Municipal Waste Management Strategy
Consultation Report
Supplementary Report to the Municipal Waste
Management Strategy 2016-2031
November 2013
1
Contents
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Section
Executive summary
Background
Aims and objectives
Stakeholder mapping
Methodology
Headline consultation results
Resident survey results
Business survey results
Other consultation results
Key findings – Initial consultation
Draft Strategy Consultation Results
List of Figures
Figure
1
Information stands and workshops
2
Age of Consultees
3
Location of online participants
4
Frequency of collections question table
5
Frequency of collections(results)
6
Additional items residents would like collected
7
How to encourage people in purpose built flats to recycle
8
Container improvement preferences
9
Likelihood to use mobile recycling centre
10
When would you use a mobile recycling centre?
11
Food waste collections
12
Garden waste proposal
13
Reuse and recycling centre
14
Free text chart for waste reduction
15
Waste reduction proposal
16
Waste reduction information preferences
17
How the council can help residents to reduce waste
18
Incentives for residents
19
Resident’s communication preferences
20
Small waste treatment plants in the city
21
Hazardous waste service improvement suggestions
22
Business participants by type
23
Business participants by number of employees
24
Business waste reduction advice needed
25
Business bulky waste reuse
26
Measures to encourage business recycling
27
Commercial food waste service usage
28
Percentage of businesses that recycle
29
Suggestions from businesses to improve the service they receive
30
Hazardous waste service improvement suggestions from
businesses
Page
3
4
4
5
6
8
9
27
34
35
37
Page
7
9
10
11
12
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
22
23
24
25
26
27
27
28
29
29
30
31
32
33
2
1. Executive Summary
Westminster City Council’s waste disposal arrangements come to an end in 2016. To
inform the procurement of new services a new municipal waste management strategy is
required to provide strategic direction.
The Council chose to carry out a thirteen week public consultation, covering the period
from 22 April 2013 to 26 July 2013. The process included doorknocking surveys
(residents only), letters to Amenity Societies, public meetings and discussion meetings
and email exchanges with external and internal stakeholders. 12,006 doorstep surveys
were completed. 457 residents and 68 businesses completed online surveys.
The following key messages emerged from the public consultation:
Collection Frequency - Residents think elevated recycling rates are best achieved with
the current collection frequencies.51% wanted two general waste collections per week.
26% wanted two recycling collections per week but 54% wanted one recycling collection
per week. However, 40% thought more frequent collections would help people to
recycle more.
Food waste service - Under half of residents (43%) would be likely to use a food waste
service.35% would want two collections per week and 44% didn’t know what the
frequency should be.
Hazardous and bulky waste services - Residents are not happy with the current
hazardous and bulky waste arrangements. Both charging and the distance from
Wandsworth where the civic amenity site is located were highlighted as issues. There is
also a lack of understanding of the current service.
Incentives to encourage recycling - Funding for community initiatives (40%) was the
most common resident response to what incentive type would encourage more
recycling.
Container/bag delivery systems - Nearly half (47%) of residents say an improved bag
delivery system would encourage residents of purpose built flats to recycle more.
Additional Materials - A majority of residents would like batteries, food waste and
electrical items to be collected from the doorstep.
Businesses - The response rate to the survey was low. Of those that responded 57%
would be likely to use a food waste service but they need to have it promoted to them.
68% of businesses would like waste reduction advice.
As a result of the consultation the draft Municipal Waste Management Strategy was
further developed. This draft strategy was the subject to a 5 week consultation exercise
in October and November 2013. The responses were significantly less than the initial
consultation. Responses from the statutory consultees (GLA, EA and Natural England)
focused in increasing reuse and recycling rates, treating waste locally and focusing
efforts on specific waste streams to maximize environmental gain.
3
2. Background: Involving People
The Municipal Waste Management Strategy (MWMS) will guide how services are
delivered and developed in the future and where resources are targeted. This will
therefore affect everyone living, working and visiting Westminster, and will also
potentially impact or influence the activities of neighbouring authorities. As such, the
Council has involved various stakeholders in the development of its Strategy to ensure
the resulting documents are informed by their priorities and expectations.
2.1 Legislative Background
On 24 February 2005, the UK ratified the United Nations’ Aarhus Convention, covering
the public's involvement in three areas of environmental democracy:
1. Access to environmental information;
2. Participation in environmental decision-making; and
3. Access to justice in environmental matters.
The EU Directive Providing for Public Participation in Development of Plans and
Programmes implements the second of these and requires meaningful and ‘continuous’
community engagement on issues such as developing or revising MWMS.
