Loading
There is no summary of this meeting yet. Summaries are written once the council publishes the minutes, which are its official record of what a meeting decided. They usually appear a few weeks after the meeting.
Apologies have been received from Committee Members Cllrs Chloe Masefield, Peter James and Corinna Kenyon-Wade, from Cabinet Members Cllr Sandra Davies and Cllr Raiff Devlin and Officers Matt Perry, Jenny Ashton, Mari Thomas and Marie James.
There were no declarations of interest from Members relating to items for consideration on the agenda.
The Committee did not receive any disclosures of prohibited party whips which a Member has been given in relation to the meeting in accordance with Section 78(3) of the Local Government Measure 2011.
Rejections were noted and the committee acknowledged that they were happy with the rationale for this decision.
The work programme was noted.
Background: Cllr Jackie Charlton, Cabinet Member for a Greener Powys, introduced the Household Recycling Centre Booking System Review, undertaken in response to a Full Council motion and a previous Scrutiny request. She outlined that the booking system, introduced to support the Powys Sustainable Resource Strategy, is operating effectively, with 74% of residents supporting its retention and 93% finding it easy to use. Members were advised that the system has resulted in cleaner, calmer sites with improved safety and staff support. Cllr Charlton reported strong satisfaction with site staff (95% rating them helpful) and noted an increase in compliments. Several improvements have already been implemented following resident feedback, including extended opening hours at some sites, additional booking slots at peak times, an option to request assistance when booking, enhanced reuse facilities, and a streamlined online system. She confirmed that the system has not led to increases in fly‑tipping or bonfires and that ongoing refinements will continue in line with resident feedback and strategic objectives. Points raised by the Committee: Responses received from Officers or Cabinet Members: Survey Methodology & Data Reliability Why was the survey issued only to users of the service rather than all households. Officers explained that surveying all households would have required sending 70,000 questionnaires, which was not feasible. Every resident who made a booking received a survey link, and the Powys People’s Panel was also used to capture views from non‑users. The purpose was to review the effectiveness of the booking system, and meaningful feedback could only be gathered from those who had actually used it. The response rate of 17% was highlighted as very high for council consultations. Users were encouraged to try the system before judging it. How were residents who no longer used the service being identified and understood. Officers advised that those who had concerns or barriers should be encouraged to contact the service directly, as Facebook comments were not considered an effective reporting route. They committed to supporting residents who struggled to use the sites. The Portfolio Holder emphasised that the booking system itself had made it possible to gather new levels of data and identify issues. How were duplicate survey responses being prevented or removed. Officers explained that survey invitations were sent once per booking, and there was no evidence that duplicate submissions had been submitted. Duplicate‑style responses (identical text) were not detected. How would the negative comments identified through the survey be addressed, and would an action plan be developed. Officers stated that many of the issues had already been addressed, including: • increasing the number of booking slots • extending opening hours • adding a booking option to request staff assistance • improving contractor performance through monthly contract meetings They confirmed ongoing improvements would continue through normal contract‑management processes. Fly‑tipping, Bonfires & DIY Waste Behaviours Why were non‑users not surveyed, given concerns that some were now disposing of waste by burning it. Officers reiterated that the survey focused on actual users, and evidence did not show any increase in reported bonfires. They cautioned against relying on anecdotal social-media reports. They noted that if people needed to dispose of waste, site visit numbers were still high (162,000 visits to February). How should the changes in tonnage and fly‑tipping data be interpreted. Officers advised that tonnage reduction was expected due to reduced misuse of sites by commercial operators. Furthermore, fly‑tipping levels had not increased overall, though they naturally fluctuate month to month and that monitoring by the expanded enforcement team (now six officers) ensured accurate reporting. Could the increase in small‑scale fly‑tipping be linked to residents disposing of DIY waste themselves. Officers stated the numbers remained small and comparable with historic fluctuations. No strong evidence linked charges to fly‑tipping, though it was agreed to continue monitoring. What would be done to encourage DIY waste users to dispose of waste appropriately, and how would residents unable to pay charges be supported. Officers noted that a free first bag of certain DIY materials was available and that charges reflected actual disposal costs and were aligned with comparable authorities. Officers explained residents on low incomes could often be supported through estate skip-days arranged by Housing. Welshpool Site Satisfaction What actions had been taken to address the lower satisfaction levels at the Welshpool site. Officers explained that Welshpool had experienced specific issues linked to new metal access steps, not the booking system. It was noted that steps improved operational efficiency but required resident adjustment. It was also stated that staff now had more time to assist due to smoother site flow. Additionally, contractors were receiving additional training, and satisfaction levels were improving. Had further staff training or increased on‑site assistance been introduced to improve satisfaction. Yes. Officers confirmed that a new assistance request function was in the booking system, as well as ongoing contractor training and monthly performance meetings. DIY Waste Charging & Affordability How had the DIY waste charging levels been determined, and why did Powys appear to be at the higher end compared with other authorities. Officers explained that charges reflected actual treatment and disposal costs (e.g., plasterboard disposal is costly) and that prices were benchmarked with counties such as Conwy. Would a more detailed assessment of the impact of DIY waste charges on economically disadvantaged residents be carried out. Officers acknowledged scrutiny’s interest but advised that detailed socio‑economic impact assessment fell outside the immediate remit of the HRC review. Current charges were considered proportionate and lawful. Could the size of the free DIY waste bag be increased, for example to the volume of a small car boot. Officers confirmed they were happy to consider this. Could clearer, more consistent guidance be provided on what constituted DIY waste. Officers noted that the website already provided clear details, but they would amend and improve it where residents or scrutiny identified confusion. Booking System Usage & Behaviour Had any investigation been undertaken to understand why some individuals visited HRCs very frequently. Officers explained that some residents genuinely enjoy visiting and come often. It was also noted that frequent garden waste disposal was common in summer and that dome residents choose not to use kerbside recycling. The Council can ration visit numbers if necessary but had not yet done so. Reuse Shops & Circular Economy Could reuse shops be established at all sites where they were not currently available. Yes; officers confirmed that reuse is a major contract requirement. New shops were planned for Brecon, Lower Cwmtwrch, and Ystradgynlais and that Newtown’s partnership model (Circular Economy Mid Wales) was working well and could be replicated. It was noted that Llandrindod’s site was space‑limited, so an off‑site model was being considered. Did establishing reuse shops require partnership with third‑sector or social‑enterprise organisations. It was explained that this was not always the case but would be considered as needed. Could white goods placed in reuse areas be repaired and resold. Officers explained that some small appliances can be reused after PAT testing but noted fridges are more difficult due to gas handling regulations. All such waste is properly recycled under the WEEE system. Access & Inclusion How were residents without cars or those living in flats being supported in accessing recycling services. Officers noted that estate “skip days” run by Housing helped those unable to reach HRCs and that awareness officers can provide face‑to‑face support. What additional actions could be taken to reduce residual waste among residents unable to use HRCs. Officers noted that further work would be considered, particularly through targeted awareness and support programmes. Impact Assessments & Environmental Considerations Would the service consider revising its impact‑assessment conclusions in light of new findings relating to burning, trip frequency, and environmental effects. Officers felt that the current conclusions largely still applied; Residual waste had not increased and reported bonfires had not increased. It was noted that trip patterns were difficult to compare because no baseline data existed pre‑booking system. Officers acknowledged scrutiny’s interest but indicated the wider impact‑assessment process was outside the specific scope of the HRC review. Could future impact assessments consider wider environmental impacts beyond service sustainability. Officers acknowledged the point but advised it would need to be considered as part of wider corporate impact‑assessment processes. Other Operational Questions What happened to the contents of community skip‑day skips, and were these materials appropriately recycled. Officers explained that skip‑day waste is managed by commercial skip companies, who sort materials because they must pay disposal costs. It was noted that recyclable elements (e.g., metals) are routinely recovered. Additionally, small WEEE amnesty work has been trialled and may expand. Could on‑site satisfaction tools (such as quick “smiley button” feedback devices) be introduced at HRC exits. Officers explained that residents can already rate the system via the booking platform but that contractors (especially Bryson’s) are implementing continuous rolling surveys at sites. Who received the income from DIY waste charges — the Council or the contractor. Officers confirmed that income goes to the contractor, as built into the contract pricing model, however, profit-share arrangements ensure the Council receives 50% of any excess profit.
Scrutiny made the following observations: The Committee endorsed: • The continued use of the HRC booking system, acknowledging the high levels of satisfaction reported, including cleaner sites, calmer visits, and improved staff support. • Ongoing improvements already implemented by the service, such as extended opening hours, increased booking slots at busy times, and the option for residents to request assistance when booking. • The development and expansion of reuse facilities and the circular economy approach, recognising its value to residents and carbon reduction objectives. The Committee welcomed: • The comprehensive review of the Household Recycling Centre (HRC) booking system and accompanying data set. • The progress toward expanding reuse facilities at additional sites such as Brecon, and potentially Welshpool. • The intention of contractors (e.g., Bryson) to continue running ongoing customer satisfaction surveys. • Continued collaboration with Circular Economy Mid Wales and other third‑sector partners. The Committee requested: • Further engagement specifically with residents who do not use HRCs, to understand barriers and reasons for non‑use. • A more detailed assessment of the impact of DIY waste charges on economically disadvantaged groups. • A review of the DIY waste free‑bag size, including exploration of whether a larger allowance (e.g., a small car‑boot load) could be considered. • Clearer and more consistent public guidance on what constitutes DIY waste and what is permitted. • Information from the service on how residents without vehicle access, those living in flats, or others facing practical barriers, can be supported to dispose of waste correctly. • Ongoing monitoring of satisfaction levels and operational concerns at Welshpool and other lower‑performing sites. • Regular data reporting to ERC on booking patterns, usage trends, and any behavioural impacts. • Exploration of how the council can support and encourage the development of repair cafés and “libraries of things,” especially in areas without an HRC. The Committee remained unconvinced that: • The current survey fully reflects the views of all Powys residents, as it only reached users of the booking system and the People’s Panel. • The existing Integrated Impact Assessment (IIA) adequately addresses: • Socioeconomic impacts of DIY charges. • Wider environmental and climate‑related implications (e.g., increased small‑load car trips, waste going to incineration, or anecdotal reports of burning waste). • The lower performance and dissatisfaction at Welshpool can be attributed solely to the new steps and contractor transition, given the survey responses. The Committee expressed concern of: • Residents potentially resorting to bonfires, storing waste at home, or placing waste in residual bins due to DIY charges. • The possibility that DIY waste charges could disproportionately affect lower‑income households. • Inconsistencies in how DIY waste is interpreted at HRCs. • The lack of clarity as to whether increased small‑scale fly‑tipping might be linked (directly or indirectly) to the changes. • Accessibility challenges for residents without cars or those living at a distance from an HRC. • Lower satisfaction levels and negative feedback specifically associated with the Welshpool site. Scrutiny’s Recommendation Accept (plus Action and timescale) Partially Accept (plus Rationale and Action and timescale) Reject (plus Rationale) That undertaking further engagement be considered, specifically with residents who do not use HRCs, to understand barriers and reasons for non‑use. Continue to monitor satisfaction levels and operational concerns at Welshpool and other lower‑performing sites, working with contractors to address recurring issues. That a more detailed assessment of the impact of DIY waste charges on economically disadvantaged groups is undertaken (building on the commitment already noted to review charges annually). That the service reviews the current DIY waste bag size, whether it can be increased and then associated guidance for residents, with a view to improving clarity and consistency regarding permissible quantities of DIY waste. That the service sets out how it will support residents who are unable to access Household Recycling Centres and identifies additional actions to encourage correct disposal and reduce residual waste beyond the booking system, particularly for those facing practical barriers (e.g., no vehicle access, living in flats). That the service, working with partners, brings forward options to encourage and support the establishment and growth of community “repair cafés” and “libraries of things,” including: • identifying low‑cost ways the Council can assist (e.g., signposting, venue access, small grants-in-kind, reuse stock from HRC sites); • aligning with Welsh Government circular‑economy aims; and • prioritising areas without a nearby HRC to improve local access to reuse and repair services. That the service considers developing and publishing clear communications to residents outlining how their feedback from HRC surveys has been reviewed and acted upon, to demonstrate transparency and strengthen public engagement. That the service provides ERC with regular updates—such as annual or quarterly summaries—on HRC booking data and site performance, enabling the committee to monitor trends, usage patterns, and track impact of recommendations made That the service explores introducing simple on‑site customer satisfaction tools at HRCs—such as quick “happy/neutral/unhappy” electronic feedback points—to capture real‑time user experience and support ongoing service improvement.
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.
Lists the council's current councillors only. Co-opted members, officers and former councillors aren't shown.