The only TWO options are the SIX options they really considered!

 When are two options not really two options? Well when Derby City Council and Derbyshire County Council are involved it is usually when the councils are claiming to the public there are only two options to be considered for the controversial Sinfin incinerator - the Derby and Derbyshire Waste Treatment Centre on Sinfin Lane in Derby. 

The councils claimed as follows in November 2021.

"Cabinet members at Derby City Council and Derbyshire County Council will be asked to approve a recommendation to develop a business case for the future of the waste treatment facility in Sinfin at their respective Council Cabinet meetings later today.

The business case compares two options:

•            To rectify and use the facility and,

•            To close the facility and dispose of the councils’ waste using a third party.

The business case will be developed over the next few months. Once complete, both councils will reconvene to review and decide how to proceed."

So it was fix it and use it, or dump it. No more than that, no suggestion that there was a raft of alternative options! options that could be considered as an alternative for the site in Sinfin Lane. The reality however was rather different to the picture the councils painted to the public back in November 2021 when they were considering the future of the site. 

Now us mere resident nobodies were excluded from the meetings of the council cabinets and had at the time no access to the cabinet documents or in the case of Derby City also access to the documents provided to the councils Executive Scrutiny Board which met the day before the cabinet meetings in question. Obviously they had nothing to hide being so open and transparent as this - it is perfectly normal to hide all the documents on the subject from residents because come on there are two options being considered, the councils said so and so that must be true right?

WRONG!

 THERE WERE SIX OPTIONS THAT WERE BEING CONSIDERED !

Clearly in the interests of being open and transparent the councils decided to only tell the public they were considering TWO options. Maybe the councils thought that the public could not handle all this information that they would face so wanted to protect the public from this - or maybe they just set out to mislead the public into thinking there were only two options being considered!

As a resident of Derby and also a member of the Sinfin plants Community Liaison Group (CLG) personally I consider that the councils set out to mislead the public when issuing their statements because the councils clearly want to pitch repairing and using the plant - which just so happens to tick all of the boxes in the strategic aims against complete closure which ticked almost none of the boxes. We all know that it is very easy to formulate a set of tests to gain the result you want which in my view is why it was important for the councils to keep the other options hidden from the public because some of them could be considered to be better options in the public eye than the councils want - and obviously that would never do!

A Freedom of Information / Environmental Information request was submitted in November 2021 for the documents from the meeting to Derby City Council. The council managed to fob off my request for far longer than is usually considered acceptable by blaming issues around work levels at the council department in question. Finally they had to issue the documents to me - although in a redacted state there was enough left un redacted for readers to identify that unlike the claimed two options considered there were actually SIX options being considered. Ranging from full repair to closure but also including use of specific sections of the plant to produce refuse derived fuel or to act as a waste transfer site and also even an option considering leasing or selling the site off to a third party.

So what could possibly be the reason for the councils only telling the public there were two options being considered? Surely from past experience they would know that some members of the public would cast their eye over the situation and even make a Freedom Of Information request - FOI or its Environmental brother the EIR. It is not clear why someone somewhere decided to make a public statement that they were to consider two options because surely it would be better to admit to six options while saying two would be considered further. By doing so they would be open and transparent and this would encourage public trust.

So obviously I had to make a request to Derby City Council for the documents from the November 2021 Scrutiny Board meeting and Council Cabinet meetings which took place in an attempt to help the councils to be open and transparent because clearly it is something they struggle with! So that is where it became clear scattered between the heavily redacted texts that there was a broader series of options.

Option ONE was to fix and use the full plant - but on that option the councils redacted all the text relating to RISK 

Being open and transparent the councils clearly have nothing to hide by errr hiding all the risks being considered!

We know that even if "fixed" the inefficient plant which is considered a disposal plant at the bottom of the waste hierarchy will be even worse from an efficiency perspective because the document tells us this!

Also strangely no acknowledgement of fly related issues in the community which vanished when the plant was closed and cleaned.

Option TWO was a secret option ssshhhh dont tell the public! the proposal in this case was to use the front end of the plant which was the Materials Recovery Facility (MRF) and the Mechanical Biological Treatment section (MBT) to create a refuse derived fuel (RDF) to be burnt off site. No acknowledgement of fly related issues on the community which vanished when the plant was closed and cleaned. No reference to odour related objections. 

Option THREE was another secret option ssshhhh dont tell the public! the proposal in this case was to only use the MRF as a "dirty" MRF to extract some recyclables from the waste before shredding the waste and sending it out as an RDF fuel to be burnt off site. No acknowledgement of fly related issues in the community which vanished when the plant was closed and cleaned. Strangely refers to odour issues - which it strangely did not refer to in option two.

Option FOUR was another secret option ssshhhh dont tell the public! the proposal in this case was to use the site as a waste transfer station where the waste would be bulked up and not treated on site before being sent for disposal elsewhere. No acknowledgement of fly related issues in the community which vanished when the plant was closed and cleaned.

Option FIVE is the option of closure of the plant - the residents all time favourite option but sadly it appears not the councils favourite option but one which is a useful tool for pushing through the councils favoured option of fixing and using the plant. This option which almost without fail successfully gives the answer NO to the councils selected strategic aims plays a key part in the councils consideration as it is the only other option they told the public about!

