Agenda item

To consider the 2022/23 outturn performance update on the services provided by Ubico.

18.1          Attention was drawn to the report of the Head of Service: Waste and Recycling, circulated at Pages No. 43-65, which provided the annual update on the Ubico contract.  Members were asked to consider the 2022/23 outturn performance update on the services provided by Ubico.

18.2          The Head of Service: Waste and Recycling advised that collection accuracy had improved with a reduction in total missed collections across all services, a greater number of near misses had been reported and the fleet compliance audit score had stayed consistently high.  There were two major projects underway: fleet procurement – large scale replacement of collections and street cleansing vehicles had progressed throughout 2022/23 and the Executive Committee had approved the approach in March 2023; and the Alloy in-cab system – implementation had begun in 2022/23 with Tewkesbury Borough’s roll-out taking place in two stages during 2023/24.  The Managing Director of Ubico explained that Appendix 1 to the report provided the detailed service-related performance information for 2022/23 including the number of missed collections and assisted missed collections which was important in terms of impact on residents.  The report covered sickness and absence as well as fleet services and management.  Overall it was a very positive report with fewer missed collections across the board and retention of the 100% fleet compliance audit score, something which the local team was deservedly proud of. 

18.3          The Chair raised concern that the Executive Summary, set out at Pages No. 48-49 of the report, did not mention grounds maintenance or grass cutting which was a perennial issue for Councillors who needed to be kept abreast of performance.  He felt it would also be beneficial to include year on year data in order to identify trends, along with data for authorities of a similar nature to Tewkesbury Borough Council to assess how well Ubico was doing compared to other Councils.  Another Member indicated that she could not tell from the report whether performance was achieving KPI targets or other objectives.  In response, the Managing Director of Ubico confirmed this could all be incorporated into the next report.  In terms of data from comparable authorities, this would need to be anonymised.

18.4          A Member drew attention to Page No. 45 of the report which stated that “overweight vehicles reduced from 39 to 25 which shows efforts to be more aware of this issue are having a positive impact” and she asked what this meant and what had happened to the 14 vehicles.  The Ubico Head of Operations explained it related to the actual load being carried by vehicles, for instance, if an 11 tonne vehicle was carrying a load of 11.5 tonnes it would be classed as overweight – the number of overweight vehicles had been fewer in 2022/23 compared to previous years.  The Director: Communities explained that this figure should further reduce going forward with the new rounds and vehicles being introduced.  Overweight vehicles was a serious issue so it was something Ubico was working hard to address.  The Chair asked for clarification as to why it was so serious and the Ubico Head of Operations advised that Ubico could be inspected by the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency (DVSA), which had the power to revoke its operator licence, at any time.  There was weighing equipment in the vehicles but it was difficult to keep this calibrated – for example, when the vehicle hit a pot hole – and that was something which was being addressed in the fleet procurement.  In response to a query as to who was at fault when a vehicle was overweight, the Ubico Head of Operations advised that this varied; it could be the driver if they were putting more loads onto the vehicle to avoid having to make an additional journey to tip but, the majority of the time, vehicles were overweight by such a small amount the driver was unlikely to realise – it could be a single black bin bag which made the difference.  A Member asked if there was any particular type of waste which was causing vehicles to be overweight and was advised that street litter bins and dog waste bins involved a manual handling process and relied on estimation of how much each bin weighed.   Loads could be impacted by things like rain which made materials become wet causing them to get heavier.  The Chair expressed the view that this issue appeared to be being actively managed by the Ubico team, as evidenced by the reduction in the number of overweight vehicles, thus lowering the risk to the Council.

