Agenda item

To receive the report of the Cabinet Member for Environment which proposes the introduction of a policy to charge for the replacement of waste containers.

The Chair welcomed Councillor Cook (Cabinet Member for Environment) and Lloyd Griffiths (Head of Neighbourhood Services), to share details of the proposal to introduce replacement waste container charges. Councillor Cook stated that in appendix 3, paragraph 2 of the report, there was a reference to food caddies which had been included in error. Councillor Cook explained that on average the Council spent £100,000 on replacement waste containers per year and much of the cost was due to damage caused by the public. He explained that the proposed charge would reduce the Council’s annual spend on containers and also encourage residents to take greater care of their Council issued waste containers.

Councillor Hilton enquired what the charge covered and after it was paid who owned the waste container. Lloyd Griffiths explained that it would cover the cost of administration, the cost of the physical container and delivery, if required. He said that the waste container would still be the property of Gloucester City Council.

Councillor Hilton queried the requirement for people to obtain a police crime number, in order to avoid the replacement waste container charge.  He stated that this was not a productive use of police resources and that the Council should trust the public when they report waste containers missing or stolen.

Councillor Ryall asked if waste collection crews had to report any damage or loss of containers they caused. Lloyd Griffiths explained that collection crews had to record any damage on crew sheets. He explained that the turnover of waste containers was high and that the Council was aware that many of these weren’t stolen but were repurposed by homeowners. He also stated that many other local authorities charged for replacement waste containers.

The Chair asked if a resident moved into a property and there was no waste container, would they be expected to pay the charge. Lloyd Griffiths stated that in that case, the container would not be charged for.

Councillor Haigh asked how a resident would be aware of the difference between their container being lost or being stolen, as once they had put it out for collection, the resident could not be expected to monitor it until collected. She was concerned that the charging of vulnerable people for replacement waste containers could cast a negative light on the Council. Lloyd Griffith explained that the purpose of the policy was foremost to promote responsible care of the Council issued waste containers.

Councillor Ryall asked if it was a reasonable expectation to rely on Amey to maintain records of container damage, given previous issues with the Amey contract. Councillor Cook stated that he had been made aware of issues surrounding Amey in the past but over the past 6 months large amounts of training had been given to Amey’s employees and that performance had improved. He stated that he did not feel this would be an issue in the future.

Councillor Hawthorne asked if the Council had spoken with the police regarding the proposal to require a police crime number from residents and if the police had sufficient resources to address this.  Lloyd Griffith said that the police had been spoken to and had expressed that they were not averse to the policy. He explained that he did not expect the police to investigate all reports of lost containers but that requiring the crime number would deter the public from incorrectly reporting waste containers as stolen. The Chair expressed that there was general concern from the Committee regarding the impact the requirement to obtain a police crime number would have upon police time and resources. Councillor Cook expressed the opinion that if a waste container had been stolen, it was a crime and as such it was fitting to contact the police. Councillor Hilton agreed that it was a crime but disagreed that the Council should be asking the police to prioritise their resources towards this matter. He suggested that if waste containers were marked with the corresponding house number before being issued, this would reduce both loss and theft of containers. Councillor Lewis expressed the opinion that this would not be a prudent use of Council resources.

Given the concerns expressed by the Committee, Lloyd Griffiths proposed that rather than requiring a police crime number, that residents be required to complete a web based form to report the loss of their container and to apply for a replacement container. Councillor Haigh welcomed the proposal but emphasised that provision would need to be put in place for the digitally disadvantaged. Lloyd Griffiths said that this flexibility could be built into the system and the Committee accepted this as a recommendation to be put forward to Cabinet.

Councillor Hampson asked for clarification of the lifespan of a waste container and for details of the criteria which would specify that a waste container had exceeded its lifespan. Councillor Cook said that a waste container would usually last between 10 and 15 years and that once the container was no longer usable as a waste container, it would be considered to have reached the end of its lifespan. Councillor Hampson asked how the difference between wear and tear and damage was defined. Lloyd Griffiths said that it was a case of common sense, and that each case would be treated on its own merit. He reiterated that the policy was not designed to generate income but to promote responsible waste container care. Councillor Hampson asked if Amey had the resources to check on a case by case basis. Lloyd Griffiths said that part of the waste collection crew’s role was to perform inspections of containers as they emptied them.

Councillor Melvin asked for further detail regarding paragraph 5.3, which outlined the alternative option of levying a charge on developers. Lloyd Griffiths stated that although some local authorities had implemented this option, it was not thought to be a suitable option for Gloucester but it would continue to be discussed with the Council planners.

The Chair thanked Councillor Cook and Lloyd Griffiths for their presentation.

Resolved –

1.    That the report be noted.

2.    That it be recommended to Cabinet that the requirement for residents to obtain a police crime number to qualify for a replacement waste container without charge be removed from the policy.

3.    That it be recommended to Cabinet that residents be required to complete a short web based form, or alternate method if appropriate to prove the theft or loss of their assigned waste container.