APPENDIX C

West of EnglandWaste Management & Planning Partnership

Draft Joint Residual Municipal WasteManagement Strategy

v0.6

November 2006

The West of England Waste Management and Planning Strategy

Draft JRMWMS

........................................................... Project Director

Trevor Smart

Issue History

Copyright Jacobs U.K. Limited. All rights reserved.

B2039100

Jacobs Babtie, 95 Bothwell Street, Glasgow, G2 7HX

Telephone: 0141 204 2511, Fax 0141 226 3109

No part of this report may be copied or reproduced byany means without prior written permission from Jacobs U.K. Limited. If you have received this report in error,please destroy all copies in your possession or control and notify Jacobs U.K.Limited.

This report has been prepared for the exclusive use ofthe commissioning party and unless otherwise agreed in writing by Jacobs U.K.Limited, no other party may use, make use of or rely on the contents of thisreport. No liability is accepted byJacobs U.K. Limited for any use of this report, other than for the purposes forwhich it was originally prepared and provided.

Opinions and information provided in the report are onthe basis of Jacobs U.K. Limited using due skill, care and diligence in thepreparation of the same and no warranty is provided as to their accuracy.

It should be noted and it is expressly stated that no independentverification of any of the documents or information supplied to Jacobs U.K.Limited has been made.

The West of England Waste Management and Planning Partnership

Draft Joint Residual Municipal Waste Management Strategy

v0.6

Contents

1. ExecutiveSummary.. 8

2. Introduction.. 11

2.1. The Purpose of thisStrategy. 11

2.2. The Strategy Vision. 12

2.3. Who Has Prepared ThisStrategy?. 12

2.3.1. The West of England WasteManagement and Planning Partnership. 12

2.4. The Strategy Scope. 13

2.4.1. Residual Waste. 13

2.4.2. Sites for the Location of WasteManagement Facilities. 13

2.5. Consultation. 13

2.6. Strategy Timescale. 14

3. Whereis The Partnership today?.. 15

3.1. Key Policy and LegalRequirements. 15

3.1.1. EU Directives. 16

3.1.2. UK Acts. 17

3.1.3. National Waste Strategies, 2000(Review 2006) 18

3.1.4. Key Planning Policy andLegislation. 21

3.2. Other Waste Streams. 23

3.2.1. Commercial & IndustrialWastes/ Construction and Demolition Wastes. 23

3.3. Roles andResponsibilities. 24

3.3.1. Partnership Working Arrangements. 24

3.4. Current Waste Contracts. 26

3.5. Waste DisposalInfrastructure. 27

3.5.1. Residual Waste Disposal 27

3.6. The Political andSocio-Economic Situation in the West of England. 29

3.6.1. Overview of the West of EnglandRegion. 29

3.6.2. Bath & North East Somerset 30

3.6.3. Bristol 31

3.6.4. North Somerset 31

3.6.5. South Gloucestershire. 32

3.7. Analysis of Waste Data. 33

3.7.1. Current Residual Waste Arisingsand Management 33

3.7.2. Historic Waste Growth. 34

3.7.3. Present LATS Situation. 34

3.7.4. Waste Composition. 35

3.7.5. Forward Projections- WasteArisings. 36

3.7.6. The Position of the Partnershipin Relation to the Landfill AllowanceTrading Scheme and Targets 38

3.7.7. The Financial Implications ofMissing LATS Targets. 41

3.7.8. Short-Term Options. 42

3.7.9. The Need for Residual WasteTreatment 42

4. Wheredoes the partnership want to go andwhen?.. 44

4.1. Aims, Objectives andTargets. 44

4.1.1. The Aim of the JRMWMS.. 44

4.1.2. Objectives. 44

4.1.3. Targets. 45

4.2. Policies. 46

4.2.1. Unitary Authority Policies. 46

4.2.2. The Partnership's Policies. 47

4.3. Consultation. 48

4.3.1. Public Consultation. 48

4.3.2. Waste Industry Consultation. 50

5. WhatdoEs the Partnership Need to do to getthere?.. 51

5.1. Waste Reduction andReuse. 51

5.1.1. Waste Minimisation CampaignsCurrently Supported by the PartnershipAuthorities 51

5.2. Recycling. 53

5.2.1. Household Waste Recycling Centres. 54

5.2.2. Bring Sites. 54

5.2.3. Home Composting. 55

5.2.4. Recyclable Materials fromHouseholds through Kerbside Collection. 55

5.3. Landfill 57

5.4. Residual Waste -Options Appraisal 57

5.4.1. Methodology. 57

5.4.2. Technical Modelling of WasteTreatment Technologies. 59

5.4.3. Results of the TechnologyModelling. 62

5.4.4. The Spatial Characteristics ofthe Technology Options. 67

5.4.5. Options Appraisal EvaluationCriteria. 70

5.4.6. Scoring Consultation Day. 72

5.4.7. Overall Outcome of OptionsEvaluation Appraisal Process. 75

5.4.8. Next Steps. 77

5.5. Service Improvements tobe Implemented Before 2013/14. 77

6. howwill The Partnership implEment actions?.. 79

6.1.1. Objectives and Policies. 79

6.2. Action Plans. 79

6.2.1. Implementing Policies. 80

6.2.2. Working in Partnership. 81

6.2.3. Waste Reduction and Reuse. 81

6.2.4. Selection of TreatmentTechnologies and Facilities. 82

6.3. Monitoring and Reviewof Action Plans. 83

6.3.1. Data Reporting. 83

6.3.2. Strategic EnvironmentalAssessment (SEA) 84

6.4. Indicative Procurement Timetable. 84

6.5. JRMWMS Review.. 86

6.6. Risk Assessment 86

7. APPENDIXA- FURTHER RELEVANT LEGISLATION.. 90

7.1.1. EU Directives and Strategies. 90

7.1.2. UK Acts. 92

8. APPENDIXB- WASTE TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES.. 94

8.1. Introduction. 94

8.2. Description ofTechnology Options. 94

8.2.1. Option: SQ.. 94

8.2.2. Option: PSI 94

8.2.3. Option 1: Mechanical Treatment;Energy from Waste. 95

8.2.4. Option 2: Biological MechanicalTreatment; 3^rd Party Thermal Treatment of SRF; In-Vessel Compostingof waste derived compost 95

8.2.5. Option 3: Mechanical BiologicalTreatment; 3^rd Party Thermal Treatment of SRF; Landfill ofstabilised output 95

8.2.6. Option 4: Autoclave + Anaerobic Digestion of Fibres. 95

8.2.7. Option 5: Mechanical Treatment; 3^rdParty Thermal Treatment of SRF; Anaerobic Digestion of waste derived compost;maturation of digested compost product 96

8.2.8. Option 6: Autoclave; ThermalTreatment of Fibre. 96

8.2.9. Option 7: Pyrolysis /Gasification (with fuel preparation) 96

9. APPENDIXC- TECHNICAL OPTIONS APPRAISAL REPORT.. 97

10. APPENDIXD- PERFORMANCE INDICATORS.. 98

10.1. Monitoring andMeasurement 98

10.1.1. Best Value Performance Indicators. 98

TABLES

Table1 National recycling and recovery targets (and proposed) for household andmunicipal waste from Waste Strategy 2000 and the Consultation on the Review ofEngland's Waste Strategy (2006) 19

Table2 Indicative Annual Municipal Waste Management Capacities for the LandfillDirective Target Years for the Partnership Authorities. 20

Table3 Key stages in the development of the JWDPD. 22

Table4 Current residual municipal waste disposal contracts (landfill) 26

Table5 The Destination of residual waste from the sub-region (landfill). 27

Table6 Household Waste Recycling Centres. 28

Table7 A comparisons of socio-economic facets of each authority. 30

Table8 Total municipal waste arisings and destinations for the West of England,2005/06. 33

Table9 LATS permits available to the Partnership Authorities in 2005-2006 and thetarget years. 34

Table10 Total waste arisings for eachAuthority and the Partnership assuming the Status Quo (tonnes) 36

