Skip to main content

Agenda item

Waste Fleet Replacement

Purpose

·         To review the Capital Fleet Replacement Programme and identify the vehicles for replacement in 2026/27.

·         To agree the next steps towards the decarbonisation of the waste services.

 

Cabinet Member

Councillor Andrea Pellegram, Cabinet Member for Environment and Regulatory Services

 

Lead Officer

Peta Johnson, Head of Waste and Environment.

Minutes:

The purpose of the report was to review the Capital Fleet Replacement Programme and identify the vehicles for replacement in 2026/27 and to agree the next steps towards the decarbonisation of the waste service.

 

The report was introduced by Councillor Andrea Pellergam, Cabinet Member for Environment and Regulatory Services, and Helen Martin, Director of Communities and Place. The report was introduced and the following points made:

  • The Council faced competing priorities in replacing its waste fleet, including the high capital cost, carbon reduction commitments, and the need to maintain reliable service delivery.
  • Due to the age and condition of the existing vehicles, repairing them was not feasible.
  • The report had proposed to look at replacing 31 vehicles, including purchasing one electric vehicle in the southern part of the district where charging infrastructure was available, with the remainder using diesel temporarily. Hydro-treated vegetable oil (HVO) would be used as a lower-carbon alternative to diesel where possible.

 

In questioning and discussion, the following points were noted:

  • It was confirmed that further financial information would be provided in the February budget report, with funding available and borrowing avoided.
  • The lead time for waste fleet replacement vehicles was long, creating urgency to place orders to ensure service continuity. It was confirmed that the Council was working to avoid the need for borrowing, using available balances, reserves, and projected revenue, but a definitive guarantee could not yet be provided due to uncertainties in the provisional local government finance settlement and business rates income. By the next Committee meeting on 3 February, more detailed financial information would be available to inform whether borrowing would be required for the waste fleet replacement programme.
  • Placing orders for the waste fleet would involve reserving production slots up to 12 months in advance, with specifications finalised during that period. Payments would be required upfront and on delivery. Officers advised that any adjustments or cancellations to orders could be managed, but the priority remained to organise revenue and capital funding to avoid the need for borrowing.
  • Concerns were raised regarding the possible inclusion of palm oil in HVO and the need for auditing or monitoring mechanisms to ensure environmental benefits. The report acknowledged these risks and indicated that the Council would develop an appropriate mechanism to monitor both the financial and climate implications of using HVO.
  • The Council was not yet in a position to fully transition to electric vehicles. The Gloucestershire Waste Partnership had not yet delivered significant joint action.
  • HVO costs were around 10–15% higher than diesel, amounting to approximately £71k extra per year.  Officers confirmed that HVO remained in the report as a temporary measure to mitigate carbon impact while EV adoption was limited, and that planning permission and site ownership issues could affect implementation timing, which was roughly comparable to the lead time for vehicle delivery.
  • £60,000 for a fuel bunker was already included in the capital programme. It was also noted that the new vehicles would include larger compartments for cardboard to improve recycling capacity.
  • Specific concerns from Members included:
    • the sourcing and environmental integrity of hydro-treated vegetable oil (HVO) including avoiding HVO derived from crops.
    • the limited proof-of-concept testing with only one electric vehicle, and whether lessons could be drawn from other authorities already operating electric or HVO fleets.
    • the absence of operational assumptions on vehicle lifespan, payload, and range. Members commented that financial considerations appeared to be the primary driver for limiting electric vehicle deployment.
    • a limited HVO supply and potential escalating costs.
    • cancellation policies for orders.
    • detailed financial analysis.
  • While the report acknowledged vehicle reliability and early replacement as positive outcomes, members felt insufficient evidence had been provided to assess alternative approaches, consider strategic county-wide solutions in the context of LGR, or fully understand the long-term implications for service delivery and environmental impact. Concerns were raised that without this information the Committee was ill-equipped to make a fully informed recommendation.

 

Councillor Joe Harris proposed endorsing the recommendations in the report to Cabinet and Councillor Michael Vann seconded the proposal.

Voting record:

For – 2, Against – 2, Abstain - 4

As there was no majority in favour the proposal fell. No recommendations to Cabinet were proposed.

 

Supporting documents:

 

Related Pages