HERTFORDSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL

WASTE MANAGEMENT CABINET PANEL

WEDNESDAY 9 JULY2008 AT 2.00P.M.

HERTFORDSHIRE HOUSEHOLD WASTE RECYCLING

CENTRE SERVICE

Report of the Director of Environment

Author: Matthew KingTel: 01992 556207

Executive Member: Derrick Ashley

  1. Purpose of report

To provide further analysis of the implications of closure of the Tring and Watford Household Waste Recycling Centresand results of the consultation on proposed closures, enabling the panel to make any recommendations to the Cabinet.

2.Summary

2.1The Environment Scrutiny Committee undertook a review of the Household Waste Recycling Centre (HWRC) service in June 2007 and identified matters for attention and/or future improvement under three broad headings: purpose and function, location and scale and style.

2.2This Panel, on 13 September 2007, received a report and a presentation on the possible rationalisation of the County Council’s HWRC service. There was discussion on the adequacy of the sites and an overview of the Service Properties Priority reports. The Panel noted there was scope to improve the service by having fewer centres with better on-site facilities and accessibility.

2.3The Panel received a report at the meeting on 4 March 2008 and recommended that notice be given of the proposed closure of the Tring and Watford HWRCs and to invite representations on the proposal. The closure proposals were subsequently publicised giving a deadline of 20June 2008 for receipt of comments. The Panel asked officers to explore the impact of the proposed closures on local highways, the carbon footprint, the proximity and accessibility to sites for residents in the areas, the risks of fly-tipping and the possibility of expansion of the Watford HWRC through discussions with Watford Borough Council.

2.4The recommendations on proposed closure were considered at a special meeting of theEnvironmentScrutiny Committeeon 16 May 2008. The minutes of the Environment Scrutiny Committee meeting are shown as Appendix A to this report.

2.5The Waste Management Unit received 666 letters / emails during the consultation period (Tring: 490; Watford: 176) citing ‘top’ concerns as increased fly tipping, unacceptable journey distances / cost, CO2 emissions and the County Council is sending out the wrong message. Amongst the letters were objections to the closures from Dacorum, ThreeRivers and Watford Councils. The Three Rivers Public Services and Health Policy and Scrutiny Committee debated the issue on 5 June. Five separate petitions were also received totalling 5,313 signatures (Tring: 3,353; Watford 1,960). Details of the main concerns raised, the petitions and the Three Rivers Scrutiny Committee debate are shown in Appendix B.

3.Recommendations

3.1That the Panel considers the further technical assessments of the impacts of closure of the Tring and Watford Household Waste Recycling Centres, together with the responses to the consultation exercise and comes to a view about the closure or otherwise of one, or both, sites and make recommendations to Cabinet accordingly.

3.2That, in light of their comprehensive review of the Household Waste Recycling Centre service and the information gathered during the recent consultation, the Hertfordshire Waste Partnership be invited to consider how the HWRC service and local household waste collection, re-use and recycling services are more effectively integrated as a means of meeting waste strategy targets.

4.Background and Analysis

4.1At its meeting on 4 March the Panel completed its assessment of the adequacy of the Household Waste Recycling Centres (HWRC) service and each of the 19 sites which make up the network. The Panel concluded that notice should be given of the County Council’s intention to close the HWRCs at Tring and Watford, that interested parties be given an opportunity to comment and that any representations would be considered by the Panel before recommendations are made to the Cabinet.

4.2The discussion on 4 March highlighted the need for further work to be done on the transport/traffic and carbon footprint implications of the closures, an assessment of the risk of increased fly-tipping and the prospects for enlargement of the Watford HWRC.

4.3The former Environment Scrutiny Committee held a special meeting on 16 May to look at the Panel’s conclusions. The meeting provided a focal point for individuals and organisations opposed to the closure of the Tring and Watford HWRCs to express their views.

4.4The potential impact on highways in the areas affected by closures has been assessed by the Environment Department’s Highways Development Control Team. In summary, the assessment shows that closure of the Tring and Watford HWRCs would not cause significant congestion or delay in either area. Details are shown in Appendix C.

4.5The potential effect on the carbon footprint for Hertfordshire has been calculated and is set out in detail in Appendix D. Closure of the Tring HWRC is estimated to increase CO2 emissions by 152.5 tonnes / annum. Closure of the Watford site is estimated in increase CO2 emissions by 227 tonnes / annum. The combined figure of 379.5 tonnes represents 0.01% of the Hertfordshire road transport total in 2005.

