Agenda item

Context:

We received a report from the Recycling Strategy & Business Manager to advise the Committee on the proposed way forward for the Dragon Waste contract.

          Key Issues:

Throughout the Recycling Review reference has been made to the future of our Civic

Amenity Sites and Transfer Stations and how they become operationally and financially fit for purpose to complement our kerbside provision and ensure a sustainable and high performing recycling offer is made to Monmouthshire residents.

To be clear the current Dragon Waste contract is for the following services:

·         Management and operation of 4 Civic Amenity* Sites (Llanfoist, Five Lanes**, Troy and Usk which are owned by MCC and managed by Dragon Waste)

·         Management and operation of 2 Transfer Stations – Llanfoist & Five Lanes

·         Haulage of residual waste to Project Gwyrdd EfW at Trident Park, Cardiff.

(* the legal term for the sites is Civic Amenity. They are more commonly known now as Household Waste Recycling Centres (HWRCs) and therefore will be referred to as such through the paper.

** Llanfoist and Five Lanes sites are under full maintenance leases to Dragon Waste whereas Troy and Usk are owned by MCC and managed on our behalf by Dragon Waste)

This is a very old contract and has evolved over time as legislation and priorities change.

In 1994, Monmouthshire County Council and Terry Adams formed a joint venture company (JVC), Dragon Waste, to operate and manage the waste disposal and Civic

Amenity Sites. This was in response to legislation that no longer allowed local authorities to operate civic amenity sites that resulted in many setting up JVCs or Local Authority Waste Disposal arms-length Companies (LAWDaC).

Terry Adams sold his shares to Viridor and since the late 1990s Viridor have remained the majority shareholder (81%) of Dragon Waste.

In 2014 the contract was renegotiated with Viridor to allow a smooth transition to

Project Gwyrdd, instigate transparent management costs to enable any future procurement to be undertaken on a truly comparative basis, a fit for purpose recycling contract and savings across the contract. The outcome of these negotiations were brought before Select Committee prior to Cabinet approval in October 2014.

Viridor also hold the organics contract for recycling of kerbside collected organic waste. This contract sits outside of this paper as Select Committee and Council have already determined the long term future of organic waste and agreed to a partnership with the Heads of the Valleys AD programme which will commence from April 2018.

The legislation allowing local authorities to operate their own sites has now been

repealed and the opportunity to run the Civic Amenity sites in-house is now an option that some Councils have adopted determined the long term future of organic waste and agreed to a partnership with the Heads of the Valleys AD programme which will commence from April 2018.

The legislation allowing local authorities to operate their own sites has now been repealed and the opportunity to run the Civic Amenity sites in-house is now an option that some Councils have adopted.

Member Scrutiny:

It was queried if there would be any practicalities or impracticalities to consider with regard to the performance improving suggestions such as opening of residents’ black bags or making some sites recycling only by restricting black bag waste tipping. It was reported that Rhonda Cynon Taff County Borough Council has implemented such measures with no reported increase in fly tipping mainly through comprehensive advertising and publicity.

It was confirmed that anonymous composition analysis has identified that 50% of black bags contain recyclable or food waste and concluded that there is more to do to work towards the target set by Welsh Government of 70% recycling.

It was queried how the reissue of grey bags will encourage better use of black bag waste.  The Officer reported that there was an increase in kerbside residual waste in line with an increase in waste in general and that capture analysis is being undertaken to anonymously identify what is being recycled in black/grey bags by residents.

In response to a question, Members were informed that research information is available (e.g. from WRAP UK) that explores barriers to recycling. A Member suggested provision of an education programme to provide continuous information to residents rather than reliance online searches. The Officer answered that, inevitably, some people do not participate and work is focussed on hard to reach areas where individuals do not engage. This work is limited due to availability of resources. It was concluded that the majority of residents engage in recycling, and also agreed that it was important to keep processes simple, with as few changes as possible to ensure that residents who currently recycle, continue to do so.

A Member advocated opening the tender process to more than one contractor.

A Member questioned if the recycling centres at Mitchel Troy, Monmouth and Usk are too small, how waste collection is being missed and if alternative sites have been explored, including the possibility of establishing one site between Usk and Monmouth.  Additionally,it was queried if the proposed expansion of the range of products for profitable collection at the Caerwent, Five Lanes site would justify the expenditure.  Finally, the poor quality of food bags was commented upon.  The Officer explained that feasibility work had been undertaken at the Mitchel Troy site on land owned by MCC behind the depot. It was projected that provision of facilities similar to the Llanfoist site would be a £1.7m capital cost.  It was estimated, on the projected tonnage throughput, that the increase in recycling and reduction of residual waste would not cover the cost of borrowing funds to improve the site and would not sufficiently impact on recycling targets.  Members were reminded that the improvement target is 67%. 

Regarding the suggestion of establishing one site to replace the recycling centres in Usk and Monmouth, in favour of one site between the two locations, the Officer explained that there was no site identified and no provision in the Local Development Plan at present.  This would be a matter for public consultation.

The Officer clarified that the expansion of the Five Lanes site referred to expansion of the shed for the transfer station not the range of materials.  It was added that it is intended to engage with the market to consider how best to maximise opportunities on the site.

A Member commented that the location of the recycling centre in the Maryport St. Car Park in Usk is not ideal as it is too small, a busy car park, parking spaces have been lost, it is difficult for the skip lorries to service the facility and the steps are unsuitable for some service users.  The Member called for consideration to relocate the site. The Officer advised that availability of capital is limited. 

Members discussed the impact of housing development and were informed that no additional funding is provided to address the increase in demand for services.  This point is being raised with relevant officers. The Chair questioned if it was possible to raise additional funds through an environmental levy to deliver better services but was confirmed that it is not legally possible to have an environmental levy.  It was added that the Welsh Government is investigating innovative ways of funding waste recycling (e.g. producer responsibility).  It was commented that Keep Wales Tidy is piloting a deposit return scheme and the all Wales Officers Group is supportive of the concept, Welsh Government is not supportive at this time.

An Officer provided feedback on the current food bags explaining that they are manufactured from cornflour and made in the UK to the British Kitemark standard.  It was explained that they are cheaper than the previously purchased green bags which are made from potato starch.  Following some complaints about the quality of the new bags, the manufacturer was contacted and the bags of unsuitable standard were replaced with a higher quality product; the quality is being monitored. Members were reminded that there is a £30K saving through the purchase of the new bags. 

In response to a question, it was confirmed that capture analysis identifies that food waste mainly consists of edible food that it beyond its sell by, best by or use by date. Food manufacturers are considering ways of better explaining food longevity and safety with limited amounts of compostable waste (vegetable trimmings/peelings, teabags etc.).   Members were invited to visit the recycling centre for the capture exercise to witness the types of waste disposed of by residents.

The Chair asked why there was no proposal to reintroduce acceptance of red and purple bags at transfer stations.  The Officer explained that this provision had been available at all sites but analysis indicated that members of the public were using the facility as an additional refuse facility, for example, included sacks from the kerbside  that were stickered as contaminated. The facility was withdrawn as feedback from the contractor indicated examples of individuals becoming abusive and aggressive when challenged.  It was added that that consultation with residents on how to make the service available would be required to consider reintroduction.

Recommendations:

The recommendations contained in the report were agreed