Agenda item

To consider a joint report by the Head of Highways & Environment and Waste and Recycling Manager (copy attached) on the proposed new Waste and Recycling Service together with feedback and engagement activity undertaken to inform the proposal.

10.10 a.m. – 11.00 a.m.

Prior to presenting the report and appendices on the proposed new Waste and Recycling Service (previously circulated) the Lead Member for Highways, Planning and Sustainable Travel introduced Kelly Thomas from WRAP Cymru.  Waste and Resources Action Programme (WRAP) Cymru was an organisation that worked with governments, businesses and communities to deliver practical solutions in order to improve a sustainable resource-efficient economy.  The Lead Member explained that Kelly Thomas had been working closely with the Council in developing the proposed model presented to the Committee at the meeting.

 

During his introduction the Lead Member informed members that a number of sessions/workshops had been held for elected members during the proposed new model’s development to seek their views and brief them on the need to change the current waste and recycling model.  Whilst Denbighshire had consistently been the best performing Council in relation to recycling household waste in Wales for a number of years, national targets and expectations were changing.  Under the Welsh Government’s (WG) ‘Towards Zero Waste’ strategy and the statutory requirements of the Waste Measure (Wales) 2010, by 2024/25 local authorities would be expected to increase the amount of reused, recycled and composted waste to 70%.  At present Denbighshire met the target of 64% set for 2019/20, but its performance had plateaued in recent years.  Therefore if it could not reach the 70% target by 2024/25 it could be levied a fine of up to £200 per tonne on every tonne it sent to landfill that was above its landfill allowance.  In addition to the national targets changing, the public’s attitude and perception of the human race’s responsibility towards the planet and future generations were changing, therefore more effective waste disposal and reuse/recycling methods were required.  Having regard to all these elements the Council was therefore proposing under the new model to –

 

·         change the frequency of the dry recyclable waste collections to weekly from fortnightly

·         increase the litreage capacity of the dry recyclable waste collections through the provision of the kerbside sort ‘trolliboc’ system

·         extend the textiles and shoes collection service to the entire county; introduce additional kerbside collections for small Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) and a household batteries collection service

·         introduce an opt-in Absorbent Hygiene Products (AHP) e.g. nappies and incontinence products etc. collection service, and

·         change the frequency of the current fortnightly residual waste collection service to a four-weekly collection for the majority of households.

 

The Lead Member emphasised that, whilst the actual cost of introducing the new model could not yet be accurately calculated due to the extent of the work required to re-model the Council’s depots to handle the waste that would pass through them, due to the substantial capital grant funding available from the WG to introduce the new kerbside sort service the model had the potential to reduce the budget pressure which already existed within the present collection service which was currently being funded from within reserves.  In addition the new model was consistent with the WG’s future for recycling and managing waste disposal.

 

Responding to members’ questions the Lead Member, Head of Highways and Environment, the Council’s Waste and Recycling Manager and WRAP Cymru’s representative –

 

·         advised that all stakeholders had a role to play to ensure the county achieved the 70% recycling rate target.  Residents in particular would have a greater role to play through the kerbside sort scheme, as this aspect had the potential to increase the overall amount of quality recyclable waste processed

·         confirmed that in future years, due to changes in produce manufacturing, it would be difficult for the Council to retain its current 64% performance in relation to waste recycling.  The proposed new waste management model, which conformed with the WG’s future vision for waste management, had the potential to lift the Council’s performance to the 70% threshold whilst at the same time address budget pressures within the service and deliver benefits and opportunities for a local social enterprise and its employees;

·         advised that whilst the current ‘blue bin’ co-mingled recycling system was extremely popular with residents, there had been an increasing trend in recent times for waste that could not be collected for recycling to be disposed of in these bins which contaminated the recycling stream

·         indicated that they were of the view that initially the introduction of the new waste model would increase recycling rates in the region of about 3.1%.  This was a conservative estimate, other areas who had introduced a similar system in recent years had on average increased their recycling rates by circa 8%.  Conwy County Borough Council had registered an increase of 14% in the amount of recyclable waste it collected following the recent roll-out of a 4 weekly residual waste collection service across the county, all be it their recycling performance before their change was lower than Denbighshire’s 

·         advised that the main product which could not at present be collected for recycling was plastic film, although there were some trials underway in an attempt to find solutions to this problem

