BOROUGH OF POOLE
ENVIRONMENT OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY COMMITTEE
3 JULY 2014
The Meeting commenced at 7:00 pm and concluded at 8:17 pm.
Present:
Councillor Trent (Chairman)
Councillor Chandler (Vice Chairman)
Councillors Eades, Mrs Haines, Le Poidevin and Mrs Slade
Also in Attendance
Councillor Mrs Dion, Portfolio Holder (Prosperous and Sustainable Poole)
Officers Present:
Shaun Robson, Head of Environmental and Consumer Protection Services
Ian Poultney, Environmental Development Manager
Kate Langdown, Street Scene Services Manager
Michael Webber, Systems and Improvement Manager
David Rickards, Waste Disposal and Contracts Manager
Members of Public: 0
EOS07.14 APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Adams.
EOS08.14 DECLARATIONS OF DISCLOSABLE PECUNIARY INTEREST(S)
No declarations of any disclosable pecuniary interest(s) were received.
EOS09.14 MINUTES
RESOLVED that the Minutes of the Meeting of the Environment
Overview and Scrutiny Committee held on the 1 May and the 14 May 2014, having been previously circulated, to be taken as read, confirmed and signed by the Chairman as a correct record.
EOS10.14 TERMS OF REFERENCE
The Terms of Reference were considered and agreed as accurate.
RESOLVED that the Committee agreed its Terms of Reference.
For – Unanimous
EOS11.14 THE FUTURE FOR STREET LITTER AND DOG WASTE
The Street Scene Services Manager presented the Report regarding the condition of the Council’s current street litter and dog waste bin stock, and why there was a need for a programme of replacement.
The key points were highlighted as follows:
· A lot of the Council’s street litter and dog waste bins were in poor condition, to the point of being a health and safety hazard in some cases, and needed replacement. Research found that the public were less likely to use such bins.
· Potential funding of £85,000 had been identified from the Government Waste Performance and Efficiency Grant, which could be transferred to a programme of replacement and improvement.
· Each new bin added to the Borough’s stock would cost approximately £3,000 over its 10 year lifespan.
· The street litter and dog waste bin stock comprised of varying shapes and sizes. It was considered to make more sense to standardise the bin stock.
· Street Scene had a commitment to save £150,000. The recommendations proposed would over time help enable that commitment to be fulfilled.
The following issues were raised by Members:
· Would there be a consultation process?
The Officer answered that there would be such a process involving Members who could engage with their local residents regarding the proposals.
· If the Council removed 300 bins, would that not release funding to maintain the remaining litter bin stock in future years?
The Officer explained that simply removing the bins did not correspond with a savings figure. Cleansing teams were not just involved in the actual emptying of bins, but also various other duties such as manually litter picking, fly-tip clearance etc.
· Why was there no mention of sponsorship in the Report?
The Officer commented that it had been considered and in fact a firm had been approached to enquire if they would be interested. The response was, however, that sponsorship of bins was not viable. The Officer was concerned that if sponsorship was confirmed but later taken away, the Council would be left having to make up the shortfall.
· The Report stated that a reduction of the number of bins from 1200 to 900 was needed. How was the latter figure calculated?
The Officer responded that several factors had been considered such as locations, level of provision and standard of bins. On the basis of such factors, 900 bins seemed about the right amount.
· A 25% reduction in litter and dog waste bins seemed drastic. There was a real danger that this could exacerbate the litter problem in the Borough rather than reduce it.
The Officer explained that the reality was otherwise. A lot of the Borough’s bins were in such poor condition that they were barely being used anyway.
The Head of Environmental and Protection Services (ECPS) added that if the proposed changes were not implemented, there would be serious practical and financial implications long term for not doing so. On the other hand, if the proposals for the bin stock were adopted, the new arrangements would be more cost-effective and enhance usage.
