Agenda item

The Director of Neighbourhood and Environmental Services submits a report, which asks the Commission for their views regarding the potential to charge for bulky waste collections.

The Director of Neighbourhood and Environmental Services submitted a report asking the Commission for its views regarding the potential to charge for bulky waste collections, it being noted that a six-week consultation on the options set out in the report was scheduled to start on Friday 7 October 2016.

The Director of Neighbourhood and Environmental Services reminded Members that the City Council currently was one of the few local authorities that did not charge for the collection of bulky waste.  While mindful of the potential implications of introducing charges for this service, especially with regard to fly-tipping, the Council needed to consider all options for creating income while safeguarding services.

Councillor Clarke, (Assistant City Mayor for Energy and Sustainability), reiterated that the current financial situation created a need to consider all aspects of services to identify savings.  Concerns about increased fly-tipping were important, especially in areas that already had problems with this.  However, although some areas had seen an increase in fly-tipping when charges for bulky waste collections were introduced, others had seen a reduction, while in other areas there was no noticeable change.

At the invitation of the Chair, Councillor Chaplin, one of the Members representing Stoneygate Ward, addressed the Commission.  She noted that the report submitted identified Stoneygate as currently having the highest level of fly-tipping in the city.  The Council’s difficult financial situation was acknowledged, but to introduce charges for the collection of bulky waste could make the fly-tipping situation worse.  For example, mattresses had been seen stacked outside a house, piles of furniture had been left on street corners and some residents had had other people’s rubbish dumped on their property.  If people reporting these things had to pay to have the items removed, they would stop reporting them.

Councillor Chaplin explained that Stoneygate Ward contained large numbers of properties that were rented and houses in multiple occupation.  When people moved from these, they often left behind items, which the landlord became responsible for disposing of, but instead of using the bulky waste collection service, the items often were fly-tipped.  The more items were abandoned in this way, the more it encouraged others to do the same.  As well as being unsightly, the accumulated rubbish also created potential health hazards.

Council Chaplin further explained that a lot of time had been spent trying to tackle fly-tipping in Stoneygate Ward.  Fly-tipping was a problem across the city, but the situation in Stoneygate Ward was such that officers already were unable to deal effectively with the volume being created.  Introducing the charges proposed would make the situation worse.

The following points were then made during discussion on this report:

·           Landlords in areas such as Stoneygate Ward, which had a high density of residents and/or students, with a high turnover, could have many bulky items to dispose of;

·           The charges recommended in the report had been calculated following extensive research in to charges made by other councils.  Approximately 89% of councils charged for this service, with the average charge being £20;

·           Any charge made for this service would be received by the Council, not the contractor who removed the waste, (currently Biffa);

·           It was estimated that savings of approximately £150,000 per annum could be achieved through the introduction of these charges.  This was based on a projected reduction of 75% in the current number of collections made.  It was possible that further savings could be achieved if the contractor was able to reduce the number of vehicles used as a result of a drop in demand for the service, but this would need to be negotiated with the contractor;

·           The bulky waste collection service currently cost approximately £350,000 per annum to provide;

·           The Council currently needed to find savings of £150 million, so the savings achievable through the introduction of charges for bulky waste collections were a very small part of this.  It therefore was questioned whether the potential problems created by introducing these charges outweighed the benefits;

·           The introduction of concessionary charges, (for example, for the low waged or the elderly), had not been considered at present, as to do so would reduce the level of saving achievable. It also could be resource-intensive to administer;

·           Although the Council held information such as the number of people receiving housing benefit, strict data protection rules governed the purposes for which this information could be used.  Residents therefore could be asked to self-declare and/or prove their entitlement to concessionary charges, although currently it was not possible to do this on-line, so they would have to visit Council offices for their entitlement to be checked.  Checking personal data was not part of the current contract held with Biffa for the collection of bulky waste;

·           Some authorities, such as Nottingham City Council, who did not charge people on benefits or low incomes for some services, took self-declarations of eligibility on trust, but the challenges this presented were acknowledged;

