Information Note 14/09 - Hertfordshire...financial and contractual implications of different options. 2.4. The Panel will then recommend to Cabinet which, if any, of the suggested

HWRS Information Note – August 2014 1

APPENDIX M

HERTFORDSHIRE COUNTY COUNCILHIGHWAYS & WASTE MANAGEMENT

CABINET PANEL

INFORMATION NOTE

HOUSEHOLD WASTE RECYCLING CENTRES – PROCUREMENT OF A NEW

SERVICE

Authors: Matt Peirce, Project Officer, 01992 555885 Jo Hawes, Waste Management Project Officer, 01992 555326 Executive Member: Terry Douris, Highways & Waste Management

1 PURPOSE OF REPORT

1.1. To provide Members with further information on AmeyCespa’s suggestions for

service changes across the Household Waste Recycling Service ahead of the 18th September Highways & Waste Management Cabinet Panel.

1.2. This report sets out the business case for the changes suggested by

AmeyCespa. It includes the evidence and factors that were taken in to account before the changes were suggested and seeks to provide Members with an indication of the potential impacts that may result if they were implemented in order to assist in the decision making process.

1.3. This information note, together with an additional Panel report summarising

and setting out the feedback received during the public consultation and recommending a course of action, provides the basis for making a decision on which, if any, of the suggested changes should be introduced.

2. SUMMARY 2.1. AmeyCespa was selected as the preferred bidder for the Household Waste

Recycling Service (HWRS) in late May 2014 and the contract was awarded to them in June 2014. In order to achieve the required financial efficiencies, AmeyCespa suggested a number of service changes to the delivery of the HWRS, including the permanent closure of two sites, a five-day week service with weekday closures, and the reduction and standardisation of opening hours.

2.2. AmeyCespa priced a service to meet a set of Member agreed outcomes, in

line with agreement of the Waste Management Cabinet Panel. As part of their bid AmeyCespa therefore considered a range of available service reduction options.

2.3. A public consultation exercise has been undertaken to gather feedback on,

and input into, the service change proposals. Over 5,000 consultation

Information Note

14/09 Issued on 22 August 2014

Issued

x


questionnaires were received, with a significant number of respondents (almost 3,800) providing additional comment via a free text option. A briefing was sent to all county councillors and members of the Hertfordshire Waste Partnership when the consultation was launched. Details of the responses to the consultation will be presented to the Highways and Waste Management Cabinet Panel (“the Panel”) on 18th September 2014, together with the financial and contractual implications of different options.

2.4. The Panel will then recommend to Cabinet which, if any, of the suggested

changes (or options) they consider appropriate. The aim is to ensure a clear set of agreed service proposals are in place so that AmeyCespa can implement these early in 2015 and deliver the required financial savings to the authority.

3. BACKGROUND ON THE PROCUREMENT PROCESS

3.1 As part of the Council for the Future discussions, a transformation plan was

presented to the July 2011 Waste Management Cabinet Panel showing how reductions of 25% (in operating costs) could be achieved and incorporated into the procurement of a countywide contract.

3.2 Following extensive input and consultation with the Waste Management

Cabinet Panel during 2011 and 2012, officers embarked on an outcome-based procurement process using competitive dialogue.

3.3 The outcome-based specification procedure required bidders to put forward a

tender that met the key outcomes recommended by the Waste Management Cabinet Panel. One of the key requirements of the procurement was to demonstrate how they would be able to achieve financial savings of at least £750,000 per year.

3.4 The contract was awarded to AmeyCespa in June 2014, as the tender they

submitted was the most advantageous in terms of quality and price.

4. BACKGROUND ON THE CURRENT NETWORK OF SITES

Usage

4.1 Table 1 summarises the current usage of the network. It shows for each site

the amount of waste received, the recycling rate and the projected total annual number of visits.

4.2 Between February 2011 and March 2012 ‘trip counters’ were placed at each centre (excluding Buntingford due to operational constraints) for a full week each month. The trip counters were placed onsite during the times of the year when sites are typically at their busiest - e.g. April bank holiday weekends. The total annual figures were calculated by taking the number of visits during each week, dividing them by seven and then multiplying that number by the number of days in the month in question. The totals for each month were then added together to give an annual total.


4.3 The percentage of visitors to each site who live outside Hertfordshire is based on a sample size of 3,776 postcodes taken from site users in 2011.

4.4 The size and location of Hertfordshire and the location of the HWRCs within

the county mean that Hertfordshire sites are subject to use by ‘out of county’ residents. It is not feasible to simply move centres away from county borders to deter cross-border use and, although a number of centres have a high percentage of out of county visitors, it should be noted that significant numbers of Hertfordshire residents also travel across the county border to dispose of their waste in neighbouring authority sites.

Table 1: Existing site usage data

Site

Total Household

Waste received

(Tonnes) 1

Recycling rate

(percentage of

total waste

recycled) 1

Total number of

annual visits to

HWRC 2011/12 2

Percentage of

visitors that

come from out of

county 3

Berkhamsted 3,013 75.8% 96,400 4.4%

Bishop's Stortford 6,330 65.4% 160,734 40.60%

Buntingford 562 52.0% Not available 0.80%

Cole Green 3,271 68.2% 104,010 3.10%

Elstree 3,284 78.3% 114,216 9.10%

Harpenden 4,116 75.5% 124,359 3.10%

Hemel Hempstead 6,114 66.4% 151,699 0.40%

Hoddesdon 2,670 69.6% 82,829 10.40%

Letchworth 7,452 64.6% 165,744 14.80%

Potters Bar 4,147 67.0% 127,997 12.70%

Rickmansworth 6,289 61.3% 160,085 4.00%

Royston 3,528 69.0% 120,374 28.90%

St. Albans 5,488 74.8% 144,786 0.00%

Stevenage 8,796 71.8% 210,532 2.00%

Turnford 6,782 62.2% 164,390 9.60%

Ware 4,775 66.7% 141,171 2.40%

Waterdale 8,655 72.0% 176,489 0.00%

TOTAL 85,272 - 2,245,815 -

1. Household Waste Recycling Centre tonnage figures, 2013-2014

2. Trip counter data obtained by HCC, 2011-2012

3. Analysis of postcode data of 3,766 HWRC users obtained by HCC

Operating costs

4.5 The total operational cost of the HWRC network in 2013/14 was c.£3.1 million

(staffing, management, supervision, utility bills and maintenance), with average individual site costs ranging between c.£160,000 to £250,000 per annum (excluding the cost of disposal and haulage).

How Hertfordshire compares with other authorities

4.6 Hertfordshire has an extensive network of HWRC sites compared with its

geographical, demographic and social ‘nearest neighbours’, with facilities within easy travelling distance for most residents. Table 2 shows


Hertfordshire’s current service provision compared with that of other local authorities:

Table 2: HWRC provision in other, comparable local authorities

Authority No. HWRCs

2012/2013

No. Sites per

100,000

population

Rank

(out of

11)

Average

site

catchment

radius

(miles)

Rank

(out of

11)

HCC 17 1.51 3 3.4 1

Surrey CC 15 1.31 8 3.7 2

Hampshire CC 24 1.8 2 4.3 3

Buckinghamshire CC 10 1.96 1 4.4 4

Essex CC 21 1.49 4 4.5 5

West Sussex CC 11 1.35 7 4.7 6

Kent CC 19 1.28 9 4.8 7

Northamptonshire CC 10 1.43 5 5.4 8

Cambridgeshire CC 9 1.43 5 6.4 9

Oxfordshire CC 7 1.06 10 6.8 10

Gloucestershire CC 5 1.03 11 8 11 Source: HWRC National Directory 2012/13: www.wrap.org.uk/content/household-waste-recycling-centres-guide%20

Site constraints

4.7 Many sites in the current network are restricted in terms of the space available

and the extent to which they can be improved and developed. National and local experience also demonstrates that some improvements to HWRCs or the development of new or existing facilities can be extremely difficult to progress (financial constraints notwithstanding).

Expansion, installation of lighting, increasing opening hours and adding new facilities would all require planning permissions and/or permitting by the Environment Agency. There can also be significant local opposition to new sites or development of existing sites.

Working within the constraints that exist, AmeyCespa will, where possible, review and improve site layouts and traffic flows to make improvements to maximise capacity (including container redeployment), recycling and reuse options to make the on-site experience better.

5. THE SUGGESTED SERVICE CHANGES

Context

5.1 In order to meet the county council’s broad Member agreed outcomes for the

procurement, including achieving financial savings of at least £750,000 per year, AmeyCespa has suggested a number of service changes. Principally, these are:

http://www.wrap.org.uk/content/household-waste-recycling-centres-guide


The permanent closure of Hoddesdon and Elstree. This would reduce the number of sites from 17 to 15.

Reduction of the current seven day a week service to a five day a week service with weekday closures (with the exception of Buntingford which will retain existing pattern of opening)

Reduction and standardisation of opening hours with a proposed 08:00- 16:00 day (with the exception of Buntingford which will retain existing hours)

5.2 The procurement process made it clear that the final decsion on any service changes would rest with Members. There is a mechanism in the contract to increase the contract cost to the successful tenderer in the event of Members deciding not to proceed with any aspect of their proposal. More detail on this will be provided to Members in the 18 September 2014 Highways and Waste Management Cabinet Panel report.

AmeyCespa’s ‘journey’ to their suggested changes 5.3 AmeyCespa priced a service to meet outcomes agreed by Members when the

Waste Management Cabinet Panel endorsed an outcome-based specification approach to this contract. No restrictions were specified on the methods bidders could propose for identifying options for achieving the financial target of a savings target of at least £750,000, outside of the broad outcomes listed below:

Maintain or increase levels of recycling and composting

Expand reuse schemes / facilities

Increase diversion from landfill

Maintain and increase customer satisfaction levels

Comply with all relevant legislation and regulation

Improve public engagement and awareness

Add value and market flexibility (e.g. provision of service for commercial waste)

Deliver value for money (including achieving savings of at least £750,000 from the current total annual operating costs).

5.4 A priority for AmeyCespa was to maintain a free service to residents of

Hertfordshire. With increasing pressure on Local Authority budgets a number of other authorities have also introduced changes to their HWRS over recent years or are considering implementing changes in order to achieve financial savings. Examples include:

Permanent site closures (Cardiff, Suffolk, Durham, Greater Manchester, Harrow and Lancashire)

Weekday closures (Northamptonshire, Somerset)

Reduced opening hours (Durham, Warwickshire)

Charging an entry fee (Norfolk, Somerset)

Charging for certain waste streams (Suffolk, Somerset)

Cambridgeshire County Council announced on 15 August 2014 that they are launching a consultation on changes to their HWRS, which include closing three of their nine sites.


A list of the key changes which other authorities have made or are considering is set out in Appendix A in order to provide Members with an overview of how Waste Disposal Authorities across the country are seeking to deliver financial savings.

5.5 AmeyCespa considered that charging non-residents or introducing a residents’ only permit scheme would be costly to implement and enforce and would be likely to elicit a similar approach from neighbouring authorities who may act to exclude Hertfordshire residents, potentially affecting the delivery of savings. They also noted that a key finding of The Environment Scrutiny Committee in June 2007 was that the HWRC network should be part of a ‘whole system’ across county boundaries.

5.6 Alternative forms of site operation were considered by AmeyCespa such as

being community/charity run. However, this has proven to be problematic in other parts of the country (e.g. Suffolk) and would not guarantee the required level of savings. A considerable level of support is often required to ensure compliance in operation and the movement of waste. Such schemes were also considered to be less equipped to respond to legislative changes, compliance and other changes, for example, fluctuations in the income value for materials that they manage.

5.7 The principle factors AmeyCespa used when drawing up their proposals were:

Population and housing growth patterns

Waste growth patterns

Where users travel from

When users visit sites

Population density and proximity to HWRC sites

Impact on where waste goes

That Hertfordshire should continue to compare well with other, similar counties

5.8 AmeyCespa’s analysis of reduction in days per week and opening hours (an 8

hour operating period) concluded that, whilst delivering s significant proportion of the required savings, full centre closure(s) would still be needed to meet the target enable improvements in operational efficiency and customer service across remaining sites.

