Securing the Future of Poole S Waste Management Strategy

BOROUGH OF POOLE

ENVIRONMENT OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY COMMITTEE

27TH MAY 2010

REPORT OF HEAD OF ENVIRONMENTAL & CONSUMER PROTECTION

SERVICES

SECURING THE FUTURE OF POOLE’S WASTE MANAGEMENT STRATEGY

Refurbishment of the Waste Transfer Station and Household Waste Recycling Centre – Nuffield Road (WTS & HWRC)

Part of Published Forward Plan – Yes

Status – Strategy Policy

1. PURPOSE AND POLICY CONTEXT

1.1.To consider the Business Case for the refurbishment of the Council’s Waste Transfer Station (WTS) and Household Waste Recycling Centre (HWRC) at Nuffield Road, Poole.

1.2.To consider the provision and funding of ‘Displacement Services’ to provide continuity of service to residents whilst refurbishment works are undertaken including negotiations with the Council’s Waste Management contractor.

1.3.To consider the allocation of capital funds to proceed with the Council’s designated option for refurbishment of the WTS and HWRC.

2. DECISIONS REQUIRED

2.1.That Members recommend to Cabinet the acceptanceof one of the following options 1: Minimum Refurbishment, 2: Operationally Preferred Refurbishment or 3: Refurbishment for Investment, as the approved option to be developed under the Council’s corporate capital programme.

2.2.That Membersrecommend that Cabinet assigns delegated powers jointly to Head of Environmental & Consumer Protection Services, Head of Legal Services, and Head of Finance to negotiate with the Council’s Waste Management Contractor regarding interim arrangements, and variations to terms or charges during the period that normal operations at the Nuffield site may not be possible as a result of refurbishment works at the site.

2.3.That Members recommend that Cabinet assigns delegated powers jointly to the Head of Environmental & Consumer Protection Services, Head of Legal Services, and Head of Finance to negotiate for revised terms to the Council’s waste management contract as necessary to safeguard the Council’s waste collection services during refurbishment.

2.4.That in accordance with the Council’s Financial Regulations, that Members recommend that Cabinet approves that the project proceeds with a restricted OJEU procurement process for the appointment of a works developer to complete the designated WTS & HWRC refurbishment. On completion of the procurement process and prior to award, the Project intends to bring back to Cabinet for approval, a recommendation for the development works contractor to be appointed.

2.5.That Members recommend to Cabinet and Council the raising and allocation of capital funding for the development and delivery of the WTS & HWRC refurbishment option designated.

2.6.That Members recommend that subject to referral of the proposed development works contractor, that Head of Environmental & Consumer Protection Services (E&CPS) proceeds with all project services required to deliver the WTS & HWRC refurbishment including; procurement and provision of ‘Displacement Services’ to maintain essential services during refurbishment, communications with residents, consultations and all planning and permitting requirements applying to the refurbished facility and displacement services.

3.INTRODUCTION ANDBACKGROUND.

3.1.The Borough of Poole operates a Waste Transfer Station (WTS) at Nuffield Road, Poole which holds co-mingled recyclate for Poole & Bournemouth prior to transport to material recovery facilities/agents and for holding residual waste destined for ‘energy from waste’ or landfill. Approximately 95,000 tonnes of waste and recyclable materials per annum passes through the Waste Transfer Station at Nuffield.

The site also includes a Civic Amenity site (Household Waste Recycling Centre - HWRC) where residents can bring waste for separation, recycling and transfer to disposal. Members of the public make 270,000 visits to the site each year.

The WTS is an integral part of the waste infrastructure for Poole and in 2007 Environmental and Consumer Protection Services identified a business need to upgrade the WTS in order to secure the future of its waste management strategy.

3.2.The Council established a project to develop an Outline Business Case (OBC) relating to the joint development of a Materials Recovery Facility (MRF) and refurbishment of the WTS & HWRC. The OBC was approved by the Cabinet on 8th July 2008. In September 2009 the Head of E&CPS recommended early closure of the project to jointly develop a local MRF as prevailing market conditions had rendered the Business Case no-longer viable.

The need to refurbish the WTS & HWRC remains and has becomeincreasingly acute.In September 2009 Council approved retaining funds and proceeding with that part of the original OBC that included for thisrefurbishment of the WTS & HWRC at Nuffield Road.

The Project has proceeded in line with plans set out to Council in 2009 and has developed the Nuffield Facility Refurbishment Business Case (NFRBC) for the refurbishment and has brought the NFRBC back to Council for approval prior to proceeding with works procurement. Waste Management consultants SLR have been appointed by the project through a competitive tender process, to carry out detailed survey services on the Nuffield site and to develop a range of site layouts options for the refurbished facility that will provide the required improvements within the existing plot. SLR have worked extensively with the Council’s officers to develop the NFRBC presented to Cabinet.

3.3.The Council has an agreement with Viridor signed 31st August 2004 to deliver waste services. A Deed of Variation dated 6th September 2006 continues this agreement for 20 years to 2026. The Contractors ability to deliver the contracted and required services may be impacted by the refurbishment works. The refurbishment project is the ownership of the Council and consequential issues and arrangements regarding the Contracted Services are discussed with Viridor via a ‘Strategic Partnership Board’ established under the Deed of Variation 2006. The project requires approval to reach agreement with Viridor on how these impacts will be managed under the terms of the existing contract.

3.4.The project has presented its proposals to the Council’s Asset Management Group. The project has submitted a detailed Project Brief and plans to the Council’s Corporate Project Management Group and received approval to register the project for monitoring within the CP30 project management framework.

3.5.The project has established 2 workstreams;

3.5.1.The ‘Design Team’ has ownership of all the site survey works and facility design and initial refurbishment costings. Representatives on the team include strategic waste partners Viridor, Consultants SLR, representatives of Poole transportation policy, waste operations and structural engineers from Transportation Services.

3.5.2.The ‘Displacement Team’ has ownership of determining the best value option for providing interim arrangements to deliver WTS and HWRC services whilst refurbishment is underway.

The workstreams have carried out appropriate option appraisals to determine the options presented to Cabinet in the Business Case.

4.THE ISSUES.

The site has a number of issues including;

-Deteriorating Structures: a structurally failing WTS without significant attention will put at risk the Council’s ability to provide core services in the short to medium term.

-Risk to Site Permit:resulting from the current ‘Open Air’ Operation that allows uncontrolled emissions particularly during adverse weather conditions. The Environmental Permitting Regulations (EPR) came into effect April 2008. Best practice for WTS operations is that they are fully enclosed as a standard permit now requires that all bulking, transfer, sorting or separating of non-hazardous waste must be carried out inside a building.

-Risks to Customers and Employees:the existing HWRC layout requires residents and staff to move on foot between the manoeuvring vehicles creating unsustainable risks to health and safety.

-Traffic Queuing and Service Levels:at peak times the volume of residents’ vehicles using the HWRC exceeds 900 a day.It is common for long queues to form and cause an obstruction on the public highway.

-Risk to Business Continuity: an incident or significant escape could result in suspension of services provided from the site.

-Equality of Access: The current site does not provide safe access by foot, bicycle and has insufficient provision for safe access by some disabled or elderly residents.

-Poor Use of the Available Site Footprint: the site includes a number of redundant structures causing vehicle movements and storage to be restricted to a small working area.

5.THE BUSINESS CASE - REFURBISHMENT OPTIONS.

5.1.The detailed business case is available for reference.

5.2.Alternative Site: The project is not proposing moving the facility to a newalternative site. The Nuffield site is a brown field site within the Nuffield Industrial Estate distant from private residences. Retaining the WTS and HWRC on the existing plot has the advantages that it and its impacts are already known and ‘understood’ by neighbouring businesses. The plot is appropriately located at an accessible point for the majority of residents and the Council’s RCV’s unloading waste and recyclables. The site is close to the Council’s vehicle maintenance workshops and the depot from where waste collection vehicles and crews operate and close to where the waste management team are based.

The current site enjoys an ‘ample’ waste handling licence to handle and treat waste. Obtaining a new style Permit from the Environment Agency for an alternative site would be a long process and is unlikely to provide the same scope for growth and waste treatment.

There are no reasonable grounds or business drivers that justify moving this facility to another location where it may impact the lives and enjoyment of residents or other businesses not previously affected. The Council’s Waste Local Plan developed over a 5 year period jointly with Bournemouth and Dorset studied many factors including ground stability, impacts on the environment and water sources and impacts on the quality of life for residents. The study determined that Nuffield and Hatchpond were the only sites that would be available in the Borough for waste transfer.

5.3.Refurbished Nuffield Road: the NFRBC has determined a refurbished Nuffield roadsite layout with the WTS at the frontis the best operational and the best value design from over 20 options considered by the Design team.

This layout places a fully enclosed WTS at the front of the plot and the HWRC at the sides/rear of the plot. Residents will enter the HWRC at a separate entrance on the south side and drive the perimeter of the site, initially meeting the recycling bins to maximise the inducementto recycle more, then will progress to containers for green waste, wood, metals and finally rubble and residual waste. Residents leave via a separate exit on the north of the plot (Or via Darbys Lane North). All bins and containers can be serviced directly from the WTS yard without need for heavy vehicles or heavy plant to mix with residential traffic.

This site layout designed by SLR has the unanimous support from waste management and waste operations staff and from the Council’s waste management contractors.All believe that this site layout will be efficient and effective to operate.The site layout drawing is included as Appendix A

5.4.The Business CaseRefurbishment Options: The business case sets out 3 refurbishment options.

