Agenda item

The Panel will consider a report which sets out the draft Kirklees Resource and Waste Strategy prior to full council in September 2021.

Contacts:

Sue Procter, Service Director – Highways & Streetscene
Will Acornley, Head of Operational Services
Natalie Clark, Programme Manager
Lory Hunter, Commercial & Technical Development Manager

The Panel considered a presentation on the Kirklees Resource and Waste Strategy presented by Sue Proctor, Service Director for Highways Street Scene, Environment and Climate Change and Will Acornley, Head of Operational Services.

Sue Proctor highlighted that:

·       The Waste Strategy has previously been to scrutiny and through different elements of the authority throughout its 2 years of development.

·       The engagement plan for Summer 2020 took place face-to-face and then virtually online in response to national covid-19 restrictions.

·       The consultation received a good response (over 23,000 online and over 7,000 to the consultation itself) and the vast majority of responses were constructive and aspirational for the authority.

·       The strategy outlined the strategic ambitions of the authority and was the overarching framework which established the principles on how the authority moved forward to manage resources and waste.

·       This was set against the backdrop of the current PFI (Private Finance Initiative) contract reaching its expiry.

·       The strategy was not a business case on how to deliver the aspirations or for the procurement of the next waste management contract.

·       Work was ongoing to develop business cases, but the strategy was the fundamental pillar in driving what the business cases needed to deliver. Approval of those business cases would be needed in moving forwards.

·       A key part of the strategy was the ‘reduce, reuse, recycle’ initiative which aimed to reduce the waste produced locally.

·       This involved working with local communities, businesses, and residents to change their relationship with waste, to instead see the materials that they usually throw away as resources.

·       The authority was still waiting to receive the government’s environment bill to provide clarity on what the authority would be required to deliver to achieve consistency across the nation.

Natalie Clark, Programme Manager, Environmental Services shared a presentation which outlined the Development of the strategy as follows:

o   Collection consistency framework (2018 – 2020). Was the proposal from government to ensure local authorities collect the same materials from the kerb side. The Collection consistency trial identified different options available and the impact.

o   Public engagement (October 2020 – January 2021). Shared the options with residents through consultation.

o   Scrutiny (December 2020) - Feedback was given on the engagement process to scrutiny. This was collated with the collection consistency framework and formulated the strategy, identifying 3 thematic sections:

o   Delivering Modern and sustainable services.

o   Leading by example.

o   Supporting Kirklees families and ensuring inclusions.

In response to a question from panel regarding dog excrement contaminating litter bins, Will Acornley advised that dog excrement could be placed in litter bins, although this could be offensive and could discourage people from emptying them. It was further advised the Panel that additional resources had been put in place in parks over weekends to keep on top of the issue.

In response to a question from the Panel regarding educating the larger public on waste disposal and how we compare with other authorities, Sue Proctor advised that engagement and education within the wider community rather than through schools was part of the engagement process. In focusing on encouraging local communities to engage within themselves, the champion scheme would bring local knowledge, experience, and local contacts together. Sue Proctor further explained that feedback identified some misunderstanding regarding what can go in which container and there was a need for further clarity on this.  The Panel was informed that further advise on this would be provided as the strategy moved forward and the enhanced team of waste advisors would have conversations with residents to help them to understand this.

The Panel were advised that the recycling rate was relatively poor in Kirklees in comparison to the national picture and other authorities. This was mainly due to the PFI contract being one of the earliest in the UK and was still very much focused on land fill diversion which led to the investment in waste facility. Since then, a contract with Suez had been built to recover more resources though recycling.

In response to a question from the Panel regarding the detail in the strategy, Will Acornley advised there were a number of business cases with much more detail on what the procurement would look like, but the strategy needed to be in place first. The Panel was informed that Scrutiny would be involved in the process at each phase.