Table11 Residual waste arisings assuming the Status Quo (tonnes) 37

Table12 Residual waste arisings incorporating Programmed Service Improvements (tonnes) 38

Table13 Capacities or targets set down by the Regional strategy and the percentagechange from 2005/6 levels. 46

Table14 A summary of the key policies related to residual waste, which have beenendorsed by members of the Partnership 47

Table15 Public attendees at the consultation meetings. 49

Table16 Methods of promoting waste minimisation and re-use employed by thePartnership Authorities. 52

Table17 Recycling and composting performance against Defra targets (BVPI 82a & b) for 2004/05 and2005/06 53

Table18 The materials accepted for recycling/ reuse at HWRCs and Bring Sites. 54

Table19 The recycling collections managed by each Authority. 56

Table20 Technology options modelled. 61

Table21 The performance against LATS targets in 2019/20 under the Exceed targetsmodel (figures rounded) 67

Table22 The BVPI performance of each technology option in 2019/20 (figures rounded) 67

Table23 Criteria used in the Options Appraisal process recommended by the MemberProject Board 71

Table24 Weightings for Level One criteria recommended by the Member Project Board. 72

Table25 Weightings for level 'Zero' criteria recommended by the Member Project Board. 72

Table26 OA invitees. 72

Table27 Net present values of technology options (£) (rounded) 74

Table28 Summary of scores and ranking of technology options against Quality and CostCriterion to produce total weighted score and rank. 75

Table29 Summary ranking of technology options as recommended by the Member ProjectBoard. 76

Table30 Summary of the key decisions, actions and activities during the OptionsAppraisal process 77

Table31 Authority actions to minimise the disposal of MSW prior to waste treatmentfacilities being operational (2013/ 14) 78

Table32 Key actions and timescales for improving Partnership working. 81

Table33 Key actions required on the selection of residual waste technologies. 83

Table34 Risk Assessment Register 87

Table35 The technology options modelled and assessed for the West of EnglandPartnership. 94

FIGURES

Figure1 Flowchart outlining the hierarchy of legislation, regulation and guidelinesthat influence Local Authority residual waste management policies andstrategies. 16

Figure2 The Waste Hierarchy. 19

Figure3 Project Organogram.. 25

Figure4 The location of the Partnerships transfer stations and landfill sites. 28

Figure5 Total Municipal Waste Arisings and destinations for the West of England,2005/06. 33

Figure6 Total Historic Waste Arisings for the Partnership Authorities. 34

Figure7 The decreasing LATS permits available to the Partnership Authorities,1995-2020. 35

Figure8 Predicted total waste arisings (MSW) for the Partnership (2005/6- 2026/27) 37

Figure9 Bath & North East Somerset's modelled waste arisings under 'status quo'and 'programmed service improvements' scenarios against LATS targets. 39

Figure10 Bristol's modelled waste arisings under 'status quo' and 'programmed serviceimprovements' scenarios against LATS targets. 39

Figure11 North Somerset's modelled waste arisings under 'status quo' and 'programmedservice improvements' scenarios against LATS targets. 40

Figure12 South Gloucestershire's modelled waste arisings under 'status quo' and'programmed service improvements' scenarios against LATS targets. 40

Figure13 The West of England Partnerships modelled waste arisings under 'status quo'and 'programmed service improvements' scenarios against LATS targets. 41

Figure14 The estimated financial implications for the Partnership for not meeting theLATS targets (possible annual fines at £150 per tonne). 42

Figure15 The Options Appraisal Process. 58

Figure16 The technical modelling process. 60

Figure17 Technology performance - Meet targets. 63

Figure18 Technology performance - Exceed targets. 64

Figure19 Performance against BVPI 82a and 82b under meet targets scenario. 65

Figure20 Performance against BVPI 82a and 82b under exceed targets scenario. 66

Figure21 The spatial characteristics of each technology option assessed in theOptions Appraisal 68

Figure22 Results of the consultation scoring day against the Level Zero Qualitycriterion. 73

Figure23 Results of the evaluation of the Cost Criterion at the Member Project Board. 75

Figure24 Summary total weighted scores. 76

Figure25 An indicative timetable for the procurement of waste management facilities. 85

1.              Executive Summary

The West of England Waste Management and Planning Partnershipconsisting of Bath & North East Somerset, Bristol, North Somerset, andSouth Gloucestershire has developed this Joint Residual Municipal Waste ManagementStrategy (JRMWMS) to define the strategic framework for managing residual wasteover the period 2007 to 2027.

The strategy has been developed in response to thesignificant challenges facing the management of municipal waste in the UK; includinglocal, national and international obligations in terms of environmental targetsand policies. Targets forreducing the amount of biodegradable municipal waste (BMW) being sent fordisposal in landfill have been set down by The European Union and there is nowa 'significant risk that local authorities in England will fail to reducetonnages of biodegradable waste sent to landfill by enough to meet the EUtargets for 2010 and 2013. To meet the EU targets the UK will require the construction of waste treatmentand recovery plants, such as mechanical biological treatment (MBT) and energyfrom waste (EfW) facilities'[1].

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

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

These will deliver significant reductions inthe amount of waste, particularly biodegradable waste, being sent to landfillsites. They will also maximise theefficient recovery of resources and encompass environmental, social andeconomic factors.

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

The West of England Waste Management and Planning Partnershipauthorities are active in all aspects of waste management particularly wasteminimisation, recycling, and composting. However, even if high rates ofminimisation, recycling and composting are achieved there will still be a largequantity of waste 'left over' that will need to be managed and ultimatelydisposed of. This waste is usually collected from householders in black bags orwheeled bins, or is deposited by them at household waste recycling centres(HWRC) and is described as 'residual waste'. This JRMWMS only considers themanagement of residual waste and it is intended to sit alongside theauthorities' existing waste management strategies, which include schemes forwaste minimisation, reuse and recycling.

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

The current nature of waste management and future projections for wastearisings and LATS performance has been modelled. This has shown that withoutsome form of secondary waste treatment facility the Partnership will fail tomeet LATS targets in the first target year (2009/10) onwards. This willpotentially lead to the Authorities having to purchase permits or face fineswhich 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 tobe a LATS deficit of approximately 173,200 tonnes. This could translate into apossible fine for that year in the region of £25,950,000. The authorities aretherefore working together to develop a range of waste facilities to treat thiswaste. These facilities will take some time to procure and are not likely to beoperational before 2013/14, the Authorities are therefore also developingindividual strategies for reducing the quantity of biodegradable municipalwaste going to landfill before this time.

Steps have been taken to ensure that the JRMWMSaccords with Government Guidance and that services are delivered to a highstandard, consistent with the principles of best value whilst considering theevaluation of the economic, social and environmental impacts.

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

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

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

The interim outcome of the process was arange of residual waste treatment combinations with the positive and negativefactors of each identified for consideration.

The threetechnology options emerged with the highest scores which were:

1.    MechanicalTreatment + Thermal Treatment;

2.    Energyfrom Waste; and,

3.   Biological Mechanical Treatment + ThermalTreatment + Landfill.

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

The same range of waste treatment optionswill be subject to consultation with the public, as part of the Phase TwoConsultation scheduled for early 2007 before the preferred option is chosen toform the Outline Business Case for residual municipal waste managementfacilities.

2.              Introduction

2.1.       The Purpose of this Strategy

This Joint Residual MunicipalWaste Management Strategy (JRMWMS) has been produced to create a framework formanaging municipal residual waste generated in the West of England sub-regionin a sustainable manner. The West of England Waste Management and PlanningPartnership (The Partnership) recognise that waste management is changingrapidly and that a local authority's role now includes more than the simplecollection and disposal of waste. National and European legislation is thedriving force behind the need to manage waste in a more sustainable way. Localauthorities are required to reduce the amount of biodegradable waste that theydispose of to landfill or face economic penalties under the Landfill (Scheme Year and Maximum LandfillAmount) Regulations 2004,pursuant to Waste and Emissions Trading Act, 2003.

