It was noted Councillor Daniel Chukwu and Co-Optee, Sue Hodgson, had sent their apologies.

To approve the minutes of the Place Overview and Scrutiny Committee held on the {add date}.

The Minutes of the Place Overview and Scrutiny Committee held on 23 October 2024 were approved as a correct copy subject to the following:

·       Councillor Liddiard requested that it was noted in the minutes that it had been agreed on the work programme item, that setting up a task and finish group to address Dust in Tilbury would be put on hold until the School Parking Task and Finish had been concluded to avoid congestion on future agendas.

To receive additional items that the Chair is of the opinion should be considered as a matter of urgency, in accordance with Section 100B (4) (b) of the Local Government Act 1972.

There were no Items of urgent business.

Councillor Steve Liddiard declared that he had been appointed onto the Board of Thurrock Community Leisure.

The Chair advised that the order of the Agenda would be amended to allow councillors and officers who were attending a separate council meeting to be in attendance for the Items on the Agenda relevant to them. 

Please note this is the Cabinet version of the report re-published for  Members to comment on.

The Chair asked the members of the committee to confirm they had read the report and were happy to note this based on the knowledge Quarter 2 Revenue Report would be presented to the committee in January.  Members confirmed and agreed.

RESOLVED:

Members noted the council’s service position and forecast overspend position as at Quarter 1.

The Assistant Director for Counter Fraud, Community Safety and Resilience presented the Report as set out in the agenda.  The committee were asked to note:

·       Under Part IV of the Environment Act (2021), Local Authorities had a responsibility to monitor and manage local air quality and produce an Air Quality Action Plan;

·       An opportunity had arisen to consult on and subsequently adopt the All Essex Air Quality Strategy, which contained an Air Quality Action Plan. 

·       It was acknowledged by adopting the joint Air Quality Strategy it would facilitate partnership work and sharing knowledge with Thurrock’s closest neighbours.

·       The Assistant Director advised that around 50% of the air pollution that Thurrock monitor is not emitted locally.

·       The Assistant Director believed it would benefit Thurrock’s residents by working with Thurrock’s neighbours to improve air quality.

·       The Assistant Director reassured the committee that Thurrock would not be controlled by Essex County Council if they were to adopt the strategy.

Members noted and questioned:

·       Concern was raised that Thurrock is more polluted than most of the County of Essex, in particular rural Essex, and would adopting this strategy have an adverse effect on Thurrock.

·       Members felt, as Thurrock had 3 ports, a large amount of HGV’s and general traffic, Thurrock still needed to adopt its own air quality strategy as there were concerns raised by adopting this strategy, Thurrock would be drawn into the problems wider Essex face as opposed to its own challenges.

·       Members questioned where air pollutants came from outside of Thurrock, for example did pollution travel to Thurrock from London.

·       Members questioned whether ULEZ had had any effect on Thurrock.  It was advised that it was not possible to say whether ULEZ had positively affected Thurrock’s Air Quality.

·       Members noted that as around 50% of the polluted air came from outside of the Borough, members questioned was this common and did other Boroughs suffer from air pollution coming from outside of their Borough.  It was questioned whether data was available to show how Thurrock compare to other Boroughs on this point.  Action Point Benchmarking data against other Authorities to be provided to Members.

·       Members asked if emissions for Thurrock’s industries were being monitored, as an increase of dust particles were being observed across parts of the Borough. The Assistant Director clarified what was nuisance dust and what was air pollution.  It was advised nuisance dust did not form part of the Air Quality Strategy.

·       Members questioned if other Council departments had been consulted on the Strategy.  It was confirmed that internal consultations had been extensive and further consultation would go out to residents of Thurrock and the Council would form part of that process if the Strategy were to be approved.

·       Members questioned if emissions from Thurrock’s industrial plants and factories were measured and whether these emissions were green waste or harmful.  Action Point a breakdown of specific collated data in relation to emissions produced by local businesses to be provided to Members, however, it was confirmed this data did not  ...  view the full minutes text for item 28.

The Chief Operations Lead presented the Briefing Note as published in the agenda.  Members were asked to note, as published in the agenda, a verbal update had been promised following the findings of the commissioned study to look at the commercial viability of the Ferry by The Thames Estuary Growth Board.  This had been commissioned in September 2024 and the results were due to be reported at the end of November 2024.  However, there had been a delay in reporting the findings and this was now expected in January 2025 and therefore there was no verbal update on the outcome of the study that could be provided at this stage.  It was requested, that an opportunity to update the committee be provided at a later date.

The following key points were highlighted by members:

• Members questioned how much would be needed per person, per crossing, to make the service commercially viable and who would be the using the ferry.   It was advised, as part of the consultation, fees were being looked at and calculated together with the catchment area of the ferry.
• Members asked for sight of the report following the consultation as soon as it was released.  Action Point this would be circulated to the committee when it became available.
• Members were pleased there was ongoing progress and renewed hope that the ferry crossing could be reinstated and were pleased the Council were still making a case to resume operation on a commercial basis.
• Members questioned if there would be any cost to Uber, who it was believed owned the jetty on the Kent side of the river.  Action Point the Chief Operations Lead was uncertain on this point but would report back to the committee.

Members thanked the Chief Operations Lead for his update.

The Interim Transformation Consultant presented the Update Strategy report as set out in the agenda, advising the committee that there were two parts to this agenda item, the Waste Strategy Update and the Waste and Recycling Collection Policy.

