Questions by Members:

Answers:

Why, when we started this procurement, did we go out for a gold-plated service that was clearly unaffordable?

(Councillor M Stephenson) I will be taking this question given that Councillor Smith was not the Portfolio Holder for Environment & ICT when the procurement process started in July 2024.

For information on the development and evolution of the service specification please refer to the Cabinet reports from July 2024 and May 2025 that have been supplied to the committee as background information.

The price of any service such as this is unknown at the outset. As this service was last procured in 2011 it was reasonable to expect higher costs, and this was covered in the July 2024 Cabinet report.

It is only once prices have been sought from bidders that a true indication of contract cost can be established. The competitive dialogue process used for this procurement allowed for indicative prices to be submitted by bidders prior to dialogue commencing. The dialogue process than allowed for discussion about the Council’s requirements before a final service specification is agreed.

The Portfolio Holder Working Party, established to support the development of the contract specification was involved in and therefore aware of the higher standard of service included in the first specification issued to bidders.

The waste and recycling collection aspects of the service specification are driven by the need to be compliant with the Environment Act 2021 and collection of a wider range a recyclable material, including glass, from the kerbside from April 2026.

On the street cleaning side, a higher standard of specification was chosen in order to deliver the best possible services for our residents and visitors. This is something residents indicated they wanted to see through the feedback to the Corporate Plan consultation undertaken during 2023.

Can the Council clarify who the appointed waste contractor will be and provide more detail on the contract specifications, as the current documentation is too vague to explain clearly to residents?

(Councillor M Stephenson) The procurement process has been ongoing for approximately eighteen months, and I note that it was not included in the Committee's Work Programme until August 2025. It is regrettable that the Cabinet meeting I  October was postponed, as its original scheduling would have enabled many of Councillor Bush’s inquiries to be addressed publicly. Nonetheless, substantial information has already been made available, as reflected in the extensive set of reference documents provided. At present, the only outstanding details pertain to the final cost and the appointed contractor.

At the commencement of the procurement process, was there awareness of Local Government Reorganisation (LGR), including the recommendations concerning the establishment of the Unitary Authority and its potential implications? To what extent were these factors incorporated into the initial considerations?

Additionally, have the 11,000 new homes adopted within the Local Plan been factored into the scope and requirements of the contract?

(Councillor M Stephenson) At the outset of the procurement process, Local Government Reorganisation (LGR) was not under consideration and therefore excluded from the Waste and Street Cleaning Contract. Once LGR discussions commenced, the contract was deemed unaffordable, as noted in the May 2025 Cabinet report. Recognising the likelihood of transitioning to a new unitary authority within two years, we concluded that a 7–8 year contract was no longer viable. Instead, we opted to develop a revised contract that would avoid creating a cliff-edge scenario for the incoming authority. This approach reflects potential cost-saving opportunities under a unitary model, where responsibilities for both collection and disposal would be consolidated. Our overarching goal remains to position the District for long-term success.

New routes are an integral component of the new contract, as they are in the current agreement.

What were the reasons behind the Cabinet's decision, despite the advice given by Officers, to pursue a contract previously deemed 'unachievable,' and what are the financial implications for taxpayers?

(Councillor M Stephenson) The Cabinet was informed of an increase in costs; however, this was anticipated given the nature of the seven-year contract initiated in 2018. It was understood that inflationary pressures would naturally lead to higher costs by 2025. At no point prior to the May 2025 Cabinet report was the contract described as unaffordable.

The decision to pursue a "gold-plated" contract was driven by resident feedback, which clearly indicated a preference for a high-quality service. To support the development and delivery of this contract, the Council engaged a range of expert organisations, including the East of England Local Government Association (EELGA). A budget of £400,000 was allocated for consultant recruitment, though not all of this funding was utilised.

In addition to EELGA, the Council appointed Eunomia (procurement consultants), WRM Sustainability Ltd (specification and performance consultants), and Sharpe Pritchard LLP (legal advisors). These firms were selected due to the recognised need for specialist expertise, which the Council did not possess internally. Their contributions were instrumental in shaping and finalising the contract.

During the competitive dialogue process, a proposed price was submitted that exceeded the Council’s expectations by £7 million. It was at this juncture that the May 2025 Cabinet report formally identified the contract as "unaffordable.”

To clarify, Officers told this Committee, but did not tell the Cabinet?

(Councillor M Stephenson) While I cannot comment on what others may have conveyed to you, I can confirm that at no point were we advised by Officers that the contract was unaffordable.

How many meetings of the Portfolio Holder Working Group for this procurement have there been - and what were the dates of the meetings?

