Support for Waste Sector Development · 2015. 8. 10. · April 2011 WRAP took over as partner from SEEDA on several programme tasks. The full title of the project is “European Pathway

Support for Waste Sector Development

Barriers and solutions to business waste infrastructure development in London and the South East region – final report

Project Ref: LIFE08 ENV/UK/000208

Task number: 5

With the contribution of the LIFE financial instrument of the European Community

In November 2008, the Environment Agency in partnership

with South East England Development Agency (SEEDA)

submitted an application for funding under the European

Commission’s LIFE+ programme for the EPOW project. In

April 2011 WRAP took over as partner from SEEDA on

several programme tasks.

The full title of the project is “European Pathway to Zero

Waste: demonstrating the route to zero waste to landfill via

end of waste protocols and building a recycling society”.

This European demonstration project will run for three

years from 1 Jan 2010 to 31 March 2013. The project will

develop and build on the achievements of the South East of

England’s Pathway to Zero Waste (PTZW) programme,

which was a partnership of the Environment Agency,

SEEDA, and WRAP.

EPOW is working with other Member State regions to

demonstrate the application in other EU regions of the

lessons learnt in the project.

ISBN: [Add reference] Research date: January to December 2012 Date: March 2013

Published by: European Pathway to Zero Waste Environment Agency, Kings Meadow House, Reading RD1 8DQ Email: [email protected] www.environment-agency.gov.uk/EPOW

Written by: Sarahjane Widdowson, Maria Vinogradova, Adam Read, Brian Mayne, Simon Ford and Rachael Riding of Ricardo-AEA.

Front cover photography: Paper being loaded onto a conveyor belt ready for sorting at a Materials Reclamation Facility (MRF) (Source: WRAP)

European Pathway to Zero Waste

3

Contents Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................. 5 Executive summary ............................................................................................................. 6 Introduction ........................................................................................................................12

Terms of Reference ...................................................................................................13 The South East of England .............................................................................14 Business Waste ..............................................................................................14 Commercial and Industrial waste ....................................................................14 Waste and Resource Recovery Infrastructure and associated services ..........15 Definition of Waste Infrastructure ....................................................................15

Structure and Methodology of this study .........................................................................17 Research ...................................................................................................................17 Workshops – Stakeholder Engagement .....................................................................17

Attendees .......................................................................................................18 Workshop Agenda ..........................................................................................18 Publicity ..........................................................................................................20

Report structure .........................................................................................................20 Setting the context .............................................................................................................21

Infrastructure gap ...........................................................................................22 Meeting the infrastructure needs for the waste we produce .......................................23

Resource Scarcity – Critical Raw Materials ....................................................23 Regulation – Food waste ................................................................................25 Waste exports ................................................................................................25 Waste Crime ...................................................................................................26 Priority waste streams for EPOW Task 5 ........................................................27

The Vision .................................................................................................................27 Overview of Infrastructure Delivery Barriers and Solutions ...........................................29

Stakeholders and Partnership working ......................................................................31 Third sector organisations – working in partnership ........................................32

Finance ...............................................................................................................................33 Finance– overcoming the barriers .............................................................................33

Effective communications ...............................................................................33 Provision of accurate data and information .....................................................34 Training and capacity building ........................................................................35 Leadership – consistency of policy and messaging ........................................35 Alternative business models ...........................................................................38 Systems thinking ............................................................................................39 Key Solution Themes .....................................................................................40

Market Conditions ..............................................................................................................41 Market Conditions– overcoming the barriers .............................................................41

Effective communications ...............................................................................41 Provision of accurate data and information .....................................................41 Training and capacity building ........................................................................42 Leadership – consistency of policy and messaging ........................................43 Alternative business models ...........................................................................44 Systems thinking ............................................................................................44 Key Solution Themes .....................................................................................46

Waste Technologies ...........................................................................................................47 Waste technologies– overcoming the barriers ...........................................................47

Effective communications ...............................................................................47 Provision of accurate data and information .....................................................48 Training and capacity building ........................................................................49 Leadership – consistency of policy and messaging ........................................49 Partnership working ........................................................................................50


4

Systems thinking ............................................................................................50 Planning ..............................................................................................................................52

Waste Infrastructure planning – overcoming the barriers ...........................................52 Effective communications ...............................................................................52 Provision of accurate data and information .....................................................53 Training and capacity building ........................................................................55 Community benefit ..........................................................................................56 Leadership – consistency of policy and messaging ........................................58 Partnership working ........................................................................................59 Systems thinking ............................................................................................60 Key Solution Themes .....................................................................................60

Public Perception ...............................................................................................................62 Public Perception of Waste Infrastructure – overcoming the barriers .........................62

Effective communications ...............................................................................62 Provision of accurate data and information .....................................................63 Training and capacity building ........................................................................65 Community benefit ..........................................................................................66 Leadership – consistency of policy and messaging ........................................67 Partnership working ........................................................................................67 Key Solution Themes .....................................................................................68

Summary .............................................................................................................................69 Barriers to Waste Infrastructure Development – how do we overcome them? ...........69 Potential Solutions Identified .....................................................................................69 Areas for training and capacity building .....................................................................73 Where are the greatest risks? ....................................................................................76

Annex 1: Glossary ..............................................................................................................78 Appendix A: Business Statistics .......................................................................................83 Appendix B: C&I waste data ..............................................................................................85 Appendix C: C&I waste capture projections.....................................................................88 Appendix D: capacity gap estimate ..................................................................................89

Future capacity gap ...................................................................................................89 Waste treatment capacity ..........................................................................................89


5

Acknowledgements We would like to thank everyone that has been involved in this project from the workshop attendees to the project team. Specifically we would like to thank the Environment Agency for providing data for and expert insight to this report. We would also like to thank the following organisations and sites for agreeing to host workshops and present infrastructure case studies:

Agrivert AD Cassington

Bywaters MRF, Bow, London

Closed Loop Recycling, Dagenham

Cory Riverside Resource Recovery, Belvedere

North London Eco Park, Edmonton

SCA/DS Smith MRF Southampton

SWEEEP, WEEE recovery facility, Sittingbourne

The Corporation of London, Walbrook Wharf Riverside Transfer Station

Veolia ERF, Marchwood, Southampton

Veolia Southwark Integrated Waste Facility

Viridor Grundon Lakeside EfW in Colnbrook, near Slough

Viridor, Ford MRF, West Sussex

WRG Allington EfW near Maidstone

WRG RE3, Reading Thanks must also go to the following special guest speakers:

Andy Pike, RRR

Ann Bartaby, Terence O‟Rourke

Ben Velmans, Veolia

Dan Cooke, Viridor

David Rumble, Bywaters

Harry Waters, Agrivert

Jim Kendall, LondonWaste

Joe Kingston, City of London

Keith Riley, Veolia Environmental Services Plc

Mark Tipton, FCC Environment

Nick Cliffe, Closed Loop Recycling

Patrick Watts, SWEEEP KUUSAKOSKI

Peter Marshall, SITA

Simon Barnes, SCA Recycling UK

Stephen Wise, Shanks

Steve Brown, FCC Environment We would also like to say a special thank you to James Martin-Jones from Dialogue by Design for facilitating the discussion. We would like to acknowledge all of the authors of the reports that have been used in compiling this desk based research report. A glossary of key terms used in the report can be found in Annex 1.


6

Executive summary

The waste sector is rapidly evolving in its approach to resource efficiency. Recent thinking and policy direction including Defra‟s Resource Security Action Plan1, the EU roadmap to a resource efficient Europe2 and discussions at WRAP‟s annual conference3 indicate that we

are moving towards a circular economy faster than ever before.

To do so effectively however, we need to think more about systems and joined up, integrated solutions, where residual materials are rightly considered as valuable feedstock and not an end product destined for final disposal. We need to move from traditional vertical models to a more integrated systems approach where „waste‟ is moved across the supply chain as a material resource. To achieve this we need to review the infrastructure we have in place at the moment and what we will need to deliver in the future: capturing these valuable raw materials in a way that makes them easy to reuse, recycle, and recover will be an increasingly important issue facing the UK economy.

Systems thinking for materials management

Waste management infrastructure, from bring sites to residual treatment facilities, can be notoriously difficult to deliver. Planning issues, local resident objections, and inflexible finance options are just some of the barriers to delivery that have been cited for facilities ranging from small Waste Transfer Stations and Household Waste Recycling Centres to large scale Energy from Waste facilities. There is a pressing need to get new facilities built so that the United Kingdom (UK) can meet its obligations under the European Union (EU) Landfill Directive (99/31/EC) and so that businesses in particular can find flexible, financially sensible and environmentally beneficial options for reusing, recycling and disposing of their waste. The purpose of this research was to gather and analyse information to identify and report on the key barriers to developing future business waste infrastructure and ways to overcome them in order to develop and deliver the waste infrastructure needed for business waste within the South East of England (SE). This report is the output of the views of almost 300 industry stakeholders on the key issues, barriers and opportunities, which were collected at 16 stakeholder workshops held between May and July 2012. 1 http://www.defra.gov.uk/publications/files/pb13719-resource-security-action-plan.pdf

2 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/resource_efficiency/pdf/com2011_571.pdf

3 http://www.wrap.org.uk/content/supporting-growth-economy-and-regeneration

http://www.defra.gov.uk/publications/files/pb13719-resource-security-action-plan.pdf

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/resource_efficiency/pdf/com2011_571.pdf

http://www.wrap.org.uk/content/supporting-growth-economy-and-regeneration


7

EPOW

The research has been commissioned under the European Pathway to Zero Waste (EPOW) project, which is run jointly by the Environment Agency and WRAP and is funded under the European Commission‟s LIFE+ programme. The purpose of EPOW is to demonstrate the route to zero landfilling of waste through a range of actions in the South East of England. This research relates to Action 5 under the programme: demonstrating how the development of waste infrastructure can be de-risked and supported through partnership working.

The Need for Business Waste Infrastructure

The term „business waste‟ is a general term that has been used to describe any waste arising from a business. This includes commercial and industrial (C&I), construction and demolition (C&D) and hazardous waste. The report has focussed mainly on the commercial element of commercial and industrial waste (as the largest waste stream) however, the majority of the barriers and solutions identified are relevant to ALL waste streams. According to a Defra C&I waste survey4 in 2009, businesses in the South East sent 2.3 million tonnes per annum (MTPA) of business waste to landfill. If we assume similar levels of waste arisings in 20125, to achieve the ambitions of the EPOW programme, about 2 MTPA of additional recycling, composting and recovery infrastructure capacity will be required within the South East region. Some of this tonnage will be managed by new facilities currently being built and commissioned and we estimate this will be able to provide approximately 0.4 MTPA of additional C&I waste capacity. The remaining capacity still needs to be designed, procured and delivered. High level estimates made in spring 2012 identified about 1 MTPA of infrastructure in the pipeline subject to planning and financing6. The actual breakdown of recycling versus residual treatment infrastructure required will depend on the trend in business waste reduction, reuse and recycling rates, and on local decisions by developers and facility operators. Despite this, scale of the new infrastructure remains significant, whatever the actual mix in facility type. The need for new business waste infrastructure is clear, particularly the need to push waste away from landfill and up the waste hierarchy so that we can access the inherent value within the materials we currently throw away.

Barriers to Waste Infrastructure Development – how do we overcome them?

To succeed in diverting business waste away from landfill in the South East of England, a range of waste reprocessing and treatment infrastructure is required to reflect the range of wastes arising. The relative impact of each identified barrier to developing this infrastructure will be unique for each facility, although there are common barriers across all facilities regardless of their type, size and location. Future business waste infrastructure in the South East will need to be responsive to changing waste streams (types and composition) and quantities. The types of facilities developed will need to be flexible, take advantage of new innovations and technologies, be of varying sizes, be in the right location, and importantly gain public acceptance. Barriers to waste infrastructure development can be interlinked in a complex manner and similarly, methods to overcome the barriers can be equally interlinked.

4 Defra (2010) “Commercial and Industrial Waste Survey 2009” http://www.defra.gov.uk/news/2010/12/16/industrial-waste/

5 Assumption based on survey being conducted during economic turndown. Waste minimisation has taken place, but the

economy has been recovering also. No other data was available fo5r the purpose of this estimate in 2012.

6 Background to the calculations can be found on page 20

http://www.defra.gov.uk/news/2010/12/16/industrial-waste/


8

Themes such as the provision of robust data, comprehensive stakeholder engagement, improved partnership working and the need to view waste by type (content or composition) rather than source, run throughout the discussion of all barriers and are identified in the solutions. These are issues which impact the successful delivery of waste infrastructure of all scales and technologies. Identified barriers and potential initiatives to overcome them are detailed within the report using the following key themes to guide the discussion:

Finance

Waste Technologies

Market Conditions

Planning

Public Perception

Potential Solutions Identified

From all of the feedback gained we believe that the following points are the priority areas for action. Addressing these areas should have the benefit of unlocking several blockages within the delivery process. More solutions are provided within the body of the report than are listed within this table, but these are the priority ones in terms of both short term and significant improvement. We have tried to identify simple approaches and activities that are deliverable, can be monitored and where stakeholders can buy into the process with ease as we all take an active role in promoting change. Changes in regulations, to the planning system and alternative finance delivery will not happen quickly but there are tangible actions that our sector can implement to help make the delivery of business waste infrastructure as smooth as possible for all involved.

Action area What are the potential

solutions?

Why is this of benefit? Primary Actors and

beneficiaries -

to potentially drive the

solution

Effective

Communication

Encouraging dialogue

between all stakeholders to

understand individual needs

and approaches

Opportunities for different

facets of the industry to

come together will help to

create understanding and

access to potential

opportunities, finance and

solutions

Professional bodies such as

CIWM, ESA, REA, Resource

Association etc.

Local and national

Government bodies

including WRAP,

Environment Agency,

DEFRA, DECC, DCLG, BIS,

Local Authorities etc.

Third sector organisations

Raising awareness of the

need for infrastructure, the

need for businesses to „do

the right thing‟ and the many

benefits that waste

infrastructure can bring

Positive information about

the need for and

business/community benefit

that infrastructure can

provide will help to

encourage both waste

minimisation, reuse and

recycling and an acceptance

and/or understanding of why

infrastructure may need to

DEFRA, DECC, DCLG, BIS

etc.

Local Authorities

WRAP

Environment Agency

Consultation Institute


9


solutions?


beneficiaries -


solution

be built „locally‟

Provision of

accurate data

and information

Availability of more accurate

data on business waste

arisings and an approach to

the better sharing of data

Robust accurate data and

qualified information will

support business case

development and enhance

investor and decision maker

confidence

Environment Agency,

WRAP, DEFRA, DECC, BIS

Businesses

Waste contractors

Technology developers

Local Authorities

Availability of up to date

case study information on

new and developing

technologies as well as

deliverability issues

Case study information will

help to demonstrate that a

technology is „proven‟ and

better data on waste arisings

will assist with selection of

site location, scale and type

of technology required.

Environment Agency,

WRAP, DEFRA, DECC, BIS

ISWA

Waste contractors


Training and

capacity

building

The waste sector moves

rapidly and it is often difficult

to stay on top of the latest

developments.

Regular updates and training

provision will help to

increase knowledge and

understanding and assist

with the reduction of

perceived risk for investors

and other decision makers.

The following areas were

specifically identified by

delegates as areas in which

further support could be

provided.

A full list of suggested

training areas and actors can

be viewed within the body of

the report

Community

benefit

Highlighting local community

benefits such as job creation

and access to heat and

power.

Communicating the potential

benefits of a new facility to

all stakeholders will help

acceptance of the facility and

will also highlight the need

for resource efficiency


etc. WRAP

Consultation institute

Local Authorities


Leadership -

consistency of

policy and

messaging

Providing confidence to the

sector through consistency

and enhanced joint working

across government

departments on policy and

implementation issues, in

particular issues concerning

planning, energy recovery

and local decision-making

Consistency is essential and

differing messages from

different government

departments combined with

changes to incentive

schemes can increase

investor and developer risk

significantly


etc

Developing a planning

system that encourages the

co-location of appropriate

infrastructure (eco park

concept) to deliver additional

benefits including economic

regeneration and reduced

transportation impacts

The planning system by

default isn‟t designed to

empower value added

Joined up solutions on

appropriate eco park type

sites will deliver enhanced

environmental performance

and enable waste streams to

be treated as resources for a

number of downstream

reprocessors / end-users on

a nearby site


etc

Local authorities – economic

development and

regeneration, planning and

waste management

Developers


10


solutions?


beneficiaries -


solution

solutions as they can be

hard to quantify and qualify.

The system must make full

use of its existing powers to

build social inclusion and

community benefits into

decision-making

Partnership

working

De-risking delivery through

greater partnership working,

particularly around resource

recovery and at the top of

the waste hierarchy around

reuse

Partnerships can increase

knowledge within a project

and can help to de-risk

solutions.

The reuse sector has

traditionally been dominated

by the third sector, who may

not have the scale, funds or

knowledge available to

develop the infrastructure

required

Developers

Waste contractors

Local Authorities


WRAP

Alternative

business

models

Crowd funding for small

scale facilities and/or

working in partnership to

develop facilities.

Barriers can often lead to

innovation and the

development of alternative

business models has helped

to provide funding for smaller

developers.

SMEs

Developers


Nesta

Technology Strategy Board

CBI

Systems

thinking

Investment in technology

and processes that will help

to protect the loss of

materials from our economy

A combination of waste

exports, and current

processing technology

means that we are losing

materials and the inherent

value within those materials

from our economy that may

be critical in the future. By

adapting our technologies

and trying to find solutions

which mean that materials

can (where appropriate) be

processed within South East

and UK we will add value to

our economy.


etc

Nesta

Technology Strategy Board


Investors

Next steps for the sector

Since the workshop sessions were completed a number of activities have been initiated by different organisations to help progress some of the solutions identified, including training activities and guidance development. This is a very positive step. A number of actors have been identified within this report that could potentially take forward a number of the solutions suggested. We hope that they embrace the opportunity to make a real difference for the benefit of the SE, the UK and the waste management and reprocessing sectors.

We suggest that the report is reviewed in due course, to assess progress made, and steps are then taken to inform future actions that will continue to build on the momentum already generated and enable the delivery of the business waste infrastructure and systems required to fulfil the needs of the South East.


11

Everyone has a part to play and simple actions can help the sector as a whole to move towards a more circular economy where the waste materials in the SE are put to good use in the region. The barriers identified are not insurmountable but can be reduced by working together and pooling knowledge.


12

Introduction

The waste sector is rapidly evolving in its approach to resource efficiency. Recent thinking and policy direction including Defra‟s Resource Scarcity Action Plan the EU roadmap to a resource efficient Europe7 and discussions at WRAP‟s annual conference8 indicate that we‟re

moving towards a circular economy faster than ever before.

However, to do this effectively we need to think more about systems and joined up integrated solutions, where residual materials are rightly considered as a valuable feedstock and not an end product destined for final disposal. We need to move from traditional vertical models to a more integrated systems approach where „waste‟ is moved across the supply chain as a material resource. To achieve this we need to think more carefully about the infrastructure we currently have in place throughout the supply chain and what we will need to deliver in the future to capture these valuable raw materials in a way that makes them easy to reuse, recycle, and recover which will be an increasingly important issue facing the UK economy.

Figure 1: An integrated systems approach to materials management

Waste management infrastructure, from on street bins residual treatment facilities, can be notoriously difficult to deliver. Planning issues, local resident objections and inflexible finance options are just some of the barriers to delivery that have been cited for facilities ranging from small Waste Transfer Stations and Household Waste Recycling Centres to large scale Energy from Waste facilities. There is a pressing need to get new facilities built so that the United Kingdom (UK) can meet its obligations under the European Union (EU) Landfill Directive (99/31/EC) and so that businesses in particular can find flexible, financially sensible and environmentally beneficial options for reusing, recycling and disposing of their waste. The purpose of this research is to gather and analyse information to identify and report on the key barriers to developing business waste infrastructure and ways to overcome them in order to develop and deliver waste infrastructure for business waste in the South East of England.

7 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/resource_efficiency/pdf/com2011_571.pdf

8 http://www.wrap.org.uk/content/supporting-growth-economy-and-regeneration

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/resource_efficiency/pdf/com2011_571.pdf

http://www.wrap.org.uk/content/supporting-growth-economy-and-regeneration


13


(EPOW)

The Environment Agency in partnership with the South East England Development Agency (SEEDA) embarked on the EPOW programme, with funding from the European Commission‟s LIFE+ programme in January 2010. LIFE is the European Union's (EU) financial instrument supporting environmental and nature conservation projects throughout the EU, as well as in some candidate, acceding and neighbouring countries. In April 2011, following closure of the regional development agencies by the UK Government, WRAP (Waste and Resources Action Programme) replaced SEEDA (South East England Development Agency) as the Environment Agency‟s project partner, with the agreement of the European Commission. The purpose of EPOW is to demonstrate the route to zero landfilling of waste through a range of actions in the South East of England (including London from April 2011). EPOW runs until 31 March 2013, culminating in a programme of dissemination to demonstrate to the rest of the UK and other EU regions successful ways of stimulating the move towards zero waste to landfill and promoting a recycling society with a high level of resource efficiency, as described under the Waste Framework Directive. The principal objectives of the EPOW programme are to demonstrate:

1. The European value of end-of-waste quality protocols through the development of three new protocols and embedding existing protocols throughout a region.

2. The effectiveness of novel public sector led approaches to reducing waste crime which will support emerging new business markets for the reuse of recovered materials.

3. How the demand for products and services with lower waste impacts can be stimulated through Green Public Procurement (GPP) in a region, and how green procurement can be expanded to the private sector.

4. How markets for end-of-waste materials can be developed through establishing a pilot commodity market with EU trading links.

5. How the development of regional waste infrastructure can be supported through partnership working, and how it can address the EC's new Raw Materials Initiative.

6. How innovative electronic tools and means of communications can be used to help businesses reduce their waste impact.

7. How voluntary sectoral agreements supported by one-to-one business advice can disseminate best practice and help businesses contribute to the goal of zero waste in a region.

8. How new methods of collecting, converting and presenting data and information on waste can stimulate progress towards a recycling society.