6 RATIONALE FOR THE SUGGESTED SERVICE CHANGES

Reduce opening days and reduce and standardise opening hours 6.1 Changing site opening to five days per week and eight hours per day allows

large financial savings to be achieved due to associated reductions in staffing and transport levels required to operate the sites. Reducing the hours avoids the needs for double shifts and therefore has the largest impact on the delivery of financial savings. This also allows the most efficient management of the workforce and straightforward compliance with the Working Time Directive.


6.2 All sites would remain open on the busiest days: Saturday, Sunday and Monday. Although splitting the two weekday closure days was considered so that they were not consecutive, AmeyCespa concluded that this would have a number of complications and limitations on staffing and operation of the centres. Closure on two consecutive days was concluded to cause less confusion to members of the public, would provide staff with a two day break and an associated reduction in unauthorised leave and would also enable flexible staff cover of the sites to ensure sufficient staffing across the network. Operationally, two consecutive days provides a larger window for container servicing and routine maintenance and repair therefore reducing the need for temporary site closures and inconvenience to site users.

6.3 Footfall data was analysed to identify the quietest two days for each site. Sites

were then grouped to avoid closing the nearest alternative site(s) on the same days wherever possible so that residents would have an alternative site within reasonable travelling distance should they decide they must visit a HWRC on a particular day. Table 3 shows the calendar of opening days for all 17 sites.

Table 3: Calendar of opening days 17 sites

Group Paired

Season CALENDAR OF OPENING DAYS

Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun

Berkhamsted A Winter

Summer

Hemel Hempstead

A Winter

Summer

Rickmansworth B Winter

Summer

Waterdale B Winter

Summer

St. Albans C Winter

Summer

Harpenden C Winter

Summer

Turnford D Winter

Summer

Hoddesdon D Winter

Summer

Ware E Winter

Summer

Bishop's Stortford

E Winter

Summer

Royston F Winter

Summer

Letchworth F Winter

Summer

Stevenage G Winter

Summer

Cole Green G Winter

Summer

Elstree H Winter


Summer

Potters Bar H Winter

Summer

Buntingford E, F, G Winter

Summer

Days closed

6.4 Consistent opening times were suggested to allow easier and clearer

communication to residents using the centres. Regarding the specific times proposed, AmeyCespa’s suggestion of 08:00-16:00 was chosen to provide residents with an opportunity to visit sites outside of standard working hours (09.00-17.00). This would also have operational benefits as it would avoid the transport operation clashing with rush hour traffic, thereby increasing efficiency as well as matching the typical times of operation with the final disposal facilities. It also avoided opening sites after 4pm in the winter months when it was dark and demand was negligible.

6.5 Appendix B shows the current opening hours of all sites and the suggested

new times.

6.6 However, AmeyCespa concluded that changes to opening hours and days alone would not deliver the total savings required and so sought to identify those sites that could reasonably close with the minimum possible impact to residents.

Permanently close the Hoddesdon and Elstree sites

6.7 Hoddesdon and Elstree have been identified for closure as these sites both

handle among the smallest tonnages of waste per year and receive a lower number of visitors than most other sites (see Table 1 in Section 4).

6.8 When compared with other areas of the county, both sites are in areas well served by nearby HWRCs that have the capacity to accommodate additional waste, therefore minimising, as much as possible, the impact of the closures across Hertfordshire.

6.9 Table 4 shows the indicative peak and off-peak travel time to the alternative

sites for Hoddesdon and Elstree users:

Table 4: Peak and off-peak travel times to alternative sites

Travel time (minutes) Ware Turnford Cole Green

Hoddesdon Peak 19 21 29

Off-peak 9 10 15

Travel time (minutes) Potters Bar Waterdale St Albans

Elstree Peak 28 22 28

Off-peak 15 14 19

These times were calculated by AmeyCespa using a combination of their own drive times and a number of modelling tools, including recognised mapping / routing software to estimate travel times. These figures can be challenged, however they provide an indication of the proximity of alternative sites to


Hoddesdon and Elstree and help to demonstrate that there would be a greater impact in terms of travel times if other sites with similar usage patterns were closed.

6.10 Examples of other sites that were considered but rejected for closure, along with the rationale for that decision, include:

Cole Green – serves West Hertford and Welwyn and the greatest level of population growth in the County is predicted in the Welwyn Hatfield district. If closed there would be a substantial area of the county without a site in reasonable travelling distance.

Buntingford – no other sites in the vicinity and low cost to operate. Good local facility that provides an option for the east of the county.

Berkhamsted – closure would leave no facilities in the far west of the County, the Tring facility was closed in recent years.

Stevenage, Waterdale, Letchworth, Bishops Stortford, Turnford and Hemel Hempstead all have high throughput and serve major centres of population.

6. IMPACT OF THE SUGGESTED SERVICE CHANGES

Level of service reduction 6.1 The suggested service changes would result in a reduction in overall

operational hours. However, based on footfall data for each site, AmeyCespa’s suggested new opening times ensure that sites would still be open on the days and times they are most used, therefore making optimal use of the available opening hours.

Appendix C sets out the impact the suggested changes would have on the operational hours of each site.

In terms of opening times on the five days that sites would be open:

3 sites – Royston, Bishop’s Stortford and Buntingford – would see no change to their opening hours

3 additional sites – Berkhamsted, Harpenden and Letchworth – would still open for 8 hours but would open and close earlier

During summer hours, 9 sites will open two hours less than existing

During winter hours, only 4 sites – Rickmansworth, Stevenage, Turnford, Waterdale – would have a daily reduction in their opening hours

Effect on recycling – HWRC capacity

6.2 The capacity of HWRC sites to cope with an additional volume of waste

following the closure of sites can be affected by a number of factors, including demand by residents, use of compaction, availability and management of container movements, the car parking available on site and site layout.


6.3 The current network offers a low tonnage per hour with a throughput of 1.5 tonnes per hour, especially when compared to other authorities. If implemented, the suggested service changes would result in the Hertfordshire network handling 2.62 tonnes per hour. The tonnes per hour achieved for comparable local authorities vary from 2.1 to 3.25. The suggested changes to the network would increase the waste the network handles however provides an indication that the network has the capacity to improve efficiency and handle the volume of waste whilst operating a reduced service.

6.4 Prior to the closure of Tring and Watford (October 2009 and March 2011), a

network of 19 HWRCs handled a much larger volume of waste; since 2001 the volume of waste taken to HWRCs has decreased by over a third with the 2013/14 increases predicted to reduce in 2014/15.

Figure 5 shows the pattern in the volume of waste being taken by residents to HWRCs.

6.5 The impact of the suggested site closures and midweek closures was modelled by AmeyCespa using actual tonnage data to estimate the movement of waste and recyclable materials to the closest alternative site. The existing peak tonnages were reviewed and compared to the modelled tonnages resulting from the proposal, taking into account future growth to ensure that the alternative sites had the capacity to handle the resulting increase in tonnage. The proposed closure sites receive some of the smallest tonnages and the closure days proposed were chosen due to being the quieter in terms of numbers of visits, thereby minimising the impact of their closure on the alternative sites. As a result, the optimised calendar of opening days has been proposed, which spreads the tonnage impacts over the sites that have the capacity to accommodate it.

6.6 AmeyCespa also propose to implement a number of improvements to the

service to maintain capacity. These are set out in section 7 below. Effect on recycling - Kerbside collection

Figure 5: Total Waste Tonnage through the HWRC network

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

160,000

2001

-200

2

2002

-200

3

2003

-200

4

2004

-200

5

2005

-200

6

2006

-200

7

2007

-200

8

2008

-200

9

2009

-201

0

2010

-201

1

2011

-201

2

2012

-201

3

2013

-201

4

Financial year

To

nn

es

Figure 5: Total Waste Tonnage through the HWRC network


6.7 Analysis of tonnage data relating to the previous recent closure of HWRCs in

Hertfordshire indicates this did not place significant additional pressures on Waste Collection Authorities, with no significant increase in the volume of residual waste collected at the kerbside by Watford Borough Council or Dacorum Borough Council since the closure of the Watford and Tring HWRCs.

Figure 6 shows the impact on the volume of residual waste collected following the closure of Tring and Watford HWRCs:

Figure 6: Change in residual waste for Dacorum and Watford following the

closure of Watford and Tring HWRCs

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

40000

45000

50000

2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14

To

nn

es

- R

es

idu

al

Wa

ste

co

lle

cte

d

Dacorum

Watford

Closure of

Tring HWRC

October 2009

Closure of

Watford HWRC

March 2011

6.8 The waste typically taken to HWRCs – for example, bulky furniture, electronic

items, wood and green waste – differs from the waste streams collected at the kerbside.

Experience from other areas also suggests that, when HWRC provision is reduced, residents may discard fewer items and increase the amount of materials they reuse. For example, in Suffolk, as well as finding no increase in the number of fly tipping incidents reported following site closures, they also found that the total amount of waste received across the county – including at the kerbside – reduced by 1%.

6.9 Hertfordshire’s Waste Collection Authorities have made substantial changes and investment to kerbside collection services through the investment of funds through the Hertfordshire Waste Partnership. The improvement and development of the kerbside service has led to an increase in the items collectable from the kerbside, therefore reducing the requirement to visit the HWRCs in order to recycle a number of materials.

Fly tipping


6.10 There is little evidence to support the view that closing recycling centres has an impact on fly tipping.

6.11 The county council has experience of closing two sites, Tring and Watford, in

recent years. Following closure of these two sites, there was no evidence of any increase in fly tipping.

6.12 Figure 7 shows the number of reported incidents of fly tipping in the districts in

which those sites were located the year prior to and the year after the closures:

6.13 AmeyCespa has experience of introducing weekday closures in other areas of

the country in recent years. Following the introduction of weekday closures in Northamptonshire, they found that the number of fly tipping incidents decreased: in the year prior to closure, 11,989 incidents were reported; and in the year following closure there were 11,842 reported incidents.

6.14 Other local authorities who have made similar changes have also found no

increase in fly tipping:

Suffolk: the County Council closed 7 of its 18 HWRCs in May 2011. In the following months 6 HWRCs were reopened by a mixture of partnerships between parish and town councils and private companies and charities. These independently run sites levy charges for depositing waste. Two of these sites have since closed due to their proximity to free HWRCs. There had been no increase in the number of fly tipping incidents reported by local authorities in Suffolk in the months following closure of the sites.

Wolverhampton – the City Council reduced opening hours and the number of days centres were open in 2010. They reported no increase in the fly tipping rate in the area surrounding their sites

Figure 7: Number of reported fly tipping incidents

Number of reported fly tipping incidents

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

Dacorum Borough Council Watford Borough Council

Nu

mb

er

of

inc

ide

nts

Year prior to closure

Year of closure

Year post closure


Lancashire – the County Council closed four sites between 2010-12. Across those four areas, they found no increase in fly tipping incidents in the three months after closure

6.15 One authority that did find a small increase was Somerset, who redesignated

four of its 18 HWRCs as Community Recycling Sites with a £2 charge for entry. However, Somerset has been identified as a case study in previous Waste Management Cabinet Panel reports (e.g. September 2011) in order to highlight the risks of implementing major changes such as charging and changing hours and days too quickly. Officers and AmeyCespa are aware of the need for a measured and well-communicated approach to service changes to mitigate the risk of negative impacts such as fly tipping.

6.16 On a national level, the National Fly tipping Prevention Group has reported that across England there was a 4% reduction in the last 2 years and a 44% reduction in fly tipping since 2007/08.

Population growth and future capacity

6.17 When developing their proposals, AmeyCespa took into account the projected

population increase in each district in Hertfordshire until 2022/23 (the final year of the contract). They considered the joint effect these increases and the suggested site closures would have on the volume of waste received at the proposed remaining 15 centres.

6.18 Based on census data, the population of Broxbourne district is projected to

increase by 9% by 2021 and a 12% increase is predicted for Hertsmere. The projected increases in the population of all districts and the impact of closing two sites were taken into account when forecasting future tonnage of materials received across the suggested revised network of HWRCs. Full details of population estimates can be found in Appendix D.

6.19 AmeyCespa also anticipate that, through better management of the remaining sites, they will be able to reduce residual waste levels as follows:

Years 2015-2017: 5.0%

Years 2018-2020: 4.5%

Years 2020-2023: 3.0%

6.20 Longer term, the only sustainable way of dealing with pressures on waste services created by population growth is to carry out a structured programme of investment to improve current sites or develop alternative facilities. Officers are continually exploring and reviewing options and opportunities – e.g. funds raised from developers via the Community Infrastructure Levy (formerly ‘Section 106’) – for development but in the current financial climate there is competition for funding from a number of other services.

6.21 In addition to the capital investment that would be required to develop

new/alternative sites or improve existing ones, a sufficient ongoing budget must also be available to run and maintain the network of sites.

6.22 Additional challenges include finding suitable sites for new HWRCs and obtaining the necessary planning permissions and permits. Opposition to new


sites or certain types of site development is also a constraining factor. The Environment Scrutiny Committee (2007) identified a long term objective with co-location facilities with Waste Collection Authority partners to identify wider efficiencies. Fundamental restructuring of the service is therefore a longer term project outside of these proposals, which are a response to immediate financial pressures on this authority.

Travel time / proximity to sites

6.23 Based on a sample of over 3,766 postcodes of HWRC users, AmeyCespa

compared current service provision in terms of distance from and travel time to sites across Hertfordshire with the suggested new network of 15 sites, with weekday closures: Table 8: Travel times and distances on the current network and if the

suggested changes are introduced

Now After suggested

changes

% of residents who live within 5 miles of a HWRC

87% 81%

% of residents who live within 7.5 miles of a HWRC

97% 97%

% of residents who live within a 15 minute drive of a HWRC

97% 96%

Maps and tables showing the detailed results of their analysis are set out in Appendix E. They demonstrate that, although there will be residents in the Hoddesdon and Elstree areas who would incur longer journeys to alternative sites, closure of these sites and introducing midweek closures at the remaining sites would not significantly affect the overall ability of the network to provide a service to the majority of Hertfordshire residents.

6.24 The figures in Table 8 above and the maps/tables in Appendix E are based on optimal routes and non-congested traffic. Other models with lower speeds due to traffic congestion could have been used and theoretical journey times can, in reality, be significantly affected by local conditions across the road network (such as road works), traffic volumes, weather, etc. However, the maps and statistics should be considered together as the comparison between the current and proposed new network still holds: they illustrate the relative effect of closing two sites and reducing opening days.

Potential impact on highways

6.25 An analysis of the potential impact on highways of the closure of the

Hoddesdon and Elstree sites is set out at Appendix F. In summary, the volumes of displaced traffic predicted are not anticipated to cause significant congestion or delays. Typical peak periods of centre use – e.g. weekends and bank holidays – is such that clashes with school and work traffic is avoided. Whilst there may be a small increase in queuing, the access and internal layouts at the Waterdale, Potters Bar and Turnford sites in particular should be able to provide sufficient safe capacity to manage the increase in traffic volumes especially with the closer focus AmeyCespa are proposing on facilitating throughput at all sites – e.g. by producing exchange plans for each


site to manage queuing and revising site layouts to improve site accessibility where practicable. Carbon emissions

6.26 The suggested closure of Hoddesdon and Elstree will have an impact on

carbon emissions. An indicative analysis of the extra trips that would be created shows that closure of these sites would result in an additional 370 tonnes of CO2 being emitted into the environment. To set that in some context, in 2011, Hertfordshire emitted 6,887,990 tonnes of CO2 (2013 Quality of Life report). The extra emissions created would therefore amount to 0.005% of the carbon emissions in Hertfordshire at 2011 levels. Full details of how this has been assessed, supporting data and sources used can be found at Appendix G.

Cost to residents of additional journeys resulting from permanent closure

6.27 An illustrative cost per trip has been estimated using average fuel costs,

distance travelled and fuel efficiency. For users who normally visit Hoddesdon and Elstree, a return trip to their next nearest site may cost between £1.38 and £2.02. Full details of how this has been calculated are shown in Appendix G. The estimated cost to residents and the figure for carbon emissions are dependent on a number of assumptions. The average distance residents currently travel / would have to travel, fuel consumption for petrol and diesel cars and fuel costs. Inevitably, the impact of closures will vary from resident to resident and depends on a number of factors. The figures presented here are best estimates given the data available in order to provide Members with an illustration of the impact on those residents most affected by permanent site closures.

7. MINIMISING THE IMPACT

7.1 AmeyCespa has undertaken to review site layouts and, where possible, make enhancements to make best use of the available space on site. Traffic management by staff will be undertaken to reduce queuing times.

7.2 A key performance requirement was to increase customer satisfaction on the

sites. AmeyCespa have plans to increase the customer service on site including customer service training for staff on site, customer satisfaction surveys and a new compliments and complaints procedure.

7.3 Suggested improvements are proposed to reduce the number of temporary

site closures with a greater understanding of container exchanges being made outside opening hours where possible. AmeyCespa also plans to work with the haulage contractor to review container management on sites using the council owned containers from the Hoddesdon and Elstree sites to improve efficiency. They also plan to improve packing weights in the containers to maximise loads and minimise exchanges.


7.4 A dedicated waste education officer will visit schools and local community groups to help with promotion to improve recycling rates. AmeyCespa will be working with WasteAware to support existing education and awareness raising campaigns.

7.5 Other proposals put forward include:

A range of measures to increase recycling rates. In Cambridgeshire AmeyCespa implemented new operational processes and improved promotion and communication and by doing so raised the level of recycling and reuse to 80%, a 12% increase in the recycling rate.

A dedicated reuse area at each site. Currently only available at the St Albans and Harpenden sites this will be expanded by AmeyCespa across the network. Once established, residents will be able to email in requests for specific items. The increase in reuse will lead to an increase in the volume of waste being diverted from landfill, an associated reduction in costs, an increase in recycling rates and improved customer satisfaction.

AmeyCespa has stated that in their opinion the Hertfordshire network is currently open to abuse by traders. They have plans to deter improper use of sites by commercial vehicles including a permit scheme for residents that wish to visit the site to dispose of household waste in a van or trailer. Their experience of introducing a similar scheme elsewhere showed a reduction in tonnage estimated between 5%-12%, which provided additional capacity for household waste and reduced queuing at sites. By effectively reducing commercial waste abuse, AmeyCespa believe they can improve customer satisfaction and centre capacity.

