Agenda item

For the Sub-Committee to receive a short presentation to update on grass cutting in the borough.

The Sub-Committee received the presentation set out in the supplementary agenda, which provided an update on grass cutting and Grounds Maintenance in the borough. The Head of Environment Services & Sustainable Neighbourhoods introduced the item. The Executive Mayor acknowledged that the service over the last two years had not been good enough and cited previous cuts to the service and a lack of sustained investment. The Sub-Committee heard that Grounds Maintenance was important to residents and Councillors due to its impact on the look and feel of the borough. The Executive Mayor stated that restoring the service to the appropriate level was a high priority but the hard work of the existing teams was acknowledged. The Sub-Committee heard that there was a clear need for improved management systems and that continued work with contractors needed to be considered, alongside better mapping and training. The Executive Mayor stated that it was important to him to get the service right using the limited resources available to the Council.

The Vice-Chair noted the reduction in Ground Maintenance operatives from 88 to 29 since 2018 and asked how a workforce of this size could cut all grass in the borough on a four-to-six-week schedule. The Corporate Director of SCRER explained that the staffing reduction had been driven by previous budget savings for the directorate and service. It was acknowledged that additional resource was needed, and that this would likely need to be a mix between Council staff and contractor resource to provide the necessary flexibility in the service. The Corporate Director of SCRER acknowledged that the current resource could not meet a four-to-six-week cutting schedule, due to the scale and diversity of grass cutting required in the borough; Members heard that record rainfall meant that resource in this year had been under additional stress.

The Chair asked about the mix of Council and contractor staff required to properly resource the service. The Head of Environment Services & Sustainable Neighbourhoods responded that they had reviewed the previous contractors operational model to determine how a four-to-six-week schedule cutting schedule for the borough had been met; this had consisted of roaming crews totalling 38 staff just to deal with highway verges, a dedicated resource for housing, as well as static crews in parks and cemeteries. Members heard that a review process would need to look at the overall resource required as well as how it was deployed to different land types. The Head of Environment Services & Sustainable Neighbourhoods explained that work would need to be done with customers, such as Parks and Housing, to develop Service Level Agreements (SLAs) to set out what was required and set expectation levels accordingly. Members heard that gaining a full understanding of this would allow the service to better plan for how much contractor resource it would need, and when it would need it throughout the year. The Executive Mayor highlighted that a longer cutting season, the use of contractors and better equipment were all measures being taken forward to improve the service. It was highlighted that SLAs around services for Housing land needed to be developed with better understanding of what was required, which would be assisted by improved mapping once this work was completed.

The Sub-Committee clarified that the cutting season would be extended from March to November, with this reviewed in December. Members heard that if grass cutting could be stood down in January, this would be done to save cost, but if the service was required it would continue.

Members asked how much new plant machinery had been purchased and if this was sufficient to serve the current Council workforce. The Head of Environment Services & Sustainable Neighbourhoods responded that there was enough equipment for the budgeted ten operational crews, with procurement completed and equipment due to be delivered imminently. Members heard that where contractors were used they brought their own equipment. The Chair asked about the lifespan of Grounds Maintenance machinery, and heard that best practice was five years, but that this could be extended to six to seven years through six-weekly inspections and maintenance. The Council conducted six-weekly inspections and maintenance through its in-house fitter and workshop on Factory Lane.

The Sub-Committee noted the Geographic Information System (GIS) specialist undertaking mapping for grass cutting sites in the borough and asked how the maps produced would be verified. Members heard that the GIS used open-source data, which would be quality assured by the Parks Development Team and could then be overlaid with additional detailing around bin locations, meadowing, etc. to ensure that maps were accurate. The Sub-Committee heard that the assurance process would pick up inaccuracies in the open-source data which would then be corrected to produce the final mapping. The Director of Streets & Environment informed Members that around 200 maps had been produced so far and were undergoing quality assurance with the relevant teams to ensure accuracy. The Executive Mayor agreed that mapping was a vital piece of work and asked that Ward Councillors help in verifying maps for their local areas to ensure that nothing was missed.

The Sub-Committee asked how areas were prioritised for grass cutting and heard that currently everywhere was a priority, with officers working to get to areas that had been missed during April 2024 due to heavy rain. The Head of Environment Services & Sustainable Neighbourhoods explained that work was ongoing to look at how the workforce was deployed and areas were scheduled for grass cutting. The historic approach was that the ten operational crews were responsible for specific geographical areas, but that depending on the land types of different areas, some could take much longer than others. It was explained that there had been some changes to this deployment model, by identifying an area a ‘blitz’ by five operational crews with targeted cutting over two days; similar diversions had taken place to cut grass in areas or parks where there were planned events. The Director of Streets & Environment explained that the deployment model would be changed once mapping was completed and the Council had a better understanding of different areas and land types to ensure that grass cutting was more consistent across the borough through a prioritised approach. Members asked how many areas had received a grass cutting ‘blitz’ and heard there had been a number of targeted interventions, including at larger housing estates and in specific areas in the borough. It was acknowledged that this approach could mean that other scheduled work fell behind.

