Loading
There is no summary of this meeting yet. Summaries are written once the council publishes the minutes, which are its official record of what a meeting decided. They usually appear a few weeks after the meeting.
Apologies had been received from Committee Members County Councillors Corinna Kenyon-Wade, Sian Cox Liz Rijnenberg, Adrian Jones and Graham Breeze, from Cabinet Member County Councillors Sandra Davies, Raiff Devlin and James Gibson Watt and from Officers Debra Jones and James Chappelle. County Councillor Chloe Masefield noted that they would need to leave the meeting at 3pm.
There were no disclosures of interest by Members relating to items to be considered at the meeting
The Committee did not receive any disclosures of prohibited party whips which a Member has been given in relation to the meeting in accordance with Section 78(3) of the Local Government Measure 2011.
The Committees received the report today in response to challenges which had emerged following the implementation of the Waste Recycling Route Optimisation. · The Chair placed on record the Committees’ recognition of the strength of feeling and emotion surrounding the issue, acknowledging that many residents and communities across Powys had experienced frustration due to service performance failings in recent months. The Chair also acknowledged that it had been a difficult period for Waste and Recycling staff and recognised the efforts made by staff during the disruption. · Whilst the broad context and background to the situation were understood, the purpose of the meeting was to examine the matter in greater depth and gain a fuller understanding of what had occurred. Background provided by the Portfolio Holder for Legal and Regulatory Services: · The Portfolio Holder for Legal and Regulatory Services had assumed responsibility for the Waste and Recycling portfolio approximately two months earlier, following the Council’s Annual General Meeting. · The implementation of the Route Optimisation programme had resulted in a period of poor service reliability, causing inconvenience to residents and damage to the Council’s reputation. · Service reliability had begun to improve with collection performance returning to levels comparable to, or better than, the same period in the previous year. · The route review had originally been identified as a means of achieving savings through the rationalisation of routes, but periodic reviews were also necessary to reflect housing growth, changes in demand and uneven workloads across existing routes. · The complexity of the route optimisation process was highlighted, particularly within a large rural county where different vehicle types were required to serve varying road networks and collection areas. · Observations within the review regarding staff engagement were acknowledged and it was accepted that consultation with crews during the route design process could have been stronger. Subsequent route amendments had been informed by operational feedback from crews. · A shortage of vehicles was identified as a significant factor contributing to the initial implementation difficulties; delays in the delivery of new vehicles had reduced service resilience during the transition to the new routes. · The impact of the rollout had not been comparable across the county, with some areas experiencing significantly greater disruption than others, particularly in parts of North Powys. · Recovery measures had been implemented, including securing additional vehicle capacity, strengthening management arrangements, enhancing support for Bank Holiday working and providing regular updates to Members. · Feedback received from councillors and residents had assisted in identifying local issues and supporting service recovery efforts. · Ongoing challenges were associated with Bank Holiday collections, these issues pre-dated route optimisation and were not unique to Powys, though they were amplified by the introduction of new collection days and routes. · The Cabinet had agreed to strengthen performance expectations by reducing the missed collection target from 1% to 0.2%, reflecting the level of performance that had routinely been achieved prior to the rollout. · Opportunities were highlighted to improve the use of digital and in-cab technology, particularly in relation to assisted collections and isolated properties. · It was recognised that the initial phase of implementation had not delivered the level of service expected, but improvements had been made and important lessons had been identified regarding preparation, staff engagement, communication and the management of major service change. Queries Raised by Committee Response Received Project Purpose and Strategic Rationale Clarification was sought on the original purpose of the route optimisation project and what it was intended to achieve. The project had initially been linked to achieving savings but had evolved to address wider service pressures, including housing growth, changing waste streams, increasing recycling rates, uneven workloads and the need to improve resilience and efficiency. It was explained that a number of operational changes had taken place over recent years, including depot and crew mergers, which had highlighted inconsistencies in route workloads. Some routes had spare capacity, whilst others carried significantly higher recycling volumes, demonstrating the need for route optimisation to achieve a more balanced and efficient service across the county. It was acknowledged that the implementation had caused disruption and an apology was offered to residents and Members affected. Officers advised that, whilst lessons had been learned, service disruption following major route changes was not uncommon and had been experienced by other local authorities. It was noted that performance had now returned to levels comparable with the previous year, with bank holiday arrangements having been a significant contributing factor to the difficulties experienced. Assurance was provided that the disruption experienced in Powys was not unique and that similar projects elsewhere had often taken between three and six months, and in some cases considerably longer, to stabilise. A question was raised regarding whether route planning had adequately accounted for new housing developments and workforce changes. Housing growth had been one of the principal drivers for route optimisation. Officers advised that staff received training before undertaking collection duties and that route reviews would continue on a more targeted basis