The Chair to outline the procedure to be adopted for the meeting.
On 7 March 2017, the Cabinet made the following decision in respect of the Draft Waste Strategy:
“1. That the Waste Strategy be approved, subject to:
(a) implementing garden waste charging from September 2017 at an annual price of £33 per bin, with a delegated authority given to the Cabinet Member to Public Realm to establish a discount scheme for people in receipt of benefits;
(b) not implementing the Waste Strategy until the MK Waste Recovery Park is in full operation;
(c) a full implementation and communications plan for the Strategy be developed by the Service Director for Public Realm in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Public Realm; and
(d) the new Strategy be reviewed after not less than 12 months from this decision for its effectiveness, performance against projections, and specifically the impact on the MK Waste Recovery Park.
2. That resource allocation and spend approval of £0.4m be approved as an addition to the Capital programme 2017 /18.”
The Cabinet’s decision has been called in by:
(a) Councillors Bald and McLean for the following reasons:
"We do not believe, from the evidence avaialble in the papers and elsewhere, that the actions and changes proposed in the Strategy will meet the stated aim 'To deliver a high quality waste service that provides value for money and costs substantially less than it did in 2016'.
We note that 2016 waste costs may include exceptional charges arising from the delay to the Waste Park and expect these will be adjusted out when comparing costs of the proposed strategy with 2016 costs.
We cite the following major concerns:
1. The impact of the new waste strategy fails to adequately consider how changing the behaviour of 104k households will be managed; what the various reactions could be and how they will be addressed, including the impact on costs and on the environment.
2. The changes, despite their impact, were not included in the very recent budget consultation nor were they exposed to the cross party Task and Finish Group set up specifically to look at a new waste strategy.
3. The quoted annual cost savings of £330k on a total cost of £25m are marginal and the costs and savings are insufficiently detailed in the financial case to give credence to the strategy.
4. There is no sensitivity analysis, risk analysis or substantial economic evidence accompanying the costings to demonstrate the strategy will achieve the proposed savings.
5. The performance indicator predictions in the strategy are presented without evidence; on these vital indicators affecting 104k households that are not sufficient.
Overall we are unconvinced by the evidence and arguments put forward; we believe that the strategy will fail to meet its objectives and that the Cabinet's decision is unsound.”
(b) Kents Hill and Monkston Parish Council for the following reasons:
“It is an abuse of process; no consultation; danger of increase in fly-tipping; cost of new scheme; disposal of food waste changing from one scheme to the other.”
A copy of the report and Annex considered by the Cabinet is attached at Item 5.
The Committee is requested to consider the reasons set out in the call-in request and, in accordance with the Council’s Constitution, either:
(a) refer the item back to the Cabinet, setting out the nature of the Committee’s concerns;
(b) not refer the item back; or
(c) refer its views to the Council.