Option SIX was the final ssshhhh secret option dont tell the public! the proposal in this case was to sell or lease the plant to the private market. The document indicates that soft marketing along those lines did not turn up any interested parties in the purchase or lease of the plant.

 Maybe the fact that nobody is interested should be taken on board by the councils when considering if they themselves should attempt to fix and use the plant!

The councils in their documents go on to point score options 1-5 in relation to strategic fit. They do not consider option 6 (sale or lease) as they conclude it is not a likely option - considering no parties came forward via soft marketing.

The point scoring was as follows

We can see from the strategic fit criteria that as expected repair and use is ranked 1st compared to closure as ranked joint 4th.

It is not possible to judge the councils approach to the options financial fit because that section of the documents has a sponsorship deal with a redaction pen company and so it is not possible currently to understand the costs involved in relation to the SIX sorry TWO options the councils told the public they were considering. 

The councils are going through the motions attempting to convince the public they are considering long term closure of the site while running up ever higher multi million pound maintenance bills and considering the out of date plant at the bottom of the waste hierarchy against a joint waste strategy that will be out of date in 2026.

Surely they would not invest heavily in old technology that has been shown to be even less efficient than planned and unable to meet the requirements of the current joint waste contract never mind the expected efficiency you would expect of a future waste strategy that works to head towards net zero! 

©SIMON BACON 2022

 

The brown bin charge is dead! Long live free recycling!

The brown bin recycling charge has been binned in the city of Derby UK!

Turning the tide of charges for garden waste collection which is gradually crippling recycling in the UK

 (as recycling is based on weight and garden waste is a heavy component of any recycling scheme)
 

The Conservative council which was voted into power in the May local election put forward in their election manifesto a return to a free collection.

Prior to this the poor residents of the city had to pay £40 for the service which didn't even last all year!

Back in 2012/13 the council collected almost 20,000 tonnes of garden and food waste which was sent for in vessel composting outside of the city via a free service.

Fast forward to 2017/18 and that tonnage had shrunk to less that 4,400 tonnes of waste composted which was clearly linked to not just the £40 charge but also the fact food waste was no longer accepted and the service was restricted to specific 32 weeks of the year.
 

The charge had devastated the recycling rate at Derby City Council and it is now hoped this will help recycling turn a corner in the city.
 

The return of food waste collections in with the garden waste collection over the full 52 week year takes us back in a positive direction which was previously removed because food waste cannot be processed in a charged for service due to government regulation.
 

Recent residual waste surveys carried out in the city by the council identified that a massive 44% of waste gathered in the cities residual waste bins was garden and food waste.

In 2017/18 the city paid just £31.53 per tonne for its garden waste to be composted in an in vessel process at Ashbourne in Derbyshire.

This compares to the same waste entering the Resource Recovery Solutions residual waste contract where total contract waste costs for 2017/18 were roughly £91.57 per tonne -
a difference of around £60.
A return to a recycling rate of 20,000 tonnes could save the council over £900,000 per year! the council could save a great deal more if it diverted the 44% of compostable garden and food waste from the residual waste bin into the brown composting bin.
Well it could but there is a catch !

Currently the residual waste is sent to be burnt in a D10 disposal gasification incineration plant in Sinfin, Derby.
The council is paying a set fee of £25 million towards the plants construction - which is hopelessly behind schedule.
The less waste that the council sends to that plant the more per tonne fee that becomes when you add the cost to the per tonne charge the council will pay.
The council has contractually agreed to send waste of specific characteristics to be burnt in Sinfin and that includes an agreement to supply waste of a minimum biodegradable content - along with other specific requirements.
The following statement from the brown bin cabinet document shows how the incineration plant contract has its claws into the garden waste recycling project.

Any reduction in biodegradable content sent by the council to the Sinfin Lane plant in Derby will be looked on in a bad way by the operator of the residual waste contract - Resource Recovery Solutions (Derbyshire) or as we know them RRS because in a twist they have been awarded ROCs - Renewable Obligation Certificates for electricity generated from the burning of the biodegradable waste - ROCs have a value and RRS will be able to bank them!
Paying a government bung for burning such waste in an inefficient disposal plant basically rewards FAILURE!

 ©SIMON BACON 2018

 

 

 

 

 

BURNING COMPOSTABLE WASTE IS ROTTEN!

People who say it is good to burn compostable waste as it creates renewable energy are talking rot !

In the city of Derby UK a waste gasification incineration plant is under construction and one of the driving forces behind the development are government bungs known as ROCs for energy generated by burning biodegradable waste.
You can read more about ROCs and the Sinfin Lane waste gasification plant here-
 http://derby-waste-a-rubbish-blog.blogspot.com/2018/05/get-ya-rocs-off.html
 

Judging by the amount of odour complaints about the plant before the plant is fully operational there is certainly something rotten about the proposal.

