London Wider Waste Strategy - London - Greater London Authority

More documents

Recommendations

Info

5.29. Nevertheless, the data estimates in Table 5.5 provide an insight into the fate of ‘hard’ and ‘excavation’ wastes arising from construction and demolition sites. Taking the ‘mid’ level from the above table, it can be seen that for London, the destinations for waste arisings (by percentage by weight) are noticeably different from those for England in the following respects: • Disposal to landfill (2.5% in London compared to 4.4% in England). • Landfill restoration and engineering (3.6% in London compared to 9.8% in England). • Backfill of quarry voids (6.3% in London compared to 11.9% in England). • Spreading on registered exempt sites (7.3% in London compared to 25.2% in England). 5.30. However, performance is similar for: • Use as a recycled soil (8.6% in London compared to 7.7% in England). 5.31. Therefore it is apparent that London performs significantly better for: • Use as a recycled aggregate (71.7% in London compared to 41% in England). 5.32. The Symonds study also identified the distance travelled from site to licensed landfill or registered exempt site. The survey methodology asked respondents for an ‘estimate of the maximum distance from which most C&D and soils travel to landfill’. The survey results showed that very little ‘hard’ and ‘excavated’ construction and demolition waste from London travelled more than 25 miles to a landfill or exempt site and only a small proportion is hauled greater than 15 miles for recycling. With regard to the last bullet point above, these transport statistics suggest that the majority (71.7%) of ‘recycled aggregate’ is recycled and reused within London or within a radius of up to 25 miles. Other Data Sources 5.33. It is possible that the relatively lower rate of landfilling of London’s construction and demolition wastes in comparison with England and Wales as a whole is likely to be due to its urban nature, i.e., the lack of landfills and quarries, farms, golf courses and other land often used for the disposal of waste on registered exempt sites within a reasonable proximity, in addition to the costs of transport. This same feature could help to explain the relatively high use of recycled aggregates in London, i.e. the cost and limited availability of bulk fill and virgin aggregate in London. The two factors combine to result in a positive and valuable use of materials that in other circumstances would perhaps be disposed of as waste. 5.34. There is a downward trend in the amount of construction and demolition waste going to landfill, as measured by the Quality of Life Indicator. This is illustrated on a national basis in Figure 5.3 below. 84
Figure 5.3: Quality of Life 2004 Indicator: Construction and demolition waste going to landfill 5.35. As part of this study we consulted with the National Federation of Demolition Contractors. The Federation undertake an annual survey of their members to identify the treatment and disposal route of hardcore from demolition projects. The Federation provided us with the data from the most recent survey (2002/3). However, reliable data could not be provided separately for London and so the data has not been used in this study. Literature Review – Treatment Facilities 5.36. The locations of licensed and registered exempt waste facilities treating construction and demolition wastes were derived from consulting public records available from the Environment Agency and the Greater London Authority. Further facilities that may treat waste are, for example, mobile crushers, mobile screeners, and registered exempt sites. There are 233 facilities for dealing with construction and demolition waste within London plus a further 250 31 inert landfill sites outside of London. It is most likely there are also other facilities located outside London that deal with London waste, for example, mobile crushers. This situation is relatively dynamic. Details of the facilities in London are presented in Table 5.7 below. Table 5.7: Number of London based facilities treating construction and demolition waste Landfill Transfer Station MRF/C&D Product Exempt Para 9 & 19 Sites Fixed Crusher / Screener 10 15 28 116 32 32 Mobile Crusher/ Screener 5.37. The above statistics for landfill and transfer stations are confirmed by the findings of the Enviros (2003) report. However, the same report identifies a total of 174 facilities (rather than 233) for recycling construction and demolition waste. The locations of the facilities and, for some, the capacities, are also detailed within the Enviros (2003) report. 31 Located in the counties of Berkshire (14 sites), Buckinghamshire (16 sites), Cambridgeshire (28 sites), East Sussex (8 sites), Essex (21 sites), Hampshire (29 sites), Hertfordshire (15 sites), Isle of Wight (9 sites), Kent (30 sites), Norfolk (24 sites), Northamptonshire (23 sites), Oxfordshire (2 sites), Suffolk (18 sites), Surrey (4 sites) and West Sussex (10 sites). 85
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 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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?