Minutes:
Councillor Keith Henson explained that the
report detailed how the grass-cutting was managed, the rationale behind that
management and the costs involved. The main verge mow reduced to one cut a
season in 2014-15 was dictated by cuts made to the service following a review
of Council Services in that year. Recognising this, the decision was made to
cut in areas rather than according to road hierarchy, although there was some
crossover.
The current regime was to undertake the
‘safety/visibility’ cuts first (junctions and sight lines) and then the early
growth areas. Due to climatic conditions, the growth was earlier in the south
and therefore, the service worked from south to north. With 70% of the network
made up of Class C and Unclassified roads, getting to all the narrow lanes was
a challenge. As resources were limited, it was not possible to cut all the
verges at the same time, so some would be cut earlier than others, and some
later, either way, there was the possibility that the timing of those cuts
could attract complaints.
The contractor had been cutting the grass
for many years and attempts were made not to divert the contractor from the
programmed regime as there were additional costs involved in this. However, the
programme would be altered if deemed necessary for highway safety reasons. An
officer investigated all requests for grass-cutting received and assessed
whether there was sufficient reason to divert resources. The main cut itself
usually took 6 weeks to complete. A pre-season and end-of-season briefing
meeting was also held with contractors.
The county was split into 10 ‘beats’ in
total, 9 county beats with the trunk road separated into beat 10 which was
managed on behalf of NMWTRA. The Authority constantly reviewed its service
level standards to reflect the decreased budget allocation to the various
highway maintenance activities. Future priorities were likely to lead to an
approach focused more on risk and road safety and less on the aesthetic
appearance of grassed areas that it maintained.
Reference was given to the following noted
in the report:
·
Main
Highways Cut
·
Amenity
Grass Cutting
·
Urban
Wildflower Areas
·
Roadside
Reserves
·
Service
Costs
Members were provided with the opportunity
to ask questions which were answered by Officers present. The main points
raised were as follows:
·
Amenity
cuts were done in-house by the Grounds Maintenance team 4 times a year. Road
safety was the main reason for cutting grass.
·
Members
raised concerns that some areas within their wards were not cut consistently;
it was noted that different bodies could hold responsibility for the grassed
area, such as housing associations and landowners. Officers agreed to share the
details of what grassed areas the local authority held responsibility for
across the county to enable Members to have a better understanding.
·
Historically,
the county was split into two beats but in attempts to attract more
contractors, it was split into 10 beats in recent years and a meet-the-buyer
session was arranged during the grass-cutting procurement exercise. Although a
few contractors had initially shown an interest, only two contractors had
tendered for the work. It was noted that one of the key factors in the
procurement exercise was compliance with road safety.
·
Concerns
were raised with the grass cutting at the graveyard in Aberystwyth and the
impact this had on the public. Questions were also raised related to the
Ystwyth and Rheidol cycle path; it was noted that this had been brought to the
service’s attention and would be reviewed.
·
Members
asked to be kept informed of any changes to the grass-cutting programme when no
political decision was required, to ensure they had the information to answer
questions by the public.
·
The
Service was thanked for their work and their flexibility when a request was
sent by a Member to cut the grass when there was a
funeral in the ward.
Following questions by the Committee
Members, it was agreed to note the information.
Supporting documents: