Agenda item

To consider the update in respect of the performance of the grounds maintenance service.

48.1           Attention was drawn to the report of the Interim Head of Community Services, circulated at Pages No. 41-45, which provided an update in respect of the performance of the grounds maintenance service.  Members were asked to consider the report. 

48.2           The Environmental Health Manager advised that, in future, it was intended for a performance report for grounds maintenance to be brought to the Committee at the same time as the annual report on waste and recycling so that Members could consider all of the services carried out by Ubico on behalf of the Council.  Members were informed that Ubico currently maintained a total of 299 sites on behalf of the Council as well as eight private contracts which generated an income of approximately £10,000 for the Council.  All sites were maintained either once every two weeks or once every three weeks. 

48.3           In terms of tree maintenance, the legacy tree database system had been found to be very inefficient and, in December 2015, the Council and Ubico had implemented a new system using handheld GPS devices which pinpointed the location of trees and helped to speed up identification and assessment.  Between December 2015 and March 2016, 570 tree inspections had been carried out and six high risk trees had been identified, four of which had been removed completely and the other two had been pollarded.  Members were reminded that the Executive Committee had previously approved capital expenditure to replace equipment for delivery of the grounds maintenance service and, following a procurement exercise, new equipment had been purchased in March 2016 at a cost of £56,289.  The grounds maintenance budget for 2016/17, including overheads, was £426,705 and there had been a slight underspend of £9,160 during the first quarter.  Paragraph 4.2 of the report detailed the outcomes of the Association for Public Service Excellence (APSE) review into grounds maintenance and how the service compared to other local authorities in terms of value for money.  It was noted that an independent audit of Ubico was currently being carried out by Go Shared Services and was covering various aspects of the delivery of the service, particularly in relation to health and safety.  The outcome of the review would be shared with Members once it was available.

48.4           The Environmental Health Manager explained that members of the public were encouraged to use the electronic reporting system ‘Report It’ which was on the Council’s website.  This system linked directly to Ubico and it had led to a significant reduction in telephone calls to Customer Services; any calls which the Customer Services team did receive were logged using the same system.  During the first quarter of 2016/17, Ubico had dealt with 275 ‘Report It’ issues on grounds maintenance; it was noted that these were not complaints but reported issues on general grass cutting and grounds maintenance, requests for information etc.  Since February 2016, the Licensing and Systems Officer, Bhavdip Nakum, had been responsible for the grounds maintenance aspect of the contract between the Council and Ubico.  Work was currently underway to establish clear and measurable Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) for the service and it was intended that a report be brought to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee meeting in March to feedback on the progress which had been made.

48.5           A Member indicated that he often heard remarks about grass cutting and there had seemed to be a particular issue with picking up the cuttings over the summer months.  The representative from Ubico indicated that there was one piece of equipment which carried out box cutting but it was only used in the cemeteries, otherwise grass cuttings were not collected and there were no plans to introduce that.  The Environmental Health Manager explained that there had been an issue at the start of the season when some of the mows had been quite messy and that had taken some time to resolve.  A Member queried whether the machines had a mulching system and was advised that the majority did not, however, this would be addressed going forward as part of the replacement programme.   A Member noted that sites were maintained on a two or three weekly basis and he sought clarification as to whether this was in line with aspirations for the service.  The Ubico representative advised that two and three weekly maintenance was the target and was based on equipment.  Vehicles were assigned depending on the type of area; tractors took two weeks to complete their cycles whereas the ride-on mower took three weeks.  Going forward, performance in this area would be monitored through the KPIs.  The Member went on to question how quickly sites were revisited if they were missed, for example, if there was bad weather.  The Ubico representative confirmed that all sites were treated in the same way and, if one was missed, they would not carry on with the cycle until that site had been maintained unless there was an access or machinery problem affecting one particular round.  In terms of the quality of the cuts, he indicated that he would be happy to look at specific sites to see which round they were on and how often it was happening. 

48.6           A Member went on to indicate that he was particularly concerned about the islands at roundabouts where visibility could be restricted if grass was allowed to grow too long.  In response, the Ubico representative explained that grass cutting was carried out by several different contractors besides Ubico including Gloucestershire County Council, Parish Councils, private landlords etc.  The Licensing and Systems Officer had a set of plans which identified the land within the remit of Tewkesbury Borough Council so Members were encouraged to contact him if they had concerns about particular sites.  The Chief Executive recognised that grass cutting was a problem and it was very difficult to know who was responsible.  This had been noted during Ward visits in Bishop’s Cleeve where a number of Members had raised issues regarding co-ordination.  As a result, a meeting had been organised for all of the bodies with responsibility for maintaining land in the area in order to understand who did what and attempt to improve the situation.  The main issue seemed to be that each organisation used its own maps and, in order to address this, the Council’s Community Development Officer had offered to transpose the information onto a single map which could be used by everyone.  It was early days but he had been encouraged by the simple approach being taken to resolving what was a complex problem and, if it proved to be successful, it would be rolled out across the Borough.  The Environmental Health Manager advised that he had been approached by Severn Vale Housing Society which was keen to rationalise its rounds and he hoped that there may be some flexibility amongst the various organisations to make small changes in order to improve the service.  For example, as it stood there could potentially be a situation where two people from different organisations were mowing grass on opposite sides of the road and it may be easier for one organisation to do both areas in order to make the rounds more efficient and effective.

48.7           A Member indicated that, when Northway Parish Council cut the grass on its two football pitches, there was usually someone mowing the grass and someone using a strimmer at the same time and she questioned why this was not done by Tewkesbury Borough Council.  In response, the representative from Ubico advised that this was due to a lack of resources; whilst it could be looked at in the future, it would be dependent on cost.  Clarification was provided that no changes had been made to the service since it had been transferred to Ubico; there had been no increase in prices, the service was provided by the same staff and the same equipment was used.  A Member questioned why strimming had previously been carried out but was not done anymore and the representative from Ubico advised that spraying and strimming were both undertaken as there were disadvantages to both; there was a cost resource associated with strimming but spraying left muddy circles around street furniture.  He reiterated that there had been no changes to equipment or service quality; however, he indicated that he would investigate strimming further with his team on the ground.  The Chief Executive explained that Tewkesbury Borough Council had a history of providing a good value service and, clearly if more resources were invested then it would be expected that the service would be further improved, however, the Council was facing a £2.5M deficit and the grounds maintenance service must be considered against the budget demands.  It may be possible to provide the service on a commercial basis, and reduce costs by increasing income, and this was something which could be worked through with Ubico.

48.8           In response to a query regarding contract monitoring, Members were informed that the Licensing and Systems Officer met with Ubico on a weekly basis so that he was able to deal with any issues which may arise.  He had started to look at how KPIs could best be presented, especially to Parish Councils which were keen to see how the service was performing in their areas.  A Member noted that the number of issues being reported through the ‘Report It’ system seemed very low in comparison to the number of complaints made to Councillors and he questioned whether this was because the system was not being advertised well enough.  The Environmental Health Manager indicated that there would be an opportunity to advertise the system via the new website; it was noted that the Environmental Health team had reduced the amount of information on its webpages by transferring it to the ‘Report It’ system and encouraging everyone to use that mechanism.  The Environmental Health Manager clarified that he used the ‘Report It’ system for any issues which he was aware of as this was the quickest way to get action and it was the only mechanism used by Customer Services and other Environmental Health Officers.  In response to a query, clarification was provided that the Report It system was intended for service issues and any complaints against the Council would be made through the formal complaints system.  The Environmental Health Manager indicated that he would be happy to provide a breakdown of ‘Report It’ issues if Members so wished.

48.9           Having considered the information provided, it was

RESOLVED          That the update in respect of the performance of the Grounds Maintenance Service be NOTED and a further report brought back to meeting on 21 March 2017 focusing on the implementation of Key Performance Indicators.