Agenda item

(To receive an update from Ian Yates, South Kesteven District Council, following the completion of the first year of the food waste collection trial)

Councillor Dr P Moseley, South Kesteven District Council, provided the Partnership with an update and overview of the Food Waste Collection Trial which was underway in selected areas of South Kesteven.

It was reported that data was still being collected, and the team was 'pushing at an open door' in terms of public engagement and participation.  Participation had been at around 85%, and participation was generally rated as 'good' between 50 – 55%.

An increase of 10% in the recycling rate had been seen.  Of the expected issues with participation, the proportion who said having a separate food waste container in the kitchen was smelly, was around 3%.  The most important aspect of the scheme for participants had been caddy liners. 

Moving forward, a lot of food waste had been collected, and it was averaging around 1.8kg per household.  It was hoped that as the trial progressed, a reduction in volume would be seen.

Every piece of communication which had been produced and circulated had the word 'reduce' in it.  For the second year there would be a change to the collection methodology, so I would need to be seen how this would affect the collection rates.

The Head of Waste Strategy had recently met with Defra to discuss what had been done so far, and had been very impressed with Lincolnshire as a whole, particularly with how the LWP worked. 

Members of the Partnership were provided with the opportunity to ask questions in relation to the information contained within the report and some of the points raised during discussion included the following:

·         It was commented that this trial had been a great success, and of all the new waste legislation which was proposed, it was food waste collection which would of the greatest benefit to the waste stream.

·         There would be a need to demonstrate how it would be commercially viable to collect food waste in rural areas.

·         It was understood that it year 2-3 where a steady reduction in food waste started to be seen, as residents adapted their behaviour.  It was often the most expensive foods which were wasted, and it was queried if an average cost had been calculated.  Partners were advised that a financial figure had been included in the marketing information, this had been calculated as £600-700 per year which could be saved per household by reducing food waste.

·         Of those invited to participate in the trial who did not take part, it was noted that 50% of them had their own composting bins.

·         One of the impacts of this trial was that the black (residual waste) bins were starting to smell less.

·         In relation to the technical specification of the caddy bags, partners were advised that they were fully biodegradable and did not contain micro plastics.

·         It was noted that if too much liquid was put into the containers, or they were not emptied often enough, the bags would start to break down.  Officers advised that they would share the specification of the bags with Partners for information.

·         It was queried whether there was a need for a secondary strapline for those people who did not think they created any food waste, to get them to think more holistically. 

·         It was commented that it was beneficial to have real world data coming in.  WRAP had indicated it would cost between £5m - £7m to implement, and it was queried whether there was any indication of financial implications based on the data collected so far.  It was acknowledged that there would be a cost, but there was a need to ensure the costs did not exceed what was already done.  One of the main costs was the provision of caddy liners, but these were needed in order to ensure participation.

·         It was not certain that this collection method could be rolled out to the whole county, there may be a need for some modelling of alternative collection methods on an area by area basis.

·         There would be a need to look at the whole cost of the process and compare that data for the conventional method.

·         One of the large costs was transporting the waste to Hemswell Cliff.  Another large cost to the council would be the capital cost with adapting the fleet or having a separate collection vehicle.  It was thought it would be helpful to also model these costs.

·         It was suggested that one way to reduce the carbon footprint would be to have a bio-digester in each area, although there would be an initial capital cost.  It was noted that this could also provide an income stream.

RESOLVED

            That the update in relation to the food waste collection trial be noted.