Agenda item

To receive Notices of Motion submitted under Standing Order No.12

 

a)               Rushcliffe Borough Council acknowledges that Care experienced people face significant barriers that can impact them throughout their lives. 

 

Despite the resilience of many care experienced people, society too often does not take their needs into account.  Care experienced people often face discrimination and stigma across housing, health, education, relationships, employment and in the criminal justice system.

 

Care experienced people often face a postcode lottery of support.  As corporate parents, councillors have a collective responsibility for providing the best possible care and safeguarding for the children who are looked after by us as an authority.  All corporate parents should commit to acting as mentors, hearing the voices of looked after children and care experienced people and to consider their needs in any aspect of council work. Councillors should be champions of care experienced people and challenge the negative attitudes and prejudice that exists in all aspects of society.

 

The Public Sector Equality Duty requires public bodies, such as councils, to eliminate unlawful discrimination, harassment, and victimisation of people with protected characteristics. Rushcliffe Borough Council acknowledges that Children entering the care system are often split from their siblings and placed outside their home Local Authority Area. That they don't choose to enter the care system, that they don't choose to be split up from their siblings and don't choose to be placed outside their local area.

 

The Council therefore resolves to:

 

·         Re-affirm our responsibilities as a corporate parent to children and care experienced people

·         Undertake a review of the impact of the Council’s Care Leaver Offer and identify potential improvements/developments to improve the quality of life of Care Experienced People

·         Agree to include people with care experience as a category within our Equalities Impact Assessment Process, and treat them as if they had a Protected Characteristic

·         Include people with care experience in general engagement exercises and discussions on new policy so they have opportunities to shape and influence what we do

·         Call on our partners to adopt the corporate parenting principles and to treat care experienced people as if they had a protected characteristic.

 

Councillor Gowland

 

b)               We propose that Rushcliffe Borough Council commits to implementing a comprehensive feasibility study into kerbside glass collection program for the residents of Rushcliffe Borough. This motion aims to promote environmental sustainability, reduce landfill waste, and encourage responsible waste management practices.

 

Rushcliffe Borough Council resolves to:

 

Evaluate the practical needs, expenses, and potential effects of introducing kerbside glass collection in Rushcliffe. This will be undertaken by a feasibility study overseen by the relevant Scrutiny group. The feasibility study has a target to present its findings to Cabinet by December 2023 for a decision to be made in time for the 2024/2025 budget. 

 

The feasibility study in its entirety will be shared with the full council on being completed.

 

Councillor Chewings

The Mayor announced that unless the meeting was extended, there would not be enough time for the motion, and she suggested that the meeting moved to Item 14 Questions from Councillors.

 

Councillor Gaunt proposed that a vote to be taken to decide if the meeting should be extended and that was seconded by Councillor J Walker.

 

It was RESOLVED that the meeting be extended and would finish no later than 10.30pm.

 

The Mayor advised that in the interest of trying to complete this item, she considered it appropriate to reduce the time for speeches from 10 minutes to five minutes for the mover of the motion, and three minutes for all other speeches.

 

The following Notice of Motion was proposed by Councillor Chewings and seconded by Councillor Birch.

 

“We propose that Rushcliffe Borough Council commits to implementing a comprehensive feasibility study into kerbside glass collection program for the residents of Rushcliffe Borough. This motion aims to promote environmental sustainability, reduce landfill waste, and encourage responsible waste management practices.

 

Rushcliffe Borough Council resolves to:

 

Evaluate the practical needs, expenses, and potential effects of introducing kerbside glass collection in Rushcliffe. This will be undertaken by a feasibility study overseen by the relevant Scrutiny group. The feasibility study has a target to present its findings to Cabinet by December 2023 for a decision to be made in time for the 2024/2025 budget. 

 

The feasibility study in its entirety will be shared with the full council on being completed.”

 

In moving the motion, Councillor Chewings informed Council that this was an important issue, integral to the welfare of the Borough and society’s environmental future, as it embraced a more sustainable approach to life, and until now the urgent issue of introducing kerbside glass collection was waiting for Rushcliffe to address.  Councillor Chewings called for change and demanded transparency moving forward, with glass often treated as a disposable entity, which was unacceptable.  He stated that the current system, which merged glass waste and general household refuse was not just wasteful but an unfulfilled opportunity and questioned how burying or incinerating such a precious resource could be allowed, when that squandered natural resources and placed an undue strain on waste facilities.  Councillor Chewings referred to the benefits of kerbside collection, including; promoting environmental sustainability, reducing the amount of waste sent to landfills, allowing glass to be effectively recycled into new products, the further growth of the recycling industry, together with potential long term financial savings with the reduction of waste management costs, and finally encouraging community engagement and empowering individuals to contribute to a more sustainable future.

