Agenda item

(To receive a report from Mike Reed, Head of Waste, which invites the Committee to consider and comment on a report to discontinue the Supplementary Waste Collection Services at Stamford and Mablethorpe, which is the subject of a decision by the Executive Councillor for Waste and Trading Standards being taken between 21 and 28 October)

Consideration was given to a report from Mike Reed, Head of Waste, which invited the Committee to consider and comment on the proposal to discontinue the Supplementary Waste Collection Services at Stamford and Mablethorpe, which was the subject of a decision by the Executive Councillor for Waste and Trading Standards being taken between 21 and 28 October 2021.

As there were several speakers for this item, the Chairman advised the Committee how he intended to proceed with this item.

The Chairman also advised that a petition had been received, which contained one specific request: “This petition demands that Lincolnshire County Council, restores the Saturday recycling materials collection from Stamford Cattle Market”

The Committee noted that emails had also been received from two Stamford residents, Mr A Margett and Ms A Nash; Councillor Mrs G Johnson, The Mayor of Stamford; Cllr K H Cooke, Leader of South Kesteven District Council; Councillor Mrs A Wheeler, South Kesteven District Councillor for Stamford St. George’s Ward; Councillor S Ford Stamford Town Council; and Mr S Palmer, a former County Councillor for Alford and Sutton.

The Chairman invited Ms Rose Battey to introduce the ‘Restore the Saturday Waste Recycling Waste Collection in Stamford, Lincolnshire’ petition.  In her five minute statement reference was made to some of the following points: the disappointment of Stamford residents to the proposed discontinuation of the supplementary waste collection services at Stamford; the failure of the Lincolnshire Waste Partnership to meet their 50% recycling target; that some residents would not have vehicles available to them to travel 12 miles to Borne Household Waste Recycling Centre (HWRC); the effect on carbon omissions for making having to make the 24 mile round trip; the potential increase in the amount of fly tipping; that there was no reference to C02 admissions within the report; and that the services should be restated.

The Chairman on behalf of the Committee extended thanks to Ms Rose Batty for her eloquent statement, and formally received the ‘Restore the Saturday Waste Recycling Collection in Stamford, Lincolnshire’ petition.  It was noted that the petition would be referred to the Executive Councillor for Waste and Trading Standards who would arrange for a formal response on behalf of the Council.

Local Electoral Division Councillors R J Cleaver (Stamford West) and N Sear (Mablethorpe) were also invited to speak for a period of three minutes, both requested that the Executive Councillor for Waste and Trading Standards should reject the recommendations in the report and to pursue alternative forms of collection that ensured that Household Waste Recycling Centres’ (HWRC) policy requirements were being applied correctly and consistently, that enhanced recycling and eliminated the use of landfill and deterred fly-tipping.

The Head of Waste advised the Committee that in 2016, a decision had been taken to continue with a residual waste collection service on Saturday mornings at both Stamford and Mablethorpe.  This had been based on the size of the population in both towns, neither of which had a HWRC.  It was highlighted Stamford was within a 12-mile radius of the HWRC at Borne and that Mablethorpe was also within the 12-mile radius of Trusthorpe. (The HWRC policy states that: “The majority of households (95%) should be within a 12- mile radius of a HWRC”).

Details of the 11 HWRCs in Lincolnshire were shown in Appendix A to the Executive Councillor report; and Appendix B provided a list of the 10 strategic objectives of the Joint Municipal Waste Management Strategy (JMWMS).

It was highlighted that the County Council was responsible for waste disposal and that District Councils were responsible for waste collection. The Committee noted that during Covid supplementary services had been suspended as they did not provide a safe method of collecting materials; and when restrictions were eased, a booking system was put in place within HWRCs to restrict numbers visiting a site and to aid with social distancing; this method of control was unable to be applied to the supplementary services and therefore the supplementary services had not been reintroduced.

The Committee was advised that smaller items of residual waste could be deposited in household wheelie bins and that larger residual waste items could be dealt with by bulky waste collections.  It was reported that both South Kesteven District Council and East Lindsey District Council had the ability to collect bulky residual waste items and to charge for this service.

It was reported that during the 18-month suspension of the supplementary waste collection service, there had not been any noticeable increases in fly-tipping in Mablethorpe or Stamford above the expected normal levels, which suggested that behavioural change during this period, residents had disposed of material differently, such as via kerbside collection or at the closest HWRC.

It was highlighted that it was not possible to extend the supplementary waste collection service as there was an impact on costs and recycling rates, which would in turn impact on the sustainability of the HWRC services more widely and the ability of the County to meet the recycling targets adopted by the JMWMS.

