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

 

How much can you spend on a closed waste plant? erm MILLIONS!

 August 2019 was a great month for residents in Derby UK and especially those in the Sinfin, Normanton and Osmaston wards of the city because it was the month the councils of Derby and Derbyshire FINALLY pulled the plug on the controversial waste gasification incineration plant on Sinfin Lane in Sinfin, Derby. Constructed and commissioned by Resource Recovery Solutions Derbyshire Ltd - a joint venture by Renewi and Interserve as part of a long term residual waste contract the wheels fell off the project when the plant never reached the end of commissioning. The councils pulling the plug shortly led to RRS- Resource Recovery Solutions Derbyshire Ltd falling into administration which is where it stays.

Shortly after the plant closed conveniently for some the councils awarded a contract to Renewi UK Services Ltd. This included clearing the Sinfin Lane site of waste, maintaining the equipment on site, organising tests and putting the equipment to bed while keeping the lights on! The stack glows like Mount Doom in the hours of darkness for example. 

One of my previous blog posts places focus on a report from October 2019 in relation to some of the issues with the plant itself which can be read here

  http://derby-waste-a-rubbish-blog.blogspot.com/2021/05/the-sinfin-incinerator-has-more-than.html 

Obviously the works carried out by Renewi UK Services Ltd to clear the site of waste and to then clean down and put the plant to bed was going to cost some money as was carrying out tests on the sites equipment to make judgements on it later. But just how much the councils were going to cough up was not clear so it was time to do some digging. We all like a dig about and why not when its council tax being spent! 

My first investigation was to submit an EIR or to use it's full name a Environmental Information Request to Derby City Council. I dont have a good relationship with the council department that handles such requests as I have now taken them to the Information Commissioner on a number of occasions but in this case they responded pretty clearly.

I asked Derby City Council how much money they had spent on the Derby and Derbyshire Waste Treatment Centre on Sinfin Lane Derby. That is the posh name for the Sinfin incinerator and the requested time period was from closure in August 2019 to the end of September 2021 in an attempt to gather a good two years worth of figures as the plant closed in the August of 2019 there would be some time before costs kicked in.

So what did we learn? Well in that period Derby City Council spent an eye watering £6,211,972 !

That meant I then had to ask the same question to Derbyshire County Council who are in partnership  with Derby City via an Inter Authority Agreement. As part of that agreement all costs are split based on a default allocation. In this case Derby City pays 26.6% of the costs and Derbyshire County Council pays 73.4%. 

So what did we learn from the same question when put to Derbyshire County Council? 

Well we learnt from Derbyshire County Council that in the same period they splashed their council tax payers cash to the tune of £19,623,280 which is an eye watering amount for a waste plant site that is simply being cleared, cleaned, preserved and checked over and part of all that includes keeping the power on - and for anyone that knows the site its lit up like a Christmas tree every night of the year! 

So between them the councils spent in that period £25,835,252 - Nearly £26 MILLION to clean, maintain and keep the lights on at a closed waste facility. So that includes £895,989 spent just on electricity at the site which formed part of the payment to Renewi UK Services Ltd, Renewi formed the bulk of the spend at the site over the period in question. How can you spend close to £26 million in just over two years when your not even fixing the facility?

The councils want us to believe that this large cost will be knocked off the final fair value for the site when they come to an agreement with those with an interest in the site - such as the administrators of Resource Recovery Solutions Derbyshire Ltd and the hedge fund that has now taken on the debt owed to the set of banks that previously funded the actual construction of the waste disposal plant. 

Outside of the council bubble nobody thinks anything will be saved from this long term maintenance when it comes to deciding a fair value, it being all hot air - which being closed is one thing the Sinfin incinerator does not produce - THANKFULLY! 

©SIMON BACON 2022

The Sinfin Incinerator has more than a spanner in the works!

 The Derby and Derbyshire Waste Treatment Centre – or the Sinfin Incinerator to Derby residents was built in recent years on Sinfin Lane, Derby UK after a protracted battle by the community starting in 2008/9 to stop the project being built.

