Meeting documents

PRESENT:  Councillor Cartwright (Leader);  Councillors James, Liverseidge, Mrs Morgan-Owen, Mrs Paternoster, Mrs Polhill, Rowlands, and Stewart.  Councillors Baldwin, Mrs Baxter, Cooper, Mrs Glover, Mrs Lambert, Metherell, Richards and Mrs Roberts attended also.

APOLOGY: Councillor Sir Beville Stanier

RESOLVED -

That the Minutes of 25th  September, 2001 be approved as a correct record subject to the amendment of the second paragraph of Minute 10 (Aylesbury Land Use/Transport Strategy - Developer Contributions SPG) to read as follows:-

“After some discussion, it was felt that developer contributions should be based on vehicle trips rather than person trips”.

The Government had set challenging recycling targets for local authorities, namely to:-

The recycling/composting targets for AVDC were

The Council's recycling rate for 2000/2001 had been  13.93%.

The Bucks Forum and County and District Chief Executives had asked the Bucks Waste Forum (BWF) to produce a “Waste Strategy for Buckinghamshire”.  The BWF was a Member/Officer Group and the Council's representatives were Councillors Ghent and Rowlands.

Following extensive public consultation the BWF had produced a draft Waste Strategy for Buckinghamshire which itself was now subject to consultation.  All Members of the Council had been sent a copy of the consultation draft and a seminar on this subject had taken place on 20th September, 2001.

The key recommendations for Aylesbury Vale, both in respect of the Council's role as a Waste Collection Authority, and the County Council as the Waste Disposal Authority were as set out in the Appendix to these Minutes.  The actions in so far as AVDC was concerned were:-

The additional kerbside collection recommended related to glass.  This would remove a relatively heavy proportion of recyclable waste from the general waste stream and would, along with the enhancement of  bring schemes, demonstrate a commitment to working towards compliance with the targets laid down.  Also, a long term sustainable outlet for colour separated  glass currently existed in the form of the Buckinghamshire Glass Consortium  (as referred to elsewhere in these Minutes).

A kerbside green waste collection service  had also been considered by the BWF but this was not felt to be either financially or environmentally viable at present.  It had been recommended that any such proposal should await the construction of a new regional waste management facility at the Newton Longville land fill site.  This would however mean that AVDC would not meet its targets until such time as the facility was operational.  This recommendation did not preclude reconsideration of this issue in the event that the Newton Longville proposals did not proceed and it was felt that the recommendations contained in the draft strategy should emphasise this fact.  The project would be subject to planning permission in the normal way.

The indicative costs of progressing the recommendations contained in the consultation draft were submitted.  As a general guide, those regarding bring schemes would add 2% to the gross budget.  The recommendations relating to a monthly kerbside glass collection service,  initially covering approximately 60% of the District but subsequently being extended to include the whole District, would add 10% to the gross budget.

If a green waste collection service (based on wheeled bins) were to be introduced at the same time as the glass collection service (initially covering 60% of the District but then being extended to the whole District), this could result in a 28% increase in the gross budget.  However, unlike glass, this particular service would not generate any income.

Having noted that comments submitted at this stage would not commit the Council to any expenditure but in appreciating that for the Council to reach its targets, some future expenditure commitment would be necessary it was,

RESOLVED -

That subject to the concurrence of Council, the recommendations contained in the draft Waste Strategy be endorsed on the basis of Recommendation 07 being amended, by the addition after the word “figures” of the words “unless the facility at Newton Longville is rejected, in which case this issue would be reviewed”.

The Environment Act, 1995 required local authorities to undertake an air quality review and assessment to identify whether, at a local level, national air quality standards would be met by the year 2005.  The National Environmental Technology Centre (NETCEN) had been commissioned to carry out a stage III assessment in respect of the Walton Street Gyratory System, Aylesbury and the Oxford Road/Gatehouse Road/Friarage Road junction, also in Aylesbury.  NETCEN had concluded from earlier detailed monitoring that there was a possibility of the air quality standard for Nitrogen Dioxide at both sites being exceeded by 2005.

NETCEN had undertaken further real time monitoring at the Walton Street location and had subsequently concluded that the models previously used had over estimated the potential 2005 Nitrogen Dioxide concentrations.  It was now considered unlikely that the air quality standards at both the sites previously referred to would be exceeded.  On this basis, there was no further requirement for the Council to declare "Air Quality Management Areas".  The Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) had been advised of the latest findings and had agreed that there was no requirement for AVDC to declare "Air Quality Management Areas”.

RESOLVED -

Staff Pay negotiations in respect of the financial year 2002/2003 would commence in November 2001 and it was accordingly

RESOLVED -

That Council be asked to appoint a Members Pay Negotiating Team comprising 4 Members (to be nominated at the Council meeting) for the purpose of staff pay negotiations in respect of the financial year commencing 1st April, 2002.

Consideration was given to a report by the Chief Executive outlining a proposed process for the recruitment, selection and appointment of a Director of Corporate Resources.

