753
The Group Manager, Neighbourhoods, submitted a report a copy of which had been circulated to each Member.
The following members attended and, with the consent of the Chair, addressed Cabinet and raised the following issues:-
Councillor Harris (attended remotely):
•
The proposals were being brought forward because of the Council’s serious financial position. This needed to be better understood by residents and there should be a communication campaign to raise awareness.
•
An incentive for those who had wheeled bins but did not wish to participate in the scheme should be considered. This would enable these bins to be reused and reduce the number of new bins that would be needed.
•
There should be a communications campaign and signage to address potential increases in flytipping.
Councillor Bickersteth (attended remotely):
•
The move to wheeled bins for garden waste would have health benefits for collection staff.
•
How would the Council ensure the scheme was equitable in terms of costs. Highwoods was not a wheeled bin area so residents would be charged for the provision of a bin on top of the costs of the service. This would have a disproportionate impact on low income families which may deter them from taking up the service.
•
The Council should look at the recycling of bins that would no longer be used to reduce costs.
Councillor Scordis (attended remotely):
•
The Council was effectively selling a product so needed to maximise take up. Launching the service in January when demand would be low may lead to a low take up of the service.
•
The cost of the service may also deter take up.
•
Residents would not understand the logic of a system based on financial years, and an initial 18 month offer would be more attractive.
•
The compost schemes were welcome and there may be opportunities to link up with allotment groups who may welcome additional garden waste for composting purposes.
Councillor Lissimore
•
The Government’s draft Environment Bill had included provisions imposing a statutory duty on local authorities to collect garden waste, which would completely undermine the principle of the scheme.
•
Home composting was not as straightforward as the report suggested.
•
The suggestion that garden waste could be taken to the recycling centre was simply to transfer the problem to Essex County Council to resolve and would result in additional vehicle journeys.
•
Some residents would not have the space to store a wheeled bin or the capacity to move a bin, particularly when full. A white sack option should be retained.
•
There were too many unknown factors to enable the Council to be confident the scheme would be cost effective.
•
No refund would be provided to those who died during the scheme.
•
There would be an increase of garden waste being put in black refuse sacks, which needed additional cost and resources to collect and these had not been quantified.
•
Key Performance Indicator targets were being reduced as a consequence of the scheme.
Councillor Pearson:
•
Further consideration needed to be given to the equity of the charges, given that parts of the city had already received a wheeled bin without charge.
•
The encouragement of home composting was welcomed although the detail of the schemes that were being promoted needed to be looked at.
•
The fleet transport plan was three years old and may need reviewing. There may be opportunities to use alternative fuel options.
•
Central government funding decisions had forced this on the Council. However, the Council needed to ensure the implementation of the scheme was fair.
Councillor Willetts
•
The increase in recycling rates was one of the clear achievements of the Council in recent years. This had been driven by increases in food and garden waste collections. This scheme would undermine this achievement.
•
The Council’s financial position was a consequence of trying to prioritise too many services.
•
The collection and recycling of waste was a core service that should be covered by council tax.
•
The Scrutiny Panel had looked at the impact that scheme would have on Key Performance Indicator targets. It would result in more waste to landfill and a reduction in the amount of household waste recycled.
•
The scheme did not take the opportunity to introduce electric waste collection vehicles.
Councillor Naylor:
•
She had approached the issue from first principles as both a resident and a representative of residents of Lexden and Braiswick.
•
Residents expected a reliable waste and recycling service would be provided and funded as part of the core council service and that this would include the collection of garden waste.
•
The consultation referred to in the report highlighted the importance of environmental issues to residents.
•
However, when the data beneath the consultation was analysed it revealed that the consultation was based on a sample size of 0.6% of the population. The discussion group referred to in paragraph 9.3 of the report consisted of only 16 people who, the report stated, had not had time to discuss the issue in further detail.
•
The conclusion of the consultation report was that the Council needed to talk and listen to residents more and that residents felt they were not listened to. This conclusion was supported by the representations of other Councillors that residents felt this was being imposed on them and was based on unreliable data.
•
The consultation could not be relied upon as evidence that the scheme was supported by residents. This was not a fair representation. Residents felt “blindsided” by the proposals and that they were being imposed without proper consultation and therefore should be subject to further consultation.