The council in Derby changed to a Conservative administration in May 2018 and part of their electioneering was to state they would return to a free garden waste collection service - after the previous Labour council removed the free garden and food waste service which had run all year and replaced it with a charged for service (£40) for a garden waste only part year service.
With the prospect of a return to a free service brings with it the ability to also accept food waste in the cities brown bin recycling scheme. Ever since the free collection was removed the council still continued to send garden waste to Vital Earth at Ashbourne in Derbyshire which runs an in vessel composting process which produces a sterile product from garden and food waste.
The key point here however is that when there was a charged for service the council could not collect food waste in the same recycling bin because it would be considered that the council was also charging for food waste collections - which is not legal under government regulations on waste disposal. Common sense should say that the food waste was an extra to the charged for garden service - which could have been seen as good as it would have diverted biodegradable waste from landfill and incineration but here at the Rubbish Blog we don't set government regulation.
The public of Derby will now be expecting the election pledge by the now Conservative council in the city to be put in place as soon as possible and there is talk of this happening in 2019 however little evidence of this proposal is currently in the public domain.
Residual waste inspections carried out in the city in Summer 2017 have led to a better understanding of what is the composition of the waste Derby residents place in their black residual waste bins.
What we know is that around 44% of the waste heading to the Sinfin waste incineration plant is a mix of garden and food waste.
So what is likely sinking in with Derby City Council is that there is 44% of their waste being shipped to be burnt in Sinfin which could potentially be processed a lot cheaper at Vital Earth in Ashbourne where the councils garden waste was composted in 2017/18 for just £31.53 per tonne after the council got a generous rebate of £10 per tonne of waste shipped to the site.
But how can the council make use of this cheap service - which would also boost the cities recycling rate by a vast amount when they are contractually required to feed the Sinfin waste incineration plant?
They are not only required in the contract to procure waste of specific characteristics, organic content, moisture content etc but also when investing a lump sum of £25 million into the project the lower the amount of waste sent to Sinfin the higher the per tonne cost the council faces when we divide the payment by tonnage sent which then undermines the councils business case.
Almost ten years down the line with the incineration plant still not handed over not only does the plant itself stink but so does the project the council has signed up to.

©SIMON BACON 2018
 

 



Get ya ROCs off!

On April 30th 2018 Resource Recovery Solutions Derbyshire Ltd (RRS) announced that their controversial waste gasification incineration plant had been granted ROCs - Renewable Obligation Certificates for the electrical energy they will produce from the biodegradable aspect of household waste which the plant will take in for burning.

Renewi one of the parent companies of RRS released a press release relating to the granting of ROCs to the Sinfin Lane, Derby project which contain quite a degree of hot air.

They stated that "Up to 98% of the residual waste managed at the facility will be diverted from landfill, which will also generate enough green electricity to power approximately 14,000 homes."

While the plant may generate enough electricity for 14,000 homes - that is yet to be shown one thing is for sure - an unconfirmed percentage of the power generated will come not from so called green electricity - which is considered by the likes of OFGEM as biodegradable wastes being combusted but in fact non biodegradable waste such as plastics - ie fossil fuels.

It is fact (confirmed via FOI/EIR) that in the city of Derby 9,000 properties have no recycling scheme in place - after Derby City Council removed the service stating recycling bin contamination as an excuse.

What this means is that a percentage of waste entering the Sinfin facility will have had no prior recycling applied to it. Paper and card should have been recycled removing it from the residual waste stream entering the Sinfin site in Derby. Instead such material is condemned to be burnt to generate OFGEM funded electricity via ROC payments - ROCs being funded from green charges applied to our energy bills.

Has recycling been removed in the city to procure suitable waste to generate lucrative ROC payments?

Someone called James Priestley said the following-

James Priestley, Managing Director of Renewi’s Municipal Division, said:

 “We are delighted to have been awarded this important ROCs accreditation which is another significant milestone achieved in this project. Not only does this accreditation bring financial support to the project, it also shows how we are using innovative technologies to operate sustainably, divert waste from landfill and create valuable products from waste. We are looking forward to completing the final stages of commissioning and to providing first class, sustainable waste services for the people of Derby and Derbyshire.”

  Now when you use the terms innovative and first class you think ground breaking and efficient and you could be forgiven for thinking this applied in the Derby projects case but the reality is somewhat different.

At the second public inquiry into the project the planning inspector required RRS to provide evidence of their projects energy efficiency status - an important aspect of the project which was a useful insight into the project.

At the second public inquiry RRS were forced to admit that

 in the plants standard electricity only mode their plant was in fact nothing more than what is known as a D10 disposal plant because the energy efficiency status of the process falls below that which would class the plant as an efficient recovery process.

 

To see what the Waste Framework Directive says about a plant being recovery R1 or disposal D10 below is a series of quotes from the directive.

Recovery or disposal – the meaning of R1

47. The Waste Framework Directive (WFD) sets out the waste hierarchy and enshrines it in law. It requires that a waste management route defined as recovery should be used ahead of an alternative that is classified as disposal. Exceptions can be made (see below) but this general principle makes it important to know whether a process is considered recovery or disposal. 

48. Historically the Waste Framework Directives have included annexes which set out lists of what are considered to be recovery or disposal operations. Each is given a number and a letter: R for recovery, D for disposal. In the current directive the classifications of particular relevance to energy from waste are: • R1 – Use principally as a fuel or other means to generate energy • D10 – Incineration on land 

49. What this means is that where waste is burnt as a fuel to generate energy it can potentially be considered a recovery operation (R1) but where the purpose of incineration is to get rid of waste, it is considered D10 and hence disposal.  All municipal waste incinerators were and are deemed as disposal activities (D10) unless and until they are shown to meet the requirements of R1. This is why the term R1 often crops up in the debate about how good an energy from waste plant might be and how it compares to other options. 

