APSE Waste Management, Refuse Collection and Street Cleansing - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

▶
apse waste management refuse collection and street
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

APSE Waste Management, Refuse Collection and Street Cleansing - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Sep 07, 2022 292 likes •1.24k views

APSE Waste Management, Refuse Collection and Street Cleansing Advisory Group Southern region Recycling Liaison Officer Simon Phipps Driving forward food recycling in Oxford Why Im here today Welcome to Oxford Direct Services Presentation

slide-1
SLIDE 1

APSE Waste Management, Refuse Collection and Street Cleansing Advisory Group Southern region

Recycling Liaison Officer Simon Phipps

slide-2
SLIDE 2

Driving forward food recycling in Oxford

Welcome to Oxford Direct Services Presentation Document Why I’m here today

slide-3
SLIDE 3

What we’ll cover Welcome to Oxford Direct Services Presentation Document

  • Snapshot of Oxford City
  • Why recycle food?
  • 2010 food recycling collection from

houses

  • 2013 food recycling collection from flats
  • Barriers to participation
  • Solution – plastic liner campaign

 Launch  Promotion  Results

  • Next steps
  • Questions
slide-4
SLIDE 4

Snapshot of Oxford Welcome to Oxford Direct Services Presentation Document

  • 161,000 residents, 39,000 students
  • 25% population turnover
  • 40,000 houses, 20,000 flats (500 council- owned)
  • Unique challenges (population churn/HMOs)
  • Despite this, recycling rate for 2017/2018 was over 50%
slide-5
SLIDE 5

Welcome to Oxford Direct Services Presentation Document Why recycle food?

  • Average annual cost of food thrown away by families?
  • Councils/Agrivert want to recycle this 30%
  • Anaerobic digestion = electricity & fertiliser
  • Cheaper than sending to ERF incineration
slide-6
SLIDE 6

National adoption of food recycling Welcome to Oxford Direct Services Presentation Document Percentage of households with a food recycling collection 2007/8 to 2014/15

slide-7
SLIDE 7

Welcome to Oxford Direct Services Presentation Document Early steps – introducing food recycling to houses

  • 2010 introduced food recycling to all houses
  • 7lt (moved to 5lt) indoor, 23lt outdoor
  • Weekly service
  • Residents were able to ‘opt out’
  • Compostable liners were a barrier to uptake
  • 1 in 6 using service after introduction
slide-8
SLIDE 8

Anaerobic digestion, flats food recycling and barriers to participation Welcome to Oxford Direct Services Presentation Document

  • Anaerobic digestion in Oxfordshire
  • How AD works
  • 2013 operational change
  • Food recycling introduced at flat sites
  • Uptake
  • Barriers to participation
slide-9
SLIDE 9

Not letting it go: the plastic liner project

  • A persistent problem
  • An innovative solution
  • Objectives
  • Oxford the pioneer
  • External rationale
  • Strategic benefits
slide-10
SLIDE 10

Campaign launch Welcome to Oxford Direct Services Presentation Document

  • February 2017 launch at flat sites
  • Team recruitment and training
  • Online caddy ordering and collection
  • March introduction to houses
  • FAQ training
slide-11
SLIDE 11

Welcome to Oxford Direct Services Presentation Document Campaign promotions

  • Press release
  • Free Agrivert plant tours
  • Mascots visited Cassington AD
  • Social media
  • Road shows
  • Councillor backing
  • Sharing best-practice
slide-12
SLIDE 12

Results Welcome to Oxford Direct Services Presentation Document

  • Cost 72p per household
  • 18.5% increase in first month
  • Up 1.68, 1.37 and 1.08 kg/household
  • Increase from 2 tips to 3 tips a day
  • Over 1000 requests for food caddies
  • 7% annual decrease in residual
  • Estimated annual savings
  • Agrivert gave go-ahead for all plastic
slide-13
SLIDE 13

Welcome to Oxford Direct Services Presentation Document What’s next?

