Memorandum by East Lindsey District Council
(RC 5)
East Lindsey District Council is a Waste Collection
Authority operating in an area of two-tier local government.
THE WAYS
IN WHICH
LOCAL AUTHORITIES
COLLECT AND
MEASURE WASTE
Collection methods: the contribution made to waste
minimisation by the timing, frequency and type of collection in
both urban and rural areas and in areas characterised by differing
housing types, such as flats
East Lindsey District Council has recently introduced
a new collection service based on the use of three wheeled bins
and alternate weekly collections (AWC). This has had the effect
of raising the amount diverted to recycling from 800 tonnes per
month to 1,00 tonnes per month.
As well as increasing the diversion of waste
going for recycling this change has also had the effect of reducing
the residual waste going to landfill.
The size of the containers used was considered
carefully and it was decided to specifically use a wheeled bin
for residual waste with less capacity 180 litre, as opposed to
the 240 litre wheeled bin used for the collection of green waste
and recyclables. It was considered that this would provide greater
incentive and make it difficult to recycle and therefore to reduce
waste going to landfill. This decision has been supported by higher
recycling rates and a reduction in the waste going to landfill.
Further to this the wheeled bins were introduced
in conjunction with a change to collection frequency from weekly
to AWC (alternate week collections), which has further induced
householders to recycle as a normal household would be unable
to cope with the capacity for non-recycled waste going to landfill
with out removing the recyclable element of their household waste
stream.
Communal bins for both recycling and waste have
been introduced at flats across the district and these have been
both welcomed and well used by residents.
The aim has been to make recycling accessible
and easy for residents to use and understand. This is considered
to be the key to public engagement, and for that reason the Council
rejected multi-box and/or coloured bag separation schemes as being
difficult for the majority of residents to operate in terms of
separation and storage.
Collection frequency and scheduling has been
aligned to ensure the same day of collection is used and that
this only changes over the Christmas and New Year break and is
consistent for the rest of the year other collections on bank
holidays taking place as normal making it easier for residents
to understand.
The service change has meant that the combined
BVPI recycling/composting performance has gone up from 21% in
2005-06 to 36% for this transitional year and is expected to top
45% in a full year. Therefore the Council now comfortably exceeds
it's BVPI target, is making a significant contribution to the
achievement of the LAA stretch target and is well on the way toward
meeting the new 50% target for 2010.
As well as introducing AWC the Council has also
adopted a policy of not accepting side waste as minimisation measure,
and in effect placed a weekly limit on that which will be removed
from each household.
Joint working, cost sharing and the potential
for co-operation between waste collection authorities
The East Lindsey District Council worked on
a joint procurement project with three other districts in 2003-04-05,
which ultimately failed to produce the intended outcome of a combined
collection contract.
The approach taken appeared to follow the best
practice that was available at the time. It included a member/officer
steering committee, engagement with the Office of the Deputy Prime
Minister and through them with the Partnership Beacon Council,
use of 4P's documentation which has since been adopted as the
OGC standard, separate supporting officer groups from legal, finance
and waste, and consultancy support and expertise wherever necessary.
Joint procurement is not as simple as it is
sometimes promoted. The problems that proved insurmountable included:
— the position of DLO's in the two
councils that had them in terms of bidding for the contract and
then TUPE costs, especially those related to "open"
and "closed" pension schemes;
— different specification requirements
between an urban authority and three rural authorities;
— different collection methodologies
in use across the WCAs; and
— cost sharing and pooling of budgets
where in the final tender submissions there were clear winners
and losers amongst the WCAs.
This case has been shared via the IDeA website,
and more information can be supplied about this if required. It
clearly highlighted that joint tendering is a difficult area for
local authorities.
THE CONTRIBUTION
COLLECTION METHODS
MAY MAKE
TOWARDS WASTE
MINIMISATION, EFFECTIVE
RECYCLING AND
THE REDUCTION
OF WASTE
GOING TO
LANDFILL AND
INCINERATION. TOPICS
WHICH MAY
BE CONSIDERED
WITHIN THIS
INCLUDE
Collection methodology in terms of both the
means, limitations on the amount of waste which can be presented
for collection and the frequency of collection does contribute
toward waste minimisation this is born out through our experience
as stated previously.
However, a balance needs to be struck in terms
of acknowledging that waste will still be produced and there is
a need to create a situation where residents accept responsibility
for creating waste and make lifestyle changes in their waste producing
habits by introducing systems that allow householders to reduce
waste or separate waste in line with the waste hierarchy.
Bulky waste charges which reflect cost of removal,
encouraging residents to sell or use furniture reuse organisations.
Information programmes: how the Department of
Communities and Local Government and local authorities can contribute
to reducing the amount of waste reaching collection through providing
information to households, consumers and producers
There is an on-going need to provide information
to the public about the need to reduce the amount of waste that
is produced, and the opportunity is enhanced by the growing awareness
of the issues related to climate change.
There is also a need for a change in attitude
by residents to accept responsibility for the waste they produce,
and see it as their problem and not that of their local authority
(see comment above re efficiency of previous collection regimes).
This attitude also needs to more widely encompass
the view that waste is a resource needing to be re-used rather
than simply thrown away.
The information provided to residents by East
Lindsey District Council was comprehensive and further assistance
in providing information through various media ie leaflets, doorstepping,
press, radio and roadshows was used and this was part funded by
WRAP. This additional funding has proved beneficial in raising
awareness in East Lindsey District and evidence from feedback
from householders has shown that information needs to be not just
about what can be recycled, but also to explain the reasons that
reducing and recycling more waste is necessity. It is clear that
this message is better if it can be portrayed or set in a local
context.
