Agenda, decisions and draft minutes

None.

The Portfolio Holder is asked to sign the minutes of the meeting held on 15 February 2017 as a correct record. 

The minutes of the meeting held on 15 February 2017 were agreed as a correct record.

The Environmental Services Portfolio Holder

RECOMMENDED THAT CABINET            Agree to a co-mingled waste collection for the District, providing that the seven year profile supports the conclusion with regard to the financial implications detailed in the report.

The Waste Operations Manager presented this report on the Council’s future options for recycling. He explained that this authority collected paper separately whilst Cambridge City Council co-mingled their recycling. The Waste Policy Manager stated that two external assessments and an in-house analysis had narrowed the options to either continuing with the current position or co-mingling all recycling.

It was noted that this authority’s vehicles were constructed to collect paper separately, whilst the City Council’s vehicles were set-up to collect co-mingled waste and this made the Shared Service less efficient.

Performance

Councillor Anna Bradnam asked whether the number of complaints regarding paper caddies had increased since the Shared Waste Service had been set up. The Waste Operations Manager explained that the City Council’s vehicles could not collect paper waste separately and so it was unlikely that performance had been affected by Shared Services. The Waste Policy Manager agreed to ascertain whether the number of complaints regarding the collection of paper recycling had increased since the Shared Waste Service had been set up.

It was noted that according to the Ricardo assessment recycling would increase from 53.5% to 53.8% if this authority switched to co-mingled recycling. The weight in some of the paper caddies had led to health and safety concerns.

Financial implications

It was understood that the price of recycled paper had been in decline, but was expected to stabilise. It was noted that there would be a “gate fee” for the processing of paper waste if the council decided to co-mingle its recycling. This fee would be fixed, whilst the income from paper recycling would fluctuate.

It was noted that the financial comparison on page 13 of the agenda indicated that co-mingled recycling would cost an extra £41,000 a year. However, the Waste Operations Manager explained that fewer vehicles would be required if the Council changed to co-mingling all its recycling collection, as there would be more room in the vehicles.

The Environmental Services Portfolio Holder explained that from the information he had received he supported a co-mingled waste collection service. However, he insisted that Cabined should have the results of the latest figures regarding the seven year capital investment profile for the purchasing of vehicles, before being asked to make a decision.

The Environmental Services Portfolio Holder

RECOMMENDED THAT CABINET            Agree to a co-mingled waste collection for the District, providing that the seven year profile supports the conclusion with regard to the financial implications detailed in the report.

The Head of Sustainable Communities and Wellbeing presented this report which invited the Portfolio Holder to comment on the planning of the Community Awards 2018. It was understood that in the past the village hero category had received the most nominations.

The Environmental Services Portfolio Holder commended the previous Community Awards ceremony, which had been run efficiently. He made the following points:

·         The judges should be able to amend the categories to ensure the most worthy nominations were recognised.

·         Consideration should be given to a “lifetime contribution” award.

·         The Council Chamber was a suitable venue and it was suggested that not inviting all the nominators would address capacity concerns.

·         Councillor Anna Bradnam should be a judge.

·         The Elite Athlete grants should also be presented at the ceremony.

Councillor Anna Bradnam suggested that sometimes an individual could be nominated when a team award was more appropriate. It was agreed that the nomination form should be amended to ensure the nominee had consented to the nomination.

The Environmental Services Portfolio Holder NOTED the report.

The Environmental Services Portfolio Holder

AGREED        to confirm a charge of £90 for officers re-inspecting food premises as part of the Food Hygiene Ratings system.

The Operations Manager presented this report which proposed a new fee for Food Hygiene rating re-inspections. He explained that this would allow premises, which had received a disappointing score, to pay for a re-inspection. The charge of £90 was to cover costs. It was noted that the Council could not make a profit from this service and so could not levy a higher charge.

It was noted that reviews were typically carried out every one or two years, with low scoring establishments receiving more frequent reviews.

The Environmental Services Portfolio Holder

AGREED        to confirm a charge of £90 for officers re-inspecting food premises as part of the Food Hygiene Ratings system.

It was suggested that a report should be sent to this Portfolio Holder’s meeting on how low risk businesses (category E) were inspected as part of the alternative inspection strategy. The Operations Manager explained that inspections could be carried out as a result of a complaint.

A second report was requested to confirm what the Council’s modern day slavery good practices were and how Environmental Health was following them.

Councillors are asked to bring their diaries.

It was noted that the next meeting would be held when necessary.