The Sub-Committee asked if mapping would look at the ownership of the land concerned, and heard that mapping would take into account the grassed area in totality and then refined down to the areas that were Council maintained, or were maintained by individual residents (in the case of grass verges) or ‘friends’ groups. The Head of Environment Services & Sustainable Neighbourhoods clarified that this would not mean that the Council was not accountable for the land maintained by others where it was Council owned, and that these areas would be picked up where grass cutting had not been undertaken by others. The Executive Mayor added that the Council also needed to understand the responsibilities within the Council for land and whether it fell under Highways, Housing or Parks, to ensure that internal charging to the General Fund or Housing Revenue Account (HRA) were correct and that SLAs were in place where needed.

Members noted that the Grounds Maintenance service were undertaking grass cutting for 42 Housing sites and asked how these sites had been chosen and what the expected services where for these locations. The Sub-Committee also raised that some tenants and leaseholders paid specific fees for grass cutting and asked whether this service was provided by Grounds Maintenance. The Head of Environment Services & Sustainable Neighbourhoods stated that Grounds Maintenance was working closely with Housing and that the 42 sites had been identified as these were the most challenging and difficult; services for the smaller sites would then be picked up for contracted work by Housing through small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). Members heard that the list of sites serviced by Grounds Maintenance was flexible and was under review alongside Housing colleagues. The Sub-Committee raised concerns that there was not information available for the sites not being maintained by Grounds Maintenance on when grass cutting would take place. The Head of Environment Services & Sustainable Neighbourhoods acknowledged this and stated that there would be a discussion with Housing that week on an agreed response on when and how these sites would be maintained.

The Sub-Committee asked how the cost of using contractors compared to a fully in-housed service and whether the Council would produce a Wild Meadow Strategy. The Head of Environment Services & Sustainable Neighbourhoods responded that a Wild Meadow Strategy was currently being written and would focus on the green corridor and identifying suitable sites and cutting schedules. The Sub-Committee encouraged officers to include residents in identifying wild meadowing locations. Members heard that the Council was using existing fully procured contractors, such as FM Conway, Glendale and Bushells; there was already an agreed schedule of day and area rates for these contractors. The Head of Environment Services & Sustainable Neighbourhoods explained that the Council was looking to use the best schedule of rates available for the activities that needed to be undertaken and that the competitiveness of the original procurement was being used to ensure best value for money. The Sub-Committee heard that the wider review would look to provide more certainty of the work required over six to eight month periods which could provide savings over the schedule of rates in place as these focussed more on one off services. Members asked if there was expected to be budget growth for Grounds Maintenance and heard that, once the review was fully concluded, it was possible that there may need to be a growth bid during the next budget process.

Members asked for the timeline for producing the Wild Meadow Strategy and whether there had been consideration of bringing forward ‘garden streets’ and linking these with ‘Street Champions’. The Head of Environment Services & Sustainable Neighbourhoods responded that the Wild Meadow Strategy would likely be completed in October 2024 but that work on ‘garden streets’ was ongoing. The Director of Streets & Environment added that once the Council understood its assets it could be more targeted in reaching out to the community around schemes of this nature.

The Sub-Committee asked if the timing of ‘No Mow May’ would be changed to reflect the increased grass cutting period. The Head of Environment Services & Sustainable Neighbourhoods explained that this could be picked up through the Wild Meadow Strategy but explained that this was a national campaign.

The Vice-Chair asked if the HRA would be compensated where the cutting schedule had not been met. The Corporate Director of SCRER explained that the agreement that had been made with Housing was for grass cutting at the 42 identified sites, in return for the level of recharge that the HRA paid. Members heard that compensation might be appropriate if more services had been agreed but had not been delivered, but that this was not the case. It was clarified that the level of recharge to the HRA was low and that the Grounds Maintenance service had been clear what could be delivered for this amount by identifying only the 42 larger HRA sites.

The Vice-Chair asked what plans were in place to ensure that grass cutting took place to an expected level next year. The Corporate Director of SCRER accepted that the service had not performed to the expected level and apologised, but stated that this was not down to any lack of effort on the part of Grounds Maintenance. The Sub-Committee heard that the review taking place, and other measure discussed earlier in the item, would contribute to an improved service in future. The Executive Mayor stated that rebuilding a service was difficult and took time.

The Sub-Committee asked if there were plans to provide grass cutting schedules to residents but acknowledged that this could be difficult and weather dependent. The Head of Environment Services & Sustainable Neighbourhoods explained that providing this information through a digital interactive map on the website was an aspiration and that the provider had delivered this in contracts for other authorities.

Members asked whether hedge cutting work would take place during or after the grass cutting season. The Head of Environment Services & Sustainable Neighbourhoods responded that traditionally hedge cutting and tree trimming took place after the grass cutting season from October/November; with the increased cutting season, it was acknowledged that there would be less opportunity to do this. The Sub-Committee were informed that this would be addressed by maintaining contractor resource for longer than had been the case previously to ensure that these works could be completed. Members were informed that where tree or hedge growth presented a trip or health hazard this would still be prioritised during the grass cutting season.

Conclusions

1. The Sub-Committee concluded that they would like to review the Grounds Maintenance resourcing plan for 2025/26 ahead of the budget setting process.

2. The Sub-Committee raised some concerns about the grass cutting service being provided to Housing sites, other than the 42 identified for services by Grounds Maintenance.

3. The Sub-Committee concluded that it would like to add the Wild Meadow Strategy to its Work Programme.

Recommendations

1.     The Sub-Committee welcomed the aspiration for the implementation of a fully digital map of borough parks on the Council website to reflect information on the last and next planned grass cutting and recommended that this be formally included on the Ground Maintenance work plan.