Interview with the:

·  The Director of Change and Environmental Services, David Edwards;

·  The Policy and Performance Officer, Anna Collier; and

·  The Waste Collection Manager, Jennifer Gosling.

The Chairman welcomed the Director of Change and Environmental Services, David Edwards, the Policy and Review Officer, Anna Collier, the Environment Manager, Jonathan Scott and the Waste Collection Manager, Jennifer Gosling to the meeting.  Following a brief introduction from the witnesses outlining the progress of the Waste and Recycling Services Best Value Review, the Committee discussed the following:

·  Mr Edwards set out the background to the review and that historically the level of waste generated per household had been very high in Maidstone, recycling levels low and costs of waste collection about average when compared to other local authorities.  Although levels of recycling had increased in the past year following the introduction of the new dry recycling scheme;

·  The draft implementation plan outlined how the options agreed by the Cabinet in November 2009 would be implemented, but noted that the implementation plan was subject to review every six months;

·  Since producing the Best Value Review Options report, Aylesford Newsprint Ltd had approached the Council to develop a paper collection service.  It was anticipated that a paper collection service would provide a source of income and discussions with Aylesford Newsprint and Kent County Council were ongoing, however normal procurement rules applied.  The Committee agreed that an action on consultation with regard to paper collections should be incorporated into the implementation plan;

·  Members noted that Barming and Loose Scouts were collecting paper and this was a large source of their income and agreed that the Council should consult with those scout groups providing a paper collection service.  Furthermore the Committee agreed that a competing paper collection scheme should not be undertaken by the Council in these areas;

·  The Council had been successful in its bid for a food waste pilot whereby food waste was to be collected on a weekly basis and dry recyclables and remaining waste on alternating weeks.  Officers explained that in the future it may be possible for only one refuse vehicle (with a pod) to collect both the food waste and the recyclables or the remaining waste on each collection round;

·  It was clarified that moving to an alternative weekly collection would save the Council up to £400,000, this was primarily because fewer rounds would be required on any given day;

·  The make up of residual waste was 40% food waste, 20% paper/card 12% mixed plastics, 8% glass and 20% other.  It was anticipated that the actions depicted in the plan would therefore reduce each of these items in the residual waste stream;

·  Members were concerned that some residents could have storage capacity issues with regard to food waste receptacles.  It was therefore recommended that the feasibility of food waste containers fitting inside the residual and recyclable receptacle be explored as an action in the implementation plan, to negate resident’s storage issues;

·  Resident’s green waste was composted in Rainham, Essex and then given back to Kent County Council to be distributed and/or sold;

·  A number of Members were concerned that incidences of fly tipping would increase following the removal of the freighter service.  Ms Collier advised the Committee that incidences of fly tipping, bulky waste collections and freighter stop locations had been mapped over a number of months, and that this had shown there was no relationship between the three;

·  The items collected by the Freighter Service were sent to landfill.  Contamination of the materials meant there was no opportunity to reuse them.  Ms Collier highlighted that it was hoped that with a simpler bulky waste collection, use of the green waste service and greater engagement with the third sector, significant changes to the freighter service could be considered;

·  Members noted that education was key to enhancing the waste and recycling service and agreed a method of educating the public could include road shows and workshops in those areas where recycling was not embraced.  Furthermore, Members agreed that waterproof stickers on the lip or lid of recycling bin could be used to advise residents what they could and could not put in their recycling bins;

·  The Committee highlighted the importance of close working relationships with the press and agreed an action be included in the implementation plan of working with press to ensure changes to the service were effectively communicated to residents as part of reviewing education and promotion;

·  Kent Enviropower’s audit of Maidstone’s recycling rates had found a 6% contamination rate in comparison to an average of 19% across Allington Incinerator users;

·  Demand for Maidstone’s clinical waste service had increased and the number of collections had therefore increased from once to twice a week;

·  A Member highlighted a typing mistake on page 3, paragraph 1.5.2 in the implementation plan covering report and it was agreed it should be amended to read ‘One of the key issues’; and

·  A Member suggested that the Committee recommend that it ‘objects to stopping the weekend freighter service’ and the Committee agreed to undertake a recorded vote.  The results were as follows:

For:   Councillors Chittenden, Mrs Joy and Mrs Smith

Against:  Councillors Mrs Blackmore, Butler, Hinder and Verrall

Abstentions:  Councillor Mrs Gooch

Furthermore, Councillors Chittenden, Mrs Joy and Mrs Smith were concerned that the residual waste service would be replaced by an alternate weekly waste and recycling collection and asked that it be minuted that they did not support the loss of a weekly residual waste service.

The Committee congratulated the witnesses on the production of the Implementation Plan and thanked the officers for an interesting and informative presentation. 

The web cast from this session is available at

http://clients.westminsterdigital.co.uk/maidstone/archive.aspx.

Resolved  That:

a)  Paragraph 1.5.2 of the Best Value Review Implementation Plan covering report be amended to read ‘One of the key issues’; and

b)  The following be added to the Implementation Plan:

  i.  An action of consultation with regard to paper collections, including with scout groups providing this service;

  ii.  That the Council does not provide a competing paper collection service in those areas where scout groups already operated;

  iii.  Water resistant stickers for the lid or lip of recycling bins be produced to inform residents of what can and can not be recycled be explored as an action;

  iv.  An action of undertaking road shows and/or workshops in areas with poor recycling rates;

  v.  An action of working with the press as part of the education programme; and

  vi.  An action investigating the feasibility of food waste containers fitting inside the residual and recyclable receptacle to negate resident’s storage issues.