Memorandum submitted by Cory Environmental
(X17)
INTRODUCTION
1. Cory Environmental, a subsidiary of Exel
plc, is one of the UK's leading waste management companies. The
Company has extensive interests and experience in all aspects
of waste management, including collection, transportation, materials
and energy recovery and landfill. Cory has pioneered innovative
approaches to reducing the UK's traditional reliance on landfill,
bringing forward integrated and sustainable solutions to the management
of resources.
2. Cory operates at over 30 locations throughout
the UK and handles over 3.5 million tonnes of waste each year.
It currently manages over 17 local authority contracts and operates
nine landfill sites.
3. The company welcomes the opportunity
to respond to the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee
Inquiry into Waste Policy and the Landfill Directive.
LANDFILL DIRECTIVE
4. Cory Environmental considers that the
Government has made some significant progress in responding to
the waste management challenges created by the Landfill Directive.
We call now for intensification in activity as the deadline for
delivering real change in waste management approaches.
5. Under the obligations set out in the
Landfill Directive, the UK needs to reduce the level of biodegradable
municipal waste sent to landfill to 75% of that produced in 1995,
by 2010. The latest waste management statistics published by Defra
show the proportion of waste sent to landfill for disposal is
declining, as is the amount of municipal waste generated. We congratulate
the government on securing this positive change. However, despite
the decline in waste arising for 2001-02 to 2002-03, we note that
the trend for actual volumes of municipal waste generated since
1996-97 is an average of 3% per annum. This additional waste,
around 1 million tonnes per annum, must also be diverted in accordance
with the terms of the Directive.
6. Taking this growth into account, Cory
Environmental estimate that the actual percentage of waste requiring
diversion under the obligations set out in the Landfill Directive
may well be as high as 56% in 2010 and 72% in 2013. We are therefore
some way from achieving the 2010 target, while the longer term
target continues to look unattainable. The government will need
to adopt more radical approaches if it has the serious intent
to meet the targets.
7. Following the publication of the Strategy
Unit Report (Waste not, Want not), the Government has increased
funding and strategic support for the research, development and
delivery of many aspects of waste management solutions. We welcome
these initiatives and their contribution to a long term sustainable
future. The Government must now turn its attention to the areas
and challenges where change and leadership are still required.
In particular, we encourage the government to look more closely
at the planning system.
8. The 5th report of the Environmental Audit
Committee (2003) notes, "to meet the requirements of the
Landfill Directive, the UK will need to deliver the equivalent
of one new waste management facility processing 40,000 tonnes
per annum every week for the next 14 years." It is our experience
that the current planning system and guidance do not facilitate
a smooth passage for applications for waste processing infrastructure
and that this is unachievable. Even if the most optimistic predictions
for recycling take up and waste reduction are realised, many new,
and often controversial, facilities will still be required. We
encourage government to use all options available to it to ensure
the resolution of the current barriers in the planning system,
enabling longer term decisions by waste management companies on
how to deliver the infrastructure required to realise government
objectives.
9. Planning lead times on even small scale
composting facilities and MRFs are in the region of two years.
Larger scale facilities, which will be essential for the disposal
of residual waste and the delivery of an integrated solution,
have significantly longer lead times of up to a decade. Steps
must be taken now if delivery of the facilities required is to
be assured and a potential crisis averted. For example, the Government
must work to ensure that waste local plans and development frameworks
reflect national policies and should introduce requirements for
site specific allocations for waste management.
10. The Minister of State for the Environment
is to be applauded for the clear messages he has been delivering
on waste management options since his appointment in Summer 2003.
The recent Defra report on the health impacts of waste management
has helped to develop a basis for the delivery of unambiguous
messages on the hard choices which must be made by local and central
government. Cory Environmental recognises that the development
of waste management infrastructure is rarely popular amongst the
local population. However, this report provides clear factual
information enabling robust choices to be made by both local and
central government and we urge central government to continue
to support and deliver these messages as it has over the past
12 months.
11. The forthcoming review of PPS10 will
be an opportunity for central government to lay out the guidelines
upon which decisions on infrastructure must and will be based.
This policy document will send clear signals and messages regarding
government policy. For example, the statement should include clear
guidance on the waste hierarchy and its priority as a key waste
management principle. We call on government to make the most of
this opportunity, ensuring companies such as our own are in a
position to move forward on long term planning decisions.
12. The forthcoming review of Waste Strategy
2000 will mark a further opportunity for the government to assess
the challenges it faces and to lay out the policies and guidance
essential to their resolution. We look forward to contributing
to this review and the delivery of its recommendations.
13. In the lead up to the review we call
upon government to continue to take a clear lead in the delivery
of the required infrastructure. The current tendency for local
authorities to refuse difficult decisions, thus passing the buck
to central government results in further cost and delays in the
delivery of important alternatives to waste management facilities.
Clear guidance on required facilities, unambiguous policy direction
and supporting legislation will enable local authorities to take
the decisions necessary. For example, government encouragement
and support for positive planning in waste local plans via the
identification of sites suitable for waste uses, even when this
is locally unpopular.
14. We urge the Government to realistically
assess what can be achieved through recycling and to consider
what facilities are required to dispose of residual waste, in
accordance with the best practicable environmental option. Government
must then continue to deliver the clear policy messages necessary
to achieve this.
15. We, once again, congratulate the Government
on its achievements to date and look to Ministers to continue
on the clear course they have set. We hope that in the important
policy reviews of coming months, they will introduce even more
radical measures to help industry in working with its partners
in local government to deliver the step change in performance
that is needed if ambitious but mandatory targets are to be met.
16. We look forward to the recommendations
of the inquiry.
8 October 2004
| 
