Agenda item

That:

·       Amendment 1 proposed – New CIL charging schedule: Officers recommend that the update to the CIL charging schedule be included in the 2026-2029 service plans when there is officer resource and service budget available to cover the time and costs of completing the update, not in the current years’ service plan.

·       Amendment 2 proposed – Commercial cinema to Watersmeet: Officer recommendation is not to include the proposed amendments of exploring outsourcing Watersmeet to a commercial operator or any other operating model but instead to focus on delivering the existing Watersmeet business plan and to continue its current trajectory towards cost neutrality.

·       Amendment 3 proposed – Rescue Plan for Rickmansworth Aquadrome: The proposed amendment is unnecessary as the Aquadrome Programme is already listed as a project within the Natural Infrastructure Service Plan and covers all aspects of the Aquadrome.

·       Amendment 4 proposed – Mitigate rise in fly tipping: There is no evidence that this is the case. No changes have been made to Recycling Centre operations, and those being consulted on should, if brought in, bring forward a greater level of recycling so it does not need to be included in the service plan.

·       Amendment 5 proposed – Increase take-up of trade waste service: Officer recommendation is not to include this as a project, as we already offer a service in line with Simpler Recycling.

The committee considered the report detailing proposed amendments to the Service Plans for the period 2025-28.

Members were advised that the Service Plans had previously been approved by Council and that the amendments before the Committee reflected updated information, policy developments and operational considerations. Officers explained the rationale for each proposed amendment, including matters relating to the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Charging Schedule, Fly Tipping mitigation, Aquadrome related proposals, and trade waste services.

Members debated the timing and prioritization of a review of the CIL Charging Schedule noting the relationship between CIL, Section 106 agreements and the Local Plan timetable. Concerns were expressed that delays to the Local Plan could postpone the implementation of a revised charging schedule, with potential implications for infrastructure funding. Officers advised that work on a revised charging schedule would commence once the necessary budget provision had been agreed and that the timetable needed to be realistic and achievable.

Members also discussed proposed amendments relating to fly-tipping and trade waste services. Officers advised that the Council’s approach to fly-tipping would be subject to further detailed reporting and that the trade waste service was currently operating on a cost neutral basis, primarily serving schools, charities and other eligible organisations. It was confirmed that officers did not consider the inclusion of trade waste expansion as a project within the Service Plan to be justified at this time.

Councillor Oliver Cooper proposed the following amendment:

“To bring forward the timetable for completion of the CIL Charging Schedule review from 2026/78 to 2025/26.”

On being put to the vote the amendment FELL, the voting being For 4, Against 8. However, the Chair reiterated that the CIL charging regime had been included in the service plan.

The Chair proposed the acceptance of the amendments as detailed in the agenda pack except for amendment 3 whereby a subsequent amendment was raised.

Amendment 1 within the report was put to the vote and declared CARRIED by the Chair, with the voting being unanimous.

Amendment 2 within the report was put to the vote and declared CARRIED by the Chair, with the vote being unanimous.

Councillor Stephen Giles-Medhurst proposed an amendment to Amendment 3.

“To progress physical improvements including works to paths and access with an intention to move the project forward rather than leave it open ended.

Environmental and safety considerations such as ensuring works complied with flood risk requirements with officer led assessments and permits where required.

A requirement that asbestos considerations be explicitly built into the Aquadrome works at Service Plan level.”

Following discussion, the Chair proposed that, rather than adopting the amendment in full, officers be requested to review the matters raised and bring forward appropriate proposals or reports through the relevant governance processes where necessary. This approach was agreed by general assent.

Amendment 4 within the report was put to the vote and declared CARRIED by the Chair, with the voting being For 8, Against 4.

Amendment 5 within the report was put to the vote and declared CARRIED by the Chair, with the voting being For 8, Against 4.