Agenda item

To consider the progress made in relation to the 2017/18 Gloucestershire Joint Waste Committee Action Plan.  

43.1           The report of the Head of Community Services, circulated at Pages No. 25-48, provided an update on the progress against the Gloucestershire Joint Waste Committee business plan and action plan for 2017/18.  Members were asked to consider the progress made to date.

43.2           The Head of Community Services explained that Tewkesbury Borough Council was a member of the Gloucestershire Joint Waste Committee together with four other local authorities within the county.  It was represented on the Committee by the Lead and Support Members for Clean and Green Environment.  The Gloucestershire Joint Waste Committee business and action plans covered a three year horizon and were updated on an annual basis; the current plan covered the period 2017-20.  The current business plan was set out at Appendix 1 to the report with the action plan for 2017/18 set out in full at Appendix 2.  The key achievements with a Tewkesbury Borough Council focus were highlighted at Page No. 27, Paragraph 4.1 of the report.

43.3           A Member raised concern that it was not clear from the appendices which actions had been completed and there was no explanation as to what was meant when actions were classified as ‘amber’ or ‘green’.  He also queried whether there were any actions outstanding as nothing had been marked as ‘red’.  The Contracts Manager (Collection and Street Scene West) from the Joint Waste Team confirmed that the actions marked as ‘amber’ were in progress and those marked as ‘green’ were complete.  She went on to explain that, when the report had last been considered by the Overview and Scrutiny Committee at its meeting in October 2016, Members had expressed the view that, going forward, the report should only highlight the key achievements with a Tewkesbury Borough Council focus and Members were advised that all of those actions had been achieved. 

43.4           The Head of the Gloucestershire Joint Waste Team indicated that this was his second week in the role having joined the team from WRAP which provided recycling advice to local authorities around the country.  During his first week, he had been meeting the team and partner councils in order to build an understanding of the current work programme and start to plan for the following year.  In terms of what to expect going forward, there would be a strong focus on reducing waste, which was essential for all partner councils, along with achieving value for money across the services and meeting customer expectations.  It was a significant task to maintain the existing service and ensure that waste continued to be collected, treated and processed across the county as well as trying to improve recycling rates from an already impressive 55% in Gloucestershire.  A Member sought the Head of the Gloucestershire Joint Waste Team’s view as to what recycling rate could realistically be achieved and was informed that Gloucestershire was already a high performer given that the national recycling rate was 40%; however, some local authorities in England were achieving rates of around 60% and there were ambitions to reach 70% in parts of Wales.  He pointed out that it was not so long ago that 25% had been considered to be out of reach so a lot of progress had been made in a short space of time and it was worth reflecting on that achievement.  Whilst it may take some time, he did not feel that 70% was unachievable for the county.

43.5           In response to a Member query as to how seriously the industry was taking the argument that it should take positive action in relation to the redesign of packaging, the Head of the Gloucestershire Joint Waste Team indicated that WRAP was working with the industry on a voluntary basis and this was the government’s favoured approach.  A great deal had already been achieved with the ‘big five’ supermarkets, and the supply chains feeding into them, contributing to a reduction in packaging and food waste.  Big businesses were increasingly aware of their corporate and social responsibility and wanted to be seen to be green.  Recently there had been a focus on ‘lightweighting’, for example, reducing the weight of products such as newspapers and glass jars.  Some packaging continued to cause problems but these messages were being fed back and improvements were being made as a result.  A Member questioned what the impact of the supplement for plastic bags had been and was informed that this had been remarkably successful leading to an 80-90% reduction in single waste carrier bag usage.  In terms of the most problematic materials, black plastic and laminate pouches were very difficult to recycle; cartons were now less difficult but they tended to be comprised of different material types – single materials were much easier to manage.

43.6           A Member drew attention to the chart at Page No. 36 of the report which showed food waste delivered for anaerobic digestion since September 2014 for each of the local authorities in the Gloucestershire Joint Waste Committee.  Unfortunately it was difficult to see how Tewkesbury Borough Council was performing as the chart was not in colour and he questioned whether the Joint Waste Team was satisfied with performance.  The Head of the Gloucestershire Joint Waste Team indicated that he did not have an in-depth understanding of the figures but, looking at the direction of travel, there had been a step change in terms of the amount of food waste being collected; it was noted that Stroud District Council had introduced food waste collections most recently and there had been a far greater response than anticipated.  A Member questioned how recycling rates would be calculated going forward if tonnages continued to reduce.  Members were advised that calculations were done on the basis of waste per household per year and the type of waste so the two should move together e.g. as more waste was diverted from landfill, there should be less residual waste – whilst the overall tonnages would reduce, the proportions should give a true reflection.  In other parts of the country, consideration was being given to a carbon-based measure which would take account of the wider environmental impact rather than relying on tonnages.  

43.7           A Member noted that Page No. 31, Paragraph 1.1. of the business plan, attached at Appendix 1 to the report, stated that the purpose of the plan was to “…provide a mandate for the GJWC [Gloucestershire Joint Waste Committee] to consider and make decisions, according to set governance and budgetary principles, without constant reference back to the partner authorities”; however, Page No. 34, Paragraph 2.3, set out that one of the aims of the Gloucestershire Joint Waste Committee was to have safeguards in place to ensure that the district and county councils retained decision-making on significant budgetary and service change matters. In response, the Contracts Manager (Collection and Street Scene West) from the Joint Waste Team explained that not all powers had been delegated by every authority, for example, Tewkesbury Borough Council had retained decisions in relation to budget whereas the Forest of Dean District Council had seconded the Joint Waste Team to manage its budget.  She clarified that the Gloucestershire Joint Waste Committee comprised two Members from each authority and it made recommendations back to each of the councils.

43.8           A Member questioned when the Committee would be able to see what work was planned for the future.  The Head of Community Services reiterated that the business plan and action plan covered a three year horizon up to 2020 and they were updated on an annual basis.  The Head of the Gloucestershire Joint Waste Team advised that the team would be developing a future work programme in consultation with the Gloucestershire Joint Waste Committee during the autumn and, in the longer term, consideration would also be given to the county-wide waste strategy and whether further updates were required; he would be happy to bring both of these back to the Committee for consideration.

43.9           A Member drew attention to Page No. 44, Appendix 2A of the business plan, and raised concern that R7, which related to the Joint Waste Team management structure not being fit for purpose, had been flagged as a medium risk rather than a low risk which he would expect to see.  In response, the Contracts Manager (Collection and Street Scene West) from the Joint Waste Team advised that there were three vacant posts within the team when the plan had been put together, including the Head of Service role which had been vacant since April, and this was why it had been identified as a medium risk.

43.10         Having considered the information provided, it was

RESOLVED          That the progress made to date in relation to the Gloucestershire Joint Waste Committee Action Plan be NOTED.