Purpose

1.         To note
the update on the status of the waste fleet
2.         To
procure up to 4 food waste fleet vehicles

Decision

That the Director of Place, in consultation
with the Executive Member for Environment, Executive Member for
Finance and the Director of Finance, procures up to 4 food waste
vehicles

Reasons for the decision

In October 2024 the
Executive agreed to purchase 3 fully electric supervisor vehicles
and 1 standard fuel ultra-narrow access vehicle. It also sought
approval to delegate authority for the purchase or lease of up to 2
full size HGV’s and up to 4 food waste vehicles, including
necessary infrastructure, and for the cost not to exceed
£2.8m (including a procurement contingency and estimated cost
of borrowing).

 

The 3 electric supervisor vehicles and narrow access
vehicle were purchased in February 2025. The installation of
electric charging points for the supervisor vans were made at Downs
Road in February 2025. The installation of the charging points
allows WODC the opportunity to explore the purchase of further
electric waste vehicles.

 
This
report seeks to update the Executive on the status of the existing
waste fleet and to authorise the Director of Place, in agreement
with the Executive Members for Environment and Finance, and the
Director of Finance, to procure 4 electric food waste
vehicles.
 
 

Alternative options considered

Option One: Do Nothing:

Current food waste fleet could remain in service and
not be replaced, avoiding the investment cost. This would avoid the
immediate financial investment and avoids a procurement
process.

The fleet would continue to age, leading to a higher
risk of breakdown which could result in a reduction in service
levels. Whilst the investment cost is avoided, it is likely that
there would be a resulting revenue budget pressure as the fleet
continue to incur material repair and maintenance costs.

To do nothing delays further the transition towards
becoming a carbon-neutral authority.

This is not an optimal option due to the age and the
condition of the fleet which would likely require the additional
hire of replacement vehicles in the event of failure.
 
Option Two:
Replace with standard (diesel) fuelled vehicles

The investment required for this type of vehicle is
significantly less than electric counterparts.

New vehicles would deliver reductions in emissions
in comparison to the current vehicles and perhaps offer the best
financial option.

The vehicles would remain familiar to crew and
maintenance teams.

This option gives WODC flexibility, minimising the
chances of disparity with the wider transformational objectives
(WESP).

Whilst it does not deliver the maximum carbon
benefits, it could be used as a method of transition to enable WODC
to make the step towards becoming carbon neutral until such time
that the investment cost has reduced as the technology improves
with 2nd generation electric vehicles becoming
operational.

This option would allow for a proportion of the
budget envelope to be retained in order to be used once the current
fleet review has been completed or in the event of a failure of
another vehicle within the fleet without incurring further
borrowing costs.

Whilst this option allows WODC to maintain
flexibility for an uncertain future, aligns with ideology of other
Oxfordshire districts and is the most financially beneficial
option, it does not meet strategic climate objectives.
 
Option Three:
Replace with electric vehicles.

The trial of the e-HGV waste vehicle demonstrated
that these are operationally reliable given the length of rounds
and the weight collected. These vehicles have zero tailpipe
emissions and are planned to be charged using at The
Council’s depot in Witney, thereby supporting climate
targets.

Procuring electric food waste vehicles would mean
that the vehicles would be the larger 12te version, rather than the
standard 7.5te principally as a 7.5te electric version is not
available. The larger electric food waste vehicles have additional
capacity and can accommodate larger rounds without needing to tip
as frequently, this adds additional resilience to the waste service
to accommodate housing growth and potentially increased rates of
food waste recycling.

Electric vehicles wear tyres quicker than standard
fuel vehicles due to increased weight as a result of the battery,
however electric vehicles generally benefit from lower maintenance
costs as they have less mechanical components.  Electric vehicles can be more expensive to insure
so there may be a net increase in revenue costs.

 There is a good level of
confidence in the performance and longevity of batteries used in
the proposed electric vehicles, this is based on available evidence
from local authorities that are already using these vehicles.
However, as the vehicles are first generation and there is not 7
years of evidence of good battery life in equivalent vehicles, it
is important to record the risk that batteries may not last the
full 7 years, but often manufacturers will offer a guarantee to
mitigate this.

This option is the most expensive (see table 4
below), with electric vehicles requiring the largest capital
investment of all three options but does offer greater flexibility
as a result of the increased capacity. 

Other Oxfordshire authorities have decided not to
pursue large electric waste vehicles or the necessary charging
infrastructure at this current time. This option may lead to
disparity with future transformational and fleet
objectives.

This option delivers core replacement whilst
supporting climate goals which are strategic aims of
WODC.