Agenda item

Jamie Henderson (Cabinet Member for Environment, Coastal Regeneration and Public Health), Helen Shulver (Assistant Director Resource Management and Circular Economy) were in attendance for this item.

1.The Cabinet Member introduced the report and discussed the following:

a)    Explained that Kent County Council, as the Waste Disposal Authority, had a statutory duty under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 to provide arrangements for the disposal of household waste collected by district councils. Members were advised that the existing temporary waste transfer arrangements serving Folkestone and Hythe would expire in January 2028 and that a long-term solution was therefore required.

b)    Members were informed that KCC currently operated an interim arrangement at Ross Way, Folkestone. The Committee heard that the facility was unable to accommodate all waste streams arising within the district and that residual and food waste currently had to be transported to Ashford. Officers advised that the current arrangements were operationally inefficient, generated additional costs and would cease when the existing contract expired in January 2028.

c)      The Cabinet Member explained that the report represented an update to the previously approved Junction 11 Waste Transfer Station scheme. Members were advised that material changes had occurred since the original decision had been taken, requiring a reassessment of the preferred approach.

d)    Officers outlined the principal issues affecting the Junction 11 project and explained that a critical additional parcel of land required to discharge planning conditions had not been secured. Despite efforts by KCC to acquire the land independently, negotiations had been unsuccessful. Members were informed that without the additional land the planning conditions could not be discharged and the project could not be delivered within the required timescales.

e)    The Committee heard that progression of the Junction 11 scheme would expose the Council to further financial and delivery risks, including land acquisition risks, programme delays and the potential requirement to commit additional expenditure before certainty regarding deliverability could be established.

f)        Officers advised that a market engagement exercise had since identified the availability of a viable alternative solution through the procurement of a commercial waste transfer service within the district. Members were informed that such an approach would provide a deliverable solution within the timeframe required while maintaining KCC’s ability to meet its statutory obligations.

g)    The Committee noted that the proposed procurement would seek to secure a commercial provider capable of receiving, bulking and transporting waste arising from Folkestone and Hythe. Members were advised that the procurement exercise would include consideration of value for money, environmental performance, contract flexibility, social value and future Local Government Reorganisation requirements

2. The following aspects were discussed:

a)    Concerns were expressed regarding the financial implications of ceasing work on the Junction 11 scheme. Members noted that approximately £722,000 had already been incurred in developing the project and queried whether those costs would become abortive. Officers confirmed that the expenditure already incurred would be treated as abortive costs should the project not proceed. Members were advised that there was also a risk that some Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) funding may need to be returned if an alternative compliant use could not be identified.

b)    Questions were raised regarding why the land acquisition issues associated with the Junction 11 proposal had not been identified earlier in the process. Officers explained that the land parcel for the footprint of the waste transfer station had been secured and that the additional land requirement emerged through the planning process. KCC had reasonably anticipated that the land would be available through wider acquisition arrangements. It was only later that it became apparent the necessary land could not be secured in the required timescale.

c)      Members sought clarification regarding whether the future transfer station service would remain within the district boundary. Officers advised that the intention of the procurement exercise was to secure a solution within Folkestone and Hythe wherever possible and that a solution outside the district would create additional operational and financial consequences, including tipping-away costs.

d)    Concerns were raised regarding the potential location of any future facility and the impact of increased heavy vehicle movements on surrounding communities and local roads. Officers explained that the proposal was not to build a new facility but to procure a commercial contract and therefore the procurement process and any associated planning requirements would consider traffic management, routing and operational impacts of contracting with an existing facility.

e)    Members queried whether the existing Ross Way site could simply continue operating beyond the expiry of the current arrangement. Officers advised that Ross Way is a privately owned facility and the current contract to process waste on behalf of KCC could not be extended. The infrastructure at the site was ageing, and substantial investment would be required if any future contractual arrangement were to be considered however the operator of the site would be welcome to respond to the procurement opportunity if they wished. Members were also informed that the site currently accepted only certain waste streams and therefore could not meet the district’s full operational requirements.

f)        Questions were raised regarding the availability of alternative providers within the district and the extent to which a competitive procurement exercise could be achieved. Officers confirmed that market engagement had demonstrated the existence of a viable solution, although competition within the market remained relatively limited. Members were advised that a compliant procurement process would be undertaken to ensure value for money and transparency.

g)    Additional concerns were raised on the original decision-making process and the cost that had ultimately resulted in the non-securing of the parcel of land targeted. The Member highlighted that the previous administration had already begun discussions on a similar site in Otterpool and that the current endeavour had simply wasted tax payers’ money.

h)    Members highlighted the importance of ensuring that waste services continued without interruption during the period of Local Government Reorganisation (LGR). Officers advised that contract provisions would be designed to permit transfer or novation to successor authorities where required and that continuity of service remained a primary consideration.

i)        Discussion took place regarding food waste management arrangements. Officers advised that market engagement suggested food waste could present additional challenges and explained that alternative arrangements at an existing KCC facility may be required should a commercial solution not be available through the procurement process.

j)        Members acknowledged the challenges that had arisen in relation to the Junction 11 proposal and recognised that the recommended procurement route represented the only viable and deliverable solution within the timescales available. The Committee further noted the importance of maintaining continuity of statutory waste disposal services and ensuring that future contractual arrangements remained flexible in the context of LGR.

RESOLVED to endorse the proposed decision, namely:

CEASE activity related to key decision 25/00068 and halt the continuation of development of the Junction 11 waste transfer station scheme

APPROVE the procurement and award of a Transfer Services contract to secure a commercial waste transfer solution through a compliant competitive process.

DELEGATE authority to the Director of Environment and Circular Economy to undertake all relevant actions to facilitate the procurement process.

DELEGATE authority to the Director of Environment and Circular Economy in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Environment, Coastal Regeneration and Public Health, to take relevant actions, including but not limited to, awarding, finalising the terms of and entering into the relevant contracts or other legal agreements, as necessary, to implement the decision: and

DELEGATE authority to the Director of Environment and Circular Economy, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Environment, to award extensions of the contract in accordance with the relevant clauses within the contract.