REVIEW OF WASTE COLLECTION SERVICES



REVIEW OF WASTE COLLECTION SERVICES

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

ISSUES:

1. Members have been informed of the current Waste Service Review being carried out, and at the Executive meeting on 22nd May 2008, members agreed to extend the current contract for the provision and maintenance of the Council’s vehicles until April 2009. This was in order to allow full consideration of the options for the future of collections as part of the Waste Service Review.

2. The review group has met on numerous occasions since February 2008 and its conclusions are contained within this report.

Weekly Collection of Domestic Waste

3. As part of the Waste Management review, an opportunity was taken to review the implications of reverting back to weekly collection of domestic waste (as opposed to the current system of alternative weekly collections). Notwithstanding the anecdotal evidence about the merits of weekly collections, the cost of re-introducing weekly collections would be significant, particularly in the context of the Council’s current budgetary position as set out in the main report.

4. Initial estimates indicate that the cost of re-introducing weekly collection of domestic waste would be c£800k in the first year, which is inclusive of the marketing required to inform residents of the changes, reducing to c£750k each year thereafter. There is presently no budget provision for this in the Council’s Medium Term Financial Plan which already shows a deficit of c£5.0m. It would, therefore, present a significant challenge to the Council’s budget to reintroduce weekly collection and could, potentially, have a direct impact on other services provided by the Council.

Trade Waste

5. The Waste Management Review also looked at options in relation to the delivery of the Trade Waste Collection function. These included, for example, the possibility of disposing of the Trade Waste service as a going concern to a third party. Further work is being undertaken to assess the impact of the options identified for the Council and this will form the basis of a further report to the Executive.

Recycling Collections

6. The current kerbside collection for recycling (Recycle for Pendle) has been operating since 2005. Green boxes are provided to householders for the collection of glass, cans and paper. Plastic bottles are collected in blue sacks and cardboard is collected loose or in old carrier bags. In June 2007, the Council engaged a private company, I & G Cohen’s, to collect textiles in red sacks. The Council also introduced grey wheeled bins for refuse in June 2005 as part of the three stream, alternate week collection scheme that currently operates to over 99% of homes in Pendle.

7. The vehicles used for collecting glass, cans and paper are specialist vehicles called “Kerbsiders”. They have separate compartments so that the recycling can be segregated on the vehicle. The collectors manually sort the materials into hoppers which are then emptied into the different compartments. As plastic bottles, cardboard and textiles are also collected separately by other vehicles, this system is known as a “source-separated” collection.

8. Another method of recycling collection is to “co-mingle” certain materials, and this system currently operates in some neighbouring local authorities. Normally, a wheeled bin is provided to collect a mixture of glass, cans and plastic bottles. The bin is then emptied by a refuse collection type vehicle, i.e. lifted mechanically. The co-mingled materials are then delivered to a mechanical sorting facility in order to be separated out into the individual material types for onward reprocessing.

9. The Waste Review Group has been considering the advantages and disadvantages of our current source separated system versus co-mingled collections including a financial appraisal of the options. A summary table outlines some of the main considerations below:

| |ADVANTAGES |DISADVANTAGES |

|SOURCE SEPARATED VIA |Better quality of material collected which results in less |Sales income is to be reduced from April 2010 due to conditions in the |

|GREEN BOX AND BLUE SACK|contamination |cost-sharing agreement with Lancs CC, i.e. we will lose high sales |

| |Higher sales income for source separated materials |income |

| |System is well understood and well liked. |Green box capacity of 55 litres may limit the amount put out by |

| | |householders |

| | |Problems of empty blue sacks not being left or littering the streets |

| | |Manual handling problems of lifting glass in over filled boxes |

| | |Labour intensive – higher costs |

| | |Terraced properties find front street collections problematic |

| | |High turnover of replacement boxes – 150 per week |

|CO-MINGLED VIA |Less manual handling – for householders as well as collectors|Additional wheeled bin needs to be provided to householders |

