Issue - meetings

Matter for Decision:  

The Officer’s report set out the overall base revenue and capital budget position for the Environmental & Waste Services Portfolio. The report compared the proposed 2012/13 Revised Budget to the budget as at September 2012 and details the budget proposals for 2013/14 and 2014/15.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Environmental and Waste Services

 

The Executive Councillor resolved to:

 

Review of Charges

              i.      Approve the proposed charges for this portfolio’s services and facilities, as shown in Appendix B1 to the Officer’s report.

            ii.      Request that the proposed charges for this portfolio’s services and facilities, as shown in Appendix B2 to the officer’s report, are  submitted to Council for approval.

 

Revenue Budgets

          iii.      Approve, with any amendments, the current year funding requests and savings, (shown in Appendix A of the Officer’s report) and the resulting revised revenue budgets for 2012/13 (shown in Section 3, Table 1 of the Officer’s report) for submission to the Executive.

         iv.      Agree proposals for revenue savings and unavoidable bids, as set out in Appendix C of the Officer’s report.

           v.      Agree proposals for bids from external or existing funding, as set out in Appendix D of the Officer’s report.

         vi.      Agree proposals for Priority Policy Fund (PPF) bids, as set out in Appendix E of the Officer’s report.

       vii.      Approve the budget proposals for 2013/14 as shown in Table 2 of the Officer’s report, for submission to the Executive.

 

Capital

     viii.      Seek approval from the Executive to carry forward resources from 2012/13, as detailed in Appendix G of the Officer’s report, to fund re-phased capital spending.

         ix.      Approve capital bids, as identified in Appendix H of the Officer’s report, for submission to the Executive for inclusion in the Capital & Revenue Projects Plan or addition to the Hold List, as indicated.

           x.      Approve the remit and establishment of a capital programme for the purchase of bins for new developments as detailed in paragraph 3.2 of the Officer’s report, for submission to the Executive.

         xi.      Delegate the carrying out and completion of the procurement for the provision of wheeled bins for the use in communal waste and recycling facilities for flats and individual premises for new developments to the Director of Environment, subject to the receipt of funding from developers. This delegation is intended to cover the current programme plus future years’ procurement.

       xii.      Confirm that there are no items covered by this portfolio to add to the Council’s Hold List, for submission to the Executive.

     xiii.      Approve the following project appraisals as detailed in Appendix K of the Officer’s report:

a.    Bins for New Developments

b.    In Cab Technology – Full Roll Out

c.    Vehicle Replacement Programme 2013/14

     xiv.      Approve the current Capital & Revenue Projects Plan, as detailed in Appendix J of the Officer’s report, to be updated for any amendments detailed in (h), (i), (j), (k), (l) and (m) above.

 

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 Principal Accountant (Services) regarding overall base revenue and capital budget position for the Environmental & Waste Services Portfolio.

 

Concerns were raised about the PPF (Priority Policy Funding) detailed in Appendix D of the Officer’s report regarding the Rapid Response Team. How would the public know this service was available? Why would it be responsive rather than pro active? Why was if needed as the public would expect a good service at all times? How would it link with the current ranger arrangements?

 

The Head of Streets and Open Spaces responded. The goal was to achieve the best results within the resources available. The new service would work closely with the rangers and there was a potential to share equipment. Rangers could call on the Rapid Response Service if required. The new service would pick up cyclical jobs and when called to an area, would have the flexibility to pick up any other outstanding tasks in that area. There would be no duplication or conflict with the CBid initiative.

 

Members suggested that the service would need careful marketing and would need to embrace new technologies. The officer confirmed that, in conjunction with the Head of Customer Services, new technologies and alternative ways of communicating with customers were being explored. 

 

Councillor Herbert expressed concerns that the recategorisation of educational waste could result in a reduction of revenue income. The Head of Refuse and Environment confirmed that this was a risk and had been added to the risk register. The commercial recycling service would be closely monitored and letters had been sent to all affected premises.

 

In response to members’ questions the Head of Refuse and Environment confirmed the following regarding the appendices of the Officer’s report:

 

              i.      The drop in funding noted in Appendix F was the result of an unsuccessful DCLG bid.

            ii.      Environmental Protection and Enforcement budget allocation groupings had been realigned due to efficiency measures and staffing restructures. There was no net loss.

          iii.      Appendix K(i) bins for new developments, related only to new planning applications. Additional funding had been awarded previously for existing flats and improved recycling opportunities had been rolled out to some existing blocks of flats.

         iv.      The final report on waste compositions was expected shortly and this would direct future recycling work.

           v.      The service was actively engaged with new technologies and was considering engagement methods, such as twitter, to improve communication with younger people.

         vi.      Appendix K(ii) ‘In Cab Technology’, the pilot project had not yet started and further information would be reported at a later date.

 

The Committee resolved by 4 votes to 0 to endorse the recommendations.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendation.

 

Conflicts of interest declared by the Executive Councillor (and any dispensations granted)

Not applicable.