An over-ambitious policy, a failure to realise residents' concerns, the closure of recycling sites, secret meetings and inconsistent policy are some of the factors that have been blamed for Sutton's miscalculated recycling rate, which could cost the council nearly 4 million. And the south London borough council could face the loss of its recycling charter mark and recycling awards if awarding bodies decide to act over the incorrect recycling rates.
In a major policy change, Sutton has already switched back to a weekly collection of non-recyclable household waste and the council hopes that this will reduce contamination of recyclables which resulted in the lower-than-predicted recycling rate. Contamination of recyclables is a key reason for the lower recycling rate with the fortnightly waste collection leading to some residents putting residual waste into the recyclable bin.
This week, Tom Jeffery, strategic director of Environment and Leisure, reported to the Environment & Leisure Performance Committee that initial results of the new household waste service with a weekly refuse collection and fortnightly collection of recyclables shows that the contamination of recyclables is now much lower. But Mr Jeffery said that he did not have any concrete figures as the amount of waste collected had been affected by increased tonnages over the Christmas period and said he would present the new recycling figures in March.
The council is currently carrying out an internal enquiry under the direction of its chief executive, Joanna Simons, into how its recycling rate for 2000/01 was 23.5% instead of the forecast 45.5%. The investigation is continuing and follows the revelation in September 2001 that there were significant discrepancies between the predicted and actual recycling rate.
Disciplinary
It has been revealed that Sutton has miscalculated its recycling rates for the last nine years. In light of this, and following significant embarrassment over the issue, the council has said that it will take disciplinary action against officers where evidence is found that justifies this.
The council's Strategy Committee has heard criticism from a minority part member, who said on September 17 that the council's previous good standing “has lead to this council receiving numerous awards which the awarding bodies may now wish to take back from us, due to the incorrect information that we publicised over the last five years.” But, this comment was not accepted as an amendment by the committee in its decision making process.
Mike Rose, head of communications and marketing for the charter mark unit at the Cabinet Office, told letsrecycle.com that charter marks have been taken back before, a notable example being the passport office. He said: “We would normally investigate in response to customer complaints. But if we find there's a major local issue we may consider investigating further.”
One of the awards Sutton received for recycling was the Valpak 2001 Challenge Award and spokeswoman for Valpak Emma Stewart, said that following the council's investigation into miscalculated recycling rates they were looking into the nature of the award.
Continued on page 2.
Subscribe for free