Food waste in flats - recommendations report

The panel spoke to a technical consultant from WRAP who explained about the issues faced by residents who lived in flats.

The problems identified included:

• inadequate bin storage which was poorly lit, overflowing or unhygienic
• bins being located a long way from the resident’s home
• the food waste collected was often contaminated, meaning all the waste would be unsuitable for recycling - it was recommended that apertures were used on bins to help prevent this issue

Participation rates for food waste recycling was also poor amongst residents living in flats and the accumulation of these challenges contributed to lower food waste yields.

Where food waste collection had been implemented in all flats, the national average yield per property per week was approximately 0.3kg to 0.5kg.

A holistic approach which included assessing whether residents were already successfully dry recycling was recommended before introducing a more complex scheme.

These challenges were also highlighted by the senior advisor from RE London. RE London had completed extensive behavioural insight research which looked at residents in flats. This included installing cameras in resident’s homes to observe their lives and conducting interviews. The research found that residents needed to be particularly motivated to recycle food waste through positive experiences. The ease of disposing of waste was critical and any dirtiness or overflow was demotivating. Again, low participation rates of around only a third of residents affected overall food waste yields.

After hearing about the experiences of local authorities in London and across the country, councillors were keen to understand the situation for flats in Bracknell Forest and conducted site visits to 3 typical blocks of flats.

Whilst on the site visit, councillors saw a waste disposal area where space was limited. This was considered one of the main barriers identified when speaking to a local managing agent. Whilst at the site, the head of environmental services, advised that dry recycling at that location was often contaminated. On occasion, the rubbish was so contaminated that the waste crews had been unable to make a collection and the managing agents had paid an additional fee to have it collected separately once they had sorted the waste.

It was acknowledged that introducing food waste in that location, and those similar, would be challenging. Councillors questioned whether there was any way of enforcing better recycling at these sites. It was explained that this was challenging as they were communal bins, so it was difficult to apportion accountability.

Particular concerns about health and safety were raised. Officers advised that if the waste and recycling became a health hazard, then Environmental Health would investigate and had powers of enforcement.

Councillors visited 2 other sites including sheltered accommodation where dry recycling was already at a high standard. The waste recycling facility at this location was well lit and had sufficient space and clear recycling signage. Residents and managing agents at the location were also engaged and had an interest in making sure their waste was correctly disposed of. This was considered an ideal location to have a food waste collection.

Councillors also visited a small flat block where residents had individual general waste and recycling bins identical to houses in the borough. It was observed that at these locations there was sufficient room to add food caddies to kerbside collections. The head of environmental services advised that residents in these flats had requested their own caddies. The panel agreed that this would be an ideal starting point for implementing food waste in Bracknell Forest.

The regional manager from Suez also shared this view and added that there could be an option to add some of these types of properties to existing collection rounds if capacity allowed.

Throughout the review the panel considered what options would be most successful in Bracknell Forest.

Initially councillors questioned whether a door to door collection would be feasible. However, as the senior advisor from RE London explained, this would be prohibitively expensive and was only seen in London in flats with a private concierge service.

The panel spoke to the Assistant Director for Contract Services regarding the effect on recycling rates for the borough should food waste be implemented for all properties and they confirmed that it would only result in a 0.5% increase on the overall recycling rates. This was because it would include flats where it was expected that participation would be low or non-existent due to inadequate facilities, lack of engagement or a high turnover of residents. By contrast, rolling out to 20% who met the criteria needed for success would result in a 0.2% increase.

Practical considerations were also made by the panel regarding the additional resources required to collect food waste. Implementing a full roll out would require significant additional resources including a new food waste truck, equipment and additional staff.

The purchase of an additional food waste truck in spring 2022, to support high tonnages on the household scheme would increase capacity and allow collections from 20% of the most suitable flats. This would make the additional costs significantly lower.

Although at the start of the review, there was an appetite for a full roll out to all flats, every expert spoken to, talked about the challenges in implementing food waste in flats and the correlation between poor facilities and either contaminated food waste or poor participation.

Where facilities were not adequate, the council did not have the responsibility to make the necessary changes and in some locations, it would be challenging even if the managing agent or property owner were willing. Without meeting the minimum criteria, there would be little to no benefit to the environment.

Without a positive environmental impact, implementing a full roll out would not contribute to the council’s strategic theme of ‘protecting and enhancing the environment’ and the substantial cost could not be justified.

For those flats who did meet the suitability criteria, councillors discussed various bulk bin options with RE London, WRAP and Suez. The conclusive evidence was that a 140l bin with an aperture would be the most practical option. Food waste is particularly dense and larger bins would be too heavy to be picked up by the waste trucks. Apertures were also considered important to avoid contamination and fly tipping.

For blocks of flats, the review concluded that officers would need to undertake individual assessments to determine whether a food waste scheme would be viable. The senior advisor for RE London, advised this was something which was already happening in London boroughs and shared with the panel the criteria that they were using. The panel identified some specific examples of good practice which officers should use to inform the flat selection criteria.

The regional manager for Suez emphasised the importance of good communication with residents prior to launch, including social media engagement, starting several months before implementation. Generally, the more engagement with residents the better the participation rates, although this wouldn’t overcome major waste facilities problems.

Following consideration of what could be done for the current flats in the area, the panel considered if there were any actions which could be taken to ‘future-proof’ new developments and make sure the residents would have adequate facilities. Although there were currently no HMOs with bulk bins in the borough, the panel were concerned about the consequences of not providing adequate recycling facilities. They recommended that all new HMO licences require landlords to provide adequate recycling facilitates, supported by relevant information for tenants. The council’s Local Plan also made provision for adequate waste and recycling provision in new developments.