Waverley Borough Council Committee System - Committee Document
Meeting of the Environment and Leisure Overview and Scrutiny Committee held on 04/07/2005
Determination of Key Issues Presented to the Waste Management Special Interest Group on 21st June 2005.
Determination of Key Issues Presented to the Waste Management Special Interest Group on 21st June 2005.
Strategy & Principles
1. Are you still in agreement with Surrey’s countywide policy of recycling at least 36%? And to the statement of principles (these were included as
Annexe – 2
to the report of the first meeting of the SIG on 24th May)?
– That the SIG agrees with a) the countywide target for recycling at least 36% of waste, and b) the SLGA’s statement of principles.
2. Is there a need to draw up a new Waverley Waste Management Strategy (in addition to Surrey Joint Municipal Waste Management Strategy)?
– That a new Waverley Waste Management Strategy is necessary. The group noted that it would need to be accompanied by an action plan setting out what should be delivered, together with timescale and responsibilities, to ensure it could be properly implemented.
Service Delivery Review
3. Would you be prepared to consider changes to the Waverley collection and recycling service? If so, should those changes be:
An example would be to add say one commodity to the kerbside recycling service.
Includes the addition of a new element to the service; such as a separate green waste collection, or a number of changes to existing elements.
Includes the adoption of a completely new method of service delivery, such as Alternate Weekly Collections (AWC) and the addition of separate green waste collections.
that a major change to the system was necessary and so, subject to addressing various issues, an Alternate Weekly Collection should be adopted. Given all the evidence it had heard, if the 36% recycling target was to be achieved, substantial changes would need to be made. It was also clear that use of local landfill sites was not a sustainable option in the long term. Any new system would inevitably depend on an increase in recycling and this expanded service could be funded through savings made from the new contract. The Council should make good use of the experience of the new contractor, Onyx, which had been involved in implementing AWC schemes elsewhere. It was also noted that money and time would be saved if changes were agreed at the start of the contract.
All SIG members agreed that the information conveyed to the general public would be key. Some members commented that they had changed their viewpoint on AWC over the course of their work on the SIG.
– That option 3C (Major Changes) would be necessary. This would involve the adoption of an Alternate Weekly Collection, subject to examining various issues, including full costings at the next meeting.
4. AWC may have costs associated with its implementation. Would you be prepared to agree additional costs over say, 1 or 2 years in order to save money and improve recycling performance beyond that?
Costs could arise from:
a) Purchase of an additional set of wheeled bins and their delivery.
b) Purchase of garden waste containers.
c) MRF gate-fees.
d) Compost site gate-fees.
e) Start-up staffing costs during implementation phase.
f) Funding an awareness campaign.
g) Changing existing vehicles, which may be unsuitable.
The SIG felt that additional start up costs would be inevitable. They asked for more detailed costings for the next meeting. It was also felt that information on the longer term costs would be helpful.
– That the SIG review implementation costings at the next meeting.
5. Implementing major changes to the service, such as adopting AWC, may bring problems in perception, or in practice.
How do you feel these should best be dealt with?
- That an awareness campaign with the public and a PR campaign with the local press would be crucial to the success of any changes.
6. Do you wish to support a separate green waste collection service?
a) Should this be on a subscription basis?
b) Should it be subsidised, or be operated on a self-financing basis if possible (this would result in higher subscription charges).
c) Should containers provided or sold? What type of container would be more acceptable?
that a green waste collection scheme should be supported in principle. It was heard that currently around 27% of the content of the domestic bin was made up of green waste in July 2004and so that a reduction of this would be critical. Some members felt that a free service might discriminate against smaller households which did not have space to compost. It was also accepted that a free collection service would generate more garden waste. This could give concerns about increased number of bonfires and fly tipping that any extra waste might generate. It was agreed that an additional bin for garden waste would not be acceptable so officers would cost on the basis of a subscription for hessian or biodegradable bags. It was further agreed that concessions should be available for various groups.
It was agreed that residents should be encouraged to home compost as much as possible, and that the Council’s information pack should be widely circulated. It was also agreed that the Council should work more closely with Town and Parish Councils to do this. The SIG heard that since the last Waste Analysis study the previous year, there had been an increase in the sale of home composters. The SIG asked to see the figures at the next meeting.
– That the SIG support the principle of a garden waste collection service on a subscription, with concessions, basis. The SIG also agreed to seek to expand the home composting service.
7. What plans do you feel should be adopted for the future of the recycling bring-site service? An example would be to change the commodities that can be recycled at the bring sites to include only those not collected kerbside. Alternatively it may be advisable to undertake a further review once any changes to the kerbside service have been implemented.
– That there be a review of any changes to bring-sites at a later date.
8. What benefits would you expect to arise as a result of a revised service, and in what order of priority?
a) An improvement in the recycling rate.
b) A reduction in waste arisings.
c) Higher levels of customer satisfaction.
d) A high quality, reliable service.
e) A wider range of recyclates included.
f) Controlling the cost of the service.
– That all of the above would be potential benefits.
9. What order of priority would you place on establishing/maintaining a kerbside recycling service for:
▪ Newspaper & PAMS ▪ Textiles
▪ Cardboard ▪ Foil
▪ Plastic ▪ Telephone directories
▪ Glass ▪ Books
▪ Cans ▪ Kitchen waste
▪ Green waste
- That all of the left hand column above should be included in a kerbside collection and potentially kitchen waste at a later date.
10. How important is it that we recycle plastics? Should this be through the kerbside and/or bring-sites?
– That it would be very important to recycle plastics given that they account for a large volume of the material within domestic refuse. The SIG also agreed that there could be knock-on benefits to levels of other recycled materials following introduction of plastic recycling.
11. In order of priority, which of the following do you feel should be considered to be most & least important:
a) Explain how system works
b) Deal with problems, queries & complaints including via town and parish councils.
c) Targeted information/persuasion, on say how the system works - composting.
d) Assisting business with recycling commercial waste.
e) Taking part in campaigns, such as real nappies/compost week.
– That all of the above are important - in that order.
12. Recognising that Waverley would be starting from a stronger position if it were to adopt AWC, than East Hants or Mole Valley were in before they embarked on this change; would there be a need to test the acceptability of changes to the service with residents of Waverley under a trial or following major consultation?
Other options include:
a) Full-scale pilot with feed-back.
b) Members’ trial
c) Trials for, say, green-waste before contract commencement
d) Learn from other Waste Collection Authorities.
The SIG felt it would be important to trial any changes to the service before they were introduced across the whole borough. It was suggested that a mix of urban and rural areas were included in the trial.
- That a Members’ trial should take place for 3-4 weeks before any changes to the system. It was further agreed that officers should investigate whether all Town & Parish Councillors could be involved, or if not possible, councillors from an urban and a rural council.
13. Over what period should changes to the service be implemented/phase- in?
The SIG heard that the new contractor, Onyx, was due to start in November. This could mean that the new scheme might begin under trial in Spring 2006 with all the borough covered by end of 2006.
– That the new scheme could start in Spring 2006.
14. Should concessions be made for say;
a) Large families (over 5 persons at present).
b) Those in receipt of benefit (reduced cost green-waste bags at present).
c) Council tenants on size of bins (no concessions at present, but bin swaps possible).
d) Bank holidays (Christmas only at present).
e) Any others?
– That concessions should be made for the above groups.
15. Which options would you like worked up for further consideration? (It will be necessary to narrow down the wide range of options available).
a) Adoption of AWC (residual waste collected in week 1; mixed dry recyclables collected in week 2).
b) Adoption of AWC (residual waste collected in week 1; kerbside sorting of recyclables from use of existing boxes & baskets in week 2).
c) Addition of a separate glass collection service to compliment AWC using mixed dry recyclables.
d) Addition of a subscription-based separate green-waste collection service.
- That all the above options be costed.
16. Would you be prepared to consider constructing a Waverley Materials Recycling Facility? Would you be prepared to consider the use of other available and developing technologies?
– That there would be no need to consider constructing a MRF in Waverley. The Council has access to others facilities. The SIG would be prepared to consider the use of new technologies.
17. Do you feel you have yet achieved your objectives as a Special Interest Group? Have you received enough information and attended sufficient visits to make recommendations?
– That a final decision could be made, subject to further information.
Are you prepared for it to continue beyond the 28th June, delaying the July Council decision?
– That a July decision should not be delayed. Members agreed that following the SIG’s final meeting on 28 June, a special meeting of ELOS would be convened to discuss the issue with all Council members on 4th July, before the Executive on 12th July. The SIG also agreed that it should continue to meet to oversee implementation of any changes made.