Agenda item

Review of Waste Collection Policy

Decision:

(a)       That the Committee recommends to Cabinet for the proposed pilot scheme to engage a local Social Enterprise to provide the Bulky Waste collection service; and

 

(b)       That further consideration be  given to alternative options for the future of HRC service provision in Flintshire, including an option for  two additional super sites located in the Flint/Connah's Quay area and the Buckley/Mold area (subject to the Council being able to identify suitable land and it becoming available), to supplement the existing sites in Sandycroft and Greenfield. 

 

Minutes:

The Chair invited Councillor Aaron Shotton to speak on the item.  Councillor Shotton read out a statement which had been provided to the press to advise of the position regarding the review of the HRC provision and bulky waste collection service.  He referred to the outcome of the Welsh Government (WG) review of the Council’s waste service which included a review of the Council’s Household Recycling Centre (HRC) provision.  He gave an  assurance that there was currently no agreement on the findings of the WG report and that he did not want to see closure of sites.

 

Councillor Shotton commented on the recommendations in the WG report and advised that failure to meet the WG National Strategy landfill targets could result in infraction charges being levied against the Council totalling £200 for each tone of waste land filled above the defined allowance and a further £200 per tonne infraction charge could be levied if the Council failed to achieve the Statutory Waste Recycling target in a same period.   He explained that unless the Authority improved the existing facilities on sites to ensure more recycling then it would be unlikely to achieve the targets set by the WG. 

 

Councillor Shotton commented on the severe austerity measures imposed on the Authority and the pressure on public services.  He referred to the significant financial cuts and efficiencies which had been achieved to date in all service areas and the need to set a local balanced budget.  He emphasised that unless the WG proposals and guidance was followed on how the Authority should achieve its recycling targets in future years there would be severe financial penalties incurred and possible risk to the viability of future capital revenue grants.  

 

The Chief Executive referred to national policy and local choice and  commented on the main considerations regarding national funding and performance of HRC sites.  He explained that significant funding was available from WG to improve sites and if the current WG proposal was not acceptable then some negotiation might be had around the development of supersites.  The Chief Executive advised that the Authority aimed to achieve a recycling target of 70% by having a viable network and if it did not hit that recycling target then it would be liable to fines.

 

The Chief Executive referred to the need for the Authority to find further savings of 30% to set a balanced budget and stated that efficiencies on such a scale could not be found from any other business plan within the Authority.

 

Councillor Kevin Jones emphasised that there were no further significant  savings which could be achieved from within the Service without withdrawing collection services.  The WG had made it known that it held the view that  the Authority was oversubscribed for some sites and would impose penalties if it  did not meet its targets.  He commented that the WG priority was waste management and waste collection and this was the ‘blueprint’ the Authority was expected to work to.  The capital support provided by the WG was expected to produce revenue savings.

 

The Chief Officer (Streetscene and Transportation) advised that following a WG review of the Council’s waste service, which included the Council’s HRC provision, it was concluded that the Council’s HRC provision (in terms of the number of sites) was greater than necessary and the facilities offered at each site did not match the minimum requirements of the high quality sites which regularly achieved high levels of recycling elsewhere in the country.  It was recommended that a local authority of the size and  with the demographic features of Flintshire, should offer just three HRC sites with each site offering good access and excellent recycling facilities to users.  The WG review made recommendations on which of the current sites would provide the best configuration and coverage across the County.    On this basis it was recommended that the Council operated sites at Greenfield, Sandycroft and Nercwys near Mold.  Subject to Cabinet approval the closures of the remaining facilities would come into effect on 1 November 2016.

 

The Chief Officer reported on the proposed new arrangements for the kerbside collection of bulky waste.  He referred to the introduction of a pilot scheme with a local Social Enterprise company to extend the existing arrangement for the collection of bulky waste electrical equipment to allow all requested bulky waste collections to take place.  He explained that the material would be taken to an appropriate closed HRC site for assessment for reuse or broken down to recyclable components.  It was also proposed to extend the service in the future to include the collection of furniture and beds. 

 

The Chair thanked Officers for their input and invited Members to raise questions. 

 

Councillor Ian Roberts commented on the Authority’s current and previous high performance in achieving statutory targets for municipal waste recycling and said that this should be celebrated and used as an example for other authorities to follow.  He referred to the current configuration for  provision at the six sites in Flintshire which the WG review had stated was good, and challenged why there was a need to introduce change.   He referred to a proposal which he had previously made that consideration be given to income generation and said he had suggested that a small charge be introduced for the use of recycling centres as a means of supporting sites.  Councillor Roberts raised a number of specific concerns regarding provision at some of the Authority’s recycling sites and management of kerbside collections.

 

 The Chief Officer responded to the comments and concerns raised by Councillor Roberts and explained that the key issue was not the quantity but the quality of the HRC sites which were available.  The Chief Executive advised that the Authority was not high performing in terms of HRC recycling. In response to the suggestion to introduce a small fee for use of recycling sites the Chief Executive advised that such a measure would be subject to approval by the WG.  Officers also explained that the introduction of charges could have implications on the goodwill of residents to participate in the recycling of waste and may act as a deterrent.   

 

Councillor Hilary Isherwood raised concerns around individuals who were elderly, disabled, or unable to travel to a HRC site.  She asked what provision was available to meet these circumstances and suggested there could be an opportunity for income to be generated by providing a service to meet this need.  The Chief Officer explained that the concept for supersites was to make such facilities more accessible.  He also referred to the bulky waste collection service and doorstep collections.  The Chief Officer agreed to discuss the suggestion further with Social Enterprise.

 

Councillor Mike Peers raised a number of concerns around the management of the existing HRC sites.  He commented on capacity issues with the skips at the Buckley site and the evidence to indicate that recycling was not being fully promoted.  He also referred to the recent consultation process on the rationalisation of HRCs and said there had been no discussions with Scrutiny or Town or Community Councils to seek their  views before the consultation questionnaire had been distributed.    He stated that he could not support the findings of the WG review.  The Chief Executive acknowledged the points raised by Councillor Peers concerning performance/management at some sites and accepted there was some room for improvement to optimise performance.

 

Councillor David Evans proposed that a supersite be established to serve the communities of Flint and Connah’s Quay, and cited Oakenholt  as a possible location.  He also referred to the Brookhill  site at Buckley and suggested that this be used as a supersite to serve Buckley, Mold and Mynydd Isa areas.

 

Councillor Carol Ellis supported the proposal put forward by Councillor Evans.  She spoke against the proposal to close the Buckley site citing the excellent facilities which were already available in and around Buckley, the possible reluctance for local residents to have to travel to another area, and the blighting of local beauty spots, to support her views against closure.     She said there were a number of simple solutions around the Buckley site which could be considered to assist the Authority to meet its targets.  Councillor Richard Jones also spoke in support of retaining and expanding the existing HRC site at Buckley.

 

Councillor Richard Lloyd commented positively on the running of the Buckley Household Recycling Centre.  He proposed that the Sandycroft site allowed vans with licences and said he had received a positive response to this from the Chief Officer and Cabinet Member.  Councillor David Evans referred to his proposal for a super site and suggested that this also accommodated vans with licences.

 

Councillor Paul Shotton said that the proposal by Councillor David Evans was dependent on funding from the Welsh Government.

 

The Chief Executive said there was need for urgent evidence based discussion with the WG to establish what capital funding was available to fund super-sites.  Councillor Aaron Shotton explained that any alternative solution to the WG proposals would need to be put forward to a meeting of the Cabinet as soon as possible. 

 

During discussion Members agreed that further consideration be  given to alternative options for the future of HRC service provision in Flintshire, including an option for  two additional super-sites located in the Flint/Connah's Quay area and the Buckley/Mold area (subject to the Council being able to identify suitable land and it becoming available), to supplement the existing sites in Sandycroft and Greenfield. 

 

RESOLVED:

 

(a)       That the Committee recommends to Cabinet for the proposed pilot scheme to engage a local Social Enterprise to provide the Bulky Waste collection service; and

 

(b)       That further consideration be  given to alternative options for the future of HRC service provision in Flintshire, including an option for  two additional super sites located in the Flint/Connah's Quay area and the Buckley/Mold area (subject to the Council being able to identify suitable land and it becoming available), to supplement the existing sites in Sandycroft and Greenfield. 

 

Supporting documents: