North Yorkshire Council

Executive

21 January 2025

Review of Future Household Waste Collection Options

Report of the Corporate Director - Environment

1.0 PURPOSE OF THE REPORT

1.1 This report seeks member approval of:

i. Adoption of an alternate fortnightly kerbside recycling scheme across North Yorkshire providing residents with two wheeled bins for recycling and one wheeled bin for fortnightly residual collections.

ii. A bespoke kerbside service in areas that cannot adopt an alternate fortnightly two recycling bin scheme.

iii. To note the capital and revenue funding requirement of the decision is built into the 25/26 budget and medium-term financial strategy which is being considered as a separate report to this meeting.

2.0 SUMMARY

2.1 North Yorkshire Council wants to provide one consistent approach to waste and recycling to get the most from our resources, deliver high performance to our residents and businesses, and achieve value for money. A detailed and comprehensive modelling exercise concludes that the most efficient and effective system is the alternate fortnightly collection of recycling and fortnightly collection of residual waste. This service is currently provided in the Selby locality. A public consultation exercise sought the views of residents on their existing collection service and the proposal to adopt the Selby approach. Twice as many residents are happy with wheeled bins rather than boxes or bags, with some residents concerned that the proposed approach is not suited to locations with limited outdoor space. Flexibility will be designed into the service to meet local needs. A range of bespoke collection methods including smaller bins, bags, frequent collections of smaller containers and community recycling points will be considered with residents. It is clear that ‘one size fits all’ is not appropriate. The proposed harmonised approach incorporates flexibility to deliver a service aligned to property types and access arrangements, tailored to resident’s needs.

2.2 The legislative context is becoming clearer. In November 2024 the Government announced that subject to the parliamentary process, the default requirement is to separate paper and cardboard from other materials. The proposed alternate fortnightly collection service meets Government’s default requirement. Further, it is inequitable to our residents and crews to continue to deliver a range of different waste collection services. Nearly nine in ten residents say it is important or very important for North Yorkshire residents to have access to an equal recycling service. It is recommended that North Yorkshire Council takes the decision to act now to deliver a harmonised waste service across the County.

3.0 BACKGROUND

3.1 The new North Yorkshire Council as a Unitary Authority has a duty under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 to arrange for both the collection and disposal of household waste. Under the previous two tiers of local government these duties were split between the seven District and Borough Councils as Waste Collection Authorities (WCAs), and North Yorkshire County Council as the Waste Disposal Authority (WDA).

3.2 Following Local Government Reorganisation (LGR), North Yorkshire Council wants to provide one consistent approach to waste and recycling to get the most from our resources, deliver high performance to our residents and businesses and achieve value for money. We must also meet legislation requirements including the Environment Act 2021 to collect a consistent set of recycling materials.

4.0 HARMONISED WASTE SERVICE

4.1 Significant progress has been made to provide residents with consistent and reliable waste services, including bringing the externally provided Selby waste service in-house, harmonising the garden and bulky waste services including fees and charges, and implementing a new staffing structure reflecting the target operating model of the council. Following a consultation with front line waste and street scene staff, the service is seeking to unify working practices throughout 2025 including start and finish times, a 4-day working week, and collective working.

4.2 To harmonise kerbside recycling collection services into a single model, the WCAs and WDA have worked with the Waste Resources Action Programme (WRAP), and environmental consultancy firm, Eunomia, to evaluate the existing approaches and the options to harmonise collections. The difference in recycling approaches in contrast to consistent garden and residual services is shown by the following illustration.

4.3 The evaluation of existing and future recycling options is discussed in the ‘North Yorkshire Authorities Collection Options Report’[1]. The report was compiled by gathering data on the existing collection practices across North Yorkshire, benchmarking with other similar authorities, and compiling a baseline that represents the current ways of working. Waste flow modelling was undertaken at ‘stage 1 to evaluate key criteria associated with each of the modelled options, including recycling rate, resources, costs, and carbon impact.

4.4 A summary of the key criteria follows:

· Recycling rate – Changing the collection system alone does not impact on dry recycling yields so the recycling rate is unaffected by the options modelled. It is noted however, that our experience in North Yorkshire of changing from a box to a wheeled based scheme does increase the recycling yield. This is because residents have greater capacity in the recycling bin and place less recycling in the residual bin. Further information on North Yorkshire’s experience is provided in Appendix A, which suggests that those areas moving from a box to a bin-based system, such as Richmondshire and Malton, could see an increase in recycling if a bin-based scheme is implemented.

· Resources – The options with the fewest number of staff and vehicles needed to deliver collections is the fully comingled approach (a single recycling wheeled bin currently provided in Scarborough and Skipton localities) and an alternate fortnightly approach (two recycling wheeled bins currently provided in Selby). This reflects the efficiency of using single compartment vehicles and a reduced number of containers per pick up. The option requiring the largest number of staff and vehicles is the multi-stream approach (three boxes or bags currently provided in the Richmondshire and Malton localities).

· Costs – The option delivering the highest overall cost reduction compared to the baseline is the alternate fortnightly recycling service currently provided in Selby. This reflects the reduction in vehicles and front-line staff, and the separation of paper and cardboard from cans, glass and plastics to reduce processing costs and generate income. The multi-stream three box/bag approach currently provided in Richmondshire and Malton is the next most cost-effective collection method but is more reliant on volatile revenue streams offsetting the higher vehicle and front-line staffing costs. The fully comingled option currently delivered in the Scarborough and Skipton localities is the most expensive option. The low vehicle and staffing costs of the fully comingled approach is more than offset by higher processing fees making it more expensive than other options and the baseline. The upfront capital costs to purchase the vehicles and containers varies across the options. The lowest capital cost is incurred by implementing the fully comingled approach where each household receives a single recycling bin. The highest capital cost is providing two recycling bins for the alternate fortnightly recycling service[2]. The revenue and capital costs are further discussed in section 9.0.

· Carbon modelling – The carbon modelling quantifies the impact on greenhouse gas emissions across the collection and disposal process relative to the baseline. Transport emissions from the collection and onward haulage of waste determines the impact on greenhouse gas emissions. The multi-stream three box/bag approach delivers the greatest carbon benefit due to the fuel efficiency of resource recovery vehicles compared to less fuel-efficient refuse collection vehicles used in the remaining options. Outside the scope of the modelling exercise is the decarbonisation of the waste fleet and the options to address carbon emissions such as changing driving behaviours and alternative fuels. The Fleet Service is currently commissioning a consultant to draft a Decarbonisation Plan to provide a road map towards suitable alternative fuel vehicles and fuel infrastructure. The alternative fuel vehicles will be phased in as technology and infrastructure develops. The Fleet Service is also examining the viability of interim lower carbon fuels. Additionally, as referenced above, it is expected that North Yorkshire will experience a higher recycling yield under the wheeled bin proposal than the multi-stream approach (given greater capacity), this was not modelled and therefore the carbon benefit not quantified.

4.5 The outcome of the modelling exercise is that adopting alternate fortnightly option as a single collection system delivers a financial saving compared to the baseline, whereas the multi-stream three box/bag and fully comingled solution is more expensive than the baseline. Costs and savings are highly dependent on recycling prices and tonnages that are outside the direct control of the council. The work to date effectively compared the options and the baseline. A detailed options appraisal is presented in section 7.0 ‘Alternative Options Considered’ which assesses wider criteria than those discussed above. The most efficient and effective collection method is delivered by adopting the approach currently undertaken in the Selby area, whereby:

· Residents segregate paper and cardboard in one wheeled bin, and cans, glass and plastic in a second wheeled bin. This protects paper and cardboard material quality, restricts contamination and processing costs and results in the lowest overall financial cost,

· Refuse collection vehicles are used for residual waste, recycling and garden waste collections, affording the greatest flexibility when deploying resources, and

· Single chambered vehicles achieve maximum payloads and efficiency compared to twin and multi-stream vehicles whereby compartments fill at differing rates.

