The Ranger Service is taking a much larger staffing cut than the average, and the effect will certainly be felt. In an earlier article in the Thurrock Gazette, a council spokesperson said "the proposal is to reduce the number of rangers to one at Langdon Hills", dropping from the four rangers plus apprentice presently covering the 400 acres of Country Park at One Tree Hill and Westley Heights. The Council might be downplaying to the press, but we have based our investigations and conclusions upon meetings with the Council, plus the Council's own documents including "Shaping the Council 2015-16 and beyond Savings Business Case - Restructure and review of all grounds maintenance operations". This named document is included in the appendices of the Action Group's report, but we have also included it below as well, because this is important evidence that will help you to make up your own minds. If, in the light of press coverage and public concern, the Council are rethinking some of these proposals then all to the good, but this is the document that they are working with. As further details of their plans have not yet been forthcoming there is certainly cause for concern. These proposals affect not just Country Parks but all sport pitches, play areas and other green spaces in Council management. This document is publicly available and was downloaded from Thurrock Council's website at this link. Are you concerned? If so, we urge you to write to the Council to ask for details regarding their plans and how they will affect you.
Shaping the Council 2015-16 and beyond: Savings Business Case
Business Case Title
|
Restructure and review of all grounds maintenance operations
| ||
Revision No:
|
Date:
|
01 July 2014
| |
Lead Director
|
Mike Heath
| ||
Lead HOS
| |||
Critical friend/Exec Bd
| |||
Business Case Author
|
(if different to HOS) Daren Spring
|
Section 1: Summary
Savings Proposal
| |||
Major reduction in the current levels of grass cutting frequencies and other grounds maintenance activities across the borough on all non-housing land.
| |||
Strategic rationale
| |||
Saving will be achieved through the reduction of frequencies and withdrawal of services. The table below provides details of proposed levels of service reductions required to achieve savings targets.
| |||
Area of activity
|
Current outputs/frequencies
|
Proposed outputs/frequencies
| |
Play Areas
|
74 sites
|
10 sites
| |
Grass cutting in parks, open spaces, verges, cemeteries and all other nonhousing land
|
Monthly cuts between April and September
|
Two cuts in 2015/2016. Reducing to one cut per annum thereafter.
| |
Coalhouse Fort and Langdon Hills
|
Managed country parks with SSSI sites
Educational and community events
|
Unmanaged open spaces
No events
| |
Outdoor sports
|
52 pitches provided for a range of summer and winter sports
|
Sports provision stopped.
| |
Winter shrub maintenance
|
Annual programme of shrub and tree management in parks and open spaces and along cycle paths
|
Emergency response only to health and safety risks
| |
Floral plantings
|
Seasonal displays in town centres
|
No floral planting
| |
Approximate Cost Savings
| |||
15/16 - £330k 16/17 - £991k total £1.321m
| |||
Timescales
| |||
Activity
|
Timescale
| ||
Introduce area based working; reduce the frequency of grass cutting, shrub pruning and hedge cutting on non-housing land.
Further reduce frequencies in all areas, stop all outdoor sports.
|
Dec 2015
March 2017
| ||
Risks /Consequences
| |||
| |||
Mitigation
| |||
Moving to a delivery model incorporating areas-based teams and increasing the amount of maintenance carried out on a reactive (rather than scheduled) basis should provide a degree of mitigation of the impact, but a reduction in front-line capacity of circa 50% will inevitably result in a significant deterioration in the appearance of the Borough and the usability of parks and open spaces.
A strong programme of community involvement could assist in the maintenance of some areas.
Self managed sports provision may enable residents to still play sports in certain areas.
|
Section 2: Finance, savings and costs
Financial summary
General Fund budget 2014-15
| ||||||||
Staff
£000s
|
Premises / Transport
£000s
|
Supplies/ Services
£000s
|
Direct
Payments
£000s
|
Third
Party
Payments
£000s
|
Total
Expenditure
Gross
£000s
|
Income £000s
|
Net
Expenditu
re
£000s
| |
2014/15
|
2,145.7
|
1,797.2
|
288.8
|
1,557.2
|
46.5
|
5,835.4
|
-2,577.4
|
3,258.0
|
Staff R
|
elated savings
| ||
Current number of posts (FTE and headcount)
|
94.3 FTE
| ||
Number of posts to be deleted (FTE and headcount)
|
42.3 FTE and headcount
| ||
Amount of salary saving (inc on-costs)
|
|
£ 284K
£1,138.9K
|
Non- Staff Related savings
| ||
Premises and buildings (inc utilities)
| ||
Transport
|
22 vehicles
15 / 16
|
£ 45.6K
|
16 / 17
|
£182.5K
| |
Supplies and services
| ||
Other (please specify)
|
Third Party Related savings/income
| |
Commissioning/contracts
| |
Charges to the HRA/DSG/PHG
(NB can be negative)
| |
Increase fees & charges
| |
Grants/additional funding streams
| |
Other (please specify)
|
Benefits – non financial
|
Costs & Resources to deliver the savings
| |
Direct costs
| |
Redundancy costs
|
Not quantified
|
Accommodation costs
| |
Procurement and/or Legal costs
| |
Other HR costs
| |
Other (please specify)
|
Losses on vehicle and plant disposals – Not quantified
Removal and disposal of play equipment – Not quantified.
Removal and disposal of parks litter bins and other furniture no longer being emptied/maintained – Not quantified
|
Section 3: Impact/Consequences of proposal – not covered in financial section
Impact on Corporate Priorities/objectives/ performance targets/standards
Priority 1. Create a great place for learning and opportunity
| |
Priority 2. Encourage and promote job creation and economic prosperity
|
The reduction in service levels may have the impact of discouraging investment and economic regeneration within the Borough.
|
Priority 3. Build pride, responsibility and respect to create safer communities
|
The reduced levels of maintenance and degradation of parks and open spaces may have the unintended consequence of undermining pride and respect amongst residents of the Borough.
|
Priority 4. Improve health and well-being
|
Decommissioning 80%-90% of play sites will reduce opportunities for children to take exercise.
Restricted access to parks areas no longer maintained to acceptable standards will reduce public outdoor leisure activities.
Reduced access to outdoor sports pitches will limit opportunities for organised team exercise (i.e. football, rugby etc).
|
Priority 5. Protect and promote our clean and green environment
|
Grass cutting and general grounds maintenance frequencies across the Borough will be significantly reduced. The work to provide habitats for flora and fauna and to maintain accessible green spaces within the Borough will cease. This priority will no longer be supported through Council activity.
|
Well-run organisation - financial & governance; staff; customers
|
Impacts on partners
|
The reduced levels of grounds maintenance may render Thurrock a less attractive prospect for partners to engage with Thurrock in the future.
|
Impacts on customers / community and equality/diversity implications
| |
The reduced levels of grass cutting and grounds maintenance may render Thurrock a less attractive prospect for investment and business. There may be an unintended consequence in terms of reduced visits to retail areas and a less vibrant housing market.
As these services are for all residences each day of the week, all will be affected.
| |
Has an EqIA been undertaken?
|
YES / NO Date:
|
Other impacts/implications
|
Reduced levels of grounds maintenance in parks may cause residents to not want to use the parks if they are unattractive and unkempt places. There will be less space for recreational activities. If grass will be cut on a when required basis there will be inconsistencies across the borough in the height of the grass.
With the scale of the reduction in team size the capacity to respond to complaints and services requests via “My Account” will be limited.
|
Section 4: Risks and Mitigation
Delivery risks
| ||||
Risk Description
|
Likelihood
|
Impact
|
Rating
|
Management or Mitigating Action
|
Timescale – it may not be possible to reduce operational capacity to the required level by December 2014.
|
2
|
2
|
4
|
Increased level of support from HR
|
Public response – residents’ reaction to the proposed changes in service levels is likely to be critical and unsportive.
|
4
|
3
|
12
|
Communications campaign.
Support from Corporate centre in establishing strong community volunteer groups to undertake some of the maintenance work.
|
Service risks
| ||||
Risk Description
|
Likelihood
|
Impact
|
Rating
|
Management or Mitigating Action
|
The parks and open spaces will look unkempt, with longer grass and increased weed levels. This may give rise to public health risks and accident claims against the Council.
|
3
|
3
|
9
|
Disclaimer notices in high risk areas where reduced maintenance is to be carried may help to limit the Council’s public liability.
Equipment in play sites no longer maintained will be removed to reduce injury risks and claims.
|
For information on the ratings criteria guide, please see \\Thurdata01\data\THURROCK\EXCHANGE\ROM
Impact
|
Section 5: Assumptions, Dependencies & Exclusions
Timeframes Assumptions/ Dependencies/Exclusions
|
There is an assumption that staffing and vehicles levels can be decreased within the timeframe set for this saving.
|
Benefits Assumptions/
Dependencies/Exclusions
|
The cost of redundancies and losses on asset (vehicles & plant) disposals is not reflected in the savings figure.
|
Costs Assumptions/
Dependencies/Exclusions
| |
Other/ General Assumptions/ Dependencies/Exclusions
|
There is an assumption that in decreasing the service levels and resource numbers that the saving will be achieved, and that additional service requirements will not be placed on the operational teams
There is a assumption that the Service will no longer have capacity to respond to complaints within the corporate targets.
|
Section 6: Stakeholder Engagement Requirements
Approximate timelines
| ||
Staff/Unions
NB. Services should not be undertaken consultation with staff in isolation – all such activity should be coordinated through Jackie Hinchliffe
|
Discussions on area based working to start in September 2014, with staff consultation from November 2014.
| |
Portfolio Holders/Members
NB. Services should not be undertaken consultation with staff in isolation – all such activity should be coordinated through Directors Board
|
October 2014
| |
Partners
NB. Services should not be undertaken consultation with partners in isolation – all such activity should be co-ordinated through Directors Board
|
October 2014
| |
Residents/Public
NB. Services should not be undertaken consultation with staff in isolation – all such activity should be coordinated through Directors Board
| ||
Other – please specify
|
Section 7: Any other comments to support savings proposals
|
No comments:
Post a Comment