|
Refuse - Council Papers
Please click on the
link to view the appropriate Council Paper
Additional hyperlinks are also provided below some of the
original papers, but please note that these are not persistent
links and may not work
Click to read at Bath && North East web site
Click to read at Bath & North East Somerset web site
Click to read web article on Full Waste Strategy Paper at Bath &
North East Somerset
Click here to return to main issues
page
Go to Top of Page
Bath & North East Somerset Council -
Edge of Property Collection Call in
Minutes
DRAFT NOTES SUBJECT TO
CONFIRMATION AT THE NEXT PANEL MEETING
BATH AND NORTH EAST SOMERSET
COUNCIL
PLANNING, TRANSPORTATION,
ECONOMY AND SUSTAINABILITY OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY PANEL - CALL-IN OF
EXECUTIVE DECISION ON EDGE OF PROPERTY REFUSE COLLECTION
Monday 6TH March 2006
PRESENT:- Councillors David Dixon
(Chair), Ruth Griffiths, Caroline Roberts, Chris Cray, David
Hawkins, Peter Edwards, Steve Willcox
Also in attendance:
Executive Member for Sustainability
and Environment - Councillor Gerry Curran
Councillors Phyllis Gay and Betty
Perry on behalf of the Call-In signatories. Also, Councillors
Charles Gerrish, Brian Barrett and Adrian Inker.
Officers: Matthew Smith (Head of
Leisure and Amenity Services) Carol Tunnard (Head of Waste
Services), Tom Dunne (Democratic Services Manager, Council and
Member Services), Alix Boswell (Democratic Services Manager -
Overview & Scrutiny), Michaela Gay (Democratic Services Officer).
1
WELCOME AND INTRODUCTIONS
The
Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting and introduced those present.
2
EMERGENCY EVACUATION PROCEDURE
The
Chair(person) drew attention to the emergency evacuation procedure
as set out on the Agenda.
3
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND SUBSTITUTIONS
There
were none.
4
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
There
were none
5 TO
ANNOUNCE ANY URGENT BUSINESS AGREED BY THE CHAIR
There
were none.
6
ITEMS FROM THE PUBLIC OR COUNCILLORS - TO RECEIVE DEPUTATIONS,
STATEMENTS, PETITIONS OR QUESTIONS RELATING TO THE BUSINESS OF THIS
MEETING
The
chair drew attention to written statements submitted by members of
the public, which were distributed to the Panel and the public
before the meeting.
(A
copy of these statements are held on file by Democratic Services)
7
DETERMINATION OF CALL IN REQUEST OF THE COUNCIL EXECUTIVE DECISION
ON EDGE OF PROPERTY REFUSE COLLECTION
The
Chair drew the Panel's attention to the Call-In request (Appendix 3
to the report).
The
Chair drew the meeting's attention to the Terms of Reference for the
meeting (set out in Appendix 5 to the report) and explained the
proposed structure for the meeting.
The
Panel considered the reports circulated and heard contributions from
the speakers listed below who answered questions to clarify their
submissions.
Councillor Gerry Curran
(Executive Member for Sustainability
and Environment)
Councillor Gerry Curran made a statement (A copy of the statement
is held on file by Democratic Services) The key points are as
follows:
Three main drivers provide the
background to the decision:
> Delivery of Waste Strategy
targets
> Efficiency savings to invest in
delivering waste strategy developments.
> Health & Safety concerns of
staff
A
combination of these three issues required the decision to move to
Edge of Property to be taken.
Councillor Curran went on to address the points raised by the
call-in signatories (A copy of the paper is held on file by
Democratic Services):
Insufficient consideration given to residents views:
The
waste strategy was adopted after a period of consultation and a
review by The PTES Overview & Scrutiny panel. Also, £30K has been
allocated to work with residents to address their concerns regarding
the implementation of the decision.
Long
term objectives of the recommendations have not been made clear:
This
decision releases resources required to expand the recycling
services. Implementation is necessary to facilitate the delivery of
the longer term strategy of moving towards same day collection for
all types of waste and the introduction of kitchen waste
collections.
Insufficient research to establish the true cost of home assistance:
Home
assistance is currently offered to all residents who require it (the
policy of back door collection does this in effect). Two members of
staff per crew provide this service. We are keeping one member of
staff on each crew to continue with assisted collections.
Residents' health & safety concerns do not appear to have been
addressed
Residents are responsible for their own health & safety and are best
placed to know their own physical capabilities and present their
refuse accordingly. We will of course assist where help is genuinely
needed.
Environmental impact on the streetscape has not been addressed
£30K has
been allocated to education and enforcement to address these
concerns.
Questions from the Panel Members
Panel
members asked questions of the Executive Member and the officer
Carol Tunnard - Head of Waste Services.
Panel
- This Panel did
recommend that Edge of Property be considered as an option but you
have not convinced me today. How much have you spent on
consultation?
C.Tunnard - There are
various initiatives in the Waste Strategy that rely on the Edge of
Property decision. We have not embarked on specific consultation but
have £30k allocated for a programme of consultation on the
implementation of the decision.
Panel
- Landfill will not be
affected - front or back door collections would make no difference.
G.Curran
- Edge of Property will reduce waste through new opportunities
for recycling so I believe that there is a link with landfill
issues.
Panel
- Where has the staff
health and safety assessment come from, there has always been a
health and safety risk.
G.Curran
- Health and safety issues have changed in all walks of life.
The Health and Safety Executive are becoming very strict about risks
to staff. It is undesirable for staff to enter peoples property as a
given.
Panel
- Where else did you look
for savings before you went down this route?
G.Curran
- This decision is not just about cost savings. We looked at all
the budgets in Waste Services, there is no fat on the bones. We
would welcome suggestions.
Panel
- What is the soft
marketing test that was done?
C.Tunnard
- It was a market test of companies that expressed an interest
in providing the service for this authority. We interviewed eight
companies.
Panel
- The environmental
impact varies across the authority, has any work been done on these
variations between wards and the different services they need?
C.Tunnard
- We are mindful of these variations.
Panel
- What is the law in
relation to collection and disposal of household waste and how much
consultation should there be (legally)?
C.Tunnard
- The Environmental Act 1990 Sections 46 and 47 states that a
local authority can deem where it collects waste and in what form it
should be contained. There is no legal requirement for consultation.
Householders are responsible for their waste until the point where
the authority picks it up.
Panel
- It has been mentioned
that £30k has been set aside for consultation but the decision has
already been made, can you explain this?
C.Tunnard
- The £30k has been set aside for consultation on the
implementation of the decision. The consultation is about how we
make the change, not whether or not the change should be made.
Panel
- What is the percentage
of back door collections in the area. Is there any information on
savings involved?
C.Tunnard - An average of
60% of the district has edge of property collection. We will be
reducing the crews by one member and this would result in a £124,000
saving per annum.
Panel
- How would the assisted
collection work and what are the estimated costs?
C.Tunnard - The crew
would have a list each day of the properties that have required
assisted collection. This is common practice throughout the UK. We
do not know the estimated costs as we don't know how many people
will require it (assisted collection).
Panel
- How much will it cost
the Council if Government fines are imposed regarding sending waste
to landfill?
C.Tunnard - This is
detailed in the Waste Strategy. The fines would be £15 million
between now and 2020.
Panel
- What does `edge of
property' constitute? Will the consultation pick this up and will
you include ward Councillors.
C.Tunnard - We are happy
to involve ward Councillors. The consultation will pick this issue
up. `Edge of property' is the gatepost, waste should be retained on
the property but there are always exceptions. Bags can be put on the
high street after 8pm the night before the collection - residents
have been advised of this.
Panel
- There are
recommendations in the Waste Strategy regarding efficiency. Part of
the recommendation is to make it less appealing to put large amounts
of waste out.
G.Curran - We don't want
to stop people putting waste out but we want people to think about
how they get rid of their waste - separating it for example.
Councillor Perry
(on behalf of Councillor P.Gay) - Representing the
Councillors who called-in the decision
Councillor Perry made a statement. (A copy of the statement is
held on file by Democratic Services) The key points are as
follows:
> Insufficient consideration has
been given to residents' views;
> The long term objectives of
these recommendations have not been made clear;
> Insufficient research has been
carried out to establish the true cost of home assistance;
> Residents' health and safety
concerns do not appear to have been addressed;
> Environmental impact on the
streetscape has not been addressed.
Councillor Perry added that she had received a large number of calls
from concerned residents on this issue. She also asked who would be
responsible if a member of the public had an accident because of
rubbish bags.
Questions from the Panel Members
Panel
- What would you consider
to be sufficient consultation and do you feel happy with officer's
answers regarding the £30k set aside.
B.Perry - Consultation
should be done before a decision and not afterwards. We feel it has
been done backwards.
Panel
- Did you know that
anyone requesting assisted collection can still have it? Also, 60%
of residents don't get a back door collection.
B.Perry - Why should they
have to apply for a service that they are already getting. Back door
collection works in our area. What would happen if a street had a
busy road and a narrow pavement? The new scheme could lead to an
administrative nightmare.
Statements from Councillors and Members of the Public
Councillor Perry - There
has been a lot of concern from residents. They are concerned that
they have to apply for a service that they already have. There are
concerns about job losses. Residents views should be considered, it
could generate into `them' and `us'. In some places policies are
unfeasible to administer. Residents feel that if you take a decision
on this, you should know what it means.
Councillor Barrett - I am
not sure about the cost benefits. The inconvenience to residents
should be assessed. On London Road (as an example) bags are put out
the night before and it's a shambles on Friday mornings. The
supporting evidence in the report is based on crews in three small
sections of the authority. Statements in the report are not all
based on hard evidence. There is no formal report from the Health
and Safety Executive.
Councillor Gerrish - I
have a copy of the regional Health and Safety letter. Some issues
picked up were generated through the speed and convenience of
collectors. These proposals are not value for money. Any savings
could be eradicated by requests for assisted collection. Will there
be temporary assisted collections? Officers were presented with bias
argument in the soft market test results. There is no definition of
`edge of property' eg. a private road. People need more information
about recycling.
Mr
Richard Ingham (public
speaker) - I am angry on behalf of residents who have been subject
to inadequate consultation. It is not consultation unless the
results can alter the outcome. I have 170 signatures in favour of
back door collection - this has been ignored. Our area now has lots
of rubbish in front gardens, requests for enforcement are not
answered until the following week. The area has been diminished. The
Health and Safety report is not based on fact. Residents have to
move bags further than staff would have to and the staff are fit and
healthy people paid to do the job, why should residents have to do
this. Our bags are put out on Friday night and left all weekend.
Throw this out, residents have been ignored. I speak for everyone on
the streets of Bear Flat.
The
Chair thanked Councillors and the member of the public for their
contributions.
The
Chair invited the Executive Members to respond to any points in the
above statements.
Councillor G.Curran -
There are different types of consultation - we would not ask `would
you like us to raise Council Tax?' for example. People have given us
a mandate to make decisions - that is democracy. We have to take
decisions that are sometimes unpopular with some people. This
Panel's Waste Review and the Waste Strategy have formed part of our
consultation. 60 % of residents have edge of property collections
anyway. Soft market testing is a form of consultation with
providers. Consultation took place in Bear Flat this time last year,
our communication with residents is ongoing, some residents have
applied for assisted collection. The issue of narrow footpaths will
only affect a small number of streets. Regarding the Heritage
issues, rubbish has to be put out in the centre of Bath one day a
week - this is a reality. Everyone should keep their own doorstep
clean. On the insurance issue, the Council is not liable for
injuries. Officers have to make a judgement on calls to the
emergency line.
Questions from the Panel Members
Panel
- Are there plans to
introduce wheelie bins?
M.Smith - There are no
immediate plans.
Following a recess, the Panel Members each gave their views on the
call-in:
D.Hawkins - Uphold.
Councillor Gay's notes contained some of my concerns. This has not
been properly researched.
S.Willcox - Dismiss. All
of my questions were answered. We should get a report in six months
on issues such as redundancy/complaints etc
P.Edwards - Dismiss. We
did a review on the subject. I am happy that the questions have been
answered. Officers have done a good job.
C.Cray - Uphold. I have
not had pressure put on me. I request a recorded vote. I did a
review on this and met officers. This decision has been made for
budget reasons. £124k is a small amount. This will affect a lot of
people. I am voting on the way this has been done, the lack of
consultation, not the issue of `kerbside'. We are doing residents a
great disservice, they are being treated with contempt.
R.Griffiths - Dismiss.
£124k is a saving. We don't have to consult on this by law.
Hopefully savings will be put towards recycling targets.
C.Roberts - Uphold. The
long term objectives have not been made clear. Information to the
public was not adequate.
D.Dixon - Dismiss. There
are some riders that the Panel would like to be taken on board.
The
Chair announced that:
It has
been RESOLVED that the Panel will DISMISS the call in by a
vote of 4 Panel members to 3 Panel Members. The Chair listed the
riders that the Panel wished to be taken with this decision which
they hope will be taken on board:
That the
Executive Member keeps the matter under review, and reports back to
PTES in six months time about the implementation of the decision, in
relation to improvements in the service/recycling, costs savings
achieved and resident's comments/complaints.
Executive Member and officers engage with the public and Ward
Councillors in consultation processes to agree as far as possible
the most appropriate location for waste to be placed for edge of
property collections.
That the
phrase 93edge of property94 be clearly defined for residents as
being within the curtilege of the property as far as is possible,
rather than kerbside or on the highways/footpath.
That the
option to apply for and receive assisted collection is widely
publicised.
That all
Council methods of communication (including newsletters and
websites, etc) are used to the fullest to explain this process, and
its part within the larger Waste Strategy for the area.
The
Panel then thanked the Councillors, Officers and public who had
attended and those who had made contributions to the discussion
during this meeting.
The meeting ended at 3.10pm
Chair (person)
Date Confirmed and Signed
Prepared by Democratic
Services
Click here to return to main issues
page
Go to Top of Page
PTE&S Overview & Scrutiny Panel meeting to determine the call-in for
Edge of Property Refuse Collection.
Meeting date 6th March 2006, 10.30 am Council Chamber, Guildhall.
Paper: Cllr Gerry Curran, Matthew Smith/Carol Tunnard
3 main drivers:
• Delivery of Waste Strategy targets
• Efficiency savings to invest in delivering waste strategy
developments.
• Health & Safety concerns of staff
A combination of these 3 issues requires the decision to move to
edge of property to be taken as soon as possible.
Points to address (in brief)
• Insufficient consideration to residents views
The waste strategy was adopted after a period of consultation and
review by Overview & Scrutiny panel. £30K has been allocated to work
individually to address residents concerns.
• Long term objectives of recommendations have not been made clear:
ie possible impact on recycling targets, potential impact on rising
waste disposal costs
This short term recommendation releases resources required to expand
the recycling services. Implementation is necessary to facilitate
the delivery of the longer term strategy of moving towards same day
collection for all types of waste and the introduction of kitchen
waste collections.
• Insufficient research to establish the true cost of home
assistance
We currently offer home assistance to all residents who require it
(the policy of backdoor collection does this in effect). 2 members
of staff per crew provide this service. We are keeping 1 member of
staff on each crew to continue carrying out assisted collections –
this effectively means that we’ve made provision for 50% of each
round to have assistance if required.
• Residents health & safety concerns do not appear to have been
addressed
Residents are responsible for their own health & safety and are best
placed to know their own physical capabilities and present their
refuse accordingly. We will of course assist where help is genuinely
needed.
• Environmental impact on the streetscape has not been addressed
£30K has been allocated to education and enforcement to address
these concerns.
Points Addressed (in detail)
Insufficient consideration to residents views
The in-principle decision was consulted on through the democratic
process, but no specific public consultation was taken in advance of
this recommendation. A review of collection methodologies was agreed
through the adoption of Council’s waste strategy in July 2005. The
waste strategy action plan for 2005/06 detailed “a review of refuse
& recycling collection methodologies making recommendations for
improvements both short and long term”. This proposal to move to
edge of property refuse collections represents the first short term
improvement recommended to deliver waste strategy targets.
Long term objectives of recommendations have not been made clear:
ie possible impact on recycling targets, potential impact on rising
waste disposal costs
The longer term objectives are to move towards same day collection
for refuse, dry recyclables and organic waste in order to maximise
the quantities of waste that will be recycled, to reduce confusion
to residents, to encourage participation in recycling schemes, and
to allow staff to carry out additional segregation at the kerbside
where practical. The only effective way of doing this is to move to
a consistent point of collection for all materials.
Making the move in the short term releases budget required to
develop the organics collections and recycling collections to enable
waste strategy targets to be met. Failure to meet targets and divert
waste from landfill will result in increased waste disposal costs
and the potential for fines from central government.
It is anticipated that by making the point of collection
consistent with recycling and organics collections in advance of
longer term service developments residents will become more aware of
the quantities of black bag waste they produce and through raising
awareness and carrying out targeted campaigning increased quantities
of waste will be recycled by residents who currently recycle very
little. In some cases it is currently much easier for residents to
leave their waste out in whatever container they chose for
collection by their back door, than it is to sort and place out at
the front for recycling. A move towards edge of property for all
waste re-dresses this balance.
Insufficient research to establish the true cost of home
assistance
2 members of staff per crew are currently employed to carry out the
home assistance (ie. drag out from the back door). The proposal
reduces this to 1 member of staff – ie. makes allowance for
potentially 50% of the district still requiring home assistance.
Research nationally shows that this figure will in reality be
between 0.5%-10%. Our green box scheme has 0.004% assisted
collections currently.
Residents’ health & safety concerns do not appear to have been
addressed
Residents are able to reduce personal risk by presenting their waste
in quantities within their physical carrying limits, by wrapping
sharp objects and by using appropriate quality sacks. We will assist
any resident who is physically unable to carry their own waste and
seeks help from us and would urge residents who need help to contact
our action line.
The Council’s waste strategy places much emphasis on education,
campaigning and raising awareness on waste issues. Personal
responsibility in sorting, separating and presenting materials
appropriately for collection is central to the adopted zero waste
philosophy.
Environmental impact on the streetscape has not been
addressed.
We address this issue currently as many residents put their waste
out at the front of their properties by choice and by necessity
where there is no back access to properties (particularly in Bath).
Where residents have to carry the waste themselves it is generally
better presented to reduce spillages.
The Council’s guidelines state that waste should be contained
within the boundary of the residents property where possible ready
for collection, and put out on the highway not before 8pm on the day
before collection.
Where problems are experienced with residents leaving waste out
too far in advance of collection days, or obstructions to the
highway are identified then fixed penalty notices (£50) may be
issued.
£30K has been allocated to address education & enforcement issues
resulting from a move to edge of property throughout the district.
Actions planned/carried out to date relating to consulting
with/assessing residents views about this change
Outline Communications plan for Edge of Property Refuse
Assuming decision agreed then the target date for district wide
implementation is W/C 5th June 2006. Long lead in to implement the
communications plan and address specific concerns on an individual
basis.
Aim:
• To communicate as widely as possible through a variety of
different medium to reach as many residents as possible.
• To urge residents with specific concerns to contact us so we can
address these with them individually.
• To advise and respond to requests for assisted collections with a
sufficient lead in for collection days.
• To identify areas of specific need and identify and communicate
tailored solutions to individual groups of residents.
• To work with Somer Community Housing and other properties with
wardens and caretakers to identify most appropriate method of
collection.
• To identify groups of people for targeted campaigning eg.
students, flat sharers, social workers and home help carers amongst
others.
Media:
Leaflets, Council News, Somer Times, Parish & Town newsletters,
Residents Associations, Community Associations, Council Officers,
Newspaper & radio advertisements, press releases, press briefings,
Student liaison groups, web sites, letting agencies, estate agents,
residents welcome pack, door-knocking, community posters, disability
groups.
Publicity Timetable
• 8th February – Decision made at Council Executive. Call-in period
before implementation.
• February -Leaflet design. 4-6 weeks to get the leaflet to the
final copy ready for printing. Slight variations may be needed on
the main leaflet if there are specific issues that are relevant to
certain areas of the District only.
• w/c 8th February – meeting with Somer Housing to discuss
implications & work up action plan
• End Feb/start March – Article in Spring Council News promoting
assisted collections available for all collection services, urging
residents to contact us to address specific needs & circumstances.
• End March – Further press release/briefing reminding residents
that there will be a change and again stressing that assisted
collections are available. Contact us to discuss individual
requirements. Information on the website, posters in libraries.
• April – Information to Parish Council’s, liaison with Residents
Associations, universities, community groups etc.
• W/C 15th & 22nd May – District wide distribution of leaflets,
posters, door knocking in specified areas, further press briefing.
• W/C 5th June –Edge of property collections begin.
• Summer edition of Council News – Follow up article to remind
people that the change of location has occurred.
Click here to return to main issues
page
Go to Top of Page
Bath & North East Somerset Council
MEETING: Council Executive
DATE: 8th February 2006
PAPER NUMBER 15
TITLE: Edge of Property Refuse Collection DRAFT EXECUTIVE FORWARD
PLAN REFERENCE:
EWP 01154 LA
WARD: All
AN OPEN PUBLIC ITEM
List of attachments to this report:
Appendix 1 - Waste Collection
Study
1 THE ISSUE
1.1 This report details proposed changes to the point of collection
for refuse (from back door to edge of property) which will improve
operational efficiency, benefit recycling rates, address health and
safety concerns and ensure a consistency of approach across refuse
and recycling services.
2 RECOMMENDATIONS
The Council Executive is asked to agree that:
2.1 The point of collection for rubbish is moved to the edge of
property.
2.2 That residents are made aware of the availability of the
existing assisted collection service which is available for those
who have difficulties in placing their rubbish at the edge of their
property.
2.3 That staff work with residents in specific areas with access and
storage difficulties in order to identify the most appropriate
collection point (as outlined in paragraphs 3.2 and 4.9).
3 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
3.1 A saving in staff and operating costs of £124K in a full year is
anticipated from moving the point of collection from the back door
to the edge of property. This has been detailed in the draft 2006/07
Service Plan to be agreed by the Executive Member for Sustainability
& the Environment.
3.2 £30K investment will be necessary in order to successfully
publicise and promote the changes, to work face to face with
residents to address specific concerns and to meet the cost of
additional enforcement measures (see details at paragraph 4.9).
3.3 Savings achieved will help develop recycling services in order
to deliver the Council's agreed Waste Strategy targets. This
proposal is contained within 2006/07 draft Service Plan and will be
considered as part of the Council's budget setting process.
3.4 The draft Service Plan anticipates a net saving of £50,000
(taking into account the investment identified in 3.2 above) from
this change in 2006/07. The full annual saving will not be achieved
in the first year due to the need to phase in these changes over the
first six months of the financial year.
4 THE REPORT
4.1 In 2004 a study was commissioned to review our current methods
of collecting rubbish in order to address health and safety concerns
regarding existing operational practices, identify the most
appropriate ways to increase participation in recycling schemes, and
to maximise tonnages of waste that we recycle in the most cost
effective, efficient, consistent and co-ordinated manner.
4.2 The study recommended that edge of property refuse collection be
introduced to resolve a number of health and safety issues, and to
increase the amount of waste recycled by introducing consistency
across the refuse and recycling services in advance of new service
specifications being agreed through market testing.
4.3 Through survey work previously undertaken it is thought that
approximately 60% of residents already place their refuse at the
edge of their property for collection.
4.4 The Health & Safety Executive inspected our refuse & recycling
operations in December 2005. The inspector expressed serious
concerns over our current methods of collection, specifically the
black sack back door collection policy. The inspector urged the
Council to consider edge of property collections as a priority in
order to reduce manual handling concerns and then to implement
wheeled bin collections as far as practically possible in due
course. A formal written report from the inspector is awaited.
4.5 Significant health and safety concerns have been raised by staff
and Trade Unions regarding back door collection. Frequently staff
are required to handle bags down large driveways, narrow alleys,
slippery steps down into cellars, through broken garden gates etc.
Refuse is frequently poorly presented by residents who do not have
to handle it themselves. There are many incidents of sharp objects &
glass protruding from sacks and sacks that are of very poor quality.
Where residents handle the sacks themselves the waste is generally
presented in a much safer manner.
4.6 In specific locations throughout the district health and safety
risks arising from collecting from the back door have resulted in an
unacceptable level of risk for operatives. In these instances
collections have already been introduced from the edge of property.
Typically these type of properties have had narrow back lane access
which have inherent dangers for reversing vehicles.
4.7 Nationally, recycling schemes have undergone significant
development over the past two years as central government funding
has had a positive impact. There are many authorities that are
carrying out innovative approaches to waste and recycling
collections and examples of best practice that Bath & North East
Somerset can learn from continue to be thoroughly researched.
4.8 The Council is market testing its refuse and recycling services
in 2006. A new specification will be developed for refuse and
recycling services through this market test. The move from back door
to edge of property is a short term solution, to ensure a
consistency of approach for all of our collection services in
advance of new service specifications being implemented.
4.9 In order to deliver the benefits and savings outlined above, it
will be essential to publicise and promote these changes and to
employ staff to work closely with residents in order to address
specific concerns. In the period directly following changes to the
collection arrangements, additional enforcement officer resource
will also be essential in order that any failure to comply with the
revised arrangements is identified and residents advised of the new
collection regime costs are estimated at:- publicity material and
distribution, data input related to assisted collection service
£13K; Recycling Consortium costs for "door knockers" (advisers) £6K;
Enforcement additional staff costs and contingencies £11K.
5 RISK MANAGEMENT
5.1 A risk assessment related to the issue and recommendations has
been undertaken, in compliance with the Council's decision making
risk management guidance. The following key risks have been
identified:-
B7 Incurring redundancy costs through reduction in staffing levels.
It is anticipated that reductions can be managed by natural wastage
through redeploying any affected staff across related services.
B7 Adverse public reaction to changes. This will be mitigated by
investment in publicity, promotion, liaison and enforcement.
Assisted collections will be provided where residents have
difficulties in complying with the new arrangements.
B7 Injury to staff, although reduced, is still a risk due to the
continuation of collection of refuse in bags. Risk is lessened
because handling by staff is reduced and residents tends to present
their refuse in a more acceptable state where they are required to
adhere to an edge of property collection.
5.2The Council's Solicitor advises that the Council is obliged to
provide its employees with a safe system of working. As a risk to
the health and safety of the relevant employees has been identified,
the Council is legally obliged to take steps to minimise that risk.
Failure to do so may result in injury or breach of contract claims
by the relevant employees against the Council. Ultimately the
Council or its Directors might also be at risk of prosecution under
the Health and Safety At Work Act if an identified risk to its
employees is not addressed.
6 RATIONALE
6.1 Introducing edge of property rubbish collection reduces many
health and safety risks and introduces a consistency of approach
across our refuse and recycling collection services which should
have the effect of encouraging higher levels of recycling.
6.2 A further likely benefit of this change is that, in the area of
households affected, levels of litter are likely to be reduced. This
is due to the likelihood that refuse presented in an unacceptable
condition will be reduced whilst staff will be required to carry
bags of refuse less distance.
7 OTHER OPTIONS CONSIDERED
7.1 To remain with back door collection - the health and safety
issues that this presents for operatives are no longer acceptable.
This was clearly stated during a recent inspection by the Health &
Safety Executive. This option would continue the inconsistency of
approach between the green box service and the composting collection
service which already require the containers to be placed edge of
property.
7.2 To implement wheeled bin collections, edge of property to ease
manual handling and cleanliness issues - this will be addressed
through the development of new service specifications which will be
market tested to ensure affordability and to ensure the achievement
of the Council's Waste Strategy targets.
8 CONSULTATION
8.1 Executive Councillor, Overview & Scrutiny Panel, Trades unions,
Section 151 Finance Officer, Service staff, Other B&NES Services,
Chief Executive, Monitoring Officer
8.2 Extensive consultation has been carried out during the
development of the Council's Waste Strategy. This has included
Workshops, Stakeholder meetings, publication of draft documents for
comment and through scrutiny by the relevant O&S Panel, at which
edge of property collections have been discussed at length.
8.3 The Trade Unions have responded to the draft version of this
report by saying "We fully support the proposal to move from a "back
door" collection to an edge of property collection. We believe that
the present method directly conflicts with the Council's Duty of
Care towards its employees. Moving to edge of property will greatly
reduce the health and safety risks, improve efficiency and increase
recycling rates".
Contact person Carol Tunnard - 01225 394106
carol_tunnard@bathnes.gov.uk
Background papers Waste Collection
Study - evaluation of current system April 2005
Towards Zero Waste 2020 - A Waste Strategy For Bath & North East
Somerset (2005 - 2010).
Click here to return to main issues
page
Go to Top of Page
Health & Safety Inspection
Itinerary for 13th & 14th December 2005
Tuesday 13th Dec
9:30 Review of management systems – Keynsham Town Hall Room 3
Present
Matthew Smith , Head of Leisure & Amenity Services B&NES
Carol Tunnard, Strategic Manager, Waste Services, B&NES
Geoff Dicker, Corporate Health & Safety Adviser, B&NES
John Evered, Refuse Operations Manager, B&NES
Steve Thorne, General Manager ECT Recycling
11:00 ECT Keynsham Recycling Depot
Observing Recycling Operations
15:00 1-1 with Chris Price GMB Representative. John Evered’s
Office Midland Road Depot.
16:00 Look at ECT Bath Recycling Depot
17:00 End of day 1
Wednesday 14th Dec
8:30 Midland Road Refuse Depot. Observing operations.
13:00 Lunch & Washing Up
Present
Matthew Smith , Head of Leisure & Amenity Services B&NES
Carol Tunnard, Strategic Manager, Waste Services, B&NES
Geoff Dicker, Corporate Health & Safety Advisor, B&NES
John Evered, Refuse Operations Manager, B&NES
Steve Thorne, General Manager ECT Recycling
Chris Price, GMB Representative
Click here to return to main issues
page
Go to Top of Page
Waste
Collection Study
Evaluation of Current System
Draft Report
April 2005
CONTENTS
1.0 SUMMARY 3
2.0 KEY RECOMMENDATIONS 3
3.0 AIMS 5
4.0 INTRODUCTION 5
5.0 BACKGROUND 6
5.1 Refuse collection 6
5.2 Garden waste and cardboard collection 6
5.3 Dry recyclables collection 6
6.0 METHODOLOGY 8
6.1 Sample research surveys 8
6.2 Discussions with staff 8
6.3 Database analysis 8
6.4 Forums, Seminars and Exhibitions 8
6.5 Waste Collection Working Group 8
6.6 Internet searches and telephone conversations 8
7.0 FINDINGS 9
7.1 Waste Presentation 9
7.2 Health and Safety 11
7.3 Working practices 13
7.4 Summary of findings 13
8.0 OPTIONS APPRAISAL 14
9.0 CONCLUSIONS 15
APPENDIX I: Vehicle fleet 17
APPENDIX II: Critical appraisal surveys 18
APPENDIX III: Evidence from random surveys 20
APPENDIX IV: Evaluation of options 22
APPENDIX V: Point of Collection - Advantages & Disadvantages 22
APPENDIX VI: Same day collections - advantages and disadvantages 24
APPENDIX VII: Refuse Containers - advantages and disadvantages 25
APPENDIX VIII: Proposals for discussion at Working Group (12/8/2004)
26
APPENDIX IX: Notes from Waste Collection Working Group 30
APPENDIX X: View from the Council's Health & Safety Advisor 32
APPENDIX XI Comparison of collection methods against recycling
performance 36
APPENDIX XIII: Local Authority Contacts 39
1.0 SUMMARY
The Council has adopted a vision of zero waste and is striving to
recycle as much waste as possible. One of the Council's corporate
improvement priorities is to reduce the amount of waste sent to
landfill. Participation in recycling schemes has increased steadily
over the years, and new schemes have been implemented to recycle an
increasing range of material types.
As a result there are a variety of different collection methods in
operation for residual waste, organic waste and dry-recyclables. In
2004/05 we recycled 32% of household waste - 61% of this waste is
recycled and composted via the kerbside collection schemes, the
remainder is recycled through bring banks and the Household Waste &
Recycling Centres.
Despite our successes however, an estimated 25% of residents still
do not participate in any form of kerbside recycling activity and
the majority of our waste continues to be landfilled.
This study was initiated to review our current methods of collection
in order to identify the most appropriate ways to increase
participation in recycling schemes, and to maximise tonnages of
waste that we recycle in the most cost effective, efficient,
consistent & co-ordinated manner and to address health & safety
concerns that have been raised regarding our current operational
practices. The Council faces significant financial penalties if it
fails to meet (and exceed) its recycling targets, as the cost of
waste disposal will continue to rise dramatically.
Nationally, recycling schemes have undergone significant development
over the past 2 years, as central government funding has had a
positive impact. There are many more authorities that are carrying
out innovative approaches to waste & recycling collections, and
examples of best practice that Bath & North East Somerset can learn
from continue to be thoroughly researched.
The Council will market test its refuse and recycling services in
2006. A new specification will be developed for refuse & recycling
services through the review of the Council's waste strategy which
will be consulted upon. Short term recommendations are made here to
improve the service in advance of this market test.
2.0 KEY RECOMMENDATIONS
In order to increase tonnages of waste recycled, to improve
communication with residents, to address health & safety concerns
and to achieve operational efficiencies the following actions are
recommended in the short term for implementation in 2005/06.
1. The adoption of curtilage collection policy, to make the point of
collection for residual waste consistent with that of the recycling
and composting collection services.
2. Assisted collections for those who are physically unable to put
their waste at the curtilage of their property (consistent with the
green box and organics schemes).
3. The temporary employment of 2 waste minimisation/recycling
awareness officers to work closely with residents and front line
staff to maximise tonnages recycled and address areas of particular
concern in the early months of the proposed changes.
4. The sale of small wheeled bins at cost price for those who will
find it more difficult to move their waste or for those who prefer
the convenience.
5. The implementation of a time limited missed bin policy to address
operational inefficiencies and improve customer satisfaction.
6. The use of stickers and leaflets to inform residents why their
refuse has not been collected in particular circumstances, to
improve customer satisfaction and to reduce operational
inefficiencies.
7. Negotiations be initiated to cease task and finish work
practices.
8. A financial appraisal of longer term collection options be
carried out through the market test of waste services scheduled for
2006.
3.0 AIMS
This project assesses waste & recycling collection methodology in
the short term in advance of the market test of refuse & recycling
services due in 2006, with the aim of implementing service
improvements and developments to maximise the tonnage of waste
recycled, and to achieve operational efficiencies.
Potential options for longer term changes to methodology are
detailed and further consideration will be given to these through
the Council's developing waste strategy.
The recommendations will realise the following benefits to the
authority: -
B7 Increase in tonnage of waste recycled
B7 Improved streamlining of services for residents
B7 Improved quality of service
B7 Safer working practices for operatives
B7 Operational efficiencies
4.0 INTRODUCTION
This project forms an integral part of the Council's Zero Waste
Strategy and makes recommendations for short-term action in our
current refuse collection methodology in order to increase the
amount of material that is recycled through the kerbside collection
scheme. Longer-term recommendations that will need further
consultation and research through the appropriate forums are then
detailed.
The Council's Best Value action plan details a market test of its
waste and recycling services in 2006.
The government has set statutory recycling targets for local
authorities to achieve, and the implementation of the EU landfill
directive in the UK means that authorities must reduce the amount of
biodegradable waste that they send to landfill every year, or face
significant fines. The Landfill tax is also rising by A33 per tonne
per annum with the intention of making the cost of recycling cheaper
than the cost of landfill disposal.
Achieving real progress on waste minimisation and recycling means
changing perceptions and lifestyles. The interested and motivated
are doing their bit but what about the rest? How do we achieve real,
lasting change in whole communities?
Many Local Authorities are now putting the `squeeze' on refuse and
making people think seriously about the quantity of waste they
generate. It is estimated that 64% of councils in England are now
using wheeled bins to collect refuse so that they can limit the
amount of waste they collect, and of these, 31% (and rising) are
operating an alternate weekly collection system, collecting residual
refuse every other week.
This report details an analysis of the existing residual waste
collection system and puts forward recommendations in order to
achieve the Council's objectives of reducing landfill and making
services more efficient and effective. The first part of the project
reviews the current collection system in order to make
recommendations for improvements in the short term.
Surveys and interviews were undertaken with operational staff and
supervisors in order to inform conclusions.
5.0 BACKGROUND
Legislation requires that the Council collect domestic waste from
households and recycle set proportions of this waste. However the
mechanism for providing this service is at the discretion of the
local authority, and a wide variety of different collection systems
are in use nationally. Under the Environmental Protection Act 1990
the Local authority has the power to specify how people present
their waste for collection.
As a unitary authority Bath & North East Somerset is responsible for
both waste collection and disposal. We collect waste and recyclables
from approximately 73,500 properties throughout the district. We
also manage and operate directly two waste transfer stations, a rail
loading siding and three Household Waste & Recycling Centres.
Every year approximately 50,000 tonnes of waste are transferred by
rail to landfill in Buckinghamshire, and a further 30,000 tonnes are
disposed of in landfill sites in neighbouring counties. We will be
market testing our waste services throughout 2006. This market test
presents the opportunity to change our existing methods of
collection.
5.1 Refuse collection
The council carries out the refuse collection service in-house.
Collections of refuse are on a weekly basis from each resident's
property. The Council operates a backdoor collection policy however
the majority of residents present their refuse at the front of their
property. Residents can present refuse in whatever container they
choose - no container is provided.
The crew on larger refuse collection vehicles consists of five waste
operatives; a driver (Team Leader), two `draggers' and two
`throwers'. The draggers work ahead of the refuse collection vehicle
and retrieve refuse from resident's properties and pile them up at
the kerbside. The throwers travel with the vehicle and throw the
sacks into the back of the vehicle. Other crews vary in size from
just one driver to a driver plus one crewmember (appendix I).
The Council operates sixteen vehicles in the refuse collection
fleet. A standard round covers around 1800 properties. The rounds
have been built up over time and modified as and when changes are
required or when new properties are built.
5.2 Garden waste and cardboard collection
Garden Waste and cardboard collections are operated on an `opt in'
basis. These occur once per fortnight from the front curtilage using
a wheeled bin or paper sack purchased from the Council. Currently,
wheeled bins are sold for A337 for three years service and paper
bags are 50 pence each and can be purchased from local outlets and
selected council offices. The material collected is taken to one of
two composting facilities in the area. The compost produced is sold
at the House Waste and Recycling Centres as a soil improver.
5.3 Dry recyclables collection
The dry recyclables collection is run for the Council by ECT
Recycling and is available to all residents in Bath and North East
Somerset Council area. This contract will expire in 2006. A new
contract will be procured through the market test of services.
Participation in this scheme is voluntary and it is estimated
through monitoring & survey, that 75% of householders in Bath are
participating in this recycling scheme.
Dry recyclables are collected weekly from the front curtilage of
properties using a green box or basket, which is supplied by the
Council. There is a choice of a green recycling box (55 Litre) or
smaller basket (25 Litre). The baskets have handles and are
recommended for people who may have problems lifting a bigger box or
for those with limited storage space. The materials are source
separated onto purpose built vehicles and the containers are
returned to point of presentation.
6.0 METHODOLOGY
6.1 Sample research surveys
Sample research surveys were undertaken in order to monitor the
number of properties with refuse presented at the back door. In
addition, the type of container used most frequently was recorded
and a note made of the variety and quality of containers.
