Agenda item

ES20096

The Assistant Director for Environment along with Mr Nick Brooks from Glendale, attended to update the Committee regarding the Glendale contract. Mr. Brooks was the Regional Director for the South Thames region. The Committee was briefed on the performance of the contract and it was noted that the performance of the contractor was monitored monthly. The Assistant Director expressed the view that generally speaking, work was completed on time. He explained that volatile seasonal variations could affect performance but overall the performance of the contract was good. The report also addressed the issue of how the matter of planting new trees would be addressed going forward.

Mr Brooks stated that the contract had been running for roughly 2.5-3 years and was based on a Performance Management Framework with clear KPIs.

A Member asked for an explanation as to what was meant by target KS01. The Member noted that for a period of five months this had been below target. He asked with respect to this target whether this had to be hit over a particular period, or whether it was an annual target. He referred also to targets for tree planting and noted that for 2021, no figures were provided and he wondered if the 2021 tree planting target was being achieved.

The Assistant Director clarified that KS01 referred to the completion of works on time and this was an annual target. It was the case that 75% of work had been completed on time and this was included in the Portfolio Plan. The Member wondered if this target was wrong and needed to be re-assessed; the Assistant Director stated that the target was being reviewed.

A discussion took place concerning the matter of planting trees and looking after them after they had been planted. It was noted that when new trees were planted their location was now being mapped out. They would be planted with a water bag and would be pruned as required and monitored for two years. Additional administrative resource was also likely to be required to help administer the new tree planting and maintenance programme.

A Member asked if tree survival rates were monitored. It was noted that the survival rates of trees had improved by using supporting stakes and water bags. The Member recommended that tree mortality rates should be monitored and recorded going forward--to ensure VFM and the correct allocation of resources. The Portfolio Holder stated that his understanding was that a warranty existed within the terms of the contract with respect to tree mortality. He asked if this could be looked into and reported back to the Committee under Matters Arising.

A discussion took place regarding the introduction of a tree planting sponsorship initiative involving the public; the details around this would need to be confirmed with the Portfolio Holder.

A Member expressed the view that the tree service had improved and that issues were being dealt with quickly and effectively. He asked if there was a better way of dealing with tree roots other than spreading tarmac over them. He further enquired if the Council had been receiving insurance claims with respect to damage caused to property by tree roots. 

The Assistant Director responded that the problem relating to roots was primarily an historical one. The Council would now need to plant the correct species of tree in the correct locations. One of the issues when planting trees was to ensure that there was no infrastructure in situ that would be problematic. A Member suggested that the concept of ‘trees for streets’ should be published more widely on social media. The Assistant Director confirmed that the Communications Executive would be involved in this matter. The matter was also raised concerning the damage being caused to trees on unidentified land. The Member wondered what could be done to prevent this from happening. The Assistant Director responded that he would go away and consider this and bring back an answer to members.

It was noted that trees such as crab apple trees would not be planted near highways, as the falling fruit could be a potential hazard. A discussion took place regarding the measurement of ‘net gain’ with respect to tree planting and how this could be measured and the Assistant Director suggested that this may be a matter for a future meeting.

The Chairman commented that in his view the service had improved dramatically, due in part to the team now being at full strength, and the lines of communication improving. The Chairman referred to the matter of tree felling and the distress that this caused to some residents. He requested that better communication be made to residents when tree felling was required, to explain the reason why it was necessary to fell a tree in that particular circumstance.

The Chairman asked Mr. Brooks what was Glendale’s plan for a greener future and when were they looking to become carbon neutral. LBB’s ambition was to become carbon neutral by 2029. Mr. Brooks responded the Glendale’s aim was to become carbon neutral by 2026. In order to achieve this a number of actions were taking place, this included the use of replacement vehicles and using electric cars and vans. Glendale was now using battery operated kits and machines and also synthetic oils. Their ambition to become greener and more carbon neutral was being formulated into the new contract arrangements with local authorities.

The Chairman referred enthusiastically to the ‘Glendale Live’ website. This was something that communicated to the public what Glendale was doing. The Chairman was keen to learn if LBB should have access to this platform. Mr. Brooks explained that the platform was being used to give local residents an insight of scheme ideas and the rough period of time when this work would be carried out. The Assistant Director and his team had access to Glendale Live as part of the contract arrangements. Full integration was planned to make the website more accessible to the wider public.

The Chairman asked Mr. Brooks if Glendale had access to heavy machinery and equipment and qualified people, so that no delays to work would be experienced. Mr. Brooks explained that it was not very often that heavy machinery was required and because of this there was no capital expenditure outlined in the contract with LBB. To avoid unnecessary capital expenditure, machinery and kit could be hired as required to save money.

A discussion also took place as to how the Client Team was communicating with the Planning Team with respect to replanting and other issues.

A Member referenced the sourcing of trees and he asked if local people were involved in growing trees. He wondered if schools would want to ‘adopt a tree’ or at least start growing a tree from a sapling. Would ‘Street Friends’ like to be involved? He expressed the view that the community would be ready and willing to help in growing trees. The Chairman referred to a project called ‘pimp my pit, where people planted flowers around the foot of trees and he said that this was very attractive and he hoped that Glendale would not interfere with these when undertaking their tree maintenance work. 

The Assistant Director said that it may be possible to use grant money for a tree nursery for the local authority. Also it may be possible to explore the idea with farmers for growing trees. He added that setting up a nursery was more involved than may seem at first and was expensive. He stated that if LBB could grow its own trees then the Council could save money as well as reducing carbon emissions. 

RESOLVED that:

1) The Glendale Contract Annual Performance report and the update provided at the meeting be noted.

2) The Assistant Director would check to see if a warranty existed with respect to tree mortality and that this be reported back to the Committee at the next meeting.

3) The Assistant Director would investigate what could be done to prevent harm to trees on unidentified land, and report back to the Committee.

4) Better communication (with respect to tree felling) should be made with residents to explain the reasons why a tree may need to be felled.

Post Meeting Note:

It was subsequently confirmed that the ‘warranty’ with respect to tree mortality was that the tree would be guaranteed to come into leaf during the second spring after planting (i.e. having been in leaf for the whole of the first season).