This particular report relates to the fifth of these actions9, namely supporting the delivery of regional waste infrastructure through partnership working. Terms of Reference

This report presents the findings from a stakeholder engagement exercise to identify the barriers to successful business waste infrastructure development within the South East of England. Almost 300 industry stakeholders were consulted during a series of 16 workshops to discuss the issues raised to test the initial findings of the research and to distil that work

9 http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/aboutus/wfo/EPOW/123915.aspx

http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/aboutus/wfo/epow/123915.aspx


14

into a range of solutions that can be taken forward to support the development of business waste infrastructure. It is recognised that some of the barriers and solutions identified may not be applicable to all waste streams, business sizes or geographical locations.

The South East of England The South East is one of the largest manufacturing regions in the UK and has one-third of England‟s areas of outstanding natural beauty. The South East has the largest population of any Government region of England; more people live there than in Scotland and Wales together. The South East contributed more than one-third of the overall total of £1,260bn (in 200810) of national Gross Value Added11 . The South East sends more commercial and industrial waste to landfill than any other part of England. It is therefore one of the areas of the EU with the most to gain from a zero waste programme. This project was designed to serve as a demonstration project for other EU regions with high levels of waste generation and for regions with high levels of disposal to landfill.

Business Waste The focus of the project is to understand how waste infrastructure and associated systems and services for business waste can be successfully delivered. The term business waste is a general term that has been used to describe any waste arising from a business. This includes commercial and industrial waste (C&I), construction and demolition waste (C&D) and hazardous waste. The report has focussed mainly on the commercial element of commercial and industrial waste for two primary reasons. Firstly, large businesses producing and treating construction and demolition waste are very good at operating closed loop systems where arisings from one site can be reused at another (it is acknowledged that mixed skips, offcuts arising during manufacturing processes and surplus materials remain a problem). Secondly, as businesses start to segregate their residual waste for recycling (for cost, compliance or environmental reasons) additional processing capacity will be required for common materials such as food waste and dry recyclables. Facilities accepting business waste could be both merchant facilities and local authority owned facilities that accept some commercial (or other) waste.

Commercial and Industrial waste For C&I waste, the similarities between household wastes and commercial wastes cannot be ignored. The materials collected from commercial sources tend to be similar in composition to those collected from households, albeit in different proportions. A number of local authorities offer combined commercial and household waste collection services and it is the norm for many waste facilities to receive and treat both waste streams. This relationship is also recognised by the Government‟s waste vision which is to achieve a greater degree of convergence in policy between C&I and household waste. For example a number of recent policies apply to waste generated from both sources, in particular the landfill tax and financial incentives provided to invest in energy from waste through the Renewable Obligation Certificates system. The report recognises this close relationship between the two waste streams and the need for similar waste infrastructure where the barriers and ways to overcome them are common.

10

Source: ONS, December 2009.


15

Waste and Resource Recovery Infrastructure and associated services The research investigates the need for waste infrastructure and associated services and systems in the South East. The types of facilities developed will need to take account of the waste streams and quantities identified. These facilities need to encompass a range of waste reprocessing and treatment technologies to reflect the range of wastes arising. Some of the barriers and solutions will be common to all technology types, whilst others are likely to be unique regardless of type, size and location of the facility. Barriers and the ways that they can be overcome are often interconnected and can appear under several headings for example, different types of transport have different impacts. Transport can have potential financial implications as the further away a facility is from the feedstock, the more it is likely to cost to transport it (fuels). The use of fuel can also have significant carbon impacts which need to be taken into consideration. Transport can also have potential health effects from vehicle emissions or environmental impacts from dust and noise. All of these transport related matters will need to be addressed in a planning application. The report is mindful of these complex relationships when identifying barriers and suggesting ways of overcoming them. It is also mindful that infrastructure cannot be delivered in isolation and that supporting systems and services such as transport are required.

Definition of Waste Infrastructure For the desktop research element of this work the authors used the term waste infrastructure as everything from point of collection downstream through transfer, treatment and disposal. This definition however was tested as part of the workshops and the views provided by stakeholders ranged from the need to include the manufacture of products through to only including the built element of „the facility‟. The largest agreement however was that to truly describe waste infrastructure, the supporting systems and services also need to be included. Although waste prevention and product design (design for recyclability for example) were discussed at the workshops, it delegates felt that waste prevention in general and waste prevention infrastructure, such as nappy laundries, was out of the scope of this project. Figure 2 produced by the ESA (Environmental Services Association) highlights the complexities of the waste management system. It was felt that collection was particularly important as the method of storage and material collection can often define how that material is then treated. This relationship can often be a „chicken and egg‟ situation as a business may change how they collect their materials to suit collection and treatment but a facility may also need to be flexible in terms of what materials are taken in and how they are treated to deal with changing waste composition. Any solutions proposed must consider the whole system. The diagram presents a household producing residual waste, dry recyclables, food waste and garden waste and batteries and WEEE. With the exception of garden waste these are all materials that the majority of businesses will produce.


16

Figure 2: Overview of How Waste and Resource Management Works (ESA http://www.esauk.org/ )

http://www.esauk.org/


17

Structure and Methodology of this study This study was undertaken over a ten month period and has involved research into the issues, followed by stakeholder engagement via workshops to gather industry views on the barriers and solutions to business waste infrastructure delivery. Research

A desktop study was undertaken to understand the real and perceived barriers and solutions to business waste infrastructure development. Information was gathered on the types and amounts of waste in the South East to understand whether there was sufficient infrastructure capacity available within the region both now and for the future. When assessing the barriers to infrastructure development particular attention was paid to:

Identifying and addressing the waste streams of most significance to the South East

of England;

The needs of small and medium sized businesses; and

The needs of the investment community.

A report was produced from the findings of the initial desktop research and used as a tool to consult and engage the wider waste management sector. Copies of the extended executive summary drawn from the report are available on the Ricardo-AEA website12 and on the Environment Agency website13. Workshops – Stakeholder Engagement

Between 1 May and 19 July 2012 Ricardo-AEA (with support from Dialogue by Design) delivered 16 workshops across the South East region where key stakeholders gathered to reflect on the work to date and influence the final report. The workshops brought together stakeholders with a mix of perspectives and experience. Fifteen of the workshops were hosted at major waste processing infrastructure in the region offering an excellent opportunity to explore facilities such as Energy from Waste (EfW), anaerobic digestion (AD), Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE), materials reprocessors, waste transfer and Materials Recycling Facilities (MRFs) at first hand.

Table 1: Workshop venues and dates

Date Workshop Venue

Tues 1st May Ricardo-AEA, New Street Square, London

Wed 2nd May SCA/DS Smith MRF Southampton

Tues 15th May Ricardo-AEA Harwell, Oxfordshire, Agrivert AD Cassington

Wed 16th May Closed Loop Recycling, Dagenham

Thurs 17th May WRG RE3, Reading

Tues 29th May Viridor Grundon Lakeside EfW in Colnbrook, near Slough

Wed 30th May WRG Allington EfW near Maidstone

Thurs 31st May Veolia ERF, Marchwood, Southampton

Tues 19th June The Corporation of London Walbrook Wharf Riverside Transfer Station

Wed 20th

June SWEEEP, WEEE recovery facility, Sittingbourne

Thurs 21st June Cory Riverside Resource Recovery, Belvedere

Fri 22nd June Viridor, Ford MRF, West Sussex

12

http://www.aeat.com/cms/reports/

13 http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/aboutus/wfo/epow/123624.aspx




18

Date Workshop Venue

Wed 4th July Bywaters MRF, Bow, London

Thurs 5th July North London Eco Park, Edmonton

Fri 6th July Ricardo-AEA, London

Thurs 19th

July Veolia, Southwark Integrated Waste Facility

Attendees

Almost 300 people involved in the development and delivery of business waste infrastructure attended the workshops. Stakeholders comprised representatives of relevant public, private and community interests in the South East including national representatives of the following:

local authority (LA) representatives with roles in land use planning, waste planning, minerals planning and local economic development;

sub-national policy makers;

central government policy makers;

senior representatives of the waste management sector (representing various company sizes);

senior representatives of the waste producer community (including SMEs);

representatives from the investment community; and

consultants / industry experts.

Table 2: Stakeholders registered for the workshops

Type of Stakeholder Number registered

Public Sector Bodies 55

Waste Management 46

Technology Provider 16

Energy Sector 25

Industry Expert 73

Planner 13

Academic 5

Investor 31

Local Authority 26

Total 290

Attendees reflected the wide range of roles associated with the development of waste infrastructure and the mix of backgrounds provided an interesting dynamic for the workshop discussions.

Workshop Agenda All workshops were held in the morning and were 3.5 hours long (excluding the site visit). Prior to the workshop, all attendees were sent a copy of the extended executive summary that summarised the research to date on barriers and potential solutions14. The first session of the day set the context for the research, introduced the EPOW programme and provided an overview of the findings to date on barriers. Group discussions were held to „test‟ the barriers identified, the scope of the project and to add any additional barriers missing from the extended executive summary report. The findings from these discussions have been added to the barriers discussion featured in later chapters of this report. Attendees were specifically asked the following:

14

ibid.



19

What do you see as the biggest barriers to the development of business waste infrastructure?

What experience do you have of encountering these barriers?

Are these barriers causally linked and dependant on one another?

Do you disagree with any of the points made in the report and what information can you provide to support your opinion?

The first session finished with a presentation from either the host site or a guest speaker about the delivery of infrastructure15. All speakers were very frank about the challenges infrastructure delivery presents and the insight from these presentations has been included within the report. Following a break, the second session of the workshop focussed on potential solutions. A carousel approach (also known as rotating review) was taken for the session. The attendees were asked to split into equal numbered groups and visit different „stations‟ set up within the workshop room to discuss the following themes:

Finance;

Market Conditions;

Waste Technologies;

Planning; and

Public Perception. At each station a facilitator was on hand to encourage the attendees to generate ideas for potential solutions to infrastructure delivery and record those solutions on flip chart paper (Figure 3). Approximately 15 minutes was spent at each station before the attendees moved on to the next station and theme. Upon reaching the next station, the group then reviewed and annotated the notes recorded by the previous group and added new thoughts on potential solutions. The workshops asked the following questions of the stakeholders:

What is the agenda for change?

What potential solutions do you see to overcoming the barriers and what case studies showcase best practice in delivering new waste management and resource recovery infrastructure?

Where is support required to facilitate the delivery of business waste infrastructure, and who could be responsible for making this happen (Actors)?

Figure 3: An example of the carousel discussion notes on finance

15

http://www.aeat.com/cms/workshop-presentations/

http://www.aeat.com/cms/workshop-presentations/


20

At the end of the session, feedback was provided by the facilitators to the group on the potential solutions raised for each theme. The workshop closed with a short summary before lunch and then a site visit (if hosted at a facility). The site visits were well attended and provided an opportunity for attendees to see a working facility and hear additional insights into the delivery of that facility.

Publicity Over 20 articles were published in trade journals during the course of the project to highlight some of the issues discussed. The articles were published in waste management trade journals but also in planning, finance and local authority publications. A number of additional presentations were also conducted about the topic to further highlight the project and gain feedback from the wider industry including a presentation to Association of London Cleansing Officers (ALCO) and at the RWM show in September 2012. Any comments or questions generated by these activities have been fed into the report. Report structure

This report is structured around the following chapter themes:

Table 3: Report structure

Chapter Content

Introduction Introduction to the study

Structure and methodology of this study Provides the structure of the study and the delivery of the research

Setting the context An overview of the scale of waste infrastructure required to meet the needs of London and the South East

Overview of Infrastructure Delivery Barriers and Solutions

Sets the context of barriers and solutions and highlights how they are interlinked

Finance The barriers and solutions surrounding these themes gathered both from desktop research and stakeholder engagement

Market Conditions

Waste Technologies

Planning

Public Perception

Summary discussion A discussion of the key research findings

Next Steps The next steps for work in this area

Within each of the theme chapters the barriers and solutions connected with that theme are discussed. Suggestions for „actors‟ have also been provided where they were identified by the attendees. The actors are members of the industry ranging that could potentially have a role in taking the solution forward, no obligation has been implied. The viewpoints raised during the workshops are not always in agreement with one another. With such a wide group of stakeholders taking part in the research it was inevitable that different and contrasting experiences would be put forward. The opinion of a waste planner, for example may be different to a developer. This difference is important as it can highlight blockages within the system and how perceived ease of process for one party may be different to another party‟s opinion. When proposing any solution it‟s important to think of the whole system rather than one group's perspective as changes made may have wider impacts.


21

Setting the context This chapter provides a brief overview of the current business waste environment in the South East and sets out the need for further business waste infrastructure development and whether this needs to be tailored to specific waste streams. The type of businesses located in a region dictates the quantities and composition of waste arisings, which in turn will determine the scale and type of facilities or outlets required. The South East has a higher percentage of the following businesses compared to other English regions (see Appendix A for figures):

Information and communication;

Professional, scientific and technical;

Business administration and support services; and

Arts, entertainment, recreation and other services. These types of businesses will produce waste of a similar composition to that generated by households (Municipal Solid Waste), particularly dry recyclables, food waste and WEEE. Therefore, this report will not focus on niche industrial wastes such as sludges that already have existing outlets and waste management solutions beyond the need for landfill disposal. Employment size data suggests that 84% of businesses in the South East are small-medium enterprises (SMEs). These types of business have very different waste collection needs and opportunities than large businesses. Their storage space is often restricted, particularly in densely populated areas like London, which impacts their ability to segregate multiple streams. Sorting infrastructure, such as MRFs and plastics sorting facilities are particularly suitable solutions for this sector‟s waste materials. Data on waste arisings from businesses can be very difficult to obtain, partly because unlike local authorities there is no requirement for businesses to report waste arisings data and partly because tonnage data can be difficult to obtain when the current collection system for SMEs in particular is based on a volume charging rather than weight charging system. Waste arisings can also change as businesses scrutinise their waste production more closely and as economic pressures cause some businesses to cease trading. There is a need for statutory reporting of C&I waste much as we have for MSW so that proper planning (financial and development) for facilities can take place. The 2009 Defra C&I survey16 suggests that of the four target sectors above, retail and wholesale generates the most waste in the South East region, roughly 2.7M tonnes annually (see Appendix B). Overall, the South East region generated 11M tonnes of business waste in 2009, both commercial and industrial17. Around 48% of this waste was recycled, however 20% was sent to directly landfill, estimated to be around 2.3M tonnes in 200918.The scale of business waste generation in the region is significant.

In order to divert 20% of this business waste arising from landfill, the region will require capacity at new processing facilities (see next section).

The need for this extra capacity is the result of a complex interaction of factors including a lack of overall capacity in the region, market economics resulting in materials being exported from the region or the country, and an acute shortage of new planned capacity for all waste streams as a result of political, planning and financing obstacles.

16

Jacobs (2010) “Commercial and Industrial Waste Survey 2009” http://www.defra.gov.uk/news/2010/12/16/industrial-waste/

17 This excludes the agriculture, mining, construction and demolition sectors.

18 This figure relates to waste sent directly to landfill, other pre-treated tonnages are not accounted for. Waste from outside the

region is also partially landfilled in the South East – this report does not account for this fraction.

http://www.defra.gov.uk/news/2010/12/16/industrial-waste/


22

Infrastructure gap

In estimating a projected capacity gap, this report has focused on major waste infrastructure, such as energy from waste facilities due to the availability of data. However, it should be recognised that the issues for business waste in the South East comprise a much wider scope of facilities and systems – such as collection, haulage and transfer, which all build into an eventual processing capacity gap. The management of business waste should be viewed holistically in order to deliver the required suite of infrastructure. A number of influential commentators and institutions have been very vocal about the infrastructure gap for the treatment of MSW, including both household and business waste. The Associate Parliamentary Sustainable Resource Group claimed in the autumn of 2011 that there are significant gaps in UK waste infrastructure which will not make it possible to achieve 2020 EU landfill diversion targets without an infrastructure investment c. £8 billion19. The Chancellor‟s National Infrastructure Plan (2011) specified the need to develop infrastructure at all levels of the waste hierarchy20. The NIP has also identified C&I waste infrastructure as a priority for Green Investment Bank financing21, although its scope has since been broadened to include all waste infrastructure. The GLA (Greater London Authority) estimates that 3.3M tonnes of additional waste management capacity (both household waste and C&I) will be needed in London by 2031. This will cost over £800M to build, and with reduced financial support from the Government, much of this will need to be secured through private investment22. The Institution of Civil Engineers (ICE) has been one of the most vocal proponents for increased investment in London‟s sustainable infrastructure. However, the ICE recognises that further investment in the South East widens the success gap between it and other UK regions. The ICE believes that metropolitan planning should consider London within a wider UK context23. A review by Ricardo-AEA in the spring of 2012 looked at operational and pipeline waste infrastructure and assumed the capacities available to take business waste, based on existing municipal contracts and delivery probabilities. Making conservative assumptions about future waste arisings in the financial downturn and future waste minimisation in the target sectors, an estimate was made of how much surplus business waste would not be accommodated by existing and pipeline facilities24. The analysis concluded that only 50% of waste which is currently landfilled will be diverted by the existing and pipeline facilities for the treatment of residual waste, provided the delivery of the latter remains on track and no more municipal contracts take up this remaining headroom capacity. In reality, both these scenarios (delivery remaining on track and capacity remaining

19

Letsrecycle.com (06.09.2011) “’Action needed now’ to secure waste plant investment” http://www.letsrecycle.com/news/latest-

news/waste-management/2018action-needed-now2019-to-secure-waste-plant-investment

20 HM Treasury (2011) “National Infrastructure Plan”

21 Letsrecycle.com (29.11.2011) “Osborne reveals waste infrastructure priorities” http://www.letsrecycle.com/news/latest-

news/waste-management/osborne-reveals-waste-infrastructure-priorities

22 ICE (2012) “A Manifesto for London’s Infrastructure”

23 ICE (2012) “A Manifesto for London’s Infrastructure”

24 This analysis is unpublished. It was conducted based on infrastructure data gathered at a particular point in time (March 2012)

and its projections depend on a range of scenarios, subject to sensitivity margins.

http://www.letsrecycle.com/news/latest-news/waste-management/2018action-needed-now2019-to-secure-waste-plant-investment


http://www.letsrecycle.com/news/latest-news/waste-management/osborne-reveals-waste-infrastructure-priorities

http://www.letsrecycle.com/news/latest-news/waste-management/osborne-reveals-waste-infrastructure-priorities


23

available) are highly plausible and have played out in the past. Therefore, this report estimates that between 0.6 and 1.6M tonnes of additional capacity will need to be delivered by 2020 to meet the needs of the South East. This figure is further compounded by the situation with waste exports (see section below). The report assumes that treating waste within the UK is economically and socially preferable to exporting it, or will become so in the future (current spot markets are making export economically attractive in certain circumstances). Therefore, current exports will also need UK based treatment capacity. All estimates point to a clear need for additional waste infrastructure delivery for business waste. This will be a combination of recycling capacity and residual waste treatment, dependent on the willingness of businesses to segregate materials beyond what is currently being achieved.

Figure 4: Cory's Riverside Resource Recovery facility in Belvedere at different stages of construction. One of the EPOW workshops was held on site.

Meeting the infrastructure needs for the waste we produce

Certain waste streams deserve an additional focus or priority status when considering the need for new waste infrastructure. Priority can be provided for a number of reasons:

Resource scarcity – Critical raw materials;

Regulations – current and future;

Environmental impact – including that caused by waste crime;

Scale of the material produced;

Lack of local infrastructure;

Potential for economic growth through recovery in the region; and

Renewable energy generation potential.

Resource Scarcity – Critical Raw Materials As the scarcity of some valuable raw materials deepens, the capacity to recover these from waste materials becomes ever more important. The EU Raw Materials Initiative has identified 14 critical materials which are important to the EU economy and have unsustainable or fragile supply chains. The increased recovery and recycling of these materials in the South East of England has been given special attention by EPOW25 (see summary box below). The report recommended improving the existing collection infrastructure for the following materials in the South East as this is where the 14 elements are most highly concentrated:

25

EPOW (2011) “Study into the feasibility of protecting and recovering critical raw materials through infrastructure development

in the south east of England”, Environment Agency, Reading.


24

WEEE (including scrap, circuit boards, lighting);

Batteries (lead and acid) ;

Waste copper (for antimony and cobalt);

Waste aluminium (cans and products);

End of life vehicles (for magnesium from aluminium components); and

Magnets.

Box 1: Critical raw materials

Critical Raw Materials - Study into the feasibility of protecting and recovering critical raw materials through infrastructure development in the south east of England

The main findings of the report related to waste infrastructure development were:

The recycling industry in the UK and EU has been found to be efficient at targeting new opportunities for recovering valuable materials from emerging waste streams. Pre-consumer recycling is efficient for almost of all of the critical materials; by contrast, the levels of post-consumer recycling of the critical materials are more variable as many of them fall outside more common recycling activities. Critical materials typically end up in waste slags or landfill or are lost during incineration. In addition, many end-of-life products containing critical materials are sent outside the EU, therefore excluding them from EU- or UK-based supply chains.

There is technology available for recycling of almost all of the 14 critical materials on at least on a demonstration level; however, the availability of these technologies does not enable material recovery.

The following recommendations, applicable to the UK and EU, are made for increasing the recovery of critical raw materials:

Recycling systems are already in place but their impact is limited by poor recovery. Developing more efficient collections schemes for consumer (e.g. beverage cans) or industrial (e.g. aircraft or cemented carbide tools) waste will increase recycling rates.

Existing business models using practices such as “shred and sort‟ are poor at isolating small high value items containing critical materials, therefore high value materials may be lost or dispersed into large quantities of generic shredded waste. Implementation of more sophisticated sorting, which distinguishes between items containing critical materials, will help encourage the recovery of these raw materials, and produce “higher value‟ waste streams.

New technologies, such as that for the recovery of magnets from hard disk drives, are becoming available. With the implementation of improved collection and sorting, these will become viable as larger volumes of isolated waste types become available.

Adopting design practices which enable disassembly will improve sorting efficiencies

Implementation and enforcement of headline policy to specific market regulations will provide recyclers with greater certainty over future waste streams.

