Agenda item

To consider the following environment related reports scheduled for Cabinet consideration on 9 September 2020:

 

-         Waste Services Policies

 

The O&S Board is asked to scrutinise the reports and make recommendations to Cabinet as appropriate.

 

Cabinet member invited to attend for this item: Councillor Felicity Rice, Portfolio Holder for Environment and Climate Change.

 

The Cabinet report is included with this agenda for consideration by the Overview and Scrutiny Board.

The Environment and Climate Change presented a report, a copy of which had been circulated to each Member and a copy of which appears as Appendix 'E' to these Minutes in the Minute Book.

 

The Chairman welcomed Cllr D Butler to the meeting to make a representation to the Board, details included:

• Cllr Butler felt that existing system of bins that was used in Poole i.e. colours and sizes would be most appropriate going forward based on need.
• Made suggestions of how existing bins could be utilised and /or redistributed across the conurbation.
• She felt that the charges relating to garden waste bins were at risk of becoming too high to the point where residents no longer felt it to be a cost-effective option.

 

A number of issues were raised by the Board in the subsequent discussion, including:

 

• A Board member stated that he was disappointed in the proposed removal of WEEE collections from the service and would prefer for it to continue. He added that the Council should look at replacing the 180 litre bins in Poole with 140 litre bins. The Portfolio Holder advised that she understood concerns about the removal of WEEE collections, but that the scheme was no performing to a standard that officers were satisfied with. Instead, work would be undertaken promote WEEE collection points. Additionally, some legislative changes were due to be made which would transfer responsibility recycling of such goods to manufacturers.
• A Board member questioned the cost of replacement of different bins and indeed the rationale for doing so and stated that it was important to ensure fairness across the board. The Portfolio Holder advised that she didn’t have figures to hand on the cost of fully coloured bins over black bins with coloured lids but needed to ensure that the waste service was efficiently run. She added that there was a move nationally to have one bin colour with a different coloured lid depending on purpose. If residents in Bournemouth wished to keep 140 litre bins it was their right to do so, but there would be no difference in cost.
• A Board Member stated that she felt there to be an inequity of service across the garden waste scheme and that she felt the increase in price to be extraordinary. The Portfolio Holder advised that the cost of £55 was for a replacement bin, not for the cost of the green waste service itself.

 

A Board member declared that he wished to propose a motion that would seek to review CCTV footage if residents claimed damage was caused by the Council and if proven, the council replace bin free of charge. Additionally, he wished for Officers to investigate toe cost of repairing lids rather than replacing entire bins. This motion was duly seconded by Cllr G Farquhar.

 

A number of issues were raised by the Board in the subsequent discussion, including:

 

• The Chairman requested that the officer present provided clarity on the costs and/or impact to the council in the event that the motion passed. It was confirmed that the replacement of lids was already an adopted standard where practical, although this was not always possible due to the fact that some bins were over 20 years old. He added that crews were honest in terms of breakages and any such occurrence would be logged, although generally it would be attributed to the overloading of bins.
• A Board member stated that he had concerns in relation to charges for replacement bins and that there was no line within the financial implications section that accounted for lost bins. He added that it seemed unreasonable to ask residents to fund bin replacements on worn out bins, which, in his opinion, should be at the cost of the Council and he further questioned why residents should always be responsible for costs. Adding to points already raised he commented that the CCTV on refuse vehicles was not always operational and that charges for replacements should be covered by the service charge, unless obvious evidence of negligence. The Portfolio Holder advised that where residents were charged for replacement bins, it would encourage them to be responsible for them, but added that Officers had certain levels of discretion for issuing replacement bins.
• A Board member stated that he felt it may be necessary to clarify in the report who bins were owned by. He added that some of the bins in Bournemouth were very old and that there could be a temptation for bins to be broken and therefore wished to ascertain if replacement waste bins were chargeable. The Portfolio Holder advised that where a bin broke and was replaced at a cost to the resident, it became their property, not the Council’s, this did not apply to the green bin service. She did acknowledge the point made in relation to the temptation of bin breakages and stated that this was something that would need to be closely monitored.

 

Having discussed the motion in great detail, the Board took a vote and the motion was LOST

 

Voting: For – 7                    Against – 7               Abstentions – 1

 

As the vote was split, the Chairman used her casting vote and the motion was therefore not taken forward.

 

A Board member declared that he wished to propose a motion that would ensure that residents would not be charged for replacement of, or repairs to waste containers in the event that they had been broken or gone missing through no fault of their own unless the container was owned outright by the resident. This motion was duly seconded by Cllr M Anderson

 

A number of issues were raised by the Board in the subsequent discussion, including:

 

• A Board member requested the number of bins damaged annually and the cost related to this. Officers did not have these figures available but would provide them at a later date
• A Board member sought clarification in relation to the ownership of bins. The proposer of the motion clarified that if the bin was in the ownership of the resident, any damaged caused would need to be remedied by them, not the Council.

 

Having discussed the motion and there being no further comments or queries, the Board took a vote and the motion was CARRIED

 

Voting: For – 10                  Against – 4               Abstentions – 1

 

A number of additional issues were raised by the Board in the subsequent discussion, including:

 

• A Board member raised three questions:

1. Is the intention to replace the garden waste bins in time for the new season. The Portfolio Holder confirmed that this was the case.
2. What was the evidence base for the removal of free food waste liners from the service. The Portfolio Holder advised that when the liners were introduced, the food waste recycling process was very different to how it was now and that the centrifugal system currently employed at the facility automatically removed any plastic-like material, including the bags, meaning they were now surplus to requirements.
3. The increase in size of refuse bins seems counter-productive, what is the predicted effect of increasing the size of bins. The Portfolio Holder advised that it was to do with the operational effectiveness of bringing three services together and that only bins that were being replaced would see an increased size, this was not a full rollout. The council also had a responsibility to ensure that it was prepared for any changes that might come forward in relation to waste policy over the course of the next ten years. No extensive modelling had been done due to time limitations.

 

• A Board Member sought clarity in relation to discounts for certain residents for the green waste service. The Portfolio Holder advised that this was being considered as part of a different harmonisation project but was unsure if will continue into next year.

 

The Chairman requested that once details of access to leisure known, that they be circulated to Board members.

 

RECOMMENDED that residents should not be charged for replacement of, or repairs to waste containers in the event that they have been broken or have gone missing through no fault of their own unless the container is owned outright by the resident.

 

Voting: For – 10                  Against – 1               Abstentions – 4