(Councillor Smith) There were four meetings:

28 September 2023

16 November 2023

30 May 2024

1 October 2024 – Final meeting in order to feed back the work of the group to the Waste Contract Project Board.

Why was the last meeting of the Portfolio Holder Working Group held over a year ago?

(Councillor Smith) As the procurement process had commenced, it was deemed inappropriate for the group to continue discussions on the matter. Similarly, this evening, given that the proposal has not yet received Cabinet approval, there are specific aspects of the topic that we are unable to comment on at this stage.

Please clarify why extending the current contractor is not being considered as an alternative to recruiting a new one. Also, I need assurance that a tangible solution to the concerns raised is actively being pursued and not just under discussion.

(Lisa Hastings) A detailed report providing further information will be published alongside the Cabinet agenda on Thursday, 6 November 2025, in advance of the Cabinet meeting scheduled for 14 November 2025. This report is intended to address and clarify the concerns you have raised. However, please note that the name of the contractor and the financial details involved cannot be disclosed publicly at this time. I understand that the Committee has chosen to proceed with its line of questioning. However, I would like to note that the Portfolio Holder for Environment & ICT has prepared a statement that may address several of the forthcoming queries. This statement was not available at the time the report was published.

Can you provide clarification on the distinctions between the three contract versions: the current contract in operation, the enhanced version incorporating additional features, and the newly proposed contract?

(Councillor P Honeywood) For clarification, the three versions referred to are the overall service within the contract that is currently in place, the service that is now being proposed and the "gold-plated" service. We are looking for clarification on the differences between the three.

(Councillor Smith) The primary distinction lies in the scope of services outlined in the new proposed contract. The previous version was structured around a performance-based model, which would have required continuous street-level tasks such as emptying litter bins under the street cleaning provision. This approach proved to be financially unsustainable.

As a result, we have decided to revert to the existing contractual framework. The updated proposal reflects this shift, and the specific changes in the new contract are as follows:

·         Single contract covering street cleaning and waste/recycling services

·         Built-in performance standards and accountability framework

·         Council to manage customer contact centre and handle complaints

·         TDC may access live vehicle data for performance monitoring

·         Initial 3-year term with optional 2-year extension

·         Annual formal review plus quarterly waste board meetings for improvements

·         Contractor funds upfront vehicle purchase

·         Bulky item collection included and managed by contractor

·         Founder Road depot leased to contractor at no charge

·         Container delivery teams retained for golden waste service

·         Fortnightly residual waste collection via wheely bins

·         Recycling compliant with Environment Act 2021: twin-stream, alternate weekly (containers vs. fibres) using boxes

·         Weekly food waste collection for all households, including flats and rural areas

·         Chargeable garden waste service unchanged in frequency and cost

·         Contractor assumes full risk on dry recyclable material value

·         Frequency-based street cleaning with scheduled bin cleaning/emptying

·         Option for mobile response team

·         New beach cleans added at Holland-on-Sea

·         Additional blue bins on seafront for summer peak

·         Summer period extended: March to September annually

Following on from the earlier question on the Portfolio Holder Working Party, what was the date the specification was finalised before it went out to procurement?

(Damian Williams) The answer depends on which stage of the procurement process is being referenced, as the current process differs significantly from the one undertaken 14 years ago. At that time, there were dialogue phases that led to a reassessment, particularly when it was identified that the cost would increase by £7 million. This prompted a need to revisit the approach. Therefore, it's important to clarify whether the reference point is when the specification was issued for tender—reflecting the current, fully costed proposal being submitted—or whether it pertains to the earlier dialogue stage, as key milestones occurred at different times.

Were any amendments to the contract implemented without prior consultation with the Portfolio Holder Working Group?

(Councillor M Stephenson) Cllr Bush chaired three meetings of the Portfolio Holder Working Party. A fourth and final scheduled meeting was subsequently held, which I attended. During this session, the group reached a natural conclusion. With the procurement phase underway, there was no further requirement to convene additional meetings.

(Lisa Hastings) Following a thorough review of the Cabinet reports, I can confirm that the working group last convened in October 2024. At that meeting, they provided feedback on the high-level specification, which subsequently progressed through a staged process, as outlined by the Corporate Director (Operations and Delivery). The group did not reconvene prior to the May 2025 Cabinet report.

The May 2025 report offers a detailed account of the limited options available to the Council at that time. It also clearly identifies the changes made to the core specification, which included:

• A shortened contract term to accommodate Local Government Reorganisation (LGR)
• A reduced specification to reflect affordability constraints
• A decision to avoid financial risk associated with dry mixed recycling and kerbside services
• A determination not to fund the upfront purchase of the vehicle fleet

Could you please confirm whether external consultants have been engaged during this process? If so, it would be helpful to understand the associated costs, including the overall expenditure expected by the end of the engagement. Additionally, I’d appreciate insight into the specific expertise these consultants have contributed that may not be available within our internal team.

