The sixth Material Resources Strategy (MRS) workshop took place in Winchester over two sessions on 2^nd December 2004. The aim was to amend or endorse the preferred option for resource management in Hampshire, and prepare the way for officers to draft the core strategy. In the words of lead facilitator, Alison Millward, "We have to peak today."

The MRS process began in September 2003. A ground-breaking scheme, its object is to redefine Hampshire’s waste as a resource, and to determine a plan for maximising the re-use, recycling and recovery of value from it. A draft core strategy will be developed by the end of January 2005. The process involves representatives from Hampshire County Council, Southampton and Portsmouth Unitary Councils and Project Integra, the household waste management partnership in Hampshire that also includes the eleven district and borough councils. Key stakeholders from the wider community are also partners in developing MRS.

A series of stakeholder meetings, most of which were attended by between 100 and 200 delegates, has defined the vision, aims and strategic objectives of the MRS; examined ways in which we can improve resource efficiency, reduce wastage, maximise re-use, recycling and recovery; and agreed upon a methodology for identifying preferred solutions for each of the individual resource streams in Hampshire, Portsmouth and Southampton.

Detailed work by specialist ‘offline’ resource groups, which have met separately from the main workshops, has helped to define the criteria upon which the MRS group has based its assumptions and proposals. Following workshop 5, it was realised that further work required by these offline groups would make it necessary to put back the proposed timetable, which had originally envisaged a draft core strategy being available by the end of 2004. At today’s meeting, then, delegates would review progress against their original aims and objectives and consider the detailed proposals of the offline groups in the form of an ‘overall stakeholder preferred option for resource management in Hampshire’. Finally, they would consider where to locate the additional facilities proposed under the MRS – 20 to 26 recycling facilities, 14 to 26 treatment or recovery facilities, and between 2 and 6 further landfill sites.

Jim Kersey from environmental consultants Entec presented the overall stakeholder preferred option for managing resources in Hampshire. This was based on the extensive work of the 12 off-line resource stream groups, each of which had made a considered recommendation on the extent to which best practice could be stretched in Hampshire to achieve maximum recycling/recovery rates over the life of the MRS (up to 2020). At workshop 5, stakeholders had requested that some further work be carried out on the aggregated resource picture for Hampshire – most notably in respect of apportioning the miscellaneous element of the total resource picture.

This additional work had been done and, in consultation with the accountable officers for each resource stream, the overall ‘numbers’ had been finalised. These were set out in a table which delegates had received prior to today’s meeting. It illustrated the anticipated recycling/reuse levels (and the amount of material that would be left) for each resource stream under the stakeholder preferred scenario. Essentially, this showed that an overall rate of 58% recycling/reuse per annum could be achieved by 2020, which would leave 3.15 million tonnes of unavoidable waste to be managed.

Two further offline groups had been set up – one for minerals and one for unavoidable waste. Among the conclusions reached by these groups was the suggestions that Hampshire should aim for net self-sufficiency in unavoidable waste – i.e. overall imports = overall exports. Although no target date was agreed, 2016 could be a realistic target date in that it ties in with the region’s expectations of self-sufficiency for London’s waste. For construction, demolition and excavation, provision should be made for the disposal of inert material via landfill only after recycling has been maximised. To reduce haulage distances, in preference to inert landfill, innovative landscape opportunities should be investigated, e.g. coastal reclamation, landraise, etc.

In terms of commercial and industrial unavoidable waste, pre-sorting/treatment of material prior to final disposal should be encouraged. Indeed, provision should only be made for the landfill of residues from pre-sorted/treated material. And for household unavoidable waste, the aspiration should be to send zero untreated household waste to landfill.

In respect of future minerals supply in Hampshire, although no consensus was reached, the majority of stakeholders agreed that Hampshire should seek, subject to sufficient justification, a reduction in the prescribed sand and gravel regional apportionment from 2.52 million tonnes per annum. Geology permitting, there should be a reduction in sand and gravel supply from the south-west of Hampshire towards greater reliance from supplies from the north-east of Hampshire and potentially, providing it could be shown that marine life would not be adversely affected, more focus should be placed on obtaining sand and gravel supplies from marine sources. It was important that brickworks continue to be safeguarded and that their associated supplies of clay are preserved only for this use.

Two handouts showed delegates approximately how many and which type of additional recycling facilities would be required in Hampshire to achieve the stakeholder preferred option for resource management, based on the work of the off-line groups.

The first group work session considered these proposals. Were delegates happy with a revised recycling rate of 58% per annum? Some felt that it was optimistic, but most agreed that we need milestones so we can gauge where we need to be at different stages of the process. It was accepted that some areas would be easier to measure than others, and some targets easier to achieve. Public perception was also an issue – people might lose heart if they thought the things they were recycling were not being disposed of properly, so again education and communication were vital.

How did delegates feel about the idea that we would still have 42% of unavoidable waste left after all re-use and recycling processes? Again, most were broadly comfortable with this scenario. There was no escaping the fact that landfill would still be needed – we would have to dispose of the residual material after treatment. Location of facilities was considered important, as was cost-effectiveness. Traditionally, landscaping has been carried out in mineral works, but was this the best way to deal with it? Local landscaping or land raising would cut down on the haulage involved, but we would have to take into account the impact on the historic natural environment. It was clear that new technologies would be very important in achieving or bettering the proposed recycling rates. All waste is recyclable if it is broken down into its elements.

Would net self-sufficiency by 2016 be achievable? Delegates generally felt that it was good to have a target, but we would probably struggle to achieve it. It was accepted that large-scale facilities for recovery and recycling would become a fact of life. Most people agreed with the idea of all household waste being treated prior to disposal. Some were unclear about what pre-treatment actually meant – did it involve mechanical processes or was it just manual sorting, and what value was this going to add to the end product? Most also agreed with the landfill targets of 33% of residual/unavoidable waste, but it was stressed that this should be an absolute maximum.

The next session involved a consensus check. Alison Millward asked delegates to remind themselves of the original MRS aims and principles that had been endorsed a year ago at Workshop 2, and the appraisal criteria against which stakeholders’ preferred options for resource management in Hampshire could be assessed, which had been developed at Workshop 4. These were set out in a handout on Spatial Issues and Considerations.

At the side of the room, a series of flip charts detailed each of the aims and principles. Everyone was asked to indicate their thoughts by placing a red dot under each category heading if they agreed we were broadly on track. If they didn’t agree, they could write their concerns on a post-it note and placed this in the relevant column. This information would enable the officers who were going to draft the document to understand where people’s concerns lay.

So where did those concerns lie? A glance at the sticky notes revealed that there was still some confusion about definitions. What is ‘unavoidable waste’? ‘Best possible’ is very subjective. Cost considerations must be taken into account when examining opportunities to re-use, recycle and recover value from waste materials. Some people felt that many of the aims should be further defined. Best practice was a moving target and must be continuously developed and reviewed. But there were a lot of red dots to be seen, so clearly delegates felt that in many respects the process was still meeting its original objectives.

Alison thanked delegates for sharing their views, and stressed that the document that will be produced in January has to gain a wide ownership. As a strategic document it needed to be clear and concise in order to communicate concepts to a lot of people, so it would not contain very detailed definitions. These would be more likely to appear in documents like the Minerals and Waste Development Framework, into which the MRS would ultimately feed.

To focus delegates’ minds on the next topic for the day – that of developing the additional facilities required to deal with waste under MRS – Jeremy Smith, team manager for policy in the Minerals and Waste Planning Department of Hampshire County Council, outlined the role and the process of planning at the county level. As well as seeking to set a policy framework for development control to use when considering planning applications, Jeremy and his colleagues also produce the Minerals and Waste Local Plan. This is done in conjunction with Portsmouth and Southampton City Councils and will, in future, include the New Forest National Park.

