Well, what a whirlwind few weeks it has been!
My last Chairs blog was published in LARAC On Line on 18th October, and only three days later, we finally received the long awaited response to the consistency consultation – now renamed Simpler Recycling.
The response was a mixed bag – some good, some not so good – and LARAC is currently finalising its response to the associated consultation on Statutory Guidance, and alongside this, we will be commenting on some aspects that we wont get an opportunity to include as part of the consultation.
In terms of the positives, firstly LARAC and its members are pleased to see that the response has been finally published – over two years since the deadline of the 2021 Consultation. It is also positive that local authorities have been provided with some flexibility to run their services, including their choice of dry recycling service (in terms of comingling, twin or multi-stream), organics service (in terms of co-collection or separate collection) and also the choice of whether or not to charge for the collection of garden waste.
These aspects are all very welcomed, as LARAC has always endorsed the fact that individual local authorities know what is best for their local area, and how to provide the most effective and efficient service possible for their residents.
It is disappointing therefore, that the same choice has not been provided for local authority residual waste services. Once again, LARAC is firm in its belief that individual local authorities know which service works best for their area, and in this respect, many authorities have chosen to provide their residents with three and even four weekly residual waste collections, with only positive outcomes.
These authorities have experienced an increase in recycling rates, a decrease in the levels of residual waste collected and significant savings to their service – all without any adverse effects to residents or the local amenity. However, despite this, the government have refused to listen to reason or take account of the hard evidence in favour of more restricted residual collections, thus undermining all of the positive reforms they are putting in place to support recycling.
In addition to this, local authorities are still none the wiser over when and what new burdens funding they will receive, exactly what their EPR payments will cover and how they are supposed to plan and prepare for the deadlines to the reforms without this information.
So, are we happy that the response has been published? Yes. But does it provide clarity? Absolutely not. It has raised yet more questions than it has answered, so we need DEFRA to continue to engage with us to provide these – and as soon as possible, as those deadlines will creep up before we know it….