18.5          Turning to missed collections, a Member congratulated Ubico on its performance as the number of missed bins was very low in the context of the total number of bins collected.  He asked what the main reason was for missed collections and was advised that this varied; it could be due to a crew calling in sick and being replaced by another who did not know the round - this would be resolved through the introduction of in-cab technology which would remove reliance on local knowledge – or it may be that a customer had not put their bin out on time and subsequently reported it as being missed.  A Member asked how information about vulnerable customers with assisted bin collections was relayed to new crew members as she had recently had a conversation with a resident who had reported an issue.  The Ubico Head of Operations advised that every crew received an assisted collection list each day before they started their round. The Member explained that a series of blue bins had been left on the pavement which was a problem for people with visual impairments who were required to manoeuvre around the bins until the owners came to collect them.  The Managing Director of Ubico indicated this was a difficult issue to resolve for several reasons, for instance, crews may return bins to where they were presented but residents may not collect them swiftly; whilst it was not possible to take a blanket approach whereby Ubico went onto people’s properties to put the bins back, they would be happy to work with Members on particular issues to establish if there was a better approach for certain areas.  A Member noted that missed collections were fairly stable during May and June 2022 followed by a significant increase in missed food waste collections and she asked if there was any reason for this.  In response, the Ubico Head of Operations advised that a fifth round had been introduced to alleviate capacity issues and there was a lack of local knowledge in terms of where bins were presented but it was expected this would improve going forward as the crew became more familiar with the round.  Food waste collections tended to be the most frequently missed bins primarily because the caddies were smaller and could more easily be concealed behind refuse bins etc.  The introduction of in-cab technology would allow crews to report bins which were not presented which would allow any trends to be identified and addressed.  The Chair asked if it was possible to remind residents their food caddies must be visible and the Director: Communities undertook to speak to the Communications team about putting something on the Council’s social media channels.  He pointed out that the collection rate was the best across Ubico and 99.99% was a fantastic achievement given the amount of collections per year.  The Chair expressed the view that Members would benefit from a presentation on in-cab technology and the Director: Communities indicated this could be incorporated into the Member Induction session on Ubico and Waste Management scheduled to take place on 14 September 2023.  In response to a query as to how data on missed collections was accurately collected, the Ubico Head of Operations advised that it was based on a calculation of the amount of collections, i.e. 50% recycling/50% refuse, 100% food waste and the number of garden waste service subscribers per week, multiplied by the number of weeks per year – this was as accurate as it could be currently.  In response to a query as to whether it was possible to work out how much of the garden waste which was taken to Wingmoor Farm could be disposed of in a brown garden waste bin, the Managing Director of Ubico confirmed that data for material taken to the Household Recycling Centres (HRCs) in Gloucestershire was publicly available and available to Officers and Ubico.

18.6          A Member drew attention to Page No. 54 of the report in relation to bin requests and asked if there was a particular reason why food waste bins were more frequently requested than the others.  The Ubico Head of Operations advised that, because they were smaller, they were lost more easily.  A Member asked whether there would become a point where this would become uneconomical, if there was a better way of collecting food waste and what other authorities did.   The Managing Director of Ubico advised that standard sized caddies were used for food waste; they were smaller and tended to be used more frequently meaning that they failed more quickly but this was the same across the country.  In response to a query, she confirmed that the food waste caddies used by Tewkesbury Borough Council were seven litre and 23 litre with the larger one being the one put out for collection; these were standard across Gloucestershire.  A Member indicated that she had recently been in another county where they had used larger food waste bins and she was interested to know how much it would cost to change the bins used by Tewkesbury Borough and whether this would have any implications in terms of the vehicles collecting them – she would like to establish if the savings, in both financial and environmental terms, of introducing something larger and more robust would be worthwhile.  The Managing Director of Ubico explained that this would require a much more detailed piece of work.  Another Member shared the concerns about the robustness of the existing food caddies and indicated she would like to see a better design.  The Director: Communities indicated this would be borne in mind if it became necessary to change all of the bins; clearly there would be a cost of doing that which would need to be investigated.  The Chair felt it would be beneficial for the Depot Services Working Group to look into this in more detail to understand how much of a problem it was and the financial and environmental costs and benefits.  The Director: Corporate Resources pointed out that although 3,067 food waste bins had been requested in 2022/23, these were not all replacement bins; a large proportion would be bins for new properties in the borough. 

