review of kerbside recycling collection schemes in the uk ... · review of kerbside recycling...

WYG Lyndhurst, Empress House, 12 Empress Road, Lyndhurst, Hampshire SO43 7AE

Tel: 023 8028 3226 Email: [email protected] www.wyg.com

Review of Kerbside Recycling Collection

Schemes in the UK in 2011/12

June 2013

Sponsored by:

Review of Kerbside Recycling Collection Schemes in the UK in 2011/12 June 2013

Foreword – WYG

WYG is delighted to present its fourth report reviewing kerbside dry recycling schemes in the UK. Previous

editions of the report have also been of interest to readers based far from the UK; we hope that this report

will be of interest to all readers, wherever they are.

The report covers the statistics for the year 2011/12; but we have, in some places, commented on

developments since then.

We have said on many occasions that we believe it is entirely for local authorities to decide on which

recycling system they use: our purpose in writing this report is to give data so that the choice may be made

on an informed basis. We continue to support local authorities that use a variety of systems – kerbside-sort,

two-stream and fully co-mingled.

We have not been ‘commissioned’ to write this report, or any previous versions of it. We do receive

contributions, for which we are grateful: but we bear most of the costs ourselves. We would wish to thank

our contributors to this report – Biffa, Kier, Plastics Europe and Serco; and we make no apologies for

highlighting points of interest to them and their clients.

This report is published in the period which follows the Judicial Review where arguments were put that the

UK Government had misapplied European Union directives on co-mingling waste: arguments that were

dismissed by Mr Justice Hickinbottom. We echo the comments made by Cllr Mike Jones, Chair of the Local

Government Association’s (LGA’s) Environment and Housing Board, who said:

‘Today's announcement is great news for councils and means we can continue to work with our

residents to collect the bins in a way that reflects local circumstances… It's time for the waste sector

to draw a line under this and let councils get on with the job of providing residents with an efficient,

environmentally responsible and value for money waste service.’

LGA Media release, 6 March 2013

In the period before the Judicial Review, a number of arguments were put against co-mingling, which can be

summarised as follows:

• Many UK MRFs are not of the quality to deal with co-mingled waste and cannot produce material

to the manufacturer’s required standard

o Many modern MRFs produce high quality recycling while maintaining a low reject rate. We

urge local authorities to ensure that their MRF specification sets out the standards required

for the outputs to qualify for recycling and minimises the rejects for disposal. We are able to

provide assistance with contract specification if required.


• It is not clear whether co-mingling is cheaper than other schemes

o WYG considers that the cost differential is often dependent on local circumstances and a

case-by-case assessment should be made. WYG has supported many local authorities in

procuring waste contracts and we believe that ‘best practice’ is to ask for tenders based on

different systems or, in the case of in-house collections, to undertake detailed cost

modelling, with a subsequent assessment of total cost. WYG is able to offer assistance with

contract procurement and waste modelling, from estimating likely tonnages and costs

through preparation of contract documentation to conducting the procurement exercise on

behalf of councils.

So far, our work in this latter regard has led us to a simple conclusion: where the local authority has access

to a locally-based modern MRF, co-mingling or two-stream (e.g. paper or glass separately from other

materials that are co-mingled) is usually cheaper; where this is not the case, kerbside-sort is often cheaper.

We have discovered this in a range of procurement exercises, including single-authority arrangements

(including for example North Somerset, Oxford and West Devon) and on cross-boundary arrangements

(including for example East Sussex and Mid Kent). Where we do not test the different costs this may be

because the authority has a clear view as to its desired system; or because waste disposal or treatment

contracts preclude such testing.

We would, of course, be delighted to offer assistance to any authority or organisation, UK-based or

otherwise, that is considering its choice of recycling system or is seeking to procure a new contract that

includes dry recycling services.

Len Attrill

Project Director, WYG


Foreword – Biffa

Once again, we at Biffa Municipal are delighted to contribute to this important report and its impartial,

balanced analysis of the pros and cons of different recycling collection options. In Biffa’s view, the absence

of any pre-judgement makes this report unique. It provides a depth and breadth of information that can

help local authorities choose the collection systems that suit them best – a choice which always has been, is,

and should continue to be, theirs and theirs alone.

Biffa is perceived to be an advocate of co-mingled collections. That is broadly true, but as a service provider

to around 40 local authorities in England, Scotland and Wales, we also advocate kerbside-sort and dual-

stream collections where these are appropriate. The aim for all recycling services must be to maximise

recycling diversion, to produce high quality recyclates, and subsequently, to deliver the lowest carbon

solution. Inevitably, this means adopting different services in different areas, determined primarily by

containment method, availability of local facilities for bulking, transfer and processing, population density,

and certain social drivers.

We have long maintained, and we stand firmly by our view, that using wheeled bins for recycling and refuse

collections does maximise recycling diversion and recycling rates. Our experience and on-the-job evidence

shows that wheeled bins and fortnightly collections help provide the best value service for a local authority

where there is local MRF availability, and with a holistic view being taken on the cost of waste. That value

increases as disposal costs rise. There is unlikely to be a definitive, consensual view on what is the Best

Value service for a local authority. Cost can be and, in recent times, has been very different from market

price – but fortunately, this differential appears to be correcting itself.

Of late, arguments that co-mingling produces lower quality recyclates have been rebutted legally. Evidence

is accumulating that MRFs and modern processing technology are lowering reject rates, in tandem with

growing recycler awareness that uncontaminated recycling inputs aid cleaner recyclate outputs. Recyclate

quality is just as important to a MRF operator as it is to a kerbside-sort collection provider.

We urge officials in central and local government, as well as consultants and service providers, to note the

valuable insights afforded by this report. Diverting more waste by reducing, reusing and recycling materials

will be of increasing environmental and economic importance. Anything that helps inform decisions that

divert more waste must be welcomed.

Pete Dickson

Development Director, Biffa


Foreword – Kier

Local authorities and private sector service providers continue to operate in a challenging economic

environment and while local authority budgets continue to be squeezed, the expectations of the general

public are on the up. The commodity market for dry recyclables remains in flux with the export market being

particularly volatile due to China’s Green Fence standing firm. But there are reasons to remain optimistic.

Kier’s experience and the findings of this WYG report are proof that value-for-money environmental services

that increase recycling can still be procured and delivered. In order for this to be achieved, we must

continue to be bold and realistic in our ambitions.

Following the Judicial Review into European Union directives on co-mingled waste it seems that an era of

uncertainty and competing dogmas has come to an end. As this report demonstrates, one size does not fit

all. The UK is a tremendously diverse country; each locality has different characteristics which in turn require

differing approaches to waste management. There is therefore clearly a place for a wide range of kerbside

collection schemes that reflect and respond to this diversity. Kier itself has successfully operated kerbside

sort, co-mingled and hybrid solutions and we remain open to exploring any methodology that improves

recycling and provides best value.

Another welcome trend is the increasing appetite for local authorities to pool resources by directly operating

or procuring cross-boundary contracts. Local authorities that have done so have found an approach that

provides cost savings through realising economies of scale and a mechanism to introduce rationalised

collection methodologies. Kier’s contract with the East Sussex Joint Waste Partnership will deliver £30m

savings to the four Waste Collection Authorities of Wealden, Eastbourne, Hastings and Rother over the next

ten years and increase recycling and compost rates to 50%. This is clearly a more realistic, sustainable and

politically acceptable approach than to gamble on the commodity market or reduce service levels. Cross-

boundary agreements do not mean the end of individual Authority autonomy. A joint procurement carried

out by the Borough Council of Kings Lynn and West Norfolk and North Norfolk District Council sees Kier carry

out food waste collections in the boundaries of the former but not the latter, retaining individuality and a

solution tailored to each partner.

We therefore believe that the future of recycling in the UK continues to be an exciting one where the

experiences, challenges and hard lessons of the past few years can be put to good use to improve all

aspects of waste management.

Mark Hogan

Business Development Director, Kier


Foreword – Serco

Serco is very pleased to be able to support and endorse the 2013 edition of the WYG review of kerbside

recycling schemes.

In a challenging financial climate it has never been more important to maximise the effectiveness of kerbside

recycling services and to deliver more for less.

This report makes a very important contribution to the knowledge of the sector and is widely regarded as a

definitive guide for waste practitioners and Local Authorities who seek independent and objective analysis

into the effectiveness of the different waste collection schemes in operation across the UK.

Serco is a £5bn UK owned and based FTSE 100 public services company that works with central and local

government customers up and down the country. We have a £1.5bn order book in waste and streetscene

and hold long-term partnership relationships with Local Authorities spanning several decades.

First and foremost a service company, we do not operate waste facilities and have no invested interests in

any particular method of waste collection, treatment or processing.

Our success is founded on a very simple philosophy: we recognise that local council tax payers fund the very

important services we provide and that we have a duty to responsive to their needs and accountable to

them for our performance. We take a resident’s perspective in the way design and deliver services and strive

to make recycling as easy and as convenient for them as possible. By giving customers what they want we

are rewarded with higher levels of recycling participation and performance.

I am very satisfied with the rigour and professionalism of this important piece of research. It provides good

information for our colleagues in Local Government, allowing them to make better decisions, whilst at the

same time positively contributing to the evolution and development of our industry.

I very much hope you find it a useful resource for your organisation.

Robin Davies

Business Development Director, Serco Direct Services


Foreword – PlasticsEurope

PlasticsEurope is working with the British Plastics Federation (BPF) and the Packaging and Films Association

(PAFA) to achieve the plastic industry’s goal of Zero Plastics to Landfill by 2020 under its Plastics 2020

Challenge. This is to be achieved through the combination of sustainable recycling and efficient energy

recovery of highly combustible waste for non-recyclable materials. Efficient collection of materials for

recycling sits at the heart of achieving the diversion of materials from landfill and through this report we

seek to identify the top-performing collection methods in the UK that maximise the efficient collection of

materials.

While seven EU Member States plus Norway and Switzerland already landfill less than 10% of post-consumer

plastic waste, 11 EU Member States continue to landfill more than 60%. This is a result of poor enforcement

of existing European legislation, with landfilling frequently the cheapest waste management option. Turning

waste into a resource and moving away from landfilling are key elements for a resource-efficient Europe.

The EU will soon be reviewing the existing landfill diversion targets and is likely to seek to increase recycling

targets.

Plastic is too valuable a resource to bury and achieving the industry’s 2020 vision will reduce the plastic

waste being landfilled every year in the EU from 10 million tonnes currently to almost zero in eight years’

time. This will stimulate the plastics recycling sector and result in more non-recyclable plastic waste being

made available for energy recovery rather than being landfilled and ultimately lead to the creation of Green

Jobs in Europe. If no action is taken, it will be 2037 before the landfilling of plastics stops, based on current

trends. Achieving the 2020 goal will prevent an estimated 80 million tonnes of plastic waste from going to

landfill, an amount representing about 1 billion barrels of oil or Europe’s crude oil requirements for more

than 50 days (2011 figures of 18.5 million barrels per day).

To realise the full potential of plastic, waste prevention and reuse are the first options, followed by quality

recycling when this is the most sustainable option. Plastics that cannot be recycled sustainably provide

valuable feedstock to efficient energy-from-waste facilities to produce electricity, heat or secondary

recovered fuel. The decision as to which route to take should be based on sustainability criteria, i.e. taking

not only environmental, but also economic and social aspects into account.

Kim Christiansen

Director - Northern Region, Plastics Europe


Contents Page

1.0 Executive Summary ..................................................................................................................... 1

2.0 Introduction and Background ....................................................................................................... 1

3.0 Kerbside Dry Recycling Data ........................................................................................................ 4

3.1 Extraction, Analysis and Classification ......................................................................... 4

3.2 Graphing Conventions ............................................................................................... 7

3.3 Classification of Authorities ........................................................................................ 8

3.4 MRF Reject Rates ..................................................................................................... 10

4.0 Kerbside Dry Recycling Performance in 2011/12 .......................................................................... 14

4.1 Overview of Kerbside Dry Recycling Data................................................................... 14

4.2 Top Performing Kerbside Recycling Authorities in 2011/12 .......................................... 20

4.3 Bottom Performing Kerbside Recycling Authorities in 2011/12 ..................................... 25

4.4 Kerbside Recycling Performance by Authority Group ................................................... 31

4.5 Kerbside Recycling Performance versus Deprivation ................................................... 32

4.6 Kerbside Recycling Performance by Collection Type .................................................... 35

4.7 Changing Collection Systems .................................................................................... 36

5.0 Plastics ..................................................................................................................................... 39

5.1 Kerbside Plastics Recycling Performance in 2011/12 ................................................... 39

Table Contents

Table 1. Number of Authorities for each Kerbside Dry Recycling Collection Type ......................................... 6

Table 2. Number of Authorities by Statistical Group ................................................................................... 8


Table 3. Number of Authorities for each Kerbside Dry Recycling Collection Type: Top 30 ........................... 21

Table 4. Collection Details for the Top 30 Kerbside Dry Recycling Authorities in 2011/12 ........................... 22

Table 5. Materials Collected at the Kerbside for Top 30 Authorities in 2011/12 .......................................... 23

Table 6. Number of Authorities for each Kerbside Collection Type: Top and Bottom 30.............................. 26

Table 7. Number of Authorities Collecting Particular Numbers of Materials: Top and Bottom 30 ................. 27

Table 8. Number of Authorities for each Kerbside Collection Type and Number of Materials Collected: Bottom

30 Authorities ....................................................................................................................................... 27

Table 9. Number of Authorities by Frequency and Container: Top and Bottom 30 ..................................... 28

Table 10. Characteristics of the Top and Bottom 30 Authorities ................................................................ 28

Table 11. Materials Collected at the Kerbside for Bottom 30 Authorities in 2011/12 ................................... 29

Table 12. Number of Authorities for each Kerbside Collection Type: Top and Bottom 30 for Plastics ........... 42

Figure Contents

Figure 1. Kerbside Dry Recycling: Range of Performance (kg/hh/yr) by Authority Group .............................. 7

Figure 2. Indices of Multiple Deprivation by Authority Group ...................................................................... 9

Figure 3. Reported MRF Reject Rates ..................................................................................................... 10

Figure 4. Cumulative Frequency Graph of Reported MRF Reject Rates in 2011/12 ..................................... 11

Figure 5. Cumulative Frequency Graph of Reported MRF Reject Rates in Different Years ........................... 12

Figure 6. Cumulative Frequency Graph of Reported MRF Reject Rates in Different Years ........................... 12

Figure 7. Dry Recycling Materials Collected at the Kerbside (kg/hh/yr)...................................................... 14

Figure 8. Dry Recycling Materials Collected at the Kerbside, inc. Co-mingled (kg/hh/yr) ............................. 15

Figure 9. Dry Recycling Materials Collected Separately at the Kerbside (kg/hh/yr) ..................................... 16


Figure 10. Dry Recycling Collected Co-mingled at the Kerbside (kg/hh/yr) ................................................ 17

Figure 11. Dry Recycling Materials Collected Co-mingled at the Kerbside (kg/hh/yr) .................................. 18

Figure 12. Dry Recycling Materials Collected at the Kerbside (kg/hh/yr) .................................................... 19

Figure 13. Dry Recycling Collected at the Kerbside (kg/hh/yr) – Top 30 Authorities ................................... 20

Figure 14. Dry Recycling Collected at the Kerbside (kg/hh/yr) – Bottom 30 Authorities .............................. 25

Figure 15. Range and Medians of Kerbside Dry Recycling Performance (kg/hh/yr) by Authority Group ........ 31

Figure 16. Kerbside Dry Recycling (kg/hh/yr) vs. Deprivation: All and Fully Co-mingled ............................. 32

Figure 17. Kerbside Dry Recycling (kg/hh/yr) vs. Deprivation: Two-Stream or Fully Co-mingled ................. 33

Figure 18. Kerbside Dry Recycling (kg/hh/yr) vs. Deprivation: Separate or Co-mingled .............................. 34

Figure 19. Kerbside Dry Recycling (kg/hh/yr) vs. Deprivation: Two-Stream, Separate or Other .................. 34

Figure 20. Range of Kerbside Dry Recycling Performance (kg/hh/yr) by Collection Type ............................ 35

Figure 21. Plastics Collected at the Kerbside (kg/hh/yr) – All Authorities ................................................... 39

Figure 22. Plastics Collected Co-mingled or Separately at the Kerbside (kg/hh/yr) ..................................... 40

Figure 23. Plastics Collected at the Kerbside (kg/hh/yr) – Top 30 Authorities ............................................ 40

Figure 24. Plastics Collected at the Kerbside (kg/hh/yr) – Bottom 30 Authorities ....................................... 42

Figure 25. Range of Kerbside Plastics Performance (kg/hh/yr) by Collection Type ..................................... 43

Appendices

Appendix A – Glossary and Acronyms

Appendix B – Local Authority Groupings


Page 1 of 43

1.0 Executive Summary

1.1.1 This is WYG’s fourth annual report analysing kerbside recycling performance of local authorities in

the UK. This report covers the period 2011/12 (i.e. April 2011 to March 2012), except for Scottish

authorities for which data for calendar year 2011 is shown as data for January to March 2012 is

being withheld until late 2013.

1.1.2 Analysis has also been made this year by the ONS Area Classifications, which will allow authorities to

benchmark their own performance compared to others with this same classification.

1.1.3 Reject rates at Material Recovery Facilities (MRFs) are analysed for 2011/12 and for previous years,

and it is shown that, in general, reported reject rates are decreasing over time.

1.1.4 The impact of deprivation on yields is examined, with comparison made between authorities with

different collection types. Although authorities with lower deprivation tend to have higher recycling

yields, there is also a marked differentiation in yields by collection type. In general across the

spectrum of deprivation, yields are:

• higher for authorities that collect fully co-mingled including glass,

• then authorities that collect two-stream with separate glass,

• then two-stream with separate paper,

• then collecting separately including glass or co-mingled excluding glass,

• and lowest for authorities collecting separately excluding glass.

1.1.5 There is, of course a high degree of variation: collection type and deprivation are not the only

factors that affect yields.

1.1.6 The yields of all authorities are shown graphically, ranked from highest to lowest, to illustrate the

overall amounts collected at the kerbside, amounts collected co-mingled or separately, materials

extracted from co-mingled collections and the resulting amounts by material, whether collected

separately or co-mingled.

1.1.7 There is a focus on both the top 30 and the bottom 30 authorities to ascertain their collection type,

the number of materials collected, and the frequency of collections and type of containers provided

for both refuse and recycling. This analysis showed that, as found previously, the top performers

tend to collect fully co-mingled including glass with both refuse and recycling collected fortnightly

from wheeled bins. In contrast, the bottom performers tend not to collect fully co-mingled or to use

wheeled bins for recycling and tend to collect recycling fortnightly and refuse weekly.


Page 2 of 43

1.1.8 This year’s report again covers plastics collection and we have analysed plastics yields in a similar

way to overall kerbside recycling yields: which authorities collect the most and the least plastics and

the collection methods used by the top and bottom performers. Similarly to overall yields, the top 30

tend to collect fully co-mingled including glass and many of the bottom 30 collect separately.

1.1.9 The key findings from our research are as follows for kerbside collections:

• 20 of the top 30 authorities collect fully co-mingled including glass; 6 collect two-stream with

either glass or paper separate glass and only 1 collected all materials separately, including glass;

o In contrast, only 2 of the bottom 30 authorities collect fully co-mingled including glass and

13 collect separately including glass;

• All the top 30 collect paper, card, cans, glass and plastic bottles, and 23 collect plastic

containers;

o Of the bottom 30, only 14 collect all five main materials;

• 24 of the top 30 authorities collect recycling fortnightly and 26 collect refuse fortnightly; those

that collect recycling weekly include the authority that collects separately, 3 classified as ‘Other’

and 2 co-mingled authorities;

o Of the bottom 30, 26 collect recycling fortnightly but only 7 collect refuse fortnightly;

• 21 of the top 30 use wheeled bins for recycling and 27 use wheeled bins for refuse;

o Only 3 of the bottom 30 use wheeled bins for recycling and 14 use wheeled bins for refuse;

• 13 of the top 30 authorities for plastics collect it as part of a fully co-mingled collection including

glass and all collect at least some plastics within a co-mingled stream

o Only 1 of the bottom 30 authorities for plastics collect fully co-mingled including glass and

14 collect separately including glass.


Page 3a of 43

2.0 Introduction and Background

2.1.1 This report, the fourth in our series of annual reviews, covers kerbside recycling reported by local

authorities in England, Wales and Northern Ireland in 2011/12, and in calendar year 2011 for

Scotland, for which data for January to March 2012 has not yet been released.

2.1.2 The aim of these reports remains the same: to present factual information on local authority

performance across the UK so that individual authorities may benchmark their own performance and

make their own judgement about whether to change their recycling collection system and if so, what

options to consider.

2.1.3 In the year since the publication of the previous report, the issue of whether an authority is obliged

by the EU Waste Framework Directive (2008/98/EC) to separate materials on collection has been

ruled upon, for England and Wales, by the Judicial Review process. In this, Mr Justice Hickinbottom

concluded that “the obligation to set up separate collection of paper, metal, plastic and glass from

2015 is restricted by both the practicability and necessity requirements that also restrict the

obligation in Article 10(2) to collect separately for the purposes of recovery.” He therefore concluded

that the Directive requirements had been properly transposed into domestic law by the Waste

(England and Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2012. As part of his considerations, he stated “the

Directive, clearly and unarguably, leaves the decision as to practicability to the national authorities of

each Member State: and the United Kingdom has left such decisions to local authorities, to be

policed by the Environment Agency. They were, again clearly and unarguably, entitled to take that

course… In any particular circumstances, whether separate collection is technically, environmentally

and economically practicable is a matter for a context-specific decision by the relevant local

authority and by the enforcement agency.”

2.1.4 This was reinforced by Lord de Mauley, the Defra resource management minister, in a speech

launching the local waste review at the LGA on 4 June 2013: “The Directive introduces the

requirement for separate collection from 2015. It is subject to two important conditions. First, where

it is necessary to facilitate recovery and recycling and second, where it is technically,

environmentally and economically practicable. I am of course pleased that the Courts have agreed

with our interpretation of the Directive and with our view that it should be for local authorities to

make local judgements about where separate collection is necessary and practicable.”

2.1.5 This report examines, as previously, the features of the top 30 authorities for overall dry recycling at

the kerbside and for kerbside plastics recycling. It looks at the materials collected and whether they

are collected separately or co-mingled; the frequency of refuse and recycling collections and the

percentage of households provided with each type of container.


Page 3b of 43

2.1.6 In this latest report, we also focus on the bottom 30 authorities for overall dry recycling at the

kerbside and for kerbside plastics recycling. The aim is not to ‘name and shame’, but to try to

understand some of the reasons for poor performance and how performance can be improved.

2.1.7 Many of these authorities identified as bottom 30 performers in 2011/12 have since changed, or are

changing, their collection systems and WYG has assisted some of these authorities, whether through

procurement or redesign of in-house collection services. Brent has already changed to fully co-

mingled collections, as will Ashford (together with the other partners, Maidstone and Swale). Three

of these authorities – Rother, Wealden and Eastbourne, as well as Hastings – will be moving to two-

stream with separate glass.

2.1.8 When choosing collection systems, WYG favours analysing total costs in order to obtain a true

picture of the cost to the taxpayer of different systems. This includes treatment costs for

recyclables, income from sale of recyclate and savings from treatment and/or disposal of residual

waste as well as collection costs.

2.1.9 In procurement of collection or recyclate treatment contracts, we favour using Competitive Dialogue,

whereby all collection options – kerbside-sort, two-stream with either paper or glass separate, and

fully co-mingled – can be tested against each other.

2.1.10 Our experience to date is that processes that test the total costs against each other tend to show

that:

• Where there is reasonable proximity to a modern MRF capable of processing a wide range of

materials to a good standard, fully co-mingled services are generally cheaper;

• Where there is reasonable proximity to a MRF capable of processing a more limited range of

materials to a good standard, fully co-mingled services may still be cheaper, but often two-

stream collections may be cheaper;

• Where there is not reasonable proximity to a MRF, kerbside-sort services are generally cheaper.

2.1.11 These general principles hold whether the service is delivered through a contract or in-house.

Nevertheless, WYG believes that local authorities should be free to choose their collection system.

Few procurements are made purely on the basis of selecting the lowest-cost solution, although the

current economic situation may mean that cost becomes a more important factor.


Page 4 of 43

3.0 Kerbside Dry Recycling Data

3.1 Extraction, Analysis and Classification

3.1.1 This report provides the results of analyses of kerbside dry recycling yields for unitary and waste

collection authorities the UK in 2011/12 (i.e. April 2011 to March 2012), except for Scottish

authorities for which data for calendar year 2011 is shown; Scottish data for January to March 2012

is being withheld until late 2013.

3.1.2 For 2011/12, kerbside tonnage data is missing for three authorities: the Isles of Scilly does not

operate a kerbside collection service for recycling, but it is not clear why the data for Aberdeenshire

and Dumfries & Galloway is not available for any of 2011. The Shetland Isles provided data but it

was for recyclables extracted from the residual stream so was excluded from this analysis.

3.1.3 Yields for each local authority were calculated from WasteDataFlow data as follows:

• Tonnages of materials collected for recycling at the kerbside were extracted from Question 10,

including tonnage recorded as co-mingled;

• Materials such as garden waste, food waste and bulky materials excluded from the analysis, to

leave only kerbside ‘dry recycling’ materials;

• Amounts rejected from collections were subtracted;

• Tonnages input to materials recovery facilities (MRFs) and tonnages output for recycling were

extracted from Question 58 and a MRF reject rate was derived for each authority:

MRF reject rate = [(tonnage input - tonnage output for recycling) / tonnage input]

• Where MRF data was missing for authorities that collected co-mingled materials, the most recent

MRF reject rate for that authority was used, if appropriate, with a default of 10% if no other

data were available;

• The co-mingled tonnage collected at the kerbside was multiplied by the MRF reject rate to

obtain the amount rejected, and this was subtracted from the kerbside tonnage to derive the

actual amount of recyclable materials net of MRF rejects;

• The average yield in kg per household per year was obtained by multiplying the adjusted

kerbside recycling tonnage by 1,000 and dividing by the number of dwellings (in Question 2);

• The percentage of materials collected co-mingled at the kerbside was obtained by dividing the

adjusted co-mingled tonnage by the adjusted kerbside dry recycling tonnage (both with MRF

rejects subtracted).


Page 5 of 43

3.1.4 On the basis of the co-mingled percentage, kerbside collections were initially classified as being:

• Fully co-mingled (>95% co-mingled);

• Partially Co-mingled (5-95% co-mingled);

• Separate (<5% co-mingled).

3.1.5 The 95% boundary for ‘Fully co-mingled’ collections is to avoid excluding authorities that collect

small amounts of materials separately (such as textiles). The 5% boundary for ‘Separate’ collections

is to include authorities where most materials are collected separately but a small proportion of

materials is collected co-mingled, e.g. from flats.

3.1.6 The ‘Fully co-mingled’ group was divided further into those that included glass in the co-mingled

materials and those that did not, and likewise the ‘Separate’ group was divided into those that

collected glass and those that did not.

3.1.7 For the ‘Partially Co-mingled’ group, the materials collected separately were examined. If only glass

was collected separately, they were classified as ‘Two-stream with separate glass’. If only paper,

card or mixed paper/card was collected as a separate stream, they were classified as ‘Two-stream

with separate paper/card’, as long as glass was included in the co-mingled mix. If the only other

separate stream was textiles, this was ignored, with authorities assigned to the relevant partially co-

mingled group.

3.1.8 All remaining authorities were classified as ‘Other’. This group included authorities that were in

transition between one collection system and another during the year, or that provided different

collections to different types of households (e.g. co-mingled to flats and separate to households with

kerbside collections or vice versa).

3.1.9 WasteDataFlow reporting does not require local authorities to report the composition of their

co-mingled streams. However, when reporting what is sent for reprocessing or reuse, authorities

include materials separated from co-mingled streams at MRFs with materials collected separately:

Amount sent for processing and reuse (Questions 19 and 35)

= (Amount collected separately (Questions 10, 11, 12, 16, 17, 18, 33 and 34)

– Amount rejected from collections (Questions 10, 11, 12, 16, 17, 18, 33 and 34))

+ (Amount collected co-mingled (Questions 10, 11, 12, 16, 17, 18, 33 and 34)

– Amount rejected during MRF processing (Question 58))

+ (Errors or adjustments)

3.1.10 Thus the amounts collected co-mingled and subsequently separated should equal the difference

between the amounts sent for reprocessing or reuse and the amounts collected separately:


Page 6 of 43

(Amount collected co-mingled – Amount rejected during MRF processing)

= Amount sent for processing and reuse

– (Amount collected separately – Amount rejected from collections)

– (Errors or adjustments)

3.1.11 This was used to obtain the composition of the co-mingled materials, which is assumed to be

constant for all co-mingled streams (kerbside, bring, etc) produced by a particular authority.

3.1.12 If the composition of the co-mingled stream was found by this process to be merely cans and

plastics, with all other materials collected separately, the authority was re-classified from ‘Other’ to

‘Separate’: many authorities operating otherwise separate collections collect cans and plastics

together in one compartment, and these may be separated without using a standard MRF.

3.1.13 We are aware that, to save time and effort, some authorities report all their kerbside tonnage

together as co-mingled materials in Question 10, even though they collect materials separately.

Conversely, some authorities report co-mingled materials as separate materials in Question 10,

according to the co-mingled composition. (In fact, this was how authorities had to complete

WasteDataFlow before the introduction of Question 58 to cover MRF-processed materials.). In

general, we assumed that the tonnage reports were a true reflection of how materials are collected.

Where we came across an authority where we knew or found this to be untrue, we corrected the

collection type.

3.1.14 The final classification subdivisions are shown in Table 1, together with the number of authorities in

England, Wales and Scotland in each collection sub-type in 2011/12.

Table 1. Number of Authorities for each Kerbside Dry Recycling Collection Type

% Co-mingled

Type Sub-type Code All England Northern Ireland

Scotland Wales

>95% Fully co-mingled

Including glass C 87 77 7 3

Excluding glass C’ 67 46 13 5 3

5%-95% Two-stream

Separate

paper/card* C/p 48 44 1 3

Separate glass C/g 30 24 6

Other Other O 41 30 8 3

<5% Separate Including glass S 118 93 6 9 10

Excluding glass S’ 5 5

No kerbside recycling collections or none reported n/a 4 1 3

Total - 400 320 26 32 22

* And where the co-mingled stream also includes glass


Page 7 of 43

3.2 Graphing Conventions

3.2.1 In bar charts in this report (such as Figure 1 below), the ranges of performance for each group are

divided into:

• ‘Top 25%’: the best performing 25% of authorities in that group, shown in green;

• ‘Above median’: the next 25% of authorities, shown in yellow;

• ‘Below median’: the next 25% of authorities, shown in orange;

• ‘Bottom 25%’: the worst performing 25% of authorities, in that group, shown in red.

3.2.2 The numbers shown on the bars are the maxima and minima (and sometimes the boundaries

between each section). The medians of each group are indicated by diamonds.

3.2.3 The values in brackets underneath each column are the numbers of authorities in that group that

are included in the analysis. Authorities without the necessary data in WasteDataFlow are not

included.

Figure 1. Kerbside Dry Recycling: Range of Performance (kg/hh/yr) by Authority Group

310

267255

231244

209223

180

252

208

232

191

219

310

7063

86

122115 117

34

102

7765 69

78 78

34

18

7

18

1

155

17

4

15

7

16

2

14

1

15

1

14

4

12

1

15

3

125

14

0

15

4

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

01

. P

rosp

. S

. E

ng

lan

d (

43

)

02

. P

rosp

. T

ow

ns

-C

(4

0)

03

. P

rosp

. T

ow

ns

-B

(3

8)

04

. P

rosp

. T

ow

ns

-A

(2

7)

05

. N

ew

/ G

row

. T

ow

ns (

23

)

06

. O

ute

r L

on

do

n/

Pe

ri. (2

1)

07

. C

oast/

C

ou

ntr

y (

48

)

08

. N

I C

ou

ntr

ysid

e

(13

)

09

. M

an

uf.

To

wn

s

(41

)

10

. R

eg

ion

al

Ce

ntr

es (

24

)

11

. In

d.

Hin

terl

an

ds (

42

)

12

. In

ne

r L

on

do

n

(15

)

13

. C

en

tre

s w

. In

d. (2

1)

All

(39

6)

Ke

rbsid

e d

ry r

ecy

clin

g (

kg

/ h

h/ yr)

_

Top 25%

Above median

Below median

Bottom 25%

Median


Page 8 of 43

3.3 Classification of Authorities

3.3.1 For this report, performance has been analysed by groups of authorities with similar characteristics.

The basis for this grouping is the ONS (Office of National Statistics) 2001 Area Classifications, which

groups local authorities according to key characteristics of their populations. These groups were also

used for the WRAP (Waste & Resources Action Programme) local authority waste and recycling

performance benchmarks, although here groups are combined slightly differently to make the group

sizes more uniform, and the groups are ordered and numbered by increasing relative deprivation,

since recycling performance is strongly correlated with deprivation.

3.3.2 Table 2 provides an overview of the groups and the number of authorities by in each group.

Appendix B provides, for each authority, the ONS group and WYG group used for analyses in this

report. This allows local authorities to identify the comparator group that can be used to benchmark

their own performance. Note that the four authorities that have been excluded from these analyses

due to lack of kerbside collections (Isles of Scilly, Shetland Isles) or lack of data (Aberdeenshire,

Dumfries & Galloway) are all in the ‘07. Coast/ Country’ group.

Table 2. Number of Authorities by Statistical Group

Total

Our Group ONS Group Total

England

N. Ireland

Scotland

Wales

43 01. Prosp. S. England Prospering Southern England 43 43

40 02. Prosp. Towns – C Prospering Smaller Towns - C 40 40

38 03. Prosp. Towns – B Prospering Smaller Towns - B 38 38

27 04. Prosp. Towns – A Prospering Smaller Towns - A 27 20 2 3 2

23 05. New/ Grow. Towns New and Growing Towns 23 23

21 06. Outer London/ Peri. Thriving London Periphery 9 12

London Suburbs 12 9

52

(48) 07. Coast/ Country Coastal and Countryside

52

(48)

33

(32)

11

(8)

8

13 08. NI Countryside Northern Ireland Countryside 13 13

41 09. Manuf. Towns Manufacturing Towns 41 28 10 3

24 10. Regional Centres Regional Centres 24 19 4 1

42 11. Ind. Hinterlands Industrial Hinterlands 42 19 1 14 8

15 12. Inner London London Centre 8 8

London Cosmopolitan 7 7

21 13. Centres w. Ind. Centres with Industry 21 21

400 Total 400 320 26 32 22

396 Total excluding those with no collections or data 396 319 26 29 22


Page 9 of 43

3.3.3 Figure 2 shows the range of deprivation for each group (as indicated by the range of the vertical

bars). The number of authorities in each group is indicated in brackets next to the group label on

the horizontal axis. Only English authorities are included in this figure as each nation has a different

deprivation scale.

3.3.4 In this chart, the bars are reversed from those used for performance: the 25% of authorities with

lowest deprivation in each group are indicated by the green band and the 25% with the highest

deprivation are indicated by the red band.

3.3.5 The chart indicates that median deprivation increases across the groups and in general the minima

and maxima follow a similar pattern. It is important to bear in mind that, in general, the groups

containing fewer authorities will tend to have narrower ranges, thus a smaller group with a small

range does not necessarily have less variability between members than a larger group with a large

range.

Figure 2. Indices of Multiple Deprivation by Authority Group

14

2224

22

26

35

40

34

30

43

4143

41

43

10

1516 17

21

24 24 24

27 27

33

3634

25

8

11 1113

1715 15

18

2223

2725

30

12

4

79

8

12

1012

1517 18

22

11

23

4

10

13 1315

18

20 20 21

2426

2931

33

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

01. P

rosp

. S

. E

ngla

nd (

43)

02. P

rosp

. T

ow

ns C

(4

0)

03. P

rosp

. T

ow

ns

B

(38)

04. P

rosp

. T

ow

ns

A

(20)

05. N

ew

/ G

row

. T

ow

ns

(23)

06. O

ute

r London/

Peri. (2

1)

07. C

oast

/ C

ountr

y

(33)

08. N

I C

ountr

ysi

de

(13)

09. M

anuf.

