Hampshire County Council
Councillors:
78
Wards:
76
Committees:
49
Meetings (2025):
165
Meetings (2024):
156
Meeting
Universal Services Select Committee - Hampshire
Meeting Times
Scheduled Time
Start:
Monday, 28th April 2025
10:00 AM
Monday, 28th April 2025
10:00 AM
End:
Monday, 28th April 2025
1:00 PM
Monday, 28th April 2025
1:00 PM
Meeting Status
Status:
Moved
Moved
Date:
28 Apr 2025
28 Apr 2025
Location:
Ashburton Hall, Elizabeth II Court, The Castle, Winchester
Ashburton Hall, Elizabeth II Court, The Castle, Winchester
Meeting Attendees
Committee Member
Liberal Democrats Spokesperson
Independent Group Spokesperson
Liberal Democrats Deputy
Independent Group Deputy
Vacancy
Not required
Agenda
1
Apologies for absence
To receive any apologies for absence.
Minutes
In the absence of the Chairman, Councillor Rob Mocatta, the meeting was Chaired by the Vice Chairman, Councillor Jackie Branson.
Along with those of Councillor Mocatta, apologies were noted from Councillors Micheal Ford, Wayne Irish and Sarah Pankhurst.
The Chairman welcomed Councillors Pamela Bryant, Juliet Henderson, Mark Cooper and Malcolm Wallace, who were in attendance as substitute Members.
Along with those of Councillor Mocatta, apologies were noted from Councillors Micheal Ford, Wayne Irish and Sarah Pankhurst.
The Chairman welcomed Councillors Pamela Bryant, Juliet Henderson, Mark Cooper and Malcolm Wallace, who were in attendance as substitute Members.
2
Declarations of interest
All Members who believe they have a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest in any matter to be considered at the meeting must declare that interest and, having regard to Part 3 Paragraph 1.5 of the County Council's Members’ Code of Conduct, leave the meeting while the matter is discussed, save for exercising any right to speak in accordance with Paragraph 1.6 of the Code. Furthermore all Members with a Personal Interest in a matter being considered at the meeting should consider, having regard to Part 5, Paragraph 4 of the Code, whether such interest should be declared, and having regard to Part 5, Paragraph 5 of the Code, consider whether it is appropriate to leave the meeting while the matter is discussed, save for exercising any right to speak in accordance with the Code.
Minutes
Members were mindful that where they believed they had a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest in any matter considered at the meeting they must declare that interest at the time of the relevant debate and, having regard to the circumstances described in Part 3, Paragraph 1.5 of the County Council's Members' Code of Conduct, leave the meeting while the matter was discussed, save for exercising any right to speak in accordance with Paragraph 1.6 of the Code. Furthermore Members were mindful that where they believed they had a Personal Interest in a matter being considered at the meeting they considered whether such interest should be declared, and having regard to Part 5, Paragraph 5 of the Code, considered whether it was appropriate to leave the meeting whilst the matter was discussed, save for exercising any right to speak in accordance with the Code.
Councillor Rupert Kylre declared a personal interest as the Cabinet Member for the Environment at Eastleigh Borough Council.
Councillor David Drew declared a personal interest as the Recycling and Environmental Services Portfolio Holder at Test Valley Borough Council.
Councillor Pal Hayre declared a personal interest as a Member of the Streetscene Scrutiny Panel at Fareham Borough Council.
Councillor Rupert Kylre declared a personal interest as the Cabinet Member for the Environment at Eastleigh Borough Council.
Councillor David Drew declared a personal interest as the Recycling and Environmental Services Portfolio Holder at Test Valley Borough Council.
Councillor Pal Hayre declared a personal interest as a Member of the Streetscene Scrutiny Panel at Fareham Borough Council.
3
Minutes of previous meeting
To confirm the minutes of the previous meeting.
Attachments:
- Document Minutes , 03/03/2025 Universal Services Select Committee 16 Apr 2025
Minutes
The minutes of the last meeting were agreed as a true record and signed by the Chairman.
4
Deputations
To receive any deputations notified under Standing Order 12.
Minutes
The Select Committee received no deputations on this occasion.
5
Chairman's Announcements
To receive any announcements the Chairman may wish to make.
Minutes
There were no formal announcements.
6
MRF Update Chickenhall Lane Eastleigh
For the Universal Services Select Committee to pre-scrutinise proposals relating to the development of a new Materials Recovery Facility (MRF) in Eastleigh to achieve compliance with the Environment Bill, due to be considered by the Executive Lead Member for Universal Services at their Decision Day on 28 April 2025.
Attachments:
- Document MRF Update Chickenhall Lane Eastleigh 16 Apr 2025
- Document MRF Update Report Chickenhall Lane Eastleigh 16 Apr 2025
- Document MRF Presentation 16 Apr 2025
Minutes
The Select Committee received a report outlining proposals for the development of a new Materials Recovery Facility (MRF) in Eastleigh, outlining how these proposals sought to achieve compliance with the Environment Act and Simpler Recycling ahead of consideration by the Executive Lead Member for Universal Services at their Decision Day on 28 April 2025.
Members received a presentation from the Head of Waste & Environmental Services (Statutory Services) through which it was heard that:
· The County Council had entered a long-term arrangement waste agreement with Portsmouth and Southampton City Councils as joint signatories in 1990s. Dry waste recovery facilities developed under this contract were performance leading at the time, but they were unable to meet with changes to packaging material design and consumer behaviour changes and that dry recycling contamination was at over 20%.
· Legislation until 2018 had allowed significant local choice in waste collection and recycling, however new central government requirements and enhanced legislative measures for dry recycling meant a significant change was required.
· Through the Project Integra Partnership the County Council had worked collectively with district, borough and unitary partners, and had identified that savings would be achieved by delivering a twin stream system, whilst recognising that there would be a potential increase in costs for collection authorities, which would be in part offset through packaging Extended Producer Responsibility (pEPR) funding.
· The MRF would be built on land owned by Hampshire County Council, with planning permission granted and the Section 106 agreement signed.
· Projected costs had increased above the approved original capital allocation, from £30m to £50.5m, with costs being shared between Hampshire (at 77%), Portsmouth (11.52%) and Southampton (11.48%).
· It was estimated that construction of the fabric of the building would take 12 months, with an additional 12 months to fitout the facility and therefore, if approved, it was expected the MRF would be operational by the end of 2027.
In response to Members questions and through debate it was heard that:
· The policy position set out by DEFRA related to the preferred approach to separation of recycled waste was intended to deliver greater quality of recycled paper products. It was anticipated that processing through a separate waste stream would increase income from paper mix waste by approximately by £20 per tonne.
· Returns from recycling varied on market conditions with £3m of income in 2024/25 from the sale of around 100,000 tonnes of recycled materials.
· The market for recycled materials remained challenging, particularly in the recycling of plastic products, and therefore to maintain competitive and to secure the sale of recycled material it was key to keep contamination levels as low as possible.
· Contamination currently cost the council just over £2m per annum and was increasing year on year, with Project Integra partners working collectively to reduce contamination levels.
· The proposed 68% cost increase in the development of the MRF, included allowance for additional costs for potential use of robotics and AI, as an opportunity to future proof and enhance the efficiency of the MRF, along with meeting inflationary cost increases and demand driven market cost increases.
· Officers had recently visited an operational MRF facility in Coventry, which used AI and was showing very promising outcomes.
· A proportion of pEPR funding had been received for dry recycling to all local authorities and all Waste Collection Authorities received new burdens funding for food waste, however no funding was provided to the County Council for food waste transfer infrastructure.
· The Council was required to meet the simpler recycling requirements by 31 March 2026, and officers met with DEFRA to discuss the implementation timeline. It was agreed that Project Integra would submit a route map to demonstrate how the partnership will be complaint with Simpler Recycling by the end of 2027. It was hoped that publication of the route map would enhance transparency of the process and the proposed approach to recycling to residents.
· Whilst planning permission was in place in 2022, the Council were unable to proceed with the construction of the MRF until the government had provided clarity on the Simpler Recycling requirements, which was announced on 29 November 2024.
· Collection authorities have the ability to request to make arrangements to recycle their own waste, however Project Integra allowed all local authorities across Hampshire to work together to achieve economies of scale in recycling.
· Project Integra are liaising with Veola to consider opportunities for recycling small electrical items where collection authorities were able to provide collections for households.
· It was noted that the any significant alterations would be reported to the Executive Member and that the business case would be brought for their consideration through delegated authority before spend commenced.
