Agenda item

(1)       Further to Minute 25 of 8 April 2011, the aim of the review was to identify the right level of HWRC service for Kent residents at the right cost.  An Informal Member Group was established to guide the officer review and consisted of:

John Cubitt (chair),

Mike Harrison, 

Steve Manion,

Malcolm Robertson, and

Elizabeth Tweed

(2)       The group held three meetings and visited some of the HWRC sites to examine the current provision and the issues surrounding the sites, including opportunities to make savings in the service.  The report included their findings and recommendations on improving the cost effectiveness of the service.  The review examined the current provision and location of HWRCs, their operating policies, the potential for increasing income, as well as the options for making savings. 

Current provision and location

(3)       As the waste disposal authority for Kent, KCC had a statutory obligation under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 “for places to be provided at which persons resident in its area may deposit their household waste and for the disposal of waste so deposited”. However, it did not specify how many sites that might be or the ratio of sites to households or length of travel.  Currently most of the population of Kent was within a 20 minute drive to a HWRC.  Kent had 19 HWRCs, of which 6 were co-located with waste transfer stations.

Operating policy options considered by the review

(4)               The remit of the review was to look at current operating practice and optimise the service. The report contained a map showing the network of transfer stations and household waste recycling centres across Kent; and a table which set out the interventions proposed to realign the HWRC policy in line with other waste disposal authorities.  The Informal Member Group asked officers to estimate how much could be saved by implementing the recommendations.  The table included a breakdown of the savings identified and supported by the IMG over the period 2011-15.

(5)       The report set out the current capital provision for waste management infrastructure.  In order to plan for the future it was important to consider the network as a whole rather than make opportunistic advances. It was necessary also to take account of growth and regeneration, the significant improvements in the highway network in Kent over the past 30 years, and the extent or otherwise that existing facilities meet current demands and standards. In particular, irrespective of the standard of the actual sites, the IMG noted serious access issues at several facilities.

(6)       With that in mind, the existing network of 19 sites had been divided into 6 zones or clusters. The IMG considered that the approach should provide the blueprint for future network delivery.  The clusters were:

A         Pepperhill, Dartford Heath and Swanley,

B         Sheerness, Church Marshes and Faversham

C         Canterbury, Herne Bay, Margate, Deal and Richborough

D         Dover, New Romney, Shornecliffe, Hawkinge and Ashford

E         Tovil (Cuxton),

F          Sevenoaks and Tunbridge Wells

(7)       Prior to discussion Members were informed of Mr Robertson’s support for the current recommendations and the direction of travel.

(8)       Mrs Barton informed the Committee that a briefing session for all Members would be held on 1 November 2011 to provide an opportunity to learn more about the proposals.  A public consultation exercise would then be carried out to inform the process before final recommendations were presented for decision by Cabinet.

(9)     RESOLVED that the following recommendations of the Informal Members Group be supported:-

(a)         for operational savings as set out in the table referred to in paragraph (4) above; and

    (b)                                  that officers in consultation with the Cabinet Member, be requested to investigate further the business case to rationalise the clusters of HWRCs in each of the zones referred to in paragraph (6) above.