Contact: Adrian Lee, ext 7004 email: [email protected]

1. Summary

1.1 The following decision is sought:

That the Project Integra Annual Business Plan for 2004/05 be approved, with the reservations that it should:

(i) set out detailed actions showing how 2005/06 Best Value Performance Indicators for recycling can be achieved;

(ii) set out the unit costs of collection for each Waste Collection Authority and for the disposal costs of municipal waste; and

(iii) consider and address the impacts of the Waste and Emissions Trading Act 2003.

These issues should form an action plan for completion, as part of the Project Integra Best Value Review, to be reported to the Project Integra Management Board in July 2004.

2. Reason

2.1 The decision supports Aims 2 and 5 of the Corporate Strategy (Stewardship of the environment and Improving services) by increasing re-use, recycling and recovery, minimising the need for landfill and improving services for re-use and recycling, primarily through the household waste recycling centre network.

2.2 To enable the Project Integra Annual Business Plan for 2004/05 to be adopted by the Project Integra Management Board and, in turn, to enable the vision and long-term strategy to be progressed.

2.3 The Environment Policy Review Committee considered the report on 3 March 2004 (copy attached). The Plan was supported and proposals were made for greater detail on the achievement of performance targets and monitoring, waste management service costs and addressing the impacts of the Waste and Emissions Trading Act 2003.

3. Other Options Considered and Rejected

3.1 Taking no action.

4. Conflicts of Interest Declared by the Decision Maker or a Member or Officer consulted - None.

5. Dispensation granted by the Standards Committee - Not applicable.

6. Reason(s) for the Matter being dealt with if Urgent - Not applicable.

Approved by: Date:

Councillor K B Estlin

8604/AWL

Contact: Adrian Lee, ext 7004 email: [email protected]

1. Summary

1.1 This report summarises the draft 2004/05 Project Integra (PI) Annual Business Plan (ABP) which will be submitted to the Executive Member for Environment for approval, but makes observations for how the ABP might be improved.

2. Corporate Strategy

2.1 Achievement of the objectives of this report would help to meet Corporate Strategy Aims 2 and 5 for Stewardship of the environment and Improving services by increasing the recycling rate of household waste, increasing levels of diversion from landfill and improving the Household Waste Recycling Centre (HWRC) network.

3. Background

3.1 This is the third formal ABP for PI and is prepared in accordance with PI's constitution. The constitution demands that a draft ABP be prepared and approved by the Annual General Meeting of the PI Management Board. The draft ABP is then considered by each of the Partner Authorities. On approval by the Partners, the Plan becomes the approved ABP and forms the framework within which the Board Members may make decisions on behalf of the Partner Authorities. Partner Authorities may approve the draft Plan subject to a reservation in respect of any particular matter with which they have concern.

3.2 The ABP is to include a strategy for achieving agreed objectives over the next 12 month period commencing 1 April 2004. It should specify the activities to be undertaken in support of the strategy and contain an assessment of the financial, resource, service, legal and contractual implications.

3.3 The process for preparation and consideration of the ABP has been advanced by three months this year in order that an approved ABP can be available for delivery by 1 April 2004.

4. The Project Integra Annual Business Plan 2004/05

4.1 The draft 2004/05 PI ABP is available in the Members' Room and for public inspection at the Information Centre in Winchester and on the PI website (www.integra.org.uk). It is titled "Capture and Quality", reflecting the three key operational targets for 2004/05:

(i) Position the Partnership to achieve the overall 40% Recycling Best Value Performance Indicator (BVPI) target by March 2006;

(ii) Double the capture of kerbside collected recyclables through new and existing schemes by March 2006; and.

(iii) Reduce Material Recovery Facility (MRF) contamination output from 15% to 10% by March 2006.

4.2 The strategic priorities for the year are the completion of the "2020 Vision" Best Value Review and a Material Resources Strategy (MRS) for Hampshire.

4.3 The Plan describes the "business" of PI, including its history, the principles on which it works the development of an integrated waste process and the current services provided. It also identifies the key challenges for PI as being:

(i) Increasing legislation and guidance from the European Union aimed at increasing producer responsibility for waste, improving re-use, recycling and recovery and diverting waste from landfill.

(ii) Meeting the UK agenda for improving Waste Management, based largely on the European Union Directives, including targets for recycling, diversion of waste from landfill, dealing with waste electronic and electrical goods and many other materials.

(iii) Meeting the local (Hampshire) agenda for material resources, as embodied in the Hampshire Natural Resources Initiative (HNRI) and the MRS.

4.4 The Plan also details PI's current performance in terms of recycling and other key performance indicators, including individual Authority recycling rates (these are included as an appendix to this report). It further details PI's current financial position and a brief assessment of the risks faced by PI. These include failure to meet targets, loss of infrastructure and loss of Partner Authorities. The assessment then sets out the potential effects of and mitigation measures for each risk.

4.5 Finally, the Plan sets a range of more detailed goals, objectives and major projects designed to meet the key operational targets and challenges set out in paragraphs 4.1 and 4.3 above.

