Agenda item

1.

Question from Councillor Wall to Cabinet Member Finance

The Lib Dem Cabinet launched the garden waste collection service with predictions that 20,000 residents would have signed up to it by 2013. In February 2013 only 12,573 residents signed up leaving a shortfall on expectations of 7,427. Using the original £36 yearly fee as the basis this means that the Council has missed out on planned revenues of almost £270,000 for 2013 alone. On top of this the Council currently has almost 10,000 unused brown bins stockpiled at a cost of nearly £150,000.

What has the Council done to make up for this unplanned 2013 double-whammy of £400K+ over-expenditure and loss of income and what impact has this had on other Council services?

Response from Cabinet Member Finance, Councillor Rawson

I know how keen Cllr Wall is to see Liberal Democrat policies succeed, and I am deeply sorry that he is so anxious about an “unplanned 2013 double whammy” in the Council’s budget arising from a shortfall in garden waste income.  However, I am glad to be able to put an end to his distress by telling him that no such whammy exists, whether planned or unplanned, double, single or in any other multiple.

The garden waste collection charges were introduced in 2011-12, at a time of heavy cuts in public expenditure, and some time after similar charges had been introduced by both the neighbouring (Conservative led) district councils.  It became apparent in the 2011-12 financial year that the projected levels of take-up for the new paid-for service would not be met.  We therefore did what any prudent organisation would have done: we remodelled the base budget for 2012-13 to take account of the income levels we were actually achieving.  We did this by finding efficiency savings within the garden waste collection service and more generally across the Council’s services. 

When the 2013-14 budget was put together, the income target for green waste charges was based on what was actually achieved in 2012-13, not on what was projected back in 2011-12.  As far as it is possible to predict, we set a target that is realistic and achievable.

Cllr Wall will also be delighted to hear that the garden waste service is earning us around £430,000 a year from garden bin subscriptions, and is more than covering the cost of the green waste collection service. That income would not exist if we had followed Cllr Wall’s advice and not introduced the charge.  It is odd that he is bewailing a shortfall in an income stream that he doesn’t believe should exist in the first place. 

I realise Cllr Wall’s judgement may be clouded by his anxiety over the green waste situation, but he should realise you can’t conflate a £270,000 revenue figure and a £150,000 capital item to make a figure of “£400,000+ over-expenditure and loss of income” for 2013-14.  Anyone would think he was trying to mislead people.  The purchase of brown bins was funded out of the capital programme in 2011-12 and the money only needed to be spent once.  As for the shortfall of income against the original 2011-12 forecasts, that has been built into the base budget in both 2012-13 and 2013-14 and therefore to describe it as “unplanned” at this stage is wholly inaccurate.

In response to his last paragraph: because the budget was adjusted in 2012-13, there was no need to take any further major corrective action in the 2013-14 budget.

2.

Question from Councillor Wall to Cabinet Member Sustainability

I have received many complaints from angry Battledown residents about the Lib Dem Council's side waste policy. The Council is being described to me as introducing bin police, bin snoops, rubbish snoops, bin busy bodies and many others....

Can the Cabinet Member please confirm what description he thinks is most appropriate for the policy he has introduced?

Response from Cabinet Member Sustainability, Councillor Whyborn

None of the above. This is not a picture I recognise.

Experience in other wards - where incidentally Councillors have very been supportive regardless of party affiliation – is that the enforcement of closed bin lids and no side waste policy is working well, with almost no complaints, and Ubico staff are reporting noticeable diversion of waste from landfill to recycling, thus saving the taxpayer some £72/tonne.

3.

Question from Councillor Wall to Cabinet Member Sustainability

The Council has said in its new policy that it will no longer collect side waste yet it is introducing an excess waste bag scheme where residents can pay extra for specific bags that will be collected as side waste. Can the Cabinet Member please explain this apparent double-standard of a policy that does not apply if a resident pays?

Response from Cabinet Member Sustainability, Councillor Whyborn

This description is a complete misrepresentation. The excess waste bag scheme (where residents can pay extra for specific bags that will be collected from the kerbside) has been put in place to enable residents to deal with special events such as house moves and clear-outs, which are above and beyond the normal refuse collection service.

4.

Question from Councillor Wall to Cabinet Member Sustainability

In December 2008, the Lib Dems first attempt to launch a green waste scheme was scuppered at Full Council through an amendment I proposed. Many of the arguments against a paid for green waste scheme raised that day appear to have come to fruition - lower than projected sign-ups, over-optimistic income projections, angry residents rejecting extra charges for something they already used through their Council Tax, more trips to recycling centres that increase traffic and CO2. In a recent Gloucestershire Echo Editorial as a result of my questions from the last Full Council, the Editor has said it is "time to say sorry for Cheltenham's brown bin mountain" and "there comes a time when the best thing to do is just to say: 'We got it wrong'."

Does the Cabinet Member think it is now time for him to say sorry for the failure of the Cabinet's much derided green waste scheme and the huge and continuing waste of public money that it has involved?

Response from Cabinet Member Sustainability, Councillor Whyborn

This question of brown bin stocks has been answered on two previous occasions, and I question why it is being raised again.

Councillor Rawson’s answer to Q1 eloquently explains who has got the policy right, and one perhaps could add that had Cllr Wall’s 2008 blockade of the Lib Dem administration’s waste policy been allowed to continue, the authority would probably still be clocking recycling rates of below 33%.

5.

Question from Councillor Wall to Cabinet Member Sustainability

The Cabinet Member has previously confirmed that a three stage process has been adopted by Cheltenham's Bin Police to warn residents of breaches in the Council's new side waste policy, namely a sticker, a tag and then a formal warning letter that threatens 'enforcement' action.

Since the Council's publicity on this matter appears to be non-existent, to enable me to provide complete clarity to the residents of Battledown, can the Cabinet Member please confirm:

- what enforcement action the Council will take against residents who receive a formal warning letter?

- in what circumstances will a resident be prosecuted?

- what the impact is to a resident's waste collection if enforcement action or prosecution is undertaken?

Response from Cabinet Member Sustainability, Councillor Whyborn

I do not recognise the expression Cheltenham's Bin Police which appears to owe much more to a vivid imagination than to the waste policy.

The education and enforcement policy, its rationale, how it is rolled out, and how residents are informed about it is covered in the Waste policy document, and covering report which was recently put through cabinet on December 2012. Each stage of the process, commencing bin stickers explains the next stage to the resident. So far no prosecutions have taken place, and would only take place where in the view of the enforcement officer, they were necessary and would serve to enforce the policy, and/or would be successful. As said in Q2, this policy is saving the taxpayer some £72 per tonne of waste diverted from landfill.

6.

Question from Councillor Harman to Cabinet Member Sustainability

Will the Cabinet Member look at how we can remove the curse of the plastic shopping bag and whether we can provide collection points as is the case with some leading Supermarkets?

Response from Cabinet Member, Councillor Whyborn

I have much empathy with the issue you raise. However Ubico are advised that whilst plastic bags can be taken for recycling, the final destination is likely to be in the Far East, and would also attract “gate fees” and possibly transport charges. In general; the administration supports the principle that the polluter should pay – and in this instance supermarkets appear to be willing to take this on-board. So it is in fact a far better solution to a) encourage retailers to recycle plastic bags, and b) continue (through the LGA and other bodies) to lobby central government to encourage retailers to restrict the use plastic bags through legislation, levies, or any other means.

In a supplementary question, Councillor Harman asked whether the Cabinet Member would consider looking at what the council could do to work with retailers to reduce the number of plastic bags.

The Leader indicated that Councillor Whyborn was not able to attend the meeting to answer member questions due to illness.  The Leader was supportive of the proposal by Councillor Harman but he would ask the Cabinet Member to provide a written response.

7.

Question from Councillor Fletcher to Cabinet Member Finance

The Conservative controlled Cotswold Council has been able to reduce their Council tax by 5%. They have been able to do this because of the many savings they have made including shared services with a number of councils. Can the Cabinet Member Finance explain why the Liberal Democrat Administration here, which has also invested in Shared Services, is unable to make these kind of savings?

