Meeting documents
Cabinet
Wednesday, 4th December, 2002
|
Bath & North East Somerset Council |
|||
|
MEETING: |
Council Executive |
AGENDA |
|
|
MEETING DATE: |
Wednesday 4th December 2002 |
||
|
TITLE: |
|||
|
WARD: |
ALL |
||
|
AN OPEN PUBLIC ITEM |
|||
|
List of attachments to this report: Appendix A Summary of consultation meetings; breakdown of annual costs Appendix B Summary of comments from meetings with Parishes Appendix C Original Parish Sweeping Scheme Appendix D Parish Meeting Dates Appendix E Benefits And Issues Appendix F Options Analysis Appendix G Parish Cleansing Partnership Agreement - Draft Heads of Terms Appendix H Current sweeping costs and calculation of standard rate Appendix I Litter Code - Cleaning Zones summary Appendix J Summary of comments received during Best Value Review Appendix K Letters from Best Value Review feedback (where requested by individual parishes) Appendix L Summary of feedback from Parishes (consultation on draft version of this report) |
|||
1 SUMMARY
1.1 The Best Value Review (BVR) of Waste Services (July 2002) included a Service Improvement Plan which required a review of the current Parish Sweeping Agency scheme to "consider options for future of Parish Sweeper Scheme to ensure economy and effectiveness are balanced against customer expectations and equity". A potential efficiency saving was identified and the Council's budget anticipates a saving following the review of this scheme.
1.2 The purpose of the review of the scheme was to identify the current arrangements and the preferences of the Parishes and to establish whether the scheme should be continued and, if so, in what form to ensure that this Council obtains good value for money. A further dimension of the project (yet to be completed) is to identify how any resources freed up as a result of any changes might be used advantageously elsewhere to improve the standards of cleanliness across this Council's area. This can not be effectively achieved until the future of the Parish Sweeper Scheme is determined.
1.3 The review project involved the visiting of the Parishes participating in the scheme in order to clarify and discuss the current arrangements and to identify issues to inform this report. Parishes have said that they would like to know the outcome of this review in December 2002 to allow them to set appropriate precepts relative to any decisions made.
1.4 The review, summarised in this report, has re-examined the basis of the scheme and
recommends the introduction of revised agreements based on clear principles which encourage partnership working (avoiding any confusion of the roles being undertaken by this Council and the participating Parish Councils) and proper controls which ensure that this Council's expenditure and Duty of Care is monitored and controlled.
1.5 This report concludes that the scheme can not continue in its current form and proposes a partnership of joint working to deliver these services in the future.
2 RECOMMENDATIONS
2.1 That the Executive:
2.1.1 Agree to implement Option 4 with effect from 1st April 2003
(see suggested options at paragraph 8 and Appendix F);
2.1.2 Instruct officers on any transitional arrangements to be put in place
(see paragraph 9.3 and Appendix F);
3 CURRENT POSITION
3.1 Wansdyke District Council introduced the Parish Council Agency Cleaning Scheme in January 1990 in order to supplement the District Council's own cleansing service. The scheme has continued to date with some minor changes to date (described in 3 below). Out of 42 eligible Parishes, 29 currently participate in the scheme in one form or another. There is no equivalent arrangement in Bath or in the Town Council areas where the cleansing service now provided is based on the requirements of the Environment Protection Act and delivered by this Council's staff.
3.2 The Audit Commission's inspection report on the BVR said of the proposal to review the scheme that "We believe the Council is handling this in an appropriate manner". The Inspectors said that "the Parish Sweeper Scheme is a council funded street cleaning service costing the Council £90,000 a year. The Council has acknowledged that the scheme is inequitable in nature as it only applies to 29 parishes in the rural area and not at all in Bath. The Council pays the parishes on a monthly basis for providing the service. There are no explicit performance standards - the scheme is controlled by the parishes with no formal monitoring arrangements in place from the Council. However, the scheme is highly valued by people in the parishes where it is operating." The Council's Internal Audit's view is that "the current system does not contain an adequate level of control and resources are not being used in the most cost effective manner".
3.3 Staffing
Parish Councils either employ their own (part-time) staff or engage sub-contractors to carry out cleaning and other duties. There is concern amongst some Parishes that if the scheme is terminated there may be redundancy and other financial implications.
There is a lack of evidence of compliance with legal obligations such as general employment and Health and Safety at Work regulations (e.g. personal protective equipment, method statements, formal controls) and that this Council's insurance requirements are being adequately met. This Council has a duty to ensure that all agents working on its behalf adhere to these requirements. The only checks currently carried out by this Council are concerned with cleaning standards against the Environmental Protection Act requirements - these do not specifically monitor the activity of Parish Sweepers .The current situation is a high risk to all parties and these concerns are shared by a number of the participating Parish Councils.
Not all Parishes have arrangements in place to cover for the absence of their staff.
3.4 Financial
The forecast level of expenditure on the Parish Council Agency Cleaning scheme in 2001/02 was £88,555.
This Council's direct operating cost for manual sweeping in the Parish areas (including where the Parish Sweeper scheme is in place) is£97,044.
Individual Parish costs for 2001/02 are shown in Appendix A
The costs of the Parish Councils' activities are recharged against this Council. No check is currently carried out to verify that the full requirements of the scheme are met and there is no clear relationship between the cost of cleansing and the cost to this Council. Calculations in Appendix H indicate that the work specified by this Council could be delivered more cost effectively and that funding to Parishes might be distributed in a method which better recognises the true value of the work specified by this Council.
3.5 Economic
The Parish Sweeping Scheme provides local part-time employment opportunities. There is, however, no guarantee that the terms and conditions of those employed are equivalent to those agreed by this Council or that other employment considerations (such as this Council's requirement that all agents adhere to our standards on equalities matters) are satisfactory.
Not all of the expenditure incurred in the scheme appears to be good value to this Council - high rates are charged by sub-contractors and some Parishes carry out work which is not required for cleansing purposes.
Funding of the scheme is related to the population of the Parish rather than an assessment of the "market" cost of cleansing.
Should it be decided to revise the scheme as set out in the conclusions to this report, there would be an estimated cost saving to this Council of approximately £38,500 per annum. This saving should be considered against the need to implement management controls to ensure that the revised scheme can be properly operated. There is also a known requirement for resources to be re-allocated to areas where cleanliness problems are high (including those areas currently maintained by Parishes which will need to be allocated revised "zone" categories).
3.6 Environment
The street cleaning service specified by this Council broadly consists of cleaning all street and public areas and emptying all litterbins within the whole area of the authority. The standard of cleaning to be achieved must meet all the requirements of Part IV of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and the Code of Practice on Litter and Refuse. The standards which the Council is legally required to meet are summarised at Appendix I and are made up of Zones to which response times for rectifying defined levels of littering are stated, supplemented by minimum frequencies of sweeping specified by this Council.
Section 89 of the Environmental Protection Act, referring to keeping land and highways clear of litter, states that "It shall be the duty of each local authority to ensure that the land is, as far as is practicable, kept clear of litter and refuse" and "to ensure that the highway or road is, as far as is practicable, kept clean".
3.7 Council Wide Impacts
At present there are 29 participating Parish Councils in the scheme. The scheme is not currently offered to the remaining Parish or Town Councils and no similar arrangement is available in Bath. The standard of cleanliness in the Parishes which participate in the scheme is often higher than the specified standard set by this Council.
4 BACKGROUND AND LEGAL FRAMEWORK
4.1 In 1988, Wansdyke District Council introduced a part-time parish road sweeping scheme which was designed to "supplement the Council's own sweeping / litter picking service on an individual parish basis". Under the scheme, Wansdyke Council paid the Parishes an amount of money equivalent to either 10 or 14 hours per week for work to be carried out within the Parishes and under the direction of the Parish itself. There were 21 participating Parishes in the scheme at the time.
4.2 A review was carried out in 1989 following the introduction of legislation under the Local Government Act 1980 which required local authorities to subject to Compulsory Competitive Tendering the highway cleaning and "Other Cleaning" functions undertaken by the Council's own workforce. The work carried out by the Parish sweepers fell within the legislation.
4.3 The previous scheme had to be changed to conform to the new legislation. Wansdyke District Council took legal advice on the matter and it was concluded that the only way that they could allow the Parishes to continue to operate a public service was to offer the Parishes the opportunity of entering into a formal 'Agency Agreement'. Wansdyke would pay each Parish Council a sum of money based upon an hourly rate which recompensed the parishes for the: -
(a) Work carried out to an approved standard
(b) Administration, insurance liability, etc.
(c) Disposal of waste, the purchase of equipment and various other matters.
4.4 Wansdyke District Council introduced the current Parish Council Agency Cleaning Scheme in January 1990. The scheme was designed to "supplement the Council's own sweeping and litter picking service". 27 Parish Councils joined the scheme before Local Government Reorganisation in April 1996; Bath & North East Somerset Council admitted a further two Parish Councils into the scheme in 1997.
4.5 When first joining the scheme, the participating Parish Councils were allocated a number of hours based upon the population of the Parish, set out in the Community Charge Register.
The terms and conditions of the current scheme are set out at Appendix C. The scheme details the cleaning duties to be undertaken, the basis of the payment and the responsibilities of both the Parish Councils and Wansdyke District Council. The scheme and agreements have not been revised since 1990.
4.6 There is a widely held view that there is duplication within the current arrangements. This may be founded on the belief that this Council is paying twice for the same areas to be cleaned. This appears to over-simplify the true position however. When the work was priced by Direct Services, this would have been in full knowledge of the existence of the Parish Sweeper Scheme and it would appear that the tendered price made assumptions that the Parish sweepers would remain. Moreover, the concept of treating the charges made by Direct Services as a contract price from which reductions can be made takes no account of the costs which might accrue to the Council as a result of reducing the work required (e.g. redundancy costs and a reduced return to the Council from Operations).
4.7 The current situation is that the Parishes arrange cleansing in their area to the standards they require. This Council's staff also carry out work in these parishes. Some of this is well-defined (e.g. mechanical sweeping of gulleys) but demarcation of responsibilities is generally poor. This leads to comments being made that the directly employed staff of this Council do not carry out the work required of them. This has, in places, come about as the result of the Parish Sweepers being present (i.e. this Council's staff do not sweep areas which they know are being maintained by the Parish Sweepers) and indicates a need for greater clarity about who is responsible for what in each area.
5 CONSULTATION WITH THE PARISH COUNCILS
5.1 As part of the recent review process, the views of all 29 participating Parish Councils were sought through meetings held on an individual basis between July and October 2002. A survey of the views of all Parish Councils had previously been conducted during the Best Value Review. Appendix B shows the summarised comments provided by each Parish and Appendix J is an extract from the BVR report which summarised the outcomes of the earlier survey.
5.2 The comments provided by the Parish Councils indicate inconsistencies in the way that the scheme is operated. For example, one Parish Council uses funding from the scheme to meet the costs of cutting grass which is the responsibility of the Parish. Another has purchased grass cutting equipment using funds from the scheme.
5.3 The participating Parishes consider that a higher standard of cleaning is being achieved than would be the case if B&NES solely provided the service. The benefits of devolution of the responsibility for cleansing to Parishes are clearly seen, local ownership ensuring a high level of cleanliness.
5.4 There is a general view amongst participating Parishes that the option to remain in the scheme should be retained.
6 CURRENT EXPENDITURE
6.1 Appendix A shows an analysis of this Council's expenditure to each participating Parish during the 2001/02 financial year.
6.2 Participating Parishes submit claims incurred for waste disposal. There is no provision within the scheme for this payment. However, a letter sent to certain participating Parishes in May 1991 states that: -
"If a Parish should incur disposal costs as a result of the scheme, e.g. by adopting the Wansdyke's Works Services coloured sack option, then these costs can be reimbursed for any sacks purchased since 1st April this year. This claim can be made by attaching a copy of the invoice to the usual monthly claim showing the amount claimed thereon, which can, therefore be reimbursed in the usual ways as for the rest of the monies due"
6.3 The application of this payment is not consistent at present as some participants claim whilst others do not.
7 ISSUES ARISING FROM THE REVIEW
7.1 A number of issues surrounding the scheme need to be considered in deciding whether to
continue as now or amend the arrangements. These are detailed at Appendix E
7.2 Benefits of the scheme include the support of Parishes for continuation and the high level of cleanliness achieved whilst cessation of the scheme may incur the Parishes in costs related to redundancy (the validity of this would need to be verified).
7.3 There are however problems with the scheme which would have to be addressed if it is to continue. These include inequality of funding, duplication, inequality of service across this Council's area, affordability, staffing issues, a lack of probity controls, an absence of formal controls and inconsistent application of the scheme.
8 OPTIONS FOR THE FUTURE
8.1 A number of options for the future of the Parish Sweeper scheme exist. The ones considered as a result of the review are: -
Option1 Stay As Now
Option 2 Stay As Now but with extra controls
Option 3 Cessation of the scheme
Option 4 Retention of Scheme in Amended Form with extra controls
Details of these options are included at Appendix F.
8.2 As stated in Appendix F, continuation (Option 1) in the current form is not a tenable option whilst cessation (Option 3) would create some significant issues as well as disregarding the contribution which Parish Councils can make to the local environment. Option 2 looks to plug some of the gaps in the existing arrangements but falls short of addressing a number of important difficulties. Option 4 offers the opportunity of entering into clearly defined partnerships for which funding will be granted at a rate equivalent to the cost which this Council would incur if it provided the service itself. This option would produce some savings (as shown in Appendix H) although there will be extra costs to be deducted from this (as in 9.2 below).
9 CONCLUSIONS
9.1 Option 4 (or a variant thereof) suggested in 8 above is recommended as the Best Value (value for money) option to enable the scheme to operate soundly in the delivery of the services specified by this Council. The actions needed if this option is adopted would include preparing and implementing a formal agreement that details the conditions of the scheme, introducing monitoring and control systems, defining the roles and responsibilities of the parties, re-measuring areas to calculate funding and amending the payment formula.
9.2 In addition to the immediate actions required to implement any decision to amend the scheme (Options 2 or 4), there would be a need to re-assess the resources available to implement, manage and monitor the scheme. The Enforcement Team's role has changed significantly over the past three years and no permanent resource is currently available to take the immediate actions required or ensure the continued management of the scheme. Should it be decided to implement a revised agreement, there is also a need to later consider how best any resources freed up (which will become apparent once the "take up" by Parishes of a revised scheme is better known) can best be used to improve cleansing standards in other areas.
9.3 Where introducing a revised payment scheme would have a significant impact on the funding of the current Parish arrangements, it is suggested that transitional arrangements may need to be considered so that Parishes are given adequate time to adjust to revised levels of funding and adjust their costs or increase their precepts. Further negotiations with Parishes would be desirable to ensure as a smooth transition as possible.
10 CONSULTATION
10.1 A draft of this report was sent to the Trades Unions on 16th October 2002. The written response of the GMB union has have been provided to all Executive members and is available for public inspection. They have commented (on behalf of the Trades Unions which this Council recognises) that "the Trades Unions welcome this report as it has confirmed the concerns we have held for a number of years. It is apparent from the evidence in the report that there has been a disregard for ensuring compliance with the relevant Health and Safety Regulations, the terms and conditions of employment and the recruitment of staff employed as Parish Sweepers by the Parishes and therefore by Bath and North East Somerset Council. We believe that this apparent disregard for the well being of staff is in direct conflict with the aims and objectives of this Council and therefore cannot be allowed to continue. We therefore suggest that this situation can no longer be ignored and that the Council Executive implement Option 4 as stated in the report".
10.2 In the review of the scheme and preparation of this report, meetings were set up with the participating Parish Councils to determine the views and opinions they have regarding the future of the scheme. A summary of the comments received is included in Appendix B to the report. A copy of the draft version of this report was forwarded to all Parish Councils and all comments and responses received will be made available to the meeting.
10.3 The draft version of this report was sent to all Parish Councils. A summary of feedback is provided at Appendix L to the report and full written responses have been provided to all Exceutive members and are available for public inspection.
10.4 The draft version of this report was sent to the Council's Best Value Programme Manager, Director of Resources (Section 151 Officer), the Council's Internal Auditor, the Strategic Director (Economic and Environmental Development) and to Waste Services for comments. Comments received from Waste Services, the Best Value Programme Manager and the Council's Internal Auditor have been quoted in or contributed to the content of this final report.
10.5 The Overview and Scrutiny Panel considered this issue on 26th November and their comments and conclusions will be made available to this meeting.
