Archived decisions

Contact: David Richardson, tel: 023 8042 7000

email: [email protected]

1. Summary

1.1 A number of district councils have pressed Hampshire County Council to return the weed control service which they carried out prior to the new Term Maintenance Contract (TMC) in 2002, on the basis that a better street scene service can be provided at lower cost. Although early performance problems with the new TMC have been resolved, it would be worth testing this arrangement prior to the next TMC in 2008.

1.2 Arrangements for agency agreements in respect of the service for the 2007 season are proceeding with three district councils: Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council, Eastleigh Borough Council and Havant Borough Council.

1.3 A potential claim from the current term maintenance contractor is likely to mean savings would not be realised in the short term.

1.4 Formal approval from the Executive Member is now sought, to enable the making of separate agency agreements.

1.5 The proposal may lead to improved quality of place by integrating the delivery of highway weed treatment with local district councils' other street scene functions. The pilots will test this. In the long term the proposal might realise modest efficiency savings over the duration of the next TMC.

2. Recommendation

2.1 That approval be given to enter into agency agreements in respect of the highway weed treatment function with Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council, Eastleigh Borough Council and Havant Borough Council on the basis of an initial one-year pilot from 1 April 2007 on terms to be agreed, subject to financial terms at no greater cost and a requirement to submit reports on performance, including complaints, being agreed.

3. Background

3.1 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 and that the cost had increased. Since then, performance has improved and is now considered to be good. Most districts are now generally satisfied with the quality of the service and there have been no recent complaints.

3.2 Due to the previous involvement by the districts in the weed treatment work, they take a particular interest in this part of the highway maintenance service. A number of district councils continue to feel that because of the synergy with other street scene functions that they undertake, they also could carry out the highway weed treatment more effectively than the County Council. Discussions between the County Council and district officers and Members have taken place over the last two years to see what scope exists for allowing the districts to carry out the weed treatment work again.

4. Details of the Proposals

4.1 The details of the service and the associated funding and performance measurement proposals, as communicated to the district councils, are shown in Appendix 1.

4.2 To enable district councils to carry out weed treatment would mean entering into new agency agreements specifically for this function. These would be in addition to the existing agency agreements for Highway Verge Maintenance but, in most cases, would be managed by the existing district council verge maintenance staff. The advantages and disadvantages of district councils undertaking the service are shown in Appendix 2.

4.3 One of the main requirements would be for the districts to contribute to efficiency savings by carrying out both the works and local management at the same or less than the existing works costs to the County Council. The works costs under the current arrangements are tabulated in Confidential Appendix 3. This would then generate non-cashable Gershon efficiency savings by freeing up County Council staff time presently spent dealing with the management of the service.

4.4 The weed treatment under consideration is that of urban hard surfaces. Treatment of injurious and scheduled weeds, such as Ragwort and Japanese Knotweed, would remain the direct responsibility of the County Council.

5. Latest Position

5.1 Resulting from discussion with the district councils, arrangements to undertake the service are proceeding with three district councils, namely Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council, Eastleigh Borough Council and Havant Borough Council. They have already carried out preparatory work and committed funds. These three district councils have advised that they can carry out the service slightly cheaper than the County Council's 2005-06 works cost. Some other district councils were interested but could not show a cost saving, while some were not interested. Further details of the responses are shown in Confidential Appendix 4.

5.2 The term maintenance contractor has been warned that weed treatment work will not be ordered on its contract in 2007-08 for the above three district areas. The term maintenance contractor has indicated its intention to submit a claim for the removal of this work. Currently this is subject to negotiation. The approximate order of the potential claim is shown in Confidential Appendix 4.

5.3 The new agency agreements have been prepared and are being sent to the districts pending approval.

5.4 If the work were to be retained by the districts after the trial period, the potential claim by the term maintenance contractor would offset savings in the short-term. However, the one-year trial may be viewed as an assessment of their performance in service delivery and whether integration of street scene services improves public satisfaction.

6. Impact Assessments

6.1 It is expected that there would be no net effect on equality and diversity by the transfer of the service.

7. Conclusion

7.1 Unlike most other highway maintenance functions, there are no inherent economies of scale in the County Council dealing with the weed treatment service. This is mainly due to the fact that weed treatment is a seasonal operation, carried out two or three times per year and inevitably needs to be done everywhere at once. A single contractor, working county-wide, simply does not have the resources to achieve this, whereas a larger number of smaller, locally-based contractors or Direct Service Organisations may be better placed.

7.2 It is recognised that there are both advantages and disadvantages in district agents carrying out weed treatment.

7.3 Arrangements to undertake the service have been proceeding with three district councils and the term maintenance contractor has indicated its intention to submit a claim for the removal of the work from its contract.

7.4 Savings made would have to be considered as a long-term commitment assuming the arrangements would continue after the trial period, because the likely claim from the term maintenance contractor would offset savings in the short-term.

7.5 In the short-term, the one-year trial could be viewed as a comparison of the district councils' performance in local service delivery with the existing arrangements.

7.6 The three district councils concerned have carried out preparatory work and committed funds. The term maintenance contractor has been advised of the arrangement and would be justified in gearing-down for weed treatment in these areas.

1306Rpt/DR