Agenda item

The purpose of this report is to provide a comprehensive overview of the council’s recycling performance by waste type (food, paper and card, dry mixed recycling, Garden Waste) and service delivery.

Councillor Krupa Sheth (Cabinet Member for Public Realm & Enforcement) was invited to introduce a report providing a comprehensive overview of the council’s recycling performance by waste type (food, paper and card, dry mixed recycling, Garden Waste) and service delivery. The report provided background information on recycling performance data since the start of the contract in April 2023, which highlighted the recycling finances and improvements made including partnership and communications initiatives. The report also provided an overview of ‘Simpler Recycling’ expectations and upcoming legislative reforms over the next few years. The importance of recycling and the ongoing challenges associated with residual waste was highlighted. It was acknowledged that while progress had been made in improving recycling rates, further efforts were required to meet environmental and financial objectives. Members were reminded that recycling remained a critical priority, not only in contributing to a greener and cleaner Brent, but also in supporting broader climate objectives. It was noted that residual waste disposal continued to rise in cost, placing additional pressure on the Council’s budget.

Having thanked Councillor Krupa Sheth for introducing the report, the Chair then moved on to invite questions and comments from the Committee in relation to the Update on Recycling in Brent, with the following comments and issues discussed:

• As an initial query, members questioned why Brent and other West London boroughs were achieving recycling rates below 35%, despite estimates suggesting that up to 80% of household waste was recyclable and the Mayor of London’s target being set at 65%. In response, Chris Whyte (Director, Public Realm) advised that the primary barrier to improved recycling performance in Brent was contamination of recycling bins, particularly in communal properties. It was further explained that Brent had a higher proportion of such properties compared to neighbouring boroughs, which compounded the challenge. It was acknowledged that addressing contamination in these settings required more intensive and targeted intervention than in other areas.

• Members further queried whether the financial implications of low recycling rates had been modelled, to which Chris Whyte (Director, Public Realm) confirmed that the cost of sending residual waste to energy from waste facilities, as opposed to recycling, represented a significant financial burden for the Council. It was stated that this had been modelled and was well understood. It was additionally noted that Brent offered a comprehensive recycling service that was broadly compliant with emerging national guidance on simpler recycling. However, it was emphasised that further optimisation was needed, particularly in two key areas, namely - reducing contamination and increasing food waste recycling. It was highlighted that food waste remained the heaviest component of residual waste and that Brent’s food waste recycling service, particularly for flats, was still in the process of being expanded. Confidence was expressed that once the rollout was complete and participation increased, performance would improve significantly. Ealing Council was cited as an example of a borough with high recycling rates, largely due to a well-established and widely adopted food waste recycling service.

• Members referenced the Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) scheme and asked how Brent intended to utilise the anticipated £3.6 million in funding to improve recycling outcomes. In response, Chris Whyte (Director, Public Realm) explained that the funding could be used to support the introduction of new collection systems, equipment, and, crucially, education and engagement initiatives. It was reiterated that Brent already had a comprehensive recycling service in place, and the focus would be on optimising existing services, particularly food waste collection and reducing contamination at communal properties. It was confirmed that the funding would support a wide range of activities aimed at increasing participation and improving the quality of recyclable materials collected.

• Members raised questions around how the Council could improve public engagement to secure greater buy-in from residents for recycling initiatives. In response, Councillor Krupa Sheth (Cabinet Member for Public Realm & Enforcement) noted that recent communications campaigns had gained significant traction on social media. In continuing the response, Penny Lee (Waste & Recycling Manager) elaborated on the communications strategy, explaining that it was highly targeted. It was stated that approximately 80% of households were already recycling correctly, and therefore the Council focused its resources on in-person engagement with the remaining 20% who were not. The success of the ‘Contamination Monsters’ campaign was highlighted, which had been promoted via social media and JCDecaux boards, achieving over 20,000 views. Reference was also made to a new initiative to reduce disposable nappy waste, which included offering £50 vouchers for reusable nappies. Since its launch in April, 50 Brent parents had registered for the scheme. The campaign was supported by libraries and registrars, who distributed information to new parents. In concluding the response, Chris Whyte (Director, Public Realm) stated that while overarching messaging and branding were important, the most effective results came from highly localised and tailored interventions. Ealing Council’s ‘Bin Pal’ scheme was cited as an example of best practice, where bespoke solutions were developed for individual blocks in collaboration with residents. This approach had led to a 38-40% increase in food waste recycling in targeted locations. It was emphasised that Brent would benefit from adopting similarly localised and resident-focused strategies.

• The Chair sought clarification regarding the number of residents who had taken up the reusable nappy voucher scheme, noting that the committee report referenced 24 participants, whereas a figure of 50 had been cited during the meeting. In response, Penny Lee (Waste & Recycling Manager) confirmed that the figure of 24 reflected the position at the time the report was written. It was explained that the updated figure of 50 represented the most current data as of the date of the meeting, acknowledging a time lapse between the report’s preparation and the present update.

• Additional questions were raised around whether it was accurate to state that 80% of households were recycling correctly, with 20% contributing to contamination. In response, Penny Lee (Waste & Recycling Manager) advised that the figure was indicative rather than definitive. The Council’s contamination rate stood at approximately 20%, based on borough-wide collections. It was explained that this figure aligned with data from tagging systems and intervention outcomes. The Council had observed that certain households repeatedly contaminated recycling bins, while others responded positively to interventions such as stickers, letters, and in-person visits. However, Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMOs) and properties with shared bins remained particularly challenging due to high turnover and limited resident engagement. It was clarified that the Council’s approach was data-driven, with weekly visits targeted at properties reaching a third stage contamination threshold. While the specific households varied, the overall contamination rate had remained consistent. It was reiterated that the majority of households were compliant, which justified the Council’s targeted engagement strategy, supported by a borough-wide communications campaign.

• The Chair challenged the assertion that 80% of all households in the borough were recycling correctly, noting that not all households, particularly those in certain flats, had access to recycling services. In response, Chris Whyte (Director, Public Realm) acknowledged that while Brent had a comprehensive network of recycling services, there were gaps. It was confirmed that food waste recycling was not yet fully rolled out to all flats, and that dry recycling services were not currently available to flats located above shops, due to challenges such as access via rear alleyways. It was stated that these gaps were recognised and that work was ongoing to address them. However, it was affirmed that, aside from these exceptions, dry recycling services were broadly available to households across the borough.

• The Chair summarised that the 80% figure referred to households with access to recycling services, rather than all households in the borough. Of those with access, approximately 20% were responsible for contamination, which significantly impacted the borough’s overall recycling rate, currently around 30%. In response, Penny Lee (Waste & Recycling Manager) clarified that the earlier comments made referred specifically to dry mixed recycling, not food waste. It was noted that contamination was most prevalent in blue-lidded recycling bins, whereas food waste contamination was minimal. It was confirmed that the overall recycling rate included food waste, but the contamination data discussed related solely to dry recycling.

• Members raised concerns regarding the low levels of recycling observed across communal estates and noted that, despite the varying designs of these estates, a common issue appeared to be the poor condition and unclear labelling of communal bins. Members suggested that residents may be willing to recycle, but contamination of bins by the end of the week rendered recycling efforts ineffective and queried whether the allocated funding would be used to provide new bins, improve cleanliness, or simply apply clearer signage, and sought clarification on the measures being taken to incentivise recycling in communal blocks. In response, Penny Lee (Waste & Recycling Manager) acknowledged the issue of contamination in communal recycling and confirmed that the Council was actively seeking to improve recycling infrastructure in these areas. It was explained that high contamination levels rendered recycling financially unviable due to increased processing costs. As a result, the Council had invested in retrofitting of existing recycle bins,currently being trialled in selected locations. These bins featured reverse lids and auto-locking mechanisms, designed to prevent the disposal of entire bags of general waste and encourage proper use of the recycling aperture. It was further stated that the trial locations had been selected based on existing contamination levels, housing stock characteristics, and infrastructure suitability. Monitoring was being conducted in collaboration with Veolia, who were capturing photographic evidence and assessing the quality of recycling at the transfer station. Should the trial prove successful, the Council intended to use the available funding to expand the initiative. However, it was noted that managing agents were currently required to purchase bins from Veolia, which posed a barrier to implementation. The funding could potentially be used to overcome this barrier and improve infrastructure where most needed. Chris Whyte (Director, Public Realm) further added that the Council was exploring the creation of dedicated recycling stations, particularly within larger or more problematic estates The aim was to physically separate recycling bins from general refuse, thereby establishing compounds that residents could take pride in and utilise appropriately.

