Prepared by Ellen Struthers, LRS Consultancy Prepared for Alice Ellison, London Councils Date: 20 April 2011 
Twinning and Mentoring 2011: Cost efficiency in street cleansing summary report 

 
Twinning and mentoring 2011: Cost efficiency in street 
 
Report title:  
 
cleansing 
Date: 
First draft 22 March 2011. Final draft 20 April. Prepared by: 
Ellen Struthers 
Title: 
Principal Consultant, LRS Consultancy 
Contact details: 
1 Quality Court, Chancery Lane, WC2A 1HR  
Tel:  
020 7061 6359 
Email: 
ellen.struthers@lrsconsultancy.com Client Details: 
London Councils 
Name:  
Alice Ellison 
Title:  
Policy & Project Manager - Environment & Transport 
Contact details: 
59½ Southwark Street, London SE1 0AL 
Tel: 
020 7934  9829 
Contact details:  
Alice.ellison@londoncouncils.gov.uk 

 

## Contents

| 1.        | Introduction                                                                                    |
|-----------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 4         |                                                                                                 |
|           |                                                                                                 |
| 1.1       | Challenges, advice and work undertaken                                                          |
|           | 5                                                                                               |
|           |                                                                                                 |
| 1.2       | Feedback from attendees on actions they would take following the session                        |
| 6         |                                                                                                 |
|           |                                                                                                 |
| 2.        | Summary of presentations and discussions                                                        |
| 7         |                                                                                                 |
|           |                                                                                                 |
| 2.1       | Presentation by TOR2: A joint venture approach to street cleansing                              |
|           | 7                                                                                               |
|           |                                                                                                 |
| 2.2       | Question and answer session with TOR2                                                           |
|           | 10                                                                                              |
|           |                                                                                                 |
| 2.3       | Presentation by Southwark Council: Regenerating 'the Cut'                                       |
|           |                                                                                                 |
|           |                                                                                                 |
| 2.4       | Presentation by Tower Hamlets Council: Back to basics contract management and localisation      |
| ...       | 15                                                                                              |
|           |                                                                                                 |
| 2.5       | Presentation by Waltham Forest Council: The impact of monitoring methodology                    |
|           | 16                                                                                              |
|           |                                                                                                 |
| 2.6       | Question and answer session for Southwark, Tower Hamlets and Waltham Forest Councils            |
|           | 22                                                                                              |
|           |                                                                                                 |
| 2.7       | Background to cleansing in Westminster                                                          |
|           |                                                                                                 |
|           |                                                                                                 |
| 2.8       | Methods of cleansing in Westminster                                                             |
|           | 26                                                                                              |
|           |                                                                                                 |
| 2.9       | Question and answer session with Westminster Council                                            |
|           | 33                                                                                              |
|           |                                                                                                 |
| 3.        | Group activities:                                                                               |
|           | 33                                                                                              |
|           |                                                                                                 |
| 3.1       | Identifying and addressing factors that influence cost and cleanliness standards                |
|           | 33                                                                                              |
|           |                                                                                                 |
| 4.        | Considerations                                                                                  |
|           |                                                                                                 |
|           |                                                                                                 |
| 5.        | Further information                                                                             |
|           | 38                                                                                              |
|           |                                                                                                 |
| 6.        | Appendices                                                                                      |
|           | 38                                                                                              |
|           |                                                                                                 |
| 6.1       | Summary of challenges,  advice, and work undertaken by attendees                                |
|           | 38                                                                                              |
|           |                                                                                                 |
| 6.2       | Summary of low priority contributors to the cost and  standard of street cleanliness            |
|           |                                                                                                 |
|           |                                                                                                 |
| 6.3       | Group activity outcomes: Identifying and addressing factors that influence cost and cleanliness |
| standards |                                                                                                 |
|           | 42                                                                                              |
|           |                                                                                                 |
|           |                                                                                                 |

## 1. Introduction

The Twinning and Mentoring (T&M) programme was launched in 2005 by Government Office for London as a mechanism for local authorities in London to share their knowledge and experiences in order to improve overall recycling performance.  The scheme was launched as a cluster group format which used a mixture of presentations and facilitated discussions to encourage local authority colleagues to share information.   

In 2007 LRS Consultancy1 designed and delivered eight cluster group meetings as part of the T&M 
programme, on behalf of London Councils.  Two sessions were run on each of the following topics: 

 
Organics 
 
Estates and flats above shops 
 
Trade waste and recycling 
 
Enforcement to encourage recycling and waste minimisation 
 
During 2011, the London Councils Officers Advisory Panel on Waste2 highlighted the need for a further session focused on improving performance and cost efficiencies in street cleansing. In response to this, London Councils agreed to fund a new T&M session and procured LRS Consultancy to design and deliver it. The purpose of the session was to identify and disseminate good and best practice on efficient street cleansing regimes that will help boroughs achieve efficiencies in times of restricted budgets whilst maintaining or improving service standards. The session ran on the 16 March 2011 and was attended by 16 officers representing 14 London boroughs.  
The objective of the session was to: provide attendees with an opportunity to share their experiences of service delivery; hear from speakers that had launched new initiatives; and to view operations and equipment during a site visit.  The agenda for the meeting included: 

 
A presentation from TOR23 with question and answer session 
 
A group activity to identify factors that influence cost and cleanliness standards 
 
Presentations from Southwark, Tower Hamlets and Waltham Forest Councils  
 
A presentation from Westminster City Council with an introduction to the site tour 
 
A site tour to view equipment in operation in Westminster 
This report provides a summary of the discussions from the day.  Since the discussions were run under the Chatham House Rule4 (to encourage open and honest discussion) the contributions are not attributed to any attendee or local authority.  

## 1.1 Challenges, Advice And Work Undertaken

As part of the introductions to the day and registration process attendees were asked to summarise: the challenges they faced with street cleansing; advice for other local authorities; and what work they had undertaken to date to reduce costs or improve cleanliness standards.   Some of the points made are summarised below with a full list provided in Appendix 6.1. 

## Challenges

 
Budget reductions, but with requirement to keep standards high 
 
A high proportion of businesses and associated daily migrant population are challenging for street cleansing. 
 
Cleansing channels properly enabling clearance of deposits in heavily parked areas. 

