The report of the Strategic Director, Place (Document “O”) will be submitted to the Committee to provide a description of the activities undertaken by Waste Services during 2020 and 2021 and those planned for 2022 to improve the management of waste to more stainable levels in line with the Waste Strategy (Municipal Waste Minimisation and Management Strategy 2015).

Recommended –

That Regeneration and Environment Overview & Scrutiny Committee consider the information presented in this report and request a further progress report in twelve months’ time.

(Richard Galthen – 01274 434779)

The report of the Strategic Director, Place (Document “O”) was submitted to the Committee to provide Members with a description of the service provision and details of all waste related activities in 2020-21.   The report also contained an update on projects undertaken in 2020 to 2021 and those planned for 2022 to manage waste at more sustainable levels.

The report included details of the Councils statutory and discretionary responsibilities and services. All were provided by in-house operations which were supported by external contracts with the private sector.

Kerbside collections had moved to alternate weeks in 2017 and details of the number of rounds, types of vehicles and issues related to rural collections, larger residual waste receptacles and communal waste containers were included to provide Members with a full understanding of the service and quantities of waste per year and broken down to average household amounts. The system for recycling at the kerbside was one of the most simple systems in use but contamination can potentially affect part or full loads of materials.

The Council also provided paid for services for garden waste and bulky items and the report provided the costs and types of collections undertaken for residential use only.  The Council also had a duty to collect clinical waste from residents and trained staff were provided to do this. Household waste recycling centres were provided at eight locations across the District which facilitated disposal of waste not collected by refuse collection services.  Residents were issued permits to access this facility.  Two Transfer Loading Stations (TLS) accepted trade waste (subject to prior notice) and the types and quantities of waste taken at the recycling centres and TLS sites were provided as well as hi-lighting the benefit of reducing travel time for precinct sweepers who were able to the use the TLS sites for tipping.

The ‘New to Me’ shop that opened at Bowling Back Lane HWRC was proving to be a popular success, generating an average of £800 per week from the sale of re-usable goods and furniture. 

Nodes were in place to provide recycling collections for multi occupancy following conversion of building to residential without provision of facilities by developers.  Plans were also under consideration for 2 additional nodes in Keighley.

Trade Waste collections were available to local businesses and the report provided details of how bad debt would be avoided as it had previously been a major issue for the service.  Details of how the service was being managed and improved were also included.  Closed Landfill sites across the District were managed by the Council and details of how this was being done, with the measures taken to address landfill gas containing methane and how the 100+ locations were being monitored with plans for a bespoke monitoring regime would be produced.

The report also provided details of work projects underway relating to the Municipal Waste Minimisation and Management Strategy, the completion of the move to alternate weekly collections, enforcement to address compliance of the Bin Policy and contamination of recyclable materials with statistics given on the number of actions taken in both the Bradford and Keighley areas and Engagement and Behavioural change.  ‘Operation Contamination’ and Recycling Advisors were now employed to tackle both areas in respect of waste and waste management.

Performance data for all areas was provided for all areas of the service and KPIs for Waste Services with explanations of levels of performance including:

·         Decreased percentage of waste sent to landfill

·         Kerbside recycling performance increased significantly

·         HWRC recycling and diversion performance – high

·         Waste to energy – risen significantly

The Council’s contractor residual waste treatment table of performance was provided to reflect the efficiency of how waste was treated and disposed of.  A comprehensive update of the EfW structure provided the details of a solution that was on offer from AWM to facilitate the treatment of contract waste in an effective, efficient, economic and environmentally sustainable manner to meet and exceed the Council’s output specification and objectives. 

A representative from AWM attended the meeting and addressed the Members to provide a summary of their operation and to answer specific questions.  An invitation was also extended to Members to visit their facilities to see processes of commodities being extracted and how energy could be produced for themselves.  He stated that landfill residual waste quantities were declining which was positive and also informed the Committee that the new plant under construction in Leeds could provide a contingency in the event of any issues with plants in Bradford.

Officers also provided a summary of the work being done to update the vehicle fleet to a more sustainable one and the obstacles that needed to be overcome to achieve a ‘green’ fleet.

Members were then given the opportunity to comment and ask questions, the details of which and the responses received are as below:

 A Member asked what percentage of waste went to Ferrybridge and was advised that 70% of residual waste from the Authority was sent there.  It was further clarified that very little went to be incinerated and 37.8% of materials were recovered from all waste.

