Agenda item

The Environment, Community and Fire Select CommitteeBusiness Planning Group has agreed to call in the proposed decision by the Cabinet Member for Environment concerning Revisions to Recycling Credit Payments – decision published on the Executive Decision Database on 14 December 2018 and in the Members’ Information Service on 19 December 2018 ENV11 18.19.

The decision report asked the Cabinet Member for Environment to agree that:

1) The County Council formally notifies all of the County’s District and Borough Councils of the termination of the current Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) funding arrangement.

2) The County Council adopts a calculation for payments to be made to waste collection authorities of £61.12 per tonne for the financial year commencing 1April 2019.

3) The Director of Energy Waste and Environment is authorised to work with District and Borough partners on an alternative approach to any payments related to improved recycling performance from 2020/21. This to take into account:- (a) Changes in producer responsibility funding for household recycling collection and processing signalled in the Government’s Resources and Waste Strategy; (b) Any proposals that emerge from discussing performance improvements with the D&B partners; and (c) Overall affordability, given the County Council’s projected financial position.

4) Authority is delegated to the Director of Law and Assurance to settle arrangements for the removal of references to the MoU in the Materials Resource Management Contract and the Recycling and Waste Handling Contract.

a) Decision report by Executive Director of Economy, Infrastructure and Environment and Director of Energy, Waste and Environment – attached.

The call-in was initiated by Chris Oxlade, supported by Sue Mullins, Brenda Smith, Brian Quinn, Daniel Purchese, James Walsh and Kate O’Kelly. The decision has not previously been previewed by the Environment, Communities and Fire Select Committee

b) Call-in request – attached.

Chris Oxlade has been invited to outline the reasons for the call-in request to the Committee.

Ms Deborah Urquhart (Cabinet Member for Environment) has been invited to address the Committee and answer questions.

Lee Harris, Executive Director, Economy, Infrastructure and Environment will also be in attendance

60.1 Mrs Mullins introduced the request, in the absence of Mr Oxlade, to call-in the decision by the Cabinet Member for Environment concerning the Revisions to Recycling Payments – ENV11 18.19; (call-in request appended to the signed minutes) and highlighted the following points:-

60.2 In her view, the key reasons for disputing the decision were that it was a bad example of partnership working with the district and borough councils, with no lead-in time for the changes or support for the County Council’s partners; and she further believed the decision was potentially open to legal challenge. Added to this, for areas with more densely populated housing and flats it could mean that future recycling rates would be lower, which could see an increase in waste to landfill.

60.3 Deborah Urquhart, Cabinet Member for Environment addressed the Committee, highlighting the following points:

60.4 The County Council had always endeavoured to adopt the best recycling approach. In order to drive up performance rates, and together with the district and borough councils, as much as possible needed to be removed from the waste stream to deliver cleaner and improved recycling. More effective collection arrangements were needed and as the current payments were unusually generous, with a lack of clarity as to what the funding was actually being spent on, it was therefore no longer fit for purpose to deliver the required improvements.

60.5 Legal advice received had advised that the County Council having provided the required infrastructure and receiving no contribution from collection authorities for this had no duty to support the financial cost to collection authorities in respect recycling collection. The proposal was to develop joint plans so that payments to the district and borough councils would be to reduce waste, but still give enough scope to allow for performance related funding. Overall the waste and recycling diversion process fell short of its potential, with the current system not delivering value for money.

60.6 Mr Kershaw, Director of Law and Assurance advised that there was no explanation given in the call-in to support the claim the proposals were unlawful.  The County Council has a statutory duty to safely dispose of waste, whilst district and borough councils undertake collection.  The system of credits should be used to compensate collection authorities for additional costs associated with recycled waste they deal with.

60.7 The Chairman then referred the Committee to two statements, one collectively received from Arun District Council, Adur & Worthing Councils, Chichester District Council, Crawley Borough Council, Horsham District Council, and one from Mid Sussex District Council which were distributed to members prior to the meeting.

60.8 Mrs Purnell as a member of Chichester District Council didn’t take part in the debate.

60.9 The Committee made comments including those that follow. It:

·        Raised concerns over the possible legal challenge arising from the proposals with a suggestion that the legal advice received by the County Council be made available to partners in order to mitigate the risks. Mr Kershaw advised that if there was uncertainty over the legal position then this legal advice could be supplied.

·        Raised concerns over the approach taken by the County Council towards its partners, the lack of Business Case, consultation and appropriate lead-in time for the proposals; and that not enough recognition had been given for the increase in recycling rates and reduction in waste contamination achieved by the district and borough councils.

·        Requested that reassurance be given that the entire credits scheme would not be removed. Mr Read, Director of Energy, Waste and Environment agreed  that there is no “one size fits all solution” and different models may be required in very urban areas but it was important to work together with partners to come up with a new model which would be suitable for the majority of households across the county. He advised that, in July 2018 he had written to the Chief Executives, Cabinet Members and officers of the district and borough councils in order to set out the County Council’s position and voice concerns at performance figures. A trial scheme to include weekly collection of food waste and absorbent hygiene products had been proposed by WSCC to the partnership in October 2017 but to date only Mid Sussex DC had agreed to take part. Discussions with the Inter Authority Waste Group had also taken place last year in relation to the government’s expected waste strategy and associated targets, including those for food waste collection by 2023. These had emerged in the strategy as anticipated.  He highlighted the areas where recycling rates had increased over the last few years – which were largely due to WSCC initiatives. He could not see how, with collection systems well established, reducing the funding would be a retrograde step.

·        Raised concerns that incentives to increase recycling rates could be hindered by removing the payments and that the issue of contamination also needed to be addressed in order to avoid an increase in waste to landfill and subsequent under-achievement of targets. Mr Read advised that incentives to recycle didn’t just rely on funding from the County Council and that the focus was on working in partnership to develop better arrangements and trying to find a way forward that benefited everyone.

·        Queried whether it was reasonable to rescind the whole of the current Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). Mr Read advised that only the current funding elements of the MOU were being ceased and that the County Council along with the West Sussex Waste Partnership (WSWP) were working towards formulating a better and more straightforward MOU. 

60.10 The Cabinet Member for Environment summed up by saying that she stood by the decision while the best way forward was being agreed. She added that the County Council would work with all of the district and borough councils in order to increase future recycling and reduce contamination rates.

60.11 Mrs Mullins summed up by saying that she agreed with the Cabinet Member that the County Council as a local authority was determined to increase its recycling rates and had good facilities in place around the County. She added that although the public were generally more aware, there was still some confusion over what waste could be recycled. She felt that the approach was not quite right, and that collaborative working was important to tackle this task. 

60.12 A recorded vote was held on whether to support the proposal, on the understanding that the County Council’s legal advice would be shared with the districts and borough councils and the decision only related to the removal of the proportion of the recycling credit identified in the Decision Report, not the whole recycling credit payment; with the following results:

For:

Mr Baldwin

Mr Barrett-Miles

Mr McDonald

Mr S Oakley

Against:

Mr Jones

Mr Purchese

Abstain:

Mrs Brunsdon

60.13 The vote was carried.

60.14 Resolved – That the Committee supports the proposal.