Agenda item
Waste Strategy Review
The reasons for the call-in are:-
· To explore further the implications of the bulky waste charge decision and its financial impact on other services/projects
· To discuss consultation proposals regarding changes to collection patterns for refuse.
The Executive report is attached. The Lead Member and Lead Officer are invited to the meeting to respond to Members’ questions.
Minutes:
The reasons for the call-in were:-
· To explore further the implications of the bulky waste charge decision and its financial impact on other services/projects
· To discuss consultation proposals regarding changes to collection patterns for refuse.
Councillor Powney (Lead Member for Environment, Planning and Culture) introduced the report and confirmed that the decisions made included the withdrawal of the £25 charge to dispose of bulky waste items to be replaced by free collections from 1 October 2010 and the introduction of a three bin collection system already operated by other London boroughs. The collection involved organic and food waste collection every week, whilst grey bin and dry recycling waste collection would take place on alternate weeks. The range of materials to be collected for recycling was also to be increased and would include mixed plastics and tetrapaks and collection extended to all flatted properties. Councillor Powney advised that the proposals in the Waste Strategy Review would potentially be deliver savings of £1.02 million in year two of implementation.
Councillor John added that it was very important to educate residents of the need to participate in recycling, including in flatted properties such as Chalkhill Estate and other areas difficult to reach. Working with housing associations and encouraging them to accommodate bring-back schemes would be beneficial to achieving the objectives of the Strategy. Councillor John enquired whether general waste bins eventually be reduced in size.
Councillor Beck, a member who had called-in the item, was invited to address the Select Committee by the Chair. Councillor Beck enquired what measures would be undertaken in view that some waste collections would now be fortnightly and he commented on the need to change the behaviour of residents to ensure the three bin system worked and recycling rates increased. He expressed concern that a number of residents may still be depositing food waste in residual bins which would only be collected fortnightly. Councillor Beck cited a recent article in the Evening Standard newspaper which highlighted some concerns about fortnightly collections, especially in summer which heightened the risk of animals interfering with waste and increased decaying. He asked what consideration had been made in this respect. It was enquired as to the possibility of fortnightly collections of grey bins during winter but restoring weekly collections in summer. Councillor Beck enquired where would food waste be deposited if the food bin was full and would bin lids be secured. He also sought further clarification as to why the bulky waste charge was to be removed.
Councillor Ashraf, who had also called-in this item, was invited to address the Select Committee by the Chair. Councillor Ashraf enquired whether all properties would be receiving bins of the same size and further clarity with regard to the frequency of waste collections and how refuse would be collected from flatted properties was sought. He suggested that some residents were confused by the present waste collection system and enquired what measures were being taken to educate residents about the new system and whether this would include posters. With regard to withdrawing the charge for bulky waste item collection, Councillor Ashraf enquired how the loss of income would be accommodated.
During discussion by Members, Councillor Brown noted the increased range in terms of collecting plastics for recycling and commented that the previous Executive had been advised that there was little market demand for plastic materials and could assurances be made that these materials would not end up being exported. With regard to providing larger bins to accommodate fortnightly collections, he stated that this may be problematic for properties with smaller frontages. He enquired whether the proposals would result in increased dumping and had the views of the residents been taken into account during the consultation.
Councillor B M Patel commented that there was a perception amongst some residents that all waste ultimately was sent to landfill and he sought further comments in respect of this. He cited an example of a resident being asked to pay for a grey bin at a new build property and he enquired whether it was policy not to provide grey bins free of charge and would greys bins be replaced without charge if they went missing.
In response, Councillor Powney stated that the three bin collection system would boost recycling rates and that such a system was in place amongst virtually all top performing London boroughs for waste and recycling. Larger bins would be provided for dry recycling to take into account that some collections would be fortnightly and there would be 28,000 additional bins for food waste. Members noted that residual bins would remain the same size. Councillor Powney stated that too frequent collections had shown not to encourage recycling and that measures needed to be introduced to change the behaviour of residents in order to increase recycling. With regard to animal tampering of bins, Members heard that measures would be taken to ensure bins were secure following feedback received during the consultation. The scheme would continue to be developed following its introduction and it offered an extended service including 25,000 bins. Councillor Powney acknowledged the need to change a number of residents’ attitudes towards recycling and indeed considerable effort would be made to achieve this, including explaining to residents the consequences if recycling was not increased, such as rising costs due to landfill tax increases. Where space prevented recycling bins being placed in flatted properties, recycling would be made possible through co-mingled waste collection. A pilot scheme had shown that 30 percent of materials could be recycled through a mechanical recovery process for co-mingled waste and such a service would be subject to a tendering process in future and a number of other ideas for recycling were included in the report. Members were advised that some recycled materials were of some commercial value.
With regard to dumping, Councillor Powney felt that this may be a problem initially, however ultimately the three bin system would prove to be more efficient. Residents’ views would be valued during consideration of other measures to increase recycling. Councillor Powney confirmed that there were resources available to publicise the importance of recycling and posters would be one of the many measures that would be considered to achieve this. The Select Committee heard that residents would be approached if they continued to place waste in the wrong bins and it would be re-explained to them what waste went in what bin, and the importance to adhere to this would be stressed. Councillor Powney acknowledged that the loss of revenue from the removal of the bulky waste charge would have to be absorbed. He advised that bulky waste collection dropped by around 67 per cent when the charge was introduced and he suggested that such waste was instead being fly-tipped, although there were no official figures to confirm this.
Chris Whyte (Head of Environmental Management, Environment and Culture) added that the proposals would increase recycling particularly for plastic materials. He advised that Veolia owned the waste once it had been collected and it was possible that some recycled materials would be sold and sent overseas. Members noted that developers of private housing were responsible for providing bins, although the Council would remain responsible for waste collection. However, recycling containers would be provided without charge. In the event of a grey bin being taken by Veolia, a replacement bin would be provided at no cost, however a charge would be applicable if the bin had been stolen. Chris Whyte added that residents were permitted to use ways to secure their bins. There was no limit in the number of bins residents were entitled to and although there were extra costs involved in providing more recycling bins, this would be mitigated by reduced costs in waste sent to landfill. Members noted that smaller general waste bins were already available to residents if they so wished and there may be an opportunity to reduce the size of such bins in future. Chris Whyte advised that most organic waste consisted of food waste which would be deposited throughout the year and therefore needed to be collected on a weekly basis. There would be a waste collection of some sort each week, although the specific arrangements for each type of waste collection could be reconsidered in future.
Irfan Malik (Assistant Director – Streets and Transportation, Environment and Culture) stressed the important role councillors could play in encouraging residents to recycle more and he suggested that councillors could be invited to visit the Borough’s recycling waste sites which were being extended. He stated that concerns about residents’ participation in recycling had been raised when compulsory recycling was introduced, however the scheme was implemented with little difficulty. Members noted that residents could use the organic bin if the food bin became full.
RESOLVED:-
that upon considering the report from the Director of Environment and Culture, the decisions made by the Executive be noted.
Supporting documents:
- e&c_waste_strategy_v 5 1 final, item 5b PDF 150 KB
- e&c_waste_strategy_AppA_v2, item 5b PDF 16 MB
- e&c_waste_strategy_appB_v 5 1 final, item 5b PDF 60 KB