The Partnership was formed in2005 with the intention of creating a strategy to manage residual waste andprovide the infrastructure for its disposal in a more sustainable manner and tomeet increasingly demanding legislation.

The Department for theEnvironment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) policy guidance states that"Long-term strategic planning is vital to all authorities in securing both theinfrastructure and service developments necessary to deliver more sustainablewaste management. It is Government's view that all local authorities shouldeither produce or contribute to a strategy or equivalent."^[2]

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

This JRMWMS only considers the management of residual waste and it isnot intended to replace each authority's existing waste strategies, whichalready 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 forreprocessing'[3]. Inthis case the residual municipal waste includes trade waste which comes underthe authority's control.

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

The JRMWMS acknowledges thatthere should be major changes to our waste management practices and thatmaintaining the 'Status Quo' is not an option. This JRMWMS sets out theobjectives and proposals for waste treatment and disposal that will applyacross the sub-region, and the options for meeting performance standards andtargets.

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 guidethe work and activities of the Partnership and is as follows:

The four local authorities in the West of England areaare working together to develop, in consultation with local residents and otherstakeholders, a range of facilities for the treatment of municipal residualwaste.

These will deliver significant reductions in theamount of waste, particularly biodegradable waste, being sent to landfill sites. They will also maximise the efficientrecovery of resources and encompass environmental, social and economicfactors.

Each local authority will maintain a long termcommitment to increase waste reduction, recycling and composting, and will movetoward 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 preparedby Officers working for all members of the West of England Waste Management andPlanning Partnership, (described as the Partnership from here onwards) inconjunction with Waste Management Consultants, Jacobs. These four unitaryauthorities are statutorily responsible for the collection, treatment,disposal, and planning of municipal waste management.

TheAuthorities believe working in Partnership offers economic, environmental andsocial advantages such as:

·        Maximisingeconomies of scale;

·        Minimisingenvironmental impacts;

·        Minimisingtransport requirements; and

·        Providingbest value for the tax payer.

The formation of the Partnershipwill also greatly improve the proximity and self sufficiency of wastemanagement in the sub-region. The concepts of Proximity and Self Sufficiencywere introduced in Planning Policy Statement 10[4].Proximity is referred to as: "disposing of waste at the nearest appropriateinstallation, by means of the most appropriate methods and technologies" andself sufficiency as "individuals, communities and organisations takingresponsibility for their waste". The Partnership will consider these twoprinciples in decision making and will aim to maximise proximity and selfsufficiency in waste management.

2.4.       The Strategy Scope

The Strategy has been developedbroadly in accordance with Defra guidance on the preparation of Municipal WasteManagement Strategies[5],although the strategy is not typical because it is only includes the managementof residual waste.

2.4.1.                  Residual Waste

ThePartnership was formed to provide a strategy for the management of residualwaste only and therefore this document does not include in-depth analysis ofthe waste minimisation, recycling and composting strategies and relatedinfrastructure that the Authorities have in place. However, this data hasinformed the strategy and has been included in calculations and models offuture residual waste growth. Other wastes and issues that are not consideredby 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 ManagementFacilities

The Strategy also excludes the consideration of any locations for wastemanagement facilities. In parallel with the preparation of thisstrategy, Waste Planning Officers are developing a Joint Waste Development PlanDocument, which will address this issue. Waste Managers and Planners areworking closely to ensure both the Joint Municipal Residual Waste ManagementStrategy and Joint Waste Development Plan Document will inform and complementeach other.

2.5.       Consultation

The Partnership acknowledges thatthis strategy has to be produced with the views and wishes of the localresidents in mind, since the householder has such a crucial role to play in theachievement of new standards in waste management. It is also important that allother organisations and individuals who have a stake in the process areengaged, including commercial waste management companies which will providemany of the services, technologies and investment required to deliver change.

The Strategy has therefore beenwritten alongside an extensive consultation campaign with the public, the wastemanagement industry and with stakeholders. The information and views obtainedduring this consultation was included in the decision making process,particularly the Technical Options Appraisal, through which a range ofpreferred waste management options for the Partnership were developed andevaluated. Further details of the consultation process are described in Section2.5 and a separate Strategy Consultation Report[6].

2.6.       Strategy Timescale

The JRMWMS is intended to createa pathway for residual municipal waste management for the next 20 years, up to2027 (assuming it is adopted in 2007), in alignment with the Waste DevelopmentPlan Document. However, it is anticipated that waste treatment facilities couldstill be operating for some time after 2027.

Waste management is a dynamicarea and there can be uncertainty about legislation and technology beyond theshort to medium term. For this reason certain sections of the JRMWMS will beunder constant review, for example, targets, action plans, and monitoringarrangements. There will inevitably be times when significant changes will needto be made to the JRMWMS to reflect changing commitments and investments. As amatter of protocol the JRMWMS will be fully reviewed every five years by thePartnership.

3.              Where is The Partnership today?

This sectionprovides a baseline review of the Partnership authority's current wastemanagement position and includes the following elements:

·        An outline of existing key policy and legalrequirements;

·        Roles and responsibilities of the Authorities;

·        Contextual information about the West of Englandand 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 overviewof the current key legal and policy requirements which may impact on residualwaste management. In order for the Partnership to put forward an action planthey will need to ensure that all actions are aligned with the relevantlegislation and focused towards achieving statutory targets identified byGovernment. APPENDIX A- FURTHER RELEVANT LEGISLATION includes a more comprehensive list of other relevantlegislation.

Figure1 outlines the hierarchy of legislation,regulation and guidelines that influence Local Authority residual wastemanagement policies and strategies for their areas. Guidelines and codes of practice may not havea statutory basis but they often provide a valuable framework from which localand regional strategies can develop.

Figure 1 Flowchart outlining thehierarchy of legislation, regulation and guidelines that influence LocalAuthority 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 measurebecause of concern over the high levels of methane produced by thedecomposition of biodegradable waste in landfills. The directive requires anincreasing amount of municipal waste to be either pre-treated (to reducebiodegradability) or managed by methods other than landfill. The Landfill Directive[7] wastranscribed into UKlaw as The Landfill (England and Wales) Regulations 2002.

The Directive sets requirementsto reduce the amount of biodegradable municipal waste (BMW) that can be sent tolandfill. The starting point for the targets is the amount of BMW that wasproduced (not landfilled) in 1995. Each country can then only landfill thefollowing amounts of BMW:

·        by 2010, only 75% of the amount produced in1995;

·        by 2013, that reduces to 50%;

·        by 2020, that reduces to 35%

Therefore the amount of wastethat can be landfilled over the next 20 years is tied to the amount produced in1995, even though waste quantities are still rising. This ever increasing gapis producing the greatest force for change in waste management in the UK.

A recent study by the NationalAudit Office[8] stated that the increase inrecycling had been offset by the growth in waste produced and that there is "asignificant risk that the targets will not be met". There are also likely to beheavy financial penalties if local authorities do not meet the targets, whichcould be up to £180 million a year

3.1.2.    UK Acts

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

The Act isintended to facilitate England meeting its Europeanobligations under the Landfill Directive for the diversion of biodegradablewaste from landfill. The Act involves the allocation, by the government, of 'landfillallowances' to waste disposal authorities each year. Authorities can theneither stick to their landfill limits each year, or they can trade theseallowances. High landfilling authorities may need to buy more allowances ifthey expect to landfill more than their limit. Authorities with low landfillrates can sell their surplus allowances to those authorities that may requirethem. The Act sets the statutoryframework to implement a Landfill Allowance Trading Scheme (LATS).

3.1.2.2.              Landfill Allowance Trading Scheme (LATS), 2005

Reflecting the intention of theLandfill Directive the LATS system sees progressively tighter restrictions onthe amount of biodegradable municipal waste - include kitchen waste, green orgarden wastes, paper, card, cork and even some textiles[9] - thatdisposal authorities can landfill.

