Agenda and minutes

Venue: Committee Room Five, County Offices, Newland, Lincoln Lincs LN1 1YL. View directions

Contact: Rachel Wilson  Democratic Services Officer

No. Item




Election of Chairman


It was proposed and seconded that Councillor D Cotton (West Lindsey District Council) be elected as Chairman of the Lincolnshire Waste Partnership for 2016/17




            That Councillor D Cotton be elected as Chairman of the Lincolnshire Waste Partnership for 2016/17.



Election of Vice-Chairman


It was proposed and seconded that Councillor R Shore (Lincolnshire County Council) be elected as the Vice-Chairman of the Lincolnshire Waste Partnership for 2016/17.




            That Councillor R A Shore (Lincolnshire County Council) be elected as Vice-Chairman of the Lincolnshire Waste Partnership for 2016/17.





Apologies for Absence


Apologies for absence were received from Councillor D Cotton and Ady Selby (West Lindsey District Council) and Councillor Mrs S Harrison (East Lindsey District Council)


Declaration of Interests


There were no declarations of interest at this point in the meeting.


Minutes of the meeting held on 11 February 2016 pdf icon PDF 141 KB




            That the minutes of the meeting held on 11 February 2016 be agreed as a correct record subject to the amendment of the word 'grass' to 'glass' under minute number 66a, paragraph 2.


It was reported that an interactive forum entitled 'Developing a Circular Economy in the UK: Improving Waste Management' was being held on 22 September 2016 in Central London, and was organised by Defra and WRAP.



Future Dates for the Lincolnshire Waste Partnership 2017 pdf icon PDF 37 KB


The Lincolnshire Waste Partnership considered the provisional dates for 2017 as set out below:


Officer Working Group

(1.00 pm start)



(3.00 pm start)

Lincolnshire Waste Partnership

(10.30 start)

Officer Working Group

(1.00 pm start)

7 April 2016

26 May 2016

9 June 2016

2 June 2016

4 August 2016

1 September 2016

15 September 2016

29 September 2016

27 October 2016

8 November 2016

24 November 2016

22 December 2016

2 February 2017

14 February 2017

2 March 2017

30 March 2017

11 May 2017

23 May 2017

8 June 2017

6 July 2017

10 August 2017

22 August 2017

7 September 2017

5 October 2017

26 October 2017

7 November 2017

23 November 2017

21 December 2017


Members of the Partnership were asked to contact the Democratic Services Officer if there were any issues with the dates.




            That the provisional dates for 2017 be noted.


Partner Updates


Members of the Partnership were provided with the opportunity to update the rest of the Partners on any developments within their individual districts which may be of interest, and the following was reported;


North Kesteven District Council – the authority had had another successful prosecution for fly tipping with £2,500 of penalties awarded.  It was noted that the Deputy Leader of the Council had witnessed the incident.  It was reported that the Council would be able to recover their costs.


It was also reported that planning permission had been obtained to build a new depot in Metheringham.


In terms of garden waste collections, the annual charge had been increased from £25 to £30 and there were still approximately the same number of people signed up, and so the increased charge had not had an impact on take up rates.


South Kesteven District Council – the authority had had a similar experience to NKDC with the green waste.  It had been found that people valued the service when it was charged for, and there had been an uplift in take up.   It was planned to introduce a direct debit scheme, as this would reduce the costs of rebilling.  Since the shift online, there had been a 60% take up of the direct debit.


South Holland District Council – the pilot green waste collection had been launched in April, and after two months, the authority was about to break even.  A lot of positive feedback had been received, and 85% of the residents that had signed up, had done so online.  Officers commented that they would be interested to find out more about the setting up of a direct debit scheme, and it was suggested whether it could be looked at further by the Officer Working Group.


In terms of fly tipping, a couple of cases were being pursued under the Duty of Care Act.


A councillor reported that in South Holland, there was a very active local volunteer group, which called itself 'Spotless Spalding', which was focused on clearing the riverside area and so far the volunteers were doing a very good job and the group was going from strength to strength.  He also commented that he was keeping the group at arm's length as it was doing things the council was unable to do such as removing graffiti from private residences.


East Lindsey District Council – the charge for the collection of bulky waste increased on 1 April 2016.  Other projects were still ongoing.


Boston Borough Council – a charge for green waste had now been introduced, and it was reported that 77% of the people that took up the service last year had renewed.  There were approximately 250 people per week signing up for the service.  It was also noted that an increase in residual waste had not been noticed.  45% of those signing up to the green waste service did so via the internet.  The authority also expressed an interest in finding out more information regarding a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 1g




Fly-Tipping Update


The Lincolnshire Waste Partnership received an update from Mark Taylor, Head of Environment and Public Protection, North Kesteven District Council on the current fly-tipping situation in the county.  It was reported that there had been a slight increase in some of the districts, but it was difficult to determine why


It was reported that a training event on fly tipping had taken place and there had been attendance from across the county, and the event had also received good feedback. 


Members of the Partnership discussed the current situation in relation to fly tipping, and some of the points raised during discussion included the following:

·         The number of prosecutions carried out by NKDC was impressive.

·         It was reported that the number of legal services staff had not been increased as the district was part of the legal shared services.  However, it was a resource intensive activity. 

·         It was noted that costs in relation to time spent on a successful prosecution could be recovered through the courts. 

·         It was acknowledged that it was difficult to prove that pursuing prosecutions was saving money, but if they were not pursued there would be no deterrent.

