Meeting documents

Councillor Sir Beville Stanier

Cabinet Member for Waste and Licensing

To consider the attached report.

Contact Officer:  Rebecca Newbutt (01296) 585329

(a)          Decision(s)

That officers be instructed to prepare a formal response after consultation with the Cabinet for Waste and Licensing  be sent to Buckinghamshire along the lines of the dialogue included in the Cabinet report and in particular:-

·         Expressing concern that the constituent authorities making up the Bucks Waste Partnership have not had an opportunity to view the analyses of the research leading up to the County Council’s proposals.

·         Expressing concern that the proposals appear to have no regard for the significant growth of the District which would require the retention of adequate facilities for the disposal of both general and recycling waste.

·         Expressing concern that the strong possibility of the proposals leading to an increase in the incidence of fly tipping which would result in additional removal and disposal costs to waste collection authorities within the County have not been properly factored into the proposals.

(b)          Reason(s) for Decision(s)

Cabinet does not feel that all the impacts of the County Council’s proposals have been satisfactorily addressed.

(c)        Alternative Options Considered

None as such.

(d)       Relevant Scrutiny Committee

Environment and Living.

(e)        Conflicts of Interest / Dispensation(s)

            None.

Cabinet considered a report on proposals developed by Buckinghamshire County Council in relation to household waste recycling centres.  The report could be viewed on the Council’s website, but in summary were as follows:-

A: Proposals already approved by BCC

·                     Reduce the number of opening days at the Aylesbury (Rabans Lane), Burnham and Chesham sites, from 7 days a week down to 5

·                     Introduce charges at all sites for some types of waste

·                     Close down completely one site, perhaps two sites

·                     Consider charging residents from outside Bucks for disposing of all waste types at County sites, or preventing them using the sites altogether.

B: Areas of proposals open to consultation

·                     Whether to close one site or two

·                     The preferred option for one site to close would be Bledlow

·                     The preferred option for two sites to close would be Bledlow and Burnham

·                     Which two weekdays it would it be better to close Aylesbury (Rabans Lane), Burnham and Chesham sites

·                     Whether to charge residents from outside Buckinghamshire for using County Sites, stop them using the sites altogether or continue to allow the same access as Bucks residents.

Cabinet felt that as a joint financing partner of the Bucks Waste Partnership it was most unfortunate that this forum had not been used early on to help shape BCC's options and proposals, share the learning of the research and have an opportunity to discuss the impact of the proposals on AVDC as a Waste Collection Authority in Buckinghamshire. 

Officers had had to approach the proposals not fully understanding the potential or unforeseen implications to AVDC’s waste collection services. Furthermore the approach to consultation taken by BCC in this matter undermined the potential to work collaboratively through already established partnership routes, which had led to AVDC not having the opportunity to help shape or influence BCC decisions, which would ultimately impact on the Vale’s local communities, which all parties had a shared interest in.

Savings Potential:  It was clear that opportunities to achieve efficiencies and savings for all councils was paramount.  Although it was unclear what consideration and assessment had been made of the full quantum of costs versus savings, when considering the entirety of the waste services (from collection to disposal).  For example if there was an increase in fly tipping as a result of day closures, this would add to AVDC's requirement to collect the waste at an increase in cost to AVDC.  AVDC needed to understand what assessment BCC had made of the total cost to the tax payer as a result of closing sites and levying charges.

Charging Customers for specific waste types such as rubble, plasterboard, soil etc: BCC had presented introducing charges to customers at HRC’s as a fait accompli.  However AVDC had not been provided any analysis or assurance around the impact on household waste collections.  Cabinet felt that It wasreasonable to expect that small amounts of waste such as soil or rubble that previously would have been taken to HRC's would now be diverted to household waste bins.  This waste would then enter the general waste stream and result in potential collection issues (overloaded bins/H&S issues etc).  Ultimately this waste was then sent to EfW.

Growth and Improvements: From the evidence presented it was not clear what consideration BCC had given to the major growth in the district in the coming years particularly in and around Aylesbury when looking at the closure of Rabans Lane on specific days. The saving related to this particular aspect of the proposal had not been modelled against growth.  Buckingham HRC was well used and had previously been identified as a site that required improvements.  Again the analysis undertaken  had not looked at opportunities to reinvest in other sites.

RESOLVED –

That officers be instructed to prepare a formal response after consultation with the Cabinet Member for Waste and Licensing to be sent to Buckinghamshire County Council along the lines of the dialogue included in the Cabinet report and in particular:-

·         Expressing concern that the constituent authorities making up the Bucks Waste Partnership have not had an opportunity to view the analyses of the research leading up to the County Council’s proposals.

·         Expressing concern that the proposals appear to have no regard for the significant growth of the District which would require the retention of adequate facilities for the disposal of both general and recycling waste.

·         Expressing concern that the strong possibility of the proposals leading to an increase in the incidence of fly tipping which would result in additional removal and disposal costs to waste collection authorities within the County have not been properly factored into the proposals.