Apologies were received from:

Cllr Anthony Fairclough (with Cllr MacArthur as substitute)

Cllr Victoria Wilson (with Cllr Dresselaers as substitute)

Cllr Gill Manly (with Cllr Slawek Szczepanski as substitute).

There were no declarations of pecuniary interest.

The minutes were agreed as a true and accurate record of the previous meeting, with one addition as below.

“The Panel requested Cabinet identify timescales for the Idverde recommendations. Cllr Natasha Irons, Cabinet Member for Local environment, agreed to return to the Panel in June with timeframes for these, with the caveat that the timeframes presented back could change”.

The item was introduced by Cllr Natasha Irons, Cabinet Member for Local Environment, Green Spaces and Climate Change.

Paper focuses on delivery model, not spec (that will be the next phase).

Current satisfaction rates are 63% satisfaction rate for waste collection and 30% for street cleaning.

Various options were considered – insourcing, outsourcing, joint venture, arm’s length. All options were analysed based on BAU (business as usual) and the recommendation is to split the service. Contracting out collections will give us more resilience and the opportunity to use the technical know how of the wider industry. Also, we don’t have the capacity to bring that service in house. This recommendation will also enable us to take control of street cleaning.

The Chair invited questions on the review in general - so looking at how the review was put together, the considerations in the choices of services put forward to scrutinise etc. In response to Panel Member’s questions, the Cabinet Member for Local Environment, Green Spaces, and Climate Change gave further information:

·         We will ensure we develop a long transition period and a robust exit plan from Veolia, ideally beginning ten months before the end date of the contract.

·         SLWP advised boroughs to go their own separate ways and take control of services within their own boroughs. Different streets, different needs etc.

·         Bulking, haulage will still be joint.

·         Cheapest option is to bring in-house, but we do not have the technical capacity to do that.

·         Costs may go up in the second phase (in terms of putting more resources in).

·         Merton sized operation would be of interest to the open market. Commercial opportunity.

·         The consultation results have shaped the approach massively.

The Chair invited questions on the assessment of the best value solutions- how the council carried out its analysis of the options put forward such as the metrics it chose to look at it etc. The Cabinet Member for Local Environment, Green Spaces and Climate Change and the Assistant Director of Public Space provided further information.

·         Reputational impact is a concern and weighted at 12%, though not as high as finance, weighted at 17.5%.

·         Deliver a waste service that keeps Merton clean and tackles environmental challenges and responds to what our residents need.

·         Other Local Authorities have more than one service provider for their waste and recycling services.

·         The matrix needed to compare like-for-like and therefore we had to compare both services against the same set of criteria and same weighting.

·         Flexibility and adaptability are great benefits of developing our own core service.

The Chair invited questions on the preferred choices put forward by the report and the financial implications/workforce etc

·         We will offer an eight-year contract with a four-year break clause to offer certainty to provider.

·         There will be in house robust monitoring from day one with an ambition to have the same robust metrics for both services. Merton Client team will monitor commissioned service and in house service and we will be transparent about inspection  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

This was taken with Item 4.

This was taken with Item 4.