Agenda item

This report provides an update on the first year (2023/24) of the Redefining Local Services (RLS) programme service contracts.

Councillor Krupa Sheth (Cabinet Member for Environment, Infrastructure & Climate Action) was invited to present a report that updated the Committee on the first year (2023/24) performance of the Redefining Local Services (RLS) programme service contracts relating to Highways services, Parking enforcement, Integrated waste and recycling, street cleansing, grounds maintenance, winter gritting, and Grounds maintenance.  In introducing the report, Councillor Krupa Sheth advised that the report included contextual background information on the RLS programme alongside details on the implementation and performance of each contract over their first year of operation.

Following the initial overview of the report, contributions, comments and questions were sought from the Committee, with the subsequent discussion summarised below:

·             Having reviewed the performance data provided, details were sought on whether there were plans for this to be provided and made more accessible for the public in an open data format, which Councillor Krupa Sheth advised she would be willing to take away as a proposal for further consideration.

·             Referring to section 5.1 of the report provided for the Committee, further details were sought on the original vision which had emerged alongside the RLS commissioning process to achieve greater integration of back-office functions in order to support the creation of a digitally and data-led, streamlined and customer focussed system involving more integrated working across services and how far this had been implemented across departments and systems.  In response, the Committee was advised of the establishment of a new dedicated back-office support function across Public Realm designed to support the Grounds Maintenance and Street Cleansing contracts using data supplied through the Fix my Street App as a means of assisting to shape delivery of the service.  It was confirmed that the system was also able to share data with other divisions and contractors.

·             In highlighting the key priorities initially identified when establishing the RLS programme (as set out in section 3.1 of the report provided for the Committee) including the creation of a clean, green environment and to fully engage with local communities to understand their needs, members were keen to explore if it was felt the new contracts had been successful in achieving the stated objectives.  Whilst recognising that the new contracts had required time to bed in, it was felt the time taken for this process had been effective with positive results now starting to be identified for example in relation to clean and green environmental and social value benefits including the planting of trees, sustainability projects, enhanced community engagement and greening of the Council’s fleet vehicles.  Councillor Krupa Sheth also highlighted work being undertaken to review the provision of enforcement activity and campaigns.

·             The Committee then moved on to focus on waste collection and recycling as part of the Integrated street cleansing, waste collection and winter maintenance contract and action being taken to address the high level of complaints regarding the poor quality of the blue sacks provided for paper and cardboard as part of the twin stream fibre recycling process along with operation of the service by the contractor.  In acknowledging and recognising the initial concerns raised, Councillor Krupa Sheth supported by officers advised that in order to address the quality issues highlighted a new supplier had now been secured for provision of the blue sacks.  Overall, the move to a twin stream fibre recycling process was still felt to have been appropriate given the cost-effective nature of the option, value provided in being able to reduce levels of contamination in the waste stream and associated opportunity to increase income from the sale of the recycled material.  It was confirmed that whilst not all blue sacks had been replaced those residents who had reported or requested a new sack had been provided with them.  Details were also sought on the trial previously recommended for consideration in relation to the provision of a wheelie bin rather than blue sack, where requested by residents as an alternative under the twin stream fibre recycling scheme.  In response, Councillor Krupa Sheth advised that work was ongoing in relation to implementation of the trial which it was anticipated would commence in September.

In addition to concerns regarding the quality of the sacks provided, members sought further details on the action being taken to address issues regarding performance in relation to collection of the sacks by the contractor.  Once again, these concerns had been recognised with Councillor Krupa Sheth advising that where complaints or issues were raised these were being fed back to the contractor with spot checks being undertaken supported by a programme of staff retraining to ensure the necessary process and practices were being followed.  Members were encouraged to report any further specific issues so these could be reviewed and investigated.

·             Highlighting an increase in the residual waste stream during October 2023 identified within Appendix 4b of the report to the Committee, and reduction in paper and card accepted during the same period, members sought further detail on whether this was related to introduction of the twin recycling scheme and, if so, how it had been addressed.  In response, members were advised that this involved a number of different factors with it noted that during the first year of the contract less recycling had been extracted from collections than in previous years.  Whilst partly related to the change in contract and service, other factors which members were advised needed to be taken into account included the cost-of-living crisis meaning people were spending and buying less therefore generating less packaging with producers also being more environmentally conscious and selling their goods with less packaging.  Another key change had involved the switch to a different Material Recovery Facility (MCF) which operated on a different and stricter set of acceptance criteria to the previous MCF, meaning that more recycling had initially been rejected before it went through the processing stage.  This had also been accentuated with paper and card being removed from the total recyclable material presented, therefore making the contaminants within the recycling stream become more apparent as the paper and card made up a significant percentage of the tonnage.  To counter this, the contractor (Veolia) had been asked to split communal collections from kerbside collections as the bulk of the contamination came from communal rounds supported by an active behavioural change program to work on communal rounds designed to improve recycling rates.  In terms of the impact on costs, members were advised that as a result of the reduction in contamination of paper and card going to an alternative specialist re-processor, it had been possible to mitigate for any additional costs incurred from higher rejected loads.  The rise in yields now being experienced had also provided a higher rebate value than if it were to go through a regular MRF with costs associated with residual waste managed through existing revenue streams meaning the new arrangements had met budget requirements.

In response to a query regarding the current income being generated through the sale of recycled paper and card members were advised that whilst overall waste tonnage had decreased it had still been possible to generate improved income for the levels of recycled material collected given the low levels of contamination and reduced processing costs meaning the scheme was still able to operate within budget.

·             In noting the details provided within the report on plans to address the behavioural change required to support improvement in recycling rates and to reduce contamination in waste collections further details were sought on the approach being taken and targeted resident engagement strategies.  As a starting point, members were advised of the move towards a more data led approach involving a focus on key contaminates identified within the waste stream at the MRF, bins being tagged as contaminated by collection crews, repeat offenders being highlighted and contacted or visited by recycling officers and work to address communal contamination within flats or HMOs in partnership with the managing agents/caretakers.  In terms of developments planned for 2024-25 members were advised these included round by round contamination checks using a camera at the recycling facility to provide data on those rounds highly contaminated in order to target outreach and communications, a bespoke communication plan for HMO’s, the introduction of bin lid stickers with key contaminants and QR codes for further information and call to action, the development of data to identify and target hot spots as well as a targeted communication campaign to identify common contaminants with the use of AI also being considered to support the overall approach towards mapping and targeting future campaigns.

·             Reflecting on the issues highlighted in relation to communal housing and HMOs members queried whether better utilisation of data held through the Landlord Licensing Scheme may be able to assist improving waste management associated with those properties for example through the targeted provision of access to the relevant number and type of collection bins and to identify landlords in breach of their agreements.  In response, the Committee was advised that available data was already subject to review supported by a system of site visits and work with the relevant managing agents to understand capacity needs.  It was confirmed that use of data available through the Landlord Licensing Scheme to support that process could also be considered working in conjunction with the Cabinet Member for Housing, Homelessness and Renters Security, which the Committee advised they would, as previously highlighted, be keen to see progressed.

·             As a further issue, details were sought on the information available for households living in flats above retail premises regarding waste management and recycling arrangements.  In response, members were advised that guidance and information was already available and provided for those households living above retail premises with further work and research already identified in relation to waste management and recycling behaviour in and around commercial and retail properties.

·             Highlighting the changes made in relation to outsourcing of the Bulky Waste service and new eligibility criteria being established for free collections an update was sought on whether it had been possible to expand the criteria beyond those claiming Council Tax Support.  In response, Councillor Krupa Sheth advised that it had been possible to expand the criteria which now included a wider range of welfare benefits including those claiming Housing Benefit, Income related Job Seekers Allowance, Pension Credit, Income Support and the housing element of Universal Credit.