50. For municipal solid waste, which includes all the waste collected from households, the EU has gone further by defining what it considers to be sufficient for recovery status under R1. The WFD includes a formula relating to the efficiency of the combustion plant. A municipal waste combustion plant can only be considered to be a recovery operation under R1 if it generates energy and the plant meets the efficiency thresholds calculated using the R1 formula

SO THAT IS THE OFFICIAL BLURB FROM DEFRA ON RECOVERY OR DISPOSAL PLANTS AS GOVERNED BY EU DIRECTIVES - WHICH STILL GOVERN THE UK SINCE BREXIT.

Why are OFGEM supporting inefficient waste gasification incineration plants? the lure of lucrative subsidies in this case in Sinfin Derby has in part led to the route this project has taken which is condemning resources to being burnt for a small amount of energy made financially viable by government subsidy.

OFGEM are rewarding failure.

©SIMON BACON 2018

Hidden contracts! the public strikes back!

On 22nd October 2015 I Simon Bacon the writer of this blog applied to Derby City Council in Derby UK via FOI / EIR requesting the following information relating to the controversial joint waste contract linked to the highly controversial Sinfin, Derby gasification incineration plant.

 1- ALL CONTRACTS BETWEEN DERBY CITY COUNCIL AND DERBYSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL RELATING TO THE JOINT WASTE CONTRACT.

 2- ALL CONTRACTS BETWEEN DERBY CITY COUNCIL AND ITS PARTNER DERBYSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL WITH RESOURCE RECOVERY SOLUTIONS (RRS) AND / OR ITS PARENT COMPANY SHANKS / INTERSERVE.

 3- ALL CONTRACTS RELATING TO THE USE OF THE SINFIN TANNERY SITE - OWNED BY DERBY CITY COUNCIL BY RESOURCE RECOVERY SOLUTIONS (RRS) OR OTHER PARTIES.

 Derby City Council responded on 17th December 2015 in which it disclosed some of the requested information but withheld some of the information in part 2 of the request claiming the adverse affect to the confidentiality of commercial information. What was provided was a series of documents with many redacted (blacked out pages) where the council and its supporters - Derbyshire County Council and Resource Recovery Solutions edited the documents to hide certain aspects of the documents which they did not want the public to see.
Here are a couple of examples from schedule 14 of the contract which covers the performance mechanism.

 

As you can see from the images when they redact information they really black it out!

 

I appealed this ruling and Derby City Council carried out an internal review and responded to me on December 24th 2015 that it maintained this position.

Having considered this battle of wills further I made a complaint against Derby City Council on 22nd February 2016 to the ICO - the Information Commissioner. The ICO then gave full consideration to my strongly put appeal while engaging with Derby City Council further.

The council and its fellow contract members attempted to paint a picture which included impacts on interests of Resource Recovery Solutions (RRS) siting that the withheld information included price mechanisms, volume allocations and proprietary contract tools and processes.

The council argued that RRS operated in a competitive waste market and disclosure would allow competitors to work out the deal and how it was structured resulting in a loss of its competitive edge.

The council went on to argue that the Sinfin waste sites novel nature has the capacity to become a "BEACON OF EXCELLENCE"

 

ENERGOS the developer of the incineration equipment being installed into this beacon of excellence had gone into administration in mid July 2016.
 

It was suggested that the competitors of RRS would benefit from the unique know how contained within the information and thus undermine the ability of RRS to utilise this for its own benefit damaging its commercial interests.

Other than the Derby, Glasgow and Milton Keynes projects that have moved ahead there is little evidence of other projects moving forward using such technology and in recent weeks a proposal to install similar tech on the Isle of Wight has been dropped - so not quite the beacon being suggested.

The ICO asked the council to provide a new schedule setting out in each instance the councils rationale for withholding information so that it matched the specific parts of the documents. Having been given further time to do so the council advised it had approached RRS and Derbyshire County Council but that they had declined to provide any further arguments or clarification.
The ICO in their ruling considered that the lack of clarity in the councils submissions suggests that the council either does not properly understand what the effects of disclosure would be or has struggled to meet the evidential and explanatory burden set by the exception.
 

 On 4th August 2016 the Information commissioner at the ICO RULED IN MY FAVOUR instructing Derby City Council to disclose the withheld information to myself as the complainant.

 

In early September 2016 Derby City Council was in no mood to lose their battle again a resident of Derby so instructed its legal team to appeal the ICO ruling and so work started on a legal appeal.

I as the original applicant was also in no mood to lose the battle and so registered as a party to the appeal which WAS set to be heard later in 2017 in London UK. After a delay of a number of months as two similar cases passed through the tribunal system the Derby case began to move forward.

In recent months a similar case relating to an incineration plant in Gloucestershire and its associated contract pretty much ruled in the original applicants favour - while the council in that case attempted to put a brave face on things while putting some spin on the ruling the applicants in Gloucestershire are very happy with the result of their battle. A similar ruling regarding an incineration plant contract in Worcestershire also placed pressure on Derby City Council who were then set a date by the General Regulatory Chamber who were running the appeal by Derby City Council where the council had to acknowledge if it proposed to continue with their appeal.

So two other appeals went against the local councils which forced Derby City Council into a corner over their appeal against the ICO ruling.

 Did they continue or did they rollover!

