ENVIRONMENT AND HIGHWAYS CABINET BOARD
15th JANUARY 2010
ENVIRONMENT SERVICES
REPORT OF THE HEAD OF STREETCARE – M. ROBERTS
INDEX OF REPORT ITEMS
PART 1 – Doc. Code: EHB-150110-REP-EN-MR
SECTION A – MATTERS FOR DECISION Report Item Page Nos Wards Affected 1. Shoreline Management Plan SMP2 2 - 16 Coedffranc West (Lavernock Point to St Ann’s Head) Briton Ferry West Baglan Sandfields east Sandfields West Margam
2. Margam Cemetery 18-21 All
SECTION A – MATTER FOR INFORMATION Report Item Page Nos Wards Affected
3. Purchase of two split body refuse 22-23 None vehicles – urgency action
EHB-150110-REP-EN-MR 1 PART 1 SECTION A, ITEM NO. 1
SWANSEA AND CARMARTHEN BAY COASTAL ENGINEERING GROUP
Shoreline Management Plan SMP2 (Lavernock Point to St Ann’s Head)
Purpose of Report.
To consider the draft coastal policies put forward for the Neath Port Talbot Coastline under the second generation Shoreline Management Plan and respond to the Client Steering Group and the Consultants undertaking the process.
Coastal Defence Planning
There are three tiers of coastal defence planning in Wales, each with different roles in the risk management process:
A Shoreline Management Plan (SMP): identifies general policies and general implementation requirements;
Strategy: identifies the nature and timing of works to be undertaken; and
Scheme: identifies the design and construction of major works to be carried out.
The SMP forms the highest tier in this process and sets the long-term direction for managing risk. The SMP has direct implications for the strategy and allocations for development in the Local Development Plan. The first generation of SMP’s, completed for the entire coastline of England and Wales, were large scale assessments of the risks associated with coastal erosion and flooding. There were three plans covering the South Wales Coastline with the Swansea Bay plan being published in 2001. SMP1 presented a long-term policy framework for coastal management. Some local strategic plans and studies have been carried out following the production of these SMP’s and where appropriate these have led to investment in projects.
The SMP’s are now due for review to ensure that they are updated to take account of the latest knowledge and information and the greater understanding of the risks we face in the future.
EHB-150110-REP-EN-MR 2 Shoreline Management Plans
A Shoreline Management Plan is a policy document for coastal defence management. It takes account of other existing planning initiatives and legislative requirements and is intended to inform wider strategic planning. The SMP has direct implications for the strategy and allocations for development in the Local Development Plan.
The main objective of an SMP is to identify sustainable long term management policies for the coast. It is likely that the plan will recommend changes to the current approach in some areas, however, it will help manage these so that the people, places, industry and wildlife affected can adapt at a reasonable pace. This approach avoids tying future generations into inflexible and expensive options for defence.
The shoreline management policies that will be considered are those defined by the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) and listed below:-
Hold the existing defence line by maintaining or changing the standard of protection. This policy includes scenarios where work or operations are carried out seaward of the existing defences (such as beach recharge, rebuilding the toe of a structure or building offshore breakwaters) to improve, maintain or change the standard of protection provided by the existing defence line. This policy also includes operations landward of the existing defences (such as the construction of secondary flood walls) where they form an essential part of maintaining the current coastal defence system. Advance the existing defence line by building new defences on the seaward side of the original defences. This policy is limited to those policy units where significant land reclamation is considered. Managed realignment by allowing the shoreline to move backwards or forwards, with management to control or limit movement (such as reducing erosion or building new defences on the landward side of the original defences). Managed realignment has been assigned to all dune areas since it is not sustainable to artificially fix a line of dunes. No active intervention, where there is no investment in coastal defences or operations. The Swansea and Carmarthen Bay Coastal Engineering Group have procured the services of an experienced consultant (Halcrow Group Limited) to review the first SMP and produce the updated SMP, termed SMP2. This second
EHB-150110-REP-EN-MR 3 generation Shoreline Management Plan will identify sustainable and deliverable solutions to manage the risks while working with natural processes wherever possible and is being developed for the coastline from St. Anne’s Head in Pembrokeshire to Lavernock Point in Vale of Glamorgan. (This is a combination of SMP1 Plans for Sub-cell 8b & 8c). (The Study Area - Appendix A)
The plan is lead by the Coastal groups on behalf of the Local Authorities and a Client Steering Group has been established to oversee the process which will ensure that future defence works along the entire stretch are managed in relation to their impact on one another.
Composition of the Client Steering Group
Council/Organisation Vale of Glamorgan Council Bridgend County Borough Council Neath Port Talbot County Borough Council City & County Swansea Carmarthenshire County Council Pembrokeshire County Council Pembrokeshire Coast National Park Authority Environment Agency Wales Keri Thomas Countryside Council for Wales Ministry of Defence (Qinetiq)
Observers Welsh Assembly Government Dyfed and Glamorgan Gwent Archaelogical Trust Cambria Archaeology National Trust
Technical Advisors Shoreline Management Partnership Ltd
An Elected Member Group (EMG) was also formed to sit above the Client Group and oversee the production of the Shoreline Plan. The intention was that the EMG provides an opportunity at each stage of the process for details to be scrutinised and allows elected members to engage in the process. In practice however due to other responsibilities on elected members for their individual authorities it has proved difficult to arrange meetings of this group.
EHB-150110-REP-EN-MR 4 A Key Stakeholder Group (KSG) comprising bodies with significant coastal interest was identified by the consultant during the early stages of the review. This list originally amounted to some 140 + names, and the main organisations involved are listed below:-
Utilities Network Rail Welsh Water
Military Landowners Ministry of Defence (Castlemartin Range, Air Defence Range Manobier, Penally Training Camp, Templeton Training Area) Qinetiq (Pendine Sands) RAF (RAF Pembrey Sands) Defence Estates
Major Infrastructure Corus UK Ltd (Port Talbot Steel works) South Hook LNG terminal company limited (Milford Haven) Chevron (Pembroke Refinery) TotalFinaElf UK Ltd (Milford Haven oil refinery) Petroplus Tankstorage Ltd (Milford Haven oil refinery) Murco Petroleum (Milford Haven refinery)
Power Stations RWE npower (Pembroke proposed power station CCGT plant at former power station in Pembroke Dock) npower (Aberthaw Power Station) Blue Circle Cement (Aberthaw) Barry Centrica (Sully) Baglan Energy (Baglan Bay Power Station) BP Margam, Longlands Lane (existing biomass power station) run by Eco2 on behalf of Western Bioenergy Baglan (proposed biomass power station)
Ports ABP Port of Swansea ABP Port Talbot Docks ABP Port of Barry Milford Haven Port Authority Neath Harbour Commissioners Port of Neath
EHB-150110-REP-EN-MR 5
Misc Cooke and Arkwright (Bridgend Agent for Crown Estate) CADW Neath Estuary Group Carmarthen Bay & Estuaries EMS Officer
It was agreed that Community and Town Councils should be included on the KSG list and invitations were sent out to the various bodies identified to attend Key Stakeholder Forums in both June and November 2009.
The Study Area
The coastline in South Wales varies considerably along its length in both its formation and the rate of loss and build-up that occurs due to natural processes, such as current, wind, tides and waves. The character of the South Wales coast is variable in elevation with cliffs, intertidal mud flats, extensive saltmarsh and sand dune habitats, wide sandy beaches and spectacular views. Historically the region’s coastal areas – its ports and fisheries, major resort towns and clusters of industry have been instrumental in driving its economy and today the region maintains a thriving maritime economy. The wide variety of habitats leads to a diverse range of human usage including recreational, industrial and residential. Over 80% of South Wales coastal habitats are designated as nationally and internationally important environment sites.
The extent of policy units has been defined following consideration of a number of factors including:
the character of the coast (both natural and human), coastal processes and operating authority boundaries. The plan annexed at Appendix B indicates the policies units for the Neath Port Talbot coastal strip.
The Shoreline Management Plan does not set policies for the management of issues such as development or land drainage, although land use, especially in the future, will be considered in the plan.
Draft Shoreline Management Plan policies to be tested were identified by the Halcrow project team, discussed at the CSG workshop on 6 and 7 October 2009 and presented to the Key Stakeholder Forum on 3 November 2009. Feedback from these meetings has been used to update the list of
EHB-150110-REP-EN-MR 6 draft policy options to test and was taken into account during assessment of alternative policy options.
During the assessment of alternative policies, consideration has been given to likely future coastal change, impact on coastal features, impact on the environment, socio-economic impact and assessment of whether the policies will achieve the SMP2 objectives. The combined impacts of adjacent policy scenarios have also been considered.
The preferred SMP2 policy for each policy unit in the Neath Port Talbot Coastal strip is given in Appendix C, along with the justification for its selection with the intention that comments are provided to the CSG for discussion and agreement in advance of preparation of the draft SMP document prior to a public consultation exercise in May 2010.
The intention is that the final SMP document will be published in December 2010, with the final plan being formally adopted by each partner organisation to demonstrate commitment to the policies for the joint management of the coast.
Financial Implications
Grant aid (via Carmarthenshire County Council) from the Welsh Assembly Government has been obtained to finance SMP2. Constituent Authorities i.e fee paying members of the Swansea Carmarthen Bay Coastal Group will be required to contribute equally to the balance, which is expected to be 15% of the outturn cost.
Consultation Outcome
Key stakeholders have been consulted regarding the policies on test and the draft policies annexed to this report developed from that exercise. Internal consultation between officers involved in the SMP2 process has also been undertaken.
Sustainability Appraisal
The Shoreline Management Plan is a long-term (100-year) strategy for managing the coastline sustainably.
EHB-150110-REP-EN-MR 7
Recommendation
It is recommended that Members endorse the proposed responses as set out in Appendix D to the draft Shoreline Management Plan for the Neath Port Talbot Coastline.
Reason for Proposed Decision
To enable officers to respond to the Chair of the Shoreline Management 2 Client Steering Group regarding the draft policies put forward for the Neath Port Talbot coastline.
List of Background papers
None
Wards Affected
Coedffranc West Briton Ferry West Baglan Sandfields east Sandfields West Margam
Officer Contact
Steve Jones, Drainage Manager Tel.No. 01639 686229 E.Mail: [email protected]
EHB-150110-REP-EN-MR 8 PART 1 SECTION A, ITEM NO. 1
SWANSEA AND CARMARTHEN BAY COASTAL ENGINEERING GROUP – COMPLIANCE STATEMENT
Shoreline Management Plan SMP2 (Lavernock Point to St Ann’s Head) -
(a) Implementation of Decision
The decision is proposed for implementation after the three day call-in period.
(b) Sustainability Appraisal
Community Plan Impacts
Economic Prosperity Positive Education and Life Long Learning Positive Better Health and Well Being Positive Environment and Transport Positive Crime and Disorder No Impact
Other Impacts
Welsh Language No Impact Sustainable Development Positive Equalities No Impact Social Inclusion No Impact
(c) Consultation
There has been no requirement under the Constitution for external consultation on this item.
EHB-150110-REP-EN-MR 9
Appendix A Swansea Carmarthen Bay SMP2 Study Area
EHB-150110-REP-EN-MR 10
Appendix B
Swansea and Carmarthen Bay Coastal Engineering Group Lavernock Point to St Anns Head SMP Review Neath Port Talbot Coast Line Policy Units
Outfall
EHB-150110-REP-EN-MR 11 Appendix C
Port Talbot
Policy Unit Draft preferred policy Justification Notes on policy sensitivity and uncertainties 0-20 20-50 50-100
6.1 Port Talbot Hold the line through maintenance and upgrading the existing Key drivers at this location are both the industrial use of the steelworks defences to ensure that the risk of flooding and erosion is hinterland and the risk of potentially contaminated land becoming managed. exposed to erosion and flooding. Under this policy, there would be continued protection of industrial sites to maintain local, regional and national economy and local employment, and continued protection of contamination areas. There are limited environment assets along this section of coastline, although there could be impacts on adjacent areas. However, this shoreline is already heavily modified and it is unlikely that if undefended it would revert to its original natural state. Without an influx of new sediment into the system, there is a risk that beach narrowing could occur, as the shoreline is held seawards of its natural position. This could increase the investment levels required to maintain the defences to a sufficient standard. There would, however, be loss of wreck sites and other local archaeology in the intertidal zone. Defence of such assets would not be technically sustainable nor would attract public funding; therefore potential mitigation measures, such as photographic logging or excavation would need to be considered.
Policy Unit Draft preferred policy Justification Notes on policy sensitivity and
EHB-150110-REP-EN-MR 12 0-20 20-50 50-100 uncertainties
6.2 Port of Port Hold the line through maintenance and upgrading the existing A key driver at this location is the industrial use of the hinterland. This policy is sensitive to the future Talbot defences to ensure that the risk of flooding and erosion is The dock structures themselves are not covered by the SMP, as management strategy for the Port of (including managed and dock function continues. they are not coastal defence structures, and their maintenance and Port Talbot as it is assumed that the River Avan) upgrade is the responsibility of the Port Authorities. The structures harbour structures would be do, however, provide a defence function and under this policy it is maintained, which is the assumed they would remain and the operational use of the port responsibility of the Port Authorities. would be retained, which also supports adjacent industries. Should this policy change, there There are limited environment assets along this section of would be significant impacts on the coastline, although there could be impacts on adjacent areas. There adjacent shoreline and further would, however, be loss of wreck sites and other local archaeology studies would be required in order to in the intertidal zone. Defence of such assets would not be inform future shoreline management. technically sustainable nor would attract public funding; therefore However, within the time-scale of potential mitigation measures, such as photographic logging or this SMP, even should the structures excavation would need to be considered. no longer be maintained, and the harbour no longer function, the structures would be expected to remain (potentially with breaches as they degrade) and continue to influence the shoreline.
EHB-150110-REP-EN-MR 13
Policy Unit Draft preferred policy Justification Notes on policy sensitivity and uncertainties 0-20 20-50 50-100
6.3 Port Talbot Hold the line through maintenance and upgrading the existing There are a large number of hinterland socio-economic assets at This policy is sensitive to the future Docks to defences to ensure that the risk of flooding and erosion is potential risk of flooding and erosion. There is also a risk that management strategy for both the Baglan managed. contaminated land could be exposed to erosion and flooding. The Port of Port Talbot and the Neath Burrows recommended policy is therefore to continue to protect these areas, Estuary. Should this policy change, (Aberavon through upgrading defences as necessary. there would be significant impacts Beach) Under this policy there would be no change in backshore position, on the adjacent shoreline and further which would remain fixed by defences. However, the foreshore studies would be required in order to would narrow and lower as sea level rises. This could increase the inform future shoreline management. investment levels required to maintain the defences to a sufficient standard. Due to the modified nature of the shoreline, and this section of the shoreline being bounded by the artificial headlands provided by Port Talbot docks and the River Neath training walls, this policy would not be expected to affect the wider shoreline. However, it would be sensitive to any changes in the Neath Estuary. 6.4 Baglan Enable the dune system to function naturally with minimal Here there has been some accretion associated with management This unit, its future evolution, and Burrows interference, but allow localised dune management if of the Neath estuary. There is, however a risk of coastal erosion the long-term sustainability of this necessary, through managed realignment. The dunes would and flooding to the industrial estate and power station. Therefore policy, is dependent upon the future provide the primary defence to the hinterland; however, a set- there will need to be monitoring and potential works to reduce the evolution and policy within the back defence line could be implemented if necessary. risk of dune blow-outs and breaches. The risk of contaminated land Neath Estuary and also the future Management would also be undertaken to manage risk of becoming exposed to erosion or flooding would also need to be management strategy of the Port of breaches developing. carefully managed. Port Talbot. The need for secondary defence line needs to be considered, to Should this policy change, there ensure flood risk is controlled, should the dunes not provide would be significant impacts on the sufficient protection. adjacent shoreline and further There are potential environmental benefits of allowing the dune studies would be required in order to system to evolve as naturally as possible. inform future shoreline management. Loss of potential development land however, dune management will control inundation. Potentially increased dune system. Management would ensure that areas of contamination are not breached.
