Members of the Committee are requested to bring their copy of the agenda for the Executive meeting on 1st September 2010.
Minutes:
The Committee considered reports on the agenda for the Executive meeting on 1st September 2010 and a number of comments were made.
3B Matters Arising
Report LDCS10155
The Chairman enquired of progress related to Minute 187 from the Executive meeting on 30th March 2009. This related to the Area Action Plan for Bromley Town Centre. The Chief Planner explained that the Inspector’s report on the Area Action Plan had been received and the matter would now be considered by the Development Control Committee and the Executive before going to Council for adoption on 25th Council 2010.
5. Financial Monitoring 2010/11
Report DR10069
Councillor Nicholas Milner enquired whether it was the intention to achieve zero overspend at the end of 2010/11. The Deputy Director of Finance explained that the Council had always managed to keep in budget and it was necessary to look carefully at pressures and budgets – the key message was to stay in budget. The Leader of the Council, Councillor Stephen Carr explained that the Executive had set aside additional sums to address the effects of the recession and Chief Officers had been asked to do all they could to keep in budget.
Councillor Robert Evans highlighted particular difficulties when a Department had to deal with pressures outside of their control quoting the example of spending on Looked After Children within Children and Young People Services. In this regard, Councillor Russell Mellor enquired whether savings were based on a salami slicing approach or took account of pressures on the budget. The Deputy Director of Finance referred to reductions in Government grants and how this was being addressed in both the Children and Young People and Adult and Community Departments. It was about first looking at the grant reductions and their impact and then reaching conclusions.
6. Building Regulations Charging Scheme
Report DRR10/0084
Members considered the above report which outlined building control fees to be charged form 1st October 2010. This followed the Building (Local Authority Charges) Regulations 2010 requiring charges to be set for a break-even position for the chargeable part of the service.
Councillor Sarah Phillips outlined her understanding that the Building Control service could be outsourced. The Chief Planner confirmed that there were approved inspectors in private firms that could compete with Local authority Building Control services but explained that Independent Inspectors were not obliged to accept all applications - applications that were exempt from charges, such as those concerned with disabled persons, would invariably been dealt with by a Local Authority. He also indicated that many people chose to apply to the Council for chargeable services as a good service was provided at cost.
Councillor Julian Grainger suggested that the recommendation to delegate the amendment of fees to the Director of Renewal and Recreation (with the aim of ensuring a service is provided on cost recovery basis) should be subject to an informal notification to the PDS Committee and/or Portfolio Holder. The Chief Planner explained that the average prices listed at paragraph 3.31 of Report DRR10/0084 were a best estimate and any significant changes to the charges would be reported to Members. The Chairman added that he was relaxed about delegating authority to the Director of Renewal and Recreation for amending the fees and the Committee supported the recommendations to the Executive.
7. Recycling and Composting for All: Phase 2 Business Case
Report ES10122
Members considered a report to the Executive concerned with rolling out the Composting For All (CFA) trial across the borough.
Referring to the potential savings to be generated through waste reduction, the Chairman enquired why waste disposal costs were expected to dip significantly for 2012/13 even without the benefits of the CFA rollout. In explanation, reference was made to a predicted drop in landfill waste and a predicted increase in waste for incineration.
Councillor William Huntington-Thresher referred to the rollout mechanism as a key ingredient to the success of the CFA trial. He informed Members that the Environment PDS Committee (which had considered the report the previous evening) supported the recommendations except for recommendation 2.5 where it was agreed to recommend that caddy liners should continue to be freely provided to residents for the foreseeable future. Councillor Huntington-Thresher indicated that participation by residents was vital to the success of a borough wide rollout and that this outweighed the cost of providing the availability of free liners.
For private flats, Councillor David McBride asked whether it was intended to have a fortnightly waste collection in the rollout and was advised that the rollout applied to street level properties.
Referring to a weekly paper collection and a fortnightly green box collection, Councillor Ruth Bennett suggested that households with families would have a higher volume of plastic and other waste. She also noted the availability of helpful storage facilities for recycled waste from certain retail outlets and queried whether there might be a potential income stream for the Council in directing residents to such outlets. The Assistant Director advised further on the collection of plastics which included the collection of plastic packaging such as yoghurt pots, food trays and margarine tubs in addition to plastic bottles. Recyclable material was separated from non-recyclable at the sorting facilities with non-recyclable plastic waste incinerated. As a result, the volume of residual waste for residents was reduced so making its fortnightly collection easier to manage. Customer feedback indicated a desire for all plastics to be included in the green box collection as part of the trial. For weekly paper collections the Contracts Manager (Waste and Refuse Service) referred to the weight of material collected and the re-sale value of paper material collected. A weekly paper collection was more cost effective and offered more value than a weekly green box collection.
Councillor Will Harmer enquired whether consideration was being given to the sponsorship of retail outlets/supermarkets for the provision of caddy liners. Members were advised that officers had initially written to the Chief Executives of Supermarkets but approaches were now being made to individual supermarkets at “grass roots” level.
Councillor Julian Grainger suggested that supermarkets might be more willing to consider sponsorship if the Council were able to provide kitchen caddies to fit the size of paper bags that supermarkets could most conveniently provide. The Contracts Manager (Waste and Refuse Service) advised that any paper liner would not be successful. Councillor Grainger also suggested that there might be savings - including savings in the provision of split bodied vehicles – if collections were not provided to homes unwilling to participate in the rollout or from homes in an entire road where the majority of homes were reluctant to participate. The Contracts Manager (Waste and Refuse Service) explained that it was intended to encourage all residents to take part in the rollout and during the trial this approach had been reasonably successful. A key reason for non-participation was usually a lack of awareness and it was confirmed that there were no roads or streets unwilling to participate. It would become more expensive to collect from some roads and not from others and by rolling out CFA on a step by step basis the existing service would become more expensive to maintain along with rollout of the new arrangements for other areas.
Councillor Russell Jackson enquired about steps being taken to reduce missed collections, disposal of nappies and combining waste collection services with other boroughs. On missed collections, Members were advised that there were Customer Relations Management (CRM) systems in place as a result of which it was possible to manage customer interactions. Additional Waste Advisors would also be in place for the rollout with vans providing extra containers and provision to remove waste causing a problem. Tonnages would be monitored and Waste Advisers would be available in areas during the day and evening for residents to approach. There was a high level of satisfaction with similar arrangements during the current trial as a service was provided to the doorstep.
Concerning the disposal of nappies, residents were advised to place soiled nappies in a secure container for disposal. A clinical waste service could also be provided (e.g. to the elderly) and a waste adviser could visit to provide further information. There had been a small number of residents who had taken advantage of the clinical waste service. In regard to shared services, this was seen as a mid to longer term option with the short term focussing on the CFA borough rollout. It was possible however for negotiations to take place in the meantime.
Councillor Tony Owen highlighted the need to increase recycling rates further referring to the importance of publicity emphasising increasing taxes associated with landfill disposal. He advocated co-operation with the many residents associations in the borough to convey key messages on recycling. The Assistant Director confirmed that this was the strategy being taken with work “on the ground” to address problems as they arise. He also referred to the level of waste reduction during the current trial. Door knocking was also undertaken for those areas with a low take up.
Councillor Ruth Bennett was complimentary of progress made to date but felt that there was still some way to go to achieve the performance of some European cities such as Vienna. She felt that there was a direct correlation between age and recycling suggesting that the older generation were far more likely to recycle. She also enquired about non residential waste and incentives for companies to recycle. The Contracts Manager (Waste and Refuse Service) explained that Local Authorities might be obligated by 2015 to provide a business waste service but for the present time Councillor William Huntington-Thresher explained that commercial waste operations were required to be a segregated service. As part of the rollout the Contracts Manager (Waste and Refuse Service) also advised that children at school would be provided with the same recycling opportunities as homeowners. He added that many companies offered holistic recycling services which included the provision of schools advisers.
Councillor Sarah Phillips was also very impressed with the trial rollout and enquired whether assurances could be provided of continued service during any cold spell next winter. The Assistant Director explained that information was placed on the Council’s website and advice to schools would be strengthened during winter events. Councillor Roger Charsley congratulated officers on the success of the trial rollout and indicated that he had received helpful advice from a waste adviser.
In conclusion Members agreed with the Environment PDS Committee to support the recommendations to the Executive with the exception of Recommendation 2.5. For this recommendation Members agreed with the Environment PDS Committee that the liners should be freely provided to residents for the foreseeable future but subject to the liners being provided upon request.
RESOLVED that the recommendations to the Executive be supported with the exception of recommendation 2.5 concerning caddy liners which should continue to be freely provided to residents upon request for the foreseeable future.