4.6Analysis of proximity to and accessibility of HWRCs shows that, for some residents (notably to the north and west of Tring and south of Watford), journey times to alternative HWRC facilities would be increased, from 10 minutes to 15 minutes and from 5 minutes to 10 minutes respectively. This issue has been one of the most strongly debated by interested parties and has led to questions about the purpose and function of HWRCs and their role in relation to local collection recycling services. It is felt that more should be done to help residents dispose of items such as plastics, batteries, light bulbs etc. without the need for car journeys. It has also been noted that theoretical journey times can, in reality, be significantly affected by disturbances on the road network such as major road works or road traffic accidents. Details are shown in Appendix E.

4.7Risks of fly-tipping is assessed through the Environment Agency’s Flycapture database. This shows a downward trend of 41% in reported incidents of fly tipping between 2004 and 2007 for the Watford, ThreeRivers and Dacorum districts.Closure of the Hunton Bridge HWRC in 2004 saw no significant increase in fly tipping at or near the site or in the adjacent district areas. Further details are set out in Appendix F.

4.8Since the last Panel meeting discussions with Watford Borough Council have continued. The Borough Council have indicated sufficient additional land is available for the expansion of the existing Watford HWRC which could alleviate the current, severe operational difficulties. Furthermore, the land may be available on beneficial terms, involving a nominal peppercorn rent. Any such expansion would entail capital investment. It is estimated that modest enhancements could be carried out at a cost of approximately £60,000. Further details are set out in Appendix G.

5.Conclusions

5.1To reach its conclusions on 4 March the Panel made use of the criteria devised by the Environment Scrutiny Committee in June 2007 (set out in full as Appendix H). The consultation exercise and the further technical assessments provide a helpful challenge to these criteria: the findings bear out the significance of purpose and function, location and scale and style of HWRCs in determining service improvements.

5.2The HWRC network clearly has an important role to play in allowing the disposal of bulky wastes. The network is a vital part of the overall waste management effort and a high-performing supplement to Hertfordshire’s overall recycling targets. Closure of the Tring and Watford HWRCs would not significantly affect the purpose and function of the network although, when linked to proximity and accessibility, does demand closer alignment with local collection / recycling services.

5.3The closure(s) would still ensure that 99.6% of the population of Hertfordshire are within 5 miles ‘as the crow flies’ of their nearest HWRC. The areas of proposed closure would be no worse off in terms of distance to travel to the nearest HWRC than other areas of the County such as Hitchin, Welwyn, Hatfield, Sawbridgeworth and Hertford. Some residents would have longer journeys to alternative HWRCs within the network and the cost of reaching those HWRCs would be greater due to the distance travelled and escalating fuel prices. This was a concern expressed by a number of respondents during the consultation period and is detailed in Appendix D.

5.4The provision of 19 HWRCs in Hertfordshire equates to a service ratio of 56,500 residents per HWRC. This compares favourably to the overall average of South and South East England which is 60,000 per HWRC and more favourably in comparison with the immediate neighbouring waste authorities which is 63,000. The reduction to 18 HWRCs in Hertfordshire would mean each HWRC serving 60,000 and a reduction to 17 HWRCs, 63,000.The Panel noted that the Tring and Watford HWRCs are both in areas well served by other facilities such as the newly built or refurbished Rickmansworth and Waterdale HWRCs and the proposed Buckinghamshire development at Aston Clinton that is due for completion in April 2009 and whichwill be capable of processing 15,000 tonnes of waste per annum.

5.5The Berkhamsted facility has previously processed 5,000 tonnes of waste per annum which is the estimated quantity that will be delivered by Hertfordshire residents should the Tring HWRC close. Should all 4,000 tonnes of waste from Tring be diverted, the Berkhamsted HWRC still has the capacity to process the required 7,000 tonnes per annum. It is not, however anticipated that the quantity of waste being diverted from Tring to Berkhamsted would actually reach the estimated 2,000 tonnes per annum requiring disposal. This is because the new facility in Aston Clinton would serve the Buckinghamshire residents who, it is thought, deliver a greater proportion of the total Tring HWRC waste due to the lack of green garden waste collection schemes in the Aylesbury Vale area.