DEFRA’s Policy Guidance requires decision making to be based upon, amongst other
things, engagement with the local community and key stakeholders. It promotes
innovative and active consultation from the early stages of the MWMS’s development,
and throughout its development thereafter.
3. Aims and Objectives
This report aims to compile and evaluate all the consultation exercises. The outcomes
of this report will therefore be used to inform the final Strategy and future Action Plans.
The aims and objectives of the consultation process are to:


Establish what participants deem to be acceptable to incorporate into the final
Strategy;
Ensure all relevant parties have been involved and had input into the Strategy
and therefore take ownership of the Strategy once it is produced.
4
4. Stakeholder Mapping
A key stakeholder mapping exercise was completed to categorise and prioritise
stakeholders and identify appropriate strategies to engage them. Appendix 1 lists the
relevant organizations and the communications channels for consultation.
5
5. Methodology
The consultation ran from 22 April to 26 July but most people interacted with the
consultation through the door knocking interviews (95%) which took place between 13
May and 16 July and achieved a 30% contact rate over 40,000 properties. 457 online
resident surveys were generated through a range of methods:




E newsletter – over 900 people received a link through the recycling e-newsletter
E-mail signatures of waste and recycling officers featured a link
In website advertising redirected web users from other parts of the council
website
Business cards providing the link were distributed by a number of methods:
o
o
o
o
o
o





The mobile recycling centre in Pimlico (over 100)
The street wardens
Waste and recycling staff
Via attendance at local area forums
Vital Regeneration and Veolia Environmental Services
‘Business as usual’ meetings
Emails to businesses and business improvement districts (BIDs). There were
1,500 businesses contacted directly not including those contacted through the
BIDs own email lists.
An article was placed in the Westminster Reporter. It was also reported by City
West Homes, ‘Pimlico People’ and the Voluntary Action Westminster website.
When people were door knocked but not at home a ‘sorry we missed you’
postcard directed residents to the consultation website (28,000 properties)
The City of Westminster Twitter account was used to direct people to the online
survey and was retweeted three times to a potential audience of over 6,000
A number of key stakeholders were written to including Westminster Amenity
Society Forum (WASF) which has 23 constituent members representing the
different areas of Westminster.
Interactions with targeted questions took place with a range of other interested parties :






Nearby Local Authorities of Camden, Kensington & Chelsea,The City of London
and Tower Hamlets
Councillors – 2 briefings were held
City Management staff such as the Wardens
The City Council’s planning and highways department.
The Environment Agency
English Heritage and Natural England
6
Westminster officers also attended six local area forums. The forum chairs were given
the option of a stand or a workshop where the officers took attendees through the major
issues associated with the consultation. Completed hard copy consultation surveys
were inputted into the online survey. Other comments are included in Appendix 2.
Figure 1 shows the areas covered by the workshops.
Figure 1: Information stands and workshops
Maida Vale
6th June
Workshop
Marylebone
13th June
Information stand
Bayswater
20th June
Information stand
West End
27th June
Workshop
St John’ s Wood
4th July
Information Stand
Victoria
11th July
Workshop
The questions asked during door knocking, online and hard copy resident questionnaire
and business questionnaire are shown in appendices 3,4, 5 and 6 respectively.
7
6. Headline Consultation Results
Resident survey:
457 responses received
Business survey:
68 responses received (4% response rate)
Area forums:
160 residents attending across six area forums.
Focus groups:
18 residents (2 groups of nine)
Resident Door knocking:
12,006 residents interviewed
Some caution should be used when interpreting figures from the business survey, as
the response rate was low.
This report summarises the findings of a consultation to better understand how
residents and businesses in Westminster can be encouraged to recycle more.
The questions asked on the doorstep and the online survey, including graphics, are
shown in appendices 3,4 and 5.
8
7. Resident Survey Results
The questions themselves are shown in italic.
7.1
Demographic Profiling
The gender of residential participants based on 12,463 residents (12,006 done through
door to door project) was 61% female.49% of respondents were 25-44. Their ages are
shown in figure 2.