Lastly, could you clarify whether there is an intention to proceed with the purchase of these vehicles?

(Councillor M Stephenson) Yes, consultants were engaged as part of this process. To streamline decision-making and minimise delays involving Cabinet and other stakeholders, an initial allocation of approximately £300,000 was set aside for consultancy support. As the project progressed, it became clear that additional resources were required, and a further £100,000 was approved. All related decisions are publicly available.

The Council appointed EELGA, Eunomia, and WRM Sustainability Ltd to provide expert advice. Detailed information regarding expenditure to date will be included in the forthcoming Cabinet report.

(Councillor Smith) We are not going to be purchasing the vehicles.

Could you please clarify the current approach to black sack collections considering the legislative changes effective from March 2025, which mandate weekly food waste and glass recycling collections?

Additionally, what is our strategy for communicating these service updates to residents? Clear and timely communication will be essential to ensure understanding and compliance.

(Damian Williams) Current collection schedules will remain unchanged. In accordance with legislative requirements, food waste and glass recycling will continue to be collected directly from doorsteps.

For residents living in flats, the arrangements are more complex due to a range of logistical considerations. The Waste and Recycling team is actively developing a clear and comprehensive communication plan to ensure all affected residents are well informed.

Please be assured that all changes will be carefully planned and executed to maintain a high standard of service.

For confirmation, will the frequency of street cleaning remain the same in each individual road?

(Councillor Smith) Yes.

Could you confirm whether dog waste bins are included in the scope of the contract? I would also like to propose that particular attention be given to the provision and maintenance of these bins, as they are a frequent source of resident complaints.

Considering this, could a provision be considered to make it easier for Parish Councils to request dog waste bins, as the current process can be unnecessarily drawn out and difficult to navigate?

(Councillor Smith) This provision is currently in place and will remain so under the new contract. Although the bin emptying is part of the contract, implementing additional bins is a separate issue to the contract itself.

(Councillor M Stephenson) Technology is now in place to confirm that bins are being emptied according to schedule, enabling more effective issue resolution and eliminating any uncertainty regarding contractor attendance. Once the waste contract is fully implemented, we will be in a better position to explore and address the ongoing issues related to dog waste bins.

Could you please clarify whether wrapped dog waste can be disposed of in any Council bin? I was under the impression that this was permitted but would appreciate confirmation.

(Councillor Smith) Yes, it can.

I’m pleased to see how comprehensive the performance management is. Could you confirm whether any missed household waste collections must be collected within 28 days? If so, will there be any associated penalties for missed or delayed collections?

(Jonathan Hamlet) Household waste is typically collected within 48 hours, not 28 days. While the current contract does not impose formal penalties for delays, the forthcoming performance framework will introduce specific KPIs that must be met. Details of any associated penalties will be made publicly available following the Cabinet meeting next week.

With the population increase within the District, how do we determine how many additional bins we need to facilitate this growth?

Could consideration be given to the provision of dog waste and litter bins in response to projected population growth, to ensure infrastructure keeps pace with community needs?

Following the confirmation that dog waste can be disposed of in any Council bin, could you clarify whether a single standardised type of public bin will now be used? Additionally, will these bins be larger to accommodate increased usage?

It has been observed that the collection of black bin liners occasionally results in residue being left on the road. Could you confirm whether the new contract includes provisions requiring operatives to clear such residual waste as part of their duties?

(Jonathan Hamlet) In accordance with the contract, service provision is currently aligned with new developments identified in both the Forward Plan and Local Plan. As these developments become operational, the associated properties will be supplied with bins and integrated into the collection schedule. In time, having built in the stronger KPI’s and performance management to the contract, it then becomes a much stronger service.

We will continue to collaborate with Town and Parish Councils to support local communities in meeting their dog and litter bin needs, working closely with stakeholders to ensure appropriate provision where required.

Our preferred approach is to transition to a single-use public bin model, a practice we have been implementing for several years. Traditional dog waste bins, typically constructed from soft metal, are prone to rust and deterioration. When these bins require replacement, they are generally substituted with larger litter bins that can also accommodate dog waste. This solution offers added benefits for residents, as the bins have greater capacity and are emptied more frequently.

This matter is best addressed through operational channels rather than scrutiny. Nonetheless, we remain committed to working collaboratively with Town and Parish Councils, as well as the wider public, to identify and raise awareness of such issues.

Is there the option for the procurement process to be delayed allowing sufficient time for thorough scrutiny by the Committee?

