Issue - meetings

The Environment Service has identified a number of efficiency measures in the operation of Community Recycling Centres (CRCs) that will lead to operational cost reductions of £1.8 million per year.

The CRCs are the most highly rated service provided by SCC, with over 80% of users stating that they are satisfied or very satisfied with the service. A public consultation was carried out over the summer seeking Surrey residents’ and other stakeholders’ views on the cost savings options (Para 17).

Having taken into consideration these factors, this report recommends implementing changes that will:

·          Reduce contract costs and improve efficiencies.

·         Retain all fifteen existing CRCs and ensure these are operated efficiently.

·         Protect the use of the sites for the deposit of household waste by Surrey residents, by excluding the free use of sites by traders, and enabling Surrey residents to deposit reasonable amounts of non-household waste.

·         Retain a comprehensive service but with a reduction in opening times, and days, when sites are less well used on value for money grounds.

·         Develop a strategy to tackle fly tipping in Surrey.

[The decision on this item may be called in by the Economic Prosperity, Environment and Highways Scrutiny Board]

That changes, as set out below, are implemented as soon as is operationally possible:

1.       Officers continue to work with SITA Surrey to pursue operational efficiencies and cost reduction measures.

2.       Officers continue to work with SITA to enforce the Council’s existing trade waste and resident scheme policies.

3.       Weekday opening hours at the Community Recycling Centres be reduced at the least busy times in order to ensure the sites run as efficiently as possible.

4.       Opening days be reduced in order to fit with demand for the service, but to ensure that a number of sites are always made available to residents on a daily basis.

5.       Charging to cover costs for non-household items, comprising large gas bottles and car tyres, should be implemented across the service.

6.       Charging to cover costs for asbestos should not be implemented.

7.       That authority be delegated to the Strategic Director, Environment and Infrastructure, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Environment and Planning to devise how to implement a charging scheme which allows residents to deposit small amounts of inert building material and plasterboard free of charge.

8.       Reuse shops will be opened at suitable sites across the network to reduce waste sent for disposal and generate additional income.

9.       That authority be delegated to the Strategic Director, Environment and Infrastructure, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Environment and Planning to lead a new initiative to co-ordinate and enhance the fly-tipping investigation, prevention and enforcement activities of district and borough councils, the Police and the Environment Agency.

Reasons for Decisions:

All council services are required to consider options for cost reduction. Any savings must be recommended with due regard to the customer and stakeholder views expressed through consultation. As Annex 2 of the submitted report shows, there are times and days when it is not value for money to operate the sites.

[The decision on this item may be called in by the Economic Prosperity, Environment and Highways Scrutiny Board]

Prior to the Cabinet Member for Environment and Planning introducing the report, the Chairman of the Economic Prosperity, Environment and Highways Scrutiny Board was invited to speak.

He informed Members that his Scrutiny Board had considered the proposals for shaping Surrey’s Community Recycling Centres (CRCs) and that his overall position was to support the proposals, in principle. However, he made two suggestions for consideration: they should have an environmental benefit and also that any recycling should be viable.

The Cabinet Member for Environment and Planning began his introduction by recognising the high regard that residents had for the community recycling centres and said that this Council had recognised this by investing over £9m in upgrading them in recent years.

However, he said that, with the financial pressures the Council faced, particularly in adult social care and education, CRCs could not remain immune from cost saving scrutiny.

He explained the consultation process undertaken and said that over 4500 members of the public and other organisations had responded and that the proposals set out in the report took the feedback into account. Also, that officers were engaging with the contractor SUEZ to identify further opportunities for efficiencies and cost savings.

He highlighted the key proposals from the report and commended them to Cabinet.

Finally, he said that he recognised the concerns that of some of those responding to the consultation had, with regard to the potential for an increase in fly tipping and said that the Council was working with the relevant partners to develop a Surrey fly tipping strategy. He also informed Cabinet that he was meeting Rory Stewart, the Government Minister regarding Surrey’s approach to waste and would be seeking Government support.

Other Members of the Cabinet considered that this was a good report and made the following points:

·         Making use of Social Media, including Twitter and Facebook

·         An assurance that residents would be made aware of any changes to the opening times at their recycling centres

·         The importance of balancing this provision alongside other County Council services, whilst still providing Value for Money. 

RESOLVED:

That changes, as set out below, are implemented as soon as is operationally possible:

1.       Officers continue to work with SITA Surrey to pursue operational efficiencies and cost reduction measures.

2.       Officers continue to work with SITA to enforce the Council’s existing trade waste and resident scheme policies.

3.       Weekday opening hours at the Community Recycling Centres be reduced at the least busy times in order to ensure the sites run as efficiently as possible.

4.       Opening days be reduced in order to fit with demand for the service, but to ensure that a number of sites are always made available to residents on a daily basis.

5.       Charging to cover costs for non-household items, comprising large gas bottles and car tyres, should be implemented across the service.

6.       Charging to cover costs for asbestos should not be implemented.

7.       That authority be delegated to the Strategic Director, Environment and Infrastructure, in consultation with  ...  view the full minutes text for item 231

Purpose of the report: Scrutiny of Services/ Policy Development

To enable scrutiny of proposals to change the service offered at the Community Recycling Centres (CRCs) to reduce costs and meet savings targets.

These proposals are due to be presented to Cabinet in November.

Declaration of Interests:

None.

Witnesses:

Richard Parkinson, Waste Group Manager

Ian Boast, Assistant Director for Environment

Mike Goodman, Cabinet Member for Environment and Planning

Justin Foster, Waste Contract Manager

Key points raised during the discussion:

1.    A presentation was shown to the Board outlining key results from a public consultation around potential changes to Surrey’s Community Recycling Centres (CRCs). The presentation explained that Surrey’s residents valued Community Recycling Centres very highly, and that their biggest concern was that if Centres were to close there would be an increase in fly-tipping. It was suggested that savings could be made from the following options:

a.    Reducing site opening hours

b.    Closing sites per day per week instead of a full closure

c.    Charging residents for certain kinds of household wastes

d.    Adding further support to re-use schemes at CRC sites.

2.    It was explained that fives kinds of non-household waste had potential to become chargeable items, these were:

a.    Soil and rubble, a saving could be made from lowering the current personal allowance cap, after which a charge is applicable.

b.    Asbestos, however charges would see little return and asbestos is expensive to clean up when fly-tipped, so it would be preferable to not add any charges for its legal disposal.

c.    Plasterboard, however setting charging limits would be difficult to police. Large amounts should be charged for but smaller amounts may be accepted for free.

d.    The quantity of tyres brought to CRCs has increased recently. Adding a charge similar to that of motor trade companies could cover their disposal.

e.    Gas bottles should be returned to their supplier for re-use. Adding a charge could encourage this or cover the cost for this process.

3.    Officers outlined some projected saving possibilities around general efficiencies, re-use schemes, charging models for certain non-household wastes, reducing opening hours and site closure options (in general terms, there were no discussions around particular site closures).

4.    A discussion around the approach of the public consultation confirmed that respondents were able to give their preferences to the savings measures listed above. It was explained that further information on the consultation responses would be made available to Members.

5.    Members suggested that as Surrey residents appreciate and value the CRCs so highly, any full site closures would be a very unpopular.. Therefore, if any changes to opening hours or site operations were to be made in the future, these would need to be effectively communicated with residents and users of the CRC sites.

6.    Concerns were raised over the negative impact changes may have on customers and their DIY disposal methods. It was mentioned that fly-tipping continues to be a nuisance and expensive for the Council to clean up. However most fly-tipped material is non-household waste and businesses need to be targeted to reduce this practice. The Cabinet Member explained that he had met with the Police and Crime Commissioner of Surrey to discuss issues around fly tipping. The service would be working with partners to produce  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8