Figure 2: Age of consultees
18-24
25-34
7%
35-44
4%
45-54
55-64
65-74
75+
6%
22%
13%
21%
27%
9
All wards were well represented in the survey. Those wards with ‘easy to reach’
properties are numerically better represented in four questions as this was the focus of
the doorknocking campaign (see figure 3).
Figure 3: Location of online participants (457 residents)
Area residents described themselves as living in (top 3 wards in Percentage
green, bottom 3 wards in blue
of
online
residential
respondents
Abbey Road
3.2%
Bayswater
5.7%
Bryanston and Dorset Square
3.0%
Church Street
1.9%
Churchill
2.6%
Harrow Road
2.6%
Hyde Park
1.0%
Knightsbridge and Belgravia
1.8%
Lancaster Gate
2.1%
Little Venice
3.8%
Maida Vale
7.0%
Marylebone
3.8%
Pimlico
1.9%
Queen’s Park
4.5%
Regent’s Park
2.2%
St. James’s
1.0%
Tachbrook
3.2%
Vincent Square
3.2%
Warwick
3.7%
West End
3.7%
Westbourne Green
2.4%
Non ward based area e.g. Fitzrovia
2.1%
10
Residents Consultation Findings
Question 1. Frequency of collection (12,463 residents):
Given the above chart and bearing in mind the challenges to public finances and tight
budgets, how often each week should we collect your waste and recyclables from
properties with a doorstep collection (using a bag or box)? (Please tick one per line)
Figure 4 displays the form that residents filled in online and in paper.
Figure 4: Frequency of collections question table
One
Two
Three
More than None
three
Don’t
know
Recycling
Collection
□
□
□
□
□
□
Food Waste
Collection
General
Waste
Collection
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
As figure 5 shows there was a strong preference among all residents for a twice weekly
general waste collection (51%) and weaker preference for twice weekly food waste
collection (35%) - the largest category for the latter was respondents answering ‘don’t
know’ (44%). 54% of residents said we should collect recycling once a week. 26% of
respondents wanted twice weekly recycling collections.
11
Figure 5: frequency of collections - 12,463 residents (12,006 done through door to door
project)
Don't know
General waste collection
More than three
Three
Two
One
17%
3%
2%
51%
24%
2%
Food waste collection
44%
5%
35%
13%
Recycling collection
1%
1%
16%
26%
54%
Question 2. Additional items/collections (457 residents):
What other materials not currently collected would you like collected for recycling?
Please only answer this question if you currently receive a doorstep collection service.
(Please tick all that apply)
Figure 6 shows that 51% of respondents wanted batteries, food waste and electrical
waste to be included in their doostep collection, in addition to those items already listed
on the resident survey. Other items residents specified include plastic bags (2%),
lightbulbs (2%) printer/ink cartridges (1%), and furniture (1%).
Figure 6: Additional items residents would like collected
Additional items residents would like % of respondents
collected
Batteries
51%
Electrical items
51%
Food Waste
51%
Garden Waste
37%
Disposable nappies
14%
Other
13%
12
Question 3. Involvement with individuals(457 respondents):
How, if at all, could we encourage residents from purpose built flats to recycle to a
greater extent? (Please tick all that apply)
Figure 7: How to encourage people in purpose built flats to recycle
Method to encourage recycling in purpose built flats
Improved bag delivery system
More frequent services
Legal compulsion
Reward residents
Other
Reward porters
% of
Respondents
47%
40%
33%
26%
25%
18%
Nearly half (47%) of residents in figure 7 say an improved bag delivery system would
encourage residents in purpose built flats to recycle more. The 40% that want more
frequent services contradicts, to some extent, the findings in question 1 where 54% of
respondents wanted one recycling collection a week.
There is limited appetite for Westminster City Council to force residents to recycle. 33%
think legal requirements would be a way of getting residents in purpose built flats to
recycle more.
Question 4. Container/Bags/Communal bins: (284 respondents):
We currently provide boxes, bags, bins and reusable bags for residents to present their
recycling in depending on the type of property you live in.
How, if at all, do you think the container used for collections could be improved? (Please
write in)
Figure 8 illustrates that over a quarter (26%) of respondents to the resident survey are
happy with the current container provision and would not change anything, 13% want
better supply of bags/containers and 12% claim blue bags are not strong enough.