PARISH SWEEPING SCHEME CONSULTATION
Abbreviations used: PSS - Parish Sweeper Scheme
PS - Parish Sweeper
PC - Parish Council
EPA - Environmental Protection Act
|
Parish |
Comments On Scheme from Parish |
Officers Conclusions |
Actions/By Whom/Date |
Parish Sweeping Scheme Costs 2001/02 £ |
|
Bathampton |
PS not involved in sweeping matters (Highway). Mainly used for grass cutting, hedge trimming etc. Would like to retain the scheme |
Appears that service from B&NES is adequate from a sweeping perspective. Other duties from PS need addressing for future arrangements. Lack of communication with B&NES |
Contact PC 1 x fortnight Issue worksheets |
3281.61 |
|
Batheaston |
Scheme appears to work very well. Would cause problems it withdrawn. Would like to retain the PSS. Could not manage without B&NES input. Parish actually paying over & above the amount claimed from B&NES |
Many areas within village are cleaned more regularly than the fortnightly allowance in the specification. Shopping areas need re classifying as zone 1 if scheme withdrawn. Lack of communication with B&NES Anomalies on maps |
Contact PC 1 x fortnight Issue worksheets |
5648.16 |
|
Bathford |
No Parish Sweeper employed at present. Lack of communication. Need assurances that the service will be carried out. Not concerned with who carries out the cleansing |
Sweeping being carried out by B&NES but communication poor. Lack of communication with B&NES |
Contact PC 1 x fortnight Issue worksheets |
1073.50 |
|
Cameley |
Very capable Parish Sweeper who deals with problems as and when they arise. Would like to retain the PSS & the B&NES service |
Areas within Cameley are cleaned more regularly than the fortnightly allowance in the specification. O/S Garage & Chip Shop areas need re classifying as zone 1 if scheme withdrawn. Lack of communication with B&NES |
Contact PC Issue worksheets |
3467.52 |
|
Camerton |
Very flexible PS who can react as and when problems arise. Also sweeps O/S church on weekends, weddings etc. Commuter routes require more frequent sweeping if PSS were to be withdrawn |
Also look after Tunley Lack of communication with B&NES |
Contact PC 1 x fortnight Issue worksheets |
2715.70 |
|
Chew Magna |
Wish to retain the PSS but would also like the mechanical sweeper to attend. High St currently swept 3 x per week by Parish Sweeper. PS doing a very good job |
May require re zoning of High St if Parish Sweeping Scheme is abolished. |
Contact PC 1 x fortnight Issue worksheets |
4748.10 |
|
Chew Stoke |
Parish to review their own arrangements. Would like the mechanical sweeping & other service from B&NES to continue |
Require communication with the PC & worksheets to be produced & left with PC. Anomalies on maps |
Contact PC 1 x fortnight Issue worksheets Zoning maps need adjusting |
2476.80 |
|
Clutton |
Wish to retain the PSS but would also like the mechanical sweeper to attend. Feel very strongly about the service as a whole from B&NES |
Require communication with the PC & worksheets to be produced & left with PC. |
Contact PC 1 x fortnight Issue worksheets |
2592.44 |
|
Parish |
Comments On Scheme from Parish |
Officers Conclusions |
Actions/By Whom/Date |
Parish Sweeping Scheme Costs 2001/02 £ |
|
Combe Hay |
No Parish Sweeper employed at present. Lack of communication with B&NES. Need assurances that the service will be carried out. No adherence to schedules |
Require communication with the PC & worksheets to be produced & left with PC. Anomalies on maps |
Contact PC 1 x fortnight Issue worksheets |
1237.50 |
|
Compton Dando |
PS looks after 4 villages. Wish to retain the Parish sweeping scheme but would also like the mechanical sweeper B&NES to attend |
Require communication with the PC & worksheets to be produced & left with PC. |
Contact PC 1 x fortnight Issue worksheets |
3760.02 |
|
Compton Martin |
Happy to have B&NES provide the service as long as there are assurances that there will be reliability. Not happy with the reliability in the past |
Require communication with the PC & worksheets to be produced & left with PC. Anomalies on maps |
Contact PC 1 x fortnight Issue worksheets |
868.70 |
|
Corston |
PS also attends to litter picking of the churchyard and cuts certain verges. Would like to retain the PSS but wants B&NES to continue also |
Communication with the PC & worksheets produced & left with P/c needed |
Contact PC 1 x fortnight Issue worksheets |
2683.20 |
|
East Harptree |
Feel that their sweeper can cope with the general litter picking but requires the mechanical sweeper B&NES to visit on a monthly basis. |
Require communication with the PC & worksheets to be produced & left with PC. |
Contact PC 1 x month Issue worksheets |
2454.62 |
|
Englishcombe * Letter included Appendix K |
Do not want B&NES sweepers within the village. Main lanes leading to the village are commuter roads and require a higher frequency than zone 4 (twice yearly). Would like opportunity to put their case verbally prior to any decision being taken. Worksheets produced by the PC. |
Appears to be a very well run scheme Mechanical sweeping, litter bin emptying & fly tipping still need to be dealt with by B&NES (plus legislative obligations to be verified) |
No action required |
2145.44 |
|
Farmborough |
Would like the current arrangement to continue. Happy with both the service B&NES provides and the PS |
Require communication with the PC & worksheets to be produced & left with PC. |
Contact PC 1 x month Issue worksheets |
2813.20 |
|
Freshford * Letter included Appendix K |
Dissatisfied with the past service from B&NES. Feel that the B&NES service is inadequate Would like to retain the PSS and the mechanical sweeping from B&NES. Does not want any other future involvement of B&NES |
The village is compliant with the EPA. PS carries out other work not related to cleansing. Strimmer etc bought out of PSS. Communications need to be re established |
Contact PC 1 x fortnight Issue worksheets |
2683.20 |
|
High Littleton |
PS does a very good job. Cleans some areas daily (shopping areas) Would like to retain the scheme and could not sweep whole village without B&NES input |
Re zoning of areas would be an issue if PSS were to be withdrawn. Shopping area should be zone 1 as in the Bath districts Concerns over HASAWA with sweeper (being addressed) |
Contact PC 1 x fortnight Issue worksheets |
4479.28 |
|
Hinton Charterhouse |
Parish feel that PS can cope with level of cleansing within village. Would like to continue with the monthly mechanical sweeping from B&NES |
Well monitored scheme with work sheets. Still a need for communications to be re established |
Contact PC 1 x month Issue worksheets |
3372.24 |
|
Monkton Combe |
Very satisfied with the PS but would like the service provided from B&NES to continue |
Need for communications to be re established |
Contact PC 1 x fortnight Issue worksheets |
2207.30 |
|
Parish |
Comments On Scheme from Parish |
Officers Conclusions |
Actions/By Whom/Date |
Parish Sweeping Scheme Costs 2001/02 £ |
|
Newton St Loe |
At present reviewing the PS scheme. Would like service from B&NES to continue. Would like to retain the option of the PSS |
PSS not working to its potential Need for communications to be re established |
Contact PC 1 x fortnight Issue worksheets |
2938.70 |
|
Paulton |
PS cleans areas more frequently than fortnightly. Especially on the school run & around the various shopping areas. B&NES service needed to keep the village clean |
May be a need to re classify zones if PSS ended. Very heavily used village. Need for communications to be re established |
Contact PC 1 x fortnight Issue worksheets |
7755.24 |
|
Publow |
No feedback or meetings with this Parish. |
2938.70 |
||
|
Saltford |
Feel that joint sweeping is the only way forward. The PS & B&NES do an excellent job and if one or the other was ended it would be very detrimental to the village |
Arrangements working well |
Contact PC 1 x fortnight Issue worksheets |
6872.72 |
|
Southstoke |
Feel that the PS can cope with the general litter picking within the village but need the mechanical sweeper B&NES to visit monthly given the rural nature of the of the village and the access roads |
Mechanical sweeping appears to be key to assisting the PS to keep the village clean. PS also looks after Midford Anomalies on maps |
Contact PC 1 x month Issue worksheets |
3017.10 |
|
Stowey Sutton |
No sweeper employed at the moment. Would be willing to come out of scheme if the service provided by B&NES meets the EPA requirements |
B&NES service needs to be monitored tightly to ensure service is being delivered |
Contact PC 1 x fortnight Issue worksheets |
1328.60 |
|
Timsbury |
Very happy with PS. Deals with gullies likely to block and lead to flooding. Also deals with litter in parish recreation/play area. Would still like the option to retain PS scheme |
PS appears to carry out a very good service within the village. Need for the mechanical sweeper. Need to re establish communications |
Contact PC 1 x fortnight Issue worksheets |
4853.94 |
|
Ubley |
PS deals with issues as and when they arise. Area prone to flooding and this prevents problems and stops the need for Highways to be called out on a regular basis. Need mechanical sweeper B&NES |
PS also acts as a community person Need to re establish communications |
Contact PC 1 x fortnight Issue worksheets No claim in 2001/02 (876.15 claimed so far this year 2002/03) Now claiming |
|
|
Wellow |
PS carries out majority of the sweeping within the village. Still a need for the mechanical sweeper. PS employed from the beginning of the scheme |
PS also acts as a community person Need to re establish communications |
Contact PC 1 x fortnight Issue worksheets |
2608.80 |
|
Whitchurch |
Main shopping area will need re zoning if PSS withdrawn. Would like the option to retain the PSS |
Definite need for the mechanical sweeper Need to re establish communications |
Contact P/C 1 x fortnight Issue worksheets |
2598.10 |
Note: Column 4 'Actions' have been passed to operational managers and communications are now taking place where requested
SUMMARY OF COMMENTS FROM MEETINGS
Some common themes emerging from discussions with the participating Parish Councils are listed below. This Council's position is set out in italics
· There appears to be little or no feedback from the recent Best Value review consultation where Parishes supplied information but didn't receive a response. This review was designed to pick up the concerns and issues expressed by the Parishes
· A number of Parishes report little or no communication with this Council's Direct Services. Some Parishes have complained that they never see this Council's staff and that some areas are in need of attention. This will be addressed through this report and the suggested actions
· A few Parishes would like to carry out the sweeping in total but most would struggle to deal with the mechanical sweeping, disposal of arisings, removal of fly tipping and some other aspects. This Council would not wish the mechanical sweeping and some other aspects of the service to be carried out by the Parishes for reasons of safety, practicality and cost effectiveness. This Council would also not enter into an agreement where the agency was subjected to sub-contracting.
· There is evidence of a lack of effective management of the scheme in many Parishes. The detail of work undertaken is not always clear and few parishes have formal work instructions and records.
· The uplift in hours has raised expectations as to the standard of service. Most small villages receive funding for 10 hours and above per week, when the current cleansing specification requires for a minimum of fortnightly sweeping in zone 3. This goes as high as 28 hours per week in one Parish (which is also a zone 3 area) A revised scheme would incorporate a new basis of funding allocation based on work content and "market" costs
· There are instances where a zone 3 is not adequate in certain villages. In one village, for example, the High Street should be allocated a zone 1 status given its shopping precinct. This would have an effect on the costs quoted at Appendix H. These area would need to be re-zoned prior to the final calculation of funding
· The current digitised maps do not reflect the original cleansing contracts zone perimeters in a few parishes. These maps need amending and re issuing and would form the basis of defining responsibilities and funding
· Where the Parishes have indicated that they require exclusive cleaning by this Council's workforce there must be effective monitoring in the future through worksheets agreed by Parish Councils and communication on a regular basis. The proposed revised scheme allows for this
· Parishes would like to know the outcome of this review in December 2002 to allow them to set appropriate precepts relative to any decisions made. This comment has been incorporated in the summary to this report
· In some Parishes, the Parish Sweeper is engaged in duties other than sweeping. The revised scheme would provide for this but not at the cost of this Council
WANSDYKE DISTRICT COUNCIL
PART TIME PARISH AGENCY CLEANING SCHEME
General Conditions
The terms of the scheme were set out in 1990 and included the following conditions: -
(a) Commencement date - 1st January 1990
(b) Participants - Parish Councils within the Wansdyke but excluding Town Councils
(c) Scope of the scheme - to carry out the work required and defined as 'scavenging' as follows: -
(i) Metallic Surfaces - the removal and disposal from metallic surfaces to an authorised licensed site of litter, debris, loose chippings, animal carcasses, animal fouling to footpaths, accident debris and other deposits. Parishes should be aware that a number of the tasks can only be accomplished by sweeping and/or washing in order to meet Wansdyke's approved quality and standard of service
(ii) Hedges and grass verges - litter and animal carcasses to be similarly removed and disposed of from hedges, grassed areas and adjoining highways
(d) Payment formula
Hours per week to be based on the following formula, which takes account of administration costs and other additional costs: -
(i) 10 hours to be paid for the first 500 inclusive on the Community Charge register, 10 hours to comprise 8 hours work plus 25% (2 hours) in respect of insurance, costs of materials, administration, disposal of waste, health and safety implications etc.
(ii) For every additional 500 population over and above first 500, then an additional 2 hours will be paid for the work and items shown in (i) above.
The inclusive hourly rate that will be applied for both work and items shown at (i) above is £3.1859 per hour. This rate will be reviewed on 1st January 1991 and each 1st January thereafter. The review will be in line with the inflation index that the Authority applies in respect of its Other Cleaning Contract.
The Community Charge register figure applied will be reviewed on the 1st January each year commencing in 1991
Responsibilities of the Parish Council
To carry out the work required by the Agency Agreement defined as 'scavenging'
The scavenging routine to be agreed with the Environmental health Services Manager to ensure that it complements that work carried out as part of the Council's 'Other Cleaning' contract and does not conflict with it.
The parish Council can consider one of the following options in respect of labour required to carry out the work: -
(i) "recruit their own employee
(ii) appoint a self employed person
(iii) select a contractor
The above options have implications for Parish Councils and these are shown below: -
(i) (a) Recruit/Appoint/train the employee
Note - employment of Children - subject to Education bylaws, Parish Councils must ensure that the appropriate permission has been obtained before employment commences.
(b) Notify the appointment/termination to Wansdyke District Council in writing promptly.
(c) Notify Inland Revenue and Department of Social Security
(d) Ensure compliance with all employment and health and safety legislation. In particular, attention is drawn to the requirements of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974.
(e) Supply protective clothing, equipment and any materials as necessary.
(f) Make suitable arrangements for the disposal of any waste.
(ii) (a) Recruit/Appoint/train the person
(b) Notify the appointment/termination to Wansdyke District Council in writing promptly.
(c) Ensure the self employed person has the appropriate certificate in respect of taxation or notify Inland Revenue and Department of Social Security
(d) Ensure compliance with all employment and health and safety legislation. In particular, attention is drawn to the requirements of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974.
(e) Ensure that the person appointed supply protective clothing, equipment and any materials as necessary.
(f) Ensure that suitable arrangements have been made in respect of the disposal of any waste collected.
(iii) (a) Appoint a suitable Contractor
(b) Notify the appointment/termination to Wansdyke District Council in writing promptly.
(c) Ensure that the Contractor has fulfilled his legal obligations in respect of taxation and social security.
(d) Ensure compliance with all employment and health and safety legislation. In particular, attention is drawn to the requirements of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974.
(e) Ensure that the Contractor appointed supply protective clothing, equipment and any materials as necessary.
(f) Ensure that the Contractor has made suitable arrangements have been made in respect of the disposal of any waste collected.
The scavenging routine to be agreed with the Environmental Health Services Manager to ensure that it complements that work carried out as part of the Council's 'Other Cleaning' contract and does not conflict with it.
Nominate a Parish Councillor or Parish Clerk to liaise with Wansdyke District Council in respect of work carried out, to verify it and submit claims for payment to the Council.
In respect of the appointment of a self-employed person or a Contractor, the Parish Councillor or Clerk to certify the claim in respect of 'Value for Money'.
In the event that any parish defaults on its agency obligations then no payments will be made in respect of the default period(s) and no work over and above that required by the 'Other Cleaning' contract will be carried out in that Parish.
Responsibilities of the Council (Previously Wansdyke District Council)
The Environmental Health Services Manager is the nominated officer responsible for administering the scheme
The Environmental Health Services Manager will pay monthly returns, duly certified from the parishes in respect of the monthly agency amount due, within one month of receipt.
