Agenda item

Tom Smith, Assistant Director, Community Safety & Streetscene

Councillor Hoddinott, Cabinet Member for Waste, Roads and Community Safety, together with Tom Smith, Assistant Director Community Safety and Street Scene, and Martin Raper, Head of Street Scene Services, presented an update on the implementation of the new waste and recycling services across Rotherham.

 

A video was shown to the Commission - “Household Bin Collection in Rotherham” which was available at www.rotherham.gov.uk/bins.

 

Since October 2018, the residents of Rotherham had experienced big changes in terms of their bin collections.  It had been a huge undertaking to introduce the new garden waste collection and the new black (pink lid) service.

 

Councillor Hoddinott expressed her thanks to the staff who had worked long hours in making this happen and also to the residents for working through it as well.

 

Attention was drawn to:-

 

-          Rotherham was one of the lower quartile councils for recycling

 

-          Initial figures were very encouraging - how do we ensure the level of recycling was sustained

 

-          Approximate 27% increase in paper and cardboard collection

 

-          Garden Waste Collection – seeing a rise in subscriptions at the moment.  Approximately 35,000 households that had subscribed

 

-          Black bin (pink lid) – reduced the size of the main bin – general waste had reduced by 7%

 

-          Black bins – increased by 50%

 

-          Numerous requests for green and black bins for people to be able to recycle

 

-          Flytipping – there had not been a marked increase.  The Authority would continue to pursue and prosecute anyone flytipping

 

-          The next big challenge for the Service was flats.  Everyone should have the opportunity to recycle.  Although keen to keep to the same system as those in houses it was known that some variances would be required to accommodate some premises.  Work had taken place, together with Housing Services, to map all the sites and proposals for each.  There would be a Member drop-in on 24^th May to enable Members to see what the proposals were for premises in their area before it went out to residents 

 

-          It had not just been about the delivery or collection of bins; there had been a new treatment contract to procure, negotiate with existing general waste contractor, purchase of 16 new collection refuse vehicles and a huge amount of communication and engagement work

 

-          The call centre had been under resourced initially but that had been recognised and additional resources put in

 

-          How do we engage further?  How do we increase recycling?

 

Discussion ensued with the following issues raised/clarified:-

 

·           It was still early days in terms of any indicators of the level of contamination of waste:- 

Paper and cardboard – this has been running the longest.  The type of contamination seen has been the continuation of garden waste in the bottom with paper on the top.  Initially the contamination rate had been quite high but more recently 12% which was getting towards the acceptable level.  A lot of work had taken place with the company that took the paper with daily monitoring on the site looking at how they did sampling and processing of the contamination levels.  Photographs of any contamination that came through were taken and discussed with the crew and the engagement team targeting the area

 

Plastic, cans and glass  – it was very early at present.  There were higher levels than would have liked, above 15%, and would like to try and improve that.  Some of the key items going into the bin had already been identified e.g. film, carrier bags and hard plastic and that was being dealt with that.  Areas where the problems were coming from would be identified and target engagement in those particular areas and work with the crews.  It was very difficult for staff because it had been easier to see contamination when the waste had been in a blue box

 

·           The figures for increases in recycling had had the levels of contamination taken off them

 

·           There had been a spike in calls to the call centre and it had taken far too long for them to be answered.  However, additional resources had been put into the call centre to deal with the increased demand.  Details could be provided on the calls as the Head of Service received a weekly update.  The last phase of the roll out had seen a peak in calls about middle of February where calls had increased as expected.  Since then it had reduced and now running at a similar level of calls at the first week of the programme

 

·           There was a large proportion of people signing up for the Garden Waste online rather than by telephone.  Discussions were continuing on how some of the simple waste requests could be available online for members of the public to complete themselves

 

·           Regular events to promote recycling and continued reminding of the public of the importance of recycling.  It was important to maintain the momentum that had been introduced through the introduction of the bins

 

·           When a vehicle went into the site for processing, they actually took a load and dissected it so they got an understanding of what was in the load; the percentage of contamination was based on that analysis.  A whole load was not contaminated.  Not every load was examined; there was a programme for each of the recycling streams that the contractors followed.  They took out the contaminants leaving the Service with the recyclable material and then analysed the material giving a full list of the data quantities for the records.  The Service used that data to try and understand how it could improve the recycling rates in the future

 

·           Officers had done the analysis before and knew those areas that did not recycle as much.  Those areas had been seen targeted action by engagement staff going door to door when the rollout had been taking place

 

