Agenda item
Review of Recycling Rates in Brent
This report provides details on the Borough’s current recycling rates along with a comparison against rates from other similar authorities. The report has been requested by the Scrutiny Committee to assist Members in considering how performance might be improved.
In addition details are provided on attempts being made to reduce food waste in the recycling stream and on the use of new technology to help improve recycling rates.
Minutes:
The Chair advised that the committee had undertaken a site visit to the Abbey Road, Brent Reuse and Recycling Centre in preparation for this item.
At the invitation of the Chair, Councillor Southwood (Lead Member for Environment) introduced the report and advised that it reflected on the challenge to the council to sustainably maintain recycling rates against an increasing proportion of flats in the borough. It was explained that people living in flats found it hard to recycle and this was a key element of the challenge faced by the council in maintaining recycling rates. Amar Dave (Strategic Director, Regeneration and Environment), Chris Whyte (Operational Director, Environmental Services), Simon Finney (Head of Environmental Improvement) and Kelly Eaton (Public Realm Policy and Projects Manager) were also present to address the committee’s queries.
In the subsequent discussion, members highlighted that whilst the number of bulky waste requests had reduced, there had been no change in the total tonnage to Abbey Road and sought comment on this trend. Kelly Eaton confirmed that bulky waste requests and reduced from 80 to 20 per day since the Bulky Waste charge was introduced. However, there had not been a significant increase in visitor numbers or alternative methods of taking bulky waste items to the Abbey Road site and further work, which would form part of the six month review of the service, was required to better understand this trend.
Members further questioned why the council was not being bolder in its recycling targets, citing the 100 per cent targets of some American cities and noting without endorsing, the enforcement tactic employed by some boroughs of charging residents for putting recyclable materials in to their black bins. The committee questioned why Brent had one of the lowest rates of recycling out of the six authorities in the West London Waste Authority and, noting that Brent residents were no longer able to access the Harrow Waste, Refuse and Recycling Centre free of charge, questioned the co-operation between neighbouring boroughs. A member questioned whether Veolia (the council’s public realm contractor) had been financially penalised for the fall in Brent’s recycling rates and queried what strategy was in place to address the issue of recycling in flats. The success of the Envac System which was used in some new developments in Wembley was commented upon and it was queried why this was not a requirement for all new developments. It was also noted that some of the collection systems for estates were not fit for purpose and this needed to be addressed with the council’s Housing Team. Further questions were raised regarding Brent’s ability to increase charges for Trade Waste and how to better educate Brent’s residents regarding the free of charge services to address illegal dumping.
In response, Chris Whyte advised that the legislative framework in America was more beneficial to absolute targets, permitting enforcement fines for non-compliance. Simon Finney outlined the enforcement powers under the Environmental Protection Act and advised that the requirements of taking enforcement action under these powers was not, in general, proportional to the offence. The council’s focus was therefore on educational outreach as built into the requirements of Veolia’s contract. Chris Whyte confirmed that Veolia were financially penalised for not meeting their objectives for diverting waste from landfill and that this had equated to £1million. He further emphasised that the focus of the West London Waste Authority was on waste minimisation, not merely recycling and this was reflected in the council’s approach. Councillor Southwood stated that the team was proud of maintaining recycling rates against Brent’s population increase. Chris Whyte highlighted that neighbouring boroughs did not necessarily provide a useful comparison for recycling rates and rather, it was more telling to compare with boroughs with similar characteristics particularly in terms of housing stock and demographics. It was agreed that the Envac system worked well and that the main issue for developers in deciding whether to install the system was the infrastructure costs involved. Applying pressure through the planning system could help support greater uptake of the system for new developments.
Discussing the Harrow Waste, Refuse and Recycling Centre, Councillor Southwood expressed disappointment at the charge which had been but in place for non-Harrow residents and advised that she would hold further discussion with her counterpart in Harrow. She acknowledged however, that the charge had been put in place in order to manage the number of visits to the popular site. Chris Whyte advised that this centre was owned and operated by Harrow, all other waste and recycling centres across the six authorities were managed by the West London Waste Authority. As a consequence of this, Brent Council was not able to directly set commercial waste charges, nor create a competitive market against neighbouring centres.
RESOLVED:
i) That the Strategic Director, Regeneration and Environment and Lead Member for Environment ensure that the promotion of the council’s Recycling App is maximised and give consideration to the training of members in the use of the app to enable members to share this knowledge with Brent’s residents.
ii) That the Chair of the committee write to the Chair of the Planning Committee and the Head of Planning, Transport and Licensing, to communicate the committee’s view that Brent’s Planning system should require the installation of Envac systems in new developments where suitable.
iii) That an item be added to the committees work programme for the municipal year 2018/19 on waste management for flats, high-rise flats and estates.
Supporting documents: