Tony Watson Blackburn with Darwen BC A return to weekly residual waste collections

The borough  Unitary authority located in East Lancashire  59,000 properties, over half are terraced with little or no gardens  25th most deprived borough in England  21 of 91 Lower Super Output Areas fall within the most deprived 10% in England  Over 20% ethnicity within the borough  2nd highest percentage in England of under 16s  240 litre wheeled bins introduced in 1987

Date line for recycling and alternate weekly collections (AWC)  AWC introduced in 2003/4 to 18,000 properties Green / Residual waste alternate weeks  Boroughwide - paper collected in a bag, plus commingled glass, tins, cans and plastics collected fortnightly in a 55 litre box  Weekly recycling collections for paper and commingled collections introduced 2004/5  Cardboard added to boroughwide weekly paper collections in August 2006  24,000 properties added to AWC service in October 2006, without green waste collections – terraced properties  17,000 properties still on weekly residual

Transition to weekly residual collections  New political administration May 2007  October litre burgundy wheeled bin for residual waste to 17,000 properties. Commingled in grey 240 litre bin and collected fortnightly. 6,000 more green waste bins delivered.  Boroughwide weekly paper and card collections continue  February/March 2008, - 18,000 burgundy bins for residual waste rolled out  February/March 2008 paper, card and commingled collected in grey 240 litre bin emptied once a fortnight to 35,000 properties  October ,000 properties receive 140 litre burgundy bin and move to a fortnightly collection of paper, card and commingled recyclates in 240 litre bin

Recycling Rates (BV82a/b combined)  2002/311%  2003/418%  2004/523%  2005/624%  2006/727%  2007/8Quarter 133% 2006/7 (27) Quarter 235% (28) Quarter 3 36% (27)

Fly-tipping statistics (number of incidents which includes side waste ) – source BwDBC database and Flycapture  2003/44,700  2004/55,317Enforcement staff recruited x3 Side waste ban introduced  2005/66,330  2006/76,733Enforcement staff recruited x2  2007/85,724* (projected to year end of which 1,394 are side waste) Enforcement staff recruited x2

Cost of moving back to weekly collections  Costs of bins £850,000  3 additional refuse collection rounds and leafleting/PR/bin deliveries £598,000 (full year costs)  Reductions in recycling fleet and staffing - 3 vehicles and staff due to move to fortnightly collections £301,000 p.a.  Income from the sale of 3 recycling vehicles not factored in

Facts  Public satisfaction with household waste collection has dropped by 5 % in the last 3 years (source MORI 2003/ /7)  Public satisfaction with the environment has increased by 15% in the last 3 years (source MORI 2003/ /7)  Public satisfaction with recycling has increased by 6% (source MORI 2003/ /7)  5x as many investigations/actions on fly-tipping and side waste in 2007/8  On target for a 17% reduction in fly-tipping in 2007/8  Total waste arisings have reduced by 8% during 2007/8  Since October 2007, side waste complaints have nearly halved

Tony Watson Blackburn with Darwen Borough Council Thank you

Robert Ward Head of Operations Huntingdonshire District Council Alternating Weekly Collection Services

Where we are

The District  360 square miles  162,000 population  69,000 properties  High growth area - possible Future Eco Town  Mix of Market Towns and Rural areas  Low council tax base - £ for a band D property

Working Together  Very Strong and active Joint Waste Partnership  Now evolving into Waste & Environment Partnership  Clear Countywide strategies for Waste Collection & Disposal  Emerging joint strategies for envirocrime  Partnership has its own organisation RECAP (Recycling, Cambridgeshire and Peterborough )  RECAP employs full time officers  The Partnership has been successful in bidding for funding for new initiatives / currently we are running a BREW funded project to promote trade waste recycling for SME’s

Our Previous Service was  Weekly sack collection based on black plastic sacks provided free of charge to residents. 12 vehicles  55 litre Green Box for dry recycled materials  Network of 110 ‘bring sites’ for cans, plastics, paper, textiles and glass  Garden waste was only collected in sacks purchased from us by residents – the material went to landfill  Both sacks and boxes created significant litter problems for us on collection days  Cleansing regimes were timed to follow collections to deal with those problems

The service we now provide  Alternating weekly collections  Based on the use of 240litre wheeled bins  Blue Bin for co-mingled dry recyclables. (excluding Glass)  Green Bin for Garden waste  Grey Bin for residual waste  Glass collected through our network of 110 ‘bring sites’  Excess residual waste is not collected. (side waste)  Those remaining on sack collections are provided with blue sacks and continue to receive a weekly collection

What we did  Initial 12 month trial in 2003 with 8,000 properties from a cross section of property types.- with microchips and onboard weighing  Detailed district wide survey to establish exactly who could and could not accommodate bins. Terraces / flats, apartments etc.  Each bin is individually addressed – so residents always get their own bin back. (more important than many think)  Bin colours are not bright – blend in rather than stick out  Additional garden waste and dry recycling bins are available – max 2 per property (for those that have the room)  Additional bins for residual waste not available  Following positive feedback – rolled out to whole district in 2004 / 05

Achievements  Service now covers the whole district  We have 187,000 bins in use (£3 million capital cost)  2002/03 recycling rate was 14%  2006/07 recycling rate was 52%  Current rate is running at about 58%  Residents satisfaction rate (2006) - 92% rated the service as v satisfactory, good or excellent  Operationally, we now undertake approx 22,000 collections each day  The service employs 22 x 26 tonne vehicles (£3 million capital investment)

Why does it work so well. (in our case)  Provided adequate resources – (it doesn’t come cheap!)  Engaged with residents  Getting the press ‘on side’ before the trials even started  Recognise that you can’t change the habits of a lifetime overnight  Give people enough time to get used to it before strictly enforcing the rules  Listen to concerns and address individual issues A lot of visits !  Keep people informed. Praise them for doing well  Develop solutions to individual problems wherever possible – clear sacks etc.  Need for ongoing feedback to residents – and free compost giveaway’s

Environmental Impact  No increase in the general level of fly tipping / littering  Clear reduction in levels of residual littering on collection days  Smokey garden bonfire complaints virtually disappeared  Has highlighted those who don’t manage their waste  Is making it socially unacceptable to simply dump black sacks  Increasing levels of reports from those managing their waste properly, about those who are not. (people are snitching)  Proactive enforcement is necessary  Dumped domestic material easier to identify than before  Number of trade waste agreements have risen  Successful multi agency / community anti fly tipping campaigns

Summary  It isn’t cheap – it needs long term political and financial commitment  Keep it simple and adapt to meet user needs wherever practical  Keep communicating – offer praise and then offer some more  Don’t expect overnight change and compliance. It takes time to change the habit of a lifetime  One size doesn’t fit all. What works for us, may not work for you, the key is to adapt and modify to suit your local situation