Agenda item

Purpose of report: To provide an outline programme of work for the development of strategic waste infrastructure, to support a resilient and efficient waste management service for residents.

Witnesses:

·         Natalie Bramhall, Cabinet Member for Property and Waste

·         Katie Stewart, Executive Director for Environment Transport and Infrastructure

·         Steven Foster, Interim Director for Waste

·         Rob Macpherson, Waste Contract & Project Officer

·         Jodi Johnston, Waste Contract Management Project Officer

Key points raised during the discussion:

1. The Chairman noted that several components of the strategy involved other entities and asked if alternative plans had been considered if agreements could not be reached. The Executive Director for Environment Transport and Infrastructure explained that third party market capacity would be considered if agreements could not be reached.

2. A Member asked how the council work with districts and boroughs in a more collaborative way to provide resilience, security and value for money for the future of waste services, as outlined in the councils vision. The Interim Director for Waste noted the good level of horizontal cooperation between the districts and boroughs through the Surrey Environmental Partnership (SEP) and explained that the districts and boroughs, provided frontline resilience, the statutory obligations of the council provided security of service and value for money resulted from more efficiency around recycling by having a Surrey County Council (SCC) owned Materials Recovery Facility (MRF) to reduce costs. The Cabinet Member for Property and Waste noted the differing levels of services provided by the districts and boroughs and said that the SEP would work with them to provide support to implement change going forward.

3. A Member asked what responsibility the council had to engage with residents. The Waste Contract Management Project Officer said that in addition to the districts and boroughs having their own communications plans, quarterly meetings took place between waste and recycling officers to agree communications strategies which were produced by the Surrey Environmental Partnership.

4. A Member queried how the proposed introduction of a new operating model for the Community Recycling Centre (CRC) network would improve network efficiency and effectiveness and provide greater control over the quality of the materials collected. The Interim Director for Wasteexplained that the long term ambition was to rebuild six sites that were currently substandard rather than introduce a new operating model. The Waste Contract & Project Officeragreed that there were plans to redevelop the six sites to improve safety and efficiency with no new operating model proposed.

5. A Member queried if the recycling credits offered to the districts and boroughs were progressive. The Interim Director for Wastesaid that from April 2023, with SEP members agreement, action plans would be in place for all 12 authorities to drive forward initiatives to reduce waste arisings and increase recycling. Progress against these plans would be assessed without penalties or deductions in the first and second year, however deductions to credit payments could be implemented in the third year if an authority is assessed as making insufficient progress to deliver on their stated actions.

6. A Member queried if some disposal could be dealt with by the council in partnership with relevant third parties to reduce transportation costs. The Interim Director for Wastenoted the industry focus on reducing tonnage to landfill or incineration and said that in terms of recyclables journeys, the Trumps Farm project noted in the report would enable the council to build its own MRF to bulk up waste within the county and reduce transportation. Apart from the Eco Park There were currently no facilities in the county to incinerate residual waste.

7. A Member queried how the proposed Infrastructure Plan would reduce the carbon impact of waste treatment, transportation and disposal, and increase resource recovery from residual waste materials. The Member asked how effectively this would align with the 25 year Environment Plan which sets out the Resources and Waste Strategy. The Interim Director for Wastesaid that gains could be made by reducing the annual 50,000 tonnes of food waste currently in black bags. By educating residents to place this food waste in the separate container provided, it would significantly reduce costs and enable it to be used to produce electricity in an anaerobic digestion process. In addition, discussions were taking place regarding electric collection vehicles and although these were at an early stage of development and not necessarily viable There were early indications of vegetable based fuels being an option going forward. Measurement of any successes would be reflected in environmental returns to The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA). The Executive Director for Environment Transport and Infrastructureadded that existing key performance Indicators to align with the Greener Futures Plan would be reviewed and agreed with the Committee.

8. A Member asked how the proposed multi-facility solution at Trumps Farm would reduce the cost and environmental impact of long-distance haulage for the out of county treatment of dry recycling. The Interim Director for Waste explained that the Trumps Farm site was currently at the feasibility stage, and it was expected that a transportation review would be required prior to the submission of any planning application. It had been agreed with Cabinet that a planning application would not be submitted until an additional round of challenge had taken place and it was expected to come back to that Committee as part of this process.

9. A Member, in noting paragraph 18 of the report, queried what were the commercial opportunities resulting from initiatives in the strategy. The Interim Director for Waste said that this related to the generation of a small income by transferring back control to the council at the transfer stations currently used by contractors to bulk up commercial waste for the collection of commercial waste.

10. A Member queried where in the process was the council in relation to Trumps Farm as paragraphs 30 and 31 of the report conflicted with the information provided on page 16 of the annex. The Interim Director for Waste explained that the process was at an earlier stage than a year ago due to challenges from Cabinet, the Communities, Environment and Highways Select Committee and the Major Projects Board. The Cabinet Member for Property and Waste added that there had been increased Land and Property department involvement to identify alternative sites within the county for an MRF and a Property Board had been set up exclusively for this project.

11. The Chairman said that the monitoring of the Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) of all components of the plan were an essential part of the process. A Member noted the need for KPIs around cost effectiveness, carbon impact and the circular economy. The Executive Director for Environment Transport and Infrastructure agreed with the suggestion to develop new KPIs and of ongoing monitoring of existing KPIs.

12. A Member asked how much landfill capacity remained in Surrey. The Waste Contract & Project Officerconfirmed that the only landfill capacity remaining in Surrey was at Cormongers Lane in Redhill which took 10,000 tonnes (5 per cent) of the counties waste. The site would be capped and restored by 2030 at which point there would be no landfill capacity in Surrey and it would be unlikely for any further landfill sites to be permitted.

13. A Member asked if lobbying of government was possible to make it a requirement for mattresses to be more easily recyclable. The Interim Director for Waste said that solutions were being sought around mattress recycling.

14. A Member queried incinerator temperature sensitivity required to remove Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) from mattresses. The Interim Director for Waste said that discussions were taking place with SUEZ to identify solutions around POPs.

Resolved:

The Communities, Environment and Highways Select Committee:

1. While recognising the imperative to work with Districts and Boroughs, supports the proposed Strategic Waste Infrastructure Plan and commends its ambitions to work in partnership with the County’s District and Boroughs.

2. Asks that – as the various components move forward – clear measures, including specific Key Performance Indicators (KPIs), are put in place to ensure cost effectiveness; carbon impact; and circular economy with appropriate monitoring to evaluate performance.

3. Urges the Cabinet Member to write to central government requesting them to take further necessary measures to reduce the need for specialist recycling.