· It was agreed that an item would be added to the work programme, for the Select Committee to receive an update on the progress of the development of the MRF at appropriate future meetings.
· The Council would be making prudential borrowing of £50m over a repayment period of 50 years, with borrowing costs built into the proposed budget.
· The new facility would allow the recycling of Tetra packs, increased types of plastic packaging and disposable drink cups. It was noted that once simpler recycling was online it would be possible for most household waste to be recycled, with a small amount of waste to be disposed of through regular household bins such as sanitary product waste.
· Glass was currently collected separately from dry recycling, where available, largely to protect the quality of both the glass and more importantly the paper and cardboard. There are also benefits from a health and safety perspective of not having glass where material is being picked by hand. It was further noted that needle sticks were the most significant health and safety risks for manual pickers, with a needle incident at least once a month, and the use of AI and robotics would significantly reduce health and safety risks.
· pEPR would require manufacturers to meet the cost recycling or disposing of the packaging they put onto the market, there is also with a plastic tax requiring manufacturers to produce plastic materials with a minimum of 30% recyclable material or pay a penalty.
· The current contract with Veolia operated under a duty of care and required them to provide evidence of locations within the waste processing chain and the end destination for materials, providing assurance that material was appropriately recycled or disposed of.
· From April 2026 all local authorities would be required to collect food waste, which currently is processed through the energy recovery facilities. Eastleigh, Rushmoor and Portsmouth Councils have been offering food waste collections for some time, and therefore their existing arrangements for anaerobic waste digestion would be used by all collection authorities, with additional capacity for food waste recycling already secured.
· Engagement with residents would be key, and officers were working with district, borough and unitary authorities to plan communications to help inform and educate residents.
· It was recognised that the existing waste recycling facilities were no longer fit for purpose or able to meet the new requirements, and that it was more cost effective to build a new facility.
The Chairman called a five-minute adjournment to the meeting.
The Executive Lead Member for Universal Services thanked the Select Committee for their robust debate and positive commentary.
A vote was held on the proposed recommendation, which was agreed unanimously.
RESOLVED:
That the Universal Services Select Committee supports the recommendations being proposed to the Executive Lead Member for Universal Services in the attached report.
Members received a presentation from the Head of Waste & Environmental Services (Statutory Services) through which it was heard that:
· The County Council had entered a long-term arrangement waste agreement with Portsmouth and Southampton City Councils as joint signatories in 1990s. Dry waste recovery facilities developed under this contract were performance leading at the time, but they were unable to meet with changes to packaging material design and consumer behaviour changes and that dry recycling contamination was at over 20%.
· Legislation until 2018 had allowed significant local choice in waste collection and recycling, however new central government requirements and enhanced legislative measures for dry recycling meant a significant change was required.
· Through the Project Integra Partnership the County Council had worked collectively with district, borough and unitary partners, and had identified that savings would be achieved by delivering a twin stream system, whilst recognising that there would be a potential increase in costs for collection authorities, which would be in part offset through packaging Extended Producer Responsibility (pEPR) funding.
· The MRF would be built on land owned by Hampshire County Council, with planning permission granted and the Section 106 agreement signed.
· Projected costs had increased above the approved original capital allocation, from £30m to £50.5m, with costs being shared between Hampshire (at 77%), Portsmouth (11.52%) and Southampton (11.48%).
· It was estimated that construction of the fabric of the building would take 12 months, with an additional 12 months to fitout the facility and therefore, if approved, it was expected the MRF would be operational by the end of 2027.
In response to Members questions and through debate it was heard that:
· The policy position set out by DEFRA related to the preferred approach to separation of recycled waste was intended to deliver greater quality of recycled paper products. It was anticipated that processing through a separate waste stream would increase income from paper mix waste by approximately by £20 per tonne.
· Returns from recycling varied on market conditions with £3m of income in 2024/25 from the sale of around 100,000 tonnes of recycled materials.
· The market for recycled materials remained challenging, particularly in the recycling of plastic products, and therefore to maintain competitive and to secure the sale of recycled material it was key to keep contamination levels as low as possible.
· Contamination currently cost the council just over £2m per annum and was increasing year on year, with Project Integra partners working collectively to reduce contamination levels.
