London Wider Waste Strategy - London - Greater London Authority

Consultations
5.38. Consultations were undertaken with approximately 50 organisations including
demolition, construction, waste management and recycling companies, trade
associations, research organisations and consultants, recycling organisations, and the
Environment Agency. The purpose was to try and address the uncertainties identified in
the literature review and build up a profile of the industry. The organisations were
selected by a variety of means, including suggestions by the trade associations and
other consultees, and our own knowledge of the industry. A full list of consultees is
included at Appendix F...
5.39. We have had responses from the majority of the consultees contacting during the
course of this study.
Consultations - Arisings
5.40. Very little additional quantitative data has been received from the consultations,
although most organisations noted that there was considerable potential for inaccuracy
with regard to the available published data.
Consultations - Treatment and Disposal
5.41. Our consultations indicate that contractors do not experience difficulties with finding
facilities (crushers, MRFs, transfer stations) in the London area for hard construction
and demolition wastes, but there was a shortage of facilities for dealing with specialist
wastes, for example, glass, tyres, reusable timber and plastics. One London MRF
operator described how their closest wood recycler was in Devon and the process so
critical that loads can be rejected at the gate and returned to London, all at the MRF
operator’s cost. Another waste management contractor who handles C&D wastes in
London signalled that the secondary materials markets were now sufficiently attractive
for them to look closely at ways of increasing recycling of all recyclable C&D materials,
primarily through transfer to reprocessing facilities outside of London.
5.42. Whilst consulting with contractors, the issue of the restricted number of landfills
accepting hazardous waste after July 2004 as a result of the Landfill Regulations was
raised. A review of the likely landfill capacity for hazardous wastes after co-disposal
ends in July 2004 is reported in Chapter 6. The general opinion of contractors on this
issue is that developers and regulators do not fully understand the time pressures
resulting from the closure of hazardous waste facilities from July 2004, and they also
feel that the traditional UK approach to many contaminated land remediations, i.e.
excavation and disposal of contaminated soils to landfill, will continue with the extra
transport costs passed onto the client. This is largely due to constraints on time, space
and cost of on-site remediation. They noted that familiarity with this approach helped
to reduce risk and uncertainty; also that it was faster to operate than the use of more
innovative techniques. This reduction in risk and operating time also had a positive
value in financial terms, by increasing certainty.
5.43. Most consultees considered that a possible impact of the Hazardous Waste Regulations,
at least in the short to medium term, may be to significantly hinder brownfield
development within London. This may be felt in terms of a reduction in site activity
and/or an increase in development costs. An increase in the movement of
contaminated soils by road, in terms of total distance, may also be anticipated. It is
recommended that the GLA considers the potential effect of this on house-building and
other construction projects within London.
86