The reason we have called in this decision is that we believe that it is unsound because it did not take fully into account all the information that is available and that the consultation was, as we shall show, misleading in its design and over-interpreted in its outcome. We also believe the entire thinking of the Executive regarding this decision has been too parochial, failing to take into account the realities of the new unitary world.

Of all the council services, it is the collection of waste and the extent of recycling that has the biggest effect on the environment. Many carbon containing materials sent to landfill will end up as methane released to the atmosphere – methane is a greenhouse gas 21 times more potent than carbon dioxide.

The Sustainable Development Review being undertaken under the auspices of this committee has considered a range of ways that the council could reduce greenhouse gas emissions. At its last meeting just a few weeks ago it was due to consider waste management but this item was not discussed because officers were not made available. Having spoken to the external experts in the group, I have no doubt that increasing recycling rates would have been considered the most cost effective measure that the council could directly do in the short term to make a local contribution to tackling climate change.

The environmental impact is not restricted to climate change because, as we all recognise, landfill sites are environmentally damaging in other ways. Indeed I note that the Gowy North Area Committee of this Council has recently opposed the application to extend the operation of the Gowy landfill site. Words like "joined-up thinking" spring to mind.

Last year I argued that option 2 was likely not to deliver the same level of recycling as the other two options (and that this should be conveyed to the residents in the consultation). The administration disagreed and chose not to inform residents of even the risk that option 2 may not be as good from a recycling perspective. We now know that option 2 delivers, on a like-for-like basis, 5 – 8% less recycling than the other options. There was broad agreement from the bidders on this, with the preferred bidder providing these estimates:

Option 1: 43% Option 2: 38% Option 3: 46%

38% is in fact below the government target for next year of 40%. In an attempt to eke this figure higher, FOCSA were asked about the impact of certain education measures and collection policies and were told this would just deliver the target of 40% (NB not an ambitious target by any means). With no margin for error, we have to assume that there is a significant risk that the target will not be met. FOCSA were not asked about the impact of such measures on option 2) to 3), which seems to be

I gather that the administration is drawing comfort from experience of Congleton Council to sustain his belief that a higher recycling rate can be achieved with a weekly collection. Congleton currently achieves 36% recycling, compared to Chester’s 31%. But a closer look at Congleton’s figures tell a different story, because recycling rates can be inflated by the acceptance of more green waste – Congleton has a 240 litre green waste bin, in common with all the other Cheshire councils except Chester (140 litre). If we look at the per capita amount send to landfill, Congleton comes out badly.

Will put in bar chart.

It is also clear from these metrics that those councils with a weekley collection of residual waste (Chester and Congleton) send more to landfill and have a lower "true" recycling rate than the other four councils which have a fortnightly collection of residuals. An inspection of the historical trends also underline the impact of changing the collection method (see Appendix 1). So this tells us what most of us already know – the headline recycling rate can be heavily distorted by green waste, leaving the amount sent to landfill unchanged.

Now this administration wanted Chester to be different. It came up with the idea that a weekly collection with a bin half the size should have the same impact as a fortnightly collection of a normal size (240 litre) bin. At first, I thought this was a clever and simple idea. However, the more I looked into it, the more I realised that the idea may not deliver. Firstly, there was no reliable and relevant experience from other councils – it had to be assessed as risky. Secondly, the proposed bin was somewhat more than half size (140 cf. 240 litre). Thirdly, I realised that human behaviour is hard to predict.

We now know that this scheme will deliver recycling levels roughly half way between the current level and what can be achieved with other schemes. The hopes of this administration that it had found a new way that no-one else had discovered have been dashed.

However, the impact on landfill may be even more modest, since all option provide a 240 litre green bin. It is entirely possible that the projected increase from 31% to 38/40% will come almost entirely from increasing the green waste fraction.

This council is driven by the government targets for recycling. Once Chester led the way on recycling – it then became average – now this administration seems happy for Chester to be among the laggards, just scraping the government targets as they increase step by step. With the rest of CWC poised to break through to 50%, what a sad position for the capital city.

As is so often the case, what is good for the environment is also good for the pocket, especially given the government’s incentives for recycling. A key flaw in the administration’s decision making is its insistence on taking a Chester perspective rather than a holistic council tax payer’s perspective (Chester + Cheshire or a unitary perspective). In considering only collection costs rather than collection + disposal costs, this narrow-minded perspective borders on negligence. It costs about £50 per tonne p.a. to collect our waste. It costs £62 per tonne to dispose of it, and this figure will rise by £8 each year for the forseeable future. It is here that the impact of increasing recycling as much as possible can be seen. Each recycling percentage point equates to 500 tonnes p.a. NOT sent to landfill. That equates to a saving of £31,000 tonnes per percentage point.

A holistic view requires also that the difference in collection costs and bin financing be taken into account. When this is done, the extra cost to CWC council tax payers ranges from £300K to £800K depending on the scenario chosen. In Appendix I show a calculation, which has been agreed by David Limb as valid and reasonable, which shows that the extra costs of a 5% differential option 1) vs. option 2), is £ 531,000 every year (and increasing fast in subsequent years). This calculation takes into account also the difference in collection costs and the financing of bins (which differs between the options).

This calculation assumes that 1% change in recycling will save 500 tonnes to landfill. If the 38/40% figure is achieved by extra green waste, this figure could double. Scenarios were the full extra costs of option 2 are £1 million per year higher are not inconceivable.

We believe that the consultation is flawed in three respects.

1) No information on the different recycling rates was provided. Those of our residents who recycle do so because they care about the environment. I maintain that knowledge of the effective of the three options would have been highly relevant and would have been taken into account by the residents as they made their selection. But this information was not made available.

2) As discussed above, the full financial impact on the council tax payer was not described. The figures are in fact quite meaningless.

3) Not only are the absolute figures provided wrong, the relative figures are wrong. Even for collection costs alone, the £5 differential between options 1) and 2) should in fact have been £9.

Even if there were no defects in the consultation, consideration needs to be taken of how the results have been interpreted. Only 14% of households responded to the survey; of these, 70% preferred option 2. We don’t know how many would have opted for option 2 if the full facts had been given. But even so, 70% of 14% is just 10%. That means 90% of households either do not care, or trust the council to make the right decision, or actually prefer options 1) or 3). Whatever, there is hardly a deafening cry from our residents for option 2). The response rate was actually lower than the orginal consultation, despite the distribution difficulties of the forst consultation. There is no evidence to support the notion that, in the orginal consultation, the response rate was low because they couldn’t vote for their favourite option.

The administration cannot claim that they are "giving people what they want". The people have been given a contrived and misleading questionnaire in response to which one in ten have been sufficiently scared by totally unfounded stories about rats and flies, fed by the Tories and the Tory press, into stating a preference for option 2. A responsible administration needs to take notice of even a flawed questionnaire but they do not have to blindly follow the outcome. Local politicians are elected to consider complex issues and come to the decision that is in the best interests of residents. In short, they should lead.

It may appear that I have been comprehensive in setting out the arguments. But there are other aspects that I have not addressed which point to the imperative of increasing recycling. These include a sense of civic pride, the financial benefits of a CWC-wide system, risk of heavy government fines if we fail to meet the targets, profits from sale of recycled materials, building Chester as a "green" centre and encouraging other environmental initiatives. I am sure others will suggest other factors that could be taken into account.

In summary, the Executive’s decision gives undue emphasis to a too-literal interpretation of a flawed consultation exercise and does not take into account the full environmental and financial impact of the various options. It does not show the leadership and the quality decision making that our residents expect. It is an unsafe decision and should be re-considered.

Cllr. Andrew Garman,
9 July 2008