Council and democracy
Home > Council and Democracy > Issue
59 Proposed Single Shared Waste Service PDF 272 KB
Report to follow
Additional documents:
Minutes:
Public Question
Members of the public asked a number of questions, as set out below.
1. Mr Roberts raised the following points on behalf of
GMB members. Asked for clarification:
i.
If
garage staff were moving or not.
ii.
How/when
vehicle maintenance would be undertaken.
iii.
If
Waterbeach would be the location for all vehicles.
iv.
How
Councillors could make an informed decision without figures from other council
services.
v.
Details
on financial implications in Appendix 1, specifically costs/savings that would
arise from the shared service proposal.
vi.
Stated
shared services could be beneficial if done in a timely manner. An informed
decision should be made on the business operation. The report raised more
questions than answers. Suggested South Cambridgeshire District Council (SCDC)
and the City Council should not tie themselves into a lease until the
costs/benefits are clear.
The Director of Environment responded:
i. The Mill Road site had been allocated for housing, so the City Council Waste Service would have to move from the site regardless of whether services are shared with SCDC or not.
ii. The move to Waterbeach could lead to a change in service such as maintaining trucks. This proposal needed more work, and would be reported back to Environment Scrutiny Committee in future. Staff and trade unions would be consulted on proposals.
iii. Not all operational details (eg depot site functions) could be given at present, but would be addressed in future. There is a business case to make this change.
iv. Staff would be consulted in future regarding shared service proposals. A key consideration was how staff could travel to the Waterbeach site.
v. Truck ‘rounds’ would be reviewed in future for optimum efficiency. The Director of Environment, Head of Refuse & Environment and Executive Councillor for Environment, Waste and Public Health attended a staff meeting and committed to work with staff to develop the best routes.
vi. Bad weather needed to be factored into operational plans so crews could access the Waterbeach site.
vii. Section 11 of the Officer’s report set out planned savings, including the loss of one head of service.
The Head of Refuse & Environment said
Appendix 1 of the Officers report set out income from various sources. City
Council and SCDC income varied for paper waste recycling, but were similar for
other services.
The SCDC Director of Health &
Environmental Services said SCDC spent five times more on fuel costs than the
City Council. This would be factored into the budget for shared service
operating costs so the city would not be affected.
The Executive Councillor for Environment,
Waste and Public Health responded:
i.
Recognised a substantial change
was proposed.
ii.
Things had gone well in the past
where staff had fed into consultations to shape services.
iii.
Staff had raised issues for
consideration regarding the current proposal for shared services. These would
be considered.
iv.
The process to make savings needed
to start now, but not in a way that negatively affected the service.
2. Mr Roberts said the shared service would reduce paper
waste recycling income for the City Council as it worked in a different way to
SCDC.
The Executive Councillor for Environment,
Waste and Public Health responded that income was not guaranteed, so future
assumptions could not be based upon historic data.
Mr Roberts said that people were not against
the principle of a shared service, but it should be set up in the correct way.
The Council would not want to pull out of a deal later when no savings were
made.
3. Mr Watson raised the following points:
i.
There
were general staff concerns regarding proposed service cost savings.
ii.
Referred
to a paper he circulated setting out estimated costs for him to travel to the
Waterbeach site instead of the Mill Road one. He stated his transport costs
would greatly increase when travelling to the new site, which would leave him
financially worse off.
iii.
Queried
if increased staff travel costs had been factored into an equalities impact
assessment.
iv.
Queried
how the proposed reduction in waste collection vehicles would lead to cost
savings as this would cause longer rounds and working hours.
v.
Queried
if SCDC would save more costs that the City Council.
The Head of Refuse & Environment
responded:
i.
Financial impacts would be
considered as part of organisational change policy. Individual 1-2-1 meetings
would be held with staff to understand their circumstances.
ii.
Route optimisation would occur
through using vehicles more effectively, rather than having artificial
boundaries between SCDC and city service areas.
iii.
Any system introduction would lead
to questions and concerns. SCDC and the City Council were talking to staff on
how to introduce the shared service. This would lead to a lot of change.
The SCDC Director of Health & Environmental Services said:
i.
It was important for manager’s to
be aware of employee’s personal details such as transport costs. Managers
needed to be creative in finding solutions to reduce costs by working with
frontline staff.
ii.
Overtime was paid to SCDC staff to
compensate for long hours when services were redesigned in September 2014.
These hours were reducing.
iii.
SCDC spent £3.9m per year on waste
services, the City Council spent £2.6m. Each would put this amount of funding
into the shared service budget and share savings.
The Director of Environment said £13,000 of premises costs would be saved
through the move to Waterbeach through enhanced facilities, as the City Council
would not have to maintain the Mill Road depot (proposal dependent on releasing
the land for housing).
The Executive Councillor for Environment,
Waste and Public Health made the following points:
i.
Thanked staff for their comments.
ii.
Travel was an important future
consideration. The Executive Councillor, Director of Environment plus Head of
Refuse & Environment were discussing options to address concerns.
iii.
SCDC and City Waste service
workers would be offered a good deal and could expect similar terms and
conditions (these differed currently).
4. Mr Stevens queried if the garage and taxi certificate
of compliance service would move to Waterbeach, or perhaps be outsourced.
The Head of Refuse & Environment
responded:
i.
A business case on services would
be presented to Councillors in future. This would include costs/savings for
outsourcing all garage services.
ii.
Officers were looking at what the
garage does now as part of a review of services that would/not be provided in
future.
iii.
It was important to undertake the
service review.
The Executive Councillor for Environment,
Waste and Public Health reiterated the above points and said the issue would
return in future for consideration by Environment Scrutiny Committee in more
detail.
5. Mr Bannister raised the following points. Queried:
i.
Why report details
were late.
ii.
Fuel operation
details.
iii.
How routes could be
optimised when in-cab technology did not work.
iv.
A number of SCDC
loaders were agency staff, how would this be addressed through shared services.
v.
Details about travel
allowance. It would cease after 1 year, which was effectively a pay cut.
The SCDC Director
of Health & Environmental Services said:
i. All fleet vehicles would refuel at the same place in South Cambs.
ii. In-cab technology would be reviewed in future.
iii. Agency staff were used to cover service changes, most drivers/loaders were SCDC staff.
iv.
Operational details eg travel allowance would be
addressed in future.
The Head of Refuse & Environment
responded:
i.
Officer reports were issued 1 week
pre-committee.
ii.
Staff could expect a standard 37
hour working week. Over time etc would be reviewed through consultation.
The Executive Councillor for Environment,
Waste and Public Health reiterated it was important that staff fed into the
shared service process, this would shape how it operated. This could be done
through trade unions, Leading Hands or the Head of Refuse & Environment.
The Executive Councillor for Environment, Waste and Public Health undertook to
liaise with Mr Roberts in future.
Mr Bannister said that staff did not want a
pay cut, and suggested existing staff be paid all monies, whereas new staff could
be put on new conditions (if downgraded).
The Executive Councillor for Environment,
Waste and Public Health said staff and pay issues would be explored through
trade unions and the Joint Staff Employer Forum. The Director of Environment said this was a crucial issue and a report on
operational details would be brought to Environment Scrutiny Committee in
future.
Environment Scrutiny Committee members thanked public speakers for
attending and talking to the Committee.
Matter for
Decision
The Officer’s report set out the work that had been done to
assess the potential for a single shared waste service for South Cambridgeshire
District Council and Cambridge City Council. The report concluded that there
were significant savings that can be achieved by creating a shared service with
a Governance Board representing both Councils. The report recommended the
creation of a single shared waste service at Waterbeach and that
arrangements be made to consult with staff and unions on detailed
proposals. A further report was requested on a range of matters including
options for the appropriate long term delivery model for the single shared
waste service, and business cases for a shared trade waste service and also the
possible re-location of the Cambridge City garage facility.
Decision
of Executive Councillor for Environment, Waste and Public Health
Agreed:
i.
The creation of a single shared
waste service, wholly owned and run by the local authorities, with a single management
structure and workforce, located at the Waterbeach Depot using a single pool of
vehicles for Cambridge City & South Cambridgeshire DC.
ii.
The relocation of the Cambridge
City Waste Service to share the Waterbeach Depot; and the creation of a shared
Head of Service for Waste and a single management team to deliver the single
shared waste service, and to undertake full consultation with the staff and
unions to deliver these changes;
iii.
The creation of a Shared Waste
Board to oversee the delivery of the Single Shared Waste Service, to oversee
performance within the budget and policy framework set by both Councils, and to
provide advice and recommendations on waste policy matters to both Councils,
and to deliver the Councils’ objectives.
iv.
To delegate the implementation of
the proposals set out in (i), (ii) and (iii) above to the Cambridge City
Director of Environment and South Cambridgeshire DC Director of Health &
Environmental Services, in consultation with the South Cambridgeshire DC
Cabinet Member, and the Cambridge City Executive Member, Chair of Executive
Scrutiny and Opposition Spokespersons.
v.
To develop further single shared
waste service efficiency and cost-saving proposals as set out in the Officer’s
report.
vi.
To develop options and proposals
for alternative joint delivery models (beyond the Lead Authority model) to
operate the single shared waste service and to report back to Councillors in
July 2015.
vii.
To instruct officers to prepare a
detailed implementation plan with financial implications to be agreed with the
Shared Waste Board to inform the future budget setting work of 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 and
SCDC Director of Health & Environmental
Services.
The Committee made the following comments in response to the report:
i.
Were reassured that operational matters would be
pre-scrutinised before implementation.
ii.
City Council and SCDC staff should be on the same
terms and conditions for the same job.
iii.
It was essential to find savings, these not costs
should be shared equally with SCDC.
iv.
The City Council did not want staff annualised
hours terms and conditions like SCDC.
In response to Members’ questions the Director of Environment and SCDC Director of Health & Environmental Services said the
following:
i.
Staff transport arrangements would be addressed
though the Joint Staff Employer Forum.
The Executive Councillor for Environment,
Waste and Public Health said this exercise was not a privatisation of the waste
service. Reiterated staff travel issues would be reviewed in future.
ii.
No impact was expected on staff pensions. This
would be confirmed with the Head of Human Resources.
iii.
Risks concerning the paper waste recycling service
would be checked with SCDC in future. Details were set out in the SCDC Medium
Term Strategy.
iv.
SCDC and City Council terms and conditions would be
harmonised in future. Details would be reported back to Environment Scrutiny
Committee in July 2015. Timetable details were set out in Appendix 3 of the
Officer’s report.
The Executive Councillor for Environment,
Waste and Public Health said the intention was to harmonise terms and
conditions upwards ie the highest pay band in the relevant range.
v.
SCDC had a higher demand for waste services in
summer rather than winter. This was when green bin waste crews were needed in
rural areas, so staff worked longer hours in summer than winter, but costs
equalled out over the year ie salary was unaffected. SCDC used annualised
hours, but the City Council did not. Each could operate differently using the
shared service.
vi.
A single head of service would be empowered to
deliver it.
vii.
The contract exit strategy would be set out in a
Memorandum of Understanding.
viii.
Consultation mechanisms were in place for Garage
and Waste Service staff.
The Committee unanimously resolved 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.