Agenda item

The reasons for the call-in are:-

·         To discuss concerns regarding the nature and openness of the consultation and the possibility of full consulting residents.

·         To consider the concerns of residents around the reduction in service and the implications of the increase in the number of bins.

·         To discuss concerns regarding the co-mingling of waste and contamination of waste.

·         To fully review the options available.

·         To consider how to retain public support for recycling and not lose it by scrapping weekly refuse collections.

·         To consider implications of fortnightly refuse collections on housing estates and properties in multiple occupation.

·         To consider the risk of Judicial Review. 

The Executive report is attached. The Lead Member and Lead Officer are invited to the meeting to respond to Members’ questions.

The reasons for the call-in were:-

·         To discuss concerns regarding the nature and openness of the consultation and the possibility of full consulting residents.

·         To consider the concerns of residents around the reduction in service and the implications of the increase in the number of bins.

·         To discuss concerns regarding the co-mingling of waste and contamination of waste.

·         To fully review the options available.

·         To consider how to retain public support for recycling and not lose it by scrapping weekly refuse collections.

·         To consider implications of fortnightly refuse collections on housing estates and properties in multiple occupation.

·         To consider the risk of Judicial Review. 

Members had the Executive report on the Waste collection strategy.  Elaine Henderson (Brent Friends of the Earth) was then invited by the Chair to address the committee.

Elaine Henderson began by stating that Brent Friends of the Earth had welcomed the upgraded waste collection and street cleaning contract in 2007 and initiatives such as green boxes and bins were eco friendly and encouraged collection of recyclable waste.  Elaine Henderson acknowledged that the Council needed to make savings, however she suggested that the best way to achieve this was to minimise landfill tax charges which had cost the council £9 million last year.  She commented that there had not been sufficient reference to co-mingling waste collection on the council’s website and the summary report and she felt that it was important to highlight this as it was a major change.  Elaine Henderson then referred to the recommendations from Brent Friends of the Earth circulated to Members at the meeting and stated that a co-mingling system would only increase recycling by 3% and adding glass to the collection would worsen the situation.  Members heard that Waste and Resources Action Programme (WRAP) had recommended that the dry recycling bin needed to be in region of 140-180 litres for fortnightly collections and the cost of the new bins would be approximately £1.7 million.  Elaine Henderson felt that offering more green recycling bins would be preferable.  Members heard that a company that currently bought recycled paper from the council had stated that it would not knowingly buy recycled waste from co-mingled collections and the council was at risk of losing this customer.  Other local authorities, such as Camden council, were moving away from co-mingled collections and such a system increased the risk of inappropriate materials being placed in the bins.  Under a mechanical recovery system, a lot of waste still ended up in landfill.  In addition, providing suitable instructions to residents to make the system work in Brent was complicated by English not being the first language of many and much emphasis needed to be made in educating residents of the need to recycle as well as extending the recycling service.   The same day collection had been successful and increased residents’ satisfaction by 16% and the only other London boroughs with fortnightly collections, Bexley, Harrow and Kingston, were much different in terms of demographics compared to Brent.  Elaine Henderson asked that the council re-consider its proposals and she reaffirmed Brent Friends of the Earth’s willingness to work with the council in providing alternative solutions.

Elaine Henderson then addressed the committee as a local resident. She felt that the consultation was significantly flawed, with no mention of fortnightly collections using 240 litre bins and co-mingled collections.  The language used in the consultation had been unclear, whilst the overall response to the consultation was relatively small.  For this reason, she suggested that the council’s proposals could be subject to judicial review.

In reply to the issues raised by Elaine Henderson, Councillor Powney stated that the consultation undertaken was similar to other council consultations and he felt that the consultation document had clearly explained proposals that were complex by nature.  The consultation had taken place between 31 August and 20 October and the proposals had been in the public domain since the publication of the Executive agenda for the Executive meeting on 11 August.  There had also been a number of features in the local press with regard to the proposals.  Councillor Powney advised that the proposals would not see a reduction in service but would actually be an enhancement, with capacity for recycling increased, recycling extended to flatted properties and a greater range of materials being collected for recycling.  The new proposals would enhance collection of recycled cardboard and food waste and green box users would now be able to recycle tetra packs.  Members heard that the new food bins would be smaller than the green boxes.  Councillor Powney assured the committee that where gardens were too small to accommodate additional bins, alternative arrangements would be considered. 

With regard to co-mingled collections, Councillor Powney stated that there was a risk of contamination of recycled waste irrespective of the collection method used, however those local authorities achieving high recycling rates used co-mingling collection techniques.  All options had been considered before identifying co-mingling as likely to be most effective method in increasing recycling and this had included looking at the methods used by some local authorities that had high recycling rates.  Councillor Powney confirmed that there would be weekly co-mingled collections from flatted properties and he added that the proposals would help achieve less waste going to landfill and therefore less cost to the council.  He felt that there was no basis for a judicial review with regard to the proposals.

