Loading
The decisions as the council's minutes record them. A plain-language summary follows once it has been written.
RESOLVED: that the minutes of the meeting held on the 2 July 2026 be received and approved as a true and correct record of the proceedings. The minutes of the Communities Scrutiny Committee meeting held on the 29 July 2026 were presented for consideration. Matters arising – The Scrutiny Coordinator advised that the recommendation made at the special Communities Scrutiny Committee - regarding the call-in of the Lead Officer decision elating to an application for planning permission for a permanent Gypsy and Traveller site – stood: it would be considered by the new Cabinet once it had been formed. RESOLVED: that the minutes of the special meeting of Communities Scrutiny Committee held on the 29 July 2026 be received and approved as a true and correct record of the proceedings.
RESOLVED that: the Communities Scrutiny Committee noted The Waste and Recycling Service Performance Review and requested that: • a report comparing the Well Being Impact Assessments pre and post implementation of the new Waste & Recycling Service and • the updated Waste Strategy, to include verification of the Welsh Government recycling data be added to the Committee’s forward work programme.
Resolved that taking into consideration the observations made by the Committee that: I. further opportunities be explored, including ‘swap out’ locations and II. Clearer financial information be provided when presenting potential charging proposals to Cabinet.
Resolved: that subject to the above, the Communities Scrutiny Committee Forward Work Programme be agreed and noted.
Apologies were received from Councillor James Elson.
None.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED: that the minutes of the meeting held on the 2 July 2026 be received and approved as a true and correct record of the proceedings. The minutes of the Communities Scrutiny Committee meeting held on the 29 July 2026 were presented for consideration. Matters arising – The Scrutiny Coordinator advised that the recommendation made at the special Communities Scrutiny Committee - regarding the call-in of the Lead Officer decision elating to an application for planning permission for a permanent Gypsy and Traveller site – stood: it would be considered by the new Cabinet once it had been formed. RESOLVED: that the minutes of the special meeting of Communities Scrutiny Committee held on the 29 July 2026 be received and approved as a true and correct record of the proceedings.
The minutes of the Communities Scrutiny Committee meeting held on the 2 July 2026 were presented for consideration. Matter arising – The Scrutiny Coordinator confirmed that the proposal to scrutinise Cyber Security had been included as a future item on the Performance Scrutiny Committee’s Forward Work Programme and had been scheduled for a workshop. RESOLVED: that the minutes of the meeting held on the 2 July 2026 be received and approved as a true and correct record of the proceedings. The minutes of the Communities Scrutiny Committee meeting held on the 29 July 2026 were presented for consideration. Matters arising – The Scrutiny Coordinator advised that the recommendation made at the special Communities Scrutiny Committee - regarding the call-in of the Lead Officer decision elating to an application for planning permission for a permanent Gypsy and Traveller site – stood: it would be considered by the new Cabinet once it had been formed. RESOLVED: that the minutes of the special meeting of Communities Scrutiny Committee held on the 29 July 2026 be received and approved as a true and correct record of the proceedings.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED that: the Communities Scrutiny Committee noted The Waste and Recycling Service Performance Review and requested that: • a report comparing the Well Being Impact Assessments pre and post implementation of the new Waste & Recycling Service and • the updated Waste Strategy, to include verification of the Welsh Government recycling data be added to the Committee’s forward work programme.
