Minutes:
The Waste Policy and Development Manager and Waste, Parking and Fleet Services Manager gave a presentation in respect of the above. The presentation covered the background to the service, consistency of collections, Deposit Return Scheme (DRS), Packaging Producer Responsibility Scheme (an extended producer responsibility (EPR) scheme), packaging tax, disposal, collection changes and the resulting impact on the Borough, future possible service models, progress update and summary.
In terms of background, the Government had published a Resources and Waste Strategy in December 2018. Between February and May 2019 four consultations were issued by the Government in respect of collection consistency, DRS, EPR and packaging tax and on 15 October 2019 the Government published the draft Environment Bill. The responses to the consultations and indicated direction of travel would also be published.
With regard to consistency of collections, core materials had been agreed in the form of glass; paper and card; plastic bottles, pots, tubs and trays; and steel and aluminium tins and cans. The inclusion of cartons and plastic film was under review. Free collection of garden waste, standardisation of bin colours, minimum refuse and recycling collection frequencies, and new Key Performance Indicators, likely to be carbon based, were being considered. Food waste would be mandated and there would be a requirement for the separation of waste. A minimum commercial standard would be set and businesses would be required to recycle waste.
Although DRS was expected to be introduced in 2023 following further consultation in 2020 regarding the related detail, the exact approach remained to be confirmed. The Government had commissioned a social research project that would consider the impacts on residents of recycling at home which would result in less material for the Council to collect.
The EPR scheme was also expected to be introduced in 2023 following further consultation in 2020. The scheme would require packaging producers to pay to place material on the market and to contribute to the costs of collecting and recycling it. Money could be claimed back by producers when they used recycled plastic driving the recycling market. The resulting impact on the Borough would be changes in the materials collected and contributions to collection costs.
The packaging tax was a tax on all plastic packaging with less than a set recyclable content. The 2019 budget would include further detail and HM Treasury would publish a technical consultation in respect of the tax design. Related draft legislation would be published in 2020 for implementation in 2022. This scheme would change the composition of the material collected by the Council resulting in collecting less packaging in volume and tonnage.
In terms of waste disposal, controls remained in place in China and its 2020 ban on imported waste was likely to occur. Indonesia would be introducing new restrictions which would prevent export to the second biggest market, whilst the Netherlands had implemented a flat rate tax on every tonne of Refuse Derived Fuel waste, increasing the cost of disposing of rejected recycling and refuse. Brexit was likely to result in challenges relating to waste exports and additional costs impacting on the income from waste streams. Financial pressures associated with Surrey County Council could determine a new method for collection or change to the material mix in the interests of economy.
Changes to waste collections would feature further analysis to inform EPR and DRS proposals and work with other local authorities to develop further consistency in recycling collections proposals. The next steps for plastic packaging tax were to be set out in the 2019 budget (October/November) and a technical consultation would follow in late 2019 or early-mid 2020. Second consultations in respect of the specific details of EPR, DRS and consistent recycling collections would be held in 2020 on a timescale to be agreed. Draft legislation for plastic packaging tax would be published during 2020 when a new EPR scheme, a DRS for drinks containers and measures in the consistency in recycling would come into effect.
The implications for the Council were the need to change how it collected waste to reflect the changes in what there was to collect and do before the market changed to ensure best value and to guarantee that there remained a market for collected waste.
The likely scenarios for future possible service models included separating paper with cans, plastics and glass together or separating glass and paper with cans and plastics together. The first proposal would retain material value, reduce contamination and require an additional container (bin, box or bag). The second proposal could possibly be mandated by Government and would also ensure that material retained value and contamination was reduced whilst requiring two additional containers (bins, boxes or bags) and potentially reducing the recycling rate.
With regard to progress to date, vehicle procurement was in the initial stages and the Council continued to monitor the market and respond to consultations and studies.
In summary, collection methods would need to change, materials to collect would be determined centrally and were not yet confirmed. There would be more consultations, Government responses to which were expected in summer 2020. By July 2020 the Council should have a clear direction of travel and options and proposals would be put before the Board to consider at that time. Vehicles were being procured to handle all options although additional fleet may be needed and delivery was expected in Autumn 2020.
The following points arose from related discussion and questions:
· Although there were numerous changes proposed in the field of refuse and recycling, the Council was in a strong position to respond to these in partnership with other Surrey local authorities whilst retaining services and expertise in-house.
· Sorting of waste by residents using their own receptacles was beneficial to minimise contamination.
· There were various options in respect of bin types and frequency of collection, for example, three-weekly collections would reduce costs. All options would be presented to Councillors to consider in the future.
· Refuse collection crews undertook bin lid lift exercises for check for contamination and, if found, the incident would be recorded and bins would be labelled and letters sent to alert residents to their errors.
· Some form of cleansing of all recyclables was required and it was possible that an entire load of recycling may be rejected in the event of severe contamination.
· Educational work, including that with the Surrey Environmental Partnership, continued and the Council supported campaigns such as that designed to reduce food waste. Communications took many forms including notices and bin hangers. The Council communicated with the University of Surrey which had an educational programme which aimed to encourage students to recycle.
· Annual collection calendars and leaflets would be circulated the following week. In the case of residents with English as an additional language, these could be translated on request and the use of pictorials in leaflets and on the website assisted. Large print communications were available.
· Although leasing of the waste collection fleet resulted in fixed costs and risks, the Council preferred to purchase its fleet as this gave flexibility, extended vehicle life and retained some vehicle value.
· As the Council’s depot did not currently have a viable electrical infrastructure to support a fleet of electric refuse collection vehicles, the next generation of vehicles would not be electric. However, following some investment in the infrastructure, electric vehicles could be utilised in the future. There was a balance to be reached between finance and the environment as, although electric vehicles could be more costly to purchase, they could be cheaper to run and had environmental benefits. Methane and hydrogen fuel cells were possible alternative fuel sources.
· A gasification plant involving methane gas to produce electricity was being developed by Surrey County Council in the Spelthorne area.
· Surrey County Council was seeking to measure its carbon footprint and comply with its declared climate change emergency.
· Green waste was disposed of at various locations in the Borough and beyond. The export of organic matter was not known.