Local authoritieshave been allocated allowances for the amount of BMW they can landfill forevery year of the scheme until 2020. These allowances are tradable, so that high landfillingauthorities can buy more allowances if they expect to landfill more than theallowances they hold. Similarly, authorities with low landfill rates can selltheir surplus allowances.

Authorities do not have to tradeallowances. If they want to avoid the complication of trading, they are able tocomply with the regulations so long as they do not landfill more than the totalamount of allowances they hold. This is achieved by increasing reduction,recycling and composting and the development of a facility to process residualwaste. Local authoritiescan also bank unused allowances or borrow from their future allocations withincertain rules.

Theconsequences of failing to meet the diversion targets are as follows:

·        The cost of purchasing additional permits (ifavailable);

·        Increased operational costs of haulage/ disposaland landfill tax;

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

·        Possible increased fines above £150 per tonne inthe 'target years' (2010, 2013, 2020) as fines from Europewill be apportioned between offending authorities, in proportion to theirtonnes landfilled over permits held.

In addition, the Chancellor ofthe Exchequer's Landfill tax escalator continues to apply with an ongoingincrease of £3 per tonne per year.

The scheme applies to all wastecollected by the local authorities and therefore operates as a disincentive tocollect waste from commercial and industrial premises. However, the Partnershipintends to try and maximise the quantity of non-municipal waste that can berecycled in the region through other means.

3.1.3.                  National Waste Strategies, 2000 (Review 2006)

Waste Strategy 2000[10] waspublished as a response to the recognition that England'swaste management position was unsustainable. The Strategy set down nationalguidance for waste management that all local authorities must have regard. Thestrategy was revised in 2005[11] in response to concerns overthe underpinning decision-making principles and procedures.

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

In February 2006 a major reviewof the Waste Strategy 2000[13] waslaunched as a consultation document. The Consultation Document also emphasisedthe 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 documentalso identified a set of revised targets for recycling, recovery, and landfill.The targets from these two strategy documents are summarised in 1 :

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

Table 1 clearly indicates that it is the Government's intention to introduce moreambitious and challenging targets for Local Authorities with in respect ofrecycling and composting.

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

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

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

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

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

The results of the consultationwere 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. TheStrategy sets out a fifteen year plan to manage waste sustainably in the regionand input was provided by each authority of the West of England WasteManagement and Planning Partnership. The RWSSW presents measures to manageresidual waste produced by the region.

The RWSSW suggests thatapproximately 500-600 new waste facilities of all types will need to be inplace by 2020 including:

·        Facilitiesto process green waste to produce compost;

·        Sortingfacilities for the products that are being recycled;

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

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

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

Other 'targets' setout in the strategy include the following indicative annual municipal waste managementcapacities for the Landfill Directive target years shown in Table 2 below.

Table 2 Indicative AnnualMunicipal Waste Management Capacities for the Landfill Directive Target Yearsfor the Partnership Authorities

3.1.3.2.              Waste Guidelines and Codes of Practice

Guidance on theHousehold Waste Recycling Act was published to help Waste CollectionAuthorities take any necessary steps to comply with the Act, whilstacknowledging their freedom to choose the best way of doing so. The newguidance, which followed a consultation held in 2004, highlights good practiceand other sources of information and support that Waste Collection Authoritiesmay find helpful when formulating waste management strategies whilst addressingother statutory requirements such as health and safety.

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

3.1.4.                  Key Planning Policy and Legislation

To increase the amount of wastethat is moved up the waste hierarchy and diverted from landfill will requiremajor investment in waste management facilities. The land use planning systemtherefore has a crucial role to play in the adequate and timely provision ofthese facilities.

There has been a revision of national planning policy for sustainablewaste management in PPS10 by the ODPM (now the Department for Communities andLocal Government- DCLG) alongside DEFRA's new policy framework forMWMSs. Provision for the delivery of waste management infrastructure willrequire policies that reflect the needs of the relevant MWMS developed inaccordance with DEFRA guidance, and policies that shape non-waste-relateddevelopment in relation to spatial planning concerns such as transport, housing,economic growth, natural resources and regeneration. The two policy frameworksare therefore closely aligned and this is expected to be re-produced on theground through joint working of planning and waste management departments.

3.1.4.1.              Planning Policy Statement 10, 2005

This documentsets out the key planning objectives and decision making principles that shouldbe adhered to in developing Regional Spatial Strategies and Local DevelopmentDocuments (LDD). It also sets out policies for identifying land for wastemanagement facilities, for identifying suitable sites and areas that fulfil thelocation criteria outlined in the Waste Framework Directive. PPS 10 requiresthat the planning strategies developed by regional and local planning bodiesshould help deliver sustainable development. A key tool for helping to ensurethe sustainability of strategies and plans is Sustainable Appraisal (SA).Thisis identified in PPS 10 as one of the decision-making principles to shape wasteplanning strategies such that they support the Government's planning objectivesfor waste management. As manyauthorities are in a transitional period between old and new systems, PPS10 maysupersede any current planning policies where this is deemed appropriate bythat authority.

The principlesset out in PPS10 require the following:

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

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

·        Clearpolicy objectives should be the basis for planned provision of new capacity andits spatial distribution. Policyobjectives should be in line with the planning policies set out in the PPS andbe linked to measurable indicators of change.

·        Planningstrategies should be shaped by Sustainability Appraisals (incorporatingStrategic Environmental Assessment). SEA is a keycomponent of sustainable development establishing important methods forprotecting the environment and extending opportunities for participationin public policy decision making.

3.1.4.2.              Joint Waste Development Plan Document

In 2004 the Government introducedchanges to the development planning system. Councils are required to prepare aLocal Development Framework, which will replace their existing Local Plans. Thestatutory documents in the Local Development Framework are referred to asDevelopment Plan Documents. Because the collection and management of wastetakes place across local authority boundaries within the West of England, itwas decided that the four Unitary Authorities of Bath and North East Somerset,Bristol City, North Somerset and South Gloucestershire should work together toprepare 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 theamount of municipal and non-municipal waste (mainly Industrial and Commercialwaste) to be managed within each of the four Unitary Authority areas.Importantly, the JWDPD will establish the spatial strategy for the distributionof strategic waste management facilities needed in the West of England if wasteis to be diverted from landfill. It will establish the sustainable wastemanagement principles that will guide waste-related development over the periodto 2026.

In order to facilitate thedevelopment of new waste facilities that will be required over the next twentyyears, the JWDPD will identify sites suitable for strategic waste managementpurposes, and where it is not appropriate or possible to identify sites, areasof search and/ or criteria will be identified.

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

Table 3 Key stages in thedevelopment of the JWDPD

Consultation of the Issues andOptions Document represents an early stage in the preparation of the JointWDPD. The purpose of the document is to generate discussion about wastemanagement and planning in the West of England by seeking views on the issuesfacing the area on how waste should be managed and where the requiredfacilities should be located.

The Issues and Options Documentcontains information on the amount of waste likely to be produced in the Westof England over the next two decades, the technologies that are likely to beavailable to manage the waste diverted from landfill, and their spatialimplications for the Joint Waste Development Plan Document, including the broadland use distribution options available to the area.

Following the consideration ofresponses to the Issues and Options Document, the next step will be to progressthe Preferred Option(s), which will lead to the preparation of the JWDPD thatwill be submitted to the Secretary of State, and which will be the subject ofan 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 municipaland other waste streams to gain the potential economies of scale from moreintegrated collection, management and recovery of municipal and non-municipalwaste.

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

3.2.1.    Commercial & Industrial Wastes/ Constructionand Demolition Wastes

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

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

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

Construction and demolition waste will also need to bemanaged in the region but it may be more difficult to integrate into themunicipal 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 betweenthe Environment Agency, as waste regulator, and local authorities in theirroles as Waste Collection Authority (WCA) and the Waste Disposal Authority(WDA). Because the Partnership is made up of unitary authorities it is jointlyresponsible both for the collection and disposal of waste. Household waste fromdomestic properties is collected free of charge with the exception of certainwastes (bulky items). In addition, unitary authorities are responsible forinvestigating the potential for recycling in their area and preparing arecycling plan.