A Member agreed outcome was the provision of a service for small businesses. A pilot scheme will be introduced in St. Albans – and if successful rolled out to other sites – to accept trade waste, for a fee, from small businesses. This will provide a legitimate disposal option that compliments their proposals to resist existing trade waste abuse.

8. BACKGROND PAPERS

Waste Management Cabinet Panel: Date Household Waste Recycling Centres – Procurement of a Service 18.03.2013 Household Waste Recycling Centres – Procurement of a New Service 06.11.2012 Household Waste Recycling Centres – Procurement of a New Service 05.07.2012 The Right Level Of Publicly Financed Services (Household Waste Recycling Centres) 01.03.2012 Council For The Future - The Right Level Of Publicly Financed Services 16.11.2011 The Right Level Of Publicly Financed Services (Household Waste Recycling Centres) 06.07.2011 Council For The Future - The Right Level Of Publicly Financed Services: Waste Management

16.11.2010


APPENDIX A – OTHER AUTHORITY HWRS CHANGES

Authority Date Changes URL

Cardiff January 2014

Closing sites – Closed two (out of four) sites in order to save £300,000

http://www.letsrecycle.com/news/latest-news/councils/cardiff-council-may-halve-hwrcs

Norfolk 2016/17 Charging - Consulting on proposals for a £2 charge at nine of 20 sites.

http://www.letsrecycle.com/news/latest-news/councils/norfolk-to-charge-public-for-recycling-centreuse

Northamptonshire December 2013

Charging - Consultation launched, considering a £1 charge and reviewing opening hours (have already introduced

weekday closures)

http://www.letsrecycle.com/news/latest-news/councils/northamptonshire-considers-charge-for-hwrc-use

Cumbria January 2012

Closing sites - Council planned to close six of their 14 HWRCs

http://www.letsrecycle.com/news/latest-news/councils/half-cumbria-hwrcs-face-threat-of-closure

March 2012 Plans not implemented following opposition from residents http://www.letsrecycle.com/news/latest-news/councils/cumbria-scraps-plans-to-close-half-of-its-hwrcs

Suffolk May 2011 Closing sites - Seven sites closed (out of 18) and four now

run by independent organisations, which charge residents to deposit waste.

http://www.letsrecycle.com/news/latest-news/councils/cash-strapped-suffolk-to-close-seven-hwrcs

Durham October 2011

Closing sites - Council planned to close six (out of 15) sites

http://www.letsrecycle.com/news/latest-news/councils/durham-plans-to-close-over-a-third-of-its-hwrcs

June 2013 Following consultation two sites closed and the remaining four marked for closure had amendments to their opening hours.

http://www.durham.gov.uk/Pages/Service.aspx?ServiceId=8580

Somerset April 2011 Charging - Four (out of 18) sites were redesignated as Community Recycling Sites with a £2 charge for entry. In April 2014, two of these sites closed. Across the network, charges were also introduced for soil, hardcore, gas bottles and tyres.

Reduced opening hours - Across the network the service was also reduced to five day opening and charges

http://www.letsrecycle.com/news/latest-news/councils/somerset-settles-on-ps2-recycling-centre-charge

Greater Manchester

Sept 2011 Closing sites - Closed four (out of 25) sites http://www.letsrecycle.com/news/latest-news/councils/gmwda-outlines-closure-schedule-for-hwrcs

Staffordshire April 2014 Is proposing to close two of the county’s 14 household waste and recycling centres (HWRCs) in a bid to save £311,000 per year from its budget.

http://www.letsrecycle.com/news/latest-news/councils/staffordshire-hwrcs-under-renewed-threat

http://www.letsrecycle.com/news/latest-news/councils/norfolk-to-charge-public-for-recycling-centre-usehttp://www.letsrecycle.com/news/latest-news/councils/norfolk-to-charge-public-for-recycling-centre-usehttp://www.letsrecycle.com/news/latest-news/councils/norfolk-to-charge-public-for-recycling-centre-usehttp://www.letsrecycle.com/news/latest-news/councils/northamptonshire-considers-charge-for-hwrc-usehttp://www.letsrecycle.com/news/latest-news/councils/northamptonshire-considers-charge-for-hwrc-usehttp://www.letsrecycle.com/news/latest-news/councils/northamptonshire-considers-charge-for-hwrc-use


Harrrow May 2014 Closing sites - West London Waste Authority closed the South Ruislip site in the Borough of Hillingdon (two remaining).

http://resource.co/government/article/wlwa-close-south-ruislip-hwrc

Lancashire April 2012 Closing sites – Closed four (out of 19) sites http://tinyurl.com/lancsclosure

http://resource.co/government/article/wlwa-close-south-ruislip-hwrchttp://resource.co/government/article/wlwa-close-south-ruislip-hwrchttp://tinyurl.com/lancsclosure


APPENDIX B – CURRENT AND SUGGESTED NEW OPENING DAYS / HOURS

*Subject to planning change

Site Current Opening Times Suggested new Opening Times

Berkhamsted All year: Mon to Sun 0830 – 1630 All year: Thurs to Mon 0800 – 1600

Bishop’s Stortford All year: Mon to Sun 0800 – 1600 All year: Thurs to Mon 0800 – 1600

Buntingford All year: Mon to Fri Sat to Sun

1700 – 2000 1000 – 1300

No change

Cole Green Summer: Mon to Sun Winter: Mon to Sun

0800 – 1800 0800 – 1600

All year: Thurs to Mon 0800 – 1600

Harpenden All year: Mon to Sun 1000 – 1800 All year: Sat to Weds 0800* – 1600

Hemel Hempstead Summer: Mon to Sun Winter: Mon to Sun

0800 – 1800 0800 – 1600

All year: Sat to Weds 0800 – 1600

Letchworth All year: Mon to Sun 1000 – 1800 All year: Sat to Weds 0800 – 1600

Potters Bar Summer: Mon to Sun Winter: Mon to Sun

0800 – 1800 0800 – 1600

All year: Sat to Weds 0800 – 1600

Rickmansworth All year: Mon to Sun 0800 – 1800 All year: Thurs to Mon 0800 – 1600