·             The Committee then moved on to focus on street cleansing with members referring to previous concerns raised on the move to an intelligence led approach and additional concerns highlighted in relation to the current cleanliness of streets across the borough.  As a result, an assessment was sought as to how effective it was felt the current intelligence led approach had been in terms of street cleansing performance.  In reminding members of the objective behind introduction of the new approach in relation to providing a more cost effective, flexible and responsive service, the Committee was advised the new arrangements had involved not only changes to street cleaning frequencies but also the introduction of six rapid response teams covering the five Brent connects area with cleansing performance in line with the expected standards compared to the previous regime.  The approach was supported by Neighbourhood Managers undertaking “proactive inspections” to assess street cleansing standards and flag any areas that needed improvement. To help facilitate the Intelligence led street cleansing approach, a new reporting tool Fix My Street (replacing Love Clean Streets) had been introduced.  Based on the information being received through Fix My Street and from proactive inspections, the cleansing schedule was being regularly reviewed to target hot spot areas.  As a result, the new intelligence led approach was felt to be working effectively involving a system of data capture that enabled a focus on areas receiving the highest number of reports as a means of targeting the most efficient use of street cleansing resource supported by the introduction of the Rapid Response Teams to provide a more flexible, proactive, and rapid response.

In noting the reliance on reporting to focus the targeting of resources, members queried whether this was likely to benefit more affluent areas of the borough based on residents access and use of the Fix my Street App, which officers did not feel to be the case based on the areas in which resources were being deployed as a result.  Members were also reminded of the use of Neighbourhood Managers to proactively identify issues in addition to data generated through the App.  In support of the issue highlighted, members felt it would be useful to receive a heat map outlining report locations with breakdowns by issue type, user type (e.g. resident, councillor, neighbourhood manager etc), and ward being reported through the Fix my Street App, which Councillor Krupa Sheth advised officers would be asked to investigate providing.

·             Focussing on the user friendliness of the Fix My Street App members took the opportunity to highlight the number of outstanding jobs compared to the number of reports raised, as detailed within Table 9 of Appendix 4b within the report provided for the Committee and sought further details on the reasons for any blockages along with a breakdown of data on reports initiated but not submitted on the ‘Fix My Street’ application.  In clarifying the position, officers advised that the completed jobs listed involved cases which had been resolved and closed with those not completed often involving the case being transferred to a separate department for action, which was not recorded in the data.  In terms of overall user experience of the Fix my Street App members highlighted varying feedback which officers advised would be included as part of a more comprehensive review being undertaken and on which further member input would be welcome, including ways to improve data utilisation to enhance street cleaning operations.

·             In response to a query regarding the recent publication of data showing Brent as one of the boroughs with the highest levels of fly-tipping Councillor Krupa Sheth advised that this was partly explained by an increase in reporting alongside the way data was collected and reported by other comparable local authorities with officers also continuing to evaluate and refine the approach towards enforcement supported by associated communication campaigns.

·             Moving on to review performance on the Parking Enforcement contract, reference was made to the service improvements outlined in Appendix 1 which included (as part of a new enforcement plan for the borough) areas with a higher number of contraventions being visited on a more frequent basis for enforcement activity.  As a result, further details were sought on the impact  this had had on the number of Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs) being issued with numbers expected to increase from 182,000 in 2022-23 to over 220,000 in 2023-24 along with the accompanying impact on income being generated as a result.  In response, members were advised of the improvements which it had been possible to deliver through the enforcement plan including an increase in the number of enforcement hours across the borough which had led to an overall increase in income generated (including all sources) for the Parking Place Revenue Account (PPRA).  In response to a further query regarding enforcement activity outside of normal hours, members were advised that arrangements were in place to regularly target specific locations including those areas with a night time or weekend economy or town centres, such as Kingsbury.

In clarifying the basis on which the contract for parking enforcement had been awarded, confirmation was provided that payments were not structured around the number of PCNs issued and had been based on rates for specific enforcement activity and performance standards.  Referring to the other London Boroughs for which Martson (NSL) also worked as parking enforcement contractor, details were sought on the potential for any cross-boundary activity which members were advised would require specific reciprocal arrangements with Brent having their own dedicated team.

·             In commenting on the robustness of current parking enforcement measures, the difference in practices operated across other London Boroughs was highlighted including PCNs becoming enforceable as soon as completed (enabling then to be served via post) rather than having to be physically issued, as was the current position in Brent ,and which it was felt may improve adherence to parking restrictions across the borough.  In confirming that the issue of PCNs via post was permissible members were advised that the current approach towards the enforcement regime across Brent operated in accordance with the London Code of Practice for Parking Enforcement with the use of postal PCNs also reliant on the DVLA for the supply of relevant details.  In view of the issues raised, however, members advised they would be keen to receive further detail on the comparison of postal PCNs being issued by other London boroughs along with a review on the potential to issue postal PCNs within Brent when they could not be issued physically incorporating data on the number of PCNs initiated but not issued and the most common reasons for not issuing them along with opportunities for improvement.

