The Environment, Climate and Transport Scrutiny Committee was scheduled to discuss the Active Travel Programme, presentations from dockless bike companies, and household recycling rates, as well as review the committee's work plan for the coming year. Representatives from Islington Fixers, Archway Upcycle, and ReLondon were expected to provide witness evidence regarding reuse and repair. The meeting was scheduled to take place at the Town Hall on Upper Street.

Active Travel Programme

The committee was scheduled to note a report on the Active Travel Programme that was due to be presented to the Executive on 27 November 2025. The report summarised progress made on recommendations from the Environment and Regeneration Scrutiny Committee meeting on 25 January 2024.

The Active Travel Programme was scrutinised between November 2023 and January 2024, with evidence taken on topics such as walking and the elderly, cargo bikes, health and wellbeing, barriers to active travel, access to cycling for people with disabilities, and women and active travel.

The themes considered in the review were:

• Maintenance and keeping streets safe
• Equal/equitable access to active travel and physical activity
• Working with external partners
• Relationships between cyclists and pedestrians

The report detailed responses to the recommendations made.

One recommendation was that the council should review its footway renewal programme, giving priority to pavements in the worst condition. The council stated that it was bringing together its approach to uneven pavements through a strategy combining reactive and proactive maintenance, improvements as part of the Liveable Neighbourhoods programme¹ and other transport projects, consideration of accessibility in design work, and targeted interventions. An additional engineer had been recruited to focus on improving pavement conditions.

The council reported that the whole public highway is inspected at least once a year, with high priority locations inspected monthly. Hazards and defects are repaired or mitigated within three days. Overhanging foliage is monitored and property owners are given 21 days to address any obstructions.

A borough-wide survey of the public highway was commissioned in 2023/24, covering 235km of unclassified roads and nearly 500km of pavements. These surveys are planned to be repeated every two years. Accessibility audits have also been commissioned across many areas of the borough, and are being used to identify where new measures, such as dropped kerbs, are needed. These audits currently cover 44% of the borough. Data from the accessibility audits is being used to deliver a dedicated People-Friendly Pavements programme, which aims to remove barriers for disabled people. Thirteen priority routes have already been identified.

In 2024/25, the council delivered pavement renewals at five locations identified as being in the worst condition, alongside a redundant tree pit reinstatement programme. For 2025/26, improvements were planned at eight pavements in the worst condition.

The council published its Local Highways Maintenance Transparency Report London Borough of Islington - 30 June 2025, which provides more detail of its work in this area.

To assist with prioritising repairs, the council was scheduled to consider how local residents can report issues with the footway and cycling infrastructure. The MyIslington platform has been reviewed and the reporting mechanisms have been streamlined. Islington has also adopted the Love Clean Streets app, which allows residents to upload issues as and when they are observed, including photos and GPS data. Between March and August 2025, the council received 2,609 reports via this app relating to Highways maintenance.

To encourage cycling and other forms of active travel, all transport projects assess the potential to declutter pavements and cycleways by removing unnecessary signs, and remove any barriers to access for cargo bikes, wheelchairs and adaptive bikes. All new scheme designs go through a rigorous process of accessibility checks.

To further declutter pavements, specifically of hire bikes, the designated parking bay scheme for hire bikes should be accelerated towards borough-wide coverage. As of September 2025, 147 bays had been delivered. A further 57 bays are planned to be installed by October, and a further phase of bay installations is planned for early 2026. Each bay is marked with Cycle Hire Only , has white lines and bollards at each corner, and has a 100m geofenced Exclusion Zone around it. The council intends to roll out a system of mandatory parking in bays, with fines for users who park outside of bays.

The council has been working with hire bike operators to manage immediate concerns and issues at specific locations, including special parking arrangements for Arsenal match days, rider behaviour campaigns, and go-slow zones in some sensitive areas. The council has also started a series of hire bike removals, using the powers of the Highways Act 1980, Section 149, in respect of obstructions.

The council, in collaboration with other London Boroughs, has lobbied central government for legislative powers to regulate hire bikes. There is now legislation being put forward in the shape of the Government's proposed English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill which would give local leaders direct influence over on-street micromobility schemes, such as dockless bikes, through a new requirement for operators to obtain a licence from licencing authorities .

To enable wider participation, the council's active travel webpages have been reviewed to provide better links to cycling and walking groups. A Community and Inclusion page has been created to offer links to both third party-groups and the council's widening participation programme.