4.6 Overall, the alternate fortnightly approach using two wheeled bins for recycling delivers the most efficient, effective, and resilient service to residents and businesses.

5.0 CONSULTATION UNDERTAKEN AND RESPONSES

5.1 A number of consultation exercises have sought the views of residents and interested parties, to help us understand how the proposal will affect our communities.

5.2 Waste Task & Finish Group

5.2.1 A cross-party task and finish group was established in November 2023 which comprised representatives from all the councils’ political groups. The objective of the task and finish group was to consider an efficient, effective and consistent collection system across the whole of North Yorkshire that meets the requirements of the Environment Act and that:

· is affordable from both a collection and disposal perspective.

· supports reduction in carbon footprint in line with Climate Change commitments and contributes towards 2030 and longer-term carbon targets.

· ensures no loss / reduction of service to residents with an aim to improve the service.

· provides consistency of terms and conditions for staff in all locality areas.

5.2.2 The group has been involved in the development of the proposal and the public consultation.

5.3 Let’s Talk Rubbish

5.3.1 A 10-week public consultation took place between 8 July and 16 September 2024. A total of 10,475 responses were received, the highest response to any Let’s Talk consultation, which demonstrates the level of interest in proposals to change the waste service.

5.3.2 The survey was hosted on the Council’s digital engagement platform which was supported by a marketing campaign. Paper surveys, including an easy read version and alternative formats such as large print, were supplied where required. Alongside the online and paper survey, 26 face to face engagement events were held across the county, where officers spoke directly to over 330 residents.

5.3.3 The results of the survey show high satisfaction with existing services where only wheeled bins are used with 9 out of 10 residents happy or very happy. The lowest levels of satisfaction are for those with box only or bag or box collections with 3 out of 10 residents happy of very happy.

5.3.4 As part of the consultation, we asked residents, ‘What do you think about our idea to improve recycling services in North Yorkshire?’ The feedback generated a broad range of insights, which were categorised into positive, neutral, and negative sentiments based on the tone and content of the responses. In total, 6,513 responses were analysed, providing valuable perspectives on the proposed changes.

5.3.5 The table below shows the number of sentiments broken down into positive, neutral and negative.

	Number of comments	% of all comments
Positive sentiments	3,297	51%
Neutral sentiments	1,142	17%
Negative sentiments	2,074	32%

5.3.6 Positive sentiments were from residents who expressed clear support for the proposal. Respondents in this category appreciated the potential for modernising recycling services, making waste management more effective, and improving environmental outcomes. Many were enthusiastic about the proposed improvements, with comments highlighting the benefits of better recycling infrastructure and its impact on community cleanliness.

5.3.7 Neutral sentiment often acknowledged the potential benefits of the proposal but also raised practical concerns, such as space limitations for additional bins and potential confusion over collection schedules. Comments in this category typically weighed the pros and cons of the changes, with residents showing cautious optimism about the improvements but highlighting areas that might require more attention.

5.3.8 Negative sentiments were from respondents primarily concerned about the added complexity of managing more recycling bins and the potential impact on service frequency. Many negative comments focused on the challenge of storing additional bins, particularly for households with limited outdoor space.

5.3.9 Further detail can be found at Appendix B.

5.4 Disability Forum Feedback

5.4.1 Alongside the face-to-face events, officers attended the Selby, Craven and Harrogate Disability forums during the consultation.

5.4.2 Feedback from the Selby forum was very positive with members stating that wheeled bins were a vast improvement, are easier to move and can recycle more materials compared to the previous kerbside boxes which caused an obstruction when blown around in high winds resulting in litter. Feedback from the Harrogate forum was positive with wheeled bins seen as an improvement, with a desire for residents to remove wheeled bins from pavements and clear labelling. A single wheeled bin is currently used for all recycling in the Craven locality and members were very supportive of this collection method, and suggested there would be ‘lessons learnt’ from other areas that had implemented the proposed changes.

5.5 Social media

5.5.1 The Let’s Talk Rubbish consultation was shared on the council’s social media channels on Facebook, Instagram, and X (formally Twitter) and from these channels was reshared to a number of other community groups. In addition, targeted paid for advertising was used to promote the survey on Facebook, Instagram, and YouTube, along with a supporting animation. Social media posts had a combined reach of over 63,000 and all relevant comments have been collated as part of the consultation results.

5.6 Members Seminar

5.6.1 Officers presented the high-level results of the Let’s Talk Rubbish consultation at a Members Seminar on 02 October. Feedback from Selby area Councillors was that the change from a kerbside box collection to a wheeled bin collection had been a positive experience and that concerns being raised now had been raised but many had not come to fruition. Overall satisfaction with collections in the Selby area is currently very high.

5.6.2 Further discussion was held around how properties that may need some form of adapted service would be identified and what alternative provision may look like in these areas.

5.6.3 Questions were asked in relation to communication and public engagement and tackling contamination in wheeled bin collection models, and also the costs of any service change.

5.7 Area Committees (ACs)

5.7.1 Officers attended informal briefing sessions of each Area Committee between 07 and 16 October, providing more detailed feedback of the analysis of the responses to the Let’s Talk Rubbish public consultation. Members were provided with information on satisfaction with existing collections in terms of container type and size, collection crews and reliability of collections. Feedback was also provided on the free-text question ‘What do you think about our idea to improve recycling services in North Yorkshire?’ as detailed in section 5.3. The strong support for wheeled bin collections was noted, particularly in areas currently receiving box and bag collections.

5.7.2 Feedback from members at these sessions in general mirrored the public responses with a mix of support and concerns.

5.7.3 Discussions took place around how collections might work in different geographical locations and what alternative provision might look like in these areas. It was also discussed how any changes may impact collections for commercial and commercial type properties including holiday lets.

5.8 Transport, Economy, Environment and Enterprise Overview and Scrutiny Committee (TEEEO&SC)

5.8.1 Officers attended a meeting of TEEEO&SC on 17 October to provide an update on the public consultation and work to date. Feedback from the meeting was mixed. A breakdown of the main points raised and responses to the comments is given below.

5.8.2 The cost of providing alternative services to households unable to receive the standard two recycling wheeled bins has not been quantified. The proposed approach to identifying alternative provision was detailed in the TEEEO&SC presentation and is shown below.

5.8.3 Officers will follow the above process to determine the most appropriate solution that meets the need of the specific street or neighbourhood. It is likely that solutions will include smaller containers at increased frequencies, bags and communal bins and the bespoke arrangements will differ depending on the specific housing types, access arrangements and resident engagement exercise. Whilst the cost cannot be quantified at present, we know that 93% of properties currently receive standard services in their locality. The experience of the former Selby District Council of moving from a box to wheeled based scheme was that approximately an additional 50 (out of 40,000 properties) could not accept the two wheeled bin recycling service. Officers acknowledge and accept that the proposal needs to be flexible enough to meet local housing types and access arrangements, just as collection services do now, and the cost of doing so is highly unlikely to significantly affect the financial assessment of the waste collection options.

5.8.4 Officers were referred to a recent decision by a neighbouring authority, to adopt comingled collections due to diminishing amounts of paper and card. Officers have reviewed publicly available documents and also through dialogue with respective officers have established that residents in the neighbouring authority were issued with a small, wheeled bin insert called a caddy, for paper and card. Our experience in North Yorkshire suggests that restricting the capacity of recycling containers adversely affects the quantities of recycling collected. This is supported in that the neighbouring authority only collected 300 tonnes of paper/card compared with 12,600 tonnes of glass/cans/plastic. The North Yorkshire councils over the same period collected 6,800 tonnes of paper/card both in bins or boxes and bags, compared with 9,900 tonnes of glass/cans/plastic. Eunomia also assessed the current North Yorkshire methods of collection by reference to other local authorities with similar demographic and deprivation characteristics. This is a more robust benchmarking exercise than comparing to a neighbouring authority by virtue of geography which may face very different challenges to those across North Yorkshire.

5.8.5 Members queried the level of engagement to date with key stakeholders such as the National Parks, the Planning Authority and impacts on occupiers of listed buildings. Officers have described the extensive engagement with members and key stakeholders in this report, engagement which will continue with wider ranging and diverse groups as we move towards implementation.

5.9 Consultation conclusion

5.9.1 The Let’s Talk Rubbish consultation shows that of those who responded, most residents are in support of the use of wheeled bins for recycling as opposed to boxes or bags. Most of the concerns raised relate to issues such as lack of outdoor space, confused set out arrangements, and how other residents may cope with collections. However, many concerns are perceptions and not borne out by experience. In the former Selby District Council area where the proposed scheme has operated since April 2020, 9 out of 10 respondents are happy or very happy with their current recycling containers. It is acknowledged and accepted that ‘one size’ does not fit all, and that bespoke and tailored services will be required to meet local needs and circumstances (see section 7.0). Overall, the main concern expressed by members relates to the number of recycling containers each property will receive, and whether the cost of additional adaptations will significantly affect the financial assessment of the options. Experience within North Yorkshire to date suggests that the additional properties requiring bespoke and tailored collections will be small and will not materially affect the costs presented.

6.0 CONTRIBUTION TO COUNCIL PRIORITIES

6.1 The proposal contributes to the following Council ambitions:

· Place and Environment: a clean, environmentally sustainable, and attractive place to live, work and visit.

· Organisation: Good quality, value for money services that are customer focused and accessible to all.

7.0 ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS CONSIDERED

7.1 A detailed options appraisal ranks the different approaches (Appendix C). Nine assessment criteria were applied to the options modelled to form a representative view of the merits of each approach. The assessment criteria were financial cost, recycling performance, carbon impact, resident acceptability, manual handling by crew, ease of implementation, contamination, compliance with legislation, and political acceptability. Each criterion was reviewed by officers from all 7 WCAs and WDA to ensure fairness and suitability across the North Yorkshire area, to calculate a weighted score and rank the options.

7.2 The alternate fortnightly option with two recycling wheeled bins (Selby model) scored the highest, followed by the multi-stream option with three containers, with the fully comingled option scoring the lowest.

7.3 The proposed alternate fortnightly kerbside service is not suited to every location, and a degree of flexibility will ensure the service is designed to meet local needs. Currently, approximately 1 in 13 properties have non-standard kerbside services which reflects both the property type and access arrangements. There will be a staged process to determine eligibility for a bespoke service and to decide on the most appropriate tailored collection method. An initial screening exercise will be completed locality by locality and then street by street to identify where bespoke arrangements are required. Further refinement through engagement with the waste operations and housing teams, followed up by site visits where necessary will help to determine the proposed bespoke collection service. Engagement with residents on the proposal will ensure that the service is tailored to resident’s needs. It is likely that a range of bespoke collection methods will be considered as part of this process, including smaller bins, bags, frequent collections of smaller containers and community recycling points. It is clear that ‘one size fits all’ is not appropriate, and the proposed approach combines a harmonised approach with flexibility to deliver a service aligned to property types and access arrangements.

8.0 IMPACT ON OTHER SERVICES/ORGANISATIONS

8.1 The waste service is working closely with the Projects Transformation team to identify the support needed to deliver this wide-reaching project. Every household in North Yorkshire receives a weekly waste or recycling collection – changes to this service impacts many teams within the Council. It is imperative that resources are allocated to this programme to ensure service changes are rolled out in a smooth and resilient way, and where issues are encountered, they are resolved in a timely and professional manner. Waste collections are one of the most highly visible services provided by the Council – we must continue to provide reliable collections to residents and businesses to maintain the Council’s reputation.

8.2 The implementation of the proposed 4-day working week throughout 2025 allows the service to coincide the delivery of the preferred collection model in the Malton locality. Fleet and the Waste Service are collaborating to ensure that the future vehicle replacement programme is in alignment with service changes such as in Malton, so that early opportunities are taken to harmonise the waste service. A harmonised waste service will require a standard suite of waste containers. Work is underway with Procurement to secure supply agreements to provide the Council with containers to meet the roll out timeline. Integral to waste service changes are Communications and Customer Services. Implementation of the proposed 4-day working week throughout 2025 and the service change in Malton will involve bin day changes for residents and the Council’s commercial customers. The Projects Transformation team is providing support to the Waste Service to ensure all relevant teams are consulted and endorse the implementation timeline, in order that resources are available during service changes.

9.0 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

9.1 Eunomia[3] carried out a desktop exercise where they have modelled, costed, and compared several options (Appendix D) to the baseline i.e. current service costs of £30m. The recommended option is an alternate fortnightly collection of one of two wheeled bins for separating recycling materials, which is currently provided in the Selby locality.

9.2 Based on the findings, annual savings generated from the alternate fortnightly approach are estimated to be £561k compared to the baseline, using average rebate values over the last 3 years.

9.3 It is important to note that rebate values for materials recycled and tonnage volumes are outside of the Council’s direct control and vary from year to year, therefore North Yorkshire Council is currently subject to rebate value and tonnage volatility. For example, the lowest rebate value compared to the highest rebate value over the last three financial years would provide a range of £579k additional cost to a £1,223k saving per annum, with the alternate fortnightly collection proposal being the most favourable option across the range of rebate values. The values included in this report enable a comparison of the options presented but may not represent actual costs that are affected by variables outside of the Council’s direct control.

9.4 The initial assessment of the capital cost of implementing the alternate fortnightly collection system is approximately £8m due to the need for additional 240-litre bins to be rolled out across the county to domestic and commercial customers. Bins will be reused where localities already have suitable bins for the recommended option, such as in Selby. Based on this headline cost and estimated £561k annual benefit, the average annual saving would provide a payback period of 14.5 years, but as previously mentioned, the annual saving is subject to market volatility.

9.5 Due to the fact that the roll-out of the harmonisation will happen over a 5 year period, further work will be required to calculate the exact cost in more detail at the time of each localities roll-out.

9.6 The capital cost for vehicles is not assessed as an additional cost as part of this decision, as vehicles would be upgraded upon the end of their useful life as part of the vehicle replacement plan. Put simply, the service requires vehicles, the decision on which model only affects the specification of the vehicles procured.

9.7 The fleet service deems that a reduction of 5 to 7 vehicles is achievable equating to a reduced spending requirement of £1.2m-£1.7m over the 7-year rolling programme, but this will be better understood upon completion of the route optimisation exercise.

9.8 Based on a 7-year useful life, an additional budget of £1.3m per annum (£9.1m / 7 years) is needed to fully fund the Refuse Collection Vehicle (RCV) replacement programme. This is the year one figure in 25/26 which will subject to inflation in future years. This amount will cover the need for vehicles in the future and make up for a current shortfall in vehicle replacement budgets. This would be the case irrespective of which waste collection option is pursued and is not an additional cost brought about by this project. The savings described in 9.7 would then reduce this £1.3m funding ask commensurately (i.e. the £1.3m is a gross ask without inflation).

