Agenda item

A presentation concerning a review of the Refuse and Recycling Service will be given.

Councillor Matt Furniss, Lead Councillor for Infrastructure, Transport and Governance, introduced a presentation in respect of a review of the Recycling and Waste Collection Service.  The review was a Corporate Plan objective due for completion in December 2018, seeking Executive approval in June 2019 and implementation from July 2019 to April 2020.  The presentation covered the guiding principles of the review, the key drivers for change, an outline of the current service, the Phase 1 proposal, the potential Phase 2 proposal and next steps.  The advantages and disadvantages of the current service and both proposals were included.

The guiding principles were to maintain high levels of customer satisfaction, respond to market and legislative changes, maintain/improve environmental performance, avoid additional hard containers for waste and choice of vehicles.  The key drivers for change were the market, legislation and local factors including financial challenges for this Council and Surrey County Council, the need to replace the vehicle fleet and the aim to reduce waste.  The current service, which utilised split bodied vehicles, consisted of fortnightly collections of comingled recycling and refuse and weekly collections of food waste.  The Phase 1 proposal sought to continue the current service changing to single bodied vehicles plus a split bodied vehicle for food waste and nappy collection.  The potential Phase 2 proposal would use single bodied vehicles collecting food waste and nappies weekly and three weekly collections of paper and card, comingled recycling and refuse.  Advantages of the current service was service stability and disadvantages were that it did not respond to market changes, planned legislation and increased costs.  Continuing the same service, simpler fleet vehicles and ability to adjust services to respond to changes in the market and legislation were advantages of the Phase 1 proposal and possible minor disruption to some residents was the disadvantage.  The potential Phase 2 proposal’s advantages were responding to changes in the market and planned legislation, increased recycling, savings on disposal costs, increased revenue opportunities and increased flexibility whilst major service change was the disadvantage.  The next steps were to undertake a detailed financial analysis, plan implementation of a vehicle change in the service, report to the Executive to approve the release of vehicle funding, order vehicles and return to the Executive in June 2019 to consider whether and when to implement Phase 2.

In addition to the need to procure a new fleet of refuse collection vehicles, major factors affecting the service were the introduction of the Government’s Deposit Return Scheme (DRS) in 2010/21 and market factors.  The most significant market factor was China, which had previously received up to 70% of the world’s waste paper, limiting the paper it accepted for recycling to high quality only which reduced the amount which could be disposed of via that route leading to a flooded and uncertain market.  These factors could decrease demand, increase costs and reduce the amount of material collected at the kerbside for recycling by up to 30% as it was being disposed of via other routes.  There was a high level of customer satisfaction with the service and the Council was currently ranked twelfth in the country for recycling levels.

The following points arose from related discussion and questions:

·             There was some reluctance to see a return to the use of refuse sacks if Phase 2 was implemented as this was seen as a retrograde step which some residents may criticise.  Use of sacks for comingled recycling was not favoured as broken glass could split sacks causing danger and untidiness.  However, as the sacks would not contain food waste they should not attract vermin.  The advantages of sacks, which were currently provided for flats, were that they could be collected more rapidly, were recyclable and reduced the need for more costly plastic containers.  Also, some residents had limited space at their properties to accommodate numerous collection containers.  However, there was a view that sacks were appropriate for nappy collections.  Sacks would be provided by the Council and labelled to make their intended content clear.  Residents may need to sign up to the weekly nappy collection.

·             Collection services were varied to accommodate the residential situation.  There was flexibility over bin size and residents could select the size which best met their needs, subject to a maximum.  Although the use of large communal bins was effective for blocks of flats, in areas where they were used more extensively such as Brighton recycling rates tended to be much lower.  A direct service to property was preferred.  A separate container for paper and card was suggested as comingling of recyclables reduced their quality and therefore their value.  It was a challenge for the Council to achieve the best container balance.

·             Three weekly collections may be seen as unreasonable and confusing for residents who may forget which materials were being collected next due to the time lapse between collections.  Effective communication with residents could alleviate confusion caused.  Lessons could be learnt from other councils that had introduced three weekly collections.  The Board received a list of 12 such councils, the majority of which were in Scotland and Wales, and one of which was considering moving to four weekly collections.  There was stricter legislation in Scotland and Wales mandating kerbside sort and collection.  Recycling targets were very high in these countries and local councils were penalised if they did not meet them.  The Waste and Fleet Services Manager was intending to visit some councils operating this level of service to ascertain advantages and disadvantages.

·             Although the overall number of staff and vehicles would be broadly the same following service changes, they would be configured differently.

·             The Council’s environmental performance had improved over the years and it sought to increase recycling rates.  Councillor Nigel Kearse requested that further information concerning how the Council would maintain and improve its environmental performance be sent to him.

·             The new refuse collection vehicles, which would be suitable for providing the existing and future services, would be purchased in September 2019 at the earliest when there would be a clearer picture of market trends and legislation so services could be adapted to reflect them.  A communications campaign would accompany the purchase.

·             Garden waste collections would continue unchanged and as the associated vehicle fleet was younger there was no need for replacement in the near future.  Although garden waste collections reduced the amount of waste being landfilled, they also reduced composting.  Surrey County Council’s composting campaign, which formed part of the wider Surrey Waste Partnership communications, had been successful with a high take up of composters.

·             The review would not include a public consultation as there were no distinct choices for residents with the market and legislation dictating changes.

·             Doubt was expressed over the impact of the DRS on reducing the amount of kerbside recycling by a predicted 30% as a similar scheme involving the return of glass bottles in the past had limited take up.  However, the mandatory 5p charge per plastic bag had been very effective in encouraging reuse of shopping bags.

·             Few refuse collection operatives received work related injuries.

·             Education was key to encouraging the public to reduce waste and it was felt that every opportunity should be taken to promote this.  The Surrey Waste Partnership had undertaken some work in this area which included schools.  Reference was made to campaigns promoting reusable nappies.  A Councillor offered to provide officers with details of a nappy library operated by volunteers in Guildford Library.

·             Although Surrey County Council sent some waste to an energy from waste incinerator, all the recyclables collected in the Guildford Borough were recycled.

·             The current profitable recycling streams were textiles at a value of £200 per tonne and paper at up to £40 per tonne.  Unfortunately, few textiles were placed on the kerbside for collection.  Approximately 8,000 tonnes of the Borough’s mixed recycling was paper and card.

·             The 2012 report in respect of the Recycling and Waste Collection Service was available on the Council’s website.

In summary, the Chairman stated that, although the Board was in favour of Phase 1 of the review and endorsed it, there were some reservations around waste containers and three weekly collections associated with Phase 2.  It was therefore agreed that the outcomes of the completed review would be reported to the Board in May 2019 for consideration prior to Executive approval being sought in June 2019.  Members expressed a preference for the final decision regarding this high profile service to be made by full Council.