Chris Whyte advised that the proposals were designed to considerably improve the recycling rate to 50%, whilst also providing a more cost effective service.  He advised that the vehicle fleet would need to be doubled to achieve 50% recycling rate using the current system.

During discussion by Members, Councillor Kabir welcomed some of the suggestions made by Brent Friends of the Earth and queried whether any who had responded to the consultation had cited difficulties in understanding the consultation document and commented that most residents would have sufficient understanding of English to understand the document.  Councillor H B Patel felt that the proposals had not been clearly explained at the Area Consultative Forums (ACFs) and there was a need to consult more widely.  He suggested that language issues also needed to be addressed in respect of this.  He stressed the importance in educating residents of the need to recycle and he enquired what action was being taken to address this.  He also enquired why there had been an overall reduction in total waste and was this indicative of increased recycling.  Councillor Mistry also asked what communication initiatives were being undertaken to highlight the importance of recycling to residents, especially in view of the borough’s diversity.  In noting that the proposals aimed to increase recycling rates and reduce landfill taxes, he also asked whether it was also intended to reduce the carbon footprint. 

Councillor Brown sought further details with regard to where future recycled waste would be sent to, in particular newspaper waste, stating that it presently remained in the UK and expressed concern that the carbon footprint would be increased if sold recycled materials were sent overseas by air.  He enquired about the legality of sending recycled waste to China and why the 2010 consultation survey was not as comprehensive as the one undertaken in 2007.  Councillor Brown commented that he did not think the consultation document clearly specified that alternate weekly collections were proposed, adding that he felt that the language used was not user friendly.  He enquired whether it was proposed that all recycled materials be collected through co-mingling methods.  He also referred to West Somerset local authority using kerbside collection techniques to achieve a 51% recycling rate as highlighted in the Brent Friends of the Earth written submission and he asked reasons as to why the council could not achieve such a rate through the same collection method.

The Chair enquired where the co-mingled waste would be sent to and would the recycled material be of sufficient quality for UK markets.  He asked whether there would be a need to change the paper contractor if the present one would not accept recycled waste from co-mingled collections.  Views were sought in respect of West Somerset local authority achieving a recycling rate of 51% through kerbside collections.  The Chair asked what increases in recycling could be achieved through better communication and education of residents as opposed to the proposals put forward.  He also enquired about the possibility of maintaining a kerbside collection for properties that currently received this service and offering a co-mingled collection service to flatted properties.

With regard to the consultation document, the Chair felt that the proposals had not been made sufficiently clear and contained only two questions, considerably less than the recent library consultation.  He queried why the word ‘rubbish’ had not been used in the questions and felt that the language used may not be helpful to those whose first language was not English.  The consultation had also not mentioned that some residents would be receiving additional wheelie bins, whilst it had not been implied that waste collections would be fortnightly.  In view of what he felt were major changes to the service, the Chair felt that the consultation was inadequate and may attract residents’ complaints that would be referred to the Local Government Ombudsman.  The Chair suggested that it would be appropriate to re-consult residents with a more comprehensive document clearly stating the proposals to move to fortnightly collections and co-mingling and he added that only a relatively small number had responded to the consultation.  Concern was expressed that residents may tire of being informed of another change to the service and this could affect recycling rates. The Chair sought further details with regard to proposals for flatted properties collection and what were risks of contamination from the co-mingled waste in respect of these properties.  He also enquired about the implications if the recycling target rates were not met.

In reply to the issues raised, Councillor Powney confirmed that the contractor, Veolia, owned the waste once it was collected, however it was envisaged that most of the recycled materials sold would remain in the UK.  Even if recycled waste was sent overseas, it was likely to be sent by sea.  Councillor Powney confirmed that the proposals were also designed to reduce the carbon footprint in line with the council’s objectives.  He advised that the consultation had been conducted in similar fashion to other consultation exercises and had also included presentations to all ACFs to explain a complex issue.  He stated that if the consultation was extended significantly wider than usual, there would be a need to increase resources, which was not desirable in view of the council’s financial situation.  This effect would be increased by the need to widen all other consultations.  Councillor Powney acknowledged that educating residents when changing waste collection arrangements was always necessary and he cited the example of the London Borough of Harrow which had significantly increased recycling rates since changing to fortnightly collections.  Members heard that it was not proposed to introduce a one size fits all in respect of bins and other solutions would be considered for some flatted properties as appropriate as a three bins system would not be suitable for all properties.  Councillor Powney added that the borough’s relatively transient population and language issues also needed to be taken into consideration.  He also stressed the need for the council to find £37 million savings in the next year and this needed to be considered in context in relation to waste management contract.

