Agenda item

To consider the call-in request which will discuss the Waste Collections Policy decision.

Report from the Strategic Director of Regeneration and Environment.

Recommendations:

1.      That Cabinet approve the draft revised Kerbside Residential Waste Collection Policy for a public consultation.

2.      That Cabinet agree to the commencement of two pilots to test the approach to contamination, with the specific areas to be determined.

At the Chair’s invitation Councillor Tarmey and Councillor Yasseen expressed their reasons for calling-in the Waste Collections Policy Cabinet decision. In their views the policy contradicted some previously made statements indicated contamination rates were low. A previous Cabinet Member had been asked about the contamination rates and had given assurance, at the time, that everything was fine, rates were low.

The Cabinet Member had recently provided reassurance that recycling rates were fine and now it felt like a policy was being introduced that would be quite punitive for residents. It was felt that education was the way to address this rather than punitive fines. A greater assessment of how residents’ behaviours could change should be undertaken as residents may be opting not to recycle as the documents provided to Cabinet did not indicate this. It was queried if residents would need to make additional trips to the household waste recycling centres or would lead to more being added to the non-recyclable waste bins?

The policy did not include enough detail regarding how waste could be attributed to an individual household and how this would be enforced, which could lead to inappropriately fining residents.

The carbon impact assessment did not cover the scope of things such as additional vehicle movements, which could be associated with either enforcement activities or residents making additional trips to the household waste recycling centres. The equality impact assessment did not contain enough detail.

It was noted that English was not the first language for some residents within the borough along with some multi-generational households not fully understanding the contaminations issues.

It was known that recycling rates had reduced however it was felt it was better to reinvigorate people’s desire to recycle rather than threaten people with fines. It was important that the reasons for recycling were highlighted and to address the barriers and challenges to communities where the capacity to recycle was lower.

It was felt that new stickers should be placed on bins to educate and encourage residents about recycling. It was noted that the Council Plan made reference to contamination affecting the money the Council received and that the data within the plan was not accurate and hard to understand if the Council was achieving its target. Examples were cited of milk cartons being classed as general waste at the recycling centres however they were put in the appropriate bin for plastics for the curb side recycling collections.

The report did not indicate if various solutions had already been tried to address some of the issues that had impacted on recycling rates going down. No other approaches or interventions had been tried prior to fining people.

Literacy rates within Rotherham were lower so residents may genuinely not understand the requirements. This would also affect the more deprived communities and households across the borough. It was felt that recycling targets needed to be met through consent and co-operation with the communities we served. People needed to feel good about recycling.

The Chair invited members of the Overview and Scrutiny Management Board (OSMB) to raise questions and queries on the points raised earlier. In response to a query regarding why this issue had been called-in prior to any consultation being undertaken, it was noted that members needed to be confident on the data, for example the report listed one figure for the rates currently being achieved and the Council Plan listed another. The equalities impact assessment indicated that the same service was provided for everyone, whereas it should have listed that it was around having an approach that was varied to accommodate the different groups within the different parts of the borough.  The policy risked punitive fines for residents without prioritising education. The carbon impact assessment had not been adequately assessed.

The decision had been called-in because it was felt it was not fit to go out to public consultation and needed to be amended to focus on education with fines as a last resort.

Upon invitation from the Chair the Cabinet Member for Finance & Safe and Clean Communities, Councillor Alam noted there were two strands to the policy. The first was a review of the previous policies to create one accessible policy for internal purposes. The second element was the external elements of the policy noting he had raised concerns about equalities. It was not the language used but the borough had an aging population, some of whom may have dementia and could put things in the wrong bins. The policy was not designed to penalise the most vulnerable in the community but to take a common-sense approach.

Education and information was the first approach and the Council would collaborate with communities and residents over a number of weeks, with the fine being a last resort. The first thing considered was education, which was paramount, in particular how the Council promoted this and collaborated with residents to increase understanding and knowledge.

Conducting the pilots would give the Council factual evidence because people would be impacted by this change and could provide feedback on what worked and what did not. Once concluded the report and information could be presented to OSMB for further scrutiny. The pilots would provide factual information which could be taken into account before the policy was implemented.

The Assistant Director, Community Safety and Street Scene clarified that the recycling figures within the Council Plan were finalised and published at the end of September however the figures within the report were finalised and published in December, therefore the most up-to-date figures would be used at that time, which would explain some of the discrepancy between the two documents.  Section 1.2.3 of the Cabinet Report presented the contamination rates as an average across the borough. It was noted that those impacts and issues would be more prevalent in some areas than others so the numbers would fluctuate dependent upon the area. The decision taken by Cabinet was to conduct a full and extensive consultation with the public in order to inform the final draft of any future policy, along with the decision to run pilots in specified areas, which were yet to be determined. Those pilots would provide more information in terms of the impact of any potential future policy.

The primary focus was about education and engagement and support to residents, to increase their understanding of the recycling system. This would support the Council’s overall ambitions in terms of delivering a cleaner and greener environment. It was recognised that information and communication needed to be improved to support residents to recycle more and reduce contamination.

It was explained that a robust plan would be developed to underpin the policy implementation. In terms of communications, this would focus on a range of different things such as effective and routine communications through media outlets. The production of effective tools, such as the introduction of a new traffic light system, containing information as to what could be placed in bins, which would support education and engagement. In terms of promoting best practice or good behaviour, proposals included the use of a green tag to be used when people got recycling right and rectified issues raised. The crucial role that community and voluntary groups played was noted by the service, who were committed to engaging with those groups. Historically, lots of work had been undertaken within schools to educate young people with a view to them sharing that information within their households.

The proposed tagging system was another tool that could be used over a 16-week period to assist with education and engagement, including consulting with those residents regarding their particular challenges to try to avoid any potential punitive measures at the end of the process. It was clarified that these powers had been in existence for a long while as part of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. Many local authorities used those powers to effectively manage waste collections however it was critical that the engagement and education approach worked hand in hand with those measures. Fines was a small part of what the service was seeking to deliver. Again, it was clarified that the decision Cabinet took was to go out to public consultation and run pilots in areas to inform the final policy position of the Council.

In response it was noted that the bin calendar was sent to all households across the borough in order to educate and engage with residents regarding which items go in which bin. Whilst not mentioned within existing policies, the draft policy looked at continuing and strengthening the work of officers directly engaging with residents and households. In areas where there was a higher prevalence, officers had engaged with young people in schools to promote education. Officers had routinely engaged with community and voluntary groups as well, particularly in areas of a higher prevalence.

The policy introduced a clear and structured approach to engagement for individual residents where particular issues or challenges were identified, such as the tagging and traffic light systems. Where bins were tagged, additional officers working directly with waste crews would engage with those residents directly. In terms of the concerns raised regarding someone else putting contaminated waste in the bin, clarification was provided that there would be a lengthy process of engagement with those households, with officers returning over a number of collection cycles before considering issuing a fine.

It was noted that there were additional disposal costs for contaminated waste of £300,000. In addition to that, there was a significant amount of recyclable waste going into the general refuse bins, for which the information and data suggested that this equated to just under £900,000 of lost income to the Council in terms of potential recyclable material.

In response it was noted that, central areas were geographically the worst areas and have potentially a more transient population. Officers are aware of a need to vary engagement significantly to engage with as made residents as possible. It was noted that any enforcement undertaken by the Council would be driven by the Council’s enforcement policy, which recognised the need for officers to engage, and understand any challenges that individual households may face including language barriers, additional needs, or vulnerabilities and use those factors to guide appropriate enforcement decisions. Information on the wards with the highest and lowest contamination rates could be provided outside of the meeting.

It was clarified that fines would not be issued to generate revenue for the authority, and it was not expected that a high number of fines would be issues as the focus of the draft policy was around education and engagement, supporting residents to change behaviours and manage waste more effectively. It was noted that the Council ran a number of consultations and officers would ensure that the consultation reached as many individuals as possible. A consultation plan would be developed.

It was felt that the people who would be most anxious about the change would be older people. It was noted that the plans being developed focused around offering a robust approach in terms of education and engagement, with a view to ensuring groups are not adversely affected by this. This is also about having that direct engagement with residents on their doorsteps to understand their particular challenges. It was critical to get the waste collection service right, but it was recognised there was room to improve.

