Agenda item

(Rachel Kennard, Chief Analyst, Strategic Commissioning – Performance & Analytics), David Beaver (Head of Waste Management) and Stephanie Holt-Castle (Interim Director of Environment, Planning and Enforcement) were in attendance for this item.

1.    Ms Kennard introduced the report which showed the progress made against targets set for key performance indicators (KPIs) up to the end of March 2020.Thirteen of the eighteen KPIs had achieved target and were RAG rated green. Five KPIs were below target but had achieved the floor standard and were RAG rated amber. No KPIs were below target and RAG rated red. The KPIs and associated targets proposed for use in 2020/21 were detailed in Appendix 2 of the report.

2.    The Cabinet Member and officers responded to comments and questions as follows:

(a)  In response to the RAG rating for KPI WM01: Municipal Waste Recycled and Composted, Mr Beaver said the measures had been affected by the policy change in June 2019 which introduced charging for soil, rubble, hardcore and plasterboard which was previously recycled at Household Waste Recycling Centres (HWRCs). As a result, more households were choosing to home compost rather than use the recycling services; a behaviour known as waste avoidance.  Mr Beaver said that he and the Cabinet Member for Environment had started to review ways in which Kent County Council could support and encourage more people to home compost. The next phase of work would be to examine the waste hierarchy. The charging policy had encouraged a positive change behaviour in the way in which people used the HWRCs and resulted in a 28,000 tonne decrease in recyclable waste through the system.  Mr Beaver said targets for 2020-21 had been amended to reflect the change, however, due to the Resources and Waste Strategy which had been produced as a result of the Environment Bill, all authorities were required to achieve a 64% target for recyclable waste. Mr Beaver highlighted the key challenges and said a key piece of work had commenced with the Kent Resource Partnership across all authorities to identify ways in which the target could be achieved.

(b)  Mr Beaver said KCC worked with district councils to carry out waste sampling to identify the composition of black-sack waste which had led to campaigns around increased food waste collection and green waste collection.

(c)  Miss Carey responded to queries relating to the difference between figures set out in the Performance Report compared with figures in the Net Zero report presented to County Council, and said that the carbon emissions figures in the performance report had been calculated using the methodology adopted by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA). The figures in the net-zero paper, reported to the County Council, had been calculated using the government’s approved source for current and future factors in net-zero modelling set out in the UK Treasury Green Book. Miss Carey assured members that whilst the calculation methodology was different, the target remained the same. Mrs Holt-Castle (Interim Director for Environment, Planning and Enforcement) said the target was amended mid-year in response to the committee’s request for a more challenging schedule. The initial target was to achieve 37,200, which was exceeded, but the revised target was marginally missed.

(d)  Mr Beaver said that whilst income from rubble, hardcore and plasterboard continued to be received for the last three months, the level was less than anticipated due to the reduced volume. A full update on the charging policy and its impact would be reported to the committee in due course.

(e)  In response to queries relating to private disposal companies using the HWRCs and the possible diversion of waste into skips, Mr Beaver said disposal companies had reported a sharp increase in skip hire, however, their returns would be submitted to the Environment Agency which KCC would not have access to. Mr Beaver explained that the trade waste processed through the HWRCs was primarily from small local traders rather than from organised commercial waste disposal companies, which would make it difficult to draw comparative data.

(f)   Mrs Holt-Castle responded to comments relating to indicator EPE14: Greenhouse GAS emissions from KCC estate (excluding schools) in tonnes, and said that KCC’s estate and environment project and programme would continue with Covid-19 anticipated to have had a positive impact on reducing carbon emissions due to less staff mileage. This information would be reported to committee in due course.

(g)  Mr Beaver responded to comments relating to indicator WM02: Municipal waste converted to energy, regarding the cross contamination of material entering the food waste, by saying that KCC was working with district councils to improve consumer understanding around the current specifications in place for recycling. He also highlighted the difficulty and cost implications for districts to invest in additional infrastructure at various sites. Mr Beaver referred to the anaerobic digestive plant and the intention to review the waste opportunities offered there.

2.    It was RESOLVED that the performance report be noted.