10TH MAY, 2005
COUNCIL
REPORT OF THE DEPUTY LEADER - (ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES)
WASTE MANAGEMENT – RECYCLING, COMPOSTING AND OTHER
COLLECTION SERVICES
1.0
Purpose of Report
1.1
To advise members of the outcome of the public consultation on the alternate week
waste collection trial.
1.2
To propose a programme for extension of the scheme to the rest of the district.
1.3
To set policies for the detailed operational arrangements.
1.4
To determine the contractual arrangements for collection and treatment of the waste.
1.5
To consider proposals for the purchase of containers and vehicles to be used.
1.6
To make arrangements for the staffing resources that will be required to extend the
scheme across the district.
2.0
Recommendations to Council
2.1
That the programme set out in appendix 1 for extending the alternate week collection
service be agreed.
2.2
That the Council enters into contractual agreements with J.Moody Ltd, Simpro Ltd
and Humphries Demolition Ltd for the disposal of green waste during 2005/2006.
2.3
That the Council extends the existing contract with Biffa for refuse collection and
associated services on the terms set out in paragraph 3.2.6.
2.4
That the Contract for kerbside collection of recyclable materials be awarded to R U
Recycling for a period of six years.
2.5
That the Council approves a supplementary capital budget of £390,000 for the
purchase of 3 Eurocycler recycling vehicles and that the Chief Executive be
authorised to sanction the purchase of 2 further vehicles if the necessary legal opinion
is obtained.
2.6
That the Council be recommended to approve a supplementary capital budget of
£60,000 for the purchase of kerbside recycling boxes, nets and lids.
2.7
That the policies set put in appendix 2 for provision of containers and dealing with
excess waste be agreed.
DL(ES) - 1
2.8
That the Council suspends the delegation to the Regulatory Committee to enable
Council to approve the staffing matters set out in paragraph 3.8.5, in order to facilitate
and avoid any delay in the implementation of the proposals.
2.9
That the additional staffing resources set out in paragraph 3.8.5 be agreed.
3.0
Background Information
3.1
Progress to Date
3.1.1 The Council’s Waste Strategy states that in 2004/5 test schemes for the collection of
recyclables and garden waste would be implemented, followed by public consultation,
consequential amendment and further implementation of the strategy. Earlier this
year the Scrutiny Committee resolved to ask Deputy Leader (Environmental Services)
to submit a phased plan on the full recycling facilities throughout the district for 2005.
3.1.2 Collection of garden waste has now been introduced to some 24,000 properties in the
northern half of the district and this has enabled the Council to meet its recycling /
composting target for 2004/5. In addition a test alternate week collection service has
been introduced to approximately 12,000 properties in the parishes of Great Wyrley,
Featherstone, Essington, Brewood, Perton and Codsall. This service has involved the
separate collection of garden waste, dry recyclables (plastic bottles, cans, glass),
newspaper and residual waste on a two week cycle. The operation has been very
successful in that 730 tonnes of material was recycled between November 2004 and
March 2005.
3.1.3 A survey of residents’ views on the test scheme has now been carried out.
Questionnaires were sent to 400 properties (this number was based on advice from
BMG, the company organising the Council’s citizens panel as to what size of sample
would produce statistically valid results). At the time of writing 267 replies had been
received and the responses are summarized in the following table.
Very
Fairly
Satisfied Satisfied
The Alternate
Weekly Service
overall
%
Neither
Satisfied
nor
dissatisfied
%
Fairly
Very
dissatisfied dissatisfied
%
Total
58
62
55.81
17
7.91
25
53
36.28
215
Blue Bag for
Paper
Suitability
82
86
70.00
19
7.92
22
31
22.08
240
Size
71
83
66.67
20
8.66
33
24
24.68
231
Green Box for
Glass, Cans &
Plastic Bottles
Suitability
93
84
72.84
12
4.94
20
34
22.22
243
Size
75
59
57.51
17
7.30
31
51
35.19
233
Suitability
148
77
92.98
12
4.96
0
5
2.07
242
Size
131
79
90.13
13
5.58
4
6
4.29
233
Suitability
129
80
86.72
12
4.98
7
13
8.30
241
101
65
69.17
10
4.17
26
38
26.67
240
134
84
87.55
16
6.43
4
11
6.02
249
69
87
62.65
26
10.44
38
29
26.91
1091
846
210
295
Green Bin for
garden waste
Grey bin for
residual waste Size
The reliability of
the collection
service overall
The level of
street
cleanliness/tidin
ess following
the collections
TOTALS
174
DL(ES) - 2
249
2616
3.1.4 Residual Waste. The biggest cause for complaint and dissatisfaction with the
alternate week service has been the reduced frequency of emptying and lack of
capacity in the grey residual waste bin with 64 replies to this effect. Since the
operation started measures have been introduced to meet the concerns of residents and
these are described below.
