order to encourage a shift in waste management practices up the hierarchy.

In February 2006 a major review of the Waste Strategy 2000[13] was launched as a consultation document. The Consultation Document also emphasised the importance of the waste hierarchy shown in Figure 2, which originated from the Waste Framework Directive (1975)[14].

Figure 2 The Waste Hierarchy

The 2006 consultation document also identified a set of revised targets for recycling, recovery, and landfill. The targets from these two strategy documents are summarised in Table 1:

Table 1 National recycling and recovery targets (and proposed) for household and municipal waste from Waste Strategy 2000 and the Consultation on the Review of England’s Waste Strategy (2006)

Year	2010		2015		2020
Strategy	WS 2000	WS Review	WS 2000	WS Review	WS 2000	WS Review
Recycling & Composting	30%	40%	33%	45%	-	50%
Municipal Waste Recovery	45%	53%	67%	67%	-	75%

Table 1 clearly indicates that it is the Government’s intention to introduce more ambitious and challenging targets for Local Authorities with in respect of recycling and composting.

Some of the key issues highlighted in the 2006 consultation document were as follows:

· An increased focus on waste prevention and embedding this in the wider Sustainable Consumption and Production Agenda;

· Viewing waste as a resource and extending a recycling and re-use culture beyond the home to workplaces, shopping and leisure activities;

· Highlighting sustainable waste management in non-municipal sectors (including commercial & industrial, construction & demolition, mining and quarry waste) with greater integration of planning and procurement between municipal and some non municipal waste; and,

· Securing technological efficient investment in waste treatment at all stages of the chain.

The results of the consultation were published in August 2006 and were largely supportive of the changes.

3.1.3.1. Regional and Sub-Regional Policy

A Regional Waste Strategy for the South West[15] (RWSSW) was published in October 2004 by the South West Regional Assembly. The Strategy sets out a fifteen year plan to manage waste sustainably in the region and input was provided by each authority of the West of England Waste Management and Planning Partnership. The RWSSW presents measures to manage residual waste produced by the region.

The RWSSW suggests that approximately 500-600 new waste facilities of all types will need to be in place by 2020 including:

· Facilities to process green waste to produce compost;

· Sorting facilities for the products that are being recycled;

· Facilities for mechanical, biological or thermal treatment of residual waste; and

· New landfill capacity as the space in existing landfill is running out.

The RWSSW aims to provide a framework such that by the year 2020 over 45% of municipal waste is recycled and reused and that the remaining 55% will be treated or recovered before going to landfill through thermal or biological/ mechanical treatments. In this way less than 20% of waste produced in the region will be landfilled.

Other ‘targets’ set out in the strategy include the following indicative annual municipal waste management capacities for the Landfill Directive target years shown in Table 2 below.

Table 2 Indicative Annual Municipal Waste Management Capacities for the Landfill Directive Target Years for the Partnership Authorities

Target Year	Minimum Source Separated (000s t/ annum)	Maximum Secondary Treatment (000s t/ annum)	Maximum Landfill (000s t/ annum)
2010	230	150	300
2013	280	220	240
2020	310	370	120

3.1.3.2. Waste Guidelines and Codes of Practice

Guidance on the Household Waste Recycling Act was published to help Waste Collection Authorities take any necessary steps to comply with the Act, whilst acknowledging their freedom to choose the best way of doing so. The new guidance, which followed a consultation held in 2004, highlights good practice and other sources of information and support that Waste Collection Authorities may find helpful when formulating waste management strategies whilst addressing other statutory requirements such as health and safety.

Guidance on Municipal Waste Management Strategies published in July 2005 replaces the earlier 2001 Guidance. This Guidance sets out what the government expects from English and Welsh waste disposal authorities and waste collection authorities when preparing and updating Municipal Waste Management Strategies (MWMS).

3.1.4. Key Planning Policy and Legislation

To increase the amount of waste that is moved up the waste hierarchy and diverted from landfill will require major investment in waste management facilities. The land use planning system therefore has a crucial role to play in the adequate and timely provision of these facilities.

There has been a revision of national planning policy for sustainable waste management in PPS10 by the ODPM (now the Department for Communities and Local Government- DCLG) alongside DEFRA’s new policy framework for MWMSs. Provision for the delivery of waste management infrastructure will require policies that reflect the needs of the relevant MWMS developed in accordance with DEFRA guidance, and policies that shape non-waste-related development in relation to spatial planning concerns such as transport, housing, economic growth, natural resources and regeneration. The two policy frameworks are therefore closely aligned and this is expected to be re-produced on the ground through joint working of planning and waste management departments.

3.1.4.1. Planning Policy Statement 10, 2005

This document sets out the key planning objectives and decision making principles that should be adhered to in developing Regional Spatial Strategies and Local Development Documents (LDD). It also sets out policies for identifying land for waste management facilities, for identifying suitable sites and areas that fulfil the location criteria outlined in the Waste Framework Directive. PPS 10 requires that the planning strategies developed by regional and local planning bodies should help deliver sustainable development. A key tool for helping to ensure the sustainability of strategies and plans is Sustainable Appraisal (SA).This is identified in PPS 10 as one of the decision-making principles to shape waste planning strategies such that they support the Government’s planning objectives for waste management. As many authorities are in a transitional period between old and new systems, PPS10 may supersede any current planning policies where this is deemed appropriate by that authority.

The principles set out in PPS10 require the following:

· Regional Planning Bodies (RPB) should prepare Regional Spatial Strategies (RSS), which aim to provide sufficient opportunity to meet the identified needs of the area for waste management for all waste streams. Planning authorities should develop Local Development Documents (LDD) which reflects their contribution to delivering the RSS.

· Waste management should be considered alongside other spatial planning concerns such as housing and economic growth. Recognition of the contribution of waste management in the development of sustainable communities should be noted. This should be integrated with other strategies including Municipal Waste Management Strategies.

· Clear policy objectives should be the basis for planned provision of new capacity and its spatial distribution. Policy objectives should be in line with the planning policies set out in the PPS and be linked to measurable indicators of change.

· Planning strategies should be shaped by Sustainability Appraisals (incorporating Strategic Environmental Assessment). SEA is a key component of sustainable development establishing important methods for protecting the environment and extending opportunities for participation in public policy decision making.

3.1.4.2. Joint Waste Development Plan Document

In 2004 the Government introduced changes to the development planning system. Councils are required to prepare a Local Development Framework, which will replace their existing Local Plans. The statutory documents in the Local Development Framework are referred to as Development Plan Documents. Because the collection and management of waste takes place across local authority boundaries within the West of England, it was decided that the four Unitary Authorities of Bath and North East Somerset, Bristol City, North Somerset and South Gloucestershire should work together to prepare a Joint Waste Development Plan Document.

Whereas the JRMWMS will set out how municipal waste should be managed, the Joint Waste Development Plan Document (JWDPD) will deal with where all waste should be managed.

