Agenda item

The Chairman, who had made the request for call-in, had done so for three main reasons: he refuted the assertion that there had been meaningful public consultation in terms of the four bring bank sites which had been identified for removal of the CBC bring banks; 32% of those surveyed had supported the removal of the garden waste skip at the household recycling centre, but what of the other 68%, and; the report suggested that carbon emissions would drop as a result of larger vehicles making fewer journeys (to empty bring bank skips) but it appeared no account had been taken of the residents that would have to travel further to access bring banks at other locations.

Karen Watson, the interim Client Manager for Environmental Services outlined the rationale for the recommendations in the Cabinet report.  There had been a large increase in resident recycling and the household recycling centre continued to be well used.  Feedback from users of the site suggested that they would like the site to accept a wider range of materials, but for this to be considered, the site would need to be optimised to create more space, whilst managing health and safety and operating costs would need to be reduced to fund the cost of recycling any additional materials.  All existing containers were old and in varying states of disrepair and therefore needed to be replaced.  Larger (new) containers would have greater capacity and therefore need to be emptied less frequently.  In addition to the household recycling centre, the Council also provided 12 bring bank sites across the town and following the public consultation there was support for the removal of some of the less well used recycling banks where residents can access the kerbside recycling service.  Everest Road and the High Street had the lowest usage, Church Piece caused the biggest health and safety issues, as well as reducing the number of car parking spaces in a relatively small car park, and the Hatherley area benefitted from bring bank sites in two local supermarkets, with Asda – Hatherley Lane being the least well used.  These sites also caused more fly-tipping issues.

The Cabinet Member Clean and Green Environment had prepared answers to some of the questions that were circulated in advance (Appendix 1) but after reading his response to the first question, the Chairman invited other members of the committee to put any questions they had.  The Cabinet Member and Client Manager gave the following responses:

·      The removal of the garden waste skip at the household recycling centre would create a large area on the site which could accommodate skips for the collection of alternative materials.  Over 16,000 people subscribed to the garden waste scheme and further consultation would provide insight into why people continued to use the site when alternatives were available.     

·      There had been no accidents at Church Piece, which was described as a miracle, and ‘near miss’ data was not collated.  But the driver(s) were so concerned by the risks posed at this site that they were taking extended amounts of time to reverse and often had to abandon their attempts due to vehicles parked in close proximity to the skip.  Local residents were also eager to create more parking.

·      All skips would be upgraded as this would ultimately generate capacity within the service to allow them to be emptied as often as was required.  For safety reasons, chain skips would be retained. 

·      It had been proven that some businesses were using the Church Piece site.

·      Many residents of St. Pauls had kerbside recycling and the council worked closely with landlords of Houses of Multiple Occupation (HMO), including Cheltenham Borough Homes.

·      Reducing residual waste was the driving force behind the proposals; it was nonsensical to continue to accept residual waste.  3-4 years ago the Cabinet Member had been involved in a bag-splitting exercise and had been alarmed to find unopened clothing, fabric, money, dvds, books, etc and whilst any decision would be based on feedback from public consultation, ultimately the council should not continue to continue to accept residual waste without question.  The council had declared a climate change emergency and therefore needed to help residents with behaviour change, which would go hand-in-hand with communications.

·      Ubcio provided a good service and had a good working relationship with CBC, which was why the Cabinet Member had been keen to end the relationship with the Joint Waste Team as he felt it hindered the council’s ability to promote the Cheltenham service and successes. 

·      Consultation on the household recycling centre would start in mid-July, having been postponed following the call-in of the initial decision.  This would be online, though as was the norm, community groups would be welcome to paper copies and the Cabinet Member wasn’t concerned that the summer holidays would result in a lower level of responses given that a previous consultation had been undertaken over the Christmas period and resulted in the highest response to date.

·      The Chairman voiced concerns that the skips had not been maintained, resulting in the degradation of the flooring of the skips, to the point where the floor could come away when being lifted.  The committee were advised that this issue had only come to light as a result of the council’s decision to take back direct management of Ubico from the Joint Waste Team and reiterated the level of urgency associated with the need to order new skips given the deteriorating condition of the existing stock. 

·      The Cabinet Member felt that current enforcement resource levels were adequate.  Posters were put up in locations across the town, warning the public that fly tipping was an offence.  For two weeks before the bring banks are removed from the 4 sites, officers will be on site offering advice to existing users regarding the kerbside recycling service.  Enforcement officers did, and would continue to work closely with Ubico to deal with fly tipping issues immediately and take action where there is evidence.  This would include the use of CCTV where necessary.  He suggested that the committee may wish to establish a task group to look at the issue of fly tipping.  There had been 179 incidents on fly tipping on public land, with only 7 fixed penalty notices having been issued only 1 having been referred to legal, which demonstrated the difficulties surrounding identifying perpetrators 

·      Admittedly, there was a lack of data in terms of carbon levels, but this was something the Client Manager and her team were looking to address. 

·      As a matter of clarification the Cabinet Member advised that there were a total of 121 banks on the 12 existing sites and the proposal was to remove 11 banks for the 4 sites. 

Some members queried the call-in request, suggesting that the concerns raised in relation to the Household Recycling Centre were irrelevant given that the decision itself was simply to undertake more consultation.  Whilst members welcomed the opportunity to discuss and understand the issue, they felt that the call-in could have been avoided had the committee discussed the issue in advance of the Cabinet meeting.

The Chairman outlined the four options available to the committee and upon a vote it was unanimously

RESOLVED that the committee support the decision without qualification or comment

The lead members would give further consideration to the suggestion of a fly tipping review.