Agenda item

To consider a report by the Head of Operations setting out the case for reducing the cost of the refuse and recycling service by introducing a charge for second green bins.

(Councillor P L E Bucknell, Ward Member for Warboys and Bury, and Councillor D M Tysoe, Executive Councillor for the Environment, were in attendance for this Item.)

Councillor D M Tysoe introduced a report by the Head of Operations (a copy of which is appended in the Minute Book) on charging for a second green bin. He advised the Panel that the Council was looking at ways to reduce its costs while maintaining service standards and raising revenue.  He also stated that some London Borough Councils charged for all green waste collections.  Huntingdonshire District Council proposed to provide free collection of the first green bin for all residents but the collection of the second green bin should be regarded as a premium service and, therefore, should attract a charge.  Councillor Tysoe expressed the view that this would be fairer to all residents as currently the majority of additional green bins were in seven wards and other wards were effectively subsidising their service.

Having regard to the practicalities of the proposals, Members were advised of the need for additional green bins to be easy to distinguish as operatives should not be tasked with responding to complaints and arbitration in questions of eligibility when going about their rounds.  For reasons of cost the preferred approach was to fit new lids to additional green bins so that they could be easily identified by operatives and residents. 

At the invitation of the Chairman, Councillor P L E Bucknell, Ward Member for Warboys and Bury, addressed the Panel.  Councillor Bucknell informed Members that he acknowledged the Council needed to generate revenue but, in his opinion, this was not the right way to do it.  He expressed the view that residents would not pay the charge for a second green bin and would put green waste in household waste bins instead, which would have an adverse effect on the waste service budget.  He also expected that implementation of the proposal would lead to an increase in fly-tipping.  The proposed charge amounted to a significant sum compared to the District Council’s portion of the Council Tax.  Furthermore, in Councillor Bucknell’s opinion, properties with additional green bins tended to pay higher levels of Council Tax, which should afford them collection of a second green waste bin without having to pay an additional charge.  He suggested that VAT would apply because the charge being incurred was for a service.  Finally, Councillor Bucknell reported on his discussions with a Cabinet Member of a London Council that had introduced such a charge who had expressed the view that it was a mistake to do so.

A Member highlighted the fact that it was not just properties in the higher Council Tax band which benefited from the enhanced service.  Further to this, the experiences of a London Borough Council were not comparable with this Council and a comparison with a rural area would have been preferable.

The view was expressed that the waste collection service was one of the most highly valued services provided by the Council. Attention was drawn to the fact that it was a universal service and was one of the best performing in the Country.  Concerns were raised that the performance of the waste collection service would worsen if the proposal was adopted and that public perception of the Council might be damaged.  It was argued that the Council should instead promote recycling.  In this respect, the Council could take steps to encourage composting of green waste.  Furthermore, it was suggested that the Council should focus on non-statutory services when looking to make savings rather than on services such as waste collection, which were a statutory requirement.  In response, Councillor Tysoe stressed that the proposed charge would not affect the majority of residents and that if every second green bin was returned there would be a 3.4% reduction in the waste collected.  Moreover the Council had recently extended the range of material it collected, which would increase recycling. 

Having specific regard to fly-tipping, it was established that the additional cost of enforcement had not been factored into the business case presented in the report.  Experience at other authorities had suggested that adoption of the proposal would result in an initial increase in fly-tipping which would decline over time.  Councillor Tysoe assured Members that as fly-tipping was a criminal offence enforcement action would be undertaken where necessary.  If fly tipping continued to be a problem then there would be a need for additional resources. 

Councillor Tysoe advised Members that in the current economic climate, imaginative ways of raising income were needed.  It was anticipated that implementation of the proposal would lead to an increase in complaints to the call centre, the majority of which would come from the seven wards which had the most additional green bins. This had been allowed for in the business case.  Members were reminded that the proposed charges did not represent an increase to residents’ Council Tax bills; it was a charge for an additional service which residents could choose not to receive.  The Head of Operations pointed out that the Council could opt to charge for all green waste collected; however, the proposals only related to an enhanced service and as such would not affect the majority of residents.  It was expected that adoption of the proposals would lead to many residents returning their second green bins, but it was felt that the practicalities of finding alternative means of disposing of green waste would result in residents choosing to take back their additional green bin.  It was also noted that, if the proposal was adopted, a communication strategy would be devised and implemented to educate residents about waste disposal. 

In response to a question, the Head of Operations informed Members that Cambridgeshire County Council did not pay recycling credits for green waste.  It was reiterated that the scheme was intended to raise additional revenue for the Council, and while it was difficult to give accurate marginal costs, the calculations within the report were accurate.  Having specific regard to payback period, the Panel was advised that this was expected to be achieved in year two. 

It was agreed that representatives of the Panel would attend the Cabinet meeting for consideration of this Item.

RESOLVED

  (a)  that the proposal to introduce a charge for the collection of a second green bin be not supported; and

  (b)  that the Cabinet be requested to take into consideration the views of the Panel when considering this item.