in response to future changes. A question was raised regarding the extent to which the Council's Sustainable Powys principles had informed the project. Officers acknowledged that stronger application of co-design, engagement and sustainable working principles would have strengthened the project. It was accepted that these principles should inform future service transformation and change programmes. Further clarification was requested regarding historical variations between collection rounds and whether these had now been addressed. It was explained that significant differences had existed for some time between route workloads and completion times. Officers explained that some collection rounds had historically been completed significantly earlier than others and that route optimisation had sought to create a fairer balance of workload across crews. It was acknowledged that addressing those variances had been a long-term challenge and that ongoing route reviews would continue. Project Governance and Risk Management It was suggested that project risks should have been identified and mitigated before implementation. It was accepted that stronger risk identification and mitigation could form part of future learning. It was asked why the changes had not been introduced incrementally and whether formal impact assessment and project management arrangements had been in place. Officers advised that the scale and complexity of the county made phased implementation difficult. A project plan and project team had been in place, but it was acknowledged that project governance, risk management and formal controls could have been stronger. Risks had largely been managed through project meetings rather than a formal risk register and there had been no formal dependency mapping process. Officers acknowledged that risk management arrangements had not been sufficiently formalised and stronger project management disciplines would have strengthened delivery. Were appropriate impact assessments and risk assessments undertaken before implementation, including consideration of the impact on residents, communities and operational staff. Officers confirmed that project planning arrangements had been in place. However, governance arrangements, risk registers, escalation processes and project management disciplines had not been sufficiently formalised given the scale of the change programme. Members highlighted this as a key lesson learned. Concern was expressed that issues relating to fleet resilience, operational readiness, workforce capacity and supervision had not been fully addressed before implementation. Officers acknowledged that a number of assumptions had been made regarding vehicle availability, staffing and operational readiness. It was accepted that greater contingency planning and stronger project controls would have been beneficial. Clarification was sought regarding who had acted as Senior Responsible Owner (SRO) for the project and whether an appropriate governance structure had been established. Officers advised that governance arrangements had been in place through a project group. However, it was acknowledged that there had not been a clearly identified Senior Responsible Owner operating in line with recognised project management best practice. Members highlighted the need for clearer accountability and formal escalation arrangements for future major projects. Members questioned how significant operational issues should be escalated where there was a risk of serious reputational damage to the Council. Officers recognised that operational matters could escalate into strategic and reputational risks. Members reiterated the need for clearer escalation arrangements, including requirements for Senior Responsible Owners and senior managers to escalate significant concerns when appropriate. Route Design and Implementation A query was raised regarding whether frontline staff had been sufficiently involved in the route design process and whether learning had been taken from other authorities. It was acknowledged that engagement with operational staff could have been stronger and that this was a key lesson learned. Route changes had subsequently been informed by staff feedback. Officers advised that benchmarking and support from WRAP Cymru had been utilised and that earlier external challenge would have been beneficial. It was noted that Powys' geography, topography and rurality created greater operational challenges than many other authorities. Concern was raised that, despite these recognised challenges, WRAP benchmarking data indicated that Powys crews were expected to complete higher workloads than comparable rural authorities. Route modelling and validation exercises had indicated that the proposed workloads were achievable. However, benchmarking suggested that some routes may have been too ambitious. Officers advised that routes were being reviewed continuously and refined using operational feedback and performance monitoring. Officers advised that routes were being reviewed continuously using operational feedback from crews, with adjustments being made to vehicle capacity assumptions, workloads and route allocations where necessary. It was acknowledged that the benchmarking data indicated some routes had proved too demanding, although this had varied across the county. It was emphasised that route optimisation was an ongoing process, with performance being monitored and refined regularly to ensure workloads remained realistic and sustainable. Officers also noted that collection volumes could fluctuate significantly due to seasonal factors, resident behaviour and external events, all of which needed to be taken into account when reviewing route performance. Why was the route optimisation rolled out across the county at the same time rather than being implemented incrementally, allowing issues to be identified and resolved gradually. Officers advised that implementation across the county was considered necessary because collection days and routes were being reconfigured as a whole system. However, it was acknowledged that an incremental approach may have provided greater opportunity to identify and resolve operational issues before full implementation. Officers recognised this as a lesson for future service transformation projects. Members questioned whether implementation had proceeded because communications materials had already been produced and distributed rather than because operational readiness had been achieved. Officers acknowledged that the implementation timetable had