Third Quarter 2001/02 Comparator Action Plan
The % of the total tonnage of houehold waste arisings which have been
recycled
BVPI
82a
Family
Trend
Salford's Targets
25.00%
20.00%
Percentage
20.00%
15.00%
10.03%
10.00%
10.00%
8.10%
6.61%
6.50%
5.00%
5.00%
3.06%
0.00%
1998/99
1999/00
2000/01
Met Average
99/00
Ranking against all GM Councils (of 10)
2
Ranking against family authorities (of 21)
N/A
Range for all Mets Councils
N/A
Quartile level for Mets
N/A
Quartile level for all Authorities
N/A
Performance Indicator Action Plan
Family
Average
99/00
Met Top
Quartile
99/00
Salfords
Target
2001/02
PERFORMANCE IS
IMPROVING
2003/04
Salfords 5
2005/06
(Government Year Target (Government
Performance
Performance
Standard)
Standard)
2000/01
2001/02
Q1
HIGHER FIGURE IS
PREFERABLE
Q2
Q3
Date: 05/02/02
Comments on Current Performance:
A notable improvement has occurred in relation to the City’s recycling rate, making it the second best recycler in
the Greater Manchester area during 2000/01. However, most of this improvement was due to the production of
soil conditioner by Greater Manchester Waste Ltd. This soil conditioner has now been excluded from further
recycling returns due to the decision to end its acceptance as recycled material. As a consequence of this
together with the fact waste disposal recycling tonnages can no longer be added to the tonnages of waste
recycled by waste collection authorities it will now prove difficult to achieve national recycling targets of 10%
(2003/04) and 18% by 2005/06. However, attempts are being made to improve the quality of this material by
composting the soil conditioner in order that it can be re-introduced as part of the City’s recycling rate. If this is
not possible significant improvements will need to be made re collecting waste from homes which can be
recycled. With this in mind the City is currently pursuing the introduction of kerbside collection schemes of
recyclables. Funding allowing, then a pilot scheme of 10,000 properties will be introduced in 2002/03.
Barriers to Improvement:
The most obvious barrier to improvement is the Environment Agency’s decision to no longer accept soil
conditioner as a recycled material. This aside the recycling carried out by the Directorate regarding domestic
waste has reached a plateau, in that all no-cost options for increasing recycling have now been exhausted.
Newspaper and magazine recycling via Paperchase may only yield up to 5000 tonnes p.a. and already the 4000
tonne mark is likely to be achieved in 2001/02. Glass recycling can be increased via the siting of more recycling
banks but not significantly. Therefore there is a need to introduce kerbside collection schemes for elements of
domestic waste which are recyclable, if recycling targets are to be achieved as part of environmental and Best
Value legislation requirements. Without such investments the City’s steady improvement in recycling will fall
away and recycling rates will return to less than 5% within 12 months, and as such this will leave the recycling
element of the Directorate’s work vulnerable to Best Value inspection.
In order to address the issue of meeting Best Value inspections, it has been identified that a realistic Recycling
Action Plan needs to be produced outlining the way forward and achieving Government performance standards
in relation to recycling. This plan will need to have full Council support and will undoubtedly have financial
implications. The Recycling Plan is currently being developed as part of the Directorate’s Best Value review
process.
The main financial obstacle to furthering recycling in the City is the current method by which it pays for its
waste to be disposed of. The ideal, which would help recycling schemes to be developed, is that waste disposal
should be paid for on a tonnage apportionment i.e. you pay for the amount of waste which you send for disposal.
If this were the way in which the City paid for its waste disposal, then there would be a definite incentive to
reduce the amount of waste presented for disposal via recycling or other waste minimisation, re-use methods.
Unfortunately the current method for waste disposal payment is charged on the council tax base. This results in
there being no incentive to recycle waste, as no matter how much the City reduces the waste it creates, the
council tax base remains the same, and thereby so does the cost. This means the City will pay the same disposal
cost for 125,000 tonnes, as it will for 50,000 tonnes. Consequently recycling does not bring any financial
benefits or savings, and as such, there is no ability to reinvest any potential savings into developing more
recycling. Thankfully this situation is now being considered as part of the Greater Manchester Waste Disposal
Authority’s (GMWDA) review of a future integrated waste disposal strategy, as eight out of the nine local
authorities, which make up the GMWDA, suffer from this unfair method of waste disposal charging and have
made their concerns very clear that a change is required. Unfortunately, if one of the nine authorities disagrees
with an alternative method of waste disposal charging proposal, then it is the council tax base appointment
charging system which must be adopted. This is currently the reason why the council tax base has been adopted,
as one authority benefits significantly from this system, at the expense of the eight others and has used its power
of veto to its own ends. It is therefore hoped that the GMWDA review currently taking place, will address this
issue, or there is a real chance that local authorities will consider looking outside the GMWDA arrangements to
achieve less costly waste disposal and higher recycling rates as required by Best Value requirements.
Current/Proposed Action:
Attempts are also being made to find funds to further recycling, and example being indicative bids for a kerbside
collection scheme and a new recycling centre in the Kersal/Charlestown New Deal area. Bids submission have
been put forward for these proposals. As part of the bid, work has been carried out on a feasibility study on
introducing a pilot kerbside collection scheme to an area of the City. Following the study, work will be entered
into as to how best to begin collecting recyclables using this system, be it internally or externally provided. In
addition improvements will be made to increasing recycling tonnages gleaned from existing schemes via
expanding facilities and increasing public awareness as to the needs to recycle. Currently the Directorate is
drawing up a specification for the provision of receiving, transporting and setting recyclates collected by the
pilot kerbside collection scheme. It is proposed to issue the tender in March 2002.
It is envisaged kerbside collections will begin in 2002/03 with increased recycling rates being achieved for the
2002/03 PI returns. It is proposed in this first year, to have at least one recycling vehicle and two staff funded
through New Deal for Communities funding operational from early in the 2002/03 financial year. Additional
resources may be added to this if other funding sources can be secured, either internal or external. Reports
outlining resource requirements have been placed before Cabinet and funding is being sought through New
Opportunities Fund when application forms are available, (early 2002).
This approach to increase recycling levels is in line with commitments made via the City’s six pledges, the
Greater Manchester Recycling Plan and will be included as part of the City Council’s final report on its Best
Value Review of Streetcare.
Top Quartile to be Achieved By (Date):
Lead Officer:
2004
Malcolm Thorpe
Assistant Director (Contract Services)
Third Quarter 2001/02 Comparator Action Plan
BVPI 85
The cost per square kilometer of keeping relevant land and relvant
highways, for which the authority is responsible, clear of litter and refuse
Salford's
Targets
Family
Trend
£193,000.00
£194,000.00
£192,000.00
£190,000.00
Cost £
£188,000.00
£186,000.00
£184,662.00
£184,000.00
£181,889.00
£181,889.00
£182,000.00
£180,000.00
£178,000.00
£176,000.00
1998/99
1999/00
2000/01
Met
Family Met Top
Average Average Quartile
99/00
99/00
99/00
Salfords
Target
2001/02
Ranking against all GM Councils (of 10)
Ranking against family authorities (of 21)
Range for all Mets Councils
Quartile level for Mets
Quartile level for all Authorities
NO COMPARATIVE
DATA
Salfords Salfords
5 Year Current
Target Position
2001/02
2000/01
2001/02
Q1
HIGHER FIGURE IS
PREFERABLE
Q2
Q3
Performance Indicator Action Plan
Date: 05/02/02
Comments on Current Performance:
It has to be noted, that previous reporting on this indicator had now had to be changed, as a result of the need to
interpret data differently. ‘Relevant land,’ has been found to include any land which is open on one side to allow
public access, this therefore means that in addition to cleansing costs for streets, highways etc. the cost has to
include monies spent on parks, open spaces, sports grounds, countryside areas, walkways and playgrounds.
From the figures shown however, it is apparent that costs have fallen.
This target is reported upon annually, therefore there is no current position available.
Barriers to Improvement:
In order to drive down costs still further there will be a need to invest in greater levels of mechanisation together
with improvements in productivity levels. However with regards to immediate lowering of costs this will be
difficult due to the initial costs of purchasing leasing vehicles and meeting training needs.