The JWDPD will apportion the amount of municipal and non-municipal waste (mainly Industrial and Commercial waste) to be managed within each of the four Unitary Authority areas. Importantly, the JWDPD will establish the spatial strategy for the distribution of strategic waste management facilities needed in the West of England if waste is to be diverted from landfill. It will establish the sustainable waste management principles that will guide waste-related development over the period to 2026.

In order to facilitate the development of new waste facilities that will be required over the next twenty years, the JWDPD will identify sites suitable for strategic waste management purposes, and where it is not appropriate or possible to identify sites, areas of search and/ or criteria will be identified.

The process of preparing a development plan document is set out in the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act, 2004 and associated regulations and Government guidance. The key stages in the preparation of the Joint Waste Development Plan Document are outlined in Table 3.

Table 3 Key stages in the development of the JWDPD

Timing	Key Output
Ongoing	- Evidence gathering and data gathering from the Environment Agency.
January/March 2007	- Consultation on the Issues and Options report for the JRMWMS and the JWDPD.
Spring/Summer 2007	- Consideration of representations received on the Issues and Options Report and preparation of the Preferred Options report and the JRMWMS.
Autumn 2007	- Adoption of JRMWMS. - Consultation on the Preferred Options report for the JWDPD.
Winter 2007	- Consideration of the representations received on the Preferred Options report.
Spring/Summer 2008	- Preparation of the JWDPD.
Autumn 2008	- Submission of JWDPD to the Secretary of State.
Autumn 2009	- Independent Examination of JWDPD.
Summer 2010	- Adoption of JWDPD.

Consultation of the Issues and Options Document represents an early stage in the preparation of the Joint WDPD. The purpose of the document is to generate discussion about waste management and planning in the West of England by seeking views on the issues facing the area on how waste should be managed and where the required facilities should be located.

The Issues and Options Document contains information on the amount of waste likely to be produced in the West of England over the next two decades, the technologies that are likely to be available to manage the waste diverted from landfill, and their spatial implications for the Joint Waste Development Plan Document, including the broad land use distribution options available to the area.

Following the consideration of responses to the Issues and Options Document, the next step will be to progress the Preferred Option(s), which will lead to the preparation of the JWDPD that will be submitted to the Secretary of State, and which will be the subject of an independent examination prior to its adoption around summer 2010.

3.2. Other Waste Streams

Defra’s Waste Strategy Review[16] Consultation has shown strong support for better integration between municipal and other waste streams to gain the potential economies of scale from more integrated collection, management and recovery of municipal and non-municipal waste.

One of the key objectives of the Partnership is to consider the capacity in the region to be able to manage both municipal and other waste streams, in-line with the Regional Waste Strategy for the South-West (RWSSW). Although the RWSSW does not directly consider commercial waste it should be noted that depending on market forces the facilities provided for municipal waste may also be suitable for commercial waste.

3.2.1. Commercial & Industrial Wastes/ Construction and Demolition Wastes

The review stresses the need to recover more resources from waste, and encourages a more integrated approach to waste management. The consultation also indicates that future targets will be set for the landfill of commercial and industrial waste.

Defra’s consultation response document considers and encourages the integration of the commercial and industrial waste streams with the municipal waste stream in order to offer economies of scale in the provision of recycling and recovery facilities. This is seen as being particularly useful for waste created by Small and Medium Sized Businesses (SMEs) which is excluded from municipal collection but where quantities are often too small to be worth a private contractor collecting. Waste Collection Authorities (WCA) have a duty under section 45(1)(b) of the Environment Act (1990) to arrange for the collection of commercial waste where requested to do so.

However, it needs to be taken into account that commercial waste which is collected by a WCA itself will be waste which comes into the possession or under the control of a WCA, and therefore municipal waste, which falls within the LATS regime.

Construction and demolition waste will also need to be managed in the region but it may be more difficult to integrate into the municipal waste stream due to the different physical properties of the wastes.

3.3. Roles and Responsibilities

Responsibility for waste management in England and Wales is split between the Environment Agency, as waste regulator, and local authorities in their roles as Waste Collection Authority (WCA) and the Waste Disposal Authority (WDA). Because the Partnership is made up of unitary authorities it is jointly responsible both for the collection and disposal of waste. Household waste from domestic properties is collected free of charge with the exception of certain wastes (bulky items). In addition, unitary authorities are responsible for investigating the potential for recycling in their area and preparing a recycling plan.

Unitary authorities are also responsible as Waste Disposal Authorities (WDAs) for ensuring the provision of disposal facilities in their area for controlled waste. Between 1990 and 2006, these facilities had to be operated by the private sector or by a Local Authority Waste Disposal Company (LAWDC) rather than by the local authority itself, although this requirement was repealed by the Cleaner Neighbourhood and Environment Act, 2005. WDAs must ensure provision for the disposal of all waste collected in their area by WCAs; provide facilities for householders to deposit their own waste; and arrange for the disposal of this waste.

Government guidance and legislation on developing Joint Municipal Waste Strategies, the National Waste Strategy and Best Value in Waste Management, has been a means of encouraging the joint working between regional authorities and is likely to speed up the change process in the future.

To achieve the aims of the Waste Strategy and to meet the respective targets for recycling, recovery and diversion, closer working between the partner authorities is vital. This will extend to matters contained within future waste management contracts.

3.3.1. Partnership Working Arrangements

A Project Board comprising of Executive Members responsible for waste management and planning has been established, and an Officer Project Team has been identified to take the project forward and support the Project Board, with officers from each authority taking a lead on various activities and tasks required to delivery the joint strategies.

Each Authority has made a formal decision via Cabinet or Executive to work in partnership with the others. The Member Project Board have agreed to an incremental approach to formalising this agreement further which is likely to happen from the procurement stage onwards. To this end a memorandum of understanding and terms of reference have been agreed by the Member Board, but not formally signed. At the point at which authorities consider formally entering into a joint procurement of waste treatment facilities it will be appropriate to review the partnership contracting arrangements. The project organisation and the roles of each entity are shown in Figure 3.

Figure 3 Project Organogram

B&NES

Bristol City

North Somerset

South Gloucestershire

MEMBER PROJECT BOARD

Cllr Shirley Potts (SG), Executive Member for Communities.

Cllr Pat Hockey (SG), Executive Member for Planning, Transportation and the Strategic Environment.

Cllr Deborah Yamanaka (NS), Executive Member for Environment and Community.

Cllr John Crockford Hawley (NS), Executive Member for Strategic Planning and Transport.

Cllr Gerry Curran (B&NES), Executive Member for Sustainability and the Environment.

Cllr Gary Hopkins (BCC) Executive Member for Environment and Community Safety.

Cllr Dennis Brown (BCC) Executive Member for Transport and Development Control.

Oversee the whole project, receiving and signing off reports as agreed at appropriate stages and giving approval to proceed to the next stage.

The project board will be responsible for reporting back to and recommending actions to the authorities. The Board will also seek the appropriate approvals from their respective Authority.

PROJECT MANAGEMENT TEAM (Acts as Project Board)
Project Sponsor	Steve Evans, Director of Community Services, (SG)	Reports to the Project Board. The team’s role is to manage and coordinate the project and programme.
Project Manager	Kelvin Bottle, Capita Symonds
Project Team	Project Leaders for MWMS and WDPD, nominated Finance and Legal Officers
Internal Advisors	Directors for Waste Services, Strategic Waste Planning, Finance, and Heads of Legal Services from the four authorities

JOINT MUNICIPAL WASTE MANAGEMENT STRATEGY PROJECT TEAM
Project Leader	Steve Gill, Group Manager, Strategic Waste Facilities (Bristol CC)	Report to the Project Management Teams. The project team’s role is to identify and undertake the tasks required to complete the project.
Project Co-ordinator	Kate Hobson (B&NES)
Project Team	Waste Managers from the Four Authorities
Internal Advisors	Strategic Planning officers, Finance officers, Legal officers, Procurement officers, Corporate Communications officers
External Advisors	Jacobs, RPS, DEFRA, GOSW, Eunomia, Hyder Consulting, ERM

3.4. Current Waste Contracts

Existing contracts that the Partnership authorities have agreed for the management and disposal of residual waste may to some extent restrict the options available to them to manage this residual waste in the future. The contract end dates have to be planned for well in advance as alternative arrangements will take time to organise. It is therefore important that existing contract considerations are integrated into the decision making process. Table 4 below identifies the current contracts held by the partnership authorities for residual waste disposal. It should be noted that for each authority the contracts are for residual waste disposal to landfill.

Table 4 Current residual municipal waste disposal contracts (landfill)

UA	Contract Length	Start Date	End Date	Organisation Contractor	Type of Contract	Options for Possible Extensions	Changes Planned to Contracts
B&NES	7 years	2001	2008	WRG	Private	Up to 3 years	Market test on the collection element
B&NES	7 years	2001	2008	Viridor (ex Wyvern Waste)	Private	Up to 3 years	Market test on the collection element
BCC	7 years	2001	2008	WRG	Private	Up to 3 years	None confirmed
BCC	7 years	2001	2008	Cory Environmental	Private	Up to 3 years	None confirmed
NS	7 years	2003	2010	Viridor	Private	Up to 2 years	Review programmed for 2007 & 2008
SG	25 years	2000	2025	SITA	PFI	N/A	N/A

All present contracts will end between 2008 and 2010, except for South Gloucestershire’s. South Gloucestershire already has a Private Finance Initiative (PFI) contract in place for the delivery of all waste management services. To meet LATS targets beyond this timescale residual waste will have to be treated to remove or reduce the biodegradability of the waste.

In all other cases there is a need to plan carefully for contract transfers as present contracts are due to expire in the medium term, and each authority needs to ensure their required treatment capacity is catered for.

3.5. Waste Disposal Infrastructure

As discussed, the four Partner Authorities at present all rely very heavily on landfill to dispose of residual waste. Waste is first bulked up in local transfer stations and is then taken by rail or road to a network of landfill sites.

3.5.1. Residual Waste Disposal

The transfer stations and landfills used by the authorities are shown in Table 5 below. Each authority also has a network of household waste recycling centres (HWRCs) and bring banks where residual waste and recyclables are deposited by the public.

Table 5 The Destination of residual waste from the sub-region (landfill).

Transfer Stations

Destination Landfill Sites

Transport Mode

Approx. Date Landfill at Full Capacity

B&NES

· Bath (with railhead)

· North Radstock

· Calvert, Buckinghamshire

· Dimmer, Somerset

· Calne, Wiltshire (Contingency)

· Rail

· Road

· 2046

· 2021

· 2031

BCC

· St Philips (with railhead)

· Avonmouth

· Calvert, Buckinghamshire

· Hempsted, Gloucestershire

· Rail

· Road

· 2046

· 2016

· Weston-Super-Mare

· Yanley, North Somerset

· Broadpath, Devon

· Road

· 2008

· 2010

· Yate

· Mangotsfield

· Calne, Wiltshire

· Chapel Farm, Swindon

· Hempsted, Gloucestershire

· Road

· 2031

· Unknown

· 2016

*Landfill sites outside the sub-region are shown in red.

Table 5 identifies that the majority of residual waste is presently being exported outside the sub-region for disposal, which is neither sustainable nor aligned with the guiding principles of proximity or self sufficiency.

Another Waste Management Company recently has secured planning permission for a new landfill site at Shortwood near Bristol which may be available for use by the Partnership by 2007/08. It has also received an IPPC permit from the Environment Agency.

The geographical location of the infrastructure utilised by the Partnership for residual waste management is shown in Figure 4.

Figure 4 The location of the Partnerships transfer stations and landfill sites

3.5.1.1. Household Waste Recycling Centres

Household Waste Recycling Centres (HWRC) sometimes referred to as Civic Amenity Sites, are provided for the public to deposit residual waste and recycling which consists of a higher proportion of bulky waste that cannot be collected. The HWRCs within the partnership area are shown below in Table 6.

Table 6 Household Waste Recycling Centres

Bath & NE Somerset

Bristol

North Somerset

South Gloucestershire

· Keynsham

· Bath

· Radstock

· St Philips

· Avonmouth

· Portishead

· Weston-Super-Mare

· Backwell

· Yate

· Little Stoke

· Mangotsfield

· Thornbury

3.5.1.2. Planned Residual Waste Treatment Facilities

Bristol City Council is working with Compact Power to develop a small scale waste treatment plant for 34,000 tonnes of residual waste which has support from the Defra Waste Implementation Programme (WIP) under the New Technologies Demonstrator Programme (NTDP).

Compact Power Ltd currently operates a 6,000 tonnes per annum commercial gasification/pyrolysis plant for clinical waste disposal on land forming part of the Avonmouth Refuse Transfer Station. The proposed project will generate in excess of 2.5MW of electricity to go into the National Grid and 2 MW of dissipated heat which can be sold locally.

Bristol currently transports its kerbside collected garden waste, cardboard and kitchen waste to Dorset for composting. The City Council is planning to commission a more local in-vessel composting plant with a capacity of between 25,000 and 30,000 tonnes per annum.

South Gloucestershire also has a large scale In-Vessel Composting (IVC) facility in development with SITA. The facility is due to be operational by February 2008 with a planned treatment capacity of 30,000 tonnes per annum and be located at Avonmouth.

3.6. The Political and Socio-Economic Situation in the West of England

3.6.1. Overview of the West of England Region

The West of England sub-region, which consists of the four partner unitary authorities, has an enviable track record in innovation, creativity and connectivity, and an outstanding strategic location. Each of the partner authority areas is very different in their physical as well as social and economic geography. These differences also bring with them very different waste management challenges and these characteristics need to be taken into account when making decisions about waste management.

Over the last ten years, the area's population has grown faster than the UK average to more than one million people. This population growth presents a challenge for the authorities especially when it comes to dealing with the steadily rising amounts of waste that an expanding population generates.

In response to these challenges the four unitary authorities have formed the West of England Partnership with a range of social, economic and environmental partners. It is important to state that this Partnership is an entity separate from the West of England Waste Management and Planning Partnership formed for this project. The West of England Partnership aims to:

· Realise the potential of the sub-region and deliver improvements in infrastructure, environment and quality of life;

· Set a vision and clear long-term direction to support the delivery of key sub-regional strategies;

· Promote the interests of the sub-region regionally, nationally, and in Europe;

· Add to the confidence in the sub-region that attracts public and private investment;

· Work more holistically in the interests of the sub-region;

Particular attention is given to transport, appropriate housing supply, economic competitiveness and inclusion, and culture, leisure and tourism.

The West of England Partnership have produced “Vision 2026” a document outlining the partnerships aims and objectives to increase the economic prosperity, improve the quality of life and maintain and upgrade the infrastructure of the region. This document was put out for public consultation in early 2005. The West of England Partnership are at the present time refining the document as a framework to assist strategic decision making and also developing appropriate delivery plans for the introduction of the documents objectives.

The West of England region also falls under the jurisdiction of the South West Regional Assembly (SWRA). The assembly is a partnership of councillors from all local authorities in the region and representatives of various sectors with a role in the region's economic, social and environmental well-being. It covers an area of 23,829 square kilometres from Gloucestershire, Dorset and Wiltshire to the Isles of Scilly, and represents a population of almost five million. The South West Regional Assembly exists to promote the economic, social and environmental well-being of all who live and work in the region. It reviews and develops wide ranging strategies at the regional level to provide an over-arching vision for the South West.

3.6.1.1. Brief Socio-economic Comparison of the Authorities

The nature and characteristics of each area are very different as shown in Table 7. For example, Bristol is less than a third the size of Bath & North East Somerset but has double the population, generating contrasting waste management challenges.

Table 7 A comparisons of socio-economic facets of each authority

Unitary Authority	Area (Miles ²)	Population	No. of Households (2005/6)	Unemployment (at the end of 2005)
B&NES	220	170,000	73,500	3.6%
BCC	68	400,000	175,000	5%
NS	144	190,000	84,500	3.1%
SG	308	250,000	105,000	0.9%

3.6.2. Bath & North East Somerset

Bath & North East Somerset covers an area of 220 square miles approximately two thirds of which is green belt. The area has a population of 170,000, with approximately 73,500 households. Bath is the largest urban centre (approximate population of 80,000) and is 12 times more densely populated than the rest of the area. The City of Bath" was added to Unesco's World Heritage List in 1987. By 2016 the council population is expected to grow by six per cent, presenting an increased waste challenge. B&NES also includes the settlements of Keynsham, Midsomer Norton, Radstock, Paulton and the Chew Valley.

In 2000 B&NES was awarded Beacon Status by the government for its waste and recycling services. The Council is committed to recycling and reducing rubbish and set a long term goal of ‘zero waste’. On the 14th July 2005, the Council considered and agreed the Waste Strategy, “Towards Zero Waste 2020”, including a 5 year Action Plan 2005-2010. The strategy defines zero waste as:

“Zero waste is a concept that is spreading throughout the globe. The vision is to reduce consumption of goods by ensuring that products are made to be reused, repaired or recycled. What we now call waste should instead be regarded as a mixture of resources to be used again to their full potential, not as something to be thrown away.”

The unemployment rate in B&NES was at 3.6% at the end of 2005. This was a slight fall on the previous year. The population includes a high proportion of skilled workers, the majority of whom commute to the urban centres of Bristol and Bath.

3.6.3. Bristol

Bristol has the largest population of the four unitary authorities that make up the Partnership with a population of approximately 400,000. Bristol’s population has remained stable since the early 1990’s with only small increases recorded each year. The Councils projections estimate the population of the city will be approaching the 426,000 mark by the year 2028. The City’s administrative area comprises the city itself, its surrounding inner suburbs and the major industrial area at Avonmouth.

The city region has a high percentage of people in knowledge based industries compared to UK averages and has an excellent graduate retention rate. It benefits from a highly skilled pool of labour, especially at professional and managerial level, enabling the area to accommodate strong employment growth, particularly in highly skilled occupations. Nonetheless, there are serious skills gaps in many semi-skilled professions affecting the city region. Unemployment in Bristol was approximately 5% at the end of 2005.

Overall the city-region is relatively buoyant economically and has seen significant growth in terms of both population and employment in recent years. It also, however, has significant pockets of persistent poverty and deprivation both in the inner city and outer public sector housing estates. The Council serves three wards which are in the top 10% most deprived in the Country (Ashley, Barton Hill and Hartcliffe).

There has been significant investment in Bristol’s infrastructure over recent years, the redevelopment of the Port and its related transport network and the recent development of the Bristol Science Park, as means to attract high skilled industries into the area, are notable examples.

3.6.4. North Somerset

The population of North Somerset has increased rapidly over the last 50 years to almost 190,000 and it is expected to grow by nearly 13,000 in the next 6 years. North Somerset comprises 144 square miles of rural and urban communities, with the largest urban settlements being Weston-super-Mare (72,000), Clevedon (23,000), Nailsea (18,000) and Portishead (18,000). The population also increases greatly during holiday periods with approximately 4.5 million visitors coming to North Somerset each year.

The district contains an international airport and a deep sea west coast port. The northern boundary is formed by the River Avon and Bristol City and the Southern boundary is formed by the River Axe and the Mendip Hills. Approximately two thirds of the area is designated as green belt land and an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. North Somerset remains a predominantly rural area with 35 rural parishes and many smaller villages dispersed throughout the region.

The unemployment rate in North Somerset stood at 3.1% in 1995, which is below the national average. North Somerset is a generally prosperous area, with a growing population. Crime rates and unemployment rates are lower than average, but deprivation statistics do highlight that there are areas in the region with severe social and economic problems. North Somerset has a high range of inequality, but most of the deprived areas are concentrated in Weston-super-Mare.

The council is tackling these problems through education and employment initiatives to provide residents with the skills they need to find employment. Initiatives such as the Community Learning Development Project have helped 1,200 local people aged 19 and over to attend educational activities and training courses.

3.6.5. South Gloucestershire

South Gloucestershire is the fastest-growing area in the South West of England with a population of over 250,000 people. The majority of the population is concentrated in the northern and eastern suburbs of Bristol in areas such as Patchway and Kingswood, although there are also relatively large population centres at Yate (29,000), Bradley Stoke (20,000) and Thornbury (12,000).

The Cotswolds Escarpment forms the eastern edge of South Gloucestershire and a small part of the Cotswolds and the National Trust site of Dyrham Park are also in the area. Some of the green belt areas have been taken away by developments like Bradley Stoke in recent years.

