Notes of Seminar on West of England Waste Management and Planning Strategy Issues held at 1.30pm on 5 March 2007 in the Council Chamber, Town Hall, Weston-super-Mare

Present: Councillors, Felicity Baker, Peter Bryant, Peter Burden, Robert Coleman, Bob Cook, John Crockford-Hawley, Jon Gething, Colin Golland, Jenny Gosden, Wendy Griggs, Ann Harley, Alan Hockridge, Mike Johnston, David Jolley, Derek Kraft, Muriel Kraft, Barry Walters, Clive Webb, Roz Willis Deborah Yamanaka

David Turner, Allan Davies, Professor Adam Read and Kate Heath of Hyder Consulting, Richard Ashley

Apologies: Graham Turner, Councillors Elfan Ap Rees, Tom Leimdorfer,

Councillor Derek Kraft chaired the meeting and welcomed the members present.

Introduction by David Turner, Director of Development and Environment

David Turner opened the seminar by reminding members of the issues discussed at the two previous seminars. This seminar, which was open to all members of Council, would be followed by a public meeting in the evening. The starting premise was that waste treatment capacity in the West of England is at present very low and there is an urgent need to thoroughly examine the issues and options for increasing capacity in order that the four West of England unitary authorities can meet their obligations under the EU Landfill Directive.

Presentation by Professor Adam Read on the Issues and Options for Waste in the West of England

Professor Adam Read gave a presentation based on “The Issues and Options for Waste in the West of England” public consultation document and responded to points made by members present.

A member queried whether the use of conventional landfill contributed to global warming if proper arrangements were made for the collection of methane. Professor Read said that it had been calculated that even under the best arrangements only 30% of the Methane produced by a landfill site was collected. Concerns about the production of Methane were one of the main drivers behind the EU Landfill Directive.

Councillor Coleman asked why the Council should not retain ownership of the waste stream. Prof Read replied that this was a possible option depending on how much risk the Council was prepared to retain.

David Turner emphasised that at present the Council had only agreed to look at the options with the other West of England local authorities. There had been no decision yet on sharing the solutions but there were more options if the wider area was chosen.

Councillor Peter Bryant expressed the fear that the established operators in the field effectively formed a cartel and was concerned at who our partners would be. He saw a need to work with small local operators. Professor Read commented that that option was there at the procurement stage; it was the Council’s choice.

Councillor Robert Coleman said that after the public meeting in Clevedon residents wanted more information on the costs and carbon footprints of the various options and Councillor Peter Bryant saw a need for a rough indication of the cost per tonne processed of the various options. Professor Adam Read said that the table on page 44 of the main document set this out and in reply to Councillor Jon Gething said that information on Carbon Dioxide produced by the various options was available in the main Jacobs Babtie report which was on the web site.

Councillor Barry Walters observed that apart from option 1 “Energy from Waste” most of the other technologies did not seem to be fully proven and asked where they could be seen in operation. He was advised that the most successful examples could be seen in the Netherlands or Scandinavia but Professor Read agreed that deliverability was an important issue in assessing options.

Councillor Clive Webb was concerned about the cost and number of kerbside collections and asked if any of the options allowed these to be reduced. Professor Read said that the autoclave process allowed glass and metals to be recovered at a late stage in the process but the product was of a much lower quality than that produced by separating at the point of collection and therefore had a lower value. He did not advise going down this road.

In reply to a point from Councillor Peter Bryant about the need to factor collection costs into the assessment of options Professor Read said that the current debate was about the treatment of residual waste.

Councillor Roz Willis asked for Professor Read’s opinion on the Pyrolysis process. He said that it appeared to work well in Slovenia. His own preference was for Energy from Waste.

Presentation by Allan Davies on Objectives for site Assessment Criteria

Allan Davies gave a brief presentation on the relationship between potential “waste” sites and “preferred options. He said that because of various constraints there were probably only a handful of suitable sites in the West of England for large waste facilities. Councillor Burden argued the need for a sub regional approach to finding sites.

Councillor Jon Gething thought that provision of a number of smaller plants would allow the greatest degree of flexibility if the waste stream reduced. David Turner said that a strategy of reducing waste at source was the cheapest option but it had a high risk factor.

Professor Read urged members to complete and return the feedback form at the rear of the Issues and Options Document and to visit the web site.

David Turner said that the West of England Councils would have to make decisions on sites well in advance of the likely approval date for the Joint Waste Development Plan Document (November 2010). The officers would be setting out the programme and the associated risks for submitting relevant planning application(s). There was a need to establish a treatment option in the first instance. The decision on the Outline Business Case will involve a huge number of risks and uncertainties. It would be incredibly difficult but to do nothing was not an option as it would “bankrupt” the authority. The Landfill Allowance Trading Scheme (LATS) was one of the big drivers. Most local authorities were in a bad position and approaches were being made to government regarding pooling receipts to find solutions to the problems.

Councillor Peter Burden referred to government expectations for substantial residential growth in North Somerset but David Turner said that the LATS did not take account of local circumstances.

Councillor Jon Gething referred to the need for an intelligent timetable for decision making. David Turner said that the process was driven by the European Union’s imperatives.

Councillor Peter Bryant was concerned that the Council would be jumped into a joint partnership and would like the team to assess the option of going it alone. David Turner said that he would investigate this in the context of the West of England joint work but he did not have the resources for a separate team to work on this.

In reply to a question from Councillor Barry Walters David Turner said that he was aware of the work that Somerset County Council was doing on the issue.

Councillor Peter Burden suggested the option of going to the market saying that we have “x” tonnes of waste each year in need of treatment what is your price for dealing with it. David Turner conceded that this was a possible approach but thought that generally commercial operators were likely to react more favourably to local authorities that had “got their act together”.

It was agreed that members would be supplied with details of the tonnages on which the cost of the various options had been based.

Members were asked to think about the issues and options raised at the seminar and discuss them at the policy and scrutiny Panel meetings.

The meeting closed at 3.30pm