28 Review of Grass Cutting and Roadside Vegetation Management Service PDF 183 KB
Report by the Director of Communities, Economy and Transport.
Additional documents:
Minutes:
28.1 The Contract Manager Highway Infrastructure Services introduced the report. The report provides an update on the Grass Cutting and Roadside Vegetation Management Service following changes made to the Service in May 2018. The change in policy was to reduce the number of urban grass cuts to two cuts per year and has been successful. Under the revised Service, Borough, District, Town and Parish councils are offered several service options to either self-deliver grass cutting; pay for additional cuts; or accept the revised service of two urban grass cuts per year. In 2019 more Parish councils have decided to take up the option of either paying for additional cuts, or self-delivering the grass cutting service with a contribution from ESCC equivalent to the cost of providing two cuts.
28.2 The grass growing season in 2018 was a bit unusual, but 2019 has been a more normal year. There have been fewer customer contacts about grass cutting and there have been fewer issues around safety cuts for visibility splays. Following feedback from last year, the Team have developed more clarity about which areas need cutting and have been able to take a better approach to cutting visibility splays. There have been no significant operational issues such as machinery breakdowns. There has been more interest in Wildlife Verges and people can see the wildlife benefit of cutting verges less. There appears to be growing public support for cutting verges less which benefits wildlife.
28.3 The Committee discussed the report and the changes to the Grass Cutting Service. It noted that the Service changes have been positive in terms of the environmental benefits resulting from cutting verges less. The Committee acknowledged that the timing of cuts could be difficult as wildflower verges should ideally be cut towards the end of July. A feature of having a countywide contract means that verges in some places might be cut slightly too early or too late in the season. However, to have all verges cut at the same time would have an impact on the operational efficiency and cost of the grass cutting contract.
28.4 Some Committee members commented that the revised policy means that Parish and Town Councils can rightly decide what level of service they want. The Contract Manager Highway Infrastructure Service clarified that although some councils are self-delivering the Grass Cutting Service, this does not mean that ESCC has delegated the control of highway verges to them. The Team have worked very closely with Town and Parish Councils and if they self-deliver the grass cutting service, measures are in place to ensure all the relevant procedures are in place. ESCC also has an enforcement team and Highway Stewards who will deal with any issues related to verges such as parking and encroachment.
28.5 The Committee expressed some concerns about the quality of the finish that is being achieved, as the quality of the cut is determined by the machinery used and the length of the grass at the time of cutting. The use ... view the full minutes text for item 28
20 Highway Grass Cutting Service- Update report PDF 232 KB
Additional documents:
Minutes:
20.1 The Contracts Manager introduced the report, which updates the Committee on the outcomes of changes to the grass cutting service. The changes to the service included an option for Parish, Town, District and Borough councils to top up the ESCC grass cutting service and pay for extra cuts, or elect to receive a contribution from ESCC and self-deliver the service. Of the 106 local authorities, 52 bought an additional 4 cuts (24 of which were funded by Rother District Council), 26 opted to remain with the ESCC provided 2 cuts per season, and 16 elected to receive a contribution and manage the grass cutting themselves.
20.2 The table in paragraph 3.1 of the report shows the number of customer contacts regarding grass cutting. There was a high level of contacts in May and June, in part due to the delay in starting the grass cutting the service. The number of contacts was much lower in July, August and September, which is thought to be due to the dry growing season and people getting used to new service. It is possible that there will be a difference in the number of contacts next year if the growing season is different.
20.3 Following feedback from the local councils, the Team is consulting earlier with them on the grass cutting service for next year. The service options will be the same as this year, with responses due back by end of November. Based on the responses received to date, there is a slight shift in Parish Councils wishing to pay for extra cuts. The Director of Communities, Economy and Transport added that he had attended a recent Sussex Association of Local Councils (SALC) meeting to talk about grass cutting, and the concept of adding this to the precept to fund grass cutting if it is important to the councils and the communities they serve. The Chair observed that this is not an option in areas where there are no Parish or Town councils such as in Eastbourne and Hastings.
20.4 The Committee asked if the Council is making the planned savings of £400,000 per year, bearing in mind the damage to equipment and it taking longer to carry out the cuts. The Committee also asked if the longer grass cuttings (arisings) were blocking road drains and whether the Council has had to compensate the contractor for damaged equipment.
20.5 The Contracts Manager outlined that there has been a slight increase in machinery breakdowns costing around £2,000-£3,000, but ESCC is still determining if any compensation was due to the contractor as the cutting season had not quite finished. He was not aware that there had been a particular problem with grass cuttings blocking drains, and the cuttings are blown back onto the grass verges. The Contract Manager confirmed that the planned savings had been achieved. There has been a minimal adverse impact resulting from the changes to the grass cutting service. This is due in part to the growing season and ... view the full minutes text for item 20
17 Grass Cutting Service and Management of Roadside Vegetation PDF 151 KB
Report by the Director of Communities, Economy and Transport.
Additional documents:
Minutes:
17.1 The Contracts Manager introduced the report, which provides an opportunity for the Committee to comment on proposals for savings in the grass cutting budget. At present, the budget funds two cuts per year in rural areas and six cuts per year urban areas, plus some other reactive work (e.g. the management of wildflower areas). There is no statutory requirement to carry out highways grass cutting or verge maintenance. The Customer Centre receives 2,000 enquiries per year regarding highways grass cuttings, and it is one of the top ten issues that are reported. The department is discussing possible changes to the grass cutting service with Parish, District and Borough Councils. It is planned to present a report to Cabinet in December to outline the proposals to achieve the savings, and to seek approval to start a public consultation on the proposals.
17.2 The Contracts Manager outlined that if the Council does decide to reduce grass cutting it is likely to lead to an increase in the number of complaints and customer dissatisfaction. In addition, there may be an increase in costs if the grass cutting service becomes a more reactive service (e.g. in dealing with higher volume of complaints). A reduction in grass cutting may also have an impact on drainage and access in some rural areas. East Sussex County Council (ESCC) does have a statutory duty to have safe and useable Highway network. Consequently, grass cutting for safety reasons around visibility splays will need to continue.
17.3 The Committee observed that in the previous report in 2014 (appendix 2) it was recommended not to make savings in this service area. Given that background, the Committee asked what had changed and whether other service areas should be considered for savings.
17.4 The Lead Member for Transport and Environment explained that this was one of several areas of search that the Cabinet had proposed. He acknowledged that this is a more complicated matter than at first thought. Consequently there is a need to consider the implications carefully and to involve other authorities in this work. The Director of CET added that at beginning of savings process there had been a wider area of search. Now there are fewer opportunities for savings in what is a difficult financial environment, with further savings of £36m required across the Council in 2019/20 to 2020/21.
17.5 The Committee asked a number of questions about breakdown of expenditure in Appendix 1. Officers clarified that: