Agenda and minutes

Resolved: That all items be web-cast.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Barned, Beerling and Sharp.

It was noted that:

·  Councillor Ross was substituting for Councillor Barned;

·  Councillor English was substituting for Councillor Beerling; and

·  Councillor Field was substituting for Councillor Sharp.

It was noted that the Cabinet Member for Regeneration, Councillor Malcolm Greer, and Councillor Warner, were visiting Members.

There were none.

Resolved:  That all items be taken in public as proposed.

Minutes to follow.

Resolved:That the Minutes of the Environment and Transportation Overview and Scrutiny Committee meeting of 17 August 2010 be agreed as a correct record and duly signed by the Chairman.

It was agreed that Agenda Item 9, ’Update on the Waste and Recycling Strategy’ and Agenda Item 11, ‘URGENT ITEM: Call-in: Waste and Recycling Strategy’ be taken together, before Agenda Item 8, DEFRA Consultation: Review of Waste policies’.

Resolved:  That Agenda Items 9 and 11 be taken together, before Agenda Item 8.

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  ...  view the full minutes text for item 36.

The Committee to consider a written report from the Waste Collection Manager.

The Committee was informed that the paper titled ‘DEFRA Review of Waste Policy’, circulated to Members by officers before the meeting, formed the basis of the Council’s draft response to the consultation document.  DEFRA were seeking as many responses as possible to inform the development of their policy. The review aimed to increase the level of recycling as the UK worked towards a zero waste economy. 

Members heard that it was not clear if the term ‘zero waste economy’ was intended to mean an economy where all products were capable of being recycled, or one where they were actually recycled. This was an area the Council would seek clarification on. Preparing for re-use was an area where little work had previously been done: consumers generally disposed of unwanted items rather than seek ways for them to be re-used. This would be a major barrier to increasing take up of this part of the strategy. With regard to energy recovery, most of the Council’s waste already went to the Allington energy recovery facility, so the Council was in a relatively fortunate position.

In response to a question, Councillor Sherreard informed the Committee that the Council had bid for funding through the Kent Waste Partnership and the Waste and Resources Action Programme to implement the waste strategy, and he was hopeful that this would be supported as indications were the strategy was highly regarded by them.

Members discussed the consultation document and agreed the following items be considered for inclusion in the Council’s response:

·  A Member had experience of paper mills, where organic waste had been mixed with sewage to increase the rate of decomposition and generate methane gas for bio fuel. Members agreed that the mixing of sewage with other waste to generate bio fuel was an area that should be considered;

·  The use of the taxation system to encourage better waste practices was considered. Councillor Sherreard believed the Treasury was considering this, and Members heard that in Germany the taxation system was used to discourage waste. Members believed that tax incentives to encourage manufacturers to adopt better waste management practices, and tax penalties for those failing to properly adopt them, would increase the level of recycling.

·  The use of colour coding of street waste bins was discussed, to facilitate recycling of the contents. The Waste and Resource Action Programme, a government funded company, had developed standard colour coding and symbols for recyclable materials, which the Council had begun to use in its information material and at recycling sites. Members agreed that colour coding of street waste bins should be considered;

·  Members noted that small to medium sized businesses faced significant difficulties disposing of their waste. The Council were unable to accept it and there was a lack of affordable recycling suppliers, so many businesses did not recycle at all. Members agreed that authorities should be given the statutory power to enable them to compete for this business;

·  Manufacturers of consumer items, such as electrical goods, should be required to provide  ...  view the full minutes text for item 37.

The Committee considered the Forward work programme. Members noted the items on the integrated transport strategy and the DEFRA consultation paper on the nature of England would be major pieces of work, and agreed that the item on maintenance of communal spaces should be moved to November’s meeting. They noted the updates on the survey results following the introduction of the new cleansing arrangements, and on past reports on fly-tipping and abandoned vehicles, would be written updates only.

A Member asked whether the Committee should consider the Air Quality Action Plan at its October meeting. Members heard that the joint working group considering the use of the Sustainable Communities Act had received a presentation on the Action Plan at its first meeting on September. The working group would be considering how to use the Act to reduce emissions on the Borough, but a date to report back to Committee had not yet been set.

Resolved:  That:

a)  The Forward Work Programme be noted, subject to the item on maintenance of communal spaces being moved to November’s meeting; and

b)  The updates on the survey results following the introduction of the new cleansing arrangements, and on past reports on fly-tipping and abandoned vehicles were to be written updates.

6:30 p.m. to 8:32 p.m.