 

THEY ROLLED OVER AND BAILED OUT OF THEIR APPEAL ON MAY 11TH 2017

The councils legal team made the following statements when terminating the councils appeal.
"

"Our clients have been carrying out a fresh, detailed, careful and considered review of the disputed information with all interested parties taking into account the passage of time and developments since the initial request and the commencement of the Appeal.

Having concluded that reassessment and made recommendations accordingly, the interested parties have respectively reached agreed conclusions and advised the relevant public authority which has been able to make an updated decision on disclosure as a result.
Our clients have invested a great deal of time in reaching this decision and it is not one that has been taken lightly. Despite considering that much of the disputed information remains commercially sensitive and confidential, given the time that has now passed since the original request for information by the applicant and taking into consideration the current stage the facilities are now at, the likelihood of probable harm from disclosure of the disputed information into the public domain has reduced.
As a result our clients have asked us to confirm that the disputed information will be disclosed in its entirety. "
 

 Derby City Council admitted at a recent full council meeting that they and their supporters - Derbyshire County Council and RRS / SHANKS had already spent £20,000 on their fight to keep aspects of the Derby and Derbyshire waste contract secret - hidden away from the public. In a strange twist they appeared to be suggesting to the local newspaper the Derby Telegraph that they had NOT paid £20,000 to stop me from gaining a copy of the contracts as reported here http://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/derby-man-wins-right-to-see-controversial-sinfin-incinerator-contract-but-council-to-appeal/story-30288364-detail/story.html

 

The council was simply playing with words - £20,000 was spent but the city council only paid a third of the payment!

What are they trying to hide from the residents of Derby and Derbyshire ? what is so controversial that they redact whole pages of their waste contract ?  In these times of austerity and government cuts surely the public have a right to know what their taxes are being spent on.

NOW WE HAVE THE CHANCE TO FIND OUT!

©SIMON BACON 2017

 

Are we permitted to comment ?

You may not have picked up on the fact that the Sinfin incineration plant - due to open in September 2017 after a delay due to the technology developer going into administration (fills you with confidence) has applied to the Environment Agency (EA) to burn nearly 18,000 tonnes more rubbish than it was granted to burn.

If your a local person - who may have objected in the past you would have expected the Governments Environment Agency to go out of their way to flag this proposal up to you because you have previously engaged with them on the sites permit.

Obviously there are grave concerns regarding this application to burn more waste - the site next to the air quality management area (AQMA) will have an even greater impact than is already proposed. Derby is now being targeted by DEFRA due to poor air quality and so surely greater scrutiny needs to take place with such applications.

 

Resource Recovery Solutions (RRS) / Shanks Waste claim it will not have a greater impact than was passed by the EA but all that consisted of was models of emissions - nobody will be carrying out real tests at ground level - the Environment Agency will not do so, Derby City Council - responsible for air quality in the city will not do so and the developer RRS / Shanks will not do so even after I requested they take on the example of UBB in Gloucestershire who are building an incineration plant and have agreed to fund air quality monitoring around their site before and after construction. When asked RRS/ Shanks refused.  

The important story here - other than something so controversial burning even more than planned and nobody will monitor the impact at ground level is that

 RESIDENTS HAVE NOT BEEN TOLD THAT THERE IS A CONSULTATION TAKING PLACE ON THIS WHICH RUNS TILL JANUARY 20TH 2017.

When the permit was first applied for a number of years ago - and later granted residents were able to have their say. The EA held local consultations and residents could write in with their views - so the EA should have their addresses which you would hope they would use to write to the residents to advise of this latest proposal. It was also advertised in the local press in the Public Notices etc. PEOPLE WERE AWARE !

Move onto late 2016 and out of the blue I heard from the UK Without Incineration Network (UKWIN) that they had seen an application on a government website.

I looked into this and sure enough found the following

https://consult.environment-agency.gov.uk/psc/de24-9gf-shanks-waste-management-ltd-consultation/

 What became very clear very quickly was that nobody was aware of this application - finalised in early December 2016 BUT ACTUALLY IT TURNS OUT submitted in JUNE as was later admitted by Will Spurr from Shanks Waste via the Community Liaison Group (CLG)

 they didn't even tell the CLG even though the CLG had met between June and December.

When challenged in recent weeks the EA have admitted that the only place the consultation is promoted is on their government website! HOW DOES THAT ENGAGE WITH THE PUBLIC ? hiding important consultations away on a government website that 99.99% of the population would never look at !

It shows that the councils, Shanks Waste / RRS and the Environment Agency have a total disregard for public views and opinions 

 WHY?

 

The councils knew because their contractor is Shanks Waste / RRS - but didn't tell the public!

 

Shanks Waste / RRS  knew because THEY were the applicant - but didn't tell the public!

 

The Environment Agency who knew have done the very least they could to tell the public!

CONSULTATION ANYONE !

 

©SIMON BACON 2017

If only the council had some money to invest!

Derby used to have an events venue called the Assembly Rooms which was closed after a fire in the attached car park and so Derby now lacks a suitable venue for theatre and music because the council claimed the venue needed to much work doing to it after the fire. This has been the subject of great debate since the fire. The council proposes to replace the venue but is not able to say when due to lack of funds.

The local newspaper the Derby Telegraph ran this story on the venues closure and proposed replacement.

 http://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/3-000-capacity-concert-venue-1-600-seat-theatre/story-28928499-detail/story.html 

 

IF ONLY THE CITY HAD SOME MONEY TO INVEST!

