Agenda item
PROPOSED NEW WASTE AND RECYCLING SERVICE DESIGN
- Meeting of Communities Scrutiny Committee, Thursday, 25 October 2018 10.00 am (Item 5.)
- View the declarations of interest for item 5.
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.
Minutes:
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.
Supporting documents:
- WASTE MODEL REPORT, item 5. PDF 420 KB
- WASTE MODEL - APPENDIX 1A, item 5. PDF 479 KB
- WASTE MODEL - Appendix I B draft_collection_policies_v2, item 5. PDF 306 KB
- WASTE MODEL - Appendix II Well Being Impact Assesment New waste model, item 5. PDF 137 KB
- WASTE MODEL - APPENDIX III FINAL Scrutiny 25th October Waste Model, item 5. PDF 220 KB
- WASTE MODEL - Appendix IV Interdependencies, item 5. PDF 260 KB
- WASTE MODEL - Appendix V - Recycle More Survey Results - Report, item 5. PDF 1 MB
- WASTE MODEL - Appendix VI - Risk Register, item 5. PDF 204 KB
- WASTE MODEL - APPENDIX VII Depot options Scrutiny 25th October Waste model, item 5. PDF 325 KB