Agenda item

To receive the report of the Cabinet Member for Neighbourhoods and Communities and the Cabinet Member for the Environment on the trial devolution of part of the grass cutting contract in Podsmead ward to the Stewkley Enterprise Agency.

Councillor Coole vacated the Chair for this agenda item with Councillor Ryall (Vice-Chair) replacing him in the Chair.

24.1    Councillor Cook, Leader of the Council and Cabinet Member for Environment, introduced the report and informed Members that it was to agree the renewal of the grass cutting contract in Podsmead. In response to the earlier public question, he advised that, at this stage, a one year contract was being considered because of the possibility of transferring operations to the Podsmead Big Local organisation.

24.2    Councillor Cook noted that there had been some issues in some larger areas but that a new mower had been acquired from Amey. He further noted that there had been fewer incidences of Anti-Social Behaviour in the area and that those who had undertaken the work were recognized by the community for their work.

24.3    Councillor Watkins, Cabinet Member for Communities and Neighbourhoods, stated that there had been good social value from the scheme. She further stated that it had offered opportunities for a number of younger residents and had provided jobs. Councillor Watkins shared her view that is was good to allow communities to come forward with ideas for their own area which is what had been seen in Matson and Robinswood.

24.4    Councillor Field in his capacity as ward Member for Podsmead stated that the scheme was a good idea in principle and that he would be keen for it to continue but to observe how it operates. He also stated that, if the scheme were to continue, the young people carrying out the work needed to be considered. Councillor Field shared his view that the work should be diversified with other work such as gardening to be included. He stated that it needed a training scheme attached with wages provided all year round.

24.5    Councillor Watkins stated that she was happy to consider a longer contract. The resident from Podsmead stated that there was a need for conservation work to continue in the winter but that this did not happen. She asked if it could be included in the contract. Councillor Cook advised that, in season, Amey’s conservation team did such work. He stated that, if finances were available, it would be a good idea for the scheme to include this work.

24.6    In relation to exploring such a scheme for Matson, Councillor Coole did not agree with a scheme being introduced in Matson. He advised that this idea was rejected by Matson residents two years ago and he expressed his disagreement that ward councilors had not been approached in regards the proposal to explore introducing a similar scheme.

24.7    Councillor Watkins noted that residents had observed the Podsmead scheme and had approached the Council. She could not comment on why Matson residents had not approached the ward Members and that the proposal was merely to explore the possibility of introducing a similar scheme.

24.8    Councillor Haigh noted that one of the proposed resolutions was to delegate authority to establish or continue a scheme. She asked who had approached the Council and noted that it could be the same group who had wanted the scheme two years ago. Further, she stated that she would be surprised if this group had done it without other groups in the Matson partnership. Councillor Haigh also shared her view that what was needed was a scheme with rights, pensions and respect at work.

24.9    Councillor Watkins reiterated that the proposal was to explore a scheme in Matson, that the report pointed to social benefit and that the administration was receptive to matters pertaining to employment. Councillor Watkins also stated that she was happy to have the delegation of authority removed.

24.10  Councillor Pullen shared his view that, if there was a proposed change to a ward, Members should be briefed. Councillor Watkins advised that there was not a proposed change to a ward – rather it was a discussion to examine if there could be a further trial. Councillor Cook stated that he would be happy for Members to be involved.

24.11  Councillor Finnegan stated that it was interesting and positive to hear of the reduction in anti-social behaviour.

24.12  Councillor Stephens stated that he was pleased the scheme had been a success in Podsmead and he welcomed Councillor Field’s comments. With regard to the contract being for one year, Councillor Stephens shared his view that longer contracts would be preferable as the young employees required security. He stated that he would prefer three years to give certainty to those carrying out the work. With regard to exploring expanding the scheme to Matson, Councillor Stephens stated that he did not see how the community’s view had changed.

24.13  Councillor Watkins advised that she was happy to explore all options and that the whole of Matson would be part of the consultation process.

24.14  Councillor Hilton expressed concern over the scheme’s budget. He stated that those undertaking the work were not employed full-time and suggested that if the scheme were to be rolled out to other areas, there would be a risk of providing insecure work. Councillor Hilton advised that he would not support extending the scheme to Matson as the Podsmead scheme should be improved and observed further.

24.15  Councillor Lewis informed Members that Quedgeley Town Council organized their own grass cutting and that perhaps it was time to ask Matson if they would like such a scheme again.

24.16  Councillor Patel stated that there were many positives and learning points from the Podsmead project. He also stated that he was surprised that Members may appear to want to prevent a community organisation from starting a similar scheme.

24.17  Councillor Wilson commented that the Podsmead scheme was a basic service and queried whether there had been any more heavy-duty work that had not been carried out due to a belief that the clearance team would be doing it. Councillor Cook responded that there had been no confusion in regard of the division of duties and that Amey had assisted on one occasion with heavier duty work.

24.18  Councillor Tracey stated her preference for two or three year contracts. She suggested that a decision should be deferred in order to iron out any difficulties prior to extending the scheme.

24.19  It was recommended that para 2.3 be in report be replaced with:

            To approve plans to explore a further trial of the scheme in Matson & Robinswood ward and any other community which comes forward.

24.20 RESOLVED that:- The Overview and Scrutiny Committee RECOMMEND to Cabinet that para 2.3 in the report be replaced with:

            To approve plans to explore a further trial of the scheme in Matson & Robinswood ward and any other community which comes forward.