Venue: Britten Room - Endeavour House. View directions
Contact: Henriette Holloway
No. | Item |
---|---|
APOLOGIES AND SUBSTITUTES Minutes: An apology of absence was received from Councillors Peter Burgoyne and Fenella Swan. Councillor Kathryn Grandon was substituting for Councillor Burgoyne. |
|
DECLARATION OF INTERESTS Minutes: There were no declarations of interest. |
|
JOS/17/7 CONFIRMATION OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 18 DECEMBER 2017 PDF 187 KB Minutes: The minutes of the meeting held on the 18 December 2018 were confirmed as a correct record with the following amendment:
Paragraph 4.11 to read: …..and this was capped at £100 per existing council tax dwelling. |
|
THE SUFFOLK WASTE PARTNERSHIP - BEHAVIOURAL CHANGES PRESENTATION Rob Cole – Suffolk Waste Partnership Manager
A presentation to update Members on Waste Recycling in Suffolk
Minutes: 14.1 Rob Cole, Suffolk Waste Partnership Manager, conducted the presentation of Waste Recycling in Suffolk. He explained that the Suffolk Waste Partnership (SWP) consisted of eight boroughs and councils and that Councillors Arthey and Barker were the Councils representatives on the SWP.
14.2 During the presentation Members asked questions and the SWP Manager responded to these including:
· An annual report was no longer being forwarded to Members as the report was monolithic; · Cost incurred by the SWP was split between the eight members authorities; · In the future food waste was going to be the biggest challenge for the Councils; · Food waste collection was not a viable option in Suffolk as the cost of collecting the waste would be too expensive, countywide it was estimated to cost an extra £3M extra annually. Food waste collections were better suited for city and urban areas; · SWP was campaigning for households to increase composting, which would include some food waste; · A central resource fund existed, and it was the intention that areas with high contamination rate should be target with an information campaign to change behaviour; · There were no plans to include glass in curb side collections; · There had been a plastic and food waste recycling campaign supported by a video on the website and this had round 100,000 hits and continued to be viewed by residents in Suffolk.
14.3 The SWP Manager informed Members that at the SWP January 2018 meeting the priorities were set to change recycling behaviour in Suffolk and the main priorities were:
· Continuing to tackle MRF contamination · Recycle more glass · Continue the subsidised home composting promotion · Investigate ways to tackle food waste over longer term · SWP ‘Resource Efficiency Fund (REF) · Targeted communications
14.4 Members were in a unique position to support waste recycling in the community and to take information to their parishes.
14.5 Some Members hoped that a policy of education and encouragement would continue for waste recycling.
|
|
JOS/17/8 WASTE SERVICES - OPTIONS FOR REVIEW PDF 166 KB Chris Fry, Assistant Director – Environment and Commercial Partnerships
Members to consider options for reviewing Waste Contracts, Recycling Services and Public Awareness based on the attached Waste Services Scoping report. Minutes: 15.1 Members had before them the Waste Services Scoping Report JOS/17/8 and the Corporate Manager – Waste Services said in response to Members questions that the review currently undertaken by Serco was based on the present number of households and did not include future housing growth.
15.2 The Serco service contract was only for collecting the waste, however the contract represented the largest part of the expenditure for Waste Services. Members requested that a more detailed breakdown of this contract be provided to them.
15.3 It was established that the MRF contact was currently very beneficial to the Councils, and that it was likely that the MRF contract cost would increase when a new contract was negotiated in May 2019. It was possible to extend the contract for another two years with Viridor, but the contract would also be put out for tender on the open market.
15.4 Members requested clarification on the long term financial implication of the waste contracts, and if income from waste would increase based on the increasing number of household in Suffolk. Officers responded that that the waste market was difficult to predict, and that the international market changed all the time.
15.5 Members continued to discuss the possibilities of the financial impact on the Councils’ budgets in relation to waste contracts and asked if financial forecasts for improvement in profits generated from waste were possible. It was deemed necessary to allow the Councils to plan ahead and that that the risks involved also needed to be substantiated.
15.6 It was suggested that scrutiny of the Serco contract review and the Officer review of the waste contracts, were to be conducted in October or November 2018, before these reviews were being presented to Cabinet between October and December 2018.
15.7 Officers believed that it was likely that the formal sign off for the Serco Contract would be in April 2019.
15.8 It was clarified that there was more competition in the Babergh District for garden waste disposal sites. Members discussed the possibility of increasing waste collection but were informed that in general there were limits on the capacity at the waste processing plants, effecting the amount of waste which could be processed. It was therefore not possible to increase waste collection unless a there was a capacity for processing the waste.
