Agenda and minutes

The Chair welcomed all those in attendance.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Pearce and Tincknell.  Councillor John Goulandris substituted for Councillor Morris and Councillor Sergeant substituted for Councillor Massey.

Apologies were also received from Councillor Craig Cheney, Designated Deputy Mayor with responsibility for Finance, Governance and Performance.

To note any declarations of interest from the Councillors.  They are asked to indicate the relevant agenda item, the nature of the interest and in particular whether it is a disclosable pecuniary interest.

Any declarations of interest made at the meeting which is not on the register of interests should be notified to the Monitoring Officer for inclusion.

There were no declarations of interest.

–       18^th December 2017 – includes exempt  appendix

–       8^th March 2018

The minutes from the meetings on 18^th December, 12^th February and 8^th March 2018 were approved as a correct record.

RESOLVED; That approval of the minutes of the meeting on 18^th December 2017, 12^th February 2018 and 8^th March 2018 be approved as a correct record.

To note any announcements from the Chair

There was no Chair’s Business.

Up to 30 minutes is allowed for this item

Any member of the public or Councillor may participate in Public Forum.  The detailed arrangements for so doing are set out in the Public Information Sheet at the back of this agenda.  Public Forum items should be emailed to democratic.services@bristol.gov.uk and please note that the following deadlines will apply in relation to this meeting:-

Questions - Written questions must be received 3 clear working days prior to the meeting.  For this meeting, this means that your question(s) must be received in this office at the latest by 5 pm on *name deadline date*

Petitions and Statements - Petitions and statements must be received on the working day prior to the meeting.  For this meeting this means that your submission must be received in this office at the latest by 12.00 noon on *name deadline date*.

The following items of public forum business were received and a copy placed in the minute book;

Statements

Members noted that officers were reviewing arrangements in relation to Council bailiffs and agreed that an update would be provided in due course.

RESOLVED; That the public forum submissions be added to the Minute Book.

The Board were provided with an update on Bristol City’s Council’s Corporate Strategy which was adopted at the Full Council meeting on 20^th February 18.  It was noted that the Corporate Strategy articulated the Policy Framework, with Corporate Strategy at the top tier, moving down through thematic Business Plans, linking to Service Plans at operational level.  Members went on to consider the information provided.  The following is a summary of the salient points;

·         The Business Plans were supported although it was recognised that they were intentionally high level and OSMB would like to see further information on Key Performance Indicators as part of the emerging Performance Framework. The Chair suggested approximately 10 per Cabinet Member so that progress could be monitored. 

·         Where the Business Plan 2018/19 specified a measurable target e.g. in relation to reducing the number of rough sleepers from 86 to 75, in many cases it was not ambitious enough.  In response it was noted that the targets would be exceeded wherever possible and should be seen in context as part of a five year Corporate Strategy and ongoing journey, and that it was important that the goals be realistic.

·         Many of the criteria would be measured by the Quality of Life Indicators (QoL) and it was noted that modest targets (which in some cases reflected limited resources available and/or issues outside of the Council’s control) were not necessarily at a statistically significant level. In response it was noted that QoL methodology changed in 207/18 due to a corporate spending freeze and was ‘self-selecting’, making the results unreliable as an accurate reflection of overall public views. Steps would be taken to ensure the quality of the data was robust by reinstating the previous methodology in future and this may require re-baselining of targets in future.

·         Some of the objectives of the Business Plans could not be achieved by the Council in isolation and it was important to consider that close working relationships with key partners would be needed to secure the best outcomes and whether the Business Plan was the best place to state these targets.

RESOLVED – That the update be noted.

Detailed Appendices to follow

The item was introduced by Councillor Kye Dudd, Cabinet Member for Energy, Waste and Regulatory Services, following which a presentation was provided by officers (which can be found at appendix A).  Members were advised that various options had been modelled to inform the Waste and Recycling Collection Methodology review.  The proposal with the most benefits would be moving to recycling separated at source and 3 weekly collections of residual waste (leading to a predicted 2% increase in recycling and the biggest cost saving).  However, this option had not been selected since 3 weekly collections were unpopular with residents; therefore provision of an additional recycling bin was being recommended.

The Board went on to consider the information provided and ask for additional details in a number of areas.  The discussion was as follows;

·         It was difficult to adopt a universal approach to waste collection since preferences and practices varied by ward, and some methodology was not suited to flats or areas with narrow pavements. More work should be done to improve recycling rates in flats, for example planning permission should not be granted to blocks of flats without adequate provision.

·         Recycling rates had remained largely unchanged in recent years, which was disappointing and the Council should set more ambitious targets.

·         Food waste collections were weekly and would remain so.  Residual bins should only consist of ‘dry’ waste that did not encourage fly infestations, yet 53% of bins were contaminated (with as much as 22% of bins consisting of food waste).

·         The nature of vehicles used for waste collection was a matter for the Waste Company, although the Council could influence decisions.

·         An education campaign around waste would be funded by income generated from litter penalty charges.

·         Residents should be informed about the significant cost savings that could be achieved by moving to 3 weekly residual collections so they could fully understand the benefits.  Wales had moved to 3 weekly collections although the arrangements were statutory so less open to challenge.  None of the UK’s Core Cities currently had 3 weekly collections.  Following a show of hands, the majority of OSMB Members would consider supporting 3 weekly collections.

RESOLVED; that the Cabinet Member for Energy, Waste and Regulatory Services be asked to consider the views of OSMB, particularly in relation to exploring the benefits of 3 weekly residual waste collection.

The Board noted that the decision on the future site of the Arena was expected to be made at the Cabinet meeting in May 18.  Members agreed that significant scrutiny of the proposals set out in the Cabinet report would be necessary, even if the meetings needed to take place at short notice.

RESOLVED – That Scrutiny of the Cabinet report setting out proposals in relation to the Arena take place as soon as the relevant information was available.

Members noted the information set out in the accompanying report.  The Chair of the Libraries Task and Finish Group report advised that additional work would take place in advance of the Cabinet report setting out the proposals regarding the future of the Library Service.

RESOLVED – that the report be noted

The Board noted that their proposals for a revised structure of Scrutiny (OSMB plus directorate Commissions meeting three times a year and a range of Task and Finish Groups) would be considered by Full Council in May 18.

RESOLVED – that the update the noted.

There was no discussion on this item.

There was no discussion on this item.

There was no discussion on this item.