6 Present: Members Dorset Waste Partnership Joint Committee Minutes of a meeting held at West Dorset District Council offices, South Walks House, Dorchester on 11 March 2015. Christchurch Borough Council Sally Derham-Wilkes Margaret Phipps East Dorset District Council Steve Butler Mike Duckworth Purbeck District Council David Budd Paul Johns Dorset County Council Peter Finney Robert Gould North Dorset District Council Michael Roake (Vice-Chairman) Graham Carr- Jones West Dorset District Council Anthony Alford (Chairman) Alan Thacker Weymouth & Portland Borough Council Stewart Pearson Ian Roebuck Officers of the Partnership Bill Davidson (Head of Strategy and Commissioning, Dorset Waste Partnership) Grace Evans (Clerk to the Dorset Waste Partnership) Andy Smith (Treasurer to the Dorset Waste Partnership) Paul Ackrill (Finance and Commercial Manager, Dorset Waste Partnership) Karen Punchard (Streetscene Manager, Dorset Waste Partnership) Michael Carhart-Harris (Senior Public Relations Officer Waste, Dorset County Council) Jason Read (Democratic Services Officer, Dorset County Council) Other Officers Attending Steve Mackenzie (Chief Executive, Purbeck District Council) Patrick Ellis (Assistant Chief Executive, Dorset County Council) Mike Harries (Dorset County Council) Lindsay Cass (Christchurch Borough and East Dorset District Councils) Robert Firth (North Dorset District Council) Phil McStraw (Purbeck District Council) Jonathan Mair (Monitoring Officer, Dorset County Council) (Notes: (1) Publication In accordance with paragraph 8.4 of Schedule 1 of the Joint Committee s Constitution the decisions set out in these minutes will come into force and may then be implemented on the expiry of five working days after the publication date. Publication Date: 18 March 2015. (2) The symbol ( ) denotes that the item considered was a Key Decision and was included in the Forward Plan. (3) These minutes have been prepared by officers as a record of the meeting and of any decisions reached. They are to be considered and confirmed at the next meeting of the Joint Committee to be held on 15 June 2015.
2 Dorset Waste Partnership Joint Committee 11 March 2015 An Apology for Absence 11. An apology for absence was received from David Walsh (North Dorset District Council). Code of Conduct 12. There were no declarations by members of any disclosable pecuniary interests under the code of conduct. Minutes 13. The minutes of the meeting held on 19 January 2015 were confirmed and signed. Representations to the Joint Committee Public Speaking 14.1 There were no public questions received at the meeting in accordance with Host Authority Standing Order 21(1). 14.2 Mr Tom Murphy and Mr Bob Underwood both made statements in accordance with Standing Order 21(2). Petitions 15. There were no petitions received in accordance with the Host Authority s petition scheme at this meeting. Councillors 16. There were no representations made by Councillors of partner authorities. Financial Report March 2015 17.1 The Joint Committee considered a report by the Treasurer of the Dorset Waste Partnership which gave an update on the partnership s financial position. The Treasurer explained that the report was essentially split into four sections. The first part of the report focussed on the latest budget monitoring position for 2014/15, building on recent information that had been given to the DWP Management Board, indicating that the latest predicted overspend for 2014/15 was 2.8M. 17.2 Councillors were surprised to see that the correct types of vehicles for certain areas in Tranches one and two had still not been identified. It was explained that different arrangements had been made for each area depending on which vehicles were available at different depots. Councillors were reassured that work in this area was ongoing and a report looking at the issues associated with narrow access would be presented to the Joint Committee at a future meeting. 17.3 Councillors asked what work was being done to help reduce agency staff expenditure that was needed to cover leave and sickness absence. Officers explained that all supervisors were receiving absence management training to help them manage this issue. Disciplinary action was also being taken and occupational health staff were contacting members of staff who were absent for longer than one day, to try and help identify issues and help support employees in returning to work. It was also noted that absence had become an issue of concern to Dorset County Council as the host authority, and would be looked at by its Staffing Committee to consider what action could be done to address the situation. 17.4 The second part highlighted the risks of variance in spend for 2015/16 following agreement by the DWP Joint Committee of a budget of 32.456m. The third part of the report focussed on the key points included in the Support Service Improvement Plan, which the Dorset County Council Assistant Chief Executive and DWP Treasurer had developed in conjunction with the DWP Senior Management Team and other support service
Dorset Waste Partnership Joint Committee 11 March 2015 3 managers within Dorset County Council. The final part of the report gave examples of draft financial management reports to be used in the future, to give the Joint Committee an idea of the level of standard of report that would be shared with various stakeholders. A Response to the Reviews of the Dorset Waste Partnership 18.1 The Joint Committee considered a report presented by the Chairman of the DWP Management Board on behalf of the board. Due to concerns regarding the budget overspend for 2014/15 and the increase in budget required for 2015/16 a number of reviews had been commissioned to look at different aspects of the performance of the Dorset Waste Partnership. The report outlined the reviews that had taken place, along with recommendations from the DWP Management Board that could potentially improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the Partnership. 