EHB-150110-REP-EN-MR 14
Policy Unit Draft preferred policy Justification Notes on policy sensitivity and uncertainties 0-20 20-50 50-100
6.5 Neath Hold the line through maintenance and upgrading the existing Policy decisions within this unit depend upon future plans for the *This policy is dependent upon the Estuary defences to ensure that the risk of flooding and erosion is Neath Estuary as a whole, as this affects the level of investment future management strategy for the managed. Undertake maintenance dredging and maintain available and the source of funding for defence works and Neath Estuary as a whole. Therefore training walls*. to ensure that the port and other maintenance of the channel through provision of training walls and it is recommended that the feasibility leisure functions are maintained. dredging. In addition to the industrial value of the land there are of this policy option is reviewed as also potentially contaminated areas that may require protection, part of the next SMP review. regardless of future plans for the estuary. The policy decision here also has a Maintaining the training walls could have potential environmental significant impact on adjacent areas benefits by trapping large accumulations of sand within the and further studies would be system, which has, in the past, been used to recharge the beaches required in order to inform future of Crymlyn Burrows. Maintenance of the Neath low water channel shoreline management. It has been also affects the implementation of policy options on either side of assumed that under this policy the the estuary. Without maintenance the training walls would be dredging walls and channel would be expected to begin to fail within the short-term (0-20 years). It is maintained. Although adjacent likely they would continue to have some influence beyond this as policy decisions are unlikely to they are substantial structures which would degrade slowly. change, the implementation Ultimately, however, the channel could break through and be free measures may. to meander across the intertidal zone, potentially impacting on the adjacent shorelines. 6.6 Crymlyn Enable the dune system to function naturally with minimal This is a largely undeveloped dune system, which also affords This unit, its future evolution, and Burrows interference, but allow localised dune management if some protection to Crymlyn Bog behind. The dune system would the long-term sustainability of this (River Neath necessary, through managed realignment. be expected to remain generally stable, with few impacts on the policy, is dependent upon the future to Former BP wider shoreline There are, however, potential risks to the A483 evolution and policy within the tank farm) behind. The key policy driver is to allow the system to evolve Neath Estuary. naturally, whilst recognising the possible need to manage visitor pressures and risk dune breach. This could also include renourishment of the beach using dredged sand from the Neath (this depends on future plans for the Neath Estuary). Under this policy, there is a risk of periodic brackish intrusion of the freshwater Crymlyn Burrows SSSI. The brackish and increasingly saline habitat created, could have environmental benefits.
EHB-150110-REP-EN-MR 15 Policy Unit Draft preferred policy Justification Notes on policy sensitivity and uncertainties 0-20 20-50 50-100
6.7 Former BP Hold the line Consider removal of current defences This frontage formerly formed part of Crmylyn Burrows and This policy relies on the successful tank farm through (west of the outfall) and enable the dune therefore a policy driver is to reinstate this link. There are, decontamination of the site. Should maintaining the system to function naturally with however, potential contamination issues (hydrocarbons) due to this prove too difficult or too existing defences, minimal interference, but allow localised former industrial use. This site has also been identified as a expensive then long term the policy whilst dune management if necessary, through potential development site. may have to revert to hold the line. decontamination managed realignment. Under this policy, the long term aim is to allowing this section of Implementation of this policy is also of the site takes the dunes to behave naturally, as this would benefit the entire dune affected upon the future policy for place. system. Initially, however, there would need to be investigations to the Neath Estuary and Swansea determine the risk of contamination and implement Docks. decontamination measures as necessary. During this period, the contaminated areas would need to be protected. The future of this unit and the policy is dependent on future change to both the Neath Estuary and Swansea Docks.
EHB-150110-REP-EN-MR 16 Appendix D
Shoreline Management Plan SMP2 (Lavernock Point to St Ann’s Head)
Draft Policies Neath Port Talbot Coastline.
Policy Unit 6/1 The Authority supports the draft policy option
Policy Unit 6/2 The Authority supports the draft policy option
Policy Unit 6/3 The Authority supports the draft policy option
Policy Unit 6/4 The Authority supports the draft policy option
Policy Unit 6/5 The Authority support the option with the proviso that the words “to ensure that the port and other leisure functions are maintained” is added to the text of the draft preferred policy.
Policy Unit 6/6 The Authority supports the draft policy option
Policy Unit 6/7 Noted that the proposal with respect to the former BP Tank farm is to remove the existing defences (once the land behind is decontaminated) to re-establish the previous link between this area and the adjacent Crymlyn Burrows on the basis that the land is presently unsustainable for development. The Consultant to be made aware that this policy may have to be reviewed in the light of substantial future development proposed for the area.
EHB-150110-REP-EN-MR 17 PART 1 SECTION A, ITEM NO. 2
MARGAM CEMETERY
Purpose of Report
To seek Members’ approval for proposed burial arrangements in the new Childrens Garden of Remembrance area at Margam Cemetery.
Background
Members previously agreed to the construction of a separate Childrens Garden of Remembrance area within Margam Cemetery. Work on construction is completed and it was dedicated at the end of September 2009. Funding for the garden has come from the Bereavement Support Group in the Abertawe Bro Morgannwg Health Trust. This report seeks approval for the proposed fees and regulations to be applied to burials in the garden.
Under Articles 10 and 15 of the Local Authorities Cemteries Order 1988 the Council as burial authority can set the fees and conditions it deems are appropriate.
Options for fees
The Council operates 7 cemeteries including Margam and it is only at Margam that there has been sufficient area to create a Garden of Remembrance. Where a child is buried at the other cemeteries the family would purchase a grave at a current cost of £362 and pay a burial fee of £392. These purchased graves could possibly accommodate two further burials. The options for the Children’s Garden of Remembrance are:
Option 1: The Authority could charge the above fee for burials at the Garden of Remembrance per plot and allocate monies received to cemetery income. However, it is noted the grave space required for a childs burial is considerably less than a standard grave, similar to the size of a cremation plot.
Option 2: The charge for a cremation plot is £209 for purchase and £209 for burial of cremated remains. Alternatively, this charge could be applied and allocated to cemetery income.
EHB-150110-REP-EN-MR 18
Option 3: The burial fee only of £209 could be charged, and allocated to cemetery income.
Option 4: The Council could decide not levy a fee for the burial of a child in the Garden of Remembrance, but where a family chose to bury in other Council cemeteries then normal fees would continue to apply.
Comparison with other Authorities
There is a similar facility at Laleston Cemetery, Bridgend operated by Bridgend Council. Bridgend do not charge any purchase fee for the grave space or a burial fee. However, the families do not own the grave space; which remains in local authority ownership. There are no other similar cemeteries in South Wales.