15.9 It was suggested that the Councils could consider expansion of the Joint Waste Contract in the future but that this depended on a greater understanding of how waste collection and waste disposal was conducted in the Districts. This needed to be explained to Members, who could then take this information to their wards and Parish Councils.
15.10 Some Members felt that it would be beneficial to conduct a new campaign to make the public aware of what foods could be included in the compost recycling bins and the recycling of plastics. Officers responded that a leaflet campaign would cost approximately £25,000 countywide and had to be considered carefully to ensure that it would ... view the full minutes text for item 15. |
|
JOS/17/9 SCOPING OF THE FIVE-YEAR LAND SUPPLY PDF 230 KB Tom Barker, Assistant Director – Planning for Growth
Members to scope the Five-year Land Supply to determine how to add value to progress this. Minutes: 16.1 The Assistant Director – Planning for Growth, began by explaining how the Five-year Land Supply was calculated annually and how the NPPF, paragraph 47, the explained practice of the Five-year Land supply.
16.2 Members asked question in relation to the scoping document and if it was possible to receive a regular update for the existing land supply, as this could be recorded on a spreadsheet or database. It was felt that information about commencements and completions of planning permissions were information which was possible to collect and to audit. The officer responded that once a planning permission had been granted the developer had up to three years to commence building. Commencement dates were recorded, but completions dates could be supplied by the developer, but it was not always made available to the Councils. Completion dates were also more difficult to predict due to circumstances and it should be taken into consideration that even if planning permissions were granted they were not always commenced.
16.3 There had been attempts from Local Government Association (LGA) to get the Government to provide regulation for the supply of completion dates by developers.
16.4 Members referred to the White Paper in 2017 – Fixing our Housing Market, and asked if it was possible to take an objective approach and conduct a site by site analysis of completed developments and include this estimate in the annual Monitoring Report. Officers responded that it would be a risk to the Councils, if this estimate was incorrect and could damage the reputation of the Councils.
16.5 Members continued to raised questions including:
· Would it be possible to control the selling on of land with planning permission, therefore making the planning permission a commodity; · When would the Councils be able to have a Five-year Land Supply; · Would it be possible to get better information of completed developments from housing developers; · If a proper risk assessment of calculating the lack of a Five-year Land supply for each Councils could be included in the report; · Would it be possible to get Parish Councils to supply information about completed developments to the Councils; · Even if the Councils had a Five-land Supply and it would this in the future, would that prevent developers from claiming the opposite; · Would it be possible to supply a good estimate of deliverable future allocation of developments; · Could the difficulties of gathering the information for completed developments be addressed; · Were Council Tax reports part of the current Five-year Land supply calculation; · Could the cost of officer time to complete the Five-year Land Supply calculation be included in the report; · Could the issues regarding resource shortages in both the Planning and Development departments be included in the report; · What was the national constraints compared with local restraints versus local constrains? · When could Members Lobby LGA; · How could Members impact on any of the resources; · Members requested that a timeframe be included for when the Council would be able to have a Five-year Land Supply.
16.1 Some Members felt that ... view the full minutes text for item 16. |
|
JOS/17/10 INFORMATION BULLETIN PDF 209 KB The Information Bulletin is a document that is made available to the public with the published agenda papers. It can include update information requested by the Committee as well as information that a service considers should be made known to the Committee.
1. Voids times in Council Properties (BDC only)
Minutes: It was RESOLVED: -
That the Information Bulleting be noted. |
|
JOS/17/11 FORTHCOMING DECISION LIST PDF 286 KB To review the Council’s Forthcoming Decisions List and identify any items to be brought before the Overview and Scrutiny Committee
Minutes: It was RESOLVED: -
That the Forthcoming Decisions List be noted. |
|
JOS/17/12 BABERGH FORWARD PLAN PDF 175 KB To agree the Forward Plan
Minutes: 19.1 Members agreed that the Suffolk Waste Partnership report on Food Waste be added the Work Plan for after April.
19.2 The scrutiny of Waste Services be added to October 2018.
19.3 The Chairs to contact Suffolk County Council to set up a joint scrutiny for Community Transport.
19.4 The Investment Strategy report to be confirmed.
It was RESOLVED: -
That the above changes be added to the Babergh Forward Plan |
|
JOS/17/13 MID SUFFOLK FORWARD PLAN PDF 157 KB To note the Mid Suffolk Forward Plan
Minutes: 20.1 Members agreed that the Suffolk Waste Partnership report on Food Waste be added the Work Plan for after April.
20.2 The scrutiny of Waste Services be added to October 2018.
20.3 The Chairs to contact Suffolk County Council to set up a joint scrutiny for Community Transport.
20.4 The Investment Strategy report to be confirmed.
It was RESOLVED: -
That the above changes be added to the Mid Suffolk Forward Plan
|