Agenda, decisions and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Ian Albert, Gerald Morris and Michael Muir.

Councillor Mike Rice substituted for Councillor Muir.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Ian Albert, Gerald Morris and Michael Muir.

Councillor Mike Rice substituted for Councillor Muir.

Members should notify the Chairman of other business which they wish to be discussed by the Committee at the end of the business set out in the agenda. They must state the circumstances which they consider justify the business being considered as a matter of urgency.

The Chairman will decide whether any item(s) raised will be considered.

There was no other business notified.

There was no other business notified.

Members are reminded that any declarations of interest in respect of any business set out in the agenda, should be declared as either a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest or Declarable Interest and are required to notify the Chairman of the nature of any interest declared at the commencement of the relevant item on the agenda. Members declaring a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest must withdraw from the meeting for the duration of the item.  Members declaring a Declarable Interest which requires they leave the room under Paragraph 7.4 of the Code of Conduct, can speak on the item, but must leave the room before the debate and vote.

(1)       The Chairman reminded those present that, in line with Council policy, the meeting would be audio recorded;

(2)       The Chairman informed Members that there was no sound amplification and asked Members to speak loudly and clearly;

(3)       The Chairman drew attention to the item on the agenda front pages regarding Declarations of Interest and reminded Members that, in line with the Code of Conduct, any Declarations of Interest needed to be declared immediately prior to the item in question.

(1)       The Chairman reminded those present that, in line with Council policy, the meeting would be audio recorded;

(2)       The Chairman informed Members that there was no sound amplification and asked Members to speak loudly and clearly;

(3)       The Chairman drew attention to the item on the agenda front pages regarding Declarations of Interest and reminded Members that, in line with the Code of Conduct, any Declarations of Interest needed to be declared immediately prior to the item in question.

To receive petitions and presentations from members of the public.

There were no presentations by members of the public.

There were no presentations by members of the public.

JOINT REPORT OF THE HEAD OF LEISURE & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES AND HEAD OF FINANCE, PEFORMANCE & ASSET MANAGEMENT

To consider a report being submitted to Cabinet regarding the appointment of a contractor for the Shared Service Waste and Street Cleansing Contract.

RESOLVED: That the recommendations contained in the report entitled Shared Service for Waste and Street Cleansing – Appointment of Contractors be supported.

REASON FOR DECISION: To enable the Overview and Scrutiny Committee to consider the report entitled Shared Service for Waste and Street Cleansing – Appointment of Contractors prior to consideration by Cabinet.

The Part 2 report on this subject (Minute 56 refers) was considered prior to any decisions being made.

The Head of Leisure and Environmental Services presented the report entitled Shared Service for Waste and Street Cleansing – Appointment of Contractors.

He advised that the report dealt with the award of the core contract, specifically Lot 1 and drew attention to the following:

Paragraph 3.2

The successful bidder was unlikely to meaningfully mobilise the contract for Lot1 until there was certainty on the outcome for Lot 2, primarily because the collection arrangement for recyclable materials must correspond with the successful Lot 2 bid.

Lot 2 dealt with the management of recyclable materials.

Paragraph 7.3

Procurement documents were jointly produced and bidders were invited to tender on 30 May 2017. Closing date for receipt of all bids was Wednesday 9 Aug 2017, followed by an evaluation process.

Paragraph 7.4

There was an Intermediate Inter Authority Agreement (IIAA) in place between NHDC and EHDC. A more detailed Inter Authority Agreement (IAA), which would set out, in a legally binding contract, the formal arrangements regarding management, finance and resources, was currently under development and would be in place prior to the contract commencing.

Paragraph 7.5

Contained details regarding the depot where both the contractor and the client team would be based.

Paragraph 7.6

Contracts were for seven years commencing May 2018, with an option to extend for a further seven years.

Paragraph 7.8

Set out that the main driver for the contract was to make financial savings whilst not adversely affecting the performance of the waste contract.

Paragraph 8.2

The table demonstrated that the bids had been scored both on quality and price.

Members asked why Lot 2 had not been determined at the same time and what would happen if there were no bids for Lot 2 received within the deadlines.

The Contracts Lawyer advised that because of the apparent complexity of Lot 2 there had been insufficient time for bidders to tender and it seemed reasonable to extend the time given.

If no bids were received for Lot 2 then discussions would take place with the Lot 1 contractor.

Members asked for an explanation of the scoring system and how quality was assessed for any contractor that did not already provide a service to us.

The Service Manager- Waste and Recycling explained that the quality statements asked for in depth details regarding how the contractor would perform the services and to ensure that they had experience, references were taken for each and ach bid consisted of approximately 7 lever arch files of data and information.

The Head of Leisure and Environmental Services advised that there was a team of evaluators from EHDC and NHDC considering the bids and a consultant had been appointed to moderate the scoring system.

The 40/60 split between quality and price was a decision made by the project board. This split ratio was a fairly common practice. It should be noted that bidders that did not meet the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 53.

JOINT REPORT OF THE HEAD OF LEISURE & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES AND HEAD OF FINANCE, PERFORMANCE & ASSET MANAGEMENT

To consider a report being submitted to Cabinet regarding the selection of options in respect of the Shared Service Waste and Street Cleansing Contract.

RESOLVED: That, apart from the implementation of a chargeable garden waste collection, the recommendation contained in the report entitled Shared Service for Waste and Street Cleansing – Selection of Options be supported.

RECOMMENDED TO CABNET:

(1)     That Cabinet be requested to give due weight to the feedback from the public consultation that 85 percent of residents disagreed or strongly disagreed with introducing a changeable garden waste service alongside weekly food waste collections;

(2)     That, if minded to charge for the collection of garden waste, every effort be made to communicate to the public the reasons for doing so.

REASON FOR DECISION: To enable the Overview and Scrutiny Committee to comment on the report entitled Shared Service for Waste and Street Cleansing – Selection of Options prior to consideration by Cabinet

The Part 2 report on this subject (Minute 57 refers) was considered prior to any decisions being made.

The Head of Leisure and Environmental Service presented the report entitled Shared Service for Waste and Street Cleansing – Selection of Options.

He advised that this report related to the dependent and independent options to be provided by the contractor awarded the core contract and drew attention to the following:

Paragraph 3.3

Set out that the contract could not be signed until all of the options had been determined and that the contractor would not commit to ordering assets such as ordering vehicles until the contract was signed.

It should be noted that timescales for mobilising of the contract were tight and therefore no further delays should occur.

Paragraph 5.3

A questionnaire had been circulated to local authorities across the Country that already charged for the collection of garden waste to inform officers on the potential impacts of the service to which they received 16 responses.

Paragraph 7.6

The first depended option was to consider whether to continue source separating paper or whether to change to source separating glass.

It should be noted that paper tonnages was in decline, but the differential for glass was significant.

The key issue regarding the collection of glass was that is was quite abrasive on mechanical equipment resulting in higher maintenance costs and therefore discussion would be held with the contractor in order to see whether glass or paper collection offered the best overall price

Paragraph 8.4

The public consultation had generated 8016 responses and residents had been positive about their willingness to source separate materials.

Independent Options

NHDC independent options for consideration were:

Kerbside textile collection – this was already undertaken and it was recommended that it continue

Kerbside battery collection – this would be a new service that was recommended.

Kerbside small WEEE collection – this was not recommended at this time, as it could result in a large amount of items being left on the kerbs. However this could be introduced at a later stage if required.

Charging for Green Waste

There was a risk of increased fly tipping as a result of this proposal, however data from the “nearest neighbour in relation to fly-tipping showed no noticeable increase following the introduction of charges.

Charging for garden waste would likely have some effect on household recycling centres, although discussions had been held with Hertfordshire County Council on these matters.

It should be noted that of over 280 local authorities in the Country 54 percent now charged for the collection of green waste.

Members referred to the consultation of residents in North Herts and noted that 85 percent disagreed or strongly disagreed with the introduction of chargeable garden waste.

They expressed concern that there were many valid reasons why certain residents should not be charged for this service including those who were less able to afford the charges or those who were less able to go to the waste and recycling centres and queried  ...  view the full minutes text for item 54.

To consider passing the following resolution:

That under Section 100A of the Local Government Act 1972, the Press and Public be excluded from the meeting on the grounds that the following report will involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the said Act.

RESOLVED:  That under Section 100A of the Local Government Act 1972, the Press and Public be excluded from the meeting on the grounds that the following reports would involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in the relevant Paragraph of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the said Act. The relevant Paragraph is set out in the first page of each report.

RESOLVED:  That under Section 100A of the Local Government Act 1972, the Press and Public be excluded from the meeting on the grounds that the following reports would involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in the relevant Paragraph of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the said Act. The relevant Paragraph is set out in the first page of each report.

JOINT REPORT OF THE HEAD OF LEISURE & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES AND HEAD OF FINANCE, PEFORMANCE & ASSET MANAGEMENT

To consider a Part 2 report being submitted to Cabinet relating to the appointment of a contractor for the Shared Service Waste and Street Cleansing Contract.

RESOLVED: That the financial an legal implications of accepting the Lot 1 bid as set out in the report be noted

REASON FOR DECISION: To enable the Overview and Scrutiny Committee to consider the report entitled Shared Service for Waste and Street Cleansing – Appointment of Contractors prior to consideration by Cabinet.

The Head of Leisure and Environmental Services presented the report entitled Shared Service for Waste and Street Cleansing – Appointment of Contractors.

Following a detailed debate it was

RESOLVED: That the financial an legal implications of accepting the Lot 1 bid as set out in the report be noted

REASON FOR DECISION: To enable the Overview and Scrutiny Committee to consider the report entitled Shared Service for Waste and Street Cleansing – Appointment of Contractors prior to consideration by Cabinet.

JOINT REPORT OF THE HEAD OF LEISURE & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES AND HEAD OF FINANCE, PERFORMANCE & ASSET MANAGEMENT

To consider a Part 2 report being submitted to Cabinet relating to the selection of options in respect of the Shared Service Waste and Street Cleansing Contract.

            RESOLVED: That the content of the report be noted.

REASON FOR DECISION:To enable the Overview and Scrutiny Committee to comment on the report entitled Shared Service for Waste and Street Cleansing – Selection of Options prior to consideration by Cabinet

The Head of Leisure and Environmental Services presented the report entitled Shared Service for Waste and Street Cleansing – Selection of Options.

Following a detailed debate it was

            RESOLVED: That the content of the report be noted.

REASON FOR DECISION:To enable the Overview and Scrutiny Committee to comment on the report entitled Shared Service for Waste and Street Cleansing – Selection of Options prior to consideration by Cabinet