13
Figure 8: container improvement preferences
Happy
26%
Better supply
13%
Stronger bags
12%
Size of bin/bags
7%
Lidded bins
6%
Compartmentalise/colour code
5%
More information
5%
Bin design general
4%
Food/Garden waste
4%
Frequency of collections
3%
Locked communal bin
1%
Communal bin proximity
1%
Fines
1%
Other
10%
14
Question 5. Mobile recycling Centre(12,494 residents):
How likely or unlikely, if at all, would you be to use such a facility if one was installed in
your area? (Please tick one)
Figure 9 shows that 39% of all residents are likely to use a mobile recycling facility, of
which 6% are very likely.
Figure 9: likelihood to use mobile recycling centre
Very or fairly likely
Neither
Not very or not at all likely
30%
20%
Don't know
39%
11%
15
Question 6. Mobile recycling Centre (497 residents):
Please specify what time, during the weekend, you would be most likely to use such a
facility? (Please tick one)
There was no strong preference in terms of usage times amongst the respondents of
the residents survey. 80% of residents specified a time they would use the facility, with
a relatively even spread between the three options. 13 residents chose ‘other’ (see
figure 10).
Figure 10: when would you use a mobile recycling centre? (467 residents)
Would not use
Other
24%
25%
10am-4pm
12pm-6pm
8am-2pm
14%
6%
31%
16
Question 7. Food waste collection(12,481 residents):
How likely or unlikely, if at all, would you and other members of your household be able
to use a food waste collection service if one was provided? (Please tick one)
Figure 11 illustrates that 43% of all residents would be likely to use a food waste service
(14% very likely). 18% would not use it and 17% didn’t know.
Figure 11: Food waste collection
Very likely
Fairly likely
Neither
Not very likely
Not at all likely
Don't know
17%
14%
15%
29%
17%
8%
17
Question 8. Garden waste proposal (482 respondents):
11% of households in Westminster have a garden. Prior to 2010 a free garden waste
service was provided but only used on a regular basis by 2% of households. A
government study reported in 2010 that there is no significant environmental benefit of
composting garden waste when compared to burning to generate energy (WRAP,
2010). It is our position that it is more efficient and effective to collect garden waste as
part of normal waste collections and dispose via burning.
The council does not propose to reintroduce a garden waste collection service in
Westminster.
To what extent do you agree or disagree, if at all, with the garden waste collection
proposal? (Please tick one)
Figure 12 demonstrates that 50% agree with the council’s garden waste proposal, to
continue collecting garden waste as part of the waste collection and send it to an
‘energy from waste’ plant.
Figure 12: Garden waste proposal
Don’t know
Neither
Strongly Agree
Tend to agree
Tend to disagree
Strongly Disagree
12%
12%
8%
18%
19%
31%
18
Question 9. Reuse and recycling centre (12,463 respondents):
If we had a permanent reuse and recycling centre in the city for materials including
garden waste, bulky waste, electrical waste, paint, oil, etc how often, if at all, would you
be likely to use it? (Please tick one)
Figure 13 shows a full break down of resident’s preferences. Added together over 39%
of residents would be likely to use the a reuse and recycling centre over the course of a
year.
Figure 13: Reuse and recycling Centre
At least once a week
At least once a month
At least once every two months
At least once every six months
At least once a year
Less than once a year
I would not use this facility
Don't know
1%
5%
31%
7%
9%
17%
15%
15%
19
Resident Questionnaire Part two
Upon completion of part 1, residents filling in the online survey were thanked for their
time and asked if they would like to answer further questions.
Question 1. Waste reduction (255 residents):
Please identify in the space below any areas of waste reduction that you think
Westminster City Council should be involved. Please continue on a separate sheet if
necessary.(please write in)
As is shown in figure 14 there is a strong desire for leadership from the council on
national issues such as excessive food packaging and the use of plastic bags by
retailers. When asked to identify ‘other areas of waste reduction the council should be
involved in’, 67% mentioned either working with retailers to reduce food packaging
(43%) or addressing other retail issues such as plastic bags (24%).
Figure 14: Free text for waste reduction
1. Please identify in the space below any areas of waste
reduction that you think Westminster City Council should be
involved. Please continue on a separate sheet if necessary.
Packaging (The reduction of volume and/or weight)
Retailers (getting them to produce less)
Extra Materials collected by the council
Council working practices
A food waste collection
Percentage
43%
24%
6%
5%
3%
20
Question 2. Waste reduction (422 residents):
To what extent, if at all, do you agree or disagree that we should aim to reduce the
amount of waste we produce? (Please tick one) (422 residents)
Only 1% of residents strongly disagree that we should aim to reduce the amount of
waste we produce with well over half agreeing that we should aspire to reduce waste,
58% of which strongly agree (see figure 15).
