Issue - meetings

Public Questions

Mr Roberts asked a number of questions, as set out below:

 

      i.          Queried how many customers had replied to the survey, and of these, how many had expressed an interest in the food waste collection.

 

Officers have only received twenty seven responses so far. However from those who have responded, a high proportion advised they produce food waste, and more than half would be interested in the Council collecting food waste.

 

Going forward Officers will be contacting specific establishments such as colleges and restaurants to generate an interest in the service.

 

    ii.          Queried how the daily tonnage of food waste had been calculated.

 

Sections 3.7 and 3.8 in the Officer’s report show an aspirational aim to establish a core service which provides an indication of the level of service, and one which will grow. Again this will relate to marketing the service and reducing the amount of waste sent to landfill.

 

 iii.          Queried what work had been carried out to ascertain the capacity needed to facilitate the food waste collections.

 

Officers see year on year reductions in commercial residual waste tonnage. This has been encouraged by the commercial recycling collection service which has increased year on year. A route optimisation exercise is yet to be completed for trade waste. A half vehicle resource would be sufficient to support a viable service.

 

  iv.          Queried if the £30,000-£60,000 for the first 3 years was to offset the operating costs, disposal costs and bin purchase with a small surplus at the end of year three. Asked if this income would be lost from the general waste.

 

It is anticipated that the growth in a food waste service will be greater than any reduction in refuse services, as new customers will be attracted to the business and existing customers review their service as they determine their needs. This was the case when officers introduced the commingled service.  The base budget will not be altered until the service has become established; hence the operational costs which would have been covered by the residual collection charges which may be lost have been included.

 

The potential tonnage achievable with the available resource

50 bins x 80kg = 4 tonnes or 100 bins x 40kg = 4 tonnes etc.

 

Matter for Decision

In the Government’s Review of Waste Policy 2011 it identified preventing and reducing food waste sent to landfill from commercial businesses as a priority.

 

Unlike household premises educational establishments and businesses are currently unable to have a segregated food waste collection service provided by the City Council.

 

The Council is currently undertaking a survey of existing commercial customers and it is anticipated that a high proportion of those responding will be interested in food waste collections. Officers are aware that a number of customers from the education sector have expressed an interest and it is therefore anticipated that food waste collections would be welcomed by many of Cambridge’s business and the education sector.  It is proposed to start a food waste service for businesses utilising existing resources with vehicles becoming multi use. Initially the scheme is expected to be self-financing and in the future some income forthcoming to secure the future sustainability of the service.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Environmental and Waste Services

       i.          Approved a food waste collection service for businesses and educational establishments to begin in April 2014. At this stage this service would not require any capital investment as it is proposed to use existing vehicles which will become multi use. The scheme would initially be self-financing.

     ii.          Approved that any net  profit generated from the service be retained to support vehicle and bin R & R contributions for the first 3 years, at which point a review will be undertaken and a decision made as to the capital required for the service as a more specialised vehicle may be required. If capital investment is not required the money will be returned to the general fund as a saving.

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

The Committee received a report from the Head of Refuse & Environment.

 

In response to Members’ questions the Head of Refuse & Environment said the following:

 

       i.          The survey to ascertain interest in food waste collections had been running for circa three months. Information had been published in this time to signpost the survey.

     ii.          Officers have contacted restaurants etc to show how they could reduce food disposal costs through targeted food waste disposal instead of using general landfill.

   iii.          Higher/further education establishments and other organisations would be approached as well as restaurants.

   iv.          Cambridge BID was expected to support the food waste disposal service.

    v.          Profits from the service would be ring fenced to grow it from scratch. Funding could be allocated to the general fund when the service has been established (as was normal council practice).

 

The Committee unanimously resolved to endorse the recommendations.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations.

 

Conflicts of Interest Declared by the Executive Councillor (and any Dispensations Granted)

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.