Agenda item

(To receive a report by the LCC Waste Strategy Manager which provides an update on the Partnership’s Key Performance Indicators and provides the opportunity to consider the Lincolnshire Waste Partnership’s draft Annual Report)

Consideration was given to a report which presented an update on the suite of key performance indicators which measure progress against the vision and objectives set out in the LWP’s Joint Municipal Waste Management Strategy (JMWMS).  It was highlighted that as this was the Partnership’s AGM, the update had been provided in the form of notes to accompany the draft LWP Annual Report for 2021/22, and the appendices of this included performance reporting.

It was highlighted that two documents were presented for consideration, the first was the Annual Review document which was a public facing summary and would be published on the Lincolnshire Waste Partnership’s web page on the LCC website.  The second document was the appendices, which contained the detailed data and was open to any additional feedback, and had been circulated separately.

(NOTE: Councillor D Evans joined the meeting at 3.07pm)

A presentation was shared which provided further details in relation to the key performance indicators including:

·       Overall performance – recycling performance had fallen over the past two years.  This seemed to be due to a change in behaviour due to the pandemic.  However, the good news was that less waste was being received overall, and the Partnership was below the 1000kg per household target.  Whilst rates were starting to increase again, they were not back to the pre-pandemic level.  A proposal was being put forward in the report that the targets were revised, as although the rate of 50% was aspirational, it would be difficult to achieve with the current rates.  However, this was something for further discussion by the Partnership.

·       Kerbside recycling contribution to KPI’s – this had fallen slightly compared to the previous year.  Also, less non-recyclable material was being received in these collections.  In terms of the targeted recyclables, when added to the twin stream paper and card collections was consistent with the previous year, and better than it was pre-Covid.

·       Composting – contribution to KPI’s – this was consistent with the previous year, although there seemed to be a slight downward trend.

·       Kg per Household by Final destination – the amount of waste going to the energy from waste and landfill had increased, and the amount of waste going for recycling/composting had reduced slightly. 

·       Proposed contamination KPI – non-recyclables in kerbside recycling collections – there had been a significant reduction in contamination, both in terms of percentage and in terms of kg per household.  Contamination was now below 28% and this had been achieved through the Right Thing Right Bin campaign and also by rejecting which contain non-recyclable material.

It was noted that two other themes had been identified from the Strategic Objectives, one of these was carbon, and new data was available which would give more accurate results, and work was underway on this.  The other theme was Customer Friendliness.  Customer engagement continued to be a focus of services, including working with the Recycling Panel of residents, seeking views through County News.  However, in terms of measuring this, it did not seem to be an appropriate time to benchmark customer satisfaction due to the changes to services, introduction of twin stream collections, and coming out of the Covid-19 pandemic.

Members of the Partnership were 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:

·       This was the Lincolnshire Waste Partnership, but the Partnership began with working with householders.

·       The Covid pandemic had impacted on the work of the Partnership for longer than anyone could have imagined, and it was likely that impacts would continue to emerge.

·       There were clear indications of the benefits being derived from the twin stream collection.  In West Lindsey, this was the first fundamental change in around 14 years to the waste and recycling service.  There were a few initial issues, but these had been successfully dealt with, which were largely due to the work of the Waste Partnership and Projects Manager and her team, as well as the communications in general.

·       It was suggested that when considering setting realistic targets, it may be useful to benchmark against other similar rural local authorities.  It was also important to keep residents informed of successes and the role they play in those successes.

·       One partner commented that recycling on the doorstep was making excellent progress, they were not ready to approve this document as they considered that there was more to be done to improve the Household Waste Recycling Centres (HWRC) as they were not separating plastics or providing recycling sheds where people were able to take things away and recycle/upcycle them.

·       It was acknowledged that there had been a lot of disruption in the last couple of years and officers did try and inform the public when there was disruption, but the authority was reliant on the commercial sector to provide the service.  In terms of separating materials, the HWRC’s were able to accept 27 different types of materials, but space was finite.  It was also not practical to collect materials separately if they would be treated as one by the disposal facility.

·       It was noted that there was composition analysis carried out for the waste and recycling collected, this could be looked at further by the Strategic Officer Working Group, and an update brought to a future meeting of the Partnership.

