5. Waste Management in the Plan Area

Comment

Representation ID: 598

Received: 28/03/2022

Respondent: Susan Edwards

More consideration should be given to the plans for a circular economy. Looking just at recycling rates as the only form of reducing residual waste does not take account of the reductions in the amounts of waste produced. If there are moves towards a circular economy then amounts of waste will be much reduced by replacement and re-use even before recycling comes into the calculations. The likely reductions from elimination of single use plastics, re-use and repair etc. do not seem to have been considered in these calculations. Only increases in recycling are taken into account.

Comment

Representation ID: 635

Received: 04/04/2022

Respondent: Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust

Section 5 Waste Management in the Plan Area
NWT is not in a position to question any of the figures, that is not within our remit. There does
appear, however, to be no mention of the use of agricultural crops for AD plants, despite this
occurring at an increasing scale in the County. Excessive growth of inappropriate crops, with
insufficient land capacity to safely spread digestate is a serious problem in the County. Whilst
some of these process are outside the remit of the WPA, the issue should be recognised, as it
is relevant to DM policies for development of AD plants on farms.

Comment

Representation ID: 660

Received: 02/04/2022

Respondent: Nottingham City Disability Involvement Group

: I'm trying to respond to 'future needs' with regard to waste. You have not used Insight's statistics which record almost double the number of disabled people that you do. I understand that Nottingham City has the highest number of disabled people of any core city and I think 'poor health' being merged into the statistic distorts the true position. The needs of such a large proportion of City residents needs to be considered separately. I am unable to get to the comments box as I cannot find your privacy policy which I am to state I have read.

Comment

Representation ID: 661

Received: 31/03/2022

Respondent: Mr Christopher Taylor

Agent: Mr Andrew Barton

Figure 4 The title of Figure 4 appears to be incorrect and should say 2019 (as set out in para 5.3) and
not 2018.

Comment

Representation ID: 662

Received: 31/03/2022

Respondent: Mr Christopher Taylor

Agent: Mr Andrew Barton

5.6 This should be updated to reflect the 2020/21 household waste recycling rates of 40.4% for
the County and 23.9% for the City. Further, the failure to meet the nationally set recycling
target of 50% in 2020 should be acknowledged as this is key context for the WLP, providing
some reality to the subsequent aspirations.

Comment

Representation ID: 663

Received: 31/03/2022

Respondent: Mr Christopher Taylor

Agent: Mr Andrew Barton

5.10 The Waste Needs Assessment (WNA) indicates (Table 11) that the C&I recycling rate is 70% so
there is still 30% (~285,000 tonnes in 2019) residual C&I waste requiring management. This
para is misleading and rather brushes over this requirement. Further, the current estimate of
70% recycling is materially higher than that from other reputable national sources such as the
ESA: ‘UK Residual Waste: 2030 Market Review’ (November 2017) who have the figure at
60.9%. The robustness of the claimed current C&I waste recycling rate should be reviewed

Comment

Representation ID: 664

Received: 31/03/2022

Respondent: Mr Christopher Taylor

Agent: Mr Andrew Barton

5.25 National Planning Policy for Waste (NPPW) at para 2, requires that, in preparing WLPs,
planning authorities should: ‘… ensure that the planned provision of new capacity and its
spatial distribution is based on robust analysis of best available data and information, and an
appraisal of options’. Looking at the WNA Table 2, LACW is shown to rise by circa 20,000 tpa
over the past 5 years. This is the what the evidence shows. Why then has Scenario C been
dismissed out of hand when it shows a rise in LACW every 5 years of circa 20,000 tpa?
Where is the ‘best available data and information’ that supports adopting Scenario B as the
preferred option? Simply relying on a national policy aim is not using data.

