ITEM EX15 
Review report and action plans 

Service area under review	Waste Management	
Service budget	£10.1m  2001/2
	
Core review team membership	Review leader                       Patrick Coulter 
PPRU Officer                        Jackie Kimbrey            
Designated Member             CClr Sylvia Tompkins
Independent Member            Robin Buxton Northmoor Tst
Other Members                     Geoff Melotti CDC
                                              Kathy Wilcox OCC ES	
 BVR Specification	Proposed areas for the review to focus on
1.	Developing a seamless and consistent waste management service for Oxfordshire
2.	Reducing the quantity of waste disposed of to landfill to deliver the statutory targets on time
3.	Influencing public behaviour to achieve national and local objectives for managing waste
4.	Providing high quality waste recycling facilities which meet users’ needs and thereby encourage improved levels of recycling
5.	The effectiveness of waste management contract arrangements

WASTE MANAGEMENT BEST VALUE REVIEW

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1.0 The Best Value Review

1.1 The Best Value Review (“the review”) of the County Council waste management service commenced in March 2001. The attached report describes the review and sets out a 5 year plan for improving the service. Details of the evidence collected and conclusions drawn are set out in Part 2. 
There is a glossary of terms in Appendix A. Stakeholders have been closely involved in the review from the outset and support the measures set out in the Improvement Plan. The review does not deal with closed household waste landfills as an improvement plan for this area was prepared prior to the review.  

1.2 Five projects were undertaken each based on one element of the specification.
•	The projects are described in Part 2. These produced 5 key actions to deliver the specification and a series of tasks to deliver these actions. 
•	The actions and tasks form the Implementation Plan which is set out in part 3.
•	Supporting documents for the review, for example project reports, are available in the Members Resource Centre.

2.0 The waste management service

2.1 The service is for the management of approximately 300,000 tonnes per annum of household waste collected by the District Councils or delivered to Waste Recycling Centres and for the remediation of closed household waste landfills. The service is mostly outsourced, managed by a team of 8 staff (the Waste Management Group (WMG)) and delivered through contracts with waste management companies for the provision of services and facilities. The budget is £10.1m (2001/2). Close working with the District Councils is essential for efficient delivery of the service.

3.0 The challenges for the service

3.1 Current performance is good and improving and the service has made significant achievements in 2001/2. However the service faces new challenges which demand continuous improvement in performance. In particular there are three key challenges:
•	Delivering strategy targets - the new national waste strategy (Waste Strategy 2000) sets a major challenge for the service to meet very tough targets for recycling and composting and the diversion of waste from landfill. This will require a step change in waste management in Oxfordshire.
•	Financing the service – particularly the longer term funding of the service to provide the new facilities and systems for the strategy and to meet the County Council’s obligations arising from new environmental legislation – for example the remediation of closed household waste landfills.
•	Improving the service - the demands of stakeholders and customers for continual improvement of services.

4.0 Meeting the challenges

4.1 The review sets out measures to meet these challenges for example:
•	Immediate improvements in operational working between County/Districts
•	Developing options by June 2002 for longer term integration of the service 
•	Joint bids for external funding
•	Modifying the joint household waste strategy to provide more waste treatment facilities beyond 2010 and developing a funding plan for the strategy
•	Carrying out a joint campaign to raise public awareness on waste issues
•	Improving the Waste Recycling Centres by increasing levels of recycling and composting, rationalising opening hours, increasing security, refurbishment
•	Attaching Best Value protocols to existing waste management contracts to achieve improved and cost effective services for District Councils and the public – for example reduced delays to site users.
. 
Table 4 Part 1 shows how the tasks contribute to meeting the three key challenges for the service.

5.0 The Cost

5.1 The cost of the more immediate service improvements (set out in Part 3) will be met through efficiency savings, external funding and current budget provision so there will be no additional costs to the current budget. It is likely that the cost of the service will double in 20 years to pay for the new waste management facilities to meet the strategy targets, the remediation of closed landfills and obligations arising from new environmental legislation.  A funding plan for the strategy will be prepared. 

5.2 There are increasing opportunities to bid for external funding for waste management projects. WMG has obtained £1m additional funding for the service from external sources in 2001/2 and will continue to give the highest priority to the attraction of external funding for the service.
 
6.0 Conclusion

6.1 The review provides the basis for achieving the changes required to meet the new challenges for the service in the short/medium term. However the arrangements for the long term funding of the service are uncertain and must be kept under continual review, in the first instance by the Service Manager.
WASTE MANAGEMENT BEST VALUE REVIEW

PART 1 – REPORT OF REVIEW

1.0  The Waste Management Service

1.1 The County Council Waste Management Service (“the service”) is responsible for the management of 300,000 tonnes of household waste per annum including household, hazardous and clinical waste. This is achieved through contracts for the operation of 4 landfill sites, 8 Waste Recycling Centres (WRCs), composting, disposal of hazardous and clinical waste and transport of waste from WRCs to landfill sites. The service is also responsible for the monitoring and remediation of 40 closed household waste landfill sites. There are 8 staff (the Waste Management Group (WMG)) and the current budget is £10.1m. The WMG works closely with the private and voluntary sector through externally funded projects, for example a project to develop Community Action Groups to implement local waste reduction schemes.

1.2  For waste management the County and District Councils work closely together at both officer and member levels. There is a joint officer liaison group – Oxfordshire Waste Management Liaison Group (OWMLG) and a joint officer/member sub committee – Waste Management Joint Advisory Sub Committee (WMJASC). Recent achievements in joint working include
•	Agreeing a joint Memorandum of Understanding on waste management 
•	Developing a joint household waste management strategy 

1.3 Delivery of the strategy will require further improvements in joint working arrangements. The short term strategy targets can be delivered through close working within the present two tier structure. However delivery of the longer term more onerous targets may require levels of integration beyond the capacity of the present structures. This was recognised during the early stages of the review and the WMJASC agreed that officers would prepare options for improving joint working at both operational and structural levels. The review sets out:
•	Measures for improving operational joint working (Action 1)
•	A process for identifying the options for more integrated management of the service. (Action 1) - this involves setting up an officer/member task group to investigate the issues and prepare options for the  Sub Committee to consider. A task group has now been set up and has agreed a programme for reporting on the options by June 2002. 

1.4 Strategic Priority 8 in the Oxfordshire Plan 2001-6 is concerned with ‘Enhancing and Improving the Environment’.  In contributing to this objective, the Waste Management Group aims to ‘Promote waste minimisation, reuse and recycling and ensure that waste management respects the long-term interests of the environment.’ It is within this context that the review was carried out.

1.5 More recently, the new Executive Committee has agreed five Strategic Goals for the County Council for the period 2002-7.  Strategic Goal 2 focuses on ‘Protecting our Environment’ with waste reduction and recycling as a priority area. 

1.6 In addition, the authority is preparing a Public Service Agreement (PSA) for submission to Government in May 2002.  Waste Management is expected to contribute to one of the national targets in the PSA. If bidding is successful and performance targets are achieved this process may generate additional new funding to support new initiatives.

1.7 The County Council’s policy for equal opportunities and for e-government have informed the review, in particular projects 3 (information) and 4 (WRCs).

1.8 The service must also change and improve continually in response to new legislation and national policy. For example new regulations require remediation of closed landfills and there is a new national waste strategy (Waste Strategy 2000) which sets tough targets for recycling and composting household waste. Service achievements in 2001/2 include:
•	Agreement of a joint household waste management strategy 
•	33% recycling at WRCs  (from 15% 1997 –  Table 1 below)
•	90% user satisfaction at WRCs 
•	Diversion of 1200t extra waste from landfill by home composting
•	Obtaining £1m additional funding from external sources for the service
•	Setting up an Oxfordshire forum on fly tipping

1.9 Performance indicators for the service are set out in Table 1 below. These
show that since 1997:
•	Recycling and composting at WRCs has doubled 
•	Household waste disposed of to landfill has fallen at an increasing rate
•	**Cost of disposal net of landfill tax and inflation has remained level since 1999/2000.

