Report to Cabinet
27th January 2015
Portfolio holder presenting: Cabinet Member for
Community Services and the Environment
Subject:
Options for Increasing the Council’s Recycling Rate
Status:
Open
Report ref:
N/A
Ward(s):
All
Key Decision:
Yes
Key Decision/Ref:
904/CS
Report of:
Portfolio Holder for Community Services and the
Environment – Cllr Hayley Eachus
Contact officer:
Appendices:
John Elson Telephone:- 01252 774491
Email :- john.elson@hart.gov.uk
Appendix A – Policy for banning garden waste and
recycled materials in the black bin.
Appendix B – Policy for issuing waste and recycling bins
and approving additional capacity.
Papers relied on to
N/A
produce this report:
1
Executive Summary
1.1
This report reviews the Council’s current recycling performance, considers the
opportunities and obstacles to increasing it, and makes recommendations on
service improvements.
1.2
The report will be considered by the Community, Environment and
Partnerships Committee at its meeting on the 21st January 2015. A
supplementary report outlining the committee’s views will be circulated to
Cabinet members after the meeting.
2
Recommendation
2.1
Cabinet is requested to agree the following recommendations:
1. That garden waste is banned from residual waste bins – with effect from
1st April 2015.
2. That all recycling materials are banned from residual waste bins – with
effect from 1st April 2015.
3. That the bans proposed in 1 and 2 above are enforced in accordance
with the draft policy attached at Appendix A.
4. That the size of replacement residual waste bins issued to existing
properties, and the size of bins issued to new properties is reduced from
240 litres to 140 litres.
5. That the policy for issuing smaller bins and the revised additional
capacity policy attached at Appendix B is approved.
6. That 140 litre glass recycling bins are introduced as an alternative to
crates, for a standard charge of £24.20.
1 of 9
7. That the first 1000 glass bins are issued free of charge.
PRIORITIES, IMPACTS AND RISKS
Contribution to Council Priorities
This report accords with the Council’s Budget and Policy Framework and directly
supports the Council Plan priority of protecting our environment.
GLOSSARY OF TERMS
Term
Definition
Energy Recovery Facility (ERF)
Residual waste incinerator at Chineham which is
capable of processing 90,000 tonnes of waste per
year and recovers enough heat energy from the
waste to generate enough electricity to power
more than 10,000 local homes.
EU Waste Framework Directive
European Commission publication which sets the
basic concepts and definitions related to waste
management.
MAIN CONSIDERATIONS
3
The Proposal
3.1
The council’s existing waste and recycling service comprises:
 Weekly residual waste collections.
 Fortnightly recycling bin and glass box collection.
 Clinical waste collections as required.
 Fortnightly garden waste collections (additional payment required)
 Bulky waste collections (additional payment required)
 Bring banks at convenient locations for: glass, small electrical items,
textiles, plastics and drinks cartons.
3.2
The council’s waste and recycling service is highly rated by residents. Indeed,
in 2013 a waste and recycling customer survey was carried out. This showed
that residents have a 98% satisfaction with the residual waste service and
97% satisfaction with the recycling service.
3.3
All residual waste is currently incinerated at the energy recovery facility (ERF)
at Chineham. This is an efficient and environmentally friendly way of
disposing of waste when compared with land fill. In fact, it is sometimes more
environmentally friendly to incinerate and generate power from certain types
of waste than it is to attempt to recycle it, particularly if there is no local
recycling facility. This fact is recognised by the Project Integra Partnership
which coordinates domestic waste disposal and recycling across Hampshire.
2 of 9
The Partnership has agreed that the primary driver for recycling should be
sustainability, and not chasing recycling targets. For this reason, the types of
materials recycled at the kerbside are limited to those materials where a
sustainable market can be achieved. Project Integra is currently undertaking
a review of the materials collected and the available markets. It is anticipated
that the recommendations from this will result in an increase in the range of
materials that can collected in the kerbside recycling bins.
3.4
3.5
In recent years the council has delivered a number of initiatives aimed at
increasing the borough’s recycling rate. These have included:
i.
Restriction of side waste.
ii.
Introduction of a kerbside glass collection service, and banning of glass
from residual waste bins.
iii.
Installation and management of recycling banks at convenient locations
for the recycling of, glass, small electrical items, mixed plastics and
drinks cartons.
iv.
