London Wider Waste Strategy - London - Greater London Authority

wastes going to landfill. Conversely, if waste is unsorted, the proportion of potentially
recyclable materials going to landfill is much higher. Other than the two companies that
operate MRFs, none of the other consultees indicated that they treat wastes prior to
disposal (other than incineration).
4.72. Whilst a number of the companies own and operate their own facilities within London, it
is no surprise that most of the companies tend to have a larger number of disposal
facilities outside London than within given the higher levels of demand on land within
the capital.
4.73. The majority of commercial and industrial wastes handled by waste management
companies are disposed of to landfill or incinerated. Of the companies who gave
figures, the amount of waste landfilled is between 65-70%. After this, incineration is
the main form of disposal for many of the companies. Most of the companies contacted
owned and operated facilities within and outside London. In general, the facilities
within London were primarily depots which acted as a base for collection vehicles and,
to a lesser degree, waste transfer stations. The facilities outside London included
disposal sites (i.e. landfill sites) in addition to depots and waste transfer stations. The
head office functions were also often located outside of London. Most landfills received
wastes from other parties, such as local authorities and commercial collection
companies.
4.74. Some companies also transport a small proportion of their wastes to landfill sites a
considerable distance outside of London, such as Northampton. The manager of a
landfill in Northampton commented that it was rarely economic to transport wastes such
large distance without return loads. In his case, collection vehicles often returned with a
consignment of aggregates from nearby quarries (under a separate contract) which
rendered the overall trip economic. The only exception to this is likely to be in the case
of the transportation of hazardous wastes, which require specialised vehicles. The sites
that were further outside of London were very much more likely to be used for wastes
that had come via transfer stations.
4.75. In general, it appears that the majority of the major waste management companies
consulted are not involved directly in recycling and reprocessing to any great extent in
London. Such activity appears to be largely undertaken by smaller and more specialised
companies. However, one consultee noted that their practices in this regard changed in
different areas of the country; for example they do recycle glass in the north west, but
only a small amount in London. The same company mentioned that they were
considering constructing a facility for food wastes which would centre on a separate
collection service. Smaller specialised companies were contacted, however they were
either unwilling to be involved in consultations or were unable to take time to discuss
their operations.
4.76. One landfill manager commented that a great deal more could be done to remove
paper, cardboard, timber, plastics etc from commercial and industrial waste for recycling
at the transfer stations. He thought that perhaps 75% of incoming wastes were
potentially recyclable. However, he went on to state that the market is not there for
these products and so they continue to be landfilled. He noted that the re-saleable
products such as hardcore, soils and metals are recycled to a much greater extent.
4.77. Apart from commercial and industrial wastes, one waste management company noted
that they did not typically receive a great deal of other non-household wastes such as
construction and demolition waste at their landfills in Essex. This was partially because
35