NORTH LONDON WASTE AUTHORITY
REPORT TITLE:
CONSULTATIONS AND POLICY UPDATE
REPORT OF:
HEAD OF OPERATIONS
FOR SUBMISSION TO:
AUTHORITY MEETING
DATE:
29th September 2014
SUMMARY OF REPORT:
This report provides Members with the regular update on consultations and
policy issues affecting the Authority. The report notes four responses
submitted under delegated authority agreed at the last Authority meeting.
The report provides details of a Department for Communities and Local
Government (DCLG) technical consultation on planning and a consultation
on the London Mayor’s Infrastructure Plan together with details of a review of
the Packaging Recovery Note system and proposals to increase packaging
recycling targets.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
The Authority is recommended to:
i) approve the responses to
a) the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG)
technical consultation on planning (see Appendix 1);
b) the consultation on the London Mayor’s Infrastructure Plan (See
Appendix 2) and
ii) note the officer comments in relation to the DEFRA consultation on the
Packaging Recovery Note system and EU proposals to increase
packaging waste recycling targets.
SIGNED:
DATE: 18 September 2014
Head of Operations
1.
PURPOSE OF REPORT
1.1
This report provides an update on consultations and policy issues that
are relevant to the Authority’s operations:
for decision
 the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG)
technical consultation on planning, (section 3);
 the consultation on the London Mayor’s Infrastructure Plan (section
4);
for noting
 officer comments in relation to a DEFRA consultation on the
Packaging Recovery Note system and EU proposals to increase
packaging waste recycling targets (section 5).
2.
RESPONSES SUBMITTED UNDER DELEGATED
AGREED AT THE APRIL AUTHORITY MEETING
2.1
Under delegated approval provided at the last Authority meeting, the
Head of Operations in consultation with the Chair and Vice Chairs has
drafted and submitted a response to:
 LB Enfield’s North East Enfield Area Action Plan; and
 LB Enfield’s Development Management Document.
 the North London Waste Plan’s sustainability appraisal scoping
report; and
 the North London Waste Plan’s call for sites.
AUTHORITY
A copy of the responses to the London Borough of Enfield
consultations are available on the Authority’s corporate website at
http://www.nlwa.gov.uk/consultations/our-responses or can be sent
directly to Members on request. The North London Waste Plan
consultation responses will be reported by the North London Waste
Plan team when it publishes its overall report on consultation
feedback, expected early next year.
2.2
In addition, as noted at the last Authority meeting, officers proposed
that the Managing Director or Head of Operations give evidence at the
Examination in Public for the Further Alterations to the London Plan
(FALP). Hearing Session 5 of the FALP Examination in Public Minerals and Waste took place on 8 September. The Inspector invited
NLWA to take part in this session and the Head of Operations gave
evidence on behalf of the Authority.
2.3
The main points raised were that the London Plan should distinguish
between waste transfer stations that export waste from London and
those that facilitate the use of waste management facilities within
London; that the Authority is working with partners to facilitate the
recovery and use of waste heat, but that the limited powers of statutory
joint waste disposal authorities should be recognised in any obligations
in the London Plan; that the target of 50% recycling is supported
(subject to environmental and cost-effectiveness), but that the Mayor
could helpfully clarify the relative priority in relation to his aspirations for
local energy production from waste fuels with a high biomass content;
and that the Mayor’s ‘carbon intensity floor’ to govern the
environmental benefit of waste derived energy is challenging but
achievable.
3.
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT
(DCLG) TECHNICAL CONSULTATION ON PLANNING
3.1
Since the last Authority meeting DCLG has published a ‘Technical
consultation on planning’ on 31 July 2014. This consultation puts
forward a range of proposals to improve the planning system. The
consultation has been reviewed by ARUP, the Authority’s planning
consultants and of particular relevance to the Authority are:


Proposal L: Permitted development rights for waste
management facilities (included in Section 2 of the consultation:
Reducing planning regulations to support housing, high streets
and growth); and
Section 6 of the consultation: amendments to the nationally
significant infrastructure planning regime.
Proposal L: Permitted development rights for waste management
facilities
3.2
Proposal L seeks to introduce new freedoms for those waste
management facilities which are covered under Use Class Order “sui
generis” (uses that are each of their own kind), and in particular landfill
and energy recovery sites. Sites within this use class do not currently
enjoy any permitted development rights.
3.3
As the Edmonton EcoPark and the HWRCs are all sites within this use
class, the proposal could be of genuine benefit to the Authority (and
LondonWaste Ltd) since it will remove the need to obtain planning
permission for development falling within the definition of permitted
development (i.e. relatively minor changes1).
It is therefore
recommended that the Authority explicitly supports these proposed
new permitted development rights and also seeks to ensure that as
wide as possible a range of development is included.
3.4
Whilst it is likely that the Authority would be required to notify the
relevant Local Planning Authority of the intention to use the permitted
development rights using a prior notification process, this would be a
much less onerous process than applying for full planning permission.
Works falling outside the definition of permitted development would
continue to require planning permission in the usual way.
1
The consultation paper suggests such items as weighbridges, portacabins, storage
containers, soil screening and wheel washes.
Section 6 – amendment to the nationally significant infrastructure
planning regime
3.5
The consultation seeks views on two proposals:
 increasing the range of consents and licences that can be included
within a Development Consent Order (DCO); and
 making the way in which amendments to developments for which a
DCO has already been made more proportionate to the substance
of the amendment.
3.6
This is of particular relevance to the Authority as any replacement
facility for the existing energy-from-waste facility at the Edmonton
EcoPark would need to go through the DCO process because of the
amount of electricity generated2, i.e. it would be classed as nationally
significant infrastructure.
3.7
The first proposal would mean that a number of additional consents
can be included in a DCO application such as those concerning
European protected species, flood defence, water discharge, trade
effluent consents, water abstraction and water impoundment. This is to
make projects more deliverable as there would then be fewer
uncertainties once any DCO is made.
3.8
The second proposal relates to the classification of ‘material’ changes
and ‘non-material’ changes, and seeks to make the process for
handling a change simpler and quicker than that for handling a full
application and proportionate to the nature of the change being
proposed. This is as opposed to current requirements for making a
material change that require an applicant to go through broadly the
same process as if it was making a full application for a DCO.
3.9
The Authority is recommended to approve the draft response attached
as Appendix 1.
4.
CONSULTATION ON THE LONDON MAYOR’S INFRASTRUCTURE
PLAN
4.1
The London Mayor’s Infrastructure Plan is a consultation about
London’s growth and how the infrastructure that will be required to
support that growth up until 2050 should be delivered.
4.2
The consultation report notes expected population growth and the
perceived risk that the city loses its position among the world’s elite
cities unless a major programme of infrastructure investment is put in
place to allow the capital to continue to operate efficiently and
successfully. The Plan also builds upon the London Mayor’s campaign
2
Opportunities for heat recovery would also be explored and implemented if possible, but the
legal trigger for this planning regime is based solely on electricity output.
for greater fiscal devolution to cities and proposes an Infrastructure
Delivery Board to bring together the various actors in different sectors
as a first step in overcoming ‘otherwise inherently disjointed
arrangements in place.’
4.3
In relation to the future requirements for waste management
infrastructure, Chapter 19 of the consultation report notes that
simplified and consistent waste and recycling collection throughout all
London boroughs is needed as well as improved financing for waste
infrastructure in order to create a circular economy in the capital by
2050.
4.4
One of a suite of supporting documents to the consultation document
(Enabling Infrastructure: Green, Energy, Water and Waste
Infrastructure to 2050) incorporates the GLA’s analysis of the issues,
opportunities and challenges most relevant to the Authority.
4.5
Proposals
The London Mayor’s principal theme is one of creating a ‘circular
economy’ in London. I.e. rather than the established ‘linear’ model of
extracting raw materials, making products, using them and disposing of
them to landfill, our society should move towards a more ‘circular’
model in which waste materials are captured and returned to
productive use. From the solid waste management perspective this is
familiar territory from the ‘waste hierarchy’ and its preference for re-use,
preparation for re-use, and then recycling of materials; and beyond this
through the capture of the energy-value of non-recyclable wastes. The
term ‘circular economy’ however has been developed internationally
over recent years to draw in all sectors of the economy in recognition of
the fact that making this transition will require widespread changes to
ensure that products and services are designed, produced, distributed
and consumed in a way that facilitates their end-of-life return to a future
productive use. This will in turn require on-going national and
supranational changes to economic and societal structures to be
implemented, but it is most important that every effort at regional and
sub-regional levels is made to bring improvements wherever and
whenever possible.
4.6
Focusing on the aspects of this proposed transition that are most likely
to impact on the Authority, the London Mayor proposes that the London
Waste and Recycling Board (LWARB) will work with the private sector
and a newly established London Infrastructure Delivery Board to
understand the regulatory and fiscal environment that needs to be in
place to accelerate the move to a circular economy. It will do this by
developing a Route Map to the Circular Economy for London which will
identify partners, actions and opportunities along the path to the
Circular Economy. The Route Map will be available early 2016.
4.7
