Agenda item

RESOLVED: That the Committee note the report.

5.1      Sam Kirk (Strategic Waste & Environment Manager) introduced the report to the Committee. The key points to note were:

§  At the Committee meeting in October 2014, four options were proposed:

o   Option 1 (Baseline plus garden waste): Refuse collected weekly, recycling collected co-mingled weekly and garden waste fortnightly;

o   Option 2: Refuse collected fortnightly, recycling collected twin stream (i.e. paper separately from the rest of the recycling) fortnightly and garden & food waste collected weekly;

o   Option 3: Refuse collected weekly, recycling collected twin-stream fortnightly and garden waste fortnightly;

o   Option 4: Refuse collected fortnightly, recycling collected twin stream fortnightly, garden waste collected fortnightly and food waste collected weekly.

§  Since the Waste Strategy last came to the Committee, a 5th option has been   proposed. This fifth option is the same as Option 4 except that instead of recycling collected twin stream (i.e. paper taken out), recycling remains as a co-mingled service:

o    Option 5: Refuse collected fortnightly, recycling collected co-mingled fortnightly, garden waste collected fortnightly and food waste collected weekly.

§  There may well be other changes to the Strategy going forward, in relation to how these options affect kerbside properties, properties within blocks, and houses being divided into houses of multiple occupation.

§  Officers are currently conducting a number of tests to ensure that the various options are compliant with the Waste Regulations.

§  Officers are also talking to other local authorities to identify any lessons learnt in relation to the various options.

§  The Committee also heard about the economic practicability of the options; for example:

o   the price of oil affecting both transport costs of shipping materials around the world and upon the commodity price of the material (e.g. plastic) against using virgin material.

o   despite contracts being in place, some local authorities are seeing paper mills turn away paper that is not of a high enough quality or has got wet after being stored in boxes for a week due to wet weather.

5.2      In response to questions from the Committee, the following was noted:

§  The purpose of the consultation is to engage with residents on the various approaches to managing waste in Lewisham.  As well as asking for people’s opinions, the consultation will also provide an opportunity to educate and inform the public. The precise elements of the consultation have yet to be agreed, but should involve public events and focus groups as well as the use of the online surveys and going directly to residents to garner their views.

§  The proposed charge for the annual subscription based garden waste service is £60 a year, and this would generate an income of approx. £787,000 if a 25% take up from garden properties was achieved.  Lewisham currently has about 4,000 unique users for its current request for garden waste service and by introducing a subscription based service it is hoped a more efficient and reliable service will be provided to householders.

§  Officers will investigate whether there are any local authorities that offer an opt-out on residents’ Council Tax bill if they do not have a garden, and thus have no garden waste to collect.

§  Street-level properties are the first property types to be looked at, and estate properties and other blocks, will be looked at in later phases, should the proposals be adopted.  In the meantime more research needs to be done to ascertain number and type of properties, number of containers each property may require and the frequency of collection from these properties. Officers are looking at what comparable local authorities have done to achieve the same aims.

§  The investment in SELCHP for Lewisham has led to minimal landfill rates and the waste has been generated into electricity, as well as supplying some homes in LB Southwark with heat and power. Progress needs to be made on recycling rates but the investment in SELCHP and the benefits to Lewisham should not be underestimated.

§  The Council has been talking to social entrepreneurs such as the London Re-use Network about innovate ways to recycle and reuse other waste in the borough.

§  In terms of collecting food waste for compost (for garden use), it would depend on the type of waste that Lewisham collects and the contract terms to see if this would be feasible.

§  Officers would clarify to Members whether all schools receive free recycling.

5.3       RESOLVED: That the Committee note the report.