Tow

ns

(28)

10. R

egio

nal

Centr

es

(19)

11. I

nd.

Hin

terlands

(19)

12. I

nner

London

(15)

13. C

entr

es

w. In

d.

(21)

All

(320)

Ind

ex

of

Mu

ltip

le D

ep

riv

atio

n _

Highest deprivation

Above median

Below median

Lowest deprivation

Median

Note: Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are excluded from this figure as they use a different ranking system for deprivation.

All 320 English unitary or collection authorities are shown, including The Isles of Scilly.


Page 10 of 43

3.4 MRF Reject Rates

3.4.1 Figure 3 shows the range of reject rates for the current dataset, for authorities grouped according to

their ONS classification. The medians of each group were below 10%, with the more affluent groups

(to the left) tending to have lower reject rates and the more deprived groups (to the right) tending

to have higher reject rates. This may reflect better compliance and thus lower contamination in less

deprived areas. The maxima also tend to be higher for more the deprived groups. The group with

the highest median was Group 13, Centres with Industry, with a median reject rate of 9%, while

Group 07, Coastal and Countryside, had the two worst reject rates: 38% for Carmarthenshire

(2010/11 figure; 2011/12 missing) and 33% for Ceredigion, but a median reject rate of 5%.

Figure 3. Reported MRF Reject Rates

18%

16%14%

9%

16%

18%

8%

18%

20%

22%

17%

30%

0.1% 0.2% 0.4% 0.3% 0.6% 1.7% 0.5%

5.3%

0.6% 0.2% 1.0%2.8%

1.6% 0.1%

5%

5% 6

%

3%

7%

5%

5%

6%

5%

8%

7%

5%

9%

6%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

01. P

rosp

. S

. E

ng

land

(32)

02. P

rosp

. To

wns -

C(2

6)

03. P

rosp

. To

wns -

B(2

4)

04. P

rosp

. To

wns -

A(1

6)

05. N

ew

/ G

row

. To

wns

(19)

06. O

ute

r Lo

nd

on/

Peri.

(17)

07. C

oast/

Co

untr

y(3

0)

08. N

I C

ountr

ysid

e(1

1)

09. M

anuf.

To

wns

(21)

10. R

eg

ional

Centr

es

(19)

11. In

d.

Hin

terland

s(3

0)

12. In

ner

Lo

nd

on

(15)

13. C

entr

es w

. In

d.

(17)

All

(277)

MR

F r

eje

ct

rate

(%

) _

Highest 25%

Above median

Below median

Lowest 25%

Median

38% 38%

3.4.2 MRF reject rates reported in 2011/12 are illustrated as a cumulative frequency graph in Figure 4.

The cumulative frequency is the percentage of authorities that have a reject rate less than that

value. For instance, 75% of authorities reported a MRF reject rate of 9.2% or less (i.e. 25% of

authorities reported MRF rejects higher than 9.2%), 50% reported a reject rate of 5.5% or less (i.e.

the median was 5.5%) and 25% reported a reject rate of 3.1% or less. Authorities that did not use


Page 11 of 43

a MRF or did not provide MRF reject data are not included in this analysis. Approximately 80% of

authorities used MRFs with reject rates lower than 10%. However, this means that 20% of

authorities used MRFs with reject rates higher than 10%. Some of these reported figures may be for

MRFs processing very poor quality input material, or for Mechanical Biological Treatment plants or

so-called ‘Dirty MRFs’, which extract recyclables from residual or highly contaminated streams rather

than processing a co-mingled stream containing low contraries.

Figure 4. Cumulative Frequency Graph of Reported MRF Reject Rates in 2011/12

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%

MRF reject rate

Cu

mu

lati

ve

fre

qu

en

cy_

5.5%3.1% 9.2%

3.4.3 Figures 4 and 5 show reject rates for the first quarters of different years (including 2012/13), to

illustrate the changes in MRF reject rates over time. Older periods are shown in red, fading and

changing to blue for newer periods. Figure 5 shows the cumulative probabilities for reject rates up to

35% while Figure 6 expands the first section of this figure, for reject rates up to 10%.

3.4.4 The figures illustrate that, in general, reject rates are decreasing over time (there is a higher

probability of reject rates being lower than a certain amount over time): for example, in the first

quarter of 2006/07, 60% of authorities using MRFs reported reject rates of less than 10%, and in

the first quarter of 2012/13, 77% of authorities did.


Page 12 of 43

Figure 5. Cumulative Frequency Graph of Reported MRF Reject Rates in Different Years

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%

Cu

mu

lati

ve P

rob

ab

ility

(%

)

MRF Reject Rate (%)

Apr 12 - Jun 12

Apr 11 - Jun 11

Apr 10 - Jun 10

Apr 09 - Jun 09

Apr 08 - Jun 08

Apr 07 - Jun 07

Apr 06 - Jun 06

Figure 6. Cumulative Frequency Graph of Reported MRF Reject Rates in Different Years

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

0% 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6% 7% 8% 9% 10%

Cu

mu

lati

ve P

rob

ab

ility

(%

)

MRF Reject Rate (%)

Apr 12 - Jun 12

Apr 11 - Jun 11

Apr 10 - Jun 10

Apr 09 - Jun 09

Apr 08 - Jun 08

Apr 07 - Jun 07

Apr 06 - Jun 06


Page 13 of 43

3.4.5 Decreases in reject rates may be due to improving sorting machinery or procedures at MRFs, use of

a newer MRF with better sorting systems, or decreasing contamination in the input streams.

3.4.6 The percentage of authorities with low reject rates has not decreased uniformly: for example, in the

first quarter of 2006/07, 10% of authorities using MRFs reported reject rates of less than 1%, and in

the first quarter of 2012/13, 6% of authorities did. This may reflect a move to more accurate

reporting of reject rates.


Page 14 of 43

4.0 Kerbside Dry Recycling Performance in 2011/12

4.1 Overview of Kerbside Dry Recycling Data

4.1.1 Figure 7 shows the dry recycling yield for each local authority in the UK calculated using the process

described in Section 3.1. Yields are shown net of rejects and the authorities were sorted by

decreasing yields and displayed as columns. Yields range from 310 kg/hh/yr for South Oxfordshire to

34 kg/hh/yr for Eilean Siar.

Figure 7. Dry Recycling Materials Collected at the Kerbside (kg/hh/yr)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

So

uth

Oxfo

rdshire

Castle P

oin

t

Hunting

do

nshire

West Lin

dsey

Sto

ckp

ort

Denb

ighshire

Eastleig

h

Bla

by

Daventr

y

Falk

irk

Thre

e R

ivers

Thurr

ock

Mag

hera

felt

Waverley

Sta

ffo

rdsh

ire M

oo

rland

s

Cheshire W

est

and

Cheste

r

Pend

le

Nuneato

n a

nd

Bed

wo

rth

Harb

oro

ug

h

Bed

ford

Stirlin

g

Ferm

anag

h

Cante

rbury

Bo

lso

ver

Kirkl

ees

Bassetlaw

Shro

pshire

No

rthum

berland

Bally

mena

Inverc

lyd

e

Islin

gto

n

Lew

isham

No

rth D

ow

n

Hackn

ey

Arg

yll

and

Bute

Ard

s

Dud

ley

To

wer

Ham

lets

Bra

dfo

rd

Gla

sg

ow

Ma

teri

als

co

llec

ted

at

the

ke

rbs

ide

, a

dj.

(k

g/h

h/y

r)

Total dry

4.1.2 The following figures provide more detail on the materials collected separately or co-mingled at the

kerbside, and the composition of the streams. The graphs show data as reported in WasteDataFlow

without correction, except for subtraction of rejects.

4.1.3 Figure 8 provides a breakdown of materials collected at the kerbside, indicating whether materials

were collected co-mingled (bright green) or separately (other colours). The ‘Total dry’ line indicates

recycling net of rejects; materials rejected at MRFs and subtracted from the co-mingled materials

are shown above this line. Paper and card are grouped together, whether collected separately or

not; ‘Cans’ includes aerosols and foil, if collected, and ‘Other’ materials may include textiles, waxed


Page 15 of 43

containers (e.g. Tetrapak), books and household (non-automotive) batteries. The lower graph shows

the composition of the materials collected at the kerbside (net of rejects).

4.1.4 It can be seen that the highest performing authorities tended to collect co-mingled, with most of

these collecting fully co-mingled (as indicated by completely green columns) and authorities

collecting materials separately tended to have lower yields.

Figure 8. Dry Recycling Materials Collected at the Kerbside, inc. Co-mingled (kg/hh/yr)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

So

uth

Oxfo

rdshire

Castle P

oin

t

Hunting

do

nshire

West Lin

dsey

Sto

ckp

ort

Denb

ighshire

Eastleig

h

Bla

by

Daventr

y

Falk

irk

Thre

e R

ivers

Thurr

ock

Mag

hera

felt

Waverley

Sta

ffo

rdsh

ire M

oo

rland

s

Cheshire W

est

and

Cheste

r

Pend

le

Nuneato

n a

nd

Bed

wo

rth

Harb

oro

ug

h

Bed

ford

Stirlin

g

Ferm

anag

h

Cante

rbury

Bo

lso

ver

Kirkl

ees

Bassetlaw

Shro

pshire

No

rthum

berland

Bally

mena

Inverc

lyd

e

Islin

gto

n

Lew

isham

No

rth D

ow

n

Hackn

ey

Arg

yll

and

Bute

Ard

s

Dud

ley

To

wer

Ham

lets

Bra

dfo

rd

Gla

sg

ow

Ma

teri

als

co

llec

ted

at

the

ke

rbs

ide

, a

dj.

(k

g/h

h/y

r)

MRF rejects

Co-mingled

Other

Glass

Plastics

Cans

Paper/ Card

Total dry

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

So

uth

Oxfo

rdshire

Castle P

oin

t

Hunting

do

nshire

West Lin

dsey

Sto

ckp

ort

Denb

ighshire

Eastleig

h

Bla

by

Daventr

y

Falk

irk

Thre

e R

ivers

Thurr

ock

Mag

hera

felt

Waverley

Sta

ffo

rdsh

ire M

oo

rland

s

Cheshire W

est

and

Cheste

r

Pend

le

Nuneato

n a

nd

Bed

wo

rth

Harb

oro

ug

h

Bed

ford

Stirlin

g

Ferm

anag

h

Cante

rbury

Bo

lso

ver

Kirkl

ees

Bassetlaw

Shro

pshire

No

rthum

berland

Bally

mena

Inverc

lyd

e

Islin

gto

n

Lew

isham

No

rth D

ow

n

Hackn

ey

Arg

yll

and

Bute

Ard

s

Dud

ley

To

wer

Ham

lets

Bra

dfo

rd

Gla

sg

ow

Co

mp

os

itio

n o

f m

ate

ria

ls c

olle

cte

d a

t th

e k

erb

sid

e (

%)

Paper/ Card Cans Plastics Glass Other Co-mingled


Page 16 of 43

4.1.5 Figure 9 shows the only the materials collected separately at the kerbside and the total amount of

dry recycling, both net of rejects. The lower graph shows the composition of the materials collected

at the kerbside, net of rejects, with co-mingled materials indicated by white columns.

Figure 9. Dry Recycling Materials Collected Separately at the Kerbside (kg/hh/yr)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

So

uth

Oxfo

rdshire

Castle P

oin

t

Hunting

do

nshire

West Lin

dsey

Sto

ckp

ort

Denb

ighshire

Eastleig

h

Bla

by

Daventr

y

Falk

irk

Thre

e R

ivers

Thurr

ock

Mag

hera

felt

Waverley

Sta

ffo

rdsh

ire M

oo

rland

s

Cheshire W

est

and

Cheste

r

Pend

le

Nuneato

n a

nd

Bed

wo

rth

Harb

oro

ug

h

Bed

ford

Stirlin

g

Ferm

anag

h

Cante

rbury

Bo

lso

ver

Kirkl

ees

Bassetlaw

Shro

pshire

No

rthum

berland

Bally

mena

Inverc

lyd

e

Islin

gto

n

Lew

isham

No

rth D

ow

n

Hackn

ey

Arg

yll

and

Bute

Ard

s

Dud

ley

To

wer

Ham

lets

Bra

dfo

rd

Gla

sg

ow

Ma

teri

als

co

lle

cte

d s

ep

ara

tely

at

the

ke

rbs

ide

(k

g/h

h/y

r) Other

Glass

Plastics

Cans

Paper/ Card

Total dry

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

So

uth

Oxfo

rdshire

Castle P

oin

t

Hunting

do

nshire

West Lin

dsey

Sto

ckp

ort

Denb

ighshire

Eastleig

h

Bla

by

Daventr

y

Falk

irk

Thre

e R

ivers

Thurr

ock

Mag

hera

felt

Waverley

Sta

ffo

rdsh

ire M

oo

rland

s

Cheshire W

est

and

Cheste

r

Pend

le

Nuneato

n a

nd

Bed

wo

rth

Harb

oro

ug

h

Bed

ford

Stirlin

g

Ferm

anag

h

Cante

rbury

Bo

lso

ver

Kirkl

ees

Bassetlaw

Shro

pshire

No

rthum

berland

Bally

mena

Inverc

lyd

e

Islin

gto

n

Lew

isham

No

rth D

ow

n

Hackn

ey

Arg

yll

and

Bute

Ard

s

Dud

ley

To

wer

Ham

lets

Bra

dfo

rd

Gla

sg

ow

Co

mp

os

itio

n o

f m

ate

ria

ls c

olle

cte

d a

t th

e k

erb

sid

e (

%)

Paper/ Card Cans Plastics Glass Other Co-mingled


Page 17 of 43

4.1.6 Figure 10 shows only the materials collected co-mingled at the kerbside and the total amount of dry

recycling, both net of rejects. The lower graph shows the composition of the materials collected at

the kerbside, net of rejects, with co-mingled materials indicated by green columns and separate

materials by white columns.

Figure 10. Dry Recycling Collected Co-mingled at the Kerbside (kg/hh/yr)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

So

uth

Oxfo

rdshire

Castle P

oin

t

Hunting

do

nshire

West Lin

dsey

Sto

ckp

ort

Denb

ighshire

Eastleig

h

Bla

by

Daventr

y

Falk

irk

Thre

e R

ivers

Thurr

ock

Mag

hera

felt

Waverley

Sta

ffo

rdsh

ire M

oo

rland

s

Cheshire W

est

and

Cheste

r

Pend

le

Nuneato

n a

nd

Bed

wo

rth

Harb

oro

ug

h

Bed

ford

Stirlin

g

Ferm

anag

h

Cante

rbury

Bo

lso

ver

Kirkl

ees

Bassetlaw

Shro

pshire

No

rthum

berland

Bally

mena

Inverc

lyd

e

Islin

gto

n

Lew

isham

No

rth D

ow

n

Hackn

ey

Arg

yll

and

Bute

Ard

s

Dud

ley

To

wer

Ham

lets

Bra

dfo

rd

Gla

sg

ow

Ma

teri

als

co

lle

cte

d c

o-m

ing

led

at

the

ke

rbs

ide

, a

dj.

(k

g/h

h/y

r)

Co-mingled

Total dry

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

So

uth

Oxfo

rdshire

Castle P

oin

t

Hunting

do

nshire

West Lin

dsey

Sto

ckp

ort

Denb

ighshire

Eastleig

h

Bla

by

Daventr

y

Falk

irk

Thre

e R

ivers

Thurr

ock

Mag

hera

felt

Waverley

Sta

ffo

rdsh

ire M

oo

rland

s

Cheshire W

est

and

Cheste

r

Pend

le

Nuneato

n a

nd

Bed

wo

rth

Harb

oro

ug

h

Bed

ford

Stirlin

g

Ferm

anag

h

Cante

rbury

Bo

lso

ver

Kirkl

ees

Bassetlaw

Shro

pshire

No

rthum

berland

Bally

mena

Inverc

lyd

e

Islin

gto

n

Lew

isham

No

rth D

ow

n

Hackn

ey

Arg

yll

and

Bute

Ard

s

Dud

ley

To

wer

Ham

lets

Bra

dfo

rd

Gla

sg

owPe

rce

nta

ge

co

-min

gle

d a

t th

e k

erb

sid

e (

%)

Co-mingled Separate


Page 18 of 43

4.1.7 Figure 11 provides the breakdown of the co-mingled materials, obtained as described in Section 3.1,

as well as the total amount of dry recycling. Where amounts of materials processed or reused are

not reported, the composition of co-mingled materials cannot be estimated, so these are still shown

in green and labelled ‘Not reported’. The lower graph provides a percentage breakdown.

Figure 11. Dry Recycling Materials Collected Co-mingled at the Kerbside (kg/hh/yr)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

So

uth

Oxfo

rdshire

Castle P

oin

t

Hunting

do

nshire

West Lin

dsey

Sto

ckp

ort

Denb

ighshire

Eastleig

h

Bla

by

Daventr

y

Falk

irk

Thre

e R

ivers

Thurr

ock

Mag

hera

felt

Waverley

Sta

ffo

rdsh

ire M

oo

rland

s

Cheshire W

est

and

Cheste

r

Pend

le

Nuneato

n a

nd

Bed

wo

rth

Harb

oro

ug

h

Bed

ford

Stirlin

g

Ferm

anag

h

Cante

rbury

Bo

lso

ver

Kirkl

ees

Bassetlaw

Shro

pshire

No

rthum

berland

Bally

mena

Inverc

lyd

e

Islin

gto

n

Lew

isham

No

rth D

ow

n

Hackn

ey

Arg

yll

and

Bute

Ard

s

Dud

ley

To

wer

Ham

lets

Bra

dfo

rd

Gla

sg

ow

Ma

teri

als

co

lle

cte

d c

o-m

ing

led

at

the

ke

rbs

ide

, a

dj.