• In response to further questioning regarding the handling of cardboard, Penny Lee (Waste & Recycling Manager) clarified that the new bins were intended for mixed recycling. It was noted that, at present, paper and card were only separated at kerbside collections.

• Members then enquired about the enforcement powers available to compel housing management companies to improve recycling facilities. Additionally, the Member sought information on the timeline for rolling out recycling zones within Council-managed estates. In response, Penny Lee (Waste & Recycling Manager) acknowledged that enforcement remained a challenge due to the absence of specific legislation mandating recycling compliance. While recycling was compulsory, it was not enforceable under current central government legislation. The Council continued to work with the Housing Team to conduct compliance visits, particularly in cases where contamination was symptomatic of broader issues. These joint visits enabled a more holistic approach to resolving waste-related problems. It was confirmed that managing agents were reminded of their responsibilities under licensing terms, which required the provision of adequate waste and recycling facilities. However, it was reiterated that enforcement options were limited in the absence of legislative backing. Chris Whyte (Director, Public Realm) further mentioned that recent organisational changes had resulted in caretakers being integrated into the Public Realm team. This restructuring enabled closer collaboration between caretakers and waste officers, facilitating more effective resolution of bin store issues and fly-tipping. The integration aimed to harmonise operations and improve service delivery across estates.

• Members sought clarification on whether there was any meaningful attempt to send recycling materials from communal estates to processing facilities, expressing concern that such efforts may be lacking. In response, Penny Lee (Waste & Recycling Manager) confirmed that communal recycling had been separated from kerbside collections following a service change, as its inclusion had previously diminished the overall quality of recycling. It was reported that kerbside recycling had since improved significantly, with a notable reduction in rejected loads due to contamination. The rebate received for recycling had increased year-on-year from 2023-24 to 2024-25, reflecting improved financial outcomes. It was explained that communal recycling remained problematic, with a recent waste composition analysis revealing contamination levels of approximately 34%. This exceeded the recycling processor’s acceptance threshold of 20%, resulting in rejected loads and higher disposal costs. Consequently, the Council had adopted a targeted approach, assessing communal rounds individually. Veolia provided photographic monitoring, and a camera installed at the transfer station enabled the identification of cleaner rounds. Selected rounds were then permitted to proceed as recycling, contingent upon infrastructure improvements to reduce contamination. Chris Whyte (Director, Public Realm) emphasised the importance of addressing the reprocessing stage of the waste journey and noted that solutions were being explored to enable processors to accept more mixed waste and extract greater value, thereby reducing reliance on resident behaviour and placing greater responsibility on the processing system. In concluding the response, Penny Lee (Waste & Recycling Manager) highlighted that discussions were ongoing with the recycling processor regarding a tiered approach for heavily contaminated materials. Richmond Council was cited as an example of a borough operating its own mini recycling facility, allowing for pre-sorting prior to delivery to the main processor. However, it was noted that Brent currently lacked the infrastructure, resources, and financial capacity to implement a similar system. It was acknowledged that shared bins and limited resident accountability posed challenges across London.

• Members requested data on the proportion of communal versus kerbside recycling within the borough. The response confirmed that communal recycling accounted for approximately 200-300 tonnes per month, whereas kerbside recycling ranged between 1000 and 1200 tonnes per month.

• Further questions were raised around whether contaminated waste was being sent directly to incineration, to which Penny Lee (Waste & Recycling Manager) explained that contaminated communal recycling was treated as general waste. If such waste were sent to the recycling processor and subsequently rejected, the Council would incur dual handling fees and higher disposal costs. Therefore, it was more cost-effective to send known contaminated loads directly to general waste. At present, 2-3 communal rounds were consistently processed as recycling, with others assessed on a rolling basis.

• Members were keen to seek details around whether the Council had explored the cost of establishing its own mini recycling facility, similar to Richmond Council’s, and if this could be funded through the anticipated £3.6 million from the Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) system. In response, Chris Whyte (Director, Public Realm) advised that Richmond operated a dedicated facility for sorting waste prior to processing and noted that replicating such a model in Brent would likely exceed the funding available through EPR and would require a suitable physical footprint, which was currently scarce within the borough. It was suggested that a more feasible approach might involve collaboration with neighbouring boroughs, such as through the West London Waste Alliance, to develop shared infrastructure.

