Appendix B: Summary of Waste Composition Analysis

Composition of the average residual waste bin 2015

Houses

·         For households, the overall Mid Kent and Canterbury average data is based on samples from 956 households and a combined residual waste sample weight of 13 tonnes, 2.6 tonnes of separately collected food waste and 7.3 tonnes of mixed dry recycling.

·         Overall 88% of the sampled Mid Kent and Canterbury households set out a residual waste bin for collection. Although up to 6% of the sampled households had bins that were overfull, the majority were not, suggesting the fortnightly collection service for residual waste suits most households.

·         Set out rates for the mixed recycling scheme were generally good, but the ACORN 4 and 5 Canterbury and Swale householders need to be encouraged to participate in this scheme more fully. The average set out rate for households in these Mid Kent and Canterbury sample areas was 79%.

·         Set out rates for the food waste schemes were not high. All households across the board need to be encouraged to participate in the food waste scheme more regularly. The average set out rate for households in these Mid Kent and Canterbury sample areas was 41%.

·         Since 2008 weights in the residual waste bins have reduced by 26%, from 10.3kg per household per week to 7.6kg per household per week.

·         Since 2008 the weights of mixed recycling found in the residual waste have reduced by 47%, from 2.5kg per household per week to 1.3kg per household per week.

·         Since 2008 the weights of food found in the residual waste have reduced by 50%, from 3.5kg per household per week to 1.7kg per household per week.

·         There was a slight increase in the weights for garden waste and Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE). WEEE occurs in the residual waste erratically, as and when items break down. The weight for garden waste may be higher because in 2015 sampling was carried out during October/November and in 2008 sampling was carried out in December.

·         Households in Ashford, Maidstone and Swale all reduced the weight of residual waste they set out for collection between 2008 and 2015, but for Canterbury households the overall weight increased by 3%.

·         Households in all areas reduced the weight of mixed recycling and food waste in their residual waste. This reduction was most noticeable for the Ashford households.

·         The greatest weights of food waste found in the residual waste were seen for Canterbury households at an average of 2.4kg per household per week. The lowest figure was from the Ashford average household at 1kg/household per week.

·         The majority of the food waste that households are throwing away is avoidable food waste. The average Mid Kent and Canterbury household threw away 0.2kg per week of untouched, unopened food. A food waste scheme needs to highlight this waste of good food and good money.

·         Similar weights of mixed recycling were found in each area, the average weights, minus contamination, were 2.7kg per household per week for Ashford households, 2.8kg for Canterbury and Swale households and 3.1kg for Maidstone households. The mixed recycling from the Ashford and Swale households contained high weights of contamination compared to the other two areas. The lowest weights of contamination were seen for the Canterbury households.

·         Ashford households achieved the highest overall capture rate for mixed recycling with a rate of 75%. Maidstone households achieved the lowest rate at only 59%.

·         The Ashford food waste scheme is achieving the best results. It has the highest set out rate at 63% and a capture rate of 69%. The households in the Canterbury sample areas are faring less well, only 23% of these households set out a food waste bin capturing only 22% of the total food. Households in the ACORN 4 and 5 sampling areas appeared to be disconnected from the scheme.

Flats

·         For flats, the overall Mid Kent and Canterbury average data is based on samples from 807 households and a combined residual waste sample weight of 9 tonnes, 0.5 tonnes of separately collected food waste from 369 households (Ashford and Maidstone flats only) and 1.7 tonnes of mixed dry recycling from 594 flats (no mixed recycling from Swale flats).

·         The lowest weights of residual waste were produced by the wealthy or comfortably off, singles and couples living in the flats sampled in Ashford, and the greatest weights of residual waste were produced by the Maidstone and Swale flatted households that covered larger struggling families.

·         For all flats 50% of the material placed in the refuse bins could have been diverted into a mixed recycling or food waste scheme. Although this concentration appears to be high the weights it represents were not high.

·         The Swale flats are not offered a mixed dry recycling scheme. Ashford flats placed large weights of contamination into their mixed recycling bins. The Maidstone recycling samples were also contaminated but not to such an extent. For the Canterbury flats the majority of the mixed dry recycling was found in the residual waste bins suggesting low participation rates.

·         Currently a food waste scheme is not offered to Swale and Canterbury flats. The average Ashford flat diverted 0.4kg per week into their food scheme whilst the average Maidstone flat diverted 0.9kg per week. The food waste scheme capture rates were similar for the two areas at 38% for Ashford and 35% for Maidstone.

·         Nearly 50% of the food in the Ashford scheme was raw fruit and vegetable matter – mainly unavoidable peeling pips etc. For the Maidstone flats over 55% of the weight of food in the scheme was avoidable cooked and prepared food.

·         In both Boroughs over 50% of the cooked food was captured by the scheme. In Ashford 47% of the unavoidable raw fruit and vegetable matter was capture and 43% in Maidstone.

·         The Ashford food scheme capture 31% of avoidable food waste and 44% of the unavoidable food waste. The figures for the Maidstone scheme were slightly lower at 29% and 40%.

Although the flats in all sample areas could recycle more food and mixed recycling, in many cases the weights in the residual waste were low and the levels of contamination in the recycling and food schemes were high. It may be worth considering cherry picking the flats that are provided with mixed recycling and food waste schemes.