 

Councillor Chewings referred to comments made by the previous Leader of the Council at the Council meeting in March committing Rushcliffe to remaining the number one authority for recycling in the county and questioned how this authority could claim to be the best when it was failing to collect and recycle such a common material, and that it was time to act and make a difference.   

 

Councillor Birch seconded the motion and reserved the right to speak.

 

Councillor Inglis stated that all Councils shared the same frustrations over the time taken by the government to determine the details of the Environment Act, and assured Council that work was already well underway to research the potential implications of what this motion proposed, and Councillor Inglis proposed an amendment to the motion to reflect that situation as follows:

 

“Rushcliffe Borough Council resolves to:

 

Work in partnership with the Nottinghamshire Joint Waste Management Committee (JWMC) to continue the study, which commenced in 2022 to evaluate the practical needs, expenses, and potential effects of introducing kerbside glass collection in Rushcliffe, subject to the implications and requirements of the Environment Act

 

Any proposals from the JWMC study will be taken through the Council’s normal decision making and budget setting process before any implementations.”

 

Councillor Inglis confirmed that Rushcliffe already operated a very successful glass recycling scheme, which had drawn recent praise from the Joint Waste Management Committee (JWMC).  The bring site scheme collected nearly 2,500 tons of colour separated glass each year, which was comparable to many other locally operated kerbside schemes, and that glass was recycled into new glass.  The Council received an income from it, which helped to support the service in the form of recycling credits from the County Council of £200k and £30k for the sale of the glass.  In respect of a Feasibility Study, Councillor Inglis confirmed that work was already underway with the JWMC, in conjunction with other Nottinghamshire councils, to prepare for the requirements of the Environment Act.  Council noted that it was vital that this work was done through this forum to ensure a consistent approach, and if the Council was to move to kerbside collection, in advance of the Environment Act, a number of significant, negative impacts would arise, including substantial additional vehicle and staffing costs, no further government funding and loss of its current income.  It was therefore important that officers continued to work with colleagues across the county to plan for the major changes proposed by the Act and residents were encouraged to continue using the excellent bring site network across the Borough.

 

Councillor Thomas raised a Point of Order and questioned if this was an acceptable amendment, as it completely changed the motion.

 

Councillor J Wheeler seconding the amendment to the motion and reserved the right to speak.

 

Councillor Chewings stated that he did not accept the amendment.

 

Councillor Clarke sought clarification regarding the Point of Order raised by Councillor Thomas and asked for confirmation that the amendment had been accepted by the Monitoring Officer.  The Mayor confirmed that it had been accepted.

 

Councillor Chewings informed Council that he would be speaking against the amendment, as his motion wanted to change things that so far Rushcliffe had failed to do, and he went on to refer to numerous local councils in the county that ran successful kerbside glass collection.  Council was reminded that this issue had been previously discussed at Cabinet in December 2021, when Councillor Inglis had stated that he hoped for national clarity in the New Year, and yet it was now 2023, and Councillor Chewings asked if the Council had the vision to put society first and protect the environment.  He concluded by stating that his motion simply asked for a business case to present options and could not understand why this was not acceptable.

 

Councillor Ellis advised that in his experience kerbside collection would be a retrograde step, with more material going to landfill compared to the current excellent scheme in Rushcliffe.       

 

Councillor Simms stated that it was his understanding that glass recycling was not beneficial to the environment, as it was better to reuse rather than recycle, as happened in Germany.  Council was reminded that kerbside collection was not new, and it was more expensive, Rushcliffe spent money carefully, and that was why it had the lowest Council Tax in the county.  Councillor Simms felt that the bring site scheme also encouraged people to walk and keep fit and he did not think kerbside collection was forward thinking.

 

Councillor Grocock stated that both the original and amended motions talked about investigations and sought assurance that the scrutiny and level of investigation that the original motion was proposing would be assured through the amended motion.

 

Councillor Gowland confirmed that it was more efficient to recycle glass than throw it away, although it would be far better to reuse it.

 

Councillor S Mallender stated that she agreed with the original motion, whilst acknowledging that collecting glass as part of a single bin was not good, as it increased landfill, as the glass was not recycled, rather it was made into road surfacing.  She agreed that reusing glass was far better and recycling glass into glass was to be encouraged, as it could continually be recycled and helped to cut water and air pollution.  Councillor Mallender stated that she was concerned about the reference to budget setting and that it would be too expensive, and she agreed that there should be a Feasibility Study and called for glass to be sorted on the doorstep.