Running public awareness and education campaigns aimed at
increasing resident participation and reducing contamination.
v.
School visits and competitions which promote the need for, and benefits
of, recycling.
vi.
Promotion of the council’s garden waste service.
A summary of the annual recycling rate achieved by Basingstoke and Deane
since 2011/12 is set out in the table below. While this shows that the rate rose
with the introduction of kerbside glass collections in 2011, the council’s
recycling rate is still low when compared with that achieved by other
authorities. It is also significantly below the council’s own performance target
of 30% and the EU Waste Framework Directive requirement that the UK
recycles 50% of household waste by 2020. Indeed, the EU is currently
consulting on a proposal to increase this target to 70% by 2030.
3.6
Year
3.7
Recycling rate %
14-15 Qtr 2
24.94%
14-15 Qtr 1
25.42%
2013-14
25.28%
2012-13
25.72%
2011-12
23.82%
It would appear that there are a number of reasons why Basingstoke and
Deane’s recycling rate is not higher. These include:
3 of 9

The frequency of collections – generally, authorities that provide weekly
waste and recycling collections have lower recycling rates than
authorities that provide alternate weekly collections. It is estimated that
introducing alternate weekly collections across the borough, could
increase the recycling rate by up to 10%, and reduce service costs by
approximately £500k per annum.

Where councils have not introduced alternate weekly collections, many
have reduced the size of the residual waste bin, or have restricted the
amount of residual waste residents can dispose of in some other way
(e.g.) by providing a set number of plastic disposal bags for a year.
Although Basingstoke and Deane restricted side waste in 2011 it still
provides a 240 litre residual waste bin which is emptied weekly.

While Basingstoke and Deane offers free kerbside recycling for a range
of materials, it does not prohibit residents from putting recyclable
materials, other than glass, in the residual waste bin.

Garden waste can be collected and recycled for a charge. As garden
waste is not prohibited from the residual waste bin, there is little
incentive for residents to subscribe to the garden waste service.
3.8
While accepting the need to maintain both a sustainable approach to
recycling, and high levels of customer satisfaction, officers have been asked
to investigate and make recommendations on the opportunities for the
authority to increase its recycling rate, while maintaining a weekly residual
waste collection service.
4
Options Analysis
4.1
In developing the recommendations of this report, the following opportunities
for increasing the council’s recycling rate were considered:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Banning recycling material from residual waste bins.
Banning garden waste from residual waste bins.
Introduction of 140 litre glass recycling bins.
Reducing the standard size of the residual waste bins from 240 litres to
140 litres.
5. Introduction of a food waste collection service.
6. Introduction of a free garden waste service.
7. Introduction of a recycling reward scheme
Quick Wins
4.2
Options 1 and 2 above are seen as quick wins, which can be funded from
within existing budgets and could potentially deliver an increase in the
council’s recycling rate of up to 3%.
4.3
With regard to option 1 – some residents may have concerns about the
introduction of such an approach but, given that these kerbside collection
arrangements are in place, it is difficult to justify continuing to allow residents
to put their recycling in the residual waste bin. Good communication and a
balanced approach to the enforcement of the ban during the transition period
should help to minimise any issues.
4 of 9
4.4
With regard to option 2 - while there is no free kerbside collection service for
garden waste, the service is competitively priced. At the current time the
charge is £30.00/ annum (pro-rata charge for anyone who subscribes part
way through the year) for two sacks which are collected every two weeks. This
charge only just covers the collection cost and compares to £62.10 for two
sacks in Hart, or £60.00 for a garden waste bin in Wokingham. Residents are
also able to purchase composters for home use at £15 (including delivery) or
take their garden waste to the Household Recycling Centre at Wade Road or
other waste disposal facilities outside the borough. As a result, members may
consider it appropriate to ban garden waste from residual waste bins.
4.5
The option of introducing a reduced charge for one garden waste sack was
considered, however as the existing two sack charge only just covers the
collection costs, it would not be possible to provide a one sack option for a
reduced charge without the council agreeing to subsidise the service. In the
worst case scenario it is estimated that this subsidy could be over £100k per
annum.
4.6
If agreed, it is proposed that the bans suggested in options 1 and 2 are
enforced in accordance with the draft policy attached at Appendix A.