## Advice

 
Identify areas where sweeping frequencies can be reduced e.g. residential streets 
 
Increase self-reliance in communities coupled with a stronger emphasis on enforcement 
 
Understand the needs of the residents, be realistic about what can be achieved and look for 
synergies with internal and external partners. 
 
Where possible build in as much flexibility into the contract specification as practicable 
 
Ensure that you get a contract that is workable and that you are getting the resources required to carry out the work effectively 
 
Keep an open mind and look for change opportunities 
 
Benchmark your service, learn from others and share best practice  
 
Communicating the costs of littering and flytipping is important 
 
Understand how to monitor effectively to improve standards 

## Work Undertaken To Reduce Costs Or Improve Standards

 
Reviews of contract specifications and policies. 
 
Re-letting of contracts has included: hybrid (input and output based) contracts; a full breakdown of 
costs to inform decision making on costs; and a performance based bonus for the contractor. Options to reduce spend as part of new contracts include: self-monitoring by the contractor; a partnership approach with the contractor; and changes to IT systems. 
 
Campaigns to increase awareness of environmental issues such as littering, fly-tipping, dog fouling and fly posting and change behaviour. 
 
Changes to sweeping frequencies and re-zoning of streets to ensure that resources are deployed to 
the areas of greatest need. 
 
Working with partners internally and externally to improve environment quality e.g. enforcement teams, cleansing, highways and anti-social behaviour departments and social housing providers. 

## 1.2 Feedback From Attendees On Actions They Would Take Following The Session

At the end of the session, attendees were asked for feedback on actions they would take following the session.  This feedback is set out in the bullet points below. 

 
Visit colleagues 
 
Scope synergies 
 
Look at time-banding and monitoring 
 
Joint venture 
 
Shift optimisation 
 
Explore use of reverse stencil to indicate cleaning activities 
 
Involve residents in NI195 inspections 
 
Public consultation on costed options for cleansing cuts 
 
Waste markers and time bands 
 
Stripping back fleet to levels at start of contract 
 
Set aside a budget for training on NI195 
 
Link between reducing flytipping and NI 191 scores 
 
Mapping wetspots for public conveniences and street urination 
 
Look at consultation with businesses and residents within areas of LEQ concern 
 

## 2. Summary Of Presentations And Discussions

Summarised below are the key outcomes of the presentations and activities that were undertaken as part of the session.  Full presentations by each of the speakers can be provided on request. 

 
2.1 
Presentation by TOR2: A joint venture approach to street cleansing 

## Aims And Benefits

 
Torbay Council provides services to visitors and residents of Torquay, Paignton and Brixham.  The local authority area contains 130,000 residents and 60,000 dwellings.  Beyond perceptions of Torbay as a tourist destination there are social and economic issues that make it similar in some 
respects to London;  Torbay  has some deprived areas, 50% of the population is retired and therefore living on lower incomes and getting private investment into the area is challenging with associated unemployment problems 
 
TOR2 is a joint venture waste and asset management company formed by Torbay Council and May Gurney   
 
The Council decided on the joint venture approach for waste and recycling services (including street cleansing) in order to generate capital investment into its aging vehicle fleet, saving money and boosting employment 
 
80% of the shares are held by May Gurney and 20% by the Council 
 
The contract started in July 2010 and will run for 10 years with possible extensions up to 25 years. 
 
Services provided include waste and recycling collections, asset management and street cleansing 
 
Benefits of the joint venture approach include: 
o Savings of £1m per annum on running costs 
o Reduction of landfill costs of up to £14m over a 10 year period and diversion of material for 
recycling 
o Creation of over 30 new jobs o Providing support to Torbay Community Projects such as projects to support ex- offenders / 
junior delinquents  
o Providing dividends to Torbay Council o Growing the business via new contracts from both the public and private sector e.g. TOR2 
is currently bidding to carry out street cleansing for another local authority 

## Waste And Recycling

 
Recycling is collected source segregated from households, using specialised vehicles (shown in Image 1). 
 
Residual waste is collected fortnightly and recycling is collected weekly 
 
TOR2 is currently managing and upgrading the Recycling Centre and Transfer Station.  Around 44% of household waste collected is now recycled up from 37% prior to the contract commencement. The target for 2011/12 is 50%. 

## Asset Management

 
TOR2 undertakes a significant amount of asset management maintaining a fleet of 250 vehicles 
(including health authority and others' vehicles), operating garage services, manufacturing signs and advertising displays and maintaining Torbay's property portfolio. 
 
TOR2 also maintains the road systems and is responsible for gritting and snow clearance. 

## Street Scene Services

 
Operatives are employed to manage street scene work using the ethos of a lengthsman5.  Six 
people are employed on this basis and have their work directed by community groups which has worked extremely well and led to high satisfaction with services. 
 
Operatives are encouraged to report issues in real time using rangers mobile technology. Image 2 provides an example output of a report. 
 
A summary of  street cleaning statistics and resources deployed is provided in images 3 and 4 
 
In order to use resources efficiently and achieve best value for money, vehicles, plant and equipment are shared over a number of services and activities as summarised in figure 1  
 
 
To date the approach taken by TOR2 has:   
o Achieved top quartile performance for  NI195 o Delivered 7.6% savings o Increased productivity by 3%  
 

## 2.2 Question And Answer Session With Tor2

The following are the questions asked by the attendees following the presentation, and responses provided by TOR2. 

Attendee question: How has the 3% increase in productivity been achieved? Answer: 

 
More accurate data reporting 
 
Reviewing routes and working methods 
 
Achieving synergies with other services 
 
An added benefit of the approach is the increased visibility of staff in the area 
 Attendee question: What are the challenges associated with using resources across different services? Answer: 

 
Over 300 people were TUPE'd across  so there were training and communication issues 
 
Recent one to one feedback sessions have shown that the staff are energised and pleased that some of their ideas are being taken forward by TOR2  
 
TOR2 has set up a supervisor academy to involve supervisors in business issues and assess training needs 
 
It is important that actions are implemented to the agreed timescales 

## Attendee Question: How Does 80:20 Share Of The Business Affect The Relationship With Councillors?

Answer: 

 
TOR2 has informal discussions with Torbay's cabinet member for the environment and a high degree of engagement with other members.  Three council members are also on a strategic panel.   
 
