The Committee received a report
from the Director of Law and Governance outlining details of a
call-in received on the portfolio decision by the Cabinet Member
for Environment taken on – ‘Approval to undertake a
public consultation for potential changes to the waste and
recycling collection services.’
The Chair invited Councillor
Laban to outline the reasons for call-in. He reminded everyone that
discussion at this meeting would be about the report
only.
Councillor Laban said the waste
and recycling collection service is one that affects every resident
in the borough, she thanked officers for the responses she had
already received.
She outlined the reasons for
call-in and highlighted the following:
- Although officers had stated that ‘for any of the proposed
options no charge would apply for any bin exchange’. Cllr
Laban asked that residents should be aware in the consultation that
should the option to move to fortnightly collections be favoured,
then there would be no additional costs for them to be provided
with a larger bin.
- Officers had acknowledged that should option 7 be implemented
there would be a sum of £300k set aside from savings to
support delivery of any changes proposed. This would be through
education, communications, engagement and enforcement. Councillor Laban asked if any money had been
allocated for dealing with fly-tipping issues that she felt would
result from fortnightly rather than weekly collections.
- Officers had stated that if, the majority of consultation
responses favour the status quo then the outcome of the
consultation would be taken into account as part of the final
decision around which option to implement. Councillor Laban spoke
of the Mayor’s London Environment Strategy which refers to
the delivery of a weekly food kerbside collection. It would mean that four of the seven options put
forward for residents to consider would not comply with the
Mayor’s Strategy and could not be implemented.
- If the
preferred option resulted in the need for additional charges for
example regarding the provision of a green bin, Councillor Laban
asked how we were going to help residents on low incomes with
this.
- That
it would have been useful for members to have been aware of what
questions were going to be asked of residents in the
consultation.
- Why
the consultation period is to be undertaken over the Christmas
period as people would tend to be busy during this
time.
- It has
been stated that the primary driver for changes to the waste and
recycling services is to make savings however Option 1 which would
maintain the status quo would result in increased costs and
therefore it was questioned whether this option should be included
in the questionnaire.
- The
report highlights there would be public health implications with
not collecting waste and therefore waste should be collected. It
also says that consideration to the way waste is collected should
be given. It is essential that these
are monitored to ensure Enfield is a clean borough.
- If we
follow the Mayor of London’s Environment Strategy regarding
the delivery of a weekly food kerbside collection, then four of the
eight options put forward in the consultation would not deliver
this requirement.
- Barnet
Council had challenged the Mayor of London on his power of
direction over food waste, Councillor Laban questioned why LB
Enfield had not also done this. If Enfield follows this, eventually
it may lead to higher costs and other factors that would make the
findings of the consultation out of date.
The Chair invited Councillor
Dogan as Cabinet Member for Environment and
Doug Wilkinson, Director of
Environment & Operational Services, to respond to the points
raised.
Councillor Dogan praised
officers for their work so far.
The following responses were
given:
- The
status quo was included in the consultation following expert legal
advice. If the status quo was retained savings would need to be
found elsewhere from the council.
- Although four out of the eight options put forward would not be
compliant with the Mayor of London’s Environment Strategy,
they would still be operationally viable in the short-term.
Ultimately, this will be a Cabinet decision and it would be wrong
for the public not to be aware of all options.
- In
terms of whether larger bins would be provided free of charge - at
present our policy is that requests for a larger bin can be made,
and this would be considered on merit. With any of the proposed
options our policy would stay the same and no charge would apply
for any bin exchange.
- A lot
of work has been done on whether there is a correlation between
waste service changes and fly-tipping.
There is a perception but no statistical correlation that there is
an increase in fly-tipping resulting from changes in waste service
collections. However, it is acknowledged that Enfield has
challenges with fly tipping currently.
- In
terms of whether all options including do nothing would be taken
equally and whether there would be any ‘paybacks’ for
example for residents with low incomes. - These decisions cannot
yet be made until after the consultation. The Chair queried whether
the public are able to give a fully informed decision if they do
not know whether there would be any ‘paybacks’ for
example free provision of bigger bins. Feedback from residents
would help to inform the decisions to be made and what support
mechanisms may be required to help implementation of any proposed
changes.
- If the
consultation was to take place over a four- week period, then it
may be considered inappropriate for it to take place over
Christmas. However, as the consultation would last ten weeks then
it is reasonable that it should take place then. Some may believe
that whilst residents are at home during the holiday period they
may have more time to consider the consultation.
- Doug
Wilkinson referred to the Mayor of London’s Environment
Strategy and Cllr Laban’s comment that should we need to
follow this strategy regarding the collection of food waste then we
would have consulted on an option that we cannot deliver
on. He answered that decisions can only
be made at the time. This was an ever changing situation which we
needed to be able to adapt to. It
was confirmed that we were working with the GLA.
Other issues were raised by
members:
- It was questioned why there were
eight options, it was thought the number could have been reduced to
five. Debbie Campbell stated that
modelling work had been done to determine that there were 7 options
plus the ‘no change’ option.
- It was
suggested that the questions put forward in the consultation could
reflect the points raised at this meeting. It was confirmed that
these points are helpful and would be considered as part of the
final consultation format and content.
- Councillor Smith thought the report was misleading as it refers
to a sum of £18m of savings that LB Enfield are to make for
2019/20. He said this was for the whole of the authority and not
just the Environment department. The actual reason for the need for
savings is the increasing cost pressures on the service for example
the increased cost for dry recyclables, the increased charges for
weekly food collection that may arise and possible increased costs
from the North London Waste Authority (NLWA). He also asked how
true were the increased costs. It was suggested that the report
should have given greater detail of these cost
pressures.