Royston All year: Mon to Sun 0800 – 1600 All year: Fri to Tues 0800 – 1600

St Albans Summer: Mon to Sun Winter: Mon to Sun

0800 – 1800 0800 – 1600

All year: Thurs to Mon 0800 – 1600

Stevenage All year: Mon to Sun 0800 – 1800 All year: Thurs to Mon 0800 – 1600

Turnford All year: Mon to Sun 0800 – 1800 All year: Fri to Tues 0800 – 1600

Ware Summer: Mon to Sun Winter: Mon to Sun

0800 – 1800 0800 – 1600

Summer: Sat - Tues Weds Winter: Sat - Weds

0800 – 1600 0800 – 1800 0800 – 1600

Waterdale All year: Mon to Sun 0800 – 1800 Summer: Sat - Tues Weds Winter: Sat - Weds

0800 – 1600 0800 – 1800 0800 – 1600

Elstree All year: Mon to Fri Sat to Sun

0800 – 1600 0900 – 1600

Closure suggested

Hoddesdon All year: Mon to Sun 0800 – 1800 Closure suggested


APPENDIX C – % REDUCTION IN SERVICE PROVISION The table below sets out the % reduction in service provision (in terms of hours that HWRCs are open) for each site if the suggested changes are implemented:

Summer Winter

Overall

Current hours per

week

Suggested reduction per week (in hours)

%

Current hours per

week

Suggested reduction per week (in hours)

%

Berkhamsted 56 16 28.6% 56 16 28.6% 28.6%

Bishop's Stortford 56 16 28.6% 56 16 28.6% 28.6%

Buntingford 21 0 0% 21 0 0% 0%

Cole Green 70 30 42.9% 56 16 28.6% 36.5%

Harpenden 56 16 28.6% 56 16 28.6% 28.6%

Hemel Hempstead 70 30 42.9% 56 16 28.6% 36.5%

Letchworth 56 16 28.6% 56 16 28.6% 28.6%

Potters Bar 70 30 42.9% 56 16 28.6% 36.5%

Rickmansworth 70 30 42.9% 70 30 42.9% 42.9%

Royston 56 16 28.6% 56 16 28.6% 28.6%

St Albans 70 30 42.9% 56 16 28.6% 36.5%

Stevenage 70 30 42.9% 70 30 42.9% 42.9%

Turnford 70 30 42.9% 70 30 42.9% 42.9%

Ware 70 28* 40.0% 56 16 28.6% 34.9%

Waterdale 70 28* 40.0% 70 30 42.9% 41.4%

Elstree 54 54 100.0% 54 54 100.0% 100%

Hoddesdon 70 70 100.0% 70 70 100.0% 100%

* One late night opening (till 6pm) suggested in the Summer months


APPENDIX D – POPULATION PROJECTIONS

Table 9: Population projections, Hertfordshire districts, 2011 – 2021

Hertfordshire projected populations - All persons, all ages Increase

2011- 2021

Increase 2011- 2021 (%)

District 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Broxbourne 93700 94400 95200 96000 96900 97700 98600 99500 100400 101300 102200 8500 9.07%

Dacorum 145300 146100 147000 147900 148900 149900 151000 152000 153100 154200 155300 10000 6.88%

East Herts 138200 139200 140500 141800 143200 144600 146100 147600 149100 150700 152300 14100 10.20%

Hertsmere 100400 101400 102600 103700 104900 106200 107400 108700 110000 111200 112500 12100 12.05%

North Herts 127500 128600 129800 131100 132400 133700 135100 136500 137900 139400 140800 13300 10.43%

St. Albans 141200 142200 143400 144600 146000 147400 148800 150200 151700 153100 154600 13400 9.49%

Stevenage 84200 84500 84900 85200 85700 86100 86500 87000 87400 87900 88300 4100 4.87%

Three Rivers 87900 88900 90000 91200 92400 93500 94700 95800 97000 98100 99300 11400 12.97%

Watford 90700 90800 91200 91600 92100 92600 93100 93600 94200 94700 95300 4600 5.07%

Welwyn Hatfield 110700 113900 116800 119400 121800 124000 126000 128000 129900 131700 133500 22800 20.60%

Source: http://atlas.hertslis.org/IAS/dataviews/view?viewId=1096

http://atlas.hertslis.org/IAS/dataviews/view?viewId=1096


APPENDIX E – TRAVEL TIMES AND DISTANCES FOR CURRENT AND PROPOSED NEW NETWORK

All graphs and tables below were produced by AmeyCespa and are based on postcode data for HWRC users (sample size: 3,766) obtained by HCC

Figure i – Driving time to sites: current network


Figure ii – Driving time to sites: suggested new network (including full site closures)


Figure iii – Driving distance to sites: current network


Figure iv – Driving distance to sites: suggested new network


Table i – Distance travelled by residents: current network of sites

Table ii – Distance travelled by residents: suggested new network of sites


Table iii –Time travelled by residents: current network of sites

Table iv – Distance travelled by residents: proposed new network of sites


APPENDIX F – IMPACT ON HIGHWAYS

The potential impact on highways of the suggested permanent closure of the Hoddesdon and Elstree sites has been projected using 2011/12 trip counter data for all HWRCs and a sample of over 3,766 postcodes of HWRC users. Between February 2011 and March 2012 ‘trip counters’ were placed at each centre (excluding Buntingford due to its location) for a full week each month. This enabled the county council to project the average number of weekly resident visits to each site. In order to gain an indication of peak usage, trip counters were placed onsite during the likely busy times during the year - e.g. April bank holiday weekends, when the centres are typically at their busiest. Postcode data shows where site users travelled from and has been used to predict the proportion of Hoddesdon and Elstree users* who will ‘displace’ to alternative sites (based on which is their next nearest site**):

Table i - Predicted share of Elstree and Hoddesdon users

Hoddesdon Elstree

Predicted share

Ware – 69% Waterdale – 67%

Turnford – 30% (Brookfield Farm)

