Tree and Woodland Management Service Review Eddie Curry, Head of Parks and Open Spaces Eirion Lewis, Tree Services Manager
The Importance of Trees in the Urban Landscape Nottingham City Council is the owner and custodian of one of the largest tree stocks in the East Midlands, estimated in excess of 100,000 specimen trees and 155 hectares of woods, spread across the city in the parks, open spaces, highways, housing gardens, schools and cemeteries and crematoria. Landscape character •Historic Importance •Define the character of the Area •Creates a sense of place •Making an area attractive to new businesses, even increasing the value of property •Marking the seasons, giving scale, colour and form . • Biodiversity •Create habitat •Supports an extensive range of flora and fauna species Climate Change •Reduces the urban heat island / temperature in the City. •Provides shade and cool environments •Reduces CO2 and other omissions and traps and removes dusts particles from the air •Reduces soil erosion and flash flooding •Provides local food growing opportunities
• The scope of the Tree Service Scrutiny is review is to establish:- 1. if the funding available for tree management and maintenance is being used in the most efficient and effective way possible? 2. how is the Council managing the problems caused by tree roots, in particular damage to pavements/ roads? • In responding to these questions this review will also provide detailed response to the following additional lines of enquiry: 1. How has the service been restructured and what services does it provide and how is it delivered? 2. How is this service benchmarked compared to other local authorities? 3. What tree management plan does the Council operate and how has this been developed. 4. What reporting routes and inspections regimes do you have for trees causing damage to pavements/highways and how is this addressed and monitored? 5. Are there any particular trees or areas in the City with damage being caused by trees and how do you deal with these? 6. How are you ensuring that tree planting alongside new developments for example NET Phase 2 is appropriate for the location? 7. Updated Ash dieback report / action plan.
Tree Service Budgets Operational Budget (£’s) Service 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 Highways 162,000 161,900 128,000 100,150 102,150 Housing 340,000 280,000 250,000 300,000 316,000 Parks 90,000 90,000 90,000 70,000 70,000 Internal Recharge 64,000 120,600 65,000 65,000 65,000 External recharge 15,000 33,500 700 3,550 3,550 Client costs 135,360 155,350 139,230 142,080 148,620 ANNUAL TOTALS 806,360 841,350 672,930 680,780 705,320
Background • For many years the City’s Tree Service had operated in an ad hoc and reactive manner. • Whilst the quality of work was not in question the Service operated without any policy guidelines, no strategic planning and had limited capacity to forward programme and proactively manage the City’s Tree’s. • To help improve the strategic planning of the service the Tree Services transferred to the Parks and Open Space Service in January 2010. • On transfer of the service it was clear that management practices, operational guidance and strategic planning / policy guidance all needed to be fully reviewed and restructured. • It became very apparent that demand for Tree Services exceeded the available operational budgets and as a result the service often receives a consistently high level of service request & complaints from both our citizens often through Councillor Casework.
Progress made to date • A full service review was carried out during 2011 and was formally adopted (DD005 Tree Service Review) on the 20th January 2012. • In parallel with the service review a lengthy consultation process was also carried during 2012 with all the Area committees, the Parks and Opens Forum and other community groups etc. • The results of both the consultation and the service review helped to shape and inform and production of the City’s 1st fully comprehensive Urban Forestry Strategy (UFS). • The UFS was formally adopted (DD0600 Urban Forestry Strategy) on 5th February 2013. • The Tree Service was exposed to the external market through a process of competitive tendering March –July 2013. • The Service was restructured in July 2013. Recruitment to all the new operational and technical posts including a new Tree Service Manager and one of the technical posts was completed in July 2013. • A new Partnership/ Contract with Gristwood and Toms Ltd started in 1st October 2013. The Contract is for a five year period with an option to extend for a further two years. • Final recruitment of the last three technical posts was carried out in November 2013. All Three are now in post.
Tree Service Review • In order to improve the service a full service review was carried out during 2011 and was formally adopted (DD005 Tree Service Review) on the 20th January 2012:- The objectives of the review were as follows:- • Ensure that Council’s legal obligations for trees are fully met. (Tree Safety Management Plan). • To get more for less. (Higher quality service for the same or less money). • Manage expectation through improved communications with citizens. • Align the service to the Council’s priorities and aspirations. • Manage in excess of 100,000 individual trees and 155 hectares of woodlands in a sustainable manner consistent with the Council’s Environmental Policy, Breathing Space Strategy and best practice.
Key findings of the Review The Tree Service Review highlighted 7 key recommendations • Based upon a One Council approach, prepare the service for the process of Tendering. • Once specified the parts of the service agreed to be tendered should have the opportunity to submit revised costs within a revised structure. • Evaluate the tender packages. If, at this stage, it is deemed not to be in the best interests of the Council to outsource the service or parts, then implement substantial restructure. • Immediately improve the pace of the Tree Safety Management Plan surveying so that the first phase is completed. This will inform the tender selection and assist in selecting the most appropriate and cost effective option. Estimated additional investment required £60,000. • Immediately develop and adopt the Urban Forestry Strategy • Review the manner in which all departments fund tree work to ensure greatest efficiencies can be met. • To affirm success and to ensure that priorities are being met continuous monitoring the performance of the operational and technical functions against prescribed performance indicators As a result the following three options where considered: • Retain all the work in house. • Expose the entire service to the private sector.. • Introduce a Mixed Economy Service and expose part of the operational service to the private sector.
How is this service benchmarked compared to other local authorities? • As part of the service review discussions were held with members of the core cities group and neighbouring authorities. This led to visits and more detailed discussion at Leicester City Council and Liverpool City Council. • Also the officers critically reviewed their own experiences of letting and managing arboricultural contracts, and added these to discussions with colleagues at other local authorities, notably at London Boroughs. • It was recognised from the review that it would be unlikely for us find any like for like comparative authorities as the number of trees, available budgets and working arrangement differs in practically all authorities. Leicester City Council Leicester provides a fairly traditional in-house service. Fulfil custodial role for the whole Council, managing trees for all Departments. Planning and private tree management is carried out separately within Planning Service functions. Scope and scale of operation Total turnover 2010/11 £1.074m (includes officer costs) Liverpool City Council Liverpool has two contracts in place one with Glendale Liverpool Ltd. and the other with Service Team now Enterprise Liverpool. The contracts are multi-functional contract. The decision to out- source was driven by need to save money. • Future Bench Marking is now being progressed with the Core Cities
Market Analysis The review discussions did identify is a number of differing contractual and partnering arrangements that are in place and how these could provide good practice examples for Nottingham to consider. A range of operational tasks where compared to the Councils in house cost TOTAL (£571,942) 200% 175% 150% 125% 100% 75% 50% 25% 0% SP 5 SP 2 SP 1 N'ham. C.C SP 4 SP 3 SP 6 Combining the results placed the Council’s current position in the middle of the estimates, suggesting that three of the SPs could realise improved value for money in the region of 30 to 45%.
How has the Service been Restructured Work is carried out for • Highways, Housing, Parks, Children's Services and Other departmental and external contracts New Structure Pre 2013 Old Structure Tree Service Manager x1 Tree Service Manager x1 Commissioning (Technical) unit Commissioning (Technical) 4 Tree Officer x1Business Support unit 1 Tree Officer 2Tree Inspector Delivery (Operational) unit x1Business Support NCC Retained Team 1 Head Arborists x Delivery (Operational) unit 3Arborists 1,Operations Supervisor x10 Arborists External Partner - Gristwood and Toms Ltd 2 / 3 operational Teams 1 Tree Inspector
Recommend
More recommend
