Agenda item

The following was raised by the Chairman:

·         The Partnership felt that the informal member only meetings were working well.  However, the importance of members passing feedback of the discussions back to the relevant officers in their districts was emphasised to ensure that everyone was aware of how issues needed to be progressed going forward.  It was highlighted that this was particularly important if some members were unable to attend.  It was suggested that it would be useful if some notes were taken to capture any action points which could then be circulated to all officers so all were clear of what had been agreed.

·         There was a need for the Officer Working Group (OWG) to take a more strategic development approach due to the future issues which would need to be considered as well as continuing an operational one.  It was important that the officers attending the strategic meeting were of the required management level to action any strategic decisions.

·         Logo – it was considered essential that the partnership needed to have some up to date branding to represent a collective partnership approach.  Therefore there was a need to refresh the existing logo to ensure it was eye-catching and reflected the work of the Partnership.  This would be important for the issues that the Partnership would be supporting and progressing in the future, such as the Food Waste Trial.  It was important to show that an initiative was not just being carried out by the collection authority, or the disposal authority, but that it was supported by the whole Partnership.

·         There was a WRAP report which was modelling three weekly bin collections.  However there was agreement from the Partnership that this was not something that the districts would want to consider at this time.

·         It was queried whether prior to the next meeting of the Partnership which was scheduled for 12 July 2018 the Partnership would be interested in visiting an MRF, as one of the biggest issues facing the Partnership was the continued high levels of mixed dry recyclables contamination.  It was agreed that this visit would be useful to the Partnership, particularly as there were some new members and officers on the Partnership.  A visit to an operational MRF site would be arranged.

·         There was a need for the Partnership to discuss its approach to trade waste, as this was something that should be approached from a partnership perspective. The Chairman apologised for a letter which was sent out in the autumn of 2017 regarding trade waste which did not make it clear that the current charge was only applicable to Boston, South Holland and West Lindsey (as agreements had been formed with those authorities) and not the other authorities.  It was hoped that if capacity could be increased at the EfW, this could be opened to other authorities.

A general discussion followed and some of the main issues highlighted by the Partnership included the following:

·         In terms of capacity at the EfW, it was commented that the biggest issue for West Lindsey was around housing growth, and the amount of trade waste was minimal compared to this.  However, the district had a duty to provide a disposal route for businesses and an early decision in relation to trade waste was urged.  It was suggested whether this was something which should be dealt with through the Strategy, and it was important to have a consistent approach throughout the County.

·         One of the aims of the Partnership was to create capacity at the EfW.  There was a need to reduce throughput, and this would form part of the Strategy.  In the interim, the facility was not able to accept any extra tonnage.  It was accepted that eventually more capacity would be needed.

·         It was estimated that if food could be taken out of the residual waste stream, this could free up to 20,000 tonnes of capacity.

·         South Kesteven reported that they had recently launched a trade waste service which was proving successful.  However, it emerged that discussions would need to take place outside of the meeting with LCC regarding where this waste would be disposed of.

·         It was queried whether an approach had been agreed in relation to implementing the government's proposal to reduce plastic bottle waste.

·         It was commented that the focus on implementing the food waste trial had distracted the Partnership from the concerns around the materials in the waste stream which should be in the recycling scheme.  It was suggested that there was a need to consider both of these issues alongside each other.

·         It was suggested that there was a need to remove as much glass and metal from the residual waste stream as possible due to the negative effect it could have on the running of the EfW as they required higher temperatures to allow them to burn and also left additional residue that was difficult to remove.

·         It was suggested that glass, metal and plastics should be a separate co-mingled collection.  There would be no requirement to change the vehicles or collection routes and these were also 3 materials which could not cross contaminate.

·         It was suggested that the Joint Municipal Waste Management Strategy should be the document that influences the service provision that the Partnership provided.

·         It was commented that there was still a lot of work to do back at members' individual authorities to gauge the appetite to different approaches.

·         A discussion was held regarding the advantages and disadvantages of 'institutional memory' when trying to develop new approaches to waste management through 'blank paper' exercises.  It was suggested whether this was something which should be considered by the OWG. 

·         There was a need to ensure that strategic objectives were maintained.  One of the main issues for the Partnership to deal with should be how to reduce the amount of waste produced, rather than looking for ways to increase capacity to deal with increased amounts of waste.

·         Some of the things being discussed could be categorised as short, medium and long term objectives.  The long term objectives should inform the thinking of the Partnership and outline the long term vision and could be updated and refreshed as necessary.  It was suggested that getting metals and glass out of the waste stream should be a medium term objective and in the short term there should be a focus on enforcement and education.  It was noted that a report had been produced by the District Officers on this a few years ago but it had not reached the Partnership.  It was suggested that this could be refreshed by the Officer Working Group if it was thought that would be helpful.  There was a need for people to put the right materials in the right bin and it was noted that taking some action on this could be a quick win for the Partnership.  It was requested that the OWG look into how straight forward this would be to implement as well as any cost implication.

·         In relation to the suggestion for only glass, metal and plastic to be collected for recycling, it was confirmed that the intention, if this was implemented, would be for all other materials to go into the residual waste stream.  There were concerns that in relation to paper, this could leave districts as being non-compliant with TEEP.  There would be a need to understand all options and implications before any changes to the recycling mix collected were implemented.

·         There was a need for a simple message of what recyclables would be collected as residents were confused.  If there were just three items, it would help people to focus.

·         It was suggested that a lot of glass, metal and plastic ended up in the residual waste as people did not want to wash the items before putting in the recycling.

·         It was noted that 'bring sites' and HWRC's were a very effective way of collecting recyclables and it was suggested whether some publicity was needed around them.