To consider the Ubico performance report for 2019/20.  

40.1          The report of the Head of Community Services, circulated at Pages No. 38-77, provided the annual update on the Ubico contract for waste and recycling, street cleansing and grounds maintenance services. Members were asked to consider the 2019/20 outturn performance update on the services provided by Ubico Ltd.  

40.2          In introducing the report, the Waste Contracts Manager explained that this was the annual service report and was provided to enable Members to monitor Ubico’s performance in terms of service and financial performance. Appendix 1 contained the full performance report and Appendix 2 provided the annual corporate report. She advised that there was a lot of information contained within the report but this demonstrated the diverse environmental services contract the Council had with Ubico. Referring particularly to Paragraph 3.0, it was noted that the 2019/20 Ubico contract sum of £3,860,014 had been overspent by £302,198 which had resulted in a full outturn contract cost of £4,162,212. In the main this was due to previously unidentified corporate costs and a grounds maintenance service support fund; the core service delivery budgets were well managed and the level of financial information provided by Ubico to the Council had improved significantly in recent months. A suitable amount had been allocated in reserves to cover those additional costs. Paragraph 4.0 set out the frontline services performance and showed a positive picture in terms of service delivery with relatively good performance. In terms of missed bins, the routes and rounds had been restructured so they worked better. There were also positive trends in health and safety and fleet management and, in terms of fleet management, Tewkesbury Borough Council’s contract score was the highest for the current year.

40.3          During the discussion which ensued, a Member referred to Paragraph 4.4 and questioned how it could be established that the majority of street cleansing reports were completed and closed within timeframes when there were no planned routes for the street sweepers. In response, the Waste Contracts Manager indicated that there were some schedules in place. The scheduled work was about how the routes and rounds took place on a daily basis but Paragraph 4.4 referred to the reactive work e.g. telephone / online reports that were sent to Ubico for action – those issues were put on the system with an action date for the work to be carried out. Work was being undertaken on the street cleansing schedules as some of them were out of date; this was part of the street cleansing review which was currently ongoing. In addition, the team was looking at procuring a larger, more efficient sweeper.

40.4          Referring to Page No. 51 and the household waste target which was identified as 60%, the Waste Contracts Manager indicated that the target was incorrect and instead should be in line with the working plan. The Council was struggling slightly to meet targets for the year for various reasons but the COVID-19 pandemic had seen increases in all collections. In response to a query regarding the cost of COVID-19, the Head of Finance and Asset Management indicated that the Council had been notified by Ubico of additional costs in the region of £100,000 for items such as PPE/extra staffing to meet safety requirements etc. The general COVID-related grants from government currently stood at around £1.4 million so some of that would be used to offset the Ubico costs in the period. Ubico itself was not receiving any support directly although the furlough scheme had been utilised for some staff who could not work due to being in the shielded or clinically extremely vulnerable categories. Ubico had been maintaining a detailed separate list of COVID costs which it would provide to the Council’s finance team to enable claims to be made, as appropriate, on that spend.

40.5          Referring to the information provided in the annual report, a Member felt it would be helpful to have more comparison information with previous years so that trends could be easily identified. In addition, at Page No. 53, the Member felt the number of new properties identified by Ubico did not seem to tally with the properties that were paying Council Tax which meant there could be some inaccuracies. He also referred to the number of household accidents and questioned whether this was correct as a refuse lorry had reversed into his gate in March 2020 and that incident was not mentioned in the list. In response, the Ubico Managing Director advised that she was unsure where the Ubico data came from for new households but she would discuss that with the Council’s Waste Contracts Manager. In terms of the accident referred to, this would be recorded as a vehicle accident rather than a household one as it involved a vehicle, she understood this could be confusing but advised it was the way the recording for insurance purposes worked – she would ensure an explanatory note was included in future. Another Member felt the diagrams in the report were difficult to understand, particularly when they referred to bins per 100,000 and maintained it would be more useful to specify the finite figures. In response, the Ubico Managing Director confirmed this would be possible and the figures would be supplied in that way in future. It was suggested that the author of the annual report work with the Council’s Corporate Services Team to better understand the information which was of most use to Members and how it could be displayed to make it more readable in terms of identifying trends etc. as this would enable improved discussion and questioning. 