·         confirmed that the Service had a team of five people who visited individuals and households with a view to educating them about how to manage their household waste appropriately. These officers undertook on average a total of 1,000 visits per quarter.  If the new model was approved these officers would have a pivotal role to play in communicating the requirements and benefits of the new approach to residents and to landlords.  WRAP would also have a key role to play in the communications strategy for the proposed new model

·         advised that if a recycling box/bin was entirely contaminated officers would visit the household concerned to discuss the matter. However, if it was just the odd item within the box that was contaminated those items would be left behind for the householder to dispose of appropriately

·         advised that a Waste Project Board’ had been established to oversee the research and introduction of the proposed new waste model.  The Board met on a fortnightly basis.  One of its standing agenda items was ‘communication’ as the Board had identified early-on the importance of communicating the right messages to residents prior to the introduction of the new model

·         informed members that the impact of the proposed change in service delivery model on all residents and on the Council’s reputation had been identified early-on during the process as had its potential to contribute to the sustainable development principle of the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015.  Having regard to the aims and goals of the Act a Well-being Impact Assessment (WIA) exercise had been undertaken, the conclusions of which had been reviewed by a cross-service internal ‘Critical Friends’ Panel recently.  This Panel comprised of representatives from a number of Services which had examined all aspects of the WIA and the design of the receptacles

·         advised that whilst there was some confusion amongst the general public on which items were recyclable the Council’s advice would be to place all but black plastic packaging containers in the recycling container.  Black plastic packaging and plastic film could not be collected for recycling at present.  Many manufacturers were looking to reduce the use of black plastic until technology could be designed to separate it from other colours

·         confirmed that all plastic pots, tubs and trays were currently accepted by manufacturers in the UK that dealt with recycled waste.  However, one of the major advantages of the proposed new waste model was its potential to provide better quality recyclable materials for UK based manufacturers to use

·         advised that at present Denbighshire’s recycling was sent to Shotton Paper Mill where it was sorted and sold on to manufacturers.  The Mill’s operators searched the market on a regular basis to achieve the best price for the ‘waste’ being sold

·         confirmed that the proposed weekly AHP waste collection service would be a free of charge opt-in service.  Households would be given as much capacity as needed for this service

·         advised that details of the containers provided, frequency of collections, collection method, weekly capacity and the regulatory procedures attached to each type of collection were detailed in Appendix I[A] to the report

·         advised that the practicalities of introducing a ‘pet waste’ collection service had been explored at councillors’ request.  However, it transpired that the introduction of a special service would be costly and therefore not a cost effective use of resources.  There were also health and safety concerns relating to service operatives in relation to this type of special provision.  No local authority area in the UK operated a special ‘pet waste’ collection service at present.  Officers were of the view that it would be more cost effective for ‘pet waste’ to be deposited in the residual waste sacks than collected separately.  They did not foresee ‘pet waste’ as being a major problem.  If individuals wanted to reduce any unpleasant aromas caused by pet waste they suggested that it be deposited in plastic rather than bio-degradable bags and then placed in the residual waste sack.  However, this would be down to individual choice

·         advised that households who only occasionally had AHP waste, i.e. when babies etc. were visiting could deposit them in the residual waste rather than being provided with AHP bins for regular collections

·         advised that work was currently underway to explore whether households who were not currently issued with wheelie bins etc. due to access issues could be provided with seagull/animal proof sacks for recyclable and residual waste that would help to contain rubbish presented in disposable sacks.  Work was also underway with a view to designing practical solutions for properties where it would not be possible to operate the ‘standard service provision’ model, e.g. those that were served by communal bin storage areas. If trials proved successful the issue of sacks and/or containers to a large number of these households, particularly those who used communal waste facilities, across the county should further increase recycling rates as would the issue of food waste caddies along with strict enforcement of compliance with the food waste service.  In addition the WG had recently announced funding for food waste recycling communication matters.  If appropriate solutions could not be found to safely store residual waste for 4 weeks in certain areas, the Service would arrange for more frequent collections

·         confirmed that the proposal was for residual waste to be collected on a four-weekly basis and not on a monthly basis

·         acknowledged that some properties, with  more restricted access to the rear of their properties, tended to store their wheelie bins etc. in their front gardens.  This practice, which was a problem nationwide, was unsightly and did not help to promote the local area to visitors or businesses.  The council was currently exploring options on how this practice could be reduced in order to improve the local environment.  If properties did have yards at the rear which were accessible the Council could consider offering a chargeable service to landlords should they have issues with tenants not taking ownership of bins in order to present them at official kerbside collection points to collect the bins from accessible rear entrances and would work with landlords with a view to devising appropriate solutions

·         advised that the public engagement exercise undertaken ‘Recycle More, Waste Less’ and the associated drop-in sessions had highlighted the fact that residents currently struggled to recycle more due to the fact that the ‘blue’ co-mingled recycling bins were full well before the fortnightly collection day, whereas this was far less prevalent in the case of residual waste bins.  Residents had also highlighted under the consultation that they would welcome the opportunity to be able to recycle a wider range of times than the currently could.  The proposed new model addressed this desire.  The ‘trolliboc’ system would provide residents with an opportunity to recycle an additional 35 litres per week of dry recyclable materials, with additional recycling collection services being provided for AHP, WEEE and small batteries

·         advised that the response rate to the public consultation survey of a total of 2,450 returned surveys was encouraging and whilst the number that had attended the drop-in sessions had not been high, those who had attended had been supportive of the approach to increase recycling levels

·         confirmed that as part of the dry recyclable materials waste collection a re-useable sack, which could be attached the to the ‘trolliboc’ handle, would be provided for recycling brown cardboard

·         advised that black boxes for the ‘trolliboc’ would be cheaper to purchase than coloured ones and agreed with members that these would be less conspicuous if they had to be stored at the front of a property.  However, the provision of different colour flaps on the boxes may be required to assist the visually impaired to differentiate what should be placed in each box.  Alternatively different coloured boxes could be provided upon request to those households where a need for them was identified

·         advised that if the new model was approved households could request a larger residual waste bin if required.  However, it was anticipated that not all households would require larger residual waste bins if they abided by the recycling policy, for example single occupancy households

·         confirmed that an assisted service would continue to be available for residents who were physically unable to place their bins at the curtilage of their property.  Nevertheless, in households where able-bodied family members also resided they would be expected to place the waste receptacles out for collection.  This would include properties in rural locations

·         advised that it would not be financially viable to allow residents who wished to continue with the present co-mingled recycling system to pay for being permitted to continue using the ‘blue bin’ system, as this would entail different wagons having to be despatched to collect the waste

·         advised that the proposed ‘trolliboc’ system should not result in the boxes being any heavier that the  current blue bin, as the waste would be collected on a weekly rather than a fortnightly cycle and also ‘food waste’ was heavier than other waste.  If the use of the ‘food waste’ collection system was rigidly enforced this should reduce the amount of food waste which currently ended up in the residual waste system.  Effective enforcement of compliance with the ‘food waste’ recycling system would reduce the volume and weight of residual waste and the potential for residual waste to generate unpleasant aromas etc.

·         emphasised that receipt of the £7m capital funding from the WG was entirely dependent upon the Council adopting the WG’s preferred waste and recycling model with a view to achieving its ambitious recycling and landfill targets.  The Council had resisted until now to change its system, but the capital funding available would support the costs, although not wholly meet them, associated with remodelling the waste and recycling depots to operate the new model.  In-depth costings relating to the redevelopment and operational costs of the depots (or working in partnership with neighbouring authorities) had not yet been undertaken as member support for the proposed new model was required first before progressing to a costings exercise.  If both Scrutiny and Cabinet were supportive of the proposals detailed costings would be drawn-up.  A meeting was scheduled to take place between WG and Council representatives to discuss capital funding ahead of the proposal being presented to Cabinet in December 2018

·         advised that the proposed new model had a number of benefits associated with it in addition to attracting a substantial amount of capital funding monies.  It would improve the county’s recycling rates, extend the types of recycling available to residents, reduce the financial risk to the Council of being liable for excess landfill charges and penalties, support the work of a local social enterprise and boost the local economy through the creation of approximately 18 new posts.  It would also see current operatives re-train or be equipped with new skills in order to deliver the new service.  Service staff were aware of the proposals

·         advised that the provision of community recycling facilities generally generated very low quality recycling due to the level of contamination that was found in the containers when emptied

·         confirmed that the UK Government was currently considering benefits of a deposit and return scheme

·         advised that WG had recently announced funding for a national behavioural change programme with a view to encouraging compliance with local authority waste and recycling collection services.  Waste minimisation campaigns were already well developed and available for local authority’s to use and localise.  One example of this type of behavioural change initiative was the Love Food, Hate Waste project.  WRAP Cymru was currently working closely with a number of local authorities to look at waste minimisation

