PRESENT: Councillors Derek Sharp (Chairman), David Coppinger (Vice-Chair), Marion Mills, Nicola Pryer and Ed Wilson (sub for Lynda Yong).

Officers: Tanya Leftwich, Naomi Markham, Michael Potter and David Thompson.

Apologies were also received from Martin Fry (MRF&A / City University).

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

Councillor Marion Mills declared a personal interest in item 7 of the agenda (savings section of the report) as she sat on two management committees – one in Pinkneys Green and the other at 4 Marlow Road.

The Chairman informed everyone present that the meeting was being recorded and would be made available on the RBWM website.

MINUTES

The minutes of the meeting held on 2 July 2015 were agreed as a correct record subject to the word ‘new’ being removed to read “The street lights programme was a rolling maintenance programme rather than looking at specific areas in the Royal Borough.”

OPEN FORUM

The Chairman informed everyone present that the prime objective of the Sustainability Panel was to save energy and carbon tax for the Council and ratepayers but also to looked at new technology that would benefit everyone involved.

STREETLIGHTING LED REPLACEMENT PROJECT UPDATE

The Chairman welcomed the Interim Contracts & Commissioning Lead, David Thompson, to the meeting and invited him to present to the Panel. The following points were noted:

• Year of the Light.
• Background.
• Project Scope.
• Benefits.
• Tender & Specification Considerations.
• Timescale.

In the ensuing discussion, the following points were noted:

• That there were 14279 street lights across the Royal Borough.
• That it would be a light for light replacement programme. Any additional lights that were needed would be funded by the capital programme.
• That proposals from suppliers would be sought before priority areas were decided upon. It was noted, however, that the lights on the larger columns burned more energy so it would make sense to start with their replacement to LED.
• That the same contractor would be used to save any duplicated work.
• That putting in new columns or the cabling in columns took the time.
• Councillor Mills raised one of her residents concerns about the lighting at zebra crossings and the need for adjustments to lights / shielding.
• That street lighting was currently an unmetered half hourly supply which is monitored by a PECU array. It was noted that 480 lights were in some form of management system but that the rest were currently unmetered.
• That the aim was for a 63% reduction in energy use which was currently 6,194,719 kwh’s.
• That the new lights would be dimmable via a live connection. It was noted that Reading had dimmed their streetlights by 40% and Westminster 30% and that it would be down to the Royal Borough to decide which level of lighting they preferred. The Panel was informed that some of the street lights in the Borough could be left alone at an agreed standard.
• That the same white LED lights were proposed to be used on heritage land although if concerns were received the 300 lights could be left out of the project.
• The Chairman explained that he had received some feedback from his residents who were concerned about light pollution. It was noted that the design company were doing work to ensure the right lighting would be installed.
• That other projects concerning Council buildings could take place once the current building LED project had been completed.
• Councillor Wilson suggested that the Panel could supply the Interim Contracts & Commissioning Lead with a list of roads where accidents had occurred / where blackspots in their wards were. This would help highlight areas to be prioritised and incorporated in the project from an improving road safety point of view.
  
The Chairman thanked the Interim Contracts & Commissioning Lead for his update.

FOOD WASTE PROGRESS UPDATE

The Chairman welcomed the Waste Strategy Manager, Naomi Markham, to the meeting and invited her to present to the Panel. The following points were noted:

• How much food waste is currently recycled?
• What happens to recycled food waste?
• What is being done to increase food waste recycling?
• Food waste bags.
• Stickers inside rubbish bins.
• GreenRedeem rewards for recycling food waste.
• Next steps.

In the ensuing discussion, the following points were noted:

