Agenda item

To receive and consider a report from the Director of Law and Governance outlining details of a call-in received on the Cabinet Decision taken on in-Sourcing of the Road Gully Cleaning Service (Report No. 254)

 

The decision that has been called in was a Cabinet Decision taken on 13 May 2020 and included on the Publication of Decision List No: 80/19-20 (List Ref: 3/80/19-20 issued on 15 May 2020.

 

It is proposed that consideration of the call-in be structured as follows:

·         Brief outline of the reasons for the call-in by representative (s) of the members who have called in the decision

·         Response to the reasons provided for the Call-in by a Cabinet Member responsible for taking the decision

·         Debate by Overview and Scrutiny Committee and agreement of action to be taken.

The Committee received a report from the Director of Law and Governance outlining details of a call-in received on the decision taken by Cabinet on-

‘In-Sourcing of Road Gully Cleaning Service’.

 

Councillor Georgiou invited Councillor Laban to give an outline of the reasons for call-in. Councillor Dogan, as Cabinet Member for Environment & Sustainability would answer the points raised.

 

Councillor Laban stated that the main reason for calling in this decision was the lack of information provided in the original report.

 

NOTED

 

Councillor Laban set out the reasons for calling in the decision:

1. The report stated that 20,000 gullies would be cleaned with an in-house team in comparison with the 15,000 that the current contractor carries out.  However, there was no evidence given in the report of how many extra gullies could be cleaned by the existing contractor if they were paid the additional sum of £11,000 mentioned.
2. The report states that there would be better performance management achieved by having an in-house team, however as we contract manage Ringway Jacobs for this work, it could be said that some of the problems are our responsibility.
3. The report provides no details of competition for the gully cleaning service. If this was more comprehensive, we should be able to benchmark with other outside providers to see whether having an in-house team would be more cost effective.
4. It has been stated that additional funding required for the service could be contained within our existing budget, however our finances are uncertain at present as a result of Covid 19 and with the possibility of a second wave in future.
5. It is likely that staff would TUPE over from Ringway Jacobs to our in- house team although it has been considered that a poor service had been provided by them.  The report does not say how we would ensure that an improved service would be achieved. 
6. The report does not explain how bringing the gully cleaning service in house delivers healthier communities, which is a council priority.
7. The council’s priority is to build our local economy however, by bringing the service in house it has discounted using local businesses to deliver a service which would support and build the local economy.

 

Councillor Laban stated that the report was light on detail. She said as members we must ensure that the most cost effective and best value services are delivered.

 

The proposed alternative action requested by the Councillors calling-in the decision was to refer the report back to Cabinet to review the decision.

 

Councillor Dogan, Cabinet Member for Environment & Sustainability and officers- Doug Wilkinson (Director of Environment & Operational Services), Stephen Skinner (Head of Highway Services), Jon Sharkey (Head of Public Realm) and John Grimes (Group Engineer Highways) provided information in support of the decision as follows:

 

1. The report recommends the in-sourcing of the road gully cleaning service and to deliver the service from within Public Realm Services based at Morson Road Depot. There are approximately 25,000 road gullies in the borough with road gullies on principal roads cleaned twice each year and those on borough roads cleaned once every 3 years.
2. Costs for the in-house team would be met from the wider Highways Services budget and would benefit the council as it would allow us greater flexibility in providing the service. 
3. An in-house team can work more urgently in those areas that we consider to be a priority and in future would hopefully be able to provide an additional service for some public/ council buildings and in other areas such as for hospitals. 
4. Councillor Dogan said this Council supports in-sourcing as a beneficial way to deliver services. 

 

Issues raised by members and responded to by Councillor Dogan and officers as follows:

 

Q1. Why was it considered that Ringway Jacobs were not performing?

 

A gully cleaning service that is managed in house will ensure that all of Enfield’s highway gully network and associated highway drainage is cleaned appropriately and any flooding responded to promptly. It will give us greater flexibility.  In the past we carried out some  work for industrial areas and we are looking at possibility of doing this in future more on a commercial basis to bring additional income into the Council.

The contract with Ringway Jacobs for highway services has had mixed performance overall over the years, as with all contracts it can be varied.

 

Q2. You mention that extra gullies could be cleaned but working on a ‘per gully’ basis it looks like this would be cheaper if done by Ringway Jacobs?

 

The cost per gully clean would come down when service is in house – at present we pay for each gully clean. Some cleans are more involved with more time spent on gullies which are problematic.

Ringway Jacobs also carries out work for other authorities such as LB Haringey and TfL and priorities determined by them, so the reality is, there are times when the service is not available or working on Enfield roads. Under our control we would be able to provide an immediate service for Enfield when necessary for example during a flash flood. 

 

Q3. What are the costs to bring this service ‘in house’? A cost has been given for the IT system which had been allowed for in the cost model.

It has been mentioned that there would be extra benefits to having an in-house team which would be able to provide additional services, do we know how much income could be made or saved? Has this been calculated? Is there a business plan for taking this forward?

