Further to minute 19 (20.03.2024), the Assistant Director (Operations) informed the Committee that the Government had now published its ‘Simpler Recycling’ proposals which would introduce the following for domestic collections:-

·         all properties must receive a separate collection of dry recyclables (paper, cardboard, plastic, metal and glass) from the kerbside by 31 March 2026; 

·         all properties must have a weekly separate weekly food waste collection from the kerbside by 31 March 2026;

·         garden waste collections must be offered to all properties by 31 March 2026;

·         all properties must have a plastic film kerbside collection by 31 March 2027; and

·         residual waste must be collected at least every two weeks.

It also included proposals for the collection of waste from businesses. Businesses must have the following waste collections by the dates set out below:-

·         dry recyclables (paper, cardboard, plastic, metal and glass) by 31 March 2025;

·         food waste collections by 31 March 2025; and

·         plastic film collections by 31 March 2027.

The report presented Members with the proposed changes to the Council’s waste & recycling service in response to the Government’s ‘Simpler Recycling’ proposals which would see the Council adding glass to its co-mingled recycling service. The other change will see food waste collected in separate vehicles from refuse and recycling.

Following consideration of all available information, the following three proposals were put forward for consideration in order to take forward the waste & recycling service over the coming years:-

·         Option 1 - Fully co-mingled recycling collection (including glass) with food collected in same vehicle as refuse/recycling;

·         Option 2 - Fully co-mingled option (including glass) with food collected in separate vehicle as refuse/recycling; and

·         Option 3 - Part co-mingled recycling collection service with paper/card collected separately from glass, plastic and metals.

The report presented details on all three options together with the pros and cons and a financial evaluation.

Following consideration of all options, the Assistant Director (Operations) advised that option 2 was recommended as the best way forward. This option would result in the service being fully co-mingled (including glass) with food collected in separate vehicles. The service would provide:-

·         residual waste collected every two weeks;

·         recycling collected every two weeks - co-mingled collection of paper, cardboard, plastic, metal and glass;

·         food waste collected weekly; and

·         food collected separate from residual / recycling using smaller RCV’s.

The inclusion of glass in the co-mingled recycling would be an easy change so would be implemented as quickly as possible. The addition of glass to the recycling service would have a positive impact on the borough’s recycling rate.

The other changes to the service including the change of collection vehicles would be implemented over the next 12-18 months dependant on the funding available and procurement timescales for the vehicles.

As part of the changes to the service, a rescheduling exercise will also be carried out to make sure the new service was as efficient as possible.

The Assistant Director (Operations) welcomed the views of the Committee prior to the decision being taken by the Portfolio Holder.

The Committee welcomed the introduction of glass collections as the communal recycling sites/bottle banks can be a nuisance/look unsightly.

The Committee noted that these proposals had been imposed by the Government and asked whether the Council would receive grant funding and whether this funding would be long-term. The Assistant Director (Operations) advised that there was and would continue to be a number of funding streams which the Council could pursue. Once live, the intention would be for it to be industry funded via Extended Producer Responsibility; producers would need to cover the cost for the recycling of their products. 

The Committee supported option 2 as the best way forward.