The Chairman concurred with a Member’s suggestion that the proposals should be considered in consultation with Ward Members, who could advise as to the state of bin provision in the localities they represented, then the recommendations were more likely to be supported.
RECOMMENDED that Cabinet Approve
(i) The replacement principles set out in paragraph 5.0, recognising that the current provision of litter bins is unsustainable.
Voting: For – 4; Abstain – 2
(ii) The allocation of the residual £85,000 Government Waste Performance and Efficiency Grant funding to deliver the immediate needs of the litter bin replacement strategy.
(iii) That the Star Chamber be requested to consider the need for a medium term litter bin replacement strategy within the context of the Council’s Medium Term Financial Plan.
Voting: For – Unanimous
EOS12.14 INTRODUCING CHARGES FOR NON-HOUSEHOLD WASTE ITEMS AT THE HOUSEHOLD WASTE RECYCLING CENTRE (HWRC)
The Environmental Development Manager presented the Report proposing a reasonable charge for certain materials received at the Household Waste Recycling Centre (HWRC).
The key points were highlighted as follows:
· The HWRC recycled in excess of 70% of waste it received.
· Since the site opened in November 2012, the disposal costs of several items had risen and quite considerably in certain cases. In accordance with the Medium Term Financial Plan (MTFP) and Budget approved by Council in February, £50,000 had been identified to reduce waste disposal costs at the HWRC. Such a scenario had prompted several other Local Authorities to start imposing charges.
· The Council accordingly recommended charging for the disposal of specific items. These were as listed in 4.1 of the Report.
· It was proposed that payment for disposal of such items would be by chip and pin. With regard to clients who did not possess credit or debit cards, alternative means of payment would need to be considered.
· The new charging regime was anticipated to commence on the 1 October 2014.
The following issues were raised by Members:
· There did not appear to be enough information in the Report stating what the true costs of disposal were.
The Officer explained that costs were subject to fluctuations in the market and tended not to be static. The Council could give present figures but these could change over time. Future prices would be set under delegation by the Head of ECPS.
· When the Officer referred to ‘per bag’, what size was meant?
The Officer responded by indicating what was envisaged was a standard size rubble sack that could be bought at most hardware stores and, more importantly, could be handled by one person.
· There was an equality issue concerning the bags if sold as a standard size. Gender or size could affect a person’s ability to lift or carry such a bag.
The Officer responded that an illustration would be made available to local residents explaining what bag sizes were acceptable and said that reasonable discretion would be applied.
· Why did tyres cost considerably more to dispose of than other items?
The Officer explained that there was no profiteering involved. It was instead about the Council recovering its costs. In addition, a key factor underpinning the proposals was in order to encourage residents to dispose of such items in an appropriate place. So in the case of tyres, for example, it would be a tyre-fitting outlet.
· Were there ownership factors regarding the disposal of gas canisters?
The Officer commented that when gas canisters were purchased, the cylinder was still owned by the supplier. This would incentivise residents to take gas canisters back to where they were originally purchased (or authorised stockist) rather than taking to the HWRC.
· What would the Council’s response be with regard to items that could not be placed in bags? For example, DIY waste such as kitchen and bathroom parts.
The Officer responded that it depended upon what the Council could re-use. If such items had no re-use value and therefore had to go to landfill, the Council would have to charge.
· Did the proposals create an increased risk of fly-tipping?
The Officer answered that the rate of fly-tipping was very low in the Borough and did not anticipate an increase of it, and there was no evidence to suggest that this had happened elsewhere where charges had been applied.
RECOMMENDED that Cabinet
(i) Approve the introduction of a reasonable charge for asbestos, plasterboard, soil and rubble (including DIY waste), gas canisters and tyres received at the HWRC to reduce waste disposal costs and deliver overall savings of £50,000 as identified in the Medium Term Financial Plan and Budget approved by Council in February 2014.
(ii) Grant delegation to the Head of Environmental and Consumer Protection Services to set the prices for these materials, which will need to respond to changes in market values and charges.
