Transcript

[BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] I'd like to remind everyone present that this meeting will be broadcast live to the Internet, some will be capable of repeated viewing. The whole of the meeting will be filmed except whether a confidential or exempt items. If you make a representation to the meeting, you'll be deemed by the Council to have consented to being filmed by entering this meeting as a speaker. You're also consented to being recorded by the Council and to the possible use of those images and sound recordings of webcasting and/or training purposes. The Council, members of the public and the press may record film photograph or broadcast its meeting when the public and the press are not lawfully excluded. If you intend to do so, please could you inform the committee clerk. Just before I move to the agenda, a couple of notices are very sad to hear about the sudden death of Leslie Thomas that was shocking. We just really think about a partner, a family and a friends, and I hope they're okay. Also, sad to hear about the accident of Brian Riley last week, had a bad fall in the car parking stairs, broken his leg and elbow, I think. He's in hospital, I hope to see him on Thursday if he's still in. And then, to end on a positive note, well done, the tractor boys. We are Premier League, say we are Premier League. It's nice to know that they're following in these footsteps of Babe Room, it's up and being the best of that they can be. So, well done, Richard. Okay, apologies for absence. Thank you, Chair. We've had apologies from Councillor Jassie Carter. Okay, decorations of pecuniary, other registrable or non-registerable interest by members. Any interest to declare? Okay. Item three, the minutes. Any points regarding accuracy of the minutes? I'm not going to go through them page by page if you've got one, shout them out. Okay, could I have a proposal, please? Thank you, John, and a seconder. Daniel, thank you. We're going to conduct the vote. Do you want to do it by Electraic or do you want to do it by Electraic? Okay. Thank you, Chair. That vote is now in progress. I have no internet connection, so I've not been able to log in yet. Sorry, Bethany. May I take your vote verbally then? Yeah. It's a yes to the minutes. And, presumably, you've got the results. Councillor Sol, may I take your vote verbally? Thank you, Chair. That is six votes, four in one abstention. That's carried. Thank you. Item four, to receive notification of petitions in accordance with the Council's petition scheme. Let me receive, Chair. Item five, questions by Councillors? Let me receive, Chair. Item six, matters referred by the ONS or Joint Orders in that Standards Committees. There are no matters referred, Chair. This is going very well, isn't it? Item seven, forthcoming decisions list. Any comments? Any issues? Okay. We'll move on. Item eight, scrap metal policy. Often we get one of these come to Council. You're going to introduce it, then. Okay, great. This is the moment where, as a relevant cabinet member for Environment, I introduced the scrap metal policy for approval today by Cabinet. Cabinet review on the options considered 2.1, the final version of revised policy, approving it for immediate implementation. On 2.2, not to implement the policy, however, would be contradictory to best practice and may lead to a lack of capacity on the application. Sorry. We can't hear. If you move the... If I can move, yeah, in which case, the microphone. Is there a waste in how that works? No. Okay, let's try and try again. If you can just talk a bit louder, great. So, I'll just start again, then. To set out the new scrap policy metal policy for perhaps Cabinet, that the Cabinet review the final version of the revised policy and approve it for immediate implementation. On 2.2, not to implement the policy, however, to do so would be contrary to best practice and may lead to a lack of clarity on the application of the legislation. So, the reason for the decision is the adoption of the policy supports the Council's commitment to transparency, fairness and openness, when determining applications and ensuring that compliance with relevant legislation. The policy provides a framework for the process of licensing auditing, enforcement of scrap metal dealers and collectors to ensure that the process is robust and fit for purpose. And this is on the coordinates on 4.1 with the scrap metal dealers act of 2013, Baby District Council, in its role as licensing authority, has been responsible for licensing scrap metal dealers as defined within the act. While there is no statutory requirement for a policy under the legislation, it is now considered appropriate to provide a single policy for both Baby and this effort's Councils, which sets out a clear and consistent framework for the Council's overall approach to scrap metal licensing. On 4.3, this new draft policy was presented to the licensing regulatory committee back on the 15th of December, 2023. So, it has gone through quite a rigorous process on that committee. And on 4.4, the Committee for L&R approved the policy for consultation, deeming the policy to be approved and proceed to cabinet if there are no relevant representations or objections. Okay, can I have a proposal and seconder for the report? Thank you, Alistair's posing and second. I guess, Daniel, you want to? Yeah. Yeah, he proposes, Alistair's second. Sorry, I got the way around. Okay, any questions from members? Eric? It may be that I've dismissed it, but is there any requirement for scrap-dealer? Collectors to display prominently that they are licensed. We're fortunate we get people come out to collect scrap, but we don't know if they're legal or not. So, is there any requirement for the put to something, maybe in their windscreen or on their van? Hi, yes. There isn't a legal requirement to display an identity badge or a vehicle plate, but what we've done, we've introduced that requirement in the policy. So, normally, a dealer or a collector would have a paper license or an e-mailed license, but we're actually having that, so it's easily identifiable to the public. But also, it will help people know who our approved collectors and dealers are, which I think is a really positive thing. And the trade are involved in that decision-making as well. Good, thank you. That answered my question as well. Anybody else got a question? Yes, Sally? I was wondering, Councillor Potter could tell us what residents can do to make sure that this policy is adhered to. On a day-to-day basis, like sometimes your builder might take away scrap metal, what can residents do to make sure that they're always dealing with somebody who's licensed? I think that residents can do their part within the community itself to try to develop that policy as it comes through. It's legislation that we've got to work with that framework, but there's certainly got to be scoped with our communities to do more. Perhaps Tracy, if you'd like to say a few extra things on that. Yeah, we've had a few queries about whether it becomes a scrap metal for profit, and that's the key thing here. People do a gift and recycle items within the community. So, you know, that happens. But what we're looking at is those people that do it as a business, that are handling cash, that it's not getting accounted for, and the aim of the legislation was to stop scrap metal theft and to make it regularised. So, you know, there will be instances in the community where you might get scrap being dealt with, but, you know, if the public have any queries, then we've got a really good web link on our website. But we're looking for those traders that are blatantly ignoring the legislation as well. So, I think it's a real sure people. We could cover something off in the messaging once the policy is launched, to try and make it quite clear to people that it's just those scrap metal collectors that are taking money off people that need to be licensed. Deborah. Could I ask this scheme? This licensing scheme has been running for some time. How many licenses have we revoked, if at all? No, actually. Right. But then we may not know that people are actually undertaking activities because they're going to be a lack of reporting. So, we are going to be a bit more proactive in looking and encouraging people to tell us if they hear of activity as well. But also, we want to license people and make sure that they meet the requirements, and more often not, they will. So, to carry out a legal business undertaking and to have really good standards and make sure that the people that operate in our districts are actually of a good standard, and they all support each other as well. So, the traders, supporting the trade. Right. Thank you. On the same note, I was going to ask that. Do we know roughly how many licenses we've issued in terms of site and collectors, roughly? Yeah, I can find that out for you, but I would say in paper, probably about eight to ten collectors. I don't know specifics because I'm not working in the team with the detail, but I can find that out for you. And then we've got dealers as well, which will people take it into a facility. So, I won't expect between more than about five or six of those, currently. OK. All right, thanks. Alistair, you want to ask another question? I'll keep it for debate. OK. Anybody else from Cabinet? If not, I'll throw it out. Anybody on the other side of the floor? Mary. Thank you, Chair. Well, one of the questions Deb has already asked. So, the first question has metal detecting. I couldn't find that. I did go through it with a fine toast cone. What about ordinary metal detecting? You know, the detectorists and all of that. Metal detecting? Ordinary metal detecting? Yeah, they're not covered by the legislation. That is a hobby, and people don't do that for profit. Yeah, they're fast. And I've got the second question, which... Listening to how many enforcements you've actually undertaken, it's not very many. But my question was going to be, I mean, licensing is a big directory, isn't it? And it's... I just wondered if you got the resources to actually work with lots of enforcement action. Because, I mean, licensing was a taxi, the... I mean, that's a tricky question with my director sat next to me. Yeah, we'd love more resources, but I think it's about focusing any enforcement so that it's doing spot checks on particular topic areas and getting other teams to help you do that targeted enforcement as well. So we can't do everything, but we have to work on intelligence that we get from the agencies as well. So we focus on the priorities, absolutely. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. John. Thank you, Chair. The old saying is, was it where there's brass or brass is muck or whatever? I get the impression that there's some profit linked to the collection of scrap, and we do it on a wholesale basis through the, you know, Hadley site and these places. Do we have any community, like parish councils or communities, that would consider or have registered as licensed collectors within the communities themselves? I mean, for example, I have like three batteries in my garage, and I can't be bothered to go down a tail and to whip street motors, but I mean, you would imagine there would be some potential for parishes or communities to actually do their own recycling. Yeah, I mean, there could be a commercial activity there for parish councils or villages and communities. It would be to go through the licensing process and apply and get the necessary checks. The only thing I would mention is if you did have a site, then there are activities that fall under the health and safety executive for enforcement. So it's about thinking about what the impact would be, but obviously what are the things other hoops we might have to jump through. So, but that absolutely, if some, if a community initiative got together, then we could give them advice on that. Thank you, Jim. Is there a way of letting the residents of Weber know about the policy in terms of at least knowing that they can check to see whether the person that's coming around has got a license or not? Yeah, that's the focus of any communications we do once. If the policies have proved today is to do some increased comments, but also we could work with trading standards who do lots of work on rogue traders as well. So it's not to assume that rogue traders out there, but what sort of things you should you be looking for, and that could be focused on people knocking on your door and keeping safe as well. So there's lots of community-focused topics that we could cover off in a joint enforcement message, perhaps, as well. But I think definitely some comms on this would be really useful, because if somebody knocked on your door, would you know that the bona fide scrap collector? Well, and I wouldn't think about asking for a license, necessarily. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Okay, I'll throw it to debate. So this came to licensing and regulatory. We went through the policy in some detail. Excuse me. And three things come to mind here. First is regularizing. A piece of legislation which has not previously been within our remit to enforce, because we didn't have a policy. I mean, we would have been able to do it, but we weren't going to do it. Second, it's basically taking away the black economy that can be involved in such matters. And I think the one point I would make is that residents really need to realize that getting a bit of cash is not going to be able to be done, getting a bit of cash for a bit of scrap metal in your front door. That's not possible. And that's one of the things. There has to be an audit trail for the disposal of scrap metal. And that's the crucial part. It's what regulation is supposed to be for. So that's why I'm happy to support this and support it is at the committee. John. Yeah. Just to follow on from what Councillor Caw has said, obviously the act is there, and it's appropriate that we do have a comprehensive policy like this. And from what I've seen here, it does exactly what we wanted to do. It's been through our licensing and regulatory committee. It's, I guess, a sad indictment that theft has become so prevalent and so damaging that we've had to do this, that governments had to do with the act. It's a long way from the days of step down, so I'm afraid. But we've got here an appropriate policy to allow us to support the act, and I support this fully. Is this a policy that's peculiar to Baber and Midsuffic, or is it one that's been around the UK? Yeah, it's quite unusual not to have a policy, because as we've said, it provides that framework and consistency of approach. The act's been in for 11 years now, so other councils have policies. I'm not saying that everybody else does, but I think it's obviously going to be beneficial for us to make sure that we've got the same approach, and in Midsuffic it's the same policy as well. Okay, anything else? Okay, look, it's recommended. Oh, sorry, camera. It's quite alright, that's the policy. Can I ask, when I've gone through planning enforcement weekly notifications, I have noticed that there are a couple of enforcement things on, obviously, properties, residences, that have been collecting scrap. I just wanted to check that those planning... Are those planning enforcement notifications sent to your team as well? Yeah, we do get notified about planning notifications. In terms of planning enforcement, we do work very closely with that team. We recently had a complaint about premises direct from a member, which we've gone to various services and asked if there was any investigation here. So, yeah, you will get people doing that collection at home that we find out through different processes, but it's important just to keep in contact with those other services that you've got an involvement with, but I think it probably could be formalised a bit more, definitely. Thank you. Anybody else? Okay. The recommendation is, it is recommended that Cabinet implement the scrap metal policy 2024 to 2029, which is shown as Appendix A. I will now go for the vote. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. That vote is now in progress. [INAUDIBLE] Councillor, why don't I take your vote there, Billy? Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. That is seven votes for all that unanimous. Thank you. Okay, item nine is the simpler recycling food waste collections. It looks like you're here again, Daniel. Yes, it is. Yes, thanks, Chair. So, the simpler recycling food waste collections is mandated to us from Defra. You'll see a few people from the purpose of the report on point one. Government has legislative councils to align their waste and recycling services with new nationwide, simpler recycling requirements. This to be held by the 31st of March, 2026. Council needs to provide new curbside weekly food waste collections for households, fairing the existing dry cycling collection service. This will also include glass in order to remain compliant. The report concerns and requirements on point two around separate weekly food waste collections from all households at the curbside and seeks to enable officers to progress procurement and to meet the deadline and manage the risk. The capacity of the supply chain to meet an unprecedented nationwide demand for specialist food waste collection vehicles and bins posted a delivery risk to waste collection authorities meeting the deadline. So, further choices for recycling residual waste collection, mythology, methodology, I think, and frequency will need to be taken during 2024. These will be brief to members brought to cabinet here to make decisions by the summer. Preferred recycling collection options that have been developed by the Summit Waste Partnership, all of the members, and the final choices going across the districts will need to take an effect and account the benefits that the common collections method gives to disposal. So, the collections choice is not expected to pose the same risk for new vehicle procurement and as such does not need to be considered as expediently. So, the options that were considered, and there were two of them on 2.2, option A, commenced procurement procurement of the vehicles, the caddy bins, and normal bins as soon as practically possible after a decision has been made by cabinet, and this is the recommended option, as it is most likely to ensure that the procurements are complete and contracts awarded in sufficient time for deliveries to be made for council to meet the implementation deadline of the 31st of March, 2026. The other option was option B, delay procurement of those vehicles, caddies, and bins that we require to earn away further funding guidance and information from the government not expected before autumn 2024 on the implementation of food waste collections. This, as you can see, is not a recommended option as the delay would result in vehicles being further back into supply chain, resulting in them not being received in sufficient time to meet the implementation deadline that being forced 31st of March, 2026. If I draw your attention to financial implications on item 6, you can see there in the table, capital expenditure income for the total on the new burdens of capital grant funding, the additional required capital expenditure for spare vehicles and 50% free spare vehicles, 10% contingency cost inflation in containers, capital shortfall borrowing requirement, principal repayment over the seven years, the MRP financing costs, bringing about on that site of the table at total cost of 98,951 pounds. So new burdens being the big challenge of course with capital grant funding that we will need going into years ahead. So those are sort of things to consider about, and also 6.1, the government has announced 295 million pounds of capital new burdens funding in England and Wales to pay for local authorities to purchase assets, vehicles and containers to deliver new food waste collection services where this is required, and the allocated capital grant funding for food waste vehicles and containers is currently a set out in the following table. We do not believe this covers the cost of spare vehicles 1.5 of and are challenging this with defra as we speak in the light of the route modeling information that we have. So the likelihood as yet is unknown in terms of the success in this appeal. Thank you. Thank you. You're proposing the recommendation to share money? Yes, for option A. Okay, and if I could have a second, thank you John. Questions? Alster. We have a current contract with CERCO, which I have recall us renegotiating a few years ago, and how are CERCO approaching this in relation to the extra burden? And do they think they will have sufficient resources to provide us with services that we're going to need? I mean, in line with our current contract, I don't know who would like to answer that, or we might have the answer best there, but no offence, Daniel. Yeah, thank you. The new burdens funded will come directly to us, and we've asked CERCO for their price to vary the contract to accommodate the food waste collections. So, yeah, that's still all in negotiations at the moment. But I mean, CERCO are confident they can deliver the service. You know, we've throughout this process, we've kept them informed of what's going on. So, yeah, we've just got to wait. The whole revenue is paid. The revenue funded piece will have to come back at a later date once we've got all that information together. Yeah, we've had a very good relationship with CERCO over the years. We've been dealing with them. We're now in our second, seven-year contract, I think it is. How far have we got to go to the end of that contract? 2028, which is interesting, because that's going to be two years for this to be implemented before the contract renewal comes up. So, that might affect future procurement, I would have thought. Any future procurement? This would obviously be included in that. Yeah, that's fine. I just wanted to look at it in the round. I think as well as future procurement, hopefully it will also positively impact CERCO's approach with the remaining term of the contract as well, because that obviously, if the delivery method is decided in the future to re-secure a contract via procurement again, then they'll want to perform well. Derek? It follows on from that, really, in terms of the time element for the guys being out there collecting this in addition to the weekly round. And the other question really is, on top of that, is we have, as a council, looked at glass collecting, more personal domestic class collecting, will that not be on the head? Because CERCO just won't have time to do it. And the glass collections are part of simply recycling. That's a follow-on to this. So, we're working on those arrangements now, and we'll be coming back late in the summer with our proposals around that. So, the collection crews that we do this will be all new crews, so there'll be seven new collection rains, so it'll all be additional resource to what we've got now over and above what we've got on the contract at the moment. So, we've got any future plans for domestic? That's connecting. No, no, this is a standalone service. So, let me just catch that. You're saying that there won't be glass collection from individual properties? No, there will. Not yet. That will come. The deadline is the same, but that is separate to this proposal for food waste collections. It's a standalone element not included within what we're discussing today. Are we thinking that the new vehicles will be split half food, half glass? No, no, no, no, these are separate, smaller, dedicated food waste collection vehicles that will just be collecting food every week. The glass element will be part of the recycling scheme. Right, so they'll have to adapt the current vehicles then, won't they? No, we can use our existing fleet of vehicles. Sorry, you can... You can utilize existing fleet of vehicles. Okay. Just putting glass in the mix, essentially. Right, so you're putting it in with all the other recycling? No, no, no, you'll have what's called a potentially a twin stream collection service where you collect glass separately with other containers. So it's splitting out the recycling bin as it is at the moment to include glass and we'll work it on. Oh, okay. What that's going to look like and we'll bring that back. Presumably the food's not going to be incinerator. No, so suffocated council will leave the procurement on a processor for the food waste and that will end up being what they call anaerobically digested. So are we thinking that when you've added up all the numbers in terms of the cost to be going to the new processor, as opposed to the savings because it's not going to the mirth, not the mirth, the incinerator? Are we expecting it to be a saving or a cost of operating? What was it too early to say? There's a get out there for you. No, it's not too early to say. So the cost of processing it via anaerobic digested will be cheaper than it is via the energy from waste plant at the moment. So there's a saving there. The financial picture is quite complicated. And again, that's within the whole revenue piece and we'll have to come back with that when we've got that information. So what funding we're going to receive from Defra for the revenue is still an unknown. What's Serco going to charge us to deliver the service is still an unknown at this point. And as are the savings from processes. So there's a lot we don't know. Effectively, the government's made and defra made a commitment to new burdens funding. The capital tranche of that funding is what we're bringing forward here for vehicles and containers and that's known. So we've also said there's an additional amount of capital that we're likely to need. So that's about this proposal to allow us to get on with the procurement and get on with making those contractual arrangements with Serco. We will be coming back to you with the revenue impact element of this change in relation to food waste and also coming back to you with the proposed options around recycling as well effectively there as well. So there's a complex set of numbers like Ollie saying and we're having to do it like this because Defra haven't come back to us with all the numbers yet. But we remain a bit skeptical like I'm sure you are that will all be covered as well. But we're working in partnership with the disposal authority, the county council as well on this really. And we'll just bring it back to you in stages. And hopefully we're bringing something forward which allows us to get on now but allows that picture to evolve without committing you to costs which we haven't said which we know aren't going to be covered because they're been covered in the new burdens funding. Well hopefully we'll come back with something as well and we've got to split the recycling up so that we don't have to have 25 bins in the kitchen. I've seen the way they do it in culture so it's an absolute nightmare having all these various bags and boxes and whatever for the different items. It really is not impressed with that. And the new food, these food bins, is somebody going to be cleaning these because I guess putting the food directly into the bin means that the bins will be smelly? So you'll have two caddies, each household will get two caddies, a small one for the kitchen and one they've heard for the collection but that will be the responsibility of the home owner to keep those clean. We're not proposing to offer a bin cleaning service. Another job to do, thank you. Sally, sorry John. You've come next. So Suffolk County Council have decided they want an anaerobic digester. Our other authorities using anaerobic digesters generally, what are the advantages of it and are there any downsides to it? That is the preferred route for processing food waste and to the point that it's sort of death or sort of insisting that that is the route for at the moment we're processing that food waste via energy from waste so it is being converted into electricity but death have been very specific so no, it has to be anaerobic digesters and that just produce energy as well as in a byproduct that will get used to agriculture. Will we be charging farmers for the side product, the byproduct? That would be down to the processor who ends up within the procurement. They will include that in any fees paid, the resale of the energy and any byproduct. Just one last question, am I right in thinking that the vehicles that you're going to get are either going to be electric or powered by the vegetable oil? Yeah, we use HVA for existing fleet at the moment and the other option would be a smaller electric vehicle. So we can still get the new vehicles for the food waste and they can use vegetable oil. Great, thank you. Done. Yeah, I just got two questions, one's not really related to this. Are existing fleet, isn't that up for replacement or have we just replaced it? Yeah, we've just replaced the bulk of it quite recently. The other question is related to this. The other districts and boroughs, are they going to the same time scale as us in this because I think it's essential that we do coordinate and we're not out of kilter with them because obviously we do everything together in the county through the Suffolk Waste Partnership and so collection has got to be coordinated at the same time as well as disposal. Yeah, absolutely. We work with the Suffolk Waste Partnership on all of this and join up as much as we possibly can, share procurement to get the best outcomes. Thank you, Chair. I note in the paper that the issue of the new depot arises and in the paper you say, well, we can keep on going with our current arrangements, move everything around, but my question is, how long do you think you could keep doing that for? Because it looks like a lot of juggling. Yeah, I mean, we haven't put a specific timeline on it. I mean, you've obviously seen our existing site, so it will be a huge challenge to work with what we've got. And then as other services grow, we share the site with public realm as well, so there's always increased pressure on that space. I mean, we're confident we can make it work with what we've got, but it's far from ideal. The interesting nuance that you won't pick out necessarily from the paper, but we know from the initial route modelling that's been done, is that the optimal location for most of the food rounds would be closer to the transfer station, as opposed to being based in Sudbury, because the end disposal points are likely to be West Suffolk Hub of various Edmonds and Branson Giro Park at Ipswich, and they're likely to be the two points which the County Council licenses food waste transfer and does the work on those because they have to do older control work and licensing work, et cetera, there. So it's likely to be the majority of these new rounds would be based towards the Ipswich end as opposed to the Sudbury end, so from a depot space pressure point of view, it's likely to be on the upper depot rather than