Agenda item

The Committee received a briefing on the Resources and Waste Strategy. A copy of the presentation marked ‘Agenda Item 10’ is filed with these minutes.

Arising from the discussion, the following points were made:-

i.       It was queried how the Council was working with partners to ensure a smooth implementation period regarding changes proposed by Government, given the Council’s role as Waste Disposal Authority and district councils’ responsibility to collect waste and recycling. The Director assured Members that the County Council was communicating across its established waste partnership, and that issues posed were not a job for just one organisation. As a result, the County Council was looking to review its Joint Strategy with the Leicestershire Waste Partnership which  includes the district councils and will involve engagement with the wider public.

ii.      Regarding Government’s proposal to introduce mandatory food waste collection it was noted the scheme would take extensive planning, and Government had promised to meet net additional costs for. However, despite this it would create a challenge for both the County Council and district authorities.

iii.     A Member raised a concern relating to waste from construction, demolition and excavation that continued to increase, and what the Council could do to manage that given the increase in infrastructure also promoted by Government. The Director assured Members that where possible the Council would look to recycle, and reuse, as with some road schemes recycling of material could take place on site in some circumstances. Furthermore the Council was a relatively small player in the creation of that type of waste, and it was felt that even if sector activity increased it would not automatically mean the Council’s waste would,  as policies and behaviour change looked to reduce output of waste where possible.

iv.    Skip firms and other parts of the waste industry were regulated by the Environment Agency. Permits for sites such as Whetstone Waste Transfer station set out conditions for operation in relation to hours, tonnage and how long waste could remain on site. Private firms were regulated in the same way.

v.      Leicestershire County Council was technology neutral and would look at the best source and overall business case to prevent landfill as per the Government’s policy position. In relation to its performance indicators, Members recognised that the Council’s landfill was getting redirected to energy from waste where possible. This took time due to long-standing contracts, however once up for renewal the County Council could look at other technologies through its procurement process.

vi.    A member queried whether the increase in waste to incineration could affect recycling rates due to the calorific value of waste required by incineration, though it was noted rates had remained relatively stable in the past five years.

vii.   District councils managed waste collection differently. It was noted that generally all collected the same range of things and that the County Council worked closely with districts regarding contamination issues. North West Leicestershire District Council tended to have less recycling but lower levels of contamination due to its curb side sorting method, whereas the other district councils had higher levels of contamination due to their single recycling bin but higher levels of recycling, which evened itself out.

viii.  The Council was awaiting further information from the Government about how proposed ‘producer payments’ would work. A Member highlighted that orders online created far more packaging, but no extra charge, than an item bought in store, requiring a 10p bag. It was expected that through extended producer responsibility the more packaging put on the market that was unrecyclable, the more they would pay – therefore in future it was expected producers would be more sustainable in their packaging, 

ix.    It was felt the Council did not put enough emphasis on reduction within the Council’s Waste Strategy, in comparison to re-use and recycle.

x.      Given the impact of the pandemic the plans for re-use facilities at the Recycling and Household Waste Sites had been paused, the Department was looking again at restarting the planned service.

xi.    Members were pleased to note the positive local initiatives such as Plastic Free Oadby, a group that looked to reduce the use of plastic containers and bags in their local area.

xii.   A member queried Cabinet’s decision to cut the budget for recycling education, in a time where it was more important than ever to influence good behaviour. In response the Chairman however noted there had been no reduction in recycling rates as set out in the presentation.

xiii.  Three Recycling and Household Waste sites had been temporarily closed due to the shortage of HGV drivers which were needed to empty waste at the sites. The decision also ensured that other sites could be kept open, without spreading staff too thinly. 

The Lead Member for the Green Agenda concluded that it was clear the County Council played a key role as Waste Disposal Authority and that the Council was generally successful in limiting what it sent to landfill. It was emphasised that considering the Council’s budget, in relation to other councils which may have undertaken a Private Finance Initiative with the Government to reduce their waste contract costs, the County Council did well. Furthermore it was recognised that the Environment Bill was a key piece of legislation that would result in a profound change of how the County Council and its partners dealt with waste, which would be eagerly awaited.

RESOLVED:

That the presentation provided be noted.