Agenda and minutes

(Assistant to the Chief Executive)  To report the appointment of any substitute members for the meeting.

The Panel noted there were no substitute members.

(Assistant to the Chief Executive). To declare interests in any items on the agenda.

In considering whether to declare a personal or a prejudicial interest under the Code of Conduct, Overview & Scrutiny members are asked pay particular attention to paragraph 11 of the Code in addition to the more familiar requirements.

This requires the declaration of a personal and prejudicial interest in any matter before an OS Committee which relates to a decision of or action by another Committee or Sub Committee of the Council, a Joint Committee or Joint Sub Committee in which the Council is involved and of which the Councillor is also a member.

Paragraph 11 does not refer to Cabinet decisions or attendance at an OS meeting purely for the purpose of answering questions or providing information on such a matter.

No declarations of interest were made.

To agree the notes of the last meeting held on 25 February 2010.

The notes from 25 February 2010 were agreed as a correct record.

Chairman / Lead Officer) The Overview and Scrutiny Committee has agreed the Terms of Reference of this Panel and associated Work Programme. This is attached. The Panel are asked at each meeting to review both documents.

(a)        Terms of Reference

To be considered in relation with item 7 on the agenda, ‘revision of terms of reference’.

(b)       Work Programme

Item 1 – Safer Cleaner Greener Strategy – noted that (a) and (c) was now completed. Reports on (d) and (e) to go to the July meeting.

Item 2 – CCTV – action plan to the October meeting.

Item 3 – Essex Waste Procurement Process – there was a need to redraft the wording on this item.

Item 4 – Waste Management Partnership – (b), (c) and (e) had been completed; (a) was ongoing; (d) is on track.

Item 5 – Nottingham Declaration – updating report to go to the July meeting.

Item 6 – Bobbingworth Tip – noted that grass and seeding had not taken place and it would stay closed to the public for the time being. The Management Group was still to be set up.

Item 7 – Flooding Matters – (a) had been taken up by the LDF Cabinet Committee and could be taken of the work programme.

(b)  the T&F report has now been published and a Partnership has been established, their first meeting will be on 27 May 2010. This can now become a long term monitoring process.

Item 8 – Crime and Disorder scrutiny matters – There had been two scrutiny meetings on this so far, but there had not been much public response. If appropriate the Scrutiny Committee could co-opt members of the public for specific tasks.

Item 9 – Leisure issues – (a) noted that the Waltham Abbey Sports Centre had successfully transferred to the King Harold School which was using the sports centre for public use. Noted that SLM were working on the preplanning application for the new sports hall at Waltham Abbey Pool before it is put to the planning officers.

(b) noted that most of the play facilities were now completed.

To consider the attached report.

The Director of Environment and the Street Scene, John Gilbert, introduced the report on Government consultation on the steps which might be taken to further reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases arising from the landfilling of waste.  The Government was now consulting upon a number of options as set out below:

(a)               do nothing;

(b)               landfill bans with or without pre-sorting;

(c)               pre-sorting but without a landfill ban; and

(d)               introduce producer responsibilities linked to recycling targets.

This was a first stage consultation and it was anticipated that a further detailed consultation would be undertaken on the outcomes at some point in the future. This consultation paper sought a response by 10 June 2010.

The Panel noted that the revised EU Waste Framework Directive (WFD) set out the following waste hierarchy:

(a)               prevention;

(b)               preparation for re-use;

(c)               recycling;

(d)               other recovery (e.g. energy generation); and

(e)               disposal.

Paragraph 15 of the report set out the suggested response that this Council should make. The responses were of a general nature rather than dealing with the specific questions posed in the consultation document.

Councillor Jacobs noted that the paper setting out the arrangement between Defra and Brussels over co-mingling and kerb-side sorting said that they each had a part to play in different circumstances. What did different circumstances mean? Mr Gilbert was unsure but he thought they were trying to cover all bases. If it were co-mingled collection then it would need sorting once collected.

Councillor Jacobs commented that it would be more helpful if Article 11 (1) had been in force years ago. What would happen to the Material Recycling Facilities (MRFs) when there was kerbside recycling. They seem to have changed the rules just when we have just got going and it would make things more costly to collect. The Council could keep the clear sacks for paper and also the metal and plastics for later sorting. Mr Gilbert said that “Kerb Siders” had three hoppers to separate materials but it was much slower to put the recycling into the vehicle than co-mingled material.  Councillor Jacobs replied that if we had this system we may not get charged gate fees, Mr Gilbert agreed.

Councillor Barrett said that the Council had started from a nil base and should be congratulated at how far it had got. However he had reservations around the value of collecting it and whether there were markets. Mr Gilbert explained that recyclate were like any other commodity and prices fluctuated dependent upon demand and market forces.

Councillor Barrett said that at present the Council had the public on their side but if it was all co-mingled then we may lose the public’s help.

Councillor Frankel said that MRFs seemed to come down to costs and efficiency. If they are that good then it points to co-mingled waste, but we should not be frightened to require the public to do their own sorting.

Councillor Jacobs asked if the EU expected the Council to take more interest in  ...  view the full minutes text for item 45.

To consider the attached report.

At its meeting on 20 April 2010the Council considered a recommendation from the Cabinet to:

(1) To agree to the dissolution of the West Essex Waste Management Joint Committee;

(2) To agree to the proposal to create a Waste Partnership Member Board and Inter Authority Member Working Group;

(3) That the Council’s representative on the new Board and Member Group be the Cabinet Portfolio Holder with responsibility for waste management;

(4) To consider an appointment of a Deputy; and

(5) To amend the Council’s Constitution accordingly.

They resolved to accept the above recommendations.

In the light of that decision it was now necessary for the Panel to amend its terms of reference, deleting clause 2 references to the West Essex Joint Waste (Management) Committee and replacing it with references to the Waste Partnership Members Board and Inter Authority Agreement Member Group.

Resolved:

(1)        To amend clause 2 of the Terms of Reference of the Panel to reflect changes in the Member monitoring arrangements of the Essex Waste Strategy by deleting the  reference to the West Essex Joint Waste Management Committee and replacing it with references to the Waste Partnership Member Board and the Inter Authority Member Working Group; and

(2)        To report to Overview & Scrutiny Committee accordingly.

To consider the attached report.

The Panel noted the minutes of the Waste Management Partnership Board Meetings held on 28 September 2009, 13 November 2009, 19 January 2010 and 16 March 2010.

To consider which reports are ready to be submitted to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee at its next meeting.

To report back to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee on the change of the terms of reference and the Defra consultation on land filling.