Figure 15: Waste reduction proposal
Don't know
Neither agree nor disagree
Tend to agree
Strongly agree
Tend to disagree
Strongly disagree
1%
0%
3%
26%
12%
58%
21
Question 3 Waste reduction (457 residents):
Please specify what type of information or help would be most effective in helping you to
reduce your household waste. (Please tick all that apply)
Figure 16: Waste reduction information preferences
Preference
Avoiding junk mail
Buying only what you need
Composting
Resuable nappies
None
Don’t know
Percentage
72%
44%
21%
9%
3%
3%
There is a strong desire amongst residents to avoid junk mail with 72% wanting
information on the subject (see figure 16). This is despite the potentially bigger impact of
reducing what you buy, with only 44% of residents requesting information .
Question 4. Waste reduction (221 residents):
Please specify anything that the council could do to help you lower the amount of
household waste you throw away. (Please write in)
Figure 17 demonstrates a limited demand for food waste collections and more
information for residents.
Figure 17: How the council can help residents to reduce waste
Category
Food waste
More information for residents
Service suggestions
National issues e.g. taxation,
newspaper supplements
Packaging
Extra materials collected
Retailers
Percentage
18%
14%
12%
10%
8%
6%
5%
22
Question 5 Recycling more (457 residents):
Which, if any, of the following incentives would encourage you to reduce, reuse and
recycle more? (Please tick all that apply)
Funding for community initiatives was the biggest incentive (see figure 18) for
Westminster residents to recycle more (40%) but a significant number wanted to
understand the environmental benefits (28%) or gain directly in a financial sense (25%).
The ‘other’ category was split a large number of ways but the following were repeated
(5% or less of the total).



Convenience (5%)
‘I already recycle as much as I can’ (3%)
Better facilities (1%)
Figure 18: Incentives for residents
Category
Percentage
40%
Funding for community initiatives
Other (including convenience,better facilities and already recycling as 30%
much as I can)
28%
Finding out about and understanding the environmental benefits
25%
Direct benefit to me i.e. monetary
None, I could not be encouraged to recycle more
20%
3%
Don’t know
23
Question 6 Communciation (457 residents):
Please identify your three most preferred methods of communication with your local
council. (Please tick as all that apply).
Email was the preferred form of communication – 82% of residents prefer this method,
as well as 85% of businesses. This is consistent with previous research done by the
communications team into residents preferred communication channels. Figure 19
details other options preferred.
Figure 19: Resident’s communications preferences
Communication Methods
E-mails
Website
Council Publication
Leaflets
Posters
Social Media
Text messages
Other
% of residents who
prefer this method
82%
48%
47%
33%
24%
10%
8%
8%
24
Question 7 Waste treatment (424 residents):
The council has a responsibility to treat collected waste within Westminster under the
Mayor of London’s ‘London Plan’. At present the council is investigating the feasibility of
small scale waste treatment plants in the city.
Westminster will seek to ensure that municipal waste is managed within the London
region wherever appropriate facilities exist.
Westminster will also seek to reduce carbon dioxide emissions where possible through
the implementation of more sustainable waste management activities.
To what extent, if at all, do you agree or disagree with this policy? (Please tick one)
78% agree with concept of a waste treatment facility within Westminster. Figure 20 also
illustrates that 49% strongly agree.
Figure 20: Small waste treatment plants in the city
Don't know
Neither agree nor disagree
Strongly agree
Tend to agree
Tend to disagree
Strongly disagree
3%
4% 3%
12%
29%
49%
25
Question 8 Hazardous waste (240 residents)
What else do you think we should do to improve our current approach to managing
hazardous waste streams? (Please write in)
35% of respondents to the resident survey were unaware of this service or would like
more information; 13% want a local/doorstep collection; and 11% want better/more
locations as drop-off points. For a more detailed breakdown see figure 21.
Figure 21: Hazardous waste service improvement suggestions
Other
Work with retailers
Nothing/happy
Fines/Charge
Occasional collections
Better location
Doorstep collection
Free collection
Information/Advertise service
1%
10%
3%
5%
35%
6%
11%
16%
13%
26
8. Business survey results
The business questionnaire can be found in appendix 6 .Response levels (32
completed surveys, 68 surveys started) were low but a number of findings were still
relevant. ‘Other’ is made up of charities, the third sector and misclassifications. Figures
22 and 23 illustrate the composition of respondents.