the children raid depot. Thank you. Can I ask an opportunity? I'll go on. Thank you. Right, this is a question that will definitely show my ignorance, so I apologise in advance. The anaerobic digester. So, do we get anything out of that? I know we give them our waste, and they turn it into energy, and they sell it on to farmers, but we're providing the wherewithal for them to run their business, so crudely, what's in it for us? What's in it for us as a collection authority is improved recycling rate. So that's the main point that's in it for us system-wise. There's a reduction in energy from waste gate feed, which is over the £100 mark, versus anaerobic digestion facility and transfer, which will be down near the £40, £50 per ton mark. So there's a big cost-saving differential there. Anaerobic digestion facility will produce biogas, whether that ends up being converted into electricity on site or injected into the grid, future energy choice around vehicles, whether they're electric or whether their biogas might be options around there, but it wouldn't necessarily tie in directly to that facility. And even with all of Suffolk's food waste being collected from households, that might not still be enough tonnage to guarantee that anaerobic digestion facility will spring up in Suffolk to serve that. It could be cross-border around the edge as well. But the contract will be letting different lots to allow that to happen really. Okay. I'll ask another question. Well, only because you're the new leader, go on. Thanks. How do you think this will improve our recycling performance percentage-wise? And also, how are we going to communicate this additional service to residents? Strangely enough, when I've mentioned it to residents, and I do find this strange, actually, they do not greet it with an annoyed joy. I mean, I think it's great, but they're not so much. So with regard to recycling rates, approximately 8%, and around the whole comms campaign, because we will develop our own comms campaign and we'll do that Suffolk-wide as well, so we share that same message. And that will be on the back, I'm sure, of a more national campaign as well, because it is being mandated by central government ultimately. So, yeah, there'll be lots of comms. And the opportunity, not that I want to raise this for discussion here, but the opportunity that you have to think about in the future is what you might want to do with the empty residual waste bins and the frequency at which they're collected. Certainly an opportunity to design some kind of bin, because at the moment, I think I've calculated I'm going to have seven boxes on the floor in the kitchen. I am really worried about the way this is going to operate. I mean, if you've got a big kitchen, it's fine, but if you've got a small kitchen and a few kids knocking around and having all these things in the kitchen, it's not going to be hygienic, I wouldn't have thought. Some kind of bucket. I mean, the caddies themselves have got a lid and you people use them with a liner. I mean, there's a lot of councils already using these things quite effectively. Yeah, a lot in a figure caddy, so you can just tie it and put it into the main bin. Really? So we get in plastic going in with the food. What's the liner then? Paper? A biodegradable too. Oh, OK. Well, that makes it slightly better. I'll sleep well tonight, thank you. Which householders will have the opportunity to purchase for themselves? Of course they will. What happens if they decide to use plastic bags? How will that impact when it gets to the other end? In the same way that we have issues currently with dry recycling, you can potentially have issues if householders use plastic bags and they have to be broken apart and you could have problems at the AD facility there, so that's part of the Comms campaign to get that message across. OK, Alston? Yeah, there's a point that occurs to me that I'm looking at the risk management and the risks are quite high, like you had three, impact three from multiple of nine, and it occurs to me that we have a potential change of government coming up and only a two-year timescale. Do we have any fears that an incoming government may see things differently and having rode back on a number of different things at various times? I mean, obviously we have to prepare for all potential situations. Have we done any work on that? Or are we just hoping that Defra will stick to their guns and carry this out? You have a million pounds in your bank account, which you're earning money on at the moment, which Defra have given us to carry this out for the vehicles, so that is an early indication that they want to do this, but of course they haven't committed to the rest of the new burdens funding revenue-wise that we need to do this in the autumn. We will look at the tender validity period on procurement and try and structure the procurement in such a way that it gives us a further window into the autumn that will provide you some protection before final commitments have made. We'll expect those, you know, bring some of those final commitments back here as well. And if I could follow up on that, because Mark referred to something here as well that I've noticed elsewhere, we'll be receiving proposals for glass recycling at a separate stage. I was just going to note I've spent some time in other authority areas and Northumberland and East Lothian, and there are already systems that have many more streams of collection, and by and large they seem to work quite well. I mean, it's very much horses, of course, that is according to what your waste disposal facilities might be in any given area. And if you haven't got a facility that can handle the sort of waste you're collecting, you're a bit scuppered. And I think that's probably true in Suffolk to some extent. Anyway, I just thought I'd mention that, because it does work elsewhere. It works in Colte, it works very well. Catherine? Thank you. Yes, thank you. So I think one of the big things that all our residents are going to ask us is, how many bins are they going to have eventually outside? At the moment we have two plus an optional brown bin. How will this change for the residents? And when a March 26 is when it's going to be effective, when are they likely to be getting all these bins, and so on, please? Well, the decision around the recycling obviously hasn't been made as yet, but that could be no additional bins, or it could be one additional bin. That's the decision ready to make around the recycling. If it's twin stream, which from an officer's perspective would be our preference, and that would be one additional bin, but you've got that decision to make in the future. Where the food waste is concerned, it's a small caddy, this size inside the house, and the food waste caddy outside. They are quite small bins, they're nothing like the size of a normal bin. They can be put on top of another bin and stored there as well and easily moved. They're not vast, heavy bins that are going in there as well. So that would be the extent of the bins being proposed. We're not proposing a complicated curbside sort system, which has been in the press with how many different options you can have. Right, and when G thinks this might all happen from the residence point view of things beginning to change for them, have you got a timetable as yet please? Yeah, from mine and Ollie's perspective, we've got the backstop of 2026 by April 2026 is when it becomes law in effect, although on saying that we don't expect there to be some central government bin and police coming out with flashing lights or anything, but that's the backstop date we're working to. Rest of wise, we want to try and work in a coordinated way, so that we don't all try and get involved in trying to outdo each other in terms of trying to get this delivered earlier or whatever, which I'm sure there'll be some pressure in some quarters to do that. But I think at the earliest we're talking about the tail end of 2025, worst case scenario early 2026. It's quite a bit of work to do. The procurement and distributing bins and getting root changes in where required. We want to try and minimise that as much as possible, but also engaging the communications plan properly. And it's too big. What we do is one thing, but we have to procure the AD facilities on the food, the County Council's doing that, and also changes then need to be made to the Murford Blaken and whatever recycling system is chosen, or whether it's a hybrid model with another authority, using a different system to the other authorities, those changes still need to be put in to the Murford Blaken and there's considerable investment required by the contractor there. And the County Council's also committed to that contract for two years beyond the date of this change coming in in 2026, so that's all got to be worked through as well. And will the caddies in the kitchen be the same size? Or, you know, at the moment, we have a couple of choices about door bins, for example. So will the indoor caddies be the same size, whatever size kitchen or whatever size family? We'll be having them. Yeah, so you've got two caddies that are fairly standardised across the board, really. So your kitchen caddie will be up to five or seven litres is the standard, and then the one you put out for collection, as Mark said, will be 22, 23 litres, that sort of size. And I suppose, unlike an external bin which needs to be wheeled to the curbside, what householders decide to keep their food waste in within their kitchen will be up to householders ultimately. They will be issuing a small caddie for that purpose, but should a householder want to use their own metal bin or other container? They can use that because that won't be presented on the curbside. It will be the other 23 litre bin that they keep outside that's presented on the curbside. Thank you very much. I've seen one of these. They fit underneath the wall unit and on the countertop. I mean, you know, it's a sort of box like this, flip lid. And then when you need to transfer it, you transfer it to the outside one. But you'll get through it on a daily basis, no trouble. Can't be mistaken for a microwave thing. It's the wrong shape and it doesn't have the buttons. I presume we'll still be encouraged to compost as much of the food as possible. OK. Yes, that would still be the