1: ‘Minimum’ option, site layout ‘As-Is’

2: ‘Operationally Preferred’ option, site layout ‘A’

3: ‘Investment’ option, site layout ‘B’

5.4.1.‘Minimum’ Option 1:

Do not proceed with any of the design options,retaining the existing site layout and carry out a series of remedial works to mitigate risks to business continuity and health and safety. This will comprise a number of phases of essential works including relaying the site drainage, repairs to hardstanding, significant changes to the HWRC to ensure a one-way traffic flow that resolves the ‘traffic versus pedestrian’ flow on site. Subsequent phases would need to address structural issues in the HWRC push walls, add roofed extensions to WTS bays and retro-fitting of doors and fire/dust control measures to the WTS.

5.4.2.‘Operationally Preferred’ Option 2:

This meets all legislative and statutory requirements necessary to deliver the waste management services. This option includes a fully enclosed WTS operation with capacity for 2 days storage and a ‘split-level’ HWRC where residents drive up a short ramp to drop waste over a low wall directly into containers. Wood chipping facilities are added to the site to increase recycling and generating revenue by recovering more energy from Biomass. This option uses site Layout ‘A’.

5.4.3.‘Investment’ Option 3:

This includes all features within the operationally preferred option and in addition increases the storage capacity to 3 days in the event haulage of waste from the site is interrupted by severe weather or other events/actions disrupting critical services. This option includes areas and facilities to take trade waste from small traders, generating additional income and reducing the number of ‘incidents’ at the HWRC and the rate of fly-tipping.

Additional space for the larger hall and trade waste is created by removing the dual exit lanes and instead forming a new exit for residentsvehicles only (Not HGV’s) via DarbysLane Northat the rear of the plot. The Darbys LaneNorthexit willfurther improve throughput and reduce the risk of queuing on the publichighway.

This option includes some CABEfeaturessuch as harvesting of rainwater and introducessome architectural aspectsthat would improve the aspect of thebuildings and act as a ‘bridge’ between industrial estate and theopen spaces behind. These features willredress some of the impacts of taking domestic traffic along Darbys Lane North.

This option uses Site layout ‘B’

6.THE BUSINESS CASE –COST/BENEFIT ANALYSIS.

All costs include for the ‘Displacement Services’ set out in section 7.

All construction costs include for 10% Contingency

6.1.Minimum Option1 (Layout ‘As-Is’).

This option will result in expenditure over a protracted period of 5-10 years that interrupts efficient service delivery and that defers rather than resolves issues. This option does not sufficiently mitigate against the risk of serious accident on the HWRC nor from significant escape of emissions during the protracted works. The sporadic but significant repairs and service disruption over a long period is likely to increase these risks.

Adopting this option will result in continuing issues regarding vehiclesqueuing on the public highway and obstructing traffic.

The primary benefit of this option is that it defers some of the capital expenditure for 1 to 5 years but it does this at the risk of incident and business continuity.

This option is not recommended by E&CPS officers with responsibility for operating the site.

This option requires capital expenditure of £1,808,000 over a 5 year period and the operational impacts of this solution would add additional OPEX of £2,840,000 over 20 years.

The 20 year Lifecycle Cost Plan is £4,648,000.

6.2.Operationally Preferred Option2 (Layout ‘A’).

This is the option that is recommended by E&CPS officers that have responsibility for operating the Nuffield Road site. This option will meet requirements to ensure the Council can continue to carry out its statutory duties and mitigates against critical risks.

This option has the benefit of providing equality of access without subjecting residents to a detriment in order for them to receive the service.Split level HWRC sites are safer, easier and quicker for residents to off-load waste or recyclables. Containers on a split level site are separated from the public and can be exchanged without HGV’s mixing with domestic vehicles or pedestrians. This provides more flexibility on opening hours.

Throughput is increased because it is quicker for residents to drop waste over a wall rather than carry it up flights of steps.

This option provides space for wood chipping facilities to better recover the wood received at the HWRC and its subsequent reuse forbiomass heating or power generation.

This option requires capital expenditure of £4,827,000 over a 2 year build period and the operational impacts of ‘new’ features would add additional OPEX of £285,000 over 20years.

The 20 year Lifecycle Cost Plan is £5,112,000.

6.3.‘Investment’ Option 3 (Layout ‘B’).

This option provides opportunities for the Council over the longer term with additional benefits.This option is fullysupported by E&CPS officers with responsibility for operating the facility.

This option will allow the Council to take trade waste from local small businesses directly into the site at market prices to generate additional revenue. This will result in fewer issues where small traders arrive at the HWRC.The Council will be able to offer them a solution that allows them to safely dispose of waste there and then. It is believed this will also reduce the incidence of fly-tipping and save costs of subsequent clean-up.

This option creates additional space by removing the dual lane exit to Nuffield Road andrequires that visitors to the HWRC leave by a new exit formed to Darbys Lane North. This releases space that is otherwise taken up by the perimeter road exit lanes. The additional space also permits storage for 3 days in the WTS.