Agenda item

 To consider the recommendations of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee.

That the Grass Cutting Scrutiny Review Report, attached to the report at Appendix A, including recommendations 1-6 as set out in Paragraph 3.1 of the covering report, be APPROVED.  

84.1           The report of the Head of Community Services, circulated at Pages No. 51-72, attached the report of the Grass Cutting Improvement Plan Working Group, as adopted by the Overview and Scrutiny Committee, and the Executive Committee was asked to consider and approve that report and its recommendations.

84.2           The Chair of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee advised that the Grass Cutting Improvement Plan Working Group had been set up to look at how grass cutting took place within the Borough. The Group had had three very productive meetings in quick succession, chaired by Councillor Cromwell. The meetings had heard from Tewkesbury Borough Council Officers and partners in Ubico about how grass cutting was carried out in Tewkesbury – it had also heard how grass cutting and grounds maintenance was carried out at West Oxfordshire which had given the Group some ideas that helped in devising the recommendations to improve the service. The Working Group felt confident that improvements had been made and that the Council’s Officers and Ubico were committed to making sure the problems faced in the previous year were minimised going forward. The Chair thanked the Members and Officers that had been involved with the Working Group for the considerable amount of effort they had put into making it a success.

84.3           The Head of Community Services drew attention to Page No. 61 of the report which set out the recommendations of the Working Group. He explained that some had already been actioned and others were underway. In terms of the specific actions he advised that:

1.  Ubico had already undertaken an audit of all equipment to ensure it was fit for purpose and had identified the equipment that would need to be purchased by year-end. In addition, the rounds had been reorganised in a more logical way which meant better use of staffing/resources to ensure the workforce was being used to its full capacity.

2.  Tablets were being purchased for electronic mapping.

3.  A small piece of land, currently maintained by Tewkesbury Borough Council on behalf of Gloucestershire County Council, had been identified for cutting twice-yearly. This would be closely monitored to see what the impact was in respect of that cutting regime, as opposed to the current eight to ten times a year that the rest of the Borough was cut. This would then inform the likely impact of a possible reduction in the number of cuts on highways land in the future.

4.  The grounds maintenance service for 2019/20 would continue to be provided on the same basis as the current year and delivery would be closely monitored to ensure it was fit for purpose.

5.  It was felt that there was still work to be done with partners and therefore it was recommended that a Member Group be established from the start of the new Council term to continue the work which had begun.

6.  Over the years, the Council had adopted extra land but the Ubico budget had not been uplifted at the same time. It was felt this needed to be reviewed periodically and, where appropriate, the grounds maintenance budget increased.

84.4          In addition, a number of Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) and standards had been adopted which would help the Council hold Ubico to account in terms of the grounds maintenance contract.

84.5           During the discussion which ensued, concern was expressed about the fact that Gloucestershire County Council only paid for two cuts of its land per year when Tewkesbury Borough Council actually cut the land eight to ten times. In response, the Head of Community Services confirmed that this was the reason that a piece of land had been identified for monitoring purposes; that discreet piece of land would be cut twice in the year and would be inspected regularly to see what the effects of less frequent cutting were. Legally the County Council was only required to cut highways land twice a year so that was all it was prepared to pay for. The Borough Council liked its area to look neat and tidy which was the reason it cut the grass more often; however, it did this at its own expense, so Members would need to consider whether it wished to continue that approach or whether it would prefer to only cut what the County Council would pay for. The Chair of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee explained that he had recently attended a seminar about the ‘Dorset Model’ which, following pressure from eco groups, had introduced a different way of grass cutting that meant less cutting and improved habitats for various species of insects, plants etc. In response to queries as to whether the County Council could get another contractor to cut the highways land, the Head of Community Services confirmed that it could but obviously then the grass would definitely only be cut twice a year which, whilst being in line with safety standards, may not be acceptable to the Borough Council in terms of the appearance of the Borough.

84.6           The Chief Executive explained that the frequency and cost of cutting highways land was something which had been flagged up by the Working Group but it had been decided that it should be addressed in the future following careful consideration and after the experiment with a piece of land to see how the grass grew when comparing two cuts to eight cuts. It was felt that this was an extremely sensible way forward to ensure the best outcome for the Borough and its residents. It was not unusual for the district Councils to have a different standard for its grass cutting than a County Council but, when making a decision on the way forward, Members would need to be mindful of value for money, likely complaints from residents, the ecological issues etc. In terms of ecology, a Member indicated that, in her area, the contractors tended to cut only the first couple of feet of a verge as this meant the wildlife and plants could flourish whilst still maintaining safety in terms of visibility splays etc. She felt that this could be something for the Borough Council to consider as it would also have the benefit of being cheaper with less cutting to do.

84.7           Referring to the information provided by the Head of Community Services that Ubico had identified equipment that would need to be purchased by year-end, a Member questioned whether this was within budget. In response, the Head of Finance and Asset Management explained that the purchase of equipment, as long as it was not small, would be approved through a capital allocation so a report to Executive Committee and Council would be required; within that, Ubico would have to explain what was needed, why and how much it would cost.

84.8           Accordingly, it was