Agenda item

To inform the Board of progress since its last meeting on 23 July 2009.

The Board considered the Project Director’s latest project update which covered the following topics:

·                     Joint Working Agreement

·                     Finance and Performance

·                     Risk Register

·                     Lakeside

·                     Proposed Sutton Courtenay Energy from Waste Facility

·                     Vehicle Livery

The main points made during the discussion when the Project Manager answered a number of questions were that:

·                     The revised Joint Waste Agreement was going to the three constituent councils for endorsement.

·                     There was a projected underspend for 2009/10 but as the figures only related to the first three months of the year, the Board was advised to treat the scale of the underspend with caution.

·                     There was some concern about the delay in performance reporting from WRG, although the contract only required quarterly reporting.

·                     Future finance reports should, where possible, indicate the proposed spend against actual spend.

·                     Future reports on performance indicators should show comparator figures from previous years.

The Board also discussed in more detail an extension of the existing temporary arrangements to ensure that any further delay in commissioning of the Lakeside energy from waste plant would not adversely affect the three councils.  Whilst there was no reason to believe that there would be a further delay, the Board was anxious that WRG should take steps to protect its interests.  A further goodwill visit To Grundons was proposed.

The Board also discussed concerns about performance reporting caused by 85% of the waste intended for the Lakeside energy from waste plant coming from Longshot Lane, which did not handle Reading’s waste.  Although the partnership was based on the three authorities paying their fair share, pooling of targets was not currently possible under the existing regime.  As a result, the present position resulted in Reading appearing to send a disproportionate amount of waste to landfill.  A number of options to achieve a greater balance between the authorities were possible but at greater cost in both financial and environmental terms.  In the circumstances, the Board agreed that DEFRA should be advised of the situation and asked to suggest an auditable solution which did not require the unnecessary physical movement of waste.

The Project Manager agreed to investigate whether other authorities had encountered similar problems and whether they had found a solution.  In addition, the Chairman agreed to write to DEFRA on behalf of the Board.

The Board also considered whether to add the councils’ logos to WRG’s vehicles but agreed not to proceed with this.

RESOLVED that

1          The Project Manager seek monthly performance reports from WRG to enable members of the Board to monitor spending more closely at their meetings;

2          The Project Director provide an update to Board members on progress regarding the Lakeside contractual arrangements and any response from DEFRA on the possible pooling of targets to avoid Reading being disadvantaged in terms of performance reporting;

3          The Project Director seek a further meeting/goodwill visit to Grundons.

4          The Chairman write to DEFRA seeking a solution to lack of pooling arrangements which currently resulted in Reading’s performance appearing poorer than Bracknell Forest’s and Wokingham’s despite working in partnership.

5          No action be taken regarding the proposed application of council logos to the partnership’s bulk haulage vehicles as this was not considered necessary.