5.6The Panel noted the operational difficulties associated with the Watford site.Discussions with Watford Borough Council have indicated that additional land is available for the enlargement of the HWRC and that it is sufficient to relieve the current operational difficulties. Watford Borough Councilhas expressed itself happy, in principle, to consider any reasonable proposal from the County Councilwhich would keep the facility open and improve it on the basis of including the existing land and additional land in a peppercorn lease agreement for 99 (or less) years subject to suitable use clauses.

5.7The Panel is aware of the need for a decision to be made regarding the nature and numbers of HWRCs comprising the network and of the current tender process. It is likely that any decision to delay the closure of the facilities could result in increased operational costs in the short term to cover the expense of suppliers providing containers for waste disposal and staffing at the HWRCs which might shortly close.

5.8Bringing together the Panel’s earlier assessment with the recent analysis and consultation results shows that:-

  • Closure of the Tring and Watford HWRCs would not adversely affect the overall ability of the network to provide a service to the majority of Hertfordshire residents, 99.6% of whom would be within 5 miles ‘as the crow flies’ of a facility. There will however be residents in the Tring and Watford areas who would incur longer journey times to alternative sites. At the same time, Buckinghamshire residents (who make up 50% of users of the Tring site) will, from next year, be able to take advantage of the new HWRC facility at Aston Clinton.
  • Apart from relative over-provision in South West and North West Hertfordshire, the other big concern of the Panel’s is the difficulty of operating an effective service at Watford. The Borough Council’s offer of land effectively removes this difficulty, although would require capital expenditure to implement an enhancement.

The Panel will wish to consider what recommendations to make on the closure or otherwise of one or both HWRCs.

6.Financial Implications

6.1There would be revenue savings from the HWRC closures calculated at £188,000 for Tring and £115,000 for Watford, a total of £303,000.

6.2There would in due course be a significant capital receipt from the sale of the land at Tring although the short term costs to the County’s land agents is in the region of £50,000 to cover site security costs, which could be covered by the revenue savings.

6.3The estimated cost of a modest expansion / enhancement of the Watford HWRC, based upon previous construction works, is £60,000 which could be funded from the Waste Infrastructure Capital Grant Programme.

APPENDIX A (page 1 of 6)

To:All Members of the County CouncilFrom: County Secretary’s

All Chief Officers Department

Ask For: Neil Terry

Cc:Environment Officers)Tel: 01992 555413

Officers named for action) e-mailMy ref:

Democratic Services)Your ref:

ENVIRONMENT SCRUTINY COMMITTEE

16 MAY 2008

MINUTES

ATTENDANCE

MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE

N Bell (substituting for S E Jones), C L Berry, M E Coxage (substituting for J T Metcalf), D J Drake, S B A Giles-Medhurst (Chairman), M D R Muir,

A Oaten (substituting for M Cowan), D A A Peek, S L Rackett, W A Storey, R A C Thake, J W A Usher

ALSO PRESENT:

Other Members:

R S Clements, R Roberts, A M R Searing, L Spencer

MEMBERSHIP

The Committee noted that N Bell had been appointed to replace S E Jones, M E Coxage had been appointed to replace J T Metcalf and A Oaten had been appointed to replace M Cowan as members of the Committee for this meeting only.

MINUTES

The minutes of the meeting held on the 4 March 2008 were agreed as a correct record by the Committee.

PUBLIC PETITIONS

There were no petitions presented to the Committee.

APPENDIX A (page 2 of 6)

QUESTIONS (Standing Order C 9 (4))

There were no questions presented to the Committee.

