Agenda item

Discussion paper of the Waste & Recycling Manager

The Waste and Recycling Manager offered a brief summary of the background to this item.  To achieve the Councils target for reduction in household waste that went to landfill, in April 2011 a new kerbside waste and recycling scheme introduced the collection of refuse and food waste one week and recycling and food waste the next. 

It was recognised that alternate weekly collections were not practical for some dwellings where there was little or no space available to store waste containers at either the front or rear of the property.  As such, a small number of streets still received weekly refuse collections and in the town centre, some streets received twice weekly collections.

Overall, implementation of the new scheme had gone very well, with an increase of food waste diverted from landfill from an average of 250 tonnes to an average of 280 tonnes a month, in the first 6 months.  There had been a significant increase in kerbside recycling, especially plastic bottles and in quarter one of 2011 the tonnage of household waste to landfill was down from 52kg to 37kg per household.

The increase in recycling had resulted in an unprecedented demand for kerbside recycling boxes and the council’s stock of boxes ran out shortly after the scheme commenced.  More boxes were ordered and the backlog was cleared quickly but the new stocks were soon depleted and as such box requests are currently being held and will be fulfilled as soon as more stocks are received. 

Side waste was still problematic in some areas of the borough and this issue would be addressed by encouraging and educating people to use the scheme correctly, with enforcement being the last resort. 

The Cabinet Member Sustainability had looked across the country at other similar urban authorities and a 50% recycling rate was very good and a great achievement.  The new scheme had been managed successfully, people had been suitably encouraged to participate and Officers continued to monitor the issue of black bags full of recyclable waste.  These houses would be identified and he was confident that yet more household waste could be diverted from landfill. 

The following responses were given to questions from Members;

• The County Council did offer incentives associated to reducing household waste to landfill and some significant sums if the targets were achieved. 
• Income was generated from the sale of recyclable materials and in recent months the markets had been very buoyant but were volatile.  Segregating waste enabled for the best price to be achieved and these products would be used in the UK and Europe, if the waste was not segregated it would achieve no income and could be sent to the far East.
• There had been unprecedented demand for kerbside recycling boxes but this was just one reason for the council having to make more multiple orders.  Lack of storage space, lead in time and the initial budget, though the demand had justified the additional outlay.
• The Cabinet Member Sustainability said that the County Council aspired to achieve 70% of household waste diverted from landfill but had not yet said how this figure would be achieved.  Cotswold District Council diverted 60% but they were a very different area to Cheltenham, historically, rural areas recycled more.  9 years ago Cheltenham’s figure was 5% and as such 70% as a possible target was not necessarily unrealistic.
• Recyclables could be expanded in future to include mixed plastics but this posed a capacity issue for the vehicles.
• It was suggested that spillages were likely, the result of people using their own boxes without lids as a consequence of the stock shortage of the recycling boxes.  The issue would be raised with the operatives.
• There was only one plant in Europe that recycled Tetrapak and given that it contained a number of components it wasn’t possible to mix it with just cardboard, plastic, etc, so there were currently no plans to expand the service to include this material.
• Cheltenham’s food waste was processed at a site in Newent and there had been no impact on bring sites across Cheltenham as they were so conveniently located.
• Unfortunately there were instances where operatives had missed some food waste containers and this was attributed to their colour and size which led to them being easily overlooked.  It wasn’t possible to get a message to the crew on the same day that the issue was reported and as such would be collected the following day.  Officers would consider the approach for an issue reported on a Thursday or Friday, given that there were no weekend collections.  Longer term there was an aspiration to get real time information to and from crews.

A number of Members applauded the performance and achievements of the new service and the work of Officers.

The Chair thanked the Waste & Recycling Manager for her attendance.