Comment

Representation ID: 665

Received: 31/03/2022

Respondent: Mr Christopher Taylor

Agent: Mr Andrew Barton

5.39 Table 5 relies on Appendix F of the WNA. With regard to Energy Recovery for HIC, existing
capacity is quoted as 281,100 tonnes. This figure is incorrect for HIC. Reference to Appendix
F shows that 3 facilities have been included in making up this capacity: Eastcroft EfW facility;
Widmerpool Biomass Plant; and Pears Power Plant. The last two do not treat HIC and are
dedicated to treating biomass (waste wood from the CD&E stream) and animal by-products
(agricultural waste) respectively. The County Council, in evaluated the Aecom WNA,
specifically acknowledges this in their committee report of 8th March 2022 for planning
application ref: ES/4254 at para 39e. As such, the current Energy Recovery capacity is over
stated by 92,557 tonnes and should read 188,400 and not 281,000.
Table 5 does not allocated any Energy Recovery capacity for CD&E despite it being the
preferred waste management option for low grade (non-recyclable) waste wood (and other
construction and demolition materials), as evidenced by the Pears Power Plant which treats waste wood from the CD&E stream. It is judged that something up to 5% of the CDE waste
stream could be suitable for Energy Recover. Thus, based on 1,186,000 tpa arisings (WLP
Table 3) 59,300 tonnes should be added for Energy Recovery under the CD&E column in Table
5.

Comment

Representation ID: 666

Received: 31/03/2022

Respondent: Mr Christopher Taylor

Agent: Mr Andrew Barton

Table 5 significantly over reports the amount of recycling capacity. Reference to WNA
Appendix F Table 46 shows that a number of types of facilities which are clearly not recycling
facilities have been classified as such. Thus the recycling capacity total of 1,253,400 tonnes is
clearly wrong and actually equates to over 82% of the total HIC arisings (for 2019).

Comment

Representation ID: 667

Received: 31/03/2022

Respondent: Mr Christopher Taylor

Agent: Mr Andrew Barton

Para 5.42 & Table 8
In para 5.42 the sole justification for adopting the ‘High’ recycling rate for C&I waste is that it
reflects a more optimistic target and, it is claimed, takes more account of recycling measures.
No analysis of such measures is provided.
Proper analysis undertaken by Tolvik Consulting including modelling new recycling measures
(refer to our representations on WLP Table 7 previously), indicates that C&I waste recycling
levels in 2017 were 60.9% and recycling will rise broadly in line with household waste and
achieve 67.5 % by 2035 (in Tolvik’s Median scenario). Thus, at its most ambitious, it is suggested that the WLP is taken forward on the ‘Medium’
75% C&I recycling rate.