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

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

Toachieve the aims of the Waste Strategy and to meet the respective targets forrecycling, recovery and diversion, closer working between the partnerauthorities is vital. This will extend to matters contained within future wastemanagement contracts.

3.3.1.    Partnership Working Arrangements

A Project Board comprising ofExecutive Members responsible for waste management and planning has beenestablished, and an Officer Project Team has been identified to take theproject forward and support the Project Board, with officers from eachauthority taking a lead on various activities and tasks required to deliverythe joint strategies.

Each Authority has made a formal decision via Cabinet or Executive towork in partnership with the others. The Member Project Board have agreed to anincremental approach to formalising this agreement further which is likely tohappen from the procurement stage onwards. To this end a memorandum ofunderstanding and terms of reference have been agreed by the Member Board, butnot formally signed. Atthe point at which authorities consider formally entering into a jointprocurement of waste treatment facilities it will be appropriate to review thepartnership contracting arrangements. The project organisation and the roles of each entity areshown in Figure 3 .

Figure 3 Project Organogram

3.4.       Current Waste Contracts

Existing contracts that thePartnership authorities have agreed for the management and disposal of residualwaste may to some extent restrict the options available to them to manage thisresidual waste in the future. The contract end dates have to be planned forwell in advance as alternative arrangements will take time to organise. It istherefore important that existing contract considerations are integrated intothe decision making process. 4 below identifies the current contracts held by thepartnership authorities for residual waste disposal. It should be noted thatfor each authority the contracts are for residual waste disposal to landfill.

Table 4 Current residual municipalwaste disposal contracts (landfill)

All present contracts will endbetween 2008 and 2010, except for South Gloucestershire's.South Gloucestershire already has a Private FinanceInitiative (PFI) contract in place for the delivery of all waste managementservices. To meet LATS targets beyond this timescale residual waste will haveto be treated to remove or reduce the biodegradability of the waste.

In all other cases there is aneed to plan carefully for contract transfers as present contracts are due toexpire in the medium term, and each authority needs to ensure their requiredtreatment capacity is catered for.

3.5.       Waste Disposal Infrastructure

As discussed, the four PartnerAuthorities at present all rely very heavily on landfill to dispose of residualwaste. Waste is first bulked up in local transfer stations and is then taken byrail or road to a network of landfill sites.

3.5.1.    Residual Waste Disposal

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

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

*Landfill sites outside the sub-region are shown inred.

Table5 identifies that the majority of residual waste is presentlybeing exported outside the sub-region for disposal, which is neithersustainable nor aligned with the guiding principles of proximity or selfsufficiency.

Another Waste Management Companyrecently has secured planning permission for a new landfill site at Shortwoodnear Bristol which may be availablefor use by the Partnership by 2007/08. It has also received an IPPC permit fromthe Environment Agency.

The geographical location of theinfrastructure utilised by the Partnership for residual waste management isshown in Figure4.

Figure 4 The location of thePartnerships transfer stations and landfill sites

3.5.1.1.              Household Waste Recycling Centres

Household Waste Recycling Centres (HWRC) sometimesreferred to as Civic Amenity Sites, are provided for the public to depositresidual waste and recycling which consists of a higher proportion of bulkywaste that cannot be collected. The HWRCs within the partnership area are shownbelow in Table6.

Table 6 Household Waste RecyclingCentres

3.5.1.2.              Planned Residual Waste Treatment Facilities

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

Compact Power Ltd currentlyoperates a 6,000 tonnes per annum commercial gasification/pyrolysis plant forclinical waste disposal on land forming part of the Avonmouth Refuse TransferStation. The proposed project will generate in excess of 2.5MW of electricityto go into the National Grid and 2 MW of dissipated heat which can be soldlocally.

Bristolcurrently transports its kerbside collected garden waste, cardboard and kitchenwaste to Dorset for composting. The City Council isplanning to commission a more local in-vessel composting plant with a capacityof between 25,000 and 30,000 tonnes per annum.

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

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

3.6.1.    Overview of the West of England Region

The West of Englandsub-region, which consists of the four partner unitary authorities, has anenviable track record in innovation, creativity and connectivity, and anoutstanding strategic location. Each of the partner authority areas is verydifferent in their physical as well as social and economic geography. Thesedifferences also bring with them very different waste management challenges andthese characteristics need to be taken into account when making decisions aboutwaste management.

Over the last ten years, thearea's population has grown faster than the UKaverage to more than one million people. This population growth presents achallenge for the authorities especially when it comes to dealing with thesteadily rising amounts of waste that an expanding population generates.

In responseto these challenges the four unitary authorities have formed the West ofEngland Partnership with a range of social, economic and environmentalpartners. It is important to state that this Partnership is an entity separatefrom the West of England Waste Management and Planning Partnership formed forthis project. The West of England Partnership aims to:

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

·        Set avision and clear long-term direction to support the delivery of keysub-regional strategies;

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

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

·        Workmore 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 haveproduced "Vision 2026" a documentoutlining the partnerships aims and objectives to increase the economicprosperity, improve the quality of life and maintain and upgrade the infrastructureof 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 documentas a framework to assist strategic decision making and also developingappropriate delivery plans for the introduction of the documents objectives.

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

3.6.1.1.              Brief Socio-economic Comparison of theAuthorities

The nature and characteristics ofeach area are very different as shown in Table7. For example, Bristolis less than a third the size of Bath & North East Somerset but has doublethe population, generating contrasting waste management challenges.

Table 7 A comparisons ofsocio-economic facets of each authority

3.6.2.    Bath & North East Somerset

Bath & North East Somerset covers an area of 220 square milesapproximately two thirds of which is green belt. The area has apopulation of 170,000, with approximately 73,500 households. Bathis the largest urban centre (approximate population of 80,000) and is 12 times more densely populated than the rest of thearea. The City of Bath" was added to Unesco's World Heritage List in 1987. By2016 the council population is expected to grow by six per cent, presenting anincreased waste challenge. B&NES also includes the settlements of Keynsham,Midsomer Norton, Radstock, Paulton and the Chew Valley.

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

"Zero waste isa concept that is spreading throughout the globe. The vision is to reduceconsumption of goods by ensuring that products are made to be reused, repairedor recycled.  What we now call waste should instead be regarded as amixture of resources to be used again to their full potential, not as somethingto be thrown away."

The unemployment rate in B&NES was at 3.6% at the end of2005. This was a slight fall on the previous year. The population includes ahigh proportion of skilled workers, the majority of whom commute to the urbancentres of Bristol and Bath.

3.6.3.    Bristol

Bristolhas the largest population of the four unitary authorities that make up thePartnership with a population of approximately 400,000. Bristol'spopulation has remained stable since the early 1990's with only small increasesrecorded each year. The Councilsprojections estimate the population of the city will be approaching the 426,000 mark bythe 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 basedindustries compared to UK averages and hasan excellent graduate retention rate. It benefits from a highly skilled pool oflabour, especially at professional and managerial level, enabling the area toaccommodate strong employment growth, particularly in highly skilledoccupations. Nonetheless, there are serious skills gaps in many semi-skilledprofessions affecting the city region. Unemployment in Bristol was approximately5% at the end of 2005.

Overall the city-region is relatively buoyant economicallyand has seen significant growth in terms of both population and employment inrecent years. It also, however, has significant pockets of persistent povertyand 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 theCountry (Ashley, Barton Hill and Hartcliffe).

There has been significant investment in Bristol's infrastructureover recent years, the redevelopment of the Port and its related transportnetwork and the recent development of the Bristol Science Park, as means toattract 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 almost190,000 and it is expected to grow by nearly 13,000 in the next 6 years. North Somerset comprises 144 square miles of rural and urbancommunities, with the largest urban settlements being Weston-super-Mare(72,000), Clevedon (23,000), Nailsea (18,000) and Portishead (18,000). Thepopulation also increases greatly during holiday periods with approximately 4.5million visitors coming to North Somerset each year.