Proposed Regulations
1 The grave will be excavated to accommodate a single burial only.
2 All interments including cremated remains to take place in plots allocated by Council.
3 The burial of a child is a very emotive subject and it is inevitable that various forms of memorabilia will be placed on the grave area. The Council’s rules and regulations should be amended to permit this to take place within the area set aside for the Garden of Remembrance at Margam Cemetery.
4 As the grave plots would be 1000mm long by 650mm wide, the type of memorial stone best suited to this size would be a small headstone as follows: Maximum height 530mm maximum width 430mm, located on concrete base, 460mm x 300mm x 75mm.
5 Should a family wish to erect a personal memorial, a memorial fee (currently £111) would be levied.
6 In the case of Option 4, ownership of the grave would remain with the Council and no Grant of Exclusive Right of Burial would be issued.
EHB-150110-REP-EN-MR 19 Sustainability Appraisal
Facilities for Remembrance contribute to community well-being and provide dedicated places for personal memorials.
Consultation
External consultation has taken place with the Bereavement Support Group with regard to the proposals.
Recommendation
It is recommended that, with respect to burial arrangements in the Childrens Garden of Remembrance at Margam;
i. Option 4 is approved with respect to fees; ii. The Council’s Cemetery Rules and Regulations be amended to reflect the proposals in the report.
Reason for Proposed Decision
To determine the Fees and Regulations to be applied to the Childrens Garden of Remembrance at Margam.
List of Background Papers
None
Wards Affected
All
Officer Contact
Colin Powell Principal Country Parks & Grants Officer Tel: 01639 686176 Email: [email protected]
EHB-150110-REP-EN-MR 20 PART 1 SECTION A, ITEM NO. 2
MARGAM CEMETERY – COMPLIANCE STATEMENT
(a) Implementation of Decision
The decision is proposed for implementation after the three day call-in period.
(b) Sustainability Appraisal
Community Plan Impacts Economic Prosperity No Impact Education and Life Long Learning No Impact Better Health and Well Being Positive Environment and Transport Positive Crime and Disorder No Impact
Other Impacts Welsh Language No Impact Sustainable Development No Impact Equalities No Impact Social Inclusion No Impact
(c) Consultation
There has been no requirement under the Constitution for external consultation on this item.
EHB-150110-REP-EN-MR 21 ITEM NO. 3 PART 2 SECTION B
The following Officer Urgency Action has been determined by the Head of Streetcare in consultation with the requisite Members for immediate implementation. This matter is for information only.
PURCHASE OF TWO SPLIT BODY REFUSE VEHICLES
Purpose of Report
To inform Members of an approval by Urgency Action in December 2009 to place orders so that additional waste strategy related funding allocated by the Welsh Assembly Government is spent within the required timescale.
Background
The Welsh Assembly Government has recently made available through the Regional Capital Access Fund an additional grant of £216,384, on the proviso that the funding must be spent by the end of February 2010.
It is a condition of the grant that expenditure is on capital items that promote the reuse, or recycling/composting of source separated municipal waste.
As part of the requirements for the funding an expenditure plan was submitted and subsequently approved by WAG. This plan identified the utilisation of the funding for the purchase of two split bodied refuse vehicles. Tenders were subsequently invited using the All Wales Framework Agreement details of which are attached.
The addition of these vehicles to the fleet will provide greater operational flexibility in the delivery of the collection service going forward.
Financial Implications
The total cost of the vehicles amounts to £364,846 (£182,423 each) which is funded by the £216,384 grant above and the remainder through funding identified in the Sustainable Waste Grant.
EHB-150110-REP-EN-MR 22
Officer’s Decision
To purchase 2no. split body refuse vehicles from the only compliant tenderer, i.e. Dennis Eagle Ltd.
List of Background Papers
None
Wards Affected
None
Officer Contact
Howell Beaton Waste Manager Tel. No. 01639 686381 e-mail: [email protected]
EHB-150110-REP-EN-MR 23