Agenda item

This report is for information only.  A presentation will be provided on the day of the meeting for this item.

The Environmental Services Manager presented an extensive update on the introduction of household food waste collections.

The Environment Act 2021 and the simpler recycling reforms required councils to standardise recycling arrangements, reduce landfill and lower waste related carbon emissions. Separate household food waste collections had become a statutory responsibility from 31 March 2026. Approximately one quarter of English authorities had not implemented a service by that date.

Although Government had provided capital funding for vehicles and food caddies, anticipated ongoing revenue funding had not materialised as a distinct additional allocation. The funding had instead been incorporated into the general settlement without an increase equivalent to the operating cost of the service. This had significantly affected planning.

Neither the Bromsgrove nor Redditch depot had sufficient capacity for the additional vehicles and staff. An initial joint outsourcing procurement with Redditch Borough Council and Wyre Forest District Council had not proceeded after Wyre Forest withdrew following the Government’s revenue funding decision. The scale of this change meant the original contract could not be awarded under procurement rules.

The service was therefore being developed in-house using leased operational land. Vehicles had been ordered, recruitment had commenced, caddies were expected during October 2026 and vehicles were expected in December 2026. A phased collection rollout was planned from late January or early February 2027.

It was explained that each household would receive a small kitchen caddy, liners and a lockable 27 litre kerbside caddy. Waste composition analysis undertaken in 2022 suggested that food represented approximately 35 per cent by weight of the average residual waste bin in Bromsgrove.

Collected material would be taken to an anaerobic digestion facility near Kinver and Stourton. The process would produce biogas for energy and digestate for use as a low grade agricultural fertiliser.  Because no suitable bulking point was available within Worcestershire, collection vehicles would need to travel to the facility to unload.

Existing funding was sufficient to provide the service to approximately 55 to 60 per cent of Bromsgrove households. Subject to an additional budget allocation of approximately £190,000, remaining households would be added through a second phased rollout. Full statutory compliance was anticipated by October 2027.

Member queries and Officer responses were advised as:

• Members asked how collection rounds would be stress-tested. – The Environmental Services Manager explained that route optimisation software would model collection and journey times using existing data.
• To explain how routine collections would be carried out. – In response it was explained that food waste collection days would mirror residents’ existing collection days where possible.  The phased rollout would allow issues to be addressed before each subsequent round began.
• To advise on training methods for new recruits. - New employees would receive route and local area training, spend time on existing collection services and help deliver the caddies so that they became familiar with the collection areas.
• Members stressed that effective behaviour change was essential. – It was explained that each caddy would be accompanied by an information pack explaining how to use the service and what happened to the collected material. Initial areas would be selected partly on the basis of existing participation in recycling and garden waste services.
• How was the Council engaging with residents? - Communications would include social media, messages on refuse vehicles, pre and post launch resident research and potentially case studies following households during the rollout. A vacant post was also being repurposed as a Waste Education and Engagement Officer.
• Members also queried how the scheme was being funded. – It was explained that government funding had been received for the initial communications programme. Additional funding from extended producer responsibility arrangements had been allocated for wider recycling messages for the following two years. The Waste Education and Engagement Officer post was being created by repurposing an existing vacancy.
• Members suggested that engagement should be provided at schools as children had the potential to influence household participation.
• Members raised concerns of caddy visibility. – It was confirmed that residents would be advised to place caddies out early. Where a container was not presented when the crew attended, opportunities to return would be limited by the route and the requirement to travel to the disposal facility.  The kerbside caddies would be a lighter grey to improve visibility. Crews were expected to use larger “slave bins” while walking along streets, which should help them identify caddies at individual properties. Missed collections would be monitored to identify patterns. Replacement caddies would initially be provided without charge.
• If it would be a universal or opt in service? – It was clarified that the service would not be opt in. Legislation required the Council to provide the service to every household. Caddies would therefore be delivered universally and collection vehicles would cover every residential road on a weekly basis.
• Would the Council provide individual identification for caddies? – Officers informed members that residents could add their own address labels to caddies. The Council would not apply individual numbering.  However, instructions on what waste should go into the caddy were provided.
• The Leader queried whether WCC would contribute to the transport cost of taking material outside the Worcestershire area. - Officers advised that no contribution had yet been agreed, but discussions about a possible haulage payment were continuing.
• Queries were raised on the leasing of collection sites. – It was explained that the collection sites were being leased under a five year arrangement with a three year break clause.  However, purchase had not been pursued because of implementation timescales and uncertainty created by LGR.
• Members questioned whether service resources were based on optimistic participation assumptions. - Officers explained that route mileage and the need to pass every household were the principal resource drivers. The journey time would not reduce significantly if fewer residents participated. Actual operating experience could nevertheless identify efficiencies that might support future savings or wider waste services.
• Members queried the carbon assessment and saving benefits. – It was explained that the carbon assessment represented the net benefit of diverting food waste from the existing energy from waste process to anaerobic digestion and included the effects of vehicles and fuel. The saving was comparatively modest because residual waste was already used to generate energy rather than being sent to landfill.
• Would there be any financial value to the Council from energy produced by the anaerobic digestion methodology? – In response the Board were advised that once waste was collected, responsibility transferred to WCC as disposal authority. Any financial value from energy or digestate would therefore sit within WCC disposal arrangements and was expected principally to reduce disposal costs.
• If caddy liners were supplied to residents? – In response the Board were advised that an initial supply of liners would be issued to households. Residents requiring replacements would tie a liner around the caddy handle, signalling to the crew that a new roll should be left. This would avoid separate delivery journeys and ensure replacement liners were focused on participating households.
• Containment of food within the caddies was also raised and also concerns of harmful contaminants to the environment. – Members were advised that the kerbside caddies would have lockable handles to reduce access by animals.  At the digestion facility, material would be shredded and screened to remove contaminants. The facility already processed significant commercial food waste and had several tanks, providing operational resilience. An alternative facility in Gloucestershire could potentially be used if required, although haulage and contingency arrangements needed further development with WCC.
• Why plastic liners had been chosen and not biodegradable? - Plastic liners had been selected because biodegradable liners could begin to break down on contact with moisture and interfere with processing. The anaerobic digestion operator preferred plastic liners because its shredding and separation system could remove them to a high standard. Officers agreed to seek further information about the residual risk from microplastics.
• Had Officers considered utilising experience from other Local Authorities’ successful roll outs? - Officers had considered experience from Stratford-on-Avon, Slough, Cambridgeshire, Newcastle, Malvern Hills and other councils, together with guidance from the Waste and Resources Action Programme. Members suggested that experience in Sussex should also be examined.
• If Central Government set the annual revenue costs and was there a risk to the Council if the funding was not utilised? – In response Officers confirmed that the government did not set the revenue costs, however, capital costs were set by Central Government.

RESOLVED that the Food Waste Implementation update be noted.