Table 1.  Performance Indicators 1997 - 2001
BVPI 	Indicator	97/8	98/9	99/00	2000/1	2001/2+	
82a	% household waste recycled	8.5	8.9	9.6	11.1	13.4	
82b	% household waste composted	1.6	1.4	1.6	2.7	2.6	
82d	% household waste landfilled	90.0	89.7	88.8	86.2	84.0	
84	 kg household waste per head	451	446	463	460	466	
87	Cost of disposal per tonne	£25.2	£25.5	£31.8	£31.6	£33.4	
	**Net cost of disposal	£18.5	£18.3	£21.2	£19.7	£20.3	
OX1*	% waste recycled 
/composted WRCs	15.1	16.0	17.6	25.8	32.8	
OX2*	% waste composted at WRCs	6.9	 6.5	7.2	13.4	12.3	
*  local indicator  + projected to the end of 2001/2
1.10 The service performance in 2000/1 is compared with other local authorities’ performance in table 2 below. Calculations are based on the current definition of the Indicators. This shows that in 2000/1:

•	Recycling levels were in the top quartile 
•	Composting levels were well below average 
•	Household waste production per capita was very low (it was second lowest in England, lowest was 458) 
•	Disposal costs per tonne were slightly above average

Table 2.  Comparison with National Performance Indicators  2000/1
Ref	Indicator	OCC	average	75th	25th	
BVPI82a	% household waste recycled	11.1	9.1	10.8	6.9	
BVPI82b	% household waste composted	2.7	4.4	5.6	2.6	
BVPI82d	% household waste landfilled	86.2	84.6	88.8	80.0	
BVPI84	Kg household waste per head	460	522	541	502	
BVPI87	Cost of disposal £/tonne	31.9	31.1	33.7	27.2	
BVPI90c	% satisfaction WRCs	74.0	75.3	77.2	71.7	

1.11 In summary service performance has improved steadily over the past 5 years and compares favourably with the performance of other local authorities, with the exception of levels of composting and disposal costs. These areas are addressed in the Implementation Plan, in particular
•	Composting levels will be increased through delivering the strategy targets (action 2) and raising the operators recycling performance at WRCs (action 4)
•	Disposal costs will be managed through improved contract performance (action 5)
2.0  The Waste Management Best Value Review Process

2.1 The review team set out to identify step-change improvements for the Oxfordshire Waste Management service, taking account of advice and information from a number of different sources, including: 
•	Stakeholders: County and District Members and Officers, contractors, general public (users of WRCs, Citizens’ Panel, mystery shoppers), external expertise (consultants and independent team member), the Environment Agency.
•	The baseline questionnaire  
•	DETR Waste Strategy Guidance (Best Value and Waste Management)
•	Recent service reviews (Zero-based review on Waste Disposal 1997/98;  progress against 2000/01 service plan)

2.2 The specification for the review emerged following a Stakeholder Forum attended by representatives of all stakeholder groups.  Individuals were invited to challenge the way the service operates and to give their views on the current strengths and weaknesses of the service. The feedback from the Forum was used by the review team  to help prioritise the key issues facing the service.  Five main areas for improvement were identified for further research and these formed the review specification.   

2.3 The specification covered all the key areas of the service with the exception of closed household waste landfill sites. DEFRA has agreed that the County Council is one of the leading authorities in investigating and planning for the remediation of closed landfills. There is a policy and outline implementation plan for the remediation of closed landfills agreed in December 2000. The primary issue at present is how to fund the remediation works. The County Council is in discussion with DEFRA about funding a long-term remediation programme. The review team considered that while improvements could be made to this area of the service it was not a priority area for the review as it was unlikely to deliver a significant early improvement in service.

3.0 Consultation 

3.1 Two formal consultation exercises were carried out during the review:
•	Survey of customers at Waste Recycling Centres
•	Citizens’ Panel questionnaire 
The results from these exercises are provided in part 2.

3.2 Additional supporting information was obtained through:
•	A mystery shopping exercise using volunteers recruited from across the Council
•	Structured observations at Waste Recycling Centres (‘reality checks’) carried out during informal visits to the sites
The results from these exercises are provided in Appendix B and Appendix C.

3.3 The results from the WRC survey were fed back to the public through the local press and radio.  Citizen’s Panel members are provided with a rolling programme of updates on the outcome of their responses via a newsletter and copies of the formal report if requested.  Information obtained from the mystery shopping exercise and reality checks will be used to develop improvements to the Waste Recycling Centres as part of implementing Action 4. Participants will receive personal feedback on the outcomes of the exercise and generic feedback will be communicated to employees via the County Council newsletter.  

3.4 The detailed outcome of individual projects has been fed back to the District Councils, Joint Waste Management Advisory Sub Committee members (WMJASC), Contractors, and the Environment Agency through reports and seminars. The Stakeholder Forum will be reconvened in January 2002 to feedback the outcomes of the review to members of the Forum.

4.0  Implementation Plan

4.1 The Implementation Plan is set out in Part 2. Each area of the specification has been developed through a project into an action. The actions form the basis of the implementation plan and are developed through a series of tasks. Table 3 summarises the Implementation Plan Actions and shows how they relate to the Specification and Projects. Examples of some of the potential benefits are included.

Table 3 Summary of Implementation Plan Actions and Benefits
Specification Area	Project 	Implementation Plan Action	Examples of Potential Benefits	
1. Developing a seamless and consistent waste management service for Oxfordshire	1. Improved joint working between local authorities	1. Improve the joint working arrangements between County and District Councils for the management of household waste both (a) the long term integration of the County and District Council waste management services and (b) present operational arrangements for managing household waste, trade waste, hazardous waste, fly tipped waste.	pooled budgets for waste management CC/DC; shared staff CC/DC; harmonised standards for waste collection, recycling and disposal; single point of contact for the public, joint use of CC/DC facilities 	
2. Reducing the quantity of waste disposed of to landfill to deliver the statutory targets on time	2. To ensure that the joint household waste management strategy will deliver the strategy targets on time	2..  Prepare a detailed implementation plan setting out:
•	a programme to provide the facilities required to deliver the landfill directive targets
•	measures to achieve the necessary recycling performance levels 
•	arrangements for funding the plan.	confidence that the targets will be delivered on time avoiding financial costs of non delivery; 
plans for funding the strategy	
3. Influencing public behaviour to achieve national and local objectives for managing waste	3. Education and information on waste management	3.  Raise public awareness of waste management issues through a county wide joint local authority campaign with a clear theme and provide a continuing stream of information on waste management to Oxfordshire households using branded messages and linked to the public awareness campaign.	reduction of household waste through changed public attitudes; improved participation in recycling schemes; better separation of wastes by  residents	
4. Providing high quality waste recycling facilities which meet users’ needs and thereby encourage improved levels of recycling	4. Improving the Waste Recycling Centres	4. Raise the operators’ recycling performance to the level of the higher performing WRCs and improve the service available at Waste Recycling Centres.	higher levels of recycling at WRCs (60% by 2003); improved site layouts; reduced delay for users; cost savings through control of traders 	
5.	The effective-
ness of waste management contracts	5. Effectiveness of contract arrangements	5. Contract improvement plans for each waste management contract	Achievement of strategy targets at contract waste management facilities; county wide standards for users of contract facilities	

4.2  When implemented the Implementation Plan will deliver:
•	A more cost effective service through (a) more integrated working between the County and District Councils and (b) improved working with the County Council’s contractors
•	A joint household waste management strategy which all parties are confident will produce results
•	Improved waste reduction through greater public understanding of how to reduce and manage their wastes
•	A network of quality Waste Recycling Centres with very high levels of recovery of materials and much less waste for disposal to landfill

4.3 The actions arising from the Implementation Plan will be included in the Departmental Service Plan and will form an integral part of the WMG team work plan and budget.

4.4 Table 4 shows how the Implementation Plan programme will contribute to meeting the three key challenges facing the service. The tasks are referenced to the Implementation Plan Actions (Part 3). In some cases the tasks will contribute to meeting more that one challenge – for example, 4.6 Establishing a Waste Exchange Centre, will also provide an improved service. The review period is 5 years. While the programme outputs will be delivered in the first half of the review period they will generate further tasks to be carried out in the second half. 

Table 4 How Implementation Plan will contribute to meeting challenges

Challenge :      Deliver Waste Strategy Targets
	
Ref	Implementation Plan Task	Delivery	
1.1	Officer/member task group prepares options for improving joint working	6/2002	
1.3	Develop shared database for joint performance	12/2002	
2.1	Agree household waste collection strategy with District Councils 	7/2002	
2.3	Prepare a robust strategy implementation plan which will deliver the long term landfill diversion targets	3/2003	
3.1	Carry out a baseline awareness survey	3/2003	
3.2	Carry out an awareness campaign linking current projects	9/2003	
3.3	Develop 10 community waste action groups	6/2003	
3.5	Recruit a sustainability co-ordinator to advise schools 	1/2002	
3.6	Provide a practical recycling pack to all householders	6/2003	
4.1	Implement action plans with contractors to achieve 60% recycling at all WRCs by 2005/6	4/2002	
4.6	Establish a waste exchange centre for bulky collected items and WRC materials	6/2004	

Challenge:       Funding the service
	
1.4	Investigate and access new funding opportunities	1/2002 ongoing	
1.5	Top slice Recycling Credit allocations for jointly funded projects	7/2002	
1.6	Audit trade waste management system	5/2002	
2.2	Develop a robust funding plan to finance the strategy	9/2003	
2.4	Submit funding bids for market development programme	6/2002	
3.4	Submit funding bids for awareness projects		9/2002 ongoing	
4.3	Improve supervision at WRCs to reduce trade waste input	6/2002	
5.4	Review excess mileage agency agreement OCC/OxC	4/2002	

Challenge:     Improving the service
	
1.2	Establish officers’ operational working group	12/2001	
1.7	Implement improved arrangements for management of hazardous household waste	12/2002	
1.8	Set up joint forum on fly tipping and produce action plan	4/2002	
3.7	Develop a joint Oxfordshire local authorities website and hotline	12/2002	
3.8	Develop a joint Oxfordshire waste newsletter	3/2003	
4.2	Harmonise and extend opening hours at WRCs	12/2002	
4.4	Increase the range of materials recycled at WRCs	7/2002	
4.5	Implement a rolling improvement programme for WRCs	10/2001 	
5.1	Implement contract improvement plan for each contract	7/2003	
5.2	Implement independent audits for all contract sites	1/2003	
5.3 	Implement generic agency agreements for abandoned vehicles	4/2002	

                  5.0  Financial Implications

5.1 There are several areas of the service which will require funding beyond the scope of the current waste management budget:
o	The joint strategy - the cost (excluding inflation) of collecting, processing and disposing of household waste in accordance with the strategy will increase from 2002/3 by approximately 40% by 2010 and 80% by 2020 (Project Report P2: Diversion from Landfill).
o	Closed household waste landfills - the cost of remediation of closed household waste landfills is estimated to be approximately £20m. 
o	New legislation/regulations - for example meeting the County Council’s obligations under the Ozone Depleting Substances Regulation for recycling waste fridges will cost approximately £0.5m per annum from January 2002.

5.2 The cost of the Implementation Plan is based only on the tasks identified in the plan and does not include the cost of any other improvements. Preparing a funding plan for the strategy is included as a task in action 2. A funding plan for the remediation of closed household waste landfills is in preparation outside the remit of the review. Meeting the cost of specific new legislation/regulations is included as a budget pressure when the County Council’s Medium Term Financial Plan is prepared. 

5.3 The County Council has made additional provision in the 2002/3 waste management budget for:
o	Delivery of the strategy targets (£340k)
o	Waste reduction projects (£50k)
o	Demographic growth – in full
o	Increased landfill tax – in full
o	Contract inflation.- in full

5.4 The costs of each task of the Implementation Plan is shown in Part 3. Table 5 summarises the financial implications of the review. Staff resources will be met from within current WMG staff resources, the implementation plans will form part of the WMG team workplan. 

Table 5:  Summary of financial implications of the best value review
Costs	2002/3 £/k	2003/4 £/k	Funding	2002/3 £/k	2003/4 £/k	
Improvements    - 
Measures to improve the service and to meet the key challenges for the service	368	285	efficiency savings  -
external funding    -
provision within    -existing budget 	145
90 
133	145
50
90	
Total	368	285		368	285	
5.5 Measures to improve the service and to meet the key challenges for the service are set out in table 4 above. Set against the cost of these measures are:

•	Efficiency savings of 1.5% mainly through reduction in trade waste currently declared as household waste. In the context of rising long term costs of the service these will be reinvested to make the improvements in the service identified in the review.

•	External funding from Landfill Tax Credit and other schemes, and,  subject to agreement, the District Councils’ contribution from top slicing  Recycling Credits.

5.6 The actual cost to the waste management budget will be £133k in 2002/3 and £90k in 2003/4. Provision has been made within the budget to cover these costs in full. 

5.7 There are an increasing number of options available for obtaining external funding for waste management projects including the Landfill Tax Credit scheme, national recycling support scheme (£140m), Public Service Agreements. The WMG will work with District Councils to submit joint bids for external funding and will make the attraction of external funding for the service one of their highest priorities. This may include the appointment of a specialist consultant to assist in the preparation of funding bids. 

WASTE MANAGEMENT BEST VALUE REVIEW 
PART 2 – DESCRIPTION OF PROJECTS

Project 1: Improved joint working between local authorities

(delivering review specification area 1: Developing a seamless and consistent waste management service for Oxfordshire)

Summary of work undertaken and evidence gathered

The project aimed to identify and address improvements in three key areas: 

a)	Current Service, including the Waste Recycling Centres, disposal facilities, educational and promotional activities and abandoned vehicles.
b)	Relationships between the County Council and the District Councils on operational waste management issues.
c)	Partnership working, covering the main issues or barriers that will need to be overcome to achieve better working among the local authorities in the future.

Table 1: Summary of work undertaken and evidence gathered 
Activity	Process 	
Data collection:
Identification of areas for improvement	a)	Structured interviews with District Councils (Waste Collection Authorities) and the County Council (Waste Disposal Authority) using consultancy expertise (Enviros Aspinwall)
b)	Consultation (seminar and meetings) with Stakeholders: officers and members from the County and District Councils, waste management contractors, the Environment Agency, environmental groups 
c)	Comparison of others’ approach to integrated working, involving meetings with other County Councils (Cambridgeshire, Devon)	
Data analysis: 
Prioritisation of areas for improvement	d)	Report summarising findings from interviews with Districts
e)	Stakeholder meetings with Districts and Contractors to review findings, prioritise issues and identify any gaps
f)	Member involvement: meetings with Waste Management Joint Advisory Sub Committee 	

Examples of evidence gathered

Project Report P1 Integrated Service sets out the findings from the structured interviews.  Specific examples of the issues identified are as follows:

Current Service
•	District Councils: more information is required on the needs/preferences of service users; WRCs should recycle a greater range of materials with more segregation of green waste; the number and location of WRCs should be reviewed
•	Abandoned vehicles: main issue is increasing numbers of vehicle due to the decline in the market value of scrap metal; a Countywide arrangement for disposal of vehicles by the District Councils as agents for the County Council is required.
•	Education and promotional activities: the service should be branded; web-sites should be improved and better information provided for members of the public on recycling and disposal facilities, educational facilities should be provided at WRCs.

Relationships between the County Council and the District Councils
•	Operational matters: there is currently no joint forum for discussing and resolving operational issues; operational policy – for example on the management of hazardous household waste – should be clarified.
•	Finance and agency agreements: an audit system for trade waste collected by the District Councils is required.
•	Exchange of data and information: there is a lack of sound data for forward-planning purposes; there should be a consistent approach to data collection, more feedback is required from users of the household hazardous waste service; data collection and monitoring should be linked to performance indicators.
•	Waste strategy development:  strategy development work is not jointly funded at present
•	Joined-up government: the public do not understand the separate provision of elements of the service by the County and District Councils, improved integration between the County and District Councils will lead to an improved service.  

Partnership working
•	Future working: at present there are no models available for the integration of waste management services in a two tier system, further research is required to develop options for improved integration.
•	Barriers and issues of concern: these include how to work in partnership with contractors, the future funding of the service and the implications for the service of local authority modernisation.

Conclusions reached

Current Service
Overall, the current waste disposal service was considered to be reliable and the sites did not give rise to environmental problems.  The Waste Recycling Centres (WRCs) are considered to be user-friendly, are generally well laid out and provide a good range of facilities. The number and location of WRCs will be reviewed during the development of the strategy. The District Councils receive very few complaints about the WRCs.  Examples were given of successful joint education and promotional campaigns.

Although a joint working group on Abandoned Vehicles has been established, further work is required to resolve a number of issues identified by the District Councils and to set up improved agency agreements. Clarification on policies for the disposal of hazardous waste and difficult-to-handle items (for example asbestos and tyres) is also required. Co-ordination of education programmes and promotional activities should be improved.       

Relationship between the County Council and the District Councils
The District Councils considered that the County Council responds quickly on operational matters. With the exception of trade waste audits, the District Councils raised no major issues about finance or agency agreements. All the District Councils commented that the system for payment of recycling credits has greatly improved.

Communication and sharing of information between the County and District Councils and their waste management contractors should be further improved. This would ensure effective resolution of operational issues. Provision of annual forecasts of recycling tonnages by the District Councils would assist forward planning and budgeting for the County Council.  

Partnership working
Overall, the process for the development of the joint household waste management strategy is working well. Waste management officers worked closely with planning officers to link the processes for the strategy development and the review of the Minerals and Waste Local Plan. The process has been involved elected members and Chief Executives and kept them aware of the issues.  

There is support for a more co-ordinated approach to promoting waste management services and issues, and for the adoption of an Oxfordshire-wide brand for campaigns and promotions.

Areas/options for improvement identified

Improve the joint working arrangements between County and District Councils for the management of household waste both (a) the long term integration of the County and District Council waste management services and (b) present operational arrangements for managing household waste, trade waste, hazardous wastes, and fly tipped waste.

Review Project 2: To ensure that the joint waste management strategy will deliver the strategy targets on time

(delivering Review Specification Area 2: Reducing the proportion of waste disposed of to landfill to deliver the statutory targets on time)

Summary of work undertaken 

•	Under the joint household waste management strategy the local authorities have agreed to deliver the strategy targets for 2003/4 and 2005/6 through improved levels of recycling and composting from kerbside collections and at Waste Recycling Centres. They have also agreed to prepare plans to deliver the targets from 2010. The strategy is in outline only at present and must be developed into a detailed implementation plan. The strategy recognises two options for delivering the targets:
•	Option 1 - achieving the targets up to 2020 through very high levels of recycling and composting without relying on other technologies such as waste to energy 
•	Option 2 - recycling and composting up to 2010 supplemented by processing technologies, such as waste to energy, from 2010 to 2020. 

The project assessed the two options for their ability to deliver the strategy targets, the capacity of the facilities which would be required and the costs involved. The intention is to develop the most successful option into implementation plan for the strategy. The implementation plan must be a robust plan as
•	Failure to deliver the targets will incur significant financial penalties
•	Waste management facilities to deliver the targets must be provided in advance

Examples of evidence obtained 

Detailed evidence is set out in the project report P2: Diversion from Landfill. 
The evidence is that both plans would:
•	Achieve all the recycling and composting targets
•	Deliver the joint household waste management strategy key policies
•	Require further waste processing facilities to deliver the post 2010 landfill
directive targets, this is particularly the case with plan 1
•	Require that recycling performance of County and District Councils is improved to the current level of the highest performing local authorities in England – a considerable challenge
•	Double total waste management costs in real terms in 20 years
Evidence obtained from project 1 suggests that the strategy development process has been very good so far. Implementation of the strategy will require continuing commitment to maintaining and further improving joint working arrangements, for example  through pooling resources to enable joint funding of projects. 

Conclusions reached

A twin-track approach to the strategy is required which combines options 1 and 2. The strategy will be based on maximising recycling and composting and monitoring very carefully progress towards achievement of the targets. In parallel with this approach plans will be prepared for the provision of additional waste processing facilities which can be implemented if it appears that the recycling and composting schemes will not deliver the targets. In preparing the strategy implementation plan urgent consideration must be given to:
•	How to deliver the landfill directive targets post 2010 – what type and capacity of  new waste processing facilities will be required? 
•	How County and District Councils’ performance can be improved sufficiently to guarantee the achievement of the recycling and composting targets
•	How the strategy will be funded, particularly in the longer term

Implementation of the strategy will require improved joint working (described in Project 1).

Areas/options for improvement identified

prepare a detailed implementation plan setting out:
•	A programme to provide the facilities required to deliver the landfill directive targets
•	Measures to achieve the necessary recycling performance levels 
•	Arrangement for funding the plan

Review Project 3: Education and information on waste management

(delivering Review Specification Area 3: Influencing public behaviour to achieve national and local objectives for managing waste)

Introduction

The project seeks to achieve greater public participation in waste reduction and recycling schemes through a two-stage process. The first stage is to raise the level of awareness of waste management issues in general to motivate people to act. The second stage is to provide a channel for that action by providing information to the public on how to act – for example on how to use waste recycling facilities. The outcome will be a chain of education that will support the delivery of the targets for managing household waste in Oxfordshire.

Summary of work undertaken and evidence gathered

Activity	Process	
data collection	literature review, stakeholder consultation, meetings with other County Councils and Stockport MBC	
data analysis	identify areas for improvement	
prioritisation of areas for improvement	stakeholder meetings and seminars to review findings prioritise and identify further areas for improvement,
meetings with Waste Management Joint Advisory Sub Committee.	
prepare improvement measures	design programme for action	

Examples of evidence obtained

Evidence obtained is set out in Project Report P3 – Education and Information. Some examples are set out below. 
•	Many County Councils take a more proactive approach than Oxfordshire does to the provision of education and information – for example Project Integra (Hampshire) operate a war on waste campaign providing a continuous and co-ordinated stream of information about waste issues, local authorities in East Anglia operate a joint waste awareness campaign
•	The County and District Councils are working together on joint campaigns, however many initiatives are not sufficiently joined up so the impact is reduced, there is scope for branding information and using common countywide themes to increase the impact
•	Good practice is not shared sufficiently between local authorities – for example two local authorities have email advice services 
•	Web sites should be upgraded and provide more information in accordance with the County Council’ policy for e-government - there are good examples of interactive websites in other County Councils – for example Essex
•	There are no educational facilities at waste management sites to inform site users and the general public about waste issues

Conclusions reached

•	Need to provide more and better information to the public on waste issues, following the example of the higher performing local authorities
•	Most impact is obtained when local authorities work together to common themes and with a common brand
•	Initiatives for the provision of information and education sometimes lack clear objectives and co-ordination between the County and District Councils 

Areas/options for improvement identified

•	Raise public awareness of waste management issues through a county wide joint local authority campaign with a clear theme and provide a continuing stream of information on waste management to Oxfordshire households using branded messages

Review Project 4:  Improving the Waste Recycling Centres

(delivering Review Specification Area 4: Providing high quality waste recycling facilities which meet users’ needs and encourage improved levels of recycling)

Summary of work undertaken

Activity	process	
data collection	consultant report on WRCs performance, stakeholder consultation, meetings with other County Councils,
survey of site users, Citizens Panel questionnaire survey, seminar for contractors’ site staff, seminar with DCs to review CC/DC service interface	
data analysis	identify areas for improvement	
Prioritisation of areas for improvement	stakeholder meetings and seminars to review findings and prioritise and identify further areas for improvement,
meetings with Waste Management Joint Advisory Sub Committee.	
Prepare Improvement Plan	design a programme for action	

Examples of evidence obtained

A report on the performance of the WRCs was prepared by Enviros (Review of Waste Recycling Centres December 2000). The report benchmarked performance in recycling and composting  achieved at the WRCs as a basis for making the improvements necessary to deliver the strategy targets. 