a) When the wheeled bin system was introduced the Council set a policy of
providing a second bin to households of five or more persons. At that time the
larger 360 litre bin was not considered because the cost of the bin was four times
as much as a standard 240 litre bin. The relative cost has now reduced and so in
the test area households with five persons have been offered a 360 litre bin, and
those with six or more a second 240 litre bin.
Of the 64 dissatisfied responses 7 either have or could qualify for assistance under
this provision.
b) Other large households (normally with 4 persons) which are genuinely recycling
(as confirmed by a visit from an officer) but have difficult accommodating
residual refuse are offered a 360 litre bin for a one off payment of £25.00 to cover
the additional purchase price.
Of the 64 dissatisfied responses 32 either have or could qualify for assistance
under this provision.
c) An additional bin is provided in cases where extra refuse is produced due to a
medical condition and there is one case that qualifies in this respect.
Of the remaining 24 cases 14 are households of only 1 or 2 persons and 10 are 3
person households. In most of these cases the concern was about either ‘a health
hazard’ or potential smell as a result of the fortnightly collection. Regarding the
concern that the changed service will create a health hazard I can advise that over 130
local authorities are now operating in this way and no evidence has emerged to justify
this concern. One council consulted its Medical Officer for Health who, after
checking their records found no indication of an increase in gastro-intestinal diseases
following the change to a two-weekly collection. Another policy of this Council that
has been in place since wheeled bins were introduced is that residents can have a
second bin, irrespective of family size if they pay the full cost of the emptying service
and it is proposed that this policy should continue for those small households that
have problems accommodating their waste.
3.1.5 Green Boxes. 54 responses expressed dissatisfaction with the suitability of the green
box and 82 with its capacity. The problem with suitability mainly related to the
poorly fitting lids which have blown away in windy weather. Regarding capacity we
have from the start of the trial provided second boxes to households that demonstrate
that they are recycling and need one. It is also the case that any recyclate left in bags
with the boxes is removed. These issues are discussed further in 3.4 below.
3.1.6 Blue Bags. 53 responses expressed dissatisfaction with the blue bags, mainly because
they blow around after collection and 57 because of their capacity. This issue is also
discussed in 3.4 below.
DL(ES) - 3
3.1.7 Green Bins. The only problem raised with the green bin garden refuse service is
households requiring additional capacity. It is in the Council’s interest to maximize
the collection of this waste as it improves performance results and as the recycling
credit exceeds the disposal cost a small amount of revenue is earned. It is therefore
proposed that households be given a second green bin on request on payment of a
one-off sum to cover the cost of the bin (currently approximately at £18.00).
3.2
Refuse Collection and Associated Works.
3.2.1 The current contract with Biffa expires in September 2005, but includes a clause that
allows for it to be extended by the Council. It was felt for the following reasons that
this option should be explored.
(i) The service provided by Biffa has generally been of a high standard, with the
number of missed collections at its lowest for 10 years.
(ii) If the Council decides to extend alternate week collections across the district, it
will require a high degree of co-operation from the contractor to ensure minimum
disruption and efficient transfer of resources.
(iii) There is currently large growth in the municipal waste sector, with more
Council’s introducing additional recycling services, and so there is no guarantee that
there would be a great deal of competition for our contract.