Thedistrict contains an international airport and a deep sea west coast port. Thenorthern boundary is formed by the River Avon and Bristol City and the Southern boundary isformed by the River Axe and the Mendip Hills. Approximately two thirds of the area is designated as green belt landand an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. North Somersetremains a predominantly rural area with 35 rural parishes and many smallervillages dispersed throughout the region.

The unemployment rate in North Somerset stood at 3.1% in1995, which is below the national average. North Somerset is a generally prosperous area,with a growing population. Crime rates and unemployment rates are lower thanaverage, but deprivation statistics do highlight that there are areas in theregion with severe social and economic problems. North Somerset has a high range of inequality, but most of the deprivedareas are concentrated in Weston-super-Mare.

The council is tackling theseproblems through education and employment initiatives to provide residents withthe skills they need to find employment. Initiatives such as the Community LearningDevelopment Project have helped 1,200 local people aged 19 and over to attendeducational activities and training courses.

3.6.5.    South Gloucestershire

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

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

Unemployment has fallen sharply from 4.7% in 2005 to0.9% in 2006. The creation of several new business parks in the region hashelped contribute to this fall. The north fringe of Bristol accounts forover 50% (est. 70,000) of the jobs in South Gloucestershire. The Kingswood area has anestimated 30,000 jobs and the Yate/ Chipping Sodbury area 17,000. Away from theBristol suburbs the rateof employment growth has been modest. Some areas, notably Kingswood, have lost jobsin recent years, particularly manufacturing jobs.

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

3.7.       Analysis of Waste Data

3.7.1.    Current Residual Waste Arisings and Management

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

Thetotal quantity of municipal waste managed by the Partnership and the variousquantities diverted in 2005/6 through composting and recycling schemes is shownin Table8 and Figure5.

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

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

The Partnership authorities'historic reliance on landfill is clearly visible from this information. Thequantity of waste being composted or recycled also varies across each authorityalthough the amount of waste composted should increase for Bristoland North Somerset by 2007/8 due to new collectionservices that have been or will be introduced.

3.7.2.    Historic Waste Growth

The historic municipal wastearisings for each of the Partnership authorities and the West of England as awhole is shown below in Figure6. In order to model the predicted future wastearisings this trend along with socio-economic factors and planned recycling/composting services need to be considered.

Figure 6 Total Historic WasteArisings for the Partnership Authorities

A general increase in wastearisings can be noted from Figure6 between 2000 and 2006, although for the Partnershipas 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 thelocal authorities in the Partnership are shown in

Table9and Figure7.

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

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

Figure7 illustrates that all partnership Authorities willneed to significantly decrease the amount of BMW sent for disposal to landfillto meet their LATS targets. An analysis of the Authorities performance againsttheir LATS targets has been modelled in section 3.7.6 .

3.7.4.    Waste Composition

Data relating to the compositionof waste arisings can vary greatly across socio demographics and with seasonalchange. The Partnership Authorities have carried out detailed analysis onresidual, recyclable and compostable materials collected at both kerbside andat household waste recycling centres. Obtaining robust data on waste streamcomposition allows for more precise forecasting of waste arisings. This is animportant aspect when looking at the potential amount of waste to belandfilled, composted or recycled in future years. If this data is notavailable national standards can be applied, however, as recent compositionalstudies have made apparent, waste streams do vary greatly and so nationalstandards can be misleading.

North Somerset,South Gloucestershire and Bristol City provided an in depthcompositional waste analysis which have been incorporated into all modelling. Bathand North East Somerset also provided a compositional analysis, however this dataonly gave a single snapshot audit which is unlikely to reflect the annualaverage composition. In the absence of a comprehensive and current totalhousehold waste composition for the Authority, the national standard wastecomposition was used in the modelling. The composition of the each authority'sresidual waste can be updated in the modelling as more recent and reliable databecomes available.

3.7.5.    Forward Projections- Waste Arisings

Predicting future waste arisings is vital to determining future wastemanagement requirements. When considering projections account must be taken ofthe accuracy of the base data, likely projections of household numbers andeconomic 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 ofcurrent arisings and predicted future trends.

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

·        Number of households - it is generally consideredthat 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 consideredthat independent of the number of households, the underlying municipal wasteproduced by each household will change due to factors such as behaviour,socio-demographic factors, education initiatives, affluence and Gross DomesticProduct.

3.7.5.1.              Projected Total waste arisings

Table10 and Figure8 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 thecurrent planned level of source segregation to maintain the existing level ofservice i.e. the performance at 2005/06 continuing throughout the 28 yearmodelled period.

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

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

3.7.5.2.              Projected Residual Waste Arisings

Table11 below shows the predicted residual waste arisings forthe LATS target years if the status quo is maintained. These figures are ofimportance to the strategy as they give an indication of the amount of residualwaste that needs to be treated/ managed.

Table 11 Residual waste arisingsassuming the Status Quo (tonnes)

Table 12 belowshows the predicted residual waste arisings for the LATS target years if theauthorities make planned service improvements (PSI). The PSI assumes that the Partnership takes steps toimprove source segregation performance, for example, by increasing recyclingand composting through increasing participation in current schemes orcollecting additional materials. This does not include the construction of anyresidual treatment facility.

Table 12 Residual waste arisingsincorporating Programmed Service Improvements (tonnes)

3.7.6.                  The Position of the Partnership in Relation tothe Landfill Allowance Trading Schemeand Targets

When modelling, the guidance (4Ps[17])recommends that authorities assess performance of the 'Do Minimum baselinescenario', a Meet Landfill Allowance Trading Scheme (LATS) targets scenario andan Exceed LATS targets scenario. In this modelling the current sourcesegregation baseline performance has been called the Status Quo (SQ), i.e. theauthorities maintain the existing services. This is a useful baseline on whichto assess changes.

Programmed (source-segregation) ServiceImprovements (PSI) that each authority intends to make have been collated andentered into the modelling to determine how source segregation performance willchange over the next 25 to 30 years, for example, whether additional servicesbe rolled out, whether more materials will be targeted for collection, whetherparticipation will increase etc. This establishes the projected futureperformance and enables the calculation of what quantity of waste is sourcesegregated and hence the quantity of residual waste that will need to bemanaged.

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 'DoMinimum scenario'. The PSI is used as the performance levels that can thenassess the Meet and Exceed Targets scenarios in the technology model.

The quantity of residual waste can then bepicked up in the technology model, and applied to the technology options toassess performance and throughput under the Meet and the Exceed Targetscenarios. This includes an assessment of each technology's performance againstBVPI targets for recycling and composting (BVPI 82) and the LATS.

The following analysis assessesthe state of each authority and the Partnership in meeting LATS performancetargets under SQ and PSI scenarios.

3.7.6.1.              Bath & North East Somerset Projected LATSPerformance

Figure 9 Bath & North EastSomerset's modelled waste arisings under 'status quo' and 'programmed serviceimprovements' scenarios against LATS targets

3.7.6.2.              BristolProjected LATS Performance

Figure 10 Bristol's modelled waste arisings under 'status quo' and 'programmed serviceimprovements' scenarios against LATS targets

3.7.6.3.              North Somerset Projected LATS Performance

Figure 11 North Somerset's modelled waste arisingsunder 'status quo' and 'programmed service improvements' scenarios against LATStargets

3.7.6.4.              South GloucestershireProjected LATS Performance

Figure 12 South Gloucestershire's modelled waste arisingsunder 'status quo' and 'programmed service improvements' scenarios against LATStargets

3.7.6.5.              The Partnership's Projected LATS Performance

Figure 13 The West of England Partnershipsmodelled waste arisings under 'status quo' and 'programmed serviceimprovements' scenarios against LATS targets

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

When waste arisings and LATS targets aremodelled for the Partnership (Figure13 ) there is a predicted shortfall of LATS permits inthe first target year (2009/10) under both SQ and PSI scenarios.

3.7.7.    The Financial Implications of Missing LATSTargets

The financial implication of notmeeting the LATS targets could be severe and even buying permits on the marketis likely to prove very expensive by the 2009/10 target year. By that timepermits could increase in cost from approximately £20/tonne to £100-£150/tonne. If the UKas a whole also failed to meet its targets, a share of the EU fine of £½million per day would be passed down to the Waste Disposal Authoritiescontributing to that failure, to the extent that they contributed.

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

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

An example of the estimated financialimplications for the Partnership of not meeting the LATS targets is set out in Figure14 .

Figure 14 The estimated financialimplications for the Partnership for not meeting the LATS targets (possibleannual fines at £150 per tonne).

3.7.8.    Short-Term Options

Therefore the Partnership has the following short-term optionsavailable:

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

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

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

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

All Authorities need to minimisethe amount of waste produced and to maximise the amount of biodegradable wastethat is composted and therefore diverted from landfill. Each authority'sstrategy to meet LATS for the target year 2009/10 will be outlined in theirindividual 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 pursuealternative waste treatment technologies. Highrecycling and composting rates alone will not meet long term targets fordiverting waste from landfill, and further treatment of the residual fractionwill still be required. The meeting of longer term sustainability objectiveswill therefore require the introduction of new waste processing and treatmenttechnologies into the sub-region at one or a number of sites.

The sizing and role of any treatmenttechnology has to be carefully considered, so that it does not restrict thepossibility of meeting the increased recycling and composting aspirations.Section 5.4 examines different technologies and facility sizes toproduce 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 theJRMWMS is develop a sustainable plan for residual waste management in the Westof England.This will enable the Partnership Authorities to meet or exceed thelandfill diversion targets for biodegradable municipal waste (BMW), set down byGovernment.

This aim willbe achieved:

·        inconsultation with local residents and special interest groups;

·        in atimely fashion, so as to avoid unnecessary financial penalties and landfill taxcosts;

·        so as toprovide high quality facilities with minimal environmental impact.

4.1.2.                  Objectives

The strategic objectives of theJRMWMS are as follows:

OBJECTIVE 1: WASTE TREATMENT

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

·        meetingthe financial and environmental objectives of the four waste disposalauthorities in the sub-region, including landfill diversion targets;

·        meetingtonnage/treatment requirements of the Regional Waste Strategy;

·        minimisingwaste disposal cost in the sub-region;

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

OBJECTIVE 2. FUNDING

To securesufficient funding to implement the JRMWMS.

OBJECTIVE 3. CONSULTATION

To provide theopportunity for local residents and community & special interest groups toinform the delivery of the strategic objectives through consultation;

OBJECTIVE 4. COMMUNICATION/ INFORMATION DISSEMINATION

To develop and implement an external communications campaign whichwill:-

·        raise awareness of the waste managementchallenges facing the Partnership;

·        raise awareness about the requirement to providetreatment capacity in the West of England region and initiate discussion ontreatment technology options.

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

4.1.3.                  Targets

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

4.1.3.1.              Landfill Directive: Diversion

ThePartnership will seek to meet or exceed Landfill Directive^[18]targets for the landfilling of biodegradable municipal waste. This will meanreducing the quantity of Biodegradable Municipal Waste (BMW) sent to landfillin line with the following targets:

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

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

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

As a jointlyprocured waste treatment facility is unlikely to be operational until the 2013target year, each Partnership Authority will develop an internal strategy toavoid 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 thefollowing municipal waste recovery targets through recovering value fromresidual waste:

·        to recover value from 40% of municipalwaste by 2005;

·        to recover value from 45% of municipalwaste by 2010;

·        to recover value from 67% of municipalwaste by 2015.

In this context "Recover" means obtain value from wastesthrough:

·        Recycling;

·        Composting;

·        Other forms of material recovery (suchas anaerobic digestion);

·        Energy recovery (combustion with director indirect use of the energy produced) or from the manufacture and use of arefuse 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 tocontribute to meeting capacity targets set down in the Regional Waste Strategyfor the South-West. The overall target for the regional strategy is to ensurethat by the year 2020 over 45% of waste is recycled and reused and that lessthan 20% of waste produced in the South-West is landfilled.

The Regional Strategy alsoincorporates indicative annual municipal waste management capacities for eachcounty in the south-west including the West of England sub-region. Thesecapacities or targets are shown below in Table13 .

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

ThePartnership will seek to meet these targets for secondary treatment facilitycapacity and the landfill disposal reductions. However, the Partnership hasalso conducted detailed modelling work presented in section 0 which highlights waste treatment requirementsbased on the size of waste treatment facilities. This data will also beconsidered before setting specific targets for waste treatment capacity in theWest of England.

4.2.       Policies

4.2.1.                  Unitary Authority Policies

Each Unitary Authority has itsown policies on waste management and it is vital that the Partnership'spolicies are aligned with these to ensure a focus and commitment by all membersof the Partnership.

The followingguiding principles are incorporated into the policies of the Partnershipauthorities:

·        The Waste Hierarchy;

·        Regional Self Sufficiency;

·        The Proximity Principle.

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

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

* No policy formal adoptedbut presumption is that it is acceptable

Bath & North EastSomerset have formally adopted a policy of 'Zero Waste'. The other PartnershipAuthorities embrace much that underpins the concept, and are all workingtowards it in the long term.

4.2.2.                  The Partnership's Policies

There is a Memorandum of Understandingand a set of terms of reference signed by the Partnership authorities. Thissituation will be reviewed regularly to ascertain whether the terms ofreference of the Member Project Board need to be amended in order to moreeffectively deliver the Joint Residual Waste Management Strategy.

The authorities have been workingin Partnership towards the shared vision, with regard for the following guidingpolicies on residual waste:

POLICY1: LANDFILL DIRECTIVE TARGETS

ThePartnership will use the waste hierarchy as a guiding principle to wastemanagement and landfill will be used as the last option after residual wastetreatment.

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

POLICY2: PARTNERSHIP WORKING

The Authoritieswill work in partnership with each other, the community and the private sectorto maximise the efficient recovery of resources from residual municipal waste.

POLICY 3: DELIVERBEST VALUE

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

POLICY 4: LOCAL SUSTAINABILITY

Localsustainability issues will be considered, including opportunities to enhancethe local economy and employment and minimise environmental and trafficimpacts.

POLICY5: NATIONAL STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE

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

. Without risk to water, air, soil and plants andanimals;

. Without causing a nuisance through noise orodours;

. Without adversely affecting the countryside orplaces of special interest;

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

4.3.       Consultation

4.3.1.                  Public Consultation

An extensive first stage publicconsultation/ awareness raising programme was carried out alongside thedevelopment of this strategy and the Local Development Plan Document. Thepurpose of the consultation was to identify public perception of waste and itspotential as a resource. These views were thenconsidered when setting the objectives for the JRMWMS, which could be testedand reviewed during phase two of the consultation process.

4.3.1.1.              Phase 1 of the Public Consultation- Rubbish orResource Campaign

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

The public consultation exercisewas launched at The Council House in Bristolon Monday 10th July 2006.Titled 'Rubbish or Resource?' thecampaign invited the public to provide feedback and views on the subject ofresidual waste.

During July the 'Rubbish orResource' road show toured shopping centres and venues, together with fivepublic meetings throughout the region to canvass public opinion on how residualwaste could be managed.

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

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

·        7,000 surveys distributed by hand at shoppingcentres;

·        41 surveys were completed at the EveningMeetings;

·        7,500 postal surveys distributed by localauthorities; and

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

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

PublicMeetings were held on the following dates:

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

·        Bathand North East Somerset - Monday 17th July at theGuildhall, 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 theCouncil House, College Green. BS1 5TR

These events allowed the publicto put across their views and for the Partnership to inform the public aboutthe process and challenges facing residual waste management. The total number of public attendees at themeetings was 125 as well as Councillors and Council Officers. The breakdown of attendees at each meeting isshown in Table15.