A number of initiatives link to the core objectives of the council e.g. the community group work  
 
Councillors can help with communications and TOR2 regularly attends public forums with Councillors 

## Attendee Question: How Is Risk Shared Between The Council And May Gurney?

Answer:  

 
TOR2 is a separate limited company and therefore survives on its performance  
 
The main risk the council is exposed to is the liquidation issues if the company fails, however as May Gurney is the major shareholder and provides the capital equipment etc the risk to the Council is low 
 
The contract has 194 KPIs so that any issues can be identified early  

## Attendee Question: Can You Identify The Specific Savings Associated With Different Elements Of The Services?

Answer:  

 
There are a number of efficiencies related to the way that a wide range of cleansing and maintenance issues are approached in a geographic area 
 
Overall cost savings have been made, but without knowing the Council's previous costs for different service elements in detail, the individual savings can't be readily compared except at macro level. 
 
2.3 
Presentation by Southwark Council: Regenerating 'the Cut' 
 
Southwark Council worked in partnership with Lambeth Council to regenerate 'the Cut', a high footfall area near to Waterloo, as outlined in Figure 2.  The Cut falls within two boroughs (Lambeth and Southwark), has a tube station at either end (Southwark and Waterloo), two theatres, a further education college, restaurants, and a residential mix. 
 
Consultation with residents and businesses highlighted the following concerns: 
o Not enough pedestrian space; o Too much clutter on pavement; o Commercial waste bins unsightly and block footway; o Street furniture old and dirty and not enough seating; o Vehicles drive too fast and use road as a "rat run"; o Not enough trees; and o Inadequate lighting and security concerns. 
 
Residential waste was being put out nightly and collected every morning while commercial waste was stored on the street in bins and bags 24 hours a day with commercial collections taking place at any time 
 
The challenges for the project team were to improve: 
o pedestrian access in the area o the function of The Cut as a pedestrian route between Waterloo and Southwark o the quality of the public realm for residents, visitors and people working locally o the perception and reality of safety for people walking through the area o the trading environment for businesses in the area o and encourage the use of sustainable travel 
 
The initial plans for underground waste containers were well received at first but as the project progressed it was clear that residents and businesses did not want containers outside their 
premises. The solution needed to be simple, feasible, easy to maintain and cost competitive for businesses.  Further consultation was undertaken and residents and business identified that their preferred option for waste management was "restricted collection times" and "placement of waste".   

 
The team introduced time banded collections (6:00 - 8:00am and 3:00 - 5:00pm) along with shared pavement plaques/waste markers to indicate where waste should be stored on the footpath.  Fixed penalty notices would be issued in the event of non-compliance. 
 
Additional regeneration works (including streetscape and pathways) were undertaken by the Councils and were funded by Transport for London, Section 106 monies and European funding 
 
During the improvement works communication between different stakeholders was key including: the two councils and different departments within them; businesses; waste contractors; and residents. 
 
Images of the Cut before and after the works are shown in images 6 and 7 
 
 
The project is still in operation and working well.  Recently some additional litter bins have been placed on the street by another Council department that do not fit with the regenerated area so ongoing monitoring and coordination is required.  
 
2.4 
Presentation by Tower Hamlets Council: Back to basics contract management and localisation 
 
Tower Hamlet's vision for its public realm is for: "The achievement of a high quality, consistent, and well maintained public realm across the whole borough, irrespective of responsibility for management or maintenance". 
 
The need to evolve working practices in street cleansing was driven by this corporate vision  
 
Although standards were generally acceptable, changes were needed to ensure they would help deliver the council's corporate vision and enable community involvement 
 
Current public realm contracts were let at various times over the past 15 years and had evolved via variation orders and changes to working practices that differ from the original specifications 
 
The current street cleansing and waste disposal contracts were let in 2006. Over the last year Tower Hamlets has reviewed these contracts to assess whether they are still valid and fit for purpose.  Officers reviewed and cross referenced the contract specifications, contractor bid method statements and variation orders in detail  
 
In some instances the documents were found to be no longer relevant or fit for purpose  
 
The Council felt that some variation orders could be better delivered as schedule of rate items, giving the council greater control and more focused delivery 
 
Through the review and further negotiations savings of around £2.5 million were identified.  The 
Council's contractor worked in partnership with the council to realise the savings. 
 
In order to prevent the savings from negatively impacting on cleanliness standards the Council implemented additional measures including: 
o Using Brick Lane as a trial area for time banded collections and bin-free streets which 
included consultation (conducted by LRS Consultancy) with residents and businesses on changes and a voluntary code of conduct for businesses 
o Changing its policies (to no longer allow household and commercial bins to be stored on 
the street) 
o Entering into a partnership with a local residents group (the Muslim Women's Collective) to 
carry out NI195 surveys on behalf of the Council to provide an independent view from residents of the cleanliness across the borough. 
 
The partnership with the Muslim Women's collective has had a number of benefits including: 
o Freeing up council staff to concentrate on other issues 
o Helping the Council access a hard to reach community group 
o Providing an opportunity for the women to gain skills and confidence to enable them to 
achieve full time employment in the future  
o Their enthusiasm enabled them to understand the issues related to keeping streets clean 
and they passed on their knowledge to others in a particularly hard to reach section of the community and helped change perception and improve habits. 
 
In order to deliver services more effectively and make savings the council is localising services so that the same staff member can respond to a range of local demands e.g. waste, highways, parks.   
 
The borough is divided into 8 Local Area Partnerships based on local wards (LAP Areas) and staff 
will work closely with all the community groups, businesses and residents.  See figure 4 below. 
 
This approach has been trialed successfully in LAPs 1&2 and will be implemented borough wide from April. 
 
The work to date has resulted in: 
o Improved NI 195 litter scores which reduced from 13.8% to 7.3%.  
o Increased income from trade waste o Reduced fly tipping - 200 tonnes per month o A greater community involvement in service delivery 
 
2.5 
Presentation by Waltham Forest Council: The impact of monitoring methodology 
 
In 2008 Kier was appointed as the Council's cleansing contractor 
 
The NI195 litter score was then 33% and monitoring indicated that the streets had not been well cleaned and were subject to repeated dumping and littering 
 
The Council identified that there were local issues that were not being addressed through the existing contract (e.g. the borough is extremely leafy and yet there were no additional resources in place in autumn to manage the leaf fall) 
 
Street cleaning  was traditionally 'doubled up (i.e. one person would sweep rubbish into a pile, another would put the rubbish into a bag and that bag would be left for a crew in a vehicle to pick up) 
 
To address these issues the Council invested additional funding and undertook a number of cleansing enhancements including: 
o 2 hour bag and fly-tipping clearance on all main roads o Increased cleansing frequencies borough wide o Gateway team to target the key transport routes into the borough o Bags not left on streets overnight 
o Increased barrow operatives in town centres and areas of high usage 
o Daily cleanse of all school routes o Dedicated leaf clearance crews from October until December o Introduction of timed refuse collections for flats above shops in all main roads in the 
borough 
o The creation of an integrated service between enforcement and cleansing o Moving from a reactive service to a proactive one. 
 
Visual assessment of the cleanliness of the streets indicated that these enhancements had been effective at improving cleanliness standards as shown in images 8 and 9 
 
Despite the apparent improvement in cleanliness the scores did not improve between 2007/08 and 2008/09 as per figure 5. 
 
After internally monitoring cleanliness standards the Council felt that the independent organisation it had chosen to undertake the grading was not providing accurate scores.  Some examples of the contested grading are shown in images 10, 11 and 12. 
 
The Council has now changed the organisation that undertakes the grading and its scores have improved dramatically 
 
Further work is currently being undertaken to encourage recycling of litter and reduce dog fouling as per images 13 and 14 
 
To make areas easier to cleanse and reduce litter the council has undertaken landscaping works to remove shrubbery as shown in images 15 and 16 below. 

## 2.6 Question And Answer Session For Southwark, Tower Hamlets And Waltham Forest Councils

The following are the questions asked by the attendees following the presentations, and responses provided by Southwark, Tower Hamlets and Waltham Forest Council Attendee question: How did the private waste contractors react to time banding? Answer:  

 
Tower Hamlets: It wasn't a big issue as most of the collections on Brick Lane were being undertaken by the Council 
 
Southwark: Some companies were apprehensive that they wouldn't be able to meet the requirements of the time bands.  The Business Improvement District in the Cut offers the 
businesses two timebands which affords businesses sufficient flexibility to meet the time bands. 
 Attendee question: What did you get the Muslim Women's collective to do? Answer:  

 
Tower Hamlets: To do the NI195 scoring 
 
The enforcement team provided training  
 
They were happy to do it and sold the importance of not littering to the rest of the community  
 Attendee question: What types of questions did LRS Consultancy ask during the consultation in Brick Lane? Answer:  

 
LRS Consultancy: The surveys were conducted face to face for residents and businesses and included questions on: 
o Recycling and waste disposal methods and potential for change 
o Opinions related to litter, cleanliness and vermin o The visual amenity of the area o Awareness of legislation 
 Attendee question: Where are the waste markers on the Cut? Answer:  

 
Southwark: On the pavement set back from the street  
 

2.7 
Background to cleansing in Westminster  
 
While the City of Westminster has 200,000 residents its population swells to around one million people in the City every day. 
 
Westminster uses a commissioning model and has outsourced its waste, parks and street cleaning services. 
 
Westminster generates around £11 million from trade waste collections. 
 
Veolia has been Westminster's waste, recycling and street cleansing contractor for fifteen years. The current contract was renewed in September 2010 for seven years.    
 
Veolia uses a village approach (figure 6) to cleansing in Westminster, with the Council area split into smaller areas each with their own depots. 
 
The depots can be quite small (e.g. just a garage to store equipment). 
 
The use of the depots reduces non-productive travelling time, creates competition between 
different villages (improving standards) and integrates operatives into the community. 

 
For the purposes of managing street cleaning, Westminster splits the city into two zones that have different requirements - a predominantly residential zone and a more commercial zone with a night-time economy that requires a 24/7 service. 
 
Where possible a manual approach to street cleaning is taken as this is felt to result in a higher level of detail than mechanical cleansing alone. However, mechanical cleansing is effective at quickly clearing large amounts of litter.  
 
Westminster has some unique cleansing challenges including demonstrations and the effects of a thriving night-time economy (see images 17 and 18).  It has recently prepared its streets for the royal wedding in April 2011. 

 
To try to address urination the council developed a map of 'wetspots'.  This was then used to inform the location of new urinals on the street. 
 
There are permanently fixed urinals (image 19) as well as movable urinals which can be relocated as needed (e.g. to track 'hot' night-clubs). In response to public demand one urinal now remains open in the day to meet the needs of local taxi drivers.  

 
The Council is currently trialing video auditing on two of the collection vehicles .  This can be used to identify any illicit trade waste and to check the quality of the collection service provided.  
 
Complaints are regularly analysed to identify issues 
 
Resident surveys are undertaken to identify general opinions, rather than just the opinions of those that are regularly in contact with the Council. 

## 2.8 Methods Of Cleansing In Westminster

The following methods of cleansing were shown to the group as part of the presentation by Westminster Council and in some instances also as part of the site tour.  

## Deep Cleansing Of Pavements (Viewed On The Site Tour)

 
Deep cleaning of pavements is currently being carried out in preparation for the royal wedding 
later this year.   
 
The cleansing is being carried out by Community Clean (a sub-contractor to Veolia)  
 
Pressurised hot washing is used to remove built up dirt and gum from the pavements 
 
Once cleansed the pavements can be coated with 'Magicote' which helps to protect the surface of the pavement from gum and staining by forming a permeable barrier on the pavement.  This is effective for three years and helps to improve the ease of future cleansing. 

## The Cantonet (Viewed On The Site Tour)

 
The Cantonet is an electrically operated urban vacuum cleaner that is particularly effective at removing smoking related litter and cleaning cobbles.   
 
Westminster has high levels of smoking related litter due, in part, to the night time economy, so the Cantonet is especially useful for cleaning this. 

## The Powerflex (Not Viewed On The Site Tour)

 
The Powerflex is a compact scrubber which can be used on roads and pavements 

## The City Go (Not Viewed On The Site Tour)

 
The City Go is diesel operated and quite noisy so is a highly visible presence on the street  

## Application Of Zybax (Viewed On Site Tour)

 
Zybax is an enzyme based detergent system that is used to remove the smell associated with vomit and urination. 
 
