SALFORD CITY COUNCIL
ENVIRONMENTAL SCRUTINY
COMMITTEE
SUBJECT:
16TH OCTOBER 2000
MEMBERS CONCERNS REGARDING THE
REPORTING OF KEY PERFORMANCE
INDICATOR INFORMATION
REPORT OF: THE DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL
SERVICES
PART 1
(OPEN TO THE PUBLIC
ITEM NO
PERFORMANCE
REVIEW MATTER
FOR CONSIDERATION
1.0
Purpose of Report
1.1
As a result of concerns raised by the Environmental Scrutiny Committee at the 18 th
September meeting, a request for further explanation has been received by the
Environmental Services Directorate on a number of the Performance Indicator returns
presented.
1.2
The following issues were asked to be explained in more detail:
 The lack of monitoring of a statutory performance indicator
 The pilot monitoring of “missed bins”
 First four month monitoring of some of the key best value performance indicators
 The amount and basis of estimating the tonnages of waste recycled via home composters.
 The % of food premises inspections regarding “other premises” that were carried out in
the first four months of 2000/01.
2.0
Explanations
2.1
The lack of monitoring of a statutory performance indicator
Due to the restructure of the Directorate in September 1997, the Client section previously
responsible for the monitoring of this indicator was amalgamated into the Contract Services
Section to create a soft-split approach to service monitoring and delivery. As part of this
process it was decided that monitoring and supervisory roles should be carried out by the
same officer, from which the award winning Environmental Co-ordinators approach was
developed in late 1999. This new development meant some previous duties were put on
hold, until a proper structure for monitoring/supervision could be agreed. As a result no
statistical monitoring of street cleansing levels as required by the indicator were carried out
from March 1999, albeit supervisory checks on other cleansing contract requirements were
maintained. However, this omission has now been addressed.
If you have any queries please contact:
Background documents
(available for public inspection)
Not applicable
Wayne Priestley 793 2060
Quality Control
Report prepared by:
Wayne Priestley
Report checked by:
Dave Tinker
Environmental Services Directorate, Crompton House, 100 Chorley Road, Swinton M27 6ES
Following the creation of Environmental Co-ordinators, and the provision of specialist
training from the Tidy Britain Group on cleanliness monitoring methods, the monitoring
required by the performance indicator was recommenced in September 2000. As such
figures will be available for the last seven months of 2000/01. Unfortunately the
performance indicator requires monitoring to have taken place regularly over the twelve
months of the year, therefore, although accurate information for most of 2000/01 will be
available it may not be acceptable for the 2000/01 returns.
Despite this however, from an operational and customer perspective, the City will have a
much clearer picture on the quality of street cleansing being delivered and this will be a
significant element in the desire to provide best value services.
2.2
Pilot monitoring of missed bins
The Environmental Scrutiny Committee meeting held on the 17th July 2000 requested that a
three-month monitoring study of “missed bins” be undertaken. In order to do this, specific
definitions of what constitutes a “missed bin” have had to be configured into the computer
recording system, and also, there has been a need to train Environmental Co-ordinators to
interrogate and manage information held on this Flare computerised system, in order to
ensure any complaints received as “missed bins” are ‘justified’ or ‘un-justified’.
An example of the latter would be that if a bin(s) were missed as a result of an access
problem (e.g. skip or cars blocking the way) this would be cleared as an ‘unjustified’
complaint as the inability to collect the bin(s) was outside the refuse collectors control. This
need for Environmental Co-ordinators to visit and assess complaints will also address the
issue of actual missed bin numbers i.e. the co-ordinator may visit one complainant but be
made aware by his visit that 10 bins have been missed. Therefore if the missing of these bins
was the fault of the refuse collector (i.e. a justified complaint) then the co-ordinator would
record 10 missed bins and not 1.
There was no deliberate delay in establishing the pilot, it was systems and procedural
developments, but it is anticipated the report required by Scrutiny Committee will be
presented at the January 2001 meeting.
2.3
The lack of information on the first four months performance against key best value
indicators.
The key indicators where no information could be provided related to:
 The kg of household waste collected per head
 The tonnes of waste collected per household that was recycled
Discussions are currently underway with Greater Manchester Waste Ltd (GMW) and
Greater Manchester Waste Disposal Authority (GMWDA) to change the way they provide
information following the requirements of the Scrutiny Committee.
Currently both their sets of information are provided on an annual basis and the ability to
now provide them monthly or quarterly will require changes to the current methods of data
collation and preparation.
The Directorate will now receive monthly updates on waste delivered to Brindleheath from
GMW, but this will also include street cleansing waste (including gully waste) which will
need to be extracted in order to provide refuse collection figures. Added to this will be the
need to acquire recycling details from GMWDA which they are currently preparing on a
monthly basis but in order to prepare a recycling percentage rate they too need monthly
refuse collection figures from GMW.
Therefore although figures could not be provided for the first four months of 2000/01 it is
anticipated this failing will soon be addressed. I have to say that this failing must also have
affected the accurate reporting of Performance Indicator’s by all our AGMA colleagues.
2.4
The amount/percentage of waste taken out of the domestic waste arisings as a result of
home composting.
In relation to home composting the city’s figures are built up from two sources: DETR estimates on the amount of people carrying out home composting
 The estimated composting rates/weights p.a. derived from the use home composting units
distributed by the Environmental Services Directorate.
For the year 2000/01, 1578.25 tonnes of waste was composted rather than being disposed of
via the refuse bin. This figure was arrived at by using the calculation highlighted at
Appendix 1.
In relation to the total amount of waste recycled in the City of Salford during 2000/01 which
was 8009 tonnes, house composting equated to almost 20% of this figure. Unfortunately due
to a lack of any recycling budget it is unlikely any expansion in home composters will be
pursued in the foreseeable future unless alternative funding sources are found.
This will obviously affect the City’s ability to achieve its recycling standards as highlighted
in the new waste strategy and proposed performance indicators for 2001/02.
2.5
The % of food premises inspections that should have been carried out that were
carried out for “other premises”
This indicator is not one of the key indicators identified for Best Value Performance Plan
purposes, but was reported upon as it was seen to indicate poor performance in this
particular area of service delivery.
However, I am able to report on performance against this indicator for the first four months
of 2000/01 as follows:
 Total no. of ‘other premises’ requiring inspection annually
-
287
 No of inspections programmed for first four months
-
92
 No of inspections actually carried out in first four months
-
106
% of premises inspected during first four months is
115%
The reason for this achievement is that two newly appointed EHO’s have undertaken
inspection work on low risk premises over a “breaking-in” period to enable them to
familiarise themselves with procedures, working practices etc. This will result in the targets
for the inspection of ‘other premises’ being vastly improved by the end of the year. It should
be noted this will not be at the expense of the inspection of high/medium risk premises.
For information:
“Other premises” include
-
Chemists, selling baby food
Newsagents selling bottled drinks
Village halls selling tea/coffee/biscuits
Appendix 1
DETR HOME COMPOSTING FORMULA
101,900 properties in the City Of Salford
35.5% terraced properties (1991 figs)
26.3% flats (1991 figs)
assuming these two housing categories do not have access to a garden this means
remaining 38.2% of properties do have gardens. This equates to 38,925 properties.
DETR formula states 29% of eligible households actively compost, therefore
29% of 38,925 = 11,288.25 properties
11,288.25 properties x 100kg of compost p.a. = 1,128.83 tonnes
The Environmental Services Directorate between 1998 and 1999 distributed c. 4500
home composting units. Therefore in addition to the assumed 29% composting rate
established by DETR a further 4500 homes can be counted to this calculation as
follows,
11,288.25 properties (DETR estimate) + 4500 properties issued with home
composters by the City Of Salford.
Therefore 11,288.25 + 4500 = 15,788.25 properties
15,788.25 properties x 100 kg of compost pa = 1578.25 tonnes.
In addition it is worth of note that the 1995 Waste Strategy – Making Waste work
stated that 40% of all homes with access to a garden should carry out composting.
15,788.25 properties as a percentage of 38,925 properties = 40.5%.
G:\oconnell\sbdu\wp\rpt\DETR Home Compost Formula