Given the range of different waste and recycling collection systems in
London, the London Mayor also proposes that, through LWARB, he will
work with London’s boroughs to help provide a more consistent re-use
and recycling service to Londoners, taking into account local
differences and priorities.
4.8
The London Mayor’s consultation further advises that around 40 new
waste and resource management facilities will be required in addition to
London’s existing facilities and most of these will be required to help
reuse and recycle materials. Accordingly the London Mayor proposes
that LWARB will work alongside the Green Investment Bank, the
London Green Fund and the private finance community to provide
finance to develop this new infrastructure. He also proposes that
money saved on ‘diminishing’ landfill tax receipts from London’s waste
over the coming decades should be specifically put towards a
‘revolving investment fund for the waste sector.’ He also proposes that
the next full review of the London Plan will consider the land and
infrastructure necessary for a circular economy, in particular circular
economy hubs, where small and medium sized businesses can
collaborate to test out circular systems prior to scale roll out, plus the
need for regionally significant infrastructure.
4.9
The consultation asks three questions in relation to waste
management:
Do you think the name ‘circular economy’ is best to describe the
approach or will it confuse consumers and businesses? Can you
suggest other names?
Do you agree with our proposed approach? If not, why?
How can we incentive businesses and households to reuse and recycle
more?
4.10 A draft Authority response is enclosed in Appendix 2 which is broadly
supportive of the proposals and which the Authority is recommended to
approve.
4.11 The draft response specifically comments that the term ‘circular
economy’ is a suitable term for use within the Infrastructure Plan 2050,
but that the document should include a short, easily understandable
definition of the term and that it should specifically state what is
excluded from the term when it is used within the London context within
the Infrastructure Plan. The draft response also supports Mayoral
intervention with the assistance LWARB to work with London’s waste
authorities to help make municipal waste collection and recycling
services more consistent, with the aim of improving recycling rates
across the capital. In addition the draft response supports a proposal
for an Infrastructure Delivery Board to be established, but cautions that
this board will need to work alongside existing organisations, perhaps
meeting with them on a regular basis to avoid any duplication of work.
The response supports greater fiscal devolution for London, in
particular the allocation of London’s landfill tax payments being
returned to London for infrastructure investment. The response also
calls for the Plan to consider the role of producer responsibility within
the area of infrastructure development and whether it would be
possible to create some direct improvement-reward loops that benefit
those organisations which are actively improving their products and
services.
4.12 The consultation asks a question about how businesses and
households can be incentivised to reuse and recycle more. The draft
Authority response in Appendix 2 refers to a number of the Authority’s
responses submitted to previous consultations that have asked very
similar questions. In conclusion the draft response then references the
Institution of Civil Engineers (ICE) latest ‘The State of the Nation:
Infrastructure Report’ and the Chartered Institution of Wastes
Management’s “Commercial and Industrial Waste in the UK and
Republic of Ireland - October 2013”, and in particular notes their call for
better waste data, specifically about commercial and industrial waste,
on which infrastructure investment decisions can be made.
5.
UK PACKAGING RECOVERY TARGETS AND EUROPEAN
COMMISSION PROPOSALS FOR HIGHER RECYCLING TARGETS
5.1
The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) has
sent a letter to stakeholders in the packaging supply chain asking for
evidence about how the current system is operating or whether an
alternative approach might be needed in the long term. The letter was
issued on 30 July a few weeks after the European Commission
adopted proposals for much higher recycling targets for member states,
including a target to recycle 80% of packaging waste by 2030 (the
Commission also proposed a target of 70% of municipal waste by
2030). These legislative proposals will now pass to the European
Council and the European Parliament.
5.2
At present member states are only required to recycle at least 60% of
their packaging waste. Targets have been set for businesses in the UK
up until 2017.
5.3
As NLWA is not directly part of the packaging supply chain, officers do
not propose that the Authority should respond directly, however,
officers will bring forward further updates on the development of the EU
proposals and their transposition into UK legislation to future Authority
meetings. Whilst any increase in producers’ requirements to recycle
more packaging is welcomed, any increases in packaging recycling
targets should not increase the burden on local authorities. The Local
Government Association’s ‘Wealth from Waste’ report, noted that in
2012 the Packaging Recovery Note (PRN) system of producer
responsibility then recovered £62 million from manufacturers and
retailers to cover the cost of dealing with the recyclable waste they
create. However, the report went on to note that while this is an
important mechanism, it is dwarfed by the estimated £550 million cost
of collecting and sorting packaging incurred by local authorities in the
2011/12 financial year. The LGA report therefore urged Government to
use its upcoming review of the PRN system to rebalance the costs
between producers and the tax payer to ensure that producers are
paying a fairer share.
6.
COMMENTS OF THE LEGAL ADVISER
6.1
The Legal Adviser has been consulted in the preparation of this report
and comments have been incorporated.
7.
COMMENTS OF THE FINANCIAL ADVISER
7.1
The Financial Adviser has been consulted in the preparation of this
report and has no comments to add.
Local Government Act 1972 - Access to Information
Documents used: ‘Technical consultation on planning’, DCLG, July 2014
https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/technicalconsultation-on-planning
London Infrastructure Plan 2050 A Consultation, Mayor of
London, July 2014
https://www.london.gov.uk/priorities/businesseconomy/vision-and-strategy/infrastructure-plan-2050
Wealth from Waste, Local Government Association, June
2013
http://www.local.gov.uk/search?q=wealth%20from%20wa
ste
Commercial and Industrial Waste in the UK and Republic
of Ireland, Chartered Institution of Wastes Management,
October 2013