• Following up, members questioned whether such collaborative arrangements were currently being explored and how the EPR funds were expected to be allocated. In response, Chris Whyte (Director, Public Realm) stated that no formal programme or schedule of works had yet been developed. The need for expert input and coordinated discussions with other boroughs was emphasised to ensure alignment in processing arrangements and strategic ambition. It was indicated that the next 12 months would be critical in shaping the project and determining how the EPR funding would be utilised.

• Members expressed concern regarding the borough’s recycling rate, noting that a rate of approximately 30% was insufficient in light of the financial implications associated with the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) and suggested that the Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) funding could be utilised to support strategic interventions, including the formation of partnerships and pilot schemes, particularly targeting food waste and communal properties. It was queried whether this approach aligned with the Council’s broader strategic thinking. In response, Chris Whyte (Director, Public Realm) affirmed the importance of developing locally relevant collection solutions while ensuring alignment with regional reprocessing arrangements. It was emphasised that Brent’s interventions must be targeted and context-specific, but also compatible with the wider West London Waste Authority infrastructure. It was noted that the challenge extended beyond Brent’s boundaries and required coordinated efforts across the sub-region to ensure consistency between collection and reprocessing systems.

• Clarification was then sought regarding the definition of contamination within the recycling process. In response, Penny Lee (Waste & Recycling Manager) elucidated that contamination was categorised into two types: prohibited and objectionable. Prohibited items included materials that could not be recycled under any circumstances, such as food waste, nappies, black bin bags, and textiles. Objectionable items, such as soft plastics and coloured carrier bags, were sometimes recyclable depending on market conditions and processor capabilities. It was noted that contamination thresholds were determined by weight, with food waste and textiles being particularly problematic due to their density. Black bin bags, while visually prominent, were lighter and therefore less impactful in weight-based assessments. It was highlighted that soft plastics were expected to be collected and recycled by 2027 under government legislation, despite the absence of a viable market. This issue had been raised by numerous local authorities through representative bodies.

• Details were also sought on whether all types of plastic bags were considered contaminants, to which Penny Lee (Waste & Recycling Manager) clarified that black bin bags were classified as prohibited, while coloured or clear carrier bags were deemed objectionable. The recycling processor’s sampling methodology differentiated between these categories, but the Council’s public messaging remained consistent that no plastic bags should be placed in recycling bins.

• Members enquired about the status of the national deposit return scheme and whether the Council could engage in lobbying to expedite its implementation. Additionally, suggestions were made around lobbying for increased charges on disposable black bin bags to discourage their use. In response, Penny Lee (Waste & Recycling Manager) reported that the deposit return scheme was currently scheduled for implementation in October 2028, according to the latest update from central government. It was noted that while the scheme could improve recycling rates, it might also reduce the volume of recyclables collected at Council facilities, potentially resulting in financial drawbacks. Chris Whyte (Director, Public Realm) additionally outlined key forthcoming milestones in waste policy, including the implementation of EPR in 2026, mandatory collection of plastic films and soft plastics in 2027, the launch of the deposit return scheme in 2028 and the introduction of the Emissions Trading Scheme post-2028, which would impose charges on waste streams with carbon content.

• Members queried what measures Brent was taking to discourage retailers from distributing free plastic bags. In response, Alice Lester (Corporate Director, Neighbourhoods & Regeneration) opined that smaller retailers, such as corner shops, were exempt from the requirement to charge for plastic bags. However, she agreed to verify the legislative details.

• Reference was made to paragraph 5.1 of the committee report, with members noting that year-on-year comparisons of recycling tonnages failed to account for the increase in the number of households. Requests were therefore made for a more meaningful benchmark to assess performance. In response, Chris Whyte (Director, Public Realm) concurred that tonnage alone was not a sufficient metric and emphasised that the recycling rat, defined as the proportion of total waste sent for recycling, was a more accurate measure of performance. It was suggested that metrics such as kilograms of waste per household per year would provide a clearer picture of trends and efficiency, particularly in light of population growth and increased housing stock.

• Members reflected on the implementation of the blue bag recycling system, noting that the first year had been challenging, followed by marked improvement in the second year. Members recalled that the projected revenue for the third year was £1 million and queried whether this forecast remained accurate. In response, Chris Whyte (Director, Public Realm) acknowledged that the introduction of the blue bag system had initially resulted in a decline in performance, primarily due to service disruption and widespread resistance to the change. However, it was reported that subsequent improvements had been achieved across four key indicators- namely, increased volume of recyclable material collected via the blue bag system, reduction in contamination levels, decrease in processing costs and growth in revenue generated from high-quality recyclables. It was confirmed that the system had experienced a temporary setback but had since demonstrated sustained improvement. The importance of maintaining and further enhancing this progress was also emphasised.

