1. Neighbourhood Services Scrutiny Committee 24 th March 2009 Reducing Waste and Alternative Kerbside Collections

2. Welcome Cllr Nancy Maxwell Chair

3. Fiona Brown Executive Director of Neighbourhood Services

4. What are the key issues? –We are landfilling too much and recycling too little. –The public want to recycle more materials. –Kerb-it contract is coming into the last year of its existence. –We have tough targets to meet in diverting waste away from Landfill.

5. What are the Implications? –Failure to meet our targets/Let our stakeholders down –Increasing cost burden (including fines) –Not satisfying public demands and expectations. –Would poor performance merit a 4* CAA?

6. What are our options? This presentation will illustrate these options in more detail and highlight the opportunities for: Waste minimisation and reuse Kerbside Recycling Waste Treatment

7. Outcomes from today’s workshop A clearer understanding of our current issues Recommendations to take service provision forward

8. Tom Turner Waste Disposal Coordinator Waste Minimisation and Reuse

9. Waste Prevention is most desirable option and disposal the least desirable option. Disposal is considered the option of last resort Waste Hierarchy There is a growing emphasis to move waste up the hierarchy, forming a strategic mix with other recycling and treatment activities.

10. Aims, options and opportunities? Aim – To Reduce as far as practicable the amount of waste that is generated – Promote home composting; – Promote of waste-aware shopping; “SMART” Shopping – Promote “Love Food Hate Waste” Campaign – Promote reduction of junk mail through the mailing preference scheme; – Promote of reusable nappies / laundry services; – Promote of business services that encourage the loaning, hiring and leasing of products; and – Support for re-use schemes, local waste exchanges and charity stores.

11. Other Activities WRAP working with Retailers, with designers, marketers and the supply chain to reduce packaging and minimise waste or develop packaging and products with in-built “recyclability”

12. Examples “Lightweighting” Materials Same volume, less glass used by changing the shape / design.

13. Examples Format Change Using jar for storage and pack for refill

14. Examples Concentrates

15. Examples Reusable, refillable and dilutable

16. Thank you Any questions?

17. Andrew Whittaker Waste Services Manager Potential future service provision and alternative Kerbside Collections

18. What do we want to do? Outline present service provision Consider the options for our new services

19. Residual Waste 9 rounds on weekly collection of Residual Waste 100% Landfilled Kerb-it 9 rounds on fortnightly box collection paper, glass & cans covers around 99% of households 6,500 tonnes of paper, glass and cans. Kerb-it Green 3 rounds Fortnightly collection of organic garden waste, covers over 50,000 homes composts around 7,000 tonnes per year Plastic & Cardboard Trial 2 rounds on fortnightly collection using a bin 15,000 properties on trials. estimated recycling of 540 tonnes per annum Kerbside services represent around 70% of all recycling and composting in South Tyneside Kerbside Collections

20. Kerbside Issues Kerb-it Contract ends in March 2010 We need an alternative service that: –boosts recycling tonnage. –Reduces landfill. –Meets our residents expectations. –Provides Value for Money. –Improves Health & Safety. We need to rationalise existing recycling services where possible. We need services for the future.

21. Targets Improvements made but even tougher targets to meet in the future

22. Kerb-it Performance

23. Top Performers All District Councils

24. Top Performers All these authorities are recycling over 20% of their dry recyclables

25. How are they so good? Differing social issues and property types. Different public attitudes to the environment and recycling in particular? Differing political makeup and priorities? Communication? Comparison with landfill costs? Using better methods of collecting Segregated Weekly Collections – Approx 180 Councils

26. Options Available Option 1 – Continue the current kerb-it box service Or change the service to allow for more materials Option 2 – Extra boxes for different materials Option 3 – Combination of reusable bags and boxes Option 4 – Bin and a box Option 5 – B in and a reusable bag Option 6 – B in and an internal caddy Option 7 – Using a bin (fully co-mingled).

27. Some Feedback Kerb-it feedback focuses on: Box not big enough No lid Difficult to lift Litter And the more sublime in terms of not recycling some materials….. “I don’t like neighbours seeing what “bottles” are in my box”.

28. Feedback from our Trial Generally very positive responses. Wider enquiries from other areas asking when they will get the service. Material quality has been better than expected. Some minor issues with storage.

29. Consultation 2008 71% respondents wanted to recycle plastic bottles 80% wanted to recycle cardboard 72% wanted to use a bin, whether on it’s own, or with a box or a bag. 2009 We asked residents on the trial about it and their thoughts about an alternative. The main points were: 89% were using the service either all the time or some of the time. 78% believed their refuse volumes had reduced. 61% of respondents found that their normal refuse bin was either half full or less when presented for collection Of the respondents who don’t use the service or use it infrequently the main reasons given were either storage issues (11%) or lack of the materials to be collected (11%).

30. Caddy or Box Two out of every three respondents (67%) preferred the bin with an internal caddy instead of using a box When asked about an option to deal with more materials

31. Local use of the caddy North Tyneside and Newcastle City Council have implemented a wheeled bin / caddy system. North Tyneside Dramatic increase in recyclable tonnage Officers noted that less people appeared to be putting their waste bin out every week Newcastle Minimum 50% increase in tonnage. (This would boost our existing kerb-it tonnage from 6,500 tonnes to nearly 10,000 tonnes = 5%) Gateshead have chosen this method for the future and Sunderland are considering it.

32. Benefits of a new service Reduced risks. Better Health and Safety (for crews and residents). Bins already in operation at some flats/communal areas. Provision of additional capacity / flexibility. Reduced need to Assist the public (APO service), benefits independent living agenda Full containment/Cleaner More flexibility in use of Collection Vehicles

33. How will the service may look Each household could receive: New 240 litre blue bin ( for paper, cans, plastic bottles and cardboard) New 40 litre black caddy (glass bottles) Total capacity of 240 litres Collected fortnightly Literature and advice will be supplied Collections would be made using a new type of vehicle (split body)

34. Balancing the Risks of a new service Changes to packaging Packaging will change over time. Infrastructure We are now seeing the development of PRFs (Plastic Recycling Facilities for other types of plastic). Legislation We know landfill tax will be £48 per tonne in April 2010. April 2009 budget will hopefully clarify the future. Will our targets be measured in CO 2 outputs or tonnage / percentage? Public perceptions

35. Questions & Discussion Thank You

36. Segregated Weekly Collections What’s good, what’s bad and what risks? How should we consider this important issue further? For discussion

37. Tom Turner Waste Disposal Coordinator Waste Minimisation and Reuse

38. Three Councils working together : GATESHEAD, SOUTH TYNESIDE & SUNDERLAND Avoid harsh LATS penalties (£150 per tonne) 2006/2007 - 77% : 2019/2020 – 17% to landfill Attract more competition Joint approach saves £200-£300 million £73 million PFI credits awarded Share £3 million procurement cost WHY THE PARTNERSHIP WAS FORMED

39. JOINT MUNICIPAL WASTE STRATEGY SHARED TARGETS & ACTION PLANS Reduce the amount of waste generated Re-use waste Recycle and/or compost waste Recover energy from remaining waste NINE OPTIONS TO IMPROVE RECYCLING CONSIDERED NINE RESIDUAL WASTE TREATMENT SOLUTIONS SUSTAINABLE METHODS AND TECHNOLOGIES PUBLIC CONSULTATION –Broad Agreement and approved in October 2007

40. JOINT MUNICIPAL WASTE STRATEGY RECYCLING PROMOTION / EDUCATION ENFORCEMENT MORE MATERIALS – BRING SITES NON HOUSEHOLD RECYCLING MORE MATERIALS - KERBSIDE –Plastic –Textiles –Cardboard –Kitchen waste SEGREGATED WEEKLY COLLECTIONS Mix of all or most will be implemented

41. JOINT MUNICIPAL WASTE STRATEGY 3 BROAD TREATMENT CATEGORIES: Mechanical Biological Treatment –Sort, separate, cut, grind, compost –Soil improver, fuel, landfill –Energy from Waste –Mass burn rubbish - Low emissions –Electricity and heat –Autoclaving –Sterilisation, recycling –Convert to fibre - Fuel, building products, landfill –These are not the only options

42. SUCCESSFUL PFI APPLICATION STAKEHOLDERS’ AGREEMENT - December 2006 EXPRESSIONS OF INTEREST TO Defra - March 2007 JOINT MUNICIPAL WASTE STRATEGY – October 2007 OBC APPROVED & SUBMITTED - December 2007 £73.5 MILLION PFI CREDITS AWARDED – July 2008 –Reference Technology – Based on EfW with CHP –Reference Site Identified

43. ADDITIONAL CONTRACTS SAME ECONOMIES OF SCALE INCREASE COMPETITION – SHARE COSTS SHORT TERM CONTRACT (Bridging Arrangements) DRY RECYCLING (Materials Recycling Facility) GREEN WASTE PROCESSING LANDFILL

44. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS 28 YEAR CONTRACT –3 year build and 25 year operation –Largest contract let by the three Partners £1.6 BILLION REFERENCE PROJECT £200 - 300 MILLION LESS THAN “DO MINIMUM” OPTION –Landfill gate fees, Landfill Tax, LATS permits £73.5 MILLION PFI CREDITS PROCUREMENT COST £3 MILLION OVER 4 YEARS –Shared cost

45. KEY DRIVERS OF PROCUREMENT SUSTAINABLE METHODS AND TECHNOLOGIES TECHNOLOGY NEUTRAL –Encourage innovation –Evaluate actual tendered solutions –Value for money REFERENCE SITE –Offer to Bidders with no site –Widen competition –Value for money BIDDERS MAY USE THEIR OWN SITE

46. CURRENT POSITION CONTRACT NOTICE PUBLISHED - September 2008 GATEWAY REVIEW - September 2008 CANDIDATES’ CONFERENCE - October 2008 PQQs EVALUATED - December 2008 SHORT-LIST AGREED - December 2008 POSSIBLE SITE PURCHASED – January 2009 REFERENCE SITE AGREED BY JEC – January 2009 PROCUREMENT (ITPD) – February 2009 MEMBERS’ VISITS - Ongoing

47. ABBOTSFORD ROAD SITE Potential Uses: Waste Treatment Facility Council Depot Metro Car Park Extension Any such proposals subject to in-depth scrutiny and consultation as part of future planning application

48. ABBOTSFORD ROAD SITE

49. ECONOMIC BENEFITS £130m capital investment Over 100 construction jobs created Long ranging benefits – 30 years plus Between 30 to 40 operational jobs inc. technical management positions - after construction Avoids long haulage distances Visitor and Education Centre CREATING JOBS & GENERATING INCOME

50. NEXT STEPS PROCUREMENT : THE PROGRAMME INVITE OUTLINE SOLUTIONS – February 2009 DETAILED SOLUTIONS FROM BIDDERS – September 2009 CALL FOR FINAL TENDERS – June 2010 CONTRACT AWARD – January 2011 OPERATIONAL - 2014

51. Any questions?

52. The Way Forward for Kerbside Recycling

53. Draft Implementation Timetable Summer 2009 trial of new service provision Commence full roll out from January 2010 Complete roll out by July 2010

54. Summing Up We must achieve very high targets for recycling and landfill diversion The proposals outlined are directed to achieve these results Do you agree with the way forward?