east london waste authority · representative for the lbr, to the position of vice chair following...

East London Waste Authority

NOTICE OF MEETING

Monday, 14 September 2015 – Civic Centre, Dagenham – 9.30am

Members

Councillor Sheila Bain, Councillor Robert Benham, Councillor Ken Clark, Councillor I Corbett (Chair), Councillor Steven Kelly, Councillor Baldesh Nijjar, Councillor Lynda Rice and Councillor Jeff Wade

Mark Ash 03/09/2015 Managing Director

Tel: 020 8724 5614 E-mail: [email protected]

AGENDA

Items for information

1. Apologies for absence

2. Declaration of Members Interest

In accordance with the Constitution, Members are asked to declare any personal or prejudicial interest they may have in any matter which is to be considered at this meeting.

Items for decision

3. Membership & Appointment of Vice Chair (pages 1 – 2)

4. Minutes – To confirm as correct the minutes of the meeting held on 22 June 2015 (pages 3 - 6)

5. Statement of Accounts and Auditor’s Report 2014/15 (pages 7- 8)

Appendix A which relates to the actual Statements is not currently available and will be circulated under separate cover. The Authority’s external auditors will be attending for this item.

Further items for information

6. Treasury Management Outturn 2014/15 (pages 9 -14)

7. Budgetary Control & Contract Monitoring Review to 31 July 2015. (pages 15-22)

8. Introduction of Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) System at Reuse & Recycling Centres (RRCs) (pages 23 - 38)

9. Joint Waste Disposal Authority (JWDA) Working Group (pages 39 – 56)

of 2

mailto:[email protected]

East London Waste Authority

10. Dates of next meetings:

23/11/15 Programme of Meetings 08/02/16 Levy & Annual Budget & Service Delivery Plan 20/06/16 Annual General Meeting

11. Any other public items which the Chair decides are urgent.

12. To consider whether it would be appropriate to pass a resolution pursuant to Section 100A (4) of the Local Government Act 1972.

Confidential Business

The public and press have a legal right to attend ELWA meetings except where business is confidential or certain other sensitive information is to be discussed. The items below relate to the business affairs of third parties and are, therefore, exempt under paragraph 3 of Part I of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972 (as amended).

Confidential items for information

13. ELWA Limited 06/08/15 Board Agenda (pages 57- 101)

This report has been restricted to Members and specific officers only.

14. Any other confidential or exempt items which the Chair decides are urgent.

of 2

East London Waste Authority Agenda Item 3 22 June 2015

AUTHORITY REPORT: MEMBERSHIP AND APPOINTMENT OF VICE CHAIR FOR THE YEAR 2015/16

1. Confidential Report

1.1 No

2. Recommendations:

2.1 To note the change in membership as notified by the London Borough of Redbridge (LBR) and to accept nominations for the appointment of Vice Chair for the remainder of the year 2015/16.

3. Purpose

3.1 To note the change in membership as notified by the London Borough of Redbridge (LBR) and to accept nominations for the appointment of Vice Chair for the remainder of the year 2015/16.

4. Background

4.1 The ELWA Constitution is the corporate governance document by which ELWA operates and Article 1 of Part B of the Constitution sets out the election process for ELWA Member positions.

4.2 Appointments to the positions of Chair and Vice-Chair are to be made by the Authority by resolution passed by a majority of the Members of the Authority present at the Annual General Meeting, provided at least one Member each from three of the Constituent Councils votes in favour.

4.3 The Constitution further provides that in making the appointments to the positions of Chair and Vice Chair, the Authority shall endeavour as best as possible to ensure that the positions of Chair and Vice Chair are not occupied in any one year by the two Member representatives of the same Constituent Council.

4.4 The positions of Chair and Vice Chair are held for one year but office holders are eligible to be re-appointed for periods of up to two years each.

4.5 At their meeting on 07 February 2011, the Authority decided to adopt a protocol which aims to ensure that each Constituent Council has an opportunity of leading and chairing Authority meetings. If implemented, each Constituent Council will have an opportunity to have one of their representative act as Vice-Chair for up to two years and then as Chair for up to two years.

4.6 The protocol assumes that the appointed Members remain in office for the duration of their appointment and the Authority benefits from the continuity and experience of previous-serving ELWA Members.

4.7 On 22 June 2015 Members appointed Councillor Jas Athwal, the duly appointed representative for the LBR, to the position of Vice Chair following a report by the Monitoring Officer on the Appointment of Chair, Vice Chair and ELWA Limited ‘A’ Director for the year 2015/16 and the Office Manager’s report on Membership & Induction for the same period.

4.8 On 01 September 2016, LBR changed their appointment to ELWA from Councillor Athwal to Councillor Baldesh Nijjar. Members will recall that Councillor Nijjar previously represented LBR on ELWA during the municipal year 2014/15.

Page 1 of 2 Agenda Item 03 (Change in Vice Chair 2015) Page 1 of 101

East London Waste Authority Agenda Item 3 22 June 2015

4.9 As a result of this change Councillor Athwal will no longer be able to hold the position of Vice Chair and Members are asked to accept nominations for the appointment of Vice Chair for the remainder of the year 2015/16.

5. Relevant officer:

Mark Ash, Managing Director / [email protected] / 020 8724 5614 / 07872 003874

6. Appendices attached:

6.1 None

7. Background Papers:

7.1 22.06.15 Appointment of Chair, Vice Chair and ELWA Ltd ‘A’ Director for the year2015/16 & Minute 1/2015.

7.2 22.06.15 Membership & Induction of New Members report & Minute 5/2015

8. Legal Considerations:

8.1 None

9. Financial Considerations:

9.1 None

10. Performance Management Considerations:

10.1 None

11. Risk Management Considerations:

11.1 None

12. Equalities considerations:

12.1 The equalities impact assessment identified no matters of concern.

13. Follow-up Reports:

13.1 Annual

14. Websites and e-mail links for further information:

14.1 None

15. Glossary:

LBR =London Borough of Redbridge ELWA = East London Waste Authority

16. Approved by Management Board:

16.1 17. Confidentiality:

17.1 Not applicable

Page 2 of 2 Agenda Item 03 (Change in Vice Chair 2015) Page 2 of 101


East London Waste Authority Agenda Item 4 14 September 2015

AUTHORITY MINUTES: MONDAY 22 JUNE 2015 (09.40AM – 10.43 AM) Present:

Councillor S Bain, Councillor R Benham, Councillor K Clark, Councillor I Corbett (Chair) Councillor S Kelly and Councillor L Rice

1. Appointment of Chair, Vice Chair and ELWA Limited ‘A’ Director for the year 2015/15

Members received the Monitoring Officer’s report.

Members nominated and agreed the appointments of ELWA Chair and Vice Chair and ELWA Limited ‘A’ Director and Alternate ‘A’ Director for the year 2015/16 as follows.

Councillor Corbett (Chair), Councillor Athwal (Vice Chair), Councillor Kelly (ELWA Limited’s ‘A’ Director) and Mark Ash (ELWA Limited Alternate ‘A’ Director)

Councillor Corbett commented that 2014/15 had been quite a successful year for ELWA whilst it had been a difficult year for the Constituent Councils. He thanked Members for being a group that worked cohesively to get the job done and with the Managing Director’s help could achieve good value for money for Constituent Councils in the year ahead.

2. Welcome & Apologies for Absence

Councillor Corbett welcomed those around the table and introductions were made. An apology for absence was received from Councillors Athwal and Wade. An apology was also received from LB Havering’s ELWA Board Director.

3. Declaration of Members’ Interests

There were none declared.

4. Minutes of previous meeting (09/02/15)

Members confirmed as true and accurate the minutes of the Authority meeting held on 09 February 2015 and the Chair was authorised to sign the same.

5. Membership 2015/16

Members received and noted the Office Manager’s report and subsequent appointments. The Authority’s membership for the year 2015/16 was confirmed as follows:

London Borough of Barking & Dagenham Councillor Lynda Rice Councillor Jeff Wade

London Borough of Havering Councillor Steven Kelly Councillor Robert Benham

London Borough of Newham Councillor Ian Corbett Councillor Ken Clark

London Borough of Redbridge Councillor Jas Athwal Councillor Sheila Bain

6. Nominations under section 41 of the Local Government Act 1985

Members received the Monitoring Officer’s report and commentary and agreed that the lead Members to answer questions on behalf of ELWA at their respective Constituent Councils would be:-

London Borough of Barking & Dagenham Councillor Lynda Rice

London Borough of Havering Councillor Steven Kelly

London Borough of Newham Councillor Ian Corbett

London Borough of Redbridge Councillor Sheila Bain

Page 1 of 4 Agenda Item 04 (22.06.15 Draft Mins) Page 3 of 101


7. External Audit Plan 2013/14

Members received the External Audit Plan 2014/15, report and Appendix.

Ciaran McLaughlin the External Auditor, PricewaterhouseCoopers (Pwc) attended the meeting and presented commentary and detail on the External Audit Plan 2014/15. The audit plan sets out Pwc’s work plan for the next couple of months including responsibilities and key risks.

Mr McLaughlin drew Member’s attention to the Auditors’ responsibilities and the audit approach, which covered risks of management override, fraud, valuation of the materials recycling facilities, financial impact of the fire at Frog Island and fly tipping at the landfill sites. He advised that indicative audit costs would be £18,270 plus an additional fee of £3,000 (upper estimate) to cover the work done in respect of the fire at Frog Island. He explained the position regarding part of the audit work being carried out offshore.

The Auditor and Managing Director explained that an independent but recognised specialist had completed the valuation of the assets. It was confirmed that the methodology used for the valuation was acceptable to the Interim Finance Director and Auditors. It was considered likely that a second valuation would be required next year, following the refurbishment of the Frog Island Mechanical Biological Treatment plant.

The Auditor confirmed that he will report back to the Authority on any major issues arising as a result of the continuing audit and that new auditors had been appointed for next year’s audit.

Thanks were extended to the External Auditor and he left the meeting. Members noted and agreed the report.

8. Internal Audit Progress Report 2014/15, Audit Plan 2015/16 and Planned Audit Coverage to March 2020

The Interim Finance Director presented his report and Appendix and explained the internal audit coverage for the year 2014/15, the Audit Plan for 2015/16 and that the report contained the proposed strategic level plan for the years 2015/16 to 2019/20. Audit coverage of 2014/15 had been the review of contract management to prevent non contract waste being accepted and a review of implementation of the Constituent Councils’ programmes as well as asset management ie future use of the four closed landfill sites and associated risks. He drew Members’ attention to paragraphs 5.3 to 5.6 stating that the Authority provided resources for various monitoring processes but there were weaknesses in the self monitoring arrangements made with the Constituent Councils. Since distribution of the report three of the four Constituent Councils had responded to this issue. LB Redbridge had since received approval for an additional monitoring officer to be engaged for 1 year. LB Newham would try to meet the level of services set out in the service level agreement. A late response had been received from LB Havering and required review but LB Barking & Dagenham had yet to respond. The Interim Finance Director confirmed that he would follow up on the levels of monitoring intended by the Constituent Councils within the time constraints and hours set out in the service level agreements. Members’ discussed the effects of the recent strike action within LB Barking & Dagenham and were assured that there was no real impact on ELWA, at present. However, in two years’ time, there could be an impact on the Levy calculation as a result of the split of waste being taken to the Reuse & Recycling Centres and that collected from the kerbside. The Managing Director received thanks for the assistance provided to LB Barking & Dagenham at this time. Paragraph 5.15 referred to the illegal fly tipping experienced at the Wennington site. The Managing Director provided Members with a full brief as to progress, costs and possible future action. Members noted the audit coverage for 2014/15 as being generally sound and that core financial systems operated effectively with no fundamental breakdowns in control. Members agreed the audit coverage for 2015/16 as set out in paragraph 6 and the Five Year Strategic Plan at Appendix A.