Review of the scheme payments to Parish Councils on 1st January each year commencing 1991
List of Parish Councils & Meetings Held
|
Clerk to Council |
Address |
Date of Meeting |
|
Dr D P Smith |
Clerk of Council, Bathampton PC, 215 Bloomfield Rd |
20th Sept 2002 |
|
M Townley |
Batheaston PC, Bailrigg, 9 Eagle Park, Batheaston |
19th Sept 2002 |
|
T J Webber |
Camerton PC, 5 Sunnyvale, Camerton, Bath |
18th September 02 |
|
Mr N Scutt |
Cameley PC, Laburnum Cottage, Main Rd |
23rd Sept 2002 |
|
C F Warner |
Bathford PC, 6 Budbury Place, BOA, Wilts |
1st August 2002 |
|
Ms M L Hales |
Chew Magna PC, 14 Tunbridge Close, Chew Magna |
29th July 2002 |
|
Mrs C Wood |
Chew Stoke PC, 2 Bushy Thorn Road, Chew Stoke |
15th August 2002 |
|
Mr F Senogles |
Clutton PC, Bruin Wood, Clutton Hill, Clutton |
30th July 2002 |
|
Mrs R C Daubney |
Compton Dando PC, Compton Cottage, Compton Dando |
20th Sept 2002 |
|
T A Miller |
Corston PC, 34 Meadlands, Corston, Bath |
13th Aug 2002 |
|
Mrs S Smith |
East Harptree PC, Molly Brook House, East Harptree |
13th Aug 2002 |
|
W A Davies |
Englishcombe PC, Lucott House, Englishcombe Village |
23rd July 2002 |
|
J K A Wilkes |
Farmborough PC, 11 Bellifants, Farmborough |
23rd July 2002 |
|
Mrs S A Jenkins |
Freshford PC, Wood View, High Street, Freshford |
15th August 2002 |
|
Mr P H Godfrey |
Saltford PC, 489 Bath Road, Saltford, Bristol |
25th July 2002 |
|
Mrs M Vaughan |
Compton Martin PC, Priors, Farm House, Main Street |
12th July 2002 |
|
Mr F P Duppa-Miller |
Combe Hay PC, Beechcroft, Combe Hay, Bath |
19th July 2002 |
|
Mrs P A Radford |
Whitchurch PC, Community Centre Office, Bristol Rd |
22nd July 2002 |
|
Mrs J Morphew |
Wellow PC, Wellow Farm, The Square, Wellow |
30th July 2002 |
|
Mrs J Lloyd |
Ubley PC, 5 South Street, Wells, Somerset |
10th 2002 |
|
D E W Hillyard |
Timsbury PC, 2 Southlands Drive, Timsbury |
31st July 2002 |
|
Mrs S Heathman |
Stowey Sutton PC, 3 Chapel Cottages, The Street, BS |
19th Sept 2002 |
|
L Holyoake |
South Stoke PC, Monk's Barn, Midford, Bath |
16th August 2002 |
|
Mrs J A Bragg |
Publow PC, Tamkeryn, Tarnwell, Stanton Drew |
declined |
|
Mrs J Plucknett |
Paulton PC, The Council Office, Ashleigh Corner, |
24th Sept 2002 |
|
I A S Harris |
Newton St Loe PC, 41 Newton St Loe, Bath, BA2 9DA |
24th Sept 2002 |
|
Mrs D Franks |
Monkton Combe PC, Dray House, Brass Knocker Hill |
18th Sept 2002 |
|
Mr C R Miles |
Hinton Charterhouse PC, Tree Tops, Bath Rd, HCH |
16th Sept 2002 |
|
Mr J Price |
High Littleton PC, 27 Cheddar Close, Frome, Somerset |
30th Sept 2002 |
Parish Sweeper Scheme - Benefits And Issues
This Appendix details the positive and negative aspects of the current scheme from this Council's perspective.
Benefits of the current scheme include:
1. The support of Parishes for the continuation of the existing arrangements (improved by better liaison with this Council) due to the benefits accruing from local determination of how resources should best be used to meet local needs
2. The high level of cleanliness achieved within the participating Parishes
3. This Council's view of how services might best be delivered locally in the future
4. The scheme provides local part-time employment opportunities
5. Cessation or significant alteration of the scheme may incur the Parishes in costs related to redundancy (the validity of this would need to be verified). Similarly, any significant extension of the scheme (in its current form) would be likely to incur costs to this Council.
There are however problems with the scheme. These include:
1. Inequality of funding - because payment is calculated on the basis of population, Parishes receive funding which is not related to the cost of cleansing to the standards required by this Council
2. Duplication - the service provided directly by this Council in the areas maintained under the scheme is generally very basic and there is no evidence to suggest that the tendered price for cleansing was offered in anything other than the full knowledge of the existing arrangements. Resources employed directly by this Council are therefore currently insufficient to provide a service which meets the Council's specification
3. Inequality of service - whilst the benefits of local management have been recognised above, this also means that this Council is paying, in places, to maintain areas to standards above that which this Council has determined is adequate
4. Affordability - the cost of the current arrangements is above that which this Council has budgeted for in the future (and the price which the Council has to pay for the service). The Financial Plan anticipates that a saving will be made from rationalising the existing arrangements. Further, there is no funding available to extend the scheme into any other Parishes should they wish to participate in the future. Any revised scheme should ideally allow for this
5. Council wide issues - the scheme does not operate except in the areas of the participating Parishes and the service provided is therefore uneven. Extension to other areas is either unaffordable or impractical at present
6. Inconsistency in application of the scheme - not all of the expenditure incurred in the scheme appears to be good value. Sub-contractors carry out mechanical sweeping at much higher costs than those of the Council's own service; some Parishes carry out work which is not required for cleansing purposes. Where this takes place on land which is not the responsibility of this Council but is funded from the scheme, this Council may be held to have acted in ultra vires. The current agreement states that "no work over and above that required by the 'Other Cleaning' contract will be carried out in that Parish".
7. Terms and Conditions of staff - this Council has a duty to ensure that the practices of its contractors and agents conform to the standards set for its own workforce. This includes Health and Safety, Human Resource management, Disability and Race Equality matters. Parishes are not well positioned to meet these requirements. Any revised scheme will need to provide the necessary back up and advice to Parish Councils
8. Lack of probity controls - Claims for payment by the participating Parishes are paid for by Waste Services (formerly TAWM) and standards of cleanliness in the parishes are monitored (at a low level) by the Council's Enforcement Team. There is no linkage between performance and payment. No check is currently carried out to verify that claims made to this Council are accurate
9. Control - there are no formal methods of agreeing the respective roles of the Parish and this Council or agreed methods of monitoring standards. Any revised scheme should provide for this
10. Inconsistency - the application of some aspects of the scheme (such as the treatment of waste disposal costs) is currently inconsistent
11. Management - the responsibility for the management of the scheme is not currently well defined. An intention of the outcome of the Best Value Review of Waste Services was to make a more clearly defined division of responsibilities between the roles of Waste Services (strategic) and Direct Services (operational). Greater clarity would be achieved by re-allocating responsibility for the management of the scheme to the Enforcement Team.
Parish Sweeper Scheme - Options Analysis
This Appendix considers the options available to this Council in the light of the issues raised in Appendix E and the review generally.
Option1 Stay As Now
Continuation of the scheme in its current form would fail to address the legal and audit obligations placed on this Council and the issues raised in Appendix E would be outstanding. This Council would be continuing a scheme which is inequitable in nature and lacks proper controls to ensure that probity and legal requirements are met. In addition, this Council would need to be able to justify the future exclusion from the scheme of those Parish Councils who presently do not participate. The continuation of the scheme in its current form is not recommended.
Option 2 Stay As Now but with extra controls
The current scheme could be retained where Parishes wish but there is a need to formalise agreements so that legal aspects are adequately covered and satisfactory controls and liaison mechanisms are introduced. This option, however, would not reduce costs and there is no financial capacity to extend the scheme to other Parishes who may want to participate in the future. There would still be issues around duplication, inequality and the basis of the calculation of funding which would be unresolved or fudged. This Council would need to be able to justify the future exclusion from the scheme of those Parish Councils who presently do not participate. This option is therefore not considered to be the most advantageous to this Council or to all Parishes in the area.
Option 3 Cessation of the scheme
If the scheme were terminated completely, a number of issues would need resolving. Parishes would either have to fund the current level of work themselves or reduce costs. This may incur a number of the Parishes in redundancy costs. Some of the work currently done by Parishes would then have to be undertaken directly by this Council. This would be done at the "rates" shown in Appendix H. This Council would have to recruit additional staff to do this work. It is possible that some of the displaced staff could be taken on by this Council (subject to competency, age, etc.). Participating parishes would see a reduction in standards to those which this Council has specified except where the Parishes are prepared to fund supplementary arrangements. Terminating the scheme would also run counter to any move towards devolving greater power to Parishes.
There is no specific provision within the agreement document dealing with termination by either party so it is likely that termination would have to be carried out by use of the annual review clause.
If this option is preferred, it will be necessary to ensure that an adequate period of notice is given to the Parish Councils concerned. It is suggested that such period should take into account any commitments entered into by the Parish Councils in respect of staff, equipment and contractual obligations
Option 4 Retention of Scheme in Amended Form as a partnership with extra controls
This option relies on the introduction of revised and robust agreements and the recalculation of the basis of funding. The proposal would be to introduce a clear agreement (updated to take account of changes in legislation and providing for this Council to be able to satisfy itself as to the adequacy of the local arrangements) stating who is responsible for what and agreeing (by means of a standard calculation or "rate") the value of the work to be done.
Under this option, it is proposed that payment would be based on a calculation of the resources required for each Parish to be maintained to the specification laid down by this Council (i.e. the requirements laid down in the Environmental Protection Act Code of Practice on Litter & Refuse). This rate would hold good whether the work were to be done directly by this Council or devolved to a Parish. Anything over and above this standard (an enhanced standard) would be funded from Parish Council precepts. Controls would be introduced such that work done by the Parishes would be inspected to ensure that the minimum required standard is achieved and where the work is directly carried out by this Council, the Parish would be involved in monitoring to ensure the scheme provides value for money (where Parishes so wish). This would be supplemented by agreed liaison arrangements to ensure that resources are best used and that services are not duplicated. This Council would provide advice and guidance to assist parishes in best meeting their responsibilities under the scheme and to ensure that all parties deliver the service in a cost effective and efficient manner.
