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 single-axle versions.

iv.        Changes to operating hours could provide an opportunity for residents, on certain days, to access HRCs with vehicles and trailers that were normally prohibited.  It was considered that a more proactive approach was needed to limit the potential for fly-tipping and a joint enforcement team with Worcestershire could command greater resources to target unlawful activity even more effectively.

v.         The significant response to the site user survey (343 received) had demonstrated the level of interest in this service and a briefing note on progress within six months would be helpful.

vi.        Thanks were recorded to Kenton Vigus and Alex Nicholas for their professional support and to Councillors SJ Robertson and J Stone for their input into the group’s report.

Committee members discussed the executive response, the principal points included:

a)         With reductions in the frequency of municipal grass cuts, community groups were making additional cuts but the resulting green waste was being turned away at the HRCs.  Therefore, consideration needed to be given to the options available to help these groups to dispose of green waste in a responsible manner.

The Vice-Chairman said that the group had considered it nonsensical that residents, even if authorised by a relevant local body, could not carry community green waste without a Waste Carriers Licence.

The Waste Disposal Team Leader commented that the waste accepted at HRCs could be reviewed but there would be cost implications.  He said that alternative arrangements could be considered; transfer stations received waste from St. Michael’s Hospice and other charities.  The Assistant Director Place Based Commissioning suggested that potential solutions could be considered by the Balfour Beatty Living Places Task and Finish Group.

b)         It was commented that some site operatives maintained that only one permit could be used per month and this misconception needed to be corrected, along with clearer instructions for service users.

c)         The increasing popularity of double-axle trailers was noted and it was considered that provision should be made for smaller trailers of this type.

The Vice-Chairman said that the list of permitted vehicles also needed to be reviewed, especially where restrictions might prevent hard-to-reach groups from using HRCs.

The Waste Disposal Team Leader advised that Worcestershire County Council had commenced its own review following receipt of the group’s findings and the various issues would be discussed by the two councils.

d)         Some members felt it unfortunate that the Cabinet Member Contracts and Assets or another Cabinet Member could not be present for this item.

e)         In response to a question, the Waste Disposal Team Leader advised that there was a small budget to support community composting schemes and specialist knowledge was available from ‘master composters’; it was noted that the composting facility near to the Leominster HRC had closed recently.

f)          The Waste Disposal Team Leader commented on the chargeable garden waste collection service operated by some Worcestershire district councils and noted that Herefordshire, as a unitary authority, would need to recover both collection and treatment costs if a similar scheme was adopted locally.

g)         A member considered it unfortunate that research into the viability of a north Hereford HRC was not being progressed at this time.  It was noted that, upon the completion of Kington, approximately 120,000 residents would be served by six HRCs, whereas the growing population of Hereford city of around 60,000 would only be served by a single HRC.

The Waste Disposal Team Leader said that the review of operating hours could take this into account.

h)         A member commented that there seemed to be a gap in the market for composting facilities in Herefordshire and suggested that this need could be met by social enterprises involving learning disability groups, thereby providing gainful employment for people traditionally excluded from the labour market.  The Chairman suggested that the member meet with the Waste Disposal Team Leader to explore this further.

RESOLVED:  That

(a)       the Executive response to the findings of the review be noted; and

(b)     a briefing note on progress be provided within six months.