Issue - meetings

At its meeting on 21 November 2018 the Executive Committee considered the disposal and purchase of a vehicle and RECOMMENDED TO COUNCIL that the capital programme be amended to allow the purchase of the vehicle as set out in Option 3 of the business case attached to the report.  

58.1           At its meeting on 21 November 2018, the Executive Committee considered the disposal and purchase of a waste vehicle and recommended that the capital programme be amended to allow the purchase of the vehicle as set out in Option 3 of the business case which had been attached to the report.

58.2           The report which was considered by the Executive Committee had been circulated with the current Agenda and was attached at Pages No. 19-27.

58.3           The recommendation of the Executive Committee was proposed by the Vice-Chair of the Executive Committee and seconded by the Support Member for Clean and Green Environment.

58.4           During the discussion which ensued, a Member questioned why a vehicle had been purchased in 2016/17 which the Council did not need. He queried what information the Council had received from Ubico before the purchase and whether the £18,000 loss to the Council had been offset by rental income from Stroud District Council. In response, the Head of Community Services advised that the Council currently had three of those vehicles in its fleet and the other two were perfect for the role they played. Unfortunately, the capacity and compaction of the third vehicle meant it was not suitable for the role it played. The recommendation from Ubico was for the purchase of the vehicle but it had quickly been realised that it was not fit for purpose. Stroud District Council had effectively been hiring a vehicle from Tewkesbury Borough Council for the last two years but it had now advised that it needed to make a permanent purchase and so did not wish to continue the hiring arrangement with the Council.

58.5           In terms of the vehicle fleet, the Head of Community Services confirmed that the Council had purchased over 20 vehicles and Ubico had specified each to the best of its knowledge at that time. As the garden waste service had grown increasingly more popular, the vehicle would not have been fit for purpose in any event but it was understood that Members were frustrated with the issue. The replacement vehicle would be much more resilient and assurance had been received that it would be the correct vehicle for the role.

58.6           Accordingly, it was

                  RESOLVED          That the capital programme be amended to allow the purchase                         of the vehicle as set out in Option 3 of the business case                                         attached to the report.

To consider the disposal and purchase of a vehicle and make a recommendation to Council that the capital programme be amended to allow the purchase of the vehicle as set out in the report.

That it be RECOMMENDED TO COUNCIL that the capital programme be amended to allow the purchase of the vehicle as set out in Option 3 of the business case attached to the report.  

42.1           The report of the Head of Community Services, circulated at Pages No. 56-64, provided an explanation about the need for an alternative vehicle which was required to access the narrow roads and lanes in rural areas; it also set out the business case for the disposal of the current vehicle and the sourcing of a new vehicle which was fit for purpose. Members were asked to consider the information provided and recommend to Council that the capital programme be amended to allow the purchase of a vehicle as set out as option three of the business case attached to the report.

42.2           The Head of Community Services explained that, at its meeting in November 2016, the Executive Committee had agreed to a request from Ubico for the purchase of an additional vehicle to complete the waste fleet. That vehicle was a 7.5 tonne narrow access vehicle which had been intended to ensure that waste and recycling collections could be made in narrow roads and lanes in rural areas. However, the capacity of the vehicle had been found to be too small for the amount of waste and it had to make additional trips to the landfill site, or transfer station, which had resulted in rounds not being completed. To address that issue, an alternative larger capacity vehicle had been sourced which could still access the narrow lanes but would also ensure that rounds could be completed on scheduled days. At the same time, Stroud District Council had required a 7.5 tonne narrow access vehicle and, as Stroud was also a Ubico client, Tewkesbury Borough Council’s vehicle was moved to that contract which had off-set the hire cost of Tewkesbury’s vehicle and resulted in no additional cost. Stroud District Council had now indicated that it would like to purchase the vehicle to complete its fleet which meant Tewkesbury Borough needed to decide if it wished to purchase the replacement vehicle that it needed, i.e. a split back narrow access which could collect a two way waste stream at the same time, and the business case was set out at Appendix 1 to the report. Officers had considered the option of continuing to lease the vehicle required but this was more expensive than purchase which was why the preferred option was option three – to sell the smaller capacity vehicle and purchase a new split bodied vehicle which allowed two separate waste streams to be collected at the same time.

42.3           Accordingly, it was