• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

London Borough of Barking and Dagenham Street Scene Best Value Review April 2000 – March 2001 AGENDA ITEM THE EXECUTIVE 19 FEBRUARY 2002 REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF LEISURE AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES BEST VALUE REVIEW OF STREET SCENE FOR DECISION FINAL REPORT Considering recommendations from other Members groups on major issues that affect the Council and are the Executive’s responsibility. Summary This report sets out the conclusions of the Best Value Review of Street Scene (Reactive Highway Maintenance, Street Lighting and Street Cleansing). The Review was undertaken over a period of 12 months, between April 1st 2000 and March 31st 2001. In accordance with Statutory guidance, the Review included a number of stages namely Challenge, Consult, Compare and Compete. This report sets out a summary of how each of these stages was undertaken together with a summary of the findings and the conclusions that were reached. Also included in this report is the proposed Improvement Plan for the Street Scene service together with 3 options for the future delivery of the service and the capability of each of the options to deliver the service in the manner required. A preferred option is included. This report was completed prior to the recommendations of the Policy Commission being delivered to the Executive at the end of May 2001. Where reference should be made to the Policy Commission Report, the text has been annotated with the mark * PC. A summary of the findings and recommendations of the report is attached as Appendix 8. Recommendation The Executive is asked to recommend to the Assembly that: (i) The proposed Improvement Plan is agreed (ii) Option 1 of those put forward for future service delivery is agreed Reason This will enable the Council to move forward with it commitment providing high quality services and make the Borough a Cleaner, Greener and Safer place to live, work and travel through Contact: Head of Technical and (Telephone) 020 - 8227 3300 Peter Adams Operational Services (Fax) 020 - 8227 3231 (Minicom) 020 - 8227 3034 E-mail: [email protected] Street Scene final report 31/03/01 London Borough of Barking and Dagenham Street Scene Best Value Review April 2000 – March 2001 Executive Summary Street Scene Best Value Review April 2000 – March 2001 1.0 Following 1999 Community Survey and concerns with litter and the fear of crime, Reactive Highways Maintenance, Street Lighting and Street Cleansing were chosen for first year BV reviews, and at the same time physically integrated under the theme Street Scene to give a seamless service. 2.0 The Street Scene review has therefore been set against a background of substantial organisational change concurrent with the Review and this has been reflected in the Option Appraisal and the Improvement Plan. Partly because some of the service is outsourced and has been recently competed, the decision was made to allow the new combined street scene services to bed down for up to eighteen months before re competing it or engaging in a public private partnership. 3.0 The Service Review Initiation Form (SRIF) set the terms of reference for the review as confined to just these three services recognising that otherwise the scope of the review could become too wide. However, it became obvious from the outset that Street Scene was always perceived by stakeholders as much wider than it is. 4.0 The Review revealed major cross cutting interdependencies exist between Street Scene and other service areas. Civil Engineering, Planned Highways Maintenance, Traffic, Transport and Waste Services, Housing and Health, Public Health and Education are interlinked and share external contractors. 5.0 As all of these services are subject to 2nd and subsequent year reviews it was clear that major changes in procurement options immediately following the review would have serious knock on effects on these other services. The Review Team felt that options such as public/private partnerships and market testing should be re-evaluated early on in the Improvement Plan so as to dovetail into the cross cutting options as they arise. 6.0 The Review highlighted the emphasis the Stakeholders placed on cleansing issues more so than Highways Maintenance issues although there is some concern about footway maintenance particularly statutory undertakers’ reinstatements. 7.0 It revealed several weaknesses, such as the Council’s perceived reluctance to enforce anything from prosecution for abandoning vehicles, dog fouling, fly posting, and graffiti to the dropping of litter on the street. Up to the 12th of December, 58 Fixed Penalty Notices were issued of which 10 were subsequently cancelled, 23 paid the fine, 11 were overdue and 14 are pending. 