BOROUGH OF POOLE
ENVIRONMENT OVERVIEW GROUP
On 13 th March 2008
Committee Suite, Civic Centre, Poole
REVIEW OF BLUE BIN KERBSIDE COLLECTION SCHEME
1 PURPOSE AND POLICY CONTEXT
1.1 To provide members with an update on the performance of the blue bin kerbside recycling scheme three years after its implementation.
1.2 To review the strategy of the blue bin kerbside recycling scheme in light of the development of a business case to build a Materials Recycling Facility in
Poole, as supported by Council in September 2007.
2 DECISION REQUIRED
2.1 That members support and recommend to Cabinet the continuation of the fortnightly co-mingled blue bin kerbside recycling scheme for the Borough of
Poole - thus establishing the Borough’s dry recyclate collection strategy for the future.
2.2 That members support and recommend to Cabinet the policy of a 240 litre blue bin for recycling and 140 litre bin for refuse throughout the Borough and that the transition from the current position be achieved by a phased education campaign encouraging voluntary size transfer.
2.3 That members support and recommend to Cabinet the policy that all broken or seriously damaged black 240 litre bins are replaced with a 140 litre black bin and a 240 litre blue bin following consultation with the householders.
2.4 That members support the allocation of the Waste Performance Efficiency
Grant and Waste Infrastructure Capital Grant to finance the policy in 2.2 above.
3 BACKGROUND INFORMATION
3.1 On the 18 th September Council supported the development of the business case for the construction of a waste transfer station and Materials Recycling
Facility at Hatch Pond Depot.
3.2 A Waste Working Party was appointed in September 2007 to review the existing Waste Strategy and formulate a new strategy for the Borough for the next seven years.
3.3 The Borough’s current recycling kerbside provision is the blue bin scheme launched in September 2004 at a cost of £1.3 million. Every property in
1

Poole has been given the facility to recycle at their kerbside a range of five products – paper, plastic bottles, cardboard, cans and glass.
3.4 The Central Government through its Waste Strategy 2007 has set targets for recycling of:

40% recycling/composting by 2010

45% recycling/composting by 2015

50% recycling/composting by 2020
3.5 A key factor of Poole’s Waste Strategy was the introduction of co mingled recycling using a 140 litre wheeled bin to every household in Poole. The strategy envisaged that ”
A longer-term strategy may include the change from
240 litre wheeled-bin for the collection of household domestic waste to a 140 litre wheeled-bin, i.e. swapping the containers for household domestic waste and mixed dry recyclables”.
4 CURRENT POSITION IN THE BOROUGH
Diagram to show increase in dry recycling year on year since 2004
Combined household recycling and composting rate
40
30
% 20
10
0
2004/2005 2005/2006 2006/2007 2007/2008
Diagram to show decrease in refuse to landfill year on year since 2004
Percentage of the total household waste arisings sent to landfill
80
60
% 40
20
0
2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08
Financial year % household waste landfilled
4.1 The Borough is required by the Government to reduce waste going to landfill and increase recycling.
2

4.2 A participation study was carried out in Summer 2005. 98% of households in Poole put their blue bin out for collection at least once over three collections. A total of 4686 properties were surveyed.
4.3 Reports from Poole’s current Materials Recycling Facility declare less than
5% contamination levels demonstrating that compliance with the objectives of the scheme is very good.
4.4 The 2006 Best Value satisfaction survey reported that 84% of residents in
Poole were satisfied with the scheme. This was the highest result of any authority in Dorset.
5. ISSUES AND OPPORTUNITIES
5.1 An alternative kerbside collection method for dry recyclates to the comingled method carried out in Poole is known as kerbside sort. This is where materials are collected in a receptacle, predominantly a box, and sorted by the collection crew prior to placing them in the correct container on the collection vehicle.
5.2 The future collection strategy for Poole needs to make a long term choice between these two methods. Appendix 1 compares the two options.
In summary the benefits of the co-mingled approach given our current position are

Larger receptacle 240 litre or 140 litre versus a 55l box

A wheeled bin is easier to manoeuvre unlike a box that has to be carried by the resident and the refuse collector.

Material is kept dry and contained as opposed to potentially wet and wind blown

Collection costs are cheaper, standard vehicles can be interchanged between collections, a greater number of properties can be served by a collection vehicle per day

Further streams can be added to a co-mingled collection without incurring additional collection cost

The Borough of Poole has wheeled bins and not boxes. A change in strategy would require new boxes and new vehicles.

As stated above Poole has the highest satisfaction rate in Dorset for recycling at 84%. All other Authorities with the kerbside sort option rated lower than this.
5.3
Poole’s Waste Strategy 2002 proposed swapping the refuse and recycling bin capacities meaning that the 240 litre would be the recycling bin size and the 140 litre the refuse bin size. Since the introduction of the scheme committed recyclers have had the opportunity to swap bin sizes on a voluntary basis. To date 5100 bin swaps (10.4%) have been carried out. In
October 2005 Cabinet agreed that all new properties would be issued with a
240 litre blue bin and a 140 litre black bin. Waste minimisation is a key
3

strategy of the council therefore only large families satisfying specific criteria are permitted to have both a 240l blue bin and a 240l black bin.
5.4 Waste composition analyses have been commissioned through Waste
Resource Action Programme funding (WRAP) as part of their Behavioural
Change Local Fund. These show the capture rate of materials placed in the blue bin for recycling and those remaining recyclables still in the black bin.

74% of paper (26% in black bin)

73% glass (27% in black bin)

41% of cans in blue bin (59% in black bin)

47% plastic bottles (53% in black bin)

58% of cardboard (42% in black bin)
These figures confirm that whilst the blue bin is well used and the recycling rate substantiates this, there is still significant recyclable material left in the black bin. The reasons for this are yet to be fully explored, however the lack of space in the blue bin and the available capacity in the black bin is undoubtedly one reason. The analyses highlights that a further behavioural change is required from the residents of Poole to ensure that all available recyclable materials are captured in the blue bin rather than the black bin.
Greater capacity in the blue bin could provide the tool to address this.
5.5 Most 240 litre black bins in the Borough are nearing the end of their life, the majority are significantly more than 10 years old (the guaranteed life span of wheeled bin being 5 years and the expected life span less than 10 years) and a replacement schedule is required in any event. It is therefore proposed that all failing 240l black bins are replaced with 140l black bins and a 240l blue bin in consultation with the householder.
5.6 Options for the transition from our current position of predominantly 140l blue bins for recycling and 240l black bins for refuse are set out in Appendix
2.
5.7 Options for swap overs are:

Planned Borough wide compulsory swap

Phased approach leading to eventual Borough wide compulsory swap

Voluntary approach* - Stay as we are

Voluntary approach* - supported by planned education and promotion
* as stated in the report the voluntary approach does not apply to new properties. These are already given 240l blue bins and 140l black bins.
5.6 In summary the benefits of a voluntary swap in conjunction with an education and promotion strategy are
4


Support and participation in the scheme remain high

Costs of transition can be spread over a longer period making the change affordable

Provides a strategy for replacing broken and damaged bins
6. PROPOSALS
6.1 That based on the information in Appendix 1, the continuation of the blue bin kerbside recycling scheme for the future collection of dry recyclates.
6.2 That the approach to bin swaps is as per Appendix 2.
6.3
All failing 240l black bins are replaced with 140l black bins and a 240l blue bin in consultation with the householder(see 5.5 above)
7. RISKS
7.1 Lack of availability of an MRF to sort co-mingled material. The current mitigation is the development of an outline business case to build a MRF in
Poole.
7.2 Lack of availability of a transfer station to transfer waste. The current mitigation is the development of an outline business case to build a transfer station on Hatchpond. The existing licensed transfer station is at the
Nuffield site.
7.3 The bin swap strategy is unaffordable. The proposed mitigation ensures if bin swaps are to continue they are carried out in a managed capacity whilst spending within funding constraints.
8 FUNDING OF SCHEME
8.1 The residual Waste Performance & Efficiency Grant (WPEG) awarded by
Central Government has an allocation of £61,000 capital funding for
2007/2008.
8.2 The Waste Infrastructure Capital Grant provided by Central Government will provide the Borough with:
 £238,000 in 2008 / 2009
 £236,000 in 2009 / 2010
 £87,000 in 2010 / 2011
8.3 This capital funding can be put to any uses by local authorities that improve waste performance. The option of bin swaps is one potential usage for these grants. Every tonne of waste diverted from landfill to recycling saves the authority £21 as of 1 st April 2008.
8.3 Financial Services have been consulted in relation to this matter.
5

