To receive any public questions, statements or petitions submitted in accordance with the Constitution. Further information on the requirements for submitting these is available to view at the following link:-
https://democracy.bcpcouncil.gov.uk/ieListMeetings.aspx?CommitteeID=151&Info=1&bcr=1
The deadline for the submission of public questions is mid-day Thursday 13 November 3 clear working days before the meeting.
The deadline for the submission of a statement is midday Tuesday 18 November the working day before the meeting.
The deadline for the submission of a petition is Tuesday 4 November 10 working days before the meeting.
Minutes:
The Committee was advised that there had been no petitions submitted by members of the public on this occasion, but that two questions and three statements had been received in relation to Agenda Item 7 (Waste Strategy for Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council 2026-2036).
Public Questions received from Mr Paul Brelsford on Agenda Item 7 (Waste Strategy for Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council 2026-2036)
I am pleased to see that Packaging Extended Producer Responsibility (pEPR) under the producer pays principle, together with profit from BCP’s commercial waste collections, has reduced the Council’s waste expenditure from £36.7 million to £17.3 million, a net reduction of £19.4 million. However, was the strategy analysis extended to consider the longer-term benefits of reinvesting part of this net saving into developing new local recycling infrastructure? Such investment could accelerate BCP’s transition to a circular economy, create sustainable green jobs, support climate objectives, reduce the carbon footprint, and generate further economic value that would, in turn, benefit both BCP’s finances and the environment.
Response by the Portfolio Holder for Climate Response, Environment and Energy, Councillor Andy Hadley
All services in BCP are expected to minimise their net impact on Council Tax through fees and charges where applicable. The net reduction mentioned includes £10 million which is not just commercial income but includes all waste service income such as garden waste subscriptions and the sale of other types of household waste. This figure is not a new figure and has always been included in waste management budgets which reduces the overall net expenditure of the waste service and therefore the cost to the taxpayer.
The only recent new income has been the Extended Producer Responsibility (pEPR) payment of £9.4 million in 2025/26, which is a new government tax on the packaging industry. The payment is intended under the producer pays principle to make the packaging industry pay for the collection and disposal of the existing packaging waste rather than this falling to the Council Taxpayer.
If the policy is successful and works as intended, producers and retailers will seek to minimise their packaging, and we will see a reduction in this tax income year on year as packaging reduces or is switched to more recyclable materials.
The government have indicated that Councils will be inspected in order to show that they are providing effective and efficient waste services, and if any changes are recommended the EPR funding should be used to implement them
If any new facilities are required in the future by the Council to manage its waste, a separate business and financial case will be developed, with its associated funding agreed by Councillors. Given the scale of our waste streams, and the shifting global market for recyclates, it is unlikely that the Council could create a facility at scale to be economically sustainable.
We do have plans to extend the “new 2 you" facility to divert reusable items from the waste stream.
There is still a lot of uncertainty in the UK waste industry as several new government policies have not yet started, and the impact of them on how we currently operate our waste services and any future requirements is still not fully known. We know we will have to introduce new or amended services to increase our recycling rate to 65%, but these will be evaluated as we go. We are currently monitoring the new Deposit Return Scheme in 2027 and the Emissions Trading scheme for Energy from Waste facilities in 2028.
The communities of Bearwood and Merley are among the most affected by waste management operations, given the concentration of such activities at Canford Resource Park. The intensification of waste processing adjacent to internationally designated environmental and ecological sites is of particular concern. Residents also experience health and wellbeing impacts linked to traffic, pollution, odour, noise, and other nuisances. Were these local impacts considered as part of the strategy review, and were any representations or concerns raised specifically on behalf of Bearwood and Merley residents by their ward councillors?
Response by the Portfolio Holder for Climate Response, Environment and Energy, Councillor Andy Hadley
This document is a high-level strategy document that discusses the principles on how we will manage our waste and the infrastructure that may be required over the next ten years and beyond. The document is designed to show how we will meet our environmental and carbon reduction targets, and any supporting actions that can be progressed following the public consultation.
There are currently waste treatment facilities, waste transfer stations and waste depots across the BCP area. This waste strategy does not look at individual sites as our requirements will be subject to market forces, availability and capacity when procuring future services.
You mentioned the circular economy in your prior question, the Strategy does emphasise the importance of the Circular economy, and the hierarchy of reduce, reuse, repair, repurpose, and recycle before “energy from waste” or landfill. We must also record and report the distances our waste travels as part of the Authority’s CO2 footprint.
If any local sites are required to meet the goals identified in the strategy and currently do not have Environment Agency permits to operate, as with all large changes to services, strategies and policies they will be agreed by Councillors through the normal democratic process. The jointly prepared Bournemouth, Christchurch, Poole and Dorset Waste Plan (2019) identifies sites for new waste management facilities to meet the county's needs. It provides the policy framework for determining planning applications for waste management facilities up to 2033. Any new facility would need agreement through the Planning process and the Environment Agency in the normal way.
The Waste Strategy was discussed at an all Members briefing in May 2025, and available for public consultation for 4 weeks in June 2025. The Waste Strategy, alongside the consultation findings, were then discussed with and later commented on by a Member’s cross-party waste strategy group in October 2025.
The issues pertaining to Bearwood and Merley are specific to the private facilities there. Ward Councillors have been actively supporting the concerns of the community on the planning application, but that is a planning matter, and a separate issue to the overall strategy being discussed here.
Public Statements received from Mr Paul Brelsford on Agenda Item 7 (Waste Strategy for Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council 2026-2036)
The 2019 BCPD Waste Plan is based on data from 2015. This data is now outdated and superseded by actual data since 2019, which has demonstrated the waste plan forecasting to be significantly inaccurate. Moreover, the draft strategy articulates, England’s management of waste is undergoing transformational change at the national level to create a circular economy.
In this context assumptions and decisions for any waste management strategies or developments through to 2033 would be at significantly undue risk of failure if based against out of date and inaccurate waste forecasts from the 2019 Waste Plan.
We would urge this committee to satisfy itself that all future waste management planning, contracts and infrastructure are based against the most recent data available and take into account the recent national level waste reduction measures.
It would also be beneficial to publish waste data information and waste strategy targets on the BCP website.
Many of BCPs waste management contracts expire in 2027. Whilst it’s recognised the changing landscape of waste management is challenging and presents risk, it is also an opportunity. The committee should be satisfied that the strategy’s vision is bold enough to ensure future contracts will be designed and sufficiently robust enough to achieve the ambitions of a circular economy.
Procurement processes will of course seek best economic value, but the strategy must go much further to meet its ambition. I would urge the committee to explore whether BCP is in a position to leverage the circular economy opportunities, and what the strategy needs to consider to be in a position to leverage the best outcome from future contracts.
This is an important point, given the refresh of the medium-term financial plan is due to be published in February.
The strategy must support Climate and Ecological Emergency policies, and the circular economy whilst moving waste up the hierarchy beyond both landfill and incineration, both of which are linear and not circular waste disposal treatments.
The strategy narrative is not balanced in this respect; it rightly promotes waste diversion from landfill but fails to promote waste diversion from incineration where possible. Both are equally harmful options as incineration destroys recoverable resources, with up to 51% of the residual waste stream being recyclable.
Waste incineration is known to be harmful to recycling and is also the dirtiest form of power generation in the UK.
To not address this imbalance sends the wrong message to the public about BCP’s ambitions to achieve a circular economy.
We hope BCP will recognise this waste strategy represents a once in a generation opportunity to be bold in its vision to create a sustainable circular economy.