We are pleased that the Government has listened to the LGA and councils and decided not to significantly reduce the flexibilities in how councils collect waste from people’s homes.
Key messages
We are pleased that the Government has listened to the LGA and councils and decided not to significantly reduce the flexibilities in how councils collect waste from people’s homes. The decision that councils can continue to charge for garden waste is welcome, as is the recognition that kerbside recycling collections should be designed to fit local needs, rather than following a national template.
It is unusual for government to run a private consultation on policy changes. This reduces the transparency of the consultation process and excludes the public’s views.
The consultation has been run in a short period of four weeks, explained by Defra as necessary “to ensure that local authorities, waste collectors and non-household municipal premises receive the policy decisions in sufficient time to implement the changes by the required dates”. Defra is right in observing that councils need sufficient time to implement the changes, a point that LGA has raised many times since Defra’s reforms were proposed in 2019 and 2021 because of our concerns about the financial impact, and the lead in time for changing long-term contracts for waste and recycling services.
We are ready to work with Defra to ensure that councils are provided with sufficient resources, clarity and time to meet the challenging deadlines set out for the implementation of the simpler recycling reforms. Defra has set a deadline of 2025 for businesses to implement the simpler recycling reforms, a year before households. This means that any council providing waste services to business will have to manage two timetables and the impact on councils needs to be better understood by Defra. Where council waste infrastructure is supporting both household and business waste services, all services will have to confirm with the earlier non-household implementation deadline of 2025. This will add cost for councils and reduce the amount of time for procurement and contract negotiation. Commercial waste providers will purchase vehicles and bins a year ahead of councils, and this will limit the supply of equipment available for councils to implement household reforms.
Defra needs to press ahead with the reform of extended producer responsibility for packaging (EPR), as this is closely linked to the delivery of simpler recycling.
Response to consultation questions
Exemptions to the requirement to collect core recyclable waste streams separately from each other
Question 6. Do you agree with the provisions of an exemption to allow for the co-collection of paper and card, plastic, metal and glass in one bin without needing a written assessment?
We agree with the provision of an exemption. The LGA has repeatedly made the case for councils to have local flexibility on the design of collection systems.
Current approaches reflect a range of local factors. Most people are not constantly on the move, and they do not have to negotiate different local systems. Residents need to know what can be recycled, which is dependent on producers making this very clear on packaging, and their local method for collection. The current differences in the collection service will consider local geography and housing types and the investment in and availability of sorting and reprocessing infrastructure. In towns and cities there are considerable challenges in managing the streetscape if households are required to use multiple bins. Wheelchair and pushchair access can be reduced, and the visual impact can be significant. Only local determination can ensure the right approaches are taken in any given area.
The same approach to local flexibility must be taken in the implementation of extended producer responsibility for packaging (EPR). Councils will be looking to Defra for reassurance that the EPR scheme administrator will not reduce payments for councils co-collecting dry recycling streams, because a different set of standards are used in the EPR payment definition of “efficient and effective services”.
Question 7. Do you agree with the provision of an exemption to allow for the co-collection of food and garden waste in one bin without needing a written assessment?
We agree with the provision of an exemption. This will allow for local flexibility and for services to be designed to meet local needs.
This supports better use of public money, as councils can continue to run services where food and garden waste are treated together without incurring high costs for changing contracts with infrastructure providers.
It also avoids the situation where residents are asked to present food and garden waste separately in order to comply with national regulations, but the two materials are then mixed due to the nature of the local treatment infrastructure. Residents might reasonably question the cost and logic of separate food and garden waste collections in those circumstances.
Statutory guidance
Question 8. The guidance advises that waste collection authorities should build flexibility into their contracts to ensure materials can be added/removed to the recyclable waste streams as new technologies develop. Do you agree or disagree with the content of this section?
We disagree with this as a feature of statutory guidance as it implies that contracts can easily be negotiated on a short-term basis and with built in flexibility. This could increase contract prices and it is unclear whether councils or contractors would be expected to carry the financial risk of adding new materials to an agreed service. This idea needs to be market tested before it is added to statutory guidance.
The message that councils should prioritise flexibility in contracts is at odds with the draft EPR regulations that make payments to councils based on efficiency described as “the lowest cost service”. Defra must be careful to avoid placing contradictory expectations on councils.
Question 9. Do you agree or disagree with the contents of the list above, detailing the materials that are out of scope of the recyclable waste stream?