It can also be effective against staining if applied several times. 
 
In Westminster it is targeted for use in hotpot areas. 
 
It is applied manually with a low pressure pump. 

## Duo Recycling Bins (Viewed On The Site Tour)

 
Westminster is currently rolling out duo bins with a compartment for recycling.  They have a cigarette stubbing pate on each side and can be fitted with a small gum compartment. 
 
The recycling compartment has a small aperture to discourage contamination. 

 
 
Coca-Cola has sponsored some of the duo bins in Westminster  
 

## 2.9 Question And Answer Session With Westminster Council

The following are the questions asked by the attendees following the presentation and site tour and responses provided by Westminster Council Attendee question: How often are residential roads swept? Answer:  

 
Three times a week but this is because residential properties are often in high-footfall areas 
 Attendee question: Has the video auditing been successful in reducing claims against the Council / Veolia? Answer:  

 
It has only recently been launched and since it is only in place on two collection vehicles there isn't any information about this available yet 
 
Attendee question: How do you cleanse gullies when parked cars block access? Answer:  

 
Channels can be swept manually which means they can be swept even when cars are parked there 
 
Individual gullies can be cordoned off if needed.  The Council generally wouldn't close a road to undertake this cleansing. 

## 3. Group Activities: 3.1 Identifying And Addressing Factors That Influence Cost And Cleanliness Standards

Attendees worked in groups to identify and list out all possible: 

 
Contributors to the cost of street cleansing services  
 
Influences on the standard of street cleanliness  
 They were then asked to indicate which three items on each list they felt influenced cleanliness standards or contributed most to the cost of street cleansing for them in their council (e.g. which ones were high priority for them).  The lists below summarise the high and medium low contributors / influences based on the number of attendees that indicated them as priorities.  A summary of the low contributors that were indicated by only one or none of the attendees is provided in Appendix 6.2.  

## Contributors To The Cost Of Street Cleansing Services

High priority contributors (indicated by 5 or more participants) 

 
Level of littering / fly-tipping 
 

 
Vehicle and fleet maintenance 
 
Scheduling (resources / rounds) 
Medium priority contributors (indicated by 2 - 4 participants) 

 
Contract specification  
 
Political requests 
 
Staff sickness, annual leave and terms and conditions 
 
Land use type 

## Influences On The Standard Of Street Cleanliness

High priority influences (indicated by 5 or more participants) 

 
Enforcement 
 
Budgets 
 
Parking (inhibiting cleansing of gullies) 
 Medium priority influences (indicated by 2 - 4 participants) 

 
Insufficient litter bins 
 
Social deprivation 
 
Schools associated with littering at certain times of day 
 
Demographics e.g. language / communication issues with residents 
 
Councillors' priorities and political commitment to enforcement 
 
Culture of residents, businesses or tourists 
 
Highways infrastructure 
 
Housing type (e.g. nowhere to put bins near flats) 
 Attendees then worked in groups to develop a list of potential actions to address some of the high and medium priority contributors to the cost of street cleansing services and influences on the standard of street cleanliness that were identified in the first activity. They assessed the potential: 

 
Short term cost of the activity 
 
Long term cost of the activity 
 
Impact on savings  
 
Impact on cleanliness 
 
 
The impact was assessed as either low, medium or high against these factors.  In some instances it was not possible to fully identify the impact of the activity e.g. changing methods of cleansing could have a high or low cost depending on the scope of the work undertaken.  The full outcomes of the session are summarised in Appendix 6.3. Some activities that attendees felt would have a low cost and high impact included: 

 
Litter campaign with posters, community clean ups and cigarette plates on bins  
 
Community involvement via  clean up days 
 
Sharing resources (e.g. between two local authorities) 
 
Reducing scheduling from a gold service to a silver service 

## 4. Considerations

This section draws on the general themes of the day and outlines some of the key considerations for local authorities regarding cost efficiencies and improvements in performance for street cleansing.  It is based on: the session discussions; the background research that was undertaken to assist in planning the session; and feedback from attendees on the actions they would take following what they learnt during the session. 

## Contracting

 
Approaches to contracting could include: 
o Consolidation of contracts: Consolidation of multiple contracts within the same council may 
allow for efficiencies (e.g. amalgamating contracts for waste, street cleansing, grounds maintenance and parks)  
o Joint venture: TOR2 has taken a joint venture approach and is securing additional contracts 
from other local authorities  
o Collaborative procurement: In Kent and Dover and Shepway Councils have a joint contract 
for waste services, including street cleansing6 
 
Ensure that contract specifications are flexible and practical and that the resources allocated are actually provided  
 
Where possible build in as much flexibility into the contract specification as practicable 
 
Consider different types of contract e.g. input, output and hybrid (and output based) contracts 
 
Gain a full breakdown of costs to inform decision making on services and consider open book accounting 
 
Consider a performance based bonus for the contractor 
                                                 

 
Reducing specified requirements (e.g. to do cleansing to a lower standard or frequency) in order to save money 
 
Identify areas where the council may need to spend to save e.g. spending on bulky waste collection 
versus paying for fly-tip removal, or spending on quality items to reduce maintenance or replacement costs 
 
Ensure that contracts remain valid and fit for purpose 

## Operational Changes

 
Review methods of cleansing to ensure they are appropriate to cleansing requirements 
 
Change sweeping frequencies (e.g. to reduce frequencies in residential streets) and re-zone streets to ensure that resources are deployed to the areas of greatest need 
 
Consider time-banding to assist with enforcement activities 
 
Map resource requirements (e.g. wet-spots) to ensure that the type and timing of cleansing meets local needs  
 
Optimise shift patterns 
 
Consider re-routing, vehicle tracking and changes to IT systems 
 
Consider changes to bulky waste services to reduce fly-tipping 
 
Introduce more litter bins in litter hotspots   

## Staff Management

 
Ensure that staff have the appropriate equipment for their tasks 
 
Introduce a robust sickness management policy 
 
Consider staff performance incentives or awards 
 
Consider utilising new technology such as video auditing or smart phones  
 

## Behaviour Change

 
Run campaigns to increase awareness of environmental issues such as littering, fly-tipping, dog fouling and fly posting 
 
Communicate the costs of littering and flytipping  
 
Increase self-reliance in communities to reduce littering through enforcement 
 
Run community clean up events and undertake outreach in the community (e.g. with schools and faith groups)  

## Monitoring And Reporting

 
Review how monitoring is currently being undertaken and quality assure scores given 
 
Understand how to monitor effectively and use the outcomes to improve standards 
 
Set aside a budget for training on NI195 
 
Consider use of generic inspectors for all street scene issues rather than multiple inspectors looking 
at specific issues 
 
Consider new reporting systems e.g.' Love Clean Streets7' and Love Clean London8 
 

## Working With Residents And Partners

 
Identify to inform working methods 
 
Understand public priorities, perceptions and needs  
 
Look for synergies with internal and external partners 
 
Work with partners internally and externally to improve environment quality e.g. enforcement teams, cleansing, highways and anti-social behaviour departments and estate housing providers. 
Consider how a holistic approach may be delivered with partners e.g. to use health messages about smoking rather than just relying on fixed penalties. 