4.7
Option 3 is suggested as a way of increasing the amount of glass recycled.
The bins will also help to reduce the problem of overweight glass crates. This
option would supplement the current service, and is not seen as a
replacement for the crates. The proposed £24.20 charge (which has been set
to match the council’s existing charge for 140 litre residual waste bins) would
just cover the cost of purchasing the bin and its delivery to the property.
4.8
If agreed, it is proposed that the glass bins will be introduced by way of a
promotion where the first 1000 would be issued free of charge, the one off
cost of which, (estimated at £20k) could be met from the proposed 2015/16
budget of £10,000 for green waste initiatives and from savings on
replacement bin costs as discussed in 4.12.
Smaller Residual Waste (black) Bins
4.9
In the case of option 4 two alternatives have been considered. These are:
a. To replace all existing residual waste bins with smaller bins.
b. To replace existing residual bins with smaller bins when residents
request a replacement bin, but provide smaller bins to all new
properties as standard.
4.10
Many authorities who provide weekly collections issue smaller residual waste
bins. Experience shows that reducing a household’s residual waste capacity
encourages residents to recycle more.
4.11
Having considered this proposal it is felt that whilst option 4a would deliver the
greatest increase in recycling rate (estimated at 8%), it would be very
expensive to introduce (estimated one off cost = £1.7m) and would be
disruptive to residents.
5 of 9
4.12
Option 4b could be seen as a good compromise. Although this will take time
to have an impact on recycling rates (in 2013/14 the council issued 3302
new/replacement residual bins), it can be funded from within existing budgets
delivering budget savings of approximately £13,000 per annum, and would be
less disruptive for residents.
4.13
This report recommends implementation of option 4b proposing a reduction in
the size of Basingstoke’s residual waste bins from 240 litres to 140 litres. The
proposed policy for issuing these bins, together with a revised additional
capacity policy is attached at Appendix B.
Food Waste Collections
4.14
Food waste is currently collected with the residual waste and sent for energy
recovery at the ERF at Chineham.
4.15
This proposal would see the council introduce a separate food waste
collection service. This would require all properties to be issued with a small
kitchen caddy which would be collected at kerbside on a weekly basis.
Authorities that have implemented this service usually do so when
implementing alternate weekly collections for the remaining residual waste.
4.16
Currently Eastleigh Borough Council is the only the authority in Hampshire to
have introduced food waste collections. When introduced in 2009 this
generated an increase in the recycling rate of 6.33%, this percentage has,
however dropped steadily since to 5.39% in 2013/14. The food waste from
Eastleigh is processed at a composting facility in Dummer, as this facility is
outside of the Project Integra and Veolia contract Eastleigh have to pay the
disposal charges, these are estimated to be approximately £65k /annum.
4.17
It is estimated that the introduction of food waste collections could deliver a
5% increase in Basingstoke’s recycling rate. Unfortunately, however, this
proposal has a number of disadvantages including:
 Estimated implementation costs = £450k
 Estimated annual operating costs = £1.25m
 A negative environmental impact - as the existing method of disposal is
an effective way of disposing of food waste, and separate collections will
require additional vehicle movements / CO2 emissions.
 A separate bin for food waste can be messy and unpopular with
residents, and may reduce customer satisfaction levels with the waste
service.
 Food waste collections can be difficult for residents in flats to operate.
4.18
For the above reasons the implementation of food waste collections is not
recommended.
Free Garden Waste Collections
6 of 9
4.19
While Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council currently charges for its
garden waste service, this proposal would see the service provided free to all
residents.
4.20
The current pro-rata service means that residents only need to pay for the
months they require the garden waste service.
4.21
Over the last two years the number of customers using the council’s existing
garden waste service has increased from just over 5000 to 7000 customers.
4.22
It is estimated that the introduction of free garden waste collections would
deliver a 5% increase in Basingstoke’s recycling rate, and could provide a
service to those residents who currently do not subscribe because they feel
the service is too expensive, 14% of respondents to the 2013 customer survey
gave this as the reason why they did not subscribe to the service. A free
service does, however, have a number of disadvantages including:
 Estimated implementation costs = £200k - £1.5m (depending on whether
bins or sacks are provided).
 Estimated operating costs = £860k per annum.
 Negative environmental impact due to increased vehicle movements and
CO2 emissions.
