Somerset set to keep HWRC charge despite income gap

A 2 charge for householders to use four household waste recycling centres in Somerset looks set to continue, despite income from the charge being expected to fall 75,000 short of the amount needed to break even this year.

In a report to be considered on Friday (September 23) by councillors from all Somersets six councils, the Somerset Waste Partnership which manages waste and recycling services on their behalf recommends the charge be maintained for the next 12 months at least.

But, it warns the councillors who comprise the SWPs decision-making body, the Somerset Waste Board, against extending the scheme to other sites in the county, due to concerns over the legal implications of such a move.

The entry charge was originally introduced at the Crewkerne, Coleford, Dulverton and Middlezoy HWRCs in April 2011 (see letsrecycle.com story) as an alterative to closing the sites.

It was one of a number of changes to HWRC provision which were introduced by the SWP to meet the requirements of a budget-cutting drive by Somerset county council. These also included reducing site opening hours so that all 18 HWRCs in the county close for two days a week and charging for specific wastes at all the countys sites.

The move was criticised by Communities secretary Eric Pickles, who labelled the charge counter-productive and urged Somerset residents to report the council to both the district auditor and Local Government Ombudsman (see letsrecycle.com story).

However, the new report, which provides an update on the first five months of the charging scheme, reveals that just five complaints over the changes have been made to the Local Government Ombudsman, and 3 or 4 phone calls have been made to the district auditor.

Larger than budgeted saving

The report also reveals that, while the income from residents paying the charge is lower than hoped for, there has been a larger than budgeted saving for both waste reduction and diversion and hardcore.

As such, the SWP expects to make a 464,111 higher-than-expected saving on its annual budget costs for 2011/12 – totalling 1,918,110 and not 1,454,000 as previously expected. This is expected to be achieved even though full year income from the entry charge is only forecast to reach 119,000 and not the 195,000 needed to the four sites’ operating costs to break even.

A breakdown of figures attached to the report reveals particularly significant decline in the amount of hardcore construction waste delivered to sites compared to the same period a year earlier. For the period April to August 2010, 11,825.56 tonnes was delivered to sites, but this fell by 9,825.28 tonnes to 2,000.28 tonnes for the same period this year.

In light of this, the SWP recommends the continuation of the charging scheme at the four sites which have been renamed Community Recycling Sites (CRS), rather than any site closures.

It explains: While the level of income being received at the four Community Recycling Sites is not meeting the level anticipated, the overall savings are ahead of the target and these are covering the income shortfall and, if continued into 2012/13, could meet a sizeable portion of the following years further savings requirements.

Legal issues

But, it discounts the extension of the charging scheme to other sites. This, it says, is because of public support for two day closures at all sites as an alternative, but also because of potential legal issues such a move could involve.

The potential for a legal challenge under Section 51 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 was first raised when the SWP first considered a charge in March 2011 (see letsrecycle.com story). But, after seeking legal advice, the charge was introduced for a minority of threatened sites.

In the report, the SWP stresses, however, that the legal advice should not be assumed to be applicable if the scheme were to be extended. The board would be ill-advised to seek to re-designate further sites as CRSs without a comprehensive analysis having been first carried out as to the adequacy of the remaining network to meet the duty under section 51, it adds.

Drop in visits

This decline in tonnages and subsequent savings outlined above – is explicitly linked to a significant drop in usage across the countys network of sites with just 59% of the number of visits recorded for April to August 2010 reported for the same period this year.

While not detailing any reasons for this blanket decline, the report does reveal that the fall in visitor numbers at the charging sites has been even more marked, achieving only 33% of the visits recorded for the same period last year.

Most strikingly, the Coleford site received 81% fewer visits in April-August 2011 than it did a year earlier although the report ascribes this to a possible over-statement of visitor numbers for the site in 2010/11.

Flytipping

In June, the SWP acknowledged the charging system had led to a significant increase in flytipping (see letsrecycle.com story), and in the latest report says that, since then, incidents of flytipping have declined more slowly than we had hoped.

This would appear to bear out claims made by Mr Pickles that the charge would lead to more waste being flytipped, with 1,985 flytipping incidents reported between April and July 2011, compared to 1,426 for April to August 2010.

However, the SWP claims this increase needs to be kept in proportion, stating: The total tonnages of extra flytipped materials involved are very small compared to the reduction in materials passing through the centres.

The county council has committed to help Somersets district councils cover the costs of dealing with additional flytipping if they can prove it is linked to the charges at HWRCs. This is expected to cost the county council around 5,000 a month.

Crewkerne

Particular attention is paid to the Crewkerne HWRC, where a charge was introduced but, due to a subsidy provided by Crewkerne Town Council, the levy on use was pegged at 1.20. This was intended to mitigate against a drop in visits that the Somerset Waste Partnership had predicted could be as high as 70%.

But, the report explains that use at the site actually fell by a similar amount of that at two of the other sites with an admission charge, leading the councils to conclude usage is not particularly price sensitive within the range from 1.20-2.00.

As such, the report explains, the 10,000 Crewkerne Town Council had set aside to underwrite the lower charge was rapidly being eroded, and as such it was increased to 2 from August 1. Based on Augusts visitor figures, it claims this had not caused a further fall in usage.

Recommendations

In light of the reports findings, the Somerset Waste Board is advised to agree that:

• No sites be closed at the present time a position that should be reviewed in 12 months in the light of budget requirements at that time;
• The 2 charge be maintained, and similarly reviewed in 12 months;
• SWP officers explore introducing an entrycard type scheme on a trial basis at the Crewkerne site. If successful, this payments system could be introduced at other sites with an entry charge;
• Not introducing charges at other sites for the time being. This should again be reviewed in 12 months;
• Keeping all sites closed for two days a week as a continuing cost saving measure;
• Reviewing opening hours with Viridor, which manages all the sites, for future consideration on changes to these in light of a survey which showed site users favoured later opening hours. Any changes agreed need a three month lead-in to publicise them;
• The SWP help district councils to tackle flytipping.