Cllr Robin Stuchbury
“In light of the report from the Cabinet member on the agenda proposing the possibility of a new waste and recycling site within Buckingham:
After the decision and recommendation has been made by the Cabinet, will the decision be going to the community board to discuss and if the decision is positive to allocate an enhanced waste refuge site within Buckingham and recycling; will the local members be involved in the discussions of a future site allocation?
If the decision of the cabinet is to meet the growth within Buckingham and the surrounding villages through delivering a new site and enhance facilities will there be consultation thereafter with the Buckingham town council, who will be drafting a new local plan very soon in corporation with Buckinghamshire Council, to ensure good working practices between both local representation and unitary representation. To be assured if it’s a positive decision to invest within the Buckingham catchment area, site allocation between the two councils is a partnership as the council will be aware there is a Buckingham plan which still carries legal planning weight, and the Vale of Aylesbury Plan was not agreed unfortunately before Buckinghamshire Council came into operation, and it could be suggested the Buckingham plan carries more weight than emerging plan.
In light of the new local authority inheriting the aspirations of the previous authorities to improve and lower the carbon footprint, I would ask that some consideration of enhanced site enabling recycling and exchange as was historically the case before the new contract was agreed by Buckinghamshire county council, whereby consideration of residents both take property to the recycle centre and purchase materials/furniture, thereby lowering the need for transport of such materials within the county and creating a green exchange of property in-house where recycling of properties within the community could take place again and lower the councils overall carbon footprint.”
Response provided by Councillor Bill Chapple OBE:
There were nine household recycling sites in Buckinghamshire and the site in Buckingham was important but was limited by its size. However, the Council would be looking at options later in the year and would put a business case together to go into the medium term financial planning (MTFP) process this summer (as there was currently no funding to do a site search or review). If the business case was supported then work would be undertaken during 2021 to pull together a feasibility study for a new site for the Buckingham area. Therefore the engagement strategy had not yet been established. B Chapple saw no reason why some form of discussion with the Community Board and Town Council would not take place – the Town Council might even have land under their control which could feature in the site search process.
Councillor Alex Collingwood
“Currently, approximately 70 percent of councillors were represented on the main committees of the Council. Could we increase diversity and improve democracy by increased membership from 12 to 15 and 15 to 18 depending on the size of the committee as this would increase participation from 70 percent to approximately 92 percent. The Government had approved virtual meetings so how soon could we hold a full council meeting to amend the constitution?
Response provided by Martin Tett:
M Tett stated that he did not accept the point made in Councillor Collingwood’s original question that only a minority of councillors could participate as there were 215 posts available on the various committees in the Council. The number of posts on each committee was laid down by the Shadow Authority and was embodied in the statute of the constitution and, therefore, could not be increased. The scrutiny committees had 15 posts and Councillor Collingwood was proposing 16 which included a member of the opposition; his original calculation did not include the fact that there were members from other parties represented. Virtually every member would have a chance to participate and every member was represented on the Community Boards; therefore, there was ample opportunity for all members to have a say in the running of this Council. There was also member representation on approximately 130 external bodies.
- HRC procurement paper - Cabinet 210420 - response to Cllr Stuchbury questions for pub, item 3. PDF 485 KB