The plant was constructed to handle 190,000 tonnes of waste from Derby and Derbyshire as part of a waste contract with RRS (Resource Recovery Solutions Derbyshire Ltd) which was a vehicle for Renewi and Interserve as parent companies. 

The plan was to extract metals and hard plastics for recycling from incoming waste in the MRF (Materials Recovery Facility) although the target rate was less than 10%. The process was then to dry a percentage of the waste in an MBT (Mechanical Biological Treatment) and finally create RDF (Refuse Derived Fuel) which is then burnt (gasified to use the developers term) to produce steam to generate electricity for sale. 

A percentage of the waste when burnt attracts ROC’s (Renewable Obligation Certificates) due to that percentage being biodegradable and so considered renewable.

 The project it has been suggested has cost around £150 million which was funded via a series of banks including the Green Investment Bank. The project was based on Energos incineration technology using a gasification process which it was claimed had long standing operational history in Norway, Energos went into administration part way through the plants construction.

The Environment Agency permit the plant as an incinerator.

With such a large budget and many aspects of the plant being supplied by experienced technology developers and installers overseen by Interserve Construction you would expect a smooth construction and commissioning process. Noting the delay since first planned you would expect the project to develop over time using new designs and technology as it came forward.

The plant through the commissioning process has been a regular blight on the local community creating odour, noise and fly issues which only ended when the facility closed in August 2019.

The liaison group at the plant made up of councillors, resident members and staff from the councils and contractors along with guests such as the Environment Agency and Derbyshire Wildlife Trust sat through meeting after meeting while Interserve and Renewi kept talking about tests being completed etc. The talk was that the plant was weeks away from completing its tests – but it was always just weeks away from completing those tests.

Finally the councils pulled the plug on the contract – before awarding a replacement contract to Renewi – one of the parent companies of RRS who are now employed to clean and maintain the facility while trying to get the councils out of the mess they find themselves in.

The public now have access to the full waste contract and Inter Authority Agreement after the UK Information Commissioner ruled that the contracts should be made public (but that is another story).

 it became clear there was a Service Delivery Plan that was put together around the time that the contract for the plant was terminated. A copy of this has since been provided by the plants liaison group including a faults list put together in October 2019

 22/10/2019

The plants front end is the acceptance pit – where the waste is tipped and then the MRF – Materials Recovery Facility where waste is sorted to extract metals and rigid plastics and also the MBT Mechanical Biological Treatment. This section was the starting point for waste inputs and was the first section to have long term testing as commissioning was taking place.

The report indicates it has not been demonstrated that the front end MRF/MBT can provide enough RDF – Refuse Derived Fuel to maintain performance of the ACT (the three incineration lines). This led to the input pit overflowing delaying delivery of waste to the site – which was seen at times at the site and in the local community.

Cranes in the MBT suffered repeat breakdowns.

MRF multiple breakdowns and blockages including shredder breakdowns.

MRF – Not complying with the agreed facility recycling target with no evidence that acceptance tests can be passed.

MRF target recycling rate was only 7.4% but actual rate was just 4.8% with suggestions that 2019 tests not carried out under normal operational conditions.

MRF recycling purity poor – document suggests the lower the purity the higher performance – not rocket science – shove it through to get material through the process will always lead to poor results.

MRF air knife used for sorting plastics materials for recycling was failing as there were high levels of plastic film in the rigid plastic bales.

ACT (Incineration lines) in previous 12 months only processed 51% of the waste diversion target.

Each of the smoke tube boilers on each of the 3 line plant failed twice in commissioning.

ACT (Incineration lines) overheated when all 3 lines of the plant ran.

ACT (Incineration lines) overheating of CEMS – CEMS is the monitoring. equipment – facility cannot lawfully operate if CEMS is not operational.

ACT (Incineration hall) ambient temperature in the hall caused an unsafe working environment.

Shotball system for cleaning boiler tubes unreliable.

ACT (Incineration lines) numerous valve faults.

Kone Cranes – numerous faults causing unreliable service.

Issues with access for maintenance.

Instrumentation not recording data due to being set to simulation mode.

Alarms incorrectly set and inhibited.

Income from electrical generation significantly lower than base case.

Significant risk that ROCs (Renewable Obligation Certificates) will not be available.

Turbine appears to have a 2MW shortfall in power production compared to that expected from design data.

Turbine and generator cannot be safely lifted or removed.

Syngas analysers that are permanently installed to gather data for ROCs do not work.

Ofgem audit relating to ROCs queries the basis for accreditation.

Odours leading to non-compliance with Environmental Permit and preventing use of onsite offices on welfare grounds.

Bio Filter not preventing odour emissions.

Fugitive emissions from MBT hall detected on Sinfin Lane.

Fugitive emissions from MBT bunker detected in B&Q and Sainsburys.

Fugitive emissions into administration block make offices unusable. When ACT is shut down this includes into the control room.

Carbon Monoxide in ash bunker and basement requires vent system – no scientific or engineering data to back up the design objectives.

Firewalls not completed / certified to allow insurability and comply with fire protection plan.

Excess levels of noise.

Roller doors not safe to operate due to failed components and design defects.

Recycling baler not fastening bales correctly leading to safety issues.

Insufficient documentation to operate the plant safely.

No Final Health and Safety file.

No commissioning records since Sept/Oct 2018.

Licence expired on optical sorters.

Education Centre sprinkler system not installed.

Leachate (liquids from waste) not draining from waste pit.

Corrosion of structural steel in RDF pit.

Electrical Safety – junction boxes not earthed, inadequate labelling.

It is not clear how a project overseen by multiple councils and contractors supported by paid advisors has managed to construct a £150 million white elephant which has now been closed for 18 months.

Councils often say that lessons will be learnt.

 If ever there were lessons councils across the UK should learn from this saga it is do NOT take advice from Derby City and Derbyshire County Council's on waste management! 

©SIMON BACON 2021

He was a fool to make refuse derived fuel!

It is four long years since the great fly and odour saga of Mackworth Derby UK and for many it is now a distant memory put to the back of residents minds.

But oh to be a fly on the wall at Shows Waste Management back in 2016 when the local media placed it's attention on this company that had been working away in the back streets of Mackworth making refuse derived fuel known as RDF used in incineration plants to generate power.

Issues had been ongoing in the local area since late 2015 but with an explosion in flies and odour as the weather warmed in early 2016 the odour hit the fan and the media was all over it like err FLIES!

To learn more about what the Environment found on a site visit in 2016 it is well worth checking out my blog post from July 2016.

http://derby-waste-a-rubbish-blog.blogspot.com/2016/07/to-be-fly-on-wall.html

It is anyone's guess as to why it has taken four years to reach court but it finally arrived in Southern Derbyshire Magistrates Court in early February where two of the directors of Shows Waste Management Warren Steele and Samantha Turton faced charges of breaking environmental rules while operating the site. It is not currently clear why Samantha's husband Wayne Turton who was also a director was not also party to the case as he was a director for the period in question while Warren Steele was a director until late December 2015. 

At the court case in February 2020 local paper The Derby Evening Telegraph reports that Warren Steele pleaded guilty to the charges put to him however Samantha Turton pleaded not guilty and asked for the case to be heard at Derby Crown Court. This report by Carl Slater from The Derby Telegraph made front page news.

Warren Steele was later sentenced for his part in the terrible fly and odour situation that unfolded in 2015/16 in the Derby UK suburb of Mackworth. Mr Steele was given a Community Order requiring him to to carry out 80 hours of unpaid work and required to pay £10,000 towards the prosecution costs in a case heard at Derby Crown Court.

A full report by the Environment Agency can be read here  

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/director-of-firm-that-caused-fly-infestation-and-odour-sentenced

The case continues as the other director in the case Samantha Turton is due in court at a later date as the case has been delayed due to Covid19.

©SIMON BACON 2020 

How to save money? make someone else pay!

Back in February 2019 it was becoming clear that Derbyshire Dales District Council were proposing to remove their previously free garden waste recycling service and replace it with a charged for service just at the time that in reverse Derby City Council were returning their garden waste service to a free service in an attempt to boost the recycling service in the city.

