Agenda item

Waste Review

Minutes:

Context:

 

To seek Select Committee’s views on the findings of the Recycling Review prior to a report being presented to Cabinet in March 2016.

 

          Key Issues:

 

Over the past 28 months, MCC has carried out a strategic review of the recycling and waste service in response to changes in EU and UK law and Welsh Government (WG) policy and guidance including WG’s preference for kerbside sort collections. The background to the review and the legislative issues was fully explained in the report to Cabinet of December 2014.

 

Member Scrutiny:

 

Members were not convinced about kerbside sorting returning, especially the health and safety implications of sorting glass and asked if a separate bag could be provided for glass.

 

Members agreed that option 4 was the least attractive option.

 

A Member asked how far away from anaerobic digestion we are, it was answered that the contract was due to start in 2017.

 

Members expressed concerns that changing the system so many times would lead to dissatisfaction among members of the public, with people less likely to engage in recycling if constant changes taking place. We were advised that this was one of the main reasons the review was important, with the choices of vehicles setting the path for the next 7 years of service.

 

 

 

Committee’s Conclusion:

 

The Chair reminded Members that the Committee were being asked to provide their views on the four options contained within the report that would be taken to Cabinet in March 2016 and were being asked to approve the following draft recommendations:

 

  1. The principles of the existing collection service of dry recycling materials (red & purple bag) be continued - AGREED
  2. A robust 6 month pilot is undertaken on separating glass at kerbside (alongside red and purple bags) to fully understand:  productivity rates – what is achievable and firm up costs (including hiring demo vehicles to test), quality of material – new MRF contract with SITA (“separate collection test”), glass flows and demand, public engagement and change management and importantly compliance with the EU Waste Framework Directive requirements;  AGREED
  3. The pilot results to be reviewed by Recycling Review Member Steering Group, Select Committee and Cabinet prior to proceeding with full implementation following the trial period and adjust collection methodology if necessary;  AGREED
  4. The Scottish model (explained in para. 33below) is reviewed through the pilot period; AGREED

 

  1. That food and garden waste kerbside collections will be split, with food waste to be treated via AD and garden waste via open windrow. AGREED

 

The Chair concluded that whilst Members support the recommendations contained within the report, they would ask officers to consider the following points:

 

-     The pilot scheme if not carefully communicated could confuse the public and therefore not demonstrate an accurate reflection of take-up – Members suggested effective communication with the public involved in the pilot should be undertaken in advance to ensure the various methods that will be trialled and the period over which each trial will commence are understood. 

-     Members were opposed to the 4th option, which would involve a vehicle sorting recyclates at the kerbside.  Members suggested that whilst they recognise that they quality of recyclates is improved via this type of collection method, they feel it is too burdensome for the public to collect their recyclates in this manner.

-     Members are opposed to the plastic recycling boxes as the feedback that they have received suggests these are blown away in poor weather conditions and may damage vehicles or property. Members argue that the plastic bags are a better option and ask officers to pursue the potential for these instead of plastic boxes.

 

The Committee agreed that the report should be taken to Cabinet and the pilot be commenced, reporting back to the Select Committee with the outcomes before permanent collection methods are implemented.

 

 

 

Supporting documents: