Is Brent's Waste Strategy Rubbish or just Low Grade?

Last year Brent Council spent £9 million on landfill tax.  In a bid to save money, increase recycling and reduce landfill, the Council is introducing a new waste strategy.

  Contaminated materials will go to landfill

Residents should be confident that waste which they take the time to separate will actually be recycled and not end up in landfill. Brent Friends of the Earth’s main concern about the strategy is that dry recyclables will no longer be collected from households via green boxes sorted at the kerbside, but using new large wheelie bins in “co-mmingled” collections.  This involves crushing the material, which is later sorted at a processing plant.  A new report by the Institution of Civil Engineers has confirmed our fears about this method that, because of higher levels of contamination, produces low-grade recyclable material, some of which ends up in landfill.  

 Children to pick over our waste?

In particular, paper is contaminated by broken glass, reducing its value and use.  We discovered that Aylesford Newsprint, who currently buy Brent's paper are unlikely to want it under the new scheme, making export more likely.  The UK recycling industry is now struggling because of such poor grade materials.  Do we really want our waste exported, and sorted by child labour in developing countries?  This is something Brent has not ruled out, despite recommendations by a recent Scrutiny committee.

£1.7m for new bins while libraries are closed

 The Council is spending £1.7 million on new wheelie bins to replace the boxes, when the only new materials being collected for recycling are mixed plastics and tetra packs.  This follows £400,000 spent on the free collection of bulky items.  We believe Brent has underestimated the landfill costs from the extra contamination of waste by changing to a “commingled” system.  In view of ruthless closures of libraries and day centres, and cuts to street sweeping, is this really money well spent?  Or are these ill-conceived plans just rubbish?

 
Viv Stein and Elaine Henderson
Brent Friends of the Earth

References:

1.Targets to boost recycling may backfire say engineers - BBC news item http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12172766

2. The report is available at http://www.ice.org.uk/News-Public-Affairs/State-of-the-Nation

Wasted opportunity to get strategy right

Brent Council Executive last night refused to accept the recommendations made by the Scrutiny Committee on the Waste Strategy despite the efforts of Elaine Henderson and Viv Stein of Friends of the Earth who addressed the meeting (see below). They also decided to go ahead with consultation on the West London Waste Authority's plans for more waste processing depots in the borough, serving several nearby boroughs, despite concerns about the concentration of such facilities in Brent and lack of information on the actual processes that will be employed.  In his contribution Cllr Powney, lead member on these issues, appeared not to provide any substantial answers to the questions raised.  On waste the issue was reduced to budgetary demands rather than green principles.

Viv Stein's speech:

Brent Campaign against Climate Change endorses the views of Brent FoE regarding the waste strategy.  Having attended the previous Executive committee and last week’s Scrutiny committee I felt compelled to speak as I was so astounded by some of the comments made by Cllr Powney.

Both the Brent Campaign and FoE are in favour of increasing recycling, increasing green jobs and cutting carbon.  But this new system is likely to CUT UK jobs, INCREASE emissions and is UNLIKELY to achieve the huge increase in recycling to 60%, which Cllr Powney admitted last week is “very important to get this right as will be a major financial problem for the Council if we don’t.”

You might think this strategy is all about climate change and cutting emissions.  So much so that it mentions climate change 28 times in the document.  But will it really have such an impact?

Yes we do understand there will be less emissions in the collection within Brent – with fewer lorry journeys (as less frequent collections) and instead of recyclables sorted manually on the kerbside they’ll be crushed (so you get more in the trucks).  But when you consider:

-there will be larger vehicles, using more fuel

-the mechanical separation at the materials recovery facility (which uses loads of electricity)

-the additional distances lorries have to travel to these

-the likely reprocessing overseas (as we’ve heard the commingled low-grade materials are likely to be sent further away including China), something not ruled out now by Brent, our emissions do not stop at Brent’s borders, so overall they will actually INCREASE.

Camden Council did an energy audit of their commingled collection, when they switched from kerbside sorted and found that, “The carbon footprint of the co-mingled collection system, transfer and MRF is 77% greater than for the kerbside sorted waste collection.”  They then changed to a twin-stream system, with paper collected separately, as Brent FoE proposed previously.

My question is – has an energy audit been modelled into the proposed new system?  If not, how can you possibly claim it will reduce emissions?

We’ve heard that commingling will produce low quality materials, so another question is – is this paving the way for incineration of Brent’s waste? Only last week the UK Confederation of Paper Industries expressed concerns that increasingly paper that could be recycled, may be used to generate energy instead.  This is both an incredibly inefficient use of resources and as a means of energy production, besides all the other concerns that incineration brings.

