Agenda item

David Beaver (Head of Waste Management and Business Services) and Hannah Allard (Waste Business Development Manager) were in attendance for this item.

1.    Following a Point of Order made by a Member under 15.11 of KCC’s Constitution, the Clerk clarified that supplementary reports to the meeting’s agenda could be published and made available to Members and the public within 5 clear working days of the meeting in accordance with Section 100B of the Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985. It was noted that where the constitution and law were in conflict, that the law took precedence.

2.    Miss Carey introduced the item. She discussed how Committee Members had helped shape the report via a working group. She told Members that Waste Management were required to reduce costs and balance the books and that this was agreed upon by Members in the budget. She assured Members that this decision was taken as a last resort and by making savings this area KCC were able to ensure that funding to Social Care services was protected. She told Members that Officers had been tasked with creating a scheme that had the least impact on residents and residents would be consulted.

3.    Mr Beaver provided further context to the Committee. He told Members that there was already more capacity than demand in the system and that waste processed by HWRC’s had been reducing year on year. He told Members that modelling assumed there would be more rather than less waste in the future and accounted for potential changes in legislation. He reiterated the need to identify savings to support the other services. 

4.    Members asked made the following comments and asked questions of Miss Carey, Mr Symth, Ms Allard and Mr Beaver.

a)    A Member raised their concerns that the proposed options would disproportionately impact East Kent and that residents should be provided with ‘none of the above’ as an option in response to the consultation. They also asked why the consultation was Kent-wide rather than targeted to areas likely to lose HWRCs and asked whether the consultation document was final. Miss Carey told Members that consultation questions were not usually reported to committees. She said that the way options were phrased was intentional and that KCC do have a preferred option. She told Members it had been a data driven exercise and reducing impact has been at the forefront of the decision. Mr Smyth added that paragraph 2.4 were the 4 options that would be consulted on and were not draft options.

b)    A Member praised Ms Carey for establishing the Member working group. They were pleased that Members had been consulted prior to the consultation beginning and that a free text output was being included in the consultation.

c)    A Member told the Committee that they were concerned about the decision to reduce waste infrastructure as housing developments were being constructed. The Member asked for the savings per HWRC site.

d)    A Member raised their concerns that the booking system was responsible for reducing the numbers attending the sites under consideration for closure. They also asked what impact the consultation was expected to have on the scheme. Miss Carey responded that the booking system was introduced due to problems during lockdown, it was found that it assisted traffic management and was co-designed with residents. A public consultation was held on whether to keep the booking system and a clear majority wanted it to be maintained. On how the consultation would be acted upon, she told Members it is not a referendum and savings will have to be found somewhere but that the publics’ preferences and comments will be taken into consideration.

e)    A Member told the Committee they were concerned about the Government’s push for a free to use waste and recycling service. They also asked whether the decision to close centres would increase the risk of fires at other sites and asked whether sites would be mothballed in case additional capacity is required in the future. Miss Carey agreed that the Government’s approach had made matters more difficult and although waste management is funded by council tax, they were subject to legislation. On potential fires, Mr Beaver told Members that fires mostly occur in waste transfer stations rather than at HWRCs. On mothballing, this approach had been considered by the waste management team and they had informed corporate management of their preference. 

f)      The Chairman asked if Government action had been considered in future capacity projections, particularly if the Government prevent councils from using a booking system. Miss Carey told the committee that this is a concern and she hopes the government do not go down this route. But that they will continue to work with households to reduce the amount of waste produced.

g)    A Member commented that they were concerned about the impact on Faversham and argued that the proposals would cause disproportionate harm to local residents. They told the committee they would like a map showing the impact of closures on the time it takes to drive to a household waste recycling centre. The Member went on to raise concerns that air-pollution, the relative cost of living, demographics and future congestion had not been considered. Ms Allard responded that consultees would be provided with as much information as possible and that most of the analytics produced had centred around drive times. She told Members that closures would mean that an additional 12,000 households would need to drive more than 20 minutes to reach a HWRC.  Ms Allard also informed the Committee that capacity modelling had been updated following their meeting with the members group and told Members that although some centres could reach capacity on Sundays, all would have enough capacity during the week. Mr Beaver added that the closure of sites on some days would lose more capacity than the complete closure of specific sites.

h)    A Member commented that service changes should be made and that they believed this was a reasonable area for change. They told the committee that they’d like the public to be consulted on whether 2-day closures of sites would be preferable and that they hope public feedback to the consultation was considered. 

i)      A Member raised their concerns over the addition of Swanley as a site being considered for closure. The Member asked what changes had been made to the officer’s methodology which meant that the Swanley site was being considered.

j)      A Member asked on the mothballing of the sites whether this was an option and raised the Tovil, Maidstone Site. Ms Allard told Members future capacity was considered and growth was considered as part of this forecasting. She told Members that respondents will be provided with a graph showing how population growth and other factors will impact capacity in districts. Mr Beaver said they would investigate mothball further and report on it after consultation. A Member asked if the sites would be used for housing, Mr Beaver told the Committee that it was too early to determine.

5.    Members voted on whether to agree the recommendations. The votes cast were as follows:

For (9): Mr Baker, Mr Collor, Mr Crow-Brown, Mr Dendor, Mr Holden, Mr Rayner, Mr Sandhu, Mr Watkins and Mr Whiting.

Against (8): Mr Bond, Mr Cole, Ms Dawkins, Ms Hawkins, Mr Hood, Mr Hook, Mrs Hudson and Mr Lewis.

6.    The vote passed.

RESOLVED to note the report and measures planned to obtain public and stakeholder views on the proposals to meet budgeted cost savings required for 2023/24 and 2024/25.