The report showed considerable variations in the level of recycling achieved at different sites – the difference between recycling levels achieved at the highest and lowest performing sites was 30%. The report suggested options for improving performance including improved site layouts, notice boards providing feedback to the public on performance, additional staff to assist the public, provision of special boxes to regular users to carry their materials to the site.

Meetings with other County Councils suggested improved site layouts and extended opening hours at weekends from April to October.

A user survey of 1100 site users showed high levels of satisfaction with the overall service (90%). Of the 10% dissatisfied 40% considered staff unhelpful. 6% of users wanted increased facilities for plastic and other materials. 80% of users were unaware of who was the contractor for the site.

The results obtained from the Citizens’ Panel questionnaire exercise were received too late to influence the best value review itself. They do provide important feedback on the service which will inform the implementation of the review. The questionnaire results show that for respondents:
•	87% were very satisfied or fairly satisfied with the collection/disposal services
•	62% were very satisfied or fairly satisfied with the recycling services
•	The most important elements of the service are household waste collection and the Waste Recycling Centres
•	The majority recycle paper (90%) and glass (82%)
•	Less than half currently recycle cardboard (46%) and plastic containers (33%)
•	The preferred means for obtaining information about the service is by directly delivered leaflets (43%)

Contractors’ site staff suggested improved security on site would limit illegal use of the site by traders and to improve compliance with site rules.

The District Councils confirmed they received few complaints from residents living near the sites about environmental nuisance. The District Councils suggested provision of better information about location and opening times of sites and the use of sites for discharge of street cleansing vehicles. They also suggested that the number and location of WRCs be reviewed. 

The WMJASC suggested that site layouts be improved to reduce delays to users and that facilities for sale or exchange of recovered materials on site be developed.  

Conclusions reached

Measures are required to bring recycling performance at all sites to the level of the highest performing site (refer to Project P2). The highest performing sites currently achieve recycling levels within the top quartile

WRCs achieve high levels of user satisfaction but areas for improvement were identified, in particular site staff support for users including elderly or disabled users (in accordance with the County Council’s policy for equal opportunities), facilities for recycling a greater range of materials, security on site, provision of better information (refer to Project P3), access to sites and sale/exchange of materials on site.

The numbers and location of the WRCs will be reviewed during the development of the strategy, in particular the provision for the Oxford City area. 

Areas/options for improvement identified 

Raise the operators’ recycling performance to the level of the higher performing WRCs and improve the service available at Waste Recycling Centres.

Review Project 5: Effectiveness of contract arrangements

(delivering Review Specification Area 5: The effectiveness of waste management contract arrangements.)

Summary of work undertaken
Activity	process	
Data collection	review of current UK practice based on Enviros experience and literature search, meetings with other County Councils, review of existing CC contracts and agency agreements, consulted Oxford City Council officers on excess mileage payment arrangements, reviewed other County Councils’ arrangements for excess mileage payments 	
Data analysis	identified areas of best practice and existing contract limitations, identified options for excess mileage payments	
Design improvements	developed a generic best value protocol to attach to existing contracts, reviewed options for excess mileage payments with Oxford City Council officers	
Review improvements	reviewed protocol at seminar with all OCC waste management contractors and with individual contractors, consulted DCs and WMJASC at seminars 	
Prepare Improvement Plan	designed a programme for action	

Examples of evidence obtained

Detailed evidence is set out in the Project Report P5: Improved Contracts. 

The 4 County Council landfill contracts (which include those Waste Recycling Centres 
located on current landfills) extend to 2006, 2009, 2010, 2030 (estimated). The remaining Waste Recycling Centre contracts extend to 2005. Only the most recently awarded contract (Southern Oxfordshire – commenced in October 2001)  makes specific provision for best value. There are legal and financial constraints on amending existing contracts to include best value principles. The project seeks to include best value in existing contracts through the attachment of a protocol which sets out measures for improving performance through a partnership approach between the County Council and its contractors. 

There is no standard set of contract conditions for waste management services although the industry has developed reasonably standard contract conditions over time. Best Value conditions are now being included in Partnering contracts and new waste management contracts and these provide a basis for a protocol. 

The protocol is based on a Contract Improvement Plan setting out how flexibility will be built into service delivery and specifying service standards. This will be subject to annual performance reviews leading to an Annual Improvement Plan setting out proposals for improvement and informed by the County Council’s Best Value Performance Plan and customer satisfaction surveys. Achievement of service standards will be monitored through performance indicators – for example delays to site users, non-compliance with Waste Licence conditions.

Conclusions reached

•	The improvement of contracts will be achieved by negotiation with individual contractors based on an agreed generic best value protocol. 
•	The agency agreement between the County Council and Oxford City Council for payment for excess mileage must be clarified and updated and kept under review
•	A generic agency agreement must be implemented for disposal of abandoned vehicles

Areas/options for improvement identified 

Amend existing waste management contracts and agency agreements to reflect Best Value principles

WASTE MANAGEMENT BEST VALUE REVIEW

PART 3 – IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

Action 1	Improve the joint working arrangements between County and District Councils for the management of household waste both (a) the long term integration of the County and District Council waste management services and (b) present operational arrangements 
 
Description	Develop options for greater integration of County and District waste management services and improvements in the present arrangements for joint working on operational matters
 
Objective 	Improved performance through joint working

Proposed service improvement targets
•	Agreement by local authorities on long term option for joint working by September 2002.
•	Joint cost savings (for reinvestment in the service) of £100k pa by April 2003
•	£1m extra external funding for joint service by April 2003
•	5 new projects funded from WRC credits by June 2003
•	Full recovery of OCC costs for management of trade/commercial waste collected, as municipal waste or received at WRCs by April 2003.
•	Public access to hazardous household waste facilities/arrangements within 24 hours by April 2003
•	20% reduction in fly tipping in Oxfordshire by December 2003

Issues to consider – areas that will be affected by implementation
•	Political implications of a more integrated service
•	Impact on staff roles and responsibilities
•	District Councils must be fully involved at all stages of implementation.
•	District Councils require time to change trade waste collection systems
•	Approval of Environment Agency required for hazardous waste
facilities
•	Stakeholder action required to deliver reductions in fly tipping

Note:   Costs of Implementation Plan tasks are categorised as follows:
•	Budget – to be met from within existing WMG budget
•	Investment – to be met from within WMG budget and which produces a direct 
saving
•	Joint – to be shared with District Councils by top slicing Recycling Credit payments or through other measures 
•	External – to be funded from external funding, Landfill Tax Credits/other
•	Per annum - recurring annual cost
•	Staff resources will be provided from within  WMG, the implementation plans will be part of the team work plan.

IMPLEMENTATION PLAN TO ACHIEVE IMPROVEMENT TARGETS

Implementation plan manager:   Head of Waste Management (HWM)

Ref	Task	Costs	Responsibility	Timescale	
1.1	Officer/member task group prepares options for improved joint working	Nil	HWM	June 2002	
1.2	Establish officers’ operations working group	Nil	OWMLG *	Dec 2001	
1.3	Develop shared database for measurement of joint performance reporting and influence Government to change/improve performance indicators – for example on home composting	Nil	WSM *	Dec 2002	
1.4	Investigate and access new funding opportunities – this is a priority area for development 	£5k joint	HWM/OWMLG	First bid Jan 2002 ongoing	
1.5	Top slice Recycling Credit allocations for jointly funded projects	Nil	HWM/OWMLG	July 2002	
1.6	Audit trade waste management systems	£5k joint	WMG	May 2002	
1.7	Implement improved arrangements for management of hazardous household waste	£30k budget	WCM *	Dec 2002 	
1.8	Set up joint forum on fly tipping and produce action plan	Nil	HWM	 April 2002	
*OWMLG - Oxfordshire Waste Management Liaison Group 
   WSM - Waste Strategy Manager
   WCM - Waste Contracts Manager
 
Proposed monitoring arrangements and indicators of progress
Delivery of options for joint working by June 2002, monitor the level of additional funding attracted to the service  
Risk assessment 
Joint working is essential for the delivery of the strategy targets. 

Action 2	Prepare a detailed implementation plan setting out:
•	a  programme to provide the facilities required to deliver the Landfill Directive targets
•	measures to achieve the necessary recycling performance levels 
•	arrangements for funding the plan
 
Description	Critically review the joint household waste management strategy to identify areas of weakness which could result in non delivery of the strategy targets 

Objective	To ensure that the strategy will deliver the statutory targets on time

Proposed service improvement targets
Delivery of strategy targets for recycling, composting and diversion of waste from landfill in 2003, 2005, 2010, 2013, 2015, 2020 (for details of targets refer to Project Report  P2 – Diversion from Landfill).

Issues to consider – areas that will be affected by implementation
•	District Councils must be fully involved at all stages of implementation
•	Waste Management Contractors must be involved in development of the strategy

IMPLEMENTATION PLAN TO ACHIEVE IMPROVEMENT TARGETS

Implementation plan manager:   Waste Strategy Manager (WSM)

Ref	Task 	Costs
	Responsibility 	Timescale	
2.1	Agree household waste collection strategy with District Councils	£5K budget	OWMLG	July 2002	
2.2	Develop a robust funding plan to finance the strategy	Nil	HWM	Sept 2003	
2.3	Prepare robust strategy implementation plan	Nil	WSM	Mar 2003	
2.4	Make funding bids for market development programme	Nil	HWM	June 2002	
Proposed monitoring arrangements and indicators of progress
Strategy implementation to be monitored annually in accordance with arrangements set out in Strategy Part 4 – Monitoring and Review and results published from April 2003.
The National Performance Indicators for recycling composting and diversion from landfill as published will be applied to monitor progress.
Risk assessment  If the statutory targets are not met the County Council will be will be subject to financial penalties.

Action 3		Raise public awareness of waste management issues 
		through a county wide joint local authority campaign 
		with a clear theme and provide a continuing stream 
		of information on waste management to Oxfordshire 
		householders using branded messages.

Description	A campaign linking a series of measures to increase public awareness and information to help householders use the facilities provided by the local authorities for the management of household waste.

Objective   	To raise public awareness of waste management issues and to inform householders about waste management facilities available and about how to use those facilities most effectively.
 
Proposed service improvement targets

Increase awareness by 10% pa above current levels for specific waste streams
Full participation of householders in local authority recycling schemes

Issues to consider – areas that will affected by implementation

Measurement of improvement is difficult
Stakeholder support is essential

IMPLEMENTATION PLAN TO ACHIEVE IMPROVEMENT TARGETS – see over

IMPLEMENTATION PLAN TO ACHIEVE IMPROVEMENT TARGETS 

Implementation plan manager:  Waste Strategy Manager  (WSM)

Ref	Task	Costs	Responsibility	Timescale	
3.1	Carry out baseline awareness survey	£5k budget	WSM	March 2003	
3.2	Carry out an awareness campaign linking current measures/projects	£20K budget	WRO *	Sept 2003	
3.3	Develop 10 community waste action groups	£20K external	CAGC *	June 2003	
3.4	Submit funding bids for awareness projects	Nil	WRO	Sept 2002  ongoing	
3.5	Recruit a sustainability co-ordinator to provide advice to schools	20k pa external	WSM	January 2002	
3.6	Provide a practical waste/recycling pack to all Oxfordshire households	£20K external	WRO	June 2003	
3.7	Develop a joint Oxfordshire local authorities waste website and hotline	£40K pa joint	WSM	Dec 2002	
3.8	Develop a joint Oxfordshire newsletter	£10k pa joint	HWM/OWMLG	March 2003	

* WRO – Waste Reduction Officers
  CAGC – Community Action Group Co-ordinator
 
Proposed monitoring arrangements and indicators of progress
Level of awareness to be surveyed annually. Progress measured by the % householders 
achieving set level of awareness. The use of website and hotline and level of 
participation in kerbside recycling will be measured by the number of website/hotline
 users and the % households participating in kerbside recycling schemes.
 
Risk assessment
It is difficult to change public attitudes as demonstrated by experience of other
authorities. If external funding is not available costs will be met from budget
savings. Public participation in recycling schemes is essential for the delivery of strategy 
targets for recycling.
Action 4	Raise the operators’ recycling performance to the level of the higher performing sites and improve the service available at Waste Recycling Centres
 
Description	 		Measures to increase the recovery of materials from 
household waste and improve the level of service 
provided at Waste Recycling Centres

Objective 	 	Achievement of statutory targets and improved service 
to the public

Proposed service improvement targets
Achieve 50% recovery of materials at WRCs by 2003/4 and 60% by 2004/4
Achieve 90% user satisfaction levels at WRCs by 2002/3

Issues to consider – areas that will affected by implementation:
Involve stakeholders at all stages of implementation
Development of local markets for the increased levels of recovered materials

IMPLEMENTATION PLAN TO ACHIEVE IMPROVEMENT TARGETS – see over

IMPLEMENTATION PLAN TO ACHIEVE IMPROVEMENT TARGETS 

Implementation plan manager   Waste Contract Manager (WCM)

Ref	Task 	Costs
	Responsibility 	Timescale	
4.1	Negotiate action plans with contractors, using best value principles and incentives, to deliver 60% recovery at WRCs. These would include sharing the cost savings arising from diversion of waste from landfill.	budget	HWM	April 2002	
4.2	Harmonise and extend opening hours at WRCs	£30K pa budget	HWM	Dec 2002	
4.3	Improve supervision at WRCs to reduce trade waste input	£60K pa investment	WCM	June 2002	
4.4	Increase the range of materials at WRCs	£40K pa 
budget	WCM	July 2002	
4.5	Implement a rolling improvement plan for WRCs	£40K pa budget	WCM	October 2001	
4.6	Establish a waste exchange centre for collected bulky items and WRC materials	not  currently available,
external	WCM	June 2004	

Proposed monitoring arrangements and indicators of progress

Monthly monitoring of recovery levels at WRCs, annual surveys of site users (part of Project 5 as Contract Improvement Plan). Progress indicators include - % materials recovered, % site users satisfied with service measured against performance achieved in 2001/2.

Risk assessment

 If funding is not available from budget savings, cannot extend site opening hours or implement rolling improvement plan for WRCs.

Action 5		Amend existing waste management contracts and
agency agreements to reflect Best Value principles
	
Description	Develop mechanisms to incorporate a best value 
	approach into existing and future contracts

Objective		To improve the service delivered through waste 
management contracts and agency agreements and 
achieve greater value for money

Proposed service improvement targets

•	Achievement of strategy targets at all County Council waste management 
facilities
•	Agreed standards of service to be provided by County Council contractors to District Councils and to the public from September 2002
•	Publication of annual review of contractors’ performance from April 2003.

Issues to consider – areas that will affected by implementation:
The financial and legal constraints to achieving improvements in existing contracts/

IMPLEMENTATION PLAN TO ACHIEVE IMPROVEMENT TARGETS

Implementation plan manager:   Head of Waste Management

Ref	Task 	Costs
	Responsibility 	Timescale	
5.1	Implement contract improvement plan for each waste management contract	Nil	WCM	July 2003	
5.2	Implement independent annual audits for all waste management contract sites	£10K pa budget	HWM	Jan 2003	
5.3	Implement generic agency agreements for abandoned vehicles	Nil	HWM	April 2002	
5.4	Review excess mileage agency agreement between the County and Oxford City Council 	£3k budget	HWM	April 2002	

Proposed monitoring arrangements and indicators of progress
Monitoring through an annual audit of facilities and levels of achievement of strategy targets and service standards. Indicators include – the achievement of performance scores (audit), %materials recycled, composted, diverted from landfill, % achievement of service standards

Risk assessment: Limitations are financial and legal constraints to changing and existing contracts.
APPENDIX A
WASTE MANAGEMENT BEST VALUE REVIEW - GLOSSARY OF TERMS
TERM	MEANING	
Bulky Waste	Large items of household waste collected by District Councils – for example furniture, fridges 	
CAGC	Community Action Group Co-ordinator – responsible for providing support to local action groups on waste related issues	
CC	County Council	
CDC	Cherwell District Council	
Clinical Waste	Medical type waste produce by householders – for example unused medicines, used dressings, hypodermic syringes	
DC	District Council	
ES	Environmental Services Department	
Excess Mileage	Distance travelled by District Council waste collection vehicles beyond the District boundaries for which the County Council has a statutory duty to reimburse transport costs 	
Household Waste	Waste produced by householders within their house or garden, not including large scale DIY type waste	
HWM	Head of Waste Management – leads WMG (see WMG below)	
Landfill Directive	EU Directive which sets environmental standards for landfill and targets for the diversion of waste from landfill, now translated into UK legislation	
Landfill Tax	Tax imposed on waste disposed of to landfill, currently £12/tonne, level of tax is increased each year – cost OCC £3 million in 2001/2	
Landfill Tax Credit	Scheme whereby landfill contractors can contribute a proportion of their landfill tax liability to a trust fund that allocates grants for environmental improvement and amenity schemes and waste management projects – in Oxfordshire there are two such trusts	
Market Development	The process of developing local markets for recycled products 	
OWMLG	Oxfordshire Waste Management Liaison Group – comprising the most senior County and District Council officers who have primary responsibility for the waste management service	
OxC	Oxford City Council	
PSA	Public Service Agreement – an arrangement whereby local authorities commit to improved performance targets in return for additional funding and freedom from Government restrictions	
Trade Waste	Waste arising from businesses 	
Waste Strategy 2000	The Government’s 20-year national strategy for waste management in England and Wales published in May 2000.	
WCM	Waste Contracts Manager – member of WMG	
WMG	WMG – Waste Management Group – the team responsible for managing the County Council waste management service	
WMJASC	Waste Management Joint Advisory Sub Committee – comprising District and County Council members and officers	
WRC	Waste Recycling Centres – County Council sites for recycling and disposal of wastes delivered by members of the public – previously called Civic Amenity Sites	
WRO	Waste Reduction Officer – member of WMG	
WSM	Waste Strategy Officer – member of WMG	

APPENDIX B
WASTE MANAGEMENT BEST VALUE REVIEW 	
REPORT ON MYSTERY SHOPPER EXERCISE 

1.0  Aims and Process
1.1 The exercise aimed to assess the ease of access to information on the waste management service in Oxfordshire in two areas:
•	information provided by telephone and internet 
Eleven mystery shoppers attempted to obtain information from either the County or District Councils on the disposal of a specific item of household waste, using either the telephone or the internet. 
•	information provided at County libraries
Nine mystery shoppers visited their local library and asked library staff for directions to their nearest Waste Recycling Centre. 

2.0  Results of the exercise
2.1 The main findings of the mystery shopper exercise were as follows:

Telephone and internet queries
•	Queries were dealt with promptly
Nearly all mystery shoppers received an immediate response to their query, only one shopper did not feel their query had been resolved. Where relevant shoppers were provided with alternative options for disposal of waste items.
•	Customer care standards were good
Despite some difficulties, all mystery shoppers were positive about the final answer given to their enquiry, six were ‘very satisfied’ and five were ‘fairly satisfied’. Eight shoppers praised customer care standards. 
•	The Oxfordshire County Council Web Site was difficult to use
The site was considered difficult to navigate with little information on recycling and a lack of web links. One shopper had difficulty in using the Waste Management Group automated information system.

Library queries
•	Accuracy of response varied
Three mystery shoppers were given a single response, two were offered more than one possible site, three were not provided with a final answer but were provided with written information and/or a contact telephone number, six were shown a leaflet. Several shoppers commented favourably on customer care.
•	Response time varied
Six mystery shoppers had their enquiry answered promptly, however one had to wait 15 minutes and one 28 minutes for an answer. 

3.0 Conclusion
3.1 Access to information on waste management must be improved. Measures included in the Best Value Review Implementation Plan include provision of a joint waste management web site, hotline and newsletter, and provision of a recycling pack to all households in Oxfordshire.
								APPENDIX C
WASTE MANAGEMENT BEST VALUE REVIEW

REALITY CHECKS CARRIED OUT AT WASTE RECYCLING CENTRES

1.0 Introduction

1.1 The Council has 8 Waste Recycling Centres to which members of the public can bring any part of their household waste. A total of 1.3 million visits were made to the Waste Recycling Centres in 2001. The Centres are as follows:

Centre	District Council Area	
Alkerton, near Banbury	Cherwell	
Ardley, Fields	Cherwell	
Dean Pit, Chadlington	West Oxfordshire	
Dix Pit, Stanton Harcourt	West Oxfordshire	
Drayton	Vale of White Horse	
Oakley Wood	South Oxfordshire	
Redbridge, Oxford	Oxford City	
Stanford in the Vale	Vale of White Horse	

1.2 The reality checks were carried out at five of the eight Waste Recycling Centres to test the situation on the ground and to obtain a customer’s view of the service. Sites were assessed against criteria set in the survey carried out by Environs in December 2000.

2.0 Findings

2.1 The findings of the exercise are as follows:

•	Ease of use
 Directions from major routes were good. Some of the sites are not conveniently located for the larger settlements in the County. Site layout was satisfactory. Signage, lighting and road markings could be improved. Cars could be parked close to the waste containers and access to the containers was satisfactory.

•	Range of facilities provided
A wide range of services are offered, there were only two cases where advertised facilities were not available (due to containers being removed to be emptied). In some cases the containers were full.

•	Site appearance
Sites were generally tidy and there were sufficient bins for disposal of customers’ containers – for example waste oil containers. Sites may become less tidy when very busy. The only possible safety hazard identified was the lack of road markings, which did not always make it clear, which were pedestrian only areas.

•	Assistance to the public 
Staff were available to help customers at all the sites but in some cases there was a delay in providing assistance. It was sometimes difficult to distinguish the site staff from customers. There was the lack of information for disabled visitors. Signs explaining how to get help from site staff were not in place at any of the sites, nor were there any special parking spaces marked out.

•	Raising awareness
Information for customers was limited. Only some sites displayed information about their current level of recycling.  While sites often provided support for charities recycling initiatives this link was not sufficiently publicised so there is a missed opportunity for gaining publicity about recycling and the community benefits.
3.0  Assessment 

3.1 The outcome of the assessment was that:
•	Redbridge was rated as very good and as the flagship Waste Recycling Centre which the other centres should emulate
•	Drayton was rated as good
•	The other Waste Recycling Centres were rated as fair - this is as much a measure of the difference in locality and catchment area of the sites as it is of the contractors’ performance.

4.0 Recommendations

4.1 The recommendations from the reality checks are that:
•	Signs, lighting and road markings should be improved
•	Centre staff should be more clearly identifiable
•	Publicity information should be improved
•	Consideration is given to providing sites that are easily accessible from the main settlements in the County.

Members’ Observations and Officers’ Response 
on the Waste Management Best Value Review

•	Collection of recyclables needs to be easier.

Agreed. The joint strategy is looking at collection of more recyclables at kerbside by District Councils, improving the Waste Recycling Centres to handle more materials, providing better information to householders about where and how to recycle.

•	Public sees service as seamless not split – need to have excellent joint working with districts.

Agreed.  Over one third of the actions in the Review Implementation Plan are directed to improving working arrangements with the District Councils. The survey of District Council officers carried out in Review Project 1 confirmed that there is good joint working between District and County officers on waste management issues.

•	Fly-tipping and disposal of abandoned vehicles – very important issues, especially in the public eye – need to get alongside districts and police to make sure there is stronger enforcement.

The Oxfordshire Forum on Flytipping which has been set up as part of the Review Implementation Plan aims to join together the work of key organisations/stakeholders to reduce flytipping and disposal of abandoned vehicles. Improving enforcement will be a priority for the Forum.

•	Need to revisit charging for household goods such as wardrobes etc. People don’t want to pay/cannot afford £10 per item.

The District Councils are allowed in law to charge for the collection of bulky household waste. It is Government policy that waste producers pay the cost of management of their waste. In many cases District Councils offer reduced rates to those on reduced income for collection of bulky waste. There is no reason in principle why householders should not pay for waste management services as they do for energy and water services. Waste management in Oxfordshire currently costs each household the equivalent of two ice creams per week for collection recycling and environmentally sound disposal of their wastes.

•	Overall good review, though would like to see harder conclusions – with timescales shown of when action is actually going to be undertaken.  Waste is going to get worst, would like to see Oxfordshire as a lead authority.

Oxfordshire County Council is performing relatively well on waste management and leads in some areas – for example the management of closed landfills. The Review Implementation Plan sets out 30 key actions with date for the delivery of each output.

•	
More sites are needed around the County, possibly within towns where people want recycling provision.  At the moment people have to drive to get to them – need satellite sites with towns if not disposal sites.

Following the Review the Waste Management Group are commissioning a study on provision of Waste Recycling Centres (WRCs) as a basis for improving existing sites and planning new sites. There were 1.3 million visits to WRCs in 2001 and surveys of users carried out during the Review found high levels of satisfaction and no strong dissatisfaction with the current level of provision.

•	Need to improve the time it takes to get abandoned vehicles off the road.

The District Councils are often constrained by the existing regulations which prevent quick disposal of abandoned vehicles – however the Government is in process of amending these regulations to allow faster removal and disposal of abandoned vehicles.

•	Flytipping has increased since charging at Civic Amenity Sites has been introduced – need to take a sensible look at charges.

There is no charge for the disposal of household waste. We do make a small charge for the disposal of larger amounts of DIY waste which is in law industrial waste. However the charge is such that the cost to a householder for disposal of all the waste from, say, a bathroom renovation (costing perhaps £1000 plus) is around £10 – 1% of the total cost of the work – which is a very modest charge. There is no evidence that the charges encourage flytipping. However we must make it clear to the public that breaking the law and damaging the environment cannot be justified as a means of avoiding disposal charges.

•	Need to consider efficiency savings – charge traders more for trade waste.

Measures are contained in the Review Implementation Plan to reduce the leakage of trade waste into the household waste management system – each tonne of such waste costs the County Council £50.

•	Need to consider recycling cardboard countywide.

Following the Review we are working with our recycling contractors to increase the range of materials handled at WRCs (including cardboard).

•	Composting:

•	How is it measured within the County?

Home Composting is measured by projecting from detailed weighings made at a sample of households which practice home composting. Green waste at WRCs is collected in large containers and weighed before composting.

•	
How can we improve composting i.e, a countywide compost collection?

In accordance with the joint strategy the District Councils are looking at arrangements for collection of green and kitchen waste from households. The County Council have improved the collection of green waste at WRCs (doubled in 4 years and increasing further) and are promoting home and community based composting as part of the joint strategy.

•	County provide excellent leaflets regarding composting, district leaflets less good.  Could the County take overall responsibility for promotion of composting?

The Review contains proposals for improving the joint promotion of recycling and composting. We are currently looking at branding the information on waste management in Oxfordshire so that there is a consistent style and message. We are also exploring with the District Councils the establishement of a joint website on household waste management in Oxfordshire.

•	We need a corporate approach between the county and districts.  Education is the most important issue.

In accordance with the Review Implementation Plan the Waste Management Group have worked with the Education Department to set up and fund a sustainability coordinator for schools to develop environmental and waste management education in Oxfordshire schools.

•	Waste is a national problem.  Need to find a way to encourage districts, parishes and communities to co-operate in schemes.  More practical application needed.

The Waste Management Group has obtained Landfill Tax Credit funding for a Community Action Group development officer to set up community groups to encourage waste reduction and good waste management at local level in Oxfordshire. The Review Implementation Plan is to establish 10 key groups. These groups will provide a nucleus for the development of other groups.

•	Need to educate children on waste in school.

See above

•	The report suggests the development of 10 Community Waste Action Groups – is this enough?  How many are there currently?

See above and – there are currently 3 such groups. The aim is for 10 groups spread around the County which will act as a primary network from which other  groups can be developed.

•	
Officer/member task group recommended in report – who will sit on it?

The task group comprises Councillor Purse (OCC Executive Member) Councillor Kellow (WODC Executive Member) G Melotti (CDC Waste Management Officer) and Mr P Coulter (OCC Head of Waste Management)

•	Wheelie bins – encourage more waste.

Evidence is that it is the size of bin particularly which affects waste input into the household collection system – however it is difficult to establish whether there is an overall increase in waste or whether waste normally delivered to Waste Recycling Centres is instead placed in the wheelie bin. Where District Councils collect separate waste streams in wheelie bins for recycling there is a considerable increase in materials captured for recycling and diverted from landfill.

•	No joint forum at present on operational issues.

The joint working group on operational issues was set up in December 2001.

•	Top Slicing Funding from District – can officers explain?

A small amount of the money currently paid by Oxfordshire County Councillor to District Councils as Recycling Credit (say around 2% of total paid per annum) would be matched by a contribution from the Waste Management budget and used to create a joint fund to finance recycling projects. This would streamline the process for financing such projects.

•	Incineration – does the County have any plans for the future?

An critical review of the joint household waste strategy was carried out as part of the Review and concluded that in order to deliver the statutory targets for diversion of biodegradable household waste from landfill it may be necessary to introduce some technologies beyond recycling and composting. The Strategy Implementation Plan for the period beyond 2010 will be reviewed as part of the Review Implementation Plan. This review will examine all the options so that if need be a decision can be taken by 2004/5 – options would include small scale thermal treatment, anaerobic digestion and other new technologies.
 
•	Think wheelie bins are good – need for common policy throughout the county on wheelie bins.  Need more recycling centres – centres are too far out of towns in the back of beyond.

County and District Officers are working to harmonise the operational elements of waste management
including some elements of the collection systems. However at present it is for District Councils to decide how they collect household waste. WRC location dealt with above.

•	
Need for more recycling in car parks/civic amenity sites within town centres.

Agreed – this will be looked at as part of the study on WRCs referred to above.

•	Report does not mention Energy Recovery – Energy Recover is in the County Council’s Waste Hierarchy and in the Government’s long term Strategy.

See note on new technologies above.

•	Need to expand on selling recyclables at Civic Amenity Sites/greater publicity – how will this be achieved?

Currently recyclables are sold at 4 WRCs.  The problem is lack of space on site to both sell and recycle.  The Review Implementation Plan is to improve WRCs and to set up a central site(s) where saleable collected items form WRCs could be taken in bulk and sold – rather like a supermarket for recycled goods.