A vast improvement in tonnage of garden waste collected has already been noted by Derby City Council in response to a recent public question at Full Council. 

Between 01/04/19 and 31/10/19 the council collected 10,264 tonnes of organic waste compared to 3,786 tonnes for the same period in 2018.

This means an increased collection of 6,478 tonnes 

So with this obvious benefit which can be seen by the results of Derby City Council why have Derbyshire Dales suddenly moved the other way? 

WELL

It could have something to do with if sly old Derbyshire Dales District Council can get residents to put their waste into the residual waste bin instead because people will say I AM NOT PAYING THAT then its happy days -

 BECAUSE DERBYSHIRE DALES DISTRICT COUNCIL DO NOT PAY FOR RESIDUAL WASTE DISPOSAL AS THAT COST IS MET BY DERBYSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL !

You can read more about that here in my blog post from 2019 

http://derby-waste-a-rubbish-blog.blogspot.com/2019/02/something-is-rotten-in-derbyshire-dales.html

So where are we now?
Local Democracy Reporter at the Derby Telegraph newspaper Eddie Bisknell wrote a report in late December 2019 that Derbyshire Dales District Council had now agreed to apply a FIFTY POUND garden waste charge !
Eddie reports that Councillors "wished there was another option on the table" With waste disposal costs facing an increase of over £2 million the council say this cost increase Is not affordable without there being an affect on residents.
BUT
As we know by forcing garden waste into the residual waste stream it WILL impact on local residents by putting a cost pressure on the County Council instead while also making residents pay!
The charged for service begins in Spring 2021 unless prior to this the UK government put in place changes in garden waste disposal legislation. 

©SIMON BACON 2020 

The plant pot that went to Full Council !

Single use plastic in the many forms it now comes in is a hot topic across the globe as it blocks rivers, streams and beaches. News is published it seems daily of one risk or other to wildlife and the human race and this focus is now bringing change - or at least it is when those trying to change are supported by those locally in power who can support and aid change.

When it comes to single use plastics if they cannot be designed out then they must at the very least be recyclable AND collected for recycling. There is little point in making a product recyclable if the infrastructure is not there to handle the product at end of life so that it can once again be returned as a resource to the manufacturers to complete the recycling circle.

A prime example of a single use plastic item which currently struggles to be recycled are plastic plant pots which can be found in almost all gardens across the UK as the public carry out the yearly ritual of planting out summer flowers. Many of these pots are made from polypropylene often called PP for short. Recycling should not be an issue as this plastic is already widely recycled in the UK when gathered in the recycling stream of household materials but there is a problem and that problem is that most of the plant pots are made from black polypropylene and as many of us know black plastic can rarely be sorted at UK materials recycling facilities because the sorting machines cannot see black plastics.

As single use plastics became more of a media story and as TV programs such as Gardeners World began to focus on the issue change began to take place in horticulture as pot manufacturers began producing alternative pots in specific shades which are now beginning to catch on. Taupe and blue are just two shades of recyclable plant pots now being sold into the horticultural industry.

It was with this in mind and with being employed in horticulture where I have spoken to many concerned customers that I decided I needed to take this up directly with my local council and so back in February 2019 a blue recyclable plant pot made by the manufacturer Poppelmann under their TEKU brand made it's way to the council chamber in Derby UK where I asked on it's behalf if the council would now finally accept such plant pots for recycling in the cities co-mingled waste recycling scheme.

.....

So that was a NO at that point but after the meeting I continued to push the issue of accepting recyclable plant pots by continuing to engage with the council cabinet member and staff from the councils recycling dept in Derby. They were provided with information directly from the manufacturers website

 https://www.poeppelmann.com/en/teku/advantages/more-resource-saving/ 

I thought having provided the manufacturers specific information on the product it would answer all the councils questions along with those of their current recycling processor Biffa Waste Services who would be the ones actually sorting and selling on the material.

