Council leaders caution government over AD focus

Council leaders have used their response to Defra's review of England's waste policy to caution the government over its “blanket promotion” of anaerobic digestion.

The Local Government Group – which is comprised of six organisations including the Local Government Association (LGA) – made the comments alongside calls for the scrapping of all policy instruments except Landfill Tax and improved funding arrangements for waste infrastructure.

In its response to the policy review, which was launched by Caroline Spelman in June 2010, the body said: “The LG Group cautions against blanket promotion of AD and instead suggests that government works with the waste industry and local government to assess the experience of AD up to this point and generate guidelines on where it is an appropriate and cost-effective solution, both for purely private sector merchant facilities and for facilities commissioned to process municipal waste.”

The comments represent the most high-profile questioning to date of the government's strong support for the technology, which saw it singled out in the coalition agreement in May and again given prominence in the National Infrastructure Plan published earlier this week (see letsrecycle.com story).

Landfill Tax

On the topic of Landfill Tax, the LG Group labelled it the “key driver” for encouraging councils to reduce waste to landfill and said other methods – such as the landfill allowances trading scheme and local area assessments – “do not necessarily create the right, most energy efficient incentives”.

The support for Landfill Tax appears to be something of a U-turn compared to comments made last month by the LGA, where it suggested that Chancellor George Osborne should consider scrapping the mechanism in the lead-up to the Comprehensive Spending Review (see letsrecycle.com story).

The LG Group also stressed the need for Landfill Tax money to be reinvested into the local government framework to help fund infrastructure development, which has been called for by the LGA on numerous occasions in the past.

Furthermore, the LG Group claimed that councils could be encouraged to collect trade waste from small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) if the government could ensure that it did not “expose them to higher Landfill Tax on residual waste”. It said this would help reduce the burden on SMEs at a time of constrained finances.

Funding

In terms of funding, the LG Group called on government to “rethink” how waste infrastructure is planned and managed, with the aim of making “less money go further” and to highlight the economic opportunities offered by waste disposal and treatment.

In its response, it stated: “The current pattern of funding to support infrastructure is fragmented vertically across national, regional and local levels and horizontally across government departments, their agencies and a plethora of funding streams that exist within them.”

In particular, it stressed the significance of the government's Localism Bill, which is expected to be published next month, noting that: “The Decentralisation and Localism Bill will make the biggest changes to the planning system in half a century and this could have a significant impact on delivering new waste infrastructure.”

Costs

Addressing the stature of waste collection and disposal with regards to council's budgets, the LG Group stated that capital investment in this area is likely to increase £3.4 billion in 2010/11 to £4.3 billion by 2014/15. And, the council body warned that there are “few quick wins” available to reduce costs.

However, while the LG Group acknowledged that disposal costs fuelled by the Landfill Tax escalator are “increasing very rapidly”, it claimed this was somewhat counter-balanced by savings made on the collection side.

“Costs of collection are being reduced through the sensible decisions that local authorities are taking up and down the country to encourage recycling and rationalise collection,” it states.

In addition to the LGA, the LG Group is also comprised of Local Government Improvement and Development, Local Government Employers, Local Government Regulation, Local Government Leadership and Local Partnerships.