Agenda and minutes

It was reported that following the notification of a civil emergency due to adverse weather conditions affecting the east coast of Lincolnshire, officers from the Emergency Planning team would be unable to attend the meeting for item 7 on the agenda (Community Resilience and Emergency Preparedness in Lincolnshire).  Due to this, the Chairman proposed that this item should be deferred to the next meeting on 3 March 2017.

RESOLVED

            That item 7 on the agenda be deferred to the next meeting of the Committee scheduled to be held on 3 March 2017.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor C J T H Brewis.

An apology for absence was also received from Councillor C J Davie, Executive Councillor for Development.

There were no declarations of interest at this point in the meeting.

During consideration of the minutes, the following corrections were made:

·         That Councillor J R Marriot's apologies be noted.

·         Minute number 26, bullet point number 2 – the word 'not' be inserted as follows 'it was reported that this was not due to the works, but from cake…..'

·         Minute number 27, first bullet point – the word 'new' be inserted as follows 'Anew bridge on the river steeping….'

RESOLVED

            That the minutes of the meeting held on 2 December 2016 be signed by the Chairman as a correct record subject to the above amendments being noted.

There were no announcements by Executive Councillors or Senior Officers.

It was noted that a letter would be sent to Councillor Mrs Bradwell, as the Executive Councillor responsible for Children's Services, on behalf of the Committee in relation to the importance of the SCoRE programme.

Councillor W S Webb, Executive Support Councillor for Development expressed his thanks to all the staff who had been working through the night to prepare for the storm surge that was expected along the east coast on the morning and evening of 13 January 2017.

(To receive a report by Michelle Grady, Head of Finance (Communities), which describes the budget proposals arising from the Provisional Local Government Settlement, announced on 15 December 2016 and the implications for the commissioning strategy 'Protecting & Sustaining the Environment')

The Committee received a report which described the budget proposals arising from the Provisional Local Government Settlement, announced on 15 December 2016 and the implications for the commissioning strategy 'Protecting & Sustaining the Environment' which included the following activities:

·         Reducing Carbon Emissions

·         Flood Risk Management

·         Protecting & Enhancing the natural and built environment

·         Waste Management

·         Sustainable Planning

Members were guided through the report and were provided with the opportunity to ask questions to the officers present in relation to the information contained within the report, and some of the points raised during discussion included the following:

·         It was queried whether there had been any assessment of the impact of the closure of the two waste sites on the budget.  Was there evidence that a saving had been made, particularly in relation to whether there had been an increase in fly tipping.  Members were advised that districts had not noted any significant increase in fly-tipping since the closure of the sites.  The cost of disposal of the fly-tipped waste would be the responsibility of the county council.  The costs of maintaining these sites had been removed from the budget.  Members were advised that the closure of these sites did not affect the Council's policy.

·         The increase in budget costs was due to the amount of waste which was being presented for disposal.

·         It was queried why the council was only setting a one year budget, as some of the districts were putting in place medium term financial strategies.  Members were advised that the Council had been balancing its budget with the use of reserves, as the Executive did not want to make decisions about cutting services if they could find other ways to make savings.  The Council did have a model as it had signed up to a four year funding deal from government, and so knew what income would be coming into the authority.  However, there were still some very big unknowns, such as the Better Care Fund, which would not affect the districts.

·         It was clarified that the Street Cleaning teams in Lincoln were paid for by the City of Lincoln Council, but disposal of the waste collected was paid for by the County Council.

·         A large cost in terms of waste disposal was the haulage to transport the material to processing facilities.

·         Concerns were raised about the possibility of delays to the Boston Barrier project, as there was already a public inquiry scheduled.  It was clarified that the £11m the Council had set aside for this project was for improvements in addition to the Barrier itself, but the barrier itself had attracted 100% funding from the government due to the number of residents who would be affected by flooding.  It was also noted that the public inquiry should not affect the programme as it was in relation to how people use the river.

·         It was noted that the cost of non-pay inflation had not been applied as a cost pressure for a number of years, only pay inflation was being  ...  view the full minutes text for item 35.

(To receive a report from Sean Kent, Group Manager Environmental Services, which provides the Environmental Scrutiny Committee with an opportunity to consider an audit undertaken on the Lincolnshire Waste Partnership and the Joint Municipal Waste Management Strategy)

Consideration was given to a report which provided the Environmental Scrutiny Committee with the opportunity to consider the final report of an audit undertaken on the present Lincolnshire Waste Partnership (LWP) and the Joint Municipal Waste Management Strategy (JMWMS).

It was reported that the scope of the Lincolnshire Waste Partnership Audit was to provide independent assurance that there were strong governance arrangements in place for the LWP as well as ensuring that the JMWMS was an up to date and relevant document.  The report contained an action plan which outlined the risks identified during the audit as well as findings, implications and recommendations for addressing each risk.  The Committee was informed that that there was now an agreed management action against each of the 12 findings, along with a proposed completion date and a responsible member of staff.

Members were provided with the opportunity to ask questions to the officers present in relation to the information contained within the report and some of the points raised during discussion included the following:

·         It was positive that representatives from all eight authorities, portfolio holder and senior officer, and the Environment Agency regularly attended the LWP meetings.

·         It was a legal requirement for an authority to have a Waste Strategy

·         There was a need for a clear strategic direction

·         One of the actions (recommendation 7) had already been completed as a paper had been taken to the meeting of the LWP in November 2016 in relation to future governance arrangements, and an option agreed.

·         Members were reassured that although many actions were rated as red or amber, they should all become green when the new Joint Municipal Waste Management Strategy was completed in April 2018.  It was noted that a lot of the actions were interlinked and dependent on the completion of the strategy.

·         It was confirmed that there would be regular updates to the Committee in relation to the progress of the Strategy.

·         It was commented that there would be a small team undertaking the large task of preparing a revised strategy.

·         It was queried whether there were league tables for the most successful recycling authorities and if there was any merit in carrying out a desk top survey on whether the most successful authorities were unitary.  However, it was reported that usually high performing authorities were those that had kerbside collections and whether the authority was two-tier or unitary did have some effects.

·         The LWP was looking at identifying the six valuable types of recyclables that should be collected in bins. 

·         It was noted that one of the drivers for the districts to reduce contamination in recycling was the TEEP (Technically, Environmentally and Economically Practicable) Regulations.

·         Lincolnshire was a high performing authority in terms of recycling, even though performance was not at target level (it was noted that this was an aspirational target).  However, the LWP had written to support Hampshire County Council in their letter to the Government to look at whether IBA (Incinerator Bottom Ash) could be collected as  ...  view the full minutes text for item 36.

(To receive a report by Steve Eason-Harris, Emergency Planning & Business Continuity Officer, which outlines the work undertaken to develop Community Resilience & Emergency Preparedness in Lincolnshire)

This item was deferred to the meeting due to be held on 3 March 2017.

(To receive a report from Daniel Steel, Scrutiny Officer, which enables the Committee to consider and comment on the content of its work programme for the coming year to ensure that scrutiny activity is focused where it can be of greatest benefit)

The Committee received a report which provided an opportunity to consider and comment on the content of its work programme for the coming year to ensure that scrutiny activity was focused where it could be of greatest benefit. 

It was noted that the Community Resilience and Emergency Preparedness in Lincolnshire would be added to the agenda for the 3 March 2017 meeting, as it had been deferred due to the adverse weather conditions on the east coast of England on 13 January 2017.

It was suggested if there could be an update to the next Flood and Drainage Management Committee if the expected flooding did become a serious incident.

It was noted that although there were no items scheduled for the April meeting, the date would be held in the diary in the event of any pre-decision scrutiny or urgent items which needed to be considered.

RESOLVED

1.    That the Work Programme as attached at Appendix A to the report be noted.

2.    That the addition to the March meeting as highlighted above be agreed.