preference to... Obviously, for the country, you know, if the miracle occurs, this should be a self-fulfilling prophecy and it's a service that eventually is not required, but reality is with the high amount of food composition in a bin that has... This service has been in operation for many years in a lot of other authorities, so that history's taught us that's unlikely to happen. Can I put in an order for a red and a blue bin, then, in that case? Mary, you want... Yeah. A question for Oli, actually. About the glass collection, as you know, many parishes have actually collected glass and get money that goes into their funds. Will that change if we get this glass collection? I think it will certainly have an impact. Yes, as that glass comes out of bottle banks and is collected at the curbside. Yeah. There's not going to be the flow of the tea on the three bin sites. Thank you. And another question, really. Given babies' financial position, I don't know if it's going to answer this. Can we really afford this? We don't really have a choice. I was going to address this in the debate, but I'm seriously concerned about the gap now that's appearing in the new burdens funding. A couple of years ago, the government was promising 100% new burdens funding. Now we can see that there is a gap in the capital funding, and we don't get no about the revenue funding for new burdens. And also, of course, we've got here this capital grant, but in a few years' time, we'll have to replace these vehicles, and we'll get another capital grant from them, I don't know. No, I'm concerned. It's additional pressure on our budget, but it's not unknown pressure. We have been aware that this is going to come up, but we will have to work out how we can cover it. There's no doubt about that. More difficult decisions on our budget. We've already had one or two of those. Thank you, Chair. I presume you may be able to reduce the number of times or the frequency that we collect the rest of the recycle, which will mean that the lawyers will last longer. Just a thought. John? Thank you, Chair. Just a quick question on process, really. I've got a limited knowledge of AD plant and its operation. First question is, on the 6.9, we talked about the counter-counsel operating an AD plant. Is that conjecture or is that protection? They'll be procuring the AD plant process and contract. So, necessarily as an operator, they'll be procuring it from the... Okay, so the market... So, the counter-counsel won't be building their own plant and operating it. Okay, just a quick point on that. I mean, to build an AD plant probably costs 10 million, 50 million. And the output from the county waste, I'm guessing, could be easily 4, 5, 6, 7 megawatts of electricity. If you look at some of the costs that are operated, there is potential to generate real revenue from... I mean, Councillor SAW's point over who gets paid for this. A farmer would need to grow 1,500 acres of maize to generate 1.5 megawatts of electricity. That's a big land area, and that's every single year. We should be looking as a joint venture between the counter-counsel and ourselves at how we can mitigate that, because it seems to me that, A, there's a lot of energy that's going to go somewhere, and people do actually pay for the electricity. The process is to pipe the methane and not generate electricity, because piping methane into national grid is a far cheaper and easier and more efficient thing to do than actually generate electricity. But it's just a question, really, which is, you know, it's not an opportunity to do something more with this, rather than just say, well, we're going to spend a million pounds on this, and just let somebody else deal with it. Well, in answer to that, really, the county council's carried out soft market testing approached the market over this. Even the whole feedstock within Suffolk isn't enough, really, to underpin a single plant on its own. The type of AD facilities that are operated by agriculture are very different to the types of municipal ones that have municipal facilities that have food waste, and the requirements around them are different in terms of the EA licensing and the older control and the issues and stuff that actually goes with it. So they're quite different from that point of view alone. We have had this crop up a few times. There's an AD facility here. Why can't it go there? Why can't it go there? And in reality, for taking this sort of type and mix of waste, there isn't the AD facility there. The feedstock in Suffolk won't underpin it. The county council doesn't have the experience sitting there to kind of design, build one of these, and then would be having to import the feedstock back into Suffolk and get additional vehicles coming in to wherever the plant is located, which, again, could be potentially a hot potato there as well. So the soft market testing has indicated that the market will be able to respond to this. We just don't know the exact location as yet. There's a facility down in Houston. There's a facility up in South Norfolk. There's a facility over the border and over the other side of a new market that way. So there are some around the edge. Within Suffolk, Addams has a facility as well, which it might be looking to upgrade. There's a number sat around. Ideally, Suffolk's waste gets processed and dealt within Suffolk, and that's the hope that will come forward. But it is a procurement that's been in the main lead by price, I would imagine. Do we envisage then that this will be a net benefit to the county council or a net cost to the county council? I don't know, really, to be honest. I think the county council is having to pick up some big capital costs in terms of upgrading its transfer stations at the moment, but the county council will get some big net gains from gate fee energy from waste plant. What I would say is government and defra have committed to this being cost neutral through the new burdens method of funding, and it won't allow a position on going where the county council benefits out of this or the district benefits out of this. New money is coming into the system through the extended producer responsibility scheme, so packaging material that's going to be placed onto the market. That EPR funding that's going to be coming in from packaging producers is going to help to pay for the recycling of packaging. So we can see in theory where the new money's coming from, and this should be, according to defra more than enough money to come in to be able to pay for all of this. We just, as yet, haven't seen the mechanics of the flow out from that. We have attended briefings where, which lead us down the route of thinking, if we don't play ball and adopt an efficient, practical way of recycling in the future through one of their prescribed methods under the legislation, then we could be disadvantaged a bit further down the line in terms of the amount of that EPR funding we might receive. So we think there are advantages in continuing to tow the line really as opposed to trying to just resist and do something different. Anybody else who I'll throw it up to debate? Yes, John? Yes, debate? Yeah, I think, obviously, we need to go for option A and commence procurement as quickly as possible. It is, there is going to be huge demand for the vehicles for the counties, so we do need to start on this, and I hope that all of the other districts and boroughs in the county make that same decision. I am concerned about the use of anaerobic digestion to process the food waste. Obviously, it has its advantages, but then so does the EFW plant. Now, whether one is environmentally better than the other, I don't know, but if we're encouraged to go down the AD route, then clearly we need to make sure, at least the county needs to make sure that there is sufficient processing capability as close to home as possible. Putting the methane into the grid, certainly in the short term, that's an obvious answer, but for how long? Because there is a move to move away from natural gas as a source of fuel for heating and cooking, getting everyone on to air source heat pumps, solar panels, and what else? So what happens? Should there not be that in the future? Should that not be an option? What would happen to the methane? So that would need to be considered as well. And that would be an argument that would make the AD option less favourable than the longer term. I don't know, but that's not really what we're here to decide today. We're looking at procurement to meet our commitments under the legislation. So definitely option A. The key point is that this is a statutory requirement. I mean, we can't avoid this. We've got our eyes wide open. We're giving delegated authority to director operations. I think we've all got fears about this. We can see some shortcomings because we can't be sure whether government will stick by their word or whether they will actually support this and make it possible for us to do this. But I've been looking through the report and Mark referred to the extended producer responsibility that will make the producers responsible for the disposal costs of their packaging materials. But we're not expected to profit from this arrangement. So I think there's a risk involved, massive risk. I don't think we have a choice. There's a way things are going. And I think there's a slight difference in anaerobic digestus. First time I ever heard of anaerobic digestus was many years ago listening to the archers. And that was over a quarter of a century ago. This is not new technology. So I'm going to be supporting, obviously. Thank you for that. I'm very reminded that the archers are 50 years beyond current living as well. I'm thinking of somewhere else, I think, on the south coast, just near Southampton. Thank you. I can come on to the 11.4 on the electric vehicles. Can I speak a little bit? Yeah, sorry. I'm just looking at the part. I know I've got it. Electric vehicle for food waste collection vehicles. They're being quoted two to three times at the price of Euro five, six, sorry, engines vehicles. So looking at all this consultation with other councils that are currently using the EVs and obtaining the prices for procurement, looking at the full options appraisal to be brought back to cabinet, those things. I mean, hopefully by 2026 we'll see a change in that market value for those electric vehicles. Am I right to think that? I think it's fair to say as time goes on and the technology becomes more developed, it's quite likely to see prices come down. But yeah, at the moment there's a substantial difference. Bear in mind, that is only the purchase cost. We've got to look at this across the lifetime of the whole vehicle, and that is a piece of work. We will be doing it and bringing it back. OK, I think you've probably had a good crack at that. So I think you need me to read the three recommendations out. You've got those on your papers. So I'll call for a vote. Thank you, Chair. That might just now in progress. Thank you, Chair. That is seven votes for that unanimous. OK, thank you. I think this is going to come back to us on many occasions between now and the end of 26. Item 10, the HRA business plan. I understand that Deborah, you're going to. Because Councillor Carter has an illness in the family. But she has written her introduction to the paper, so I am purely the messenger on this. So I'm pleased to present the draft business plan for the housing revenue account for your review. This plan outlines our financial strategy for the next three decades, and reflects the priorities identified through consultations with stakeholders, including our tenants. As per our constitution, the HRA business plan must be first presented to Cabinet, then full Council, and then comes back to Cabinet for ratification. The HRA is designed to document the costs and revenues associated with managing our housing inventory, which stands at nearly 4,000 properties currently, and related services or amenities that are mainly for the use of our tenants. It is imperative that we reach a consensus on the business plan to maintain a balanced budget and secure a sustainable financial future. The plan will not only serve as a roadmap for our financial decisions, but also ensure transparency and accountability to members' tenants and the wider public. As it states in the report, in the past three years, the housing sector has undergone significant changes, impacting all local authority landlords. Additional changes are expected with the implementation of the decent home standard, too, and the competence and conduct standard mandating a minimum housing qualification for senior officers serving tenants. Of course, we must align our priorities with these regulatory requirements. Further efforts will focus on governance structures to ensure both members and tenants have adequate oversight of the housing directorate. I would like to take this moment to thank all those who took part in the HRA workshop and assisted in developing the delivery plan. We greatly appreciated the input of Councillors, as well as the officers, and your contributions were invaluable. The priorities included within the plan are significant, well-defined and feasible. As you are all aware, the HRA business plan is facing challenges from various factors. It is regularly revised over a 30-year period to give an up-to-date financial forecast to enable us to make informed decisions quickly. The full plan is attached to this report for a deeper understanding of the situation. The report emphasises the importance of reviewing the business plan's detailed analysis starting from page 61, which I am hopeful you have all had the chance to go over as it addresses our priorities and financial responsibilities. It outlines the critical evaluation of managing housing loans with payment, upholding housing standards in compliance with regulation, and meeting rent and consumer standards to sustain the provision of housing for residents in the coming decades. I urge all Cabinet members to carefully review the detailed analysis provided in the HRA business plan. Please pay close attention to the financial projections, governance structures and compliance measures discussed in the plan. By making sure our priorities match with rules and community needs, we can be transparent and accountable in managing our housing. Your thoughtful review and decisions will be important in creating a resilient, sustainable and responsive way of providing housing for our residents. Thank you for your dedication to this crucial process. I would like to end by proposing the recommendations that Cabinet members finalise the business plan details, so that the plan will be formatted into a document that would be shared with members' tenants and the general public for transparency and accessibility. Thank you. Thank you. Can I have a seconder? Sally, thank you. Any questions? Jen, I've got one quick one while the others are thinking about them. On page 65, you've got a debt versus HRA surplus graph, which shows one line going up and it looks like five lines on the bottom. I do not understand that graph at all. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Good afternoon, members. The graph on page 65, which I apologise, it looks small, but when we actually produce document, which is customer facing, it will be a lot more accessible. But the debt increases as the years go by based on borrowing to carry out the capital programme. So the green is the surplus. If you look at the graph above, you will see that in year two and three, we are paying back £12 million in total, £6 million and £6 million. And then the one below shows that as we pay back that $6 million, our surplus just bubbles, because we're only just maintaining our agreed minimum surplus, which is just over a million. As with all most HRA business plans in this climate, the debt continues to go up because we can't afford to pay any more debt. So if you look at year eight, we're due to repay, 25 mil, but we can't afford to pay 25 mil, so we've got to reborrow. And then if you look at year 13, we are due to pay a loan, so we've got a loan due to be repaid of £46 million, and we can't afford to pay that, so we've then got to borrow £46 million there. That said, this is where we are at the moment, I'm going to be having a further workshop with members to put across some ideas on efficiencies, cost savings and income generation to improve the current 30 year business plan. OK, I mean I understand the table, it's the graph, I don't know why everything's on zero, apart from the closing HRA. If you can understand the closing HRA figure, it's the other lines I don't understand, but we can take this outside, if it's me being thick, which it probably is. Sorry, just to say, if you look at the numbers above, it's because the debt is so high, we have to have the graph enlarged, but the actual numbers are all above zero. Right, probably we inclined not to even put it in that case. OK, any questions? John? Yeah, absolutely. Thank you. It's falling on from that. Just looking at page 64, you talk about the refinancing of the £25 million and the £46.6 million, and you've got those in the table on page 65 as those revolver loans. We've got 6 million that we're paying in the current financial year, and then you've got that other 6 million next year, but it seems to indicate from the column next year that you're taking out another revolver loan for that, rather than repaying that loan. Is that correct? Correct, sorry. So you're right, we are borrowing, but the assumption on the business plan is that it's internal borrowing and I want to take it. Right, I've got that. So why does that appear down as the drawdown of a revolver credit? Because the revolver is all sort of internal, but it's taken from within our own councils. Right, next question then, thank you for that. If we're taking up further revolver credit to pay off the £25 million and the £46 million, why does that add to the overall borrowing requirement? Because we're just replacing one loan, or rather two loans, with two separate different loans. Sorry, if I understand your question, right, it's because we have to repay those loans because they're due to be paid back. So then we have to take out another loan? Yeah, I know. So if we pay them back, then we're reducing the outstanding borrowing. We are, but then we're adding more borrowing, because we're just borrowing again. So why is the borrowing increasing? Why is it not just staying the same? Because we are borrowing from our other capital. Sorry, it's because we are essentially borrowing from all of our other capital works, but we're not taking out those large loans. But we are adding to, no, I'm not explaining this one at all. I don't think it is increasing, is it? We're borrowing every year we're needing to borrow to carry out the capital programme. So in an ideal world, what you would have is you'd have your revenue pot, and your revenue pot would contribute a sum of money to your capital pot. And that's how you would carry out your kitchens and your bathrooms, but we can't afford to do that fully, because the capital programme is so expensive. So if you look on the drawdown of revolver, we're borrowing every single year, and we're not paying it back. So because we're not paying it back, the closing balance is just increasing, increasing, increasing to be a total of, so the closing loan balance in year 30 is £178 million. Sorry, so not all of it is long term loans, so the long term loans that we're taking out are the 25 and the 47 million, but the rest of them are on shorter term loans. It's the way we've got it mapped, profiled at the moment, but that will change as we get more information. That was just our initial profiling of this. Does that make sense? I think I need to sit down with you. Yeah, sorry. Yeah. Yes. Thanks, Journey. I think we need an HRA training session every week, I think, at least until Christmas. So it's probably best if we take it out of here and do it as part of one of our briefing sessions, I think. Any other questions or other questions or debates? I'll take either. Nobody else on cabinet? Sorry, Sally. Okay, so as a layperson, that looks quite frightening to me and I'm asking, is that sustainable and what happens at the end of the 30 year period when it's sky high? I mean, it just worries me. So it is a big worry and government is well aware of the predicament that councils are in, so we are absolutely not alone in this. And although it won't give you a lot of comfort, it's not the worst I've seen. So really, we're waiting for the government and some indication as to what they might do to support us in this. So for example, they could