Agenda and minutes

Agenda and minutes

Venue: Virtual Meeting - Zoom. View directions

Note: This is a public meeting and can be viewed by clicking on the media link below (you may need to use Chrome as a browser to do so). Consideration of any exempt (confidential) items will not be part of the public meeting. 

Media

Items
No. Item

8.

Disclosures of Pecuniary and Personal Interests

Minutes:

No disclosures were made.

9.

Declarations - The Party Whip

Minutes:

No declarations were made.

10.

Minutes of the Previous Meeting pdf icon PDF 290 KB

To approve the minutes of the previous meeting.

Minutes:

The minutes of the meeting held on 9th November 2021 were confirmed as a correct record.

11.

Questions under Scrutiny Committee Procedure 11.16

Minutes:

No questions had been submitted.

12.

Local Authorities Considered To Be Leaders in Waste Management pdf icon PDF 46 KB

In accordance with the scrutiny scope document, to investigate other local authorities considered to be leaders in waste management and look at ways to apply to Charnwood, taking into account demographics.

 

Presentation of the Head of Cleansing and Open Spaces.

Minutes:

In accordance with the scrutiny scope document (key tasks), considered and discussed, other local authorities considered to be leaders in waste management and ways to apply to Charnwood, taking into account demographics, via a presentation of the Head of Cleansing and Open Spaces.

 

Key points of discussion:

 

(i)        Presentation set out top 5 performing authorities 2020-21 (England), percentage recycled, collection methods, whether weekly food waste collection, whether garden waste collection and any charge.  Head of Cleansing and Open Spaces proposed to provide further information to next meeting on performance of audit family of authorities like Charnwood.

(ii)       Noted, none of top 5 were hitting 65% recycling target proposed by Environment Bill, although some close.  Authorities ranked 2 and 4 had shared service element, and authorities ranked 1 and 3 located next to each other.

(iii)      Noted, all top 5 had weekly food waste collection, all had charged for garden waste collection, all had comingled collection (top performer separated paper/card).  Environment Bill was proposing separate not comingled collection of recyclables.  Expected that top performers might provide free garden waste collection, not the case, all charging at approximately median price.  Would be interesting to know if lowest performing authorities were more likely to require separation/sorting of recycling by residents, noted that authorities with lower recycling tended to be urban, city. 

(iv)    Noted, authority ranked 3 collected recycling weekly, residual waste fortnightly, gave an importance to the recycling element.  Size of that district (area/population) not known, would need to investigate.

(v)     View that Charnwood garden waste collection service excellent, good value.  Also, collection of food waste might reduce contamination of recycling.

(vi)    What was preventing Charnwood from achieving performance at this level?  Multiple factors. No food waste collection (approximately 40% of residual waste was food).  Top 5 all appeared to be more affluent, leafy, larger properties, bigger gardens, therefore more garden waste.  Charnwood not super urban, but also not very green/affluent.

(vii)   Reason Environment Bill proposed separate collection of recyclables, prevention of fragments of glass causing problems for paper mills.  Charnwood’s current fleet single compartment so difficult to separate, cost of changing diminished as fleet got older.

(viii)  More specific information would be useful, characteristics of areas concerned, percentage of recycling total that was food waste.  Latter might illustrate how much Charnwood could improve recycling performance by collecting food waste.  In response, thought that data available was material sent for composting/anaerobic digestion combined (garden and food waste).  Development of draft Leicestershire Waste and Recycling Strategy had involved high level modelling of options, all included food waste collection as Government likely to mandate in 2024 or 2025, provided prediction of recycling rates likely to be achieved. Strategy programmed for consideration by Panel at next meeting.

(ix)    Potential cost of implementing food waste collection, or a trial of? In response, had been cost analysis done with other Leicestershire authorities approximately 5 years ago, now old information.  Head of Cleansing and Open Spaces estimated the cost of food waste collection with residual waste collection continuing fortnightly  ...  view the full minutes text for item 12.

13.

New Research, Technology and Methods That Could Help Improve Recycling Rates pdf icon PDF 256 KB

In accordance with the scrutiny scope document, to investigate new research,

technology and methods that could help improve recycling rates.

 

Proposals/suggestions from members of the Panel attached for discussion.

Minutes:

In accordance with the scrutiny scope document (key tasks), considered and discussed, new research, technology and methods that could help improve recycling rates, via proposals/suggestions from members of the Panel (item 7 on the agenda details these).

 

Key points of discussion:

 

(i)        Suggestion - take part in/promote campaign to prevent contamination of recycling by nappies.  Head of Cleansing and Open Spaces noted, could get more involved/look into that (also County Council work to promote reusable nappies, waste minimisation campaigns).  Possibility of promoting campaign on side of fleet and via social media. Nappies could be large proportion of residual waste for some families, also significant contaminant in recycling bins.   

