London Wider Waste Strategy - London - Greater London Authority

More documents

Recommendations

Info

5. Construction and Demolition Waste Introduction 5.1. The aim of this part of the project was to evaluate the current management strategies relating to construction and demolition wastes in London, building upon the existing knowledge base, to enable and inform the development of appropriate policies within the context of a wider waste strategy. The specific objectives listed in the project brief are repeated below. A summary of the key findings from this chapter is presented in Chapter 7. Identify and engage with key stakeholders, to include: Method • Consultation with the major waste management companies offering services in relation to construction and demolition waste in London, to establish collection and disposal contracts in place, specifically in terms of tonnages and management. • Consultation with the major construction and demolition companies operating in London (and those due to start work on major development contracts), to establish current or proposed management practices for waste. • Assessment of the reuse and recycling options utilised to manage London’s construction and demolition waste in terms of appropriateness, considering alternative options specifically the potential for higher value usages. • Consideration of the impact of planned development and redevelopment work across London in terms of the quantity and composition of construction and demolition waste requiring management. • Assessment of the effectiveness to date, and potential applicability of specific measures and instruments to promote waste minimisation, recycling and diversion from landfill, to include: - the current and potential role of waste exchanges in London and the potential opportunities available through the promotion of industrial symbiosis; - the role and impact of waste minimisation clubs in London; - the use of environmental reporting; - the use of standards; - the impact of Unitary Development Plans. 5.2. Relevant literature on construction and demolition wastes in London was collected and collated. A literature review was then undertaken to appraise existing information of relevance to the study and identify concerns and gaps which need to be addressed to meet the requirements of the brief. These gaps were then addressed through further research and consultations with construction, demolition and waste management companies, research organisations, local authorities and the Environment Agency. 5.3. The literature referred to and used in this study is listed below: • Symonds Group and WRc, 2002 - Survey of Arisings and Use of Construction and Demolition Waste: Main Document, ODPM. • Reid, 2003 - A strategy for construction, demolition and excavation waste as recycled aggregates, WRAP. 74
• Environment Agency, 2000 - Strategic Waste Management Assessment 2000: London. • Environment Agency, 2003 - SWaT 2002 • Environment Agency, 2001 - Strategic Waste Management Update 2001 28 • Best Foot Forward, 2002 - City Limits: A resource flow and ecological footprint for Greater London. • Sustainable Development UK, Quality of Life Counts: Indicators for a strategy for sustainable development for the United Kingdom: 2004 Update. National Statistics • London Development Agency, 2003 - Green alchemy turning green to gold: Creating resource from London’s waste. • Enviros, 2003 - Technical Assessment for Waste Management in London, Greater London Authority. • DTI, 2003 - Construction Annual Statistics 2003. 5.4. A list of the companies and organisations contacted for consultation are listed in Appendix F. Literature Review – Waste Arisings The Symonds Group Surveys 5.5. The two Symonds Group reports are recognised as the main data sources on construction and demolition wastes in England and Wales. They aim to capture data on ‘hard C&D waste’ and ‘excavation waste’ as defined in the following three categories: i) Hard C&D waste: either segregated or mixed unprocessed/uncrushed materials (particularly concrete, masonry, bricks, tiles, ‘blacktop’ etc.). ii) Excavation waste: naturally occurring soil, stone, rock and similar materials (whether clean or contaminated) which have been excavated as a result of site preparation activities. iii) Mixed hard C&D and excavation waste (mixed CDEW): a physical mixture of the above. 5.6. Two surveys have been undertaken to date by the Symonds Group. The first was in 1999/2000 for the Minerals and Waste Planning Division of the DETR, with the support of the National Assembly for Wales, which used data collected during 1999 and 2000, whilst the second was for the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM) in 2002 and used data from 2001. The 2002 survey was carried out by sending out survey forms to the receivers of hard wastes and excavation wastes arising from construction and demolition sites across England and Wales. Survey forms were sent to: • 632 operators of crushers and screens; • the operators of 1,149 licensed landfills; and • the operators of 539 registered exempt sites (paragraph 9 & 19 registered exempt sites) 29 . 28 Available: http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/subjects/waste/315439/170850/?version=1&lang=_e 75
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 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 and 166:
Total 100 598.8 70.7 423.4 29.8 178
Page 167 and 168:
Appendix E: Local Authority C&I Col
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?