Figure 22 Businesses participants by type (26 businesses answered question)
Hospitality
Office
8%
Other
Retail
7%
31%
54%
Figure 23: Business participants by number of employees (27 businesses)
3 or fewer
26%
4 to 20
21-100
100+
15%
7%
52%
27
Question 1.Waste reduction (31 businesses)
The council is investigating methods to encourage waste reduction. Would your
business be interested in receiving waste reduction advice if Westminster City Council
or a partner provided it?
Figure 24 shows that 68% of businesses surveyed said they would be interested in
receiving waste reduction advice from Westminster City Council.
Figure 24: Business waste reduction advice needed
Yes
No
Don’t know
10%
22%
68%
28
Question 2. Business reuse (31 businesses):
The council would like to encourage the reuse of waste from businesses especially their
bulky waste (desks, chairs, cupboards and large white goods) for further use by other
businesses and charities. Which, if any, of the following options would encourage your
business to reuse more waste? (Please tick all those that apply)
Businesses were split beween ‘more information’ (16) ‘better collection (20)’ and ‘benefit
to charities’ (15) in terms of what would motivate them to reuse their bulky waste. 7
businesses wanted the ability to deliver reusable waste at a ‘reduce and recycle centre’
locally.
Figure 25: Business bulky waste reuse
Options
Number of
respondents
more information
16
better collection
20
benefit to charities
15
ability to deliver reusable waste at a 7
‘reduce and recycle centre’ locally.
Question 3. Recycling more (31 businesses):
The council would like to encourage all Westminster businesses to significantly increase
their recycling performance. Which, if any, of the following would encourage you to
recycle more? (Please tick all those that apply)
Figure 26: measures to encourage business recycling
What would encourage your business to
recycle more
a wider range of materials being collected.
Number of
respondents
16
wanted different collection times
wanted clearer instructions
wanted a food waste collection
ticked the ‘other box’
would like more storage for their business
10
9
8
7
4
Staff training
1
29
Question 4. Commercial food waste collection service (28 Businesses):
The council is currently trialing a commercial food waste collection service. We are
investigating the feasibility of a wider commercial food waste collection service. How
likely or unlikely, if at all, would you and other members of your business be willing to
use a food waste collection service if one was provided?
Figure 27 shows that 57% of businesses surveyed are likely to use food waste service
(32% very likely),4% were very unlikely and 28% of businesses did not feel the question
was applicable to them.
Figure 27: Commerical food waste service usage
Very likely
Likely
Unlikely
Very unlikely
28%
Not applicable
32%
11%
4%
25%
30
Q5. Business Waste (30 businesses)
Do you recycle your business waste?
Figure 28 shows the vast majority of business respondents (83%) recycle.
Figure 28: Pecentage of businesses that recycle
don’t know
No
10%
Yes
7%
83%
Question 6:
Why not?
Three businesses answered this question. Two business believed a collection was not
avaliable to them and one felt that the collection times were not convenient.
Question 7: Communications
The council is reviewing how it communicates service messages to businesses. Please
identify your three most preferred methods of communication with the council. (Please
tick up to three).




24 of the business respondents selected e-mail as one of their 3 preferred
methods of communication
12 preferred leaflets
9 preferred newsletters
2 preferred text messages
31
Question 8: Service Improvement (15 businesses)
We can always improve how waste and recycling services are provided. If you could
make two improvements to our services what would they be?
Figure 29: Suggestions from businesses to improve the service they receive
Longer and clearer collection times
Paper collection More dedication to business, rather than part of street collection
More flexibility with regards to collection times especially for smaller businesses - I cannot stay late/get to work early
just to put rubbish out.
Disposal of small electrical items somewhere in WC2 Collection of bigger electrical items
Allow business to recycle paper and cardboard free. Put a deposit on all bottles and cans that is refunded when they
are taken to a recycling center.
Free recycling bags and collection of cardboard
food waste and used oil
More collection times Centralised local collecting points
Make it easier to recycle items and make Veolia more poractive
1. Absolutely vital to collect recycling daily. We alone produce upwards of 4 bags of cardboard and 4 of wine
bottles/beer bottles. This cannot be stored on the premises. 2. Automatic ordering of bin bags, so that you could
request they arrive once every week rather than having to either bulk buy or call each time you order.
1 - Actual bin weighing and reporting are crucial in future. Estimates are useful initially but will not show change very
quickly and we want to see our improvements (not to just be measuring capacity). Data is required for our Estate
Management reporting to HEFCE (which could be linked to our funding in future), for our Carbon Reduction
Commitment and Green League position. 2 - Although sending glass and paper and card directly to places where they
can be used is clearly better than additional processing at a MRF, co-mingled recycling would be easier.
1. Bigger and accessible recycling bin for papers 2. Central marketplace for Businesses to donate old IT equipment /
furnitures to charities or poor households
Frequent collections and free bags.
Recycling collection times more convenient to business users - 8am for putting out recycling is not convenient given we
open at 10am. Work with local charity shops to help us raise more money through textile and other recycling.
Daily collection Make the recycling bags cheaper than the landfill bags
Recycling bin rather than bags
Improve bulky item pick up (we tried for weeks to organize this and ended up giving up!) More and better timed pick
ups
1) Ability to recycle laminated brochures 2) Provision of multi cambre recycle bins for the office (maximises recycling
options without multiple containers)
collecting a wider range of goods from businesses
We regularly need to dispose of electronic waste (keyboards, mice, old power chargers, monitors etc.). Would help
enormously if Westminster offered a collection service for this type of equipment, even if a small fee was involved.
daily recycling collections please.
Providing recycling facilities to businesses.
More uniform collection times within business and residential districts as it is very confusing and causes waste to be on
the street all day and all night. This should include standard collection windows for both general waste and recycling,
collected on a split vehicle as well as shorter collection windows and remedial time. Better information to businesses
and residents on the rules and timing of collections.
32
Question 9: Hazardous waste (13 businesses)
The council seeks to encourage all businesses to dispose of their hazardous waste
appropriately (paints, oils, chemicals, asbestos, electrical and electronic waste). How
could the council encourage good practice in your business?
Figure 30 : Suggestions to improve the hazardous waste service from businesses
Clearer guidelines on what is hazardous and how to dispose of
Not relevant
Reduction in cost for charities like us
Provide more options for disposal or collection, or make them better known
Have a pickup/sticker for flourescent tubes.
not this business
Centralised local collecting points
This is not an issue for us
Specific collection times.
As above, data reporting on waste streams is really important to us. Having a good
audit trail for hazardous materials and being able to understanding the weight, fate
and associated carbon emissions is most important to us.
1. Arrange the recycling company to make Regular Collections from businesses e.g.
every other month 2. Posters and leaflets in council tax bills
Better Communications as to how to do it
We don't have such materials
Have a totally seperate coloured bag for this. Maybe just weekly collection
Local bins for electrical and electronic waste
We are doing this already at London School of Economics
Have and meet agreed pick ups - or have disposal points (also regularly cleared)
The issueing of credits/points for businesses to build up and participate at team
building events.
More information about the hazzards of these waste streams and how to dispose of
them properly
see above
Better information on the rules and easy collections, rather than drop of at a recycling
centre.
33
9. Other stakeholder consultation
Interaction with stakeholders
Local London boroughs
Officers met or communicated via email with fellow officers from the City of London,
Camden, Tower Hamlets and Kensington and Chelsea. Discussions centered around
recycling best practice, reducing contamination of recycling bins, incentives and
encouraging higher participation and capture rates, bulky waste collections, and
reduction, reuse and recycling targets and current performance.
Environment Agency
The Environment Agency suggested that the council ensure that the strategy developed
complied with national and regional targets. Highlighting the importance of complying
with the waste hierarchy.
Greater London Authority (GLA)
The Greater London Authority highlighted the policies and targets set out in the Mayor
Municipal Waste Management Strategy and particularly noted the importance of the
carbon targets, food waste collections and landfill targets.
Councillor Engagement
Councillor workshops were held on the 18 April and 8 May 2013 to highlight the
rationale for the new municipal waste management strategy, the drivers for change and
provide an opportunity to ask questions or comment on the consultation exercise. 3
councillors attended the workshops.
Environment Policy and Scrutiny Committee Task Group
To support the development of the consultation exercise and the waste strategy
Councillors’ Connell, Cox, Hyams and Mukerji acted as the Environment Policy and
Scrutiny Committee Waste Strategy Task Group. Their support and advice was
particularly beneficial in designing the structure and language of the consultation
exercise and initiatives to stimulate elevated resident recycling rates.
