Agenda item

To receive a report from the Head of Strategy and Policy, Resources & Circular Economy, on the progress of the Strategic Waste Infrastructure Plan and the proposed work programme up to 2029.

WITNESSES

• Natalie Bramhall, Cabinet Member for Property, Waste and Infrastructure
• Simon Crowther, Executive Director for Environment, Property & Growth
• Steven Foster, Director for Waste
• Jade-Ashlee Cox-Rawling, Head of Strategy and Policy for Waste

KEY LINES OF DISCUSSION

1. The Chairman asked about how the project would be affected in the next year given local government reform. The Executive Director for Environment, Property & Growth stated that the infrastructure plan was designed to support the entirety of Surrey County. He highlighted that over 90% of the Service’s expenditure and service delivery was through two main contracts, which would continue for at least another five years. Breaking down the waste disposal function to reflect new organisational structures would have significant implications for those contracts. He suggested continuing to operate in a holistic manner on behalf of Surrey County Council or the future authorities in Surrey for the medium term and then reflecting on the changes when more information became available.
2. A Member asked about the apparent conflict between the short-term focus mentioned in the discussion and the 30-year plan outlined in the executive summary. The Head of Strategy and Policy for Waste said that the short-term focus was on maintaining the programme of work and assets for waste across Surrey, regardless of potential divisions. The aim was to create inter-authority agreements for asset use. She clarified that the plan included assessing available assets for waste treatment across the Southeast, leading to recommendations and business cases for infrastructure within their geographical area. The need for long-term assets and infrastructure became relevant in the context of the 30-year plan.
3. A Member asked about the risks involved in building the new materials recycling facility, the likelihood of the project succeeding, and whether there was a Plan B if it did not succeed. The Head of Strategy and Policy for Waste stated that the primary risk to the new recycling facility was the planning application process. The application had been submitted and validated, with positive stakeholder engagements addressing concerns about noise, pollution, and transport. Ongoing discussions with planning colleagues aimed to ensure all concerns were addressed. The site had been identified in the Surrey West local plan and was known to the new development of Long Cross. As for a Plan B, the only option would be to look to the market, which would involve sending waste further afield and increasing capacity requirements on the waste transfer station network. She emphasised the need for more space due to collection and packaging reforms and stated that she preferred delivering the facility to a site in Surrey to create a circular economy around the materials.
4. A Member asked about the discussions taking place with the third-party Materials Recycling Facility (MRF) within Surrey and whether there was sufficient material for both the existing and new facilities. The Head of Strategy and Policy for Waste stated that there were three third-party MRFs: in Leatherhead, Columbrock, and one near London. The Service’s plans were transparent, and they had been in discussions with contractors about their intentions once the contract ended in 2029. Specifically, regarding the Leatherhead MRF, the Head of Strategy and Policy for Waste stated that she was in conversation with Mole Valley, which had chosen to pursue a self-sufficient approach. This decision led the Service to proceed with the plan. She assured the Committee that the proposal would satisfy all residents and that the Service could handle more material if needed. Additionally, a dual solution involving the Leatherhead site would be beneficial as it would create more infrastructure within the area.
5. A Member asked about the implementation of the extended producer responsibility initiative under the Environment Act, 2021, specifically how it would work, how arrangements with borough councils would be made to collect more materials, how efficiency would be measured, and what income could be expected from it. The Head of Strategy and Policy for Waste said that Surrey County Council would receive £20.3 million next year from extended producer responsibility, with £9.3 million allocated to Surrey County Council and £10.9 million to districts and boroughs. The methods for measuring effectiveness and efficiency were still being determined, and the organisation was seeking clarity from DEFRA (Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs). She emphasised the need for collaboration with districts and boroughs and mentioned the development of a decarbonisation transition plan. The new legislation would also standardise recycling materials collection, supporting the materials recycling facility.
6. A Member said they were concerned about the long-distance transportation of waste and proposed a joint venture to construct a local facility for processing waste within Surrey. They highlighted the potential benefits of cost savings, positive climatic impact, and possible income from other authorities. The Head of Strategy and Policy for Waste noted that having a Materials Recycling Facility (MRF) within Surrey would provide the necessary economies of scale. She emphasised the opportunity to work with packaging producers and create a circular economy within Surrey. The Executive Director for Environment, Property & Growth stated that he agreed with the principle of being as self-contained as possible and mentioned the challenges faced in obtaining incineration capacity within the county. The Director for Waste added that waste management in Surrey had a long history and highlighted the enthusiasm from local residents for the MRF during pre-consultation. He supported the investment in infrastructure across Surrey and emphasised the importance of a countywide approach to waste management.
7. A Member asked about the primary outcomes desired from the re-procurement of the waste service contract, the risks involved, and potential savings. The Head of Strategy and Policy for Waste stated that the waste service contract would run until 30 September 2029, and re-procurement was necessary. Further disaggregation of services could create additional savings and allow greater market competition. The aim was to achieve the best value for taxpayers, ensure continuity of services, and consider the best environmental solutions. The two main risks identified were the market's ability to deliver and the programme's timely delivery, which would be mitigated through soft market testing and early preparation.
8. A Member asked about the cost-benefit analysis of the reuse hubs, including their soft benefits, and whether they were making a significant impact on the black bag situation. The Head of Strategy and Policy for Waste said that the focus should be on the number of items prevented from being put in the black bag rather than the tonnage. They estimated that over 170,000 products would be diverted from the black bag this year, generating an income of around £1 million. They emphasised the significant impact of reuse and highlighted the potential for further initiatives at the reuse hub at IBD, including repair cafés and furniture reuse. They also mentioned the possibility of expanding reuse shops at community recycling centres, balancing space constraints with maximising diversion.
9. A Member asked about the risks associated with the new arrangement where Surrey County Council would bear the maintenance costs previously managed by SUEZ, and whether the Department had any control over the required level of maintenance. The Executive Director for Environment, Property & Growth provided context on the renegotiation of the PFI (Private Finance Initiative) contract, explaining that Surrey County Council chose to take back the risk for life cycle works on the assets for five years. He mentioned that assessments with SUEZ estimated the cost over five years to be around £10 million, and the financial risk was considered minimal with sufficient provision for that period. SUEZ assured the Department that Surrey County Council would have a say in the maintenance process, with ongoing dialogue between both parties to discuss and agree on the necessary actions.