The Head of Highways & Environmental Services introduced the report on the Waste and Recycling performance review for the year 2025/2026 to members. The background to the need for the change of service was explained. Prior to the roll-out of the new model, the Waste and Recycling Service operated two waste processing facilities in Bodelwyddan and Ruthin, both of which were in poor condition and would have required investment to enable their continued use. Co-mingled recycling needed to be separated at a cost to the Council, which was increasing year on year. Co-mingled recycling resulted in higher levels of contamination because it involved putting many different materials into one bin, which made it difficult to identify contamination. Contamination within individual bins could result in the entire load of a refuse vehicle being contaminated, which reduced the Council’s recycling performance, and had a financial cost if an entire batch of material was rejected by the materials recovery facility to which recyclable materials were sent for separation. Evidence from previous waste composition exercises showed that more than half of what was in residual waste bins could have been recycled. Welsh Government set statutory recycling targets for councils and could issue fines to those not reaching these targets, although it had not done so to date. The new service was merged into a new purpose-built Waste Transfer Station (WTS) in Denbigh. That involved investing in new recycling vehicles and ICT systems, and new trollibox containers which were distributed county-wide. Welsh Government provided significant financial support to support the transition to the new model, 2023/24 was the final full year of the former co-mingled system. The roll-out was challenging and required additional staff, overtime, vehicles and collection rounds to address missed collections, resulting in additional costs. A phased reduction in resources and route revisions was implemented from October 2024, after which the service stabilised and several daily routes were reduced. 2025/26 was the first full year of the new system operating on a business-as-usual basis. Following completion of the year-end accounting, it was appropriate to review and report on the Waste and Recycling Service’s budgets, costs, income and overall performance. Prior to the service change it was predicted that an annual income of approximately £1.2m would be generated from the sale of recyclable materials. In 2025/26, the actual generation was £890,047, below the forecast but considered a healthy return given reductions in paper use, particularly newspapers and magazines (PAMS), and fluctuations in global commodity markets. This represented a significant improvement from the former system, where £1.3m was spent in 2023/24 on sorting and disposing of co-mingled recycling. The new service therefore changed this from a £1.3m cost to approximately £890k of income. Table 1 provided a breakdown of income by material for 2025/26. A fuller commentary on the complex financial matters was provided in Appendix A. Recycling rates generally increased, while residual waste sent to Parc Adfer decreased, with the service initially on track to meet the Welsh Government’s 70% target in 2025/26. However, a late change to the Welsh Government and Natural Resources Wales data rules for calculating wood tonnages reduced the reported recycling rate by 0.8%, from 70% to 69.2%. The figures remained unverified and were subject to change, with the adjustment affecting all Welsh authorities and being outside the Council’s control. Table 2 and Figures 1 and 2 presented the recycling and residual waste data. A waste composition analysis was undertaken in 2025 in collaboration with WRAP Cymru, following a similar study in 2022. The analysis showed reduced residual waste tonnages and significantly lower recycling contamination, although dry recycling yields had declined, mainly due to reduced paper use. Overall, the findings demonstrated the positive impact of the new model, with further detail provided in Appendix B. Although the initial roll-out of the new system presented some challenges, missed collection rates remained consistently low across all waste streams following the introduction of new rounds in November 2024. The average missed collection rate was 0.2%, broadly in line with the UK national average but slightly above the Welsh average of 0.09% (APSE). Monthly data was presented in Table 3. The Waste Service undertook approximately 76,000 collections per week across all waste streams, serving over 46,000 properties, equating to around 3.8 million collections annually. The service was reviewing concerns about blue hessian sacks and food caddies, including potential affordable and sustainable alternatives and associated charging arrangements. In 2025/26, 406 corporate complaints were received, mainly relating to missed collections, bin-delivery delays, poor communication, recycling-container quality, replacement charges and crew behaviour. Since the beginning of 2025, Denbighshire County Council had adopted Welsh Government funded system Fly Mapper. The system had enabled the Council to record more accurate and comprehensive data, an essential first step in resolving the issue of fly-tipping. Accurate recording had helped the Council to understand the true scale of the problem and to develop effective, targeted responses. Recorded fly-tipping incidents increased over the previous 12 months due to improved data collection and reporting. Table 3 presented the available verified data, reflecting greater accuracy and consistency. Data for 2025/26 was not yet available. Before the new reporting system was introduced, fly-tipping across the County had been significantly under-reported. Improved data collection enabled hotspot areas to be identified and resources to be targeted more effectively. That clearer understanding of the issue also supported investment in the Environmental Crime & Behavioural Change Team, which addressed fly-tipping through engagement, education and enforcement. Appendix C provided examples of the team’s recent work, including penalty notices, education