·         It was commented that people would tend to dump items they did not want to pay to dispose of.

·         The City of Lincoln had run a trial scheme the previous year in one of the worst areas of the city for fly tipping (42% of fly tipping incidents took place in this area).  Under the scheme, items were not collected, but the area was leafletted, encouraging people to report fly tipping.  However, the scheme was not successful.

·         It was queried whether members were aware of the role of the Environment Agency with fly tipping incidents, and it was suggested whether an update should be provided on this?

·         It was reported that the Environment Agency would get involved if it was in the categories of 'big, bad or nasty'. 'Big' was if the amount of waste dumped had been left by an articulated lorry; 'Bad' referred to hazardous materials; and 'Nasty' was if waste had been dumped as part of organised crime.  The Environment Agency would collect evidence from across the country.

·         The Environment Agency did have a certain amount of funding available for clearing waste from structures in rivers to prevent flooding.




            That the update be noted.






Lincolnshire Waste Partnership Audit


Consideration was given to a report which outlined the proposal for an audit of the Lincolnshire Waste Partnership and the Joint Municipal Waste Management Strategy (JMWMS).  This was expected to assist in the assurance of the JMWMS being a fit for purpose and relevant document.  Additionally there would be assurance of the LWP being a well-managed, engaging group, with strong governance, as well as determining a future vision for a successful and sustainable waste management service provision for the benefit of all Lincolnshire residents.


The Partnership was provided with the opportunity to ask questions to the officers present in relation to the information contained within the report, and some of the points raised during discussion included the following:

·         It was commented that one of the things that could come out of this audit was that there had been a struggle to find agenda items.  One of the outcomes could be a need for a more structured approach.

·         It was noted that this was currently a scoping exercise, and draft document for comment.

·         The final report would go through the County Council's Audit Committee, but it would also come back to this Partnership.  Districts were welcome to take the report to their own audit committees as well.

·         If people had comments on the terms of reference, they were encouraged to contact the Democratic Services Officer.

·         The aim of the Audit was to be forward looking, as there were a lot of challenges coming up.  It would also be looking at governance arrangements.  There would be a changing agenda going forward for waste and the Partnership would need to be prepared for that.

·         The price of recyclables had changed and so there was a need to make sure that the authority was getting the best value, and that methods were in place to make the best use of resources.

·         It was confirmed that the audit would be carried out by the County Council who would also meet the costs, as it was part of the County Council's Annual Audit Plan.

·         It was queried whether there was a need for an audit of whether the JMWMS was still fit for purpose, and whether the Partnership could just hold a workshop.

·         It was commented that it was positive that the issue of value for money would be included.

·         The Partnership was advised that the audit was not about coming up with answers, but it was about looking for assurance.

·         It was noted that the audit would not be looking into each organisation and how they operated, it would just look at the Partnership.  It was about the future direction, how the partnership operated and governed itself.

·         It was commented that one of the weaknesses of the Partnership was that it always met in public, and so could not always have honest conversations due to the sensitive nature of some of the issues.

·         It was queried whether LCC had asked for this audit, and it was acknowledged that the Partnership had not had one for  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3a


MDR Monitoring


Consideration was given to a report on MDR Contamination and Monitoring which informed the Partnership that from 1st April 2015, the County Council had responsibility for the countywide processing of the presented dry recycling materials.  Section 9A of the Environment Permitting Regulations 2014 placed a requirement on Materials Reclamation Facilities to routinely sample and test the composition of their input and output materials and to report this.


This was in effect from 1 October 2014 and required a sample to be taken for every 160 tonnes by each district council, and would decrease to 125 tonnes from 1 October 2016.  This sampling has been queried by the District Councils as the reported contamination was above the national average of 14% and in most cases well above the levels previously reported.  As a result, the County has undertaken inspections of the sampling process which concluded that there was no reason to question the stated contamination.  However, the validity of these figures and the testing regime was still challenged by the district councils.


In response to this challenge, an open discussion was held with the Partnership around the following topics, so all authorities could work together to investigate and agree an appropriate way forward:

1.    Levels of contamination v previous years v national average and impact

2.    Potential impact of contamination on TEEP

3.    Independent testing of the countywide material

4.    Timeliness of processing at WTS

5.    Contingency arrangements

6.    Enforcement and Education

7.    Future plans and way forward


Some of the points and issues raised during this discussion included the following:

·         There was a need to find out what the issues were and document them.

·         There may be a need for the Officer Working Group to meet and take forward any actions.

·         The original driver was the contamination issue, and there were other issues which may come out of this, such as issues with the contract.

·         It was commented that up until a few years ago, contamination rates were at 5, 6, 10, 12%, however, since the new contract had been in place rates were regularly in the teens.  There was a need to understand the sampling regime.


(At this point in the meeting, Councillor R Wright declared an interest as the organisation he worked for handled the recycling for Lincoln Prison)


·         It was acknowledged that for three months the sampling method was being confirmed.

·         It was commented that that it was strange that the contamination rates were so high, and it was queried whether there was any benefit to the operator of high contamination rates.

·         It was commented that drivers in South Holland had reported that most of the material at the WTS at Market Deeping was not being processed very quickly.  Material quality would degrade very quickly, particularly in hot weather if not processed in a timely manner.

·         The closure of processing facilities around the country for paper and tins as well as changes in the market for recyclables had also been an issue.

·         It was queried who  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3b



Original Text: