To receive a presentation in relation to the work of the Joint Waste Team and Joint Waste Committee. 

23.1           The Chairman introduced Rachel Capon, the Contracts Team Leader for the Gloucestershire Joint Waste Team, and indicated that she would be giving a presentation on the work of the Joint Waste Team and Joint Waste Committee.  Julie Davies was also in attendance; she had previously been employed as the Council’s Environment and Waste Policy Officer before her transfer to Ubico in April 2015.

23.2           Members were advised that the strategic objectives of the Joint Waste Team were to provide a good service; to be safe and cost effective; and to minimise waste for collection and disposal.  Tewkesbury Borough Council had joined the Joint Waste Committee in December 2014, however, each local authority still had a duty to provide waste and street cleansing services and Tewkesbury Borough Council remained the point of contact for residents.  The Committee was a body with delegated powers to make decisions concerning recycling, waste collection and street cleansing for the four District Councils (Cheltenham Borough Council, Cotswold District Council, Forest of Dean District Council and Tewkesbury Borough Council) and to deliver waste treatment and disposal for the County.  It was to be borne in mind that there were some decisions which would automatically be brought back for Tewkesbury Borough Council to make, for instance, the Joint Waste Committee could make recommendations regarding service change but the decision would have to be made by Tewkesbury Borough Council.  Each authority was represented on the Committee by two elected Members and the Tewkesbury Borough Council representatives were Councillor R J E Vines, Leader of the Council, and Councillor J R Mason, Lead Member for Clean and Green Environment.  The Committee directed the Joint Waste Team which was comprised of 11 Officers and led by Steve Read who was Head of Service, and also Managing Director of Somerset Waste Partnership. Contractors sat beneath the Joint Waste Team and were responsible for actually delivering the services.  The Team worked with the Committee and Senior Management Group, of which the Environmental and Housing Services Group Manager was a member, to produce an annual business plan and action plan which it then helped to deliver. 

23.3           All seven local authorities within Gloucestershire were signed up to the Gloucestershire Joint Municipal Waste Management Strategy and a diagram was displayed to show the waste and recycling service design for each authority across the County.  It was quite complicated as authorities did not use the same contractors, for example, Amey was the contractor for Gloucester City Council whereas Biffa was used by the Forest of Dean District Council; whilst Ubico delivered services for Tewkesbury Borough Council, Cheltenham Borough Council and Cotswold District Council, and would deliver Stroud District Council’s service from July 2016; Stroud District Council was not currently involved with the Joint Waste Committee.

23.4           The business plan focused on broadening, integration and diversion.  It was an annual rolling plan which was signed off by the Joint Waste Committee at the beginning of each calendar year and it focused on outcomes rather than being specific to each organisation.  The notes of the Joint Waste Committee meetings were available on the Gloucestershire County Council website and it was noted that the business plan was part of the notes of the February meeting which included a two page action plan.  With regard to “broadening”, the Team had provided assistance with Gloucester City Council’s service review and had also been helping with the service change at Stroud District Council which would have new contractors from July 2016.  In terms of engagement with customers, a project was in operation to increase the volume of food waste diverted from landfill.  Approximately 40% of residents across Gloucestershire used the food waste service and this had been falling year on year.  WRAP had worked with a number of local authorities to test whether some simple interventions could yield substantial increases in the capture of food waste for recycling.  The most effective of those had involved stickers discouraging people from putting food waste into the residual bin.  It was intended to use the stickers in combination with a bin hangar which would provide more information about the new treatment plant and the fact that energy was now generated from food waste, as well as information on how to order a food waste caddy.  The project was being funded by Gloucestershire County Council and would be rolled out across Gloucestershire during the week commencing 7 September 2015, with the exception of Gloucester City, in order to avoid the Rugby World Cup, and Stroud District where food waste was not currently recycled.  Other areas had seen uplift of up to 30% where similar schemes had been implemented and it was hoped that similarly positive results would be achieved within Gloucestershire.  A Member queried whether the provision of recycling banks could be included as part of the planning permission for developments of a certain size.  The Chief Executive explained that there was a question mark over how cost effective recycling banks could be, given that the waste recycling market fluctuated, and he did not wish to raise public expectations.  Consideration was being given to different ways of storing waste on larger developments, rather than using bins, which could significantly reduce the cost of collection; this was particularly important given the major strategic housing sites coming forward in the Borough and it was something which the Joint Waste Team would be looking at on behalf of the Council.

23.5           A school and community education programme had been running for several years, however, this no longer fitted with the curriculum and the uptake had significantly reduced in the last year with only one school signing up in Tewkesbury.  The resource for delivering the programme was no longer available and a review would take place from September as to what would be the best way to use the available funding for education.  A Member indicated that poster competitions had worked well in his experience and the Environmental and Housing Services Group Manager advised that herself and the Lead Member for Clean and Green Environment had recently judged a competition at Shurdington Primary School. 

23.6           With regards to procurement, the Forest of Dean District Council’s contract would come to an end in 2018 and consideration was being given to different service designs.  The consultation was due to finish at the end of September with a report being taken to the Joint Waste Committee in October.  In addition there was a project around materials recycling and sales for Cheltenham Borough Council which would go live on 1 October.  Members were informed that legislative changes introduced in January would have an impact on the way recycled materials were collected and could lead to separate collections of paper, metal, plastic and glass.  Robust evidence would be needed to demonstrate that this could be accommodated as Tewkesbury Borough Council currently carried out comingled collections.  Compliance reviews had been carried out for Tewkesbury Borough, and other local authorities, and the results had shown that the recyclate was high quality, with the exception of glass.  A Member queried whether an additional bin would be required if a decision was taken to collect glass separately and she was advised that, if a decision was taken to make that change, it would be a box which would sit inside the wheeled bin as opposed to a completely separate bin.

23.7           A Member understood that there had previously been plans to install recycling bins in various parts of the Borough and for Parishes to take a share of the profits which were generated, however, that had not happened as far as he was aware.  Clarification was provided that this related to a textile recycling scheme which had been seen as a sustainable way to recycle whilst also providing an incentive.  Unfortunately, the textile market had diminished and the amount which could be obtained per tonne had dropped considerably rendering the scheme unviable.  A Member questioned what was happening to the material which was not being recycled and was informed that a lot of people took unwanted textiles to charity shops, as well as places offering “cash for clothes”, and recycling banks were available across the Borough.  The Member indicated that he was also concerned about other materials which could be recycled but were being thrown away as household waste, for instance, if people could not fit them into their blue bins.  The Lead Member for Clean and Green Environment indicated that the collection crews were usually very accommodating and would be willing to take additional materials which did not fit into the bins and the Council provided blue bags for that purpose.  It was recognised that it may be beneficial to send out a press release outlining the locations of the recycling banks and centres across the Borough.

23.8           A Member raised concern regarding grounds maintenance, particularly in relation to grass cutting and the general appearance of the A38.  The Contracts Team Leader for the Gloucestershire Joint Waste Team indicated that similar issues were experienced by the Forest of Dean District Council as County Highways no longer carried out weeding in gullies which meant that mechanical sweeping was ineffective. The Forest of Dean District Council had also stopped grass cutting unless it was impacting upon visibility for vehicles pulling out of junctions.  The Chairman indicated that, as a Gloucestershire County Councillor, he had previously used some of his dedicated budget to ensure that grass cutting was undertaken in particular areas.

23.9           The Chairman thanked the Contracts Team Leader for the Gloucestershire Joint Waste Team for her informative presentation and, it was

RESOLVED          That the presentation on the work of the Joint Waste Team and Joint Waste Committee be NOTED.