Agenda item

That the recommendations set out in Paragraph 3 of the report be approved and that future monitoring of grounds maintenance be undertaken by the Depot Services Working Group

That the recommendations set out in Paragraph 3 of the report be APPROVED and that future monitoring of grounds maintenance be undertaken by the Depot Services Working Group

95.1          The report of the Head of Community Services, circulated at Pages No. 18-26, provided an update following the meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee held on 11 February and asked the Executive Committee to approve a number of recommendations with regard to grounds maintenance, as set out at Paragraph 3 of the report, including that the future monitoring of grounds maintenance be undertaken by the Depot Services Working Group. 

95.2          Members were advised that significant progress had been made by the Grounds Maintenance Working Group since its inception and that had resulted in a number of recommendations for improvements to the service. The Overview and Scrutiny Committee had considered that, whilst there was a continuing role for Members to play in terms of monitoring grounds maintenance, that should be subsumed within the work of the Depot Services Working Group which had the wider remit to look at the Ubico contract more generally. As part of its work, the Grounds Maintenance Working Group had considered a report into grounds maintenance and street cleansing which had been carried out by external consultancy WYG; that report had found that grounds maintenance for Tewkesbury was just about satisfactory - but that grass was unkept in places and weed growth seemed to be an issue - it also found that Ubico was providing good value but that, if greater quality was required, the Council should consider investing more into the service in respect of money to fund additional labour resources in addition to the good internal service review and improvement plan already being put into place.

95.3          During the discussion which ensued, the Head of Community Services confirmed that the recommendation would mean the Grounds Maintenance Working Group would be disbanded. In terms of the reporting process of the Depot Services Working Group, this would be provided to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee. Referring to recommendation 4, which referenced the extension of the pilot to reduce the number of cuts on highways land, a Member was pleased this would be discussed with Ward Members and Parish Councillors. In response, the Head of Community Services advised that the initial trial had been on a small piece of land in Winchcombe and the grass had not got too high there; however, it was acknowledged that the rate of growth could vary in different areas with changing weather conditions which was the reason for the decision to monitor other areas before making a final decision on the number of cuts. Referring to recommendation 3, which suggested that no wildflower planting would be done until the Grange Field site had been planted, a Member asked for further clarification as this seemed to suggest that no wildflower planting would take place this year. In response, the Head of Community Services explained that wildflower planting was initially expensive and not very attractive so the Working Group had decided it would be better to show residents how it could look in all its glory to enable them to see the end result as a positive. He did, however, understand that the Grange Field project needed to be completed as a matter of urgency and it was the intention that this would be achieved as soon as the weather allowed. In respect of the number of cuts the Borough Council undertook on highways land compared to the amount the County Council paid for, the Head of Community Services explained that two years ago the County Council only paid £5,000, that had now risen to £10,000 but it had indicated that it would not be willing to increase that further. It was up to Tewkesbury Borough Council if it wished to continue with the same level of cutting and the idea of the pilot was to see how two cuts would work and if that was acceptable. Until the Council had a feel of how this affected the grass it was difficult to make any further recommendations. In response to a query regarding the other Districts in the County, the Head of Community Services indicated that, as far as he was aware, the situation was the same in that they could either undertake more cuts and pay for them or just cut to the safety standards that County Highways paid for. The actual costs would vary depending on the differences in the areas but this was something he could find out and feed into the work of the Depot Services Working Group. Another Member suggested that the local County Councillors could use some of their own funding from the County Council to put towards highways grass cutting. The Head of Community Services undertook to explore this with the County Councillors. All of the recommendations noted within the report would be taken forward by the Depot Services Working Group if this was the course of action agreed by the Executive Committee.

95.4          Referring to Paragraph 2.4 of the report, a Member questioned whether the WYG report had been updated given that it was based on outdated information from Ubico. In response, the Head of Community Services clarified that the WYG report was not out of date as it was based on what happened on the ground; however, Ubico had provided resource information that conflicted with that so it was that information which was out of date. In terms of the amount of development in the Borough since 2014, a Member questioned whether the staffing level at Ubico had been increased to cope and was advised that, historically, staffing levels were managed on a seasonal basis so agency staff were brought in during the summer months and, when additional resources were needed, the Council paid for them.  The Lead Member for Clean and Green Environment indicated that the wet weather over the winter period had seen the destruction of a number of grass verges due to people parking on them and he would be interested to know if any other Members had noticed a similar problem in their area. In addition, he knew of a housing estate in Winchcombe where the residents group had to maintain and cut the grass verges themselves and he felt this kind of conversation needed to be held with the County Council. In response, the Head of Community Services advised that it would be for the County Council to repair the verges and he would be having those discussions.

95.5          Having considered the information provided, it was