licensed premises study report - final.af781060.8341

7/21/2019 Licensed Premises Study Report - Final.af781060.8341

1/43


2/43

Index

Page

1.0 Introduction 3

2.0 Project Objectives 4

3.0 Executive Summary 5

4.0 Methodology 7

4.1 Desk Research 7

4.2 Telephone Survey of Licensed Premises 7

4.3 Interviews 9

5.0 Findings 10

5.1 Market Findings 10

5.2 Experiences of other Licensed Premise Recycling Schemes 15

5.3 Questionnaire Results 19

5.4 Financial Considerations 22

5.5 Logistical Considerations 24

5.6 Behavioural/Attitudinal Considerations 25

5.7 Legislative Drivers 26

6.0 Conclusions 28

6.1 The quantities and types of waste generated and how stored at each premise 28

6.2 Methods of segregation, collection and disposal 30

6.3 Opportunities for colour separation of glass 30

6.4 Financial data on the costs of providing a collection and disposal service 31


3/43

7.0 Recommendations 32

8.0 Acknowledgements 35

Appendices

1. Key Facts from the Research

2. Questionnaire Design for Telephone Survey

3. Press Article on Berryman withdrawal from recycling scheme

2


4/43

1.0 Introduction

This is the final report of a project commissioned by Renew Tees Valley to explore the

commercial potential for recycling schemes aimed at licensed premises in the North East of

England.

Renew Tees Valleys aim is to promote the Tees Valley as a UK centre for renewable energy

and waste management technologies, leading to new economic activity. The project will help

inform decisions in relation to establishing and promoting commercial activity in their area.

Given the regions capacity of licensed premises and the recyclable nature of glass in particular,

there is clearly a strong case to look at the potential for recycling schemes aimed at this sector.

The timing of the project has been relevant to the findings. As the study was being conducted

the market was significantly affected by the withdrawal of a major national recycling scheme

operated by Berryman. In some aspects this has been an advantage for the study as it has put

the spotlight on licensed premises collection and this may have encouraged many of those

interviewed to contribute to the study including Berryman themselves.

The report outlines the main findings of the study and in the conclusions these findings are

used to address the specific objectives of the study. Finally, recommendations are made on the

next steps required to develop this market.

Note on the Interim Report

This report supersedes the interim report. Although much of the data remains unchanged there

are important areas, particularly those that have been informed by the questionnaire and

licensed premises survey, where amended figures are reported. In many cases these are only

marginal variants.

The final report has also sought to address the questions raised from feedback following the

production of the interim report.

3


5/43

2.0 Project Objectives

The primary project objective specified by Renew Tees Valley was to gain information on waste

arisings from licensed premises in the North East region, so that individual waste types may be

segregated, collected and bulked to enable greater recycling rates to be achieved. In particular,

identifiable date on glass containers should be obtained.

This primary objective established the following requirements for the study:

- Identify licensed premises, obtain contact names and addresses (a sufficiently large

sample should be researched so as to give accurate details on extrapolation)

- Obtain data on quantities and types of waste generated and how stored at/on each

premise

- Obtain data on methods of segregation, collection and disposal (recycled or landfilled)

and by whom

- Obtain data on glass to determine the opportunities for colour segregation at premise or

at bulking site

- Obtain what financial data is available on costs of providing the collection and disposal

services

These objectives were used to inform the methodology used, the reporting of findings, the

conclusions and the recommendations of this report

4


6/43

3.0 Executive Summary

The current market conditions present trading difficulties. The value of mixed glass has

dropped and there is an excess of green glass in the market. There are alternative markets

for waste glass but prices are also depressed.

There are almost 6000 licensed premises in the North East, each producing around 6

tonnes of glass per year. However, volumes vary dramatically according to the type of

licensed premise and their location.

City centre pubs have more than three times more bottles than local pubs and more than

twice that of rural pubs. Even city centre pub volumes are dwarfed by those of nightclubs,

which average 2600 bottles a week - almost three times more than city centre pubs.

As well as volumes, the density of premises in an area is critical to the success of a

recycling programme. Fortunately there is a strong correlation between density and

premises that have the highest volumes. Therefore, city centre routes are the most

economically viable due to the lower cost of collection and the higher volumes per premise.

Apart from glass the only other significant waste is cardboard, although food waste from

restaurants was naturally high. Cardboard represents the largest waste by volume, but by

weight it is around 6% compared to glass at around 70%.

The study has indicated a general low level of awareness and understanding of waste costs

by those managing licensed premises. One nightclub manager said, Im worried about

trouble on the door or inside the club, getting enough punters through the door, staff not

turning in worrying about what I do with the empty bottles is not high on the agenda.

However, in some cases, waste management costs could be up to 10,000 p.a.

There was an indication in terms of glass recycling that there is a general willingness to

recycle but a reluctance to pay for it.

A cost analysis would suggest that without making a charge collections will be uneconomic

and levying a charge of 5 per uplift would counter this and create a profit of 8 per tonne,

based on a city centre route.

5


7/43

Colour separation at licensed premises was viewed as unlikely to succeed by almost all of

those interviewed. However, there is separation taking place already when bottles that are

returned for re-use (such as Britvic and Newcastle Brown Ale) are separated from other

bottles, and there is evidence that the North East has higher levels of re-use than other

regions but this is a declining trend Coca Cola have recently announced all their bottles

will be one-trip.

As well as the difficulties in encouraging licensed premises to separate coloured bottles, the

risk of contamination from other bottles or waste has a serious impact on glass quality and

consequently its market value for reprocessors.

Separation at reprocessors requires significant investment in equipment. The operating

pace and costs are relatively high there is clearly more work to be done with thistechnology.

There is a good commercial case for glass collection and recycling ventures, providing a

charge is paid by the premise (below that of a normal waste collection) and route density is

sufficient.

Promoting recycling to licensed premises and attempting to influence behavioural issues

will influence the viability of recycling programmes from licensed premises.

There is a potential to develop a wider supply chain around glass recycling by including

businesses who supply compaction equipment and those who may have an alternative use

for recycled glass.

6


8/43

4.0 Methodology

The research methodology has combined both quantitative and qualitative techniques. It has

also encompassed a wide range of inputs from those throughout the market life-cycle.

4.1 Desk Research

The initial desk research explored previous studies in this area and gathered market and

product information that aided estimates of market size and technical issues relating to glass

and other product recycling. Legislative and other market drivers were also reviewed.

The desk research was predominately web based but also involved the review of printed

material, such as corporate responsibility literature from pub chains and promotional material

from WRAP.

4.2 Telephone Survey of Licensed Premises

A telephone survey was conducted to ascertain specific market information. Specifically, the

research aimed to provide information on the volume of waste, types of waste, current practices

of licensed premises in terms of segregation, and any barriers to recycling.

The sample was drawn from a list of approximately 1700 licensed premises in the North East.

This was a commercially purchased list that had been validated under the Telephone

Preference Service.

There were 215 responses gained from the survey, which is the largest survey on this issue that

the researchers have encountered.

The survey attempted to segment the list in terms of the following groups:

- Pubs

- Night Clubs

- Social clubs

- Licensed Restaurants

- Licensed Hotel

Pubs were also asked to categorise themselves as a rural, city centre or local pub to assist in

decisions relating to route density. Some of the results in this respect need to be

interpreted cautiously; in particular many pubs located in a city centre areaclassed themselves as local.

7


9/43

There were adjustments made to how pubs had classified themselves to reflect this (a review of

post codes).

The response rates and time required for this element of the research has been affected by the

availability of managers of licensed premises the ideal window of opportunity was found to be

a 2 hour period between 9.45am and 11.45am for pubs and for restaurants, and for clubs this

was the period 7.00pm to 9.00pm. This affected the time scale for the study because there was

only a limited time available each day to contact the premises.

A telephone research company was commissioned to conduct this element of the survey and

the results were recorded in an Access database.

The questionnaire was piloted with 5 licensed premises prior to the telephone survey and

revised accordingly.

A copy of the questionnaire is in Appendix 2.

Limitations and AssumptionsThe results of the survey gained a volume of responses (219) that enabled further analysis of

results in terms of the type of premises and geographic location (based on the postal counties

in the region). Large hotels and nightclubs were under-represented in the survey results but it is

not thought this will significantly affect average figures, which are used for the majority of the

reporting.

A further limitation is the survey asked only for the number of bottles and did not ask to

differentiate between wine, spirit, beer, alcopops or soft drink bottles. However, estimates were

made based on discussions with the small number of premises visited during the qualitative

research and checks made with other studies to estimate the mix of bottles at different

premises. This varied significantly even within sub groups for example in Indian Restaurants

there were very few wine bottles whereas in Italian Restaurants, wine bottles made up around

70% of bottle waste.

There was an assumption that the majority of glass waste from pubs and clubs was in the form

of 330ml beer/alcopop bottles. Previous studies of pubs and clubs have suggested that 30% of

bottles from licensed premises are wine bottles, and this has been used in the calculations of

volumes.

8


10/43

4.3 Qualitative Research

The qualitative research enabled many of the issues identified in the survey to be explored

further. It also enabled a greater understanding of the attitudes towards recycling.

The research involved telephone interviews with a wide range of individuals and organisations,

including:

- Glass Reprocessors

- Glass and Waste Collection Companies

- Pub Management Companies

- Breweries

- Equipment Suppliers

- Local Authority Waste and Recycling Managers

- Trade Bodies

Interviews were explorative in their nature and semi-structured in format.

In addition, a number of interviews were held with pub managers from nightclubs, inner city

pubs and suburban local pubs in North Tyneside and Newcastle upon Tyne. Those

participating were the Berkley Tavern (Whitley Bay local pub), Sea (Newcastle night club),

Hadrian Park Social Club (Wallsend), The Farmhouse (Whitley Bay local pub), Deep (Newcastle

night club) and Fitzgeralds (inner city Pub).

9


11/43

5.0 Findings

5.1 Market Conditions

5.1.1 Waste Market Prices

For glass wastes there was clearly a relatively depressed recycled glass market at the time of

the study. Interviewees commented on lowering prices, which were among the lowest for five

years. Figures from the letsrecycle website confirm these views.

Container glass prices over previous 6 months ( per tonne)

Oct 04 Nov 04 Dec 04 Jan 05 Feb 05 Mar 05

Brown 24-28 24-26 24-26 24-26 24-26 24-26Clear 27-30 27-30 27-30 27-30 27-30 27-30Green 10-16 10-14 8-12 8-12 8-12 8-12

Mixed 11-15 11-15 11-15 10-12 10-12 10-12Source: Letsrecycle.com web site, April 2005

Particularly relevant is the decline in the price of mixed glass, which is how glass from licensed

premises is generally collected. The price elasticity of mixed glass has been an issue, especially

when free-of-charge services were offered when prices were higher. Over the previous year it

has ranged from 18 tonne to 10 tonne a price elasticity of over 40%.

A further illustration of the decline in the glass market was presented by Newcastle City

Councils Tony Gribben, who manages a glass-recycling scheme for the Council. Tonydescribed how when the scheme started he would receive 25 per tonne, but now he has to

pay 7.50 to SITA to collect the glass. The scheme has been running as a freeof-charge

scheme but he is now looking to introduce a charge for collections. Tony stated, I would now

recommend that any scheme makes a charge at the onset, as it will be easier to increase

prices from this stance than from a free-of-charge service.

There is generally accepted to be a glut of green glass within the waste stream and this has

been the most significant factor in depressing prices. This may have created an impetus to look

for alternative uses for waste glass (such as in the aggregate or water treatment industries),

which has developed over recent years.

The value of Packaging Recovery Notes (PRNs) also has a direct bearing on the return on

collected waste glass but values are even more elastic. At the time of the report glass PRNs

were estimated to be between 17- 20 per tonne.

The impact of Berrymans withdrawal from the national recycling scheme may have abearing on prices, in the shortterm at least.

10


12/43

Evidence from interviewees would suggest that many pubs and clubs are struggling to find a

replacement service and this may lead to a reduction in supply, which may affect short-term

prices.

There has also been a decline in cardboard and paper prices over recent months but prices per

tonne remain significantly higher than for glass. Export prices for cardboard can be 20% higher

than those quoted below.

Paper and cardboard prices over the previous 6 months ( per tonne)

Oct 04 Nov 04 Dec 04 Jan 05 Feb 05 Mar 05

Mixed Paper 25-28 25-28 25-28 25-28 22-26 22-26Cardboard 45-48 44-48 44-45 39-41 40-45 40-45

Source: Letsrecycle.com web site, April 2005

The difficulties with cardboard and paper relate to its density and volume. As waste collection

charges are related to volume rather than weight this will affect the economies of collection.

There are small compactors on the market that could help in this respect but the survey found

no evidence of these being used. There may be a market opportunity for the supply of small

compactors and bailers that address this issue.

5.1.2 Export Markets

Export markets have grown over recent years, fuelled by demand from China and India. It has

been an area of controversy with criticism in the media about these locations becoming The

UKs Dumping Ground. It has also led to the Environment Agency attempting to reclassify all

recyclables as hazardous waste in order to restrict its trade in overseas markets.

Reprocessed in UK

Tonnes (pa)

Reprocessed Overseas

Tonnes (pa)

Glass 218 426 48 050Paper 465 098 206 104

Source: DEFRA, April 2005

Exports of glass packaging waste saw a 50% increase in quarter one and two 2004, with

the container sector instrumental in finding export markets for recycled glass

particularly in the over-supplied green glass stream for European furnacesSource

letsrecyle.com Sept 2004

Very recently (8 April 2005) the Government announced the scrapping of the deadline by which

companies needed to apply to become waste exporters and they can now apply as and

when they require. This may provide some stimulus to the export market.

