LAST NIGHT, the borough council scrutiny committee decided by majority to stick with the decision to approve funding to buy recycling sacks.

The decision was called-in to scrutiny by Cllr Clive Jones, Liberal Democrat lead for environment who said the council had not provided enough evidence to support funding for the sacks.

The recycling bags had been recommended in a report by environmental consultants Resource Futures, but Cllr Jones said he was frustrated the report had not been made public before the funding was approved.

He and many of his Liberal Democrat colleagues believe the lack of report or business case in the executive meeting last month meant the decision-making process was unconstitutional.

But this was heavily disputed by the Conservatives.

Also speaking at the meeting was Cllr Carl Doran, Labour councillor for Bulmershe and Whitegates, who questioned whether the borough residents should have been consulted on the recycling decision.

He suggested that a lack of due consultation would go against the constitution. But council officers said they didn’t think they needed to consult on the sacks, as it’s not a change of policy, but a change of recycling receptacle.

Cllr Jones also said it was unfair of the Conservatives to blame the Liberal Democrats for delaying a solution to wet waste at a price tag of £100,000, when the sacks have not been approved yet.

Although the funding for them has now been set aside, the purchase of sacks will be decided at the September executive meeting. Until this point in time, the decision is not concrete. This, Cllr Jones said, meant bringing the financial decision to the scrutiny committee would not cause a delay.

Full report on recycling sacks:

LAST NIGHT, the overview and scrutiny management committee at Wokingham Borough Council agreed to continue with the decisions made for the recycling sacks.

But this was met with frustration by the Wokingham Liberal Democrat Group.

The decision made at the executive meeting on Thursday July 30, to approve funding for the purchase of recycling sacks was questioned by Cllr Clive Jones, Liberal Democrat lead for environment — who led the call-in.

‘Where were the documents?’

Addressing the committee in an opening speech, Cllr Jones said the call-in would not have happened if the council executive had all the relevant information last month.

This, he said, included the report commissioned by the council and compiled by environmental consultants, Resource Futures which details the variety of recycling options, from sacks to hard lids and shower cap-style covers.

It was not published prior to the meeting, but made available to councillors over a week later. 

Cllr Jones also said there should have been a full business case provided at the finance meeting, questioning why the executive was asked to approve funding for something they cannot see a cost-breakdown for. 

‘The delay is the Conservatives fault —they have cost the taxpayer £100,000’

Cllr Jones also said any delay in the plans was not caused by the Lib Dems, but by poor management from the Conservatives. 

He said: “There has been a ridiculous assertion from the leader of the council that this call-in has delayed the council making a decision and that this delay will cost several thousand pounds, perhaps somewhere between £91,000 and £98,000.”

Cllr Jones said Lib Dems could not have delayed progress, because the decision to buy the bags is not being made until the executive meeting on Thursday, September 24.  

He added: “The forward executive programme for August to November published on July 30 at 11.48am announced that this proposal to mitigate against wet paper would be on the agenda for the executive meeting on September 24.  

“Plastic hessian sacks, also known by some as just hessian sacks would therefore go to the September executive for final approval.

“The holdup therefore is not with this call-in, it’s with the Conservatives and it’s them who have cost the council and the tax payers nearly £100,000,” he added. 

Cllr Jones also said the lack of documentation provided to the executive in July showed a lack of clarity and openness within the council. 

‘Why didn’t the environment executive see the recycling report a week before the meeting?’

There was some confusion at the meeting over which executive members had seen the recycling option report before the July meeting.

Cllr Jones said: “I was horrified when I learned two days before the executive meeting that the executive member for the environment hadn’t seen the options report — why on earth not?

“The agenda for the executive was published on Thursday, July 23.  It would be natural to assume that the executive member leading the project has seen all the papers and approved all the recommendations prior to the agenda being published. Not so in this case.

“We know this because at our briefing with officers we asked to see the options report and were told that officers would have to check because the executive member for the environment hadn’t seen it yet, and we couldn’t see it before him.”

But Cllr Parry Batth, executive member for environment at Wokingham Borough Council confirmed the first time he saw the report was on Tuesday, July 28.

He said: “Clive, you made the point that I hadn’t seen the report by July 28. Yes, the report was made available to me and we received the report on lunchtime on July 28. 

“I don’t know why officers would say I hadn’t seen the report.”

Cllr Batth said the reason for bringing the recycling sacks to the July executive meeting was to secure the funding for them.

He said: “We were worried about being in the position that wet weather would be upon us.”

But Cllr Jones said: “It is a lot of money, you should have had all of the details before you. The details should have been published on Thursday, July 23, in the executive papers, for you, the other executive members and members of the public to see all of the information.”

Cllr Andrew Mickleburgh, Liberal Democrat councillor for Hawkedon asked Cllr Jones whether he thought the impact and pressure of coronavirus would give the council scope to relax its reports.

Cllr Jones replied, stating: “No, there aren’t any exceptions. I have read in the press that maybe there should be some exceptions accepted this time because of Covid-19. And I started my presentation by recognising the really good work that many of our councillors have put in during the last six months. But it isn’t an excuse not to furnish the executive committee with the details.”

‘Will there be a trial?’

Also questioned at the meeting was whether the new recycling sacks, or any of the recycling storage options in the report would be trialled before used. 

Cllr Sarah Kerr, Liberal Democrat councillor for Evendons said: “Clive, as the shadow member for this executive area, would you normally expect to have information about something like this sooner?”

Cllr Jones said: “Yes, at the end of last year there was going to be a trial for some plastic lids in two wards. 

“We regularly asked when the trial was going to happen. In March we were told the trial wasn’t going to happen and that consultants had been engaged and would be looking at some further alternatives. 

“And then we find that it is going before the executive to approve the finance but no backup papers with it.”

‘Constitutional issues?’

Speaking at the meeting, Cllr Carl Doran, Labour councillor for Bulmershe and Whitegates questioned Cllr Jones as to whether the constitution had been broken by not consulting residents on the plans

He said: The call-in is about the principles of decision making in the constitution. The one I’m particularly interested in is recycling — which says due consultation and the taking of advice with officers. What do you think due consultation means in this context?”

Cllr Jones said he believed the residents of the borough should have been asked about changes.

He said: “I think there should have been some consultation with the residents. The council started off with the intention of a trial in Hillside and Shinfield South, probably 7,000 houses between them, or maybe more with all the building happening in Shinfield South. 

“That would have given us a better idea of what the residents think and if the lids are effective. But the consultants came in and that idea was canned.”

Defending the decision to use consultants was senior strategy officer Peter Baveystock.

He said: “Last autumn we were losing a significant amount of paper. Through the winter we were working on a solution for this autumn and winter. 

“We worked through the winter to see the options. We did look to implement a trial with lids, but if it was a disaster we would have lost six weeks of time. So we decided to go down the consultants route. 

“We have a good report for a short term fix for this autumn. Unfortunately it wasn’t available for the July meeting so we prepared the finances first to then present the executive report in September.”

Cllr Emma Hobbs, Conservative councillor for Charvil said not including the recycling option report in the July meeting was the fault of Resources Futures not Cllr Batth.

She said: “If the consultants didn’t come back in time, surely that’s not his fault, but a delay from consultants.”

She added: ““I happen to recall we discussed with the residents what they were looking [with waste collection] for and it was an absolute no to wheelie bins.”

But Cllr Jones said that survey was done in 2017, and public opinion could have changed in the last three years.

“That could be out of date now, attitudes change,” he said. “I was personally never a fan of wheelie bins until we got our green waste bin and now I think they’re great.”

‘A process of continuous improvement’

Cllr Batth presented his argument for the sacks, also citing the 2017 surgery.

He said:  “On the consultation side, the council officers did a waste and recycling survey in 2017, and the results of that survey found the majority of the residents supported weekly waste collection and were satisfied with the blue bags.”

He said the borough council has adopted a “culture of continuous improvement” when it comes to waste management.

“We introduced food waste in 2019 and was seen by residents as a very successful scheme,” he said. “In 2019, we launched a stamp out the damp campaign and answers were given to highlight the issue of wet paper , associated environmental impacts and included practical tips to keep paper and card dry.

“This included stacking boxes, covering them with something waterproof or putting them out in the morning.”

“Given the impact of wet weather on the environment and the council finances it was important to implement a solution.”

Cllr Batth added: “The final report was issued in late July and included testing of the bags by council officers. 

“There was no intent to hide anything. The decision to implement the bags is coming in September, the July executive was to ensure the financial resources for the bags were available.”

‘Has the constitution been ignored?‘

Answering Cllr Jones and Cllr Doran’s questions about the constitution and the need to consult residents was Graham Ebers, deputy chief executive of the borough council, director of services and chief finance officer.

Mr Ebers said: “I’m not saying for one minute consultation isn’t important. We have consulted on waste numerous times, one has been mentioned at this meeting.

“But constitutionally this was not a change of policy, we will continue to collect weekly in the same way, just one of the receptacles was changing.

“Constitutionally, I don’t believe there was a need for executive approval.”

He added: “Change in receptacle, although impacts all households, is not a change in policy.”

Mr Ebers also said he thought the process had been more transparent than it needed to be. 

He added: “For example, if the supplier supplied [the sacks] and we didn’t have to borrow, then I believe we have authority to enact that without going to executive at all.”

‘Who runs the council?’

Cllr Kerr responded to Mr Ebers’ statement about the need for executive approval.

She said: “We have heard from the deputy chief executive that this didn’t need to come to executive. My question is, [Cllr Batth] as the executive member — what is your role in this? Who runs this council? Officers or councillors?”

Cllr Kerr’s questions were met with fury from Conservative councillors and Cllr Kaiser, deputy leader of the council, called her question an insult. 

‘Where is the business case?’

Cllr Kerr also quizzed Cllr Batth on whether a business case has been written for the recycling sacks yet.

Cllr Batth said: “We put together a large brief for the consultant to work on. Once complete and returned to us, we will be putting forward the business case.”

But Cllr Kerr said: “A full business case is needed for any funding approval beyond £50,000.”

She asked why the council had ring-fenced money for the project prior to approval, without a formal business plan.

“Would you not say that by approving funding without a business case, you’re pre-determining the decision in September,” she asked.

Cllr Batth said: “The report was almost like a business case. We have sufficient information from the consultants.”

Cllr Kerr said a business case has to include a timetable and procurement approach. And any information needs to be in the public domain at the time of decision. 

She also asked the committee what the lead time for the purchase and distribution of sacks is. 

Council officer Mr Baveystock said the procurement takes 12 to 16 weeks.

“Delivery time is given when you place an order,” he said. “And then it’s five weeks to deliver.”

Cllr Kerr said the 21-week delivery means that the council would not be able to implement the sacks this autumn, if the decision is made in the September meeting. 

This would mean the sacks could arrive in early 2022, and miss the wet autumn season.

She said: “The first paragraph of the proposal states the purchase sacks for implementation in autumn. Why does it say we were rolling this out in aumum when this is impossible in the timelines we have been told?”

She asked why the business case was not put forward in July, to ensure the bags were delivered on time.

Cllr Doran also asked whether the July meeting was to approve funding or to approve the recycling sacks.

He said: “Why did the item voted for, specifically state the borrowing of money for the purchase of hessian sacks, surely they’re not mutually compatible.”

Cllr Kaiser said: “That’s what I was told and that’s why I asked for £288,000. If they asked for £500,000 or £200,000 I would have put that aside. That was not approval for the sacks. Allocating funds in the event the sacks were purchased.”

He suggested it was an issue of semantics.

Cllr Doran said if the item had been written correctly, “none of us would be here”.

‘We’re on a journey’

Summing up the debate, council officer Chris Traill said the council is on a waste journey.

She said: “The reason we allude to that is two levels, local services and contracts and also to respond to the national waste strategy — which we are still awaiting the outcome for.”

Ms Traill said the council has to meet both short term and long term objectives and needs to prepare accordingly.

Cllr Kerr proposed a motion “to refer the matter back to executive for further consideration, to include a fully costed business case as per the constitution and a trial of three solutions.”

This motion fell. Instead, Cllr Hobbs proposed the committee confirmed the executive decision in July — and this was approved.