initiatives and clearance activities. Streetscene had required dedicated fly-tipping resources since before Covid-19. In August 2024, four agency operatives were recruited to support side waste and fly-tipping clearance, with costs initially met by the Waste Service before grant funding was secured in August 2025. The posts were retained on a fixed-term basis without direct cost to Streetscene. Fly-tipping had been a significant issue nationally and locally before the waste service changes and could not be attributed to the new collection model. The expanded Education and Enforcement Team supported efforts through data analysis, targeted interventions and Fixed Penalty Notices, while promoting behavioural change and increased recycling participation to reduce side waste. The development of the Colomendy Waste Transfer Station site futureproofed the Council’s waste and recycling operations, created employment opportunities and supported the growth of other businesses on the estate. Changes to the waste fleet also provided an opportunity to modernise operations and introduce Ultra-Low Emission Vehicle (ULEV) vehicles, reducing the carbon footprint of waste activities. In summary, the former model was unsustainable, with increasing operating costs and significant investment required to maintain the existing sites, which would not have met future needs. Without change, the Council also risked fines for failing to meet statutory recycling targets. Although the new model cost more than initially forecast, the revenue budget was increased and closely monitored. The service remained within budget in 2025/26, supported by additional PePR funding, which also contributed to funding the Environmental Crime Team. The service was therefore well positioned to respond to future changes, including soft plastics recycling and the Deposit Return Scheme. In response to the questions raised by members, the Head of Highways & Environmental Services explained: • The PePR funding had been provided year on year, with no indication that it would cease, however, confirmation that the funding would be provided had only been given on an annual basis. • The data had been captured through the relevant systems, with reports received and logged on the FlyMapper system or submitted through a residential or street scene report. This had accounted for the 2% increase. It was confirmed that the percentages presented in Table 3 under Section 4.5 of the report were accurate. The data showed that 707 represented 63% of the total 1,121 incidents; therefore, in 2023/24, 63% of all recorded fly-tipping incidents had been related to household waste. Similarly, 2,467 represented 65% of the total 3,699 incidents. This demonstrated that the proportion of fly-tipping incidents related to household waste had remained broadly similar across both years. · Regarding the 30% of recycling being sent abroad, it was confirmed that recyclable materials had been sent to locations where there was sufficient processing capacity. For example, glass had been sent to Turkey for processing, as it had the necessary processing facilities and capacity to handle the material and return it to the market. The destination of recyclable materials had depended on market requirements, processing capacity and demand. · The Waste Service had been in a strong position, had performed in line with expectations and had been in a position to continue improving and adapting the service to meet future needs. · In terms of the budget, the Service had ultimately generated income rather than incurring increasing costs over time. It was noted that a summary of the budget report would be helpful, as the findings within the report had been difficult to identify. The business case had stated that the Service was expected to result in lower costs; however, achieving savings was not the driving force for the proposal. The proposal had primarily focused on increasing recycling rates and delivering environmental improvements, with the projected reduction in costs being an associated anticipated benefit rather than the main rationale for the proposal, which had been demonstrated in Appendix A of the report. It was difficult to accurately estimate what the old service would be costing today compared to if the service hadn’t changed. · The information regarding the cost of fly-tipping for the year had not been available at the meeting; however, the Head of Service had agreed to provide the exact figures separately. It was stated that fly-tipping was a significant and growing issue across all local authorities. · It was confirmed that the Education and Environment Team and the Environment Crime and Behaviour Change Team referred to the same team within the report. · The Service had an additional £1.1 million allocated to its revenue budget, which indicated that the cost of delivering the service had been higher than initially anticipated. This demonstrated strong corporate support for the Service and helped it overcome some of the challenges it had faced. · Regarding the reduction in waste and the potential impact that could have had on future income, it was noted that this was linked to the issue surrounding the Producer Responsibility (PePR) payment, which was not guaranteed. The scheme had been introduced to encourage producers to reduce the amount of waste they generated, as they were required to contribute towards the costs incurred by councils for the collection and disposal of waste. This created an incentive for producers to reduce the amount of packaging they used. The Service had been able to identify, through the volume of recycling collected, that the composition and quantity of certain materials had been decreasing. Over time, this would have had an impact on the volume of recycling collected by the Service and, consequently, the income received. However, a reduction in the amount of waste generated would also have meant that there was less waste to collect, allowing the Service to review and potentially right-size its operations accordingly. The Service would have needed to closely monitor changes in behaviour and packaging production, as the situation would have continued to evolve. The Service had a strong Waste Team and was well placed to respond to these changes. · In terms of the Service’s principles, impact and reputation, the benefits of the new system had been affected by difficulties in the first few months, although the Service had been in a positive position to recover. Its collection and reporting procedures had aligned with other authorities and UK standards. Where residents reported missed collections within the required timescale, genuine cases would have been revisited. There had been some disconnect around the sensitivity of missed collections due to issues experienced in previous years. · The Service had been developing a more sustainable Waste and Recycling Strategy with local partners, covering the next five years. It had also been proactive in preparing for soft plastics, which the Welsh Government required local authorities to implement by April 2027. The strategy was intended to go to Scrutiny in December and then to Cabinet in January. · There had been concern about the potential impact of the Deposit Return Scheme (DRS) on kerbside collections, as residents had the option to return recyclable materials to shops in exchange for a refund. · The Head of Finance explained that capital investment in buildings or fleet had involved higher upfront costs than non-environmentally enhanced options. The Climate Team had therefore contributed funding to support these investments, recognising both the environmental benefits and longer-term budget savings. · Newspaper and magazine purchases had declined, and recycling rates for these materials had been significantly lower than previously assessed. The original assumptions had been based on data from around six years earlier, during which purchasing habits had changed considerably. · Operatives had information filtered down to them regarding product changes and the appropriate arrangements for recycling products. However, there could be delays in communicating this information to operatives. The Service therefore continued to provide ongoing training and retraining to ensure that operatives remained informed of any changes. · With regard to complaint numbers, the Service advised that the data had been based on complaints registered on the system. It was noted that social media had presented an issue in relation to complaints. The Head of Highways and Environmental Services confirmed that he was happy to receive direct feedback from Councillors regarding residents’ experiences and the realities of complaints within their respective wards. · It was noted that incidents of fly-tipping were increasing and that these were being recorded effectively. The impact of fly-tipping on the street scene team was highlighted, and the hard work undertaken by the team was acknowledged. Data indicated that fly-tipping was also significantly increasing across other local authorities and nations. The Service continued to take action to address the issue within the resources available and to minimise its impact by issuing fixed penalty notices, undertaking reactive investigations in response to fly-tipping incidents and sharing news stories. · In relation to public bins, the service was aware of issues with residual household waste being deposited in them. The Street Scene Team had been working in collaboration with Keep Wales Tidy; however, it was acknowledged that Keep Wales Tidy also had limited resources. Volunteer groups had also been undertaking litter-picking activities, with collected litter being placed alongside Street Scene bins for collection and disposal. It was clarified that the tonnage associated with this waste was not attributed directly to the household residual waste collection data and was recorded separately. · In terms of paper waste, including newspapers, magazines and leaflets, it was noted that fewer letters were being sent to residents, as communications were increasingly being undertaken by email. It was also noted that leaflet distribution had reduced compared with previous years, as digital advertising increased. Information was available which demonstrated the general trend in paper waste production across counties, which had shown a significant reduction. · In response to concerns regarding litter escaping from bin wagons when the side panels were not closed, the relevant procedures were explained. It was noted that the side panels were permitted to remain open when travelling short distances and below a specified speed limit. However, it was acknowledged that some operatives did not follow this procedure. The Head of Highways and Environmental Services had regularly raised the matter with operatives and had continued to reinforce the requirement. It was noted that there were limited options available through the existing management process. A potential change to the policy, requiring side panels to always remain closed, was discussed, and the Head of Service agreed to have further discussions with the Waste Team. · It was noted that complaints regarding the waste service and missed collections had always been received. However, prior to the introduction of the new system, these concerns had not been raised with councillors as frequently or shared as widely on social media. In response, the service had continued to adapt and make adjustments, with staff being deployed to assess and address issues as they arose. It was agreed that the relevant data to back this up would be sought, as the Chair wished to see a comparison. RESOLVED that: the Communities Scrutiny Committee noted The Waste and Recycling Service Performance Review and requested that: • a report comparing the Well Being Impact Assessments pre and post implementation of the new Waste & Recycling Service and • the updated Waste Strategy, to include verification of the Welsh Government recycling data be added to the Committee’s forward work programme.
Decision as recorded
Resolved that taking into consideration the observations made by the Committee that: I. further opportunities be explored, including ‘swap out’ locations and II. Clearer financial information be provided when presenting potential charging proposals to Cabinet.
The Head of Highways and Environmental Services introduced the report on the Waste and Recycling Container Charge Review. The Chair advised the Committee that the report had been brought to the Committee following a motion to Council on 12 May 2026; which requested that the service review the current arrangements for the provision of waste and recycling containers and charges, and respond to the specific issues and concerns that had been raised. The principle of charging for waste containers had been in place since 2019, with the current policy agreed in September 2023, ahead of the new waste model’s introduction in June 2024. Following a review in 2025, the policy was amended in January 2026 to allow residents receiving the School Essentials Grant or Pension Credit one free recycling container replacement per year. A further review was subsequently requested through a Council Motion in May 2026. In 2025/26, the waste service received 6,562 requests for recycling containers and recovered £53,008 in charges, against costs of £66,100. The shortfall was attributed to issues with the back-office system, including duplicate deliveries, and free replacements issued for damage caused by DCC employees. Requests included full or partial Trollibocs kits, replacement hessian sacks and food caddies. Delivery overheads, including staffing, fuel and vehicle costs, were difficult to attribute due to the demand-led nature of the service. It was noted that the service was not operating at full cost recovery, resulting in an estimated service financial pressure of £13,000 for 2025/26. Denbighshire’s demand for recycling containers in 2025 was significantly lower than that of neighbouring authorities that did not charge for similar or identical multi-container kerbside collection services. Comparative cost and demand data from other authorities was provided in Table 1 of the report. It was considered reasonable to assume that DCC’s current replacement demand was less due to the charging policy. It was anticipated that reducing or removing the charges would increase demand, potentially to between 35% and 50% of households, with an initial increase of up to 75% before demand stabilised. Advice from WRAP and other local authorities indicated that demand was likely to increase sharply following the removal or reduction of charges before settling at a higher level. Unverified recycling data indicated that DCC was on track to meet the statutory 70% recycling target in the near term, with recycling rates having improved year on year since the introduction of the new system. It was noted that there was no evidence to indicate that charges for recycling containers had affected recycling rates, either positively or negatively. Members had raised concerns about the volume of contact received from residents regarding charges for replacement containers. It was noted that the Waste Service undertook approximately 76,000 collections per week across all waste streams, serving over 46,000 properties, equating to around 3.8 million collection actions annually. In 2025/26, the Council received 406 corporate complaints relating to the waste service. The main themes were missed collections, delays in bin deliveries, communication, crew behaviour and bin handling. While the service acknowledged the volume of comments on social media regarding container charges, it was noted that this was not reflected in the available data. The service recognised the concerns raised and continued to explore affordable alternative arrangements. The Head of Highways and Environmental Services outlined Options A to E detailed in the report. It was noted that Options D and E would result in increased costs due to higher demand. Although demand could not be accurately forecast at this stage, estimates based on current operating costs and feedback from other authorities were provided in Tables 2 and 3 of the report. The service was not committed to any particular approach but emphasised that any agreed option would need to be affordable and supported by available funding within the budget. In response to the questions raised by Members, the Head of Highways & Environmental Services explained: • The intention of option B was to retain charges but if a resident wanted to swap a blue bag or food caddie, due to it becoming defective, it could be exchanged on a one for one basis through the Household Waste Recycling Centre (HWRC) this would also help to manage demand. The Service was willing to deliver items directly to residents’ doors; however, that would incur an additional charge. • In relation to the quality of the items, the service continued to explore alternative products available on the market that may be more suitable. The current items had been purchased through the Eastern Shires Purchasing Organisation (ESPO) framework. • The Service acknowledged the need to improve provision in the south of Denbighshire and was exploring an arrangement with Plas Madoc. Options involving One Stop Shops and libraries were also being considered. • It was explained that the Service was seeking a workable solution and remained open to any recommendations from Members that could enable the Service to be funded differently and deliver services in an alternative way. • With regard to the specification of the blue bag, it was confirmed that it met industry standards and had been issued to other authorities across the UK. Denbighshire used the highest legal grade of hessian, whereas some other local authorities had reduced the quality of their bags as they were provided free of charge. The bags had also been procured in collaboration with the design of the collection vehicle. It was stated that the bags were durable; however, their durability could depend on how they had been stored, and it was highlighted that not every resident had the ability to store