|WHEELED BIN |More capacity provided for recycling materials, higher |Risk of contamination of materials collected, e.g. plastics other than |

| |capture rates (experience from other authorities shows higher|bottles, therefore a high level of education is needed to support this |

| |recycling rates) |method |

| |No need to take containers through to the front of the house |Need for re-education due to new system |

| |in terraced properties | |

| |Less labour intensive, lower collection costs | |

| |No need for sacrificial blue sacks | |

| |Fewer vehicles needed to collect, reduced carbon footprint | |

Consultation:

10. The Waste Review Group requested a public consultation exercise to be carried out in order to find out what people thought of the current system and the proposed changes. In June 2008, the East Lancashire e-Partnership consulted the Citizens’ Panel about recycling and street cleansing services.

11. The questionnaire was sent to 1157 residents, and 728 were completed and returned, a response rate of 63%. A summary of the key responses regarding recycling collections is below:

▪ 90% rate the kerbside recycling collection as either excellent or good

▪ 93% feel that the scheme has made it easier to recycle, has increased amount of recycling or has started people recycling

▪ Main problems with the current service:

o Spillages during collection (40%)

o Recyclables left lying around (40%)

o Containers disappearing (26%)

o Limited storage space for containers (22%)

▪ Changes that would most improve the service:

o Fewer spillages (46%)

o Increased capacity for recycling items (29%)

o More materials collected (25%)

▪ 61% agree with the Council’s proposal to put all recyclables into one wheeled bin, with 22% disagreeing

Why Change?

12. We need to increase the amount we recycle in line with targets being introduced in the revised Lancashire Waste Management Strategy. In 2007/08, Pendle Borough Council recycled 33.7% of household waste. The proposed target in the Lancashire Strategy is to recycle 56% by 2015.

13. The Citizen’s Panel results show that improvements to the current system would be welcome. Customers would like to see fewer spillages, increased capacity for recycling and more materials collected. Similar issues have been identified in the Continual Service Improvement focus group research carried out in June/July 2008.

14. The proposed collection of glass, cans and plastic bottles co-mingled in a wheeled bin would address these issues as well as providing the scope for adding more materials to the collection system.

Financial Implications

15. As indicated above, the reintroduction of weekly collection of domestic waste would, on the basis of current estimates, cost the Council £800k in the first year, reducing to an ongoing cost of £750k on the basis of present estimates and the current scale of operation.

16. The proposals involve purchasing 40,000 new wheeled bins as well as procuring suitable collection vehicles. Under the cost sharing agreement with Lancashire County Council, we will lose the income from the sale of recyclable materials as from April 2010, so this has also been factored into the calculations.

17. Estimates show that by changing from the current recycling system to the proposed co-mingling of glass, cans and plastic bottles, there is a potential saving on the revenue account of £112,180 in 2010/11 (first full year) and £114,910 in 2011/12.

Proposed Way Forward

18. Communications Plan – the successful introduction of the three stream segregated waste system in June 2005 was achieved by having a comprehensive (award-winning) communications plan. It is proposed that we work with the Communications Team in order to develop another along similar lines as the last one in order to help educate and inform people of these changes. We are aiming to introduce the new system in June 2009.

19. Containers – it is proposed that we approach Yorkshire Purchasing (Governing European Compliant Framework Agreement) in order to buy the wheeled bins needed for this scheme.

20. Vehicles – it is proposed that the existing vehicle contract be extended until October 2010 and the fleet is replaced in June 2009 in line with our new requirements.

RECOMMENDATIONS

1. That a further report on options for the Trade Waste function is presented to the Executive in due course;

2. That plastic bottles, cans and glass are collected for recycling co-mingled using a wheeled bin.

3. That the existing vehicle contract is extended until October 2010 and the fleet is replaced in June 2009 in line with our new requirements.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download