11


13/43

5.1.3 Alternate Uses of Waste Glass

There is forecast to be a surplus of 550,000 tonnes of green and amber glass by 2008 and this

has driven the investigation of alternative markets for waste glass.

The possible alternative recycling uses are:

Manufacture of Bricks

Water Filtration including waste water treatment and swimming pool filtration

Grit Blasting

Cement and Concrete

Sports Turf

Fibreglass Insulation

This is the subject of considerable research by WRAP and may contribute to developing the

glass recycling market in the longer term.

On a regional basis it seems there may be supply chain relationships with construction,

aggregate, concrete products or wastewater treatment businesses that may stimulate the local

market.

5.1.4 On- Licensed Premises Market

UK Market

The number of licensed premises has steadily grown over the previous 12 years, as has alcohol

consumption (particularly wines and spirits). However, in the past year there has been a slight

decline (1.5% from 2003 to 2004) in licensed premises. The number of off-licences has followed

the same pattern.

Combine

Restaurants and

4%

Licensed Hotels 3%

Hotel

Restaurants

19%

Licensed Clubs

3%

PublicHouses

71%

UK On-Licensed Premises 2004

Source: Department for Culture Media and Sport, Liquor Licensing Statistical Bulletin 2003-2004

12


14/43

As indicated in the previous illustration there are now 113,000 on-licence premises, of which

81,455 are pubs, 3751 are licensed clubs and 28,164 are licensed hotels or restaurants.

The pattern by which the market has developed in licensed premises is relevant to the study.

While pubs in rural locations have been closing, there has been considerable growth in urban

and city centre pubs and clubs. There has also been the growth of larger pubs or super pubs

and clubs.

A further historical factor affecting the market was the break up of the link between breweries

and retail outlets, following a Monopolies and Mergers Commission report in 1989. There were

subsequently 14,000 pubs sold which led to the formation of smaller pub chains. This

essentially broke the link between breweries and retail outlets and led to the break-up of many

take-back schemes for glass bottles and a more complex supply chain.

The growth of city pubs and associated binge-drinking and criminal behaviour has been the

subject of political attention more recently, and there may be pressure on planning and

licensing authorities to counter some of the migration of pubs to city centres.

Licensing laws have also been changed recently with the potential for 24 hour licences, but the

take-up of applications has been low.

Even allowing for the modest decline in the number of licensed premises none of these trends

are likely to have a significant impact on the market in the short or medium term. A watching

brief on the market by those in the waste recycling industry is always advisable.

North East Market

These figures have been updated since the interim report as further research led the study to

Department for Culture Media and Sport, Liquor Licensing Statistical Bulletin 2003-2004, which

gained its figures from a returns from licensing authorities throughout England and Wales.

Number of On-Licensed Premises

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

Cleveland Durham Northumberland Tyne and Wear

13


15/43

Perhaps more relevant to the study is the density of premises, as this will have a direct affect on

efficiencies given the importance of haulage to the market value of recycled materials. The

density of premises per square kilometre is indicated below:

Pubs Restaurants Hotels Hotel

With

Restaurants

Licensed/

Registered

Clubs

Total Density of

Premises

(per sq km)

TEES VALLEY

Hartlepool 123 25 0 3 50 201

Langbaurgh East 91 22 3 3 37 156

Teesside 526 148 3 7 149 833

Total Tees Valley 740 195 6 13 236 1190 1.5

DURHAM

North Durham 459 61 3 8 249 780

South Durham 484 84 2 5 163 738

Total Durham 943 145 5 13 412 1518 0.68

NORTHUMBERLAND

Alnwick 119 26 6 5 32 188

Berwick-upon Tweed 71 16 0 5 12 104

South East Northumberland 198 44 1 3 108 354

Tynedale 148 44 9 16 47 264

Total Northumberland 536 130 16 29 199 910 0.18

TYNE AND WEAR

Gateshead District 226 34 1 3 110 374

Houghton-le-Spring 103 11 0 1 40 155

Newcastle upon Tyne 455 152 6 12 119 744

North Tyneside 216 57 7 11 140 431

South Tyneside 178 37 1 0 60 276

Sunderland 194 36 4 3 85 322

Total Tyne and Wear 1372 327 19 30 554 2302 4.26

As the above table illustrates, the density of premises will influence the viability of that area. For

example, although Durham has more licensed premises than Tees Valley their location is less

dense and therefore less likely to be economic.

Newcastles route density was almost 6 premises per square kilometre.

The above table also indicates that the northern parts of Northumberland will be themost costly in terms of collection.

14


16/43

5.2 Experiences of other Licensed Premise Recycling Schemes

5.2.1 National Schemes

The history of national glass recycling schemes that target licensed premises has not been a

successful one and the latest announcement by Berryman is an unfortunate chapter.

It was Valpak who took over a cross-industry scheme (Bottle Back) in 1999 and offered a free

collection service to licensed premises nationwide. Scottish Courages Environmental Manager,

Richard Marley, was involved in some of the industry schemes that proceeded Valpak. He

stated it was difficult to get smaller pubs involved and organised, We found the larger,

established businesses, such as De Veres, were much better organised but in the end we

couldnt really make it work.

In 2003 Valpak sold on the scheme to Berryman, apparently not able to make a strong

commercial success of the scheme.

Berrymans Withdrawal from RecycleMore-Glass

Berryman announced the withdrawal of the Recycle- More-Glass scheme in March 2005. Steve

Hope from Berryman told the study that this was because they had to make a charge - he

suggested it was around 5 per uplift - to make the scheme viable but the drop off rate from

licensed premises was significant. Steve also stated that Berryman is still interested in working

with local waste collection companies on collection schemes.

This offer was not universally attractive. One waste collector, Riverdale, stated that this would

require them to invoice the licensed premises and cover all the contractual issues. This would,

in their view, affect the economics of such an arrangement. However, it is clearly very early

days.

The action of Berryman was widely criticised during the study. There was some understanding

of the commercial position the company was in but the immediacy of the withdrawal was widely

criticised. Many of the waste collection and local authorities described how they had received a

high volume of calls from licensed premises asking what they should do. Anecdotal evidence

suggests that some local authorities were helpful in this respect and others less so.

15


17/43

Potentially, this may have a significant impact on the market and willingness of licensed

premises. New schemes may face an increasingly difficult problem to convince licensed

premises that these schemes will sustain and not be abandoned without notice.

Given Berrymans operation and place in the market, the company is likely to remain an

important business within the glass recycling industry.

The experience of these projects would appear to be that larger scale schemes bring

diseconomies of scale and a free-of-charge service is not commercially viable.

When we acquired the Recycle-More-Glass scheme from Valpak in mid 2003 we were

on record as stating that it would present a formidable challenge.

- Mick Keogh, Berryman

In some areas where we can, we have passed on the service to subcontractors. We

are in the process of dealing with the other areas to try and keep the continuity going.

- Steve Hope, Berryman

5.2.1 Pilot Studies

The study looked at two previous studies relating to the recycling of waste from licensed

premises. Both of these were gained from the WRAP web site. Follow-up calls to Glasgow City

Council were made to check progress.

The studies reviewed both involved a pilot exercise. The first was a 2 year study into the

potential for glass recycling in west Oxfordshire and the second was a pilot scheme carried out

in Glasgow. In this respect the experience of both rural and city centre schemes can to some

extent be compared.

Summaries of the relevant findings are listed below:

West Oxfordshire (completed March 2004)

The costs of collection (operational and contribution to capital costs) were estimated at 80

per tonne.

It cost 3.92 per mile to operate the trial and income per mile was only 0.61

The survey indicated that 75% would be willing to pay for the collection of glass,

providing it was below the normal cost of waste disposal.

16


18/43

Route density matters schemes that are commercially successful are able to collect a

significant volume of glass from a large number of licensed retail establishments within

tightly defined geographical areas.

Colour separation is not favoured licensed retail premises cannot be recruited if they are

required to colour separate the glass prior to collection.

The volume to weight ratio of glass was found to be 265kg per cubic metre; a figure, which

is largely in-line with the industry standard of 250kg/m.

A 1100 litre bin holds 1 cubic metre of glass bottles.

90% of those taking part in the pilot stated they sent back at least some of their bottles for

re-use.

Re-use was preferred due to the preference to handling crates rather than cardboard boxes.

The barriers to recycling were stated to be:

No collection service/no bins provided

Lack of space

Too expensive

Inconvenient/Lack of time/Too labour intensive

Lack of nearby facility (e.g. bottle bank)

Lack of interest

Too difficult

Seven issues were identified from the responses to the question What would make it easier

for you to re-use glass. These were:

Provision of bins

Free collection service

Bottle bank in car park or nearby

Glass separation facility/no necessity to colour separate waste glass

More space

Remuneration

More time

Only 14% knew what they paid for their waste collection service.

17


19/43

Glasgow City Centre Pilot (December 2004)

A training programme for licensed premises was developed for both bar staff and

managers.

A substantial marketing campaign was also used to promote recycling to licensed premises.

A waste audit found that, by weight, 73% of waste from licensed premises was glass but byvolume this was only 14%.

Card and paper made up 6% of waste by weight but 23% by volume.

Respondents to a questionnaire suggested that only 28% would not be willing to pay a 2

per uplift charge.

A survey (23 respondents) found only 1 that was aware of the costs of disposing of his

waste.

Staff changes were said to be an issue in sustaining the recycling scheme.

The cost savings to a licensed premises from collecting glass separately from the general

waste for recycling are estimated to be 1404 - 2340 per annum (based on a FOC service)

The report estimates that further annual savings of 5148 - 8580 could be achieved if other

the recycling of other materials took place

Glass compactors were used as part of the pilot, which

was stated to help achieve further savings of around

30 per week.

Operational costs of the scheme were estimated to be

18.85 per tonne.

18


20/43

5.3 Questionnaire Results

The results of the survey are presented in tabular form.

5.3.1 Respondents

No. of respondents %Type of Premises

Local Pub 116 53

Rural Pub 23 11

City Centre Pub 31 14

Licensed Restaurant 21 10

Licensed Hotel 9 4

Social Club 13 6

Night Club 5 2

Total 218 100

County

Tees Valley 54 25

Durham 24 11

Northumberland 36 16

Tyne and Wear 104 48

Total 218

Comment:The sample is underrepresented in terms of Night Clubs, but it is not envisaged thiswill make significant statistical difference to average calculations.

5.3.2 Volume of Glass

Average Number of

Bottles per week

Breakdown of Colour

(%)

Type of Premises Green Clear Amber

Local Pub 260 28 54 18

City Centre Pub 891 28 54 18

Licensed Restaurant 379 44 42 15

Licensed Hotel 214 36 50 14

Night Club 2600 22 57 22

Rural Pub 400 20 64 15Social Club 624 29 34 35

Total Average 767 29 51 20

County

Tees Valley 412 30 14 58

Durham 493 28 22 49

Northumberland 385 30 20 50

Tyne and Wear 524 27 18 61

Total Average 436 29 54 19

Comment:These figures largely correspond with other studies and reflect agreater volume in city areas.

19


21/43

5.3.3 Other Waste

There were 123 responses to questions regarding the volume of other waste at their premises:

Average Volume(Number of 1100 bins used weekly for each waste)

Type of Premises Cans Plastic Food Paper/CardLocal Pub 0 0 0 1

City Centre Pub 0 0 1 2Licensed Restaurant 0 0 3 3Licensed Hotel 0 0 1 1Night Club 2 1 0 6Rural Pub 0 0 1 1Social Club 1 0 0 1

County

Tees Valley 0 0 1 1Durham 0 0 1 1Northumberland 0 0 1 1Tyne and Wear 0 0 1 2

Comments:Paper and cardboard represents the greatest volume of waste (including glass)and is consequently the most costly to dispose.

5.3.4 Current Recycling Practices

144 (65%) of respondents stated they recycled at least some of their waste

Average % of materials that are currently recycled

Glass Cans Plastic Food Paper/card

Type of Premises

Local Pub 76 4 1 1 3

City Centre Pub 77 8 5 16 3

Licensed Restaurant 88 5 12 15 13

Licensed Hotel 72 17 8 0 8

Night Club 97 33 0 0 3

Rural Pub 66 12 0 12 6

Social Club 74 11 10 0 9

Total Average 79 13 5 6 6

County

Tees Valley 74 7 2 5 5

Durham 82 23 5 0 2

Northumberland 69 5 2 0 2

Tyne and Wear 79 2 4 10 3

Total Average 76 9 3 4 3

Comments: There are a high proportion of respondents who claimed to be recycling waste,and glass is seen as a recyclable material.

20


22/43

How do you recycle your glass waste?

(%)

All Most

(>50%)

Some

(


23/43

5.4 Financial Considerations

There has been reference to some of the financial issues in previous sections of the report. The

commercial case is relatively complex for recycling schemes. The price of the raw material, the

value of PRNs, the comparative costs of general waste disposal (which is itself linked to Landfill

Tax and charges) all have a role to play in looking at the financial viability of schemes.

The study gained evidence of costs and revenues, which will aim to inform these decisions.

5.4.1 CostsEstimates of the cost of operating a glass recycling scheme have varied.

The report by Enviros on a scheme in rural West Oxfordshire, estimated the setting up and

running of a scheme to be 80 per tonne, which is reflective of the haulage rates and route

density in that scheme.

Transport costs play a pivotal role in the viability of such a scheme. This would also lead to a

conclusion that urban and inner-city areas remain the most viable.

The costs of the Glasgow pilot were estimated to be 18.85 but were based on a high tonnage

collection (448kg per premise per week), high route density and omitted some management

and administration costs. It also assumed full utilisation of the vehicle.

Based on the findings from the survey and subsequent interviews the following estimate of

costs per tonne can be made for an inner city scheme:

Item Cost Rationale

Vehicle Lease Cost 650 Based on figures form the Glasgow studyBin Hire Costs (280 1100 litre bins) 400 Based on prices gained from web sitesLabour Costs 623 1 driver, 1 assistant working full 37 hour week

(review of job adverts from local authorities)including National Insurance and Pension

Fuel 70 Based on figures in Glasgow studyVehicle Maintenance/Insurance 50 Based on figures in Glasgow study

Administration/Management 761 Equivalent 2 management, administration posts including National Insurance and Pension

Marketing/Promotion 195 Based on a 10,000 budgetContribution to other capital costs 200 Offices, office equipment, PPE, insurance

TOTAL 2949

Tonnage collected (average forinner city areas)

182 180 premises visited with an average 453Kg(Average for inner city premises of 1745 bottlesand assume 30% wine bottle or equivalent)

Cost per tonne (based on inner

city collection)

35.96

1The Glasgow project estimated the tonnage from their inner city scheme to be 90 tonnes for the samenumber of premises, which correlates with this figure

22


24/43

For rural schemes, the cost per tonne could quite easily triple in size due to low route density

and smaller collections from each premise.

During an interview with Ron England of Glass Recycling UK, he stated that he had calculated

the costs of setting up and running a scheme to be an average 52.00 and this would not seem

an unreasonable benchmark.

5.4.2 RevenuesRevenue considerations include both the price of the raw material and the value of the PRN.

Most waste collectors and glass reprocessors quoted a value of 10 per tonne for mixed glass

at the time of the study. This corresponds with the figure of 8-12 from the letsrecycle.com.

The value of glass PRNs is 17-20 per tonne. Giving mixed recycled glass a market value of

27-30. As even an inner city scheme is estimate to cost approximately 36 per tonne, the

economics of collection are difficult to reconcile without a service charge for collection.

Given that uplift charges are around 7 to 8 for normal waste and bin hire, a charge of 5 for

recycled bottles would be economic for both parties.

The affect on the cost scenario above would be significant.

Tonnage collected (average forinner city areas)

82 180 premises visited with an average 453Kg(Average for inner city premises of 1745 bottlesand assume 30% wine bottle or equivalent)

Cost per tonne (based on innercity collection)

35.96

Less value of 5 service charge

per tonne (1363/82)

16.62 An average of 453kg per premise would requirean average 1.54 1100 litre wheelie bins. For around of 180 premises this equates to 273 binswith a 5 service charge or 1363 per week.

Less market value of mixed

glass

10

Less PRN value 18

Net value per tonne 8.66

Landfill charges will also affect pricing. A rise of 3 in April 2005 will be repeated next year,

having an impact on waste collection charges and consequently the ability to charge for a

service. Landfill Tax currently stands at 18 per tonne and gate fees at around 17 per tonne.

In fact changes to landfill legalisation may have an even greater affect on waste

management prices, which ultimately may make the economic arguments for

recycling even stronger.

23


25/43

5.5 Logistical Considerations

The survey indicated that there were some logistical difficulties anticipated by some premises.

Time and space issues were linked to 11% of responses. Most of the barriers stated concerned

collection issues such as not having bins, no collections scheme in the area, or unreliable

collections.

Difficulties with a having sufficient space for recycling bins is clearly a problem for some

premises.

For glass there are compactors available to help

reduce waste space these have compaction ratios of

up to 20:1 but they are expensive to purchase (from

3,000 to 8000). A lower priced compactor can be

hired for around 120 per week; IMS, based in

Durham, are a local supplier of these products. Neil

Johnson from IMS stated that the smaller compactor

would be ideal for pubs and clubs (see picture

opposite)

Glass compactors were used in the Glasgow project and were largely successful, although

initial usage rates by staff were high, they declined slightly after the novelty factor diminished.

There were a mixture of yard and behind the bar compactors installed as a trial, and the report

indicates that premises thought that 5000 for a compactor was a reasonable fee yet, oddly,

in the same study a charge of 2 per uplift of recycled bottles led to a 72% drop-off rate.

Compaction for cardboard waste would seem to be even

more relevant. Cardboard represents around 70% of waste

by volume at licensed premises and compaction machinery

is more economically priced. A small manual compactor

specifically designed for small spaces has been developed

by Maximum Pressure (see www.binimizer.co.uk) that,

costs around 300 to purchase and claims to compact

mixed cardboard to a ratio of 6:1. Nigel Slaughter from

Maximum Pressure stated that he designed the product for use in licensed premises and

garage forecourts.

24
http://www.binimizer.co.uk/http://www.binimizer.co.uk/


26/43

Darrell Thompson of Mitchell and Butler (who own Bass pubs) stated that glass is recycled at

60-70% of their pubs, but the remainder or either too rural, making puck up rates uneconomical,

or have access difficulties, such as city centre pubs.

The issue of access problems for collections was not mentioned by those who took part in the

survey, but has been raised in other studies. It is unclear how much of an issue this is for

recycling bins if access for collection is a problem for recycling the surely it must be a

problem for general waste collections as well as for deliveries.

For waste collectors, logistical difficulties are related to transport costs i.e. the density of the

route and proximity to a transfer station/reprocessor.

5.6 Behavioural/Attitudinal Considerations

About 9% of respondents in the survey indicated that behavioural issues were the reason they

did not recycle cant be bothered, staff never remember, and never thought about it.

Interviews with those in the licensed trade would suggest behavioural issues play an even

bigger role in recycling.

The majority of pub and club managers interviewed seem to be unaware of their waste costs

even when this was estimated to be around 7000 per annum (the estimate calculated for the

night club Sea). Raising awareness and informing the target group of the cost of waste may

help counter this. This was a strategy used by Vicki Jackson Smith at J & B Recycling who,

prior to introducing a charge, emphasised the cost of managing waste to customers.

Other schemes have looked at staff and management training programmes, but the turnover in

staff is high in this industry and sustaining this activity may be difficult. Attempting to influence

pub chain induction and training programmes may be worth considering.

The interview stage of looking at licensed

premises also found that staff would mix

general waste in recycling bins if other bins

were full or the recycling bin was nearer. The

picture opposite is from the Deep nightclub,

Newcastle and shows one bin that was filled

by staff with bottles and the other with a

mixture of waste.

25


27/43

Almost all interviewees, whether waste collectors or environmental managers at pub chains,

stated that colour segregation of bottles at site would not work. The time involved in

segregating bottles was thought to be a significant barrier. Colour segregation could

significantly add to the value of the waste glass but this was behaviour that was widely thought

to be very unlikely.

However, there was evidence of segregation occurring even in the largest of premises in terms

of bottling down where returned bottles would be separated from other bottles. The manager

at Sea nightclub described this as one of the least favoured of all tasks.

The picture opposite shows the results of bottling down

at the Beacon Pub in Monkseaton. Returned bottles

(Britvic, Brown Ale and Strongbow making up the majorityof returns) are separated from other bottled waste.

It may not require a significant shift in behaviour to

separate for colours as well as returns if the right

processes and incentives were developed.

5.7 Legislative Drivers

Legislation has significantly shaped both the recycling industry and the licensed trade.

Government policy and legislation affecting licensed premises, such as changes to licensing

laws and a focus on binge drinking, have been referred to previously in the report but are not

expected to have a significant effect on the market for recycled bottles in the short and medium

term at least.

More significant will be environmental legislation and in particular the Landfill Directive which is

set to be enforceable in April 2006. There was a degree of uncertainty amongst those in the

waste sector about some of the details of the Directive and the issue of pre-treatment i.e. there

is requirement for all waste going to landfill to be pre-treated in some way with recyclable

material extracted.

The impact of this is likely to be an increase in waste handling charges and further pressure to

separate recyclables at source. Coupled with a further 3 increase in landfill charges this is

likely to help the development of the recyclable market in general and consequentlythe waste glass market.

26


28/43

Stronger regulation of exported waste may have an impact on the domestic market by

increasing the waste glass in the UK waste stream and therefore reduce its price.

The Animal Wastes Directive (post foot and mouth) has also curtailed the use of food waste as a

livestock feed without treatment. This has made this form of recycling uneconomic.

Health and safety legislation also has an impact on the operation of a recycling scheme.

Obligations regarding safe working practices and machinery will affect crew numbers and

vehicle costs.

27


29/43

6.0 Conclusions

6.1 The quantities and types of waste generated and how stored at each premise

Glass

The results of the survey show that an average of around 500 bottles per premise in eachcounty are produced. This equates to an annual tonnage of 6.25 tonnes for each premise.

However, the analysis of premise type shows a huge variation dependent on the type of

premise and its location. Generally inner city locations had significantly higher volumes and the

largest number of bottles came from nightclubs.

The viability of a glass collection scheme is dependent on volume and route density. The table

below illustrates the impact of route density. Although the figures in column (f) should not betaken too literally it shows that although there may be more tonnage in Durham than in Tees

Valley, the impact of route density makes Tees Valley a more viable option.

No. of

Premises

(a)

Average

Number of

Bottles forCounty

(b)

Total No.

of Bottles

(c)(a) x (b)

Weekly

Tonnage

(d)(c)/4000

Density of

Premises

(e)

Density x

Volume

(f)(d) x (f)

TEES VALLEY 1190 412 490280 123 1.5 185

DURHAM 1518 494 749892 187 0.68 127

NORTHUMBERLAND 910 524 476840 119 0.18 21.42

TYNE AND WEAR 2302 524 1206248 301 4.26 1282

The above table is slightly misleading, as a route is more likely to be based on a city basis

rather than county. It is likely that the route density of Teeside for example, with the largest

number of premises, will be similar to Newcastle but the county average is somewhat below

this.

We would estimate that the tonnage would have to be adjusted by around 10% to account for

bottles returned to suppliers for re-use.

Although the volume of bottles generated by most

premises would warrant a 1100 litre for disposal

many pubs that recycle glass use 240 litre bins;

some use several of these bins-especially in the city

centre locations where space is limited see picture

from Fitzgeralds pub in Newcastle. Larger premises

such as nightclubs and hotels use several 1100 litre

bins.

28


30/43

A 240 litre bin would hold about 64kg of glass bottles. Based on an average mix of 70%

beer/alcopop bottles and 30% wine bottles, this would equate to 224 beer/alcopop bottles and

48 wine bottles 272 bottles in total and less than the average for premises. This also translates

to 1026 beer/alcopop bottles and 220 wine bottles in an 1100 litre bin.

Cardboard/Paper

Most bottled beer is delivered in cardboard - except returnable bottles, which are delivered in

crates - and together with cardboard from food deliveries. Cardboard makes up the largest

volume of waste at each premise.

The survey showed that the average for each premise was the equivalent of two 1100 litre binsof cardboard waste each week. However, this varied and the average for nightclubs was 6 bins

per week.

It has not been possible to gain an accurate estimate of the tonnage this would equate to.

However, the relative density of cardboard is 680kg/m3and two 1100 litre bins is the equivalent

of 2m3but as the cardboard is not compacted this would half the relative density. Therefore it

could be estimated that two 1100 litre bins would hold about 680kg of cardboard. A more

detailed waste audit using a weighbridge would provide more accurate information.

Cardboard is predominately stored in general waste, usually in 1100 litre or 1280 litre bins.

There are only very small volumes recycled.

Food

Naturally amongst restaurants food waste could occur in significant volumes an average of

three 1100 litre bins. However, there was little food waste from other licensed premises. Other

studies and waste audits have reflected these findings.

Food waste would tend to be stored with general waste arisings.

Other waste

For both plastic and metals (cans) there is very little in terms of volume and weight. Waste

audits in licensed premises have estimated plastic to represents 4% of waste and aluminium

cans around 1%.

This waste would tend to be stored with general waste arisings.

29


31/43

6.2 Methods of segregation, collection and disposal

The study has show that glass remains the only waste product that is segregated from other

waste. Not all premises do this (although 65% stated they recycled) but glass would seem to be

perceived as the most recyclable material.

Glass bottles are also segregated for re-use i.e. Britvic, Newcastle Brown Ale and Grolsch

bottles are picked out of the bottled waste and returned to suppliers. When interviewed, many

managers stated that the refund was not the reason thy picked out the bottles for re-use it was

just an expected practice.

Collection of waste was through a general waste contractor (such as SITA of Biffa) for general

waste. For recycled glass, waste contractors would collect the waste bottles and transport to a

transfer station for either collection by a reprocessor or sorted (often by hand) and then

transported to a reprocessor.

Berryman has been a key element of many of these collections and their sudden withdrawal of

this service may have lasting impacts on licensees confidence in recycling operations or

initiatives.

The reprocessor will sort mixed glass usually by machinery and it will be either used to make

glass or sold and used in other industries particularly the construction industry.

There are both glass crushers and compactors that may be lead to further economies in terms

of collection and space. However, a cost/benefit study would need to more robustly review this.

6.3 Opportunities for colour separation of glass

Most of those interviewed believed there were few opportunities for colour separation at

licensed premises. This was the view of those in the waste sector and the licensed trade.

However, there is evidence that the behaviour required to separate coloured glass exists

already. Even the biggest nightclubs will separate bottles for return at the end of a night for no

real significant financial benefit.

As over half the bottles sold in premises were clear glass (and in clubs probably 75%), with a

market value 3 times that of green glass the potential gain from separating at least flint

from other bottles is significant.

30


32/43

Perhaps the biggest issue in separating on-site is the risk of contamination of other coloured

bottles or other waste. Any contamination will significantly affect the glass produced by the

reprocessor and it is likely that even if the glass is separated at a licensed premise there will still

need to be some form of manual or automated screening at the transfer station or reprocessing

plant.

Technology has developed at reprocessing sites that will now facilitate colour separation, which

may lead to an increases in the price of mixed glass in the longer term but initial capital costs

are high which may actually affect prices adversely. Discussions with those in the recycling

industry would indicate that this technology is still in its infancy and the economies of such an

operation are yet to be fully realised.

