Agenda and minutes

An apology for absence was received from Councillor Stephen Mann.

The Chair will consider the admission of any late items of urgent business (late items will be considered under the agenda item where they appear. New items will be dealt with as noted below).   

None.

None.

To consider any requests received in accordance with Part 4, Section B, Paragraph 29 of the Council’s Constitution.

None.

To review both savings proposals and investments for Priority 3, as set out in the MTFS, and make any recommendations for Cabinet.

The Panel considered the proposals relating to Priority 3 within the Council’s Medium Term Financial Strategy (MTFS) as follows:

3.1 Charging for Green Waste - Income Generation

Stephen McDonnell, the Assistant Director of Commercial and Operations, reported that the proposal was intended to raise £750,000 per annum in income.  However, there was no guarantee that residents would opt into the scheme.  A 20% participation rate had been achieved in Brent though.  The level of income anticipated had been based on a similar rate being achieved in Haringey and was equivalent to 12,000 homes.  There was a risk that residents would put green waste in residual bins instead.  It was therefore proposed that home composting bins be offered to residents at cost price. A major communications campaign was planned to promote the change.  40% of London boroughs currently charged for collecting green waste. 

The Panel noted that there was lower demand for green recycling in the east of the borough, where people tended to have smaller gardens.  It was also intended to offer pre paid sacks to residents.  The rate of £75 per year was around the median of what London boroughs charged and worked out at just over £1 per week.  The £75 was for a green wheelie bin whilst the sacks could be paid for at customer service centres.  Collection was universal at the moment and it was arguable that those who did not use it were subsidising those who did.  Houses that had opted into the scheme would be identified by having the green bins.    

3.2; Charging for Bulky Household Waste

Mr McDonnell reported that the intention was to raise £400,000 in income through this.  It would cost £25 for four items plus £10 for every additional item.  The envisaged income was based on 11,500 collections per year.  It was not felt that it would impact significantly on recycling levels.  There was a risk that the proposals would lead to an increase in fly tipping and reduce the levels of resident satisfaction. However, experience from elsewhere had shown only minor impacts on levels of fly tipping.  There would also be an extensive communications campaign to promote the change.

Concern was expressed by the Panel that the proposal would increase the level of fly tipping, which was felt to present a high risk.   In addition, items that were fly tipped were normally removed quickly which might make paid collection of items less attractive.   In addition, it was felt that the projected increase in income of £400,000 might be difficult to achieve. 

The Panel noted there had been extensive discussion with Veolia regarding this proposal and they would be taking on the financial risks associated with this proposal.  Their perception was that the level of risk was low.  It was considered that the proposals would not make a significant difference to those people who were inclined to fly tip.  In addition, it was frequently found that when collection vehicles currently visited addresses to collect bulky items, they had not been  ...  view the full minutes text for item 19.