Decision details

To move to the next step of preparing a detailed business case on the shared waste service.

Matter for Decision

A review is being carried out on the potential to create a single waste service, based at Waterbeach, to serve both Cambridge City Council and South Cambridgeshire District Council. The Officer’s report considered the outline business case for co-location of the two waste services at Waterbeach and the creation of a Single Shared Waste Service. This update shows initial financial saving benefits from a combined domestic waste service, with further benefits likely to be delivered from co-location, a single trade waste service and joint vehicle and equipment procurement. Based on this, it was recommended that Councillors agreed to the preparation of a final business case proposal, to be reported back in October 2014 for a final decision.

 

A vital part of the approach to deliver the advantages above, would be the ability for the Single Shared Waste Service to be democratically accountable to both Councils. It is therefore proposed to establish a single Governance Board made up of the Executive and Cabinet Councillors from the District Council and the City Council. The Board would be responsible for setting the strategic vision of the service, agreeing the key operational performance targets and, crucially, ensuring the Service is accountable for the delivery of the performance targets. In turn there would be a mechanism to regularly report the work of the Board to members within each Council each quarter. It is further proposed to jointly appoint a single, Head of Service to run the single waste service, who will responsible for operational decisions and operational delivery, accountable through line-management to the Board.

 

Public Questions

Members of the public asked a number of questions, as set out below.

 

1.    Mr Carter raised the following points. Queried:

      i.          If there had been assessment on the impact of vehicles travelling extra mileage to the proposed new shared waste site located outside the city boundary.

    ii.          If it would be cost effective to provide the shared service from the proposed new location (due to the extra mileage).

 

2.    Mr Watson expressed concern regarding the financial impact on his family from having to move sites. It was expected that it would cost him more to travel to the proposed new site instead of the current one.

 

3.    Mr Roberts raised the following points on behalf of City Council and South Cambridgeshire District Council GMB members. Queried:

      i.          Why the City Council was moving from a site that it owned (current waste service site) to a new one that it would have to lease.

    ii.          If the site move would be cost effective.

 iii.          If the reduction of two collection rounds was realistic given the rate of city growth, plus the service would also have to cover South Cambridgeshire residents too.

  iv.          How Council tax would be charged/allocated as Cambridge City Council and South Cambridgeshire District Council charged different rates for the same service.

    v.          Referred to Appendix 4 (P57 of the Officer’s report). The City Council operated three rounds one week, and four the next.

 

4.    Mr Bannister queried why the City Council was undertaking a shared service with South Cambridgeshire District Council when the City Council waste service was profitable and the South Cambridgeshire service less so.

 

The Director of Environment responded to questions 1 – 4 as follows:

       i.          The proposed shared site would be based at Waterbeach, to serve both Cambridge City Council and South Cambridgeshire District Council.

     ii.          The site was chosen as it was next to routes for the current disposal site, so should not lead to an increase in overall mileage.

   iii.          The proposed site has capacity that can be extended, the current Mill Road one does not.

   iv.          The City Council had committed to moving from the Mill Road site in its Local Plan, to provide a new site for housing. It was considered good practice not to locate a site near housing.

    v.          Stated that if the Officer recommendations were agreed, he as Director of Environment would look into the impact on staff of the proposed shared service as part of the business case.

   vi.          The intention of sharing services was to reduce costs. Cost issues and answers to these would be set out in the final business case.

 vii.          If collection route issues and reductions to collection round numbers could be clarified, this should lead to cost savings, therefore there was a business case to share the service. If a business could not be proved, the proposal would not go ahead.

viii.          The City Council’s income from trade waste was higher than South Cambridgeshire’s, any settlement would have to be beneficial for both parties or the service would not be shared.

 

The Executive Councillor for Environment, Waste and Public Health said:

       i.          The intention of setting up a shared waste service with South Cambridgeshire District Council was to provide a better service to the public.

     ii.          Cambridge City Council did exceptionally well at recycling trade waste. It was hoped that South Cambridgeshire District Council would continue its good work and rise to the same level as Cambridge City Council.

   iii.          The impact on staff of setting up a shared service would be reviewed as part of the business case process.

   iv.          The Executive Councillor had liaised with Mr Roberts and welcomed feedback in future regarding staff issues and questions.

 

5.    Mr Roberts asked for reassurance the shared waste service was not an outsourcing exercise.

 

The Executive Councillor for Environment, Waste and Public Health responded:

       i.          This was not a privatisation exercise. The intention was to make a statutory service more effective.

     ii.          This was one way of sharing services with South Cambridgeshire District Council.

 

6.    Mr Carter asked if redundancies could be expected from the proposed shared waste service.

 

The Head of Refuse and Environment responded:

       i.          He could not say there would be no redundancies, but the emphasis would be on natural wastage and reducing vacancies.

     ii.          The next stage of the process (if Officer recommendations were agreed by the Executive Councillor) would be to inform City and South Cambridgeshire staff of proposals through consultation on change management.

 

7.    Mr Bannister asked if workers or managers would be more affected by redundancies.

 

The Director of Environment responded:

       i.          Changes were subject to organisational change policy.

     ii.          The shared service should lead to a slimmer management structure, so less managerial positions were likely through a slimmer structure.

   iii.          The proposed Shared Waste Head of Service role will have a strategic Management function to it.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Environment, Waste and

Public Health

       i.          Agreed to work with officers at the City Council and South Cambridgeshire District Council to prepare a final business case for co-location of current services and the creation of a Single Shared Waste Service based at Waterbeach and that this case is reported back to both authorities for a final decision in October 2014.

     ii.          Agreed that the final model be explored for the Single Shared Waste Service comprising of a single management structure employed by one Council, with staff on separate terms and conditions linked to either the City Council or South Cambridgeshire District Council, leading to a single organisation wholly run and managed by the two Councils.

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

The Committee received a report from the Director of Environment.

 

The Committee made the following comments in response to the report:

       i.          Residents appreciated the Waste Service as a valuable front line service.

     ii.          The business case would look at:

·       Environmental and workforce impact.

·       Governance and scrutiny arrangements.

   iii.          The City Council welcomed staff comments on the proposed shared service and would liaise with Trade Unions at joint forums to explore issues.

 

In response to Members’ questions the Executive Councillor for Environment, Waste and Public Health said the following:

       i.          It will be clarified in future which Councillors will be involved in decisions regarding the shared service. Both City and South Cambridgeshire Councillors would be involved. The Executive Councillor noted that City Liberal Democrat Councillors wished to be involved in the process.

     ii.          The Executive Councillor undertook to regularly meet with Officers to keep staff informed on developments.

   iii.          Initial details had been published as part of the Environment Scrutiny Committee report pack in order to meet legal publication deadlines. These would be further developed through the business case.

   iv.          The business case would set out options for leasing the Waterbeach site, such as a long term lease that would reflect any investment in the site to get the best deal. If arrangements were not practicable, they would not go ahead.

 

In response to Members’ questions the Director of Environment said City and South Cambridgeshire staff would have different terms and conditions in the shared waste service, to reflect discussions with trade unions and Human Resources. These would be protected through TUPE arrangements. It was acknowledged this may complicate arrangements as staff undertaking the same work could be on different terms and conditions.

 

The Committee unanimously resolved to endorse the recommendation.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations.

 

Conflicts of Interest Declared by the Executive Councillor (and any Dispensations Granted)

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.