A Member commented on the rise in refuse statistics per household which had increased and asked what was being done to address the issue.  Officers advised that it was down to residents and business behaviours.  The recycling team and recycling champions were tasked with tackling these sorts of issues and were working to educate and raise awareness using a variety of methods including social media, leafleting  and engaging with people on their doorstep.

An increase in receptacles would further aid separation of recyclables, but the Authority was waiting for the announcement from DEFRA.

A Member asked what the role of Recycling Advisors was.  Officers provided an overview of the types of tasks and duties carried out which included door to door engagement, following crews where issues had been identified, tagging bins for excess waste or contamination.  There were also plans for a publicity vehicle which would visit schools and other public access facilities. 

Members asked if there was any Ward specific data and were advised that loads were assessed and it was possible to ascertain where it was from approximately.  The rounds did not correlate with Wards but work was underway to map out the whole district and measure individual bin weights for a more detailed picture.

A Member asked about the disposal costs of DIY and construction materials and whether these had been evaluated against the cost of addressing fly tipping.  Officers advised that materials were removed at a cost of £130.00 per ton but had not been evaluated again fly tipping as yet.  There was also an issue with taking rubble as sites could not take payment.  A proposal would be submitted at a future meeting.

Members commented that the recycling nodes were a good idea for blocks of flats but wanted to see that discussions took place with Planning Officers so that planning applications included this facility.  Officers stated that educational work carried out successfully was an ongoing task as renters moved frequently meaning that the work had to be repeated.  Each time new tenants moved in when waste problems re-occurred.

A Member asked if there was a breakdown of trade and school recycling quantities and was advised that there was a trade waste service offered as well as services from the private sector.  The recent recruitment of a Sales/Communications Manager would promote the service and engage with schools

A Member commented that landfill had increased and asked if the service was engaging with big businesses e.g. supermarkets, to bring waste levels down.  Officers stated that overall waste quantities had increased but less was going to landfill.  There were no immediate plans to engage with supermarkets but the service would be liaising with big businesses.  New legislation would also address packaging.

In cab technology was available to assist in reporting with access problems and if issues re-occurred then Operations Managers would go out and engage with residents/businesses and/or parking enforcement as appropriate.

A Member asked what the service sees as its challenges and what their contribution would be to the forthcoming review.  Officers advised that the purpose of the review was to assess that the service was fit for purpose going forward.  Accurate data was important but the biggest impact would be from changes at national level with policy being a key factor.  There could be increased collections and night facilities were being considered.  It needed to be well managed.  The challenge of separating materials at the kerbside still not resolved completely and there needed to be further changes in public behaviour with better environmental awareness.  The best market products to reduce non-recyclables was also a key component for ongoing successful service provision..

There was a brief discussion about whether central government were liaising with local authorities and what the focus of these were.  The representative from AWM raised the topic of incinerators and whether central government felt more would be needed The focus was on recovery of plastics and he felt that more investment would come and be put into infrastructure and reprocessing, rather than incineration.

Members also stated that robust feedback would be required following the introduction of the Environment Act and that funding to implement the new legislation needed to be clarified.

Members praised the refuse Collectors and asked how the levels of kerbside contamination compared from the current 45% to when residents carried out the separation at the kerbside.  It   Officers advised that separation was voluntary before the service changed to co-mingle and a ‘you must’ approach.

Members asked if the garden waste income was a profit figure and Officers advised that the figures provided did not include the cost of service provision but that it was breaking even.

Members asked if there were any plans to extend the ‘New to Me’ re-sale facility as it was proving to be successful.  Officers stated that they would like to do more of this but no additional sites had been identified.

Members asked how long bulky waste collections were taking from the time of the request and were advised that it was as on-track as possible but that statutory services took priority.  There was only one vehicle available to do them but there were plans to increase capacity.  Also, the availability of booking slots varied.

When asked why low carbon heading plans were on hold, Members were advised that there were issues with the Bowling Beck site, which required a considerable amount of work to be done as well as the presence of bats and the need to carry out ecological studies. 

Compressed gas vehicles were not widely used and talks were underway with Northern Gas as there were issues accessing the national network.  The building would also need to be retrofitted for both gas and electric vehicles.

Resolved –

That a progress report be presented in twelve months’ time, to include the findings of the WRAP service review.

Action: Strategic Director, Place