Waste contract changes due to government waste reforms

Please find details within the text provided below.

1. Contractors and Waste Facilities -  
Please provide a list of contractors and facilities used for the treatment and/or disposal of:

- Recycling (Including plastics, aluminium cans); The Authority has a recycling contract with Biffa Waste Services Ltd. Edmonton MRF for DMR. Biffa Waste Services then arranges for separated materials to be taken to various facilities for onward processing. We publish these destinations on our website https://www.nlwa.gov.uk/article/where-does-my-recycling-go

- Residual waste; London Energy Limited a company wholly owned by NLWA who operate an energy from waste plant, three transfer stations and seven recycling centres across the North London area.
  
For each facility or contract, please provide:

- Services provided; Material Recovery Facility (MRF) 

- Contract start and end dates; - Dec. 2020 - Dec. 2029

- Annual or total contract value; - 2024/25 ~£8M.

- Fee structure (fixed/variable rates, contamination charges, revenue-sharing etc.); - Fixed fees and charges, 80/20 revenue share.

- Performance indicators or financial incentives/penalties; - KPIs - MRF Performance, DMR Acceptance, Vehicle Turnaround Times, Contingency Arrangements, Accidents and Incidents, EA Inspections, Data Reports, WasteDataFlow Reports, Complaints.

- Whether the waste is received as source-separated or co-mingled;

Commingled

- Where possible, breakdowns by material stream (e.g. plastic, aluminium, DMR). – Details of provided in the table below 

Table of DMR material stream breakdown

For each facility or contract, please provide:
- Services provided; Energy-from-waste (EfW)
- Contract start and end dates; November 2014 to December 2025
- Annual or total contract value; 2024/25 £48m (excluding RRC’s) 
- Fee structure (fixed/variable rates, contamination charges, revenue-sharing etc.); Consolidated levy charge to seven local authorities
- Performance indicators or financial incentives/penalties; Mixture of KPI’s and SLA: Vehicle Turnaround Times, Contingency Arrangements, Accidents and Incidents, EA Inspections, Data Reports, WasteDataFlow Reports, Complaints.
- Whether the waste is received as source-separated or co-mingled; N/a
- Where possible, breakdowns by material stream (e.g. plastic, aluminium, DMR). Various residual streams, bulky, fly tipped, kerbside black bags etc.

2. Waste Volumes and Material Flows (2021/22–2023/24)

Please provide annual tonnages for the past three years of: - As stated in the response above, our recycling contract is for DMR with Biffa Waste Services Ltd, who arrange separated materials to go various facilities for onward processing. 

- Dry mixed recycling (DMR); details provided in table below.

Table of DMR tonnages 

- Residual waste; The attached spreadsheet includes published government statistics for NLWA waste streams (table 1).

Please indicate:

- Whether materials were received separately or co-mingled;

Commingled

- Whether tonnages were measured or estimated (and the estimation method if applicable);

Measured – weighed using calibrated weighbridges, MRF Sampling Data

3. Contamination and Waste Treatment Outcomes 

For the same period (2021/22 to 2023/24), please provide:
- Contamination rates (gross tonnage and %) for DMR, plastics, and aluminium; - 

DMR Contamination Rates; Details provided in table below in %. 

Table of DMR contamination rates in %

- Annual tonnages and percentages of:
- Plastic waste recycled, incinerated, or landfilled;

100% recycled

- Aluminium waste recycled, incinerated, or landfilled;

100% recycled

- Total council-collected waste recycled, incinerated, or landfilled; The attached spreadsheet includes published government statistics for NLWA waste streams (table 3) 

4. Waste Authority Role and Waste Collection Interface
Please describe how your authority:
- Coordinates with member boroughs on co-mingled vs source-separated collection; 

N/A – boroughs retain responsibility for their collections.

- Supports or influences decisions around collection streams; 

N/A – boroughs retain responsibility for collections.

- Operates transfer stations or energy-from-waste facilities used by boroughs;

The seven constituent boroughs either deliver residual waste direct to our energy from waste facility in Edmonton or to our three transfer stations based at Edmonton, Wembley, and Islington. These sites are exclusively for the use of the following London Boroughs: Barnet, Camden, Enfield, Hackney, Haringey, Islington, Waltham Forest

- Handles on-the-go/public space waste (if applicable);

The Authority works with our partner boroughs to install banks for the collection of small waste electrical waste at designated locations. The collected waste is handled via a contract with an approved WEEE producer compliance scheme (PCS) operator -ERP. 

 
5. DRS and EPR Planning 
Please provide any documentation or summaries of work carried out in preparation for the Deposit Return Scheme and Extended Producer Responsibility reforms, including:

- Internal modelling or scenario planning; 

As part of the development of the new North London Joint Waste Strategy (NLJWS), we commissioned a piece of modelling work to understand the impact a series of scenarios would have on north London’s tonnage levels. These scenarios included government reforms such as Extended Producer Responsibility for Packaging (pEPR), the Deposit Return Scheme (DRS), and Simpler Recycling.

The draft report on this was made publicly available as part of the strategy consultation, and can be found here: 

https://www.nlwa.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2025-05/appendix_1_-_jws_waste_projections.pdf

A summary of impacts applied to the projections can be found in section 1.3 of the above draft report.

- Procurement or infrastructure changes (e.g. reverse vending, sorting capacity upgrades);

We have not undertaken any procurement or infrastructure changes specifically related to pEPR or DRS.

- Communication or coordination with member boroughs;

NLWA regularly engage with our constituent boroughs though a number of forums. These include a regular informal catch-up for waste officers, meetings with Directors of Environment, and engage on an ad-hoc basis as and when necessary. 

Regarding coordination with the boroughs on pEPR and DRS, we generally collaborate on our responses to government consultations, links to which can be found here:

https://www.nlwa.gov.uk/ourauthority/consultation-responses

- Engagement with national or regional authorities (e.g. Defra, WRAP); 

Whilst we do not keep a specific record of individual engagements with national bodies, we make sure to engage whenever possible. We regularly engage with Defra and other government departments via responses to consultations, stakeholder forums, policy workshops, and roundtables.

- Budget allocations or pilot projects; 

The 2025/26 Budget and Levy Report for our February Authority meeting outlined our budget allocations for the first year of pEPR funding. Please see link below to the paper, and an extract from the relevant section:

https://www.nlwa.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2025-02/02%20Budget%20and%20Levy%2025-26.pdf

“1.4. The government has allocated pEPR funding of £14.479m for NLWA in addition to 

further funding that has been given to constituent London boroughs. The Authority 

has proposed to use the pEPR income to provide flexibility through adequate 

reserves funding against future risks and initiatives, reduce excessive swings in levy 

increases from one year to another and support constituent boroughs with cost 

pressures. 

1.5. The Authority proposes to use the pEPR income to address the fluctuating 

pressures in the short to medium term that the budget faces, by aiming to target a 

year-on-year net expenditure (excluding balances) rate that balances the need for a 

smooth levy increase with financial prudence by considering a combination of 

forecast inflation based on the Retail Price Index (RPI) increase of 3.6% in April 

2025, new services offered by the Authority, operational costs, and other ongoing 

risks.”