Councillor Hagon:
•
The views of residents in Stanway were clear on this issue, Concerns had been raised about the impact of additional charges in a cost of living crisis, effectively double charging for a service, the impact on flytipping, lack of space for wheeled bins, the lack of alternatives for those who did not own a car and that the scheme was not cost effective for those who generated a small amount of garden waste.
•
The service should be put out to tender as a private operator may be able to offer a better value service.
Councillor King, Leader of the Council and Portfolio Holder for Strategy, emphasised that the scheme was being introduced in response to the serious financial position facing the Council, which resulted from decisions by central government. The administration would look to adjust the scheme where it could, but the financial position had to be addressed. Whilst there would be some small adjustments to Key Performance Indicator targets, these remained ahead of other comparable authorities and should be seen in the context of a high performing Council. The Council had received a letter of thanks from the Leader of Essex County Council for its work on recycling and the Waste Strategy. Further consideration would be given to the issues raised about the consultation.
Councillor Goss, Portfolio Holder for Neighbourhoods and Waste, introduced the report and responded to the questions of members.
On the question of electric vehicles, technology did not yet support this. Experience at another authority, and when the council had trialled an electric vehicle, demonstrated that there were issues with range and capacity of electric waste collection vehicles. There were also growing issues relating to battery production which was restricting the development of the electric vehicle market in the United Kingdom and the cost effectiveness of electric vehicles. Alternative fuels were also not cost effective.
Whilst the government had indicated in the draft Environment Bill that it was considering requiring local authorities to collect garden waste without charge, this had provoked a significant backlash, as 65% of authorities charged for its collection. It was understood that the government was no longer intending to proceed in this way.
The Council was faced with £10 million in additional costs. This could not be met through raising council tax. The small proportion of council tax received by the Council also needed to be borne in mind. The Council had to be responsible and deliver a balanced budget, which meant taking difficult and unpopular decisions. The Council needed to ensure that was understood by residents.
The scheme would be made as flexible and affordable as possible. The Council had undertaken considerable benchmarking and looked at the experience of other authorities who introduced a similar scheme. This included looking at the impact on flytipping and how discounts could be applied. There was flexibility to allow the scheme to be refined and the representations made at the meeting would be considered.
The service would be an opt in service. There would be an opportunity to share a bin with neighbours. There would be the option of a smaller wheeled bin for those with limited space or with mobility problems. The Council would also continue to offer an assisted service. Composting schemes were being encouraged and links to allotment groups were being pursued. Residents who did not take up the service would also have the option of using a private waste contractor. Essex County Council had been fully consulted on the proposals and the Council was continuing to work with them on the Waste Strategy. Flytipping was reducing by 20% annually and the Council continued to work with WISE on strategies to reduce it further.
12,700 properties in the City already had wheeled bins. Whilst the arguments about the equity of the scheme were understood, it was not considered fair to charge for these retrospectively, as the Council had received funding for them. A charge needed to be made for those receiving a wheeled bin in this scheme, as it would not be viable to provide them without charge.
The scheme would also deliver improvements in staff welfare. Wheeled bins would reduce muscular-skeletal injuries and therefore reduce sickness rates. No white sack option would remain. In-cab technology would prevent fraud and stop the scheme being abused. There would be considerable promotion of the scheme and offers to encourage take up. Further details of the scheme would be referred to the Scrutiny Panel in due course, but this would look at the details of the scheme within the agreed budget.
Cabinet members also highlighted the need for responsible financial decisions in the current climate with examples of other local authorities declaring bankruptcy, the benefits to the welfare of the waste operatives, who were also residents of the city, and the other options for residents such as composting.
RESOLVED that:-
(a)
The arrangements for the opt-in paid for Garden Waste service which will replace the existing service with effect from January 2024 be approved.
(b)
The capital funding and procurement of replacement vehicles as detailed in the report be approved.
(c)
Authority be delegated to the Portfolio Holder for Neighbourhoods and Waste to adjust the scheme as may be needed, taking account of early take up and experience, to include discounts and promotions.
REASONS
To deliver the budget income previously approved by Full Council and in doing so ensure a balanced budget for 2023/2024.
ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS
Several alternative budget savings were considered through the formation of the budget in 2022/2023. To deliver this scale of saving, alternative options such as closing leisure centres would be required. Any alternative option would need to deliver an equivalent budget saving of £600K. One related alternative would be to cease the existing free garden waste collection service, dispose of vehicles and redeploy or make staff redundancies.