Suggested calculated "rates" and the financial impact of introducing this type of scheme are shown at Appendix H. This is then compared with the current cost. The total sums are estimated at present and a more detailed survey and agreement on areas of responsibility would be needed to establish the exact future level of funding. Where introducing the revised "rate" would have a significant impact on the funding of the current Parish arrangements, it is suggested that transitional arrangements may need to be considered so that Parishes are given adequate time to adjust to the revised levels of funding and adjust their costs or increase their precepts.
Under this option, this Council's minimum responsibilities would include the introduction of a formal agreement (a draft Heads of Terms document is included at Appendix G), contract monitoring and control systems and partnership working to carry out (inter alia) the removal of fly tipping, the removal of arisings and mechanical sweeping.
There is a case to re-define zones in certain areas within a parish where the current zone is not adequate to meet the Environmental Protection Act (e.g. shopping areas that are currently zone 3 should be zone 1 as is the case in the Bath conurbation precincts). Where this is the case, the sums identified to be allocated for funding the works (in Appendix H) will have to be increased.
This option offers the opportunity, should this Council wish it, to extend the scheme to Parishes who do not currently participate in the scheme can be considered in the future.
Parish Cleansing Partnership Agreement
Draft Heads of Terms of Agreement
Commencement Date
Participants - Parish Councils but excluding Town Councils
Scope of the work - definition (e.g. 'scavenging' of metalled surfaces, hedges and grass verges, minimum sweeping frequencies)
Standards to be met - to meet, as a minimum, the standards laid down in B&NES Council's specification (broadly as per the EPA Litter Code supplemented by minimum frequencies and items not covered in the litter code)
Monitoring (of work carried out by Parish by Enforcement Team and of service provided directly by B&NES - by Management, Enforcement Team & Parish)
Enhancements to the above - Parishes may opt to provide a higher standard (either using their own resources or purchased in) but this will be done at no cost to B&NES Council
Requests for extra work - procedure
Who Does What - Individual agreement concerning what each party will take responsibility for cleaning. This will be in the form of a schedule, identifying areas and zones with an annual price (calculated as per the standard rates) for each component
Payment formula - a standard rate shall be set for each zone. This rate will apply regardless of whether the work is carried out directly by B&NES or controlled by the Parish Council. The rate shall be equivalent to the actual cost which would be incurred by B&NES in providing the service directly (see note below)
Payment - there will be no need to claim. The individual agreement will set out the annual sum for each Parish based on the sum of the rates. This sum will be paid over to the Parish in twelve equal monthly instalments each year subject to meeting the terms of the agreement
Communications - liaison mechanisms
Responsibilities of the Parish Council - to include:
To maintain to the standards laid down
To provide method statements setting out how the work will be done and the arrangements in place to ensure that all legal obligations are met
Employment Issues, including:-
Employment of Children
Equalities
Notification of appointment/termination to B&NES Council
Notification to the Inland Revenue and DHSS
Compliance with all employment legislation
Compliance with all health and safety legislation
Supply of protective clothing, equipment and any materials as necessary
Cover for absence
Arrangements for the disposal of any waste
Nomination of a Parish Councillor or Parish Clerk to liaise with B&NES Council in respect of work carried out
Default - effect on payments
Responsibilities of B&NES Council
Nominated officers
Advice & support
Services provided directly by B&NES, e.g.:
Graffiti removal
Mechanical sweeping of gulleys
Disposal of waste from bins and other arisings
Disposal of animal carcases
Disposal of fly tipping
Pressure washing
Disposal of clinical & hazardous waste
Agreed areas of cleaning (not cleaned by Parish)
Scheduled visits
Review - annual review of arrangements and rates
Current Sweeping Costs and Calculation of Standard Rate
This Appendix shows the 2001/02 costs of the Parish Sweeper Scheme and compares these with a proposed consistent rate. This has been calculated according to the cost which would be incurred by this Council should it have to provide services to the specified standard without the Parishes being involved (i.e. the "market" rate).
The calculation to establish the unit rate for the payment of the Parish Sweeper scheme is as follows:
1. Establish Direct Services operating costs for manual cleansing operations in the rural area for all 42 Parishes. This calculation does not include a contribution to overheads which have been excluded because they are "fixed costs" (i.e. should Direct Services be required to take on extra work of this nature, the cost to this Council would be the rate. Conversely if work of this nature carried out by Direct Services is reduced, savings to this Council would accrue at this same rate).
The operating cost for manual cleansing operations in the rural area was identified by establishing the employee costs (including NI and Pensions) based on the current staffing level of 5 full time staff employed carrying out cleansing work in the "rural" area. Their duties include litter picking, manual sweeping, litter bin emptying and responding to litter problems in all 42 Parishes in the rural area (excluding mechanical sweeping).
These costs equate to £97,044.62p for the financial year 02/03 including vehicle costs.
2. Identify the area (linear metres) that is maintained by the Parish Sweepers in order to establish a unit rate that can be used to make payments to Parishes and is equitable to all.
The total area of the 42 Parishes to be maintained is 407,696 LM, of which 304,714 LM is in Parishes who participate in the scheme. It is estimated that Direct Services manual sweepers maintain an average of 46% of the area within the 29 participating Parishes. A further 24% of the participating Parishes area has been identified as shown in the table below to enable Direct Services to provide ancillary services. These include sickness cover, the collection and disposal of sacks and arisings collected by Parish Sweepers and other services including graffiti removal, collection and disposal of clinical and hazardous waste, animal carcases and fly tipping and pressure washing. This allowance also provides for the equivalent of one half of an employee, whose duties will include the monitoring of Direct Services work in the Parishes, and regular fortnightly liaison with the Parishes. The estimated cost of providing these services equates to £22,670 which calculates to approximately 24% (73,131LM) of the participating Parishes area using the rate of 31p per linear metre.
SUMMARY OF VOLUMES
|
Area maintained by Parish Sweepers |
Area maintained by Direct Services |
|
|
Area of Parishes within Scheme |
163,585 LM (approx. 54%) |
141,129 LM (approx. 46%) |
|
Area identified to allow costs incurred in monitoring and provision of ancillary services |
N/A |
73,131 LM (approx. 24%) |
|
Non participating Parish Councils |
N/A |
102,982 LM |
|
Total area maintained |
163,585 LM |
317,242 LM |
3. A unit rate of 31p per linear metre has been calculated by dividing Direct Services annual operating costs for this service into the area maintained by Direct Services. A detailed breakdown of this calculation for each Parish is shown below.
|
Direct Services operating costs |
Area maintained by Direct Services |
Unit Rate |
|
£97,044.62 |
317,242LM |
.31 |
4. Applying this rate to the areas currently maintained by Parish Sweepers gives values as shown in the table below. The final column shows the comparative figure which Waste Services accounts show as having been paid to each Parish in 2001/02:
|
Location |
Total area in Zone 3 |
Rate per linear metre |
Value at rate of £0.31 / LM x length / area estimated swept by PC |
Payments claimed 01/02 |
|
Bathampton |
14259 |
£ 0.31 |
No Sweeper |
£ 3,281.61 |
|
Batheaston |
27975 |
£ 0.31 |
£4,278.79 |
£ 5,648.16 |
|
Bathford |
10818 |
£ 0.31 |
No Sweeper |
|
|
Bishop Sutton (known as Stowey Sutton) |
7398 |
£ 0.31 |
No Sweeper |
£ 1,328.60 |
|
Camerton & Tunley |
14805 |
£ 0.31 |
£3,170.20 |
£ 2,715.70 |
|
Chew Magna |
11646 |
£ 0.31 |
£2,137.51 |
£ 4,748.10 |
|
Chew Stoke |
9136 |
£ 0.31 |
£1,676.83 |
£ 2,476.80 |
|
Clutton |
14599 |
£ 0.31 |
£2,679.51 |
£ 2,592.44 |
|
Compton Dando |
8717 |
£ 0.31 |
£1,333.27 |
£ 3,760.02 |
|
Combe Hay |
1453 |
£ 0.31 |
No Sweeper |
£ 1,237.50 |
|
Compton Martin |
6531 |
£ 0.31 |
No Sweeper |
£ 868.70 |
|
Corston |
8517 |
£ 0.31 |
£2,214.55 |
£ 2,683.20 |
|
East Harptree |
8876 |
£ 0.31 |
£1,900.62 |
£ 2,454.62 |
|
Englishcombe |
1453 |
£ 0.31 |
£444.47 |
£ 2,154.44 |
|
Farmborough |
10274 |
£ 0.31 |
£1,885.69 |
£ 2,813.20 |
|
Freshford |
8145 |
£ 0.31 |
£1,121.20 |
£ 2,683.20 |
|
High Littleton & Hallatrow |
13240 |
£ 0.31 |
£2,227.57 |
£ 4,479.28 |
|
Hinton Charterhouse |
7482 |
£ 0.31 |
£1,373.25 |
£ 3,372.24 |
|
Midford & Southstoke |
12936 |
£ 0.31 |
£3,957.13 |
£ 3,017.10 |
|
Monkton Combe |
8235 |
£ 0.31 |
£1,133.59 |
£ 2,207.30 |
|
Newton St Loe |
3365 |
£ 0.31 |
£257.34 |
£ 2,938.70 |
|
Paulton |
21295 |
£ 0.31 |
£5,211.32 |
£ 7,755.24 |
|
Pensford (known as Publow) |
9193 |
£ 0.31 |
£1,406.07 |
£ 2,938.70 |
|
Saltford |
20857 |
£ 0.31 |
£3,190.09 |
£ 6,872.72 |
|
Temple Cloud (known as Cameley) |
10515 |
£ 0.31 |
£1,929.93 |
£ 3,467.52 |
|
Timsbury |
11407 |
£ 0.31 |
£2,093.65 |
£ 4,853.94 |
|
Ubley |
5377 |
£ 0.31 |
£986.90 |
No claim |
|
Wellow |
8717 |
£ 0.31 |
£2,399.88 |
£ 2,608.80 |
|
Whitchurch |
7493 |
£ 0.31 |
£1,031.45 |
£ 2,598.10 |
|
£50,040.81 |
£88,555.93 |
Note: Where "No Sweeper" is shown, the Parish do not currently employ a sweeper. It is not possible to quantify the value of the work as this would depend upon the arrangements agreed if an appointment is made.