• That in 2014/15 1,634 tonnes of food waste were collected for recycling and that 30,961 tonnes of rubbish were collected from households in the same year.
• That food waste was taken to Agrivert in Oxfordshire where it was reprocessed through an Anaerobic Digestion Process. The end product of this process was electricity which was fed into the National Grid to power local homes, and fertiliser which was used in local farmland.
• That a borough wide food waste campaign started in September 2015 and hoped to receive a 30% response rate.
• That food waste bags and stickers to go inside rubbish bins were being distributed to local residents to encourage them to recycle more.
• That GreenRedeem had increased its rewards to 50 points per month as part of the recycling incentive scheme.
• The Chairman explained that this scheme had come before the Panel two – three years ago and that it had been stated then that if the food waste bags were not supplied the take-up would be minimal which he believed had been the case. The Chairman went onto explain that whilst he felt the sticker to go inside bins to be a good idea he believed the years supply of food waste bags would be used inappropriately and should therefore be supplied on a weekly basis.
• The Waste Strategy Manager informed the Panel that they were relaunching the scheme and providing the food waste bags to make recycling food quick and easy. It was noted that additional food waste bags could be collected from libraries, the Town Hall, York House and if the supply of bags was felt to be successful a second delivery could be arranged as an on-going service.
• The Chairman felt the scheme needed to be incentivised with a few more GreenRedeem points.
• Councillor Mills stated that she felt it to be a shame that residents had to go onto the website every month to click a button rather than being able to simply register once.
• The Vice-Chair suggested that his fellow Panel Members visited the recycling site in Oxfordshire as he felt it was worth seeing.
• The Vice-Chair explained that an option to help encourage residents to recycle food waste would be to collect the black bins every two weeks as was done in neighbouring authorities but that this was not something the Royal Borough had any intention of doing.
• Councillor Pryer questioned whether scented bin liners were an option to those residents concerned about smells. The Waste Strategy Manager agreed to look into this further. It was noted that carbon filters could also be used in indoor caddies.
• Councillor Wilson explained that the idea of a recycling day had come to him following his previous residence in the US. The Panel was informed that one of the marketing gimmicks used in the US was to take photos of people recycling and to name them.
• That approximately 10,000 bins needed to be resupplied to residents in the Royal Borough.
• That it cost the Council £46 per tonne to recycle and £103 per tonne for landfill.
  
The Chairman thanked the Waste Strategy Manager for her update.

UPDATE FROM THE ENERGY REDUCTION MANAGER

The Energy Reduction Manager referred the Panel to pages 1-20 of the agenda and explained that the report provided an update and overview of the progress being made to deliver the Panel’s energy reduction strategy. It was noted that the report also provided detail on the key deliverables over the coming months.

The key areas covered were noted as follows:
• Corporate Building LED Lighting Upgrade.
• Final update on 2014/15 action plan.
• Energy performance 2015/16.
• MITIE EPC 7 month review.
• Thames Valley Athletics Centre – potential new solar PV site.
• Work planned over the next period.
In the ensuing discussion, the following points were noted:

• That the Corporate Building LED Lighting Upgrade would commence in Hines Meadow Car Park as the lights there were on 24/7.
• That a proposal to dim down the lights over parking bays after a certain time be installed that also increase to full light once someone arrived.
• That during the tender a third party contractor had been employed to survey the light fittings and it had been found that some fittings needed further investigations.
• That the Customer Service Contact Centre needed reminding to switch the monitoring system on in the Reception area of the Town Hall. The Energy Reduction Manager explained that his contact was the Infrastructure Specialist, Neil Ackroyd and that he would investigate in order to enlighten the Chairman as to why it had taken so long to get the monitoring system up and running.
• The Chairman questioned why the cemetery energy costs were increasing compared to the Library which was open more and costing less. The Energy Reduction Manager explained was because the lights in the cemetery were being left on and were not being monitored properly.
• It was noted that the energy usage at the Grenfell Park fountain was also increasing because of the café. It was noted that money for the energy usage would be received via the rates being charged. It was noted that the café would not be paying per kilowatt hour used as there was not a sub-meter in place. The Energy Reduction Manager agreed to investigate into whether the terms of the lease could be changed to cover the increase in energy usage.
• That Windsor Coach Park gas usage was mainly due to the supply of hot water to the toilets.
• That work planned over the next period included:
  o Ensuring the LED lighting project commences smoothly.

  o Arranging site visits for Adopt a building.

  o Creating a water consumption baseline.

  
  RESOLVED Unanimously that:
  i) Members noted the progress made and commented on the proposed work plan.

DATE OF FUTURE MEETINGS

It was noted that the dates of future meetings had been scheduled as follows (7.30pm in the Town Hall):

• Monday 30 November 2015
• Thursday 21 January 2016
• Monday 14 March 2016
• Monday 16 May 2016

LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1972 - EXCLUSION OF THE PUBLIC

To consider passing the following resolution:-

“That under Section 100(A)(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the public be excluded from the remainder of the meeting whilst discussion takes place on item 9 on the grounds that it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraphs 1-7 of part I of Schedule 12A of the Act".