Energy Generation (Food Waste)

The hon. Gentleman is right to a degree in that whenever the word "waste" is attached to a planning application, there is fear or concern among local populations about what the impact might be on residents. I shall come on to describe what happened in Ludlow, so as to give him and the Government some reassurance that, at the right scale, the process not only becomes relatively straightforward to get through in planning terms, but has few of the associated risks to local residents that people fear from other types of energy generation from waste—in particular, from domestic refuse. That takes me to a description of what happened in Ludlow. The plant began by combining green waste with food waste. As I have said, green waste can go through the same process, but relatively quickly it became clear that the contamination of waste put into green bins in order for it to be digested is a fraught issue. On a visit to the plant, the manager showed me a concrete block that had been placed in a green bin, and old kettles were also placed in green bins. That is not the stated objective of the green bin, but I am afraid that, until people are much more educated about how to deal with recycling and the separation of waste, such errors will arise, wittingly or unwittingly. Such errors pose a significant problem for the efficient operation of the plant, and it was therefore decided quite quickly to focus purely on food waste. As a result, not only domestic collections but commercial waste were used to obtain the necessary volumes. The plant in Ludlow is on a 0.2 hectare site, and it is capable of processing 5,000 tonnes a year. The original plan was for the immediate population of Ludlow—nearly 10,000 people—to be able to generate enough green and food waste to serve that processing capacity. However, with the focus solely on food waste, that proved insufficient, so the collection is now being made from neighbouring towns. There are currently 7,000 participating households generating food waste from a weekly collection in separate caddies supplied by the local authority. The cost of collection is relatively high in the pilot, but the local authority, working with the collection company, Veolia, is considering the possibility of providing a separate collection alongside the existing collection of either green or ordinary domestic waste, which takes place fortnightly in South Shropshire. The great advantage of taking food out of the domestic waste stream is that because of odour and vermin problems, residents become concerned if it is not collected more regularly than every fortnight. That is the main reason for the popular opposition to a fortnightly collection scheme. Putting the waste in a separate container from which it can be collected weekly, along with both green and domestic waste, disposes of the problem and represents a major advantage to residents. Another major advantage is the capture of the odour in the processing building, and specifically in the contained vessel once it is "cooking". The initial odour problems in the plant have been dealt with quite satisfactorily and relatively quickly, although the plant is within 200 m of the nearest house. Let me return to the point originally made by the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams). The planning application was supported on a cross-party basis. Although I made a party political point in saying that the Conservatives introduced the scheme, I concede that it was supported by the Liberal Democrats on the local authority, which ensured that this was not a partisan issue and that residents were not stirred up to object to the application. Residents now accept the scheme as part of the fabric of Ludlow, and, as I have said, are beginning to see the benefits of the weekly food waste collection. I hope that the Minister will acknowledge the additional benefit that the scheme reduces the number of waste miles. The plant is a prototype, and it could not be replicated across the country on a commercial scale covering 10,000 households. Work needs to be done to determine the most appropriate minimum size, but 30,000 to 50,000 households would probably bring the concept to a commercial level and would be appropriate for most large and medium-sized towns. There would be a significant reduction in both the cost and the environmental damage that would be incurred in the transport of large volumes of waste over large distances to reach the few available landfill sites, which is the current alternative.