Durham plans to close over a third of its HWRCs

Plans to close six of County Durhams 15 household waste recycling centres and to introduce mobile recycling centres for rural areas are set to be considered by Durham county council next week.

The councils Cabinet will meet next Thursday (October 27th) to decide whether to put the results of a review of household waste recycling centre (HWRC) provision out for public consultation.

As well as contributing an as-yet-unspecified saving towards the councils efforts to reduce its spending by 123.5 million over the next four years, the proposals are also expected to address a general over-provision of sites, with several HWRCs in some areas and none in more rural areas.

County Durhams 15 HWRCs are currently managed by Durham-based Premier Waste Management. Premier contracts the sites out to 10 secondary sub-contractors, who each hold contracts for one or more of the sites. However, the HWRC management contract is set for re-procurement in spring 2012, providing the opportunity for the council to change its HWRC provision.

The proposed changes are outlined in a report be considered at the Cabinet meeting, which explains that the council carried out a two-part review of its HWRCs the first part looking at the existing infrastructure and the second part looking at the policies, such as permitting, the council has in place at the sites.

In terms of infrastructure, the review evaluated all 15 sites against five criteria. Of these the most weighting (30%) was attached to health, safety and welfare, followed by service provision (25%), planning/licensing (20%), service performance (15%) and environmental parameters (10%).

Five of the six sites earmarked for closure scored in the bottom six places in this evaluation process. They are: Brooms Dene, Cragwood, Thornley, Todhills and Stainton Grove. According to the council, all these sites have have a range of significant issues associated with planning, environmental regulation, health and safety, performance and design that mean that they fall significantly below what is expected of modern HWRC facilities.

However, one other site to figure in the bottom six, Middleton-in-Teesdale, is not included in the list of those proposed for closure because, the report explains, the site has strategic service importance and a strong local demand with greater than 94% customer satisfaction.

Instead, the site at Hett Hills is earmarked for closure, despite ranking seventh out of 15 in the evaluation. The council explains that this is because it has issues with discharge of water that would cost 50,000 to resolve, while it is also deemed small, incapable of expansion and most significantly in close proximity to two other sites.

Proximity

The issue of proximity is identified as key among the councils proposals for the future of its HWRCs with 99.54% of its population within a 20 minute drive time of a site. It also cited consultation results which showed that 52.8% of residents were willing to drive over five miles and up to 10 miles and over.

The council contrasted this ease of access with the lack of access in some rural areas, and said there was a need to ensure fair access across the county. The plans for mobile recycling centres are identified as a key part of this, offering a solution to planning difficulties faced in developing new sites in isolated areas.

In the report, the council plans to develop mobile provision covering Upper and Lower Weardale and Barnard Castle as Crooke and Willington. This would involve two vehicles one a rear loader refuse wagon for residual waste and the other a removals-type vehicle with a tail lift which could carry a series of large wheeled bins for materials to be reused and recycled.

Durham pointed towards the experience of a similar system in North Yorkshire as evidence of this approach in action and said the mobile service could also be used to alleviate the closure of static sites.

Economic need

Commenting on the proposals, the councils Cabinet member for strategic environment, councillor Bob Young, said: We understand many people are concerned when faced with the prospect of change but we have both a duty and an economic need to look at this area. In addition, the changes proposed would actually see new services introduced in some area, like Stanhope and Crook.

How can it be fair that in some places residents can choose from up to five sites within easy travel time, whilst in others there is little or no provision at all? Its well publicised that we have to make major financial savings, but just as importantly, we must ensure that the services we provide serve all our residents.

The councils corporate director of neighbourhood services, Terry Collins, added: Each of the 15 sites has been evaluated against the same set of criteria including what it would cost to bring them up to the required operating standards, how many residents they serve and how close they are to other centres.

In some cases, despite the significant investment required, we would propose to retain the site, because of the need to provide a service to local residents. In others it may well be that a mobile service, visiting rural communities in turn, could offer a better option.

If the Cabinet approves the report, the results of the review would be put out for a six-week public consultation later this year. Any site closures would take effect when the new HWRC management contract begins in spring 2013.

Budgets

Durham is the latest among a growing number of councils to review their HWRC provision in recent months in the face of reduced budgets, with the Greater Manchester Waste Disposal Authority closing four sites last month (see letsrecycle.com story), while in Suffolk six sites closed earlier this year have since reopened under independent ownership (see letsrecycle.com story). Meanwhile, in Somerset, the countys Waste Partnership introduced charging at four sites in order to keep them open (see letsrecycle.com story).