Unemployment has fallen sharply from 4.7% in 2005 to 0.9% in 2006. The creation of several new business parks in the region has helped contribute to this fall. The north fringe of Bristol accounts for over 50% (est. 70,000) of the jobs in South Gloucestershire. The Kingswood area has an estimated 30,000 jobs and the Yate/ Chipping Sodbury area 17,000. Away from the Bristol suburbs the rate of employment growth has been modest. Some areas, notably Kingswood, have lost jobs in recent years, particularly manufacturing jobs.

While the scale and pace of economic growth has brought prosperity to the region it has also created major challenges with a substantial increase in traffic, pressure on the transport infrastructure and pressure for more housing on green field sites.

3.7. Analysis of Waste Data

3.7.1. Current Residual Waste Arisings and Management

In order to fully understand waste growth and the best way to manage residual waste it is essential that the data available on waste quantities is properly examined. This section gives a current indication of the West of England’s waste arisings and also models how the quantity of residual waste is likely to change over the next 30 years.

The total quantity of municipal waste managed by the Partnership and the various quantities diverted in 2005/6 through composting and recycling schemes is shown in Table 8 and Figure 5.

Table 8 Total municipal waste arisings and destinations for the West of England, 2005/06

Destination	B&NES	BCC	NS	SG	West of England
Recycled (including inerts)	23,600	36,700	21,100	36,500	118,000
Composted	10,200	2,600	6,000	23,200	42,100
To Landfill	65,800	155,500	86,900	84,300	392,500
Total	99,500	194,800	114,100	144,000	552,400

Figure 5 Total Municipal Waste Arisings and destinations for the West of England, 2005/06

The Partnership authorities’ historic reliance on landfill is clearly visible from this information. The quantity of waste being composted or recycled also varies across each authority although the amount of waste composted should increase for Bristol and North Somerset by 2007/8 due to new collection services that have been or will be introduced.

3.7.2. Historic Waste Growth

The historic municipal waste arisings for each of the Partnership authorities and the West of England as a whole is shown below in Figure 6. In order to model the predicted future waste arisings this trend along with socio-economic factors and planned recycling/ composting services need to be considered.

Figure 6 Total Historic Waste Arisings for the Partnership Authorities

A general increase in waste arisings can be noted from Figure 6 between 2000 and 2006, although for the Partnership as a whole there is a decrease in waste arisings from 2004/5 to 2005/6.

3.7.3. Present LATS Situation

The relevant LATS permits for the local authorities in the Partnership are shown in

Table 9 and Figure 7.

Table 9 LATS permits available to the Partnership Authorities in 2005-2006 and the target years

Unitary Authority	Base Year Figure	2005-2006 Allocation	Target Year 2010	Target Year 2013	Target Year 2020
B&NES	53,806	52,186	37,604	25,047	17,526
BCC	122,194	117,631	76,563	50,996	35,684
NS	69,195	66,697	44,214	29,450	20,607
SG	84,421	81,125	52,366	34,879	24,406
WoE	329,616	317,729	210,747	140,372	98,223

Figure 7 The decreasing LATS permits available to the Partnership Authorities, 1995-2020

Figure 7 illustrates that all partnership Authorities will need to significantly decrease the amount of BMW sent for disposal to landfill to meet their LATS targets. An analysis of the Authorities performance against their LATS targets has been modelled in section 3.7.6.

3.7.4. Waste Composition

Data relating to the composition of waste arisings can vary greatly across socio demographics and with seasonal change. The Partnership Authorities have carried out detailed analysis on residual, recyclable and compostable materials collected at both kerbside and at household waste recycling centres. Obtaining robust data on waste stream composition allows for more precise forecasting of waste arisings. This is an important aspect when looking at the potential amount of waste to be landfilled, composted or recycled in future years. If this data is not available national standards can be applied, however, as recent compositional studies have made apparent, waste streams do vary greatly and so national standards can be misleading.

North Somerset, South Gloucestershire and Bristol City provided an in depth compositional waste analysis which have been incorporated into all modelling. Bath and North East Somerset also provided a compositional analysis, however this data only gave a single snapshot audit which is unlikely to reflect the annual average composition. In the absence of a comprehensive and current total household waste composition for the Authority, the national standard waste composition was used in the modelling. The composition of the each authority’s residual waste can be updated in the modelling as more recent and reliable data becomes available.

3.7.5. Forward Projections- Waste Arisings

Predicting future waste arisings is vital to determining future waste management requirements. When considering projections account must be taken of the accuracy of the base data, likely projections of household numbers and economic growth and the effects of extrapolating data over a 20 year period. For some waste streams, a range is indicated based on the best estimate of current arisings and predicted future trends.

It is considered that the main two factors driving municipal waste growth are:

· Number of households – it is generally considered that the number of households will directly influence the arisings of waste, therefore if housing numbers are increasing so waste arisings will increase.

· Municipal waste per household – it is considered that independent of the number of households, the underlying municipal waste produced by each household will change due to factors such as behaviour, socio-demographic factors, education initiatives, affluence and Gross Domestic Product.

3.7.5.1. Projected Total waste arisings

Table 10 and Figure 8 below show the total predicted waste arisings (MSW) for the LATS target years if the status quo (SQ) is maintained. The Status Quo Option simply models the current planned level of source segregation to maintain the existing level of service i.e. the performance at 2005/06 continuing throughout the 28 year modelled period.

Table 10 Total waste arisings for each Authority and the Partnership assuming the Status Quo (tonnes)

UA	2005/06	2009/10	2012/13	2019/20	2027/28
B&NES	99,500	107,400	109,400	117,350	127,300
BCC	194,800	184,750	190,500	203,600	214,750
NS	114,100	123,100	128,000	140,500	154,800
SG	144,000	152,400	158,800	164,100	168,000
West of England	552,400	567,700	586,684	625, 600	664,900

Figure 8 Predicted total waste arisings (MSW) for the Partnership (2005/6- 2026/27)

3.7.5.2. Projected Residual Waste Arisings

Table 11 below shows the predicted residual waste arisings for the LATS target years if the status quo is maintained. These figures are of importance to the strategy as they give an indication of the amount of residual waste that needs to be treated/ managed.

Table 11 Residual waste arisings assuming the Status Quo (tonnes)

UA	2005/06	2009/10	2012/13	2019/20	2027/28
B&NES	65,750	70,300	71,600	76,800	83,600
BCC	155,500	145,000	149,000	158,600	167,600
NS	86,900	79,700	83,000	91,000	100,300
SG	84,300	88,600	92,100	95,200	97,500
West of England	392,450	383,600	395,600	421,600	448,900

Table 12 below shows the predicted residual waste arisings for the LATS target years if the authorities make planned service improvements (PSI). The PSI assumes that the Partnership takes steps to improve source segregation performance, for example, by increasing recycling and composting through increasing participation in current schemes or collecting additional materials. This does not include the construction of any residual treatment facility.