• As a point of clarification, members requested further details regarding the interpretation of a previous recommendation, noting that their appeared to be differing understandings of the recommendation. In response, the Chair clarified that the original recommendation had been for the relevant department to explore both the financial costs and potential benefits of offering a bin-based recycling option, as an alternative to the bag system. This would be made available to residents on an opt-in basis in specific areas of the borough. The recommendation also included the proposal to consider a trial of this alternative approach. Chris Whyte (Director, Public Realm) further clarified that the recommendation had been thoroughly considered at a previous scrutiny meeting, and a commitment had been made to explore its feasibility. However, several factors subsequently rendered the proposal unviable, such as that Veolia had advised that the bin-based system could not be implemented in a manner consistent with the Council’s preferences; the use of bins was likely to result in increased contamination, posing a number of challenges; and the level of resident interest in a bin-based system had not been tested.

• The Chair requested data on the percentage of flats in the borough currently provided with access to food waste caddies. In response, Penny Lee (Waste & Recycling Manager) reported that all kerbside flats had access to food waste recycling and could order caddies free of charge. The Council actively promoted this service to households not currently participating. For blocks of flats, 25% had received indoor caddies with a roll of liners, alongside communal food waste bins. Additional blocks had received communal bins only, and the rollout of caddies was ongoing. Following on from the previous question the Chair asked when the rollout would reach full coverage, to which Penny Lee confirmed that the target date for achieving 100% coverage of communal flats with food waste caddies was March 2026.

• As a final point, the Chair enquired about the percentage of flats with access to basic recycling provisions, such as clear plastic recycling bags, even in the absence of full bin infrastructure. In response, Penny Lee (Waste & Recycling Manager) explained that clear plastic recycling bags were provided exclusively to flats located above shops. These residents could order bags online free of charge or collect them from local libraries. The Council also distributed bags directly to encourage usage. For blocks of flats, mixed recycling was facilitated through communal bins. All blocks were expected to have access to these bins, and where deficiencies were identified, the Council engaged with managing agents to ensure provision. Brent housing estates were monitored in collaboration with the Housing Team to maintain consistent access to recycling facilities.

In seeking to bring consideration of the item to a close, the Chair thanked officers and members for their contributions towards scrutiny of Recycling in Brent. As a result of the outcome of the discussion, the following recommendations to Cabinet, suggestions for improvement, and information requests identified were AGREED:

CABINET RECOMMENDATIONS:

(1)  To lobby central government for legislation to restrict the distribution of single-use plastic bags by businesses and promote recyclable alternatives as the standard where feasible. This recommendation focuses on discouraging businesses from providing plastic bags to customers and encouraging the use of recyclable alternatives, such as paper bags.

SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT:

(1)  Deliver a member briefing session on the council’s recycling initiatives, outlining current efforts and opportunities for members to support promotion to constituents.

(2)  Strengthen collaboration between recycling, housing management, and regeneration teams to improve the robustness and accessibility of waste and recycling infrastructure in new builds and estate upgrades.

(3)  Strengthen outreach and boost engagement with young people to increase awareness and participation in recycling initiatives.

(4)  Enhance and diversify communication efforts, and strengthen collaboration with local partners to raise awareness about nappy disposal and recycling options.

(5)  Strengthen enforcement to ensure council waste and recycling requirements are consistently upheld across housing association premises.

(6)  Explore the provision of a more robust alternative to the compostable caddy liners currently supplied to residents as part of the food waste recycling service.

INFORMATION REQUESTS

(1)  Provide an analysis of the effectiveness of current initiatives aimed at reducing textile contamination in recycling, including any lessons learned and adaptations to the approach that have been made to improve efforts.

(2)  Provide data on the extent to which exempt households contribute to the average monthly 14–18% of paper and card incorrectly placed in blue-lidded recycling bins instead of blue sacks.

(3)  Provide a detailed breakdown of recycling contamination specifically attributed to garden waste over the last year (2024/25).

Please note that the specific wording of the recommendations, suggestions for improvement and information requests was subject to refinement following the meeting, with the agreement of the Chair.