Agenda item

The Director of Neighbourhood and Environmental Services submits a report providing a summary of the Household Waste Collections Engagement Survey including the approach to the engagement survey, the key lines of enquiry in the form of its objectives and scope.

The Director of Neighbourhood and Environmental Services submitted a report providing a summary of the Household Waste Collections Engagement Survey including the approach to the engagement survey, the key lines of enquiry in the form of its objectives and scope.

The Deputy City Mayor, Housing, Economy and Neighbourhoods, introduced the item.

• She explained that Waste services generated significant interest in the city because it was a visible service delivered directly by the Council to residents. The proposed changes to waste collection aimed to align with the growing trend of increasing recyclables, separating food waste, and diverting as much waste as possible from landfills. Many other local authorities had already begun adjusting their frequency of waste collection. However, with any changes made, the Council intended to fully involve the community, recognising their feeling and opinions, and responding to their proposals. The first step toward this was the engagement survey which covered different themes.
• The Deputy City Mayor highlighted that the waste management services contract between the Council and Biffa was due to expire in 2028, and recommissioning under the current terms would be unaffordable by the council, particularly given the well-known financial challenges being faced by the council, and other local authorities in general.
• She further affirmed that the proposed changes were also driven by the new legislation requiring local authorities to focus on reducing the volumes of waste, increasing the proportion of recycling and collecting food waste. This presented an opportunity for the Council to educate the community about recycling, as the survey revealed certain knowledge gaps in this area; as well as make the new system more accessible and simplified. 
• She acknowledged the difficulty of implementing these changes, particularly given that the current scheme was viewed as successful, and there was understandably hesitation and uncertainty about changing the frequency of collection. However, the engagement survey explored various waste-related issues and gathered valuable data on the perspectives and reality of the communities. The survey delved into topics such as willingness to pay for caddy liners, knowledge about recycling, indoor and outdoor storage space for extra bins based on size and type of houses, among others. The information gathered were informative and would be incorporated into future decisions.
• The Director for Neighbourhoods and Environmental Services expanded on the previous points and highlighted the following;
• Many Local Authorities were rolling out different collection streams, like food waste collection, etc., in alignment with the national change programme. Thus, Leicester City Council needed to procure beyond 2028 and adapt is approach to reflect national expectations.
• There was a need to further engage residents to provide them with the necessary understanding and knowledge, which was expected to become easier as the new collection regime became standardised. This knowledge would be key to securing resident support for the proposed changes.

Members commended the report and proposed the following;

·       That the scheme be aligned with the Net Zero Strategy that was recently agreed at the Council. This was noted by officers.

·       For the report to include a section that clearly outlines action points arising from survey responses, with timescales, recommendations, and responsible owners, to help members focus on key issues. Officers responded that while some actions could be implemented quickly, others would require fundamental service changes. Regardless, ultimate responsibility rested with the Director.

·       A timetable and action plan to be brought in the future to update on progress.

In response to further questions, it was noted that;

·       The team worked with schools to deliver messages to the children and hopefully contribute to behavioural change.

·       The Council was incurring significant expenditure on the collection and treatment of household waste and recycling from the kerbside. The cost of processing food waste was also more than that of mixed recycling or disposal into a landfill.

·       The use of blue bags to request additional recycling bags had shown improvement compared to the use of stickers. However, improved monitoring would be done to assess the effectiveness of the same.

·       There were different methods for food waste collection, e.g. the modification of the vehicle body. The team was currently engaging with Biffa on implementing service changes, including food waste collection, which was expected to result in a cost increase of approximately £1.7 million.

·       Regarding the request for a breakdown of the contract with Biffa, it was noted that the sum was a unitary charge, and it was not plausible to break down sums payable for recycling or residual waste as had been requested.

·       On the possibility of exceptions for households requiring more frequent collections to prevent fly-tipping, it was explained that the engagement survey aimed to identify barriers and challenges faced by people in different settings.  However, a one-size-fits-all all seemed most practical moving forward, with policy exceptions, which the Council would ensure were robust and captured vulnerable communities prone to fly-tipping.

·       Regarding the consideration of the Council employing staff and managing waste directly, it was noted that an internal report had been examined, and the Executive concluded that such a proposal would be unsustainable in the current climate.

·       A typical Leicester bin contained about 31% non-recyclable waste and 39% food waste. Additionally, around three-quarters of respondents did not fill their bins by the collection day. This information was critical for the residents to understand the broader context of the decisions that the council would take.

·       The team was working on an evidence-based recommendation report, which would be circulated and presented at a future meeting.

AGREED:

1) That the presentation be noted.

2) That comments made by members of this commission to be taken into account.

3) That Officers to return with waste management options for consideration by commission members.