Agenda item

To consider the progress made by the Depot Services Working Group during 2022/23.

109.1        The report of the Waste Contracts Manager, circulated at Pages No. 40-45, provided the annual update on the work of the Depot Services Working Group.  Members were asked to consider the progress made during 2022/23.

109.2        The Waste Contracts Manager advised that the Working Group had met on four occasions during 2022/23 with two of the main areas of consideration being the trade waste service review and the fleet procurement approach for waste and street cleansing vehicles which had subsequently been approved by the Executive Committee.  Particular attention was drawn to the improvement in grass cutting standards with scores increasing from 48% in 2021/22 to 82% 2022/23.

109.3        A Member drew attention to Page No. 41, Paragraph 2.5 of the report in relation to the street cleansing review and asked whether the information would be available to Members, if it would include missing bins and whether similar mapping would be carried out for litter picking and fly-tipping so it would be possible to identify hotspot areas and make residents aware.  In response, the Waste Contracts Manager confirmed that this was all possible via the Alloy system which was being rolled out across the Ubico contract.  Street cleansing would move across to the system in quarter three of 2023/24.  The Member noted from Page No. 42, Paragraph 2.5.3 of the report that bins were being collected outside of the local authority responsibility and he asked what could be done to address that.  The Waste Contracts Manager explained that the main issues tended to arise where new developments were built and the developer retained responsibility for the land and employed management companies to maintain them – what tended to happen was that people reported the bins as being full and the Council started to empty them, only finding out years down the line that the bins were not the local authority’s responsibility.  It was a question of identifying where that had happened and making sure the right people were emptying them.  When the Council was able to demonstrate that land belonged to a particular party, there were mechanisms that could be used to force them to maintain their own land, if necessary.  The Member noted that a review of road zoning had commenced which would support the sweeper schedule and he asked if the schedule could be made available to Parish Councils.  The Waste Contracts Manager confirmed it was intended to circulate the schedules once they were complete.

109.4        A Member drew attention to Page No. 42, Paragraph 2.9 of the report in relation to fleet procurement and asked if there would be any electric vehicles.  In response, the Waste Contracts Manager indicated that it was not possible for larger vehicles to be electric due to concerns around cost and the rural nature of the borough; however, it was hoped that some of the smaller 3.5 tonne vehicles could be electric, particularly street cleansing vehicles.  A Member noted the significant improvement in grass cutting and asked what had driven that given it had been problematic historically.  The Waste Contracts Manager explained this was predominately due to a change in approach.  Whereas previously different teams had been used to cut and then strim the same areas, there were now two main teams which covered roughly half of the borough each and completed the whole job before moving on to the next area.  Grass cutting cycles were now around three weeks as opposed to five to six weeks as they had been previously.  In response to a query as to whether work was still done to co-ordinate litter picking with grass cutting, the Waste Contracts Manager confirmed there was a requirement for a litter pick prior to any cutting.

109.5        A Member queried whether there was any further update regarding the maintenance of land on behalf of Gloucestershire County Council which was referenced at Page No. 42, Paragraph 2.8.2 of the report.  The Waste Contracts Manager advised that, whilst nothing formal had been decided, there was a new climate change team at the County Council which had its own goals in terms of managing its own land, including introducing more meadow areas in verges, - this seemed to align with Tewkesbury Borough Council’s ambitions which was promising.  The Member asked if mapping was being undertaken of the areas which Tewkesbury Borough Council wanted to cut regularly for aesthetic purposes and the Waste Contracts Manager explained that would not be done until there was agreement on the contract; notwithstanding that, he was aware there were certain areas that Members felt needed to be treated differently and a list would be compiled once agreement had been reached.  A Member asked whether each village within the borough was allocated a certain number of hours of work and was informed that areas were considered as a whole in terms of the work that needed to be carried out – some required a lot of maintenance whereas others needed very little.  The Member raised concern that a lot of villages had pollinated patches so she presumed smaller vehicles needed to be used which subsequently took more time; however, the Waste Contracts Manager advised that it was very much dependent on the area.

109.6        In response to a query regarding the Terms of Reference for the Working Group and who was responsible for determining what should be included, the Head of Democratic Services advised that it would be down to the new Council to decide which Working Groups would be established and what their Terms of Reference would be.

109.7        It was

RESOLVED           That the Depot Services Working Group Annual Report be NOTED.