 
Involve residents in NI195 inspections 
 
Undertake public consultation on options for cleansing cuts  
 
Consider consultation with businesses and residents to develop approaches within areas of concern 
 
Identify sponsorship to support schemes (e.g. sponsorship of litter bins) 
 
Consider options for shared resources and joint procurement (e.g. sharing vehicles between two local authorities or jointly procuring vehicles)  
 
Introduce responsible retail agreements 

## Continued Learning And Information Sharing

The main challenge reported by local authorities contacted as part of the session was to reduce budgets without impacting on the standard of street cleansing.  This similarity in challenge opens opportunities for joint working and information sharing.  This could be undertaken in a number of ways, for example, through: 

 
Meetings such as ALCO and LROG and the associated members pages on www.capitalwastefacts.com  
 
Individual arrangements between local authorities (e.g. peer review or meetings) 
 
Further facilitated T&M sessions (should funding become available) 
 

## Other

 
Consider regeneration or changes to streetscape to improve cleanliness (e.g. removal of bushes to increase ease of cleansing) 
 
Use parking meters, temporary traffic orders and controlled parking to overcome parking issues 
 
Reduce the need for cleansing through increased enforcement or provision of containment 
 
Review and change policies e.g. charging for cleansing all areas of private land 

## 5. Further Information

For further information or for copies of the presentations given at the session please contact: Ellen Struthers Principal Consultant LRS Consultancy 020 7061 6359 ellen.struthers@lrsconsultancy.com 

## 6. Appendices

6.1 
Summary of challenges,  advice, and work undertaken by attendees 

## Challenges

 
Budget cuts have led to: restructure of management in street cleansing; reduction of mechanical brooms from 3 to 1; reduction in cleansing frequency in some town centre areas and residential areas. 
 
High performing cleansing contract but high cost. Significant pressure to reduce the cleansing budget over the next three years 
 
Our authority has to make drastic savings to our street cleaning contract in order to make savings of £2m.  
 
Large reduction in current street cleansing due to cuts required. Increased enforcement and the introduction of time banded refuse collections 
 
The Council is currently out tender for a new street cleansing contract - the main challenge is likely to be affordability.  
 
Doing more with same, increasing standards, reducing impact upon the environment  
 
We are currently in the process of re-drafting our street cleansing contract for a commencement of March 2012. Customer expectations are increasing however we must achieve maximum efficiency and output for the best value possible and look for cost savings year on year with a change of 
cleansing frequencies. We do not believe a purely performance based contract is the best model ,however a performance/input hybrid may give the best outcome. 
 
Need to save £1million over the next four years, customers have high expectations, 
 
Cleansing channels properly enabling us to clear deposits in heavily parked areas. 
 
Need to produce costs savings in the coming year. 
 
A high proportion of businesses and associated daily migrant population are challenging for street 
cleansing. 

## Advice

 
Identify areas where sweeping frequencies can be reduced e.g. residential streets 
 
Increase self-reliance in communities to reduce littering through enforcement 
 
Where possible build in as much flexibility into the contract specification as practicable 
 
Keep an open mind and look for change opportunities 
 
Benchmark your service, learn from others and share best practice  
 
Communicating the costs of littering and flytipping is important 
 
Understand the needs of the residents, be realistic about what can be achieved and look for synergies with internal and external partners. 
 
Understand how to monitor effectively to improve standards 
 
Ensure that you get a contract that is workable and ensure that you are getting the resources 
required to carry out the work effectively 

## Work Undertaken

 
Generic inspectors for all street scene issues have been introduced which have replaced inspectors looking at specific issues. Ad-hoc sweeps have been reduced and options for renewing the fleet are being considered along with new ways to cleanse streets 
 
The council has undertaken work with the local community to improve the environmental quality and encourage recycling and waste reduction.  The waste team has worked with internal partners (e.g. enforcement, cleansing, highways and anti-social) via a monthly meeting to identify projects to improve the environment. Meetings have also been held with housing providers to get them to clean estate land to the same standards 
 
A review of the contract specification is being undertaken and the council has undertaken work to change attitudes to street cleanliness. 
 
The Council is currently tendering street cleansing services.  The current contract is already lean so it will be hard to find savings. Contractors have been asked to split down the costs to show costs for core services and non-core services so that members can decide which ones to keep. 
 
Streets have been re-zoned to have different frequencies for sweeps which has improved standards. The contractor got a bonus for improving standards in the first year 
 
The council must find £2m of savings. The street cleansing and recycling and refuse contracts have been amalgamated but this didn't make any savings  
 
The policy on street scene and anti-social behaviour has been reviewed.   
 
The street cleansing budget is being reduced by 40% which will mean a significant reduction to the 
current £11m budget. The council is reviewing how standards can be maintained with the reduced budget.  This may include changes to management systems, use of Supertrack, improvements to IT systems, reduced beat sweeping and rezoning of streets or parts of streets. 
 
The council is currently procuring a new contract and as part of this is looking at reduced spend. Options to reduce spend include self-monitoring by the contractor, a partnership approach with the contractor and changes to IT systems. 
 
The council is working with partners to develop a holistic approach to address cultural issues e.g. to use health messages about smoking rather than just relying on fixed penalties. 
 
The council changed the way the streets were monitored which improved the scores 
 
Enforcement and highway inspection are used to check standards 
 
The council is currently re-letting the contract and is looking at hybrid contracts with input and output specs to assess differences in efficiencies. Re-routing and will be undertaken and vehicle tracking introduced. 
 
