Agenda item

To receive a report from the Bi-borough Head of Waste and Street Enforcement discussing current arrangements for recycling in the borough and how recycling could be made easier for residents

The Committee received a report and brief presentation from Kathy May, Bi-Borough Head of Waste and Street Enforcement and Sue Harris Director for Cleaner, Greener & Cultural Services, outlining current recycling arrangements and options for the future.

The Committee noted that recycling rates were a concern and that targets were not being met. It was suggested that the Council could explore implementing an incentive scheme similar to that used in Windsor & Maidenhead to encourage people to recycle more of their waste, although it was accepted that such an approach was easier with boroughs where wheeled bins were part of the collection regime. It was also argued that the Council’s communications needed to include information on the financial cost of not recycling, alongside the environmental reasons. If people knew their actions had a direct impact on Council Tax levels, it was suggested that they would be more responsible with their waste.

It was asked whether there were any trends regarding which sort of households were better or worse at recycling. Officers explained that they had mapped this sort of information, and it was the estates and areas with a high level of transient population which tended to have lower recycling rates and higher levels of contaminated waste. As such the Council would be focussing resources to investigate and address the issues and complications involved in recycling on the estates. Members asked whether contaminated waste sacks were the result of user-error or laziness and officers explained that it varied. When waste was analysed at the MRF (Material Recycling Facility), it was sometimes apparent that people had tried to separate out recyclable waste and made mistakes, while others just used the free recycling sacks for all general waste.

It was highlighted that the Council used to fund initiatives such as garden composting and free  re-usable nappies but had stopped. Officers explained that such schemes were funded by central Government and that when the funding had ceased the Council could not afford to meet all of the costs.

The Committee discussed the implications of the borough having a large transient population with 40% of homes privately rented. As tenants appeared to not be aware of requirements for recycling, it was asked whether the Council should focus on engaging with landlords and making it their responsibility to communicate with their tenants. Officers agreed that this approach would help, but explained that it was very labour intensive as it would require constant reinforcement. The Committee asked for officers to provide further details on what information was currently going to landlords.

Action: Kathy May / Sue Harris

Members also noted that the report described that volunteers were going door-to-door to residents in underperforming areas to remind residents of their recycling responsibilities, but that this did not include flats or estate properties. It was asked why properties identified as being significant problem areas were being avoided. Officers explained that the Western Riverside Waste Authority (WRWA) wanted the volunteers to focus on curb-side collection, but the Council wanted to focus on the estates, so members’ comments were appreciated. Cllr Harcourt explained that one issue with estates that needed to be overcome was silo working with greater coordination needed with the housing department.

Recognising the transient population and high numbers of people moving into the borough, it was asked how new residents were informed of recycling practises and suggested that information should be included whenever a new Council Tax liability was established. Officers stated that this was not currently done, but they undertook to explore the feasibility of doing so.

The Committee also discussed possible enforcement action for persistent offenders. Officers explained that it was often difficult to accurately establish the source of contaminated bags of waste. For example the contaminated bags would have to be collected from within a property’s curtilage to be certain of the offending resident. If identification was possible, a section 48 notice could be issued which warned the offender. Once this notice was issued, prosecution became easier if the offender persisted. Numbered waste bags were suggested, but it was acknowledged that there would be cost and labour implications.

RESOLVED –

That the report be noted.