Agenda item

(To receive a report from Jasmine Sodhi (Performance and Equalities Manager), which provides key performance information that is relevant to the work of the Committee.  This item will also include a demonstration of performance infographics through the website of the Lincolnshire Research Observatory; and

To receive a report from Sean Kent (Group Manager, Environmental Services), which invites the Committee to review, scrutinise and comment on Quarter 4 key performance information relevant to the work of the Environmental Scrutiny Committee)

Consideration was given to a report which provided key performance information which was relevant to the work of the Environmental Scrutiny Committee.  The Council's Performance and Equalities Manager provided an online demonstration to the Committee of how members would be able to view the new style of reporting in a secure area on the Lincolnshire Research Observatory (LRO) website.  Members were advised that following approval from the Executive, this information would be made available to the public.

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 queried whether a monthly reminder could be sent to all councillors on how to access the system.

·          A significant amount of waste had been diverted from landfill, and the capacity of the Energy from Waste (EfW) facility had been increased to 170,000 tonnes.  It was noted that there was a planned outage scheduled for a couple of weeks' time.

·         In terms of performance, waste would continue to be collected, but the data was always four months behind, which made it difficult to forecast.

·         In terms of the amount of household waste recycled, members were informed that the target listed was an aspirational one set by government in 2008.

·         In terms of green waste composting, it was reported that this was very seasonal, and that there also tended to be a reduction when district councils started to charge for collection.

·         It was reported that there had been a lot of compliments about the HWRC service.

·         It was commented that the new system of viewing performance was easier to follow, and members thanks the Council's Performance and Equalities Manager.

·         Concerns had been raised at North Kesteven District Council about the levels of contamination in the mixed recycling, and it was queried what happened to the material which was contaminated.  Members were advised that Mid UK took 70,000 tonnes of recyclables for processing, but there was a charge to the County Council for non-accepted material, which would then be compressed into SRF to form fuel pellets.

·         There was an Officer Working Group, made up of representatives from the district councils, which was working on how to address the contamination.

·         It was commented that it had previously been explained that the quarter 2 performance of the waste sent to landfill, had been due to planned maintenance at the EfW, but it was queried what the costs associated with that had been. 

·         In terms of the recyclables contract, each of the 7 districts specified what recyclables they would collect.

·         It was commented that the market for recyclables was cyclical, and was dependent on demand.  The big problem was that companies were able to dictate what they would accept according to what the market value of the materials was.

·         It was confirmed that districts were concerned about the increase in rejected recyclable materials since the new contract had been in place, particularly when rejected material was converted to pellets for fuel as it was felt that there was an incentive for more material to be rejected.

·         Members were advised that the better the quality of the product that was collected, the better the quality of the product produced.  It was also noted that the county council had concerns regarding the contract as it had to pay for the rejected material.  It was also reported that an audit of the Lincolnshire waste Partnership was being carried out, and once that had been undertaken the report would be brought back to this Committee.

·         In terms of CO₂ reductions from County Council activity, it was queried how much of the reduction was due to not having as many building, and schools becoming academies.  Members were advised that all schools were still included regardless of whether they were academies.  As the portfolio reduced, then so did the emissions, but this was part of the Carbon Management Plan.

·         It was reported that the flooding incidents measure was a context measure, and reflected how often and how much rain had fallen during the year, which was out of the control of the County Council, but it gave an indication of how much resource had had to be diverted to this issue.

·         In terms of flood alleviation schemes, the authority was part of the flood alleviation consortium, and undertook a range of flood alleviation activities with a range of partners, so that resources could be planned better.  However, flood risk schemes were often fairly complex.

·         There were a number of schemes which had been commenced within the year, but had not yet been completed such as the Stamp End scheme.

·         It was reported that all of the resources which had been allocated had been used appropriately.  It was suggested that maybe the whole programme should be measured over 6 years, as this could give a more accurate picture.

·         In terms of the Stamp End project, the County Council was the lead authority, but was also one of several partners, and successful completion was dependent on other authorities.  All of the 24 schemes were still on programme, but the Stamp End project had taken up a significant proportion of this year's resources.

·         It was suggested that there was a need to make the measure more meaningful, and it was more interesting to know how many properties had been protected by the schemes.

·         It was queried whether where there were single properties were at risk, could the owners be spoken to about how they could help themselves.

·         It was commented that in this country, we were not very good at embracing better designed properties and building properties that were flood resistant.  There was a need to plan for better design and better quality housing.

·         Members were advised that in relation to changing to a more meaningful measure, this was an internal measure which was put into the business plan the previous year.  If a more appropriate measure could be suggested, this could be taken to the Overview and Scrutiny Management Committee for inclusion from Quarter 1.

·         It was noted that 6 complaints had been received this quarter, and 2 of them related to the removal of green waste services in Mablethorpe.

RESOLVED

            That the comments made in relation to the performance information presented be noted.