Agenda item

Purpose of the report: Policy Development and Review

To feed into proposals prior to consideration by Cabinet in November 2017.

Declarations of interest:

None.

Witnesses:

Helen Trew, Waste Development Team Manager

Trevor Pugh, Strategic Director for Environment and Infrastructure

Key points raised during the discussion:

1.    An additional paper was tabled at the request of Eber Kington. A copy is attached in the minutes.

2.    Officers informed the Committee that the Surrey Waste Partnership had created a significant opportunities to work better with district and borough councils, and improve the cost to Surrey tax payers. It was noted that the Council could no longer sustain the level of funding it provided for waste management, and that discussions through the partnership had looked to minimise the impact of any changes on district and boroughs.

3.    The Committee was informed that the proposals had been reviewed by a working ground consisting of 7 different authorities, and the current proposals to Cabinet were based on their recommendations. Officers commented that this task group was reviewing the principles by which the funding was divided across the Surrey Waste Partnership. 

4.    Officers outlined the statutory responsibilities to pay recycling credits, as set out in the Environmental Protection Act 1990. It was noted that this was not a requirement where the Council took the decision to directly manage the materials, or if there was an agreement with partners to deliver these duties through an alternative mechanism. It was highlighted that an alternative mechanism was in place for food waste, where district and borough collections were supported through an ongoing revenue lump sum arrangement. It was also noted that garden waste was already consolidated in order to achieve better economies of scale.

5.    The officers outlined that the proposal to Cabinet would enable the Council to directly manage collected recyclable material, and improve value for money through engagement with the market. It was highlighted that this would also unlock new financial transfer mechanisms, and enable the council to fund partners more equitably. The Committee was informed that there was a fixed core payment to district and boroughs, and this would be reducing by £4 million over the next three years. In addition, a variable mechanism was being proposed that would enable any savings made as a result of the changed arrangements were shared across the Surrey Waste Partnership. It was noted that the elements of this mechanism, such as the baseline and per household costs, were still under review by the task group.

6.    The Committee was informed that district and boroughs had been engaged through chief executive and leader groups. It was commented that there were concerns regarding the impact of the proposals, though it was recognised that the Council needed to review this in light of the financial pressures it faced.

7.    The Committee queried how the principles and aims of the Surrey Waste Partnership were formed, and how district and boroughs would be assessed on their delivery in this respect. Concern was raised that there was a lack of clarity about what sanctions were available if individual districts and boroughs operated in contravention of these aims. Officers highlighted that the Surrey Waste Partnership was bound by a memorandum of understanding, and that any decision in that respect was a matter for the collective body. There was a discussion regarding the long term objectives and governance of the partnership, and some Members commented that they felt unaware of the Cabinet’s position with respect to becoming a single waste authority. It was noted that four of the district and boroughs were in a joint waste contract, and this would be a factor in any future considerations.

8.    Officers commented that the proposed arrangements were based on a principle of not trying to disadvantage Surrey tax payers, and also not seeking to disrupt existing favourable contract arrangements for some districts and boroughs. This meant that where individual contract arrangements had competitive prices, or there was a breakage fee in place, district and boroughs would be supported around transitional arrangements. This included some balancing payments back to the individual councils. Members of the committee highlighted a few areas where this was the case, and sought clarity about whether transitional arrangements would apply in such instances.

9.    The Committee queried whether there was a risk of impact on recycling rates. There was some discussion as to the individual arrangements in place to encourage greater recycling. This included regular compositional analysis to see what was being disposed of. It was also highlighted that Surrey Waste Partnership funded a dedicated team for site specific interventions, such as on multi-occupancy flats. It was noted that this resource was available to all district and borough councils. Members expressed the view that there was an ongoing need for investment to incentivise recycling, though also highlighted that smaller, incremental shifts were likely rather than significant changes in resident behaviour.

Recommendations:

The Committee notes the report and recommends:

·         That the Cabinet ensures clarity in regard to strategy aims, including achieving recycling targets, and variable payments and, in particular, the thresholds included within those aims, how progress against them is measured and agreed and the level of payment and loss of payments associated with delivery and non-delivery.

·         That the Cabinet makes a clear statement in regard to its position on a single co-owned approach.

·         That the Committee receives an update once the financial arrangements are in place.