  • M-E-L Research
  • Persistence of improvements and challenges
  • One solution begets another
  • No more fatbergs
  • 55% by 2023
slide-14
SLIDE 14

Welcome to Oxford Direct Services Presentation Document Questions

slide-15
SLIDE 15

Hertfordshire Fly Tipping Group

APSE Waste Management, Refuse Collection & Street Cleansing Advisory Group

26th September 2018

Duncan Jones MCIWM Partnership Development Manager – Herts Waste Partnership Chairman – Hertfordshire Fly Tipping Group Jennie Probert MCIWM Environmental Strategy Manager – Three Rivers DC Vice-Chair – Hertfordshire Fly Tipping Group

slide-16
SLIDE 16

Background

  • HWP includes all 11 Herts waste authorities
  • Collection and disposal services - £83m
  • 2017/18 performance - recycling 50.9%
  • 2017/18 performance - landfill diversion 86.2%
  • Took over responsibility for the FTG in June 2016
  • FTG includes Herts LAs, OPCC, Herts Police, Herts FRS, Env. Agency,

NFU, Community Safety Partnerships, M25 Connect

  • 2017/18 – 12,485 recorded incidents of fly tipping / £1.050m cost
  • Feb 2018 – KBT Award for Best Partnership
  • May 2018 – ADEPT President Award – Improving the Environment
slide-17
SLIDE 17

Working with the Police & Crime Commissioner

  • Dialogue initiated early 2016 (OPCC part of the FTG)
  • Fly tipping key issue in local elections
  • PCC ‘Nuisance Fund’ worth £400,000 over 4 years (£100k per annum)
  • HWP already had a delivery mechanism for distributing challenge funding
  • £82,266 secured during 2016/17 (total project value £115,441)
  • £50,000 secured during 2017/18 (est. total project value £75,000)
  • First FTG work programme agreed – Sept 2016 – March 2018
  • Quarterly updates to HWP Directors and Members – reports also made

available to OPCC and Herts Constabulary colleagues

slide-18
SLIDE 18

FTG Work Prog. - highlights

  • Common definition of fly tipping agreed
  • Monthly reports either direct of via WDF
  • Magistrates dialogue – better prosecutions
  • FPNs 8 out of 10 LAs issue the same FPN
  • Research & Innovation – KBT Report
  • Fly tipping campaign (& toolkit) – Q4 2017/18
  • Better publicity and coverage by working

together – deterrent factor

slide-19
SLIDE 19

FTG KBT Research Project findings

  • nly 28% of people knew what their Duty of Care

was

  • awareness of fines or prosecutions was over 50%

the perceived threat of enforcement was low, with

  • nly 11% of respondents thinking offenders would be

caught.

  • lack of awareness of what fly tipping actually is e.g.

leaving items outside charity shops or recycling banks, near litter bins, left out for the scrap man etc.

  • 40% of online respondents reported doing at least
  • ne of these with 31% saying they had carried out

two or more acts of fly tipping.

slide-20
SLIDE 20

Fly Tipping numbers – trends

slide-21
SLIDE 21

Enforcement numbers…

  • 2016/17 – 45 prosecutions / 31 FPNs
  • 2017/18 – 35 prosecutions / 114 FPNs
  • Creation of the Herts FTG Prosecutions Log

XXX XXX XXX XXX

slide-22
SLIDE 22

Future issues to be tackled

  • Section 34 offences – gaps in the regulations / lobbying for change
  • Possible joint legal service dedicated to fly tipping
  • Engaging with private landowners – trial running with Three Rivers and

Broxbourne.

  • Digital agenda – using technology to by pass fly tippers
  • Intelligence sharing – case building – ASBO legislation
  • Community Protection Notices / Warnings – Criminal Behaviour Orders
  • Joint working
slide-23
SLIDE 23
slide-24
SLIDE 24

FTG – creation of a campaign

  • explaining what fly tipping is
  • education on disposing of waste correctly
  • the penalties if caught
  • how to report fly tipping
  • where to go for more information
  • Total Cost £36,968
slide-25
SLIDE 25
slide-26
SLIDE 26
slide-27
SLIDE 27
slide-28
SLIDE 28
slide-29
SLIDE 29
slide-30
SLIDE 30
slide-31
SLIDE 31
slide-32
SLIDE 32

Social Media Plan

  • Social media plan March to May 2018 – included Partner organisations
  • Staged fly tipping event in Dacorum – 15th March 2018
  • #SCRAPflytipping signs
slide-33
SLIDE 33
slide-34
SLIDE 34

The future of the campaign

  • Post campaign results; 71% found the look of the campaign

appealing, 91% said the messages were clear and 76% said it was relevant.