The Local Plan is moving to a development framework which will be more spatial than land-use based. Jeremy outlined the pressures and drivers involved – for example, sometimes regional and national guidance did not fit with local need, and the challenge lay in making the two fit together. Planning, said Jeremy, is like shooting at a moving target, because the elements keep changing. Involving the public added an extra dimension – you can’t please all of the people all of the time!

It was clear that new sites would be required in order to meet the recommendations of MRS, and this would not be popular. How would sites be chosen? Where would they be located? ‘NIMBYism’ (Not In My Back Yard) was rife; 50% of Hampshire is covered by airport safeguard restrictions; Hampshire has a lot of precious habitats – these and other issues, such as the New Forest National Park, all affect planning. It is all about finding the right balance. But one thing is clear – doing nothing is not an option.

Following Jeremy’s presentation, delegates were asked to think about the assessment criteria for themselves, using handouts provided by Jeremy and his team. What did delegates think of the way that Planning was planning?

Again, broadly they were in agreement with assessment criteria. Recycling facilities would be best located close to waste arisings. Locating new facilities on existing sites, on a ‘like with like’ basis, where possible, was also favoured. Design of facilities was also important; they must be well-integrated, and there was a need to take account of the long-term environmental impact. Larger sites would enable better control. Locating temporary recycling facilities at landfill sites would allow them to be moved to other sites as required. Smaller recycling facilities could be located on industrial estates. National park designations should not be taken as an absolute ‘no’ for the location of new facilities – particularly if brownfield sites could be used. It was also pointed out that some urban tranquil areas, by their very scarcity, could be more valuable than rural areas.

In terms of unavoidable waste, delegates endorsed the proposal to group as many facilities together as possible, achieving a scale that would have added environmental benefits and better control opportunities. Where possible, facilities should also be self-sufficient in energy terms. Agricultural land and former MOD land should be considered.

Following lunch, delegates got the opportunity to put their views into practice. Each table was provided with a map of Hampshire already marked up with existing recycling and waste processing facilities. Delegates were asked to agree on the best places to locate the proposed new facilities (to recap - 20 to 26 recycling facilities, 14 to 26 treatment or recovery facilities, and between 2 and 6 further landfill sites), and to indicate this on the map with coloured stickers.

To assist with this process, stakeholders’ were reminded of Hampshire’s demography. The population is currently concentrated to the north and north-east (0.5m), and the New Forest, waterside/Havant area (1m). Planned growth areas up to 2010 were Waterlooville, Basingstoke, Eastleigh, Fleet/Aldershot/Farnham, Andover and Fareham.

The exercise was useful in illustrating to delegates just how many new facilities would be needed – most of them close to one another, close to urban developments, and subject to various planning restrictions as well as public focus. Going round the room most maps reflected the same pattern, with facilities close to centres of population and with good transport connections via road, rail or sea. The ‘resource park’ idea, where various facilities could be co-located, was highly favoured.

To conclude, Ian Avery, National Resources Initiative manager at Hampshire County Council, talked about the next steps in the MRS process.

By March 2005 the MRS would be finalised. It would then become the primary reference point for the Minerals and Waste Development Framework, Project Integra Municipal Waste Strategy and work on the Hampshire Natural Resources Initiative. The relevance and influence of MRS could not be over-emphasised.

Some 15 months since the start of the MRS stakeholder process, huge strides have been made thanks to delegates’ attitude of co-operation, their ability to share the experience and their willingness to challenge their views.

We now know what we believe is possible – we have outlined a future where waste is no longer a dirty word but a potential source of energy, a marketable product, a valuable resource. We have identified opportunities for the application of new technology in re-use, recycling and recovery. We have examined the possibilities and absolute requirements of providing the necessary infrastructure. We have achieved more than many of us thought possible at the start of the process.

The future is exciting – but perhaps the biggest challenge still lies ahead. That of communicating our knowledge, beliefs and vision to the wider public in a way that will secure the change in habit, thought and behaviour that will transform MRS from strategy to reality.