The council has recently re-let the contract to an organisation that has little experience of street cleansing which has caused some problems. 
 
An eviro-crime communications campaign focusing on littering, fly-tipping, dog fouling and fly posting has been launched to increase awareness of areas of issues.   

## 6.2 Summary Of Low Priority Contributors To The Cost And  Standard Of Street Cleanliness Low Priority Contributors To The Cost Of Street Cleansing Services (Indicated By 1 Or 0 Participants)

 
Fuel 
 
Overheads, back office and IT support 
 
Depot  
 
Design of street furniture / pavement type 
 
Equipment 
 
Markets 
 
Events 
 
Freedom of information requests 
 
Disposal costs 
 
National Indicator payments 
 
New ideas 
 
Consultants 
 
Membership fees 
 
Antisocial behavior 
 
PPE 
 
EPA regulations 
 
Enforcement 
 
Communications and customer care 
 
Unpaid commercial waste 
 
Compensation to contractors 
 
Planned vs reactive work 
 
Lost time and down time 
 
Clear all policies 
 
Weather 
 
High turnover of commercial properties 
 
Specialist equipment 
 
Training / skills of staff 
 
Contracted work vs variation orders 
 
Emergency works 
 
Contract monitoring 
 
Overtime costs (weekends etc) 
 
Nature of the area 
 
Requests from residents 
 
Number of litter and recycling bins 

## Low Priority Influences On The Standard Of Street Cleanliness (Indicated By 1 Or 0 Participants)

 
Industrial areas - spillage and fly-tipping hotpots 
 
Communally owned land (e.g. alleyways) 
 
Transient communities (students, colleges etc) 
 
Fly-tipping, flyposting and graffiti hotpots 
 
Statutory company works (e.g. Thames Water) 
 
Foxes opening waste bags 
 
Derelict land 
 
Major landowners that maintain areas to a lower standard 
 
Insufficient space for recycling / waste containers for householders leading them to be stored on the street (an associated littering problems) 
 
Involvement of residents in managing street scene 
 
Population growth and associated new housing stock 
 
Fast food outlets 
 
Departmental cooperation (cross team and department working) 
 
Major tourist centres 
 
Nigh time economy 
 
Seasonality (e.g. leaves, blossom, snow) 
 
Holidays (e.g. more litter in summer) 
 
Change in management (e.g. in-house to contractor) 
 
Impact of cuts (e.g. less staff and remaining staff needing to work harder) 
 
Stadiums / event venues 
 
Indicators and targets (e.g. NI195 or BVPI 199) 
 
Financial incentives 
 
6.3 
Group activity outcomes: Identifying and addressing factors that influence cost and cleanliness standards 
Tables 1 to 9.  Tables 1 to 5 outline the outcomes of discussions related to contributors to the cost of street cleansing services and tables 6 to 9 outline the discussions related to influences on the standard of street cleanliness.  Attendees had rated the impact of actions as either low (L), medium (M) or high (H). 

| Action           | Short term cost    | Long term cost    | Impact on savings    | Impact on       |
|------------------|--------------------|-------------------|----------------------|-----------------|
| cleanliness      |                    |                   |                      |                 |
| H                | L                  | M                 | H                    | Increased       |
| enforcement /    |                    |                   |                      |                 |
| time-bands       |                    |                   |                      |                 |
| L                | L                  | H                 | H                    | Litter campaign |
| with posters,    |                    |                   |                      |                 |
| community clean  |                    |                   |                      |                 |
| ups and stubbies |                    |                   |                      |                 |

 

| Action      | Short term cost    | Long term cost    | Impact on savings    | Impact on      |
|-------------|--------------------|-------------------|----------------------|----------------|
| cleanliness |                    |                   |                      |                |
| H           | H                  | H                 | H                    | Bulky waste    |
| services    |                    |                   |                      |                |
| More bins   | M                  | L/M               | M                    | H              |
| L - H       | L                  | H                 | H                    | Regeneration / |
| streetscape |                    |                   |                      |                |
|             |                    |                   |                      |                |
| Action             | Short term cost    | Long term cost    | Impact on savings    | Impact on         |
|--------------------|--------------------|-------------------|----------------------|-------------------|
| cleanliness        |                    |                   |                      |                   |
| H                  | H                  | Nil               | Nil                  | Responsibility of |
| contractor         |                    |                   |                      |                   |
| L                  | L                  | H                 | Reduction            | Shared resource   |
| (e.g. between two  |                    |                   |                      |                   |
| local authorities) |                    |                   |                      |                   |
| H                  | L                  | M                 | Variable             | Combined contract |
| procurement        |                    |                   |                      |                   |
|                    |                    |                   |                      |                   |
| Action                | Short term cost    | Long term cost     | Impact on savings    | Impact on     |
|-----------------------|--------------------|--------------------|----------------------|---------------|
| cleanliness           |                    |                    |                      |               |
| L                     | None               | None               | Reduction in unit    |               |
| cost but potential    |                    |                    |                      |               |
| contractual penalty   |                    |                    |                      |               |
| Reduce scheduling     |                    |                    |                      |               |
| from gold service     |                    |                    |                      |               |
| to silver - review    |                    |                    |                      |               |
| shift patterns        |                    |                    |                      |               |
| None                  | None               | High               | (Not completed)      | 4 town centre |
| shifts by 3           |                    |                    |                      |               |
| operatives            |                    |                    |                      |               |
| None (saving of       |                    |                    |                      |               |
| one person off set    |                    |                    |                      |               |
| against cost of       |                    |                    |                      |               |
| vehicle hire)         |                    |                    |                      |               |
| Moving from           |                    |                    |                      |               |
| barrow beats (5       |                    |                    |                      |               |
| operatives) to        |                    |                    |                      |               |
| mobile team (4        |                    |                    |                      |               |
| operatives)           |                    |                    |                      |               |
| (Not completed)       | H                  | A subsequent visit |                      |               |
| to collect bags no    |                    |                    |                      |               |
| longer required       |                    |                    |                      |               |
| Morale and H&S        |                    |                    |                      |               |
| improved,             |                    |                    |                      |               |
| efficiency, flexible, |                    |                    |                      |               |
| responsive            |                    |                    |                      |               |
|                       |                    |                    |                      |               |
| Action             | Short term cost    | Long term cost    | Impact on savings    | Impact on       |
|--------------------|--------------------|-------------------|----------------------|-----------------|
| cleanliness        |                    |                   |                      |                 |
| Staff incentives   | L                  | L                 | L                    | Increased       |
| L                  | L                  | M                 | Negligible           | Removing        |
| enhanced           |                    |                   |                      |                 |
| payments           |                    |                   |                      |                 |
| Introducing shifts | L                  | L                 | M                    | Increase        |
| L                  | Variable           | Variable          | Increase             | Robust sickness |
| management         |                    |                   |                      |                 |
| policy             |                    |                   |                      |                 |
 
| Action             | Short term cost    | Long term cost    | Impact on savings    | Impact on    |
|--------------------|--------------------|-------------------|----------------------|--------------|
| cleanliness        |                    |                   |                      |              |
| M                  | L                  | L                 | Increase             | Appropriate  |
| equipment, clothes |                    |                   |                      |              |
| and training       |                    |                   |                      |              |
|                    |                    |                   |                      |              |
| Action              | Short term cost    | Long term cost    | Impact on savings    | Impact on           |
|---------------------|--------------------|-------------------|----------------------|---------------------|
| cleanliness         |                    |                   |                      |                     |
| L                   | L                  | M                 | H                    | Assess cleansing    |
| needs for different |                    |                   |                      |                     |
| land use            |                    |                   |                      |                     |
| L                   | L                  | M                 | H                    | Set standards       |
| across public realm |                    |                   |                      |                     |
| M                   | M                  | H                 | H                    | Public priorities / |
| perception          |                    |                   |                      |                     |
| H                   | M                  | H                 | H                    | Prevention e.g.     |
| enforcement /       |                    |                   |                      |                     |
| containment         |                    |                   |                      |                     |
| Waste strategy      | L                  | L                 | M                    | M                   |
| L/M                 | L                  | H                 | H                    | Review methods of   |
| cleansing           |                    |                   |                      |                     |
|                     |                    |                   |                      |                     |
| Action              | Short term cost    | Long term cost    | Impact on savings    | Impact on           |
|---------------------|--------------------|-------------------|----------------------|---------------------|
| cleanliness         |                    |                   |                      |                     |
| L                   | H                  | L                 | H                    | Low level gum /     |
| cigarettes          |                    |                   |                      |                     |
| L                   | H                  | M                 | H                    | High level more in- |
| depth detective     |                    |                   |                      |                     |
| work                |                    |                   |                      |                     |
| L                   | H                  | L/M               | H                    | Training -          |
| legislation changes |                    |                   |                      |                     |
| L                   | L                  | M                 | M/H                  | Shared good         |
| practice /          |                    |                   |                      |                     |
| partnership work    |                    |                   |                      |                     |
| L                   | L                  | H                 | H                    | Community           |
| involvement -       |                    |                   |                      |                     |
| clean up days       |                    |                   |                      |                     |
| M                   | M                  | M                 | M                    | FPS's / PCN's /     |
| court action        |                    |                   |                      |                     |
| L/M                 | M                  | M                 | Perceived H          | Reporting systems   |
| e.g. love clean     |                    |                   |                      |                     |
| streets             |                    |                   |                      |                     |
| Action      | Short term cost    | Long term cost    | Impact on savings    | Impact on     |
|-------------|--------------------|-------------------|----------------------|---------------|
| cleanliness |                    |                   |                      |               |
| Variable    | L                  | H                 | H                    | Consolidating |
| contracts   |                    |                   |                      |               |
 
| Action                | Short term cost    | Long term cost    | Impact on savings    | Impact on          |
|-----------------------|--------------------|-------------------|----------------------|--------------------|
| Use of third sector   | L                  | L                 | M                    | M                  |
| L                     | L                  | H                 | H (negative)         | Reducing           |
| requirements (do      |                    |                   |                      |                    |
| less or do less well) |                    |                   |                      |                    |
| H                     | L                  | H                 | H                    | Spend to save e.g. |
| bulky waste vs fly-   |                    |                   |                      |                    |
| tips                  |                    |                   |                      |                    |
| M-H                   | M                  | Unknown           | Unknown              | Increase recycling |
| and reuse             |                    |                   |                      |                    |
| L                     | M                  | H                 | H                    | Change in policy   |
| e.g. charging         |                    |                   |                      |                    |
| Shared services       | M/H                | L                 | H                    | Unknown            |
|                       |                    |                   |                      |                    |
| Action             | Short term cost    | Long term cost    | Impact on savings    | Impact on         |
|--------------------|--------------------|-------------------|----------------------|-------------------|
| Controlled parking | H                  | L                 | H                    | H                 |
| M                  | M                  | L                 | H                    | Commuter parking  |
| and out of hours   |                    |                   |                      |                   |
| cleaning           |                    |                   |                      |                   |
| L                  | L                  | L                 | H                    | Temporary traffic |
| order and deep     |                    |                   |                      |                   |
| cleaning           |                    |                   |                      |                   |
| Parking meters     | M                  | L                 | Variable             | M                 |
| Action             | Short term cost    | Long term cost    | Impact on savings    | Impact on          |
|--------------------|--------------------|-------------------|----------------------|--------------------|
| L                  | None               | H                 | H                    | Creation of mobile |
| crew (ranger type  |                    |                   |                      |                    |
| role from barrow   |                    |                   |                      |                    |
| beat shift 5am -   |                    |                   |                      |                    |
| 2pm and 2pm to     |                    |                   |                      |                    |
| 10pm)              |                    |                   |                      |                    |
| L                  | None               | H                 | H                    | Community          |
| engagement e.g.    |                    |                   |                      |                    |
| faith groups,      |                    |                   |                      |                    |
| schools, local     |                    |                   |                      |                    |
| assemblies,        |                    |                   |                      |                    |
| doorknockers,      |                    |                   |                      |                    |
| community clean-   |                    |                   |                      |                    |
| ups and            |                    |                   |                      |                    |
| responsible retail |                    |                   |                      |                    |
| agreements)        |                    |                   |                      |                    |
|                    |                    |                   |                      |                    |
cleanliness 
cleanliness cleanliness