Councillor J Moher stated that the consultation documents could be re-assessed to see how they could be improved in future.  He emphasised the need to increase recycling from its present rate of 28% and a co-mingling collection technique had been identified as key to achieving this.  Residents needed to recycle more and this message needed to be clearly communicated to them.

Chris Whyte confirmed that the co-mingled waste would be sent to a recycling facility centre and that Veolia would sell recycled materials depending on market demands, although there was a large market for this within Europe.  Legally, there was nothing to prevent the contractor from selling recycled materials to China although this was unlikely because of market conditions.  An assessment undertaken had concluded that recycling could only be increased to 34% if a communications campaign was launched but retaining the current collection system and into the high 30% if flatted properties were added to the recycling collection service whilst a kerbside collection was maintained for properties that currently had this service.  For flatted properties, a block of flats comprising of less than eight flats would receive fortnightly collections and those with more than eight flats would receive weekly collections.  The recycling rate was presently 28%, although the figure had been higher and peaked when compulsory recycling had initially been introduced.  It was noted that between 90-95% of residents under the compulsory scheme had participated in it.  Although the majority of residents were recycling, the containers presently used were insufficient and this is why changes to bins had been proposed.  Chris Whyte confirmed that the consultation document had been sent to all residential properties in the borough and it had been included in Brent Magazine.  The proposals had attracted the interest of a wide variety of organisations, including local and London-wide newspapers and Chris Whyte felt that most residents were aware of the proposal for fortnightly collections.  Members heard that the reduction in total overall waste could be attributed to the economic downturn.  Chris Whyte advised that a communication action plan was being drawn up to inform residents of the changes to waste collection and stressing the need to recycle and extra funding had been made available for this. 

Chris Whyte advised that contamination of up to 10% would be acceptable in terms of recycled materials for co-mingled collections.  He explained that West Somerset had achieved a high recycling rate from kerbside collections because it had a far greater proportion of green waste, however Brent was limited by the number of vehicles and the size of containers for such a system and therefore had chosen the co-mingled option.  Members noted that the £1.2 million savings targeted would be at risk of not being achieved and the shortfall would be proportionate to how far below the recycling rate was from the target rate.  The current system was not an option because of rising landfill taxes.

David Pietropaoli (Waste Policy Manager, Environment and Neighbourhood Services) added than an independent review carried out on behalf of the Mayor of London had shown that those local authorities that used weekly kerbside sort collections currently achieve the lowest yield, whilst those using co-mingled fortnightly collections currently achieve the highest yields.  In order to maintain the kerbside collection to increase recycling rates, different bins for dry recycled materials would be required and the resulting additional costs and carbon footprint implications had meant this option was not feasible.  Members heard that in 2008/09, 26 of the top 30 performing councils in England for dry recycling diversion rates operate a co-mingled collection service and that eight of top ten local authorities were using co-mingled collection methods.  He indicated that the council was willing to work with organisations such as Brent Friends of the Earth and WRAP with regard to waste and recycling.  David Pietropaoli advised that presentations given to at the ACFs had explained the frequency of waste collections.  With regard to recycled materials being sold by the contractor, he advised that there was a demand for recycled cardboard in the UK and for recycled newspaper in the UK, Belgium and Germany, whilst new markets were also emerging for plastics in London.  David Pietropaoli emphasised the need to take a holistic approach to recycling, stating that in some circumstances it may be more desirable for materials that could be recycled be sent abroad rather than sending them to landfill sites in England.

Following consideration of the discussion in relation to both the Executive decisions made in respect of the Waste and street cleansing - street cleansing efficiency savings and Waste collection strategy reports, Members then agreed recommendations suggested by the Chair as outlined below.

3.1 Waste and street cleansing - street cleansing efficiency savings

3.2 Waste collection strategy

RESOLVED:-

(i)        that upon considering the reports from the Director of Environment and Neighbourhood Services on Waste street cleansing – street cleansing efficiency savings and Waste collection strategy, the decisions made by the Executive be noted;

(ii)       that in view that the total savings projected of £1.5m exceeds the target of £1.2m, the Executive be requested to re-consider the frequency of street cleaning in Zone 5 streets and the scrapping of weekly waste collections;

(iii)      that the Executive be requested to provide re-assurance that that the waste collection and recycling contractor be instructed to ensure that all recycled materials be sold within UK markets;

(iv)      that the Executive be requested to re-consider using co-mingling techniques because of concerns raised by councillors and Friends of the Earth about this method and investigate whether local authorities using kerbside collections are achieving the council’s recycling rate targets;

(v)       that the Executive be requested to agree to engage with relevant local organisations such as Brent Friends of the Earth in considering street cleansing, waste collection and recycling issues; and

(vi)      that the Executive be requested to agree to approach Plain English Campaign to undertake an independent assessment of the council’s consultation on the waste collection strategy to determine whether a re-consultation is necessary.