Agenda item

Interview with:

·  Leader of the Council, Councillor Garland;

·  Cabinet Member for Environment, Councillor Sherreard;

·  Director of Change, Planning and the Environment, David Edwards; and

·  Waste Collection Manager, Jennifer Gosling.

The Chairman welcomed the Leader of the Council, Councillor Garland; Cabinet Member for Environment, Councillor Sherreard; the Director of Change, Planning and the Environment David Edwards; and the Waste Collection Manager, Jennifer Gosling, to the meeting.

Members heard that the decision of the Cabinet to adopt the Waste and Recycling Strategy 2010 – 2015 had been called-in because Councillors English and Field were concerned about the impact of the decision on smaller households and multiple occupation residencies.  They sought assurance on how properties were identified as being suitable for the new system, as they believed it would not be appropriate for some properties. They believed the decision was incompatible with the recent statement by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, Eric Pickles, that councils should not move to fortnightly collections. Finally they sought clarification of why 40% of Maidstone’s waste was food waste; and suggested an education programme was required.

Councillor Sherreard informed Members the Council had written to the Secretary of State regarding his remarks, and had received a reply that frequency of waste collection was a matter for individual councils to decide. The level of food waste in Maidstone was broadly similar to that in neighbouring boroughs, but he agreed educating people about how much food was wasted would have a major impact in reducing overall levels of waste. The Committee heard that experience from other areas was that implementing food waste recycling would lead to residents reducing the amount of food waste they created.

Members were informed that DEFRA were conducting a review on waste, in conjunction with the Treasury, which was considering taxation of waste, with a view to reducing landfill. The Leader confirmed there were no issues in implementing the strategy in advance of the outcome of the DERFA review, and believed the review would also consider issues such as the cost of landfill, and what a zero waste economy would look like.

The Committee heard that every household had been visited on waste collection day and visually assessed for their requirements and the properties’ accessibility. The data was then fed into a sophisticated mapping system. The information had been circulated to residents during the roll-out of the mixed dry recycling collection service, with each household receiving a tailor made leaflet for the type of containers they would receive and the type of property they lived in. This information was also on the Council’s website and some residents had already contacted the council to ask for the assessment to be reviewed. Some assessments had been changed as a result. Another opportunity to publicise this information would arise at the end of October, as the current recycling calendar had to be renewed. A Member suggested that when residents move home, details of the assessment of their new home be provided to them.

With regard to the concerns about nappy and sanitary waste, the Committee was informed that households would be encouraged to use reuseable nappies, and advised to securely wrap disposable items before putting them in normal waste. Two councils were known to operate a fortnightly nappy collection system, alternating with normal refuse collection. One of these, Cambridge City Council, had 120 households using this service, a level of demand that would be within the Borough’s capability by use of the existing clinical waste collection service.

In response to a question, Councillor Sherreard agreed that product packaging was a major source of waste. Although the Council were unable to force suppliers to make changes, he was aware that Marks and Spencer were working with their suppliers to minimise packaging and he expected other major retailers would follow their lead. 

Councillors English and Field thanked the Cabinet Members and officers for their assistance, and confirmed that with the assurances they had received they were satisfied with the decision.

Members agreed that the Committee should take no action in respect of the call-in, and that the details of the assessment of properties, and of how the clinical waste system could be used to collect sanitary items on non-refuse collection weeks, be provided.

Resolved:  That:

a)  The decision of the Cabinet of 15 September on the Waste and Recycling Strategy 2010-2015 be implemented; and

b)  The following information be provided:

  i)  Details of how each household’s ability to cope with the new waste procedures was assessed; and

  ii)  Details of how the clinical waste service could be used to collect nappy waste and other sanitary waste on non-refuse collection weeks.