3.2.2 Consequently negotiations have taken place with Biffa and terms for extending the
contract have been agreed. To ensure that there is independent verification that an
extension of the Biffa contract is the best option for the Council, its retained
procurement consultant Qualitar have been involved throughout and requested to
produce a report on the outcome. That report concludes:
“In our opinion the council’s `in principle’ decision to extend the current refuse
collection contract with Biffa, the incumbent supplier, is the most efficient,
effective and best value option. We came to this conclusion by using all the
information available to us and by applying our experience and judgement”.
3.2.3 The cost of the extended contract is higher in real terms than the original, but this
increase is almost wholly due to increased wage costs that Biffa feel are necessary in
order to retain and recruit staff, particularly drivers. The rates to be paid by Biffa
have been compared with similar operations in the region, and it can be confirmed
that they are indeed no more than the current market rate. The Biffa figures have
been subject to an “open book” appraisal by Qualitar and Council Officers.
3.2.4 To minimise the impact of this increase on the Council, Biffa have agreed to a
discount of £50,000 off the new contract price for 2005/6. The cost of the extended
contract will be £1,872,000/annum from September 2005. In order to bring the
contract back into line with the Council’s financial year, and to ensure the most cost
effective use of a new vehicle fleet, it has been agreed that the extension run until 31
March 2011.
3.2.5 As we are invoking an extension clause within an existing contract the Council do not
DL(ES) - 4
need to formally suspend our contract procedure rules to enter into the further
arrangement with Biffa.
3.2.6 It is therefore proposed that the Council extends the current refuse collection contract
with Biffa until 31st March 2011 at a cost in the first year of £1,872,000 (September
2005 – September 2006).
3.3
Collection of dry recyclables.
3.3.1 Competitive quotations were obtained for collection of these materials during the trial
period, but a longer term arrangement requires that the service is procured following
EU procedures. Tenders have therefore been sought and three applications have been
received. The tender is for a six year period so that it terminates at the same time as
the extended Biffa contract to facilitate combining the two in the future should the
Council so wish. Tenderers were asked to quote on either of 2 options:
a) The Council retaining ownership of the material and arranging its disposal
through the Southern Staffordshire Partnership Bulking and Baling facility at
Norton Canes.
b) The contractor arranging for disposal of the material with any cost / income being
contained within the tendered sum.
When the projected income is taken into account the lowest net tender is option b
from R U Recycling, and the company has been vetted by internal audit. R U
Recycling has also been awarded the Staffordshire contract to build and operate the
Bulking & Baling facility. Our tender price is as follows:
Collection cost
Estimated Income
£366,750 per annum
£ 33,750 per annum
Net
£333,750 per annum
3.3.2 To operate the contract in South Staffordshire, R U Recycling will need to acquire
three ‘Eurocycler’ collection vehicles. During post tender discussions the option of
the Council purchasing the vehicles to reduce revenue costs was raised, and it
transpires that this would be financially advantageous to the Council as set out below.
Cost Comparison
Collection Cost
Per annum
£
Per six year
Contract
£
They supply the vehicles
366,750
2,200,500
We supply the vehicles
282,400
1,694,400
Gross saving
84,350
506,100
Cost of capital* (£390,000 x 5%)
19,500
117,000
Net revenue saving
64,850
389,100
* Loss of investment income
DL(ES) - 5
3.3.3 Because of this financial advantage to the Council, R U Recycling suggested that the
Council might purchase two other vehicles that will be used on another contract,
which would result in additional savings on our contract. Legal opinion is currently
being obtained on whether this is possible, and it is proposed that the Chief Executive
be authorised to make such an arrangement if the necessary legal advice is obtained.
3.4
Recycling boxes.
3.4.1 Quotations have been obtained for the provision of recycling boxes to supply the rest
of the district. Because of the problems referred to in 3.1.5 and 3.1.6 above
alternative designs have been investigated. One company, Straight plc, produces a
box with a clip-on lid, and also supplies a net as an alternative to the lid which is
placed over the box and stops materials blowing out. The quotation from Straight plc
is:
Box + Lid (including delivery and distribution)
Box + Net (including delivery and distribution)
£3.35
£3.21
The only quotation lower than this is that from the current suppliers and is £3.30 for
box and lid (including distribution).