·           In some areas there were large numbers of people who would not be able to afford to pay these charges, but could be ineligible for concessionary rates.  This could lead to a surge in fly-tipping in areas that currently were not identified as problem areas;

·           Housing services had an arrangement for bulky waste on some estates to be collected by Council-operated cleansing vehicles, rather than those operated by Biffa;

·           The introduction of any charges for this service would need to be accompanied by an appropriate communications plan, to ensure that residents were aware of how to access the service;

·           The Waste Standards Authority had identified Leicester as being very similar to a London borough in terms of waste management, so this Council’s service had been bench-marked against equivalent London boroughs, as well as neighbouring authorities.  However, the expectations of residents in a London borough could be very different to those of residents in Leicester, so Members expressed some caution about the appropriateness of this comparison;

·           Increasing levels of fly-tipping had led to the City Wardens being asked to target the worst ten streets in the city to try to reduce the amount being fly-tipped.  This had resulted in the volume plateauing and had increased awareness of the problem.  However, the procedures that needed to be followed to achieve such improvements could make this very resource-intensive;

·           Residents in accommodation such as flats could leave bulky waste items in shared areas of flats without requesting collection if deterred by the charge and residents in terraced streets could resort to leaving the items on the highway.  There also could be further examples of people dumping items on other people’s property.  These issues did not appear to have been explored in the report;

·           Although it could be possible to divert some bulky waste items to the local furniture bank scheme, it also could lead to the scheme receiving a lot of calls about items it was unable to use.  This had been highlighted as a risk, so conversations with the furniture bank and waste management officers about how to avoid it happening were ongoing;

·           One possible negative result of the introduction of charges could be an increase in the “backyard burning” of items;

·           Information was awaited on the impact of the recent introduction of charges by Leicestershire County Council for the disposal of certain types of waste at the recycling centres it operated.  However, anecdotal evidence suggested that there had been an increase in fly-tipping in areas of the city adjoining the county area; and

·           This was a very visible service and was important to residents.  Although there was no wish to sensationalise the possible impact of introducing charges, care needed to be taken to ensure that concerns were addressed.

Members suggested that the Executive could be asked to consider delaying the consultation on the proposals to introduce charges for bulky waste collections until evidence has been received of the impact of the charges introduced by Leicestershire County Council.  However, Councillor Clarke expressed some concern that it would not be possible to achieve the looked for savings if this happened.

RECOMMENDED:

1)    That the Executive be asked to consider delaying the consultation on proposals to introduce charges for bulky waste collections until evidence has been received of the impact of the charges introduced by Leicestershire County Council for the disposal of certain types of waste at its household waste recycling centres, with particular attention paid to city wards that are on the boundary with the county;

2)    That, before the consultation referred to under recommendation 1) above is undertaken, the Director of Neighbourhoods and Environmental Services be asked to provide the Executive with more detailed information on weaknesses in the current bulky waste collection service, such as difficulties encountered by residents in flats, terraced houses and on estates;

3)    That the Executive be asked to include formal engagement with partner agencies in the consultation process referred to under recommendation 1) above, this to include, but not exclusively,  the City Warden service, City Council officers responsible for collecting waste from housing estates, Biffa (as the contractor) and the Leicestershire and Rutland Reuse Network;

4)    That the Executive be asked to give consideration during the consultation referred to under recommendation 1) above to options for providing free and/or reduced charge bulky waste for residents such as the elderly or those on benefits and to make appropriate recommendations for delivering such a scheme, including whether residents should “self-declare” their status and what, if any, evidence should be provided by those residents of their status;

5)    That when options for the future delivery of the bulky waste collection service are submitted to the Executive, improved information be included on  the potential environmental and social impact of an increase in “backyard burning” of waste materials; and

6)    That the Director of Neighbourhoods and Environmental Services be asked to consider how:

a)     residents in houses of multiple occupation and transient residents such as students can be better educated about waste collection, including household waste collection and what items can be recycled; and

b)     landlords can be encouraged to take more responsibility for waste left by their tenants.