Agenda item

To endorse the procurement approach outlined and delegate authority to the Head of Community Services in consultation with the Head of Finance and Asset Management, Director: One Legal and the Lead Member for Clean and Green Environment to proceed with the procurement as outlined within the report.

1.      That the procurement approach outlined in the report be ENDORSED.

2.      That authority be delegated to the Head of Community Services, in consultation with the Head of Finance and Asset Management, the Director: One Legal and the Lead Member for Clean and Green Environment, to proceed with the procurement for fleet replacement as outlined within the report.  

98.1           The report of the Waste Contracts Manager, circulated at Pages No. 29-50, considered the options available to the Council, taking into account budgetary constraints, for the most appropriate way forward for the fleet replacement. The report set out five options and it was proposed that a hybrid of those options be progressed. Members were asked to endorse the procurement approach and to delegate authority to the Head of Community Services, in consultation with the Head of Finance and Asset Management, the Director of One Legal and the Lead Member for Clean and Green Environment to proceed with the procurement for fleet replacement.

98.2           The Head of Community Services explained that the waste vehicle fleet was due to be replaced by April 2024. The government was currently looking to introduce legislation in three areas which would impact local authority waste collections. The official position was that the large scale changes being considered would be mandatory, funded where necessary from national new burdens funding and would need to be in place for 2024; however, timescales were likely to slip as the detailed consultation responses for two of the elements had not yet been published by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA). In addition, due to changes in government, and a move towards cost saving, it was not clear if the anticipated level of funding would still be available for new burdens or if elements of the proposals would be watered down. The three areas were Extended Producer Responsibility – this looked to move all life cycle costs for handling and reprocessing packaging to the producer of the packaging; Deposit Return Scheme – an additional charge levied on individual drinks cans and bottles to be refunded to the consumer when those containers were returned; and Consistency of Collections – proposed several mandatory changes such as separate food waste collections for all households, source segregated recycling and free garden waste collections for all households. Unfortunately, this meant the Council was not purchasing its fleet at the best time so it was proposed that the purchase of six recycling vehicles be held back until 2025 when there was more clarity. The biggest risk was a mandatory change of service to a source separated collection – if imposed this may require a twin stream system such as keeping paper and card separate from the remaining recycling rather than full separation but this was yet to be decided and was the reason it made sense to delay the purchase of the recycling vehicles for a year.

98.3           The main procurement exercise would be led by Ubico’s fleet team and overseen by the Head of Fleet Operations as they had the detailed expertise on vehicle specifications required. There was a wish to replace like for like with the inclusion of euro six engines; inclusion of bin lifts and use of HV oil which was better for the environment. A full electric fleet was not an option as the technology was not quite ready and the costs were prohibitive. The hybrid approach had been sense checked by the Association for Public Service Excellence (APSE). In seven years’ time (when the fleet would need replacement) it was anticipated that technology would have moved on and the Council should be considering hydrogen for its vehicles. A Member questioned whether it was possible to have built-in migratory stages as money became available – being conscious of the climate emergency he felt it would be beneficial to see progress as soon as possible. He also questioned whether investigations had been made into the use of Section 106 monies to improve the vehicle fleet. In response, the Head of Community Services advised that Officers were trying to smooth out the fleet purchase for a better balance of gaining best value for vehicles versus running them until the end of their lifespan or changing them earlier if the technology became available. In respect of S106 monies, they could be used for waste but a link to the development would have to be demonstrated e.g. x number of houses related to a vehicle – there needed to be an evidence base in place to enable that going forward. The evidence base was a piece of work which would be completed in the next month or two. In terms of Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL), this had been raised in respect of a new waste depot as a key piece of infrastructure – the CIL rates were currently being reviewed and there was potential to include waste but consideration needed to be given to it as a priority as CIL had to remain viable.

98.4           A Member expressed the view that with the government uncertainty on recycling collections going forward meant it may be better to do nothing until those matters were decided. The Head of Community Services indicated that it was only the recycling service which was affected by new legislation and as the vehicles got older they became unreliable meaning greater hire costs and reputational issues – therefore it would be better to replace all but the recycling vehicles in the fleet as planned. A Member suggested that type and sizes of vehicles needed to be considered carefully due to the way developments were planned. The Head of Community Services agreed there was a need to consider the specification of developments – estates should be designed in a manner which meant vehicles did not need to reverse but size and manoeuvrability of vehicles would remain important. A Member noted that one of the issues discussed at a recent meeting was the size of new estates; interestingly, some roads were wide enough but people parked in the wrong places – it was possible that the planning stage may need to consider where ‘no parking’ signs would be required.

98.5           In terms of Ubico, a Member felt that it would have better purchasing power if it purchased the fleet for all districts than if the individual districts purchased their own fleet. The Head of Community Services explained this was one of a number of projects being worked on with Ubico. A Member agreed that the technology was not currently viable but he felt the importance of the fleet in terms of carbon emissions did need to be stated and this should be a focus which needed to be invested in. Another Member understood the concerns raised but indicated that he would not want the Council to waste money on buying electric vehicles that did not meet the Council’s requirements. The distances across the Borough meant electric vehicles would not work in many areas and the current depot did not have the infrastructure to cope.

98.6           It was proposed, seconded and