Table 12 Residual waste arisings incorporating Programmed Service Improvements (tonnes)

UA	2005/06	2009/10	2012/13	2019/20	2027/28
B&NES	65,750	65,167	64,150	66,100	72,000
BCC	155,500	123,700	122,200	125,900	133,000
NS	86,900	76,400	79,000	83,800	92,300
SG	84,300	77,400	78,700	80,000	81,900
West of England	392,450	342,700	344,050	355,800	379,200

3.7.6. The Position of the Partnership in Relation to the Landfill Allowance Trading Scheme and Targets

When modelling, the guidance (4Ps[17]) recommends that authorities assess performance of the ‘Do Minimum baseline scenario’, a Meet Landfill Allowance Trading Scheme (LATS) targets scenario and an Exceed LATS targets scenario. In this modelling the current source segregation baseline performance has been called the Status Quo (SQ), i.e. the authorities maintain the existing services. This is a useful baseline on which to assess changes.

Programmed (source-segregation) Service Improvements (PSI) that each authority intends to make have been collated and entered into the modelling to determine how source segregation performance will change over the next 25 to 30 years, for example, whether additional services be rolled out, whether more materials will be targeted for collection, whether participation will increase etc. This establishes the projected future performance and enables the calculation of what quantity of waste is source segregated and hence the quantity of residual waste that will need to be managed.

The Programmed Service Improvements, (PSI) scenario is taken as the future improved source segregation performance i.e. improved over and above the Status Quo baseline, this reflects the 4Ps ‘Do Minimum scenario’. The PSI is used as the performance levels that can then assess the Meet and Exceed Targets scenarios in the technology model.

The quantity of residual waste can then be picked up in the technology model, and applied to the technology options to assess performance and throughput under the Meet and the Exceed Target scenarios. This includes an assessment of each technology’s performance against BVPI targets for recycling and composting (BVPI 82) and the LATS.

The following analysis assesses the state of each authority and the Partnership in meeting LATS performance targets under SQ and PSI scenarios.

3.7.6.1. Bath & North East Somerset Projected LATS Performance

Figure 9 Bath & North East Somerset’s modelled waste arisings under ‘status quo’ and ‘programmed service improvements’ scenarios against LATS targets

3.7.6.2. Bristol Projected LATS Performance

Figure 10 Bristol’s modelled waste arisings under ‘status quo’ and ‘programmed service improvements’ scenarios against LATS targets

3.7.6.3. North Somerset Projected LATS Performance

Figure 11 North Somerset’s modelled waste arisings under ‘status quo’ and ‘programmed service improvements’ scenarios against LATS targets

3.7.6.4. South Gloucestershire Projected LATS Performance

Figure 12 South Gloucestershire’s modelled waste arisings under ‘status quo’ and ‘programmed service improvements’ scenarios against LATS targets

3.7.6.5. The Partnership’s Projected LATS Performance

Figure 13 The West of England Partnerships modelled waste arisings under ‘status quo’ and ‘programmed service improvements’ scenarios against LATS targets

The graphs above show that the each authority will exceed their LATS target by or very soon after the target year 2009/10 if their waste management services continue as they are today. Even if planned service improvements (PSIs) are made to waste minimisation and recycling services any delay in failing LATS targets would be relatively short. This analysis includes all planned collection schemes, some of which are yet to come online.

When waste arisings and LATS targets are modelled for the Partnership (Figure 13) there is a predicted shortfall of LATS permits in the first target year (2009/10) under both SQ and PSI scenarios.

3.7.7. The Financial Implications of Missing LATS Targets

The financial implication of not meeting the LATS targets could be severe and even buying permits on the market is likely to prove very expensive by the 2009/10 target year. By that time permits could increase in cost from approximately £20/tonne to £100-£150/ tonne. If the UK as a whole also failed to meet its targets, a share of the EU fine of £½ million per day would be passed down to the Waste Disposal Authorities contributing to that failure, to the extent that they contributed.

It should also be noted that if the correct number of allowances are not available to the

Authorities each will be liable for a cash penalty from DEFRA of up to £150 per tonne of excess landfill usage.

An example of the estimated financial implications for the Partnership of not meeting the LATS targets is set out in Figure 14.

Figure 14 The estimated financial implications for the Partnership for not meeting the LATS targets (possible annual fines at £150 per tonne).

3.7.8. Short-Term Options

Therefore the Partnership has the following short-term options available:

1. Bank as many spare LATS permits as possible - this will help only in non-target years (2009/10, 2012/13 and 2019/20);

2. Trade permits when possible to meet the LATS allocation and retain the income to help fund deficit years; and or,

3. Accept all LATS fines and those imposed on the UK by the EU (this figure could run into millions of pounds in LATS fines alone).

These graphs illustrate the need for the Partnership to invest new facilities to treat residual waste in the long term. However, new facilities are unlikely to be available until at least 2013/14 which creates the need for contingency arrangements to divert excess tonnage between 2009 and 2013/14.

All Authorities need to minimise the amount of waste produced and to maximise the amount of biodegradable waste that is composted and therefore diverted from landfill. Each authority’s strategy to meet LATS for the target year 2009/10 will be outlined in their individual Municipal Waste Management Strategy or equivalent plans published.

3.7.9. The Need for Residual Waste Treatment

From the data above it is clear that the Partnership needs to pursue alternative waste treatment technologies. High recycling and composting rates alone will not meet long term targets for diverting waste from landfill, and further treatment of the residual fraction will still be required. The meeting of longer term sustainability objectives will therefore require the introduction of new waste processing and treatment technologies into the sub-region at one or a number of sites.

The sizing and role of any treatment technology has to be carefully considered, so that it does not restrict the possibility of meeting the increased recycling and composting aspirations. Section 5.4 examines different technologies and facility sizes to produce a range of preferred technology options for the Partnership.

4. Where does the partnership want to go and when?

4.1. Aims, Objectives and Targets

4.1.1. The Aim of the JRMWMS

The principle aim of the JRMWMS is develop a sustainable plan for residual waste management in the West of England. This will enable the Partnership Authorities to meet or exceed the landfill diversion targets for biodegradable municipal waste (BMW), set down by Government.

This aim will be achieved:

· in consultation with local residents and special interest groups;

· in a timely fashion, so as to avoid unnecessary financial penalties and landfill tax costs;

· so as to provide high quality facilities with minimal environmental impact.

4.1.2. Objectives

The strategic objectives of the JRMWMS are as follows:

OBJECTIVE 1: WASTE TREATMENT

To deliver actual municipal residual waste treatment facility capacity, on the ground between now and 2013, which will result in:

· meeting the financial and environmental objectives of the four waste disposal authorities in the sub-region, including landfill diversion targets;

· meeting tonnage/treatment requirements of the Regional Waste Strategy;

· minimising waste disposal cost in the sub-region;

· moving waste management up the waste hierarchy and developing more sustainable practices.

OBJECTIVE 2. FUNDING

To secure sufficient funding to implement the JRMWMS.

