APPENDIX A
HERTFORDSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL
WASTE MANAGEMENT CABINET PANEL
WEDNESDAY 9 JULY 2008 AT 2.00 P.M.
HERTFORDSHIRE HOUSEHOLD WASTE RECYCLING
CENTRE SERVICE
Report of the Director of Environment
Author: Matthew King
Tel: 01992 556207
Executive Member: Derrick Ashley
1.
Purpose of report
To provide further analysis of the implications of closure of the Tring and
Watford Household Waste Recycling Centres and results of the consultation on
proposed closures, enabling the panel to make any recommendations to the
Cabinet.
2.
Summary
2.1
The Environment Scrutiny Committee undertook a review of the Household
Waste Recycling Centre (HWRC) service in June 2007 and identified matters
for attention and/or future improvement under three broad headings: purpose
and function, location and scale and style.
2.2
This Panel, on 13 September 2007, received a report and a presentation on the
possible rationalisation of the County Council’s HWRC service. There was
discussion on the adequacy of the sites and an overview of the Service
Properties Priority reports. The Panel noted there was scope to improve the
service by having fewer centres with better on-site facilities and accessibility.
2.3
The Panel received a report at the meeting on 4 March 2008 and
recommended that notice be given of the proposed closure of the Tring and
Watford HWRCs and to invite representations on the proposal. The closure
proposals were subsequently publicised giving a deadline of 20 June 2008 for
receipt of comments. The Panel asked officers to explore the impact of the
proposed closures on local highways, the carbon footprint, the proximity and
accessibility to sites for residents in the areas, the risks of fly-tipping and the
possibility of expansion of the Watford HWRC through discussions with Watford
Borough Council.
2.4
The recommendations on proposed closure were considered at a special
meeting of the Environment Scrutiny Committee on 16 May 2008. The minutes
of the Environment Scrutiny Committee meeting are shown as Appendix A to
this report.
161110 Appendix A, Watford Household Waste Recycing Centre
1
2.5
The Waste Management Unit received 666 letters / emails during the
consultation period (Tring: 490; Watford: 176) citing ‘top’ concerns as increased
fly tipping, unacceptable journey distances / cost, CO2 emissions and the
County Council is sending out the wrong message. Amongst the letters were
objections to the closures from Dacorum, Three Rivers and Watford Councils.
The Three Rivers Public Services and Health Policy and Scrutiny Committee
debated the issue on 5 June. Five separate petitions were also received
totalling 5,313 signatures (Tring: 3,353; Watford 1,960). Details of the main
concerns raised, the petitions and the Three Rivers Scrutiny Committee debate
are shown in Appendix B.
3.
Recommendations
3.1
That the Panel considers the further technical assessments of the impacts of
closure of the Tring and Watford Household Waste Recycling Centres, together
with the responses to the consultation exercise and comes to a view about the
closure or otherwise of one, or both, sites and make recommendations to
Cabinet accordingly.
3.2
That, in light of their comprehensive review of the Household Waste Recycling
Centre service and the information gathered during the recent consultation, the
Hertfordshire Waste Partnership be invited to consider how the HWRC service
and local household waste collection, re-use and recycling services are more
effectively integrated as a means of meeting waste strategy targets.
4.
Background and Analysis
4.1
At its meeting on 4 March the Panel completed its assessment of the adequacy
of the Household Waste Recycling Centres (HWRC) service and each of the 19
sites which make up the network. The Panel concluded that notice should be
given of the County Council’s intention to close the HWRCs at Tring and
Watford, that interested parties be given an opportunity to comment and that
any representations would be considered by the Panel before
recommendations are made to the Cabinet.
4.2
The discussion on 4 March highlighted the need for further work to be done on
the transport/traffic and carbon footprint implications of the closures, an
assessment of the risk of increased fly-tipping and the prospects for
enlargement of the Watford HWRC.
4.3
The former Environment Scrutiny Committee held a special meeting on 16 May
to look at the Panel’s conclusions. The meeting provided a focal point for
individuals and organisations opposed to the closure of the Tring and Watford
HWRCs to express their views.
4.4
The potential impact on highways in the areas affected by closures has been
assessed by the Environment Department’s Highways Development Control
Team. In summary, the assessment shows that closure of the Tring and
Watford HWRCs would not cause significant congestion or delay in either area.
Details are shown in Appendix C.
161110 Appendix A, Watford Household Waste Recycing Centre
2
4.5
The potential effect on the carbon footprint for Hertfordshire has been
calculated and is set out in detail in Appendix D. Closure of the Tring HWRC is
estimated to increase CO2 emissions by 152.5 tonnes / annum. Closure of the
Watford site is estimated in increase CO2 emissions by 227 tonnes / annum.
The combined figure of 379.5 tonnes represents 0.01% of the Hertfordshire
road transport total in 2005.
4.6
Analysis of proximity to and accessibility of HWRCs shows that, for some
residents (notably to the north and west of Tring and south of Watford), journey
times to alternative HWRC facilities would be increased, from 10 minutes to 15
minutes and from 5 minutes to 10 minutes respectively. This issue has been
one of the most strongly debated by interested parties and has led to questions
about the purpose and function of HWRCs and their role in relation to local
collection recycling services. It is felt that more should be done to help
residents dispose of items such as plastics, batteries, light bulbs etc. without
the need for car journeys. It has also been noted that theoretical journey times
can, in reality, be significantly affected by disturbances on the road network
such as major road works or road traffic accidents. Details are shown in
Appendix E.
4.7
Risks of fly-tipping is assessed through the Environment Agency’s Flycapture
database. This shows a downward trend of 41% in reported incidents of fly
tipping between 2004 and 2007 for the Watford, Three Rivers and Dacorum
districts. Closure of the Hunton Bridge HWRC in 2004 saw no significant
increase in fly tipping at or near the site or in the adjacent district areas. Further
details are set out in Appendix F.
4.8
Since the last Panel meeting discussions with Watford Borough Council have
continued. The Borough Council have indicated sufficient additional land is
available for the expansion of the existing Watford HWRC which could alleviate
the current, severe operational difficulties. Furthermore, the land may be
available on beneficial terms, involving a nominal peppercorn rent. Any such
expansion would entail capital investment. It is estimated that modest
enhancements could be carried out at a cost of approximately £60,000. Further
details are set out in Appendix G.
5.
Conclusions
5.1
To reach its conclusions on 4 March the Panel made use of the criteria devised
by the Environment Scrutiny Committee in June 2007 (set out in full as
Appendix H). The consultation exercise and the further technical assessments
provide a helpful challenge to these criteria: the findings bear out the
significance of purpose and function, location and scale and style of HWRCs in
determining service improvements.
5.2
The HWRC network clearly has an important role to play in allowing the
disposal of bulky wastes. The network is a vital part of the overall waste
management effort and a high-performing supplement to Hertfordshire’s overall
recycling targets. Closure of the Tring and Watford HWRCs would not
161110 Appendix A, Watford Household Waste Recycing Centre
3
significantly affect the purpose and function of the network although, when
linked to proximity and accessibility, does demand closer alignment with local
collection / recycling services.
5.3
The closure(s) would still ensure that 99.6% of the population of Hertfordshire
are within 5 miles ‘as the crow flies’ of their nearest HWRC. The areas of
proposed closure would be no worse off in terms of distance to travel to the
nearest HWRC than other areas of the County such as Hitchin, Welwyn,
Hatfield, Sawbridgeworth and Hertford. Some residents would have longer
journeys to alternative HWRCs within the network and the cost of reaching
those HWRCs would be greater due to the distance travelled and escalating
fuel prices. This was a concern expressed by a number of respondents during
the consultation period and is detailed in Appendix D.
5.4
The provision of 19 HWRCs in Hertfordshire equates to a service ratio of
56,500 residents per HWRC. This compares favourably to the overall average
of South and South East England which is 60,000 per HWRC and more
favourably in comparison with the immediate neighbouring waste authorities
which is 63,000. The reduction to 18 HWRCs in Hertfordshire would mean each
HWRC serving 60,000 and a reduction to 17 HWRCs, 63,000. The Panel noted
that the Tring and Watford HWRCs are both in areas well served by other
facilities such as the newly built or refurbished Rickmansworth and Waterdale
HWRCs and the proposed Buckinghamshire development at Aston Clinton that
is due for completion in April 2009 and which will be capable of processing
15,000 tonnes of waste per annum.
5.5
The Berkhamsted facility has previously processed 5,000 tonnes of waste per
annum which is the estimated quantity that will be delivered by Hertfordshire
residents should the Tring HWRC close. Should all 4,000 tonnes of waste from
Tring be diverted, the Berkhamsted HWRC still has the capacity to process the
required 7,000 tonnes per annum. It is not, however anticipated that the
quantity of waste being diverted from Tring to Berkhamsted would actually
reach the estimated 2,000 tonnes per annum requiring disposal. This is
because the new facility in Aston Clinton would serve the Buckinghamshire
residents who, it is thought, deliver a greater proportion of the total Tring
HWRC waste due to the lack of green garden waste collection schemes in the
Aylesbury Vale area.
5.6
The Panel noted the operational difficulties associated with the Watford site.
Discussions with Watford Borough Council have indicated that additional land is
available for the enlargement of the HWRC and that it is sufficient to relieve the
current operational difficulties. Watford Borough Council has expressed itself
happy, in principle, to consider any reasonable proposal from the County
Council which would keep the facility open and improve it on the basis of
including the existing land and additional land in a peppercorn lease agreement
for 99 (or less) years subject to suitable use clauses.
5.7
The Panel is aware of the need for a decision to be made regarding the nature
and numbers of HWRCs comprising the network and of the current tender
process. It is likely that any decision to delay the closure of the facilities could
161110 Appendix A, Watford Household Waste Recycing Centre
4
result in increased operational costs in the short term to cover the expense of
suppliers providing containers for waste disposal and staffing at the HWRCs
which might shortly close.
5.8
Bringing together the Panel’s earlier assessment with the recent analysis and
consultation results shows that:
Closure of the Tring and Watford HWRCs would not adversely affect the
overall ability of the network to provide a service to the majority of
Hertfordshire residents, 99.6% of whom would be within 5 miles ‘as the crow
flies’ of a facility. There will however be residents in the Tring and Watford
areas who would incur longer journey times to alternative sites. At the same
time, Buckinghamshire residents (who make up 50% of users of the Tring
site) will, from next year, be able to take advantage of the new HWRC
facility at Aston Clinton.

Apart from relative over-provision in South West and North West
Hertfordshire, the other big concern of the Panel’s is the difficulty of
operating an effective service at Watford. The Borough Council’s offer of
land effectively removes this difficulty, although would require capital
expenditure to implement an enhancement.
The Panel will wish to consider what recommendations to make on the closure
or otherwise of one or both HWRCs.
6.
Financial Implications
6.1
There would be revenue savings from the HWRC closures calculated at
£188,000 for Tring and £115,000 for Watford, a total of £303,000.
6.2
There would in due course be a significant capital receipt from the sale of the
land at Tring although the short term costs to the County’s land agents is in the
region of £50,000 to cover site security costs, which could be covered by the
revenue savings.
6.3
The estimated cost of a modest expansion / enhancement of the Watford
HWRC, based upon previous construction works, is £60,000 which could be
funded from the Waste Infrastructure Capital Grant Programme.
161110 Appendix A, Watford Household Waste Recycing Centre
5
161110 Appendix A, Watford Household Waste Recycing Centre
6
APPENDIX A (page 1 of 6)
To:
All Members of the County Council
All Chief Officers
Cc:
Environment Officers
)
Officers named for action) e-mail
Democratic Services
)
County Secretary’s
Department
Ask For: Neil Terry
Tel:
01992 555413
My ref:
Your ref:
From:
ENVIRONMENT SCRUTINY COMMITTEE
16 MAY 2008
MINUTES
ATTENDANCE
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE
N Bell (substituting for S E Jones), C L Berry, M E Coxage (substituting for J T
Metcalf), D J Drake, S B A Giles-Medhurst (Chairman), M D R Muir,
A Oaten (substituting for M Cowan), D A A Peek, S L Rackett, W A Storey, R A C
Thake, J W A Usher
ALSO PRESENT:
Other Members:
R S Clements, R Roberts, A M R Searing, L Spencer
MEMBERSHIP
The Committee noted that N Bell had been appointed to replace S E Jones, M
E Coxage had been appointed to replace J T Metcalf and A Oaten had been
appointed to replace M Cowan as members of the Committee for this meeting
only.
MINUTES
The minutes of the meeting held on the 4 March 2008 were agreed as a
correct record by the Committee.
PUBLIC PETITIONS
There were no petitions presented to the Committee.
161110 Appendix A, Watford Household Waste Recycing Centre
7
APPENDIX A (page 2 of 6)
QUESTIONS (Standing Order C 9 (4))
There were no questions presented to the Committee.
PART 1 (OPEN BUSINESS)
ACTION
CHAIRMAN’S ANNOUNCEMENTS
The Chairman welcomed members of the public and
representatives from local authorities to the meeting.
1
HOUSEHOLD WASTE RECYCLING CENTRE SERVICE
1.1
The Chairman opened the meeting and Tom Hawkyard, Head
of Scrutiny, informed the Committee that in accordance with
Standing Order [SC.3/4] three members had requisitioned a
special meeting of the Committee by notice in writing to the
County Secretary.
As a consequence, the business of the meeting was to
scrutinise the decision of the Waste Management Cabinet
Panel of 4th March to recommend that:
Notice be given of the County Council's intention to close in
October 2008 the Household Waste Recycling Centres
Tringford Road, Tring and Wiggenhall Road, Watford.
1.2
A report was introduced by Richard Brown, Assistant Director
Environmental Management, providing the Committee with
background to the Waste Management Cabinet Panel’s
recommendations on Household Waste Recycling Centres
(HWRCs) and to report progress on issues raised at the
Panel’s meeting on 4 March.
The Committee were informed that consultation is ongoing
and the outcomes will be reported to the Waste Management
Cabinet Panel on 9 July 2008.
Matt King, Senior Waste Manager, reported on the
consultation responses received so far. It was noted that the
closing date for responses was the 20 June 2008.
161110 Appendix A, Watford Household Waste Recycing Centre
8
APPENDIX A (page 3 of 6)
1.3
The Committee received representations from the following:













Cllr Nick Hollinghurst on behalf of Tring Town Council
(petition presented to the Committee)
Cllr Julie Laws on behalf of Berkhamsted Town Council
Olive Conway on behalf of the Tring Residents
Association (petition presented to the Committee)
Brian Scott on behalf of Dacorum Borough Council
Alan Gough on behalf of Watford Borough Council
Mike Castro on behalf of Oxhey Hall Residents
Association (OHRA)
David Steer on behalf of the Carpenders Park
Residents Association
Cllr Phil Brading, Executive Member for Public
Services and Health, Three Rivers District Council
Cllr Geoff Dunne on behalf of Three Rivers District
Council (petition presented to the Committee)
Cllr Tony Poole on behalf of Watford Borough Council
(petition presented to the Committee)
Cllr Chris Leslie on behalf of Watford Borough Council
Cllr Roy Clements for Oxhey Park
Cllr Stephen Giles-Medhurst for Central Oxhey
Copies of the presentations and petitions were forwarded to
the Waste Management Team.
1.4
The Committee gave consideration to the background
information set out in the report from officers and the Waste
Management Cabinet Panel’s recommendations on
Household Waste Recycling Centres (HWRCs).
Members raised concerns and asked a number of questions
on the following issues:
 Congestion around HWRCs
 Increased journey time and length for residents in Tring
and Watford
 Carbon Footprint Calculations
 Capacity of alternative sites
 Purpose of HWRCs
 Effect on fly-tipping in the Tring and Watford areas
 Suitability of the Elstree HWRC
1.5
The Committee split into two groups to identify the key issues
associated with each site. The findings were presented to the
Committee by Tom Hawkyard and Neil Terry and are
recorded below.
161110 Appendix A, Watford Household Waste Recycing Centre
9
APPENDIX A (page 4 of 6)
1.6
Watford Site Issues
1. Pedestrian Usage
 Surveys
 Journey Times
2. District Collection of WEEE Items – Non collection
3. Closure of WRAP – Watford Recycling Arts Project
4. Congestion around Riverside site
5. Displacement Journeys
6. Costing unclear – opening hours of alternative sites
7. Elstree Site – not a suitable alternative
8. Cost of Fly-tipping Collection – Waste Collection
Authority
1.7
Tring Site Issues
1. Berkhamsted – access issues. Are there safety issues
leaving Berkhamsted?
2. Capacity of Berkhamsted – will it be over capacity
between April and June?
3. Travelling Costs – what will it cost Tring residents in
extra transport costs to go to Berkhamsted? Is it more
than HCC say?
4. What will it cost Dacorum Borough Council in additional
recycling costs?
5. Justify journey to Berkhamsted – shop in Berkhamsted,
take trade away from Tring.
6. Savings of £82,500. Is it a true saving? It is a cost that
will disappear, £7k savings on containers – surely we
will have to spend more on containers at
Berkhamsted? County maybe saving but Tring
residents will pay more.
7. Will Buckinghamshire limit Hertfordshire residents
accessing Aston Clinton?
8. Where are the savings going? Are they being ploughed
back into the service?
9. Is Hertfordshire site recycling working in Tring?
10. Do all the residents of Tring know what they can
recycle?
11. Green bins only have limited capacity.
12. Aylesbury is growing – pressure on capacity at Aston
Clinton
13. Dacorum have fortnightly collections which has
received negative press. People not recycling properly.
14. People can miss the fortnightly collection.
15. Being clear on what sites are for so they are used
correctly
161110 Appendix A, Watford Household Waste Recycing Centre
10
APPENDIX A (page 5 of 6)
16. Recycling e.g. batteries – recycle through Boroughs.
Not appropriate for journey to tip
17. Aston Clinton up and running in 2009. Should Tring not
close until 6 months after Aston Clinton opens so we
can see the effect?
18. When Aston Clinton opens, costs are reduced because
Tring are not subsidising Buckinghamshire’s land fill
tax
19. When were Tring tip surveys carried out? For how long
etc…
20. Some Buckinghamshire residents will be nearer
Berkhamsted than Aston Clinton
21. Tring case based on Aston Clinton being open. Makes
no difference to the mileage, 5 miles to Berk and 5
miles to Aston Clinton
22. Tring tip in an ideal situation, out of town with land
around it.
23. Is service better elsewhere – purpose & function?
24. Square meters – how big is it, conflicting figures in
report.
25. Site would be improved if mirror fitted on bridge and
yellow lines painted.
1.8
An executive summary was provided by Richard Roberts,
Chairman of the Waste Management Panel, who was
substituting for Derrick Ashley, Executive Member for
Planning, External Relations and Waste.
Questions relating to the role and function of HWRCs, how
they compliment local recycling efforts and the traditional use
of HWRCs catering for bulky waste items would need to be
considered by the Waste Management Panel.
Richard
Brown
Representatives were encouraged to attend and speak at the
Waste Management Panel meeting in July 2008.
161110 Appendix A, Watford Household Waste Recycing Centre
11
APPENDIX A (page 6 of 6)
Conclusion
1.9
The Committee:






listened to the key concerns of residents who would be
affected by the closures which were:
a potential increase in fly tipping
increased journey distances
increases in CO2 emissions, congestion and time
it takes to recycle
the wrong message about recycling being sent
out
sites are a valued local amenity
were informed that there is currently no evidence that it
is possible to convert the Watford site into something fit
for purpose;
noted there are different rules in different authorities for
waste disposal and that the exchange of material
between authorities balances out;
acknowledged that work can be done to ease
congestion at new sites;
requested that officers look at the outcomes of the
focus groups and ensure the points raised were
covered in their report to the Waste Management
Panel;
thanked Members of Public and other representatives
for their attendance and participation.
Richard
Brown
Andrew Laycock
County Secretary
161110 Appendix A, Watford Household Waste Recycing Centre
12
APPENDIX B (page 1 of 9)
Consultation responses – Tring HWRC
490 letters/emails about the Tring HWRC were received up to the 20th June
2008. A breakdown of the comments on the potential closure is as follows:








Concerns regarding increased fly tipping (73%): Impacts include significant
costs of cleanup to Dacorum Borough Council, vermin, public health and
safety and environmental impacts on local Sites of Special Scientific Interest
(SSSI) and Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). Residents were
also concerned that the Hunton Bridge example given to Environment
Scrutiny Committee was not reliable because alternative sites in this case
are further away.
Unacceptable journey distance (54%): A round trip of at least 10 miles is
disputed because of high fuel prices, the transfer of County Council cost
savings onto residents, problems with multiple journeys for bulky items and
a lack of accessibility for those who have no access to a car or car share
(predominantly the elderly).
County Council sending out the wrong message (54%): Closure of Tring
HWRC would undermine Government drives to increase recycling and cut
CO2 emissions. It would also go against the proximity principle and may
negatively impact quality of life indicators.
CO2 emissions (53%): Increased journey length will lead to greater
emissions of the greenhouse gas and other airborne pollutants which are
detrimental to the environment and human health.
Tring HWRC is a key local amenity (49%) and is efficient and well run
(40%): The site received many compliments from members of the public,
especially from the elderly and disabled. Many respondents view the site as
key to encouraging the local population to recycle a more extensive range of
materials than is offered by Dacorum Borough Council as it is situated so
conveniently.
Increased disposal of recyclables in black bags (30%) and disincentivising
recycling through cutting the HWRC network (27%) (Total 57%): Those
residents who are unable or unwilling to make the journey to the
Berkhamsted HWRC may resort to placing recyclable materials into black
bags. As a result there will be increased landfill costs and a negative impact
on the County’s LATS position.
Concerns over Berkhamsted HWRC capacity (27%): If all Tring HWRC
users were to travel to Berkhamsted, residents question whether the site will
be able to cope with the extra demand, especially at peak times.
Short term savings and a false economy (18%): Residents are concerned
that County Council savings will be negated by fly tipping clear up costs and
landfill disposal.
Inefficient use of council tax (17%): Aggravation at what is perceived as
another in a number of local service cuts including bus routes and post
offices.
161110 Appendix A, Watford Household Waste Recycing Centre
13
APPENDIX B (page 2 of 9)