Remanufacturing and reuse activities can help resource efficiency through product life extension. These activities are already established with the aerospace and automotive industries, however wider implementation would increase their impact.

Currently no refineries or smelters exist in the South East for the recovery of these materials, and as such most processing and recycling takes place outside the regions or outside the UK. This means that the value which could be obtained from utilising recovered materials is lost to the region, whilst the region is potentially at risk of future specific materials shortages which will result in price increases. Results from the EPOW report show that reprocessing may not be economical at the South East regional level or even at the UK level for some


25

materials. This situation needs to be monitored going forward as commodity prices and availability fluctuates.

Regulation – Food waste There is a growing awareness of the need to divert food waste from landfill and a potential landfill ban for food waste is currently under discussion26. Manufacturers and the hospitality industry are strongly represented on the panel assessing the likely impacts of a food waste to landfill ban, demonstrating that C&I food waste will be a key target waste stream. A recent report highlighted the issue of food retailers rejecting foodstuffs which they feel would not meet consumer expectations, this leads to an estimated 30% of UK crops never being harvested.27 Diverting food waste from the residual waste bin may also help to save businesses money if waste is charged on a weight basis as it‟s one of the heaviest materials left in the bin after common dry recyclables such as glass have been recycled. Future infrastructure needs are likely to include a dramatically increased demand for food waste processing facilities, such as Anaerobic Digestion (AD) and in-vessel composting. The market is already reacting to this need and we‟re seeing many examples of the food industry investing in food waste infrastructure to treat their own waste arisings. This control of the supply chain has many benefits including a potential reduction in transport costs and the ability to utilise the off take products such as energy, heat and digestate or compost.

Waste exports There is strong evidence28 to suggest that the UK is increasing the amount of the commercial element of C&I waste exported abroad. This may be due to lack of local domestic infrastructure to process it and/or the spot markets providing low cost alternatives to treatment and disposal within the region. Sorters and reprocessors in rapidly growing economies like China and India often purchase recyclables whereas domestically they may fetch a very low price or even incur a gate fee. Other reasons for export include the low cost of exporting through the return of empty import containers. For the residual waste element, the overcapacity of EfW plants in northern Europe (particularly Holland) is proving an economically attractive method of disposing of residual waste, once it has been converted into a suitable product such as refuse derived fuel (RDF) within the UK. Over 14M tonnes of non-hazardous waste were exported from the UK in 201129. The graph below demonstrates that the key waste streams which are exported are paper and ferrous metals. In order to be able to treat and recover these materials domestically they must become a key target for future waste and reprocessing infrastructure.

26

http://www.letsrecycle.com/news/latest-news/compost/planning-needed-for-food-waste-landfill-ban [28.02.2012]

27 Institute of Mechanical Engineering (2012) Global Food: Waste not, Want not

28 Environment Agency (2010) International Waste Shipment Statistics 2010

29 Customs Data Intraset 1999-2011

http://www.letsrecycle.com/news/latest-news/compost/planning-needed-for-food-waste-landfill-ban


26

Figure 5: Tonnes of waste exported from the UK by material type (Customs data Intraset, 1999-2011)30

Exports of notified waste are around 500,000 tonnes per annum, and the key waste streams include the following industrial waste streams31:

Treated cork and wood wastes;

Dross, scalings and other wastes from the iron or steel industry;

Metal and metal-alloy wastes in metallic, non-dispersible form;

Waste lead-acid batteries, whole or crushed; and

Paper, paperboard and paper product wastes. Waste Crime

One of the areas examined during the research conducted was waste crime data, to understand whether it was possible to establish a link between the types of waste most frequently identified at illegal sites/operations and a lack of legitimate capacity. The Environment Agency‟s data on illegal waste sites in 2010/201132 suggests that construction and demolition waste streams, as well as other commercial wastes, are prominent in illegal waste sites across England. The largest proportion of waste types found at these sites are made up of end-of-life vehicles, C&D wastes and tyres, as well as general household waste – all waste streams with legitimate outlets. A recent EPOW report into waste tyre crime in the South East suggested that although collection networks for waste tyres are strong in the South East, the end of life processing is mostly located in central and northern England33. This means that additional transport may be required to reach suitable treatment facilities.

30

https://www.uktradeinfo.com/Pages/Home.aspx

31 Environment Agency (2010) International Waste Shipment Statistics 2010

32 Environment Agency (2011) “Key Data Book Factsheet: Different Types of Active Illegal Waste Sites March 2011”

33 EPOW (2012) “Novel approaches to waste crime”

https://www.uktradeinfo.com/Pages/Home.aspx


27

Figure 6: Types of waste managed at illegal sites

Priority waste streams for EPOW Task 5

Based on the data presented above and on the waste streams associated with the dominant South East business sectors, the EPOW infrastructure workshops specifically considered the following broadly grouped waste streams:

Commercial waste – due to the scale of production and potential for economic growth through recovery in the region;

WEEE and metal materials – due to resource scarcity and resource retention and the prominence of professional, scientific and technical businesses which produce such wastes;

Food waste – due to the growing need to divert this stream from landfill due to its environmental impact, and the regional prominence of retail and hospitality/catering businesses; and,

Waste tyres – due to a regional vacuum of reprocessing facilities and reported waste crime data highlighting a large percentage of illegally disposed of tyres.

In addition to these priority waste streams, the research and engagement effort also focused on residual waste infrastructure which provides an alternative to landfill and can help divert the majority of wastes from land disposal. The Vision

Progressing towards zero waste disposal to landfill by successfully delivering suitable processing and recovery infrastructure and associated services and systems can yield several major sustainability benefits. Using waste as a resource for secondary material markets and energy could deliver great advantages, both in terms of the sustainable use of existing resources and by securing a supply of scarce materials. Avoiding the extraction of virgin materials and burning of fossil


28

fuels through substituting these with waste streams also delivers carbon benefits. Delivering waste and recovery facilities can create new green jobs for the labour market, especially during the construction phase. The recovery of energy and heat from energy from waste processes can deliver cheap heat to communities and industrial heat users locally and sustainably, potentially reducing fuel poverty and enhancing energy security.

Figure 7: Infrastructure is required to push waste further up the waste hierarchy

A priority is to ensure that the South East has the right infrastructure to move waste up the hierarchy.


29

Overview of Infrastructure Delivery Barriers and Solutions To succeed in diverting the levels and types of waste materials discussed in the previous chapter from landfill, we will need reprocessing and treatment infrastructure appropriate to the range and composition of wastes arising. The relative impact of each barrier to developing this infrastructure will be different for each type of facility, although there are common barriers across all facilities regardless of type, size and location. Future business waste infrastructure in the South East will need to be responsive to changing waste streams composition and quantities. The types of facilities developed will need to be flexible, take advantage of new innovations and technologies, be of varying sizes, be in the right place and importantly gain public acceptance. As detailed in subsequent chapters, the different barriers are interlinked in a complex manner and similarly, methods to overcome the barriers will therefore also be interlinked. It is important to note overcoming barriers may require addressing all barriers without focusing on any one individual barrier in isolation. Barriers to infrastructure development are frequently a complex mix of physical, political, operator risk, public perception and financing considerations. Key barrier themes identified are considered to comprise:

Finance;

Market Conditions;

Waste Technologies;

Planning; and

Public Perception. Two recent surveys have informed the generation of this list. A recent survey of waste industry stakeholders by the Chartered Institution of Wastes Management34 asked for the most important barriers to the development of waste facilities (all waste facilities). The most frequently mentioned barriers were:

Lack of investment – 54% of respondents;

Lack of confidence in new technologies – 36% of respondents;

Planning – 66% of respondents; and

Public attitudes – 69% of respondents. Another recent survey35 identified the barriers to the delivery of merchant facilities as being:

Finance (36%);

Feedstock (34%); and

Planning (23%). In developing a facility, a potential operator has to assess risks associated with current and future demand in terms of waste availability, future variability in waste quality and the market for products. It was noted widely by workshop attendees that the waste sector, in particular the business waste sector, is in its infancy compared to other markets like education and healthcare, in terms of financing models, technology solutions etc. and this would remain a hindrance for the sector‟s development for some time to come. Whilst the operator can plan for and assess likely future patterns in demand, many influencing factors can be hard to predict and can be beyond their control. For example, changes in the following can all influence the long-term viability of a facility:

34

CIWM Magazine (February 2012) The Great Waste Survey

35 The Future of Waste- A Continuing Opportunity, Tolvik Consulting & Norton Rose, November 2011


30

national waste policy, including available subsidies and tax breaks;

industry type and practices;

waste quality;

market conditions and availability of feedstock (competition from other operators);

available technology;

public perception; and

local political will. Consideration of such complex and interlinked matters could influence whether or not an operator develops a facility, long before that operator applies for planning permission, sources waste or seeks funding. Consideration of such risks is then likely to be a concern of council planning departments and investors. Influencing most of these considerations is public perception. Whether or not founded on informed judgement, public perception can heavily influence operators, politicians and financiers and can prevent an otherwise viable development from taking place. Lastly, once constructed and operational, many of these considerations can continue to influence the viability of continued operation. Issues may arise throughout the lifetime of the facility. Figure 8 below provides a simplified view of some of the complex interactions between barriers.

Figure 8: The complexity of waste infrastructure development


31

Figure 9: Infrastructure development stages (simplistic diagram)

The research conducted has also sought to identify where the blocks are within the delivery system, in order to identify whether effort should be targeted at a specific stage (above others). Figure 9 has been used to demonstrate the (simplistic) stages of infrastructure delivery to determine areas for priority action. Stakeholders and Partnership working

As well as blockages in process different stakeholders can also provide blocks or support within the system.

Figure 10: Stakeholders overview

The stakeholders involved in each part of the infrastructure delivery process have been examined and where barriers and solutions have been identified „actors‟ have also been highlighted who could potentially progress the solution. These are only suggestions and it may be that the actor suggested is not in a position to progress the solution.

Infrastructure Delivery

Engage Secure contracts Build Operate

Application

Design Consultation Planning Permitting

Business Case

Identify Need Feedstock (market

identification) Site Technology Funding

Developers

Regulators

Local residents and

businesses Competitors

Local and national

Government

Investors

Planners Pressure groups


32

It may also be the case that there are other actors not currently named that could have a role in moving forward the solution.

Third sector organisations – working in partnership The role of third sector organisations in dealing with business waste is a growing area and not one to be under estimated. Not seen as a core member of the waste management sector and formerly assisting in a somewhat niche market, third sector organisations are breaking through into the mainstream and are now a viable and relevant option when looking at options for reuse and recycling. There are a wide range of examples where this system of adopting a third sector organisation to assist in dealing with a particular waste stream is working. One such example is the London Community Resource Network36 (LCRN) providing the London Reuse Network37 (LRN), developing the existing network of reuse facilities working together in a coordinated system. The LRN works with reuse organisations across London, registered charities, voluntary organisations and social enterprises who collect, remanufacture, and redistribute quality items to Londoners, working with items from the following 12 waste streams: domestic furniture, office furniture, hotel fittings, carpets, textiles, paint, WEEE, small household items (bric-a-brac), books, bicycles, children's toys and equipment, and wood. The reuse organisations provide an approved, quality-assured collection service to households and businesses across London regardless of borough or sector. There are successful examples beyond the South East, including Newport Wastesavers38 - a community not for profit recycling group who run the kerbside collection of recyclables in partnership with Newport City Council, South East Wales, as well as operating recycling services for businesses in Newport and Cardiff. In the South East, Magpie Recycling39 offers similar services to local authorities in the Brighton area. All of these third sector organisations are partnering with commercial organisations to deliver supported solutions. Despite not being considered as major infrastructure providers, third sector organisations are an important part of the “glue” in providing clean material streams and could have a bigger role to play in finding partnership solutions to barriers. The next five chapters provide an overview of the barriers and potential solutions that were discussed with (and contributed / raised by) the workshop participants. The chapters are grouped around the five themes identified above but do overlap.

36

http://www.lcrn.org.uk/

37 http://www.londonreuse.com/

38 http://www.wastesavers.co.uk/

39 http://www.magpie.coop/

http://www.lcrn.org.uk/

http://www.londonreuse.com/

http://www.wastesavers.co.uk/

http://www.magpie.coop/


33

Finance The financial landscape has dramatically changed since the start of the global economic crisis. Banks have reviewed and revised the way in which they lend and risk is the critical marker. Even so, there are excellent examples of business waste infrastructure that have gained the funding required to progress and deliver facilities. Workshop delegates discussed whether business waste facilities were a „good investment‟ and what the solutions were to increasing investor confidence and reducing investment risk. Finance– overcoming the barriers

The workshop discussions identified the following points that were felt could help to overcome finance barriers.

Effective communications One of the first points debated by delegates was why financiers should invest in waste management and whether it was an attractive investment. According to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, a major concern in delivering business waste infrastructure is that “lenders perceive waste projects as exhibiting significant technology and execution risk”. For merchant facilities treating commercial and industrial waste this execution risk can be heightened as feedstock is not secured by long term contracts as it is for facilities treating MSW Since the 2008 economic crisis, the number of banks willing to lend and the typical loan value has reduced. This impact has also been amplified by an increase in the overall cost of bank debt. Waste infrastructure is not necessarily viewed as a safe and reliable long term investment by the financial sector, including sponsor companies, pension funds, banks and private equity. Most pension funds are currently unable to invest directly in this sector, (unlike housing developments projects for example), because there is too much risk due to the large number of variables for waste projects including the following barriers (discussed in more detail later in the report):

The unknown future composition of waste due to changes in materials usage and consumption;

Uncertainty over the production and pricing of energy;

Changing collection systems which cause on-off changes to the volume of waste;

The volume and pricing of the recycling incomes (impacted by global commodity market fluctuations and resulting in conservative income levels being backed); and

Legislative changes affecting both materials use and operating parameters. These considerations again illustrate the interlinking of barriers and the need to address all barriers to satisfactorily encourage waste infrastructure development and combine to make waste infrastructure potentially less favourable than projects such as housing developments,

schools, hospitals and other types of infrastructure such as road and rail projects, which still attract funding. Historically this manifested itself in higher margins charged for waste projects, but is now reflected by a lack of funding. As in the UK and mainland Europe, funding markets have tightened rapidly leading to heightened nervousness to lend to schemes which are subject to higher levels of risk. In order to fund waste infrastructure, financiers may prefer long term, back to back contracts with guaranteed levels of payment to ensure there will be sufficient income throughout the life of a project. However, because of the way the business waste market tends to operate


34

(on a spot market basis with short term contracts), funding can be even more difficult to obtain or, at times impossible, even at high margins. It was felt that there needs to be effective communications to demonstrate the benefits of investing in the sector and that the provision of a suite of information including case study examples, site visits and investor days where developers and contractors could highlight both the profitability of their facilities and how they have overcome risks would help to improve confidence in the sector. The Green Investment Bank was also proposed by delegates as potentially having a strong role in this as well as the London Waste and Recycling Board (LWARB) in the communication of investment decisions and provision of case studies.

Provision of accurate data and information More than ever, banks are scrutinising projects through due diligence more closely to confirm the assumptions upon which financial models are based, along with the track record of developers, operators and the technologies to be employed. This process is expensive and time consuming and has made banks more selective about the projects they support. As a result, schemes which propose technologies that have yet to establish a proven track record are viewed as potentially too risky by the finance sector and have tended to include gasification, pyrolysis and other more novel technologies. Delegates raised the issues that the cost of due diligence is not scalable so the costs to undertake this for a relatively small facility is comparable to a large facility which can be a barrier for smaller facilities seeking to gain investment. It was also felt to be an issue for smaller developers. Delegates suggested that this barrier would be difficult to overcome as due diligence is an essential process for gaining investment. It was highlighted however that investment in ensuring that robust and accurate data sets and technology information are gathered may help to reduce costs and increase confidence. It was felt that there was a role many within the waste sector in terms of data collection and awareness raising, including technology providers, businesses, the Environment Agency and Government departments.

Box 2: The challenges of securing finance

The challenges of securing finance even with a strong track record in the sector

Agrivert is an established organics processing company with several IVC solutions operational, a large

scale AD plant and facilities in the pipeline. When developing the 50,000 tonnes per annum

Cassington AD plant in Oxfordshire, Agrivert had answered the known requirements for securing

finance:

secured planning permission;

had waste secured on long term contracts;

was based on successful proven technology;

had a successful operating track record;

had a very profitable reference plant; and

had a proven construction delivery record.

The project still struggled to secure a funding on a project finance basis. Agrivert‟s Managing Director,

Harry Waters, attributes this to a mixture of historic, sector specific and policy uncertainty reasons.

Banks have experience of feedstock market uncertainty from overseas examples, and some have lost

money on this. The UK track record on AD is not universally positive; some plants have failed to meet

power expectations. Although it is not a new technology, AD can carry risk associated with gas output

guarantees must be underpinned with guaranteed composition and biological processes, which is not

always in the operator‟s control. Importantly policy uncertainty makes the banks overly cautious, such

as the ROCs/FITs/RHI interaction, the contribution of digestion to recycling targets and the End of

Waste protocol for digestate. Whilst AD should be an attractive investment, funders are discourages

by a combination of these factors.


35

Training and capacity building

Many investors attending the workshop stated that training and capacity building in the preparation of business plans and management team skills would be beneficial for those seeking investment, particularly for new entrants and smaller businesses. Confidence in the management team pitching for an investment is essential and delegates from an investment background stated that this was an area that let down many organisations. WRAP currently provide some capacity building support to small businesses via their Business Development Services team and representatives attending the workshops confirmed that this could often be an issue. Delegates suggested that interactive training provision or one to one support in this area would be beneficial and could be delivered by both waste sector specialists and/or business specialists. Further training and networking opportunities were flagged for investors. It was felt that greater interaction between those seeking investment from within the waste sector and those looking to invest would be beneficial. Positive feedback was provided on the format of the workshops delivered during the course of this project and some investors attending stated how beneficial they felt it was to visit operational facilities and to hear from so many facets of the sector. WRAP have recently commissioned a project that looks to support investors in further understanding the market (see Box).

Box 3: WRAP Investors support project

Supporting Investors to learn more about small scale energy from waste

WRAP, with input from Defra, is organising a pilot event aimed at supporting investors to understand

recent developments in the energy from waste market (AD and small scale EfW). The networking and

support event will take place in the spring of 2013 and will bring together potential investors with

developers and operators. A sector overview will be provided which will highlight the benefits of

investing within the sector. The event will include a visit to an operational EfW or AD site.

Leadership – consistency of policy and messaging

Recently there have been many reductions in existing financial incentives related to renewable energy with changes having taken place or being proposed to Renewables Obligation Certificates and the Renewable Heat Incentive, along with potential electricity market reforms. To date, few conventional energy-from-waste EfW schemes have qualified for the subsidies and with the ongoing changes to subsidy levels and qualification requirements, these are by no means guaranteed. This has served to create uncertainty within the market place with many facility developers being placed in the difficult position of having to guarantee subsidy income within their financial models when they cannot be absolutely certain that this additional income will materialise. Combined with the declining credit rating of project sponsors as the Euro crisis has worsened, this has led to funders taking less assurance from these guarantees. The uncertainty of incentives was highlighted many times by delegates but was particularly pertinent to developers, contractors and investors. Consistency can help to reduce risk and it was strongly suggested that clear parameters and review dates would be set by Government for any existing or proposed policy changes. Although some good examples were provided of central Government departments seeking input on proposed policy changes from industry bodies (such as CIWM and ESA), it was felt that there was still work to do to strengthen consistency of approach between departments (DCLG, Defra, BIS, DECC, HM Treasury etc). An example of where consistent support and collaboration is required is the Government‟s approach to renewable heat which is required to meet its renewable energy targets. The UK largely lacks the necessary infrastructure to see this happen as prolifically as in other parts of Europe where the district heating systems are more common.


36

This means energy off-take from energy-from-waste facilities is only possible in the exceptional case where major heat users are situated on the same site or where the facility is in sufficient proximity to users. Although there are examples where this has been delivered or is in the process of being delivered, this model can be difficult to deliver particularly in the South East, where residential density and the price of commercial land can be prohibitive to development. Central to overcoming barriers to the financing of waste infrastructure projects is the provision of private sector finance. In turn, the willingness of financiers to invest in waste infrastructure is limited by, amongst other factors, actual or perceived risks associated with waste infrastructure. In particular, barriers to investment in new technologies and variability in waste supply, gate fee and product markets need to be overcome. Additional Government funding in commercial waste infrastructure has the potential of improving funders‟ confidence by demonstrating commitment to the sector. Investment support - Green Investment Bank, LWARB, London Green Fund

A major opportunity for merchant waste infrastructure could be presented by the Government‟s Green Investment Bank (GIB) which became operational in April 201240 and was recently given State Aid approval (Oct 2012). The GIB was set up to address market failure in sustainable infrastructure investment. It is designed to support projects where the private sector will not invest or will not provide sufficient investment. Potentially, the GIB can help break the cycle of investors‟ low confidence in areas like business waste infrastructure and get private funds flowing. C&I waste processing infrastructure has been identified as one of three priority areas for the GIB. Latest announcement have confirmed a fund of £80M for small-scale waste processing infrastructure41, which is likely to be capped at about £15M per project. Some commentators42 have questioned how far the targeted injection can influence the infrastructure market, given that large facilities can cost around £50M to build. However, for smaller merchant developments the GIB‟s fund may prove to be the investment “life line” they need to get off the ground. Delegates were very enthusiastic about the GIB and hoped that the investment it provides would help to provide confidence in the sector and allow developments to get over the final hurdle by potentially providing mezzanine finance to bridge any capital shortfall or suitable guarantees. Larger waste management projects have already started to apply to the Green Investment Bank for funding in the absence of willing bank lenders43 and the first investment has already been secured by organic waste specialist the TEG Group (Box 4). Areas where GIB is likely to target future investment are reported to be anaerobic digestion, gasification and plastics recycling. However, the major obstacle for applicant fund managers will be the requirement to secure private equity funding to match or exceed the requested GIB input as wherever possible funding provided by the GIB will come in addition to market financing. The Mayor of London‟s business waste strategy44 identifies securing investment as a major influence for future infrastructure development.

40

http://www.letsrecycle.com/news/latest-news/waste-management/bis-to-begin-lending-to-green-infrastructure-projects

41 http://www.letsrecycle.com/news/latest-news/waste-management/government-to-invest-ps80m-in-waste-infrastructure

42 Moore, D. Feb 2012.”Can we Bank on it”. CIWM magazine, p.40-41

43 MRW (24/02/2012) “Fledging waste projects set for funding boost”

44 Making Business Sense Of Waste The Mayor’s Business Waste Strategy For London, November 2011

http://www.letsrecycle.com/news/latest-news/waste-management/bis-to-begin-lending-to-green-infrastructure-projects

http://www.letsrecycle.com/news/latest-news/waste-management/government-to-invest-ps80m-in-waste-infrastructure


37

The strategy describes how the public sector needs to provide strategic investment to overcome the market failures that are preventing new waste infrastructure development in London, particularly in the treatment of London‟s C&I waste. The strategy stated that the Mayor will invest in the development of waste infrastructure in London through two key routes: the LWARB Infrastructure Fund and the London Green Fund. Each of these two funds will help to lever investment into large-scale, London-wide programmes to help develop and attract private sector investment to new waste infrastructure capacity in London.

Box 4: News release from TEG detailing funding secured

TEG SECURES FUNDING FOR £21M ORGANIC WASTE FACILITY IN DAGENHAM45

Organic waste specialist The TEG Group has secured funding to construct a £21M organic waste

facility at East London's Dagenham Dock in the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham. This will

include central London's first Anaerobic Digestion (AD) plant.

The new facility will be capable of processing 49,000 tonnes per annum of food and green waste via

AD and In-vessel composting (IVC) technology on a 4.7 acre site on the Mayor of London's 60 acre

London Sustainable Industries Park (LSIP). The Mayor has committed over £10m for infrastructure

development on this site, which the TEG scheme will be the first to benefit from.

The Dagenham facility will comprise a 30,000 tonnes per annum AD plant and a 19,000 tonnes per

annum IVC plant. This will be the first AD plant in central London and will generate approximately

1.4MW of electricity, sufficient to power approximately 2,000 homes. This energy will be used by the

Park's tenants. It will also produce over 36,000 tonnes p.a. of AD digestate and 14,000 tonnes p.a. of

compost for agricultural use. The feedstock will come from source segregated food waste and mixed

food and green waste produced by local households, commercial and manufacturing enterprises.

Foresight Group funds have committed £11M into a new Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV), TEG Biogas

(London) Limited, to allow for the construction and operation of the new processing plant. The

Foresight Environmental Fund (FEF) has led the project with a £9m investment. The FEF was

cornerstoned by the London Green Fund (LGF), and has attracted investment from a number of

private sector investors. The LGF was launched in March 2011 by the Mayor of London, Boris

Johnson as part of London's drive to encourage investment into waste and energy efficiency

infrastructure to create economic growth and jobs.

Foresight's UK Waste Resources and Energy Investments Fund (UKWREI) has invested £2M in the

project. UKWEI secured an additional £2m in matching private sector funding from Quercus Assets

Selection SCA SICAV-SIF (an institutional fund), raising the equity investment to £13m. UKWREI is

managed by Foresight who have been appointed to invest £50m on behalf of UK Green Investments -

the team established within the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills to drive investment in

low carbon infrastructure in preparation for the UK Green Investment Bank.

Alongside the equity investment, senior debt of £7.9m is being provided by London Waste and

Recycling Board (LWARB) and Investec Bank plc. TEG's introduction to the LGF, in which LWARB

originally invested £18m, came through LWARB when the project first applied to the Board's Waste

Infrastructure Fund for investment.

TEG will construct and operate the plant on behalf of the SPV under an Engineering, Procurement and

Construction Contract (EPC Contract), which is expected to generate approximately £16M in revenues

for TEG over the period of construction. Work is due to commence in September 2012, with

completion scheduled for the first quarter of 2014.In addition, TEG has been awarded an Operating

and Maintenance Contract (O&M Contract) to operate the facility on behalf of the SPV. The O&M

contract is for a 15-year term with annual revenue of approximately £1.3m per annum, escalated

45

http://www.theteggroup.plc.uk/news/teg_secures_funding_for_21m_organic_waste_facility_in_dagenham

http://www.theteggroup.plc.uk/news/teg_secures_funding_for_21m_organic_waste_facility_in_dagenham


38

TEG SECURES FUNDING FOR £21M ORGANIC WASTE FACILITY IN DAGENHAM45

annually.

Box 5: Infrastructure development support available

The LWARB Infrastructure Fund

From 2009 to 2011, the LWARB had a total investment fund of £58M available from DEFRA and the

GLA Group to help provide financial support for waste infrastructure and campaigns, brokerage

support and to help to bridge the gap between the Mayor‟s strategies for waste and their

implementation. At least another £16M of targeted financial support is available for the period 2011 to

2014 to support:

a. Infrastructure Projects – Provision of funding to projects that meet the strategic requirements of

LWARB(geographically and technologically) to the extent that funding is not available from the private

sector (£11M loan fund); and

b. Strategic Partnerships (Innovation) – through partnerships with project developers and other

organisations, the development of innovative waste solutions (£5M fund).

As part of its total investment fund of £58M, the LWARB allocated £21M to help develop waste

infrastructure from a preferred pool of projects. This £21M Infrastructure Fund supports a portfolio of

projects that, by 31 March 2015, will:

divert over 500,000 tonnes of waste from landfill each year

save over 3M tonnes of CO2eq over the lifetime of the projects

create approximately 150 jobs within London

LWARB is already helping to fund a number of strategic infrastructure projects including the TEG

Group example provided earlier46

.

The London Green Fund

The London Green Fund is the London component of the JESSICA (Joint European Support for

Sustainable Investment in City Areas) initiative developed by the European Commission and the

European Investment Bank in collaboration with the Council of Europe Development Bank. JESSICA

allows member states of the EU to invest a proportion of their EU grant funding to make repayable

investments in projects, thereby creating a revolving investment fund for funding the regeneration of

urban areas.

The London Green Fund is a separate funding stream from the LWARB Infrastructure Fund,

so potential project sponsors may apply for funding from both streams.

Alternative business models

The Associate Parliamentary Sustainable Resource Group‟s (APSRG) report, „Rubbish to Resource: Financing New Waste Infrastructure‟ provides practical recommendations to overcome barriers and the report was praised by many delegates. The recommendations provided are premised on policy and investor certainty and risk mitigation, with the aim of targeting government, local authorities, the finance community and the waste sector and echo many of the suggestions presented by workshop delegates. The third part of the APSRG report presents a range of finance options to improve the deliverability of waste infrastructure projects in an attempt to move away from traditional project finance. These options aim to provide the waste industry with cheaper forms of

46

http://www.lwarb.gov.uk/page/?identity=funded-projects

http://www.lwarb.gov.uk/page/?identity=funded-projects


39

capital through greater links with the real estate sector, to allow the deleveraging of senior debt and to encourage greater equity investment. Delegates raised the issue that the weakened position of funders has resulted in the requirement for greater levels of equity investment in projects. This means that there is an additional drain on scarce corporate funds needed to foster the greater delivery of waste infrastructure, leading to a reduction in the number of proposed waste schemes. Greater equity requirements can also be off putting for family owned and operated waste management companies. The industry has a number of companies that have been developed and expanded over generations for which the release of significant equity may be synonymous with release of control. This is also an issue for third sector organisations, many of whose constitutions may preclude sacrificing equity. An article discussed at some of the workshops highlighted that pension funds, key investors in sectors like housing, are reluctant to invest in infrastructure as they do not want to take on any construction risk. If a way could be found to pass back this risk to the construction manager, a core group of pension funds could be willing to consider investing in infrastructure projects, both public and private sector, potentially including waste management infrastructure. Their investment is likely to be in the region of £4 billion, half of which will be debt47. Delegates felt that this was a positive step and welcomed the long term investment profile provided by many pension funds. Some developers present at the workshops highlighted however that if risk is passed along the chain it will result in higher costs at the delivery stage so may not in effect unlock the benefits required. The use of crowd funding to support the financing of small scale facilities was highlighted by some delegates at the workshops as a new approach to financing. Although there was some concern expressed regarding how it would be delivered in practice and how it could effectively help (given the amount of money required to finance a development) there was cautious optimism regarding its use in the future particularly for small scale facilities. NESTA have recently released a report48 on the benefits of crowdfunding and estimate that within five years, crowdfunding could provide around £15 billion of finance per year in the UK. With the right frameworks and standards, this could grow even further and a day could come where crowdfunding replaces a large proportion of the £115 billion financial services industry. Community and cooperative investment in infrastructure such as wind farms and small scale AD has been helped to deliver infrastructure whilst creating local „ownership‟ of a facility and delegates felt that it could provide many benefits. It was suggested that more information needed to be provided so that the sector could fully understand how it would operate and any potential risks involved. It was suggested that WRAP may have a role in researching this area for information provision as they work extensively in providing advice and support on small scale waste infrastructure and have provided loans and managed capital allowance schemes for recycling infrastructure.

Systems thinking Issues associated with a lack of long term feedstock contracts can potentially be circumnavigated by securing long term offtake contracts for products.

For example, if public sector users (e.g. schools, hospitals, social housing) could be found for heat generated by an EfW facility, the associated long term income stream may give funders more confidence in the project. This suggestion was raised by many delegates but with a 47

Financial Times (27.02.2012) “Pensions close to accord on infrastructure funding”

48 http://www.nesta.org.uk/home1/assets/features/crowding_in

http://www.nesta.org.uk/home1/assets/features/crowding_in


40

caveat about the difficulty of trying to deliver this in practice. It was felt that if local authorities and other public sector bodies could consider the community benefit of this approach it may support delivery.

Key Solution Themes The key solution themes coming from the workshop discussion on finance include:

Effective communications - the need to provide opportunities for investors and those seeking investment to network;

Provision of accurate data and information - authoritative, robust and conclusive data is required and should be updated regularly to inform investment decisions;

Training and capacity building - support for those seeking investment in the preparation of business plans and management team skills and awareness raising for investors on the benefits of investing in the sector and training provision on technologies (and risk);

Leadership – consistency of policy and messaging - Consistency of policy and financial incentive provision by central government (eg in relation to ROCs, Green Investment Bank etc

Alternative business models – the use of crowd funding to support the financing of small scale facilities; and

Systems thinking – the need to think about the entire supply chain when planning for waste infrastructure including feedstock sourcing and opportunities for offtake of energy, heat and products.

Figure 11: Agrivert's Cassington AD plant hosted one of the EPOW workshops


41

Market Conditions Market conditions are affecting all waste facilities. Changing quantities of waste, composition and markets can make long term planning challenging. Flexibility is critical but this often comes at a higher price. Workshop delegates discussed whether short term contracts, guaranteed feedstock and changing composition was the greatest barrier to securing finance within the sector and how partnership working could potentially help to provide solutions. Market Conditions– overcoming the barriers

The workshop discussions identified the following points that may help to overcome market related barriers.

Effective communications Market related barriers are closely interlinked with finance barriers and technology barriers. Fundamental to the design of a facility, business plan development and funding is stability in markets that supply waste and utilise products. Market conditions impact upon all waste facilities, but in particular merchant facilities and facilities receiving business waste from multiple sources. Merchant facilities receiving business waste typically operate on a no contract or short-term contract basis and are dependent on waste from multiple sources. Such facilities can be unable to guarantee a reliable income stream to service their debt, which makes obtaining finance harder than a facility with long-term contracts. Facilities with long-term contracts, typically those taking waste on behalf of local authorities, are also subject to variability in off-take markets but have the benefit of long-term contracts for waste supply and gate fee. Nonetheless, these facilities are still subject to fluctuation in waste quality which, even with complex contracts and penalty arrangements, can influence the financial viability of a facility. Delegates felt that the best way to overcome this barrier was by both raising awareness with investors about market conditions so that they understand risk and mitigation factors and also developing a robust business plan (discussed later). It was highlighted that some investors (particularly banks) that have previously invested in a waste facility are familiar with the guaranteed (long term, regular quantities) feedstock that a facility taking waste on behalf of a local authority can supply. When faced with the short term uncertainties that a merchant facility can present the risks involved can be unpalatable. An example provided by delegates was of the AD market. The UK track record on AD is not universally positive; some plants have failed to meet power expectations. Although AD is not a new technology and there are many strong track record examples, some risk is associated with gas output guarantees, which must be underpinned with guaranteed composition and biological processes, and these are not always in the operator‟s control, due to the heterogeneous nature of organic waste inputs. However, these risks have been successfully mitigated by a number of UK operators. Raising awareness of the benefits of the merchant facility model and providing case studies of successful facilities may help to improve investor confidence. This could potentially be conducted through workshops or investor days.

Provision of accurate data and information For a number of reasons it is often cheaper to export certain waste streams for recovery on global markets than to treat it in the UK49. This was a strongly debated topic at the workshops with delegates supporting the reasons for and against export.

49

Environment Agency (2010) International Waste Shipment Statistics 2010


42

Reasons for export include the high gate fees and landfill tax in the UK, in contrast to the low shipping costs as waste may be exported in goods‟ import containers. Delegates also suggested that cost of UK transport infrastructure was a growing factor and that the high price of fuel was „tipping the balance‟. Many also stated that they had witnessed a reduction in the quantity of commercial and industrial waste being processed and wondered whether a combination of the current economic situation and enhanced resource efficiency was impacting waste volumes. The lack of suitable processing infrastructure in the UK is a key factor causing significant waste exports, especially in the context of overcapacity at energy from waste facilities in Northern Europe, which are sometimes ready to pay for the exported combustible waste (depending on composition). However, whilst export satisfies a need in the short term, it potentially compromises future investment in UK infrastructure as feedstock supply does not look strong in the context of cheap exports. New facilities may be unable to compete on price charged by overseas facilities making them commercially unviable. However, a significant reliance on overseas infrastructure carries significant levels of risk as foreign facilities may suddenly no longer need to take in waste from the UK or increase their prices. Delegates felt that authoritative, robust and conclusive data is required to inform a long term view of arisings and composition. Without accurate forecasts, the long term case for or against the export of merchant waste (materials and residual waste processed to form RDF or SRF) could not be scrutinised. At one of the workshops, SITA provided a presentation on landfill diversion and alternative fuels, highlighting their current operations for landfill diversion via RDF and SRF manufacture. It was emphasised that the export operation is currently a short term solution (5-6years) and that SITA are focussed on the development of infrastructure within the UK. End markets for landfill diversion exist and they are utilising their port infrastructure to find a solution. Many delegates welcomed the recent news regarding the MRF code of practice and hoped that it will address key market failure regarding the export of waste for further processing and a “paucity of information”. Quality of material was a discussion point at each of the workshops together with the need to ensure that facilities are able to effectively manage input streams and levels of contamination. The code of practice will require sampling and composition tests on inputs and outputs but will not set threshold standards for quality. The retention of recyclates (specifically) within the UK was debated with the majority of delegates in favour of the export of materials utilising the global commodities markets. There was concern raised by some as to whether long term export would become more challenging as many of the countries utilising these materials (e.g. plastics going to China) reached a position where domestic markets could service their requirements and that only very high quality materials would be in demand.

Training and capacity building Commentators reflected on the immaturity of the commercial waste market. A number of supply chain elements suffer from insufficient knowledge and experience. This includes the poor definition of product quality protocols, or their rigorous inflexibility unsuitable to the changing material inputs. Contracts are sometimes poorly written with the parties failing to understand each other‟s needs due to a lack of experience. Finally the uncertainty of new technology performance compounds the issues described above. Capacity building and the provision of dedicated support to smaller businesses was raised as a suggestion to help businesses develop the skills required to formulate a robust business plan. Many investors attending the workshops stated that this was an area that needed to be strengthened. In terms of market conditions it was suggested that assistance with forecasting and in particular demonstrating a track record of where waste will be sourced from was an essential component required for investment. WRAP provide some assistance to SMEs via


43

their Business Development Services but it was also suggested that some form of training that involved investors providing advice on their requirements would be beneficial. The overall industry skills pool was addressed by the delegates, with concerns that not enough technical training was available. A recent report by the APSRG50 also recognised the need to expand training initiatives, both at entry level and further professional development. The outlook of the report suggested that future infrastructure would generate the need for more trained skill in the sector.

Leadership – consistency of policy and messaging t was felt that consistency of policy and financial incentive provision by central government (ROCs/FITs/RHU interaction etc.) was essential. Business craves the sort of long term certainty provided by financial incentive such as the landfill tax. Delegates felt that changes in policy reduces confidence in the market and has consequences for gaining the investment required. Legislative changes affecting both materials use and operating parameters can also provide uncertainty that can heighten risk and reduce confidence, the contribution of digestion to recycling targets and the End of Waste quality protocol for digestate were raised as examples. Delegates recognised the difficulty that often accompanies providing policy certainty, but it was felt to be essential for kick starting and maintaining investment particularly in AD.

50

APSRG (2012) Sustainable Skills, available from: http://www.policyconnect.org.uk/apsrg/sustainable-skills-future-waste-

management-industry-0


44

Box 6: The challenges of a changing feedstock

Seizing the opportunity

SWEEEP Kuusakoski is a WEEE processing plant in Kent. SWEEEP was established as a family

venture in 2007 in response to the implementation of the WEEE Directive – the developers saw the

opportunity and the new waste stream, and seized it. The plant is financed via a bank loan secured on

property; assets and plant were not felt to provide sufficient security. Kuusakoski buying 50% of the

business has improved SWEEEP‟s position, but securing a bank loan for an extension to the plant is

still proving difficult despite the companies excellent trading position.

During the digital switch over, SWEEEP observed a rapid and significant growth in cathode ray tube

televisions. As market players, SWEEEP needed to respond to this new trend rapidly. However, it was

very difficult to secure a variation on the planning permission to store these surplus televisions before

they could be reprocessed. SWEEEP feel that whilst they were ready to respond to changing

feedstock, officers reviewing the application needed some additional support to understand the

commercial value of the opportunity and the need to act quickly to respond in the change market.

Alternative business models Utilising spare capacity at facilities with long-term supply contracts, typically existing to service local authorities, by introducing business waste potentially brings benefits to all parties in overcoming market condition barriers and was highlighted as a solution by many delegates. To do this, contracts will need to accommodate such practice which in some instances may require contract amendment for existing facilities. To facilitate this, it would be beneficial to raise awareness between all stakeholders of the potential benefits to be gained. An example of how this could work could be a Mechanical Biological Treatment (MBT) facility receiving household residual waste. Fluctuations in the volume and quality of the waste could be expected to occur over the course of a long-term supply contract as a result of consumer habits, economic conditions, increased food waste diversion initiatives, increased source segregation of recyclables etcetera. This could have a knock-on effect in terms of off-take contracts or viability of parts of the process. One example could be the viability of power production from anaerobic digestion should organic content of the mixed residual waste reduce. The ability within the contract between the operator and the authority for the operator to source business waste could reduce the risks posed by such changes, by ensuring there is no shortfall in capacity. For the example given, the ability of the operator to source organic waste from business kitchens or from the food production sector (within the existing contract terms) could ensure the long-term viability of the facility.

Systems thinking The Institution of Civil Engineers (ICE) has suggested that the boundaries between household, commercial and construction waste streams will need to be blurred in the future51. The focus instead should be on material streams and how to increase their market value. Overcoming the problems such as the commercial element of C&I waste being shut out of dedicated municipal infrastructure can be addressed by managing waste in a more holistic and integrated way across all sectors. 51

ICE (2012) “A Manifesto for London’s Infrastructure”


45

A material led approach was suggested by many delegates at the workshop sessions and this position has been promoted by CIWM for many years. However, delegates considered that although this would be an ideal, it may be difficult to deliver in practice. A significant proportion of commercial waste produced by SMEs in the South East is similar in nature to household waste and, like MSW, arises in small volumes from multiple locations. Where there is financial benefit to the collection authority, it may make sense for this waste to be collected alongside household waste (co-collection) for onward transport to the same waste facility. In order for this approach to work it will be necessary for plant design, capacity and contract structure to be arranged with the receipt of business waste in mind. One example of a holistic approach has been the Government‟s Business Waste and Recycling Commitment52 launched in October 2011. WRAP is supporting the delivery of this commitment and under EPOW Action 753 is promoting the commitment to authorities within the South East. The commitment is a voluntary agreement for local authorities to improve services for business customers, which can include improving information on how to manage business waste and provide regular recycling collections to SMEs. One obstacle for SME recycling is the fact that the low volumes of material they produce rarely triggers them to sign up to a separate recycling collection service. By allowing them to partake in local authority household waste collection schemes, these small volumes of material can be captured by local authorities and their sell on value can be extracted. However, it is reported that the current awareness of the scheme is low amongst SMEs54. At the same time, the Government will be encouraging SMEs to procure recycling contracts collectively to improve their efficiency and affordability55. The manufacturers‟ organisation EEF has suggested that the Commitment be made into a national policy committing local authorities to engaging businesses in their waste infrastructure network56. The Government‟s National Infrastructure Plan (2011) encourages local authorities to come up with strategies for accepting business waste at Household Waste Recycling Centres (HWRCs) by October 2013. There is not a binding requirement but the likely revenues associated with accepting business waste are likely to appeal to councils. WRAP has recently published guidance advising how Local Authorities can implement this57. The message from delegates on this subject was that ideally the sector should take a system approach rather than thinking of production, collection and treatment as discrete elements of a chain. Although this may be difficult to deliver, raising awareness of the importance of „joining the dots‟ would be beneficial and many waste contractors (and latterly retailers that are developing waste treatment infrastructure) that combine collection with treatment operations are reaping the benefits of being able to control their supply.

