Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Tony Phillips and Matthew Sarti.  In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 23(i), Councillors Caroline Reeves and Jenny Wicks attended as substitutes for Councillors Tony Phillips and Matthew Sarti, respectively.

In accordance with the local Code of Conduct, a councillor is required to disclose at the meeting any Disclosable Pecuniary Interest (DPI) that they may have in respect of any matter for consideration on this agenda.  Any councillor with a DPI must not participate in any discussion or vote regarding that matter and they must withdraw from the meeting immediately before consideration of the matter.

If that DPI has not been registered, the councillor must notify the Monitoring Officer of the details of the DPI within 28 days of the date of the meeting.

There were no declarations of interest.

To confirm the minutes of the Executive Advisory Board meeting held on 19 October 2017.

Further to the minute concerning the Council’s Air Quality Strategy, a Councillor advised that he had been assured by the Waste and Fleet Services Manager that the Council was seeking to improve air quality through its electric fleet vehicle procurement process and he withdrew his previous comment to the contrary.

The minutes of the meeting of the Board held on 19 October 2017 were approved as a correct record, and signed by the Chairman.

The Board considered an update report advising of theprocurement methods available to the Council and the current route to market trends used by officers.  The report also informed the Board of the proposals for improvements to the procurement function at the Council and the future opportunities arising from the changes.

The report followed a presentation to the Board in February 2017 by officers who summarised the recommendations in their report, developments in legislation, training issues and the long-term goals of the Corporate Procurement Advisory Panel (CPAP).  The Board had requested an update on the cost savings to be made by procurement 6-9 months later.  However, as the Procurement Officer and Procurement Assistant had left the Council’s employment, the Principal Solicitor overseeing the procurement function had prepared this report as an interim measure whilst recruitment to a newly created Procurement Manager post was being carried out.  This report explored the tender procedures available under relevant Regulations and looked at the Council’s current approach to procurement and areas of opportunity.  A further report would be brought to the Board to deal with cost savings from procurement in due course when the Procurement Manager was in post and had the opportunity to review costs.

The Council was legally obliged to ensure that it achieved best value and continuous improvement when exercising its functions including when it was purchasing goods, services and works.  It carried a fiduciary duty to local tax payers to spend money lawfully and efficiently and was obliged by law to adopt standing orders which regulated its approach to contracting.  Further, the Council was obliged to access the market in legally compliant ways; to meet various transparency obligations in relation to expenditure; and to meet a range of obligations under Data Protection legislation in respect of data controlling and processing.

The Council’s duties were threefold, namely, compliance with relevant Regulations when procuring contracts valued above a threshold set by the Official Journal of the European Union (OJEU); producing Procurement Procedure Rules (PPRs) which complied with Regulations and other legal requirements; and ensuring that the PPRs were followed by procuring officers.  The latest rules that the Council need to comply with, the Public Contract Regulations 2015, came into force in February 2015.  They modified the previous Regulations and codified the case law in this area particularly in relation to contract variations and exemptions.  The 2015 Regulations created a framework by which public bodies must procure their goods, works and service contracts.

The report outlined the procurement routes to market for new tenders for goods, works and services contracts valued above the OJEU threshold which were Open Procedure, Restricted Procedure, Competitive Procedure with Negotiation, Competitive Dialogue, Innovation Partnership, Negotiated Procedure without Prior Publication and Light Touch Regime.  For contracts below the OJEU threshold, a less formal tender or quote procedure could be followed which could either be an Invitation to Tender or a Request for Quote process following the procedures detailed in the PPRs.  Framework agreements, a contract between the party  ...  view the full minutes text for item S4

A presentation concerning a review of the Refuse and Recycling Service will be given.

Councillor Matt Furniss, Lead Councillor for Infrastructure, Transport and Governance, introduced a presentation in respect of a review of the Recycling and Waste Collection Service.  The review was a Corporate Plan objective due for completion in December 2018, seeking Executive approval in June 2019 and implementation from July 2019 to April 2020.  The presentation covered the guiding principles of the review, the key drivers for change, an outline of the current service, the Phase 1 proposal, the potential Phase 2 proposal and next steps.  The advantages and disadvantages of the current service and both proposals were included.