 

Councillor Birch advised that recycling glass consumed 40% less energy than producing new glass and stated that it was often difficult for the elderly and disabled to get to the recycling centres and considered that kerbside collection would improve the quality of life for many residents.  He also questioned the assumption that most glass went into landfill.  Councillor Birch stated that the motion was sensible, better for residents and did not commit to anything, whilst the amendment would mean that the Council would lose control and given the Council’s record of failure with bringing this forward, he considered that it was time for kerbside collection to be implemented, as most other councils already offered this service.

 

Councillor Combellack expressed concern regarding anti-social behaviour (ASB) and the potential for glass to be used as a weapon if it was collected at the kerbside.

 

Councillor R Walker stated that he was in favour of glass recycling; however, not at any cost, the process should not be rushed, more time was required, and the amendment proposed that.

 

Councillor Clarke stated that kerbside collection was very expensive and hence the amendment talked about the implications and requirements of the Environment Act because it would be important to know what costs the Council would be committed to.  It was noted that the councils previously referred to had various collection schemes, which resulted in glass being treated in different ways, which was why the Council had a bottle bank system, with separated glass, which could be sold.  In answer to Councillor Grocock’s question regarding assurance, Councillor Clarke confirmed that benefits and costs could be considered by the Communities Scrutiny Group.  Concerns had been raised about ASB and safety issues with broken glass on pavements, and all that had to be taken into account, and Councillor Clarke stated that principally the cost had to be considered, as councils with kerbside collection did have much higher Council Tax.

 

Councillor Butler agreed that there were many bottle banks in the Borough, which were split to collect different coloured glass and they were well used.  He assured Councillors that the amended motion would take the situation seriously and that Rushcliffe had a very good reputation in respect of recycling.

 

Councillor Chewings requested a recorded vote on the amendment.

 

Councillor J Wheeler felt that everyone agreed that there should be more recycling and that the key issue was how that was done, and the reasoning behind the amendment was that work had already started with the JWMC, and if Rushcliffe was to move to kerbside collection, then the County Council would be responsible for glass disposal.  It was therefore vital that Rushcliffe worked with its partners, including the County Council to ensure that all options were considered, and any proposals would then go through the Council’s scrutiny and decision making process and Council was reminded that although other councils did have kerbside collections, their recycling rates were lower than Rushcliffe.

 

Councillor Inglis reiterated that everyone was waiting for the Environment Act and the huge impact that would have on recycling with associated implications and stated that Rushcliffe had to work with its partners.  Councillor Inglis hoped that a decision would come soon, potentially post September and advised that he was pushing to achieve this and once that decision had been made, Rushcliffe and its partners would be ready.  It was not sensible for a prudent Council like Rushcliffe to start spending money on a different scheme before the government decision was made, and the Feasibility Study was already in place.

 

In accordance with the Local Authorities (Standing Orders) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2014, a recorded vote was taken for this item as follows:

 

FOR: Councillors M Barney, J Billin, R Bird, A Brennan, A Brown, R Butler, N Clarke, T Combellack, J Cottee, S Dellar, A Edyvean, S Ellis, E Georgiou, R Inglis, D Mason, P Matthews, H Om, H Parekh, A Phillips, N Regan, D Simms, D Soloman, R Upton, D Virdi, R Walker, L Way, T Wells, G Wheeler, J Wheeler, and G Williams

 

AGAINST: Councillors T Birch, S Calvert, J Chaplain, K Chewings, G Fletcher, M Gaunt, P Gowland, C Grocock, R Mallender, S Mallender, L Plant, D Polenta, C Thomas and J Walker.

 

The amended motion was carried and became the substantive motion. 

 

Councillor R Mallender spoke on the substantive motion and stated that the Green Group would be supporting this, as it did want something taken forward, with residents wanting to see improvements to glass recycling and reference was made to the many times this issue had been raised.  Councillor Mallender referred to the importance of separating glass, as mixed glass was crushed and used for road surfacing, which did not help with carbon reduction, or improve overall recycling rates.  Council was reminded that as yet no regulations had been put in place for the Environment Act; however, it was important that the Council made a statement of intent that it wanted to see proper kerbside glass collection to allow it to be recycled.  Councillor Mallender agreed that re-use was better and referred to the opportunities to do that, which should be supported.

 

Councillor Inglis concluded by reiterating that Rushcliffe wanted to be the best at recycling and that was the aim, and by working through the JWMC that would be achieved going forward.

 

No further Councillors wished to speak so the substantive motion was put to the vote and carried.