9. Provisional Financial Outturn Position and Contract Monitoring Review for the Year 2014/15

Members were advised that, with the approval of the Chair the two previously separate reports had been consolidated to reduce cross references, repetition and the number of reports. The report and Appendix contained information on the revenue budget, efficiency savings, insurance claim, prudential indicators and 2014/15 financial statements. Members received a brief commentary on the provisional financial outturn position and noted the reduced net overspend against budget. There had been a variation against budget of £795,000 which reduced to £319,000 as a result of in year savings and efficiencies. The 2014/15 overspend will be taken into account in the next three year financial projections and budget strategy processes. In relation to contract monitoring, Member’s attention was drawn to the two summaries of tonnage levels at paragraphs 4.8 and 4.9. Members discussed diversion rates and tonnage levels and, particularly, the reasons for the variations in 2012/13. Members were advised that there had been quite a good recovery made following the fire at Frog Island with waste diverted from landfill during 2014/15 up from below 65% to 72.1%. Recycling performance was down on expectation at 23.7% but consistent with that achieved in the previous contract year. Members were reminded that in 2015/16 there would be the anomaly of two Easter collections in the one year and had been taken into account in the budget forecast. Overall the revenue outturn assumed a reimbursement of £476,000 to the Authority in respect of business losses arising from the fire at the Mechanical Biological Treatment plant at Frog Island. Members discussed and noted the report and agreed to receive a consolidated report in future together with periodic updates on progress with the insurance claim.

10. Budgetary Control Contract Monitoring to 30 April 2014

The Interim Finance Director presented the joint Budget Control and Contract Monitoring Report to 30 April 2015 drawing members’ attention to paragraphs 4.1, 4.2 and 4.9.

He reported that there was a net underspend of £44,000 which was currently in line with budget and the overall outturn was also projected to be in line with budget. Close monitoring for budget fluctuations would be maintained. Remaining in budget would depend largely on tonnage trends, the achievement of diversion targets and efficiency savings as well as income collection.

Members were reminded that the 2015/16 budget and levy is underpinned by an efficiency savings target of £1,500,000 made up of efficiency savings of £659,000 achieved in 2014/15. Of these savings, £500,000 is ongoing and available to contribute to meeting the 2015/16 efficiency savings. Efforts continue to meet the 2015/16 savings target by the end of the financial year. 93/95% of the budget was locked into the Private Finance Initiative contract

The Managing Director had successfully agreed a payment by the Contractor to the Authority of £440,000 by enforcement of a contract provision. Possible additional payments in future years may be made in this respect but this was not guaranteed. Members received commentary as to how this had come about and discussed whether inflation had been taken into the calculation. Members congratulated the Managing Director for the achievement.

Members asked if ELWA was benefitting from falling inflation since the 2015-16 budget was agreed. Members were advised that the budget forecast for 2016-17 assumed 2% and that will be based on RPI at October 2016 which may be lower. The Interim Finance Director will include commentary in his next report.

Members discussed and noted the report.

11. Date of Next Meeting

Members noted the future meeting dates for the 2015/16 municipal year as being 14 September (Annual Governance & Statement of Accounts), 23 November (Approval of the



Annual Budget & Service Delivery Plan), 8 February 2015 (Levy) and 29 June 2015 (Annual General Meeting) and that these dates are governed by legal timetables. Members noted the meeting dates and asked officers to arrange an informal workshop to be held in early September 2015 on the subject of strategy.

12. Private Business

Members resolved to exclude the public and press from the remainder of the meeting by reason of the nature of the business to be discussed which included information exempt from publication by virtue of paragraph 3 of part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972 (as amended).

13. Increased Diversion Agreement

The Managing Director presented an oral report on his work to date in securing an Increased Diversion Agreement for a period of three years. He confirmed the details of the agreement and that he had obtained the approval of the Chair and the Board in order to finalise the agreement and sign off the documentation. He was looking to secure further savings and would aim to bring proposals forward in September.

Members discussed and noted the report.

Minutes agreed as a true record.

Chair: ………………………………..

Date: ………………………………..



AUTHORITY REPORT: STATEMENT OF ACCOUNTS & AUDITOR’S REPORT 2014/15

1. Confidential Report 1.1 No 2. Recommendations 2.1 Approve the Annual Governance Statement. 2.2 Consider and comment on the draft letter of representation. 2.3 Approve the draft Statement of Accounts for the financial year 2014/15. 3. Background 3.1 This report provides the Authority with the External Auditor’s report to those charged

with Governance for the year 2014/15 and the draft letter of representation. The report is also requesting that Members approve the draft Statement of Accounts for the financial year 2014/15.

3.2 The Authority is required annually to conduct a review of the effectiveness of internal control arrangements and this is incorporated in the Annual Governance Statement (AGS). Members are requested to approve the AGS as part of the 2014/15 Statement of Accounts.

3.3 There is a requirement for the external auditors to communicate any relevant matters in a report known as the ISA 260 report. This report summarises the main external auditor findings and recommendations arising from the 2014/15 Accounts. It also reports on work undertaken in connection with the use of resources, internal controls and risk of fraud.

3.4 Each year a letter of representation is to be provided to the auditors in respect of the audit of the accounts. This is attached in Appendix A. The letter sets out the responsibilities for the preparation of the financial statements and the basis of the representations made.

4. 2014/15 Accounts 4.1 At the time of writing this report, the audit of the draft Statement of Accounts and the

ISA260 had not been finalised and therefore these will be circulated separately. It is expected that the External Auditors, PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) will give an unqualified opinion and certificate on the Accounts

4.2 At the ELWA meeting in June 2011, Members were informed about changes to the statutory audit and accounts regulations that underpin the production of ELWA’s financial statements. The 2014/15 financial statements are the fifth where the Authority has to fully comply with International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS). This continues to create extra work and has required additional resources, which can be demonstrated by the size of the financial statements.

4.3 Members are reminded that it is the responsibility of the ‘responsible financial officer’ to sign and date the Statement of Accounts, and certify that it presents a true and fair view of the financial position of the Authority at the end of the financial year. However Members are still required to formally approve the audited financial statements by the 30th September. The responsible financial officer is the Section 151 Officer.

4.4 The agreed audit fee takes account of the additional testing arising from the fire at Frog Island.

Page 1 of 2 Agenda Item 05 (Stmt Accs Auditors Report 14-15)

Page 7 of 101


4.5 The financial position as outlined in the Statement of Accounts is broadly the same as I informed you in my Budgetary Control outturn report to the ELWA Authority meeting in June 2015. There has been an adjustment however for increased costs of £250,000 for a provision to cover the ELWA share of the accumulated losses of the joint Venture company Aveley Methane Ltd.

5. Auditors attendance 5.1 The External Auditors will provide a verbal update on this report at the Authority

meeting. 6. Conclusion 6.1 The audit of ELWA’s accounts will be completed by the statutory deadline of the 30th

September. There is expected to be an unqualified opinion. 7. Relevant Officer Mark Green Section 151 Officer / e-mail: [email protected] / 020 8708 3588 8. Appendices attached 8.1 Appendix A - Statements to follow. 9. Background Papers 9.1 June 2015 – Financial Outturn Report for 2014/15. 10. Legal Considerations. 10.1 None 11. Financial Considerations 11.1 As outlined in this report. 12. Performance Management Considerations 12.1 None. 13. Risk Management Considerations 13.1 None 14. Equality considerations 14.1 There are no equality considerations arising from this report. 15. Follow-up Reports 15.1 None 16. Websites and e-mail links for further information. 16.1 www.eastlondonwaste.gov.uk 17. Glossary

AGS-Annual Governance Statement ELWA – East London Waste Authority IFRS – International Financial Reporting Standards ISA – International Standard on Auditing 18. Approved by Management Board 18.1 1 September 2015 19. Confidentiality 19.1 Not applicable

Page 2 of 2 Agenda Item 05 (Stmt Accs Auditors Report 14-15)

Page 8 of 101


http://www.eastlondonwaste.gov.uk/


AUTHORITY REPORT: TREASURY MANAGEMENT OUTTURN 2014/15

1. Confidential Report 1.1 No

2. Recommendations 2.1 To note this report.

3. Introduction 3.1 The Treasury Management Strategy including borrowing and investment strategies is

approved by Members on an annual basis. The 2014/15 Strategy was agreed in February 2014 and this report details the outturn against the background of this Strategy.

3.2 Under ELWA’s Constitution, the Finance Director is responsible for all the Authority’s banking, borrowing and investment activities. The Treasury Management function is carried out by the London Borough of Redbridge on behalf of East London Waste Authority (ELWA).

3.3 The Authority’s activities are regulated by statutory requirements, ELWA’s Constitution, and a professional code of practice, the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy (CIPFA) Code of Practice on Treasury Management. The Authority has adopted this code as part of its financial standing orders. The Code recommends that Authorities produce an annual report on Treasury Management after the year-end, which would include Treasury Management indicators.

3.4 This report is presenting to Members the Treasury Outturn for 2014/15 and covers all borrowing and investment activities undertaken during the last financial year.

4. Current Portfolio Position

External Borrowing 4.1 The total borrowing at 31 March 2015 was £1,250,000 consisting of Public Work Loans

Board (PWLB) loans on a fixed rate basis. This falls within the set limits for external debt and interest rate exposure for fixed rates as per Appendix A.

4.2 The external borrowing position is summarised below:

31.03.14 £000’s

Average Rate

31.03.15 £000’s

Average Rate

Public Works Loans Board 1,250 10.02% 1,250 10.02%

4.3 These loans were taken out many years ago when interest rates were much higher than they are today. Early repayment/rescheduling has been considered but given the PWLB redemption rates, the cost of early repayment would be prohibitive.

Investments 4.4 The Authority is required to produce an Annual Investment Strategy that sets out the

Authority’s policies in managing its investments. This was approved by Members as part of the Treasury Management Strategy at your meeting in February 2014.

4.5 The main objective of the investment strategy is to ensure the security of investments the Authority makes and also to maintain the liquidity of its investments in order to meet known liabilities. To meet this requirement, the Authority has approved creditworthiness criteria which must be strictly adhered to when making investment

Page 1 of 3

Agenda Item 06 (Treasury Mgmt Outturn 1415)

Page 9 of 101


decisions. 4.6 The financial year 2014/15 continued to present challenging circumstances with

regard to investments. An operational lending list focused on highly rated institutions remained in place throughout the year. All investment was carried out in accordance with the approved creditworthiness criteria.

4.7 In 2008, Heritable Bank went into administration owing ELWA £1 million. The total repayment received as at 31 March 2014 was £991,637. The Administration process has continued with the final stages throughout 2014/15. However, there have been no further monitory developments.

4.8 The summary position for the Authority in terms of investments at 31 March 2015 is as follows: -

31.03.14

£000’s

31.03.15

£000’s

Long Term 0 0

Short Term 17,693 11,540

Total 17,693 11,540

4.9 There were no long term loans and the amounts invested were within the limits set on interest rate exposure for variable rates as per Appendix A.

5. Borrowing Requirements/Capital Programme 2014/15 5.1 In February 2014 the Authority was advised that the financing of future capital

expenditure would be via the temporary use of cash balances or to raise loans via the PWLB and capital markets.

5.2 The Authority was also advised that as a result of the ongoing review of landfill sites ELWA might need to make arrangements to finance estimated capital expenditure of £400,000 in 2014/15.

5.3 In the event no capital expenditure was incurred in 2014/15, and no borrowing was undertaken.

6. Prudential Indicators 6.1 The Authority is required by regulation to give due regard to the requirements of the

CIPFA Prudential Code for Capital Finance in Local Authorities, and set Prudential Indicators for Treasury Management prior to the start of the financial year. Prudential Indicators cover borrowing, lending and capital expenditure levels and these are monitored on a monthly basis by the Finance Director.

6.2 In the Finance Director’s report of February 2014, Prudential Indicators for 2014/15 were agreed.

6.3 Members are reminded that in the accounting treatment of the ELWA PFI scheme there is a need for PFI assets and liabilities to be shown on the balance sheet and included in the Prudential Indicators. Other long term liabilities on Appendix A shows that the PFI finance lease balance of £83,534,000 is within its external debt limit.

6.4 Appendix A shows the performance against the indicators as advised to Members in December 2014.

6.5 All transactions have been carried out within the Prudential Indicator Limits.

7. Conclusion 7.1 The Authority managed its treasury management arrangements in accordance with

the strategy kept within its prudent indicators and all investment was carried out in

Page 2 of 3


Page 10 of 101


accordance with the approved creditworthiness criteria.

