Issue - meetings

Shaping the future of waste service provision in Surrey

 

 

Meeting: 26/09/2017 - Cabinet (Item 149)

149 Consultation on Proposed Changes to Surrey's Community Recycling Centres (Cost Reductions) pdf icon PDF 221 KB

Additional documents:

Decision:

RESOLVED:

 

The Cabinet agreed that:

 

1.    That a strategic network of CRCs will remain open for seven days a week. Other sites will be open at specified times as per the tabled document listing proposed CRC opening times.

  1. That the four CRCs at Bagshot, Cranleigh, Dorking and Warlingham remain open in light of the views submitted in the public consultation. Details of the proposed times of operation will be tabled at the Cabinet meeting;

 

  1. That the free daily allowance of chargeable waste from the construction, alteration or repair of homes and gardens such as rubble, plasterboard and soil is stopped from December 2017, as set out in paragraphs 27 to 28 of the submitted report;

 

  1. vans and trailers are excluded from CRCs at Bagshot, Caterham, Cranleigh, Dorking, Farnham and Warlingham from December 2017 as set out in paragraphs 29 to 31 of the submitted report;

 

  1. Residents from Bracknell Forest and Wokingham are excluded from Camberley, and that the Strategic Director, Environment & Infrastructure in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Environment and Planning agrees any further restrictions on non-Surrey residents using the sites in Camberley and Farnham following further discussions with Hampshire County Council, as set out in paragraphs 32 to 35 of the submitted report.

 

  1. Cabinet supports maximising the use of all CRC sites and achieving the best public value and that work continues to progress further efficiency measures at CRCs for example as stated in paragraphs 36 to 37 of the submitted report.

 

  1. the Surrey Waste Partnership is supported to promote the better use of kerbside services and other waste disposal services.

 

Reasons for decisions

 

At present there is spare capacity at the CRC network because of a reduction in throughput due to the previous changes. An adequate service can be retained if the above additional efficiency measures are implemented that will achieve an estimated cost reduction in a full year of £1.08 - £1.56 million. Table 3 in paragraph 43 gives a breakdown by efficiency measure. These recommendations take note of the views expressed in the public consultation and, the impact to the public (including those with protected characteristics) and the environment. If these recommendations are introduced it will reduce costs and provide better value for money for the Surrey taxpayer, whilst still maintaining a comprehensive service that supports the strategic aims of increasing recycling and reducing landfill, and meets its legal requirements as a Waste Disposal Authority.

 

[The decisions on this item can be called in by the Environment and Infrastructure Select Committee]

Minutes:

The Cabinet received a statement from Mr Jonathan Essex, Local Member for Redhill East. In his statement, Mr Essex made the following observations:

 

·         The Member welcomed  that the recommendations contained within the report did not propose closure of any of Surrey’s CRCS stating that this demonstrated the Cabinet had listened to some of the concerns of residents as expressed during the public consultation. Mr Essex did, however, articulate his concerns about the potential implications of reducing the opening hours of CRCs suggesting that it could increase instances of flytipping in the county and could discourage residents from recycling.

·         'He stressed that in line with supporting the amended motion at the council meeting that SCC had committed to investigate further options to improve the recycling service and that increasing recycling to meet our recycling target instead would save 5-6 million pounds, as confirmed by officers at the recent Environment and Infrastructure Select Committee. SCC should look to accelerate improvement of recycling rates across Surrey to exceed our 70 per cent target through 'invest to save' measures as an alternative to the current proposals. Also investing in new recycling (as opposed to energy from waste) infrastructure would give SCC an added incentive to raise recycling rates.

 

 

The Cabinet received a statement from Mr Stephen Cooksey, Local Member for Dorking South and the Holmwoods. Mr Cooksey made the following points in his statement:

 

·         The Member stated that CRCs had been one of SCC’s few success stories over recent years by deterring flytipping and enhancing recycling rates. The package of extended closure times and removal of the free daily allowance of chargeable waste proposed within the report would make it more difficult for people to recycle and, as a result, could lead to more flytipping and less recycling.

·         Attention was drawn to the 13,000 responses submitted during the public consultation which Mr Cooksey used to highlight the strength of feeling that existed among Surrey residents about the importance of CRCs.

·         Particular concerns were expressed about Dorking CRC which, if the recommendations were agreed, would be closed four days a week. The Member suggested that Cabinet Members from the Mole Valley area should oppose the recommendations based on that fact alone.

·         Mr Cooksey criticised the lack of clarity in the report stressing that projections had not been provided on flytipping, recycling rates or the potential revenue arising from the sale of recycled goods.

·         Finally, the Member suggested that removal of the free daily allowance could be open to legal challenge and that this should be investigated in more detail by the Council.

 

The Cabinet Member for Environment and Transport, Mr Mike Goodman, introduced the report and highlighting that the public consultation was fundamental in shaping the future of CRCs and that no decision had be taken on them prior to the  consultation taking place. Mr Goodman thanked all of the residents and stakeholders who had taken part in the consultation. The Cabinet Member stated that the consultation process had also encompassed discussions with  ...  view the full minutes text for item 149