Comment

Representation ID: 668

Received: 31/03/2022

Respondent: Mr Christopher Taylor

Agent: Mr Andrew Barton

Paras 5.40 – 5.41 & Table 7
National Planning Policy for Waste (NPPW) at para 2, requires that, in preparing WLPs,
planning authorities should: ‘… ensure that the planned provision of new capacity and its
spatial distribution is based on robust analysis of best available data and information, and an
appraisal of options’. A key component of calculating new capacity requirements is the
assumptions made with regard to recycling rates.
The factual evidence (EA data) on household waste recycling rates for the past 8 years for the
County and City is as set out in the table below.
Year Nottinghamshire County Council (%) Nottingham City Council (%)
2013 / 14 43.3 32.9
2014 / 15 42.8 32.9
2015 / 16 42.5 30.6
2016 / 17 44.2 29.8
2017 / 18 43.7 29.9
2018 / 19 43.2 26.5
2019 / 20 42.9 26.2
2020 / 21 40.4 23.9
Average 42.9 % 29 %
Both authorities have missed the nationally set recycling target of 50% in 2020 by a good
margin and, in the City Council’s case, last year they did not even make it half way to the
target. Thus, the evidence is clearly that recycling rates should not be based on national
targets or aspirations, but on real data and information. Otherwise they are meaningless and
will just perpetuate the error in the extant WLP which planned for a scenario where by both
authorities reached 70% recycling in 2025 This was never going to happen and remains a flaw
in the extant WLP.
In this context, it is suggested that the WLP is fundamentally flawed at para 5.41 where it
adopts a 65% recycling rate based purely on an ambitious national target and a claim new
recycling measures to be introduced and somehow deliver this target.
Defra published ‘Our Waste, Our Resources; A Strategy for England, in December 2018 to
reflect the EU Circular Economy targets. However, the Strategy includes a ‘goal’ (not a firm
target) for municipal waste recycling targets of 55 % by 2025, 60 % by 2030 and 65 % by 2035.
Importantly, it also includes a review clause for these targets in 2028 (i.e. before the
Government aspires to progress beyond 55 %).
Whilst the aspiration for high levels of recycling is both admirable and the correct ambition,
the waste industry needs to plan for, and deliver, infrastructure based upon a realistic market
assessment. Consequently, there is the important ‘policy’ point that if residual waste
treatment capacity is delivered (or limited) on the basis of very high recycling levels being
achieved (based on the WLP rates not being reached), the remaining residual waste has to be
either landfilled or exported because of a lack residual waste treatment infrastructure.
Expert analysis of the UK residual waste treatment market by Tolvik Consulting (‘Filling the
Gap – The Future for Residual Waste in the UK’ - February 2019) includes modelling the
intervention measures set out in the Strategy for England aimed at increasing recycling
(specifically: food waste reduction; legislation for separate food waste collection; a Deposit
Return Scheme; and Extended Producer Responsibility for packaging). The modelling was
validated through benchmarking against other European countries (including those with the
highest recycling levels being Germany, Austria, Sweden & the Netherlands). The Tolvik work
shows that under a central (Median) scenario the overall English household waste recycling
rate is projected to rise to 50.1 % in 2035. The analysis concludes that the delta between
political aspirations (as expressed by indicative ‘goals’ and soft targets) and the overall ability
to deliver them has potentially never been so great.
As such, there is no justification whatsoever for the WLP adopting the ‘High’ 65% LACW
recycling rate and all the evidence indicates that even adopting the ‘Medium’ 55% recycling
rate is probably overly ambitious, particularly for the City Council who is never likely to
achieve it.
Notwithstanding, to at least be in a more realistic ballpark, it is suggested that the ‘Medium’
55% recycling rate is preferred / carried forwards for the purposes of calculating / planning
for residual waste treatment requirements. Such an approach is much more consistent with
the emerging WLP at the Issues and Options stage consultation where para 4.22 stated: “… it
is assumed that rates for both LACW and commercial and industrial wastes will increase by at
least 10% above current levels by 2038. The current rate of recycling across the plan area is
41%”. This was a far more realistic assumption founded on real evidence. It is difficult to see,
in terms of calculating residual waste treatment requirements, what the justification is for the
latest version of the draft WLP moving away from the Authorities’ position in 2020.
For the avoidance of doubt, we are not saying that the WLP should not reference or even
aspire to the 65% Government ‘goal’ (i.e. aspiration) for recycling. However, this is not a
robust basis for planning future infrastructure requirements, particularly for waste that is not
recycled, as 65% will not be achieved in either Nottinghamshire or Nottingham (in particular)
without intervention measures far beyond those which the Government proposes. In short,
aim high, but plan for reality.

Comment

Representation ID: 669

Received: 31/03/2022

Respondent: Mr Christopher Taylor

Agent: Mr Andrew Barton

Table 10
Table 10 plans for 10% of waste arisings to be disposed of at landfill as opposed to having this
waste treated further up the hierarchy by way of Energy Recovery.
Thus, the WLP adopts a position whereby it simultaneously squeezes down future Energy
Recovery capacity by overpredicting recycling levels (which are further up the hierarchy) and
overplanning disposal levels (further down the hierarchy). Such an approach is simply
incorrect and underprovides for potential future Energy Recovery capacity.
The County Council development management planners specifically acknowledge this in their
committee report of 8th March 2022 for planning application ref: ES/4254 at para 39b which
states: “The AECOM model assumes 10% of the local authority and commercial/industrial
waste streams will be disposed to landfill, whereas the model that informed the needs
assessment supporting the planning application assumed all this waste would be treated
within energy recovery facilities. Officers consider a 10% reliance on landfill to be high having
regard to current practice where only 5.5% of local authority collected waste in
Nottinghamshire was disposed to landfill in 2020/21, in addition to the commitments set out
within the draft new Joint Waste Local Plan which seek to continue to divert more than 95%
of local authority waste from landfill. It should also be borne in mind that there is now only
one operational landfill site in the county, and this only presently takes small amounts of nonrecyclable
waste from household waste recycling centres. If the 10% of waste projected to be
disposed to landfill in the AECOM model was treated in a recovery facility this would increase
the level of need for additional energy recovery capacity by 258,412tpa in 2019 and
148,157tpa in 2038 whilst also ensuring that this waste is managed at a higher level in the
waste hierarchy.”
Based on the totality of our representations, Table 10 should be re-drafted to reflect the
‘Medium’ recycling scenarios for both LACW and C&I waste and to have the waste earmarked
for disposal managed further up the hierarchy. Thus, for these 2 waste streams it should read:
Method LACW C&I
Recycling 322,400 691,600
Energy Recovery 263,800 296,400
Disposal Any waste not recycled of
subject to Energy Recovery
(plan for 58,600 tpa
maximum)
Any waste not recycled of
subject to Energy Recovery
(plan for 98,800 tpa
maximum)
Total (excludes
Disposal)
586,200 988,000

Comment

Representation ID: 670

Received: 31/03/2022

Respondent: Mr Christopher Taylor

Agent: Mr Andrew Barton

Paras 5.46 – 5.47 & Table 11
Our suggested alterations to Table 10, coupled with identifying the correct Energy Recovery
capacity for HIC (refer to our representations on Table 5), have implications for Table 11. We
have not worked the calculations for each of the 5 illustrative years (this can be easily followed
through), but for 2038, the figures for Energy Recovery for HIC waste streams should read:
• Arisings produced: 560,200
• Existing capacity: 188,400
• Capacity required: 371,800
Further, in line with our representation on WLP Table 5, 59,300 tonnes should be added for
Energy Recovery under the CD&E gap analysis.
As such, para 5.47 should refer to an Energy Recovery capacity gap in 2038 of 431,100 tonnes.
With regard to the reference to unbuilt Energy Recovery capacity that has planning
permission, the WLP should note that, in accordance with NPPW paragraph 3 (7th bullet), the
WLP should only have regard to the capacity of existing, operational facilities.
It is further noted, that in Table 32 of the supporting WNA which identifies facilities with
permission, it states that planning permission for the Bilsthorpe Energy Centre lapses in June
2021. This is not correct. All pre-commencement planning conditions have been discharged
pursuant to that permission and it has been implemented (albeit not fully built out), thus
saving the permission in perpetuity. The County Council planners have acknowledged this
position.

Comment

Representation ID: 677

Received: 04/04/2022

Respondent: Newark and Sherwood District Council

Paragraph 5.41
Comment:
The commitment to a target of a 65% recycling rate for Local Authority Collected Waste is
welcomed.

Comment

Representation ID: 678

Received: 04/04/2022

Respondent: Newark and Sherwood District Council

Paragraph 5.42
Comment:
The commitment to a target of an 80% recycling rate for C&I waste is welcomed.

Comment

Representation ID: 679

Received: 04/04/2022

Respondent: Newark and Sherwood District Council

Paragraph 5.44
Comment:
The commitment to a target of a 95% recycling / recovery rate for CD&E waste is welcomed.

Comment

Representation ID: 680

Received: 04/04/2022

Respondent: Newark and Sherwood District Council

Comment:
A query is raised in relation to the HIC Waste Disposal figures in Table 11. It is appreciated
that these are taken from the Waste Needs Assessment, however, the remaining capacity
figures don’t appear to correlate to the arisings produced figures and clarification is sought.
If additional capacity is required, it is questioned how the plan will make provision for this.
Recommended Change:
To clarify the disposal arisings produced and remaining capacity figures as they do not appear
to correlate to each other.
The plan needs to demonstrate how additional disposal capacity requirements will be met.

Comment

Representation ID: 681

Received: 04/04/2022

Respondent: Newark and Sherwood District Council

Table 12
Comment:
A query is raised in relation to the CD&E Waste Disposal figures in Table 12. It is appreciated
that these are taken from the Waste Needs Assessment, however, the remaining capacity
figures don’t appear to correlate to the arisings produced figures and clarification is sought.
If additional capacity is required, it is questioned how the plan will make provision for this.
Recommended Change:
To clarify the disposal arisings produced and remaining capacity figures as they do not appear
to correlate to each other.
The plan needs to demonstrate how additional disposal capacity requirements will be met.

Comment

Representation ID: 682

Received: 04/04/2022

Respondent: Newark and Sherwood District Council

Paragraph 5.51 / Lack of Site Allocations
Comment:
In order to plan effectively for future needs, the WLP should include a range of allocated sites
and / or identify broad locations, shown on a map base, on which future waste management
facilities could be appropriately located.
Whilst it is acknowledged that very few sites were put forward during the previous Call for
Sites exercise, there could be a range of reasons why this was the case, not least because it
was conducted during the Covid-19 pandemic when there was great uncertainty for
businesses. It is considered that the Call for Sites exercise should be re-run, potentially putting
measures in place if necessary, to generate a greater level of response and potential sites.
Pro-active consultation should take place with the waste industry and landowners in order to
achieve a range of potential sites for allocation.
It is also suggested that existing waste management sites and employment land should be
reviewed, in consultation with the District and Borough Councils, to establish the potential for
extensions or new facilities and as such, the identification of broad locations on which future
waste management development might be acceptable.
Recommended Change:
The WLP should contain allocated sites and / or map-based broad locations on which future
waste management facilities could be sited, in suitable locations depending on the nature of
the waste management facility, based on sustainability principles and the proximity principle,
to enable the vision and objectives of the plan to be met.

Comment

Representation ID: 714

Received: 04/04/2022

Respondent: Mick George Ltd

In paragraphs 5.11 & 5.12 the treatment of CD&E waste could be stronger. One of the crucial
differences that could have been further explained is the distinction between CD waste and its
current recycling/recovery target of 70% nationally, and E waste for which there are very few ways
to reuse and recycle/recover. Essentially, the levels of recycling for CD waste are exceptionally high
due to their value as mostly aggregates and reclaimed building materials. E waste is mostly soils. The
better quality soils are often reused as topsoil but demand is limited. For the most part, the subsoils
and mixed materials are only suitable for land reclamation or landfill cover/cell construction. In
terms of its environmental impact, there is little or no difference between landfilling E waste and
land recovery using E waste. Therefore, it is unjustifiable to treat inert landfill in the same way as
landfill for other types of waste. Inert landfill provides as much a benefit in the reclamation of land
as does a formal recovery operation. The only difference is in the classification of the activity for
licensing purposes.
The company has also found that in areas where insufficient inert landfill capacity is provided, there
is pressure for a number of recovery projects of dubious value. However, this has ameliorated in
more recent years by the EA bringing recovery operations into the licensing system.

Comment

Representation ID: 717

Received: 29/03/2022

Respondent: Normanton-on-Soar Parish Council

Normanton on Soar Parish Council would like to make the following comments on the Consultation of the Draft Nottingham and Nottinghamshire Waste Local Plan.
• Recycling – Discussion needs to take place with local councils on whether residents can use cross-board recycling centers.
• Better recycling facilities needed for food waste as there is no commitment to increase the food waste dealt with by anaerobic digestion rather than incineration or landfill.

Comment

Representation ID: 719

Received: 04/04/2022

Respondent: Historic England (Midlands)

Para 5.31
We note the inclusion of consideration for HS2 within this section, as we had raised in our earlier response and welcome this.

Comment

Representation ID: 735

Received: 01/04/2022

Respondent: Derbyshire County Council

Paragraph 3.37
Regarding the operational capacity, taken as maximum operational throughput from the last 5 years (2015 - 2019), it is acknowledged that the high C&I figure in 2019 might be anomalous (paragraph. 3.37), and that the CD&E figure for 2019 is also at the upper end of the range (paragraph. 3.65). Only using a single year's throughput, particularly as it is acknowledged that at least one figure could be anomalous, may give rise to an inaccurate level of realistically available capacity.
There is a reference in paragraph 4.6 to facilities being still active where they have received waste 'over the 2019 period'. Should 2015 - 2019 be the period for maximum operational throughput? If it is only 2019 there is evidence in the WDI that some facilities don't receive waste, or there are no records, in some years but do so in later years. If it is only for 2019, if the site then receives waste in 2020 it would be missed out of the calculations. With regards to data analysis and the use of the Environment Agency's Waste Data Interrogator, there are now several resources available regarding established best practice which may be useful to refer to. These are set out by the National Waste Technical Advisory Body and are accessible in the East Midlands via the EMRTAB group.
In relation to LACW and C&I, it is forecasted that up to 3.5Mt may need to be landfilled by the end of the Plan period. The draft sets out that landfill in the plan area is effectively exhausted. As this has been established the plan needs to indicate how landfill capacity is therefore to be provided.
If the intention is to use existing landfill capacity outside the plan area to satisfy the need that you identify, in Derbyshire and Derby for example then we would wish for this to be made clear through the Duty to Cooperate. Given the important strategic issues that exist between our adjoining authority areas we would also advise that you go further and come forward with a new Statement of Common Ground to clearly establish and agree such cross-border matters. Given the situation with the availability of landfill provision specifically, this would seem of particular importance.

