Agenda item

Question from Councillor Ashley Baxter:

Over the last five years, recycling rates in Lincolnshire have fallen from 52.8% down to 47.0% and in South Kesteven District they have fallen from 48.6% down to 43.2% which is almost as low as the national average.

In household recycling league tables, Lincolnshire’s ranking out of 351 local authorities has fallen from 44^th to 118^th. South Kesteven’s ranking has fallen from 88^th down to 172^nd.

Can the Scrutiny Committee please investigate why SKDC recycling rates have fallen so dramatically and what practical steps can be taken to promote waste prevention, recycling and composting in the District?”

Information taken from the following website: http://www.letsrecycle.com/councils/league-tables/201516-overall-performance/:

A question without discussion had been referred to the Scrutiny Committee from Council on 2^nd March 2017 from Councillor Baxter concerning the fall in recycling rates in Lincolnshire. He had asked that the Scrutiny Committee investigate why they had fallen in SKDC and any practical steps that could be taken to promote waste prevention, recycling and composting.

The Executive Manager Environment introduced the Business Manager Street Care Services who dealt with the operational side of waste services.  In order to understand the context of waste and recycling figures and the reason that they had fallen he gave Members some background information on wasteflows and what happens to waste, black bin, silver bin and green bin.  He circulated to Members three slides which showed residual waste, reuse, recycling/composting for the Lincolnshire Waste Partnership over a rolling 12 month period between March 2013 and March/June 2016.

The first slide showed a significant amount of residual waste going to landfill before the Energy from Waste (EfW) plant was built towards the end of 2013 at Hykeham. Once the plant was opened in Autumn there was a gradual increase in the amount of tonnage to the EfW and less to landfill to the extent that now the EfW was at capacity. Some materials which did not go to the EfW or landfill went to alternative facilities such as Ketton cement where they were still used as energy from waste and this total tonnage was increasing.  Tonnage that went to landfill was expensive at around £100 per tonne.

The next slide referred to recycling and composting/green waste figures which showed a decline of below 50% to 47%.   The next slide indicated the amount of recycling both from homes and including household waste recycling centres. Again there was a drop in recycling collected from homes but a slight increase in the amount of recycling sent to household recycling centres.

The recycling figures demonstrated a fall for the whole of those within the Lincolnshire Waste Partnership, SKDC was not an exception.

A range of reasons could be responsible for the decline.  The District Council used to receive recycling credits for the collection and treatment of waste which was an incentive from the County Council. However, the County decided to scrap recycling credits across Lincolnshire which reduced SKDC’s budget from between £500,000 and £750,000 per annum.  This was a significant impact to funding of the service at District level but which saved the County in the region on £2.7M.  The County let the contract but was responsible for marketing, promotion and education. 

One of the key issues with waste was contamination, when the District Council had the contract for the recycling service there was 10% contamination rate. Contamination figures currently stood at 25%.  New regulations and a new contract made it a challenge although the Lincolnshire Waste Partnership was trying to address the contamination issue.  Regulations governing quality control had been tightened and even a small amount of contamination had a significant impact.  Education was seen as a key factor and the Lincolnshire Waste Partnership introduced a food waste campaign over the Christmas period.  Unfortunately, because of the tight regulations only a small amount of contamination meant that a bin was not collected.  A sampling study had been requested by South Kesteven and had been undertaken to identify the three heaviest items. 

Contaminated waste in recycling bins included any type of food, electricals and any textiles/clothing.  This did cause problems as prior to the County taking over the contract textiles were allowed to be put in silver bins, however this item was not transferred when the new contract was implemented.

Due to the lack of funding (recycling credits) the education team support at South Kesteven that used to promote waste/recycling had been significantly reduced. It had been hoped that an invest to save proposal put forward by LCC would be put in place to undertake education. If people were unsure they tended to put things in the black bin which had a cost implication going down the line with extra going to landfill as the EfW was at capacity.

The Lincolnshire Waste Partnership was working on the issues but there was a cost implication whichever route was taken.  The national trend for recycling was going down but it didn’t mean that nothing should be done to try and get recycling rates back up. South Kesteven would work with LCC to improve the educations campaign and intended to undertake our own campaign targeting the three main causes of contamination.

Councillor Baxter thanked the officers for the work that they had done in addressing the question that had been put forward.  The County budget seemed to be a major factor. He asked about the contract in relation to the EfW to which the Executive Manager Environment replied that it was a 30 year contract with FCC a Spanish company. The Executive Manager stated that anything in relation to the contract and the EfW plant should be directed to the County Council as it was commercial information. He was aware that North Kesteven District Council’s Scrutiny Committee had recently discussed the item.

A question was asked about whether there were any community champions, also information on what you could put in and what stayed out of recycling bins needed more PR and information on the website. The stricter regulations concerning silver bins was increasing due to contamination which was causing recycling per tonne to decrease.  Although the figures were decreasing the Business Manager Street Care Services pointed out that the decreases were only by small margins, point five or point six of a percent also different authorities promoted their services such as green waste differently and reference was made to South Holland.

The Executive Member Environment referred to the website and stated that a relatively cheap option would be to improve the website so that a predictive search on products could be done.

Members then discussed the waste generally. One Member was concerned about the attitude of the waste operatives who collected the bins in her area and felt that they were very rude. She had a lot of elderly residents in her area and often bins were left because a teabag had been included in the silver bin.  It was suggested that perhaps officers could attend one of the OAP meetings held monthly to speak about waste.

Further discussion then followed on why vegetables such as cauliflower and fallen apples could not be put in the green bin to which the Executive Manager Environment responded explaining the strict regulations which needed to be in place due to the type of composting process used.

Various Members then made references to their dealings with the waste operatives which were positive and about what could and could not be put in the recycling bins.  It was stated that a countrywide standard and better recycling labels would be helpful.  Other Members stated that “might be recyclable” which was put on various packaging was not helpful and in her particular area there was a lot of contamination with silver bins.

The Executive Manager Environment stated that contamination was a real problem and waste operatives on the ground had a difficult task. Education was key be that by website or by the SK Today which was circulated widely in the district. Unfortunately as had previously been stated the funding for an education officer for schools had been cut and any invest to save proposal was with LCC.

The Executive Manager Environment and the Business Manager Street Care then discussed the household waste recycling facilities including the mobile unit at Stamford. He would take on board what had been said about stickers for the bins and tagging. There was a lot of information on the DEFRA website including national studies that had been undertaken. Work would continue with County colleagues to standardise contracts but education needed to be in place before enforcement took place.

One Member gave an example of recycling practice in Canada. Another Member referred to Rutland but because the civic amenity site was over the boarder it came under a different county.

The Officers were thanked for attending and answering questions.  The Chairman indicated that Officers had highlighted the difficulties being encountered, although to a large extent they were being governed by both the County Council and the rules and legislation governing recycling.  He thanked all Members for the contribution to the item.

(A small adjournment took place between 11:25am and 11:30am)