 

Derby used to have two large swimming venues open to the public and supporting local aquatic clubs allowing them to compete at local and international level.

Sadly due to suggested government cuts this has led to the council closing the Moorways swimming facility - a corner stone of local swimming provision dating back decades. The pool closed to the public at the end of March 2016 and residents are now struggling to continue their swimming as the cities other main venue has a faulty roof.

The local newspaper the Derby Telegraph ran this story on the pools closure

http://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/Sadness-Moorways-pool-closes-public/story-29028675-detail/story.html

 

IF ONLY THE CITY HAD SOME MONEY TO INVEST!

The city of Derby is slowly collapsing due to claimed government cuts forcing the council to reduce its budget to make savings. Money has to come out of specific pots to fund things which is regularly pointed out by the council.

IF ONLY THE CITY HAD SOME MONEY TO INVEST!

Well the reality is the council WOULD have money to invest in either of the projects if it had not jumped in with both feet with the Sinfin waste incineration plant project which first raised its head in public circles in late 2008.
A joint contract between the city and Derbyshire County Council will see Derby hosting the plant AND paying £25 MILLION towards the plants construction - which is 50% of the council build cost.
Now is it fair that the cities residents have to host the controversial plant AND pay 50% of the council payment for construction?
But it gets worse as the city does not collect enough residual waste to provide 50% of the plants feedstock and as recycling increases that in turn stops the city from being able to provide 50% of the feedstock.
You can read one of my previous blog posts to learn more about that situation by following this link

http://derby-waste-a-rubbish-blog.blogspot.co.uk/2016/01/derby-city-council-public-are-being.html

But what does it actually mean to us in the city? what it means is at the time the proposal was born the council - and so whoever was in charge sold the residents down the river by agreeing a joint contract that was in the County Councils favour and this continued up until the councils signed the full contracts - meaning that political parties of various colours in the city have played a part.
Someone in power somewhere was told city waste would spiral upwards and it would be good value for the city. At the same time the council was potentially in a better financial position than it is now but clearly potential changes in waste prediction or council finances were not considered carefully enough leading to the position we are now in.

SO WHAT ABOUT THE MONEY?

Derby is paying £25 million for a 25 year contract period at the start of the waste incineration plants operation which is a payment towards the plants construction. That's obviously £1 million per year for the processing of 95,000 tonnes of waste - 50% of the plants through put if you consider Derby is paying 50% of the build payment.
Based on 2014/15 data from DEFRA the city only collected 79,320 tonnes of residual waste leaving the city 15,680 tonnes short. At a rate of £10.53 (£1,000,000 divided by 95,000 tonnes) we as a city are paying £165,110.40 per year to much for the project - or £4,127,760 over the 25 year investment.

SO LETS GO BACK TO THE BEGINNING!

We need a new performance venue and we need a new swimming pool but the city has no money!

WELL WE COULD HAVE HAD £4.1 MILLION TO INVEST WITH BETTER PLANNING AND NEGOTIATIONS.

In an example of why we are in the mess that we are in in the city I attended the Derby City Council Full Council meeting on March 2nd 2016 to ask Cllr Asaf Afzal specific questions on the unfair share the city is paying. Even when the £4 million over payment was highlighted to Cllr Afzal he still considered that it was good value for the council - ignoring the fact that we share those claimed savings with Derbyshire County Council we are STILL over £4 million worse off.

WITH A COUNCIL WITH ITS HEAD IN THE SAND ON THE ISSUE THERE IS LITTLE WONDER WE ARE PAYING AN UNFAIR SHARE AND SO LITTLE WONDER WE HAVE NO MONEY FOR EVENTS VENUES AND SWIMMING POOLS!

©SIMON BACON 2016

Plastics fantastic - but always work to reduce and recycle it!

It was back in November 2015 I first engaged with Asaf Afzal - the cabinet member for waste at Derby City Council in relation to the recycling of plastic film material at the Raynesway Household Waste Recycling Centre. After all the media coverage of the carrier bag tax - the 5 pence charge for carrier bags at larger stores it got me thinking if such material can be recycled - and it can as other councils already accept such material at the kerbside or at bring sites then why is Derby not doing so?

It is now widely noted that the recycling rate in Derby has collapsed - much of it due to the garden waste scheme becoming a charged for service but then the cities rate has actually been falling for years since a high in 2010/11. More on that can be read about here

http://derby-waste-a-rubbish-blog.blogspot.co.uk/2015/12/recycling-going-dooooowwwnnn.html

This calls for an increase in the drive to recycle otherwise the council will fail to meet its 55% target by 2020 - a figure they already seem to be downgrading to 50% because they can see they wont make their enhanced target which it set with the County Council when coming together in a joint waste contract.

Now plastic film can be made from a number of plastic types but is commonly low density polyethylene commonly known as LDPE. This can be anything from a humble plastic carrier bag through to larger pieces of material such as what protects large white goods etc. It is important to recycle this material which replaces the use of new natural resources and also stops it from being landfilled or incinerated.

I therefore attended the Full Council meeting in Derby on November 25th 2015 to raise the issue of recycling such material in the city - which would boost the flagging recycling rate in Derby.

The question was as follows

 Question from Simon Bacon to Councillor Afzal 

The city council does not accept plastic film in the kerbside recycling scheme unlike some other councils in the UK. Plastic film needs to be recycled to keep it out of landfill or incineration.  
Can the public recycle plastic film types of plastic at the Raynesway HWRC site? 