One of the main reasons why commingling is bad is that the crushed glass contaminates everything, but it also has implications for emissions.  According to WRAP (waste resources action programme) “co-mingled collection of glass frequently results in glass used as road aggregate, which creates 2 kg of CO₂ for each tonne of glass. Whereas, glass that is not compacted during the collection phase is made back into bottles and jars, which saves 314kg of CO₂ for every tonne.”

So to conclude I am asking for the Exec to reconsider the current kerbside sorted system, and if for some reason you really can’t, I would urge for an amendment that “glass be separated for collection in a twin- stream system” which would be preferable. (These could be collect in the existing green boxes and put in a wheelie bin on the kerbside).

Brent Friends of the Earth Call for Waste Rethink

Living the new Waste Strategy - what difference will it make?

Brent Friends of the Earth (FoE) severely criticised Brent Council’s new waste strategy at Scrutiny Committee on Tuesday 30^th November.  The group presented their own strategy to the Council instead, and argued that the new system would lead to export of waste, loss of jobs, and that the consultation was highly misleading.

Brent’s Lead Member for the Environment, Councillor James Powney, and two Council Officers were brought before the committee to defend their proposals at a special meeting called by the Lib Dems.  Plans for Brent’s new waste strategy, which had been put out to public consultation, and reductions in the Council’s street cleansing service, which had not, were discussed.

Brent FoE has expressed major concerns about the new waste system, which would introduce a "co-mingled” (mixed) collection of recyclable waste to houses, as opposed to the current system, where materials are sorted at the kerbside.  Elaine Henderson from the group presented evidence that Aylesford Newsprint, the company who currently purchase Brent’s paper, would no longer do so since the new co-mingled collection would mean a more contaminated and poor-quality product.  This raises major concerns about the destination of Brent’s recycled waste and the revenue raised from its collection.  Another waste contractor, May Gurney, can offer a kerbside sorted collection system at the same price or cheaper than a commingled collection, because the value of the materials collected is much higher.

Elaine Henderson, Brent FoE’s spokesperson on waste said, “Brent’s new plans mean we will be going from the best method of collecting recyclable waste to the very worst.  The system we have now is not only more cost-effective, but it is also better for local jobs and the environment.

“We do not believe Brent can possibly achieve the huge increases in recycling that this strategy demands by the methods proposed.  It is a complete waste of money for the Council to be spending a massive £1.7 million on new large wheelie bins just to collect additional mixed plastics and tetra-packs, when they could simply re-educate residents to use the current system instead.

“These changes mean that the company who take Brent’s paper would lose their contract, and we would get less money for our recycled waste.  I was shocked to hear Cllr Powney, who had previously stated our waste would be processed in the UK and Europe, now admit he was not bothered where it will end up.  I also question the impact of this new system on our carbon emissions.”

Liberal Democrat group leader Cllr Paul Lorber said, “Our colleagues from Brent  Friends of the Earth have clearly shown that ending the green box system and sorting of recyclable materials on the kerb side would be a mistake. We need to protect UK jobs by ensuring that materials collected in Brent are capable of being used by the UK recycling Industry. I would be appalled if, as a result of the proposals agreed by Brent Labour Councillors running the Executive, recyclable materials collected locally were being shipped 5,000 miles to China with all the resultant environmental pollution that transportation would cause.”

Elaine Henderson stated that previous mention of the possibility of a judicial review over the Council’s misleading consultation was raised by her as Chair of a Residents’ Association, and not on behalf of Brent FoE.

The Committee voted that recommendations be referred back for further consideration by the Council’s Executive Committee, which is due to meet on December 13^th.

Waste Strategy Challenged

Elaine Henderson of Friends of the Earth made a well researched and cogent critique of some aspects of the Council's new Waste Strategy at last night's Scrutiny Committee.  The Lib Dems had called-in both the Street Cleansing and Recycling proposals.

Elaine made the case for making reducing landfill  costs the main focus of the strategy. She said that adopting co-mingled (mixed) collection of recyclables in place of kerbside collection and sorting, would mean that the material would be contaminated and less acceptable to UK based processing companies.  She had talked to Aylesford, Brent's current buyers of paper waste, who had said they did not knowingly buy paper from co-mingled collections. She said that co-mingling would make it more likely that Brent's waste would be sent abroad for processing. This would reduce the price paid by processing companies for Brent's recycled waste.  In answer to a claim that it would be too costly to extend kerbside collection at the price offered by Veolia,  she said that another waste management company, May-Gurney. could offer a kerbside service at the same process as co-mingled.