8. Relevant Officer Richard Szadziewski, Finance Director / e-mail: [email protected] / 020 8708 3588

9. Appendices attached 9.1 Appendix A: Prudential Performance Indicators.

10. Background Papers 24 November 2014 Treasury Management Mid Year Strategy Review, Agenda Item 2014/5. 22 June 2015 Provisional Financial Outturn Report for 2014/15, Agenda Item 2015/9.

11. Legal Considerations. 11.1 None

12. Financial Considerations 12.1 As outlined in this report.

13. Performance Management Considerations 13.1 None.

14. Risk Management Considerations 14.1 Main objective of the investment strategy is the security of investments.

15. Equalities Considerations 15.1 The equalities impact assessment for this decision identified that there are no specific

equality implications arising from this report

16. Follow-up Reports 16.1 Half yearly monitoring in 2015/16.

17. Websites and e-mail links for further information. 17.1 None

18. Glossary CIPFA = Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy ELWA = East London Waste Authority PFI = Private Finance Initiative PWLB = Public Works Loans Board

19. Approved by Management Board 19.1 1 September 2015

20. Confidentiality 20.1 Not applicable

Page 3 of 3


Page 11 of 101


This page is intentionally left blank

Page 12 of 101

East London Waste Authority Agenda Item 6 – Appendix A 14 September 2015

TREASURY MANAGEMENT PRUDENTIAL INDICATORS - 2014/15 OUTTURN

Authorised Limit for External Debt Limit

2014/15 £’000

Actual 2014/15

£’000 Borrowing 14,000 1,250 Other Long Term Liabilities 92,000 83,534 TOTAL 106,000 84,784

Operational Boundary for External Debt Limit

2014/15 £’000

Actual 2014/15

£’000 Borrowing 12,000 1,250 Other Long Term Liabilities 92,000 83,534 TOTAL 104,000 84,784

ELWA has adopted the CIPFA code of Practice in Treasury Management in the Public Services as part of its Financial Standing Orders.

Upper Limits on Interest Rate Exposure (based on net principal outstanding)

Limit 2014/15

£m

Actual 2014/15

£m Fixed Rate - Borrowing 7.7 1.3 Variable Rate - Investments (24.0) (11.5)

Projected borrowing at fixed rates maturing in each period as percentage of total projected borrowing at fixed rates

2014/15 Upper Limit

2014/15 Lower Limit

2014/15 Actual

Under 12 months 35% 0% 2% 12 months and within 24 months 45% 0% 0% 24 months and within 5 years 60% 0% 0% 5 years and within 10 years 80% 0% 35% 10 and within 20 years 100% 0% 63% 20 years and within 35 years 100% 0% 0% 35 years to 50 years 100% 0% 0%

Upper Limit for Total Principal sums invested for more than 364 days

Limit 2014/15

£m

Actual 2014/15

£m Total 1.0 0.0

Page 1 of 1 Agenda Item 06 (Treasury Mgmt Outturn 1415) Adx A

Page 13 of 101


Page 14 of 101


AUTHORITY REPORT: BUDGETARY CONTROL AND CONTRACT MONITORING TO 31 JULY 2015

1. Confidential Report

1.1 No

2. Recommendation:

2.1 To note this report.

3. Purpose

3.1 This report compares ELWA’s actual expenditure for the period ended 31st July 2015 with the original revenue budget approved in February 2015. It is based on information supplied by Shanks East London (the Operator), ELWA technical officers and the four Constituent Councils.

3.2 Budgetary control reports are presented for monitoring and control purposes.

3.3 It also provides the Integrated Waste Management Services (IWMS) Contract performance for the period ended 31 July 2015 to support the financial information.

4. Background

Revenue Budget

4.1 Based on the profiled budget of £18,880,000 and the actual net expenditure on services of £18,663,000 the position is a net underspend to date. (see Appendix A).

4.2 Overall the outturn is currently projected to be above budget at year end due to a projected overspend on the IWMS contract. Other areas of the income and expenditure are projected at year end to be in line with budget.

4.3 The principal activity driver on ELWA’s budget is the level of waste tonnage delivered from the Constituent Councils. Based on these council returns and ELWA technical officer advice the 2015/16 budget and levy setting process has assumed 443,000 tonnes in 2015/16. The end of year projection now assumes a tonnage of 437,000 tonnes. The budget however remains susceptible to fluctuation and needs to continue to be closely monitored throughout the rest of the financial year.

4.4 The 2015/16 Budget takes into account the step up in contractual targets and the resulting lower diversion supplements payable and a benefit of £900,000 was built into the Budget reflecting not only the lower diversion supplements but also the improved diversion above the base level.

4.5 As can be seen from the diversion graphs below, contract performance was not as high as projected and the £900k budgeted benefit was at risk. The Operator stated that they could not financially afford to achieve the higher levels of diversion as a result of rising gate fees for Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF) markets. Following a due diligence exercise this position was verified and it was recognised that a new agreement with increased incentive payments needed to be put into place, as reported and agreed at the last meeting of the Authority.

4.6 A new diversion agreement was signed in June 2015 in order to incentivise the operator to maximise diversion over 67%. As part of this agreement additional supplements are payable to the operator for diversion and paid from avoided landfill tax liability payments. ELWA in return receives a fixed level of savings of £275k this current year irrespective of performance which helps to mitigate the £900k pressure. As the savings are fixed there is no additional financial advantage to ELWA if diversion improves. Consequently, the financial benefit assumed in the budget is no longer fully available and there remains a cost pressure in the IWMS contract in 2015/16.

Page 1 of 5 Agenda Item 07 (Budget & Cont Mon Report July) Page 15 of 101


4.7 The reduced tonnages help mitigate the cost pressure reported above resulting in a net £250,000 projected overspend at year end for the IWMS contract.

4.8 Employee and non contractor costs are broadly in line with budget to date. Both these areas are projected to be in line with budget at year end.

4.9 Based on ELWA technical officer advice commercial waste income will be in line with budget at year end. Budgets and end of year projections have taken account of the withdrawal of Havering from the commercial waste arrangements.

4.10 Members will recall the fire at the Frog Island Mechanical Biological Treatment (MBT) facility. As reported previously this affected contract costs as more waste had to be sent to Landfill as well as a reduction in royalty income as the Operator’s non contract waste was sent elsewhere. For the purposes of this report royalty income is projected to be in line with budget and it is assumed that any continuing shortfall of royalty income in 2015/16, should it occur as a result of the fire, will be met from a future insurance claim.

4.11 Members are reminded that underpinning the 2015/16 budget and levy is an efficiency savings target of £1,500,000. Efficiency savings of £659,000 were achieved in 2014/15 and of these, £500,000 are ongoing and available to contribute to meeting the 2015/16 efficiency savings. Efforts are being continued to meet the 2015/16 savings target by the end of the financial year. The Managing Director had successfully agreed a payment by the Contractor to the Authority of £440,000 by enforcement of a contract provision. Possible additional payments in future years may be made in this respect but this is not guaranteed.

4.12 At the last meeting Members discussed whether there was a financial benefit to the Authority arising from the current low levels of inflation. In 2015/16 there is no benefit in respect of the IWMS contract as contract inflation is based on 80% of the retail price index excluding mortgages (RPIX) from the October of the previous year ie October 2014 and this was higher than the levels in recent months. There may be a small benefit in 2016/17 however compared to the 3 year projections made in the Levy report in February 2015, as the RPIX (at 80%) in October 2015 is likely to be lower than that assumed in the Levy report.

4.13 The pressure on the levy and the reserves over the next few years has been reported to Members previously. Given this, it is important that robust monitoring of the financial position throughout the year remains in place with particular focus on the achievement of the efficiency savings target and the minimisation of tonnage levels. Given the single purpose nature of ELWA it is difficult for remedial action to be taken on areas of over spend or to recover insufficient income collection.

Prudential indicators

4.14 The Authority sets Prudential Indicators covering borrowing, lending and capital expenditure limits. These are monitored by the Finance Director on a monthly basis and the Authority remains within the limits set by the Prudential Indicators.

5. Contract Performance Data to Support Financial Position

5.1 Contract tonnages for the first 4 months of the year show a slight decline over the same period last year and the budgeted figure (1%). It is difficult to show direct comparisons due to the effects of the industrial action in London Borough of Barking & Dagenham (LBBD) which produced an overall reduction in their waste collection figures but with a corresponding increase in Reuse & Recycling Centres (RRC) waste at both Frizlands and Jenkins sites.

To July 15

Budget Profile Tonnes 159,147

Actual Tonnage 157,240



5.2 Recycling performance is slightly down on the same period last year, again some of this is attributable to LBBD not collecting any recyclable material for most of May and June. The main variance is as a result of the fire as no recycling was delivered out of the Frog Island BioMRF resulting in 24% recycling against a figure of 25.9% for the same period last year.

5.3 The National Indicator (NI) Recycling figure is slightly higher than this due to the way it

is calculated. The indicative council figures are shown below but are subject to Waste Data Flow and DEFRA verification. The loss of recyclate out of Frog island reduced the NI Performance of both LBH and LBBD.

Borough Recycling (NI192) To July 14 To July 15

LBBD 26.5% 20.3%

LBH 36.3% 32.7%

LBN 15.7% 16.3%

LBR 31.3% 31.3%

27.5% 25.2%

5.4 Comparative diversion performance is also down, partly due to the excellent start to the last financial year and partly due the current position of the RDF markets. The Authority is however protected financially from this volatility because of the recently agreed diversion agreement.

Overall Diversion & Recycling from Landfill To July 15

14-15 diversion 77.6%

15-16 diversion 72.4%

23.98%

14.00%

16.00%

18.00%

20.00%

22.00%

24.00%

26.00%

28.00%

30.00%

32.00%

Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar

Actual ABSDP Target

Recycling % - 2016



5.5 The chart below shows the comparison (by month) of the diversion element

6. Conclusion

6.1 The position will continue to be closely monitored on a monthly basis throughout the financial year. The ability to remain within budget will depend to a great extent on tonnage trends, income collection and the achievement of efficiency savings.

7. Relevant officer:

Richard Szadziewski, Finance Director / e-mail: [email protected] / 020 8708 3588 and Dave Hawes, Contract Manager / e-mail: [email protected] / 020 8724 5054

8. Appendices attached:

Appendix A: Budget Monitoring Statement to 31 July 2015

9. Background papers:

9 February 2015 - Revenue & Capital Estimates and Levy 2015/16 Report & Minute No.55/2014

10. Legal considerations:

10.1 None.

11. Financial considerations:

11.1 As outlined in the report.

12. Performance management considerations:

12.1 The financial position and projections should reflect service performance trends.

13. Risk management considerations:

13.1 The projected position depends on the performance of the contractor, tonnage levels and the success in achieving budgeted diversion levels. There may be a residual impact of the August 2014 fire at Frog Island

52.51% 50.39% 51.81% 52.44% 52.89% 51.50% 43.46% 47.60%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Apr May Jun Jul Apr May Jun Jul

2014/2015 2014/2015 2014/2015 2014/2015 2015/2016 2015/2016 2015/2016 2015/2016

Actual Contract Recycling & Diversion - 2014-15 /2015-16





14. Equalities considerations:

14.1 The equalities impact assessment for this decision identified that there are no specific equality implications arising from this report

15. Follow-up reports:

15.1 Budgetary Control Report, next meeting

16. Websites and e-mail links for further information:

http://www.recycleforyourcommunity.com/waste_authority/default.aspx

17. Glossary:

Constituent Councils = LBBD, LBH, LBN, LBR (see below) DEFRA = Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs ELWA = East London Waste Authority LBBD = London Borough of Barking & Dagenham LBH = London Borough of Havering LBN = London Borough of Newham LBR = London Borough of Redbridge NI = National Indicator RDF = Refuse-derived fuel RRC = Reuse & Recycling Centres

18. Approved by management board

18.1 01 September 2015

19. Confidentiality:

19.1 Not Applicable.




Page 20 of 101

East London Waste Authority Agenda Item 7 - Appendix A 14 September 2015

BUDGET MONITORING STATEMENT TO 31 JULY2015

Original Budget

2015/16

Profiled Budget to 31.07.1

Total

Actual to 31.07.15

Variance

to 31.0715

Projected Outturn to 31.07.15

Outturn Variance

EXPENDITURE £'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 Employee and Support Services 375 125 116 (9) 375 0

Premises Related Expenditure 149 72 79 7 149 0

Transport Related Expenditure 5 2 2 0 5 0

Supplies and Services

Payments to Shanks.East London

59,885 19,043 18,900 (143) 60,135 250

Other (inc. cost of Support Costs) 440 112 102 (10) 440 0

Third Party Payments

Recycling Initiatives 1,930 557 495 (62) 1,930 0

Tonne Mileage 500 125 125 0 500 0 Rent payable - property leases 337 84 84 0 337 0

Capital Financing Costs 184 41 41 0 184 0

TOTAL GROSS EXPENDITURE 63,805 20,161 19,944 (217) 64,055 250

INCOME

Commercial Waste Charges (2,417) (604) (604) 0 (2,417) 0

Interest receivable (54) (18) (18) 0 (54) 0

Other income (2,292) (73) (73) 0 (2,292) 0

Efficiency savings (1,500) (586) (586) 0 (1,500) 0

TOTAL INCOME (6,263) (1281) (1,281) (0) (6,263) 0

Contingency Allocated 150 0 0 0 150 0

NET EXPENDITURE ON SERVICES

57,692 18,880 18,663 (217) 57,942 0

PFI Grant Receivable (3,991) (998) (998) 0 (3,991) 0

Levy Receivable (53,401) (17,800) (17,800) 0 (53,401) 0 Net Contribution from reserves (300) 0 0 0 (300) 0

NET 0 82 135) (217) 250 250

Page 1 of 1 Agenda Item 07 (Budget & Cont Mon Report July) Adx A

Page 21 of 101


Page 22 of 101


AUTHORITY REPORT: INTRODUCTION OF AUTOMATIC NUMBER PLATE RECOGNITION (ANPR) SYSTEMS AT REUSE AND RECYCLING CENTRES (RRCS)

1. Confidential Report 1.1 No. 2. Recommendation: 2.1 Members are asked to agree:

a) The proposed date for the launch of the ANPR protocol (paragraph 5.3); b) The wording of the standard letters (Appendices C to E);

3. Purpose 3.1 To inform Members of the proposed ANPR protocol and start date in order for

Members to agree the recommendations above. 4. Background 4.1 ELWA is responsible for the management of four RRCs, with one situated in each

constituent council area. The RRCs are delivered under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 which places a duty on Waste Disposal Authorities (WDA) to provide places at which ‘persons resident in its area may deposit their household waste.’ There is no duty for WDAs to provide places for the deposit of commercial waste, but the WDA may do so and determine the level of charges.

4.2 Each deposit of household waste at the RRCs is made at a financial cost to ELWA so measures have previously been taken to control the tonnage processed at the sites, with particular focus on commercial waste being fraudulently tipped as household.

4.3 Three protocols are currently in place to control free of charge disposal. The Trade Waste protocol (Appendix A) ensures that any material identified as originating from commercial activity is paid for at the commercial waste rate. The Restricted Waste protocol (Appendix B) provides for limits to be placed on the amount of Restricted Waste that can be deposited in a given time period, as instructed by constituent council officers. Thirdly, there is a requirement for all site users to provide proof of address within the ELWA region in order to tip household waste free of charge.

4.4 While these protocols have been shown to be effective, with the tonnage processed at the RRCs reduced, they do have some limitations. Added measures to monitor and control site access would allow ELWA to further identify and reduce fraudulent tipping.

4.5 Members have been supportive of the introduction of ANPR at the RRCs and at the Authority meeting on 23/06/2014 agreed that ANPR should be installed at the sites as part of a variation relating to the Integrated Waste Management Services (IWMS) contract.

4.6 Members have received subsequent reports outlining progress on procurement and installation. The costs of installing and maintaining the system are being borne by Shanks.

4.7 Officers have been developing the protocol and communications message regarding the use of ANPR and this is the first time that Members have seen these proposals.

5. Current position 5.1 The hardware (cameras, servers, monitors) has now been installed at the RRCs and

the software is being finalised. Before putting the system into live use, there will be a bedding in period in which data will be gathered to inform decisions on the parameters of the new protocol and for ELWA, Shanks and council officers to receive training in how to operate the system.

5.2 ELWA has consulted with constituent council officers and Shanks staff to develop a protocol for the use of ANPR.

Page 1 of 4 Agenda Item 08 (ANPR) Page 23 of 101


5.3 A live date for the protocol of 01/02/2016 is proposed, allowing stakeholders time to become fluent in both the system and how the protocol will be carried out and for a communications programme to be rolled out to the public.

5.4 To clarify, the system will be fully operational before this date with data being collected but it is proposed that enforcement of the protocol will not take place until 01/02/2016.

6. Process 6.1 The ANPR system will be administered by ELWA and Shanks staff based on parameters

agreed with constituent council officers. Any enforcement action required as a result of fraudulent activity will be carried out by council officers in line with agreed Service Level Agreements.

6.2 The basis of the procedure will be as follows: a) The system will alert site staff when a vehicle has entered the sites above the set

parameters. The trigger point for this alert can be adjusted as necessary and will be agreed during the bedding in period using gathered data as a guide. Each RRC has a camera situated at both the weighbridge and public entrances, so all incoming vehicle movements will be captured.

b) If the system detects that a vehicle has reached the trigger level, site operatives will be prompted to give the driver a standard letter (Appendix C) which explains that the vehicle has been identified as using the site(s) with unusual frequency and is now being monitored, inviting them to contact their local authority to discuss their tipping requirements.

c) If the vehicle visits a site again without having contacted their local authority (which would have in turn contacted Shanks to either authorise, limit or deny access), site operatives will be prompted to give the driver a second standard letter (Appendix D) advising that they will be allowed access on this occasion but permitted no further free use of any ELWA RRC without authorisation from their local authority.

d) If the vehicle attempts to enter a site a third time without authorisation, the system will instruct site operatives to prevent access and give the driver a third letter (Appendix E) advising that access has been refused and will remain so unless ELWA is advised otherwise by their local authority.

e) The system has the ability to designate instructions to specific vehicles, for example where constituent council officers have agreed residents have legitimate reasons for using a site regularly, which allows access but could restrict disposal to certain types/amounts of waste.

6.3 It should be noted that a Shanks operative will be inspecting the vehicle’s load at each stage and if it is considered that the waste is anything other than household waste the Trade Waste protocol will be followed. This is an obligation on the Contractor under the IWMS Contract and penalties may be levied by ELWA if the protocol is not adhered to.

7. Implications/expectations 7.1 The principle outcome of introducing the protocol is to further reduce instances of

fraudulent disposal of waste and associated costs. It is anticipated that the presence alone of the cameras, along with prominent signage, will lead to a decrease in this activity which will be compounded by effective utilisation of the protocol.

7.2 Further benefits expected from the introduction of the protocol: a) Data can be used to inform traffic management plans and other means of

increasing efficiency in running the sites; b) Mediation/evidence in disputes involving site users and site operatives; c) To further enhance management of existing protocols and introduce efficiencies

for constituent council officers.



8. Legal compliance 8.1 As vehicle registration numbers can be considered personal information, a Data

Sharing Agreement is being drawn up with advice from Barking & Dagenham’s legal team. This will provide the framework for the methods and duration of data storage to ensure the stakeholders do not breach Data Protection regulations.

9. Public launch 9.1 Ahead of the system going live, it is proposed that a communications campaign be

carried out notifying residents of the new protocol. This will include but may not be limited to advertisements in constituent council newspapers/local press, information on ELWA and constituent council websites and site signage. An estimated cost for communications is considered to be no more than £6k and will be met from the existing budget.

10. Monitoring 10.1 The protocol will become a standing item on the Contract Monitoring meeting agenda

to facilitate regular review with reports to be fed in to other partnership groups and the Authority.

11. Conclusion 11.1 With Members’ approval and preceded by a communications campaign, the proposed

ANPR protocol will be in use from February 2016. 12. Relevant officer: James Kirkham, Waste and Recycling Officer / e-mail: [email protected] / 020 8724 5458 13. Appendices attached: Appendix A – Trade Waste Protocol Appendix B – Restricted Waste Protocol Appendix C – Stage 1 letter Appendix D – Stage 2 letter Appendix E – Stage 3 letter 14. Background Papers: 23/06/14 –Confidential Contracts Variation Report & Minute 15/2014. 15. Legal Considerations: 15.1 As described in the report. 16. Financial Considerations: 16.1 This report is recommending that Members agree the proposed date for the launch of

the ANPR protocol and the wording of the standard letters. 16.2 The one off and ongoing running costs of ANPR will be met by the contractor or as

appropriate from ELWA’s existing revenue budget. 16.3 Successful operation of ANPR should lead to some reduction in ELWA’s net costs as

there is likely to be some fall in tonnages and /or the transfer of some domestic waste tonnage into the commercial waste stream. The impact of this will be monitored as part of budget/contract monitoring procedures.

17. Performance management considerations: 17.1 None. 18. Risk management considerations: 18.1 The Data Sharing Agreement will remove risk of Data Protection breaches. 19. Equalities considerations: 19.1 The equalities impact assessment for this decision identified that there are no specific

equality implications arising from this report




20. Follow-up reports: 20.1 Follow up report to be brought to June 2016 Authority meeting. 21. Websites and e-mail links for further information: 21.1 www.eastlondonwaste.gov.uk 22. Glossary ANPR = Automatic Number Plate Recognition ELWA = East London Waste Authority IWMS = Integrated Waste Management Services RRC = Reuse and Recycling Centre WDA = Waste Disposal Authority 23. Approved by management board: 23.1 01 September 2015 24. Confidentiality: 24.1 None.


Agenda Item 8 – Appendix A

Annex 2 Part 4 Trade Waste Protocol This protocol generally applies to transits, small light vans, tippers, Luton vehicles and any vehicle towing a trailer. Definitions “non-Contract Waste”- as defined in the Contract “Vehicle(s)”- includes transits, small light vans, tippers, Luton vehicles and any vehicle towing a trailer. Safety To ensure the safety of both the public and employees the following protocol will apply: • Customers exhibiting threatening, abusive or violent behaviour will be denied use

of the Interface Site even if they have a legitimate claim for free tipping. Such customers will be placed on a stop list and prevented from tipping in the future. Their details will be forwarded to the relevant Constituent Borough, Authorised Officer and the Authority Representative. If this behaviour persists the Police will be informed and if necessary called out as an emergency.

• In the interests of safety, Staff may judge it to be prudent to allow those who

should be rejected to tip. However details of these customers will be taken and the Police informed. This will be recorded via the TIM system as a sub-category of non-Contract Waste.