· The proposed 68% cost increase in the development of the MRF, included allowance for additional costs for potential use of robotics and AI, as an opportunity to future proof and enhance the efficiency of the MRF, along with meeting inflationary cost increases and demand driven market cost increases.
· Officers had recently visited an operational MRF facility in Coventry, which used AI and was showing very promising outcomes.
· A proportion of pEPR funding had been received for dry recycling to all local authorities and all Waste Collection Authorities received new burdens funding for food waste, however no funding was provided to the County Council for food waste transfer infrastructure.
· The Council was required to meet the simpler recycling requirements by 31 March 2026, and officers met with DEFRA to discuss the implementation timeline. It was agreed that Project Integra would submit a route map to demonstrate how the partnership will be complaint with Simpler Recycling by the end of 2027. It was hoped that publication of the route map would enhance transparency of the process and the proposed approach to recycling to residents.
· Whilst planning permission was in place in 2022, the Council were unable to proceed with the construction of the MRF until the government had provided clarity on the Simpler Recycling requirements, which was announced on 29 November 2024.
· Collection authorities have the ability to request to make arrangements to recycle their own waste, however Project Integra allowed all local authorities across Hampshire to work together to achieve economies of scale in recycling.
· Project Integra are liaising with Veola to consider opportunities for recycling small electrical items where collection authorities were able to provide collections for households.
· It was noted that the any significant alterations would be reported to the Executive Member and that the business case would be brought for their consideration through delegated authority before spend commenced.
· It was agreed that an item would be added to the work programme, for the Select Committee to receive an update on the progress of the development of the MRF at appropriate future meetings.
· The Council would be making prudential borrowing of £50m over a repayment period of 50 years, with borrowing costs built into the proposed budget.
· The new facility would allow the recycling of Tetra packs, increased types of plastic packaging and disposable drink cups. It was noted that once simpler recycling was online it would be possible for most household waste to be recycled, with a small amount of waste to be disposed of through regular household bins such as sanitary product waste.
· Glass was currently collected separately from dry recycling, where available, largely to protect the quality of both the glass and more importantly the paper and cardboard. There are also benefits from a health and safety perspective of not having glass where material is being picked by hand. It was further noted that needle sticks were the most significant health and safety risks for manual pickers, with a needle incident at least once a month, and the use of AI and robotics would significantly reduce health and safety risks.
· pEPR would require manufacturers to meet the cost recycling or disposing of the packaging they put onto the market, there is also with a plastic tax requiring manufacturers to produce plastic materials with a minimum of 30% recyclable material or pay a penalty.
· The current contract with Veolia operated under a duty of care and required them to provide evidence of locations within the waste processing chain and the end destination for materials, providing assurance that material was appropriately recycled or disposed of.
· From April 2026 all local authorities would be required to collect food waste, which currently is processed through the energy recovery facilities. Eastleigh, Rushmoor and Portsmouth Councils have been offering food waste collections for some time, and therefore their existing arrangements for anaerobic waste digestion would be used by all collection authorities, with additional capacity for food waste recycling already secured.
· Engagement with residents would be key, and officers were working with district, borough and unitary authorities to plan communications to help inform and educate residents.
· It was recognised that the existing waste recycling facilities were no longer fit for purpose or able to meet the new requirements, and that it was more cost effective to build a new facility.
The Chairman called a five-minute adjournment to the meeting.
The Executive Lead Member for Universal Services thanked the Select Committee for their robust debate and positive commentary.
A vote was held on the proposed recommendation, which was agreed unanimously.
RESOLVED:
That the Universal Services Select Committee supports the recommendations being proposed to the Executive Lead Member for Universal Services in the attached report.
7
Work Programme
To review the current work programme for the Universal Services Select Committee.
Attachments:
- Document USSC Work Programme 16 Apr 2025
Minutes
The Committee considered the forthcoming work programme and noted the addition of an update on the development of the MRF at Chickenhall Lane, as agreed earlier in the meeting, and that a report on Byways would be coming forward to the next meeting in June.
RESOLVED:
That the Universal Services Select Committee agree potential items for the work programme that can be prioritised and allocated by the Chairman of the Universal Services.
RESOLVED:
That the Universal Services Select Committee agree potential items for the work programme that can be prioritised and allocated by the Chairman of the Universal Services.
Previous Meetings
Join the Discussion
You need to be signed in to comment.
Sign in