THE procurement consultant who helped broker a waste management deal for Scottish Borders Council has claimed that any new strategy to radically reduce the amount of rubbish going to landfill will come at a greatly increased cost to the local authority.

Barry Phelps and his company D & P Management were engaged by the council for over three years – and received fees of over £300,000 – before a contract for a giant composting plant at Easter Langlee was signed with a firm called New Earth Solutions (NES) in 2011.

But a year later, councillors met in private and agreed to legally vary the contract set up by Mr Phelps with NES to simultaneously include the development of an incineration-based, energy generating advanced thermal treatment (ATT) facility on the same site.

In February this year, the entire contract with NES was scrapped because the ATT technology was untested and had failed to attract the required private investment, leaving SBC to write off the £2 million it had spent on the abortive procurement process.

As reported in these columns last week the council has, as a result, now gone back to the drawing board and appointed a small group of officers and elected members to come up with an entirely new strategy for handling the estimated 65,000 tonnes of waste generated annually in the Borders.

That group will meet monthly to forge a policy which will help meet landfill and recycling targets.

Currently the Scottish Government wants a ban on all biodegradable waste going to landfill by January, 2021 and wants 70% of all waste recycled by 2025.

The group’s brief will include a review of all kerbside collections and an evaluation of the pros and cons of either developing another purpose-built waste management plant in the region or transporting rubbish to treatment plants in neighbouring council areas.

Mr Phelps told us: “In summary, what the council is doing now is nothing more than was undertaken in 2008 [when his firm was appointed as a procurement consultant], albeit there is new legislation.

“The disappointing thing is that the original NES solution, which would have cut the amount of waste going to landfill by 80 per cent, was flexible enough to meet the emerging legislation.” Mr Phelps, who earlier this year failed in a legal action against SBC for £5.2 million he claimed he was owed in a pre-arranged gain-share agreement connected to the 2011 contract, said if the council now decided to construct and operate its own waste facility, it would cost “many millions” more.

“Should the council opt to transport waste out of the Borders, this will also bring other challenges,” said Mr Phelps.

“The cost of such transport could be in the region of £1m a year based on previous estimates for using sites in Edinburgh and Dunbar in East Lothian, where the gate fees are much higher than agreed under the NES deal.” Mr Phelps claimed this option would also have a negative impact on SBC’s carbon footprint, while some other local authorities, supported by planning restrictions, did not allow waste to be imported from other council areas.

And he said private companies operating waste treatment sites with sufficient capacity in other areas would be in a “dominant commercial position” and could charge accordingly.

Mr Phelps claimed SBC had tried before, unsuccessfully, to collaborate on waste treatment issues with local authorities in the Lothians and Edinburgh.

“That is why the Borders decided to go it alone with the NES contract,” he said.

“Currently, SBC is not complying with EU regulations on the diversion of waste to landfill and are exposed to fines of £150 per tonne above the permitted allowance.

“Although the Scottish Government has suspended the imposition of such fines at present, they could well lift that suspension at any time.” Mr Phelps contended that only three practical options faced the council – constructing and operating its own facility, re-tendering for a new provider with the risk of failing to attract any commercial interest or transporting the region’s waste out of the Borders.

“I am confident any of the above options will cost SBC considerably more than under the NES contract, even without the ATT option,” he said.