Height barriers It is SWS’s intention to fit height barriers at the majority of the Interface Sites to be operational during Contractual Opening Hours. Height Barriers will be low enough to prevent the majority of Vehicles from passing under them and into the site. Protocol In order to deposit Contract Waste contained in Vehicles, the following steps must be completed and the Site Weighbridge operator must be satisfied that the Vehicle does not contain non-Contract Waste and has a legitimate right to tip. Vehicles are prevented from accessing the public area of the Interface Site by means of a height restriction bar. This means that the only point of entry to the Interface Sites is via the Site Weighbridge. Once stopped at the Site Weighbridge, the driver shall be questioned about the origin of the material in the Vehicle. At this point an assessment is made by the Site Weighbridge operator of the likelihood that the waste is non-Contract Waste based on the following factors: -

Final 1 Trade Waste Protocol Page 27 of 101


Experience – The Site Weighbridge operator will check whether the relevant Vehicle has been to each Interface Site before (check via the Site Weighbridge). TIM will allow the history of the Vehicle to be stored–the database will be able to hold a record of Vehicles that have deposited Household Waste at the Interface Site. The Site Weighbridge operator shall check if he knows of the driver or if the Vehicle appears on a stop list (where in operation). Type and appearance of the vehicle - The Site Weighbridge operator shall consider among other things the following: Is the Vehicle hired? Does it have tools or invoices in the front? Is it sign written? Is the driver wearing site boots? High visibility clothing on display etc? Waste type – The driver should be asked to describe the load. The Site Weighbridge operator shall on occasion ask to see in the back of the Vehicle to confirm the waste is as described. If there is any discrepancy in the actual waste and that described by the driver, to the Site Weighbridge operator should be alerted to a possible trader. Also Site Weighbridge staff should be aware of the nature of the material, and consider whether the material appears to have come from a domestic property. For example: Is it rubble, spoil in builders bags or are there large number of similar items – i.e. three sinks? Identification – The Site Weighbridge operator should ask the driver if: - they know the address the waste has come from, or the postcode. SWS will endeavour to procure a list of Constituent Borough streets and postcodes. This will allow the Site Weighbridge operator to check that this matches the address given. If not, waste can be rejected or charged as non-Contract Waste. Ideally the Constituent Borough will supply this information electronically to be held on the PC. Preferably the driver is then asked to produce some form of identification. If this is the first time the Vehicle has visited the Interface Site they should be asked for a driving licence and something to link the driver to the property. Once these questions have been answered there are two options:- The Vehicle appears to hold Household Waste - If the Site Weighbridge operator is completely satisfied that the Vehicle contains Household Waste they can be allowed to tip the contents of the Vehicle. The Vehicle shall be weighed and the driver shall be instructed to tip the Vehicle’s load and return to be weighed out. No charge will be made and the transaction will be recorded as Household Waste. If they have no ID but the Site Weighbridge operator is satisfied that the driver is genuinely carrying Household Waste, the driver will be allowed to tip its waste. The Vehicle appears to hold non-Contract Waste - At all Interface Sites expect Chigwell Road Site, the non-Contract Waste price per tonne will be clearly displayed at the Site Weighbridge. At the Chigwell Road Site the driver will be asked to leave and be recommended to use a nearby site, either the Jenkins Lane Site or a third party site. If the driver accepts a non-Contract Waste charge the vehicle will be weighed in and directed to the trade waste tipping area where they can discharge the non-Contract Waste. On returning to the Site Weighbridge they are weighed out, a cash charge made and a ticket will be issued.



If they do not accept the price they will be advised of other local facilities licensed for non-Contract Waste and redirected to them. In order to fulfil duty of care obligations, the details all of non-Contract Waste Vehicles will be passed to the Environment Agency unless a valid waste carriers certificate is produced. The Site Weighbridge ticket will act as the duty of care transfer note. Public Launch Prior to the implementation of this protocol it will be necessary to inform the public in each Constituent Borough of the forthcoming changes. This can be managed in a number of ways including leaflets, signage and the issuing of newsletters. It is proposed to carry out the launch of this protocol following consultation with the Authority and the Constituent Boroughs and it will be implemented as soon as possible during the course of the first Contract Year. Performance and Unavailability Deductions In relation to Performance and Unavailability Deductions that might arise due to a failure to follow this Protocol by the Constituent Borough or the Authority refer to Schedule 2 Payment Mechanism Paragraph 11.6 and 12.5



Page 30 of 101

further informationFor further information please contact the site management:

For more information onrecycling visitwww.recyclenow.com orwww.recycleforlondon.comPRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER • AUGUST 2007

FrizlandsLane reuse andrecyclingcentre

what is household waste?

Shanks East London

Frog Island Waste Management FacilityCreek WayRainhamEssexRM13 8ENt: 0800 3899918e: [email protected]: www.shanks.co.uk/eastlondon

London Borough of Barking and Dagenham - FrizlandsFrizlands Admin Building Frizlands LaneDagenham EssexRM10 7HXt: 020 8215 3000e: [email protected]

To seek authorisation from the council please contact:

There are three categoriesof waste:

Household Waste

The following materials are accepted at Frizlands Lane RRC in reasonable amounts.

■ Glass bottles and jars■ Wood■ Cardboard■ Paper■ Garden waste■ Textiles and shoes

■ Scrap metal■ White goods■ Fridges and freezers■ Food and drinks cans■ Engine oil■ Car batteries

■ Plastic bottles■ Aluminium foil■ Electrical goods■ TV's and computers

Household Waste

Restricted Household Waste

Trade Waste

Trade Waste

Any waste that has been generated from a trade, business, industry, commercialventure, utility or service activity, whether or not for profit. Anyone carryingcommercial waste should be in receipt of a valid waste carriers license. You will be required to pay for

disposal of this waste.

Restricted Household waste

Waste that has been generated from building, renovation or DIY work is classedas construction and demolition waste rather than household waste and isrestricted at the RRC. Examples of restricted waste include:

■ Bath tub■ Toilet pan■ Cistern■ Wash basin■ Water tank■ Door■ Kitchen worktop■ Kitchen unit■ Window frame■ Fence panel and post

■ Soil or rubble■ Central heating

components■ Garden shed■ Roofing materials■ Concrete■ Pond and other

excavations■ Plasterboard■ Structural wood

You will be permitted to deposityour restricted waste todayproviding you have not beenadvised previously about theRestricted Waste Rules. You

will then need to contactBarking & Dagenham Council

to receive authorisation todeposit restricted household

waste items free of charge onfuture occasions.

Frizlands Lane, Rainham Road North, Essex, RM10 7HXMonday-Friday 07.30–16.30Saturday 07.30–16.00Sunday 08.00–16.00Trade: Monday-Friday 09.00–16.00

Agenda Item 8 - Appenix B

Page 31 of 101

the new household waste system What waste do you wish to bring to the Frizlands Lane RRC?

Before your visitPlease read this leaflet carefully beforevisiting. Pre-sort your waste to enable itto be recycled and make sure youbring proof of address with you. If youhave hired a van please also bring yourrental agreement.

If you have previously visited the sitewith restricted waste and were advisedto contact the Council forauthorisation, please do so beforetravelling to the site.

Offensive BehaviourOur staff are here to help you. Anyresident exhibiting threatening, abusiveor violent behaviour will bepermanently denied use of all Reuseand Recycling Centres operated byShanks East London. Details will bepassed on to the constituent boroughand if the behaviour persists, the Policewill be informed.

Disposing of restricted or trade waste?If you have been denied access to theRRC to tip for free you can do either ofthe following ■ Pay the trade waste fee to dispose

of your waste.■ Seek permission from Barking

and Dagenham Council to tip free of charge.

■ Hire a skip. Please refer to your localtelephone directory.

■ Take your waste to a private wastedisposal or recycling facility. Pleaserefer to your local telephone directory.

Any resident living in the London Borough of Barking andDagenham, Havering, Newham or Redbridge is entitled touse the Frizlands Lane Reuse and Recycling Centreoperated by Shanks East London free of charge providingthey are depositing only household waste.

Trade waste is accepted for a charge. A new system hasbeen introduced to define exactly what is and isn’t classifiedas household waste. This is to ensure that only householdwaste enters the site for free of charge.

introduction

Household waste(Non-restricted)

You will be allowed to deposityour non-restrictedfor free.

You will not bepermitted to tip yourload free of charge untilyou have receivedauthorisation from theBorough in which youare resident. You willhave been informedabout this rule on yourprevious visit.

You will be permittedto tip your restrictedwaste today but youwill need to seekpermission from theBorough if you wish totip any future loadscontaining restrictedwaste.

You will be required to pay for the disposal of yourwaste.

Have you brought restricted waste to the site since the introductionof these waste rules?

RestrictedHousehold Waste Trade Waste

YES No

Page 32 of 101

DRAFT STAGE 1 LETTER IMPORTANT INFORMATION – ACTION REQUIRED

Access to East London Waste Authority (ELWA) Reuse & Recycling Centres (RRC)

The ELWA RRCs are provided free of charge to ELWA residents for the disposal of household waste only. Other types of waste, such as waste from businesses or large DIY projects, are subject to restrictions or charges.

Every tonne of waste deposited at these sites costs the taxpayer over £100. In order to reduce fraudulent tipping and unnecessary cost to the taxpayer, frequent visitors will be asked to evidence that they are carrying only household waste from their own home.

It has been noted that this vehicle has been making visits to the RRCs at a higher frequency than the norm. If you require regular access to dispose of your household waste or recycling, please contact your Local Authority to discuss the matter (details overleaf). If ELWA has not received direction from your Local Authority prior to your next visit, you may be delayed pending enquiries for authorisation.

For further information on the Reuse and Recycling Centres, please visit www.eastlondonwaste.gov.uk.

Agenda Item 8 – Appendix C

Page 33 of 101


Please be aware that any business transporting waste, whether their own or someone else's, for free or for profit, must now register as a waste carrier

with the Environment Agency. Failure to register can result in a fine.

LOCAL AUTHORITY CONTACT DETAILS (Please allow a minimum of two working days for processing of response.)

London Borough of Barking & Dagenham - ?.gov.uk

London Borough of Havering - ?.gov.uk

London Borough of Newham - ?.gov.uk

London Borough of Redbridge - ?.gov.uk

Please be prepared to provide the following information to your Local Authority:

1. your name and address;

2. the nature of the waste you wish to deposit;

3. the address of the household from which the waste has been generated;

4. the circumstances in which the waste has been generated;

5. your explanation of the high level of usage of the site to deposit the waste from your residence in this vehicle.

Automatic Number Plate Recognition cameras are in use at ELWA RRCs and we may be required to provide your details to other enforcement agencies.

Page 34 of 101



Please be advised that on a previous visit to an ELWA RRC, the driver(s) of this vehicle was issued notice requiring them to take action to confirm that the vehicle only carries household waste from your home.

Further to that notice, the driver(s) failed to take the required action to provide sufficient information on the nature of the waste they regularly bring into our site(s).

On inspection of the waste and the information you provided, it was deemed that the vehicle was carrying household waste from your home and was allowed to tip on this occasion.

The vehicle will however be refused entry on its next visit if you do not contact your Local Authority (details overleaf) to receive approval to continue accessing the site. Please note that approval may not be granted in certain circumstances. Should this be the case you will be advised of your options for the disposal of the waste.


Agenda Item 8 – Appendix D

Page 35 of 101

Please be aware that any business transporting waste, whether their own or someone else's, for free or for profit, must now register as a waste carrier with the Environment Agency. Failure to register can result in a

fine.













Page 36 of 101



Please be advised that on previous visits to an East London Waste Authority RRC, the driver(s) of this vehicle received notices requiring them to take action to prevent the vehicle from being refused access.

Further to these notices, the driver(s) failed to take the required action and this vehicle is now being refused entry to all ELWA RRCs until such time as authorisation is received from your Local Authority.

To gain access you will need to contact your Local Authority (details overleaf) and provide satisfactory reasons for further access. Please note that approval may not be granted in certain circumstances. Should this be the case you will be advised of your options for the disposal of the waste.


Agenda Item 8 – Appendix E

Page 37 of 101


Please be aware that any business transporting waste, whether their own or someone else's, for free or for profit, must now register as a waste carrier

with the Environment Agency. Failure to register can result in a fine.













Page 38 of 101


AUTHORITY REPORT: JOINT WASTE DISPOSAL AUTHORITY (JWDA) WORKING GROUP

1. Confidential Report 1.1 No 2. Recommendation: 2.1 Members are asked to note that officers of the six JWDAs have established a working

group to investigate implications of emerging policy for waste disposal and to provide a practitioners’ lobbying position to help shape final proposals of the European Commission (EC) for the Circular Economy (CE).

2.2 Members are recommended to agree in principle that ELWA partners with other JWDAs (and other professional and private waste bodies) to commission a study of the impact of the EC proposals for the CE.

3. Purpose 3.1 To provide Members with sufficient background information relating to the latest CE

proposals and their potential implications for local authorities to facilitate a decision to support the recommendations above.

3.2 The potential implications for ELWA are particularly relevant as the Authority begins to consider its strategy post 2027 at the expiry of the current Integrated Waste Management Services (IWMS) contract.

4. Background 4.1 On 2nd July 2014 the EC adopted a legislative proposal to review recycling and other

waste related targets. The aim of the proposal was to aid Europe in becoming a circular economy, boost recycling, secure access to raw materials and create jobs and economic growth. However on 25th February 2015 the EC announced that the 2014 Waste Review ‘Circular Economy’ proposal would be replaced with a more ambitious package which would be introduced by the end of 2015. As such they have now released a Circular Economy Strategy Roadmap which can be viewed at http://ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/impact/planned_ia/docs/2015_env_065_env+_032_circular_economy_en.pdf.

