Agenda Item No 13
Community and Environment
Board
26 January 2009
Report of the Assistant Director
(Streetscape)
Grass Cutting
1
Summary
1.1
This report sets out the actions already taken by officers and staff to improve grass
cutting throughout the Borough in line with the Council’s priorities and provides
information and analysis on further options for improvement which have been
investigated, some of which may form the basis of alterations to grass cutting
operations in light of the future recommendations of the ongoing grounds
maintenance review.
Recommendation to the Board
That Members note the contents of this report and that no further
action is taken in respect of grass cutting until officers have
completed the grounds maintenance review, which includes a
thorough examination of the areas and types of land which the
Council maintains as the cost implications of any changes to the
grass cutting specifications and schedules cannot be demonstrated
accurately until that process has being completed later this year.
2
Consultation
2.1
Portfolio Holder, Shadow Portfolio Holder and Ward Members
2.1.1
The issue of grass cutting has been discussed on many occasions by joint meetings
of the Environment and Health, Wellbeing and Leisure Portfolio Groups, including a
debate centred around the briefing paper which formed the basis of this report and
which set out all the potential options detailed above. The view of the Portfolio
Groups, as voiced by both Chairs, is that the grass cutting service operated by the
Council is very good, despite resource restrictions and has improved considerably in
recent years.
3
Background
3.1
Improving the quality of the Environment remains a key priority for this Council and
the effective maintenance of the large grassed areas within the Borough is a key
component of delivering on that priority.
3.2
The Council’s grass cutting schedules (fortnightly throughout the summer) are in line
with most authorities and we generally achieve 13 - 14 cuts per year. The standard
of grass cutting, in the opinion of officers, is good and this view was endorsed earlier
13/1
2009/BR/001277
this year when Coleshill in Bloom won its gold award this summer; the judges
commented on the good standard of grass cutting in the area.
3.3
Grass cutting, in common with all local authority areas, is not without its problems.
The start of the season is usually the most difficult time and it can take a couple of
rounds to reduce the amount of arisings left after the cut but from that point on there
is not usually a problem. This year we improved our method of working to ensure
that adjoining footpaths and other hard standing areas were better swept after the
cutting. This is in addition to the introduction of new cutting decks last year which
were designed to improve the quality of grass cutting and the visual appearance of
the grass after cutting (effectively by cutting the grass finer). The grounds
maintenance teams have sought to dedicate more resources at key times both to
litter picking before cutting commences and on sweeping and blowing cut grass
afterwards. However, staff shortages have meant that, in recent months, it has not
always been possible to target extra resources as often, or as effectively, as officers
would like.
3.4
In terms of complaints received, officers do not receive many direct complaints at all
regarding the standard of grass cutting; the Landscape Manager is aware of just two
over the whole of last season following the prolonged wet spell. At the recent annual
meeting of Town and Parish Councils, no problems with grass cutting were identified
by any of the areas represented and, on the contrary, the service was singled out for
praise by more than one of the authorities represented.
3.5
Last summer was particularly wet and warm, which led to two problems – the grass
grew at a greater rate and we had a period when we could not keep to the fortnightly
schedule as it was far too wet to cut. This led to more grass lying once we were able
to cut, but the teams were able to get on top of that again once weather conditions
stabilised. The two complaints officers are aware of came in during that period.
3.6
Last year, in addition to the other improvement measures which have been
introduced, the Council box-mowed around Alexander Court in Atherstone. There
was no feedback, either positive or negative. Interestingly, the grounds maintenance
teams did not box-mow the area this year, and again had no feedback.
4
Grounds Maintenance Review
4.1
Officers have started a fundamental review of the grounds maintenance service
which will inform both new grounds maintenance specifications and future budgeting.
The proper time to be exploring changes to grass cutting methods and schedules is
through this process so that any proposed changes can be considered in the context
of other grounds maintenance needs and existing and future resource constraints. It
is important that grass cutting should not be considered in isolation from this
process.
4.2
As part of the review, officers are undertaking benchmarking of the service through
APSE (Association for Public Service Excellence) which should give a clear picture of
how we perform compared to like authorities. The results are now back and, while
they are yet to be studied in detail an initial examination indicates that the Council’s
overall costs for grounds maintenance are low when compared with other local
authorities and that this authority employs fewer staff and uses less equipment on its
grounds maintenance service than most other authorities. The grass cutting season
is generally getting longer, with milder winters, which will undoubtedly have budget
13/2
2009/BR/001277
implications for the future, on a service which (on the face of it) appears under
resourced when compared with other local authorities.
4.3
The bulk of the parks and playing fields budget is spent on grass cutting, to the
detriment of the maintenance and development of the parks, recreation grounds,
play areas etc. Significantly increasing the spend on grass cutting would be to put
further pressure on limited resources and would limit the Council's ability to respond
to other areas of concern to local communities both as identified in the Green Space
Strategy and in other service areas.