Doug
Wilkinson confirmed that the report included details around the
increased costs and that the service was experiencing some of these
costs increases already. He referred to changes in routes (China)
that have led to increased prices – At the moment
approximately 37% of rubbish in grey bins is food waste, which
costs around £90 a tonne. If food
waste was taken out of grey bins and put into food bins this would
cost much less at around £40 a tonne.
- Councillor Levy stressed the importance of communications with
residents to ensure they are fully informed as to the implications
of the changes and to help to reduce the
‘contamination’ of bins.
- Councillor Smith said he understands only 25% of households are
using ‘brown bins’. Doug Wilkinson agreed that good
communications was key for
engaging with residents and implementing changes.
- Councillor Needs asked if the consultation would include a
section for residents to put forward their own
suggestions. It was confirmed that this
would be included.
- It was
thought that members of the public may have concerns regarding
public health if bins are collected on a less regular basis,
Councillor Levy suggested that the questionnaire needs to
acknowledge public health concerns. Doug Wilkinson stated options
that included weekly food waste collections help reduce the
perceived concerns in this area. The
public health implications are linked to waste not being collected
not frequency.
- Councillor Yusuf thought the numerous options put forward may be
confusing for the public and asked if it may be possible for a more
simplified version to be given. Doug Wilkinson explained that the
very nature of having a number of options to consult on will be
complex but we have tried to simplify as much as possible with the
use of images.
- As we
are moving towards more pre-decision scrutiny it was thought this
subject may have benefitted from using the pre-decision
approach.
- It was
asked how the public would be informed about the consultation
process and whether we had considered those people who do not use
‘on line’ facilities. An
answer was given that there would be posters advertising the
consultation and that discussions had been held with the
communications team to ensure we engage with as many people as
possible. We would be monitoring
replies week on week, there would be advertising and proactive
marketing such as specific engagement events if required. The
translation service would be used to involve all resident
groups. Hard copies would be available
in libraries and other buildings.
- Councillor Smith suggested that we may wish to challenge the
Mayor of London’s Environment Strategy re food recycling
collection, as other local authorities have done. He also reminded the meeting of residents living
in social housing, a large proportion of those living in flats may
not have the same recycling facilities available. Doug Wilkinson
said there were no plans to challenge the Mayor’s directive
at present. He said we would be
analysing data on a weekly basis. Doug Wilkinson also said that the
changes did not apply to flats with communal bins and flats above
shops which are on bag collections. It
only applies to properties with wheeled bins and will state this
within the consultation information.
- Councillor Levy suggested that it would have been useful to see
the modelling behind the data being used and the savings projected,
he referred to risks where take up figures have been
assumed. It was answered that we were
aiming to mitigate any risks and said for example that if a charge
is implemented for green garden waste then we would be actively
marketing the service on a commercial basis. More details could be provided in the final report
that sets out a preferred option.
Members of the public were
asked for any comments/ questions they wished to make
- Reference was made to the need for extra green bins in
Enfield’s parks.
- That
we should be aware that many people may struggle to pay £65
for a green bin collection and it was suggested that this be means
tested.
Councillor Joanne Laban was
asked for her comments and she said that if the Mayor of
London’s Environment Strategy directive be followed, the
findings from this consultation would be out of date. She wondered
if a further consultation exercise would then need to be
undertaken. She recommended that the decision be referred back to
the Cabinet Member for Environment.
Doug Wilkinson did not think we
should delay the consultation process, he agreed that there were
risks with options, but assessments would be made following
feedback from the consultation when putting forward the preferred
option.
AGREED:
Overview & Scrutiny
Committee considered the reasons for the call-in and responses
provided. Having considered the information provided the Committee
voted in favour of referring the matter back to the Cabinet Member
for Environment.
The reasons for referring the
matter back to the Cabinet Member were as follows: -
Overview and
Scrutiny Committee suggested that consideration should be given to
modify the structure, balance, and rationale of the original report
to form a basis for the consultation document. In addition:
-
-
Ensure that the options available are clearly
defined, fully transparent and unambiguous
-
They should fully reflect the stated criteria by
which the post-consultation options analysis will be
measured
-
Essentially, the document should reflect pros and
cons (form a user, not service provider, point of view) and find
the balance that avoids undue complexity, but also gives residents
sufficient information to help them make a fully informed
choice
-
Incorporate simple reference points where necessary
to assist in above, for example, bin sizes
-
The tone of language, but also the actual language
used in the consultation document must be inviting, user friendly,
and outward looking not inward focused
-
Clarity, ensuring confirmation that the consultation
is all to do with communication about
potential changes to operational services but it isn’t a
document about service delivery.
-
Review the options that although operationally
deliverable, may be difficult to implement.
-
Greater emphasis should be placed on the offer to
provide larger bins at no charge, should residents require
them.
- A
comment box should be available for residents to suggest
alternative proposals, along with the 8 options.
Councillors Akpinar and Susan
Erbil voted in favour of the Cabinet Member decision.
Councillors David-Sanders, Smith and Yusuf voted in favour of
referring the decision back to the Cabinet Member for further
consideration. Cllr Needs abstained. Cllr Levy using the
Chair’s casting vote, voted in favour of referring the
decision back to the Cabinet Member.
The original Portfolio decision
was therefore referred back to the Cabinet Member for
reconsideration.