4.2 The roadmap acknowledges that the initial proposals were too waste management specific and that a more holistic approach should be taken. The roadmap proposes that a series of legislative, non legislative and perhaps financial measures should be brought forward over time to address the waste issue.

4.3 The original 2014 Waste Review proposal contained the following proposals: a) 70% recycling of municipal waste by 2030; b) 80% Recycling of packaging by 2030; c) Ban on landfilling recyclable waste by 2025; d) Reduction in food waste of 30% by 2025.

4.4 Although the targets in 4.3 a) and b) above were withdrawn the EC still has a legal obligation to review the waste targets laid down in: a) Waste Framework Directive 2008; b) Landfill Directive 1999; and c) Packaging and Packaging Waste Directive 1994.

4.5 As a result, new targets in respect of municipal waste, landfills, and packaging will still be brought forward. There has been some suggestion that the targets maybe set lower than those proposed but several stakeholders including European Union Parliamentary Committees continue to push for them to be set at the original proposed levels.

4.6 Recently the European Parliament Committee for Environment, Public Health and Food Safety adopted a resolution calling on the Commission to introduce new legislation by the end of 2015. Amongst other items this resolution called for:

Page 1 of 4 Agenda Item 09 (Joint Waste Disposal Authority Working Group) Page 39 of 101

http://ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/impact/planned_ia/docs/2015_env_065_env+_032_circular_economy_en.pdf


a) Development of waste prevention measures; b) Binding waste reduction targets for municipal, commercial and industrial wasteto

be achieved by 2025; c) Setting clear minimum standards for extended producer responsibility

requirements; d) Applying the pay as you throw principle for residual waste combined with

mandatory separate collection schemes for paper, metal, plastic and glass to achieve higher quality materials; introducing mandatory separate collection of biowaste by 2020;

e) Increasing recycling / preparation for reuse target to at least 70% of municipal solid waste and 80% recycling of packaging waste by 2030;

f) Strictly limiting incineration with or without energy recovery, by 2020, to non recyclable and non biodegradable waste;

g) A binding gradual reduction of all landfilling, in three stages (2020, 2025, 2030) except for waste for which landfilling is the most environmentally sound option; and

h) Introducing fees on landfilling and incineration. 5. Implications for ELWA 5.1 As a waste disposal authority ELWA does not have any statutory responsibility for

recycling or reuse so the implications of the high recycling targets and mandatory separate collections are far greater for its constituent councils. However along with its four constituent councils ELWA has an agreed joint waste strategy which commits the partners to work towards a 50% recycling target by 2020 in line with current Directive requirements. ELWA clearly has a role to play in assisting the constituent councils’ transition to agreed future targets which will likely be before 2027 and this will have implications for the existing IWMS contract.

5.2 There will be implications for ELWA’s future waste management strategy. Whilst the constituent councils have not yet indicated whether recycling should form part of ELWAs role post 2027, recycling performance will at least determine the volume and composition of residual waste and ELWA will need to consider the impact of any bans on landfill or incineration.

5.3 There are some positive aspects of the proposal particularly extended producer responsibility and binding waste minimisation targets which should reduce the volume of waste at the end of the ‘pipe’. However it is likely that the material that is left will be the most difficult and most expensive waste left to deal with as higher value and quality material will be taken out of the waste stream perhaps even before it is collected by the waste collection authorities.

6. Proposal 6.1 It is important that the Authority takes an active role at national and regional levels in

influencing the development of waste management policy and regulation. Lobbying of this nature was supported by Members at the February 2015 meeting.

6.2 The Greater Manchester Waste Disposal Authority (GMWDA) has already been active in this area and have stated that they are concerned about the lack of response to these proposals from the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) who appear to be treating waste as a low priority.

6.3 In August 2015 ELWA officers hosted a meeting of the six JWDAs (Greater Manchester, Merseyside, North London, West London and Western Riverside) who collectively manage 15% of England’s domestic waste arisings.

6.4 A principle concern coming out of this meeting was that in addition to the lack of response from DEFRA, their low priority status for waste could result in decisions being taken without an evidence base and the transposition of future legislation will put a significant financial burden on local authorities who do not have the power or resource to influence the supply chain.



6.5 It was therefore proposed that the six JWDAs, alongside the Local Government Association (LGA) and relevant commercial organisations commission a piece of work to develop a high level evidence base to model the impact of: a) A 70% recycling target; b) Binding waste reduction targets; c) 80% packaging recycling target; d) Residual waste charging; e) Mandatory separate collections; f) Proposed restrictions on landfill and incineration.

6.6 A more detailed account of the JWDA group meeting and the proposed implications and requirement for a study can be found at Appendix A.

7. Conclusion 7.1 2015 will continue to be a period of intense activity in Europe as the EU legislates

towards a circular economy and it is essential, given the potential implications for ELWA and its constituent councils that the Authority seeks to influence and shape this process as far as it is able to do so.

7.2 Collective lobbying with other local authorities is considered the most effective route and it is therefore recommended that Members agree that ELWA should play its part alongside the other JWDAs.

7.3 The new CE package will impact on the Authority either directly or by influencing outlets for waste materials but there is insufficient detail to determine the exact nature of that risk. DEFRA are also likely to make decisions without an evidence base given their low priority status awarded to waste. Officers of the six JWDAs consider it essential that policy is influenced by providing an evidence base and it is recommended to Members that they agree that ELWA should contribute to the development and production of this information.

8. Relevant officer: Mark Ash, Managing Director / [email protected] / 020 8724 5614 / 07872 003874 9. Appendices attached: Appendix A: JWDA Group rationale and proposal for developing and evidence base for the circular economy. 10. Background Papers: 10.1 Minute 55 Revenue & Capital Estimates and Levy 2015/16 - 09 February 2015. 11. Legal Considerations: 11.1 None. 12. Financial Considerations: 12.1 This report is asking Members to note the establishment of the working group to look

into the implications of emerging EC policy on waste disposal and to agree in principle to commission a study on this.

12.2 There are financial implications of the emerging EC policy both in respect of the remainder of the current contract for example the effect of waste prevention measures and reduction targets on tonnages, but also on the possible impact on the decision on the retender /basis of the new contract after 2027 such as whether to use an incinerator or not. The EC proposals may also mean that Members at the appropriate time will need to review the current Levy setting mechanism in connection with the proposals on residual waste.

12.3 The proposed study would examine the financial impact of the above in detail and this would be reported to Members. ELWA’s share of the cost of the study will be met as appropriate from the ELWA revenue budget.




13. Performance Management Considerations: 13.1 None. 14. Risk Management Considerations: 14.1 None. 15. Equalities considerations: 15.1 The equalities impact assessment for this decision identified that there are no specific

equality implications arising from this report 16. Follow-up Reports: 16.1 Periodic further reports will be brought forward at future meetings. 17. Websites and e-mail links for further information: http://ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/impact/planned_ia/docs/2015_env_065_env+_032_circular_economy_en.pdf and http://www.recycleforyourcommunity.com/waste_authority/default.aspx 18. Glossary: CE - Circular Economy Constituent Councils – London Boroughs of Barking & Dagenham, Havering, Newham &

Redbridge DEFRA – Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs EC - European Commission IWMS - Integrated Waste Management Services Contract JWDA – Joint Waste Disposal Authority LGA – Local Government Association 19. Confidentiality: 19.1 No 20. Approved by management board: 20.1 1 September 2015 21. Confidentiality: 21.1 Not Applicable





East London Waste Authority 14 September 2015 Agenda Item 9 – Appendix A

Joint Waste Disposal Authorities (JWDAs) Group

Developing an evidence base for a circular economy

02th September 2015

Page 43 of 101

This paper has been developed by the six Joint Waste Disposal Authorities, (JWDA) established by the Local Government Act 1985, namely, East London Waste Authority (ELWA), Greater Manchester Waste Disposal Authority (GMWDA), Merseyside Recycling and Waste Authority (MRWA), North London Waste Authority (NLWA), West London Waste Authority (WLWA) and Western Riverside Waste Authority (WRWA). The Authorities have 30 years’ experience in delivering sustainable waste management; together the six JWDAs manage around 15% of the England’s household waste. Therefore, the ability of England to meet its recycling and waste management ambitions, including statutory targets, depends on the successful delivery of aligned waste management strategies within these conurbations. 1. Purpose and objectives 1.1 The group has been established to investigate implications of emerging policy changes

for waste disposal, and to provide a practitioners lobbying position to help shape final proposals.

1.2 This paper outlines how local authorities have reacted to current Government waste

management objectives, and outlines potential changes to legislation that are emerging in Europe. The impact of those changes is likely to be significant in terms of technical delivery and financial consequences, yet there remains a knowledge vacuum within which these decisions are being made. A study to examine the potential consequence of the outlined European proposals would therefore greatly benefit the EU and UK Government policy makers, as well as those industry and local government that need to react to it.

2. Where we are today 2.1 The principal focus of the Waste Management Plan for England is to deliver the legal

objectives required by Europe to reduce municipal biodegradable waste landfilled to 35% of 1995 levels, and reach 50% recycling of municipal waste by 2020. These are realistic ambitions that have been set in-train for several years, and are now firmly embedded within the waste management strategies of local authorities. The early pace set has seen recycling and composting rates double over the last ten years, now reaching around 44%, and Defra remain convinced that there is sufficient energy from waste capacity in the pipeline to meet EU diversion targets by 2020. Indeed the gap has closed significantly, though some caution should be exercised when interpreting the figures since the target is based upon compositional analysis of local authority collected waste that doesn’t really apply to the additional commercial and industrial waste which are now included. Separately from the England waste plan the devolved national Governments (Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales) have set their own agendas, which set more ambitious targets. There is no evidence of any English appetite to push forward its own plans.

2.2 That rosy outlook has been stymied in recent years, as recycling rates have begun to

stagnate; having surpassed the 40% mark nearly five years ago they have slowly increased to around 44%, where they have stubbornly remained over the last two years, leading many industry commentators to raise doubts whether the 50% recycling target will be reached by 2020.

2.3 Examining evidence from WRAP to try and pin-point the exact reasons for this

stagnation tells us that recycling rates are predominately determined by the number of different materials (particular those that weigh more) which are included in the

Page 44 of 101

recycling collected. In terms of dry recycling most local authorities already collect the maximum number of materials for which there are available outlets so it is difficult to make any further gains. This has been compounded by a fall in the quantity of potentially recyclable material; particularly paper (but also light-weighting of other materials like glass) that has negated gains in participation resulting in the performance in many local authorities flat-lining. The development of markets for secondary raw materials is therefore imperative to further increasing recycling.

2.4 Clearly, the most significant area for potential gain is food waste, which represents

around a fifth to a quarter of waste collected at the kerbside, or a third of the residual waste bin. Food waste collections however are more expensive for local authorities to implement, consequently many local authorities have not put a collection in place, or more ominously, some have taken the difficult decision to remove them due to budget constraints. Moreover, once implemented participation and capture levels fall well below those of other waste streams. The consequences of this for the national recycling targets can be observed in the published statistics which show that separately collected food accounts for only 2.9% of recycling (2013/14) when it could realistically be ten times that figure. The question that needs to be answered in order to meet the 50% recycling target is therefore not one of technical feasibility, but how are we going to pay for it?

2.5 There are now concerns that waste arisings may be starting to grow again. The most

recent data shows that total household waste nationally increased by 3.5%, with the main component of that increase being residual waste, which increased by 2.5% (to December 2014). Those figures are reflected in the data held by the JWDAs, which show the upsurge is predominantly due to an increase in bulky wastes delivered to Household Waste Recycling Centres. This may, in part, be due to transfer of waste arising between District and HWRC streams locally, though at a national level it suggests that the improving economy is again leading to an increase in consumption, in turn leading to more wastes, which means waste management costs are likely to increase going into the future. This will be further compounded by a rising population that increasingly gravitates towards urban areas where high recycling rates are the hardest to deliver.

2.6 Local government funding, of which the JWDAs levys form part, is under unprecedented

pressure. Since 2010 central government support in many JWDA areas has fallen by more than a third (with some more than 40%). Coupled with the increased cost of statutory services due to increased demand (particularly adult social care) pressure on waste disposal budgets has been intense. The current preparations for the autumn’s Comprehensive Spending Review announcement (CSR 2015) are looking at the impact of a further 40% reduction in resources. Set against that background waste disposal’s usual ground of “environmentally good” is not sustainable, and “cheap as possible” is the new watchword. Doing nothing is not an option, and there is a real danger that in the English policy vacuum short term financial expediency may win over longer term environmental benefits.

