Meeting documents

To elect a Chairman of the Joint Committee for the remainder of the year 2017/18.

Resolved

That Anthony Alford be elected Chairman of the Joint Committee for the year 2017/18.

To appoint a Vice-Chairman of the Joint Committee for the remainder of the year 2017/18.

Resolved

That Michael Roake be appointed Vice-Chairman of the Joint Committee for the year 2017/18. 

Apologies for absence were received from Anthony Alford and Peter Hall.

There were no declarations by members of any disclosable pecuniary interests under the Code of Conduct.

To note the Joint Committee’s Terms of Reference, as follows:

Statutory functions and activities delegated to the Joint Committee.

Part 1

The collection, management, disposal, treatment, or recycling of waste and

street cleansing.

Part 2

In performance of the statutory functions referred to in Part I the Joint Committee shall also undertake the following activities on behalf of the Partner Authorities:

In performance of the statutory functions referred to in Part I the Joint Committee shall also undertake the following activities on behalf of the Partner Authorities:

1.   manage the Contracts for the delivery of an integrated waste management service across the County of Dorset in so far as such service relates to all or any of the areas of the Partner Authorities through the Strategic Management Team;

2.   supervise and monitor the Senior Manager and the Host Authority (including the Strategic Management Team) in the performance of their duties and functions under this Constitution;

3.   assist the County Council with respect to the management of LATS;

4.   approve and implement the Business Plan;

5.   approve and implement the Service Plan;

6.   seek to influence and advise central government on waste and recycling policies;

7.   commission research and associated public opinion surveys etc. on waste and recycling;

8.   ensure that the legal and statutory functions delegated to it by the Partner Authorities are being discharged effectively;

9.   liaise with the Senior Manager to ensure that a strategic policy for waste and recycling across the County of Dorset is formulated and approved; and

10. assist the Partner Authorities in meeting their respective responsibilities such as, but limited to, emergency planning and responding to civil emergencies and elections.

Membership:

Two elected members from each Partner Authority.

The terms of reference for the Joint Committee had been published incorrectly due to a clerical error.  The revised terms of reference as set out in the Inter Authority Agreement were circulated at the meeting.

Noted

To confirm and sign the minutes of the meeting held on 23 March 2017.

The minutes of the meeting held on 23 March 2017 were confirmed and signed.

Public Speaking

There were no public questions received at the meeting in accordance with Standing Order 21(1).

There were no public statements received at the meeting in accordance with Standing Order 21(2).

Petitions

There were no petitions received in accordance with the County Council’s petition scheme at this meeting. 

To consider a report by the Head of Service (Strategy) of the Dorset Waste Partnership (attached).

The Joint Committee considered its forward plan and were informed of the forthcoming items to be considered in September and November 2017.

Noted

To consider the minutes and recommendation of the Dorset Waste Partnership Joint Scrutiny Group held on 3 April 2017.

The Joint Committee noted the minutes of the Joint Scrutiny Group meeting held on 3 April 2017 that included a recommendation that the Joint Committee endorse the revised "Recycle for Dorset" Service Policy.  It was noted that this was the subject of a separate item later on the agenda and that the Joint Scrutiny Group had made some useful suggestions regarding publicity concerning the change in policy in respect of Christmas trees.

A member drew attention to the use of CCTV in prominent fly tipping areas and encouraged the use of existing infrastructure and partnership working, a view endorsed by DWP officers who were keen to explore working with partners and to drive further efficiencies.

Noted

To consider a joint report by the Director of the Dorset Waste Partnership and Treasurer to the Dorset Waste Partnership (attached).

The Joint Committee considered a joint report by the Director and Treasurer of the Dorset Waste Partnership which set out the 2016/17 revenue outturn and final capital expenditure, the budget equalisation reserve, the 2017/18 budget forecast and a proposal for a replacement ICT system.  Appendices 4 and 5 of the Director’s report were commercially sensitive and exempt from publication.

The Director highlighted the very positive variance arising from the 2016/17 budget outturn, the reasons for which had been set out in the report.  It was recommended to transfer £480,416 of the total underspend to the budget equalisation reserve bringing the level of reserve funds to £1m and to return the remaining balance of £2.52m to partners using the cost sharing percentages. A level of £1m for the budget equalisation reserve was felt necessary as the impact of risk factors taken together could amount to a shortfall in the budget of up to £900k.

An omission in the report concerning the budget variance in relation to waste disposal was highlighted and it was confirmed that the previous and final forecasts had been £486k and £470k respectively.

Members of the Joint Committee congratulated officers on the outturn position, with some expressing the view that this should be promoted as a good news story in the local press.

The Director drew attention to appendix 9 of the report which was a graphical representation of the end of year position that could be publicised at the appropriate time.  She acknowledged the hard work of DWP staff, but also advised caution, highlighting the unique set of factors that had contributed to the outturn position that in all likelihood would not reoccur again. She also drew attention to the significant risk factors in 2017/18, which had led to the need to top up the budget equalisation reserve.

Some Members of the Committee shared the view of the Director and advised taking a cautious approach, particularly as many risk factors were outside the control of the DWP and not readily understood by the wider public.

In response to a specific question in relation to the replacement ICT system, it was confirmed that the capital sum included full rollout of in cab technology for all vehicles, following an initial pilot of 20 vehicles.

Resolved

1.      That the outturn position for 2016/17 be noted;

2.      That the final capital expenditure position for 2016/17 be noted;

3.      That £480,416 of the 2016/17 revenue underspend of £3.002M be transferred to the Budget Equalisation Reserve;

4.      That £2,521,885 of the 2016/17 revenue underspend of £3.002M be returned to partners in accordance with the cost share mechanism set out in the Inter Authority Agreement;

5.      That the procurement and implementation of a replacement ICT system as described in paragraph 4.4, as a variation from the existing capital programme and revenue budget be approved, subject to host authority acceptance of the business case and financing arrangements; and

6.      That the early 2017/18 budget forecast be noted.

Reason for Decisions

The Joint Committee monitored the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 36.

