This represented a slight rise from the cost of £21 per household in 2006/07 and 2007/08. Before that, there was a leap in price from £7 per household in 2005/06, which APSE said reflected the initial investment in new recycling services by local authorities.
APSE claimed that the initial increase in costs had “produced dividends” and said that the stable price had been achieved against a backdrop of recycling rates in the England rising from 16% in 2004/05 to 37.75% in 2008/09.
When looked at alongside residual waste, APSE stated that the average cost of collecting refuse – which is used as a catch-all term for both residual waste and recyclable material – was £70 per household in 2008/09, which was a rise of £19 from the levels in 2004/05.
However, the document states that the service costs in 2008/09 are £59 per household when landfill charges and waste charges are removed, which APSE claims means that the rise in collection costs has stayed below the rise in the national rate of inflation in the UK.
In the report, APSE claimed: “This demonstrates that the refuse collection service has achieved significant gains in recycling, reduced waste to landfill whilst containing costs at below inflation levels.”
Furthermore, APSE indicated that this rise in collection costs was set against a backdrop of waste arisings per household increasing from 88kg to 186kg over the same period.
Infrastructure
However, APSE claimed that the continual investment in waste and recycling collections by local authorities could have a knock-on effect for the development of future waste infrastructure.
The report claims that investment in containers, vehicles and education campaigns could “fetter” new technologies being developed, including, “most significantly”, energy-from-waste developments.
APSE claims that lower levels of residual waste, as more material is diverted into the recyclable stream, could render merchant plants an “attractive” option for developers rather than a bespoke facility constructed for a local authority.
Cuts
Highlighting the £20 billion in public sector “efficiencies” outlined in the Pre-Budget Report, APSE claim that there was likely to be repercussions for waste and recycling services. However, it was keen to assert that, while “challenges remain” at an operational level, there are ways to cut costs without losing staff.
Mo Baines, principal advisor at APSE, stated in the report: “Even if there are more successful developments in round configurations it is unlikely there will be further opportunities for greater mechanisation, hence the headcount numbers are unlikely to go down significantly unless there were to be reductions in service levels”.
Ms Baines said that local authorities should look at reconfiguring collection rounds, reducing dependence on overtime payments and managing peaks and troughs in service need – such as issues surrounding Bank Holidays and harsh winter weather.
Not-for-profit organisation APSE has been charting local authority performance across 14 frontline services for the past 11 years.
Subscribe for free