The Director of Environment and Community Services will be in attendance to provide further information in relation to the Panel’s current scrutiny investigation, including detailed and comparative data in relation to recycling.
Recommendation: That the Panel receives and notes the information provided and considers the next steps for its review.
Minutes:
Officers from
Environment and Community Services were in attendance at the meeting, as follows:
G Field, Director of Environment and Community Services; A Mace, Head of
Environment; C Coverdale, Environment Services Manager; and G Fisher, Waste
Disposal Manager, to provide further evidence in relation to the Panel’s
current scrutiny topic of Waste Management.
Information
had been circulated to the Panel prior to the meeting in relation to amounts of
recycling and green waste collected in Middlesbrough; types of recyclable
materials collected; comparative information for previous years and in relation
to other North East Councils; and disposal costs.
A
Panel Member requested whether it would be possible to provide this information
in relation to local authorities within the Cipfa family.
The
data showed that most local authorities had struggled with post-Covid recycling
rates. Middlesbrough’s recycling rates
were around the regional average, however, all North East local authorities
were not meeting current government targets and a significant level of work had
been undertaken regionally to try to increase recycling rates.
Household
waste sent for reuse, recycling or composting (from waste data flow), showed
that Middlesbrough had sent an average of 18,657.98 tonnes between 2018 and
2023. This equated to 29.3%. The regional average for the same period was
24,268.18 tonnes, equating to 32.3%.
It
was highlighted that it was much cheaper to send waste for reuse, recycling or
composting than to the incinerator and that this cost was set to increase
further.
It
was queried whether there was any reason why the recycling figures for
Middlesbrough had declined from 19,169.47 tonnes in 2021/22 to 14,989.51 tonnes
in 2022/23. The Panel was advised that a
new recycling contractor had taken over and that issues had now been
resolved. Redcar and Cleveland Council
used the same contractor as Middlesbrough and, similarly, Redcar’s recycling
figures had reduced from 22,076.91 tonnes in 2021/22 to 16,265.53 in 2022/23.
It
could be seen from the figures for the first quarter of 2023/24 that
Middlesbrough’s recycling rate was 5,572.15 tonnes and Redcar’s figure was
5,646.91 tonnes for the same period.
This equated to 31.5% and 35.5% respectively.
In
a national context, recycling targets set by Government were to achieve 50% by
2020 and 65% by 2035. In 2020, the
national ‘waste from households’ recycling rate was 44% meaning that the 50%
target was missed nationally. The
national 44% recycling rate had also reduced from the previous year (2019) when
it was 45.5%.
In
terms of residual household waste (the waste not sent for recycling),
Middlesbrough’s average for the period 2018-2023 was 63,771.58 tonnes. This was below the regional average of
75,820.50 tonnes.
Data
specific to Middlesbrough’s kerbside recycling tonnages was provided by
breakdown of materials, from 2018-19 to 2022-23. The materials collected in the scheme were:
glass, paper, mixed paper and card, mixed plastic bottles, steel cans and
aluminium cans. A category of
‘non-target recyclate’ was also included and it was explained that these were
materials not included in the recycling contract, in other words not on the specified
list of recyclable materials for residents to recycle at the kerbside, but that
residents had put into their recycling bins, for example electrical items,
which the Council must then try to have recycled by the contractor. This
accounted for around 1 or 2% of Middlesbrough’s kerbside recycling tonnages
each year.
It
was noted that in 2022-23 contaminated recycling was at a five-year high, with
3,726.503 tonnes (37%) being contaminated, compared with 2,011.430 tonnes (20%)
in 2019-20 – the lowest contamination figure during the five-year period
2018-19 to 2022–23. Examples of frequent
contaminants included: food, textiles/clothing, nappies, WEEE (eg electrical
equipment, vapes) and bagged household waste.
In terms of what happened
to the recyclable materials once collected at the kerbside, the Recycling Wagon
returned to the recycling facility to deposit the load. The materials were then passed through a
Materials Recycling Facility (MRF). The
MRF comprised a manual sorting/picking of the material where any contaminated
materials were removed. The materials
were then passed through several automated sorting machines which separated the
co-mingled materials into the major recyclates - such as paper, card, steel
cans, aluminium cans and plastics.
Once the materials had
been separated, Cumbrian Waste Management then entered the commodities market,
where the materials were returned back in to manufacturing. In response to a query regarding disposal
costs for recyclable materials, the Panel was advised that the Council paid a
net rate to the contractor who then sold the materials on for reuse in
manufacturing.
With regard to barriers
to recycling, it was highlighted that residents may choose not to recycle for a
number of reasons including: general uncertainty around what could and could
not be recycled, possible lack of information in languages other than English,
current weekly collection of residual waste and side waste, possible limited
enforcement.
Members were advised that
Environment Services had a targeted approach to address areas where high levels
of contaminated recycling existed. Usual
practice would be for the contaminated bin not to be emptied and reported by
the Refuse Team Leader to the environmental enforcement team and to place a
sticker on the bin stating that it would not be emptied due to being
contaminated. The Senior Education and
Enforcement Officer would then usually contact the owner to explain why the bin
had not been emptied and the surrounding area would be letter dropped to
educate residents in relation to recycling.
It was acknowledged that,
in general, recycling rates across the country had reduced with practice
slipping during Covid, however, standards were starting to improve once more
and it was planned to have an educational push in Middlesbrough over the coming
months. It was also highlighted that the
Teams in Middlesbrough had done a brilliant job during Covid measures and that
things had lagged behind during covid recovery.
During discussion in
relation to the data provided, the following issues were raised:-
·
In
response to a query from a Panel Member regarding ‘gate fees’, it was explained
that gate fees for waste disposal were charged by the tonne, as deposited. At the energy from waste plant, where all
residual waste was disposed of, vehicles were weighed on the weighbridge upon
entering the site. Middlesbrough
currently ran the contract on behalf of the Tees Valley local authorities. There was a secondary charge in relation to
recycling, for any contaminated waste.
Any contaminated waste recovered from the recycling facility was
returned to the energy from waste plant.
·
It
was highlighted that the Council did not generate any income from its waste or
recycling disposal but the disposal fees for recycling were cheaper than those
for residual waste sent to the incinerator.
Middlesbrough’s collection arrangements aimed to deliver as much clean
recycling material as possible to the recycling company and the people of
Middlesbrough were best placed to achieve this by sorting their waste into
green waste, recyclable waste, then residual waste (ie waste that could not be
recycled or placed in green waste) as a last resort. It was acknowledged that this could be more
difficult in back alley areas. In
summary, improving recycling rates and reducing contamination, would result in
saving money on waste disposal that could be better spent on other things.
·
A
Member highlighted that, with the exception of Stockton, Middlesbrough produced
the most household waste out of the five Tees Valley local authorities, and
queried whether there was a reason for this.
In response, the Panel was informed that there was no obvious reason for
this other than, perhaps, only Middlesbrough and Stockton currently still
operated a weekly refuse collection service.
·
It
was queried whether there was any correlation between areas of deprivation and
increased levels of residual waste.
Again, there was no obvious correlation, however, it may be that in more
deprived areas, individuals may purchase lower quality items which needed to be
replaced more frequently or were more readily disposable.
·
Reference
was made to Middlesbrough’s recycling contamination rate of 37% in 2022/23 and
it was stated that both Middlesbrough and Redcar had similar outcomes with the
same contractor. The issues were being
investigated and resolved.
·
A
Panel Member highlighted the uncertainty many people had regarding items that
could or could not be recycled, for example, ‘glass cookware’ should not be
recycled and it was queried what constituted as glass cookware. It was clarified that this generally referred
to ‘Pyrex’ as it could not be processed due to the very high temperatures it
could withstand.
·
In
terms of what could and could not be recycled, it was highlighted that this
formed part of the Government’s Environment Bill as it had been identified as a
national issue. Middlesbrough’s
co-mingled collection arrangements made it easier for residents to recycle as
everything could be placed into a single bin.
·
In
response to a query regarding food waste collections, it was confirmed that
this was to be made compulsory nationally.
Consideration was currently being given as to how this might best be
implemented in Middlesbrough with an anticipated start in 2026, however,
timescales from Government were not yet clear.
·
A
Member of the Panel referred to some recent research which suggested that there
should be one bin for all types of plastic, some of which was currently not
collected as part of the kerbside recycling scheme, and it was queried whether
this would be a viable option. It was stated that there was variation between
recycling schemes offered by different local authorities and that to provide
this particular option in Middlesbrough, there would need to be a
reintroduction of segregating recycling materials by individuals prior to
collection. With the current co-mingled
system, all types of materials could be placed in a single bin making it easier
for the individual.
·
It
was recognised that Wales generally tended to perform well in recycling
compared to England. The Panel was
informed that the Welsh government had taken a very strong stance on recycling
with more stringent policies. Food waste
collection was now standard practice in Wales and due to good food waste and
recycling rates, some local authorities were moving to monthly residual waste
collections.
·
In
response to a query it was noted that some local authorities in England that
performed better on recycling had a higher rate of green waste collected which
boosted their recycling rates and it was acknowledged that many households in
Middlesbrough did not have gardens.
The Vice Chair thanked
the Officers for their attendance and the information provided.
AGREED as follows:-
1.
That
the information provided be noted and considered in the context of the Panel’s
current scrutiny topic of ‘Waste Management’.
That a site visit to Middlesbrough’s recycling facility be arranged for Members of the Panel.