A further discussion was held regarding the ethical nature of the strategy and how material would be processed downstream to ensure that ethical standards are maintained.   Will Acornley agreed with the moral aspects and explained that a careful decision had been made about what was added into green bins. It was advised that the Council needed to be transparent and although acknowledging Kirklees does have limited facilities, a cautious approach was required not to lose morality and impact on climate change standards.

The Panel highlighted the word aspirational was used often and noted some of the processes proposed were already in place in other authorities. Will Acornley agreed that some nuances of the strategy were ambitious, particularly the aim to move away from the Council facilitating everything, to connecting with the community and businesses and supporting them to come together to deliver outcomes.

The Panel questioned why Kirklees were behind in some areas in comparison to other authorities and queried when the drop in standard happened. They further suggested that it would be useful to see some data regarding this. The Panel also questioned some of the strategies being seen as potential schemes and in the interests of accountability requested that some baseline statistics, including numbers, percentages, and key performance indicators relating to the present and what was hoped to be achieved going forwards be provided to the Panel so they could review what progress was being made.

The Panel were also advised that Huddersfield had been chosen to trial the re-use scheme and queried why this was. Will Acornley explained Huddersfield was picked as the footprint as it was easier to work with for the purposes of the trial and therefore it could be rolled out quickly. The Panel acknowledged this but suggested that the trial be benchmarked against different areas.  In response the Panel were advised that other potential sites would need re-developing.

In respect of Kirklees being considered poor in comparison to other councils, Will Acornley explained that numerous factors were involved such as austerity, budget constraints, and more recent PFI’S in other authorities with more modern facilities. In response to the suggestion of Key Performance Indicators, Will Acornley explained these were threaded throughout the strategy document but agreed they were not obvious. He suggested it would be beneficial to summarise specific pieces of information in the strategy relating to key performance indicators for the Panel.

Councillor Mather thanked the Panel for their support for the initiatives outlined in the strategy and reminded the panel there had been a period of austerity which led to a reduction of capacity in services. The authority was beginning to invest in business cases with a view of Kirklees becoming exemplars again.

Will Acornley responded to a question regarding litter bins and explained that there were around 8,000 bins which the authority needed to rationalise, consider their condition and prioritize. This has been identified as one of the first priorities. Will advised caution was taken with the glass collections based on feedback from the consultation. Some concerns were raised regarding storage and collection, but most respondents were in favour of wheeled bins. He also added that the material stream was uncertain, and that the environment bill would bring a deposit return scheme which could potentially reduce the glass stream.

A question relating to the press release in March around glass collection at the kerb side was asked. Will Acornley clarified that there was commitment to trial kerb-side collections (under the assumption that the environment bill had passed) to bring the service back.

The Panel asked the question if choice could be given to the type of receptacle used to collect glass due to some types needed more than others.Will Acornley explained that understanding would be gained from the trail to show what worked well where. The Panel also asked if the bring sites received any funding, and the impact this could have on them. Will informed the panel bring sites receive no funding and are a zero cost to the authority.

A further discussion was held around fly tipping, particularly the speed of removal and whether a policy could be developed in relation to fly tipping on private land which provided timescales for removal and any charges incurred. Will Acornley explained that the fly tipping trial helped reduce the response time to reporting to removing waste within 3 days.

RESOLVED -

1.    The Panel noted the Kirklees Resource and Waste Strategy and thanked the presenting officers for their contributions.

2.    The Panel noted the significance of the educational aspects of the strategy, and it was agreed that it was important to make sure waste strategy is embedded across the Council.

3.    The Panel noted it would be useful for the re-use scheme trialled in Huddersfield to be benchmarked against different areas.

4.    It was agreed that some data showing where Kirklees’s standard had dropped in comparison to other authorities, and why this happened, be provided to the Panel.

5.    It was agreed that that the key performance indicators in the strategy be provided to the Panel along with specific statistics, including percentages and numbers, which showed what the current picture in Kirklees is, and what was to be achieved going forwards.