Issue - meetings

To give consideration to the attached report prior to it being submitted to the Cabinet Member for Environment. The Chairman has determined that this matter should be considered as a matter of urgency under Section 100(B)(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 in view of the 17 August government deadline to submit bids for capital and revenue start up funding for a weekly food waste collection.

Consideration was given to a report outlining information and costings on a potential weekly food waste collection service that would be added to the existing household recycling and waste collection from May 2014. Capital and revenue start up costs would be subject to an outline bid of £3.8million to Central Governments Weekly Collection Support Scheme. Annual running costs would be expected to be absorbed into proposals for alternative delivery of recycling and waste services from 2014-15 as part of future savings on the recycling and waste budget.  On the basis of an external review, it was estimated that the costs of running the service in house would equate to an additional £2m a year.

The Chairman had determined that this matter should be considered as a matter of urgency under Section 100 (B)(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 in view of the 17 August 2012 government deadline to submit bids for capital and revenue start up funding .

The Portfolio Holder for Environment attended the meeting and informed the Committee that as options for food waste needed to be considered, it would be sensible to bid for the funding. There was no guarantee the bid would be successful and even it was, the monies could be returned if the authority decided not to progress with the proposals.

It was highlighted that the average family throw away £860 of food waste each year. Members agreed that rather than collecting food waste, people should be encouraged to use composters and the possibility of providing free composters should be investigated.

Members of the Committee felt that if the bid was successful, the authority would have no option but to progress with the scheme as not doing so would create bad press and have a negative impact on the authority’s reputation.

Questions were raised with regard to the accuracy of the financial and statistical information provided, as it could be interpreted in several different ways. It was also agreed that the reference made to anaerobic digesters in paragraph 10.1 was misleading and should be reworded.

Members agreed that the proposals may be the right way forward and should not be ruled out, however there were other ways of collecting food waste, which should be investigated before any decisions were made.

Following detailed consideration of the report, it was agreed that as no policy development had taken place within the Authority on the implications of a weekly food waste collection service, the bid should not be submitted.

RESOLVED

That the Portfolio Holder for Environment be recommended  not to submit a final bid to the communities weekly collection  support scheme as no policy development had taken place within the Authority on the implications of a weekly food waste collection service.