Agenda and minutes

Apologies or absence were received from Councillor Krupa Sheth, Councillor Eddie Lavery and Councillor Shivraj Grewal.

RESOLVED: In accordance with Rule 5 of the Authority’s Standing Orders and further to the decision of the Authority on 20 September 2025, Councillor Eddie Lavery’s Annual Leave as a reason for absence be extended to the next meeting of the Authority which had been rescheduled from January to February 2025.

Members are reminded that if they have a pecuniary interest in any matter being discussed at the meeting they must declare the interest.  They may not take part in any discussion or vote on a matter in which they have a pecuniary interest.

RESOLVED: To note that there were no declarations of interest.

RESOLVED: That the minutes of the meeting held on 20 September 2024 be taken as read and signed as a correct record.

Members received a report which set out the 2025/26 budget proposals.

Sapna Dhanani, Director of Finance, introduced the report highlighting waste growth, increases in residual waste tonnages, increases in levies and staff costs. Officers outlined the sections within the report on Waste Transport and Disposal, Premises and PAYT Levy Income and FCL Income.

The Director of Finance advised that the key messages from the plan were set out in the report and consistent with the previous year and were as follows:-

·       A key area of strategic focus should be the reduction in the volume of residual waste, the key driver of spend and levies;

·       From 2028, the Emissions Trading Scheme would result in an increase in costs for boroughs and the current forecast for residual waste increasing;

·       The PPP contract and operational choices dampen the effect of inflation;

·       The Authority would be debt free at the end of the plan and would maintain healthy cash balances to manage any liquidity risk.

Following the presentation by officers, Members made comments and asked questions as follows:-

·       Members welcomed the ongoing conversations between the Authority’s officers and borough Finance Directors;

·       In terms of the baseline tonnage figure and whether this required  consideration if this was exceeded consistently, it was confirmed that this had only happened in this financial year and during the Covid pandemic but that the strategy was to reduce tonnage and forecasting of tonnage was acknowledged as being extremely difficult;

·       The Members were advised that the increase in levies was being driven by budgeted tonnages from boroughs. It would be useful if a way could be identified to make it unacceptable to put food waste into residual waste bins due to costs and that joint programmes would continue to be worked on. A Member questioned whether it was realistic to look at the quantity of food waste in the residual waste stream as the goal was to remain within the cap figure. Emma Beal, Chief Executive, emphasised the need to recycle food waste using anaerobic digestion to reduce costs.

·       The detail of the Reserves were set out in section 19 of the report and officers advised that there was a requirement to have assets re-valued periodically. The purpose of the reserves was to enable the Authority to avoid having to issue a supplementary loan each year and provided stability for financial planning. Any excess reserves would be disbursed to boroughs.

·       A Member indicated that his borough had just received an indication of their EPR funding noting that this was not mentioned within the papers.  The Treasurer advised that the announcement had been received too late for inclusion within the papers but that they would now be updated. The expectation was that this funding would not be received until late 2025. Another Member questioned whether this funding would be used to reduce levies and was advised that it was essential the funding supported the Authority’s transition to a low waste future to reduce costs permanently. This would form part of the conversation  ...  view the full minutes text for item 75.

Members received a report which provided an update on the Authority’s 2020 investment in Borough Business Cases funded with £3 million from the Authority to increase food waste collection and reduce residual waste.

Peter Tilston, Projects Director, introduced the report and explained that officers were looking to understand the barriers to people using the food waste service hence the proposal to establish a joint citizen assembly. In response to questions from Members, he explained that at this stage costs were not known and the officers were looking to work with boroughs to organise this.

Members expressed hesitancy in approving a project that was not yet clear and that it might not reach those not currently using the service, only those that were already engaged. The preference would to be see the full proposal and engagement with the boroughs communications teams. It was suggested that a borough approach might be more appropriate and that whilst more engagement was supported, a full plan was needed.

The Projects Director advised that boroughs had received additional funding to assist with the roll out of the food waste service and explained that less food waste had been collected over time and this was shown within table 1 of his report. The amount of food waste tended to drop when residents realised how much food they were wasting and therefore encouraging use of the service was key. The Chief Executive added that table1 highlighted that three boroughs were showing an increase in savings in waste costs as a result of food waste being separated whilst the other three were showing a decrease. Figure 3 in the report showed that those boroughs that had commenced the food projects first saw early savings which had then dropped off demonstrating that this needed to be worked on consistently. In terms of a Member’s comment that composting was not reflected in the figures, the Chief Executive explained that it was important to meet the overall objective of not having food waste in the residual waste system.

RESOLVED: That

1)    it be noted that the remaining food waste in residual was circa 130,000 tonnes per annum with an associated cost of circa £13 million per annum;

2)    the decision on the creation of a joint citizen assembly to address waste and food waste be deferred until there was a fully developed proposal.

Members received a report which set out the proposed response from the Authority to the government consultation on legislation to give local authorities the flexibility to allow elected Members to attend formal Council meetings remotely.

Emma Beal, Chief Executive, outlined the proposed response which was supportive of some virtual meetings but for core meetings to remain in person. She stated that the discussion between Members and officers was valuable and assisted in familiarisation with boroughs.

The Clerk advised that in terms of the consultation response, for the Authority, proxy voting would not be possible as the proxy Member would need to be from the same borough. A Member suggested that views on a matter could be submitted in advance by a Member if he/ she knew that they would be unable to attend a meeting.

A Member sought clarification as to what would constitute a ‘core meeting’ and was advised that these would include the budget and business plan. Another Member expressed the view that all meetings would fall into the category of ‘core’. Subject to the outcome of the government’s consultation, Members indicated that they would need a further report on this matter.

RESOLVED: That

(1)  subject to the comments made by Members, the draft consultation response, attached at appendix 1 to the officer report, be noted;

(2)  the benefit of virtual and in person meetings for a joint waste disposal authority working cross borough and cross party be affirmed.