Lancs Reform leader: ‘Waste site changes will benefit residents and environment, and east Lancs is not being neglected’

The Reform UK leader of Lancashire County Council has spoken about suggested changes to landfill sites and waste management, which he says will benefit residents and the environment, and criticised recent comments about the changes and potential costs at Pendle Council’s executive.

Reform Coun Stephen Atkinson responded after Pendle’s Lib-Dem and Independent executive discussed a Pendle report on options for future waste transfer sites and estimated costs for alternative sites, after a county council contract at the Whinney Hill landfill site near Altham ends next year. The changes could effect four boroughs of Pendle, Rossendale, Burnley and Hyndburn.

Boroughs are responsible for collecting waste while the county is responsible for disposal. The county now has a central waste recovery site at Farington, Leyland.

But a debate has arisen about the potential costs of vehicle fuel and workers’ time,  if east Lancashire’s residual waste has to be taken to Farington.

However, Coun Atkinson, who is also a Ribble Valley borough councillor, said alternatives are being looked at. These include using an existing privately-run site, called the Pendle waste transfer station.  The county council’s cabinet, which he leads, will consider options and recommendations next Thursday, September 4.

He said: “The benefit of this approach is to stop any extra impact on the environment and on residents’ amenity. It’s important to recognise there can be issues for residents with smells from landfill sites and other factors to consider, include transport routes.  Some of the smells can be horrendous.

“Nobody wants to create an extra transfer site. Why would we create an extra waste transfer station, which would cost a lot of investment, when there is a privately-run site already in Pendle? We are looking at that option. So why is there talk about extra transport involved?

“I think some Pendle councillors are playing party politics. And some reported comments made at Pendle Council’s executive were wrong. Talk about the county council somehow ‘neglecting’ Pendle or east Lancashire is wrong.

“If there’s a financial saving with these new waste arrangements, we will split that between the county and the district. If it’s more expensive, we will find a resolution. We’re looking at all these things.”

Lancashire’s cabinet will be asked to agree an approach to:

• Carrying out a procurement exercise to secure contractor to accept residual waste from the four districts.
• Offer an extension to a contract at the Pendle waste transfer station, on the basis that the district council, or councils, meet the transfer handling fee cost of the contract.
• Support the district council, or councils, if they wish to develop alternatives.

A Lancashire County Council report for the county cabinet states: “From April 2026, east Lancashire district waste was originally intended to be treated at the Farington waste recovery park. However, due to concerns with the logistical impacts of this on the four district councils, proposals have been developed to deliver potential solutions with two options.

“The proposals are intended to provide choice and flexibility to resolve the challenges associated with the expiration of the Whinney Hill landfill contract in 2026.

Suggested options are:

• Make arrangements for waste to be accepted at an alternative facility to Farington
• Or put in place arrangements so waste can be transferred for treatment at Farington.
• Regarding costs, the report suggests the county could offer to procure alternative treatment arrangements on the basis that each district council agrees to meet any treatment costs ‘over and above the upper cost limit.’
• Or the county will offer potential options for transfer arrangements, which the districts could choose to take advantage of ‘at their cost, should such arrangements be more financially beneficial than the treatment options that are offered.’