9.9 The annual saving of £561k generated by the alternate fortnightly approach will be delivered following a county wide route optimisation exercise to be concluded in 2026 and will contribute to the MTFS saving of £690k. The remainder of the saving would be generated through further efficiencies in vehicles and staffing, including reductions in hours and overtime as efficiency increases. Utilising a £690k annual saving, would lead to a payback period of 11.5 years.

9.10 The first phase of the roll-out (if the alternate fortnightly approach is taken forward) would be to implement the model in the Malton locality. This is due to the operational issues associated with ageing vehicle fleet in that area which requires early attention.

9.11 The subsequent phase is to ensure the service is working efficiently by completing a route optimisation exercise to address historical working practices, including lifting the restrictions on legacy authority boundaries. This will require help from external consultants at an estimated cost of £200k with work starting in 2026. This should lead to the reduction in vehicles as mentioned in 9.7.

9.12 Summary of Request for Funding

Requirement	Funding Request	Details
Bin purchase	£8,080,000	Includes distribution & communications with residents Capital – one-off – this capital ask will be funded from the Extended Producer Responsibility Grant
Vehicles	£1,300,000	Reserve draw down, annual contribution from the Extended Producer Responsibility Grant
Route optimisation	£200,000	Revenue – one-off. As this is linked to the new national strategy as well as LGR, it is proposed this is funded from the Extended Producer responsibility Frant.

10.0 LEGAL IMPLICATIONS

10.1 The Environment Act 2021 requires an English WCA to collect recyclable household waste separately from other waste for recycling or composting and for each recyclable waste stream to be collected separately except where:

· it is not technically or economically practicable to collect recyclable household waste in those recyclable waste streams separately, or

· collecting recyclable household waste in those recyclable waste streams separately has no significant environmental benefit (having regard to the overall environmental impact of collecting it separately and of collecting it together).

10.2 Recyclable waste streams are defined as glass, metal, plastic, paper and card, food waste and garden waste. Recyclable waste streams and non-domestic premises are defined in more detail in The Separation of Waste (England) Regulations 2024.

10.3 The timescales to separate waste are brought into force through The Environment Act 2021 (Commencement No. 9 and Transitional Provisions) Regulations 2024. The separate collection of household waste from domestic premises comes into force period ending 31^st March 2026, and the collection of household waste from relevant non-domestic premises and relevant industrial or commercial waste from period ending 31^st March 2025. To account for existing long-term waste disposal contracts, some local authorities have transitional provisions permitting the introduction of separate food waste collections in line with their waste disposal contract expiry date. For North Yorkshire Council this is 2043.

10.4 The above Regulations were laid in Parliament in May 2024. In November 2024 the Government announced that subject to the parliamentary process, the default requirement is to separate paper and cardboard from glass, metals & plastic and residual waste. The proposed alternate fortnightly collection service meets Government’s default requirement.

10.5 The Office of Environmental Protection (OEP) has reviewed the progress made in delivering the 25-year Environmental Improvement Plan (EIP). In response to the OEP assessment that Government has ‘fallen far short and opportunities to change course must be taken’, the Secretary of State for DEFRA has announced a rapid review of the EIP. The timeline suggests a revised draft EIP in December 2024 and notes that ‘This timeline is indicative, based on shortest term scenario – content is not agreed, and timings will likely change’ and that the draft EIA will not be Government policy.

10.5

10.6 North Yorkshire Council could wait until the draft EIP, government policy and secondary legislation is drafted and considered in Parliament, before committing to a uniform waste and recycling approach across North Yorkshire. Or North Yorkshire Council can adopt the alternate fortnightly approach delivered in Selby prior to government policy being finalised. The proposal meets the meets the default requirement of separating paper and cardboard from glass, cans & plastic and residual waste. It is inequitable to continue to deliver different recycling systems with some residents sorting recycling waste streams into one container and others into three. It is inequitable for our crews to work with a range of bags, boxes and bins each with their own manual handling and welfare implications. It has taken six years for national policy to be partially developed following the publication of the Resources and Waste Strategy in 2018, and the timeline to review EIP looks challenging. On balance and weighing up the merits of taking a decision now or waiting until national government confirms its requirements, it is recommended that North Yorkshire Council takes the decision to deliver waste harmonisation across the County.

10.7 In addition to Simpler Recycling described above, the Environment Act 2021 introduces two further requirements that will impact local authority waste collections:

· Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR): Packaging producers will be required to pay the full net waste management costs of their products that enter the household waste stream. Local Authorities will receive the full net costs of operating an efficient and effective system, subject to performance. In November 2024, government contacted local authorities to quantify the minimum payment they will receive in 2025/26 based on the cost of service provision (efficiency). Once a Scheme Administrator is appointed, metrics to determine effectiveness relating to the proportion of recycling collected, will be developed and used to determine local authority payments from 2026/27 onwards.

· Deposit Return Scheme (DRS): A DRS will require consumers of drinks containers to pay a deposit on purchase, which is redeemed when the empty container is returned via reverse vending machines or via the retailer’s shop. Drinks containers (0.5 litres to 3 litres in size) made of plastic, steel and aluminium are in scope in England. For local authorities, this is likely to reduce the available recycling opportunity and associated value from plastics and metals, depending on how the scheme is implemented. The latest DRS implementation date is October 2027.

11.0 EQUALITIES IMPLICATIONS

11.1 As part of the Let’s Talk Rubbish consultation, officers attended meetings of the Selby, Craven and Harrogate Disability Forums and more detailed feedback is set out in section 5.4.

11.2 The council recognises that the twin bin system will not be suitable for all properties and alternative/bespoke collection services will need to be available. A degree of flexibility will ensure the service is designed to meet local needs. A range of bespoke collection methods including smaller bins, bags, frequent collections of smaller containers and community recycling points will be considered with residents. It is clear that ‘one size fits all’ is not appropriate. The proposed harmonised approach incorporates flexibility to deliver a service aligned to property types and access arrangements, tailored to resident’s needs.

11.3 An Equalities Impact Assessment Form has been completed and is included at Appendix E.

12.0 CLIMATE CHANGE IMPLICATIONS

12.1 As part of the options work undertaken by WRAP and Eunomia, carbon modelling was one of the key criteria that was assessed. Overall, the option selected for implementation scored second highest in terms of carbon reduction during the modelling stage but also is likely to result in higher quality recyclable material with less contamination compared to comingled approaches where the paper and card is mixed with glass. This option is being used in the former Selby area and is proving successful.

12.2 Whilst changing the collection system alone does not impact on dry recycling yields it is noted that our experience in North Yorkshire of changing from a box to a wheeled based scheme does increase the recycling yield. This is because residents have greater capacity in the recycling bin and place less recycling in the residual bin.

12.3 A Climate Change Impact Assessment has been completed and is included at Appendix F.

13.0 POLICY IMPLICATIONS

13.1 To support the implementation of the preferred collection service, it is important to agree how the service will be delivered. Residents and crews must have clarity on how kerbside collections will be undertaken in a harmonised way across the County, this includes:

· Waste minimisation.

· Container type, size, and number.

· Collection frequencies times and locations (including ‘lane end collections’).

· Materials collected and contamination.

· Missed bins and excess waste.

· Servicing of flats and rural properties.

· Garden waste opt-in service.

· Bulky waste service.

· Assisted collection service.

13.2 A full waste collection guidance document is being produced and will be brought before members at a meeting of the Executive expected to be in spring 2025.

14.0 RISK MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS

14.1 The main risks associated with waste service changes arise from issues such as residents not understanding their new bin collection day, resolution of queries and complaints, adoption of new routes by crews, and lead in times to procure bins and/ or vehicles.