BACKGROUND PAPERS
Borough of Poole Household Waste Strategy July 2002 Available on Loop 3
Landfill Allowance Trading Scheme Implications Dec 2004 Available on Loop 3
The Blue Bin Kerbside Recycling Scheme: Performance
One Year on Oct 2005 Available on Loop 3
Council report on MRF & Transfer Station September 2007 Available on Loop 3
SHAUN ROBSON
Head of Environmental & Consumer Protection Services
Contact Officer : Rachel Davies Tel 01202 261702
6

APPENDIX 1 Co-mingled collection versus kerbside sort for the Borough of Poole.
OPTION STRENGTHS WEAKNESSES OPPORTUNITIES
Keep fortnightly co- mingled blue bin collection
- High participation rate (98%)
- 1200 properties serviced per round per day
- 84% satisfaction
(BVPI 90), the highest satisfaction of any Dorset authority.
- Wheeled bin capacity (140 / 240 litres)
- Easy to use, everything goes in together, no need to separate items
- Easy to manoeuvre, when full and by all members of community and refuse collectors
- Material is kept dry
- Significant number of material items can be included in collection
- Potentially less value at market for some co mingled goods e.g paper
- Contamination can be ‘hidden’ in bin
- Ability to add further items when markets evolve e.g. tetrapaks, further types of plastic.
THREATS
- Lack of MRF capacity
- Lack of available transfer station
7

OPTION
Change to Kerbside sort
STRENGTHS
- Items pre sorted at kerb, they only need to be bulked up and are then ready for market - An MRF is not required
- Contamination can be left behind, cannot be ‘hidden’ in box
WEAKNESSES
- 55 litre capacity of receptacle (box)
- 400 properties collected per round per day
- Space is required to store more boxes if further capacity is required (if residents do not have space, recyclables may be put in refuse bin)
- Less physically able members of community may struggle to lift a full box
- Operative are required to manually handle the boxes
- No flexibility in capability of vehicle
(specifically designed) for specific materials
- Vehicle needs to be redesigned to adapt to other items if a further stillage is required
- A reduced selection of recyclables tends to be collected
OPPORTUNITIES THREATS IN POOLE
- Potential to collect textiles and glass at kerbside (also batteries) depending on stillages on vehicle
- Customer dissatisfaction - Stop the popular blue bin scheme
- Purchase 65,000 boxes
- Recalculate rounds,
4 rounds currently per day in Poole.
This would have to increase to 12 rounds per day – additional 8 vehicles and 8 drivers
- Disposal of blue bins
- Longer working hours of crew
- Lack of availability of transfer station
8