2.7 Set against that background the JWDAs want to act collectively, but this is area in which

Government needs to take the lead, since the industry is underpinned by either regulation and fiscal incentives. That message is also mirrored by industry (the Environmental Services Association – ESA) and the professional body (Chartered Institute of Wastes Management – CIWM).

3. Resource efficiency: towards a circular economy 3.1 Whilst we grapple with meeting the 2020 targets, the European Commission is working

on a new approach based upon resource efficiency, which has become known as The Circular Economy, with the long term objective of developing an economy based upon the minimal uses of resources, where materials are kept circulating in the economy for

Page 45 of 101

as long as possible. At the forefront of that work stream is a revision to the existing waste targets, under the following Directives:

a) Waste Framework Directive 2008; b) Landfill Directive 1999; and c) Packaging and Packaging Waste Directive 1994. 3.2 On the 9th July The European Parliament adopted a resolution (known as the Sirpa

Pietikäinen Opinion) calling on the Commission to introduce new legislation by the end of 2015 to include the following waste related requirements:

a) clear and unambiguous definitions; b) developing waste prevention measures; c) binding waste reduction targets for municipal, commercial and industrial waste

to be achieved by 2025; d) setting clear minimum standards for extended producer responsibility

requirements to ensure transparency and cost effectiveness of the extended producer responsibility schemes;

e) applying the ‘pay-as-you-throw-principle’ for residual waste combined with

mandatory separate collection schemes for paper, metal, plastic and glass in order to facilitate the high quality of recycling materials; introducing mandatory separate collection for biowaste by 2020;

f) increasing recycling/preparation for reuse target to at least 70% of municipal

solid waste and 80% recycling of packaging waste by 2030, based on a solid reporting method preventing the reporting of discarded waste (landfilled or incinerated) as recycled waste, using the same harmonised method for all Member States with externally verified statistics; an obligation for recyclers to report on the ‘input’ quantities of waste going into the sorting plant as well as the ‘output’ quantity of recyclates coming out of the recycling plants, preventing the reporting of discarded waste (landfilled or incinerated) as recycled waste;

g) strictly limiting incineration with or without energy recovery, by 2020, to non-

recyclable and non-biodegradable waste; h) a binding, gradual reduction of all landfilling, implemented in coherence with

the requirements for recycling, in three stages (2020, 2025 and 2030), except for certain hazardous waste and residual waste for which landfilling is the most environmentally sound option; and

g) introducing fees on landfilling and incineration. 3.3 Although there is a lot of uncertainty regarding the content of the new proposals, and

what will make it through the various EU approval processes the above given us closest indication of what we might expect by the end of the year.

4. The level of ambition 4.1 The JWDAs Group has examined the European proposals and whilst the core concepts of

resource security and efficient usage are certainly the right things to deliver, the speed and timing need to be more carefully considered. If we take the proposed recycling

Page 46 of 101

targets and incineration limit, as an example then the Parliamentary motion suggests 70% recycling is delivered by 2030, but incineration of non-biodegradable and non-recyclable is banned by 2020. That leaves the question; what do we do with the significant quantity of material that isn’t being recycled between 2020 and 2030? A better approach, therefore, would be to plan the appropriate level of energy from waste capacity required to treat the expected level of waste arising over the medium to long term as recycling rates increase.

4.2 The European Commission needs to take a much longer joined up strategic view that befits the complexity of what they are trying to achieve. Changing to a circular economy requires a wholescale shift in the way the whole economy works that goes beyond how products are manufactured to the way business operates, and how they access finance. Delivered in a structured way such reforms could not only benefit Government but deliver real economic advantage. Reform of the financial sector will be required to introduce new financing models, and develop tools to assess financial viability based on greater retention of assets, and much longer term cash flows as companies take responsibility for a product over a long term cycle. In that economy companies will need to adjust to revenues being generated from secondary raw materials, reuse and repair that will not manifest until much later in a products lifespan. The scale of change required for the whole economy to adopt a long term strategic approach based on resource value cannot be realistically delivered over a five or ten year timescale.

5. Understanding the impact of the circular economy on local authorities 5.1 At a time when financial pressures are falling disproportionately on local authority

environmental services (that have not been afforded the protection given to other services like education and health) and has curtailed investment in the collection systems, it looks increasingly certain that recycling targets will be further increased. This will, of course, have implications for local authorities but also for UK recycling and waste management industries. Given there is very little practical evidence that a truly circular economy can be created, then there is a real danger that local authorities may face very high recycling targets, combined with more complex waste products but very little in the way of market development or adequate powers to enable delivery. The JWDAs Group therefore see benefit in commissioning a study to examine the achievability of the outlined EU proposal, establishing the steps required to achieve the targets, and the financial implications of doing so.

5.2 Modelling the impact of a 70% high recycling target 5.2.1 The initial EU waste target review proposed a 70% recycling target for municipal

waste, and despite it being later withdrawn support for this target has remained high within Europe suggesting it is still a likely outcome. In any case the EU has a legal obligation to review the current 50% recycling target, so it very likely that it will be increased to some extent. The JWDAs Group therefore view the 70% target as a central part of the study, and suggest the following should be included:

a) establish the technical feasibility of increasing recycling levels to 70% in

terms of what is potentially recyclable via existing recognised markets at current levels of participation and limits to accurate recognition of recyclables;

b) establish what the current high performers are doing to achieve recycling

rates between 60-65%; c) Identify what additional materials will need to be recycled to increase

Page 47 of 101

recycling from current levels to 70%, and therefore the actions required to close the gap between current recycling levels and the target e.g. designing PVC trays so that they can be recycled;

d) examine the impact of Europe introducing a ‘contamination limit’ e.g. 2%

on current recycling rates and determine how much that would increase the implementation gap to achieve a 70% recycling target;

e) Determine the cost of delivering 70% recycling for local authority

collected waste; and f) consider the measures required to improve participation and accuracy to

achieve 70% recycling in a typically urban environment, where half of households are terraced or flatted properties, and there is (generally) a large transient population, often without English as their first language.

g) determine the impact of changes to recycling calculations, in particular

allowing incinerator bottom ash/aggregate to be included in the calculation;

h) Evaluate the impact of the more recently introduced wider definition of

municipal waste, and does this help or hinder the achievement of high targets; and

i) Consider whether a different approach to targets e.g. material specific or

carbon (rather than tonnage based) measures support achievement of a better environmental outcomes.

5.3 Modelling the impact of a binding waste reduction target 5.3.1 There has been little indication from Europe as to what level any target may be

set at. The initially withdrawn legislation simply asked Member States to take appropriate measures, with the only target and a non-binding aim to reduce food waste by 30% across waste across all sectors including households by 2025.

5.3.2 Waste reduction is largely the responsibility of design and manufacturing at a

national level, whilst the role of local authorities is more narrowly focused on engaging residents, and improving access to waste such as furniture and clothing to enable reuse and repair. The impact of waste reduction initiatives at a national level may be difficult to predict, light-weighting of packaging for example has been occurring over the past 30 or 40 years, and may now be reaching levels were further gains are unlikely so any modelling should therefore be based on fairly modest waste reduction assumptions, accepting that there it is unlikely that waste growth has been decoupled from economic growth.

5.3.3 Nevertheless, if waste volume is reduced, and its content changed, that could

impact on the potential level of recycling. It is thus essential to understand if there are links between recycling and waste minimisation targets. Some of these issues were considered in a future trends study for the 2010 Merseyside JMWMS review – the report at the link below might be useful for the study http://www.merseysidewda.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/RESOURCES-Future-Trends-Spple-Report-D1.pdf

Page 48 of 101

http://www.merseysidewda.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/RESOURCES-Future-Trends-Spple-Report-D1.pdf

http://www.merseysidewda.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/RESOURCES-Future-Trends-Spple-Report-D1.pdf

5.4 Modelling the impact of the 80% packaging recycling target 5.4.1 Increasing the packaging recycling target to 80% would help to develop markets

and support local authorities to deliver higher recycling targets. However, there are question marks regarding the feasibility of this target. In 2012 the government set the 2017 packaging recycling target at 72.9%. As part of that target the glass packaging industry were expected to achieve 81%, however, this resulted in very high costs for the glass packaging industry leading to a revision of the target in 2014, which was consequently reduced to 77% by 2017. Similarly the government are now consulting on whether it is feasible to reduce the plastic packaging target currently set at 47.1% in 2017.

5.4.2 The study should therefore consider the economic impact of an 80% recycling

target on the packaging industry, and hence whether it is achievable in financial terms. Assuming it is technically achievable the study should then demonstrate what impact achieving 80% packaging recycling would have on increasing the range of materials that local authorities will be able to recycle and contribute to their 70% municipal waste recycling target.

5.5 Modelling the impact of residual waste charging 5.5.1 If introduced, residual waste charging is likely to have a significant impact on

increasing participation rates. Experience in other countries would indicates that it is effective in increasing the quantity of recycling collected, though there has been significant variations both in the level of success (ranging from virtually no impact to a very high increase), which is in part due to different charging mechanism but also the cultural background. It is therefore worth considering which of these approaches may successfully fit into the UK, recognising that historical investment decisions and cultural acceptance may make some charging mechanism more likely to succeed than others. The introduction of the system should be considered in the real-world context, which includes issues such as reduced or exempt fees for low income households contamination, the potential diversion of waste via illegal routes, or attempts to avoid charges by using public litter bins, HWRCs or neighbour bins. Furthermore, the limits of charging mechanism should be considered. The insensitivity of on-board weighing equipment at the household level will make it very difficult to detect differences in voluminous wastes like plastics, so the responsiveness of the householder to an increase in the charge may be poor particularly at low waste levels, and a limit on what residual waste charging can achieve may be reached fairly quickly.

5.5.2 That said, it is likely to raise levels of participation in recycling schemes

particularly those related to heavy materials like paper, card, glass, garden and food waste to very high levels, and have a significant impact in tonnage terms. Taking into account these factors the work should assess what impact residual waste charging would have on the recycling rate, but also the costs involved in providing the quality alternative recycling collection services that will make residual waste collection charging palatable.

5.6 Modelling the impact of mandatory separate collection 5.6.2 It is difficult to understand at this stage what the EU mean by mandatory

separate collection, since this may be interpreted as either ‘separate from

Page 49 of 101

residual waste’ or ‘separate from materials of a different type or nature.’ The modelling should therefore examine the difference between those two outcomes at a high level.

5.6.3 The recent requirements on collection authorities to examine the need for a

range of separate collection arrangements (TEEP Regulations) has only recently been introduced. For the JWDAs the initial assessment has supported their existing systems of collection (a mixture of kerbside collection and commingled collections with mechanical sorting) by demonstrating that the cost (both capital and operational) of shifting to separate collection are very high, and the benefits of recycling are negated by additional transport emission . This cost and benefit analysis could be used by the study to establish the overall cost/benefits of a more aligned English collection system.

5.7 Modelling the impact of limiting incineration to non-biodegradable and non-recyclable

waste 5.7.1 The text adopted by the European Parliament is very difficult to interpret at this

stage, particularly with reference to what they mean by ‘non-recyclable’. Non-biodegradable is a narrower definition although there are numerous different ways to define this (e.g. gas released loss on ignition test, waste composition). The national current biodegradable waste targets are based upon mass balance and make the assumption that 68% of municipal waste is biodegradable based upon waste composition. A material, however, may be inherently ‘non-recyclable’ or become ‘non-recyclable’ because it is contaminated or mixed with other wastes.

5.7.2 Without further clarification it is difficult to determine the starting point, or

usefulness of any modelling exercise. However, removing biodegradable waste plus any commonly recycled materials is going to leave very little that is burnable other than some plastics. Therefore modelling could be undertaken under a very broad assumption that incineration will be reduced to around 10%.

