Agenda item

Joint Scrutiny Committee is asked to note the contents of the report on why the council needs to be procuring new waste vehicles, and the factors which influence the future carbon footprint of the fleet and the process that officers will use for the future procurement of waste and street cleansing vehicles, and ask any questions pertaining to the report.

The report was introduced by Cabinet member for Environmental Services and Waste (VOWHDC). Cabinet member for Environment (SODC) was present to answer questions.

Officers present online to assist with questions were Head of Housing and Environment, the Environmental Services Manager and the Waste and Recycling Project Manager.

The report was produced to inform joint scrutiny members of the current issues facing the councils in modernising and sustaining the waste and street cleansing operational fleet, and to outline the process that officers will use for the future procurement of new vehicles. The report was intended to explain the mechanism by which officers would assess the market and select the best vehicles to complete the work required. Committee were welcomed to provide comments.

Cabinet member referenced an update circulated to committee, which was as follows: “Officers have submitted a proposal for Ministry of Transport funding, through Innovate UK’s Transport Decarbonisation Demonstrators fund, to carry out an initial trial of around 12 weeks of an Electric Refuse Collection Vehicle (eRCV), in partnership with an external logistics optimisation software company and an eRCV manufacturer. There is no comparable software currently available on the market and given the national challenge of how to decarbonise rural waste collection fleets, we believe the proposal has a strong chance of success. Given there would be a backup truck available, that would ordinarily be in use on the trial route, the risk to the councils in ensuring continuity of service is low. The project is likely to commence in June, with the operational trial beginning in the autumn. It aims to develop a software tool to optimise waste collection routes for electric vehicles by considering:

•        journey lengths

•        cumulative load weights

•        geographical factors such as hills, main roads, urban environments

•        optimum battery size, accounting for weight of batteries vs. permissible total load (26 tonnes)

•        Numbers of bins able to be emptied each day.

Regardless of the trial’s outcome, the councils will be able to utilise this data, and that which we already share with other Councils, to make informed decisions regarding the potential to decarbonise future waste collection operations. A successful trial would enable the councils to lead the way for rural Local Authorities facing the challenge of decarbonising their waste collection fleets.”

The chair welcomed the report and opened the meeting up to committee questions.

• Clarification was given from Cabinet member on electric vehicle capacity for charging. It was explained that officers were planning ahead and futureproofing – the whole fleet could not be swapped out for electric vehicles at this time and changes would be a gradual process.
• A member asked about the consideration being given to maintenance of vehicles and what was possible.
• It was suggested that depot location was key and it needed flexible fuel storage.
• A member asked about the timeline over two years – how would major changes (such as technology, or depot location) mid-timeline be factored in?  Cabinet member explained that each year it would be assessed as to which vehicles would need replacing. It would be a rolling programme reflective of the budget. Environmental Services Manager explained that gateway points were built into the process, as with all Council processes – a business case would be built after securing funding through the capital programme and would represent the final gateway.
• A member raised a point about the added weight of electric vehicles on the roads, and it was clarified that the total weight would be the same but the vehicles would carry less refuse if electric. Some vehicles were used for accessing narrow roads etc and any replacements would consider the parameters required for a particular route.
• Discussed geographical distances in Oxfordshire and the issues faced for electric vehicles on rural routes. Cabinet member added that the current technology doesn’t yet meet our needs and there were storage issues, however the strategy enables us to plan ahead to review in a year’s time.
• Paragraph 15 – a member asked about prioritisation of steps. It was confirmed with officer advice that the wording needed adjustment to make it clearer. Value for money was a statutory requirement.
• A member asked for clarification on why the leasing option was not considered currently? Cabinet members explained that it was currently more expensive, and leasing companies where we had less leverage would give us the vehicles they wanted to give rather than the best vehicles for our purposes. Leasing would still be considered at annual review.
• Hydrogen fuel was discussed and the fact that there were very few charging stations in the country.

Committee members noted the report and put forward the following comments summary for officers and Cabinet members:

• Confirmation was sought that the Councils standard approach to business cases, with review points along the way, would be used, noting that there were legal requirements to assess all expenditure on the latest information available at the final decision point.
• Paragraphs 15 and 16 to 20 needed to be relooked at to avoid contradiction of procurement factors.
• Think about maintenance of vehicles during procurement (issues such as depot location and frequency, vehicle routing, size of bins).

Officers and Cabinet members were thanked for their contributions.