Agenda item

(Including two short video presentations highlighting health and safety issues for Waste Collection Operatives)

The Portfolio Holder for Environmental Services and Public Protection, Councillor Fay Smith:

(a)       Presented her report and highlighted the activity and performance within her portfolio, particularly in relation to the following:

·         waste and recycling;

·         cleansing;

·         public toilets;

·         CCTV;

·         public protection and anti-social behaviour;

·         licensing;

·         food safety;

·         health and safety (enforcement);

·         bereavement services;

·         carbon reduction;

·         air quality.

(b)       Presented two short video clips to the Committee regarding waste collection vehicles and the safety of operatives. One of the video clips was promotional material from Biffa which included numerous examples of members of the public mounting footpaths with their cars to dangerously undertake or overtake stationary waste collection vehicles, putting operatives’ health and safety at risk. The second video clip was footage from a camera on a waste collection vehicle in Lincoln which showed a member of the public mount a footpath with their car to overtake a waste collection vehicle. Police had used footage such as the examples provided to successfully prosecute drivers in other parts of the country although Lincolnshire Police would not currently use footage obtained to prosecute. Biffa was currently negotiating with Lincolnshire Police on this matter.

(c)        Invited members’ questions and comments.

Comment: The Biffa publicity video should be shared on the Council’s social media platforms.

Question: Referring to non-recycled household waste it was noted that some areas in the city had been designated as red zones and that the trend was going upwards. Were there more areas in the city not recycling, or was this as a result of the same areas in the red zones not recycling?

Response: There were numerous reasons for people not recycling, whether that be due to a lack of interest or a lack of understanding, which was difficult to address. People often placed recyclable waste in black bags and non-recyclable waste in the recycle bin, causing the whole bin to be rejected due to contamination. It was acknowledged that people were confused as to what items could be included in the recycle bin, however, due to austerity, Councils had reduced the amount of time and resources dedicated to education and enforcement. The County Council also had a problematic disposal contract which gave opportunity for wider interpretation of contamination, with this contract subject to change in 2020. This could mean that the items collected in the recycle bin may be subject to change when the contract was renewed. Education had to be linked to the County Council’s disposal contract to avoid any confusion and it was also noted that the City Council was a committed partner of the Lincolnshire Waste Partnership, with any educational activity needing to be consistent and properly programmed in accordance with that Partnership. It was considered that any deviation from a partnership approach in this respect would be a detrimental step for the authority and that particular arrangement. The industry was also changing and the new County Council contract was likely to reflect this, with reference made to the recently announced plastic bottle deposit schemes in the national media.

Comment: It was disappointing that the Council was one of the best recycling authorities in the county in 2009/10 for it to now be amongst the worst performers in this respect. The City Council should be performing much better in this area and competing with authorities such as North Kesteven District Council and West Lindsey District Council. The energy from waste plant was full to capacity and its performance had been consistent. There were known areas that could be targeted in Lincoln to improve performance very quickly through education, guidance and help. The City Council should do something itself rather than feel obliged to wait for the County Council.

Response: A graph of total non-recyclables for all authorities in Lincolnshire for 2017/18 was circulated which indicated that each authority’s performance fluctuated throughout the year, with the City Council showing good levels of performance in January, May and July but poor levels of performance in February and June. Every authority experienced fluctuation such as this and on any given month an authority in Lincolnshire could perform well or poor based on the performance information that had been collated. If the Council decided to do some independent educational work there was a risk that the messages included as part of that would need to change relatively soon after it was rolled out, which could lead to additional confusion and even more contaminated recycle bins. It was also acknowledged that some authorities in the county had different collections and could accept different items in their recycle bins to that of the City Council. The Lincolnshire Waste Partnership was seeking to refine this in order that there was more commonality across the county and on this basis the Council would be remaining supportive of the partnership approach.

Question: Who provided the performance figures and where did they come from?

Response: The figures were collected as part of a national data set. The additional information circulated at the meeting was simply a more detailed analysis of the national higher level data.

Question: Was there no way to look at small pockets in the City and target some educational activity in the short term to at least attempt to improve performance?

Response: There was limited resources for literature or visiting people’s homes. The District Council members of the Lincolnshire Waste Partnership had expressed the same frustrations regarding contamination and had lobbied hard to commence some publication activity. The County Council had, with reasonable grounds, effectively blocked this in view of decisions yet to be taken on the imminent new disposal contractual arrangement. This programme of education and information sharing activity needed to be centrally managed through the partnership arrangement in order to achieve a long term solution. The County Council had confirmed its commitment to addressing this issue when the position was clear, and would undertake publicity at the appropriate time.

Comment: Members should consider attending an open day at the energy from waste plant to witness how energy was re-used and turned into energy, which may be of interest.

Response: A public open day would be held on 2 June 2018.

Comment: An update should be submitted to the Committee in six months in respect of recycling performance.

Comment: There were no litter bins on Sincil Street, the Cornhill or at the Central Bus Station.

Response: It was noted that the Council was restricted in respect of litter bins at the Transport Hub for security reasons. With regard to Sincil Street and the Cornhill, the recent development works at these locations may have led to bins being removed and not replaced. This would be investigated with a view to ensuring that there were adequate litter bins in place.

Comment: Instances of graffiti had been reported in the south of the City whereby several private houses had been targeted.

Response: Officers were aware of incidents in that part of the city but upon cleaning and removing the graffiti it had been put back the next day.

Question: How would graffiti be addressed?

Response: It was difficult to witness someone carrying out graffiti and this particular perpetrator had not been caught on CCTV. The Council was looking at installing CCTV in the Sincil Bank area of the city which it was hoped would have a positive impact. It was noted that graffiti occurred elsewhere in the city and not solely in Park ward.

Question: If there was litter on the ground around litter bins, should street cleaning staff be required to pick it up as part of emptying the bins? There had been instances of this occurring in Witham ward.

Response: In these circumstances the litter should be picked up. The member was asked to report this to the Assistant Director who would address the issue.

Question: How often were the streets cleaned in Lincoln and how often did litter picking take place?

Response: Streets outside of the city centre were swept on a monthly cycle and litter picking took place on a fortnightly cycle.

Question: Dog waste bins were due to be replaced with normal bins, which dog waste could also be placed into due to the fact that litter bin waste and dog waste were collected by the same vehicle. Would all dog bins be replaced with normal litter bins?

Response: A review was taking place across the city and every bin location would be reviewed. If there was a need to increase capacity in some areas then this would be done as part of this scheme. In some circumstances it may be necessary to remove a litter bin and a dog waste bins that were located in close proximity to each other and replace these with one larger litter bin, so as to avoid unnecessary street clutter. It was suggested that a social media campaign should be launched to support this scheme in order that it was clear to members of the public that dog waste could be placed in litter bins. Adequate signage would also be important which would make it clear that bins were multi-use.

RESOLVED that the report be noted.