http://www.ciwm.co.uk/CIWM/InformationCentre/Reports_
and_Research/CIWMReportsandResearch.aspx
Contact Officers: Andrew Lappage, Head of Operations
Barbara Herridge, External Relations Manager
Berol House, Unit 1B
25 Ashley Road
Tottenham Hale
N17 9LJ
Tel: 020 8489 5730
Fax: 020 8365 0254
E-mail: post@nlwa.gov.uk
APPENDIX 1
Draft Response to DCLG ‘Technical consultation on planning’
Technical consultation on planning
Consultation response form
We are seeking your views to the following questions on the proposals to streamline
the planning system.
How to respond to this consultation
Please email your response to the questions in this consultation by 26 September
2014 to planning.consultation@communities.gsi.gov.uk.
Alternatively you can write to:
Planning Consultation Team
Department for Communities and Local Government
1/H3 Eland House
Bressenden Place
London SW1E 5DU
When you reply please confirm whether you are replying as an individual or
submitting an official response on behalf of an organisation and include:
-
your name,
your position (if applicable),
the name of organisation (if applicable),
an address (including post-code),
an email address, and
a contact telephone number
(i)
Your details
Name:
Andrew Lappage
Organisation (if applicable):
North London Waste Authority
Address:
Unit 1B, Berol House, 25 Ashley Road,
Tottenham Hale, London
N17 9LJ
Post Code:
Email Address:
Telephone Number:
(ii)
Andrew.Lappage@nlwa.gov.uk - or
alternatively:
Barbara.Herridge@nlwa.gov.uk
020 8489 4367
Are the views expressed on this consultation an official response
from an organisation you represent or your own personal
views?
√
Organisational response
Personal views
(iii)
Please tick the one box that best describes you or your organisation
Public NLWA:
District/Borough Council
London Borough Council
Unitary Council
County Council
National Park/Broads NLWA
Parish/Town Council
Other public sector
(please specify)
Statutory joint waste disposal authority
Please note that NLWA is only responding to questions 2.20,
6.1, 6.2, 6.3 and 6.7 of the consultation, so we have
accordingly deleted the other questions on the response
form.
2. Reducing planning regulations to support housing,
high streets and growth
Please refer to the relevant parts of the consultation document for narrative
relating to each question.
Would you like to respond to the consultation on reducing planning regulations
to support housing, high streets and growth?
Yes √
No
Question 2.20: Do you agree that there should be a new permitted
development right for waste management facilities to replace buildings,
equipment and machinery?
Yes √
No
Comments
Proposal L seeks to introduce new freedoms for those waste management facilities
which are covered under Use Class Order “sui generis” (uses that are each of their
own kind), and in particular landfill and energy recovery facilities.
The Edmonton EcoPark, a strategic waste management site for north London and
London as whole is covered under the “sui generis” Use Class and as such does not
currently enjoy any permitted development rights. The site currently hosts an
energy-from-waste/recovery facility and associated ash recycling facility, a bulky
waste recycling centre, a transfer station and an in-vessel composting facility. The
proposal to introduce new freedoms for such sui generis waste management
facilities could be of genuine benefit to the North London Waste Authority (NLWA),
its contractor LondonWaste Ltd and other authorities and organisations since it will
remove the need to obtain planning permission for all development falling within the
definition of permitted development (e.g. to replace buildings, equipment and
machinery). NLWA also understands that the proposed changes would additionally
benefit household waste re-use and recycling centres, which also fall within the sui
generis class.
NLWA supports these proposed new permitted development rights as the proposed
change would ease the process of replacing essential elements of waste facilities on
sites which have been in operation for many years and which are part of the
community infrastructure in an area.
NLWA would also like to see as wide as possible a range of developments
incorporated within any such changes, for example it would not be of benefit if one
element of a replacement or refurbishment of a building on a site could be
progressed via the permitted development route, but other associated infrastructure
could not. NLWA therefore recommends that in framing the wording for the
changes, that sufficient room is allowed within the permitted development definitions
for waste management facilities to incorporate a logical mix of buildings, equipment
and machinery within a permitted development.
6. Improving the nationally significant infrastructure
regime
Please refer to the relevant parts of the consultation document for narrative
relating to each question.
Would you like to respond to the consultation on streamlining consents for
nationally significant infrastructure projects?
Yes √
No
Non-material and material changes to Development Consents Orders
Question 6.1: Do you agree that the three characteristics set out in paragraph 6.10
are suitable for assessing whether a change to a Development Consent Order is more
likely to be non-material? Are there any others that should be considered?
Yes √
No
Comments
NLWA recognises that the 2008 Act and the 2011 Regulations do not provide any
definition of a material or non-material change and that there is also no guidance in
place at present on what might constitute a non-material as opposed to a material
change for a nationally significant infrastructure project. NLWA additionally
understands that there is a wide range of projects being brought forward through the
DCO process. Accordingly NLWA agrees with the three characteristics set out in
paragraph 6.10 as being suitable characteristics to consider when taking a decision
as to whether a change to a DCO is more likely to be non-material.
Making a non-material change
Question 6.2: Do you agree with:
(i)
making publicising and consulting on a non-material change the responsibility
of the applicant, rather than the Secretary of State?
Yes √
(ii)
No
the additional amendments to regulations proposed for handling non-material
changes?
Yes √
No
Comments
NLWA supports this proposal which relates to the classification of ‘material’ changes
and ‘non-material’ changes, and which seeks to make the process for handling a
change simpler and quicker than that for handling a full application and to make the
process proportionate to the nature of the change being proposed.
The proposed approach would be different to the current requirements for making a
material change that require an applicant to go through broadly the same process as
if it was making a full application for a DCO.
The reasons for subsequent changes following a DCO being made may be simply
