Agenda item

1.

Question from Councillor Wall to Cabinet Member Sustainability

Can the Cabinet member confirm the number of garden waste collection service sign-ups, the current number of renewals and how this compares with the figure from last year at this time?

Response from Cabinet Member Sustainability, Councillor Whyborn

There are 12,573 current garden bin subscriptions.

There were approximately 2000 new bin subscriptions during 2012 and 95% of subscriptions were renewed last year.

Renewals are due on a rolling monthly basis with the 1^st February being the beginning of the scheme year so we are at the early stages of this year’s renewal process. So far over 93% of the 1^st February 2013 renewals have been paid. This % will increase.

Therefore please note that garden bin take up is still rising steadily.

2.

Question from Councillor Wall to Cabinet Member Sustainability

Can the Cabinet member confirm what was the expectation of garden waste collection service sign-ups for 2013 in the original plans to introduce the garden waste collection service?

Response from Cabinet Member Sustainability, Councillor Whyborn

The business case for the garden waste scheme originally anticipated a total of 20,000 bin sales by 2013.

3.

Question from Councillor Wall to Cabinet Member Sustainability

Can the Cabinet member confirm the number of brown bins the Council has in stock and the monetary value of these?

Response from Cabinet Member Sustainability, Councillor Whyborn

We have 9,600 bins in stock (including 1,000 which we will be selling to TBC at cost price in April).  The value of the stock is £148,320 (or £132,870 if you take off the bins to be sold to TBC). The number of bins in stock is significantly less than when your colleague asked the same question at Council in June 2012

4.

Question from Councillor Wall to Cabinet Member Sustainability

Can the Cabinet member confirm what costs have been incurred in Council staff time and specific expenditure of the recently launched no side waste and closed bin policy from the trial period into the current extension of this across the town?

Response from Cabinet Member Sustainability, Councillor Whyborn

The staff involved, in supporting the roll out of the no side waste and closed bin policy, are undertaking this work as part of their normal duties so the council has not incurred additional staffing costs.  The council has had to order bin stickers and tags and to date this has cost £3,500.  However this is minimal compared to the cost to the taxpayer if residents do not recycle.  Landfill costs for GCC are going up to £72 per tonne from 1^st April 2013. To date the reduction in tonnage we have seen in those areas where we have rolled out the new approach will save the county council around £9,600 per annum.  In addition if residents do not recycle the borough council will lose potential recycling income as well as recycling credits. 

5.

Question from Councillor Wall to Cabinet Member Sustainability

Can the Cabinet member confirm how many warning stickers have been put on residents bins which have contravened Council policy and also how many residents have been spoken to as a result of a failure to follow Council policy?

Response from Cabinet Member Sustainability, Councillor Whyborn

There is a staged process with residents getting warning stickers before we start to tag bins.  Where tags are issued we do try to contact residents but we cannot always make contact.  If the resident continues to present side waste or has a bin lid open then we will send a formal warning letter.  As you will see we have had to issue very few formal letters and to date we have not had to undertake formal enforcement action.  The number of stickers, tags and letters delivered up to 18th February 2013 are set out below for the areas where the policy has already been rolled out.

Up Hatherley/Warden Hill

Stickers – 656

Tags – 416

Letters – 7

Leckhampton

Stickers – 344

Tags – 61

Letters – 4

St Pauls

Stickers – 1257

Tags – 173

Letters – 41

6.

Question from Councillor Wall to Cabinet Member Sustainability

Can the Cabinet member confirm how many excess waste bags are being purchased by residents and what the Council's expectation is for the level of sales of these bags?

Response from Cabinet Member Sustainability, Councillor Whyborn

The council has yet to roll out the excess waste bag scheme.  An order has been placed for one pallet (the smallest quantity we could purchase) at a cost of £1190.  We do not expect a huge take up (and have made no assumptions on income levels) as we want to encourage people to recycle and I would refer the member to my previous answer to question 4 about the costs to the taxpayer if people do not recycle.  However we do want to be able to give residents the opportunity to have such a facility as on occasion residents may have excess waste.  Cotswold District Council currently operates a similar system which has been well received by their residents.

7.

Question from Councillor Smith to the Cabinet Member Housing and Safety

Can the Cabinet Member confirm what steps he has taken to ensure that meat products sold to the public of Cheltenham have not been contaminated with Horse meat?

Response from Cabinet Member Housing and Safety, Councillor Jeffries

 Investigation of the possible contamination of meat products with horse meat is outside the legal remit of Cheltenham Borough Council, therefore the Cabinet Member has not instigated any such action.  Trading Standards at Gloucestershire County Council has statutory responsibility for Food Standards and therefore an offer of assistance has been made to them by Cheltenham Borough Council's Public & Environmental Health Service (who have statutory duty for Food Hygiene, NOT Food Standards).

Councillor Smith was not satisfied that the Cabinet Member had answered the question and his supplementary question was what steps the Cabinet Member himself, had taken to ensure that meat products being sold in Cheltenham had not been contaminated with horse meat?

The Cabinet Member reiterated that this was not a responsibility of the borough council, though an offer of support had been made to GCC who had the statutory responsibility for Food Standards.

8.

Question from Councillor Smith to the Cabinet Member Housing and Safety

What has the Cabinet done to ensure that the Food Safety teams have been adequately resourced to respond to public concerns? What is the current budget and how much additional funding has been allocated in recent weeks?

Response from Cabinet Member Housing and Safety, Councillor Jeffries

Whilst the Food Team in Cheltenham is indeed small, it operates on the same principles of risk management as the rest of the Public & Environmental Health Service. In general, public health concerns are prioritised according to risk to human health and dealt with appropriately. With regard to the horse meat situation, there has been almost nil public concern received by CBC - there has been ONE consumer query about sampling, NO media queries and NO Member queries apart from this one. This would indicate public and media understanding that this is a FOOD STANDARDS issue.

In a supplementary question Councillor Smith asked whether the Cabinet Member accepted the public would find it difficult to know who to contact about any concerns given that there was no advice on the council’s website.  Whilst he accepted that the borough council were not responsible he queried whether something could be added to the website directing the public to the county council. 

The Cabinet Member advised that to date there had been one query on this subject.  The member of public had been put through to Environmental Health for advice and then referred to GCC, as the responsible authority, for more information.

9.

Question from Councillor Smith to the Cabinet Member Housing and Safety

What is the process for DNA testing of meat products and how many have been undertaken in Cheltenham in the last year?

Response from Cabinet Member Housing and Safety, Councillor Jeffries

None by Cheltenham Borough Council - see answer to question 7. 

Information is held by Trading Standards at County Council who enforce FOOD STANDARDS.

Councillor Smith, who did not feel the Cabinet Member had answered the question, repeated it, asking whether the Cabinet Member knew the process for testing and whether any had been undertaken in Cheltenham?

The Cabinet Member again referred Councillor Smith to his original response to question 7.

10.

Question from Councillor Smith to the Cabinet Member Housing and Safety

Can he re-assure Council that members of the public who have eaten at council owned venues have not been fed horsemeat?

Response from Cabinet Member Housing and Safety, Councillor Jeffries

Due to the complexities of food chain supplies and the suspected large scale criminal activity behind this scandal, it would be impossible and indeed improper, to make any such assurances at this stage or at any point in the future.

The Council have requested statements from all suppliers giving us the required and unequivocal assurances that no products supplied through our outlets are implicated in the equine DNA contamination. To date we have received 80% of requested responses and all have positively stated that no products supplied to Fosters are implicated in the equine DNA contamination. We anticipate the final responses within the next day and remain confident that these will be in line with those already received.

Councillor Smith was grateful for the reassurance and asked that once the final responses had been received, a briefing be circulated to all members so that they could confidently allay any concerns of the public.

The Cabinet Member was happy to circulate a briefing to all members once final responses had been received.