Agenda item

Ian Tait addressed the committee, and a summary of his comments are set out below.

1.    He expressed frustration at the limited availability for items that could be recycled, leading him to place items he considered recyclable into the general waste. He would utilise existing facilities at the Cattle Market, Winchester for other recyclable waste if this was available.

2.    As a single person, he created little food waste and therefore questioned whether the new service was necessary in terms of recycling priorities. He produced more plastic and other types of waste than food.

3.    He raised concerns regarding the anaerobic digestion plants, including the distances involved for farmers transporting of maize to the Three Maids Hill facility.  Tractors transporting also negatively impacted air quality.

4.    Regarding food waste produced by restaurants and other food outlets, he inquired whether the new service would be available to smaller food retailers.

The Cabinet Member for Recycling and Public Protection (Councillor Cramoysan) responded to the points raised including that the council, as a collections authority; continued to work closed with Hampshire County Council who was the disposal authority.  Changes and improvements were proposed as to what waste was able to be collected for recycling and he reminded that it was a legislative requirement for arrangements to be in place for food waste collection by April 2026. The council was ahead of schedule, and rollout of the service had commenced.     

The Corporate Head of Service: Place then gave a presentation and several questions were asked, including the following:

1.    A question was asked regarding food waste bins and their durability and whether residents would be required to pay for replacements if bins were damaged, and was the contractor

was responsible for its care when on the street.

2.    What were the arrangements for commercial food waste collection for restaurants and retail establishments?

3.    Clarification was sought on whether the carbon savings from the commercial service were factored into the council’s life cycle costings related to greenhouse gas targets.

4.    A question was asked regarding the anticipated participation rates for the food waste service, as evidenced by the experiences of other councils.

5.    A question was asked regarding the response that should be given to residents who currently composted their food waste.

6.    Would there be penalties for residents who chose not to participate in the scheme?

7.    Would Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) be provided to show the number of kilograms of waste per household.

8.    Clarification was sought on whether data analysis would allow the identification of routes performing better than others, enabling recycling officers to focus their efforts.

9.    A question was asked regarding resources, either on the council website or elsewhere, that residents could be signposted to, to help them reduce needlessly wasting food.

10.An inquiry was made as to what would happen if people did not use bin liners, given the cost of living crisis and the requirement for residents to purchase them. What was the necessity of using compostable bags if the bags were extracted and incinerated later at the anaerobic digester?

11.Clarification was requested on whether the use of non-compostable bags meant that residual microplastics could end up on fields, within the fertiliser end product.

The Cabinet Member and the Corporate Head of Service: Place responded to the questions asked.

The Corporate Head of Service then gave a further presentation regarding ‘Extended Producer Responsibility’ (EPA) and several questions were asked, including the following:

1.    A question was asked concerning whether there was any identified ‘pushback’ from the packaging industry against the new legislation and whether there was a risk of delays to implementation.

2.    Clarification was sought regarding the potential financial implications for the council: whether increased success by packaging producers in achieving lower rates might lead to reduced income for the authority.

3.    A question was asked concerning potential alignment issues with Hampshire waste recycling centres and whether messaging needed to be aligned across the authorities.

4.    Clarification was sought on the risks and opportunities identified as packaging changes became more innovative. This included a specific query relating to multi-component packaging (such as a cardboard tray containing plastic film) and the risk of the public incorrectly placing such items in recycling.

5.    A question was asked about the steps being taken to prepare for infrastructure changes (such as the Materials Recycling Facility (MRF) build) particularly as this coincided with local government reorganisation.

6.    What was the future intent and timeline for electrifying the waste vehicle fleet, given that the current vehicles were running primarily on Hydrotreated Vegetable Oil (HVO).

The Cabinet Member and the Corporate Head of Service: Place responded to the questions asked.

In conclusion, the committee thanked officers and the Cabinet Member for an informative update.

RESOLVED:

That the presentation be received and the comments raised by   the committee, as summarised above, be noted.