them appropriately. • Members asked whether there was space on the vehicle to carry a small stock of spare bags/caddies, which could then be replaced where required. The Head of Service confirmed that this was not an option, as there was no available space on the vehicle, with every compartment being allocated to a specific waste type. • It was confirmed that Denbighshire was the only authority in North Wales that charged for containers. All authorities had advised the service not to remove the charging policy, as they had already had to use their small education and enforcement teams to deliver bins, requiring resources to be reallocated and creating significant capacity pressures. The impact of removing the charge on the service was therefore considered to be substantial. It was noted that the cost was not the actual bags themselves but the delivery process and the associated staff required to meet the demand level. • It was noted that introducing trolley-box style containers for cardboard, instead of the existing bags, would significantly reduce capacity, as the flexibility of the blue bag allowed residents to fit more cardboard into it. It was explained that, if the Service were to move to wheelie bins, for example, the entire collection process and service would need to be fundamentally changed, including the use of different vehicles. The existing trolley-box arrangement allowed for flexible weekly collections and enabled all waste types to be collected for recycling on the same vehicle. • The delay in delivering bins to residents was highlighted. It was explained that there were only two delivery drivers, one covering the north and one covering the south, and that they only carried out deliveries when required. If a driver was absent, the delivery round was cancelled, as priority was given to waste collection over the delivery of recycling containers. • Bryson’s Recycling had indicated that they were happy to manage the service on behalf of Denbighshire’s Waste and Recycling team, and there was confidence that they would have appropriate stock control processes in place. It was confirmed that purchasing the containers and arranging for their delivery to site had not been an issue, and that the service could work around the relevant lead times. • With regard to residents with mobility issues who were unable to access the free provision, the service confirmed that a friend, relative, neighbour, or another person could collect and exchange the like-for-like replacement on their behalf. They would simply need to take the item to the HWRC to make the exchange. • In relation to proving that operatives had damaged waste containers, residents were asked not to film operatives using mobile phones. However, where CCTV or Ring doorbell footage could be provided, the damage would be accepted without question, and the container would be replaced promptly. Similarly, if an operative acknowledged that they had caused the damage, this would be logged and the container would also be replaced. It was noted that operatives were encouraged by the service to report any damage they had caused. The Chair stated that further investigation was required from the service, as there were concerns regarding each of the options presented within the report. In relation to recommendation 3.2, the Chair asked Committee members whether they supported the recommendation or wished to propose an alternative. The Committee did not feel that they had sufficient evidence of financial information to make an informed recommendation on the options provided within the report. The Committee agreed that the recommendation should be amended to reflect that further work was required, including working with other DCC services to explore potential ‘swap out’ sites and exploring additional options and possibilities. Resolved that taking into consideration the observations made by the Committee that: I. further opportunities be explored, including ‘swap out’ locations and II. Clearer financial information be provided when presenting potential charging proposals to Cabinet.
Decision as recorded
Resolved: that subject to the above, the Communities Scrutiny Committee Forward Work Programme be agreed and noted.
The Scrutiny Coordinator guided members through the Communities Scrutiny Committee Forward Work Programme (previously circulated). Members were advised that, since the previous Scrutiny Chairs and Vice-Chairs meeting, there had been a couple of additions to the forward work programme. It was noted that an item on the preparation of a new Statutory Local Development Plan (LDP) for Denbighshire had been added to the agenda for the meeting on 15 October 2026, subject to an all-Member workshop taking place before the item was brought to scrutiny. The Road Maintenance Programme was already included on the October forward work programme; however, following a Notice of Motion to Council, the scope had been expanded to include a review of performance management and the budget allocation arrangements for the county road maintenance programme. The Scrutiny Coordinator reminded members that the Scrutiny Proposal forms were attached and that the next Scrutiny Chairs and Vice-Chairs group is on the 29 September 2026. Resolved: that subject to the above, the Communities Scrutiny Committee Forward Work Programme be agreed and noted.
None. The meeting concluded at 1.00pm.
Councillors must say when they have a personal link to something being discussed, such as a job, a property or a family member. A prejudicial interest is one strong enough that the councillor usually leaves the room and takes no part.
Declarations are read from the minutes once they are published.
The council hasn't recorded attendance for this meeting.
Lists the council's current councillors only. Co-opted members, officers and former councillors aren't shown.