APPENDIX 2
Bin swap Options
Potential available funding – up to £622,000 over 3 years
 £315,000 in 2008 / 2009 (£61,000 + £238,000)
 £236,000 in 2009 / 2010
 £87,000 in 2010 / 2011
Total available spend - £622,000
This spend would equate to approximately £200,000 per year, using £22,000 in the first year on the purchase of a new vehicle if Option 4 is selected.
Background
Figures based on 49,000 properties in the Borough with a 240 /140 refuse / recycling bin split. The rest of the properties have communal facilities (flats etc)
5,100 properties have already swapped bins over therefore properties requiring swap reduce to 43,900 households
240 litre blue bin (c£15.50) + 140 litre black bin (c£13.30) = c£28.80
Proposal 1) Borough wide
Households
No of vehicle trips
Rate
£28.80
TOTAL
£1,264,320
Hire of Vehicles for 30 days
Staff
Number
43,900
43,900 divided by
250 = 175 trips/
3 trips per day
= 60 days work
2 (No.) for deliveries
4 (No.) for bin collections
6 (No.) for deliveries
8 (No.) for collections
2 x £35 x 30 days
4 x £35 x 30 days
6 x £9 per hour x
42 hour week
8 x £9 per hour x
42 hour week
£2100
£4200
£2268 - One week
£13,608 – 6 wks
£3024 – One wk
£18,144 – 6 wks
£15,000 (pro rata)
Project Officer
– promote and organise transfer
TOTAL
£1,363,452
9

Advantages: Maximise recycling capacity and minimises residual waste capacity.
Planned approach maximises efficiency of delivery.
Disadvantages: Likely to be unpopular with some sections of community. No provision within medium term financial plan. Consequently cost exceeds available funding.
2) Phased approach e.g 10,000 per year in planned slices
Households
Number
10,000
Rate
£28.80
TOTAL
£288,000
No of vehicle trips
Hire of Vehicles for 30 days
Staff
Project Officer
10,000 divided by
250 = 40 trips/
2 per day
= 14 days
1 (No.) for deliveries
2 (No.) for bin collections
3 (No.) for deliveries
4 (No.) for collections
1x £35 x 15 days
2 x £35 x 15 days
3 x £9 per hour x
42 hour week
4 x £9 per hour x
42 hour week
£525
£1050
£1134 - One week
£3402 – 3 wks
£1512 – One wk
£ 4536 – 3 wks
£10,000 (pro rata)
£307,513 per
TOTAL
10,000.
£615,026 over 3 years.
Advantages : Will fund 20,000 properties over 3 years meaning that 52% of properties will have transferred to new sizes. Improved recycling capacity and reduced capacity for residual wasted. Planned approach maximises efficiency of delivery.
Disadvantages ; Selection of areas will mean that some will be forced to change capacities whilst others who want to change will not be offered opportunity.
Therefore likely to be unpopular. Further changes not affordable within medium term financial plan.
3) Voluntary swap - continue as we are – swaps not promoted
Rate
£28.80
TOTAL
£69,120 Households
No of vehicle trips
Number
200 per month
2400 per year
35 bins delivered per day (6 days work)
Hire of Vehicles N/A as work
10

Staff
TOTAL
£69,120 per annum
Can do 25 deliveries per day in a caged vehicle using existing staff
Advantages – Committed recyclers want to do it so we have their buy in. No one is forced to change.
Disadvantages
– Residents are not encouraged to change behaviour and continue to put recyclables in the black bin due to available capacity. Therefore opportunities to maximise recycling and minimise waste to landfill not maximised.
Occasional backlog of deliveries due to unavailability of vehicles and staff leading to delays and customer dissatisfaction.
4) Voluntary swap - supported with planned education and promotion
Households
No of vehicle trips
Vehicle maintenance / running costs
Staff
Number
Est 400 per month
4800 per year
35 bins delivered per day (12 days work)
1 caged vehicle with tail lift
Rate
£28.80
@ £12,000
TOTAL
£138,240
£13,000
£24,000
TOTAL incorporated within existing capacity when available.
N/A as staff incorporated within existing capacity when available
2 members of staff
(pro rated) 3 days per week
£175,240
Advantages : Committed recyclers want to do it so we have their buy in. No one is forced to change. Greater capacity in recycling created as compared with 3, therefore less waste to landfill. Provides a balanced and affordable mix of benefits of previous 3 options and builds on existing support for the scheme.
Disadvantages: Does not provide a long term strategy which reduces residual capacity in all households. Is ad hoc therefore potentially impacts upon future collection strategies
11