The following key points were highlighted by members:

• Members acknowledged the rollout of the food waste recycling had been successful. 
• Members questioned if the Council were monitoring the tonnage of recycling and had there been any increase or decrease in recycling since the collection had changed to fortnightly.  It was advised there are annual league tables that are published based on data that all Local Authorities had to report on.  It was advised, Thurrock do not do very well in those league tables, however, it was noted progress was being made and improvements were being seen.

At 19.40 the Corporate Director for Place and the Portfolio Holder Councillor Lee Watson joined the meeting.

• Members were asked to note the Recycling rates had improved when measured per kilo per head and were above the national average.
• Members noted from July to October 2024 the residual waste that had been collected was 1748 tonnes, less than was collected in the same period last year.  Recycling collected for the period July to October 2024 had increased to 354.83 tonnes, more than the same period last year and food waste collected had increased by 700 tonnes more.  Members further noted these improving figures showed a budget saving of around £264,000.
• Members noted in some parts of the Borough residents needed further education and encouragement to use the three bins, in particular, food waste.  Members were advised a recycling officer had been recruited and was currently looking at increased contamination using a heat map and identified areas would be targeted by the recycling officer.
• Members noted on page 109 of the agenda the government had recommended kerbside collections which it was acknowledged had not been successful in the past.  It was questioned what would be done to achieve this.   The Interim Transformation Consultant clarified what was meant by Simpler Recycling which would standardise collections from March 2026 across the country.  This would consist of 4 bins being collected - general waste, recycling, paper and card and food waste and these collections would be compulsory.  Garden waste would still be optional.
• Members questioned the process for contaminated waste in flats. 
• Members questioned if fortnightly collections impede improvements in recycling. 
• Members asked if part of educating residents on recycling, could residents be advised big supermarkets now take plastic bags and promote this approach.
• Members asked if there would be an income from paper and card waste in the future.
• Members noted an improvement in the waste service generally.
• Members asked for clarification on why bins provided to new build properties and replacement bins would now be smaller.
• Members questioned the communication when the refuse collector finds contamination and how does the system work. 
• Members suggested when educating residents this should also include school aged children.

RESOLVED

1.     Members noted  ...  view the full minutes text for item 30.

Councillor Neil Speight introduced the Report.  Councillors Speight raised his concerns over procurement and how the Council manage their service acquisition.  He explained he had very serious concerns over the relationship the Council had with Phi Capital and Topland Olympus.  Councillor Speight sought clarification whether the Council was purchasing new builds or “off the shelf”.   Officers clarified that to purchase new builds would not be commercially viable and would therefore be purchasing off the shelf.

Councillor Speight confirmed he welcomed the plan that the Council would be purchasing 10 new properties however, had concerns over the best value for the Council.  

Councillor Speight advised the reasons why he had called-in the Cabinet decision to purchase 6 x 2 bedroom properties, 3 x 3 bedroom properties and 1 x 4 bedroom property with a total cost of £3m, made up of a government grant and council borrowing. 

Councillor Speight raised concerns over how much the properties were going to cost, in particular, how much Simply Phi would be charging the Council for their service.  Councillor Speight questioned why the Council were using Simply Phi to acquire the properties and why a local reputable company could not be procured, as he felt this would ensure monies spent would remain in the local community and support local business.

Councillor Speight felt there had not been sufficient due diligence carried out for Cabinet to have made the decision and also felt there had not been enough sound reasoning and questions asked, as to why the Council are entering into this contract.  He acknowledged that the government are providing a grant for £1.8m but was concerned the Council would still be borrowing £1.4m. 

Councillor Speight summarised why he called the decision in and requested the committee to ask Cabinet to revisit the scheme with a deep dive and to look at any alternative model.

The Portfolio Holder acknowledged Councillor Speight’s reasons for calling in the Cabinet Decision and explained the timelines to the committee.  He advised the funding of £1.8m had become available in March.  However, the general election being called had caused a delay and the funding was not available until September 2024.  The Portfolio Holder pointed out there was a caveat to the funding - it had to be spent by March 2025 - and speed was now of the essence therefore there had been insufficient time to enter a full tender process, which could take 6-8 months.  Simply Phi were identified as the best option to deliver the scheme as they were a recognised company that were government approved and work with around 25 other local authorities.  The Portfolio Holder further explained he would have liked to have tested the market, but there had not been enough time given the monies had to be spent by March 2025 or the Council would face losing the funding.

Reassurance was given by officers that for any future schemes a full procurement would take place but for this scheme, there was not enough time.  If  ...  view the full minutes text for item 31.

The Scrutiny Officer presented the work programme.

Members requested sight of the Stantec Report on the Local Plan be presented to committee for scrutiny before being presented to Cabinet.  The Portfolio Holder for Good Growth advised a steering group had been set up to scrutinise the Local Plan.  The Chair of the Scrutiny Group could then present to the Place Overview and Scrutiny committee.

This item was deferred to the 8 January 2025 meeting due to the time constraints of this meeting.  The Portfolio Holder for Good Growth invited committee members to contact her, in the meantime, to discuss any questions they had regarding Section 106 monies.

This item was deferred to the 8 January 2025 meeting due to the time constraints of this meeting.

A full recording of this meeting can be found from the following link –

Thurrock Council - Place Overview and Scrutiny Committee, 03/12/2024