Agenda item

FSD22007

Members noted that this report had been presented to them so that they could consider the Portfolio Holder’s Draft Budget for 2022/2023 which took into account future cost pressures. Members were requested to scrutinise the report and provide any relevant comments to the Executive.

A Member made an enquiry regarding the cameras that were used to identify ‘moving traffic contraventions’. It was noted that there was a problem with the cameras which was currently being addressed with the manufacturer.

A Member was surprised to note that the Council had spent £1.5m on the management and support of the Environment contracts. He said that this was twice as much as the Council spent on planting trees and queried if the Council had got its priorities right. The Director for Environment and Public Protection answered and pointed out that the Environment contracts were large and complex. The Council had a duty to ensure that the contracts worked properly and that these complex contracts were managed correctly and provided a sound and effective service. The Council had experienced problems in the past with the management of environmental contracts and it wished to learn from the past and avoid such issues re-occurring.

A Member stated that he would be interested to see how the allocation of resources in terms of contract managers were split across the various contracts. It was noted in the course of the discussion that as well as the contracts being large and complex, additional complexities had been added because of the COVID pandemic, and the shortages of both fuel and drivers. This meant that Bromley’s contract managers had been working with contractors on a daily basis. The contract managers had to work effectively to ensure value for money and the continued and effective provision of Council services. It was noted that a ‘Fix My Street’ update would be provided to the Committee in March 2022 and the Director for Environment and Public Protection noted that out of 33,000 FMS inquiries--95% of these had been dealt with seamlessly. He further pointed out that in most other councils they had much larger teams to manage contracts.

The Member responded and said that he would be interested to be provided with more information as to how the contract managers were assigned to the various contracts and he would like a breakdown of the budgets and headings. He wanted to understand how the budget headings were broken down by contract. He said it may be the case that the Committee may decide that a particular contract may need a greater allocation of contract managers for example. The Director for Environment and Public Protection responded and said that he would discuss this matter with the Head of Finance for ECS.

A Member asked if the Council was still encouraging people to compost and the response to this was affirmative. It was noted that the Council received income from paper recycling but not from the disposal of green garden waste. A Member asked if the pricing for the disposal of green garden waste was determined by statute and it was confirmed that this was not the case and the costs were controlled by the Council. Councillor William Huntington Thresher declared an interest in that he had taken advantage of the Council scheme to get some water butts. 

The Chairman asked Members if there were any particular comments they would like to put forward to the Executive.

A Member referred to the table on page 131 of the agenda and the various figures quoted with respect to the Street Scene and Green Spaces contracts and said that he would like to have been provided with a detailed explanation of what was included in these figures.

The Director for Environment and Public Protection said that there were occasions when he felt uncomfortable with the relatively low number of staff managing large and complex contracts. The Chairman suggested that this could be something that could be fed back to the Executive. (Note—this was suggested at the time but was not a formal resolution)

A discussion took place regarding the increase in disposal costs for green garden waste. It was explained that this was partly due to the way the accounts were presented and the way expenditure was budgeted. In the first year there was an expense incurred by the Council with respect to buying new bins—this cost would not be applicable for the following year. The cost of disposal per tonne had not increased.

A Member raised the issue of bins and replacement bins. She had observed that the replacement bins were of a lower quality than the bins that had been used previously. They were not as robust and got damaged more easily. Sometimes they were damaged by the collection process itself. This would lead to the need for bins being replaced more frequently and so perhaps at the end of the day it was not cost effective to use cheaper replacement bins. The Director for Environment and Public Protection said that he would discuss this matter with the Assistant Director for Environment, the Waste Team and with Veolia.

A Member asked if LBB had benchmarked its Green Garden Waste pricing to other authorities. The response to this was affirmative. The Director promised to send the figures to the Member who had raised the matter (Cllr Marlow). 

RESOLVED that:

1) The update on the financial forecast for 2022/23 to 2025/26 be noted.

2) The initial draft budget be noted as the basis for setting the 2022/23 budget.

3) The Director for Environment and Public Protection would provide a response to the Member who had raised the matter of defective moving traffic enforcement cameras.

4) The Director for Environment and Public Protection would discuss the matter of inferior replacement waste collection bins with officers and Veolia.

5) The data regarding the benchmarking of green garden waste collection services in comparison with other local authorities be provided to the relevant Member.