Memorandum by Gemini Waste Consultants
Limited (RC 24)
This memorandum shows the results of research
into waste collection authorities that currently provide Alternate
Weekly Collections (AWC). This strongly suggests that it is not
the provision of AWC that provides the main stimulus to residents
to change their waste management habits but that this results
from the imposition by authorities of parallel and, as the research
indicates, illegal waste management practices.
BACKGROUND
In April 2007 the Daily Mail published
a list of 150 local authorities that provide AWC. This research
took a random sample of 15 of these authorities (Annex 1)[11]
and analysed their waste management practices. The results show
that each authority except one provides alternate weekly collections
of residual waste and recyclable and compostable materials (referred
to as recyclable). The exception provides a weekly collection
of recyclables. However, the Committee might also be interested
to know that changing the frequency of collection has not been
the only change that these authorities have introduced.
The authorities originally provided a weekly
collection of all residual and recyclable wastes produced by their
residents. Now all restrict residents as to the amount of waste
the authorities will remove when collections of residual waste
are made. This move from unlimited waste to limited waste is fundamental
to the effect of AWC on residents. This change in service standard
is common amongst all authorities in the sample ie their policies
are to not collect all the residual waste produced by occupiers.
Each authority claims that this change has led to increases in
recycling. However, it could also be argued that it is not the
change to AWC per se that is the cause of these increases, it
is the fact that authorities refuse to remove more than limited
amounts of residual waste, thereby forcing residents either to
sort their wastes or, in many cases, to dispose of their wastes
elsewhere.
Whereas fortnightly collections are permitted
by law, the research strongly indicates that not collecting all
of an occupier's residual waste is not. Being commonplace does
not necessarily guarantee compliance with the law.
LEGAL POSITION
The governing legislation is the Environmental
Protection Act 1990, section 45 of which places a statutory public
law duty on waste collection authorities to collect household
waste arising in their areas. This is an onerous duty for authorities
given that there is no general requirement in law for occupiers
to present their household waste in any particular manner. The
Act addresses this potential conflict by giving authorities the
power to require residents to contain their wastes.
However, this power does not give authorities
the right not to perform the statutory duty that is set out in
section 45 ie collect all household waste. Instead, it is a means
by which they are able to perform that duty. Unfortunately, avoiding
the duty is exactly what authorities that provide AWC seem to
be doing: they provide limited storage capacity to residents by
issuing wheeled bins of limited size and, other than in exceptional
circumstances, will not allow residents to procure additional
containers. In every case these authorities will not collect "side
waste". That authorities have to collect waste in unlimited
quantities appears to be quite clear from the Court of Appeal
(Annex 2)* however, despite this, increasing numbers of authorities
do not. In addition, the Department of Environment, Food and Rural
Affairs has confirmed that authorities are permitted under certain
circumstances to not collect side waste. However, there is no
provision within the EPA for guidance to be issued by the Secretary
of State regarding interpretation of section 45 of the Act.
PRACTICAL POSITION
Each authority in the sample claims that the
main reason for introducing the change to AWC is because of government
targets. In most cases these are recycling targets, but in the
case of collection authorities that are also disposal authorities
(but also some collection-only authorities) the target referred
to is landfill diversion. Recently the LGA issued a press release
on AWC which led the media and others to infer that AWC of itself
leads to higher levels of recycling. However, in reality the release
does not make this assertion. What it does state, however, is
that in general authorities that practise AWC have higher levels
of recycling than those that do not. That point is not disputed.
However, as stated in this memorandum, it is not AWC of itself
that brings about this change—it is the change in policy
to not collect all household waste that forces residents to adopt
different practices.
Notwithstanding the legality of not collecting
all residual waste, the committee will be aware that it is equally
feasible to adopt a policy to not collect all waste based on a
weekly collection because whether all residual waste is collected
is not, of itself, a function of collection frequency. However,
where frequency does come in is that the scale of the problem
faced by residents who produce what some authorities refer to
as "excessive amounts of waste" is far more acute if
they are faced with having to wait for a further two weeks (making
a total of four weeks) in order to get their residual waste collected,
as opposed to another week if a policy of "no side waste"
was to be applied to weekly collections. It does not appear to
be unreasonable to conclude that authorities might want residents
to suffer inconvenience, without which their recycling/diversion
targets might not be met.
11 Annexes not printed Back
| 
