Issue - items at meetings - waste strategy?

6.1       The Head of Strategy set out the context of the Waste Management Strategy and Consultation plan; landfill sites closing with no plans for new sites; European Union landfill tax and possible fines; national recycling targets; and costs lower for recycling than for disposal.

6.2       In 2002 – 2003 as much as 85% of household waste had been landfilled. Now, recyclables were collected from over 90% of households and household waste recycling in total had increased to 28%. The amount of household waste was reducing and the proportion sent to landfill had been reduced to 44%.

6.3       The Draft Waste Management Plan dealt with municipal waste which is mainly household waste. The council had no direct responsibility for business waste.  The Strategy had been developed in-house with technical support from a research consultancy reviewing best practice from the UK and abroad.

6.4       If everyone recycled all the materials for which there is a collection service, the recycling rate would increase to 37%, he said.

6.5       Answering questions the Head of Strategy agreed the 32% recycling and composting target for 2012/2013 did not seem ambitious. However the targets were not aspirations and had been set based on what could realistically be achieved. People did want to recycle and compost more but the City produced relatively little garden waste.

6.6       For dealing with food waste further feasibility studies were to be done and this was welcomed. Independent research showed that food waste collection in areas of high density housing (city centres) was difficult, participation rates were higher in areas with fortnightly refuse collection and the best environmental option for dealing with food waste was not yet clear-cut.

6.7       Regarding the effect of communal bins on recycling rates; the collection rounds for refuse and for recycling did not match up geographically so it was difficult to make direct comparisons. Recycling rates were thought to be lower in the city centre which may partly be due to faster turnover of residents (who would not necessarily know how to access services) and lack of storage space for recycling boxes. Communal recycling was to be subject to a trial. This was welcomed by the Committee.

6.8       No date had yet been set for working with supermarkets; waste minimisation was one of the most difficult areas for the Council to influence.

6.9       Tetrapak constituted less than 1% of the waste stream and had to be transported to Scandinavia for processing.

6.10    The Committee acknowledged that local authorities were limited in the action they could take but some Members felt that the strategy should go further.  Points made included:

a)     Too much emphasis was being put into communications which would not necessarily increase recycling rates

b)     Opposition to energy recovery

c)      Analysis of residual waste produced in Brighton & Hove did not match with assumptions about food waste analysis in the Beyond Waste revised life cycle analysis (Appendix 1 Policy 4)

d)     Future recycling/composting targets including for 2020/21 appear to be weak

e)     Strategy needs to be more adventurous if future extra EU landfill fines of £150 per tonne are to be avoided.

f)        Residents want to be engaged with the strategy and additional ways of doing this should be used.

6.11         Members were particularly concerned that the best use is made of food waste. 

6.12    It was agreed that a map showing charity shops in the city would help to increase re-use.

6.13    Timing of commercial waste collections were discussed; 6am collections could wake residents although collections during the day would result in bins being on the street during busy times having a negative impact on business.

6.14    RESOLVED - that the above comments including dealing with food waste be forwarded for inclusion as the Committee’s response to the Waste Management Strategy and Consultation Plan.