18.7          A Member asked whether any information was available on the recycling contamination rate and the Director: Communities confirmed there was a website which members of the public could use and Tewkesbury Borough Council received a monthly report from the Materials Recovery Facility (MRF) contractor; Tewkesbury Borough’s contamination rate was 3.2% which was very low.  In response to a query regarding the correlation between refuse and recycling rates the Director: Communities explained there was no correlation whereby if one went up the other went down.  In any case, it was the Council’s responsibility to improve recycling rates and the amount of waste collected was not an issue for Ubico.  A Member queried where the target of 60% recycling had come from and what could be done to improve the recycling rate and was informed this was a national target for 2030.  It should be borne in mind that there had not been a ‘normal’ year for some time due to the impact of the pandemic and the cost of living crisis etc. so it was difficult to interpret the data but there was now a feeling that things were returning to the base line.  The Member asked if this meant that the data should be ignored; if not, there was a definite downward trend in terms of the recycling rate.  The Managing Director of Ubico explained that waste and recycling was seasonally affected which was why it was presented by month as opposed to by year to show increases at Christmas when there was more cardboard packaging etc. and in summer when garden waste was greater.  The Chair expressed the view that there was a need for credible information in order to establish trends; if that could not be done from the data currently being collected then different data was needed.  He suggested this was another area the Depot Services Working Group could be asked to explore.  The Director: Communities stressed that it was important to ensure there was no duplication of the work carried out by the Gloucestershire Resources and Waste Partnership, of which Tewkesbury Borough Council was a partner.  The new Gloucestershire Resources and Waste Strategy was due to be approved shortly and set out the county ambitions for the next three to four years.  Notwithstanding this, he suggested it may be helpful for the Depot Services Working Group to receive a presentation on what was already being done to increase recycling rates.  A Member asked whether other authorities were achieving the 60% target and was informed that the government was looking at co-ordinating figures nationally for publication; however, he indicated that details of how Tewkesbury Borough Council was performing against its nearest neighbours could be included in the performance tracker – there was more work to be done but Tewkesbury Borough Council was performing well and there was a financial incentive to continue to improve.

18.8          A Member asked whether the data in relation to dead animal and fly-tipping removal requests was specifically for Tewkesbury Borough, or if it covered Gloucestershire as a whole, and was informed that the report was solely related to Tewkesbury Borough data.  A  Member asked why there had been a reduction in the percentage of dead animal removal requests being fulfilled within two working days in February and March 2023 and was advised this was a staffing issue which had required an operational decision to divert staff to bin collections but assurance was provided the service was now back up to capacity.  A Member asked why there was no data for overweight tickets in February and March 2023 and was advised there had been no overweight tickets during those months.

18.9          With regard to health and safety, a Member drew attention to Page No. 45, Paragraph 5,1 of the report which stated that the positive trend from 2021/22 had continued with over 1,500 near misses or safety concerns reported and noted there was a graph within the Ubico report for safety reporting but not one for near misses.  The Managing Director of Ubico advised that near misses was a difficult concept to grasp so the terminology had been changed to address this but they were the same thing.  The Member expressed the view that near misses should be considered as incidents and reported separately.  In response, the Managing Director of Ubico advised that accidents were reported separately but safety concerns were observations of things which could have resulted in an accident and therefore were not incidents in themselves.  A Member noted the safety concerns included 223 ‘hit by a moving vehicle’ which sounded concerning and he was interested in who provided the figures.  The Ubico Head of Operations explained that crews were encouraged to report safety concerns.  The Managing Director of Ubico stressed that nothing had happened in those cases but it was important to capture them so measures could be proactively put in place to avoid actual incidents.  Another Member felt it would be beneficial to include an explanation in the report as the figures looked quite shocking on the face of it and it was agreed that would be done going forward.  A Member noted that the accident report, set out at Page No. 62 of the report, did not set out what type of accidents had occurred and the Managing Director of Ubico confirmed this could be done in future.  In response to a query as to whether the one personal accident in the graph at Page No. 62 in April, May, June, July and August was a recurring accident, the Ubico Head of Operations clarified these were different accidents.  A Member expressed the view this was quite low given the number of employees and the nature of the job.  The Director: Communities provided assurance that the contract management team met with Ubico on a monthly basis to discuss key issues which included health and safety and he encouraged the Committee to focus on the issues within their remit.  The Chair indicated that it was the Committee’s job to analyse the data in order to report to the relevant authorities any action required and he encouraged Members to ask any questions which helped them enhance their understanding.