The response was as follows

 

No, the public cannot recycle plastic film types at Raynesway The material is of very low value, is usually in small pieces and contaminated with food waste. This type of material can also lead to maintenance problems at the materials recovery facility (where materials are sorted and processed); the film becomes entangled in the belts and rollers leading to breakdowns on the processing lines.

The problem with Cllr Afzals reply was he was looking at the issue from a kerbside collection aspect instead of a dedicated plastic film skip at the Rayneway site sent to a dedicated plastic film recycler.

I followed up my question with a supplementary question placing greater focus on a dedicated skip sent to a dedicated plastic film recycler and he said he would look into it and speak to me outside the meeting.

 

THINGS WERE LOOKING POSITIVE!

OR SO I THOUGHT!

 

Giving it a few days I emailed Cllr Afzal in early December with views and information on the subject - including links to the recycling of such material at Suffolk HWRC sites. I got no response until late December when Cllr Afzal claimed he had not got my email. It was January 12th before he came back to me with a full response on the proposal.

He declined to put in place plastic film recycling at Raynesway and stated he had spoken to their contractors (the site is run under a contract with Resource Recovery Solutions Derbyshire Ltd who just happen to be building a controversial waste incineration plant in the city) and they had concluded that as it was low value and low in weight it was not viable to recycle the material and this issue was compounded by a suggested lack of space at the site.

It seems that Councillor Afzal and Derby City Council have lost sight of why we recycle! we do so to reuse materials to stop their disposal via landfill and incineration, to protect natural resources and to boost recycling figures - which are already in a dire position. 

In an interesting twist while reviewing the joint waste contract between the councils and Resource Recovery Solutions it was found that there was even a requirement to collect plastics separately INCLUDING plastic film at HWRC sites. Schedule 1 of the contract stated as follows.

 

Schedule 1 states

6.10.3 The Contractor shall provide capacity to segregate the following non exhaustive list of Contract Waste types for Re-Use, Recycling, Composting or Recovery:

 

6.10.3.10 Other plastic including film and carrier bags

 

So in black and white in the very contract that is controlling so much of the cities waste these days we have a requirement for the waste contractor to segregate plastic film and carrier bags.

What has been Councillor Afzals response when the waste contract was raised in relation to plastic film?

At this moment in time it is not viable to recycle this material. 

 

Once again an example of the council failing to grasp the need to recycle and so failing to reap the rewards of an increased recycling rate - which Derby is crying out for!

 





©SIMON BACON 2016

 





FOI - Freedom Of Information or Fear Of Informing the public

Freedom of information often known as FOI is currently a commonly used method of finding out aspects of your local councils business. We as council tax payers have a right to know what our taxes are being spent on.
It was with this in mind having noted recently that Derby City Council was facing charges from its recycler Biffa for contamination (which previously was not the case) that I set about requesting a copy of the contracts linked to the blue bin recycling scheme which I thought was a simple thing to do and expected few problems.
I asked for the following-

a copy of all current contracts relating to the blue bin material collected and its onward treatment - ie BIFFA etc.

The council had 20 working days to provide the requested information and I sat back and waited.
This is when the council started to play hard to get because on day 18 they decided they didn't know which contract I wanted and asked me to clarify this for them - I concluded this was a delaying tactic and so lodged a formal complaint - and clarified which contract I was interested in when responding to the councils FOI dept.
They then wheeled out another excuse to delay issuing what is only a contract linked to some recycling ! this time they said the following -
"In accordance with the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 - Regulation 7, Question 1 due to the volume and complexity of the request , we will need to extend the period to respond from 20 to 40 working days.  The revised deadline for our response is 21 October 2015."
So they had managed to stretch their response time to 40 days! what were they trying to hide!
Finally they gave their response - and it wasn't good news ! they partly declined to answer my requests siting commercial interests.
They said the following

"Your request has now been considered and part of the information you have requested in Question 1 is covered by an exemption under Freedom of Information.  We have attached part of the information however, in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act 2000 this part of the email acts as a part Refusal Notice.
The exemption applied is Section 43 – Commercial Interests  
We have applied this exemption because detailed costs cannot be disclosed as this would prejudice the commercial interests of both the Council and third parties.
Disclosure of this information would compromise future tenders and the cost of providing this service in the future could increase, as a result. Also, third parties could be commercially disadvantaged if their detailed pricing information was in the public domain.   
On balance we feel that the potential prejudice to the commercial interests of the Council and the other parties in disclosing this information outweighs the public interest in making it available in the public domain. It is therefore, not considered in the public interest to release this information because the cost of providing this service could increase in the future which could affect public services provided by the Council."

Now what struck me straight away was that this was a contract processing my rubbish using my money and I had a right to the facts. I already view the councils accounts so would know many of the facts they were looking to withhold.
So what did they do? well they issued a few documents relating to the processing of recyclables but then redacted large parts of the most recent correspondence between the council and Biffa - as shown below.