 The most environmentally friendly way of disposing of garden waste is to
compost at home.
 Could be unpopular with residents who do not use the service, 56% of
respondents to the waste and recycling customer survey said that they
would not support a free garden waste service.
4.23
For the above reasons the implementation of free garden waste collections is
not recommended.
Reward Schemes
4.24
The borough council has considered the introduction of rewards schemes in
the past. Whilst it is estimated that the introduction of such a scheme could
increase recycling by approximately 1%, the cost of introducing and operating
a scheme is high. For this reason the introduction of a reward scheme is not
recommended at this time.
5
Corporate Implications
5.1
Financial Implications
5.2
The recommendation to issue residents with a 140 litre residual waste bin
rather than the current 240 litres will result in on-going budget savings of
approx. £13,000, due to lower purchase costs.
5.3
In addition, the recommendation to replace crates with 140 litre bins for
kerbside glass collection, with the first 1000 kerbside glass bins free of
charge, will cost £20,000 in 2015/16 and this can be funded from a new
7 of 9
budget of £10,000 for green waste initiatives and the £13,000 saving on
replacement bins.
5.4
Whilst the other recommendations will not require any additional funding it
should be noted that there is no available budget for any of the options that
have been considered and rejected. For any of these to be implemented
budget savings would need to be identified.
5.5
Risk Issues
5.6
There is a risk that implementation of this report’s recommendations may not
deliver the increase in recycling rate forecast.
5.7
Implementation of the option to provide smaller bins may be unpopular with
those residents affected. Not implementing any changes will result in the
current level of recycling continuing.
5.8
HR Issues
5.9
There are no HR issues attached to this report.
5.10
Equalities
5.11
An equalities assessment was carried out to consider the impact of the
proposals on the protected characteristics (Equality Act 2010). It was
concluded that there would be no differential impact of the ‘Policy for ban of
garden waste and recycling’ on these groups; however, it was noted that it
could disadvantage residents on a low income, who are unable to pay for the
garden waste collection service. As the garden waste service is discretionary,
a possible mitigating action to overcome this would be for affected residents to
compost any garden waste at home or take it to the nearest household waste
recycling centre. With regards to the ‘Policy for issuing smaller bins and
additional capacity’, no negative impact was identified, and positive impacts of
the policy include: taking into account the needs of residents with particular
medical conditions and those that may require an additional waste container
for a limited period of time, such as people with babies using nappies. If the
policies are implemented, monitoring will be carried out to ensure that any
unforeseen impacts of are addressed.
5.12
Legal Implications
5.13
There are no legal implications attached to this report.
5.14
Any Other Implications
5.12
None have been identified.
6
Comment from Portfolio Holder
6.1
I have two main aims from this paper. To retain weekly waste collections and
to improve this borough's recycling rate. I am committed to weekly collections
but if residents want to continue with weekly rubbish collections then they
must support us by recycling more.
In relation to the recycling figures I think it is worth providing some context:
8 of 9
We are good at keeping the streets clean but at this time whatever is collected
by the street care team is not recycled. No mechanism is currently in place for
them to split up black bin waste from recycling waste but we are working on
this.
The household waste recycling centre in Wade Road has an extremely high
recycling rate, usually over 85%. However because that is run by Hampshire
County Council we do not consider these figures. Also we do not do landfill.
We incinerate and this produces energy; a clear form of recycling.
This is not a reason not to recycle. We must improve our recycling rate and
this is not made easier by retaining weekly collections but I have no doubt that
is the right thing to do. Residents want this; it is why 97% of residents are
happy with the service.
I have considered all options including food waste, free garden, glass bins for
recycling and the whole of the borough having 140ltr bins.
Finally, I would say that this is about education. There are people that do not
know what they can and cannot recycle. The policy does not seek to punish
those residents but it will flag up the issue and allow us to contact that
resident. I want our waste team to speak to those who persistently put
everything in the black bin, to set up face-to-face meetings with them and
assist in their understanding.
7
Communication and Consultation
7.1
All residents will receive a letter and leaflet notifying them of the policy and
service changes arising from approval of this report’s recommendations.
8
Conclusion
8.1
It is estimated that implementation of this report’s recommendations will
deliver a 4% increase in the Council’s recycling rate over the next 12 months,
with further long term increases being anticipated as the number of smaller
bins in use increases.
9 of 9