·         acknowledged that supermarkets etc. did use a lot of packaging, particularly in relation to perishable food.  However it was not within the Council’s gift to change their working practices.  Pressure would need to be exerted nationally and internally for such practices to change.  WRAP was involved in working with supermarkets strategically on a national level with a view to reducing unnecessary packaging.  Local authorities responsibilities lay with disposing of the waste products from households or retail/business premises

·         confirmed that under the draft Waste and Recycling Policy to support the proposed service change, there would be a charge for providing and delivering a new residual waste bin to an address which currently did not have one, or to a new property.  However, the householder would be given a free larger residual bin on request as a result of the proposed service change and would be granted a trial period to enable them to decide whether they required the bin in the long-term.  Therefore the charge would not come into force until sometime after the service change had been introduced

·         advised that all blue bins and smaller black bins which became redundant would be collected and recycled if the householder did not want to keep them

·         confirmed that at present the Service did not have any input into the planning and/or building control application process in relation to waste storage space provision for new-build homes or refurbished properties.  Nevertheless this was an aspect that officers wished to purse with colleagues in the Planning and Public Protection Service as they were of the view that ‘conditions’ included as part of the planning permission process had the potential to protect and improve the local environment, and

·         confirmed that the present opt-in chargeable garden waste collection service would remain unchanged if the new model was approved as the chargeable service complied with the Government’s Waste Collection Blueprint.

 

Members queried whether ‘black’ plastic waste could not be recycled, as agricultural waste such as black silo wrap was collected by private contractors from farms and recycled for use in the production of benches, fencing posts, animal shelters etc.  They commended the use made of the recycled food waste by BioGen in the county for generating electricity, with the by-product being spread on agricultural land as fertiliser.  The importance of having an effective communications strategy in place during the planning and implementation stages for the project were stressed, with regular clear communications being issued to residents and all available communication platforms being utilised for this purpose, including educating the county’s pupils on the system being introduced so that they may persuade family members to comply with its requirements.  A leaflet was due to be circulated to all households before Christmas to promote the benefits of food waste recycling.

 

The Lead Member emphasised that the proposed new waste and recycling model had the potential to be a game-changer for residents, the Council and the environment.  A Communications Plan Framework had already been developed in anticipation of member approval to proceed with further work in relation to the project.  The Lead Member had personally agreed to pilot the scheme and he invited Committee members to join in the pilot if they wished.

 

At the conclusion of the discussion the Committee suggested that it may be useful for residents, if the proposed model was to be implemented, if a video could be produced illustrating the journey taken by recyclable material as this would potentially draw the importance of recycling waste to each individual’s attention and highlight to them the important role they had in the process.  The Committee –

 

RESOLVED, subject to the above observations, to –

 

(a)       confirm that it had read, understood and taken account of the Well-being Impact Assessment (Appendix II to the report) as part of its consideration;

 

(b)       note that the current projected revenue savings of £807,000 (as per Section 6.2 of the report) achievable from implementation of the proposed Waste and Recycling Service design, were higher than any other option modelled;

 

(c)        note the social benefits (outlined in Appendix III [2] of the report) and financial implications (as per Section 6.3 of the report) of utilising the third sector for the collection of textiles and Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE), and recommend the continuation and expansion of an arrangement with a Denbighshire based Social Enterprise for the collection, re-use and recycling of these materials;

 

(d)       endorse the proposed new Waste and Recycling Service design as outlined in Appendix I [A] to the report to implement the preferred Welsh Government Blueprint for Waste Collections and to align recycling collection infrastructure with the other five North Wales Authorities;

 

(e)       note that the draft Household Waste Collection Policy (Appendix I [B] to the report) was designed to support the implementation and regulation of the proposed service in order that revenue savings and environmental targets were met;

 

(f)         note that Welsh Government had confirmed capital funding support of £4m in 2019/20 and a further £3m for 2020/21 for the implementation of a kerbside sort operation, and request that the Head of Highways and Environment continues to work with Welsh Government and WRAP to secure all additional capital funds necessary to implement the new Waste and Recycling Service;

 

(g)       request that the Head of Highways and Environment takes a report to Cabinet at the earliest opportunity (subject to resolution (f) above being achieved) to recommend the implementation of the new Waste and Recycling Service outlined in Appendix I to the report, and

 

(h)       request that a further report containing detailed information on the proposed new Waste and Recycling Service, including information on service design, depot reconfiguration requirements, indicative costings, availability of funding, and details of the proposed communication strategy be presented to the Committee at its meeting in May 2019.

 

At this juncture (12.05 p.m.) the meeting adjourned for a refreshment break.