The guiding principles were to maintain high levels of customer satisfaction, respond to market and legislative changes, maintain/improve environmental performance, avoid additional hard containers for waste and choice of vehicles.  The key drivers for change were the market, legislation and local factors including financial challenges for this Council and Surrey County Council, the need to replace the vehicle fleet and the aim to reduce waste.  The current service, which utilised split bodied vehicles, consisted of fortnightly collections of comingled recycling and refuse and weekly collections of food waste.  The Phase 1 proposal sought to continue the current service changing to single bodied vehicles plus a split bodied vehicle for food waste and nappy collection.  The potential Phase 2 proposal would use single bodied vehicles collecting food waste and nappies weekly and three weekly collections of paper and card, comingled recycling and refuse.  Advantages of the current service was service stability and disadvantages were that it did not respond to market changes, planned legislation and increased costs.  Continuing the same service, simpler fleet vehicles and ability to adjust services to respond to changes in the market and legislation were advantages of the Phase 1 proposal and possible minor disruption to some residents was the disadvantage.  The potential Phase 2 proposal’s advantages were responding to changes in the market and planned legislation, increased recycling, savings on disposal costs, increased revenue opportunities and increased flexibility whilst major service change was the disadvantage.  The next steps were to undertake a detailed financial analysis, plan implementation of a vehicle change in the service, report to the Executive to approve the release of vehicle funding, order vehicles and return to the Executive in June 2019 to consider whether and when to implement Phase 2.

In addition to the need to procure a new fleet of refuse collection vehicles, major factors affecting the service were the introduction of the Government’s Deposit Return Scheme (DRS) in 2010/21 and market factors.  The most significant market factor was China, which had previously received up to 70% of the world’s waste paper, limiting the paper it accepted for recycling to high quality only which reduced the amount which could be disposed of via that route leading to a flooded and uncertain market.  These factors could decrease demand, increase costs and reduce the amount of material collected at the kerbside for recycling by up to 30% as it was being disposed of via other routes.  ...  view the full minutes text for item S5

To receive a presentation regarding procurement of new cemeteries.

The Board received a presentation regarding the procurement of new cemeteries.  The presentation queried whether the Council should provide new cemetery space, provided background to current service provision and obligations, outlined current Borough capacity, addressed delivery of a new cemetery and raised discussion points.

Following a service review in 2013/14, the Executive agreed to endorse the acquisition and establishment of new burial ground within the Borough in close proximity to the town centre to ensure accessible provision for different faiths, cultures and practices, while continuing to examine other options and the suitability of land.

In terms of current service provision and obligations, the provision of burial grounds was not a statutory duty for local authorities, the increasingly diverse society had a variety of requirements, and local authorities were legally required to dispose of the deceased in cases where there were no family or estate and to do this in accordance with their religious beliefs.  The Council operated two open burial grounds in central Guildford, namely, Stoke and The Mount, and was responsible for eight closed churchyards.

Current Borough capacity was 5 to 10 years and there was very limited capacity for catholic lawn graves, non-conformist with no marked provision for members of the travelling community or followers of the Muslim faith and there were sections of the community that the Council was not able to cater for.  Capacity was available in local parish churchyards, Brookwood Cemetery, Clandon Wood Natural Burial Reserve, Nightingale Cemetery and Eashing Cemetery.

A site had been allocated for cemetery use in the draft Local Plan and delivery would cost in the region of £5-7 million.  A business case had been developed utilising the estimated capital cost and assumptions for ongoing costs and income.  To break even the site would need to undertake around 80 full new burials per annum, including the associated memorial income.  At this rate the pay back period would be 170 years.

Questions for discussion included in the presentation were whether the Council should provide a cemetery or leave provision to the private sector; whether a Borough provision should be subsidised, break even or net income generating; and where these decisions sat when judged against other priorities for the Service such as the delivery of the crematorium.

The following discussion points arose:

·             Although there were estimates relating to the costs associated with a subsidised, break even or income generating service, there were many variables.  The existing service was subsidised by the Council.

·             The delivery cost of £5-7 million covered land acquisition, Environment Agency ground water measures and the development of the site

·             The number of funerals arranged and financed by the Council under Section 46 of the Public Health (Control of Diseases) Act 1984 was increasing and work was being undertaken with Environmental Health to plan for this.

·             There was minimal private sector interest in delivering cemeteries as crematoria were more economically viable than cemeteries.

·             The only remaining places at The Mount Cemetery were reserved.

·             Home burials were permitted with the permission  ...  view the full minutes text for item S6

To consider the progress made in respect of items previously considered by the EAB.

The progress report required updating following changes to the Lead Councillors and their responsibilities.  It was noted that the Smart Cities item would feed into various workstreams and now formed part of the Innovation Strategy.  Progress updates were sought in respect of the Leisure Strategy and Arts Development Strategy.  It was felt that Business Rates was an important issue for some small traders and the Discretionary Rates Review scheme should be reviewed at an early opportunity.  It was currently scheduled for review in 2019.

To consider and approve the EAB’s draft work programme.

The Chairman advised of some changes that had been made to the Board’s Work Programme, namely, the two health related items scheduled for the September meeting had been combined and the Social Care Green Paper item had been deferred as it had not yet been issued.  The point of the future operation of public conveniences item listed for the October meeting was to consider whether the Council should continue to provide this service.