Report by Chief Executive (attached).

The Committee considered a report by the Chief Executive (circulated previously) regarding the roll out of a separate glass container receptacle across the District for glass collection.

The Chief Executive highlighted the following:

·         As part of the ongoing review of processes within the Council, a review of the issues around missed collections had been undertaken.  The review involved engaging with employees directly providing the service to ascertain what changes they thought could be introduced to reduce missed collections.

·         One idea raised was to try to encourage the public to separate glass from plastic and tins.  It was felt that this would speed up the efficiency of the rounds and would also cut down on injuries to the workforce caused by broken glass.

·         A trial had recently been undertaken in Yelland prior to lockdown where two boxes had been issued for glass and one for plastic and tins.  Employees had advised that this had saved time.

·         Previously a trial was also undertaken using hessian sacks which was popular with the public but did not speed up rounds as they could not use the bags to push the recycling into the stillage.

·         Following lockdown and the Council providing a community response, the Council had ceased receiving missed collections via the telephone.

·         During the lockdown the recycling service had run well and the public had been encouraged to separate their glass using their own separate container.  Approximately 10-15% of households now separated glass.

·         The costs of rolling out additional boxes to the District were estimated to be £80,000 and that a 15% contingency be allowed as detailed in paragraph 4.12 of the report.

In response to questions, the Chief Executive advised the following:

·         That the proposed boxes for the collection of glass materials were blue and smaller and could sit inside the existing large plastic box.

·         It was difficult to quantify how much financially the Council would save, however it was anticipated that the amount of overtime claimed by employees would reduce and that the efficiency and capacity of the service would improve.

·         The Council could send out communications to advise that a separate box would be provided for the collection of glass and to contact the Council if they would prefer to use their own receptacle.  It would not be an opt in service.

·         It was unlikely that the percentage of households currently separating glass would increase without the Council providing separate receptacles.

·         There was an approximately 8 week period for the procurement of the additional boxes.

·         40,000 boxes would be procured.  It was not anticipated that every household would be provided with an additional box, as some households would use their own receptacles.  This would provide spare boxes which the Council could provide to households in new housing developments and for when replacements were required.

·         If the Council went out to tender to procure the additional boxes rather than the recommended route in the report, it would cost an additional 35p for each box.

In response to questions, the Head of Resources advised the following:

·         The last quarterly financial monitoring report presented to the Committee highlighted that a significant amount of overtime had been paid to enable rounds to be completed.  This proposed change would enable the crews to complete rounds quicker and therefore a reduction in the overtime.  It would also enable the processing hall to manage the collected recycling materials quicker.

·         This would create capacity for the teams to take on additional rounds for new housing developments moving forwards.

·         The employment of additional employees if we had to put further rounds on would have an impact on revenue.  This was an investment to save revenue costs in the long term.

·         15% contingency had been included to allow for any price increases on the boxes.  The budget cost would be funded from the Strategic Contingency Reserve.