  • Partners schedule own social media posts.
  • Toolkit given to 15 others LAs, a number of which form part of larger partnerships (49 in total).
  • Updates to the toolkit, circulated to all via a central point.
  • Defra are consulting with the FTG regarding promotion of a possible s34 FPN.
slide-35
SLIDE 35

Thank You

Duncan Jones duncan.jones@hertfordshire.gov.uk Jennie Probert jennie.probert@threerivers.gov.uk

Join Us !!!

slide-36
SLIDE 36

E nc our aging busine sse s to r e duc e , r e use and r e c yc le T he Cle an City Awar ds Sc he me

Ka re n Ma rks Re c yc ling & Cle a n City Awa rds Ma na g e r

slide-37
SLIDE 37

Ove rvie w

  • Co nte xt – the City o f L
  • ndo n
  • Cle a n City Awa rds Sc he me - pro mo ting a nd

re wa rding g o o d pra c tic e

  • E

nc o ura g ing g o o d wa ste ma na g e me nt pra c tic e s / driving b e ha vio ur

  • Wide r e nviro nme nta l impa c ts a c ro ss a c tivitie s
slide-38
SLIDE 38

City of L

  • ndon vs City of L
  • ndon

Whe re is the City of L

  • ndon?

City of London; Size: 1.12 sq miles Pop: approx 7,500 Businesses: approx 16,500 London; Size: 607 sq miles Pop: approx 8 million

slide-39
SLIDE 39

Wha t’s in the City of L

  • ndon?

Ic onic loc a tions… .

slide-40
SLIDE 40

Wha t doe s the City of L

  • ndon do?

L

  • c a l Authority Se rvic e s

T he City o f L

  • ndo n Co rpo ra tio n pro vide s se rvic e s fo r

a ro und 10,000 re side nts a nd o ve r 450,000 wo rke rs

 Hig hwa ys Ma na g e me nt  Stre e t Cle a nsing  Wa ste Co lle c tio n &

Dispo sa l

 E

nviro nme nta l He a lth, T ra ding Sta nda rds, L ic e nsing

 E

duc a tio n

 So c ia l Se rvic e s  Ho using  L

ib ra rie s

 T

  • wn Pla nning

 Ope n Spa c e s

slide-41
SLIDE 41

… And Muc h More

 Pro mo ting the City a s the wo rld le a de r in inte rna tio na l

fina nc e a nd b usine ss se rvic e s

 City o f L

  • ndo n Po lic e

 Ba rb ic a n Ce ntre & Guildha ll Sc ho o l  L

  • ndo n-Wide ro le , e .g . City Bridg e T

rust

 City o f L

  • ndo n Sc ho o ls & Ac a de mie s

 E

pping F

  • re st, Ha mpste a d He a th, e tc

 Po rt He a lth Autho rity  Who le sa le Ma rke ts  Ce ntra l Crimina l Co urt  F

ive L

  • ndo n Bridg e s
slide-42
SLIDE 42

City of L

  • ndon T

rivia

  • Olde r tha n Pa rlia me nt

Co urt o f Co mmo n Co unc il 1376 I nstitutio n o f the L

  • rd Ma yo r 1189.
  • We do n’ t ha ve a ny c o unc illo rs
  • We o nly ha ve o ne ro a d
  • Ove r 60km o f fo o twa ys!
slide-43
SLIDE 43

Busine ss Wa ste in the City

 L

  • ts c ra mme d into a Sq ua re Mile ; (Jul 2018)
  • Appro x 14,200 o ffic e s,
  • Appro x 1,300 sho ps, b a nks e tc
  • Appro x 300 re sta ura nts, c a fe s e tc

 483,000 pe o ple e mplo ye d in Sq ua re Mile = 9% Gre a te r

L

  • ndo n’ s e mplo yme nt (2017)

fo re c a st to re a c h 705,000 b y 2050 (up 34% fro m 2016)  Nume ro us c o nstruc tio n pro je c ts

  • T

he Dia mo nd, T he T re llis a nd T he Pinna c le

  • Co nside ra te Co ntra c to r’ s Sc he me – 30 ye a rs!

