Minutes:
(Mr. T. Walker, Head of Waste Management, attended in connection with this item.)
The Committee considered the undernoted report:
“1 Purpose of Report
1.1 To recommend an approach for the provision of a kerbside glass collection service in the blue bin and Local Government Reform (LGR) areas, following discussions arising from the revenue estimate challenge process.
2 Background
2.1 The EU Waste Framework Directive places a statutory obligation on the UK to achieve a 50% recycling rate by 2020. The NI Waste Management Strategy ‘Delivering Resource Efficiency’ re-iterates this target locally and references the prospective requirement to reach a 60% recycling rate for Local Authority Collected Municipal Waste (LACMW) by 2020.
2.2 In addition to the arc21 Waste Plan, the Council has developed the ‘Towards Zero Waste’ Action Plan 2012-15 (ZWAP) aimed at delivering these targets during this term of Council.
2.3 One of the initiatives contained within the Action Plan is the collection of glass from households in the blue bin area and, at the time of drafting this Plan, it was anticipated that once fully introduced this initiative would contribute an additional 2.5% to the Council’s recycling rate.
2.4 Given delays in the original plans for a glass collection service procured by arc21 in 2012/13, Members from the Health & Environmental Services Committee had previously agreed to a pilot scheme, currently comprising 22,000 households. When the arc21 tender process was terminated due to affordability issues, Members agreed at the January 2014 Committee meeting that the Council should commence a procurement exercise to deliver this service specifically for Belfast.
2.5 As a result of this approval, Waste Management had liaised with Corporate Procurement Services and developed a timetable for the delivery of this exercise. The Service has also successfully applied for and been granted Department of the Environment (DOE) Rethink Waste capital grant funding of £276,000 with the proviso that this money must be spent in the 2014/15 financial year.
2.6 As part of the 2015/16 revenue estimates setting process and to determine the likely costs arising from Local Government Reform (LGR), the Service has been involved in a number of Challenge panels. At the latest Challenge panel in September the glass project was identified as a potential area for savings. In order to meet the project timetable and demands of the DOE grant funding process, the tender notification needs to twin track the council’s governance procedures and should approval be declined the tender shall not be awarded.
3 Key Issues
3.1 This report examines the implications of a cancellation or delay of the kerbside glass collection scheme.
3.2 Cancellation – The introduction of kerbside glass collection scheme within the blue bin and LGR areas will be key to the Council achieving the 50% household recycling rate by 2020. This proposal has been projected to provide an additional 2.5% to the recycling rate and is the last of the ‘easy wins’ in terms of generating tonnage for the Council. As such, the cancellation of this project would jeopardise achievement of the 50% target.
3.3 Delay – If the introduction of the project was delayed for up to 2-3 years, there would be a number of advantages and disadvantages associated with this decision.
Advantages
3.4 Financial – a delay would result in an operating cost saving of around £211,000 per annum which could lessen the financial pressure upon the Council in early LGR years.
3.5 Efficiencies – the Service is aware that through the iESE discussions, and with the introduction of route optimisation in early 2015, efficiency gains are anticipated. This could reduce the resources required to collect the dry recyclable bins. As the contractor will be expected to match their box collection service with the same day as the recycling bins, if there is a rationalisation of the blue bin routes, it could be expected that something would similarly apply within the glass collection contract. A delay would allow any rationalisation to bed in and reduce the prospect of any in-built obsolescence and associated costs.
3.6 Further, arc21 is currently conducting a market scoping exercise on kerbside glass collection. Any delay could factor in the results of this work.
Disadvantages
3.7 Financial – The council will lose the £276,000 secured from the DOE. This sum would need to be added to the baseline cost in future years.
3.8 Reputational Risk – the reputational risk amongst a number of stakeholders is substantial should the Council’s recycling rate plateau or start to decline and returning the grant funding at a late stage in this financial year is likely to cause scepticism and reputational damage amongst DOE officials,
3.9 Householders – Under ZWAP, with the introduction of the pilot scheme, and in discussions with the press and publications such as ‘City Matters’, statements/commitments have been made to householders in Belfast that the full scheme is likely to be rolled out in 2015,
3.10 Pilot Scheme – The pilot scheme to 22,000 households is already operational and it would be beneficial to mainstream this scheme at the earliest opportunity, rather than remain a pilot requiring specific communications and additional costs for Cleansing Services associated with providing an incomplete service.
3.11 Bring Banks – The council has a number of glass bring banks cited at Recycling Points and Centres which are likely to be impacted upon by this scheme. The Service proposes to carry out a review to determine whether the existing provision can be streamlined as part of this initiative in order to offset the costs of the new service. This review may show that these sites could be used to accept other materials.
3.12 Additional Materials – It is intended that the glass kerbside collection contract will explore the option for accepting other materials, such as small WEEE, providing enhanced value-for-money, increased customer satisfaction and further instilling behaviour and attitude change and establishing recycling as the norm.
3.13 Recycling Rate – In recent years, Belfast’s recycling rate has gained momentum and the council is now amongst the front runners in its benchmark group. Delaying the introduction of the last obvious waste stream is likely to result in this momentum being lost and the recycling rate plateauing.
4 Resource Implications
4.1 Financial Implications
The estimated, additional net cost for providing the glass collection service across the new Council area, post LGR, is £211,000 per annum. If the proposals are approved, these costs will be included within the revenue estimates for 2015/16 presented to Committee as part of the rate setting process.
4.2 Human Resources
There are no human relations issues associated with this report.
5 Recommendation
5.1 On considering the advantages and disadvantages of either cancelling or delaying the introduction of a full kerbside glass collection scheme, especially those connected with the finances (both expenditure and grant aid) and the impact upon the recycling rate, it is recommended that the proposal proceeds as originally approved by Members in January 2014 (i.e. that procurement continues and the Service seeks to roll-out the scheme in the 2015/16 financial year, with delegated authority granted to the Director to award the tender).”
After discussion the Committee adopted the recommendations.