Agenda item

A report of the Head of Cleansing and Open Services providing an update  regarding the performance of the strategy approximately half way through its period. 

A report of the Head of Cleansing and Open Services providing an update  regarding the performance of the strategy approximately half way through its period was submitted (item 8 on the agenda filed with these minutes). 

It was noted that this item had been included on the agenda to enable the Panel to scrutinise the Zero Waste Strategy part way through its review cycle as a test case to determine the benefits of the Panel scrutinising policies and strategies.

The Cabinet Lead Member for Performance of Major Contracts and the Head of Cleansing and Open Services attended to assist the Panel with the consideration of the item and in response to issues raised by the Panel stated that:

·         when the strategy was initiated in 2012, the Council aspired to send zero waste to land fill.  As Leicestershire County Council act as the Waste Disposal Authority, the amount of residual waste being sent to landfill was not within the Borough Council’s direct control.

·         the Government would be publishing a Resources and Waste Strategy later this year which could impact the Council’s strategy; for example the implementation of a bottle deposit scheme could impact the waste recyclate collection.

·         although the Council were performing better than other local authorities, the targets were ambitious and it would be appropriate for the Council to review the Strategy and consider setting more realistic and obtainable targets.

·         it was possible to improve the Council’s performance in managing waste but it would require investment. Other local authorities performing well with respect to waste collection targets were providing free garden waste collections and food waste collection services but were reducing the frequency of the collection of other waste materials. To implement these schemes in Charnwood would require significant investment and it would be challenging for the Council to lose the £1.2million income provided by charging for collection of garden waste.

·         the Council was not receiving many complaints regarding the waste collection service.  Awareness campaigns were helping towards improving the achievement of the targets.

·         the Council was part of a Local Government Association benchmarking group and was considered average within its audit family.  The Council also monitored contamination of individual collection rounds to determine performance.

·         30-40% of residual waste collected was food waste.  To collect food waste separately would require altering how residents disposed of their waste.

Members of the Panel made the following comments:

·         the waste management situation had changed over the last six years and it was appropriate to review the strategy.  The level of recyclate collected had altered with respect to less glass being used and the reduction in popularity of newspapers.

·         as achieving zero waste was no longer an attainable target of the Council it would be beneficial to change the name of the strategy from Zero Waste Strategy to Waste Management Strategy.

·         the strategy had not achieved its targets over the last six years and as the report noted that the cost of providing the service was below average, the performance of the Council could be improved by the provision of additional resources.  It was important to consider if additional investment would add value.

·         waste prevention (not creating waste in the first place) offered the best outcome for the environment but the Borough Council was not able to influence this. It would be beneficial if the information was presented to show what the Borough Council could influence.

RESOLVED

1.         that it be recommended to the Scrutiny Management Board that the Board consider the Panel's views regarding the Zero Waste Strategy and that it be scrutinised by an appropriate scrutiny body after the publication of the Government’s Resources and Waste Strategy;

2.         that the Zero Waste Strategy be added to the Panel’s Work Programme for their consideration once it had been scrutinised by an appropriate scrutiny body, as determined by the Scrutiny Management Board, and after it had been revised in light of the Government’s published Resources and Waste Strategy;

3.         that the Strategies and Policies list as considered at a previous meeting of the Panel be included as an appendix to the Work Programme item for the consideration of the Panel at its next meeting.

Reasons

1.         The Panel considered that the Strategy would benefit from the scrutiny of an appropriate scrutiny body, after the Government’s publication of its Resources and Waste Strategy to determine whether the Strategy and its targets required revision.

2.         The Panel wished to re-examine the Strategy once it had been revised.

3.         The Panel considered that as a test case, it had been beneficial to review the Zero Waste Strategy and wished to choose a second major policy or strategy for consideration, approximately half way through the period it related to, at its next meeting.