Agenda item

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.

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 at in excess of £1m per annum.  Top 5 performing authorities were doing so, how?  In response, residual waste most expensive for County Council (waste disposal authority) to dispose of, food waste approximately a quarter of that cost.  Some waste collection authorities may have arrangements with their waste disposal authority to share the benefit of increasing food waste disposal and reducing residual waste, affected a subsidy of the cost of collection.  There was no such arrangement in Leicestershire, so all costs would fall to the waste collection authority.  Reference intention of Government to make food waste collection mandatory, had indicated it would fund any new commitment, certainty that this would be at 100% of cost and ongoing would be welcomed.  Concern if funding subsequently withdrawn, particularly given position of local authority finances.  Suggestion that Jane Hunt, MP be asked to put that request to Government, confirmed that those representations had been made.

(x)     Home composting should be encouraged, noted that this would not assist Council’s recycling rates, but was more environmentally friendly than collecting food waste.  County Council scheme for reduced cost composters referenced, this could be promoted.  Home composting would reduce weight of residual waste.  Disappointing that Government targets did not reward reducing waste in such ways, prevention better for environment/correct focus.

(xi)    Reference to a key task not yet considered/scheduled “identify barriers and looking at ways to overcome them”.  Challenges posed by flats/communal bins.  Stated that recycling rates not available by ward but were available by collection round listing streets covered.  Noted, useful to receive that breakdown when panel considered that key task, also to incorporate engagement of residents as part of that.

(xii)   Noted, indication of composition of residual waste had been provided at last meeting.            

AGREED

1.         The presentation and discussion be noted.

2.         Further consideration of this key task be scheduled for the next Panel meeting on 15th March 2022, via a 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) above 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.

3.         Note paragraph (xi) above for when Panel considers key task “identify barriers and looking at ways to overcome them”.