Agenda item

i.              LARAC Presentation

ii.            Members Vision for the LWP

iii.           Ambitions of the LWP (10 year strategy)

iv.           Recyclables

v.            Fly Tipping Enforcement

i) LARAC Presentation

The Partnership received a short presentation by LARAC (Local Authority Recycling Advisory Committee) from Lincolnshire County Council's Group Manager Environmental Services which provided further detail in the following areas:

·         MRF Code of Practice

·         What is the effect for LA's?

·         Tackling the problem

·         Do residents really care?

·         So what can we do

·         Consistency in collections

·         Conclusions

Some of the comments raised during discussion of this presentation were as follows:

·         There was a need for focus on the MRF Code of Practice to promote reassurance of quality;

·         Costs were rising and contamination was a key issue, and all partners had fewer resources;

·         One of the key points from the presentation was consistency in collections.  It was noted that plastics were the biggest problem;

·         LARAC was engaging more with industry and retailers to tackle this problem.

ii) Members Vision for the Lincolnshire Waste Partnership

The Chairman asked the Partnership to consider what the vision for the LWP should be.  Across the country there was a need to change for what was best, as well as responding to the market.

Some of the points raised during discussion included the following:

·         There was a need to work towards unanimity of recycling.

·         There would be a need to decide whether co-mingled recycling was what the county wished to proceed with.

·         It was commented that if bottles were put into the recycling with 'caps on' this helped to reduce water contamination.

·         It was suggested that there was a need to look again at working to reduce waste at source by working with retailers.  It was noted that recyclables were a commodity for local authorities, but there would be a saving if there was not as much need to collect it.  It was acknowledged that there would always be some level of packaging required.

·         It was suggested that things it was known could be recycled easily should be collected, and consider whether things which were difficult to recycle were worth collecting.

·         Lids on bottles could be mixing plastic types.

·         Going forward, the Partnership were not decision makers.  The decisions would be made by the Leaders and Chief Executives, and would be based on budget.  It was suggested there may be a need for an arms-length trading vehicle as residents did not care who collected their bins.  There was just a need to dispose of it efficiently.

·         Recyclables were a world-wide market, and demand would respond to this market rather than political need.

·         If there was a need for a separate body with its own board, members would need to take this back to their own authorities.

·         The role of the LWP at this time was to try and influence.

·         There was a possibility that food waste could be included in recycling targets, and that recycling targets could be increased.  It was suggested that there would be a need to plan ahead and be ready for any changes, rather than just reacting to them.

iii) Ambitions of the LWP (10 year strategy)

The Partnership discussed the future ambitions of the LWP and some of the points noted included the following:

·         There was a need to consider whether there should be a move towards Lincolnshire having its own MRF.  Was this the best place to be in the future, would this become redundant?

·         The present thinking was to move towards a comprehensive kerbside recycling collections.

·         Concerns were raised regarding what would happen to material rejected at the kerbside, and whether it would be left on the street.

·         If the Partnership wanted change to happen, it would have to make it happen.  There would always be resistance no matter what was done.  There was a need for leadership and resilience to tackle issues.

·         Fly tipping was a national problem.

·         It was reported that in the majority of cases, fly tipping was commercial materials.  It was also noted that there was no clear evidence that closing HWRC's increased the incidence of fly-tipping.

v) Fly Tipping Enforcement

Some of the points raised during discussion included the following:

·         It was queried whether the LWP should look at forming some sort of autonomous decision making body for the county, but this would not stop districts from making their own decisions.

·         One member raised concerns regarding a spate of fly-tipping incidents in his area in recent weeks.  However, he commented that WLDC were doing a good job but it was a costly service, and had concerns that the service may be removed.  It was thought that there was a need to proceed with more prosecutions, and there was also a need to encourage people to report any instances of fly-tipping.  It was felt that offering a 'reward' would get more of a response from the public.

·         The Chairman reported that he had recently received information relating to Leadenham HWRC including a list of fly-tipping incidents.  It was noted that all were in range of four HWRC's.  It was noted that fly-tipping was not about HWRC's but criminal behaviour.

·         It was difficult to say that the work by NKDC was leading to a reduction in fly-tipping, but if there was no threat, there would be no down-side to fly-tipping.  But pursuing prosecutions did require a lot of resources.   However, it was noted that the district did now have a lot of experience in this area.

·         Districts were only able to recover costs which directly related to the prosecutions, and so did not get all the costs back.

·         Prosecutions were starting to attract attention in courts now, and publicity was changing to become more robust.  The member for NKDC reported that he now received more positive comments on this than anything else, as people liked to see justice done.

·         There have been instances of 'professional fly-tipping' where officers have searched for evidence but there was none left behind.  There was a need for innovative solutions, and WLDC had been working with landowners to put additional barriers up.

·         WLDC reported that they had been carrying out a lot of enforcement in the south west ward, and had prosecuted one large incident of fly-tipping but had only managed to recover a fine of £200, and not the costs, as the individual was claiming benefits.

·         One member reported that there was a lot of non-commercial fly-tipping in his area due to the presence of the River Witham.  A lot of rubbish was collected by volunteer groups.

·         It was reported that under the Environmental Protection Act 2014 there were more powers available and there were arrangements which could be made for repeat offenders which could include custodial sentences.

·         In Lincoln there was a lot of domestic fly tipping, but officers were not finding as much evidence as before.  A lot of the waste was believed to be left by land lords.

·         It was suggested whether a free collection of large items could be offered in order to prevent them from being fly-tipped.

iv) Recyclables

Some suggested wording for the County News article about recycling which had been agreed by the Officer Working Group was circulated and the following comments were made:

·         It was reported that the last time the Partnership met, a chart had been distributed by the City of Lincoln Council which showed what materials each authority accepted.  Subsequently, the disposal contact was examined and it target materials, acceptable materials and non-acceptable materials were identified.  It was discovered that there was quite a lot of commonality.  The Officer Working Group would continue to work on this to take it forward.

·         It was commented that this was excellent, but some of the wording was confusing.

·         It was noted that this wording was to be included in an article for County News on what can and cannot be recycled.

·         It was suggested whether more clarification was required in relation to the 'caps on' and 'caps off' debate, and also whether Tetrapaks should be included.

·         In relation to Tetrapaks, it was noted that they were classed as a contaminant, but all districts collected them.  It was reported that the contract did allow for them, and would be included with cardboard.  They contained four different recyclable materials.  It was clarified that 'Tetrapak' was actually a brand name.

·         There were targeted materials as well as materials that would be expected to be put through the system.

·         It was thought that people may assume that tetrapaks were cardboard.

·         It was suggested that glass be included in the list of recyclable items as all districts except East Lindsey collected it.  However, it was requested that a note should be included that there were bring sites in east Lindsey for glass disposal.

·         It was not thought that textiles were included in the contract.

RESOLVED

            That the points raised during the discussion be noted.