Agenda item

The Panel will receive a presentation of the Environmental Services Client Manager: Waste, Recycling & Streets. The slides are attached to the agenda.

A background paper to the contract is also included.

The Section Head, Waste, Recycling and Streets gave a presentation on the waste and recycling contract with Veolia.

During the presentation he responded to member’s questions as follows:

·        Explained that there had been approximately 150 members of staff when the contract was previously ‘in house’.  He understood that the staff employed on the present contract were paid over the living wage and that none were engaged on zero hours contracts.  He undertook to clarify this and report back to the Panel.

·        Informed the Panel that some residents, who had little space for storing bins on their properties, used the smaller 140 litre commingled bins.  In some instances recycling could be placed in to the old boxes but this was not ideal.

·        Discussed how the council compared to other local authorities in respect of recycling.  Watford had a unique and urban demography - with Stevenage Borough Council being the most similar to Watford.  Councillor Taylor explained that the figures were 2% higher than last year.  However, the large number of flats in the borough caused a challenge with regard to organic waste.  It was difficult to compete with Three Rivers District Council owing to the demographics of Watford.

The Chair discussed issues around the frequency of collections and the emptying of bins when they did not contain much waste.  Members suggested other possible collection methods and the Section Head, Waste, Recycling and Streets explained that he was open to consider other approaches.

In response to further questions from members; the Section Head, Waste, Recycling and Streets:

·        Clarified that when rubbish was transferred to Veolia they took on the risks.  These risks related to such issues as contamination and whether a vehicle was overloaded for example.

·        Explained that the move from West London to the company Envar (in Cambridge) had enabled compostable waste sacks to be accepted.   Incentives were given to residents to encourage them to use these sacks.

·        Informed the Panel that good practice on planning policy (in respect of commercial premises turned in to domestic properties and the waste implications) had been sought from other councils – although there were limitations on what could be done.  The objective was to get owners to sign up to a particular means of collection.  The intention was to seek a robust planning policy; such as in relation to high rise properties.  He advised that a high rise property was defined as having in excess of five floors.  He added that there were many homes in multiple occupation in Watford, and the council was looking to work with other local authorities to identify the best collection methodologies.

·        Advised that residual waste comprised of items that could not be recycled; and went to landfill for example.

·        Explained that the council was supportive of any measures to encourage manufacturers to make all plastic recyclable.  Environmental Services constantly looked at ways of reinforcing messages – such as with supermarkets.

·        Clarified that it was appropriate to put used tea bags in to composted waste.

·        Advised how cardboard waste from shops was disposed of; with reliance placed on the shop owner.  He understood that this waste was collected by a private company, but undertook to find out the exact procedure from Veolia.

·        Informed the Panel that with regard to green compost bins, the first bin in every household was emptied free of charge.  There would then be a cost of £35 a year for every extra green bin to be emptied.  This was because the service was expensive and not a statutory obligation.  The recent consultation (where everyone with an additional green bin was approached) had indicated that 50% of households had and been in favour of the charge.  In fact, Three Rivers District Council charged for all green waste and still had a very high take up with the service.  The council would be conducting publicity in advance of the green bin charging.  He concluded, in relation to homes with larger gardens generating more garden waste; that the council was promoting home composting as a way of reducing household costs.

Members discussed perceived problems around the removal of leaves from streets in the autumn.  The Section Head, Waste, Recycling and Streets undertook to speak to Veolia about processes in the Park Avenue, Mildred Avenue and New House Crescent areas.  Councillor Taylor explained that if the general Veolia number was contacted, leaves would be removed within 48 hours.  He added that high winds could impact on the volume of leaves in localities and that Veolia had a detailed programme of leaf removal.  In response to a question from members, the Section Head, Waste, Recycling and Streets explained that he believed that street sweepers (when removing litter) were encouraged to report on locations with a high deposit of leaves – he would investigate whether this was the case and report back to the Panel.

In response to additional questions from the Panel; the Section Head, Waste, Recycling and Streets:

·        Confirmed that there was a schedule of works for tree and verge maintenance.  He undertook to find out how this was aligned to the County Council work programme - and with particular regard to Hudson Close.  He also undertook to investigate with Veolia whether they conducted litter removal on verges before cutting the grass.

·        Explained that ‘high speed road’ cleaning referred to the cleaning of arterial and main roads – this was mainly conducted at night.

RESOLVED that –

1.      the Panel note the presentation.

2.      the actions requested be undertaken.