PART 1 (OPEN BUSINESS) / ACTION
CHAIRMAN’S ANNOUNCEMENTS
The Chairman welcomed members of the public and representatives from local authorities to the meeting.
1 / HOUSEHOLD WASTE RECYCLING CENTRE SERVICE
1.1 / The Chairman opened the meeting and Tom Hawkyard, Head of Scrutiny, informed the Committee that in accordance with Standing Order [SC.3/4] three members had requisitioned a special meeting of the Committee by notice in writing to the CountySecretary.
As a consequence, the business of the meeting was to scrutinise the decision of the Waste Management Cabinet Panel of 4th March to recommend that:
Notice be given of the County Council's intention to close in October 2008 the Household Waste Recycling Centres Tringford Road, Tring and Wiggenhall Road, Watford.
1.2 / A report was introduced by Richard Brown, Assistant Director Environmental Management, providing the Committee with background to the Waste Management Cabinet Panel’s recommendations on Household Waste Recycling Centres (HWRCs) and to report progress on issues raised at the Panel’s meeting on 4 March.
The Committee were informed that consultation is ongoing and the outcomes will be reported to the Waste Management Cabinet Panel on 9 July 2008.
Matt King, Senior Waste Manager, reported on the consultation responses received so far. It was noted that the closing date for responses was the 20 June 2008.

APPENDIX A (page 3 of 6)

1.3 / The Committee received representations from the following:
  • Cllr Nick Hollinghurst on behalf of Tring Town Council (petition presented to the Committee)
  • Cllr Julie Laws on behalf of Berkhamsted Town Council
  • Olive Conway on behalf of the Tring Residents Association (petition presented to the Committee)
  • Brian Scott on behalf of Dacorum Borough Council
  • Alan Gough on behalf of Watford Borough Council
  • Mike Castro on behalf of Oxhey Hall Residents Association (OHRA)
  • David Steer on behalf of the Carpenders Park Residents Association
  • Cllr Phil Brading, Executive Member for Public Services and Health, Three Rivers District Council
  • Cllr Geoff Dunne on behalf of Three Rivers District Council (petition presented to the Committee)
  • Cllr Tony Poole on behalf of Watford Borough Council (petition presented to the Committee)
  • Cllr Chris Leslie on behalf of Watford Borough Council
  • Cllr Roy Clements for OxheyPark
  • Cllr Stephen Giles-Medhurst for Central Oxhey
Copies of the presentations and petitions were forwarded to the Waste Management Team.
1.4 / The Committee gave consideration to the background information set out in the report from officers and the Waste Management Cabinet Panel’s recommendations on Household Waste Recycling Centres (HWRCs).
Members raised concerns and asked a number of questions on the following issues:
  • Congestion around HWRCs
  • Increased journey time and length for residents in Tring and Watford
  • Carbon Footprint Calculations
  • Capacity of alternative sites
  • Purpose of HWRCs
  • Effect on fly-tipping in the Tring and Watford areas
  • Suitability of the Elstree HWRC

1.5 / The Committee split into two groups to identify the key issues associated with each site. The findings were presented to the Committee by Tom Hawkyard and Neil Terry and are recorded below.

APPENDIX A (page 4 of 6)

1.6 / Watford Site Issues
  1. Pedestrian Usage
  2. Surveys
  3. Journey Times
  4. District Collection of WEEE Items – Non collection
  5. Closure of WRAP – Watford Recycling Arts Project
  6. Congestion around Riverside site
  7. Displacement Journeys
  8. Costing unclear – opening hours of alternative sites
  9. Elstree Site – not a suitable alternative
  10. Cost of Fly-tipping Collection – Waste Collection Authority

1.7 / Tring Site Issues
  1. Berkhamsted – access issues. Are there safety issues leaving Berkhamsted?
  2. Capacity of Berkhamsted – will it be over capacity between April and June?
  3. Travelling Costs – what will it cost Tring residents in extra transport costs to go to Berkhamsted? Is it more than HCC say?
  4. What will it cost Dacorum Borough Council in additional recycling costs?
  5. Justify journey to Berkhamsted – shop in Berkhamsted, take trade away from Tring.
  6. Savings of £82,500. Is it a true saving? It is a cost that will disappear, £7k savings on containers – surely we will have to spend more on containers at Berkhamsted? County maybe saving but Tring residents will pay more.
  7. Will Buckinghamshire limit Hertfordshire residents accessing Aston Clinton?
  8. Where are the savings going? Are they being ploughed back into the service?
  9. Is Hertfordshire site recycling working in Tring?
  10. Do all the residents of Tring know what they can recycle?
  11. Green bins only have limited capacity.
  12. Aylesbury is growing – pressure on capacity at Aston Clinton
  13. Dacorum have fortnightly collections which has received negative press. People not recycling properly.
  14. People can miss the fortnightly collection.
  15. Being clear on what sites are for so they are used correctly

APPENDIX A (page 5 of 6)