More from Less
|
3. Further work requirements
Stakeholders at MRS workshop 1 discussed what further
work would be required to deliver the MRS. The record of these
discussions has been transcribed below.
Feedback on ‘Engaging the process chain’
Table 1:
- Project plan with key milestones of which at each stage/gate key
stakeholders will sign up to.
- measurable
- achievable
- realistic.
- Need a strict timetable and buy in with stakeholders (who have had
input) for project delivery. But needs to be flexible in approach.
- Decision makers have to be prepared to make tough decisions.
- Need political buy in (from small to large?)
- Communicate at all levels.
- small and large politician
- business/industry/construction/development companies
- waste management companies.
- Increase recycled incentives for developers, (and others),
architects, designers, planners.
- Planners should take a more holistic view to include:
- where materials come from especially recycled
- encourage sustainable construction/buildings
- plan for use of resources
- change through planning department or national
building regulations.
Table 2:
- Need to implement an integrated resource management facility to deal
with all this waste.
Table 3:
- Must do it sector by sector to maintain focus at meetings.
- Do not engage bit business that we are not already working with in
partnership.
- SME trials to get quick win.
- must do research before implementing anything.
- Understanding the market is key before undertaking projects so
that we do not have to do the initial groundwork research.
- Are there innovative ways of doing things - get away from "we
have always done it like that".
- Can we insert something into planning to ensure that
"recycled material" or "sustainable project" is
included.
- Change the "land use" view of planning.
Table 4:
Table 5:
- What happens next: how will our ideas be used?
- Are we engaging with the people who have influence?
- Every community - will have to take it’s ‘but’ of housing new
facilities.
- Will be smaller facilities - less dirty, messy.
- Definition of waste is on European agenda - we have to
influence the definition of waste.
- Need to change definition of waste to resource.
Feedback on Establishing material recovery facilities
Table 6:
- Knowing what waste we are dealing with? Where, What type.
- New technologies
- Research into overcoming the barriers to recycled goods. Need to
market it correctly.
- Need to develop markets.
Table 7:
- Validate the recycling stream (Quantify) - particularly construction
waste.
- Use planning and building regs to monitor and audit the use of ‘recycled’
material in the building process.
- Building specifiers more knowledgeable about properties and use of
recycled products - specific contract with professional bodies about
competence and professional skills.
- Develop and plan which identify gaps and potential ways of filling
the gaps making use of the "high tech" knowledge that exists
in Hampshire - sell on to rest of country.
- Simplified planning procedures for waste/recycling infrastructure
once a recognised site and operating practice.
- Improved and consistent kerbside collection systems.
Table 8:
- Facilitating small waste enterprise and facilitating services for
SME’s e.g. Midland Glass, now that the Integra contract is in place
it can offer short contracts to small companies. Services for SME’s
- critical mass - allows an affordable service.
- Integration of infrastructure e.g. household paper is the same as
office paper, household glass is the same as pub/restaurant glass.
- Address constraints of legislation and ridiculous rules.
- "All things are possible if people are prepared to pay for
them". Support SMEs in reducing their waste so that they don’t
have to dispose of it.
- Stop people buying too much food so that it doesn’t get thrown
away.
Table 9:
Table 10:
- Find out what is in commercial waste, what types of materials is
involved.
- Find out what smaller businesses currently do with their waste -
who collects it.
- Look at abolishing trade waste charges, businesses pay business
rates so include waste disposal in that. Charge them realistically
but include a recycling service using local and county
infrastructure already in place.
- Look at energy tram waste plants for tyres.
- Change specifications in building and other regulations to include
recycled waste.
- Research needs to be done at national level on recycled products
life expectancy etc to give developers confidence.
Feedback on Delivery on the ground
Table 11:
- Finding suitable sites.
- Integration into planning process.
- Establishing appropriate level of need (waste consumption v’s
waste disposal - struggle to feed disposal plant?
- Integrating waste disposal into large development schemes -
facilities on development sites.
Table 12:
- Expectations - need to be managed.
- Dealing with breadth of remit and players.
- Getting government support.
- HCC is pioneering new approach.
- Stakeholders signed-up - public/NIMBY perceptions and attitudes are
the problem.
- Delivery on time to carry stakeholders.
- Need to be transparent and open to build trust - give the facts.
- Use simple language and avoid jargon to build understanding and
trust.
- Large amount of work including site identification and appraisal to
be undertaken in short period.
Table 13:
- Preparing in line with timetable (too short).
- Will it deliver sites.
- Consultation - time, scope.
- Will it deliver the new strategy for MRS and will the new approach
be acceptable.
- Will it work?
- Level of detail needs to be correct.
- Avoiding fears with lack of detail in early stages.
- Selling the concept to public and private sector for new
innovations, investors, public, landowners.
Table 14:
- Society - lack of will power from the public attitudes public,
businesses.
- Educating the people about the problem - part of the overall
solution.
- Do we concentrate on one sector or is/are the resources allocated
proportionately.
- High landfill tax - increase this over time - we are lagging behind
legislation preventing certain materials going into landfills, but in
the UK we prefer the cheaper option.
- We have too many suitable sites in UK for landfill - e.g. Poland do
not have this option so they have more recycling.
- Virgin aggregates are less expensive in UK.
- Central government take a pro-active approach in forming policies
Government led - we need to influence them.
- The opportunities aren’t always there to be able to recycle.
- The mechanism/infrastructure not there for house holds/businesses to
recycle - it is a cost to install another bin.
- People aren’t aware of cost of waste management.
- Economics - closing the economic gap between what we do now and what
politicians aspire to.
- What are the incentives to change?
- How did other European countries get to their recycling percentages?
- Cheapest legal waste management solution.
- Increase landfill tax and legislation - then people will find away
to recycle to reduce their costs.
- Planning - increase in amount of facilities needed planning
decisions need to make the MRS possible.
Table 15:
- Improve information base - cannot produce strategy if don’t know
what ‘resource’ is, type and amount, where is it.
- Catch 22 to get SME’s to recycle, information on what waste is
produced, how to collect without burdening SME’s quickest system
through ‘duty of care’, grey area where not classified as ‘waste’.
- MRS should embrace energy and other natural resources. Biomass links
to wider agenda.
- Forecasting.
- Big challenge outside municipal stream.
- Reactive rather than proactive to legislation coming in.
- Bringing in SME’s utilising municipal system.
Top of page
|
MRS
Homepage
Engaging the
Process the Chain
Establishing
Material Recovery Facilities
Delivery on the Ground
|
