Agenda item

To receive a presentation regarding vegetation maintenance.

The Committee considered a presentation, set out in agenda pages 25 to 30, which gave an update on vegetation maintenance in the Borough.

The presentation outlined the different maintenance contracts, primarily the ground maintenance contract with Tovoli Group Ltd, the highways reactive maintenance contract with Volker Highways, and the street cleansing contract with Volker Highways which was sub-contracted to Urbaser Ltd. The clienting model was under review, whilst the highways contract had been realigned. The next steps for these contracts included an improved reporting system and integration, map accessibility for residents, and a dedicated officer to be focussed on grounds maintenance and street cleansing.

Richard Bisset (Lead Specialist, Place Clienting), Andy Glencross (Assistant Director – Highways), Steve Moore (Interim Director – Place & Growth), and Emma Pilgrim (Specialist – Place Clienting) attended the meeting to answer Member queries.

During the ensuing discussions, Members raised the following points and queries:

·           What more could be done to clarify which areas were deliberately designated as wilding areas, and which were in need of maintenance? Officer response – Officers were working with the Trees and Biodiversity Task and Finish Group to develop a clear plan to allow residents to know which areas were designated for wilding, and which were not.

·           Could a page be placed on the Wokingham Borough Council (WBC) website or within the Borough News which outlined kerbside maintenance schedules? Officer response – Officers agreed that this was an issue for residents, and the past year had seen difficulties with weed spraying and officers were adjusting the timings for next year to prevent as many issues regarding this. 

·           Members commented that clearing the growth on the side of carriageways prior to the growing season commencing could help with some of the recurring issues associated with weed growth.

·           Was the page on the website detailing when a road had been cleaned automatically updated, rather than manually updated by an officer once it was confirmed that the cleaning had taken place? Executive Member and officer response – Yes, the page updated on the day of the scheduled clean to state that the clean had taken place. Street cleaning was a very important issue, and if soil and debris were not swept up quickly it would lead to germination and the spread of weeds. The contract in place was of high quality, and the team was doing great work to reduce the likelihood of vegetation occurring in the first place. It could be that telling residents about the expected frequency of cleansing particular roads rather than naming specific dates would be more useful for all parties.

·           Could vegetation maintenance become more proactive so that some sites would not be required to be repeatedly reported, and instead added to a schedule for maintenance? Officer response – Historically there had been issues with mapping highway hedges, which was now being proactively worked on to programme works over the winter period. Sites which had been reported over the past, including cycle ways, would be maintained over the winter period to reduce issues within the growing season. An aspect of reactive work was still expected in the summer due to the levels of growth experienced, however officers wanted to do as much works as possible during the winter period outside of the bird nesting season to prevent reoccurring issues where possible.

·           It was commented that cycleway maintenance should be a priority to ensure that cyclists had enough room to use the routes safely.

·           How were highway inspections and the enforcement of private hedges under the Highways Act 1980 processed by the highway inspection team? Officer response – When a report came in and was identified as private vegetation, the contractor would investigate and send a letter out to the resident. Should no improvement be received, this would be passed on to the highways asset team who could enforce if required.

·           Did highway inspectors pick up on any issues with WBC vegetation and feed-back for processing? Officer response – If highways inspectors identified vegetation in need of maintenance as being WBC owned, works would be issued to the grounds maintenance contractors to cut back the vegetation.

·           What did place clienting mean? Interim Director response – This encompassed contract management, compliance issues, and looked at where the service could be made more efficient and where improvements could be made.

·           If a resident raised a request for private vegetation, however the occupier of the property was a tenant and not the owner, how would the request be processed? Officer response – A letter would be sent to the property regardless of whether it was rented accommodation or not, and if the owner did not respond then ultimately WBC would make direct contact with the owner. In a small number of cases once communications had been exhausted, WBC would eventually carry out the works to the private vegetation and then invoice the owner of the property for the works.

·           Were there any plans to change the types of herbicide used to be more environmentally friendly and to encourage biodiversity? Interim Director response – This would be a decision for Members, as a number of authorities who had moved away from herbicide use had returned to the use of herbicides due to the numbers of complaints received. This was a budgetary issue as much as an environmental issue, as many alternative methods would incur substantial additional costs.

·           What was being done to link up the two separate reporting systems? Officer response – Officers were working with IT to link the two systems, which should be completed by April 2022.

·           What was environmental localities? Officer response – This was the enforcement team which dealt with issues such as fly tipping. In order to continue to improve the customer journey, two additional contract monitoring officers were proposed to be employed to increase the proactivity of the service.

·           Had contract monitoring officers been employed within the service in the past? Officer response – This aspect had previously been carried out by the environmental localities team, however priorities had shifted during the pandemic.

·           What were the typical Service Level Agreements (SLAs) for carrying out maintenance? Officer response – SLAs differed between street cleansing and grounds maintenance, and street maintenance varied between roads dependent on their usage. Grounds maintenance varied dependent on the priority of each area. Officers were committed to get the right services in the right areas.

·           If an issue was not reported, how might this be picked up? Director response – There was a proactive schedule in place, which was being enhanced by GIS mapping. Officers did not want to rely only on reports, and more resources and equipment had been given to the contract for next year to try and stay ahead of many issues.

·           Could residents be given additional garden waste bags where they went out of their way to trim WBC vegetation? Officer response – Officers supported community minded individuals, however it would be difficult to offer additional bags as it would be hard to ascertain where vegetation waste originated from. Where officers were informed of a community event taking place a collection service could be organised.

·           Whose responsibility was it to collect leaf fall in residential gardens from WBC trees? Officer response – It was not the responsibility of a tree owner to clear leaf fall from neighbouring properties. Residents had the right to cut back trees to their property boundary, bearing in mind any tree preservation orders.

·           Did reports from the “Fix my street” app come through to WBC, did residents receive an incident number, and was an in-house app for WBC in the works? Officer response – Reports from “Fix my street” came through to the customer service teams, and then sent to the relevant service area. This process was a bit slower than direct reports to WBC, and the customer was not always re-contacted. Officers would speak with IMT with regards to any plans for an in-house app.

·           What did the team need from Members and residents in order to receive more data? Officer response – Officers would encourage any Borough resident to report issues when they were noticed, to build a bigger pool of data.

·           Members requested that the service return during the growing season to assess progress made, and to review the streamlining of the reporting system.

RESOLVED That:

1)     Richard Bisset, Andy Glencross, Steve Moore, and Emma Pilgrim be thanked for attending the meeting;

2)     Officers explore the possibility of developing a WBC app for reporting vegetation and street cleansing issues;

3)     The service return to update the Committee in the growing season of 2022 to assess progress made, and to review the streamlining of the reporting system.