Current/Proposed Action:
Due to savings achieved money is being invested in further mechanisation of street sweeping to improve the
quality of service provision. We plan to increase the number of mini-mechanised sweepers from 6 to 11 in
2002/03. At the same time, the planned provision of more litter bins should contribute to less litter being
deposited on the City’s streets and open spaces. 100% service provision has been achieved as a result of proactive sickness management which has led to increased productivity and kept unproductive time to a minimum.
Top Quartile to be Achieved By (Date):
Lead Officer:
2005
Malcolm Thorpe
Assistant Director (Contract Services)
P.I. Ref 3.10
Third Quarter 2001/02 Comparator Action Plan
BVPI 88
The number of household waste coleections which were missed per
100,000 collections
Family
Trend
300.00
Salford's Targets
262.94
250.00
Number
200.00
190.00
174.00
150.23
150.00
123.00
98.00
90.00
100.00
70.00
66.00
50.00
0.00
1998/99
1999/00
2000/01
Met
Average
99/00
Ranking against all GM Councils (of 10)
10
Ranking against family authorities (of 21)
6 of 21
Range for all Mets Councils
3 to 2046
Quartile level for Mets
66
Quartile level for all Authorities
23
Family
Average
99/00
Met Top
Quartile
99/00
Salfords Salfords 5 Salfords
Target
Year
Current
2001/02
Target
Position
2001/02
PERFORMANCE IS
POOR
2000/01
2001/02
Q1
LOWER FIGURE IS
PREFERABLE
Performance Indicator Action Plan
Q2
Q3
Date: 05/02/02
Comments on Current Performance:
Since the 1st quarterly return for the current year showed a missed bin rate of 328 per 100,000 as a result of the
introduction of the 4-day working week on refuse collection, improvements have been made. The miss rate of
328 has now fallen to 174 per 100,000, an improvement of almost 47%. However, this improvement does not
truly reflect the actual improvement made in service delivery as the figures still include the very high miss rates
encountered at the beginning of the 4-day week introduction. The real improvement can be seen when one
considers the miss rate of 2225 per 100,000 bins emptied experienced in May 2001 to the latest missed rate in
December 2001 of 184 per 100,000 bins emptied. In reality this is an improvement of 92%. It is anticipated that
this improvement will continue throughout the year 2001/02 to aim to achieve the target of 90 missed bins per
100,000 collections made.
Barriers to Improvement:
It is anticipated the service will improve still further in reliability terms over the coming months and as such no
barriers to improvement are envisaged. In relation to the eventual year end performance figures however, these
may be higher than would have been preferred due to the initial high level of missed bins. It is apparent,
however, through the improvements highlighted previously, that every attempt is being made to achieve the
year-end target.
Current/Proposed Action:
Constant service quality monitoring by Environmental Co-ordinators, and the associated productivity payments
related to reducing missed bin occurrences are expected to improve the service over the coming months. We aim
to continuously improve service delivery by introducing new ways of working, for example, the use of vehicle
tracking systems to increase service effectiveness and improve performance management systems.
Top Quartile to be Achieved By (Date):
Lead Officer:
2003
Malcolm Thorpe
Assistant Director (Contract Services)
Third Quarter 2001/02 Comparator Action Plan
The percentage of people satisfied with cleanliness standards (i.e.
keeping relevant land clear of litter and refuse
BVPI
89
Family
Trend
Salford's Targets
80.00%
70.00%
70.00%
Percentage
60.00%
45.00%
50.00%
40.00%
32.00%
30.00%
20.00%
10.00%
0.00%
1998/99
1999/00
2000/01
Met
Average
99/00
Family
Average
99/00
Met Top
Quartile
99/00
Salfords 5
Year
Target
Ranking against all GM Councils (of 10)
Ranking against family authorities (of 21)
Range for all Mets Councils
Quartile level for Mets
Quartile level for all Authorities
Performance Indicator Action Plan
NO COMPARATIVE
DATA
2000/01
Salfords
Current
Position
2001/02
2001/02
Q1
HIGHER FIGURE IS
PREFERABLE
Q2
Q3
Date: 05/02/02
Comments on Current Performance:
In 1999 as part of the Kwest Survey, it was found that only 32% of people questioned were satisfied with the
levels of street cleansing in the city. This seemed to be in direct contrast to the findings of the Directorate’s
monitoring inspections, which were showing up to 90% of the City’s streets were of a high or acceptable level of
cleanliness. In September of this year the Directorate commissioned the Tidy Britain Group to carry out a
similar survey, questioning 200 people about their views on the cleanliness of the City. The results showed that
45% of respondents were either very satisfied or satisfied with levels of cleanliness in the City, 51% of the same
people were satisfied with cleaning levels in their local area, and this score rose to 56% of respondents being
satisfied when questioned about cleanliness levels in their own streets.
This improvement in cleanliness levels from a public viewpoint, can hopefully be explained by the increased
levels of mechanisation in street cleansing services since 1999 when the Kwest Survey was held. Mechanisation
has led to increased frequencies of areas being swept, and it is hoped these extra sweeps will be added to in the
near future as extra mini-sweepers are introduced.
Barriers to Improvement:
The biggest problem facing the Directorate regarding satisfaction levels re. street cleanliness is one of
‘perception’. Most people when asked about street cleanliness take several factors into account. i.e. physical
appearance of buildings, derelict land, untidy street furniture, graffiti, vandalism etc. What is required to get a
true picture of people’s perception is that they understand what is meant by ‘street cleansing’.
The survey carried out by the Tidy Britain Group in September of this year bares this out. A large proportion of
comments which stated street cleansing was poor, when interrogated a little further, proved to be dissatisfaction
with graffiti, weeds, unkempt pieces of land, vandalism, dog-fouling and dilapidated buildings. Therefore there
is a need to address associated elements such as those above when considering a clean environment. This is
currently being addressed as part of the Best Value Streetscene Review.
Current/Proposed Action:
In order to achieve this ‘true picture perspective’, and as part of the Best Value consultation requirement, the
Directorate has commissioned the Tidy Britain Group to carry out formal consultation exercises over the next 3
years involving face-to-face questionnaires and focus groups, to investigate in more detail residents true
perceptions on street cleansing quality.
The first years results have been encouraging in that 45% of respondents felt cleansing standards were good.
This result is 5% in excess of the year 2001/02 target of 40%. It is anticipated that as mechanised sweeping
methods are increased, and environmental maintenance monitoring methods refined, that cleansing will improve
still further, resulting in higher levels of public satisfaction.
Top Quartile to be Achieved By (Date):
Lead Officer:
2004
Malcolm Thorpe
Assistant Director (Contract Services)
Third Quarter 2001/02 Comparator Action Plan
The percentage of responses within the target times (for responding to
Environmental Health and Trading Standards complaints and requests
for service)
LPI
Family
Trend
Salford's Targets
98.00%
97.50%
97.33%
97.10%
Percentage
97.00%
96.50%
95.99%
96.00%
95.50%
95.00%
94.96%
95.00%
95.00%
94.50%
94.00%
93.50%
1998/99
1999/00
2000/01
Met
Average
99/00
Ranking against all GM Councils (of 10)
N/A
Ranking against family authorities (of 21)
N/A
Range for all Mets Councils
N/A
Quartile level for Mets
N/A
Quartile level for all Authorities
N/A
Family
Average
99/00
Met Top
Quartile
99/00
Salford Salfords 5 Salfords
Target
Year
Current
2001/02
Target
Position
2001/02
PERFORMANCE IS
GOOD
2000/01
2001/02
Q1
HIGHER FIGURE IS
PREFERABLE
Performance Indicator Action Plan
Q2
Q3
Date: 05/02/02
Comments on Current Performance:
Although targets are set at responding to 95% of all requests within 3 days, this is the most stringent target
within the Greater Manchester Authorities. Performance in the 1 st nine months of the year shows that we have
exceeded the 95% target over the year. It should be noted that this return reflects the fact that Pest Control is not
included as this is a manual operation with performance targets set up to 5 days, and does not fit easily with
professionally recognised services such as Environmental Health and Trading Standards. However, performance
indicators for Pest Control activity can be found at Level 3. The slight fall from the figures of 99% for the 1 st six
months to 97.33% is due to problems experienced in our Drainage Section concerning a time delay at the Call
Centre forwarding requests for service.
Barriers to Improvement:
The current high performance has been achieved despite the fact that these specific services have recently been
required to deliver increased proactive services through changes in central legislation e.g. food inspections,
contaminated land etc. without the benefit of additional resources. In addition, vacancies within the Trading
Standards Division have continued to have a detrimental effect on the ability to respond within target times.
Current/Proposed Action:
New procedures have been put in place to overcome the referral of requests for service from the Call Centre, and
it is anticipated that the 99% rate will be once again achieved by the end of the year. Recent appointments in the
Trading Standards Division will help ensure our high performance in 2002/03. However, to try to improve the
99% rate significantly would require substantial increases in resources for little benefit, whereas improving
response rates from much lower targets would show much higher performance using the same resources. e.g. 4
authorities in Greater Manchester have targets between 7-10 days. In recognition of Best Value continuous
improvement requirements and our determination to maintain our Charter Mark for these services, performance
will geared to surpassing the 3-day target whenever possible.
Top Quartile to be Achieved By (Date):
Lead Officer:
2005
Nigel Powell
Assistant Director (Public Protection)
Third Quarter 2001/02 Comparator Action Plan
LPI
The percentage of highways that are of a high or acceptable standard of
cleanliness
Family
Trend
100.00%
Salford's Targets
97.10%
96.00%
94.80%
95.00%
91.30%
Percentage
91.00%
89.00%
90.00%
88.80%
84.10%
85.00%
80.00%
75.00%
1998/99
1999/00
2000/01
Met
Average
99/00
Ranking against all GM Councils (of 10)
N/A
Ranking against family authorities (of 21)
N/A
Range for all Mets Councils
Quartile level for Mets
Quartile level for all Authorities
72.9% to
94.8%
98%
Family
Average
99/00
Met Top
Quartile
99/00
Salford
Target
2001/02
PERFORMANCE IS
FAIR
Salfords
5 Year
Target
2000/01
Salfords
Current
Position
2001/02
2001/02
Q1
HIGHER FIGURE IS
PREFERABLE
Performance Indicator Action Plan
Q2
Q3
Date: 05/02/02
Comments on Current Performance:
The nine month monitoring returns on this indicator has shown that, of the 4126 inspections carried out, 91.3%
of streets were of a high or acceptable level of cleanliness. This is a 2% improvement on the first quarterly
return for 2001/02, and is a slight improvement on the ½ yearly return for 2001/02 of 91%. The restructured
Street Cleansing service commenced in November 2001, and it is anticipated that the true impact in terms of
service improvements will begin to be seen in the last quarter of 2001/02.
Barriers to Improvement:
The Directorate is constantly striving to improve street cleansing levels by improving street sweeping techniques
(i.e. increased mechanisation), which consequently increases the frequency of sweeps. The only barriers to this
aim is the availability of funding to purchase mechanised sweepers, and also the continuing anti-social behaviour
of those members of the public who continue to drop litter.
Current/Proposed Action:
New funding opportunities are constantly being sought to acquire more mechanised street sweeping machines
via New Deal for Communities, SRB etc. In relation to preventing littering, Salford Pride, the Charter Mark
accredited environmental education unit, is constantly carrying out innovative anti-litter campaigns both at
schools and at community levels. Enforcement is now also being seriously pursued with help and advice from
EnCams (formerly the Tidy Britain Group). Currently the service is being reviewed with a view to increasing
the use of mechanised sweepers and increasing street cleansing presence at the weekend to address known litter
hotspots. We plan to increase the number of mini-mechanised sweepers from 6-11 during 2002/03. In addition,
the planned increase in the number of litter bins should result in less litter being deposited on the City’s streets.
Top Quartile to be Achieved By (Date):
Lead Officer:
2003
Malcolm Thorpe
Assistant Director (Contract Services)