Project Integra – minutes of meeting

Name of meeting

/ Project Integra Strategic Board– Minutes of Meeting
Date of meeting / Wednesday 17 February 2017
Venue / Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council
Attendees
Councillors:
Hayley Eachus (HE) / Basingstoke and Deane BC
(Chair)
Rob Humby (RH)
Steve Forster (SF) / Hampshire County Council
Hart DC
Graham Stallard (GS) / Test Valley BC
Tiffany Harper (TH) Robert Saunders (RS)
Piers Bateman (PB)
Tony Briggs (TB)
Jan Warwick (JW) / Fareham BC
East Hants DC
Gosport BC
Havant BC/ Norse SE
Winchester CC
Lee Phelan (LP) Veolia
Officers Attending:
John Elson (JE) / Basingstoke and Deane BC/ Hart DC
Paul Doran (PD)
Nicola Watts (NW)
Paul Wykes (PW) / Fareham BC
East Hants DC
Test Valley BC
Colin Read (CR)
Rob Heathcock (RHe) / New Forest DC
Winchester City Council
Angela Benneworth (AB)
Simon Larbey (SL) / Gosport BC
Veolia
Sam Horne (SH)
Colette Hill (CH)
Andrew Kendall (AK) / Hampshire County Council
Portsmouth City Council
Eastleigh Borough Council
Chris Noble (CN)
Tara Fitzpatrick (TF) / PI
PI