Voting: For – Unanimous
EOS13.14 PROPOSAL TO MAKE ADDITIONAL COST SAVINGS AT THE
HOUSEHOLD WASTE RECYCLING CENTRE (HWRC)
The Environmental Development Manager presented the Report outlining the requirement to find an additional £75,000 of savings from the operation of the Household Waste Recycling Centre (HWRC).
The key points were highlighted as follows:
· The objective of making such savings would be achieved by restricting access of vans to the HWRC and, therefore, reducing the cost of commercial waste treatment.
· The Council had already taken some steps to avoid the disposal of commercial and trade waste such as height barriers, security guards and an Automated Number Plate Recognition System.
· It was proposed to extend preventative measures by the introduction of a permit system.
· Allowance would be granted for those households whose only form of transportation was a van.
The following issues were raised by Members:
· How many visits to the HWRC would a permit system allow?
The Officer responded that it would be a matter of what was deemed reasonable. It was anticipated that a maximum of 6 annual passes would be issued.
· Some businesses used estate cars rather than vans to carry their trade waste. How would the intentions of the drivers be known?
The Officer commented that HWRC staff would have to use discretion in determining whether or not such a driver was a trader.
· What if the drivers of commercial vehicles, in an attempt to bypass the new permit system, stated that they had no other vehicles registered in their name?
The Officer answered that HWRC staff would use discretion. If the visits occurred often then staff would suspect that the drivers were disposing of trade waste and they would be stopped.
· Why were there currently no height restrictions on Wednesdays?
The Officer explained that there were a considerable number of large vehicles which were not commercial and an allowance had to be made for them.
RECOMMENDED that Cabinet
(i) Approve that Officers develop a detailed business case to find a further £75,000 of savings from the operation of the HWRC by restricting access for vans and thereby reducing the cost of commercial waste treatment for the Council taxpayers of Poole.
(ii) Approve that any final proposals which are presented contain exceptions policies to ensure that:
(a) Families whose only vehicle is a van can access the site on an agreed basis.
(b) That a system will be arranged whereby one-off access for a van can be agreed in specific circumstances.
Voting: For – Unanimous
NOTE: Councillor Mrs Slade left the Meeting at 8.08 pm.
EOS14.14 DECISION TO VARY THE EXISTING WASTE DISPOSAL CONTRACT
WITH VIRIDOR WASTE LTD TO FACILITATE THE DISPOSAL OF RESIDUAL WASTE FOR A SET FEE AND TO CONFIRM THE TERM OF THE CONTRACT UNTIL 2027
The Environmental Development Manager presented the Information Report to inform Members with regard to the revised pricing structure of the waste disposal contract negotiated with Viridor Waste Ltd.
The key points were highlighted as follows:
· Viridor Waste Ltd handled the majority of the Borough’s waste. The contract commenced in 2004 to expire in 2027.
· Due to advances in waste disposal technology over the last decade, along with financial limits and penalties more recently introduced for landfill, the Council had varied its contract with Viridor, which would still continue until 2027.
· The re-negotiation enabled Viridor to treat some waste for energy at its plant in Slough and 30,000 tonnes of black bin waste at the New Earth Solutions facility at Canford Magna. Black bin waste collected at the Household Waste Recycling Centre (HWRC) would continue to go to landfill.
· Crucially, the re-negotiated contract with Viridor would result in overall savings for the Borough. It was anticipated to be £410,000 in 2014/15 alone.
The following issue was raised:
· Would projected cost savings be undermined by rises in landfill costs?
The Officer acknowledged that landfill costs had risen, but stated they would be frozen.
RESOLVED that the Information Report be noted.
EOS15.14 FORWARD PLAN
The following issue was raised:
· Green Deal was now on the Forward Plan as an Agenda Item for the 4 September 2014, so no longer needed to be under Items to be Determined.
CHAIRMAN
6