Agenda item

Discussion paper of Steve Read, Head of Service – Joint Waste Committee (no decision required)

Steve Read, Head of Service for the Joint Waste Committee introduced the draft Business Plan 2016-18.  He wanted to give members an opportunity to consider the emerging business plan before the budget setting process and allow the Joint Waste Committee to take any comments into consideration.  The Joint Waste Team (JWT) had three main priorities; Broadening the partnership - encouraging Gloucester City and Stroud to join; Integration – seeking synergies and avoiding duplication of effort and resources; and, most importantly, Diversion – minimising the amount sent for disposal through waste avoidance, reduction or material recovery.  He assured members that these objectives were in no way going to be undermined by the mobilisation of Javelin Park by the County Council.

The JWT were driven by performance, cost, customer demand to recycle more and compliance within the regulatory environment, which was intended to improve material quality.  The JWT had started using stickers to remind people not to put food waste in their general waste bin and as direct result there had been a 20% increase in food waste collected across the county.  The JWT had recently taken over responsibility for the marketing of Cheltenham’s recyclables and whilst there was no shortage of people willing to take the material, because of the quality, at present, prices nationally had fallen.  The European Union would soon be releasing a report on the Circular Economy and it was rumoured that they would be setting a recycling target of 65% by 2030. 

There were a number of projects involving the review and re-specification of collect contracts on the horizon (e.g. Javelin Park would be mobilised in 2018-19, the anaerobic digestion  contract was up for renewal in 2019, the Household Recycling Centre contract was due to end in 2018 and the vehicles in Cheltenham were already reaching the end of their life).  The JWT single client team would work to develop solutions which reduced costs, improved customer service and increased recycling. 

The Head of Service gave the following responses to member questions;

·         50% of waste that was sent to landfill could in fact be recycled and this alone proved that recycling levels could be increased.  He was of the opinion that some people would recycle everything that they could, the majority of people would recycle but needed to be constantly reminded to do so and that there were some people who would not do anything regardless. 

·         HMOs often required bespoke solutions, as standard kerbside collections were not always appropriate or even possible.  This was not to say that it wasn’t being encouraged, but there needs to be an assessment of the cost versus benefit if more officer time was to be dedicated to it.

·         Gloucester City had been undertaking some interesting engagement with individual households and there were plans to do similar in Forest of Dean and Cotswolds too. 

·         There were many campaigns, Love Food/Hate Waste included, managed by the JWT. WRAP was a charity that worked with major retailers and producers to reduce packaging and food waste and had recently contacted a number of local authorities regarding a major initiative in 2016.  This offered the opportunity to join up messages to consumers.

·         The JWT were regularly reviewing targets and income and he did not consider that there was any conflict between the two: the more recycling that was collected the greater the recycling credit income that could be achieved.

·         In his view, Local authorities subsidised producers and suppliers by covering the cost of collection of materials for recycling.  This was a wider issue that needed to be addressed at a national level. 

·         He was not privy to the estimated cost per tonne of taking of waste at Javelin Park, but the cost of taking waste to landfill has exceeded £100 per tonne for some years. 

·         GCC offered recycling credits of around £50 for every tonne of material that was diverted from landfill.  There could well be an increase in cost if the council was to recycle more, but it recycling credits would also increase. 

·         A proportion of residual waste was being exported from this country because there is currently no cheaper means of disposing of it. There is unlikely to  be a shortage of waste to be incinerated at new facilities coming on line such as Javelin Park.  Members could therefore be assured that would no need to divert accessible recyclable materials to Javelin Park in order for the site to be at capacity. 

·         The reuse shop located at Foss Cross site was well used and the JWT were now looking to include such a shop at Hempsted as part of a planned reorganisation of the site.

·         The JWT were in dialogue with Ubico regarding vehicle renewal and an element of these considerations would be the additional cost of moving waste from Cheltenham direct to Javelin Park.  From experience he felt the likely outcome would be that direct delivery to Javelin Park would be cheaper than building a transfer station for Cheltenham and Tewkesbury but this was still to be proved. Any reasonable additional cost would be bore by GCC rather than Cheltenham.

The Chairman thanked the Head of Service for his attendance and urged members to do all that they could to maximise recycling in their wards.  He commended the partnership working across different councils and asked that Steve Read pass on specific comments on this committee to the JWC.