An example of this was gained from Glass Recycling UK who had spent 2 million on a

machine to separate glass. Ron England, from Glass Recycling UK, stated that if he had a load

of mixed glass containing 35% flint glass, the machine would only pick up about 30%. The

machines setting were set to avoid contamination from other glass. I would rather loose 5%

flint than have 1 green bottle contaminate the load, stated Ron.

The capital and running costs of such machinery will have to be absorbed somewhere in the

supply chain and given the significant capital expenditure involved this may influence the price

of waste glass delivered to reprocessor i.e. reduce the price, in the short term.

6.4 Financial data on the costs of providing a collection and disposal service

The study has estimated the cost of providing a city-based scheme to be 35.96 per tonne

collected and would recommend that for a wider scheme a figure of around 53.00 per tonne

be used to assess viability.

The report also concludes that a sustainable economic case for recycling glass can only be

made on the basis of an uplift charge from licensed premises. Legislation and rises in landfill

charges will strengthen the commercial case for licensed premises to recycle.

A charge of 5 per uplift would increase the value per tonne by 16 and greatly increase the

viability of such a service. This rate, however, may not be viable for more rural locations where

a charge of 10 or more may be necessary to cover costs.

31


33/43

7.0 Recommendations

The following recommendations are made to help inform the development of a glass-recycling

scheme based in the North East.

7.1 Schemes Should Follow High Route Density Areas in the Short Term

There is sufficient data in the report to identify the number of licensed premises in each area.

Gaining information on the size of the geographic areas will enable the density of licensed

premise in each area to be calculated.

However, a basic knowledge of the region would indicate that the areas of Teesside and Tyne

and Wear, are likely to produce the greatest yield and collection efficiencies. Cherry picking

these areas within the region is the best solution.

Larger scale projects would seem to have a troubled history due to the economies of

collection. If glass prices or the cost of waste management rises significantly, that should act as

a prompt to look at widening the scope of any schemes.

Schemes for rural premises will need to be managed differently if they are to be effective.

Larger bins or compaction equipment would allow for larger loads to be collected at less

frequent intervals for example. However, given current market conditions it is difficult to see

how this can work on a commercial basis.

7.2 Introduce a Charge for Collection at the Onset

Free-of-charge services in this area are unlikely to be sustainable. Even when market prices are

high, historical variations in the price of mixed cullet and glass PRNs means that medium or

long-term commercial viability will not be achieved.

Even if it is a small charge, it will be easier to increase this charge incrementally rather than

move from a free-of-charge service to a service where a charge is levied.

Furthermore, free-of-charge services are likely to be damaging to the recycling market in the

long-term, as they devalue the recycled material collection and set a precedent that is

impossible to sustain.

Clearly, in pilot studies to test and encourage adoption then a free-of-charge service can be

justified, providing licensed premised are aware that it is a pilot and a fee will be charged

after the pilot phase.

32


34/43

The introduction of a price for collection is linked to tackling the low awareness of waste costs

amongst managers of licensed premises. Communicating clear messages regarding the

financial costs of collecting waste and the savings that can be made on waste charges by

recycling. This was a tactic used by J & B Recycling and this would appear to be a successful

strategy, but perhaps a wider communication campaign- such as direct mail activities or a web

programme that calculates savings- may help in the marketing of collections for recyclables.

7.3 Enhance the Economic Impact of Schemes by Looking at the Supply Chain

To maximise the impact of a glass-recycling scheme, a look at the entire local supply chain is

recommended. This should include a look at equipment manufacturers and suppliers, waste

collection businesses, transfer stations, reprocessors and end users.

For example, there may be a market potential for a business that colour separates collected

glass. There is also clearly a demand and growing market for equipment that compresses

waste on site glass compactors, or balers and there may be commercial opportunities here

for new and existing businesses. There is also a case for more research and development into

this technology, which may be of interest to the regions Universities.

As well as looking at traditional supply chain relationships it is recommend that alternative

supply chains be considered, such as the use of glass in aggregates, water filtration or

fibreglass insulation.

For example, would Northumbria Water be interested in looking at recycled glass as a filter in

their wastewater treatment works. The water industry is under significant scrutiny from

regulators and the public to have impeccable environmental credentials, and using recycled

materials in this way may have commercial and PR benefits.

A strong local supply chain will increase economic impact and achieve commercial, as well as

environmental, efficiencies by reducing the need to travel outside the region for suppliers or

customers.

A watching brief on overseas markets is also recommended as it may lead to a better

commercial environment for recyclable materials.

7.4 Change Behaviours and Understanding Regarding Recycling in Licensed premises

In addition to addressing the issue of low awareness / understanding of waste

management costs, a programme of changing manager and staff attitudes to waste

may help stimulate and sustain the market.

33


35/43

The difficulty is that staff turnover is high in the licensed trade. Therefore, influencing induction

of staff by the development of a pub/club induction process for pub and club chains will be

more effective. Engaging with pub chains and helping them to develop training activities and

materials related to waste management could help develop future behaviours.

Providing incentives for pubs to recycle more is also worth exploring. As pubs and clubs are

coming under increasing scrutiny for social responsibility, a scheme that recognises or rewards

premises for recycling could change attitudes within these premises. For example, pubs who

separate their glass or hit certain volumes could be rewarded with a donation to a local

community project, thus gaining them publicity and a reputation as a responsible business.

7.5 Consider Other Recyclables After Market and Attitudes for Glass have DevelopedThe material that has the most potential for recycling from licensed premises is cardboard.

However, glass is far more developed as a recyclable material, and gaining a momentum to

recycle cardboard in the short term is unlikely to have a wide appeal. There will be isolated

applications such as in large hotels where cardboard recycling will be viable and should be

encouraged, but the time to introduce this on a larger scale will be when glass recycling has

achieved its optimum level.

34


36/43

8.0 Acknowledgements

Contributions to this report were gratefully received by the following:

Gordon Lamb, Waste Management & Recycling Advisor Renew Tees Valley

Ron England, Environmental Manager Glass Recycling UK

Steve Hope Berryman

Vicki Jackson Smith J&B Recycling

Senrec Christina Audsley

Pam Jose North East Recycling

Neil Angus, Finance Director Aim to Recycle

Philip Kenny, Director Jebb Metals

Stuart Bagnall Stockton Borough Council

Jeff Moffatt Gateshead MBC

Tony Gribben Newcastle MBC

Darrell Thompson, Environment Manager Mitchells and Butler (Bass Pubs)

Richard Marley, Environment Manager Scottish Courage

David Sheen British Beer and Pub Association

Nigel Slaughter Maximum Pressure Limited

Neil Johnson IMS Engineering

Geoff Taylor, Manager Berkley TavernMark Whittaker, Manager Sea Nightclub

Also the following companies/organisations:

Riverdale Recycling

Britivic

Scottish and Newcastle Breweries

Department for Culture, Media and Sport

The Beacon Pub, Whitley bay

Deep Night Club, Newcastle upon Tyne

35


37/43

Appendices

1 Key Facts from the Research

2 Questionnaire Design for Telephone Survey

3 Press Article on Berryman withdrawal from recycling scheme

36


38/43

Appendix 1

Key Facts

Market Size

Number of pubs 3591

Number of licensed premises in North East including pubs 5920

Average tonnage of bottles from licensed premises per annum 5.97 tonnes

Inner city pub average number of bottles per week 891

Rural pub average number of bottles per week 400

Local urban pub number of bottles per week 260Recycling

Number of licensed premises stating they recycled 65%

Number of premises stating they did not recycle 32%

Number of beer bottles required for 1 tonne of glass 4000

Percentage of premises that stated they colour separated glass 16%Financial Considerations

Average cost of collection per tonne (based on national collection scheme) 53

Average cost of collection per tonne (based on city centre scheme) 35.96

Approximate raw material value of mixed bottled glass per tonne 10- 12

Approximate raw material value of clear bottled glass per tonne 27-30

Average Landfill charges per tonne (including Landfill Tax) 35

Value of glass Packaging Recovery Notes per tonne 17-20

Uplift charge for general waste per 1100 litre bin 7-12

37


39/43

Appendix 2

Questionnaire Design for Telephone Survey

Questions

The first couple of questions are about your premises

1. Would you describe your premises as being a:Rural, country puba local puba city centre pubNight Club (go to question 3)Social club (working mens club/political club)- (go to question 3)Licensed Restaurant/Caf/Bistro - (go to question 3)

Licensed hotel (go to question 3)Other , Please state(go to question 3)

2. Is your pub a Free housePart of a large pub chain

Part of a small pub chainOther, Please state ..

I would like to ask you now about the waste/rubbish that you have to deal with

3. Does your premises produce the following wastesGlassCansPlastic

Food wastePaper/Cardboard

4. Thinking about glass bottles in particular, approximately how many bottles would you sellin a week?

----------------------Dont know (go to question 6)

5. Would you be able to estimate how many were green, brown and white bottles?Green %Brown %Clear %Dont know

38


40/43

6. Thinking about the other waste you produce could you estimate how much you have to

deal with, in terms of the number of bins (1100 litre wheelie bins) you would have fill in aweekCans - no of bins..Plastic - no of bins..

Food waste - no of bins..Paper/Cardboard - no of bins..

The final few questions are about what you do with your waste

7 Do you recycle any of your waste?

YesNo Dont know

8. Which do you recycle and what percentage:

Glass bottles __________ % Dont knowCans __________% Dont know

Plastic __________% Dont knowFood waste _________% Dont knowPaper/Cardboard _________% Dont know

9. Thinking specifically about glass how do you recycle these?

Return to supplier for re-use AllMost (more than 50%)Some (less than 50%)Little (less than 10%)

Can you be anymore specific ..%Separated into different colours for recycling All

Most (more than 50%)Some (less than 50%)Little (less than 10%)

Can you be anymore specific ..% Not separated and placed in bins All

Most (more than 50%)Some (less than 50%)Little (less than 10%)

Can you be anymore specific ..%

Other comments -----------

39


41/43

10. Have you encountered any problems in recycling?(UNPROMPTED RESPONSE)NoNot enough space

Collection problems, i.e. waste collectionGetting staff to rememberCant be bothered/too much effortOther

11. If you are part of a brewery/club/restaurant chain, is there a policy about recycling?

YesNoNot part of a chain

Dont know

12. Thank you very much for your time, if you have any comments about the questionnaireor anything you would like to add to the topic of recycling in your pub, I would behappy to pass these on in confidence.

Comments

40


42/43

Appendix 3

Press Article on Berrymans Withdrawal from RecyclingScheme

Lack of support from brewers finishes Recycle-More-Glass (14.03.05)

A lack of support from UK breweries for glass recycling has led to the scrapping ofthe UK's national glass recycling service, Recycle-More-Glass, w r i t e s Ja m e sC a r t l e d g e .

Despite the increasing importance of "corporate social responsibility", recycling companyBerryman said too many UK breweries are unwilling to provide any support for the UK's onlynational glass recycling service for licensed premises.

Two years after taking over the service from compliance scheme Valpak, Berryman hascancelled the scheme because the economics of collecting glass from licensed pubs, bars andhotels does not add up.

Mick Keogh, general manager at Berryman, said the Recycle-More-Glass service made upabout 8% to 9% of the company's total tonnage. The scheme had collected from over 10,000public houses and catering establishments, and is thought to have been collecting about

80,000 tonnes of material a year.

Mr Keogh: "When we acquired the Recycle-More-Glass scheme from Valpak in mid 2003 wewere on record as stating that it would present a formidable challenge. We believed that wehad the expertise and contacts to operate the scheme, and still do."

DifficultRecycling the glass from licensed premises is difficult because there is not the available

collection infrastructure as there is in the municipal sector. The job is made even harderbecause glass that is collected is generally mixed glass, with high levels of green glass whichhas poor demand in the UK at the moment.

Mr Keogh said: "We overestimated the return we would get in glass tonnages for theinvestment that we would need to make. When we introduced modest charges earlier thisyear, although we did gain the support of some of the licensed premises that we had been

servicing free of charge, many of them were reluctant to agree to a longer termarrangement."

LocalBerryman is now in the process of trying to set up local-scale collection services to serve asmany of the Recycle-More-Glass licensed premises as possible. The company has been talkingto a number of contractors who it believes are in a better position to provide the service, andhopes are it could still become one of their major sources for obtaining the glass.

Steve Hope, national collections manager (Licensed Premises) at Berryman, said: "In some

areas where we can, we have passed on the service to subcontractors. We are in the processof dealing with the other areas to try and keep the continuity going. Hopefully the servicewill still be there, but it won't be under the Recycle-More-Glass banner."

41


43/43

The company said it is to concentrate on its mainstream domestic kerbside and bring activitiesthrough local authorities and community groups.

Mr Keogh said it was "regrettable" that the company did not get the support from industry

that Berryman had expected to make Recycle More Glass a viable operation.

MunicipalHe said: "With the investments that we are making in new state of the art cullet treatmentplants and the growth particularly in kerbside schemes across the country, we want toconcentrate all our efforts on helping our local authority customers meet their targets as wellas providing our long-term recycling partner Rockware Glass with the highest quality ofcullet."

The lack of a viable collection system for glass from licensed premises will not make it anyeasier for the UK to hit the producer responsibility targets under the Packaging Directive. Toreach the recovery and recycling targets set by Europe for 2008, experts believe that every

year 125,000 extra tonnes of glass will have to be collected.

Perhaps ironically, the breweries themselves may find it more expensive to comply with theirobligations under the UK's packaging regulations as a result of the loss of Recycle-More-Glassand the proven lack of viability for such a service.

licensed premises study report - final.af781060.8341

Documents