·       It was commented that the twin stream collection needed to be included in the headlines of the annual report, as it was a success story and needed to be highlighted.

·       In relation to the infographics, it was queried whether a foot note could be included which states what the figures are benchmarked against.

·       It was noted that the twin stream roll out had changed people’s attitudes, and generally residents in these areas had embraced the change.

·       In terms of the recycling target, one partner commented that they would like to see the 50% target remain as there was a need to have something to aim for.  Once the twin stream collections had been rolled out to all districts, it was likely that the recycling rate would increase significantly and the full impact of this was not yet being seen.

·       In terms of non-recyclables, it was commented that the ‘Right Thing Right Bin’ campaign had been very successful. It was highlighted that the Waste Projects and Partnerships Manager and her team had done a great job with this, and the majority of people were disposing of waste correctly.  It was commented that this was a success story and it was suggested that this success would be reflected in the figures in around 18 months’ time.

·       In terms of the reduction in use of the HWRC’s it was queried whether there was local data available on these figures, and what effect that had had on fly tipping.  It was also queried there was a need to understand why people were not using the sites which were available to them, for example did they feel they were not accessible.

• It was whether there was any localised data available so that Right Thing Right Bin campaigns could be targeted to specific communities.  It was reported that this data was being worked on, and data regarding the sampling of kerbside collections would be shared going forward.
• In terms of customer satisfaction, it was commented that it could be useful to gather this data in order to understand where the issues were, and it was queried whether some sample surveys could be carried out.
• It was emphasised that in terms of fly tipping there was no proven correlation between HWRC accessibility and fly tipping, and it was noted that there had been an increase in fly-tipping nationally.  This was mainly due to an increase in illegitimate waste disposal businesses.
• In terms of the waste which went to landfill (between 2 – 4%) it was noted that if there was disruption in the supply chain, there was still a need for the waste to be disposed of.  This would be addressed in the future by increasing the number of different providers who were able to take material.
• In terms of the reduction of waste through the HWRC, it was highlighted that throughput was down 27,000 tonnes.  This was a greater volume of waste than the increase in fly tipping, which indicated a change in behaviour, although some was going into kerbside collections.
• Concerns were raised that fly tipping was occurring due to closures of the HWRC at Boston, and people were being turned away.  There had also been issues with people trying to dispose of mattresses at this site.  Officers clarified that there had not been any disruption at Boston since 25 June 2022. It would be useful to see the information that the borough council was collecting about the waste which was being left.  The service needed to be data driven.
• It was also noted that sites which had not had any disruption had still experienced fly tipping.
• The opening times and materials which could be collected was well publicised.
• In terms of people not being able to dispose of particular items, it was acknowledged there had been haulage issues, and so it was important for people to check what containers were available, as if they were full, people would be asked to put those particular materials in the general waste. 
• There was a need to pursue prosecutions for fly-tipping as no matter the reasons people may use to justify this action, it was still against the law.  It was noted that South Kesteven District Council had recently had three successful prosecutions for fly tipping.  The authority would always prosecute where possible, as well as naming the individuals in local publicity.  However, it was felt that the courts did not take this as seriously as local authorities as perpetrators had received either small fines or community service.
• SKDC were starting to build data of fly tipping hot spots.  There also needed to be a reinforcement of the message to the public of ensuring that businesses were licenced to take away waste.
• The vast majority of cases for potential prosecution in NKDC were either commercial type waste crimes or “white van man” services advertised via social media.  Most of the cases of domestic waste where action was taken was due to households who had paid one of these services advertised on social media to take away their waste, which would then be dumped in the countryside.  These residents were usually very remorseful when realising what had happened.
• Partners were urged to continue to promote the message that people needed to ensure they had a waste transfer licence.  It was noted that it was very easy for people to check this.
• Partners were also urged to continue to promote the SCRAP campaign, as Lincolnshire was one of the best in the country for working together.

RESOLVED

1. That the target figure remain at 50%
2. That the publication of the annual review be agreed, subject to the format being reviewed and the changes suggested being included.
3. That the information provided in the Annual Review appendices document be noted.