Agenda item

Following introduction by the Cabinet Member for Recycling and Public Protection, the Corporate Head of Service: Place then gave a presentation on building a resilient waste service for the future, and several questions were asked, including the following: 

1.    A question was raised regarding the debate over using bags for food waste, the variable quality of compostable liners, and the presence of plastic in tea bags. It was noted that a video was produced to explain the recycling process and that the use of bags was preferred by collection crews to assist with efficiency.

2.    Further clarification was sought on how to simplify the perceived complexity of recycling, with suggestions made to utilise circular economy videos or peer-led engagement campaigns similar to those used in public health. It was suggested that the communications team could provide materials to councillors to help amplify these messages through parish newsletters and social media platforms. 

3.    An enquiry was made as to how the amount of avoided carbon dioxide was calculated for residents, and whether a breakdown of recycling           performance between rural and urban areas was available. It was explained that carbon data was based on verified specialist references, and it was noted that messaging regarding the financial savings achieved by avoiding landfill was also under consideration. 

4.    A question was asked concerning the accessibility of glass recycling and the current capacity of bins following changes to kerbside collections. It was reported that a new material recycling facility was being tendered which would allow glass to be collected in the main recycling bin, which was expected to increase capacity and simplicity for residents. 

5.    Further clarification was sought on whether the Emissions Trading Scheme represented a financial cost or a potential income for the council. It was clarified that while there was no immediate impact on the collection         authority, the future unitary authority would benefit from reduced disposal costs if waste tonnages were lowered before the scheme's introduction in 2028. 

6.    A question was raised regarding the council's enforcement strategy for         fly-tipping and whether reported figures included incidents occurring on private land. It was noted that fly-tipping incidents had decreased and that the council pursued prosecutions for offences on both public and private land. 

7.    An enquiry was made to verify that residual waste was sent for energy recovery rather than to landfill. It was confirmed that the majority of non-recyclable waste was sent to an energy-from-waste facility, and it was noted that a primary objective was to reduce the volume of material sent for incineration to further lower carbon emissions. 

8. A question was asked regarding the possibility of the council providing a parallel waste collection service for commercial establishments. It was noted that such a service was a potential consideration for the future           unitary authority. 

9. Further clarification was sought on the actions being taken to influence the government and producers to reduce unnecessary packaging. It was explained that the Extended Producer Responsibility scheme, which began in April 2025, required producers to pay for the packaging they produced, with higher costs for materials that were more difficult to recycle.

10. Confirmation was sought on whether the council received a share of the funding generated by the Extended Producer Responsibility scheme to cover its waste management costs. It was confirmed that this funding was received by the council.

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

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

RESOLVED: 

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