14.2 The new Waste (Contracts) staffing structure consolidates the experience and knowledge across the former localities, into dedicated teams. In particular, the Resource Optimisation team is set up to review existing routes and ways of working, assess how service changes such as the proposed 4-day working week can be implemented, collaborate with front line teams to incorporate their knowledge and experience, and then review and adopt changes post implementation. Likewise, the Service Development team is experienced in implementing waste service changes and work with our Communications and Customer teams to provide clear, concise information to residents and ensure Council staff including crews, the waste service, Customer and Media, have access to information and resources so that queries are addressed in a timely and helpful way.

14.3 To supplement the expertise in the waste service the Projects Transformation team provide support in the form of an overarching programme manager with project managers allocated individual transformation waste projects. This puts in place robust and comprehensive project management processes and systems, adding oversight, challenge, and working with wider corporate teams to make sure the Council’s resources are deployed to help residents and staff through this change process.

15.0 HUMAN RESOURCES IMPLICATIONS

15.1 The service changes described in this report represent new ways of working for most front-line crews and back-office support staff. Adoption of different collection vehicles, routes, waste containers, and collection frequencies alongside a proposed new 4-day working week with collective working and unified start and finish times is a significant amount of change. It is important staff receive training and support during this time, so they have the information, resources, and knowledge to adapt and thrive in the new harmonised service.

15.2 The waste harmonisation timeline delivers change in key phases over a 5-year period:

15.3 The introduction of the proposed 4-day collective working is staggered by locality over 12 months to ensure sufficient back-office support is allocated to each front-line change. The Malton service will revert to the preferred collection approach to coincide with the vehicle replacement programme and ensure the new fleet supports the new collection model, whilst the roll out of the harmonised service following the route optimisation exercise will be completed in a progressive, locality by locality sequence. This measured approach minimises the risks associated with resource availability and the impact on staff.

16.0 ICT IMPLICATIONS

16.1 Significant improvements have already been delivered to simplify the customer journey in relation to garden and bulky waste transactions. The Projects transformation team have resourced a project to review the end-to-end systems currently deployed across the waste service, to identify how to process transactions efficiently and effectively. ICT resource will be required to help deliver this project which must complement the delivery of the waste service change during critical phases.

17.0 CONCLUSIONS

17.1 Good progress has been made to harmonise the Waste Service following Local Government Reorganisation in 2023. This proposal continues to deliver significant change, meeting resident’s aspirations for access to equal recycling services with flexibility to reflect local circumstances. It is acknowledged and accepted that ‘one size’ does not fit all, and that bespoke and tailored services will be required to meet local needs and circumstances (see section 7.0). The consultation shows that most respondents support wheeled bins for recycling as opposed to boxes or bags. The proposal is further endorsed by 9 out of 10 respondents in the Selby locality who receive this service being happy or very happy with their current recycling containers. The highly visible nature of waste and recycling collections (302,000 households receive a waste or recycling collection 52 weeks of the year) illustrates the magnitude of the proposal and the importance of aligning resources to support the change in service. The Waste Service has consolidated the experience and expertise across the former two tiers of local government, has put in place robust project management arrangements and will continue to work closely with central council teams to implement a consistent, resilient and highly effective waste collection service across North Yorkshire.

18.0 REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS

18.1 The alternate fortnightly approach using two recycling wheeled bins delivers the most efficient, effective, and resilient service to residents and businesses.

19.0

19.1

RECOMMENDATION

Executive is recommended to:

· adopt an alternate fortnightly kerbside recycling scheme across North Yorkshire providing residents with two wheeled bins for recycling and one wheeled bin for fortnightly residual collections.

· implement a bespoke kerbside service in areas that cannot adopt an alternate fortnightly two recycling bin scheme.

· to note the capital and revenue funding requirement of the decision is built into the 25/26 budget and medium term financial strategy which is being considered as a separate report to this meeting.

APPENDICES:

Appendix A – North Yorkshire authorities recycling yields by container type.

Appendix B – Let’s Talk Rubbish consultation feedback.

Appendix C – Options Appraisal.

Appendix D – Financial Options Appraisal.

Appendix E – Equalities Impact Screening Form.

Appendix F – Climate Change Impact Assessment.

BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS: North Yorkshire Authorities Collection Options Report.

KARL BATTERSBY

Corporate Director Environment

County Hall

Northallerton

05 November 2024

Report Author – Peter Jeffreys, Head of Service – Waste

Aimi Brookes, Service Development Manager – Waste

Presenter of Report – Michael Leah, Assistant Director – Environmental Services.

Equality impact assessment (EIA) form: evidencing paying due regard to protected characteristics

(Form updated October 2023)

Review of Future Household Waste Collection

If you would like this information in another language or format such as Braille, large print or audio, please contact the Communications Unit on 01609 53 2013 or email communications@northyorks.gov.uk.

question mark

Equality Impact Assessments (EIAs) are public documents. EIAs accompanying reports going to County Councillors for decisions are published with the committee papers on our website and are available in hard copy at the relevant meeting. To help people to find completed EIAs we also publish them in the Equality and Diversity section of our website. This will help people to see for themselves how we have paid due regard in order to meet statutory requirements.

Name of Directorate and Service Area	Environmental Services
Lead Officer and contact details	Central Waste Team
Names and roles of other people involved in carrying out the EIA	Aimi Brookes – Service Development Manager Waste Jenny Lowes – Service Improvement Officer Waste Tracey Flint – Service Improvement Officer Waste
How will you pay due regard? e.g. working group, individual officer	Waste Harmonisation Working Group
When did the due regard process start?	April 2024

Section 1. Please describe briefly what this EIA is about. (e.g. are you starting a new service, changing how you do something, stopping doing something?)

Harmonisation of the recycling collection service across North Yorkshire by providing each property with two wheeled bins for recycling (paper & card separated from mixed recycling), these will be collected alternate fortnights. This method is currently used in the former Selby area. It differs from currently collection methods in the following ways:-

Scarborough area – Single wheeled bin for recycling

Craven area – Single wheeled bin for recycling

Richmond area – mixture of bags and boxes for recycling

Ryedale area - mixture of bags and boxes for recycling

Harrogate area – mixture of a wheeled bin, bag, and box for recycling

Hambleton area - mixture of a wheeled bin and box for recycling

Section 2. Why is this being proposed? What are the aims? What does the authority hope to achieve by it? (e.g. to save money, meet increased demand, do things in a better way.)

To provide an efficient service which provides high quality recyclable materials that can be sold to manufacturers to make them into new products, higher quality materials will result in greater financial value.

To offer an equal service to all residents, a simplified streamline service will improve messaging to residents and help reduce confusion.

To provide residents with greater capacity to recycle more items at the kerbside and offer a service which is operationally ready to offer residents more opportunities to recycle as legislation changes.

To offer containers that are easier for residents and staff to manoeuvre, reducing muscular skeletal issues with collection crews.

To contain the recycling material in all weather, reduce the incidence of littering from containers and ensure materials don’t become waterlogged and unsuitable for recycling.

Section 3. What will change? What will be different for customers and/or staff?

For residents currently on a single wheeled bin for recycling (Scarborough and Craven) they will move to two wheeled bins. For residents on boxes and bags (Richmond and Ryedale they will move to a wheeled bin collection. For residents on bins, bags and boxes (Hambleton and Harrogate) they will move to two bins. For Selby residents there won’t be any change.

All residents already have wheeled bins for their general household rubbish, and if they have signed up for the service, their garden waste collections.

So, for the majority of residents, they will require space for 2 wheeled bins for recycling whereas they previously had 1 or just boxes and bags.