52

http://www.wrap.org.uk/content/business-recycling-and-waste-services-commitment-1

53 http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/aboutus/wfo/epow/123650.aspx

54 Guardian online (10.02.2012) “Overcoming the challenges of SME recycling” http://www.guardian.co.uk/sustainable-

business/smes-recycling-challenges-waste-resource?CMP

55 HM Treasury (2011) “National Infrastructure Plan”

56 EEF (2012) “Defra’s Waste Policy Review – Six Months On”

57 http://www.wrap.org.uk/sites/files/wrap/Commercial%20and%20industrial%20bring%20centre%20guidance.pdf

http://www.wrap.org.uk/content/business-recycling-and-waste-services-commitment-1


http://www.guardian.co.uk/sustainable-business/smes-recycling-challenges-waste-resource?CMP

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sustainable-business/smes-recycling-challenges-waste-resource?CMP

http://www.wrap.org.uk/sites/files/wrap/Commercial%20and%20industrial%20bring%20centre%20guidance.pdf


46

Key Solution Themes The key solution themes coming from the workshop discussion on market conditions include:

Effective communications - Raise awareness with investors about market conditions so that they understand risk and mitigation factors;

Provision of accurate data and information - authoritative, robust and conclusive data is required so that a long term view of arisings and composition can be formed;

Training and capacity building - support for those seeking investment in the preparation of business plans and management team skills and awareness raising for investors on the benefits of investing in the sector and training provision on technologies (and risk);

Leadership – consistency of policy and messaging - Consistency of policy and financial incentive provision by central government (ROCs) etc;

Alternative business models – Encourage local authorities to consider allocating capacity to business waste at existing waste management facilities with capacity; and

Systems thinking - The need to consider the whole supply chain, from design and production to segregation, collection and treatment.

Figure 12: Site visit at the Closed Loop Recycling Facility in Dagenham


47

Waste Technologies Technology is constantly evolving and the waste sector reaps the benefits of this continual improvement and innovation through greater efficiencies, reduced emissions and environmental impacts, and through increases in quality products (materials, heat and/or energy). New technologies can often be treated with suspicion until enough „proof‟ has been gathered to provide investor and stakeholder confidence. Existing technologies can also suffer from (often historic) negative public perceptions. The deliverability of associated infrastructure, such as grids, off take conduits, and re-processing plants, further compound these uncertainties. Workshop delegates discussed whether all waste technologies experienced the same barriers and what the key solutions were to providing fit for purpose waste infrastructure technology to treat business waste.

Figure 13: Addressing public attitudes - Consultation on Waste Infrastructure Development in the West of England

Waste technologies– overcoming the barriers

The workshop discussions identified the following points that were felt could help to overcome barriers related to waste technology.

Effective communications There is a perception that „new‟ technologies are more likely to be accepted by local communities and stakeholders but reality has not matched this perception. One reason for this is that the real or perceived impact of traffic and potential environmental nuisance impacts such as litter, noise, odour dust and pests remain regardless of the technology. Delegates felt that there may be local concern whatever the technology type proposed but that this concern was heightened for specific technologies. Certain technologies e.g. EfW, can be associated with negative impacts such as causing potential health issues leading to complications, particularly at the planning stage. Conversely, some technologies can become „fashionable‟ or part of a political choice which can undermine alternative and viable technologies. Some delegates highlighted that this had potentially become the case with MBT and gasification. In a survey of waste professionals undertaken by the CIWM in 2011, 28% cited a lack of confidence in waste technology by waste professionals and investors as an issue.58 This

58

Helen Amos, The Great Waste Survey 2010, CIWM Magazine February 2011


48

statistic was discussed at the workshops and was supported by some delegate views, with examples provided of technologies that were not performing as well as they could be. It was highlighted that bad press due to technology break downs or emission breaches raised doubts and often perpetuated the opinion that a technology wasn‟t to be „trusted‟. When a potential solution for this issue was discussed transparency in reporting and liaison with local community and media were raised as being essential to engaging with stakeholders. Some delegates felt that there were concerns about new technologies because of a lack of knowledge and proposed that there should be further awareness raising of the need for treatment technologies in general. In particular greater engagement with groups that have concerns about certain technology types such as United Kingdom Without Incineration Network (UKWIN)59 who have a raised concerns regarding incineration. Although it was felt that the larger developers and contractors were becoming better at engaging stakeholders, there was still more to do particularly around education on technology types.

Provision of accurate data and information The lack of confidence in certain waste technology types that aren‟t common to the UK or common to UK waste management was flagged by delegates as a significant barrier to infrastructure investment and development. Developers and financiers need to balance risks when investing in technologies with limited track record in the UK and be confident that the technology can cope with the waste composition it will be required to treat and that maintenance requirements will be straightforward. Advanced Thermal Technologies have been available for some time and have process origins going back to the 19th and early 20th centuries, however they have failed to significantly take off for MSW and commercial waste sources, particularly in the UK. A major stumbling block has been the uncertainties and associated risks of choosing a more complicated process over the more tried and tested standard incineration options (that can be better equipped to deal with a changing waste composition). Securing the financial resources to implement and developed a track record has proved difficult. This situation is starting to change with investment being leverage using a range of mechanisms (as discussed previously). Two approaches to overcoming the barriers of perceived risks associated with new waste technologies that were proposed by delegates were firstly the provision of authoritative data on the technologies, with examples of where the technology has worked outside of the UK, but with similar waste streams. Secondly, Government backing in the form of financial incentives for new prospective technologies was called for, similarly to the “double ROCs” incentive for anaerobic digestion. Defra‟s Government Review of Waste Policy in England (2011) notes: “Much work has already been done to address [data provision] through greater education and communication as technology develops, for example through Defra‟s New Technologies Demonstrator Programme and through the advice and support provided by Defra‟s Waste Infrastructure Delivery Programme. We will continue to build on this work to improve understanding.” Many delegates noted the benefits of the new technologies demonstrator programme and felt that it did achieve its aims of overcoming the real and perceived risks of introducing alternative technologies in England and providing greater knowledge and confidence to the sector. It was felt that the information provision in terms of case studies and up to date information on emerging technologies should be continued and that as a resource it became out of date

59

http://ukwin.org.uk/


49

as the sector evolved. The Energy from Waste Research and Technology Council (WtERT) has in part addressed this need60. It was highlighted by one delegate that one of the proposals of the Mayor‟s London‟s business waste strategy61 is to improve the knowledge base of waste sector investors. Research is being undertaken to produce a catalogue of commercially operating waste infrastructure facilities across the world, to showcase the opportunities for their development in London. The catalogue will comprise a series of international case studies of existing commercial or demonstrator plants using anaerobic digestion, gasification or mechanical-biological treatment processes to treat waste. This may assist with filling the gap that the new technologies programme has left.

Training and capacity building The issues related to the data and information on waste treatment technologies going out of date quickly was highlighted by many delegates and served to reinforce suggestions for training. It was felt by many delegates that training on waste treatment technologies would be beneficial to many stakeholders within the sector including planning and waste officers, smaller developers and elected members. A suggestion raised in all of the workshop sessions was that elected members should be fully supported with training to bring them up to date on technology issues. A good example of training provision for members was provided by Hampshire County Council which provides general waste training to all of their members each year. This allows them to be refreshed in the key issues impacting the sector and enables officers to identify which areas further support could potentially be provided. Delegates suggested that training for elected members could be provided in-house by officers but that it may be beneficial to have this type of training delivered externally by an independent organisation such as the CIWM.

Leadership – consistency of policy and messaging Fiscal incentives were raised again by many delegates and the majority felt that there was a great benefit in providing incentives for new and existing technologies being applied in an alternative way (AD for example) to provide a kick start to the market. Some delegates felt that this wasn‟t possible without some form of market distortion and that alternative support mechanisms should be sought. A number of delegates highlighted the work that the Mayor is conducting to encourage the development of waste infrastructure and support new technologies. London is seeking to stay at the cutting edge of waste and climate policy and practice as demonstrated by the Mayor‟s Municipal Waste Strategy which focuses on carbon dioxide-equivalent (CO2eq) outcomes through the world-first Emissions Performance Standard for municipal waste management at city level. These priorities are also reflected in the business environment, with climate change and resource use being identified as the two of the key issues for most businesses. The introduction of these performance standards will put greater focus on modern technologies that are more efficient and cleaner with reduced carbon impacts. This will help leverage the use of less proven technologies such as gasification. A number of delegates felt that it would be beneficial to understand the longer term benefits of these initiatives to identify whether they should be applied beyond London‟s borders. One delegate highlighted the leadership shown by the Welsh Government (WG) in setting a new green approach to energy generation from waste in order to increase investment in unproven technologies. In addition to the high recycling and composting targets they have set, the WG is determined to develop energy from waste facilities for the remaining residual waste that are capable of 60

http://www.wtert.co.uk/

61 Making Business Sense Of Waste The Mayor’s Business Waste Strategy For London, November 2011


50

achieving very high efficiencies with a strong preference for CHP or heat only configurations. This approach should help encourage the wider use of newer technologies such as gasification and help build their track record. The preference for high efficiency facilities was supported by the group of delegates that discussed this reference but the need for additional residual waste treatment capacity within the South East was questioned.

Partnership working Many delegates suggested that the sector should look beyond its boundaries at other industries to find ideas for improving waste technologies. It was proposed that joint working between sectors to provide innovative solutions and enhance partnership working should be encouraged and could potentially be facilitated by organisations including BIS, UKTI and the CBI.

Systems thinking The changing composition of business waste streams was one of the most discussed topics at the workshops. Some waste management technologies can be more susceptible to variability in incoming waste quality than others. Facilities such as MBT plants and MRFs are more sensitive to changes in composition than thermal treatment facilities or landfill. This may make it more difficult to secure finance due to the risk of additional investment being required to adapt or correct processing equipment. Other technologies also suffer from uncertainties that impact on their potential implementation.AD is highly dependent on feedstock and changing behaviour or variation in collection systems can present risks to the optimisation and overall deliverability of a solution. AD facilities need to be carefully managed so as to not upset the delicate digestion process and the bulk disposal of some commercial food products can require careful planning and management. It was suggested by delegates that research and investment in flexible technology that would be able to manage or could be adapted to manage changes in the composition of business waste would be beneficial. Many delegates were aware of the work currently being undertaken by UK Universities on the management of changing composition and proposed that additional funding should be provided. Some delegates disagreed with this proposal due to commercial sensitivities.


51

Box 7: Building in technology flexibility

Flexible solutions to changing waste composition

Bywaters is a medium size waste collection and sorting

business which has been operational for over 60 years.

Bywaters operate the Lea Riverside MRF with a capacity of

130,000 tonnes per annum. The facility was delivered at the

company‟s own risk, relying on debt finance.

Bywaters applies the flexibility of MRF technology to treat

vastly different feedstock arising from domestic and

commercial customers of the MRF. Although the latter

provide only circa 30% of the plant‟s input, they number

about 2,500 individual business customers. The composition

of this waste can vary widely depending both upon business type and on the businesses commitment

to recycling. To mitigate this risk and prevent cross contamination of the household recycling stream,

Bywaters process household recyclables and commercial loads on separate days and provide a

support system to businesses advising on resource efficiency and reducing contamination.

Key Solution Themes The key solution themes coming from the workshop discussion on waste technologies:

Effective communications - Raise awareness of new technologies and enhancements to existing technologies;

Provision of accurate and timely [data and] information - Provide case study examples and up to date information to stakeholders;

Training and capacity building – support the training of planning and waste officers and smaller developers so that they can make informed decisions about new technologies;

Leadership – consistency of policy and messaging - Provide consistency in terms of incentives and support to new technologies. Provide encouragement without market distortion;

Partnership working – Encourage joint working between the sectors to provide innovative solutions and enhance partnership working; and

Systems thinking - Research and invest in flexible technology that can cope with or could be adapted to cope with changes in the composition of business waste.


52

Planning The planning process is often cited as one of the most significant and time consuming barriers to the delivery of waste management infrastructure62 63. This is in part because the development of waste infrastructure has a history in the current planning system of being protracted and challenging, resulting in many applications being challenged and appealed with significant, sometimes abortive, costs to developers. Solving these issues is not an easy task but there are a growing number of examples of merchant facilities progressing through the planning process without significant delays. Workshop delegates discussed whether planning was still a barrier to infrastructure development and what actions could reduce or remove the barriers to facilitate infrastructure progressing through the planning process in a timely, inclusive and cost effective manner. Waste Infrastructure planning – overcoming the barriers

The workshop discussions identified the following points that were felt could help to overcome waste infrastructure planning barriers. Planning specialists were not present at every workshop conducted so views on technical areas of the planning process may have been drawn from a smaller number of delegates.

Effective communications It was felt by delegates that greater discussion between all stakeholders in the planning system was required to raise awareness of issues and individual perspectives. Stakeholder engagement and objections

Consultation with local stakeholders (neighbouring businesses, residents etc.), should happen at the pre-application stage and developers/operators could undertake more comprehensive engagement that is beyond any statutory levels required. Examples of effective consultation undertaken by large waste contractors were cited by delegates and it was felt by many that the lesson had been learnt by most in the industry that effective stakeholder engagement was a necessity and that a „decide and defend‟ approach should not be taken. It was perceived that merchant facilities had fewer stakeholder objections purely because they were usually located in areas of industrial use where „neighbours‟ would be similar industrial facilities. However, an example was provided of a MRF located within an industrial park where business neighbours objected to the conversion of a white goods warehouse to a „waste‟ facility due to perceived nuisance. The issue of local politics and the benefits and barriers it can create during the planning process was raised repeatedly during discussions. It was suggested by some delegates that the link between party politics and planning should be recognised and that the electorate‟s perception influences elected members (who are themselves members of the public). One suggestion was that an independent advisor could be appointed to planning committees to provide advice. Cost of objections and appeals was also raised and it was suggested by a small number of delegates that the cost to the tax payer of planning appeal defences should be highlighted to provide a greater understanding of how costly the process can potentially be. The ESA report „No Time to Waste: Planning Reform for Sustainable Waste Infrastructure‟64 identified a trend in “planning by appeal” amongst larger waste infrastructure projects. 62

http://www.defra.gov.uk/publications/files/pb13540-waste-policy-review110614.pdf

63 http://www.esauk.org/reports_press_releases/esa_reports/No_Time_to_Waste.pdf

64 “No Time to Waste: Planning Reform for Sustainable Waste Infrastructure’

http://www.esauk.org/reports_press_releases/esa_reports/No_Time_to_Waste.pdf





53

Projects can be appealed or called in for numerous reasons which reflect the wide range of barriers and their interrelationships tackled by this report. Some of the most common reasons for the calling in of large energy from waste projects have been the inappropriate scale of the facility, perceived to be too large to treat proximately arising waste. On this point there was much debate amongst delegates concerning overcapacity and whether the South East actually needs any additional residual waste treatment capacity. It was felt that additional capacity could be secured from existing facilities where of the contracted quantity of MSW is falling. This, together with the (purported short term) export market may mean that no additional capacity will be required, at least in the short term. Recent news reports have highlighted EfW facilities in other parts of the UK are increasing their reliance on commercial waste and greater catchment areas to operate at optimum capacity.65 It should be noted that during the development of this report, news emerged of recent successful examples of the planning application process for waste facilities. In fact, the proportion of applications refused or withdrawn fell from 25% in 2010 to 18% in 201166. Recycling infrastructure applications were the majority of those approved by planners as well as many consents granted to anaerobic digestion facilities. Overall, the barriers posed by the planning system have shown evidence of diminution, although this does not indicate that they have been overcome.

Provision of accurate data and information Many waste contractors and developers amongst the delegates were of the opinion that merchant facilities faced greater barriers to progressing through the planning process due to planning authority boundary issues. The movement of commercial waste is not restricted to local authority boundaries and the increase in landfill tax and fluctuations in market prices for recyclates has meant that it can be more economically viable to travel greater distances for treatment, including across local authority planning borders. Delegates highlighted the need to ensure that good quality data on commercial and industrial( C&I) waste is gathered in order that planners can access accurate information and importantly understand trends. There is also a need to standardise the procedures and formats for the way waste is recorded to ensure consistency. Predicting trends and assessing local need can be difficult and create barriers when attempting to plan, scale and locate suitable waste facilities. Points raised by delegates were similar to the barriers identified in a number of other studies. Despite the existence of surveys such as the Defra commercial and industrial waste survey, the Planning Advisory Service67 has stated: “Getting hold of up to date and robust commercial and industrial data on what waste is likely to be produced - both in terms of quantity and type - is a big challenge for waste planners. This makes it difficult to ensure that all capacity is identified and planned for.” They go on to state that data is:

Out of date;

Difficult to apply at a local level;

65

http://www.letsrecycle.com/news/latest-news/waste-management/veolia-seeks-variation-to-sheffield-efw-permit

66 http://www.edie.net/news/news_story.asp?id=22229&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=alledie&utm_source=twitterfeed 67

http://www.pas.gov.uk/pas/core/page.do?pageId=119116

http://www.letsrecycle.com/news/latest-news/waste-management/veolia-seeks-variation-to-sheffield-efw-permit

http://www.edie.net/news/news_story.asp?id=22229&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=alledie&utm_source=twitterfeed

http://www.pas.gov.uk/pas/core/page.do?pageId=119116


54

Variable in how waste is defined and categorised; and

Of questionable thoroughness. Planning for the type, size and location of facilities against this backdrop is a major challenge for all involved in new infrastructure projects. The Government‟s National Infrastructure Plan (2011) committed industry to share commercial and industrial waste data with Defra from 201468. After this date, assessing the need for additional business waste infrastructure will become easier. In return, the responsibility deal promises to reduce the time needed to determine planning applications for the sector. The Government Review of Waste Policy in England 201169 identified a lack of information on waste technologies and the poor quality of waste data as a barrier to delivering the right waste infrastructure. Whilst data on local authority waste and the amount of waste landfilled is robust, the data available for business waste is not of the same quality. Businesses are not required by law to report the quantity and composition of waste they produce and this combined with commercial sensitivity, the additional expense of providing weighing and recording equipment, the potential burden on industry to collect data and a lack of understanding by some businesses as to the valuable nature of waste data (both to their organisation and the wider industry) results in incomplete and poor quality data. Commercial sensitivity and a potential burden on businesses was highlighted by some delegates as a potential barrier to gaining quality data on business waste arisings. It was noted that WRAP has been making positive progress via voluntary agreements such as the Hospitality and Food Service Agreement70, which is encouraging businesses to collect baseline data on waste arisings. Although data collected is commercially confidential it is helping to inform thinking on how much waste infrastructure capacity it required for different material streams. Data is collected by the Environment Agency from all permitted waste facilities. While there are limitations with this data, it is possible to compare the tonnage of waste accepted at sites in the region with their permitted capacity, offering an insight into the capacity gap in the region. The electronic duty of care (edoc) programme should help to solve some of these issues by improving the quality of data for businesses and regulatory users and was highlighted by delegates as a positive step (see box below).

68

HM Treasury (2011) “National Infrastructure Plan”

69 http://www.defra.gov.uk/publications/files/pb13540-waste-policy-review110614.pdf

70 http://www.wrap.org.uk/content/hospitality-and-food-service-agreement-3


http://www.wrap.org.uk/content/hospitality-and-food-service-agreement-3


55

Box 8: Electronic Duty of Care (edoc)

Electronic Duty of Care – improving data capture and quality

The electronic duty of care programme will deliver an online waste tracking system to enable

monitoring of waste flows throughout the UK, replacing the current system of paper based waste

transfer notes. Edoc (www.environment-agency.gov.uk/edoc) will comprise a national database with a

website for users to upload data and a software interface for third party systems.

The system will replace the current paper based system, remove the need to archive paper storage

and improve the quality of waste information for businesses and regulatory users.

For waste producers, edoc will improve data capture and quality, provide real time data on waste

movements including mapping, run reports to audit compliance and reduce administrative costs.

For waste management companies, edoc will serve the needs of customers, reduce administrative

costs and enhance reputation and image.

For regulators and Government, edoc will improve the quality of duty of care information, provide an

alternative solution to waste surveys and improve compliance and responsibility.

The edoc programme will deliver the online system, training and communications activities throughout

the UK and Europe between January 2011 and December 2014. The programme is being led by the

Environment Agency in partnership with CIWM, CRL, WRAP, Northern Ireland Environment Agency

and the Welsh Government.


The provision of training was a potential solution raised by many delegates. It was felt that training both for planning officers on new technologies and advances in waste management and for developers (particularly for smaller organisations) on planning and permitting processes would be very beneficial. The waste management industry is fast moving and it can be difficult to keep up to date. A number of different actors could be involved in the training process including CIWM, RTPI, ESA and independent training providers. A lack of waste planners (planners specifically trained in waste issues) was also highlighted as a barrier with suggestions that specialising in this area should be encouraged by industry bodies. The issues that smaller developers face were highlighted by some delegates and it was suggested that access to pre-application assistance and support may be beneficial. Some delegates suggested that help was available but that there was a lack of awareness. The planning process can be a costly and time consuming for many developers and delegates considered that this deters SMEs that are interested in upgrading their current processes (e.g.from a transfer station to a small MRF for example). The ESA suggested that Permitted Development Rights (PDR) which cover small developments on a site with existing consent, should be extended to cover most upgrades and developments which are minor and do not have an impact beyond the site boundary such as weighbridges, wheel washers, storage containers, hardstanding, drainage and fences. Some local authorities allow these to be covered by PDR but not all and the approach across the country needs to be consistent to encourage operators to improve their on-site services. Delegates felt that SMEs needed greater support to understand what was and wasn‟t possible within their local area. WRAP‟s new Energy from Waste Development Guidance provides practical information for businesses looking to develop smaller-scale EfW facilities for residual waste. The guide contains chapters on planning and permitting and provides an easy to understand overview of the process along with signposts for additional help (Box 9).

http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/edoc


56

Box 9: Energy from Waste Development Guidance - WRAP

WRAP‟s new Energy from Waste Development Guidance provides practical information for businesses looking to develop smaller-scale EfW facilities as a waste treatment option, where opportunities for waste prevention, re-use or recycling of residual waste aren‟t possible. The guidance is available online or as a downloadable pdf and contains the following chapters:

Funding - An introduction to a selection of options to assist in the financing of a facility.

Feasibility and Good Practice - This chapter covers the areas of business case development, site selection, technology options and due diligence.

Planning - This guidance focuses on EfW planning proposals determined under the Town and Country Planning regime to help you develop a realistic project programme.

Environmental Permitting Regulations - An explanation of the 2010 regulations and how they relate to a potential EfW facility.

Feedstock - An analysis of the variables and properties of waste derived fuel materials and how they can influence the type of processing technology chosen.

Outputs - A review of the various products which can be expected as a result of waste derived fuel usage.

Financial Incentives - An overview of the government's incentive payment systems, including the Renewables Obligation Certificate (ROC), Renewable Heat Incentive (RHI) and Renewable Transport Fuels Obligation (RTFO) regime.

Waste Incineration Directive - Guidance on the requirements of the Waste Incineration Directive and the implications for waste wood and small scale EfW projects.

http://www.wrap.org.uk/node/10693

Community benefit

The benefits of schemes to industrial neighbours or local residents should be recognised and communicated. It was felt by many delegates that the community infrastructure levy would have a strong role to play and that it could be utilised to deliver community benefit. Others considered there to be a problem in that the expense could potentially render a waste project unviable. Some delegates suggested that local authorities should be encouraged to identify appropriate sites for development and that there should be a link with local plans so that any off take products such as heat can be utilised (e.g. provision of heat to new developments) and that transport needs are taken into consideration. Access to local utilities could also be highlighted so that connection options can be assessed by developers (connection to the grid at a reasonable price and within a reasonable timeframe has been highlighted as a developer barrier). An eco park approach was identified by many delegates as a good example of how additional community benefit could be delivered to the local business community as well as

http://www.wrap.org.uk/node/10693


57

residents. The Mayor of London supports this planning approach and encourages the clustering of businesses to create areas of sectoral strength, partnership working and innovation.

Box 10: Mayor of London support for waste infrastructure

Mayor of London support for waste infrastructure

Supporting new waste infrastructure is one of the four main policies in the Mayor of London‟s business

waste strategy71. One of the main proposals within the strategy is to facilitate the delivery of waste

infrastructure through the strategic planning process. The main action is to promote clustering of

businesses involved in the waste and low carbon sectors to create areas of sectoral strength and

opportunities for innovation and partnership working. The strategy outlines that the capital now has a

range of emerging geographical clusters specialising in waste and other low-carbon industries

including the Green Enterprise District and Sustainable Industries Park72

. Not only do these areas

provide an opportunity to support the development of waste infrastructure in its own right but they are

an ideal place for the clustering of other facilities in this sector, leading to the development of

integrated resource-recovery parks.

The Mayor‟s London Plan73

identifies 33 Opportunity Area Planning Frameworks (OAPF). The aim is

that they set out and facilitate strategic, cross-borough opportunities for development including those

for waste management. The strategy states that the OAPFs allow for a greater degree of planning and

co-ordination than would otherwise be realised if an area was developed on a site-by-site basis. This

provides an opportunity to integrate waste and decentralised energy infrastructure with

complementary light industrial activities.

The Mayor will ensure that waste treatment opportunities are fully considered for these areas with a

view to establishing green industry parks and district heating opportunities throughout London. As

such, developments in these strategic areas should facilitate a quicker and more positive planning

outcome for waste related infrastructure.

Land and Location

A large amount of business waste in the South East arises from micro businesses located in urban areas. These areas are characterised by limited space, negative perceptions of the public and high value land. As a result, much waste infrastructure is developed away from urban sites where there is more available land, fewer inhabitants (and therefore less opposition) and markets for some waste processing products such as compost and digestate. Such locations necessitate a suitable transport network to service the facility and off-take options for products like generated heat can be limited. Land availability in London and land costs in the South East can create barriers to successful strategic planning of waste facilities and barriers to the development of small-scale facilities where economies of scale may not be realised. Development on existing or historic waste infrastructure land or on other brownfield land is encouraged where suitable. Waste projects which are often the most successful in achieving planning applications quickly are those which rebuild on a site of a decommissioned facility or existing industrial usage. Better use of existing waste infrastructure land and brownfield sites is one approach to overcoming potential planning barriers.

71

Making Business Sense Of Waste The Mayor’s Business Waste Strategy For London, November 2011

72 http://www.londonsip.com/

73 http://www.london.gov.uk/priorities/planning/londonplan

http://www.londonsip.com/

http://www.london.gov.uk/priorities/planning/londonplan


58

The Associate Parliamentary Sustainable Resource Group (APSRG) argues that if waste processing were classed as “industrial use” in the planning system, it would be easier for real estate investors, landowners and developers to invest in waste infrastructure74. Delegates highlighted that although land constraints were heightened in the South East, there are examples of merchant facilities being built and as long as the economics were favourable infrastructure development would not be prevented. Many delegates also noted that land use planning for waste had been significantly affected by the abolition of Regional Development Agencies, and thus the regional planning tier. Much waste infrastructure is too small to influence the national scale but too big to be considered a purely local solution.

Leadership – consistency of policy and messaging Consistent messaging and joined up policy from the key departments within central Government is essential and was raised by the majority of delegates. Changes to the planning system can have tangible impacts on developers and local authorities alike. Local Decision Making

There was much debate about the benefits of local versus national decision making for small and large facilities it was generally felt that the current 50MW ceiling (the criteria above which planning decisions are made on a national scale)75 was correct but that this should be reviewed in the future should particular types of facility be struggling to gain planning at the local level. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)76 published in March 2012 makes Local Plans developed through extensive community engagement a keystone of the new planning system. Local Plans should be developed in conjunction with neighbouring authorities to address any identified infrastructure capacity gaps whilst accounting for nationally significant infrastructure in the area. Decentralised energy and renewable heat generation is prioritised at present, whilst waste management infrastructure will not be addressed until 2013. Many delegates felt that local development plans were largely outdated and, echoing the thoughts of the ESA,77 felt that they did not address the need for modern facilities. It was suggested that some awareness raising was needed to encourage local authorities to revisit their plans, potentially with support provided (training and capacity building) to enable them to understand recent changes within waste management. The Localism Bill, which was given Royal Assent to become an Act at the start of 2012, will shift power from central Government back into the hands of individuals decentralising power as far as possible. Its implementation is likely to pose a number of risks to the delivery of waste infrastructure. The ESA suggest that planning for waste management facilities which treat waste across local authority boundaries will be more difficult as plans will need to address local waste requirements. This risks the duplication of effort and potentially capacity between neighbouring authorities. This may be countered by the requirement for cooperation placed on authorities by the NPPF.

74

Letsrecycle.com (06.09.2011) “’Action needed now’ to secure waste plant investment” http://www.letsrecycle.com/news/latest-

news/waste-management/2018action-needed-now2019-to-secure-waste-plant-investment

75 http://infrastructure.planningportal.gov.uk/

76 https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/6077/2116950.pdf

77 ESA (2011) “No Time to Waste: Planning Reform for Sustainable Waste Infrastructure’




http://infrastructure.planningportal.gov.uk/

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/6077/2116950.pdf



59

There has been suggestions that the localism agenda itself is undermined by the centralised decision making over the largest facilities by the IPC, as reported in The Times on the 9th April 2012. This article argued that “hundreds of incinerators” would “replace” landfill” despite local opposition. Such popularist interpretations of planning policy can further exacerbate the conflict between local concerns and nationally significant infrastructure. Local referenda proposed under the Localism Act may also exacerbate the challenges to effective stakeholder consultation for waste facility planning applications. Communities should be involved earlier when discussing options for waste management infrastructure, rather than only during the application process when stakeholders have been known to interpret their choice as between the proposed facility or none at all. Local referenda are likely to increase the length of the planning determination process beyond the 12 months recommended by the Government. Policy and Regulatory Uncertainty

The Government has not set out its approach to waste infrastructure in the new NPPF guidance. The guidance has been delayed until the publication of the new National Waste Management Plan scheduled for the end of 2013. With no certainty of direction expected from the Government in the short term, waste infrastructure falls through a policy gap which will ultimately reduce the confidence of developers and investors leaving decisions to local planning authorities and the appeal process. Many delegates raised the issue that there is little coordination between waste and energy policy. Waste plans need to be designed with coherent objectives and in co-ordination with energy plans so that opportunities can be identified for heat and electricity off-take. With the dissolution of regional development agencies, waste planning has often fallen through the gaps of policy tiers. Again, it was suggested that training and capacity building for local authority officers would help to raise awareness of the issues the industry is currently facing.

Partnership working Partnership working was a strong theme amongst delegates and suggestions for improving planning included waste plans being produced on a regional basis so that economies of scale can be considered when developing facilities and that neighbouring plants in other local authority areas can be noted. It was also suggested that waste functions could merge on a county level to provide holistic, multi-functional, cross-boundary approach.

It was also suggested that there may be the potential to form or enhance regional planning liaison groups on waste so that information can be shared and best practice discussed. This would be led by local authorities. These groups could also interact with equivalent waste management groups to increase understanding and knowledge sharing. An example provided of such a group is the South East Waste Planning Advisory Group (SEWPAG).


60

SEWPAG is the grouping of waste planning officers and advisors which exists to help waste planning authorities in the area to fulfil the Duty to Cooperate on strategic issues enshrined in the Localism Bill and give effect to the Government‟s stated intention to place the responsibilities of the former Regional Technical Advisory Bodies with local authority groupings enabling waste planning authorities to carry out their individual responsibilities more effectively. This suggestion of partnership working also extended to the permitting system. The link between the planning and permitting system should be recognised so that a collaborative approach can be undertaken across administrative borders. This will also have the benefit of cutting down potential duplication between the systems. The Confederation of British Industry (CBI) has highlighted a number of solutions which could improve the efficiency and fairness of the major infrastructure planning framework78. The solutions are in harmony with suggestions made by the delegates Although these do not directly address the concerns of the waste management industry (namely that the Infrastructure Planning Commission (IPC) thresholds are too high for most waste projects that in theory should be decided at the national level79), they do suggest improvements which can benefit applicants in the longer term. As an example, the CBI emphasised the need for transparency and publishing early stage conversations between developers and the IPC so as to reduce the unpredictability of the planners‟ reactions to prospective applicants. The CBI suggests that the relationship between planners and developers needs to be more iterative, planners should provide more advice and developers should input into the training of new planners. The CBI also calls for the system to be more flexible and allow for alternative proposals and changes, especially when during long planning processes external factors such as markets may change.

Systems thinking When planning for any new business developments, delegates suggested that local authorities should strongly communicate the need for them to allow sufficient space for waste and recycling storage so they can become more resource efficient. Guidance is being provided but there is a lack of consistency in the advice given. Forward planning would allow a greater flow of recyclates for treatment and delegates highlighted the importance considering whole system to ensure that the treatment process and capacity meets the requirements of business waste producers and collectors.

Key Solution Themes General consensus from delegates was that facilities are getting through the planning process but it‟s taking too long and costing too much. Solutions should focus on greater partnership working and streamlining the process.

78

CBI (2012) “Minor measures, major results: Fine-tuning the major infrastructure planning system”

http://www.cbi.org.uk/media/1342433/minor_measures_major_results_-

_fine_tuning_the_major_infrastructure_planning_system.pdf

79 It should be noted that IPC had approved one waste processing project, the Covanta Rookery Pit EfW at 580,000 tonnes

http://www.cbi.org.uk/media/1342433/minor_measures_major_results_-_fine_tuning_the_major_infrastructure_planning_system.pdf

http://www.cbi.org.uk/media/1342433/minor_measures_major_results_-_fine_tuning_the_major_infrastructure_planning_system.pdf


61

The key solution themes coming from the workshop discussion on planning include:

Effective communications - greater discussion between all stakeholders in the planning system to raise awareness of issues and perspectives.

Provision of accurate data and information - that waste data is accurately gathered on C&I waste in order that planners can access accurate information and importantly understand trends. There is also a need to standardise the procedures and formats for the way waste is recorded to ensure consistency.

Training and capacity building - both for planning officers on new technologies and advances in waste management and for developers (particularly for smaller organisations) on planning and permitting processes.

Community benefit - local benefits must be considered and communicated and that schemes that benefit either industrial neighbours or local residents should be publicised further.

Leadership – consistency of policy and messaging - Consistent messaging and joined up policy from the key departments within central government.

Partnership working – working closely with all stakeholders to engage effectively and developing relationships with stakeholders; and

Systems thinking – encouraging businesses to plan for recycling and dedicate capacity for storage to ensure feedstock is available for infrastructure.


62

Public Perception Historically, the development of new waste treatment facilities of any kind has been a contentious issue with local residents and other stakeholder groups. With the added pressure of limited time and mounting costs, developers and their service partners will wish to avoid lengthy planning appeals. This means that consulting with local residents, businesses and other key stakeholders is now more important than ever before. The waste management industry must engage with the public, raise awareness of the need for new facilities and get them involved in waste management decision making as soon as possible. To do this it is crucial to understand community concerns and the real and perceived barriers these represent. Workshop delegates discussed why early and comprehensive public consultation and engagement are essential to the future of successful business waste infrastructure delivery and what barriers still remain.

Figure 14: Images of public protests against waste infrastructure

Public Perception of Waste Infrastructure – overcoming the barriers

The workshop discussions identified the following points that were felt could help to overcome public perception barriers.

Effective communications Effective communications were seen as a top priority by delegates. Early and transparent communication between all stakeholders on matters including health issues, transport and environmental impact is fundamental to addressing misconceptions and managing any opposition to the development of a new waste facility. This helps to inform the public and alleviate fears that may surface, build confidence in and encourage acceptance of a new waste facility. It is important that engagement and consultation is well managed to avoid opposition due to contradictory or confusing statements. Public attitude to the development of new facilities was cited by 65% of waste professionals as a reason for the shortfall in waste treatment infrastructure in the UK.80 This was endorsed by delegates at the workshop.

80

Helen Amos (February 2011) “The Great Waste Survey 2010”, CIWM Magazine


63

Whilst there is public acceptance of the need to treat our waste they often oppose the development of facilities nearby. A survey by GfK NOP Ltd on behalf of Waste Awareness Wales identified that “a longstanding issue remains that while the public understand the need for waste management infrastructure, they are generally still not keen on having it in their backyard.”81 It was felt that often the public only participate in the planning process when sites are identified and frequently have a ”Not in My Back Yard” (“NIMBY”) attitude due to real and perceived impacts on local property values and increased local transport. The positive benefits of a new waste facility in creating local jobs, resource recovery and the community benefit of potential local heat and energy supply should be promoted both by developers and local authorities. Economic regeneration should be highlighted to local businesses and communities where a development will provide tangible benefits to the local area. Myth busting was raised several times and it was felt that this was a role for the developer/operator but also there was a role in myth busting for several other industry stakeholders including CIWM, ESA, Environment Agency, WRAP and central Government. The importance of consistent messages was highlighted. The language used to communicate with residents was discussed with mixed opinions about whether changing the language we use to describe waste facilities would be effective, for example, the change from waste/rubbish to resource. It was felt that the terminology used when communicating with the public should be something that‟s easy to understand and commonly used.

Provision of accurate data and information Health impacts

In order to inform waste facility operators, planning departments, regulators and members of the public, it is essential that gaps in data and research relating to the health impacts of waste management facilities are addressed through robust research. Health concerns often feature heavily amid public opinion. One problem when addressing public concerns regarding the health impacts of waste facilities is that available research is not always definitive, leaving room for a potential challenge and/or increase in concern that there might be a health risk. This assertion by delegates is backed up by the findings of a review published by Defra82 on the Environmental and Health Effects of Waste Management: Municipal Solid Waste and Similar Wastes. The review aimed to bring together the literature and evidence on the health and environmental effects of all waste management options, relative to each other and to other activities affecting health and the environment. The review recognised that it was limited by availability of evidence, so some areas of the science were analysed in more depth than others. Consequently there were gaps and uncertainties in the evidence base. Particular areas where information was found to be lacking and the science uncertain included releases to soil and water from composting and other forms of waste management like mechanical biological treatment or anaerobic digestion.

81

Material Matters (2010) ”Public Attitudes to waste”, pp.11

82 http://www.defra.gov.uk/publications/files/pb9052a-health-report-040325.pdf

82

http://www.defra.gov.uk/publications/files/pb9052a-health-report-040325.pdf

http://www.defra.gov.uk/publications/files/pb9052a-health-report-040325.pdf


64

In conclusion, the review published by Defra recognised that in order to reduce or remove these uncertainties and to fill gaps in current literature there is a need to undertake further research. Where a report states there could be a specific health impact from a waste technology, another report or opinion can often be found to oppose the finding. Delegates highlighted that there are some good examples of operators that provide transparent and easily accessible information to the public on air emissions and operations and that this should be encouraged where possible. A case study from the Viridor-Grundon Lakeside EfW was highlighted during one of the workshops (Box 11) and delegates welcomed the open approach.

Technology types

Misinformation on technology and operations was raised as an issue as local media can often print inaccurate material. A possible solution would be the provision of standard information on technology types that could be accessible to everyone. Information should be in varying levels of technical detail so that it would be accessible to all. There is a wealth of information available on technology types but given the number of providers and evolution of technologies it may be difficult to provide in great detail but an overview of technologies should be possible. This information has previously been available through Defra‟s New Technologies Demonstrator Programme83, which ended in 2009 but would need to be updated (if this route is chosen). Information is also available on the WRAP website (in various places covering some of the technologies) but is was felt that there needs to be one infrastructure portal that contains an overview of all the technologies and that this would be best delivered by either Defra or WRAP, with inputs from, or signposts to other organisations such as the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) and Environment Agency. Case study examples were highlighted as an effective tool for engaging local stakeholders. Traffic issues were flagged as a stakeholder concern and it was felt that (as with all nuisances) information on the impacts of a new facility to a local area should be clearly communicated.

Box 11: Public perception of waste infrastructure

Viridor-Grundon - Supporting public understanding of waste infrastructure

Lakeside EfW Ltd in Berkshire is a joint venture with Grundon and Viridor. The plant cost £160M to

build. It can treat 410,000 tonnes of residual waste per year, generating 37MW.

Viridor-Grundon mitigated investment risk by privately funding the plant. The plant is designed to

capture and filter atmospheric emissions to meet and exceed the requirements of the Waste

Incineration Directive (WID). Abatement methods include lime, activated carbon and bag filters. Like

every EfW, the plant is regulated stringently by the Environment Agency and emissions are monitored

continuously. Plant shutdown will occur if limit values are exceeded for more than four hours,

equipment is faulty, or the plant operates abnormally for more than 60 hours.

Although these procedures are robust and ensure safe emission levels, they can be difficult to

communicate to members of the public. To overcome this obstacle, Viridor-Grundon used an insightful

consultation approach. The annual projected plant emissions were presented graphically, compared to

annual emissions of the local stretch of motorway.

This put EfW emissions, perceived harmful, into the context of vehicle emissions which are perceived

as much more commonplace. This allowed the public to put the plant into perspective and consider

the valuable benefits it would bring to their community, such as the provision of an additional 46 jobs.

83

http://archive.defra.gov.uk/environment/waste/residual/newtech/index.htm

http://archive.defra.gov.uk/environment/waste/residual/newtech/index.htm


65

Viridor-Grundon - Supporting public understanding of waste infrastructure

Annual Emissions of Lakeside EfW and the Surrey section of the M25


Raising awareness of the importance of effective stakeholder communication and consultation together with advice to the industry on would assist in overcoming the public perception barrier to the development of business waste infrastructure. It was felt that guidance should be made available (or developed) to would assist anyone involved in the development of a facility to consult and engage more effectively with all stakeholders from residents and local businesses to the media. Guidance would be particularly beneficial to smaller organisations that don‟t necessarily have the required communications expertise in-house. A good example of this is detailed within Box 12 below. It was felt that central and local government had a role in encouraging developers to consult and engage beyond any statutory levels and that DCLG in particular could play a part in this by highlighting the localism benefits.

Box 12: Community Engagement Toolkit

Welsh Government toolkit to support community engagement on waste infrastructure

In 2006 the Welsh Government commissioned a toolkit designed to help those in charge of waste management in all the authorities in Wales to successfully engage with the public. They recognised that extended and open dialogue with key stakeholders and local community groups would be necessary for delivering the number and type of facilities required. They knew that all waste management facilities would be controversial and unpopular with the public and that would heighten the need for effective engagement. Although designed to support local authorities, the toolkit addresses waste infrastructure development as a whole and has been downloaded by waste management contractors and third sector organisations.


66

Welsh Government toolkit to support community engagement on waste infrastructure

The toolkit comprises a guide to consultation and engagement with information such as indicative timings and costs for running engagement campaigns, along with detailed fact sheets and images of all types of waste treatment technologies that can be provided to the public to help explain these issues and help to demystify the subject.

Community engagment overview In 2009 the Welsh Government also commissioned a training programme to support the use of the toolkit. The training was delivered to officers and elected members at all Welsh Local Authorities as it was noted that local authorities that were not actively procuring infrastructure could also have merchant facilities being built within their area.The toolkit can be downloaded from the Waste Awareness Wales website: www.wasteawarenesswales.org.uk A recent review found that of the 12 local authorities who have been using the toolkit, 4 had used it or were intending on using it specifically for awareness raising activities surrounding the introduction of new waste infrastructure.

41% of Local Authorities in Wales were planning on using the Community Engagement Toolkit over the next 24 months aligned with new infrastructure delivery. Many local authorities were planning on using the toolkit not only for waste infrastructure projects but also for general recycling and waste collection campaigns.