been influenced by communication requirements and household notification arrangements. It was asked why the route changes had been introduced shortly before Easter and a series of bank holidays. Officers advised that there was no ideal implementation period, as different parts of the year carried different operational risks. It was acknowledged that, with hindsight, alternative timings may have reduced some implementation pressures. Operational Management and Service Recovery Members questioned whether the principal issues appeared to relate to operational management and supervision rather than route design. Officers agreed that management capacity and supervisory resilience had contributed significantly to the problems experienced, particularly within the north of the county. While three supervisors were in post at the commencement of the rollout, two subsequently went on sick leave shortly after implementation began. This unforeseen challenge significantly reduced local supervisory capacity at a critical stage of the programme and placed additional pressure on operational management arrangements. In response, additional supervisory and management resources had been introduced, and were considered to be one of the factors contributing to service recovery. Vulnerable Residents and Assisted Collections Concern was raised regarding the impact of the changes on vulnerable residents, assisted collection users and digitally excluded residents. It was acknowledged that assisted collection users had experienced issues, particularly where route changes meant crews were unfamiliar with local arrangements. Officers confirmed that assisted collection data had been incorporated into route planning and advised that future in-cab technology would improve identification and management of these collections. It was confirmed that missed collections could be reported by telephone as well as online. To what extent were vulnerable residents and assisted collections factored into the modelling prior to rollout. Officers confirmed that assisted collections had been incorporated into route planning and included within the information provided to crews. However, many arrangements relied on local knowledge and informal agreements which were not always formally recorded. Officers acknowledged that stronger staff engagement during planning would have helped capture this local knowledge. Future in-cab technology would help improve consistency and management of assisted collections. Missed Collections and Customer Communication Concern was raised that the reported figure of households affected by the rollout may have understated the true impact. Officers advised that the 5% figure was an estimate based on known service disruption and that impacts varied significantly across the county. Clarification was sought on the use of reported missed collections as a performance measure and on how reports of missed collections were managed. Reported missed collections represented the most consistent and comparable source of performance data available. Officers acknowledged that systems for managing repeated missed collections had not operated effectively during the busiest periods. New processes had since been implemented to record, track and resolve reported issues more effectively. Members questioned how "missed collections" were defined and whether reporting was consistent. Officers advised that only collections formally reported through the Council's systems were included within performance reporting. Concerns were raised regarding communication with residents, confidence in reporting systems and whether all reported issues were being acted upon. Officers accepted that communication and customer contact arrangements had not always met expectations during the disruption. Improvements to customer communication, digital systems, performance monitoring and transformation governance were being taken forward through the wider transformation programme. Members raised concerns that residents often received no feedback after reporting a missed collection and questioned how reports were communicated between the service and customer contact teams. Officers acknowledged weaknesses in communication processes during the disruption period. It was recognised that feedback loops between operational teams and customer services had not always functioned effectively and improvements were being developed through the transformation programme. Financial Matters Clarification was sought regarding the financial implications of the project, including the relationship between identified savings, grant funding and recovery costs. Officers advised that the original £105,000 saving target remained achievable and was now supported through Extended Producer Responsibility funding. It was reported that many recovery costs were temporary rather than recurring. Officers agreed to provide Members with further detailed financial information. WRAP Review Findings Clarification was sought regarding the key conclusions of the WRAP review.; Was the route optimisation software sufficiently robust and appropriate for the project, how was its effectiveness assessed, what limitations were identified, and has it delivered the intended service improvements and financial benefits. Officers advised that the WRAP review had found no fundamental flaws in the route optimisation methodology and had supported the principles used in the route design process. However, the rollout had highlighted the importance of stronger project management arrangements when delivering significant service change. Wider Service Impacts Members queried whether difficulties within domestic waste collection services had begun to affect commercial waste collection operations. Officers acknowledged that impacts had been experienced within commercial collections and advised that further work was being undertaken to improve resilience across both domestic and commercial operations. Committee Conclusion Members reflected on whether lessons learned from the route optimisation exercise had implications beyond the Waste and Recycling Service. It was concluded that whilst the route optimisation exercise had focused on a specific service, many of the lessons identified related more broadly to project management, governance, risk management, stakeholder engagement and organisational learning across the Council. Members noted that the recommendations were therefore intended to support improvements both within the Waste and Recycling Service and across future Council transformation programmes.
The Committee endorsed: • The establishment of improved governance, risk management and oversight arrangements for significant service changes. • The service's ongoing work to improve performance and stabilise collections following the implementation issues. The Committee welcomed: · The acknowledgement and apologies provided by officers for the disruption caused to residents. · The willingness of officers to reflect on lessons learned and accept areas where improvements were required. · The introduction of daily crew debriefs and increased engagement with frontline staff. · Plans to introduce enhanced digital in-cab technology to support assisted collections and improve route information. · The establishment of the HTR Transformation Board to strengthen project delivery, governance and service improvement. · The commitment to provide further financial information and transparency regarding the route optimisation programme. The Committee requested: • A clearer and more robust business case and project brief for future major service changes. • Formal project management arrangements, including clear governance, accountability, risk assessment and escalation processes. • Greater involvement of frontline staff, elected members and stakeholders in future service redesigns. • Further information regarding the financial model underpinning route optimisation, including the relationship between projected savings, grant funding and actual costs incurred, together with a breakdown of the recurrent and non-recurrent costs associated with the recovery programme. • Improved tracking, monitoring and reporting of missed collections. • A consistent definition of a "reported missed collection" and assurance that performance data is recorded consistently. • Better communication with residents regarding service disruptions and the resolution of reported issues. • Continued monitoring of the impact on vulnerable residents and assisted collection users. The Committee remained unconvinced about: • The reliance on reported missed collection data as a complete measure of service failure. • The clarity of the original objectives of the route optimisation programme and whether those objectives had remained consistent throughout the project. • The adequacy of the project's governance, risk management and oversight arrangements. • The rationale for the timing of the implementation immediately before the Easter and bank holiday period. • The transparency and clarity of the financial information presented within the report. • The extent to which operational readiness had been sufficiently tested before implementation. • Whether known risks relating to fleet availability, staffing capacity and supervisory resilience had been adequately addressed before rollout. The Committee expressed concern about: • The reputational damage caused to the Council as a result of the service disruption. • The impact on residents who experienced repeated missed collections, particularly in North Powys. • The effect of the service failures on vulnerable residents and those receiving assisted collections. • Insufficient engagement with frontline operational staff during the design phase of the project. • Weaknesses in project governance, including the absence of a formal risk register and clear separation between project oversight and project delivery. • Management and supervisory capacity issues within the waste service, particularly in the northern depot area. • Communication failures, including inaccurate information issued to some households and delays in responding to reported problems. • The handling and monitoring of missed collection reports and the resulting loss of confidence amongst some residents. • The lack of clear financial reporting regarding savings, additional costs and budget implications. • The possibility that operational vulnerabilities were already known before implementation but were not adequately mitigated. Recommendations: • That all future major service change programmes and projects are supported by a formally approved project brief and business case, aligned to recognised public-sector best practice, setting out the purpose, outcomes, impacts, risks and delivery approach. • That, following approval, major service change programmes and projects are delivered through a formal governance framework with clear accountability, oversight, risk management, stakeholder engagement and implementation readiness reviews. • That all major service transformation and redesign projects apply the Sustainable Powys principles from the outset, with evidence-based decision-making throughout project development and delivery. • The Committee recommended that future service reviews and transformation projects use benchmarking, external learning and good practice, with lessons learned formally captured and applied to future improvements. • The Committee recommended that the Council assess the impact of service changes on vulnerable residents, including assisted collection users and digitally excluded residents, and ensure any disproportionate impacts are identified, monitored and mitigated throughout service review, planning and implementation. • That the service strengthens its missed collection management, communication and customer contact arrangements by ensuring that: • all missed collections are recorded consistently; • repeat missed collections are identified, monitored and investigated; • actions taken are tracked through to resolution; • vulnerable and assisted-collection households receive appropriate prioritisation; • residents receive timely and accurate updates on the status of their reports; • customer-facing communications and reporting systems accurately reflect the service being provided; and • performance data is regularly reviewed to identify trends and prevent recurring failures.
Councillors must say when they have a personal link to something being discussed, such as a job, a property or a family member. A prejudicial interest is one strong enough that the councillor usually leaves the room and takes no part.
Declarations are read from the minutes once they are published.
Lists the council's current councillors only. Co-opted members, officers and former councillors aren't shown.