Comment

Representation ID: 736

Received: 01/04/2022

Respondent: Derbyshire County Council

Paragraph 3.65
Regarding the operational capacity, taken as maximum operational throughput from the last 5 years (2015 - 2019), it is acknowledged that the high C&I figure in 2019 might be anomalous (paragraph. 3.37), and that the CD&E figure for 2019 is also at the upper end of the range (paragraph. 3.65). Only using a single year's throughput, particularly as it is acknowledged that at least one figure could be anomalous, may give rise to an inaccurate level of realistically available capacity.
There is a reference in paragraph 4.6 to facilities being still active where they have received waste 'over the 2019 period'. Should 2015 - 2019 be the period for maximum operational throughput? If it is only 2019 there is evidence in the WDI that some facilities don't receive waste, or there are no records, in some years but do so in later years. If it is only for 2019, if the site then receives waste in 2020 it would be missed out of the calculations. With regards to data analysis and the use of the Environment Agency's Waste Data Interrogator, there are now several resources available regarding established best practice which may be useful to refer to. These are set out by the National Waste Technical Advisory Body and are accessible in the East Midlands via the EMRTAB group.
In relation to LACW and C&I, it is forecasted that up to 3.5Mt may need to be landfilled by the end of the Plan period. The draft sets out that landfill in the plan area is effectively exhausted. As this has been established the plan needs to indicate how landfill capacity is therefore to be provided.
If the intention is to use existing landfill capacity outside the plan area to satisfy the need that you identify, in Derbyshire and Derby for example then we would wish for this to be made clear through the Duty to Cooperate. Given the important strategic issues that exist between our adjoining authority areas we would also advise that you go further and come forward with a new Statement of Common Ground to clearly establish and agree such cross-border matters. Given the situation with the availability of landfill provision specifically, this would seem of particular importance.

Comment

Representation ID: 739

Received: 20/02/2022

Respondent: Jo lawson

I haven't read the strategy in great detail but wonder if other authorities that achieve higher rates have been looked at? Wales, for example recycles in the region of 64%, what is stopping Notts looking at a stretch target? Wales ranks around 3rd best in Europe.

Comment

Representation ID: 740

Received: 20/02/2022

Respondent: Jo lawson

Whilst the household recycling centres provide an excellent service, I suggest that more could be done to recycle perfectly good items that are thrown away all the time. A cursory look at the bins show anything from old fashioned but serviceable furniture to garden items to slightly broken items being dumped. In Holland - a recycling centre I visited had a large warehouse attached. Here a couple of skilled employees plus volunteers repaired and laid out decent second hand/refurbished items for sale at a cheap price - similar to the work done by charity shops. Not everyone bothers to take their "decent" waste to Charity shops and this would provide a safety net for those items that are still serviceable. The sales pay for the employees (and this also provides excellent training opportunities in electrical and practical repairs).

Comment

Representation ID: 741

Received: 20/02/2022

Respondent: Jo lawson

• The quality of the recycling arrangements must match the targets. We have all seen pictures of developing nations swamped in plastic waste that has merely been "exported" under a "recycling" banner. As a user of the waste system - I would really like to know where the paper and card go, which companies sort and re-use? Where and how does the plastic become reusable? Where does the garden waste go to be composted and where does it get sold afterwards? These journeys need to be made a lot more public so that children start to connect between waste and what happens to it.

Comment

Representation ID: 742

Received: 20/02/2022

Respondent: Jo lawson

• Why aren't we recycling clean aluminium foil/containers?

Comment

Representation ID: 743

Received: 13/03/2022

Respondent: Kia Foster

As someone in a band D property in the area, I don’t think we get value for money with the waste collections. I think to do more would be better not only for the planet but for the value of the funds you recurve for the service.

Comment

Representation ID: 752

Received: 02/04/2022

Respondent: Robin Betterton

I would like to see something on the following issues

Provision of water fountains around the city so people can refill water bottles and cut down on buying single use plastic water packaging

More regulation to force big waste producers (take away food and drink outlets) to take responsibility for cleaning up their litter and minimising single use packaging I was appalled to see the volume of litter around the arena following recent large events left presumably for tax payers to pay for cleanups