classification: part 1 – public · cabinet – 07 october 2013 waste collection scheme –...

Cabinet – 07 October 2013 Waste Collection Scheme – Recycling Service Proposal

Classification: Part 1 – Public Part 2 – appendix nine (exempt under category three) Key Decision: Yes

Gravesham Borough Council

Report to: Cabinet

Date: 7 October 2013

Reporting officer: David Hughes, Chief Executive Nick Brown, Director (Finance & Environment) Stuart Alford, Assistant Director (Environment) Stuart Bobby, Assistant Director (Corporate Performance) Julie Gibbs, Assistant Director (Finance) Mike Hayley, Assistant Director (Governance & Law)

Subject: Waste Collection Scheme – Recycling Service Proposal

Purpose and summary of report:

To provide Cabinet with the outcome of the options appraisal work undertaken by the council, to determine how best to revise the council’s existing waste and recycling collection methods to provide residents with a high quality service that significantly improves the council’s current recycling rate. Key determinants in the evaluation process have been practicality of the operation, simplicity for the customer and value for money in the delivery of the service.

The report seeks approval for the implementation of the revised collection methodology as set out within the report.

Recommendations:

Members are requested to:-

1) approve the introduction of the ‘Fully Co-mingled Service (Excluding Glass)’ method of collecting dry recyclable materials together with the ‘Food Waste’ collection service as set out in the report with this being conditional upon Kent County Council (KCC) entering into a formal arrangement with Gravesham Borough Council to share the resulting savings accrued by KCC as the Waste Disposal Authority on a 50:50 basis.

2) authorise the Director (Finance & Environment) and Assistant Director (Governance & Law) in consultation with the Leader of the Executive and the Lead Member for Community Services to enter into any necessary agreements with Kent County Council as the Waste Disposal Authority, on such terms and conditions as they see fit, to share savings as set out in recommendation one above.

Recommendations continued overleaf


Recommendations (continued):

3) authorise the Director (Finance & Environment) in consultation with the Leader of the Executive and the Lead Member for Community Services to procure the necessary vehicles, wheeled bins and food waste containers required to deliver the service outlined in recommendation one overleaf, including determining the most appropriate means of financing the procurement.

4) authorise the Director (Finance & Environment) in consultation with the Leader of the Executive and the Lead Member for Community Services to increase the workforce establishment required to deliver the service outlined in recommendation one overleaf.

5) authorise the Director (Finance & Environment) in consultation with the Leader of the Executive and the Lead Member for Community Services to agree to any necessary alterations to the timescales for the implementation of the service resulting from operational requirements.

6) approve the Communications and Marketing Plan attached at appendix six and authorise the Director (Finance & Environment) in consultation with the Leader of the Executive and the Lead Member for Community Services to agree to any necessary amendments to this plan.

1. Background

Waste Collection and Disposal Responsibilities and Procedures

1.1 In Gravesham the responsibility for the collection of refuse and recyclable materials falls to Gravesham Borough Council, whilst Kent County Council (KCC) as the Waste Disposal Authority is responsible for the subsequent disposal of these materials.

1.2 Using the current kerbside collection system residents should put paper, cardboard, plastic bottles and tins into clear sacks and ‘residual’ waste into black sacks. The refuse crews collect the residual waste black sacks and the clear recycling sacks on a weekly basis and take them to Pepperhill Transfer Station. From Pepperhill the recyclable materials are then taken to a Materials Recovery Facility (MRF) where they are separated and then passed on as raw material for future use. Residual waste material is taken to an ‘Energy From Waste’ facility for incineration and conversion into energy. Only a very small proportion of residual waste is taken to landfill (approximately 4%) and this only happens if the Energy From Waste facility is inoperable for any reason.


Recycling Performance

1.3 The council’s recycling rate for 2012/13 was 24.5% which is low when compared with other local authorities. Nationally this level of performance places Gravesham as 341st out of 352 councils and second lowest in Kent:

1.4 Members should note that Ashford Borough Council are currently the lowest performing authority in Kent, however they have recently changed their refuse and recycling service to a wheeled bin collection for both refuse and recycling and introduced a food waste scheme. As a result, they are anticipating an improvement in their recycling rate to approximately 40% by the end of 2013-14.

1.5 Without a fundamental change in the recyclable materials that can be collected together with a change in the method of collection it is unlikely that the Council’s level of recycling performance could be significantly improved.

2. Key elements for consideration

European Union (EU) Waste Framework Directive

2.1 The European Waste Framework Directive 2008/98/EC (WFD) provides the legislative framework for the collection, transport, recovery and disposal of waste, and includes a common definition of waste, and therefore due regard must be made to its requirements when considering a refuse and recycling collection service. The Directive requires member states to take appropriate measures to encourage firstly, the prevention or reduction of waste production and its harmfulness and secondly the recovery of waste by means of recycling, re-use or reclamation or any other process with a view to extracting secondary raw materials, or the use of waste as a source of energy. The directive’s requirements are supplemented by other directives for specific waste streams.

2.2 The revised Directive is transposed into domestic law by The Waste (England and Wales) Regulations which came in force on 29 March 2011. These regulations were updated within The Waste (England and Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2012, and will come into force from 1 January 2015. This amendment, Section (4) (b) clarified that the duty to provide a separate collection of paper, metal, plastic or glass is only required where it is ‘technically, environmentally and economically practicable, (TEEP)’.


2.3 It was therefore possible for authorities to continue the comingled collection of recyclable materials on the basis that the separate collection of these materials was not necessary as it was not ‘technically, environmentally and economically practical’ to do so.

2.4 The Waste (England and Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2012 however were subject to a Judicial Review mounted by the Campaign for Real Recycling (CRR). It is important to note the CRR was formed from claimants who were commercially involved in recycling and reprocessing. The CRR claimed that the legislation should be taken to mean that the various recyclable materials should be individually separated at source rather than being subject to a comingled collection method and then subsequently separated at a Materials Recycling Facility.

2.5 The Judicial Review found that the obligation to separately collect paper, metal, plastics and glass from 2015 is only necessary where it is ‘technically, environmentally and economically practical’ to do so. The review found that local authorities should make decisions regarding TEEP as they are uniquely placed to take local circumstances into account.

2.6 The Judicial Review also found that the Directive clearly leaves the decision as to ‘practicality’ to the national authorities of each member state and the UK has left this decision to local authorities, to be policed by the Environment Agency.

2.7 It is therefore concluded that European Waste Framework Directive 2008/98/EC (WFD) does not prevent councils from introducing a comingled recycling collection service.

Health and Safety

2.8 The collection of refuse and recycling via sacks does pose a potential problem to the collection staff through the lifting of sacks (manual handling) or injury through sharp objects or needles in bags. A recommendation from a recent HSE inspection was “During our site visits, we observed residual and recyclable waste being collected via sacks. Such arrangements are not in accordance with HSE research. GBC need to assess the reasonable practicability of introducing wheeled bin collections for waste and recycling within the borough”.

Kent Resource Partnership (KRP)

2.9 Gravesham Borough Council is a member of the Kent Resource Partnership which consists of the collection authorities (District and Borough Councils) in Kent and the disposal authority (Kent County Council).

2.10 The Kent Joint Municipal Waste Management Strategy 2012 to 2020 sets out a number of policies and objectives that all authorities in Kent have adopted.

2.11 The main targets set by the partnership are to:

• Recycle/compost at least 45% and send no more than 10% to landfill by 2015/16.

• Recycle/compost at least 50% and send no more than 5% to landfill by 2020/21.

• The KRP aspires to put in place separate collections of discarded food for composting on a weekly basis in all districts by 2020 and in at least 8 of the 12 districts by 2015/16.


2.12 In introducing any new service, the Council must have due regard to these policies and objectives and these have been considered as part of the option appraisal outlined within this report.

Environmental Impacts

2.13 The increased diversion of material from incineration or landfill is a substantial environmental benefit but through the acquisition of a new fleet of vehicles, the changes in methods of collection also give us the opportunity to benefit from the improved vehicle engines available and the reduced mileage needed to complete the tasks, reducing the level of CO2 emissions.

2.14 In addition, the introduction of the food waste collection service will have a positive impact on street cleanliness by reducing refuse-related litter resulting from damaged sacks.

3. The Waste Fund Bid

3.1 In February 2012, the department for Communities and Local Government (CLG) announced a £250 million fund, over a three-year period, to encourage councils to maintain weekly waste collections and improve refuse and recycling services. Gravesham Borough Council submitted a bid for £4,915,990 to implement various changes to improve the council’s existing waste and recycling service.

3.2 The grant bid was successful and the council was awarded the full amount of the bid. The table below shows how the funding is spread across the three years.

2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 Total

£268,553 £1,010,711 £3,636,726 £4,915,990

3.3 The CLG confirmed that there are no restrictions to the way in which the funding can be spent.

3.4 The proposals outlined in the bid to the CLG explained that an award of funding would enable the council to retain a weekly residual waste collection service and would also provide the opportunity to significantly improve the council’s recycling rate through the introduction of a weekly food waste collection service together with wheeled bins for the collection of recyclable materials. The use of wheeled bins, where suitable to do so, would enable the range of recyclable materials collected from residents using the council’s clear bag scheme to be extended to include additional plastics and tetrapaks. At a future date it would also be possible to extend the service to include the collection of textiles and small waste electronic and electrical equipment (WEEE).

3.5 Following confirmation of the award of funding the Council set up officer and Member working groups to help implement the proposals set out in the bid document as per section four of the report.

3.6 Given the scale of the project the Council also commissioned Eunomia Research & Consulting Ltd to assist with an options appraisal exercise to analyse the advantages and disadvantages of various different methods of collecting waste and recycling materials.


3.7 The three main options for the delivery of the new waste and recycling service, alongside a weekly food waste scheme and residual collection, were:

• A fully co-mingled recycling collection service – all recycling is placed within the same collection receptacle

• A part co-mingled recycling collection service – recycling is collected within one receptacle with either glass or paper/card collected separately.

• A kerbside sort service - recycling is sorted by the householder into several separate boxes.

4. Project Groups

4.1 Three working groups consisting of Members and officers were set up to help guide and control the waste and recycling project. Each group has been working to clear terms of reference that were presented to Cabinet on 10 July 2013.

4.2 The groups have made a valuable contribution to the project by ensuring that key issues have been properly taken into account when considering the advantages and disadvantages of the various refuse and recycling collection methods that could be adopted by the council. Points raised by Members and officers within each group have informed the consultation and communications plans. This has ensured that a considered approach has been taken in capturing residents’ views and that the changes to the service will be effectively communicated to residents to help make the transition to the new scheme as smooth as possible.

4.3 A summary of the roles of the working groups is set out below:

4.3.1 Members’ Cross-party Working Group

Members of this group are Cllr John Burden (Chair), Cllr Andrea Webb (Vice-chair), Cllr Colin Caller, Cllr Senja Compton, Cllr Harold Craske, Cllr Jane Cribbon and Cllr Mick Wenban.

This group is responsible for monitoring the progress of the project and for giving advice on the ways in which the community can be kept informed before and during the introduction of the new service. The group has also taken the role of ‘critical friend’ and has provided feedback and advice at key stages of the project.

Some of the key activities undertaken by the group so far are:

• Site visits to Dover/Shepway District Councils and Bristol City Council to observe the way in which the waste and recycling service is delivered. The Dover/Shepway service is a co-mingled collection whereas the Bristol service is a kerbside sort service.

• Identification of potential issues with the various options identified, particularly regarding the potential for traffic and congestion associated with the kerbside sort system.

• Input into the Communications & Marketing Plan for the roll-out of the waste and recycling service of the council.

