waste management review - newport ncc final waste... · page 5 of 24 - waste management...

Waste Management Review

Newport City Council

Audit year: 2015-16

Issued: August 2016

Document reference: 374A2016

Status of report

of 24 - Waste Management Review - Newport City Council

This document has been prepared as part of work performed in accordance with statutory

functions.

In the event of receiving a request for information to which this document may be relevant,

attention is drawn to the Code of Practice issued under section 45 of the Freedom of

Information Act 2000. The section 45 Code sets out the practice in the handling of requests

that is expected of public authorities, including consultation with relevant third parties.

In relation to this document, the Auditor General for Wales and the Wales Audit Office are

relevant third parties. Any enquiries regarding disclosure or re-use of this document should

be sent to the Wales Audit Office at [email protected].

The team who delivered the work comprised Allison Rees, Richard Workman and Sara-Jane

Byrne.

Contents


Summary report

Whilst the Council has prioritised increasing recycling, its waste management

has not been sufficiently strategic and it has not used its governance and

performance management arrangements effectively to drive improvement,

although it is now taking steps to address this

4

Proposals for improvement 5

Detailed report

To date, the Council has been slow to address its waste and recycling

performance but the new waste management team is developing a business

plan that will set out how performance will be improved

7

The Council has not used its governance and performance management

arrangements effectively to improve performance but, more recently, the Street

Scene, Regeneration and Safety Scrutiny Committee has shown it has the

potential to play a key role in driving improvement

11

The Council recognises that it will struggle to meet future statutory targets

unless it increases recycling participation rates but lacks a comprehensive

education and engagement plan to do this

19

More recently, the Council is working with key partners to improve waste and

recycling performance but the management and monitoring of partnerships

need to improve

20

Summary report


Whilst the Council has prioritised increasing recycling, its waste management has not been sufficiently strategic and it has not used its governance and performance management arrangements effectively to drive improvement, although it is now taking steps to address this

1. In 2011, we undertook a review of waste management at Newport City Council (the

Council) and concluded that the Council was steadily improving its management of

waste and reducing the percentage that goes to landfill. We proposed that the Council

could refine its arrangements by:

Producing a waste management plan that showed the strategic direction of the

service in meeting outcomes together with a timeline that extends for at least

three years for the implementation of waste management initiatives and for

outline budget planning.

Refreshing the profile and improving the marketing of waste services to improve

participation in recycling, reuse and waste reduction.

Seeking opportunities to increase recycling and waste re-use at household waste

amenity and bring sites. With comparatively low provision of these facilities, the

Council should consider developing new sites.

2. Since the 2011 review, the Welsh Government has introduced statutory targets up to

2024-25 to increase municipal waste recycling, compositing and reuse. The Welsh

Government is able to impose financial penalties on those councils not achieving these

targets. The 2012-13 target for each council was 52 per cent. This target has risen to

58 per cent for 2015-16, and will rise to 64 per cent in 2019-20 and 70 per cent from

2024-25 onwards.

3. The Welsh Government also sets limits on the amount of biodegradable municipal

waste that councils in Wales can landfill. The Landfill Allowance Scheme (Wales)

Regulations 2004 established the Landfill Allowance Scheme (LAS) Wales.

This reflects the relevant requirements of the European Union Landfill Directive.

The purpose of the scheme is to ensure diversion of biodegradable municipal waste

from landfill, to reduce pollution from landfill gas that is a potent greenhouse gas. As is

the case with those councils that miss the statutory recycling target, those councils that

exceed their landfill allowance could also be subject to financial penalties.

4. In 2011, Welsh Government produced a ‘Collections Blueprint’, stating their preferred

method of kerbside sorting. In 2013, Newport City Council produced a Sustainable

Waste Plan which endorsed a continuation and expansion of its kerbside sort scheme

which was essentially already in accordance with the Welsh Government’s preferred

delivery model. Currently, the Council operates a weekly kerbside recycling service,

which it delivers in partnership with Waste Savers, a third sector organisation.


5. Improving waste management and recycling was one of the Council’s improvement

objectives in 2013-14. It was not an improvement objective in 2014-15, but is an

improvement objective for 2015-16 and also for 2016-17.

6. This review sought to answer the following question: Does the Council have effective

arrangements in place to improve and sustain its waste and recycling performance in

line with Welsh Government targets?

7. We concluded that whilst the Council has prioritised increasing recycling, its waste

management has not been sufficiently strategic and it has not used its governance and

performance management arrangements effectively to drive improvement, although it

is now taking steps to address this. We came to this conclusion because we found

that:

to date, the Council has been slow to address its waste and recycling

performance but the new waste management team is developing a business

plan that will set out how performance will be improved;

the Council has not used its governance and performance management

arrangements effectively to improve performance but, more recently, the Street

Scene, Regeneration and Safety Scrutiny Committee has shown it has the

potential to play a key role in driving improvement;

the Council recognises that it will struggle to meet future statutory targets unless

it increases recycling participation rates but lacks a comprehensive education

and engagement plan to do this; and

more recently, the Council is working with key partners to improve waste and

recycling performance but the management and monitoring of partnerships need

to improve.

Proposals for improvement

The Council should:

P1 make proper and effective use of its governance arrangements by:

making better use of its scrutiny arrangements to provide more frequent and

accurate performance information and analysis to enable it to monitor and

manage waste and recycling performance effectively;

ensuring that waste and recycling performance information reported to

members is accurate and consistent and that changes to targets are made in

accordance with the Council’s agreed protocols;

considering whether it is appropriate for a member of the Street Scene,

Regeneration and Safety Scrutiny Committee to be a Trustee of Waste Savers;

and

ensuring that members who are also members of external bodies are aware of

their responsibilities and adhere to the Council’s Code of Conduct, particularly

about declaration and conflicts of interest.


P2 Develop a consolidated engagement and education plan to increase recycling

participation rates.

P3 Develop and agree a long-term business plan that sets out how the Council will meet

future statutory waste performance targets and makes clear the arrangements to

monitor the development and delivery of the plan.

P4 Ensure robust mechanisms are in place to monitor the performance of its waste and

recycling contracts.

Detailed report


We concluded that whilst the Council has prioritised increasing recycling, its waste management has not been sufficiently strategic and it has not used its governance and performance management arrangements effectively to drive improvement, although it is now taking steps to address this

To date, the Council has been slow to address its waste and recycling

performance but the new waste management team is developing a

business plan that will set out how performance will be improved

The Council has a clear vision for managing waste that reflects Welsh Government

directives and whilst its Sustainable Waste Plan lacks detail, it is currently developing a

business plan, which will set out how it will deliver this vision

8. The Council has a vision for its waste and recycling service, encompassed in its 2013

Sustainable Waste Plan (SWP), which is well understood across the organisation.

9. The Sustainable Waste Plan reflects the Welsh Government blueprint set out in

Towards Zero Waste1. The Council has consistently followed the principles of the

Welsh Government blueprint.

10. Our review found that the Council refers to the Sustainable Waste Plan as a strategy.

The development of the Plan in part addresses our previous proposal for improvement

that the Council produce a waste management plan. The Plan includes historical data

and information about the different sources of waste and provides a baseline of where

the Council is in terms of recycling performance. However, the Sustainable Waste

Plan:

a. lacks sufficient detail about how the Council will meet statutory waste and

recycling targets following the Welsh Government blueprint and what it needs to

do to improve performance;

b. does not include forecasts for each waste stream;

c. does not include an analysis of demographics or of the impact of participation

rates on recycling performance;

d. includes limited information about areas where targeted activity to improve

recycling participation is required;

1 Towards Zero Waste is the overarching waste strategy document for Wales. It was published in 2010. The strategy outlines the actions to be taken to reach the Welsh Government’s ambition of becoming a high recycling nation by 2025 and a zero waste nation by 2050


e. does not contain a communication and education plan to help increase public

participation in recycling and nor is there a separate communication and

education plan; and

f. refers to future restricted budgets, but does not set out the resources needed for

implementation and there are no links to the Council’s MTFP.

11. The Council does not have a delivery or project plan to support the implementation of

the Sustainable Waste Plan. In our view, the Plan is a high-level strategy, which

provides the foundations for the Council to develop into a detailed business plan. To

date, the Council has not actively used the Plan to drive its waste and recycling

performance.

12. The previous Cabinet Member for Street Scene and City Services agreed the

Sustainable Waste Plan. The scrutiny function was not engaged in the development of

the Plan.

13. The Council consulted Waste Savers, the charity it commissioned to collect household

recycling, on the draft Sustainable Waste Plan, but Waste Savers was not actively

involved in its development. This a weakness given the key role the charity plays in

collecting recycling and improving participation rates. It is positive that Waste Savers

have been actively engaged in the Welsh Government Collaborative Change

Programme, which is currently ongoing at the Council.

14. The Sustainable Waste Plan states that it is important that the actions are monitored,

measured and evaluated accurately and in a timely manner. However, the SWP does

not include targets or measures of success, specific timescales or levels of

accountabilities. Due to the lack of detail, the Plan does not facilitate effective

monitoring. Neither does the Plan articulate the governance mechanisms for

monitoring delivery. Officers informed us that the Council monitors the SWP through

the service plans but our review found that service plans also lack detail.

15. The Council recognises these weaknesses in the Sustainable Waste Plan and it is

positive that the Council is now actively working with the Waste and Resources Action

Programme WRAP2 to develop a more detailed business plan setting out how it will

deliver its Sustainable Waste Plan and meet future statutory waste and recycling

targets. This will include performance measures, timescales, and named responsible

officers. The Council is currently awaiting an options modelling report from WRAP,

which will consider the outcomes and options in three different areas: trade waste,

Household Waste and Recycling Centres (HWRCs) and collections. The Council

intends to use this information to develop its waste strategy and recognises this is

critical to provide a clear direction for the future.

16. Since 2013 until February 2016, the Council had a number of interim Heads of Street

Scene due to difficulties in recruiting to the Head of Street Scene position. This caused

an element of instability and uncertainty in the service, which affected strategic

2 WRAP is a not-for-profit company established in 2000. It works with businesses and individuals to help them reap the benefits of reducing waste, develop sustainable products and use resources in an efficient way. WRAP is backed by government funding from England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales.


planning and performance management. We understand whilst staff morale within the

service had been low, during our review in February 2016, we found a sense of

positivity emerging.

17. The Council appointed a new permanent Head of Street Scene who started in

February 2016. The Head of Service has clear responsibility for delivering the

Council’s waste strategy and is keen to work with staff and partners to do this.

In addition, the Council now has a dedicated recycling and strategy manager and

operational manager. Our review found there was a good relationship between the two

managers who were both committed to improving the performance of the service.

Overall, we found there was a greater confidence now amongst those officers and

members we interviewed as part of the review in the Council’s ability to improve its

performance.

18. The Council’s financial position for 2016-17 is more positive than it had expected.

Over the past four years, it has continued to increase its level of reserves. The

Council’s financial position is such that it currently does not have any immediate plans

to introduce three-weekly residual waste collection but it will continue to assess this

option for the longer term. It is continuing to monitor the impact of changes to the

frequency of residual waste collections introduced by other councils.

19. However, we feel that the Council will struggle to meet future waste and recycling

targets through its existing approach alone. The Council is undertaking much of the

work necessary and there is a lot of activity going on to try to address its recycling

performance but it now needs to bring these together in a co-ordinated manner under

the umbrella of a strategic business plan.

20. We understand that the Council is due to discuss its new waste strategy in autumn

2016. This will leave little time for consultation. Scrutiny committees have not been

involved in the development of the business plan to date. Since our fieldwork, the

Council has informed us that the Street Scene, Regeneration and Safety Scrutiny

Committee will be involved in the approval process for the new Waste Strategy and in

the regular review of the actions and performance within the Strategy.

21. The development of a long-term business plan with support from WRAP will be crucial

and there are high expectations within the Council that this plan will set out how the

Council will improve its performance to meet targets. It is important that the Council

develops and agrees a robust plan and quickly puts it into action if it is to meet

recycling targets. Effective leadership and performance management to drive the

delivery of the business plan and to monitor its implementation and impact will also be

key. Without this, the Council will continue to struggle to meet the statutory recycling

targets.

The rate of improvement in the Council’s waste and recycling performance has been slow

compared to other Welsh councils and it has struggled to meet statutory targets

22. As illustrated in the table below, the Council’s performance in terms of the percentage

of municipal waste that has been reused, recycled or composted has shown only


modest improvement over the past five years. Its ranking when compared to other

Welsh councils has declined. Its performance has also been lower than the all-Wales

recycling rate in the past three years. Moreover, the Council failed to achieve the

Welsh Government statutory target of 52 per cent for 2012-13 and 2013-14, and the

pace of improvement in the last three years has been slow. Despite not achieving the

statutory target in 2012-13 and 2013-14, the Welsh Government did not impose any

financial penalties on the Council.

Figure 1: Newport City Council waste recycling performance3.

Year % municipal waste

reused, recycled or

composted

All Wales

recycling rate

Welsh ranking

out of 22

councils (1st

being the best)

Statutory target

(%)

2010-11 43.7 43.6 10th No target set

2011-12 46.4 50.0 14th No target set

2012-13 49.2 52.3 17th 52

2013-14 51.7 54.3 19th 52

2014-15 52.0 56.2 20th 52

2015-16 56.444 Not available Not available 58

23. The Council’s performance, as reported in its quarter-three performance report to

Cabinet on 14 March 2016, is 56.44 per cent, which is an accelerated rate of

improvement compared to small increases in performance over the last three years.

The Council’s provisional end of year performance is about 57.14 per cent, just

missing the 58 per cent statutory recycling target for 2015-16. This could potentially

equate to Welsh Government fines of over £100,000. The Council has made provision

for potential financial penalties from the Welsh Government.

24. Between 2010-11 and 2012-13, the Council did not use its full landfill allowance.

However, in 2013-14 the Council exceeded its allocated landfill allowance. The Council

was one of just three authorities in Wales that failed to achieve both the recycling and

landfill allowance targets in 2013-14.

3 Source: Stats Wales Reuse/Recycling/Composted rates per local authority per annum. 4 Source: Newport City Council Cabinet report 14 March 2016 – Improvement Plan 2015-16 update for quarter 3.


The Council has not used its governance and performance management

arrangements effectively to improve performance but more recently, the

Street Scene, Regeneration and Safety Scrutiny Committee has shown

it has the potential to play a key role in driving improvement

Accountability for, and scrutiny of, waste and recycling has been weak but the Street Scene,

Regeneration and Safety Scrutiny Committee has started to become more effective

25. Since the development of the Sustainable Waste Plan, there has been a series of

management changes within the Council, which has hindered the monitoring and

management of performance. Performance management within the service has

weakened as a result.

26. There has been challenge and discussion of poor performance at the Change

Programme Board where red measures, that is areas of performance causing concern,

are highlighted and discussed. Performance updates have also been provided to the

Performance Board and Place Portfolio Board throughout the year.

27. However, the impact of these mechanisms has been limited to date. The Council has

not robustly actioned and monitored remedial actions to address poor performance.

There has been a lack of comparison with other councils. Since our fieldwork and

following the implementation of new performance management software, the Council

informs us it will now add the Welsh average data and quartile figures into the system.

This data will therefore be accessible to managers and heads of services when

providing commentary to members on performance.

28. Waste Savers are undertaking some key actions within the Sustainable Waste Plan

but to date, Waste Savers have not produced an action plan and officers and members

have not used the Council’s mechanisms effectively to hold Waste Savers to account

for their performance. Previous contracts with Waste Savers did not include

performance measures, targets or penalties, resulting in a lack of incentives for the

charity to perform well. The Council has now rectified this with the agreement of a new

contract, which came into force on 1 April 2016. New arrangements to strengthen

accountability and monitoring include:

Performance indicators, targets and a claw-back clause in the contract, which

will allow the Council to monitor performance and make Waste Savers

accountable if they don’t perform.

Monthly meetings where all key performance indicators are monitored.


Quarterly meetings with heads of services to review main activities and escalate

issues if needed.

Quarterly finance/budget reviews.

Annual meeting to review performance and set budget and targets for following

years.

29. The former Cabinet Member for Street Scene and City Services was very engaged

and knowledgeable, and clearly recognised that improving recycling is one of the

Council’s priorities. The Cabinet Member received performance data monthly and

attended departmental management team meetings. Following the appointment of the

Council’s new Leader in May 2016, a new Cabinet Member for Street Scene and City

Services has been appointed.

30. Conversely, the Street Scene, Regeneration and Safety Scrutiny Committee only

receives waste and recycling performance reports as part of the mid and end of year

service plan reviews. We believe more frequent reporting of performance to scrutiny is

warranted given the Council’s performance and failure to meet statutory targets,

together with the fact that increasing recycling is one of the Council’s priorities. The

Scrutiny Committee has also not received any reports on the performance of Waste

Savers or other partnerships to enable scrutiny members to understand and challenge

performance. The issue is not identified on the Committee’s work programme.

31. Officers informed us that the Council monitors the Sustainable Waste Plan through the

Street Scene Annual Service Plan. The annual service plan provides an overview of

how the Council is seeking to achieve improvements in the Waste Management

Service. However, it does not align adequately with the Sustainable Waste Plan. The

Street Scene, Regeneration and Safety Scrutiny Committee considers the Street

Scene Annual Service Plan and mid-year review of progress against this service plan.

However, the service plan lacks detailed actions and supporting performance

measures that would allow members to scrutinise progress in delivering the

Sustainable Waste Plan.

32. In our Corporate Assessment follow-up report, published in May 2015, we

recommended strengthening arrangements that enable the Council to scrutinise its

Improvement Objectives. We specifically emphasised the need for the Council to

ensure that meeting agendas allow for sufficient time for members of scrutiny

committees and its Performance Board to focus on underperformance. The lack of

focus on waste and recycling performance at scrutiny meetings demonstrates that the

Council needs to take further action to address this recommendation.

33. Prior to and at the time of our fieldwork there was limited opportunity for scrutiny

committees to challenge the Cabinet Member for Street Scene and City Services on

the Council’s waste and recycling performance and policy. Cabinet Members were

generally only attending scrutiny at the mid and end of year service reviews.

34. It is positive that the Council is currently developing a cabinet/scrutiny protocol.

The protocol will clarify when cabinet members can and should be invited to attend

scrutiny committees and set out the roles and responsibilities of the cabinet members

at scrutiny. It is important that this protocol is implemented as cabinet members and


scrutiny committee members are not maximising the impact of their respective roles.

The Council has not given its waste and recycling performance the required scrutiny,

given that waste and recycling is one of the Council’s priorities and the potential

financial penalties the Council could face if it continues to fail to meet statutory targets.

35. It is also positive that the Street Scene, Regeneration and Safety Scrutiny Committee

established a Policy Review group (task and finish group) to focus on improving

recycling. The Policy Review Group produced a report to the former Cabinet Member

for Street Scene and City Services at the end of July 2015 setting out a series of

recommendations.

36. The Street Scene, Regeneration and Safety Scrutiny Committee is not clear how, or if,

Cabinet endorsed all the recommendations in the report. Eleven months after sending

it, the Street Scene, Regeneration and Safety Scrutiny Committee was still awaiting a

formal response from the former Cabinet Member for Street Scene and City Services.

The Council’s constitution states: ‘If for any reason the Cabinet or Cabinet Member

does not consider the Scrutiny report within three months then the matter may be

referred to Council for review.’ This has not happened. The forward work programme

of the Street Scene, Regeneration and Safety Scrutiny Committee shows that an

update on the Committee’s recommendations resulting from the recycling review is

scheduled to be provided at its meeting in June 2016. However, this is not on the

agenda for the meeting in June.

37. We observed the meetings of the Street Scene, Regeneration and Safety Scrutiny

Committee in January and February 2016. We found that there was a good level of

challenge and questioning of the officers by the scrutiny members including on the

measures relating to the Council’s 2016-17 improvement objective to increase

recycling. The Street Scene, Regeneration and Safety Committee members showed

good understanding of the topics being discussed and were well engaged during the

meetings. However, the Street Scene, Regeneration and Safety Committee did not

discuss its work programme because it ran out of time; neither did the scrutiny

committee discuss the work programme at its meeting in January 2016.

38. Officers consider that the Street Scene, Regeneration and Safety Committee provides

a good level of challenge. Our observations found that the Street Scene, Regeneration

and Safety Committee was better at challenging than the other scrutiny committees

but it needs to be more organised and proactive to ensure timely input and challenge

to key decisions.

39. The scrutiny committee is improving and as a result, has the potential to provide much

needed challenge to the Council’s waste and recycling performance if it becomes more

proactive to ensure it has the timely information to do so. The Council has recently

appointed a new chair of the Street Scene, Regeneration and Safety Scrutiny

Committee. The Council is sensibly using this scrutiny committee to champion scrutiny

improvement.


Errors in reported performance information continue to undermine the effectiveness of the

Council’s performance management arrangements

40. Increasing recycling was one of the Council’s 2013-14 and 2015-16 improvement

objectives. Following consultation with the public, increasing recycling will continue to

be a corporate priority for 2016-17. It was not one of the Council’s corporate priorities

in 2014-15.

41. The Council has mechanisms to monitor performance regularly, particularly at an

officer and Cabinet level. The Senior Leadership Team and the Cabinet Member for

Street Scene and City Services receive performance information monthly.

Performance is also discussed at the Place Portfolio Board and at the Change

Programme Board, which includes the Chief Executive, Corporate Directors and

Heads of Service. These discussions cover performance against Improvement Plan

objectives and performance of Service Plan measures, which includes the

Improvement Plan measures and national measures. Cabinet receives performance

information quarterly. The Council’s Performance Board, which cabinet members

attended, also undertook a focused review of performance of different services at its

quarterly meetings. The Performance Board focused on increasing recycling at its

meeting in June 2015. Following the appointment of a new Council Leader in June

2016, the Performance Board has been disbanded and we understand the intention is

to ensure there is more regular and focused reporting of performance to scrutiny.

42. Within our Corporate Assessment follow-up report published in May 2015, we

reported: ‘Despite its low ranking and failure to achieve the Welsh Government’s

statutory target, and consequently being one of the four Councils in Wales under threat

of a financial penalty, the Council rated its own performance on Waste Management in

2013-14 as Green (Excellent). It is felt that the Council’s own rating of ‘Excellent’ is

misleading.’ Members at the time failed to challenge this overly positive evaluation in

the Annual Review of the 2013-14 Improvement Plan. It is concerning, therefore, that

this review has again raised concerns about the Council’s evaluation of performance

and found further examples of inaccurate and inconsistent reporting of performance.

43. The Council’s Performance Board minutes from 23 June 2015, in which a progress

update on the improvement objective of increasing recycling was presented, stated,

‘Newport remains an exemplar for Wales and is still quoted as such.’ The officer report

on recycling to that Performance Board meeting sets out current performance,

prior-year performance and the Council’s target. It does not include comparative

information, for example, with the all Welsh recycling rate or relative position compared

to other Welsh councils. As Figure 1 shows, given that the Council failed to meet the

2013-14 statutory recycling target, exceeded its landfill allowance in 2013-14 and only

achieved the statutory target in 2014-15 by 0.03 per cent with declining ranking

position, the Performance Board’s evaluation of performance at its meeting in June

2015 was, in our view, overly positive.

44. The Performance Board reviewed the Council’s mid-year performance analysis for key

indicators set out in its Corporate Plan on 9 December 2015. This included

performance against national strategic indicators. Some of the performance

information set out in the officer’s report for waste and recycling was incorrect and


inconsistently reported. For example, three different figures for the 2015-16 quarter

two recycling performance were reported in the report’s analysis. The all-Wales

recycling rate for 2014-15 was also incorrectly identified as 52.54 per cent rather than

the correct figure of 56.24 per cent. The Council acknowledges that these errors were

unacceptable and were due to a combination of factors including resource issues and

issues with the performance management software. The Red, Amber, Green (RAG)

status applied to the three figures was, however, correct.

45. Since our fieldwork, the Council is in the process of implementing new performance

management software and the Council hopes that this, together with strengthening the

quality assurance process for performance reporting, will minimise the risk of such

errors happening again. We will be undertaking a follow-up data quality review as part

of our performance audit programme in 2016-17, which will enable us to review the

impact of these actions.

46. Improving target setting was included in the recommendations raised in our Corporate

Assessment follow-up report to the Council and the Council’s action plan to address

our recommendation states that it addressed this recommendation with the

development of new target setting guidance in February 2015. However, this review

has found examples of targets having been changed without following the agreed

process, and of targets being incorrectly reported. For example, the Council published

the incorrect recycling target in its Improvement Plan 2015-16 despite the draft

Improvement Plan going through three different stages of governance prior to

publication. The Council rectified this at the mid-year service plan review.

47. The Council’s Improvement Plan 2015-16, approved by the Council on 28 April 2015,

and the Street Scene and City Services service plan 2015-16, approved by the former

Cabinet Member for Street Scene and City Services on 7 July 2015, state that the

target for the percentage of municipal waste sent to landfill for 2015-16 is 25 per cent.

(The lower the percentage, the better the performance.) Despite there being no formal

request to change this target, the Council’s mid-year performance analysis report to

the Council’s Performance Board on 9 December 2015 stated the target was 36 per

cent, a nine percentage point difference from the approved target. The report goes on

to state that the actual performance of 30 per cent was better than the non-approved

target and was Red, Amber, Green (RAG)5 rated as Green. This is misleading, as the

performance did not meet the approved target of 25 per cent. This inaccurate reporting

was also included in the performance report considered by the Council’s Change and

Efficiency board and Cabinet meetings in December 2015.

48. The Council informs us these errors were due to software problems and server

failures. However, given that these are key targets, we would expect officers to have

quickly realised that incorrect figures had been included in draft reports and taken

action to amend these, particularly if performance information is regularly considered

at other performance mechanisms, such as the Place Portfolio Board. The correct

figure has been included in end of year reporting.

5 Source: The Council’s annual review of performance 2014/15. Key for measures; Red – Performance has missed target/previous year, Amber – Performance has fallen slightly short of target/previous year, Green – Performance better than target/previous year.


49. Officers have also confirmed that the 2014-15 target for the roll out of the 180-litre bins

was changed during the year without following the Council’s correct target review

process. This process requires discussion by the Street Scene, Regeneration and

Safety Scrutiny Committee but this did not take place. Whilst the 2014-15 Street Scene

Services service plan identified a target of 48,000 at the beginning of the year, the

target identified in the year-end assessment was 42,000. The Council determined that

it had exceeded its target at the year-end stating that it had achieved 45,000.

However, if the original and agreed target had been used to determine its

performance, the Council’s evaluation of performance could only have been ‘not met

the target’.

50. These types of errors do not facilitate effective management and monitoring of

performance. Providing accurate and clear information to members is vital to enable

them to make appropriate and informed decisions and to challenge performance

effectively. In these examples, inaccurate information led to incorrect evaluations of

performance, which led to delayed corrective action Taken together, these errors

undermine assurance that the Council’s data quality arrangements are sufficiently

robust to inform effective decision-making and scrutiny. As identified in paragraph 45

above, the Council is implementing new performance management software to help

address these errors.

51. The Council’s recycling performance has marginally improved in the past three years

and the lack of consensus across the Council on the reasons for this slow

improvement raises concerns about the effectiveness of the Council’s performance

management arrangements. We understand that the Council is currently in the

process of implementing new performance management software, which will alter the

way the Council reports performance information. The Council intends for the new

system to strengthen its controls over the setting and changing of targets. Such

improvements are much needed.


The Council is sensibly discussing its performance and future approach to waste

management with the Welsh Government but, despite having a procurement board in place,

the Council’s decisions have not always helped to improve performance

52. It is positive that the Council has a dedicated procurement gateway board, involving

senior staff, to provide corporate oversight of its key procurement activity.

The Council’s decision to change from 240-litre residual waste bins to providing

180-litre residual waste bins went through this procurement process involving the

gateway board.

53. However, our review found examples where such a robust process was not followed.

For example, we found that there had been little consultation with operatives on the

impact and practicalities of implementing some budget proposals, such as the decision

to reduce amenity site opening hours in 2014. The Council reversed its decision on

amenity site opening hours in February 2015 in order to deal with the demand for the

service and to rectify traffic and queuing problems, which resulted from reduced hours

of opening.

54. As part of the current medium term financial planning process, it is positive to report

that there is now a stronger consultation process in place, with all savings being

subject to staff consultation prior to their approval. Since the arrival of a new Head of

Service, monthly team meetings are taking place, which provide the opportunity for

senior and intermediate managers to discuss current and planned activities. We also

understand that new regular meetings between the Street Scene and Community

Services and Trades Union representatives have been set up to enable a more fluid

dialogue on activities that can impact upon staff.

55. The Council stopped its green waste collections during the winter period as a savings

measure. It was evident from our review that there was conflicting views within the

Council as to whether this has had an impact on recycling. The Council is now

revisiting this action because there has been a change in the savings that can be

obtained. Residents and Members also expressed their desire to have a shorter period

where the green waste is not collected. The Council is proposing to reduce the period

when collections stop to three months from December to February and the Council

hopes this will also be beneficial in helping to increase levels of recycling.

56. The Council recognises the risks of failing to meet statutory waste and recycling

targets, particularly the concern about the reducing environment grant, in its MTFP and

officer reports. The Council has made a provision for financial penalties in case it fails

to meet statutory waste and recycling targets. It has also invested in some changes to

its waste management arrangements, such as the capital provision for the purchase of

vehicles for Waste Savers and the production of an asbestos cell.

57. Given its stagnant performance in recent years, the Council is sensibly engaging with

the Welsh Government about its approach to waste and recycling, its performance and

future adherence to the Welsh Government blueprint. As part of this, we understand

the Council has also emphasised to the Welsh Government that it may be unable to

sustain meeting the budget gap left by the reduction in the environment grant. The


Council has invested £110,000 as part of its 2016-17 budget to support recycling

services to compensate for a reduction in external funding.

There is a lack of clarity on the governance, roles and responsibilities of members on outside

bodies and partnerships

58. Waste Savers is a registered charity, which since 2004 has provided a kerbside sort

recycling scheme for all of Newport’s residential properties. Waste Savers has an

income of approximately £1.1 million, of which approximately 50 per cent derives from

the Council and the remainder from the sale of recyclates.

59. A Board of Trustees governs the charity. The Chair of the Board of Trustees is a

Newport City Council councillor; another Newport City Council councillor is also a

Trustee. Both of these councillors have voting rights. One of these councillors is also a

member of the Council’s Street Scene, Regeneration and Safety Scrutiny Committee.

He has declared this interest on his annual declaration of interest but he has not

consistently declared an interest during relevant scrutiny meetings. The other

councillor has not identified his role as a Trustee of the charity on the Council’s annual

declaration of interests form. The Council acknowledges that all of those Councillors

who are Trustees of Waste Savers trustees should have declared that in the public

register of members’ interests and whenever any matters involving Waste Savers were

discussed at Committee.

60. Three other Newport City Council councillors, including the former Cabinet Member for

Street Scene and City Services, attend Waste Savers Board of Trustee meetings to

represent the Council but do not have voting rights. The Council does not have a

majority on the Board. The former Cabinet Member sits on the Board as an observer

but she has not identified her involvement in the charity on her annual declaration of

interest form. The other two councillors have.

61. The remit of the Street Scene, Regeneration and Safety Scrutiny Committee includes

waste and recycling and does consider issues relating to Waste Savers, such as

budget proposals. The Council should specifically consider how appropriate it is for a

member of this scrutiny committee to be a Trustee of Waste Savers, which is

providing services on behalf of, and receiving funding from, the Council. The

councillors, objectivity in their role on the scrutiny committee may be compromised.

62. The Council needs to ensure that members fully understand their roles on outside

bodies and that members adhere to the Council’s code of conduct in undertaking these

roles. We recognise that members often do hold roles on outside bodies but where

they are with an organisation that has a specific contractual type of relationship with

the Council, the Council and members need to be confident that conflicts of interest

are managed appropriately. The Council and members also need to consider whether

a perceived conflict of interest exists. It needs to consider whether a fair-minded

outside observer, acting reasonably, would conclude that there is a real possibility of

bias. The Council needs to assure itself that it has appropriate arrangements in place

to manage and minimise the risk of reputational damage both to the organisation and

to the members concerned.


The Council recognises that it will struggle to meet future statutory targets unless it increases recycling participation rates but lacks a comprehensive education and engagement plan to do this

63. Members and officers interviewed as part of this review agreed that educating the

public to recycle more was important in improving the Council’s recycling performance.

64. The Council’s Improvement Plan 2015-16 states that approximately 30 per cent of the

public are not participating in recycling. The Council cannot demonstrate how it derived

this figure and it is not clear if the Council fully understands why a third of the public

are not recycling. There are also differing views between the Council and Waste

Savers about the level of participation as Waste Savers believe the recycling

participation rate is about 85 per cent, 15 per cent more than the Council’s estimate.

The Council informs us that until recently, there was no updated data available.

However, the new door knocking campaign organised by the Council will provide more

up to date data and help the Council to target areas with lower recycling participation.

65. Both the Council and Waste Savers employ waste education and enforcement officers

but they do not meet or work together to target resources effectively to proactively

engage and educate the public. Since our fieldwork, we understand monthly meetings

with Waste Savers are now taking place and aim to improve collaboration and joint

planning as information on the different activities being carried out is shared.

66. There are a number of good examples of initiatives undertaken by the Council to

improve recycling, some of which have been targeted at areas of low participation,

such as the projects in Pill. Additionally, the Council has produced some good leaflets

about recycling, including the use of clear visuals, which would be understandable

regardless of language or nationality.

67. The Council secured £30,000 from Waste Awareness Wales at the end of 2014 to

deliver a project aimed at increasing dry and food waste recycling through a

door-knocking campaign in targeted geographical areas. This project took place in

February and March 2015 resulting in a slight increase in the amount of dry and food

waste recycled from February 2015 to the end of April 2015. We understand Cabinet

has decided to use its Invest to Save reserve as part of its 2016-17 budget to continue

with the door-knocking campaign.

68. The Council has made some progress in addressing our 2011 proposal for

improvement that it seek opportunities to increase recycling and waste re-use at

household waste amenity and bring sites. The Council has introduced a ‘meet and

greet’ service at its civic amenity site to educate the public on site and has increased

the level of staff at the site to do this, but it is unclear if it has evaluated the impact of

this approach. The business plan the Council is developing in conjunction with the

WRAP will consider whether the Council needs an additional civic amenity site.

69. The Council piloted its trolley-box scheme amongst 600 properties between October

and November 2015. The Council carried out the pilot in an area where it considered

recycling participation levels to be good. The Council also introduced weekly

cardboard collection in this area. The pilot tested whether it is possible to achieve the

required future 70 per cent recycling target through employing these changes.


We understand the Council’s evaluation of the pilot demonstrated that residents

welcomed the weekly cardboard collection but there was less capacity in the trolley

boxes for residents to recycle, waste operatives reported that the trolley boxes were

more difficult to use and the collection took longer. We understand the Council is

unlikely to progress with the trolley box scheme at this stage.

70. The Council has not taken a planned approach to its public participation activities and

pilots. It does not have a consolidated engagement and education plan setting out how

it will increase public participation, particularly how it would target areas of low

participation.

71. A common view expressed to us during this review was that as an urban authority with

a high level of transient population, meeting the 70 per cent recycling target required

from 2024-25 onwards would be a challenge for the Council. However, we found little

evidence that the Council has assessed or articulated how it could learn from other

urban authorities and cities across the UK. Moreover, the Council’s SWP does not set

out existing participation rates, trends and an analysis of participation per area and

demographics. Nevertheless, we are aware that the Council has developed good ward

profile information, which it could use to understand the impact of its demographics

and to address this with targeted actions.

72. Unless the Council increases the level of public participation in recycling and focuses

on reducing municipal waste, it is likely to struggle to meet the 70 per cent target.

The lack of a consolidated communication and engagement plan to address this has

undermined its progress to date.

More recently, the Council is working with key partners to improve waste and recycling performance but the management and monitoring of partnerships need to improve

73. The Council has a number of contracts for the collection and disposal of different

recycling materials and residual waste. For instance, it has key collaborations with

Waste Savers and Prosiect Gwyrdd6, and it is developing a food waste initiative with

other councils.

74. The Council has had a series of agreements with Waste Savers since 2004, which

have been relatively informal. The agreements have not included detailed performance

and other targets. The agreements required Waste Savers to produce an annual plan

and monitoring reports, however, Waste Savers did not provide these and the Council

did not monitor or insist on the production of this information. The Council’s

management of the agreement was informal and unstructured despite annual

6 Prosiect Gwyrdd is a partnership between Caerphilly Borough County Council, The County Council of the City and County of Cardiff, Monmouthshire County Council, Newport Council and Vale of Glamorgan Council. The combined municipal waste of the five authorities makes up 40 per cent of the total municipal waste of Wales. Prosiect Gwyrdd is committed to looking for the best environmental, cost effective and practical solution for waste after recycling and composting has been maximised in each area


expenditure of approximately £1 million on the contract. There have been no reports

on the performance of Waste Savers to the Council’s scrutiny committees or Cabinet.

75. A new agreement with Waste Savers commenced in April 2016 for a 10-year term.

The agreement now includes detailed performance measures and it outlines a

monitoring regime. Waste Savers will be required to produce monthly management

reports to include performance against the performance indicators and a detailed

annual report showing the forthcoming year’s service delivery plan. We understand

monthly meetings are now taking place between officers and Waste Savers with an

agreed agenda and terms of reference, at which performance is discussed. Quarterly

meetings between the Head of Street Scene and Waste Savers are also planned, with

the first one taking place in July 2016. Escalation procedures have also been

considered should concerns about performance arise. By the end of the financial year,

there will also be an end of year review to analyse performance for the year and set

the new targets and budget.

76. The Council has not market tested the agreements with Waste Savers but WRAP

undertook a detailed value for money analysis prior to the current agreement being

finalised. This analysis demonstrated that the agreement was providing value for

money. Waste Savers collect 15,000 tons of recycling a year, 0.003 per cent of which

goes to incineration, so the overwhelming majority is recycled.

77. The recent Welsh Local Government Association (WLGA) Waste Finance Data report

2014-157 demonstrated that Newport’s dry recycling service makes a significant

contribution to their overall recycling rate. Nineteen per cent of the total municipal solid

waste (MSW) was collected as dry recyclate via their kerbside collection scheme. The

WLGA report also identified that service cost is one of the lowest seen across the

group of councils reviewed, at £17 per household.

78. Prosiect Gwyrdd is the regional solution for residual waste in which most of the

south-east Wales councils, including Newport, are involved. The procurement was

carried out in accordance with Welsh Government advice and financial support.

The Council’s Director of Place was actively involved in the complex negotiations on

behalf of the Council. The contract was awarded to Viridor and the project was

operational before its formal commencement in April 2016. The project allows the

Council’s residual waste to be incinerated rather than being sent to landfill, thereby

removing the risk of exceeding landfill allowance targets and incurring fines.

79. The minutes of the Performance Board meeting in June 2015 state that the bottom ash

from the incinerator process would help to produce about five of the six per cent

increase in recycling performance needed to meet the 2015-16 target. We understand

that Natural Resources Wales has now agreed that the Council and others

participating in the Prosiect Gwyrdd contract will be able to claim a whole year of

recycled incinerator bottom ash (IBA), according to the input of residual waste on a

monthly basis. However, operational issues at the plant during the transitional year of

Prosiect Gwyrdd affected the amount of waste going through the incinerator process in

2015-16, thereby reducing the amount of bottom ash produced. The Prosiect Gwyrdd

7 WLGA Waste Finance Data Report 2014-15 published in March 2016.


contract comes into full force from 2016-17 and the Council hopes that this issue will

not be repeated.

80. The Council is in partnership with Rhondda Cynon Taf and Merthyr Tydfil Councils on

a food waste recycling contract, which came into effect on 20 July 2015. The Council is

also in the process of a joint procurement with Torfaen, Blaenau Gwent and

Monmouthshire councils for a new green waste contract as its current contract expires

at the end of March 2017. The Council has signed the memorandum of understanding,

which is in the process of being formally agreed by the other councils. The tendering

process is expected to start by September 2016.

81. To date, the Council’s focus has predominantly been on agreeing its residual waste

contract and its agreement with Waste Savers. The Council recognises that it needs to

consider complementary changes to the management of other sources of waste

making up the municipal waste stream. Since our fieldwork, the Council has informed

us that the review of waste services under the Collaborative Change Programme will

cover a full range of waste activities including trade services, household waste and

recycling sites and household collections. We understand changes to household

collections are already being implemented and a review of trade services is underway,

with actions to be implemented during 2017-18. Improvements to Household Waste

Recycling Centres have also been identified and the Council plans to implement these

during 2016-17 with longer term changes also being considered with potential

implementation during 2018.The Council needs to consider these improvements in the

context of the business plan it is developing in conjunction with the WRAP.

82. The performance management of contracts is the responsibility of individual service

areas. However, we have not seen any evidence of performance reports on waste and

recycling related contracts to members.

waste management review - newport ncc final waste... · page 5 of 24 - waste management...

Documents