Agenda and minutes

No disclosures were made.

No declarations were made.

To approve the minutes of the previous meeting.

The minutes of the meeting held on 2nd February 2022 were confirmed as a correct record.

The deadline for questions is noon on Wednesday, 23rd March 2022.

No questions had been submitted.

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.

Key task commenced at Panel meeting on 2nd February 2022 (top 5 performing authorities 2020-21 (England) considered). To be completed at this meeting via further presentation of the Head of Cleansing and Open Spaces to provide information on performance of audit family of authorities like Charnwood, noting also (i) query as to whether lowest performing authorities were more likely to require separation/sorting of recycling by residents and (ii) useful to know characteristics of areas.

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.

Consideration of this key task had been commenced at Panel meeting on 2nd February 2022 (top 5 performing authorities 2020-21 (England) considered).  To be completed at this meeting via further presentation of the Head of Cleansing and Open Spaces to provide information on performance of audit family of authorities like Charnwood, noting also (i) query as to whether lowest performing authorities were more likely to require separation/sorting of recycling by residents and (ii) useful to know characteristics of areas.

Key points of discussion:

(i)        Noted, presentation set out top 5 and bottom 5 performing authorities for recycling 2021 (East Midlands) because Government database no longer enabled audit family comparison. Had looked at collection authorities only, ie. borough/district.  Top performer recycled 63.5%, bottom 25.4%.  Charnwood at 43.5%. Top performer (South Northamptonshire) close to hitting proposed Government target 65% by 2035.  Had food waste collection, co-mingled recycling and free garden waste collection.  Planned to charge for latter from April 2022, would be interesting to see how affected performance next year.  Performance of other authorities listed was briefly outlined against what collected and how, whether charged for (garden waste, food waste, co-mingled). 

(ii)       Noted, top performer 63.5%, second top 57.6%, difference could be due to garden waste collection being charged for by latter. Also, glass not being collected seemed to be significant factor when looking at bottom performers.

(iii)      Question, advantage to collecting garden and food waste together?  Advantage was one mixed collection, one vehicle, although likely fortnightly as per garden waste, separate food waste collection usually weekly.  Mixed garden and food waste required different treatment to just garden waste, briefly outlined. Estimated cost of treating just garden waste approximately £22 a tonne, mixed garden and food waste (most of which would be garden waste) approximately £35 a tonne.  Both provided compost, anaerobic digestion treatment could also provide energy via biogas. Noted, mixed collection did mean fewer collections, lower carbon emissions.  However, Government was proposing separate food waste collection.  Head of Cleansing and Open Spaces would not advocate, but mixed garden and food waste collection was a choice available to Charnwood.

(iv)    Briefly outlined, previous arrangement whereby this Council had made own arrangements for processing of recycling and was paid by waste disposal authority for doing so (recycling credits).  County Council stopped permitting around 5 years ago, had resulted in loss of income to Charnwood of approximately £880k per annum. Garden waste collection charges introduced to try to balance that loss.

(v)     In response to question, Government likely to mandate food waste collection, asking for that to be weekly.  Council had choice as to how to collect, examples and challenges of options briefly outlined.  Advice was separate collection, separate vehicle, weekly.  Re: separation of paper/glass, Environment Bill proposed separate collection for prevention of fragments of glass causing problems  ...  view the full minutes text for item 19.

In accordance with the scrutiny scope document, to investigate new research, technology and methods that could help improve recycling rates.

Key task commenced at Panel meeting on 2nd February 2022 (suggestions from members of the Panel discussed). To be completed at this meeting when the Head of Cleansing and Open Spaces and members of the Panel will report back on agreed investigations/enquiries, with a view to establishing suggestions that are viable as panel recommendations (see Waste Management Scrutiny Panel Minute 13 – 2nd February 2022).

In accordance with the scrutiny scope document (key tasks), considered and discussed, new research, technology and methods that could help improve recycling rates.

Consideration of this key task had been commenced at Panel meeting on 2nd February 2022 (suggestions from members of the Panel discussed).  To be completed at this meeting via the Head of Cleansing and Open Spaces and members of the Panel reporting back on agreed investigations/enquiries (see Waste Management Scrutiny Panel Minute 13 – 2nd February 2022).

Key points of discussion:

(i)        Councillor Ward had spoken with Men in Sheds and Transitions re: whether they would be willing to engage with Council on repair/reuse activities, both had been keen to have conversation with Council on that. Contact details had been passed to Head of Cleansing and Open Spaces.

(ii)       Councillor Forrest had spoken with John Storer House re: possible scheme to enable borrowing of items used occasionally (library of things), unfortunately centre did not have space, particularly now it operated community shop.  Possibility of hiring room upstairs for purpose, would need to fund that, find volunteer staff to run.

(iii)    Suggested that Sofa (Nottingham Road) might be a possibility for the above, already did furniture upcycling, had space upstairs, might be worth contacting them.

(iv)    Councillor Needham’s contact at Leicester Fixers no longer active, it had had a network of groups across County but activities affected by pandemic.  Harborough branch still operating, partly due to person leading and it was well supported by local council, might be useful to look into further, Councillor Needham would do so.

(v)     Noted, any of the initiatives discussed likely to need financial support to be successful.

(vi)    Head of Cleansing and Open Spaces reported that plans re: end of year student waste still being finalised, would share those by email in due course.  Proactive, partnership approach.  Re: promotion reusable nappies on sides refuse vehicles, could do so, budget available, initial outlay in changing image expensive.  Could use same method to promote various waste minimisation and recycling messages, perhaps on 2 or 3 vehicles to start.  View that a useful message would be information on what could go in recycling bins, residents not always aware, recognised that continual messaging in that respect.  Noted, sides refuse vehicles already used to promote various other Council activities and messages.

(vii)   Discussion re: use of bin stickers to inform of materials that could go in green bins for recycling that residents might not be aware of, how that might be best worded, communicated, perhaps highlight a particular item such as soft plastic, rather than a long list of all items.  Operatives did not have time on rounds to apply stickers, had used agency staff in past to do so, message aimed at reducing contamination.  Could consider repeating with different message.  Reference to previous market place event to educate on this, successful, useful to repeat, incorporate competitive element/challenge.

(viii)  Noted, when Panel made recommendations it would have lots of ideas to put forward.

(ix)    Noted, Head of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 20.

In accordance with the scrutiny scope document, to consider the draft Leicestershire Resources and Waste Strategy 2022-2050.

Presentation of the Head of Cleansing and Open Spaces. In accordance with the Panel’s request, this was emailed to panel members following last meeting on 2nd February 2022, so that they could consider in advance of this meeting. Panel was advised at the last meeting to look at 11 pledges in the Strategy and the collection options appraisal.

In accordance with the scrutiny scope document (key tasks), considered and discussed, the draft Leicestershire Resources and Waste Strategy 2022-2050, via a presentation of the Head of Cleansing and Open Spaces.

In accordance with the Panel’s request, the presentation had been emailed to panel members following the last meeting on 2nd February 2022, so that they could consider in advance of this meeting.  Panel had been advised to look at 11 pledges in the Strategy and the collection options appraisal.

Key points of discussion:

(i)        Noted, over 3,000 responses to the consultation from members of the public to date.  Panel may wish to submit a response following its discussion.

(ii)       Pledge 1 - purchasing and internal waste management.  Panel agreed with pledge.

(iii)      Pledge 2 – support and encourage waste prevention activity.  Confirmed authorities already worked together, strategy would galvanise, have action plan, implement strategy. View that campaigns needed to be continuous to be most effective.  Panel agreed with pledge.

(iv)    Pledge 3 – continue delivering reuse services and expand where practicable and signpost.  Reference to County Council looking to put reuse provision at some recycling and household waste sites and whether any currently existed.  Panel agreed with pledge.

(v)     Pledge 4 - implement and promote separate food waste collections subject to confirmation Government policy, legislation, funding and procure anaerobic digestion capacity.  In response to question, how likely to operate outlined, not yet known where anaerobic digestion facility would be.  Noted, likely to be much increased demand for such facilities, gap in market. Government had recognised new burden on local authorities and that it would fund.  Panel agreed with pledge.   

(vi)    Pledge 5 – explore use alternative fuels for collection/transportation waste, reduce carbon/improve air quality. This Council’s collection vehicles currently all diesel, when purchased viable alternatives had not been available (were looked at, considerable difference in cost outlined), pledge would mean looking to better options as replaced. View that unfortunate that the fleet needed renewing when it did.  Question re: whether purchasing together with other councils would reduce cost?  In response, procurement framework used to assist competitive price.  Noted, fleet replaced only couple of years ago, depreciate over 8 years, view to running for up to 10, 2030 Carbon Neutral Plan would require different option, fleet significant proportion of Council emissions.  Trial was planned in next year or two and working with Energy Saving Trust to undertake green fleet audit.  Head of Cleansing and Open Spaces not aware of any waste collection authority operating fully electric fleet, some trialling 1 or 2. Hoped that better, viable options available from manufacturers as soon as possible, also that Council would be able to benefit from others’ experiences.  Reference to some councils using hydrogenated vegetable oil in lieu of diesel, zero carbon, but adverse environmental impact, deforestation.  More expensive.  Energy Saving Trust did not support use.  Likely hydrogen would be preferred fuel in future. Panel agreed with pledge.

(vii)   Pledge 6 – continue garden waste collection system as Government guidelines subject to legislation  ...  view the full minutes text for item 21.

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 and provisionally scheduling remaining key tasks, is attached.

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

26th April 2022

14th June 2022 (final meeting to agree Panel’s recommendations and report).

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.

Noted, the next meeting of the Panel had been moved from 26th April 2022 to 11th May 2022.

AGREED

1.         Following key task had been covered at previous meetings and can be marked as completed:

“Research waste prevention activities and organisations both within the Borough and elsewhere that are committed to waste reduction”.

2.         Following key task to be considered at next Panel meeting on 11th May 2022:

“Identify barriers and look at ways to overcome them” – via report back on engagement with stakeholders on this issue, which will be undertaken informally prior to the meeting.  Chair of Panel, Head of Cleansing and Open Spaces and Democratic Services Officer (LS) to meet as soon as possible to arrange that engagement, members of Panel to inform Democratic Services Officer of any stakeholder they wish to add to list in scrutiny scope document.   

3.         Opportunity to visit Casepak Materials Recycling Facility still to be confirmed, update provided earlier in meeting, hoped possible end April 2022.

4.         Further scheduled meeting of Panel on 14th June 2022 be noted (currently proposed as final meeting to agree Panel’s report, physical meeting).