Agenda item

(To receive a report from Councillor Peter Moseley, South Kesteven District Council)

Consideration was given to a report which provided an update on the food waste collection trial to date.  This followed the first update at the eight month point on 7 March 2019 and the end of the year 1 report at the 11 July 2019 meeting.

It was reported that 4,000 households across South Kesteven were participating in the trial.  Communication had been key in the success of the trial so far.  The aim had been to explore how successful the district could be at separating food waste into a usable product.  The more successful it could be, then the more money could be made which would offset the cost of providing the service.

In year two of the trial, the authority had been looking at multiple ways of how food waste could be collected.  The possibility of using a dedicated support vehicle had been explored, as it would not need to run next to the RCV.  However, this would provide complications in that it would only be able to collect the food that was set out, but it would be able to collect a greater volume in one day and it could be a different day to the bin collection.

Getting engagement and participation from residents was vital, but it was hard work to ensure they remained engaged and participating.  It was important that the messages were kept consistent, and were supported.  It had also been established that caddy liners were essential for continuing participation, as those authorities that withdrew provision of liners found that participation dropped off significantly.

It was noted that there would be specific challenges around having dedicated collection vehicles.  It was expected that there would be a need for a mixed collection method, due to the rurality of the district.  It would not be known what the best solution would be until it was modelled for a larger area.  In urban areas, dedicated collection vehicles would be very efficient.  Rural and semi-rural areas would be more of a challenge.  Value for money was linked to volumes collected, and so if the costs of collection could be reduced be being as efficient as possible that would be beneficial.

A reduction in people participating had been expected.  However, whilst a slight drop in participation had been seen, but not a drop in volumes collected.  There were ways that this could be addressed, and promotion of the 'reduce' message had not been as effective as it could be.  In other locations, participation had remained the same but volumes had reduced as people's behaviour changed.

Partners 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 received during discussion included the following:

·         The message so far had been to recycle rather than reuse or reduce.  There were plans to do some communications work around the reduce message.

·         It was queried whether there was a need to do anything as a Partnership to make it as efficient as possible by having a food collection service for Lincolnshire, rather than each area doing it separately.  It was queried whether this would be a collection from every house, or target those areas where there would be best response.  It was noted that this was something which could be looked at in further detail.

·         The trial would be running until June/July 2020, and it would need to be determined what would happen after that.  There was a need to consider round efficiency, so the county would be ready when the decision to introduce food waste collections was made.

·         It was suggested that there was a need to take action to increase the participation rate again in the next few months.

·         It was felt that it was important to ensure that every piece of documentation that was sent out had the Lincolnshire Waste Partnership on it.

·         It was queried whether bins had been checked to make sure that food was not being put into the waste stream.  It was noted that there was data measured on the amount of food being collected, but the residual bins were not being measured or checked for food waste.  It was commented that it was assumed that if they were participating in the trial they would be putting the majority of their food waste in the caddy.

·         It was clear that the food waste being collected was coming out of the residual waste stream.

·         It was noted that across the county, food waste accounted for 28% of the waste stream.

·         It was reported that participation in the trial was a choice, and that 20% of the people on the round were not participating.  Residents had been given every opportunity to participate, and engagement events had been carried out village halls, and through the media.  A good set out rate had been achieved following this.  The national average was 50-55%, but the rate for the trial was 80-82% originally.  It was now 72%, but this was still above the national average.

·         The best way to assess the effectiveness of the trial was by weight.  The figures supported that food was being removed from the waste stream.  In terms of the impact on the recycling stream, there were only trace amount being removed.

·         Caddy liners were critical to participation in the trial, however, it was noted that they were not 'deal breakers' in terms of cost.

·         It was noted that the trial had provided some good data which could be reported to government, such as the costs of providing this service to rural areas.

·         It was noted that work was underway with the senior officer working group, and the Partnership would need to make some choices about its priority.  The paper and card trial seemed to be more beneficial financially.  Logistically and financially both food waste collection and separate paper and card collections could not both be delivered at the same time.

·         It was not yet known how local government would be incentivised to collect food waste.  It was not certain whether it would be possible to make a decision until there was clarity from government.  It would be disappointing if the momentum was not maintained.  The Partnership was advised that members of the public that were not in the trial had asked when they would be able to start separately their food waste for collection.  There was a need to look at ways to achieve both the separate food waste and paper and card collections.

RESOLVED

            That the report presented be noted.