(k

g/h

h/y

r)

Not reported

Other

Glass

Plastics

Cans

Paper/ Card

Total dry

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

So

uth

Oxfo

rdshire

Castle P

oin

t

Hunting

do

nshire

West Lin

dsey

Sto

ckp

ort

Denb

ighshire

Eastleig

h

Bla

by

Daventr

y

Falk

irk

Thre

e R

ivers

Thurr

ock

Mag

hera

felt

Waverley

Sta

ffo

rdsh

ire M

oo

rland

s

Cheshire W

est

and

Cheste

r

Pend

le

Nuneato

n a

nd

Bed

wo

rth

Harb

oro

ug

h

Bed

ford

Stirlin

g

Ferm

anag

h

Cante

rbury

Bo

lso

ver

Kirkl

ees

Bassetlaw

Shro

pshire

No

rthum

berland

Bally

mena

Inverc

lyd

e

Islin

gto

n

Lew

isham

No

rth D

ow

n

Hackn

ey

Arg

yll

and

Bute

Ard

s

Dud

ley

To

wer

Ham

lets

Bra

dfo

rd

Gla

sg

ow

Bre

ak

do

wn

of m

ate

ria

ls c

olle

cte

d a

t th

e k

erb

sid

e (

%)

Paper/ Card Cans Plastics Glass Other Not reported Separate


Page 19 of 43

4.1.8 Figure 12 shows the result of adding the materials from separate and co-mingled collections: in

effect, the top graph is obtained by adding together the top graphs of Figures 9 and 11. It provides

the breakdown of all materials collected at the kerbside, regardless of whether they were collected

separately or co-mingled. The lower graph shows the percentage composition.

Figure 12. Dry Recycling Materials Collected at the Kerbside (kg/hh/yr)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

So

uth

Oxfo

rdshire

Castle P

oin

t

Hunting

do

nshire

West Lin

dsey

Sto

ckp

ort

Denb

ighshire

Eastleig

h

Bla

by

Daventr

y

Falk

irk

Thre

e R

ivers

Thurr

ock

Mag

hera

felt

Waverley

Sta

ffo

rdsh

ire M

oo

rland

s

Cheshire W

est

and

Cheste

r

Pend

le

Nuneato

n a

nd

Bed

wo

rth

Harb

oro

ug

h

Bed

ford

Stirlin

g

Ferm

anag

h

Cante

rbury

Bo

lso

ver

Kirkl

ees

Bassetlaw

Shro

pshire

No

rthum

berland

Bally

mena

Inverc

lyd

e

Islin

gto

n

Lew

isham

No

rth D

ow

n

Hackn

ey

Arg

yll

and

Bute

Ard

s

Dud

ley

To

wer

Ham

lets

Bra

dfo

rd

Gla

sg

ow

Ma

teri

als

co

llec

ted

at

the

ke

rbs

ide

, a

dj.

(k

g/h

h/y

r)

Not reported

Other

Glass

Plastics

Cans

Paper/ Card

Total dry

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

So

uth

Oxfo

rdshire

Castle P

oin

t

Hunting

do

nshire

West Lin

dsey

Sto

ckp

ort

Denb

ighshire

Eastleig

h

Bla

by

Daventr

y

Falk

irk

Thre

e R

ivers

Thurr

ock

Mag

hera

felt

Waverley

Sta

ffo

rdsh

ire M

oo

rland

s

Cheshire W

est

and

Cheste

r

Pend

le

Nuneato

n a

nd

Bed

wo

rth

Harb

oro

ug

h

Bed

ford

Stirlin

g

Ferm

anag

h

Cante

rbury

Bo

lso

ver

Kirkl

ees

Bassetlaw

Shro

pshire

No

rthum

berland

Bally

mena

Inverc

lyd

e

Islin

gto

n

Lew

isham

No

rth D

ow

n

Hackn

ey

Arg

yll

and

Bute

Ard

s

Dud

ley

To

wer

Ham

lets

Bra

dfo

rd

Gla

sg

ow

Co

mp

os

itio

n o

f m

ate

ria

ls c

olle

cte

d a

t th

e k

erb

sid

e (

%)

Paper/ Card Cans Plastics Glass Other Not reported


Page 20 of 43

4.2 Top Performing Kerbside Recycling Authorities in 2011/12

4.2.1 Figure 13 focuses on the top 30 authorities for kerbside dry recycling performance. The lower graph

shows the final material amounts, whether derived from separate or co-mingled collections.

Figure 13. Dry Recycling Collected at the Kerbside (kg/hh/yr) – Top 30 Authorities

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

So

uth

Oxfo

rdshire

Surr

ey H

eath

Vale

of

White H

ors

e

Win

dso

r and

Maid

enhead

Lic

hfi

eld

Elm

brid

ge

Mo

le V

alle

y

Ro

chfo

rd

So

uth

Keste

ven

No

rth S

om

ers

et

Castle P

oin

t

Ep

pin

g F

ore

st

Tam

wo

rth

Canno

ck

Chase

Rutland

Str

atf

ord

-on-A

vo

n

So

uth

Cam

brid

geshire

West O

xfo

rdshire

Basild

on

Wychavo

n

Hunting

do

nshire

Wo

king

No

rth K

este

ven

Mid

Sussex

So

uth

Ho

lland

Caerp

hill

y

Charn

wo

od

Guild

ford

Centr

al

Bed

ford

shire

Sp

eltho

rne

Ma

teri

als

co

llec

ted

at

the

ke

rbs

ide

, a

dj.

(k

g/h

h/y

r)

Co-mingled

Other

Glass

Plastics

Cans

Paper/ Card

Total dry

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

So

uth

Oxfo

rdshire

Surr

ey H

eath

Vale

of

White H

ors

e

Win

dso

r and

Maid

enhead

Lic

hfi

eld

Elm

brid

ge

Mo

le V

alle

y

Ro

chfo

rd

So

uth

Keste

ven

No

rth S

om

ers

et

Castle P

oin

t

Ep

pin

g F

ore

st

Tam

wo

rth

Canno

ck

Chase

Rutland

Str

atf

ord

-on-A

vo

n

So

uth

Cam

brid

geshire

West O

xfo

rdshire

Basild

on

Wychavo

n

Hunting

do

nshire

Wo

king

No

rth K

este

ven

Mid

Sussex

So

uth

Ho

lland

Caerp

hill

y

Charn

wo

od

Guild

ford

Centr

al

Bed

ford

shire

Sp

eltho

rne

Ma

teri

als

co

lle

cte

d a

t th

e k

erb

sid

e, a

dj.

(k

g/h

h/y

r)

Not reported

Other

Glass

Plastics

Cans

Paper/ Card

Total dry


Page 21 of 43

4.2.2 It can be seen that, for the top 30 authorities:

• All 30 authorities collected (as a minimum) paper, card, cans, plastics and glass;

• 20 authorities collected fully co-mingled (the columns in the upper graph are entirely green);

• 5 authorities collected co-mingled with separate glass (green and yellow columns: Castle Point,

Epping Forest, Basildon, Charnwood and Central Bedfordshire); one of these (Charnwood)

changed to collecting fully co-mingled including glass during 2011/12;

• 1 authority collected co-mingled with separate paper (green and blue: South Cambridgeshire,

which collected card co-mingled with the other materials);

• 3 authorities used a combination of collection methods (green and multiple other colours:

Windsor and Maidenhead, West Oxfordshire and Guildford);

• 1 authority collected all materials separately (no green in column: North Somerset).

4.2.3 Table 3 provides a summary of the top 30:

Table 3. Number of Authorities for each Kerbside Dry Recycling Collection Type: Top 30

Code Type

Number

in Top 30

C Fully co-mingled including glass 20

C' Fully co-mingled excluding glass 0

C/p Two stream, separate paper/card 1 (Card co-mingled for this authority)

C/g Two stream, separate glass 5

O Other 3

S Separate including glass 1

S' Separate excluding glass 0

4.2.4 Table 4 provides further information on each of the Top 30 authorities: whether it is a WYG client,

its kerbside dry recycling yield in kg/hh/yr, type of collection, percentage of materials collected co-

mingled at the kerbside, frequency of refuse and recycling collections and percentage of households

provided with each type of container. In summary (relevant cells are shaded):

• 24 authorities collected recycling fortnightly;

• 21 authorities collected recycling using wheeled bins for more than 75% of households;

• 26 authorities collected refuse fortnightly;

• 27 authorities collected refuse using wheeled bins for more than 75% of households.


Page 22 of 43

Table 4. Collection Details for the Top 30 Kerbside Dry Recycling Authorities in 2011/12

Rank Authority

WYG client

Kerbside

Recycling

kg/hh/yr

Type

%

Co-m

ingled Recycling Refuse

Freq.

Wheeled

Bins

Sacks/

Other

Kerbside

Boxes

Freq.

Wheeled

Bins

Sacks/

Other

Com-

munal

1 South Oxfordshire � 310 C 100% F 96% 4% F 90% 4% 5%

2 Surrey Heath � 291 C 100% F 98% 1% F 89% 2% 8%

3 Vale of White Horse � 282 C 100% F 97% 3% F 91% 3% 7%

4 Windsor and Maidenhead 276 O 76% W 100% W 85% 5% 10%

5 Lichfield 267 C 100% F 100% 0% F 96% 1% 3%

6 Elmbridge � 263 C 100% F 96% 4% F 88% 4% 8%

7 Mole Valley � 263 C 100% F 85% 16% F 85% 10% 6%

8 Rochford 261 C 99% F 99% F 100% 0%

9 South Kesteven 258 C 100% F 100% F 100%

10 North Somerset � 255 S 0% W 92% F 83% 8% 8%

11 Castle Point � 253 C/g 77% F 100% 100% F 100%

12 Epping Forest � 253 C/g 78% F 5% 95% 95% F 91% 3% 5%

13 Tamworth 252 C 100% F 100% F 100%

14 Cannock Chase 250 C 100% F 100% F 100% 0%

15 Rutland 249 C 100% F 99% 1% F 96% 1% 3%

16 Stratford-on-Avon 249 C 100% F 96% 4% F 94% 4% 2%

17 South Cambridgeshire 249 C/p 66% F 100% 0% F 95% 0% 4%

18 West Oxfordshire � 245 O 26% W 5% 95% F 94% 1% 5%

19 Basildon � 244 C/g 78% F 93% 98% W 90% 9%

20 Wychavon 241 C 100% F 90% 10% 7% F 90% 7% 3%

21 Huntingdonshire � 240 C 100% F 88% 12% F 92% 4% 5%

22 Woking � 239 C 100% F 93% 7% F 86% 4% 10%

23 North Kesteven � 238 C 100% F 99% F 99%

24 Mid Sussex 237 C 100% F 99% F 99%

25 South Holland 234 C 100% W 100% W 100%

26 Caerphilly 232 C 100% W 71% 1% 27% W 98% 2%

27 Charnwood 231 C/g 88% F 98% 2% 98% F 98% 2%

28 Guildford � 231 O 17% W 8% 9% 83% F 86% 9% 6%

29 Central Bedfordshire 230 C/g 82% F 72% 16% 12% F 91% 5% 4%

30 Spelthorne � 229 C 100% F 94% F 89% 0% 11%


Page 23 of 43

4.2.5 Table 5 provides information on the materials collected at the kerbside for each of the top 30.

Table 5. Materials Collected at the Kerbside for Top 30 Authorities in 2011/12

Rank

Authority All 5

Other plastics

Textiles

Aerosols

Foil

Cartons

Materials collected separately or co-mingled

1 South Oxfordshire �� Co-mingled (100%: Paper, Card, Cans, Glass, Plastic containers, Aerosols, Foil, Cartons)

2 Surrey Heath �� Co-mingled (100%: Paper, Card, Cans, Glass, Plastic containers, Aerosols, Foil, Cartons)

3 Vale of White Horse �� Co-mingled (100%: Paper, Card, Cans, Glass, Plastic containers, Aerosols, Foil, Cartons)

4 Windsor and Maidenhead ��

Other (76% Co-mingled: Paper, Card, Cans, Plastic bottles, Glass, Aerosols), Paper/ Card (16%), Cans (1%), Plastic bottles (1%), Glass (5%)

5 Lichfield �� Co-mingled (100%: Paper, Card, Cans, Glass, Plastic containers, Aerosols, Foil, Cartons), Textiles

6 Elmbridge �� Co-mingled (100%: Paper, Card, Cans, Plastic bottles, Glass, Foil)

7 Mole Valley �� Co-mingled (100%: Paper, Card, Cans, Plastic bottles, Glass)

8 Rochford �� Co-mingled (99%: Paper, Card, Cans, Glass, Plastic containers, Aerosols, Foil, Cartons), Textiles (1%)

9 South Kesteven �� Co-mingled (100%: Paper, Card, Cans, Glass, Plastic bottles, Aerosols, Foil, Cartons), Textiles

10 North Somerset �� Separate Paper/ Card/ Cartons (56%), Cans, Aerosols, Foil (5%), Plastic containers (9%), Glass (29%), Other inc. Textiles (1%)

11 Castle Point �� Two Stream (77% Co-mingled: Paper, Card, Cans, Plastic containers, Aerosols, Cartons), Glass (23%), Other (1%), Textiles

12 Epping Forest �� Two Stream (78% Co-mingled: Paper, Card, Cans, Plastic containers, Aerosols, Foil), Glass (22%)

13 Tamworth �� Co-mingled (100%: Paper, Card, Cans, Plastic containers, Glass, Aerosols, Foil, Cartons), Textiles

14 Cannock Chase �� Co-mingled (100%: Paper, Card, Cans, Plastic containers, Glass, Aerosols, Foil, Cartons)

15 Rutland �� Co-mingled (100%: Paper, Card, Cans, Plastic bottles, Glass, Aerosols, Foil)

16 Stratford-on-Avon �� Co-mingled (100%: Paper, Card, Cans, Plastic containers, Glass, Aerosols, Foil, Cartons)

17 South Cambridgeshire �� Two Stream (66%: Card, Cans, Plastic containers, Glass, Aerosols, Foil, Cartons), Paper (34%)

18 West Oxfordshire ��

Other (26%: Paper, Card, Cans, Plastic containers, Glass, Aerosols, Foil, Cartons), Paper/ Card (39%), Cans (3%), Plastic containers (10%), Glass (23%), Textiles

19 Basildon �� Two Stream (78%: Paper, Card, Cans, Plastic containers, Other, Aerosols, Foil, Cartons), Glass (22%), Textiles

20 Wychavon �� Co-mingled (100%: Paper, Card, Cans, Plastic containers, Glass, Aerosols, Cartons)

21 Huntingdonshire �� Co-mingled (100%: Paper, Card, Cans, Plastic containers, Glass, Aerosols, Foil, Cartons)

22 Woking �� Co-mingled (100%: Paper, Card, Cans, Plastic containers, Glass, Foil)


Page 24 of 43

Rank

Authority All 5

Other plastics

Textiles

Aerosols

Foil

Cartons

Materials collected separately or co-mingled

23 North Kesteven �� Co-mingled (100%: Paper, Card, Cans, Plastic containers, Glass, Other, Aerosols, Foil, Cartons), Textiles

24 Mid Sussex �� Co-mingled (100%: Paper, Card, Cans, Plastic bottles, Glass, Aerosols, Foil, Cartons)

25 South Holland �� Co-mingled (100%: Paper, Card, Cans, Plastic containers, Glass, Aerosols, Foil, Cartons), Textiles

26 Caerphilly �� Co-mingled (100%: Paper, Card, Cans, Plastic containers, Glass)

27 Charnwood �� Two Stream (88%: Paper, Card, Cans, Plastic containers, Glass, Aerosols, Foil, Cartons), Glass (11%), Textiles

28 Guildford �� Other (17%: Paper, Card, Cans, Plastic bottles, Aerosols), Paper/ Card (53%), Cans (4%), Plastic bottles (4%), Glass (21%), Textiles

29 Central Bedfordshire �� Two Stream (82%: Paper, Card, Cans, Plastic containers, Aerosols, Foil, Cartons), Glass (18%), Textiles

30 Spelthorne �� Co-mingled (100%: Paper, Card, Cans, Plastic containers, Glass)


Page 25 of 43

4.3 Bottom Performing Kerbside Recycling Authorities in 2011/12

4.3.1 Figure 14 focuses on the bottom 30 authorities for kerbside dry recycling performance. The lower

graph shows the final material amounts, whether derived from separate or co-mingled collections.

Figure 14. Dry Recycling Collected at the Kerbside (kg/hh/yr) – Bottom 30 Authorities

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Leic

este

r

Carm

art

henshire

Ab

erd

een

East C

am

brid

geshire

Belf

ast

To

wer

Ham

lets

Harr

og

ate

Ro

ther

Co

pela

nd

Darlin

gto

n

St H

ele

ns

Hig

hla

nd

Weald

en

Eastb

ourn

e

Bre

nt

Bra

dfo

rd

So

uth

wark

No

rth E

ast

Lin

co

lnshire

Leed

s

Isle

of

Wig

ht

So

uth

am

pto

n

To

nb

rid

ge a

nd

Malli

ng

Ed

inb

urg

h

Mid

dle

sb

roug

h

Gla

sg

ow

Dund

ee

Ashfo

rd

Ed

en

Ork

ney I

sla

nd

s

Eile

an S

iar

Ma

teri

als

co

llec

ted

at

the

ke

rbs

ide

, a

dj.

(k

g/h

h/y

r)

Co-mingled

Other

Glass

Plastics

Cans

Paper/ Card

Total dry

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Leic

este

r

Carm

art

henshire

Ab

erd

een

East C

am

brid

geshire

Belf

ast

To

wer

Ham

lets

Harr

og

ate

Ro

ther

Co

pela

nd

Darlin

gto

n

St H

ele

ns

Hig

hla

nd

Weald

en

Eastb

ourn

e

Bre

nt

Bra

dfo

rd

So

uth

wark

No

rth E

ast

Lin

co

lnshire

Leed

s

Isle

of

Wig

ht

So

uth

am

pto

n

To

nb

rid

ge a

nd

Malli

ng

Ed

inb

urg

h

Mid

dle

sb

roug

h

Gla

sg

ow

Dund

ee

Ashfo

rd

Ed

en

Ork

ney I

sla

nd

s

Eile

an S

iar

Ma

teri

als

co

lle

cte

d a

t th

e k

erb

sid

e, a

dj.