OBJECTIVE 3. CONSULTATION

To provide the opportunity for local residents and community & special interest groups to inform the delivery of the strategic objectives through consultation;

OBJECTIVE 4. COMMUNICATION/ INFORMATION DISSEMINATION

To develop and implement an external communications campaign which will:-

· raise awareness of the waste management challenges facing the Partnership;

· raise awareness about the requirement to provide treatment capacity in the West of England region and initiate discussion on treatment technology options.

· enable opportunity for participation in the process by all residents in the sub-region

4.1.3. Targets

As described in Section 3.1 the Partnership have a number of statutory and voluntary targets set down at a national, regional and local level. The Partnership will seek to achieve the following targets:

4.1.3.1. Landfill Directive: Diversion

The Partnership will seek to meet or exceed Landfill Directive^{^[18]} targets for the landfilling of biodegradable municipal waste. This will mean reducing the quantity of Biodegradable Municipal Waste (BMW) sent to landfill in line with the following targets:

· By 2010 to reduce biodegradable municipal waste landfilled to 75% of that produced in 1995;

· By 2013 to reduce biodegradable municipal waste landfilled to 50% of that produced in 1995;

· By 2020 to reduce biodegradable municipal waste landfilled to 35% of that produced in 1995.

As a jointly procured waste treatment facility is unlikely to be operational until the 2013 target year, each Partnership Authority will develop an internal strategy to avoid or manage any LATS compliance challenges before this time through:

· Waste minimisation;

· Increased recycling and composting;

· Banking, borrowing or trading LATS permits;

4.1.3.2. Waste Strategy 2000: Recovery (BV 82c, i and ii)

The Partnership will seek to contribute to meeting the following municipal waste recovery targets through recovering value from residual waste:

· to recover value from 40% of municipal waste by 2005;

· to recover value from 45% of municipal waste by 2010;

· to recover value from 67% of municipal waste by 2015.

In this context “Recover” means obtain value from wastes through:

· Recycling;

· Composting;

· Other forms of material recovery (such as anaerobic digestion);

· Energy recovery (combustion with direct or indirect use of the energy produced) or from the manufacture and use of a refuse derived fuel in gasification, pyrolysis, or other technologies.

4.1.3.3. Regional Waste Strategy for the South-West: Waste Management Capacity

The Partnership will seek to contribute to meeting capacity targets set down in the Regional Waste Strategy for the South-West. The overall target for the regional strategy is to ensure that by the year 2020 over 45% of waste is recycled and reused and that less than 20% of waste produced in the South-West is landfilled.

The Regional Strategy also incorporates indicative annual municipal waste management capacities for each county in the south-west including the West of England sub-region. These capacities or targets are shown below in Table 13.

Table 13 Capacities or targets set down by the Regional strategy and the percentage change from 2005/6 levels.

	2010		2013		2020
	Tonnes	% change from 05/06	Tonnes	% change from 05/06	Tonnes	% change from 05/06
Recycled	230,000	+47%	280,000	+57%	310,000	+61%
Secondary Treatment	150,000	N/A	220,000	N/A	370,000	N/A
Landfill	300,000	-25%	240,000	-40%	120,000	-70%

The Partnership will seek to meet these targets for secondary treatment facility capacity and the landfill disposal reductions. However, the Partnership has also conducted detailed modelling work presented in section 0 which highlights waste treatment requirements based on the size of waste treatment facilities. This data will also be considered before setting specific targets for waste treatment capacity in the West of England.

4.2. Policies

4.2.1. Unitary Authority Policies

Each Unitary Authority has its own policies on waste management and it is vital that the Partnership’s policies are aligned with these to ensure a focus and commitment by all members of the Partnership.

The following guiding principles are incorporated into the policies of the Partnership authorities:

· The Waste Hierarchy;

· Regional Self Sufficiency;

· The Proximity Principle.

Table 14 below summarises the key residual waste related policies endorsed by each Authority.

Table 14 A summary of the key policies related to residual waste, which have been endorsed by members of the Partnership

POLICY	B&NES	BCC	NS	SG
Committed to pursuing and assessing the options for working together as a sub-region	ü	ü	ü	ü
Achieve or better landfill diversion targets	ü	ü	ü	ü
Provide best value through balance of costs and environmental benefits	ü	ü	ü	ü
Support the waste hierarchy	ü	ü	ü	ü
Aim to minimise waste through reduction, recycling & composting	ü	ü	ü	ü
Support maximising resource recovery from waste (e.g. energy from waste)	ü	ü	ü	ü
Disposal to landfill considered as a last resort	ü	ü	ü	ü
Accept waste from surrounding authorities	ü*	ü	ü	ü
Reduce environmental impact of transporting waste	ü	ü	ü	ü
Support home and community composting schemes	ü	ü	ü	ü
Support and encourage kerbside recycling	ü	ü	ü	ü
View Avonmouth as suitable for the development of waste management facilities	-	ü	-	ü*

* No policy formal adopted but presumption is that it is acceptable

Bath & North East Somerset have formally adopted a policy of ‘Zero Waste’. The other Partnership Authorities embrace much that underpins the concept, and are all working towards it in the long term.

4.2.2. The Partnership’s Policies

There is a Memorandum of Understanding and a set of terms of reference signed by the Partnership authorities. This situation will be reviewed regularly to ascertain whether the terms of reference of the Member Project Board need to be amended in order to more effectively deliver the Joint Residual Waste Management Strategy.

The authorities have been working in Partnership towards the shared vision, with regard for the following guiding policies on residual waste:

POLICY 1: LANDFILL DIRECTIVE TARGETS

The Partnership will use the waste hierarchy as a guiding principle to waste management and landfill will be used as the last option after residual waste treatment.

Recovery and disposal facilities will be delivered to ensure compliance with the Waste and Emissions Trading Act, 2003.

POLICY 2: PARTNERSHIP WORKING

The Authorities will work in partnership with each other, the community and the private sector to maximise the efficient recovery of resources from residual municipal waste.

POLICY 3: DELIVER BEST VALUE

The Partnership will ensure the delivery of services to a high standard, consistent with the principles of best value whilst considering the evaluation of the economic, social and environmental impacts.

POLICY 4: LOCAL SUSTAINABILITY

Local sustainability issues will be considered, including opportunities to enhance the local economy and employment and minimise environmental and traffic impacts.

POLICY 5: NATIONAL STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE

The Partnership will work to ensure waste is managed in ways that protect human health and the environment and in particular:

• Without risk to water, air, soil and plants and animals;

• Without causing a nuisance through noise or odours;

• Without adversely affecting the countryside or places of special interest;

• Disposing of waste at the nearest appropriate installation, by means of the most appropriate methods and technologies.

4.3. Consultation

4.3.1. Public Consultation

An extensive first stage public consultation/ awareness raising programme was carried out alongside the development of this strategy and the Local Development Plan Document. The purpose of the consultation was to identify public perception of waste and its potential as a resource. These views were then considered when setting the objectives for the JRMWMS, which could be tested and reviewed during phase two of the consultation process.

