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.

This item has been referred to the Panel from the Cabinet and a copy of a report on the matter by the Overview and Scrutiny Panel (Environmental Well-Being) is attached.

Members of the Overview & Scrutiny (Environmental Well-Being Panel) have been invited to attend to partake in the discussions on this Agenda Item.

Councillors M Banerjee, Ward Member for Yaxley and Farcet, I C Bates, Ward Member for the Hemingfords,  P L E Bucknell, Ward Member for Warboys and Bury, Councillor D M Tysoe, Executive Councillor for the Environment,  and Councillor J D Ablewhite were in attendance for this Item).

The Panel considered a report by the Head of Operations (a copy of which is appended in the Minute Book) setting out the case for reducing the cost of the refuse and recycling service by introducing an annual charge of £40 for an additional green waste bin.  The report had been considered by the Overview and Scrutiny Panel (Environmental Well-Being) who had agreed that the Council should not introduce a charge and the Cabinet had referred the matter to the Overview and Scrutiny (Economic Well-Being) for further consideration.

Councillor D M Tysoe explained that the Council currently spent £1.3M on collecting green waste, which represented 40% of the Council’s total costs for waste collection and for which the Council did not receive any additional funding. A significant number of other Authorities charged a separate fee for all green waste collection. The Council was proposing to provide free collection of the first green bin for all its residents but the collection of the second green bin should be regarded as a premium service and, therefore should attract a charge. For the majority of residents in the District this represented no change to the current service.

Councillor Tysoe then sought to address the concerns which had been raised previously regarding the impact of the changes on green waste collection levels with the District. He suggested that whilst there might be an immediate reduction in the green waste collected, he did not expect the level of green waste collected to be lower in the medium term. The Panel’s attention was drawn to the sensitivity analysis which was set out in section 6.2 of the report. This was based on a 40% reduction in residents subscribing to the new service. Councillor Tysoe reiterated that whilst the Council had previously sought to resist making cuts to services, the current budgetary situation dictated that consideration would need to be given to a number of difficult decisions in the future.

Members asked about the experience of other Councils who had introduced a charge for the collection of a second green bin. The Panel noted that there were currently 13 Authorities who made such a charge which ranged from £15 to £140 per annum. It was also reported that there had been no increase in fly tipping in those areas. Members indicated that it would have been useful to have had this type of information together with the detailed financial analysis within the report.

In considering the proposal, Members expressed concerns that it would result in residents putting additional green waste into their domestic waste bins and enquired what steps the Council would take if a resident did not pay the charge for the second green bin. Members were assured that waste collection operatives would not collect any bins in which green waste had been deposited and a note would be placed on the bin to this effect. All green bins remained the property of the District Council, who would instigate recovery procedures if necessary. In response to other questions, the Panel noted that the proposed £40 charge was based upon the median figure for other authorities and that it would not be possible to discount further the cost of compost bins through the Council’s Compost Bin Scheme.

In terms of the impact of the proposals, Members commented that there would be a particular effect on the rural areas, where a number of properties had a higher Council tax banding and it could, therefore be perceived to be unfair. Reference was also made to the likely public reaction from residents of Wyton on the Hill which was a private estate, and the level of the charge compared to the District Council’s portion of the Council Tax.

On the question of the set up costs associated with the implementation of the charge, Members were advised that efforts had already been made to reduce the capital costs. The inclusion of the cost of one Full Time Equivalent post was an estimate of the additional resources that would be required from an analysis of all the tasks in the process. It would not be possible to absorb the administration into existing workloads.

At the invitation of the Chairman, Councillors Mrs M Banerjee, I C Bates and P L E Bucknell addressed the Panel. Councillor Bucknell expressed the view that residents would not pay for a second bin and would instead put green waste into grey bins. There would also be a consequently increase in fly tipping. He stated that VAT would apply because the charge was for a service and also reported on his discussions with a representative from a London Council, which had introduced such a charge, who has expressed the view that it was a mistake to do so. He also reported on his discussions with other local authority representatives whose investigations had led them to conclude that it would not be in their interest to introduce a charge for the collection of the second green bin.

Councillor Mrs M Banerjee reminded the Panel that the collection of green waste had been introduced to respond to a European Union Directive. To remove this facility would be unpopular with Huntingdonshire residents and would damage public perception of the Council.

Councillor I C Bates urged the Panel to endorse the views which were set out in the report of the Overview and Scrutiny Panel (Environmental Well-Being). In doing so, he stressed that the Environmental Panel had unanimously agreed that the Council should not introduce a charge for a second green bin. The waste collection service was a universal service, which was valued and recognised by the Community. The introduction of a charge would have an adverse effect on recycling rates and would represent a loss of service to the public. Finally, and in recognising the need for the Council to make budgetary savings, he expressed concern that the Panel was being asked to consider one proposal in isolation and not a range of possible options. Having suggested that savings could be achieved in staffing costs and from the One Leisure Service, he recommended that the Council should not take a decision on this matter until other options had been assessed.

In response, Councillor Tysoe informed the Panel that the Cabinet was looking at a number of options to achieve budgetary savings for the Authority. He reminded the Panel that the Council did not have a statutory responsibility to collect green waste and drew attention to the fact that 83 Councils within the Country currently charge for the collection of the first green bin which was not something that this Council was intending to introduce. He did not believe that this proposal would reduce recycling. Fly tipping was a criminal offence and the Council would undertake enforcement to combat it. Advice had been received that VAT would not apply on residential collections.

The Executive Leader confirmed that the Cabinet was looking at a number of ‘big ticket’ items for generating further savings. For example a Business Plan for One Leisure was currently being prepared.

In terms of the Council’s financial position more generally, the Chairman drew the Panel’s attention to the recent announcement by Central Government that increases in Council Tax in 2013 should be limited to 2%. This would require the District Council to find additional savings in the region of £680K to £940K and he indicated that the Panel should give further consideration to a range of possible options for delivering savings.

Having agreed that the business case for the additional charge was sound, Members were however of the opinion that it should be considered in the context of a range of other options for achieving budgetary savings. In view of concerns about the likely damage to the public’s opinion of the Council, it was moved by Councillor M F Shellens and seconded by Councillor P G Mitchell that the charge should only apply for new requests for second green bins or where there was a change in the ownership of a property. Upon being put to the vote, the motion was declared to be lost. Whereupon, it was

RESOLVED

that the proposal to introduce a charge for a second green bin should be supported in principle, subject to it being considered as part of a package of savings.