Community benefit

Infrastructure development can be seen to directly impact the local community, particularly where waste and materials are being received from neighbouring areas or counties (as can often be the case with a merchant facility). A lack of benefit to the local community or local businesses may be raised as an issue and can be amplified if local perception of the proposed facility is that it will be disposing of other peoples „waste‟ rather than treating resource. Delegates cited commonly raised concerns about local impacts such as nuisance, litter, noise, odour, pests and impact on local road networks. Local politics was also highlighted as having strong role to play both in opposition of council opinion („decisions have been made behind closed doors‟, „they‟ve chosen the wrong technology‟ etc.) or in support of council opinion against a proposed merchant facility for example.

http://www.wasteawarenesswales.org.uk/


67

Many delegates felt that if local stakeholders thought that a facility could provide a community benefit that they would be more receptive to development. An example was provided of compensation schemes that operate in America for residents that are local to facilities. There were however mixed feelings about whether a financial payment would be appropriate. many examples of waste facilities that provide community benefits through the generation of heat and power such as the Combined Heat and Power (CHP) facilities in Sheffield or Nottingham and the SELCHP energy from waste facility in South East London that has recently been connected to the Southwark heat network. . Where facilities of this type were due to be built many delegates felt that they There are should be „CHP ready‟ and able to connect to local heat users. This may create some public perception issues depending on where the facility is located. To maximise heat off-take the plant would need to be close to the heat user. This may be convenient on an industrial estate but may raise additional concerns if located close to a swimming pool or hospital for example. It was also felt that local benefits such as direct employment should be highlighted to stakeholders as this may increase acceptance of a facility Views were mixed on the promotion of good design for waste facilities. Whereas some delegates held the view that facilities should inspire community pride others felt that it was an additional expense to pay for a facility that would probably be located in an industrial area Developers and operators that do invest in good design should continue to highlight this and it was noted that many facilities had had community input during the design phase and that some had won awards for their design and should be promoted as best practice. Delegates felt that education rooms at facilities were always beneficial (expense permitting) and that these facilities provided the community with many benefits including a greater understanding of the site and the technology in operation.

Leadership – consistency of policy and messaging Delegates felt that central Government could do more to promote the need for new infrastructure and the positive benefits that it can provide and that consistency of messaging should be a priority. Delegates felt that central Government, WRAP and the Environment Agency should continue to raise awareness of the waste hierarchy and encourage businesses to become more resource efficient.

Partnership working The need to work in partnership with local stakeholders and not as an „us and them‟ relationship was stressed by many delegates. Suggestions provided included the use of community champions that would work closely with developer potentially as part of a local panel. It was highlighted that the third sector could have a role to play in brokering relationships with key stakeholders.


68

Key Solution Themes The key solution themes coming from the workshop discussion on public perception include:

Effective communications - the need to communicate early, and with honesty and transparency to all stakeholders (from the media to local politicians and residents). Everyone has a role in this communication;

Provision of accurate data and information - authoritative, robust and conclusive data is required and should be updated regularly and for new technologies, in particular in relation to health risks;

Training and capacity building - training/support may assist developers to engage with stakeholders more effectively and that a toolkit (similar to the community engagement toolkit) may be beneficial, along with supporting case studies;

Community benefit - local benefits must be considered and communicated and that schemes that benefit either industrial neighbours or local residents should be publicised further;

Leadership – consistency of policy and messaging - the need and benefits of waste management infrastructure should be communicated by Government, particularly the need for further recycling, reuse and reprocessing infrastructure; and

Partnership working – working closely with all stakeholders to engage effectively and developing relationships with stakeholders.


69

Summary

Barriers to Waste Infrastructure Development – how do we overcome them?

To succeed in diverting business waste away from landfill in the South East of England, a range of waste reprocessing and treatment infrastructure is required to reflect the range of commercial and industrial wastes arising. The relative impact of each barrier to developing this infrastructure will be unique for each facility, although there are common barriers across all facilities regardless of their type, size and location. Future business waste infrastructure in the South East will need to be responsive to changing waste streams (types and composition) and quantities. The types of facilities developed will need to be flexible, take advantage of new innovations and technologies, be of varying sizes, be in the right location, and importantly gain public acceptance. Barriers to waste infrastructure development can be interlinked in a complex manner and, similarly, methods to overcome the barriers can be equally interlinked. Themes such as the provision of robust data, comprehensive stakeholder engagement, improved partnership working and the need to view waste by type (content or composition) rather than source, run throughout the discussion of all barriers and are identified in the solutions. These are issues which impact the successful delivery of waste infrastructure of all scales and technologies. Potential Solutions Identified

From all of the feedback gained we believe that there are a number of priority areas for action, these are detailed within Table 4below. Addressing these areas should have the benefit of unlocking several blockages within the delivery process. More solutions have been provided within the body of the report than are listed within this table but these are the priority ones in terms of both short term and significant improvement. Primary actors have been identified that could have a role in pushing forward each of the action areas. Suggestions have also been made about how these actions could be delivered. The suggestions were provided by workshop attendees and highlight activities that may already be taking place (edoc for example) and activities that would be beneficial in the future. We have tried to identify simple approaches and activities that are deliverable, can be monitored and where stakeholders can buy into the process with ease as we all take an active role in promoting change. Changes in regulation, to the planning system and finance delivery may not happen quickly but there are tangible actions that our sector can implement to help make the delivery of business waste infrastructure as smooth as possible for all involved.


70

Table 4: Priority areas for action


solutions?


beneficiaries -


solution

How could this be

delivered?

Secondary Actors and

beneficiaries

Effective Communication Encouraging dialogue

between all stakeholders

to understand individual

needs and approaches

Opportunities for different facets

of the industry to come together

will help to create understanding

and access to potential

opportunities, finance and

solutions

Professional bodies such

as CIWM, ESA, REA,

Resource association etc.

Local and national

Government bodies

including WRAP,

Environment Agency,

DEFRA, DECC, DCLG,

BIS, Local Authorities etc.


Specific industry meetings

and events

Strategic engagement

Investors

Developers

Planners

Raising awareness of the

need for infrastructure,

the need for businesses

to „do the right thing‟ and

the many benefits that

waste infrastructure can

bring

Positive information about the

need for and business/community

benefit that infrastructure can

provide will help to encourage

both waste minimisation, reuse

and recycling and an acceptance

and/or understanding of why

infrastructure may need to be

built „locally‟

DEFRA, DECC, DCLG,

BIS etc.

Local Authorities

WRAP

Environment Agency


Awareness raising

Consistent messaging

and support for

infrastructure

development

General resource

efficiency support

Consultation and

engagement guidance

Local communities

Local businesses

Developers

Waste contractors

Provision of accurate data

and information

Availability of more

accurate data on business

waste arisings and an

approach to the better

sharing of data

Robust accurate data and

qualified information will support

business case development and

enhance investor and decision

maker confidence

EA, WRAP, DEFRA,

DECC, BIS

Businesses

Waste contractors


Local Authorities

edoc

Voluntary agreements

Local Authorities

Waste planners

Investors

Developers


71


solutions?


beneficiaries -


solution

How could this be

delivered?


beneficiaries

Availability of up to date

case study information on

new and developing

technologies as well as

deliverability issues

Case study information will help

to demonstrate that a technology

is „proven‟ and better data on

waste arisings will assist with

selection of site location, scale

and type of technology required.

Environment Agency,

WRAP, DEFRA, DECC,

BIS

ISWA

Waste contractors


Case studies and

technology databases

Information transfer from

other countries

Investors

Developers

Training and capacity

building

See table below

Community benefit Highlighting local

community benefits such

as job creation and

access to heat and power.

Communicating the potential

benefits of a new facility to all

stakeholders will help acceptance

of the facility and will also

highlight the need for resource

efficiency

DEFRA, DECC, DCLG,

BIS etc. WRAP


Local Authorities


Consistent messaging on

general benefits

Local messaging on

specific benefits

Investors

Developers

Planners

Local communities

Local businesses

Waste contractors

Leadership - consistency

of policy and messaging

Providing confidence to

the sector through

consistency and

enhanced joint working

across government

departments on policy

and implementation

issues, in particular issues

concerning planning,

energy recovery and local

decision-making

Consistency is essential and

differing messages from different

government departments

combined with changes to

incentive schemes can increase

investor and developer risk

significantly

DEFRA, DECC, DCLG,

BIS, HM Treasury etc

Greater collaboration

across departments

Further consultation with

representatives of each

industry sector e.g.

professional bodies

Investors

Developers

Waste contractors


Developing a planning

system that encourages

the co-location of

appropriate infrastructure

(eco park concept) to

Joined up solutions on

appropriate eco park type sites

will deliver enhanced

environmental performance and

enable waste streams to be

DEFRA, DECC, DCLG,

BIS etc

Local authorities –

economic development

Strategic waste planning

which includes greater

engagement with

economic and

regeneration staff within

Local businesses

Local communities

Investors

Waste contractors


72


solutions?


beneficiaries -


solution

How could this be

delivered?


beneficiaries

deliver additional benefits

including economic

regeneration and reduced

transportation impacts

The planning system by

default isn‟t designed to

empower value added

solutions as they can be

hard to quantify and

qualify. The system must

make full use of its

existing powers to build

social inclusion and

community benefits into

decision-making

treated as resources for a number

of downstream reprocessors /

end-users on a nearby site

and regeneration,

planning and waste

management

Developers

local authorities

Awareness raising of

current eco park success

stories

Consideration of systems

rather than individual

developments

Partnership working De-risking delivery

through greater

partnership working,

particularly around

resource recovery and at

the top of the waste

hierarchy around reuse

Partnerships can increase

knowledge within a project and

can help to de-risk solutions.

The reuse sector has traditionally

been dominated by the third

sector, who may not have the

scale, funds or knowledge

available to develop the

infrastructure required

Developers

Waste contractors

Local Authorities


WRAP

Ensuring that evaluation

criteria and specifications

contain social value

clauses

Knowledge transfer and

capacity building within

third sector organisations

Local businesses

Local communities

Investors

Alternative business

models

Crowd funding for small

scale facilities and/or

working in partnership to

develop facilities.

Barriers can often lead to

innovation and the development

of alternative business models

has helped to provide funding for

smaller developers.

SMEs, Developers


Nesta, WRAP,

Technology Strategy

Board

CBI

HM Treasury

Awareness raising and

case studies

demonstrating

successfully delivered

infrastructure projects

funded (or part funded)

using crowd funding or

Investors

Local communities


73


solutions?


beneficiaries -


solution

How could this be

delivered?


beneficiaries

other alternative models

Systems thinking Investment in technology

and processes that will

help to protect the loss of

materials from our

economy

A combination of waste exports,

and current processing

technology means that we are

losing materials and the inherent

value within those materials from

our economy that may be critical

in the future. By adapting our

technologies and trying to find

solutions which mean that

materials can (where appropriate)

be processed within South East

and UK we will add value to our

economy.

DEFRA, DECC, DCLG,

BIS etc

Nesta

Technology Strategy

Board


Investors

Support for UK

investment

Support for technology

development

Partnership working

Developers

SMEs

Local Authorities

Areas for training and capacity building

The waste sector moves rapidly and it is often difficult to stay on top of the latest developments. Regular updates and training provision will help to increase knowledge and understanding and assist with the reduction of perceived risk for investors and other decision makers. The following areas were specifically identified by delegates as areas in which further support could be provided. There are currently many training providers for some of the subject areas detailed below, these range from Government organisations such as WRAP and professional bodies such as CIWM to private training providers. As such no suggestions have been made as to potential actors

Table 5: Areas for training and capacity building support

Training area Potential content Target audience

Communication and

consultation support

Effective communication is key to addressing any misconceptions and managing any opposition to the development of a

new waste facility. This helps to alleviate any fears that may surface, build confidence in and acceptance of a new waste

facility as well as help prevent any opposition from gaining widespread support.

A range of training could be provided covering issues from effective consultation and developing active communication

plans to handling local communities, key stakeholders and the media.

Training could range from toolkit development (similar to the toolkit developed for the Welsh Government) to one day

Developers and local

authorities – how to

consult local

stakeholders.


74


session(s) that would raise awareness of the need for consultation and transparent communications.

Stakeholder engagement

techniques

Stakeholder engagement and/or participatory practice are increasingly becoming a part of mainstream business practice

and central to public policy decision-making and delivery.

Training could be provided which provides information on the various techniques available to improve communications;

engage stakeholders more effectively, obtain wider community support or buy-in for projects, gather useful data and ideas

enhance public sector or corporate reputation, and provide for more sustainable decision-making.

Developers and local

authorities as well as

elected members.

Community Ownership Training within this area could provide an overview of the potential of developing community ownership of waste

infrastructure. Issues such as enabling residents in close proximity to a facility to take a genuine stake in its operation

through the development of community investment groups to represent the interest of local shareholders.

Local authorities,

developers, investors,

local communities and

businesses

Partnership working Partnership working is increasing as a strategic and operational approach to developing sustainable waste management.

This training could focus on partnership working for the management of commercial waste, and identify and characterise

a range of different types including partnerships between local authorities and between local authorities and their service

providers, including the third sector.

[The Public Services (Social Value) Act 2012 will come into force in January 2013; it requires public bodies to consider

how the services they commission and procure might improve the social, economic and environmental wellbeing of an

area. It is designed to enable more social enterprises, community groups and voluntary organisations to be able to secure

public sector contracts and to encourage partnership and innovation in service delivery. In terms of waste management

infrastructure this may encourage further partnership working particularly in the development of reuse infrastructure.]

Local authorities,

developers and

contractors, third sector

organisations

Procurement approaches/

Understanding the Market

Previous waste disposal contracts were comparatively straightforward processes; now the environment of waste

management is far more dynamic, with a wider range of services now required, and a much greater range of variables to

consider. This training could explore the needs of both the private, public and third sectors to ensure that the process can

be undertaken in an efficient and cost effective manner. It could focus on either dedicated merchant contracts or

municipal contracts which have a commercial waste element involved within them

Local authorities,

contractors and third

sector organisations

Understanding Waste

Technologies

This training would provide an overview of the various existing and new technologies available for treating commercial

and industrial waste, highlighting the social, economic and environmental benefits as well as the likely health concerns

that could potentially be raised.

Planners, investors, local

authority officers and

elected members

Identifying / mitigating

risks

This training could examine risk sharing in waste management projects. Investigating how risk and uncertainty analysis

can be applied to enhance the risk sharing in integrated waste management projects.

Investors, developers and

contractors

Business Waste Recycling

Services

Improving resource efficiency / environmental performance within SMEs. Focussing on waste prevention and reuse as a

priority.

[WRAP provide extensive support in the sector through the Business Development Services team, EPOW have also

SME Associations (Local

Chambers of Commerce);

Federation of Small

Business (FSB);


75


provided support to SMEs as part of their action on increasing green compliance and awareness] Business in the

Community (BITC)

Waste sector business

support

This training could provide an appreciation of how the waste sector operates, what the processes are (i.e. how you might

develop some infrastructure), contractual issues, permitting issues, etc. A step by step guide to developing business

waste infrastructure and writing a business case.

Capacity building - The training could focus specifically on developing a business case, which would include how to find

investment, what support is available and how to present a credible management team.

[WRAP have produced a useful guide on EfW development, this training could compliment the written guidance.

WRAP’s business development service team also provide capacity building services to SMEs, which include business

plan development.]

Local Authority officers

that provide business

support/ enterprise.

SME‟s and other

businesses.

Specific sessions on

various waste streams.

E.g. ICT, furniture, dry

recyclate, commercial

food waste, etc.)

This training could be structured so as to provide attendees with an overall appreciation of the issues associated with

developing capacity in a specific waste stream (e.g. a day‟s course on how to develop a commercial food waste collection

service and treatment infrastructure or develop an ICT processing and/or reuse facility).

Attendees would be

organisations looking to

develop waste projects or

support organisations (as

above

Third sector training There are a number of third sector organisations out there who are targeting business waste or they may be an existing

recycler focusing on one waste stream (e.g. waste from construction) but looking to expand into others (e.g. business ICT

waste). Business development training in association with FRN, Social Enterprise UK or another third sector body could

be delivered to support them develop skills and introduce them to potential customers.

Third sector , Private and

Public sector

Work placements Providing short work placements at operational sites and potentially within planning or permitting teams could provide an

insight and appreciation of the wider sector. Feedback from the placements could be disseminated to the industry.

[Some staff members from Natural England have been undertaking short work placements with developers to better

understand site issues around the habitats directive. This scheme could potentially be replicated.]

Environment Agency

staff, contractors, Local

authority officers.

This report has provided an overview of the barriers and solutions to the development and delivery of business waste and its associated systems. The barriers and solutions detailed have been based on desk based research, the forum discussions, and additional feedback from members of the waste sector. Where are the greatest risks?

Delivery risks occur at all stages of the development and delivery of infrastructure (Figure 15). The largest blockers identified have been at the start of the process during business case development. The development of a robust business case is essential to attract funding for a project. Throughout the course of the workshop events investors have provided examples where developers requiring investment have either lacked skills within their management team (eroding delivery confidence) or the plan presented has had too many uncertainties (including changes to government incentives) to manage risk effectively, making it unsuitable for investment. Data and certainty of feedstock supply and composition have been issues raised frequently by workshop attendees. Data in particular feeds into many stages within the delivery plan. Although planning may come at an earlier stage in the development process it was felt to be less of a block than is often publicised and the associated risks could be reduced with early, transparent and comprehensive engagement with stakeholders. There still remain issues with the political element of the process but it was felt that the main blocker was actually the delay and the additional cost associated with delays, appeals and the increased communication required (if there was opposition). For merchant facilities it was felt that planning issues were less of an obstacle than for municipal facilities.

Figure 15: Scale of risk occurring at stages of the infrastructure delivery process

Stakeholders attending the workshops have proposed recommendations for action to drive change in the waste infrastructure landscape of London and the South East of England.


77

These proposals now need to be digested by the sector so that actors can identify solutions that they might take forward either as an individual or an organisation. The workshops have also provided the additional benefit of encouraging dialogue between industry stakeholders providing a greater understanding of individual needs and approaches. Feedback from delegates has been positive and that this type of forum was beneficial and should be encouraged where possible.

Next steps for the sector

Since the workshop sessions were completed a number of activities have been instigated to help progress some of the solutions identified, including training activities and guidance development. This is a very positive step. A number of actors have been identified within this report that could potentially take forward a number of the solutions suggested. We hope that they embrace the opportunity to make a real difference for the benefit of the SE, the UK and the waste management and reprocessing sectors.

We suggest that the report is reviewed in due course, to assess progress made, and steps are then taken to inform future actions that will continue to build on the momentum already generated and enable the delivery of the business waste infrastructure and systems required to fulfil the needs of the South East.

Everyone has a part to play and simple actions can help the sector as a whole to move towards a more circular economy where the waste materials in the SE are put to good use in the region. The barriers identified are not insurmountable but can be reduced by working together and pooling knowledge.


78

Annex 1: Glossary Anaerobic digestion (AD) is a process where biodegradable material is encouraged to break down in the absence of oxygen, in an enclosed container. It produces carbon dioxide, methane and solids/liquors known as digestate, which can be used as fertiliser. The biogas produced can be used to generate electricity and heat to power. Autoclave is a steam treatment process which reduces the waste to a fibrous material (flock), with metals and glass partially cleaned for extraction as recyclable materials. The remaining material may be sorted and thermally treated as a type of Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF) or used as a raw material in recycling applications. Business waste is the general term used for waste collected from businesses and incorporates waste such as commercial and industrial and construction and demolition. CBI is the Confederation of British Industry Commercial and Industrial (C&I) waste is controlled waste arising from the business sector. Commercial waste is waste arising from the activities of wholesalers, catering establishments, shops and offices. Industrial waste is waste generated by factories and industrial plants. Other categories of waste arising from industrial and commercial activities include hazardous waste Construction and demolition (C&D) waste arises from construction, repair, maintenance and demolition of buildings and structures. It mostly includes brick, concrete, hardcore, subsoil, and topsoil, but it can also contain quantities of timber, metal, plastics and occasionally hazardous waste materials. Composting uses oxygen to biologically decompose waste materials in a controlled condition until it stabilizes so that it can be used as a soil improver, as an ingredient in growing media, of blended to produce other marketable products (that meet recognised industry standards). Controlled waste is any waste subject to the provisions of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 (COPA, as amended) and the Environmental Protection Act (EPA). Controlled wastes are: commercial and industrial waste (including construction and demolition waste); household waste. Agricultural and mining wastes are now classified respectively as commercial and industrial waste and are therefore controlled. (Definition valid at November 2007) Ecoparks have been defined as "a community of manufacturing and service businesses seeking enhanced environmental and economic performance through collaboration in managing environmental and resource issues including energy, water, and materials…the community of businesses seeks a collective benefit that is greater than the sum of the individual benefits each company would realise if it optimised its individual performance.”(Lowe and Warren,1996:7.8). The End of Life Vehicles (ELV) Directive aims to reduce the amount of waste produced from vehicles when they are scrapped EEF is the manufacturers' organisation for UK manufacturing companies.


79

Energy from Waste (EfW) is the conversion of waste into energy in the form of electricity and/or heat by combustion or thermal treatment Engineering, Procurement and Construction (EPC) is a common form of contracting arrangement within the construction industry. Under an EPC contract, the contractor will design the installation, procure the necessary materials and construct it, either through own labour or by subcontracting part of the work. Environmental Services Association (ESA) is a membership organisation that works to support and promote the waste and resource management industry Gross Value Added (GVA) is a key measure of economic wealth generation within a local area and is now the measure preferred by the Office for National Statistics to assess the economic health of an area. Hazardous Waste are harmful to human health, or to the environment, either immediately or over an extended period of time and defined according to properties listed in Annex III to Council Directive 91/689/EEC on hazardous waste. Land Disposal is the disposal of waste which is placed in a variety of locations such as landfill, injection well, land treatment facility, salt dome or bed formation, underground mine or cave intended for disposal purposes. It is often used for hazardous wastes that are not destroyed by incineration or other chemical processes and need to be disposed of properly. For most such wastes, land disposal is the ultimate destination. Land Recovery is defined by the Environment Agency as the application of waste onto land for improvement. Typical examples of this include the spreading of organic wastes for agricultural benefit, use of inert waste for land reclamation or improvement, or the use of inert waste for construction purposes. The South East of England. The South East region covers London and the south-east counties down to the coast, and includes the entire basin of the River Thames from its source in Gloucestershire. As well as the capital, the region has several smaller cities and large towns, such as Brighton, Southampton, Reading, Luton and Swindon. It also has large rural areas and contains most or all of the counties of Oxfordshire, Buckinghamshire, Hertfordshire, Berkshire, Surrey, Hampshire, the Isle of Wight, West and East Sussex, and Kent. Increasing population and development pressures present particular challenges for the environment in the South East. Water resources, waste water, flood risk and waste disposal are all major concerns, and climate change is increasing many of the risks that the South East faces. Mechanical Biological Treatment (MBT) is a generic term for several integrated processes commonly found in other waste management operations such as materials recovery facilities, sorting and composting plants. In its simplest form, MBT provides drying and bulk reduction for mixed waste prior to landfill. Other MBT systems are designed to treat and separate out waste for materials and/or energy recovery. Depending on the configuration, MBT plants may produce the following outputs: biogas, soil conditioners, recyclable materials and refuse derived fuel (RDF). Where outputs are designed for soil conditioning, they will be subject to regulation.


80

Merchant facilities refer to the waste management infrastructure which accepts business waste and is not linked to long-term local authority contracts. Metropolitan District Authorities (MDA) were originally part of a two-tier structure of local government, and shared power with the metropolitan county councils (MCCs). In 1986 however the metropolitan county councils were abolished, although the county areas (see map) are still recognised, especially for statistical purposes. The 36 metropolitan district councils were left as single-tier authorities; a status retained to date, and accordingly has more powers than their non-metropolitan district equivalents. Mechanical Heat Treatment (MHT) is a pre-treatment system and may use a thermal or steam-based process before the mechanical processing of solid waste into more useable fractions. A common way to treat the waste is to use an autoclave Materials Reclamation Facilities (MRF) is a facility where waste is received and mechanically or manually separated in order to recover recyclable materials, which may undergo further processing, for marketing to end-user manufacturers. (Also referred to as Materials Recovery Facilities or Materials Recycling Facilities). Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) is an overarching definition which includes waste collected by, or on behalf of local authorities which includes predominantly household waste, street waste, parks and garden waste and waste generated day to day by bodies such as schools, hospitals and businesses. It also includes waste from other sources including commercial sources, which is similar in mature and composition to the waste described above. Thermal Treatment is the combustion, gasification and pyrolysis of solids or liquids Office of National Statistics (ONS) is the executive office of the UK Statistics Authority, a non-ministerial department which reports directly to the Parliament of the United Kingdom. It is charged with the collection and publication of statistics related to the economy, population and society of the United Kingdom at national and local levels. “Pay as You Earn” (PAYE) is a UK term relating to a tax deduction for the Government made by the employer from an employee‟s earnings The Private Finance Initiative (PFI) is an important route for government spending on assets, as it transfers significant risks to the private sector. PFI requires private sector consortia to raise private finance to fund projects, which must involve investment in assets, and the long-term delivery of services to the public sector. Recycling is the collection or recovery of used materials from waste and their subsequent reprocessing into new products to prevent the discarding of potentially useful and valuable items so as to reduce our reliance on the use of raw materials Reuse is the reintroduction of waste material into the life cycle without the need for reprocessing. Residual Waste is the amount of waste left over after recycling and composting.


81

Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF) is a fuel derived by the extraction of the combustible elements from mixed municipal solid waste, after the mechanical removal of other recyclable materials and which comprises of materials such as plastic and biodegradable wastes. Renewable Heat Incentive (RHI) is a government support scheme to boost the uptake of renewable energy technology for generating heat Renewable Obligation Certificates (ROCs) are awarded to generators of electricity from eligible renewable sources) for every megawatt hour they generate. These certificates can be sold to energy suppliers along with the electricity they buy or can be traded independently. They are the UK‟s principal measure for promoting the generation of renewable electricity. SE7 is a partnership of seven councils that have committed to working together under a Memorandum of Understanding to improve the quality of services and to achieve savings. The authorities are Brighton and Hove City Council, East Sussex County Council, Hampshire County Council, Kent County Council, Medway Council, Surrey County Council & West Sussex County Council. Senior Debt takes priority over other subordinated debt; it must be repaid first in liquidation. Small and Medium Sized Enterprise (SME) is a business, according to the UK Trade & Investment Department, which meets all of the following criteria: a) has less than 250 employees; b) has an annual turnover not exceeding €50m, or an annual balance sheet total not exceeding €43m; c) is independent, i.e. not more than 25 % of its capital or voting rights are owned by one enterprise, or jointly by several enterprises, which fail to meet any of the above points a) and b), although there are some exemptions this threshold. Solid Recovered Fuel (SRF)/ Refuse Derived fuel (RDF) refers to the fuel produced as a result of processing residual waste using MBT or other shredding/drying technology. RDF is normally cruder, less homogeneous and lower in calorific value than SRF. Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) varies depending on the legal and financial agreements with stakeholders in a project. Moreover, different infrastructure projects have different structure of SPV. The SPV is usually a subsidiary company with an asset/liability structure and legal status that makes its obligations secure even if the parent company goes bankrupt. Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) is used to classify business establishments and other statistical units by the type of economic activity in which they are engaged. The classification provides a framework for the collection, tabulation, presentation and analysis of data, and its use promotes uniformity. In addition, it can be used for administrative purposes and by non-government bodies as a convenient way of classifying industrial activities into a common structure. Treatment is the physical, thermal, chemical or biological processes, including sorting, that change the characteristics of the waste in order to reduce its volume and hazardous nature, facilitate its handling or enhance recovery. Unitary Authority (UA) is a type of Local Authority which is responsible for all local government functions within its area and is a single tier Authority which has the combined responsibilities of District and County Councils including both waste collection and disposal


82

Value Added Tax (VAT) is an indirect consumption tax assessed on the value added to a product at each point in the cycle of production and distribution. It is a consumption tax because it is ultimately borne by the consumer, who pays a fixed percentage of the final sale price of a product. Waste Disposal Authority (WDA) is a Local Authority which is responsible for the treatment and final disposal of household waste after collection. In England these are the District Councils and Unitary Authorities Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Directive (WEEE Directive) aims to reduce the amount of electrical and electronic equipment being produced and to encourage everyone to reuse, recycle and recover it. The WEEE Directive also aims to improve the environmental performance of businesses that manufacture, supply, use, recycle and recover electrical and electronic equipment. Waste Transfer Station is a site to which waste is delivered for sorting prior to transfer to another place for recycling, treatment or disposal. Waste Minimisation according to European Environment Agency is the measures and or techniques that reduce the amount of wastes generated during any domestic, commercial and industrial process.


83

Appendix A: Business Statistics Table 6 below provides the percentage spread of business type between the South East (including London) and the remainder of the English regions excluding the South East. This data has been sourced from the ONS.

Table 6: Percentage spread of businesses by industry group (2011)

Broad Industry Group (UK SIC 2007 classification)

South East (%) London (%)

England excluding the

London and the South East(%)

Agriculture, forestry & fishing 2.9 0.1 6.0

Production 5.1 3.3 6.8

Construction 11.6 8.1 11.2

Motor trades 3.0 1.5 3.4

Wholesale 4.8 5.1 5.1

Retail 9.8 10.0 11.6

Transport & storage (inc. postal) 2.9 2.3 3.6

Accommodation & food services 5.8 6.1 6.4

Information & communication 8.5 10.8 4.9

Finance & insurance 2.3 3.7 2.5

Property 3.3 4.9 3.3

Professional, scientific & technical 16.3 19.9 12.2

Business administration and support

services

7.8 7.9 6.8

Public administration and defence 0.7 0.6 1.1

Education 2.6 2.1 2.7

Health 5.3 5.0 5.9

Arts, entertainment, recreation and

other services

7.4 8.4 6.6

Employment size data, again sourced from the ONS, is provided in Table 7 below.

Table 7: Employment size data for L&SE (2011)

Total number of employees

0 -

4

5 -

9

10 -

19

20 -

49

50 -

99

100 -

249

250 -

499

500 -

999

1,0

00

+

To

tal

South East

(%) 70.53 13.76 7.59 5.03 1.75 0.95 0.26 0.09 0.04 100

London

(%) 71.61 13.14 7.35 4.58 1.82 1.00 0.29 0.13 0.07 100

The European Commission defines micro, small and medium sized enterprises as having less than 10, 50 and 250 employees respectively, noting that additional enterprises can also be considered micro, small and medium based on turnover or balance sheet total. Ignoring turnover or balance sheet total, it can be seen that the South East has very few (1,500 businesses or 0.4%) medium and large size businesses and that micro businesses predominate (84.3%). Similarly, ignoring turnover or balance sheet total, London has very


84

few (1,960 businesses or 0.5%) medium and large size businesses and micro businesses predominate (84.8%).


85

Appendix B: C&I waste data Data from a survey undertaken in 2009, on behalf of Defra, looking at C&I waste arisings. The 2009 survey also looked at management of C&I waste. Data for the South East, London and other regions of England has been extracted from the Microsoft Excel tables accompanying the report and reproduced in Table 8 and


86

Table 9.

Table 8: C&I waste arisings by industry sector (South East and London) (Defra, 2009)

Industry Description

(SIC Description)

South East (Tonnes)

South East (%)

London (Tonnes)

London (%)

Food, drink &

tobacco 312,264 5.0 387,616 8.1

Textiles / wood /

paper / publishing 575,500 9.2 216,282 4.5

Power & utilities 708,342 11.3 91,405 1.9

Chemicals / non-

metallic minerals

manufacture

430,241 6.9 122,608 2.5

Metal

manufacturing 268,894 4.3 52,939 1.1

Machinery &

equipment (other

manufacture)

293,226 4.7 107,515 2.2

Retail &

wholesale 1,444,261 23.1 1,246,028 25.9

Hotels & catering 445,253 7.1 505,909 10.5

Public

administration &

social work

420,973 6.7 385,967 8.0

Education 219,172 3.5 193,626 4.0

Transport &

storage 331,932 5.3 350,458 7.3

Other services 799,636 12.8 1,149,608 23.9

Total 6,249,694 4,809,961

Data shows that retail and wholesale businesses combined generate the single largest tonnage of waste in the South East. This should be considered alongside data in Appendix A which shows that relative to other sectors, the retail sector is in the top three sectors in terms of number of enterprises in the South East. Data in


87

Table 9 and Table 10 shows that mixed wastes was the single largest waste type in the South East, the greatest constituent of which is non-metallic waste.


88

Table 9: C&I waste arisings by waste type (South East only) (2009)

Waste Description Mixed waste identified

separately (Tonnes)

Mixed waste allocated to each waste type

(Tonnes)

Animal & Vegetable Wastes 368,039 635,479

Chemical Wastes 773,751 791,836

Common Sludges 58,113 58,127

Discarded Equipment 135,661 153,641

Healthcare Wastes 315,074 319,930

Metallic Wastes 281,444 467,099

Mineral Wastes 847,635 892,463

Mixed Wastes 1,829,346* N/A

Non Metallic Wastes 1,640,630 2,930,881

Non-Wastes 1 238

Total 6,249,694 6,249,694

* This amount has been distributed across waste types and added to the segregated tonnages for each material stream in the third column.

Table 10: C&I waste arisings by waste type (London only) (2009)

Waste Description Mixed waste identified

separately Mixed waste allocated

to each waste type

Animal & Vegetable Wastes 366,701 639,130

Chemical Wastes 334,444 345,263

Common Sludges 40,742 40,757

Discarded Equipment 119,835 135,456

Healthcare Wastes 298,793 304,285

Metallic Wastes 140,075 310,143

Mineral Wastes 183,006 225,795

Mixed Wastes 1,773,452* N/A

Non Metallic Wastes 1,552,913 2,808,879

Non-Wastes 0 253

Total 4,809,961 4,809,961

* This amount has been distributed across waste types and added to the segregated tonnages for each material stream in the third column.

Table 11: C&I waste arisings by management type (South East and London compared to England as a total) (2009)

Management Type South East (Tonnes)

London (Tonnes)

All nine English Regions (Tonnes)

All English Regions

excluding South East and London

(Tonnes)

Land Disposal 1,308,117 986,367 11,279,569 8,985,086

Land Recovery 225,397 100,797 2,156,703 1,830,509

Thermal Treatment –

energy recovery 198,928 123,392 1,005,621 683,301

Thermal Treatment 288,588 252,554 1,738,645 1,197,503

Non Thermal

Treatment 312,840 234,190 2,321,383 1,774,353

Transfer Station 125,183 139,790 841,091 576,117

Recycling 2,991,035 2,260,456 22,922,668 17,671,176

Composting 86,442 84,876 705,540 534,222


89

Management Type South East (Tonnes)

London (Tonnes)

All nine English Regions (Tonnes)

All English Regions


(Tonnes)

ReUse 201,385 153,200 1,323,825 969,240

Unknown 511,779 474,337 3,722,483 2,736,367

Total 6,249,694 4,809,961 48,017,529 36,957,874

The data in Table 11 and Table 12 indicates that the C&I waste management practices undertaken in L&SE in 2009 were broadly similar to the other regions of England combined, with a greater reliance on thermal treatment and lower reliance on land disposal and recovery. The data indicates that almost half (47.9% and 47.0%) of all C&I waste in London and the South East was recycled in 2009, which is in line with the other regions of England combined (47.8%).

Table 12: C&I percentage waste arisings by management type (South East and London) (2009)

Management Type South East

(%) London

(%)

All nine English Regions

(%)

All English Regions


(%)

Land Disposal 20.9 20.5 23.5 24.3

Land Recovery 3.6 2.1 4.5 5.0

Thermal Treatment

(Energy Recovery) 3.2 2.6 2.1 1.8

Thermal Treatment 4.6 5.3 3.6 3.2

Non Thermal

Treatment 5.0 4.9 4.8 4.8

Transfer Station 2.0 2.9 1.8 1.6

Recycling 47.9 47.0 47.7 47.8

Composting 1.4 1.8 1.5 1.4

ReUse 3.2 3.2 2.8 2.6

Unknown 8.2 9.9 7.8 7.4


90

Appendix C: C&I waste capture projections As part of a waste modelling exercise84, Ricardo-AEA modelled C&I waste recycling rates and assumed capture rates; i.e. the amount of recyclable waste collected as a proportion of all recyclable materials generated (up to a maximum of 90%). Table 13 below is an extract of the model results for the South East.

Table 13: Recycling and capture rates (% by weight) modelled for C&I waste

2015 2020 2025 2030 2050

Re

cy

cli

ng

(%)

Ca

ptu

re

rate

(%

)

Re

cy

cli

ng

(%)

Ca

ptu

re

rate

(%

)

Re

cy

cli

ng

(%)

Ca

ptu

re

rate

(%

)

Re

cy

cli

ng

(%)

Ca

ptu

re

rate

(%

)

Re

cy

cli

ng

(%)

Ca

ptu

re

rate

(%

)

London 60 83 62 90 61 90 61 90 61 90

South East 60 72 64 90 64 90 64 90 63 90

The Ricardo-AEA report also identified that the South East had the highest arising of wood waste in the UK, most of which comes from C&D waste with a significant proportion from C&I streams. This data is provided in Table 14 below.

Table 14: Regional wood waste arisings (‘000 tonnes per year) in 2009

C&I C&D Municipal Total

Packaging Industrial Construction Demolition

London 123 49 181 158 23 534

South East 163 64 151 191 58 626

England 1,008 399 993 1,000 506 3,904

84

AEA (2009) Arisings and fuel potential of waste in the UK – a Report for Caterpillar (ETI)


91

Appendix D: capacity gap estimate

Future capacity gap

The following sections attempt to identify the treatment infrastructure capacity gap in the South East. Such an estimate must be subject to several caveats as the analysis of business waste is far from an exact science. The Defra 2010 C&I waste arising survey showed a dramatic decline in arisings and an increase in material sent for recycling compared to a previous Environment Agency study in 2003/04. This was beyond any projected reductions and a result of economic decline. Future business waste arisings are similarly uncertain. It is also difficult to speculate how much business waste generated in the regions is managed locally, and how much travels to other parts of the country. Therefore, the following calculation is an advised estimate which seeks to establish the order of magnitude of the problem, rather than the exact value. As described earlier, the commercial and industrial sections in the South East were landfilling circa 1 and 1.3M tonnes of waste respectively. The compound figure of 2.3M tonnes will be used for this analysis, in terms of how much C&I wastes will need to be managed by new recycling, composting and recovery infrastructure if we follow a pathway to zero landfill for C&I waste in the region. Some of this tonnage will be addressed by new facilities currently being built and commissioned, it is estimated this will provide around 0.4 MTPA of C&I waste capacity. The rest, however still needs to be designed, procured and delivered. There is currently about 1 MTPA of infrastructure in the pipeline subject to planning and financing. The actual breakdown of recycling versus residual treatment infrastructure required will depend on the trend in business waste recycling rates, and on local decisions by developers and facility operators. The need for new business waste infrastructure is clear. Waste treatment capacity

To estimate how much extra capacity is expected, it is necessary to look at facilities being built and planned or recently in operation. Ricardo-AEA is aware of the following waste treatment facilities under construction or commissioning or recently within operation in the South East. For facilities developed under large municipal waste contracts, a C&I capacity of only 20% is assumed, unless stated otherwise. For facilities planned without a municipal contract, a C&I capacity of 80% is assumed, unless otherwise noted. According to the above table, approximately 400,000 tonnes of waste treatment capacity is likely to be available to C&I waste producers in the South East once these facilities are constructed and commissioned. This is a very small fraction of the needed capacity of over 2 M tonnes described previously. Looking at all regional facilities with planning permission, some additional capacity for C&I waste can be identified. However, not all consented facilities will be delivered, and some have been in the pipeline for a long time. Delivery likelihood has been attributed to each facility by Ricardo-AEA based on the history of the project.


92

Table 15: Facilities in construction or commissioning within the South East

Facility in construction or commissioning

Permitted Capacity Known municipal

contracts Assumed C&I

capacity

East London

Sustainable Energy

Facility (ELSEF), EfW,

Biossence

98,000 Shanks East London

SRF

20%

19,600

Riverside Resource

Recovery Facility, EfW,

Cory

Now operational

585,000 average

670,000 max

Western Riverside and

City of London = 60%

40%

234,000 average

268,000 max

Newhaven, EfW, Veolia 210,000 East Sussex, Brighton

and Hove

20%

42,000

Old Kent Road MBT,

Veolia 195,500 Southwark 87,500 107,500

Horsham MBT, Biffa 327,000 West Sussex 20%

65,400

Shanks/Orgaworld AD

Westcott Venture Park 48,000

80%

38,400

Based on the Table 16, it can be estimated that an additional 740,000 tonnes of C&I capacity is likely to be delivered from Ardley, Kelmsley, Mitcham and Trumps Farm if these facilities successfully overcome the remaining barriers to delivery and provide the suggested scale of C&I capacity. Added to the currently in construction sites, this brings the total to around 1.1M tonnes of C&I residual capacity from pipeline infrastructure. An additional 1M tonnes may be available from Rookery, Tilbury Green and Sellindge AD but this is much less likely and hasn‟t been included for the purposes of this project. There remains a clear shortage of C&I residual, recycling and AD infrastructure in the South East. Almost 50% of the 2.3M tonnes requiring diversion can be met by facilities soon to be up and running. However, this will also depend on their commitment to C&I contracts over municipal contracts, and is subject to there not being dramatic increases in C&I waste generated. In short, it is much more likely that current capacities will not be sufficient. The progress of facilities like Cory‟s Riverside EfW and Veolia‟s Newhaven EfW from planning to delivery has been very slow. Many declared merchant plants, like SITA‟s Mitcham Ecopark successfully get through planning only after appealing or re-submitting their plans. It is likely that some of the pipeline facilities considered above will not be delivered in the medium to long term, leaving C&I waste going to landfill. The actual breakdown of recycling versus residual treatment infrastructure required will depend on the trend in business waste recycling rates, and on local decisions by developers and facility operators. However, the need for new business waste infrastructure is clear. To meet landfill diversion targets and progress along the pathway to zero waste to landfill, the South East will need additional C&I waste treatment infrastructure.


93

Table 16: Facilities with planning consent

Facility with planning consent

Permitted Capacity

Known municipal contracts

Assumed C&I

capacity

Likelihood of delivery

Comment

Charlton Lane

Ecopark, SITA

AD, Gasification,

MRF

100,000 Surrey 0 High Surrey waste

exceeds site

capacity, so likely

to be full.

Ardley, EfW, Viridor 300,000 Oxfordshire

150,000

150,000 High Capacity-

Oxfordshire

Kelmsley, EfW,

E.ON Energy from

Waste

550,000 80%

440,000

High E.ON confident in

flagship project

Agrivert Trumps

Farm AD

48,000 80%

38,400

High

SITA Mitcham

Ecopark AD/MRF

120,000 80%

96,000

High SITA committed to

flagship C&I

project, approved

by Mayor Nov „11

Rookery Pit, EfW,

Covanta

585,000 Windsor &

Maidenhead

36,000

80%

468,000

Medium One small contract

so far, assumed

high estimate.

Likely delivered but

potentially smaller

scale

Tilbury Green

Power Facility

Biomass, MBT,

RDF Plant

650,000 80%

520,000

Medium Planning amended

August 2011, no

further news.

Countrystyle Group

AD and MRF,

Sellindge, Kent

95,000 80%

76,000

Medium No developments

since planning

permission in

March 2011

Stanway Hall

Quarry MBT, Cory

300,000 80%

240,000

Low No news since

planning granted in

2007

Evolution of the

Recycling and

Composting Facility

(eRCF), Gent

Fairhead

AD, CHP

Incinerator, MBT,

MRF, RDF Plant

500,000 80%

400,000

Low Part of Veolia‟s bid

for Essex contract

which lost. No new

information since

then(2010)

River Way,

Sterecycle

Autoclave, CHP

Incinerator, MRF

240,000 80%

192,000

Low No news since

planning granted in

2010.

Milton Keynes MBT,

Shanks

240,000 80%

192,000

Low Project currently on

hold

Dagenham,

Cyclamax Holdings

Ltd, EfW, SITA

120,000 80%

96,000

Low No news since

planning granted in

2010


94

Published by:


Environment Agency,

Kings Meadow House,

Reading RD1 8DQ

www.environment-agency.gov.uk/epow

While we have tried to make sure this document is accurate, we cannot accept responsibility or be held legally responsible for

any loss or damage arising out of or in connection with this information being inaccurate, incomplete or misleading. This

material is copyrighted. You can copy it free of charge as long as the material is accurate and not used in a misleading context.

You must identify the source of the material and acknowledge our copyright. You must not use material to endorse or suggest

we have endorsed a commercial product or service.

Documents

Support for Waste Sector Development · 2015. 8. 10. · April 2011 WRAP took over as partner from SEEDA on several programme tasks. The full title of the project is “European Pathway