have a look at the 2012 self financing, which is when we got the original loan. If they could look at that and recalculate that, that would be very helpful, although if you can imagine that, they'd have to do that for all councils and it would probably be unaffordable. The best we can do at the moment as a council is look at the way we spend both our capital and revenue and reduce that. And I will be having a workshop, Jenny and I will be having a workshop with members to look at a number of proposals and putting forward to reduce costs while maintaining quality and service. And am I writing thinking that most of the capital that you're talking about here is not really on building new homes that the priority is sorting out our existing housing stock before we can even think much about providing more homes? So we have got some schemes that we're building out at the moment. So some of that capital will be on new build, but going forward from I think it's 2026, we have no new scheme. So all the capital is going to be invested in our current homes, which is really, really important because the regulator is very clear that we should be providing safe, dry, warm homes. And I know as members you absolutely agree with that. Yeah, I have tremendous sympathy for you trying to put this together and trying to explain it to us a lot. And the report is there, all the figures are there and everything, but it's trying to, exactly as my colleagues have said, in 30 years time, it just looks horrendous. In terms of this journey now, we have a say and then we go and then it goes to council and it comes back to us. If it goes somewhere else and they say, look, this is just not acceptable, we don't want to risk the HRA in 30 years time and it's not an acceptable document. And also there's a lot of imponderables before the 30 years come up, so there could be a whole new government housing scheme the way they might get rid of the right to buy, for example, which would give us more money to use on housing rather than anything else. What is it we can actually do with this today? I mean, we can say, yeah, it goes on and then, but what if council say we're not happy, we don't want to do this? So, I think it's, I think all I can say is the business plan is, as it is, there isn't really an option in itself to say no to the figures because they are, as they are. However, what members can do is have a look at the priorities and say, no, we don't agree with those priorities. Inevitably, there will be some cost attached to some of those priorities, no doubt. And all I would be able to say as well in response to the figures is, it will be my role as well, working with the team to make sure this business plan works. And to give you some comfort, your HRA surplus, although your debt is going up, we are able to manage it so you never drop below the £1,000,000 surplus and many other councils are not in that position. They effectively go bust and have to declare a section 1, 1, 4, you know, in your sort of 2, 3, 4, whatever it may be. So, that's what would happen if we couldn't have a balanced budget, we'd have to declare a section 1, 1, 4. Just follow up from that, yeah, obviously we don't want to talk about other councils, but in terms of our own. So, is it a fair assumption to say this is a fair company, this is what it is, we have to deal with it, but it could change because it's not set in stone for 30 years. It is now because these are the figures you've got, but things could change, hopefully for the better. Absolutely, and things will change. I've already started thinking with the team around changes we can put in place to save money, building services transformation, as you know, is ongoing and we expect significant savings to come when we've completed that transformation and the new restructure. When I seem to remember when the government gave us the wonderful opportunity of buying our own houses back and then lending us the money, it's very generous of them. I'm sure it was all repaid within the 30-year period, there was a surplus after about 25 years, but I guess times have changed. Thank you Chair, just to come in on that, so just to remind members that when that loan was taken out, it was the following year and subsequent years when government made a number of changes to the rent standard, which meant you couldn't increase rents as was the case, you know, have been written in 2012, and in the four years, rents were reduced. So this is why we are in the position we are in today because of that, the rent standard and rent policy. Just a point on the values of the closing loan balances from year one to year 30, and it appears to virtually double. I'd just like to point out that inflation over the course of the last 30 years from 1994 to 2024 would have seen 100 pounds in 1994 worth about 250 pounds, or rather equivalent to 250 pounds, more than double. So these figures could be regarded as actually not great rates of inflation, but they certainly are within the benchmark figures that one would expect over a 30-year period. So I wouldn't over obsess over the closing loan balances. 30 years is a long time. It's just a very long time for some of us here. Daniel. Thanks, Chair. On page 67 for the HRA business plan then, this is out of my comfort zone, I must admit, but you've got their upper income on the end of that graph, bringing about total income. It's bringing about total income, 20,000 and then it being the year we were entering 22,277. The other income that's included there, can you specify what that other income is? And also, it's a two-part question on SP Grant, what is that, please? And why is it showing us a zero on incomes? So the other income is leases, and we are undergoing an exercise at the moment of reviewing all our leases. We know that those leases are out of date, and that's a potential additional increase in income for us. And SP is the old supporting people grant. It's there because it's on the model that we use, so it's an old code, if you like. So why does it still have to represent our income graph if we're no longer using it? Do we intend to use it in another period? Will it always be there no matter what? I'm not quite sure. I would absolutely love the government to introduce a supporting people grant again because that would help us support those people who are vulnerable who can't sustain their tendencies. But at the moment, it seems highly unlikely. But because we use a Bovo console to write our business plan for us and to help us with this, we use their model, and this is their model, so that's why that's in there. Thanks very much. Deborah? Can you put your microphone on? Sorry. It's still not on. Somebody's got... Yeah. That's it. Yeah, looking at the graph that looks at the number of bedrooms needed, we've got one bedroom houses that's 54.8% of the need. Now, I would presume that this is a requirement for our elder tenants, and the report shows how that demographic is growing. But I do look at this and wonder why we haven't looked at younger people as an area where there is great need. And it would appear to me that our homelessness strategy and that bedroom need are a bit out of alignment. Could you just give me your thoughts on that? So these figures are actually based on the housing register, and the majority of them will be young people requiring one beds? Sorry, what was the second part of your question? I thought that would be the case, but how are we addressing that need? Because we've got a growing demographic of older people who need one bedroom properties because they'd like to downsize and reduce their rent, but we have a rising requirement to provide housing for younger people. So how are we addressing the younger part of that equation? So what we are planning to do is we're planning to do a review of our older person's stock just to see what the need is. Because the evidence tells us, and this isn't just in our area, but it's nationally, that there really isn't a desire for one bedroom accommodation for older people anymore, because their aspirations are much higher. And they want maybe two bedrooms, so they can have family members, and also we know that the desirability of older persons housing in particular is really diminished over the years. So that's one piece of work we can be doing. The second piece of work is just looking at when we can to work with developers, when we're thinking about our Section 106s and our opportunities to work with other RPs to influence those in terms of what the need is on our housing list. So essentially, if we're working with an RP to share this information with them so they know that really we need more one beds. Mary, you've been patient. Deborah, on page 5 of this report, on 4.1, I think you alluded to it about the requirement of the standards of competence and conduct. I'm really interested in that. Who would I discuss that way? I'd like to know a bit more about the expectation of the officers and the minimal qualification. So David White has done a piece of work in terms of what percentage of staff have got the team, have got the qualification and what percentage need to undertake is. It's a really important piece of work. But as well as having qualifications, I think it's important to point out this is really about behaviours as well and the way we treat our tenants. David White, he's already bringing us a paper to review and screw it anyway, isn't he? Yeah, thank you, I'll do that. Thank you very much. John. Thank you. Can we just dig into the math a little bit on page 67? We've got depreciation in at around 5 million. What do you assume to be the total value of housing stock? Would it be around about, say, 400 million? I just notion you worked that out at 100,000 pounds per unit across 4,000 items. We'd have to get back to you on that capital account. The second point really was our cost of maintenance, which we've gotten around about 12 million a year, give or take. It's great that we've now got integrated, our own people doing jobs, etc. And obviously as we've started this process, we've moved away from our less than attractive contractors and moved our own people. You'd imagine we would see savings as time goes by in our ability to be responsive and carry the right stuff to places. You would imagine that that would be something which we'd see improvements in over time. Plus also we're