(k

g/h

h/y

r)

Not reported

Other

Glass

Plastics

Cans

Paper/ Card

Total dry


Page 26 of 43

4.3.2 The bottom 30 authorities required further examination to clarify the collection type, as the

information provided was often incorrectly reported:

• Leicester moved during 2011/12 from collecting three materials separately (paper, plastic bottles

and glass) to collecting five materials fully co-mingled including glass and was classified as

‘Other’ here;

• Belfast reported collecting materials separately but collected fully co-mingled, including glass;

• Harrogate reported collecting fully co-mingled but collected paper, cans/ plastics and glass as

three separate streams;

• Eastbourne reported collecting co-mingled with separate plastics but collected paper, cans,

plastic bottles and glass as separate streams and sent the plastics to a MRF;

• Dundee reported collecting separately but its main service is paper/card only with some

households also having a co-mingled collection of containers and was classified as ‘Other’ here.

4.3.3 Table 6 compares the collection types of the top 30 and bottom 30 authorities. The top 30

performers include a clear majority with fully co-mingled collections, whereas within the bottom 30

this is a minority practice.

Table 6. Number of Authorities for each Kerbside Collection Type: Top and Bottom 30

Code Type Number in

Top 30

Number in

Bottom 30

C Fully co-mingled including glass 20 2

C' Fully co-mingled excluding glass 0 3

C/p Two stream, separate paper/card 1

C/g Two stream, separate glass 5

O Other 3 9

S Separate including glass 1 13

S' Separate excluding glass 0 3

4.3.4 In addition to the collection type, authorities were assessed on the number of the five main

materials – paper, card, glass, cans and plastics – that were collected. Table 7 compares the number

of these materials collected by the top 30 and bottom 30 authorities. All the top 30 performers

collected at least the five main materials, whereas less than half of the bottom 30 collected all five.


Page 27 of 43

Table 7. Number of Authorities Collecting Particular Numbers of Materials: Top and Bottom 30

Number of Materials Number in

Top 30

Number in

Bottom 30

5 30 14

4

7

3

8

2

1

4.3.5 Table 8 provides a summary for the bottom 30 authorities of both the collection type and the

number of materials collected.

Table 8. Number of Authorities for each Kerbside Collection Type and Number of Materials

Collected: Bottom 30 Authorities

Code Type

Number of

Authorities of this Type

Number of materials

collected

5 4 3 2



O Other 9 9

S Separate including glass 13 3 4 6

S' Separate excluding glass 3 2 1

Total 30 14 7 8 1

4.3.6 It was found that:

• 2 authorities collected five materials fully co-mingled, including glass;

• 3 authorities collected four materials fully co-mingled, excluding glass;

• 9 authorities collected all five materials (although not necessarily from all houses) using a non-

standard or combination (‘Other’) collection method;

• 13 authorities collected between three and five materials separately, including paper and glass;

• 3 authorities collected either two or three materials separately excluding glass: one collected

paper and cans and two collected these materials plus plastics.

4.3.7 Table 9 compares the collection frequencies and containers for the top 30 and bottom 30

authorities. For the bottom 30 authorities:

• 26 authorities collected recycling fortnightly (1 collected weekly and 3 monthly);


Page 28 of 43

• Only 3 authorities collected recycling using wheeled bins for more than 75% of households;

• Only 7 authorities collected refuse fortnightly (20 collected weekly and 3 more than weekly);

• 14 authorities collected refuse using wheeled bins for more than 75% of households;

• No authorities in the bottom 30 collected both recycling and refuse fortnightly, with wheeled

bins provided for both recycling and refuse for more than 75% of households.

Table 9. Number of Authorities by Frequency and Container: Top and Bottom 30

Frequency and containers Number in

Top 30

Number in

Bottom 30

Fortnightly recycling 24 26

Wheeled bins for recycling > 75% hh 21 3

Fortnightly refuse 26 7

Wheeled bins for refuse > 75% hh 27 14

Fortnightly recycling and refuse with

Wheeled bins for recycling and refuse > 75% hh 20 0

4.3.8 Thus the top performers tend to collect fully co-mingled including glass with both refuse and

recycling collected fortnightly from wheeled bins, whereas the bottom performers tend not to collect

fully co-mingled or to use wheeled bins for recycling and tend to collect recycling fortnightly and

refuse weekly. This is summarised in Table 10.

Table 10. Characteristics of the Top and Bottom 30 Authorities

Collection Characteristic of Majority of Authorities

Top 30 Bottom 30

Collection type Fully co-mingled

including glass Not fully co-mingled

Number of materials collected 5 ~

Recycling frequency Fortnightly Fortnightly

Wheeled bins for recycling > 75% hh Yes No

Refuse frequency Fortnightly Weekly

Wheeled bins for refuse > 75% hh Yes ~

~ No majority

4.3.9 Table 11 provides further information on each of the Bottom 30 authorities: whether it is a WYG

client, its kerbside dry recycling yield in kg/hh/yr, type of collection, percentage of materials

collected co-mingled at the kerbside, frequency of refuse and recycling collections and percentage of

households provided with each type of container.


Page 29 of 43

Table 11. Materials Collected at the Kerbside for Bottom 30 Authorities in 2011/12

Rank

Authority WYG client

Kerbside

Recycling

kg/hh/yr

Type

%

Co-m


Materials collected separately or co-mingled Freq.

Wheeled

Bins

Sacks/

Other

Kerbside

Boxes

Freq.

Wheeled

Bins

Sacks/

Other

Com-

munal

367 Leicester 93 O 69% W 9% 85% W 87% 0% 13%

Other (69%: Paper/ Card, Cans, Plastics, Glass), Paper/ Card (15%), Plastics (4%), Glass (11%) [changed from collecting collecting paper, plastic bottles and glass separately to collecting fully co-mingled including glass]

368 Carmarthenshire 91 C' 100% F 94% F 100% Co-mingled (100%: Not reported)

369 Aberdeen 90 S F 104% 69% W 66% 34% Separate: Paper/ Card (57%), Cans/ Plastics (10%), Glass (33%)

370 East Cambridgeshire 90 S F 100% W 100% Separate: Paper (56%), Cans (6%), Glass (38%)

371 Belfast 90 C 100% F 57% 43% F 57% 43% Co-mingled: Paper/ Card (76%), Cans (5%), Plastics (10%), Glass (9%)

372 Tower Hamlets 90 C 98% F 69% 30% W 20% 80% Co-mingled (98%: Paper/ Card, Cans, Plastics, Glass), Paper/ Card (1%), Plastics (1%)

373 Harrogate � 89 S F 93% W 100% Separate: Paper (70%), Cans (5%), Glass (25%)

374 Rother 89 S' F 0% 6% 94% F 89% 11% Separate: Paper (77%), Cans (12%), Plastics (12%)

375 Copeland 89 S F 37% 95% F 85% 15% Separate: Paper/ Card (57%), Cans (7%), Plastics (4%), Glass (32%)

376 Darlington 87 S F 3% 97% 97% W 97% 3% Separate: Paper/ Card (68%), Glass (32%)

377 St Helens 87 S F 200% 100% W 98% 1% 1% Separate: Paper (43%), Cans (9%), Plastics (9%), Glass (39%)

378 Highland 87 O 78% F 19% 7% 63% W 98% Other (78% Co-mingled: Paper/ Card, Cans, Plastics, Other), Paper/ Card (19%), Cans (1%), Plastics (1%), Glass (1%)

379 Wealden � 86 S' F 99% W 99% Separate: Paper (81%), Cans (9%), Plastics (10%)

380 Eastbourne � 85 S F 17% 80% W 80% 20% Separate: Paper (45%), Cans (6%), Plastics (7%), Glass (40%), Other (2%)


Page 30 of 43

Rank

Authority WYG client

Kerbside

Recycling

kg/hh/yr

Type

%

Co-m


Materials collected separately or co-mingled Freq.

Wheeled

Bins

Sacks/

Other

Kerbside

Boxes

Freq.

Wheeled

Bins

Sacks/

Other

Com-

munal

381 Brent 82 O 89% F 71% >W 75% 0% 21% Other (89% Co-mingled: Paper/ Card, Cans, Plastics, Glass), Paper/ Card (4%), Cans (4%), Glass (3%)

382 Bradford 78 O 37% M 91% 8% W 85% 6% 10% Other (37% Co-mingled: Paper/ Card, Cans, Plastics, Glass), Paper/ Card (57%), Cans (1%), Plastics (2%), Glass (4%)

383 Southwark 78 O 80% F 102% 35% >W 34% 16% 49% Other (80% Co-mingled: Paper/ Card, Cans, Plastics, Glass), Paper/ Card (14%), Glass (6%)

384 North East Lincolnshire 77 S F 4% 96% W 98% 0% 3% Separate: Paper (64%), Cans (7%), Glass (29%)

385 Leeds 76 C' 100% M 77% 16% W 79% 7% 13% Co-mingled (100%: Paper/ Card, Cans, Plastics)

386 Isle of Wight 76 O 37% F 56% 44% F 100% Other (37% Co-mingled: Other), Paper/ Card (39%), Glass (24%)

387 Southampton 74 C' 100% F 71% 29% W 74% 4% 22% Co-mingled (100%: Paper/ Card, Cans, Plastics)

388 Tonbridge and Malling 70 S' F 100% F 94% 3% 3% Separate: Paper (92%), Cans (8%)

389 Edinburgh 69 S F 4% 54% >W 57% 8% 36% Separate: Paper/ Card (67%), Cans (3%), Plastics (1%), Glass (28%), Other (1%)

390 Middlesbrough 69 S F 204% 98% W 74% 9% 17% Separate: Paper/ Card (54%), Cans (10%), Plastics (9%), Glass (27%)

391 Glasgow 65 O 79% F 37% 40% W 52% 30% 17% Other (79% Co-mingled: Paper/ Card, Cans, Plastics), Glass (21%)

392 Dundee 65 O 2% M 74% 21% W 81% 6% 17% Other: Paper/ Card (73%), Plastics (4%), Glass (21%); (2%: Paper/ Card, Cans, Plastics, Glass) [but service is mainly paper/card only with some households having a co-mingled collection of containers]

393 Ashford � 63 S F 2% 75% W 2% 98% Separate: Paper (43%), Cans (7%), Glass (49%)

394 Eden 56 S F 92% W 100% Separate: Paper/ Card (63%), Cans (6%), Glass (32%)

395 Orkney Islands 40 S F 52% W 97% 4% Separate: Paper/ Card (48%), Glass (52%)

396 Eilean Siar 34 O 27% F 15% 30% 15% F 97% Other (27% Co-mingled: Paper/ Card, Cans, Plastics), Paper/ Card (21%), Cans (4%), Plastics (13%), Glass (36%)


Page 31 of 43

4.4 Kerbside Recycling Performance by Authority Group

4.4.1 Figure 15 illustrates the range of yields across all local authorities in the United Kingdom. Yields

range from 310 kg/hh/yr for South Oxfordshire (in group 01, ‘Prospering Southern England’) down

to 34 kg/hh/yr for Eilean Siar (in group 07, ‘Coastal/ Countryside’). In general, the median yields

decrease across the group, as expected, as average deprivation increases across the groups. Group

11, ‘Industrial Hinterlands’ seems to buck this trend, with a higher median than expected, and

groups 10, ‘Regional Centres’ is lower than anticipated.

4.4.2 Group 07, ‘Coastal/ Countryside’ has seven authorities in the bottom 30, including the bottom 3

authorities: Eilean Siar (34 kg/hh/yr), Orkney Islands (40 kg/hh/yr) and Eden (56 kg/hh/yr), as well

as the two authorities that do not provide collections (Shetland Islands and Isles of Scilly). The two

authorities that did not provide data (Aberdeenshire and Dumfries and Galloway) are also in this

group.

Figure 15. Range and Medians of Kerbside Dry Recycling Performance (kg/hh/yr) by Authority

Group

310

267255

231244

209223

180

252

208

232

191

219

310

7063

86

122115 117

34

102

7765 69

78 78

34

18

7

18

1

155

17

4

15

7

16

2

14

1

15

1

14

4

12

1

15

3

125

14

0

15

4

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

01

. P

rosp

. S

. E

ng

lan

d (

43

)

02

. P

rosp

. T

ow

ns

-C

(4

0)

03

. P

rosp

. T

ow

ns

-B

(3

8)

04

. P

rosp

. T

ow

ns

-A

(2

7)

05

. N

ew

/ G

row

. T

ow

ns (

23

)

06

. O

ute

r L

on

do

n/

Pe

ri. (2

1)

07

. C

oast/

C

ou

ntr

y (

48

)

08

. N

I C

ou

ntr

ysid

e

(13

)

09

. M

an

uf.

To

wn

s

(41

)

10

. R

eg

ion

al

Ce

ntr

es (

24

)

11

. In

d.

Hin

terl

an

ds (

42

)

12

. In

ne

r L

on

do

n

(15

)

13

. C

en

tre

s w

. In

d. (2

1)

All

(39

6)

Ke

rbsid

e d

ry r

ecy

clin

g (

kg

/ h

h/ yr)

_

Top 25%

Above median

Below median

Bottom 25%

Median


Page 32 of 43

4.5 Kerbside Recycling Performance versus Deprivation

4.5.1 Figure 16 shows the amounts of dry recycling collected at the kerbside compared with the Index of

Multiple Deprivation (IMD). Only authorities in England are shown as their IMDs can be compared;

each nation is ranked independently. The IMD scores range from approximately 5 (lowest

deprivation, i.e. most affluent) to 45 (highest deprivation).

4.5.2 The graph on the left shows all scores for England. It can be seen that the amounts of materials

collected tends to decrease with increasing deprivation, which may be due to a number of factors

including decreasing levels of consumption, smaller container volumes in dense urban areas (e.g.

sacks/ boxes instead of 240 litre wheeled bins) and larger proportions of flats. There is also clearly a

lot of scatter (R2 = 0.159): other factors have significant influence on the amounts collected.

4.5.3 The graph to the right shows authorities that collect materials fully co-mingled, with collections

including glass (shown in dark green) clearly collecting significantly more on average than those

excluding glass (bright green), which is to be expected given the weight of glass available. Both

types of collection are used in authorities across the full range of deprivation.

Figure 16. Kerbside Dry Recycling (kg/hh/yr) vs. Deprivation: All and Fully Co-mingled

4.5.4 The left hand graph in Figure 17 shows the performance for authorities that collect in two streams,

with either paper (bright blue) or glass (turquoise) collected separately from a co-mingled stream.

Card may be collected with paper. These two types of collections exhibit similar performance, with

the separate glass collections performing slightly better in more affluent areas but this difference

being eliminated in more deprived areas. Again this is not surprising: more affluent areas tend to

have higher consumption and recycling levels of glass (from wine, spirits and bottled beers).


Page 33 of 43

Performance from two-stream collections is similar to, but slightly lower than, fully co-mingled

collections including glass, with the difference again being eliminated in more deprived areas.

Figure 17. Kerbside Dry Recycling (kg/hh/yr) vs. Deprivation: Two-Stream or Fully Co-mingled

4.5.5 Figure 18 shows the performance for authorities that collect in separate streams, either including

(orange) or excluding (red) glass. There are only 5 of the latter in England, which have poor

performance despite being relatively affluent areas due to the limited range of recyclables collected:

generally paper and cans with either card or plastics. Of the 119 authorities that did collect glass, 45

did not collect card, 33 did not collect plastics, 18 did not collect cans and 4 collected only paper and

glass. Many collected very low levels of plastics; some may have been in the process of rolling out

plastics collections.

4.5.6 For authorities with deprivation greater than 30, only 3 authorities collect materials separately, 15

collect fully co-mingled including glass and another 20 operate some degree of co-mingling. Thus

separate collections tend to be in more affluent areas whereas co-mingled collections operate across

the full range of affluence and deprivation.

4.5.7 The graph on the right compares performance for authorities that collect in separate streams that

include glass with those collecting fully co-mingled including or excluding glass. Authorities collecting

co-mingled including glass (dark green) tend to outperform those collecting materials separately

(orange) across the range of deprivation. Those that do not include glass in the co-mingled mix

(bright green) tend to perform worse in more affluent areas than those with separate collections

that include glass (again not surprising given the significant amounts of glass available in affluent

areas) on average marginally better in less affluent areas (possibly reflecting the importance of

other materials such as cans and plastics in less affluent areas).


Page 34 of 43

Figure 18. Kerbside Dry Recycling (kg/hh/yr) vs. Deprivation: Separate or Co-mingled

4.5.8 Finally, in Figure 19, the left-hand graph compares authorities that collect in two streams with those

that collect separately; the former tend to outperform the latter across the spectrum of deprivation.

4.5.9 Authorities classed as ‘Other’ are shown on the right. These are authorities that do not fall into one

of the other categories: they collect some (at least 5%) materials co-mingled and some (at least

5%) separately. Authorities collecting co-mingled with paper and/or card separate but no glass in

the co-mingled materials area classified as ‘Other’. Alternatively, the service may have changed

during the year, or different services were provided to different households (e.g. co-mingled for

houses and bring-style separate bins for flats).

Figure 19. Kerbside Dry Recycling (kg/hh/yr) vs. Deprivation: Two-Stream, Separate or Other


Page 35 of 43

4.6 Kerbside Recycling Performance by Collection Type

4.6.1 Figure 20 shows the range of performance for each collection type. This analysis includes all

authorities in the UK except the two that did not provide kerbside collections (Isles of Scilly,

Shetland Isles) or did not provide data (Aberdeenshire, Dumfries & Galloway).

