Venue: Council Chamber, Council Offices, The Burys, Godalming. View directions
Contact: Kunwar Khan Democratic Services Officer
The Minutes of the meetings of the Environment Overview & Scrutiny Committee held on 17 September 2018 and 22 October 2018 are attached, and Members are asked to confirm them as a correct record.
The Minutes of the meetings held on 17 September 2018 and 22 October 2018 were confirmed as a correct of the meeting, and signed.
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND SUBSTITUTIONS
To receive apologies for absence and note substitutions.
Members who are unable to attend this meeting must submit apologies by 5 pm on Monday 19 November 2018 to enable a substitute to be arranged, if applicable.
Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Nick Williams, David Hunter and Denis Leigh.
Cllr Nabeel Nasir attended as a substitute.
DECLARATIONS OF INTERESTS
To receive from Members declarations of interests in relation to any items included on the agenda for this meeting, in accordance with Waverley’s Code of Local Government.
There were no declarations of interests.
QUESTIONS BY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC
The Chairman to respond to any questions submitted by members of the public in accordance with Procedure Rule 10.
The deadline for receipt of written questions is 5pm on Monday 19 November 2018.
There were none.
The Chairman to respond to any questions received from Members in accordance with Procedure Rule 11.
The deadline for receipt of written questions is 5pm on Monday 19 November 2018.
A question was received from Cllr David Beaman, within the stipulated deadline, about the recycling and waste management contract. The Chairman, Cllr Jerry Hyman, provided a detailed response prepared by Richard Homewood, Head of Environmental Services. For ease of reference, the full text of the question and answer had been provided as follows:
"With reference to the recent recycling and waste management contract that has recently been awarded to Biffa I would be grateful if the following information could be provided viz: -
• how many bids were received;
• did the existing contractor (Veolia) submit a bid (I accept that this question may be subject to confidentiality and not able to be answered in public);
• was the contract awarded just on price or were other quality of service factors taken into account;
• if other quality of service factors were taken into account what were they and how were they weighted against price;
• although it is accepted that Biffa are a large and well known recycling and waste management provider were any references taken of their services provided to other local authorities;
• is there a termination clause to the contract that can be exercised by both sides;
• what provisions are there for price increases on either a year on year inflation basis or when additional services are requested to be provided."
1.1 Seven bids were received at the pre qualification stage, the top four scoring contractors were progressed to tender stage. No more than four were progressed to tender stage as the scores obtained by bidders 5-7 were not deemed acceptable to deliver the level of service that Waverley Borough Council expects. Two of those four submitted a bid and were then progressed to the full tender stage.
1.3 The contract was awarded following a pre qualification stage, where bidders were scored on quality alone. Followed by a full tender stage where bids were evaluated on a price / quality split.
1.3 Bidders were required to respond to 22 questions in great detail, these questions fell into the following seven themes accounting for a total of 40%.
1.4 As part of the pre qualification process Biffa were required to submit
details of 10 comparable contracts that they have worked on complete with references.
1.5 Yes, under specific circumstances.
1.6 Price increases will be determined by CPI inflation on an annual basis. The contractors have bid against a bill of quantities that include a unit price which will enable any increase in housing numbers to be easily incorporated. As well as a Schedule of Rates for services beyond the core contract.
The Committee noted the question and response. Cllr Beaman thanked the Chairman and Richard Homewood for a comprehensive response - there was no supplementary question asked. ... view the full minutes text for item 5.
This report provides information on key priorities that fall within the remit of the Environment Overview & Scrutiny Committee.
It is recommended that the Committee notes the progress on the Council’s corporate priorities, and considers whether there are matters in relation to these that they would like to add to the Committee Forward Programme, ensuring that the purpose for scrutiny is clearly defined and any proposal passes the work programme selection criteria flowchart.
Elizabeth Sims, Head of Planning, introduced the report and highlighted the following key points:
Local Plan Part 1 (LPP1) - After the Council had adopted Local Plan Part 1 on 20 February 2018. The Plan had been subject to two legal challenges in the High Court, with the Dunsfold Park planning permission also the subject of a linked legal challenge in the same venue. All three claims were heard in the High Court on 9 and 10 October 2018 and were subsequently dismissed in an emphatic judgment on 5 November 2018.