City West Homes
Officers met with City West Homes to discuss how residents could be encouraged to
recycle more and support to promote the consultation exercise. City West Homes asked
that the questionnaire be developed into versions for the Arabic and Bengali
communities. This was undertaken.
Other Council Departments
The drivers influencing the service and the potential impacts were discussed with other
Council departments most notably Planning, City Management and Highways and
Transportation.
34
10. Key Findings – Initial Consultation
1
2
3
4
Key Finding
Residents like the status
quo in terms of the
frequency of collections and
there is little appetite for
change
Residents would be
incentivised to recycle by a
combination of incentives for
the community and for
themselves
Residents would like
additional materials
collected from the doorstep
Residents are unhappy with
the hazardous waste
service.
5 Residents are unhappy with
the inconvenience of the
Reuse and Recycling
Centre in Wandsworth
Evidence
Westminster residents favour twice weekly waste
collections (51%). 54% favoured retaining weekly
recycling collections.
40% would respond to funding for community
initiatives and 28% of residents wanted to
financially benefit.
51% of respondents wanted batteries, food waste
and electrical waste to be collected in addition to
the current materials.
34% of respondents to the resident survey felt they
were unaware of the hazardous waste service or
would like more information. Residents often
amalgamate this issue with the civic amenity site
issue in key finding 5.
Free text comments focused on the difficulty of
using the Reuse and Recycling Centre (9% of
respondents specifically cited this).
6 Many residents are
concerned about national
issues
National issues, such as the amount of nonrecyclable packaging used by retailers and
proliferation of plastic bags were mentioned by
69% of respondents to the resident survey when
asked which areas of waste reduction Westminster
should be involved in.
7 Many residents are not
engaged with the waste
reduction agenda and do
not realise its importance or
lack the information to
generate meaningful
opinions
Nearly a third of residents answered ‘don’t know’
to Westminster proposals such as in city Reuse
and Recycling Centre and additional mobile
recycling centres, indicating a low level of
engagement with waste/recycling disposal.
Over a quarter (28%) of respondents to the
residents survey and almost three-fifths (58%) of
respondents to the business survey say receiving
more information would help them to recycle more.
68% of those door knocked believed that they
recycled all that they could but only 66% recycled
food tins and drinks cans, so greater knowledge of
35
Key Finding
8 There is desire for a food
waste service for a
significant number of
residents
9 Businesses in Westminster
recycle but do not see it as
a priority
what can be recycled could lead to a greater
recycling levels.
Evidence
In terms of proposals there is some support for a
food waste service (43% say they are likely to use
it),
There were 32 completed surveys with 83% saying
they recycled and 57% saying they would be likely
to use a food waste service
36
11. Draft Municipal Waste Management Strategy Consultation Results
Following the consultation of 12,000 residents and others stakeholders in May, June
and July 2013 a draft Municipal Waste Management Strategy was further developed.
The draft Municipal Waste Management Strategy (2016 – 2031) and the associated
Environmental Report a part of the Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) were the
subject of a 5 week consultation from 3 October until 7 November 2013.
Responses were received from Greater London Authority (GLA), the Environment
Agency, Natural England and five residents.
The GLA highlighted the policies and targets set out in the Mayor of London’s Municipal
Waste Management Strategy and the importance of the carbon targets, food waste
collections and opportunities to target specific materials for recycling. There was
recognition that achieving elevated reuse and recycling rates in Westminster was
challenging given the building structures and other demographic issues.
The Environment Agency highlighted the importance of the environmental impacts
options appraisal process. In addition they highlighted the potential for increasing
materials capture rates for certain materials, and for the targeting of high value (or high
resource value) materials within streams (e.g. WEEE- Waste Electronic and Electrical
Equipment) such as rare earth metals.
Natural England would like to see more effort made to ensure recycling and re-use is
maximised within London, so as to minimise road and river travel and improve air
quality.
Issues raised by residents were:
 The need to engage children and the wider ‘less informed’ public.
 We should lobby supermarkets to reduce packaging and wasted food.
 Better promotion of reuse charities required.
 Support for a plastic bag tax.
 Better understanding of the psychology of recycling needed to encourage higher
rates.
 An opportunity existed to increase the efficiency of the vehicle fleet. Would like
fewer collection vehicles going down streets each day.
37