T he Conte xt

slide-44
SLIDE 44

Busine ss Wa ste in the City

 E

sta b lishe d in 1994 – c le a r a ll po lic y

 Sc he me e vo lve d in line with wa ste industry; no w fo c usse d

  • n re c o g nitio n, b e st pra c tic e a nd g iving a dvic e

 T

hre e c a te g o rie s – la rg e , sma ll o r F M

 Aim = e nc o ura g e , suppo rt a nd ma inta in susta ina b le

wa ste pra c tic e s

Our re lationship with busine sse s

slide-45
SLIDE 45

 Pro mo te g o o d wa ste ma na g e me nt pra c tic e s  E

nc o ura g e wa ste minimisa tio n, re use a nd re c yc ling

 E

nsure c o mplia nc e with Duty o f Ca re re g ula tio ns

 E

nc o ura g e City b usine sse s to ta ke pride in the ir surro unding s

 Pro vide a fo rum fo r City b usine sse s to e xc ha ng e wa ste

ma na g e me nt initia tive s

Busine ss Wa ste in the City

Aims of the CCAS

slide-46
SLIDE 46

Busine ss Wa ste in the City

 Be st Pra c tic e Me e ting s  Co L

initia tive s

 Mo nthly (e )ne wsle tte r  Ad-ho c a dvic e  Online Re so urc e s  Annua l inspe c tio n  F

e e db a c k

 Awa rd!

Promoting good prac tic e

slide-47
SLIDE 47
slide-48
SLIDE 48

Busine ss Wa ste in the City

 I

nspe c tio n fo rm c o mple te d

Wa ste minimisa tio n  Re use  Re c yc ling  Co mmunic a tio n & tra ining  T

a rg e ts

 Air Qua lity  Site inspe c te d a nd sc o re d  F

ina l Judg ing

 Awa rd c e re mo ny

CCAS Inspe c tion proc e ss

slide-49
SLIDE 49

Busine ss Wa ste in the City

CCAS c e re mony and ne tworking

slide-50
SLIDE 50

Busine ss Wa ste in the City

CCAS Award c e re mony

slide-51
SLIDE 51

Busine ss Wa ste in the City

CCAS Re ward and re c ognition

 Pla tinum  Spe c ia l Co mme nda tio n  Cha irma n’ s Cup  Cle a n Stre e t’ s Pa rtne rship  Che a pside Busine ss Allia nc e  Swe e pe r o f the Ye a r  Ope ra tive o f the Ye a r; WCE

C

slide-52
SLIDE 52

Busine ss Wa ste in the City

Afte r the c e re mony…

Sha re b e st pra c tic e ;

 Winne rs / runne r up ho st a nd pre se nt a t E

BPM

 Ca se studie s in ne wsle tte r  Me nto ring sc he me  Pro mo te suc c e sse s c o rpo ra te ly / inte rna lly  Drive s c o mpe titio n b e twe e n Me mb e rs

slide-53
SLIDE 53

Busine ss Wa ste in the City

E nc ourage good prac tic e ?

 Drive s he a lthy c o mpe titio n b e twe e n me mb e rs e g “we ’ re do ing that, ho w c an we impro ve ? ”  “Who will b e the first to win the Chairman’ s Cup 3 time s? ”  L

e a rn fro m o the rs in simila r situa tio n e .g .