·             In response to further details being sought on the tender process undertaken for award of the cashless parking service contract clarification was provided on the reasons behind the contract needing to be reprocured which had followed a legal challenge on the original award, with RingGo subsequently being awarded the final contract.  The use of reminder emails for permit renewals and enhancements to the purchase of permits and visitor parking were also clarified alongside continued use of on-street payment parking services.

·             Turning attention to the Grounds Maintenance contract, concerns were raised regarding specific examples of poor performance by the current contractor in maintaining sports facilities as part of the contract which appeared to contradict with the statement in Appendix 3 of the report provided for the Committee regarding the positive feedback received on the quality of the service.  As a result, the Committee requested further detail on how resident and user feedback was incorporated into monitoring the performance of the Grounds Maintenance Contract, particularly regarding the upkeep of football, rugby, cricket, Gaelic football pitches, and bowling greens within Brent Parks with Councillor Krupa Sheth advising that whilst feedback had been based on comments provided through Friends of the Park Groups she would ask officers to investigate the specific example raised during the meeting regarding the East Lane sports pitch.

·             As a final issue, attention was also drawn to the performance of the Highways Maintenance contractor (O Hara Bros) in relation to the percentage of category 2 defects being repaired on time with further details requested on the action being taken to address the issue.  Details were also sought on the escalation process that could be followed when reporting concerns regarding damage and repairs required to footways, with the example provided of concerns relating to Willesden Hight Street.  Officers confirmed that members could raise these issues direct however, given the constraints on resources, each request would need to be assessed on the basis of high, medium or low risk and repairs actioned accordingly. Whilst those assessed as high risk would receive an immediate response the funds available to deal with the remainder of repairs would be allocated based on the risk identified.

At this stage in proceedings, the Committee agreed to apply the guillotine procedure under Standing Order 62(c) in order to extend the meeting for a period of 5 minutes to enable conclusion of the item and remaining business on the agenda.

In bringing the consideration of the item to a close, the Chair thanked officers and members for their contributions towards scrutiny of the item and as a result of the outcome of the discussion the requests for additional information and suggestions for improvement identified as a result were AGREED as follows:

Suggestions for Improvement to Council Departments

(1)        To explore utilising data from the Landlord Licensing Scheme in order to provide the correct amount/types of bins needed per household.

(2)        To investigate incentive programmes for parking enforcement officers in comparison with other local authorities to establish whether this has led to more effective parking enforcement.

(3)        Consideration be given to optimising resource allocation on the ‘Fix My Street’ application to facilitate timely responses to complaints and case closure.

(4)        To list instructions on the ‘Fix My Street’ application for users to escalate/challenge responses that they are unsatisfied with.

Information Requests

(1)        To provide detail on whether there are any plans to make performance data for all RLS contracts more accessible to the public in an open data format, and if so, by when.

(2)    To provide more detailed information on the action the Council is taking to address O Hara Bros’ poor performance in repairing category 2 defects.

(3)    To provide data comparison of postal penalty charge notice (PCN) issuance volumes with other London boroughs.

(4)    To provide information on the approach taken by Brent for posting PCNs when enforcement officers cannot issue (e.g. the vehicle drives away), data on the number of PCNs initiated but not issued and the most common reasons for not issuing them, and opportunities for improvement.

(5)    To explain how resident and user feedback is incorporated into monitoring the performance of the Grounds Maintenance Contract, particularly regarding the upkeep of football, rugby, cricket, Gaelic football pitches, and bowling greens within Brent Parks

(6)    To provide data on the reports initiated but not submitted on the ‘Fix My Street’ application and to provide a ‘Fix My Street’ heatmap visualising report locations with breakdowns by issue type, user type (e.g. resident, councillor, neighbourhood manager etc), and ward.