Personal benefit popular in SITA incentive survey

The preference for a cut in council tax rates was a key finding in research work sponsored by SITA UK, the results of which were released last week.

The survey is thought to be the first to assess the type of incentives that might help win support for new waste infrastructure. David Palmer-Jones, SITA UK chief executive said: It is very important for major business in our industry to develop thinking around ideas and policies in the UK.

And, he added: One of the clearest and more positive aspects of the Waste Policy Review was the proposal of a system of shared incentives with local communities to help facilitate the development of new waste management facilities.

This report assesses and quantifies views about community buy in for waste infrastructure for the very first time. Its findings are a real insight into the way people think and feel about waste infrastructure and the kind of conditions that they believe are acceptable in order to gain their support. We must listen carefully to this if we are to have any hope of making up the shortfall of modern, sustainable facilities needed to deal with this countrys waste.

Unveiling the findings at an event in London, researcher Andrew Rodgers of market research agency GfK NOP, said that the most popular option was a discount on council tax bills and there was also a common theme of personal benefit. Mr Rodgers noted that if communities were to benefit, across the focus groups there were concerns about who would be in control of the funds for the community groups.

The research report was produced by consultancy RGR and director Ray Georgeson said that people were broadly supportive of the need for infrastructure until proposals are sited near them. The notion of were not all in it together was not really there, although people were interested in what is in it for them.

Mr Georgeson continued: Where does that take us? Some form of pragmatic localism, maybe pushing in a direction that is not as idealistic as some might like but more realistic in terms of what it means for those trying to deliver across the country.

The report makes three recommendations:

1.More research needed to determine the levels of incentives needed
2.Utility discount approach should be retained with the property
3.Community engagement should be local authority lead at an early stage of consultation of waste plans before the procurement of facilities.

CLG

The event also heard from Mark Plummer of the planning and environment division within the governments Communities and Local Government department.

Mr Plummer pointed to referenda on waste facilities that had taken place in Kings Lynn and Kingscliffe. Both highlighted two important issues, that waste is still very emotive and for some an unpopular neighbour, although not as bad as minerals.

He warned that government and the waste industry have their work cut out to make the case for new infrastructure and that energy from waste is very large and gets the most attention.

Mr Plummer said that the CLG recognise that investors need certainty and combined with European requirements we emphasise the need for having sound waste plans in place. Last year the planning inspectorate examined 16 but many more need to come forward.

Government wants a system that delivers development that is sympathetic to the location but is concerned that the community doesnt get the benefit of hosting the infrastructure.

A rebalanced system in favour of sustainable development is what government seeking, he suggested and he explained that three mechanisms for community buy-in incentives were under discussion. They are:

1.CLG is to consult next month on options for using the business rate locally.
2.A community infrastructure levy for neighbourhoods is proposed in the Localism Bill.
3.Section 106 still exists. This is not being lost altogether but will have a smaller role.

Varying views of incentives were expressed by the audience. Rebecca Eatwell of PPS Consultants said: The bigger issue is that of consumer responsibility, people dealing with their own waste in their area.

Responding, Mr Plummer referred to the PPS10 planning guidance document which talks of the proximity principle for waste. He noted: In PPS10, one of the objectives is that communities take more responsibility for their waste. There is the proximity principle but there is a lot more to be done by local authorities on this.

The study was based on a series of focus group sessions and interviews within 1,000 residents from an urban area in Leeds and rural Yattendon, Berkshire.