(Somerset Waste Board 19 June 2015)Somerset Waste Board – 19 June 2015) F - 4 1.4. From 2016/17, the recycling collection fleet will reach the end of their normal life expectancy

(Somerset Waste Board – 19 June 2015)

F- 1

Somerset Waste Board meeting 19

th June 2015

Report for decision

Paper F

Item No. 11

Towards a New Service Model for Collection Lead Officer: Steve Read, Managing Director Author: David Mansell, Development & Monitoring Manager Contact Details: 01823 625713

Forward Plan Reference:

SWB/15/02/04

Summary:

This report outlines a process to assess future recycling and refuse collection options Future options include the potential to recycle additional materials, such as plastic pots, tubs and trays and cartons, and changes to collection frequencies, containers and methods. Such changes could affect service costs, satisfaction and performance. The best opportunity to consider introducing any changes is prior to the planned replacement of the current recycling fleet from 2016/17. This report also sets out the results of the Recycle More trials, which tested potential service changes during September-December 2014. These were devised to inform this review process.

Recommendations:

That the Somerset Waste Board:

1. Notes the results of the Recycle More trials reported in section 2.1.

2. Approves the process for assessing future collection options described in section 2.2.

3. Provides a view as to whether any further trials should be undertaken.

Reasons for recommendations:

So that members can approve the proposed approach to reviewing the recycling and refuse collection service which will explore the opportunities for service improvements, increased customer satisfaction and performance, and savings.


F - 2

Links to Priorities and Impact on Annual Business Plan:

This report links to the following actions in the Annual Business Plan 2015-20:

2.1) Recycle More Trials - To report on 2014 trials by June 2015. If report identifies need, to test options for other future collection models, designed to increase recycling and reduce costs, by November 2015.

2.2) Collection system review with Kier including vehicle specification for the new recycling fleet - To recommend a cost effective service model that achieves high levels of waste reduction and recycling for adoption from 2016/17, including identification of costs and operational requirements.

Financial, Legal and HR Implications:

Sedgemoor DC has identified a specific savings target from 2016/17 which cannot be achieved without significant changes to the existing service. It is expected that the other partners will also require similar savings during the remaining period of the contract. The indicative cost of appointing external advisers to assist with the assessment of future collection options is £35,000. This would need to be found within existing resources or shared between collection authority partners. Waste Collection is the single most expensive service for district council partners. This review is therefore fundamentally important as it will determine direction, performance and, crucially, costs for the period to October 2021. This could potentially run to £100Ks per annum per authority. There are clearly risks and potential loss of savings involved in coming to an erroneous or sub optimal solution. External support for the analysis is therefore considered by SWP officers and the Strategic Management Group (SMG) to be crucial. The assistance will ensure the options are robustly assessed in relation to cost, performance and health and safety with reference to current practice elsewhere, adjusted for the particular nature of operating in Somerset. It is also vital that we have robust indicative costs to support dialogue with the contractor in moving forward. A further trial on the scale of the 2014 trial (c2500 households for 12 weeks) is estimated to cost £50,000 should members wish to pursue this. This cost is not budgeted and would need to be found within existing resources or a further contribution from participating collection authorities. Options for funding these costs will be outlined at the meeting. There are no legal or HR implications arising from this report. It should however be noted that any changes to the service would need to comply with the Waste (England and Wales) Regulations 2011 (as amended). Details of these requirements were reported to the Board in March 2015.


F - 3

Equalities Implications:

There are no equality implications arising from this report at this stage. Impacts of future collection options will be considered as part of their assessment and these will subsequently be reported to the Board when a decision on selecting the future collection system is to be taken.

Risk Assessment:

Key risks are:

1) An assessment of future collection options does not have sufficient information or guidance to make the best choice, resulting in a sub-optimal decision in terms of future costs, performance and customer satisfaction.

2) Decisions on future collections options are not taken in time to allow their effective implementation when the current recycling fleet starts to need replacement, which could impact services due to breakdowns and delay the introduction of a more efficient option.

These risks will be managed through a careful selection and procurement process for the appointment of external advisers and by ensuring the project to select a future collection system keeps within its critical path.

1. Background

1.1. Recycling of Somerset’s household waste steadily increased during the 2000s from 15% in 2000/01 to 51% in 2007/08, but has plateaued at this level since. The increase was largely achieved through the roll-out of new services, such as Sort It and Sort It Plus collections (introducing kerbside recycling and adding new materials, as well as reducing the frequency of refuse collections to fortnightly) and as a result of a greater range of materials recycled at Recycling Centres.

1.2. Analysis (see background paper in 5.1) of Somerset’s refuse has shown that 50% could be recycled through Somerset’s current kerbside recycling collections and a further 9% could be recycled at Recycling Centres. Recycling new materials could make a small contribution, with the main opportunities being plastic pots, tubs and trays (4%), cartons (1%) and electrical appliances (1%). In future, it may also be possible to recycle nappies and absorbent hygiene products (5%), other dense plastics (3%) and plastic film (6%), but reprocessing outlets for these are not currently available or imminent.

1.3. During September to December 2014, Somerset Waste Partnership ran a series of trials to test methods for increasing kerbside recycling. A report on these trials is given in the next section, with further information attached in appendices.


F - 4

1.4. From 2016/17, the recycling collection fleet will reach the end of their normal life expectancy after being 7 years in service. This will commence from summer 2016, peaking in the summer of 2017 and be completed by October 2018. It is therefore timely to consider options for the future service

1.5. This also coincides with the need for savings from 2016/17 identified initially by Sedgemoor DC and expected to be required by other partners in the remaining period of the contract. Any changes therefore may be expected to deliver significant savings along with any service enhancements.

2. Options Considered

2.1. Recycle More Trials a) The Recycle More trials were launched during September 2014 on nine

recycling rounds in Taunton Deane and ran for twelve weeks until December 2014.

b) On all trial rounds plastic pots, tubs and trays, cartons (Tetra Pak being the most well-known brand), small electrical appliances and household batteries were added to materials accepted for recycling. During the trials these materials were dropped off for sorting and bulking at the Viridor Materials Recovery Facility (MRF) at Priorswood in Taunton. Special arrangements were made to individually weigh each material before and during the trials.

c) There were three main variations tested on different rounds, as follows:

SP1 – Current collection frequencies with recycling and food waste every week and refuse every fortnight. Householders were offered the option of an additional box or a blue reusable sack for the additional materials recycled.

SP2 – Recycling collections were changed to every fortnight, food waste continued weekly and refuse continued fortnightly. Clear (disposal) sacks were provided to householders for plastics and cans.

SP3 – Recycling and food waste collections remained weekly, but refuse was changed to every three weeks. Householders were offered the option of an additional box or a reusable sack for the additional materials recycled.

d) The number of rounds with each of the main trial options were:

SP1 – Three rounds, all in Taunton.

SP2 – Four rounds, two in Taunton and two in Wellington.

SP3 – Two rounds which covered the main town area of Wiveliscombe and Langley Marsh, which is about 13 miles outside of Taunton and a small town with a range of housing types, including flats, old housing and small new estates.

e) The following communication initiatives were also tested on selected rounds:

i) On one SP2 round in Wellington ‘no food waste please’ reminder stickers were attached to refuse bins and packs of free caddy liners provided.


