Agenda and minutes

1.1       The Committee RESOLVED to agree as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on 16 March 2016.

2.1       Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Rosalyn St Pierre.

Disclosures by all members present of personal interests in matters on the agenda, the nature of any interest and whether the member regards the interest as prejudicial under the terms of the Code of Conduct.

3.1       Cllr Maynard declared a personal, non-prejudicial interest under item 5, as he is the Leader of Rother District Council (RDC).  Cllr Dowling declared a personal, non-prejudicial interest under item 5 as she is a member of Wealden District Council.

Notification of items which the Chair considers to be urgent and proposes to take at the appropriate part of the agenda. Any members who wish to raise urgent items are asked, wherever possible, to notify the Chair before the start of the meeting. In so doing, they must state the special circumstances which they consider justify the matter being considered urgent.

4.1       There were none.

5.1       Reports referred to in the minutes below are contained in the minute book. The committee agreed to change the order of the agenda and examined item 6, the report on the Scrutiny Review of School Crossing Patrol Alternative Funding first and then discussed item 5 the Waste PFI Contract report. 

Report by the Director of Communities, Economy and Transport

6.1       The Committee considered a report by the Director of Communities, Economy and Transport which provided an update on the Waste PFI (Public Finance Initiative) Contract.

6.2       The Assistant Director, Operations introduced report and introduced Justin Foster, Waste Team Manager and Sue Short, Waste PFI Accountant to the Committee. East Sussex County Council (ESCC) is the Waste Disposal Authority which is distinct from the waste collection authorities who collect refuse from residential properties. ESCC is working with Brighton and Hove City Council (BHCC) in a 30 year contract with Veolia which has built and operates a number of waste disposal facilities including:

• the Newhaven Energy Recovery Facility (ERF);
• the Woodlands composter at Whitesmith;
• the Hollingdean Materials Recovery Facility (MRF); and
• twelve Household Waste Recycling Sites (HWRS).

6.4       Justin Foster, Waste Team Manager outlined the main sections of the report. The operation of the Waste (PFI) Contract is complex and has been reviewed recently by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA). ESCC and BHCC were awarded £113m in PFI credits from DEFRA towards the cost of the contract. The contract payments to Veolia include amounts for the repayment of the capital invested to build the facilities, interest charges, the operation of contract, plus a small profit for the contractor.

6.5       The Committee thanked the Waste Team Manager for the quality of the report. The Waste Contract expenditure represents a large proportion of the department’s budget. The Economy, Transport and Environment (ETE) and the Audit, Best Value and Community Services (ABVCS) Scrutiny Committees are both interested in the impact that the Waste Contract has on the Council’s revenue budget and savings plans.

6.6       The Committee discussed the report in more detail and the key points of the discussion are summarised below.

Waste Collection and Recycling targets.

6.7       The European Union (EU) Waste Directive imposes a target of recycling 50% of all waste by 2020. This target has been reflected in the Waste Contract targets. The United Kingdom (UK) has an aspiration to meet that target and current UK performance is 44%.It is a stretching target and could be achievable. What is not known is whether there will be any financial penalties if ESCC does not meet this target.

6.8       Waste collection arrangements and the impact on recycling rates and contract costs:

• The Committee heard that there was an impact on the waste contract from the collection arrangements and recycling performance of the collection authorities. ESCC has a duty to dispose of all household waste delivered to it by the waste collection authorities. Consequently, the more waste that is recycled under the current arrangements, the less ESCC has to pay in disposal costs.
• The Lead Member for Transport and Environment commented that it was up to each waste collection authority to determine how they collect waste, and that the waste collection arrangements were not part of the Waste PFI Contract.

·         The Committee considered that it would be useful to have a breakdown of recycling rates across the various collection authority  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

Report by the Director of Communities, Economy and Transport.

7.1       The Committee considered a report by the Director of CET which provided a twelve month update on the implementation of the recommendations from the Scrutiny Review of alternative funding for school crossing patrols.

7.2       Brian Banks, Road Safety Team Manager, introduced the report and outlined the latest update to the recommendations, including the updated information for schools and funding sources in appendix 3 of the report.

7.3       The number of school crossing patrol sites that ESCC funds is relatively static and there is little growth in the number of patrols. At present there are 29 sites funded by ESCC, 21 sites funded by sponsorship, and 5 operated by volunteers. The Road Safety Team Manager tabled an up to date list of all school crossing patrol sites.

7.4       In regard to the 13 sites that ESCC consulted on ceasing the funding for the school crossing patrol:

• 3 sites were re-assessed and found to meet the Council’s criteria for funding;
• 6 sites were sponsored; and
• 4 sites were closed (two had patrol officer vacancies, and two were at light controlled crossings).

7.5       The Committee asked under what circumstances school crossing patrols are re-assessed to see if they meet ESCC’s criteria for funding. Officers responded that sites will be re-assessed if there is no patrol officer in post (e.g. due to retirement or a patrol office leaving). In addition, all sites are re-assessed every year (but not if they have been closed) by the School Crossing Patrol Supervisor and a site will be re-assessed if the Road Safety Team receives a request to do so.

7.6       The Committee commented that the possible sources of grant funding listed in “Funding News for Children and Young People” (appendix 3) was a general list that may give a false impression that there was a lot of funding sources available. It may be better to have a specific list of the funding sources that are prepared to fund school crossing patrols.

7.7       Officers responded that the Road Safety Team had taken advice from the ESCC funding advisor. There are no specific funding schemes that will fund a school crossing patrol, but there may be geographic or new funding streams that become available. The Assistant Director, Communities commented that he believes there is sufficient support for schools to find funding if they want to follow that option.

7.8       The ESCC Funding Team will provide advice to schools individually on the sources of funding that might be available for school crossing patrols. There is also support to seek funding for other schemes the school may want to fund and thereby release funding for crossing patrols if necessary. In addition, Academies can legitimately spend funds on school crossing patrols.

7.9       The Committee asked if crossings that have had their ESCC funding removed are re-assessed again. The Road Safety Team will re-assess any site if requested to do so, but does not have the resources to routinely assess all 130 primary school sites. Of the 6 sites that were sponsored  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

8.1       The Committee considered the future work programme.

8.2       The Committee discussed the Reconciling Policy, Performance and Resources (RPPR) process. Director of CET outlined that a three year medium term financial plan (MTFP) was set in the last budget setting and he does not anticipate the savings plan changing. Consequently the Committee may not need November item to discuss the MTFP for the department.

8.3       The Committee agreed to add the six month monitoring report for the Scrutiny Review of Highway Drainage to the work programme for March 2017, and the twelve month monitoring report for September 2017.

8.4       The Committee resolved to note the programme and amend the programme in accordance with paragraph 6.23 (3) and 8.3 above.

The Forward Plan for the period to 30 September 2016. The Committee is asked to make comments or request further information.

9.1       The Committee considered the Forward Plan of key decisions.

9.2       The Committee RESOLVED to note the Forward Plan.