Bin the Bin Ga ining “b uy-in” fro m the to p  “We made it wo rk in the L

  • ndo n o ffic e – le t’ s ro ll it o ut!”
slide-54
SLIDE 54
slide-55
SLIDE 55

Busine ss Wa ste in the City

Conside r e nvironme ntal impac ts ac ross ac tivitie s

 Pro c ure me nt o f g o o ds / se rvic e s

  • Wa ste impa c ts?
  • Ho w tra nspo rte d / re mo ve d fro m site ?

 Air Qua lity

  • Whic h pla nts?
  • T

ra ve lling ?

 Re b ra nding (unwa nte d unifo rms / sta tio na ry), ne w

c o ntra c ts, c le a ne rs e tc .

slide-56
SLIDE 56

Busine ss Wa ste in the City

Conside r e nvironme ntal impac ts ac ross ac tivitie s

slide-57
SLIDE 57

Busine ss Wa ste in the City

How use ful is the CCAS?

slide-58
SLIDE 58

Busine ss Wa ste in the City

Most important re asons to join CCAS?

slide-59
SLIDE 59

Busine ss Wa ste in the City

Value of a Cle an City Award?

slide-60
SLIDE 60

Busine ss Wa ste in the City

Re c omme nd the CCAS to othe rs?

slide-61
SLIDE 61

Busine ss Wa ste in the City

Any othe r c omme nts / improve me nts?

slide-62
SLIDE 62

Busine ss Wa ste in the City

Be ne fits to the City?

 L

e a ding the wa y sinc e 1994

 Se e n to b e do ing “so me thing ”  E

xc e lle nt ra ppo rt with City b usine sse s

 E

ng a g e d ne two rk o f b usine sse s

 F

  • ste r e ffe c tive pa rtne rships with Me mb e rs –

b e ne fits fo r o the r initia tive s

 I

mpro ving a wa re ne ss o f e nviro nme nta l impa c ts

slide-63
SLIDE 63

T ha nk you!

Kar e n Mar ks Re c yc ling & Cle an City Awar ds Manage r

K a re n.ma rks@ c ityo flo ndo n.g o v.uk 020 7332 4975

Any que stions?

slide-64
SLIDE 64

APSE Waste Management, Refuse Collection & Street Cleansing Advisory Group (Southern Region)

Land Audit Management System (LAMS) app Ian Jones, APSE Associate

slide-65
SLIDE 65

Todays Theme

 The story behind LAMS  The request to digitise the process  The LAMS app – benefits and uses

www.apse.org.uk

slide-66
SLIDE 66

LAMS is

 Land Audit Management System  Developed in Scotland and rolled out on a UK wide basis  Monitor grounds maintenance, also be applied to street cleansing for a total street scene quality score.  Simple and effective performance measuring system  ‘what the public would see’ rather than requiring a technical inspection. www.apse.org.uk

slide-67
SLIDE 67

Land Audit Management System (LAMS)

 A consistent quality audit of measuring the quality of grounds maintenance  Trigger for immediate intervention at local level  Data source for comparative Performance Indicators at national level (real time & annual)  Will contribute to annual performance awards  Available free of charge to all PN members

slide-68
SLIDE 68

www.apse.org.uk

No quality information available without LAMS – incomplete!

The Performance Hub

Management Template  Financial Template  Customer Satisfaction Surveys  Quality Audits 

slide-69
SLIDE 69

www.apse.org.uk

Case Studies

Initially LAMS is useful to highlight - forgotten areas or areas with a history. areas that could/should be managed differently. Longer term benefits of LAMS - Adds evidence to anecdotal reports of maintenance issues for example quality of weed spraying. Highlights positives of areas. Reports to elected members. Aberdeen City Council has been carrying

  • ut LAMS since 2012.

It’s free, we do not have to purchase chargeable bolt on extras to the system to measure these extra inspection elements and run reports. Therefore Authorities are not restricted by cost in order to obtain a truer analysis

  • f their data.

