Issue - meetings

The Head of Climate, Environment & Waste and the Waste Policy Officer provided a briefing note giving an update on contract performance and observations from the Officers visit on 22 September 2025. The Greater Cambridge Shared Waste Service began its contract for sorting recycling with Re‑Gen in March 2025.

 

Key points highlighted:

      i.         Monthly reports from the contractor provided the amounts collected and composition information were being provided on time for meet the national data reporting deadlines.

    ii.         Material was being sorted and recovered to a high standard, and the plant continued to extract and send for sale 96% of the material it sorts.

   iii.         The commodity prices being reached over the last six months were largely above the typical values of the market indices which was testament to the high standard of sorting achieved and quality of the products.

  iv.         Recycling was being sent to UK and European destinations for recycling.

    v.         Operations continued to be compliant with the Northern Ireland Environment Agency requirements.

  vi.         There had been no health and safety or welfare related issues including any RIDDOR reportable incidents. (Reporting of Injuries, Diseases, Dangerous Occurrences Regulations.)

 vii.         There was now the ability to recycle additional items, cardboard Pringles TM tubes (with inner foil lining) and toothpaste tubes.

viii.         Officers observed how well the site was being run on a recent site visit. The Environment Agency in Northern Ireland had confirmed that operations were compliant.

  ix.         It remained Re-Gen's intention to build another MRF on the mainland, but there was no further information to share on this point currently

 

In response to questions and statements from Members, the Waste Policy, Change and Innovations Manager said the following:

      i.         Officers held regular meetings with Re‑Gen, where the establishment of a new recycling plant on the mainland was a standing agenda item.

    ii.         The Enforcement Notice issued by the Northern Ireland Environment Agency (NIEA) on 25 July 2025 was unrelated to the Council’s contract, and the issues raised had been resolved.

   iii.         Work was underway to reduce recycling contamination. Refuse crews could immediately record any contamination they observed, enabling officers to monitor reports and write to residents to provide guidance on what could and could not be recycled.

  iv.         The contract was due to run for five years.

    v.         Peterborough City Council also held a contract with Re‑Gen.

  vi.         Huntingdonshire District Council, East Cambridgeshire District Council, and Fenland District Council had contracts with Biffa, which used a MRF in London.

 

The Cabinet Member for Climate Action said the following:

      i.         There were disputed claims of conflicting information, lack of transparency, or councillors being misled.

    ii.         Contracts had been approved and agreed in April 2025 with the final version actually signed in August 2025.

   iii.         The contract involved several complexities, including a requirement for a transfer station.

  iv.         Recycling had been collected by Re‑Gen before the new contract was signed. The existing transfer station was at the MRF in Waterbeach, where all recycling was delivered before being collected by Re‑Gen vehicles.

    v.         Agreement was reached in August 2024 that the new contract would be signed as a shared service based in Newry, Northern Ireland.

  vi.         The previous contract had been extended to allow recycling to continue at the Material Recovery Facility (MRF) in Waterbeach between August and March.

 vii.         Recycling at Newry had produced a 16% increase.

viii.         Although recycling travelled a considerable distance, it was sent to UK and European destinations, not worldwide.

  ix.         The contract was considered value for money; the quality of the products meant they were purchased by businesses recycling waste into new products.

    x.         Under the previous contract, recycling was transported to Waterbeach for sorting. It was now sent to Northern Ireland, which increases mileage but remained within the UK.

  xi.         The new facilities were modern, energy‑efficient, and markedly different from the former site. As a result, the quality of recycling had significantly improved, with the benefits outweighing the additional cost.

 xii.         Under the Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR), higher levels of recycling equated to increased income for the Council.

xiii.         The contract had been through a public procurement process in which councillors did not have input.

xiv.         Although there were initial concerns about recycling being transported to Northern Ireland, the contract had since proven entirely positive and was fully supported.

xv.         Re‑Gen is a UK family‑run, award‑winning business in waste management and recycling.

 

RESOLVED:

      i.         To note and accept the update given by the briefing.