Apologies were received from Councillor David Cunningham (Royal Borough of Kingston) and Councillor Kathy Bee (London Borough of Croydon).

No declarations of interest were received.

The Minutes of South London Waste Partnership Joint Committee held on Tuesday 10 June 2014, were approved as a correct record.

A question was raised, based on part of a discussion held at the last meeting;  would having representatives of Viridor present for the South London Waste Partnership Joint Committee (SLWPJC) meetings be beneficial, as they could provide a different perspective to the Members and the Management Group and answer some enquiries directly?

In response officers felt that with the current ongoing Judicial Review, it would not be appropriate to have any contractors actively present for SLWPJC meetings. However, Members might wish to reconsider that position in the future.

The Committee considered the report that provided an update on the performance of the three Phase A contracts, namely the transport and residual waste management contract, the HRRC services contract and processing and marketing of recyclates and treatment of green and food waste contract.

In considering the information the Members were interested how the recent European legislation would affect the current practices of each Council, especially in respect of having co-mingled waste. The Chair asked that they be provided with a legal steer on this matter for the next meeting of the SLWPJC.

RESOLVED:

1)     That the Committee noted the report.

2)     That a report be produced for the next meeting of the on the legal implication of the recent European legislation on co-mingled waste collections.

The Committee considered the report which provided them with an update on the Partnership’s draft budget for 2015/16. It was noted that the predicted budget was a least £10k reduction on 2014/15, and that saving would be split between the four Boroughs.

In answer to a question, the Committee were informed that within the budget there was not specific allocated funds for the Judicial Review, but contained within the communication budget, there was approximately £20k provisionally earmarked should it be required. A further query was raised in relation to paragraph 2.4, over the Contract Data Officer (CDO) post not being filled. It was confirmed that the CDO was a support officer to the Contract Manager and that support was not yet required. However as the various ‘phases’ develop there would likely be the need for the CDO to help track the performance data linked to the various contracts

RESOLVED:

That the Committee:

1.     agreed the proposed draft budget as set out in the table in 2.1 and request that the individual boroughs  consider and agree the resources required in consultation with borough Finance Directors.

2.     agreed to receive a final budget for approval at its meeting of 3rd December 2014

Reason for urgency: The Chair has approved the submission of this report as a matter of urgency, as it ensured that the committee fulfils all its audit requirements in respect of the Partnerships accounts.

The Committee considered  the tabled report which informed that the Accounts and Audit Regulations required the Partnership’s Accounts to be signed off for 2013/14 before they were subject to audit. It was noted that the Committee had  signed off the account at its meeting held on 10 June 2014.

Members were informed that the audit of the accounts was completed within the statutory deadline of 30 September 2014 and the accounts were passed with an unqualified opinion by the auditors.

RESOLVED

That the Committee notes the completion of the 2013/14 SLWP accounts audit and the issue of an unqualified opinion.

The Committee considered the report which set of the current operating practices of each member borough of the Partnership: with respect to the collection of household waste against current performance in respect to household recycling rates in each borough, the levels of resident satisfaction with waste collection services and the overall costs of the services.

Members noted that the report was before them following a request made at the previous meeting. The purpose of the report was as a discussion/ information report, and did not relate to decision. One of its aims was to provide the Councillors with a better understanding of the difference between each authority and where there were possible areas for improvement.

In receiving the report Members acknowledged that each council collected resident satisfaction statistics in different ways, such as asking different questions, and thus it was difficult to compare like for like. Similarly the costing of the service for each council was very different partly due to some of the authorities using in-house service and others having outsourced. Other cost implications included the use of weekly or fortnightly collections and the types of bins/collection receptacles used.

Members briefly discussed the differences between what services each authority had, especially highlighting the positives and the perceived areas of weaknesses with their current collections processes. It was collectively felt that in the future, whenever any of the councils re-examine any of its collections they should use the experience of the other partner authorities and also consider if joint working would be practical or beneficial. Members highlighted an area where closer working between each authority could occur immediately, that being the collection routes for roads that were close to, or divided by, borough boundaries.

RESOLVED

1) That the Committee noted the report

2) That the Management Group should, when the next revision of collection routes occurs, give closer consideration to the impact that this has on the residents living on, or close to, roads divided by borough boundaries.

RESOLVED;

That the public are excluded from the meeting during consideration of the following item on the grounds that it is exempt from disclosure by virtue of Part 4B, Paragraph 10.4 and Category 3 of the constitution

The Committee considered the Phase A strategy and Procurement report which provided an update on the Phase A contract renegotiation and the associated procurement exercises.

Members were pleased with the value achieved for residents from the contract renegotiation. Members felt that such positive news should be fed back to our residents, but they were also mindful of the potentially commercially sensitive information involved. The Committee asked the Management Group to devise a suitable communication over the retendering process, so that residents could be informed. The Committee hoped that this press release would be published in advance of the next meeting and Members asked that they be kept informed on this.

RESOLVED

1).    That the Committee noted:

i.      the conclusion of the Phase A contract renegotiation

ii.      the progress on the Framework procurement

iii.     the progress on the HRRC re-procurement

2)     That the Management Group be tasked to look at the most appropriate approach for communicating the findings of the retendering, and that the Management Group are to keep the Members informed on this matter directly.

The Committee considered the update report on the Phase B update – ERF Disposal Contract.

Members noted the update on the status of the planning process surrounding the ERF project. They also received a briefing on the status of the judicial review aligned to the planning permission of the ERF.

RESOLVED

That the Committee noted the planning progress on the ERF Project

The report before the SLWPJC provided Members with the high level ‘red’ risk surrounding the Partnership’s waste disposal service contracts.

Members noted the change of status of risk 4.9 and the removal from the register of risks 1.15 and 4.13 respectively, whilst acknowledging that no new risks had been added.

RESOLVED

That the Committee noted the key developments on the Risk Register and the mitigation of those risks.

Future Meeting Dates:

·       Wednesday, 3^rd December 2014 at 5.30pm

·       Tuesday 17^th February 2015 at 5.30pm

·       Monday, 30^th March 2015 at 5.30pm

·       Tuesday, 9^th June 2015 at 5.30pm

The Committee noted that the dates of the future meeting, which would all be held at the Merton’s Civic Centre and were scheduled for:

·       Wednesday 3 December 2014 at 5.30pm

·       Tuesday 17 February 2015 at 5.30pm

·       Monday 30 March 2015 at 5.30pm

·       Tuesday 9 June 2015 at 5.30pm