Figure 20. Range of Kerbside Dry Recycling Performance (kg/hh/yr) by Collection Type

310

205

249 253

276

255

132

310

90

74

101

129

3440

70

34

193

136

163

184

131

148

89

154

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

Fully co-m. inc. glass

(87)

Fully co-m. exc. glass

(67)

Two-stream, sep. paper

(48)

Two-stream, sep. glass

(30)

Other(41)

Separate inc. glass

(118)

Separate exc. glass

(5)

All(396)

Ke

rbsid

e d

ry r

ecy

clin

g (

kg

/ h

h/ yr)

_

Upper quartile

Above median

Below median

Bottom quartile

Median

4.6.2 The group of authorities that provide fully co-mingled recycling including glass has the highest

median, 193 kg/hh/yr, and also the highest overall performance. In fact, 20 authorities in the top 30

collect in this way, including the top 3 authorities: South Oxfordshire (310 kg/hh/yr), Surrey Heath

(291 kg/hh/yr) and Vale of White Horse (282 kg/hh/yr).

4.6.3 The group that collect separately excluding glass have, not surprisingly, the lowest median, 89

kg/hh/yr, and the lowest maximum, 132 kg/hh/yr. The lowest overall performance is for Eilean Siar

(34 kg/hh/yr), which provides a co-mingled collection with glass separate to approximately half its

households and is classified as ‘Other’. The next two lowest yields are for the Orkney Islands (40

kg/hh/yr) and Eden (56 kg/hh/yr), which operate mainly separate collections.


Page 36 of 43

4.7 Changing Collection Systems

4.7.1 It is worth noting that a number of the authorities that were in the bottom 30 in 2011/12 have

either changed their methodology for collection or are now in the process of changing, as follows.

4.7.2 Ashford has agreed, following the procurement of the Mid Kent waste contract to move to a

collection system where all materials will be collected on a fully co-mingled basis. WYG also acted as

technical adviser in this procurement and the different collection methodologies were again tested

by use of Competitive Dialogue; the contract was won by Biffa. Ashford, together with the other

partners, Maidstone and Swale, expects significant increases in capture, although this will not be

evident until the system is fully rolled out.

Providing Step Change in Ashford

Biffa’s experience is that the greater the magnitude of change in a collection system, the greater the step

change in recycling performance. Biffa’s clients South Oxfordshire, Vale of White Horse and Surrey Heath all

went through major change in one go and all are now the Top three for kerbside dry recycling and in the

Top five in terms of overall recycling rates. The changes being delivered in Ashford are expected to deliver a

similar step change.

4.7.3 Rother, Wealden and Eastbourne, together with Hastings, have jointly agreed, following the

procurement of the East Sussex joint waste contract, to move to a collection system where glass is

collected at the kerbside as a separate stream and all other materials are collected co-mingled. In

this procurement, WYG acted as technical adviser and the different collection methodologies were

tested by use of Competitive Dialogue; the contract was won by Kier. These four authorities expect

significant increases in capture, although this will not be evident until the system is fully rolled out.

Delivering £30m Cost Savings in East Sussex

The East Sussex Joint Waste Partnership – comprised of the four waste collection authorities, Wealden,

Eastbourne, Hastings and Rother, and the disposal authority, East Sussex – jointly procured a single contract

with the aims of delivering cost savings, increasing recycling, rationalising and unifying services, providing

innovation and adding value.

Over the 10 years of the contract, the authorities will save a combined £30m against previous spend. Kier is

extending the range of materials collected by introducing wheeled bins for co-mingled recycling, with glass

collected separately from a box, complemented by a comprehensive education and engagement strategy. By

increasing recycling rates and collecting a wider range of materials, Kier has agreed a guaranteed income


Page 37 of 43

from material processors, which has been passed back to the authorities in the form of a guaranteed saving.

Recognising the most progress in developing waste management and environmental services, the East

Sussex Joint Waste Partnership was awarded silver at the 2013 Improvement and Efficiency Awards.

4.7.4 The re-procurement of a collection contract offers an ideal opportunity for local authorities to review

their collection methodologies, as shown by the examples of East Sussex and Mid Kent noted above.

The re-design of these systems is expected to boost performance considerably, catapulting four

authorities from the bottom 30 authorities to above the median.

4.7.5 In the case of re-procurement where consideration of new recycling systems is needed, WYG

favours procurement using Competitive Dialogue. This enables all collection options – kerbside-sort,

two-stream with either paper or glass separate, and fully co-mingled – to be tested against each

other.

4.7.6 Furthermore, WYG favours comparing costs on a ‘total cost’ basis, i.e. including treatment costs for

collected recyclate, income from the sale of collected materials and savings in residual waste

treatment costs. This implies involving the disposal authority in the procurement process –

something that was successfully achieved at both East Sussex and at Mid Kent and which WYG is

currently doing in relation to the re-procurement at Epping Forest.

4.7.7 It is, of course, possible to change methodologies mid-contract: Brent moved to a fully co-mingled

system for the collection of dry recyclables during 2012/13 and the figures for both 2012/13 and

2013/14 are expected to show significant improvement.

4.7.8 For those authorities delivering services in-house the considerations will often include looking at

vehicle replacement cycles. WYG continues to support DSOs to bring about improved recycling

performance (e.g. at Dacorum, Oxford and Uttlesford).

4.7.9 Our experience to date is that processes that test the total costs against each other tend to show

that:

• Where there is reasonable proximity to a modern MRF capable of processing a wide range of

materials to a good standard, fully co-mingled services are generally cheaper;

• Where there is reasonable proximity to a MRF capable of processing a more limited range of

materials to a good standard, fully co-mingled services may still be cheaper, but often two-

stream collections may be cheaper;

• Where there is not reasonable proximity to a MRF, kerbside-sort services are generally cheaper.

4.7.10 These general principles hold whether the service is delivered through a contract or in-house.


Page 38 of 43

4.7.11 Having said that, WYG believes that local authorities should be free to choose their collection

system. Few procurements are made purely on the basis of selecting the lowest-cost solution,

although the current economic situation may mean that cost becomes a more important factor.

4.7.12 The following commentaries provide information on changes made in Melton, Sandwell, and East

Northamptonshire to increase recycling.

Increasing Recycling for a High Recycler: Melton

Melton, which was in earlier years the highest kerbside sort performer in the UK, increased its dry recycling

tonnage by almost 20% when Biffa converted the weekly kerbside sort recycling collections to fortnightly

collections of co-mingled materials from wheeled bins.

Service Transformation in Sandwell

To drive up recycling rates in Sandwell, Serco made the recycling collections as user-friendly and easy-to-

understand as possible. This started with the introduction of wheeled bins to residents prior to the launch of

a fully co-mingled recycling service, including glass, which is collected weekly. Same-day collections for all

commodities including weekly food waste collections were then introduced as phase 2. Other service

enhancements included extending the garden waste collection service to a year-round facility to

accommodate the extended growing season and the introduction of bank holiday collections providing same-

day collection convenience all year round. As a result, the recycling rate has doubled since the contract

commenced in November 2010 and now stands at almost 50%.

Savings and Increased Recycling through Integrated Contract at East Northamptonshire

An integrated contract that includes waste and recycling collections and the processing of dry recyclables

has enabled East Northamptonshire District Council to achieve significant cost savings whilst increasing

recycling rates. In August 2011 the Council's contractor, Kier, introduced alternate weekly collections,

collecting residual waste and co-mingled dry recycling from newly rolled out wheeled bins. This replaced the

previous system of weekly residual bag collections and a three-box recycling scheme. Weekly food waste

collections were also provided to around 37,500 households. The change in service delivery increased

recycling and composting rates from 33% to 58% (as of June 2013) and saved £670,000 per annum due to

lower operating and landfill costs and increased income for recyclables through use of the Pure Recycling

MRF at Ettington, owned and operated by Kier.


Page 39 of 43

5.0 Plastics

5.1 Kerbside Plastics Recycling Performance in 2011/12

5.1.1 Figure 21 shows the plastics yield for each local authority in the UK calculated using the process

described in Section 3.1. Yields are shown net of rejects from collection and MRF processing, with

the quantities of plastics among co-mingled collections based on materials sent for processing. The

authorities were sorted by decreasing yields and displayed as columns. Yields range from 56

kg/hh/yr for Welwyn Hatfield to zero, with 30 of the authorities that reported kerbside collections

not collecting any plastics and 23 collecting less than 5 kg/hh/yr.

Figure 21. Plastics Collected at the Kerbside (kg/hh/yr) – All Authorities

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Welw

yn H

atf

ield

No

rth K

este

ven

Canno

ck

Chase

Lin

co

ln

Ep

pin

g F

ore

st

No

rth W

est

Leic

este

rshire

Ferm

anag

h

So

uth

Lanark

shire

Milt

on K

eynes

Carlis

le

Ro

ssend

ale

Leic

este

r

West D

unb

art

onshire

Melto

n

New

castle-u

nd

er-

Lym

e

Co

rby

Liv

erp

oo

l

Hynd

burn

No

rth L

inco

lnshire

Bro

mle

y

West Lin

dsey

New

castle-u

po

n-T

yne

No

ttin

gham

So

uth

So

mers

et

Nuneato

n a

nd

Bed

wo

rth

New

ark

and

Sherw

oo

d

Ard

s

Sw

ale

Bre

ckl

and

Weald

en

Slo

ug

h

Hackn

ey

Co

rnw

all

Tand

rid

ge

Birm

ing

ham

So

uth

am

pto

n

Dud

ley

Pla

sti

cs

co

lle

cte

d a

t th

e k

erb

sid

e,

ad

j. (

kg

/hh

/yr)

Total Plastics

5.1.2 Figure 22 provides a breakdown of plastics collected at the kerbside, indicating whether materials

were collected co-mingled (pink) or separately (red).

5.1.3 Figure 23 focuses on the top 30 authorities for plastics dry recycling performance and indicates the

collection type in brackets after the authority name. Among the top 30, only West Oxfordshire,

Merthyr Tydfil and Shepway reported collecting plastics separately, although each of these also

reported collecting plastics co-mingled.


Page 40 of 43

Figure 22. Plastics Collected Co-mingled or Separately at the Kerbside (kg/hh/yr)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Welw

yn H

atf

ield

No

rth K

este

ven

Canno

ck

Chase

Lin

co

ln

Ep

pin

g F

ore

st

No

rth W

est

Leic

este

rshire

Ferm

anag

h

So

uth

Lanark

shire

Milt

on K

eynes

Carlis

le

Ro

ssend

ale

Leic

este

r

West D

unb

art

onshire

Melto

n

New

castle-u

nd

er-

Lym

e

Co

rby

Liv

erp

oo

l

Hynd

burn

No

rth L

inco

lnshire

Bro

mle

y

West Lin

dsey

New

castle-u

po

n-T

yne

No

ttin

gham

So

uth

So

mers

et

Nuneato

n a

nd

Bed

wo

rth

New

ark

and

Sherw

oo

d

Ard

s

Sw

ale

Bre

ckl

and

Weald

en

Slo

ug

h

Hackn

ey

Co

rnw

all

Tand

rid

ge

Birm

ing

ham

So

uth

am

pto

n

Dud

ley

Pla

sti

cs

co

lle

cte

d a

t th

e k

erb

sid

e,

ad

j. (

kg

/hh

/yr)

Separate

Co-mingled

Total Plastics

Figure 23. Plastics Collected at the Kerbside (kg/hh/yr) – Top 30 Authorities

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Welw

yn H

atf

ield

(C

/p)

Caerp

hill

y (

C)

Sta

ffo

rdsh

ire M

oo

rland

s (C

/p)

Bra

intr

ee (

C')

So

uth

Keste

ven (

C)

Bla

enau G

went

(C/p

)

Sto

ke-o

n-T

rent

(C/p

)

Rho

nd

da C

yno

n T

af

(C/p

)

Welli

ng

bo

roug

h (C

)

Ep

so

m a

nd

Ew

ell

(O)

No

rth K

este

ven (

C)

Ro

chfo

rd (C

)

So

uth

Oxfo

rdshire (C

)

Surr

ey H

eath

(C

)

Centr

al

Bed

ford

shire (C

/g)

Vale

of

Gla

mo

rgan (

O)

Mag

hera

felt (C

)

Hunting

do

nshire (

C)

Sco

ttis

h B

ord

ers

(C

')

Vale

of

White H

ors

e (

C)

Canno

ck

Chase (

C)

Lic

hfi

eld

(C

)

Mert

hyr

Tyd

fil (

O)

No

rth L

anark

shire

(C/g

)

So

uth

Cam

brid

geshire (

C/p

)

West O

xfo

rdshire (O

)

Harr

ow

(C

)

Shep

way (

O)

Derb

y (C

/p)

Om

ag

h (C

')Pla

sti

cs

co

lle

cte

d a

t th

e k

erb

sid

e,

ad

j. (

kg

/hh

/yr)

Separate

Co-mingled

Total Plastics


Page 41 of 43

5.1.4 It can be seen that the highest performing authorities tended to collect co-mingled, with most of

these collecting fully co-mingled (as indicated by completely pink columns) and authorities collecting

materials separately tended to have lower yields.

5.1.5 Out of the top 30 authorities for recycling plastic at the kerbside:

• 13 authorities collected fully co-mingled, including glass;

• 3 authorities collected fully co-mingled, excluding glass;

• 7 authorities collected two streams with separate paper/card;

• 2 authorities collected two streams with separate glass;

• 5 authorities collected using a non-standard or combination (‘Other’) collection method;

• No authorities collected all plastics separately or all materials separately.

5.1.6 The following commentary provides information on the changes made in Welwyn Hatfield, which

resulted in it having the highest yields of plastics at the kerbside in 2011/12.

All Plastic is Fantastic in Welwyn Hatfield!

Prior to the introduction of Alternate Refuse and Recycling Collections (ARRC), residents of Welwyn Hatfield

were not able to recycle plastics at the kerbside. Between March and April 2011, ARRC was introduced

across the borough, with 240 litre bins and a 40 litre insert for paper replacing the previous box system. The

new Serco service enabled residents to recycle to all plastics for the first time, with plastic bags, packaging

and film collected co-mingled with glass and tins. By listening to customers and making it easy to recycle

such a broad range of materials, the amount of plastics collected in the first year was 56 kg/household/year,

the yields of paper, cans and glass also increased and customer satisfaction with the recycling service

increased from 60% in January 2011 to 84% in January 2013.

5.1.7 Figure 24 focuses on the bottom 30 authorities for plastics dry recycling performance and indicates

the collection type in brackets after the authority name. Some of the plastics shown as co-mingled

will have been collected in a simple mixture with cans; it does not necessarily mean they were sent

for full MRF processing. Thirty authorities that reported kerbside collections did not collect any

plastics.


Page 42 of 43

Figure 24. Plastics Collected at the Kerbside (kg/hh/yr) – Bottom 30 Authorities

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Brig

hto

n a

nd

Ho

ve (

C/g

)

Lew

es (

S)

Bra

dfo

rd (O

)

East A

yrs

hire (

O)

Birm

ing

ham

(C

/p)

Mancheste

r (C

/p)

Eastb

ourn

e (S

)

So

uth

Ayrs

hire (

C/g

)

Gla

sg

ow

(O

)

Med

way (C

/p)

So

uth

Ham

s (

S')

Cheltenham

(S

)

Hig

hla

nd

(O

)

West S

om

ers

et

(S)

So

uth

am

pto

n (C

')

Mid

Devo

n (S

)

Arg

yll

and

Bute

(O

)

Co

pela

nd

(S

)

Do

rset W

aste

Part

ners

hip

(S

)

No

rtham

pto

n (S

)

Hill

ing

do

n (C

)

Dund

ee (O

)

Bristo

l (S

)

Po

wys (O

)

Dud

ley (S

)

Ryed

ale

(S

)

Fif

e (O

)

Ed

inb

urg

h (S

)

Mo

ray (S

)

Seft

on (S

)Pla

sti

cs

co

lle

cte

d a

t th

e k

erb

sid

e,

ad

j. (

kg

/hh

/yr)

Separate

Co-mingled

Total Plastics

5.1.8 Table 12 compares the collection types of the top and bottom 30 authorities; the top 30 performers

for plastic tend to collect co-mingled, whereas for the bottom 30 tend to collect separately.

Table 12. Number of Authorities for each Kerbside Collection Type: Top and Bottom 30 for

Plastics

Code Type Number in Top 30

(Plastics)

Number in Bottom 30

(Plastics)



C/p Two stream, separate paper/card 7 3

C/g Two stream, separate glass 2 2

O Other 5 8

S Separate including glass

14

S' Separate excluding glass

1


Page 43 of 43

5.1.9 Figure 25 shows the range of performance for plastics recycling for each collection type, excluding

those that did not collect or did not report plastics. The median is 12 kg/hh/yr.

Figure 25. Range of Kerbside Plastics Performance (kg/hh/yr) by Collection Type

49

36

56

31

35

25

10

56

3 4 5 51 0

50

17

10 12

9 12 12

8

12

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Fully co-m. inc. glass

(85)

Fully co-m. exc. glass

(64)

Two-stream, sep. paper

(47)

Two-stream, sep. glass

(30)

Other(40)

Separate inc. glass

(97)

Separate exc. glass

(3)

All(366)

Ke

rbsid

e d

ry r

ecy

clin

g (

kg

/ h

h/ yr)

_

Upper quartile

Above median

Below median

Bottom quartile

Median

5.1.10 The highest yield is for an authority that collects two-stream recycling with separate paper: Welwyn

Hatfield (56 kg/hh/yr). This is followed by an authority that collects fully co-mingled – Caerphilly (49

kg/hh/yr) – then by another authority that collects two-stream with separate paper – Staffordshire

Moorlands (42 kg/hh/yr).

5.1.11 The group of authorities that provide fully co-mingled recycling including glass has the highest

median, 17 kg/hh/yr, and this is the only group that has a higher median than the overall group (12

kg/hh/yr): i.e. this group performs better on average than the overall group. In fact, 75% of this

group collects more than 11 kg/hh/yr.

5.1.12 The group that collect separately excluding glass have, again not surprisingly, the lowest median, 8

kg/hh/yr, and the lowest maximum, 10 kg/hh/yr.


Appendices


Appendix A – Glossary and Acronyms


A1

Glossary and Acronyms

Bring site A site, often at a supermarket, with containers in which householders deposit items for recycling such as glass, plastics or textiles

Bulky waste Items not accepted in regular household collections, either due to size (e.g.

furniture) or nature (e.g. electrical goods), and which are collected by separate

arrangements or taken to a household waste recycling centre (‘tip’)

Collection

authority

A local authority responsible for waste collections but not disposal, the latter

generally being undertaken by the relevant county council

Co-mingled Recyclable materials that are not sorted by householders or collection operatives but are collected mixed in one compartment of a vehicle and separated later, generally

at a Materials Recovery Facility

Competitive

Dialogue

A procurement procedure whereby a public body does not define the technical

means by which its needs or objectives might be satisfied, but is able to conduct dialogue with bidders directly, with the aim of developing one or more suitable

alternative solutions to meet its requirements and leading to the selection of the

most economically advantageous tender. Contrasts with Restricted Procedure.

Direct Services Organisation

(DSO)

A service operated directly by the local authority, where the operatives are employees of the authority

Disposal authority A local authority responsible for waste disposal but not collection, often a county

council; authorities responsible for both are denoted Unitary councils

Dry recycling Materials collected for recycling but not composting, and (in this report) excluding

bulky waste. Materials include paper, card, aluminium and steel cans, aerosols, foil, glass, plastic bottles, other plastic containers, drinks cartons, textiles and shoes.

Fully co-mingled A system in which all dry recycling materials are collected co-mingled, in contrast

to partially co-mingled, where some materials are collected co-mingled and others

(such as paper or glass) in a separate stream

Household Waste Recycling Centres

A Civic Amenity site or ‘tip’ where householders can take bulky waste, garden waste, recyclable materials and general refuse, and where separate containers are

provided to encourage recycling

Kerbside

collection

Local authority regular collections from households, as opposed to special bulky

waste collections, or collections from bring sites or Household Waste Recycling Centres

Kerbside sort A system in which recyclable materials are sorted by collection operatives into different containers on the collection vehicle(s), although some materials may be

combined, e.g. cans and plastic bottles, and separated later

kg/hh/yr kg per household per year: unit used for the average amount collected in a local

authority area, for comparison with other authorities

Materials

Recovery (or Recycling) Facility

A site where materials collected mixed (co-mingled) are separated into constituent

materials before being sent to processors

MRF Materials Recovery (or Recycling) Facility


A2

Partially

co-mingled

A system in which some materials are collected separately and some co-mingled,

e.g. glass separate, with paper, card, cans and plastic bottles collected mixed

Refuse Residual waste (in this report)

Reject rate Amount of material rejected from a process as a percentage of input materials

Residual waste Waste that has not been separated by the householder for recycling or composting

Restricted Procedure

A procurement procedure in which potential suppliers are selected through a pre-qualification stage (to assess the financial, technical and/or professional

capability and capacity of suppliers) and then asked to submit a tender against a pre-specified set of requirements. Dialogue between the parties is limited to requests

for clarification; negotiation on price or other fundamental aspects is prohibited. See also Competitive Dialogue Procedure.

Separate collections

A system in which recyclable materials are sorted at the front end by householders and/ or collection operatives and each material stream is placed in separate

containers on the collection vehicle(s)

Two-stream

collection

Collection of materials in two streams, generally with one stream co-mingled, and

the other often being glass, paper, or paper and card

Unitary authority A local authority responsible for both waste collections and disposal/ treatment of

waste, including operation of Household Waste Recycling Centres (‘tips’)

WasteDataFlow A web-based system used by local authorities in the UK to report municipal waste data to government

Yield In this document, yield denotes average amount collected in kg per household per year across a local authority area


Appendix B – Local Authority Groupings


B1

Local Authority Groupings

For this report, performance has been analysed by local authority groups, in a similar way to the WRAP

kerbside recycling reports. The groups were based on the NS 2001 Area Classifications1, in which local

authorities are clustered according to key population characteristics from the 2001 Census. To create groups

of similar sizes, two sets of groups were merged:

• ‘London Centre’ and ‘London Cosmopolitan’ merged into an ‘Inner London’ group and

• ‘Thriving London Periphery’ and ‘London Suburbs’ into an ‘Outer London/ Periphery’ group.

The ONS groups were ordered by increasing deprivation, based on the median of the Indices of Multiple

Deprivation for the English authorities each group, except for the ‘Northern Ireland Countryside’ group, and

the ‘Outer London/ Periphery’ was swapped with ‘Coast/ Country’ as both the minimum and maximum of the

former are lower. The indices of each nation are calculated independently so cannot be combined, thus the

groups are ranked by the indices of the English or Northern Irish authorities. Groups were ordered by

deprivation as recycling yields are closely linked to relative deprivation of authorities.

Table B1 compares the ONS and WYG groups and provides the numbers of authorities in each group in total

and for each nation.

Figure B1 shows the range of deprivation for each group (as indicated by the range of the vertical bars) and

the number of authorities in each group (in brackets next to the group label on the x-axis). The 25% of

authorities with the highest indices of deprivation are shown in green and the lowest in red, with the

intermediate bands shown in yellow and orange. Note: Scotland and Wales are excluded from this Figure as

they use a different ranking system for deprivation.

Tables B2, B3, B4 and B5 provide, for each local authority in England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales

respectively, the WYG groupings used in this report and the ONS group and subgroup. This allows local

authorities to identify the comparator group that can be used to benchmark their own performance.

1 The Office of National Statistics website provides information on the NS 2001 Area Classifications (amended for

the 2009 changes), the classification methodology and a map: www.ons.gov.uk/ons/guide-

method/geography/products/area-classifications/ns-area-classifications/index/index.html.


B2

Table B1. WYG and ONS Local Authority Groupings and Numbers of Authorities

No. WYG Group ONS Group No. Eng. NI Scot. Wales

43 01. Prosp. S. England Prospering Southern England 43 43

40 02. Prosp. Towns – C Prospering Smaller Towns – C 40 40

38 03. Prosp. Towns – B Prospering Smaller Towns – B 38 38

27 04. Prosp. Towns – A Prospering Smaller Towns – A 27 20 2 3 2

23 05. New/ Grow. Towns New and Growing Towns 23 23

21 06. Outer London/ Peri. Thriving London Periphery 9 12

London Suburbs 12 9

52 07. Coast/ Country Coastal and Countryside 52 33 11 8

13 08. NI Countryside Northern Ireland Countryside 13 13

41 09. Manuf. Towns Manufacturing Towns 41 28 10 3

24 10. Regional Centres Regional Centres 24 19 4 1

42 11. Ind. Hinterlands Industrial Hinterlands 42 19 1 14 8

15 12. Inner London London Centre 8 8

London Cosmopolitan 7 7

21 13. Centres w. Ind. Centres with Industry 21 21

400 Total Total 400 320 26 32 22

Figure B1. Indices of Multiple Deprivation by Authority Groupings

14

2224

22

26

35

40

34

30

43

4143

41

43

10

1516 17

21

24 24 24

27 27

33

3634

25

8

11 1113

1715 15

18

2223

2725

30

12

4

79

8

12

1012

1517 18

22

11

23

4

10

13 1315

18

20 20 21

2426

2931

33

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

01. P

rosp

. S

. E

ngla

nd (

43)

02. P

rosp

. T

ow

ns C

(4

0)

03. P

rosp

. T

ow

ns

B

(38)

04. P

rosp

. T

ow

ns

A

(20)

05. N

ew

/ G

row

. T

ow

ns

(23)

06. O

ute

r London/

Peri. (2

1)

07. C

oast

/ C

ountr

y

(33)

08. N

I C

ountr

ysi

de

(13)

09. M

anuf.

Tow

ns

(28)

10. R

egio

nal

Centr

es

(19)

11. I

nd.

Hin

terlands

(19)

12. I

nner

London

(15)

13. C

entr

es

w. In

d.

(21)

All

(320)