Oxford City Council

slide-70
SLIDE 70

www.apse.org.uk

Case Studies

slide-71
SLIDE 71

www.apse.org.uk

Case Studies

Benefits of LAMS

  • Reduction in administration time to set inspections
  • Reduction in time when submitting inspections
  • Reduction in inspections
  • Reduction in inspectors time due to a more cross department approach

(Streets and Grounds)

  • All the reduction in time produces more data than previous inspections
  • System is user friendly so training new staff is more efficient benchmarking
  • pportunities
  • Inspections cover only land which are authorities responsibility

LAMS have produced us a huge saving in time but with more data and information gained, we love LAMS here at Kettering Borough!!! And welcome new developments with a new app which will save us more time in admin and

  • fficer time, but with more results.
slide-72
SLIDE 72

Approach to LAMS

 Geographical Areas (M) - example  10 inspections per area (M)  Random selection (M)  50/100 metre transect (M)  Inspectors, Officers/Supervisors (Frontline Operatives)  Possibly include volunteers  N.B. 2 hours per Officer per 10 inspections www.apse.org.uk

slide-73
SLIDE 73

Approach to Zones (implemented example)

Three Zone Types:  1 - High Amenity - Civic Buildings, Bowling Greens  2 - Standard Amenity - Everything else!!!  3 - Low Maintenance - All features 7 cuts or less, Woodlands www.apse.org.uk

slide-74
SLIDE 74

Land Types

  • MR - Main retail
  • OR - Other retail
  • TF - Transport facility
  • HH - High obstruction housing
  • MH - Medium obstruction

housing

  • LH - Low obstruction housing
  • IR - Industrial, warehousing,

retail

  • MA - Main roads
  • OH - Other highways
  • RR - Rural roads
  • RS - Recreation site
  • PT - Public transport area
  • WS - Waterside

www.apse.org.uk

slide-75
SLIDE 75

Grading & Scoring Mechanism

Grade Description Score A Excellent Standard 3 points B Acceptable Standard 2 points C Unacceptable Standard 1 point D Poor Standard Desired minimum score of B and above (66.6% if quality index score is required) 0 points

www.apse.org.uk

slide-76
SLIDE 76

Grading & Scoring Mechanism

www.apse.org.uk

Land Audit Management System (LAMS) Scorecard (Grounds Maintenance Standards)

Zone A B C D Excellent Acceptable Unacceptable Poor (intervention required)

1

Excellent overall presentation Grass cut to high standard Virtually weed free Cultivated soil areas No arisings on paths/roads/beds Hand cut / defined edges – soil banked up Evidence of regular pruning and deadheading No accumulation – leaves/branches/arisings No defects (graffiti/vandalism/litter/detritus/dog fouling/fly tipping/bins overflowing) Good overall presentation Grass cut to standard Low presence of weeds Cultivated soil areas No arisings on paths/roads/beds Hand cut edges Some evidence of regular pruning and deadheading Low accumulation of leaves/branches on footpaths or roads No (or only minor) defects (graffiti/vandalism/litter/detritus/dog fouling/fly tipping/bins overflowing) Poor overall presentation Grass only cut to medium standard Medium presence of weeds Weathered soil surface Some arisings on paths/roads/beds Accumulation of leaves/branches on footpaths or roads Evidence of defects (graffiti/vandalism/litter/detritus/dog fouling/fly tipping/bins overflowing) Poor overall presentation Grass not cut to standard Weed growth (high presence) Weathered soil surface Arisings on paths/roads/beds Undefined edges No evidence of regular pruning and deadheading Decomposing accumulations of leaves/branches/arisings Overgrown vegetation Evidence of defects (graffiti/vandalism/litter/detritus/dog fouling/fly tipping/bins overflowing)

2

Excellent overall presentation Grass cut to high standard Arisings collected or evenly spread No arisings on paths/roads/beds Defined edges No presence of weeds No accumulation – leaves/branches Evidence of regular pruning Evidence of a successful weed kill (summer) Good overall presentation Cultivated soil (winter) No defects (graffiti/vandalism/litter/detritus/dog fouling/fly tipping/bins overflowing) Good overall presentation Grass cut to standard Grass areas tidy; i.e. strimming work done on last cycle Beds cleared of arisings Low or only fresh accumulation of arisings on paths/roads Defined edges; mechanical or herbicide Low presence of weeds / Evidence
  • f successful weed kill
Weathered soil surface Some evidence of regular pruning No (or only minor) defects (graffiti/vandalism/litter/detritus/dog fouling/fly tipping/bins overflowing) Poor overall presentation Grass only cut to medium standard Arisings on paths/roads/beds Undefined edges Medium presence of weeds Medium accumulation of leaves/branches No evidence of regular pruning Evidence of defects (graffiti/vandalism/litter/detritus/dog fouling/fly tipping/bins overflowing) Poor overall presentation Grass not cut to standard Tails left after last cut Arisings on paths/roads/beds Cuttings left in beds High accumulations of leaves/branches Decomposing accumulations of leaves Access paths obstructed by growth Undefined edges High presence of weeds Overgrown vegetation forming
  • bstructions
Evidence of defects (graffiti/vandalism/litter/detritus/dog fouling/fly tipping/bins overflowing)

3

Excellent overall presentation Amenity grass cut to standard No arisings on paths/roads/beds No accumulation – leaves/branches Evidence of regular pruning Access paths clear of vegetation Overhead clearance No defects (graffiti/vandalism/litter/detritus/dog fouling/fly tipping/overflowing bins) Good overall presentation Amenity grass cut to standard Minimal arisings on paths/roads/beds Low accumulations – leaves/branches Some evidence of regular pruning Access paths clear of vegetation Overhead clearance No (or only minor) defects (graffiti/vandalism/litter/detritus/dog fouling/fly tipping/overflowing bins) Poor overall presentation Amenity grass not cut to standard Arisings on paths/roads/beds Medium presence weeds in visible areas / paths Medium accumulations – leaves/branches No evidence of regular pruning Access paths overgrown Poor overhead clearance (tree/shrub branches) Some evidence of defects (graffiti/vandalism/litter/detritus/dog fouling/fly tipping/overflowing bins) Poor overall presentation Amenity grass not cut to standard Arisings on paths/roads/beds High presence weeds in visible areas / paths Heavy accumulations – leaves/branches No evidence of pruning Poor overhead clearance (tree/shrub branches) Access paths overgrown Overgrown vegetation forming
  • bstructions
Significant evidence of defects (graffiti/vandalism/litter/detritus/dog fouling/fly tipping/overflowing bins)
slide-77
SLIDE 77

Zone 1 = Score A

www.apse.org.uk

slide-78
SLIDE 78

Zone 3 = Score A

www.apse.org.uk

slide-79
SLIDE 79

Cemeteries & Crematoria Module

 Previous templates were based around Grounds and Street cleansing.  Increased interest from Cemeteries & Crematoria services led us to develop a specific template for the service.  The template and guidance notes have now been designed.

www.apse.org.uk

slide-80
SLIDE 80

www.apse.org.uk

What we monitor

slide-81
SLIDE 81

Land Audit Management System (LAMS)

LAMS requirements and local options

Local National Frequency of inspections set locally Bi-monthly data input timetable must be met Number of inspections (transects) per period/annum Minimum requirement of 10 inspections per geographical area per bi-monthly tranche Intervention levels / times Grading standards using Guidance Manual

slide-82
SLIDE 82

Street Cleansing Performance

Information now available on a suite of Performance Indicators;

PI L02 Percentage of sites classed as acceptable (combined litter and detritus) PI L04 Percentage of sites classed as acceptable (Iitter) PI L05 Percentage of sites classed as grade A (fly tipping) PI L06 Percentage of sites classed as acceptable (dog fouling) PI L07 Percentage of sites where bins were over flowing PI L08 Percentage of sites classed as acceptable (bin structure) PI L09 Percentage of sites classed as acceptable (bin cleanliness) PI L.. Percentage of sites classed as acceptable (detritus) to be added

www.apse.org.uk

slide-83
SLIDE 83

Grounds Maintenance Performance

Information now available on a suite of Performance Indicators;

PI L02 Percentage of sites classed as acceptable (G/Maintenance) PI L03 Percentage of sites classed as acceptable (Iitter) PI L04 Percentage of sites classed as grade A (fly tipping) PI L05 Percentage of sites classed as acceptable (dog fouling) PI L06 Percentage of sites where bins were over flowing PI L07 Percentage of sites containing bins classed as acceptable (bin structure) PI L08 Percentage of sites containing bins classed as acceptable (bin cleanliness) PI L09 Percentage of sites classed as unacceptable (hard surface weeds)

www.apse.org.uk

slide-84
SLIDE 84

Land Audit Management System (LAMS) Important dates

Inspections completed for Results to APSE by Report back to authorities by April & May 08 June 2018 15 June 2018 June & July 10 August 2018 17 August 2018 August & September 05 October 2018 12 October 2018 October & November 14 December 2018 21 December 2018 December & January 08 February 2019 15 February 2019 February & March 05 April 2019 12 April 2019

www.apse.org.uk

slide-85
SLIDE 85

Volunteers Involvement;  Member authority Telford and Wrekin are currently working on a procedure to include 57 volunteers on LAMS quality audits (will utilise the LAMS App).  Numerous member authorities have registered an interest in this approach  Volunteer involvement enabled by the ‘Simple to undertake & administer ‘What the public would see’ rather than requiring a technical inspection’ approach. www.apse.org.uk

Developments agreed through the working group

slide-86
SLIDE 86

Further developments

 LAMS/LEAMS, practitioners working on a collaboration of the two quality frameworks to provide both efficiency in completion of audits and greater value of the benchmarked data (UK wide)  Cross boundary inspections; four member authorities engaging in this process  An authority in the north west of England is looking to use the LAMS process as a quality audit on one of their outsourced Ground maintenance contracts’ www.apse.org.uk

slide-87
SLIDE 87

Street Cleansing - Measuring litter grades

  • Defra have used APSE performance networks data in the dashboard for

the key indicator on the percentage of sites at an acceptable standard for litter reporting.

  • APSE is currently meeting with Defra to discuss the use of APSE’s Land

Audit Management System (LAMS) in future dashboards and also the Parks Action Group.

www.apse.org.uk

slide-88
SLIDE 88

www.apse.org.uk

slide-89
SLIDE 89

The request to digitise the process

“We need a mobile device”!!!

www.apse.org.uk

slide-90
SLIDE 90

The New LAMS App

 Partnered with BBITS (Love Clean Streets) to develop an App for LA’s to collect the data  Training / testing / pilots during June, July and August  Train the trainer  Start date – was launched at annual seminar in September and is now available to all interested authorities.

www.apse.org.uk

slide-91
SLIDE 91

Feedback from the working group

 “LAMS have produced us a huge saving in time but with more data and information gained, we love LAMS here at Kettering Borough!!! And welcome new developments with a new app which will save us more time in admin and officer time, but with more results” (Kettering Borough Council).  “It’s easy to use and a lot quicker than paper, you get the exact location, and pictures to back the grading up” (Telford and Wrekin Council).  “It’s free, we do not have to purchase chargeable bolt on extras to the system to measure these extra inspection elements and run reports, so we are not restricted by cost in order to obtain a truer analysis of their data” (Oxford Direct Services).

www.apse.org.uk

slide-92
SLIDE 92

Feedback from the working group

 “Having done about 100+ surveys it’s a thumbs up from me” (Bradford Council)  “Very easy to use with the app being very responsive” (Stafford Borough Council)  “Didn’t witness any lag with the app and inspections seemed to upload without any hitch” (Stafford Borough Council)  “The app has been as described; very simple and easy to use” (Wigan Borough Council).

www.apse.org.uk

slide-93
SLIDE 93

www.apse.org.uk

slide-94
SLIDE 94

www.apse.org.uk

Contact details

Debbie Johns, Head of Performance Networks

Email: djohns@apse.org.uk Mobile: 07834 334193

Association for Public Service Excellence 2nd floor Washbrook House, Lancastrian Office Centre, Talbot Road, Old Trafford, Manchester M32 0FP. telephone: 0161 772 1810 fax: 0161 772 1811 web:www.apse.org.uk