To consider a report by the Legal Advisor to the Dorset Waste Partnership.

The Joint Committee considered a report regarding the adoption of a Scheme of Delegation and schedule of meetings in 2017/18.

The Legal Advisor introduced the report and explained that the Inter Authority Agreement required the Joint Committee to adopt schemes of delegation for decision making and to approve a schedule of meetings for the remainder of the year.  As the host authority and employer of DWP staff, the Dorset County Council (DCC) Schemes of Delegation had been adopted.  The existing general scheme was from 2013 and would be subject to some amendments due to a change in DCC Cabinet portfolio holders.

Resolved

1.   That the Scheme of Delegation be re-adopted; and

2.   That the proposed Schedule of Meetings be approved.

Reason for Decisions

To support the delivery of effective public services through the Dorset Waste Partnership.

To consider a report by the Head of Service (Strategy) of the Dorset Waste Partnership (attached).

The Joint Committee considered a report by the Head of Service (Strategy) concerning the revision of the Recycle for Dorset Service Policy. 

The Head of Service (Strategy) explained that it was necessary to revise the policy in order to reflect the business as usual state and to drive further efficiencies.  She highlighted the two main changes to the policy as being the provision of gull proof sacks for properties that were not eligible for a wheeled bin and the removal of natural Christmas tree collection with the residual waste collection following the Christmas period.

Members were informed that there was no obligation for Councils to collect Christmas trees under the Controlled Waste Regulations 1992 and that the collection of the trees with the residual waste did not comply with the DWP waste strategy or business plan which encouraged residents to reuse, recycle and compost. It was confirmed that although a £10k saving would be made, the reason for the change in policy was not financially based.  The DWP had achieved excellent recycling rates and an ethos based around observing the waste hierarchy and it was important to continue setting an example to Dorset residents. 

There was some debate by the Joint Committee on the removal of the Christmas tree collection.  Some members felt that this could lead to an increase in fly tipping and considered that Christmas trees should be treated as an exception as a gesture of goodwill and willingness to work with the community.  The suggestion was made that Christmas trees could be collected as part of the brown bin collection and diverted away from landfill.

Other members supported the change in policy as being in line with the waste hierarchy.  They noted that other councils did not provide this service and that the DWP should learn from their experience.  Other forms of disposal available to residents were also highlighted, such as taking Christmas trees to HRCs or using charitable collections that operated in some areas.

In response to a question it was confirmed that the number of trees collected with the residual waste in previous years was not known, but had been estimated to be approximately 2,500 trees across Dorset.  It was highlighted that users of the garden waste service paid for the collection of natural Christmas trees as part of their subscription.

The Director confirmed that a free collection of the Christmas trees with the garden waste collection would cost between £9k-14k.  A charge of £10 could be made to residents who did not subscribe to the garden waste service, but this would require a one off cost to develop the administration system to support this payment.

A member acknowledged that, although it seemed sensible to remove Christmas trees with the garden waste, only subscribers to the garden waste service would pay and it would be time consuming for the crews to look out for and collect other trees on an ad hoc basis and be impractical on the ground.

Overall, it was considered by a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 38.

To consider a report by the Director of the Dorset Waste Partnership (attached).

The Joint Committee considered a report by the Director of the DWP which set out the current infrastructure used by the DWP as well as the anticipated costs and risks of using third party sites.  The Joint Committee received a powerpoint presentation by the Director and Head of Service (Strategy) outlining the key elements of the report.

Following the presentation the Director referred to the high risk to the Wimborne Household Recycling Centre (HRC) if access to Somerley HRC in Hampshire was stopped. A member noted that Christchurch HRC was similarly used by Hampshire residents.

Members were informed that Hampshire County Council was holding discussions with all of its neighbouring authorities in order to have a single system across all of its HRCs for use by non-residents.  It was also known that there were more Dorset residents using Somerley HRC than Hampshire residents who visited the HRC at Christchurch.

In order to avoid the administrative costs of charging Dorset residents per visit to Somerley HRC, monitoring arrangements were being discussed with Hampshire County Council Officers and an option for the Dorset Waste Partnership to contribute to Hampshire County Council continued to be pursued.  It was confirmed that there were no restrictions to non-residents using Dorset HRCs.

A member highlighted the shortage of landfill sites in Dorset following the closure of Trigon and Beacon Hill, leading to the need to transport waste further distances for disposal.

The Director responded that sites had been identified in the Waste Local Plan, and that operators may choose to invest and develop facilities in Dorset or elsewhere.  There might also be facilities available outside of Dorset who were experiencing under capacity that the DWP could use in future.

Furthermore, there were opportunities for the DWP to develop sites and take in additional tonnages from commercial waste operators depending on the type of infrastructure in place.

Resolved

That the findings of the Strategic Outline Programme and actions contained therein be noted.

Reason for Decision

The partner authorities of the DWP had a statutory duty to collect / dispose of waste and provide sites where residents may deposit their household wastes. The infrastructure to support these services needed to be fit for purpose

To consider a report by the Head of Service (Strategy) of the Dorset Waste Partnership (attached).

The Committee considered a report by the Head of Service (Strategy) presenting the current corporate risk register of the Dorset Waste Partnership.

In particular, she highlighted a new risk to the budget arising from the potential revocation of HRC charges arising from the Government’s new Litter Strategy for England published in April 2017.

She informed members that should the ability to charge be removed there would be increased future costs of disposing for the items as well as the associated cost of unpicking the HRC contract.

Noted

No questions were asked by members under Standing Order 20.