Extra space is available for expansion (13%): Many respondents made
reference to the additional land in front of the main gates which could be
used for expansion rather than closure.
Inconvenience to Tring residents (12%): Those residents who wish to
continue regular recycling will be severely inconvenienced by the closure.
Congestion and ‘wear and tear’ of the road network (11%): Concerns that
the increased traffic levels will degrade the road network more quickly, will
increase congestion and will demand more money for road maintenance.
Tring HWRC has a good recycling rate (11%): Confusion as to why the
County Council is seeking to close a site which achieves such a high
recycling rate.
Inadequate District Council collections (11%): Residents are disappointed
with the range of materials collected by Dacorum Borough Council and
would be unable to recycle as great a range of materials post closure.
Summary of all Tring Complaints Above 10%, By Type.
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Site Issues
Waste Management Issues
Council Policy
Increased Frequency of Longer
Journeys
Tring HWRC is a Key Local
Amenity (49%)
Concerns regarding Increased
Fly Tipping (73%)
County Council sending out the
Wrong Message (54%)
Unacceptable Journey Distance
and Fuel Use (54%)
Tring HWRC is Efficient and Well
Run (40%)
Increased disposal of Recyclable
Materials in Black Bags (30%)
Short Term Savings and False
Economy (18%)
Increased CO2 Emissions (53%)
Extra Space is Available for
Expansion (13%)
Disincentivising Recycling by
cutting HWRC Network (27%)
Inefficient Use of Council Tax
through Service Cuts (17%)
Capacity Concerns at
Berkhamsted HWRC (27%)
Tring HWRC has a Good
Recycling Rate (11%)
District Collections are not
Comprehensive Enough (11%)
Inconvenience to Tring Residents
(12%)
Increased Congestion and Wear &
Tear on the Road Network (11%)
161110 Appendix A, Watford Household Waste Recycing Centre
14
APPENDIX B (page 3 of 9)
Consultation responses – Watford HWRC
During the same period 176 letters/emails about the Watford HWRC were
received. A breakdown of the comments on the potential closure are as
follows:









Concerns regarding fly tipping (62%): Impacts include significant costs of
cleanup to Watford Borough Council, degradation of street cleanliness,
vermin and public health and safety. Residents were also concerned that
the Hunton Bridge example given to Environment Scrutiny Committee was
not reliable because alternative sites in this case are further away.
Unacceptable journey distance (62%): The increased distance to alternative
sites prompted complaints because of high fuel prices, the transfer of
County Council cost savings onto residents, problems with multiple journeys
for bulky items and a lack of accessibility for those who have no access to a
car or car share (predominantly the elderly).
A key local amenity (53%): Many respondents view the site as key to
encouraging the local population to recycle a more extensive range of
materials as its location is so convenient.
CO2 emissions (49%): Increased journey length will lead to greater
emissions of the greenhouse gas and other airborne pollutants which are
detrimental to the environment and human health.
County Council sending out the wrong message (43%): Closure of the
Watford HWRC would undermine government drives to increase recycling
and cut CO2 emissions. It would also go against the proximity principle and
may negatively impact quality of life indicators.
Congestion and wear and tear of the road network (27%): Concerns that the
increased traffic levels will degrade the road network more quickly, will
increase congestion and will demand more money for road maintenance.
Extra space is available to expand Watford HWRC (23%): Residents call on
the County Council to use the extra land offered by Watford Borough
Council to expand the site for the future and to reduce congestion at peak
times.
Disincentivising recycling through cutting the HWRC network (21%) and
increased disposal of recyclables in black bags (11%) (Total 33%): Those
residents who are unable or unwilling to make the journey to alternative
HWRCs may resort to placing recyclable materials into black bags. As a
result there will be increased landfill costs and a negative impact on the
County’s LATS position.
Inconvenience to Watford residents (19%). Those residents who wish to
continue regular recycling will be severely inconvenienced by the closure.
Inadequate District Council collections (17%): Residents are disappointed
with the range of materials collected by Watford Borough Council and will be
unable to recycle as great a range of materials post closure.
161110 Appendix A, Watford Household Waste Recycing Centre
15
APPENDIX B (page 4 of 9)