adding, hopefully, better value to our properties and doing repairs better. So maybe we don't need to go back quite as often as we've done in the past. My question really is, it looks a really pessimistic financial forecast and some really massive numbers which, if you were a private landlord, you would just walk away from it. You wouldn't want to think about it. So are we being overly pessimistic about A, our performance and B, what we think things will look like in, say, 5 or 10 years' time? And also, sorry, the final point really was that the loan-to-value ratio of our borrowings against the housing, the notional housing stock is about 24%. So we're paying interest, again, notionally at 4% ish or so on our debt. Again, you would imagine that you would imagine we could grind a better deal act in terms of our borrowing when you look at the overall loan-to-value of 23%. So in terms of borrowing and our last gen is coming, if I'm incorrect here, the high percentages due to short-term borrowing, that's correct, isn't it? So that's why we're in the position we're in with the interest rate. In terms of the maintenance, which is a really important point, what we will expect to see over the coming years is, as our plan works, our capital program starts or kitchen bathrooms, rewires, roofs, et cetera, our repairs costs will come down. So over the last few years, we haven't been doing those capital works. So what you've got is you've got far too many responsive jobs, they cost more. And also then you've got your, you know, your state of your assets is then diminishing because you're not sort of looking after them as such. So this is one of the reasons that Kathy and Arthur wanted to go through the diagnostic and the transformation, so we could really get to the bottom of these issues, and we've done that, and we're now into that transformation. We've got our job management system going in. We are consulting with our staff on restructures. I mean, we're at the point where we're really now ready to come out with compliance, so that's really good news. We're working with the regulator. So we can see these improvements, but it takes time. So it does look a bit gloomy, but I can see hope and I can see positive changes in the future to the figures in the business plan. I think it's more realistic as well. I mean, I think we've in the past, we've been presented with projects where they've been over optimistic in terms of what we're going to get back out of it or how quickly it's going to repay itself. So I think it's good to see a bit of realism in these figures. John? Yeah, I think that's a good point. My overall feeling is though, that the statement we're looking at on page 67 doesn't really reflect that, which is not a bad thing because we're taking a fairly pessimistic view of where we are on cost. That means we can only get sort of better in the way financially. So you would expect that trajectory to be, as you say, better because we will get more savings and we'll have less responsive repairs and more cyclical and regular repairs. I can also add to members that both cabinets did agree to conduct a full stock condition survey in 12 months, which I can tell you is unheard of across the sector and that will give us a really good data in terms of our plans going forward. So it's really excited that that's progressing really well. It seems strange to think that three and a half thousand items can't be evaluated within less than a year. I mean, hear what you say, that it might be a world record for the UK in terms of establishing this database, but it seems an awful long time for three and a half thousand items. It's a very complex undertaking in each property. It's really quite detailed and also organisations tend not to do it in a year because of the cost. What we will be doing is we will be safeguarding our assets. So when we've done the stock condition survey, we will then start again and we'll then be visiting the high risk properties. So we're constantly on top of our high risk assets. Good, Deborah. Thank you, Chair. Given that it's unheard of, and we're all in favour of audacious goals, how far have we got so far? And have you been surprised by anything or alternatively shocked? And I'll ask you that one. Firstly, I've got a supplemental if the chair will allow. So we send out compliance information every week. If you go on the stock condition tab, it tells you every week how many we've done. Off the top of my head, I think we've done about 2,100 across both councils. In terms of surprises, I'm positively surprised because we haven't had as many cat-1 properties that have got category 1 hazards. So quite pleased about that. I expected it to be worse, but it's better than I thought, so that's a positive. It's probably worth having a six month report or a half, half way through the project report at some point. Of course, we can do that. Can I just ask for this supplemental? In the report, you talk about disposal and redevelopment of our worst performing stock. Have you any idea currently on the basis of the stock information that you have, the size of that? No, because we don't just take into account stock condition. What we take into account is repairs, assets, you know, the cost of maintaining the asset, et cetera. And then we put it in a spreadsheet program or whatever, and then it sort of spits out a net present value, and it's that net present value that we look at. So Richard Spencer is looking at different methods we can use to start inputting that data. John. Just one final question I just thought of when Councillor Wyman was talking about stock values. We already knew that our tentative market value of our stock was less than the debt that we currently have. That position is only going to get even worse, won't it? And make the option of stock transfer even less likely. Is that a fair assumption? I think it's fair to say that a stock condition, sorry, a stock transfer will never be an option because of the tentative value of the properties. And they go in a certain, so it's not a market value, I can't remember what it's called now. Tenen, is it tentative market value? It's tentative market value, yes. Unfortunately, those values are much lower than, yeah. It all comes back to 2012, happy to have a discussion. No, no, I know all about the 2012, yeah. I've read you wrote a note about it. I did. Yes. I've got it here, open on my screen. Ah, thank you. OK. Everybody had enough? We're happy with the plan? I think we've been having that. If you've got something else you'd like to say, John, I'm happy for you. Just quickly, it's a huge amount of work that's gone into this. And it's radically different from our previous business plan, but it's necessary. And although the numbers in here that are a bit scary, at least it is a plan that is going to be realistic for the future. We've got huge challenges in terms of stock condition. The work needs to be done to meet the EPCC minimum standard. And we've had, again, a government constantly changing the goalposts when it comes to rent. We've already had reference to the fact that initially it was CPI plus, possibly, four or five years of CPI minus one, then the increase of CPI plus one. But as soon as that happened, a couple of years after that, we ended up with the current cost of living crisis and the impact on interest rates so that in 2023, we set CPI plus one point, 4.1% in the budget. But CPI was actually quite a bit higher than that, so we lost out there. Again, in 2023 to 24, the government capped our rents at 7% that CPI was running higher than that. And we've only got another year or so of CPI plus one before it goes back down to CPI. Who knows what change will happen again in the future? So it's rather depressing that that's happened. And the CPI minus one period, it was purely designed so that the government could transfer the cost of their housing benefit savings onto us. But nonetheless, this plan is, I think, one that we can have belief in. It's credible, and so I think we do need to approve it and send it on to the next stage. I think we will go for the vote. Thank you, Chair, that vote is now in progress. You can say, I think it's a fantastic amount of work we put in here. I think it's impossible for us to do it justice here at the cabinet meeting. I think we do need a separate session on it. I know we've had one in the past, but it's so complex, just understanding where the numbers come from and what they mean, it is important for us to get their hands on it. So we are arranging another session, so my EA Keeley is doing that. And just so members know, we were actually going to be putting the decab costs in there, so we can just have a look at what that looks like in the business plan over 30 years, and we'll be reporting that at that session. Okay, thank you. Chair, that is some of our actual numbers. Okay, good, thank you very much. Thank you. Okay, we want to item 11. General Fund, John? Yes, the final item this evening, report BCA 2354. It's going to be a lot easier than the others that we've been debating, discussing. It's just a correction, the HRA budget that Council approved back in February had a slight incorrect statement at paragraph 4.1B when it referred to the rent increase for affordable rents, and it mentioned RPI plus a half a percent, giving a total of 9.4%. That should read CPI plus one, 7.7, the same as for social rent. The actual number increase in terms of pounds and £13 has unchanged. That was correct, so all we need to do is to just approve a correction to the wording for that in Council report. That's all? Okay. Well, I suspect there's probably no questions, and not much room for debate on this one. I would love a seconder. Thank you, Deborah. Happy to go straight to the vote. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. That vote is now in progress. Thank you, Chair. Lovely. Okay. I think that brought us to the end of the meeting. The next meeting is scheduled for the 11th of June at 4pm, and we'll have a new leader in post. So, I'd like to thank you for my year where I've hardly been around and hardly done anything, and I'd like to thank John very much for standing in for me. He's doing an excellent job. I'm pleased to see you here for the final one. Well, I thought I ought to make the effort. So, I'd like to close the meeting. Thank you. [BLANK_AUDIO]