A Cambridge City Council website

Cambridge City Council

Council and democracy

Home > Council and Democracy > Decision details

Decision details

Shared Waste Service Business Plan 2019/20

Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for Climate Change, Environment and City Centre

Decision status: Recommendations Approved

Is Key decision?: No

Is subject to call in?: No

Purpose:

To approve the Greater Cambridge Shared Waste Service Plan 2019/20.

Decision:

Matter for Decision

The Shared Services Business Plans 2019/20 demonstrated that continued progress had been made over the last year against the Shared Services objectives. Shared Services continue to explore new ways of working. They are an important feature of the transformation agenda, particularly through the use of technology.

 

The Business Plan has been considered by the Shared Service member Steering Group, the Shared Service Management Board, and the Chief Executives and Leaders/Portfolio holders for each Council. It was now being presented for scrutiny in all partner authorities.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Environmental Services and City Centre

  i.  Approved the Business Plan for each of the Shared Services attached as Appendices to the Officer’s report; and

  ii.  Authorised the Shared Services Management Board to approve final amendments to the Business Plans in line with comments received from all partner 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 Head of Waste Resources.

 

In response to the report Councillors commented that the tax on non-recyclable plastics was having an effect. Suggested more details could be included in the Resources and Waste Strategy on how costs were being pushed back to manufacturers, and recycling rates were increasing.

 

The Head of Waste Resources said the following in response to Members’ questions:

  i.  He had hosted a meeting with councillors to go through responses to the Resources and Waste Strategy. Details were not available at the time of writing the Officer’s report. He was happy to respond to queries outside of today’s meeting. Also to host another meeting.

  ii.  The Head of Waste Resources suggested consulting on responses to the first question as responses to this would affect responses to other questions.

  iii.  There was money in the budget for consultancy work. The Head of Waste Resources recommended saving funding until the second or third phase as the future was unquantifiable at present. Central Government’s strategy could not be predicted, nor how the City Council should respond (at present).

  iv.  The Resources and Waste Strategy would come into effect in 2023. The Head of Waste Resources suggested avoiding making any last minute changes.

  v.  A change to legislation was expected in future on how the council collected recyclets:

a.  What could be collected.

b.  Bins.

c.  Provision of recycling facilities.

  vi.  The council was trying to collect satisfaction data on bin collection. Complaints were not recorded in key performance indicators as they were logged in a separate council system.

 vii.  There was some increase in complaint figures as the council had made it easier for people to contact the organisation.

viii.  Comments and complaints were used by officers to shape the waste service.

 

The Strategic Director said the Annual Shared Service report was coming to the next committee meeting and would include performance data.

 

The Head of Waste Resources said officers were looking at how to publish performance data on the council website. ‘Success’ was seen as reducing the amount of waste and increasing recycling rates; rather than reducing the number of complaints about the service.

 

  ix.  The Head of Waste Resources offered to clarify service costs (P96 of the Officer’s report) to councillors upon request. The Waste Service had a low ratio of staff to managers to minimise cost and maximise independence/autonomy of staff.

 

The Committee resolved by 9 votes to 0(unanimously by those present) to endorse the recommendations.

 

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.

Publication date: 15/05/2019

Date of decision: 21/03/2019