·           In terms of complaints, the number could be provided.  However, the perception of not being able to manage with a smaller pink lidded bin had been unfounded.  The Service was working with a number of households that had more than 5 people in them and those with medical needs that had previously received additional bins

 

·           A lot of engagement work had taken place in some areas.  8-10 places across the Borough had been identified where some additional intensive engagement work had been put in on the ground

 

·           A session had been held with the Complaints Team and Customer Services to look at the complaints that had been received and what issues had been raised.  A number had been upheld which were worth looking at as a comparison to give an idea of what was happening.  However, the number of complaints received was lower than expected.  Those complaints that were upheld were mostly around missed bin collection

 

·           One of the biggest problems for recycling around flats, maisonettes and complexes was the security of some of the community collection sites and how to protect them.  The previous trial in flats had seen a huge increase in recycling particularly in those places that had not had the opportunity to recycle previously.  Lessons had been learnt from that.  Joint work was/had taken place with Housing staff to engage during the changeover, look at every area and ascertain what was needed to be in place with some requiring proper secure bin storage built in.  Members were encouraged to attend the drop-in session to find out the proposals for their area

 

·           The biggest spike of flytipping was between December 2018/January 2019 and was clearly linked to the Christmas period and disposal of large items

 

·           There were vulnerable people out there that required additional support in terms of the service.  There were engagement resources available if people needed that support during the transition.  There had been discussion with regard to putting a purple flower on bins for Dementia/Alzheimer sufferers and braille for the blind/visually impaired.  The idea of the purple flower had not been progressed but a knock system on the bins for the visually impaired so they could tell which bin was which had been explored and the kit ordered.  Anyone who was blind or partially sighted could have their bins marked

 

·           There was also the ability for those suffering with Dementia and unable to cope with multiple bins to contact the Service who would attempt to tailor a solution for that individual family

 

·           A recycling challenge would be the chute disposal system which was installed in medium to high rise blocks of flats.  It was appreciated that some areas would be more successful than others.  Those properties with the chute system in place would be given a communal arrangement for recycling which would be positioned somewhere near to the entrance/car park to where residents would be passing.  It was an area of discussion with Housing about how recycling was introduced to see how successful it was with a small number initially.  It would be monitored as it progressed. 

 

·           During the rollout there had been extremely high winds.  The original 240 litre bins had blown over as well as the new smaller lighter pink lidded bins.  Crews had been encouraged to the place the bins during the rollout somewhere safer i.e. front doors or behind walls but unfortunately they could not be taken down people’s paths due to time constraints.  Crews would be requested to be considerate in adverse weather conditions

 

·           During the consultation one of the key issues for members of the public was to reuse existing bins so the Authority was not investing too heavily in new bins.  As the majority of the Borough already had green bins it had seemed logical to use them for the new paper/card collection service as not everyone would subscribe to the new Garden Collection Service.  The re-use of the greens bins had meant the Authority had not had to buy 70,000 additional bins at a cost of £10-15 per bin

 

·           However, there were questions moving forward with regard to the National Consultation which talked about standardisation of colours on bins – what happened to the different bins used by authorities at the present time?

 

·           There was a national conversation and challenge to manufacturers/retailers about the amount of packaging they used some of which were easier to recycle than others

 

·           Would a visit to the Waste Disposal Centre be useful?

 

·           Would be nice to see in the complaints report a “you said we did” section

 

·           If there was a particular issue with the position a bin had been left e.g. preventing someone in a wheelchair from leaving their property, it should be reported to the Service.  Most residents who were in need of support signed up to the Assisted Collection Service

 

·           Information could be provided in terms of what could and could not be allowed to be burnt.  Domestic household waste which would be classed as a nuisance if it was causing problems to neighbours.   The issue of bonfires was not something that had been seen as an issue but it was reliant upon it being reported.  There was very clear Legislation to deal with that statutory nuisance from an Environmental Health perspective.  There were very strict regulations as to what could and could not be burnt.  https://www.gov.uk/garden-bonfires-rules

 

·           Was the inclusion of a purple flower on a bin not giving a sign to say there was a vulnerable person?  It had been suggested that it was put inside the bin lid

 

·           The brown bin continued to be owned by the Authority.  If someone decided they no longer wished to subscribe to the Garden Waste Collection Service, the Service would look to recover the bin and keep it for future use/replacements

 

·           The whole of Rotherham was a Smoke Control Area.  You could not and should not be burning waste in your garden

 

·           The law would say that you could not burn garden waste

 

Resolved:-  (1)  That the report be noted.

 

(2)  That a visit be arranged for all Members to the Manvers Waste Disposal Centre.