Agenda item

To scrutinise draft proposals for changes to the waste collection service.

The Committee considered a report on proposed changes to the Waste Collection Service, set out at Agenda pages 13 to 26. The Committee also received two supplementary presentations providing more detail on specific issues raised by Members prior to the meeting.

 

Ian Shenton (Executive Member for Environment, Sport and Leisure) attended the meeting supported by officers – Rebecca Bird, Richard Bisset, Oliver Burt (re3), Simon Dale, Fran Hobson and Emma Tilbrook (Eunomia).

 

Ian Shenton introduced the item, referring to the aims of the proposed changes – driving forward its commitment to waste minimisation, diversion, recycling and carbon reduction whilst helping to tackle the financial challenges facing the Council.

 

The report gave details of the proposal for the Council to move from its current arrangements of weekly refuse and recycling collections to an Alternate Weekly Waste (AWC) collection model for the Borough. The proposal was in line with WBC’s environmental and climate commitments as a move to AWC would encourage residents to dispose of recyclable material more effectively as well as minimising overall waste generation. In summary, the proposal was that WBC would:

 

·           move to a fortnightly collection of refuse in wheeled bins, ceasing the supply of blue bags;

·           move to a fortnightly collection of dry recycling using the existing green reusable sacks, already available to residents;

·           maintain the existing weekly food recycling collections and the paid-for garden waste collections.

 

The proposed changes would apply to kerbside properties only. Other arrangements would be put in place for flats and those properties without access to kerbside collection.

 

The report stated that, across England, many councils had been running AWC’s for over 25 years. Nearly 80% of English councils already carried out AWC collections to boost recycling and restrict the amount of refuse produced. Neighbouring councils, Bracknell Forest and Reading moved to AWC some time ago. Bracknell Forest changed in 2007, increasing their recycling rate by 13% per annum. Reading changed in 2006, increasing their recycling rate by 10% per annum. Bracknell Forest had subsequently moved to three weekly collections.

 

The future of the Council’s waste collection service had been considered initially by a cross-party working group. The working group had commissioned work on potential options from specialist organisations – WRAP and Eumonia. The modelling work had reduced an initial 12 options down to four. Two options were then subject to public consultation. The report stated that the two options would deliver savings and environmental improvements within the constraints of the existing waste collection contract. Option 1 would implement AWC for refuse and mixed dry recycling. Option 2 would implement three weekly collection of refuse with fortnightly collections for mixed dry recycling.

 

As a result of the modelling, benchmarking and two consultation exercises, the proposal was for Option 1, which would be submitted to the Executive in March 2023. The benefits of moving to AWC were summarised as:

 

·           Savings upwards of circa £0.5m in 2024/25 rising to circa £1.5m in 2025/26;

·           An increased recycling rate of circa 64%, up from 54% currently;

·           A carbon saving of 2,400t CO2 per annum – from reduced waste disposal, transport and fuel.

 

Officers gave details of the two consultation exercises used to inform the development of the proposed service changes. In October 2021, an initial consultation was launched to gain residents’ high-level views on waste collection and recycling in the Borough. A more detailed consultation then followed between October and December 2022. The second consultation sought residents’ views on the two final options outlined in the report. The key findings of the second consultation were:

 

·           74% of respondents liked, could accept or were neutral about fortnightly, refuse and recycling collections;

 

·           30% of respondents liked, could accept or were neutral about three weekly refuse and recycling collections;

 

·           78% of respondents liked, could accept or were neutral about wheeled bins for general rubbish.

 

Officers also confirmed that a full Equality Impact Assessment had been carried out in relation to the proposed changes. As a result, mitigations had been introduced for specific groups. For example, larger households would receive a larger wheeled bin and the assisted collection service would continue for residents who could not bring containers to the edge of the property.

 

In the ensuing discussion, Members raised the following points:

 

If wheeled bins were being introduced for refuse, why were they not being introduced for recycling as well? It was confirmed that the Government’s position was not clear on the separation of recycling at the moment, so it was proposed to retaining the existing green sacks until the Government’s position became clearer.

 

Operationally, would the proposed new arrangements be cheaper for Veolia? It was confirmed that contract efficiencies totalling £290k were included in the proposals (realised from 2025/26). The waste contract was due to be re-let in 2026. This would be a separate process. Discussions had already been held with Veolia about the proposed AWC arrangements. Negotiations about changes to the Waste contract, to reflect the new arrangements, had not yet commenced.

 

The cost of implementing the proposed option was estimated at £1.995m (funded from the Waste Equilisation Fund). Was there an additional cost to the Council in terms of lost interest on this money? Officers confirmed that there would be a loss of interest earned estimated at circa £300k over a 13 year period.

 

Why was it proposed to start buying the new bins in 2023 – there would be additional costs re storage, etc.? It was confirmed that the procurement process would start in 2023, with a long lead in time. The bins would be delivered in batches. Work was ongoing to identify potential storage/security options within the Council’s own facilities in order to minimise any additional costs.

 

A key element of the proposed savings was behaviour change amongst residents. What evidence was there that the suggested 10% increase in recycling could be achieved? Officers commented that the projected increase was based on the experience of other councils. Benchmarking had taken place using similar councils to WBC who had implemented a similar change. The proposed service changes would be highlighted in an extensive communications campaign across the Borough. It was likely that Government targets for recycling would increase, so it was important that the Council made progress on this issue.

 

The consultation information indicated that there were three under-represented groups. Did the Council hear the views of all sections of the community? It was confirmed that a postcard with details of the proposals was sent to every household in the Borough. A wide range of communication tools was used including social media and contact with specific community groups. It was suggested that a demographic analysis of the consultation responses be circulated to Members. It was also suggested that the communications plan supporting the new arrangements include the provision of information for people moving into the Borough – perhaps via the new WBC website.

 

Was the collection of glass a specific issue which needed to be addressed in the new arrangements? It was confirmed that the current arrangements worked well – residents were able and willing to use the Bring Banks. Collecting glass from the kerbside would have a significant financial impact.

 

In relation to the cross-party working group, what were the full range of options explored before the final two options were identified? Officers confirmed that there were originally 12 options which were assessed in terms of savings delivered, environmental benefits and carbon reductions. There was also an analysis of the “future proofing” of the service in relation to potential changes of Government policy and recycling targets. It was suggested that details of the original 12 options be circulated to Members for information.

 

If the new arrangements were approved and implemented, how would the impacts and savings be measured, monitored and reported? Officers commented that there were currently two KPIs which were reported as part of the quarterly performance reporting to the Overview and Scrutiny Committees and the Executive. Further KPIs could be developed in order to measure specific aspects of the service. Progress would also be reported to this Committee as required by Members.

 

The report stated that the new arrangements would apply to properties with access to the kerbside. Of the 64,000 kerbside properties in the Borough, around 99% could accommodate a wheeled bin. Survey work would identify the actual number of properties that could not accommodate wheeled bins. It was suggested that details of the modelling be circulated to inform Members on the increased recycling performance required from kerbside properties to compensate for the properties which did not adopt the new arrangements. It was noted that specific measures would be introduced for residents in flats, such as the use of recycling champions and targeted campaigns for individual blocks.

 

In 2022, an increased target for food recycling was announced in order to save £350k. This was to be supported by a communications campaign. How successful had the campaign been and was there data available to demonstrate the increased levels of food recycling? It was suggested that evidence be circulated to Members to confirm the increased levels of food recycling and the impact of the communications campaign.

 

There was concern that the financial data in the Overview and Scrutiny report was not consistent with the data submitted to the Budget Council meeting on 16 February 2023. For example there was a difference of £200k in the assumed savings for 2024/25. There was also a difference in the residual amount of the Waste Equalisation Reserve following the proposed changes and a difference in the waste disposal costs set out in the Medium Term Financial Plan. It was confirmed that the report to the Executive in March 2023 would contain accurate data on costs and savings and would be consistent with the Medium Term Financial Plan.

 

The report stated that the proposed new arrangements would deliver a carbon saving of 2,400t CO2. How was this carbon saving calculated? Officers confirmed that the carbon saving was made up of reduced levels of waste disposal, transport and fuel costs. The projected carbon saving had been agreed with the Council’s Climate Emergency officer team. It was suggested that a detailed breakdown of the carbon saving be circulated to Members and included in the report to the Executive.

 

It was confirmed that the report being considered by the Management Committee would form the basis of the report being submitted to the Executive in March 2023. Consequently the Recommendations box contained two sets of recommendations, one recommendation for the Management Committee and three recommendations for the Executive. The section headed “Recommendations to the Executive” did not apply to the Management Committee. The Management Committee was not being asked to recommend approval of the proposed changes set out in the report. 

 

It was proposed by Pauline Jorgensen and seconded by Jim Frewin that a summary of the Committee’s discussion be submitted to the Executive, alongside the officer report, together with the additional information and/or clarification requested by Members at the meeting.

 

Upon being put to the vote, the proposal was agreed.

 

RESOLVED That:

 

1)     Ian Shenton and the relevant officers be thanked for attending the meeting to give the presentation and answer Member questions;

 

2)     a summary of the Committee’s discussion be submitted to the Executive at its March 2023 meeting in order to inform its consideration and decisions on the proposed changes to the waste collection service;

 

3)     the Executive also receive copies of the additional information requested by the Committee, viz:

 

·           the full Equality Impact Assessment;

·           a demographic analysis of the consultation responses;

·           details of the original 12 waste options reported to the cross-party working group;

·           details of the modelling on the increased volumes from kerbside properties required to compensate for the flats and other properties not adopting the new arrangements;

·           data showing the increased levels of food recycling in 2022/23 against targets and an assessment of the impact of the underpinning communications campaign;

·           confirmation that the costs and savings included in the Executive report are consistent with the costs and savings in the Medium Term Financial Plan;

·           a breakdown of the reported 2,400t CO2 saving arising from the proposed new waste collection arrangements.