We disagree on the grounds that defining a list of non-recyclable materials in statutory guidance could have unintended consequences, and it duplicates the work being carried out in the design of the packaging EPR scheme.
The proposed list includes materials that are not collected at the kerbside for recycling but could be accepted at a household recycling centre or through another form of kerbside collection, for example bulky waste. This could unintentionally cause confusion.
Proposed guidance on dry recyclable waste collections from households
Question 10. Guidance is provided regarding the requirement to collect dry recycling from premises and the use of communal bins. Do you agree or disagree with the content of this section?
We disagree as this should be a local decision. The requirements set out in the draft guidance could have cost implications for some local authorities and this could lead to reductions in other services. Defra should consider this as part of the new burdens calculation.
The recommendation to provide communal on-site bins for residual waste and recycling waste from flats and communal properties may be difficult to achieve in practice, due to restrictions of space and the nature of certain types of property, for example flats above shops. It may be more helpful to promote this message by sharing good practice and providing funding to councils to run trials, rather than making it a feature of statutory guidance.
Proposed guidance on organic recyclable waste collections from households
Question 11. Is there any additional guidance that would be useful regarding the provision of caddy liners?
The design of food waste collection services should be determined locally, and it is not necessary for Defra to provide guidance at this level of detail.
The decision of how to collect food waste separately needs to be based on the type of property, the type of vehicle, the treatment facility that will process the food waste and the requirements of the end user taking the digestate and biogas.
Some facilities such as ReFood in Dagenham, East London receive food waste from both households and commercial businesses. Food waste sent to ReFood from the retail sector is often still packaged in plastic packaging. This is firstly de-packaged in the plant before the food waste is prepared for digestion. The plastic packaging is pelletised and turned into Solid Recovered Fuel (SRF) for combustion.
The challenge with using biodegradable caddy lines in a facility that de-packages plastic packaging is the presence of biodegradable caddy liners can be confused for plastic packaging. Furthermore, biodegradable caddy liners can take up to 18 months to degrade in soil and therefore off take markets for the digestate can be limited. Whichever solution works for the authority, processor, and end market. should be funded through new burdens. New burdens funding for caddy liners must cover transition costs, and importantly caddy liners should be factored into the calculation of the ongoing financial burden of providing a food waste collection service.
Question 12. Guidance is provided regarding the requirement to collect food waste from premises and the use of communal bins. Do you agree or disagree with the content of this section?
Agree, on condition that the cost of meeting the guidance is fully covered by new burdens funding.
Question 13 the guidance provides advice on collection frequency of garden waste. Do you agree or disagree with the advice on collection frequency of garden waste?
Disagree. This should be a local decision, and it could increase the cost of providing the service to residents. This would have to come out of local budgets, or where garden waste collection is charged for, it would be reflected in a higher charge.
Question 14. The guidance outlines that anaerobic digestion is the preferred method for treating food waste, where suitable, but composting is also permitted. Do you agree or disagree with the content of this section?
Agree, although we note that Defra has decided not to include disposal costs in new burdens funding for the introduction of food waste collections.
Proposed guidance on residual waste collections from households
Question 15. The guidance outlines a backstop on the frequency of collection of residual waste, to protect householders’ local amenity. Do you agree or disagree with the content of this section?
Disagree. This should be a local decision as councils are democratically accountable to their communities.
The changes to recycling collections set out in the simpler recycling proposals (weekly food waste collection and the expanded set of materials to be collected as dry recycling) should reduce residual waste volumes, and the percentage of biodegradable waste in the residual waste bin should also continue to fall.
The decision on frequency then comes down to the likely proportion of municipal offensive waste in the residual bin (such as nappies and hygiene waste) which is a factor easily determined locally.
Local authorities have found that reducing the frequency of residual waste collections drives recyclable material out of the residual bin and into the recycling bin and moving back from this is counterintuitive. Furthermore, statutory guidance on residual waste collection frequency could undermine the achievement of an efficient and effective service for the purpose of the new Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) scheme for packaging.
Defra states that new burdens funding will not be provided for any council collecting residual waste less than fortnightly. It is not clear what councils would then be expected to do. Reverting to fortnightly residual waste collection would come at a significant cost and the money would have to be found from local budgets, adding to the financial pressures already facing councils.
Proposed guidance on food waste collections from non-household municipal premises
Question 16. The guidance outlines that anaerobic digestion is the preferred method for treating food waste, where suitable, but composting is also permitted. Do you agree or disagree with the content of this section?
Agree