“I understand that the only reason for the Waste Transfer Station not yet operating is the lack of water supply.
I also understand that Yorkshire Water were due to deliver a suitable water supply by 17th July 2019.
On this basis could you please inform me of the cost of the delay caused by Yorkshire Water:-
1) To Ryedale District Council per month
2) To North Yorkshire County Council per month
3) And thus the total monthly cost to the people of Ryedale.”
Minutes:
1. Councillor Potter submitted the following question:
To Councillor Duncan, the Leader of Council:
“I understand that the only reason for the Waste Transfer Station not yet operating is the lack of water supply.
I also understand that Yorkshire Water were due to deliver a suitable water supply by 17th July 2019.
On this basis could you please inform me of the cost of the delay caused by Yorkshire Water:-
1) To Ryedale District Council per month
2) To North Yorkshire County Council per month
3) And thus the total monthly cost to the people of Ryedale.”
The Leader of Council, Councillor Duncan replied
“The cost of the delay at this time is;
Monthly saving to RDC = (£6,000)
Monthly cost to NYCC = £12,285
Net cost = £6,285
Once the new waste transfer station is operating the cost for each authority changes as follows;
Increased cost to RDC = £12,670 per month
Saving to NYCC = (£12,285 per month)
Net cost = £385 per month
Therefore the cost of the delay to the public purse is £5,900 per month.”
Councillor Potter asked the following supplementary question:
What renewables such as photovoltaics or ground source heat pumps and so on have been incorporated into the construction of this waste transfer station and, if the answer's none, I wonder why not?
Councillor Potter asked the following supplementary question:
What renewables such as photovoltaics or ground source heat pumps and so on have been incorporated into the construction of this waste transfer station and, if the answer's none, I wonder why not?
The Leader provided the following written response:
The construction of the new Waste Transfer Station has been a NYCC project and they have confirmed that no PV’s or GSHPs have been installed at the site, and the engineers working on the project have provided the following additional information;
Mechanical Engineer
From a mechanical perspective, there is only a small amount of heating and hot water on the project, only to the relatively small weighbridge office, therefore at feasibility stage ground source heat pumps were dismissed as they would not be effective and pay-back would not be achieved. There are only three sinks and a shower to serve.
Electrical Engineer
From an electrical perspective I can advise that there is no ‘Feed In Tariffs’ for PV anymore and the payback period was too long to offset the cost when we calculated it at the feasibility stage of the project. PV panels could be retrofitted however the calculations do not prove payback.
There is only electric on site and the amount of electricity used is small as there is very little equipment that uses energy on site therefore pay-back is not going to be achieved when considered against the capital outlay.
All the lighting is LED high efficiency lighting, that has photocell sensors and dusk till dawn controls.
Rain water is not retained for the fire system as it has to have a consistent supply to it and be replenished in a set period. The tanks capacity are 600,000 litres, storing rainwater on site for a period of time would cost a lot of money in terms of where to store it and how to ensure it could meet capacity.
If there are any other building specific queries regarding the new Waste Transfer Station please contact Ian Kelly, Acting Head of Service (Waste) at NYCC, e-mail: ian.kelly@northyorks.gov.uk
It is important to note that there are positive RDC operational carbon impacts associated with all waste and recycling rounds using the new building in one central location as there will be reduced vehicle movements when compared to the current operation where two different sites are used. The alternative option at the time the Council resolved to support the new waste transfer at Kirby Misperton was to take all RDC waste to Seamer Carr which had significant financial, environmental and operational impacts.