Agenda item

This report provides a performance update from each of the council’s waste contractor’s for the first year of their contract with Medway Council.  

Discussion:

 

The Head of Waste Services introduced three representatives of the council’s waste contractors, who were in attendance to answer questions at the meeting. These were Countrystyle (providing organic [garden and food] waste processing), Veolia (providing waste and recycling collection, waste disposal and street cleansing services) and Waste Recycling Group (WRG) (providing management of the three household waste recycling centres HWRC)).

 

Each contractor gave a presentation giving an overview of the work carried out in the first year of the contract, including:

Countrystyle

·        the purpose of processing garden and food waste was to divert biodegradable waste from landfill

·        the key purpose of this contract was to allow the council to comply with its statutory duties for landfill allowance targets which would need to be reduced year on year. This process allowed the council to meet those targets

·        significantly lower amounts of waste from Medway was being sent to landfill and the council had a surplus of landfill credits

·        Countrystyle and Veolia have formulated productive processes required in order to work well together

·        Countrystyle was working within the agreed budget framework

·        the council had begun discussions about the future of this 15 year contract with a view to taking up a five year extension which would ensure efficiency savings with regard to the capital expenditure.

Veolia

·        Medway and Veolia had introduced a new recycling service at the start of the contract in order to increase recycling and reduce costs. It was unique, as no other Local Authority had changed from a fully co-mingled service into a twin stream (paper collected separate from other recycling materials) service

·        the volume of clean paper and cardboard collected by kerbside collection (to generate additional income for Medway Council, reduce processing costs and increased recycling performance) had increased by 1,474 tonnes

·        household waste collection had reduced by 2,507 tonnes

·        garden waste and food collection had increased by 2,866 tonnes

·        bulky household waste collections had reduced by 111 tonnes

·        current recycling rates was between 39-40%, and there was a commitment to increase this to 45% by 2015

·        a review of the kerbside recycling collection had been undertaken as many residents had found the reusable bags insufficient to contain all of their materials, bags had blown away during windy conditions which resulted in significant numbers of requests for replacement bags

·        therefore the decision was made for residents to retain their blue boxes and blue re-usable bags for the containment of paper and cardboard and to continue with the provision of clear sacks in addition to the white bags for the containers (bottles, cans, plastics, foil)

work had started with a company in Thanet to recycle mechanical sweeper arisings which would be screened/washed and aggregates removed. It was hoped that that this would be implemented during 2012, once the facility had been built.

 

Waste Recycling Group (WRG)

·        the three household waste recycling centres (HWRC) were mobilised in October 2010

·        recycling rates for the sites was approximately 35% when WRG began the new contract and the target was to increase this to 50% in the first year. The sites achieved 52.2%

·        the next challenge was to achieve 60% recycling in year 2 of the contract

·        a major contributor to the recycling rate was mattresses, with 4,700 recycled in six months

·        each household waste site had an energy champion, who implemented energy saving ideas, reducing further the sites usage and carbon footprint

·        WRG were investigating ‘re-use’ of furniture and household items, engaging with third sector outlets

·        it was planned to re-develop the Hoath Way site (pending planning permission) to increase materials and reduce queues

·        WRG was in consultation with the council to provide Medway with a local trade waste disposal and recycling facility within the current infrastructure.

 

The committee asked questions and made comments, including:

 

·        many residents still seemed unaware that they could put food waste in the brown bins
(officers gave assurance that the council would promote this in the Medway Matters newsletter and on the sides of trucks. The annual recycling calendar was being delivered to all properties and it would also be made clear in that information. Members were asked to note that the brown bins could also take shredded paper and pizza boxes. It was important to promote this as every tonne diverted from landfill saved money for the council)

·        what had been done to control the queues of vehicles at the Cuxton household site?
(WRG responded that they had extended the parking area and provided more information upon arrival at the site. They were also looking to install signage outside the front of the site to advise on peak times)

·        the co-location of glass and plastics into the same container seemed likely to be a problem
(Veolia advised that these were separated once they arrived at the facility and even if the glass was broken there was no problem with this)

·        why was Medway’s black sack waste sent to London when there was a facility in Allington?
(The Assistant Director Frontline Services indicated that the disposal contract had been subject of an EU procurement and the use of SELCHP (in London) was assessed as the most economically advantageous tender)

·        a Member voiced concern about safety at the Capstone household recycling site, specifically with where fluorescent light tubes were recycled and also asked whether mercury in light bulbs was recycled

(WRG gave assurance that they would look into the location of the fluorescent lighting section at Capstone HWRC. Assurance was also given that all lighting tubes were sent away to a specific recycling centre which included the capture of mercury. Officers also advised that they had been approached by a company keen to work with the council to arrange collection of light bulbs from contact points, libraries and household waste recycling centres. Officers were keen to look into this and if it went ahead, it would be one of the first in the UK and would build on the current battery re-cycling collection service)

·        was the co-mingling of waste at flats recycled and where did it go?

(Veolia confirmed that it was recycled and was taken to a different facility for sorting and recycling)

·        the predicted overspend detailed in paragraph 5.4.1 of the report – was this related to the old collection contract which had bigger sacks and now that smaller sacks were being used, had this resulted in less being collected?

(officers responded that this was due to a change in the contract arrangements. Previously it had been put into one container but this de-valued the on-cost of the paper. When the contract was re-let, Veolia offered a variant bid that separated paper at the kerbside (with two containers) and, because of this method, it allowed a discounted price to the council. Residents have been keen to keep one clear recycling bag rather than two containers as part of the kerbside recycling service and Cabinet agreed to continue this method in October 2011. The budget pressure of £246,000 was the continued use of the recycling sacks, as this was a contract variation with Veolia)

·        why could empty gas canisters not be re-issued to the public from the HWRCs?

(WRG advised that this was a health and safety issue as they could not guarantee the safety of the bottle and every bottle had to be issued with a certificate)

·        could vehicle tyres be recycled?
(WRG confirmed that tyres were sent to a specialist recycling company and the end-product was re-used for highway usage)

·        how were mattresses recycled?
(WRG advised that these were taken to a company in Ashford where they were stripped down to their component parts and recycled as appropriate)

·        Members asked about the possibility of the trade recycling facilities in Medway
(officers advised that the council were investigating this option. A government back scheme was available to apply to for funding to undertake a feasibility study in Medway to enable the council to take forward discussions on this matter with WRG)

·        a Member asked that a previous request for alleyways within his ward to be cleaned was actioned

(officers responded that the alleyways referred to were not part of the contracted routes within Medway and had historically been cleaned on demand. Every metre of pavement cleaned was a cost to the council. However, they would investigate the main pavement mentioned.)

 

Decision:

 

The committee thanked the contractors for attending the meeting and providing the information and answers to Members questions.