To receive the Executive’s response to the Task and Finish Group Report on Household Recycling Centres.

Further to minute 9 of 30 June 2014, the Waste Disposal Team Leader presented the Executive response to the Task and Finish Group review on Household Recycling Centres (HRCs); the Summary of Recommendations and Response was appended to the report.  An overview was provided of the recommendations that had been ‘accepted’ (11), ‘accepted in part’ (1), ‘to be investigated’ (7), and ‘not accepted’ (4). 

The Waste Disposal Team Leader said that the recommendations in relation to improved information sharing, advertising and signage, targeted enforcement activity, and site user surveys were particularly welcomed.

In terms of the ‘not accepted’ recommendations, the committee was advised:

Recommendation 11, ‘That the number of permits per user is increased to 14 a year’:  The Commercial Vehicle and Trailer (CVT) permit scheme sought to restrict waste input, particularly from traders and the current 12 permit limit had been arrived at after careful consideration of usage statistics.  An increase to 14 permits could increase levels of waste and associated costs.

Recommendation 19, ‘That consideration should be given to allowing one-off emergency permits to be issued on site’:  Emergency permits were provided under a previous scheme but the system had been difficult to administer and had been exploited by some traders wishing to dispose of commercial waste unlawfully.  Site operatives had the discretion to allow entry in exceptional circumstances.

Recommendation 21, ‘That research should be undertaken to determine the viability of a north Hereford HRC in view of the increased housing numbers coming forward’:  It was estimated that the development of a new site could cost in the region of £1.5 million and, with the six existing HRCs and one due to be constructed in Kington in 2015, it was considered that there was good coverage.

Recommendation 23, ‘That where Herefordshire Council are able to make identified changes to service, especially unilaterally, that these be carried out’:  The partnership arrangements with Worcestershire County Council were paramount and any changes would need to be discussed and agreed jointly.  However, some local elements, such as promotion of composting, could be considered.

The Vice-Chairman, who had chaired the group, broadly welcomed the response but was disappointed about the number of recommendations that were either ‘not accepted’ or ‘to be investigated’ and he made a number of observations, including:

i.           An IT solution could be found to control and monitor emergency permits, whilst improving the service for users.  He added that there was no visibility of the database at the HRCs currently.

ii.          The group had heard evidence that there was a degree of confusion about the allocation of 12 permits, as many people believed incorrectly that only one could be used per month.  Although home composting should be encouraged, the group had also heard evidence that the 12 permit limit was not sufficient for people with large gardens.

iii.         Many people had commented that double-axle trailers of reasonable dimensions should be permitted at the HRCs, especially as such trailers were often considered a safer option compared to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 18

To consider the findings of the scrutiny Task and Finish Group - Household Recycling Centres and to recommend the report to the Executive for consideration.

The purpose of this item was to consider the findings of the Task and Finish Group - Household Recycling Centres and, subject to agreement by the committee, to recommend the report to the Executive for consideration.

The Vice-Chairman, having chaired the task and finish group, introduced the report and made the following comments:

i.        Household Recycling Centres (HRCs) were provided in Herefordshire and Worcestershire for residents to recycle and dispose of their household waste; the facilities were operated by Severn Waste Services (part of Mercia Waste Management) on behalf of the two authorities.  A Commercial Vehicle and Trailer Permit Scheme was in place at all the HRCs.

ii.       A site user survey had been undertaken, with questionnaires available at the HRCs and on the council’s website, with 324 responses received.  Given the level of interest in the topic and the issues raised, the scope and timing of the group’s report had been extended slightly.  This had ultimately resulted in 23 recommendations being put forward in the report.

iii.      The group had been informed that changes to the permit scheme from 1 October 2013 had not resulted in increased levels of fly-tipping but this would need to be monitored as the growing season progressed.

iv.      Minor amendments were identified and corrected: page 77 of the agenda, monitoring of implementation of agreed recommendations, should refer to March 2014 2015; and page 80, Q4 should refer to ‘other swaste(s)’.

v.       Worcestershire County Council was awaiting the findings of this report to inform its own review of the scheme.

The Waste Disposal Team Leader said that the work of the group was welcomed, especially as feedback from service users had been obtained in a relatively short space of time, with an overwhelmingly positive response both in terms of numbers and levels of satisfaction with the service; 77.7% of respondents considered that the sites were managed effectively.  It was noted that one of the group’s recommendations was that further site surveys should be undertaken and this was something that the team was keen to take forward.  Alexandra Nicholas was thanked formally for the comprehensive support that she had provided to the group.

In response to comments from committee members, the Waste Disposal Team Leader advised that:

1.       The permit scheme was now operated by Worcestershire’s customer services department and, whilst considerable savings had been achieved, both waste teams were experiencing some issues with obtaining reports.  The Vice-Chairman noted the need to address the issues identified in the report collectively for the benefit of residents in both counties.

2.       With a significant contract variation concluded in relation to the Energy from Waste Plant, work on other matters could now be progressed, including a new HRC at Kington.  It was noted that Powys County Council was interested in discussing reciprocal arrangements for HRC use by residents on both sides of the border.

3.       Although the recommendation to research the viability of a north Hereford city HRC was noted, it was considered that there  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9