(Councillor Smith) No – delaying the procurement will cause delays to contract implementation and leave the Council exposed and in the position of not having a contractor in place the deliver services from April 2026.

We do not recognise the suggestion that there has been insufficient time for thorough scrutiny, given the duration of this procurement process thus far and Cabinet’s detailed reports being in the public domain and available to the Committee.  

The Committee sets its work programme, and it is noted that for the Work Programme for 2025/26, the Waste and street cleaning contract progress/implementation has been included.

The Committee cannot be part of the decision-making process for the award of the contract, and assurance is given that the process has been robust and further details will be contained within the Cabinet report (14 November 2025) on funding.

Is there any further assurance the Committee requires?

Would fixed penalty notices be issued? Specifically following incidents of littering along the Clacton-on-Sea seafront?

(Councillor Smith) This is not relevant to the procurement of this contract. The contractor will not be responsible for enforcement but are obliged to alert the Council where they find evidence of fly tipping or persistent littering or misuse of litter bins, etc.

Can you provide a detailed breakdown of the locations at which blue bins would be situated?

Could you clarify why litter bins are removed from Clacton seafront during the winter months, despite continued use of the area by dog walkers and the ongoing need for waste disposal facilities?

(Councillor Smith) No, the locations are adjusted based on experience and seasonal demand.

(Councillor Smith) There must be a seasonal variation in the bins provided. In my ward, when reports are received regarding bins being full, it is frequently the case that one specific bin is heavily used while others nearby remain largely empty.

What scope exists to amend the contract, or whether the terms are now fixed and non-negotiable?

If changes to the contract are required—such as those arising from legislative updates—does the contract permit the contractor to adjust the associated costs accordingly?

(Jonathan Hamlet) The current contract is robust and includes provisions for quarterly and annual reviews. It also incorporates mechanisms to accommodate changes in legislation. We have benefited from the expertise referenced earlier, and the contract allows for flexibility to implement amendments where necessary.

Yes, but it would need be transparent and scrutinised by officers and the waste board and they would need to clearly outline where any additional costs would be coming from.

Does the contract include provisions allowing the Council to issue notice in the event of non-compliance with Service Level Agreements (SLAs)?

Additionally, is there a mechanism for the contractor to serve notice, and if so, what is the required notice period?

(Jonathan Hamlet) Yes, there is an established procedure in place, similar to the current arrangements, whereby either party may terminate the contract should mediation efforts fail following a breakdown in service. While I am currently unsure of the specific notice period required, I will confirm this. It is important to note that such occurrences are exceptionally rare.

(Damian Williams) Most contracts typically include reciprocal clauses designed to protect the interests of both parties; therefore, yes, such provisions would apply equally to both sides.

Would it be possible to move into Part B of the meeting to address matters that are not appropriate for discussion in the public domain?

(Lisa Hastings) Yes, provisions do exist to move into Part B. It’s important to note that the term “commercially sensitive” does not preclude the Committee from accessing the information; rather, it indicates that such matters are not appropriate for discussion in the public domain.

Would it be feasible to develop a Councillor information pack to support the effective communication of these details to residents?

(Councillor Smith) We would be more than happy to facilitate this.

Questions by Members:

Answers:

What is the total cost of the contract and is it at an equal cost over each year?

(Richard Barrett) The total cost of the contract over three years is approximately £7.8 million. While this exact figure may not be explicitly stated in the report due to the complexity of the contract, it reflects the overall financial commitment. Grant funding has been secured, though the amount is relatively modest—around £500,000. Consequently, the Council will need to identify funding for the remaining £7.4 million. The expenditure will be higher in the first year.

Does that figure include business and administrative costs, or does it solely reflect the contractual expenditure? Additionally, has the impact of the projected 11,000 new homes been factored into the calculation?

(Richard Barrett) Yes, that is the total cost to the Council.

Who is the new contract being offered to?

(Councillor M Stephenson) Veolia

(Lisa Hastings) To clarify, the contract has not yet been awarded. In May, two contractors were involved in the process; however, following that stage, only one formal submission was received. In accordance with procurement regulations, a 10-day standstill period is required once a contract is awarded, during which any challenges may be submitted. This process must be followed even in cases where only a single contractor has submitted a bid. Officers have undertaken a thorough review of all aspects of the contract to ensure due diligence. Following the Cabinet’s decision in November and the subsequent awarding of the contract, a significant amount of implementation work remains.

Questions by Members:

Answers:

Once the waste has been collected, what happens to it?

(Councillor Smith) Black sack waste is transported to the Endeavour facility in Rivenhall, where it is thermally treated and converted into electricity. Plastic and cardboard materials are sent for recycling, while food waste is processed into biofuel.