due to the time the whole process takes for the infrastructure to be constructed so in
these instances and others it is logical for the process of making further changes to
be simplified.
NLWA therefore supports this proposal whilst recognising that further guidance
would be required for major infrastructure developers so that they fully understand
their obligations in this regard and so that consultees are also clear about the
requirements being placed upon developers as a result.
Making a material change
Question 6.3: Do you agree with the proposals:
(i)
to change the consultation requirements for a proposed application for a
material change to a Development Consent Order?
Yes
√
No
(ii)
to remove the requirement on an applicant to prepare a statement of
community consultation for an application for a material change?
Yes
√
(iii)
to remove the current requirement to publish a notice publicising a proposed
application where an application for a material change is to be made?
Yes
√
No
No
Comments
The above proposals would further improve the effectiveness of the DCO process,
so NLWA’s views are as at question 6.2 above.
The proposal we are consulting on
Question 6.7: Do you agree with the proposal that applicants should be able to
include the ten consents (see main document) within a Development Consent Order
without the prior approval of the relevant consenting body?
Yes √
No
Comments
The proposal that applicants for a DCO would in future be able to include a number
of additional non-planning consents within a DCO application is welcomed by
NLWA.
Such additional consents might include those concerning European protected
species, flood defence, water discharge, trade effluent consents, water abstraction
and water impoundment. This proposed change would have the benefit of making
projects more ‘deliverable’ as there would then be fewer uncertainties once any
DCO is made. It is also a logical improvement to the DCO process to ensure that
any nationally significant infrastructure application incorporates all the necessary
elements of that piece of infrastructure within one submission. This change may
also assist with communication and consultation with statutory and non-statutory
consultees (Section 42 and Section 47) who will then only need to be consulted
once about all aspects of the DCO application, and will see issues relevant to them
in their full context.
This proposed change is of particular relevance to NLWA as any replacement facility
for NLWA’s existing energy-from-waste facility at the Edmonton EcoPark would
need to go through the DCO process because of the amount of electricity
generated3, i.e. it would be classed as nationally significant infrastructure. NLWA
can therefore foresee the practical application that this proposed change would
make.
3
Opportunities for heat recovery would also be explored and implemented if possible, but the
legal trigger for this planning regime is based solely on electricity output.
APPENDIX 2
Draft Response to the London Mayor’s Infrastructure Plan
Response from the North London Waste Authority (NLWA)
to the
London Infrastructure Plan 2050 Consultation
1.
Introduction
1.1
North London Waste Authority (NLWA) is the statutory joint waste disposal
authority for north London, with responsibility for managing the local
authority collected waste arising in the following boroughs: Barnet, Camden,
Enfield, Hackney, Haringey, Islington and Waltham Forest. The NLWA has
an interest in the London Infrastructure Plan 2050 because it sets out the
capital’s future requirements for waste management infrastructure and
identifies that improved financing for waste infrastructure is required in order
to create a circular economy in the capital by 2050.
1.2
NLWA is fully supportive of the capital’s move to a circular economy model
in which waste materials are captured and returned to productive use. From
the solid waste management perspective this is familiar territory from the
‘waste hierarchy’ and its preference for re-use, preparation for re-use, and
then recycling of materials; and beyond this through the capture of the
energy-value of non-recyclable wastes. The term ‘circular economy’
however has been developed internationally over recent years to draw in all
sectors of the economy in recognition of the fact that making this transition
will require changes at all levels.
1.3
At the level of principle too, NLWA is supportive of the Mayor’s comments
that the range of different waste and recycling collection systems in London
is not conducive to providing a consistent re-use and recycling service to
Londoners. NLWA’s detailed comments are provided in the paragraphs
following.
2.
Questions about the plan
2.1
Do you think the name ‘circular economy’ is best to describe the approach or
will it confuse consumers and businesses? Can you suggest other names?
2.1.1
The Ellen MacArthur Foundation describes the circular economy as the
following:
2.1.1.1 “The circular economy refers to an industrial economy that is
restorative by intention; aims to rely on renewable energy;
minimises, tracks, and hopefully eliminates the use of toxic
chemicals; and eradicates waste through careful design. The term
goes beyond the mechanics of production and consumption of
goods and services, in the areas that it seeks to redefine (examples
include rebuilding capital including social and natural, and the shift
from consumer to user). The concept of the circular economy is
grounded in the study of non-linear, particularly living systems” and
goes on to say that:
2.1.1.2 “A major outcome of taking insights from living systems is the
notion of optimising systems rather than components, which can
also be referred to as ‘design to fit’—by analogy, the tree is nothing
without the forest. It involves a careful management of materials
flows, which in the circular economy are of two types as described
by McDonough and Braungart (Cradle to Cradle, Re-making the
way we make things): biological nutrients, designed to re-enter the
biosphere safely and build natural capital, and technical nutrients,
which are designed to circulate at high quality without entering the
biosphere.
2.1.1.3 “As a result, the circular economy draws a sharp distinction
between the consumption and use of materials: circular economy
advocates the need for a ‘functional service’ model in which
manufacturers or retailers increasingly retain the ownership of their
products and, where possible, act as service providers—selling the
use of products, not their one-way consumption. This shift has
direct implications for the development of efficient and effective
take-back systems and the proliferation of product- and business
model design practices that generate more durable products,
facilitate disassembly and refurbishment and, where appropriate,
consider product/service shifts.”
2.1.2
NLWA considers that the use of the term ‘circular economy’ as described by
the Ellen MacArthur Foundation is best used to define the London Mayoral
approach as set out in Chapter 19 of the consultation document ‘Moving
from waste to reuse’.
2.1.3
The term ‘circular economy’ may not have a wide level of understanding
now, but with time the use of the term and the level of awareness and
understanding of it will grow. However, NLWA considers that it may be
necessary to have a short level explanation of the term available in footnotes
or in a glossary of terminology where it is used, at least initially, such as “an
economy and society in which things that are thrown away today are instead
turned into something useful; with designers, manufacturers, distributors,
consumers and the waste management industry all actively helping this to
happen”. But if the London Mayor thinks that there is a risk of some matters
being excluded by the term (as inferred from the consultation document) it
would be helpful if he could identify the specific potential exclusions so that
all relevant parties can comment upon any necessary supplementary
drafting.
2.2
Do you agree with our proposed approach? If not, why?
2.2.1
The London Infrastructure Plan 2050 Consultation is both ambitious and
timely and NLWA broadly agrees with the proposed approach.
2.2.2
In relation to waste management, which is NLWA’s key area of interest in
the Plan, NLWA supports the move towards a circular economy. The
Authority also recognises that the move to a circular economy may well be
private sector led, although this may in part be driven by EU legislative
approaches to integrated product policy and producer responsibility about
which paragraph 2.2.7 below refers. NLWA also considers that the Mayor
will need to examine what can be done to accelerate proceedings and that
this should be given greater prominence in the document. It would be
helpful if a clear plan of work to deliver this assessment and report on the
findings and subsequent action could be included in the Infrastructure Plan
2050.
2.2.3
NLWA also supports London Mayoral intervention with the assistance of the
London Waste and Recycling Board (LWARB) to work in partnership with
London’s waste authorities to introduce more consistent collection and
recycling services that will help to increase the capture of materials from
individuals and businesses. One potential role for the London Mayor and
the Infrastructure Delivery Board would be for financial support to be made
available to fund the transitioning of authorities to new systems of collection
which are more in line with those of surrounding authorities.
2.2.4
NLWA supports the proposal for an Infrastructure Delivery Board and
additionally proposes that representation on the Infrastructure Delivery
Board from statutory joint waste authorities and London boroughs is
essential, as is the alignment of a wide range of stakeholders from the public
and private sectors, and at national, regional and sub-regional levels. In
practice this means that for example, the Infrastructure Delivery Board would
need to consider the work of all local authorities (including statutory joint
waste disposal authorities) and bodies such as development corporations
which might impact upon the deliverability of infrastructure within the capital.
At a practical level the Infrastructure Delivery Board would need to work
alongside these organisations, perhaps meeting with them on a regular
basis and familiarising themselves with the plans and policies of these
organisations from the outset.
2.2.5
In particular, in relation to waste management NLWA considers it is
important to understand from the outset how the proposed board will work
alongside the existing London Waste and Recycling Board. Where there is
any potential for overlap it will be vital to establish early on how these issues
will be addressed and how the distinct contribution of each will be captured.
It would be helpful if further detail could be provided to stakeholders about
the respective roles of each in the field of waste management infrastructure.
2.2.6
Whilst the overall financial proposals included in the London Infrastructure
Plan 2050 are not a key area of NLWA focus or expertise, it appears to
NLWA that in the longer term, proposed fiscal devolution could allow the
proceeds of growth to be reinvested in supporting infrastructure so long as it
is done in full partnership with those bodies with the relevant duties and
responsibilities and, where relevant, the private sector. Fiscal devolution
has the potential to play an important role in financing London’s
infrastructure requirements. In particular NLWA supports proposals in
favour of devolving landfill taxation to the local level. The Authority
understands that the capital currently generates £63 million in landfill tax
each year, so devolving this funding in an appropriate way would provide a
much needed boost to waste infrastructure investment in the capital.
2.2.7
Finally, producer responsibility initiatives go some way towards providing
models by linking producer investment in recycling and reprocessing with
local authority collection systems for individual materials. However, in
general these are initiatives specific to a limited range of products and do
not tackle consumption specifically and do not require business and local
government to work together. It would be helpful in the waste infrastructure
area, for the plan to consider the role of producer responsibility within this
area and whether that might additionally provide some opportunities and
models for future investment, particularly if it can create direct improvementreward loops that benefit those organisations that are actively improving
their products and services.
2.3
How can we incentive businesses and households to reuse and recycle
more?
2.3.1
NLWA has provided a number of responses to other consultations which
address this issue, including the Authority’s response to the House of
Commons Select Committee for Environment Food & Rural Affairs’
investigation into waste management in England 20144. The Authority’s 11
page response noted that evidence suggests that existing policy measures
are insufficient to move us towards 50% recycling in urban areas like north
London. The response also made the comment that whilst household
recycling assists in normalising behaviour because everyone can take part,
businesses also have a critical role to play, both in terms of engaging staff in
recycling and in producing products which are easily repairable, reusable
and recyclable with current commercially viable technology.
2.3.2
In addition, in the Authority’s response to the DEFRA Review of Waste
Policy in 2010, in response to a question about “How can individuals,
businesses and communities best be motivated to recycle more?” the
Authority commented as follows:

“Services must be easy to use;

“Services must be cost effective;

“Information about the services must be communicated clearly and
frequently and;

“Incentive schemes should be aimed further up the waste hierarchy.
"A significant body of work has been developed by the Waste and
Resources Action Programme (WRAP) to assess the motivators and triggers
for people to recycle more, and both WRAP and collection authorities are
better placed to answer this question than ourselves. However, we would
4
NLWA Response to the EFRA Committee investigation into waste management in England
2014, available on the NLWA website http://www.nlwa.gov.uk/consultations/our-responses
argue that any system to encourage people to recycle more should also be
developed so that it doesn’t have unintended consequences e.g. for total
waste volumes collected. In other words any assessment of motivators for
increasing the amount of recycling should also take into consideration the
potential impact upon other activities further up the waste hierarchy too,
such as waste prevention. For example it may be better to recycle the same
percentage of a static volume of waste per household year on year, than to
recycle a greater percentage of an increasing volume of waste.”
Source: NLWA response to the DEFRA Review of Waste Policy, 2010
2.3.3
NLWA also commented that:
“greater emphasis should be placed on using recycled materials in
manufacturing and production. One way in which this could be achieved
would be by using tax incentives. A product made wholly from recycled
material could have a zero rate of VAT, 50% recycled material 50% VAT,
etc. Voluntary approaches such as the London Mayor’s Green Procurement
code which encourages organisations to buy recycled products and thereby
stimulate demand for recycled products is another approach.”
2.3.4
In relation to re-use and in response to the following question “What more do
you think Government, businesses and civil society could do to increase
activities that prepare waste for reuse?” the Authority’s response was as
detailed in Appendix A to this response (recognising that some of the
proposals would need to be implemented at a national level). The proposals
would also be subject to such regimes being possible under EU packaging
directives, life cycle and value-for-money assessments. Analyses would
have to be done for London to assess the relative merits of the reuse
approaches suggested over the current recycling-led approach to packaging
wastes in particular.
2.3.5
Subsequently in the Authority’s response to the DEFRA consultation on the
Waste Prevention Programme for England in 20135, NLWA also suggested
that in relation to furniture reuse:
5
Waste prevention programme for England consultation, NLWA response
http://www.nlwa.gov.uk/consultations/our-responses
“Promotion of coordinated furniture re-use services can yield wide-reaching
results with many benefits including financial benefits to both consumers and
local authorities, extension of product lifetimes, social benefits such as
increased training in repair and restoration, and more people engaged in
paid work e.g. furniture collections and delivery, repair services and sales.
NLWA has commissioned a considerable amount of research into the
potential for expanding furniture re-use in north London and three reports
have been published.
NLWA is also very keen to see further research on non-clothing textile reuse and recycling (i.e. textiles from mattresses, curtains, carpets, etc.).
Reference documents:
•
Third Sector Reuse Capacity in London
•
Expanding and Encouraging Furniture Reuse in North London
•
Reuse Synergies and Opportunities in North London.”
Source: NLWA response to the Waste Prevention Programme for England
consultation, DEFRA, 2013
2.3.6
Finally in response to the London Assembly’s investigation into food waste
in the capital6 and considering how to incentivise food waste recycling, i.e.
participation in food waste recycling services, NLWA commented as follows
in relation to the question about “How can the Mayor and local authorities
use their investment and planning powers to promote better collection and
handling of food waste?”:
“London Waste and Recycling Board (LWARB) funding can continue to be
used to fund new food waste processing facilities inter-alia so that the cost
of food processing becomes sufficiently attractive for local authorities that it
makes more economic sense to incur the costs of separate food waste
collections for recycling than not to do so. It is recognised however that
achieving this in a free market environment presents a number of obstacles
and limitations.
There may be opportunities for the Mayor to link the use of food waste
services to local energy production and/or local use of soil conditioner to
encourage better collection and handling of food waste (see paragraphs
2.10.1-2 below). Such investment could benefit both household and
commercial food waste processing and would not in NLWA’s view divert
edible food from sale or use by those in need, toward energy production as
some have suggested.
Although it is unproven it may also be the case that the local use of food
waste products will help to overcome barriers to participation something
which the NLWA’s work with the University of Westminster could tease out,
although such approaches to more localised use would need to be
balanced with odour impacts.
6
The London Assembly investigation into food waste management in London, 2014 NLWA
response http://www.nlwa.gov.uk/consultations/our-responses
It may also be the case that food waste prevention is going to be the least
expensive option and offer the greatest return for any investment e.g.
through a pan-London food waste prevention campaign. It is estimated
that in London 60% of the food waste generated each year is avoidable.7
A useful piece of research would be to investigate the carbon and nutrient
value of food waste recycling in London. A life cycle assessment of food
waste recycling in London and a comparison of the nutrient and carbon
value of for example compost and digestate would also assist in helping
strategic decision making about this important waste stream.
It may also be helpful if research could be commissioned into the possibility
of how local planning, trading standards and any other regulatory regimes
might be brought together, particularly in relation to commercial and
industrial food wastes, to identify how these might be reduced or better
managed.”
Source: NLWA response to the London Assembly investigation into
food waste management in London, 2014
3.
Concluding remarks
3.1
Earlier this year the Institution of Civil Engineers (ICE) launched its latest
‘The State of the Nation: Infrastructure Report’. State of the nation reports
have been produced each year by the ICE since 2000. Produced by panels
of experts drawn from across the ICE membership the reports have
focussed on a range of different issues with the aim of stimulating debate
and highlighting the actions that the ICE believes are needed to improve the
nation’s infrastructure and associated services.
3.2
The three recommendations in this latest report in relation to waste
infrastructure were as follows:
1. A move from waste to resource management and a circular
economy should be at the centre of government policy across the
UK
2. An Office for Resource Management located in the Department for
Business, Innovation and Skills should be established to provide
strategic leadership over resource management policy across
government in England
3. Central Government and the devolved administrations must now focus on
creating a policy, regulatory and commercial environment that encourages
private investment in infrastructure serving all of the UK’s waste streams.
At the centre of this should be improved waste data in the commercial and
industrial (C&I) sector
7
The impact of Love Food Hate Waste in West London case study, WRAP
http://www.wrap.org.uk/content/west-london-food-waste-campaign
3.3
NLWA supports these recommendations and notes that the ICE additionally
notes the paucity of waste data, particularly within the commercial and
industrial waste sector8., as has the Chartered Institution of Wastes
Management9. ICE welcomed the 2011 Responsibility Deal between Defra
and the waste sector. The Deal commits a sharing of data on key trends to
assess infrastructure need and identify policy priorities. NLWA supports the
ICE view that there is a need for better data collection for waste tonnage and
recycling capacity assessment; a lack of data can hinder investment
because potential buyers cannot assess the scale of their projects and the
potential returns. NLWA suggests that the London Infrastructure Plan 2050
references the latest ICE report and additionally supports the
recommendations listed above
The report ‘The state of the nation: Infrastructure 2014’ (1.2 MB) can be downloaded from
ICE's website at: http://www.ice.org.uk/Information-resources/Document-Library/State-of-theNation--Infrastructure-2014
8
The report “Commercial and Industrial Waste in the UK and Republic of Ireland - October
2013” (3.12MB) can be downloaded from the CIWM website at:
http://www.ciwm.co.uk/CIWM/InformationCentre/Reports_and_Research/CIWMReportsandR
esearch.aspx
9
Appendix A
Extract from NLWA’s response to the DEFRA Review of Waste Policy, 2010
What more do you think Government, businesses and civil society could do to
increase activities that prepare waste for reuse?”
A1.
“In relation to increasing activities that ‘prepare waste for re-use’, there
are a number of fiscal, regulatory and voluntary mechanisms which
could be used to encourage a greater amount of re-use and remanufacture.
A2.
These range from requiring certain categories of product to be
designed for re-use and re-manufacture to support for organisations
such as London Remade and the Furniture Reuse Network.
Regulatory or financial intervention is likely to take some time to
implement and the evidence base required to prove reuse can be
complex, so that investing in reuse can be difficult on a practical level.
However, other countries have introduced a range of measures, such
as the Dutch government’s packaging covenants, one of which requires
producers and importers to refill 90% of bottles over one litre and to
recover for re-use or recycling 75% of other bottles. Eleven US states
also have a legal deposit on bottles and cans for beer and soft drinks
and six states also have deposits on mineral water containers
according to Enviros’s work for DEFRA.
A4.
We also note that the Council for Protection for Rural England (CPRE)
has launched a campaign to encourage the Government to set a goal
of implementing a UK-wide deposit refund scheme by 2015 which they
suggest will lead to:

a decrease in litter – a stated early priority for the Government;

an increase in recycling (i.e. reuse) – by providing an incentive for
individuals, households and businesses to act responsibly; and

A demonstrable movement towards a zero waste economy.
A5.
More focus by the national ‘RecycleNow’ campaign to encompass reuse and re-manufacture would also be helpful so that these activities
are promoted at a national level. It would also be helpful to allow local
authorities to bid to WRAP for communication funding to promote reuse. Re-use and repair guides, tool-sharing schemes, and second
hand and hire shops can all be promoted at a local and national level to
good effect. Local authorities could also include targets for re-use and
repair within their procurement goals for purchasing recycled products.
A6.
From the perspective of ‘wider wastes’ the engagement of businesses
in waste exchanges is a helpful approach, but in our experience to be
successful requires on-the-ground outreach workers, hard copy lists of
‘wastes’ available for re-use or re-manufacture and regular visits to
companies to encourage them to participate. A simple web-based
listing of ‘waste’ available for reuse will not be extensively used without
this additional support.
The NISP programme is an excellent
programme, but is likely to require continued consistent support and
investment of resources at local, regional and national levels in order
for the service to be most fully utilised.
A7.
Ultimately businesses will only invest in re-use and re-manufacture if it
makes economic sense to do so. Examples of companies making a
financial case for investing in re-use and re-manufacture include Xerox
copiers10; toner cartridges provided by a range of companies; and
second hand car dealers. A piece of research which looked at the
opportunities for re-use and re-manufacture, which explored the
businesses which are doing it already and consumer and procurement
professionals’ views towards reused and re-manufactured products
would be a useful place to start for considering what more could be
done to further stimulate this area of activity.
An initial early
intervention would also be required to provide incentives for
manufacturers producing products which lasted longer or for
consumers who were happy to retain products beyond a certain period
– like a loyalty bonus but for product loyalty and longevity of use which
could be rewarded as part of a take-back scheme.
A8.
Finally, some recognition of the opportunities to credit reuse and remanufacture and count this tonnage towards some statutory targets
would also be welcome.
A9.
The following is a list of what Government, businesses and local
authorities could do.
Government

Include a levy within the new purchase price for items that could
easily have been bought as reused. For practical purposes it
may be necessary to specific product groups to which this
approach might apply, e.g. furniture and white goods;

Investigate a payback mechanism for repaired and second use
products;

Exempt VAT from items under £200 sold for re-use;

Increase the tax rate for single use disposable products;
, 90% of Xerox-designed equipment is capable of being re-manufactured according to Xerox
Corporation’s Environment, Health and Safety 2000 Progress Report.
10

Improve the web communications infrastructure nationally to
give everyone access to existing services such as Freecycle,
Freegle and Ecomodo;

Have reuse elements in Government contracts. Departments
should not be allowed to buy new unless they have explored the
option of reused products and demonstrated it wouldn’t provide
value for money;

Have a national portal for reuse and/or product rental, hire and
leasing organisations and companies selling reused products;

Require standardisation of product components such as the
recent change where all mobile phone chargers use the same
jack;

Introduce PAS standards for reused products similar to those for
recycled materials to help consumers identify a quality product
and change the idea that reused is poor quality;

Take enforcement on abusers of waste collection systems or
those with total disregard for reuse or recycling; and

Encourage groups such as the “operation payback”
probation/community
service teams
to
undertake
separation/cleaning of waste for it to be ready for reuse. The
‘Tools Shed’ project at HMP Wandsworth is an example of
this.......
Businesses

Make products easier to repair;

Make repair services more competitively priced;

Allow repairs to take place in other outlets to increase
competitiveness;

Standardise product components used;

Stock spares for products in stores rather than making people
order them which can be time consuming; and

Introduce loyalty schemes for reuse and repair e.g. discounts on
parts when items we produce are repaired here or 2 stamps on
your loyalty card if you bring your own coffee cup
Civil Society

Support training of vulnerable people in the community so they
can learn a skill or trade through reuse – in our experience, most
community sector re-use projects have a ‘social’ role within their
terms of reference or articles of association. One example of
this is the extended producer responsible scheme (EPR)
scheme for textiles in France. The EPR legislation sets a target
on social employment such that ‘working or training hours
(resulted from conventions with sorting operators) required to
sort out the extra textiles tonnage shall be of 15% of total
employee working hours’. i.e. there is an obligation of 15% of
‘social employment’ creation11, for companies that receive
income generated through the Producer Responsibility Scheme.”
REPORT ENDS
Description and comparative analysis of selected “Extended Producer Responsibility”
schemes for textiles in the EU, ACR+ (December 2009),
11