Agenda item

Purpose of the report: Scrutiny of Services

The Committee has called in the Cabinet decision regarding community recycling centres.

Declarations of interest:

None.

Witnesses:

Richard Parkinson, Waste Operations Group Manager

Mike Goodman, Cabinet Member for Environment

Key points raised during the discussion:

1.    The Committee was provided by a number of papers by officers and Members of the Committee. These are included as an annex to the minutes.

2.    The Members that called in the process were invited to put forward their views and ask questions. The Committee was informed that the call in process had not been used lightly, and that the concerns set out in the papers would be addressed in turn:

Accuracy of fly-tipping data

3.    Members confirmed that the council did not collect data for fly-tipping incidents on private land. It was raised that any policy should not adversely affect private land owners, as Surrey taxpayers. It was also noted that the Committee was being presented with additional fly-tipping data that had not been available for Cabinet at the time the decision had been taken.

4.    Officers commented that fly-tipping data had been presented to the Committee on two recent occasions. The Committee was informed that the data in question demonstrated there had been reduction in fly-tipping in respect to chargeable waste, such as construction and demolition waste, and that this evidence would support the Cabinet decision.

5.    The Committee sought clarity on the detail of the fly-tipping figures. It was confirmed that the tonnage of fly-tipped waste that was collected by district and boroughs and disposed of by the Council was accurate as it was recorded on a weighbridge, however officers acknowledged that it was difficult to confirm the accuracy of the incident data, because different recording methodologies were applied by the different district and boroughs. It was on this basis that the incident data needed to be considered with a number of caveats, and had not been included in the Cabinet report.  

6.    The Committee was informed that district and boroughs had been consulted regarding the proposals, and that there had been concerns about the impact of the decision. The Cabinet Member acknowledged that the decision had been a difficult one for Cabinet, although it reflected the financial position of the Council and need to identify savings.

[Bernie Muir joined the meeting at 9.22am]

7.    The Committee observed that the number of recorded incidents of household waste fly-tipping had increased, and queried whether the change in policy would see a further increase. Officers commented that modelling for any proposal had to be based on past trends, and that evidence demonstrated that an introduction of charges had not led to an increase in fly-tipping in the types of waste for which a charge is made. It was noted that construction waste tonnage delivered to the Community Recycling Centres (CRCs) had reduced by 75% since an introduction of charges and there was no comparative increase in reported fly-tipping.

8.    The Committee was informed that, prior to the introduction of the charging scheme, the council’s waste management contractor had been commissioned to review how and where other local authorities had introduced charging. Officers commented that there were issues in making clear comparisons due to the different methodologies for collating fly-tipping data in different authorities.

9.    The Cabinet Member acknowledged that a recommendation had been made by the Committee in respect to improving data for fly-tipping on private land. It was proposed that work would commence with larger private land owners, such as the National Trust and Surrey Wildlife Trust, to capture such data and work with them to deal with the problem. The Cabinet Member anticipated a future update to the Committee and the Surrey Waste Partnership to update on how this had progressed.

Opening times

10.  Committee Members commented that the opening times had been tabled at the Cabinet meeting with no assessment on how this would impact on traffic or accessibility. The Cabinet Member expressed the view that the Committee had been engaged following the public consultation, and the new opening times had been developed following the recommendation it had made. It was noted that work had been undertaken to ensure that there were CRCs open seven days a week in order to take the Committee’s views into account. Officers highlighted that there had been work undertaken to ensure that disruption to residents was minimised by the proposals that had been drawn up.

11.  Committee Members commented that the principles behind the proposed opening times had been covered when the item had been considered on 7 September 2017. Members expressed the view that communicating the changes to residents should be a priority.

Legal position on charging

12.  The Committee reviewed the documentation from the Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (DEFRA). It was confirmed that legal advice had been sought by officers and the Cabinet Member, and that there was no legislative grounds on which to challenge the charging proposals.

Other options for consideration

13.  Committee Members shared proposals they had prepared to deliver the required savings through other mechanisms, such as increasing the quality of recycling collected. The Cabinet Member acknowledged that these were for a consideration by the Surrey Waste Partnership, and would not be within the power of the Council alone to implement. It was acknowledged that there was a need to consider the capital and revenue costs of implementing any new proposals, and that this require some negotiation between the various waste partners. The Committee was informed that the changes to CRCs would deliver savings from December 2017, where changes to kerbside collection systems would take more time. The Cabinet Member agreed to review the feasibility of the tabled proposals with officers and the Surrey Waste Partnership.

14.  The Committee voted on whether the Cabinet decision should stand. Seven Members voted to support the decision, and four against. There were no abstentions.

Recommendations:

The Committee recommends:

·         That the Cabinet decision regarding community recycling centres on 26 September is implemented

·         That the Committee receives a report on the actions taken to improve data capture of fly-tipping on private land (in three months)

·         That the Surrey Waste Partnership consider the options presented to the Committee and report back at a future date.

·         That services share an update detailing plans to communicate changes to residents with the committee