This group will continue to meet over the coming months to help guide the preparations for introducing the new waste and recycling collection arrangements. In particular the group will have input into the communications and publicity programme designed to keep residents properly informed throughout the period of change.


4.3.2 Service Delivery Project Group

The Service Delivery Project Group is chaired by the Director (Finance & Environment) and is made up of representatives from Operational Services, Finance, Customer Services, Procurement, Legal, Planning and Housing.

This group is responsible for ensuring the successful delivery of the overall project. This role includes the implementation of an improved method for the collection of recycling via wheeled bins and the roll-out of a weekly food waste collection scheme across the borough.


• Establishing a small project group to independently review the way in which the waste and recycling service is offered to those living in flats. This project group has been recently established and will run parallel to the Service Delivery project group.

• Completing an Equality Impact Assessment of the various options to ensure any ‘negative impact’ on any of the nine protected characteristics is identified and mitigation is put in place. The impact assessment is shown at appendix eight.

• Exploring the various procurement options available to the council in respect of the vehicles and containers.

As with the Member’s Cross-party Working Group, this group will continue to meet over the coming months to continue to act as critical friends to the roll-out of the new service.

4.3.3 Communications Project Group

The Communications Project Group is chaired by the Assistant Director (Environment) and is made up of representatives from Operational Services, Customer Services, IT Services, Tenant Participation, Policy, Communications and the Communities department.

This group is responsible for the development and delivery of a communications plan to ensure the effective internal and external communication and promotion of the new refuse and recycling service.


• Completion of a ‘brainstorming’ exercise in order to gather communications and marketing ideas to inform the Communications and Marketing Plan for the roll-out of the Service.

• A visit to Ashford Borough Council to discuss the impact of the roll-out of their new service on their Customer Services and frontline teams, as well as to gain a better understanding of the communications campaign they undertook to publicise their service change.

As the roll-out of the service commences, the role of this group will become more prominent.


5. Options Evaluation

5.1 Explanation of Options Considered

5.1.1 To help ensure that the council selects the most effective service method for delivering the new refuse and recycling service for the borough, Eunomia Research & Consulting Ltd (Eunomia), were commissioned to conduct an ‘options appraisal’ to evaluate various different service models. This appraisal examined six different options that the council could use to deliver its refuse and recycling service, utilising different refuse collection vehicles (RCV) and refuse/recycling receptacles. The six options are shown below:

Option Residual Recycling System Recycling Vehicle Food

Option 1

Weekly 180L bin

Weekly 240L bin, single stream. Paper, card, cans, plastics.

Narrow body RCV with food pod

Weekly.

Food pod on Recycling RCV

Option 2 Narrow body RCV

Weekly.

Separate 7.5T Food vehicle

Option 3

Weekly 240L bin with insert or reusable bag, Twin stream - Glass/Paper, card, cans, plastic.

70:30 splitback narrow body RCV

Weekly.


Option 4

Weekly 240L bin with insert or reusable bag, Twin stream – Fibres (paper, card)/Containers (glass, cans, plastics)

50:50 splitback narrow body RCV

Weekly.


Option 5 Weekly 2x 55L boxes or stacking boxes, Kerbside sort – paper, card, cans, plastic)

RRV Weekly on

RRV

Option 6 Weekly 140L Best performing of the options above (in practice, Option 5)

5.1.2 The use of a 180ltr bin for residual waste, a food waste caddie and a 240ltr

bin (as per options one to four above) follows other schemes recently introduced in East and Mid Kent under the Kent Resource Partnership banner.

5.1.3 The options appraisal report from Eunomia was presented to Cabinet on 10 July 2013. The options outlined within the consultant’s report together with their conclusions were discussed at the Members’ Cross-party Working Group, the Management Team and the Service Delivery Project Group. Discussions centred around:

o the various operational advantages and disadvantages of each option, in particular in relation to traffic disruption caused by slower collection operations;

o the sustainability advantages that all of the options bring in terms of increasing recycling levels; and

o the financial implications of all options, particularly the financial advantages offered by the ‘kerbside sort’ collection method.


5.1.4 In terms of the kerbside sort collection method a key point of consideration was that whilst this offers a low ‘net’ cost operation it is reliant on high income levels derived from the sale of recyclable materials. Further work was carried out by the consultant and officers to evaluate current materials prices and the degree of volatility in the materials markets. This second point is critical as the council has little flexibility in being able to absorb fluctuations in income streams.

5.1.5 For medium term financial planning reasons it is essential that the council can predict with a reasonable degree of certainty the levels of income that will be received by the council. A view on the strength and future life of materials markets is therefore important given that high volatility in materials prices could have a significant adverse impact on the council’s finances in any given year.

5.1.6 The inability to be able to forecast medium-term income streams from materials prices with any degree of reliability places a high level of financial risk on the viability of the kerbside sort collection method. The challenging financial position facing the council following the June 2013 Spending Review reduces the council’s ability to absorb such financial risks.

5.1.7 This financial concern added to the predicted traffic congestion problems associated with the kerbside sort collection method led the Members Cross-Party Working Group and Management Team to conclude that the kerbside sort collection method was not a viable option.

5.2 Refined selection of Options

5.2.1 As a result of the discussions at the Cross-party Working Group, the Management Team and with Kent County Council, the most viable options were therefore refined down into three main groups:

o Fully Co-mingled Service (Including Glass)

o Fully Co-mingled Service (Excluding Glass)

o Part Co-mingled Service (Paper Collected Separately)

5.2.2 The three options outlined above were considered to be operationally viable and as such they were then subject to detailed financial appraisal. The detailed financial appraisal incorporated an evaluation of the waste collection and waste disposal costs of each option.

5.3 Options Evaluation

5.3.1 A summary of the pros and cons of each option are shown overleaf:


Fully Co-mingled option (including glass) - This service would see all materials collected together (paper, card, cans, plastics and glass).

Pros Cons

The system would be easier for residents to use as all materials go into one bin and the items are sorted at a Materials Recovery Facility (MRF).

The co-mingled system would be easier to introduce to flats.

Works towards bringing the service in line with other collections in Kent.

Provides the opportunity to collect recycling fortnightly so reducing operational costs and vehicle movements.

Similar to current service but in bins not bags. The advantage of providing a bin would guarantee constant capacity for the household where currently many households run out of clear bags.

It would reduce the issue of clear bags being spilt or blown down the streets leading to litter problems.

By collecting all the materials together there is a risk of the recycling quality being compromised if residents put the wrong materials in the bins.

With glass being included there is a high risk of the quality of recyclables being compromised and also the council being challenged over the quality of material. Glass being included with the co-mingled collection can lead to the glass particles being mixed in with the other materials and damaging their recyclability. The best way to recycle glass is for the material to be kept separate unless sorting technically improves.

Not the cheapest overall option as the value of the recyclable material reduces due to glass fragments adversely affecting the quality of other materials.

Bins replacing bags may lead to more difficulty for some residents in storing or manoeuvring a bin.

Fully Co-mingled option (excluding glass) - This service would see all materials collected together (paper, card, cans, plastics)

Pros Cons

The system would be easier for residents to use as most recyclable materials go into one bin and the items are sorted at a Materials Recovery Facility (MRF).

The co-mingled system would be easier to introduce to flats.

Starts to bring the service in line with other collections in Kent.






Fully Co-mingled option (excluding glass) - This service would see all materials collected together (paper, card, cans, plastics)

Pros Cons


Maintains a high quality of recyclable material.

Part Co-mingled option (Paper collected separately)- This service would see all materials collected together (cans, plastics and glass) with paper collected separately

Pros Cons

Starts to bring the service in line with other collections in Kent.


Provide a better quality of some recyclable materials.




Would require an extra container to collect the paper.

Would require extra staffing resources compared to other two options.

Viability of the service would dependent on the value of paper as a commodity which in previous has years fluctuated.

Suitability of vehicles required in future years to undertake the collections.


6. Community Engagement - Consultation with Residents

6.1 To assist the development of the council’s waste and recycling service, the council undertook a consultation with residents of the borough between 22 July 2013 and 06 September 2013. The consultation was hosted online and was communicated through a number of methods:

• An e-mail sent to all Members of the council with a follow-up message included within the Members’ Bulletin.

• An e-mail sent to all officers of the council.

• An e-mail sent to the following community groups/organisations – the Residents Panel, tenants of the council, residents who have signed up for e-billing and agreed to receive communications from the council and Parish Council representatives.


• Details of the consultation were circulated to colleagues at the Kent Equality Cohesion Council for wider circulation.

• The consultation was referenced at the meeting of the 50+ Forum in July 2013 with hard copies of the consultation provided for completion.

• The recorded message on the council’s switchboard number was changed to advise people of the consultation being online.

• The survey was published on the council’s website with a banner added to the front page of the website to advertise the consultation.

• The council’s social media sites were utilised with notification of the consultation being made and regular ‘Tweets’ to remind people that the consultation is underway.

In addition hard copies of the consultation were kept at the council’s Meet and Greet desk with visitors to the Civic Centre being asked to complete them either online or via the hard copies provided.

6.2 The full results from the consultation are shown at appendix two. Some of the headlines from the consultation are as follows:

• The majority of respondents currently use the council’s current clear bag recycling service (90.6%).

• Option 1 (fully co-mingled) was the preferred option as selected by 41.5% of respondents.

• Respondents to the service would like to see their recycling service include glass (78.1%) as well as plastic tubs and pots (48.1%).

• Respondents indicated that the main driver that would encourage them to increase the amount they recycle is ‘being able to include a greater variety of materials in the recycling collection’ (70.8%), followed by ‘having a better idea about what can and cannot be recycled’ (51.1%).

• Around half of respondents indicated that there is some confusion regarding what can and cannot be recycled.

7. Financial Analysis

7.1 Analysis of the respective options around future refuse collection and recycling has been focused upon the overall cost of the service to the Kent Taxpayer, and therefore, in order to evaluate the service options effectively, two important elements have been considered:

• The effect upon the costs of collection borne by Gravesham Borough Council, and;

• Any resulting savings achieved by Kent County Council arising from higher recycling rates and lower overall tonnages of waste.

7.2 The methodology employed in generating this financial modelling has been as follows;

• An identification of the “baseline” costs associated with the current Waste Collection service offered by the Council – this has included analysis of annual budgetary provision within the Council’s Medium Term Financial Plan, together with an analysis of all elements of expenditure (staffing, vehicles, consumables, overheads) initially charged through the Council’s Direct Services Organisation.


• Research into the likely costs associated with each element of a revised refuse collection service, including, but not limited to, the costs associated with;

o The respective vehicles which could be utilised in any new refuse collection service.

o Drivers and refuse collection personnel.

o Materials, such as wheeled bins and containers.

o Ongoing costs such as fuel and maintenance expenditure.

• For each respective refuse collection model, an analysis of the requirements under each model in relation to each of the components listed above, so as to generate the overall budget requirement for each model, and thus provide a comparison to the existing baseline model as currently operated by the Council.

• An analysis of the potential savings to be made by the Waste Disposal Authority (WDA), Kent County Council, based on assumptions generated by Eunomia, as to the likely levels of household refuse to be generated under each model, and the likely make-up of this between recyclable materials and residual waste.

7.3 Finance Work with the Waste Disposal Authority (WDA) - Kent County Council (KCC)

7.3.1 Having identified the likely costs of each refuse collection and recycling model to be borne by Gravesham Borough Council, and the potential savings for the WDA, discussions began with Kent County Council. These focused on refining the effect of each proposed collection methodology upon their own service, both operationally, and in terms of the costs associated with disposal of the refuse collected. Modelling undertaken by officers from Gravesham was shared with respective officers from KCC.

7.3.2 From the outset KCC were keen to operate on an “open-book” accounting basis, with the benefit of the Kent Taxpayer at the forefront of discussions. As such, KCC helpfully provided full details of waste disposal costs/recycling income rates, together with an honest appraisal of the practical consequences of each potential collection model. Officers from GBC were appreciative of such an approach, which demonstrates a willingness to work in partnership to achieve the best overall solution for those living within the borough and more widely, the county of Kent.

7.3.3 These discussions allowed KCC to take into account the respective rates achieved for recycling of materials collected from Gravesham households, and the potentially positive effect of the revised collection methodologies upon both the quality and volume of recyclable materials.

7.3.4 The opportunity was also taken for KCC to provide a “critical evaluation” of the modelling work undertaken by officers from GBC, and to compare such modelling with their own, independently produced, modelling of the likely impacts. This independent modelling by KCC took into account actual outcomes arising from changes to the East and Mid-Kent refuse collection services, and is therefore seen as a reasonable basis for evaluation of any new collection service to be offered by Gravesham.


7.3.5 It is worth noting that in relation to future costs of collection borne by Gravesham, KCC found these figures to be robust and in line with expectations. In relation to potential savings accruing to KCC under any future model, their own financial modelling produced savings estimates broadly in line to those produced by officers from Gravesham. A level of comfort can therefore be taken that such estimates are broadly representative of future refuse collection and recycling rates.

7.3.6 On the basis of “open-book accounting”, officers from Kent County Council and Gravesham Borough Council have discussed the principle of sharing benefits 50:50, and the disaggregation of any project benefits will be formally agreed between the authorities upon entering into an Inter-Authority-Agreement (IAA), and both partners will work together on drafting the IAA for approval by both councils.

7.3.7 This sharing of savings (to offset the increased costs of collection borne by Gravesham as well as the risks that are shared between the two authorities) is seen as a critical element of the new Waste Collection model, and ensures that the most efficient and cost effective model for the Kent taxpayer is implemented as both authorities benefit proportionately. Officers are continuing to work with colleagues from KCC to finalise the sharing of savings.

7.4 Financial Tables

7.4.1 The full financial analysis can be seen as appendices three and nine to this report, with a summary of the financial modelling included within the tables below. These tables show the following for each respective waste collection methodology;

o The increased cost of the service to Gravesham Borough Council compared to the current “baseline” cost

o The anticipated savings to Kent County Council, as the Waste Disposal Authority

o The resulting net cost or saving to Gravesham Borough Council under an agreement with KCC where 50% of the savings are passed across to Gravesham Borough Council

o The anticipated overall cost or saving to the Kent Taxpayer from each collection methodology

7.4.2 Against each proposed collection methodology, several different variations of collection are detailed (including the exact changes to the service that residents will experience). In practice, these represent the phased introduction of each revised collection methodology between 2014 and 2017, with the proposed implementation dates as set out below. This phased approach is seen as being critical to the smooth introduction of the revised service, aiding communication and publicity of recycling requirements to residents, and in supporting the financial modelling which has been undertaken (shown overleaf);


Proposed Implementation

Date

Fully Co-mingled (Including Glass)

Fully Co-mingled (Excluding Glass)

Part Co-mingled (Paper Separated)

June 2014 CM4 CM4 PS2

June 2016 CM8 CM8 PS4

November 2017 CM9 CM9 PS5

7.4.3 Members are asked to note that in relation to the detailed savings analysis undertaken by Kent County Council, these figures can be seen as appendix nine within the private part of the agenda. These papers have been provided to assist Members in understanding how such estimates have been calculated, and to therefore assist with determining the recommended revised collection methodology for Gravesham Borough Council. However, due to the fact that the disclosure of such information (in terms of the relative tonnages of waste/recycling, the resulting costs of disposal and any income generated from the sale of recyclable materials) is not permitted on the grounds of commercial sensitivity, this information cannot be made available within the public domain. This is due to the fact that it’s publication within the public domain could jeopardise future contract negotiations/re-tendering exercises undertaken by Kent County Council. Whilst Members are free to ask questions in relation to the potential saving analysis using the figures set out in the confidential appendix (appendix nine), such questions should only be considered in private and the meeting would have to resolve to go into private session.

7.4.4 The tables below detail the phased implementation of the refuse and recycling scheme as detailed in section nine of the report.

Fully Co-mingled Service (Including Glass)

Scheme Ref

Residual Food Recycling GBC Increase KCC SavingGBC Net Cost /

(Saving)Overall Cost /

(Saving)

CM4Weekly in sacks

Weekly collected with residual

Fortnightly in 240ltr bin

£180,890 (£149,750) £106,015 £31,140

CM8Weekly in 180ltr bin



£296,970 (£276,150) £158,895 £20,820

CM9Fortnightly in 180ltr bin

Weekly with either recycling or residual dependant on week

Fortnightly in 240ltr bin £249,190 (£466,470) £15,955 (£217,280)

CM9 (KCC)Fortnightly in 180ltr bin



Fully Co-mingled Service (Excluding Glass)

Scheme Ref



(Saving)

CM4Weekly in sacks



£180,890 (£210,780) £75,500 (£29,890)

CM8Weekly in 180ltr bin



£296,970 (£337,090) £128,425 (£40,120)

CM9Fortnightly in 180ltr bin



CM9 (KCC)Fortnightly in 180ltr bin


Fortnightly in 240ltr bin £249,190 (£543,550) (£22,585) (£294,360)


Part Co-Mingled Service (Paper Collected Separate)

Scheme Ref



(Saving)

PS2Weekly in sacks


Fortnightly in 240ltr bin with paper separate

£299,590 (£426,780) £86,200 (£127,190)

PS4Weekly in 180ltr bin



£446,510 (£475,070) £208,975 (£28,560)

PS5Fortnightly in 180ltr bin



£477,410 (£663,790) £145,515 (£186,380)

PS5 (KCC)Fortnightly in 180ltr bin



Notes:

• The ‘Scheme Ref’ utilised above has been used for modelling purposes only. ‘CM’ relates to co-mingled collection schemes and ‘PS’ relates to part co-mingled schemes.

• ‘GBC Net Cost/(Saving)’ is based on the sharing of KCC savings on a 50:50 basis.

• The final row of each table (shown with ‘KCC’) provides the estimation of the savings as calculated by officers from Kent County Council.

7.4.5 As can be seen from the above analysis, a fully co-mingled service where

glass is excluded is estimated to deliver the most cost effective service for the residents within the borough, delivering an overall saving on the costs of the current service for the Kent taxpayer of £294,360.

7.4.6 As detailed in paragraph 7.3.6, officers have agreed in principle to the 50:50 sharing of savings accrued by KCC. This will mean that the effect of introducing model CM9 (with fortnightly residual/recycling and weekly food waste collections) could be delivered with a small saving of £22,585 to GBC (£249,190 additional cost, less £271,775 contribution from KCC) when compared to the existing refuse collection and recycling service.

7.4.7 Members should note that the figures that have been used in these calculations are based upon assumptions around the capture rates, volumes of waste and gate fees/income levels etc and that these may differ from the actual results in any given year.

7.5 Funding implications and use of Waste Bid Monies

7.5.1 As the introduction of the revised waste collection methodology will be on a phased basis (ultimately culminating in an alternate weekly collection for residual/recycling waste, with a weekly collection for food waste), there will be different costs/savings accruing to both Gravesham and Kent County Council during the period of implementation. There will also be different requirements for capital expenditure at each stage of the process as new vehicles, containers and other equipment is purchased by the authority. The indicative schedule of implementation, together with the effects upon the Council’s Medium Term Financial Plan can be seen in the table below;


* Whilst communications expenditure has been shown in the table above as all being incurred within 2014-15, in reality, this expenditure will be incurred across the period of implementation, dependent upon need and recycling trends.

7.5.2 As can be seen from the table, the Waste Bid funding obtained by the authority (at £4,915,990) is sufficient to enable introduction of the revised waste collection methodology without any adverse financial impact upon the authority’s Medium Term Financial Plan, with a total amount of £4,875,915 being utilised by the end of 2018-19. From that point onwards, based upon the financial modelling jointly undertaken between Gravesham Borough Council and Kent County Council, the revised collection scheme should operate at a small saving compared to the costs of the existing collection scheme.

7.5.3 On the basis of spending around £4 million on the acquisition of replacement refuse vehicles and containers (wheeled bins, etc), together with the staffing requirements of each collection methodology, appendix four to this report provides further detail as to the exact requirements at each stage of implementation for Members consideration and approval.


7.5.4 Members are requested to authorise the procurement of the required resources as set out in the report recommendations. As the procurement of the necessary vehicles and equipment to deliver the new service will be subject to appropriate legislative, technical and practical considerations (such as procurement procedures, emissions compliance, etc), the schedule at appendix four is considered to show the best estimates at this time. It is not anticipated that actual procurements will differ materially from those in appendix four, however Members are advised that some variation may be required to this schedule, both in terms of requirements and timescales – such modifications will not alter the proposed refuse collection service outlined within this report.

8. Waste & Recycling Performance

8.1 On the basis of adopting a ‘Fully Co-mingled Service (Excluding Glass)’ method of collecting dry recyclable materials together with the ‘Food Waste’ collection, it is anticipated that the changes to the refuse and recycling service will lead to the following improvements:

• An increase in the council’s overall recycling rate. It is anticipated that the Council’s recycling rate will increase by anywhere up to 10% in the first stage (CM4) of changes with subsequent increases where stages two (CM8) and three (CM9) are introduced. Authorities that have introduced similar services to that outlined in this report have seen their recycling rates increase to over 45%. Ashford Borough Council, who have recently introduced a new recycling service are anticipating their recycling rate increasing from 11% to over 40%.

• A reduction in the amount of residual household waste collected by the authority. Authorities that have introduced similar schemes, particularly the food waste scheme, have seen a reduction in the amount of residual household waste collected of approximately 5%.

• An improvement in street cleanliness. The council monitors how clean its roads are and by removing food waste from the residual waste stream (the black sacks), it is anticipated that there will be a lot less refuse related litter due to bags being attacked by animals. In addition, the recycling will be held within solid containers reducing the amount of clear sacks that are blown across roads in high winds.

9. Service Implementation Strategy

9.1 It should be noted that the waste collection model comprising fully co-mingled collections, excluding glass (referred to above as model “CM9”) only delivers the full financial savings to KCC (and likewise minimal increases in costs to Gravesham), once an alternate weekly collection pattern is introduced. As this is not intended to commence until November 2017, the timeline for introduction of the revised waste collection methodology is set out overleaf;

9.2 Plans for next phase of implementation i.e. residual waste

9.2.1 The new service (a wheeled bin for recycling and the introduction of the food waste scheme) will be introduced during summer 2014. The exact implementation date is subject to the procurement of the vehicles, bins and food caddies.


9.2.2 The next stage of the new service is the introduction of a 180ltr wheeled bin for the collection of residual waste. It is proposed that the additional wheeled bin be introduced from June 2016 for residual waste, to give sufficient time for the new recycling arrangements to bed in.

9.2.3 In November 2017 it is proposed that the refuse and recycling collections are moved to an alternate weekly basis. It would mean householders having their residual bin collected one week and then their recycling bin collected the following week. The collection of food waste would remain weekly to all households.

9.2.4 As glass will not be collected at the kerbside, the council will conduct a review of its network of bring banks to increase accessibility.

9.2.5 The timescales detailed overleaf may be subject to change and as such Members are requested to authorise the Director (Finance & Environment) in consultation with the Leader of the Executive and the Lead Member for Community Services to agree to any necessary alterations to the timescales for the implementation of the service resulting from operational requirements.

9.3 Street Survey

9.3.1 Work has commenced on a street survey to analyse the suitability of each property to have a wheeled recycling bin. Considerations for assessing whether a property should have a wheeled bin or should retain a clear sack collection service have been made against set criteria; the criteria agreed is shown at appendix five.

9.3.2 In common with other councils that have introduced wheeled bin recycling collection services the general principle adopted has been that the standard service will be the use of wheeled bin and that the sack collection service will be used where necessary in exceptional circumstances.

9.3.3 It is important to explain that ‘assisted collections’ will still be available for residents who have difficulty getting their rubbish and recycling to the front of their property. This was an issue identified during the consultation process and will be addressed accordingly.

9.3.4 The method adopted for Gravesham’s street survey has built on best practice standard documentation used by other councils and then customised for Gravesham’s particular circumstances. The street surveys will involve officers undertaking site visits and evaluating each road individually.

9.3.5 The senior waste management officers are currently conducting this survey with assistance from the drivers and loaders to ensure that local knowledge is taken into consideration.

9.4 Route Optimisation

9.4.1 For reasons of economy, effectiveness and public satisfaction it is critical the new recycling collection rounds are as efficient as possible.

9.4.2 To help ensure that the council uses its vehicles and crews most effectively, the council will use ‘route optimisation’ software to develop the new collection rounds.


9.4.3 Not only does this software help map out the most efficient collection rounds it also helps ensure that rounds are most evenly balanced to ensure that the workload is evenly spread amongst all of our waste and recycling collection crews.

9.4.4 It is not only good business practice to set very efficient collection rounds, in ensuring that the vehicles complete the collection rounds as quickly as possible, the council will also minimise the impact that vehicles have on traffic flows within the borough.

9.4.5 To minimise disruption to residents and to make the transition to the new service as seamless as possible the council will endeavour to maintain the same collection days wherever possible.

9.5 Procurement

9.5.1 The financial value of the proposed procurements requires the Council to undertake competitive tendering processes in accordance with the provisions of the European Procurement Directive. This is a time consuming undertaking accompanied by risks which may include supplier legal challenges to the Council’s management of the process and the decisions taken.

9.5.2 An alternative to undertaking tender processes is to access national public sector framework arrangements. These are formally advertised and competitively procured arrangements which are compliant with the Directive and reduce risk to the Council. They also offer significantly shorter timescales for completing the procurement. Furthermore, the Council is likely to benefit from the nationally offered framework rates and terms offered to the wider public sector market.

9.5.3 The Procurement Manager undertook research into available frameworks and reported the outcomes to the Waste Collection Scheme, Service Delivery Group. The Assistant Director (Environment) attended procurement orientated waste and recycling service delivery seminars, arranged by the LGA. These seminars included consideration of the various framework options.

9.5.4 It is expected that the frameworks offered by the Eastern Shires Purchasing Organisation (ESPO) are suitable to deliver the Council’s requirements for vehicles and recycling container products.

9.5.5 ESPO will offer a no cost service for the management of the vehicle procurement process. Benefits, to the Council, include ESPO’s experience of undertaking similar procurements, market and product knowledge plus access to pre-prepared and tested procurement documentation and tender evaluation mechanisms. ESPO advised that the timescale is approximately twelve weeks to implement and then undertake the obligatory further competition process amongst the suppliers assigned to the framework.

9.5.6 The two ESPO frameworks covering containers, bin liners and wheeled bins provide for products to be directly called off without opening further competition. Purchase orders may be placed immediately following product and supplier identification. Alternatively, the Council has options to undertake further competition amongst the framework suppliers and to seek aggregation of its requirements, with other organisations, in pursuit of improved purchase costs beyond the published framework rates.


9.5.7 Officers will seek to utilise the most appropriate method of procurement and will explore all options including the option to lease vehicles instead of purchasing them outright, to ensure the most cost effective method is utilised.

10. Communications & Marketing

10.1 It is recognised that a key component of the successful roll-out of the new waste and recycling service is good marketing and publicity of the scheme.

10.2 To ensure that there is a joined-up approach to all communications and marketing work, the council has appointed Jane Packham, a marketing and communications expert. This role will be funded by the grant and will add critical communications resource and expertise required for this significant project.

10.3 A Communications & Marketing Plan has been developed by Jane Packham, in conjunction with the three project groups set up by the council, and is attached at appendix six. Members are asked to approve the Communications & Marketing Plan and authorise the Director (Finance & Environment) in consultation with the Leader of the Executive and the Lead Member for Community Services to agree to any minor amendments to the plan.

10.4 As a result of the visits undertaken by officers and Members to other authorities who have experienced similar service changes, issues raised regarding communications and marketing have been taken into account in the plan detailed at appendix six.

11. Conclusion and recommendation

11.1 Based on the results of the options evaluation it is considered that the option that most closely meets the key criteria for the new service is the ‘Fully Co-mingled Service (Excluding Glass)’ together with a weekly food waste collection service. Members are requested to approve this option and instruct officers to implement this waste and recycling service.

11.2 Such an option has been demonstrated (both by officers from Gravesham and Kent County Council) to deliver the most cost-effective service for the Kent taxpayer and one which also delivers high quality recyclables and improved recycling performance compared with the existing service.

11.3 The Waste Bid funding obtained by the authority (at £4,915,990) is sufficient to enable introduction of the revised waste collection methodology without any adverse financial impact upon the authority’s Medium Term Financial Plan, with a total amount of £4,875,915 being utilised by the end of 2018-19. From that point onwards, based upon the financial modelling jointly undertaken between Gravesham Borough Council and Kent County Council, the revised collection scheme should operate at a small saving compared to the costs of the existing collection scheme.


11.4 In the absence of long-awaited guidance from Defra regarding the acceptability of glass being included within co-mingled collections, and with the prospect of more stringent quality standards for Material Recovery Facilities (MRF) imminent, the co-mingling of glass represents a potential risk of both non-compliance with relevant regulations and of falling foul of the forthcoming mandatory MRF Code of Practice with its emphasis on material quality.

11.5 To date, the experience in Kent has been that it is economically disadvantageous to co-mingle dry recyclables with glass, compared with co-mingling dry recyclables without glass. This is primarily due to additional costs suffered by MFR’s when reprocessing co-mingled glass and the MRF’s that are prepared to accept co-mingled recyclables with glass being more distant which has resulted in significantly higher transport costs.

11.6 Advice from KCC as the Waste Disposal Authority is that many MRF operators are reluctant to accept glass, even where this is technically possible, due to glass fragments contaminating and significantly devaluing other co-mingled materials (particularly paper and plastics). Furthermore, co-mingled glass can damage MRF machinery during the materials recovery process. It is a commercial fact that losses suffered by MRF operators as a result of co-mingling glass with other dry recyclables will be passed on to councils and consequently the Kent taxpayer.

11.7 It is important to note that the current collection of glass via ‘Bring Banks’ is an effective and economic method of capturing the majority of household glass for recycling. Critically, glass collected at Bring Banks is of a high recyclable quality and more suitable for reprocessing to create new glass containers, whereas co-mingled glass, reprocessed through a MRF, may only be suitable for use as an aggregate construction material. A review of the current network of Bring Banks will be conducted to establish the best locations for banks to facilitate local access for residents with a view to maximising high quality glass recycling capture rates.

11.8 It is recognised that given the long-term nature of the project there are a number of associated risks which have been set out in appendix seven. These will be managed by officers but may result in the need for minor alterations to the way in which the service is rolled out across the borough, particularly if this affects the way in which the budget is spent. Members are requested to authorise the Director (Finance & Environment) in consultation with the Leader of the Executive and the Lead Member Community Services to agree to any minor alterations to the way in which the budget is spent. Any significant changes will be presented to the Cabinet for approval.

12. Background papers

12.1 Background papers pertaining to this report are held by the Assistant Director (Environment). Anyone wishing to inspect background papers should, in the first place, be directed to Committee & Electoral Services who will make the necessary arrangements.


IMPLICATIONS APPENDIX 1

Legal All Member States of the EU are required to achieve recycling and composting rates of 45% by 2015 and 50% by 2020 as contained in the revised Waste Framework Directive (rWFD) 2008. Failure to achieve these levels of performance as a nation may give rise to EU fines. The Government has legalised the passport of such fines to local authorities as contained in the Localism Act 2011. Whilst the Local Government Association achieved a better outcome in the drafting of the Act than had been originally proposed by the Government, financial risks remain for those councils that do not achieve the targets. The levels of potential fines are unknown.

Finance and Value for Money

Under its Supporting Weekly Collections scheme, the CLG has awarded the council a grant of £4,915,990 to assist the council in maintaining a weekly refuse collection service.

The table below provides a breakdown of the proposed scheme finances and how the grant will be utilised.

Gross Cost of Proposed Scheme £11,721,530Less share of KCC savings (£834,545)Less Current MTFP Provision (£6,011,070)

Additional Net Cost of Scheme (over delivery period)

£4,875,915

Less Weekly Collections Grant (£4,915,990)Projected Deficit / (Surplus) (£40,075)

As the introduction of the revised waste collection methodology will be on a phased basis (ultimately culminating in an alternate weekly collection for residual/recycling waste, with a weekly collection for food waste), there will be different costs/savings accruing to both Gravesham and Kent County Council during the period of implementation, and different requirements for capital expenditure at each stage of the process as new vehicles, containers and other equipment is purchased by the authority.

The Waste Bid funding obtained by the authority (at £4,915,990) is sufficient to enable introduction of the revised waste collection methodology without any adverse financial impact upon the authority’s Medium Term Financial Plan over the delivery period, with a total amount of £4,875,915 being utilised by the end of 2018-19.

Once the final phase of the project has been implemented and alternate weekly waste collections are in place, the gross revenue implications of running the new scheme would be an additional £249,190 a year over the cost of the current service. However, taking into account the 50% share of Kent County Council’s projected savings of £271,775 the scheme should achieve a net saving of £22,585 a year.

A more detailed analysis of the finances of the project is attached in appendix three.



Risk Assessment

A detailed risk assessment schedule is attached at appendix seven. Key issues that have been taken into consideration within the risk assessment include:

• The need for 50:50 sharing of savings with KCC.

• The co-mingling of glass potentially being a risk based on concerns recently raised by Defra.

• The operational roll-out of the service.

• The requirement to keep residents properly informed about the new scheme.

• The need to meet recycling targets.

Equality Impact Assessment

Screening for Equality Impacts

Question Answer Explanation

a. Does the decision being made or recommended through this paper have potential to cause adverse impact or discriminate against different groups in the community?

Yes The council offers an assisted collection service which will continue to be offered and promoted in order to assist those identified through the nine protected characteristics that may have issues or concerns regarding the new service.

b. Does the decision being made or recommended through this paper make a positive contribution to promoting equality?

Yes Part of the communications plan will be to ensure the service is publicised to all communities within the borough, including the promotion in new communities using translators.

c. What steps are you taking to mitigate, reduce, avoid or minimise the impacts identified above?

-- Please see response to question a.

In submitting this report, the Chief Officer doing so is confirming that they have given due regard to the equality impacts of the decision being considered, as noted in the table above

Note: The detailed Equality Impact Assessment that supports the explanations given above is attached at appendix eight.



Corporate Business Plan

• Area of focus 2 – Working to maintain a clean and green environment (specifically – Provide a quality refuse and recycling service to the public and work with partners to increase recycling and reduce the amount of waste that is sent to landfill).

• Area of focus 16 – Ensuring a strong customer focus and delivering quality frontline services (specifically – Enhance customer accessibility to the services provided by the council by improving and developing the council’s website in order to increase the number of ‘self-help’ functions provided to the customer).

Crime and Disorder

There are no significant crime and disorder implications in relation to the introduction of a new refuse and recycling collection service.

classification: part 1 – public · cabinet – 07 october 2013 waste collection scheme –...

Documents