5. Commentary and Issues

5.1 The PI ABP rightly identifies that its key challenges are to meet Government-set BVPIs for recycling in 2005/06 and that this needs be achieved through increased "capture and quality" of materials collected at the kerbside.

5.2 PI's ability to progress with its recycling and landfill diversion objectives has been impeded in recent years by the lack of capacity for processing recyclables and energy recovery incineration. This situation will change dramatically over the next 12 months as the following infrastructure for processing and recovery is completed and becomes operational:

(i) The Alton MRF.

(ii) The Little Bushey Warren Copse Composting Site.

(iii) The Marchwood Energy Recovery Incinerator.

(iv) The Portsmouth Energy Recovery Incinerator.

5.3 As a result of this the focus will shift to collection of material, in order to both maximise the efficiency of the new processing infrastructure and to meet Government targets for recycling. This focus was reflected in the Partnership bid to the third round of the Government National Waste Minimisation and Recycling Fund. This resulted in a five million pound award to:

(i) Improve and expand collection services within eight Waste Collection Authority (WCA) areas (£3.25 million).

(ii) Improve the Household Waste Recycling Centre (HWRC) network (£1.25 million).

(iii) Deliver an extensive Communications Strategy to spread awareness of the need for both recycling and waste minimisation and to build greater capacity within the voluntary and community sector for waste reprocessing and refurbishment (£0.5 million plus support from the Government's Waste and Resources Action Programme - WRAP).

(iv) Develop the market for recycled plastics to enable a greater range of plastics to be processed and recycled. (Support being sought from WRAP).

5.4 Despite Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) support, only three of the WCAs expect to meet their BVPI targets (see chart appended to this report). An assessment based on figures supplied by WCAs for the current Waste Volume Service Plan suggests that the Partnership will fall short of its overall 40% recycling target for 2005/06 by some 60-70,000 tonnes (7-8%).

5.5 The draft ABP does not fully identify this shortfall and does not set a detailed action plan of how it is to be bridged. The ABP should also set detailed performance indicators for achievement on its main projects or express how these will work towards the overall operational targets. These are essential if each Partner Authority is to be aware of its own obligations to meet the collective target and draw up a programme to meet it. Also many WCAs, particularly those with modest BVPI targets, should be aiming to go beyond them to achieve the level of the current highest performers within PI (or, indeed, nationally).

5.6 The proposed Communications Strategy can potentially increase recycling levels sufficiently to meet the shortfall, but this is subject to confirmation of adequate funding from WRAP. The strategy is also trying to take PI towards levels of recycling not currently achieved in this country over an area the size of Hampshire and therefore its level of success is uncertain. It will require new communication techniques to be tested and these will need strong commitment and support to delivery from all Partner Authorities.

5.7 It is therefore suggested that an action for the forthcoming year will be to identify how each Authority can meet or exceed its targets through the ABP and DEFRA-supported schemes and set performance indicators by which progress and outcomes can be measured. The ABP contains too little detail about the aims, objectives and outcomes from the PI Best Value Review. The work on improving performance should interrelate with the Best Value Review and the ABP should detail how it is to address these performance issues, including how this might be achieved within affordable limits. Work should also be undertaken to examine how future external funding might assist in meeting these aspirations.

6. Conclusion

6.1 The draft PI ABP sets out its key operational targets and its strategic priorities for 2004/05. It also details a number of major projects designed to meet these targets and priorities. These relate to DEFRA support through the National Waste Minimisation and Recycling Fund to the MRS and other relevant drivers and mechanisms.

6.2 The ABP could be improved by identifying an action to set out in more detail how, through the Best Value Review, Partner Authorities will actually meet recycling targets for 2005/06 and setting key performance indicators by which progress can be monitored and outcomes evaluated. It is suggested that this action should be completed by July 2004.

Recommendation

That the Executive Member for Environment be advised that the draft Project Integra Annual Business Plan for 2004/05 be supported, but with a reservation that the ABP contains insufficient detail on performance indicators relating to how 2005/06 Best Value Performance Indicators for recycling can be achieved, and suggest that this should form an action for completion by July 2004, as part of the Project Integra Best Value Review, during the forthcoming year.

8603/AWL

APPENDIX

BVPI Comparisons - Summary

District Council	%age recycled 02/03	%age recycled 03/04	%age recycled 05/06	G'ment BVPI 05/06
BDBC	15%	15%	19%	30%
RBC	12%	16%	22%	24%
HDC	14%	15%	23%	33%
EHDC	26%	32%	34%	24%
FBC	21%	21%	21%	40%
GBC	9%	14%	20%	27%
HBC	17%	17%	17%	36%
NFDC	24%	25%	30%	40%
TVBC	19%	19%	20%	36%
EBC	28%	30%	34%	40%
WCC	15%	18%	18%	36%
Total	19%	20%	23%	33%
Southampton City Council (Dis)	8%	9%	22%	24%
Chapel	30%	29%
Eastleigh
Hedge End
Netley
SCC	12%	12%	23%	24%
Portsmouth City Council (Dis)	�	�	�	�
Paulsgrove	�	�	�	�
Havant	39%	�	�	�
PCC	15%	15%	23%	36%