Agenda item

To consider an update on the Council’s Waste and Recycling service and the recently adopted re3 Waste Strategy 2018/20.

The Committee considered a report, set out at Agenda pages 17 to 54, which gave details of the Council’s plans to achieve the 50% waste and reuse target included in the 2008 EU Waste Framework Directive. The 50% target had been introduced into UK law and would remain in place following Brexit. The report stated that, at its meeting on 23 May 2018, the Committee had set out a number of questions relating to the corporate waste and recycling indicators and requested a more in-depth report on waste and recycling.

Peter Baveystock (Service Manager, Cleaner and Greener Services) and Irum Gulzar (Waste Reduction Officer) gave a presentation with responses to the earlier questions from the Committee. The report also included the re3 Strategy for 2018/20 which had been approved by the Council’s Executive at its meeting on 27 September 2018.

In relation to the earlier questions raised by the Committee the following points were raised.

What was the breakdown between residual waste sent to landfill and waste to energy?

Peter Baveystock provided the following performance data:

What were the cost implications of the measures proposed to move the Council to the 50% recycling target by 2020?

Peter Baveystock confirmed that the introduction of food waste recycling (April 2019) would add approximately 7% to WBC’s overall recycling figure (currently around 40%). In addition, the collection of pots, tubs, trays, foil and cartons (from February 2018) was expected to add 1.5% to 2%. It was also estimated that 0.5% to 1% would be generated by increasing the number of glass banks to 50 across the Borough by 2020. Finally, a further 1.5% to 2% would be generated by reducing the level of contamination in our kerbside recycling.

In terms of the financial implications of these measures, the increased revenue costs to cover an extra crew member and new vehicles would be £500k. This would be offset by the savings from diverting approximately 5,000 tonnes from landfill/energy from waste to anaerobic digestion.

Was there a net cost for the green waste service or did the service break even?

Peter Baveystock confirmed that the chargeable green waste service was a break-even service taking into account collection costs, administration costs, containers and container distribution.

Some Welsh Councils achieved recycling levels of 70%. Was this due to a more innovative approach or a different reporting system?

Irum Gulzar gave details of the strategic approach to waste and recycling adopted by the Welsh Government. The Welsh Government’s 2010 document Towards Zero Waste (TZW) was the overarching waste strategy document for Wales. Wales was the only administration in the UK to have introduced statutory local authority recovery targets for waste recycling. The Welsh Government adopted a “carrot and stick approach” with a combination of Capital funding support and penalties for non-achievement of statutory targets. It was also noted that, of the 22 Welsh local authorities, 16 had fortnightly collections, five had three weekly collections and one had a four-weekly collection.

What was the impact on recycling of the significant reduction in printed newspapers, magazines, etc.?

Peter Baveystock provided the following performance data:

Could wet material, such as newspaper, card, etc. be recycled or was it sent to landfill?

Peter Baveystock confirmed that wet materials such as paper, card, etc. could not be recycled as the fibres started to decompose. Wet materials were rejected and sent to energy from waste.

What were the cost and service implications of adding lids to the recycling black boxes?

Peter Baveystock confirmed that the cost of introducing lids for the black boxes would be around £200k. The additional costs of removal and emptying were estimated at between £250k and £500k. A more cost effective approach was a communications programme encouraging residents to store recycling under cover until collection. It was also suggested that putting the blue bags on top of the recycling boxes helped to keep the recyclate dry.

What was the current position in relation to charging for DIY waste at Longshot Lane and Smallmead?

Peter Baveystock confirmed that DIY waste was not classified as household waste and the Council’s policy was to continue to levy a charge. It was felt that this was still a much cheaper option than hiring a skip or Hippo bag.

Were there any plans to introduce the kerbside collection of glass?

Peter Baveystock confirmed that achieving a 1% improvement in glass recycling, by introducing kerbside collection, would cost around £600k to £800k per annum. Consequently, the Council’s focus was on improving performance by increasing the number of bottle banks across the Borough to 50 by 2020. Members were asked to consider potential sites for new bottle banks within their wards.

RESOLVED That:

1)     Peter Baveystock and Irum Gulzar be thanked for attending the meeting to answer Member questions;

2)     the re3 Waste Strategy for 2018/20 be noted;

3)     the Committee receive a further update on progress towards the 50% recycling target in the autumn of 2019;

4)     any suggestions for new bottle bank sites be forwarded to the Cleaner and Greener team.