5.8 Modelling the impact of limiting landfill 5.8.1 There is little indication from the adopted parliament text regarding the landfill

limit. However, the previously adopted proposals had a staged approach, which suggested a ban on certain recyclables (plastic, metals, glass, paper and other biodegradable wastes) by 2025, alongside an overall 25% limit, then further reducing the overall limit to 5% by 2030. In the absence of any clearer indication then financial impact should be modelled on these assumptions.

6. Understanding the wider impacts 6.1 Clearly, delivery of new European targets is highly likely to cost more, but as set out in

2.6 it is more likely that less money will be available. A larger funding gap would inevitably lead to wider questions regarding the way local authorities and industry operates and whether there is better way of doing things. Local authorities are actively seeking new ways to deliver services but it is not always clear as to the extent that these changes deliver savings. A significant proportion of local authorities, for example, outsource waste collection services but this doesn’t always lead to cost saving with some reverting back to in-house collections. Alternative models of delivery being discussed at various levels include those listed below. Some of these are directly in the control of local authorities, but other require active engagement of central government to bring about the relevant legislation changes that can help local authorities to reduce costs:

a) greater funding flexibility including changes in legislation to allow charging for

Page 50 of 101

services e.g. residual waste, schools, HWRCs; b) partnership working – merging management, back office or front-line services; c) use of technology and information – electronically tagging bins to deliver

personalised communications, targeted enforcement, direct charging; d) stronger legislation framework; e) integration of services e.g. work with troubled families dealing with all aspects

of council interaction; f) joint commissioning or procurement; g) national and regional harmonisation of waste collection and treatment systems h) national material exchange for recycled materials; i) out-sourcing, joint-ventures or local authority owned companies; j) revisions to the producer responsibility schemes (PRNs, WEEE compliance); k) moving from voluntary (Courtald commitment) to compulsory retail

commitments to address supply chain issues; and l) including waste in the devolution model, including the link between JWDAs and

Combined Authorities where they exist in the same geographical area; m) shared collection e.g. a joint food waste collection service; n) shared infrastructure e.g. sharing of depots between districts; o) share service provision e.g. specific roles, services, staff; p) designing services to reduce waste and cost e.g. three weekly collections,

specific charging. 7. JWDA Recommendation 7.1 A policy position, expected to be formally agreed by the JWDAs in the near future, is

provided at Appendix A. These views have been determined as a result of the JWDAs experience in delivering sustainable waste strategies, which have put England on the right path to meet waste recycling and diversion targets in 2020. However, there is a knowledge vacuum within which decisions are being taken regarding future waste management targets, which lack any real-world analysis of the technical and financially viability of achievement. A better understanding of the potential impact of forthcoming EU proposals is therefore required to support policy makers, and those that will need to react to them. Subject to formal approval by each JWDA the Group, will therefore commission a study based upon the broad assumptions in section five above regarding the forthcoming legislation changes.

Page 51 of 101

Appendix A: JWDAs Recommended Policy Actions ISSUE

POSITION

Waste prevention and reuse

• needs greater EU focus as represents the waste hierarchy priority • needs to be tackled predominantly at the design and production phase • pursuing recycling targets can work against waste prevention by encouraging waste generation • The role of local authorities is limited to education, community engagement and access to raw

materials Packaging • Reduce excessive packaging

• Better designed PRN system to only reward where the material has been recycled • Use product benchmarking to actively investigate and ban excessive packaging • Deter the use of packaging for marketing and product enhancement e.g. black plastics • Develop a standard declaration for recyclability linked to viable markets to encourage materials to be

designed to be recycled, and greater level of clarity as to what local authorities should collect and how packaging can be labelled to reduce confusion

Product and service design

• Regulation to require design improvements to facilitate longevity, reuse, re-manufacture and recycling e.g. Standard Environmental Product Declaration, Eco-Directive focused material use

• where single use / disposable products cannot be avoided they should be easier to recycle or designed to maximise their potential for energy recovery

• Single use tax should be encouraged to reduce environmental damage e.g. successful example of plastic bags

• new business models required which promote buying a service rather than owning a product • Support new business models by tax breaks, financing schemes for products that are accompanied by

lifetime guarantees, design life product support, software led longevity, provision of specific parts e.g. replacement screen, service packages, design for disassembly, device/product service packages, targeted removal of resource intensive parts.

• Develop a reuse/disassembly compliance scheme to overcome split incentives between those involved in design and repair

• Promote access to information – requirement to disclose information on product disassembly and list of materials within products

Producer responsibility

• need extended Producer Responsibility (PR) to ensure that Producers provide a greater contribution to the cost of managing end of life products and recovering resources and are incentivised to design for longevity, reuse and recycling

• local authorities (LAs) are currently subsiding inefficient UK plc resource use and can ill afford to

Page 52 of 101

continue to do so • PR schemes should cover the cover the cost of collection as an absolute minimum requirement. • greater transparency of investment from PR funds into waste management and resource recovery

infrastructure is required • Ensure the cost of joining a producer responsibility scheme is based on the environmental damage

(not sales volume) • Link the cost to the lifespan, reusability or recyclability of a product not just the sales volume • Tax virgin materials, and tax breaks or exemptions from PR compliance fees for recycled content

Procurement and supply chains

• sustainable public procurement can stimulate behavioural change in suppliers and act as ‘champion’ for greener procurement.

• improved information flow through supply chains supports better awareness between designers, manufacturers, retailers, waste managers and reprocessors e.g. the RSA ‘Great Recovery’ project which brings different parts of a product chain together to facilitate improvements in design to support reuse and recycling and development of the circular economy

• product innovation tends to be quicker than waste management innovation. Measures to improve communication, awareness and joint working across the supply chain are encouraged

• Make the provision of information by suppliers mandatory and require collation of data on the environmental impact of individual products not just company performance

• LAs should engage more actively with the supply chain, especially with retailers due to their direct influence on consumers and pivotal role in the supply chain.

• Increase the focus on retailers as the intermediate between consumers and the manufacturer by building on the Courtald Commitment to develop a stronger initiative and considering the potential for a compulsory scheme.

• Support retailers to make better decision by requiring suppliers to provide product specific environmental information

• Legislate good practice in supply chain management e.g. audits, benchmarking, flow of information, environmental scorecard, matrix, supply chain product mapping

• Support WRAP’s continued work with retailers to address products and supply chain waste, but shift towards a mandatory scheme

Waste Definitions • a consistent EU approach to calculation methods should be agreed so the current position is more fully understood before considering the future direction

• Faster process for removing regulatory burdens rather than relying on case law • Set up grades for secondary raw materials to increase market confidence • Ensure consistency of definitions of waste across Member states • Improve provision of information between suppliers of waste and end-users • Do not de-regulate waste at the expense of environmental protection

Page 53 of 101

Recycling targets

• recycling targets should not be increased without supportive cost:benefit and life cycle analyses and without identified funding to support increased collection and sorting activities.

• the marginal carbon benefit of delivering higher recycling targets should be considered against investment in alternatives e.g. solar power

• poorly designed recycling targets can impede waste prevention • material specific targets that take into account feasibility, carbon benefits, and resource scarcity are

a better approach than increasing the municipal recycling rate above 50%, which is not supported in current market conditions. Such targets should support and contribute to the achievement of long term carbon reduction targets looking ahead to 2030 - 2050

• targets should be achievable, but what is achievable will vary across EU Member States due to different waste flows, again, product specific targets/capture rates would overcome this.

• recycling targets should be based on material type rather than the source of material to encourage joint treatment of commercial, industrial and household waste.

• accepting recycled Incinerator Bottom Ash Aggregate (IBAA) in the official recycling calculation would better represent the proportion of recovered material returning to economic use in line with the EU Waste Framework Directive definition of recycling

• incorporating IBAA would allow LAs who have invested in landfill diversion through EfW to increase recycling performance at no additional cost.

• there needs to be a sensible and flexible balance between recycling and energy recovery reflecting both affordability of treatment methods, market needs (resources v energy) and relative carbon benefits. The ‘bang for buck’ of every Euro invested into the circular economy needs to be maximised

• there is little point collecting materials for which there are no markets, which simply lead to higher waste management costs and increased likelihood of contamination

• recycling targets driven by incineration taxes, landfill taxes or bans create a market distortion since it leads local authorities and waste management companies to accept the widest range of material at lowest cost (thus avoiding landfill/incineration costs) thus focusing on volume over quality

• Over-arching targets will not tackle barriers to recycling which stem from design and supply chain interaction

Participation • increased participation could be supported by more comprehensive communication and engagement programmes funded by PR

• shift to reduced residual waste collection frequency and relatively higher collection frequency for recycling. Recent WRAP research suggests an increase in weekly residual capacity from 120 to 240L reduces recycling rates by 7.9%

• Improved powers giving local authorities the flexibility to direct householders as to what material is place in which containers, and better enforce where appropriate

• Abolish the ‘public nuisance test’ under section 46 powers

Page 54 of 101

• increased PR funded support for engagement with Housing Associations, landlords, businesses to ensure opportunities available for residents and customers to recycle

• Greater clarity of landlord responsibilities, and allow wider use of landlord licensing by removing areas specific constraints

Food waste – separate collection and diversion from landfill

• diversion of food waste from landfill is supported but decisions on the most appropriate treatment, e.g. separate collection for AD or inclusion in residual waste for EfW, should be taken locally based on local considerations including cost, social and environmental impacts

• a managed withdrawal from landfill is supported by diversion of food waste and residual waste to alternative treatment technologies

• an approach utilising a mix of targets and incentives set over a medium – long term timescale can provide the signals the waste sector requires to adapt, change practices and develop new infrastructure to effectively drive material away from landfill without requiring bans, incurring sudden shocks or risking long term investments in infrastructure

• a specific requirement to separate food waste for recycling can only be accepted if the requirement is matched with the necessary funding to support collection and treatment infrastructure

• Revisit animal-by product regulation to reduce compliance costs for food waste treatment and encourage the use of animal feed.

Markets for Secondary Materials

• It is imperative that markets for secondary materials are first developed before deciding how much material should be collected.

• Further incentives placed on waste rather than markets (whether these are bans, taxes or recycling targets) will simply lead to more material being collected for which there is no market.

• the right behaviour needs to be financially rewarded in clearly visible way e.g. tax on virgin materials, exemption for compliance fees for recycled content

• any new EU measures should complement, support and encourage action at appropriate geographic levels.

Energy from waste

• Strongly oppose any ban, limit or tax on incineration. • Support the careful design of Efw capacity requirement to meet expected demand. • energy recovery is the best option for some waste e.g. clinical wastes, offensive waste, hazardous

wastes, difficult to recycle plastics or biodegradable wastes • EfW can provide a supply of secure and low carbon energy • Local authorities should not be penalised for implementing waste policies which necessarily require

investment over a long time frame • Investment should not be discouraged by making dramatic, short-term changes to waste policy • Specifically designing a material for energy recovery can have better environmental benefits that

recycling in some circumstances where more energy is expended on several separation stages. • Carbon based life-cycle assessments often over-look the high degree of water usage involved in

Page 55 of 101

several cleaning or liquid-phase separation stages, which mean recycling is sometimes wrongly supported above energy recovery.

Better technology • Support development and commercialisation of technologies to address specific bottlenecks e.g. PET tray recycling and plastic bags.

• Narrowly focus EU grant funding towards projects with the greatest potential commercial benefit. Illegal activity and better enforcement of waste shipments

• Illegal activity needs to be addressed prior to increasing recycling targets • Consistent controls are required across the EU to make sure material is only exported to certified

facilities and only materials actually recycled are counted towards targets • Greater focus on closing down illegal operations before they have the opportunity to export by

strengthening the link between exports and the permitting system through the use of end market specifications.

• Greater focus on the export activity of poorly performing sites since these are more likely to seek illegal disposal routes

JWDAs regulation • JWDAs lack the general power of competence of principal authorities. This is an issue that could potentially be addressed locally through the devolution agenda and in city regions through clarification of the relationship between JWDAs and Combined Authorities.

• The Waste Minimisation Act 1998 supports action by relevant authorities, including JWDAs, to reduce all wastes, not just household or municipal

Page 56 of 101

AGENDA ITEM 13

Page 45

By virtue of paragraph(s) 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12Aof the Local Government Act 1972.

Document is Restricted

east london waste authority · representative for the lbr, to the position of vice chair following...

Documents