Agenda item

To adopt a revised model for the waste and recycling service and to make a recommendation to Council on the approval of capital resources to fund the vehicle replacement programme.  

a)         That the findings of the Waste Service Review be ENDORSED.

b)         That the comingled recycling service, with separate food waste collections (Option 2), be adopted as the preferred option for implementation in 2017.

c)         That it be RECOMMENDED TO COUNCIL that £3.25million be allocated from capital resources to fund the vehicle replacement programme.

d)      That authority be delegated to the Deputy Chief Executive, in consultation with the Lead Members for Clean and Green Environment and Finance and Asset Management, to procure the new and replacement vehicles. 

77.1           The report of the Environmental and Housing Services Group Manager, circulated at Pages No. 14-28, informed Members of the outcome of the review and recommended a revised model for the waste and recycling service as well as a procurement process to provide the vehicles to deliver the service. Members were asked to endorse the findings of the waste service review; adopt the comingled recycling service with separate food waste collections (option two) as the preferred option for implementation in 2017; to recommend to Council that the allocation of £3.25 million from capital resources to fund the vehicle replacement programme be approved; and to delegate authority to the Deputy Chief Executive, in consultation with the Lead Members for Clean and Green Environment and Finance and Asset Management, to procure the new and replacement vehicles.

77.2           The Deputy Chief Executive advised Members that the current waste and comingled recycling collection service had been in place since 2010. The service had been introduced with the aim of achieving 50% recycling and composting by 2014/15 and reaching an annual landfill rate of 273kg per capita. Since 2014, the waste and recycling collection service had been provided for Tewkesbury by the local authority company Ubico which also provided street cleansing and ground maintenance services in the Borough. The vehicles currently used by Ubico for delivery of the service were contract hired and that agreement was due to expire at the end of March 2017 so this also needed to be given consideration. The review of the waste service had been commissioned in September 2015 to consider whether the current service configuration was still fit for purpose and to compare it against other service models in terms of cost, performance and compliance. Bruce Carpenter, working through the Joint Waste Team, had undertaken the review on behalf of the Council and the report before Members drew together the conclusions of that review.

77.3           In introducing himself Bruce Carpenter explained that he was the Head of Operations for the Somerset Waste Partnership and through that was linked to the Joint Waste Team. He explained that the report before the Committee described the review and made recommendations on service provision and the replacement vehicles that might deliver the new service. As identified by the Deputy Chief Executive, the current service had been introduced in 2010 and had proven to be successful in reducing residual waste and improving recycling so it was likely that, if reversed, recycling would reduce and this would be contrary to the Council’s objectives. This had to be taken into account as did the fact that, by 2019, the energy from the waste facility at Javelin Park should come on-stream. Members were also advised that new legislation had been introduced by the Waste Regulations England and Wales 2011 (as amended) which had underpinned the review. Those Regulations required the collection of materials separately but there were expectations within them that allowed comingling of materials if it was not technically, environmentally and economically practicable (TEEP) to change.

77.4           In terms of the service models being considered option one was the ‘as is’ option which had recycling and food waste collections using a refuse collection vehicle with a pod for the food waste; a refuse and food collection using the same vehicle; and a garden waste collection. Option two would see a recycling collection, a refuse collection and a garden waste collection using standard refuse collection vehicles and a food waste collection using a food waste vehicle which was not podded – this vehicle would be much smaller, quicker and more efficient than those used at the moment and the refuse collection vehicles themselves would be high capacity standard vehicles. Option three was a splitback refuse collection vehicle which would collect recycling and glass, refuse collection vehicles for refuse and garden waste vehicles and a food waste vehicle – this offered some benefit in terms of the Materials Recovery Facility (MRF) gate fees but the original cost of the vehicle was approximately £30,000 more than a standard one. Option four was a full kerbside sort with a resource recovery vehicle for recycling and food waste and standard refuse collection vehicles for refuse and garden waste. In terms of the evaluation of the options a framework had been developed around the core principles of sustainability which showed that, overall, options one and two were the favourites. Future issues had also been considered including property growth, speed of loading, change of tipping point and likely financial changes. As a result of that analysis, option two was the preferred option as it used less expensive vehicles and had a reduced capital requirement; it avoided the cost of change; it had a low customer and client impact; there were minimal requirements for communications; no new containers were required; manual handling was minimised; the Borough’s high recycling rate would be maintained; the service would be future proofed against a high level of property growth and changes in tipping points; and there would be no costs transferred to the Waste Disposal Authority.