F - 5

ii) On one SP1 round and one SP2 round in Taunton, intensive doorstepping was undertaken, with discussions held with 69% and 64% (respectively) of all households to ask about recycling, identify any potential barriers and see if these could be overcome.

iii) On one SP1 round in Taunton, households not recycling or only infrequently were identified and targeted mailings sent to provide information, including a container form, and to encourage future recycling.

f) On SP3 rounds, inspections aimed to identify potential problems and address

these immediately, which it is believed made a difference in ensuring three-weekly refuse collections worked well.

g) On the first occasion when a previous fortnightly refuse collection would have been due on the SP3 rounds, it was observed that about 50 households had put their refuse out, even though the collection was not due until the following week. These residents were called upon or a pre-prepared notice left, where no-one was home, to explain the new collection arrangements and ask that the refuse be taken back in. It was found that many people, who had put their refuse out on the wrong week, were not aware of the trial arrangements, so full details were provided. A number also needed recycling containers, for which orders were taken.

h) Inspections were also undertaken on three-weekly refuse days. Less than 20

households (under 2%) put out extra refuse alongside their refuse bins. Again these residents were visited and notices left to explain the trial arrangements where people were out. In many cases, it was accepted that they should be recycling more and orders were taken for recycling containers where needed. Most did not continue to put out extra refuse on subsequent collection days.

i) On SP2 rounds, up to a third of households initially did not understand the

change to fortnightly collections and continued to put recycling boxes out on the first weeks when there was not a recycling collection. A mailing was quickly sent to all on SP2 rounds to make the change to fortnightly collections during the trial period very clear and this largely resolved the problem, although a few continued to put out on the wrong weeks.

j) Appendix 1 shows results of monitoring the trial rounds including collection

weights and, on selected rounds, participation and the composition of refuse.

k) The highest performing trials were the two SP3 rounds with 3-weekly refuse, where food waste was up 45% and other dry recyclables up 28%, while refuse was down 27%.

l) Some rounds started from lower bases, as they were lower performing

before, and a couple were noteworthy for achieving the highest improvements.

m) One was the SP2 fortnightly recycling round with ‘no food waste’ stickers

placed on refuse bins and free caddy liners provided, where food waste increased 64% and dry recycling by 29%.


F - 6

n) The SP1 round where doorstepping was undertaken had a 45% increase in food waste and 50% increase in dry recycling. However, the SP2 round doorstepped did not have similar increases, so either the fortnightly recycling suppressed similar increases in recycling or circumstances associated with the SP1 round led to the increase recycling with doorstepping.

o) The difference for the SP1 round doorstepped may simply have been that,

before the trials, this round had a below average recycling performance and the doorstepping served to encourage more households to recycle more of their waste. This was also more straightforward as collections frequencies were unchanged and residents just had the benefit of additional materials being recycled.

p) The SP2 round doorstepped had a higher initial level of recycling and

discussions on this round focused more on remembering and storing recycling for fortnightly collections.

q) The targeted communications to non and low recyclers on the SP1

Wednesday round only had a limited impact, but weight data indicates had a small effect in increasing recycling.

r) Overall, the biggest positive results from round weight data were associated

with the 3-weekly refuse collections and also the no food waste stickers and free liners.

s) Householder participation by material was recorded over 3 and 4-week

periods for selected rounds, with results as shown in appendix 1. A very high level of households (83-93%) were found to recycle to some extent, with participation lower for cartons and, most notably, food waste (57-77%).

t) Surprisingly, given the increases in some round weights, significant increases

in participation from before to during the trials were not found. This suggests extra recycling mostly came from existing recyclers, who previously were only partly using SWP recycling services.

u) Appendix 1 also shows results from a small and limited composition study of

refuse put out on SP3 rounds in Wiveliscombe. Non recyclers were found to put out the most recyclable material in their refuse (50%), followed by low recyclers1 (39%) and then mid recyclers2 (28%). Those recycling but not using the food waste collections, had the second most food waste in their refuse (average of 3.9 kg/wk), but otherwise had low levels of recyclable materials in their refuse.

v) Samples taken from shared piles of refuse sacks, which were mostly put out

at single collection points by people living in flats nearby, found only low levels of recyclable materials.

w) Appendix 2 gives results and analysis of an end of trial survey, which proved

very interesting and provided good feedback on the trial options tested.

1 Low recyclers put food waste and/or other recycling out only once during the monitoring period.

2 Mid recyclers did not recycle a full range of materials or put out twice or less during monitoring period.


F - 7

x) The response rate was typical for this type of postal survey for SP1 (15%) and SP2 (17%) rounds, but high for SP3 rounds (30%).

y) Satisfaction levels were high on all trial rounds, but lowest for SP2 rounds,

which appeared to be mainly due to the need to store recycling for longer with fortnightly collections. 91% of SP1 respondents thought the trials were better than previous collection arrangements, as did 72% of SP2 respondents and 81% of SP3 respondents. 6% of SP3 respondents thought the trial collections were worse as did 12% of SP2 respondents.

z) On SP3 rounds, difficulties in remembering refuse collection days were

identified by more people as a problem than storage of refuse between collections, but, in both cases, most respondents found these easy or OK.

aa) Most respondents were happy with the service from collection teams, with

most negative comments being about litter left after collections and the mishandling of recycling boxes.

bb) One of the most telling questions asked which recycling service was

preferred. On SP2 rounds, 82% of respondents said they preferred fortnightly recycling collections with plastic pots, tubs and trays and cartons accepted to weekly recycling collections without these additional materials being recycled. On SP3 rounds, 86% of respondents said they preferred three-weekly refuse collections with recycling that includes plastic pots, tubs and trays and cartons to fortnightly refuse collections without these additional materials being recycled. In both cases, this illustrates how keen people are to be able to recycle additional materials, especially plastics, and that this can more than compensate for changes to collection frequencies.

cc) Many respondents provided comments on the trials. The most common

comment from over 300 people was that they appreciated the trials and would like them to continue. The next most common comment was how recycling more materials allowed a noticeable reduction in their refuse.

dd) On SP3 rounds, a number of people said that they were initially concerned

whether they would manage with less frequent refuse collections, but found their refuse reduced so much that three-weekly collections were frequent enough. Several people expressed how pleased they were with the extra recycling and big reduction in their refuse.

ee) There were also a few comments from families with young children in

disposable nappies who remained concerned about these being collected every three weeks, especially during the summer.

ff) Additional surveys, as reported in appendix 2, also covered the reusable blue

sacks provided on request on SP1 and 3 rounds, garden waste collections and some households living in flats that were covered by SP3 collections. These give good feedback on these aspects.

gg) Overall, SP3 collections, with three weekly refuse and weekly recycling, were

widely accepted and achieved the biggest increase in recycling. They also offer a significant opportunity for savings, both in reducing collection costs and disposal costs by diverting more away from landfill. However, they also


F - 8

led to concerns for some households, especially those with young children using disposable nappies (see more on this in section 4).

hh) The collection of additional materials, especially plastic pots, tubs and trays,

was very popular on all rounds. SP2 rounds with fortnightly recycling collections were the least popular trial option and resulted in the most dissatisfaction and complaints to SWP, mainly relating to the storage of recycling between collections, although most households did not report difficulties with this.

2.2. Assessing Future Collection Options a) A programme of work is proposed to assess future kerbside recycling and

refuse collection options, which will cover:

i) End-use markets to recycle new materials, particularly for plastic pots, tubs and trays.

ii) Quality requirements for materials recycled, sorted or reprocessed in the UK, accepting some may need to be exported for recycling overseas, although UK recycling will be preferred where practical.

iii) Compliance with the Waste (England and Wales) Regulations 2011 (as amended) which require separate collection of glass, paper, plastic and metal.

iv) Visits to view and learn experience with potential new collection options. These may include kerbside sort collections using a new three-box and trolley stacking system (which has been used in some Northern Ireland boroughs and rolled out in Conwy and Gwynedd) and co-mingled collections using wheeled bins (which have been adopted by a number of English local authorities).

v) Whether fortnightly collections of nappy and absorbent hygiene product waste could be cost-effectively maintained alongside three-weekly refuse collections.

vi) The costs, performance and health and safety implications of new collection options.

b) SWP officers will arrange or undertake items i) – v) above, while it is

proposed to appoint external advisers to assist with item vi). (see rationale under Financial Implications)

c) Communal recycling collections from flats, garden waste collections, and bulky and clinical waste collections, will be excluded from assessments of new kerbside collection options, unless it is identified that their integration with the provision of other collection services would allow efficiency improvements and a saving to SWP.

d) For future recycling collection options involving kerbside sort, it will be

assumed that either the current vehicle design (plus any subsequent evolutions) or close equivalents would continue to be used. A comparison of these vehicles for use in Somerset will be provided as part of the assessment for item (vi).


F - 9

e) For all future recycling collection options, improvements to current sorting and material bulking arrangements at collection depots will be considered and included within cost assessments. This may include enhancements to current arrangements or the provision of one or more Material Recovery facilities, which will need to have suitable sorting capacity to supply the next stages in material reprocessing chains and meet requirements of end-use markets.

f) It is proposed to assess the following future collection options and compare

these to the current collection system (weekly recycling with kerbside sort and fortnightly refuse):

i) Weekly recycling as currently with the following materials added to collections: plastic pots, tubs and trays, cartons, small WEEE and household batteries. Additional box or reusable sack offered on request to householders (as tested during Recycle More trials). Refuse service as currently.

ii) Recycling as in (i), but with the three-box stack system provided to replace current boxes. Refuse service as currently.

iii) Weekly co-mingled dry material recycling with wheeled bins provided and boxes only used where properties are not suitable for wheeled bins. Materials recycled as in (i), but excluding textiles and shoes, small WEEE and batteries. Glass to be collected separately in boxes. Weekly food waste collections to continue with current containers. Refuse service as currently.

iv) Recycling as in (iii), but with collections every fortnight on alternate weeks to refuse. Weekly food waste collections to continue with current containers. Refuse service as currently.

v) Recycling as in (i). Refuse service using current containers but collected every three weeks, which would be expected to increase recycling performance by householders (tested Recycle More trials).

vi) As 5), but with refuse collected every four weeks.

vii) Other option(s) suggested by the external advisers or others may also be considered where it could be expected that these would offer performance, efficiency and financial benefits.

g) The timetable for this work will include a report and presentation to an

informal meeting of the Board in October 2015 and a final report, when a decision on future collections should be taken (for subsequent ratification by the partners) as part of the Business Plan to the Board meeting in December 2015.

2.3. Further Collection Trials a) As detailed in section 2.1, a number of collection options were successfully

tested during the Recycle More trials in 2014. This included 3-weekly refuse collections in Wiveliscombe, which were accepted by most households where this allowed additional recycling, including for plastic pots, tubs and trays.

b) Wiveliscombe is a rural town in Taunton Deane with a strong community ethos and a generally high level of interest in environmental issues. Many residents who expressed serious reservations about the reduction in


F - 10

frequency actually reported no problems and changed their view as the trial progressed.

c) Members may wish to trial the option in one or more other areas. As outlined

above, there is a cost involved in this.

d) Alternatively or additionally it may be possible to gain sufficient experience and understanding of the implications from the growing number of local authorities who are rolling out 3 and 4 weekly refuse collections. These include: Bury, Blaenau Gwent, Gwynedd and Falkirk. SWP officers could provide a report on these as part of the work programme assessing future collection options and, if possible, we might invite representatives from these areas to relay their experiences directly to members.

3. Consultations undertaken

3.1. Consultation was undertaken with the 5,200 households covered by the Recycle More trials, who all received a survey form at the end of the trials. Results of this are reported in section 2.1 and appendix 2.

3.2. In October 2013, a focus group was held with invited service users to discuss future collection options and, specifically, material, container, and frequency options. Results were used to inform options tested as part of the Recycle More trials.

4. Implications

4.1. If a decision is not taken on future options for recycling and refuse collections, the current system will remain in place and the same vehicle types will replace the current recycling fleet at the end of their normal operational life. This would result in an opportunity being missed to implement service improvements, increase performance, and/or achieve savings.

4.2. The indicative cost of appointing external advisers to assist with the assessment of future collection options is £35,000. This would need to be found within existing resources or shared between collection authority partners. Options for funding this support will be outlined at the meeting.

4.3. A further estimated cost of £50,000 would arise should members wish to pursue further collection trials to test 3-weekly refuse collections in a range of areas, which would be shared between district council (collection authority) partners. This cost is not budgeted and would need to be found within existing resources or a further contribution from participating collection authorities.

4.4. Impacts of future collection options will be considered as part of their assessment and these will subsequently be reported to the Board when a decision on selecting the future collection system is to be taken.

4.5. As an indication of savings that might be achieved if 3-weekly refuse collections were introduced, Gwynedd’s business case for moving to three-weekly refuse collections envisages that annual savings of £349,000 would be achieved by the


F - 11

authority, which serves about 60,000 households.

4.6. A report on the potential health implications of extending the frequency of non-recyclable waste collections has been commissioned by Zero Waste Scotland. Conclusions included that the availability of simple precautions means the risk for householders is little changed from that experienced with existing weekly and fortnightly collections.

4.7. During the Recycle More trials, SWP allowed households on three-weekly refuse collections with extra nappy or sanitary waste to have sufficient capacity for their refuse and advised that this should be double-wrapped for storage and collection.

5. Background papers

5.1. Somerset Waste Composition Study – November 2012, Somerset Waste Partnership (available at: http://www.somersetwaste.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Somerset-Waste-Composition-Results-Nov-2012.pdf)

5.2. Report to Somerset Waste Board of 20 February 2015, Paper A, Item 5 – Draft Business Plan 2015-20

5.3. Gwynedd Council, 2014: Waste Strategy Changes to Residual Waste Collection: Final Business Case (available at: https://www.gwynedd.gov.uk/en/Council/ Councillors-and-committees/Meetings,-minutes-and-agendas/Meetings,-minutes-and-agendas.aspx?pwyllgor=/2013-14/Cabinet_Cabinet/2014-04-29)

5.4. Zero Waste Scotland, 2014: The potential health implications of extending the frequency of non-recyclable waste collections (available at: http://www.zerowastescotland.org.uk/content/report-potential-health-impacts-reducing-frequency-non-recyclable-waste-collections-0)


F - 12

Appendix 1

Recycle More Trials – Weights and Participation

CHART A – Average Extra Material Recycled per Week

Chart A shows the extra material recycled on average each week during the trials from all rounds, with the new materials shown in orange, which includes plastic pots, tubs and trays. Food waste showed the biggest increase in weight, followed by glass, card and then paper. It should be noted that the contribution of the new materials was much smaller than the increase in existing materials already recycled before the trial.

CHART B – Average Recycled on Each Round Chart B shows the average total weights of food waste and dry materials collected for recycling per week on the trial rounds as well as for Somerset as a whole. The totals

0

500

1000

1500

2000

Kg

pe

r h

ou

se

ho

ld p

er

week

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

SWP SP1Mon

SP1Tue

SP1Wed

SP2ThA

SP2ThB

SP2FrA

SP2FrB

SP3Tue

Kg

pe

r h

ou

se

ho

ld p

er

we

ek

Food Dry


F - 13

are comparable as they show the average weight per household and so are not influenced by varying round sizes. The trial round with the highest performance is the combined result for the two SP3 rounds with 3-weekly refuse collections. The highest performing for food waste was a SP2 round (fortnightly recycling) on Thursday A cycles, where ‘no food waste please’ reminder stickers were placed on refuse bins and free liners delivered with service leaflets.

CHART C – Increase in Materials Recycled on Each Round Chart C shows the % increase in materials recycled on each round during the trials. The biggest increases were on the SP3 rounds with 3-weekly refuse, the SP2 round (Thursday A) with refuse bin stickers and the SP1 round (Monday) where intensive doorstepping was undertaken. There is further discussion and analysis of these findings in section 2.1of the main report. The table below shows the average kilogrammes per household per week collected before and during the trials on all rounds by material, together with the % increase on each round. Also shown are the equivalent weights of refuse, where these could be obtained due to recycling and refuse rounds coinciding sufficiently. The kg per household measure allows a direct comparison between rounds regardless of the number of households served.

-10%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

SP1Mon

SP1Tue

SP1Wed

SP2ThA

SP2ThB

SP2FrA

SP2FrB

SP3Tue

Incre

ase in

Mate

rials

Recycle

d

Food Dry


F - 14

ROUND WEIGHTS

Trial SP1 SP2 SP3

Day Mon Tues Wed Thu A Thu B Fri A Fri B Tues

Households 711 565 517 730 397 585 477 1231

BEFORE TRIALS (kg/hh/wk)

Refuse B 9.4 6.6

Food 1.2 1.7 1.5 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.5 1.3

Card 0.7 0.8 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.9 0.7

Plastic/cans 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.3

Glass 1.3 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.7 1.5 1.6

Paper 0.5 0.8 1.0 0.8 0.9 1.1 0.6 0.9

DRY TOTAL 2.7 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.1 3.8 3.4 3.6

TOTAL

RECYCLING 3.9 4.8 4.7 4.3 4.3 5.1 4.9 4.9

DURING TRIALS (kg/hh/wk)

Refuse 9.1 4.8

Food 1.7 1.7 1.6 1.9 1.3 1.5 1.7 1.9

Card 0.9 1.0 0.8 0.9 0.7 0.9 0.8 0.9

Plastic/cans 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.6 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.5

Cartons 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Batteries 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

SWEEE 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Glass 1.8 1.5 1.7 1.5 1.4 1.5 1.5 1.9

Paper 0.8 1.3 1.1 1.0 0.8 0.8 0.8 1.1

DRY TOTAL 4.1 4.3 4.0 4.1 3.4 3.6 3.6 4.5

TOTAL

RECYCLING 5.8 6.0 5.6 6.0 4.7 5.2 5.3 6.4

CHANGE

Refuse -4% -27%

Food 45% 2% 5% 64% 5% 19% 12% 45%

Card 33% 27% 25% 46% 20% 24% -5% 23%

Plastic/cans 85% 12% 24% 34% 48% 11% 19% 60%

Glass 40% 31% 37% 20% 10% -9% -2% 22%

Paper 70% 59% 8% 22% -6% -29% 31% 22%

DRY TOTAL 50% 36% 26% 29% 12% -6% 7% 28%

TOTAL

RECYCLING 49% 24% 19% 38% 10% 1% 8% 32%

The following table shows participation rates by material before and during the trials. These rates were obtained by recording, over 3 or 4-week periods, how many times these materials were put out by each household on these rounds.


F - 15

It was intended to record over 4-week periods in all cases, but this was not possible on the SP1 Monday and SP2 Tuesday rounds, where 3-week periods were monitored. The number of households participating over 4 weeks would be higher than over 3 weeks. A fourth week was monitored for the SP3 after rounds, which increased the participation rates (over the three week period) by 2-4%.

PARTICIPATION RATES

Trial SP1 SP2 SP3

Day Mon* Wed Thu A Fri A Fri B Tues*

Households 711 517 730 585 477 1231

BEFORE TRIALS (late August to mid September)

Food 57% 77%

62% 68%

Paper 85% 90%

88% 82%

Card 88% 92%

91% 82%

Glass 86% 90%

88% 82%

Plastic/cans 90% 92%

91% 84%

ANY MATERIAL 92% 93%

93% 85%

DURING TRIALS (October)

Food 52% 71% 62% 62% 65% 71%

Paper 70% 85% 75% 80% 80% 80%

Card 78% 90% 79% 87% 86% 83%

Glass 74% 89% 77% 86% 82% 80%

Plas. bottles 81% 91% 80% 88% 87% 85%

PTT 68% 68% 69% 73% 77% 74%

Cans 74% 89% 78% 83% 82% 82%

Carton 52% 61% 62% 67% 67% 65%

ANY MATERIAL 86% 93% 83% 91% 91% 88%

CHANGE

Food -5% -6%

+3% +3%

Paper -15% -5%

-8% -2%

Card -10% -2%

-5% +1%

Glass -12% -1%

-6% -2%

Plastic/cans -9% -1%

-4% +1%

ANY MATERIAL -6% -

-2% +3%

* SP1 Monday and SP3 Tuesday rounds had participation measured over 3 weeks both before and after, which would be expected to be about 3% less than 4 week monitored. Fortnightly SP1 and SP2 rounds were measured over 4 week periods. As discussed in section 2.1 of the main report, significant increases in participation were not found, including on rounds where there were large increases in the weights of materials collected for recycling. This suggests the extra was put out by households who already recycled, but not to the full extent possible.


F - 16

The following table shows the results of a limited study of the composition of refuse put out on the SP3 rounds, which are discussed in section 2.1 of the main report. K

g p

er

Ho

us

eh

old

(Av

era

ge

)

Sa

mp

le

siz

eP

ap

er

Ca

rdb

oa

rd

Ca

rto

ns

su

ch

as

Te

tra

Pa

ks

Ca

ns

an

d

ae

ros

ols

Pla

sti

c

bo

ttle

s

Po

ts, tu

bs

an

d t

ray

s

Gla

ss

bo

ttle

s

an

d ja

rs

Fo

od

wa

ste

TO

TA

L

RE

CY

CL

AB

LE

RE

SID

UA

L

LA

ND

FIL

L

No

n-r

ec

yc

lers

91

.20

.80

.10

.40

.30

.50

.35

.28

.88

.6

No

t fo

od

wa

ste

10

0.6

0.3

0.0

0.3

0.3

0.2

0.1

3.9

5.7

24

.3

Lo

w r

ec

yc

lers

11

0.3

0.2

0.1

0.3

0.1

0.3

0.2

1.0

2.5

3.9

Mid

re

cy

cle

rs9

0.5

0.3

0.0

0.2

0.2

0.3

0.1

3.3

4.8

12

.0

Fla

ts &

sh

are

d p

ile

s5

0.1

0.1

0.0

0.1

0.1

0.2

0.1

1.4

2.1

15

.0

% o

f T

ota

lS

am

ple

siz

eP

ap

er

Ca

rdb

oa

rd

Ca

rto

ns

su

ch

as

Te

tra

Pa

ks

Ca

ns

an

d

ae

ros

ols

Pla

sti

c

bo

ttle

s

Po

ts, tu

bs

an

d t

ray

s

Gla

ss

bo

ttle

s

an

d ja

rs

Fo

od

wa

ste

TO

TA

L

RE

CY

CL

AB

LE

RE

SID

UA

L

LA

ND

FIL

L

No

n-r

ec

yc

lers

96

.8%

4.6

%0

.7%

2.5

%1

.7%

2.8

%1

.5%

29

.9%

50

.5%

49

.5%

No

t fo

od

wa

ste

10

2.0

%1

.0%

0.1

%0

.9%

0.9

%0

.7%

0.3

%1

3.1

%1

9.0

%8

1.0

%

Lo

w r

ec

yc

lers

11

5.2

%3

.4%

1.0

%5

.0%

2.2

%3

.9%

2.6

%1

5.4

%3

8.7

%6

1.3

%

Mid

re

cy

cle

rs9

3.0

%1

.8%

0.0

%1

.0%

0.9

%1

.9%

0.3

%1

9.5

%2

8.3

%7

1.7

%

Fla

ts &

sh

are

d p

ile

s5

0.8

%0

.7%

0.1

%0

.5%

0.5

%1

.4%

0.4

%8

.1%

12

.5%

87

.5%


F - 17

Appendix 2

Recycle More Trials – Survey Results

The Recycle More trials involved adding plastic pots, tubs and trays, cartons, household batteries and small electrical items to the existing recycling service. In addition to this, we tested different frequencies of recycling and refuse collections, with service packages as follows:

SERVICE PACKAGE

Food waste

Recycling Garden waste

Refuse Households

covered

SP1 Weekly Weekly Fortnightly Fortnightly 1793

SP2 Weekly Fortnightly Fortnightly Fortnightly 2189

SP3 Weekly Weekly Fortnightly 3-Weekly 1231

A survey form was sent out to all residents towards the end of the trials along with the end of trial newsletter. Residents were encouraged to complete the survey online or to send the paper one back using a freepost address to encourage responses. The number of surveys returned in total are as follows:

SERVICE PACKAGE

Households covered

Surveys returned Response rate

SP1 1793 272

(109 online, 163 post) 15.2%

SP2 2189 373

(103 online, 270 post) 17.0%

SP3 1231 369

(126 online, 243 post) 30.0%

Returns were lowest from those in SP1 where there was no service change and just the addition of the new materials to the existing collections. They were slightly higher in SP2 areas, where recycling was collected fortnightly. Almost one third of people in SP3, with the three weekly refuse collections returned their surveys, which is a high response rate for this type of survey. The questions asked were the same of all respondents with a couple of exceptions. Residents in SP2 and 3 were given the option to state whether they would prefer to continue with the trial collection system including the additional materials, or return to the current system without the additional materials. This question was not asked of


F - 18

those in SP1 as they did not have a change in frequency of either refuse or recycling collections. Residents who completed the survey online were also given the option to rate the online email service if they signed up, and the delivery of the additional containers, if they requested any. All residents were given the option to freely comment about the trials and make any suggestions for improvements.

RESULTS QUESTION 1 – Trials compared to previous collections SP1

SP2

61.7%

29.5%

6.8%

1.9% 0.0%

1. Overall, what did you think of the Recycle More trials compared to the previous collections?

Much better

Better

Neither better or worse

Worse

Much worse

45.8%

25.8%

16.2%

9.9%

2.5%


Much better

Better


Worse

Much worse


F - 19

SP3

Overall the trials were generally well accepted. 91.2% of people in SP1 said the trials were much better or better than the existing system. This was followed by 71.6% of respondents in SP2 and 80.9% of those in SP3. Interestingly, the satisfaction rate is lower from those in SP2 with fortnightly recycling, than SP3 where recycling remained weekly but refuse changed to 3 weekly. From the comments provided, it would appear that much of the dissatisfaction comes from storing the recycling for 2 weeks (See later). QUESTION 2 - Materials recycled during the trials. SP1

56.8% 24.1%

12.7%

3.3% 3.0%


Much better

Better


Worse

Much worse

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Pa

pe

r

Dri

nks o

rfo

od

ca

ns

Fo

od

wa

ste

Dri

nks

ca

rto

ns s

uch

as T

etr

a P

ak

Pla

stic

bo

ttle

s

Pla

stic p

ots

,tu

bs o

r tr

ays

Ho

use

ho

ldb

att

eri

es

Sm

all

ele

ctr

ica

la

pp

lian

ce

s

Which of the following materials did you recycle during the trials (others were accepted too)?


F - 20

SP2

SP3

From this we can see that in all cases, over 90% of respondents claim to recycle paper, drinks and food cans, plastic bottles and the new material plastic pots, tubs and trays. Drinks cartons were the next largest category for the new materials, and household batteries and small electrical appliances by comparison were much lower, though this is probably because they are likely to appear less frequently in the waste stream. In all cases, around 80% of respondents claim to recycle their food waste. QUESTION 3 – How much do you recycle? SP1

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%P

ap

er

Dri

nks o

rfo

od

ca

ns

Fo

od

wa

ste

Dri

nks

ca

rto

ns

su

ch

as

Te

tra

Pa

k

Pla

stic

bo

ttle

s

Pla

stic

po

ts,

tub

so

r tr

ays

Ho

use

ho

ldb

att

eri

es

Sm

all

ele

ctr

ica

la

pp

lian

ce

s


0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Pa

pe

r

Dri

nks o

rfo

od

ca

ns

Fo

od

wa

ste

Dri

nks

ca

rto

ns

su

ch

as

Te

tra

Pa

k

Pla

stic

bo

ttle

s

Pla

stic

po

ts,

tub

so

r tr

ays

Ho

use

ho

ldb

att

eri

es

Sm

all

ele

ctr

ica

la

pp

lian

ce

s



F - 21

SP2

SP3

77.4%

22.6%

0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Which one of these statements best describes how much you recycle?

I recycle everything that can berecycled

I recycle a lot but not everything thatcan be recycled

I recycle sometimes

I do not recycle

Don't know

73.9%

25.1%

0.8% 0.0%

0.3%




I recycle sometimes

I do not recycle

Don't know

80.5%

19.2%

0.3% 0.0%

0.0%




I recycle sometimes

I do not recycle

Don't know


F - 22

Universally, respondents claim to recycle everything, or a lot but not everything. Only four respondents stated that they recycle ‘sometimes’. It is probable that non recyclers chose not to return the survey. QUESTION 4 – What is left in the refuse bin? SP1

SP2

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Plastic bags,wrappers and film

Nappies Sanitary products Dog poo Other animalbedding or litter

What would you say are the main materials left over in your refuse?

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%





F - 23

SP3

Over 90% of respondents stated that the main materials left in the refuse bin were plastic bags, wrappers and films. We also gave residents the option of stating any other materials that were left, other items included: vacuum cleaner contents, items that cannot be recycled, paper towels, tissues, broken glass, polystyrene, pet food pouches and bubble wrap and other packaging. QUESTION 5 – Rating different aspects of the trial SP1

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%




0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Kn

ow

ing

wh

at

ca

n b

ere

cycle

d

Se

pa

ratin

gm

ate

ria

ls f

or

recyclin

g

Rin

sin

g b

ott

les

Rin

sin

g t

ins,

po

ts,

tub

s a

nd

jars

Sto

rin

gm

ate

ria

ls f

or

recycling…

Sto

rin

g r

efu

se

be

twe

en

co

llectio

ns

Re

me

mb

eri

ng

recyclin

gco

llectio

n d

ays

Re

me

mb

eri

ng

refu

se

co

llectio

n d

ays

How easy or difficult did you find the following during the trials?

Very easy

Easy

OK

Difficult

Very Difficult


F - 24

SP2

SP3

Overall, respondents seem to have found the trials relatively easy to manage. From the graphs, it is noticeable that those on SP2 have had the most difficulties; with storage of recyclables being a particular problem (over 100 respondents have found storing recyclables ‘difficult’, or ‘very difficult’. By comparison, less than 50 respondents in SP1 and 3 appeared to have storage issues with weekly recycling. In SP3 with 3 weekly refuse, storage of refuse does not appear to have been a significant problem for most people. The most difficulties here seem to be remembering refuse collection days, and here, around 50 respondents stated that this was ‘difficult’ or ‘very difficult’. Satisfaction levels with different aspects of the service are highest on SP1 where everything remained the same. A few people have stated storage as problems, but otherwise there are few respondents who find anything ‘difficult’ or ‘very difficult’.

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400K

no

win

g w

ha

tca

n b

ere

cycle

d

Se

pa

ratin

gm

ate

ria

ls f

or

recyclin

g

Rin

sin

g b

ott

les

Rin

sin

g t

ins,

po

ts,

tub

s a

nd

jars

Sto

rin

gm

ate

ria

ls f

or

recycling…

Sto

rin

g r

efu

se

be

twe

en

co

llectio

ns

Re

me

mb

eri

ng

recyclin

gco

llectio

n d

ays

Re

me

mb

eri

ng

refu

se

co

llectio

n d

ays


Very easy

Easy

OK

Difficult

Very Difficult

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

Kn

ow

ing

wh

at

ca

n b

ere

cycle

d

Se

pa

ratin

gm

ate

ria

ls f

or

recyclin

g

Rin

sin

g b

ott

les

Rin

sin

g t

ins,

po

ts,

tub

s a

nd

jars

Sto

rin

gm

ate

ria

ls f

or

recycling…

Sto

rin

g r

efu

se

be

twe

en

co

llectio

ns

Re

me

mb

eri

ng

recyclin

gco

llectio

n d

ays

Re

me

mb

eri

ng

refu

se

co

llectio

n d

ays


Very easy

Easy

OK

Difficult

Very Difficult


F - 25

QUESTION 6 – Rating different aspects of the trial SP1

SP2

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

The numberof materials

recycled

Choice ofadditionalrecycling

containers

Delivery ofcontainers (ifrequested)

Leaflets withservicedetails

Emailupdates for

trials (ifsigned up)

Service bycollection

teams

How did you rate the following during the trials?

Very good

Good

OK

Poor

Very Poor

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

The number ofmaterialsrecycled

Clear sacks forplastics and

cans

Leaflets withservice details

Email updatesfor trials (ifsigned up)


teams


Very good

Good

OK

Poor

Very Poor


F - 26

SP3

In the main, respondents are happy with the number of materials recycled, the containers, and the service by collection teams. SP2 residents were asked to rate the clear sacks for recycling the plastics and cans, and most were happy with them. There were a few complaints that the sacks split, and a few complaints that they blow around too easily due to the lightweight nature of the materials in them. SP1 and 3 were asked to rate the blue bag or additional boxes that they could request, and also the delivery of these containers. Again, respondents were mainly satisfied, but there were some complaints about deliveries not being received, some people felt that the blue bag was too lightweight and a few complained that it had gone missing after collection. People were generally happy with the leaflets, and those who have given it a poor rating have not given their reasons for doing so. A few people suggested that they would like to receive a regular collections calendar. Overall, respondents are happy with the service they receive from the collections team. Most negative comments were about litter following collections and the mishandling of boxes.

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

The numberof materials

recycled

Choice ofadditionalrecycling

containers

Delivery ofcontainers (ifrequested)

Leaflets withservicedetails

Emailupdates for

trials (ifsigned up)


teams


Very good

Good

OK

Poor

Very Poor


F - 27

QUESTION 7 – Rating refuse bin capacity SP1

SP2

25.0%

72.3%

2.2% 0.4%

ONLY IF YOU HAVE A WHEELED BIN FOR REFUSE - During the trials, was your bin:

Too big

Right size

Too small - we often had one extrasack

Too small - we often had several extrasacks

22.5%

71.3%

4.8% 1.5%


Too big

Right size




F - 28

SP3

In all cases, over 70% of respondents found their refuse bin to be the right size. In SP1 25% of people found it to be too big, and this was also the case for 22.5% of respondents in SP2 and 13.6% in SP3 with 3 weekly refuse collections. A number of people commented about the reduced level of waste attributed mainly to the increased plastics collections. In SP1 only 2.6% found the bin too small, and this increased to 6.3% in SP2 and 10.3% in SP3. QUESTION 8 – Did you take any extra refuse to the recycling centre? SP1

13.6%

76.1%

6.3%

4.0%


Too big

Right size



6.1%

93.9%

During the trials, did you take any extra refuse sacks (containing waste that could normally be put out for kerbside collection) for disposal to a Recycling Centre?

Yes

No


F - 29

SP2

SP3

In all cases, over 90% of respondents did not need to take any additional refuse to the recycling centre. For those who did, most of them were taking items that would not normally be collected on the standard service, such as garden waste, furniture and bulky electrical items. One respondent on SP3 took nappies, and 3 took additional bags of refuse. Twelve respondents on SP2 took additional recycling materials due to not being able/wanting to store it.

8.7%

91.3%


Yes

No

7.6%

92.4%


Yes

No


F - 30

QUESTION 9 - Preferred service option SP2

SP3

This question was only asked of those on SP2 and SP3 with collection frequency changes. In both cases, the majority of respondents preferred to keep the reduced frequency of either refuse or recycling collections, but with the collection of the additional materials. This was higher in the SP3 areas, where over 86% of respondents preferred to stay on 3 weekly refuse collections with weekly recycling collections including the new materials.

18.0%

82.0%

Which recycling service would you prefer from the following two options?

Weekly recycling service that does NOTinclude plastic pots, tubs & trays andcartons.

FORTNIGHTLY recycling collection thatincludes plastic pots, tubs &trays andcartons

13.8%

86.2%

Which recycling and refuse services would you prefer from the following two options?

Fortnightly refuse with recycling that doesNOT include plastic pots, tubs & traysand cartons

Refuse EVERY 3 WEEKS with recyclingthat includes plastic pots, tubs & traysand cartons.


F - 31

A number of respondents who did not want to continue with the trial collection frequency stated that they would prefer the current system but with the additional recycling. Comments and suggestions We gave respondents the opportunity to comment about the trials and make any suggestions for changes or improvement. Most comments fell into a number of main categories – these are summarised below.

SP1 SP2 SP3

Number of comments 188 214 213

Problems with storage of recycling 10 42 8

Would like calendar 0 3 3

Prefer weekly recycling 0 18 3

Good trial/ continue trial 141 63 99

Lids for boxes 7 8 6

Prefer wheeled bin for recycling 3 15 7

Litter after collection 5 9 9

Don't want to wash items 0 2 3

Reduced refuse due to recycling more 26 13 21

Issues with boxes/ sacks (non delivery, size, sacks blowing away)

8 13 7

Weight of boxes - problem 0 10 0

Service issues (problems with collections) 15 8 6

Recycling boxes look messy (stored and out for collection)

0 3 0

Prefer weekly refuse 1 3 4

Labels on boxes required 0 3 0

3 weekly refuse concerns general 1 0 9

3 weekly refuse capacity concerns 0 0 7

Prefer 2 weekly refuse 0 0 11

Below are a selection of comments, both positive and negative from responses for each of the different service packages: SP1 “This has been excellent - we are down to 1 black bag a week and half full bin after 2 weeks. Not sure I will be so committed when I have to store it all - shame it's not continuing. Biggest improvement, plastic and cartons. Bulky to store.” “Too much litter on road after collection. I am very disappointed to learn that the extra items will no longer be collected. I would pay extra Council Tax to ensure we recycled more. I think it is our moral obligation.”


F - 32

“I ordered a blue bag but did not receive it. (Managed without it). Will be sorry to go back to previous arrangements - would prefer to recycle plastic food trays/containers.” “Gone from one bag a week to one a fortnight meaning wheeled bin once a month. I think it is short sighted to cancel this scheme - I would happily pay more council tax to allow this to continue. It has halved our refuse.” “We did not think there was much benefit in having the extra black box.” “Trials were great! Please continue to recycle the plastic tubs/trays and the tetra packs. It was great during the trials to have such small amounts of remaining waste in our black bin...a bin half the size of the standard black wheeled bin would still have been bigger than needed in a fortnight during the trials.” “Lids should be provided for the green and black boxes. I found the blue plastic bag fiddly and too big. It can be quite an effort carrying out boxes and bags of recycling materials to the kerbside.” “Before trial, I didn't recycle food waste. I only recycle about one bag or full caddy per week. With that plus the extra materials, the trial almost halved my fortnightly refuse. So although the wheeled bin was too big, I just presented it once per month.” “I was amazed how little rubbish was left once all the additional materials were recycled. Waste could easily be collect monthly if this extended level of recycling proves effective. I will try to collect the additional plastic, etc and take to the recycling centre, regular collections are easier. Since there was a large volume of additional plastic, it would be difficult to store these items (modern houses are not built with lots of overflow space!) for less frequent collections, so along with food, recycling these materials should be weekly.” “Generally no problem but the re-cyclers need to pick up material they drop, not leave it on the road.” “Blue bag not big enough for family of 5 and its waste plastic material. Not enough room for plastic materials which then have to go in a box which seems to defeat the point of separation Why bother sorting into 2 boxes and a bag. Why not one big bag/box and then sort at a facility. Cost of workers and the lorries running fuel at the kerbside whilst waste in sorted must be very high” “I was recycling so much more plastic and I hardly had any refuse. I forgot to put my wheelie bin out and it still didn't get full after 4 weeks. I usually have a lot of plastic containers but it's not worth the fuel to visit the recycling centre so it's a shame this collection isn't continuing. It would have been more helpful to have had another wheelie bin for all recycling, like some other areas in the country rather than black boxes or bags which are more difficult to store.” SP2 “We are a family of 5 who recycles everything. Fortnightly collection is not enough. Our tubs are full at the end of week 1 and it was difficult to store the additional stuff. We would put more in the bin if only collected every 2 weeks.”


F - 33

“Something other than plastic bag to put cans etc in as they have to be manufactured and then disposed of. Not good recycling!” “Main issue was storage of larger quantities (esp recycling) between collections - larger containers could save this, maybe wheelie bin for recycling?” “We have recycled more than we used to and it has drastically reduced the amount of rubbish put into the black refuse bin. Our black bin is often only 1/2 full over 2 weeks - amazing! It would be a huge backward step not to continue this.” “We simply do not have the space to be a 'depot', the trial system was a pain in the neck. Although the additional recyclable items were good.” “Clear sacks provided split open (twice). Not convenient!” “Recycle collection preferably weekly and to include the extra plastics please. This gives me more space for a regular fortnightly refuse collection.” “It's a shame its stopping in our area. Was a much better service, a lot less in big bin.” “Fortnightly collection of recycling materials meant papers were too heavy to carry in boxes. Too many plastic pots, tubs and trays to store - worried that bags would blow onto busy road.” “We found it excellent. Well planned, well publicised and quite easy to adapt to the new guidelines. It is probably easier for our age group to comply than for a large family - we aren't so busy! Please change over permanently to the new system.” “I think it was a great idea, the sacks were perfect” “Took a little time to get used to but is better.” SP3 “Very impressed with how recycling plastic reduces the bulk of the rubbish. Its a shame we have to go back to the old system. As a family of four we had initial worries but it proved to be easy and our non-recycled rubbish reduced to almost nothing. - even after 3 weeks the bin wasn't near full.” “I think it worked very well and I was surprised at how empty our refuse bin was if we could recycle plastic wrap and film we would have almost no refuse.” “I was not given an additional recycle bag despite requesting it. The additional recyclable materials did not compensate for an additional week of refuse accumulating. The dates every 3 weeks are hard to remember. It needs to be 2 weekly for refuse!” “Too much stuff in box 1 - glass, tetra paks and paper and foil” “I liked the fact we could recycle all the plastic pots, etc. but 3 weeks was too long for ordinary refuse.”


F - 34

“The level of waste that could not be recycled significantly reduced so it was nice to empty waste bins less and see waste that could be recycled grow. It felt the right thing to do and was relatively easy so it is disappointing to return to old ways.” “really liked trial and am hoping it comes back, my refuse bin fills up so quickly now as during trial could recycle most things. It is a bit more work and I guess some people won't buy in to it but we thought it was great :)” “I loved reducing the refuse to a very small component of our waste. 3 wks between bin collections initially worried me but we were delighted at the difference it made.” “Just got used to it and trained the rest of the household what goes where and it stops. I really thought it wouldn't work as black bin is always overful but was shocked that it lasted 3 weeks.” “My only concern about 3 week refuse collections would be in very hot weather if people did not store their waste correctly it could become a health hazard.” “With 3 weeks refuse collection, would worry about contents becoming unpleasant/smell esp in v hot weather.” “Ordered extra containers - blue bag and small food recycling bin but never received them. Maybe simplify what needs to go where by having it written on outside of bin as previously. A bit confusing separating different papers and cardboards into different boxes.” “We are a family of 5. With 3 small children. 2 of which still wear nappies. As we use real nappies we have not have not found the 3 weekly collection a problem. I would like to see incentives for parents that choose to use cloth. Such as discounts, trial packs or vouchers.” “Was very pleased with the amount of extra things that could be recycled but found the 3 week refuse collection difficult as storing took up a lot of space and the bags were heavy and hard to carry to the collection point.” “The amount of disposable nappies we have do cause a problem. after I contacted them swp have provided us additional labels for these which we use now and again when our refuse overflows. Once our children are out of nappies, I can see that refuse every three weeks with weekly recycling including the new items would work well for us and the environment. I think in order for this to work in general, families with children under 3 need to be considered (nappy wise) and perhaps provided with extra stickers to manage. otherwise I can't see a problem.” “We did notice that even the known non-recyclers in our area did eventually start to enter into the spirit of the trial. Despite being re-cyclers we were surprised by how much room was left in our grey wheelie after 3 weeks when it used to be absolutely full after 2 weeks. Please can the trial become the norm?” “We'd prefer to recycle all plastic. However, despite our efforts to recycle as much as possible, it is a real struggle to fit 3 weeks worth of refuse into the black bin.” “Nappies and sanitary products should be collected more regularly than 3 weeks. It is unhygienic and smelly to keep soiled nappies in the household environment for 3 weeks


F - 35

even in cooler weather - in summer it will be a real issue. If these could be collected separately it would make a major difference” “I think this survey proves that given the chance to recycle so much more packaging and containers we can reduce the weekly waste to much less than ever before. I now put out less waste every 3 weeks than I was doing every 2 weeks, before the trial. I do hope SCC agrees to roll this out across the county - because it works! Thank you!” Demographic questions The final questions in the survey were demographic questions asked to all.

What age are you?

Answer Options

SP1 SP2 SP3

16-34 4.5% 7.1% 5.1%

35-49 22.4% 22.0% 18.3%

50-64 29.1% 35.3% 33.8%

65 or over 44.0% 35.6% 42.8%

How long have you lived at your present address?

Answer Options

SP1 SP2 SP3

Less than 1 year

5.2% 4.3% 5.8%

1-2 years 5.9% 6.8% 8.9%

2-3 years 8.2% 7.3% 8.1%

Over 4 years 80.7% 81.5% 77.2%

The breakdown of responses in each category was roughly the same. For all service packages, most respondents were over 50, had lived in their home for over 4 years, and in each case, around 20% considered themselves to have a disability or long term health condition. According to the Somerset Intelligence Network (SINE), 34.7% of residents in Taunton Deane are aged between 16 and 44, and 20% of residents are over 65. This shows that younger residents are under-represented in our survey, and older residents are over-represented, which is often an issue with surveys.

Do you consider yourself to have a disability or long term health condition?

Answer Options

SP1 SP2 SP3

Yes 21.6% 20.6% 18.9%

No 78.4% 79.4% 81.1%


F - 36

Satisfaction levels against household size. The table below shows the breakdown of satisfaction with the trials against household size.

House-hold Size

Number of

house-holds

Much Better

Better Neither Worse Much Worse

Satisfaction (Better/Much

better)

SP1 >5 7 5 2 0 0 0 100%

4 29 24 5 0 0 0 100%

3 33 22 8 2 1 0 91%

2 119 71 34 9 1 0 88%

1 79 38 29 7 2 0 85%

SP2 >5 14 7 3 2 1 0 71%

4 54 21 13 7 10 3 63%

3 45 20 6 11 5 0 58%

2 159 72 45 23 14 3 74%

1 91 43 26 16 2 1 76%

SP3 >5 19 16 3 0 0 0 100%

4 50 29 9 4 2 1 76%

3 50 27 14 2 3 3 82%

2 163 90 35 27 4 4 77%

1 75 39 20 12 3 0 79%

Respondents from households with 5 or more members have reported high levels of satisfaction with the service. Those with households comprising 3 or 4 members are the least satisfied on SP2 and on SP1 it appears satisfaction levels fall the fewer members in the household. In SP3, over 75% of respondents on all household sizes liked the new services. Preferred collection option against household size The table below reviews the preferred service option offered to SP2 and 3 against household size. Again, the number of households that would prefer to continue with the existing service is highest in those with 3 or 4 residents.

Household Size

Number of households

Trial system

Existing system

% for trial system

SP2 >5 14 12 2 86%

4 54 36 14 67%

3 45 32 9 71%

2 159 121 28 76%

1 91 80 8 88%


F - 37

SP3 >5 19 18 1 95%

4 50 37 10 74%

3 50 41 8 82%

2 163 133 18 82%

1 75 65 6 87%

ADDITIONAL SURVEYS In addition to the main satisfaction survey, we conducted three additional smaller surveys. For residents in SP3 areas, we surveyed those households with garden waste wheeled bins (an optional, charged service) on their opinions as to how the garden waste service should be managed in the event of 3 weekly refuse collections. During the trials, the garden waste collections did not change and remained fortnightly on the current schedules. We also trialled SP3 in one block of flats in Wiveliscombe. Although most flats were excluded from the trials, this one had the space to take part in the trials and used the existing weekly recycling collections. Finally, we sent an additional survey to 50% of residents in SP1 and SP3 who requested a blue bag for their plastics and cans. Residents had the option of asking for an additional recycling box, or this new blue bag. This survey aimed to see how well people had managed with the bag and if it was suitable for purpose. The results of the three surveys are shown below. Garden Waste We asked the same standard satisfaction questions as the main survey, so only the different questions are shown here. The garden waste survey was sent to 301 households and we received 89 responses, which is a response rate of 30%


F - 38

Most people did not find it too difficult to remember their collection days, and out of the three options, there was slightly greater difficulty in remembering refuse collection days.

Nearly half of all respondents would prefer garden waste collections to remain fortnightly, rather than change frequency. One third however, would prefer a reduced cost and a three weekly collection. Fewer people preferred the option of the same cost but an extra wheeled bin. We gave respondents the option of commenting on the trials as well. Many of the comments were similar to those in the standard survey. A selection of those relating to the garden waste collection are shown below: “Refuse built up, especially in hot weather. Already pay for 2 green bins so would expect 4 under option 3. Days when all bins were collected were chaotic on the pavement.”

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Remembering recyclingcollection days

Remembering refusecollection days

Remembering gardenwaste collection days

During the Recycle More trials, how easy or difficult did you find the following?

Very easy

Easy

OK

Difficult

Very difficult

47.1%

34.5%

18.4%

If three-weekly refuse collections were to be adopted, which of the following arrangements for garden waste collections would you prefer?

Garden waste collections to continueevery fortnight alongside weeklyrecycling and three-weekly refuse.

Garden waste to be collected everythree weeks and the cost reduced byone third (so £31 instead of £46.50 peryear).

Garden waste to be collected everythree weeks and two garden wastebins provided for the same annual costof £46.50.


F - 39

“Garden waste to be collected every fortnight alongside fortnightly refuse collection. Totally opposed to 3 weekly waste collections!” “In my group of properties close together there is an allocated space originally meant for sacks or 3 big wheelie bins. If the 3 weekly collections of refuse and garden waste occur on the same day, there is the potential for 7, 8 or 9 big wheelie bins to go out plus all the recycling boxes. There certainly would not be room for it all. It would have to go into the road which would not be good.” “We were amazed at how little waste we put into our regular refuse. The same logic does not apply to our garden waste and I am not keen on 3 bins outside the house – overkill” “Reduce collection during the winter to reduce the annual costs.” “We have a large lawn. We have two garden waste bins and they are both full every two weeks. We would not be able to manage for 3 weeks in the summer.” “Possibly suspend garden waste collections from end Dec to end Feb whilst winter weather passes. Then restart beginning of March for the beginning of Spring planting.” “I would not have room for an additional garden waste bin. Are there other options, e.g. A bigger garden waste bin instead of 2 smaller ones? Garden waste sacks at a reduced rate or free for garden waste bin owners to use as a top up if collection frequencys are reduced?” Blue Bag survey The blue bag survey was sent to 421 residents (50% of households ordering a bag). We received 132 responses back which is a response rate of 31%

89.1%

10.9%

Did you receive the blue bag you ordered?

Yes

No


F - 40

Nearly 90% of residents did receive the blue bag, but almost 11% did not. We were aware that there were some delivery issues and these would need to be resolved if the blue bag was used in the future.

Overall, residents were satisfied with the blue bag, particularly for storing plastics and cans between collections. There were more people dissatisfied with placing it out for collection, but still the figures are low.

Overall, 82% of respondents found the bag to be the right size. Almost 15% found it too small, and almost 3% found it too big.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Storage of plastics and cans betweencollections

Suitability for putting out plastics andcans on collection days

How did you rate the blue bag for the following during the trials?

Very good

Good

Ok

Poor

Very Poor

2.6%

82.6%

12.2%

2.6%

During the trials, did you find the blue bag:

Too big

Right size

Bit too small - we sometimes hadmore plastics and cans

Much too small - we often had a lotmore plastics and cans


F - 41

Three quarters of respondents would choose the blue bag again, but 23% would prefer a box in the future. We gave the residents the opportunity to comment again, and a selection of those relating to the bag are listed below. “One snag! Having been emptied into the 'waste truck' the bag is then prone to being blown away by any breeze/wind. There has to be some care in storing the empty bag.” “Blue bag is far lighter to use and very strong.” “Blue bag is more space friendly but could blow away and ours was mis-returned so not as reliable as the boxes.” “On a windy day did find it several houses away after it had been emptied. Not suitable to be put out on its own.” “Only problem was that blue bag got blown away on a windy day and we had to order another one. They need to be able to be attached to a box or box left upside down with blue bag inside.” “Blue bags are much easier for older people to manage. Eg carrying through the house etc.” “I do hope you bring back the blue bag. Being elderly I find it much easier to handle,” “Blue bag nice and light and much easier to carry and store than plastic boxes” “Blue bag is easier to store (e.g. to hang up) over the week, but it only holds light things, so could blow away when you put it out for collection. Maybe you could add a rigid base to the bag to stiffen it up a bit and add some weight?” “Blue bag not big enough. The Velcro closing also is not up to the task and would not keep shut when full.”

77.0%

23.0%

Would you choose a blue bag again for recycling plastics and cans instead of an extra recycling box?

Yes, blue bag

No, prefer box


F - 42

It can be seen that many of the comments relate to the lightness of the blue bag and concern or problems of it blowing away on windy days. If we were to use this bag in the future, there is an option of adding a weight to the base to help prevent this. Flats Survey This survey was sent to 16 flats, and we received 6 responses, a response rate of 38%.

67% of respondents thought that the new service was better or much better. Less than 17% thought it was worse.

The materials recycled are the same as the main trials, with the exception here that no one recycled any batteries or electrical items. 67% of respondents claim to recycle food waste. This is slightly lower than those on the main service and may reflect the household type.

50.0%

16.7%

16.7%

16.7%

0.0%


Much better

Better


Worse

Much worse

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Pa

pe

r

Dri

nks o

rfo

od

ca

ns

Fo

od

wa

ste

Dri

nks

ca

rto

ns s

uch

as T

etr

a P

ak

Pla

stic

bo

ttle

s

Pla

stic p

ots

,tu

bs o

r tr

ays

Ho

use

ho

ldb

att

eri

es

Sm

all

ele

ctr

ica

la

pp

lian

ce

s



F - 43

All respondents claim to recycle everything or a lot, and the materials left are again mainly plastics bags and films.

66.7%

33.3%

0.0%

0.0% 0.0%



I recycle a lot but not everythingthat can be recycled

I recycle sometimes

I do not recycle

Don't know

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%




0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Knowingwhat can be

recycled

Separatingmaterials for

recycling

Rinsingbottles

Rinsing tins,pots, tubsand jars

Storingmaterials for

recyclingbetween

collections

Storingrefuse

betweencollections


Very easy

Easy

OK

Difficult

Very Difficult


F - 44

The main issues here appear to have been separating materials, and storing refuse and recycling between collections. This again may be partly a reflection of the household type.

Satisfaction levels with the collection service are lower here, but there were no comments to reflect on what the issues may be.

Over 83% of respondents here preferred the three weekly refuse with the additional recycling. Three of the respondents provided comments about the trials – shown below:

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

The number of materialsrecycled

Leaflets with service details Service by collection teams


Very good

Good

OK

Poor

Very Poor

16.7%

83.3%

Which recycling and refuse services would you prefer from the following two options?

Fortnightly refuse with recyclingthat does NOT include plastic pots,tubs & trays and cartons

Refuse EVERY 3 WEEKS withrecycling that includes plastic pots,tubs & trays and cartons.


F - 45

“We use compostable nappies but there isn't room for them in the compost collection - maybe more people will need that service in future too.” “During summer months refuse collection would be very smelly. We have a communal rubbish area for flats and in the flats there are 5 babies, nappies would be a huge problem. I felt sick just walking past the bins with the smell (am pregnant). The fly problem would be massive.” “We were not given provision for recycling batteries or small electrical items.”

CONCLUSIONS Overall the trials have been well received and resident satisfaction high amongst survey respondents. The three weekly refuse collections have not caused any major issues for most respondents, although some have expressed concerns about what it would be like in warmer weather. The lowest levels of satisfaction came from the residents trialling fortnightly recycling collections. It appears here that storage of the recyclables for two weeks is the main issue. Enthusiasm for the additional recycling materials, particularly the plastic pots, tubs and trays, is very high, and in the majority of cases, respondents have preferred to keep the collection of the additional materials with changes in frequency of refuse or recycling collections, over returning to the existing frequencies without the additional materials. Although provision has been made to recycle the additional materials at the recycling centres in Taunton Deane, several stated that they were not able/prepared to travel to the recycling centre and so would not continue to recycle these materials. Many respondents commented about how recycling these additional materials significantly reduced the volume of waste in their refuse bins. The blue bags were popular with those who used them, and although there are some concerns about the lightweight nature of the bags, this can be remedied by adding a weight (at additional cost). Satisfaction levels were highest from those respondents on SP1 where the frequency of refuse or collections did not change at all.

Documents

(Somerset Waste Board 19 June 2015)Somerset Waste Board – 19 June 2015) F - 4 1.4. From 2016/17, the recycling collection fleet will reach the end of their normal life expectancy