A comment was made that whilst the Council encouraged residents to recycle in the home, the Council only offered general waste bins on the street, which was not conducive to changing behaviours.

It was noted that the introduction of the Environment Act 2021 had introduced changes to the way waste was managed and collected. It introduced a legal requirement on local authorities to be able to demonstrate they were efficient and effective in terms of how waste was collected. This in turn meant supporting residents to push up recycling rates. In terms of the two pilot areas, these would be chosen using the data available. One would be an area where there were higher levels of contamination and the other would have moderate levels of contamination. The selection of any pilot areas would be done through engagement with ward members and the Cabinet Member. Concern was expressed by members that the pilot areas were not yet known.

In response it was clarified that through the powers within the Environmental Protection Act, officers had legal powers to conduct the enforcement.

It was suggested that there should be a national approach to regulate the colour of bins to aid understanding of what waste should be put in which bin.

The policy details how households may qualify for an additional general waste bin and provides information in relation to damaged bins and how residents could request replacements. It was noted that quite often where households had challenges in terms of the general waste capacity, it could be because they were not recycling properly, so additional education and engagement would help to manage their capacity better.

In response it was clarified that the length of the pilot period had been set to run over a period of time where fines could potentially be issued but the intent was not to issue any fines before the policy was brought back to Cabinet for final approval. The service had a number of out of hours enforcement staff who would be able to visit residents outside of normal office hours.

The consultation period would start from April 2025. Education and engagement to help people understand about rinsing the recycling before putting it in the bins reduces contamination would be included.

The Cabinet Member for Finance & Safe and Clean Communities, Councillor Alam noted that the policy was around culture changes rather than fining residents. The culture could be changed through education, raising awareness, and providing information. All of those aspects would improve recycling rates. The pilots would enable the Council to understand from residents what the issues were. Consultation would be undertaken in an inclusive manner, ensuring those hard to reach, vulnerable groups were included.

As supporters of the call-in, Councillor Tarmey and Councillor Yasseen indicated that they had expressed their concerns with the policy. They felt it was excessively punitive and lacked sufficient focus on education. The right data needed to be available prior to the policy being considered. Concerns regarding the literacy rates within the borough were highlighted as a barrier to reaching everyone along with the impacts of additional vehicle movements that had not been listed within the carbon impact assessment.

The Chair noted that OSMB had three options available with regard to the call-in. The first was that OSMB did not support the call-in request and therefore the original decision could be implemented. The second was to refer the decision back to the decision maker, Cabinet, for reconsideration, with OSMB setting out the reasons in writing. The third was that OSMB referred the matter to Council for consideration.

The Chair noted that a big concern was that the pilot areas had not been listed and it was felt that when a policy such as this was brought forward for consideration the pilot areas should have been included within the report presented. It was expected that this information would be provided to this committee. If option one was the preferred option, it was suggested that the policy be presented to OSMB before it was considered by Cabinet following the conclusion of the consultation. The report back to OSMB should include a detailed education plan and an updated equalities impact assessment which addressed the concerns raised and provided assurance to OSMB prior to Cabinet’s consideration.

A counter view was put forward that the decision should be referred back to the decision maker, Cabinet, for reconsideration. There was no desire for people to be fined. The Chair clarified that option one was that OSMB did not support the call-in request and therefore the original decision could be implemented with the inclusion that officers were clear and provided information about the locations for the pilot areas and that information be provided around the education plan and that it was presented back to OSMB before any fines were issued.  It was noted that assurance had been provided that no fines would be issued during the consultation period.

The Chair moved to a vote for those in favour of supporting option one with the additional recommendations. Five members of the Board voted in favour of that option. The Chair then moved to a vote for those in favour of supporting option two, of which five members of the Board voted in favour of option two. The Chair’s casting vote was used in favour of supporting option 1 with the additional recommendations.

Resolved: that the Overview and Scrutiny Management Board:

1.    Did not support the call-in request and therefore the original decision could be implemented.

2.    Agreed that officers provided information about the locations for the pilot areas to a future meeting.

3.    Agreed that information be provided detailing the education plan associated with the policy and that it was presented back to OSMB for consideration prior to agreement by Cabinet.