Ind

ex

of

Mu

ltip

le D

ep

riv

atio

n _

Highest deprivation

Above median

Below median

Lowest deprivation

Median


B3

Table B2. WYG and ONS Group for each Local Authority in England

Authority WYG Group ONS Group and Subgroup

Adur 04. Prosp. Towns - A Prospering Smaller Towns A

Allerdale 07. Coast/ Country Coastal and Countryside B

Amber Valley 09. Manuf. Towns Manufacturing Towns A

Arun 07. Coast/ Country Coastal and Countryside A

Ashfield 09. Manuf. Towns Manufacturing Towns A

Ashford 02. Prosp. Towns - C Prospering Smaller Towns C

Aylesbury Vale 01. Prosp. S. England Prospering Southern England A

Barking and Dagenham 13. Centres w. Ind. Centres with Industry B

Barnet 06. Outer London/ Peri. London Suburbs A

Barnsley 09. Manuf. Towns Manufacturing Towns A

Barrow-in-Furness 11. Ind. Hinterlands Industrial Hinterlands A

Basildon 05. New/ Grow. Towns New and Growing Towns A

Basingstoke and Deane 01. Prosp. S. England Prospering Southern England A

Bassetlaw 09. Manuf. Towns Manufacturing Towns A

Bath and North East Somerset 04. Prosp. Towns - A Prospering Smaller Towns A

Bedford 05. New/ Grow. Towns New and Growing Towns A

Bexley 05. New/ Grow. Towns New and Growing Towns A

Birmingham 13. Centres w. Ind. Centres with Industry B

Blaby 02. Prosp. Towns - C Prospering Smaller Towns C

Blackburn with Darwen 13. Centres w. Ind. Centres with Industry A

Blackpool 07. Coast/ Country Coastal and Countryside B

Bolsover 09. Manuf. Towns Manufacturing Towns A

Bolton 13. Centres w. Ind. Centres with Industry A

Boston 03. Prosp. Towns - B Prospering Smaller Towns B

Bournemouth 10. Regional Centres Regional Centres A

Bracknell Forest 01. Prosp. S. England Prospering Southern England A

Bradford 13. Centres w. Ind. Centres with Industry A

Braintree 02. Prosp. Towns - C Prospering Smaller Towns C

Breckland 03. Prosp. Towns - B Prospering Smaller Towns B

Brent 12. Inner London London Cosmopolitan B

Brentwood 01. Prosp. S. England Prospering Southern England A

Brighton and Hove 10. Regional Centres Regional Centres A

Bristol 10. Regional Centres Regional Centres A

Broadland 03. Prosp. Towns - B Prospering Smaller Towns B

Bromley 06. Outer London/ Peri. Thriving London Periphery B

Bromsgrove 02. Prosp. Towns - C Prospering Smaller Towns C

Broxbourne 05. New/ Grow. Towns New and Growing Towns A

Broxtowe 04. Prosp. Towns - A Prospering Smaller Towns A

Burnley 13. Centres w. Ind. Centres with Industry A

Bury 04. Prosp. Towns - A Prospering Smaller Towns A

Calderdale 13. Centres w. Ind. Centres with Industry A

Cambridge 06. Outer London/ Peri. Thriving London Periphery A

Camden 12. Inner London London Centre A

Cannock Chase 09. Manuf. Towns Manufacturing Towns A

Canterbury 04. Prosp. Towns - A Prospering Smaller Towns A

Carlisle 07. Coast/ Country Coastal and Countryside B

Castle Point 02. Prosp. Towns - C Prospering Smaller Towns C


B4


Central Bedfordshire 02. Prosp. Towns - C Prospering Smaller Towns C

Charnwood 04. Prosp. Towns - A Prospering Smaller Towns A

Chelmsford 01. Prosp. S. England Prospering Southern England A

Cheltenham 04. Prosp. Towns - A Prospering Smaller Towns A

Cherwell 02. Prosp. Towns - C Prospering Smaller Towns C

Cheshire East 03. Prosp. Towns - B Prospering Smaller Towns B

Cheshire West and Chester 04. Prosp. Towns - A Prospering Smaller Towns A

Chesterfield 09. Manuf. Towns Manufacturing Towns A

Chichester 07. Coast/ Country Coastal and Countryside A

Chiltern 01. Prosp. S. England Prospering Southern England A

Chorley 02. Prosp. Towns - C Prospering Smaller Towns C

City of London 12. Inner London London Centre A

Colchester 04. Prosp. Towns - A Prospering Smaller Towns A

Copeland 11. Ind. Hinterlands Industrial Hinterlands A

Corby 09. Manuf. Towns Manufacturing Towns A

Cornwall 07. Coast/ Country Coastal and Countryside C

Cotswold 03. Prosp. Towns - B Prospering Smaller Towns B

County Durham 11. Ind. Hinterlands Industrial Hinterlands A

Coventry 13. Centres w. Ind. Centres with Industry A

Craven 07. Coast/ Country Coastal and Countryside A

Crawley 05. New/ Grow. Towns New and Growing Towns A

Croydon 06. Outer London/ Peri. London Suburbs B

Dacorum 01. Prosp. S. England Prospering Southern England A

Darlington 11. Ind. Hinterlands Industrial Hinterlands A

Dartford 05. New/ Grow. Towns New and Growing Towns A

Daventry 02. Prosp. Towns - C Prospering Smaller Towns C

Derby 13. Centres w. Ind. Centres with Industry A

Derbyshire Dales 03. Prosp. Towns - B Prospering Smaller Towns B

Doncaster 09. Manuf. Towns Manufacturing Towns A

Dorset Waste Partnership

(comprised as below) 07. Coast/ Country

Coastal and Countryside /

Prospering Smaller Towns

A/B

B

Christchurch 07. Coast/ Country Coastal and Countryside A

East Dorset 03. Prosp. Towns - B Prospering Smaller Towns B

North Dorset 03. Prosp. Towns - B Prospering Smaller Towns B

Purbeck 07. Coast/ Country Coastal and Countryside A

West Dorset 07. Coast/ Country Coastal and Countryside A

Weymouth and Portland 07. Coast/ Country Coastal and Countryside B

Dover 07. Coast/ Country Coastal and Countryside B

Dudley 09. Manuf. Towns Manufacturing Towns A

Ealing 06. Outer London/ Peri. London Suburbs A

East Cambridgeshire 02. Prosp. Towns - C Prospering Smaller Towns C

East Devon 07. Coast/ Country Coastal and Countryside A

East Hampshire 01. Prosp. S. England Prospering Southern England A

East Hertfordshire 01. Prosp. S. England Prospering Southern England A

East Lindsey 07. Coast/ Country Coastal and Countryside A

East Northamptonshire 02. Prosp. Towns - C Prospering Smaller Towns C

East Riding of Yorkshire 03. Prosp. Towns - B Prospering Smaller Towns B

East Staffordshire 09. Manuf. Towns Manufacturing Towns A

Eastbourne 10. Regional Centres Regional Centres A


B5


Eastleigh 02. Prosp. Towns - C Prospering Smaller Towns C

Eden 07. Coast/ Country Coastal and Countryside A

Elmbridge 01. Prosp. S. England Prospering Southern England A

Enfield 06. Outer London/ Peri. London Suburbs B

Epping Forest 01. Prosp. S. England Prospering Southern England A

Epsom and Ewell 01. Prosp. S. England Prospering Southern England A

Erewash 09. Manuf. Towns Manufacturing Towns A

Exeter 10. Regional Centres Regional Centres A

Fareham 02. Prosp. Towns - C Prospering Smaller Towns C

Fenland 02. Prosp. Towns - C Prospering Smaller Towns C

Forest Heath 05. New/ Grow. Towns New and Growing Towns A

Forest of Dean 03. Prosp. Towns - B Prospering Smaller Towns B

Fylde 07. Coast/ Country Coastal and Countryside A

Gateshead 11. Ind. Hinterlands Industrial Hinterlands A

Gedling 04. Prosp. Towns - A Prospering Smaller Towns A

Gloucester 05. New/ Grow. Towns New and Growing Towns A

Gosport 05. New/ Grow. Towns New and Growing Towns A

Gravesham 05. New/ Grow. Towns New and Growing Towns A

Great Yarmouth 07. Coast/ Country Coastal and Countryside B

Greenwich 06. Outer London/ Peri. London Suburbs B

Guildford 01. Prosp. S. England Prospering Southern England A

Hackney 12. Inner London London Cosmopolitan A

Halton 11. Ind. Hinterlands Industrial Hinterlands A

Hambleton 03. Prosp. Towns - B Prospering Smaller Towns B

Hammersmith and Fulham 12. Inner London London Centre A

Harborough 02. Prosp. Towns - C Prospering Smaller Towns C

Haringey 12. Inner London London Cosmopolitan A

Harlow 05. New/ Grow. Towns New and Growing Towns A

Harrogate 03. Prosp. Towns - B Prospering Smaller Towns B

Harrow 06. Outer London/ Peri. London Suburbs A

Hart 01. Prosp. S. England Prospering Southern England A

Hartlepool 11. Ind. Hinterlands Industrial Hinterlands A

Hastings 10. Regional Centres Regional Centres A

Havant 09. Manuf. Towns Manufacturing Towns A

Havering 05. New/ Grow. Towns New and Growing Towns A

Herefordshire 02. Prosp. Towns - C Prospering Smaller Towns C

Hertsmere 01. Prosp. S. England Prospering Southern England A

High Peak 02. Prosp. Towns - C Prospering Smaller Towns C

Hillingdon 06. Outer London/ Peri. Thriving London Periphery B

Hinckley and Bosworth 02. Prosp. Towns - C Prospering Smaller Towns C

Horsham 01. Prosp. S. England Prospering Southern England A

Hounslow 06. Outer London/ Peri. London Suburbs A

Huntingdonshire 02. Prosp. Towns - C Prospering Smaller Towns C

Hyndburn 13. Centres w. Ind. Centres with Industry A

Ipswich 05. New/ Grow. Towns New and Growing Towns A

Isle of Wight 07. Coast/ Country Coastal and Countryside B

Isles of Scilly 07. Coast/ Country Coastal and Countryside A

Islington 12. Inner London London Centre A

Kensington and Chelsea 12. Inner London London Centre A


B6


Kettering 02. Prosp. Towns - C Prospering Smaller Towns C

Kings Lynn and West Norfolk 03. Prosp. Towns - B Prospering Smaller Towns B

Kingston upon Thames 06. Outer London/ Peri. Thriving London Periphery B

Kingston-upon-Hull 11. Ind. Hinterlands Industrial Hinterlands A

Kirklees 13. Centres w. Ind. Centres with Industry A

Knowsley 11. Ind. Hinterlands Industrial Hinterlands A

Lambeth 12. Inner London London Cosmopolitan A

Lancaster 10. Regional Centres Regional Centres A

Leeds 10. Regional Centres Regional Centres A

Leicester 13. Centres w. Ind. Centres with Industry B

Lewes 03. Prosp. Towns - B Prospering Smaller Towns B

Lewisham 12. Inner London London Cosmopolitan A

Lichfield 02. Prosp. Towns - C Prospering Smaller Towns C

Lincoln 10. Regional Centres Regional Centres A

Liverpool 10. Regional Centres Regional Centres A

Luton 06. Outer London/ Peri. London Suburbs A

Maidstone 02. Prosp. Towns - C Prospering Smaller Towns C

Maldon 02. Prosp. Towns - C Prospering Smaller Towns C

Malvern Hills 03. Prosp. Towns - B Prospering Smaller Towns B

Manchester 13. Centres w. Ind. Centres with Industry B

Mansfield 09. Manuf. Towns Manufacturing Towns A

Medway 05. New/ Grow. Towns New and Growing Towns A

Melton 02. Prosp. Towns - C Prospering Smaller Towns C

Mendip 03. Prosp. Towns - B Prospering Smaller Towns B

Merton 06. Outer London/ Peri. London Suburbs A

Mid Devon 03. Prosp. Towns - B Prospering Smaller Towns B

Mid Suffolk 02. Prosp. Towns - C Prospering Smaller Towns C

Mid Sussex 01. Prosp. S. England Prospering Southern England A

Middlesbrough 11. Ind. Hinterlands Industrial Hinterlands A

Milton Keynes 05. New/ Grow. Towns New and Growing Towns A

Mole Valley 01. Prosp. S. England Prospering Southern England A

New Forest 03. Prosp. Towns - B Prospering Smaller Towns B

Newark and Sherwood 03. Prosp. Towns - B Prospering Smaller Towns B

Newcastle-under-Lyme 09. Manuf. Towns Manufacturing Towns A

Newcastle-upon-Tyne 10. Regional Centres Regional Centres A

Newham 12. Inner London London Cosmopolitan B

North Devon 07. Coast/ Country Coastal and Countryside A

North East Derbyshire 09. Manuf. Towns Manufacturing Towns A

North East Lincolnshire 09. Manuf. Towns Manufacturing Towns A

North Hertfordshire 01. Prosp. S. England Prospering Southern England A

North Kesteven 03. Prosp. Towns - B Prospering Smaller Towns B

North Lincolnshire 09. Manuf. Towns Manufacturing Towns A

North Norfolk 07. Coast/ Country Coastal and Countryside A

North Somerset 03. Prosp. Towns - B Prospering Smaller Towns B

North Tyneside 11. Ind. Hinterlands Industrial Hinterlands B

North Warwickshire 02. Prosp. Towns - C Prospering Smaller Towns C

North West Leicestershire 02. Prosp. Towns - C Prospering Smaller Towns C

Northampton 05. New/ Grow. Towns New and Growing Towns A

Northumberland 03. Prosp. Towns - B Prospering Smaller Towns B


B7


Norwich 10. Regional Centres Regional Centres A

Nottingham 13. Centres w. Ind. Centres with Industry B

Nuneaton and Bedworth 09. Manuf. Towns Manufacturing Towns A

Oadby and Wigston 04. Prosp. Towns - A Prospering Smaller Towns A

Oldham 13. Centres w. Ind. Centres with Industry A

Oxford 06. Outer London/ Peri. Thriving London Periphery A

Pendle 13. Centres w. Ind. Centres with Industry A

Peterborough 05. New/ Grow. Towns New and Growing Towns A

Plymouth 10. Regional Centres Regional Centres A

Poole 04. Prosp. Towns - A Prospering Smaller Towns A

Portsmouth 10. Regional Centres Regional Centres A

Preston 13. Centres w. Ind. Centres with Industry A

Reading 06. Outer London/ Peri. Thriving London Periphery B

Redbridge 06. Outer London/ Peri. London Suburbs A

Redcar and Cleveland 11. Ind. Hinterlands Industrial Hinterlands A

Redditch 09. Manuf. Towns Manufacturing Towns A

Reigate and Banstead 01. Prosp. S. England Prospering Southern England A

Ribble Valley 03. Prosp. Towns - B Prospering Smaller Towns B

Richmond upon Thames 06. Outer London/ Peri. Thriving London Periphery B

Richmondshire 03. Prosp. Towns - B Prospering Smaller Towns B

Rochdale 13. Centres w. Ind. Centres with Industry A

Rochford 01. Prosp. S. England Prospering Southern England A

Rossendale 09. Manuf. Towns Manufacturing Towns A

Rother 07. Coast/ Country Coastal and Countryside A

Rotherham 09. Manuf. Towns Manufacturing Towns A

Rugby 02. Prosp. Towns - C Prospering Smaller Towns C

Runnymede 01. Prosp. S. England Prospering Southern England A

Rushcliffe 04. Prosp. Towns - A Prospering Smaller Towns A

Rushmoor 05. New/ Grow. Towns New and Growing Towns A

Rutland 03. Prosp. Towns - B Prospering Smaller Towns B

Ryedale 07. Coast/ Country Coastal and Countryside A

Salford 10. Regional Centres Regional Centres A

Sandwell 13. Centres w. Ind. Centres with Industry B

Scarborough 07. Coast/ Country Coastal and Countryside B

Sedgemoor 03. Prosp. Towns - B Prospering Smaller Towns B

Sefton 11. Ind. Hinterlands Industrial Hinterlands A

Selby 02. Prosp. Towns - C Prospering Smaller Towns C

Sevenoaks 01. Prosp. S. England Prospering Southern England A

Sheffield 10. Regional Centres Regional Centres A

Shepway 07. Coast/ Country Coastal and Countryside B

Shropshire 03. Prosp. Towns - B Prospering Smaller Towns B

Slough 06. Outer London/ Peri. London Suburbs A

Solihull 04. Prosp. Towns - A Prospering Smaller Towns A

South Bucks 01. Prosp. S. England Prospering Southern England A

South Cambridgeshire 01. Prosp. S. England Prospering Southern England A

South Derbyshire 02. Prosp. Towns - C Prospering Smaller Towns C

South Gloucestershire 02. Prosp. Towns - C Prospering Smaller Towns C

South Hams 07. Coast/ Country Coastal and Countryside A

South Holland 03. Prosp. Towns - B Prospering Smaller Towns B


B8


South Kesteven 02. Prosp. Towns - C Prospering Smaller Towns C

South Lakeland 07. Coast/ Country Coastal and Countryside A

South Norfolk 03. Prosp. Towns - B Prospering Smaller Towns B

South Northamptonshire 02. Prosp. Towns - C Prospering Smaller Towns C

South Oxfordshire 01. Prosp. S. England Prospering Southern England A

South Ribble 02. Prosp. Towns - C Prospering Smaller Towns C

South Somerset 03. Prosp. Towns - B Prospering Smaller Towns B

South Staffordshire 02. Prosp. Towns - C Prospering Smaller Towns C

South Tyneside 11. Ind. Hinterlands Industrial Hinterlands A

Southampton 10. Regional Centres Regional Centres A

Southend-on-Sea 10. Regional Centres Regional Centres A

Southwark 12. Inner London London Cosmopolitan A

Spelthorne 01. Prosp. S. England Prospering Southern England A

St Albans 01. Prosp. S. England Prospering Southern England A

St Edmundsbury 02. Prosp. Towns - C Prospering Smaller Towns C

St Helens 11. Ind. Hinterlands Industrial Hinterlands A

Stafford 03. Prosp. Towns - B Prospering Smaller Towns B

Staffordshire Moorlands 03. Prosp. Towns - B Prospering Smaller Towns B

Stevenage 05. New/ Grow. Towns New and Growing Towns A

Stockport 04. Prosp. Towns - A Prospering Smaller Towns A

Stockton-on-Tees 09. Manuf. Towns Manufacturing Towns A

Stoke-on-Trent 11. Ind. Hinterlands Industrial Hinterlands A

Stratford-on-Avon 03. Prosp. Towns - B Prospering Smaller Towns B

Stroud 03. Prosp. Towns - B Prospering Smaller Towns B

Suffolk Coastal 03. Prosp. Towns - B Prospering Smaller Towns B

Sunderland 11. Ind. Hinterlands Industrial Hinterlands A

Surrey Heath 01. Prosp. S. England Prospering Southern England A

Sutton 06. Outer London/ Peri. Thriving London Periphery B

Swale 09. Manuf. Towns Manufacturing Towns A

Swindon 05. New/ Grow. Towns New and Growing Towns A

Tameside 11. Ind. Hinterlands Industrial Hinterlands A

Tamworth 09. Manuf. Towns Manufacturing Towns A

Tandridge 01. Prosp. S. England Prospering Southern England A

Taunton Deane 03. Prosp. Towns - B Prospering Smaller Towns B

Teignbridge 07. Coast/ Country Coastal and Countryside A

Telford and Wrekin 09. Manuf. Towns Manufacturing Towns A

Tendring 07. Coast/ Country Coastal and Countryside A

Test Valley 01. Prosp. S. England Prospering Southern England A

Tewkesbury 03. Prosp. Towns - B Prospering Smaller Towns B

Thanet 07. Coast/ Country Coastal and Countryside B

Three Rivers 01. Prosp. S. England Prospering Southern England A

Thurrock 05. New/ Grow. Towns New and Growing Towns A

Tonbridge and Malling 01. Prosp. S. England Prospering Southern England A

Torbay 07. Coast/ Country Coastal and Countryside B

Torridge 07. Coast/ Country Coastal and Countryside A

Tower Hamlets 12. Inner London London Centre B

Trafford 04. Prosp. Towns - A Prospering Smaller Towns A

Tunbridge Wells 01. Prosp. S. England Prospering Southern England A

Uttlesford 01. Prosp. S. England Prospering Southern England A


B9


Vale of White Horse 01. Prosp. S. England Prospering Southern England A

Wakefield 09. Manuf. Towns Manufacturing Towns A

Walsall 13. Centres w. Ind. Centres with Industry A

Waltham Forest 06. Outer London/ Peri. London Suburbs B

Wandsworth 12. Inner London London Centre A

Warrington 02. Prosp. Towns - C Prospering Smaller Towns C

Warwick 04. Prosp. Towns - A Prospering Smaller Towns A

Watford 06. Outer London/ Peri. Thriving London Periphery B

Waveney 07. Coast/ Country Coastal and Countryside B

Waverley 01. Prosp. S. England Prospering Southern England A

Wealden 03. Prosp. Towns - B Prospering Smaller Towns B

Wellingborough 05. New/ Grow. Towns New and Growing Towns A

Welwyn Hatfield 04. Prosp. Towns - A Prospering Smaller Towns A

West Berkshire 01. Prosp. S. England Prospering Southern England A

West Devon 07. Coast/ Country Coastal and Countryside A

West Lancashire 04. Prosp. Towns - A Prospering Smaller Towns A

West Lindsey 03. Prosp. Towns - B Prospering Smaller Towns B

West Oxfordshire 02. Prosp. Towns - C Prospering Smaller Towns C

West Somerset 07. Coast/ Country Coastal and Countryside A

Westminster 12. Inner London London Centre A

Wigan 09. Manuf. Towns Manufacturing Towns A

Wiltshire 02. Prosp. Towns - C Prospering Smaller Towns C

Winchester 01. Prosp. S. England Prospering Southern England A

Windsor and Maidenhead 01. Prosp. S. England Prospering Southern England A

Wirral 11. Ind. Hinterlands Industrial Hinterlands A

Woking 01. Prosp. S. England Prospering Southern England A

Wokingham 01. Prosp. S. England Prospering Southern England A

Wolverhampton 13. Centres w. Ind. Centres with Industry B

Worcester 05. New/ Grow. Towns New and Growing Towns A

Worthing 10. Regional Centres Regional Centres A

Wychavon 03. Prosp. Towns - B Prospering Smaller Towns B

Wycombe 01. Prosp. S. England Prospering Southern England A

Wyre 07. Coast/ Country Coastal and Countryside A

Wyre Forest 02. Prosp. Towns - C Prospering Smaller Towns C

York 04. Prosp. Towns - A Prospering Smaller Towns A


B10

Table B3. WYG and ONS Group for each Local Authority in Northern Ireland


Antrim 09. Manuf. Towns Manufacturing Towns B

Ards 09. Manuf. Towns Manufacturing Towns B

Armagh 08. NI Countryside N. Ireland Countryside A

Ballymena 09. Manuf. Towns Manufacturing Towns B

Ballymoney 08. NI Countryside N. Ireland Countryside A

Banbridge 09. Manuf. Towns Manufacturing Towns B

Belfast 11. Ind. Hinterlands Industrial Hinterlands A

Carrickfergus 09. Manuf. Towns Manufacturing Towns B

Castlereagh 04. Prosp. Towns - A Prospering Smaller Towns A

Coleraine 09. Manuf. Towns Manufacturing Towns B

Cookstown 08. NI Countryside N. Ireland Countryside A

Craigavon 09. Manuf. Towns Manufacturing Towns B

Derry 08. NI Countryside N. Ireland Countryside A

Down 08. NI Countryside N. Ireland Countryside A

Dungannon & South Tyrone 08. NI Countryside N. Ireland Countryside A

Fermanagh 08. NI Countryside N. Ireland Countryside A

Larne 09. Manuf. Towns Manufacturing Towns B

Limavady 08. NI Countryside N. Ireland Countryside A

Lisburn 09. Manuf. Towns Manufacturing Towns B

Magherafelt 08. NI Countryside N. Ireland Countryside A

Moyle 08. NI Countryside N. Ireland Countryside A

Newry & Mourne 08. NI Countryside N. Ireland Countryside A

Newtownabbey 09. Manuf. Towns Manufacturing Towns B

North Down 04. Prosp. Towns - A Prospering Smaller Towns A

Omagh 08. NI Countryside N. Ireland Countryside A

Strabane 08. NI Countryside N. Ireland Countryside A


B11

Table B4. WYG and ONS Group for each Local Authority in Scotland


Aberdeen 10. Regional Centres Regional Centres A

Aberdeenshire 07. Coast/ Country Coastal and Countryside C

Angus 07. Coast/ Country Coastal and Countryside C

Argyll & Bute 07. Coast/ Country Coastal and Countryside C

Clackmannanshire 11. Ind. Hinterlands Industrial Hinterlands B

Dumfries & Galloway 07. Coast/ Country Coastal and Countryside C

Dundee 10. Regional Centres Regional Centres A

East Ayrshire 11. Ind. Hinterlands Industrial Hinterlands B

East Dunbartonshire 04. Prosp. Towns - A Prospering Smaller Towns A

East Lothian 11. Ind. Hinterlands Industrial Hinterlands B

East Renfrewshire 04. Prosp. Towns - A Prospering Smaller Towns A

Edinburgh 10. Regional Centres Regional Centres A

Eilean Siar 07. Coast/ Country Coastal and Countryside C

Falkirk 11. Ind. Hinterlands Industrial Hinterlands B

Fife 11. Ind. Hinterlands Industrial Hinterlands B

Glasgow 10. Regional Centres Regional Centres A

Highland 07. Coast/ Country Coastal and Countryside C

Inverclyde 11. Ind. Hinterlands Industrial Hinterlands B

Midlothian 11. Ind. Hinterlands Industrial Hinterlands B

Moray 07. Coast/ Country Coastal and Countryside C

North Ayrshire 11. Ind. Hinterlands Industrial Hinterlands B

North Lanarkshire 11. Ind. Hinterlands Industrial Hinterlands B

Orkney Islands 07. Coast/ Country Coastal and Countryside C

Perth & Kinross 07. Coast/ Country Coastal and Countryside C

Renfrewshire 11. Ind. Hinterlands Industrial Hinterlands B

Scottish Borders 07. Coast/ Country Coastal and Countryside C

Shetland Islands 07. Coast/ Country Coastal and Countryside C

South Ayrshire 11. Ind. Hinterlands Industrial Hinterlands B

South Lanarkshire 11. Ind. Hinterlands Industrial Hinterlands B

Stirling 04. Prosp. Towns - A Prospering Smaller Towns A

West Dunbartonshire 11. Ind. Hinterlands Industrial Hinterlands B

West Lothian 11. Ind. Hinterlands Industrial Hinterlands B


B12

TableB5. WYG and ONS Group for each Local Authority in Wales


Blaenau Gwent 11. Ind. Hinterlands Industrial Hinterlands A

Bridgend 09. Manuf. Towns Manufacturing Towns A

Caerphilly 11. Ind. Hinterlands Industrial Hinterlands A

Cardiff 10. Regional Centres Regional Centres A

Carmarthenshire 07. Coast/ Country Coastal and Countryside B

Ceredigion 07. Coast/ Country Coastal and Countryside A

Conwy 07. Coast/ Country Coastal and Countryside B

Denbighshire 07. Coast/ Country Coastal and Countryside B

Flintshire 09. Manuf. Towns Manufacturing Towns A

Gwynedd 07. Coast/ Country Coastal and Countryside B

Isle of Anglesey 07. Coast/ Country Coastal and Countryside B

Merthyr Tydfil 11. Ind. Hinterlands Industrial Hinterlands A

Monmouthshire 04. Prosp. Towns - A Prospering Smaller Towns A

Neath Port Talbot 11. Ind. Hinterlands Industrial Hinterlands A

Newport 11. Ind. Hinterlands Industrial Hinterlands A

Pembrokeshire 07. Coast/ Country Coastal and Countryside B

Powys 07. Coast/ Country Coastal and Countryside A

Rhondda Cynon Taff 11. Ind. Hinterlands Industrial Hinterlands A

Swansea 11. Ind. Hinterlands Industrial Hinterlands A

Torfaen 11. Ind. Hinterlands Industrial Hinterlands A

Vale of Glamorgan 04. Prosp. Towns - A Prospering Smaller Towns A

Wrexham 09. Manuf. Towns Manufacturing Towns A

review of kerbside recycling collection schemes in the uk ... · review of kerbside recycling...

Documents