One of the main sticking points claimed by the council was that Biffa their current contractor was concerned about the plant pots being contaminated with soil which they felt was a bacteria risk. Now this could be considered a risk if all the OTHER plastics collected by the council were clean and sterile but as we all know in the real world they are far from clean and likely carry just as many if not more bacteria of concern so to me this is just a fob off because the plastic in question does not have a high value. Lets face it plastics will be cleaned prior to being melted down so the councils contractor faces few risks. 

As someone who has worked with such scary soil daily in my work in horticulture it sounds like I am lucky to be alive if we trust the council and their contractor Biffa's concerns!

To take this blog post full circle I felt it only fair to once again ask the council about the potential for plant pot recycling having given them a number of months to digest my request.

Council cabinet member for waste Councillor Jonathan Smale stated the following.

" We are continuing to work with our suppliers to extend the offer to residents around recycling, we will continue this process with our future contacts as well.  At present under the current contract we cannot accept these materials, however, this is all being looked at with our new contract.

With regards to the consultant we are working with for the re-tendering of the dry recyclable and garden waste contracts, this consultant is Eunomia. We are also hoping DEFRA gives us some clear direction on the future waste strategy."

We can only hope that the councils advisers and DEFRA push the likes of Derby City Council in the direction of plant pot recycling instead of the potty idea that plant pot recycling is something to fear. 

©SIMON BACON 2019

Something is rotten in the Derbyshire Dales.

Across the UK many councils are now looking to charge for garden waste be it for an all year or part year service an example of which until recently is Derby UK where a part year service was £40 for garden waste to be collected April to November.

The result of the Derby charge for service was a devastated recycling rate and so thankfully Derby City Council have seen sense and a free service restarts in April 2019.

  No sooner do we get this good news from Derby in relation to the garden waste service returning to a free service do we get the bad news from Derbyshire Dales District Council that they are proposing to INTRODUCE  a charged for service claiming that they could not continue their free service to residents once they negotiate their new waste recycling contract.

Now there is a key difference between the two councils because while Derby City Council is a disposal authority meaning it has to fund all of its waste and recycling Derbyshire Dales is just a district council and while it has to fund its recycling service it does not have to fund its residual waste disposal which is a key difference between the two councils.
The proposal to introduce a charged for service in the Derbyshire Dales area was enthusiastically welcomed by many councillors at a council meeting in late 2018 on 29th November. There was talk of the councils recycling rate being at 57% and recent government publications suggest it could even be as high as 60% which is an impressive recycling rate but once a charged for service for garden waste is put in place where will that rate go other than down in a spiral ?
The councils recycling rate uses tonnage of recycling as the method for generating the councils recycling rate and as garden waste is a heavy material removal of that waste from the recycling stream clearly reduces the overall tonnage of recyclate and that has to then impact the councils recycling rate of which they are so proud.
Then we have to consider the slight of hand that's going to take place here at Derbyshire Dales District Council when it comes to waste costs linked to recycling and disposal.
Derbyshire Dales District Council is simply a district council and has to pay the cost of collecting waste and recycling waste materials but what it does NOT have to do is pay for the disposal of residual waste because that is the responsibility of Derbyshire County Council which is the disposal authority.
All Derbyshire Dales District Council has to do is collect and deliver residual waste to where Derbyshire County Council directs them towards which could either be directly to the controversial Sinfin waste incineration plant in Derby or to a transfer site in the county for onward shipment to Sinfin to be burnt.
Now its not rocket science to realise that if your a district council looking to reduce costs if you can force waste you were previously paying to compost into the residual waste stream that you DON'T pay to dispose of and even better get people to agree to pay a charge for the waste that still does get composted then by some wonder of wonders you have saved your council money but what you are not doing is saving your residents money because by diverting compostable waste into the residual waste stream which is very commonly vastly more expensive per tonne than if composted you have transferred a cost to the disposal authority which in this case is Derbyshire County Council which in turn will have to recoup that increased cost from residents of the County via the likes of an increase in council tax.
There may however be a happy ending to this story!
In recent days the UK government have announced proposals that they will require councils to offer a free garden waste service so the plans of Derbyshire Dales District Council may still be consigned to the compost heap!

 ©SIMON BACON 2019