Agenda item

Resolved: that the report be noted.

6.1    Nigel Tyrell (Head of Environment) and Wendy Nicholas (Strategic Waste and Environment Manager) introduced a presentation and the report. The following key points were noted:

·         Lewisham sent very little waste to landfill. The incineration of waste at the South East London Combined Heat and Power plant (SELCHP) helped the Council to avoid approximately £5m in disposal costs each year, based on current costs.

·         Until now, if the Council had wanted to increase its recycling rate, it would have incurred extra costs to do so because of the efficiency of the contract with SELCHP.

·         When the SELCHP contract ended in 2024, incineration costs would increase.

·         The current work to recycle food waste and improve dry recycling would help to avoid future costs at SELCHP.

·         A large proportion of household waste (by weight) was made up of food.

·         There were a number of drivers and opportunities informing the development of the Council’s approach to managing its waste.

·         The implementation of the new service had been delayed slightly, but changes recycling, residual waste, food waste and garden waste collection would be brought in together (in October 2017).

·         Under exceptional circumstances, households would be provided with a larger refuse (residual waste for landfill/incineration) bin.

·         A communication strategy was in place to inform residents about the new service. Letters would be sent to all kerbside properties, posters would be put up in prominent places and postcards would be handed out at a number of places around the borough to raise awareness.

·         ‘Waste advisors’ would be holding roadshows and visiting homes to advise people about the new service.

·         Complaints or requests would be dealt with through the Council’s website. There would also be a dedicated email address for residents.

6.2    Information about fly-tipping and fixed penalty notices was circulated at the meeting and is attached to the agenda.

6.3    Nigel Tyrell, Wendy Nicholas, Kevin Sheehan and Michael Bryan (Service Group Manager, Waste Management) responded to questions from the Committee. The following key points were noted:

·         The Council did not have responsibility for collecting fly-tipping on private land or that which was owned and managed by housing associations.

·         Information about the tonnages of fly-tipping being collected each month indicated that it was not increasing. But as the number of street sweepers and collection rounds had been reduced, to save money, fly-tipping was being collected less quickly, which gave the perception that there was more fly-tipping taking place.

·         A range of initiatives were taking place to reduce fly-tipping. Including the use of cameras.

·         An approach was being trialled to enable residents to access CCTV cameras in order to preview the footage and pass the relevant information to the Council’s enforcement team.

·         This approach was currently being trialled with one resident in Whitefoot ward.

·         The new food waste bins locked, to prevent vermin from accessing the contents.

·         Dog waste could be placed in the residual waste bin or in bins in parks or streets.

·         Officers had worked with boroughs that had already implemented new waste services, including new food waste collections, to learn about the potential issues and problems.

·         One of the key things that officers had learnt from the visits to other Councils that that it was important to be clear about the Council’s policies from the outset and to stick to the rules as much as possible.

·         The waste service was collecting lots of information about recycling and waste in each ward. This enabled it to target work in particular areas that were experiencing problems.

·         The communication campaign for the new service would include a range of leaflets as well as stickers and tags for bins.

·         Introducing a ‘community skip’ in the south of the borough would be problematic, because it would likely encourage the creation of a new dumping ground in the borough, which would be quickly overwhelmed.

·         Officers were reluctant to use fake cameras for fly-tipping because there was a risk that people (for example those who were victims of a crime in the vicinity of the camera) would anticipate that they could rely on the footage when this was not the case.

·         Officers were using all available technology to maximise the effectiveness of their approach to enforcement.

6.4    In the Committee’s discussion, the following key point was also noted:

·         Councillors in Whitefoot ward had developed new leaflets about fly-tipping and waste that could be shared with other Members.

6.5    Resolved: that the report be noted.