Agenda and minutes

Apologies were received from Sue Barham, Eve Risbridger, Matt Smyth and Douglas Spinks.

To confirm and sign the minutes of the meeting held on 9 December 2016.

The minutes of the meeting held on 9 December 2016 were confirmed and signed by the Chairman.

The Chairman wished to convey her thanks to Sue Barham and Graeme Kane for all their valued hard work. A formal letter of thanks and appreciation would be written to Sue and Graeme by the Chairman.

A presentation was given by David Martin (Development Director) and Darren Peck (Principal Bid Manager) from Amey.

Members noted the introduction to the company and its multi-functional approach to integrated waste and cleansing. Members were advised that Amey’s priority was to provide services to the community and to maximise service delivery at the point of delivery.

They were also advised that Amey had adopted a ‘brilliant basics approach’, customers would notice a difference in service but not in delivery’.  Some Members were concerned about this phrase as it could cause concern with the public.  It was suggested that ‘enhancement in service’ be used when communicating to the public. It was also noted that there may also be a dip in service at the very beginning and careful communication of this needed to be carried out. Pat Hindley, Communications SCC, advised that the message would be carefully developed by her and her team.

Amey discussed their investment in technology and the IT system Work Manager. Members were a little concerned about the 360 cameras on the vehicles and the regulations with CCTV on the street.  Amey reassured Members that cameras focussed just around the immediate vicinity of the vehicles only and in the interests of safety to the public and staff.

Communication about the contract change, particularly where the Green Waste collections were concerned, needed to be carried out carefully as the green waste collections for Surrey Heath had been outsourced to Biffa. Surrey Heath would need to include articles on green waste and the new contract in their residents’ magazine and on their website.

Amey discussed the key actions regarding mobilisation and reassured Members that everything was on track.

The Chairman thanked the representatives of Amey for their time and useful presentation.

Members received a report on the mobilisation of the contract, which outlined a summary of the progress so far, including the production of web script templates and Amey’s visit to the depots and the health and safety reviews which had been carried out.

It was noted that the vehicles had been ordered for Elmbridge and Woking Borough Councils. There was still some work to be done regarding the plan to bring Elmbridge depot up to the statutory compliant position.

Amey had advised that although the vehicles had been ordered the delivery dates had not been confirmed. As a contingency, hire vehicles had been booked.

The next steps and forward plan were advised.  Members were advised that the implementation was on track and good progress had been made.

The Chairman thanked Ismina Harvey for her report and her valuable work on this project.

Resolved that the report be noted.

Members were advised that the position of Partnership Director had been advertised to all partners and of the three expressions of interests received, Matt Smyth had been selected.  Matt would bring his experience gained as the Chairman of the SWP and Chairman of various project groups to the role.

The Chairman thanked Tim Pashen for his work on this project.

Resolved that the report be noted.

Members received a report on the communications strategy and plan.

Pat Hindley discussed the communications plan and sought Member approval so the next steps could be progressed.

The following key points were discussed:

·        The change in the contracts would need to be communicated carefully, advising residents that something would be happening but point out the positives, particularly the savings of £2m to taxpayers;

·        Needed to have a consistent approach and reassure efficient management;

·        A phased roll out of messages was preferred, learning as progress was made;

·        The new name Joint Waste Solutions (JWS) was advised to Members. Members agreed with the name. To be introduced to the public and explain the relationship to stakeholders and trade audiences;

·        The Joint Waste Solutions logo was being developed. This logo would be used on all waste and cleansing communications delivered by the CMO. Once the plan had been approved the logo could be progressed. If branding was agreed at the end of March, the logos and Amey’s logo would be on PPE and cab doors. The Contract Partnering Board would agree logos by end of March latest;

·        The authorities’  websites would need to be connected and a consistent ‘front door’ for residents to the website was important;

·        The communications strategy included letters to residents, website updates, social media and press releases;

·        The first notification of a change would come from individual councils, advising what would be happening, with subsequent updates from JWS – all communications managers from each authority were happy with this approach;

·        Timing of some communications to take into account holiday periods;

The Chairman requested the Joint Waste Service Committee receive regular updates by email on progress.  It was suggested that the Contract Partnering Board agenda could have an item to report any key messages to this Committee.

The Chairman thanked Pat for her detailed report and asked for the Committee’s thanks to be conveyed to her team.

Resolved that:

i)                 the report be noted;

ii)               the name of Joint Waste Solutions (JWS) be agreed; and

iii)             the communications plan and strategy be agreed.

Tim Pashen advised the Committee that Emma Day’s work had been invaluable during the contract and she had been efficient ensuring compliancy and was quick to challenge Amey when it was needed.

The Committee was advised that provisional items had been included in the bid and had been agreed. In addition, Ismina and Amey had had discussions regarding the narrow lanes in the boroughs and Amey had visited the areas in question. This had resulted in the vehicles being changed for these routes. Formal letters had been sent to Amey regarding provisional items and vehicle requirements. The contract should be signed by the end of March.

Resolved that the report be noted.

The Committee considered the budget sheet which was circulated to Members.  It was noted that expenditure had been less than expected with a sum of £190,000 difference between actuals and budget. This would mean that each Local Authority would be invoiced for £30,000 instead of £63,000.  Members were advised that the Partnership Director’s costs would be included in Surrey Heath costs. In addition the transferred staff had not been included in the budget.

Resolved that the update be noted.

The Committee received an HR update and were advised that a Waste Partnership Director had been appointed on a two year secondment from Surrey County Council. A part time accountant had also been appointed.  A job description and person specification had been written for the post of Environmental Manager to cover Elmbridge and Mole Valley areas. Members were also informed about the TUPE action and risks associated with the mobilisation of JWS.

Resolved that the update be noted.

Members were advised that Amey had agreed to talk informally about their service to other Local Authorities, who may be interested in joining the partnership. The pricing was price per household therefore authorities with greater rural areas would benefit from the costs.  Consideration would also need to be given to areas which overlap on borough boundaries.

Members discussed whether new joiners would have to pay a joiner’s fee. Members would need to decide whether the benefits of new partners joining would outweigh the initial costs paid by the founding partners. It was the consensus that a joining fee could dis-incentivise new joiners.

It was also agreed that no extra time should be taken trying to encourage those councils who were not interested in the venture to join.  Once the contract was up and running, the benefits could be shown to these councils.

Resolved that a joining fee would not be applied to new joiners.

Members were advised that Joint Waste Solutions could be delivered through the administering Local Authority or a separate company. It was noted that once the contract was up and running, the formation of a company could be considered.  In the meantime information was being gathered to form a business case, should it be decided that a company be formed in 12-18 months’ time.

Resolved that the report be noted.

Members were asked their views on how the Joint Waste Partnership should be represented at the Surrey Waste Partnership. The options were for all authorities to attend individually with lead officers or a spokesperson from the partnership to attend. The Committee agreed to keep attendance as it has been until the contract was fully mobilised.

It was suggested that the four local authorities have a pre-meeting before SWP meetings to discuss items, and then all attend but speak as one.

Resolved that the Joint Waste Partnership attendance at SWP remain the same until the contract was mobilised.

The next meeting was scheduled for the 15 June 2017 at Surrey Heath House at 9.30am.  It was suggested that by then the Elmbridge BC part of the contract would be mobilised and the meeting could be held there with a tour around the depots.  This would need to be confirmed.