Response from Cabinet Member Finance, Councillor Rawson

Both Cheltenham and Cotswold councils have achieved substantial savings in their 2013-14 budgets.  Cheltenham made £1.25 million of savings of which £383,000 came from shared services.  Cotswold made savings of £858,000 overall, including savings from shared services.

I am very happy with the contribution shared services have made to our budget savings.  Up to and including 2013/14, this Council will have delivered £572k annually from shared services. 

However, savings whether from shared services or other sources are not the only issue affecting council budgets.  One of the ways Cotswold District Council reduced its council tax was to use its very large New Homes Bonus income. 

Cotswold is due to receive £1.374 million in New Homes Bonus in 2013-14, almost twice as much as Cheltenham - not surprisingly as it has much more space to build houses. 

Cotswold chose to allocate all of its New Homes Bonus to support its budget.  By contrast, we were more cautious, taking just £250,000 of the £699,000 directly into the base budget and a further £200,000 into the Planned Maintenance Reserve.  The rest was used for one-off spending which will drop out of the budget next year.  

If we had the same New Homes Bonus income as Cotswold District Council and used all of it to support the base budget, we could theoretically have had a council tax cut of 11%.  However, Conservative members in this chamber may remember, and might even blush if they were not so shameless, that they protested vehemently against us using ANY New Homes Bonus money to support the base budget.   

8.

Question from Councillor Chard to the Leader

Can the Leader of the Council please tell me what proportion of homes in Cheltenham have a broadband connection to the internet and, if not, will he endeavour to obtain this figure. Will he also advise me how this figure compares to National urban statistics?

Response from the Leader, Councillor Steve Jordan

The Borough Council does not have these figures but I have asked GFirst whether they are able to provide this information.

9.

Question from Councillor Penny Hall to the Leader

The NHS Consultation Document on Proposals for Change 2013 gives details of their proposed changes for services at both Cheltenham GeneralHospital and GloucestershireRoyal Hospital. The consultation period runs until 3rd May 2013.

What plans have you made as Leader of the Council for Cheltenham Borough Council to respond formally to all the proposed changes that impact on services provided at Cheltenham GeneralHospital?  

Response from the Leader

The view of the Cabinet which I will be feeding into the consultation is that we are concerned whether enough time and thought has been given to resolving the staff shortages, before making any changes to the service provided at Cheltenham GeneralHospital. 

All Council members were invited to a presentation on the proposals in February and there is a drop-in session in Cheltenham in the High Street on Friday 19th April, 11am-3pm. While the Gloucestershire Health Overview and Scrutiny committee take the lead on health issues, members of the Cheltenham Overview and Scrutiny may wish to review the proposals.

10.

Question from Councillor Penny Hall to Cabinet Member Sustainability

Local residents have contacted both myself and other councillors to express their concerns at the increasing amounts of dog fouling on pavements and grass verges. CBC's Enforcement Officers work hard to actively engage with dog owners but to community groups and indeed the our Parish Council more dog bins would improve the problem. They are prepared  to offer to donate money to fund the cost of more dog bins.

Please can you clarify CBC's policy on Parish Councils/Community groups donating funds to provide dog bins in their locality?  

Response from Cabinet Member Sustainability, Councillor Whyborn.

I am aware of numerous complaints in the last few weeks concerning dog fouling, and now that race week is behind us, officers are addressing the question of some additional enforcement. There is an existing policy position on the provision of bins (including dog bins):- Essentially where bins can be funded through Parish Councils/Community groups, it is necessary to ensure that the revenue costs of servicing them can also be met through either existing budgets or new money.

In a supplementary question, Councillor Hall asked for clarification on the last sentence of the response.

The Leader advised that in this case there was both a capital cost for the installation of the additional bins and thereafter a revenue cost for their collection. If the parish council were prepared to cover both the capital and revenue cost that would not be a problem but if it was just covering the installation, the council may not be in a position to cover the additional revenue cost for emptying them.