Table 15 Public attendees at theconsultation meetings

4.3.1.2.              Summary of Issues Highlighted by Phase 1 of theConsultation

The mainpoints highlighted by the public were:

·        All areas could recycle more;

·        Investment in alternatives to landfill isrequired;

·        The Partnership should look at examples of bestpractice from Europe;

·        Respondents "care" what happens to waste and alarge proportion believe further value should be obtained;

·        Respondents are aware of alternatives tolandfill but feel they do not have enough information to make an informedjudgement;

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

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

·        Odour and air quality were the most importantissues with regards to site location; although visual impact, traffic and noiseall ranked highly; and

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

4.3.1.3.              Phase 2 of the Public Consultation (2007)

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

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

4.3.2.                  Waste Industry Consultation

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

Firstly, therepresentatives were given an overview of the project and the consultationprocess. Breakout sessions were then held on the following subjects:

·        Finance

·        Planning

·        Politicalsensitivities / engagement with community

·        Technologies

The Options Appraisalprocess was explained to the representatives and a short questionnaire wasdistributed to gather the views of the industry on a number of potentialcriteria to evaluate technology options against. A total of 14 responses werereceived, which were mainly inline with those already discussed. These opinionsand any additional criteria were considered, and used to help determine thelong list of Level 2 sub-criteria and also verify criteria already put forwardby the Partnership.

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

This section evaluates thePartnership's options for achieving the objectives of the project set out inthe previous section. It includes two sections:

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

2) A summary of the residual waste Options Appraisal processused to assess and evaluate options forresidual waste management.

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

5.1.       Waste Reduction and Reuse

Waste growthis a major contributor to waste management problems. However, it is a verydifficult issue to tackle because the underlying reasons appear to be closelyassociated with lifestyle and culture. This issue is not local to thePartnership but is driven by national and international forces. Waste growthappears to have emerged through two principle sources:

·        Excess packaging; and

·        Excessive consumption.

Local Authorities have relativelylittle power to influence these drivers but the Partnership will work toencourage all parties to 'behave' more sustainability, through promotion,education and the provision of services.

5.1.1.    Waste Minimisation Campaigns Currently Supportedby the Partnership Authorities

Currently allthe Partnership Authorities carry out the following actions to promotereduction and reuse:

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

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

The four Authorities use numerous other methods of promoting wasteminimisation and recycling as shown in the Table16 below.

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

Due to the dynamic nature ofwaste management and funding these projects are constantly being updated andnew projects are frequently added. Each Authority has increased resourcesavailable in this area and acknowledges the importance of waste minimisationand re-use. For example, South Gloucestershire have recently established ajoint waste minimisation team with the waste management company SITA, workingto an agreed 2 year communications and marketing plan, which will take forwarda range of initiatives.

The Authorities will continue to activelypromote waste minimisation, working to reduce the quantity of waste produced byencouraging the re-use of many materials that would otherwise have beendisposed of to landfill.

5.2.       Recycling

The Authorities have also been set targets for recycling bythe Government under Best Value Performance Indicators (BVPI). These indicatorsprovide a way of measuring authorities recycling and composting performance.The Partnership's performance against BVPIs is shown below in 17 .

Table 17 Recycling and compostingperformance against Defra targets (BVPI 82a & b) for 2004/05 and 2005/06

Table 17 shows that Bath & NE Somerset and South Gloucestershire both met their target for recycling and compostingin 2005/06 and that Bristol and North Somerset did not. Therecycling and composting performance of these two authorities is alreadyimproving significantly due to a number of new services that have recently beenor will be introduced:

·        Bristol's weekly kitchenwaste, cardboard and optional chargeable garden waste collections launched insummer 2006;

·        North Somerset's fortnightly gardenwaste collection service which was launched in February 2006.

The establishment of a residualwaste treatment facility would also be likely to improve the best valueperformance indicators for recycling, through the extraction of additionalrecyclates from the residual waste stream.

5.2.1.                  Household Waste Recycling Centres

All of the Partner authoritiescollect recycling and residual waste at HWRCs. The location of these centresand the range of materials accepted there are shown in Table18.

5.2.2.                  Bring Sites

Each Authority has a network ofBring Sites where the public are able to deposit a range of materials forrecycling. These tend to be located in car parks or supermarkets and accept anarrower range of materials than HWRCs due to the lack of space available. Therange of materials accepted at Bring Sites is shown in Table 18 .

Table 18 The materials accepted forrecycling/ reuse at HWRCs and Bring Sites

* Materialsaccepted at bring sites may vary between locations.

5.2.3.                  Home Composting

The Partner Authorities allpromote home composting and have implemented a range of schemes to educate andinform the public as outlined in section 5.1.1 . Although at present home composting schemes do notcount towards LATS targets they clearly do reduce the amount of waste thatneeds to be collected and the amount of waste going to landfill, which in turnreduces the landfill tax paid by the Local Authority. All four authoritiesoffer subsidised home composting bins through their websites and/ or at HWRCs.

5.2.4.                  Recyclable Materials from Households throughKerbside Collection

The partnership Authorities allcollect an assortment of recyclable material both at the kerbside and athousehold waste recycling centres. The variety of materials collected and theirassociated service managed by each authority is illustrated below in 19 .

Table 19 The recycling collectionsmanaged by each Authority

All four of the authorities havealready or are in the process of introducing complex collection schemes torecycle/ compost as much waste as possible and divert it from landfill.However, even if high rates of composting and recycling are achieved there willstill be a considerable quantity of residual waste that needs to be disposed ofas shown in Section  

5.3.       Landfill

Landfill void space inside theWest of England is very scarce and that there are very few mineral voids thatare geologically suitable for landfill of anything other than inert waste. Forthis reason if the amount of waste being transported out of the region fordisposal is going to decrease, technologies will have to be utilised thatoutput a stable, inert waste. In this way the region could reduce the amount ofwaste exported from the region for disposal through increased self sufficiency.

The Joint Waste Development PlanDocument (JWDPD) addresses the issue of landfill capacity in further detail.

5.4.       Residual Waste - Options Appraisal

5.4.1.                  Methodology

As part of the West of EnglandWaste Management and Planning Partnership's (the Partnership) waste managementstrategy development for the treatment of residual Municipal Solid Waste (MSW)the Partnership conducted an Options Appraisal (OA) to evaluate a range ofresidual waste treatment technology options available. Figure 15 illustrates in a schematic the process of selecting areference project through an options appraisal process. An outline of theprocess is explained below but further details are contained within APPENDIX C- TECHNICAL OPTIONS APPRAISAL REPORT

Figure 15 The Options AppraisalProcess

The OAprocess, facilitated by Jacobs U.K. Limited (Jacobs) has provided thePartnership Authorities with a model for the seven technology options selected.

Eachtechnology option was evaluated against both qualitative and quantitativecriteria - i.e. environmental, socio-economic, technical and financial, inorder to provide a relative ranking of the technology options against eachother.

Inorder to provide a process that is transparent, accountable and robust, theselection of the evaluation criteria involved a wide range of stakeholdersthrough consultation. A wide range of stakeholder representatives wereconsulted at key stages of the OA process, including participation at theEvaluation Criteria and Scoring Consultation workshops. In addition to the four Unitary Authority(UA) Executive Members on the Partnership's Member Project Board, appropriateScrutiny Panel Councillors also took part. Representatives from umbrella organisations in the West of England werealso invited for consultation, including environmental interest groups, wasteindustry, regional government and agencies, health trusts and parishcouncils. Stakeholder groups from eachUA's local area were invited for consultation, including housing associations,pensioner's forums, waste management forums, environment interest groups,residents' groups, citizen's panels and local strategic partnerships. Inaddition, the Member Project Board also considered the outcomes from theseinputs and the criteria and weightings. This process is also consideredessential in the engagement of stakeholders and allows their considerations tobe taken into account and allows the stakeholder groups to focus and explorespecific areas of concern.