Three rounds were chosen to reflect a city centre, estate and rural
collection.
-Route 4 (Thursday) Swainswick, Larkhall
-Route 4 (Tuesday) Parts of Batheaston, Bathampton, Southstoke,
Monkton Combe
-Route 1 (Thursday) London Road, Weston
Surveys were undertaken ahead of the vehicle before sacks had been
removed from the properties by the waste operatives. Within randomly
selected streets, a record was made of refuse presentation. (Full
notes available)
6.2 Discussions with staff
The views of operational staff were sought at a very early stage in
order that the project developed an operational focus.
Operational staff that have been undertaking waste operational
duties for many years were asked to estimate the % presentation
backdoor on their specific rounds.
6.3 Database analysis
Data was obtained from the SBS database relating to the number of
telephone calls received by Action line about missed bins and
general complaints. In addition, a Health and Safety database was
obtained in order to interrogate the main causes of injury and
sickness amongst the workforce.
6.4 Forums, Seminars and Exhibitions
Information was gathered at the Chartered Institute of Wastes
Management (CIWM) exhibition, the South West Compost Networking
meeting and other team meetings were attended to gather information.
6.5 Waste Collection Working Group
A Waste Collection Working Group was convened in order to seek views
on a number of proposals and to participate in shaping the
recommendations of this report.
6.6 Internet searches and telephone conversations
The website www.AskJennie.com has recently been developed by Jennie
Rogers of David Davies Associates (Oct 04), and contains information
of collection schemes for 267 local authorities. Participating local
authorities can update their own information and interrogate the
database.
Many local authority websites were viewed in order to obtain
information about waste collection systems in operation. In
addition, councils in the same family group and in the top 15 in
recycling league tables were contacted either by e-mail or telephone
to discuss the system in operation
7.0 FINDINGS
7.1 Waste Presentation
Point of Presentation
Surveys concluded that approximately 60% of residents put their
refuse out at the front of their property for collection (Appendix
iii). These findings provide an update to a survey carried out in
2000 through Voicebox (the citizen's panel questionnaire) which
indicated that 54% of residents put their waste at the front of
their properties at that time. It is difficult to provide an exact
figure of the proportion of residents currently presenting front
curtilage since the figure is affected by property type, location
and public attitude.
Appendix II provides a summary of findings as a result of time spent
shadowing the refuse collection crews. Extracts from these
appendices are quoted in this section 7.
Obvious operational inefficiencies were identified through the work
shadowing due to the uncertainties surrounding the point of
collection ..... "We worked at a fair pace in order to get the job
done as quickly as possible. The `draggers' were very keen to ensure
that they picked up all the bags and were walking up and down
stairs, alleyways and into people's gardens to retrieve sacks. It
felt a bit of a wild goose chase at times and much of the effort was
on retrieving rather than collecting.
Refuse had to be retrieved from bin cupboards, cellars, in hedges,
back door, front door, front curtilage, kerbside, down long lanes,
on top of walls, by garages and wheeled bins. All possibilities for
presentation had to be checked in order to avoid missing bags. The
regular draggers for each round knew exactly where to look for bags
and assisted new and agency staff to find bags for collection"
It was noted that some properties were more suited to a back
door/back curtilage collection due to the nature of their location.
A good knowledge of the peculiarities of each individual round is
required in order to make sure that every single property receives a
collection. The regular draggers for each round know exactly where
to look for sacks and assist new and agency staff to find sacks for
collection. This method of collection relies very much on local
knowledge, and when regular staff are absent, bags can easily be
missed.
Collectors have to walk long distances and in some instances they
work in hazardous situations in order to retrieve sacks. It was
found that on a few occasions, collectors had to walk down long
lanes to get to the backdoor of the property only to find that no
sacks had been presented for collection that week. This was not only
frustrating but also time consuming.
Worrying health & safety issues when having to enter properties to
retrieve refuse were also highlighted .... "Cellars pose a real
problem since some steps were covered in moss and very slippy. In
addition handrails were not fixed firmly and there was evidence of
rats. Two staff were required to remove bags from cellars; one to
throw bags up to the second dragger stood on the stairs. I noted
twenty eight bags being removed from one cellar, which took quite a
while to remove and pile up on the street. In one cellar, the
landlord had provided wheeled bins for the residents since they had
problems with rats. I experienced crew members slipping on steps
down into cellars..."
It was noted that in some streets a backdoor as well as front door
collection is required by residents (sometimes serviced by different
vehicles on the same street).
In areas where recycling and refuse were collected on the same day,
it was found that residents were more likely to present their waste
in the same position as the recycling box (front edge of property).
One of the main reasons for complaints to Action line is because
sacks split and cause littering of the streets on collection day.
The complainants have indicated that the collectors are throwing
sacks over walls and fences which are causing them to split and the
contents spill out.
Another main reason for complaints about the system is because
refuse crews are collecting before 7am e.g. a resident outlined that
a collector was at his property at 3am and suggested that this was
unacceptable.
Refuse Containers
Residents use black sacks most often to present their waste, however
it was found that some sacks presented were of particularly low
quality and could not be carried any distance without splitting " It
was apparent that some residents had a complete lack of regard for
how they presented their refuse". The collectors indicated that
white bin liners tear very easily when they are picked up. In
addition, sacks are attacked by wildlife, which leads to refuse
being strewn over the pavements.
Carrier bags are used to present smaller quantities of waste;
however it was noted that many carrier bags were presented from some
individual households. This causes problems as they are not easy to
carry in bulk when wearing gloves. In some instances refuse was
presented in carrier bags that were tied up and then placed into a
traditional dustbin with no liner.
It was difficult to judge the weight of each individual sack.
Injuries to the upper body can occur from lifting heavy as well as
light sacks. Health & safety guidance suggests that an average of no
more than two sacks should be picked up at any one time. However in
some instances, collectors carried around eight sacks at a time to
save time.
The Council will not collect waste presented in wheeled bins
currently as the majority of vehicles are not fitted with the
correct bin lift equipment.
Quantity of material presented
The average amount of refuse presented was two sacks per household
although the range varied enormously. The maximum number of sacks
being collected from one property (a charitable nursing home) was
thirty-six.
In terms of carrier bags, it was noted that between one and ten were
presented by individual properties.
Anecdotal information suggested that students present a lot of
refuse particularly when they leave their flats for the summer
break. Reports were received of a 50% increase in the amount of
refuse collected on particular rounds in areas of high student
population.
The Council does not have a policy of limiting the amount of waste
that it will collect for disposal from individual properties, nor
does it enforce the use of recycling schemes. The current refuse
collection system takes away any quantity of waste that is left out,
with no individual follow up or incentives to encourage minimisation
& recycling.
"Some residents presented 10+ refuse sacks for collection with the
maximum being 25! The existing system does not encourage recycling
at all."
Materials presented
It was evident that there is still a high proportion of mixed refuse
that can be recycled. Materials that could be recycled or reused are
contained within or placed alongside sacks for collection
"...it was evident that some sacks contained materials that could be
recycled. I noted several instances where broken glass was
protruding from sacks. Many black sacks contained glass, which could
be heard breaking when the sacks were piled up. I also noted lots of
reusable and recyclable items presented with the refuse including
bags of video cassettes, an airer, children's toys, glass chopping
board, garden machinery, dried flowers, kitchen utensils, garden
waste and cardboard."
The Council has a policy not to collect garden waste put out for
general refuse collection as this should be charged for and
recycled. However it was noted that some crew members did collect
garden waste presented in a black sack for refuse collection.
A lot of cardboard is also presented with refuse for collection,
although there is a separate cardboard recycling service. The crews
are very keen to leave this material for recycling but are aware
that residents may phone in to report a `missed collection' in which
case they will have to go back and collect it. In some instances,
large amounts of cardboard were presented for refuse collection. On
occasions this was left behind by the crews but no accompanying
information was left for the residents to explain why this material
had been left behind and how they could recycle it.
Members of operational staff were asked whether they would be in
favour of diverting refuse for recycling and a very positive
response was received. It was apparent that some collectors are
dismayed at the amount of material being thrown away with the refuse
that could be recycled.
Time of presentation
It was noted that a proportion of residents presented refuse the
night before collection day, although the Council does not advise
this.
In addition, a number of residents did not present their refuse by
7:15am and were rushing to present refuse as the collection crew
were passing. It was also found that residents presented refuse even
after the refuse crew had passed down the street.
"Some residents were running out to present refuse even at 8:30am as
the vehicle was passing. On one occasion, we had passed down one
road (after 7:15am) and collected sacks and we passed up the road
about an hour and a half later and a bag had been presented. If we
had not collected the bag, it would have been reported as a missed
collection even though it had been presented late."
7.2 Health and Safety
Waste operational staff continually encounter situations, which are
a risk to both their health and to their safety. In particular the
requirement to enter a resident's property poses many health and
safety risks.
During survey work collection incidents were noted involving rats,
slippy steps, broken gates and objects & dogs in garden.
"I experienced crew members slipping on steps down into cellars,
having to carry bags along long driveways and having to carry bags
with dangerous items protruding. Some back lanes are very slippy on
foot and tight for vehicles to pass down. In my opinion, the crew
members constantly face health and safety issues which really should
be avoided through changes to Council policy and clearer guidance. A
few examples include cars pulling out when draggers entering
driveways, dogs in gardens, wobbly and slippy steps down into
cellars, broken garden gates, objects in garden (e.g. plant pots),
long and slippy driveways, building works to house."
Back lanes (particularly when overgrown) cause a hazard for the
collection crews and in some instances the larger RCVs only just fit
through. In specific streets the Council has already specified that
refuse must be collected from the front of the property on health &
safety grounds.
Refuse in sacks can be hazardous due to the presence of sharp
objects, glass, discarded syringes or foul material.
It was noted that some residents do not present the refuse in a safe
manner and on one particular occasion during the survey work, a
collector was injured by a piece of protruding glass. Nine records
were made of bags that contained protruding glass or glass that was
placed directly into a black sack. It was observed that one resident
had placed a piece of sheet glass out for collection on top of some
black sacks.
"It was apparent that some residents had a complete lack of regard
for how they presented their refuse ...I noted several instances
where broken glass was protruding from sacks."
Manual handling issues also arise. Some properties (e.g. cellars)
present particular problems in terms of collection and require
collectors to work at awkward angles, carry bags for long distances
or throw sacks up stairs.
The Council's Health and Safety Advisor was asked for a formal view
on the current collection system. His response is detailed in full
in Appendix X. The conclusions are:
o The use of black sacks of non-consistent quality provides
significant risk to operatives when manually handling these. The use
of wheeled bins in flat areas is recommended to reduce manual
handling risks.
o Front curtilage collections are recommended to reduce risks
associated with poorly maintained back lanes.
o Collections from cellars, bin stores and other confined spaces
present a high risk and should be reconsidered.
o Task and finish increases health & safety issues significantly
because of the desire to finish early, and negotiations should begin
to cease this practice.
The Health & Safety Executive published a report into manual
handling in 2002 which recommended that wherever possible wheelie
bins should be used in preference to bags or small dustbins.
7.3 Working practices
Staffing
A task and finish system is operated by the council. The GMB Union
outlines that this system provides a tendency to cut corners in an
attempt to cut the time. Collectors can be seen running in order to
get the job done quicker and reports of exceptionally early start
times have been reported by residents on occasion. This method of
working is not equitable with other Council employees.
The Health & Safety advisor has recommended that the Council beings
negotiations to cease this practice (see section 7.2 and Appendix
X).
Sickness within the workforce is high due to a variety of reasons
and procedures are being put in place to address this. Reliance on
Agency staff loses time and increases the potential to miss bins. It
also delays start times and the reliability of service.
Routes and rounds
Routes and rounds have been built up historically and in some cases
they are no longer efficiently programmed. A change to working
practices will ensure that rounds are reviewed and operational
efficiencies achieved.
The vehicles generally leave the depot at 6am, which means that, on
occasion, sacks are collected before 7 am from some properties. In
addition, sacks from some properties at the end of a round are not
collected until 2pm, which means that some bags are present on the
streets for at least 7 hours.
Missed bins
Residents have unlimited time to report a `missed bin' which causes
a constraint on resources and inefficient use of time. If someone
rings in to report a missed bin 4-5 days after their scheduled
collection, the crews will revisit the property, even though their
next collection may be due within a couple of days. In these
instances it is difficult to ascertain whether bins have genuinely
been missed.
Bags are missed for a number of reasons (e.g. resident not putting
bag out on time, refuse presented in a hazardous or inappropriate
manner, access problems, draggers not knowing where residents
present bags, weather and vehicle problems,)
7.4 Summary of findings
The strategic focus of the authority is to reduce the amount of
waste sent to landfill, to increase tonnages of waste recycled and
to implement efficient and effective ways of working. The current
method of refuse collection does not contribute positively to
achieving these objectives.
A majority of residents present their refuse at the front of the
property, however since the council operates a backdoor collection
policy, residents can effectively present their refuse wherever they
choose and it is up to the collectors to find it. This leads to
obvious operational inefficiencies and dissatisfaction from
customers as the onus is on local knowledge of the crews in sourcing
the waste. Any changes in staff can affect the reliability of the
service.
The existing system for collecting refuse is not operationally
efficient, does not encourage waste minimisation and recycling, and
poses significant health & safety risks to operatives.
Information given to residents about why their refuse has not been
collected is far from ideal. The onus is on the customer to ring up
the Council to complain or to seek further clarification which is
not immediate as Action line staff must then contact operational
crews.
The Council collects recyclables and organic waste from the front
curtilage of properties. The policy of back door collection is
therefore inconsistent across service areas and does not encourage
residents to recycle by making it easier for them to leave their
waste outside their back doors in whatever quantities they like,
rather than packaging it carefully to reduce risk and presenting it
at the front of their property for recycling. This inconsistency
needs addressing in order to make the effort required to present
refuse consistent with the effort required to recycle.
8.0 OPTIONS APPRAISAL
A detailed assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of the current
refuse collection system are detailed in Appendix V, VI and VII. The
issues considered by the working group and their views are detailed
in Appendix VIII and Appendix IX respectively.
ISSUES
Key issues to address in any proposals have been identified as
follows:
B7 Health & Safety of operatives
B7 Customer Satisfaction
B7 Council commitment to reducing landfill & increasing recycling
B7 Cost
Service developments for both the short and longer term have been
identified and evaluated against the above criteria. Weightings have
been applied to each of these criteria. Appendix IV details the
developments considered. This evaluation model can be used by
individuals to input their own subjective scores.
The evaluation with scoring as detailed in Appendix IV shows that a
move to curtilage collection has significant advantages in the short
term. The implementation of this policy alone will help to remedy
many of the issues faced by residents and crews (missed bins, health
& safety) and will facilitate higher levels of waste being diverted
from disposal into the recycling services.
Longer term improvement options:
The principle collection systems that the authority could choose to
employ are detailed below. A detailed financial appraisal of each
option will be carried out as part of the Council's developing waste
strategy, and through market testing new service specifications.
Factors such as contribution to recycling rates, diversion of
biodegradable waste from landfill and availability of treatment
facilities will be considered. A financial appraisal is essential
before firm conclusions can be reached.
Options:
With or without the provision of wheeled bins for residual waste:
B7 Weekly collection of recyclables including source segregated
kitchen waste. Weekly residual collection.
Fortnightly collection of green & cardboard- chargeable service
(existing service)
B7 Weekly collection of recyclables including source segregated
kitchen waste. Alternate weekly collections of green & cardboard
(chargeable) and residual waste.
B7 Weekly collection of recyclables
Weekly collection of cardboard, green & kitchen waste (free of
charge)
Fortnightly collection of residual waste
B7 Alternate weekly collection of recyclables and residual waste.
Fortnightly collection of garden waste, cardboard and kitchen waste.
Appendix XI details the collection systems that the highest
recycling performers nationally employ. There is a clear correlation
between increased costs and performance levels. In general rural
authorities compost higher more waste than urban authorities.
B7 11 out of 15 of the top performers collect residual waste every
other week through supplying 204 litre wheeled bins.
B7 10 out of the 15 top performers collect plastic bottles through
their kerbside collection schemes.
Robust conclusions and recommendations for the implementation of
specific systems cannot be reached until a detailed financial
appraisal and market test of the options are carried out. This
exercise will be carried out through the Council's developing waste
strategy and market test of services scheduled for 2006.
9.0 CONCLUSIONS
The overwhelming conclusion reached through the study is that a
front curtilage collection policy should be implemented, along with
an assisted collection service for residents with specific needs.
Rubbish should no longer be collected from inside cellars and
inappropriately designed and poorly maintained store rooms.
The implementation of this policy alone will help to remedy many of
the issues faced by both residents and crews, (eg. missed bins, and
health & safety issues) and will facilitate higher levels of waste
being diverted from disposal into the recycling services. The
benefits are:
B7 Encourages participation in recycling through consistency of
collection policies and enhanced profile of the recycling collection
service.
B7 Ensures the responsibility for presenting their own waste safely
remains with residents.
B7 Increases resident's awareness of the quantity of waste that they
themselves produce and leads to greater understanding and
involvement in waste & recycling issues.
B7 Improves health and safety for operational staff
B7 Delivers operational efficiencies
In order to assist residents in moving their rubbish and to
alleviate storage issues small wheeled bins could be offered either
free of charge or at cost price to residents upon request. Both
options will have financial implications as several vehicles will
need bin lifts filled to enable these to be collected (see Appendix
I). The financial implications of giving wheeled bins free of charge
would be significant (approximately A320 per bin).
In some areas wheeled bins will be unsuitable for collection due to
topography, vehicle weight restrictions or access difficulties.
These areas should be identified at the outset so that residents'
expectations are not raised.
The employment of waste minimisation/recycling field officer/s to
work directly with residents and frontline staff to ensure refuse
and recycling services are utilised effectively will have tangible
benefits in increasing the amount of waste recycled and ensuring the
curtilage collection is implemented effectively. It is recommended
that 2 are employed on a temporary basis to gauge success.
In order to improve the operational efficiency of the current system
a `time-limited' missed bin policy should be implemented. A bin will
only be collected as missed if it is reported by the end of the
following working day.
To reduce health & safety risks negotiation to cease task & finish
work practices should begin.
Appropriate information material such as stickers and leaflets
should be given to residents when rubbish is left behind purposely
to advise, educate, inform and to reduce the need for unnecessary
phonecalls and complaints by residents.
Longer term options for changes in methodology should be included in
the market test of waste services scheduled for 2006. This will
enable a robust financial appraisal of options to be undertaken and
appropriate solutions fully assessed.
APPENDIX I: Vehicle fleet
Residual Waste Collections Bin Lift ?
Nissan Cabstar 3.4 Tonne GVW caged Tipper Domestic collection one
day per week Driver No/not possible
Mitsubishi Canter 6.3 Tipper 6.3 Tonne GVW caged Tipper Bath Small
Van Round - domestic Driver +1 No/not possible
Mitsubishi Canter 6.3 Tipper 6.3 Tonne GVW caged Tipper Radstock
Small Van Round - domestic Driver +1 No/not possible
Dennis Eagle / Vulture 24.7 Tonne GVW RCV Radstock Domestic Round 1
Driver +4 No
Dennis Eagle / Vulture 24.7 Tonne GVW RCV Bath Domestic Round 5
Driver +4 No
Faun Variopress - 14.5 cubic meter 22 Tonne GVW RCV with bin lift
Spare Vehicle SPARE Multitrade LL Binlifter
Faun Variopress - 14.5 cubic meter 22 Tonne GVW RCV with bin lift
Bath Domestic Round 3 Driver +4 Multitrade LL Binlifter
Faun Variopress - 14.5 cubic meter 22 Tonne GVW RCV with bin lift
Bath Domestic Round 2 Driver +4 Multitrade LL Binlifter
Faun Variopress - 14.5 cubic meter 22 Tonne GVW RCV Bath Domestic
Round 4 Driver +4 No
Faun Variopress - 17 cubic meter 23 Tonne GVW RCV with bin lift
Radstock Domestic Round 2 Driver +4 Multitrade LL Binlifter
Faun Variopress - 14.5 cubic meter 22 Tonne GVW RCV Bath Domestic
Round 1 Driver +4 No
Isuzu Wayne 7.5 Tonne Refuse 7.5 Tonne GVW RCV Radstock Small RCV
Round - domestic Driver +1 No
Isuzu Wayne 7.5 Tonne Refuse 7.5 Tonne GVW RCV Bath Small RCV Round
- domestic Driver +1 No
Faun Variopress - 17 cubic meter 23 Tonne GVW RCV with bin lift
Rural Trade & Domestic Round Driver +1 Multitrade LL Binlifter
Faun Variopress - 17 cubic meter 23 Tonne GVW RCV with bin lift Bath
Trade Round and domestic Driver +1 Multitrade LL Binlifter
15t DAF 9 cu m Variopress RCV 15 Tonne GVW RCV with bin lift Bath
City Centre Round trade and domestic Driver +1 MTB2 Barlift
Trade Paper & Card Recycling Collections
Dennis XM11 Refuse 18 Tonne GVW RCV with bin lift Trade Paper & Card
Collections Driver +1 Dennis Beta Bar Lift
Green Waste and Cardboard Collections
Mercedes Rotopress 26 Tonne GVW RCV with split lift Organic Round 1
Driver + 2 Otto Olympic Split Lift
Mercedes Rotopress 26 Tonne GVW RCV with split lift Organic Round 2
Driver + 2 Otto Olympic Split Lift
Mercedes Rotopress 26 Tonne GVW RCV with split lift Organic Round 3
Driver + 2 Otto Olympic Split Lift
Isuzu NQR70 with NTM body & bin lift 8.6 Tonne GVW RCV with bin lift
Organic Round 4 Driver + 2 NTM Barlift
Bulky Domestic Collections
Mitsubishi Canter 75 Box Van T/lift 7.5 Tonne GVW Box Van with tail
lift Domestic Bulky Waste Driver +1
APPENDIX II: Critical appraisal surveys
Zoe Smith, Project Officer, July 2004.
Having recovered from waking up at 5:15am, I was ready to `drag'
myself around Bath. My mission was to undertake a sample survey to
determine the number of residents presenting their waste backdoor. I
also noted how the waste was presented and asked the crew to
highlight any problems as they arose.
The work was physically demanding and I found the crews very
positive, cheerful and genuinely enthusiastic with plenty of ideas
to improve the system.
We worked at a fair pace in order to get the job done as quickly as
possible. The `draggers' were very keen to ensure that they picked
up all the bags and were walking up and down stairs, alleyways and
into people's gardens to retrieve sacks. It felt a bit of a wild
goose chase at times and much of the effort was on retrieving rather
than collecting.
Refuse had to be retrieved from bin cupboards, cellars, in hedges,
back door, front door, front curtilage, kerbside, down long lanes,
on top of walls, by garages and wheeled bins. All possibilities for
presentation had to be checked in order to avoid missing bags. The
regular draggers for each round knew exactly where to look for bags
and assisted new and agency staff to find bags for collection.
Cellars pose a real problem since some steps were covered in moss
and very slippy. In addition handrails were not fixed firmly and
there was evidence of rats. Two staff were required to remove bags
from cellars; one to throw bags up to the second dragger stood on
the stairs. I noted twenty eight bags being removed from one cellar,
which took quite a while to remove and pile up on the street. In one
cellar, the landlord had provided wheeled bins for the residents
since they had problems with rats.
I experienced crewmembers slipping on steps down into cellars,
having to carry bags along long driveways and having to carry bags
with dangerous items protruding. Some back lanes are very slippy on
foot and tight for vehicles to pass down (particularly in autumn).
In my opinion, the crewmembers constantly face health and safety
issues which really should be avoided through changes to Council
policy and clearer guidance. A few examples include cars pulling out
when draggers entering driveways, dogs in garden, wobbly and slippy
steps down into cellars, broken garden gates, objects in garden
(e.g. plant pots), long and slippy driveways, building works to
house.
It was apparent that some residents had a complete lack of regard
for how they presented their refuse and it was evident that some
sacks contained materials that could be recycled. I noted several
instances where broken glass was protruding from sacks. Many black
sacks contained glass, which could be heard breaking when the sacks
were piled up. I also noted lots of reusable and recyclable items
presented with the refuse including bags of video cassettes, an
airer, children's toys, glass chopping board, garden machinery,
dried flowers, kitchen utensils, garden waste and cardboard. Some
sacks were not even tied up and just thrown out for collection and
some bags had been split open by wildlife and a mess created.
Some residents were running out to present refuse even at 8:30am as
the vehicle was passing. On one occasion, we had passed down one
road (after 7:15am) and collected sacks and we passed up the road
about an hour and a half later and a bag had been presented. If we
had not collected the bag, it would have been reported as a missed
collection even though it had been presented late.
In areas where recycling and refuse were collected on the same day,
I noted that residents were more likely to present their waste front
curtilage alongside the recycling box. Some residents presented 10+
refuse sacks for collection with the maximum being 25! The existing
system does not encourage recycling at all.
Most residents presented refuse in black sacks. It was noticeable
that areas of higher demographic make up generally presented better
quality sacks. Some sacks used by residents were of particularly
poor quality and spilt when they were picked up. Carrier bags cause
problems since they are not easy to carry whilst wearing gloves.
Surveys undertaken indicate that between 50-80% of residents already
present their waste at the front of the property.
In my opinion much can be done to improve the current system in
order to increase recycling, reduce H&S issues and improve
operational efficiencies.
APPENDIX III: Evidence from random surveys
Operational inefficiencies
Charlcombe Lane
Some bags are collected from the front of the properties and some
from the back using the same vehicle and crew
Flats off Gloucester Road
Some sacks presented in bin cupboards, some not which meant that all
cupboards had to be checked.
Weston road
Most properties present waste front curtilage, however there are two
long lanes which have to go down. One leads to two properties, the
other to one property. The driveways are very slippy and covered in
moss. Fortunately only two bags to collect otherwise we would have
had to make more than one trip.
Backdoor vs. front door collection
Russell Street
(Some residents present front door and some presented in cellars)
Number of property Number bags presented front door Number bags
presented in cellar
9a 5 0
10 0 9
11 0 3
12 1 7
13 0 1
14 4 8
14a 4 8
15 4 2
16 3 0
17 1 0
2 (8 flats) 0 17
Park Street
Bags presented downstairs: 24
Bags presented upstairs: 6
75% refuse sacks presented in cellars rather than on street
Estate off Weston road
Front curtilage: 29
Backdoor: 2
Front door: 2
94% front door/ curtilage presentation
Ashley road (and cul de sac), Bathampton
Recycling and refuse both collected on Tuesday
Number of properties presenting: -
o Refuse and recycling out the front of the property/ kerbside: 25
o Refuse backdoor and recycling out the front of the property/
kerbside: 3
o Refuse kerbside/ front curtilage and no recycling: 3
o Refuse backdoor and no recycling: 5
o Out of 36 properties, 28 participated in recycling - 78%
o Out of 36 properties, 25 participated in recycling and presented
refuse out the front of the property/ kerbside- 69%
Random street sampling
Front curtilage: 72 (55%)
Backdoor: 25 (19%)
Kerbside: 34 (26%)
Total no properties: 131
Total front: 81%
Random street sampling
Front door: 102
Backdoor: 51
Total no properties: 153
Total front: 66%
Anecdotal information
Anecdotal estimates were received between 50-70% residents
presenting refuse at the front of the property.
APPENDIX IV: Evaluation of options
Subjectively scored. Weightings applied to calculate final score.
Options Health & Safety Customer Satisfaction Corporate Improvement
Priority Cost SCORE
Dry Recylable Existing Green box 2 4 4 2 3.40
Kitchen Waste Weekly 2 4 4 2 3.40
Residual Alternate weeks 2 1 4 4 3.050
Residual Weekly as now 1 3 1 2 1.70
Green & Cardboard Weekly 2 4 4 1 3.20
Green & Cardboard Alternate weeks 2 3 3 2 2.70
Kitchen Waste Alternate weeks 2 1 2 2 1.750
Dry Recylable Alternate weeks 2 1 1 3 1.50
Location Health & Safety Customer Satisfaction Corporate
Improvement Priority Cost SCORE
Curtilage Residual 2 2 4 4 3.30
Back Door Residual 1 3 2 1 1.950
Container Health & Safety Customer Satisfaction Corporate
Improvement Priority Cost SCORE
Green Box FOC 2 4 4 2 3.40
Kitchen Bin FOC 2 3 4 2 3.150
Limited issue of Free bags 2 3 3 1 2.50
Customer Supplies Bags limit Number 2 1 3 4 2.60
Customer Supplies Bags No limit 2 3 1 1 1.60
Kitchen Bin chargeable 2 1 1 4 1.70
Wheeled Bin chargeable 3 2 3 4 2.950
Wheeled Bin FOC 3 4 4 1 3.30
Instructions Look-up Score 0 Not Acceptable
Go to a highlighted cell 1 Poor
Insert the score you feel appropriate using the guide 2 Acceptable
your score will be calculated automatically 3 Good
when all highlighted boxes are completed save by clicking the icon
at the top of the page 4 Positive
APPENDIX V: Point of Collection - Advantages &
Disadvantages
The advantages of a back door collection policy are:
Equal and accessible service to all residents - residents chose
their preference
Some locations are more suited to a backdoor collection
Waste is `hidden' until collection day in some streets
Refuse will be retrieved so does not have to be presented
The disadvantages of a back door collection policy are:
X Does not encourage recycling since different collection points
3F Refuse can be presented at backdoor, front door, curtilage of the
property, kerbside or other place (e.g. cellars, bin cupboards, hung
on a fence, on a wall, in hedges, in conservatories, by the garage)
for collection
3F Requires knowledge of where residents present refuse (some front/
back in same street)
3F Health & safety implications with entering a property (e.g.
carrying bags some distance)
3F Safety implications with entering a property (e.g. slippy cellar
stairs, objects in garden, dogs, broken garden gates, cars pulling
out of driveways)
3F Draggers can be in isolated areas on their own
3F Increased time taken to enter properties and gather bags
3F Increased potential for reports of missed bins
3F System requires draggers to enter properties to retrieve sacks
3F Identifying which sacks are put out for refuse collection
It is apparent also that one reason for reports of missed bins is
due to the fact that resident's are not presenting refuse on time
and then phoning Action line to report a `missed bin'.
The existing system does not encourage recycling since residents can
present as much refuse as they produce.
The findings also indicate at present when sacks are not collected
for any reasons, no note of explanation is left with the sack.
APPENDIX VI: Same day collections - advantages and disadvantages
The existing system involves collecting refuse and recycling on
different days of the week. The perception is that this can create
confusion for householders and thus does not encourage recycling,
however, through researching schemes where same day collections do
occur there is little evidence of any increase in recycling rates
that can directly be attributed to the fact that collections for
recycling and refuse are on the same day of the week.
Friends of the Earth (nationally) outline that the recycling and
refuse collections should take place on the same day of the week to
avoid confusion. However, they were unable to provide evidence of
the benefits that would result.
The pros and cons of Different Collection Days are as follows: -
Householders can distinguish between recycling and refuse
collections
Streets less cluttered if different collection days
3F Does not encourage recycling
3F Difficult for householders to remember different collection days
3F Refuse crew cannot leave obvious recycling
The Working group rejected proposals to implement same day
collections but did agree to review whether garden waste and
cardboard and dry recyclables could be run on the same day of the
week. See appendix IX for further information.
APPENDIX VII: Refuse collection methodology
Wheeled bins & sacks - advantages and disadvantages
PREDOMINANTLY SACK COLLECTION SERVICE - NO CONTAINER PROVIDED
ADVANTAGE D7 DISADVANTAGE
Flexible - residents can chose to use any sack, traditional bin or
container they choose No ability to limit quantities of residual
waste in an equitable manner (sacks are of variable size & quality)
- this does not positively encourage recycling.
Benefits those without much refuse Negative Health & Safety impacts
- eg. manual handling, stick injuries, cuts
Quick to collect & load vehicle (if left front of property) High
levels of sickness leads to operational inefficiencies
Relatively low cost Cleansing - poor quality sacks split and can be
scavenged by animals creating litter & cleansing issues.
Can be collected more flexibly using non-specialist vehicles
Negative Visual impact - piles of sacks and carrier bags awaiting
collection
WHEELED BIN COLLECTION SERVICE
ADVANTAGES X DISADVANTAGES
Health & safety - significant advantage over sacks in reducing
manual handling, slips, trips, cuts & stick injuries. Large bins
(240litres and above) can discourage recycling if collected weekly.
Operational efficiencies through reduced sickness levels Storage
space is required within the property boundary.
Cleanliness/litter - refuse is contained so cannot spill on the
highway or be scavenged by animals Not appropriate for all areas -
eg. steep hills, & houses of multiple occupation with little storage
space.
Can physically limit the volume of residual waste that will be
collected for disposal in an equitable manner Visual impact
particularly in urban areas.
Reduces disposable black sacks to landfill Obstruction to pavements
if not removed promptly after collection .
Easy to manoeuvre for both residents and collectors in majority of
circumstances. Cost - over £1.3m to introduce bins district wide
with lifting equipment fitted to all collection vehicles and ongoing
repair and maintenance costs.
APPENDIX VIII: Proposals for discussion at Working Group
(12/8/2004)
1. `Front Curtilage' collection policy
3F This has the advantage that the operatives take less time in
collecting household waste.
3F Improves health and safety for operational staff since they do
not have to enter property.
3F Surveys and anecdotal evidence suggest that a greater proportion
of residents already present their waste at the front of their
property
3F The involvement in the waste process helps to make householders
aware of the quantity of waste that they produce and thus may
increase recycling.
3F It is suggested that residents contain their waste better when
they have to present refuse rather than having it `retrieved'.
Considerations
Or edge of property?
Would we want dustbins to be presented or just sacks?
Increase in recycling?
Will draggers still be required on all rounds?
Will more residents present their waste the night before?
Should collection time be 8am?
Should all collections be finished by 12am to prevent refuse
being out on streets for too long- reduce round sizes?
Will the number of assisted collections increase?
What about bin stores for flats?
What about dwellings from which refuse is easier to collect
backdoor?
Increase in complaints to Action line?
Less staff/ vehicles required?
Time savings
Publicity- delivery of leaflets with crew?
2. Same day collections
E.g. South Glos., Dacorum, North Wiltshire, Worthing, Daventry,
Lichfield, Milton Keynes,
3F This has the potential to increase tonnages of recycling through
increased participation and ability for refuse crews to not collect
obvious recycling
3F Avoids the need for the public to remember different collection
days.
3F Friends of the Earth outlined that best practice doorstep
recycling should, among other things, be on the same day of the week
as rubbish collections to avoid any confusion.
Considerations
Refuse, recycling and garden waste?
Complete overhaul of all rounds (zoning)?
Suitability for all areas of Bath and NE Somerset- survey?
WH Site status?
Streets cluttered with refuse (bins required for refuse)?
Confusion as to what waste is being collected by crews?
H&S of 2 or 3 vehicles moving around same zone on same day?
Any inc. in recycling could be due in part to publicity of
collections?
Staffing
Cost savings
Publicity
3. Specify that only black sacks (provided by resident) will be
collected
3F This will increase operational efficiencies
3F To prevent collection of larger reusable items (e.g. airers,
larger electrical goods)
Considerations
How could system be enforced?
Will streets be strewn with uncollected carrier bags etc?
More reports of missed collections to Actionline?
Inconvenience to residents who produce very little waste?
Time taken
Costs
Publicity
4. Provide two Bath and NE Somerset sacks per week and charge for
additional sacks
3F This will enable control on the quality of bags
3F Encourages residents to recycle
3F Provides ability to limit quantities
3F Opportunity to state on the bag what will NOT be collected and
promote recycling.
3F It provides a `fairer' system of refuse collection
3F DEFRA is still considering whether this is legal!
3F A few councils are operating the system and other councils
operate in parts that are not suitable for wheeled bins.
Ontario, Canada
Three bags are provided by the council and residents can purchase
tags for $1 at local outlets. Under the Region of Peel's Waste
Collection By-law, residents may be fined for failing to tag excess
garbage receptacles ($55). Of population of 988,848 only 25 fines
and 2,750 notices to comply have been issued.
Newcastle
If your property has been deemed `unsuitable' for a wheelie bin, we
will provide you with black bin liners with the Council logo on
them. We will collect 2 of these from your property each week. Only
liners with the Council logo on will be collected.
Blue Refuse Sacks, Eden, Cumbria
The refuse collection crews remove ALL official blue sacks set out
at the kerbside and leave sacks on a one for one basis up to a max
of two per household. Additional sacks may be purchased at a cost of
88p each from local outlets and larger bins can be hired from the
councils. The council does have `waste amnesties' to collect all
refuse not in blue sacks
Blaby
Provide 140l wheeled bin for weekly refuse collection with a policy
of no side waste. Some householders are provided with two sacks a
week (if their property is not suitable for wheeled bin). Any
additional bags must be purchased at a price of £1.20 for three. Not
much problem with fly tipping or unauthorised sacks being presented
Considerations
Is this legal?!
Would streets just be strewn with incorrect sacks?
Would fly tipping increase?
Concessions for students and low income families?
Admin/ accounting?
Few days a year when all sacks will be collected?
Increased reports to Action line?
Staffing
Time
Costs (inc delivery)
Publicity
5. Explicit policy on what the council do NOT collect
3F In the absence of same day collections, this would enable waste
operatives to leave some obvious recycling.
3F Improve operational efficiencies
3F Provide clear guidance to waste operatives and public.
E.g.
We will not collect:-
-Refuse that has not been presented by 7:15am
-Refuse that is not contained within a black sack
-Refuse sacks that have not been placed in the correct location
-Refuse sacks that are excessively heavy
-Trade waste
-Garden waste
-Cardboard
Considerations
What will happen to refuse that is not collected?
Increased reports to Action line?
Review questions asked by Action line staff
6. Provide leaflets/ stickers to ensure residents know why a bag has
been left
3F To increase public awareness of what will not be collected
3F Reduce potential for a report of a `missed collection'.
3F Raise awareness of recycling schemes
3F Stickers should be produced for bags which1) Have not been
presented in correct location 2) Are too heavy 3) Contain trade
waste 4) Contain garden waste 5) Cannot be accessed 6) Contain just
cardboard
Considerations
Not always obvious from which house the refuse has been presented
Need to be okay in rain
Time taken to stick on bags?
Practicalities- draggers take with them?
Trade waste may just have been dumped outside property and needs
enforcement action (and probably collection) rather than just
leaving with sticker.
Cost of producing?
Reduced number of calls to Action line?
7. Stringent missed bin policy.
3F To improve operational efficiencies (cost and time)
3F To provide clear guidance to the public on occasions when we will
NOT return to collect a sack
3F To provide a time limited reporting mechanism (by 5pm of the day
after the original collection was scheduled to take place)
South Cambridgeshire
The council will collect any missed bin that meets the collection
criteria [lid down, edge of property, no side waste, not excessively
heavy etc], provided the report is received by the council by 5pm of
the day after the original collection was scheduled to take place
Elmbridge
If we get it wrong and don't collect your waste, let us know within
two days and we will aim to return the next working day
South Derbyshire
Are you are confident t | 