5
Future Options
5.1
There are potentially four options available to the Council should it wish to
significantly alter the way it delivers its grass cutting service, some of which are more
feasible than others:
5.2
Box Mowing/Grass Collection
5.2.1
Box mowing large areas of grass, such as verges, is very expensive, is largely
unnecessary and is not good practice. It has environmental disbenefits (the loss of
nutrients delivered back into the soil, disposal of green waste to landfill and
increased emissions from additional vehicle movements) and economic disbenefits
when it comes to the disposal of arisings (landfilling of approximately 750 tonnes of
waste per annum would cost in the region of £37,500 each year). The extra cost of
this option is not limited to increased disposal costs. The machinery required to cut
and collect grass is twice as expensive as that which we currently specify. There
would also be the additional cost of the vehicles and crews required to collect and
dispose of the grass. In total, it is estimated that the additional cost of grass
collection would be in excess of £100,000 per annum. Box mowing may be
appropriate in specific high amenity areas but this should be determined through the
review of the specifications which will be carried out early next year.
5.3
Grass Retardant
5.3.1
Warwickshire County Council is investigating the possibility of spraying areas of
grass within its ownership with a chemical retardant which would, if successful,
reduce the requirement to cut the grass by half. The cost of spraying is expensive,
however (£50 per km) and is not suitable for areas of amenity grass (the majority of
grass which NWBC maintains). There are also questions around the use of
chemical herbicides, especially at a time when the EU is introducing measures to
reduce the use of chemical pesticides and herbicides for environmental reasons.
WCC will be carrying out a trial next year on stretches of highway verge within the
Borough and the results of that trial will be reported back to this group in due course.
However, it is highly unlikely that this will provide an economically viable or
environmentally sustainable solution for NWBC in the near future.
5.4
Rationalisation
5.4.1
NWBC currently subsidises the County Council by an estimated £63K per annum on
the grass cutting it carries out on their behalf - the review will give us a more
accurate assessment of this. The Council could consider terminating the current
agreement with the County Council and committing those resources to its own areas.
However, there is not a simple demarcation between Borough and County land in
many areas and the withdrawal of the service would make NWBC far more inefficient
13/3
2009/BR/001277
when carrying out cutting in those areas which would remain and would probably
lead to a great deal of complaints from members of the public who would neither
know, nor care, to which authority the maintenance responsibility fell. A preferred
solution would be for a realistic reimbursement from the County Council to allow the
appropriate standard to be maintained whilst at the same time releasing NWBC
resources for its own areas.
5.5
Extra Resources
5.5.1
Increasing the number of rounds from 3 to 4 or changing the type of mower may be
options which could be as effective as box mowing and officers will consider these
options as part of the current ongoing review. It may be possible to trial a fourth
round over the course of the coming year as the Council is due to renew some of its
equipment which may mean sufficient resources could be carried over to facilitate a
fourth cutting machine. However, there would still be revenue cost implications in
the region of £30,000 to £40,000 to cover increased maintenance and staffing costs.
5.6
Targeted Effort
5.6.1 This is more a continuation or variation on current activity, rather than a new
approach, but it may be significant in dealing with those problem areas which are
brought to the attention of local Members (particularly by town or parish councils)
rather than reported directly to officers. It is proposed that at the start of the next
operational season, parish councillors and other key stakeholders are invited on-site
at those areas where problems have previously been made known to local Borough
Councillors and officers so that any improvements or operational issues can be
identified at the outset and a better appreciation of the nature of the task and the way
it is tackled can be gained by all parties. Certain areas of Coleshill have already
been identified and they will be dealt with in this way, as will any other areas which
are highlighted by parish councils when they return the questionnaire on public realm
issues which will be circulated shortly.
6
Report Implications
6.1
Financial Implications
6.1.1
This report in itself proposes no actions which have financial implications that cannot
be absorbed within existing operational budgets. However, any future changes
arising from the findings of the grounds maintenance review could have financial
implications and would need to be considered accordingly.
6.2
Environment and Sustainability Implications
6.2.1
How the Council manages its grass cutting operations and the methods employed
can have a significant impact on the local environment and some of the options
outlined in the main body of the report are far more sustainable than others. Greater
consideration of the relative impacts of each option can be taken once the grounds
maintenance review has been completed.
6.3
Links to Council’s Priorities
6.3.1
Protecting the Environment is one of the Council’s main priorities.
The Contact Officer for this report is Richard Dobbs (719440).
13/4
2009/BR/001277
Background Papers
Local Government Act 1972 Section 100D, as substituted by the Local Government Act, 2000 Section 97
Background Paper No
Author
Nature of Background Paper
Date
13/5
2009/BR/001277