Potters Bar – 30%

* Hertfordshire residents only – 10% and 9% of Hoddesdon and Elstree users respectively are from out of county and are predicted to divert to the next nearest site in their own county ** A minimal % of users were projected to use other alternative sites

The potential impact on highways if Hoddesdon closes

Hoddesdon HWRC generates an average of 31 trips per hour or 246 per day. Based on the projected shares above, this is likely to lead to 22 trips per hour or 170 per day to Ware and 9 trips per hour or 74 per day to Turnford. It has been impossible to model the effects of the displacement of traffic, particularly given the relatively small number of trips involved when considered against overall road usage. However, the following has been identified:

The Ware site is located off the A602 Westmill Road. On the occasions (mainly at weekends) when the site is likely to be busy, vehicles will have to queue outside on Westmill Road. The additional trips from displaced Hoddesdon users may have an additional impact. Other roads that may be affected are the A1170 Ware Road and the B1001 Watton Road / Westmill Road.

The Turnford site is located off the Brookfield Farm retail park, which can get busy with shoppers at weekends. The roads likely to be most affected in the area would be A1170 Great Cambridge Road, B156 Halfhide Lane and The Links. On the occasions (mainly at weekends) when the site is likely to be busy, vehicles will have to queue outside. Due to the nature of the road a small amount of queuing vehicles is unlikely to cause a hazard. There may be a small impact on the junctions in and around the Retail Park.


The potential impact on highways if Elstree closes Elstree HWRC generates an average of 31 trips per hour or 247 per day. Based on the projected shares above, this is likely to lead to 21 trips per hour or 166 per day to Waterdale and 9 trips per hour or 74 per day to Potters Bar.

The Waterdale site is located off A405 St Albans Road. The other roads likely to be most affected are A411 Watford Road, A412 St Albans Road north of the A41, A5183 Elstree Hill North / Watling Street. Due to the nature of the A405 approach road a small amount of queuing vehicles is unlikely to cause a hazard and the layout and capacity of the Waterdale site means that significant queues are unlikely.

The Potters Bar site is located in the Cranborne Industrial Estate off Cranborne Road and a small increase in queuing would not have a significant impact on the highways immediately surrounding the site. The roads that may be most affected by the small increase in traffic include Cranborne Road, B556 Mutton Lane, Baker Street, B5378 Shenley Road, A5135 Elstree Way and Rowley Lane.

The potential impact of midweek closures

Any impacts caused by permanently closing sites may be compounded by closing the remaining sites for two days midweek. Whilst it is impossible to predict usage patterns for each site during and following closure days (e.g. whether they would visit an alternative site, when they would visit, whether they would make fewer trips by combining trips), the following table sets out the average number of visits per day of the alternative sites listed above:

Table ii – Average number of visits to suggested alternative sites*

Site Average visits

per day

Ware 440

Turnford 457

Waterdale 460

Potters Bar 276

*Based on 2011-2012 footfall data

Household Waste Recycling Centres are at their busiest at weekends and public holidays. This is when the road network is generally running under lighter load than during the weekday peaks. The volumes of displaced traffic predicted will not cause significant congestion or delays at any of the key junctions around each site, although there may be a slight impact on the junction approaching Brookfield Farm Retail Park and on queuing traffic on the A602 Westmill Road at the Ware Site. The access and internal layouts at the Waterdale, Potters Bar and Turnford sites in particular should be able to provide sufficient safe capacity to manage the increase in volumes.


APPENDIX G – IMPACT ON CO2 EMISSIONS AND COST TO RESIDENTS

CO2 The potential impact on CO2 emissions of closing Hoddesdon and Elstree can be assessed by comparing the average journey length residents currently travel with the distance they will need to travel to their next nearest / alternative HWRC(s). The additional journey length is then multiplied by the total number of journeys that are affected. A carbon emissions conversion factor is then applied. The current calculated carbon footprints show the following:

Current CO2 emissions from resident trips to Hoddesdon: 133 tonnes per annum

Current CO2 emissions from resident trips to Elstree: 155 tonnes per annum

Additional CO2 from resident trips from the closure of Hoddesdon: 196 tonnes per annum

Additional CO2 from residents trips from the closure of Elstree: 173 tonnes per annum

Total additional tonnes of CO2 as a result of the closure of Hoddesdon and Elstree: 370 tonnes

The 2013 Quality of Life report states that in 2011 Hertfordshire emitted 6,887,990 tonnes of CO2. 370 tonnes equates to 0.005% of the total amount of CO2 emitted by Hertfordshire in 2011. Cost The estimated average cost per trip can be estimated using average distances, average fuel consumptions and average fuel costs; inevitably the cost will vary from resident to resident depending on a number of different factors. These estimates are based on average figures and can give an indication on the financial impact on residents. A return trip to an alternative site following the closure of Hoddesdon and Elstree would cost between £1.38 and £2.02.

Data tables - CO2 Data sources:


Data tables - Cost

Data sources There are assumptions used in these calculations, such as a CO2 factor of 0.20088 kgCO2/km, which is the average used for a petrol car with 1.4 to 2 litre engines. This provides the gross ‘gain’ in carbon emissions by closing sites. This is the figure for 2014 from Defra Source: www.ukconversionfactorscarbonsmart.co.uk Fuel efficiency is taken from the Department of Transport statistics and is the fuel consumption figure for new cars (litres per 100km) averaged over the last 10 years. Source: www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/265432/env0103.xls The cost of fuel is an average for 2014 and is taken from the Department of Energy and Climate Change Source: www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/oil-and-petroleum-products-weekly-statistics The total number of visits has been taken from HCC footfall data. Distances from major centres of population, distances to sites and percentage split of users that go to each site has been calculated by AmeyCespa from the site user postcode data provided by HCC.

http://www.ukconversionfactorscarbonsmart.co.uk/http://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/265432/env0103.xlshttp://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/oil-and-petroleum-products-weekly-statistics

HOUSEHOLD WASTE RECYCLING CENTRES – PROCUREMENT OF A NEW SERVICE

Documents

Information Note 14/09 - Hertfordshire...financial and contractual implications of different options. 2.4. The Panel will then recommend to Cabinet which, if any, of the suggested