77.5           A number of vehicles would be required to provide the proposed new waste service as well as a number of other types of vehicles which did not form part of the review but were needed to provide the service overall i.e. sweepers, cage tippers, transits etc. All in all the number of vehicles totalled 29 and, taking into account market values, was likely to cost in the region of £3,099,000. The review had looked at various ways of financing this project and the next stage was to go through the procurement phase; due to the fact that this was a relatively small number of vehicles there would not be a great economy of scale gained on the open market so it was felt that a framework arrangement would be the best way forward. This also reduced the risk of challenge. One further element to consider was that, by selecting the continuation of the comingled recycling service, the Council would need a MRF contract from 2017. Whilst a framework agreement could not be used for that, Bruce Carpenter was aware of MRFs within 30 miles of Tewkesbury Borough which had already said they would bid for the work so he suggested that this be done through a direct procurement service which would be managed by him.

77.6           Members thanked Bruce Carpenter for his clear presentation which had been easy to follow and understand. One Member questioned whether the Joint Waste Committee had generally been negative about the service that Tewkesbury Borough Council offered. In response, a Member indicated that Tewkesbury had always been different as it was the only authority that offered a comingled recycling service. Other Members within the Joint Waste Committee felt that a kerbside sort approach was better as it produced cleaner recyclate; however, with the improvements in MRFs he was sure that comingled recyclate would soon be as good as that gained from a kerbside sort approach. Referring to Paragraph 2.5 of the report, a Member questioned whether the issues with contaminated loads going into the MRF had now been addressed. In response, the Deputy Chief Executive confirmed that this had been addressed; although it had resulted in an increase in the contract price there was now a different system in place which was working well. In addition, work was still taking place within communities to try and raise awareness. The next time a MRF contract was agreed it would need to take account of the systems needed to ensure a similar contamination issue did not happen in future.

77.7           Referring to the food waste costs set out in the report, a Member questioned why they were different i.e. £412,710 in Paragraph 5.8 and £272,000 in Paragraph 6.1. In response Bruce Carpenter explained that Paragraph 5.8 was inclusive of the costs of Ubico providing the service i.e. fuel, staff, maintenance etc. Paragraph 6.1 was the specific cost of purchasing the vehicles. In terms of the depreciation of the vehicles, which was accounted for over a seven year period, the Member questioned why Ubico appeared to benefit. In response, the Finance and Asset Management Group Manager indicated that this was a financial charge arrangement and it did not mean that the Borough Council lost out in any way. In terms of paying for new vehicles in seven years’ time, the Finance and Asset Management Group Manager explained that a sinking fund would be established to ensure the savings from the contract lease were put aside to enable replacement of the vehicles in the future. There may need to be a ‘top up’ to make adequate provision but, in theory, most of the funding needed would be there.

77.8           In terms of the proposed comingled recycling service, a Member indicated that he was pleased to see this was the favoured option. He felt the Borough’s residents would expect the popular service to remain in place and was of the view that they would definitely not want to return to a more in-depth sorting service. In terms of the risk of ‘challenge’ that the Council may face to its choice of waste service, Bruce Carpenter indicated that the risk was never nil and it was true that, in some ways, maintaining a comingled recycling service was contrary to the new waste Regulations; however, it should be borne in mind that over 60% of authorities across the country did not comply as they also operated comingled recycling collections. The review had been undertaken in an auditable and robust manner and, having gone through that process, the risk of challenge was significantly reduced. Bruce Carpenter felt that it was also interesting to note that there had been no challenges since the Regulations had been introduced in 2015 and, despite the fact that in a recent survey of authorities across the country, it had been found that only eight out of 400 authorities had decided to change their services in line with those Regulations.

77.9           Members felt that the Borough’s residents were pleased with the current service and, therefore, to opt for one that would not appear different to the customer would be the best way forward. Accordingly, it was