The council has strengthened internal collaboration between Directorates to support women of all ages and backgrounds to take up cycling. The Active Travel Team has strengthened its links with Children's Services and has established an ongoing dialogue with the Learning and Achievement Team in Children's Services. Through the Active Together Partnership, the Active Travel Team has connected with Bright Start, expanding the delivery of Balance Bike Courses to Children's Centres. In August 2025, the Active Travel Team partnered with social workers to assign places on 'Be a More Confident Cyclist' courses to 13 to 17-year-olds who face increased barriers to accessing cycle training. The Active Travel Team has also worked with the Community Spaces Team to broaden the scope of our participants across the Octopus Network, a group of independently run community hubs in the borough with a wide network of partners and charities.

Work is planned to strengthen the partnership with Adult Social Care, to find more opportunities, participants and sustainability for schemes that are currently running. These schemes include:

• Cycling for the elderly (Silver Cyclists) cycling sessions in Highbury Fields with access to adaptive cycles.
• A cycle passenger service for people with mobility restrictions (Cycle Connect) bookable journeys on a four-person e-bike.
• An affordable cycle purchase scheme (Try Before You Bike) this includes discount vouchers for cargo bikes and e-bikes.
• A social prescribing project a free 3-month bike loan, with cycle training, accessed by GP referral.
• All ability cycling (Pedal Power) expanding the programme for SEND schools.
• A women's cycling programme (Joyriders) led rides and Learn To Ride sessions.

The council continues to deliver its ambitious Liveable Neighbourhoods programme across the borough, with the Mildmay and Cally Liveable Neighbourhoods currently being delivered. The council is also focusing on the delivery of safer walking and cycling connections/crossings between Liveable Neighbourhoods. The council continues to introduce new cycle lanes. The Annette Road Liveable Neighbourhood includes several elements aimed at tackling the conditions that often allow ASB to take root.

As of August 2025, the council had delivered 562 on-street bike hangars with capacity for 3,372 bikes, and there are 377 secure Cycle Storage facilities on estates, offering a total of 3,509 cycle storage spaces. The council has a target to deliver 100 new on-street bike hangars each year. Towards the creation of a cycling hub, the council has piloted some professional cycle mechanics courses at Holloway Park. Additionally, a storage facility on the Andover Estate has been set up for both council training bikes that Joyriders have used for the women's cycling programme and for the four-wheel four-seat cycle that our delivery partners, Bikeworks, use for the cycle passenger service.

The council was scheduled to work closely with the Public Health team to connect NHS services and GPs with physical activity opportunities. The Public Health team has been working to support the delivery of Physical Activity Clinical Champion (PACC) training with GPs and other primary care practitioners in Islington. A new Physical Activity by Referral Scheme, Healthwise, was launched in Islington in October 2024. Social prescribing is currently delivered by Age UK and Help On Your Doorstep for adults, and by Isledon Arts for young people.

The council was scheduled to work with TfL and relevant community groups to understand if all crossings in Islington provide sufficient time for people with mobility restrictions to cross at crossings on main roads in the borough. Traffic signal-controlled crossings are managed by Transport for London (TfL). The Islington Travel Accessibility Group has engaged with the council on the People-Friendly Streets programme.

The council was scheduled to commission a study into best practice on interactions between people walking, cycling, using wheelchairs and pushing pushchairs to encourage safe cycling and reduce conflicts. A literature review has been carried out in 2025 to assess what current evidence is available on interactions between people walking, wheeling and cycling.

The council was scheduled to work with the Police in areas highlighted as experiencing the greatest levels of conflicts between people on pavements, and to lobby Transport for London and the Department for Transport/Active Travel England to work with delivery companies and their unions to improve conditions for delivery drivers/riders and with improvements encourage safe use of pavements. The council has received complaints concerning individuals cycling across the pedestrian area at Highbury Corner.

Dockless Bikes

The committee was scheduled to hear presentations from representatives of Lime Bike and Forest Bike, two companies that operate dockless bike hire schemes in Islington. These schemes allow users to hire a bicycle using a smartphone app, and then leave the bike at their destination, without needing to return it to a fixed docking station.

Household Recycling Rates and Waste Reduction Scrutiny Review

The committee was scheduled to hear witness evidence on reuse and repair from Islington Fixers, Archway Upcycle, and ReLondon.

The minutes from the previous meeting on 21 October 2025, include a comprehensive update on the performance and development of the waste and recycling service.

