Archived decisions

Contact: David Richardson, ext 7964 email: [email protected]

1. Summary

1.1 The purpose of this report is to inform Members of the views of district officers in relation to operating an agency service for weed-killing and to ask Members to consider performance standards. This would inform the agency agreement if some district councils wish to enhance the level of service, as they do with grass-cutting.

1.2 The County Council already uses a performance measurement technique, to which the Highways Agency's photographic judging method could be added.

2. Background

2.1 Highway weed-killing works were taken back by Hampshire County Council in 2002, as part of the county-wide Term Maintenance Contract. In the first two years of the contract there were complaints by some district councils that the level of service was worse than before. Since then performance has improved and is now considered to be good (see Appendix 1).

2.2 In addition, a number of district councils have felt that, because of the synergy with other street-scene functions that they carry out, they also could carry out the highway weed-killing effectively.

2.3 Consequently, the idea of transferring the highway weed-killing service to the district councils as an agency function is being explored. Appendix 1 shows the quantities and costs under the current arrangements. Many of the district councils have indicated an interest in principle, although some are unwilling to take on the work for operational reasons. Appendix 2 shows the individual district officers' views.

3. Performance Measurement

3.1 Should the service be transferred, prior agreement would be needed on the level of service, the level of funding and the method of performance measurement. There would be an opportunity for district councils to enhance the level of service at their own choice and cost, in a similar manner to the arrangements for highway grass-cutting.

3.2 One of the matters that would need early resolution is how performance would be measured, in respect of highway maintenance and safety purposes but also for any district enhanced aesthetic aspirations. The purpose of bringing this matter to Members' attention at this stage is to inform them about current highway service objectives and to consider the level of service that they may wish to pursue should the service be transferred.

3.3 The method of performance measurement currently used by the County Council is considered to work well. It comprises:

(i) a report on whether the weed treatment was completed on time; and

(ii) an objective view of the effectiveness of the treatment, undertaken two weeks after. This is carried out as an on-site inspection.

3.4 The Highways Agency uses a series of photographs to judge performance. These photographs are shown in Appendix 3 and could be employed during the inspections.

4. Ragwort

4.1 Treatment of ragwort is outside the scope of the service considered by this report. It is arranged separately by the Highway Units, in accordance with the Department for Food and Rural Affairs Code of Practice to Prevent and Control the Spread of Ragwort.

5. Impact Assessments

5.1 This report provides a position statement only, therefore an impact assessment in terms of the Race Relations (Amendment) Act has not been undertaken.

Recommendation

That Members consider the desired standard of service and performance measurement should the service be transferred.

9354/DR

APPENDIX 1

Highway Weed-Killing Quantities and Costs for 2005-06, Under Current Arrangements

Costs shown are for two treatments per year.

Highway Weed-Killing Performance in 2004/05 and 2005/06

APPENDIX 2

District Council Officers' Responses to the Idea of Agency Weed Killing

District	Interested in principle	Comments
Basingstoke	No View Expressed	To be considered.
East Hants	Yes	Subject to workable logistics.
Eastleigh	Definitely	Timing fits well with its review of street care and grounds maintenance procurement.
Fareham	No	Not resourced sufficiently.
Gosport	Yes	Depending on funding details.
Hart	No	Not resourced sufficiently, but keen to progress the idea as part of possible future joint working with Basingstoke and Rushmoor.
Havant	Definitely	Keen at top Member level.
Rushmoor	Yes	An idea for a performance indicator was checking the kill rate.
New Forest & Test Valley	Yes	Provided they could fit it into their other processes. They have performance indicators for their schools contract which could be used as they are.
Winchester	Yes	But not in the short term - 2007 might be too early. Consider integration with other street scene services in the long term.

APPENDIX 3

Extract from the Highways Agency's Area Performance Indicator (API) Guidance Notes