Actions

1 / Introductions
1.1 / HE welcomed all to the meeting and to Councillor Warwick as the new WCC portfolio holder. HE thanked Councillor Pearson for his contributions on both occasions he was a PI member. He was most recently Vice Chair and then Interim Chair from 2015-2016. Previously he was one of the first members of the Board, and as Chair was integral to the early success of the partnership. His experience will be missed.
2
2.1 / Apologies
Councillor Rupert Kyrle – Eastleigh Borough Council
Councillor Jacqui Rayment – Southampton City Council
Councillor Sophie Beeton – New Forest District Council
Councillor Edward Heron – New Forest District Council
Ben Slater – Veolia
Stevyn Ricketts – Gosport Borough Council
Peter Vince – Havant Borough Council/ Norse SE
Gale Williams – Southampton City Council
Paul Naylor – Eastleigh Borough Council
3 / Declarations of Interest
3.1 / None were made
4 / Minutes of the last Board meeting held 13 October 2016 (Report 055)
4.1 / RESOLVED
That the minutes of the previous board meeting were agreed and signed by the Chair.
5 / Matters arising from the minutes
5.1 / 7.1 – Changes to HWRC network. SH informed Members that the change in opening hours and Thursday closures have been delayed until 1 October 2017. PB also asked RH for an update on dialogue with central government regarding HWRCs and charges. RH advised that discussions are continuing.
6
6.1
6.2
6.3
6.4
6.5
6.6
6.7
6.8
6.9
6.10
6.11
6.12 / Action Plan 2015-18 Annual update (Report 056)
CN highlighted that it was previously agreed that this is a set three year plan and that we would come back and review progress and priorities each year. Many actions have their own separate reports and fuller updates. However other highlights included the following:
Horizon Scan:
Ø  It is likely that the EU circular economy package will need to be absorbed into UK legislation before the UK’s exit from the EU. On that basis, Defra are negotiating with the EU on what that package may look like. Noted the proposed 65-70% 2030 recycling rate target was a challenge for all.
Ø  For the first time since data recording began, the UK’s recycling rate reduced in 2015 (calendar year). Within PI, there has been an increase in total household waste and a levelling off of DMR tonnages following reductions in recent years. There was an overall 5% increase in recycling tonnages, partly due to the creation of Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF), recycling of street sweepings and greater diversion at HWRCs. A more detailed report on data trends will be submitted for June PISB.
Ø  WRAP have released their vision for greater consistency in waste/recycling services over time.
Quality and quantity of recycling:
Ø  CN drew attention to the first six months of MAF sampling which has indicated that contamination has risen. However more sampling will need to be taken as planned until the end of the year before conclusions can be drawn. The PI Executive continues to work closely alongside Recycling Officers at a time where communications budgets are being reduced. At the next Recycling Officer meeting in May, WRAP are hosting a workshop on “communicating effectively with limited resource.”
Schools education programme:
Ø  Noted that the schools education ceased in May but resources have been added to R4H website for schools to access directly.
Waste Prevention:
Ø  A Waste Prevention resident’s survey provided useful insights into behaviours and attitudes, and the HCC team were able to compare with the 2015 survey results.
Common Approach to Safety & Health (CASH):
Ø  Noted the CASH working group “Driving on Pavements” who have developed a reporting protocol on how to tackle the issue of motorists avoiding waste collection vehicles by driving on the footpath. This has emphasised needs for 360 cameras in vehicles.
Ø  Communications to be launched around campaign to highlight to the public the dangers of doing so and that it is an offence. Campaign is due to be launched end of February.
Joint Procurement:
Ø  Joint procurement – CN recently worked alongside EBC, FBC and NFDC to procure driver Certificate of Technical Competence (CPC) training for the three councils, with opportunities for other councils to join in where capacity allows.
Joint Municipal Waste Management Strategy (JMWMS)
Ø  The refresh of the JMWMS could be delayed until 2018. This would allow for full consideration to be given to the circular economy package, the outcome of Hampshire Waste Partnership project (HWP), and progress on Waste Prevention in the next 12 months.
Incinerator Bottom Ash:
Ø  PI hosted a Defra delegation in December, and visited the Alton Materials Recovery Facility (MRF), Chineham Energy Recovery Facility (ERF) and the ash processing facility near Andover.
Ø  HE and CN also visited the Resources Minister Therese Coffey, and were told that the UK would be taking a pro IBA stance in its discussions with the EU on the circular economy package.
PB commented that with the standardisation, this should be at the heart of PI. PISB should be driving this and not viewing, although complexities around differing contracts etc are acknowledged.
CN advised that WRAP have been looking initially at consistencies of materials collected which as a partnership we all do consistently in terms of Dry Mixed Recycling (DMR). The HWP may allow for greater consistency depending on its outcome. With regards to contracts, individual partners have discussed options between themselves where appropriate, and we do have two joint waste contracts in Hampshire.
TH – with reference to 4.4 and the additional housing, how confident are we that we have enough capacity at the ERF’s for the extra waste tonnages?
CN advised that it is a significant issue as we have in recent years seen rising waste levels per household, and we are also seeing an increase in houses being built. This highlights the importance of waste prevention. SH - PI infrastructure built 20 plus years ago, and so capacity is a constant pressure – always peaks at Christmas time etc on top of average 600kgs of waste produced per household per year. HCC and Veolia will continue to discuss and manage as effectively as possible.
GS later asked whether the capacity issues would cause waste to be sent elsewhere. SH explained there is a little bit of slack in operational capacity however this comes at a high cost and that peaks will become more frequent. SH said that hopefully we should not have to send waste out of county.
PB expressed concerns that schools education was no longer a priority but accepted that the current situation is a result of previous decisions of the Board. Suggested this should be revisited – HE and RH agreed and this was added to the list of recommendations outlined in the report.
RESOLVED
That members agreed the following recommendations:
Ø  Members noted the progress made in 2016/17 and the key priorities for 2017/18.
Ø  That the PI Waste Prevention Plan is refreshed and brought to the June 2017 PISB for approval.
Ø  That the JMWMS refresh is postponed to 2018.
Ø  That PI maintains a watching brief with regard to IBA.
Ø  In addition to the above, the partnership revisits potential opportunities for a schools education programme.
7
7.1
7.2
7.3
7.4 / Hampshire Fly tipping Strategy (Report 057)
SH updated the Board on the strategy and planned governance under PI. Noted Surrey CC have already implemented their strategy and have already enjoyed successful prosecutions. WCC and TVBC have had recent successful prosecutions. Highlighted that private individuals do not understand their responsibilities with waste therefore duty of care is paramount. PISB will oversee and monitor progress against Action Plan.
JW asked how the strategy will dovetail with current community safety partnerships. SH stated that the strategy would link through each district to capture current situation and share where possible at the working group. Plan is to utilise already established links with the community.
There were further discussion around the following:
Ø  CR queried data in Appendix C defining districts as having responsibility for public land and open spaces in their boundaries. Stated that there needs to be a record of parish council’s responsibilities for clearing litter and fly tipping on their land. Also noted National Parks and Forestry Commission land could also be classed as “public land”. SH and RH agreed valid points and will be reflected in strategy ACTION SH to amend.
Ø  PB complimented County officers on their work. Also suggested the current focus could be made a little tighter – ACTION SH to look into improving the vision.
Ø  RH clarified that that historically, fly tipping comes from commercial waste and that recent comments that it’s due to non-household waste charges at HWRCs is untrue. Made clear the message is that if you fly tip in Hampshire you will be caught and prosecuted. GS agreed that the most successful prosecutions in TVBC were the collaborative ones.
Ø  SF suggested that when there are successful prosecutions within Hampshire that HCC should ensure comprehensive PR around it that partners can also promote.
Ø  RH also noted his thanks to HCC officers on pulling the strategy together in a short space of time.
RESOLVED
That Members commented upon the latest draft of the strategy, ahead of its final approval in March 2017. And that Members agreed the strategy is governed by Project Integra and that progress updates will be delivered to the Board at key points. / SH
SH
8 / Hampshire Waste Partnership project (Report 058)
8.1
8.2
8.3
8.4
8.5 / CN updated the Board on the recommendations that were put to the HIOWLA CEX’s. Next steps are working towards a business case to take back to CEXs and to PISB in June. Veolia are working on a costed proposal for the MRF refits.
Also noted recent conversations with Strategy Officers around potential for incentivising districts to increase quality and reduce contamination. CN noted complex relationships between WDAs and WCAs in Hampshire, with costs and benefits flowing both ways. Currently, the financial benefits of reducing residual waste, reducing contamination and increasing recycling are not shared across partners, meaning not everyone is invested in performance improvements to the same degree. If we are to make forward strides as a partnership and really reduce whole system costs this must be reviewed. CN working on proposals and will provide a full update in June.
CN and Campbell Williams (HWP lead) are visiting Strategy Officers in March to demonstrate fully the model created by the consultants and to discuss incentivisation further.
GS requested that the recommendations as outlined in 4.3 should be in three strands to allow for approval at district level. CN agreed this was sensible.
JW asked when changes to DMR spec may be communicated with residents i.e. how long a lead in period may be. CN advised caution that we are awaiting MRF refit costs from Veolia before any decisions can be made. However if changes are made they will be communicated perhaps a month before.
Stated that it is likely that it would be around two years before a change in specification could be implemented, but regardless of the next steps for the MRFs, there will be a focus on resident behaviour change to improve performance.
SF added that Scandinavia has made non-recycling behaviour morally unacceptable. There may be some lessons to be learned by investigating the approach taken there.
9
9.1
10 / Any Other Business
None.
Date of Next Meeting
Thursday 22 June 2017 – Fareham Borough Council

3