Agenda and minutes

There were no apologies for absence.

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 no interests were declared.

RESOLVED:  That the minutes of the meeting held on 3 December 2024 be taken as read and signed as a correct record.

Members received a report which provided updates and details of progress of the Authority’s 2024-25 Business Plan and Strategic Priorities.

Emma Beal, Chief Executive, detailed the content of the report and also introduced the newly appointed Chief Technical Officer, Nicky Fiedler, the Strategic Director of Housing and Environment from Ealing Council and, as Environment Director, Chris Whyte, Brent Council’s Director of Environment and Leisure. With their support as an additional resource it was hoped that there would be more joined up working and increased ability to push through joint initiatives to improve services and save money. She added that everyone at the Authority was working hard to ensure the plan came to fruition and that, in terms of risk, the biggest risk was doing nothing and the biggest item within the plan was the HRRC project.

Members expressed significant concern at recommendation 3 set out in the officer report in that it was vague and they sought clarification as to the proposals for the £11m Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) funding and whether there was any specific purpose in mind for this.

In response the Chief Executive explained that one purpose was to reduce the cost impact of the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) which charges for fossil carbon in waste and also that, under Simpler Recycling legislation,  by 2027 flexible plastics must be collected.  Initiatives which removed plastic out of the waste system would minimise ETS costs. She wanted to get boroughs to the position where they were spending more on their collection systems than disposal systems to deliver these changes and advised that plastic recycling required considerable infrastructure and investment and boroughs working on this together would be cheaper than individually. There was a significant risk from leaving the plastic in the residual waste and she was keen to find a solution to this by working together.

The Chief Executive also advised that food waste was a waste growth area and that only approximately 25% of residents were using the system correctly. Significant savings could be made by recycling food waste and the aim was to create a food waste recycling culture. A Member stated that his Authority already had this as a flagship action and were communicating with residents on this issue and so questioned the use of EPR funding and what it could achieve / have impact on. He challenged that it could not be known at this stage that all of the £11m would be needed and that some of this could be used to offset disposal costs. These concerns were supported by other members of the Authority and the view was expressed that a solid business case was required.

Peter Tilston Director of Circular Economy and Net Zero, responded that officers were looking to create a joint solution between the Authority and boroughs. Not every resident in every borough had access to a food waste service and there was a need to consider how specific geographical areas and demographics could be targeted to increase participation as  ...  view the full minutes text for item 81.

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

Sapna Dhanani, Director of Finance, outlined the key points set out in the report and noted Members comments that section 7 on premises required revision following the discussion on the previous agenda item about the route map and reserves. Members sought clarity on the types of reserves and were advised by the Treasurer that there were earmarked reserves which were designed for a specific purpose and general reserves. Further to the previous decision, it was not proposed to put EPR in general reserves but to earmark it as a reserve to meet the requirement built into it. Members emphasised the importance of clarity on this and that the recommendation on this item required amendment accordingly.

Referring to page 43 on the agenda, a Member stated that in light of the discussions, the description of the EPR funding reserve required amendment to demonstrate this was an earmarked reserve and Members were not committed to what the money could be used for.

RESOLVED: That (1) the 2025/26 budget be approved;

(2)  the budget for work be met from PPP income;

(3)   the Pay As You Throw (PAYT) rates, as set out in section 15 of the officer report, and the PAYT levy made up of two components totalling of £61.9 million be approved;

(4)  the Fixed Cost Levy (FCL) of £16.6 million, as set out in section 16 of the officer report, be approved;

(5)  the possible requirement to increase trade and construction prices, as set out in section 17 of the officer report, be approved and the Chief Executive, following consultation with the Treasurer, be authorised to change these in year should the need arise;

(6)  the new capital budget, as set out in section 18 of the officer report, as well as the rollover of capital budgets in section 18, be approved;

(7)  the EPR funding be held as an earmarked reserve for possible use in accordance with both the proposals in the Business Plan and Resolution (4) of Item 81 above;

(8)  the Treasurer's comments upon the adequacy of reserves, as set out in paragraph 19.21 of the officer report, be noted;

(9)  the Medium and Long Term Financial Plan, as set out in section 20 of the officer report, be noted.

Members received a report which provided an update on financial and operational matters up to November 2024.

RESOLVED: That (1) the current financial position and forecast for 2024/25 be noted;

(2) the key performance indicators to date be noted;

(3) the delegated decisions be noted.

Tom Beagan, Director of Operations, introduced the report which provided an update on the Authority’s waste treatment arrangements and procurements.

In response to the request for support from Members in relation to publicity about waste fire risk, Members sought clarity as to what was required in terms of messaging. Members indicated that the use of pictures and language was key as well as clear instructions as to where to place waste and recycling. The Director advised that he would contact borough Environment Directors to establish their key Communications contact and copy in Members. It was suggested that a letter from the Chair of the Authority might assist in the establishment of the link with borough Communications teams.

In terms of the HRRC project, a Member suggested that this merited a joint meeting of Members and Environment Directors and this view was supported. In addition, Members felt that it would be beneficial to have more join up with borough Environment Directors.

RESOLVED: That (1) a formal request to publicise waste fire risk to residents be made to boroughs;

(2) the need for data relating to borough HRRCs to inform market engagement be noted;

(3) the report be noted.

Members received a report which reviewed the Authority’s Health and Safety arrangements for the calendar year 2024, and presented the Authority’s Health and Safety Plan for 2025.

RESOLVED: That (1) the Annual Health and Safety Performance Review 2024 and Action Plan for 2025, as set out in Appendix 1 to the officer report, be noted;

(2) the Authority’s Health & Safety Policy which had been updated for 2025, as set out in Appendix 2 to the officer report, be noted.

Members received a report which provided a quarterly update on the Authority’s pipeline procurement up to the end of the financial year and highlighted future procurements that would be developed over quarters 1 and 2 of 2025.

RESOLVED: That (1) the Dry Recyclate Processing and Sale contract be extended by four months in line with Regulation 72 (c) of the Public Contracts Regulations (PCRs) 2015;

(2) a minor clarification to the Procurement Operating Procedures as detailed in the officer report be approved;

(3) this procurement update be noted.