In Lincolnshire the Waste Partnership has both
a sub-group of recycling officers and a separate Waste Engagement
Group to work on combined approaches to waste minimisation, recycling
and publicity. This year all seven districts and the county have
joined the WRAP home composting scheme to jointly promote the
benefits that this important waste minimisation scheme can have.
DCLG need to put pressure/encourage legislation
to reduce the packaging from supermarkets and other retailers.
Technology: the contribution of collection technologies
to waste minimisation, reduction and setting
Technology has a role to play in ensuring that
such packaging that is used is easy to recycle and avoids the
use of complex combinations of materials. There is also some further
scope in the search for the current holy grail of the supermarkets
to make packaging that is biodegradable. However, this needs to
be approached with some care to ensure that what the packaging
degrades in to is not in itself harmful to the environment!
HOW DECISIONS
TAKEN BY
LOCAL AUTHORITIES
ABOUT COLLECTION/DISPOSAL
METHODS AID
OR CONSTRAIN
FUTURE COLLECTION
METHODS AND
MINIMISATION. TOPICS
WHICH MAY
BE CONSIDERED
WITHIN THIS
INCLUDE
Planning for future sorting, collection and disposal
facilities.
The collection methodology and treatment infrastructure
need to compliment each other and avoid sending mixed messages
to the public. There is a real risk that if the Waste Disposal
Authority (WDA) opts for energy from waste (EfW) then this can
be seen as a disincentive to Waste Collection Authority (WCA)
schemes to promote and encourage recycling.
This co-ordination is clearly easier to achieve
in areas of unitary government, but it can work in two-tier areas
as well. In Lincolnshire, East Lindsey District Council, Lincoln
City Council WCA's and the County WDA have worked closely together
over a period of 18 months to procure a MRF that has been designed
to meet both the current needs and the future aspirations of the
WCA.
This joint approach resulted from consideration
early in the process of the need to co-ordinate collection and
treatment, and a formal "Memorandum of Understanding"
on joint working was agreed. Once completed this facility will
be available to other WCAs within Lincolnshire.
This process has not restricted the WDA from
working toward an EfW solution for the residual waste, but through
the Waste Engagement Group (see above) the two approaches are
being promoted as complimenting each other and being different
parts of dealing with the overall waste problem, as neither on
it's own represents a total solution.
Therefore all the WCAs have introduced recycling
systems using their own locally developed approaches and procured
vehicles and bins/boxes/sacks as required, whilst still being
able to support the WDA approach to residual treatment.
In two-tier authorities it is important that
close working is established and whole life costs are considered
of collection and disposal options. This needs to be complemented
by a clear mechanism to ensure that benefits are not at the expense
of or detriment of either authority. Where this exists it presents
a barrier to close working to provide the most efficient and economic
solution to waste collection and disposal.
FINANCING. TOPICS
WHICH MAY
BE CONSIDERED
WITHIN THIS
INCLUDE
The funding of waste collection, including the
implications of variable charging for waste collection
The issue of variable charging is one that needs
careful consideration. Some authorities will embrace it, whilst
others will oppose it on principle, and that will in turn introduce
the prospect of yet another aspect of the postcode lottery as
to what service is provided to residents. This is already very
clearly in evidence for recycling collections with a large number
of variations in operation around the country.
There is also the issue that refuse collection
is regarded as the one service that all residents consider they
get for their council tax. Experience at promotional roadshows
in Lincoln has shown that there is little real understanding of
the actual costs involved in paying for waste services.
Therefore there may only be a small reduction
in actual council tax bills, with this being lost entirely within
a few years due to annual inflationary rise. Therefore the risk
is that the introduction of variable charging will be seen as
yet another "stealth" tax. This in turn could lead to
the whole effort to reduce waste being discredited or at the very
least drowned out in the clamour against the variable charging
scheme.
The practicality of waste charging by weight
will be difficult to monitor, and raises the spectre of either
locked bins (which would reduce crew productivity to an unacceptable
level) or that of disputes where residents accuse others of putting
waste in their bins. The solution is to revert to collections
of bins from the back door, but again that would seriously impact
on productivity especially if there was a perceived requirement
to return the bins in those areas using them.
A pay-per-lift is another option, but this is
hardly complementary to the ethos of waste reduction, as it will
encourage residents to fill their bins to get maximum value from
the service.
There is also the risk that such a scheme would
adversely impact on those least able to afford to pay for this
service, with possible health impacts if waste is retained on
a property or only a portion of it presented each collection.
A further issue is that of the cost of introducing
this methodology. The chips are being quoted at as much as £3.50
retrofitted to existing bins, and the equipment for the vehicles
is quoted as being as high as £10,000 per vehicle. This combined
with the necessary administration of the system would add significantly
to the cost of collection paid by the householder.
There is a further danger that flytipping (which
is already a problem in rural and urban areas) will increase as
people seek to avoid paying for the service. The existence of
powers to fine people for this activity is unlikely to act as
a deterrent as the likelihood of being caught is very small. There
is a lot of countryside out there, and in a rural county such
as Lincolnshire there is an absolute plethora of small country
roads where illegal tipping could (and indeed already does) take
place.
Whilst it would be easier to control in urban
areas where there are established smoke-free zones, there is the
prospect that in rural areas there would be a sharp increase in
the incidence of waste burning as an alternative to paying for
a collection service.
| 