Local Plan Part 2 (LPP2) -It had been decided that the final report on Local Plan Part 2 be deferred to future Executive and Council meetings to allow for further consultation and feedback. In the meantime, a press release was issued on 16th November confirming the following activities:
· a series of workshops with parish and town councillors in those areas where LPP2 was proposing housing sites;
· involvement of the relevant ward members in each area, continued discussions with key stakeholders to gain further feedback on issues such as transport impacts, water supply and sewerage, as well as, health provision within those settlements; and
· The proposed new timetable was to publish the LPP2 in the Summer 2019 for Regulation 19 consultation with a view to submit for examination in the Winter 2019 with the Autumn 2020 Adoption.
Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) - The Council, on 31 October, had resolved to adopt the CIL Charging Schedule, associated policies and also agreed that CIL should be implemented with effect from 1st March 2019. A parallel piece of work had been carried out to put in place the CIL governance arrangements in time for the start of the process.
Dunsfold Park - The planning permission had been subject to a legal challenge in the High Court, which was dismissed on 5 November as set out in section titled LPP1 above. The Council was working with the applicant on Dunsfold Park to encourage the submission of reserved matters applications and to ensure that planning conditions were discharged to enable the development to progress within the timeframe of the Local Plan. It was anticipated that the work would start at an appropriate time and the preparatory work was underway.
The Chairman, Cllr Jerry Hyman, expressed his gratitude to the Cabinet Member for Environment, Cllr Andrew Bolton, and the Executive for taking on board some of the previous comments made by the Overview and Scrutiny Committee (Environment) about the LPP2 by agreeing to extend the consultation timeframe. Cllr Bolton appreciated and thanked the Chairman for his comments.
The Chairman thanked Elizabeth Sims for her detailed report.
Subject to the above, the Committee noted the progress on the Council’s corporate priorities identified in the report.
The draft scope takes into account the comments and feedback from the informal meeting of the Task and Finish Group, with the help of planning policy advice.
The Committee is asked to:
1. Note the presentation given to the Task and Finish Group;
2. Agree the final version of the scope document; and
3. Endorse the outputs - what the success would look like.
The Chairman requested Cllr Mary Foryszewski and Cllr Byham to report back from the first informal discussion meeting of the Infrastructure Task and Finish Group (IT&FG) held on 15 November 2018 to finalise the draft scope and outputs.
Elizabeth Sims, Head of Service, Planning, Graham Parrott, Planning Policy Manager, outlined the salient points and responded to a few queries.
During the discussion the following key points were noted:
a. Cllr Foryszewski thanked the officers for a comprehensive report. She felt that Infrastructure Development Plan (IDP) was an extremely critical policy and delivery area to focus upon. The IT&FG intended to make the start now on this topic with the hope to harness a more holistic, effective and cross-cutting approach moving forward. She asked the Committee to consider and comment on the detailed presentation slides and the draft scope in the report with a view to finalise the draft scope and outputs;
b. Cllr Byham endorsed the comments made by Cllr Foryszewski and stated that the inaugural meeting set the scene and he was looking forward to the next meeting;
c. Overall, this was a complex task with various competing factors that had to be carefully evaluated and this group should avoid any duplication of the work soon to be carried out by the new CIL Governance Board. However, Cllr Foryszewski stated that this task group was not just about the CIL and could add value;
d. Cllr Ramsdale stated that he was broadly supportive but wanted to ensure that Members were driving and deciding the policy guidance instead of merely used as a rubber stamp to something being put in front of them just to be endorsed. He stated that he had a few concerns and would wish to work with colleagues and officers to make constructive tweaks to the proposed outputs in the draft scope on pages 45 and 46;
e. The Chairman stated that perhaps the final recommendations could be sent to the CIL Governance Board or the Executive once agreed by the O&S (Environment);
f. Cllr Bolton felt that there was no need for ‘urgency’ as the Council was not planning to spend any CIL money until 2020 but Cllr Foryszewski was of the view that it was a matter of importance to plan ahead and get to grips early on with the various critical infrastructure projects across Waverley with a clear action plan for each identified category;
g. There was a concern about the lack of clarity in relation to the formal process to prioritise and scrutinise the IDPs as well as the CIL governance and decisions/recommendations to be adopted by the Executive;
h. Councillor Bolton stated that the O&S (Environment) would be able to scrutinise the CIL Governance Board;
i. The Chairman stated that there could be scope for a joint approach between Value for money and the Environment O&S Committees. Separately, should there be a need, it was felt that perhaps the O&S Coordinating Board bringing together all ... view the full minutes text for item 7.
The Corporate Performance Report provides an analysis of the Council’s performance for the second quarter of 2018-19. The report, set out at Annexe 1, is being presented to each of the Overview and Scrutiny Committees for comment and any recommendations they may wish to make to the Executive. At the request of the Chairman and Vice-chairman of the Housing O&S Committee this item will be presented to the Housing O&S Committee for information only.
It is recommended that the Overview & Scrutiny Committees consider the performance of the service areas under the remit of the committee as set out in Annexe 1 to this report and makes any recommendations to senior management or the Executive as appropriate.
Nora Copping, Policy and Performance Officer, presented the report. She thanked the Members for their contributions thus far and stated that she was happy to answer any questions.
The Chairman queried the cause of red boxes indicating a dip in performance on page 75, Richard Homewood, Head of Environmental Services, informed that this was due to Surrey County Council (SCC) now referred to their sites as Community Recycling Centres (CRCs), whereas Waverley sites were called Household Recycling Sites, which was causing confusion among the public. Additionally, in terms of recycling, there was a global issue that China was now only accepting the four particular categories of plastic which resulted in a higher rejection rate and we needed to review how we handled the various type of plastic at a broader level;
Various Members expressed serious concerns that if SCC sites were to close then Waverly recycling sites would be under immense pressure;
Pages 75 and 76 – in relation to NI191, there was a concern about the blue line, needed to be improved in order to be clearer about any trend; and
Page 78 - It was requested that the second column titled ‘Total Spent and Committed’ be removed as it seemed confusing and did not add any value.
Subject to the above comments, the Committee noted the performance of the service areas under the remit of the committee as set out in Annexe 1.
This report provides an update on Air Quality issues in Waverley.
It is recommended that Members receive the report and welcome the proposals for future activity to contribute to the improvement of air quality.
Richard Homewood, Head of Environmental Services, provided an update on Air Quality issues in Waverley. He added that Waverley Air Quality Steering Group and Farnham Air Quality Working Group were working hard to monitor and address any relevant issues, including working with Town and Parish bodies and other stakeholders.
During the discussion the following points were made:
a. Air Quality Monitoring (AQM) Sites Review assessment had now been carried out and the proposals put forward in response to the recommendations. Consideration had been given to local traffic and queuing hotspots as per the current population levels. Various meetings took place in Farnham with local stakeholders, some tubes were proposed to be moved to the worst case facades of relevant locations/exposure wherever possible, one background monitoring location had been kept in Farnham, some tubes had been removed where pollution levels were low or no relevant exposure during the monitoring phase, additional tubes commissioned around the AQMA in Farnham to check the pollution levels within and outside the designated areas;
b. the Council would take bias factor into account and would wait and see to use the worst case scenario in its air quality assessments;
c. Farnham analyser could possibly be moved to another location but the final decision had not been taken yet;
d. Surrey Air Quality Group was looking at PM2.5 for the first time;
e. School awareness project was undertaken following the successful bid of Surrey Air Alliance for £140k of funding from DEFRA - a package of measures focussed on 40 Surrey schools in AQMAs led by Spelthorne about air quality education, anti-idling outside of schools and promoting walking and cycling.
f. Electric Vehicle Charging - Waverley intended to introduce electric charging points in the Burys carpark, two chargers in one carpark in all main urban areas and proposed to replace its fleet cars with electric vehicles (EVs) on as and when basis;
g. Cllr Ramsdale stated that there had been real positive work under Cllr Bolton’s leadership in this important area. It was now time to move away from just discussing the location of air quality tubes to other key issues and actions;
h. In relation to a query from the Chairman about the reliability of air quality data in Farnham, Richard Homewood informed that the Council had now appointed a new specialist and reputable air quality monitoring contractor - the same contractor that was engaged to monitor air quality around Heathrow airport - to undertake the task in Waverley;
i. Richard Homewood stated that he had been advised that as long as 80% of the air quality monitoring data was available, it was acceptable according to the DEFRA guidelines. He stated that it was not an exact science considering the bias factor and any other issues but was confident of having robust empirical data in order to act or put pressure on other agencies in a collaborative manner. He stated that he was happy to discuss any detailed specific queries outside of the meeting; and
This report informs Members of the feedback to the public consultation on the proposed Public Space Protection Order in relation to god fouling and recommends that the Council proceeds to make the order as proposed.
It is recommended that Members receive the report, note the findings of the public consultation and recommend the making of the Public Space Protection Order No.1 (Dog Fouling) to the Executive.
The Committee noted the report informing Members of the feedback to public consultation on the proposed Public Space Protection Order (PSPO) in relation to dog fouling.
During the discussion, the following points and observations were made:
a. there was an overall support from the Committee for the PSPO but with a few concerns around the equality and exception issues (e.g. treatment of deaf people and a fear that genuine people could be penalised) and enforcement (a blanket approach across the borough without any regard for the secluded wild areas for dog owners etc.);
b. it was unrealistic to have separate zones with different rules of enforcement;
c. the dog fouling consultation resulted in an categorical feedback from the residents with 90% of the 1,200 responses wanting the Council to take action;
d. the proposed PSPO was similar to the one adopted by other LAs;
e. the WBC enforcement officers would be working collaboratively with East Hampshire District Council;
f. there was no known case of anyone going to jail due to a breach of the PSPO but those who flouted it would incur a fine enforceable through a court; and
g. there were very strict guidelines about how the Public Space Protection Order were drafted and enforced.
Following a comprehensive discussion, the Committee resolved to note the findings of the public consultation and recommended the Public Space Protection Order No.1 (Dog Fouling) to the Executive as outlined in the Annex A.
This report reviews the impact of recent changes to the opening hours and materials accepted at Surrey County Council Community Recycling Centres and seeks members views on the further proposals for changes currently being consulted on by Surrey County Council.
It is recommended that Members receive the report, note the findings on the impact of the previous changes to the operating arrangements of SCC CRCs and comment on the current consultation on further proposed changes to the operation of SCC CRCs.
Richard Homewood, Head of Environmental Service, introduced the report highlighting the negative impact of recent changes to the opening hours and materials accepted at Surrey County Council (SCC) Community Recycling Centres (CRC). He sought Members’ views on the further proposals for changes currently being consulted on by Surrey County Council (SCC).
The Committee, overwhelmingly, was opposed to the changes due to its adverse impact on Waverley residents.
Councillor Ramsdale highlighted that SCC was facing a severe financial challenge and had had to balance extremely difficult competing priorities. For example, deciding between the support for Special Educational Needs Children vis-à-vis funding for recycling centres.
Cllr Isherwood felt, as the last resort, perhaps reduced days and timings could provide a possible solution, instead of outright closures by the SCC.
Cllr Ramsdale stated that the use of transparent recycling bags instead of black bags would be more appropriate and helpful in deterring people from putting inappropriate items that increased the likelihood of rejection or contamination.
In answer to a query raised by the Chairman, Richard Homewood clarified that Farnham CRC was owned by Waverley.
Richard Homewood added that that this proposal would result in savings for the SCC but more expenditure for the WBC and the operating costs would be broadly similar even if the sites were reduced to operate on fewer days/reduced hours.
Cllr Foryszewski was of the view that SCC’s problems were bigger than just this issue as it needed to adopt more joined-up approach and this was not the right kind of saving and should be opposed.
The Chairman expressed his concerns about the detrimental impact of the previous changes to the operating arrangements of SCC CRCs as well as further proposed changes to the operation of SCC CRCs due to their negative impact on Waverley residents.
After a detailed discussion, the Committee noted the report and resolved to:
a. encourage the largest possible consultation response against the proposed closures and support the Executive in persuading the SCC to listen to Waverly residents;
b. ask the Environmental Services to contact the Council’s Communications and Engagement team to encourage residents and stakeholders to respond to the consultation with a view to influence the SCC decision-making process through social media/online push and any relevant engagement activities; and
c. councillors should use their own networks and advocacy networks to encourage local responses to the SCC consultation.
The Environment Overview & Scrutiny Committee, along with the O&S Coordinating Board, is responsible for managing the Committee’s work programme.
The current work programme (attached) includes items agreed at the O&S Coordinating Board and takes account of items identified on the latest Executive Forward Programme (Annexe 2) as due to come forward for decision.
Members are invited to consider their work programme and make any comments and/or amendments they consider necessary, including suggestions for any additional topics that the Committee may wish to add to its work programme.
The Committee noted the scheduled February meeting items in its forward work programme which included items identified on the latest Executive Forward Programme (Annexe 2).
EXCLUSION OF PRESS AND PUBLIC
To consider, if necessary, the following recommendation on the motion of the Chairman:
That pursuant to Procedure Rule 20 and in accordance with Section 100A (4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the press and public be excluded from the meeting during consideration of the following items on the grounds that it is likely in view of the nature of the proceedings, that if members of the public were present during the items there would be disclosure to them of exempt information (as defined by Section 100I of the Act) to be identified at the meeting.
ANY ISSUES TO BE CONSIDERED IN EXEMPT SESSION
To consider any matters relating to aspects of any reports on this agenda which it is felt need to be considered in Exempt session.