18.10        In response to a query regarding absence management, the Managing Director of Ubico advised there were a number of ways of supporting staff including an absence management telephone line which provided nurse-led advice and a return to work interview with tailored, for example, manual handling training.  Risk assessments were undertaken and it was possible to amend duties to accommodate an injury or illness.  The employee welfare service provided by Ubico was for both employees and their families and, as well as its own HR team, the Occupational Health service also supported Ubico, furthermore, there were trained mental health first aiders at each depot.  Another Member asked whether absences tended to be long or short-term and was advised that it varied; there were currently no long-term absences but that could change at any time.

18.11        In terms of the Tewkesbury projects, outlined at Page No. 65 of the report, a Member noted that the comment against the implementation of a sweeper schedule stated that Ubico was awaiting confirmation of zone areas from the Council and asked if that had been completed.  In response, the Director: Communities explained that this work was almost finished – every bin in the borough had been mapped with the focus now on establishing the regularity with which certain areas would be swept and this was almost ready to provide to Ubico.  In response to a query as to whether every street would be included in the schedule, and whether Members were able to have a copy of the list, the Director: Communities confirmed that once it had been implemented and trialled it would be available to Members on the Council’s website; however, it was important to manage expectations as, whilst it was intended to sweep every street at least once a year, it would be necessary to concentrate on areas of main footfall e.g. shop areas etc.  The Head of Service: Waste and Recycling indicated that it would be a working document which could be tweaked as it was trialled.  The Member asked if residents could report areas that needed to be cleared directly to the Council and was informed that was possible but Members needed to be mindful that this could take the team away from scheduled work.

18.12        With regard to fleet procurement, a Member noted that other rural Councils were arguably doing more to green their fleets and he sought a view from Ubico with regard to this.  The Managing Director of Ubico explained that all of the vehicles were owned by the Council and Ubico worked with Officers to establish where they could green the fleet.  There were a number of electric and hybrid vehicles across Ubico and the vast majority of Cheltenham Borough Council’s diesel fleet was run on Hydrotreated Vegetable Oil (HVO) which was something being considered for Tewkesbury Borough Council.  Ultimately, hydrogen would perhaps be the best way forward; however, the network for supply was not yet adequate, as such, it was a question of what could be done in the meantime, for instance, electrifying smaller vehicles which had the range with the HGVs coming later down the line.  In response to a query as to whether any trials of electric refuse collection vehicles had been undertaken within the county, the Managing Director of Ubico confirmed that Ubico had trialled an electric vehicle from Dursley which had been able to reach the borough but did not have the range to get back.  Some of the smaller vehicles within the fleet could move to electric but the biggest vehicle that had been successfully electrified within the Ubico fleet was for Stroud District Council.  She provided assurance that new trials were taking place frequently.  The Ubico Head of Operations felt it was worth noting that Ubico was running training on driver behaviour at Cheltenham Borough Council where there had been a significant reduction in carbon emissions as a result.

18.13        A Member sought clarification as to what was meant by service integration and what economies of scale were being explored across Ubico.  The Managing Director of Ubico advised this was a holistic look at where benefits of Tewkesbury Borough Council being in a teckal company could be leveraged, for instance, there was a significant benefit in terms of near neighbours being part of Ubico and the ability to cross boundaries which was being investigated.  There were other potential benefits such as sharing vehicles across Ubico but it was necessary to establish how costs could be ringfenced to the relevant authority.

18.4          The Chair thanked the representatives from Ubico for attending the meeting and it was

RESOLVED           That the Ubico Report 2022/23 be NOTED.