Agenda item

To consider the biannual update on the work of the Depot Services Working Group. 

73.1          The report of the Waste Contracts Manager, circulated at Pages No. 53-66, provided Members with an update on the progress of the Depot Services Working Group.  Members were asked to consider the report.

73.2          The Waste Contracts Manager advised that the Depot Services Working Group had met on three occasions during 2022/23 and a further meeting was planned on 1 March in accordance with its Terms of Reference.  The main considerations had been the Ubico overspend, which was largely due to the increased cost of diesel, and the impact of the pay award going forward; improvement in grass cutting standards with 82% of inspections meeting the required target compared to 48% in the previous year; waste fleet procurement; and, ongoing discussions with Gloucestershire County Council around the grass which Tewkesbury Borough Council cut on its behalf – discussions had reached an impasse but were now moving forward again.

73.3          A Member of the Depot Services Working Group raised concern regarding the discussion that had taken place at the Working Group in relation to land maintained on behalf of Gloucestershire County Council.  He felt there had been a lack of understanding amongst Officers regarding the implications of changing the current arrangements – something which had been discussed at length by the former Grass Cutting Improvement Plan Working Group, which had been subsumed into the Grounds Maintenance Working Group and subsequently the Depot Services Working Group.  The Waste Contracts Manager explained that, since the Depot Services Working Group had requested that further negotiations take place at a senior officer level, Gloucestershire County Council had been more accommodating and work was being undertaken with Ubico to put together a proposal based on increased capital spend, as such, it was now considered that it may be possible to carry out two cuts per year using cut and collect methods which he hoped would be a good outcome for everyone.  The Member explained that certain areas would need to be cut more than twice per year, for instance, the Wheatpieces roundabout which was the gateway to Tewkesbury.  In his view it should not be all about money and he felt this needed to be looked into more fully.  The Head of Community Services recognised these concerns and clarified that the discussions with the County Council were in relation to having the correct equipment and it would be Tewkesbury Borough Council’s decision to continue to cut certain areas more frequently than twice per year but, for the majority of areas, two cuts would be reasonable.  The Member raised concern that it was not as straightforward as it seemed, for instance, would the areas be weeded, and he indicated that wildflower planting was something the Grounds Maintenance Working Group had also been keen to explore, and was included in the pending items of the Depot Services Working Group Work Programme, so he asked if consideration would be given to that.  The Head of Community Services took this point on board and advised that the initial conversation with Gloucestershire County Council had been financial and the County Council had blankly refused the proposal to pay for eight cuts per year; however, following the Depot Services Working Group meeting in October, further discussions had taken place at senior level about the possibility of using capital funding to obtain the right equipment to allow cuts to take place twice per year, possibly using the ‘cut and collect’ method.  It would take a period of time before natural growth looked aesthetically pleasing but that approach would cost Tewkesbury Borough Council less and benefit all parties; clearly that approach would not be taken at the entrances to Tewkesbury.  A Member noted from Page No. 65 of the report that the recommendation arising from the Grounds Maintenance Working Group was that no further work on wildflower planting should be considered until the project at the Grange Field was complete and its impact evaluated.  She pointed out that the project was now complete and the wildflowers looked amazing with a lot of positive comments received so she asked when it would be evaluated and where that would be reported.  In response, the Head of Community Services undertook to speak to the Community and Economic Development Manager following the meeting.  He felt it was important to remember that the Grange Field project had cost a lot of money and had been paid for by European funding so whilst this was something that could be done across the borough it would be expensive.  Notwithstanding this, the evaluation would be important in considering how to move forward with wildflower planting in certain parts of the borough.

73.4          A Member drew attention to Page No. 55, Paragraph 2.11 of the report, and indicated that she had been surprised to read that Gloucestershire County Council only cut twice per year.  She received a lot of complaints from residents in relation to grass cutting and, whilst she felt that Tewkesbury Borough Council’s grass cutting standards had really improved, the areas maintained by Gloucestershire County Council were a mess – those areas could be adjacent to Tewkesbury Borough Council land which caused a problem.  She was unsure what the solution was but she personally did not feel that two cuts per year was enough.  In response, the Head of Community Services stressed that it was not suggested to take that approach across the borough but it would work well in more rural areas.  A trial had previously been run in a small area in Winchcombe which had been successful and achieved the desired outcome.  Another Member noted that the Depot Services Working Group annual report was due to be brought to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee in April and he asked whether it would be appropriate to consider that under separate business so Members could have a full and frank discussion about that matter.  The Head of Community Services undertook to check whether the financial details were in the public domain and, if that was not the case, the report could be considered under separate business.

73.5          A Member congratulated Ubico and Tewkesbury Borough Council Officers, particularly Customer Services, for the service provided during the recent snow; he had received a lot of compliments from members of the public who had been able to leave side waste out for collection – this was echoed by another Member who mentioned that the Communications team had done a brilliant job of keeping residents informed.  The Member went on to note that the Ubico overspend was still quite high so he asked if there were other factors besides the cost of diesel and he questioned if there was potential to cut any costs.  In response, the Waste Contracts Manager explained that the only other significant expense had been the increase in depot costs which was due to a historic undercharge which had been rectified by Cheltenham Borough Council.  An additional cost of £20-25,000 was expected as a result of the pay award and that would feature in forthcoming financial reports.  Unfortunately, he was not aware of any potential savings at this time.  With regard to fleet procurement, the Member noted that Page No. 55, Paragraph 2.10 of the report mentioned the possibility of using Hydrotreated Vegetable Oil (HVO) as a fuel source – he asked whether it was intended to use food waste for this and he assumed the vehicles would have to be dual fuel.  In response, the Head of Community Services advised that there were financial and ecological questions to be balanced; dual fuel vehicles were an option being considered as it would be possible to switch between diesel and HVO as and when the prices varied but a guarantee was needed from the new vehicle supplier that they would still be under warranty on that basis.  The Member explained that he worked for a company which used dual fuel on its entire vehicle fleet which ran on fuel generated from food waste and he asked if there were plans to be able to run the Ubico fleet in that way.  The Head of Community Services indicated that nothing had been looked at in terms of food waste but it was likely that HVO and electric would be form part of the procurement strategy which was being discussed by the Executive Committee in March.  Another Member pointed out that most diesel vehicles would run on HVO so he suggested it might be possible to trial this on some of the existing vehicles which were approaching end of life. 

73.6          It was

RESOLVED          That the Depot Services Working Group update be NOTED.