London Wider Waste Strategy - London - Greater London Authority

More documents

Recommendations

Info

and education. Instead, reference was made to the Environment Agency’s Waste Benchmarking tool which provides waste information on a sector by sector basis as described earlier in this section. Whilst this data is not sufficiently detailed to allow an accurate estimation of waste composition as for the sectors above, some insight can be gained. For both sectors, the Waste Benchmarking tool suggests that, not surprisingly, paper and card, food, and plastics are significant waste streams, as is wood for the wholesale sector. Sanitary wastes are not insignificant quantities within adult and higher education. It is acknowledged that the application of the SWAP report compositions to London as a whole may not result in particularly accurate estimations. This is due to both the potential for sampling error (as highlighted earlier in this section) as well as the fact that the SWAP report was undertaken in Westminster and hence may not be applicable to London as a whole. Other compositional surveys that we have accessed give significantly different figures for certain categories; whilst these have been undertaken outside of London and are hence inapplicable, they do demonstrate the danger of trying to apply one survey to a different situation. Nevertheless, the estimates calculated in the above tables enable some conclusions and recommendations to be drawn. 162
Appendix E: Local Authority C&I Collection and Disposal Survey Approach Consultation by questionnaire was deemed to be the most appropriate approach. This was due to the relatively large number of authorities involved and the desire to standardise replies to assist in the efficient interpretation of results. A draft questionnaire was developed. This was based on our review of existing information and preliminary meetings with two of the boroughs (a unitary authority and a waste disposal authority) which gave us the opportunity to discuss issues in greater detail. This draft was then split into three separate questionnaires targeted respectively at the waste collection authorities (WCAs), waste disposal authorities (WDAs), and unitary authorities (UAs). The draft questionnaire was also reviewed in consultation with the GLA to ensure that it addressed the issues of most interest and avoided duplication with other studies. The latter particularly applied to the annual DEFRA/GLA municipal waste management survey. The final versions of the questionnaires were agreed with the GLA on 6th April. They were dispatched by Email to the relevant authorities using a contact list supplied by the GLA. The questionnaires were sent to all the relevant authorities (i.e. 4 joint waste disposal authorities, 12 unitary authorities and 21 waste collection authorities) on 7th April 2004. Replies were requested by Friday 16th April to enable results to be presented at the interim RTAB meeting. Reminders were sent out during and after this period. Replies received after this date have also been analysed. Analysis A total of 37 questionnaires were sent out, with 22 being completed and returned to SLR by 7th May. Responses were received from 11 of the 21 WCAs, seven of the 12 unitary UAs and all four of the WDAs (Table E1). This represents an overall response rate of 60%. The short timescale has prevented further responses from being obtained, as some boroughs were unable to devote time to questionnaires at a time in the year when budgets and contracts for waste disposal for the new financial year are being prepared. Table E1: Local Authority Respondents to the Waste Questionnaire Waste Collection Authority Unitary Authority Waste Disposal Authority Barnet Bromley East London Waste Authority Brent Corporation of London North London Waste Authority Enfield Croydon Harrow Southwark Hammersmith & Fulham Sutton Havering Tower Hamlets Hounslow Westminster City Council Islington Redbridge Waltham Forest Wandsworth 163 Western Riverside Waste Authority West London Waste Authority
Page 1 and 2:
Policy & Partnerships London Wider
Page 3:
CONTENTS 1. Introduction 1 2. Waste
Page 6 and 7:
Chapter 2 summarises the principal
Page 8 and 9:
Key policy proposals in ‘Waste St
Page 10 and 11:
2.8. The national Planning Policy G
Page 12 and 13:
• where waste cannot be dealt wit
Page 14 and 15:
Policies of neighbouring regions 2.
Page 16 and 17:
• A Thematic Strategy on waste re
Page 18 and 19:
2.34. Legislation applying to speci
Page 20 and 21:
addresses eight main environmental
Page 22 and 23:
3.19. The London Regional Technical
Page 24 and 25:
4.3. There then follows a section o
Page 26 and 27:
Table 4.1: Arisings and basic compo
Page 28 and 29:
Table 4.3: Total commercial and ind
Page 30 and 31:
around London but not on the quanti
Page 32 and 33:
Table 4.6: Number and weight of sam
Page 34 and 35:
through a 20mm sieve Total 73 27.4
Page 36 and 37:
handling and transport in London, r
Page 38 and 39:
4.66. Not surprisingly, all of the
Page 40 and 41:
some construction companies had the
Page 42 and 43:
necessary that the waste producers
Page 44 and 45:
4.101. One other potential major in
Page 46 and 47:
SMEs comprise a slightly lower prop
Page 48 and 49:
Drivers for Sustainable Waste Manag
Page 50 and 51:
4.123. Whilst sustainable waste man
Page 52 and 53:
Encouragement of waste minimisation
Page 54 and 55:
companies. There is no service offe
Page 56 and 57:
their companies than the larger com
Page 58 and 59:
such as road construction, it close
Page 60 and 61:
LREs wishing to model the viability
Page 62 and 63:
Table 4.10: Eco-sites established w
Page 64 and 65:
• Support for the development and
Page 66 and 67:
two internationally recognised stan
Page 68 and 69:
London. A phased approach is recomm
Page 70 and 71:
encouraged, and that guidance and/o
Page 72 and 73:
number of employees of perhaps some
Page 74 and 75:
4.230. The NHS provided a detailed
Page 76 and 77:
4.241. For over half of the WCAs th
Page 78 and 79:
5. Construction and Demolition Wast
Page 80 and 81:
5.7. The findings for England and W
Page 82 and 83:
City Limits 5.14. An alternative re
Page 84 and 85:
Figure 5.1: Average total waste ari
Page 86 and 87:
5.23. The hazardous waste component
Page 88 and 89:
5.29. Nevertheless, the data estima
Page 90 and 91:
Consultations 5.38. Consultations w
Page 92 and 93:
to be so in to the future. However
Page 94 and 95:
visit and review specific pages. A
Page 96 and 97:
European Literature Review and Cons
Page 99 and 100:
6. Special/Hazardous Waste Introduc
Page 101 and 102:
‘Technical Assessment for Waste M
Page 103 and 104:
accurate record of hazardous waste
Page 105 and 106:
Figure 6.2: Breakdown of recorded h
Page 107 and 108:
wastes to London are the closest, i
Page 109:
Figure 6.4: Breakdown of hazardous
Page 112 and 113:
6.47. There are a range of views fr
Page 114 and 115:
Table 6.5: In-house landfills which
Page 116 and 117: equirements for the ‘new’ hazar
Page 118 and 119: options to improve treatment, such
Page 120 and 121: 6.80. However, the new hazardous wa
Page 122 and 123: 6.90. The future treatment of asbes
Page 124 and 125: 7.7. London’s total hazardous was
Page 126 and 127: 7.19. There is only limited composi
Page 128 and 129: waste management obligations and be
Page 130 and 131: construction and demolition compani
Page 132 and 133: the precise amount of landfill capa
Page 134 and 135: R.14 In order to more effectively t
Page 136 and 137: R32 It is recommended that a reduct
Page 138 and 139: measurement of wastes from construc
Page 140 and 141: Future Actions Table 7.1: Summary o
Page 142 and 143: Theme 3: Support for Existing Initi
Page 144 and 145: for contaminated soils within Londo
Page 147 and 148: Appendix A: Waste policy and legisl
Page 149 and 150: • whole used tyres (from 2003);
Page 151 and 152: UK Policy The majority of UK waste
Page 153 and 154: • Requires consents to discharge
Page 155 and 156: • Prohibits certain types of wast
Page 157 and 158: Green Paper on PVC Key Features •
Page 159 and 160: Chris Searles, Searles Associates D
Page 161 and 162: Table C1. Data by Number (from Smal
Page 163 and 164: Appendix D: Results of Further Anal
Page 165: Total 100 598.8 70.7 423.4 29.8 178
Page 169 and 170: All of the respondents said that th
Page 171 and 172: proportion of waste collected from
Page 173 and 174: Finally, the authorities were asked
Page 175 and 176: The authorities were asked how the
Page 177 and 178: All authorities were asked how they
Page 179 and 180: Table E11: Do you expect to meet th
Page 181 and 182: Table E15: What is the situation re
Page 183 and 184: Appendix F: Consultees for Construc
Page 185 and 186: Appendix G: Policy, legislative and
Page 187 and 188: Measure Germany Denmark Belgium The
Page 189 and 190: Measure Germany Denmark Belgium The
show all

London Wider Waste Strategy - London - Greater London Authority

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?