3.4.2 Because of the above it is proposed that
(i)
(ii)
3.5
In future households are provided in the first instance with a box and net, but
offered a lid on request.
Households are provided on request an additional box and lid rather than a
bag, for storage of paper.
Green Waste Disposal.
3.5.1 Tenders for treatment of garden waste have been invited, again following EU
procedures, and proposals have been received from the three companies with sites in
the district (J Moody Ltd, Simpro Ltd and Humphries Ltd). Because discussions are
taking place at the Staffordshire Waste Board regarding the provision of in-vessel
composting facilities within the county this tender in the first instance is for a period
of 12 months only so as not to prejudice future options that may become available to
the Council. An important aspect is that an outlet is required in the south of the
district for garden waste that is collected in that area and currently only Humphries
Ltd can offer this at their transfer station in Tipton.
3.5.2 Whilst there are marginal differences in the costs quoted by each company, these are
more than outweighed by the savings in travelling time if the outlet nearest to
collection is used. It is very important to note that having a number of outlets will
also reduce the risk to the authority if for any reason a site was unable to take our
waste.
3.5.3 The locations of the proposed sites that the Council will be using are:
Humphries Ltd – Cocksparrow Lane, Huntington
Bloomfield Road, Tipton
DL(ES) - 6
3.6
J Moody Ltd -
Hollybush, Saredon
Simpro Ltd -
Lawn Lane, Coven
Programme for Extension of Scheme.
3.6.1 Discussions have taken place with Biffa on a possible programme for extending
alternate week collections across the district. From an operational viewpoint it is
necessary to complete the conversion in the North before the changes take place in the
south, and for this reason the programme set out in Appendix 1 is proposed.
Regarding the timetable this is ambitious and may have to be amended as the roll-out
proceeds.
3.7
Operational Policies
3.7.1 Having regard to all of the above matters, the policies set out in Appendix 2 are
proposed for adoption by the Council.
3.8
Staffing resources
3.8.1 When the alternate week waste collection arrangement are extended to the rest of the
district there will be a need for additional staffing resources for the duration of the
programme which will run for at least 6 months.
3.8.2 Experience from the initial phase is that a dedicated telephone help-line will require
staffing on a full-time basis, and there is a need for field officers to be present with the
refuse collection crews to resolve issues that arise on the ground, to visit households
to give advice, and to assess the need for additional containers.
3.8.3 There are currently four staff in the Environmental Health (General) Service unit who
are on part-time contracts: two administrative assistants (grade C/D), and two
recycling assistants (grade H/I and G/H).
3.8.4 One of the administrative assistants has indicated that she is prepared to work on a
full-time basis for the full six months period, and the other can do so apart from
during school holidays. One of the recycling assistants is able to work on a full-time
basis for six months but the other is only able to work a four day week. As the
programme runs through the summer there will also be periods when staff are on
holiday.
3.8.5 It is therefore proposed that the Council authorises:



The extension of the contracted hours of one existing part-time Administrative
Assistant (0.50FTE – Post Ref. HGP03) on a full time contract from 16th May to
16th November, 2005;
The extension of the contracted hours of one existing part-time Administrative
Assistant (0.50FTE – Post Ref. HGP04) on a full time contract for the period apart
from school holidays;
The extension of the contracted hours of one existing part-time Recycling
Assistant (0.50FTE – Post Ref. HGP20) on a full time contract from 16th May to
16th November, 2005;
DL(ES) - 7



The extension of the contracted hours of one existing part-time Litter/Recycling
Assistant (0.50FTE – Post Ref. HGP06) on a new contract to work 29.60 hours
per week (29hrs 36mins – 4 days) from 16th May to 16th November, 2005;
The Chief Executive to employ an additional Administrative Assistant (on an
agency basis) as required to cover absences during this period.
The Chief Executive to employ an additional temporary recycling assistant for a
period of 6 months on Grade C over this period.
(These are matter for the Regulatory Committee).
3.8.6 The additional staffing cost will be approximately £40,000 and can be accommodated
from the Waste Management Budget for 2005/2006.