8.0 These views were strongly echoed by the Members and carried forward into the Policy Commission debate. Enforcement issues therefore figure strongly in the Improvement Plan 9.0 The European Foundation for Quality Management (EFQM) analysis indicated weaknesses across nine major criteria relating to ‘ Business Excellence’. These included: - Street Scene final report 31/03/01 London Borough of Barking and Dagenham Street Scene Best Value Review April 2000 – March 2001 Leadership Resources People Satisfaction Policy & Strategy Processes Impact on society People Management Customer Satisfaction Business results All criteria scored below 60%, the industry average being 70%. These all pose challenges to be addressed early on in the Improvement Plan. 11.0 The MORI polls, whilst showing the borough as about average both London wide and nation-wide, felt that there were “information gaps”. For example, the public does not seem to be aware of the council’s free ‘surrendered vehicles’ service and that a Public Private Partnership contractor rather than the Council is responsible for sweeping and litter picking the A13 and its slip roads and roundabouts. MORI also felt that insufficient was being done by the Council to celebrate and communicate success such as the consistently high levels of satisfaction with Street Lighting. 12.0 One of the fact finding consultation conferences wanted zero tolerance enforcement, an end to bureaucracy, better communication between Council Departments, a one stop shop, improved education and an end to urban clutter. 13.0 In addition it was felt that Parking Policy was very much tied into Street Scene and cleaner streets. The Council was seen as having inconsistent policies:- on the one hand it encourages off street parking and on the other it is demolishing garages. The Improvement plan calls for better inter departmental co-operation whilst recognising the difficulties of sharing ring fenced funding. 14.0 The Policy Commission echoed the Conference feelings strongly in its recommendations (see appendix 8): - • Working arrangements, including a single framework, a central budget, a one-stop shop approach and matching Community Forum areas. • Enforcement – rigorous use of existing legislation • Inter-departmental working/innovative approaches/multi-tasking • Education and Publicity – especially children, effects and costs of their actions • Abandoned Vehicles – set initial value threshold of £500 • Public Highways – rigorous enforcement of NRSWA • Design Standards – Design a Highways and Public Areas Design Manual • Urban Clutter – set up a street furniture Assets Register – reduce visual impact • Street Lighting – Continued lighting improvement to reduce crime and improve road safety • Refuse Collection and Street Cleansing more proactive approach subject to ELWA • Financial Implications – efficiency savings required but increased budget provision recognised 18.0 Three options for the service were considered: 18.1 Restructuring of the in-house service and regular review of procurement optimized to meet major cross cutting service provision. (Appendix 3) 18.2 Formation of a public private partnership. (Appendix 4) 18.3 Joint commissioning or delivery of the service. (Appendix 5) Street Scene final report 31/03/01 London Borough of Barking and Dagenham Street Scene Best Value Review April 2000 – March 2001 Option 1, supported by Members, was chosen over the other two options because it did not compromise or foreclose the other two procurement options that have now been included as part of the Improvement Plan. 19.0 The Improvement Plan has taken as many of the issues, public aspirations, Members' and staff views on board as is reasonable and practicable. It calls for streamlining of the service, continuous improvement and monitoring. It addresses the growing nuisance and cost of abandoned vehicles that currently undermines the cleansing service. It is consistent with the options proposed for the service. 20.0 An overview of the Improvements invoked in the first 7 months following the Review is included in Appendix 9. Street Scene final report 31/03/01 London Borough of Barking and Dagenham Street Scene Best Value Review April 2000 – March 2001 FULL REPORT 1. Background Prior to the Community Survey (1999) services comprising, Reactive Highways Maintenance, Street Cleansing and Street Lighting, were separate services provided by the council as part of its statutory obligations. The Survey clearly indicated what is important to the people and certainly a greener, cleaner safer borough was shown to be amongst their highest priorities. This was the first major challenge to the way in which we provide these services and influenced the council to make them a priority for the first year Best Value reviews commencing in March 2000. It was sufficient also to influence

Load more

  65

Copy Link