Decision details

Matter for Decision

The Officer’s report provided an update on the financial impact of the joint procurement exercise undertaken by the RECAP partnership consisting of five Cambridgeshire Waste Collection Authorities and new contract options from March 2025.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Climate Action and Environment

Noted the additional MRF contract costs and options being pursued from March 2025 when the existing contract ends. Costs have already been accounted for in the MTFS.

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

See Officer’s report.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

The Committee received a report from the Waste Policy, Change and Innovations Manager.

 

Two Councillors made the following comments in response to the report:

      i.          Councillor Ashton referred to P6 24/41/EnC minutes and expressed concern regarding the Material Recycling Facility (MRF) contract process. Councillors needed to be informed at the earliest opportunity so options could be considered and debated. He had raised this point six months ago.

     ii.          Councillor Tong expressed concern that Councillors were not given the opportunity to scrutinise the MRF contract and there was a lack of information about environmental impacts.

 

The Executive Councillor for Climate Action and Environment responded:

      i.          Reiterated details from her response in September 2024. The procurement process started two years ago.

     ii.          The City Council had to follow procurement guidelines. The previous recycling contract ended in August 2024 so items for recycling needed to be sent somewhere since August 2024.

   iii.          The South Cambs District Council Liberal Democrat Cabinet Member and Labour City Council Executive Councillor plus Officers had worked on contract options. The intention was to minimise the Waste Service / MRF contract carbon footprint but this could not be measured until action was taken.

   iv.          There was no reduction in the number of items that could be recycled, but a number of items had been added, so more items could be put in residents’ blue bins for recycling.

    v.          The new contract would last five years to allow time for the City Council and shared service to review further options.

 

Councillor Ashton said the Scrutiny Committee should have been given more information to scrutinise options.

 

The Executive Councillor undertook to send recycling information via officers after committee.

 

The Waste Policy, Change and Innovations Manager said the following in response to Members’ questions:

      i.          Sixteen other local authorities in Great Britain used the recycling facility in Northern Ireland which the City Council intended to use.

     ii.          Undertook to liaise with the contractor in March 2025 to seek information requested such as the carbon footprint of operations.

 

The Executive Councillor said:

      i.          Was happy to bring a report back in future about recycling rates, off-setting waste lorry journey carbon footprint and MRF contract progress.

     ii.          Recycling was better than landfill, but the preferred hierarchy was reduce, reuse, recycle.

   iii.          Referred to information on the City Council website about recycling and asked Ward Councillors to signpost it to residents. Any specific queries could be directed to the Executive Councillor which could then be put on the website to be publicly available.

 

Councillor Hauk proposed and Councillor Payne seconded an amendment  to recommendation 1.1 from the Officer’s report (amendments shown as bold and struck through text):

It is recommended that the Environment and Community Scrutiny Committee notes the additional MRF contract costs and options being pursued from March 2025 when the existing contract ends calls on Greater Cambridge Shared Waste Services to defer any new MRF contract until the carbon footprint of alternative suppliers can be fully assessed. Costs have already been accounted for in the MTFS.

 

The amendment was lost by 3 votes to 5.

 

The Committee resolved by 4 votes to 4 and on Chair’s casting vote to endorse the recommendation.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendation.

 

Councillor Ashdon asked for clarification to be publicised that contract decisions were made in conjunction with South Cambs District Council and were not solely made by the City Council.

 

The Executive Councillor invited suggestions on how to provide greater clarity. It was clear in press releases, webpages and stickers on bins that recycling was undertaken by a shared service. The City Council and South Cambs District Council were equal partners so both had to agree before a proposal could be taken forward.

 

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

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.