She criticised the Council's Brent Magazine and on-line consultation as not making it clear that residual waste would now only be collected fortnightly and that residents would  have to have  another large wheelie bin for dry recyclables rather than the green box. The new containers will cost the Council £1.7m.  She suggested that the council should consider the use of large reusable bags for paper as used by other boroughs. She cited the ambiguous language of the survey and its inaccessibility to residents not fluent in English. Elaine made it clear that comment about the possibility of a Judicial Review on the issue that she had made at an earlier meeting, was raised as a member of a Residents' Association, and was not the policy of Brent Friends of the Earth.  She presented the committee with a two page alternative Friends of the Earth Waste Strategy.

A rather irked Cllr Powney was caustic in his response and claimed that it had been a 'good consultation' and compared well with similar Brent consultations. He said that he had personally appeared at all the Area Forums to explain the strategy and that there had been articles in the local press about it. He claimed that the new strategy was not a reduction in service but an enhancement as it would now extend to 28,000 more households. He said that the waste once collected by Veolia was their property and where it was processed was no concern of the council.

Cllr Lorber (Lib Dem) who was chairing the committee said that he agreed with Brent FoE that the consultation was not fair or reasonable and suggested referral to the Local Government Ombudsman. In the debate there was much discussion of numbers and recycling rates as well as practical issues about how people with small gardens would cope with three bins. Cllr Moher tried several times to get further discussion on the co-mingling verus kerbside sorting issue, rather than the consultation, but had little success. Cllr Lorber said he did not want to see at some future date a TV documentary showing Brent's waste being sorted by child labour abroad.

Earlier the committee had discussed a reduction of in the sweeping of residential streets from three times a week to twice a week. Officers claimed that there would be no reduction in standards because Veolia would still be held to a Grade a or B standard of cleanliness. Independent surveys had shown public satisfaction with the standard of street cleanliness and these surveys plus increased monitoring should maintain standards.

At the conclusion of the meeting Paul Lorber used his chair's casting vote to put forward recommendations to the Executive to reconsider key aspects of the Waste Strategy, in the light of projected savings being over and above those required. However, Cllr Powney's vociferous defence of the strategy seemed to indicate that the recommendations would be rejected.

Waste Savings and Strategy Challenged

Tomorrow's Overview and Scrutiny Committee (7.30pm Council Chamber, Town Hall) will consider call-ins on the Street Cleansing Efficiency savings and Waste Collection Strategy decisions made by the Council Executive on November 15th.

The reasons cited for the call-in of the Street Cleansing Efficiency Savings are:

• The decision departs from the principle of protecting front line services.
• Consider the implications for the cleanliness of local streets.
• Consider the implications of prompt identifying of dumped rubbish and  their removal.
• Consider full and effective consultation with local residents on this.

The reasons cited for the call-in of the Waste Strategy are:

•  To discuss concerns regarding the nature and openness of the consultation and the possibility of full consulting residents.
• To consider the concerns of residents around the reduction in service and the implications of the increase in the number of bins.
• To discuss concerns regarding the co-mingling of waste and contamination of waste.
• To fully review the options available.
• To consider how to retain public support for recycling and not lose it by scrapping weekly refuse collections.
• To consider implications of fortnightly refuse collections on housing estates and properties in multiple occupation.
• To consider the risk of Judicial Review

Brent envisages fortnightly waste collections

 What will be the impact on fly-tipping?

A Briefing Note for Brent Council's August 11th Forward Plan Select Committee suggests substantial changes in the Council's Waste Strategy.  The aim is to save £500,000 annually and increase recycling rates to 50% by 2020, reduce reliance on landfill and reduce the carbon footprint of waste collection services. It will mean that most households will now have three bins. The 'savings' will presumably include job losses as a result of the move to fortnightly collections.

They propose for low rise properties:

• Alternate weekly collections using existing wheeled bins with a 'no side waste' policy( Nothing left next to the bin will be collected.  The health and safety implications of fortnightly collections will have to be examined)
• A new bin to collect mixed dry recyclable materials to include cardboard on alternate weeks
• Green bins for organic waste to be retained for 60,000 properties and extension of the weekly scheme to cover the remaining 28,000 properties. New properties to receive food waste collection only (What will happen to their garden waste?).  Cardboard will no longer be collected from green bins as it will be included in the new dry recycling bin All 88,000 households to receive a kitchen caddy.

For high rise properties:

• Extension of the scheme to cover all flatted properties (something Brent Green Party has been pressing for)
• Delivery of some estate  refuse directly to a MRF (material recycling facility) for sorting and subsequent recycling
• Organic waste to be collected from suitable properties only (what will be the criteria?)

The compulsory recycling policy will be retained and there will be targeted work to remove trade waste from the household stream and to minimise contamination of kerbside containers. (Contamination means that the contents cannot then be recycled).

If the paper is approved there will be public consultation from August until October 2010. Interestingly one of the channels  listed for consultation  is BRAIN which the council has decided to close down in September.

FULL REPORT HERE