Agenda and minutes

Apologies were received from Councillors King and Sullivan.

There were none.

That the minutes of the meeting held on 22 June 2022 be confirmed as a correct record.

A Member requested that their comment regarding the need to balance land usage between tree planting and food security be included in the minutes. Subject to the above inclusion, the minutes of the meeting held on 22 June 2022 were confirmed as an accurate record.

Public Questions is an opportunity for people who live, work or study in Buckinghamshire to put a question to a Select Committee. The Committee will hear from members of the public who have submitted questions in advance relating to items on the agenda. The Cabinet Member, relevant key partners and responsible officers will be invited to respond.

Further information on how to register can be found here: https://www.buckinghamshire.gov.uk/your-council/get-involved-with-council-decisions/select-committees/

One public question was considered at the meeting as attached to the agenda and a verbal response was provided by the Cabinet Member for Climate Change and Environment. The question and its response are appended to the minutes.

To receive a report on the Veolia contract including the impact and improvements following the round reorganisation.

Contributors:

Veolia

Andrew Reidy, General Manager

Lucy Murphy, Senior Contract Manager

Pascal Hauret, Managing Director – Municipal

Buckinghamshire Council

Cllr Gareth Williams, Cabinet Member for Climate Change & Environment

Richard Barker, Corporate Director for Communities

Martin Dickman, Service Director for Neighbourhood Services

Simon Anthony, Head of South Waste & Street Scene Services

The Chairman welcomed Councillor G Williams, Cabinet Member for Climate Change & Environment, Councillor J Jordan, Deputy Cabinet Member for Environment, representatives from Veolia and council officers to the meeting. The Cabinet Member introduced the report to the Select Committee and highlighted the key points. In the north of Buckinghamshire, the waste collection service is provided through an in-house service whereas in the south, the legacy Wycombe, Chiltern & South Bucks areas, the waste collection service was contracted to Veolia. In the contract, the target was for a maximum of 60 missed bins per 100,000. As part of the agreed contractual terms, Veolia had introduced a comprehensive reorganisation of the collection rounds with a view of improving service quality for residents and securing efficiencies. At the peak of the collection issues, around 600 out of 100,000 bins were reported as missed collections. This amounted to between 3,000 – 4,000 collections being missed per week. An external audit report would soon be published which would be presented to the Council’s Risk Management Group, and the Cabinet Member advised that the Select Committee may also want to consider it.

The Chairman invited comments from the Veolia representatives. Andrew Reidy, General Manager, apologised to all residents and Members for the disruption caused and acknowledged the importance of rectification as soon as possible.

During the Select Committee discussion, the following points were noted:-

·       Multiple Members reiterated how their residents had been negatively affected by the contract performance with examples given across different wards in the south of Buckinghamshire. Members also advised Veolia that a significant percentage of their current casework related to the ongoing waste collection issues including the Leader and the Cabinet Member. The Corporate Director asked Members to follow up with him after the meeting on cases where the service had not replied to reports of repeated missed collections. 

·       Despite some residents having lost confidence in the system, the Cabinet Member encouraged households to continue reporting missed collections online. Reports normally had to be submitted within 24 hours but had been extended to 48 hours; 15% of reports were currently within this extended 24 – 48-hour period.

·       Data issues had been identified with examples including bins not registered at some households, collections being marked as completed when they were not and households missing from the new rounds.

·       After a difficult start, Veolia had successfully delivered a round reorganisation in a local authority in the south of the country which was now one of the best performers. It was expected that the south’s new round would eventually outperform the preceding one.

·       The Council remained focused in working with Veolia to improve service delivery. The Cabinet Member advised that financial penalties were being explored and that the maximum the Council could claim was 5% of the contract value.

·       The contract with Veolia was in place for ten years and had a five-year break clause. The contract contained definitions of a service breakdown, which were outlined in the report, and had not been reached during the peak  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

To receive an update on flooding and consider the effectiveness of flood mitigation measures including SuDS. Progress on the gully clearance programme will also be reported.

Contributors:

Cllr Gareth Williams, Cabinet Member for Climate Change & Environment

Cllr Jilly Jordan, Deputy Cabinet Member for Climate Change and Environment

Cllr Steve Broadbent, Cabinet Member for Transport

Ian Thompson, Corporate Director for Planning, Growth & Sustainability

Richard Barker, Corporate Director for Communities

Steve Bambrick, Service Director for Planning & Environment

Karen Fisher, Strategic Flood Management Team Leader

Vikki Keeble, Sustainable Drainage Team Leader

The Chairman introduced the Deputy Cabinet Member for Environment, Councillor J Jordan, to introduce the report and outline the presentation that would be provided by officers. In the presentation, the following points were made:-

·       In Buckinghamshire, 10.7% of land lies in Flood Zone 2 and 3 (equivalent to over 8,000 properties) and 8.4% of land lies in areas at high or medium risk of surface water flooding (equivalent to over 4,000 properties). The landscape was likely to change in response to climate change.

·       Buckinghamshire Council acted as the Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) which required partnership working with the Environment Agency (EA) and water companies predominantly. The statutory role was outlined by officers.

·       The roles and responsibilities for each authority were highlighted for flood risk management and flood incident management.

·       The Strategic Flood Management team had a series of projects funded by central Government, regional committees, and the Council. Defra currently funded Project Groundwater 2021- 2027 which was focused on groundwater resilience in the Chilterns. The team was also responding to drainage aspects of planning applications of more than 10 units and linked with other council work such as Tree Planting and the Local Nature Recovery Strategy.

·       Sustainable drainage systems (SuDS) were designed to manage stormwater locally and emulate natural drainage. They also enhanced the local amenity and biodiversity. Planning applications were required to provide a surface water drainage strategy; examples included the use of permeable paving and rain gardens.

·       The council’s approach to flood risk management was consistent with the EA’s national strategy by creating climate resilience. The River Leck Natural Flood Management Scheme, which used leaky dams, was an example of this work. The Council also wanted to educate residents on flood risk and resilience.

·       The Local Flood Risk Management Strategy would be revised in 2023.

The Cabinet Member for Transport introduced the gully clearance report which updated on the progress of maintenance. The Council had committed to clean every drain and gully last year, costing £2m revenue, with another £2m capital investment of repairs. This exercise was being repeated for every gully this year. Last year’s work had established a baseline of silt levels for each gully which was being checked against this year during the second year of cleaning. There were 7-8 gully teams carrying this out per day, and the super suckers were proving to be important.

In response to Member questions, the following points were noted:-

·       It was acknowledged that the responsibilities for flooding were complex for all agencies which was confusing for Members and residents. The Council hosted a list of responsibilities on its website and signposted queries accordingly. The EA did have strategic oversight of flooding at a national scale which was then acted upon locally by partners which was stipulated in the Flood and Water Management Act.

·       It could be challenging to encourage developers to deliver ‘greener’ SuDS that incorporated into the landscape. Recent changes to the Local Planning Policy guidance, which emphasised the need for SuDS to take into account  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

Review of current protection under legislation, how this protection is applied by the Council, and how to ensure trees are protected and maintained in future.

Contributors:

Cllr Gareth Williams, Cabinet Member for Climate Change & Environment

Ian Thompson, Corporate Director for Planning, Growth & Sustainability

Steve Bambrick, Service Director for Planning & Environment

Ed Barlow, Head of Climate Change & Environment

Richard Garnett, Tree Officer

The Chairman invited the Cabinet Member for Climate Change & Environment to introduce the report, and the following points were highlighted during the officer presentation:-

·       Tree Preservation Orders (TPOs) prohibited the felling, topping, lopping, uprooting or wilful damage or destruction of the tree unless permission is specifically given for such activities.

·       TPOs covering an area were only a short-term measure until each tree was assessed, plotted, and protected individually or as a group.

·       Public support or opposition for a TPO would be considered a material consideration but would not outweigh a professional, objective assessment of the health and quality of the tree using industry standard methodology.

·       The process of making and confirming a TPO, including Member involvement, was outlined.

·       Legacy planning policies made up Buckinghamshire Council’s policy on trees which would be aligned in the Buckinghamshire Local Plan. The Wycombe, now West, legacy area had a canopy cover policy with a canopy cover supplementary planning document.

·       Baseline work was currently underway on the Buckinghamshire Council Tree Strategy which would include a review of TPOs to ensure these were accurate records.

·       From April 2020, there had been around 150 enforcement cases related to unauthorised tree-related works.

·       Neighbourhood Plans can include policies on trees which could be shaped by Town and Parish Councils. 

The Committee noted the following during its discussion:-

·       One Member suggested that the Council publicised enforcement cases related to unauthorised TPO works as a deterrent.

·       A Member advised that the Woodland Trust was working with other councils to use volunteers to protect trees when a tree was in imminent danger of being damaged or felled.

·       The removal or retention of trees within a planning/development context depends on the balance of policy requirements in the individual case.

The Chairman thanked the Cabinet Member and the officers for the report.

The Select Committee will consider the upcoming work programme.

The Senior Scrutiny Officer advised that the inquiry report would be considered at November’s Select Committee meeting.

3 November 2022 at 10 a.m.

Thursday 3 November at 10am.