4.3.1.1. Phase 1 of the Public Consultation- Rubbish or Resource Campaign

A Strategic Consultation Forum (SCF) was formed from a wide group of interested parties and stakeholder groups from each Partner Authority to help design and deliver the consultation programme and to ensure that all aspects of the community were fully engaged and involved.

The public consultation exercise was launched at The Council House in Bristol on Monday 10th July 2006. Titled ‘Rubbish or Resource?’ the campaign invited the public to provide feedback and views on the subject of residual waste.

During July the ‘Rubbish or Resource’ road show toured shopping centres and venues, together with five public meetings throughout the region to canvass public opinion on how residual waste could be managed.

A survey was designed to quantify feedback from the public and this was distributed at all organized events and through a specially designed website (www.rubbishorresource.co.uk). As an incentive for filling in the questionnaire each respondent was entered into a free prize draw to win shopping vouchers. The questionnaire survey section of the leaflet is reproduced in the associated Hyder Consulting report, which details phase 1 of the consultation process and its results.

A number of mechanisms were used in the consultation to canvass public opinion including:

· 7,000 surveys distributed by hand at shopping centres;

· 41 surveys were completed at the Evening Meetings;

· 7,500 postal surveys distributed by local authorities; and

· Access to the survey online resulted in the completion of 554 surveys.

The responses were returned by post, online and completed on site (e.g. meetings).

Public Meetings were held on the following dates:

· Bristol - Monday 10th July at the Council House, College Green. BS1 5TR

· Bath and North East Somerset - Monday 17th July at the Guildhall, Bath. BA1 5AW

· North Somerset - Wednesday 19th July at the Winter Gardens, Weston Super Mare. BS23 1AQ

· South Gloucestershire - Wednesday 26th July at Chipping Sodbury Town Hall. BS37 6AD

· Bristol - Monday 14th August at the Council House, College Green. BS1 5TR

These events allowed the public to put across their views and for the Partnership to inform the public about the process and challenges facing residual waste management. The total number of public attendees at the meetings was 125 as well as Councillors and Council Officers. The breakdown of attendees at each meeting is shown in Table 15.

Table 15 Public attendees at the consultation meetings

Date	Unitary Authority	Number of members of Public Attending
10 July 2006	Bristol	7
17 July 2006	Bath and North East Somerset	20
19 July 2006	North Somerset	28
26 July 2006	South Gloucestershire	43
14 August 2006	Bristol (2^nd Meeting)	15

4.3.1.2. Summary of Issues Highlighted by Phase 1 of the Consultation

The main points highlighted by the public were:

· All areas could recycle more;

· Investment in alternatives to landfill is required;

· The Partnership should look at examples of best practice from Europe;

· Respondents “care” what happens to waste and a large proportion believe further value should be obtained;

· Respondents are aware of alternatives to landfill but feel they do not have enough information to make an informed judgement;

· Environmental considerations are more important than financial considerations when deciding on an alternative to landfill;

· The preference expressed the for the location of facilities was on brownfield sites, and a larger number of small facilities;

· Odour and air quality were the most important issues with regards to site location; although visual impact, traffic and noise all ranked highly; and

· A large percentage of respondents indicate a need to reduce their waste.

4.3.1.3. Phase 2 of the Public Consultation (2007)

The Partnership intends to continue to consult the public and key stakeholders throughout the procurement process. One of the key aims of Phase 2 which will be carried out in early 2007 will be to gather public opinion on the outcomes from the option appraisal process described in section 5.4.

At this stage the JRMWMS will also be open to consultation and feedback from this process will lead to a review of the strategy, particularly its aims, targets and objectives, which will be tested and revised as necessary.

4.3.2. Waste Industry Consultation

An Industry Day was held on 20^th July 2006 to inform and receive input/ comment from the waste management industry. Representatives from all aspects of the waste industry were invited to attend.

Firstly, the representatives were given an overview of the project and the consultation process. Breakout sessions were then held on the following subjects:

· Finance

· Planning

· Political sensitivities / engagement with community

· Technologies

The Options Appraisal process was explained to the representatives and a short questionnaire was distributed to gather the views of the industry on a number of potential criteria to evaluate technology options against. A total of 14 responses were received, which were mainly inline with those already discussed. These opinions and any additional criteria were considered, and used to help determine the long list of Level 2 sub-criteria and also verify criteria already put forward by the Partnership.

5. What doEs the Partnership Need to do to get there?

This section evaluates the Partnership’s options for achieving the objectives of the project set out in the previous section. It includes two sections:

1) A brief overview of what the Authorities are doing to promote waste reduction and reuse, and the recycling services they currently manage and those planned for the future;

2) A summary of the residual waste Options Appraisal process used to assess and evaluate options for residual waste management.

This waste strategy is principally focused on the treatment and disposal of residual waste, however, this cannot be assessed without examining other factors that may influence waste arisings and composition. Therefore other methods employed by the partner Authorities to divert waste from landfill are discussed briefly. More details on the approaches employed by each authority, is available in their relevant waste strategies.

5.1. Waste Reduction and Reuse

Waste growth is a major contributor to waste management problems. However, it is a very difficult issue to tackle because the underlying reasons appear to be closely associated with lifestyle and culture. This issue is not local to the Partnership but is driven by national and international forces. Waste growth appears to have emerged through two principle sources:

· Excess packaging; and

· Excessive consumption.

Local Authorities have relatively little power to influence these drivers but the Partnership will work to encourage all parties to ‘behave’ more sustainability, through promotion, education and the provision of services.

5.1.1. Waste Minimisation Campaigns Currently Supported by the Partnership Authorities

Currently all the Partnership Authorities carry out the following actions to promote reduction and reuse:

· Encourage home composting to reduce the quantity of municipal biodegradable waste (BMW) entering the residual waste stream.

· Encourage the use of re-usable nappies. The Real Nappy Project, run by The Resource Futures has received funding in the past from the Waste & Resources Action Programme (WRAP) to work in Bath and North East Somerset, Bristol, South Gloucestershire and North Somerset. As part of the project Resource Futures employ a number of part time nappy outreach worker.

The four Authorities use numerous other methods of promoting waste minimisation and recycling as shown in the Table 16 below.

Table 16 Methods of promoting waste minimisation and re-use employed by the Partnership Authorities.

B&NES

BCC

· Rethink Rubbish waste awareness and education campaign.

· Waste Minimisation and Reduction advice and activity including Zero Waste Weeks.

· Schools recycling and litter education including Zero Waste Lunch projects.

· Reuse of furniture and white goods through SOFA Project (and also Genesis).

· WRAP Home composting and bin promotion (2006).

Date	Revision	Status
05/10/2006		Draft v0.1
16/10/2006		Draft v0.2
20/10/2006		Draft v0.3
07/11/2006		Draft v0.5
15/11/2006		Draft v0.6