(ii)       Suggestion – visual display of waste items and what bin they go in.  View that good visual, easy to understand, no language barrier.  Head of Cleansing and Open Spaces suggested good for street bins in key locations, could look at cost.  Currently looking at trial of compaction street bins, less frequent emptying, indicated when needed to be, positive carbon impact.  Noted, panel may wish to recommend trial of suggested visual display bin, prevention of contamination of recycling in street bins.  Noted, anticipated less recycling in street bins once deposit return schemes introduced, also less littering.  Visual display could be more useful to educate/inform than a paper leaflet, help use of correct bin both out and at home.  Also, increase awareness of what could be recycled in Borough.     

(iii)      Suggestion – publicity.  Importance recognised.  Key messages, effective methods.  Did not wish to add to waste in doing so.  Understanding psychology of what persuaded different people to participate.  Possible use of fleet lorries and social media channels already highlighted.  Information events, videos, competitions, work with schools particularly important.  Suggested that a recommendation of the panel could be that resources were committed to produce effective strategy around increasing recycling and reducing residual waste.  Contract with Serco provided £10k per annum for communications and some staff time could be allocated from Head of Cleansing and Open Spaces team.  Noted, had been in business continuity mode over past couple of years, hoped to focus more on communications moving forward.  Recognised, challenging environment over past couple of years, how hard Council and Serco staff had worked in that time.  Suggested, Borough wide schools recycling challenge.  Example given of zero residual waste challenge. Developing communications was supported.  

(iv)    Suggestion – scrap store and library of things.  Reduced residual waste and consumption, could also be more affordable.  Head of Cleansing and Open Spaces advised both would require partnership with suitable organisation in social/voluntary sector to progress.  Possible partners discussed, initial enquires could be made, Councillor Ward could do so with Transitions and Men/Women in Sheds, Councillor Forrest could do so with John Storer House.  Noted, investigating only at this stage, to assist the panel with any recommendations it might wish to include in its report.  Reference to repair shops (previously run by Transitions, Fearon Hall, similar group in Leicester City referenced by Councillor Needham, Leicester Hackspace, she could pass  ...  view the full minutes text for item 13.

14.

Further Panel Meetings and Key Task Planning pdf icon PDF 152 KB

To schedule the key tasks in the scrutiny scope document to be considered at the next meeting of the Panel and to consider any work members of the Panel will undertake in advance of that meeting.

 

The scrutiny scope document, updated following the last Panel meeting, is attached.

 

To include a verbal update on the invitation to Jane Hunt, MP to attend a meeting of the Panel.

 

Further scheduled meetings of the Panel are as follows (at 6.00pm):

 

15th March 2022

26th April 2022 (final meeting to agree Panel’s recommendations and report)

Minutes:

Considered and discussed, the key tasks in the scrutiny scope document to be considered at the next meeting of the Panel and any work members of the Panel would undertake in advance of that meeting.

 

A verbal update was given on the invitation to Jane Hunt, MP to attend a meeting of the Panel.  Panel had requested having been advised that she was a member of a Government Waste Management Panel, wished to discuss concerns regarding Environment Bill, particularly cost implications to Council.  Jane Hunt, MP had responded, she was not a member of such a panel, but was happy to attend if that would assist.  Panel asked to consider if still wished Jane Hunt, MP to attend meeting.

 

AGREED

 

1.      Key tasks to be considered at next Panel meeting on 15th March 2022 (in addition to those agreed earlier in meeting):

 

         Draft Leicestershire Resources and Waste Strategy” - via presentation of the Head of Cleansing and Open Spaces.  Presentation to be emailed to panel members as soon as possible so that they could consider in advance of meeting.  Panel advised to look at 11 pledges in the Strategy and the collection options appraisal.  Noted, Panel may wish to submit written response to consultation on Strategy.  

 

2.      A further meeting of the Panel be scheduled to follow the last meeting currently scheduled in April.  A panel meeting in December 2021 had been cancelled and the further meeting was needed to ensure the work set out in scrutiny scope document was completed, including engagement with residents/Serco.

 

3.      Democratic Services Officer (LS) to meet with Chair and Head of Cleansing and Open Spaces following meeting to provisionally schedule remaining key tasks and engagement work by the Panel into remaining meetings, for agreement at next meeting.

 

4.      Head of Cleansing and Open Spaces to arrange date for visit to Casepak Materials Recycling Facility as soon as possible, recommended to panel members if able to attend.

 

5.      Engaging with Members of Parliament was best way of ensuring concerns heard by Government.  This could be achieved by way of written submission setting out Panel’s concerns and would enable remaining meetings to focus on other work still to be done. Therefore, no need for Jane Hunt, MP to attend panel meeting.

 

6.      Further scheduled meetings of the Panel, as set out on the agenda, be noted.