3.8.7 In order to facilitate and avoid any delay in the implementation of the proposals I
propose inviting the Council to suspend the delegation to the Regulatory Committee
and approve these staffing matters.
4.0
Alternative Options Considered
4.1
The option of providing the additional kerbside collection services on top of those
already provided has been considered, but this has been rejected because:
a) the additional cost would require an increase in the Council Tax which would
almost certainly result in the Council being capped.
b) experience of other authorities is that the introduction of alternate week collection
schemes results in more material being recycled than is otherwise the case.
5.0
Reasons for Decision
5.1
To reduce the amount of waste that is landfilled thereby lessening the environmental
impact of this form of disposal.
To increase the amount of material being recycled or composted which will reduce
the demand for natural resources.
5.2
5.3
To ensure that the Council meets its statutory performance standards.
5.4
This proposed decision supports and furthers the aims and objectives of the Council’s
Corporate Strategy, namely Aim 1 which states
“We will demonstrate our commitment to Local Agenda 21, by ensuring all land
is safe from contamination, reducing the amount of waste produced, increasing
the amount recycled and reducing the pressure on global warming by improving
energy efficiency of the housing stock.”
6.0
Scrutiny Powers
6.1
This report will have been considered by the Scrutiny Committee on 3rd May, 2005.
The comments, if any, of the Scrutiny Committee will be reported to the Executive at
its meeting on 10th May 2005. Any dispute between the Executive and the Scrutiny
Committee will be reported to Council in accordance with the requirements of the
constitution.
DL(ES) - 8
6.2
The Chairman of the Scrutiny Committee has indicated that, having regard to
paragraph 6.1 and pre-consideration of this matter by the Scrutiny Committee, as a
matter of urgency, the decision of the Executive will not be subject to further Scrutiny
and that she intends to give her agreement to this pursuant to paragraph 15.8 of
Section 5 of Part 4 of the Constitution - any outstanding issues to be determined at
the special meeting of the Council on 10th May 2005.
7.0
Financial Implications
7.1
The revenue costs of these proposals can be accommodated within the existing budget
and medium term financial strategy.
7.2
The purchase of recycling vehicles and containers will require an increase of
£450,000 (£390,000 for vehicles and £60,000 for containers) in the capital
programme for 2005/6 for which a supplementary capital budget will be required and
which will be for the Council to approve. The revenue implications of this at current
rates will be a loss of income of £25,000 per annum.
8.0
Legal Powers for Proposed Action
8.1
Environmental Protection Act 1990 Section 55.
9.0
Crime and Disorder Implications
9.1
Section 17 of the Crime and Disorder Act, 1998, places a duty on a local authority to
consider crime and disorder implications and to exercise its various functions with
due regard to the likely effect of the exercise of those functions on and to do all that it
reasonably can to prevent crime and disorder in its area.
9.2
Unless otherwise stated below this proposed decision is not considered to have any
adverse impact for the purposes of the Crime and Disorder Act and all matters have
been considered in relation thereto.
10.0
Equal Opportunities Implications
10.1
Unless otherwise stated below this proposed decision is not considered to have any
adverse implications to and is considered to comply with the Council’s equal
opportunities policies.
11.0
Consultation Undertaken
11.1
The Chief Executive, the Head of Accountancy Services, Senior Internal Auditor, and
the Head of Environmental Health (General) Services.
12.0
Category of Exempt Information (where applicable)
12.1
This matter is not exempt information for the purposes of Part 1 of Schedule 12(A) to
the Local Government Act, 1972.
DL(ES) - 9
13.0
Background Documents (Schedule)
13.1
None
14.0
Policy/Budgetary Compliance
14.1
This proposed decision complies with and, indeed, supports the Council’s overall
policies and corporate aims and objectives. It does, however, give rise to a change in
policy relevant to this service area and proposes new expenditure not falling within
the approved budget which will be for the Council to determine.
15.0
Key Decision Information
15.1
This is a key decision as it involves expenditure in excess of £250,000 and is
significant in its effect on two or more wards or electoral divisions within the
Council’s area. It has been included in the Forward Plan (ref 3.05)
16.0
Conflicts of Interest Declared (if any)
16.1
None declared.
17.0
Dispensations granted by the Standards Committee (if any)
17.1
None granted.
18.0
Appendices
18.1

Programme for extending the alternate week collection service.

Operational policies.
DL(ES) - 10
APPENDIX 1
Programme For Extension Of Alternate Week Waste Collection
Phase 1
to include the parishes of :
Great Wyrley, Cheslyn Hay, Essington, Featherstone, Hilton, Shareshill, Saredon, Hatherton,
Huntington, Teddesley Hay, Acton Trussell & Bednall, Coppenhall & Dunston, Penkridge,
Lapley, Stretton & Wheaton Aston, and Brewood (Part)
Week Commencing
Action
16/05/05
23/05/05
30/05/05
06/06/05
13/06/05
20/06/05
27/06/05
04/07/05
Leaflet Distribution
Leaflet Distribution / Bins delivered to Council
Bank Holiday Week
Roadshows
Green Bin and Kerbside Box Distribution
Green Bin and Kerbside Box Distribution
1st Emptying
Household visits / problem solving and preparation of
Phase 2
Household visits / problem solving and preparation of
Phase 2
Household visits / problem solving and preparation of
Phase 2
11/07/05
18/07/05
Phase 2
to include the parishes of:
Kinver, Enville, Bobbington, Swindon and Wombourne (part)
Week Commencing
Action
25/07/05
01/08/05
08/08/05
15/08/05
22/08/05
29/08/05
05/09/05
12/09/05
Leaflet Distribution
Leaflet Distribution
Roadshows
Green Bin and Kerbside Box Distribution
Green Bin and Kerbside Box Distribution
Bank Holiday Week
1st Emptying
Household visits / problem solving and preparation of
Phase 3
Household visits / problem solving and preparation of
Phase 3
Household visits / problem solving and preparation of
Phase 3
19/09/05
26/09/05
DL(ES) - 11
Phase 3
to include the parishes of:
Blymhill & Weston-U –Lizard, Brewood (remainder), Bilbrook, Codsall, Perton, Pattingham
& Patshull, Lower Penn, Trysull & Seisdon, Himley Wombourne (remainder).
Week Commencing
Action
03/10/05
10/10/05
17/10/05
24/10/05
31/10/05
07/11/05
14/11/05
Leaflet Distribution
Leaflet Distribution
Roadshows
Green Bin and Kerbside Box Distribution
Green Bin and Kerbside Box Distribution
1st Emptying
Household visits / problem solving
DL(ES) - 12
APPENDIX 2
Policies in relation to Alternate Week Collection
1.
Households with 5 or more in the family be given a 360 litre (as opposed to the normal
240 litre) bin.
2.
Households with 6 or more persons be given a second 240 litre bin.
3.
Households with a baby in nappies be given an additional 140 litre bin, until the child is
out of nappies (this will be checked when the child is 3 years old) when the bin will then
be removed.
4.
Other large households (normally 4 persons) who are genuinely recycling but cannot
accommodate residual waste be given a 360 litre bin on payment of a one-off charge of
£25.00 to cover the additional purchase cost.
5.
Any household be allowed to hire an additional 240 litre bin for a charge to cover the
cost. This will be in the region of £30.00 per annum.
6.
In future households be provided with a 55 litre recycling box and net, and offered a lid
on request.
7.
Any household that is genuinely recycling be provided with an additional recycling box
on request.
8.
Householders be given the option of either a second 55 litre box or bags for paper
recycling.
9.
Side waste to only be removed in the collection following Christmas.
10. Regarding excess refuse put out for collection by residents the following procedure is
proposed:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
The leaflet distributed to every property will advise residents that excess waste
will not be removed and that wheeled bin lids must be able to be closed.
For the first emptying after the scheme has been introduced, any side waste or
any over-filled bins will be dealt with and residents will be left a card advising
that this will not be done in future.
From the second emptying onwards the bin will be emptied, but excess waste
will be placed back in the bin.
11. Additional Green Bins will be provided to residents on request for a one-off charge of
£25.00 to cover the cost of the bin.
DL(ES) - 13