RESOLVED -

That the Council be asked to:-

The Cabinet received a report by the Chief Executive regarding progress on the Council's strategy for promoting equal access/equal opportunities in employment.

The report summarised in statistical form, the Council's recruitment activity from which it was noted that whilst an improvement had been made in attracting applicants from ethnic minority people, representation within the workforce as a whole was still slightly less than the present target.  The report examined the workforce profile in a broader sense in relation to gender and disability, in respect of whom the figures showed an increase in the number of women in senior positions and in the number of staff classified as disabled (within the meaning of the Disabled Discrimination Act).  The report  examined the measures being taken to promote equal access/equal opportunities in employment within the context of the targets previously set by the Council.

RESOLVED -

The Cabinet considered a report by the Chief Executive outlining Government guidance on the preparation of Community Strategies and the establishment of Local Strategic Partnerships (LSPs).   Members were invited to consider the most appropriate level(s) at which such arrangements should operate.  The guidance indicated that community strategies should contain a long term vision for the area; an action plan for identifying short term priorities and activities that would contribute to the achievement of long term outcomes; a shared commitment to the action plan, and arrangements for monitoring, review and reporting progress to the local community.

Community Strategies were expected to drive the delivery of improved services in the area and not be just a shared vision. Such strategies must be linked to the day to day work of the Council and be central to its planning and resources decisions.  Community Strategies had to be prepared and implemented through a partnership involving all the statutory, non-statutory  and voluntary organisations that provided services, and it had to have  widespread community involvement.

Central to the preparation and implementation of the strategy was the establishment of an effective Local Strategy Partnership (LSP).  The composition of the Partnership could be determined locally but had to take account of several factors as outlined in the Chief Executive's report.  The Government Regional Offices would evaluate and accredit LSPs.  Accreditation would depend on the LSP meeting various criteria, including that they had reduced, not increased, the bureaucratic burden.  The exact criteria would be the subject of further guidance expected later this year.

The Guidance from the Government emphasised the key role of Members in the process.

Much of the guidance was non prescriptive thus enabling considerable local choice.  The Chief Executive's report examined the advantages and disadvantages of the various levels at which Local Strategic Partnerships could be established.  These included County-wide,  District-wide  and area or neighbourhood level.  Having commented that it would be helpful for all Members to have a schedule showing the partnerships already entered into by the Council with various agencies, it was

RESOLVED -

That the Council should focus its energies on the development of a County-wide Local Strategic Partnership, perhaps in tandem with some local/neighbourhood arrangements.

Consideration was given to a report setting out the latest position in respect of the General Fund Capital Account.  The report included a suggested revised capital programme and contained a review of the overall capital resources position.  It

contained also an update on the situation in relation to shopping list schemes.  

RESOLVED -

Consideration was given to the detailed report of the Director of Corporate Resources giving background information on the progress of activities leading up to the formulation of the General Fund and Housing Revenue budgets for 2002/2003.

The report contained the previously agreed timetable for budget planning and gave brief details of those items that were emerging and were likely to have a significant impact on the budget.  Reference was made to expenditure proposals contained in Service Plans.

In so far as the Housing Revenue budget was concerned, the report outlined the critical factors for budget planning.  These included the Government guideline rent increase and housing subsidy implications, repair and maintenance expenditure levels, the level of Housing Revenue Account balances, general running costs and inter account recharges.

RESOLVED -

Service Plans had been produced for each of the Council's services by the end of July, 2001 in accordance with the guidance previously approved by Members.  A copy of each plan had been sent to the relevant Cabinet Member.    

Taken as a whole, the plans contained draft  proposals for progressing the Council's Strategic Objectives but they needed to be assessed and prioritised.  Any omissions also needed to be addressed.  This work was currently taking place with a view to a suggested medium term work programme being reported to the Cabinet over the next few weeks.  Guidance would be drawn up to help Heads of  Service make greater use of their service plans for management purposes and  for ensuring that the Council's Strategic Objectives were translated into objectives for individual Officers as part of the appraisal process.

RESOLVED -

That progress to date on service plans and the proposed reporting arrangements to Cabinet be noted.

RESOLVED-

That under section 100 (A)(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the public be excluded from the meeting for the following item of business on the grounds that it involved the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in the Paragraphs indicated in Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Act:-

Terms and conditions for sale of glass contract (Paragraphs 7 and 9).

Consideration was given to a report by the Director of Housing, Health and Leisure regarding the negotiations pursued for the sale of glass by the Bucks Glass Recycling Consortium.  The Consortium comprised the District Councils within Buckinghamshire and the County Council.  A copy of the report to the former Environment and Health Committee on this subject was circulated.  The Head of Environmental Health Services summarised the principal terms of the proposed contract.

It was noted that it was proposed that the agreement with the reprocessor would be a “haulage and processing” contract.  Colour separated glass would be transported from the bulk storage bays at Amersham and Booker to the reprocessing plant.  Whilst there might be variations in the annual income figure due to fluctuations in the market place, the proposed agreement was considered to provide the Consortium (and hence the Council) with the best long term secure outlet for the sale of glass.  Following discussion, it was

RESOLVED -