During discussion, the Committee raised the following points:

·      Supplementary Waste Collection Services (SWCS) were no longer required in line with the evolution of environmental services which were now more focused on recycling. It was clarified that the Stamford and Mablethorpe SWCS had not operated in the last 18 months. SWCSs were inefficient in enabling materials to be recycled and did not help with recycling targets being achieved. District Councils offered kerbside collections on a fortnightly basis which provided the opportunity for smaller items of residual waste to be deposited in household wheelie bins and that larger residual items could be dealt with by bulky waste collections or by being taken to (HWRCs) which offered the opportunity for disposing of bulky waste that could not be collected at kerbside recycling points;

·      Members emphasised the importance of utilising both kerbside (bulky waste) collection and HWRCs as means of reducing carbon emissions, and mileage incurred travelling to sites. Increased collection services were within the gift of District Councils, being collection authorities, to be decided and implemented;

·      Members took a view that if services were to remain in place, it might raise a strong case for other areas to request the same service which would be unsustainable financially and environmentally;

·      It was acknowledged that although the lack of means to transport waste in less affluent areas was putting a strain on residents, data gathered at HWRCs could have provided information on how far residents were travelling to dispose of their waste. Officers confirmed that advice would be sought from a legal perspective to establish whether such data could be used going forward;

·      Following questions, Officers clarified that the relocation of HWRC facilities was not being considered as an option, nor was allowing cross-border disposal of waste based on residents’ proximity to a facility at the edge of their district. The latter was due to burdening of Council Tax for neighbouring authorities and residents of that district.  Regarding finding a bigger location to replace the use of the Cattle Market was also problematic, as a more permanent site required planning permission where segregation bins would be provided; in addition, collection of a wider variety of recyclable materials meant that the location would also be under scrutiny from the Environment Agency;

·      Members argued that the recommendation of the report was based on a policy position held by the County Council and maintained that there was opportunity for working closer with District Councils and other stakeholders for performance to be improved going forward through a targeted approach including stronger messages and educating people at these challenging times;

·      A member noted that lack of funding in Local Authorities had added to the lowering of recycling rates in the County that had fallen from over 50% to barely 40%.  An example was given of a privately owned recycling centre in the Deepings area, the owner of which continued supporting the local residents with separating recycled items from other household waste, similar to HWRC operation model, despite the withdrawal of recycling credits, was mentioned to support a view of an alternative method that could be implemented in Stamford and Mablethorpe.  Withdrawal of credits was said to have cost South Kesteven District Council circa £1m per annum. It was also emphasised that the public did not care about whether the responsibility for collection rested with District Councils and that the disposal of waste was the responsibility of the County Council, the public just wanted their waste being disposed of without driving a 25-mile return trip to Bourne:

·      With reference to underachievement of objectives (page 21, Objective 5 "To contribute to the UK recycling targets of 50% by 2020 and 55% by 2025”) it was noted that the Lincolnshire Waste Partnership was faced with unknown factors contributing to recycling targets not being met; Members emphasised on the need to assess what these factors had been and ask fundamental questions around these, it was therefore proposed that the matter came under further investigation though the Scrutiny Committee function;

·      Members maintained that following the potential enactment of the recommendation of the report, Stamford and Mablethorpe areas should be monitored to assess whether this had an impact on fly tipping rates.  Assurance was given that evidence was being gathered and officers were working with District Council partners to create a database of itemized materials collected from locations that was helping in benchmarks being established, better flow of information between partners and that a clearer picture would be available going forward.  Looking at Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) by District Council was also a useful way of assessing differences in performance geographically.  It was reported that KPIs were reported quarterly, but the district breakdown was not included yet;

·      It was acknowledged that regardless of the decision fly tipping remained an issue in these areas.  Fly tipping had increased nationally over the past 18 months which was believed to be due to illegal trade where van owners/traders took jobs via social media outlets to collect and dispose of bulky household waste and subsequently disposed these items in countryside locations, by public highways and other landfill sites.  There was no evidence that household behaviour had changed, or that residents exhibited negative behaviour associated with the increase in fly-tipping.  During the last 18 months it was believed that behavioural change has taken place whereby residents were using the HWRCs instead of the supplementary services as items did not appear to have been fly tipped;

·      Members emphasised that more needed to be done on educating the public about recycling and how to separate items in their grey bins as it was noted that 3 out of 10 items in the bins would be unsuitable and would therefore contaminate the rest of the contents.  An example of a paper wheel with items and how they should be disposed was offered to showcase that simplified solutions could be implemented in support of providing messages to the public on effective recycling.  Officers assured the Committee that through working in partnership, with the public and private businesses recycling was encouraged and that a strong and positive message was carried.  However, it was noted that a performance team was looking at the contamination levels to enable the development of a clear picture around where contamination had been more prominent (geographically, across the county); 

·      Members requested that consideration was given to alternative methods for these areas in collaboration with partners, District Councils and government departments, with the latter supporting the enforcement of fly tipping offenders being pursued, which would ultimately lead to a cleaner and safer environment.  Assurance was given that the Partnership had recently implemented an Environmental Crime Initiative and was working with a variety of stakeholders including the Police, District Councils, and landowners.  It was noted that stronger punitive action against fly tippers was being explored and that a particular task force of officers, whose remit was to pursue offenders, was already formed.  Assurance was also given that there had been recent prosecutions of rogue traders for such offences.  Covert cameras were also employed as means of capturing rogue traders and fly tippers across various locations; and

·      A Member suggested exploring opportunities for the installation of textile recycling banks on County Council premises around the County.  This would allow for the generation of income for the Council whilst offering an alternative outlet for recycling of materials that would otherwise end up in the landfill.

The Chairman extended his thanks on behalf of the Committee to all participants.

RESOLVED

1.      That support be agreed to the proposed recommendation shown in the Executive Councillor report.

2.     That the comments highlighted by the Committee be passed to the Executive Councillor for Waste and Trading Standards in relation to this item.

Note: Councillors A J Baxter and R B Parker wished it to be recorded that they had voted against the recommendation to the Executive Councillor.