Agenda item

The following questions on notice were received from Councillor P Barnes.  Responses were provided by the Portfolio Holder for Corporate, Governance, Communications and Environmental Services.

Councillor Barnes was entitled to ask one Supplementary Question to each Question on Notice, without notice (this should be a question and not a statement).  Where a Supplementary Question was asked, the question and the response is detailed under the relevant question.

Subject:  Waste Services Delivery Model (subject of agenda item 11, and report considered at Cabinet on 26 June 2025)

Question 1.

Looking at recommendation numbers 3-6 inclusive below could you please provide some more details as to how these proposed costs have been arrived at? Specifically, but not limited to, what is the cost of the vehicles and how many, cost and how many bins for all streams, staff costs etc

Recommendations to Council from Cabinet:

3.    That Council approves drawing forward £3.150m from the Capital Programme allocation for 2028/29 and 2030/31 into 2026/27 to fund the capital costs of purchasing food waste collection vehicle and wheeled bins. 

4.    That Council approves rephasing of £0.735m in the Capital Programme allocations for Food Waste for 2025/26 into 2026/27 to fund the capital costs of purchasing food waste collection vehicles. 

5.    That Council approves rephasing of £0.225m in the Capital Programme allocations for refuse and recycling vehicles for 2025/26 into 2026/27 to fund the capital costs of purchasing new refuse collection vehicles.

6.    That Council approves an addition of £3.771m to the Capital Programme in 2026/27 to fund the capital costs of purchasing food waste collection vehicles and wheeled bins.

Response from Portfolio Holder for Corporate, Governance, Communications and Environmental Services:

The proposals 3-6 relate to recommendations for the capital programme, related to the purchase of vehicles and bins. Whilst it is possible to capitalise salaries associated with the delivery of capital projects, there are no associated salary costs with the above proposals. The figures stated are budget adjustments to fund the following items.

The capital costs are:

·       Wheeled bins 240L- £30.56 x 135,000. Total cost- £4,125,600.

·       Estimated bins per waste stream- 45,000.

·       Food waste vehicles- £113,245 x 7. Total cost- £792,715.

·       Refuse freighters- £269,372 x 11. Total cost- £2,963,092.

·       Total capital expenditure- £7,881,407.

For the purposes of the Cabinet and Cabinet to Council report the financial adjustments are rounded for presentation purposes to the nearest million. As specific costs are requested for items to be purchased the figures remained unrounded.

·       Supplementary Question:  Reference was made to 11 refuse freighters – were these 11 additional vehicles or were they replacements for current stock?

·       Response: The Portfolio Holder for Corporate, Governance, Communications and Environmental Services advised that these were 11 additional vehicles, and this was the number of vehicles required to deliver the new service.  He also stated that he could provide a written response with more detail if required.

Question 2

You have mentioned that the proposed new scheme will make savings of £0.5m per year.  How is that to be achieved and is that a saving against the current overspend or a saving in addition to clearing the overspend for the department.

Response from Portfolio Holder for Corporate, Governance, Communications and Environmental Services:

Extract from the Cabinet report of the 26 June 2025- the annualised cost on average over the current MTFS is £0.514m pa less than the projected cost of the current service on average of £5.217m, meeting the requirement for an efficient total waste management service.

The table below sets out how the average saving quoted has been calculated.

·       Supplementary Question:  The table included a current service figure of £799,000 for food waste – how could this be the case is this was not a service that was currently being provided.

·       Response: The Portfolio Holder for Corporate, Governance, Communications and EnvironmentalServices stated that a table had been considered the best way to circulate information.  He advised that he could either meet with Councillor Barnes or provide a written response by way of explanation.

The following question on notice was received from Councillor J Le Sage.  A response was provided by the Portfolio Holder for Assets and Strategic Planning.

Councillor J Le Sage was entitled to ask one Supplementary Question to his Question on Notice, without notice (this should be a question and not a statement).  Where a Supplementary Question was asked, the question and the response is detailed under the relevant question.

Subject:  Future sale of SHDC assets

With regard to the future selling off of SHDC assets. Is a full and proper assessment made of any assets being sold whereas there may be a potential larger benefit of using that asset as a community asset?

I have asked a number of times with regard to the possibility of the 'old market stall holding area' in Spring Gardens to be used as a community garden and a potential base for the 'Wombles'; still no further forward with any answer.

Assets should not always be viewed in purely monetary gain whereas the community benefit in the longer term may be greater.

Response from Portfolio Holder for Assets and Strategic Planning:

I thank Councillor Le Sage for notification of his question, and for reminding Council that when it comes to our assets, they are absolutely considered in terms of the wider value they do or could create for our communities.  For example, I have worked hard with officers since being privileged to hold the Portfolio to enable - the community transfer of public open space and play equipment to two parish councils and a further one in progress; the sale of Moulton Park to a local charity to support its opening up to the community; and I am currently working with a local organisation on possible lease of land at Surfleet to help their local users access community space in order to tackle isolation and support their beneficiaries physical and mental health.  I have further asked officers to work with internal and external colleagues to explore the potential for social and supported housing schemes on our land as well as working closely with a community sports group on an exciting project that could really enhance the use and benefit derived from a piece of our public open space and have some thoughts on a community garden within Spalding. So please be assured that our approach really does consider value and benefit in the vein you query.

However, it is incumbent on me to set out for Councillor Le Sage and indeed all members of this Council that this Council also holds assets that can and will create capital receipts through their freehold sale, or could enable the Council to resource any agreed borrowing by disposing of assets by way of long leases at market values that can help finance this Council’s capital priorities.  Disposal of such sites, a number of which are set out in a Decision Notice I have recently issued, are likely to be put to purely commercial uses by the private sector, but that is not something that we should shy away from as commercial developments will further benefit our communities by securing new business rates and council tax revenues to support ongoing service delivery to, for and within those very communities.

Finally, whilst I really do not recall any request for a base for the Wombles, I do recall previous correspondence on a possible community garden but did not consider the site proposed at the time at all suitable which was relayed back. I’ll be very happy to meet outside of tonight’s meeting and look to support the Wombles if at all possible. 

·       Supplementary Question:  Would it be possible for Parishes and Councillors to receive a list of assets in their areas?

·       Response: The Portfolio Holder for Assets and Strategic Planning advised that although this information was in the public domain, there were many assets ranging from large buildings to tiny pieces of land,  and the list was long.  He would respond to Councillor Le Sage in due course.

The original Questions on Notice and Portfolio Holder responses to each were provided to members in printed form at the meeting and are detailed above.