Greater Manchester’s Waste Authorities – a brief background

Below is a brief investigation on the Greater Manchester Combined Authority i have undertaken. As I plan to undertake a material flow analysis (MFA) of the Greater Manchester waste, it is critical to understand the key stakeholder managing the Régional flows of waste.

Brief historic investigation:

– 1990s or early 2000s Waste Disposal Authority transitioned into GMCA
– 1980s Local Government Act under M. Thatcher. With regard to the waste management facilities the following options were offered to the public bodies of Greater Manchester:

1. Sell all infrastructure to the private sector
2. Partner with the private sector
3. Districts within Greater London or ‘any metropolitan county’ can make a ‘joint arrangement’ to discharge of any or all waste disposal functions (Local Government Act, 1985). unite as 9 public shareholders (represented by 9 districts – not Wigan) and run all facilities. There was a limit to growth as GMCA cannot gain investment as a public company.

The district authorities chose the former option and formed the Greater Manchester Waste Disposal Authority, country’s largest of its kind. The stakeholders included 9 of Greater Manchester’s 10 district councils of became GMWDA existed until 2018, when its powers were transferred to the Greater Manchester Combined Authority (The Greater Manchester Combined Authority (Functions and Amendment) Order, 2017). Wigan chose not to be part of the ‘joint arrangement’ because its own waste infrastructure was above the average quality of the rest of the councils.

The initial strategy featured sending waste to landfill sites allocated within former iron quarries within the North East of the county. Subsequently, the strategy changed
GMWDA managed waste itself until 2004. After that starts PFI contract. Initial contract was with Viridor and the current contract with Suez.

The key successes, fortunes and learnings of GMWDA / GMCA are listed below. The list is based on interviews with GMCA and Suez representatives / informal conversations at facilities.

1. 4 rail connections located immediately at the facilities form effective and robust infrastructure.

2. GM is a compact and dense conurbation – easy coverage by vehicles

3. effective partnering with Chlorine production in the Cheshire (Runcorn)

4. simple methods are more effective, eg. MTR is more reliable and consistent than MBTAD

5. MBTAD facilities operation suffered from a) unpredictable organic waste content and b) use of mild steel for the tanks which corroded

6. In vessel composting proved to create toxic and unpleasant work spaces – these were difficult to manage