 

The opportunities for expansion have not been fully costed yet as we would want to deliver a response to the 20,000 gully cleans a year first. The purpose of this report is to bring the service back in-house. The report sets out that by doing this there will be further opportunities to commercialize the service and any business case will be produced on a case by case basis to test viability. This would enable us to have an ‘outcome specification’ where intelligence can be fed back from site.  This will allow for better management and better value for money however this is difficult to benchmark with other local authorities, it is commercially sensitive and other authorities would not provide this information

 

 

Q4. Para 3.7 of the report states that ‘At times Highway Inspectors may still need to employ a contractor to undertake more extensive investigatory and repair work…’ what is this and why would we be unable to do this?

and Para 5.1 of the report refers to ‘opportunities for the gully service to operate more commercially……develop a drainage service on housing land, educational premises, private developments and privately managed industrial estates’ have there been consultations with Housing Services?

 

Councillor Dogan said early intervention of gully problems is essential and investigatory work is needed to do this. He referred to a discussion with residents in Edmonton about a flooding problem which caused great distress and said that was why it was necessary for the team to react to problems promptly by sending down more complex cameras or specialist equipment where necessary to avert these problems. This happens now and is not unusual for this service.

It was noted that the proposal had been developed in consultation with Public Realm Services and Housing Services which were agreeable..

 

Q5. There does not appear to be clear comparisons showing competition, also information about income generation is lacking. During this time (Covid 19), I think an extra look is needed re this proposal?

Is there a Business Plan for income generation?

 

Regarding commercial opportunities as set out in a previous response - this will be in two stages.  The first is this report which is to bring the service ‘in house’ and then to explore future opportunities.  We will need to ensure there is a solid foundation first for the service carrying out gully cleans for highways, before the second stage when we would look at opportunities for example for private estates and Housing Services grounds.  The service will need to be embedded first.

 

With reference to the Covid 19 situation regarding financial uncertainties – by bringing the gully cleaning service in house this will provide for greater stability and resilience.. Initially it will comprise two people and a truck – the whole service would be more resilient because we have more drivers who could be used when needed. It should also lead to a more joined up approach as gullies may need extensive work rather than just a scheduled clean, being under the Public Realm service we would be able to use intelligence to undertake a better risk- based approach.

 

Q6. Future business opportunities are mentioned in the report.  Is it realistic to expect the number of gullies to be cleaned to increase from 60 to 75 per day under new arrangements? 

 

Expansion opportunities are mentioned in the report and it is thought there are good opportunities for example in schools and Housing Services when we had this service in- house we were exceeding 100 gully cleans a day. It helped that we had local knowledge there should be no problems in carrying out the 70 to 80 gully cleans a day stated and there should be potential for extra time to work in other areas as the teams would not be off doing TfL roads and others as can be the case currently under the current contractor.

 

 

Q7. Can we ensure that any equipment/ vehicles that are purchased follow climate change guidelines and are energy efficient?

 

We have a commitment that any replacement vehicles would be the most energy efficient and affordable would explore the use of electric vehicles. Although it must be noted that the large vehicle market for electric vehicles is only starting to mature so those vehicles are very expensive. The small size vehicles are more available and we will explore these as we need to replace.

 

Q8. If we are saying that we are not getting good value from the existing gully cleansing contract does this raise questions about Ringway Jacobs?

 

We have worked with Ringway Jacobs over many years and there has been a mixed performance from them with some service areas performing better than others at different times. We are constantly challenging and managing their performance across many areas of the contract, gully cleaning is only one small part.

 

Q9. The costs reported for bringing this work in-house- does this include call-out charges which are more expensive? It seems strange that you are proposing bringing over this one area of work from Ringway Jacobs now when the whole contract comes to an end next year. Would it not be better to wait until next year? Will there be any financial penalties incurred as a result of this? Would the contract enable whole streets to be cleared of cars before cleaning commences? 

 

This model does include call outs. Many are simple cleans but we would also be able to accommodate call outs.  We are looking at possibility of in-sourcing other contracts, following the end of the contract with Ringway-Jacobs next year. This in-house contract for gully cleaning would be a pilot.

We do have a problem with parked cars when carrying out this service, but it is expected that that it will be easier for us to do this work when it is ‘in-house’.

There are no financial penalties for coming out of the contract.

 

Councillor Dogan referred to the IT system for this area of work which he said would be beneficial as it would provide better information for us to allocate staff and ensure an improved quality of service.

 

The summing up by Councillor Laban who thanked officers for their responses She referred to

• A lack of detail in the report.
• There was no business plan regarding future opportunities for the service and she did not have any confidence in this going forward. 
• There were no comparators to determine whether this was the best way to provide the service. Councillor Laban said there was no reference to who other local authorities used to carry out a gully cleaning service in their boroughs.

 

Councillor Dogan said LB Newham provides an in-house gully cleaning service which he understands to be doing well.  He said by bringing this work ‘in-house’ it will enable us to carry out early interventions which will have many advantages, and which may also lead to fewer accidents.  

 

 

Overview & Scrutiny Committee considered the reasons provided for the call-in and responses provided   Having considered the information the Committee agreed to confirm the original Cabinet decision:

 

1.    To approve the in-sourcing of the road gully cleaning service and deliver the service from within Public Realm Services based at Morson Road with effect from 1^st July 2020, or as soon as practicable after this date.

 

2.    To develop the business as set out in this report to be the provider for gully and drainage services to Housing Services.

 

Councillors Aramaz, Boztas, Georgiou, Taylor and Yusuf voted in favour of the above decision. Councillors David-Sanders and Smith voted against.

 

The original Cabinet decision was therefore agreed.

 

From this point Councillor Erbil took over from Councillor Georgiou to chair the meeting.