Litter Code - Cleaning Zones summary
CODE OF PRACTICE ON LITTER AND REFUSE EPA 1990
Cleanliness standards
· No litter or refuse, known as grade A;
· Predominantly free of litter and refuse apart from small items, known as grade B;
· Widespread distribution of litter and refuse with minor accumulations, known as grade C;
· Heavily littered with significant accumulations known as grade D.
Zones
Each area is zoned under its land usage & volume of traffic. It will be for the local authority to or other duty body to allocate geographical areas to particular zones
Zone 3
So far as is practicable, in low density residential areas (containing for example detached and semi-detached houses), other public parks, other transport centres and areas of industrial estates grade A should be achieved after cleaning. If this falls to grade C, it should be restored to grade A within 12 hours and if it falls to grade D it should be restored to grade A within six hours
To achieve this standard the Council have laid down a minimum frequency for zone 3 areas of one sweep per fortnight
Parish Council Agency Cleaning Scheme
Consultation with Parish Councils
The 29 participating Parish Councils were asked on 11th January 2002:-
Are there any tasks, included in (i) and (ii) below, that you depend upon other organisations undertaking on your behalf?
The general conditions of the Parish Agency Cleaning Scheme introduced by the previous Wansdyke District Council in 1990 states that the scope of the scheme, within section (c), is to carry out the work required and defined as `scavaging' as follows: -
(i) Metallic Surfaces - the removal and disposal from metallic surfaces to an authorised licensed site of litter, debris, loose chippings, animal carcasses, animal fouling to footpaths, accident debris and other deposits. Parishes should be aware that a number of the tasks can only be accomplished by sweeping and/or washing in order to meet Wansdyke's approved quality and standard of service
(ii) Hedges and grass verges - litter and animal carcasses to be similarly removed and disposed of from hedges, grassed areas and adjoining highways
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The replies of Parishes are listed under the columns headed "11th January 2002"; comments received from the Parishes on previous consultation dates are shown in the other appropriate columns.
s/waste services/pers/gc/parish sweeping/consultation summary Feb 2002.doc
|
Consultation Date |
11th January 2002 |
September 2001 |
January 2000 |
|
|
Parish |
Parish Depending on other organisations |
Tasks needed to be undertaken by other organisations i.e. not by the Parish Sweeper |
Telephone poll of views on BNES cleansing service (Best Value research) |
Should the Parish Agency Cleaning Scheme be retained?....and additional comment reported to Waste Management Sub Committee 28th March 2000 |
|
Bathampton |
_ |
WS Atkins - A36 trunk road cleaning BNES - routine sweeping by mechanical sweeper |
Reasonably satisfied with service |
Yes, scheme should be retained Parish had no copy of scheme |
|
Batheaston |
"_(?)" |
Many examples detail a shortfall in BNES' cleansing and monitoring service, cleansing schedules do not meet requirements of the Parish. |
NR (no reply) |
Yes, with additional finance required to cover contract mechanical sweeper Parish had no copy of scheme |
|
Bathford |
NR (no reply) |
NR (no reply) |
Very satisfied with service - any problems are generally dealt with quickly |
Yes, scheme should be retained |
|
Cameley |
_ |
BNES - mechanical sweeps of highway edges only, this service is alleged to create additional cleaning problems |
Satisfied with service. Complain frequently about service but no action seems forthcoming |
Yes, satisfied completely with Agency Cleaning Scheme |
|
Camerton |
NR (no reply) |
NR (no reply) |
Unsatisfied with service - not convinced the correct level of cleansing is being achieved |
Yes, scheme should be retained Littler is seen of BNES cleaning team |
|
Chew Magna |
_ |
BNES - removal of large animal carcasses and wash down roads |
Satisfied with service - not sure of level of service that Parish should be getting from BNES |
Yes, scheme should be retained No cover provided during absence of Parish sweeper |
|
Chew Stoke |
_ |
BNES undertake cleansing duties - minor modifications are proposed to avoid duplication |
NR (no reply) |
Yes, scheme should be retained Parish had no copy of scheme |
|
Consultation Date |
11th January 2002 |
September 2001 |
January 2000 |
|
|
Parish |
Parish Depending on other organisations |
Tasks needed to be undertaken by other organisations i.e. not by the Parish Sweeper |
Telephone poll of views on BNES cleansing service (Best Value research) |
Should the Parish Agency Cleaning Scheme be retained?....and additional comment reported to Waste Management Sub Committee 28th March 2000 |
|
Clutton |
NR (no reply) |
NR (no reply) |
Satisfied with service - problems generally sorted out quickly |
Decision to be discussed at Parish Council meeting 21st February 2000 - outcome not known No cover provided during absence of Parish sweeper |
|
Combe Hay |
_ |
BNES - collection & disposal of special green sacks only |
Generally satisfied with service - not sure of level of cleaning service that Parish should be getting from BNES |
NR (no reply) |
|
Compton Dando |
NR (no reply) |
NR (no reply) |
NR (no reply) |
Yes, scheme should be retained |
|
Compton Martin |
NR (no reply) |
NR (no reply) |
NR (no reply) |
NR (no reply) |
|
Corston |
_ |
BNES - street washing, removal of animal carcasses larger than a cat, removal of road accident debris |
Satisfied with service - never actually see BNES in attendance, Parish unsure who is doing most of the cleaning |
Yes, scheme should be retained Parish had no copy of scheme No cover provided during absence of Parish sweeper |
|
East Harptree |
NR (no reply) |
NR (no reply) |
NR (no reply) |
NR (no reply) |
|
Englishcombe |
NR (no reply) |
NR (no reply) |
Not comment - but not aware of any cleansing taking place |
Yes, a good and cost effective service |
|
Consultation Date |
11th January 2002 |
September 2001 |
January 2000 |
|
|
Parish |
Parish Depending on other organisations |
Tasks needed to be undertaken by other organisations i.e. not by the Parish Sweeper |
Telephone poll of views on BNES cleansing service (Best Value research) |
Should the Parish Agency Cleaning Scheme be retained?....and additional comment reported to Waste Management Sub Committee 28th March 2000 |
|
Farmborough |
NR (no reply) |
BNES - duplicates work undertaken within Agency Cleaning Scheme |
Satisfied with service - but room for lot of improvement |
Yes, scheme should be retained Parish sought clarification of Parish/BNES cleansing responsibilities |
|
Freshford |
NR (no reply) |
Parish does not need to employ any other organisation to undertake `scavaging' within Agency Cleaning Scheme |
NR (no reply) |
Yes, scheme should be retained |
|
High Littleton |
_ |
BNES - collection & disposal of arisings |
Unsatisfied with service |
Yes, scheme should be retained Parish had no copy of scheme Parish not aware of BNES cleansing responsibilities |
|
Hinton Charterhouse |
NR (no reply) |
NR (no reply) |
Satisfied with service |
Yes, scheme should be retained |
|
Monkton Coombe |
NR (no reply) |
NR (no reply) |
Satisfied with service - but convinced that frequency of cleansing provided by BNES is less than it should be |
NR (no reply) |
|
Newton St Loe |
NR (no reply) |
NR (no reply) |
Very satisfied with service |
Yes, scheme should be retained No cover provided during absence of Parish sweeper Parish had no copy of scheme |
|
Consultation Date |
11th January 2002 |
September 2001 |
January 2000 |
|
|
Parish |
Parish Depending on other organisations |
Tasks needed to be undertaken by other organisations i.e. not by the Parish Sweeper |
Telephone poll of views on BNES cleansing service (Best Value research) |
Should the Parish Agency Cleaning Scheme be retained?....and additional comment reported to Waste Management Sub Committee 28th March 2000 |
|
Paulton |
_ |
BNES - collection & disposal of special green sacks; street washing is rarely undertaken |
Satisfied with service - better service very recently |
Yes, scheme should be retained Parish had no copy of scheme |
|
Publow |
NR (no reply) |
No tasks are undertaken by other organisations |
Satisfied with service |
Yes, scheme should be retained |
|
Saltford |
_ |
BNES - removal of animal carcasses & wash down roads |
Satisfied with service - better than it was |
Yes, scheme should be retained and should be extended |
|
South Stoke |
_ |
BNES - street washing, collection & disposal of debris |
Very unsatisfied with service - many phone calls are made and Parish does not believe BNES is fulfilling its obligations |
Yes, scheme should be retained Normally, no cover provided during absence of Parish sweeper |
|
Stowey Sutton |
NR (no reply) |
NR (no reply) |
Satisfied with service - Parish is sorting out areas where duplication of cleansing work with BNES occurs |
Yes, scheme should be retained No cover provided during absence of Parish sweeper Duplication of cleansing duties only when BNES visit village `every three months' |
|
Timsbury |
NR (no reply) |
NR (no reply) |
Satisfied with service - co-operation with Parish could resolve areas where work duplication with BNES occurs |
Yes, scheme should be retained Dates & frequency of BNES cleansing not know. |
|
Ubley |
_ |
BNES - removal of animal carcasses |
Satisfied with service - improving slowly |
Yes, scheme should be retained No cover provided during absence of Parish sweeper |
|
Consultation Date |
11th January 2002 |
September 2001 |
January 2000 |
|
|
Parish |
Parish Depending on other organisations |
Tasks needed to be undertaken by other organisations i.e. not by the Parish Sweeper |
Telephone poll of views on BNES cleansing service (Best Value research) |
Should the Parish Agency Cleaning Scheme be retained?....and additional comment reported to Waste Management Sub Committee 28th March 2000 |
|
Wellow |
NR (no reply) |
NR (no reply) |
Satisfied with service |
NR (no reply) |
|
Whitchurch |
NR (no reply) |
NR (no reply) |
Reasonably satisfied with service |
Yes, scheme should be retained No cover provided during absence of Parish sweeper Parish had no copy of scheme |
This Appendix contains letters sent by Parish Councils as feedback to the Best Value Review of Waste.
FEEDBACK FROM REPORT
|
Parish |
Comments |
Actions |
By Whom |
|
Bathampton |
No issues raised from report in writing |
||
|
Batheaston |
· Question the costs in App H · Claim that option 1 not elaborated on with inadequate justification · Digital maps are flawed reported twice before · Question the "artificial average per metre costs · Many other comments on document. Letter attached to report |
To be reported to O&S Letter to be acknowledged |
TC |
|
Bathford |
No issues raised from report in writing |
||
|
Cameley |
No issues raised from report in writing |
||
|
Camerton |
· Support option 4 · Needs sufficient lead in time · Adequate review of the area to be covered by the Parish Sweeper · Concerns about the admin costs to the parish for the extra accountability |
To be reported to O&S Letter to be acknowledged |
TC |
|
Charlcombe |
No issues raised from report in writing |
||
|
Chelwood |
No issues raised from report in writing |
||
|
Chew Magna |
· Support option 4 · Believe the issue of them having to make up any shortfall to be inequitable as they already pay for street lighting etc as extras on their precept · Do not believe that the costs in the report mirror all the actual costs · Would welcome advice on H&S issues regarding the parish sweeper · Appalled at the way this has been reported in the Somerset Guardian |
To be reported to O&S Letter to be acknowledged |
TC |
|
Chew Stoke |
No issues raised from report in writing |
||
|
Claverton |
No issues raised from report in writing |
||
|
Clutton |
No issues raised from report in writing |
||
|
Combe Hay Combe Hay Cont; |
· Support option 4 · Willing to sit down and negotiate a negotiate a revised scheme · See need for a base funding for Admin, equipment etc · Request once again a revised map |
To be reported to O&S Maps to be produced once all the comments are in (long process) |
TC |
|
Compton Dando |
No issues raised from report in writing |
||
|
Compton Martin |
· Support option 4 · Questions how the costs are made up · Many problems with the current arrangements. Lack of supervision etc |
To be reported to O&S Letter to be acknowledged |
TC |
|
Corston |
No issues raised from report in writing |
||
|
Dunkerton |
· Scheme very unfair to those not in the scheme · Pay for parish sweepers should come from parish precept · Refers to the mismanagement of the parish sweeper scheme · If scheme continues all parishes should be given the opportunity to participate |
To be reported to O&S Letter to be acknowledged |
TC |
|
East Harptree |
No issues raised from report in writing |
||
|
Englishcombe |
· Feels the report is unfair to Parishes · Feels supervision is a smoke screen · Areas currently o/s zone 3 are totally disregarded · Wish to address the O7S panel · Questions the calculations |
To be reported to O&S Letter to be acknowledged |
TC |
|
Farmborough |
· Express their concern at B&NES not listening to their comments · Seriously questions the calculated costs. |
To be reported to O&S Letter to be acknowledged |
|
|
Farrington Gurney |
No issues raised from report in writing |
||
|
Freshford |
· Support option 1 · Objects strongly to option 4 · As in their original correspondence they believe the Direct Service provision to be a "total waste of taxpayers money" · Still request Direct Services mechanical sweeper monthly · Totally object to any change in the Parish Sweeping scheme |
To be reported to O&S Letter to be acknowledged |
TC |
|
High Littleton |
· No specific comments on report · Letter sent and sent to O&S |
To be reported to O&S Letter to be acknowledged |
TC |
|
Hinton Blewitt |
No issues raised from report in writing |
||
|
Hinton Charterhouse |
· No reference to their preferred option. Do however wish to keep the scheme · Mechanical sweeping still required in certain main road areas · Look to an admin cost for administering the scheme · Anomalies in the report over how much the parish received last year Report; £3372.24 Actual; £2657.20 |
To be reported to O&S Letter to be acknowledged |
TC |
|
Kelston |
No issues raised from report in writing |
||
|
Marksbury |
No issues raised from report in writing |
||
|
Monkton Combe |
No issues raised from report in writing |
||
|
Nempnett Thrubwell |
No issues raised from report in writing |
||
|
Newton St Loe |
· Accept that changes to the scheme are necessary · Do not feel the money being offered to run the scheme is fair · See the need for the level of cleanliness in the village to be improved |
To be reported to O&S Letter to be acknowledged |
TC |
|
Northstoke |
No issues raised from report in writing |
||
|
Norton Malreward |
No issues raised from report in writing |
||
|
Paulton |
· No reference to their preferred option. Do however wish to keep the scheme · Many points made on the existing scheme · Agree a review is overdue |
To be reported to O&S Letter to be acknowledged |
TC |
|
Peasedown St John |
No issues raised from report in writing |
||
|
Priston |
No issues raised from report in writing |
||
|
Publow |
· Support option 4 · Agree the scheme needs review · Look to support from the council to provide "accountability" · Need further discussion on |
To be reported to O&S Letter to be acknowledged |
TC |
|
St Catherine |
No issues raised from report in writing |
||
|
Saltford |
No issues raised from report in writing |
||
|
Shoscombe |
No issues raised from report in writing |
||
|
South Stoke |
· No apparent preferred option · Seriously questions the calculated costs. |
To be reported to O&S Letter to be acknowledged |
TC |
|
Stanton Drew |
No issues raised from report in writing |
||
|
Stowey Sutton |
· Happy with the service provided by B&NES · Do not employ a sweeper st present |
To be reported to O&S Letter to be acknowledged |
TC |
|
Swainswick |
No issues raised from report in writing |
||
|
Timsbury |
No issues raised from report in writing |
||
|
Ubley |
· No objection to revising the scheme · Seriously questions the costs attributed to their parish · Feel savings are being sought from what is an under resourced service |
To be reported to O&S Letter to be acknowledged |
TC |
|
Wellow |
No issues raised from report in writing |
||
|
West Harptree |
No issues raised from report in writing |
||
|
Whitchurch |
No issues raised from report in writing |