Agenda item

Mr D Wimble - Cabinet Member for (the) Environment presented the item.Matthew Smythe- Helen Shulver-Head of Environment and Kay Groves-Service Delivery Manager- were also in attendance.

1.Matthew Smyth presentation captured the following aspects to members:

a)    Discussed the received £12.72 Million received for producer waste packaging for 2025/26 and highlighted a concern on the potential £16 million budget pressure from the proposed emission trading scheme.

b)    Highlighted the 19 recycling centres currently in Kent which had over 2 million visitors a year and managed around 660,000 tonnes of waste per Anum.

c)    Current year’s budget was £88 million net, with now then less 1% of waste hitting landfill outperforming the regional and national average for landfill use. One concern raised was the recycling decrease since the pandemic (2020) which had seen Kent underperform against regional neighbours and fall below the national average.

d)    Shared that 42% of material recycled that had cost KCC around £5.6 Million to reprocess, the remaining 58% that would not be processed would cost KCC around £48 Million pounds.

e)    It was discussed that 83% of material collected was at curb side, with only 17% being dealt with directly via recycling centres. The curb side collection cost to KCC in 2024 was £47 million.

f)      Highlighted the legislation changes on the 31^st of March that Boroughs would collect recyclable materials from all residents within their areas. Collections would encompass food waste, paper, card plastic, metal, glass and garden waste. By March 2027 Boroughs would also be responsible for collecting product wrappers as part of the Extended Producer Responsibility initiative (EPR).

g)    Estimates suggested that a saving of £820,000 could be achieved once Dartford and Sevenoaks Borough Councils began collecting food waste. The deposit return scheme would also finally become realised although this could impact on the amount of valuable materials made available to KCC.

h)    Explained the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) which would come into effect from 2028 onwards and would result in any carbon emissions from waste being subjected to a ‘Carbon Credit’ Payment. Current estimates had placed this at a £16 million liability.

i)      Expanded upon the challenges of collecting food waste and a desire to improve and incentivise with District and Borough partners and the pubic to increase recycling. The presentation was closed out with a description of the ongoing work within Districts and Boroughs which would finalize a model on how KCC invested and reduced the cost burden and residual waste.

2.Members asked a number of questions:

a)    Members queried if any other authorities were currently sending waste to Kent facilities especially landfills. Officers responded that because KCC did not own the facilities in question and lacked direct oversight that there could be a possibility that landfill sites in Kent may take materials from outside Kent as a result. Members did flag how this compounded the desire to keep landfill use below 1%.

b)    Questions were raised on the subject of KCC’s performance in terms of income raised from recyclables as part of a total spend and the past incentive rate cuts to districts.

c)    Officers clarified the Governments position on the landfill tax and its relationship to make energy from waste to aid in supporting local authorities and achieve the desired goals. It was further explained that the best performers would be recycling more, burning less and using landfill the least.

d)    Discussed KCC current recycling model and how it was designed to maximises the largest amount of benefit from recycling contracts. Although it was highlighted that due to Kents geographical location, any materials moved to the West of the County would likely incur a higher cost in contracts.

e)    Clarified the £3 million ‘other’ spend as part of the extended producer responsibility and associated recycling credits, Members acknowledged the response but asked for greater clarity on spend breakdowns associated with reprocessing recyclables.

f)      Matthew Smyth explained to Members the overall vision of energy from waste in the UK and the impacts of the landfill tax and the unique ways in which KCC would maximise its income from waste and the relationships between contractors and subcontractors on discussed contracts and tenders.

g)    Officers explained the financial relationship between Kent County Council (KCC) and the Borough Councils in respect of waste and recycling arrangements. It was discussed that payments were made under three mechanisms. Firstly, where Boroughs were required to transport material outside their own area due to limitations in the County’s transfer station network, KCC would reimburse the additional mileage costs incurred. Secondly, where Boroughs had retained recyclable material rather than transferring it to the County, a recycling credit payment would be made to support local recycling activity. Finally, Boroughs that retained their own waste and processed it would receive recycling credit.

h)    Questioned the continued use of Tetra packs and the limited options to recycle them within Kent. Officers responded that the extended producer responsibility would financially impact those companies that create packaging that was not easily recyclable.

i)      Members suggested improvements to the food caddies provided to Kent residents, noting that they had proven ineffectual against animal interference. Officers acknowledged the impact of food waste being placed in black bags as an alternative and highlighted the negative consequences that had occurred in contaminating recycling options.

j)      Clarification was sought on the Emissions Trading Scheme, which would incorporate waste plants from January 2028 in line with the UK’s net zero targets, and how improvements could be made from a resident perspective. Officers acknowledged the point and discussed the impact of biogenic materials The ongoing work with Boroughs and contractors to consider actions for their removal was discussed and it was highlighted that such measures could incur further costs to taxpayers.

k)    Members asked what level of investment or infrastructure would be required to improve Kents overall trajectory in achieving its recycling goals. Officers suggested that better recycling education be made available to residents and help change behaviours. Improvements for recycling options for flats and smaller properties would also be a noteworthy improvement worth pursuing.

l)      Officers elaborated further with a desire to bring forward a suite of projects with District and Borough partners that were costed in a way to determine individual returns of investment instead of one nebulous entity. As KCC did not operate its own reprocessing facilities and tendered contracts to private companies that handle materials there was a strong desire to demonstrate maximum recycling was underway with partners.

m)  Greenhouse gas implications were raised on a comparative scale of incinerator versus landfill analysis and suggested exploring a more comprehensive sorting process to remove those materials that could not be incinerated. Officers suggested that further work was required to compare landfill and energy?from?waste options from both an Emissions Trading Scheme and financial perspective

n)    Past recycling rates of Kent against the Southeast and England highlighted that in the past the trend trajectories had been on target and on par with other regions, however a 4% gap had now opened up between Kents performance and the Southeast overall.

o)    Officers reported that the Council would pursue a range of actions to boost recycling, including improvements to curb?side collections, partnerships with districts, enhanced waste handling in flats, and crew engagement with the public (such as tagging contaminated bins).

p)    It was noted that leading District Councils could implement up to 30 such measures, though significant progress often occurred during periods of disruption when behaviour change is most likely. Upcoming changes in Sevenoaks where curb?side recycling rates were currently low were pinpointed as having the potential to trigger notable improvements in that region.

RESOLVED to note the Briefing on Waste