As you can see not only did they redact figures in the letter - which incidentally was relating to the contracts extension but also redacted whole paragraphs - so it wasn't possible to even work out what was being redacted.
These things are sent to try us but it is our right to know so there was only one thing to do - make an appeal to the council about the redaction.
If you make an FOI on a subject don't just accept the first result - they don't want to tell you their secrets so will try and fudge you with a redaction so set out why you should be issued a full copy of what you have asked for. In my case in the end I was successful when the Principal Information Governance Officer at Derby City Council found in my favour.
So what were they trying to hide? nothing more it would appear than the fact the more recycling that goes into the blue bin the less the council - and so us as residents pay via our taxes!
You would think this would be exactly what the council SHOULD be promoting to its residents - to inspire residents to recycle more but instead it hides the facts from the public by redacting aspects of the contract!
The unredacted letter appears below -

 

Why do the council fear telling the public the truth ! why do they fear FOI !

©SIMON BACON 2016

 

 

The £50 million claim of the council leader pre election !

In recent months in incineration circles the media story around the controversial Kings Lynn incinerator has been something of a main event ! Finally when push came to shove in that case the local council pulled out of the incinerator project with talk of a cost to the council of £30 million or so - the government are currently refusing to help out that local council.
Such a situation raises some serious questions in relation to how a council finds itself in a position where it can be trapped into a waste contract or plant procurement. When this happens it stops councils from being able to manage waste in the most sustainable way because they are locked into projects which last decades, cost millions and manage waste via inefficient forms of incineration.
Here in Derby UK we find that the suggested costs to leave a waste contract which we have between the city and county with Shanks Waste via Resource Recovery Solutions is claimed to be even higher ! In a recent media story the then leader of Derby City Council - Councillor Paul Bayliss made a claim that it would cost at least £50 million to tear up the waste contract. This was in response to members of TUSK who were standing for election in Derby.
The claims can be seen here in the Derby Telegraph article Derby Telegraph story referring to the waste project
Such claims by the then leader of Derby City Council could not go unchallenged because these were serious claims being made by the head of the city. Were these claims true ? was the leader using such scaremongering to impact on the local election result in the Sinfin and Osmaston ward - where the controversial incinerator is proposed ?
An email was sent to Councillor Bayliss on 15th May 2014

" Dear Councillor Bayliss,

In recent days you have made statements about costs of £50 million that the council face if they pulled out of the waste contract. Could you please provide the evidence to back up your claims. We ask as we consider it is important that as a council you are open and clear on this situation so that members of the public can fully understand your claims. If you are going to make a statement referring to for example the contract then please provide a copy for clarity.

I copy this to the Derby Telegraph who ran the story in relation to TUSK.

 Kind regards

Simon Bacon
Chairman
S.S.A.I.N"

It was a long wait for a reply and I had to poke Councillor Bayliss to get a response on 31st May
Mr Bayliss wasn't keen to confirm what evidence he had to back up his claims and tried to divert such questions to the new leader of the council.

" Hi
I received the e mail but I was busy with election business.
I stand my statement to cut & run from the contract & the Inter authority agreement would cost £50 million at least.
Please refer all your questions on this matter to the new Leader elect in the future.

Regards
Sent from Cllr Paul Bayliss, Alvaston ward"

 

I went back to Mr Bayliss after his reply

 

" Thanks for your reply,

I granted you time to reply noting it was election time.

I asked you to provide evidence of your claim - making such claims pre election could be seen as an attempt to impact on an election result - for this reason it is reasonable in my view to ask you for proof.

You made the claim - now back it up or we can only conclude you have no evidence which raises the question of if you made false statements while leader of Derby City Council.

 

Simon Bacon

Chairman

S.S.A.I.N"

 

Mr Bayliss responded again

 

"Simon

We are never going to resolve this one so I think it’s best if we agree to differ.

Regards

 

Cllr Paul Bayliss "

 

Mr Bayliss was being evasive - but then he is a politician ! I went back to him yet again !

"

That's OK Cllr Bayliss - we will go with - ex leader of Derby City Council refuses to prove his claims that to leave the controversial waste disposal contract would cost £50 million raising the question was such a claim put forward to influence voting in the Sinfin and Osmaston ward of Derby in the recent election.

Thanks

Simon Bacon"

 

Ever evasive Cllr Bayliss responded further

 

" Simon

This is a democracy, you don’t seem to like it when I disagree with you. The vote impact next time will be the same as it was a couple of weeks ago in my view.

So I wish you well.

Cllr Paul Bayliss "

 

It was important to highlight to Mr Bayliss that it wasn't acceptable to make claims without backing them up

 

" Cllr Bayliss,

What I dont like is a leader (now ex) making statements in the media that they then will not provide evidence to back up.

Regards

Simon Bacon"

 

Mr Bayliss responded with what is a pretty common brush off when a councillor doesn't want to talk about a situation

 

"Hello

Simon

As I have said you and I are just going to have to differ on this.

Thanks

Cllr Paul Bayliss "

 

I returned to Councillor Bayliss with the following

 

" Thanks Cllr Bayliss,

Its not about differing on something - its about being asked for proof of your claims and you not providing them - which raises the issue of were your claims factually correct when printed in the media.

Regards

Simon Bacon"

 

That was the last response from Councillor Paul Bayliss as I write this blog post. He has made strong claims in stories in the media about a waste project and potential costs but has consistently side stepped the core questions put to him - to prove his claims ! Did he make his claims to impact on the local election? do his claims stack up? has he proven his claims to the media before they were published?

Waste is a dirty business !

 

©SIMON BACON 2016