Concerns over alternative HWRC capacity (16%): If all Watford HWRC
users were to travel to Elstree, Waterdale and Rickmansworth, residents
question whether the sites will be able to cope with the extra demand,
especially at peak times.
Watford HWRC is efficient and well run (15%): The site received
compliments from members of the public with regard to its day to day
operation.
Inefficient use of council tax (14%): Aggravation at what is perceived as
another in a number of local service cuts including bus routes and post
offices.
Short term savings and false economy (13%): Residents are concerned that
County Council savings will be negated by fly tipping clear up costs and
landfill disposal.
Sum m ary of all Watford Com plaints Above 10%, By Type.
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Site Issues
Waste Management Issues
Council Policy
Increased Frequency of Longer
Journeys
Watford HWRC is a Key Local
Amenity (53%)
Concerns regarding Increased
Fly Tipping (62%)
County Council sending out the
Wrong Message (43%)
Unacceptable Journey Distance
and Fuel Use (62%)
Extra Space is Available for
Expansion (23%)
Disincentivising Recycling by
cutting HWRC Network (21%)
Inefficient Use of Council Tax
through Service Cuts (14%)
Increased CO2 Emissions (49%)
Watford HWRC is Efficient and
Well Run (15%)
District Collections are not
Comprehensive Enough (17%)
Short Term Savings and False
Economy (13%)
Increased Congestion and Wear &
Tear on the Road Network (27%)
Increased disposal of Recyclable
Materials in Black Bags (11%)
Inconvenience to Watford
Residents (19%)
Capacity Concerns at Alternative
HWRCs (16%)
One letter of support was also received regarding the Watford HWRC closure
stating that the Wiggenhall Road site is outdated and badly positioned. The
respondent also stated that despite living in the near vicinity of the site he
preferred using Waterdale HWRC due to its superior layout and lack of
congestion, especially as he only made the journey 3 or 4 times a year.
161110 Appendix A, Watford Household Waste Recycing Centre
16
APPENDIX B (page 5 of 9)
Consultation responses – Petitions for the Tring HWRC
2 Petitions – total of 3,353 signatures.
 Cllr Nick Hollinghurst on behalf of Tring Town Council (Liberal Democrats) – 521
signatures.
 Olive Conway on behalf of the Tring Residents Association (Tring Conservatives) 2,832 signatures.
Consultation responses – Petitions for the Watford HWRC
3 Petitions – total of 1,960 signatures.
 Cllr Geoff Dunne on behalf of Three Rivers District Council – 390 signatures.
 Cllr Tony Poole on behalf of Watford Borough Council – 1,156 signatures.
 Cllr Stephen Giles-Medhurst on behalf of Central Oxhey – 414 respondents via an
electronic petition. This petition was received on three separate occasions but
recorded once as they were identical apart from a small number of respondents.
161110 Appendix A, Watford Household Waste Recycing Centre
17
APPENDIX B (page 6 of 9)
THREE RIVERS DISTRICT COUNCIL
At a meeting of the Public Services and Health Policy and Scrutiny Committee
held in the Penn Chamber, Three Rivers House, Rickmansworth, on Thursday
5 June 2008 from 7.30pm to 10.00 pm
Present: Councillors Stephen Giles-Medhurst (Chairman), Barbara Green (ViceChairman), Kemal Butt, Leighton Dann, Joy Mann, Kate Turner and Brian
White
Officers in attendance:Karl Murdoch
Alison Page
Ted Massey
Sarah Haythorpe
-
Head of Environmental Protection
Environmental Protection Manager
Chief Environmental Health Officer
Principal Committee Manager
Also in attendance: Councillors Phil Brading, Mary Connolly, Peter Ray and Ann
Shaw OBE, Richard Brown, Assistant Director, Environment, Hertfordshire
County Council
An apology for absence was received from Councillor Russell Smith
PH.PP1/08
MINUTES
The Minutes of the meeting of the Public Services and Health Policy and
Scrutiny Committee held on 13 March 2008 were confirmed as a correct record
and were signed by the Chairman.
PH.PP2/08
NOTICE OF OTHER BUSINESS
None.
PH.PP3/08
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
Councillor Stephen Giles-Medhurst declared a personal and prejudicial interest
in the report on the environmental and grounds maintenance contracts as a
member of his family worked for one of the tenderers.
Councillor Leighton Dann declared a personal and prejudicial interest in the
report on Grounds and Environmental Maintenance Contracts – In-House Bid –
Croxley Green Parish Council as a Croxley Green Parish Councillor.
161110 Appendix A, Watford Household Waste Recycing Centre
18
APPENDIX B (page 7 of 9)
The Head of Environmental Protection declared a personal and prejudicial
interest in the report on the environmental and grounds maintenance contracts
as he was leading the team involved in putting together the in-house bid for
both contracts.
PH.PP4/08
WATFORD HOUSEHOLD WASTE RECYCLING CENTRE,
WIGGENHALL ROAD
The Chairman welcomed Richard Brown, Assistant Director, Environment at
Herts County Council to the meeting. He was attending the meeting to answer
questions on the proposal to close the Watford Household Waste Recycling
Centre in Wiggenhall Road. He explained that in June 2007, a review of all the
Hertfordshire Waste Recycling Centres (HWRC) was initiated by Herts County
Council to ensure the network could continue to contribute to implementation of
the Hertfordshire Waste Management Strategy and complement the service
provided by the Hertfordshire District Authorities. Following the review, a notice
of an intention to close the Tring and Watford HWRCs was published.
The Committee noted that there were significant operating difficulties at the
Watford HWRC due to the limited space, with users of the centre regularly
experiencing delays in accessing the centre and frequent temporary closures.
It was considered that the proposed closure would not affect the County
Council’s ability to provide an acceptable service to the overall majority of
residents within a 5 miles radius. A further report would be presented to the
County Councils Waste Management Cabinet Panel on 9 July which would
incorporate the points raised at the Environment Scrutiny Committee meeting
on 16 May about the impact on traffic, distance to travel, congestion, carbon
footprint and the possible enhancement of the Watford recycling centre which
was being discussed with Watford Borough Council. It was reported that the
County Council had received 45 letters/emails raising a number of concerns
over the proposal to close the Watford HWRC and all comments received
would be advised to the Panel.
The Chairman advised that there had been a lot of public concern within
Carpenders Park, South Oxhey and Oxhey Hall over the proposal to close the
Watford HWRC.
In response to questions raised by the Committee, Mr Brown advised that:


Watford was one of 19 HWRCs in Hertfordshire;
It was one of the most difficult recycling centres to operate due to the shape
and logistics of the site;
161110 Appendix A, Watford Household Waste Recycing Centre
19
APPENDIX B (page 8 of 9)



The concerns raised at the Scrutiny Committee meeting on 16 May 2008 about
the assumptions made on the proximity/accessibility of the site, fuel costs of
travel to alternative recycling centres and the carbon footprint were being
investigated further for presentation to the Waste Management Cabinet Panel
in July;
A petition had been received against the closure of the Watford HWRC;
Consideration needed to be given by the Hertfordshire Waste Partnership to
the more effective recycling of smaller items like batteries and light bulbs for
which traditional HWRCs may not be the most appropriate solution.
The Chairman raised concern that the Allum Lane recycling centre in Elstree
was to remain open. He said that although waste-streams had reduced at the
Watford HWRC, recycling tonnage had increased whereas at other HWRCs it
had reduced. He questioned the distance of 5 miles to the next nearest HWRC
and advised that this was certainly not the case for a lot of residents in South
Oxhey, Carpenders Park and Oxhey Hall.
The Assistant Director, Environment advised that both the Allum Lane and
Wiggenhall Road HWRCs had significantly less scope for improvement than
other sites in Hertfordshire, but there continued to be particular operational
difficulties at the Watford recycling centre. The County Council were
reconsidering the mileage and proximity to other HWRCs following the
Environment Scrutiny Committee meeting in May.
The Head of Environmental Protection advised that there had been a downturn
in flytipping across the District.
A Member of the Committee noted the operational difficulties with the Watford
HWRC but asked if the offer of additional land by Watford Borough Council had
been discussed. Another Member of the committee also raised concern that
the Allum Lane HWRC was on the edge of the County, nearer to Barnet, and
potentially over half the residents who used the site were not residents of
Hertfordshire.
Mr Brown replied that the County Council would be meeting with Watford
Borough Council regarding the offer of additional land. He said although some
neighbouring Authorities imposed strict rules (that only residents in that
Authority could use the recycling centre), the County Council’s view was not to
impose these conditions.
The Committee said there were a number of unanswered questions regarding
travelling distances, the carbon footprint and the impact on residents if the
Watford HWRC was to close.
161110 Appendix A, Watford Household Waste Recycing Centre
20
APPENDIX B (page 9 of 9)
The Portfolio Holder for Public Services and Health said kerbside collections
had diverted some green waste from HWRC but residents needed to have
access to a HWRC as there was more garden waste than the kerbside
collection could manage. He said there was a limit on the capacity of the brown
bins, and at certain times of the year it was difficult to keep up with the garden
waste needed to be collected. With regard to the recycling of wood, metals,
batteries and light bulbs, it was feared that the closing of the Watford HWRC
before alternative mechanisms were in place was a concern. He said the Herts
Waste Partnership needed to discuss this to agree a way forward.
The Chairman proposed, duly supported by the Committee, that the Director of
Community and Environmental Services, in consultation with the Chairman of
the Public Services and Health Policy and Scrutiny Committee and the Portfolio
Holder for Public Services and Health, draft a letter, to be approved by the
Executive Committee, to Herts County Council in response to the consultation
on the proposal to close the Watford Household Waste Recycling Centre to
include the following points:








the Council did not support the proposal to close the Watford HWRC;
the proposal from Watford Borough Council of additional space for the Watford
HWRC needed to be explored;
the high use of the Watford HWRC by residents;
the increase in the carbon footprint;
the distances that some residents would need to travel if the Watford HWRC
closed would be in excess of 9.5 miles;
the potential increase in flytipping and the potential costs which would fall on
Three Rivers District Council;
alternative arrangements should be in place for recycling small specialist items
(light bulbs, wood, metals and batteries) to compliment the kerbside facilities
being provided; and
the additional car journeys on the road network;
The Chairman thanked Richard Brown for attending the meeting and updating
the Committee on the proposals for the Wiggenhall Recycling Centre.
ACTION AGREED:That the Director of Community and Environmental Services, in consultation
with the Chairman of the Public Services and Health Policy and Scrutiny
Committee and the Portfolio Holder for Public Services and Health, draft a
letter, to be approved by the Executive Committee, to Herts County Council in
response to the consultation on the proposal to close the Watford Household
Waste Recycling Centre in Wiggenhall Road to include the points raised above.
161110 Appendix A, Watford Household Waste Recycing Centre
21
Impact on highways
APPENDIX C (page 1 of 2)
The information provided to measure the impact of closure on the road network in the
surrounding area of the alternate HWRCs has been given by the Environment
Department’s Highways Development Control Team.
The analysis uses the TRICS software package to challenge and validate
assumptions about the transport impacts of new developments. It is the only national
trip generation and analysis database, containing trip generation data and site
information for around 3,000 sites.
For this report the TRICS system was not used to estimate the traffic generated by a
new development. It was used to estimate how many vehicles are likely to arrive and
leave Tring and Watford HWRCs at the present time.
Within the TRICS database there are traffic count surveys for five Hertfordshire
Household Waste Recycling Centres; Welwyn Garden City, Turnford, Royston, St
Albans and Elstree. These are comparable sites to the two in question due to location,
controlling authority, land use and the timing of the surveys.
Each survey counted all traffic entering and leaving each site over the course of a
week. TRICS interrogates this data in such a way that it is able to give an estimated
trip rate for Hertfordshire HWRCs in general. It presents this as Trips per Hectare split
into hour long time slots. By factoring in the size of a particular site it is possible to
estimate how many vehicles could reasonably be expected to enter and leave the site
at any given hour of the day.
The potential impact on highways for the Tring area
During the weekend peak periods the Tring HWRC is likely to generate up to 50 trips
an hour. If the closure of the site at Tring coincides with the opening of the new Aston
Clinton facility it is anticipated that a proportion of residents that used Tring will
transfer to Aston Clinton and the remaining trips will divert to the alternative HWRC in
Berkhamsted.
The Berkhamsted site is located at the end of Northbridge Road which is a wide,
straight industrial estate road approximately 1km in length. On the occasions (mainly
at weekends) when the site is likely to be busy, vehicles will be forced to queue
outside. Due to the nature of the road a small amount of queuing vehicles is unlikely
to cause a hazard, although the introduction of measures such as extended opening
hours would ease this situation.
It has been impossible to model the effects of the displacement of traffic, however, the
anticipated increased use of the Berkhamsted HWRC is unlikely to have any
significant impact on the surrounding junctions at Billet Lane, High Street and
Bridgewater Road.
161110 Appendix A, Watford Household Waste Recycing Centre
22
APPENDIX C (page 2 of 2)
The potential impact on highways for the Watford area
The Saturn computer model for South West Hertfordshire cannot be used for
predicting the effects of such small-scale changes of trip generation as proposed here.
It has therefore been impossible to use it to model the displacement of traffic. The
alternative sites are similar distances (5 to 7km) away from and disposed evenly
around the Wiggenhall Road site. The numbers of trips generated by the Watford site
has been estimated to be around 60 per hour or 440 per day.
Analysis of residual waste volumes and opening times gives predicted shares of the
displaced trips of 21% to Elstree, 33% to Rickmansworth and 46% to Waterdale. This
equates to additional trips per hour and per day of 13 and 92 to Elstree, 20 and 145 to
Rickmansworth and 28 and 200 to Waterdale. There will also be a small number of
HGV trips associated with disposal of the additional waste collected at each site.
Roads at Rickmansworth likely to be most effected by the car and HGV trips displaced
by closure of the Wiggenhall Road site would be A404 Riverside Drive/ London Road,
A4145 Moor Lane/ Tolpits Lane/ Hagden Lane/ Vicarage Road and A412 Rectory
Road/ Park Road/ Scots Hill/ Watford Road/ Rickmansworth. Roads at Waterdale
likely to be most effected by the car and HGV trips displaced by closure of the
Wiggenhall Road site would be A405 St Albans Road North Orbital/ Kingsway North
Orbital and A412 St Albans Road north of the A41. Roads at Elstree likely to be most
effected by the car and HGV trips displaced by closure of the Wiggenhall Road site
would be B5378 Allum Lane, A5183 Elstree Hill North, A411 Watford Road/ Elstree
Road/ Sparrows Herne and the A41 North Western Avenue.
Household Waste Recycling Centres are at their busiest at weekends and public
holidays. This is when the road network is generally running under lighter load than
during the weekday peaks. The volumes of displaced traffic predicted will not cause
significant congestion or delays at any of the key junctions around each site. The
access and internal layouts at each site will be able to provide sufficient safe capacity
to manage these volumes.
161110 Appendix A, Watford Household Waste Recycing Centre
23
161110 Appendix A, Watford Household Waste Recycing Centre
24
APPENDIX D (page 1 of 3)
The potential effect on the carbon footprint
The potential effect of the closures on the carbon footprint for Hertfordshire can be
assessed by consideration of the average journey length by residents to the current
facilities and the distance for these residents to travel to the alternative HWRCs. The
additional journey length is then multiplied by the total number of journeys that are
affected.
Inc. Return Trip
(km)
All Patrons
3.98
7.96
All Visitors
14.48
99,226
TRICS Data
49613
Hertfordshire Residents Only
2.55
5.1
Hertfordshire
Residents Only
13.44
141,594
Waste Data
70797
11.22
22.44
9.27
18.54
Distance (km)
Inc. Return Trip
(km)
2.95
5.9
6.63
6.27
5.04
10.08
Pre Closure
Post Closure
Additional Distance Traveled to
Berkhamsted (km)
Distance (km)
TRING
All Patrons changing to
Berkhamsted
Hertfordshire Residents Only
changing to Berkhamsted
WATFORD
Pre Closure
All Visitors
Post Closure
Watford Patrons changing to
Elstree
Watford Patrons changing to
Waterdale
Watford Patrons changing to
Rickmansworth
Number of Visits TRING
Additional Distance Travelled to
Alternative Sites (km)
To Elstree
7.36
13.26
To Waterdale
6.64
12.54
To Rickmansworth
4.18
Herts Only
Residents
Number of Visits - TRICS Data
Total
113,202
Number Diverted to Alternative Sites
Elstree (21%)
23772
Waterdale (46%)
52073
Rickmansworth (33%)
37357
Number of Visits - Waste Data
HERTFORDSHIRE TOTAL
Hertfordshire Average
(with 19 Sites)
Hertfordshire Average
(with 17 Sites)
Distance (km)
Total
3.74
4.21
231,881
Number Diverted to Alternative Sites
Elstree (21%)
48695
Waterdale (46%)
106665
Rickmansworth (33%)
76521
There are assumptions used in these calculations such as a CO2 factor of 0.22
kgCO2/km, an average used for a petrol car with 1.4 to 2 litre engines, to provide the
gross ‘gain’ in carbon emissions by closing the facilities.
There is also consideration given to the reduction in CO2 emissions from residents
from outside the County boundary who, it is assumed, will not travel to Berkhamsted
but instead to a nearer HWRC provided in their county and the reduction in heavy
vehicle movements not travelling to remove waste from the facilities. This gross
‘reduction’ assumes a CO2 factor of 0.76 kgCO2/km, an average used for a rigid diesel
lorry, and also takes into account the energy consumption of the two facilities in KW
per annum. It is assumed that the energy consumption at Tring and Watford will cease
after closure and that there will be an increase of some 25% at Berkhamsted to
account for the possibility of increased opening hours and the increase in waste
through the compaction machines used for residual and green garden waste. The
energy consumption is assumed to be 0.43 kgCO2/kWh.
161110 Appendix A, Watford Household Waste Recycing Centre
25
APPENDIX D (page 2 of 3)
The current calculated carbon footprints show the following:
Additional CO2 from closing Tring (resident trips): 178 tonnes.
Additional CO2 from closing Watford (resident trips): 227 tonnes.
Energy consumption net CO2 savings: (-1.4) tonnes
Lorry movement net CO2 reduction - Tring: (-24.1) tonnes
Lorry movement net CO2 reduction - Watford: 0.0 tonnes
Total approximated at 379.5 tonnes additional CO2 per annum
According to the Quality of Life Report 2007, produced for the Hertfordshire
Environmental Forum, and to put these figures into context; the total CO2 emissions
from road transport in Hertfordshire during 2005 was 2,986,000 tonnes. The additional
emissions for the closure of Tring and Watford HWRCs would represent 0.01% of the
2005 road transport total.
The above calculations have included a number of assumptions, not least the number
of visits to the HWRCs under review. The number of visits based on weight data is
taken from a compositional analysis of the residual waste at 9 of the 19 HWRCs and
was funded by the Local Authority Support Unit. This report measured an average
weight of residual waste of 23.09 kg per person. This can be used to detail the
numbers of people using the HWRC network to deliver residual waste only and was
expanded to reflect the total number of visitors based on the assumption that 49% of
the waste at the time of the survey was residual waste.
The TRICS database as described in Appendix C provides an alternative to the above
assumptions concerning the number of residents based on waste delivered to the site
and it is felt that, a more accurate reflection of the numbers of residents using the
facilities is between these two sets of data. Therefore, the figures are shown for both
the numbers of visitors using the TRICS database and for the projections based on
waste delivered to each of the HWRCs.
More detailed work and investment would be needed to provide comprehensive site
usage data, information on vehicle type and behaviour of site users such as frequency
of visit and type of waste disposed at the facility.
161110 Appendix A, Watford Household Waste Recycing Centre
26
APPENDIX D (page 3 of 3)
Concerns over the cost of additional transport can be expressed as follows:
Watford HWRC:
TRICS database: 113,202 residents meaning an additional 423,049 miles travelled.
Waste projections: 231,881 residents meaning an additional 866,568 miles travelled.
Using an average of 30 mpg (Average for 1.6 to 2 litre car), the average additional
miles are 644,808.5 equating to 21,494 gallons of petrol (at mid May price of £5 per
gallon) this shows an additional cost to residents of £107,468 per annum.
The Average number of residents is 172,541.5 therefore the additional cost per
resident visit is an anticipated £0.62.
Tring HWRC (Hertfordshire residents only):
TRICS database: 49,613 residents meaning an additional 416,749 miles travelled.
Waste projections: 70,797 residents meaning an additional 594,695 miles travelled.
Using an average of 30 mpg (Average for 1.6 to 2 litre car), the average additional
miles are 505,722 equating to 16,857 gallons of petrol (at mid May price of £5 per
gallon) this shows an additional cost to residents of £84,287 per annum.
The Average number of residents is 60,205 therefore the additional cost per resident
visit is an anticipated £1.40.
161110 Appendix A, Watford Household Waste Recycing Centre
27
161110 Appendix A, Watford Household Waste Recycing Centre
28
Proximity and accessibility
APPENDIX E (page 1 of 7)
The effect of the closures on the proximity and accessibility of sites for residents has
been expressed using maps from the Accession software package used by the
Environment Department’s Transportation Planning & Policy Unit. The software
produces maps showing time contours of theoretical journey times to the existing
HWRCs and with the closure of the Tring and Watford facilities. These show some
small changes from the 5 to 10 minute theoretical journey times, and identifies, which
areas are most affected. The assessment of the existing 5 mile ‘as the crow flies’
criteria shows that over 99.6% of the population will be covered by the 17 household
waste recycling centres. Also shown is the existing 19 HWRC scenario with theoretical
journey times and the 17 HWRC scenario. It can be clearly seen that some areas of
the County are currently worse off than those who are likely to be affected by the
closure of either the Tring or Watford HWRCs.
Accession is a software tool designed to explore relative accessibility of specified
destinations from a series of specified origins. It will then provide a quantitative
assessment of the time and distance based on a number of parameters within the
system.
For the purposes of calculating the figures used in this report the following data was
used.
 ITN road network – national road network data including network speeds based on
classification only (i.e. M-ways 70mph, A roads 60mph, B roads 40mph and all
others 30mph).
 Postcode dataset – for origins based on ordnance survey grid references for the
centroids of each postcode.
 Household waste sites – points representing the location of the household waste
sites.
The average distance for postcodes to the nearest waste site is confidently reported.
The figure for time is however based on default theoretical figures for the base
network. The maps therefore should be considered together as they illustrate the
relative effect of closing either of the two sites on residents in parts of the county.
Less weight should be attributed to the absolute measure of journey time as this will
be affected by local conditions speed limits, traffic volumes, weather and road works
etc. The system does not take in to account legal speeds or real attainable speeds.
In summary, the following maps and tables describe the relative ease, based on time
and distance by road, by which residents of Hertfordshire can access their nearest
HWRC.
161110 Appendix A, Watford Household Waste Recycing Centre
29
APPENDIX E (page 2 of 7)
The following data assumes the use of a car as means of transport to the HWRCs.
Time (min)
Distance (km)
Inc. Return
Trip (km)
All Patrons
4.32
3.98
7.96
Hertfordshire Residents Only
2.80
2.55
5.1
All Patrons changing to
Berkhamsted
9.33
11.22
22.44
Hertfordshire Residents Only
changing to Berkhamsted
7.24
9.27
18.54
Time (min)
Distance (km)
Inc. Return
Trip (km)
All Visitors
2.18
2.95
5.9
Watford Patrons changing to
Elstree
4.61
6.63
13.26
Watford Patrons changing to
Waterdale
4.21
6.27
12.54
Watford Patrons changing to
Rickmansworth
3.71
5.04
10.08
TRING
Pre
Closure
Post
Closure
WATFORD
Pre
Closure
Post
Closure
HERTFORDSHIRE TOTAL
Time (min)
Distance (km)
Hertfordshire Average (with 19 Sites)
3.25
3.74
Hertfordshire Average (with 17 Sites)
3.58
4.21
The current travel distance to the Watford HWRC is below the average for all
Hertfordshire residents for their nearest HWRC, and although the Tring average is
higher than that for all sites, those residents using the facility that are from within the
County boundary reduce the travel time to below the average for all sites.
161110 Appendix A, Watford Household Waste Recycing Centre
30
APPENDIX E (page 3 of 7)
161110 Appendix A, Watford Household Waste Recycing Centre
31
APPENDIX E (page 4 of 7)
161110 Appendix A, Watford Household Waste Recycing Centre
32
APPENDIX E (page 5 of 7)
161110 Appendix A, Watford Household Waste Recycing Centre
33
APPENDIX E (page 6 of 7)
161110 Appendix A, Watford Household Waste Recycing Centre
34
APPENDIX E (page 7 of 7)
161110 Appendix A, Watford Household Waste Recycing Centre
35
161110 Appendix A, Watford Household Waste Recycing Centre
36
APPENDIX F (page 1 of 1)
Risks of fly-tipping
Fly tipping is a crime and carries a maximum penalty of £20,000 or a prison term of up
to five years and this may be a significant factor in the reductions seen in recent years
as shown in the graph below with a 41% reduction in reported incidents in Dacorum,
Three Rivers and Watford between 2004 and 2007.
Experience following the closure of the Hunton Bridge facility has shown that fly
tipping was not a significant problem. Waste was left outside the facility gates for up to
a week before stopping and the surrounding area did not suffer from any sharp
increases in unlawful disposal. The information is taken from the reported incidents on
the Environment Agency’s Flycapture database.
Flytipping in Dacorum, Three Rivers and Watford
450
Incidents of flytipping
400
350
300
250
2004
200
2007
150
100
50
0
June
July
August
Month
161110 Appendix A, Watford Household Waste Recycing Centre
37
161110 Appendix A, Watford Household Waste Recycing Centre
38
APPENDIX G (page 1 of 3)
Enlargement of Watford HWRC
The possible enhancement or enlargement of the existing Watford facility has been
assessed on estimates of recent builds and redevelopments within the HWRC
network:
Firstly, an assessment of the estimated costs for the basic expansion, this could
alleviate the significant operational difficulties as detailed later in this Appendix but
would not provide the appearance of a brand new facility such as those newly
refurbished or expanded HWRCs.
ESTIMATED COSTS FOR A BASIC EXPANSION OF WATFORD
HOUSEHOLD WASTE RECYCLING CENTRE
Description
Quantity Unit
Rate
(£)
Pavements
Hardicrete for bin areas
High Stone Content Overlay
860
1205
m2
m2
21
10
18060
12050
Fencing
2.4m Pallisade
7m Pallisade Gates
69
1
m
no.
100
3500
6900
3500
Excavation
Excavation in Hard
75
m3
10
750
Disposal of material
75
m3
15
1125
Drainage
Gullies
100mm connections & pipework
Clean out existing foul system
5
100
1
no.
m
item
1500
10
2500
7500
1000
2500
Linemarkings
New Layout
1
Item
2500
2500
Demolition
Vehicle Wash
1
Item
5000
5000
Total Improvement Cost
161110 Appendix A, Watford Household Waste Recycing Centre
Total
60885
39
APPENDIX G (page 2 of 3)
The following options are set out to give indicative costs of upgrading the Watford
HWRC to improve the aesthetics and appearance of the facility although they are not
necessary for alleviating the operational difficulties:
Additional Items for brand
new facility
Design Fees & Payments to
statutory undertakers
Red anti slip
New Recycle Now Signage
New Office Install
Site Lighting Scheme include
excavations
Additional Drainage & New
Interceptor
Additional Litter fencing (River
Side)
Fire Fighting/Wash down
Equipment - Fire hose Reels &
Water Supplies
CCTV
Bin Bump Stops
1
1
1
1
Item
Item
Item
Item
35000
1500
8000
25000
35000
1500
8000
25000
1
Item
25000
25000
1
Item
20000
20000
60
m
250
15000
3
1
60
no.
Item
m
10000
10000
40
30000
10000
2400
Additional Costs
171900
NOTES:
The construction period for the minimum works would be in the region of 6 weeks,
taking into account the requirement of the CDM Regulations 2007. The HWRC would
have to be closed for this period due to its restricted nature and to protect the health
and safety of contractors, nearby residents and the members of the public.
These figures are based on previous construction works carried out by the County
Council. The existing levels of the site means resurfacing is required to achieve
suitable drainage.
The additional items could be added to a small scale construction contract, but
represent an indicative value of such works. Additional drainage would be needed and
this must be agreed with Thames Water trade effluent team before any works or
design could be progressed.
Planning permission will be dependant on the existing permission/land use of the
depot. The Environment Agency would also need to be consulted over an extension to
the site’s environmental permit, as currently the depot and the HWRC are permitted
separately in their respective areas.
161110 Appendix A, Watford Household Waste Recycing Centre
40
APPENDIX G (page 3 of 3
A complete reconstruction of the HWRC as opposed to the option for basic expansion
shown above would be in the region of £750,000. This figure is based on similar
developments recently carried out within Hertfordshire.
Effect of an upgraded Watford HWRC:
The current operational difficulties are detailed in the report which the Panel
considered in March 2008. The possible expansion could alleviate these problems as
follows:
The current provision of 13 containers for waste could be increased to 20 containers.
This means an increase to the separation of recyclable materials and an increase in
the rate of recycling that could be achieved at the HWRC. The increased number of
containers also increases the capacity of the HWRC and therefore reduces the
requirement to close for unavoidable servicing during peak periods.
The current facility has provision for 18 car parking spaces, this is reduced by the
encroachment of a number of waste containers to a practical number of 15. The traffic
flow within the site is also very restricted and in reality the exit is frequently blocked by
vehicles causing delays. An expansion could accommodate 22 car parking spaces, an
improved traffic flow through the facility and significantly, a ‘running lane’ that removes
vehicles from the highway and allows a controlled queuing space instead of the
current concerns with the Wiggenhall Road depot.
161110 Appendix A, Watford Household Waste Recycing Centre
41
161110 Appendix A, Watford Household Waste Recycing Centre
42
APPENDIX H (page 1 of 2)
Environment Scrutiny Committee Findings – June 2007
The key findings of the Scrutiny Committee, endorsed by the Panel,
covered three main areas:Purpose and function

The HWRCs should be flexible and adaptable to meet future needs or
changes in legislation.

The HWRCs should have increased capacity for reuse of household
waste and should continue to incentivise recycling and reuse.

The HWRCs should be places for the receipt of specialised household
waste not collected by the district and borough councils.

The purpose of the HWRCs is not to encourage ‘overspill’ from the
district and borough council collections.

The HWRCs should form part of a unified and integrated collection and
disposal service between the County Council and the district and
borough councils.

The HWRCs should be included in the ongoing partnership working
between local authorities and contractors.
Location

Accessibility to the HWRCs is paramount.

Scrutiny Committee thought the HWRC network should be part of a
‘whole system’ across county boundaries and between organisations
e.g. collection authorities and supermarkets

The current ‘5 miles as the crow flies’ proximity criteria should be
reviewed and take into account the provision of HWRCs outside the
County. The Scrutiny Committee questioned the need for nineteen
sites.

It was thought that new facilities should be linked to new developments
through s.106.
161110 Appendix A, Watford Household Waste Recycing Centre
43
APPENDIX H (page 2 of 2)
Scale and style

Think of the HWRCs as ‘one-stop-shops’ for recycling and disposal.

Cleanliness and attractiveness with efficient layouts are important.

Ensure that site staff are informed and helpful.

Thought should be given to making use of any ability to charge for
certain categories of waste.

The Scrutiny Committee discussed the merits of a Countywide
information booklet.

Is it impossible to automate processes at HWRCs to speed-up visits?

The importance of close monitoring of sites was stressed.
161110 Appendix A, Watford Household Waste Recycing Centre
44