40.6          In offering his thanks, a Member indicated that the feedback from the residents in his Ward had been that there was no significant change in the waste collections throughout the COVID-19 pandemic for which they were very grateful. Another Member agreed and also indicated that the grass cutting around the Borough had been significantly improved this year from the previous three years which was also great news. He felt the street cleansing could be improved by using maps and schedules in the same way as the grass cutting service. The Head of Community Services confirmed that this was being reviewed and Officers had been working hard on getting schedules in place for street cleansing but it should be borne in mind that this was a huge job as every single bin and road had to be plotted. When the larger sweeper was in place it would be better as the smaller vehicle needed to be tipped too regularly. As an example, the Head of Community Services advised that in Northway alone there were 90 street litter bins so, if this was expanded across the whole Borough with mapping and scheduling, it was easy to see what an enormous task it was. The review had been frustrated by COVID-19 and, having recently been reintegrated into the Borough Council from the County Waste Partnership, the Waste Contracts Manager was building a small team to be able to undertake some of the larger projects like the street cleansing review. In terms of Parishes, a formula was being put in place to enable them to make an assessment as to whether a street litter bin was required which should make the process more efficient. In terms of overweight vehicles, the Ubico Managing Director explained that there was a specified gross weight of vehicles and, whilst they were not usually significantly overweight, it was important that this did not happen at all. Generally speaking, it tended to be the smaller vehicles which could be overweight as what they collected fluctuated. Referring to Paragraph 3.2 (iii), (iv) and (vi) of the report, a Member questioned what the amounts were for those items and if they had been accounted for. In response, the Head of Community Services confirmed this was last year’s report and the amounts would have been known. He undertook to get the information and forward it to Members following the meeting. In terms of the green waste service, the Head of Community Services confirmed this had been stopped during the first COVID-19 pandemic lockdown as it was a non-statutory service and Ubico had to concentrate on the services which it had a duty to collect; in addition, the priority of services was set out in the business continuity plan to ensure the team could quickly decide which services would run and which were stopped when necessary. The two garden waste rounds had been supported by a third in the heavy months last year and agency staff had been mixed with regular staff to try and ensure the knowledge of the service and the rounds was passed between staff as it had been felt that a vast number of the missed bins were due to a lack of round and geographical knowledge. In terms of the missed bins data, a Member questioned whether if a complete street was missed this would count as one miss or a number of misses. In response, the Waste Contracts Manager confirmed that the missed bin reports came through the Firmstep system, so if everyone in the street each reported a miss they would all be counted; however, if one person reported on behalf of the street it would be one miss. The information was also checked through Ubico to ensure it was an actual missed bin rather than a bin that was not put out on time. In terms of resident satisfaction, whilst Ubico did not undertake resident satisfaction surveys specifically around bin collections, the low number of complaints led the team to feel residents were relatively happy with the service. In addition, the Head of Corporate Services advised that a recommendation from the Corporate Peer review had been that the Council should undertake a resident satisfaction survey - the last survey results had shown waste and recycling at the top of the list. A Member expressed concern about the statement at Page No. 69 that Ubico was exploring opportunities of integration of services with Cheltenham Borough Council and questioned when and why this was being undertaken. In response, the Head of Community Services advised that it was of course an aspiration for Ubico to become more commercial and to operate some services more closely with Cheltenham Borough Council given that parts of Tewkesbury Borough and Cheltenham Borough nearly overlapped. In addition, economies of scale meant it made sense to have a more joined up in approach.

40.7          The Chair thanked Ubico for the annual report and its efforts to improve the service and drive down complaints and, accordingly, it was

                 RESOLVED           That the 2019/20 outturn performance update on the services                             provided by Ubico Ltd be NOTED.