18.2 The overall opinion of the Management Board was that the only way to ensure the speedy production of the detailed improvement plan and its subsequent prompt delivery was to bring in additional senior capacity to support the current DWP senior management. Whilst recognising there would be a temporary increase to management costs, the additional resource was considered to be essential to give the Joint Committee and partner councils confidence that the required improvements could be achieved quickly. WYG had been approached to provide the additional supported that was required. 18.3 Councillors asked how the additional management support would be funded. It was explained that the Waste Partnership s reserve funds would be used. It was noted that the level of reserve specified in the inter-authority partnership agreement was 1% of the overall budget, meaning that the reserve would need to be topped up for 2015/16. 18.4 The Joint Committee discussed each recommendation of the improvement plan. The Chairman explained that he had been invited to offer some wording for recommendation six of the plan, which related to risk associated with budget that required ratification by the Joint Committee. Councillors asked who was responsible for assessing the level of risk associated, as risk had not been accurately assessed over the previous year. It was explained that the financial team in place who prepared the budget would work with the Director and the Management Team to identify risk. This would later be subject to audit, to assess whether or not the risk had been considered correctly. 18.5 Part of the action plan proposed that the Joint Committee requested that Dorset County Council made changes to their Scheme of Delegation to allow the Waste Partnership to better address absence levels. It was noted that the County Council welcomed a review of their scheme and agreed that decision making should be made at the lowest possible level. Councillors asked if the additional support from HR was being funded by the host authority. It was explained that discussions regarding funding were ongoing, but the budget for HR support for 2015/16 had already been increased to address some of the issues. 18.6 Some of the action points related to councillors and officers working together more closely. It was suggested that the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Joint Committee attend meetings of the Management Board in order to increase the flow of information, especially in connection with the implementation of the action plan. It was explained that there was a large amount of performance and management information that could be shared with councillors, and officers would be looking at how this information could be delivered and reported to the Joint Committee. 18.7 The savings plan for 2015/16 was being reviewed. Officers were still working towards agreed targets, but were looking at what could be brought forward early. The
4 Dorset Waste Partnership Joint Committee 11 March 2015 finance team were now working at Grove House with the rest of the Waste Partnership and this was a better and more efficient way of working. 18.8 Officers highlighted that training was being undertaken to help cascade management information throughout the organisation. It was noted that a number of teams were currently undergoing a restructure and therefore there may be a change in personnel in post, meaning training would need to be an on-going exercise, rather than a one off session. 18.9 The Chairman asked when the Joint Committee could expect to see a report on trading accounts. It was explained that a report should be ready by the 1 June 2015. The work would be also be looked at by WYG as they had practical experience in the area. 18.10 The Committee asked if management accounts would be done within the first three months of the financial year 2015/16. The Treasurer confirmed that although the Partnership had previously only begun this exercise in month four, it had been planned that the first three months would be included from 2015/16. 18.11 The Joint Committee were informed that the approach to the Host Authority s Corporate Risk Register had been reviewed. A new draft of the DWP Risk Register had been issued to the Management Board, and would be reported to the next meeting of the Joint Committee. 18.12 WYG would be looking at the route optimisation software used by the Partnership to see if it was being used to best effect. It was explained that the Joint Committee were expecting to see savings as a result of further route optimisation. 18.13 Councillors noted that the improvement plan contained a huge amount of work and explained that reassurances were needed that the Waste Partnership had the resources to carry out the work. Officers recognised the challenges and this was in part why a consultant with practical experience such as WYG had been brought in to assist. Officers were confident that the support and processes were in place to help the Senior Management Team implement the improvement plan successfully. 18.14 Councillors asked who would be taking ownership of the improvement plan and ensuring it would be carried out. It was explained that by adopting the plan, the Joint Committee were taking ownership of it, and as the Commissioning Officer for WYG, the Chief Executive of Purbeck District Council would be working with the Management Board to ensure the plan was being delivered. 18.15 Councillors requested that the action plan be brought back to each meeting of the Joint Committee to monitor progress, which was agreed. 19.1 That the adoption of the outline action plan (Appendix 1) that set the framework for a DWP improvement plan to address the recommendations of all three reviews, be agreed. 19.2 That a temporary resource be brought in for six months to support the DWP Senior Management Team in the development and implementation of the improvement plan. 19.3 That the Chair of the Management Board be given delegated power to appoint the additional resource, in consultation with the Chair of the Joint Committee. 19.4 That the DWP Joint Committee monitors the implementation of the action plan via a standing item on its agenda. 19.5 That the cost associated with these recommendations be met from the 300k revenue reserve, in the first instance.
Dorset Waste Partnership Joint Committee 11 March 2015 5 19.6 That the Joint Committee s Chairman s response to recommendation 6 of the SWAP report be supported, to improve financial information to the Joint Committee. Dorset Waste Partnership - Monitoring Officer Issues 20.1 The Joint Committee considered a report by the Monitoring Officer of the host authority. The Monitoring Officer explained his statutory role under Section 5A of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 and the legal requirement on him to prepare a report to the host authority s Cabinet if he became aware of any proposal, decision or omission by or on behalf of the authority s executive which constituted or had given rise to or was likely to give rise to a contravention of any enactment or rule of law. 20.2 The Motoring Officer explained that such a report was unusual and a reflection of the seriousness of the issues involved. He had become aware that in addition to the concerns identified by the South West Audit Partnership of lack of controls around vehicle hire the Dorset Waste Partnership had acted unlawfully through the direct award of vehicle hire business to two companies without a tendering process having been gone through. The direct awards were valued at in excess of 1.5M. 20.3 There had also been a failure to notify the Motor Insurance Information Centre, responsible for the national insurance database, about a number of hire vehicles insured by the County Council. It was clarified that a published press release relating to insurance issues had been corrected. The press release had suggested that hire vehicles used by the Dorset Waste Partnership were not correctly insured. It was confirmed that every vehicle used was covered by the host authority s fleet insurance arrangements. The unlawfulness was that the national body responsible for updating the database had not been notified. This failure to notify was a criminal offence. 20.4 Councillors asked if the Dorset Waste Partnership or the County Council as the host authority would now be open to legal challenge from companies not able to tender for the vehicle hire business. It was explained that legal challenge was thought unlikely at this time. 20.5 It was asked why the County Council as host authority did not intervene sooner. It was explained that the County Council had contract procedure rules in place but the Waste Partnership had not followed the rules. Strategic Waste Facility (SWF) Project Highlight Report November 2014 to February 2015 21.1 Bournemouth Borough Council and the Dorset Waste Partnership had been seeking to jointly deliver a Strategic Waste Facility in the form of a Materials Recovery Facility (MRF) with a processing capacity of 85,000 tonnes per annum. The project was grant funded from the Department of Communities and Local Government (DCLG) Weekly Collections Support Scheme. The report had been jointly prepared with Bournemouth Borough Council and set out the main actions and progress of the SWF Project from November 2014 to February 2015. The report also outlined planned work for the next period up to April 2015. 21.2 The Committee were asked to consider a suitable date for an additional meeting of the Joint Committee to consider a report on a preferred bidder for the SWF contract. It was explained that it was unlikely the report would be ready before the next planned meeting of the Joint Committee and as that meeting was scheduled for June, it would also align well with the election schedule. It was therefore agreed that the report would be considered at the June meeting.
6 Dorset Waste Partnership Joint Committee 11 March 2015 22.1 That the highlight report be noted. 22.2 That the June meeting of the Joint Committee be used to consider the report on a preferred bidder for the SWF contract. Waste Regulations Compliance Report (TEEP) 23.1 The Joint Committee considered a report by the Director for the Dorset Waste Partnership. The Partnership had a duty to comply with the Waste England and Wales Regulations 2011, in particular regulations 12 and 13. Regulation 12 placed an on-going requirement on authorities to apply the waste hierarchy. Regulation 13 stated that from 1st January 2015, all waste collectors in England and Wales were required to collect glass, metal, paper and plastic in separate streams where doing so was both necessary and technically, economically and environmentally practicable. The current Recycle for Dorset scheme demonstrated compliance with the Waste Regulations as it could be demonstrated that separate collection did not meet the practicability test on the grounds on economic practicability. The additional costs and financial risks associated with separate collection represented an excessive cost. Therefore, no changes to the current collection methodology were proposed. 23.2 Councillors asked why other authorities could use different collection methods and still comply with the Regulations. It was explained that it was up to each authority to agree their own methods of collection to meet TEEP compliances. 24. That the Waste Regulations Compliance Review, be approved. Performance Indicator Monitoring Third Quarter (2014/15) 25.1 The Joint Committee considered a report by the Head of Strategy, Dorset Waste Partnership. It was explained that DWP waste related performance in the third quarter of 2014/15 remained very positive, demonstrating the continuing effectiveness of Recycle for Dorset. Recycling and composting performance had continued to increase, rising from 51.3% in quarter three of 2013/14 to 58.96% in the current quarter. The amount of municipal waste landfilled also continued to reduce, dropping from 26.7% in quarter three of 2013/14 to 19.7% in the current quarter. 25.2 Expenditure was more than profiled (105%) due to a combination of vehicle hire costs, higher waste tonnages and operational staffing. This appeared significantly less negative than the information contained within the financial report. However it only contained expenditure to date, not forecast. Dorset Waste Partnership Benchmarking Exercise 2013/14 26.1 The Joint Committee considered a report by the Director for the Dorset Waste Partnership. It was explained that the DWP had undertaken a benchmarking exercise in three key areas; performance data, customer satisfaction with services and financial performance, in order to ascertain the partnerships direction of travel against the three critical objectives of the DWP business plan. The DWP was performing well in these areas although it was very difficult to obtain clear financial information of a comparable nature and so it relied on the openness of third parties. Data was also historic rather than current. 26.2 It was noted that in regards to recycling performance, the DWP had ranked 13 th out of 152 authorities. It was anticipated that this would have recently improved following the roll out of tranches.
Dorset Waste Partnership Joint Committee 11 March 2015 7 26.3 In regards to customer satisfaction, the DWP had scored a 90% customer satisfaction score. The only comparable data that could be found was from Durham County Council, who had scored 88%. 26.4 In regards to spend on waste management per head, the DWP had ranked second lowest in a list of seven local authorities. Progress Report December 2014 to February 2015 27.1 The Joint Committee considered a report by the Head of Strategy, Dorset Waste Partnership. The report set out progress of the Dorset Waste Partnership in relation to its 2014-19 Business Plan objectives and actions since the Joint Committee of December 2014. Other emerging issues, with the capacity to impact on Business Plan objectives, were also reported. The report included a readiness to proceed review in relation to Tranche 5 of recycle for Dorset. 27.2 Councillors asked for clarity over the roll out of Recycle for Dorset tranche 5. It had previously been suggested that the roll out may need to be delayed. Officers explained that plans for the rollout were in place, but the Broomhills transfer station was delayed. Going ahead as planned, in the absence of a transfer station, would have a cost. A July roll out, as planned, would have cost implications of 128,000 whereas an October roll out would have cost implications of 55,000 to 60,000. Councillors agreed that a decision needed to be made on a roll out date as the public needed to be informed. Therefore, it was agreed that after considering all factors involved with the roll out, an October date would be th best option. A tranche 4 readiness to proceed review was also offered. Although the timing of tranche 5 would slip three months, the review did not identify any barriers to proceeding with the roll out. 28.1 That progress against the DWP Business Plan be noted. 28.2 That the tranche five readiness to proceed review and associated risk register, be noted. 28.3 That the proposal to defer the Recycle for Dorset tranche five roll out date to October, be agreed. Forward Plan 29.1 The Joint Committee considered a report by the Director of the Dorset Waste Partnership which set out the main actions and progress of the DWP in relation to strategic objectives since the last meeting and reported on planned work for the next period. 29.2 It was agreed that a progress report relating to management actions be added to the work programme as a standing item on the work programme. Questions from Councillors of Partner Councils 30. No questions were asked by members under Host Authority Standing Order 20(2). Meeting Duration: 10:00-13:10