Wheeled bins will need to be stored externally whereas boxes and bags may have been stored inside the property.

For residents previously on boxes/bags they will now need to manoeuvrer a wheeled bin rather than lift boxes/bags for their recycling, which may offer safer handling and less back pain if boxes and bags are not lifted correctly. Recycling bins will not be emptied together therefore only one recycling bin at a time will need to be placed out for collection.

There are already policies in place to aid residents who are unable to move bins themselves or have issues with storage. We offer assisted collection and sack collections where appropriate.

For operation staff they will no longer have to lift bags and boxes for recycling, which have manually handling concerns as separate waste containers such as bags or boxes may cause “long-term musculoskeletal disorders” to collection workers. All bins will now be wheeled which is the preferred option for staff.

Section 4. Involvement and consultation (What involvement and consultation has been done regarding the proposal and what are the results? What consultation will be needed and how will it be done?)

We carried out the Let’s Talk Rubbish survey from 8 July 24 to 16 September 24. The survey was hosted on ‘Commonplace’, our digital engagement platform and supported by a marketing campaign directing people to the platform. Paper surveys were available from the council offices, libraries and leisure centres. An easy read version of the questionnaire was also produced and, where requested, alternative formats such as large print were supplied. A total of 10,475 valid survey responses were received. The waste team staff also attended 25 face to face events in market places, libraries and community events to promote the survey and discuss the proposal with residents. Three disability forums were attended as part of the consultation process.

Relevant results of the survey are as follows:-

· People using wheelie bins are much more likely to be very happy or happy with their container type (83%), while those using boxes or bags are less likely to say this (both 41%).

· The majority (58%) of people are also very happy (30%) or happy (28%) with the size of their recycling container. People using wheelie bins are also much more likely to be very happy or happy with their container size (78%), compared to 40% of box users and 41% of bag users being satisfied.

· Nearly nine-in-ten people (88%) say it is very important (61%) or important (26%) that North Yorkshire residents have access to an equal recycling service. Only 3% say this is not very important (2%) or unimportant (1%).

· People in Scarborough & Whitby and Selby & Ainsty are most likely to be satisfied with their type of recycling container, while those in Thirsk & Malton and Richmond are least satisfied. Some areas, such as Richmond and Thirsk & Malton, have more than one type of collection system (based on the former district/borough council arrangements) and the data shows much higher satisfaction levels for people using wheelie bins than box and bag collection systems in these areas.

· People who consider themselves disabled or as having a long-term, limiting health conditions are less likely to be satisfied with their size of container (52%), compared to those who are not disabled or do not have a condition (59%).

· There were more responses from people identifying as female (62%) than male (36%), with 2% preferring not to say and a small number (20 responses) describing themselves in another way.

· Some 880 people consider themselves to be a disabled person or have a long-term, limiting condition (15%), while 4,945 say this is not the case (85%) and 199 people prefer not to say.

Section 5. What impact will this proposal have on council budgets? Will it be cost neutral, have increased cost or reduce costs?

There will be an initial increase in cost of containers, but costs will be minimised by reusing existing wheeled bins. The future roll out of the service change will be completed in alignment with the vehicle replacement programme, such that additional costs will be avoided. There will be significant resources needed in the initial roll out of the new service which will affect:

· Customer Services – more contact queries.

· Communications – design / print / social media and printed media – promotion & information relating to the new service.

· Operational Teams – Route optimisation / Community engagement officers - dealing with residents & those with alternative needs to the standard service.

Overall, there is forecast to be a long-term reduction in cost due to the standardisation and slight reduction of vehicles and crews, lower processing cost as paper and card is segregated, and improved recycling revenue.

Section 6. How will this proposal affect people with protected characteristics?	No impact	Make things better	Make things worse	Why will it have this effect? Provide evidence from engagement, consultation and/or service user data or demographic information etc.
Age		x		This is a neutral impact overall, some elderly residents may find it difficult to move wheeled bins, just as some residents may find it hard to lift bags and boxes. Our consultation evidenced that people on wheeled bins are happier with their containers than people on bags or boxes. For those who require assistance they will be able to request an assisted collection.
Disability			x	Depending on the disability it may be harder to move wheeled bins rather than lift boxes/bags. Our consultation evidenced that people who consider themselves disabled or as having a long-term, limiting health conditions are less likely to be satisfied with their size of container (52%), compared to those who are not disabled or do not have a condition (59%). For those who require assistance they will be able to request an assisted collection. There may also be issues with accessing properties due to bin storage which can be mitigated by providing sacks/ smaller containers rather than standard bins where necessary.
Sex	x			No impact on sex.
Race	x			The service change will not impact on race.
Gender reassignment	x			The service change will not impact gender reassignment.
Sexual orientation	x			The service change will not impact sexual orientation.
Religion or belief	x			The service change will not impact religion or belief.
Pregnancy or maternity		x		Some pregnant women they may find wheeling a bin easier than lifting bags/boxes, others they may find it harder. For those who require assistance they will be able to request an assisted collection.
Marriage or civil partnership	x

Section 7. How will this proposal affect people who…	No impact	Make things better	Make things worse	Why will it have this effect? Provide evidence from engagement, consultation and/or service user data or demographic information etc.
..live in a rural area?	x			Resident already have their general household waste collected in wheeled bins, the addition of one or two bins in rural communities impacts rural communities no more or less than other communities.
…have a low income?			x	It is difficult to generalise but residents living in smaller properties/multiple occupancy properties may find it difficult to store an additional recycling bin. Alternative options such as sacks/ smaller containers will be available in these situations.
…are carers (unpaid family or friend)?	x			The service change will not impact carers.
….. are from the Armed Forces Community	x			The service change will not impact residents from the Armed Forces Community.

Section 8. Geographic impact – Please detail where the impact will be (please tick all that apply)
North Yorkshire wide	x
Craven
Hambleton
Harrogate
Richmondshire
Ryedale
Scarborough
Selby
If you have ticked one or more areas, will specific town(s)/village(s) be particularly impacted? If so, please specify below.
This service change is to improve the recycling service to the whole of North Yorkshire, it will provide equal quality and provision where currently there is differing levels of service and availability.

Section 9. Will the proposal affect anyone more because of a combination of protected characteristics? (e.g. older women or young gay men) State what you think the effect may be and why, providing evidence from engagement, consultation and/or service user data or demographic information etc.

Pregnant/disabled – Assisted collections will be available with temporary or long term mobility issues.

Elderly/disabled - Assisted collections will be available with temporary or long term mobility issues.

Elderly/low income – Assisted collections will be available or alternative collection method where no storage space is available.

Section 10. Next steps to address the anticipated impact. Select one of the following options and explain why this has been chosen. (Remember: we have an anticipatory duty to make reasonable adjustments so that disabled people can access services and work for us)	Tick option chosen
1. No adverse impact - no major change needed to the proposal. There is no potential for discrimination or adverse impact identified.
2. Adverse impact - adjust the proposal - The EIA identifies potential problems or missed opportunities. We will change our proposal to reduce or remove these adverse impacts, or we will achieve our aim in another way which will not make things worse for people.
3. Adverse impact - continue the proposal - The EIA identifies potential problems or missed opportunities. We cannot change our proposal to reduce or remove these adverse impacts, nor can we achieve our aim in another way which will not make things worse for people. (There must be compelling reasons for continuing with proposals which will have the most adverse impacts. Get advice from Legal Services)	x
4. Actual or potential unlawful discrimination - stop and remove the proposal – The EIA identifies actual or potential unlawful discrimination. It must be stopped.
Explanation of why option has been chosen. (Include any advice given by Legal Services.) We recognise that the proposal may have an adverse impact for some residents due to age or disability. However, overall there will be an improvement in service for most residents and for some elderly/disabled residents they will also see it as an improvement in service. We will continue to offer assisted collections to residents who meet one of the following criteria providing no other able-bodied person lives in the property:- · the resident is elderly or frail and could provide a written reference from a carer or healthcare professional on request, · the resident is registered blind or partially sighted, · the resident receives Disability Living Allowance, Personal Independence Payment (PIP) or Attendance Allowance, · the resident is not in receipt of any disability benefits but could provide suitable documentary evidence of a disability on request. In addition, residents can apply for a temporary assisted collection for up to 6 months, which can be renewed after 6 months if needed. This may be due to illness (including pregnancy related illnesses), or recovery from an operation or injury.

Section 11. If the proposal is to be implemented how will you find out how it is really affecting people? (How will you monitor and review the changes?)

Resident participation will be monitored through vehicle in cab technology and tonnages collected.

Customers services enquiries/complaints and on-line contact forms.

Engagement with crews

Assisted collection enquiries.

Section 12. Action plan. List any actions you need to take which have been identified in this EIA, including post implementation review to find out how the outcomes have been achieved in practice and what impacts there have actually been on people with protected characteristics.
Action	Lead	By when	Progress	Monitoring arrangements
The service will be implemented in stages across the County. Enabling us to review and refine the service before moving to the next stage. We will first decide on alterative options for residents with access or mobility issues, this may be reusable sacks or bags. We will be able to assess the suitability of this alternative before moving to the next phase of the role out.	Aimi Brookes	March 25 then ongoing through the role out period.	In discussion	Central Waste Team will assess the acceptability of alternative options for residents with mobility/access issues through participation rates and staff engagement. At every stage residents who meet the Assisted Collection criteria will be offered this service.
Review assisted collection requests. Based on the number of requests we will be able to see assess if more people have moved to assisted collection who previously had bags/boxes or those that already had bins.	Aimi Brookes	6 months after implementation of change, which will be staggered throughout the county.	Not started	Waste Operations
Review participation rates and complaints	Aimi Brookes	6 months after implementation of change, which will be staggered throughout the county.	Not started	Waste Operations

Section 13. Summary Summarise the findings of your EIA, including impacts, recommendation in relation to addressing impacts, including any legal advice, and next steps. This summary should be used as part of the report to the decision maker.

This service change is to improve the recycling service to the whole of North Yorkshire, it will provide equal quality and provision where currently there is differing levels of service and availability. We recognise that the proposal may have an adverse impact for some residents due to age or disability. However, over-all there will be an improvement in service for most residents and for some elderly/disabled residents they will also see it as an improvement in service. We will continue to offer assisted collections to residents who meet the criteria.

For those properties that do not have space to keep two wheeled bins, alternative provisions will be made. This may be bags or smaller bins.

This service change may result in initial anxiety by residents but the practicality of storing loose recycling in a lidded contained bin and the ease of manoeuvring a wheeled bin should prove to be popular as long as alternative provisions are made for those that cannot fully participate due to space, age or disability.

Next steps are to decide on what alternative arrangements will be offered to residents with disabilities or mobility issues due to age, this may be smaller bins or sacks.

Section 14. Sign off section

This full EIA was completed by:

Name: Aimi Brookes

Job title: Service Development Manager Waste

Directorate: Environment

Signature: Aimi Brookes

Completion date: 19 November

Authorised by relevant Assistant Director (signature): Michael Leah

Date:18/12/2024

Climate Change Impact Assessment

The purpose of this assessment is to help us understand the likely impacts of our decisions on the environment of North Yorkshire and on our aspiration to achieve net carbon neutrality by 2030, or as close to that date as possible. The intention is to mitigate negative effects and identify projects which will have positive effects.

This document should be completed in consultation with the supporting guidance. The final document will be published as part of the decision making process and should be written in Plain English.

If you have any additional queries which are not covered by the guidance please email climatechange@northyorks.gov.uk

Version 2: amended 11 August 2021

Title of proposal	Recycling Collection Harmonisation
Brief description of proposal	Harmonisation of seven recycling collections services across North Yorkshire to ensure the same collection method, frequency and availability of recycling for all residents. Proposal will see residents receiving 2x wheeled bins for recycling, one to contain paper and card, and one to contain glass, cans and plastics. Each bin will receive an alternate fortnightly collection. For properties unsuitable for wheeled bin storage, alternative methods of containment will be available.
Directorate	Environmental Services
Service area	Central Waste Team
Lead officer	Aimi Brookes – Service Development Manager – Waste
Names and roles of other people involved in carrying out the impact assessment	Tracey Flint – Service Improvement Officer – Waste
Date impact assessment started	18/09/24

Options appraisal

Were any other options considered in trying to achieve the aim of this project? If so, please give brief details and explain why alternative options were not progressed.

As part of waste harmonisation for NYC, Eunomia Research and Consulting were commissioned via WRAP (Waste and Resources Action Programme) to undertake household waste collections options modelling for the eight legacy authorities. Currently waste and recycling is collected differently in each locality and as part of the study, five collections options were considered in Stage 1 of the assessment. This was narrowed down to two options for Stage 2. The modelling for the options considered: recycling performance, resources, costs, and carbon modelling.

The option selected for implementation scored highest or second highest in the following areas: -

Recycling Performance – All options equal.

Resources – A reduction in vehicles in comparison to all but one of the other options, a reduction in staff in all but one of the other options.

Cost – Highest long term costs savings.

Carbon Modelling – Second highest CO2eq savings of the options. The best performing option would utilise vehicles which are more fuel efficient, however more vehicles would be required which would necessitate more crew members leading to higher operating costs. The higher performing option would also see an increase in manual handling and lifting for the crews with its associated health risks.

Overall, the preferred option selected for implementation scored well in the modelling stage but also is likely to result in higher quality recyclable material with less contamination. By separating out the paper and card which is a high value commodity (although vulnerable to market forces) it is hoped that cost savings can be achieved with maximum recycling potential. This option is being used in the former Selby area and is proving successful.

What impact will this proposal have on council budgets? Will it be cost neutral, have increased cost or reduce costs?

There should be a reduction in the overall revenue costs for the kerbside collection service although this is subject to the market value of the materials collected.

The only cost increase in the service comes from the additional capital container costs.