The meeting began with an overview of how waste and recycling data is collected and processed. Waste is collected locally and sent to the North London Waste Facility in Edmonton, where it is sorted. Feedback on material types and volumes is provided by the facility and reviewed against historical trends and household numbers before being submitted to Defra² via the waste data flow system. This process determines the publicly available recycling and refuse rates. Data is received quarterly and reported in arrears.

A detailed review of the data has been undertaken, focusing on co-collection methods across markets, housing, and households. This has led to an increase in the recycling rate, attributed to improved data mapping and targeted collection methods. These findings have been validated through discussions with both North London Waste and Defra. Quarter 1 data for 2025–26 is currently under review.

Graphs presented showed trends in recycling rates and material types, with paper and card being the most collected, followed by glass and food waste. The introduction of a dedicated green garden waste collection was noted. Contamination in the recycling stream was discussed, with current levels at approximately 19%. This includes both non-recyclable items mistakenly placed in recycling and recyclable items rendered unusable due to contamination. The rise in contamination is consistent across North London boroughs and may be due to increased public participation and stricter monitoring at sorting facilities. Efforts are underway to address this through collaboration with the sorting facility and North London Waste Authority, including identifying problematic collection rounds and engaging directly with residents.

Further analysis of curb-side and communal waste collection data highlighted the significant proportion of food waste found in residual waste streams. Food waste was identified as the largest recyclable component within both curb-side and communal bin collections, indicating substantial potential for increased recycling capture. Mixed dry recycling also showed contamination issues, including unexpected food waste.

The committee was informed of the complexity of data management within the service, with approximately 30 different datasets in use. Work is ongoing to better integrate and analyse these datasets to improve service performance and evaluate the impact of interventions, though operational challenges remain.

Collection methods were outlined, including co-collection of mixed dry recycling and food waste for street properties, and same-day collection for all waste types to improve convenience. Flats above shops receive nightly collections due to space constraints, and food waste services are being expanded to these properties following a successful trial on Holloway Road.

A statutory requirement for all local authorities to provide food waste collections by April next year was noted. Islington has already implemented services for most properties and is now rolling out provision for flats above shops. Funding has been received to support this expansion, with further revenue funding expected through the next local government settlement.

Innovations in service delivery were discussed, including the use of Lixo, an AI-powered system with cameras mounted on recycling vehicles to identify non-recyclable materials. This enables targeted interventions and monitoring of contamination levels. Bin design improvements were also noted, including compartments for cardboard and accessible recycling bins.

The scale and structure of street operations were outlined, noting significant budget pressures due to demographic growth. Since 2015, Islington's population has increased by 9.5%, with no corresponding increase in departmental budgets. This has led to resource strain and the need for ongoing efficiencies. Other potential risks include ageing vehicles, challenges with bin washing, and financial barriers for landlords who are charged for recycling bins.

Disposal costs were highlighted as a key area of opportunity. Recycling and composting food waste are significantly cheaper than disposing of residual waste, and avoiding waste altogether yields the greatest savings. For example, composting food waste saves approximately £120 per tonne, while avoiding it saves around £140 per tonne. Scaling these savings could result in substantial financial benefits.

The committee was reminded of the recent budget fortnight challenge, which encouraged ambitious thinking around waste reduction and recycling. Ideas emerging from this included a zero waste strategy, enhanced data use, year-round communications, and community engagement through initiatives like a mobile reuse and recycling centre. While these proposals offer promising opportunities, the difficulty in predicting reliable outcomes presents a risk when making investment decisions.

One member highlighted the food waste initiative, noting that a recent visit to the plant nursery had showcased innovative composting practices. It was reported that a joint project between the nursery and a local community organisation was in place, involving the use of hot bins that allow food waste to be converted into compost quickly. Residents were actively participating by bringing food waste to the site, and various composting methods were being demonstrated.

Officers confirmed that the project was supported by a grant from the North London Community Fund and delivered in partnership with local organisations. The initiative was recognised as an excellent example of community-led action. Officers explained that while such projects were valuable, the broader challenge remained how to scale up participation across the borough to ensure all residents used the available recycling and food waste services. It was further noted that the project had received one of the largest grants from the North London Waste Authority, amounting to £100,000, which demonstrated the significance of the initiative and its potential for wider application. Lessons from the project would be considered for future scalability.

Concerns were raised on the time taken to process waste data, which was reported to be approximately two weeks. It was asked whether the Council could explore the use of artificial intelligence (AI) to speed up this process and reduce officer workload. Officers confirmed that AI was being considered for integration into processes and data analysis. While AI could support efficiency, the current approach required a human element to ensure accuracy. The delay was largely due to the back-and-forth validation between the Council, North London Waste Authority, and Waste Data Flow to reconcile figures and trends.

Queries related to contamination in recycling were raised, particularly whether items such as glass jars needed to be washed and whether this was addressed at the waste centre. Officers explained that most contamination resulted from non-recyclable items placed in recycling bins, such as textiles, bulky items, and residual waste. Food residue inside packaging was managed through the sorting process at the Materials Recovery Facility (MRF). Communications encouraged residents to remove leftover food and rinse items where possible, but the messaging aimed to keep recycling convenient to maintain engagement. Whole glass bottles were preferable, but broken glass was still recycled, either for remelt or aggregate purposes.

There was a focus on textile recycling and why some boroughs, such as Enfield, had communal textile bins while others did not. Officers confirmed that the borough had 34 public textile recycling banks at various locations, including leisure centres and drop-off points, and was exploring options for door-to-door collection. A free collection service was already available through a partner organisation, although awareness among residents was limited. Officers noted that tonnage from textile banks and other third-party sources was included in the Council's waste data alongside figures from the North London Waste Authority.

Members queried the composition of the 70% of waste that was not recycled and asked how much of this could realistically be recycled. Concerns were raised about small plastic items, such as medical components, which were difficult to recycle due to their size and potential to clog machinery. Members also questioned whether residual waste was sent to landfill or incinerated and sought clarification on how recycling data was measured, noting that weight-based reporting might not reflect the prevalence of lightweight plastics compared to heavier materials like paper and card.

Officers confirmed that all residual waste was sent to the Energy from Waste facility in Edmonton, with zero waste to landfill. It was noted that the new facility would provide improved environmental outcomes compared to the current plant. Officers explained that the North London Waste Authority had conducted a waste composition analysis, which provided a detailed snapshot of residual waste, including recyclable materials incorrectly disposed of in general waste. A significant proportion of residual waste was identified as recyclable, particularly food waste and mixed dry recycling.

Officers highlighted that while the borough provided comprehensive recycling services, the main challenge was increasing resident participation. It was acknowledged that soft plastics could technically be recycled, but there was currently no viable market for them, which limited collection options. The government had indicated that soft plastic collection would become mandatory from March 2027, but disposal routes remained uncertain. Officers stressed the need for market development and reductions in packaging production to improve recycling outcomes.

Regarding measurement, officers confirmed that waste data was recorded by weight rather than volume, as waste could be compressed and volumetric data was not practical. Food waste was identified as the heaviest component of household waste and the most significant contributor to carbon reduction when diverted from residual waste. Officers noted that food waste could be processed through anaerobic digestion to produce biogas and nutrient-rich compost, offering environmental benefits.

Members queried the performance charts showing tonnages of recycling materials for 2023/24 and 2024/25, noting significant reductions in paper, card, and glass compared to previous years. It was asked whether there was a specific reason for these changes and whether the variations were influenced by data presentation or underlying trends.

Officers explained that the overall decline in paper tonnage reflected changing consumer behaviour, particularly the reduction in newspaper consumption. It was noted that cardboard tonnage might have increased if separated from paper due to the growth in packaging linked to online shopping. The long-term trend for glass was also highlighted, with a peak in 2020 attributed to increased home consumption during the pandemic. Officers further noted that reductions in plastic weight were likely due to light-weighting by manufacturers, who had reduced packaging material to lower costs and resource use.

Members observed that recycling crews had reported a noticeable increase in cardboard, which often created operational challenges when residents failed to compress it. Officers agreed that reducing both cardboard and plastic packaging would be beneficial.

Officers advised that the committee should consider how data trends could be mapped to council actions and external factors, such as the introduction of Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR)³ and future technology improvements. It was suggested that this approach could inform future communications campaigns and operational planning.

Members also raised concerns about the sustainability of the waste minimisation and recycling team structure, noting that additional staff funded through DEFRA grants were on temporary contracts. Officers confirmed that the funding was time-limited but stated that business cases would be developed to justify continued investment in initiatives that delivered cost savings and improved recycling rates. Opportunities for external funding, including government schemes, North London Waste Authority support, and third-party grants, would continue to be pursued.

Members commented on the importance of understanding the cost of waste disposal alongside the relative cost of different recycling streams. It was noted that Islington had a relatively low level of residual waste, but reducing this further remained a priority. Members emphasised the need to avoid perverse incentives, such as increasing overall waste while improving recycling rates, and reiterated the committee's previous discussions on reducing total waste generation. Officers confirmed that comprehensive data would support informed decision-making and help assess the implications of waste reduction strategies.

Members expressed interest in current and proposed initiatives, particularly the concept of roadshows to engage residents and promote reuse and repair. Officers acknowledged that while small-scale community initiatives were valuable, scalability could be challenging without significant investment. Opportunities to partner with local groups and combine efforts were highlighted as a practical approach.

Questions were raised regarding contamination in recycling bins, specifically the inclusion of non-recyclable materials such as textiles. Officers confirmed that trials were underway and advised that door-to-door collection rounds serviced approximately 1,500 properties per day.

Further questions concerned the development of vehicle camera technology to monitor contamination and track the impact of campaigns. Officers explained that the system was still in development and had shown mixed results, with some successes and some inaccuracies. Linking contamination images to specific sources remained a challenge due to the complexity of collection routes. Officers noted that improvements were being explored, including the use of AI to automate processes and reduce manual data handling.

Members also queried plans for simplifying the ordering and delivery of recycling consumables, noting that residents with limited time or access to libraries faced difficulties. Officers reported that a soft launch of an on-demand service for clear recycling sacks for flats above shops had begun, alongside improvements in stock management at libraries. While home delivery was considered the gold standard, officers highlighted resource and cost implications. Current arrangements through libraries and community centres were described as cost-effective, but further enhancements would depend on available funding and business case development.

Questions were raised about the fate of flexible plastics taken to supermarkets and whether these were genuinely recycled. Officers explained that supermarket schemes were part of the national FlexCollect trial, intended to prepare for mandatory collection of flexible plastics from April 2027. While some material was processed at UK facilities, reprocessing capacity remained limited, and the effectiveness of these schemes was uncertain.

Further clarification was sought on hard plastics, with members noting confusion between terms such as hard plastic, soft plastic, and plastic packaging. Officers confirmed that household plastic packaging, including bottles and containers, was recycled, whereas large rigid items such as crates and toys were not. Flexible plastics, such as bread bags, were excluded from kerbside collections. Officers acknowledged the challenge of providing clear and consistent messaging and noted that the communications team had worked extensively to improve guidance, including through leaflets and campaigns.

Members asked for clarification on how much of the borough's recycling was processed within the UK and EU. Officers confirmed that metals, plastics, and glass were processed in the UK, while approximately 93% of paper and cardboard were processed either in the UK or EU. It was explained that some material was exported for recycling due to market availability and reprocessing capacity, particularly for paper and card, which often originated overseas as packaging for imported goods. Officers noted that the North London Waste Authority (NLWA) managed disposal arrangements and maintained strong transparency regarding end markets through its contract with Biffa, which included clear reporting on material destinations. Biffa also operated its own reprocessing facilities in the UK, including for HDPE milk bottles.

Members then asked about anticipated trends over the next 12 months. Officers advised that only modest changes were expected, with legislative developments likely to have the greatest impact. Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) was expected to incentivise manufacturers to reduce packaging weight and improve recyclability, while the Deposit Return Scheme (DRS)⁴, scheduled for introduction in October next year, would place deposits on certain bottles and containers, influencing consumer behaviour and reducing some materials in the waste stream.

Further discussion confirmed that the DRS would be a national scheme, managed by a compliance operator appointed by the government. Producers would be required to label packaging in scope, and consumers would return items through designated take-back schemes to reclaim deposits.

A member of the public asked whether the Council held separate data on school recycling and contamination, and if improvements were needed. They also queried whether a business case could be made to schools to show cost savings from better recycling.

Officers explained that while detailed data was limited, engagement work was ongoing through a dedicated schools recycling officer and North London Waste Authority programmes. Primary schools generally had stronger recycling practices, while secondary schools were harder to engage. Schools were charged for waste collection, and recycling was cheaper than residual waste, so reducing residual waste could lower costs. Future improvements in bin weighing systems would allow more accurate data and potentially enable comparative reporting.

2025-6 Committee Work Plan

The committee was scheduled to review its work plan for the coming year.