Agenda and minutes

Agenda and minutes

Venue: Virtual Meeting - Zoom. View directions

Note: This meeting was originally scheduled for 26 April 2022. 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

23.

Disclosures of Pecuniary and Personal Interests

Minutes:

No disclosures were made.

24.

Declarations - The Party Whip

Minutes:

No declarations were made.

25.

Minutes of the Previous Meeting pdf icon PDF 192 KB

Minutes:

The minutes of the meeting held on 31st March 2022 were confirmed as a correct record.

26.

Questions under Scrutiny Committee Procedure 11.16

Minutes:

No questions had been submitted.

27.

Identify Barriers and Look At Ways to Overcome Them pdf icon PDF 2 MB

In accordance with the scrutiny scope document, to identify barriers and look at ways to overcome them (recycling).

 

Engagement with stakeholders on this issue, including reporting back on any engagement undertaken informally prior to this meeting.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

In accordance with the scrutiny scope document (key tasks), considered and discussed, identify barriers and look at ways to overcome them (recycling), via input from J. McGovern of Serco (Council’s waste collection contractor) and presentation of the Head of Cleansing and Open Spaces setting out information on Rejected Loads/breakdown of materials in recycling bin including contaminants.

 

Noted that J. Ardley, Community Warden, Loughborough University had also been due to attend the meeting to assist Panel’s consideration of this key task, but had sent an apology.

 

Key points of discussion:

 

(i)        Input from J. McGovern – 3 rounds were of concern in terms of contamination of recycling loads, all in Loughborough and collected on a Thursday (confirmed later in discussion as rounds 1, 5 and 6).  Individual bins with obvious contamination were left and marked with rejection hanger (identifying the non-recyclables to the householder).  Only a cursory inspection (by lifting the lid to view) was possible by operatives (for health and safety reasons) so some contaminated bins did get emptied.  A load need only be contaminated by a certain percentage for it to be rejected at the recycling processing facility. Suggested that focus should be on those rounds, barriers preventing correct recycling in those locations (improve rates and reduce contaminants).  Area characteristics included communal bins (flats), houses in multiple occupation (HMO), student areas.  Was about education/awareness, hoped that residents would wish to recycle for environment, open to all ideas. Reference to video of recycling facility used (Casepak), useful to have link to it on Council website so residents could see what happened to their recycling/assist in knowledge of what could go in green bin? No black plastic.  Reference to need to work with University in respect of student areas.      

(ii)       Question, what percentage of loads were rejected?  In response, quite rare for whole load to be rejected, none last 12 months.  More often necessary to reject part load as facility would separate contaminated part when tipped, if possible. Rounds 1, 5 and 6 where whole loads had been rejected in past.  Shown on screen by Head of Cleansing and Open Spaces, maps of areas those rounds covered.  Round 1 adjacent Loughborough Railway Station, streets listed; Round 6 town centre areas off Ashby Road, Loughborough, streets listed; Round 5 areas off Queens Road, Loughborough, streets listed.       

(iii)      Appeared that two of above areas were largely residential with significant number of flats, one largely HMOs.  Therefore, two distinct barriers, flats and communal bin stores and HMOs where 4 or 5 individuals sharing bins. Round 5 also largely terraced housing, limited space, bins on pavements.

(iv)    Question, had J. McGovern spoken with operatives on rounds re: ideas in respect of problem?  In response, yes, bins rejected for food waste, particularly takeaway food left on packaging, also disposable nappies.  Confusion as sometimes recycling logo on packaging.  Operatives were vigilant, didn’t wish to reject a bin for trivial reason.  Reference to in cab technology being in use, individual address and reason for  ...  view the full minutes text for item 27.

28.

Completion of Scrutiny Scope Document and Final Panel Meeting pdf icon PDF 106 KB

The scrutiny scope document, updated following the last Panel meeting, is attached. To consider, following the work undertaken at this meeting, whether the tasks set out have all been completed.

 

To note the final scheduled meeting of the Panel (to agree the Panel’s recommendations and report) as follows:

 

14th June 2022 at 6pm.  This will be a physical meeting, venue to be confirmed.

Minutes:

The Chair stated that the next meeting of the Panel on 20th June 2022 would no longer be its final meeting, it would be for the purpose of completing the above key task, as outlined.  A final Panel meeting had been scheduled for 27th July 2022, to agree the Panel’s report.

 

AGREED

 

That the further scheduled Panel meetings and their purpose be noted.