How will this proposal impact on the environment? N.B. There may be short term negative impact and longer term positive impact. Please include all potential impacts over the lifetime of a project and provide an explanation.		Positive impact (Place a X in the box below where relevant)	No impact (Place a X in the box below where relevant)	Negative impact (Place a X in the box below where relevant)	Explain why will it have this effect and over what timescale? Where possible/relevant please include: · Changes over and above business as usual · Evidence or measurement of effect · Figures for CO₂e · Links to relevant documents	Explain how you plan to mitigate any negative impacts.	Explain how you plan to improve any positive outcomes as far as possible.
Minimise greenhouse gas emissions e.g. reducing emissions from travel, increasing energy efficiencies etc.	Emissions from travel	X			The consultant's report evidences a 56 tCO2e reduction over baseline. This is through a reduction in transport emissions. The recycling process itself has a negative overall carbon impact as it offsets more CO2e than the production of virgin materials. Therefore, anything we can do to enhance the recyclability of the material we collect and the efficiency of our collection methods the better.		Further improvements can be achieved through improved vehicle replacement policies, vehicle adaptations with improved technology. Standardisation of vehicles across NY lends itself to these improvements. These areas will be being considered by the fleet department including the suitability of electric vehicles.
	Emissions from construction		X
	Emissions from running of buildings		X
	Emissions from data storage		X
	Other
Minimise waste: Reduce, reuse, recycle and compost e.g. reducing use of single use plastic		X			Although the modelling didn’t evidence any increase or decrease to the recycling yield overall, we anticipate that by providing residents with a bin rather than a box/bag (in those areas where this is relevant) then the greater recycling capacity will encourage more recycling. The segregation of paper and card will improve material quality and therefore recyclability. By having uniformity of service across the county we can improve the end-of-life policy for old damaged bins ensuring they are recycled or repaired where possible.		Recycling quality and yield will be further increased through our ability to have consistent messaging across the county for recycling, reduce and reuse. For example by having all residents on the same collection system communication plans can be drawn up which will provide all residents with the same message e.g. keep polystyrene out of your paper and card bin. Publicity can be provided which will help inform all residents of our service rather than the current situation where different messaging has to be provided.
Reduce water consumption		X			The small reduction in vehicles may see some fall in water consumption due to reduction in vehicle washing.		Uniformity of service and vehicles should allow for improved working practices which will give the opportunity to look at water consumption in greater detail.
Minimise pollution (including air, land, water, light and noise)		X			As with CO2 emissions, we will see a slight reduction in vehicles, and route optimisation which is being implemented alongside the changes to collection method will see improvements to the efficiency of collection routes.		As with greenhouse gas emissions above.
Ensure resilience to the effects of climate change e.g. reducing flood risk, mitigating effects of drier, hotter summers		X			Resilience of service is increased due to standardised service, greater scope for vehicle support across the county, training will be replicated etc. As waste collection is an essential service it is important that this resilience can be maintained. The use of wheeled bins rather than bags or boxes (as used in some areas currently) enhances the services ability to collect good quality recyclable material even during extremes of whether conditions.
Enhance conservation and wildlife			X
Safeguard the distinctive characteristics, features and special qualities of North Yorkshire’s landscape.				X	Slight visual impact on the landscape including National Parks and AONB’s due to increased number of recycling bins. Residents will have two recycling bins rather than one. Currently some areas have multiple boxes/bags or a mixture of boxes bags and bins.	Where bins can’t be stored at the rear of properties or where they may hinder the landscape alternative options will be considered such as smaller bins or bags.
Other (please state below)

Are there any recognised good practice environmental standards in relation to this proposal? If so, please detail how this proposal meets those standards.

This proposal follows modelling commissioned by the Waste and Resources Action Programme (WRAP). WRAP is a climate action NGO working with governments, business, and citizens to improve sustainability. WRAP undertook this project in the context of the UK Government Resource and Waste Strategy for England, which seeks to improve recycling rates through ensuring a consistent set of dry recyclable materials are collected from all households.

Summary Summarise the findings of your impact assessment, including impacts, the recommendation in relation to addressing impacts, including any legal advice, and next steps. This summary should be used as part of the report to the decision maker.

In order to offer all North Yorkshire residents a harmonised service for waste collection which meets the requirements set out in the Environment Act 2021 we need to make changes to the way we collect recycling to ensure residents receive a consistent collection of the same materials at the kerbside.

Following work carried out by WRAP the option which best meets the requirements to offer the same service across North Yorkshire involves a twin bin recycling service, one bin for paper and card and another for glass, cans and plastics.

This method will result in a positive outcome both financially and environmentally in terms of greenhouse gas emissions and quality of material collected for recycling.

Implementing these changes to ensure all residents receive the same high quality collection service has the advantage of future developments where we can then look at consistent countywide messaging to improve the service further to reduce contamination, increase recycling yields and target re-use/reduction messaging.

Sign off section

This climate change impact assessment was completed by:

Name	Tracey Flint
Job title	Service Improvement Officer
Service area	Central Waste Team
Directorate	Environmental Services
Signature
Completion date	18/09/24

Authorised by relevant Assistant Director (signature): Michael Leah

Date: 24/10/2024

[1] Eunomia prepared the report between August 2022 and May 2023 when Government policy had not determined which local authorities would be mandated to separately collect food waste and when. After the report was published North Yorkshire Council received transitional relief from Government to introduce separate food waste collections at the expiry of its residual waste contract, which was accepted and agreed by the Executive and Full Council with a stipulation that options for earlier implementation are reviewed.

[2] Every effort has been made to accurately model the options. An exercise of this size and complexity requires some assumptions e.g. recycling values, spare vehicles, procurement price of vehicles and bins etc. Accurate costs will be determined when a full route optimisation exercise is conducted following selection of the preferred approach. The options appraisal modelling discussed in this report illustrates the relative costs and performance against the baseline and the options considered.

[3] The main source of the information is the Eunomia modelling, but the Council’s recent tendering exercises to procure haulage, bulking, processing has informed these costs and recycling rebate revenues.

Locality	Kgs Per Household 2019/20	Kgs per Household 2023/24	Difference in Kgs	% Difference
Craven - comingled	200.74	184.96	-15.79	-7.86
Hambleton - twin stream with wheeled bin and box	180.65	187.22	6.57	3.64
Harrogate - twin stream with boxes and bags*	157.16	156.46	-0.69	-0.44
Richmond - kerbside sort	110.32	110.65	0.33	0.30
Ryedale - kerbside sort	172.04	151.65	-20.38	-11.85
Scarborough - comingled	182.08	164.37	-17.71	-9.72
Selby - twin stream with wheeled bins	150.19	187.16	36.97	24.62

* Some parts of Harrogate now have a wheeled bin and box collection

Material	Current capacity per fortnight	Proposed capacity per fortnight
Paper / card	60 litres (1 x 60 litre bag collected fortnightly)	120 litres (1 x 240 litre bin collected 4 weekly)
Glass / cans / plastic	95 litres (1 x 55 litre and 1 x 40 litre box collected fortnightly)	120 litre (1 x 240 litre bin collected 4 weekly)

Annual Costs/(Savings)	Option 1	Option 2	Option 5
Vehicle Costs	£(88,000)	£89,000	£(79,000)
Staff Costs	£(324,000)	£1,828,000	£(75,000)
Container Purchase	£(73,000)	£(13,000)	£139,000
Residual Treatment	£(61,000)	£224,000	£(61,000)
Recycling Treatment & Income*	£3,051,000	£(1,675,000)	£(485,000)
Garden Treatment & Income	£0	£0	£0
Total Annual Costs/(Savings)	£2,505,000	£453,000	£(561,000)

	Option 1	Option 2	Option 5
Container Capital Investment	£2,695,000	£3,404,000	£8,080,000
Vehicle Capital Investment	£0	£3,121,000	£0
Total	£2,695,000	£6,525,000	£8,080,000
Annual Cost/(Savings)**	£2,505,000	£453,000	£(561,000)
Payback Period	Doesn’t generate savings	Doesn’t generate savings	14 years

Locality	Proposed Roll-out Date	No. of New Bins (per Household)	Cost of Bins (inc. Distribution)	Comms to Residents & Contingency	Total Cost
Ryedale	2025	2	£1,193,900	£75,000	£1,268,900
Harrogate	2027	1	£1,861,400	£75,000	£1,936,400
Scarborough	2027	1	£1,417,300	£75,000	£1,492,300
Hambleton	2028	1	£1,084,300	£75,000	£1,159,300
Richmond	2028	2	£1,069,500	£75,000	£1,144,500
Craven	2029	1	£695,000	£75,000	£770,000
Selby	Already using recommended option.		£0	£20,000	£20,000
Commercial Bins			£200,000	£0	£200,000
Contingency			£0	£88,600	£88,600
Total			£7,521,400	£558,600	£8,080,000